6b attachments
Item No.________6b Attach 1__________ Date of Meeting:_April 24, 2012________ Memorandum of Understanding Cruise Operations in Washington State Originally signed April 20, 2004 Amendment No. 5 dated XXX, XX, XXXX Washington State Department of Ecology North West & Canada Cruise Association Port of Seattle MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING This Memorandum of Understanding, originally signed on April 20, 2004 is amended by and between the State of Washington, the Port of Seattle, and the North West & Canada Cruise Association, hereinafter referred to as NWCCA, representing the international cruise lines identified in Appendix i. Whereas the State of Washington is charged with the responsibility of protecting and conserving Washington's environmental resources in relation to the Cruise Industry's environmental practices in Washington; and Whereas the United States Coast Guard, herein referred to as USCG, has Federal jurisdiction over environmental matters in navigable waters in the United States; and Whereas the Port of Seattle is charged with providing the services and facilities to accommodate the transportation of passengers, including cruise ship passengers, while protecting and enhancing the environment of the Port of Seattle; and Whereas, the NWCCA is a non-profit entity organized for the purpose of representing member cruise lines which operate in and about waters subject to this Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), whose current membership is identified in Appendix i; and Whereas, the NWCCA has adopted the "Cruise Industry Waste Management Practices and Procedures" as promulgated by the Cruise Industry's trade association, the Cruise Lines International Association, herein referred to as CLIA, which practices and procedures are attached hereto as Appendix ii; and Whereas, NWCCA cruise vessels operate in international waters and move passengers to destinations worldwide and, consequently, those cruise vessel waste management practices must take into account environmental laws and regulations in many jurisdictions and international treaties and conventions; and Whereas, the NWCCA, the State of Washington as represented by the Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology), the USCG and the Port of Seattle have met to develop waste management practices that preserve a clean and healthy environment and demonstrate the Cruise Industry's commitment to be a steward of the environment; and Whereas, research is ongoing to establish the impact of ships' wastewater discharges on the ocean environment, and the results of this research will be taken into account in periodic review of the wastewater discharge practices described in this Agreement; and Whereas, the cruise industry recognizes Washington's fragile marine environment and is committed to help protect this environment; Memorandum of Understanding Cruise Operations in Washington State Amended February 2011 Page 1 Now therefore, based upon mutual understanding, the parties enter into this Memorandum of Understanding to implement the following environmental goals, policies and practices: Definition of terms for the purpose of this agreement: "blackwater" means waste from toilets, urinals, medical sinks and other similar facilities; "cruise ship" means any vessel that is owned or operated by a member of the NWCCA; "disinfection system upset" means disinfection below levels of four log (99.99%) inactivation of norovirus based on expected results assuming a minimum intensity of ultraviolet (UV) lights used for disinfecting effluent or other shipboard administrative controls as may be accepted by the Washington Department of Health.. "graywater" includes drainage from dishwasher, shower, laundry, bath, galley drains and washbasin drains; "monitoring for disinfection effectiveness" means using measuring equipment to determine the intensity of ultraviolet (UV) lights used for disinfecting effluent, or other shipboard administrative controls as may be accepted by the Washington Department of Health. "oily bilge water" includes bilge water that contains used lubrication oils, oil sludge and slops, fuel and oil sludge, used oil, used fuel and fuel filters, and oily waste. "residual solids" includes grit or screenings, ash generated during the incineration of sewage sludge and sewage sludge, which is solid, semi-solid, or liquid residue generated during the treatment of domestic sewage in a treatment works. Sewage sludge includes, but is not limited to, domestic septage; scum or solids removed in primary, secondary, or advanced wastewater treatment processes; and a material derived from sewage sludge. "solid waste" means all putrescible and nonputrescible solid and semisolid wastes including, but not limited to, garbage, rubbish, ashes, industrial wastes, swill, sewage sludge, demolition and construction wastes and recyclable materials [RCW 70.95.030 (22), Solid Waste Management: Reduction and Recycling]. "waters subject to this Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)" include the Puget Sound and the Strait of Juan de Fuca south of the international boundary with Canada; and for off the west coast, the belt of the seas measured from the line of ordinary low water along that portion of the coast which is in direct contact with the open sea and the line marking the seaward limit of inland waters, and extending seaward a distance of three miles as illustrated in Appendix iii. 1. Applicability 1.1 The State of Washington agrees that the performance required by the NWCCA under the terms of this Memorandum of Understanding shall be directed only to its member cruise lines. The NWCCA acknowledges that its members operate cruise vessels engaged in Memorandum of Understanding Cruise Operations in Washington State Amended February 2011 Page 2 cruise itineraries greater than one day duration; and further that its members do not operate one-day attraction ships or casino gambling ships. This agreement only applies to voyages during which the commercial passenger vessel actually calls at a port in the State of Washington. 1.2 The State of Washington and Port of Seattle accepts the CLIA Industry Standard E-0l 01, titled Cruise Industry Waste Management Practices and Procedures (updated at this link: [http://www2.cruising.org/industry/environment.cfm] and the latest version is attached) (Appendix ii) as CLIA member policy in the management of solid waste, hazardous wastes and wastewaters in waters subject to this MOU. In addition to the CLIA Practices, the member vessels of NWCCA operating in Washington agree to allow Ecology to conduct a minimum of one vessel inspection per season to verify compliance with the MOU and agree to comply with the following unique practices while operating in waters subject to this MOU: 2.1 Wastewater Management In recognition of the sensitive nature of Washington's marine environment, the NWCCA agrees to the following: 2.1.1 to prohibit the discharge of untreated blackwater, untreated graywater, and solid waste within waters subject to this MOU (Appendix iii); and to prohibit the discharge of oily bilge water if not in compliance with applicable federal and state laws within waters subject to this MOU. 2.1.2 other than as set forth in section 2.1.3 below, to prohibit the discharge of treated blackwater and treated graywater in waters subject to this MOU. 2.1.3 the discharge of treated blackwater and treated graywater from ships equipped with advanced wastewater treatment systems (AWTS) which meet the higher standards and the testing regime set out in federal law, Title XIV, Certain Alaska Cruise Ship Operations, Section 1404 (c) (Appendix vi) is allowed under the following conditions: A. For discharges if the ship is at least one nautical mile away from its berth at a port in Washington and is traveling at a speed of at least 6 knots: 1) No later than 60 days prior to the date the cruise ship wishes to commence discharge of AWTS-treated effluent, the cruise line shall submit the following vessel specific information to Ecology a. Documentation on the type of treatment system in use on the ship including schematic diagrams of the system. b. Documentation that the system is certified by the United States Coast Guard for continuous discharge in Alaska. If the certification has not yet been provided by the Coast Guard at the time the other documentation is submitted to Ecology, it may be submitted less than 60 days prior to Memorandum of Understanding Cruise Operations in Washington State Amended February 2011 Page 3 commencement of discharge but in no event less than 30 days prior to the commencement of discharge. c. Provision for daily twenty-four hour continuous turbidity or equivalent monitoring of the quality of the effluent generated by the AWTS and, beginning in 2009, daily twenty-four hour continuous monitoring for disinfection effectiveness. d. Documentation of system design that demonstrates the AWTS can be automatically shut down if monitoring of treated effluent indicates high turbidity or, beginning in 2009, a disinfection system upset; or documentation that demonstrates that operational controls exist to insure system shut down if monitoring of treated effluent indicates high turbidity or, beginning in 2009, a disinfection system upset. An example of an acceptable operational control is a system that has the continuous monitoring device alarmed as to immediately alert engineering staff on watch to shut down overboard discharges from the system in the event of high turbidity levels or disinfection ineffectiveness in the treated effluent. B. For continuous discharge: 1) No later than 60 days prior to the date a cruise ship wishes to commence discharge of AWTS effluent, the cruise line shall submit the following vessel specific information to Ecology: a. Documentation on the type of treatment system in use on the ship including schematic diagrams of the system. b. Documentation that the system is certified by the United States Coast Guard for continuous discharge in Alaska. If the certification has not yet been provided by the Coast Guard at the time the other documentation is submitted to Ecology, it may be submitted less than 60 days prior to commencement of discharge but in no event less than 30 days prior to commencement of discharge. c. Provision for daily twenty-four hour continuous turbidity or equivalent monitoring of the quality of the effluent generated by the AWTS and, beginning in 2009, daily twenty-four hour continuous monitoring for disinfection effectiveness. d. Documentation of system design that demonstrates the AWTS can be automatically shut down if monitoring of treated effluent indicates high turbidity or, beginning in 2009, a disinfection system upset; or documentation that demonstrates that operational controls exist to insure system shut down if monitoring of treated effluent indicates high turbidity or, beginning in 2009, a disinfection system upset. An example of an acceptable operational control is a system that has the continuous monitoring device alarmed as to immediately alert engineering staff on watch to shut down overboard discharges from the system in the event of high turbidity levels or disinfection ineffectiveness in the treated effluent. e. Documentation that all treated effluent will receive final polishing for disinfection immediately prior to discharge. Memorandum of Understanding Cruise Operations in Washington State Amended February 2011 Page 4 f. Copies of water quality tests results taken from the AWTS effluent during the preceding six months. g. A vessel specific plan that: identifies how effluent will be stored until the AWTS is repaired and which indicates the storage capacity of holding tanks; and includes a notification protocol for notifying Ecology of system shut down which occurs while within waters subject to this MOU. If Ecology determines that the documentation provided is insufficient, it shall so notify the cruise line. The cruise line shall provide supplemental documentation as requested by Ecology. If Ecology and the cruise line are unable to agree on the supplemental documentation and cruise line elects to discharge from the AWTS, cruise line understands that any such discharge will not have been approved by Ecology and further that Ecology may take appropriate action, including, but not limited to, publicizing, such fact. Any cruise ship discharging from an AWTS in waters subject to this MOU operates within the shipping lanes and this effectively means that vessels are more than a half a mile from shellfish beds with the possible exception of President's Point, Apple Tree Cove and Tyee Shoal for the 2008 cruise season. For specific information relative to shellfish protection measures, see appendix x. C. The vessels that have submitted documentation under A or B above agree to: 1) Not discharge within 0.5 nautical miles of bivalve shellfish beds that are recreationally harvested or commercially approved to harvest as identified annually by the Department of Ecology. This season's locations include President's Point, Apple Tree Cove and Tyee Shoal as referenced in Appendix x. 2) Immediately stop all discharges when high turbidity occurs and, beginning in 2009, when a disinfection system upset condition occurs. 3) Immediately notify the Washington State Department of Health in the event of a disinfection system upset at (360) 236-3330 during office hours or (360) 786-4183 after hours (24 hour pager). The agreement to provide this notice is based on the understanding by NWCCA that the Department of Health will not publicize the information provided unless it reasonably determines that a discharge presents a material public health risk. 4) Sample the quality of the treated effluent using a Washington state-certified laboratory at least one time per month while at port in Washington during each cruise season using the sampling requirements established per the United States Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, Southeast Alaska Policy for conventional pollutants continued compliance monitoring regime and as referenced in Appendix vi. Parameters sampled include pH, Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD), Fecal Coliform, Total Suspended Solids (TSS), and Residual Chlorine (RC). 