Item 6c DraftReport
CRUISE VESSEL BIOMASS MANAGEMENT STUDY
DRAFT PHASE 1A
Data Compilation and Initial Assessment
DRAFT
JANUARY 2, 2009
CRUISE VESSEL BIOMASS MANAGEMENT STUDY
DRAFT PHASE 1A STUDY
Data Compilation and Initial Assessment
Table of Contents
Executive Summary........................................................................................................................ 2
Conclusions..................................................................................................................................... 5
Methodology................................................................................................................................... 6
Description of Seattle-Alaska Cruise Industry ............................................................................... 9
Northwest Cruise Ship Association........................................................................................... 10
Memorandum of Understanding between NWCA and State of Washington ........................... 10
Alaska Discharge Standards ......................................................................................................... 14
Description of Current Cruise Vessel Wastewater and Biomass Operations ............................... 15
Advanced Wastewater Treatment Systems............................................................................... 15
Type II MSDs............................................................................................................................ 18
Characterization of Cruise Ship Biomass ..................................................................................... 18
Disposal of Cruise Ship Biomass.............................................................................................. 18
Chemical Properties of Biomass Generated.............................................................................. 19
Wastewater Management in Scandinavia..................................................................................... 26
Copenhagen Malm Ports, Denmark ........................................................................................ 27
Port of Oslo, Norway ................................................................................................................ 27
Port of Helsinki, Finland........................................................................................................... 28
Port of Stockholm, Sweden.......................................................................................................29
Cruise Vessel Wastewater and Biomass Operations .................................................................... 33
Onboard Wastewater Treatment................................................................................................ 33
Alternatives to Open-Ocean Discharge of Cruise Ship Biomass.................................................. 33
Incineration................................................................................................................................ 33
Shore Transfer........................................................................................................................... 33
Existing Shoreside Operations...................................................................................................... 34
Shore Transfer of Biomass............................................................................................................ 44
Direct Discharge to Tanker Truck............................................................................................. 49
Direct Discharge to Barge......................................................................................................... 50
Direct Discharge to Piping on Pier............................................................................................ 50
Cruise Vessel Biomass Management Study
Draft Phase 1A Study, December 30, 2008
CRUISE VESSEL BIOMASS MANAGEMENT STUDY
DRAFT PHASE 1A STUDY
Data Compilation and Initial Assessment
Future Methods for Biomass Disposal.......................................................................................... 49
Conclusion .................................................................................................................................... 54
References..................................................................................................................................... 56
Figures
Figure 1. Growth in Port of Seattle Cruise Ship Usage from 1999 to 2009 (est.).......................... 9
Figure 2. MOU Boundaries........................................................................................................... 13
Figure 3. Schematic of biological-chlorination Type II MSD (Source: EPA 2007) ............. Error!
Bookmark not defined.18
Figure 4. Chemical Comparison of Cruise Ship Biosludge and Treatment Plant Solid Waste: All
Selected Metals............................................................................................................................. 23
Figure 5. Chemical Comparison of Cruise Ship Biosludge and Treatment Plant Solid Waste:
Lowest Concentration Metals ....................................................................................................... 24
Figure 6. Chemical Comparison of Cruise Ship Biosludge and Treatment Plant Solid Waste:
Lowest Concentration Metals ....................................................................................................... 24
Figure 7. Chemical Comparison of Cruise Ship Biosludge and Treatment Plant Solid Waste:
Mid-High Concentration Metals...................................................................................................25
Figure 8. Chemical Comparison of Cruise Ship Biosludge and Treatment Plant Solid Waste:
Highest Concentration Metals....................................................................................................... 25
Figure 9. Baltic Sea Wastewater Reception Facility Locations.................................................... 27
Figure 10. Vessel Mooring Lines (Terminal 30) .......................................................................... 35
Figure 11. Rendering of T-91 Gangways ..................................................................................... 36
Figure 12. Crew Gangway (Pier 66)............................................................................................. 37
Figure 13. Baggage Loading (Pier 66).......................................................................................... 38
Figure 14. Baggage Loading and Crew Gangway........................................................................ 38
Figure 15. Vessel Provisioning (Terminal 30).............................................................................. 39
Figure 16. Utility Connection (Terminal 30)................................................................................ 40
Figure 17. Vessel Shore Power Connection (Terminal 30).......................................................... 41
Figure 18. Typical Bunker Oil Truck ........................................................................................... 42
Figure 19. Pier Access (Pier 66) ................................................................................................... 43
Cruise Vessel Biomass Management Study
Draft Phase 1A Study, December 30, 2008
CRUISE VESSEL BIOMASS MANAGEMENT STUDY
DRAFT PHASE 1A STUDY
Data Compilation and Initial Assessment
Tables
Table 1. Seattle/Alaska Homeport Industry.................................................................................. 12
Table 2. Summary of Washington State Department of Ecology Information Regarding NWCA
Cruise Ships, Wastewater Treatment and Biomass Management ................................................ 17
Table 3. Cruise Ship Chemical Data Summary ............................................................................ 20
Table 4. Summary of Cruise Ship and King County Biomass Concentrations ............................ 22
Table 5. Wastewater Reception Facilities at Ports in the Baltic Sea ............................................ 30
Cruise Vessel Biomass Management Study
Draft Phase 1A Study, December 30, 2008
CRUISE VESSEL BIOMASS MANAGEMENT STUDY
DRAFT PHASE 1A STUDY
Data Compilation and Initial Assessment
Section 1
Executive Summary
CRUISE VESSEL BIOMASS MANAGEMENT STUDY
DRAFT PHASE 1A STUDY
Data Compilation and Initial Assessment
Executive Summary
On February 16, 2007, the Port of Seattle Commission passed a motion containing
numerous environmental initiatives. The fourth item in this motion states:
In April 2007, the King County Council passed a complimentary motion (No. 12498),
which directed the King County Wastewater Treatment Division to work cooperatively
with the Port of Seattle and other affected agencies to undertake a study of the potential
for processing marine cruise industry-generated wastewater through the county's
wastewater treatment system. This work culminated in the August 2007 report titled
"Cruise Ship Wastewater Management Report" prepared by the King County
Wastewater Treatment Division.
That study provided several recommendations including identification of the following:
1. There is no identified benefit of channeling wastewater from cruise ships to the
regional conveyance and treatment system.
2. The South Treatment Plant could receive and incorporate biomass into the
existing treatment process without any expansion or modification of the South
Treatment Plant. King County recycles all of its biosolids.
The focus of this King County study was on cruise vessel wastewater, not on biomass.
For the purpose of this study "biomass" refers to the partially treated solids residuals
from the on-board wastewater treatment process.
As follow-on to the King County study, and with the knowledge that the King County
system can receive cruise vessel biomass, Port staff has initiated this Phase 1A Study, to
compile data and provide an initial assessment of the physical ability to store on-board,
manage, and transfer to on-shore infrastructure the biomass generated by cruise vessels
calling at Port of Seattle facilities. The intent of this work is to gain an understanding of
2 Cruise Vessel Biomass Management Study
Draft Phase 1A Study, December 30, 2008
CRUISE VESSEL BIOMASS MANAGEMENT STUDY
DRAFT PHASE 1A STUDY
Data Compilation and Initial Assessment
the impacts to the vessels on-board infrastructure, pier side operations and facility onshore
infrastructure in order to determine if it is physically possible to store biomass and
off-load it at the pier.
Existing Operational Procedures
In April 2004, the Northwest Cruise Association (NWCA), the Port of Seattle and the
Washington State Department of Ecology entered into a Memorandum of Understanding
(MOU) to formally acknowledge and implement common environmental goals, policies
and practices around the management of solid waste, hazardous waste and wastewater
within the boundaries of the MOU. The current boundaries of the MOU include Puget
Sound, the Strait of Juan de Fuca south of the international boundary with Canada, and
three miles from shore on the West side of the State. The MOU does not specifically
define the term "biomass".
The majority of cruise vessels operating from Port of Seattle facilities utilize Advance
Wastewater Treatment Systems (AWTS's). AWTS's are on-board treatment systems that
treat sewage and usually graywater in a combined system. While these systems produce
relatively clean effluent, they also produce large amounts of biomass that must be dealt
with. The 2007 study conducted by King County estimated that cruise ships generate 35
tons (including water content) of biomass each day. This number is consistent with 15 to
40 tons identified in responses received by the Port of Seattle to questionnaires sent to
NWCA member cruise lines.
Sampling accomplished by the EPA and discussed in more detail in Section 2 illustrate
that concentrations of nearly all parameters in the cruise ship biomass are well below
King County biomass concentrations for metals. Only the four organic constituents were
detected in the cruise ship biomass, with phenol slightly exceeding the King County
biomass concentration. While there is no ambient water quality criteria for phenols, in
both cases the concentrations are below water quality criteria for the consumption of
organisms established under EPA's water quality criteria.
Comparison to Scandinavian Operations
A discussion of Cruise Vessels operations in Scandinavia is provided in Section 2.
Scandinavian Cruise Vessel operations occur on the Baltic Sea, which has been
experiencing eutrophication resulting from high nutrient loading, primarily nitrogen and
phosphorus. These conditions differ from North Pacific waters where biomass discharge
occurs from Port of Seattle operating cruise vessels.
As described in Section 2, the Baltic Sea ports have invested in numerous dockside waste
reception facilities. However, only some of the shipping companies utilize these
3 Cruise Vessel Biomass Management Study
Draft Phase 1A Study, December 30, 2008
CRUISE VESSEL BIOMASS MANAGEMENT STUDY
DRAFT PHASE 1A STUDY
Data Compilation and Initial Assessment
facilities. Those ships that utilize shore-side wastewater hook-ups have placed the ships
wastewater treatment systems on "stand-by". Thus, a separate biomass waste stream
would not be generated and all wastewaters would be landed ashore.
As such, when wastewater off-load does occur, it delivers all wastewater into the upland
(municipal) sewage system rather than just delivering the biomass (residual) as proposed
at Port of Seattle facilities. Accordingly, the Baltic Sea operations do not represent a
direct comparison to proposed activities within Puget Sound. Further, and as identified in
the 2007 King County report, there is no identified benefit of channeling wastewater from
cruise ships to the regional conveyance and treatment system.
Existing Shoreside Operations
Pier-side activities are significant at facilities accommodating cruise homeport operations
such as those provided by the Port of Seattle at Pier 66 and Terminal 91. Pier space is
used simultaneously for vessel moorage, cold ironing, utility connection, all necessary
crew and passenger embarkation/debarkation, provisioning, luggage transfer,
fueling/bunkering as well as providing space for vehicular access. These ongoing
activities currently utilize most of the available pier space in order to accomplish all
necessary tasks in the short time vessels are alongside Port facilities. A general
discussion of each of these operations including identification of their pier operational
impact is provided in Section 3. A description of these activities is included because
offloading of biomass would need to happen concurrently with these other activities and
in the same pier side area.
