PORT OF SEATTLE 
CORRECTED COPY                  MEMORANDUM 
COMMISSION AGENDA             Item No.      6b 
ACTION ITEM             Date of Meeting    April 24, 2012 

DATE:    April 23, 2012 
TO:     Tay Yoshitani, Chief Executive Officer 
FROM:    Stephanie Jones Stebbins, Director, Seaport Environmental and Planning 
Michael McLaughlin, Director, Cruise and Maritime Operations 
SUBJECT:  Proposed Amendments to Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) Cruise
Operations in Washington State 
ACTION REQUESTED:
Commission directs the Chief Executive Officer to set aside the proposed amendments to the
MOU, and substitute the following approach in discussions with the MOU Signatories: 
1)  Codify the existing practice of Cruise Vessels not discharging while at berth through a
change to the Port's tariff and 
2)  Support the Washington State Department of Ecology's (Ecology) work to understand
the optimal geographical and operational extent of a Puget Sound proposed No Discharge
Zone (NDZ). Play a leadership role in understanding the potential operational impact to
the Port's Cargo and Cruise industry. 
SYNOPSIS:
Two proposed amendments to the Cruise MOU, as established in 2004, are being considered
pursuant to the MOU amendment review process which requires that the MOU signatories meet
at the end of the review process to determine whether to adopt any of the proposed amendments.
The amendments are as follows: 
1) Ban the discharge of gray water and black water in MOU waters. 
2) Ban the continuous discharge of gray water and sewage (black water), limiting to 
only discharge while the ship is greater than 1 mile offshore and traveling at least six 
knots or greater 
Staff has evaluated these amendments and determined that, while we support the end result these
amendments seek to achieve, the MOU is not the most effective way to achieve these results.
Instead, staff is recommending a different approach that has the potential to broaden
participation beyond the MOU parties.

COMMISSION AGENDA 
Tay Yoshitani, Chief Executive Officer 
April 23, 2012 
Page 2 of 6 
BACKGROUND: 
We are pleased to note that many of the concerns raised by the amendment proponents in the
original letter are already addressed by the current MOU. The proposal letter (attached) and
supporting data (referenced EPA study) refer to many practices already prohibited by the MOU,
such as discharges by traditional Type 2 Marine Sanitation Devices (MSD) and untreated
discharges of gray water and black water. None of these discharges are permitted by the MOU. 
For instance, the letter states: "Effluent discharges from MSDs often also exceed secondary
treatment standards for land-based domestic sewage." We would agree, which is why the MOU
already bans these discharges and has since its inception in 2004 
As we understand it, the intent of these amendments would also be to ban discharges of treated
effluent from advanced wastewater treatment systems, which is currently allowed by the MOU,
with certain conditions. The vessel must seek approval from Ecology. With appropriate
approval granted from Ecology, the MOU allows two types of wastewater discharge to occur 
either "continuously," meaning while the vessel is secured at berth and within one mile of berth,
or when the vessel is underway more than one mile from its berth, moving at a speed of at least
6 knots.
It should be noted that there has been a steady decline in the amount of treated cruise ship
wastewater discharged in Washington waters  even as the number of cruise calls has increased.
Ecology records show that in 2006 eleven homeported vessels received approval for discharge
while in 2010 and 2011 cruise seasons only two homeported vessels received approval for
discharge while underway. In 2006, 4 vessels received approval to discharge "continuously,"
meaning while at berth, while in 2010 and 2011; all vessels have voluntarily abstained from this 
practice. 
The Port of Seattle would like to see this practice of no discharge at berth codified. We will do 
so unilaterally within our existing authority by placing this restriction in the Port's tariff. The 
tariff will include the following: 
Passenger cruise ships will not discharge graywater or blackwater, whether treated or not
while at berth in Seattle 
This language will be added to the tariff and will go into effect on May 1, 2012. The Port does
not have the authority to restrict discharge when the vessel is not at berth; however, staff
considers it unlikely that discharge will take place within a mile from berth, as the MOU only
allows this if applying for continuous or "at berth" discharge. No vessel has chosen to do so for
several years, and staff considers it unlikely that they would do so, if discharge at berth (the main
"benefit" of such an approval) is not permitted in any case. Again, if any vessel seeks to
discharge while not at berth but within one mile of it, that vessel must first seek review and
receive approval from the Department of Ecology.
The other proposed amendment (number two), concerns the discharge of treated effluent while
underway. The effluent being discussed in this case is highly treated and of a comparatively

