+----------------------------+-----------------------------------------+
| > **\"Kulkarni, Neesha\"   | +----+------------------------------+   |
| > \<NKulkarni@foe.org\>**  | | [T | > OW-Docket@EPA              |   |
| >                          | | o] |                              |   |
| > 02/04/2008 05:06 PM      | | {. |                              |   |
|                            | | un |                              |   |
|                            | | de |                              |   |
|                            | | rl |                              |   |
|                            | | in |                              |   |
|                            | | e} |                              |   |
|                            | +----+------------------------------+   |
|                            | | cc | > \"Fugere, Danielle\"       |   |
|                            | |    | > \<DFugere@foe.org\>        |   |
|                            | +----+------------------------------+   |
|                            | | b  |                              |   |
|                            | | cc |                              |   |
|                            | +----+------------------------------+   |
|                            | |    |                              |   |
|                            | +----+------------------------------+   |
|                            | | S  | > 2007-1156 \[FR Doc:        |   |
|                            | | ub | > E7-24737\];\[Page          |   |
|                            | | je | > 72353-72355\]; Reports and |   |
|                            | | ct | > guidance documents;        |   |
|                            | |    | > availability, etc.: Cruise |   |
|                            | |    | > ship discharge assessment  |   |
|                            | +----+------------------------------+   |
|                            | |    |                              |   |
|                            | +----+------------------------------+   |
+----------------------------+-----------------------------------------+

To Whom it May Concern:

Attached, please find Friends of the Earth\'s comments to the Cruise
Ship Discharge Assessment Report. If you have any questions or concerns,
please do not hesitate to contact me at the number listed below.

Sincerely,

Neesha R. Kulkarni

\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*

**Neesha R. Kulkarni**

**Legislative Associate**

**Friends of the Earth**

**1717 Massachusetts Avenue, NW, Suite 600**

**Washington, DC 20036-2008**

**202-222-0749 (direct)**

**202-783-7400 (main)**

**[[nkulkarni@foe.org]{.underline}](mailto:nkulkarni@foe.org_) (email)**

**[[www.foe.org]{.underline}](http://www.foe.org/_) (web)**

**[[www.bluewaternetwork.org]{.underline}](http://www.bluewaternetwork.org/_)
(web)**

**Thank you for being a friend of the earth. Please support Friends of
the Earth in the Combined Federal Campaign. Our number is 12607.**

![](media/image1.png){width="2.125in" height="0.4895833333333333in"}

![](media/image2.png){width="0.10416666666666667in"
height="2.0833333333333332e-2in"}

![](media/image3.jpeg){width="2.7381944444444444in" height="0.78125in"}

February 4, 2008

Mr. Benjamin H. Grumbles

Assistant Administrator for Water

Water Docket

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Mailcode: 2822T

1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW

Washington, DC 20460

Re: Comments on Cruise Ship Discharge Assessment Report --

Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2007-1156

Dear Assistant Administrator Grumbles,

In response to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) request
for public comment on the Draft Cruise Ship Discharge Assessment Report
(Assessment Report), please accept these comments, recommendations, and
requests for regulatory action on behalf of Friends of the Earth
(formerly Bluewater Network), and Rock the Earth signed-on below.[^1] .

While we believe that this report is long overdue, the EPA has done an
excellent job in providing the scientific evidence needed to support
regulation of cruise ship discharges under the Clean Water Act and other
applicable laws as described in the Assessment Report. Considering the
findings of the Assessment Report and the actions requested in the
original petition, [we hereby request that the EPA immediately begin a
rulemaking process to regulate wastewater discharges from cruise ships
to the full extent of the EPA's regulatory authority and partner
agencies as applicable in U.S. waters]{.underline}

The Assessment Report found that cruise ships routinely dump large
amounts of poorly treated sewage and highly contaminated raw graywater
into U.S. waters. The Assessment Report findings -- key citations
detailed below -- clearly indicate that regulated and unregulated
discharges from cruise ships have the potential to harm the marine
environment. The most serious finding is that standard on-board sewage
treatment systems fail to adequately treat sewage before discharge and
more advanced systems need improvements to become adequately protective
of the marine environment and the public health.

The EPA reported that treated effluent from conventional U.S. Coast
Guard-approved Type II Marine Sanitation Devices (MSDs) contain
concentrations of bacteria, chlorine, nutrients, metals and other
pollutants that often far exceed federal ship effluent performance
standards[^2] and EPA's 2006 National Recommended Water Quality Criteria
(NRWQC).[^3] Effluent discharges from MSDs often also exceed secondary
treatment standards for land-based domestic sewage.[^4]

As a result of some new sampling and testing, EPA discovered that
Advanced Wastewater Treatment Systems (AWTs) used on board some cruise
ships are much more effective than MSDs in treating sewage, but do not
adequately remove all potentially harmful contaminants. The EPA reported
that in 2006, 23 of 28 vessels operating in Alaska used AWTs. About 115
cruise ships operate in U.S. waters according the U.S. Maritime
Administration statistics. From this we can conclude that about 20
percent of ships in U.S. waters are equipped with these systems; and
that the vast majority continue to use the ineffective conventional
MSDs.

While AWTs produce cleaner wastewater, treated effluent often did not
meet NRWQC for metals, chlorine or nutrients such as ammonia[^5]---all
of which can harm the marine environment. In addition, these systems
were found to produce large volumes of sewage sludge that is routinely
dumped overboard or incinerated, thereby introducing new toxic and
unregulated waste streams into the marine environment.