Alternatives to Open-Ocean Discharge of Cruise Ship Biomass
The two alternatives to open ocean discharge of biomass that are practiced within the
cruise industry are incineration and shore transfer. Both operations are discussed in detail
in Section 3. Shore transfer alternatives discussed include direct discharge to tanker truck
(staged on the adjacent pier), direct discharge to barge (staged opposite the pier on the
waterside of the cruise vessel), and direct discharge to piping located on/under the pier.
Shoreside infrastructure improvements necessary to support off-loading biomass at the
pier are discussed in Section 3. For each alternative discussed, it is assumed that biomass
would ultimately be discharged at off-site King County Wastewater facilities in Renton.
This discussion notes that, at a minimum, the following requirements must be met for
shore transfer to be practical:
1. Vessels must have the ability to store biomass on board
2. The Biomass must be pumpable
4 Cruise Vessel Biomass Management Study
Draft Phase 1A Study, December 30, 2008
CRUISE VESSEL BIOMASS MANAGEMENT STUDY
DRAFT PHASE 1A STUDY
Data Compilation and Initial Assessment
3. The vessels must be configured to pump ashore
4. The vessels must have engineering crew available to oversee the transfer
operation
5. The operation must be completed within the time the vessel is in port
The three methods of shore transfer discussed herein would have varying levels of impact
to pier side operations and space. Direct discharge to tanker trucks would have the
greatest impact and direct discharge to barge would have the least impact.
Conclusions
Based on the data provided herein, the following primary conclusions are apparent, each
is described in more detail in Section 4 of this report:
As currently configured, it is not possible for all vessels to store the entire volume
of biomass generated in a week long cruise voyage. Two vessels reported they
could store all biomass generated in a week. For the remaining vessels, the
storage capacity varied from 47% to 94% of weekly generation (3.3 to 6.6 days of
storage capacity). At this time, it is not known on a vessel by vessel basis if
adding storage is possible.
Biomass is pumpable and could potentially be pumped on shore.
On-shore transfer would have significant impacts to pier side operations. The
extent of these impacts would vary by vessel, dock facility, volume of biomass to
discharge, and method chosen for transfer to shore facilities. However, it is clear
that for at least some of the vessels currently calling at the Port, the requisite
disembarkation/embarkation of passengers, bunkering and provisioning, as well
as the scheduling demands of an Alaskan itinerary sailing from Seattle, make it
unlikely that the vessel could unload all of its biomass during the short time they
are alongside Port facilities.
Further study would be needed for evaluation of the potential environmental
impact(s) from off-loading biomass at the pier, including determination of the net
environmental benefit/impact of both the off-load operation as well as
introduction of this biomass into King County systems.
5 Cruise Vessel Biomass Management Study
Draft Phase 1A Study, December 30, 2008
CRUISE VESSEL BIOMASS MANAGEMENT STUDY
DRAFT PHASE 1A STUDY
Data Compilation and Initial Assessment
Methodology
The work provided herein represents on going efforts by the Port of Seattle to address
issues identified in the February 16, 2007 Commission motion. Through discussions with
Port staff and in recognition of the public attention to this issue, a decision was made to
assemble and provide information as it is obtained, rather than wait until all potential
studies are complete. As such, the work included herein is intended as the initial part of a
potentially larger study that could be required to fully assess the impacts and benefits of
alternative means to managing biomass on cruise vessels calling at Port facilities.
This larger study could include the following phases, the scope of each subsequent phase
will be evaluated and authorized individually.
Phase 1A Data Compilation and Initial Assessment (this report)
Phase 1B Engineering Evaluation of On-board Systems and Viable Alternatives
Phase 2 Environmental Impacts/Benefits of Potential Implementation
The general intent of each phase identified above is specific:
Phase 1A and Phase 1B are intended to evaluate the physical impacts to shoreside
facilities and on-board infrastructure.
Phase 2 would be intended to evaluate the environmental benefits and impacts of
potential implementation.
In general, this Phase 1A Report has been assembled through review of existing reports
and compilation of existing data. Specific existing reports reviewed include Department
of Ecology reports documenting prior sampling accomplished on Puget Sound cruise
vessels as well as available US EPA reports on cruise vessel on-board treatment systems.
Treatment vendors and cruise ship operators were engaged to understand how waste was
being treated and handled by the vessels. A questionnaire was sent to the cruise ships to
gather specific information about types of treatment systems employed, disposal
practices, and vessel specifics including storage capacity. The vessel operators were also
asked if their vessel was equipped with a means of transferring biomass ashore, and if
not, whether a retrofit was feasible. A copy of the questionnaire sent to the Cruise Lines
is included in the Appendix.
Initial assessment of the impacts to onboard and dock-side infrastructure of alternative
biomass off-loading methods is generally based on the professional experience of the Port
and Consultant team and their collective knowledge of Pier 91, Pier 66 and vessel
6 Cruise Vessel Biomass Management Study
Draft Phase 1A Study, December 30, 2008
CRUISE VESSEL BIOMASS MANAGEMENT STUDY
DRAFT PHASE 1A STUDY
Data Compilation and Initial Assessment
infrastructure. Further detail engineering analysis could be accomplished as part of Phase
1B for those alternatives considered viable.
This report has been prepared by KPFF Consulting Engineers, ENSR/AECOM, and the
Glosten Associates in cooperation with Port of Seattle staff.
7 Cruise Vessel Biomass Management Study
Draft Phase 1A Study, December 30, 2008
CRUISE VESSEL BIOMASS MANAGEMENT STUDY
DRAFT PHASE 1A STUDY
Data Compilation and Initial Assessment
Section 2
Description of Seattle-Alaska Cruise Industry
Current Cruise Vessel Wastewater and Biomass Operations
Characterization of Cruise Ship Biomass
Wastewater Management in Scandinavia
CRUISE VESSEL BIOMASS MANAGEMENT STUDY
DRAFT PHASE 1A STUDY
Data Compilation and Initial Assessment
Description of Seattle-Alaska Cruise Industry
The Port of Seattle (POS) has experience significant growth both in the number of vessels
calling at the port as well as the number of passengers embarking from the POS.
900,000 250
800,000
200
700,000
600,000
150 Number of
Passengers
500,000
400,000 Passengers Vessels
Vessels
100
300,000
200,000
50
100,000
0 0
1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010
Year
Figure 1. Growth in Port of Seattle Cruise Ship Usage from 1999 to 2009 (est.)
In the 2008 season, the Port of Seattle will welcome an estimated 211 cruise ship port calls and
over 800,000 passengers (Port of Seattle, 2008). This industry has been steadily expanding
since its inception in 1999, when only 6 cruise ships and 6,615 passengers left Seattle bound for
Alaska. Ports of call for cruise ships in Alaska include:
Anchorage Homer Sitka
Campbell River Hubbard Glacier Skagway
College Fjord Juneau Tracy Arm
Dutch Harbor Ketchikan Valdez
Glacier Bay Kodiak Whittier
Haines Seward Wrangell
The POS operates as a "homeport" and more specifically, what is commonly called in the
cruise industry a "turnaround port". This term refers to the fact that the Seattle-Alaska cruises
originate from the POS where they disembark and embark passengers as well as provisioning
(food, fuel, etc.) for their voyages. Table 1 below summarizes the Seattle-Alaska cruise
industry for 2008 as well as what is planned for 2009. In general, ten ships originate their
cruises to Alaska from Seattle, three each on Friday, Saturday and Sunday and one every other
9 Cruise Vessel Biomass Management Study
Draft Phase 1A Study, December 30, 2008
CRUISE VESSEL BIOMASS MANAGEMENT STUDY
DRAFT PHASE 1A STUDY
Data Compilation and Initial Assessment
Thursday from two POS dock locations. In 2008, those dock locations were Terminal 30 and
Pier 66. In 2009, activities at Terminal 30 will move to Terminal 91.
Northwest Cruise Ship Association
The Northwest Cruise Ship Association (NWCA) is a not-for-profit organization founded in
1986 and was originally intended to provide security services to member lines (Northwest
Cruise Ship Association, 2008). Its role has since been expanded to include government
relations on legal and regulatory issues. The Association often works with local organizations
to mitigate concerns regarding the cruise industry. In addition, it funds economic and
environmental studies and works with government agencies on cruise-related issues. Member
lines of the NWCA that embark from Seattle include Celebrity, Holland America, Norwegian,
Princess, and Royal Caribbean cruise lines.
Memorandum of Understanding between NWCA and State of Washington
In April 2004, the NWCA, the Port of Seattle and the Washington State Department of Ecology
entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to formally acknowledge and implement
common environmental goals, policies and practices around management of solid waste,
hazardous waste and wastewater within the boundaries of the MOU. The current boundaries of
the MOU include Puget Sound, the Strait of Juan de Fuca south of the international boundary
with Canada, and three miles from shore on the west side of the state (see Figure 2). The
original MOU has amended each year since 2004. The most recent amendment (No. 4) was
signed May 19, 2008 (http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/wastewater/cruise_mou/FINALamendment4MOU051908.pdf).
The MOU provides the following important definitions for the purposes of this report:
"blackwater" means waste from toilets, urinals, medical sinks and other similar
facilities.
"graywater" includes drainage from dishwasher, shower, laundry, bath, galley drains
and washbasin drains.
"residual solids" include grit or screenings, ash generated during the incineration of
sewage sludge and sewage sludge, which is solid, semi-solid, or liquid residual
generated during the treatment of domestic sewage in the 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.
For "blackwater" and "graywater", all conditions of the MOU apply within "waters subject to
this MOU" which include all Puget Sound water areas up to the Canadian border and coastal
waters up to 3 miles off the shoreline coast of Washington. For "residual solids", the MOU
boundaries are extended to 12 nautical miles from shoreline coast and the entire Olympic Coast
National Marine Sanctuary.
10 Cruise Vessel Biomass Management Study
Draft Phase 1A Study, December 30, 2008
CRUISE VESSEL BIOMASS MANAGEMENT STUDY
DRAFT PHASE 1A STUDY
Data Compilation and Initial Assessment
The MOU does not specifically define the term "biomass" or "biosolids". For the purposes of
this report, "biomass" refers to the partially treated solids residuals from the wastewater
treatment process. Ship biomass will typically contain more liquid that shore side produced
"biosolids". Cruise ship generated biomass would be considered a subset of the "residual
solids" term defined in the MOU.
In the MOU, the cruise industry recognizes Washington's fragile marine environment and
commits to help protect the environment. The MOU has established specific requirements for
wastewater management and hazardous waste management. In addition, the MOU established
an Ecology inspection program allowing inspection of a minimum of one vessel per season to
verify compliance with the MOU.