5) Meet the limitations on discharge as set in Alaska regulations (Appendix vi) for BOD, TSS, pH, Fecal Coliform and Residual Chlorine.1 Memorandum of Understanding Cruise Operations in Washington State Amended February 2011 Page 5 6) Split samples with Ecology upon Ecology's request when sampling is conducted in Washington waters. 7) For vessels that have submitted documentation under B above (continuous discharge), conduct Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET) Testing once every two years for vessels homeported2 in Washington and once every 40 port calls or turnarounds to a port in Washington for all other vessels. 8) Provide Ecology with duplicates of test results obtained for and provided to the State of Alaska to enable Ecology to monitor the quality of the effluent from such systems. 9) Notify Ecology at least a week in advance of sampling and to allow Ecology staff access to the ship in order to observe sampling events. 10) Notify Ecology if any material changes are made to the system. Note 1: There is a presumption that meeting Alaska's standards means that Washington's Water Quality Standards are likely being met and that if Alaska's standards are not being met, Washington's Water Quality Standards are not being met. Note 2: A "homeported" vessel is a vessel that makes a call or does a turnaround at a port in Washington at least 20 times per year. 2.1.4 The discharge of residual solids from either a type 2 marine sanitation device or an advanced waste water treatment system is prohibited in waters subject to this MOU, within 12 nautical miles from shore, and within the entire boundaries of the Olympic Coast Marine Sanctuary. All parties acknowledge that most of the Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary lies beyond 3 miles of shore and therefore is outside the jurisdiction of the State of Washington. 2.2 Hazardous Waste Management 2.2.1 The CLIA in consultation with NWCCA has developed, in conjunction with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), a national practice for the assigning of an EPA Identification Number to each cruise ship as the "generator" of hazardous wastes, which recognizes the multi-jurisdictional itineraries of a cruise vessel. EPA also proposes that the state where company offices are located may issue the national identification numbers provided the criteria and information submitted required for obtaining the number is standard for the United States. The State of Washington and NWCCA agree to a uniform application procedure for the EPA national identification number in accordance with the Resource Conservation Recovery Act (RCRA) (Appendix v). The State of Washington shall have the right to inspect all such records upon written request to the cruise vessel operator. The State of Washington recognizes that in some cases EPA Identification Numbers may not be required under federal law for conditionally exempt small quantity generators. 2.2.2 Appendix ii includes the uniform procedure adopted by the NWCCA for the application of RCRA to cruise vessels disposing of hazardous wastes in the State of Washington. The State of Washington accepts this procedure as the appropriate process for vendor selection and management of hazardous wastes in Washington. NWCCA member lines agree to provide an annual report regarding the total hazardous waste offloaded in Washington by each cruise vessel. 2.2.3 The NWCCA acknowledges that the state of Washington regulates some hazardous wastes differently than EPA and agrees, within the waters subject to this MOU, to Memorandum of Understanding Cruise Operations in Washington State Amended February 2011 Page 6 comply with the guidelines for specific waste streams found in Appendix vii. 2.2.4 The State of Washington and NWCCA agree that all hazardous waste disposal records required by RCRA for cruise vessels entering a Washington port shall be available to the State of Washington upon written request to the cruise vessel operator. 3. The State of Washington and the NWCCA understand that the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) has Federal jurisdiction over environmental matters in navigable waterways in the United States and conducts passenger ship examinations that include review of environmental systems, Safety Management System (SMS) documentation and such MARPOL- mandated documents as the Oil Record Book and the Garbage Record Book. Additionally, NWCCA member cruise vessels will integrate such industry standards into SMS documentation that ensure compliance through statutorily required internal and third party audits. 4. The USCG has developed guidelines relating to the inspection of waste management practices and procedures, which have been adopted by the cruise industry. The State of Washington accepts the USCG Navigation and Vessel Inspection Circular and Environmental Systems Checklist (Appendix iv), which will be incorporated into USCG 840 Guidebook as the procedure to conduct waste management inspections on board cruise vessels. To reduce administrative burden on the cruise ship industry, the State of Washington agrees to first request from the USCG any records for cruise vessels entering waters subject to this MOU to the extent that those records are covered by the Memorandum of Agreement, dated May 25th, 2001, between the State of Washington Department of Ecology and the USCG. Other USCG records will be provided to the State directly by the NWCCA member lines upon request. 5. The State of Washington recognizes that waste management practices are undergoing constant assessment and evaluation by cruise industry members. It is understood by the State of Washington and the NWCCA that the management of waste streams will be an on-going process, which has as its stated objectives both waste minimization and pollution prevention. Consequently, all parties agree to continue to work with each other in good faith to achieve the stated objectives. This may require additional meetings with the parties to this Agreement to discuss specific issues applicable to the cruise industry in the U.S. 6. The NWCCA acknowledges that its operating practices are required to comply with the applicable provisions of the Marine Mammal Protection Act, the Invasive Species Act and the State of Washington Ballast Water Management law, RCW Ch. 77.120. The NWCCA agrees to acknowledge and comply with appropriate rules and regulations related to the Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary, including but not limited to the regulations for implementing the National Marine Sanctuary Program (subparts A through E and subpart O of Title 15, Chapter IX, Part 922 of the Code of Federal Regulations) and the International Maritime Organization (IMO) "Area To Be Avoided" off the Washington Coast. Memorandum of Understanding Cruise Operations in Washington State Amended February 2011 Page 7 7. This agreement does not prohibit discharges made for the purpose of securing the vessel or saving life at sea, provided that all reasonable precautions have been taken for the purpose of preventing or minimizing the discharge. 8. All parties acknowledge that ongoing discussions of environmental goals are recognized as a necessary component to the successful implementation of management practices for waste minimization and reduction. 9. Compliance, Modification and Review of MOU: NWCCA members agree to immediately self-report non-compliance with any provision of this MOU to the Department of Ecology at the following 24-hour number: 425-649-7000. By December 1st of each year, a report shall be submitted to the Department of Ecology detailing the compliance with this MOU for each vessel within the NWCCA that calls to a port in Washington for the previous cruise season. The reports should follow the format included in Appendix viii. All parties acknowledge that this MOU is not inclusive of all issues, rules or programs that may arise in the future. The State of Washington reserves the right to enter into additional MOUs to address or refine such issues, to take enforcement action in response to violations of state law, or to pursue appropriate legislation. All parties agree to at least one annual meeting to review the effectiveness of the MOU, such meeting to be scheduled, if feasible, during October of each year. The State of Washington and NWCCA reserve the right to cancel this MOU upon 90 days written notice. 10. Amendments to the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) will occur every three years starting in 2012. A request for proposed amendments will be posted on the Port of Seattle and Department of Ecology websites at the beginning of November of the year preceding the amendment adoption (e.g., in the beginning of November 2011 for 2012 adoption). All proposed amendments must be submitted within 21 calendar days of the posting. A 45-day review period will follow for all of the MOU signatories to review and validate the proposed amendments (around mid January). This period is longer to account for the holiday period, if the timing is different, review periods may be adjusted accordingly. Amendments that meet the criteria identified below will be then posted for a 30-day public comment period (around mid February). At the end of the comment period, MOU signatories will review the comments and meet to decide which, if any, of the proposed amendments should be adopted. Criteria for Proposed Amendments All proposed amendments meeting the following criteria will be advanced for further review and comment: In order to be considered, proposed amendments must be submitted within three weeks of the posted request for proposed amendments. Proposed amendments should include only cruise ship activity within the boundaries of the MOU. Memorandum of Understanding Cruise Operations in Washington State Amended February 2011 Page 8 The MOU, as amended, should not duplicate or replace existing regulations that govern cruise ships, however they may be more stringent. Proposed amendments must receive the sponsorship of one of the MOU signatories. (Note: sponsorship does not necessarily mean that the signatory will support adoption of the proposed amendment.) If none of the signatories support a proposed amendment, it will not be reviewed or considered for adoption. Proposed amendments must include o the basis for the amendment (e.g., what environmental concern it addresses) o how the amendment is applicable to or compatible with the MOU o the anticipated benefits of the amendment o potential impacts of the amendment o include scientific data that supports the proposed amendment as applicable In order for an amendment to be adopted, it must receive unanimous approval from the MOU signatories. Exceptions The only exception to this amendment process is an amendment proposed by one of the signatories and supported unanimously by the other two signatories. 11. The Port of Seattle and Ecology entered into an interagency agreement for the purpose of providing funding for Ecology personnel to further the intent of the MOU. The Port of Seattle is acting solely as a pass-through contracting entity to facilitate the collection of funds from the individual NWCCA members to provide payment to Ecology on behalf of the NWCCA members. The interagency agreement as included in Appendix ix may be amended or renewed separately from this MOU at any time by the parties of the agreement without amending the MOU. Appendix xi includes a summary of amendments. Memorandum of Understanding Cruise Operations in Washington State Amended February 2011 Page 9 IN RECOGNITION OF THE MUTUAL UNDERSTANDINGS DISCUSSED HEREIN THE PARTIES HERETO AFFIX THEIR SIGNATURES. THIS AMENDMENT SHALL BE EFFECTIVE UPON THE DATE AND SIGNATURE OF THE FINAL SIGNING PARTY, THE DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY. __________________________________ ______________ Washington State Department of Ecology Date __________________________________ Port of Seattle __________________________________ North West & Canada Cruise Association Memorandum of Understanding Cruise Operations in Washington State Amended February 2011 Page 10 APPENDICES MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING Appendix i List of NWCCA Member Lines Appendix ii CLIA Standards Appendix iii Navigational Chart of the waters subject to this MOU Appendix iv USCG Navigation & Vessel Inspection Circular and Environmental Systems Checklist Appendix v Uniform application procedure for EPA National ID Number as per Resource Conservation Recovery Act. Appendix vi Alaska Regulations Appendix vii Washington Hazardous Waste Management Best Management Practices Appendix viii Boilerplate Compliance Letter Appendix ix Interagency Agreement (cost-recovery) Appendix x Bivalve Shellfish Beds Appendix xi Summary of Amendments Appendix i List of NWCCA Member Lines Carnival Cruise Lines Celebrity Cruises Crystal Cruises Disney Cruise Line Holland America Line Norwegian Cruise Line Oceania Cruises Princess Cruises Regent Seven Seas Cruises Royal Caribbean International Silversea Cruises Appendix ii http://www2.cruising.org/industry/environment.cfm (for latest version) CLIA INDUSTRY STANDARD CRUISE INDUSTRY WASTE MANAGEMENT PRACTICES AND PROCEDURES The members of the Cruise Lines International Association (CLIA) are dedicated to preserving the marine environment and in particular the pristine condition of the oceans and other waters upon which our vessels sail. The environmental standards that apply to our industry are stringent and comprehensive. Through the International Maritime Organization, the United States and flag and port states, CLIA has developed consistent and uniform international standards that apply to all vessels engaged in international commerce. These standards are set forth in the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL). The international standards of MARPOL have in turn been adopted by the United States and augmented by additional national legislation and regulation. The U.S. has jurisdiction over both foreign and domestic vessels that operate in U.S. waters where U.S. laws, such as the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, the Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships, the Ports and Waterways Safety Act, and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act - which applies to hazardous waste as it is landed ashore for disposal, apply. The U.S. Coast Guard enforces both international conventions and domestic laws. The cruise industry commitment to protecting the environment is demonstrated by the comprehensive spectrum of waste management technologies and procedures employed on its vessels. CLIA members are committed to: a. Designing, constructing and operating vessels, so as to minimize their impact on the environment; b. Developing improved technologies to exceed current requirements for protection of the environment; c. Implementing a policy goal of zero discharge of MARPOL, Annex V solid waste products (garbage) and equivalent US laws and regulations by use of more comprehensive waste minimization procedures to significantly reduce shipboard generated waste; d. Expanding waste reduction strategies to include reuse and recycling to the maximum extent possible so as to land ashore even smaller quantities of waste products; e. Improving processes and procedures for collection and transfer of hazardous waste; and f. Strengthening comprehensive programs for monitoring and auditing of onboard environmental practices and procedures in accordance with the International Safety Management Code for the Safe Operation of Ships and for Pollution Prevention (ISM Code). INDUSTRY WASTE MANAGEMENT STANDARDS: CLIA member cruise vessel operators have agreed to incorporate the following standards for waste stream management into their respective Safety Management Systems. 