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