Specific to wastewater, the MOU prohibits discharge of untreated blackwater, untreated
graywater and solid waste within waters subject to the MOU and prohibits discharge of oily
bilge water if not in compliance with applicable federal and state laws. Discharges of effluent
from the treatment of blackwater and graywater are allowed within the boundaries of the MOU
if certain reporting, recordkeeping and monitoring requirements are met. However, as stated
earlier, the discharge of residual solids 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.
11 Cruise Vessel Biomass Management Study
Draft Phase 1A Study, December 30, 2008
CRUISE VESSEL BIOMASS MANAGEMENT STUDY
DRAFT PHASE 1A STUDY
Data Compilation and Initial Assessment
Table 1. Seattle/Alaska Homeport Industry
12 Cruise Vessel Biomass Management Study
Draft Phase 1A Study, December 30, 2008
CRUISE VESSEL BIOMASS MANAGEMENT STUDY
DRAFT PHASE 1A STUDY
Data Compilation and Initial Assessment
Figure 2. MOU Boundaries
13 Cruise Vessel Biomass Management Study
Draft Phase 1A Study, December 30, 2008
CRUISE VESSEL BIOMASS MANAGEMENT STUDY
DRAFT PHASE 1A STUDY
Data Compilation and Initial Assessment
Alaska Discharge Standards
Cruise ships that travel in Alaska waters are subject to rigorous state and federal regulations
regarding discharge of wastewater. Specific to federal rules, "Title XIVCertain Alaskan
Cruise Ship Operations" applies to large commercial passenger vessels only, which are defined
as those vessels having more than 500 passengers. Effluent standards are set for blackwater
only and allows continuous discharge if secondary treatment standards are met and compliance
is demonstrated through semi-monthly sampling. Federal law closed former "donut holes".
"Donut holes" were areas greater than three nautical miles from shore but within Alexander
Archipelago that provided an unregulated location for ships to discharge raw sewage. The US
Coast Guard enforces the federal law. EPA is authorized to create additional standards at its
discretion. EPA has begun the process of evaluating current cruise ship wastewater discharge
requirements in Alaska.
Beginning in 2008, vessels carrying 250 or more passengers were required to obtain a permit to
discharge in Alaskan waters (Alaska DEC, 2008). The new permit includes increased reporting
to DEC and more stringent effluent limitations for several water quality parameters, especially
copper.
All large vessels under the federal program (500+ passengers) pay a third party sampler and
laboratory to take at least two samples of effluent per season. The U.S. Coast Guard requires
large cruise ships that have been certified for continuous discharge to sample twice per month.
Small vessels can use their crew members only after they prove to the DEC that their crew
members have appropriate background and training to perform wastewater sampling.
DEC approves the protocol and procedures used by the industry samplers and the laboratory
and also conduct audits of the third party sampler or crew member. In addition, the DEC (or its
contractor) takes its own wastewater samples in Southeast and Southcentral Alaska.
Due to the overlap of the state and federal law, large cruise ships have one of three options for
their wastewater discharge:
1. Vessels may hold their wastewater and only discharge it once they are outside of Alaska
waters (roughly 3 nautical miles from shore but excluding former "donut holes"). The
wastewater from these vessels is excluded from the State-required sampling regime and
effluent standards.
2. Vessels may discharge their wastewater only when the vessel is at least 1 nautical mile
from shore and traveling at least 6 knots. The gray and blackwater must meet the strict
effluent limits.
14 Cruise Vessel Biomass Management Study
Draft Phase 1A Study, December 30, 2008
CRUISE VESSEL BIOMASS MANAGEMENT STUDY
DRAFT PHASE 1A STUDY
Data Compilation and Initial Assessment
3. Vessels may operate advanced wastewater treatment systems that meet the stringent
requirements that enable them to be certified by the U.S. Coast Guard for continuous
discharge.
Most large cruise ships operate under option 1 or 3. Vessels typically only operate under
condition 2 while they are seeking certification from the U.S. Coast Guard for continuous
discharge (option 3).
For a list of large cruise ships that have been allowed to continuously discharge as well as those
that hold wastewater, see http://www.dec.state.ak.us/water/cruise_ships/index.htm.
Description of Current Cruise Vessel Wastewater and Biomass
Operations
There are primarily two types of wastewater treatment systems on board cruise ships:
Advanced Wastewater Treatment Systems (AWTSs) and Type II Marine Sanitation Devices
(MSDs). Only one of the cruise vessels homeporting in Seattle in 2009 had MSD, however,
both systems are described below to provide a brief synopsis of the major operational features
of each treatment system.
Advanced Wastewater Treatment Systems
AWTS's are treatment systems that treat sewage and usually graywater in a combined system.
EPA's Draft Cruise Ship Discharge Analysis states, "These systems generally provide
improved screening, biological treatment, solids separation (using filtration or flotation),
disinfection (using ultraviolet light), and sludge processing as compared to traditional Type II
MSDs." According to EPA, 23 of 28 large cruise ships traveling in Alaskan waters were
equipped with AWTS's as of 2006 (EPA, 2007). While these systems produce relatively clean
effluent, they produce large amounts of biomass that must be dealt with. A 2007 study
conducted by King County estimated that cruise ships generate 35 tons (including water
content) of biomass each day. This number is consistent with the 15-40 metric tons of biomass
per day that was reported by respondents to the questionnaire issued for this study.
There are several types AWTS's produced by different companies that vary slightly in their
operational characteristics. These include Hamworthy's Membrane Bioreactor system,
ROCHEM's ROCHEM LPRO and Bio-Filt systems, Zenon's ZeeWeed MBR system, the
Scanship Treatment System, and the Hydroxyl CleanSea system. Table 2 shows the different
systems utilized on cruise ships that have called at Port of Seattle terminals since 2004 based on
an inspection report prepared by the Department of Ecology.
Modern AWTS's for cruise ships have several stages. First the black and grey water is
combined; next there is a screening process that removes large solids and non-biodegradable
material. The water then enters a biological reactor where it is broken down by bacteria.
Following the bioreactor it is necessary to clarify (remove solids) the water. The two main
15 Cruise Vessel Biomass Management Study
Draft Phase 1A Study, December 30, 2008
CRUISE VESSEL BIOMASS MANAGEMENT STUDY
DRAFT PHASE 1A STUDY
Data Compilation and Initial Assessment
methods applied on cruise ships are ultrafiltration (UF) and dissolved air floatation (DAF).
Ultrafiltration involves pumping water through a semi permeable membrane under high
pressure. The solids are left on one side and the clarified water passes through the membrane.
The DAF method involves dissolving air into the wastewater under pressure then allowing the
air to come out of solution at a lower or ambient pressure. When the air comes out of solution
it forms tiny bubbles that adhere to the suspended solids and carry them to the surface where
they can be skimmed. The last step of treating the clarified water is to sterilize it, typically with
ultraviolet light before discharging it overboard.
16 Cruise Vessel Biomass Management Study
Draft Phase 1A Study, December 30, 2008
CRUISE VESSEL BIOMASS MANAGEMENT STUDY
DRAFT PHASE 1A STUDY
Data Compilation and Initial Assessment
Table 2. Summary of Washington State Department of Ecology Information Regarding NWCA
Cruise Ships, Wastewater Treatment and Biomass Management
17 Cruise Vessel Biomass Management Study
Draft Phase 1A Study, December 30, 2008
CRUISE VESSEL BIOMASS MANAGEMENT STUDY
DRAFT PHASE 1A STUDY
Data Compilation and Initial Assessment
Type II MSDs
Only a limited number of Cruise vessels calling at Port of Seattle facilities utilize Type II
MSD's. Most Type II MSDs use biological treatment and chlorination for the treatment of
sewage. Some cruise ships with Type II MSDs use only maceration (breaking up of solids into
small pieces) and chlorination when treating their sewage and do not utilize biological
treatment (EPA 2007). A screen is sometimes included for removal of grit and other debris.
Type II MSDs are used only to treat blackwater. Vessels utilizing Type II MSDs must hold
their untreated graywater on board until they are within an area where discharge is permitted.
Type II MSDs using biological-chlorination work similarly to municipal wastewater treatment
systems. Figure 3 shows a simplified schematic of a biological-chlorination Type II MSD.
Excess biological mass (referred to hereafter as "biomass") after the clarification step in Type
II MSD systems is typically recycled back into the bioreactor, meaning that biological mass is
typically discharged in the treated effluent. However, according to the Washington State
Department of Ecology (Ecology), visual inspections of Type II MSDs indicate some removal
of biomass from the tanks occurs. The volume is typically less that the AWTS and the
materials is either incinerated, discharged (outside of 12 nm), or it is contained (usually by
drum) and landed ashore for disposal. Also, one or two times per year, a Type II MSD may
undergo a thorough cleanout generating a larger volume of residual solids requiring disposal.
Figure 3. Schematic of biological-chlorination Type II MSD (Source: EPA 2007)
Characterization of Cruise Ship Biomass
Disposal of Cruise Ship Biomass
In accordance with the MOU, Ecology conducts routine inspections of the cruise ships and
prepares an inspection report. Narrative summaries of residual solids disposal techniques are
summarized in Table 2. Based on the Ecology information, the cruise ships incinerate their
residual solids or discharge them at a distance of 12 nm from shore at vessel speeds no less than
6 knots. It is important to note that neither Washington State law nor the MOU have any
18 Cruise Vessel Biomass Management Study
Draft Phase 1A Study, December 30, 2008
CRUISE VESSEL BIOMASS MANAGEMENT STUDY
DRAFT PHASE 1A STUDY
Data Compilation and Initial Assessment
jurisdiction over the current biomass management practice, which is fully compliant with all
applicable laws and regulations.
Chemical Properties of Biomass Generated
Data on the physical and chemical characteristics of biomass from four cruise ships were
collated from EPA reports from 2006 (EPA 2006a-d) and raw data files obtained directly from
the EPA authors of the reports. A summary of the biomass data from these reports are
presented in Table 3. These were compared to the bioma ss data contained in the 2008 report of
two King County, Washington, treatment facilities (see Table 4) (King County 2008).
Data from the King County Wastewater Treatment Division represents data from both the West
Point Treatment Plant (WPTP) and the South Treatment Plant (STP) at Renton. Both plants
receive wastewater from numerous cities and industries in King County. The plants provide
secondary wastewater treatment with anaerobic digestion of all solids followed by a dewatering
process. The materials sampled are the treated biosolids prior to being beneficially recycled in
forestry agriculture, soil reclamation and compost (King County 2008).
