Science Advisory Panel

&

Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

Commercial Passenger Vessel Environmental

Compliance Program

The Impact of Cruise Ship Wastewater

Discharge on Alaska Waters

November 2002
i

Table of Contents

Table of Contents .............................................................................................................................................i

FOREWORD............................................................................................................................................... viii

Executive Summary........................................................................................................................................ix

I. Dilution....................................................................................................................................................ix

II. Sampling .................................................................................................................................................x

III. Assessment of Fecal Coliform Bacteria in Cruise Ship Wastewater Discharge ...................................xi

IV. Potential for Nutrients in Wastewater to Promote Unwanted Phytoplankton Blooms in

Receiving Waters........................................................................................................................................xi

V. Effect of Cruise Ship Discharges on the Quality of Marine Sediments .................................................xi

VI. Impacts to the Surface Water Microlayer of the Marine Environment.................................................xi

VII. Criteria for Delineating Areas Potentially Sensitive to Cruise Ship Wastewater Discharges ........... xii

VIII. Sources of Shipboard Chemicals and Pathways by which They Could Reach the Marine

Environment.............................................................................................................................................. xii

IX. Small Commercial Passenger Vessels ................................................................................................ xii

X. Marine Water Monitoring Needed to Track the Impacts of Wastewater Discharges.......................... xiii

XI. Recommendations for Research and Program Improvements ........................................................... xiii

XII. Best Management Practice and Recommended Policies.................................................................. xiii

Core Members ...............................................................................................................................................xv

Supporting Members............................................................................................................................... xvii

Section –I .......................................................................................................................................................1

Dilution of Wastewater Discharged by Large Cruise Ships ............................................................................1

Summary......................................................................................................................................................1

Significance .................................................................................................................................................2

Initial approach to evaluating dilution .........................................................................................................3

Science Advisory Panel observations ..........................................................................................................4

Navy studies.................................................................................................................................................4

EPA dye studies...........................................................................................................................................4

Final recommended dilution factors ............................................................................................................5

Far-field Dilution .........................................................................................................................................8

References..................................................................................................................................................11

Section II – ....................................................................................................................................................12

Wastewater Sampling and Analysis for Commercial Passenger Vessels ......................................................12

Summary....................................................................................................................................................12

Background................................................................................................................................................13

Samples......................................................................................................................................................14

Pollutants Analyzed ...................................................................................................................................14

Sampling Strategy......................................................................................................................................15

Ships treatment systems from 2000 to 2002 ..............................................................................................16

Data Analysis.............................................................................................................................................16

Small Ships ................................................................................................................................................16

Large Ships ................................................................................................................................................24

Section III .....................................................................................................................................................40

An Assessment of Fecal Coliform Bacteria in Cruise Ship Wastewater Discharge ......................................40

Summary....................................................................................................................................................40

Alaska’s Fecal Coliform Water Quality Standards....................................................................................40

Alaska’s Fecal Coliform Effluent Standards for Commercial Passenger Vessels .....................................42

Dealing with Highly Variable Fecal Coliform Data Sets...........................................................................42

Fecal Coliform and Cruise Ships ...............................................................................................................44

Dilution of Wastewater Behind a Moving Cruise Ship..............................................................................45

Potential Exposure for Individual Waterway Users...................................................................................45

Fate of Fecal Coliform Discharged into the Environment .........................................................................46

Cruise Ship Discharges in Context ............................................................................................................46

Conclusions................................................................................................................................................47
ii

References..................................................................................................................................................49

Section IV .....................................................................................................................................................50

The Impact of Wastewater Nutrients on Alaska Marine Waters ...................................................................50

Summary....................................................................................................................................................50

Findings from Cruise Ship Wastewater Sampling and Analysis ...............................................................50

Background Levels of Nutrients in Alaska Waters....................................................................................51

Summary of nutrients in SE Alaska waters................................................................................................52

References: ................................................................................................................................................56

Section V .....................................................................................................................................................57

Evaluation of the Effect of Cruise Ship Discharges on the Quality of Marine Sediments ............................57

Summary:...................................................................................................................................................57

Sediment Contaminants in the Strait of Georgia:.......................................................................................57

Sediment Contaminants from Sewage Treatment Plants: ..........................................................................59

Contaminants Discharged from Cruise Ships: ...........................................................................................60

Development of a Deposition Model.........................................................................................................62

Conclusions: ..............................................................................................................................................65

References: ................................................................................................................................................66

Section VI .....................................................................................................................................................68

The Surface Water Microlayer of the Marine Environment and Potential Impacts of Wastewater

Discharges from Cruise Ships .....................................................................................................68

Summary....................................................................................................................................................68

Introduction: ..............................................................................................................................................68

A Physical Description of the Sea Surface Microlayer..............................................................................68

The Chemical and Biological Properties of the Sea Surface Microlayer...................................................69

Contaminants and Toxicity in the Sea Surface Microlayer........................................................................71

Microlayer Disruption, Formation and Biological Activity:......................................................................74

Ultraviolet Energy Absorption and Effects on the Sea Surface Environment ...........................................75

Cruise Ship Wastewater Discharges and their Mixing, Dilution, and Impacts on the Sea Surface ...........76

References: ................................................................................................................................................78

Section VII ....................................................................................................................................................81

Criteria for Delineating Areas Potentially Sensitive to Cruise Ship Wastewater Discharges........................81

Section VIII ...................................................................................................................................................84

Sources of Shipboard Chemicals and Pathways by which They Could Reach the Marine Environment......84

Summary....................................................................................................................................................84

Introduction................................................................................................................................................84

Potentially Hazardous Chemicals (General Shipboard Universe of Chemicals) .......................................86

Fragrance Materials (FMs) as a specific class of emerging trace contaminants: .......................................92

Review of the eight exposure pathways by which onboard chemicals could reach the

surrounding environment...........................................................................................................................93

Suggestions for Monitoring Current-Use and "New" Chemicals...............................................................98

References................................................................................................................................................100

Section IX ..................................................................................................................................................103

Small Commercial Passenger Vessels.........................................................................................................103

Summary..................................................................................................................................................103

Background..............................................................................................................................................104

Operation .................................................................................................................................................104

Treatment Systems...................................................................................................................................110

Sampling ..................................................................................................................................................112

Data Overview .........................................................................................................................................113

Representative Sampling .........................................................................................................................118

Section X ...................................................................................................................................................119

Monitoring Contaminants in the Alaska Marine Environment....................................................................119

Summary..................................................................................................................................................119

Introduction..............................................................................................................................................120

Background And Approach .....................................................................................................................120

Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs)............................................................................................123
iii

Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) ..........................................................................................................124

DDTs........................................................................................................................................................125

Chlordanes ...............................................................................................................................................125

Dieldrin and Related Pesticides ...............................................................................................................126

HCH (Hexachlorohexane) Compounds ...................................................................................................126

Chlorpyrifos.............................................................................................................................................127

Mirex........................................................................................................................................................127

Chlorinated Benzenes ..............................................................................................................................127

Chlorophenols..........................................................................................................................................128

Butyltins (Anti-Fouling) ..........................................................................................................................128

Lipid Content ...........................................................................................................................................128

Trace Elements ........................................................................................................................................128

Discussion and Implications ....................................................................................................................132

Assessment and Monitoring Recommendations ......................................................................................135

Acknowledgements..................................................................................................................................136

References................................................................................................................................................137

Section XI ...................................................................................................................................................138

Recommendations for Monitoring and Research ........................................................................................138

A. Continued Evaluation of Small Passenger Vessels (Section II & IX)................................................138

B. Additional Sampling and Audits of Passenger Vessels.......................................................................138

C. Measure Water Movement and Exchange in Selected Coastal Areas (Section VII)...........................139

D. Enhanced Environmental Assessment and Monitoring:......................................................................139

References................................................................................................................................................142

Section XII ..................................................................................................................................................143

Best Management Practice and Recommended Policies .............................................................................143

Wastewater discharge while underway (Section I & VII) .......................................................................143

Policies to prevent over-chlorination .......................................................................................................143

Best Management Practices for Large Cruise Ships with Advanced Wastewater Treatment..................144

The Panel's Charge and Information Provided.........................................................................................146
iv

Tables

Table I-1: Science Advisory Panel’s Original Formula..................................................................................6

Table I-2: Final Applied Dilution Formula for Hypothetical Ship .................................................................7

Table I-3: Final Dilution Formula Applied – Four Large Cruise Ships..........................................................9

Table II-1: Small Ships: Summary Geometric Mean for Conventional Pollutants .......................................18

Table II-2: Alaska Marine Highway System: Summary Geometric Mean for Conventional Pollutants.......19

Table II-3: Small Ships – Conventional Pollutants, Detectable Metals and BNAs. ......................................22

Table II-4: Small Ships – VOCs....................................................................................................................23

Table II-5: 2000 Large ship summary data....................................................................................................25

Table II-6: 2001 Large Ship Summary Data .................................................................................................26

Table II-7: Large Ships Conventional Pollutants Geometric Means ............................................................28

Table II-8: 2001 Large Ships Priority Pollutants for Graywater ...................................................................31

Table II-9: 2001 Large Ships Priority Pollutants for Blackwater (includes GW&BW mixed) ....................33

Table II-10: 2000 Large Ship Priority Pollutants for Graywater...................................................................35

Table II-11: 2000 Priority Pollutants for Blackwater ...................................................................................37

Table II-12: Geometric mean Summaries of Priority Pollutants ..................................................................39

Table V-1: Trace Metals in Surface Sediments from the Strait of Georgia, British Columbia(1) ..................58

Table V-2: Butyltin in Surface Sediments from the Strait of Georgia, B.C.(1) ..............................................59

Table V-3: Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons in Sediments (1).................................................................59

Table V-4: Trace Metals Associated with Solids from Cruise Ships ............................................................61

Table V-5: Natural Deposition Rates ............................................................................................................62

Table VI- 1: Chemical and Biological Characteristics of the Sea Surface Microlayer off California...........70

Table VI- 2: Chemical and Biological Characteristics of the Surface Microlayer in the Mediterranean

Sea ...............................................................................................................................................70

Table VI- 3: Contaminants in Surface Film Samples from Marine Waters...................................................71

Table VI- 4: Enrichment of Trace Metals and Organic Compounds in the Surface Layer of

Narragansett Bay RI ....................................................................................................................72

Table VI- 5: Contaminants in the Sea Surface Film in Puget Sound, WA ....................................................72

Table VI- 6: Spatial Variation in Contaminants in the Sea Surface Film in Puget Sound WA.....................73

Table VI- 7: Contaminants and Toxicity of the Sea Surface Microlayer Near Los Angeles California........73

Table VI- 8: The Effect of Sea State on Biological Characteristics of the Sea Surface Film........................74

Table VI- 9: Microbial Activity During Slick Buildup Under Calm Conditions ..........................................74

Table IX-1: Small Cruise Ship Facts..........................................................................................................105

Table IX-2: AMHS Ferry Facts..................................................................................................................106

Table IX-3. Small Commercial Passenger Vessel Wastewater Treatment.................................................111

Table IX-4: Alaska Marine Highway System: Summary Geometric Mean for Conventional Pollutants ...112

Table IX-5: Small Ships: Summary Geometric Mean for Conventional Pollutants....................................115

Table IX-6. Conventional Samples taken by ADEC ...................................................................................116

Table IX-7: Samples taken for ADEC by Industry.....................................................................................117

Table A1: Estimated Concentration of Priority Pollutants .........................................................................163

Table B1: Small Ship 2001 and 2002 Alaska Marine Highway Conventional Data Comparison...............168

Table B2: Small Ships Treated Blackwater Conventional Pollutants.........................................................169

Table B3: Small Ships Black and Graywater mixed and treated Conventional Pollutants........................170

Table B4: Small Ships Graywater Mixed Conventional Pollutants............................................................171

Table B5: Small Ships Graywater Accommodations Conventional Pollutants..........................................172

Table B6: Small Ships Laundry Graywater Conventional Pollutants.........................................................173

Table B7: Small Ships Galley Graywater Conventional Pollutants ...........................................................173

Table B8: Small Ship conventional pollutants that were taken with Priority Pollutant..............................174

Table B9: Small Ship Priority Pollutants Metals........................................................................................175

Table B10: Small Ship Priority Pollutants PCBs........................................................................................176

Table B11: Small Ship Priority Pollutants Base, Neutrals and Acids ........................................................177

Table B12: Small Ship 2002 Priority Pollutants Volatile Organics............................................................178

Table C1: 2000 Large Ships Samples Evaluation of Biological Blackwater Treatment Systems ..............180

Table C2: 2000 Large Ships Mixed Blackwater and Graywater from Double Bottom Tanks ...................182

Table C3: 2000 Large Ship Gray Water Mixed from Collection Tanks.....................................................183
v

Table C4: 2000 Large Ships Laundry Graywater.......................................................................................184

Table C5: 2000 Large Ship Graywater Accommodations and Laundry.....................................................185

Table C6: 2000 Large Ship Galley Graywater ...........................................................................................186

Table C7: 2000 Large Ship Accommodations Graywater..........................................................................187

Table C8: 2001 Accommodations Graywater Held in Double Bottom Tanks and Discharged Greater

than 1 Mile from Shore going at least 6 knots...........................................................................188

Table C9: 2001 Large Ship Accommodations Graywater Collected in Small Collecting Tanks and

Discharged.................................................................................................................................190

Table C10: 2001 Large Ships Galley, Fish and Butcher Shop Collecting tanks. .......................................191

Table C11: 2001 Large Ships Galley Stored in Ballast Tanks, Held until the Ship is 1 Mile from Shore

and Traveling a Minimum 6 Knots............................................................................................193

Table C12: 2001 Large Ships Graywater Mixed Held in Ballast Tanks (Discharged 1 Mile from Shore

Traveling a Minimum 6 Knots) .................................................................................................194

Table C13: 2001 Large Ships Laundry Graywater in Ballast Tanks (Discharged 1 Mile from Shore

Traveling a minimum 6 Knots)..................................................................................................195

Table C14: 2001 Large Ships Laundry Graywater Collected and Discharged Immediately......................196

Table C15: 2001 Large Ships Mixed Graywater Held in Collecting Tanks and Immediately

Discharged.................................................................................................................................197

Table C16: 2001 Large Ships Combining Blackwater and Graywater and Immediately Treating and

Discharging................................................................................................................................198

Table C17: 2001 Large Ship Priority Pollutants/Chlorinated Organics All Graywater Categories............200

Table C18: 2001 Large Ship Priority Pollutants/Chlorinated Phenols and Halomethanes All graywater

categories. All units in ug/l or parts per billion (ppb)...............................................................201

Table C19: 2001 Large Ships Total Recoverable Metals. All Categories of Graywater. All units in

ug/l or parts per billion (ppb).....................................................................................................202

Table C20: 2001 Large Ship Priority Pollutants. All Categories of Graywater Non-chlorinated Phenols

and Phthalate Esters All units in ug/l or parts per billion (ppb).................................................204

Table C21: 2001 Large Ship Conventional Pollutants taken during Priority Pollutant Sampling. All

Graywater Categories. ...............................................................................................................205

Table C22: 2001 Large Ships Priority Pollutants for Blackwater Chlorinated Benzenes and

Halomethanes ............................................................................................................................207

Table C23: 2001 Large Ships Blackwater Priority Pollutants Total Recoverable Metals ..........................208

Table C24: 2001 Large Ships Blackwater Priority Pollutants (Phtalate Esters).........................................209

Table C25: 2001 Large Ships Blackwater Conventional Pollutants Sampled With Priority Pollutants.....210

Table C26: 2000 Priority Pollutants for Graywater....................................................................................211

Table C27: 2000 Priority Pollutants for Graywater....................................................................................213

Table C28: 2000 Priority Pollutants for Graywater....................................................................................215

Table C29: 2000 Large Ships Priority Pollutants for Blackwater (in alphabetical order) ..........................217

Table C30: 2000 Large Ships Priority Pollutants for Blackwater (in alphabetical order) ..........................218

Table C31: 2000 Large Ships Priority Pollutants for Blackwater (in alphabetical order) ..........................220

Table C32: Large Ships Conventional Pollutants Minimums ....................................................................221

Table C33: Large Ships Conventional Pollutants Maximums....................................................................222

Table D-1a: PAH Values in Alaskan Mussels............................................................................................241

Table D-1b: PAH Values in West Coast Mussels ......................................................................................244

Table D-2a: Organic Compounds in Alaska Mussels.................................................................................247

Table D-2b: Organic Compounds in West Coast Mussels .........................................................................251

Table D-3a: Metals in Alaska Mussels during 2000 and 2001...................................................................253

Table D-3b: Metals in West Coast Mussels during 2000 and 2001............................................................254
vi

Appendices

Appendix I Development and Use of an Assessment Framework...............................................................145

Appendix 2 Dilution – Calculated Priorty Pollutant Concentration in Ambient Marine Water ..................150

Appendix 3 Sampling Design......................................................................................................................160

Appendix 4 Priority Pollutant List...............................................................................................................162

Appendix 5 Small Ship Data .......................................................................................................................167

Appendix 6 Large Vessel Data Tables ........................................................................................................179

Appendix 7 Fecal Coliform Monitoring Data from 2000 and 2001 ............................................................223

Appendix 8 Whole Effluent Toxicity Tests.................................................................................................232

Appendix 9 Mussel Contaminants...............................................................................................................240

Appendix 10 Marine Discharge Glossary....................................................................................................255
vii

Figures

Figure I A discussion of the development and use of the assessment framework is provided in

Appendix I............................................................................................................................... xviii

Figure IV-1. Nitrate concentrations in SE Alaska throughout the year (from Stekoll, 2001). .....................54

Figure IV-2. Phosphate concentrations in SE Alaska throughout the year (from Stekoll, 2001). ................54

Figure IV-3. Cycle of temperature and salinity in surface waters throughout the year in SE Alaska

(from Stekoll, 2001). ...................................................................................................................55

Figure IV-4. Carbon production from phytoplankton photosynthesis in the spring and early summer in

Auke Bay, SE Alaska (from Stekoll, 2001).................................................................................55

Figure IX-1 Small Passenger Vessel Discharge Events ..............................................................................108

Figure IX-2 Small Passenger Vessel Discharge Events in Ports and Bays of SE AK.................................109
viii

Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

Science Advisory Panel

Commercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance Program

FOREWORD

Alaskans cherish and rely upon our wild resources for nutrition, cultural integrity,

livelihoods, recreation, and spiritual wellbeing. Consequently, major sources of waste

discharges into Alaska’s marine environments must be managed to maintain the integrity

of Alaska’s coastal and marine environments, and to ensure that marine resources are not

compromised. 

It is imperative that cruise ship waste discharges be treated and monitored. It is also

critical that we evaluate and understand the impacts that cruise ship wastes have or can

potentially have on Alaska’s waters and marine resources. To that end, the Alaska Cruise

Ship Initiative wastewater and solid waste work group -- comprised of industry, state,

federal, and public members -- created a Science Advisory Panel to conduct an

independent scientific investigation of the impacts on human health and the environment

from cruise ship waste discharges. 

The Science Advisory Panel members were carefully selected to ensure a range of

expertise for a full, thorough, and scientific assessment of impacts from cruise ship

wastes in Alaska. The Science Advisory Panel is an independent body whose work and

conclusions are not subject to government or industry approval. The Science Advisory

Panel’s conclusions or recommendations form the scientific underpinnings for agencies

and the public to make policy decisions on how best to work with the industry to manage

cruise ship wastes.

The following report of the Science Advisory Panel is a major milestone in the

understanding of the impacts from cruise ship waste discharges in Alaska. The Alaska

Department of Environmental Conservation is very appreciative of the enormous

contributions the Science Advisory Panel has made to the state of knowledge regarding

cruise ship industry impacts in Alaska. The Panel’s work is valuable not only to

Alaskans, but also to other coastal states or countries that are looking for guidance

regarding cruise ship waste management practices, governmental oversight, and actual or

potential impacts on marine environments.

MICHELE BROWN

Commissioner

Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

November 25, 2002
ix

Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

Science Advisory Panel

Commercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance Program

The Impact of Cruise Ship Wastewater Discharge on Alaska Waters

Executive Summary

The Science Advisory Panel was assembled in early 2001 to address all aspects of the potential

impact of cruise ship wastewater discharge on Alaska marine waters. Panel members are listed

beginning on page vii. Using an assessment framework (Figure i, page x), the Panel started with

effluent characterization and dispersion modeling and concluded with exposure assessment and

recommendations for risk management and additional research. This paper is the result of this

evaluation and represents nearly 20 months of research, fieldwork and discussion. Each aspect

of the assessment framework is addressed in a separate section. These sections are summarized

below1

.

The authors have emphasized that this paper conveys the "state-of-knowledge" as of November

2002. This work is dynamic and should be revised and changed as new information becomes

available.

Although small commercial passenger ships represent only about 6% of passenger vessel

wastewater discharge in Alaska waters, their effluent often contains high levels of fecal coliform

and suspended solids. These vessels are currently allowed to discharge everywhere. The Panel,

therefore, recommends that these ships should avoid stationary discharge, particularly in small

fjords and embayments where the movement or flux of water is limited.

Research and evaluations to date indicate that state and federal regulations for large cruise ships

which set effluent parameters and require wastewater to be discharged while ships are moving

(unless these ships meet stringent effluent limits through advanced treatment) appear to

effectively limit the impact of discharge on Alaska receiving waters. The Panel recognizes many

people feel that "dilution is not the solution to pollution". However, the mitigating effect of the

vigorous mixing action of a moving ship, combined with concentration limits for certain

wastewater constituents, is quite apparent. Evaluation of impacts should be continued and

guidelines for establishing no discharge zones, should the need arise, are presented in Section

VII of this paper.

I. Dilution

Through literature review, fieldwork and evaluation of the EPA plume study off Miami (2001),

the Panel developed the following formulas for estimating dilution of wastewater discharged by

a moving cruise ship:

 

1 A brief glossary of common marine discharge terms used in this section and elsewhere is provided in Appendix 10.
x

Large Cruise Ship

 Dilution factor = 4 x (ship width x ship draft x ship speed)/(volume discharge rate)

=4x (_____m x _____m x _____m sec-1)/(_____m3sec-1)

For a typical large cruise ship moving at a minimum speed of 6 knots and discharging

wastewater at 200m3

/hr the dilution factor is 50,000.

Small Cruise Ship

 Dilution factor = 3 x (ship width x ship draft x ship speed)/(volume discharge rate)

= 3x (_____m x _____m x _____m sec-1)/(_____m3sec-1)

Far field dispersion processes assure that additional dilution will occur before any mixture of

effluent and water approaches a shore. Under the least favorable conditions, the additional

mixing factor will be 1:100 by the time the mixed water reaches a shoreline one mile from the

ship’s trackline, thus diluting the effluent of a large vessel discharging at 200 m3 /hr at 6 knots by

a factor of 5,000,000 or 50,000 x 100.

II. Sampling

The Panel and ADEC reviewed and summarized all available wastewater sample and analysis

data to arrive at the following conclusions:

Obtaining vessel samples that are consistently representative of a discharge (particularly

graywater) is difficult if not impossible. However, data obtained over the last three seasons,

when considered in its entirety, does provide a representative picture of the range and averages

of pollutants in various types of discharge from cruise ships.

Sampling could be improved by de-emphasizing the importance of analyzing fecal coliform

within 6 hours and increasing efforts to obtain representative sample sub-sets or composite

samples of actual discharge taken over time. Recommendations for improving sampling are

presented in Section XI.

Advanced treatment systems recently installed on several large cruise ships are very effective at

removing solids and fecal coliform bacteria but these systems concentrate sludge that requires

disposal. These treatment systems are not designed to remove priority pollutants but test results

show that they do remove a significant portion.

Macerator-chlorinating systems have shown improvement in reducing fecal coliform on vessels

with less than 1000 passengers and crew but in some cases have a high chlorine residual and

chemical oxygen demand.

The 2000 large ship data shows that none of the conventional biological treatment systems were

functioning properly. Ships with this type of treatment system are not currently discharging in

Alaska waters.
xi

III. Assessment of Fecal Coliform Bacteria in Cruise Ship Wastewater Discharge 

The Panel determined that the relevant scenarios of exposure to large cruise ship discharges

include secondary contact recreation by fishermen, kayakers, and motor-powered watercraft

crossing a cruise ship wake shortly after passage of the cruise ship, and raw shellfish consumers

harvesting shellfish along the shoreline. The available data, coupled with the relevant dilutions,

indicate that violations of the applicable bacterial water quality standards are not predicted to

occur for any of these scenarios.

IV. Potential for Nutrients in Wastewater to Promote Unwanted Phytoplankton Blooms in

Receiving Waters

The limiting nutrient for phytoplankton growth in Southeast Alaska marine waters is dissolved

nitrogen. The Panel estimates the maximum mean total nitrogen concentration in large cruise

ship wastewater discharges to be 5 millimoles (5 mM) or 0.07 mg/liter. By applying a minimum

mixing factor of 50,000 for a moving cruise ship, the wastewater total nitrogen concentrations

are one-tenth to one-hundredth of the lowest Alaska marine water background concentration, or

about 0.1 micromoles (μM). This amount of nitrogen can be converted to a very small amount of

phytoplankton over the next several days, approximately 0.03 micrograms of chlorophyll per

liter. This amount of chlorophyll is only a hundredth to a thousandth of the standing

phytoplankton. New treatment requirements and regulations for 2003 may further reduce the

amount of nutrients discharged in cruise ship wastewaters.

V. Effect of Cruise Ship Discharges on the Quality of Marine Sediments

Contaminants in cruise ship discharges were evaluated, focusing on metals and total suspended

solids effluent data. Estimates of metals in the suspended solids were compared directly to

sediment guideline values and some metals were shown to exceed sediment guideline values in

the suspended solids. Copper, the contaminant that exceeded guideline values most often, was

selected for evaluation. The incremental increase in copper sediment concentrations resulting

from cruise ship particulates combined with natural deposition of particles was quantified for

several conservative scenarios and compared to sediment guideline values and background

sediment copper concentrations. The Panel concluded it was unlikely that there would be

environmental impacts of contaminants in sediments that could be associated directly with cruise

ships.

VI. Impacts to the Surface Water Microlayer of the Marine Environment 

The Panel investigated the possibility that contaminants from large cruise ship wastewater

discharge might adversely impact life-form activity in the 200-300 μm thick microlayer or sea

surface film. The Panel concluded that the high dilution of wastewater caused by a large moving

cruise ship would prevent significant accumulation of contaminants in the microlayer, even after

accounting for the sequestering or enrichment properties of the microlayer. Small cruise ships

that discharge small amounts of wastewater while anchored or stationary in fjords and

embayments may have some limited potential for adverse impact to the fresh water layers found

in fjords and embayments.
xii

VII. Criteria for Delineating Areas Potentially Sensitive to Cruise Ship Wastewater Discharges

The Panel considered sensitive areas and sensitive species in attempting to determine whether

certain waters and nearby shorelines might be more sensitive than others to cruise ship

discharges.

The Panel developed three recommendations for cruise ship discharges:

1. Stationary discharge in a low tidal exchange area could lead to water quality issues and

should be avoided.

2. The current requirements for large cruise ships – wastewater discharge at a minimum speed

of 6 knots and at least 1 nautical mile from shore unless they can meet the strict effluent

standards for stationary discharge – is good management practice and should be practiced by

all passenger ships.

3. No discharges should occur within 0.5 nautical mile from areas of commercial bivalve

shellfish beds.

The Panel set forth two recommendations for identifying sensitive areas:

1. At this time, the Panel is not aware of any species that has a sensitive life stage that crosses

cruise ship discharge areas. However, should such a species be identified it could be an

important issue for cruise ship discharge timing in a particular location.

2. Areas where long residence time or minimal neap tidal exchanges occur are areas where

chemicals from wastewater discharges are a potential issue. Tidal exchange information

could be used to prioritize areas for further study to determine whether or not wastewater

discharge is a problem.

VIII. Sources of Shipboard Chemicals and Pathways by which They Could Reach the Marine

Environment 

Between May 2000 and September 2002, members of the Science Panel attempted to develop a

good working knowledge of the likely “universe of chemicals” brought on board and used on

large cruise ships. They visited several large ships – spending two days underway on one – and

conducted extensive interviews with corporate managers, officers and crew. Eight possible

pathways whereby onboard chemicals could be discharged to the environment were identified

and evaluated. The Panel concluded that a properly maintained, well-managed, modern cruise

ship, operating in full compliance with government regulations, will not release shipboard

chemicals into the environment at a quantity or level that will cause measurable negative

environmental impact. The authors suggest monitoring several additional chemicals in the future

for the purposes of validating best practice or dilution models.

IX. Small Commercial Passenger Vessels

The small fleet discharges 6% of the total wastewater discharged into Alaska waters from

passenger vessels. This number includes the ferries that operate year round. The Panel has

noted that significant mixing and dispersion occurs when wastewater is discharged from a
xiii

moving vessel. Small ship discharges, occurring while at anchor or in port, do not benefit from

the mixing dynamic of underway discharge. Stationary treated blackwater and graywater

discharge, especially at the head of fjords, embayments and other areas of low net marine water

outflow, should be avoided (Sections VI, VII).

The macerator/chlorinating system (Section II) when used on small ships has demonstrated the

ability to treat wastewater effectively for bacteria and total suspended solids. However, this is

achieved by the use of high levels of chlorine. Chlorine is an effective disinfectant but excessive

chlorine residual is toxic to marine life. The State of Alaska should consider whether a residual

chlorine standard is necessary to prevent excessive chlorine entering the marine environment.

Sample results from biological treatment show that this treatment system, as currently operated

on board small ships, cannot meet effluent standards for bacteria and suspended solids.

Evaluation of small cruise ship impacts, including a risk-screen, should continue.

X. Marine Water Monitoring Needed to Track the Impacts of Wastewater Discharges

Every two years in the spring, the National Status and Trends Program (NSTP) of the National

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) samples mussels for contamination at five

Alaska coastal sites. As expected, organic chemicals and trace metals concentrations are much

lower at these sites than elsewhere along the US Pacific coast. However, more data from Alaska

coastal sites are needed, at the right time (summer), to determine if passenger vessel activity is a

relevant contributor to coastal contamination. Environmental monitoring provides a check that

regulatory actions have their intended benefit and reduces uncertainty. Although the Panel

believes cruise ships are not likely to contribute measurable contamination, a slightly-enhanced

monitoring of contaminants in mussels and sediments in Southeast Alaska, Prince William

Sound, along the Kenai Peninsula, and in Cook Inlet, during the tourist season, could provide a

valuable tool in assuring that state coastal waters remain relatively uncontaminated.

XI. Recommendations for Research and Program Improvements

The Panel finds that, while the risk of environmental impacts from current discharge practices is

low, continued targeted research monitoring increase the level of certainty. Specific

recommendations within the following program and research categories are set forth in Section

XI:

Continued Evaluation of Small Passenger Vessels

Improved Sampling and Additional Audits of Passenger Vessels

Determining Water Movement and Exchange in Selected Coastal Areas

Enhanced Environmental Assessment and Monitoring of Alaska Waters

XII. Best Management Practice and Recommended Policies

In addition to recommendations for monitoring and research, the Panel suggests three best

management practices and policies for risk minimization. They are:
xiv

Policies to encourage small cruise ships to discharge wastewater while underway.

Policies to prevent over-chlorination.

Best management practices for large cruise ships with advanced wastewater treatment systems.
xv

Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

Science Advisory Panel

Commercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance Program

Core Members

Marlin Atkinson: Professor of Oceanography, University of Hawaii. Specialty: Nutrient input,

physical transport models, remote sensing, and point/non-point pollution.

Marlin Atkinson, Ph.D.

HIMB 46-007 Lilipuna Rd

PO Box 1346, Kaneohe, HI 96744-1346

Ph: 808-235-2224, 

Fax: 808-236-7443

HIMB 808-236-7401

mja@hawaii.edu

C-J Beegle-Krause: Oceanographer, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Specialty: Modeling chemical transport in oceans.

CJ Beegle-Krause, Ph.D.

NOAA/ORR/HAZMAT

7600 Sand Point Way NE

Seattle, WA 98115

(206) 526-6961

Cj.Beegle-Krause@noaa.gov

Kenwyn George: Environmental Engineer for Wastewater Discharge for Alaska Department of

Environmental Conservation. Specialty: Dispersion modeling, fate and effects of wastewater

discharge, waste water permitting.

Kenwyn George, P.E.

ADEC – Air & Water Quality

410 Willoughby Ave., Suite 303

Juneau, AK 99801

(907) 465-5313

Kenwyn_George@envircon.state.ak.us

Kenneth J. Hall: Professor, University of British Columbia (Department of Civil Engineering

and Institute for Resources and Environment). Specialty: Water quality, water pollution (nonpoint source, impact analysis).
xvi

Kenneth J. Hall, Ph.D.

Institute for Resources and Environment

The University of British Columbia

#436-2206 East Mall

Vancouver, B.C. V6T 1Z3 Canada

1-604-822-6474

kjhall@civil.ubc.ca

Lincoln Loehr: Environmental analyst for a law firm. Specialty: Dispersion models and mixing

zones, municipal wastewater permitting.

Lincoln Loehr

Heller Ehrman

701 5th Ave.

Suite 6100

Seattle, WA 98104-7098

work phone (206) 389-6219

fax (206) 447-0849

lloehr@hewm.com

Charles McGee: Laboratory Supervisor, Orange County (CA) Sanitation District. Specialty:

Microbiology, wastewater treatment.

Charles McGee 

10844 Ellis Ave

Fountain Valley, CA 92708

Phone: 714-593-7504

Fax: 714-962-2591

CMCGEE@OCSD.COM

Alan J. Mearns: Senior Staff Scientist, Hazardous Materials Response Division, National

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Specialty: Marine ecology, benefits and consequences

of waste treatment technologies.

Alan J. Mearns. Ph.D.

Senior Staff Scientist

Hazardous Materials Response Division

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

7600 Sand Point Way NE

Seattle, WA 98115

(206) 526-6336
xvii

(206) 526-6329 FAX

alan.mearns@noaa.gov

Michael S. Stekoll: Professor of Chemistry and Biochemistry, University of Alaska – Southeast.

Specialty: Ocean pollution, shoreline impacts of pollution.

Michael S. Stekoll, Ph.D.

Professor

University of Alaska

11120 Glacier Highway

Juneau, AK 99801

(907) 465-6279

ffmss@uaf.edu

Michael Watson: Senior toxicologist for US Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10.

Specialty: Toxicology, health effects, marine pollution.

Michael Watson, Ph.D. DABT

Sr. Toxicologist

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10 ,

1200 Sixth Avenue, OEA-095

Seattle, WA, USA 98101

(206) 553-1072 FAX (206) 553-0119

Watson.Michael@epa.gov

Supporting Members 

Dave Eley: Secretary and Facilitator for the Science Panel. Specialty: Industrial toxicology and

environmental health, waterways management, marine environmental protection.

Mr. W. David Eley, President

Cape Decision International Services, Inc.

3300 Foster Avenue

Juneau, Alaska 99801

Ph: 907.586.2685, Fax: 907.586.2692

Capedec@alaska.com

The Panel acknowledges with gratitude the support of Carolyn Morehouse. Ms. Morehouse

provided extensive technical support and was the primary author of two of the articles featured in

this paper.
xviii

Figure I

A discussion of the development and use of the assessment framework is

provided in Appendix I.
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

Science Advisory Panel

Commercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance Program November 2002

1

Section I 

Dilution of Wastewater Discharged by Large Cruise Ships

Lincoln Loehr, CJ Beegle-Krause, Kenwyn George, Charles McGee, and Alan Mearns

Summary

The study, by itself, of effluent characteristics is not sufficient to evaluate exposure and

ecological/health risks associated with cruise ship wastewater discharge. An understanding of

dilution is essential. The Science Advisory Panel (the Panel) has undertaken a number of efforts

with the goal of developing a simple method of estimating wastewater dilution in the wake of a

moving large cruise ship2

. Starting in February 2001 and continuing through September 2002

the Panel has:

Reviewed several published wake mixing studies [Colonell et al. (2000), Curtis et al. (1999),

Csanady (1980), Kim (2000), ESL (2000)];

Developed a preliminary conservative description of wastewater dispersion behind moving large

cruise ships [Science Advisory Panel June 26, 2001];

Made direct observations of the depth and width of turbulence behind several cruise ships [Loehr

et al. 2001];

Had one member observe dye studies of four cruise ships off of Miami conducted by the EPA,

and

Reviewed EPA’s final report on the Miami cruise ship dye studies [EPA 2002].

The Panel has determined that the dilution occurring within the first 15 minutes following the

discharge of wastewater behind a moving large cruise ship is a function of the speed of the

vessel, the rate of discharge, the beam (width) and draft (depth) of the vessel. Vigorous mixing

occurs in the turbulent wake and extends horizontally beyond the beam (or width) and vertically

below the draft (or depth) of the vessel. For a large cruise ship discharging at a rate of 200 cubic

meters per hour and traveling at the minimum allowed speed of 6 knots, the mixing will be

greater than 50,000 to 1. Different speeds, discharge rates, and hull sizes can result in different

mixing rates and can be reasonably determined by the following formula:

Large Cruise Ship

 Dilution factor = 4 x (ship width x ship draft x ship speed)/(volume discharge rate)

 

2 A large cruise ship is defined in Alaska Statute 46.03.490 as a commercial passenger vessel that provides overnight

accommodation for 250 or more passengers for hire, determined with reference to the number of lower berths.

Federal regulations written specifically for cruise ships operating in Alaska waters (33 CFR 159, Subpart E) apply to

vessels with accommodations for 500 or more passengers. In this document, we are using the state definition of

large cruise ship. 
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

Science Advisory Panel

Commercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance Program November 2002

2

=4x (_____m x _____m x _____m sec-1)/(_____m3sec-1)

This formula is quite straightforward. A ship with a large cross sectional area (draft and width)

will create more mixing than a smaller ship. A ship moving faster will discharge less effluent

per meter traveled than a ship moving at a lesser rate. A ship discharging at a slower rate of

discharge will also discharge less effluent per meter traveled. Decreased effluent discharged per

meter traveled leads to greater dilution.

In Alaska, fecal coliform colonies in graywater and blackwater discharges from large ships may

not exceed 200 per 100 ml and total suspended solids may not exceed 150 mg/L and must be

discharged while the vessel is traveling at a minimum speed of 6 knots and is at least 1 nautical

mile from shore.3

 A large cruise ship may discharge at any speed and location if they meet much

more stringent effluent standards.4 Far field dispersion processes assure that additional dilution

will occur before any mixture of effluent and water approaches a shore. Under the least

favorable conditions, the additional dilution factor will be 100 by the time the mixed water

reaches the shoreline, thus diluting the effluent of the vessel discharging at 200 m3 /hr at 6 knots

by a dilution factor of 5,000,000 or 50,000 x 100. 

Utilizing the large ship studies and two studies of smaller ships, the Panel developed the

following formula for small commercial passenger vessels:

Small Cruise Ship

Dilution factor = 3 x (ship width x ship draft x ship speed)/(volume discharge rate)

=3 x (_____m x _____m x _____m sec-1)/(_____m3sec-1)

In this section and in later sections of this report, effluent observations from a variety of vessels

will be discussed and evaluated in the context of the dilution estimations outlined above. This in

turn allows evaluation of the effects of toxicants, bacteria, nutrients and toxicity on the marine

waters and sediments of Alaska. 

Significance

Simply looking at effluent bacteriological, chemical, suspended solids or whole effluent toxicity

data from cruise ship discharges is not sufficient to evaluate exposure and ecological/health risks

associated with a discharge. An understanding of dilution is essential. Point source discharges

such as municipalities and industries are regulated under a permitting program that includes

routine evaluation by permitting authorities (EPA or states) to determine whether they have a

reasonable potential to exceed water quality standards after consideration of dilutions attained at

allowed mixing zone boundaries. If that permitting process determines there is a reasonable

potential to exceed any water quality standard, then water quality based effluent limits for those

specific parameters are imposed. If that permitting process determines there is no reasonable

 

3 Alaska Statute 46.03.463(b) &(c). 4 The standards established by US Title XIV – Certain Alaska Cruise Ship Operations 1404(c) require that ships

must meet the following effluent discharge standards in order to discharge continuously: (1) the discharge satisfies

the minimum level of effluent quality specified in 40 CFR 133.102; (2) the geometric mean of the samples from the

discharge during any 30-day period does not exceed 20 fecal coliform/100 ml and not more than 10 percent of the

samples exceed 40 fecal coliform/100 ml; (3) concentrations of total residual chlorine may not exceed 10 mg/l.
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

Science Advisory Panel

Commercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance Program November 2002

3

potential to exceed, the discharge is determined to not be a water quality problem. While cruise

ships are not regulated under the same permitting program, a similar evaluation approach is

relevant for determining whether there is a reasonable potential for impacts from cruise ship

discharges. 

Initial approach to evaluating dilution 

The Panel considered previous observational studies and modeling efforts and concluded that

there would be considerable mixing when wastewater was discharged from a moving vessel, due

to the speed of the vessel, the rate of the discharge, the turbulence associated with the passage of

the hull through the water, and the propeller action. The Panel submitted a report on June 26,

2001 (Science Advisory Panel 2001) that: 

1. Reviewed various studies (Colonell et al., 2000; Csanady, 1980; Kim 2000; ESL, 2000)

that generally identified very high rates of dilution based on theoretical calculations

and/or observations,

2. Recommended a dye dispersion study as the most definitive means to answer the dilution

questions, and 

3. Advanced a simple formula approach to provide a conservative estimate of mixing that

would occur within less than 15 minutes5 following discharge. This formula allowed the

Panel and others to continue a conservative impact analysis while awaiting the results of

the EPA Miami dye study.

Calculated dilution factors for three different, large cruise ships at 6, 12 and 18 knots with

assumed discharge rates of 200 cubic meters per hour were presented in the report and varied

from 10,500 to 39,600. Even though these were very substantial dilution factors and represented

mixing that occurs in a very short period of time, the panel emphasized that dilutions calculated

in this manner were conservative.

The June 26, 2001 report also looked at the maximum and average concentrations of toxicants

observed in the Summer 2000 Alaska cruise ship wastewater sampling program6

, calculated the

toxicant concentrations (for detected priority pollutants) after a representative dilution factor of

12,000 and compared the values to Alaska’s water quality standards. Although not specifically

 

5 EPA’s Technical Support Document for Water Quality-based Toxics Control (EPA/505/2-90-001) describes how

an acute mixing zone should be established to prevent lethality to passing organisms. The guidance recognizes that

the water quality criteria include duration of exposure considerations. Specifically, EPA allows that a drifting

organism should not be exposed to 1-hour average concentrations exceeding the acute criteria, and that if travel time

for a drifting organism through the acute mixing zone is less than 15 minutes, then a 1-hour average exposure would

not be expected to exceed the acute criterion. The same demonstration is allowed for in Alaska’s Water Quality

Standards. This is the reason that the Science Advisory Panel has selected the time of 15 minutes following a cruise

ship’s passage as the basis for comparing to acute water quality standards. Comparison to more stringent chronic

water quality standards, including whole effluent toxicity tests at the 15 minute dilutions would be conservative and

protective as well. Comparison to mixing after 15 minutes is also appropriate for evaluating incidental bacteria

exposures for the infrequent scenario of a kayaker more than a mile from land crossing the wake behind a cruise

ship. 

6 Alaska Cruise Ship Initiative Part 2 Final Report (June 1 2000 to July 1, 2001). The report can be accessed at

http://info.dec.state.ak.us/decpermit/acsireport.pdf 
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

Science Advisory Panel

Commercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance Program November 2002

4

stated, the effluent concentrations and the dilution showed that there was no reasonable potential

for any of the measured toxicants to exceed a water quality standard after initial mixing.

Science Advisory Panel observations

In July 2001, the Panel met in Juneau and toured a number of large cruise ships. The panel also

conducted a current and wake turbulence study of opportunity, measuring currents at various

depths in the wake of two cruise ships and video taping the fathometer to record detailed

observations of the depth and width of turbulence behind the cruise ships (Loehr et al., 2001).

The current studies identified considerable variability in current directions over the water

column, indicative of shear effects contributing to mixing. Fathometer observations showed that

the turbulence from the passage of the cruise ships initially extended well below the 8 m hull

depth of the cruise ships, and the width of the turbulence spread to 125 m within 6 to 9 minutes.

The wake turbulence zone then grew gradually wider and shallower over time as it rose and

spread horizontally.

The current and turbulence observations provided the Panel information supporting more than

three times the mixing that was calculated by the formula developed by the panel. The panel also

pondered whether a discharge along the side of the hull, rather than from beneath the hull, would

make a difference to the dilution achieved. Later dye study results from EPA indicated that this

did not appear to make a difference.

Navy studies

By the December 2001 meeting of the Panel, copies of studies by the Navy behind a frigate,

measuring dilution of a pulped waste paper discharge released from the stern were available

(Curtis et al., 1999). The studies included observations of dye as well as pulp, and provided

good agreement with numerical modeling performed by the Navy. This frigate had a single

propeller. The Panel looked at the hull width and depth of the frigate, the frigate’s speed, the

discharge rate, and compared the Navy’s mixing results with the panel’s conservative formula.

The Navy study measured and modeled dilutions about 3 times greater than what the Science

Advisory Panel’s conservative formula predicted.

EPA dye studies

In August 2001, EPA conducted dye dispersion studies behind 4 large cruise ships off the coast

of Miami and a draft report was released to the panel in July 2002 (EPA, 2002). One member of

the Panel was an onboard observer during EPA’s studies. Because these observations were of

actual cruise ship wastewater discharges, the EPA observations provided the best reference for

estimating a factor to apply to the Panel’s formula. One of the cruise ships had an azipod

propulsion system (motors and propellers with a shroud around them) and three of the cruise

ships had more conventional propeller arrangements. The dye studies provided “measured”

initial dilutions and “calculated” initial dilutions. The Panel compared EPA’s measured and

calculated initial dilutions with the dilutions predicted by the conservative Science Advisory

Panel formula. The measured mixing values were 5.3, 0.9, 6.5 and 5.1 times that predicted by

the formula. The calculated mixing values were 4.7, 4.2, 6.7 and 4.5 times that predicted by the
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

Science Advisory Panel

Commercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance Program November 2002

5

formula (hence the factor of 4 in the large cruise ship dilution formula now endorsed by the

Panel). 

For the M/V Explorer the measured mixing value was only 0.9 times the conservative Science

Advisory Panel formula and was anomalous to the other results from the other cruise ships. The

Panel initially attributed it to the ship’s unique azipod propulsion and also its hull design that

would pull deeper water into the azipods. The hull at the stern had twin concave arches within

which the azipods resided. Further analysis of the EPA study by the Panel lead them to conclude

that the dye in the tank could not have been completely mixed and must have initially discharged

at a much higher concentration than was intended. This analysis was achieved by a “massbalance” calculation comparing the amount of dye discharged per meter traveled to the dye in the

water after the ship passed. At the rate of discharge of the effluent, such high dye concentrations

as observed would not have been possible had the dye been fully mixed within the tank. When

the area in which dye was detected was considered in the later transects behind the ships, bearing

in mind that there is quite a variation for each cruise ship, the dilution achieved behind the

Explorer was reasonably close to that observed for two of the other ships. After a few hours the

dye extended to a similar cross sectional area in the ocean as for two other vessels, indicating

that a similar dilution would be achieved for the Explorer. The “measured” dilutions assumed a

uniform dye concentration in the discharge, and for the Explorer, that clearly was not the case.

Therefore, only the “calculated” dilution for the Explorer was used in the Panel’s analysis.

Final recommended dilution factors

The formula now recommended by the Panel to describe the dilution for large cruise ships is:

Large Cruise Ship

 Dilution factor = 4 x (ship width x ship draft x ship speed)/(volume discharge rate)

= 4 x (_____m x _____m x _____m sec-1)/(_____m3sec

-1)

Since this formula accounts for ship size, speed and wastewater discharge rate it can be applied

to a number of situations involving actual discharges underway. It can also be used to develop

best operating practices. Further ship and discharge specific modeling or dye studies are not

necessary for large cruise ships. Provided the vessel has holding tanks, discharges below the

surface, and restricts their discharging to when they are moving, use of this simple formula

approach for estimating dilution is sufficient and appropriate. No single dilution factor is

pertinent for all discharges from all cruise ships.

Dilution will vary with the rate of discharge, the speed and size of the vessel.

Based on the 3 usable “measured” mixing values and four usable “calculated” mixing values

determined from the EPA dye studies, the Panel believes a mixing multiplier of 4 can be

conservatively applied to the formula first suggested by the Panel. Table I-1 illustrates how the

EPA dye studies compared with the original Science Advisory Panel formula, and how the dye

studies compare with the Panel’s final formula. Note that computed values using the Panel’s

formula above match well with the dye study data. Since the dye study results include

observations in which both the discharge rates and the speed of the vessels varied by a factor of 2
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

Science Advisory Panel

Commercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance Program November 2002

6

(9 to 19 knots and 56 to 112 cubic meters per hour discharge rate), the formula with the mixing

multiplier of 4 is reasonable to apply to various size, speed and discharge rates.

The original Science Advisory Panel formula was identified as conservative and assumed that

the volume of water involved in mixing was limited to a rectangle defined by the vessels width

and depth and the length of the track over the time of discharge. By applying a factor of four to

the formula, the Panel acknowledges that the cross sectional area of the mixing volume is at least

four times the cross sectional area defined by the width and depth of the vessel. This is

consistent with visual surface observations of ship’s wakes, vertical observations of turbulence

behind cruise ships using a fathometer, EPA’s dye study results and other reported studies

reviewed by the Panel.

Table I-1: Science Advisory Panel’s Original Formula

Science Advisory Panel’s original formula compared to EPA "measured" and

"calculated" results from four dye studies.

Vessel Name Majesty Explorer Paradise Fascination

Width (beam) m 32.6 38.6 31.4 31.4

Depth (draft) m 7.7 8.8 7.75 7.75

Speed knots 17.4 19 15 9.1

Speed m/sec 8.96 9.78 7.72 4.68

Discharge Rate (Actual) m3/hr 112 56 68 72

Discharge Rate m3/s 0.031 0.016 0.019 0.020

Original Formula Dil’n factor 72,270 213,577 99,479 56,998

EPA "measured" Dil’n factor 386,057 195,322 643,810 288,412

Difference factor 5.3 0.9 6.5 5.1

EPA "calculated" Dil’n factor 342,123 907,547 666,667 255,499

Difference factor 4.7 4.2 6.7 4.5

[NOTE: measured value for Explorer is suspect. The Science Advisory Panel believes dye

did not mix well in tank.]

As above, but the Science Advisory Panel’s original formula is adjusted by a mixing

multiplier of 4 based on dye studies.

Vessel Name Majesty Explorer Paradise Fascination

Width (beam) m 32.6 38.6 31.4 31.4

Depth (draft) m 7.7 8.8 7.75 7.75

speed knots 17.4 19 15 9.1

speed m/s 8.96 9.78 7.72 4.68

discharge rate m3/hr 112 56 68 72
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

Science Advisory Panel

Commercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance Program November 2002

7

Science Advisory Panel’s original formula compared to EPA "measured" and

"calculated" results from four dye studies.

Vessel Name Majesty Explorer Paradise Fascination

discharge rate m3/s 0.031 0.016 0.019 0.020

Final Formula Dil’n factor 289,081 854,309 397,918 227,992

EPA "measured" Dil’n factor 386,057 195,322 643,810 288,412

difference factor 1.3 0.2 1.6 1.3

EPA "calculated" Dil’n factor 342,123 907,547 666,667 255,499

difference factor 1.2 1.1 1.7 1.1

Appendix 2 uses the Panel’s final formula for large cruise ships to calculate the diluted effluent

constituent concentrations discharged from 21 cruise ships in 2000. The usefulness of such a

formula is apparent when considering different discharge rates. The June 26, 2001 Science

Advisory Panel report calculated dilutions on the basis that all discharges occurred at the same

rate of 200 m3

 per hour. One of the more disturbing observations from the year 2000 cruise ship

sampling was that some tanks had very high fecal coliform bacteria, biochemical oxygen demand

(BOD) and total suspended solids (TSS) values. The highest BOD and TSS are found in galley

waste tanks and occur because cruise ships practice water conservation. Water in the galley

waste tank is reused in support of food waste grinder operations so of course the solids and BOD

will be quite high in the galley waste tanks. Galley waste tanks are generally much smaller than

the other waste tanks (20 to 30 m3

 compared to about 100 m3), and are usually pumped with

smaller pumps at around 1/10th the discharge rate of the larger tanks. Even though the

concentrations in the galley tanks are greater, so too is their dilution if they are discharged at a

lower rate.

Table I-2 presents representative dilution calculations for a hypothetical large cruise ship with a

beam of 30 meters, a draft of 8 meters, discharge rates of 200 m3

/hour (for large holding tanks)

and 20 m3/hour (for small holding tanks like galley wastes). The calculations were for speeds of

6, 12 and 18 knots. Dilution factors for the high discharge rate (200 m3) varied from over 53,000

to over 160,000 for the range of vessel speeds. Dilution factors for the low discharge rate (20

m3

) varied from over 530,000 to over 1,600,000 for the range of vessel speeds. With the studies

and data to date, the Panel is confident that the formula for dilution can be used for a vessel

traveling down to 6 knots.

Table I-2: Final Applied Dilution Formula for Hypothetical Ship

Final formula applied to a hypothetical ship of 30 m wide, 8 m deep, at speeds of 6, 12 and 18

kts first using a 200 m3/hr discharge rate and then using a 20 m3/hr discharge rate

200 m3/hr discharge rate example

Width (beam) m 30 30 30

Depth (draft) m 8 8 8

Speed knots 6 12 18
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

Science Advisory Panel

Commercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance Program November 2002

8

Speed m/s 3.09 6.18 9.27

Discharge Rate m3/hr 200 200 200

Discharge Rate m3/s 0.006 0.006 0.006

Modified SAP Formula Dil’n factr 53,372 106,744 160,115

20 m3/hr discharge rate example

Width (beam) m 30 30 30

Depth (draft) m 8 8 8

Speed knots 6 12 18

Speed m/s 3.09 6.18 9.27

Discharge Rate m3/hr 20 20 20

Discharge Rate m3/s 0.006 0.006 0.006

Modified SAP Formula Dil’n factr 533,718 1,067,436 160,1154

Table I-3 applies the final formula to the four large cruise ships that participated in EPA’s dye

studies to derive the dilution factors for speeds of 6, 12 and 18 knots based on the actual rates of

discharge.

Far-field Dilution

Dilution factors associated with discharges from moving cruise ships are very large and occur

very rapidly. For comparison, dilution factors available for typical municipal discharges may

range from less than 10 to several hundred. In Alaska, large cruise ships are required to either

treat wastewater to a level that meets stringent effluent standards or discharge while moving at a

minimum speed of 6 knots at a distance one nautical mile from the shoreline7

.

The public has expressed concerns regarding the concentration of effluent that might reach the

shoreline from 1 nautical mile – the closest to shore that large cruise ships without advanced

treatment systems can discharge. There are several hydrographic and physical oceanographic

processes that could result in this type of transport. Currents typically flow parallel to the shore

rather than toward shore, but the rising and falling of the tides can transport water across areas of

mudflats and marshes. Eddies and wind induced surface flows can also result in transport toward

or away from the nearshore. An onshore wind would only move the very surface of the water

(upper 1-10 cm) toward the shore. Wind driven surface currents are typically 3.5 % of the

surface wind speed. The faster the wind blows, the faster any surface water would reach the

shoreline, however, the surface wave mixing also increases with wind speed.

 

7 Title 33, US Code of Federal Regulations Part 159.309 and Alaska Statute 46.03.463(b), (c), & (g).
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

Science Advisory Panel

Commercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance Program November 2002

9

For a modest 10-knot wind blowing directly on shore, almost 3 hours would be required to move

surface water 1 nautical mile8

. Assuming a layer 1 cm thick is moved by the wind and mixed

into the wave influenced surface layer of about one meter, the additional mixing ratio would be 1

cm:1 m or 1:100 (a dilution factor of 100). Over a longer period of 24 hours, the water would

mix completely through the mixed layer (about 10 meters) increasing the dilution factor from

100 to 1000. Over several days water moves in and out of the mixed layer causing further

dilution. These estimates are conservative as the surface layer would likely mix even more and

the water would not take a direct line to shore, but a more circuitous path longer in time due to

local currents and eddies.