Raw graywater was also found to be highly contaminated, even more than
sewage in some cases.[^6]

While we understand that cruise ship discharges are required only to
meet the federal effluent performance standards for ships -- except in
Alaska where regulations specific to those state waters mandate stricter
effluent limits -- we recognize and appreciate that EPA made these
comparisons in order to better understand the potential impacts of these
discharges to the environment.[^7]

We suspect that EPA's failure to act on these findings -- some of which
date back seven years -- or enforce compliance with federal effluent
performance standards has indirectly led to cruise ships operating in
U.S. waters while routinely violating the agency's own regulations
implementing Section 312 of the Clean Water Act without penalty. This
has likely resulted in harm to the marine environment, water quality of
receiving waters, commercial shellfish fisheries and public health.

In response to the Assessment Report findings, we hereby request that
the EPA and the U.S. Coast Guard immediately initiate the following
actions:

1)  Enact an emergency interim rule to ban the discharge of effluent
    from MSDs on board cruise ships and all graywater into any and all
    applicable U.S. waters under EPA and Coast Guard jurisdiction out to
    12 miles as soon as possible but not later than May 2008 when the
    next North American cruise season begins, and keep the discharge ban
    in place until a national regulatory scheme addressing the five
    waste streams from cruise ships covered in the Assessment Report is
    implemented and enforced under all applicable laws, and

2)  Increase monitoring, sampling and testing of effluent from MSDs and
    AWTs, and,

3)  Initiate rulemaking under the Clean Water Act and other applicable
    laws to establish a national regulatory scheme to prevent, reduce,
    control, and monitor the five cruise ship waste streams addressed in
    the Assessment Report.

We also believe that more stringent oversight of the cruise industry is
needed, such as on-board observers, more comprehensive monitoring and
sampling of waste streams, and a funding mechanism based on the
polluter-pays model that will provide revenues to develop and implement
a comprehensive regulatory scheme.

Here are some of the key findings from the report on which we base our
request for immediate EPA and U.S. Coast Guard action:

*Page 2 - 8 Of the 92 samples taken from 21 cruise ships in Alaska
during voluntary sampling in 2000 and 2001, only 43 percent met fecal
coliform standards and only 32 percent met total suspended solids
standards for ship effluent. Only one sample of 70 met both.*

*Page 2 -- 23 Traditional Type II MSD effluent concentrations exceeded
the EPA performance standards for discharges from Type II MSDs. In
addition, traditional Type II MSD effluent concentrations exceeded most
wastewater discharge standards . . . for secondary treatment from
land-based sewage plants.*

*Page 2 -- 25 Given the consistent exceedance of National Recommended
Water Quality Criteria for bacteria, traditional Type II MSD effluent
may cause, have the potential to cause, or contribute to non-attainment
of water quality standards in a given receiving water.*

*Page 2 -- 28 Both traditional Type II MSD and AWT effluent
concentrations exceed the National Recommended Water Quality Criteria
for total residual chlorine at the end of the pipe.*

*Page 2 -- 29 Several dissolved metals that are common components of
ship piping---copper nickel and zinc---were found at levels
approximately one to four times above National Recommended Water Quality
Criteria for aquatic life.*

*Page 2 -- 32 Average effluent concentrations of ammonia from
traditional Type II MSDs and AWTs exceed all of the water body ammonia
standards \[and\] at the end of pipe are likely to exceed NRWQC
regardless of the receiving water.*

*Page 2 -- 34 For three pollutants---fecal coliform, total residual
chlorine and ammonia---end of pipe discharge levels are high enough that
they may not meet NRWQC after mixing when the vessel is at rest.*

*Page 3 - 19 Untreated cruise ship graywater concentrations exceeded the
EPA standards for discharges from Type II MSDs (for fecal coliform and
total suspended solids). In addition, untreated graywater concentrations
exceeded all wastewater discharge standards for . . . secondary
treatment discharge standards from land-based sewage treatment plants.*

*Page 3 - 21 Given the consistent exceedance of the National Recommended
Water Quality Criteria for bacteria, untreated graywater may cause, have
the potential to cause or contribute to non-attainment of water quality
standards in a given receiving water.*

**Directives to Act**

We believe that the U.S. EPA has a clear directive to act to regulate
cruise ship discharges, not only based on its own science and research
and responsibility to protect U.S. waters from pollution under the Clean
Water Act and other applicable laws and direction from Congress, but
through the recommendations made by independent government, research and
industry bodies including the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy
established by President Bush, the Pew Oceans Commission and the Ocean
Conservation and Tourism Alliance (OCTA) Science Panel.

[U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy]{.underline}

The U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy in its Final Report, An Ocean
Blueprint for the 21st Century\--released in September 2004\--in Chapter
16 on "Limiting Vessel Pollution and Improving Vessel Safety," found
that the "benefits from vessel activities are significant, but they also
present risks to people and the environment that need to be effectively
addressed." The Commission noted that while "many of the pollutants
associated with vessels also have land-based sources . . . the existence
of other sources does not diminish the importance of finding better ways
to reduce vessel pollution."

The Commission determined that waste stream discharges from ships "if
not properly disposed of and treated can be a significant source of
pathogens and nutrients with the potential to threaten human health and
damage shellfish beds, coral reefs and other aquatic life," and that "of
particular concern are the cumulative environmental impacts caused when
cruise ships repeatedly visit the same environmentally sensitive areas."