Note, due to the unavailability of percent solids data for the Norwegian Star, the data from that
ship has not been used in the determination of average concentrations. In all cases, the percent
solids information was used to determine a mg/kg concentration so that the variation in the
solids content of the biomass could be normalized. This is an important factor as organic
constituents as well as most metals tend to absorb to solids particulate and this methodology
also results in a conservative assumption regarding constituent concentrations in the biomass
materials. Data is also presented in mg/l for full comparison of the sample data.
19 Cruise Vessel Biomass Management Study
Draft Phase 1A Study, December 30, 2008
CRUISE VESSEL BIOMASS MANAGEMENT STUDY
DRAFT PHASE 1A STUDY
Data Compilation and Initial Assessment
Table 3. Cruise Ship Chemical Data Summary
20 Cruise Vessel Biomass Management Study
Draft Phase 1A Study, December 30, 2008
CRUISE VESSEL BIOMASS MANAGEMENT STUDY
DRAFT PHASE 1A STUDY
Data Compilation and Initial Assessment
21 Cruise Vessel Biomass Management Study
Draft Phase 1A Study, December 30, 2008
CRUISE VESSEL BIOMASS MANAGEMENT STUDY
DRAFT PHASE 1A STUDY
Data Compilation and Initial Assessment
Table 4. Summary of Cruise Ship and King County Biomass Concentrations
22 Cruise Vessel Biomass Management Study
Draft Phase 1A Study, December 30, 2008
CRUISE VESSEL BIOMASS MANAGEMENT STUDY
DRAFT PHASE 1A STUDY
Data Compilation and Initial Assessment
As shown by Table 4 and Figures 4 through 8, concentrations of nearly all parameters in the
cruise ship biomass are well below King County biomass concentrations for metals. Only the
four organic constituents were detected in the cruise ship biomass, with phenol slightly
exceeding the King County biomass concentration. While there is no ambient water quality
criteria for phenols, in both cases the concentrations are below water quality criteria for the
consumption of organisms established under EPA's water quality criteria.
100,000.0000
Cruise Ship
Average
10,000.0000
and Range
1,000.0000
King County
Treatment
Concentration (mg/kg) 100.0000
Plant
Average
and Range
10.0000
1.0000
0.1000
0.0100
0.0010
0.0001
al (s) l s) l al l l l
ta a ta a a al al l ) ) l
s)
admium, Total ( t t t ta (s ta
, Tot o o o o o l (
ic, To o
l
tal T T T T T T a
t
o o
r
T T
n Silve num, d, Nickel, Tot n, ,
e, ,
m n
a o s
y, , , Tota ro
e r u
o ne c I
r se m
e L er, Total (s
B
cu Ar iu
omium, Tot a Bari p in
bd r Z sium, Tot
r
C ly e
Me len Ch Mang Cop
Se Mo Magn
Chemical
Figure 4. Chemical Comparison of Cruise Ship Biosludge and Treatment Plant Solid Waste: All
Selected Metals
23 Cruise Vessel Biomass Management Study
Draft Phase 1A Study, December 30, 2008
CRUISE VESSEL BIOMASS MANAGEMENT STUDY
DRAFT PHASE 1A STUDY
Data Compilation and Initial Assessment
8
7
6
Cruise Ship
Concentration (mg/kg) 5 Average and Range
4
King County
Treatment Plant
3 Average and Range
2
1
0
Mercury, Total (s) Arsenic, Total Cadmium, Total Selenium, Total (s)
Chemical
Figure 5. Chemical Comparison of Cruise Ship Biosludge and Treatment Plant Solid Waste:
Lowest Concentration Metals
120
100
80
Cruise Ship
Concentration (mg/kg) Average and Range
60
King County
Treatment Plant
Average and Range
40
20
0
Silver, Total Molybdenum, Total Lead, Total Chromium, Total
Chemical
Figure 6. Chemical Comparison of Cruise Ship Biosludge and Treatment Plant Solid Waste:
Lowest Concentration Metals
24 Cruise Vessel Biomass Management Study
Draft Phase 1A Study, December 30, 2008
CRUISE VESSEL BIOMASS MANAGEMENT STUDY
DRAFT PHASE 1A STUDY
Data Compilation and Initial Assessment
800
700
600
Cruise Ship
Concentration (mg/kg) Average and Range
500
400
King County
Treatment Plant
300 Average and Range
200
100
0
Nickel, Total Boron, Total Manganese, Total Barium, Total
Chemical
Figure 7. Chemical Comparison of Cruise Ship Biosludge and Treatment Plant Solid Waste:
Mid-High Concentration Metals
20,000
18,000
16,000
14,000 Cruise Ship
Average and Range
Concentration (mg/kg) 12,000
10,000
King County
Treatment Plant
8,000 Average and Range
6,000
4,000
2,000
0
Copper, Total (s) Zinc, Total (s) Iron, Total Magnesium, Total (s)
Chemical
Figure 8. Chemical Comparison of Cruise Ship Biosludge and Treatment Plant Solid Waste:
Highest Concentration Metals
25 Cruise Vessel Biomass Management Study
Draft Phase 1A Study, December 30, 2008
CRUISE VESSEL BIOMASS MANAGEMENT STUDY
DRAFT PHASE 1A STUDY
Data Compilation and Initial Assessment
Wastewater Management in Scandinavia
Much like the Alaskan cruise industry, growth of the Scandinavian cruise industry has greatly
increased over the past decade. The Baltic Sea has been experiencing eutrophication resulting
from high nutrient loading, primarily nitrogen and phosphorus. The most visible sign of this
environmental problem has been the massive blue green algae blooms visible along the
shorelines of the Baltic Sea. Municipal treatment systems in at least parts of Baltic Area
include treatment to remove these nutrients, while treatment plants in King County do not.
Note that Cruise vessels sailing from Port of Seattle facilities currently discharge biomass in
North Pacific waters (no discharge of biomass occurs within the Puget Sound) at distances
greater than 12 nautical miles from shore at vessel speeds in excess of 6 knots. Further it is
noted that the population, physical and environmental characteristics of the Northern Pacific
waters differ from those of the Baltic Sea.
The Baltic Sea can be characterized as a relatively shallow, enclosed body of water with
minimal tidal exchange surrounded by dense population. A report on the estimated nutrient
load originating from ship's wastewater into the Baltic Sea found that approximately 0.05% of
the total nitrogen and 0.5% of the total phosphorus load could be attributable to ship's
wastewater (Hanna-Kaisa Huhta et al, 2007). Note, this study addresses wastewater from all
ships and assumed no wastewater treatment. The rise in maritime traffic in the Baltic is
primarily attributable to tankers and cargo ships. Albeit small, discharges of phosphorus and
nitrogen from ship wastewater are readily controlled when compared to atmospheric
depositions or nutrient inputs from land-based sources. Due to the "no special fee" system in
this area, the Baltic Sea ports have invested in numerous waste reception facilities (see Figure
9 and Table 5). The "no special fee" system was developed to encourage ships to deliver
waste ashore and to avoid undesirable waste streams between ports, thereby encouraging a
sound sharing of waste burden. However, only some of the shipping companies utilize these
facilities. Those ships that utilize shore-side wastewater hook-ups have placed the ships
wastewater treatment systems on "stand-by". Thus, a separate biomass waste stream would not
be generated and all wastewaters would be landed ashore.
Additional information on management of wastewater was collected as part of this study via email
correspondence with the Copenhagen Malm Ports in Denmark, The Port of Oslo in
Norway and the Port of Helsinki, Finland and Port of Stockholm, Sweden as described below.
In all instances, no distinction was made in the management of wastewater versus the
management of biomass. As stated earlier, ships that plan to discharge wastewater on-shore
typically do not operate their wastewater treatment systems and thus no biomass is produced.
An additional information request regarding total off-load time, logistical shore-side
considerations (i.e., number of tanker trucks on the dock, etc.), and odor mitigation and system
26 Cruise Vessel Biomass Management Study
Draft Phase 1A Study, December 30, 2008
CRUISE VESSEL BIOMASS MANAGEMENT STUDY
DRAFT PHASE 1A STUDY
Data Compilation and Initial Assessment
reliability have been requested. Only limited information from the Port of Stockholm has been
received at the time of this publication and is provided below.
Copenhagen Malm Ports, Denmark
Copenhagen Malm Ports in Denmark utilize tanker trucks to collect wastewater from cruise
ships. After collection, the wastewater is pumped via pump station and sewer system to the
local municipal wastewater treatment facility (e-mail correspondence with Leif Kurdahl of
Copenhagen Malm Ports). Ships can transfer waste to the tankers with no special fee if they
meet the following conditions:
1. The ship can deliver the sewage at the shipside at a pump capacity of 50 m3 per hour.
2. Tankers can obtain unhindered access to and from the place of collection without delay
3. The ship is fitted with a standard flange
Copenhagen Malm Ports charge a fee for disproportionately large amounts of waste (i.e. more
than 130 liters per person per day since the last port of call).
Port of Oslo, Norway
In Norway, the general rule is to discharge wastewater no less than 300 meters away from
shore (Correspondence with Lisbeth Petterson, Port of Oslo). However, there are several
protected areas in Norwegian waters that have more restrictive dumping rules (usually 12
nautical miles from shore). Despite the overall less restrictive dumping rules, the Port of Oslo
does offer means of onshore disposal of cruise ship wastewater. The wastewater is collected
via tanker truck and then delivered to a local municipal treatment facility, but the exact method
by which the waste is collected is unclear. The Port of Oslo finances this service by charging
all vessels a waste fee, regardless of whether or not waste is disposed of onshore. This waste
fee also covers collection and disposal of garbage, recyclables, varnish waste, and bilge water
(as long as the amount of waste generated is considered reasonable given a ship's size and time
at sea).
27 Cruise Vessel Biomass Management Study
Draft Phase 1A Study, December 30, 2008
CRUISE VESSEL BIOMASS MANAGEMENT STUDY
DRAFT PHASE 1A STUDY
Data Compilation and Initial Assessment
Figure 9. Baltic Sea Wastewater Reception Facility Locations
Port of Helsinki, Finland
The Port of Helsinki, Finland also has facilities for cruise ships to pump their wastewater to
municipal treatment systems (e-mail correspondence with Vuorivirta Kaarina of Port of
Helsinki). The Port of Helsinki recently extended its program for cruise ships wastewater
management in June 2008 (Voss, 2008). In order to make on-shore discharge possible, the Port
of Helsinki built sewers and receiving bays at all cruise terminals and ferry docks that connect
to the city's sewer system and have a receiving capacity of approximately 100m/hr through
port-provided wastewater hoses.