Table I-3: Final Dilution Formula Applied – Four Large Cruise Ships

Large Vessels

Majesty Gray water discharge at 112 m3/hr

Width (beam) m 32.6 32.6 32.6

Depth(draft) m 7.7 7.7 7.7

Speed knots 6 12 18

Speed m/sec 3.09 6.18 9.27

Discharge Rate gpm

Discharge Rate m3/sec 0.031 0.031 0.031

Final Formula Dil’n factor 99,683 199,366 299,049

Explorer Black water discharge at 56 m3/hr 

Width(beam) m 38.6 38.6 38.6

Depth(draft) m 8.8 8.8 8.8

Speed knots 6 12 18

Speed m/sec 3.09 6.18 9.27

Discharge Rate gpm

Discharge Rate m3/sec 0.016 0.016 0.016

Final Formula Dil’n factor 269,782 539,564 809,345

Paradise Gray water discharge at 68 m3/hr 

Width(beam) m 31.4 31.4 31.4

Depth(draft) m 7.75 7.75 7.75

Speed knots 6 12 18

Speed m/sec 3.09 6.18 9.27

Discharge Rate gpm

 

8 1 nm/(10 nm hr-1*0.035) = 2.9 hours
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

Science Advisory Panel

Commercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance Program November 2002

10

Large Vessels

Majesty Gray water discharge at 112 m3/hr

Discharge Rate m3/sec 0.019 0.019 0.019

Final Formula Dil’n factor 159,167 318,334 477,501

Applicability of Formula to Small Cruise Ships

Fascination Gray water discharge at 72 m3/hr 

Width(beam) m 31.4 31.4 31.4

Depth (draft) m 7.75 7.75 7.75

Speed knots 6 12 18

Speed m/sec 3.09 6.18 9.27

Discharge Rate gpm

Discharge Rate m3/sec 0.020 0.020 0.020

Final Formula Dil’n factor 150,324 300,649 450,973

Most data gathered on dilution behind moving vessels have been collected from large cruise

ships. However, there are data from both a single propeller frigate (Curtis et al. 1999) and from

a towed barge (Csanady, 1980). The data from both these vessels indicate that large dilution

factors occur, for the frigate one can use a multiplier of 3 instead of 4 in the dilution formula. 

Because of these results, and because one would expect similar hydraulic characteristics between

moving large and small vessels, only of a different magnitude, the Panel is fairly confident that

the formula could be used with the multiplier modification to calculate dilutions behind small

cruise ships. If there is a concern about a particular pollutant at the calculated dilution, then

further analysis or studies could be done at that time on the small vessel. If there is no particular

concern, then use the formula for small cruise ships with a multiplying factor of 3, as:

Small Cruise Ship

 Dilution factor = 3 x (ship width x ship draft x ship speed)/(volume discharge rate)

 =3x (_____m x _____m x _____m sec-1)/(_____m3sec

-1)
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

Science Advisory Panel

Commercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance Program November 2002

11

References

Colonell, J.M., S. V. Smith and R. B. Sipes. 2000. Cruise Ship Wastewater Discharge into

Alaskan Waters. Technical Report 2000-01, Alaska SeaLife Center pp. 7-16

Csanady, G.T. 1980. An Analysis of Dumpsite Diffusion Experiments. pp. 109-129 B.H.

Ketchum, D.R. Kester and P.K. Park (editors), Ocean Dumping of Industrial Wastes.

Plenum Press, New York

Curtis, S.L., C. N. Katz and D. B. Chadwick. February 1999. Environmental Analysis of U.S.

Navy Shipboard Solid Waste Discharges: Addendum to the Report of Findings.

SPAWAR Systems Center San Diego Technical Report 1716, 

ESL, LLC. 2000. Wastewater Dispersion Study: Distribution of Cruise Ship Effluent as

Determined from Real-Time Collection of Water Column Samples; September 6-7, 2000

EPA Office of Water 2002. Cruise Ship Plume Tracking Survey Report

Kim, D.K. 2000. Cruise Ship Wastewater Dispersion Analysis (for International Council of

Cruise Lines), August 25, 2000

Loehr, L.C., A. Mearns and K. George. August 6, 2001. Initial Report on the July 10, 2001

Study of Opportunity: Currents and Wake Turbulence Behind Cruise Ships.

http://www.state.ak.us/local/akpages/ENV.CONSERV/press/cruise/documents/sciencepa

nel.htm

Science Advisory Panel for Commercial Passenger Vessel Wastewater Discharge. June 26,

2001. Report to the Alaska Cruise Ship Initiative. Near-Field Dispersion of Wastewater

Behind a Moving Large Cruise Ship.

http://www.state.ak.us/dec/press/cruise/documents/scipanl2.htm
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

Science Advisory Panel

Commercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance Program November 2002

12

Section II 

Wastewater Sampling and Analysis for Commercial Passenger Vessels

Carolyn Morehouse, Charles McGee, Lincoln Loehr, and Michael Watson

Summary

Since July 1, 2001, Alaska law has required commercial passenger ships with at least 50

overnight passengers to take a minimum of two samples per year that are representative of

wastewater effluent discharged in Alaska water. Wastewater includes blackwater (BW) from

toilets and graywater (GW) produced from sinks, showers and laundry facilities. During the

2000 season, commercial ships under went wastewater sampling and analysis as a part of a

voluntary program.

Over the last three years, the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC)

received data from these sampling events. Obtaining truly representative sampling data for ships

that do not discharge in port is difficult because the fecal coliform test has a 6-hour maximum

holding time. Therefore, the wastewater sampled on these ships is representative of wastewater

that can be sent to a lab within the 6-hour holding time rather than getting a sample of a majority

of wastewater produced during the day.

Sampling could be improved by de-emphasizing the importance of analyzing fecal coliform

within 6 hours and increasing efforts to obtain representative sample sub-sets or composite

samples of actual discharge taken over time. Recommendations for improving sampling and

sampling design are presented in Section XI and Appendix 3.

Small ships, vessels carrying 50-249 overnight passengers, do discharge in port but also have a

difficult time obtaining representative samples. The ships port time is spent disembarking

passengers and getting ready for the next cruise. There is usually little to no wastewater

produced during this day in port, however this is where the sampling is done.

Obtaining samples on board a ship that is consistently representative of a discharge (particularly

graywater) is difficult if not impossible. However, data obtained over the last three seasons,

when considered in its entirety, does provide a representative picture of the range and averages

of pollutants in various types of discharge from cruise ships.

The data show graywater has the same fecal coliform bacteria levels as blackwater. The data

highlight the difference between wastewater that is collected and discharged immediately

compared with wastewater that is held in tanks for later discharge. The data show the

effectiveness of different treatment types.

The advanced treatment systems recently installed on several large cruise ships are very effective

at removing solids and fecal coliform bacteria but these systems concentrate sludge that requires

disposal. These treatment systems are not designed to remove priority pollutants but test results

show that they do remove a significant portion.
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

Science Advisory Panel

Commercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance Program November 2002

13

The macerator chlorinator system has shown improvement in reducing fecal coliform on vessels

with under 1,000 passengers and crew but in some cases has a high chlorine residual and

chemical oxygen demand.

The 2000 data shows that none of the conventional biological treatment systems were

functioning properly. Ships with this type of treatment system are not discharging in Alaska

waters and therefore are not required to conduct sampling and analysis.

Background

Due to concerns regarding the quality and quantity of commercial passenger ship wastewater

discharged into Alaska marine waters and the potential effects of those discharges,

environmentalists, government agencies, the cruise ship industry, and other stakeholders formed

the Alaska Cruise Ship Initiative in 1999. In 2000, this work group began a voluntary sampling

program to test the effluents of large cruise ships that discharge in Alaska waters. Large cruise

ships are defined as ships that have overnight accommodations for 500 or more people.

Commercial passenger ships produce two types of wastewater: blackwater and graywater.

Blackwater is wastewater from ship’s toilets and for the larger ships include medical facilities.

Graywater is water produced from showers, sinks, and laundry. Graywater comes from three

main sources: (1) galley or kitchen areas, (2) passenger/crew accommodations, and (3) laundry

facilities. Anytime blackwater and graywater are combined the resulting wastewater is

considered blackwater. For data comparison the gray and blackwater mix has been separated to

see if its characteristics are different from other wastewater.

In June 2001, the Alaska legislature passed a law affecting commercial passenger ships operating

in Alaska marine waters with overnight accommodations for 50 or more passengers.9 The law

set fecal coliform and TSS effluent discharge limits for both gray and blackwater.10 It also

allows the ADEC to perform necessary studies to determine if additional water quality limits are

needed to protect human health and environment.

Cruise ship operators discharging wastewater in Alaska marine water sample for both

conventional and priority pollutants. In 2002, the ADEC conducted a round of Whole Effluent

Toxicity tests to determine the potential for effects of the effluent on marine organisms.

The ADEC compiled data from sampling events in 2000, 2001 and 2002. This report includes all

data received by September 30, 2002. The ADEC developed tables that summarized the data.

For the tables, the ADEC, for statistical purposes, replaced zero or non-detect results with onehalf (1⁄2) the minimum detection limit (MDL). The ADEC included tables for all pollutants with

geometric means11 greater than the MDL or where at least one sample result was over 10 times

the detection limit. If all sample of a particular priority pollutant were non-detects, they were

excluded from the table. This was done for the sake of brevity. Complete data sets are included

in Appendices 5 & 6.

 

9 Alaska Statute 46.03.460 - 490

10 AS 46.03.463 set graywater and blackwater effluent standards for fecal coliform at 200 colonies per 100 ml and

150 mg per liter for total suspended solids.

11 “Geometric mean” means the nth root of the product of a series of n numbers; eg. (2 x 9 x 5) ^1/3 = 4.48
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

Science Advisory Panel

Commercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance Program November 2002

14

Samples

Pollutants Analyzed

Wastewater sampling and laboratory analysis provides measurements of conventional and

priority pollutants.

• All ships discharging in Alaska water were required to sample twice a year for the

following conventional pollutants:

• Total Suspended Solids (TSS)

• Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD)

• Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD)

• Ammonia – Total

• Fecal Coliform

• pH

• Total and Free Residual Chlorine

In 2001, on the advice of the Science Advisory Panel, the conventional pollutants monitoring

requirements were increased to include the following parameters:

• Settleable Solids (SS)

• Oil and Grease 

• Total Organic Carbon

• Specific Conductance (to measure seawater influx)

• Alkalinity

• Total Nitrogen (Ammonia, Nitrate, Nitrite, and Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN))

• Total Phosphorus

One of the two required sampling events must sample wastewater for priority pollutants. Priority

pollutants include:

• Base/Neutrals, Acids

• PCBs

• Volatile Organic Chemicals (VOCs)

• Trace Metals (Total Recoverable and Dissolved)

There are 126 so-called “priority” pollutants on the EPA list12. In 2000 and 2001, large ships

sampled for all 126 pollutants. Since many of the priority pollutants were not discovered in

these wastewater samples, the ADEC and United States Coast Guard (USCG) shortened the list

to 55 pollutants in 2002. However, the 55 pollutants on the USCG list have 110 chemical

constituents.13 In order to reduce laboratory costs and under guidance from the Panel14, the

USCG and ADEC also removed every pesticide from the pollutant list in 2002.

Pesticides are used on vessels and some pesticide residue from fresh fruits and vegetables would

be expected. In the absence of comprehensive shipboard audits, wastewater sampling in the

 

12 The list used is from the Compilation of the USEPA;s Water Quality Criteria for the Priority Toxic Pollutants By

Katy McKerney Sept 1997

13 For example, the pollutant class PCB is actually comprised of seven PCBs. 14 Wastewater Constituents to Monitor for 2001, Science Advisory Panel, August 2001

http://www.state.ak.us/dec/press/cruise/pdf/sciencepan061501.pdf
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

Science Advisory Panel

Commercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance Program November 2002

15

future should include pesticides. Appendix 4 contains the list of pollutants that were analyzed in

2002.

Sampling Strategy

The number and types of samples taken depended on individual ship configuration and the

ability to get the samples to a laboratory for analysis within a 6-hour time frame. In 2000, the

goal of the sampling program was to characterize the wastewater, determine if hazardous

substances were discharged with the graywater, and determine the functionality of the

wastewater treatment systems.

In 2000, large ships agreed not to discharge within 10 miles of the nearest port. Some of the

2000 in port samples were taken from holding tanks and Marine Sanitation Devices (MSD). The

water in these holding tanks was not being discharged to the ambient water but instead held in

double bottom (DB) or ballast tanks for later discharge. These 2000 sampling data were more

representative of the wastewater that vessel’s discharged prior to the 2000 agreement to “hold”

water in port.

The other sampling events in 2000 sampled the double bottom holding tanks. These tanks held a

majority of the water but could only be sampled as the ship was discharging to the ambient

water. The wastewater in the double bottom tanks was being held for up to 20 hours and

discharged once the vessel was more than 10 miles from port.

After the Federal legislation or the “Murkowski” bill passed in 2000 and the Alaska State law

passed in June 2001, the purpose of the sampling shifted to assess compliance with the federal

and state laws.15

In 2001, the wastewater samples from large ships had to be taken as the wastewater was being

discharged overboard. Therefore, the large ship samples originated from collecting tanks

because the ballast tanks discharge occurred more than 6 hours from port. Small ships sampled

in port as they were discharging, but there were no people on board. The ferries’ sampling

occurred while there were stopped in Juneau, which typically lasted only 1-2 hours.

In 2002, the wastewater data from large ships reflects the increase in the number of large vessels

that had installed advanced treatment technology, from two in 2001 to seven in 2002. Of the

seven ships with advanced treatment, six met more stringent effluent standards16.

The wastewater sampling strategy from small ships in 2002 was similar to that of 2001. Small

ships took their first priority pollutant data in 2002.

 

15 FederalTitle XIV—Certain Alaskan Cruise Ship Operations and Alaska Statute 46.03.460 -490 16 More stringent standards are 20 fecal colonies per 100 ml of sample and TSS of 15 mg/L compared with 200 and

150 comparatively. The more stringent standards also include a chlorine residual limit of 10 mg/l.
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

Science Advisory Panel

Commercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance Program November 2002

16

Ships treatment systems from 2000 to 2002

Black water treatment

All large ships treat black water using a US Coast guard approved Marine Sanitary Device

(MSD) or the black water is untreated and discharged when the ships are more than 12 miles

from land. The MSD units use the following treatment systems: (1) biological treatment system,

(2) macerator/chemical, or (3) advanced treatment.

Biological systems clarify the wastewater by allowing solids to settle then use aeration to

encourage biological growth that feeds on the organic waste. Biological systems use either

chlorine or ultraviolet light for disinfecting the final discharge.

Macerator/chlorinator systems dilute the wastewater about 10:1 with ambient seawater. A

macerator pump breaks up any solids. An electrochemical cell generates chlorine from the

seawater and this is used for final disinfecting. There are currently nineteen small ships and

ferries in the program. Fifteen use this type of treatment system. Only the four largest of the

small ships use a biological treatment MSD.

Advance treatment systems treat the wastewater using a biological process followed by

ultrafiltration (filter pore size less than a fraction of a micron - one micron is one millionth of a

meter) or reverse osmosis filtration. The advance treatment systems then use either chlorine or

ultraviolet radiation to kill bacteria. Currently, only large ships are using advanced treatment

systems.

Graywater treatment

Graywater is usually not treated. Some vessels mixed the graywater with the blackwater where it

gets treated in the blackwater treatment system or advance treatment system. Some ships add

chlorine to their graywater collecting tanks to achieve some level of bacteria reduction.

Data Analysis

In the following tables, the ADEC used one-half (1⁄2) the minimum detection limit (MDL) for

results that are zeros or non-detects for statistical purposes. In this chapter the ADEC included

tables for all pollutants with geometric means greater than the MDL or where at least one sample

result was over 10 times the detection limit for the sake of brevity. Tables with all of the raw

data are located in Appendices 1 - 5.

Small Ships

Alaska Statute defines small ships as commercial passenger ships that have overnight

accommodations for 50-249 passengers. Five of the Alaska Marine Highway System (AMHS)

ferries are defined as small ships under Alaska law.
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

Science Advisory Panel

Commercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance Program November 2002

17

All small ships treat blackwater in an USCG approved Type II MSD17. Most small ships

operating in Alaska treat sewage using a macerating/chlorinating system; two of the largest small

ships treat sewage with a biological system.

Small ships either collect graywater in tanks and then discharge using a pump, or discharge the

graywater directly from drains to the ambient water. Some ships manage graywater using a

combination of both practices. The graywater management practice depends on ship

configuration. Most small ships do not have wastewater holding capacity.

The AMHS ferries and two small passenger ships mix their gray with the black water and treat

both effluents with their MSD. Some small ships “treat” graywater with chlorine injection.

Chlorine is effective for disinfecting but excessive chlorine residual may be toxic to marine life.

There were only three small ship samples taken from AMHS ferries in 2000, to few to analyze.

In 2001, small ship samples were only analyzed for conventional pollutants. In 2002, the small

ship samples were analyzed for both priority and conventional pollutants. Tables 1 through 4

include all sample data received by the ADEC by September 30, 2002. The ADEC will prepare

an Addendum to this paper that includes an analysis of all 2002 data.

The data were separated into summary tables according to wastewater effluent type and type of

treatment. The raw data tables are included in Appendix 5. The geometric mean values for the

conventional pollutants are presented in Table II-1. The highest geometric means for fecal

coliforms are associated with untreated mixed graywater followed by the mixed, treated black

and graywater (BW&GW).

The limited laundry and galley graywater data shows low fecal coliform densities for these types

of graywater. The data from a laundry-holding tank shows little to no bacteria growth occurring

in that tank. The accommodation graywater only samples had two samples that were over 1000

fecal coliforms per 100 ml, but the geometric mean is low at 9 fecal colonies per 100 ml.

Table II-1 shows that the treated BW and BW/GW mixed had similar results except for

ammonia, where the treated BW had much higher results. Obviously chlorine treated GW had

lower fecal coliform bacteria counts than the untreated GW but it also had higher BOD and

COD. Treated GW had higher TSS than untreated GW. The Panel has no explanation for this

apparent abnormally.

In April 2002, the AMHS discovered that sampling had been occurring prior to the chlorinating

stage. This explains the high fecal coliform count for samples taken prior to May 1, 2002. A

separate review of the Alaska Marine Highway System (AMHS) is shown in Table II-2. Table

II-2 shows that samples taken before May 1, 2002 have a fecal coliform geometric mean of 5,740

fecal bacteria per 100 ml of water compared to the geometric mean of 3 fecal bacteria per 100 ml

for samples taken after May 1, 2002. This comparison shows that the correctly sampled samples

have a slightly lower biological oxygen demand (BOD), lower chemical oxygen demand (COD)

and higher chlorine residual

 

17 A type II marine sanitation device is a device that under certain test conditions produces an effluent having a fecal

coliform bacteria count not greater than 200 per 100 milliliters and suspended solids not greater than 150 milligrams

per liter (Title 33 US Code of Federal Regulations Part 159, subpart A).
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

Science Advisory PanelCommercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance Program November 2002

18

Table II-1: Small Ships: Summary Geometric Mean for Conventional Pollutants2001 and 2002 data 

# samples All data Wastewater Type Ammonia pH BOD COD TSS

Total

Cl

FREE

CL FE

From

table mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L MPN

14 Table B2 Treated Blackwater 31.500 7.65 21.51 1,004.3 97.6 0.30 0.15 1,19 Table B3 BW&GW mixed & treated 1.340 7.25 58.08 930.0 61.1 1.12 0.38 1,

4 Table B4 Mixed Graywater (chlorine treated) Not analyzed 7.90 382.70 880.4 186.9 78.62 58.72 1,29 Table II- B4 Mixed Graywater (untreated) 7.290 6.97 95.42 228.3 52.9 ND ND 99

10 Table B5 Graywater Accommodations not analyzed 6.74 164.28 174.0 24.3 0.11 0.05 

2 Table-B6 Graywater Laundry 0.245 9.13 123.20 319.0 21.5 0.35 0.18 2 Table B7 Graywater Galley not analyzed Not analyzed 247.40 not analyzed 42.6 2.21 Not analyze d 5
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

Science Advisory PanelCommercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance Program November 2002

19

Table II-2: Alaska Marine Highway System: Summary Geometric Mean for Conventional Pollutants

# Samples All data Time Test Ammonia pH BOD COD TSS Total Cl FREE CL 

From

table mg/L Mg/L Mg/L Mg/L Mg/L mg/L M

11 Table B1

AMHS

from 2000

-April

2002

Geomean 8.880 7.37 81.15 875.0 50.8 0.67 0.14 

6 Table B1

AMHS

May 2002-

Present

Geomean 0.380 7.58 7.47 686.8 45.8 9.08 6.12 
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

Science Advisory Panel

Commercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance Program November 2002

20

The small ships did not take any priority pollutant data samples in 2001. Analysis of

priority pollutants in 2002 will be included in the forthcoming addendum. 

Table II-3 shows the geometric means of the 2002 data for conventional pollutants,

metals, and base/neutral/acids (BNAs).

Mercury, cadmium and silver (dissolved and total recoverable) and dissolved

antimony were not detected in any sample and therefore, are not included in Table II3.

The highest dissolved and total recoverable lead result of any sample was 1.21 μg/l

and 6.74 μg/l, respectively. These values are less than 10 times the MDL so lead

results were excluded from Table II-3. Dissolved and total recoverable Thallium

results were not included because the geometric mean was less than the MDL. Table

B9 in Appendix 5 includes the results from all pollutants.

Only seven of the 72 base/neutral/acids pollutants had any constituents above

detection levels. Of the seven pollutants, only four (benzoic acid, benzyl alcohol, bis

(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate, and diethylphthalate) had geometric means that were above

the MDL or had at least one sample that was 10 times the MDL. Benzoic acid

appeared in high levels. The maximum concentration of benzoic acid was 600 ug/L

in one sample and the geometric was 63.4 ug/L compared with a MDL of 21 ug/L.

The mixed BW&GW samples had significantly higher levels of metals than the

graywater sample. However, this comparison is statistically skewed because there is

only one graywater sample. Further analysis of 2002 data will give a better indication

of priority pollutant analysis.

Table II-4 shows the volatile organic compounds (VOCs) data for the same group of

samples that were presented in Table II-3. These tables are broken apart only because

of page space limitations.

There are no PCBs detected in any sample except for two surrogates added by the lab

for Quality Assurance. PCB results are included in the Appendix 5 as Table B10.

Pollutants in Table B12 were included in Table II-4 if the geometric mean was greater

than the MDL or at least one pollutant was 10 times the MDL. Twenty-two out of 75

pollutants were included as volatile organic compounds. The other 53 compounds

were all below detection limits and not included in the analysis.

All the samples contained acetone. The acetone results ranged from 0.6 ug/L to 52

ug/L, with half of the samples containing at least 45 ug/L. All four mixed BW/GW

samples contained bromoform at levels more than 100 times the MDL, while the

treated blackwater sample and treated graywater samples were non-detects. The

graywater sample had high levels of chloroform. Two of the four mixed BW&GW

samples had chloroform levels over the detection limit. One of the mixed BW&GW

was high in the rest of the detected VOCs. The other samples were below or close to

the MDL.
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

Science Advisory Panel

Commercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance Program November 2002

21

Bromoform and chlorodibromomethane are formed as by-products when chlorine is

added to kill bacteria.

The conventional pollutant analyses done concurrently with the priority pollutants

analyses for samples in Table II-3 and Table II-4 have geometric means of 1.67

MPN/100 ml for fecal coliform, 38.51 mg/l for TSS, 6.19 mg/l for total chlorine, and

3.94 mg/l for free chlorine.

In summary, the wastewater sample data for small ships that the DEC received by

September 30, 2002 contained the following priority pollutants:

• Benzoic acid

• Diethylphthalate

• Acetone

• Bromoform 

• Chloroform

• Antimony (total recoverable)

• Arsenic (Dissolved and total recoverable)

• Copper (Dissolved and total recoverable)

• Selenium (Dissolved and total recoverable)

• Zinc (Dissolved and total recoverable)

Small ships did not participate in the voluntary 2000 sampling. They did not sample

for priority pollutants in 2001. This analysis had to rely on the limited amount of

priority pollutant data from 2002. We are, therefore, unable to draw broad

conclusions characterizing the level of priority pollutants in the wastewater effluent

of small ships at this time. 
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

Science Advisory PanelCommercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance Program 

22

Table II-3: Small Ships – Conventional Pollutants, Detectable Metals and BNAs.2002 data (All units of measure in μg/l unless noted)

Type

Ammonia as N mg/l

BOD-5 Day mg/l

COD

mg/l

Conductivity

umhos/cm

TSS mg/l

Fecal coliform

bacteria by

MPN/100 ml

Free Cl residual

mg/l

PH (no units)

Total Cl residual

mg/l

Arsenic

Dissolved

Arsenic TR

Chromium Dis

ChromiumTR

Copper Diss.

Copper TR

Nickel Dis

Nickel TR

Selenium Dis.

Selenium TR

MDL 0.160 1.00 0.3 1.0 0.1 2 0.10 0.10 0.1 1.3 3.6 1.9 2.3 1.0 1.2 1.5 1.1 4.2 4.

Mixed

BW&GW 29.400 117.00 495.0 22,800.0 73.9 22 12.0 7.67 20 No metals were taken 

Mixed

BW&GW 1.270 134.00 451.0 23,000.0 75.2 1 10.0 6.88 25 35.0 33.6 4.2 5.0 163.0 339.0 21.2 23.2 164.0 109

Mixed

BW&GW 0.080 0.50 870.0 31,200.0 22.5 1 25.0 8.10 40 50.0 37.0 4.3 3.0 119.0 166.0 16.6 14.3 171.0 132

Mixed

BW&GW 0.121 0.50 514.0 23,800.0 22.9 1 2.5 7.91 3.5 39.4 23.2 10.3 1.5 18.7 30.7 16.6 9.8 101.0 94

TBW

Blackwater 6.320 5.47 512.0 34,500.0 66.6 1 0.1 7.00 0.05 53.2 48.0 7.6 4.0 8.5 20.2 15.1 14.4 233.0 143

TGW

Graywater 0.080 138.00 228.0 369.0 17.1 1 10.0 8.19 16 0.3 0.5 0.6 0.9 84.7 173.0 1.8 2.6 0.6 1.

Min 0.080 0.05 228.0 369.0 17.1 1 0.1 6.88 0.05 0.3 0.5 0.6 0.9 8.5 20.2 1.8 2.6 0.6 1.

Max 29.400 134.00 870.0 34,500.0 75.2 22 25 8.19 40 53.2 48.0 10.3 5.0 163.0 339.0 21.2 23.2 233.0 132

GeoMean 0.750 11.980 476.2 13,058.0 38.5 2 3.94 7.61 6.19 16.1 14.5 3.9 2.4 48.2 90.4 10.9 10.4 52.4 46
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

Science Advisory PanelCommercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance Program 

23

Table II-4: Small Ships – VOCs 2002 data (units of measure in μg/l)

1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene

2-Butanone

4-Isopropyltoluene

Acetone

Benzene

Bromodichloromethane

Bromoform

Bromomethane

Carbon Disulfide

Chloroethane

Chloroform

Chloromethane

Dibromochloromethane

Iodomethane

MDL 0.15 0.51 0.11 1.2 0.18 0.23 0.32 0.76 0.13 0.36 0.25 0.29 0.32 0.4

MixedBW&GW 9.9 0.255 .055 45 2.6 31 130 3.4 2.1 1.4 19 2.9 73 3.1 MixedBW&GW 0.67 8.3 2.4 47 2 8.9 89 1 4.4 0.18 5.8 4.5 30 0.2MixedBW&GW .075 0.255 0.055 4 0.09 0.135 36 0.38 0.065 0.18 0.125 0.15 1.1 0.2MixedBW&GW .075 0.255 0.055 0.6 0.09 1.6 57 1.1 0.065 0.18 0.125 1.9 8.8 0.2TBWBlackwater 0.075 0.255 0.055 9.1 0.09 0.135 0.12 0.38 1 0.18 0.125 0.15 0.16 0.2TGWGraywater 0.075 5.9 0.055 52 0.09 7.2 0.12 0.38 0.065 1.3 140 2.7 1.7 0.2Min 0.075 0.255 0.055 0.6 0.09 0.135 0.12 0.38 0.065 0.18 0.125 0.15 0.16 0.2Max 9.9 8.3 2.4 52 2.6 31 130 3.4 4.4 1.4 140 4.5 73 3.1 GeoMean 0.244 0.769 0.069 8.44 0.264 1.87 9.2 0.768 0.369 0.352 1.76 1.07 4.04 0.3
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

Science Advisory Panel

Commercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance Program November 2002

24

Large Ships

Voluntary sampling of large ships began in 2000. The federal government had

legislation in place for the entire 2001 cruise season. The State of Alaska had

legislation regulating wastewater discharges as of July 1, 2001.

The 2000 and 2001 data were divided into several tables included in Appendix 6.

Table II-5 includes the geometric means of the individual tables to compare the

treatment types, effluent types, and whether the wastewater was held for periods of

time versus collected and discharged immediately.

The water from collecting tanks was sampled as it was discharged overboard or to a

double bottom (ballast) holding tank. Samples from double bottom tanks can only be

taken while the ship is discharging to ambient water. The wastewater was often

stored in the double bottom tanks for up to 20 hours.

It appears that the fecal coliform counts are increasing as the wastewater incubates in

the double bottom tanks. The fecal coliform geometric mean of all graywater types

over 2000 and 2001 is 135,922 MPN /100ml from ballast and double bottom tanks

compared with 515 MPN/100ml from collecting tanks. The TSS of graywater from

double bottom tanks is 128.58 mg/l and 118 mg/l from collecting tanks.

The mixed treated blackwater and graywater (BW&GW) stored in double bottom

tank had a fecal coliform geometric mean of 12,824 MPN/100ml and a TSS

geometric mean of 119 mg/l.

The fecal coliform geometric mean of treated blackwater only that was sampled from

the treatment system outlet is 18,213 MPN/100 ml with a TSS geometric mean of 478

mg/l. These results concluded that the blackwater treatment system was not

functioning properly.

There are two reasons why the geometric mean of fecal coliforms results of the mixed

BW&GW stored in the double bottom is lower than results from the blackwater

treatment system. First, the blackwater system is blackwater only whereas the double

bottom samples have graywater mixed with blackwater. Untreated blackwater should

have higher fecal coliform counts than graywater. Secondly, the geometric mean

from the double bottom tanks included two samples from advanced systems that had

results below the detection limit for fecal coliforms. These two sample results

lowered the geometric mean substantially for mixed treated blackwater and

graywater.

The geometric mean of ammonia in 2000 for the treated blackwater (BW) was high,

104.48 mg/l.

Here is a summary of the 2000 and 2001 conventional pollutant geometric means:
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

Science Advisory Panel

Commercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance Program November 2002

25

Table II-5: 2000 Large ship summary data

Type of

Water

Samples

Sampled

From

Tank

Type Results as a geometric mean

n

Fecal

Coliform

(MPN/100

ml)

TSS

mg/l

BOD

mg/l COD mg/l

Cl

residualmg/l

Galley 14 CT 13,750 420 728 1,317 0.05

Galley18

10 DB 784,072 512 1,587 2,404 0.05

Mixed GW 24 CT 118,052 124 223 573 0.06

Accommod

ations

3 CT 104 297 324 1340 0.05

Laundry 10 CT 8 38 74 340 0.2

Accomo.&

Laundry

3 CT 6.13 77.5 63 240 0.13

Mixed

BW&GW 11 DB 12,824 119 146 338 0.16

Blackwater

19

22 MSD 18,213 478 105 845 0.21

2000 Graywater

3⁄4 GW mixed in collecting tanks geometric mean is slightly acidic with a pH 6.62

and has COD geometric mean of 573 mg/l, and high fecal coliform geometric

mean of 118,052 MPN/100ml.

3⁄4 GW laundry in collecting tanks is relatively benign with a fecal coliform

geometric mean of 8 MPN/100ml and TSS of 38 mg/l.

 

18 Galley graywater is the highest source of fecal coliform. Some samples were taken from small tanks

that have food wastes that raised the geometric mean. Galley graywater accounts for approximately

25% of graywater.

19 Ammonia geometric mean is 104.48 mg/l.
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

Science Advisory Panel

Commercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance Program November 2002

26

3⁄4 GW accommodations collecting tanks had three samples with missing parameters.

The fecal coliform geometric mean is 104 MPN/100ml. One sample had a COD

results of 1340 the other results had missing COD.

GW laundry and accommodation graywater had only three samples taken and has

fecal coliform and TSS results of 6 MPN/100ml and 77.5 mg/l. 

2000 Blackwater

TBW from biological treatment MSD has high ammonia of 104.5 mg/l, TSS and fecal

coliform results are 478 mg/l and 18,213 MPN/100 ml. The MSDs were not treating

wastewater as designed.

TBW&GW from double bottoms had high fecal coliform geometric mean of 12,824

MPN/100ml.

Table II-6: 2001 Large Ship Summary Data

Type of Water

Samples

Sampled

From

Tank

Type Results as a geometric mean

N

Fecal

Coliform

(MPN/100 ml)

TSS

mg/l BOD COD

Cl

residual

Accommodation 15 DB 10,896 77 266 573 0.15

Accommodation 15 CT 2,189 67 282 527 0.49

Galley 10 DB 784,072 512 1,587 2,404 0.23

Galley 23 CT Missing 349 728 1,414 0.34

Mixed Graywater 4 DB 649,994 114 259 367 0.05

Mixed Graywater 13 CT 38,933 108 246 474 0.11

Laundry 7 DB 651,460 66 230 634 0.12

Laundry 2 CT 30 22 86 571 0.32

Mixed BW&GW 16 MSD 2 2.7 6.73 16.7 0.07

2001 Graywater

3⁄4 GW from accommodations stored in double bottom tanks had high fecal coliform

geometric mean of 10,896 MPU/100ml but the TSS geometric mean complied

with the 150 mg/L standard at 77. Accommodation graywater stored in collecting

tanks fecal coliform geometric mean is 2,189 MPN/100ml and a TSS of 67 mg/L.

The chlorine residual of the collecting tanks was 0.49 mg/L compared with 0.15

mg/L in double bottom tanks.

3⁄4 GW Galley from double bottom tanks had the highest fecal coliform geometric

mean of 784,072 MPN/100ml, the lowest pH of 4.8, a COD of 2404 mg/L and
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

Science Advisory Panel

Commercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance Program November 2002

27

1,587 mg/L of BOD. 2001 GW Galley from collecting tanks COD geometric

mean was 1,414 mg/L and the total chlorine was 2 mg/L and a residual of 0.34

mg/L.

3⁄4 GW laundry in double bottom tanks had a fecal coliform geometric mean of

651,460 MPN/100 ml and 66 mg/L of TSS.

3⁄4 GW laundry in collecting tanks had only two samples but both samples had fecal

coliform of 30 mg/L, low TSS of 22 mg/L, and low levels of chlorine of 0.32

mg/L.

3⁄4 GW mixed from double bottom tanks fecal coliform geometric mean was 649,994

MPN/100 ml with a TSS of 113.5 mg/L. The graywater mixed from collecting

tanks fecal coliform geometric mean and TSS was 38,933 MPN/100 ml and 108

mg/L

2001 Blackwater

3⁄4 BW&GW mixed had low geometric mean for fecal coliform and TSS because

most of the results were from advanced systems. Treated blackwater was not

discharged in Alaska waters, except for advance treatment units and one ship that

used a macerator chlorinating system. One ship that discharged their blackwater

outside Alaska water sampled their blackwater voluntarily.
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

Science Advisory PanelCommercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance Program 

28

Table II-7: Large Ships Conventional Pollutants Geometric Means 2000 and 2001 data

Waste Type Ammonia PH BOD COD TSS T Cl FE

Units mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l M

#

Samples

All Data

In table

Appendix

6

Sample

Date Sample From MDL 0.16 0.10 1.0 3.4 0.1 0.1 

22 Table C1 2000 MSD Treated BW 104.48 7.18 104.6 845.0 478.0 0.2 1811 Table C2 2000 Ballast Tanks BW&GW 7.12 6.73 146.3 338.0 119.0 0.2 1224 Table C3 2000 Collecting Tanks GW 1.41 6.62 223.0 573.0 124.0 0.1 11810 Table C4 2000 Collecting Tanks GW laundry 0.382 7.72 73.6 340.0 38.0 0.2 

3 Table C5 2000 Collecting Tanks GW laundry/ Accommodation 5.239 6.99 63.3 240.0 77.5 0.4 

11 Table C6 2000 Collecting Tanks GW galley 1.547 6.43 728.0 1,317.0 420.0 0.2 13

3 Table C7 2000 Collecting Tanks GW accommodation 6.567 8.38 324.0 1,340.0 297.0 0.3 1

15 Table C8 2001 Ballast tanks GW accommodation 0.08 6.36 266.0 573.0 77.0 0.2 1023 Table C10 2001 Collecting tanks GW Galley 1.27 7.04 728.0 1,414.0 349.0 2.0 Not 10 Table C11 2001 Ballast tanks GW Galley 0.14 4.80 1,587.0 2,404.0 512.0 0.1 784

4 Table C12 2001 Ballast tanks GW mixed 0.09 6.14 259.0 367.0 113.5 0.1 6497 Table C13 2001 Ballast tanks GW laundry 0.62 7.56 230.0 634.0 66.0 0.2 652 Table C14 2001 Collecting tank GW laundry Not taken 8.36 86.0 571.0 22.0 0.3 

13 Table C15 2001 Collecting tank GW mixed 0.48 6.96 245.9 473.9 108.0 0.2 3816 Table C16 2001 Treatment GW&BW mixed 1.08 6.88 6.7 16.7 2.7 0.1 
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

Science Advisory PanelCommercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance Program 

29

Waste Type Ammonia PH BOD COD TSS T Cl FE

Units mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l M

#

Samples

All Data

In table

Appendix

6

Sample

Date Sample From MDL 0.16 0.10 1.0 3.4 0.1 0.1 

GeoMean 1.17 6.89 184.5 515.5 103.7 0.2 3,

GeoMean-ballast 0.34 6.25 326.0 641.1 128.6 0.1 135

GeoMeancollecting 1.50 7.28 209.9 649.3 118.1 0.3 51
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

Science Advisory Panel

Commercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance Program November 2002

30

All priority pollutant results with at minimum one result over the MDL, taken in 2000

and 2001 can be found in the tables C1-C33 in Appendix 6.

The listing of priority pollutants sampled is included in Appendix 4. These tables

include total recoverable metals only.

Table II-8 includes the priority pollutants that had results in most samples or had high

results for a few graywater samples.

All 2001 sample sets contained:

• bis (2ethylhexyl)phthalate

• Bromoform

• Chloroform

• Copper

• Lead

• Nickel

• Selenium 

• Zinc.

Some of the 2001 samples contained:

• Butylbenzyl phthalate

• Diethylphthalate

• Chromium

In 2001, graywater from accommodations had elevated levels of chloroethane

whereas the other samples had non-detection limits. These results can be found in

Appendix 6, Table C17. One galley sample in 2001 had elevated levels of 2,4

dichlorophenol and 2,4,6 trichlorophenol compared to the rest of the sample set.

These results can be found in Appendix 6, Table C18. All samples contained metals.

These results are listed in Appendix 6, Table C19.

Appendix 6, Tables C17-20 have all off the priority pollutants with results over the

detection limit. The following pollutants were detected in some of the results but

non-detected in a majority of the results:

• Chloroethane (accommodations)

• Tetrachloroethane (mixed and BW)

• Trichloroethane (mixed)

• 2,4 dichlorophenol (galley)

• 2,4,6 trichlorophenol (galley)

• methylene chloride (accommodations)

• Ethyl benzene (accommodations & galley and 2000 laundry)

• Di-n-butylphthalate (accommodations & galley) 
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

Science Advisory PanelCommercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance Program 

31

Table II-8: 2001 Large Ships Priority Pollutants for Graywater (All units of measure in μg/l unless noted)

Tank

Type Water type

Sample

Date

COD

mg/l

total

CL

mg/l

bis(2-

ethylhexyl)

phthalate

Butylbenzyl

phthalate

Diethylpht

halate

bromof

orm

Chloro

form

Chromiu

m (TR)

copper

(TR)

Lead

(TR)

MDL 3.4 0.1 0.69 0.38 0.55 0.32 0.25 2.3 1.2 1.4 

CT Accomo 19-Sep-01 765.0 5.0 8.20 0.19 9.40 0.16 170.00 2.7 255.0 4.5 CT Galley 19-Sep-01 642.0 10.0 9.10 1.40 6.90 0.16 0.13 10.6 74.9 2.5 CT Mixed Gray 17-Aug-01 722.0 0.1 55.00 0.19 7.90 0.16 19.00 4.1 275.0 78.6 CT Mixed Gray 17-Aug-01 520.0 0.1 15.00 0.19 7.40 1.40 19.00 4.9 272.0 12.6 

DB Mixed Gray 29-Aug-01 NA NA 15.00 0.19 17.00 6.30 12.00 1.2 0.6 0.7 DB Mixed Gray 29-Aug-01 NA NA 21.00 0.19 20.00 6.50 8.90 1.2 0.6 0.7 DB Mixed Gray 29-Aug-01 NA 0.1 0.35 0.19 0.28 0.16 0.13 1.8 338.0 1.7 DB Mixed Gray 29-Aug-01 289.0 0.1 0.35 0.19 0.28 0.16 0.13 3.1 267.0 2.3 DB Galley 02-Aug-01 1,620.0 0.5 3.40 0.19 7.60 0.16 140.00 10.7 652.0 1.1 DB Galley 22-Aug-01 3,950.0 0.1 3.10 2.70 3.60 0.16 37.00 8.8 69.3 2.7 DB Galley 23-Jul-01 1,290.0 0.1 5.80 1.90 6.30 31.00 16.00 13.6 1,710.0 94.7 DB Acc/galley 26-Jul-01 521.0 NA 14.00 0.19 12.00 0.16 95.00 3.9 170.0 5.7 
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

Science Advisory PanelCommercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance Program 

32

Tank

Type Water type

Sample

Date

COD

mg/l

total

CL

mg/l

bis(2-

ethylhexyl)

phthalate

Butylbenzyl

phthalate

Diethylpht

halate

bromof

orm

Chloro

form

Chromiu

m (TR)

copper

(TR)

Lead

(TR)

MDL 3.4 0.1 0.69 0.38 0.55 0.32 0.25 2.3 1.2 1.4 

DB Laundry 26-Jul-01 268.0 0.2 17.00 0.19 15.00 0.16 31.00 2.1 44.1 3.3 DB Accomo 23-Jul-01 765.0 0.1 8.90 2.30 9.60 3.00 58.00 5.0 174.0 4.3 DB Accomo 02-Aug-01 295.0 3.5 5.20 0.19 13.00 0.16 0.13 2.6 355.0 2.8 

Min 3.4 0.1 0.35 0.19 0.28 0.16 0.13 1.2 0.6 0.7 

Max 3,950.0 10.0 55.00 2.70 20 31.00 170.00 13.6 1,710.0 94.7 

GeoMean 700.1 0.2 6.51 0.36 5.913 0.52 7.77 3.8 103.4 4.0 
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

Science Advisory PanelCommercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance Program 

33

Table II-9: 2001 Large Ships Priority Pollutants for Blackwater (includes GW&BW mixed)All units of measure in μg/l unless noted.

Type Water type Sample

Date

Chloroform Bromoform bis(2-

ethylhexyl)pht

halate

Arsenic

III

Copper

(TR)

Lead (TR) Nickel (TR) 

MDL 0.19 0.32 0.38 0.2 1.4 1.1 4.8 

Advanced Mixed BW&GW 20-Sep-01 4.20 0.16 0.19 1.1 2.7 0.1 18.3 Advanced Mixed BW&GW 09-Sep-01 11.00 0.16 4.20 0.1 0.5 0.2 0.7 

Macerator Mixed BW&GW 08-Aug-01 22.00 26.00 0.19 32.8 203.0 3. 7 25.4 Macerator Mixed BW&GW 08-Aug-01 27.00 13.00 3.10 36.0 98.7 0.6 22.7 

No

treatment/D

B

Mixed

BW&GW 19-Aug-01 1.70 0.16 7.00 53.4 169.0 3.4 16.2 

Biological BW 19-Aug-01 0.87 0.16 0.19 9.0 1,670.0 80.3 38.1 

Min 0.87 0.16 0.19 0.1 0.5 0.1 0.7 

Max 27.00 26.00 7.00 53.4 1,670.0 80.3 38.1 

GeoMean 5.86 0.78 0.93 6.3 44.3 1.4 12.8 
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

Science Advisory Panel

Commercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance Program November 2002

34

Table II-10 includes the priority pollutants that had results in most samples or had

high results for a few graywater samples.

Some of the 2000 graywater sample sets contained:

• bis (2ethylhexyl)phthalate

• Diethylphthalate 

• Chloroform

• Copper

• Lead

• Nickel

• Zinc

Appendix 5, Tables C26-C33 have all off the priority pollutants with results over the

minimum detection limit (MDL).

Some of the 2000 blackwater samples contained the following priority pollutants:

• bis(2-ethyl hexyl) phthalate

• Bromodichloromethane

• Chloroform

• chromium (TR)

• Copper (TR)

• Cyanide (total)

• Dibromochloromethane

• di-n-butyl phthalate

• Lead (TR)

• Methyl Chloride

• Phenol

• Zinc

• Bromoform
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

Science Advisory Panel

Commercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance Program November 2002

35

Table II-10: 2000 Large Ship Priority Pollutants for Graywater 

All units of measure in μg/l unless noted.

bis(2-ethyl

hexyl)phthalate

Diethy

lphthalate

di-nbutyl

phthalate

Chlor

oform copper (TR)

Lead

(TR)

Nickel

(TR) Zinc(TR)

MDL 0.38 0.55 1.40 0.25 1.20 1.40 1.10 2.80

Ballast tank 5S 17.00 3.70 2.50 15.00 150.00 0.70 46.00 460.00

composite graywater 10.00 3.00 1.10 0.13 260.00 7.50 0.55 560.00

Composite# 4,6,11 11.00 0.28 0.70 0.13 2200.00 0.70 0.55 860.00

Gray water accumulation tank

4 0.19 0.28 0.70 4.00 0.60 0.70 0.55 1.40

Gray water composite Mixed 0.19 1.10 6.50 0.13 230.00 21.00 0.55 480.00

Gray water galley tank 4 0.19 0.28 0.70 2.00 0.60 0.70 0.55 1.40

Gray water overboard 32.00 0.28 0.70 1.80 62.00 2.50 0.55 350.00

graywater composite 15.00 5.80 8.40 0.13 1203.40 21.40 99.00 770.00

graywater port 0.19 0.28 0.70 15.00 0.60 0.70 0.55 1.40

graywater starboard 0.19 0.28 0.70 19.00 0.60 0.70 0.55 1.40

Gry 78 port 20.00 4.50 2.20 44.00 180.00 0.70 0.55 750.00

Gry accom 0.19 0.28 0.70 313.00 0.60 0.70 0.55 1.40

Gry ballast #6 0.19 0.28 0.70 4.10 0.60 0.70 0.55 1.40

Gry comp 183.00 13.00 8.10 0.13 4320.00 387.00 184.00 2860.00

Gry composite 112.00 12.80 10.30 0.13 710.00 28.00 676.00 1460.00

Gry DHTS composite 35.00 6.00 5.30 0.13 720.00 0.70 46.00 600.00

Gry gal/acco 0.19 0.28 0.70 19.00 0.60 0.70 0.55 1.40

Gry galley 0.19 0.28 0.70 292.80 0.60 0.70 0.55 1.40

Gry galley #11 0.19 5.80 0.70 1.40 0.60 0.70 0.55 1.40

Gry galley tank #11 3.70 6.30 3.30 48.00 650.00 62.00 0.55 530.00

Gry galley tank H 0.19 0.28 0.70 14.00 0.60 0.70 0.55 1.40

Gry HTS composite 51.00 8.50 6.80 0.13 830.00 0.70 44.00 400.00

Gry laundry 0.19 0.28 0.70 207.00 0.60 0.70 0.55 1.40
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

Science Advisory Panel

Commercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance Program November 2002

36

bis(2-ethyl

hexyl)phthalate

Diethy

lphthalate

di-nbutyl

phthalate

Chlor

oform copper (TR)

Lead

(TR)

Nickel

(TR) Zinc(TR)

MDL 0.38 0.55 1.40 0.25 1.20 1.40 1.10 2.80

Gry pump accom. 0.19 0.28 0.70 2.30 0.60 0.70 0.55 1.40

Gry tank #2 20.00 5.80 2.10 1.80 130.00 0.70 85.00 340.00

Gry tank 3C 7.60 3.60 3.30 26.00 1500.00 0.70 140.00 540.00

Gry tank 7 port and starboard 14.00 11.00 3.00 16.00 150.00 0.70 0.55 740.00

Gry tank C 0.19 0.28 0.70 15.00 0.60 0.70 0.55 1.40

Gry Tank F 13.00 15.00 1.60 6.50 210.00 0.70 0.55 330.00

Grywtr 5 tank (composite) 19.00 9.70 0.70 0.13 480.00 14.00 0.55 1.40

Grywtr laundry room 0.19 0.28 0.70 13.00 0.60 0.70 0.55 1.40

Grywtr shaft tank 0.19 0.28 0.70 34.00 0.60 0.70 0.55 1.40

Grywtr stabilizer port tank 0.19 0.28 0.70 25.00 0.60 0.70 0.55 1.40

Main graywater 0.19 0.28 0.70 15.00 0.60 0.70 0.55 1.40

Starboard graywater 0.19 0.28 0.70 96.00 0.60 0.70 0.55 1.40

Min 0.19 0.275 0.7 0.125 0.6 0.7 0.55 1.4

Max 183 15 10.3 313 4320 387 676 2860

GeoMean 1.56 1.11 1.37 4.19 13.82 1.55 1.80 21.45
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

Science Advisory PanelCommercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance Program 

37

Table II-11: 2000 Priority Pollutants for Blackwater All units of measure in μg/l unless noted.

Samples from

Bis(2-ethyl

hexyl)

phthalate

Bromodichlo

romethane Chloro

Chromium

(TR)

Copper

(TR)

Cyanide

(total)

Dibromochlo

romethane

di-n-butyl

phthalate

Lead

(TR)

Methyl

Chloride Ph

MDL 0.38 0.46 0.25 2.3 1.2 1.6 0.32 1.4 1.4 1.2 0DB 0.19 0.23 0.13 3.1 0.6 0.8 0.16 0.7 0.7 0.6 0Double bottom 1.50 0.23 0.79 1.7 510.0 0.8 0.16 0.7 30.0 0.6 25

17.00 1.10 15.00 1.7 150.0 0.8 0.16 2.5 0.7 0.6 0

6.50 6.30 6.70 1.7 530.0 0.8 0.16 3.9 0.7 0.6 03.70 0.23 0.13 10.0 3900.0 0.8 0.99 8.2 0.7 0.6 16

HT holding 8.80 1.70 13.00 1.7 6400.0 0.8 0.16 2.1 16.0 0.6 2MSD 1.90 0.23 0.13 1.7 360.0 0.8 0.16 0.7 0.7 0.6 0

2.00 0.23 2.90 1.7 210.0 0.8 0.16 0.7 0.7 0.6 01.90 1.90 1.60 1.7 50.0 0.8 1.4 4.8 0.7 0.6 00.19 18.00 21.00 18.0 560.0 25.0 40 0.7 23.0 25.0 00.19 1.10 18.00 1.5 150.0 51.0 0.16 0.7 1.8 0.6 00.19 18.00 20.00 1.7 530.0 19.0 18 0.7 27.0 0.6 0.19 77.00 210.00 1.7 240.0 73.0 88 0.7 0.7 0.6 01.40 110.00 140.00 1.7 170.0 0.8 63 3.2 18.0 9.4 2.30 43.00 200.00 1.7 760.0 0.8 16 2.0 0.7 0.6 06.20 180.00 380.00 14.0 7100.0 28.0 270 2.7 0.7 160.0 25.10 53.00 93.00 19.0 360.0 26.0 56 3.1 0.7 0.6 00.19 0.23 1.60 25.0 130.0 0.8 0.16 2.6 0.7 0.6 00.19 190.00 1500.00 1.7 0.6 0.8 88 0.7 0.7 81.0 01.80 0.23 3.70 1.7 54.0 0.8 0.16 2.1 0.7 240.0 0
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

Science Advisory PanelCommercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance Program 

38

Samples from

Bis(2-ethyl

hexyl)

phthalate

Bromodichlo

romethane Chloro

Chromium

(TR)

Copper

(TR)

Cyanide

(total)

Dibromochlo

romethane

di-n-butyl

phthalate

Lead

(TR)

Methyl

Chloride Ph

MDL 0.38 0.46 0.25 2.3 1.2 1.6 0.32 1.4 1.4 1.2 0Overboard 0.19 0.23 1.20 1.7 0.6 0.8 0.16 0.7 0.7 0.6 0

3.60 3.60 15.00 52.0 740.0 0.8 13 9.8 50.0 0.6 

Reverse 4.10 0.23 4.80 1.7 0.6 0.8 0.16 0.7 0.7 0.6 0Osmosis 1.30 0.23 4.10 1.7 0.6 0.8 0.16 1.1 0.7 0.6 0Min 0.19 0.23 0.13 1.5 0.6 0.8 0.16 0.7 0.7 0.6 0Max 17.00 190.00 1500.00 52.0 7100.0 73.0 270.00 9.8 50.0 240.0 25GeoMean 1.25 2.58 8.84 3.1 107.3 2.0 1.59 1.6 1.8 1.6 0
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

Science Advisory Panel

Commercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance Program November 2002

39

Priority Pollutant Conclusions

A majority of priority pollutant results are below the minimum detection limit.

Out of the 55 priority pollutant categories sampled, graywater and blackwater contains

only 16 pollutants, sometimes in trace amounts. The geometric means of the results are in

Table II-12.

Table II-12: Geometric mean Summaries of Priority Pollutants

 in parts per billion (ppb) or micrograms per liter (μg/L)

ANALYTE MDL GW 2001 BW 2001 GW 2000 BW 2000

Bis (2ethylhexyl)

phthalate 0.38 6.51 0.93 1.56 1.25

Bromoform 0.32 0.52 0.78 ND 2.17

Chloroform 0.25 7.77 5.86 4.19 8.84

Cyanide 1.6 ND ND ND 2

Butylbenzyl phthalate 0.38 0.36 ND ND ND

Diethylphthalate 0.55 5.91 ND 1.11 ND

Bromodichloromethane 0.46 ND ND ND 2.58

Dibromochloromethane 0.32 ND ND ND 1.59

di-n-butyl phthalate 1.4 ND ND 1.37 1.6

Methyl Chloride 1.2 ND ND ND 1.6

Phenol 0.85 ND ND ND 0.96

Chromium 2.3 3.8 ND 13.82 3.1

Copper 1.2 103.4 44.3 1.55 107.3

Lead 1.4 4.0 1.4 1.8 1.8

Nickel 1.1 11.1 12.8 ND ND

Selenium 4.8 2.0 12.89 ND ND

Zinc 2.8 179.3 112.29 21.45 124.1

No heavy metals such as cadmium and mercury were detected. There were no PCBs or

pesticides detected in the sampling data. Chloroform is present in most samples of

blackwater and graywater. Copper and zinc are metals of most concern. The addendum

with the full 2002 analysis will provide a fuller analysis of these pollutants.
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

Science Advisory Panel

Commercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance Program November 2002

40

Section III

An Assessment of Fecal Coliform Bacteria in Cruise Ship Wastewater

Discharge

Charles McGee, Lincoln Loehr, and Kenwyn George

Summary

The Science Advisory Panel evaluated environmental and public health impacts of the

discharge of wastewater from cruise ships in Alaska. This section focuses on fecal

coliform bacteria. The functional definition of fecal coliform is those coliform that will

produce gas from lactose in a liquid medium within 24 ± 2 hours at 44.5 ± 0.2 °C.