1. Photo Processing, Including X-Ray Development Fluid Waste: Member lines have agreed to minimize the discharge of silver into the marine environment through the use of best available technology that will reduce the silver content of the waste stream below levels specified by prevailing regulations. 2. Dry-cleaning waste fluids and contaminated materials: Member lines have agreed to prevent the discharge of chlorinated dry-cleaning fluids, sludge, contaminated filter materials and other dry-cleaning waste byproducts into the environment 3. Print Shop Waste Fluids: Member lines have agreed to prevent the discharge of hazardous wastes from printing materials (inks) and cleaning chemicals into the environment. 4. Photo Copying and Laser Printer Cartridges: Member lines have agreed to initiate procedures so as to maximize the return of photo copying and laser printer cartridges for recycling. In any event, these cartridges will be landed ashore. 5. Unused And Outdated Pharmaceuticals: Member lines have agreed to ensure that unused and/or outdated pharmaceuticals are effectively and safely disposed of in accordance with legal and environmental requirements. 6. Fluorescent And Mercury Vapor Lamp Bulbs: Member lines have agreed to prevent the release of mercury into the environment from spent fluorescent and mercury vapor lamps by assuring proper recycling or by using other acceptable means of disposal. 7. Batteries: Member lines have agreed to prevent the discharge of spent batteries into the marine environment. 8. Bilge and Oily Water Residues: Member lines have agreed to meet or exceed the international requirements for removing oil from bilge and wastewater prior to discharge. 9. Glass, Cardboard, Aluminum and Steel Cans: Member lines have agreed to eliminate, to the maximum extent possible, the disposal of MARPOL Annex V wastes into the marine environment. This will be achieved through improved reuse and recycling opportunities. They have further agreed that no waste will be discharged into the marine environment unless it has been properly processed and can be discharged in accordance with MARPOL and other prevailing requirements. 10. Incinerator Ash: Member lines have agreed to reduce the production of incinerator ash by minimizing the generation of waste and maximizing recycling opportunities. 11. Graywater: [ For ships traveling regularly on itineraries beyond the territorial waters of coastal states], member lines have agreed that graywater will be discharged only while the ship is underway and proceeding at a speed of not less than 6 knots1; that graywater will not be discharged in port and will not be discharged within 4 nautical miles from shore or such other distance as agreed to with authorities having jurisdiction or provided for by local law except in an emergency, or where geographically limited. Member lines have further agreed that the discharge of graywater will comply with all applicable laws and regulations. For vessels whose itineraries are fully within US territorial waters, discharge shall comply fully with U.S. and individual state legislation and regulations. 12. Blackwater: CLIA members have agreed that all blackwater will be processed through a Marine Sanitation Device (MSD), certified in accordance with U.S. or international regulations, prior to discharge. For ships traveling regularly on itineraries beyond territorial coastal waters, discharge will take place only when the ship is more than 4 miles from shore and when the ship is traveling at a speed of not less than 6 knots.1 For vessels whose itineraries are fully within US territorial waters, discharge shall comply fully with U.S. and individual state legislation and regulations. Some member cruise lines are field-testing wastewater treatment systems that utilize advanced technologies. These onboard wastewater treatment systems, which are currently being referred to as advanced wastewater purification (AWP) systems, are designed to result in effluent discharges that are of a high quality and purity; for example, meeting or surpassing secondary and tertiary effluents and reclaimed water. Effluents meeting these high standards would not be subjected to the strict discharge limitations previously discussed. Each CLIA cruise vessel operator has agreed to utilize one or more of the practices and procedures contained in the attached "Cruise Industry Waste Management Practices and Procedures" in the management of their shipboard waste streams. Recognizing that technology is progressing at a rapid rate, any new equipment or management practices that are equivalent to or better than those described, and which are shown to meet or exceed international and federal environmental standards, will also be acceptable. Member lines have agreed to communicate to CLIA the use of equivalent or other acceptable practices and procedures. As appropriate, such practices and procedures shall be included as a revision to the attached document. As an example, when improved systems for treating blackwater and graywater are perfected and shown to meet the requirements for MSDs and accepted by appropriate authorities, the new systems and associated technology will be included in the attachment as a revision. CLIA and its Environmental Committee will continue to work with the U.S. Coast Guard, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and other appropriate agencies to further implement the above commitments. 1 For vessels operating under sail, or a combination of sail and motor propulsion, the speed shall not be less than 4 knots. ATTACHMENT: CRUISE INDUSTRY WASTE MANAGEMENT PRACTICES AND PROCEDURES Revised: November 12, 2006 Effective for non-prior ICCL members:July 1, 2007 Appendix ix ANT NC The parties to this Agreement shal each maintain books. records. documents and other evidence which sufficiently and property reect all direct and indirect costs expended by either party In the performance of the service(s) descrbed herein. These records shal be subject to Inspection. review or audit by personnel of both parties. other personnel duh/ authorized by either party. the Cities ol the State Auditor. and federal ofcials so authorized by law. All books. records. documents. and other material relevant to this Agreement will be retained for six years alter expiration and the Ollice ol the State Auditor. federal auditors. and any persons duly author'zed by the parties shall have full access and the right to examine any of these materials during this period. . Records and other documents. In any medium. furnished by one party to this agreement to the other party, will remain the property of the lurnlshing party. unless otherwise agreed. The receiving party may be required to disclose records and documents. but will not disclose or make available this material toany third parties without rst giving notice to the lumishlng party and giving it a reasonable opportunity to respond. Each party will utiize reasonable security procedures and protections to assure that records and documents provided by the other party are not erroneously disclosed to third parties. RIGH [8 IN DAIA Unless otherwise provided. data which originates from this Agreement shall beWe for hire" as dened by the us. Copyright Act of 1976 and shall be owned by Ecology. Data shall include. but not be limited to. mports, documents, pamphlets. advertisements. books. magazines. surveys. studies. computer programs. lms. tapes. and/or sound reproductions. Ownership includes the right to copyright. patent. register. and the ability to transfer these rights. ENDENT CAPACITY The employees or agents of each party who are engaged in the performance of this Agreement shall continue to be employees or agents of that party and shall not be considered for any purpose to be employees or agents ol the other party. V AENT ALTERATIONS AND AMENDMENTS This Agreement may be amended by mutual agreement of the parties. Such amendments shall not be binding unless they are in writing and signed by personnel authorized to bind each of the parties. ATIO Either party may terminate this Agreement upon 30 days' prior wrhten notication to the other party. if this Agreement is so tem'ilnamd. the parties shall be liable only for perlormame mndered or costs incurred in accordance with the terms of this Agreement prior to the effective date of lamination. ATION 0 0 US if for any cause. either party does not fulfil in a timely and proper manner its obligations under this Agreement. or if either party violates any ot these terms and conditions. the aggrieved party wt! give the other party written notice of such faure or violation. The responsible paty will be giventhe opportunity to correct the violation or lailure within 15 working days it laiure or violation is not corrected. this Agreement may be lerrninated immediately by notice ol the aggrieved party to the other. written DPU I In the event that a dispute arises under this Agreement. lt shal be detennlned by a Dispute Board in the lolowing manner. Each paty to this Agreement shal appoint one member to the Dispute Board. The Page2'oi4 members so appointed shal iointiy appoint an additional member to the Dispute Board. The Dispute Board shal review the facts, agreement terms and applicable statutes and rules and make a determination of the As an dispute. The determination oi the Dispute Board shall be nal and binding on the parties hereto. alternative to this process, either of the parties may request Intervention by the Governor. as provided by RCW 43.17.330. In which event the Governor's process will control. GOZEBANCE This Agreement is entered into pursuant to-and under the authority granted by the Iatvs oi the state of Washington and any applicable federal laws. The provisions of this Agreement shall be construed to conform to those laws in the event of an hconsistency 'n the terms oi this Agreement. or between its terms and any applicable statute or rule. the Inconsistency strait be resolved by giving precedence in the tolowlng order. a. Appicable state and federal statutes and rules; b. Statement of work; and ' c. Any other provisions of the agreement, [minding materials incorporated by reference SSIG The work to be provided under this Agreement. and any claim arising thereunder, is not assignable or which deiegabie by either party it whole or in part. without the express prior written consent of the other party. consent she! not be unreasonably withheld. WAI!EB A failure by either party to exercise its rights under this Agreement shall not preclude that party from subsequent exercise of such rights and shal not constitute a waiver of any other nmts under this Agreement unless stated to be such In a writing signed by an authorized representative oi the party and attached to the original Agreement EVERAB|LITY ii any provision oi this Agreement or any provision of any document incorporated by relerence shal be held Invalid, such invalidity she! not affect the other provisions oi this Agreement which can be given eiiect without the invalid provision, it such remainder conforms to the requirements at applicable law and the fundamental declared to be set/arable purpose of this agreerrwnt. and to this end the provisions at this Agreement are ALL WRITINQ CONTAINED Hlu This Agreement contains all the terms and conditions agreed upon by the parties. No other understandings, oral or otherwise, regarding the subiect matter of this Agreement shall be deemed to exist or to bind any of the parties hereto. ' CQUNTERPARTS This Agreement may be executed in counterparts, each of which may have the signature of only one Party. but each of which shal be deemed to be an original. and al ol which. when taken together, shall be deemed to be a single Agreement. W The program manager for each oi the parties shall be responsible for and she! be the contact person for all communications and bilngs regarding the performance of this Agreement. The Contract/Program Manager for Ecology is Kevin Fitzpatrick Department of Ecology Page 30" Northwest Regional Office 3190 160' Avenue SE Belteyue. WA 98008-5452 (425) 649-7033 . E-malt kt481ecy.wa.gov The ContracUProgram Manager for Port of Seate is: Michael McLaughln General Manager. Cruise and Dock Services Port of Seattte PO. Box 1209 Seate, WA U.S.A. 98111 PhOne:(206)728-3453 E-rnait mclaughlhm@portseattle.org I IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement. State or Washington Department of Ecology Port of Seattle "f"? .,. /: n Tay Y ' i, Dale , Chief xecutive Ofcer APPROVED AS TO FORM: ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE Susan Ridgley. Senlor Port Counsel P3994014 ATTACHMENT A Department of Ecology/Port of Seattle Cruise Ship Memorandum of Understanding Scope of Work The Department of Ecology (Ecology), the Port of Seattle, and the NorthWest CruiseShip Association (NWCA) are signatory to the Memorandum ofUnderstanding. Cruise Operations in Washington State (MOU). Originally the MOU was signed April 20, 2004 and thereafter annually amended.