The Commission also found that "no comprehensive wastewater management
regime is in place for all large passenger vessels operating in U.S.
waters" and that "a new regime is needed that provides clear, uniform
standards for controlling the discharge of wastewater from large
passenger vessels, as well as consistent interpretation and enforcement
of those requirements."

[As a result of these findings, the Commission published Recommendation
16-5 as follows:]{.underline}

["Congress should establish a new statutory regime for managing
wastewater discharges from large passenger vessels that apply throughout
the United States."]{.underline}

The regime should include: uniform discharge standards and waste
management procedures, thorough record-keeping requirements to track the
waste management process, and required sampling, testing and monitoring
by vessel operators using uniform protocols.

The full report can be found at:
http://www.oceancommission.gov/documents/welcome.html

**Pew Oceans Commission**

The Pew Oceans Commission recommended in its May 2003 report, America's
Living Oceans, that "Congress should enact legislation that regulates
wastewater discharges from cruise ships under the Clean Water Act by
establishing uniform minimum standards for discharges within the U.S.
Exclusive Economic Zone." See the full report at:
http://www.pewtrusts.org/our_work_ektid30009.aspx?category=130

**Ocean Conservation and Tourism Alliance**

Similar protections were encouraged by the cruise industry funded Ocean
Conservation and Tourism Alliance (OCTA) Science Panel in its
Recommendations to the International Council of Cruise Lines in 2005,
concluding that "all blackwater should be treated," and that discharge
of treated blackwater from *any type* of on-board system should be
"avoided in ports, close to bathing beaches or water bodies with
restricted circulation, flushing or inflow."

The OCTA further recommended that cruise ships adopt a standard of
discharging treated sewage at least 12 nautical miles from the 20-meter
contour line and beyond 4 nautical miles of shellfish beds, coral reefs
or other sensitive habitats. The OCTA recommended similar practices for
graywater.

For sewage sludge, OCTA recommended offloading to approved land-based
facilities and avoiding discharge to the ocean. To ensure adequate
treatment the OCTA also recommended third-party random testing of cruise
ship effluent based on standard sampling and analysis protocols.

The full report is not available on-line but a copy can be provided on
request.

**Cruise Industry Growth**

The cruise industry has expanded tremendously over the time that the EPA
has been evaluating the volumes of pollution generated by the cruise
ship fleet in U.S. waters. During this period, no new federal
regulations have been adopted to control the discharges from cruise
ships. As a result, several states including Alaska and California have
imposed their own regulations, leaving most U.S. waters unprotected from
cruise ship dumping.

Cruise vessels carry millions of people through North American waters
each year, and the United States accounts for 70 percent of global
cruise ship embarkations, according to the U.S. Commission on Ocean
Policy. The cruise industry has grown by 107 percent over the past 10
years. In 2006, 103 cruise ships carried 11.7 million passengers on
4,435 North American cruises, according to the U.S. Maritime
Administration. Passenger volume is projected to grow to 12.6 million in
2007; and continue to expand at an annual average rate of 4.5 percent
per year.

There are presently 44 new cruise ships under construction or on order,
with plans for at least two more new builds having been announced. Eight
new ships were delivered this past year.

The 44 ships represent building contracts exceeding \$26 billion, with
27 ships destined primarily for the North American market, adding some 3
million passengers to the annual capacity by 2012. 

Cruise ship size and capacity is expanding dramatically, with many ships
now transporting 5,000 passengers and crew and the next generation of
ships carrying 7,000 passengers and crew. Cruise ships now call on ports
in 16 states in the U.S.: Florida, South Carolina, Virginia, Maryland,
Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New York, Massachusetts, Maine, Texas,
Louisiana, Alabama, California, Washington, Alaska, and Hawaii. Many
cities are building publicly funded terminals to meet the demands of the
burgeoning cruise industry.

 **Cruise Ship Earnings**

The cruise industry is the fastest growing segment of the leisure travel
industry, according to new reports. So it seems that the small
incremental costs that a regulatory scheme to control pollution might
impose on the industry would be minor. The cruise industry is also
dominated by two U.S.-based corporations: Carnival and Royal Caribbean,
which account for 95 percent of passenger nights in North America and
achieved record revenues of \$16 billion and profits of \$3 billion in
2005.

Carnival will introduce five new ships next year, and passenger capacity
for the Carnival brands will be up 9 percent in 2008 -- 3.4 percent in
North America and 21.7 percent in Europe. Advance bookings for the first
half of 2008 are well ahead of last year, according to Carnival, both in
terms of occupancy and pricing.

Carnival reported net income of \$2.4 billion, or \$2.95 per share, on
revenues of \$13.0 billion for its fiscal year ended Nov. 30, 2007,
compared to net income of \$2.3 billion, or \$2.77 per share, on
revenues of \$11.8 billion last year.