Scientifically, the fecal coliform group includes the subset of total coliform bacteria from

the genera Escherichia, and Klebsiella. Other genera in the total coliform group are

Citrobacter and Enterobacter. Escherichia coli is the most predominant member of the

fecal coliform group [Eaton et al. 1995]. Historically, fecal coliform have been used to

indicate the presence of sewage in environmental waters and as an index of the sanitary

quality of the water. Fecal coliform, as a group, are not necessarily responsible for illness

but because they are always found in the intestinal tract of humans and other warmblooded animals (including birds) their presence indicates the potential for exposure to

other pathogenic microorganisms that are shed from the gastrointestinal tract.

This section discusses fecal coliform standards in Alaska, examines data on the levels of

fecal coliform present in cruise ship discharges in the context of the standards, the fate of

fecal coliform following discharge into marine waters, and the impact the discharges

might have on public health. The relevant scenarios of exposure include secondary

contact recreation by fishermen, kayakers and motor-powered watercraft crossing a

cruise ship wake shortly after passage of the cruise ship, and raw shellfish consumers

harvesting shellfish along the shoreline. The available data, coupled with the relevant

dilutions, indicate that violations of the applicable bacterial water quality standards are

not predicted to occur for any of these scenarios.

Alaska’s Fecal Coliform Water Quality Standards 

Water quality standards for bacteria are established to protect humans from

gastrointestinal illnesses caused by fecal pathogens, and vary based on designated uses of

the water. However, unless a water body has been classified such that a particular

standard is not applicable or has been modified for particular uses, the most stringent

criteria will apply. For the purposes of this paper, the Panel considered and reports on

those uses most likely to occur and be affected at particular locations. For example,

contact recreation is feasible at sea, whereas the collection of mollusks and other aquatic

life for raw consumption only occurs along the shoreline. Alaska’s designated usages

and the standards associated with those usages are stated in Alaska State Regulation 18

AAC 70.020 and are listed below:
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

Science Advisory Panel

Commercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance Program November 2002

41

Aquaculture

For products normally cooked, 

200 fecal coliform (FC)/100 ml as a geometric mean20 for samples over a 30-day period

with no more than 10% of the samples exceeding 400 FC/100 ml.

For products not normally cooked,

20 FC/100 ml as a geometric mean for samples over a 30-day period with no more than

10% of the samples exceeding 40 FC/100 ml.

Seafood processing

20 FC/100 ml as a geometric mean for samples over a 30-day period with no more than

10% of the samples exceeding 40 FC/100 ml.

Industrial uses

200 FC/100 ml as a geometric mean for samples over a 30-day period with no more than

10% of the samples exceeding 400 FC/100 ml.

Contact recreation21

100 FC/100 ml as a geometric mean for samples over a 30-day period with no more than

10% of the samples exceeding 200 FC/100 ml.

Secondary recreation22

200 FC/100 ml as a geometric mean for samples over a 30-day period with no more than

10% of the samples exceeding 400 FC/100 ml.

Harvesting of raw mollusks or other raw aquatic life for human consumption

Based on a 5-tube decimal dilution test, the median23 MPN may not exceed 14 FC/100

ml, and not more than 10% of the samples may exceed a median MPN of 43 FC/100 ml.

The standard for consumption of raw mollusks or other raw aquatic life is derived from

the National Shellfish Sanitation Program (NSSP) requirements promulgated by the Food

and Drug Administration (FDA). The NSSP is a cooperative State-FDA-Industry

 

20 “geometric mean” means the nth root of the product of a series of n numbers;. eg. (2 x 9 x 5) ^1/3 =

4.48

21 "contact recreation" means activities in which there is direct and intimate contact with water, including

wading, swimming, diving, water skiing, and any intimate contact with water directly related to shoreline

activities.

22 “secondary recreation" means recreation activities in which water use is incidental, accidental, or

sensory, including fishing, boating, camping, hunting, and hiking..

23 "median" means the value in a data set that splits a data set in half, such that have of the reported values

are above the median and half are below.
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

Science Advisory Panel

Commercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance Program November 2002

42

program for the certification of shellfish beds for commercial harvest. The NSSP

standards say that either the geometric mean or the median can be used.

Alaska’s Fecal Coliform Effluent Standards for Commercial Passenger Vessels

Effluent standards were recently adopted for commercial passenger vessels in Alaska.

Effluent standards are not to be confused with water quality standards. Rather, they are

performance standards that the wastewater treatment technologies employed are required

to attain. Unlike water quality standards, effluent standards do not allow consideration of

dilution in implementation nor do they have any relation to the uses and exposure

scenarios in Alaska's water quality standards.

Federal24 and State of Alaska standards25 for Large Commercial Passenger Vessels

(overnight accommodations for 250 or more passengers)

200 FC/100 ml graywater and treated blackwater discharged from vessels traveling at 6

knots and at least one nautical mile from the nearest shore. 

If the effluent meets the most stringent standards under Coast Guard regulations), the

vessel may discharge at less than 6 knots and within 1 mile of the shoreline if fecal

coliform does not to exceed 20/100 ml (30-day geometric mean) 26.

State of Alaska7 standards for Small Commercial Passenger Vessels (accommodations for

between 50 and 249 passengers)

200 FC/100 ml for graywater and treated blackwater. These standards will be effective

January 1, 2004.27

Alaska’s bacteria standards are composed of limits based on geometric means or medians

and frequencies of events where the single sample concentration exceeds a level of

concern. Implicit in all these standards is that multiple measurements are made over

time. Such an approach is necessary to overcome the challenges presented by trying to

assess water quality based on bacteria measurements. 

Dealing with Highly Variable Fecal Coliform Data Sets

Monitoring fecal coliform in the environment generates data sets with specific

challenges. These include significant temporal variability, large ranges in values that

affect data distribution, and the fact that the results of monitoring are always generated

after the exposure to the public has occurred. All these are thus underlying reasons for

standards based on geometric means, medians or frequencies of occurrences.

 

24 33 CFR 159 Subpart E 25 Alaska Statute 46.03.460 (b) & (c) 26 33 CFR 159.309 (b) 27 Alaska Statute 46.03.460 – 490, uncodified Section 7.
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

Science Advisory Panel

Commercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance Program November 2002

43

Climate, rain runoff, and fecal deposits from indigenous animal populations can result in

changes of fecal coliform concentrations in surface waters every few minutes. This

means that two samples collected several minutes apart could potentially have fecal

coliform levels that differ by orders of magnitude. A perfectly designed monitoring

program would capture this temporal variability by collecting and analyzing samples at a

frequency equal to the variability interval, which is minutes. Cost and logistics prohibit

such a monitoring program, and it is not atypical for regulators and public health officials

to make an evaluation of water quality based on results from one sample per week.

In addition to temporal variability, bacterial measurements are also subject to extreme

ranges. It is possible for the data set to have fecal coliform concentrations at or below the

detection limit, which could be one organism per 100 milliliters (ml), to concentrations in

the millions per 100 ml.

A mathematical approach for dealing with a highly variable population is to make

multiple measurements over time and base decisions on statistical summaries of the data

set. Measures of central tendency estimate the center of the data distribution and

examples of those measures include mean, median and mode. The mean statistic is the

average of individual measurements and is very commonly used with environmental data

[Thomas, 1955]. As multiple measurements are made over time, an historical record

develops and the mean represents the center of the frequency distribution of those

measurements. 

However, a fecal coliform historical record poses its own challenges to calculating a

mean. When factors affecting variability of the measurements are few, small in effect,

random in occurrence, and act in a simple additive fashion then the distribution of the

variations follow what is called a Gaussian or a normal distribution curve, and measures

of central tendency are relatively reliable. As mentioned above, such is not the case with

bacteria measurements. Bacteria monitoring data do not typically have a normal

distribution and this translates into a high level of uncertainty with regard to statistical

estimation and inference [Shumway and Azari, 1988; Parkin, 1990].

One mathematical approach to dealing with data records that are non-normal is to use a

process that transforms the individual measurements into a data set that better fits into a

normal distribution. The method often applied to environmental data that accomplishes

this is to transform the values to their logarithm, perform the analyses and then transform

the data back to its original form. This method is less likely to be skewed by extreme

values than the calculation of a mean. In so doing, decision-making is somewhat more

mathematically sound, and it is for this reason many of Alaska’s standards are based on a

geometric mean.

Alaska’s shellfish harvesting standard is based on a median value. The median is also a

descriptive statistic of central tendency of the data. The value is the value that splits a

data set so that half of the individual measurements are below the median value and half

are above. The median is calculated by sorting the measurements numerically and

determining the mid value. In the case where the data set contains an even number of

measurements the two mid values are averaged. The advantage of a median is that it is
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

Science Advisory Panel

Commercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance Program November 2002

44

not as susceptible to the extreme values and it is especially useful in data sets with

skewed frequency distributions, which are common in microbiological data [Hurst, et al,

2002]. Medians are also useful when considering health risk from exposure to fecal

contamination. Consider a data record where all measurements of fecal coliform except

one were below the minimum detection limit, which could be one organism per 100 mL.

The other sample contained one million organisms per 100 mL. The majority of people

recreating at this location were not exposed to any additional risk of gastrointestinal

illness. However, those recreating on the day when high fecal coliform were measured

were exposed to significant risk. At no time were all the people recreating in this area

over the multiple days when samples were collected exposed to an average concentration

of fecal coliform per 100 mL.

Another advantage of standards based on measurements made over time is that a

regulator or public health official does not have real time information upon which to base

decisions. Results of analyses for fecal coliform take a minimum of one day and with

one method as long as 96 hours to become final. As a result, long-term trends are very

important in decision-making.

Fecal Coliform and Cruise Ships

Fecal coliform discharges from cruise ships were considered in the context of Alaska’s

standards in order to identify and address those situations that pose real water quality

concerns. An understanding of this issue could then help to determine if mitigation

alternatives are needed and which method might be most effective. Mitigation

alternatives could vary from 1) mandating a technology based level of treatment, 2)

requiring the use of best management practices (including strategies to optimize mixing

rates), or 3) establishing specific discharge limits and allowing industry the latitude as to

how to achieve the limits.

During the summer of 2000, data from 21 large cruise ships were collected. More limited

monitoring occurred in 2001. Although some of these cruise ships did not participate in

data collection in subsequent years28 the 2000 data provide a useful basis for establishing

typical discharge concentrations and a comparison to bacteria standards. A typical

practice for cruise ships is to separate toilet waste (blackwater) from other wastewaters

such as shower or galley water (graywater). While blackwater may pose a greater risk to

public health than graywater, there is no consideration of sources of fecal coliform in

water quality standards. In 2000, graywater samples often had fecal coliform counts that

were as high as blackwater. As a result separation of the two discharges in this

discussion in terms of impact on standards is not justified.

In the 2000 monitoring season, 94 black, 81 gray and 11 combined black and gray water

samples were analyzed. The geometric mean of these data was 5,460 FC/100 mL, the

median was 27,500 FC/100 mL and the range of values was from <2 to >16,000,000 as

 

28 As problems with traditional treatment technology for wastewater on large cruise ships became apparent,

several vessels elected not to discharge wastewater in Alaska in 2001. Raw sewage and other wastewater

exceeding Alaska effluent limits can be legally discharged at certain distances offshore. 
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

Science Advisory Panel

Commercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance Program November 2002

45

determined by the multiple tube fermentation technique. Discharges were only allowed

when the ships were underway. Although 11 large ships were monitored in 2001, the

data were similar.

Dilution of Wastewater Behind a Moving Cruise Ship

Discharge of wastewater from a moving ship provides real benefit when considering the

influence of the discharge on compliance with the water quality standards in the receiving

waters. The discharge from a fixed-point municipal sewage outfall relies on treatment to

a certain level followed by dilution and dispersion of the discharge to mitigate potential

environmental impact. As the ship moves through the water the discharge is spread over

a larger area than from a static point source, the hull displaces large amounts of water that

fill in behind the ship, and the propellers assist in mixing the discharge into the

surrounding water. Thus, the concentration of fecal coliform and other constituents in the

water behind the ship is directly influenced by ship speed and discharge rates.

Ultimately, additional dispersion, dilution, coliform die-off rates, sinking of particulates,

currents and winds further diminish the fecal coliform concentrations associated with

releases from a large moving cruise ship.

Section I of this report discusses dilution factors behind ships in detail. The findings

from that section state that a reasonable dilution of wastewater of 1:50,000 would be

achieved within minutes from a large cruise ship traveling at a minimum speed of six

knots and discharging up to 200 cubic meters per hour of wastewater. It is also expected

that an additional dilution of 1:100 would be achieved by the time that the discharge

travels laterally one nautical mile, the minimum distance from shore that discharge is

permitted under State and Federal regulations. Appendix 7 shows fecal coliform

monitoring data from the 2000 and 2001 summer sampling and depicts levels of fecal

coliform both behind the ship and one nautical mile laterally from the ship. Dilutions

will be greater for discharges at higher speeds, lesser rates of discharge, or greater

distances from shore. The appendix shows the bacteria levels for each measured

discharge following dilution factors of 50,000 (the minimal initial dilution), 500,000 (an

intermediate dilution) and 5,000,000 (a minimal dilution by the time any effluent

approaches the nearest shore based on a combination of the 50,000 and 100 dilution

factors). The end of the appendix shows the geometric mean, the median, and the percent

exceedances above specific levels of regulatory concern in Alaska's water quality

standards for the data set following these dilutions.

Potential Exposure for Individual Waterway Users

Because of the nearly immediate dilution behind a large cruise ship, it would be difficult

for an individual to attain any significant exposure to the discharge. The only

“significant exposure” scenario envisioned would be an individual on a powered

watercraft such as a jet ski following behind the ship. Sea kayaker exposure in this zone

would be brief unless the kayaker’s track was along or close to the path of the cruise ship.

The Alaska water quality standard that would apply to this dilution zone would be

secondary recreation, one where exposure is incidental with only minimal or no ingestion
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

Science Advisory Panel

Commercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance Program November 2002

46

of water expected. The secondary recreation standard is based on the geometric mean of

the data set. With a standard of 200 fecal coliform/100 ml, and a minimum dilution

behind a cruise ship of 50,000, then, from the data set, the effluent geometric mean would

have to be greater than 10,000,000 fecal coliform/100 ml to be in violation of the

standard. For the 10% requirement of the standard to be exceeded, more than 10% of the

samples collected over a 30-day period would have to have a concentration of 20,000,000

fecal coliform/100 ml in the effluent. Such a scenario would be unlikely as demonstrated

by the data from the summers of 2000 and 2001.

Fate of Fecal Coliform Discharged into the Environment

In addition to the effects of dispersion and dilution, bacteria discharged into the

environment begin to die off. Fecal coliform bacteria are best adapted to living in a

warm, dark, isomotic, balanced pH environment with an abundance of food. Following

discharge into marine waters, bacteria levels begin to decline due to environmental

factors such as salinity, heavy metals, coagulation and flocculation, nutrient deficiencies,

predation, bacteriophages, algae and bacterial toxins.[Hurst et al 2002]. Hurst et al

(2002) have also shown that because microbes have an intrinsic electrostatic charge they

adsorb to the surface of charged environmental particulates or the air-water interface, the

micro layer, by hydrophobic mechanisms where they become subject to sedimentation or

solar radiation. Various combinations of, and fluctuations in these environmental factors

do not allow us to apply a consistent rate of bacteria reduction. However because these

environmental phenomena are occurring, they provide a confidence that the number of

fecal coliform reaching the shore under our analysis errs on the conservative side.

Doubtlessly, fewer bacteria reach the shore than the tables calculate.

Numerous studies have been conducted examining the die-off rates of E. coli, the largest

member of the fecal coliform group, in water. Of all the factors affecting survival or dieoff, the most important ones appear to be temperature and solar radiation, with cooler

temperatures and low solar radiation the most conducive to survival. Light is not as

significant a factor in extremely turbid waters or once coliform bacteria are deposited in

the sediment. It is not clear however, whether light only makes the organisms more

susceptible to inactivation by any of the other factors [Chamberlain, and Mitchell, 1993].

Because of the interaction of multiple factors and geographic differences in these factors,

there is no single die-off rate that can be universally applied to bacteria die-off. In

general however, the literature supports a time range for 90% of the E. coli to die off

(T90) to be as short as four to six hours to several days [Chamberlain, et al 1993]. Solar

radiation during the early and latter parts of the Alaska cruise ship season should be

similar to those at lower latitudes and the water temperature is cool. One could assume

therefore, that bacterial survival during the cruise season should be similar to that

described by Chamberlain.

Cruise Ship Discharges in Context

Cruise ship discharges should also be considered within the context of a background of

fecal coliform from all land-based sources. The number of fecal coliform excreted by
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

Science Advisory Panel

Commercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance Program November 2002

47

warm-blooded animals, including humans, ranges from 109 to 1010 organisms per gram of

feces [Eaton et al. 1995]. Alderisio and DeLuca (1999) de A monstrated that gull feces

contained about 3.68 X 108

 bacteria per gram and that goose feces contain about 1.53 X

104

 bacteria per gram, and that the volume of geese waste was typically 15 times that of

the gull. Fecal coliform densities in storm runoff in southern California are typically in

the tens of thousands per 100 ml [OCSD, 1989]. Communities in Alaska where homes

are on septic systems and are clustered along the shoreline present the opportunity for

high fecal discharges, especially where the septic systems fail, which frequently happens

in the rocky Alaskan coastal environment. Runoff from snowmelt and rainfall will

contain fecal coliform from indigenous land animals as well as pets. Waters adjacent to

marine mammal haul-out areas will also contain elevated fecal coliform levels. These

background sources of fecal coliform complicate the water quality picture and in many

cases result in fecal coliform concentrations higher at the shoreline than offshore. 

Calculations of dilutions set a distance of one mile off the ship’s track, may be used to

represent where remnants of any discharge might reach shore if a vessel stayed just one

mile from shore when discharging. This assumes oceanographic conditions that allow a

shoreward transport of surface water. As previously discussed, an additional dilution

factor of 100 may be applied to the initial minimal dilution of 50,000 to represent the

dilution attained before an effluent may reach the shore. This is actually quite

conservative as discharges most of the time will be further offshore and are not

continuous. Particles in discharge will sink, and onshore transport, generally dependent

on onshore winds, is not constant. The issue is to determine what the least dilution and

greatest pollutant level may be at the shoreline, the point of interest for the consumption

of raw shellfish. Therefore, the applicable bacteria standard would be the one designed to

protect for the consumption of raw shellfish. When the available dilution is considered,

the bacteria sampling data from the summers of 2000 and 2001 pass this requirement.

The most stringent of Alaska’s bacteria standards was not violated near shore by the

cruise ships sampled as long as they were moving at 6 knots or more and were more than

one nautical mile from shore.

Conclusions

Because Alaska’s bacteria standards incorporate the averaging principle they are not

about worst case. Instead, these standards are concerned with measurements over time.

The 2000 monitoring data demonstrates that exceedences of the most stringent bacteria

standard would not result from cruise ships discharging at six knots or more when at least

one mile from shore.

As previously noted, water quality standards are based on the monitoring of an indicator

pollutant, bacteria. Viruses, protozoa and pathogenic bacteria strains are not measured.

Presence of pathogenic microorganisms is dependent on the infection rate in the

contributing population and survival of these other microorganisms will be different

compared to the indicator bacteria. New analytical techniques for directly detecting the

presence of pathogenic microorganisms are being researched. However, nearly 60 years
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

Science Advisory Panel

Commercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance Program November 2002

48

of experience with setting standards using indicator bacteria has proven to be protective

of human health.

As a post script, data from the ships in the 2001 season show that well functioning

onboard advanced treatment systems (the Zenon aerated membrane ultra filtration system

and the ROCHEM Reverse Osmosis/UV disinfection/activated carbon systems) can

attain a mean fecal coliform concentration of 2 FC/100 mL, and a median value of 1

FC/100 ml with a range from 1 to 60 FC/100 mL as determined by the multiple tube

fermentation technique. It is obvious that there would be no impact on fecal coliform

water quality standards by any of these discharges.

Small cruise vessels do not currently have holding tanks. Consequently, they are

continuously discharging, although the rates of discharge may be small. When at anchor,

or drifting, or tied up in port, the discharges from small cruise ships will have

substantially less mixing and there is an increased potential for exceedences of bacterial

standards both near the vessel and nearshore. Small vessel issues will be discussed

further in Section IX.
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

Science Advisory Panel

Commercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance Program November 2002

49

References

Alderisio, L. A., DeLuca, N., “Seasonal Enumeration of Fecal Coliform Bacteria from

the Feces of Ring-Billed Gulls (Larus delawarensis) and Canada Geese (Branta

canadensis), Applied and Environmental Microbiology, Vol. 65, No. 12, 1999. 

Chamberlin, C. E., Mitchell, R., “A Decay Model for Enteric Bacteria in Natural

Waters”, Water Pollution Microbiology, John Wiley & Sons, 1993.

Eaton, A. D., Clesceri, L. S., and Greenberg, A.E. Standard Methods for the

Examination of Water and Wastewater, APHA, 19th Edition, 1995. 

Hurst, C. J., Crawford, R. L., Knudsen, G.R., McInerney, M. J. Stetzenbach, L. D.

Manual of Environmental Microbiology, Second Edition, 2002. 

Orange County Sanitation District, Annual Report to California Regional Water Quality

Control Board and the EPA, 1989. 

Parkin, T., “Analysis of Lognormal Data”, Selected Topics in Statistics for Research

Microbiologists, American Society for Microbiology Workshop, Anaheim, CA.

1990.

Shumway, R. H., Azari, A. S., “Estimating Mean Concentrations When Some Data are

Below the Detection Limit”, Final Report Contract ARB-A7330045, California

Air Resources Board, 1988. 

Thomas, H. A. Jr., “Statistical Analysis of Coliform Data”, Sewage and Industrial

Wastes, Vol. 27, No. 2, 1955.
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

Science Advisory Panel

Commercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance Program November 2002

50

Section IV

The Impact of Wastewater Nutrients on Alaska Marine Waters

Marlin Atkinson, Michael Stekoll, and Lincoln Loehr

Summary

High nutrient concentrations (nitrogen, phosphorous) in wastewater discharge can, under

the right conditions, promote phytoplankton blooms in receiving waters, altering the

immediate marine environment. The Science Advisory Panel investigated the possibility

that nutrients in cruise ship wastewater discharge could stimulate unwanted events in

Alaska marine waters.

The limiting nutrient for phytoplankton growth in Southeast Alaska marine waters is

dissolved nitrogen in the form of ammonia (NH3/NH4

+

), nitrate (NO −

3 ), and/or nitrite

(NO −

2 ). In open waters the total of nitrate plus nitrite (NOx) is usually much more

important than ammonia. But ammonia becomes more important in estuarine situations

or near wastewater discharges. Naturally occurring nitrate concentrations in Southeast

Alaska waters vary from about 30 micromoles per liter (μM)29 in the spring to around 1

μM during the late summer and early fall. Levels of nitrite and ammonia are typically

much less than nitrate in open waters. The Panel estimates the maximum mean total

nitrogen concentration in large cruise ship wastewater discharges to be 5 mM. By

applying a minimum mixing factor of 50,00030 for a moving cruise ship, the wastewater

total nitrogen concentrations are one-tenth to one-hundredth of the lowest Alaska marine

water background concentration, or about 0.1 μM. This amount of nitrogen can be

converted to a very small amount of phytoplankton over the next several days,

approximately 0.03 μg chl per liter. This amount of chlorophyll is only a hundredth to a

thousandth of the standing phytoplankton. New treatment requirements and regulations

for 2003 may further reduce the amount of nutrients discharged in cruise ship

wastewaters.

Findings from Cruise Ship Wastewater Sampling and Analysis

Water discharged from cruise ships into the ocean has higher nutrient concentrations than

the ocean. The discharge water is composed of different types of wastewater from various

locations within the ship and, depending on the ship, includes gray water (i.e. that from

showers and sinks, laundry facilities and the galley) as well as treated sewage. The

 

29 To convert these molar concentrations to micrograms/liter, multiply by 14, which is the atomic weight of

nitrogen. Millimole (mM) is one-thousandth of the molecular weight of nitrogen per liter. Micromole (μM)

is one-millionth the molecular weight of nitrogen per liter.

30 A mixing factor of 50,000 is estimated for a large cruise ship traveling at the minimum allowed speed of

6 knots and discharging wastewater at 200 m3

/hr. This scenario is considered a typical average worst case.

(See Section I)
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

Science Advisory Panel

Commercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance Program November 2002

51

discharge of raw sewage or untreated black water is prohibited in Alaska. The

concentrations of total nitrogen and phosphorus (as phosphate) in these different waters

have concentrations ranging over several orders of magnitude (Smith, 2000) based on

summer 2000 data. Initial sampling of cruise ship wastewater, carried out in summer

2000, revealed this large variability. Sampling in summer 2001 was consistent with 2000

samples (see Section II). The 2000 and 2001 analysis only included inorganic ammonia.

The first data analysis and synthesis assumed a fixed relationship between ammonia and

total nitrogen, based on a wide survey of the literature on sewage (Smith 2000). The ratio

assumed was total nitrogen equals 3.3 times ammonia. Review of sample analysis from 6

ships during the 2002 sampling shows total nitrogen to ammonia ratio varies from 1.2 to

99. The 2002 sampling and analysis requires further review. Thus the following

estimates are based on the 2000 and 2001 ammonia data, converted to total nitrogen by

the factor 3.3, as discussed above

The statistical means for the total nitrogen content of graywater, which is the significant

majority volume of the cruise ship wastewater discharged to the ocean, lies between

about 20 to 100 mg/l (1.5 to 5 mM) depending on different sub-sets of the data (Section

II). A few samples had high concentrations, resulting in a higher mean. Untreated black

water, which is not discharged to the ocean, has means of about 300 to 400 mg/l (20 to 30

mM). At this point in the development of sampling and analysis, each data set is biased

by the types of water sampled within the confines of the ship. Better sampling during

2002 and in subsequent years will produce a higher quality data set with lower

variability. New regulations for graywater discharge in 2003 and introduction of

advanced or enhanced treatment technology throughout the large cruise ship fleet may

reduce nutrient concentrations even further. But for the purposes of our evaluation, the

Panel conservatively estimates that discharged water can have a total nitrogen

concentration up to 5 mM (the upper limit of the mean).

Preliminary data from 2002, in which total nitrogen and phosphorus were directly

measured in discharge water, are consistent with the above estimates. Based on 12

samples, the mean total nitrogen was 3.0 mM (5 mM was the maximum mean from 2000

and 2001) and the mean total phosphorus was 0.9 mM.

For a large cruise ship discharging at a rate of 200 cubic meters per hour and traveling at

the minimum allowed speed of 6 knots, the mixing will be greater than 50,000 to 1. (See

Section I) An initial dilution factor of 50,000 in the near field for a moving ship gives

concentrations of (5mM/50,000 =) 0.1 μM total nitrogen.

Background Levels of Nutrients in Alaska Waters

The concentration of nutrients in surface ocean water varies seasonally (Hood &

Zimmerman 1986). In winter, the higher-concentration deeper water, rich in nutrients,

mixes to the surface giving highest concentration of nitrogen near 40 μM nitrogen (as

nitrate and nitrite). As summer progresses, the surface layer is confined to about 20 m

depth. Nutrients are consumed by phytoplankton resulting in a peak of primary

production during the spring. Nearly all production occurs in these spring-summer
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

Science Advisory Panel

Commercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance Program November 2002

52

months and corresponds to the amount of nutrients trapped in this surface layer.

Additions of nutrients will result in increases in the overall production of plant material,

or phytoplankton. This scaling process is well known and Smith (2000) estimates the

increase in primary production. The data below describes a typical seasonal cycle in

nutrient mixing uptake and plant production in Southeast Alaska (near Juneau and Sitka,

with some data from Prince William Sound). As stated above we estimate that the

maximum concentrations of nitrates plus nitrites from moving cruise ship discharges after

dilution are about 0.1μM. In spring, the concentration of nitrate plus nitrite in surface

water starts at 30 μM, nearly 300 times higher than 0.1 μM and decreases toward 1 μM

during late summer and early fall (see Figure IV-1), still at least 10 times higher than the

diluted discharge. It is evident from these estimates that the discharged water will have

little impact on the natural nutrient cycle. Accumulation of nutrients in sediments will

also be very small.

Discharge from small passenger ships, which are allowed to discharge moored or at

anchor, may have some limited potential to promote phytoplankton blooms in receiving

waters. However, small fleet discharges represent only 2.5% of the total cruise ship

wastewater discharge into Alaska waters. A small ship will typically discharge 1 m3/hr

whereas a large cruise ship may discharge at 200 m3

/hr. (Section IX) Thus, the nutrient

impact of small ships, even during stationary discharge, is likely to be small. However,

repeated discharges by small ships into a small embayment may create a significant

phytoplankton bloom if water exchange within the bay is minimal. (See Section VII)

Large cruise ships employing advanced treatment technology may be allowed to

discharge in port or at anchor provided they meet stringent effluent parameters for fecal

coliform, suspended solids, biochemical oxygen demand and pH. It is assumed that

advanced technologies well reduce nutrient concentrations in the wastewater discharge.

This assumption should be validated through continued sampling and analysis in 2003

and subsequent years.

Summary of nutrients in SE Alaska waters

Stekoll et.al (1992, 1998 & 2001) report nutrient data from relatively protected areas near

Juneau and Sitka, with some data from Prince William Sound. There is considerable

variability in nutrient concentrations in surface waters (less than 20m). Below 20m the

values of nutrients are relatively high throughout the year. 

Nutrients in marine waters can be summarized as follows:

Nitrogen: As stated above nitrate (NO −

3 ) is usually the dominant form of nitrogen in

marine waters. Nitrite (NO −

2 ) is usually not very important. Ammonia (NH3) can be

important in contained bays near cities and villages (wastewater discharges) and near

stream outfalls during salmon runs. Nitrate varies from 0 to 40 μM over the year. (Figure

IV-1) Low values (0 – 3 μM) occur from May to October. Values increase in November

and peak in December through February. The peak is due to mixing from storms plus the
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

Science Advisory Panel

Commercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance Program November 2002

53

lack of on-going photosynthesis in the winter. The cycle is fairly predictable from one

year to the next. The values of nitrate do not vary much by depth in the 0-10m zone. 

Ammonia (plus ammonium ion, NH4

+

): Values are usually in the 0-4 μM range. In Auke

Bay the ammonia values peak in May-June at about 6μM. The source of ammonia is

probably bacterial/microbial/zooplankton excretion.

Nitrogen is probably the limiting nutrient in SE Alaska waters, but phosphate may also be

limiting at times.

Phosphate: From Figure IV-2 it can be seen that the phosphate levels parallel those for

nitrate except that the concentration of phosphate is typically much lower than nitrate.

Phosphate peaks at 2-3μM. Phosphate concentrations may stratify with depth. The

surface layers lose phosphate earlier than the deeper layers.

Silicate: Silicate is an essential nutrient for diatom organisms in the phytoplankton.

Silicate values are from Auke Bay studies only. The silicate concentration rises and falls

parallel to the nitrate and phosphate concentrations. Values peak at 60μM around March.

Silicate is probably not a limiting nutrient at any time of the year.

Temperature and Salinity: There is a predictable cycle (Figure IV-3) of near surface

temperature and salinity in the inside waters. In winter the temperatures are low at 2-4oC.

At the same time the salinities are relatively high at 30-34 parts per thousand (ppt).

Salinity drops only slightly as temperatures increase through August. Typical

temperatures are: April, 7o

C, May, 10oC, August, 14oC. Salinities during this time drop

to about 29-30 ppt. During August to September there is a rapid salinity drop to less than

28 ppt. The salinity change is due to the volumes of fresh water from rainfall and

snowmelt, which is fairly high in Southeast Alaska. As the temperature begins to drop

(and rainfall is captured on land as ice and snow) the salinity increases again (see Figure

IV-3). February is the time of coldest temperature and highest salinity.

August/September has the warmest and least saline water. In estuarine areas, the surface

salinity often drops to zero because the water is primarily from surface runoff (rivers,

streams, etc.) passing through the estuary. Salinity/temperature stratification

(thermoclines and haloclines) occurs in the spring and summer. Mixing occurs in the fall

and winter.

Phytoplankton blooms. Figure IV-4 shows blooms of diatoms in April as sunlight

becomes more abundant. Secondary blooms may occur in May and June as upwelling

events occur, but these are usually smaller and short lived. The spring bloom always

goes through a succession of species but this varies from year to year. The zooplankton

bloom follows the phytoplankton bloom and lasts well into the summer.
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

Science Advisory Panel

Commercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance Program November 2002

54

Figure IV-1. Nitrate concentrations in SE Alaska throughout the year (from Stekoll,

2001).

Figure IV-2. Phosphate concentrations in SE Alaska throughout the year (from

Stekoll, 2001).

Nitrate

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

JFM A MJ J A SOND

Micromoles N per liter

Phosphate

0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

J FMAMJ J ASOND

Micromoles P per

Surface

10 m
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

Science Advisory Panel

Commercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance Program November 2002

55

Figure IV-3. Cycle of temperature and salinity in surface waters throughout the year

in SE Alaska (from Stekoll, 2001).

 

Figure IV-4. Carbon production from phytoplankton photosynthesis in the spring and

early summer in Auke Bay, SE Alaska (from Stekoll, 2001).

Carbon Production

0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

0 50 100 150 200

Julian Day

g C m-2

d-1

March April May June 

Carbon Production

0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

0 50 100 150 200

Julian Day

g C m-2

d-1

March April May June 

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

27 28 29 30 31 32 33

Salinity

Temperataure

Jan

Feb Mar

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

Science Advisory Panel

Commercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance Program November 2002

56

References:

Hood, D. W. and S. T. Zimmerman (eds). 1986. The Gulf of Alaska. Physical

environment and biological resources. NOAA, US Dept of Commerce, Washington D.C.

Smith, S.V. 2000. Discharge of Organic Matter and Nutrients. Cruise Ship Wastewater

Discharge into Alaskan Coastal Waters. Alaska SeaLife Center Technical Report 2000-1,

p17-29

Stekoll, Michael S. 1998. The seaweed resources of Alaska. In: Critchley & Ohno

(eds), Seaweed Resources of the World. Japan International Cooperation Agency,

Yokosuka, 258-265.

Stekoll, Michael S. and Page V. Else. 1992. The Feasibility of Macrocystis Mariculture

in Southeast Alaska. Japan Overseas Fishery Cooperation Foundation, Tokyo. 171 pp.

Stekoll, Michael S. 2001. Unpublished data presented to the Science Advisory Panel,

December 2001. 

Zieman, D. A. and K. W. Fulton-Bennett (eds). 1990. APPRISE – Interannual

variability and fisheries recruitment. The Oceanic Institute. Honolulu, HI.
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

Science Advisory Panel

Commercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance Program November 2002

57

Section V

Evaluation of the Effect of Cruise Ship Discharges on the Quality of

Marine Sediments

Ken Hall, C-J Beegle-Krause, Lincoln Loehr, and Kenwyn George

Summary:

Many contaminants are relatively insoluble in seawater and tend to adsorb to particles in

the wastewater effluent and in the receiving environment. These contaminants settle and

accumulate in the bed sediments and can often present a chronological record of

contamination in an area. Bioturbation (the disruption of sediment by organisms, e.g. by

churning or burrowing) can mix sediments and diagenetic (e.g. compaction, dissolution

and cementation) processes can redistribute contaminants in the sediment profile.

This paper starts by describing contaminants in sediments in the Strait of Georgia, which

are associated with human activity (but not tied directly to cruise ship discharges).

Sediment contaminant levels are compared to several sediment guideline values. Next

this paper discusses sediment contaminants and associated benthic studies associated with

municipal wastewater discharges. Contaminants in cruise ship discharges are evaluated,

focussing on metals and total suspended solids effluent data. Estimates of metals in the

suspended solids are compared directly to sediment guideline values and some metals are

shown to exceed sediment guideline values in the suspended solids. Copper is selected as

the contaminant most likely to cause a concern. The suspended solids in cruise ship

discharges are widely dispersed and typically settle in deep depositional basins along

with natural suspended sediments from other sources, notably major rivers. The

incremental increase in copper sediment concentrations resulting from the combined

particles from cruise ships with the natural deposition of particles is quantified for several

conservative scenarios and compared to sediment guideline values and background

sediment copper concentrations. The Panel concludes it is unlikely that there would be

environmental impacts of contaminants in sediments that could be associated directly

with cruise ships.

Sediment Contaminants in the Strait of Georgia:

The Strait of Georgia is a semi-enclosed basin between Vancouver Island and the

mainland of British Columbia that receives discharges from anthropogenic (substances of

human origin) sources such as sewage treatment plants, industrial wastes and non-point

sources (urban storm water and agricultural runoff). However, since the cruise ships pass

through this confined area on their way to Alaska, an evaluation of the contaminants

present in the sediments of this area is useful to evaluate potential contaminant

contribution from the cruise ships.
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

Science Advisory Panel

Commercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance Program November 2002

58

MacDonald et al. (1991) determined the trace metals concentrations in sediment cores

collected from the Bollenas Basin (>300 m deep) in the Strait of Georgia as well as Jervis

Inlet between 1980-1989 (Table V-1). They found surface enrichment of all metals that

they attributed to anthropogenic loading. Sediment concentrations of copper, lead, and

zinc in the more remote Jervis Inlet were comparable to the deep Bollenas Basin. Zinc in

surface sediments exceeded the proposed Canadian interim sediment quality criteria,

ISQC (CCME, 2001).31 Tributyl tin and its degradation products (DBT, MBT) were

found in a sediment core from Bollenas Basin (Table V-2). These contaminants were

distributed down to 25 cm in the core with the concentrations gradually decreasing with

depth (Stewart and Thompson, 1994). Yunker et al. (2000) conducted an extensive

survey on the distribution of PAHs (polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons) in the Fraser

River Basin and reported values from the Strait of Georgia (Table V-3). Sediment

concentrations of PAHs are considerably lower in the Strait of Georgia than in

Vancouver harbour where there is a higher density of ship traffic, discharges from nonpoint sources (storm water) and combined sewer overflows, which can contain PAHs.

Concentrations of PAHs in the Strait exceeded the proposed ISQC for marine sediments.

The sediment data do not implicate cruise ship wastewater discharges but do implicate

human contributions from a variety of common activities.

Table V-1: Trace Metals in Surface Sediments from the Strait of Georgia, British

Columbia(1)

TRACE METAL SEDIMENT SOURCE SEDIMENT CRITERIA

Bellenas #2 Bellenas #4 Jervis Inlet ISQC PEL

Copper 40 44 55 18.7 108

Lead 22 20-24 22 30.2 112

Zinc 120 200 140-160 124 271

Manganese 900 1200 - - -

 (1)MacDonald et al. (1991). All values in mg/kg dry weight. CCME( 2001) ISQC = interim sediment

quality guidelines (marine sediments) and PEL = probable effects level (marine sediments). 

 

31 Note that the proposed interim sediment quality criteria are based on threshold effects levels (TELs),

which are the lowest of a range of sediment screening levels described by NOAA (1999). Washington

State has actually adopted sediment quality standards (Chapter 173-204 WAC) based on apparent effects

thresholds (AETs) that are substantially different than TELs. For non-polar organic compounds such as

PAHs, Washington’s standards are normalized to the organic carbon content of the sediment so the units of

concentration may not be directly compared to dry weight-based criteria such as TELs. 
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

Science Advisory Panel

Commercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance Program November 2002

59

Table V-2: Butyltin in Surface Sediments from the Strait of Georgia, B.C.(1)

Organotin Compound Sediment Concentration 

(ng/g Sn dry weight)

Tributyltin 2.2

Dibutyltin 1.2

Monobutyltin 0.5

(1) Stewart and Thompson (1994)

Table V-3: Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons in Sediments (1)

PAH Strait of Georgia Vancouver Harbour ISQC

Naphthalene 35-60 26-290 34.6

Acenaphthylene 7-10 7.2-100 5.87

Acenaphthene 7-13 8-62 6.71

Fluorene 24 22-110 21.2

Phenanthrene 92-100 110-550 86.7

Fluoranthene 120 140-730 113

Dibenz[a,c/a,h]

Anthracene 7-10 14-54 6.2

C1-naphthalenes 54-82 110-220 20.2

(1) Yunker et al. (2000) with values in ng/g dry weight. ISQC = interim sediment quality criteria for

marine sediments (CCME, 2001).

Sediment Contaminants from Sewage Treatment Plants:

The Iona Island sewage treatment plant collects municipal wastewaters as well as

stormwater runoff from the metropolitan area of Vancouver, B.C. and after primary

treatment, discharges the effluent 7.2 km offshore through twin semi-parallel diffusers

(500 m long) at a depth of 72-106 m. Extensive investigations have been conducted by

the Greater Vancouver Regional District as part of their liquid waste management plan.

The environmental impacts of these effluents have been evaluated by monitoring the

distribution of sediment contaminants and an assessment of the benthic community

structure (EVS Consultants, 2002).

Sediment concentrations of cadmium, silver, chlorobenzenes, total-PCBs, coplanar PCB

#77 and several other PCB congeners, nonylphenol and its ethoxylates, and certain sterols

showed trends in distribution that are related to the outfall. The trace metals [arsenic

(AS), chromium (Cr), copper (Cu), nickel (Ni)], the pesticide aldrin, and the PAHs

namely acenaphthene, acenaphthylene, naphthalene, pyrene, and 2-methyl naphthalene

all exceeded the proposed ISQC values at one or more stations in a linear transect north

and south of the outfall area. More detailed spatial studies on the distribution of silver in

the sediments (300-700 ng/g dry weight) have demonstrated that it is a good sedimentary

tracer of effluent impacts on sediments (Gordon, 1997). Sediment fecal coliforms as well
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

Science Advisory Panel

Commercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance Program November 2002

60

as the fecal sterol, coprostanol, also appear to be good tracers for effluent distribution

from this point source discharge (Hodgins and Hodgins, 1999; EVS Consultants, 2002)

An analysis of the benthic invertebrate community structure, over a two-year period at 16

stations along the 80 m depth contour through the outfall area, demonstrated a drop in the

mean number of taxa near the outfall but no significant reduction in the total biomass of

benthic invertebrates. There were higher numbers of polychaetes, but lower numbers of

ophiuroids (brittle stars) and crustaceans (amphipods) in the near-field (outfall) area

compared to reference stations. Guidelines for lead and some PCBs (polychlorinated

biphenyls) were exceeded in some English sole livers and Dungeness crab

hepatopancreas but there was no difference between the near-field (outfall) and reference

stations. A histopathological tissue examination of these organisms (sole and crabs)

revealed no patterns of altered morphology between the two areas. Presently, the overall

environmental hazards posed by the sediment contaminants from the Iona Island STP

outfall appear to be relatively low. (EVS Consultants, 2002). 

Wastewater discharges from the city of Victoria are treated by screening prior to

discharge to the Strait of Juan de Fuca through two long outfalls at MacCaulay and

Clover Points. This area is mixed and flushed well due to the strong tidal currents. Only

two contaminants, namely mercury and 1,4-dichlorophenol, have been found in

sediments at levels of concern and associated with one of the two outfalls (Chapman et al.

1996).

Contaminants Discharged from Cruise Ships:

To put the discharges of cruise ships into perspective in terms of sediment contaminant

discharges, calculations can be done to determine the level of contaminants that could be

associated with the solids discharged from a ship and compared to those levels in the

sediment quality criteria. Total suspended solids (TSS) data collected from cruise ships

(large and small) during the 2001 season show a large range of TSS concentrations but an

overall assessment of these data show that median or geometric mean values of TSS are

less than 150 mg/L. 150 mg/L TSS is a conservative value for calculation purposes. This

is also the permitted discharge limit set by the State of Alaska so it will represent the

maximum TSS values in the future and not the median as more vessels come into

compliance. Using trace metals as an example and assuming that 75 % of the measured

trace metals are associated with the particulate fraction of the wastewater, one can

calculate a possible metal concentration in the solid fraction of the wastewater32 and

compare the calculated concentrations to various sediment quality criteria (Table V-4).

 

32 A sample calculation follows: A geometric mean concentration for copper, based on

the data for large cruise ships gray water and blackwater from 2001 and for small cruise

ships for 2002, is 82.86 μg/L. 75% of that concentration, or 62.145 μg/L, is assumed to

be associated with the particulate phase. When 62.145 μg/L is divided by 1000 to convert

to mg/L, it equals 0.062145 mg/L. 0.062145 mg/L of copper divided by 150 mg/L of

total suspended solids equals 0.0004143 which is 414.3 parts per million or 414.3

mg/kg. 
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

Science Advisory Panel

Commercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance Program November 2002

61

The calculations show that the TSS particles in the effluent exceed various sediment

criteria for As, Cu and Zn. However, this comparison is for the solids before discharging.

As these solids leave the ship and undergo turbulent mixing from the vessel’s passage,

the particles are spread over an area comparable to the width of the wake turbulence (e.g.

100 m) very quickly (less than 15 minutes). The smaller particles will take days to settle

on the bottom, if they settle at all, and larger particles will sink more quickly. Many

particles consist of organic matter and some of those particles will be consumed before

they can settle. As these particles move through the water column, they will be further

dispersed by tidal currents, eddies and turbulent mixing. The longer the particles are

suspended in the water column, the farther from the point of entry they are likely to travel

before they can settle on the bottom.

Table V-4: Trace Metals Associated with Solids from Cruise Ships

Trace Metal

Liquid Effluent

Concentration (μg/L)

Metal Solids

Concentration(mg

/kg)

Criteria

(mg/kg)

ISQC PEL AET

As 9.20 46 7.24 41.6 57

Cr 3.42 17.1 52.3 160 260

Cu 82.86 414.3 18.7 108 390

Pb 2.96 14.8 30.2 112 450

Zn 130.66 653.3 124 271 410

1. Metal effluent concentrations represent a geometric mean from three data sets,

namely large cruise ships gray water (2001), large cruise ships black water (2001) and

small cruise ships (2002).

2. Concentration in solids are based on a value of 150 mg/L TSS and assuming that 75%

of the total metal is associated with the particulate phase in the wastewater.

3. CCME (2001) interim sediment quality criteria (ISQC) and probable effects level

(PEL) for marine sediments.

4. WAC 173-204-320. Washington State sediment quality standards based on apparent

effects threshold (AET).

In addition to dispersion in the ship’s wake, sediment transport from high sediment

sources such as large rivers, e.g. Fraser, Skeena, Stikine, as well as high sediment loads

from melting glaciers, e.g. Taku, will effectively combine with the particle associated

contaminants from cruise ship discharges and reduce their concentration in the bottom

sediments. Table V-5 presents examples of natural deposition rates in deep waters in SE

Alaska measured by several means and reported by Rescan Consultants (2000).

Comparisons with Puget Sound and Southern California are also provided.

For these reasons, it is very unlikely that there would be any environmental impacts of

contaminants in sediments that could be associated directly to the cruise ships.

 
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

Science Advisory Panel

Commercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance Program November 2002

62

Table V-5: Natural Deposition Rates

Sedimentation

rate Depth Location Method Reference

13.3 g/day/m2 153 m Lynn Canal Sediment

trap Rescan Consultants (2000)

13.9 g/day/m2 225 m Lynn Canal Sediment

trap Rescan Consultants (2000)

38.8 g/day/m2 291 m Lynn Canal Sediment

trap Rescan Consultants (2000)

38.6 g/day/m2 291 m Lynn Canal Sediment

trap Rescan Consultants (2000)

1.88 g/day/m2 60 m Lynn Canal Sediment

trap Rescan Consultants (1990)

17.0 g/day/m2 290 m Lynn Canal Sediment

trap Rescan Consultants (1990)

34 g/day/m2 - Stephen’s

Passage - CH2MHILL (1996) Reportedby Rescan Consultants (2000)

41 g/day/m2 - Taku Inlet - CH2MHILL (1996) Reported

by Rescan Consultants (2000)

5.3 g/day/m2 - Lynn Canal Core Pb-210 Rescan Consultants (2000)

8.2 g/day/m2 150 m+ Puget Sound Core Pb-210 Crecelius (pers com 2002)

32.9 g/day/m2 150 m+ Puget Sound Core Pb-210 Crecelius (pers com 2002)

0.3 g/day/m2 60 m+ So. California Estimate Emery (1960)

Development of a Deposition Model

The panel has developed a scenario to evaluate the potential for copper to enter the

sediments in SE Alaska from cruise ship wastewater discharges. This scenario shows

how one could evaluate other potential sediment contaminants from cruise ship

wastewater discharges. The panel selected copper as the contaminant with the most

potential to be a problem based on the wastewater priority pollutant data from cruise

ships obtained in 2001 and 2002. The analysis requires several assumptions:

• Taking a realistic range of copper in effluents.

• Assuming that a percentage of that copper binds to suspended solids in the

effluent.

• Assuming a mass of copper delivered by a reasonable number of cruise ships to

an area over a year.

• Assuming an area over which the copper may settle, calculating a rate in

milligrams per year per square meter.

• Comparing that to a reasonably conservative estimate of the rate of natural

sedimentation.
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

Science Advisory Panel

Commercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance Program November 2002

63

This process leads to an estimate of copper concentration above the background that

could result in the sediments, and would also represent a steady state condition, not an

additive condition. The concentrations so determined could be compared to various

sediment quality values that have been derived. The detailed methodology and

calculations follow:

1. A large cruise ship discharges a graywater/treated blackwater mix at 200 m3/hr at a

minimum speed of 6 knots (about 11,000 m/hr) at least one nautical mile (about 1850

m) from the nearest shore. So in one hour, the ship travels 11,000 m.

2. An average suspended solid concentration in the wastewater effluent is 150 mg/l.

(Note, as cruise ships come into compliance with the treatment standards required by

Alaska, the average suspended solids will decrease.)

3. 75% of the measured constituents of concern (e.g. trace metals) are bound to the

suspended solids.

4. Using copper as an example, from Table V-4, the geometric mean of the

concentration in the effluent is 82.9 ug/l.

5. The amount of copper discharged in one hour along 11,000 meters of ship trackline

would be:

(83 ug/l Cu)(0.75)(10-3 mg/ug)(200 m3)(1000 l/m3) = 12,450 mg Cu

6. The amount of copper discharged per meter that the ship travels is given by:

12,450 mg Cu / (11,000 m ship track) = 1.13 mg Cu/m shiptrack

However cruise ships often travel faster than 6 knots and/or may discharge at a

lower rate than 200 m3/hr.

7. Three vessels travel exactly the same trackline each day during the cruise ship season

(about 150 days). For this calculation we are assuming that accuracy in following

another ship’s track is with 100 m, a very unlikely event. 

8. The amount of copper discharged per meter from three ships over a cruise season of

150 days is:

(1.13 mg Cu/m ship-track)(3 ships/day)(150 days) = 509 mg Cu/m ship-track/year

The assumption of three ships a day for 150 days is a greater release rate than

actually occurs for most Southeast Alaska waters, but might be a feasible release

rate for some limited areas

9. Consider three options. The first option is that this copper is rapidly mixed in the

water out to a width of 100 m perpendicular to the track, but then does not spread any

further and eventually settles to the bottom along a 100 m swath. The second option

is that the copper is deposited in a 100 m swath, but the ship tracks are not exactly the

same. The third option is that the copper binds to very small particles that will be
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

Science Advisory Panel

Commercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance Program November 2002

64

spread over a much wider area and in the case of a channel area 2 nautical miles wide,

would settle along a 3,500 m swath. The amount of copper added to each square

meter of sediment surface per year under these assumptions is:

option 1: (509 mg Cu/year/m)/(100 m) = 5.1 mg Cu/year/m2

option 2: (509 mg Cu/year/m)/(300 m) = 1.70 mg Cu/year/ m2

option 3: (509 mg Cu/year/m)/(3,500 m) = 0.15 mg Cu/year/m2

Notice that if the ship tracks differ by 100 m (i.e. a 300 m wide swath results from the

3 ships), the amount of copper/m2

 added to the sediments drops by a factor of 3 (from

option 1 to option 2). Then notice that letting the copper drift a mile to either side of

the main ship track decreases the copper/m2

 added to the sediments by more than a

factor of 10 (from option 2 to option 3).

In truth, the fine suspended solids discharged from the ship will fall slowly to the

bottom while mixing with eddies, and washing back and forth with the tides. This

slow rain of particles will spread away from the discharge point in all directions.

Individual particles could fall near the ship track, miles away from the ship track or

not sink at all. The Panel believes that all the above estimates of added copper/m2

 are

overestimates by factors of 10.

10. To the above numbers we now factor in the rate of natural sedimentation. Suspended

sediment trap studies and analysis of sedimentation rates from cores in Southeast

Alaska have identified sedimentation rates varying from 1.88 gm/day/m2

 to 41

gm/day/m2. Sedimentation rates are greatest for deeper waters. Even in Puget Sound,

Washington, sedimentation rates below 150 meters vary from 8 to 33 g/day/m2. The

available data suggest that a natural sedimentation rate of 5 g/day/m2

 would serve as a

conservative low estimate for this analysis. Using the low rate of sedimentation of 5

g/day/m2 we can determine a conservative yearly rate of sedimentation as:

(5 g/day/m2)(365 day/year) = 1825 g/year/m2

Note that in deeper areas (where more sediments collect) individual particles will

take longer to sink to the bottom, and thus may be carried farther away. Also, in

shallower open areas (where fewer sediments collect) such as sills where the

particles have a shorter travel to the bottom, the currents are likely to be stronger,

again allowing the particles to travel farther before coming to rest on the bottom.

This is why the panel believes that the following estimates in step 11 of the

increases in copper concentration in bottom sediments attributable to cruise ship

discharges are very high compared to what happens in nature.

11. To determine the additional copper contributed to the sediments from cruise ship

discharges under the different options from step 9, the rate of copper addition

computed in step 9 must be divided by the rate of natural sediment addition shown in

step 10:

option 1: (5.1 mg Cu/year/C)/(1825 g/year/m2)(1000 mg/gm) = 2.8 ppm 

option 2: (1.7 mg Cu/year/m2)/(1825 g/year/m2)(1000 mg/gm) = 0.9 ppm
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

Science Advisory Panel

Commercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance Program November 2002

65

option 3: (0.15 mg Cu/year/m2)/(1825 g/year/m2)(1000 mg/gm) = 0.08

ppm

12. The option 1, 2 and 3 values of 2.8, 0.9 and 0.08 ppm may be compared to any

identified sediment reference values. Note that there are many sediment reference

values available, but exceeding one does not necessarily mean there is harm.

Reference values are commonly used to determine whether any additional

assessment, typically by bioassays or by benthic population studies, is necessary.

NOAA has developed Screening Quick Reference Tables (SQRTs) and identifies a

range of marine sediment values for copper. These are:

18.7 mg/kg = Threshold Effects Level (TEL)

34 mg/kg = Effects Range-Low (ERL)

108.2 mg/kg = Probable Effects Level (PEL)

270 mg/kg = Effects Range Median (ERM)

390 mg/kg = Apparent Effects Threshold (AET)

Canada uses the 18.7 mg/kg level as a proposed interim sediment quality

guideline for copper. Washington has adopted 390 mg/kg as a sediment quality

standard for copper.

13. The computed increases in copper concentrations in the above options are

substantially lower than any of the reference values in step 12. The computed

increases in copper in option 1 are small and in options 2 and 3 are trivial.

14. The theoretical increases from the above conservative analyses may also be evaluated

in the context of the natural background levels of copper in marine sediments in SE

Alaska which are typically in the 30 to 40+ ppm range. (Rescan Consultants, 2000).