28 Cruise Vessel Biomass Management Study
Draft Phase 1A Study, December 30, 2008
CRUISE VESSEL BIOMASS MANAGEMENT STUDY
DRAFT PHASE 1A STUDY
Data Compilation and Initial Assessment
Prior to 2008 the City of Helsinki enacted a separate charge for wastewater discharged into the
city sewer system. However, the Port recently formed a five-year agreement with Helsinki
Water (Helsingin Vesi) to pay only a fixed fee regardless of the amount of water discharged,
enabling them to lower their prices and encourage cruise companies to use the system. The
long-term plan is to charge a standard fee for cruise vessels to discharge wastewater on shore,
and then at the end of the season to reward the ship or company with the biggest increase in
wastewater pumped into the system with a discount on their discharge fees (Voss, 2008).
Port of Stockholm, Sweden
Like all ports in the Baltic Sea, the Port of Stockholm, Sweden is regulated by maritime EU
rules and regulations that include a general port fee. The port has chosen to include the waste
disposal service in the general port fee to encourage proper handling of wastewater (e-mail
correspondence with Melissa Feldtmann). It should be noted that ships in the Baltic do
maintain the right to discharge their wastewater and biomass in international waters (>12 nm
from shore). The Port of Stockholm does not use trucks to offload the ships but has a sewage
system in place with a number of connections points which transfer the wastewater to munciple
treatment facilities. Tank trucks are used very rarely in this port.
While the Port of Stockholm reports a high level of reliability with their wastewater reception
facilities, they have had continuous problems with hydrogenated sulphur compounds in the
wastewater forming into sulphuric acid. This mist above the water surface at the port eats away
and corrodes the upper parts of the sewage pipes requiring a lot of maintenance. The port is
working with the ships to find solutions to minimize the production of hydrogenated sulphur in
the wastewater tanks in the ships. The port also must maintain a lot of different fittings to be
able to connect to the ships as there are not a standard fitting requirement at this time. The Port
of Stockholm has also had odor complaints around wastewater off-loading operations. The
specific frequency of odor complaints was not reported.
29 Cruise Vessel Biomass Management Study
Draft Phase 1A Study, December 30, 2008
CRUISE VESSEL BIOMASS MANAGEMENT STUDY
DRAFT PHASE 1A STUDY
Data Compilation and Initial Assessment
Table 5. Wastewater Reception Facilities at Ports in the Baltic Sea
Finland Reception facility
Hanko ROPAX ships pump sewage straight into the sewer network. Ro-Ro ships can pump
sewage to a tank truck
Helsinki Etelsatama: 17 waste water reception points. Lnsisatama: 9 waste water reception
points.
Srnisten satama: 1 waste water reception point. Other harbour parts: totally 24 waste
water reception points. The waste water reception points are for passenger ships. The
port of Helsinki arranges waste water reception for cargo ships using the tank truck if
needed.
Inkoo
Ships can pump sewage to a tank truck.
Shipping
Kaskinen Ships can pump sewage to a tank truck.
Naantali Ships can pump sewage to a tank truck; there are waste stations for solid waste.
Oulu Ships can pump sewage to a tank truck.
Pori Ships can pump sewage to a tank truck; Ekokem Oy Ab collects oily waste.
Rauma Ships can pump sewage to a tank truck.
Skldvik Ships can pump sewage toa tank truck.
Turku Silja and Viking Line ships pump the sewage straight into the sewer network. Other
domestic traffic has a possibility to use a tank truck by Hans Langh Oy.
Uusikaupunki There are waste wells near the pier where ships can pump sewage. Ships can also pump
sewage to a tank truck.
Vaasa In the passenger port there is a reception pipeline at ro-ro piers1&2. Ships can also
pump sewage to a tank truck.
Denmark
Copenhagen Sewage is pumped to the tank trucks and is then discharged into the municipal waste
water plant (biological and chemical waste water treatment).
Frederikshavn Black water is pumped to the tank trucks and grey water is discharged into the
Frederikshavn's sewer network.
Rnne Black water and grey water are pumped to the tank trucks. Part of the grey water is
discharged into the sewer network.
rhus Private company collects sewage from ships.
Germany
Sassnitz No reception facilities for waste water. Sewage is pumped to the tank truck from a
local waste disposal company.
Latvia
Ventspils Sewage is transported to JSC Ventbunkers for treatment.
Riga Sewage is transported to Riga Municipal Waste Water Treatment Plant.
Poland
Gdansk Sewage is discharged into the sewer network from the tank trucks (WUKO) and after
that there are several treatment plants: mechanical-biological sewage treatment plant in
Port Pnocny, sewage treatment plant KOS 2x3 in Basen Grniczy, sewage treatment
plant Bioclere at Przemysowe Berth.
Gdynia Sewage is pumped to the tank trucks.
Sweden
30 Cruise Vessel Biomass Management Study
Draft Phase 1A Study, December 30, 2008
CRUISE VESSEL BIOMASS MANAGEMENT STUDY
DRAFT PHASE 1A STUDY
Data Compilation and Initial Assessment
Halmstad Reception facilities only for oil sludge and bilge water.
Helsingborg The passenger ships discharge sewage into the sewer network; other ships pump
sewage to the tank truck.
Kalmar Local waste management company collects the sludge from ships. It is transported by
trucks to a terminal situated in the harbour.
Landskrona Waste water is pumped into the sewer network.
Oskarshamn No reception facilities.
Oxelsund The type of reception facility is not described.
Slvesborg Sewage is pumped to the tank trucks.
Ume No reception facilities.
Waste water reception facilities in the ports in the year 2005 based on the inquiry results (Huhta
et al., 2007).
31 Cruise Vessel Biomass Management Study
Draft Phase 1A Study, December 30, 2008
CRUISE VESSEL BIOMASS MANAGEMENT STUDY
DRAFT PHASE 1A STUDY
Data Compilation and Initial Assessment
Section 3
Cruise Vessel Wastewater and Biomass Operations
Alternatives to Open-Ocean Discharge of Cruise Ship Biomass
Existing Shoreside Operations
Shore Transfer of Biomass
Future Methods of Biomass Disposal
CRUISE VESSEL BIOMASS MANAGEMENT STUDY
DRAFT PHASE 1A STUDY
Data Compilation and Initial Assessment
Cruise Vessel Wastewater and Biomass Operations
Onboard Wastewater Treatment
Cruise vessels calling on the Port of Seattle utilize a variety of AWTS systems. Some systems
combine blackwater and graywater for treatment, and some have separate systems for treating
each.
The biomass is separated from the wastewater and stored using different methods. Some
systems discharge the biomass to a storage tank where it is later discharged outside the 12
nautical mile boundary. Some vessels dewater the solids and incinerate them onboard.
All five major operators calling at the Port of Seattle completed the survey. The survey
provided specific information on vessel operations, systems and capacities for eleven vessels
that they operate although only ten had AWTS systems onboard. There was not an opportunity
to ask follow up questions to the information provided.
Alternatives to Open-Ocean Discharge of Cruise Ship Biomass
The two alternatives to open ocean discharge of biomass that are practiced within the cruise
industry are incineration and shore transfer.
Incineration
Before the biomass can be incinerated it must be dewatered and dried. This requires special
equipment for conveying the waste, as well as heat for drying. The incineration of biomass
consumes fuel for drying and incineration. Vessels incinerating biomass are also incinerating
even larger volumes of solid combustible garbage. The ash from the biomass is a small
percentage of the total ash volume and completely mixed with the other ash.
Half of the 12 vessels in the survey are incinerating residual solids, but only three vessels are
incinerating all biomass, and one vessel is incinerating 50-75% of their biomass. The other two
vessels only incinerate 'screened solids' (the coarse debris that is initially screened off and
bagged). All three lines that incinerate biomass transfer the ash to shore for disposal.
Shore Transfer
This method involves the transfer the biomass from the on board storage tanks to a shore
facility for treatment. There are several methods by which shipboard waste can be conveyed to
a shore based treatment facility including the following:
o Direct Discharge to Tanker Truck - This alternative would involve pumping biomass
from onboard storage tanks directly to tanker trucks positioned on the pier. Vessel to
tanker discharge would occur through flexible hoses.
o Direct Discharge to Barge - This alternative would include positioning a tanker barge
on the off-shore side of the cruise vessel and direct discharge via flexible hose
33 Cruise Vessel Biomass Management Study
Draft Phase 1A Study, December 30, 2008
CRUISE VESSEL BIOMASS MANAGEMENT STUDY
DRAFT PHASE 1A STUDY
Data Compilation and Initial Assessment
connections to the on-board vessel infrastructure. Following completion of discharge
from the Cruise vessel to the barge, the barge would need to be moved to a separate pier
where off loading of the barge to a shoreside tanker truck would occur prior to disposal
of the biomass at an upland facility.
o Direct Discharge to Piping on Pier - This operation would allow discharge from the
vessel via flexible hose to supplemental deck mounted pumps which would be
connected to under-pier piping through access ports in the pier deck. Discharged
biomass would be pumped via the under-pier piping to a remote storage facility where
the biomass can be stored and ultimately delivered to tanker trucks for off site disposal.
Specific issues associated with each of these shore transfer scenarios are discussed later in this
section.
Existing Shoreside Operations
Many pier side activities occur during cruise homeport operations. Pier space is used
simultaneously for all of the following operations to support the efficient and timely turnaround
of the vessel during the relatively short time at pier.
Placement of the vessels at each pier requires coordination between facility owner, facility
operations, longshore staff, and vessel operator. This process results in a detailed vessel
docking plan unique to each vessel and port facility.
In addition, the specific location where a vessel can be berthed at facilities is controlled by the
vessel size, location of the pier-mounted mooring bollards, location of the shore-power
connection, and the gangway access location. For vessels calling at Terminal 91, the shorepower
connection controls the mooring location of the vessel as this hardware is fixed to the
pier and requires the vessel be moored at a specific location in order to be connected to the
shore-power services. This varies by vessel.
Pier side operations include the following activities (many of these are illustrated at existing
Port of Seattle facilities in Figures 10 through 19).
Vessel Mooring and Fendering: Cruise vessels require a number of mooring lines
fixed to the pier to adequately secure the vessel in the wind conditions that occur at both
Pier 66 and Terminal 91. Typically, this includes vessel moorage to as many as 10
different pier mounted mooring bollards. Generally, these lines are cast from the
extreme bow and stern sections of the vessel. Pier side impacts from line handling
operations are generally limited to the time preceding vessel arrival and departure where
longshore crews require unrestricted access to the pier to set the lines. Due primarily to
tidal fluctuations and risks to dock personnel, it is not possible to access the vessel
34 Cruise Vessel Biomass Management Study
Draft Phase 1A Study, December 30, 2008
CRUISE VESSEL BIOMASS MANAGEMENT STUDY
DRAFT PHASE 1A STUDY
Data Compilation and Initial Assessment
within the span of the various mooring lines for the duration of the vessels time
alongside the pier.