Despite their success and profits, cruise corporations have not been
vigilant in their compliance with environmental standards as noted in
the oily bilge water section of the report: *To date the U.S. has
prosecuted over 75 cases involving intentional discharges of oily bilge
waste from vessels in general, with over \$150 million collected in
criminal fines since 2000. Many of the major cruise ship companies
calling on U.S. ports have been convicted of such violations, including,
Royal Caribbean, Holland America, Carnival and Norwegian Cruise Line
Limited. As a result of the prosecutions, all the companies have been at
one time placed in probation with a requirement to implement
Environmental Compliance Plans.*

While the cruise industry has attempted to restore its image as an
environmentally sound industry by adopting new voluntary environmental
standards -- as described in detail in the Assessment Report \-- such
voluntary programs do little, if anything, to protect U.S. waters from
cruise ship dumping. A cruise ship has never been penalized by its
corporate owners or trade organizations for violating the self-imposed
standards and there is no independent or public auditing to determine
whether the cruise lines in fact follow or enforce them. As a result,
any action by the EPA to control cruise ship pollution must be
regulatory -- not voluntary or in any way discretionary.

**Detailed Comments by Section**

**SEWAGE**

**Regulations**

The existing provisions of, and regulations implementing, the Clean
Water Act date back to 1972, long before the cruise industry became a
large presence in U.S. waters and a major threat to marine eco-systems
and the environment. For this reason, Bluewater Network and 53
organizations petitioned the EPA to update these regulations and remove
exemptions for ship discharges. Recognizing the growth of the cruise
industry and the findings of the Assessment Report, it seems obvious
that obsolete laws and regulations that no longer adequately protect
U.S. waters from cruise ship discharges are in urgent need of updating.

As a result of legal actions and other developments since the petition,
the EPA may now be required to regulate and require permits for
discharges incidental to the normal operation of a ship including
discharges such as graywater and ballast water and other discharges not
included in the Assessment Report. However, we are extremely concerned
that the rulemaking that EPA is now beginning will not cover sewage from
cruise ships because sewage from vessels may be exempt from the
definition of pollutant under the Clean Water Act; and because sewage is
addressed separately in Section 312 of the Clean Water Act. We are also
concerned that the current rulemaking may only cover U.S. waters out to
3 miles due to EPA's interpretation of its authority to regulate
discharges under the Clean Water Act.

In light of these developments, we believe that the best approach is to
simply ban the discharge of treated sewage within 12 miles from shore.
We urge the EPA to seek authority through existing laws and, if
necessary, consult with Congress to request the authority to ban the
discharge of any sewage (treated or not) from cruise ships out to 12
miles and in marine protected areas to ensure the most protective
standards for U.S. waters.

In order to improve the performance of MSDs, we also urge the EPA to
strengthen regulations implemented under Section 312 to require cruise
ships to attain effluent performance standards that will meet federal
water quality criteria at point of discharge and to incorporate Best
Available Technology.

**Monitoring and Sampling**

One of the most striking loopholes in the existing regulatory regime for
sewage discharges from cruise ships (and all ships) is that the U.S.
Coast Guard is not required to ever test the effluent from MSDs of any
type to make sure that it meets federal effluent performance standards
or to enforce the standards or penalize ships for violation. This
oversight should be rectified immediately by updating the existing
regulations through rulemaking to require a national sampling,
monitoring, and reporting regime. The Alaska state monitoring scheme
could be a good model for a national program. Any such scheme should
require frequent monitoring and sampling, along with reporting to EPA.

It is also quite startling to read that penalties for tampering with
MSDs, selling non-certified MSDs, or failing to equip a ship with an
MSD, if required, are ridiculously low at \$2,000 to \$5,000 per
violation. These fines must be increased to at least that much per day
per violation until a ship reaches compliance. In addition, penalties
for failing to meet effluent standards should also be established that
are high enough to create a financial incentive to comply, not
vice-versa.

The fact that the U.S. allows foreign-flagged ships that are party to
weaker international MARPOL Annex IV standards to operate in U.S. waters
with MSDs approved by the International Maritime Organization that may
not meet federal standards is also problematic since most cruise ships
are foreign flagged. The Annex VI standards as described in the
Assessment Report contain only "recommended" effluent standards, so it
seems there is very little control, if any, over the treatment of sewage
by cruise ships in U.S. waters. To correct this, the EPA should require
that all ships, regardless of foreign flag or possession of an IMO
certification for on-board MSDs, meet federal effluent performance
standards and be subject to monitoring and inspection by the U.S. Coast
Guard.

Given the industry's poor history of environmental compliance, the fact
that the probation period requiring environmental compliance officers on
board ships is lapsing, the difficulty of getting frequent samples of
the waste stream to an independent lab, and the fact that the Coast
Guard is too overburdened with their Homeland Security obligations to be
focused on environmental issues, it is an opportune time for the EPA to
institute a national observer program modelled after the Sea Rangers in
Alaska. Such independent observers, similar to what the U.S. requires of
foreign flagged fishing vessels in our waters, would go a long way
toward assuring passengers and the public alike that the ship they are
on, or that is passing through their waters, is in compliance with the
law.

**Treated Sewage**

**Conventional MSDs**

The fact that samples from conventional MSDs used on board the majority
of cruise ships rarely met federal effluent performance standards for
ships is certainly cause for alarm considering that the effluent from
these systems can be legally discharged anywhere without monitoring or
oversight -- and particularly since these discharges have been steadily
increasing since sampling was conducted in 2000 and 2001.

The Assessment Report provides excellent detail on the contaminants
found in treated effluent from conventional MSDs that need not be
repeated in these comments. The results of the sampling speak for
themselves and lead to only one conclusion: conventional MSDs are not
effective in removing pollutants adequately to protect the public health
and U.S. waters from contamination and degradation of water quality.