The naturally occurring copper sediment concentrations actually exceed some of the

threshold values that are sometimes used as references for comparison.

Conclusions:

For reasons described in the above steps, the above analysis is a conservative one in all

three cases. The analysis shows that copper in cruise ship discharges is not expected to

produce problems in marine sediments. Copper was selected for this example because

the Panel believed it had the greatest potential to present an environmental problem

among the pollutants present. The same type of analysis for other constituents would

most likely produce similar demonstrations of non-problems. This is actually an

expected result since areas of sediment contamination in the United States and Canada

are usually related to industrialized waterways or areas with historic inputs from

stationary, continuous point source discharges, discharges of storm water or combined

sewer overflows. The characteristic of such discharges is that they have much less

dilution than do large cruise ships.
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

Science Advisory Panel

Commercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance Program November 2002

66

References:

CCME. 2001. Canadian Sediment Quality Guidelines for the Protection of Aquatic Life.

Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment, Ottawa, Ontario.

Chapman, P.M., M.D. Paine, A.D. Arthur, and L.A. Taylor. 1996. The Triad Study of

Sediment Quality Associated with a Major Relatively Untreated Marine Sewage

Discharge. Mar. Poll. Bull. 32: 47-64.

Emery, K.O. 1960. The Sea off Southern California: A Modern Habitat of

Petroleum. John Wiley and Sons, Inc. 366 pp.

EVS Consultants. 2002. Iona Deep-Sea Outfall 2001 Environmental Monitoring

Program. Greater Vancouver Regional District, Burnaby, B.C.

Gordon, K. 1997. Sedimentary Tracers in Sewage Inputs to the Southern Strait of

Georgia. MSc Thesis, Dept. of Earth and Ocean Sciences, The University of

British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C. 

Hendricks, T. 1982. An advanced sediment quality model. 247-257 In Willard

Bascom, ed., Coastal Water Research Project Bieenial report for the Years

1981-1982. Southern Calidfornia Coastal Water Research Project, Long Beach,

CA

Hendricks, T. 1984. Predicting sediment qiuality around outfalls. 127-140

In Willard Bascom, ed., Coastal Water Research Project Bieenial report for the

Years 1981-1982. Southern Calidfornia Coastal Water Research Project, Long

Beach, CA

Hodgins, D.O. and S.L.M. Hodgins. 1999. Iona Deep Sea Outfall 1999 Environmental

Monitoring Program: Effluent Dispersion and Solids Deposition Modelling Study.

Greater Vancouver Regional District, Burnaby, B.C.

MacDonald, R.W. et al. 1991. Accumulation of Heavy Metals (Pb, Zn, Cu, Cd), carbon

and nitrogen in sediments from Strait of Georgia, B.C. Canada. Mar. Chem. 34:

109-135.

NOAA. 1999. Screening Quick Reference Tables.

http://response.restoration.noaa.gov/cpr/sediment/squirt/squirt.pdf

Rescan Environmental Services Ltd., April 1990, Kensington Gold Project Alaska,

Environmental Baseline and Technical Background Information, Lynn Canal

Oceanographic Data report

Rescan Environmental Services Ltd., 1996, Kensington Gold Project Alaska,

Environmental Baseline and Technical Background Information, Lynn Canal

Oceanographic Data report
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

Science Advisory Panel

Commercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance Program November 2002

67

Rescan Consultants, Inc., April 2000 Project 554-5, Kensington Project Data Report

Sedimentation Rates

Stewart, C. and J.A.J. Thompson. 1994. Extensive Butyltin Contamination in

Southwestern Coastal British Columbia. Mar. Poll. Bull. 28: 601-606.

Yunker, M.B. et al. 2000. Assessment of Natural and Anthropogenic Hydrocarbon Inputs Using

PAHs as Tracers. The Fraser River Basin and Strait of Georgia. 1987-1997. Fraser River

Action Plan, Dept. of Environment, Vancouver, Vancouver, B.C. 
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

Science Advisory Panel

Commercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance Program November 2002

68

Section VI

The Surface Water Microlayer of the Marine Environment and Potential

Impacts of Wastewater Discharges from Cruise Ships

Ken Hall and Alan Mearns

Summary

The surface water microlayer or sea surface film is a complex air-seawater interface 200-300 μm

thick containing organic and inorganic material and concentrations of life-forms, often at levels

significantly elevated from that of the waters beneath the film. The higher levels of particulates

and natural compounds in the sea surface microlayer can sequester or absorb trace metals and

organic contaminants. The microlayer is also a stressed environment, effected by wind/wave

action and ultraviolet energy absorption. The passage of a vessel’s propellers and hull is

disruptive to the microlayer and probably causes some unknown quantity of plankton and fish

larval mortality.

The Science Advisory Panel investigated the possibility that contaminants from large cruise ship

wastewater discharge might adversely impact life-form activity. The Panel concluded that the

high dilution of wastewater caused by a large moving cruise ship would prevent significant

accumulation of contaminants in the microlayer, even after accounting for the sequestering or

enrichment properties of the microlayer. This conclusion is further bolstered by the Whole

Effluent Toxicity tests conducted in July 2002 (Appendix 8). Small cruise ships that discharge

small amounts of wastewater while anchored or stationary in fjords and embayments may have

some limited potential for adverse impact to the fresh water layers found in fjords and

embayments.

Introduction:

This review will provide:

• A description of the surface layers of the marine environment

• A characterization of the chemical and biological properties of this zone

• The distribution and toxicity of contaminants in the surface microlayer 

• The impact of disturbance or stress on the surface microlayer, particularly with regard to

vessel movement.

• The impacts of wastewater discharges from cruise ships on this microlayer.

A Physical Description of the Sea Surface Microlayer

A physical description of the air-seawater interface is presented as a four-layer system with a

thin air film in contact with a thin water film. These interface films have properties that are
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

Science Advisory Panel

Commercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance Program November 2002

69

significantly different than the bulk mixed air and water layers on both sides of this film

boundary. A concentration gradient of atmospheric gases occurs in the water film since there is

transfer across this boundary. 

The air-water interface is a stressed environment, which is subject to dynamic non-equilibrium

processes such as wind stress, water evaporation, solar energy flux and atmospheric inputs

(Williams et al, 1986). In spite of the complexity of this interface environment, it provides an

important aquatic habitat for many aquatic organisms. The specialized organisms that have

adapted to this interface habitat are collectively called ‘pleuston’ while the microscopic

component of the pleuston is called the ‘neuston’ (Wetzel 2001). The development of these

aquatic surface oriented communities is most extensive in sheltered, quiescent environments.

However, they are still considered to be important in the marine environment (Zaitsev, 1970 ;

Wanderschneider, 1979).

A chemical/biological description of this surface microlayer, often called the sea surface film,

has been presented as a surface layer of lipids, proteins, polysaccharides and humic substances in

the order of 0.1 μm followed by a bacterioneuston layer up to 1.0 μm in thickness (Maki, 1993).

Other organisms use the surface tension of this microlayer during different stages of

development (e.g. egg adhesion, larval attachment). In reality, when studies are conducted on the

surface microlayer, the surface 200-300 μm layer is sampled by various collection techniques

and compared to the bulk water underneath (0.1 to 1.0 m).

The Chemical and Biological Properties of the Sea Surface Microlayer

Several studies have been conducted to investigate the chemical and biological properties of the

surface microlayer and compare it to the bulk water. In studies off California, Williams et al.

(1986) studied the surface film (200-300 μm) and compared it to the bulk water at 10 cm in both

the coastal and open ocean environments. They found enrichment factors (film concentration/10

cm conc.) for nutrients, plankton indicators (chlorophyll a, ATP) and organic carbon (Table VI1). There was more protein relative to carbohydrate in the surface film compared to the deeper

water. However, the correlations between the various chemical and biological measurements

could not be adequately explained, reflecting the complexity of processes that form and maintain

surface films.

In similar studies conducted in the Mediterranean Sea off of Marseilles, France, De Souza Lima

and Chretiennot-Dinet (1984), found higher levels of particulate organic carbon and nitrogen,

carbohydrate, chlorophyll a, and ATP in the surface compared to the underlying water at 0.5 m

(Table VI- 2). However, primary carbon fixation, attributed to mainly dinoflagellates and

diatoms, was slightly lower giving a lower production/chlorophyll a ratio and indicating

photoinhibition or possible contaminant inhibition in this surface microlayer (Table VI- 2). There

is usually inhibition of aquatic photosynthesis in surface waters due to photooxidative

destruction of enzymes as well as the inactivation of photosystem II by the UV radiation (Wetzel

2001).
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

Science Advisory Panel

Commercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance Program November 2002

70

Table VI- 1: Chemical and Biological Characteristics of the Sea Surface Microlayer off

California

Station Sample Nitrate Phosphate Chlor a ATP DOC POC

Open Ocean ssf 0.31 0.21 0.13 0.19 176 30

10 cm 0.27 0.26 0.08 0.05 83 5.5

Coastal 1 ssf 0.04 0.12 0.79 0.50 134 42

10 cm 0.05 0.10 1.2 0.44 102 30

Coastal 2 ssf 0.03 0.12 0.75 0.26 126 39

10 cm 0.02 0.11 0.55 0.28 105 25

Nitrate, phosphate, dissolved organic carbon (DOC) and POC is particulate organic carbon

(POC) in μmoles/L, Chlorophyll and ATP in μg/L ssf = sea surface film. Adapted from Williams

et al. (1986).

Table VI- 2: Chemical and Biological Characteristics of the Surface Microlayer in the

Mediterranean Sea

Characteristic Surface Microlayer Underlying Water (at 0.5 m)

POC (mg/L) 3.25 0.48

PON (mg/L)` 0.39 0.06

C/N ratio 10.4 7.9

Chlorophyll a (ug/L) 1.53 0.74

ATP (ug/L) 0.98 0.39

14C fixation (ugC/L/h) 5.03 5.35

Prod./Chl a 3.5 7.6

Adapted from De Souza Lima and Chretiennot-Dinet (1984)

Studies by Albright and colleagues (Albright, 1980; Bell and Albright, 1982; and Dietz et al.,

1976) in the Strait of Georgia, which is highly influenced by the freshwater runoff and high

turbidity of the Fraser River, generally found lower autotrophic and heterotrophic activities in the

70-80 μm neuston layer than in the plankton in the bulk water. They concluded that the neustonic

microorganisms were not as metabolically active as their planktonic counterparts and were

probably under greater stress in this near-surface microlayer. 

Therefore there appears to be considerable variability in the microorganism numbers and their

activity in the surface microlayer of the marine environment. 
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

Science Advisory Panel

Commercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance Program November 2002

71

Contaminants and Toxicity in the Sea Surface Microlayer

With the higher levels of particulates and natural compounds (carbohydrates, proteins and

lipids) in the sea surface microlayer, it is obvious that this interface should provide a favorable

environment for contaminants to accumulate since they can adsorb to particulate surfaces or cosolublize or sequester with some of the natural compounds that accumulate at this interface. The

literature on trace metals and organic contaminants that accumulate at this interface has been

presented by Maki (1993) and is summarized for the marine environment in Table VI- 3. 

Table VI- 3: Contaminants in Surface Film Samples from Marine Waters

CONTAMINANTS SAMPLER REFERENCE

TRACE METALS

Cu, Fe, Ni, Pb Plastic screen Duce et al. (1972)

Al, Cu, Fe, Mn, Ni, Pb, V Plastic screen Piotrowicz et al. (1972)

Cd, Cu, Fe, Mn, Ni, Pb, Zn Nylon screen Hunter (1980)

Cd, Cu, Fe, Pb, Zn Glass plate Hardy et al. (1985)

Ag, Cd, Cr, Cu, Fe, Mn, Ni, Pb, Zn Teflon drum Cross et al. (1987)

Ag, Cd, Cu, Pb, Zn Glass plate & Teflon drum Hardy et al. (1987a)

ORGANIC COMPOUNDS

DDT, DDE, Dieldrin, Aldrin Bottle Seba and Corcoran (1969)

HC, PCBs Metal screen Duce et al. (1972)

PCBs, DDT Metal screen Bidle & Olney (1974)

HC Metal screen Wade and Quinn (1975)

Normal Alkanes Metal screen Marty and Saliot (1976)

Normal Alkanes Metal screen Hardy et al. (1977)

HC, PAHs Metal screen Boehm (1980)

PCBs, DDT, DDD, DDE, PAHs Teflon drum Cross et al. (1987)

HC, PAHs, Pesticides, PCBs Glass plate & Teflon drum Hardy et al. (1987a)

Alkanes, PAHs Teflon drum Hardy et al. (1990)

HC=hydrcarbons, PCBs=polychlorinated biphenyls, PAHs=polycyclic aromatic hydrcarbons.

Adapted from Maki (1993)
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

Science Advisory Panel

Commercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance Program November 2002

72

As examples, a few studies are presented in more detail below.

In Narragansett Bay, Rhode Island, Duce et al. (1972) found that the concentrations of lead, iron,

nickel, copper, fatty acids, hydrocarbons and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) were enriched

1.5 to 10 times in the top 100-150 μm surface microlayer relative to the bulk water at 20 cm

below the surface (Table VI- 4). Hardy et al. (1987a) found a variety of contaminants associated

with the microlayer in Puget Sound, Washington (Table VI- 5). There was considerable variation

in the microlayer contaminants from different areas (Table VI- 6) which probably reflects the

proximity to the contaminant sources, namely atmospheric input from fossil fuel combustion

products, uncombusted petroleum in surface runoff, and domestic wastewater discharges. 

Table VI- 4: Enrichment of Trace Metals and Organic Compounds in the Surface Layer of

Narragansett Bay RI

CONCENTRATION (UG/L)

SUBSTANCE

Surface

100-150μm

Subsurface

20 cm ENRICHMENT FACTOR

Fatty acids 94 62 1.5

Hydrocarbons 8.5 5.9 1.4

PCBs 0.45 <0.05 >9

Lead 1.5 0.28 5.4

Copper 1.3 0.26 6

Nickel 13 2.1 6.2

Iron 35 8.2 4.3

Adapted from Duce et al. (1972)

Table VI- 5: Contaminants in the Sea Surface Film in Puget Sound, WA

COMPOUND MEAN CONC. MAX. CONC. CONC. UNITS

Aromatic Hydrocarbons 132 8030 μg/L

Saturated Hydrocarbons 2057 μg/L

Pesticides 0.46 43.8 ng/L

PCBs 631 3890 ng/L

Total Metals (Ag,Cd,Cu,

Pb,Zn) 626 4750 μg/L

Adapted from Hardy (1987a)
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

Science Advisory Panel

Commercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance Program November 2002

73

Table VI- 6: Spatial Variation in Contaminants in the Sea Surface Film in Puget Sound WA

CONTAMINANT GROUP CONCENTRATION SITE

Total Metals 1.4 mg/L Elliott Bay

0.05 mg/L Sequim Bay

Polycyclic Aromatic HCs 650 μg /L Port Angeles Harbour

10 μg /L Central Sound & Sequim Bay

Adapted from Hardy (1987a)

In laboratory toxicity tests, Hardy et al. (1987b) found that compared to reference sites, the

surface microlayer from urban bay sites in Puget Sound generally resulted in more chromosomal

aberrations in developing sole larvae, reduced hatching success of sole larvae, and reduced

growth of trout cell cultures. In situ hatching success of sole eggs was reduced by half or more in

urban bays compared to reference sites. The Puget Sound studies are supported by other research

in California (Cross et al. 1987) where larval mortality and chromosomal aberrations were

greater in kelp bass in shallow harbor areas compared to deep offshore stations (Table VI- 7).

The toxicity correlated well with the contaminant levels (total metals and PAH’s) in the surface

layer collected by teflon and ceramic drums.

Table VI- 7: Contaminants and Toxicity of the Sea Surface Microlayer Near Los Angeles

California 

Station

Water Depth

(m)

Larval Mort

(%)

Chrom Aberr

(%)

Total Metals

(μg/L)

Total PAHs

(ng/L)

15 km

offshore 500 4 11 18 35

8 km

offshore 60 5 10 75 40

3 km

offshore 58 32 29 302 591

Harbor 8 32 23 1173 2654

Harbor 9 32 33 4528 55775

Harbor 9 58 52 12168 38532

Adapted from Cross et al. (1987)

Given that contaminants do affect the microlayer, the question remains whether cruise ship

wastewater discharges elevate the microlayer concentrations of contaminants.
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

Science Advisory Panel

Commercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance Program November 2002

74

Microlayer Disruption, Formation and Biological Activity:

Some information exists on the rate of reformation of the surface layer after disruption. Studies

on the physical properties of the organic surface films found they reformed rapidly after

disruption (Williams et al., 1980; Dragcevic and Pravdic 1981). Williams et al. (1980) reported

that films formed rapidly in eutrophic coastal waters and more slowly in the oligotrophic openocean waters. The new films that formed were nearly identical (chemically and biologically) to

the previous ones. In other studies, De Souza Lima and Chretiennot-Dinet (1984) found that

during calm conditions there was considerable buildup of particulate organic carbon, ATP and

chlorophyll a at the surface compared to choppy water conditions (Table VI- 8). They also

observed that under calm conditions when a visual slick built up on the sea surface that the

surface microlayer showed much higher heterotrophic activity estimated by the uptake of

radiolabelled glucose (Table VI- 9). Thus protected areas along the coast would be expected to

have more calm periods when surface slicks could develop that could enhance the buildup of

natural compounds in the surface film and potentially stimulate autotrophic and heterotrophic

processes. However, the accumulation of contaminants from anthropogenic sources in coastal

areas could have some negative affects on these natural processes.

Table VI- 8: The Effect of Sea State on Biological Characteristics of the Sea Surface Film

PARAMETER DEPTH CALM CHOPPY

POC (mg/L) ssf 4.62 1.89

0.5 m 0.56 0.41

Chlorophyll a (ug/L) ssf 2.59 0.47

0.5 m 0.97 0.50

ATP (ug/L) ssf 1.54 0.52

0.5 m 0.43 0.35

Prod./Chl.a ssf 2.61 4.48

0.5 m 6.06 9.22

Adapted from De Souza Lima and Chretiennot-Dinet (1984). ssf = sea surface film

Table VI- 9: Microbial Activity During Slick Buildup Under Calm Conditions

HETEROTROPHIC

VARIABLE SLICK PRESENT NO SLICK

ssf 0.5m ssf 0.5m

Vmax (ugC/L/h) 972 26 11 21

Kt + Sn (ug/L) 110 7 0.97 0.98

Tt (h) 114 92 87 47

Adapted from De Souza Lima and Chretiennot-Dinet (1984). ssf=sea surface film. 
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

Science Advisory Panel

Commercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance Program November 2002

75

Vm= max. uptake rate of radiolabeled glucose, Kt= transport constant, Sn= natural glucose conc.

Kt+Sn gets higher values for more nutrient rich or eutrophic systems. Tt = time required to

turnover the glucose. 

Shear caused by ship propellers and hull passage has been found to be disruptive to organisms in

the water column. The upper range of shear stress from propellers and tow configurations of

barge towboats in the upper Mississippi River was estimated to be about 6300 dynes/cm2

(Killgore et al., 2001). In ship tank experiments, Killgore et al (2001) found that mortality of

early life stages of several freshwater fish was linearly related to shear stresses in the range of

634 to 4743 dynes/cm2

. Morgan et al (1976) found that the amount of shear required to kill fish

eggs and larvae increases with shear force and time of exposure. Mean LC50 (exposures

required to kill 50% of the eggs or larvae) ranged from 125 dyne/cm2

 at 4 minutes exposure of

white perch larvae to 542 dynes/cm2

 at 1-minute exposure for striped bass eggs. High turbulence

(6370 dynes/cm2; one event per hour) resulted in 87% mortality to paddlefish larvae; those

exposed to low turbulence (1838 dynes/cm2) suffered only 3% mortality (Killgore et al., 1987).

Holland (1986) found that the mean catch of ichthyoplankton was reduced in both surface and

bottom waters for 90 minutes following the passage of loaded barge trains (moving up-river);

however, there was no consistent effect on catches of age-0 and small adult fishes; damage was

primarily to fish eggs.

In the open sea, the scale of mortality of plankton, fish eggs, and fish larvae caused by vessel

passage is likely to be of very small scale relative to the amount of surface area and volume

available. It may also be of small scale in the Inside Passages of Alaska. We do not yet have

information on propeller or hull shears caused by large or small passenger vessels, but can guess

that they may be in the same range as tow boats and, thus, may cause injury to fish eggs and

larvae when they are present. The Panel notes that the physical disruption or injury to organisms

in the microlayer by vessels is not under evaluation. However, describing this dynamic allows

the discharge of wastewater to be placed in context. In other words, the movement of vessels

and other dynamics are likely to be as disruptive, if not more so, than wastewater discharge.

Ultraviolet Energy Absorption and Effects on the Sea Surface Environment

The depletion of stratospheric ozone and the subsequent enhanced ultra violet energy (280-400

nm), especially the more energetic UV-B (280-320 nm) could affect the chemical and biological

processes in surface waters. These effects must be considered in the context of other

anthropogenic impacts such as discharges from ships.

The high energy of the shorter UV wavelengths can induce the formation of highly reactive,

transient chemical species such as hydroxyl radicals as well as relatively stable hydrogen

peroxide (H2O2), nitric oxide (NO), and carbon dioxide (CO2) (Mora et al. 2000). The net effects

of many of these reactive chemical species from these photochemical reactions are the oxidation

of dissolved organic matter, cleavage of humic substances, photoreduction of trace metals,

release of complexed/bound species such as phosphate, and the production of relatively stable

compounds like organic acids and carbonyl compounds (Mora and Vernet, 2000; Zhou and
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

Science Advisory Panel

Commercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance Program November 2002

76

Mopper, 1997). These processes can also enhance the geochemical cycling of carbon, nitrogen

and sulfur compounds in the marine environment as well as accelerate the degradation of

persistant contaminants such as petroleum hydrocarbons and pesticides. The photooxidation of

some environmental contaminants can form other compounds, which are more toxic than the

parent compound to aquatic organisms (Larson and Berenbaum, 1988). 

The photochemical degradation of dissolved organic matter can make compounds more available

for bacterial growth especially in coastal areas with higher levels of dissolved organic matter and

humic-like substances from land runoff (Kieber et al. 1989). Also, micronutrients such as iron

and phosphorus can be released from high molecular weight organic matter and made more

available to organisms. The DNA, RNA, and aromatic amino acids of proteins in aquatic

organisms have high absorbance coefficients for UV radiation, which can have destructive

effects on cellular components. The ultraviolet radiation at the sea surface can decrease algal

primary production with the UV-B inhibiting surface photosynthetic carbon incorporation by 25

to 50% (Vernet, 2000). The damage to zooplankton and fish is highly variable, but studies

indicate that it can depress the immune system and increase the vulnerability to pathogens.

However, many organisms also have biochemical mechanisms to repair cellular damage caused

by UV radiation (Zagarese and Williamson, 2000).

Cruise Ship Wastewater Discharges and their Mixing, Dilution, and Impacts on the Sea Surface 

Microlayer:

The Panel has reviewed nearly 3 seasons of laboratory analysis in an effort to characterize the

quality and volumes of gray and black water discharges from the large cruise ships that travel

along the coast. These data indicate that there is high variability in the quality of these effluents

(Section II). Also, the quality of these discharges continues to improve as the cruise ship industry

proceeds to install more advanced treatment systems to comply with the 2001 Alaskan

legislation.

The potential impacts of the wastewater discharges will depend on their dilution into the bulk

water over their transportation route. This dilution will be a function of the volume of discharge,

the discharge rate, hull design of the vessel, propeller design, speed of the vessel during

discharge, as well as currents and wind velocity. Recent dilution, dispersion studies using dye

discharged into the wastewater of four cruise ships traveling between 9 and 17 knots

demonstrated a dilution value between 200,000:1 and 640,000:1 (EPA, 2002). Assuming a

slower speed of 6 knots, cruise ship dynamics would still provide a dilution of 50,000:1 or

greater. (See Section I).

At these dilution levels, the only contaminant likely to be measured above ambient levels in the

seawater would be fecal coliforms. These indicator microorganisms have been measured at

several million/100 ml in both gray and black water discharges from cruise ships. However,

evidence indicates that there is the potential to concentrate some contaminants 50 to 100 times

the ambient level in the sea surface microlayer (Table VI- 5). It appears that these higher
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

Science Advisory Panel

Commercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance Program November 2002

77

concentration levels in the surface microlayer would overcome the high degree of dilution

occurring with the wastewater discharges from the moving cruise ships. Thus, contaminant levels

should remain significantly below acceptable water quality criteria even in this surface

microlayer. There is the added complexity with the discharge of very hydrophobic substances

such as oil and grease from galleys since these substances would naturally rise to the surface and

concentrate there unless they were adequately dispersed or emulsified by the discharge and

mixing processes. To determine the actual magnitude of the interface concentration process in

an area where large numbers of cruise ships pass regularly would take a very carefully designed

study with great care taken on the selection of reference or control sites. For the moment,

however, the Panel looks to the dilution studies and the Whole Effluent Toxicity tests (WET)

reported in Sections I, and Appendix 8, which show little to nil likely impact from discharge

from a moving vessel.

There is also concern regarding contaminants from the wastewater discharges from small

cruise/tourism vessels, which take groups of passengers into the bays and fjords for recreational

activities, and wildlife/scenery viewing. If small vessels are at anchor in these calmer

environments, there is more potential for accumulation of contaminants in the buoyant

freshwater layers that could accumulate at the seawater surface interface. However, the loading

of contaminants from these small vessels is relatively small. The impact of small cruise ship

discharge in fjords and embayments requires further study.
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

Science Advisory Panel

Commercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance Program November 2002

78

References:

Albright, L.J. 1980. Photosynthetic Activities of Phytoneuston and Phytoplankton. Can. J.

Microbiol. 26: 389-392.

Bell, C.R., and L.J. Albright. 1982. Bacteriological Investigation of the Neuston and Plankton in

the Fraser River Estuary, British Columbia. Est., Coastal & Shelf Sci. 15: 385-394.

Bidleman T.F. and C.E. Olney. 1974. Chlorinated Hydrocarbons in the Sargasso Sea

Atmosphere and Surface Water. Science 183: 516-518.

Boehm, P.D. 1980. Evidence of the Decoupling of Dissolved, Particulate and Surface

Microlayer Hydrocarbons in the Northwestern Atlantic Continental Shelf Water. Mar.

Chem. 9: 255-281.

Colonell, J.M. et al. 2000. Cruise Ship Wastewater Discharge into Alaskan Coastal Waters.

Alaska Sealife Center, Tech. Report No. 2000-01, 48 p.

Cross, N.J. et al. 1987. Contaminant Concentrations and Toxicity of Sea-water Microlayer Near

Los Angeles, California. Mar. Environ. Res. 23: 307-323.

De Souza Lima, Y. and M.J. Chretiennot-Dinet. 1984. Measurements of Biomass and Activity

of Neustonic Microorganisms. Est., Coastal and Shelf Sci. 19: 167-180.

Dietz, A.S. et al. 1976. Heterotrophic Activities of Bacterioneuston and Bacterioplankton. Can.

J. Microbiol. 22: 1699-1709.

Dragcevic, D.J. and V. Pravdic. 1981. Properties of the Seawater-Air Interface 2. Rates of

Surface Film Formation Under Steady State Conditions. Limnol. Oceanogr. 26: 492-499.

Duce, R.A. et al. 1972. Enrichment of Heavy Metals and Organic Compounds in the Surface

Microlayer of Narragansett Bay, Rhode Island. Science 176: 161-163.

EPA. 2002. Cruise Ship Plume Tracking Survey. Report Office of Water, Office of Wetlands,

Oceans and Watersheds. EPA 842-R-02-001.

Hardy, J.T. et al. 1977. Occurrence of Hydrocarbons in the Surface Film, Sub-surface Water

and Sediment in the Waters Around the United Kingdom. Rapp. P. Reun. Cons. Int.

Explor. Mer. 171: 61-65.

Hardy, J.T. et al. 1985. Sea-surface Microlayer Metals Enrichment in an Urban and Rural Bay.

Est., Coastal and Shelf Sci. 20: 299-312.

Hardy, J.T. 1987a. The Sea-surface Microlayer of Puget Sound: Part I. Toxic Effects on Fish

Eggs and Larvae. Mar. Environ. Res. 23: 227-249.
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

Science Advisory Panel

Commercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance Program November 2002

79

Hardy, J.T. 1987b. The Sea-surface Microlayer of Puget Sound: Part II. Concentrations of

Contaminants and Relation to Toxicity. Mar. Environ. Res. 23: 251-271.

Hardy, J.T. et al. 1990. Aquatic Surface Microlayer Contamination in Chesapeake Bay. Mar.

Chem. 28: 333-351.

Holland, L. E. 1986. Effects of barge traffic on distribution and survival of ichthyoplankton and

small fishes in the Upper Mississippi River. Transactions of the American Fisheries

Society 115: 162-165.

Hunter, K.A. 1980. Processes Affecting Particulate Trace Metals in the Sea Surface Microlayer.

Mar. Chem. 9: 49-70.

Kieber, D.J., J. McDaniel and K. Mopper. 1989. Photochemical Sources of Biological

Substrates in Seawater. Implications for Carbon Cycling. Nature 341: 637-639.

Killgore, K.J., S.T. Maynord, M.D. Chan and R.P. Morgan II. 2001. Evaluation of propellerinduced mortality on early life stages of selected fish species. North American Journal of

Fisheries Management 21:947-955.

Killgore, K.J., A.C. Miller and K.C. Conley. 1987. Effects of turbulence on yolk-sac larvae of

paddlefish. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 116:670-673.

Larson, R.A. and M.R. Berenbaum. 1988. Environmental Phototoxicity. Environ. Sci. and

Technol. 22: 354-360.

Maki, J.S. 1993. The Air-Water Interface as an Extreme Environment. Chapter 16, 409-439. In

T.E. Ford (ed.) Aquatic Microbiology: An Ecological Approach. Blackwell Scientific

Publications, London, England.

Marty, J.C. and A. Saliot. 1976. Hydrocarbons (Normal Alkanes) in the Surface Microlayer of

Seawater. Deep-Sea Res. 23: 863-873.

Mora, S., S. Demers and M. Vernet (eds.) 2000. The Effects of UV Radiation in the Marine

Environment. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.

Morgan, R.P. II, R.E. Ulanowicz, V.J. Rasin, Jr., L.A. Noe and G.B. Gray. 1976. Effects of

shear on eggs and larvae of striped bass, Morone saxatilis, and white perch, M.

americanus. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 105:149-153. 

Piotrowicz, S.R. et al. 1972. Trace Metal Enrichment in the Sea-surface Microlayer. J. Geophys.

Res. 77: 5243-5254.

Seba, D.B. and E.F. Corcoran. 1969. Surface Slicks as Concentrators of Pesticides in the Marine

Environment. Pest. Monit. J. 3: 109-193.
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

Science Advisory Panel

Commercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance Program November 2002

80

Vernet, M. 2000. Effects of UV Radiation on the Physiology and Ecology of Marine

Phytoplankton Chapter 9 pp 237-278. In S. Mora et al. (eds.) The Effects of UV

Radiation in the Marine Environment, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.

Wade, T.L. and J.G. Quinn. 1975. Hydrocarbons in the Sargasso Sea Surface Microlayer. Mar.

Pollut. Bull. 6: 54-57.

Wetzel, R.G. 2001. Limnology: Lake and River Ecosystems 3rd edition Academic Press, New

York NY. 1006 p.

Wanderschneider, K. 1979. Vertical Distribution of Phytoplankton During Investigations of a

Natural Surface Film. Mar. Biol. 52: 105-111.

Williams, P.M. et al. 1980. In situ Measurements of Sea-surface Film Potentials. J. Mar. Res.

38: 193-204.

Williams P.M. et al. 1986. Chemical and Microbiological Studies of Sea-surface Films in the

Southern Gulf of California and off the West Coast of Baja California. Mar. Chem. 19:

17-98.

Zagarese, H.E. and C.E. Williamson. 2000. Impact of Solar UV Radiation on Zooplankton and

Fish. Chapter 10, pp. 279-309 In S. Mora et al. (eds.) The Effects of UV Radiation in the

Marine Environment, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.

Zaitsev, Yu.P. 1970. Marine Neustonology Akad. Nauk. Ukrainskoi. SSR, Naukova Dumka,

Kiev 207 p. (Translat. Into English, Programs for Scientific Translation, Jerusalem,

1971).

Zhou, X. and K. Mopper. 1997. Photochemical Production of Low Molecular Weight Carbonyl

Compounds in Seawater and Surface Microlayer and their Air-Sea Exchange. Mar.

Chem. 56: 201-214.
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

Science Advisory Panel

Commercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance Program November 2002

81

Section VII

Criteria for Delineating Areas Potentially Sensitive to Cruise Ship Wastewater

Discharges

C-J Beegle-Krause, Alan Mearns, Lincoln Loehr, Kenwyn George, and Carolyn Morehouse

The Panel has attempted to answer the following questions:

“Are there waters and nearby shorelines that might be more sensitive than other areas to

cruise ship discharges? So much more sensitive that discharging should be restricted?”

Two approaches need to be considered: sensitive areas and sensitive species. A sensitive area

with respect to wastewater discharge is simply any area where concentrations of contaminants

are likely to exceed water, sediment or seafood quality criteria, guidelines or public expectations.

A sensitive species is either:

Sensitive to wastewater (finding wastewater toxic), or

A species that bioaccumulates wastewater compounds or microorganisms and when consumed

passes contaminants up the food chain or transmits an infection. 

The following is a summary list of considerations:

Location

Oceanography

Species

Timing

At this time we will leave out species that might be affected by any ship moving through the

water (e.g. fish larva damaged when pulled through the propeller circulation, or injured on

impact with the vessel).

Designating areas as more or less sensitive to a particular type of pollutant is similar to the

concept of the NOAA Environmental Sensitivity Index (ESI), which classifies different shoreline

areas and local resources by their sensitivity to oil. The key difference here is that we are

considering areas in open water, where the water is likely to be moving due to winds and tides,

and the discharge is very likely to disperse. Dumping coffee grounds on the same place on a

beach above the tide line day after day will lead to a large pile of coffee grounds, but dumping a

cup of coffee into the coastal water in the exact same place day after day is very unlikely to leave

a trace. We are also considering sensitive species rather than land types. So sensitive areas for

cruise ship discharges will have some fundamental differences from sensitive shorelines.

The premise is that we can define locations in both time and space where discharges may cause a

high enough exposure potential (concentration multiplied by time) for harm that action should be

taken. Time must be considered because the pollutants do not affect the water itself. Rather, it is
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

Science Advisory Panel

Commercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance Program November 2002

82

the living things that live in the water and the animals further up the food web that depend on

those local resources that are potentially affected. The degree of impact depends on what a

particular organism is exposed to, for how long, and at what dose. Both the water and resources

are potentially moving through a particular area at particular times, which limits contaminant

exposure.

The simplest consideration is of things that are of interest to humans and that do not change

locations – confined or sessile species that are planned for human use and consumption. Fish

pens and harvested shellfish beds fall into this category. Shellfish and other sessile or confined

consumable bioaccumulators need to be protected from repeated contact with contaminants.

Other animals may have life stages that are particularly sensitive to contact with certain

contaminants. These animals may be resident in the area or migrating through the area (such as

young salmon heading to sea). Areas where sensitive creatures move through an area could lead

to temporary closures to discharges. Sensitive life stages of animal ubiquitous in the area would

not cause the same restrictions since the population is so large.

A particular concern of many people is the potential impact of ship wastewater discharge on

humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae). The Panel reviewed available research and current

knowledge with a view towards a particular area – Icy Strait – a water body frequented by

humpback whales and cruise ships. Current knowledge would seem to indicate that humpback

whales are not affected by cruise ship wastewater if the ships follow the recommended discharge

practice (discharge at minimum speed of 6 knots, 1 nautical mile from shore).

Oceanographic phenomena play a key role in moving water and thus moving the contaminants.

In quiet fjords, large residence times due to small tidal exchange would need to be considered. A

pollutant could potentially build up in the surface waters or when deeper waters are renewed

infrequently.

Given these considerations, the Panel has three recommendations for cruise ship discharges:

Stationary discharge in a low tidal exchange area could lead to water quality issues and should be

avoided.

The current requirements for large cruise ships – wastewater discharge at a minimum speed of 6

knots and at least 1 nautical mile from shore – are good management practices and should be

practiced by all passenger ships.

No discharges should occur within 0.5 nautical mile of commercial bivalve shellfish beds33. 

 

33 Prohibiting discharges within 0.5 mile of shellfish beds aids the protection of human health. Because there are

many chemicals, (e.g. drugs and endocrine disrupters) and possibly viruses discharged in all effluents, including

those from advanced treatment systems, the panel recommends minimizing these elements from reaching shellfish

that could be consumed by humans. Ships at a distance of 0.5 miles or more will most probably be under way, and

the effluents will experience considerable dilution. A vessel closer than this, especially if at anchor, should hold

their waste if possible until under way and further offshore. In-port discharge (allowed for small cruise ships and
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

Science Advisory Panel

Commercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance Program November 2002

83

The Panel has two recommendations for identifying sensitive areas:

1. At this time, the Panel is not aware of any species that has both a sensitive life stage and a

population that is limited to an area where cruise ships discharge wastewaters. (Ubiquitous

species are not considered for sensitive area delineation). However, should such a species be

identified it could be an important issue for cruise ship discharge timing in a particular

location.

2. Areas where long residence time or minimal neap tidal exchange34 occurs are areas where

chemicals from wastewater discharges are a potential issue. Tidal exchange information

could be used to prioritize areas for further study to determine whether or not wastewater

discharge is a problem.

 

large cruise ships that meet stringent effluent standards) should not be a concern with regard to shellfish. Shellfish

harvest for human consumption near ports is not recommended and often prohibited, since bacteria sources are

numerous.

34 Neap tides occur just after the first and third quarters of the lunar month. At these times the difference between

high and low tides is the smallest. Thus, water movement due to tide flux is the smallest. The Panel recognizes that

“minimal neap tidal exchange” must be more precisely defined before it can be used as a criterion for establishing

no-discharge zones.
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

Science Advisory Panel

Commercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance Program November 2002

84

Section VIII

Sources of Shipboard Chemicals and Pathways by which They Could Reach

the Marine Environment

Michael Watson and Alan Mearns

Summary

Between May 2000 and September 2002, members of the Science Panel attempted to develop a

good working knowledge of the likely “universe of chemicals” brought on board and used on

large cruise ships. They visited several ships – spending two days underway on one– and

conducted extensive interviews with corporate managers, officers and crew. Eight possible

pathways that onboard chemicals could be discharged to the environment were identified and

evaluated. It is the conclusion of the authors that a properly maintained, well-managed, modern

cruise ship, operating in full compliance with government regulations, will not release shipboard

chemicals into the environment at a quantity or level that will cause measurable negative

environmental impact. The authors suggest several chemicals for future monitoring for the

purposes of validating best practice or dilution models.

Introduction

The issue of completely understanding and verifying the full extent and nature of chemicals on

board cruise vessels is no simple matter. Cruise vessels – as floating, self-propelled, selfcontained huge hotels which travel through, and to, a vastly differing series of marine

environments - utilize a myriad of different chemical compounds as part of their daily

operations. These include the same basic spectrum of chemical materials typically associated

with, for example, large resort hotels. But with cruise vessels, additional varieties of chemicals

and chemical waste products are associated with - and produced by - the need for motorized

propulsion of these modern techno-behemoths through the sea. Another important factor is the

innate need to constantly protect the vessel’s exposed surfaces against corrosion, biofouling

organisms, and similar damaging factors not typically found in the case of land-based tourist

facilities of the same types and sizes.

In view of this complex set of factors, it is first necessary to solidify estimations of off-vessel

contaminant transport with a good working knowledge of the likely universe of chemicals, which

might occur on a typical vessel such as this in the first place. This we shall hereafter refer to as

the “likely chemical inventory” on such vessels, which is meant to be more or less synonymous

with terms like “source”, or “sink” for the chemicals utilized, brought, or generated aboard ship.
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

Science Advisory Panel

Commercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance Program November 2002

85

Two of the more important and obvious mechanisms by which chemicals stored, used, generated,

or otherwise associated with these vessels (i.e., the “likely chemical inventory”) can reach the

marine environment are of course, the graywater and blackwater routes (exposure pathways) of

direct discharge into the sea. Eco-risk and the likelihood of environmental loading from these

two obvious and deliberate discharge pathways can then be estimated or predicted with the help

of dispersion modeling, and the various mixing calculations, which are set forth in Section I in

greater detail35.

However, graywater and blackwater are by no means the only two pathways by which shipboard

chemicals can reach the surrounding marine environment. Chemicals associated with such

vessels can reach the sea (and in some cases the air as well) via such other routes as bilge water,

incineration of certain wastes, offloading of hazardous wastes for special disposal, and accidental

spillage or leakage. Chemicals present in hull paints and anti-fouling coatings can also reach the

sea from simple electrolysis and diffusion. Trace amounts of hazardous substances (but more

typically in this case, potentially invasive organisms) can also be transported from far-off regions

by the uptake and exchange of ballast water. There are thus many possible mechanisms – both

major and minor - by which chemicals associated with large multi-use vessels with their several

thousands of passengers and crew can reach the surrounding environment. And although

graywater and blackwater are probably paramount in terms of exposure routes, they are only two

of several important pathways that need to be considered in the case of “chemicals from cruise

vessels”.

In their recent petition to the US EPA, in which 54 environmental organizations initiated an

ongoing national EPA review of impacts of cruise ship pollution, the Blue Water Network

(2000) identified five main exposure pathways by which extraneous materials coming from

cruise ships can impact the marine environment. These pathways were: 

1. Sewage (black water),

2. Gray water,

3. Hazardous wastes,

4. Solid wastes, and

5. Oily bilge water.

After examining a few representative vessels first hand, and learning as much as possible about

the general issue of chemicals used, associated with, and generated from cruise ships, the Panel

reached many of the same conclusions about possible sources, pathways and their relative

importance as did the authors of the original Blue Water Network Report. The Panel thus tends

to concur in principle with this general scheme. However, we also propose three additional

exposure “pathways” by which chemicals associated with cruise vessels could conceivably reach

and impact the surrounding marine environment. The three additional pathways are:

6. Incineration (air),

 

35 For the purposes of this section the dispersion scenario often used will suffice. For a large cruise ship discharging

at a rate of 200 cubic meters per hour (considered an average maximum rate of discharge for a large cruise ship) and

traveling at the minimum allowed speed of 6 knots, the mixing will be greater than 50,000 to 1.
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

Science Advisory Panel

Commercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance Program November 2002

86

7. Ballast water, and

8. Vessel coatings.

For purposes of this report, these eight basic “pathways” will also in varying degrees of

importance be assumed to continuously interrelate with and contribute to the primary sources

(the likely chemical universe) of chemicals associated with large “typical” cruise vessels, as well

as serving as the key routes by which various chemicals might be transported from the vessel

into the surrounding environment.

The Panel notes that the cruise ship industry is aware of these pathways as well. The

International Council of Cruise Lines (ICCL) has recently instituted a number of mandatory

(must comply to maintain ICCL membership) practices to enhance recycling, waste

minimization, substitution of hazardous chemicals with less hazardous chemicals, zero-discharge

for certain wastes, and pursuit of best available technology (ICCL 2001).

Potentially Hazardous Chemicals (General Shipboard Universe of Chemicals)

Potentially hazardous chemicals that could come from large cruise vessels are made up of many

subcategories. Those of importance include such chemical products and by-products as:

Dry Cleaning fluids: Most commonly used, and of most concern in this group is the very

common dry cleaning fluid tetrachloroethylene, also known as perchloroethylene; PERC. At

least one major cruise ship line, Holland-America Lines (HAL) has recently taken steps to begin

eliminating PERC in its laundry facilities, in order to minimize possible impacts on both health

and environment. Because PERC is rapidly volatized, it is not persistent or highly

bioaccumulative in the marine environment. (Note: Precautions and safe work practice must be

observed to ensure individuals are not overexposed to vapors.) Spills of this material could at

least briefly result in adverse aquatic /ecological impact at sensitive or critical receptor site(s).

The 2000 Environmental Report for HAL indicates that they have added closed-loop charging

systems to their dry cleaning machines, in order to allow increased employee safety, greater

control and chemical management, and reduced consumption of PERC. This procedure will

reduce PERC vapors during machine charging. Also in place are filtration systems, which

remove PERC from dry cleaning process condensate on HAL’s Celebrity Class ships. HAL’s

target for 2001 was to evaluate alternative non-PERC dry-cleaning systems. Likely replacement

for PERC is the use of CO2 technology. Equipment for this type of dry cleaning process has

been recently modified for the maritime environment and installed on at least one of HAL’s large

vessels. The CO2 system will continue to be evaluated by HAL in the coming year.

Other Degreasing fluids /cleaning fluids (engine room, etc): Our visits to assess stocks and types

of chemicals aboard cruise ships have revealed relatively large quantities of various degreasing

and cleaning compounds used in areas where propulsion and engine-related work is performed.

These areas are also at and around the lowermost levels or bilge. The exact chemical

composition(s) of these degreasing fluids is difficult to accurately assess. Usually, only the

“Trade Name” of the product is displayed on the label. However, relatively large amounts were
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

Science Advisory Panel

Commercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance Program November 2002

87

noted, in 5-gallon drums and larger, on several ships. Further identification of these fluids, their

use, and the likelihood of their getting from a waste stream to the ocean (e.g., bilge pathway,) is

recommended.

We are not yet certain of the actual importance of degreaser compounds as potential

environmental pollutants. However, as described elsewhere in this document, we have noted that

the use of metal degreasers is both necessary and very important for machinery. Fairly large

quantities of liquid degreasing materials are commonplace on the vessels. Identifying the

various chemical ingredients making up these degreasing products can be elusive-- especially

fleet wide or on smaller vessels-- because “trade names” are often used in record keeping and

other manifest documents. In the past, many such degreasing compounds were primarily

trichloroethylene (TCE)-based. In recent years in most modern countries, the widespread use of

TCE for this purpose has been severely cut back, because of health and environmental concerns

about this chemical. The Panel notes that wastewater sampling and analysis in 2000-2002 has not

detected the presence of TCE in cruise ship wastewater.

Most of the rather large quantities of degreasers used on the vessels we have visited carry trade

names such as “Enviroclean”, in either 25-liter pails, or 210-liter drums. It would appear likely

that on the more modern and environmentally aware vessels these materials no longer contain

TCE or similarly chlorinated ethylenes or ethanes as active ingredients. But at the moment, we

know nothing at all – other than seeing the trade names on the labels - about what they actually

contain.

Other Cleaning materials: Large vessels like these typically have extensive interior and exterior

“brightwork”, which involves extensive use of brass, chrome, glass and other materials which

require rigorous daily effort in cleaning and polishing to maintain a lustrous and proper

appearance. Like large hotels, extensive square footage of carpets and staterooms need to be

cleaned and shampooed on a frequent basis. A variety of common cleaning chemicals,

brighteners and polishes are used aboard ship to accomplish these tasks. Except for the necessity

of having more need for polishes and sealants to help protecting exterior ship surfaces against the

corrosive effects of being continually at sea, the types of chemical products in question do appear

to not differ significantly from those used in a typical hotel on land.

Pesticides: From our visits to the representative large cruise vessels thus far, extensive or even

occasional use of pesticides which would unduly persist in the environment does not seem to be

practiced. Review of the available records for lines like Holland America have revealed that

most, perhaps all, of the “insecticides” used on board are in fact those which are pyrethroid

based, thus (under reasonable situations of use and management) posing only a minimal to nil

amount of potentially significant environmental harm and environmental persistence. This, plus

the fact that no “priority” pesticides like DDT, or other environmentally undesirable

organochlorine pesticides have ever been detected in any of the samples taken from Alaska

cruise vessels during the past three years of State led or mandated monitoring, makes it unlikely

in our view that pesticides currently used aboard reasonable and responsible cruise vessels are

likely to pose significant problems to the surrounding aquatic environment.
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

Science Advisory Panel

Commercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance Program November 2002

88

One particular pesticide of modern times – chlorpyrifos – is of routine concern to

ecotoxicologists and others who assess potential chemical impacts to the environment. Although

chlorpyrifos is apparently not used at all on the cruise vessels we have visited, its high-moderate

toxicity and its ability to persist for several weeks in aquatic environments makes it probably the

single most important type of “modern” or “recent” insecticide in terms of potential ecosystem

impacts. For this reason, we recommend that chlorpyrifos be specifically targeted as a chemical

we routinely inquire about, in future assessments of the types and amounts of pesticides used on

such large vessels for various situations requiring insect control. 

Photo lab: The photo labs on large vessels are not unlike photo labs on land. They utilize

significant quantities of developer, stop bath, fixer solution, etc. We have no detailed

information about specific quantities of chemicals used in photo labs, but what we have learned

from our visits and the available literature does indicate that the major cruise lines do strive to

keep these products properly and safely stored and utilized. Waste materials from these labs are

normally treated as hazardous waste, and offloaded in compliance with hazardous waste

requirements. It would seem unlikely that under normal situations these materials can exit the

vessel and cause ecosystem harm. ADEC and the Coast Guard routinely and randomly sample

wastewater for silver, a key component of photo lab chemicals. To date these agencies have not

found concentrations that would lead them to suspect dumping of photo lab chemicals into the

wastewater pathway.

Medical Lab/Infirmary: From what we have observed first hand from visiting representative

vessels of Holland America and Royal Caribbean Cruise Lines, most modern cruise vessels will

have a small but modern and well-equipped medical laboratory and infirmary on board. These

facilities contain the usual small but necessary core repertoire of medications, and some basic

small stocks of necessary reagents and solvents. They are stored in compliance with regulations,

and do not appear likely to enter waste streams or exposure pathways in any significant ways

which could impact the marine environment.

Printers: Holland-America Lines indicate that fleet-wide, the use of printing plates which require

chemical printing solution have been replaced with water-based printing plates. Other cruise

lines are following similar practices (ICCL 2001).

Spent explosives: These are used occasionally in small quantities for celebratory (theatrical

productions, parties, etc) and /or emergency (e.g., lifeboat flares) purposes, according to the

environmental report we have been furnished by HAL. They are treated as hazardous waste. 

Fluorescent ballast/Batteries/Butane Lighters: According to HAL environmental report of 2000,

these three materials are specifically targeted on board as hazardous waste materials, and

separated out from all other waste streams. Specially trained employees individually sort all

materials coming from such places as kitchen and food, passenger cabins, and common waste

areas. The three materials are combined together, and handled as special hazardous waste. They

are then offloaded for appropriate landfill disposal in Vancouver, by a private contractor. We
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

Science Advisory Panel

Commercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance Program November 2002

89

assume that other cruise lines do the same thing, but have no way of substantiating this at this

time other than recognizing the mandatory practices set forth by ICCL.

Miscellaneous: In food serving areas, HAL indicates that the use of Sterno as a warming fuel for

chafing dishes has been replaced fleet wide with a compound called “ecofuel”, which contains

no alcohol, is odorless, cleaner burning, and is not considered an air pollutant. It also has a lower

flash point and is housed in spill-resistant containers. We do not know the precise chemical

identity of this “ecofuel” at this time.

Pharmaceuticals, personal care products, fragrance materials and other emerging contaminants in

water; including “other organic wastewater contaminants” (OWCs) typically associated with

discharge from POTWs:

Some of the larger cruise vessels can carry as many as 3000+ passengers and crew at any given

time. These individuals, like the rest of the general population who utilize land- based sewage

systems and publicly owned treatment works (POTWs)-- bring aboard, utilize, shed, metabolize

and /or excrete a wide variety of pharmaceuticals. A good example of these is the general

category of anti-hypertensive drugs, which are taken by a significant portion of the middle aged

and elderly in our society of today. Such medications are typically metabolized in the body to

various other more polar (more water soluble) compounds or chemical groups, and excreted as

residues in urine and feces, thus entering (mostly) into the blackwater pathway from the vessels.

Various other drugs and medications such as antibiotics and steroids can either be taken orally or

applied topically to the skin, in which case they either enter the blackwater pathway as

metabolites via excreta, or go to the gray water pathway via washoff from showers and sinks.

Recent well-publicized findings of very low concentrations (maximum levels were less than one

part per billion (ppb), and more typically only a few parts per trillion (ppt)) of various

pharmaceuticals, other personal care products, and hormonal residues in river water resources by

the US geological Survey (Kolpin et al, 2000; Barnes, et al, 2002; and others (Daughton and

Ternes, 1999; Velagaleti et al, 2002) have raised the issue of whether or not these materials

would likely be of consequence as components of (e.g., via gray water pathway) discharges from

cruise ships into the marine environment. In a 2002 report from the USGS, in which samples

were taken in water bodies partially fed either by wastewater from treatment plants, or runoff

from confined animal feeding areas (CAFO’s; stockyards) the thirty most frequently detected

individual compounds found at trace (parts per trillion) levels belonged to the following general

groups:

1. Steroids (89% frequency of detection)

coprostanol (common marker found in sewage); is a sterol which originates in the

mammalian gut, and is thus a good marker for enteric sources of pollution.

2. Nonprescription drugs (81%)

3. Insect repellant (DEET) (74%)
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

Science Advisory Panel

Commercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance Program November 2002

90

4. Detergent metabolites (69%)

4-nonylphenol in particular is a common breakdown product from detergents

5. Disinfectants (66%)

triclosan, is a good example of a frequently noted chemical arising from the use

of various antibacterial soaps and lotions

6. Plasticizers (64%)

Important residues originating from “plastics include the phthalate acid esters,

such as diethyl-hexyl phthalate DEHP, and di-n-butylphthalate (DNBP), which

are frequently noted at trace levels in the environment, worldwide.

7. Fire retardants (60%)

8. Antibiotics(48%)

9. Insecticides (45%)

10. PAHs (44%)

11. Reproductive hormones (40%)

12. Other prescription drugs (32%)

13. Antioxidants (29%)

14. Fragrances (27%)

15. Solvent (24%)

For a good overview of current research efforts at identifying and ranking the very broad and

diverse universe of various pharmaceuticals and other compounds associated with waste water

discharges, it is worth noting that the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) is currently developing

methodology for a list of some 95 “new” target compounds which have been recently identified

as part of the USGS “National Reconnaissance of Emerging Contaminants in U.S. Streams”.