COMMISSION AGENDA 
Tay Yoshitani, Chief Executive Officer 
April 23, 2012 
Page 3 of 6 
small volume when compared to effluent of similar quality discharged from land-based treatment
systems, such as King County's West Point Wastewater Treatment Plant.
In 2007 King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks performed a comparison
between West Point and cruise ship Advanced Wastewater Treatment System (AWTs) 
discharges as part of their Cruise Ship Wastewater Management Report. AWTs samples were
taken to the West Point laboratory with the following results in key discharge quality criteria: 
Ship 1        Ship 2       West Point 
Total Suspended Solids (mg/l)          0           11           13 
Total Solids (% solids)              0.035         0.05          0.05 
cBOD (mg/l)                  >16         23          11 
Fecal Coliforms                   0           0           0 
The executive summary of the report states: "Based on a review of effluent sampling results
prepared by the State Department of Ecology, and on a comparative analysis of effluent samples
from some cruise ships with effluent produced at the West Point Treatment Plant, the cruise
ships sampled are producing and discharging effluent that is at least as clean as effluent from
West Point." 
One issue that has received a fair amount of attention is ammonia concentrations. The sample
testing results found in the most recent federal discharge permit application for the West Point
Wastewater Treatment Plant reflect an average ammonia concentration of 18.4 mg per liter. In
comparison, 2011 MOU sampling showed generated ammonia concentrations ranging from 9.1
to 31 mg per liter and averaging 20 mg per liter. It should be pointed out that West Point and
cruise vessels have similar Ammonia Concentrations, newer land based treatment plants such as
Brightwater, will likely have much lower Ammonia concentrations. 
While the discharges are similar in various concentration levels there are a number of differences
in the effluent. The West Point outfall is on the bottom of the Sound, approximately 230 feet
below the surface and 3600 feet from shore. In contrast, cruise ships discharge below the vessel
waterline, and if discharging underway, there is mixing that results from the vessel movement.
Although the current evidence does not suggest that there is significant impact from the
discharges that are currently occurring, being similar in nature to land based treatment plants, but
much smaller in volume, we support the current work underway by the State, to evaluate NDZs 
in Puget Sound more comprehensively in accordance with the Puget Sound Partnership Action
Agenda. Ecology is leading a study to evaluate the establishment of one or more NDZs in Puget
Sound. Several other State Agencies are also contributing to the study including the State
Department of Health, Department of Natural Resources, Puget Sound Partnership, Department
of Fish and Wildlife, and State Parks The work has been funded by a grant from the National
Estuary Program. The Clean Water Act dictates that states cannot enact NDZ's on their own but
must petition the EPA. The work being done now will lead to a petition process. The first phase
of this study will be completed in July 2012 and includes gathering information about existing

COMMISSION AGENDA 
Tay Yoshitani, Chief Executive Officer 
April 23, 2012 
Page 4 of 6 
infrastructure to support an NDZ (such as pump out facilities) and other research tasks. Phase 2
will follow (hopefully beginning in September 2012) and will include evaluation at the
geography where a NDZ will benefit water quality and pathogen protection. Both a sound wide
NDZ and more targeted NDZs are being evaluated. Phase 2 is scheduled to be completed in July
2013 and will lead to a decision on whether and for what areas to petition EPA.
An NDZ has recently been established for the 3 nautical miles off the entire California coast.
The rule covers treated sewage discharge from cruise ships and oceangoing vessels of 300 gross
tons or greater. Untreated sewage was prohibited from release within 3 nautical miles of land
through federal and international law. In addition, staff has researched the existence of NDZ's at
the top six U.S. cruise ports  New York, Fort Lauderdale, Miami, Seattle, Port Canaveral
(Orlando), and Los Angeles.  In addition to the California NDZ, covering Los Angeles, NDZ's
are being considered in Puget Sound and in New York harbor. The remaining three ports do not
have NDZ's and are not considering them.
The MOU between the Port, Ecology and the North West and Canada Cruise Association
(NWCCA) has provided many benefits over the years. It continues to provide not only stringent
standards, but also data made available to the public and Ecology oversight. We have found that
this is one tool to continue to work towards lower environmental impacts collectively with the
Cruise Industry. Staff feels that it is both important to maintain this MOU, but also to use other
appropriate tools where they will better achieve our purpose. If we are going to continue
encouraging environmental performance far beyond any regulatory requirements, we must do so
in ways that are workable for our business partners. It is our understanding that the NWCCA
will not support either proposed amendment; however, their concerns primarily relate to using
the MOU to achieve these goals. For that reason, we recommend pursuing these ends by other
means. 
ADDITIONAL BACKGROUND: 
The MOU is a voluntary agreement between three signatories: the Port of Seattle, Ecology and
the NWCCA. Interest in establishing the MOU started during the rapid growth of the cruise ship
business in Washington in the last decade. Several bodies of law already govern waste
management aspects of cruise ship operation. Nevertheless, the parties decided to create the
MOU that goes beyond other existing environmental regulatory requirements. The original
MOU was signed in 2004. Since the original MOU signing in 2004, the agreement has been
amended five times to reflect advances in wastewater treatment technology and higher standards
for environmental stewardship. 
Each year, Ecology completes a compliance report. The report for 2011 is attached to this
memo. As mentioned above, of the 14 vessels calling and homeporting in Seattle, 12 did not seek
approval to discharge in Puget Sound. Two received approval to discharge while underway.
The Ecology report also includes a summary of the five inspections completed as well as
sampling results. The two issues raised this year include one instance of sending expired and
unused medications to the blackwater system, in violation of both the MOU and Cruise Lines