As a result of findings of high levels of pollution in treated sewage
from cruise ships, the state of California has banned the discharge of
cruise ship effluent within 3 miles of shore and the state of Alaska has
moved to impose much stronger effluent standards for ships in its
waters, imposing technology forcing regulations that have led to the
development of Advanced Wastewater Treatment systems. It is hard to
understand why EPA has not followed the lead of California and Alaska to
ban discharges or establish new national uniform standards that would
offer similar or better protection from cruise ship discharges to U.S.
waters.

*[It would also be helpful to understand how EPA arrived at its effluent
performance standards for conventional MSDs in the first
place.]{.underline}* It seems that these standards are far from
protective of water quality and that when the MSDs routinely fail to
perform, the effluent quickly exceeds water quality standards. We
request that EPA provide to us the original regulatory documents and
supporting research used in developing and implementing Section 312 of
the Clean Water Act and the federal effluent performance standards
currently set in regulation.

**Advanced Wastewater Treatment Systems (AWTs)**

AWTs have been a significant improvement over conventional MSDs, but EPA
testing has shown that even these systems fail to remove all pollutants
that can cause environmental harm. These results are well described in
the Assessment Report and indicate that additional improvements are
needed to remove nutrients, dissolved metals, and chlorine that remain
in effluent treated by AWTs.

We appreciate that EPA raised concerns about the remaining contaminants
found in the AWT effluent and provided examples of technology that could
be added to the AWT systems to remove those last pollutants from treated
cruise-ship effluent. It appears from the report that this equipment
could be a cost-effective way of making cruise ship effluent as
environmentally sound as possible. We urge EPA to set effluent standards
for cruise ship discharges that would require all cruise ships to use
AWTs improved by the proposed new technologies.

EPA has suggested throughout the Assessment Report that dilution might
solve some of the water quality problems associated with effluent from
cruise ships. In general, the environmental community does not support
the dilution and mixing zone solution to dealing with toxic cruise ship
effluent. Instead of using the ocean as a dumping ground as has been the
case in the past, the U.S. government needs to take a precautionary
approach to new and growing discharges into already impaired U.S. waters
and abandon the dilution model in favor of no-discharge, strict effluent
standards and, ultimately, shoreside discharge of all ship wastewater
and solid wastes.

We commend the EPA for describing currently available cost-effective
technology that can remove the nutrients, dissolved metals, and chlorine
that remains in the AWT effluent after treatment. We urge the EPA to
establish new sewage effluent standards for ships that would be
technology forcing to require the addition of equipment that would
eliminate the remaining pollutants of concern. The cruise industry is
capable of responding with new technology when it is called upon to do
so by regulation. These systems should be required on all cruise ships
that intend to discharge treated sewage (or graywater) into U.S. waters,
including the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ).

We recognize the need to allow for a phase-in schedule, but EPA needs to
make it clear to the cruise lines that such improvements need to be made
expeditiously so that they can equip ships currently under construction
with such improvements.

**Sewage Sludge**

A major new waste stream produced by use of AWTs is sewage sludge,
though some is also produced by conventional MSDs. In some systems, the
sewage sludge is recycled and ultimately discharged in the treated
wastewater effluent. But with other systems, the sewage sludge is
routinely discharged directly overboard without treatment at a rate of
370 to 6,600 gallons per day. This waste stream is completely
unregulated. The cruise lines claim to discharge sewage sludge outside
of 12 miles, but there is no way to verify this.

As a result, ocean waters in areas where cruise lines operate are now
subject to an entirely new and unknown waste stream that has the
potential to deliver high concentrations of pollutants known to be a
threat to marine life and water quality. In sampling, the EPA found
significantly elevated levels of concentrated conventional pollutants,
metals, volatile organic compounds and nutrients in the sewage sludge.

It should be noted that sewage sludge from landside treatment facilities
cannot be dumped into the ocean. There is no justification for holding
the cruise industry to a lesser standard. All sewage sludge should be
prohibited from discharge within U.S. waters and the EEZ. Ports where
cruise ship terminals call should be required to accept offloading, as
is now being contemplated in the Port of Seattle.

On February 16^th^ 2007, the Port of Seattle Commission passed a series
of 6 environmental motions associated with their approval to construct a
new cruise ship and containership terminal. Two of the motions listed
below pertain to the discharge of sewage sludge:

"The Commission acknowledges a recent request by Port of Seattle staff
to amend the Memorandum of Understanding Cruise Operations (the "*MOU*")
and implement a complete prohibition on discharging biosolids in the
Olympic Marine Sanctuary.  The Commission directs Port of Seattle staff
to continue its efforts to work with all parties regarding an amendment
to the MOU and to report back for Commission review and possible
implementation of a new amendment by the 2007 cruise ship season.  The
Commission directs Port staff (i) to present the Department of Ecology's
annual report on MOU compliance, titled "Assessment of Cruise Ship
Environmental Effects in Washington" to the Commission in public session
regarding the previous cruise season activity and (ii) to include in any
long-term agreement entered into between the cruise ship industry and
the Port of Seattle a provision requiring compliance with the terms of
the MOU. "

As a result of this motion the MOU between the Port, the cruise ship
association, and the Department of Ecology was modified to ban the
dumping of sewage sludge in the Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary.
There has been an MOU meeting to review the 2007 season but there has
yet to be a presentation to the Commission in public session.