Figure 10. Vessel Mooring Lines (Terminal 30)
Passenger Debarkation and Embarkation: As many as 3,000 passengers can arrive
for debarkation on the cruise vessels serving both Pier 66 and Terminal 91. A similar
amount of passengers embark onto the vessel during the approximately 7 hour
unload/loading period. The gangways used to transit this many passengers must also
allow for dock-side vehicular movement, adjust for vessel movement and tides, and be
fully ADA compliant. The result is a gangway structure with a substantial pier footprint
and commensurate operational impact.
35 Cruise Vessel Biomass Management Study
Draft Phase 1A Study, December 30, 2008
CRUISE VESSEL BIOMASS MANAGEMENT STUDY
DRAFT PHASE 1A STUDY
Data Compilation and Initial Assessment
Figure 11. Rendering of T-91 Gangways
Courtesy PND Engineers, 2008
36 Cruise Vessel Biomass Management Study
Draft Phase 1A Study, December 30, 2008
CRUISE VESSEL BIOMASS MANAGEMENT STUDY
DRAFT PHASE 1A STUDY
Data Compilation and Initial Assessment
Crew Debarkation and Embarkation: Unlike the passenger loading gangway, the
crew gangway is more modest and takes up substantially less dock area. Accordingly,
the crew gangways offer substantially less clearance underneath and do not
accommodate pier traffic under the gangways. Crew gangway systems in Seattle
typically include a gangway connection from the vessel to a platform located on the pier
and then a second gangway from the platform to the dock surface. USCG regulations
require that the crew gangway is in place and operational prior to commencement of
any fueling or bunkering activities.
Figure 12. Crew Gangway (Pier 66)
37 Cruise Vessel Biomass Management Study
Draft Phase 1A Study, December 30, 2008
CRUISE VESSEL BIOMASS MANAGEMENT STUDY
DRAFT PHASE 1A STUDY
Data Compilation and Initial Assessment
Luggage Unloading and Loading: Luggage movement occurs by forklift and baggage
handling carriage from the first floor of the cruise building to the vessel luggage ports.
Individual luggage carriages are moved by the forklifts to a point on the pier within
reach of mobile cranes and loaded onto loading cages which are lifted overside of the
pier and positioned such that the luggage carriage can be removed from the cage and
onto the vessel through a shell door.
Figure 13. Baggage Loading (Pier 66)
Figure 14. Baggage Loading and Crew Gangway
(Note: Crew gangway shown prior to final placement on vessel. Terminal 30 North berth not
occupied at time this photo was taken.)
38 Cruise Vessel Biomass Management Study
Draft Phase 1A Study, December 30, 2008
CRUISE VESSEL BIOMASS MANAGEMENT STUDY
DRAFT PHASE 1A STUDY
Data Compilation and Initial Assessment
Provisioning: All of food, beverage, spare parts and sundries necessary to serve
passengers and crew (up to 4,000 people for a full week) must be loaded in similar fashion
to the luggage during the vessel call. In addition, all or some of the used expendables,
garbage, and recycle wastes from the prior week's excursion are off loaded at the pier.
These products are delivered and received on the pier space adjacent to the vessel by
delivery trucks of varying sizes. All material is moved through the vessel access ports, via
crane to deck, then by forklift onto the pier for sorting and delivery to waiting trucks for
transport off site to appropriate disposal facilities.
Figure 15. Vessel Provisioning (Terminal 30)
(Note: Luggage handling shown, provisioning requires a similar operational area.)
39 Cruise Vessel Biomass Management Study
Draft Phase 1A Study, December 30, 2008
CRUISE VESSEL BIOMASS MANAGEMENT STUDY
DRAFT PHASE 1A STUDY
Data Compilation and Initial Assessment
Utility Connection: Typically cruise vessels connect to several utilities including
potable water, electrical systems, and communication systems while at berth. These
connections are made by flexible hose connections and require monitoring throughout
their use. In addition, pier space is required along the pier/vessel interface to connect
the various hoses. A typical Cruise vessel will connect to shoreside potable water in
four locations and receive water flow for the entire duration of its time at berth.
Figure 16. Utility Connection (Terminal 30)
40 Cruise Vessel Biomass Management Study
Draft Phase 1A Study, December 30, 2008
CRUISE VESSEL BIOMASS MANAGEMENT STUDY
DRAFT PHASE 1A STUDY
Data Compilation and Initial Assessment
Shore Power Connection: Typically, Homeporting cruise vessels calling at the
Terminal 91 facility will connect to "cold ironing" shore power facilities. This
infrastructure includes 4" diameter cables, pier mounted or mobile cranes, and
substation infrastructure to supply the high voltage requirements of the vessel. Due to
the safety and operational considerations of the high voltage systems, minimum clear
distances to this operations are required which impacts the ability to utilize pier area
adjacent to the shore power connection.
Figure 17. Vessel Shore Power Connection (Terminal 30)
(Note: Blue hose in foreground is ships potable water utility connection.)
41 Cruise Vessel Biomass Management Study
Draft Phase 1A Study, December 30, 2008
CRUISE VESSEL BIOMASS MANAGEMENT STUDY
DRAFT PHASE 1A STUDY
Data Compilation and Initial Assessment
Vessel Lube and Bunker Oil: Vessel lube oil and other miscellaneous machinery oils
are received for use on on-board systems and waste-oil products are discharged at the
pier through bunker doors via flexible hose connection to tanker trucks and/or flat-bed
trucks carrying fuel barrels that are positioned on the pier. This activity is typically not
required at every vessel call, however it can occur as frequently as every-other call.
Due to the environmental sensitivity of this type of activity, dedicated oversight by
trained personnel is required to monitor these operations. Tanker trucks receiving and
delivering these products are relatively large (up to approximately 5,000 gallon
capacity) and require an approximately 80' by 40' area to operate.
Figure 18. Typical Bunker Oil Truck
Vessel Fueling/Bunkering: Due to USCG and Seattle Fire Department regulations,
and due to the large volume of fuel received by the cruise vessels, cruise vessel fueling
is accomplished via tanker barge positioned on the off shore side of the cruise vessel.
Connection to the vessel occurs at the bunkering port which is typically located at or
near the mid-ship location. Connection is made to the vessel by flexible connection and
fueling activities can not commence without deployment of a floating boom to contain
any spills should they occur.
42 Cruise Vessel Biomass Management Study
Draft Phase 1A Study, December 30, 2008
CRUISE VESSEL BIOMASS MANAGEMENT STUDY
DRAFT PHASE 1A STUDY
Data Compilation and Initial Assessment
Emergency Vehicle Access: Seattle Fire Department requires a 20-foot wide vehicular
corridor adjacent to the cruise vessel and cruise terminal building to be clear and
useable throughout all periods of facility operations. Operational vehicles may transit
this access corridor, however, no product, truck, or equipment can be parked, placed or
staged in this area that would in any way prohibit use by Emergency responders.
Figure 19. Pier Access (Pier 66)
Note: Limited operation area and width between adjacent trucks for emergency vehicle access
to the pier.
Miscellaneous Law Enforcement Operations: A variety of law enforcement agencies
have jurisdiction over various aspects of Cruise facility operations including the Port of
Seattle Police Department, US Customs and Border Protection, US Coast Guard, and
others. Pier side impacts of these requirements include staging of various equipment
and vehicles and access to the vessel for routine and emergency need.
43 Cruise Vessel Biomass Management Study
Draft Phase 1A Study, December 30, 2008
CRUISE VESSEL BIOMASS MANAGEMENT STUDY
DRAFT PHASE 1A STUDY
Data Compilation and Initial Assessment
Shore Transfer of Biomass
As discussed earlier in this section transfer of the ships biomass to shore is one of the
alternatives to open ocean discharge. Some of the issues associated with each scenario for
shore transfer are discussed below.
All alternative discharge methods discussed below could have varying levels of impact related
to the transfer of the biomass. Potential impacts will be studied as part of future phases of this
study and could include:
Impacts caused by potential spills during off-loading.
Possible emission of sewage odor in close proximity to boarding passengers, adjacent
businesses, and dock workers.
Noise impacts from discharge pump equipment in close proximity to boarding
passengers.
Shoreside infrastructure improvements could be necessary to support off-loading biomass at the
pier. For each alternative, it is assumed that biomass would ultimately be discharged at off-site
King County Wastewater facilities in Renton.
As a minimum the following requirements must be met for shore transfer to be practical:
1. Vessels must have the ability to store biomass on board:
The vessel will need to have adequate dedicated storage capacity to hold the biomass to
be transferred to shore. The typical voyage time is one week. If the vessel does not
have enough storage capacity for a full voyage, then the excess biomass must be
offloaded at sea (as currently practiced by most carriers), at another port, or incinerated.
It should be noted that offloading at ports other than Seattle was not investigated here
and is beyond the scope of this study.
Available biomass storage capacity among the cruise ships varies. Two vessels
reported they could store all biomass generated in a week. For the remaining vessels
the storage capacity varied from 47% to 94% of weekly generation (3.3 to 6.6 days of
storage capacity). At this time it is not known on a vessel by vessel basis if adding
storage is possible. However, many of the tanks on board the vessels are flexible as to
what can be stored in them but increasing storage would likely require modifications to
the vessels.
2. The Biomass must be pumpable:
The waste must have a consistency that will allow it to be pumped, implying a high
percentage of water. For the vessels that are incinerating, the biomass must be
dewatered after it is generated. Once it is dewatered it generally cannot be pumped by
44 Cruise Vessel Biomass Management Study
Draft Phase 1A Study, December 30, 2008
CRUISE VESSEL BIOMASS MANAGEMENT STUDY
DRAFT PHASE 1A STUDY
Data Compilation and Initial Assessment
conventional means so shore transfer must occur before dewatering. The vessels
surveyed reported that, prior to dewatering, the biomass ranged from 80 - 98% liquids
and is therefore pumpable.
3. The vessels must be configured to pump ashore:
The vessel needs to be properly configured for transferring the waste ashore. At the
very least the vessel will need to have piping of an adequate diameter to the storage
tank(s) and a properly configured and sized onboard pump. The vessel must also have
piping manifold that is accessible from either the pier or a waterside access break (door)
that has the adequate closures, valves, spill containment, etc. that will be required for
the operation.
Of the 10 vessels with an AWTS, 9 report that they have at least some ability to transfer
biomass to shore. However, more information is needed to understand specific
modifications that may be required in order to support regular and consistent shore-side
transfer.
4. The vessels must have engineering crew available to oversee the transfer
operation:
At least one operating engineer must be available to supervise the transfer operation.
Depending on how the ships systems are configured, or what type of shore transfer will
be done, other crew may also be required to operate pumps, open and close valves,
maintain radio contact with shore side personnel, monitor tank levels, monitor pump
discharge pressures, etc.