~ The member cruise lines ofthe NWCA agree to comply with practices, while operating in waters subject to the MOU, pertaining to the management of solid and ' hazardous wastes and wastewaters. Ecology is charged with protecting and conserving Washington's environmental resources in relation to the cruise industry's environmental practices in Washington. The NWCA has agreed to fund Ecology's costs to implement the MOU and to accomplish the tasks listed herein. Task 01 Compliance Work: ~ Work with stakeholders on draing necessary amendments to cruise MOU. Provide technical assistance for cruise lines and vessel staff. Field questions from the public, press, environmental groups, and cruise lines. Monitor wmpliancc with the MOU. Work with other programs within Ecology on hazardous waste, biosolids, solid waste, spill prevention, and other MOU elements. Work with Ecology policy and scal staffon cruise related issues. Research issues related to vessel discharges. Evaluate, dralt and update guidance on Whole Efuent Toxicity (WET) testing for cruise ships and evaluate WET testing results. Work with Department of Health Shellsh program on shellsh and virus related studies and issues. Manage and update Ecology's cruise ship website. Task 02 Inspections: Conduct annual inspections of cruise vessels to verify the operation of the treatment systems and to evaluate compliance with the MOU. Write up inspection reports and provide recommendations for improvement. Take samples from vessels and evaluate results. ' Task 03 Wastewater Discharge Approvals: Verify documentation submitted for approval ofdischarges. Evaluate documentation and treatment systems for requirements ofMOU to discharge and based on the information submitted and an engineering review, provide approval for discharges as appropriate. Task 04 Annual Reports: Draft annual assessment of cruise ship environmental eiTects report. Evaluate monthly sampling data results and stunmarize annually. Pagetofz Task 05 Project Management: Oversee the cruise ship MOU program and assist as needed. Provides Administrative oversight for compliance with the MOU, represents senior program management in duties ' related to protection of water quality from cruise ship discharges including negotiations. Task 06 ' Additional tasks may become part of this agreement by" mutual concurrence of Ecology and the Port of Seattle, or upon extension ofthe agreement. Page 2 of 2 2010 Agreement Attachment B Department of Ecology / Port of Seattle Cruise Vessel Wastewater Treatment Inspections Budget, by Object The following is a detail breakdown of the salary, benets and other costs of the Department of Ecology staff who will be funded under this agreement. ' OBECT 9931 ' 1. Salary: Environmental Specialist 5 (1285) $66,420 it .25 FTE In $16,605 WMS Band 2 (W82) 90,084 x .01 FTP, = S 901 Total Salary: $17,506 ' 2. Benets @ 28.3% of Salaryzl 3 4,954 , 3. FY10 Indirect Costs @ 36.8% of Salary & Benets (1): S 4,133 4. FY11 Indirect Costs @ ???% of Salary & Benets (1): S 4,132 NOTE: The indirect rate for FYI I will probably be different from the FY10 amount but that has not been determined yet. For the purposes of this agreement let us assume the 36.8% rate for the full year. We'll have to amend the agreement once the indirect rate is determined. 5. Goods & Services @ $4,377 per budgeted Fl'E: 1385 4,377 x .25 FTE = 3 1,094 WMSZ 4,377 x .01 F113 - 3 44 Lab costs = $151) Total Goods & Services: 3 1,388 TOTAL 32,613 (1) Ecology's indirect rate, as approved by the federal cognizant agency (United States Environmental Protection Agency) will apply. The current rate for 7/1/09 through 6/30/2010 is 36.8% of salaries and benets. (2) Ecology's indirect rate, as approved by the federal cognizant agency (United Statcs Enviromncntal Protection Agency) will apply. The current rate for 7/1/10 through 6/30/2011 is ???% of salaries and benets. (See note above) Appendix x Bivalve Shellfish Beds Cruise ships that discharge treated sewage into Puget Sound under this MOU employ advanced systems that treat sewage to a very high degree using a combination of filtration, biological treatment, ultra-filtration, and disinfection. These systems are called Advanced Wastewater Treatment Systems (AWTS). The ultra-filtration process effectively removes nearly all bacteria from the treated sewage. However, viruses which tend to be smaller organisms may pass through the ultra-filtration membranes but are typically destroyed by the disinfection unit. The Centers for Disease Control & Prevention reported 18 norovirus outbreaks on cruise ships in the Pacific Northwest since 2000. Cruise ships discharge into shallow waters along the shipping lanes, near some commercial shellfish beds. Today, national standards provide little guidance on setting shellfish closure zones based on viral risk and there is no reliable viral indicator standard in part due to difficulties in sampling and testing for norovirus. Because shellfish in Puget Sound and Admiralty Inlet are valuable resources for Washington State, the Washington State Legislature commissioned the Washington State Department of Health (DOH) Office of Shellfish and Water Protection (OSWP) to study the potential risk to shellfish beds from virus contamination associated with cruise ship waste water discharges. DOH contracted with the University of Washington School of Public Health and Community Medicine to perform a risk assessment, which was completed in November 2007. The study used a quantitative microbial risk assessment method coupled with water quality modeling in Puget Sound. Some key findings of the study include: When advanced wastewater treatment systems (AWTS) are functioning well, there is low concern for viral illness. Adequate disinfection is the key to effective norovirus inactivation. Loss of disinfection could lead to potentially unacceptable virus levels in water over shellfish beds, even with the large dilution provided by ships under sail. However, using minimum dilution factors for when ships are moving at least 6 knots along the current route, dilution is estimated at 1,500,000:1 between the ship and the shore. The UW study did not gather samples of norovirus concentrations in treated sewage from cruise ships or in the salt water over shellfish beds. Norovirus remains non-culturable, so there is very limited environmental data that is "norovirus specific." In response, UW researchers used data for norovirus "surrogates" from other studies in their analysis. Consumption data from Tribes that use shellfish beds closest to the path of cruise ships was used in the risk analysis. These rates are higher than for the general population. Raw oyster consumption rates were used as a conservative assumption for these areas. The study included many conservative assumptions, but nonetheless concluded that well functioning AWTSs would not lead to norovirus accumulation in shellfish beds such that the median annual risk of potential illness to shellfish consumers from cruise ship discharges in Puget Sound is less than 10,000,000:1. This compares quite favorably with the calculated annual risk of norovirus illness from consumption of raw oysters in the general population, which the UW researchers calculated as about 1,000:1. As described above, the potential risk of viral contamination of shellfish beds from cruise ship is extremely low when AWTS systems are functioning well. Additionally the geography of Puget Sound and the configuration of shipping lanes provide most shellfish beds some protection from potential contamination from passing ships. However, the signatories to the MOU understand the importance of shellfish resources to Washington State and have agreed to take the actions outlined on page ___ of the MOU to protect shellfish beds and human health while operating in Washington MOU waters. Appendix x continued Bivalve Shellfish Beds 2011 Season 2011 Cruise Season Boundary Points Id Tract Name LATITUDE LONGITUDE Id Tract Name LATITUDE LONGITUDE 1 Apple Tree Cove 47.81274089040 -122.48047265700 21 President Point 47.76301811440 -122.46531995900 2 Apple Tree Cove 47.81255672180 -122.47941651600 22 President Point 47.76227795780 -122.46478860500 3 Apple Tree Cove 47.81197112760 -122.47872458000 23 President Point 47.76153965240 -122.46425163200 4 Apple Tree Cove 47.81129443870 -122.47812835500 24 President Point 47.76079984240 -122.46372318400 5 Apple Tree Cove 47.81056937740 -122.47758747000 25 President Point 47.76012732540 -122.46302154800 6 Apple Tree Cove 47.80992145700 -122.47684781100 26 President Point 47.75945808780 -122.46231363200 7 Apple Tree Cove 47.80931916930 -122.47604614700 27 President Point 47.75877611500 -122.46163224400 8 Apple Tree Cove 47.80895286530 -122.47498673900 28 President Point 47.75821701680 -122.46249970800 9 Apple Tree Cove 47.80852971000 -122.47419683400 29 President Point 47.75769964180 -122.46344179800 10 Apple Tree Cove 47.80812779070 -122.47315426700 30 President Point 47.75709757920 -122.46424411400 11 Apple Tree Cove 47.80748647770 -122.47257436300 31 President Point 47.75642784290 -122.46495166300 12 Apple Tree Cove 47.80668065230 -122.47239303200 32 President Point 47.75568013190 -122.46545052600 13 Apple Tree Cove 47.80586169470 -122.47237830900 33 President Point 47.75491428200 -122.46589325600 14 Apple Tree Cove 47.80507505630 -122.47246917900 34 President Point 47.75413762450 -122.46629389900 15 Apple Tree Cove 47.80443177020 -122.47321819700 35 President Point 47.75340374390 -122.46683607100 16 Apple Tree Cove 47.80389497510 -122.47389983000 36 President Point 47.75266140050 -122.46720422800 17 Apple Tree Cove 47.80348525790 -122.47492954200 37 President Point 47.75189295980 -122.46684018600 18 Apple Tree Cove 47.80310261180 -122.47598949400 38 President Point 47.75123556490 -122.46610769300 19 Apple Tree Cove 47.80237402570 -122.47638256900 39 President Point 47.75058390610 -122.46579489800 20 Apple Tree Cove 47.80219450150 -122.47688158400 40 President Point 47.74994707310 -122.46656628000 41 President Point 47.74921684450 -122.46711888700 42 President Point 47.74848682750 -122.46768011900 43 President Point 47.74775279740 -122.46822961800 44 President Point 47.74701858040 -122.46877863300 45 President Point 47.74627675290 -122.46930377000 46 President Point 47.74561278720 -122.46984543000 2011 Cruise Season Boundary Points continued Id Tract Name LATITUDE LONGITUDE 47 Tyee Shoal 47.61916098460 -122.48420272400 48 Tyee Shoal 47.61865190330 -122.48324910700 49 Tyee Shoal 47.61814655430 -122.48229042500 50 Tyee Shoal 47.61761807860 -122.48135871800 51 Tyee Shoal 47.61718007830 -122.48033341700 52 Tyee Shoal 47.61670845870 -122.47935532600 53 Tyee Shoal 47.61609072620 -122.47855854300 54 Tyee Shoal 47.61543441750 -122.47782569300 55 Tyee Shoal 47.61469777070 -122.47729421200 56 Tyee Shoal 47.61394668260 -122.47679893700 57 Tyee Shoal 47.61317098590 -122.47657100600 58 Tyee Shoal 47.61237442300 -122.47686659800 59 Tyee Shoal 47.61162109430 -122.47735159900 60 Tyee Shoal 47.61083929010 -122.47772883400 61 Tyee Shoal 47.61005751060 -122.47810617700 62 Tyee Shoal 47.60927581650 -122.47848390200 63 Tyee Shoal 47.60847990770 -122.47877353100 64 Tyee Shoal 47.60766507680 -122.47893589300 65 Tyee Shoal 47.60687831460 -122.47927979300 66 Tyee Shoal 47.60609769090 -122.47964967100 67 Tyee Shoal 47.60531536900 -122.48000498600 68 Tyee Shoal 47.60457213290 -122.48052049900 69 Tyee Shoal 47.60398226870 -122.48118881300 70 Tyee Shoal 47.60407102430 -122.48180079600 71 Middle Point 48.15109017620 -122.82296755300 72 Middle Point 48.15156870030 -122.82260588400 73 Middle Point 48.15125511720 -122.82167106000 DATUM = HARN 83 [Apple Tree Cove and President Point Geoduck Tracts / Large Vessel Traffic Lane Intersection BoundaryPoint ;Geoduc Tract ,\. Large Vehicle Traffic Lane .5 mile buffer Boundary points are drawn every 3 100 yards where geoduck tracts ~ ' 1 ' , , -L/ V intersect a .5 mile buffer of the 35m" '" ' Large Vehicle Trafc Lane. ' ' V , _ii.,1pletr995(oye See spreadsheet for coordinates. '1'J'Il'4s . ,'RACON('--} ; April 7. 2008 Fla: GDT_Trafc Lanes_lntersectionjoimsjpple Cove and Presudent Point_080407.pdf Data Sources Geoduck Areas, WDFW Large Vessel Trafc Lanes: Digitized NOAA Charts Tyee Shoal Geoduck Tract/ Large . , . ' Vessel Trafc Lane Intersection .. 2 Imiitlmim I H?!"(BISOs', 1 0 BoundaryPoint (V.\,\3 Geoduc Tract r Large Vehicle Traffic Lane .5 mile buffer Boundary points are drawn every 100 yards where geoduck tracts intersect a .5 mile buffer of the Large Vehicle Trafc Lane. ' See spreadsheet for coordinates. $ (xr" III'm) I my l l _I I gar-"meme?5' "seruk - Uuwarl's'h H '1' ' m - 97 PN'FL.' -\IJHL'.NIRVAREA 'IIo.:(.:- Soon) "e; 126 l MI '4 .II-IIDUCCUInUIIIIIII'uIIII-I April 7, 2008 I Fie: GDT_Trafc Lanes_lntersection_Points_Tyee Shoal_080407.pdf Data Sources Geoduck Areas: WDFW | Large Vessel Trafc Lanes. Digitized NOAA Charts I limmrw Middle Point Geodud< Tract on Island Fort Flagler Z 9' 3 i '9- 9 w E 5 a o. Geoduck /Traffic Lane Buffer Intersection mGeoduck Tract DTrafc Lane Buffer (.5 mi) Growing Area Classification Appendix xi MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING CRUISE OPERATIONS IN WASHINGTON STATE SUMMARY OF AMENDMENTS AMENDMENT NO. 1 Signed July 8, 2005 1. Changing references to the Seattle being the only port berthed to all ports in Washington. While the ships typically call only to Seattle, there is potential for port calls to other ports. 