"The Commission recognizes the significant economic benefit to the
region of having cruise ships homeport in Seattle.  The Commission
supports the growth of the cruise ship industry in Seattle as well as
efforts to enhance water quality and the marine environment.  The
Commission directs staff to prepare a budget and work program to
evaluate the feasibility, environmental impact, cost/benefit and
possible funding sources of building additional infrastructure to
support the cruise ship industry in Seattle, including proposals to
facilitate off-loading of biosolids and hazardous waste.  Work program
elements will include convening a meeting or series of meetings
beginning in the first half of 2007 on this topic, to include relevant
Port staff, cruise ship industry officials, Department of Ecology
officials, county and city public utilities and health officials, other
relevant experts, and community and environmental group
representatives."

In addition to this motion, on April 9^th^ 2007, the King County Council
passed the following motion:

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT MOVED by the Council of King County:

A. That the King County executive, through the wastewater treatment
division of the department of natural resources and parks, 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;

B. That the study should include at least the following elements:

1\. Impacts to the environment that can be avoided through the diversion
of waste from cruise ships through the county\'s wastewater management
system;

2\. The capacity of the county\'s wastewater treatment system to receive
and process the volumes of waste generated by the marine cruise ships
which visit local port facilities, now and in the future;

3\. A summary of piping, coupling and other mechanisms needed to channel
waste from visiting cruise ships to the county\'s wastewater management
system;

4\. Any displaced future opportunity for wastewater processing capacity
utilization by resident users of the wastewater management system;

5\. Costs for the waste diversion, and any appropriate financial
arrangements to address costs;

6\. Economic or other impacts to the cruise ship industry; and

7\. A recommendation regarding any appropriate council action; and

C. That the executive report the results of the study to the council\'s
growth management and natural resources committee by July 31, 2007; and
that thirteen copies of the study and recommendations be filed with the
clerk of the council for distribution to all council members and to and
lead staff of the growth management and natural resources committee by
July 31, 2007Due to the overlap of these motions, the Port and County,
with the concurrence of the NW Cruise ship Association chose to
collaborate on a single report to fulfil both obligations. It was
determined that the effluent from AWT-equipped ships were comparable to
existing municipal treatment systems and that the cost for pumping
treated effluent to the treatment plant was not warranted. It is
interesting to note that the study did not compare the quality of cruise
ship effluent to the new "Brightwater" treatment plant being built with
tertiary treatment. It was also determined that the King County
treatment plant could handle all the sludge produced by cruise ships
calling on Seattle but that sewage sludge did not lend itself to being
pumped through pipes. However, the study stopped there and no attempt
was made to evaluate the costs or feasibility of offloading sludge by
vacuum trucks at the soon to be built terminal which has occurred on
several occasions at the Port's original cruise ship terminal at Pier
69.

As a result of the incomplete nature of the current study, the Port,
Ecology, King County and the Cruise ship Association have agreed to the
do a follow up study that will evaluate the cost effectiveness of
offloading sludge at the new terminal. They will also be evaluating why
all the cruise lines have been failing the Whole Effluent Toxicity Tests
(WET) which appears at this time to be due to the high concentrations of
ammonia present in the discharge. They expect the next report to be
complete in the Spring 2008.

**Graywater**

The EPA has provided a good assessment of the volumes of graywater
produced by cruise ships and the concentrations of contaminants that it
typically contains. The following citations from the report describe the
high concentrations of pollutants found in graywater. These citations
and the findings summarized below provide a strong basis for the need to
take urgent action to regulate graywater from cruise ships, particularly
as it is a waste stream that is currently uncontrolled and can be
legally dumped anywhere without treatment except in the Great Lakes:

EPA reported that graywater sampling found high levels of fecal coliform
in concentrations of 1 to 3 orders of magnitude higher than untreated
domestic wastewater. Average graywater strength was comparable or higher
in strength than untreated domestic wastewater. The graywater also
contained high concentrations of total and dissolved metals, volatile
and semivolatile organics, and nutrients. Graywater was also found to
contain oil and grease in 100 percent of samples. Settleable and
suspended solids were substantially higher than the discharge standards
for land-based treated sewage.

The exceedance of federal water quality standards at point of discharge
could be mitigated by dilution, according to EPA, though site-specific
studies would be needed to verify this. But for fecal coliform and
enterocci, the EPA reported that dilution would not be sufficient to
bring effluent into compliance, particularly if a vessel is docked. The
EPA also found that cruise ship effluent was not likely to meet federal
water quality standards for fecal coliform even while under way.

It is hard to understand why the EPA has allowed cruise ships to
continue to discharge highly polluted untreated graywater into U.S.
waters without any oversight or control since the sampling tests were
done. The volumes of these materials are increasing every cruise season
and yet no further action has been taken.

**Oily bilge water**

The EPA does a good job of explaining the pollutants contained in oily
bilge water and the possibility of cross-contamination between the oily
bilge and fuel oil sludge tanks. The volumes of oily bilge water from
cruise ships are significant - as much as 1,300 to 5,000 gallons per day
in Alaska alone. Current federal standards that allow oily bilge
discharges if the effluent has been treated to 15 ppm within 12 miles
are not necessarily protective of marine life and ecosystems. Any amount
of oil discharged into U.S. waters could be harmful to the environment.
The cumulative impacts of repeated discharges into a given water body
have not been assessed, raising questions about the adequacy of existing
laws covering oily bilge water.