The survey did not cover the questions of crew availability, due in part to the fact that
the demands on the crew were not known before the survey. The demands on the crew
cannot be well understood until a vessel by vessel evaluation of the off-load process can
be done. However, it is anticipated that the biomass off-load operations will require
additional service time by available crews and/or the need to hire crews specifically to
perform and oversee the off-load operations.
5. The operation must be completed within the time the vessel is in port:
The duration of the operation must fit within the allotted time in port. Vessels are in
port approximately 10 hours total. However, due to Customs and Border Protection
regulations and various operational requirements on arrival and departure such as
handling mooring lines, gangway hook up and disconnect, hook up and disconnect
shoreside facilities, etc., the available time for unloading and off-loading is
approximately 7 hours.
As illustrated in Figures 3-1 and 3-2, the existing pier side operations currently utilize most
available deck space at both Port of Seattle's cruise facilities at Pier 66 and Terminal 91. At
Terminal 91, based on discussions with Longshore and operations staff, it is clear that even
without consideration of biomass disposal operations, concerns exist about the relatively
45 Cruise Vessel Biomass Management Study
Draft Phase 1A Study, December 30, 2008
CRUISE VESSEL BIOMASS MANAGEMENT STUDY
DRAFT PHASE 1A STUDY
Data Compilation and Initial Assessment
limited amount of pier area (which at 90' wide is roughly half that which was available at the
former Terminal 30 facility) to accomplish all the currently required operations. Pier 66
operations are further limited by the small 55' wide apron.
The three methods of shore transfer discussed in this section would have varying levels of
impact to pier side operations and space. Direct discharge to tanker trucks would have the
greatest impact and Direct discharge to barge would have the least impact.
46 Cruise Vessel Biomass Management Study
Draft Phase 1A Study, December 30, 2008
47 Cruise Vessel Biomass Management Study
Draft Phase 1A Study, December 30, 2008
CRUISE VESSEL BIOMASS MANAGEMENT STUDY
DRAFT PHASE 1A STUDY
Data Compilation and Initial Assessment
48 Cruise Vessel Biomass Management Study
Draft Phase 1A Study, December 30, 2008
CRUISE VESSEL BIOMASS MANAGEMENT STUDY
DRAFT PHASE 1A STUDY
Data Compilation and Initial Assessment
Direct Discharge to Tanker Truck
Discharging various types of waste from ships to tanker trucks is a common practice in the
marine industry. However due to the volume of waste involved in biomass transfer, and the
pier side congestion during existing turnaround operations, specific challenges arise that are
discussed below. It is anticipated that this alternative for biomass transfer would have the
largest impact on existing pier side operations.
Emerald Services of Seattle has been servicing the marine industry with vacuum truck services
for a number of years. They are currently located on East Marginal Way where they transfer
waste via pipeline directly to the South King County treatment facility. Emerald Services has a
fleet of 11 'large' vacuum trucks and 12 'small' vacuum trucks. There are approximately 4
trucks with a 6500 gallon capacity, 7 trucks with a 5000 gallon capacity and 12 with a 3000
gallon capacity. All trucks are equipped with vacuum pumps. The large trucks are 50-60 feet
long.
The total biomass loads based on all vessels surveyed varied from 15,000 gallons per week to
74,000 gallons per week. The vessels with the two largest weekly generation quantities were
74,000 gallons each. If these are considered outliers and the remaining vessels are averaged,
the biomass off-load volume is approximately 35,000 gallons.
Using the information gathered from speaking with Emerald Services an analysis was done to
determine how a series filling operation would work, and what the likely fill times would be to
transfer a weeks worth of biomass from the surveyed vessels.
For all but three of the vessels surveyed, it is possible to unload a full weeks worth of biomass
in 7 hours or less with a total of three large trucks using series loading.
The three truck series loading scenario allows for time for hooking up, loading, unhooking,
paperwork processing, transit to the unloading location, unloading, transit back to the pier, and
waiting in a queuing area to fill again. Using the data provided by the vendor it is estimated
that one large truck can be filled continuously, every 70 minutes. One truck is on the pier at all
times, and one truck is in waiting at the designated queuing area. The third truck is in transit or
unloading. The advantage of this scenario is that only one truck is on the pier for the entire 70
minute loading, however a second truck would need to be staged at a queuing area and then
moved into position adjacent to the first truck (prior to the first trucks departure) for the period
of time required to connect hoses in order that the 70-minute cycle time be realized.
For the three remaining vessels to be off-loaded in the 7 hour timeframe, it is only possible if
two trucks are loaded in parallel on the pier. The vessels cannot currently support this. This
scenario doubles the total number of large trucks in the entire operation from three to six. The
whole scenario requires two large trucks on the dock at all times, two trucks in the queuing
area, and two trucks offloading or transiting. The loading rate is twice what would be required
49 Cruise Vessel Biomass Management Study
Draft Phase 1A Study, December 30, 2008
CRUISE VESSEL BIOMASS MANAGEMENT STUDY
DRAFT PHASE 1A STUDY
Data Compilation and Initial Assessment
for single truck loading. According to Emerald Services the vessels and the trucks are
configured with 3" quick disconnect fittings. Two large trucks loaded in one hour would mean
an average loading rate of 13,000 gallons per hour or 217 gallons per minute. 217 gallons per
minute is not an unreasonable flow rate for a 3" fitting, resulting in velocities of fewer than 10
feet per second. However, loading two trucks in parallel would require modification to existing
on-board systems as the vessels are not currently outfitted to support this type of operation. In
addition, for this proposed operation to occur, it would be necessary to confirm that the ship's
pumps and piping are adequate for this pumping rate.
Direct Discharge to Barge
This alternative would include use of marine barges to remove the biomass using similar
methodology to how marine fuels are currently loaded onto cruise vessels. A marine barge
would be positioned by tug alongside the cruise vessel, a floating boom would deployed around
the tug and barge to contain the off-load operations, and biomass would be transferred to the
barge using vessel on-board pumps.
This scenario has the benefit of not impacting pier side operations, however it would require
the purchase or lease of barges specifically designed/constructed for this unique use. A
complexity of this scenario is that on most vessels the location for biomass transfer and vessel
fueling occur at the same "break" or access door in the vessel hull. Due to the size of the
barges involved and complexity of marine fueling operations, it would not be possible to
simultaneously fuel the vessel from a barge while also removing biomass to a second barge
located in close proximity. Accordingly, in order to accomplish simultaneous transfer of fuel
(onboard) and biomass (offload), modification to onboard piping systems including potentially
creation of a new access break served by biomass piping would be required. It is unknown if
regulatory agencies with oversight capacity of marine fueling operations would have any
concerns about the simultaneous fueling and biomass off-loading.
Direct Discharge to Piping on Pier
The location of biomass transfer varies by vessel due to the variable access port location where
on-board piping systems can deliver biomass to the shore. In order to accommodate this
variability of off-load location, it would likely be most efficient if the shore side pumps,
required to support off-loading and transfer of biomass product to the remote storage facility,
were mounted on a chassis or similar device to allow efficient positioning at any of the unique
off-load location required by each vessel. However, the need to service the variable discharge
locations on the vessels requires a similar ability to connect to the under-pier piping at several,
perhaps many, discrete locations through access points ("manholes") in the pier.
Note that while the Terminal 91 cruise facility is currently in the final stages of construction,
the piers structures adjacent to the new building were constructed in 1992 (West side) and 1997
(East side).
50 Cruise Vessel Biomass Management Study
Draft Phase 1A Study, December 30, 2008
CRUISE VESSEL BIOMASS MANAGEMENT STUDY
DRAFT PHASE 1A STUDY
Data Compilation and Initial Assessment
Creation of this type of access points through the pier deck requires structural analysis of the
pier to ensure all existing and proposed load conditions meet applicable codes. In addition,
construction work of this kind is generally expensive as it requires work in the over-water
environment and due to the relative inaccessibility of the area under the pier.
Piping to transfer the biomass to an upland facility would be placed under approximately 1,200
to 1,500 lineal feet of pier at both Pier 66 and Terminal 91. At both facilities, it is not
anticipated that piping could be placed in upland soils adjacent to the piers. These soil areas
already are located below existing building structures or contain the utility infrastructure
necessary to support the current operations. At Terminal 91 for example, only approximately 8
feet of soil area exists between the new cruise facility and the pier, and this area currently
carries several utilities including storm water, as well as potable and fire water supply to the
building.
Under-pier piping of this kind requires thoughtful placement and protection to minimize
damage from floating debris which occasionally float under the pier spaces and can damage
piping on a rising tide or in wave conditions. Potential environmental issues associated with
placement of biomass pipes under the pier where they could be damaged are unknown and
would need to be evaluated.
Due to the significant weight of storage tanks, it is not practical to store the biomass on the pier
structure itself. Accordingly, it would be necessary to develop storage areas for the biomass in
the upland areas adjacent to the cruise piers at either Pier 66 or Terminal 91. The specific
location where such storage facility could be placed at either cruise facility is unknown.
However, it is anticipated that such a facility would require an area of sufficient size for storage
tanks, discharge piping and tanker truck access. It is unlikely that a facility of this size could be
placed at Pier 66 due to the relatively small and constrained nature of the site.
The benefit of a direct discharge type of installation would be the smaller pier foot print area
required to support the biomass off-loading which would likely have a similar lesser impact
(than tanker truck off-loading) on current pier side operations. Disadvantages of this type of
installation include the cost to purchase the pumping infrastructure, install the pipes under the
piers, and construct the storage facility. In addition, and as noted above, the exposed location
of the pipes under the pier increases the risk of potential spills due to damage caused by
floating debris.
Future Methods for Biomass Disposal
A significant effort is underway by industry to develop innovative ways to achieve better
environmental performance in the disposal of waste from ships.
51 Cruise Vessel Biomass Management Study
Draft Phase 1A Study, December 30, 2008
CRUISE VESSEL BIOMASS MANAGEMENT STUDY
DRAFT PHASE 1A STUDY
Data Compilation and Initial Assessment
The company PyroGenesis with support from the US Navy and in cooperation with Carnival
Cruise Lines has developed the PAWDS (Plasma Arc Waste Destruction System) as an
alternative to shipboard incineration. According to website information the system is scalable
and has the option for energy recovery with system capacities ranging from 0.1 to 15m3/day.
The final product is an inert sand like ash which can either be off-loaded in port or disposed of
at sea. The system has been in operation on Carnival Cruise Lines M/S Fantasy since 2003 and
is now solely operated by the vessel crew. The system handles 5m3/day of waste. PAWDS is
currently being marketed as Plasma King Waste Destruction System by Deerberg-Systems.