2. Adding a requirement for all vessels within the NWCCA to submit an annual report of compliance with MOU. This requirement is being added due to the need to know if ships complied with the MOU whether or not they go through the process of authorization to discharge. For ships that choose to hold their discharge while in Washington waters, it is important to know if they complied. 3. Adding regulation language referenced in Appendix vi to show all effluent limits required for discharge. Ships that discharge must meet the higher standards as set in Alaska which is referenced in the MOU and in appendix vi. AMENDMENT NO. 2 Signed April 28, 2006 1. Adding a requirement to prohibit the discharge of oily bilge water and a definition was also added. The purpose of this addition is to include specific prohibition language on all major sources of potential pollutants from the vessels. 2. Adding a definition for residual solids. Residual Solids has gone undefined although we have had the requirement to prohibit the discharges. This has been added to clarify exactly what types of residual solids are being managed per this MOU. 3. Adding specific language about what limits must be met for monitoring results. The purpose of this addition is to make it clear to the cruise lines and to the public what limits need to be met. 4. Changing the requirement on WET testing from once per 2 years to once per 40 port calls or turnarounds for vessels that are not homeported due to the fact that vessels come and go from this route from year to year. 5. Other minor changes for organization of the document. Appendix xi continued AMENDMENT NO. 3 Signed May 25, 2007 1. Changing all references and the appendix from the International Council of Cruise Lines (ICCL) to the Cruise Line International Association (CLIA) as the association changed. 2. Adding language about the interagency agreement for cost recovery and referencing the appendix. 3. Changing where residual solids (sludge) can be discharged to disallow any residual solids discharges in the entire Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary. 4. Clarifying the language to allow for inspections of all vessels, whether approved for discharge or not for compliance with the MOU. The language currently only allows for inspections of vessels discharging. 5. Clarifying the language to say that all vessels approved for discharge, not just those actually discharging agree to the sampling requirements set out in the MOU. The current language has been confusing for some vessels approved for discharge, but mostly holding discharges anyways. AMENDMENT NO. 4 1. Incorporating recommendations from the Washington State Department of Health virus report: a) Not allow discharges within a half mile of shellfish beds. Include an appendix identifying the areas where bivalve shellfish beds that are recreationally harvested or commercially approved within half a mile of the shipping lanes and update annually. And include an appendix with background information on the virus related elements. b) Define a "disinfection system upset" condition as a disinfection below levels of four log (99.99%) inactivation of norovirus. c) Require immediate shutdown capability from an upset condition of disinfection below levels of four log (99.99%) inactivation of norovirus for all vessels that have submitted documentation to discharge. d) Require immediate notification to the Department of Health for an upset condition. 2. Require whole effluent toxicity testing for only those vessels that are have submitted documentation for continuous discharge. 3. Other minor changes for organization of the document. AMENDMENT NO. 5 1. Including a process for amending the MOU including a public review process. Proposed amendments will be accepted for the 2012 cruise season and then every three years thereafter. 2. Updating the name of the cruise association. In 2010, the NorthWest CruiseShip Association changed its name to the North West & Canada Cruise Association (NWCCA). 3. Including an additional shellfish area to Appendix X. Item No._____ 6b_Attach 2____________ Date of Meeting:__April 24, 2012________ AMENDMENT PROCESS FOR MOU Amendments to the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) will occur every three years starting in 2012. A request for proposed amendments will be posted on the Port of Seattle and Department of Ecology websites at the beginning of November of the year preceding the amendment adoption (e.g., in the beginning of November 2011 for 2012 adoption). All proposed amendments must be submitted within 21 calendar days of the posting. A 45-day review period will follow for all of the MOU signatories to review and validate the proposed amendments (around mid January). This period is longer to account for the holiday period, if the timing is different, review periods may be adjusted accordingly. Amendments that meet the criteria identified below will be then posted for a 30-day public comment period (around mid February). At the end of the comment period, MOU signatories will review the comments and meet to decide which, if any, of the proposed amendments should be adopted. Criteria for Proposed Amendments All proposed amendments meeting the following criteria will be advanced for further review and comment: In order to be considered, proposed amendments must be submitted within three weeks of the posted request for proposed amendments. Proposed amendments should include only cruise ship activity within the boundaries of the MOU. The MOU, as amended, should not duplicate or replace existing regulations that govern cruise ships, however they may be more stringent. Proposed amendments must receive the sponsorship of one of the MOU signatories. (Note: sponsorship does not necessarily mean that the signatory will support adoption of the proposed amendment.) If none of the signatories support a proposed amendment, it will not be reviewed or considered for adoption. Proposed amendments must include o the basis for the amendment (e.g., what environmental concern it addresses) o how the amendment is applicable to or compatible with the MOU o the anticipated benefits of the amendment o potential impacts of the amendment o include scientific data that supports the proposed amendment as applicable In order for an amendment to be adopted, it must receive unanimous approval from the MOU signatories. Exceptions The only exception to this amendment process is an amendment proposed by one of the signatories and supported unanimously by the other two signatories. Amy Jankowiak Department of Ecology Northwest Regional Office Water Quality Program 3190 160th Avenue SE Bellevue, WA 98008 amy.jankowiak@ecy.wa.gov 21 November 2011 Re: Proposed Discharge Ban Amendment to the Cruise Ship MOU Dear Ms. Jankowiak, This letter is responsive to the 21-day comment period started on November 2, 2011 by the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology), Port of Seattle (Port) and North West & Canada Cruise Association (NWCCA) seeking proposed amendments to the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) governing cruise ship discharges in Washington State waters and the Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary.1 Last year Ecology, the Port and NWCCA agreed to establish a process to solicit public suggestions for possible additions or changes to the 2004 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) every three years. Therefore, this comment period is particularly important in that it will be the last time in three years the public will have any say in this growing potential introduction of nutrients, toxics, pharmaceuticals and disease into the Sound. We support the governor's initiative to restore the health of the Puget Sound ecosystem an initiative which will cost millions of dollars. We need all partners, including Ecology and the Port of Seattle to help protect this investment. The Port of Seattle reported that the 2011 cruise season was more robust than expected. The port counted 885,949 cruise passengers among 196 ship calls in the late-Aprilthrough-early-October cruise season. According to Ecology, four of the vessels had 1 http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/wastewater/cruise_mou/index.html. traditional Marine Sanitation Devices, eight had Advanced Wastewater Treatment Systems (AWTS), and two were of unknown capability. It is troubling that despite Ecology's ability to board these vessels, they were unable to even ascertain the type of treatment system on two of the 12 vessels home-ported in Seattle. We are concerned that at the end of the eight cruise seasons (since the inception of the MOU) that complete data including this basic information has not yet been provided by the cruise ship industry. The amendment proposed below is not intended to be punitive. Rather, it affords the MOU parties the opportunity to demonstrate their collective leadership in contributing to the region's economy while minimizing environmental impacts. The fact that none of the homeported vessels, capable of carrying more 5,000 passengers and crew typically producing over 200,000 gallons of sewage (black water) and up to 1 million gallons of gray water per week,2 sought permission to discharge in State waters this past season, demonstrates their ability to comply with a discharge ban. However, that could change annually they can simply seek permission from Ecology at the beginning of each new cruise season. For example, it is not clear what Disney will do next season when they will begin homeporting ships in Seattle. We believe that it is imperative that our public agencies and responsible industry leaders do their part to assure that as this industry continues to enjoy rapid expansion, it takes all reasonable efforts to minimize their impacts. The following proposed MOU amendments are to be considered in priority order or in combination: Proposed MOU Amendments: 1) Ban the discharge of gray water and black water in MOU waters. 2) Ban the continuous discharge of gray water and sewage (black water), limiting to only discharge while the ship is greater than 1 mile offshore and traveling at least 6 knots or more. 3) Require observers (those required by Alaskan law) who already board ships in Seattle for the Alaska ocean ranger program to report to Ecology on the vessels' sanitation operations while in MOU waters. Rationale for Proposed Amendments: Information from a 2008 U.S. EPA report3 indicates that regulated and unregulated discharges from cruise ships have the potential to harm the marine environment. For 2 Cruise Ship Pollution: Background, Laws and Regulations, and Key Issues RL32450, Congressional Research Service, Claudia Copeland, updated Nov. 17, 2008, at CRS-2. 3 Cruise Ship Discharge Assessment Report, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Dec. 29, 2008, at 3-5 3-28, http://www.epa.gov/owow/oceans/cruise_ships/pdf/0812cruiseshipdischarge assess.pdf. (hereinafter Cruise Ship Report). 2 example, as demonstrated in greater detail below, the various pathogens and pollutants found in wastewater released into marine waters by cruise ships, even when treated by varying treatment systems, exceed state and federal standards, harm marine resources, and impair recreational opportunities. The EPA report determined that standard on-board sewage treatment systems (known as Marine Sanitation Devices or MSDs) fail to adequately treat sewage before discharge,4 and that more advanced systems (known as Advanced Wastewater Treatment Systems or AWTS) need improvements to become sufficiently protective of the marine environment and public health.5 Testing has demonstrated that treated sewage from cruise ships may contain pathogens and pollutants that exceed federal performance and state water quality standards, thereby contributing to limits on recreational use of marine waters; contamination shellfish beds, finfish, and marine mammal as well as leading to eutrophication.6 Furthermore, raw graywater also contains harmful contaminants, with levels higher than treated sewage in some cases.7 Untreated cruise ship graywater concentrations have also exceeded federal Type II performance standards for fecal coliform and total suspended solids.8 The introduction of significant volumes of fecal coliform,9 10 nutrients,11 chlorine,12 and metals13 through ship discharge is incompatible with the core elements of the of the Puget Sound Partnership's Action Agenda. 4 Cruise Ship Report, at 2-1, 2-9, 2-26, 2-27, 2-30, 2-31, 2-32, 2.36, 3-2, 3-3, 3-22, 3-25, 3-26, 3-27, and 3-29. EPA reported that treated effluent from conventional U.S. Coast Guard-approved Type II MSDs contain concentrations of bacteria, chlorine, nutrients, metals, and other pollutants that often far exceed federal ship effluent performance standards and EPA's 2006 National Recommended Water Quality Criteria (NRWQC). Effluent discharges from MSDs often also exceed secondary treatment standards for land-based domestic sewage. 5 Id. EPA found that AWTS, while more effectively treating sewage, do not adequately remove all potentially harmful contaminants. Although AWTS produce cleaner wastewater, treated effluent often did not meet NRWQC for metals, chlorine or nutrients such as ammonia all of which can harm the marine environment. See also federal regulations for the Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary (74 Fed. Reg. 3216 (Jan. 16, 2009)) and the Cordell Bank, Gulf of the Farallones, and Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuaries (73 Fed. Reg. 70488 (Nov. 20, 2008) & 74 Fed. Reg. 12088 (March 23, 2009)). 