The EPA correctly points out that the cruise industry has not complied
consistently with even these standards:

*Page 4 -- 10. To date the U.S. has prosecuted over 75 cases involving
intentional discharges of oily bilge waste from vessels in general, with
over \$150 million collected in criminal fines since 2000. Many of the
major cruise ship companies calling on U.S. ports have been convicted of
such violations, including Royal Caribbean, Holland America, Carnival
and Norwegian Cruise Line Limited. As a result of the prosecutions, all
the companies have been at one time placed in probation with a
requirement to implement Environmental Compliance Plans.*

Considering the cruise industry's record on improperly managing oily
bilge water and the environmental harm known from discharges of oil into
the marine environment, we urge the EPA to ban discharges of untreated
or treated oily bilge water in all U.S. waters where it has the
authority to do so and require discharge to proper shoreside facilities.
Although the Coast Guard oversees the Oil Pollution Act, EPA retains
separate authority to regulate pollution from vessels, an authority we
believe EPA should exercise.

The cruise lines should also be encouraged to switch to water-based
lubricants and bio-oils wherever possible to reduce total production of
oily wastes on board the ship.

**Dilution and Mixing zones**

In the sections related to wastewater, EPA often refers to dilution as a
solution to minimizing the potential for harmful effects from cruise
ship discharges into U.S. waters. What EPA fails to consider, however,
is that cruise ships tend to operate on the same routes and in the same
ports and harbours repeatedly. It does not appear that EPA has
considered the cumulative impacts of these operations. Nor are the
impacts from other ships or sources that are discharging into the same
water body considered. These are major oversights that are likely to
minimize the effectiveness of dilution.

In general, the environmental community does not support the dilution
and mixing zone solution to dealing with toxic cruise ship effluent.
Instead of using the ocean as a dumping ground, as has been the case in
the past, the U.S. government needs to take a precautionary approach to
new and growing discharges into already impaired U.S. waters and abandon
the dilution model in favor of no-discharge, strict effluent standards
and ultimately shoreside discharge of all ship wastewater and solid
wastes.

Furthermore such analysis does not account for the bioaccumulation of
these wastes in filter feeders and long-lived marine organisms.

**Solid Waste**

The EPA did a thorough job of categorizing and quantifying the volumes
of solid waste produced by cruise ships. EPA found that cruise ships
produce large volumes of solid wastes -- as much as 15 tons per day of
packaging alone as well as many tons of glass and cans per week. Citing
other research, EPA reported that a cruise ship generates 70 tons more
solid waste per day than a cargo ship and that the industry generates 24
percent of all ship waste.

Federal laws have failed to keep up with the increasing volumes of solid
waste produced by cruise ships. Not only can garbage be dumped as close
as 3 miles from shore, after 25 miles anything but plastics and oil can
go overboard legally. A key part of the problem is that shipboard waste
has grown less biodegradable over time with the increased use of plastic
and petroleum products, which can take hundreds of years or longer to
decompose even in sea water.

While ocean dumping of plastics into the ocean has been banned by
international treaty, the recent discovery of the Texas-sized "Garbage
Patch" near the new Hawaiian Islands National Monument is striking
evidence that plastic dumping still occurs and that overboard discharge
of other solid wastes, even if legal, is wreaking havoc on the high seas
and marine life.

We understand that the Interagency Marine Debris Coordinating Committee
Report required in S.362 to assess the extent and nature of marine
debris going into our oceans is due out in 2008. This report should
provide updated information on the types and sources of solid waste
entering marine waters. We look forward to seeing the result of this
report, and request that EPA inform the environmental community when it
is publicly released for review and comment. However, we urge EPA not to
wait for the report before beginning a rulemaking to control solid waste
from cruise ships in all U.S. waters.

While the EPA has outlined the voluntary programs that the cruise lines
have developed for handling and minimizing solid wastes, such programs
are not adequate to protect U.S. waters due to a lack of enforceability
and government oversight. However, we would urge EPA to take into
consideration the cruise industry's waste management plans when
developing stronger regulations for controlling cruise ship solid waste
discharges into U.S. waters.

We urge EPA to immediately begin a rulemaking process to control solid
waste from cruise ships including:

-   a prohibition on the discharges of any and all solid wastes from
    cruise ships into U.S. waters and a prohibition on discharging
    incinerator ash from cruise ships into U.S. waters;

-   an analysis and accounting of the contaminants typically found in
    cruise ship incinerator ash and a determination whether such ash
    should be categorized as solid waste or hazardous waste and
    regulated accordingly.

**Port Facilities**

EPA reported that the U.S. Coast Guard conducted more than 14,000 port
facility assessments in 2006 to determine if adequate facilities existed
to accept solid waste, hazardous waste, and noxious liquid waste. The
finding that 7,242 facility deficiencies were discovered indicates that
there is an urgent need to expand port reception facilities. The fact
that ship traffic into U.S. ports nearly doubled between 2002 and 2006
suggests that ports have fallen even further behind in their ability to
provide such facilities.

We urge EPA and the U.S. Coast Guard to work with the ports and the
cruise industry to address this problem as soon as possible and to
expand any actions to require additional port reception facilities to
include the capability of ports to receive wastewater from cruise ships
calling on U.S. ports. EPA and the U.S. Coast Guard should consider
conducting a feasibility report to determine what it would cost ports to
provide adequate reception facilities for ships; and to develop a
"polluter pays" funding mechanism to pay for some or all of the capital
costs, operations and maintenance.