Their list of compounds – a few of which (e.g., PAHs) are already regarded as “Priority

Pollutants” in water – includes the following categories:

1. Veterinary and Human Antibiotics: N=22

Tetracyclines (e.g., chlortetracycline, N=4),

Fluoroquinones (e.g., ciproflaxicin, N=4), 

Macrolides (e.g., erythromycin, N=3)

Sulfonamides (e.g., Sulfamethoxazole, N=7)

Others (Lincomycin, etc. N=4)

2. Human Drugs (prescription): N=13

Metformin (antidiabetic agent), Cimetidine, Ranitidine (antacids)

Enalaprilat, Diltiazem (antihypertensives), Digoxin, Digoxigenin (cardiac care)

Fluoxetine, Paroxetine (antidepressants), Warfarin (anticoagulant)

Salbutamol (antiasthmatic), Gemfibrozil (antihyperlipidemic)

Dehydronifedipine (antianginal metabolite)

3. Human Drugs (non-prescription): N=6

Acetominophen (analgesic), Ibuprophen (anti-inflammatory, analgesic)

Codeine (analgesic), Caffeine (stimulant), 1,7,dimethylxanthine (caffeine metabolite)
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

Science Advisory Panel

Commercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance Program November 2002

91

Cotinine (nicotine metabolite)

4. Industrial and Household Wastewater Products: N=39

• Insecticides: N=8

Chlorpyrifos, Diazinon, Methyl parathion

cis-Chlordane, Lindane, Dieldrin

Carbaryl

N,N-diethyltoluamide (DEET)

• Plasticizers: N=5

bis(2-Ethylhexylphthalate, Diethylphthalate

bis(2-Ethylhexyl)adipate

Ethanol-2-butoxy-phosphate, Triphenylphosphate

• Detergent Metabolites: N=5

p-Nonylphenol 

Nonylphenol monoethoxylate (NPE01), Nonylphenol diethoxylate 

• (NPE02)

Octylphenol monoethoxylate (OPE01), Octylphenol diethoxylate (OPE02)

• Fire Retardants: N=2

Tri(2-chloroethyl)phosphate

Tri(dichloroisopropyl)phosphate

• Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAH; fossil fuel and combustion indicators): N=6

Naphthalene, Phenanthrene, Anthracene

Fluoranthene, Pyrene, Benzo(a)pyrene

• Antioxidants: N=5

2,6-di-tert-Butylphenol

Butylatedhydroxyanisole (BHA), Butylatedhydroxytoluene (BHT)

5-Methyl-1H-benzotriazole, 2,6-di-tert-Butyl-p-benzoquinone

• Others: N=8

Tetrachloroethylene (PERC) (solvent), Phenol (disinfectant)

1,4-dichlorobenzene (fumigant), p-Cresol (wood preservative) 

Triclosan (antimicrobial disinfectant)

Acetophenone (fragrance)

Phthalic anhydride (used in plastics), Bisphenol A (used in polymers)

5. Sex and Steroidal Hormones: N=15

• Biogenics: N=7
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

Science Advisory Panel

Commercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance Program November 2002

92

17b-Estradiol, 17a-Estradiol, Estrone, Estriol

Testosterone, cis-Androsterone

Progesterone

• Pharmaceuticals: N=5

17a-Ethynylestradiol, Mestranol, 19-Norethisterone (ovulation inhibitors)

Equilenin, Equilin (hormone replacement therapy agents)

• Sterols: N=3

Cholesterol (fecal indicator)

3b-Coprostanol (carnivore fecal indicator)

Stigmastanol (plant sterol)

Fragrance Materials (FMs) as a specific class of emerging trace contaminants:

Simonich et al (2002) report that the primary route of FMs into the environment is via consumer

products discharged down the drain to municipal wastewater systems. From the various USGS

studies cited above, fragrances or FMs made up a relatively low 27 per cent of the various types

of pharmaceutical and personal care types of ingredients detected in various wastewaters

sampled in the USGS (2002) survey. However, this structurally diverse class of compounds is

definitely an emerging group of chemicals, which merits attention. In recent years several

investigators have reported detections of trace quantities of some of these FM compounds and

their metabolites in both surface waters and aquatic organisms (Simonich et al, 2000). Simonich

and her colleagues indicate that the more common specific types of FMs detected to date in

wastewater most commonly belong to the following four groups:

1. nitromusks (e.g., musk xylene; (1-(1,1-dimethyl)-3,5-dimethyl-2,4,6-trinitrobenzene)

2. musk ketone (3,5-dinitro-2,6-dimethyl-4-tert-butylacetophenone)

3. polycyclic musks(e.g.,AHTN;7-acetyl-1,1,3,4,4,6-hexamethyl-1,2,3,4-

tetrahydronaphthalene)

4. HHCB (1,3,4,6,7,8-hexahydro-4,6,6,7,8,8-hexamethylcyclopenta-[gamma]-2-

benzopyran)

For other recent summaries about emerging “non-priority pollutant” contaminants in water see

the U.S. Geological Survey Website, describing its efforts at monitoring emerging contaminants

in U.S streams: http://toxics.usgs.gov/regional/emc.html

From the information presented and summarized at various points in this segment, it is evident

that generally speaking, the most frequently detected groups of such “non-traditional pollutants”

now being found in waters impacted directly from sewage runoff are steroids, nonprescription

drugs, insect repellant (DEET), and detergent metabolites. In terms of highest concentrations

noted in most studies of POTW wastes, detergent metabolites, steroids and plasticizers were the

three categories that stood out from the others. Fragrance materials (FMs) and certain of the

other of the other emerging target compounds being examined by the USGS and other

researchers may also reveal other future examples of personal care products/pharmaceuticals

which merit future attention.
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

Science Advisory Panel

Commercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance Program November 2002

93

Whether or not these heretofore mostly ignored, emerging chemical residues; or so-called “nonpriority pollutants”, are of importance to marine ecosystems is not known. However in view of

the very low (ppt) levels typically noted for these various OWCs, pharmaceuticals, and similar

“new” pollutants in receiving waters located below fixed and continuous land based point

sources, and the tremendous dilution factors which apply to the comparatively low volumes of

gray water and blackwater discharge, the Panel is quite doubtful that impacts of these chemicals

in the case of cruise vessels are significant. Certainly cruise ships–despite their size and their

need to process and clear wastes containing these various OWC / human-derived chemicals--

will produce neither the continuous discharges nor the much greater volumes /quantities of such

chemicals that are already entering riverine and near shore ecosystems from sewage, POTWs,

and other land-based waste treatment facilities. In other words, compared to POTWs on a massbalance basis, the contributions of these chemicals to the environment by cruise ships has to be

relatively minor in extent.

Review of the eight exposure pathways by which onboard chemicals could reach the surrounding

environment

1. Sewage & Graywater:

The past three years of sampling and analysis indicate that blackwater (sewage) and graywater

(shower, sink, and galley water) are remarkably similar in water quality. Both have been shown

to have (1) high levels of fecal coliform and suspended solids, (2) no measured hazardous

substances, and (3) somewhat elevated concentrations of trace metals (copper, zinc) and

plasticizers. Therefore these waste streams will be considered together. (bit of a tangent) Any

product or chemical that is water soluble or capable of being suspended in the wastewater can be

discharged overboard, and to those products we will limit our discussion.

As a general rule, large cruise ships generate 18 liters (5 gallons) of treated blackwater per

person per day and 180 liters (50 gallons) of graywater per person per day. The volume of

graywater and treated blackwater generated and discharged varies considerably from ship to ship

and region to region. Much of the variation depends on the treatment process employed.

However, looking at daily water consumption can give a general idea of the wastewater

produced. Of the 25 large ships operating in Alaska in 2002, the Alaska Department of

Environmental Conservation estimated the combined daily generation of graywater and treated

blackwater was 567 m3

/ship (~150,000 US gallons) or 240 liters per person on board. Three

years of sampling and analysis have not indicated vessels are using this pathway as a source of

hazardous waste disposal. Elevated concentrations of copper, zinc and plastiziers have been

detected. These levels, in general, are above marine water quality criteria but mirror the

concentrations found in residential tap water. Recent whole effluent toxicity tests of graywater

and blackwater effluent indicate little if any synergistic toxicity from wastewater constituents

(Appendix 8). That, coupled with the minimum 50,000 to 1 mixing ratio estimated by the Panel

in Section I, would seem to indicate that the wastewater pathway is not a significant one.

2. Hazardous wastes:
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

Science Advisory Panel

Commercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance Program November 2002

94

From what we understand from our various on-site observations while onboard large cruise

vessels, and from discussions with Holland- America Lines, the hazardous waste pathway most

likely will consist of materials which have been already discussed to some extent in the prior

section on “sources” (likely chemical inventory). 

Holland America Lines specifically identifies and deals with a special category of hazardous

wastes (which they designate “Special Waste”) which includes fluorescent ballast, batteries and

butane lighters, as well as discarded and expired chemicals, medical wastes, explosives, rags

/debris /fuel filters, dry cleaning wastes, photo wastes, spent paints and thinners. Holland

America Lines indicates that on its vessels, these specific wastes are sorted by hand, from other

waste streams on board. They are then pooled together as special hazardous waste to be offloaded for land filling by “approved” hazardous material private contractors in Vancouver, B.C.,

which they indicate is one of just fifteen ports world-wide where special wastes are sanctioned

for offloading for handling and disposal by qualified people. The 2000 Environmental Report

from Holland- America Lines indicates that the quantities of special wastes generated by their

entire fleet of 11 vessels, per week, are: 

Batteries, 75 lbs; 

Discarded and expired chemicals, 1735 lbs; 

Medical Waste, 45 lbs;

Fluorescent lights, 153 lbs;

Explosives (e.g., from signal flares, theatrical productions), 6 lbs;

Rags /debris /fuel filters, 78 gallons;

Photo wastes, 2262 gallons;

Spent paints and thinners, 213 gallons 

3. Solid Wastes:

Dunnage: The term “dunnage refers to materials which are used for packaging products, for

transportation or storage, and is makes up a relatively large portion of the waste generated by

cruise vessels. Dunnage includes primarily paper and plastic, and (at least in the case of Holland

America Lines, and presumably large cruise vessels in general) is either incinerated on board

(paper, cardboard), or landed for recycling or disposal. Holland America Lines indicates that

their vessels land or incinerate approximately 30 cubic meters of non-hazardous paper and

plastic, per ship per week. 

Plastic types of containers, wrappings, and similar polymers like styrofoam (polystyrenes, etc)

are ubiquitous in their use in modern society. As a consequence, low levels of phthalate acid

esters (e.g., di-n-butyl phthalate, Di-(2-ethylhexyl phthalate), and similar materials used in

common everyday plastics such as bread wrappers) are now routinely detected in various

environmental media, as a mark of our industrialized society. Indeed, elevated levels of

phthalates have been detected in gray and black water discharge.
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

Science Advisory Panel

Commercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance Program November 2002

95

Detected 2001 phthalates for large ships (μg/L)

(Geometric Mean)

From Table II-6, Section II

Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate butylbenzylphthalate Diethylphthalate

6.510 0.357 5.913

In an effort to significantly reduce the plastic components in its dunnage, Holland America has

recently (in 2000) eliminated the more than 5 million individually packaged containers of

shampoo and hair conditioners used annually in its passenger staterooms, and replaced them with

refillable bulk dispensers. To quote from Holland America Lines’ 2000 Environmental Report:

“...The company makes a significant effort in trying to eliminate packaging before products are

even brought to our ships. In some cases, disposable packaging has been replaced with reusable

cartons that are emptied and returned to the supplier for recycling and reuse. In other cases,

plastic wrapping materials have been replaced with paper and wood that can be reused or

incinerated. Cardboard, particularly cartons and packaging, is bundled for recycling in certain

ports. Plastic pails, from items such as laundry soap, are cleaned and landed or reused onboard

ships...”

Glass and Cans: These solid wastes include such items as aluminum soft drink cans, glass

bottles, and tin cans from the galley. Holland America Lines indicates that after these materials

are sorted and collected on board from their various waste streams, all glass is crushed, held in

cold storage rooms, and regularly brought to land for recycling. The Panel observed these

facilities and operations on several vessels. We observed that aluminum is separated from other

metals; all cans and other metal containers are then crushed, and landed for recycling as well.

According to Holland America Lines, one class of vessels (as an example) will land some 6000

pounds of crushed glass, and 450 pounds of compacted aluminum cans per vessel per week.

Food Wastes (see also Incineration Pathway): Large cruise vessels typically house several

specialized restaurants and cafes. Disposing of food wastes is a major segment of their waste

management. Using the waste management practices of HollandAmerica Lines as a typical

example, food wastes are first initially separated and sorted in the galley areas. Paper and plastic

(see comments on dunnage) are removed, and sent to different receptacles. Wet foods are then

pooled and sent to large garbage- disposal units on board (“pulpers”), which grind up the wastes

and remove the aqueous portion. This “waste water” then is recycled through the food slurry

line and discharged as gray water (see also gray water pathway). The remaining dried food

wastes are then incinerated on board. Holland America Lines estimates that each of their vessels

generates about 12 cubic meters of food waste each week.

4. Oily bilge water and oily sludge:

Oily bilge water: The pathway of oily bilge water is a significant source of chemicals aboard

cruise vessels. Whether or not this pathway allows significant transport from the vessel to the

surrounding ocean depends on the efficiency of the vessel in processing its liquid bilge
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

Science Advisory Panel

Commercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance Program November 2002

96

contaminants (removing oil and associated sludge), and the level of compliance with MARPOL

regulations and Alaska water quality standards, which require that bilge water be reduced to less

than 15 parts per million (ppm) oil, leaving no visible sheen, and discharged only outside the 12

mile limit from land. 

Bilge is a general term for the lowest part of the vessel. The bilge area thus becomes a natural

repository for water and various other liquid materials, from sources such as the engines and

propulsion system, and other mechanical and operational sources. As such, bilge water is

normally a mixture of not only water, but also various oily fluids, mechanical lubricants and

cleaning fluids and similar liquid wastes which can collect via gravity at this lowest point.

According to the waste management practices we have seen on visits to Holland America Lines -

that we assume to be typical - the bilge fluids are periodically pumped dry, and processed to

remove contaminants of concern. Most of the concern and regulations about bilge water is due to

its oil content. Separation and removal of the oil to comply with the allowable limit of 15 ppm

presumably also results in the removal or minimization of other hydrophobic hazardous wastes

like degreasing fluids, and other fluid materials associated with the propulsion system. It is our

understanding that although treated oily bilge water below the 15 ppm level of compliance for oil

may be discharged at sea outside the 12 mile limit, it is also under some circumstances offloaded

for processing at approved shoreside treatment facilities. According to Holland America Lines

2000 Environmental Report, all of their cruise vessels now contain equipment capable of

cleaning bilge water to less than 5 ppm oil. 

Oily sludge: According to Holland America Lines documents, and substantiated by our on-board

site visits to large cruise vessels, oily sludge material is first filtered from the bilge water, using a

series of sludge tanks. Holland America indicates that in this process, waste oils, greases,

lubricants and fuel filtering sludge coming from various shipboard operations and sources are

separated out and subsequently routed on to the sludge tanks. It is our understanding that both

international and US requirements forbid the ocean discharge of this oily sludge. It must be

landed for disposal. In most countries, including the USA, no further treatment of the landed

sludge is currently required. In most situations it is presumably taken to a landfill for disposal.

However in its 2000 Environmental Report, Holland- America Lines indicates that all sludge

from its vessels is recycled after landing, by approved waste contractors. Holland- America

Lines’ oily sludge material is recycled as a fuel source for such purposes as factory heating,

energy production, and in some situations is refined for re-use. 

Holland America Lines estimates that the amount of oily water recycled per ship, per week

ranges from a minimum of 2 metric tons36 to a maximum of 30 metric tons. The amount of oily

sludge recycled for landing–per ship per week–averages about 5.6 metric tons, and ranges from a

minimum of 4.7 metric tons to a maximum of 9 metric tons.

 

36 1 metric ton (tonne) of water = 1000 liters or 264 gallons
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

Science Advisory Panel

Commercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance Program November 2002

97

5. Incineration (Air-Water): 

As highlighted elsewhere in other sections, incineration of waste materials, particularly dried

food wastes and dunnage, is a common and efficient way to reduce the very large quantities of

wastes generated aboard large cruise vessels carrying several thousand people over long

distances at sea. Under most situations, incineration is a reasonable method of handling

appropriate wastes, with a relatively low degree of potential offsite pollution. From the large

body of information about incineration at land- based facilities we know that under certain

situations (especially inadequate temperature and inadequate dwell-time) – incineration of

certain hazardous materials can result in the formation of highly toxic and bioaccumulative

compounds such as dibenzo-p-furans and dibenzo-p dioxins. However, from what the Panel has

learned about cruise ship incineration practices in general, we do not regard the generation

and/or atmospheric/oceanic exchange of these types of hazardous chemicals to be a factor of

importance for large cruise vessels. Cruise ships employing reasonable practices appear to be

mindful of the necessity to screen all potential materials prior to allowing them to be incinerated.

According to the Environmental Report (2000) for Holland-America Lines, for example,

materials like batteries (cadmium, mercury, nickel, etc.), electronic parts, and butane lighters are

removed by workers prior to entering the incineration waste stream, and handled as special

hazardous waste to be landed, or recycled off-ship. In addition, large cruise ships do not operate

incinerators in port and, thus only underway.

Ash: The endpoint waste of all shipboard incineration is ash. Provided that the raw materials for

incineration have been adequately screened for potential toxicity as described above, the ash

generated in such a process should be unlikely to pose appreciable risks to health or

environment. According to Holland- America Lines, both USA and international law allow for

ocean discharge of ash, as long as it takes place outside the 12-mile limit. In the case of

Holland- America Lines, their 2000 Environmental Report indicates that the bulk of their

incinerator ash is landed and disposed by approved shoreside waste contractors.

Waste management information provided to the Panel by Holland- America Lines, indicates that

an average of 1 bag (1,100 pounds) of ash is landed, per ship, per week. Weekly minimum per

vessel is 0.5 bag (550 lbs.), with a maximum of 2 bags (2,200 lbs.) per vessel, per week.

6. Ballast Water:

Ballast water is used for ship stability. Tanks along the keel of the ship, usually called the

double bottoms, when filled with liquid lower the center of gravity and improve the ride of the

vessel. Double bottoms are usually dedicated for fuel, ballast or, increasingly in Alaska,

wastewater. Typically, as fuel oil is consumed from one tank, ballast water is taken on in the

dedicated ballast tanks to maintain the desired stability. Fuel tanks and ballast tanks are not

interchangeable; otherwise oily water could be illegally discharged. Ballast and wastewater

tanks may be interchangeable, if the vessel follows regulations and laws for proper wastewater

discharge. Ballast water taken on board while a ship is in another part of the world and

discharged in North America can be a mechanism for introducing unwanted and invasive
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

Science Advisory Panel

Commercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance Program November 2002

98

organisms. The U.S. Coast Guard is now finalizing a national ballast water policy to prevent the

introduction of foreign aquatic species into coastal and internal waters of the United States. For

now, cruise ships voluntarily change out ballast water well out to sea during their positioning

voyages to the Pacific Northwest from other parts of the world. Thus, for ships operating

between Vancouver, BC and Alaska, North Pacific ballast water is exchanged with North Pacific

ballast water.

7. Vessel coatings:

Underwater hull coating systems typically include a base anticorrosive coating (AC) covered by

an antifouling (AF) coating. If the AC is not damaged or otherwise exposed to the seawater, it

will not leach. The anti-fouling coat serves to inhibit marine growth on the hull. Marine fouling

is undesirable because it increases drag and fuel consumption, while decreasing vessel speed.

Most large cruise ship hulls are steel. Hulls of smaller vessels, including some small cruise

ships, and some specialty vessels (e.g., tenders and lifeboats) are often constructed of aluminum

or fiberglass sheathing. The coating system applied will vary with the hull material. For instance,

steel, fiberglass, and wood hulls are typically coated with copper-based coatings, and aluminum

hulls with tributyltin (TBT) or biocide-free silicone-based coatings.

AF topcoats control biological growth by ablating and/or releasing antifouling agents into the

surrounding water. This release is gradual and continuous. Since most hulls use copper-based

coatings; copper and zinc (another biocide commonly found in antifouling paints) are the most

common releases. Those aluminum-hulled vessels with TBT-containing coatings will release

TBT and small amounts of zinc, and may release copper, depending on the TBT coating

formulation. (EPA, 1999) Only slow release TBT coatings are allowed on vessels in Alaska per

Alaska Statute 46.03.715]

Zinc bars welded to steel hulls as sacrificial anodes for cathodic protection are also obvious

sources of zinc.

Well-maintained large cruise ships, with their small hull surface area in proportion to persons

carried, are not a significant source of antifoulants. Due to the lack of adequate maintenance and

high vessel traffic, marinas often have elevated levels of antifoulants. Stallard et al. (1987) noted

that the sediments of nearly every California marina tested had high concentration of butyltins.

Marina sites in North Carolina had significantly higher levels of arsenic, cadmium, chromium,

copper, lead, mercury, nickel, and zinc than did reference sites (NCDEM, 1991). McMahon

(1989) found significantly higher concentrations of copper, lead, zinc, and mercury in the

sediments at a marina site than in the parent waterbody. 

Suggestions for Monitoring Current-Use and "New" Chemicals 

The Panel suggests that the following chemicals be added to the list of current chemicals

monitored by the State of Alaska. If after one season's monitoring they are found to be nonoccurring in the gray water or blackwater pathway, then they could be discontinued. Note:
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

Science Advisory Panel

Commercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance Program November 2002

99

1. Contaminants:

Measure for chlorpyrifos and other new-generation pesticides, cosmetics, fragrances, drugs and

fire retardants for environmental impacts and their presence in landside point source discharges

which in turn might indicate a need for cruise ship monitoring. In this regard, Alaska should

coordinate the research of other states and federal agencies in accessing the significance of the

use of these materials and their impact. Selective monitoring in effluents, sediments and mussels

would be a natural outcome. Note: This is not targeted at cruise ships. It is a program of

adaptive environmental management.

2. Mass Balance Markers:

Coprostanol (fecal sterol) and caffeine, and /or its metabolite 1,7-dimethylxanthine, though not

toxic, would be good markers for mass balance study to underscore and verify the dilution

models and confirm that materials from wastewaters are not cumulative in coastal waters,

sediments or shellfish (such as mussels).
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

Science Advisory Panel

Commercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance Program November 2002

100

References

Barnes, K.K., D.W. Kolpin, M.T. Meyer, E.M. Thurman, E.T. Furlong, S.D. Zaugg, and L.B.

Barber, 2002. Water-quality data for pharmaceuticals, hormones, and other organic

wastewater contaminants in U.S. streams, 1999-2000. USGS Open-File Report 02-94. 7

pp. U.S. Geological Survey, Information Services, Bldg. 810, Federal Center, Box

25286, Boulder, CO , USA 80255.

Blue Water Network. 2000. March 17, 2000 letter to US EPA Administrator. Available at

www.bluewaternetwork.org

Daughton, C.G. and T.A. Ternes, 1999. Pharmaceuticals and personal care products in the

environment: agents of subtle change? Environmental Health Perspectives 107: Suppl. 6,

p 907-938. December.

EPA. April 199. Uniform National Discharge Standards for Vessels of the Armed Forces. EPA821-R-99-001. p.457

Kolpin, D.W., E.T. Furlong, M.T. Meyer, E.M. Thurman, S.D. Zaugg, L.B. Barber, and H.T.

Buxton, 2002. Pharmaceuticals, hormones, and other organic wastewater contaminants

in U.S. streams, 1999-2000: a national reconnaissance. Environmental Science and

Technology 36: (6), p 1202-1211. 

ICCL. 2001. ICCL INDUSTRY STANDARD E-01-01 (Revision 1) CRUISE INDUSTRY

WASTE MANAGEMENT PRACTICES AND PROCEDURES.

http://www.iccl.org/policies/environmentalstandards.pdf

McMahon, P.J.T. 1989. The Impact of Marinas on Water Quality. Water Science Technology,

21(2):39-43.

NCDEM. 1991. Coastal Marinas: Field Survey of Contaminants and Literature Review. North

Carolina Division of Environmental Management, Raleigh, NC. Report No. 91-03.

Simonich, S.L., W.M.Begley, G. Debaere, and W.S. Eckhoff, 2000. Trace analysis of fragrance

materials in wastewater and treated wastewater. Environmental Science and Technology

34:(6), 959-965. 

Simonich, S.L., T.W. Federle, W.S. Eckhoff, A. Rottiers, S. Webb, D. Sabaliunas, and W.

DeWolf, 2002. Removal of fragrance materials during U.S. and European wastewater

treatment. Environmental Science and Technology 36:(13), 2839-2847.

Stallard, M., V. Hodge, and E.D. Goldberg. 1987. TBT in California Coastal Waters:

Monitoring and Assessment. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 9:195-220. D.

Reidel Publishing Company.
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

Science Advisory Panel

Commercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance Program November 2002

101

Velagaleti, R., P.K. Burns, M. Gill, and J. Prothro, 2002. Impact of current good manufacturing

practices and emission regulations and guidances on the discharge of pharmaceutical

chemicals into the environment from manufacturing, use, and disposal. Environmental

Health Perspectives 110: (3). P213 - 220. March.
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

Science Advisory Panel

Commercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance Program November 2002

103

Section IX

Small Commercial Passenger Vessels

Carolyn Morehouse

Summary

Small ships are defined as having 50-249 overnight passengers. These ships discharge

continuously, including at anchor and in port. Because they discharge continuously, it is

difficult, if not impossible, to obtain a representative sample. Small ships are sampled in port,

when passengers are not normally on board. 

Small ships collect graywater in small tanks and then discharge using a pump or discharge the

graywater directly from drains to the ambient water. Some ships manage graywater using a

combination of both practices. The graywater management practice depends on ship

configuration. Most small ships do not have space for wastewater holding tanks. Black water is

treated in Marine Sanitation Devices (MSD) before discharge. The Alaska Marine Highway

System (AMHS) ferries and two small passenger ships mix their graywater and blackwater and

treat both effluents with their MSD. 

The majority of small ships’ travel in Alaska is concentrated in the southeast, however one small

ship operates in Prince William Sound and two small vessels operate in the Aleutians and Bering

Sea for less than 20 days per season.

To put the quantity of wastewater discharged from small cruise ships in perspective, one can

compare the volume from small ships to that from large cruise ships. Large and small cruise

ships and ferries discharge approximately 559,802 m3 (147,704,923 gallons) of wastewater

annually in Alaskan waters37. Of this total, small cruise ships and ferries discharge an estimated

33,666 m3

 (8,882,860 gallons), roughly 6% of the total annual cruise ship and ferry wastewater

discharge.

Sampling and analysis of small ship graywater and treated blackwater in 2000 and 2001 found

high concentrations of fecal coliform and total suspended solids on most ships (Section II).

Sample results from the biological treatment systems show that these treatment systems, as

currently operated on board small ships, do not meet effluent standards for bacteria and

suspended solids.

The macerator/chlorinating system when used on small ships has demonstrated an ability to treat

wastewater to meet fecal coliform bacteria and total suspended solids standards. However, this

is achieved by the use of high levels of chlorine. Chlorine is an effective disinfectant but

excessive chlorine residual is toxic to marine life. A standard should be set for residual chlorine

to prevent excessive chlorine from entering the marine environment.

 

37 This number is based on Vessel Specific Sampling Plans received by the DEC in 2000, 2001, and 2002. 
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

Science Advisory Panel

Commercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance Program November 2002

104

Section I discusses the significant mixing and dispersion of wastewater discharged from a

moving vessel. Small ships, with the exception of one “larger” small ship, discharge blackwater

automatically when treatment is complete. Graywater is usually not treated and is discharged

directly to an overboard port. When small ships discharge at anchor or in port, the wastewater is

not diluted with ambient water by dynamic mixing that occurs when underway. The Panel

therefore, recommends that wastewater discharge from small ships should be avoided at the head

of fjords, bays, and other areas of low net marine water outflow (Sections VI, VII).

ADEC hired a contractor to perform a risk screen to determine if the discharge from small ships

presents an ecological or human health risk. The results of this risk screen should be completed

in January 2003 and will be available on the ADEC cruise ship website.38

Background

In 2001, the Alaska legislature passed a law to regulate cruise ship and ferry wastewater

discharges to Alaska marine waters. The law applied to ships with 50 or more lower berths.

Cruise ships are divided into two classifications, small cruise ships with accommodations for 50-

249 overnight passengers and large cruise ships with accommodations for 250 or more overnight

passengers. Five of the Alaska Marine Highway System (AMHS) ferries are defined as small

ships under Alaska law.

The state law regulates two types of wastewater: blackwater and graywater. Blackwater

originates from ship’s toilets. Graywater is water produced from showers, sinks and laundry.

Graywater comes from three main sources: (1) galley or kitchen areas, (2) passenger/crew

accommodations, and (3) laundry facilities.

The 2001 law set fecal coliform and TSS effluent discharge limits for both gray and blackwater

for large ships but delayed compliance for small ships until January 1, 2004. The law requires

ADEC to submit a report that addresses adverse impacts on human health and the environment

from small ship discharges to the Governor by December 2002.

Operation

Small ships do not have the same per person water usage as large vessels. Large vessels are

more water intensive because they do laundry up to 20 hours per day, produce food and cleanup

24-hours per day. The volume of gray water on a large cruise ship is 50 gallons per day (gpd)

per passenger, whereas on a small cruise ship it is 25 gpd per passenger. The per passenger gray

water discharge for the AMHS ferries is even less than 25 gpd. The AMHS ferries’ passenger

number varies with the season because more passengers travel during the summer. In addition,

few ferry passengers are on the ship for extended periods of time and consequently not all ferry

passengers use the shower or galley facilities. Passenger black water production is the same on

large and small cruise ships, however most small ships use seawater for flushing rather than fresh

water. The average flow rate from a small ship ranges from 2.5 to 5.0 gallons/minute for both

gray and black water, with a peak around 45 gallons/minute for short periods.

 

38 http://www.state.ak.us/dec/cruise.htm
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

Science Advisory Panel

Commercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance Program November 2002

105

Small ships have more flexibility with their itinerary than large ships. Large ships mainly travel

from port to port and to Glacier Bay or another glaciated fjord, whereas small ships can anchor in

smaller coves. Some small ships leave Juneau and do not visit another port until they arrive back

in Juneau many days later.

The dilution white paper (Section I) concluded that there is little environmental effect from

wastewater discharges that occur while a vessel is traveling at least 6 knots and is one mile from

shore. This is due to the large volume of water displaced by the hull and the mixing action from

the propellers. Small ships, with exception of three large small ships that have holding tank

capacity, discharge automatically. When the treatment system is complete, the wastewater

effluent is discharged. Discharges that occur while the vessel is tied up in port or at anchor are

not mitigated by dilution.

Some small ships provide kayak tours from the vessels. If the vessel is discharging above the

waterline while the kayaks are around the boat, there is the potential for human contact with

fecal coliform bacteria and other microorganisms either from the port or effluent in the nearsurface ambient water.

Cruise ships and ferries are required by law to track their wastewater discharge locations. Most

large ships comply by keeping a log that includes the time and latitude and longitude where the

discharge began and ended. This method of tracking a discharge event works reasonably well

for large cruise ships that have discrete discharge events. However, for small cruise ships and

ferries that discharge continuously, the operators could only state the vessel route and the times

and dates that the vessel was anchored. They also estimated the volume of wastewater produced

based on the number of passengers and crew. (See Table IX- 1 and Table IX- 2 for typical

number of passengers and crew per vessel.)

Table IX-1: Small Cruise Ship Facts

Ship Name

Approximate

Length (feet)

Maximum

number of

passengers and

crew

Maximum amount

Black water

Produced

(gallon/day) includes

seawater for flushing

Maximum

amount of

Graywater

Produced

(gallon)/day

Wilderness Adventure 100 96 480 2400

Wilderness Discoverer 110 120 600 3000

Sea Bird 150 96 480 2400

Sea Lion 150 102 510 2550

Clipper Odyssey 200 204 1020 5100

Yorktown Clipper 200 200 1000 10000

Hanseatic 400 320 1600 16000
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

Science Advisory Panel

Commercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance Program November 2002

106

Ship Name

Approximate

Length (feet)

Maximum

number of

passengers and

crew

Maximum amount

Black water

Produced

(gallon/day) includes

seawater for flushing

Maximum

amount of

Graywater

Produced

(gallon)/day

Spirit of Oceanus 295 178 890 8900

Spirit of Discovery 166 105 525 2625

Spirit of ‘98 192 122 610 4880

Spirit of Columbia 143 99 495 2475

Spirit of Alaska 110 95 475 2375

Spirit of Endeavour 217 130 650 3250

Table IX-2: AMHS Ferry Facts

Ship Name

Approximate

Length (feet)

Maximum

Number of

passengers and

crew

Maximum Amount

Black water

Produced

(gallon/day) includes

seawater for flushing

Maximum

Amount of

Graywater

Produced

(gallon)/day

Taku 300 412 1030 4120

Columbia 350 566 1415 5660

Malaspina 350 550 1375 5500

Matanuska 250 548 1370 5480

Kennicott 400 790 1975 7900

Maps were created from the 2001 discharge and route information provided by the small cruise

ships. (See Figures IX-1 and IX-2.) The maps cover the peak month of July. The maps were

created from the vessel itineraries using a fair amount of interpretation. Assumptions are listed

in the metadata for the geographical information system (GIS) map. The maps are therefore

intended to provide general information regarding small vessel movements and discharge

quantities and are not an exact tool.
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

Science Advisory Panel

Commercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance Program November 2002

107

Small ships visit the following places:

• Elfin Cove, Chichagof Island

• Hoonah, Chichagof Island

• Glacier Bay

• Excursion Inlet

• Skagway

• Haines

• Juneau

• Tracy Arm Bar 

• Inside Endicott Arm (Sanford Cove)

• Gambier Bay, Admiralty Island

• Warm Springs Bay, Baranof Inland

• Red Bluff, Baranof Island

• Wrangell

• Petersburg

• Misty Fjords

• Sitka

• Baranof Warm Springs

• College Fjord

• Columbia Bay

• Cordova

• Metlakatla

• Petersburg

• Prince Rupert

• Sergius Narrows

• Seymour Narrows

• Whittier

• Thomas Bay

• Victoria, B.C.
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

Science Advisory Panel

Commercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance Program November 2002

108

Figure IX-1 Small Passenger Vessel Discharge Events 
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

Science Advisory Panel

Commercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance Program November 2002

109

Figure IX-2 Small Passenger Vessel Discharge Events in Ports and Bays of SE AK
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

Science Advisory Panel

Commercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance Program November 2002

110

Treatment Systems

The AMHS ferries and two small passenger ships mix their gray and blackwater before 

treating the combined flows with their macerator/chlorinator MSD.

Some small ships treat graywater by adding chlorine to the discharge line or holding tank.

Chlorine is effective for disinfecting, however excessive chlorine residual is toxic to marine life.

Small ships collect graywater in tanks and then discharge using a pump or discharge the

graywater by gravity to the ambient water. Some ships manage graywater using a combination

of both practices. Graywater management practices depend on the ship’s configuration. Most

small ships do not have wastewater holding tanks.

Individual ship’s treatment systems are listed in Table IX- 3. All small ships treat blackwater in

a USCG approved Type II Marine Sanitation Device (MSD). Most small ships operating in

Alaska treat sewage using a macerator/chlorinator system, except for the two largest of the small

ships that treat sewage with biological systems.

The macerator/chlorinator system treats waste using a macerator pump to cut and break up

solids. Sodium hypochloride is produced by electrolysis of the seawater and is used for

disinfection. The volume of seawater used is up to 10 times the volume of wastewater.

There are several shortcomings with the macerator/chlorinator system. One operator experienced

failure of the macerator pumps used to break up the solids. The pump manufacturers claimed

that the pumps were not being operated and maintained according to their specifications.

Regardless of the reason for pump failure, the solids were not sufficiently broken up and the

system failed. The sampling program provides a check to ensure that systems are functioning

properly. 

Sometimes, when in estuaries or other marine waters that have low salinity, small ships need to

add salt tablets to ensure there is enough salt to produce chlorine. Some vessels have been

adding liquid chemical sodium hypochloride (bleach) to supplement the limited amount of

chlorine produced by the electrochemical cell in low saline waters.
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

Science Advisory PanelCommercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance Program November 2002

111

Table IX-3. Small Commercial Passenger Vessel Wastewater TreatmentSmall Vessel Operator Small Vessel Name Discharging

Graywater (GW)within Alaska?

DischargingBlackwater (BW)within Alaska?

Wastewater TreatmentSystem Type****

Alaska Marine Highway System Columbia Yes Yes Macerator/chlorinator Alaska Marine Highway System Kennicott Yes Yes Macerator/chlorinator Alaska Marine Highway System Malaspina Yes Yes Macerator/chlorinator Alaska Marine Highway System Matanuska Yes Yes Macerator/chlorinator Alaska Marine Highway System Taku Yes Yes Macerator/chlorinator Clipper Cruise Lines Clipper Odyssey Yes Yes Clipper Cruise Lines Yorktown Clipper Yes Yes Macerator/ Electrocatalytic CruiseWest Spirit of 98 Yes Yes Biological/Chemical CruiseWest Spirit of Columbia Yes Yes Macerator/ Electrochemical CruiseWest Spirit of Discovery Yes Yes Biological / Chemical CruiseWest Spirit of Endeavor Yes Yes Macerator/chlorinator CruiseWest Spirit of Oceanus Yes Yes Biological & Chemical Glacier Bay Tours Wilderness Adventurer Yes Yes Macerator/chlorinator Glacier Bay Tours Wilderness Discoverer Yes Yes Macerator/chlorinator Hapag-Lloyd Hanseatic No No Biological/ Chlorination Lindblad Expeditions Sea Bird Yes Yes Macerator/chlorinator Lindblad Expeditions Sea Lion Yes Yes Macerator/chlorinator Seabourn Cruise Lines Seabourn Spirit No No Biological & Chemical Society Expeditions World Discoverer Yes Yes Unknown  Treats both black and gray water in the MSD unless indicated in the comments
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

Science Advisory PanelCommercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance Program November 2002

112

SamplingComparison Of Treatment System SuccessMacerator/chlorinatorIn April 2002, the Alaska Marine Highway System (AMHS) discovered that their wastewater samples had been c

the treatment process prior to chlorination. Samples taken after May 1, 2002 were collected after chlorination. Tsamples taken before May 1, 2002 have a fecal coliform geometric mean of 5,740 fecal colonies per 100 ml of w

Samples taken after May 1, 2002 have a geometric mean of 3.4 MPN/100 ml fecal colonies per 100 ml of water comparison also shows that those samples collected in the proper location have a slightly lower biological oxygelower chemical oxygen demand (COD) and higher chlorine residual.Table IX-4: Alaska Marine Highway System: Summary Geometric Mean for Conventional Pollutants

Time

Number

of

samples Test Ammonia pH BOD COD TSS Total Cl2 Free Cl2

Fecal

Coliform

Bacteria 

n = mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l MPN/100ml 

AMHS Geo 8.88 7.37 81.15 874.95 50.8 0.67 0.14 5,740 from2000-April 2002

11

Mean

AMHS Geo 0.38 7.58 7.47 686.79 45.8 9.08 6.12 3.4 May 2002-Present

6

Mean
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

Science Advisory Panel

Commercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance Program November 2002

113

This data demonstrates that a properly operated macerator/chlorinator systems can meet the

effluent standards of 200 fecal coliform colonies/100 ml and 150 mg/l of total suspended solids

(TSS). A residual chlorine limit is needed, however, to prevent over-chlorination and its toxic

effects to aquatic life. 

Biological

Sample results from the five ships with biological systems show that this treatment system, as

currently operated on board small ships, cannot meet effluent standards for bacteria and

suspended solids. Those vessels, however, have holding tanks and could wait to discharge their

wastewater until traveling at a minimum of 6 knots and more than 1 mile from shore, thereby

benefiting from dilution and increased distance from shellfish consumed by humans.

Data Overview

A summary of small ship conventional pollutant data received by September 30, 2002 is

contained in Table IX- 5. The limited laundry and galley wastewater sample data indicate low

fecal coliform counts for these types of graywater. The laundry sample data collected from

dedicated holding tanks shows few to no fecal coliform. The accommodation graywater samples

also had few fecal coliforms. 

The treated blackwater and the treated BW&GW mixed effluents had similar sample results,

except for ammonia where the treated BW had much higher results. As one would expect, gray

water treated with chlorine had fewer fecal coliform bacteria than untreated graywater, however

it had higher BOD and COD. The higher COD could result from chlorine reactions. There were

a greater number of untreated graywater versus treated graywater samples. The BOD results of

the untreated graywater ranged from 2.79 to 1010 mg/l. Because there are more untreated

graywater samples than treated graywater samples, the geometric mean of the BOD for untreated

graywater samples is lower than the BOD of treated graywater samples. The treated gray water

also had a higher TSS than untreated gray water. The cause of this result is unknown.
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

Science Advisory PanelCommercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance Program November 25, 2002

115

Table IX-5: Small Ships: Summary Geometric Mean for Conventional Pollutants 2001 and 2002 data 

Wastewater Type n =

Ammonia

mg/l pH

BOD

mg/l

COD

mg/l

TSS

mg/l

Total Cl2

mg/l

FREE Cl2

mg/l

Fecal Coliform

bacteria

MPU/100ml

Treated Blackwater 14 31.50 7.65 21.51 1004.25 97.57 0.30 0.15 1,546 BW&GW mixed &treated 19 1.34 7.25 58.08 930.01 61.14 1.12 0.38 1,414 Mixed Graywater(chlorine treated) 4 - 7.90 382.70 880.36 186.88 78.62 58.72 1,225 Mixed Graywater(untreated) 9 7.29 6.97 95.42 228.30 52.90 ND ND 99,096 GraywaterAccommodations 10 - 6.74 164.28 174.00 24.33 0.11 0.05 9 Graywater Laundry 2 0.25 9.13 123.21 319.00 21.45 0.35 0.18 2 Graywater Galley 2 - - 247.40 - 42.63 2.21 - 50 

ND = non detectDashes “-“ indicate that a pollutant was not analyzedSince the regulations were not in place in 2002, the small ships sampled only parameters listed in the law. AlkaOil & Grease, Conductivity, Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN), Phosphorous, Total Organic Carbon (TOC), and to(TSS) data were not collected. The 2002 ADEC samples include these analyses.The individual small ship conventional sample data are listed in the Tables IX-6 and IX-7. More discussion of tincluded in Section II.
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

Science Advisory PanelCommercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance Program November 25, 2002

116

 Table IX-6. Conventional Samples taken by ADEC

AlkalinityTotal asCaCO3

Ammonia asN

BOD 5Day COD Oil & Grease Fecal Coliform MPN Free Cl2 Condu ctivity TKN pH Phosphor ous, Total T

MDL 0.34 0.016 1.0 3.4 1.0 2 0.1 1.0 0.1 0.1 0.011 0.

Jul-20-02 Matanuska BW&GW- MSD 79.5 1.27 134 451 27 1 10 23000 17.6 6.88 2.38 25 Jul-22-02 Columbia BW&GW- MSD 166 29.4 117 495 30 22 12 22800 42.4 7.67 5.65 20 Jul-10-02 Kennicott BW&GW- MSD 76.3 0.0008 0.05 870 0.05 1 25 31200 28.7 8.1 0.0055 40 Jul-9-02 Malaspina MSD-1 62.3 0.121 0.05 514 13 1 2.5 23800 0.8 7.91 0.345 3.Sep-4-02 Spirit of Columbia **  TBW 21.4 146 700 200 0.05 NA 7.26 0.Jul-9-02 Spirit of Oceanus BW&GW- MSD 21.1 870 1610 3000000 0.05 NA 5.26 0.Aug-22-02 Taku BW&GW- MSD 148 10.7 177 780 37 5000 10 28200 48 8.33 4.92 15 Jul-13-02 York Clipper TBW-MSD 116 6.32 5.47 512 8.5 2400 0.05 34500 5.7 7 2.33 0.Jul-13-02 York Clipper GW 61 0.0008 138 228 52 1 0.05 369 0.4 8.19 0.856 0.

Min 61 0.0008 0.05 228 0.05 1 0.05 369 0.4 5.26 0.0055 0.Max 166 29.4 870 1610 52 3000000 25 34500 48 8.33 5.65 40 GeoMean 94.2 0.8 20.6 601.1 9.8 81.5 0.9 14576 7.9 7.3 0.8 1.

** Graywater sample not taken for this ship because no graywater was produced during the sampling per

ship.
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

Science Advisory PanelCommercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance Program November 25, 2002

117

Table IX-7: Samples taken for ADEC by Industry

AmmoniaNitrogen 

BOD5 Day COD Fecal Coliform Total Cl2 Free Cl2 

Date Vessel Name Water type mg/l mg/l mg/l MPN mg/l mg/l 

MDL 0.016 1.0 3.4 2 0.1 0.1 

7/18/02 Sea Bird TBW 23.5 105 461 4000 2.2 1.4 7/18/02 Sea Bird GW 0.971 263 621 1 2.7 1.8 7/21/02 Sea Lion TBW 10.9 335 767 30,000,000 0.05 0.05 7/21/02 Sea Lion GW 0.752 364 678 1 0.05 0.05 8/4/02 Sea Lion GW 1.48 536 1210 5000 0.05 0.05 8/4/02 Sea Lion TBW 26.7 293 996 220000 0.1 0.05 7/6/02 Spirit of 98 GW 0.796 47.1 149 2 0.05 0.05 7/6/02 Spirit of 98 TBW 102 127 897 220 1.2 0.8 8/3/02 Spirit of 98 TBW 15.3 164 940 30,000 0.05 0.05 7/22/02 Spirit of Columbia TBW 21.4 70.1 1020 10 0.2 0.05 8/5/02 Spirit of Columbia TBW 21.4 146 700 200 0.1 0.05 7/18/02 Spirit of Discovery TBW 77.2 112 949 5,000,000 0.05 0.05 7/18/02 Spirit of Discovery GW ND 35.4 44.2 60,000 0.22 0.14 7/11/02 Spirit of Endeavour TBW 83.3 478 1400 16,000,000 0.05 0.05 7/11/02 Spirit of Endeavour GW 0.691 450 927 16,000,000 0.05 0.05 7/17/02 Spirit of Oceanus BW&GW 58.4 1060 1810 5,000,000 0.2 0.05 7/1/02 Wilderness Adventurer BW&GW 74.2 175 614 140 2.0 1.0 7/3/02 Wilderness Discovery BW&GW 52.4 643 1120 23 0.05 0.05 8/19/02 Wilderness Adventurer BW&GW 39.2 174 931 2200000 2.1 1.1 

Wilderness Adventurer BW&GW 42.4 163 800 500000 2.1 1.1 

Min 0.008 35.4 44.2 1 0.05 0.05 

Max 102 1060 1810 30000000 2.7 1.8 

Geo

Mean 9.7 203.8 701 8586 0.20 0.14 

ND= non detect
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

Science Advisory Panel

Commercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance Program November 2002

118

Representative Sampling

Small ships discharge in port but have a difficult time obtaining representative samples

during in-port sampling. The ship’s port time is spent disembarking passengers and

getting ready for the next trip. There is usually little wastewater produced during this day

in port.

To get a truly representative sample some vessels need to be sampled while underway.

This was economically unfeasible in the 2001 and 2002 seasons when a third party was

required to take the samples. Once a voyage has begun, small vessels often will not

return to another port for days and it would be an economic hardship to leave quarters

empty to accommodate the sampler. The Alaska “cruise ship program” regulations,

effective November 15, 200239, will allow for vessel employees who meet particular

qualifications to conduct wastewater sampling. This has the potential to increase the

representativeness of small ship wastewater samples in the future.

It is also difficult to get a representative sample from some small vessels because of the

ship’s physical configuration. It is sometimes economically infeasible or physically

impossible to sample every wastewater discharge line or get a composite of the different

graywater types from the various discharge points.

Several of the 2002 wastewater samples from small ships were questionable and some

were discarded. ADEC sampled the Wilderness Discovery on July 15, 2002. The sample

line was at the tank bottom and the tank was low. It was concluded that the sample line

was too low and the sample was sludge, so it was discarded.

Samples from the Spirit of Columbia (July 22, 2002) and Spirit of 98 (August 3, 2002)

were questionable and were not included in the table. The sample plans for these vessels

call for samples to be taken as near as possible to the arrival time of the vessel. However,

the samples were taken over 3 hours after the ship arrived.

The scheduled DEC sampling of the Spirit of Columbia on September 3, 2002 was

terminated because the graywater looked atypical. The discharge line had a room number

on it, and when the sampler asked to see the room, it was found that the crew had been

running the shower. Although shower water is gray water, these samples are not

representative of graywater discharges and will not be included in the statistical analysis.

 

39 Link to regulations will be available on the ADEC Cruise Ship website:

http://www.state.ak.us/dec/press/cruise/cruise.htm
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

Science Advisory Panel

Commercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance Program November 2002

119

Section X

Monitoring Contaminants in the Alaska Marine Environment

Alan Mearns, Michael Watson, and Ken Hall

Summary

Traces of organochlorine compounds (PCB's, pesticides), petroleum hydrocarbons,

butyltin compounds (from antifouling paint) and trace elements (arsenic, copper, zinc,

etc.) have been found in mussels sampled at five Alaska coastal sites by the National

Status and Trends Program (NSTP) of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration (NOAA). The sites, sampled biennially in the spring, include two in

Southeast (Ketchikan and Skagway), two in Prince William Sound (Valdez and Unakwik

Inlet) and Homer Spit, all adjacent to both commercial and non-commercial vessel traffic

lanes. For most organic chemicals, concentrations in mussels from these sites have been

much lower than in mussels elsewhere along the U.S. Pacific Coast (California, Oregon

and Washington). Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) are ten times lower than

along the rest of the Pacific Coast and 100 to 1000 times lower than in mussels from

urban bays of the West Coast. Several organochlorines, namely lindane-related

compounds, are equal to or higher in mussels from Alaska than in those from further

south along the U.S. west coast: this is probably due to the precipitation and snow-melt

runoff of these compounds from global atmospheric sources. For trace metals,

concentrations in Alaska mussels have been typical of expected "background"

concentrations. A half dozen metals are higher in mussels from the least "urbanized" site,

Unakwik Inlet, than from the more urbanized sites (Skagway, Ketchikan, Valdez,

Homer). The metal lead (Pb) has been elevated in mussels from a site at Skagway, but is

now approximating concentrations found elsewhere in Alaska. With the possible

exception of mercury, there have been no longterm increases in contamination but some,

such as PCB's and PAHs, have been decreasing in concentrations during the past decade

or more; the slight increase in mercury is most notable at the least urbanized site

(Unakwik Inlet).

Other data sources indicate that PAHs in mussels from marinas and boat harbors in

Prince William Sound are as high or higher than in mussels from the West Coast urban

bays.

Time and resources did not allow for analysis of data on contaminants in sediments or

fish from these and other sites nor have we completed a review of historical data on

contaminants in commercial fishes of Alaska from large-scale surveys conducted during

the late 1960s through the 1970's.

Obviously, more data from Alaska coastal sites are needed, at the right time (summer), to

determine if passenger vessel activity is a relevant contributor to coastal contamination,

for example in remote tourist destinations such as Glacier Bay and Tracey Arm. 
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

Science Advisory Panel

Commercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance Program November 2002

120

Environmental monitoring provides a check that regulatory actions have their intended

benefit and reduces uncertainty that there are no surprises. Although it is important to

note that the Panel believes cruise ships are not likely to contribute measurable

contamination, an enhanced monitoring of contaminants in mussels and sediments in

Southeast Alaska, Prince William Sound, along the Kenai Peninsula, and in Cook Inlet,

during the tourist season, could provide a valuable tool in assuring that state coastal

waters remain relatively uncontaminated. 

Introduction

The final step in the Science Advisory Panel approach and framework is to determine if

cruise ship activity is in fact leading to contamination of adjacent waters, sediment and

resources.

This white paper uses limited data to help answer several questions:

1. What are concentrations of contaminants along the Alaskan coastline traversed by

passenger vessels?

2. How does chemical contamination at these sites compare to elsewhere?

3. Are contaminant concentrations increasing, decreasing or remaining unchanged?

4. What, if any, additional monitoring needs to be done to make sure cruise ships and

other sources are not contaminating Alaskan shorelines?

The information offered here presents a dilemma. A limited amount of contaminant

monitoring has been underway along the Alaska coast, but it was not specifically

designed to intercept contamination from passenger vessels, or distinguish vessels from

other sources. It was designed to track regional trends, away from obvious chronic point

sources. The dilemma is whether or not to use the information at all: if contamination

was found, what was the source? And if contamination was not found, does that mean

there is none?

Ironically, with the notable exception of the Exxon Valdez oil spill monitoring, there

apparently does not exist any report on the state of the Alaska coast with respect to

marine environmental contamination (such as exists for other states and regions). Any

effort at synthesis would be a "first."

With this in mind, the Panel decided to move ahead. As will be evident, below, this may

be the first time that specific statements can be made about the status and trends of a host

of contaminants in Alaska marine waters.

Background And Approach

Past and Recent Environmental Chemistry Monitoring Programs

Unfortunately, no region-wide monitoring programs have yet been established along the

Alaskan coast to adequately document contaminant trends in Alaskan marine coastal

areas. However, there are data from a few sources and localities that might provide some

clues. These include the NOAA National Status and Trends Program and the Prince
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

Science Advisory Panel

Commercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance Program November 2002

121

William Sound Regional Citizens Advisory Council (RCAC) Long Term Monitoring

Program. A relevant data source is the NOAA National Status and Trends (NS&T)

Program. From 1984 to 1990 the NOAA NS&T Program analyzed contaminants in

sediments and bottom fish at several Alaska sites as part of a nation-wide "Benthic

Surveillance" program conducted by the NOAA Fisheries Montlake Laboratory in

Seattle. In 1986, the NOAA NS&T Program began measuring contaminants in intertidal

mussels, and adjacent sediments, at several Alaska sites as part of a new National

"Mussel Watch" (MW) Program (O'Connor, 1998). That sampling has continued through

2001 at five sites (Mountain Point near Ketchikan, Nahku Bay adjacent to Skagway,

Mineral Creek Flats east of Valdez, Siwash Bay at Unakwik Inlet in northern Prince

William Sound, and Homer Spit in Cook Inlet). Sampling at the Valdez and Unakwik

sites began in 1986 whereas sampling at the other three did not begin until 1993.

The data from these programs are relevant because they include most of the contaminants

also analyzed in the 2000 and 2001 cruise ship wastewater monitoring conducted under

the Alaska Cruise Ship Initiative. The chemical list includes PCBs, organochlorine

pesticides (such as DDTs), polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and a suite of 14

trace metals (such as lead, Pb, copper, Cu, and mercury, Hg).

The data from these programs are also relevant because the sites are located along routes

of high vessel activity. For example, Mountain Point is located on a channel at the

entrance to Ketchikan; the Nahku Bay site is less than one mile from the Skagway docks;

Mineral Creek Flats is inshore of the vessel traffic route approaching Valdez; the Siwash

Bay, Unaqwik Inlet site is along the route between Valdez and Whittier, and; Homer Spit

is at the entrance to a busy vessel port. If vessels are discharging sufficient amounts of

wastewaters near these areas, or if they have done so in the past, their contributions to

contaminants could be measurable.

Why Mussels?

Mussels are filter feeding bivalve (two-shelled) mollusks that live in sometimes-large

clusters in the inter-tidal zone along the entire North American coastline. They attach

themselves to rocks and other surfaces (floats, pilings) where they filter large quantities

of water, straining out tiny marine algae and other particles. Mussels accumulate

contaminants (metals, pesticides, hydrocarbons) and other trace substances in their soft

tissues, from very low (often undetectable) concentrations in the water. They can retain

accumulated contaminants for periods of several weeks to several months (depending on

the contaminant, water temperature, and season). As a result, mussels are extremely costeffective biomonitors of contaminants in the adjacent water and have been used by

environmental chemists for four decades to track patterns and trends of chemical

contamination in coastal areas. The one- to three-inch long blue mussel, Mytilus

trosselus, is the most common intertidal mussel in sheltered areas along the coast from

the Aleutians to northern California, where it is replaced by the very similar European

mussel, Mytilus edulis and, on exposed coastlines, by the large California mussel,

(Mytilus californianus).
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

Science Advisory Panel

Commercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance Program November 2002

122

Mussels from Baja California to British Columbia were first used as biomonitors during

the 1960's to track the rise and fall of radionuclide contamination originating from atomic

testing in the Pacific and discharges from the Columbia River (Hanford) in Washington.

Since then mussels, and oysters, have been employed in numerous national, regional and

local surveys to monitor trends in chemical pollution. In Alaska, beginning in the early

1990's, the Prince William Sound Regional Citizens Advisory Committee (PWS RCAC)

has employed a "mussel watch" program to track contaminant trends in that area. Since

1986, the NOAA National Status and Trends (NS&T) Program has used mussels (and, on

the east coast, oysters) to track contaminant trends at the national and regional scale. The

NOAA NS&T Mussel Watch Program has five mussel watch sites in Alaska as part of its

250 station program.

The 2000-2001 Mussel Watch program generated data on 106 individual chemical

analytes including 18 PCB congeners, 6 DDT isomers, 3 dieldrin-related pesticides

(dieldrin, aldrin and endrin), 7 chlordane-related compounds, 4 hexachlorohexane

compounds (HCHs, including lindane), pentachloroanisole (a pentachlorophenol

product), 4 chlorinated benzenes, mirex, chlorpyrifos, three butyltin compounds and 14

trace elements (such as cadmium and mercury). Many of these chemicals have also been

measured in passenger vessel wastewater.