6 See also U.S. Oceans Commission, Chapter 16, 241-242, available at http://oceancommission.gov/documents/full_color_rpt/16_chapter16.pdf (The Commission determined that waste stream discharges from ships "if not properly disposed of and treated can be a significant source of pathogens and nutrients with the potential to threaten human health and damage shellfish beds, coral reefs and other aquatic life," and that "of particular concern are the cumulative environmental impacts caused when cruise ships repeatedly visit the same environmentally sensitive areas."). 7 Cruise Ship Report, at Section 3. 8 Id. 9 Cruise Ship Report, at 2-9. Of the 92 samples taken from 21 cruise ships in Alaska during voluntary sampling in 2000 and 2001, only 43 percent met fecal coliform standards and only 32 percent met total suspended solids standards for ship effluent. Only one sample of 70 met both. 3 The Puget Sound Partnership's Action Agenda and ecosystem targets, first developed in 2008, defines what a healthy Puget Sound is, describes the current state of Puget Sound, prioritizes cleanup and improvement efforts, and highlights opportunities for federal, state, local, tribal and private resources to invest and coordinate. By statute, the near-term strategies and actions described in the Action Agenda must be updated every two years. This proposed amendment specifically supports the Action Agenda's item C8.1 "Establish no discharge zones for commercial and recreational vessels in all or parts of Puget Sound that have nutrient and/or pathogen problems." Addressing cruise ship discharges is compatible with this Action Item. Due to the above-mentioned concerns on November 1st the Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary published a Final Rule updating its Management Plan and regulations for the first time since its creation 17 years ago. The only revision to the regulations "is a ban on cruise ship discharges within the sanctuary, a preventative measure to protect water quality off the Washington coast with negligible economic impact to the industry."14 The Olympic Coast Sanctuary joins the four National Marine Sanctuaries in California in adopting a vessel wastewater discharge ban. Ecology states in their current public notice, "The MOU agreement supports the broader Puget Sound Initiative a comprehensive effort by local, tribal, state and federal governments, business, agricultural and environmental interests, scientists, and the public to restore and protect the Sound, including the Strait of Juan de Fuca." While it was disappointing not to see mention of support for the Puget Sound Partnership in the Port's Century Agenda, the success of the Partnership to recover the Sound by 2020 in light of increasing population pressures, requires that everyone does their part to be part of the solution. Growing concern about the impacts of ocean acidification on Pacific Northwest waters is further exacerbated by the addition of nutrient loading. The flexibility of mobile dischargers to hold their wastes until they are in less impaired waters makes for a win-win situation. Thank you for your consideration of sponsoring and supporting these proposed amendments. 10 Id. at 2-35. For three pollutants fecal coliform, total residual chlorine and ammonia end-of- pipe discharge levels are high enough that they may not meet NRWQC after mixing when the vessel is at rest. 11 Id. at 2-34. Average effluent concentrations of ammonia from traditional Type II MSDs and AWTS exceed all of the water body ammonia standards. 12 Id. at 2-30. Both traditional Type II MSD and AWTS effluent concentrations exceed NRWQC for total residual chlorine at the end of the pipe. 13 Id. at 2-31. Several dissolved metals that are common components of ship piping copper, nickel, and zinc were found at levels approximately one to four times above NRWQC for aquatic life. 14 http://olympiccoast.noaa.gov. 4 If you have any questions, please contact Fred Felleman at (206) 595-3825 and felleman@comcast.net or Marcie Keever at (415) 544-0790 x 223 and mkeever@foe.org; Katelyn Kinn at (206) 297-7002 and katelyn@pugetsoundkeeper.org; and Heather Trim at htrim@pugetsound.org. Sincerely, Fred Felleman, Northwest Consultant Marcie Keever, Oceans & Vessels Project Director Friends of the Earth Katelyn Kinn Legal Affairs Coordinator Puget Soundkeeper Alliance Heather Trim Director of Policy People For Puget Sound Cc: Port of Seattle Commission Northwest & Canada Cruise Association 5 Amy Jankowiak Department of Ecology Northwest Regional Office Water Quality Program 3190 160th Avenue SE Bellevue, WA 98008 amy.jankowiak@ecy.wa.gov 13 February 2012 Re: Support Proposed Amendments to the Cruise Ship MOU Dear Ms. Jankowiak, Thank you for proposing two of the three amendments put forward by Friends of the Earth, People for Puget Sound and Puget Soundkeeper Alliance for the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) governing cruise ship discharges in Washington State waters and the Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary.1 We strongly support both proposed amendments and we urge the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology), Port of Seattle (Port) and North West & Canada Cruise Association (NWCCA) to adopt the most protective measures for Puget Sound as a part of the Cruise MOUa full wastewater discharge ban for cruise ships in all MOU waters. Furthermore, more than 1,300 Friends of the Earth members and activists in Washington State submitted comments in support of a cruise ship wastewater no-discharge zone.2 I. Introduction Last year Ecology, the Port and NWCCA agreed to establish a process to solicit public suggestions for possible additions or changes to the 2004 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) every three years. Therefore, this comment period is particularly important in that it will be the last time in three years the public will have any say in the growing introduction of nutrients, toxics, pharmaceuticals, bacteria and disease into the Sound. We support the governor's initiative to restore the health of the Puget Sound ecosystem an initiative which 1 http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/wastewater/cruise_mou/index.html. 2 Letters from Friends of the Earth activists have been submitted electronically to the MOU parties under separate cover. will cost millions of dollars. We need all partners, including the Department of Ecology and the Port of Seattle to help protect this investment. The Port of Seattle reported that the 2011 cruise season was more robust than expected. The port counted 885,949 cruise passengers among 196 ship calls in the late-Aprilthrough-early-October cruise season. It is the express goal of the Port's Century Agenda to double the number of cruise ship calls within 20 years. According to Ecology, four of the vessels calling in 2011 had traditional Marine Sanitation Devices, eight had Advanced Wastewater Treatment Systems (AWTS), and two were of unknown capability. It is troubling that despite Ecology's ability to board these vessels, they were unable to even ascertain the type of treatment system on two of the 12 vessels home-ported in Seattle. We are concerned that at the end of the eight cruise seasons (since the inception of the MOU) that complete data including this basic information has not yet been provided by the cruise ship industry. The amendments proposed by Friends of the Earth, People for Puget Sound and Puget Soundkeeper Alliance and those that were accepted by the MOU parties are not intended to be punitive. Rather, they afford the MOU parties the opportunity to demonstrate their collective leadership in contributing to the region's economy while minimizing environmental impacts. The fact that none of the homeported vessels, capable of carrying more 5,000 passengers and crew typically producing over 200,000 gallons of sewage (black water) and up to 1 million gallons of gray water per week,3 sought permission to discharge in State waters this past season, demonstrates their ability to comply with a discharge ban. However, that could change annually they can simply seek permission from Ecology at the beginning of each new cruise season. For example, it is not clear what Disney will do next season when they will begin homeporting ships in Seattle. We believe that it is imperative that our public agencies and responsible industry leaders do their part to assure that as this industry continues to enjoy rapid expansion, it takes all reasonable efforts to minimize their impacts. II. Cruise Ship Pollution Harms the Environment & Public Health Information from a 2008 U.S. EPA report4 indicates that regulated and unregulated discharges from cruise ships have the potential to harm the marine environment. For example, as demonstrated in greater detail below, the various pathogens and pollutants found in wastewater released into marine waters by cruise ships, even when treated by varying treatment systems, exceed state and federal standards, harm marine resources, and impair recreational opportunities. The introduction of significant volumes of fecal 3 Cruise Ship Pollution: Background, Laws and Regulations, and Key Issues RL32450, Congressional Research Service, Claudia Copeland, updated Nov. 17, 2008, at CRS-2. 4 Cruise Ship Discharge Assessment Report, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Dec. 29, 2008, at 3-5 3-28, http://www.epa.gov/owow/oceans/cruise_ships/pdf/0812cruiseshipdischarge assess.pdf. (hereinafter Cruise Ship Report). 2 coliform,5 6 nutrients,7 chlorine,8 and metals9 through ship discharge is incompatible with the core elements of the of the Puget Sound Partnership's Action Agenda. The Puget Sound Partnership's Action Agenda and ecosystem targets, first developed in 2008, defines what a healthy Puget Sound is, describes the current state of Puget Sound, prioritizes cleanup and improvement efforts, and highlights opportunities for federal, state, local, tribal and private resources to invest and coordinate. By statute, the near-term strategies and actions described in the Action Agenda must be updated every two years. This proposed amendment specifically supports the Action Agenda's item C8.1 "Establish no discharge zones for commercial and recreational vessels in all or parts of Puget Sound that have nutrient and/or pathogen problems." Addressing cruise ship discharges, as described in this proposal, is also supported by the comments of the Environmental Caucus to the Action Agenda. III. Banning Cruise Ship Discharges is Consistent with Recent Regulatory Actions by NOAA in the Olympic Coast Sanctuary and U.S. EPA in California Due to the above-mentioned concerns on November 1st the Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary published a Final Rule updating its Management Plan and regulations for the first time since its creation over 17 years ago. The only revision to the regulations "is a ban on cruise ship discharges within the sanctuary, a preventative measure to protect water quality off the Washington coast with negligible economic impact to the industry."10 The Olympic Coast Sanctuary joins the four National Marine Sanctuaries in California in adopting a vessel wastewater discharge ban. In addition, just last week the state of California's application for a statewide No-Discharge Zone for large passenger ships and other ocean-going vessels 300 gross tons or larger was finally approved by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.11 EPA's action will ban all sewage discharges from large cruise ships and most other large ocean-going ships to state marine waters along California's 1,624 mile coast from Mexico to Oregon and surrounding major islands. The action strengthens protection of California's coastal waters from the adverse effects of sewage discharges from a growing number of large vessels. EPA estimates that the rule will prohibit the discharge of over 22 million of the 25 million 5 Cruise Ship Report, at 2-9. Of the 92 samples taken from 21 cruise ships in Alaska during voluntary sampling in 2000 and 2001, only 43 percent met fecal coliform standards and only 32 percent met total suspended solids standards for ship effluent. Only one sample of 70 met both. 6 Id. at 2-35. For three pollutants fecal coliform, total residual chlorine and ammonia end-of- pipe discharge levels are high enough that they may not meet NRWQC after mixing when the vessel is at rest. 7 Id. at 2-34. Average effluent concentrations of ammonia from traditional Type II MSDs and AWTS exceed all of the water body ammonia standards. 