Scanship Environmental which makes waste treatment and handling systems for a significant
portion of the cruise ship market has recently entered into and agreement with ITI Energy
Limited whereby Scanship will promote, install and support ITI's marine gasification
technology according to a company press release. The agreement covers the full integration
and use of ITI's technology with Scanships 'Clean Ship Solutions' system. According to
Scanship the system will be on the market soon and will be suitable for new build and retrofit
markets. Scanship claims the system will not only produce ultra low emissions but will also
produce a gas that can be fed into an internal combustion engine to generate a considerable
amount of electricity. More detailed information about this system was not available and it is
not known if any pilot projects are underway using the Scanship gasification technology.
While this may hold promise for future applications, more data from demonstration projects are
needed to determine the viability of the technology.
52 Cruise Vessel Biomass Management Study
Draft Phase 1A Study, December 30, 2008
CRUISE VESSEL BIOMASS MANAGEMENT STUDY
DRAFT PHASE 1A STUDY
Data Compilation and Initial Assessment
Section 4
Conclusion
References
53 Cruise Vessel Biomass Management Study
Draft Phase 1A Study, December 30, 2008
CRUISE VESSEL BIOMASS MANAGEMENT STUDY
DRAFT PHASE 1A STUDY
Data Compilation and Initial Assessment
Conclusion
Based on the data provided herein, the following primary conclusions are apparent:
As currently configured, it is not possible for all vessels to store the entire volume of
biomass generated in a week long cruise voyage. Two vessels reported they could store
all biomass generated in a week. For the remaining vessels the storage capacity varied
from 47% to 94% of weekly generation (3.3 to 6.6 days of storage capacity). At this
time it is not known on a vessel by vessel basis if adding storage is possible.
Accordingly, for all vessels that do not currently have sufficient capacity to store the
biomass generated during a full week voyage, the available alternatives include:
o biomass off-shore disposal as currently allowed,
o mid-voyage transfer to other (not-in-Seattle) on-shore facility at other Port's-ofcall
,
o or, modification of the existing on-board treatment, transfer and storage systems.
The costs and environmental impact of all of these alternatives are unknown and
beyond the scope of this phase of the study.
Biomass is pumpable and could potentially be pumped on shore.
On-shore transfer would have significant impacts to pier side operations. The extent of
these impacts would vary by vessel, dock facility, volume of biomass to discharge, and
method chosen for transfer to shore facilities. However, it is clear that for at least some
of the vessels currently calling at the Port, the requisite disembarkation/embarkation of
passengers, bunkering and provisioning, as well as the scheduling demands of an
Alaskan itinerary sailing from Seattle, make it unlikely that the vessel could unload all
of its biomass during the short time they are alongside Port facilities.
Further study would be needed for evaluation of the potential environmental impact(s)
from off-loading biomass at the pier, including determination of the net environmental
benefit/impact of both the off-load operation as well as introduction of this biomass into
King County systems.
Before proceeding with alternative methods for managing and disposing of biomass, more
study is needed both regarding the feasibility and cost of vessel retrofits as well as the
environmental benefits or impacts of offloading biomass at the Port of Seattle.
The survey that was sent to Cruise Line operators is a first step in answering some of the
questions related to upgrades necessary to the cruise vessels associated with biomass
unloading. However, as part of a potential Phase 1B, more detail discussions with each vessel
54 Cruise Vessel Biomass Management Study
Draft Phase 1A Study, December 30, 2008
CRUISE VESSEL BIOMASS MANAGEMENT STUDY
DRAFT PHASE 1A STUDY
Data Compilation and Initial Assessment
operator could be addressed to reach stronger conclusions about the physical impacts of
proposed methods for onboard storage and transfer. Specific questions to be asked within these
follow-up interviews include:
The following additional tasks are recommended as part of continued Phase 1B study:
1. Onboard visits of at least three vessels to determine biomass storage capacity, pumping
capacity, shore transfer capability and rate(s) etc.
2. Meet with crew to better understand shore transfer and waste treatment operations and
vessel system functions.
3. Preliminary engineering cost estimates for modifications of vessels surveyed.
4. Meet with shore side operator terminal operator to discuss impacts and mitigation for
on-pier impact(s).
5. Preliminary engineering cost estimates for pier side modifications and additional
infrastructure.
Phase 2 would focus on assessment of potential environmental impacts/benefits of alternative
methods of biomass disposal and management. It may make sense to complete Phase 2 prior to
proceeding Phase 1B.
55 Cruise Vessel Biomass Management Study
Draft Phase 1A Study, December 30, 2008
CRUISE VESSEL BIOMASS MANAGEMENT STUDY
DRAFT PHASE 1A STUDY
Data Compilation and Initial Assessment
References
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC). "Division of Water, Cruise Ship
Program." Accessed September 28, 2008.
http://www.dec.state.ak.us/water/cruise_ships/index.htm
Hamworthy. "Membrane BioReactor Gray and Blackwater Treatment." Accessed September
28, 2008 http://www.hamworthy.com/docGallery/415.PDF
Huhta, Hanna-Kaisa, Jorma Rytkonen & Jukka Sassi. "Estimating nutrient load from waste
waters originating from ships in the Baltic Sea Area" Espoo 2007. VTT Tiedotteita
Research Notes 2370. 58 p. + app. 13 p.
Hydroxyl. "Hydroxyl Sea Clean." Accessed September 28, 2008
http://www.hydroxyl.com/products_cleansea.php
King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks Wastewater Treatment Division,
2008. 2007 Biosolids Quality Summary. Seattle, WA.
MEPC (Marine Environment Protection Committee), adopted 13 October 2006. Annex 26
Resolution MEPC.159(55), Revised Guidelines on Implementation of Effluent Standards and
Performance Tests for Sewage Treatment Plants. International Maritime Organization.
Northwest CruiseShip Association. "NWCruiseShip.org." Accessed September 28, 2008
www.alaska.nwcruiseship.org/
Port of Seattle. "Cruise Seattle." Accessed September 28, 2008
http://www.portseattle.org/seaport/cruise/
ROCHEM (n.d.). "Clearly Superior in Waste Water Treatment," Accessed September 28,
2008. http://www.rochem.com/Home/home.html
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2006a. Holland America Veendam Sampling Episode
Report. Washington, DC. http://www.epa.gov/owow/oceans/cruise_ships/veendam.html
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2006b. Norwegian Star Sampling Episode Report.
Washington, DC http://www.epa.gov/owow/oceans/cruise_ships/finalstar.html
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2006c. Princess Cruise Lines Island Princess Sampling
Episode Report. Washington, DC. http://www.epa.gov/owow/oceans/cruise_ships/island.html
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2006d. Sampling Episode Report Holland America
Oosterdam Sampling Episode 6506. Washington, DC.
http://www.epa.gov/owow/oceans/cruise_ships/oosterdam.html
56 Cruise Vessel Biomass Management Study
Draft Phase 1A Study, December 30, 2008
CRUISE VESSEL BIOMASS MANAGEMENT STUDY
DRAFT PHASE 1A STUDY
Data Compilation and Initial Assessment
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2007. Draft Cruise Ship Discharge Assessment Report.
Washington, DC.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 40cfr133.102. Washington, DC.
Voss, Kelly. "The Port of Helsinki Current Environmental Projects. September 3, 2008"
Prepared for the Port of Seattle.
57 Cruise Vessel Biomass Management Study
Draft Phase 1A Study, December 30, 2008
CRUISE VESSEL BIOMASS MANAGEMENT STUDY
DRAFT PHASE 1A STUDY
Data Compilation and Initial Assessment
Appendix
Blank Survey As Sent to Cruise Lines
1 Cruise Vessel Biomass Management Study
Draft Phase 1A Study, December 30, 2008
P.O. Box 1209
Seattle, WA U.S.A. 98111
BIOMASS MANAGEMENT STUDY
The Port of Seattle is in the process of studying the feasibility of alternatives to open-ocean
discharge of cruise vessel biomass. The first step of this process is to gather information on
cruise vessels currently calling at the port. In support of this study, the Port of Seattle is
requesting that you please answer the following questions regarding the current methods for
handling biomass produced within the vessel. Please return the completed survey to Marie Fritz
(fritz.m@portseattle.org) no later than noon on July 16, 2008.
For the purposes of this study, "Biomass" refers to the partially-treated solids residuals from the
wastewater treatment process.
1. Cruise line and name of the vessel:
2. Type (make/model) of advanced wastewater treatment system(s) or marine sanitation device
(please include schematic of treatment system if available):
3. Identify on-board waste water types that generate flow which enter the AWTS for treatment
(gray water, black water, etc.):
4. For each system identified above, provide the approximate quantity of blackwater and
graywater generated daily:
5. Identify the storage capacity of untreated wastewater within the vessel:
6. Identify the storage capacity of treated wastewater within the vessel:
7. Identify the daily treatment (process) capacity of the AWTS system (example gallons or
cubic meters per day):
P.O. Box 1209
Seattle, WA U.S.A. 98111
8. Identify the daily volume of biomass generated and the volume of biomass generated on a
normal cruise evolution (7-days):
9. Estimated consistency of biomass (%liquid, % solid):
10. Identify the capacity of biomass that can be held on-board and the method of storage (dry,
wet, in tanks, in containers, etc.):
11. What is the current method of biomass disposal:
12. In a normal cruise evolution (7-day voyage), how often is biomass discharged:
13. Is the point where biomass is discharged determined based on capacity or by vessel location:
14. If the vessel conducts shorter cruises (3-4 days), how often and where is biomass discharged:
15. Has the vessel's biomass ever been sampled for conventional pollutants or any other
parameters?
P.O. Box 1209
Seattle, WA U.S.A. 98111
16. Is this vessel currently fitted to store and discharge biomass to a shoreside facility?
17. If "No" to question 16:
a) What would it take to modify the existing on-board systems to allow discharge to a
shoreside facility:
b) Is the consistency of the biomass material conducive to pumping to a shoreside facility:
18. If "Yes" to question 16:
a) How is the biomass transferred shoreside (pumped, water-added then pumped,
vacuumed, etc.):
b) Identify company that receives the biomass shoreside and (if possible) the location where
the biomass is ultimately disposed:
c) How long does it currently take to transfer biomass to the shoreside facilities:
19. If all or portions of the biomass is incinerated:
a) Describe what portion of the biomass is incinerated (screened solids, etc.):
b) How is this biomass transferred to the incinerator:
c) How much time does it take to transfer and incinerate the biomass:
d) How much fuel is consumed in the incineration of the biomass:
e) How is the remnant ash (left over following incineration) typically disposed:
Limitations of Translatable Documents
PDF files are created with text and images are placed at an exact position on a page of a fixed size.
Web pages are fluid in nature, and the exact positioning of PDF text creates presentation problems.
PDFs that are full page graphics, or scanned pages are generally unable to be made accessible, In these cases, viewing whatever plain text could be extracted is the only alternative.