Constraints and Limitations of the NOAA NS&T Program Sampling

There are clear constraints on using and interpreting mussel and surface sediment

contaminant data from these sites. There are many sources other than passenger vessels,

such as surface water runoff and land-based point sources. If a "hit" (high concentration)

of a chemical is discovered, the source will remain uncertain pending further

investigation.

There is a second constraint to using these data. Samples collected to date were taken in

late-winter/early-spring, just before the tourist season begins. Mussels retain

contaminants for several weeks to months and are a good indicator of recent pollution

activity but not necessarily pollution from sources occurring a year earlier than the

collection. Thus the data currently available for Alaska probably are most useful in

documenting pre-season or "background" contamination. Surface sediments will retain

contaminants much longer, but are also subject to burial by fresh sediment, and

considerable mixing, so that their contaminant concentrations may not reflect the most

recent inputs.

Mussel Watch Results

In Appendix 9, Tables D-1 to D-3 summarize contaminant concentrations in mussels

from the five Alaska sites sampled in March through April 2001. Data from each site are

presented along with a statistical summary. In addition, we present a statistical summary

of 2000 and 2001 contaminant concentration data from 58 sites along the remainder of

the US West Coast, from Imperial Beach, California to Point Roberts, WA, near the USCanada boundary. This summary allows comparison of the Alaska sites with those

elsewhere on the same coast, providing perspective. In addition, we began, but did not
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

Science Advisory Panel

Commercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance Program November 2002

123

complete, an analysis of long-term trends at the Alaska sites and at selected remote West

Coast sites. We also began, but did not complete, a comparison of 2001 Alaska mussel

contaminant concentrations with relevant subsistence seafood consumption guidelines.

A summary of our findings for each chemical group is presented in the discussion, below.

Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs)

(Refer to Appendix 9 Tables-D-1a and D-1b)

Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons include a wide variety of "ring" or "benzene"

compounds that are present in crude oil, fuels, and products of combustion, including

internal combustion engine emissions, cigarette and wood smoke. PAH compounds

range from two-ring volatile easily evaporated) chemicals, such as naphthalenes, to large

five- and six-ring non-volatile compounds such as benzo-(a)-pyrene, a potent carcinogen.

A total of 44 PAH compounds have been monitored in the National Mussel Watch

Program, a number sufficient to produce "fingerprints" that may help distinguish sources

oil, fuels, combustion, etc).

Status. The 2001 average total PAH (T PAH) concentration in mussels from the five

Alaska sites was 86.6 ppb dry weight (dw) ranging 3-fold from 52.5 ppb dw in the

mussels from Unakwik Inlet to 144 ppb dw in the samples from the Homer Spit site. By

contrast, the average T PAH concentration in mussels for the remainder of the West

Coast was nearly 10 times higher, 1982 ppb dw with a range of 34.8 to 46,700 ppb dw (at

a site in Elliot Bay near Seattle).

Concentrations of individual PAH compounds are shown in Table D-1a. Naphthalene

was the dominant PAH at all five sites, ranging from 8.6 to 14.1 ppb dw. This was

followed by phenanthrene with an average concentration of 10.7 ppb dw. By contrast,

the dominant PAHs in mussels from the remainder of the US West Coast in Table D-1b

were fluoranthene (average 326 ppm dw) and pyrene (193 ppm dw).

The large number of PAH's analyzed in these mussels can be used to help us determine

whether the sources are primarily from spills or from combustion products. One tool is

the Fossil Fuel Pollution Index (FFPI), which is the ratio of the sum of all PAHs directly

derived from oil or coal divided by the total of all PAHs. A high ratio (well above 0.5)

indicates oil or fuel may be a dominant factor whereas a low ratio (well below 0.5) would

suggest dominance by combustion sources. The FFPI for North Slope crude oil is 0.95.

The average FFPI for the PAHs in mussels sampled from the Alaska sites in 1997 was

0.56 ranging from 0.45 at the site near Skagway (NBES) to 0.68 at the Homer Spit site.

By contrast, the average FFPI for PAHs in mussels from the remainder of the West Coast

was 0.45, ranging from 0.16 to 0.88. This means that Alaska PAH compounds tended to

reflect oil or fuel as a source whereas elsewhere along the US West Coast more of the

PAH pattern was driven by combustion sources.

Trends. Analytic uncertainties preclude developing long-term trends for PAHs using data

prior to 1990. Concentrations in mussels from the Alaska sites varied in the range of

about 50 to 200 ppb dw TPAH (18) with a trend of variable but higher concentrations, at
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

Science Advisory Panel

Commercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance Program November 2002

124

the two long-term sites, to about 1995-97, and decreasing at all five sites thereafter. By

comparison, TPAH concentrations in mussels along the outer coast of the Pacific

Northwest (PNW) (12 sites) have been comparable, in the range of 20 to 400 ppb dw, but

with no clear trend other than low concentrations in the mid-90's. By 2001, TPAH 18

concentrations at the Alaska sites were in the range of 20 to 80 ppb dw whereas those

along the PNW outer coast were in the range of 20 to 300 ppb dw.

Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs)

(Refer to Tables D-2a and D-2b)

Status. The 2001 average (mean) total PCB concentration in mussels from the five Alaska

sites was 13.1 ppb dw ranging from 7.81 ppb dw at Unakwik Inlet to 24.3 ppb dw at the

site near Skagway. By contrast, the 2000-01 average for the U.S. West Coast (58

samples) was nearly twenty times higher, or 149 ppb dw with a range of 7.5 ppb dw at

the Humbolt Bay jetty to 1430 ppb dw at San Diego's Harbor Island.

Comparison to Seafood Consumption Guidelines. On a wet weight (ww) basis, the basis

for evaluating seafood consumption risk, the Alaska value is about 1.6 ppb ww (range 1.3

to 4.9 ppb ww). EPA, although very conservative in its risk assessment modeling and

recommendations, has not established a current screening value for subsistence fishers

who utilize mussels as a significant part of their diet. However, under EPA’s most recent

guidance for assessing chemical contaminant data for use in fish tissue advisories

(USEPA, 2000), a screening level of approximately 10 ug/kg (ppb, wet weight) total

PCBs in fish tissue is calculated as the upper level value below which non-carcinogenic

health endpoints due to PCBs would be unlikely in subsistence fishers. Using theoretical

carcinogenic health endpoints as an even more conservative risk assessment endpoint—a

screening value for “avoiding” theoretical excess PCB cancer risk of 10^-5 (or one

chance of excess cancer in one hundred thousand)—is calculated by EPA using a fish

tissue level of about 2.4 ug/kg, wet weight total PCBs. These values are based on an

individual who consumes about 19 meals per month (calculated at about 142.4 g/day, for

a 70 kg individual over a 70 year lifetime. Thus (in contrast to PCB levels noted for

mussels along the coast of the Lower 48) the average PCB concentrations in mussels

from these five Alaska sites are consistently below even EPA’s most conservative and

recent modeled subsistence risk estimates for PCBs in fish tissue.

Trends . Over the period 1986 to 2001, T PCB's concentrations in mussels from the

Alaska sites varied from 1 to nearly 100 ppb dw and with a very distinctive longterm

pattern or cycle. Concentrations at the two very longterm (14 year) sites, Valdez and

Unakwik Inlet, were high in 1986 decreasing by a factor of 10 (to about 10 ppb dw) by

the early 1990's, then increasing to a second peak (30 to 40 ppb dw) in 1999 and

decreasing again to 10 to 20 ppb dw in 2001. Sampling did not begin at sites at

Ketchikan, Skagway and Homer Spit until 1995, but these nonetheless followed the longterm trend at that time: increasing until 1999 and then decreasing.

Comparable data from 11 sites along the outer coast of the Pacific Northwest

(Washington to California) indicate that Total PCB's in mussels there were higher (range
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

Science Advisory Panel

Commercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance Program November 2002

125

2 to about 300 ppb dw) but also experienced the same long-term temporal pattern

(decreasing in the 1980-'s, increasing in the 1990's and decreasing again by 2000-2001).

The similarities of temporal patterns between these two regions suggest that both areas

experienced the same systematic and/or large-scale pattern, with absolute concentrations

at individual varying as a result of local conditions.

DDTs

Status. The 2001 average (mean) total DDT concentration (sum of 6 isomers) in mussels

from the five Alaska sites was 1.52 ppb dw ranging from 0.89 ppb dw at Unakwik to 3.3

ppb dw at Skagway. By contrast, the 2000-01 average for the remaining U.S. West Coast

(58 sites) was nearly 60 times higher, or 64.9 ppb dw with a range of 2.01 at Fogarty

Creek near Yaquina Head, Oregon, to 492 ppb dw at Emeryville near Berkeley, CA.

Comparison to Seafood Consumption Guidelines. On a wet weight basis (the basis for

evaluating seafood consumption risk), the Alaska average DDT concentration is about

0.3 ppb ww (range 0.18 to 0.66 ppb ww). As in the case of PCBs, EPA has not

developed a screening level for tissue concentrations of total DDT specifically for

mussels consumed by subsistence users. However, the current EPA guidance for fish

tissue advisories (USEPA, 2000) recommends an upper screening level in edible fish

tissue of 245 ppb wet wt. for non-carcinogenic effects, and 14 ppb ww for carcinogenic

effects (10^-5 risk level). Thus, the mussels from these five Alaska sites are well below

EPA’s most recent and highly conservative modeled screening values for assessing

theoretical excess health risk due to DDT concentrations in fish consumed by subsistence

populations.

Trends. Concentrations of DDT in marine life along the U.S. West Coast have been

declining steadily since the pesticide was banned in the early 1980's. An analysis of

trends for Alaska is underway.

Chlordanes

Status. The 2001 average (mean) total chlordanes concentration (sum of 7 compounds) in

mussels from the five Alaska sites was 1.39 ppb dw ranging from 0.89 ppb dw at

Unakwik to 3.0 ppb dw at the site near Skagway. By contrast, the 2000-01 average for

the remaining U.S. West Coast (58 sites) was nearly 20 times higher, or 15.9 ppb dw with

a range of 1.5 dw at a site in Hood Canal, WA, to 149 ppb dw in Elkhorn Slough,

Monterey Bay, CA.

No Alaska mussels contained all 7 compounds. The chlordane compounds measured at

highest concentration (i.e., dominating the chlordane mix) at all five sites were heptachlor

epoxide, alpha chlordane, and trans-nonachlor. Heptachlor was not found at any site.

Oxychlordane was not detected in mussels at two sites: Valdez and Unakwik.

Comparison to Seafood Consumption Guidelines. On a wet weight basis (the basis for

evaluating seafood consumption risk), the Alaska total chlordane mean is about 0.3 ppb

ww (range 0.18 to 0.6 ppb ww). EPA’s current upper level target screening
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

Science Advisory Panel

Commercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance Program November 2002

126

concentrations (ref) for total chlordane in fish tissue consumed by subsistence fishers are

nearly identical for those listed previously for total DDT. For chlordane, the levels for

non-cancer endpoints, as well as for theoretical carcinogenic endpoints (10^-5 risk level)

are 245 ppb ww. and 14 ppb ww respectively. Thus, as is the case for total DDT

residues, the mussels from these five Alaska sites are well below total chlordane fish

tissue concentrations which would be likely to pose a likelihood of theoretical health risk

concern to subsistence fishers.

Trends. Chlordane was banned for use in the US and Canada in 1977 although remaining

stockpiles could be used under specific circumstances (Shigenaka, 1992).

Concentrations in mussels at many sites along the US West Coast were declining in the

1980's (Shigenaka, 1992). An analysis of trends for Alaska is needed to confirm

concentrations have been decreasing here.

Dieldrin and Related Pesticides

Three compounds make up the dieldrin-related group. The most abundant is dieldrin,

which is also the common environmental degradation product of aldrin.

The 2001 average (mean) dieldrin concentration in mussels from the five Alaska sites

was 0.44 ppb dw, ranging from 0.23 ppb dw at Valdez to 0.85 ppb dw at the site near

Skagway. By contrast, the 2000-01 average for the remaining U.S. Pacific Coast (58

sites) was nearly 20 times higher, or 7.32 ppb dw with a range of 0.42 at a Coos Bay, OR,

site to 184 ppb dw at Emeryville near Berkeley in San Francisco Bay. Aldrin was not

detected at any Alaska site whereas its mean concentration along the remaining West

Coast was 0.03 ppb dw (range 0 to 1.66 ppb dw). Endrin was detected at one of the five

Alaska sites, near Skagway (0.12 ppb dw). Its mean concentration along the remaining

Pacific Coast was 0.54 ppb dw ranging from 0 to 9 ppb dw.

Dieldrin pesticides may still have limited use in the US, but continuing use elsewhere.

An analysis of trends for Alaska is needed to confirm concentrations have been

decreasing here.

HCH (Hexachlorohexane) Compounds

The pesticide lindane (gamma HCH) was commonly used during the mid 20th century; it

and related HCH compounds are banned in US, but still in wide use around the globe.

The 2001 average (mean) total HCH concentration (sum of 4 compounds) in mussels

from the five Alaska sites was 2.03 ppb dw, ranging from 1.16 ppb dw at Valdez to 2.47

ppb dw at Homer Spit. The 2000-01 average for the remaining U.S. Pacific Coast (58

sites) was nearly the same or 2.54 ppb dw, but with a range of 0.29 to 8.67 ppb dw. Thus

HCHs are one group of compounds for which the Alaska sites have levels of

contamination similar to those along the rest of the West Coast.

Lindane (gamma HCH) was present in mussels at all five Alaska sites but was not the

major HCH compound. Delta HCH was not detected at any of the sites. Alpha HCH
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

Science Advisory Panel

Commercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance Program November 2002

127

dominated total HCH concentrations in samples from all five sites. Beta HCH was the

second most abundant HCH at four sites.

Concentrations of HCH compounds in Alaska, mean 0.38 ppb, are similar to those in the

lower West Coast sites, mean 0.42 ppb. This is not surprising and is consistent with our

current knowledge that these compounds condense in northern latitudes from global

atmospheric sources (e.g., Simonich and Hites, 2001). An analysis of trends for Alaska is

needed to confirm the suspicion that concentrations are being maintained and perhaps

increasing here.

Chlorpyrifos

Chlorpyrifos was detected in mussels from four of the Alaskan sites in 2001. The mean

concentration was 0.4 ppb dw ranging from 0 at Ketchikan to 0.73 ppb dw at Skagway.

The 2000-01 average for the remaining U.S. West Coast (58 sites) was 0.39 ppb dw

ranging from 0 at many sites to 3.78 ppb at the Samoa Bridge near Eureka, CA.

Mirex

Mirex was not detected at any Alaska site in 2001. The 2000-01 average for the

remaining U.S. West Coast (58 sites) was 0.07 ppb dw with a range of 0 at many sites to

a maximum of 0.77 ppb dw at one site.

Chlorinated Benzenes

Four chlorinated benzenes were measured in mussels from all five Alaska sites. The

most abundant was the pesticide and fumigant, hexachlorobenzene, HCB.

The average concentration of HCB in the 2001 Alaska mussels was 0.60 ppb dw ranging

only two-fold, from 0.48 ppb dw at Homer Spit to 0.97 ppb dw at the site near Skagway.

These concentrations are similar to those for the entire Pacific Coast with a mean of 0.64

ppb dw and ranging from 0 at Imperial Beach near the US-Mexico border, to 10.9 ppb dw

at Samoa near Eureka, CA.

Tetra 1,2,3,4 chlorobenzene was detected in mussels at four Alaska sites in 2001. The

average was 0.09 ppb dw with a range of 0 at Skagway and Valdez to 0.3 at Unakwik

Inlet. Concentrations in mussels from the remaining West Coast (58 sites) averaged 0.04

and ranged from 0 at most sites to 0.52 ppb dw at Point St. George on the northern

California coast.

Tetra 1,2,4.5 chlorobenzene was not detected in any Alaska mussels in 2001.

Concentrations in mussels from the remaining West Coast (58 sites) ranged from 0 at

most sites to 3.21 ppb dw at Cape Flattery on the Washington coast.

The average concentration of pentachlorobenzene in Alaska mussels was 0.08 ppb dw

ranging from 0 at Valdez to 0.12 ppb dw at the Skagway site.
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

Science Advisory Panel

Commercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance Program November 2002

128

Chlorophenols

Pentachloro anisole is a derivative of pentachlorophenol, a formerly-popular wood

preservative. Pentachloroanisole was detected in low concentrations in mussels at all five

Alaska sites sampled in 2001, with a average of 0.24 ppb dw and ranging from 0.20 at

Unakwik to 0.29 ppb dw at Homer Spit. The average pentachloroanisole concentration in

mussels from the remainder of the US West Coast in 2000-01 averaged 1.34 ppb dw, 6

times higher than the Alaskan, with a range of 0.30 ppb dw at Bird Rock, Catalina Island,

CA to 4.13 ppb dw at Point St. George in northern California.

Butyltins (Anti-Fouling)

Tributyl tin (TBT) is an organic tin compound widely used in vessel antifouling paints

during the 1970's and early 1980's. Its use on vessels smaller than 75 meters was banned

in the US during the mid 1980's, but its use continued on hulls of larger ships.

TBT was detected and quantified in mussels from all five Alaska sites sampled in 2001.

The average concentration was 4.97 ppb dw ranging from 2.93 ppb dw at Unakwik Inlet

to 7.43 ppb dw at the site near Valdez. The site near Skagway had the second highest

concentration, 7.10 ppb dw. By contrast the average TBT concentration in mussels from

the remainder of the West Coast in 2000-2001 was eight times higher than in Alaska,

with an average of 24.8 ppb dw ranging from 0 to 189 ppb dw in mussels from the San

Pedro Fishing Pier, California.

Two TBT "sister" compounds, monobutyl tin (MBT) and dibutyl tin (DBT) were also

detected at the Skagway site (3.72 and 8.96, respectively) and the Valdez site (2.27 and

5.57 ppb dw, respectively. Dibutyltin was also detected (2.14 ppb dw) at the Homer Spit

site. Neither compound was detected at the Ketchikan nor Unakwik Inlet sites. The

average concentrations of these compounds in mussels from the remainder of the West

Coast were 1.95 and 9.89 ppb dw, respectively, with the highest concentrations at 39 and

80 ppb dw, respectively. A fourth butyltin, tetrabutyltin, was not detected at any site in

Alaska or along the remainder of the US West Coast.

Lipid Content

Variations in lipid (fat) content of marine animals can affect interpretation and

comparison of organic chemical concentrations. Lipid concentrations in the 2000 Alaska

mussels averaged 3.85% dry weight (0.54% on a wet basis) with a range of 2.62% at

Valdez to 4.76% at the site near Ketchikan. These concentrations were somewhat lower

than those for the entire Pacific Coast: the average was 5.05% with a range of 2.8 to 13.2

%.

Trace Elements

(Refer to Tables D-3a and D-3b)
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

Science Advisory Panel

Commercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance Program November 2002

129

Human health standards for the consumption of seafood are included for several

elements. Please note that standards do not exist for all elements.

Silver (Ag)

Silver concentrations in mussels vary considerably and, in the past, high concentrations

have been interpreted as indicators of sewage pollution (Martin et al., 1988). The high

concentrations once indicative of municipal wastewater no longer exist. Sources of silver

from cruise ships could include photo-lab wastes and wastewater from silverware; the

same is true for sources from adjacent towns and cities.

The average concentration of silver in mussels collected in 2001 in Alaska was 0.75 ppb

dw, ranging from 0.15 at Homer Spit to 1.70 at the Unakwik Inlet site (Table X- 2). By

contrast, silver concentrations in mussels from the remainder of the West Coast collection

averaged 1.01 ppm dw ranging from 0.03 at Port Townsend, WA, to 6.48 ppm dw at the

Oceanside Beach Jetty in San Diego County, CA.

Aluminum (Al)

Aluminum is the most common metal on the earth, but has no known biological function.

Its presence in mollusks may indicate the amount of sediment they have filtered.

The average concentration of aluminum in the 2001 Alaska mussel samples was 644 ppm

with a range of 62 to 1149 ppm dw. This is comparable to the mean concentration of

506, and range of 29 to 1668 ppm dw in mussels from the remainder of the West Coast

(Table 3).

Arsenic (As)

Arsenic, a potent poison when bioavailable in sufficient concentrations, is a natural trace

element in the ocean, but can be increased locally by anthropogenic sources such as

mining operations. The average concentration of arsenic in the 2001 Alaska samples was

13.6 ppm dw ranging from a low of 12 ppm dw in the Skagway mussels to 15 ppm dw in

the Unakwik samples. These concentrations are slightly higher than the average (11.6

ppm dw) for the remaining West Coast mussels, where the range was higher (5.9 to 30.8

ppm dw).

Over the period from 1986 to 2001, arsenic concentrations in mussels from the two

Alaska sites (Homer Spit and Unakwik Inlet) experienced concentrations in the same

range (8 to 15 ppm dw) as in mussels from the three Pacific Northwest sites (Cape

Flattery and Grays Harbor Jetty, WA, and Hobson Point, Tillamook Bay, OR). No longterm trend was obvious in either region, but arsenic concentrations at the Alaska sites

appeared to decrease from 12 to 15 ppm dw in the 1980's to 10 ppm dw in the early

1990's and then increase again thereafter, whereas concentrations experienced more interannual variation at the Pacific Northwest sites.
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

Science Advisory Panel

Commercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance Program November 2002

130

There is a possibility that arsenic, like cadmium (see below) is higher in mussels from

open coastal promontories which can experience episodes of upwelling of deep ocean

water containing naturally-enriched concentrations of several trace elements.

Cadmium (Cd)

Cadmium, common in batteries and other metallurgical materials, is also toxic in

sufficient concentrations and, like arsenic, is also a natural trace element in the oceans.

The average concentration of cadmium in the 2001 Alaska samples was 4.33 ppm dw

ranging from a low of 1.95 ppm dw in the Homer Spit mussels to 6.28 ppm dw in the

samples from the site near Skagway. These concentrations are nearly identical to the

average (4.24 ppm dw) for the entire Pacific Coast collection, but the range there was

wider (0.43 to 15.6 ppm dw).

Over the period 1984 to 2001, cadmium concentrations ranged from about 2 to 5 ppm dw

in mussels from the two Alaska sites but from 4 to nearly 12 ppm dw in mussels from one

of the more remote Pacific Northwest sites, Cape Flattery. Despite the high inter-annual

variability at the Pacific Northwest sites, there was no long-term trend in either region.

As mentioned above, it is now well known that high concentrations of cadmium can

occur in mussels and other shellfish collected near upwelling areas (Stephenson et al.,

1979a).

Chromium (Cr)

Chromium is a common industrial metal with high toxicity in its most oxidized form,

chromate. However, the dominant form in sewage is the non-toxic trivalent form. It is

also a natural trace element in the ocean and especially in serpentine (?) soils, which

occur in scattered locations along the Pacific Coast. The average concentration of

chromium in the 2001 Alaska samples was 2.08 ppm dw ranging from a low of 0.71 ppm

dw in the Skagway mussels to 6.01 ppm dw in the samples from the Unakwik Inlet site.

These concentrations are slightly lower than the average (3.1 ppm dw) for the remainder

of the West Coast mussels, but the range there was higher (1.07 to 11.8 ppm dw).

Copper (Cu)

Copper is a potentially toxic (to aquatic organisms) trace element with many uses. It is a

significant component of Alaskan geology and a natural trace element in the ocean. The

average concentration of copper in the 2001 Alaska samples was 8.4 ppm dw, ranging

from 7.17 ppm dw in the Ketchikan mussels to 10.8 ppm dw in the samples from

Unakwik Inlet. The Alaska concentrations are slightly lower than the average (9.1 ppm

dw) for the remainder of the West.

Mercury (Hg)

Mercury is a toxic trace element with well-known uses in medicine, electronics and other

activities. It too is a natural trace element in the ocean, and, with the possible exception

of cadmium in certain situations, is the only metal (in an organic form) known to undergo
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

Science Advisory Panel

Commercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance Program November 2002

131

biomagnification through marine food chains. The average concentration of mercury in

the 2001 Alaska mussel samples was 0.110 ppm (110 ppb) dw, ranging three-fold, from

0.083 ppm (83 ppb) dw in the Valdez mussels to 0.154 ppm (154 ppb) dw in the samples

from Unakwik Inlet. These concentrations are slightly lower than the average (0.137

ppm or 137 ppb dw) for the remainder of the West Coast.

The traditional seafood safety limit has been 0.5 or 1.0 ppm, but on a wet weight basis

(USEPA 2000). The values reported above are dry weight. Mussel tissue averages about

80% water. Therefore on a wet basis (dry concentration divided by about 5), the 2001

Alaska mussel mercury concentration averaged 0.022 ppm with a range of 0.016 to 0.030

ppm ww, all well below the 0.5 ppm ww criteria USEPA 2000).

Over the period (1984 to 2001) mercury concentrations in mussels from the Alaska sites

varied 6-fold from about 0.025 to 0.15 ppm dw with a slight increase over the long term

monitoring period.

Manganese (Mn)

Manganese is an important trace element with moderate toxicity, yet also occurs naturally

in the ocean. The average concentration of manganese in the 2001 Alaska mussel

samples was 20.9 ppm dw, ranging three-fold, from 9.37 ppm dw in the mussels from

Ketchikan to 28.1 ppm dw in the samples from the site near Valdez. These

concentrations are slightly lower than the average of 23.9 ppm dw for the remaining West

Coast samples, but the West Coast range was higher, 4.4 to 146 ppm dw.

These values are much lower than the human health criteria of 100 ppm for the

consumption of seafood (USEPA 1976 and USEPA 1999).

Nickel (Ni)

Nickel is a common trace element with moderate toxicity, yet also occurs naturally in the

ocean. The average concentration of nickel in the 2001 Alaska mussel samples was 3.93

ppm dw, ranging three-fold from 1.51 ppm dw in the mussels from Ketchikan to 7.03

ppm dw in the samples from the site near Valdez. These concentrations are slightly

higher than the average 2.69 ppm dw for the remainder of the West Coast samples, but

the West Coast range was higher 0.25 to 8.7 ppm dw.

These values are much lower than the human health criteria of 4,600 ppm for the

consumption of seafood (USEPA 1999).

Lead (Pb)

Lead, once used in American gasoline, is not considered to be a natural trace element in

the oceans. The average concentration of lead in the 2001 Alaska mussel samples was

1.04 ppm dw, ranging over six-fold from low of .37 ppm dw in the mussels from

Ketchikan to 1.78 ppm dw in the samples from the site near Skagway. This mean

concentration is substantially lower than the mean of 1.43 ppm dw for the entire Pacific

Coast collection, but the Pacific Coast range was higher (0.14 to 7.2 ppm dw).
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

Science Advisory Panel

Commercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance Program November 2002

132

The slightly higher value at Skagway is not unexpected since the mussel watch site is

close to the old lead processing facility west of the city.

Selenium (Se)

The average concentration of selenium in the 2001 Alaska mussel samples was 5.3 ppm

dw ranging two-fold, from low of 3.73 ppm dw in the mussels from Valdez to 8.1 ppm

dw in the samples from the site at Unakwik Inlet. These concentrations are slightly

higher than the average 4.3 ppm dw for the remainder of the West Coast, but the West

Coast range was slightly higher 2.13 to 10.6 ppm dw. Both the Alaska and West Coast

values are much lower than the 11,000 ppm standard for the human consumption of

seafood (USEPA 1999).

Tin (Sn)

The NOAA NS&T Program measures total tin as well as the organic-bound butyltin

compounds described above. Aside from the synthetic butyltin formulations, tin is a

commonly used and toxic trace element, with no known biological function. The average

concentration of tin (total tin) in the 2001 Alaska mussel samples was 0.279 ppm dw

ranging widely from low of 0.003 ppm dw in the mussels from Homer Spit to 0.993 ppm

dw in the samples from the site near Valdez. These concentrations are identical to the

average 0.274 ppm dw for the remaining West Coast, but the West Coast range was

slightly higher, 0 to 1.66 ppm dw.

Zinc (Zn)

Zinc is a common trace element in the ocean, a required trace element for life, and

common in wastewaters. The average concentration of zinc in the 2001 Alaska mussel

samples was 82 ppm dw ranging two-fold, from low of 48 ppm dw in the mussels from

Valdez, to 111 ppm dw in the samples from the sites at Unakwik Inlet. These

concentrations are lower than the average 168 ppm dw for the remaining West Coast

sites, and the West Coast range was higher, 70 to 309 ppm dw). Both the West Coast and

Alaska values were much lower than the standards for human consumption of seafood,

69,000 ppm (USEPA 1999).

Discussion and Implications

This brief analysis of data from five Alaska sites, when compared with a larger body of

comparable data for the entire US Pacific Coast (58 sites), is sufficient to demonstrate

that shorelines of Southeastern Alaska, Prince William Sound, and Cook Inlet have

experienced relatively low levels of contamination by petroleum hydrocarbons, most

chlorinated hydrocarbons, and butyltin-based anti-fouling compounds. With several

notable exceptions, concentrations of PAHs and organochlorine compounds in Alaskan

muscles have been several to 20 times lower than muscles in the rest of the US Pacific

Coast. The notable exception is for several HCH (lindane-related) compounds. The

analysis also indicates that the Alaska mussels contain all common trace elements
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

Science Advisory Panel

Commercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance Program November 2002

133

characteristic of marine ecosystems, but at concentrations that do not appear to be

unusual, abnormal, or present a threat to human health.

Status

Traces (low part per billion concentrations) of various organochlorine compounds

(PCB's, pesticides) and butyltin (from antifouling paint) occurred in mussels from all five

Alaska sites sampled during the spring of 2001. For most organic chemicals,

concentrations in Alaska mussels were much lower than in mussels elsewhere along the

U.S. Pacific Coast (California, Oregon and Washington). Average concentrations of

PAHs and PCBs in the Alaska mussels were ten and twenty times lower, respectively

than the averages in mussels along the rest of the West Coast; however, other data

associated with oil spill monitoring indicated that PAHs in mussels from certain Alaska

marinas and boat harbors are extremely high. Several organochlorines, namely lindanerelated compounds (HCHs) and the fumigant hexachlorobenzene (HCB) in mussels from

Alaska were comparable to or higher than in those from further south along the U.S. west

coast: this is probably due to the precipitation of these compounds from global

atmospheric sources. For trace metals, concentrations in Alaska mussels have been

typical of expected "background" concentrations: however, the trace metal lead (Pb) has

been elevated in mussels from a site at Skagway.

Trends

Time and resources did not permit a thorough analysis of long-term trends of

contamination in mussels from Alaska. However, we prepared graphs for a few

contaminants (PCBs and three metals). Over the period 1986 to 2001 there was a longterm trend of declining and then increasing total PCB concentrations at the two long-term

Alaska sites (Homer Spit and Unaqwik Inlet). The rise, during the 1990's, was also

matched by a rise at the three shorter-term monitoring sites (Valdez, Skagway and

Ketchikan). However, the fall and rise during the past decade was not unique to the

Alaska sites; it was observed at many sites in Washington, Oregon and California,

suggesting the possibility of a long-term rise in global atmospheric inputs to the North

American Coast.

Concentrations of PAHs at the two long-term sites increased until about 1995-97. Since

then, concentrations at all five sites have been decreasing. By comparison, Total PAH

concentrations in mussels along the outer coast of the Pacific Northwest have been

comparable but with no clear trend other than low concentrations in the mid 1990's. By

2001, Total PAH 18 concentrations at the Alaska sites were in the range of 20 to 80 ppb

dw, whereas those along the Pacific Northwest outer coast were in the range of 20 to 300

ppb.

None of three trace metals analyzed for long-term trends (arsenic, cadmium and mercury)

displayed increases in concentration since 1986. Trends have not yet been examined for

other metals.
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

Science Advisory Panel

Commercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance Program November 2002

134

Biomagnification

While concentrations of these contaminants are generally lower in Alaska mussels than in

those from elsewhere in the US, there may be concern that concentrations are elevated at

higher levels in the food web such as in large fish, mammals, and birds. This process is

called biomagnification. Studies have not been conducted in Alaska to determine if these

substances have been undergoing biomagnification. However, detailed food-web studies

have been done in other marine coastal areas and they clearly support the idea that

biomagnification is an exception in marine food webs, not the rule. Mercury and DDT

clearly undergo biomagnification, PCB's to some extent and cadmium in special

situations (walrus). However, all PAHs and all other metals actually experience

biodimunition: concentrations are lower in animals higher in the food web than mussels.

Sources

Given this information, what kinds of statements can be made about sources, specifically

passenger vessels? The primary routes of cruise ships include the Inside Passage of

Southeast Alaska, from Ketchikan to Skagway, and Glacier Bay. However, many go on

to Valdez, Whittier, Seward, Homer, and Anchorage and beyond. Small passenger

vessels, including ferries and tour boats, also connect adjacent communities in Southeast,

Prince William Sound, the Kenai and Cook Inlet. Most are seasonal but state ferries

operate year round, along with oil tankers, and cargo and container ships and barges.

Floatplanes and private boats may be considered small passenger vessels as well.

Selected contaminants - PAHs, PCBs, arsenic, cadmium, and mercury- measured in the

Mussel Watch program in Alaska were either declining or remaining unchanged over

time during the past decade and during a period, presumably, of increasing passenger

vessel activity. This suggests that along-shore vessel activity is not adding to the loads of

these chemicals at the sampled locations. 

The data presented here are insufficient to distinguish passenger vessels from other

sources of contamination, which could include industrial activities, surface water runoff

(including deposition from global atmosphere), land-based wastewater discharges, or

even wastes deposited from large concentrations of wildlife. The data do suggest that if

cruise ships have been contributing to the low contaminant loads, their contribution has

been minor compared to the sources of long-term and large-scale variability. In addition,

the Panel’s literature review, fieldwork, research and modeling reported in this paper

(specifically Sections I, V, VI & VIII) tend to confirm this assumption.

The Alaskan mussels showed trends for PCB's that are generally consistent with our

current understanding of large-scale geographic patterns and trends. That is, (1) at any

point in time, Total PCB's are considerably lower in Alaska than along the US west coast

near urban areas and (2) the primary factor causing secular trends or inter-annual

variation is large-scale, not local.

The large number of PAH's analyzed in these mussels provided the opportunity to

"fingerprint" them with respect to two possible sources: fossil fuel and combustion. As
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

Science Advisory Panel

Commercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance Program November 2002

135

noted above, the average Fossil Fuel Pollution Index (FFPI) suggests that the PAHs in

Alaskan mussels originate more from fuel and oil than from combustion whereas along

the rest of the US pacific Coast, especially in areas of heavy PAH contamination, the

primary source is combustion. The implication is that, despite proximity to cities such as

Ketchikan, Skagway, Valdez, and Homer, the mussels from these four sites are not

experiencing substantial pollution from combustion sources. Small spills would be more

likely sources.

Although the core NS&T Mussel watch sites do not indicate an increasing trend of

coastal contamination, it should be noted that marinas and boat harbors themselves may

be important continuing sources of hydrocarbons. Since 1989, PAHs have been

frequently monitored in mussels and clams from the Exxon Valdez oil spill area, ranging

from Prince William Sound west to the Kenai, Cook Inlet, and the Kodiak Island group

(Short et al., 1996; Shigenaka et al. 1997; RCAC, 2001). These data generally show that

PAHs declined from extremely high to near-background concentrations by the mid1990s. However, they also show that mussels from marinas and boat harbors in Alaska

are heavily contaminated with petroleum-derived PAHs. For example, one of the highest

concentrations of total PAHs ever recorded in U.S. mussels was about 33,000 ppb dw in

animals sampled from a dock in Cordova Harbor (Mearns et al., 1999); mussels on a

dock in Whittier Harbor in 1997 had a concentration of over 11,000 ppb dw and an FFPI

of 0.80, indicating heavy contamination, presumably from small fuel spills.

PCBs in the Alaska mussels may be originating from both local and global sources. The

variation of PCB concentrations among the Alaska sits is low and none of the sites appear

to be near PCB "hot spots". However, like HCHs, there may be important atmospheric

sources of PCBs to Alaska coastal waters.

The barely-detectable presence of chlorpyrifos in Alaskan mussels suggests that local or

regional usage of this pesticide may need to be watched.

Silver, a potential indicator of sewage pollution, was not detected in any of the 1997

Alaska mussels, but was detected in muscles from urban coastal waters in California.

This may be an indication that human activity in Alaska is not contributing sufficient

wastewater to cause silver to rise above detection in filter-feeding mussels.

For several metals, sites most remote from human habitation had higher concentrations

than those near urban areas. It is now well known that, as described above, high

concentrations of cadmium can occur in mussels and other shellfish collected near

upwelling areas (Martin et al., 1976). There is a possibility that arsenic, like cadmium, is

higher in mussels from open coastal promontories, which can experience episodes of

upwelling of deep ocean water.

Assessment and Monitoring Recommendations

It is hoped that this brief assessment will provide stimulus to continue and enhance

environmental contaminant monitoring in coastal Alaska.
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

Science Advisory Panel

Commercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance Program November 2002

136

What if any additional assessment and monitoring needs to be done to make sure

passenger vessels and other sources are not contaminating Alaskan shorelines?

Obviously, this section has stressed the importance of a "mussel watch" type program for

evaluating the status and trends of contaminants in Alaskan marine waters. Much

remains to be done with the existing data, especially for analyzing trends and sources

(using chemical fingerprint techniques). Further, data from past sediment sampling need

to be examined.

However, as intense as the NS&T sampling has been, it embodies only five basic stations

covering a thousand miles of shoreline, with samples taken just before the tourist season

begins. None of the sites are in protected and ecologically sensitive areas such as

Glacier Bay, Taku Inlet, Tracey Arm, or College Fjords.

An Alaska Mussel Watch program could be a cost-effective and useful tool for tracking

contaminant trends regardless of the concern or sources. An obvious recommendation is

to considerably increase the number of contaminant mussel watch sites in coastal Alaska

and sample before and after the tourist season.

Based on experience elsewhere, it is unlikely that any of the trace elements have sources

significant enough to cause long-term contamination at the scale of large water bodies

except immediately adjacent to mining operations. Certainly there can be local sources

and gradients that could be reflected in "tight-grid" mussel monitoring, such as for lead at

Skagway. Otherwise, trace metals might be lower priorities for monitoring.

Although over a hundred chemicals are being analyzed in the NS&T program, these may

not be the contaminants of most concern with respect to tourism and passenger vessel

activity. To our knowledge there has been no effort in Alaska to measure or monitor

materials such as estrogen mimics, fragrance materials (FM's), or linear alkyl

benzosulfonates (detergent chemicals). Section VI, which addresses the impact of

wastewater on the sea surface microlayer, includes a discussion other kinds of

contaminants to monitor.

Acknowledgements

The Science Advisory Panel wishes to thank Dr. Thomas O'Connor and Mr. Gunnar

Lauenstein, managers of the NOAA National Status and Trends Program, for providing

Mussel Watch data and assisting in the interpretation of the thousands of numbers

provided to us.
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

Science Advisory Panel

Commercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance Program November 2002

137

References

Martin, M., M.D. Stephenson, D.R. Smith, E.A. Gutierrez-Galindo, and G. Flores

Munoz. 1988. The use of silver in mussels as a tracer of domestic wastewater

discharge. Marine Pollution Bulletin 19(10):512-520.

Martin, J.H., K.W. Bruland and W. Broenkow. 1976. Cadmium transport in the

California Current. In Marine Pollutant Transfer. H.L. Windom and R.A. Duce.

Lexington, MA D.C. Heath and Co. pp 159-184.

Mearns, A.J., T.P. O'Connor and G.G. Lauenstein. 1999. Relevance of the National

Mussel Watch Program to seafood fisheries management issues during oil spill

response. 701-708 In Proceedings, 1999 International Oil Spill Conference,

March 8-11, 1999, Seattle, Washington. American Petroleum Institute Publ.

4686B, Washington, D.C.

O'Connor, T.P. 1998. Mussel Watch results from 1986 to 1996. Marine Pollution

Bulletin 37(1-2):14-19.

Shigenaka, G. 1990. Chlordane in the marine environment of the United States: review

and results from the National Status and Trends Program. NOAA Technical

Memorandum NOS ORCA 55, Seattle, WA.

Simonich, S.L. and R.A. Hites. 1995. Global distribution of persistent organochlorine

compounds. Science 269:1851-1854.

Simonich, S.L., W.M. Begley, G. Debaere and W.S. Eckhoff. 2000. Trace analysis of

fragrance materials in wastewater and treated wastewater. Environmental Science

and Technology, 34: 959-965.

USEPA, 2000. Guidance for assessing chemical contaminant data for use in fish

advisories. Vol. 1. Fish Sampling and Analysis. 3rd Ed. Table 5-4. Doseresponse variables and recommended screening values (SVs) for target analytes—

subsistence fishers. p.5-13. EPA-823-B-00-007. Office of Science and

Technology. Office of Water. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

Washington, D.C. November.

USEPA, 1976. Quality Criteria for Water (also called the Red Book) EPA-440/9-76-023

USEPA, 1999. National Recommended Water Quality Criteria-Correction, EPA 822-Z99-001

Data Sets

(see Pacific.All.SumStat.XLS3) (Pacific.FFPI.SUM.97-98.XLS)
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

Science Advisory Panel

Commercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance Program November 2002

138

Section XI

Recommendations for Monitoring and Research

The Science Panel finds that, while the risk of environmental impacts from current cruise

ship and ferry discharge practices are low, research and development on several topics

would assure that uncertainties remain small. These areas include:

• Continued Evaluation of Small Passenger Vessels

• Improved Sampling and Additional Audits of Passenger Vessels

• Determining Water Movement and Exchange in Selected Coastal Areas

• Enhanced Environmental Assessment and Monitoring of Alaska Waters

A. Continued Evaluation of Small Passenger Vessels (Section II & IX)

• Refine dilution estimation for small cruise ship underway discharge.

• Develop best management practices for small cruise ships, particularly for

stationary discharge.

• Research "small-package" advanced treatment technology to assist these ships in

installing the best technology for their space limitation.

B. Additional Sampling and Audits of Passenger Vessels

1. Improve Shipboard Sampling (Section II). The "representativeness" of

samples taken on board should be addressed. Currently, grab samples from

holding tanks or a small aliquot from the discharge line are taken at a time that

will meet the 6-hour “sample-drawn-to-lab” deadline required for fecal

coliform analysis. The emphasis should be taken off sampling to meet the

fecal coliform holding time and placed on taking samples that are

representative of the total volume of wastewater that gets discharged. A

sample subset of actual discharge should be taken, perhaps using a Venturi

sampler that would bleed off several liters of wastewater during discharge.

From this subset, the sample could be taken. 

2. Continue Shipboard Audits (Section VIII). ). If cruise operators more

precisely document what comes on board and make that information

available, regulators and researchers can determine what could be discharged

during a spill or from regular use. More efficient monitoring programs can be

established with this information.
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

Science Advisory Panel

Commercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance Program November 2002

139

C. Measure Water Movement and Exchange in Selected Coastal Areas (Section VII)

Identify Alaska waters of low net outflow. Areas where long residence time or minimal

neap tidal exchange40 occurs are areas where pollutants from wastewater discharges may

be a problem. Tidal exchange information could be used to prioritize areas for further

study to determine whether or not wastewater discharge is a problem (e.g. sensitive areas)

D. Enhanced Environmental Assessment and Monitoring:

Confirm the predictions of no significant ecological effects based on modeling (Section

I), dye measurements (Section I), bioassays (Appendix 8), and limited existing

monitoring (Section X) by additional ambient monitoring of Alaska waters.

1. Bacteria Monitoring (Section III). Because the public has raised concerns

about bacteria the issue of bacteria contamination itself needs to be

investigated and characterized in order to educate the public, and to help guide

management decisions in the future. Bacteria sampling should be conducted

along shores near populated areas, including boat harbors, in order to

characterize water quality. It will identify areas violating standards because of

natural land-based sources or other human activities, which then may need to

be addressed. Large cruise ships are not likely to be a contributor to these

areas because they discharge offshore. Small cruise ships will add to ambient

bacteria, but their contribution could be minimal compared to other sources. 

2. Measure Sediment Contaminants for Long-term Trends (Section V).

Conduct specific measurements of chemicals in surface and subsurface

sediments collected at and away from cruise ship tracks. ADEC should obtain

several sediment cores and have them analyzed for metals and perhaps some

other contaminants, along with lead (Pb-210) dating, so that it is possible to

describe background sediment levels and to see what trends might be evident.

Mercury and PCBs should be included, since there are global inputs of these

contaminants. This is simply information that ADEC should have every 5 or

10 years. The program should take a few cores for similar analysis from other

areas as selected by an advisory panel, and return to original sites in 10 years

to see if anything new is evident. 

3. Measure Mussel Contaminants for Seasonal and Inter-annual Trends

(Section X). Increase the number of "mussel watch" sites in coastal Alaska,

and adjust sampling to encompass the tourist season, and increase sampling

 

40 Neap tides occur just after the first and third quarters of the lunar month. At these

times the difference between high and low tides is the smallest. Thus, water

movement due to tide flux is the smallest. The Panel recognizes that “minimal

neap tidal exchange” must be more precisely defined before it can be used as a

criterion for establishing no-discharge zones.
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

Science Advisory Panel

Commercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance Program November 2002

140

frequency from biennial (NOAA National Status and Trends Program) to

annual or semi-annual (beginning/end of tourist season).

4. Review Existing Programs to Incorporate or Consolidate Project Data

Relevant to Continued Research. The state has data collected from various

coastal and marine locations. These databases can be used in conjunction

with cruise ship sample data to determine impacts and trends not only related

to cruise ships, but also in Alaska coastal waters in general. For example,

there has been a considerable amount of data collected in the Cook Inlet and

Prince William Sound regions.

5. Consolidate monitoring cooperatively into a Coastal Monitoring and

Assessment Program. Continue to maintain and use the State SRP system to

track environmental monitoring projects and their data. These data are for

discrete areas but spatial gaps in the data may be augmented with the

additional sediment and mussel watch monitoring as noted above. The State

of Alaska has a unique opportunity to develop a coastal monitoring program

supported by, and under the leadership of, all stake holders (tourism

industries, National Park Service, National Marine Fisheries Service, ADEC,

Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Governor's Office, EVOS Trustee

Council, Regional Citizen’s Advisory Council, state ferries, port authorities,

fishery cooperatives, mining). Models for this stakeholder, or otherwise

cooperative approach already exist: the Puget Sound Ambient Monitoring

Program (PSAMP) (Mearns et al. 2001); the Southern California Coastal

Water Research Project (SCCWRP) and the Regional Monitoring Program

facilitated by the San Francisco Estuary Institute (SFEI). No such program

currently exists in Alaska.

6. Current-Use and "New" Chemicals (Section VIII). Consider adding

several "new" mass-balance "marker" materials and several additional

contaminants to the sampling/analysis watch list. (See Section VIII.) The

Panel suggests that several chemicals be added to the list of current chemicals

monitored by the State of Alaska. If after one season's monitoring they are

not found in the gray water or blackwater, then the monitoring for these

chemicals could be discontinued.

• Contaminants. Measure for chlorpyrifos and other new-generation

pesticides, cosmetics, fragrances, drugs and fire retardants for

environmental impacts and their presence in landside point source

discharges which in turn might indicate a need for cruise ship monitoring.

In this regard, Alaska should coordinate the research of other states and

federal agencies in accessing the significance of the use of these materials

and their impact. Selective monitoring in effluents, sediments and mussels

would be a natural outcome. Note: This is not targeted at cruise ships. It

is a program of adaptive environmental management for the state in

general.
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

Science Advisory Panel

Commercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance Program November 2002

141

• Mass Balance Markers. Coprostanol (fecal sterol) and Caffeine, and /or

its metabolite 1,7-dimethylxanthine, though not toxic, would be good

markers for mass balance study to underscore and verify the dilution

models and confirm that materials from wastewaters are not cumulative in

coastal waters, sediments or shellfish (such as mussels). Mass marker data

could be combined and compared with data generated under the

recommended environmental assessment and monitoring program

(paragraph D, above).

7. Establish a Science Library for Passenger Vessels Impacts. Include all

references used in developing this paper. Utilize the State library to allow

ease of access by interested parties, with possible on-line access via the

internet for electronic documents.
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

Science Advisory Panel

Commercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance Program November 2002

142

References 

Mearns, A.J., M.J. Allen and M.D. Moore. 2001. The Southern California Coastal Water

Research Project. 30 years of environmental research in the Southern California

Bight In 1999- 2000 Annual Report, Southern California Coastal Water Research

Project, Westminister, CA. 

Website links:

http://www.sccwrp.org/pubs/annrpt/99-00/abst01_ar01.htm

http://www.sccwrp.org

http://www.sfei.org

http://www.oilspill.state.ak.us/gem/index.html
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

Science Advisory Panel

Commercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance Program November 2002

143

Section XII

Best Management Practice and Recommended Policies

Research and evaluations to date indicate that state and federal regulations for large

cruise ships, which set effluent parameters and require wastewater to be discharged while

ships are moving (unless these ships meet stringent effluent limits through advanced

treatment), appear to effectively limit the impact of discharge on Alaska receiving waters.

The Panel recognizes many people feel that "dilution is not the solution to pollution."

However, the mitigating effect of the vigorous mixing action of a moving ship, combined

with concentration limits for certain wastewater constituents, is quite apparent.

Nonetheless, the cruise ship industry, regulatory agencies and concerned stakeholders

should continue to their work to further minimize potential adverse impacts. Research

and enhanced monitoring is important and the areas of interest to the Panel are described

in Sections X and XI. But in addition to the enforcement of current regulations and

continued improvements in monitoring and data collection, certain new best management

practices and policies may be effective in reducing impacts. These have been identified

and justified in various sections of this report. For the sake of clarity and organization,

they are collected and presented here.

Wastewater discharge while underway (Section I & VII)

The current requirements for large cruise ships – wastewater discharge at a minimum

speed of 6 knots and at least 1 nautical mile from shore unless they can meet the strict

effluent standards for stationary discharge – is good management practice and should be

practiced by all passenger ships. The Panel recognizes the difficulty of holding

wastewater on board small passenger vessels until the wastewater can be discharged

underway. Space is limited on board these vessels, both for wastewater storage and for

installation of advanced treatment technology. However, the small cruise vessel industry

should continue to energetically research various options and practices, particularly so

they may avoid discharge in embayments and fjords.

Policies to prevent over-chlorination

Advanced sewage treatment technologies have been shown to be largely effective for

large modern cruise ships. Smaller cruise ships, including Alaska Marine Highway

System ferries, have demonstrated that the macerator/chlorinator system can treat

wastewater to meet fecal coliform bacteria and total suspended solids standards.

However, this is achieved by the use of dilution and high levels of chlorine. Chlorine is

an effective disinfectant but excessive chlorine residual is toxic to marine life. The State

of Alaska should consider whether a residual chlorine standard is necessary to prevent

excessive chlorine entering the marine environment.
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

Science Advisory Panel

Commercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance Program November 2002

144

Best Management Practices for Large Cruise Ships with Advanced Wastewater

Treatment

USCG regulations allow large cruise ships to discharge in any location and at anytime

provided their effluent meets the following standards: a geometric mean of 20 fc/100 ml,

with not more than 10% of the samples greater than 40 fc/100 ml; a chlorine residual not

to exceed 10 mg/l and BOD and pH as specified in the Code of Federal Regulations41. 

Installation and employment of advanced treatment is encouraged. In addition,

continuous discharge of effluent that meets these stringent standards avoids the

possibility of re-contamination in holding tanks. Holding tanks have high levels of

bacteria and would contaminate treated wastewater.

However, cruise ships discharging in port or at anchor should ensure the residual chlorine

in the effluent is low and that discharge does not occur within 0.5 mile of commercial

shellfish beds.

The Alaska Water Quality standard for chlorine is 2 μg/l. Effluent with 10 mg/l chlorine

residual would require a 5000:1 dilution, which would be difficult if not impossible for a

cruise ship at rest to achieve. Accordingly, in order to protect sensitive species near

shorelines and other locations, effluents with residual chlorine concentrations above 0.2

mg/l should avoid stationary discharge42.

Prohibiting discharge within 0.5 mile of shellfish beds relates to the protection of human

health. Because there are many chemicals, (e.g. drugs and endocrine disrupters) and

possibly viruses, discharged in all effluents, including those from advanced treatment

systems, minimizing these elements from reaching any shellfish that are a human food

source is recommended. At a distance of 0.5 mile or more, ships will probably be under

way, and the effluents will experience considerable dilution. A vessel closer than 0.5

miles from shore should hold wastewater if possible until again under way. In-port

discharge should not be a concern with regard to shellfish. Shellfish harvest for human

consumption near ports is not recommended and often prohibited, since bacteria sources

are numerous.

 

41 40 CFR 133.102 42 Appendix 8, which discussed whole effluent toxicity tests, estimated that ships discharging at rest would

achieve a dilution factor of 50 within several meters of the vessel's discharge port. 50 X 0.2 μg/l = 0.1 mg/l
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

Science Advisory Panel

Commercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance Program

The Impact of Cruise Ship Wastewater Discharge on Alaska Waters November 2002

145

Appendix I

Development and

Use of an

Assessment

Framework
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

Science Advisory Panel

Commercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance Program

The Impact of Cruise Ship Wastewater Discharge on Alaska Waters November 2002

146

Development and Use of an Assessment Framework

Alan Mearns

The Panel's Charge and Information Provided

The primary mission of the Science Advisory Panel is to provide an objective basis for

making decisions about passenger vessel wastewater discharges in order to protect

marine resources and their uses in Alaska.

Shortly following its formation (February 2001), the Panel was provided a list of

concerns and areas of interest developed by the Alaska Cruise Ship Initiative43. The

Panel was also given some preliminary information on passenger vessel treatment and

disposal of wastewater. Stakeholder concerns included aquatic toxicity, seafood

contamination, and cumulative environmental effects. The assumption was that resources

were at risk from current practices.

A Risk Assessment/Risk Management Framework

The Panel quickly realized that the concerns and questions could only be addressed by

following a step-wise process that addressed connections between wastewater quality,

treatment and disposal, and resources at risk in the marine environment. We chose to

adopt elements of a framework based on the basic concepts of risk assessment.

Principles of risk assessment require defining resources at risk, the hazard that creates the

risk, and the probability of a negative outcome when the resource is exposed. The full

process allows the opportunity to quantify risk as well as identify uncertainty. From this

information, the success of existing management and policy actions could be measured

and the need for addition actions, if any, objectively addressed.

The Panel's risk-based Framework is shown in the flow diagram in Figure 1 and is

described in more detail below. The three central boxes represent the core of this

framework:

(1) Exposure Assessment, 

(2) Ecological/Health Risk Assessment and

(3) Risk Management Recommendations.

 

43 The Alaska Cruise ship Initiative was a voluntary effort commissioned by the Commissioner of the

Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation In December 1999. The Initiative, composed of state

and federal agencies, the cruise ship industry, concerned stakeholders, and environmental protection

advocacy groups, worked to characterize the quality and quantity of wastewater discharge, set initial

voluntary best management practice and keep the public informed. The Alaska Cruise Ship Initiative

completed its work in December 2001.
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

Science Advisory Panel

Commercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance Program

The Impact of Cruise Ship Wastewater Discharge on Alaska Waters November 2002

147

Exposure Assessment

The goal of Exposure Assessment is to estimate and/or measure expected concentrations

of pollutants, and their temporal and spatial extent, in the water as a result of discharges

from the ships.

This requires two basic kinds of information: (a) amounts of materials in discharged

wastewater effluents, and from other sources or pathways (upper left box), and (b) the

extent to which the wastewaters are mixed and dispersed into the water from moving and

non-moving ships (upper right box). Wastewater concentration data and mixing

information are not ends in themselves, but necessary inputs to Exposure Assessment.

Exposure Assessment is a necessary input to evaluating Risk.