8 Id. at 2-30. Both traditional Type II MSD and AWTS effluent concentrations exceed NRWQC for total residual chlorine at the end of the pipe. 9 Id. at 2-31. Several dissolved metals that are common components of ship piping copper, nickel, and zinc were found at levels approximately one to four times above NRWQC for aquatic life. 10 http://olympiccoast.noaa.gov. 11 http://www.epa.gov/region9/mediacenter/nodischarge/index.html. 3 gallons of treated vessel sewage generated by large vessels in California marine waters each year, which could greatly reduce the contribution of pollutants still found in treated vessel sewage. IV. Conclusion While it was disappointing not to see mention of support for the Puget Sound Partnership in the Port's own Century Agenda, the success of the Partnership to recover the Sound by 2020 in light of increasing population pressures, requires that everyone does their part to be part of the solution. The proposed MOU amendments provide Ecology, the Port and the NWCCA the opportunity to halt a significant and growing source of Sound pollution immediately. Growing concern about the impacts of ocean acidification on Pacific Northwest waters is further exacerbated by the addition of nutrient loading. The flexibility of mobile dischargers to hold their wastes until they are in less impaired waters makes for a win-win situation. Thank you for your consideration of the proposed amendments. If you have any questions, please contact Fred Felleman at (206) 595-3825 and felleman@comcast.net or Marcie Keever at (415) 544-0790 x 223 and mkeever@foe.org and Katelyn Kinn at (206) 297-7002 and katelyn@pugetsoundkeeper.org. Sincerely, Fred Felleman, Northwest Consultant Marcie Keever, Oceans & Vessels Project Director Friends of the Earth Katelyn Kinn Legal Affairs Coordinator Puget Soundkeeper Alliance Cc: Port of Seattle Commission Northwest & Canada Cruise Association 4 Item No. _6d_Attach 5 Date of Meeting: _March 6, 2012_ February 13, 2012 Amy Jankowiak Department of Ecology Northwest Regional Ofce Water Quality Program 3190 160th Avenue SE Bellevue, WA 98008 Via email: pugetsoundmg amy.Jankow1ak@ecy.wa.gov Re: Proposed Amendment to the Cruise Ship MOU Dear Ms. Jankowiak, We are writing to support the amendment - Ban the discharge of[treated or untreated] gray water and black water in MOU waters - proposed by Friends of the Earth, People for Puget Sound and Puget Soundkeeper Alliance for the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) governing cruise ship discharges in Washington State waters and the Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary. Many of the cruise lines operating in Puget Sound already have strong environmental practices in place. The Port expects that the cruise ship industry in Puget Sound will increase over the next 20 year, possibly doubling, which adds more reason for taking action now. While in Puget Sound and the MOU waters, we believe that the cruise ships already have the ability to hold their wastewater and that many of the companies already adopt this practice. Last week, the US. Environmental Protection Agency adopted a federal rule that will ban all ships (cruise, container, and other ships) from discharging their treated or untreated waste or gray water into the ocean within 3 miles of Califomia's coast. We would like to see Puget Sound have a similar level of protection. Agreeing to a ban on discharge of sewage or grey water in Puget Sound will be a terric way for Ecology, the Port of Seattle and the Cruise Industry to show environmental leadership and to help fulll one of the strategies in the Puget Sound Partnership's Action Agenda. Thank you for your consideration. You can reach me at (206) 382-7007 (X172) or htrim@pugetsound.org. Sincerely, W\\\. \ Heather Trim Director of Policy PUGETSOUNDDRG MAIN OFFICE SOUTH SOUND 9" Western Avenue, Suite 580 - Seattle, WA 98104 120 East Union Avenue, Suite 204 - Olympia, WA 98501 tel ' 206.382.7007 In - 206.382.7006 lel360.754.9177 mail . peoplegpugetsoundmg lax-360.534.9371 email - southsoundepugetsoundmg STATE OF WAHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY PO BOX 47600 0 Olympia, WA 98504-7600 360-407-6000 711 for l/Vashinglon Relay Service 9 Persons with a speech disability can call 877-833-6341 March 2, 2012 Ms. Stephanie Jones Stebbins Director, Seaport Environmental & Planning Programs Port of Seattle PO Box 1209 Seattle, WA 98111 Mr. Greg Wirtz, President North West & Canada Cruise Association 100-1111 W. Hastings St Vancouver, BC V6E 2J3 RE: Department of Ecology's position on the proposed amendments to the MOU for 2012. Dear Ms. Stebbins and Mr. Wirtz: Before the start of the 2011 Cruise Ship Season in Seattle, the Memorandum of Understanding for Cruise Operations in Washington State (MOU) signatories, the Port of Seattle (POS), the North West & Canada Cruise Association (NWCCA), and the Department of Ecology (Ecology) adopted a process by which we would consider amendments to the MOU from non-signatory stakeholders. The parties of the MOU developed criteria in the MOU to consider non-signatory amendments and determine if such should be issued for public comment. At least one party must support the proposed amendment for public review. The process also stipulates that amendments put forward by non-signatory stakeholders require the unanimous endorsement of all the signatories to the MOU if the amendments are to be adopted into the MOU. In November of 201 1, Ecology posted a call for proposed amendments to the MOU. One letter with three proposed amendments was received from People for Puget Sound, Friends of the Earth and Puget Soundkeeper Alliance. The parties ofthe MOU reviewed the amendments with the criteria laid out in the MOU and moved two of the amendments on for public comment. At least one party must support the proposed amendment for public review and Ecology supported MOU for Cruise Operations in Washington State March 1, 2012 Page 2 of 4 the amendments for public review. The proposed amendments for public comment as written are: 1. "Ban the discharge of gray water and black water in MOU waters." ' 2. "Ban the continuous discharge of gray water and sewage (black water), limiting to only discharge while the ship is greater than 1 mile offshore and traveling at least 6 knots or- more." The public comment period for this review ended on February 13, 2012. More than 1800 comments were received. Almost all of the comments were from two different form letters, although some were modied. All of the comments supported either the ban on all discharges of black water or gray water in MOU waters or supported both amendments. The wording for the second proposed amendment (proposed amendment No. 2) is slightly different than the wording that is used in the MOU. The MOU currently allows for two different ways to discharge, continuously (including while sitting at port) or at least one nautical mile away from berth at a port in Washington and traveling at a speed of at least 6 knots (underWay). There are additional requirements to discharge continuously. Ecology interprets the intent of the second proposed amendment is to ban the continuous discharge or discharge while at berth, and only allow for discharges while underway. Therefore, if this particular proposed amendment . was adopted into the MOU, the MOU would be modied to only allow treated discharges from cruise ships that are at least one nautical mile away from their berths at a port in Washington State while traveling at a speed of 6 knots or more. While some of the facts included with the proposed amendments are not correct, they do point to the need for consistency with Ecology's mission and the Puget Sound Partnership's action agenda as well as pointing to scientic data that has shown concerns for pollutants discharged from even the most advanced vessel wastewater technology. Ecology, therefore, is supporting the proposed amendment to ban the discharge of gray water and black water in MOU waters (proposed amendment no. 1). The ban would coincide with the Puget Sound Partnership's Action Agenda to create a no~discharge zone for vessel sewage in all or parts of Puget Sound. Ecology, in conjunction with the National Estuary Program (NEP) funding and Washington State Department of Health (WDOH), as well as other partners, is leading a project that is evaluating a no-discharge zone and preparing a draft petition to EPA. The ban would also eliminate treated graywater (untreated is currently banned by the MOU) discharges which can also contain pollutants of concern to water quality. Vessels that average MOU for Cruise Operations in Washington State March 1, 2012 Page 3 of 4 more than 3,000 passengers typically have large volumes of graywater as a percentage of ' wastewater volume. Since the MOU was rst put into place in 2004, Ecology has obtained sampling results of treated black water and treated gray water from the cruise vessels while in Alaskan waters under their program and while in Seattle. The treatment systems on board the vessels vary. Some vessels have the advanced wastewater treatment systems (AWTS) that are functioning while others , have either traditional marine sanitation devices (Type II MSD) for blackwater, no treatment for graywater (hold only) or AWTS's that are not operating properly and are not used. The sampling results vary by treatment type, but for the AWTS there have been results for fecal coliform, pH, ammonia, and metals that do not meet our water quality standards. Whole efuent toxicity testing (WET) has also been conducted in Seattle with a number of vessels and the results showed toxicity from ammonia and possibly other toxicants or by synergistic toxicity with surfactants, detergents or metals that are present in the treated wastewater. AWTS on cruise vessels simply do not have the ability to remove ammonia to the quality needed. The other concern is that the vessels are a mobile discharge, so unlike onshore wastewater treatment plants where a discharge outfall is xed and shellsh harvesting is banned . around it, the cruise ships move about the water and can potentially discharge near shellsh beds and sensitive waters. Fecal coliform is used as an indicator for bacteria and pathogens such as viruses that are a risk to public health. The MOU currently has a ban on any discharges within a half a mile from commercial shellsh beds; however, there are certain species that move throughout the water body. Discharges of ammonia can be toxic to sh and nutrients can cause _ low dissolved oxygen levels potentially harming aquatic life. When Ecology rst worked withNWCCA and the Port of Seattle on the MOU, it was our understanding that the vessels were investing in AWTS technology and that in order for the technology to work, the systems would need to be able to discharge continuously or at least more frequently. However, upon learning more about the systems and their capabilities over the years, the vessels can continue to use the treatment systems continuously and then hold the treated efuent. We also learned that all of the cruise ships under the MOU have the capability to hold their efuent for at least two full days, often more. The vessels are only in MOU waters for less than 24 hours. For the past three seasons, only two different vessels per year have requested discharge approval, and those have the capability to hold their discharges. The ban on discharges is feasible for all of the vessels under the MOU. Ecology is also supporting the proposed amendment to ban discharges while at port (proposed amendment no. 2) for the same reasons as above and that it would specically minimize the MOU for Cruise Operations in Washington State March I, 2012 Page 4 of 4 impact of discharges whiie vessels are not moving (little diffusion) and the cumulative impacts of repeated discharges from multiple cruise ships at port. The MOU has been and continues to be a great tool to protect water quality and human health. In the MOU,=it is stated that we "recognize that waste management practices are undergoing constant assessment and evaluation by cruise industry members" and that "the management of waste streams will be an on-going process, which has as its stated objectives both waste minimization and pollution prevention." The MOU has been amended ve times thus far in an effort to clarify and strengthen its requirements. The knowledge gained over the years about the vessels' capabilities, the feasibility to prevent the discharges, and the need to better protect public health and water quality all lead to Ecology's support of the two proposed amendments. If you have any questions, please contact Ms. Amy Jankowiak, compliance specialist and Ecology technical lead for cruise ships, at aian461@ecy.wa.gov or by phone at 425-649-7195. Sincerely, Kelly Susewind, P.E., P.G. Water Quality Program Manager Enclosure: (1) Proposed Amendment Letter from People for Puget Sound, Friends of the Earth and Puget Soundkeeper Alliance. cc: Kevin C. Fitzpatrick, Water Quality Section Manager, Ecology Mark Henley, Interim Municipal Unit Supervisor, Ecology Amy Jankowiak, Compliance Specialist, Cruise Lead, Ecology Larry Altose, PIO, Ecology STATE OF WASHINGTON March 13, 2012 Ms. Stephanie Jones Stebbins Director, Seaport Environmental and Planning Programs Port of Seattle P.O. Box 1209 Seattle, WA 98111 Puget Sound Partnership Letter re: 2012 Cruise MOU Amendment Dear Ms. Jones Stebbins: The Puget Sound Partnership was created by the Governor and Legislature of Washington State to restore the health of Puget Sound by 2020. On behalf of this important regional effort, we offer the following: Marine water quality is one of the key indicators of Puget Sound health. The Partnership recognizes and commends the voluntary no discharge practices many of the cruise ship companies have been following in Puget Sound. We ask that you use the opportunity of the current Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to further advance these practices. The Partnership supports proposed amendments to the MOU governing cruise ship discharges in Washington State waters and the Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary to improve marine water quality. We urge the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology), Port of Seattle (Port) and North West & Canada Cruise Association (NWCCA) to adopt a wastewater discharge ban for cruise ships in all MOU waters. The Puget Sound Partnership's Action Agenda (section C.8) calls for establishing sewage No Discharge Zones for vessels in nutrient/pathogen sensitive areas of Puget Sound. If we are going to achieve Puget Sound recovery by 2020, we should act now to eliminate cruise ship wastewater discharges in Washington waters. The MOU amendment proposed by Friends of the Earth, People for Puget Sound and the Puget Soundkeeper Alliance provides Ecology, the Port and the NWCCA the opportunity to eliminate a significant and growing source of pollution. This is especially important as we learn that impacts of ocean acidification on Pacific Northwest waters are exacerbated by nutrient loading. The requirement for mobile dischargers to hold their wastes until they are in less impaired waters seems to be a logical and positive step to take. We appreciate your efforts on behalf of Puget Sound health, and look forward to future partnership opportunities. Sincerely, Gerry O'Keefe Executive Director cc: Ted Sturdevant, Director, Department of Ecology 326 East D Street | Tacoma, WA 98421-1801 www.pugetsoundpartnership.org www.psp.wa.gov office: 360.464.1231 STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH OFFICE of SHELLFISH and WATER PROTECTION 243 Israel Road SE PO Box 47824 Olympia, Washington 98504-7824 (360) 236-3330 TDD Relay Services 1-800-833-6388 March 26, 2012 Ms. Stephanie Jones Stebbins Director, Seaport