**Hazardous Waste and RCRA**

We commend EPA for assigning each cruise ship a single identification
number for the purposes of regulating and monitoring discharging of
hazardous wastes to U.S. ports. We support this approach because it
allows better oversight of cruise ship operations while still requiring
each ship to meet the hazardous waste off-loading requirements of each
state.

We urge EPA to begin a rulemaking to develop regulations that require
cruise ship compliance with RCRA and to prohibit the discharge of any
hazardous materials or materials with hazardous characteristics into
U.S. waters out to the 200-mile EEZ.

We also urge the EPA to promulgate a regulation that requires copies of
records when a cruise ship involved in U.S. trade disposes of hazardous
wastes in a foreign port. It is our understanding that all the ships
calling on Alaska from Washington State dispose of their wastes in
Canada yet there is no U.S. record kept of such disposals. We imagine
similar practices occur when ships call on Mexico or other ports in the
Caribbean. The US public has a right to know that these large hazardous
waste producers are disposing of those materials in a responsible
manner. The current failure to require a full accounting of hazardous
waste disposal is a significant and dangerous loophole that must be
closed.

**Mid term**

Once new cruise ship discharge standards are adopted and implemented, we
urge EPA to consider a programmatic environmental review of the cruise
industry under the National Environmental Policy Act to assess the full
breadth of environmental and cumulative impacts from cruise ships on the
marine environment and human health. This should include the impacts of
increased cruise ship vessel traffic in U.S. waters on:

-   marine mammals and endangered species such as sea turtles, sea
    otters, and manatees;

-   fisheries, both commercial and recreational;

-   noise impacts of ship traffic on whales and other species;

-   effects of air pollution, both over water bodies and via deposition;

-   global warming gases from cruise ships should also be analyzed and
    the impacts assessed and mitigated;

-   economic, social, historic, and archaeological resources, to
    determine impacts on the U.S. economy and coastal communities.

To date, the only economic assessments have been conducted by the cruise
industry using large economic multipliers that may not be based on
actual occurrences. For example, the cruise lines claim to provide large
economic benefits to port cities from passenger spending, when this may
not be the case at all. In fact, a recent Cruise Industry News (Winter
2007/08) article quotes a cruise industry executive stating that "when
people leave our ships, they have spent their money."

In some communities, the cruise industry is advocating for historic
fishing ports such as Mayport, FL, to be converted to a cruise terminal
with retail shopping and restaurants -- a move strongly opposed by the
community. In Key West, Florida, the townspeople have tried to control
the floods of people who over-run their town when a cruise ship comes
in. In Hawaii, island residents must tolerate volumes of black soot
coating their windows when a ship is in port. The impacts from the
cruise industry go far beyond ocean dumping of polluted sewage,
graywater and other waste streams. For example, cruise passengers dwarf
the populations of the small Alaskan towns they call on.

**International action**

Once the U.S. has acted to protect its natural resources and communities
from cruise ships, we urge EPA, in collaboration with other government
agencies such as the U.S. Coast Guard and NOAA, to begin working at the
international level to ban ocean dumping from cruise ships and other
ocean-going vessels globally to protect and restore the health of our
world's oceans, starting with World Heritage sites such as Antarctica.

**Conclusion**

Friends of the Earth and Rock the Earth thank EPA for the Assessment
Report and the opportunity to provide comments. We hope that you will
consider and respond to these comments as soon as possible. In addition,
we would be happy to answer any questions you might have about these
comments and/or to set up a meeting with EPA staff to discuss them in
detail via a phone conference or in-person meeting. We look forward to
your response.

Sincerely yours,

/s/

Teri Shore

Campaign Director - Marine Programs

Friends of the Earth

311 California Street

Suite 510

San Francisco, CA 94104

\(p\) 415-544-0790 x15

\(f\) 415-544-0796

[www.foe.org]{.underline}

Danielle Fugere

Regional Program Director

Friends of the Earth

311 California Street

Suite 510

San Francisco, CA 94104

\(p\) 415-544-0790 x15

\(f\) 415-544-0796

[www.foe.org]{.underline}

Marc A. Ross

President & Executive Director

Rock the Earth

1536 Wynkoop St.

Suite B200

Denver, CO  80202

(p)  (303) 454-3304

(f)  (303) 454-3306

(c)  (412) 953-6280

[[www.RockTheEarth.org]{.underline}](http://www.RockTheEarth.org/)

[^1]: The Assessment Report consists of 124 pages, including lengthy
    technical materials. While the time period for review is the agreed
    upon 45 days, the review period occurred during the midst of a busy
    holiday season and the report was more substantial than we had
    anticipated. The Assessment Report was issued on December 20, 2007,
    just 5 days prior to the winter holiday and the New Year holiday.
    The timing of the release of the report therefore significantly
    limited our opportunity to fully review, assess, and provide
    in-depth comments on the report. It also limited our ability to
    share this report with members of the public, with sufficient time
    to gather meaningful input and responses. While we are prepared to
    submit preliminary comments within the deadline, we ask that the
    comment deadline be extended by 30 days so that we can give this
    report the full attention and analysis that it deserves.

[^2]: ? 33 CFR 159.53 See
    http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/get-cfr.cgi

[^3]: See Page 2-24, Section 2.4.2 in Assessment Report.

[^4]: See Page 2-23, Section 2.4.1 in Assessment Report

[^5]: See Pages 2-28, 2-29, 2-30 and 2-33.

[^6]: See Page 3-19

[^7]: See Page 2-22, Section 2.4 in Assessment Report