COMMISSION AGENDA 
Tay Yoshitani, Chief Executive Officer 
April 23, 2012 
Page 5 of 6 
International Association (CLIA). Fortunately this vessel did not discharge any blackwater in
MOU waters and procedures have been changed to prevent a recurrence. In addition, one ship
accidentally discharged untreated grey water, in violation of the MOU and state laws.
According to the Ecology report, the vessel "took all measures to stop discharges immediately,
immediate review of procedures, investigation. Ecology inspection and follow up."
In addition to this yearly report, recently the MOU parties established policies to define a process
for the consideration of proposed MOU amendments offered by non-parties. The policies dictate
that such amendments can only be considered and adopted once every three years starting in
2012. 
The policies further establish a three-phase process for each individual review cycle. The phases
are: 
a 21-day solicitation of amendment proposals, 
a 45-day evaluation of proposals against established criteria, and 
a 30-day public comment period for those amendment proposals found by at least one 
MOU party to meet the established criteria. 
The respective staff of each MOU signatory have been working together to follow the prescribed
process. Proposed amendments were submitted jointly by Friends of the Earth, Puget
Soundkeeper Alliance, and People for Puget Sound. At the time of the Commission
presentation, the process will have completed the third phase of review, the public comment
period. 
The original proposal included three amendments; however, the third proposed amendment was
determined by the MOU parties not to meet the criteria for moving forward. The public
comment period for the remaining two amendments listed above lasted from January 12 to
February 13, 2012. Staff took various actions to notify the public of the public comment period,
including notices on the Port and Ecology websites. 
The amendment process prescribes that the next step is for each party to adopt a position on each
of the amendments that advanced to public comment in the third phase of review. As a result,
staff is providing recommendations for commission action in order for the Port to determine its
position with a formal vote of the Commission. In order to be adopted into the MOU, all three
parties must unanimously support the amendment. 
Approximately 1,874 public comments have been received by the Port and Ecology although
Ecology is the agency officially tabulating the comments. 978 comments were entered into the
record at the January 10, 2012, Commission meeting at the request of Friends of the Earth. The
comments were provided as a Compact Disc of PDF copies of the letters (Form Letter One). 350
comments were received in another PDF forwarded by Friends of the Earth during the comment
period. 544 emails were received directly by the Port and Ecology during the comment period. 
Most of the emails submitted during comment period were identical or similar to Form Letter

COMMISSION AGENDA 
Tay Yoshitani, Chief Executive Officer 
April 23, 2012 
Page 6 of 6 
Two. In addition, a comment letter was received from Friends of the Earth and Puget Sound
Keeper Alliance. A separate comment letter was received from People for Puget Sound.
Following the close of the public comment period, letters were received from Puget Sound 
Partnership and the Washington State Department of Health. The texts of all of these letters are
attached. 
OTHER DOCUMENTS ASSOCIATED WITH THIS BRIEFING: 

Attachment  1: MOU 
Attachment  2: Amendment Process for MOU 
Attachment  3: Friends or the Earth, People for Puget Sound and Puget Soundkeeper 
Alliance letter dated November 21, 2012 with proposed amendments 
Attachment  4: Friends of the Earth and Puget Sound Keeper Alliance letter dated 
February 13, 2012 
Attachment  5: People for Puget Sound letter dated February 13, 2012 
Attachment  6: Ecology letter dated March 2, 2012 
Attachment  7: Puget Sound Partnership letter dated March 13, 2012 
Attachment  8: Dept. of Health letter dated March 26, 2012 
Attachment 9: Form Letter One 
Attachment 10: Form Letter Two 
Attachment 11: Ecology PowerPoint  2011 Compliance 
Attachment 12: North West and Canada Cruise Association letter dated April 20, 2012 
PREVIOUS COMMISSION ACTIONS OR BRIEFINGS: 

On April 13, 2004, the Commission authorized the execution of an MOU governing 
environmental management practices of cruise ships using Port facilities. 
On June 27, 2006, the Commission was briefed on Cruise Operations water quality MOU 
On October 27, 2009, staff briefing on Cruise MOU, Commission received public 
comment regarding briefing on Cruise MOU. 
On April 6, 2010, the Commission was briefed on three proposed amendments to the 
MOU and the need for an agreed procedure for the amendment process. 
On November, 2, 2010, the Commission was briefed on the Cruise MOU, proposed 
options for an MOU amendment process 
On February 14, 2012, the Commission was briefed on staff's actions to follow the MOU
amendment process for this same amendment proposal by Friends of the Earth, Puget
Soundkeeper Alliance, and People for Puget Sound. The comments received during the
public comment period were not summarized at that time since the period had closed only
one day earlier.