Environmental and Planning Programs Port of Seattle Post Office Box 1209 Seattle, Washington 98111 Subject: 2012 Cruise Ship Memorandum of Understanding Amendment Dear Ms. Jones Stebbins: The Washington State Department of Health, Office of Shellfish and Water Protection works to improve the health of people in Washington State by ensuring shellfish are safe to eat, beaches are safe for swimming, and on-site sewage and reclaimed water systems are properly managed. We support the proposed amendments to the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) governing cruise ship discharges in Washington State waters and the Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary to improve marine water quality. We have had a long association with the MOU parties. We evaluated potential human health impacts from virus discharges from large passenger vessels and provided language that went into the MOU between the Department of Ecology (Ecology) and the North West and Canada Cruise Association (NWCCA) allowing discharge of wastewater discharges into Puget Sound from member ships with advanced wastewater treatment systems. Even with advanced wastewater treatment systems, large passenger vessels have the potential of contaminating critical shellfish beds in Puget Sound. Shellfish are critical to the health of Washington's marine waters and the state's economy. We were also granted funding from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) starting in 2011 to reduce, prevent, and control pathogens entering Puget Sound. We awarded a grant to Ecology to develop a No Discharge Zone petition to the EPA for all or parts of Puget Sound to minimize vessel discharges into Puget Sound. The proposed amendments to the MOU are consistent with this effort. We urge the Port of Seattle, Ecology, and NWCCA to adopt a wastewater discharge ban for cruise ships in all MOU waters. We appreciate your efforts on behalf of Puget Sound health and look forward to future partnership opportunities. Sincerely, Jerrod Davis Director cc: Mary Toy, Department of Health Amy Jankowiak, Department of Ecology Item No._____6b_Attach 9_____________ Date of Meeting:__April 24, 2012________ Seattle Port Commission 2711 Alaskan Way Seattle, WA 98121 Dear Department of Ecology, Port of Seattle and Northwest & Canada Cruise Ship Association: I am writing today to urge you to support the amendment to the Cruise Memorandum of Understanding proposed by Friends of the Earth, Puget Soundkeeper Alliance and People for Puget Sound. Cruise ship wastewater dumping should be banned in all of Puget Sound and waters covered by the MOU. The U.S. EPA has found that even with treatment systems, cruise ships can discharge wastewater in excess of federal water quality standards. Harmful pollutants, including fecal matter, bacteria and other hazardous wastes, are contained in sewage and gray water dumped from the increasing numbers of cruise ships. This pollution damages the aquatic life of Puget Sound and can also contaminate the shellfish and other seafood I consume. The Puget Sound Partnership's Action Agenda calls for establishing a No Discharge Zone for all vessels in Puget Sound. If we are going to achieve Puget Sound recovery by 2020, you should act now to halt all cruise ship wastewater discharges. Please adopt the proposed amendment to provide the strongest protection possible for the waters of Puget Sound and for the health of residents and visitors. Sincerely, Item No.____6b___ Attach 10_________ Date of Meeting:___April 24, 2012____ -----Original Message----- From: Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2012 5:59 AM To: Jones Stebbins, Stephanie Subject: I support the Cruise Ship MOU amendment Dear Port of Seattle, I am writing today to urge you to support an amendment to the Cruise Ship Memorandum of Understanding (MOU): ban the discharge of black or grey water in Puget Sound. U.S. EPA has found that even with treatment systems, cruise ships can discharge wastewater in excess of federal water quality standards. This pollution can damage the aquatic life of Puget Sound and can also contaminate the shellfish and other seafood I consume. Sincerely, WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY WATER QUALITY PROGRAM Amy Jankowiak, Compliance Specialist, NWRO (425) 649-7195 ajan461@ecy.wa.gov Ecology Website: http://www.ecy.wa.gov/ecyhome.html Cruise Ship Website: http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/wastewater/cruise_mou/index.h tml COMPLIANCE 2011 Discharge Approvals Inspections Unauthorized Discharges Sampling Data Annual Compliance/Non-compliance notifications 2011 Approvals 99% port calls from large cruise ships under the MOU, 2 vessels approved; 195 port calls >1 nm and > 6 knots NORWEGIAN PEARL (19) NORWEGIAN STAR (18) Continuously NONE No request/approval CARNIVAL SPIRIT (19) CELEBRITY CRUISES CENTURY (1) CELEBRITY CRUISES INFINITY (20) CELEBRITY CRUISES MILLENIUM (2) CRYSTAL CRUISES CRYSTAL SYMPHONY (2) HAL AMSTERDAM (13) HAL OOSTERDAM (21) HAL WESTERDAM (21) HAL ZAANDAM (2) GOLDEN PRINCESS (19) SAPPHIRE PRINCESS (20) ROYAL CARIBBEAN RHAPSODY OF THE SEAS (17) (#) = PORT CALLS COMPLIANCE EVALUATION Monthly Sampling Data Sampling done per MOU, submitted, meets requirements with exception of fecal coliform (NORWEGIAN PEARL) WET Testing None required for 2011 Inspections Allowed for all vessels under MOU at least once/season to verify compliance with MOU Compliance/Non-Compliance Notifications Unauthorized graywater discharges Carnival Spirit Annual Compliance Reports Inspections Typical Inspection includes Introductions/overview of plan for the day (prior notification given) Control room Run-through of how system works Variety of questions on staffing, training, protocols Review of records Tour of treatment system(s) Observations of other waste streams on the ship Sampling Conclude Approximately 2-3 hours in length Similar to inspections for on-land plants UV disinfection Inspections AWTS sampling Waste Discharge Ports Minimization Records Review 2011 Inspections DATE OF VESSEL Inspections Conducted INSPECTION 5 inspections conducted July 30, 2011 GOLDEN PRINCESS Inspection findings August 14, 2011 HAL OOSTERDAM Discharge protocols thorough with September 3, 2011 NORWEGIAN STAR verification Practice of sending expired and unused September 13, 2011 CARNIVAL SPIRIT medications to the blackwater system is not per CLIA or MOU (one vessel). September 26, 2011 CELEBRITY INFINITY Discharge of untreated graywater violation of RCW/WAC and MOU (one vessel, one incident). Recommendations made Continue to work towards high functioning wastewater treatment systems Cruise line review its policies on the handling of expired and unused medications and comply with all regs and guidelines. Policies and procedures for opening and closing discharge valves be reviewed and steps taken to ensure no unauthorized discharges occur. Copies of discharge documents requested/reviewed Requested, Submitted, Reviewed, no issues found. 2011 Sampling Sampling data received and evaluated. Summary of data and data will be included in the 2011 annual report (and the draft data is on our website now). pH all within 6.0-9.0 BOD max of 26 mg/l, TSS max of 12 mg/l Chlorine all ND Most 5 or less, although some higher fecals: 48, 174, 30, 32 #/100 ml Ammonia ranged from 9.1 mg/l to 31 mg/l (avg = 20) max lower than previous seasons Dissolved Copper range = 2.7 ug/l to 18 ug/l (max lower than previous) Dissolved Nickel range = 3.6 ug/l to 16 ug/l (~ the same as previous) Dissolved Zinc range = 27 ug/l to 220 ug/l (~ the same as previous) Results above are for vessels approved to discharge and results are from Alaska and Seattle testing. Ammonia, Copper, Nickel, and Zinc required for Alaska only 2011 Sampling cont. Whole Effluent Toxicity Testing Purpose to evaluate whether there are potential toxicity issues from vessel discharges Required for vessels approved for discharge continuously -once every 2 years for homeported vessels (20 calls) or 1/40 port calls or turnarounds. No vessels required to conduct WET testing in 2011 2011 Compliance Notifications Compliance notifications One reported incident for 2011 season to date Report Received on 9/6/11 for 9/5/11 incident with CARNIVAL SPIRIT. Discharge of untreated graywater into MOU/State waters. Lasted 12 minutes while coming into Strait. 5.7 metric tons conservative worst case scenario. Vessel Took all measures to stop discharges immediately, immediate review of procedures, investigation. Ecology inspection and follow-up. Violation of state laws and rules and MOU. Root cause inadequate follow-up procedures by Deck and Engine Departments. Procedural changes. Compliance letters Received 2010 Assessment of Cruise Ship Environmental Effects in Washington Recommendations Ecology recommends MOU continue to be used as a complement to environmental regulations until regulations specific to cruise ship waste management in Washington are put in place Ecology continue to inspect ships that discharge, including closely looking at wastewater management and other waste streams Parties of the MOU continue to work together on evaluating discharges from cruise ships into MOU waters. The parties to the MOU will work together this year to re-evaluate the funding mechanism to provide funding beyond 2011. Cruise lines review their policies and procedures related to outside vessel maintenance activities while in port and to ensure the BMPs are being followed. Cruise lines continue to conduct a thorough review of records on an ongoing basis and at end of season to evaluate compliance and inspection recommendations to be implemented THE END 5" THE END ' 'u . >- , _' V iv...c-'-c'-"'-- " "t.", ..\ . C " Item No. 6b_attach_12 1oo - 1111 W. Hastings Street . . Meeting Date._ April 24, 2012 Vancouver! BC WE 213 Main: 604-681-9515 Fax: 6046814364 Website: www.nwcruiseship.org NORTH WEST & April 20'", 2012 CANADA CRUISE ASSOCIATION Kelly Susewind, P.E., P.G. Stephanie Jones-Stebbins Water Quality Program Manager Director, Seaport Environmental State of Washington & Planning Program Department of Ecology Port of Seattle P.O. Box 47600 P.O. Box 1209 Olympia, WA 98504-7600 Seattle, WA 98111 RE: Proposed Amendments to the WA MOU for 2012 Dear Ms. Susewind and Ms. Jones-Stebbins: I would like to thank the WA DOE for the letter dated March 2, 2012 advising of its support for amendments the MOU proposed by non-signatory third parties. The NWCCA Board met earlier this week and concluded its review of the proposed amendments. My purpose in writing to you at this time is to advise your organizations, as signatories to this MOU, of the NWCCA member line position respecting these proposed amendments. I would also like to offer some context to our response, recognizing that first and foremost this MOU is a voluntary agreement intended to support the best discharge practices of our member cruise lines that have many millions of dollars invested in Advanced Wastewater Treatment Systems (AWTS). The cruise industry's treated wastewater discharge footprint is exceptionally small in Washington State waters and our vessels are recognized as being among the best performers and cleanest of any of the myriad of discharge sources in WA waters, in large part as a result of the cruise industry's early adoption of AWTS technology. Our industry is encouraged to see that new land-based facilities such as Brightwater and Westport are now introducing the same AWTS technologies that our industry pioneered years ago; benefitting from the lessons learned from the cruise industry's investments in AWTS. By continuing to work positively with the cruise industry in support of best discharge practices, the Department of Ecology has the opportunity to more effectively manage AWTS discharges in WA waters and help to support the larger Pacific North West ecosystem. The proposed alternative, a complete ban on cruise ship discharge within the WA waters, threatens the very existence of the MOU. Under this proposed amendment, the MOU and its provisions for managing the best discharge practices would be rendered irrelevant. This would also send a strong negative message to other industries that may be considering investing in AWTS technology in Washington State. WA MOU Proposed Amendments 2012 Page 2 Dept. Of Ecology & Port of Seattle April 20, 2012 So, while the NWCCA and its member cruise lines cannot support the proposed amendments, we would encourage the Department of Ecology's holistic approach to discharge management in Puget Sound, starting with an inventory of all discharge sources, their relative discharge volumes and the impact on the areas identified by DOE as being most at risk. This inventory may provide the necessary context in which to better prioritize the discharge sources that need to be addressed. As for the proposed amendment to ban continuous discharge at berth, we have been in consultation with the Port of Seattle, and understand that it is the Port's intention to include such language in their tariff. We respect that this is a commercial decision of the Port. The cruise industry will be required to abide by the Port's tariff stipulation regardless of whether we agree with it as representing a best practice universally with respect to the operations of AWTS. As such, the MOU amendment proposal is unnecessary and the industry need not agree to it within the context of a voluntary MOU. Again I would like to thank the Department of Ecology and the Port of Seattle for continuing to work with our industry in support of best discharge practices in Washington State. We look forward to the 2012 cruise season. Sincerely, Greg Wirtz President
Limitations of Translatable Documents
PDF files are created with text and images are placed at an exact position on a page of a fixed size.
Web pages are fluid in nature, and the exact positioning of PDF text creates presentation problems.
PDFs that are full page graphics, or scanned pages are generally unable to be made accessible, In these cases, viewing whatever plain text could be extracted is the only alternative.