To quantify expected environmental concentrations we had to: (a) carefully analyze what

is discharged (effluent characterization) and (b) how the wastewater and its materials are

distributed in the environment once discharged (dispersion model development and

verification). Wastewater sampling commissioned by the USCG and ADEC in 2000 and

2001 provided abundant information. However, we also had to address critical questions

about the effluent characterization that included: adequacy and quality of the process of

wastewater sampling, completeness and of the chemical and microbiological analyses,

and identification of all pathways by which they could enter the water.
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

Science Advisory Panel

Commercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance Program

The Impact of Cruise Ship Wastewater Discharge on Alaska Waters November 2002

148

Meanwhile, to determine pollutant concentrations in the water following discharges, our

oceanographers took a hard, independent look at existing discharge configurations,

dilution and dispersion models, and actual measures of the dispersion and fate of

discharged material. These efforts gave us tools and independent crosschecks to estimate

contaminant concentrations in the paths of discharging vessels. They also made a strong

case for participating in and making effective use of effluent dye dispersion

measurements that were about to be conducted by EPA in Florida. These actions resulted

in our best estimates of expected environmental concentrations of pollutants in the water,

during and following discharge events, including our preliminary estimates of cumulative

exposure concentrations.

Ecological and Human Health Risk Assessment

Once we understood the range of actual or expected environmental concentrations of

chemical and microbial pollutants in the water, we could proceed with evaluating risks to

marine life and humans exposed to those concentrations. Pollutant concentrations were

compared to existing state and federal water, sediment, and seafood quality criteria and

guidelines. Any exceedances of these criteria and guidelines were identified and flagged

for evaluation. However we took several additional approaches as well. We argued

successfully to conduct limited, but well-selected, whole effluent toxicity testing (WET)

with sensitive life stages of marine organisms, the results of which would allow us to

make independent objective statements about the risks of toxicity to marine life. We also

looked at the potential for accumulation of bacteria and chemicals in marine life and

sediments and sought out limited data on concentrations of contaminants actually in

sediments and organisms in the area of concern. From this we could make preliminary

objective statements about the probability of impacts to marine resources in the water, on

the sea floor, and along the shoreline, both from individual discharge events and from

cumulative discharges.

Risk Management Recommendations

Our assessment is not complete, but enough has been done to provide some initial

guidance. Armed with clear and supported statements about expected or actual impacts,

the Panel was able to make some preliminary comment on the effectiveness of existing

regulations in protecting resources and public health. In addition, the Panel has been able

to address the benefits, if any, of additional actions and remaining uncertainties that

require additional investigation, sampling and monitoring.

This simple framework provided the Panel with a "road map" that:

1. Lead directly from information gathering to management:

2. Allowed us to use our limited resources to strike a balance among two critical actions

(defining exposure and then defining risk from that exposure):

3. Gave us focus for effectively using existing and incoming data and information; and

4. Provided early opportunity to request the collection of new information needed to

resolve the most important uncertainties.
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

Science Advisory Panel

Commercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance Program

The Impact of Cruise Ship Wastewater Discharge on Alaska Waters November 2002

149

It also prevented the Panel from spending too much of its limited resources and time on

any one piece of the process, or being overtly diverted by single issues.

Communicating the Results

Ideally the chapters in this report would be organized according to the Framework.

However, we thought it would be more effective to report our findings in terms of some

of the initial specific issues such as dilution, wastewater quality, fate of bacteria, sea

surface micro-layer impacts, sediments, etc. That is the way this report is organized.

Within most sections the reader will see the elements of the framework and process of

risk assessment in action.

As an uncompensated, volunteer advisory group, the panel did not have the time or

resources to develop and conduct a detailed risk assessment process. However, the

framework followed the basic principles of risk assessment and served as an efficient

guide to producing a quite complex, multi-component assessment.
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

Science Advisory PanelCommercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance ProgramThe Impact of Cruise Ship Wastewater Discharge on Alaska Waters November 2002

150

Appendix 2

Dilution – Calculated Prio

Pollutant Concentration 

Ambient Marine Wate
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

Science Advisory PanelCommercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance ProgramThe Impact of Cruise Ship Wastewater Discharge on Alaska Waters November 2002

151

A1. Estimated maximum and average concentrations attributable to detected priority pollutants in cruise discharges after initial dilution, compared with Alaska's surface water quality standards for toxicants44 (Aand treated blackwater from 21 cruise ships, 2000)

MATERIAL

Number of

samples

analyzed/

Number of

samples

material

detected

DETECTION

LIMIT

μg/liter

(approx. ppb)

Maximum

concentrations

detected in

graywater and/or

treated blackwater

discharge* (μg/liter

or ppb)

Average

Concentration

(μg/liter or ppb)

Wa

concen

(μg/lite

dilutio

minutes 

factor 

Maximum

Volatiles by GC/MSChloromethane 95/9 5.0 240 6.43 0.02/0Vinyl Chloride 95 2.0 Not detectedChloroethane 95 5.0 Not detected Not detected1,1-Dichloroethene 95 2.0 Not detected Not detectedMethylene Chloride 95 5.0 Not detected Not detected

44 State-adopted aquatic life criteria will be shown unless there are no aquatic life criteria available. If not, federally promulgated criter

Rule(NTR)] may be shown that may include human health criteria. Chronic criteria are applied to ambient waters of the state. If acute 

there are no chronic criteria available.

45 An acute criterion is the highest concentration of a pollutant to which aquatic life can be exposed for a short period of time (i.e., 1-ho

the average concentration) without deleterious effects.

46 A chronic criterion is the highest concentration of a pollutant to which aquatic life can be exposed for an extended period of time (i.e

deleterious effects. Human health criteria are also applied as chronic (70 year exposure to the chronic pollutant level, for the average li
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

Science Advisory PanelCommercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance ProgramThe Impact of Cruise Ship Wastewater Discharge on Alaska Waters November 2002

152

MATERIAL

Number of

samples

analyzed/

Number of

samples

material

detected

DETECTION

LIMIT

μg/liter

(approx. ppb)

Maximum

concentrations

detected in

graywater and/or

treated blackwater

discharge* (μg/liter

or ppb)

Average

Concentration

(μg/liter or ppb)

Wa

concen

(μg/lite

dilutio

minutes 

factor 

Maximum

trans-1, 2-Dichloroethene 95 2.0 Not detected Not detected1,1-Dichloroethane 95 2.0 Not detected Not detectedChloroform 95/81 2.0 1500 48.3 0.03/01,1,1-Trichloroethane 95 2.0 Not detected Not detectedCarbon Tetrachloride 95/12 2.0 27 0.53 NeglBenzene 95 2.0 Not detected Not detected1,2-Dichloroethane 95/10 2.0 1.9 0.09 NeglTrichloroethene 95/5 2.0 71 0.87 0.001/0Toluene 95/13 2.0 5.1 0.22 Negltrans-1,3-Dichloropropene 95 2.0 Not detected Not detected1,1,2-Trichloroethane 95 2.0 Not detected Not detected
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

Science Advisory PanelCommercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance ProgramThe Impact of Cruise Ship Wastewater Discharge on Alaska Waters November 2002

153

MATERIAL

Number of

samples

analyzed/

Number of

samples

material

detected

DETECTION

LIMIT

μg/liter

(approx. ppb)

Maximum

concentrations

detected in

graywater and/or

treated blackwater

discharge* (μg/liter

or ppb)

Average

Concentration

(μg/liter or ppb)

Wa

concen

(μg/lite

dilutio

minutes 

factor 

Maximum

Tetrachloroethene(ortetrachloroethylene) 95/13 2.0 740 13.2 0.014/Dibromochloromethane 95/42 2.0 93 11.8 NeglChlorobenzene 95 2.0 Not detected Not detectedEthylbenzene 95/14 2.0 4.7 0.21 NeglBromoform 95/41 2.0 170 12.2 0.004/1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 95 2.0 Not detected Not detectedAcrylonitrile 95 10 Not detected Not detected2-Cholorethyl VinylEther 95 10 Not detected Not detected
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

Science Advisory PanelCommercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance ProgramThe Impact of Cruise Ship Wastewater Discharge on Alaska Waters November 2002

154

MATERIAL

Number of

samples

analyzed/

Number of

samples

material

detected

DETECTION

LIMIT

μg/liter

(approx. ppb)

Maximum

concentrations

detected in

graywater and/or

treated blackwater

discharge* (μg/liter

or ppb)

Average

Concentration

(μg/liter or ppb)

Wa

concen

(μg/lite

dilutio

minutes 

factor 

Maximum

Semivolatile OrganicsNNitrosodimethylamine 48 5.0 Not detected Not detectedPhenol 48/11 5.0 250 12.05 0.005/bis(2-Chloroethyl)ether 48 5.0 Not detected Not detected2-Chlorophenol 48 5.0 Not detected Not detected1,3-Dichlorobenzene 48/1 5.0 380 (one detect) 7.9 Negl1,4-Dichlorobenzene 48/7 5.0 350 7.7 0.007/1,2-Dichlorobenzene 48/1 5.0 390 (one detect) 8.12 NeglBis (2-Chloroisopropyl)ethe 48 5.0 Not detected Not detectedn-Nitroso-di-npropylamine 48 5.0 Not detected Not detected
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

Science Advisory PanelCommercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance ProgramThe Impact of Cruise Ship Wastewater Discharge on Alaska Waters November 2002

155

MATERIAL

Number of

samples

analyzed/

Number of

samples

material

detected

DETECTION

LIMIT

μg/liter

(approx. ppb)

Maximum

concentrations

detected in

graywater and/or

treated blackwater

discharge* (μg/liter

or ppb)

Average

Concentration

(μg/liter or ppb)

Wa

concen

(μg/lite

dilutio

minutes 

factor 

Maximum

Hexachloroethane 48 5.0 Not detected Not detectedNitrobenzene 48 5.0 Not detected Not detectedIsophorone 48 5.0 Not detected Not detected2-Nitrophenol 48/1 5.0 5.4 (one detect) 0.11 Negl2,4-Dimethylphenol 48 25 Not detected Not detectedbis(2-Chloroethoxy)methane 48 5.0 Not detected Not detectedNaphthalene* 48/1 10 3.0 (one detect) 0.06 NeglHexachlorobutadiene 48 5.0 Not detected Not detected4-Chloro-3-methylphenol 48 5.0 Not detected Not detectedHexachlorocyclopentadiene 48 10 Not detected Not detected
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

Science Advisory PanelCommercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance ProgramThe Impact of Cruise Ship Wastewater Discharge on Alaska Waters November 2002

156

MATERIAL

Number of

samples

analyzed/

Number of

samples

material

detected

DETECTION

LIMIT

μg/liter

(approx. ppb)

Maximum

concentrations

detected in

graywater and/or

treated blackwater

discharge* (μg/liter

or ppb)

Average

Concentration

(μg/liter or ppb)

Wa

concen

(μg/lite

dilutio

minutes 

factor 

Maximum

2, 4, 6-Trichlorophenol 48/2 5.0 3.2 0.08 Negl2-Chloronaphthalene 48 5.0 Not detected Not detectedDimethylphthalate 48/1 5.0 1.1 (one detect) 0.023 NeglAcenaphthylene* 48 5.0 Not detected Not detectedAcenaphthene* 48/1 5.0 7.7 (one detect) 0.16 Negl2,4-Dinitrophenol 48 70 Not detected Not detected4-Nitrophenol 48/1 5.0 8.0 (one detect) 0.17 Negl2,6-Dinitrotoluene 48 5.0 Not detected Not detected2,4-Dinitrotoluene 48 5.0 Not detected Not detectedDiethylphthalate 48/23 5.0 27.0 2.12 0.0005/4-Chlorophenyl- 48 5.0 Not detected Not detected
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

Science Advisory PanelCommercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance ProgramThe Impact of Cruise Ship Wastewater Discharge on Alaska Waters November 2002

157

MATERIAL

Number of

samples

analyzed/

Number of

samples

material

detected

DETECTION

LIMIT

μg/liter

(approx. ppb)

Maximum

concentrations

detected in

graywater and/or

treated blackwater

discharge* (μg/liter

or ppb)

Average

Concentration

(μg/liter or ppb)

Wa

concen

(μg/lite

dilutio

minutes 

factor 

Maximum

phenylether1,2-Diphenyl hydrazine 48 5.0 Not detected Not detected4-Bromophenylphenylether 48 5.0 Not detected Not detectedHexachlorobenzene 48 5.0 Not detected Not detectedPentachlorophenol 48 5.0 Not detected Not detectedPhenanthrene* 48/2 5.0 3.1 0.13 NeglAnthracene* 48 5.0 Not detected Not detectedDi-n-butylphthalate 48/11 5.0 20 1.57 0.06/0Fluoranthene* 48/1 5.0 1.2 (one detect) 0.03 NeglBenzidine 48 90 Not detected Not detectedPyrene* 48 5.0 Not detected Not detectedButylbenzylphthalate 48/6 5.0 9.6 0.34 Negl
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

Science Advisory PanelCommercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance ProgramThe Impact of Cruise Ship Wastewater Discharge on Alaska Waters November 2002

158

MATERIAL

Number of

samples

analyzed/

Number of

samples

material

detected

DETECTION

LIMIT

μg/liter

(approx. ppb)

Maximum

concentrations

detected in

graywater and/or

treated blackwater

discharge* (μg/liter

or ppb)

Average

Concentration

(μg/liter or ppb)

Wa

concen

(μg/lite

dilutio

minutes 

factor 

Maximum

3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine 48 10 Not detected Not detectedBenzo(a)Anthracene* 48 5.0 Not detected Not detectedChrysene 48 5.0 Not detected Not detectedBenzo(b)fluoranthene* 48 5.0 Not detected Not detectedBenzo(k)fluoranthene* 48 5.0 Not detected Not detectedDibenz(a,h)anthracene* 48 5.0 Not detected Not detectedBenzo(g,h,i)perylene* 48 5.0 Not detected Not detectedMetalsAntimony 48 variable Not detected Not detectedArsenic 48 variable Not detected Not detectedCadmium 48/3 variable 0.35 0.024 NeglChromium (total) 48/18 variable 53.0 7.32 0.001/
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

Science Advisory PanelCommercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance ProgramThe Impact of Cruise Ship Wastewater Discharge on Alaska Waters November 2002

159

MATERIAL

Number of

samples

analyzed/

Number of

samples

material

detected

DETECTION

LIMIT

μg/liter

(approx. ppb)

Maximum

concentrations

detected in

graywater and/or

treated blackwater

discharge* (μg/liter

or ppb)

Average

Concentration

(μg/liter or ppb)

Wa

concen

(μg/lite

dilutio

minutes 

factor 

Maximum

Copper 48/23 20 7100 789.6 0.14/Beryllium 48 1.0 Not detected Not detectedNickel 48/15 40 630 33.8 0.01/0Zinc 48/23 5.0 1800 537.6 0.036Lead 48/14 7.5 250 15.1 0.005/Mercury 48/3 0.20 0.67 0.007 0.00001/ NSelenium 48 3.0 Not detected Not detectedSilver 48/18 0.15 7.5 0.73 0.0001/Thallium 48 15 Not detected Not detectedCyanide, Total 48/5 10 73 (interferences?) Interference? 0.0
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

Science Advisory Panel

Commercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance Program

The Impact of Cruise Ship Wastewater Discharge on Alaska Waters November 2002

160

Appendix 3

Sampling Design
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

Science Advisory Panel

Commercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance Program

The Impact of Cruise Ship Wastewater Discharge on Alaska Waters November 2002

161

Charles McGee

In any experiment there is a logical flow of emphasis. This flow moves from purpose, to

hypothesis testing, to sampling design, to data gathering, to statistical review and finally to

interpretation of results. This paper discusses the sampling of cruise ship holding tanks for the

purpose of determining the presence and concentration of contaminants that would be of concern

if discharged into Alaska waters.

The design of a sampling protocol requires careful thought be given to the potential variables

that would influence the interpretation of the measurements. Statistical methods can cope with

random errors, but statistics will not eliminate the influence of systematic errors (bias) on the

measurements upon which findings will be based (Colquhoun 1971). Questions like does the

design really measure what is wanted to be learned, and is the cost and time necessary for those

measurements reasonable (Green, 1979).

Of course, the best sample is the whole item. However, this is typically not feasible due to the

item’s size or location or the laboratory’s size location or analytical abilities. As a result, small

portions of the whole must be collected and the analytical results extrapolated back to the whole.

The simplest form of sampling is to collect grab samples. The goal of collecting grab samples is

to collect enough parts of the whole to eventually understand the whole. Grab samples are

limited to a single time and location, and usually, many grab samples must be collected and

analyzed over a period of time before the results can then be averaged to make extrapolations

back to the whole.

Multiple sampling builds on the grab-sampling concept. In multiple sampling, sampling can be

either sequential or composite. Sequential sampling is based upon obtaining a standard size

while holding constant one of the domains of sample per unit of time, per unit flow or per unit

distance from one sampling point to the next. Composite sampling reflects collecting sequential

samples under a variety of domains, mixing the grab samples together to form a well-mixed

composite and then sub-sampling the mixture. Values in the sub-samples can then be averaged

and extrapolated back to the whole.

The most complete sampling scheme is the integrated sample, which uses a variety of all the

methods of sampling (Smith, 1999).

References:

Colquhoun, D., Lectures on biostatistics. Clarendon Press, 1971.

Green, R. H., Sampling Design and Statistical Methods for Environmental Biologists, John

Wiley & Sons, 1979.

Smith, R-K., Handbook of Environmental Analysis, Fourth Edition, Genium Publishing

Corporation, 1999
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

Science Advisory Panel

Commercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance Program

The Impact of Cruise Ship Wastewater Discharge on Alaska Waters November 2002

162

Appendix 4

Priority Pollutant List
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

Science Advisory Panel

Commercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance Program

The Impact of Cruise Ship Wastewater Discharge on Alaska Waters November 2002

163

LIST OF PRIORITY POLLUTANTS

Note: The complete EPA list of pollutants with public health and marine aquatic criteria

can be viewed at:

http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/pc/revcom.pdf

Estimated Concentration of Priority Pollutants

PCBs (Organochlorine)

Aroclor-1016 Aroclor-1242 Aroclor-1254 Decachlorobiphenyl

Aroclor-1221 Aroclor-1248 Aroclor-1260 Tetrachlorometaxylene

Aroclor-1232

Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs)

1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane 2-Hexanone Hexachlorobutadiene

1,1,1-Trichloroethane 4-Chlorotoluene Iodomethane

1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 4-Isopropyltoluene Isopropylbenzene

1,1,2-Trichloroethane 4-Methyl-2-Pentanone m&p Xylenes

1,1-Dichloroethane Acetone Methylene Chloride

1,1-Dichloroethene Acrylonitrile Naphthalene

1,1-Dichloropropene Benzene n-Butylbenzene

1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene Bromobenzene n-Propylbenzene

1,2,3-Trichloropropane Bromochloromethane O-Xylene

1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene Bromodichloromethane p-Bromofluorobenzene

1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene Bromoform sec-Butylbenzene

1,2-Dibromo-3-

Chloropropane Bromomethane Styrene

1,2-Dibromoethane Carbon Disulfide tert-Butyl Methyl Ether

1,2-Dichlorobenzene Carbon Tetrachloride tert-Butylbenzene

1,2-Dichloroethane Chlorobenzene Tetrachloroethene
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

Science Advisory Panel

Commercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance Program

The Impact of Cruise Ship Wastewater Discharge on Alaska Waters November 2002

164

PCBs (Organochlorine)

1,2-Dichloroethane-d4 Chloroethane Toluene

1,2-Dichloropropane Chloroform Toluene D-8

1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene Chloromethane trans-1,2-Dichloroethene

1,3-Dichlorobenzene Cis-1,2-Dichloroethene trans-1,3-Dichloropropene

1,3-Dichloropropane Cis-1,3-Dichloropropene trans-1,4-Dichloro-2 Buten

1,4-Dichlorobenzene Dibromochloromethane Trichloroethene

2,2-Dichloropropane Dibromofluoromethane Trichlorofluoromethane

2-Butanone Dibromomethane Trichlorotrifluoroethane

2-Chloroethyl Vinyl Ether Dichlorodifluoromethane Vinyl Acetate

2-Chlorotoluene Ethylbenzene Vinyl Chloride

Trace Metals (total recoverable and dissolved)

Antimony Chromium Mercury Silver

Arsenic Copper Nickel Thallium

Beryllium Lead Selenium Zinc

Cadmium

Base Neutrals and Acids (includes QA/QC analytes)

1,2,4-

Trichlorobenzene 2-Nitrophenol Benzo(b)fluoranthene Di-n-Butylphthalate

1,2-Dichlorobenzene 3&4-Methylphenol Benzo(g,h,i)perylene Di-n-Octylphthalate

1,3-Dichlorobenzene 3,3'-

Dichlorobenzidine Benzo(k)fluoranthene Fluoranthene

2,4,5-

Trichlorophenol 3-Nitroaniline Benzoic Acid Fluorene

2,4,6-

Tribromophenol

4,6-Dinitro-2-

Methylphenol Benzyl Alcohol Hexachlorobenzene

2,4,6- 4-Bromophenyl- Bis (2-Chloroethoxy) Hexachlorobutadiene
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

Science Advisory Panel

Commercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance Program

The Impact of Cruise Ship Wastewater Discharge on Alaska Waters November 2002

165

PCBs (Organochlorine)

Trichlorophenol Phenylether Methane

2,4-Dichlorophenol 4-Chloro-3-

Methylphenol

Bis (2-

chloroisopropyl)

ether

Hexachlorocyclopent

adiene

2,4-Dimethylphenol 4-Chloroaniline Bis(2-Chloroethyl)

Ether Hexachloroethane

2,4-Dinitrophenol 4-Chlorophenyl

methylsulfone

Bis(2-

Ethylhexyl)Phthalate

Indeno(1,2,3-

cd)pyrene

2,4-Dinitrotoluene 4-ChlorophenylPhenylether Butylbenzylphthalate Isophorone

2,6-Dinitrotoluene 4-Nitroaniline Chrysene Naphthalene

2-Chloronaphthalene 4-Nitrophenol D14-Terphenyl Nitrobenzene

2-Chlorophenol Acenaphthene D5-Nitrobenzene N-Nitroso-Di-NPropylamine

2-Fluorobiphenyl Acenaphthylene D6-Phenol

NNitrosodiphenylamin

e

2-Fluorophenol Anthracene Dibenzo(a,h)anthrace

ne

Pentachlorophenol

2-Methylnaphthalene Benzidine Dibenzofuran Phenanthrene

2-Methylphenol Benzo(a)anthracene Diethylphthalate Phenol

2-Nitroaniline Benzo(a)pyrene Dimethylphthalate Pyrene
167

Appendix 5

Small Ship Data
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

Science Advisory PanelCommercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance ProgramThe Impact of Cruise Ship Wastewater Discharge on Alaska Waters November 2002

168

Table B1: Small Ship 2001 and 2002 Alaska Marine Highway Conventional Data Comparison

Ammonia

mg/l pH

BOD

mg/l

COD

mg/l

TSS

mg/l

Total Cl

mg/l

FREE CL

mg/l

FECAL

MPN/100m

Ship Name

Date

MDL 0.016 0.1 1.0 3.7 0.1 0.1 0.1 2 

Columbia 13-Aug-01 Not analyzed

Not

analyze

d

84.2 765 111 1.5 0.7 1100 

Columbia 13-Aug-01 Not analyzed 7.5 89.3 744 118 1 0.5 1300 Columbia 13-Aug-01 Not analyzed 7.5 80.6 863 105 1.2 0.6 500 Kennicott 11-Dec-00 Not analyzed 7.1 3.5 not analyzed 43 3.5 3 5 Kennicott 01-Apr-02 Not analyzed 7.04 246 1180 0.5 0.05 0.05 9000000 Malaspina 02-Jul-01 1.4 7.9 20 470 40 0.05 0.05 70000 Matanuska 09-Apr-01 22 7.3 150 not analyzed 73 0.2 0.05 2200 Matanuska 18-Dec-01 not analyzed 7.38 110 608 69.7 3.1 0.05 2 Matanuska 25-Feb-02 not analyzed 7.5 154 1240 73.7 5 0.05 50000 Kennicott 1-Apr-02 12 7.04 246 1,180 179 0.05 0.05 9,000,000 Matanuska 25-Feb-02 16.8 7.5 154 1,240 73.7 5 0.05 50,000 Kennicott 25-Jun-02 0.008 8.02 0.5 1,200 32 2 2 14 Malaspina 26-Jun-02 10.1 6.99 88.8 876 100 4 3.5 5 Columbia 22-Jul-02 29.4 7.67 117 495 73.9 20 12 22 Kennicott 10-Jul-02 0.008 8.1 0.5 870 22.5 40 25 1 Malaspina 9-Jul-02 0.121 7.91 0.5 514 22.9 3.5 2.5 1 Matanuska 20-Jul-02 1.27 6.88 134 451 75.2 25 10 1 
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

Science Advisory PanelCommercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance ProgramThe Impact of Cruise Ship Wastewater Discharge on Alaska Waters November 2002

169

Table B2: Small Ships Treated Blackwater Conventional Pollutants2001 data (no samples taken in 2000)

Treatment Type

Ammonia

Mg/L pH

BOD

mg/l

COD

mg/l

TSS

mg/l

Total Cl

mg/l

FREE CL

mg/l

FECA

MPN/1

MDL 0.016 0.1 1.0 3.7 0.1 0.1 0.1 2 

Macerator-CL not analyzed 7.56 0.5 509 32 3.5 0.05 33 Macerator-CL not analyzed 7.78 0.5 778 28.2 0.05 0.05 110 Macerator-CL not analyzed not analyzed not analyzed not analyzed 83.5 0.05 0.05 5 Macerator-CL 3.2 7.5 25 1100 97 0.55 0.3 50 Macerator-CL not analyzed 7.34 161 1820 333 11 7 70 Macerator-CL not analyzed Not analyzed 0.5 not analyzed 7 0.05 0.05 17 Macerator-CL not analyzed 8.1 19.1 697 48.8 3.5 0.4 130 Macerator-CL not analyzed 7.9 6.02 644 25.8 1.5 0.9 1 Macerator-CL not analyzed 6.4 318 1470 638 0.3 0.1 24000Macerator-CL not analyzed 7.5 585 1240 880 0.05 0.05 16000Macerator-CL not analyzed 7.9 5.09 982 72.2 2.1 0.8 300 Macerator-CL not analyzed 7.99 24.3 863 89.6 0.05 0.05 5000Macerator-CL not analyzed 7.99 264 1160 421 0.05 0.05 5000Biological 310 8 599 1650 216 0.05 0.05 11000Min 3.2 6.4 0.5 509 7 0.05 0.05 1 Max 310 8.1 585 1820 880 11 7 16000GeoMean 31.50 7.65 21.51 1004.25 97.57 0.30 0.15 1545

NOTES: The biological system does not perform as well as the average macerator chlorinating units but only on8 ships have fecal coliform counts below 130, one ship is at 300 and 5 are over 500,000.
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

Science Advisory PanelCommercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance ProgramThe Impact of Cruise Ship Wastewater Discharge on Alaska Waters November 2002

170

Table B3: Small Ships Black and Graywater mixed and treated Conventional Pollutants2001 and 2002 data (no samples taken in 2000)

Sample

Date

Ammonia

Mg/L pH

BOD

mg/l

COD

mg/l

TSS

mg/l

Total Cl

mg/l

FREE Cl

mg/l

Fecal 

MPN

Treatment Type MDL 0.016 0.1 1.0 3.7 0.1 0.1 0.1 

Macerator/Cl 13-Aug-01 Not analyzed 7.5 89.3 744 118 1 0.5 Macerator/Cl 13-Aug-01 Not analyzed 7.5 80.6 863 105 1.2 0.6 Macerator/Cl 11-Dec-00 Not analyzed 7.1 3.5 not analyzed 43 3.5 3 Macerator/Cl 01-Apr-02 Not analyzed 7.04 246 1180 0.05 0.05 0.05 90Macerator/Cl 02-Jul-01 1.4 7.9 20 470 40 0.05 0.05 7Macerator/Cl 09-Apr-01 22 7.3 150 not analyzed 73 0.2 0.05 2Macerator/Cl 18-Dec-01 Not analyzed 7.38 110 608 69.7 3.1 0.05 Macerator/Cl 25-Feb-02 Not analyzed 7.5 154 1240 73.7 5 0.05 5Macerator/Cl 09-Aug-01 Not analyzed 7.2 580 1340 1030 0.8 0.1 Macerator/Cl 23-Aug-01 Not analyzed 6.25 2080 2850 1200 0.05 0.05 16Macerator/Cl 17-Sep-01 Not analyzed 5.54 1310 1850 146 0.05 0.05 16Macerator/Cl 1-Apr-02 12 7.04 246 1,180 179 0.05 0.05 90Macerator/Cl 25-Jun-02 0.008 8.02 0.5 1,200 32 2 2 Macerator/Cl 26-Jun-02 10.1 6.99 88.8 876 100 4 3.5 Macerator/Cl 25-Feb-02 16.8 7.5 154 1240 73.7 5 0.05 5Macerator/Cl 22-Jul-02 29.4 7.67 117 495 73.9 20 12 Macerator/Cl 10-Jul-02 0.008 8.1 0.5 870 22.5 40 25 Macerator/Cl 9-Jul-02 0.121 7.91 0.5 514 22.9 3.5 2.5 Macerator/Cl 20-Jul-02 1.27 6.88 134 451 75.2 25 10 

MIN 0.0.008 5.54 3.5 451 22.5 0.2 0.1 

MAX 29.4 8.1 2080 2850 1200 40 25 16

GeoMean 1.34 7.25 58.08 930.01 61.14 1.12 0.38 
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

Science Advisory PanelCommercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance ProgramThe Impact of Cruise Ship Wastewater Discharge on Alaska Waters November 2002

171

 Table B4: Small Ships Graywater Mixed Conventional Pollutants2001 and 2002 data (no samples taken in 2000)

Treatment Type Ammonia Mg/L pH BOD mg/l COD mg/l TSS mg/l Total Cl mg/l FREE CL mg/l FECAL MPN/100m

MDL 0.016 0.1 1.0 3.7 0.1 0.1 0.1 2 

Chlorine not analyzed 7.8 not analyzed 901 316 180 180 1 Chlorine not analyzed 8.2 430 1370 372 270 150 50 Chlorine not analyzed 8 395 674 78.6 0.05 0.05 30000 Chlorine not analyzed 7.6 330 722 132 10 7.5 1 None not analyzed Not analyzed 74.5 not analyzed 106 0.05 not analyzed 16000000 None not analyzed Not analyzed 62.9 not analyzed 28 0.05 not analyzed 1680 None not analyzed 7.33 2.79 25.3 5.73 0.05 not analyzed 1 None not analyzed 7.25 115 225 44.4 0.05 not analyzed 1300000 None not analyzed 7.98 205 472 83.6 0.05 0.05 300000 None not analyzed 7 372 578 143 0.05 0.05 11000 None not analyzed Not analyzed 60 not analyzed 28 0.05 0.05 1680 None 7.29 7.18 94.4 106 47.7 0.05 0.05 3000 None not analyzed 5.39 1010 860 269 0.05 0.05 16000000 Min 7.29 5.39 2.79 25.3 5.73 0.05 0.05 1 Max 7.29 8.2 1010 1370 372 270 180 16000000 

GeoMean 7.29 7.33 135.04 391.71 78.00 0.27 0.53 3545 

GeoMean Chlorine Not analyzed 7.90 382.70 880.36 186.88 12.49 10.03 35 

GeoMean Untreated 7.29 6.972 95.422 228.3 52.9 0.05 0.05 27602 
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

Science Advisory PanelCommercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance ProgramThe Impact of Cruise Ship Wastewater Discharge on Alaska Waters November 2002

172

Table B5: Small Ships Graywater Accommodations Conventional Pollutants2001 and 2002 data (no samples taken in 2000)

Treatment

Type Ammonia pH BOD COD TSS T Cl FREE CL FECAL C

Mg/L mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l

MPN/100m

l u

MDL 0.016 0.1 1.0 3.7 0.1 0.1 0.1 2 

None not

analyzed 6.63 49.7 not analyzed 41.4 0.05 0.05 1 n

None not

analyzed

not

analyzed 224.37 not analyzed 805 1.56 not analyzed 1400 n

None not

analyzed

not

analyzed 208.6 not analyzed 112.5 0.36 not analyzed 1 n

None not

analyzed

not

analyzed 223.17 not analyzed 17.3 0.11 not analyzed 1 n

None not

analyzed

not

analyzed 309.1 not analyzed 2.7 0.05 not analyzed 1 n

None not

analyzed

not

analyzed 215.57 not analyzed 59.5 0.28 not analyzed 1 n

None not

analyzed

not

analyzed 112.67 not analyzed 19.5 0.13 not analyzed 1000 n

None not

analyzed

not

analyzed 205.13 not analyzed 2.5 0.05 not analyzed 20 n

None not

analyzed

not

analyzed ND not analyzed 6.5 0.02 not analyzed 1 n

None not

analyzed 6.86 109 174 22 0.05 0.05 200 n

Min 0 6.63 49.7 174 2.5 0.02 0.05 1 

Max 0 6.86 309.1 174 805 1.56 0.05 1400 

GeoMean Not

analyzed 6.744 164.28 174 24.33 0.111 0.05 9.44 
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

Science Advisory PanelCommercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance ProgramThe Impact of Cruise Ship Wastewater Discharge on Alaska Waters November 2002

173

Table B6: Small Ships Laundry Graywater Conventional Pollutants2001 and 2002 data (no samples taken in 2000)

Treatment

Type

Ammonia

mg/L pH

BOD

mg/l

COD

mg/l

TSS

mg/l

T Cl

mg/l

FREE CL

mg/l

FECAL

MPN/100ml

CONDUCT

umhos/cm

MDL 0.016 0.1 1.0 3.7 0.1 0.1 0.1 2 1.0 C

None 0.245 10.7 138 374 22.9 0.3 0.05 2 not analyzed 

ho

None Not taken 7.79 110 272 20.1 0.4 0.3 1 not analyzed 

ho

Min 0.245 7.79 110 272 20.1 0.3 0.05 1 not

analyzed

Max 0.245 10.7 138 374 22.9 0.4 0.3 2 0 

GeoMean 0.245 9.1298 123.207 319 21.45 0.346 0.175 1.5 not

analyzed

Table B7: Small Ships Galley Graywater Conventional Pollutants2001 and 2002 data (no samples taken in 2000)

Treatment

Type

Ammonia

mg/l pH

BOD

mg/l

COD

mg/l

TSS

mg/l

T Cl

mg/l

FREE CL

mg/l

FECAL

MPN/100ml

CONDUCT

umhos/cm

MDL 0.016 0.1 1.0 3.7 0.1 0.1 0.1 2 1.0 

None not analyzed not

analyzed

222.7 not

analyzed

81.5 6 not

analyzed

100 not analyzed 

None not analyzed not

analyzed

274.83 not

analyzed

22.3 0.81 not

analyzed

1 not analyzed 

Min not

analyzed

not

analyzed

222.7 not

analyzed

22.3 0.81 not

analyzed

1 not analyzed 

Max not

analyzed

not

analyzed

274.83 not

analyzed

81.5 6 not

analyzed

100 not analyzed 

GeoMean not analyzed not

analyzed

247.396 not

analyzed

42.632 2.205 not

analyzed

50 not analyzed 
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

Science Advisory PanelCommercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance ProgramThe Impact of Cruise Ship Wastewater Discharge on Alaska Waters November 2002

174

Table B8: Small Ship conventional pollutants that were taken with Priority Pollutant

Treatment

Type

Alkalinity,

Total mg/l

CaCO3

Ammonia

as N mg/l

BOD-5

Day mg/l

COD mg/l

Conductivi

ty

h / coliform

MPN/100

Free Cl

mg/l

Oil

&Grease

/l

Nitrate as

N mg/l

TKN

mg/l

PH

Phosphoro

us, Total

mg/l

Total

Clmg/l

Sample Type MDL 0.16 1.0 0.3 1.0 2 0.1 1.0 0.019 0.1 0.1 0.22 0.1 

MixedBW&GW* Macerator/Chlorinator 166 29.4 117 495 22800 22 12 30 0.0095 42.4 7.67 5.65 20 MixedBW&GW Macerator/Chlorinator 79.5 1.27 134 451 23000 1 10 27 Not taken 17.6 6.88 2.38 25 MixedBW&GW Macerator/Chlorinator 76.3 0.08 0.5 870 31200 1 25 0.5 0.0095 28.7 8.1 0.11 40 MixedBW&GW Macerator/Chlorinator 62.3 0.121 0.5 514 23800 1 2.5 13 0.0095 0.8 7.91 0.345 3.5 TBWBlackwater

Macerator/Chlorinator 116 6.32 5.47 512 34500 1 0.05 8.5 0.0095 5.7 7 2.33 0.05 

TGWGraywater Chlorine 61 0.08 138 228 369 1 10 52 0.0095 0.4 8.19 0.856 16 

*Metals data missing from this event.
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

Science Advisory PanelCommercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance ProgramThe Impact of Cruise Ship Wastewater Discharge on Alaska Waters November 2002

175

Table B9: Small Ship Priority Pollutants Metals All units are in ug/l or parts per billion (ppb)

Type

Antimony

TR

Arsenic

Diss.

Arsenic

TR

Cadmium

TR

Chromium

Diss.

Chromium

TR

Copper

Diss.

Copper

TR

Lead

Diss.

Lead

TR

Nickel

Diss.

Nickel

TR

Selenium

Diss.

Sele

T

MDL 1.5 1.3 3.6 0.81 1.9 2.3 1.0 1.2 0.9 1.4 1.5 1.1 4.2 4

MixedBW&GW 0.351 35 33.6 0.4 4.18 4.96 163 339 0.45 1.35 21.2 23.2 164 1MixedBW&GW 0.409 50 37 0.4 4.32 2.97 119 166 1.21 6.74 16.6 14.3 171 1MixedBW&GW 1.55 39.4 23.2 0.4 10.3 1.54 18.7 30.7 0.45 0.528 16.6 9.8 101 9TBWBlackwater 0.04 53.2 48 0.4 7.56 3.95 8.48 20.2 0.45 0.804 15.1 14.4 233 1TGWGraywater 0.0546 0.297 0.464 0.266 0.639 0.944 84.7 173 0.294 1.62 1.77 2.55 0.601 1

MIN 0.04 0.297 0.464 0.266 0.639 0.944 8.48 20.2 0.45 0.528 1.77 2.55 0.601 1

MAX 1.55 53.2 48 0.266 10.3 4.96 163 339 1.21 6.74 21.2 23.2 233 1

GEO Mean 0.217 16.123 14.506 0.369 3.90 2.43 48.22 90.40 0.504 1.44 10.93 10.36 52.44 46

Non-detected dissolved antimony, dissolved cadmium, and dissolved silver.
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

Science Advisory PanelCommercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance ProgramThe Impact of Cruise Ship Wastewater Discharge on Alaska Waters November 2002

176

Table B10: Small Ship Priority Pollutants PCBs (Both shown are surrogates that were added to sample for QA) all units are in ug/l or parts per billion (ppb)

Type Treatment Type Decachlorobiphenyl TetrachlorometaxyleneMixed BW&GW Macerator/Chlorinating 0.086 0.2Mixed BW&GW Macerator/Chlorinating 0.046 0.075Mixed BW&GW Macerator/Chlorinating 0.072 0.073Mixed BW&GW Macerator/Chlorinating 0.055 0.092TBW Macerator/Chlorinating 0.059 0.064TGW Chlorine 0.015 0.049

Min 0.015 0.049

Max 0.086 0.2

Median 0.057 0.074

Average 0.059857143 0.107571429

GeoMean 0.049013508 0.082527052

All 7 PCBs (Aroclor 1016, Aroclor 1221, Aroclor 1232, Aroclor 1242, Aroclor 1248, Aroclor 1254, and Aroclor 

non-detection.
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

Science Advisory PanelCommercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance ProgramThe Impact of Cruise Ship Wastewater Discharge on Alaska Waters November 2002

177

Table B11: Small Ship Priority Pollutants Base, Neutrals and AcidsAll units are in ug/l or parts per billion (ppb)

Type

Treatment Type

2,4,6-Tribromophenol

2-Fluorobiphenyl

2-Fluorophenol

3&4-Methylphenol

Benzoic Acid

Benzyl Alcohol -

Bis(2-

Ethylhexyl)Phthalate

D14-Terphenyl

D5-Nitrobenzene

D6-Phenol

Diethylphthalate

MDL Surrogates 1.2 21 0.58 0.69 Surrogates 0.55 

MixedBW&GW Macerator/Chlorinating 170 60 55 0.6 220 8 2.1 30 68 34 3.7 MixedBW&GW Macerator/Chlorinating 130 37 51 5.3 600 5.6 2.8 16 49 58 2.2 MixedBW&GW Macerator/Chlorinating 68 77 0.44 0.6 11.5 0.29 5.1 41 84 0.5 0.275 MixedBW&GW Macerator/Chlorinating 54 65 7.8 4.5 62 0.29 8 36 73 6.6 0.275 TBW Macerator/Chlorinating 87 65 81 0.6 11.5 0.29 0.35 30 74 92 0.275 TGW Chlorine 110 81 74 0.6 60 9 2.8 40 130 91 14 

Min 54 37 0.44 0.6 11.5 0.29 0.35 16 49 0.5 0.275 

Max 170 81 81 5.3 600 9 8 41 130 92 14 

GeoMean 95.87 62.31 19.66 1.21 63.40 1.46 2.48 30.78 76.3 26.53 1.155 0

Shaded columns are surrogate pollutants that are added to the samples
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

Science Advisory PanelCommercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance ProgramThe Impact of Cruise Ship Wastewater Discharge on Alaska Waters November 2002

178

Table B12: Small Ship 2002 Priority Pollutants Volatile Organics ALL UNITS ARE IN ug/l or parts per billion (ppb)

Type

Treatment Type

1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene

1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene

2-Butanone

4-Isopropyltoluene

Acetone

Benzene

Bromochloromethane

Bromodichloromethane

Bromoform

Bromomethane

Carbon Disulfide

Chloroethane

Chloroform

Chloromethane

Dibromochloromethane

Dibromomethane

Ethylbenzene

MDL 0.15 0.23 0.51 0.11 1.2 0.18 0.34 0.23 0.32 0.76 0.13 0.36 0.25 0.29 0.32 0.21 0.1

MixedBW&GW

Macerator/Chlorinating 9.9 1.9 0.255 .055 45 2.6 0.54 31 130 3.4 2.1 1.4 19 2.9 73 0.51 2.2 

MixedBW&GW

Macerator/Chlorinating 0.67 0.115 8.3 2.4 47 2 0.17 8.9 89 1 4.4 0.18 5.8 4.5 30 1.4 1.3 

MixedBW&GW

Macerator/Chlorinating .075 0.115 0.255 0.055 4 0.09 0.17 0.135 36 0.38 0.065 0.18 0.125 0.15 1.1 0.105 0.09

MixedBW&GW

Macerator/Chlorinating .075 0.115 0.255 0.055 0.6 0.09 0.17 1.6 57 1.1 0.065 0.18 0.125 1.9 8.8 0.105 0.09

TBW Macerator/

Chlorinating 0.075 0.115 0.255 0.055 9.1 0.09 0.17 0.135 0.12 0.38 1 0.18 0.125 0.15 0.16 0.105 0.09

TGW Chlorine 0.075 0.115 5.9 0.055 52 0.09 0.17 7.2 0.12 0.38 0.065 1.3 140 2.7 1.7 0.105 0.09

Min 0.075 0.115 0.255 0.055 0.6 0.09 ND 0.135 0.12 0.38 0.065 0.18 0.125 0.15 0.16 0.105 0.09Max 9.9 1.9 8.3 2.4 52 2.6 0.54 31 130 3.4 4.4 1.4 140 4.5 73 1.4 2.2 GeoMean 0.244 0.184 0.769 0.069 8.44 0.264 0.206 1.87 9.2 0.768 0.369 0.352 1.76 1.07 4.04 0.21 0.25

Nondetection results are 1⁄2 the MDL for statistical purposes.
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

Science Advisory PanelCommercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance ProgramThe Impact of Cruise Ship Wastewater Discharge on Alaska Waters November 2002

179

Appendix 6

Large Vessel Data Tabl
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

Science Advisory PanelCommercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance ProgramThe Impact of Cruise Ship Wastewater Discharge on Alaska Waters November 2002

180

Table C1: 2000 Large Ships Samples Evaluation of Biological Blackwater Treatment Systems

Waste Type

Units

Ammonia

mg/L pH

BOD

mg/L

COD

mg/L

TSS

mg/L

T Cl

mg/L

FECAL

mg/L

C

M

Sample 

Date

Sample

Name MDL 0.016 0.1 1.0 3.7 0.1 0.1 2 

02-Aug-00 Composite Blackwater 100 5.3 75 Not taken 236 Composite Composite 

13-Sep-00 Composite Blackwater 64.1 6.9 130 Not taken 650 1.5 4,410 29-Sep-00 Composite Blackwater 66 7.6 150 1400 1430 0.108 182,436 29-Sep-00 Composite Blackwater 52 7.3 250 Not taken 1480 1.5 3,504 20-Sep-00 Composite Blackwater 74 7.7 49 Not taken 300 0.243 18,027 

03-Aug-00 One Unit Blackwater 520 8.4 140 Not taken 589 0.05 1,400,000 

21-Sep-00 One Unit Blackwater 730 8.7 320 Not taken 950 0.05 700,000 22-Sep-00 Composite Blackwater 44 4.6 58 510 250 0.92 2.47 

25-Aug-00 Composite Blackwater Not taken Missing Not taken Not taken Not taken 0.05 300 05-Aug-00 Composite Blackwater 90.25 7.92 108.89 Not taken 231.76 0.07 387,493 12-Aug-00 2 of 4 units Blackwater 65.89 7.65 65.04 Not taken 407 0.05 1,100,000 29-Aug-00 Composite Blackwater 109 7.8 65 Not taken 330 0.42 4,650 

06-Sep-00 Composite Blackwater 96 7.55 80 Not taken 335.5 0.56 Invalidated 

09-Aug-00 Composite Blackwater 100 6.9 130 Not taken 1260 0.464 5,349 

20-Sep-00 Composite Blackwater 50 7.4 140 Not taken 860 Not taken 6.7 

09-Aug-00 Composite Blackwater 110 7.5 170 Not taken 1230 Not taken 100 

14-Sep-00 Composite Blackwater 140 8.2 82 Not taken 280 0.05 6,300 02-Sep-00 Unit Blackwater 180 7.6 150 1210 200 0.05 80 18-Sep-00 Unit Blackwater 130 6.7 110 Not taken 300 3 1 09-Sep-00 Composite Blackwater 155 7.5 250 Not taken 980 Not taken 540 18-Sep-00 Unit Blackwater 17.6 7.6 146 Not taken 580 0.87 23.7 

06-Aug-00 Unit Blackwater 160 8.5 120 Not taken 280 9 23 
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

Science Advisory PanelCommercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance ProgramThe Impact of Cruise Ship Wastewater Discharge on Alaska Waters November 2002

181

Waste Type

Units

Ammonia

mg/L pH

BOD

mg/L

COD

mg/L

TSS

mg/L

T Cl

mg/L

FECAL

mg/L

C

M

Sample 

Date

Sample

Name MDL 0.016 0.1 1.0 3.7 0.1 0.1 2 

GeoMean 104.48 7.18 104.60 845 478 0.21 18,213 

Min 17.6 4.6 49 510 200 0.05 1 

Max 730 8.7 320 1400 1480 9 1,400,000 
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

Science Advisory PanelCommercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance ProgramThe Impact of Cruise Ship Wastewater Discharge on Alaska Waters November 2002

182

Table C2: 2000 Large Ships Mixed Blackwater and Graywater from Double Bottom Tanks

Sample Date Waste Type Ammonia pH BOD COD TSS T Cl FECAL

CON

mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l

MPN/100m

l

um

MDL 0.016 0.1 1.0 3.7 0.1 0.1 2 

25-Aug-00 Blk/Gry DB 0.19 5 650 230 380 0.05 50000 No

30-Jul-00 Blk/Gry DB 57 5.9 220 395 40 0.05 35000 No

10-Sep-00 Blk/Gry RO treated 1.22 5.9 80 130 Not taken 0.05 1 No10-Sep-00 Blk/Gry RO treated, 1.24 6.1 75 130 Not taken 0.05 1 No

19-Aug-00 Gry/Blk aft 8.1 7.5 110 670 130 1 4000 No19-Aug-00 Gry/blk forward 13 7.4 130 710 92 1.3 510 No29-Aug-00 Gry/Blk aft 3.7 7.8 72 135 89 1.1 30000 No29-Aug-00 Gry/Blk forward 8.5 7.6 150 135 150 1.1 60000 No05-Aug-00 Gry/Blk DB tank 17 7 110 710 55 0.05 16000000 No12-Aug-00 Gry/Blk DB tank 13 6.3 180 680 110 0.05 3000000 No06-Aug-00 Gry/Blk DB 200 8.3 250 1030 320 0.05 5000000 No

MIN 0.19 5 72 130 40 0.05 1 Not 

MAX 200 8.3 650 1030 380 1.3 16000000 Not 

GeoMean 7.12 6.73 146.28 338 119 0.156 12824 Not 
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

Science Advisory PanelCommercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance ProgramThe Impact of Cruise Ship Wastewater Discharge on Alaska Waters November 2002

183

Table C3: 2000 Large Ship Gray Water Mixed from Collection Tanks

Sample Date

Ammonia

mg/l pH

BOD

mg/l

COD

mg/l

TSS

mg/l

T Cl

mg/l

FECAL

MPN/100ml

CONDUCT

umhos/cm

MDL 0.016 0.1 1.0 3.7 0.1 0.1 2 1 

07-Aug-00 3.4 7.2 81 190 67 0.05 50000 Not taken 

13-Sep-00 not taken not taken not taken not taken not taken not taken 30 

02-Aug-00 1.4 6.1 1120 2060 497 0.05 350000 

29-Sep-00 0.12 7.5 730 440 190 0.05 invalid 29-Sep-00 5.3 6.7 190 286 86 0.05 170000 20-Sep-00 not taken not taken not taken not taken not taken not taken 170000 

03-Aug-00 1.7 4.7 86 1250 171 0.05 1300000 

21-Sep-00 2.1 6.6 180 370 110 0.05 280000 

25-Aug-00 3.8 3.8 Invalidated 15700 3000 0.05 7000 

22-Sep-00 1.2 7 150 410 69 0.05 70000 

05-Aug-00 0.45 10.3 440 850 98 0.05 490000 05-Aug-00 0.99 6.8 89 410 37 0.2 22000 05-Aug-00 0.26 4.7 780 1160 294 0.05 9200000 05-Aug-00 0.5 6.4 170 350 57 0.1 16000000 12-Aug-00 2 9.1 150 170 67 0.05 220000 15-Aug-00 1.3 4.8 1030 1530 500 0.05 invalid 12-Aug-00 1.1 5.7 810 1190 150 0.05 1600 12-Aug-00 0.52 7.7 130 380 54 0.05 800000 29-Aug-00 2.1 7.2 130 250 51 0.05 8000 

18-Sep-00 1.4 8 230 400 230 0.05 invalid 09-Sep-00 26.9 6.8 170 470 110 0.05 110000 20-Sep-00 2.9 7.6 150 290 51 1.2 invalid 

09-Aug-00 not taken 7.9 40 400 62 0.05 invalid 

14-Sep-00 not taken 6.6 270 360 73 0.05 2200000 

Min 0.12 3.8 40 170 37 0.05 30 

Max 26.9 10.3 1120 15700 3000 1.2 16000000 

GeoMean 1.41 6.62 223 573 124 0.06 118052 
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

Science Advisory PanelCommercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance ProgramThe Impact of Cruise Ship Wastewater Discharge on Alaska Waters November 2002

184

Table C4: 2000 Large Ships Laundry Graywater

Sample Date Sample Name Ammonia pH BOD COD TSS T Cl FECAL CON

mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l MPN/100ml um

MDL 0.016 0.1 1.0 3.7 0.1 0.1 2 

29-Aug-00 Gry laundry 0.17 7.6 120 400 39 not taken 8000 07-Aug-00 Gry laundry 0.39 10.5 70 230 4 0.85 1 22-Aug-00 Gry stbrd laundry 0.1 9.6 6.7 180 54 not taken 1 

29-Sep-00 Gry laundry not taken not taken not taken not taken not taken 0.5 not taken 20-Sep-00 Gry laundry coll. Tank not taken not taken not taken not taken not taken 1 1 

03-Aug-00 Gry laundry 3 9.2 85 300 19 0.05 700 12-Aug-00 Gry laundry room 10 3 290 1310 420 0.05 1 

06-Sep-00 Gry laundry 0.008 7.6 86 270 46 0.05 1 02-Sep-00 Gry laundry 0.75 10.2 98 300 38 1 1 18-Sep-00 Gry laundry tank not taken not taken not taken not taken not taken 0.05 30 

Min 0.008 3 6.7 180 4 0.05 1 

Max 10 10.5 290 1310 420 1 8000 

GeoMean 0.382 7.72 73.6 340 38 0.20 8 
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

Science Advisory PanelCommercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance ProgramThe Impact of Cruise Ship Wastewater Discharge on Alaska Waters November 2002

185

Table C5: 2000 Large Ship Graywater Accommodations and Laundry

Sample

Date Ammonia pH BOD COD TSS T Cl FECAL

CONDUC

T

mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l MPN/100ml umhos/cm 

MDL 0.016 0.1 1.0 3.7 0.1 0.1 2 1 

20-Sep-00 0.61 7.3 69 240 30 0.05 1 13-Sep-00 not found not found not found not found not found 2.8 230 

25-Aug-00 45 6.7 58 not found 200 not found 1 

Min 0.61 6.7 58 240 30 0.05 1 

Max 45 7.3 69 240 200 2.8 230 

GeoMean 5.239 6.994 63.261 240 77.460 0.374 6.127 
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

Science Advisory PanelCommercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance ProgramThe Impact of Cruise Ship Wastewater Discharge on Alaska Waters November 2002

186

Table C6: 2000 Large Ship Galley Graywater

Waste

Type

Ammonia

mg/l pH

BOD

mg/l

COD

mg/l

TSS

mg/l

T Cl

mg/l

FECAL

MPN/100ml

CO

um

Sample 

Date MDL 0.016 0.1 1.0 3.7 0.1 0.1 2 

06-Sep-00 Gray (Galley) 2 7.3 11 25 21 not found not found 13-Sep-00 Gray (Galley) 0.63 9.5 1210 1730 320 not found not found 13-Sep-00 Gray (Galley) not found Not found not found not found not found 2.5 3000 29-Sep-00 Gray (Galley) not found Not found not found not found not found 4 not found 

03-Aug-00 Gray (Galley) 1.6 6.1 1720 1090 257 not found not found 05-Aug-00 Gray (Galley) 11 7.1 180 430 140 not found not found 29-Aug-00 Gray (Galley) 9.5 6.9 490 790 160 0.05 28000 

02-Sep-00 Gray (Galley) 0.008 5.6 330 785 190 0.05 9000000 18-Sep-00 Gray (Galley) not found Not found not found not found not found 0.05 130000 09-Sep-00 Gray (Galley) 2.37 6.8 3190 10420 4500 0.05 5 18-Sep-00 Gray (Galley) 8.2 3.7 37030 69080 29400 0.05 not found 

Min 0.008 3.7 11 25 21 0.05 5 

Max 11 9.5 37030 69080 29400 4 9000000 

GeoMean 1.547 6.43 728 1317 420 0.163512 13750 
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

Science Advisory PanelCommercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance ProgramThe Impact of Cruise Ship Wastewater Discharge on Alaska Waters November 2002

187

Table C7: 2000 Large Ship Accommodations Graywater

Sample

Date Ammonia pH BOD COD TSS T Cl FECAL CONDU

mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l MPN/100ml umhos

MDL 0.016 0.1 1.0 3.7 0.1 0.1 2 

06-Sep-00 0.88 9 500 Not found 110 not found not found 18-Sep-00 not found not found not found not found not found 0.05 1200 18-Sep-00 49 7.8 210 1340 800 1.5 9 

Min 0.88 7.8 210 1340 110 0.05 9 

Max 49 9 500 1340 800 1.5 1200 

GeoMean 6.567 8.38 324 1340 297 0.274 104 
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

Science Advisory PanelCommercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance ProgramThe Impact of Cruise Ship Wastewater Discharge on Alaska Waters November 2002

188

Table C8: 2001 Accommodations Graywater Held in Double Bottom Tanks and Discharged Greater than 1 Mile least 6 knots.

Sample Date

Sample

Name

Fecal

Coliform

(f.c./100 ml) TSS (mg/l)

Ammonia

(mg/l) pH BOD (mg/l) COD (mg/l)

Cl, Residual

(mg/l)

Cl, F

(mg

MDL 2 0.1 0.016 0.1 1.0 3.7 0.1 0.

6/5/2001 DB11 - invalidated 56.0 not taken 6.80 97.0 240.0 0.05 0.06/5/2001 DB4 - invalidated 230.0 not taken 4.20 1,000.0 2,300.0 0.05 0.06/5/2001 DB8 - invalidated 150.0 not taken 4.30 870.0 2,100.0 0.05 0.0

7/23/2001 DB4 invalidated 102.0 0.008 5.20 373.0 765.0 0.05 0.05/31/2001 DB11 invalidated 66.0 not taken 7.60 190.0 450.0 2.00 0.25/31/2001 DB4 invalidated 66.0 not taken 7.10 210.0 460.0 0.10 0.07/26/2001 DB 4 16,000,000 50.7 0.832 6.50 217.0 410.0 0.05 0.06/21/2001 DB 4P invalidated 107.0 not taken 7.20 241.0 565.0 0.20 1.56/22/2001 DB 4S 600,000 67.2 not taken 6.70 182.0 382.0 0.10 1.2

8/2/2001 DB 4P 1 31.0 0.008 7.70 151.0 295.0 3.50 0.78/2/2001 DB 4S 1 39.2 0.008 7.30 158.0 327.0 14.00 14

7/10/2001 DB 4 invalidated 52.4 0.718 6.95 157.0 342.0 0.30 0.07/10/2001 DB 8 invalidated 240.0 0.550 6.00 750.0 1,470.0 0.30 0.0

6/7/2001 DB8 invalidated 54.0 not taken 7.00 250.0 510.0 0.05 0.0

8/22/2001 DB 8 16,000,000 74.6 0.109 6.30 281.0 582.0 0.30 0.0
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

Science Advisory PanelCommercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance ProgramThe Impact of Cruise Ship Wastewater Discharge on Alaska Waters November 2002

189

Sample Date

Sample

Name

Fecal

Coliform

(f.c./100 ml) TSS (mg/l)

Ammonia

(mg/l) pH BOD (mg/l) COD (mg/l)

Cl, Residual

(mg/l)

Cl, F

(mg

MDL 2 0.1 0.016 0.1 1.0 3.7 0.1 0.

Min 1 31 0.01 4.20 97 240 0.05 0.0

Max 16,000,000 240 0.83 7.70 1,000 2,300 14.00 14.

Geo Mean 10,896 77 0.08 6.36 266 573 0.21 0.
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

Science Advisory PanelCommercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance ProgramThe Impact of Cruise Ship Wastewater Discharge on Alaska Waters November 2002

190

Table C9: 2001 Large Ship Accommodations Graywater Collected in Small Collecting Tanks and Discharged.

Sample Date

Sample

Name

Fecal

Coliform

(fc/100 ml)* TSS (mg/l)

Ammonia

(mg/l) pH

BOD

(mg/l)

COD

(mg/l)

Cl,

Residual

(mg/l)

Cl, F

(mg

MDL 2 0.1 0.016 0.1 1.0 3.7 0.1 0.

8/21/2001 CT F 16,000,000 2880.0 1.080 5.34 4,230.0 5,650.0 0.05 0.06/27/2001 CT 7 PT Invalidated 49.0 not taken 6.90 150.0 270.0 0.05 0.06/27/2001 CT 7 SB Invalidated 36.0 not taken 7.00 150.0 280.0 0.05 0.05/24/2001 CT G 300,000 79.0 not taken 6.70 230.0 300.0 2.50 0.05/24/2001 CT E 300,000 38.0 not taken 6.60 130.0 200.0 3.00 2.07/26/2001 CT C 1 not found 1.090 9.80 487.0 825.0 4.00 3.55/25/2001 CT 4 22,000 22.0 not taken 7.40 130.0 220.0 3.50 0.35/25/2001 CT 5 350,000 56.0 not taken 7.60 170.0 300.0 1.80 0.45/25/2001 CT 6 33 55.0 not taken 7.50 450.0 1,200.0 2.00 0.19/25/2001 CT 50,000 126.0 0.892 8.97 1,340.0 2,320.0 0.90 0.0

6/5/2001 CT 3 E 170 100.0 not taken 9.20 500.0 970.0 3.50 0.36/5/2001 CT 4 D 1 22.0 not taken 7.90 100.0 250.0 70.00 50.6/5/2001 CT 6F 1 25.0 not taken 8.90 120.0 240.0 19.00 18.

9/19/2001 CT C 50 56.6 0.251 7.57 296.0 765.0 5.00 0.7

6/8/2001 CT 8 170,000 87.0 not taken 9.40 170.0 390.0 8.00 4.0

Min 1 22 0.25 5.34 100 200 0.05 0.0

Max 16,000,000 2,880 1.09 9.80 4,230 5,650 70.00 50.

GeoMean 2,189 67 0.72 7.69 282 527 1.82 0.4
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

Science Advisory PanelCommercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance ProgramThe Impact of Cruise Ship Wastewater Discharge on Alaska Waters November 2002

191

Table C10: 2001 Large Ships Galley, Fish and Butcher Shop Collecting tanks.

Sample

Date Sample Name

Fecal

Coliform

MPN/100 ml TSS (mg/l)

Ammonia

(mg/l) pH

BOD

(mg/l)

COD

(mg/l)

Cl,

Residual

(mg/l)

MDL 2 0.1 0.016 0.1 1.0 3.7 0.1 

06/06/01 CT (butcher) 16000000 804.0 Not taken 7.10 941.0 3,320.0 0.05 08/21/01 CT (butcher) 80000 148.0 9.270 6.50 530.0 1,030.0 3.50 07/26/01 CT I (butcher) 1 141.0 1.350 7.00 311.0 712.0 100.00 08/02/01 CT9 (butcher) 1 29.6 0.574 7.40 89.9 240.0 4.00 06/12/01 HT (butcher) Missing 130.0 Not taken 7.50 720.0 1,500.0 4.00 09/19/01 CT (butcher) Missing 393.0 0.854 6.93 669.0 1,410.0 35.00 08/21/01 CT (galley) 230000 230.0 0.999 9.89 846.0 1,150.0 3.50 06/27/01 HT 14PT (galley) 1600000 700.0 Not taken 4.80 2,200.0 3,500.0 0.05 06/27/01 HT 3C (galley) Missing 860.0 Not taken 4.70 1,700.0 2,700.0 0.05 05/24/01 CT H – (galley) 5000 2300.0 Not taken 4.10 5,900.0 6,400.0 0.05 06/06/01 CT (galley) 7000 492.0 Not taken 9.40 1,460.0 2,360.0 0.40 09/19/01 CT (galley) 23 266.0 0.245 10.20 599.0 642.0 10.00 06/01/01 CT (galley) Missing 780.0 Not taken 9.60 1,600.0 2,300.0 3.50 05/25/01 CT 8 (galley) 50 880.0 Not taken 7.60 1,600.0 1,700.0 2.80 07/26/01 CT H (galley) 170000 2520.0 0.859 4.80 not found 3,700.0 not found n09/25/01 CT (galley) 30 173.0 2.190 6.62 239.0 536.0 2.80 06/05/01 CT (galley) 1 130.0 Not taken 9.30 760.0 1,400.0 30.00 07/26/01 CT L (fish prep) 1 238.0 7.410 6.80 663.0 1,290.0 50.00 06/12/01 HT (fish shop) 1 170.0 Not taken 8.20 550.0 1,100.0 4.00 09/19/01 CT (fish shop) 1 163.0 3.290 6.95 414.0 914.0 35.00 08/02/01 CT 10 (fish prep) 624 124.0 0.210 7.10 82.6 308.0 3.00 06/08/01 CT (fish shop) 1 580.0 Not taken 7.00 1,000.0 1,900.0 2.00 
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

Science Advisory PanelCommercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance ProgramThe Impact of Cruise Ship Wastewater Discharge on Alaska Waters November 2002

192

Sample

Date Sample Name

Fecal

Coliform

MPN/100 ml TSS (mg/l)

Ammonia

(mg/l) pH

BOD

(mg/l)

COD

(mg/l)

Cl,

Residual

(mg/l)

MDL 2 0.1 0.016 0.1 1.0 3.7 0.1 

06/06/01 CT (fish shop) 500000 1610.0 Not taken 7.00 1,470.0 2,670.0 0.05 

Min 1 30 0.21 4.10 83 240 0.05 

Max 16,000,000 2,520 9.27 10.20 5,900 6,400 100 

GeoMean 402 349 1.27 7.04 728 1,414 2 
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

Science Advisory PanelCommercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance ProgramThe Impact of Cruise Ship Wastewater Discharge on Alaska Waters November 2002

193

Table C11: 2001 Large Ships Galley Stored in Ballast Tanks, Held until the Ship is 1 Mile from Shore and TravKnots.

Sample

Date Sample Name

Fecal Coliform

(MPN/100 ml)* TSS (mg/l)

Ammonia

(mg/l) pH

BOD

(mg/l)

COD

(mg/l)

Cl,

Residual

(mg/l)

Cl

(m

MDL 2 0.1 0.016 0.1 1.0 3.7 0.1 

05/31/01 DB8 (galley) Invalidated 270.0 not taken 4.00 1,300.0 2,700.0 0.05 07/23/01 DB 8 (galley) Invalidated 383.0 0.008 4.10 1,150.0 1,290.0 0.05 07/26/01 DB T and #8,11,13 domestic/galley 230,000 46.2 0.650 7.60 not found 521.0 not found not 06/21/01 DB 15P (galley) Invalidated 430.0 Not taken 6.20 1,440.0 1,920.0 0.10 06/22/01 DB 15S (galley) 358,000 597.0 Not taken 4.40 1,520.0 2,270.0 0.10 08/02/01 DB 15P (galley) Invalidated 368.0 0.884 5.10 980.0 1,550.0 3.30 08/02/01 DB 15S (galley) 15,300,000 Not found Not taken 5.30 1,080.0 1,620.0 0.50 07/10/01 DB 11 (Galley) Invalidated 149.0 0.008 not found 814.0 1,520.0 0.05 06/07/01 DB11 (Galley) Invalidated 26000.0 Not taken 3.60 7,800.0 54,000.0 0.05 08/22/01 DB 11 (galley) 300,000 1390.0 1.380 4.05 2,900.0 3,950.0 0.05 

Min 230,000 46 0.01 3.60 814 521 0.05 

Max 15,300,000 26,000 1.38 7.60 7,800 54,000 3.30 

Geo Mean 784,072 512 0.14 4.80 1,587 2,404 0.12 
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

Science Advisory PanelCommercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance ProgramThe Impact of Cruise Ship Wastewater Discharge on Alaska Waters November 2002

194

Table C12: 2001 Large Ships Graywater Mixed Held in Ballast Tanks (Discharged 1 Mile from Shore Traveling 

Sample Date

Sample

Name

Fecal

Coliform

(MPN/100

ml)* TSS (mg/l)

Ammonia

(mg/l) pH BOD (mg/l) COD (mg/l)

Cl, Residual

(mg/l)

Cl

(

MDL 2 0.1 0.016 0.1 1.0 3.7 0.1 

08/20/01 DB 11 500,000 259.0 0.634 6.30 216 982 0.05 08/29/01 DB3C 1,700,000 365.0 0.008 4.77 936 174 0.05 08/29/01 DB7P 700,000 40.3 0.008 6.75 130 Not taken 0.05 08/29/01 DB7S 300,000 43.6 1.920 7.01 171 289 0.05 

Min 300,000 40.3 0.01 4.77 130 174 0.05 

Max 1,700,000 365.0 1.92 7.01 936 982 0.05 

GeoMean 649,994 113.5 0.09 6.14 259 367 0.05 
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

Science Advisory PanelCommercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance ProgramThe Impact of Cruise Ship Wastewater Discharge on Alaska Waters November 2002

195

Table C13: 2001 Large Ships Laundry Graywater in Ballast Tanks (Discharged 1 Mile from Shore Traveling a m

Sample Date Sample Name

Fecal

Coliform

(MPN/100

ml)* TSS (mg/l)

Ammonia

(mg/l) PH

BOD

(mg/l)

COD

(mg/l)

Cl,

Residual

(mg/l)

C

MDL 2 0.1 0.016 0.1 1.0 3.7 0.1 

05/31/01 DB-Laundry) Invalidated 23.0 not taken 9.90 120.0 410.0 0.20 07/26/01 DB (laundry) 2,400,000 18.0 0.394 6.90 75.0 268.0 0.20 06/21/01 DB 9 (laundry) Invalidated 68.0 not taken 9.70 160.0 410.0 0.40 08/02/01 DB Laundry 48,000 43.0 0.399 9.20 164.0 502.0 1.20 07/10/01 DB (Laundry) Invalidated 14.6 0.131 8.25 79.0 310.0 0.30 06/07/01 DB6 (Laundry) Invalidated 400.0 not taken 4.20 1,400.0 2,600.0 0.05 08/22/01 DB 6 (laundry) 2,400,000 743.0 7.350 6.67 1,320.0 2,250.0 0.10 

Min 48,000 15 0.13 4.20 75 268 0.05 

Max 2,400,000 743 7.35 9.90 1,400 2,600 1.20 

GeoMean 651,460 66 0.62 7.56 230 634 0.22 
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

Science Advisory PanelCommercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance ProgramThe Impact of Cruise Ship Wastewater Discharge on Alaska Waters November 2002

196

Table C14: 2001 Large Ships Laundry Graywater Collected and Discharged Immediately

Sample Date Sample Name

Fecal

Coliform

(MPN/100

ml)* TSS (mg/l)

Ammonia

(mg/l) pH

BOD

(mg/l)

COD

(mg/l)

Cl,

Residual

(mg/l)

C

(

MDL 2 0.1 0.016 0.1 1.0 3.7 0.1 

06/27/01 HT 7PT (laundry) 30 24.0 not taken 9.20 150.0 340.0 2.00 06/27/01 HT 7SB (laundry) 30 20.0 not taken 7.60 49.0 960.0 0.05 

Min 30 20 not taken 7.60 49 340 0.05 

Max 30 24 not taken 9.20 150 960 2.00 

GeoMean 30 22 not taken 8.36 86 571 0.32 
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

Science Advisory PanelCommercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance ProgramThe Impact of Cruise Ship Wastewater Discharge on Alaska Waters November 2002

197

Table C15: 2001 Large Ships Mixed Graywater Held in Collecting Tanks and Immediately Discharged

Sample Date Sample Name

Fecal

Coliform

(MPN/100

ml)* TSS (mg/l)

Ammonia

(mg/l) pH

BOD

(mg/l)

COD

(mg/l)

Cl,

Residual

(mg/l)

C

(

MDL 2 0.1 0.016 0.1 1.0 3.7 0.1 

06/06/01 CT B 2 21.0 not taken 7.80 86.6 155.0 0.80 06/06/01 CT C 70,000 4770.0 not taken 5.20 1,920.0 3,100.0 0.05 06/06/01 CT E 90 45.0 not taken 7.90 101.0 151.0 0.50 06/06/01 CT F 50,000 40.4 not taken 7.40 55.8 144.0 0.05 05/30/01 HT – 2102 1 260.0 not taken 9.80 110.0 540.0 3.00 05/30/01 HT – 9149 9,000,000 710.0 not taken 6.40 770.0 1,100.0 0.05 05/30/01 HT – 9249 9,000,000 370.0 not taken 6.50 510.0 690.0 0.05 08/17/01 HT – 2229 2,800,000 45.4 0.739 6.08 194.0 361.0 0.05 08/17/01 HT – 9149 3,500,000 144.0 0.301 6.25 325.0 722.0 0.05 08/17/01 HT – 9249 16,000,000 76.5 0.481 6.00 324.0 520.0 0.05 06/12/01 HT E Invalidated 27.0 not taken 7.50 110.0 230.0 2.50 06/12/01 HT F Invalidated 94.0 not taken 7.20 600.0 1,200.0 4.00 06/12/01 HT G Invalidated 18.0 not taken 7.60 220.0 380.0 0.30 

Min 1 18 0.301 5.20 55.80 144.00 0.05 

Max 16,000,000 4,770 0.739 9.80 1,920.00 3,100.00 4.00 

GeoMean 38,933 108 0.475 6.96 245.88 473.94 0.22 
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

Science Advisory PanelCommercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance ProgramThe Impact of Cruise Ship Wastewater Discharge on Alaska Waters November 2002

198

Table C16: 2001 Large Ships Combining Blackwater and Graywater and Immediately Treating and Discharging

Treatment Type

Sample

Date

Waste

Type

Fecal

Coliform

(MPN/100

ml) TSS (mg/l)

Ammonia

(mg/l) pH

BOD

(mg/l)

COD

(mg/l)

Cl,

Residual

(mg/l)

MDL 2 0.1 0.016 0.1 1.0 3.7 0.1 

Advanced 05/14/01 Black/Gray 2 0.7 1.180 3.96 63.2 99.7 0.05 Advanced 07/31/01 Black/Gray 1 0.7 0.732 7.40 0.5 1.7 0.05 Advanced 08/08/01 Black/Gray 1 0.7 0.616 7.10 2.2 1.7 0.05 Advanced 08/08/01 Black/Gray 1 0.7 0.954 7.00 5.4 10.4 0.10 Advanced 08/09/01 Black/Gray 1 0.7 0.463 6.80 3.4 1.7 0.05 Advanced 08/10/01 Black/Gray 1 0.7 0.541 7.20 0.5 1.7 0.05 Advanced 08/10/01 Black/Gray 1 0.7 0.485 7.00 10.8 23.2 0.05 Advanced 08/11/01 Black/Gray 1 0.7 0.267 7.40 2.1 1.7 0.05 Advanced 08/11/01 Black/Gray 1 0.7 0.171 7.30 0.5 12.6 0.05 Advanced 09/09/01 Black/Gray 1 0.7 0.454 7.05 0.5 14.7 0.05 Advanced 06/28/01 Black/Gray 1 0.7 0.640 7.20 not found not found not found Advanced 08/01/01 Black/Gray 1 0.7 17.900 7.55 0.5 1.7 0.05 

Macerator/Chlorinator 07/13/01 Black/Gray 60 189.0 0.340 7.00 134.0 1,100.0 5.00 Macerator/Chlorinator 07/13/01 Black/Gray 5 128.0 3.490 7.10 190.0 973.0 2.50 Macerator/Chlorinator 08/08/01 Black/Gray Invalidated 326.0 11.200 not found 313.0 not found 0.05 Macerator/Chlorinator 08/08/01 Black/Gray Invalidated 173.0 16.700 7.20 180.0 1,100.0 0.05 

Min 1 0.7 0.171 3.96 0.50 1.7 0.05 

Median 1 0.7 0.628 7.10 3.44 11.5 0.05 

Max 60 326.0 17.900 7.55 313.00 1,100.0 5.00 
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

Science Advisory PanelCommercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance ProgramThe Impact of Cruise Ship Wastewater Discharge on Alaska Waters November 2002

199

Treatment Type

Sample

Date

Waste

Type

Fecal

Coliform

(MPN/100

ml) TSS (mg/l)

Ammonia

(mg/l) pH

BOD

(mg/l)

COD

(mg/l)

Cl,

Residual

(mg/l)

MDL 2 0.1 0.016 0.1 1.0 3.7 0.1 

Geometric

Mean 2 2.7 1.076 6.88 6.73 16.7 0.09 
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

Science Advisory PanelCommercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance ProgramThe Impact of Cruise Ship Wastewater Discharge on Alaska Waters November 2002

200

Table C17: 2001 Large Ship Priority Pollutants/Chlorinated Organics All Graywater Categories 

Sample

Name Water type Sample Date Chloroethane

Carbon

Tetrachloride Chloroform

1,1-Dichloro

Propane

Tetrachloroe

e 

MDL 0.36 0.17 0.25 0.19 0.12 

CT Accomo 19-Sep-01 7.9 0.085 170 0.095 0.06 CT Galley 19-Sep-01 0.18 0.085 0.125 0.095 0.06 CT Mixed Gray 17-Aug-01 0.18 0.085 19 0.095 35 CT Mixed Gray 17-Aug-01 0.18 0.085 19 0.095 40 

DB Mixed Gray 29-Aug-01 0.18 0.085 12 0.095 0.7 DB Mixed Gray 29-Aug-01 0.18 0.085 8.9 0.095 0.78 DB Mixed Gray 29-Aug-01 0.18 0.085 0.125 0.095 0.06 DB Mixed Gray 29-Aug-01 0.18 0.085 0.125 0.095 0.06 DB Galley 02-Aug-01 0.18 1.9 140 1.3 0.06 DB Galley 22-Aug-01 0.18 0.085 37 0.095 0.06 DB Galley 23-Jul-01 0.18 0.085 16 0.095 0.06 DB Acc/galley 26-Jul-01 0.18 0.085 95 0.095 0.06 DB Laundry 26-Jul-01 0.18 0.085 31 0.095 0.96 DB Accomo 23-Jul-01 0.18 0.085 58 0.095 0.06 DB Accomo 02-Aug-01 16 3.5 0.125 0.095 0.06 

Min 0.18 0.085 0.125 0.095 0.06 

Max 16 3.5 170 1.3 40 

GeoMean 0.312 0.134 7.769 0.113 0.238 
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

Science Advisory PanelCommercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance ProgramThe Impact of Cruise Ship Wastewater Discharge on Alaska Waters November 2002

201

Table C18: 2001 Large Ship Priority Pollutants/Chlorinated Phenols and HalomethanesAll graywater categories. All units in ug/l or parts per billion (ppb).

Sample Date

2,4-

dichlorophenol

2,4,6-

trichlorophenol bromoform

dibromochlor

omethane

bromodichloro

Tank methane methyl chlor

Type

Water

type MDL 0.53 0.39 0.32 0.32 0.23 1.2 

CT Accomo 19-Sep-01 2.2 0.195 0.16 0.16 2.5 8.4 CT Galley 19-Sep-01 42 40 0.16 0.16 6 0.6 CT Mixed Gray 17-Aug-01 0.275 0.195 0.16 2.1 3 0.6 CT Mixed Gray 17-Aug-01 0.275 0.195 1.4 2.4 3.4 0.6 

DB Mixed Gray 29-Aug-01 0.275 0.195 6.3 3.4 2.7 0.6 DB Mixed Gray 29-Aug-01 0.275 0.195 6.5 3.5 3.1 0.6 DB Mixed Gray 29-Aug-01 0.275 0.195 0.16 0.16 0.115 0.6 DB Mixed Gray 29-Aug-01 0.275 0.195 0.16 0.16 0.115 0.6 DB Galley 02-Aug-01 0.275 0.195 0.16 0.16 1.6 5 DB Galley 22-Aug-01 0.275 0.195 0.16 0.16 1.3 0.6 DB Galley 23-Jul-01 0.275 0.195 31 1.2 0.115 0.6 DB Acc/galley 26-Jul-01 0.275 0.195 0.16 0.16 3.4 0.6 DB Laundry 26-Jul-01 0.275 0.195 0.16 0.16 1.4 0.6 DB Accomo 23-Jul-01 0.275 0.195 3 0.16 1.6 0.6 DB Accomo 02-Aug-01 3.2 5.6 0.16 0.16 0.115 81 

Min 0.275 0.195 0.16 0.16 0.115 0.6 

Max 42 40 31 3.5 6 81 

GeoMean 0.520 0.348 0.522 0.392 1.088 1.143 
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

Science Advisory PanelCommercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance ProgramThe Impact of Cruise Ship Wastewater Discharge on Alaska Waters November 2002

202

Table C19: 2001 Large Ships Total Recoverable Metals. All Categories of Graywater.All units in ug/l or parts per billion (ppb).

Tank Type

Water

type

Sample

Date antimony arsenic III berylium

cadmium

(TR)

chromium

(TR)

copper

(TR)

lead

(TR)

nickel

(TR)

sele

(T

MDL 1.5 3.6 0.2 0.81 2.3 1.2 1.4 1.1 4

CT Accomo 19-Sep-01 0.75 1.44 0.1 0.0724 2.72 255 4.47 27.9 0.9CT Galley 19-Sep-01 0.75 0.434 0.1 0.4 10.6 74.9 2.51 15.4 0.8CT Mixed Gray 17-Aug-01 2.74 3.52 0.0867 0.789 4.11 275 78.6 51.9 9.CT Mixed Gray 17-Aug-01 0.417 2.55 0.0167 0.4 4.88 272 12.6 56 6.

DB Mixed Gray 29-Aug-01 0.75 0.18 0.1 0.4 1.15 0.6 0.7 0.55 2DB Mixed Gray 29-Aug-01 0.75 0.18 0.1 0.4 1.15 0.6 0.7 0.55 2DB Mixed Gray 29-Aug-01 1.01 0.419 0.0157 0.317 1.82 338 1.7 15 0.5DB Mixed Gray 29-Aug-01 0.893 0.447 0.0274 0.26 3.1 267 2.25 13.7 0.7DB Galley 02-Aug-01 0.125 0.846 0.0289 0.177 10.7 652 1.06 17.1 1.DB Galley 22-Aug-01 0.365 2.38 0.0206 0.108 8.76 69.3 2.73 13.2 1.DB Galley 23-Jul-01 0.748 8.27 0.1 0.4 13.6 1710 94.7 32.3 3DB Acc/galley 26-Jul-01 0.364 0.454 0.0273 0.111 3.87 170 5.7 16.9 1.DB Laundry 26-Jul-01 0.635 0.192 0.1 0.308 2.05 44.1 3.27 5.25 0.3DB Accomo 23-Jul-01 0.434 2.43 0.1 0.4 4.96 174 4.25 10.7 8.DB Accomo 02-Aug-01 0.338 0.559 0.1 0.281 2.62 355 2.75 8.71 1.
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

Science Advisory PanelCommercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance ProgramThe Impact of Cruise Ship Wastewater Discharge on Alaska Waters November 2002

203

Tank Type

Water

type

Sample

Date antimony arsenic III berylium

cadmium

(TR)

chromium

(TR)

copper

(TR)

lead

(TR)

nickel

(TR)

sele

(T

MDL 1.5 3.6 0.2 0.81 2.3 1.2 1.4 1.1 4

Min 0.125 0.18 0.0157 0.0724 1.15 0.6 0.7 0.55 0.3

Max 2.74 8.27 0.1 0.789 13.6 1710 94.7 56 31

GeoMean 0.591 0.835 0.054 0.273 3.833 103.439 4.039 11.084 2.0
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

Science Advisory PanelCommercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance ProgramThe Impact of Cruise Ship Wastewater Discharge on Alaska Waters November 2002

204

Table C20: 2001 Large Ship Priority Pollutants. All Categories of Graywater Non-chlorinated Phenols and Phth

All units in ug/l or parts per billion (ppb).

Tank

Type Water Type Sample Date Acrylonitrile

Ethyl

Benzene Toluene Phenol

Bis(2-

Ethylhexyl)Ph

thalate

Butylbenzylph

thalate

Diethylph

thalate

Bu

MDL 0.33 0.19 0.25 0.88 0.69 0.38 0.55 

CT Accomo 19-Sep-01 0.165 0.095 0.125 0.44 8.2 0.19 9.4 CT Galley 19-Sep-01 4 0.095 0.125 0.44 9.1 1.4 6.9 CT Mixed Gray 17-Aug-01 0.165 0.095 0.125 0.44 55 0.19 7.9 CT Mixed Gray 17-Aug-01 0.165 0.095 0.125 0.44 15 0.19 7.4 

DB Mixed Gray 29-Aug-01 0.165 0.52 1.1 4 15 0.19 17 DB Mixed Gray 29-Aug-01 0.165 0.51 0.125 0.44 21 0.19 20 DB Mixed Gray 29-Aug-01 0.165 0.095 0.125 0.44 0.35 0.19 0.275 DB Mixed Gray 29-Aug-01 0.165 0.095 0.125 0.44 0.35 0.19 0.275 DB Galley 02-Aug-01 0.165 0.095 2.2 0.44 3.4 0.19 7.6 DB Galley 22-Aug-01 0.165 0.095 0.125 0.44 3.1 2.7 3.6 DB Galley 23-Jul-01 0.165 0.51 1.7 1.8 5.8 1.9 6.3 DB Acc/galley 26-Jul-01 0.165 58 0.125 0.44 14 0.19 12 DB Laundry 26-Jul-01 0.165 1.8 0.125 0.44 17 0.19 15 DB Accomo 23-Jul-01 0.165 0.095 0.83 0.44 8.9 2.3 9.6 DB Accomo 02-Aug-01 0.165 0.095 0.125 0.44 5.2 0.19 13 

Min 0.165 0.095 0.125 0.44 0.35 0.19 0.275 

Max 4 58 2.2 4 55 2.7 20 

GeoMean 0.204 0.248 0.236 0.560 6.510 0.357 5.913 
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

Science Advisory PanelCommercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance ProgramThe Impact of Cruise Ship Wastewater Discharge on Alaska Waters November 2002

205

Table C21: 2001 Large Ship Conventional Pollutants taken during Priority Pollutant Sampling. All Graywater C

Sample

Date

Ammonia

mg/l PH

BOD5

mg/l

COD

mg/l

TSS

mg/l

total

CL

mg/l

Fecal

coliform

MPU/100

ml

Condu

ctivity

Umhos/

cm

Free

CL

mg/l

Oil &

grease

mg/l

TOC

mg/l

Alkalinity

mg/l as

CaCO3

to

N

m

Tank 

Type

Water

type MDL 0.016 0.1 1 3.4 1.3 0.1 2 1 0.1 1 0.3 0.019 0.0

CT Accomo 19-Sep-01 0.251 7.57 296 765 56.6 5 50 891 0.7 0.5 529 193 0.CT Galley 19-Sep-01 0.245 10.2 599 642 266 10 23 878 3.4 0.5 304 242 0.CT Mixed Gray 17-Aug-01 0.301 6.25 325 722 144 0.05 3500000 1710 0.05 130 885 65.5 0.0CT Mixed Gray 17-Aug-01 0.481 6 324 520 76.5 0.05 16000000 1310 0.05 98 454 62.7 0.0

DB Mixed Gray 29-Aug-01 Na Na Na Na Na Na Na Na Na 46 Na Na NDB Mixed Gray 29-Aug-01 Na Na Na Na Na Na Na Na Na 38 Na Na NDB Mixed Gray 29-Aug-01 Na 6.75 130 Na 40.3 0.05 700000 296 0.05 Na 305 35.8 NDB Mixed Gray 29-Aug-01 1.92 7.01 171 289 43.6 0.05 300000 355 0.05 Na 279 67.2 0.0DB Galley 02-Aug-01 Na 5.3 1080 1620 Na 0.5 15300000 883 0.5 290 480 33 0.0DB Galley 22-Aug-01 1.38 4.05 2900 3950 1390 0.05 300000 863 0.05 200 1570 Na NDB Galley 23-Jul-01 Na 4.1 1150 1290 383 0.05 invalid 2870 0.05 Na 336 0.095 0.0DB Acc/gall

ey

26-Jul-01 0.65 7.6 Na 521 46.2 Na 230000 521 Na Na 137 50.2 0.0

DB Laundry 26-Jul-01 0.394 6.9 75 268 18 0.2 2400000 153 0.05 Na 65 28.2 0.0
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

Science Advisory PanelCommercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance ProgramThe Impact of Cruise Ship Wastewater Discharge on Alaska Waters November 2002

206

Sample

Date

Ammonia

mg/l PH

BOD5

mg/l

COD

mg/l

TSS

mg/l

total

CL

mg/l

Fecal

coliform

MPU/100

ml

Condu

ctivity

Umhos/

cm

Free

CL

mg/l

Oil &

grease

mg/l

TOC

mg/l

Alkalinity

mg/l as

CaCO3

to

N

m

Tank 

Type

Water

type MDL 0.016 0.1 1 3.4 1.3 0.1 2 1 0.1 1 0.3 0.019 0.0

DB Accomo 23-Jul-01 Na 5.2 373 765 102 0.05 invalid 2060 0.05 Na 231 56.5 0.0DB Accomo 02-Aug-01 Na 7.7 151 295 31 3.5 Invalid 953 0.7 47 87 82 0.0

Min 0.016 0.1 1 3.4 1.3 0.05 2 1 0.05 0.5 0.3 0.019 0.0

Max 1.92 10.2 2900 3950 1390 10 16000000 2870 3.4 290 1570 242 0.

GeoMean 0.528 6.31 368.72 700.08 92.800 0.221 179261 808.452 0.134 29.146 310.482 38.145 0.0
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

Science Advisory PanelCommercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance ProgramThe Impact of Cruise Ship Wastewater Discharge on Alaska Waters November 2002

207

Table C22: 2001 Large Ships Priority Pollutants for Blackwater Chlorinated Benzenes and HalomethanesAll units in ug/l or parts per billion (ppb).

1,4

Chlorobenzene Chloroform

Tetrachloro

ethene

Trichloro

ethene Bromoform

Dibromochloro

methane

Br

Type Water type Sample Date 0.36 0.19 0.26 0.53 0.32 0.23 

Advanced Mixed BW&GW 20-Sep-01 0.18 4.2 11 0.51 0.16 0.115 Advanced Mixed BW&GW 09-Sep-01 0.18 11 0.13 0.25 0.16 0.115 

Macerator Mixed BW&GW 08-Aug-01 3.9 22 0.13 0.25 26 9.6 Macerator Mixed BW&GW 08-Aug-01 0.18 27 0.13 0.25 13 3.3 

No

treatment/

DB

Mixed

BW&GW 19-Aug-01 0.18 1.7 0.13 0.25 0.16 0.115 

Biological BW 19-Aug-01 0.18 0.87 0.13 0.25 0.16 0.115 

Min 0.18 0.87 0.13 0.25 0.16 0.115 

Max 3.9 27 11 0.51 26 9.6 

GeoMean 0.301 5.862 0.272 0.282 0.778 0.421 
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

Science Advisory PanelCommercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance ProgramThe Impact of Cruise Ship Wastewater Discharge on Alaska Waters November 2002

208

Table C23: 2001 Large Ships Blackwater Priority Pollutants Total Recoverable Metals All units in ug/l or parts per billion (ppb).

Type Water type

Sample

Date Arsenic III Berylium

Cadmium

(TR)

Chromium

(TR)

Copper

(TR) Lead (TR) Nickel (TR)

Selenium

(TR) 

MDL 0.2 0.81 2.3 1.2 1.4 1.1 4.8 0.93 

Advanced Mixed BW&GW 20-Sep-01 1.09 0.4 1.15 0.685 2.66 0.0628 18.3 1.05 Advanced Mixed BW&GW 09-Sep-01 0.1 0.4 1.15 0.196 0.501 0.195 0.688 0.213 

Macerator Mixed BW&GW 08-Aug-01 32.8 0.465 1.15 8.12 203 3.67 25.4 105 Macerator Mixed BW&GW 08-Aug-01 36 0.4 1.15 6.92 98.7 0.55 22.7 155 

No

treatment/D

B

Mixed

BW&GW 19-Aug-01 53.4 0.381 1.15 0.6 169 3.43 16.2 152 

Biological BW 19-Aug-01 9.03 0.4 2.52 2.61 1670 80.3 38.1 8.31 

Min 0.1 0.381 1.15 0.196 0.501 0.0628 0.688 0.213 

Max 53.4 0.465 2.52 8.12 1670 80.3 38.1 155 

GeoMean 6.292 0.407 1.311 1.509 44.278 1.377 12.840 12.895 
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

Science Advisory PanelCommercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance ProgramThe Impact of Cruise Ship Wastewater Discharge on Alaska Waters November 2002

209

Table C24: 2001 Large Ships Blackwater Priority Pollutants (Phtalate Esters)All units in ug/l or parts per billion (ppb).

Type Water

Type

Sample Date Ethylbenzene Phenol Bis(2-

Ethylhexyl)Phthalate

Butylbenzylphthalate Diethylphth

MDL 0.25 0.69 0.38 0.55 1.4 

Advanced Mixed BW&GW 20-Sep-01 0.125 0.35 0.19 0.275 0.7 Advanced Mixed BW&GW 09-Sep-01 0.125 0.35 4.2 0.275 0.7 

Macerator Mixed BW&GW 08-Aug-01 0.125 0.35 0.19 0.275 0.7 Macerator Mixed BW&GW 08-Aug-01 0.53 2.3 3.1 0.275 2.3 

No

treatment/DB

Mixed

BW&GW 19-Aug-01 0.125 0.35 7 1.2 0.7 

Biological BW 19-Aug-01 0.125 0.35 0.19 0.275 0.7 

Min 0.125 0.35 0.19 0.275 0.7 

Max 0.53 2.3 7 1.2 2.3 

GeoMean 0.159 0.479 0.925 0.352 0.853 
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

Science Advisory PanelCommercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance ProgramThe Impact of Cruise Ship Wastewater Discharge on Alaska Waters November 2002

210

Table C25: 2001 Large Ships Blackwater Conventional Pollutants Sampled With Priority Pollutants

Sample

Date

Units

Ammonia

mg/l pH

BOD5

mg/l

COD

mg/l

TSS

mg/l

Total

CL

mg/l

Fecal

Coliform

MPU/

100ml

Conductiv

ity

Umhos/c

m

Free

CL

mg/l

Oil &

Grease

mg/l

TOC

mg/l

Alkalinity

mg/l as

CaCO3

T

Type

Water

type MDL 0.1 1 3.4 1.3 0.1 2 1 0.1 1 0.3 0.019 0.019 

Advanced

Mixed

BW&

GW

20-Sep-01 17.9 7.55 1.7 0.65 0.05 0.05 1 570 0.05 n/a 12 99.7 

Advanced

Mixed

BW&

GW

09-Sep-01 0.454 7.05 1.7 14.7 n/a n/a n/a 13.2 n/a 0.05 1 6.25 

Macerator

Mixed

BW&

GW

08-Aug-01 11.2 7.1 313 1180 326 0.05 n/a 26400 0.05 n/a 229 n/a 

Macerator

Mixed

BW&

GW

08-Aug-01 16.7 7.2 180 1100 173 0.05 n/a 28500 0.05 35 100 151 

No

treatment/

DB

Mixed

BW&

GW

19-Aug-01 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 

Biological BW 19-Aug-01 292 7.85 258 1630 692 0.05 1700000 3590 0.05 0.15 373 743 

Min 0.454 7.05 1.7 0.65 0.05 0.05 1 13.2 0.05 0.05 1 6.25 

Max 292 7.85 313 1630 692 0.05 1700000 28500 0.05 35 373 743 

GeoMean 13.472 7.34 33.471 115.12 37.375 0.050 1303.84 1826.411 0.050 0.640 40.008 91.440 1
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

Science Advisory PanelCommercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance ProgramThe Impact of Cruise Ship Wastewater Discharge on Alaska Waters November 2002

211

Table C26: 2000 Priority Pollutants for Graywater. All units in ug/l or part per billion (ppb)

Sample Name

1,4

Dichloro

benzene

Chloro

ethane

1,2-Dichloro

ethane

1,1,2,2,-Tetra

chloroethane

Bis(2-

Chloro

ethoxy)

Methane

Carbon

tetra

chloride Chloroform

Tetrachloro

ethene

Trichloro

ethene

2,4,6-

Trichloro

phenol Bromoform

MDL 0.28 0.36 0.37 0.22 0.39 0.17 0.25 0.12 0.26 0.50 0.32 

Ballast tank 5S 0.75 15 230 71 Composite graywater 2.3Composite# 4,6,11Gray water accumulation tank 4 4 2.1 Gray water composite(galley,accumulation,laundry) 14Gray water galley tank 4 2 1.2 Gray water overboard 0.52 1.8Graywater compositeGraywater port 15Graywater starboard 19 1.1Gry 78 port 44 Gry accom 0.7 0.91 1.8 313 11.65 0.67 41.2 Gry ballast #6 4.1 0.74 Gry comp 11Gry composite 2.2Gry gal/acco 19 Gry galley 1 292.8 2.2 Gry galley #11 1.4 1.9Gry galley tank #11 1.5 48 9.8 Gry galley tank H 0.76 14Gry HTS compositeGry laundry 207 954 8.2 Gry pump accom. 2.3Gry tank #2 0.65 1.8 7.7 1.6Gry tank 3C 26 
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

Science Advisory PanelCommercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance ProgramThe Impact of Cruise Ship Wastewater Discharge on Alaska Waters November 2002

212

Sample Name

1,4

Dichloro

benzene

Chloro

ethane

1,2-Dichloro

ethane

1,1,2,2,-Tetra

chloroethane

Bis(2-

Chloro

ethoxy)

Methane

Carbon

tetra

chloride Chloroform

Tetrachloro

ethene

Trichloro

ethene

2,4,6-

Trichloro

phenol Bromoform

MDL 0.28 0.36 0.37 0.22 0.39 0.17 0.25 0.12 0.26 0.50 0.32 

Gry tank 7 port and starboard 16 1.2 Gry tank C 15 Gry Tank F 6.5 4.2 0.54 Grywtr 5 tank (composite) 0.61Grywtr laundry room 13 2.3 0.76Grywtr shaft tank 34 Grywtr stabilizer port tank 25 Main graywater 0.91 15 1.3 Starboard graywater 96 0.46 32 
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

Science Advisory PanelCommercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance ProgramThe Impact of Cruise Ship Wastewater Discharge on Alaska Waters November 2002

213

Table C27: 2000 Priority Pollutants for Graywater All units in ug/l or part per billion (ppb) except for CYANIDE

Sample Name Methylene chloride

Cadmiuim

(TR)

Chromium

(TR) Copper (TR)

Cyanide (total)

mg/L Lead (TR) Mercury (TR) Nickel (T

MDL 1.2 0.027 0.076 0.040 0.0016 0.047 0.050 0.18 

Ballast tank 5S 150 46 Composite graywater 260 22 7.5 Composite# 4,6,11 2200 Gray water accumulation tank 4Gray water composite(galley,accumulation,laundry) 230 21 Gray water galley tank 4Gray water overboard 0.29 4 62 2.5 0.33 Graywater composite 0.48 30 1203.4 21.4 99 Graywater starboardGry 78 port 180 22 Gry accom 4.8Gry ballast #6 3.2Gry comp 14 4320 387 0.33 184 Gry composite 57 710 28 676 Gry DHTS composite 720 46 Gry gal/accoGry galley 41Gry galley #11Gry galley tank #11 53 650 62 Gry galley tank HGry HTS composite 830 44 Gry laundry 67Gry pump accom. 0.69Gry tank #2 130 85 Gry tank 3C 12 1500 140 Gry tank 7 port and starboard 150 Gry tank CGry Tank F 1.1 210 Grywtr 5 tank (composite) 0.35 480 14 
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

Science Advisory PanelCommercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance ProgramThe Impact of Cruise Ship Wastewater Discharge on Alaska Waters November 2002

214

Sample Name Methylene chloride

Cadmiuim

(TR)

Chromium

(TR) Copper (TR)

Cyanide (total)

mg/L Lead (TR) Mercury (TR) Nickel (T

MDL 1.2 0.027 0.076 0.040 0.0016 0.047 0.050 0.18 

Grywtr laundry roomGrywtr shaft tankGrywtr stabilizer port tankMain graywaterStarboard graywater
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

Science Advisory PanelCommercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance ProgramThe Impact of Cruise Ship Wastewater Discharge on Alaska Waters November 2002

215

Table C28: 2000 Priority Pollutants for GraywaterAll units in ug/l or part per billion (ppb)

Sample Name Ethylbenzene Naphthalene Toluene Phenol Heptachlor Bis(2-Ethylhexyl)

Phthalate

ButylbenzylPhthalate

DiethylPhthalate

DimethylPhthalate

Di-N-ButylPhthalate

MDL 0.37 0.20 0.51 0.85 0.15 0.67 0.37 0.53 0.49 1.Ballast tank 5S 0.77 17 3.7 2.5Composite graywater 10 3 1.1Composite# 4,6,11 11Gray water accommodation tank 4Gray water composite mixed 1.1 6.5Gray water galley tank 4Gray water overboard 32Graywater composite 2.9 15 1.6 5.8 8.4Graywater port 1.6 1.4Graywater starboard 2.6 1.7Gry 78 port 0.53 0.47 20 1.1 4.5 2.2 Gry accom 11.41Gry ballast #6 1.5 1.3Gry comp 0.082 183 1.2 13 8.1Gry composite 1.2 112 9.6 12.8 10.3Gry DHTS composite 3 35 6 5.3 Gry gal/accoGry galley 1.3Gry galley #11 1.1 5.8Gry galley tank #11 3.7 6.3 3.3Gry galley tank HGry HTS composite 51 1.1 8.5 6.8Gry laundryGry pump accom. 2.8 1.7Gry tank #2 20 5.8 2.1Gry tank 3C 0.68 7.6 3.6 3.3Gry tank 7 port and starboard 0.68 3.1 14 11 3Gry tank C 0.59Gry Tank F 13 15 1.1 1.6Grywtr 5 tank (composite) 2.2 19 0.61 9.7Grywtr laundry room 24 1.7Grywtr shaft tank 1
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

Science Advisory PanelCommercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance ProgramThe Impact of Cruise Ship Wastewater Discharge on Alaska Waters November 2002

216

Sample Name Ethylbenzene Naphthalene Toluene Phenol Heptachlor Bis(2-Ethylhexyl)

Phthalate

ButylbenzylPhthalate

DiethylPhthalate

DimethylPhthalate

Di-N-ButylPhthalate

MDL 0.37 0.20 0.51 0.85 0.15 0.67 0.37 0.53 0.49 1.Grywtr stabilizer port tankMain graywater
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

Science Advisory PanelCommercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance ProgramThe Impact of Cruise Ship Wastewater Discharge on Alaska Waters November 2002

217

Table C29: 2000 Large Ships Priority Pollutants for Blackwater (in alphabetical order)All units in ug/l or parts per billion (ppb)

Type

Sample

Date

1,1,2,2-

Tetrachloro

ethane

1,2-Dichloro

benzene

1,2-Dichloro

ethane

1,3-Dichloro

benzene

1,4-Dichloro

benzene

2,4,6-

Trichloro

phenol

2-Nitro

phenol

4-Nitro

phenol

AlphaBhc

Bis(2-

Ethylhexyl)

Phthalate

Bro

ch

met

0.44 0.42 0.74 0.44 0.57 0.38 0.56 0.15 0.00352 0.67 0

08-Sep-00 1.1 1.5 14-Sep-00 0.75 17 120-Sep-00 6.5 621-Sep-00 2.8 2 3.7

HT 21-Sep-00 8.8 1MSD 11-Aug-00 1.9

15-Aug-00 2 18-Aug-00 1.2 1.9 122-Aug-00 1.5 25-Aug-00 5.4 1

06-Sep-00 0.97 0.14 13-Sep-00 14-Sep-00 0.89 1.4 115-Sep-00 0.97 2.3 18-Sep-00 5.9 390 380 350 3.2 6.2 120-Sep-00 0.66 5.1 22-Sep-00 126-Sep-00 7.7 1.8

29-Aug-00 1.2 3.6 3

RO 02-Sep-00 1.9 4.1

10-Sep-00 1.2 1.3
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

Science Advisory PanelCommercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance ProgramThe Impact of Cruise Ship Wastewater Discharge on Alaska Waters November 2002

218

Table C30: 2000 Large Ships Priority Pollutants for Blackwater (in alphabetical order)All units in ug/l or parts per billion (ppb), except for TOTAL CYANIDE

Type

Sample

Date

Cadmium

(TR)

Carbon

tetra

chloride

Chloro

Form

Chromi

um (TR)

Copper

(TR)

cyanide

(total)

mg/l

deltabhc

Dibromo

Chloro

methane

Diethyl

phthalate

di-n-butyl

phthalate

di-n-octyl

phthalate

En

MDL 0.027 0.34 1.3 0.076 0.040 0.0016 0.004 0.21 0.53 1.4 0.32 

DB 15-Aug-00 3.1

08-Sep-00 0.79 510 0.068 14-Sep-00 15 150 3.7 2.520-Sep-00 6.7 530 2.7 3.9 21-Sep-00 10 3900 0.99 8.2

HT 21-Sep-00 13 6400 3.3 2.1 MSD 11-Aug-00 360

15-Aug-00 0.43 2.9 210 2.7 18-Aug-00 1.6 50 1.4 4.822-Aug-00 21 18 560 25 40 25-Aug-00 0.26 18 1.5 150 51 

06-Sep-00 20 530 19 0.073 18 13-Sep-00 4.2 210 240 73 8814-Sep-00 2 140 170 63 3.2 15-Sep-00 200 760 16 218-Sep-00 5.8 380 14 7100 28 270 2.7 1.2 20-Sep-00 1.6 93 19 360 26 56 3.121-Sep-00 1.6 25 130 2.622-Sep-00 27 1500 8826-Sep-00 0.24 3.7 54 2.1
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

Science Advisory PanelCommercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance ProgramThe Impact of Cruise Ship Wastewater Discharge on Alaska Waters November 2002

219

Type

Sample

Date

Cadmium

(TR)

Carbon

tetra

chloride

Chloro

Form

Chromi

um (TR)

Copper

(TR)

cyanide

(total)

mg/l

deltabhc

Dibromo

Chloro

methane

Diethyl

phthalate

di-n-butyl

phthalate

di-n-octyl

phthalate

En

MDL 0.027 0.34 1.3 0.076 0.040 0.0016 0.004 0.21 0.53 1.4 0.32 

OB 11-Aug-00 1.2

29-Aug-00 15 52 740 13 1.6 9.8 

RO 02-Sep-00 4.8

10-Sep-00 4.1 1.1
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

Science Advisory PanelCommercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance ProgramThe Impact of Cruise Ship Wastewater Discharge on Alaska Waters November 2002

220

Table C31: 2000 Large Ships Priority Pollutants for Blackwater (in alphabetical order)

Type Sample Date

Mercury

(TR)

Methyl

bromide

Methyl

chloride

Methylene

chloride Nickel (TR)

Phenan

Threne Phenol

Silver

(TR)

Tetrachloro

ethene 

0.050 1.2 1.2 2.3 0.036 0.53 0.85 0.031 0.23 

DB 08-Sep-00 0.93 250 

14-Sep-00 46 230 20-Sep-00 1 42 33 21-Sep-00 0.3 160 

HT 21-Sep-00 0.84 17 2.1 MSD 11-Aug-00 13 0.76 

15-Aug-00 1.8 29 0.59 18-Aug-00 0.27 22-Aug-00 25 25-Aug-00 130 0.18 

06-Sep-00 41 1.9 13-Sep-00 0.67 14-Sep-00 9.4 1.5 15-Sep-00 0.24 18-Sep-00 0.26 7 160 42 2 7.6 20-Sep-00 0.23 1.8 89 21-Sep-00 0.37 100 22-Sep-00 8126-Sep-00 240 

OB 29-Aug-00 1.9 RO 02-Sep-00 

10-Sep-00 2.1
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

Science Advisory PanelCommercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance ProgramThe Impact of Cruise Ship Wastewater Discharge on Alaska Waters November 2002

221

Table C32: Large Ships Conventional Pollutants Minimums

Waste Type

Units

Ammonia

Mg/L PH

BOD

Mg/L

COD

Mg/L

TSS

Mg/L

T Cl

Mg/L

FECAL

MPN

Sample

Date Sample From MDL 0.16 0.1 1.0 0.3 0.1 0.1 2 2000 MSD Treated BW 17.6 4.6 49 510 200 0.05 1 2000 Ballast tank BW&GW 0.19 5 72 130 40 0.05 1 2000 Collecting tanks GW mixed 0.12 3.8 40 170 37 0.05 30 2000 Collecting tanks GW laundry 0.008 3 6.7 180 4 0.05 1 2000 Collecting tanks GW laundry Accommodation 0.61 6.7 58 240 30 0.05 1 2000 Collecting tanks GW Galley 0.008 3.7 11 25 21 0.05 5 2000 Collecting tanks GW accommodation 0.88 7.8 210 1340 110 0.05 9 2001 Ballast tanks GW Accommodation 0.01 4.20 97 240 31 0.05 1 2001 Collecting tanks GW Accommodation 0.25 5.34 22 100 200 0.05 1 2001 Collecting tanks GW Galley 0.21 4.1 83 240 30 0.05 Not taken 2001 Ballast tank GW Galley 0.01 3.6 814 521 46 0.05 230000 2001 Ballast tank GW mixed 0.01 4.77 130 174 40.3 0.05 649,994 2001 Ballast tank GW laundry 0.13 4.20 75 268 15 0.05 48000 2001 Collecting tank GW laundry Not taken 7.6 49 340 20 0.05 30 2001 Collecting tank GW mixed 0.301 5.2 55.8 144 18 0.05 1 2001 Treatment GW/BW mixed 0.171 3.96 0.50 1.7 0.7 0.05 1 

Geo Mean all 0.11 4.68 44.58 160.30 27.50 0.05 23.13 Geo Mean Collecting 0.030 4.33 140.85 237.65 32.18 0.05 1483 Geo Mean Ballast 0.13 4.99 38.35 187.70 30.40 0.05 3.77 
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

Science Advisory PanelCommercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance ProgramThe Impact of Cruise Ship Wastewater Discharge on Alaska Waters November 2002

222

Table C33: Large Ships Conventional Pollutants Maximums

Waste Type

Units

Ammonia

Mg/L pH

BOD

Mg/L

COD

Mg/L

TSS

Mg/L

T Cl

Mg/L

Fecal

MPN/100ml

C

Um

Sample

Date Sample From MDL 0.16 0.1 1.0 0.3 0.1 0.1 2 2000 MSD Treated BW 730 8.7 320 1400 1480 9 1400000 no2000 Ballast tanks BW&GW 200 8.3 650 1030 380 1.3 16000000 no2000 Collecting tanks GW mixed 26.9 10.3 1120 15700 3000 1.2 16000000 no2000 Collecting tanks GW laundry 10 10.5 290 1310 420 1 8000 no2000 Collecting tanks GW laundry Accommodation 45 7.3 69 240 200 2.8 230 no2000 Collecting tanks GW galley 11 9.5 37030 69080 29400 4 9000000 no2000 Collecting tanks GWaccommodation 49 9 500 1340 800 1.5 1200 no2001 Ballast tanks GWaccommodation 0.83 7.70 1,000 2,300 240 14.00 16000000 2001 Collecting tanks GWaccommodation 1.09 9.80 4,230 5,650 2,880 70.00 16000000 2001 Collecting tanks GW galley 9.27 10.20 5900 6400 2520 100 Not taken 2001 Ballast tanks GW galley 1.38 4.8 1587 2404 512 3.3 15300000 2001 Ballast tanks GW mixed 1.92 7.01 936 982 365 0.05 1700000 32001 Ballast tanks GW laundry 7.35 9.9 1400 2600 743 1.20 2400000 2001 Collecting tanks GW laundry Not taken 9.2 150 960 24 2.00 30 2001 Collecting tanks GW mixed 0.739 9.8 1920 3100 4770 4.00 16000000 2001 Treatment tanks GW/BW mixed 17.9 7.55 3.44 11.5 0.7 5 60 

GeoMean 10.49 8.57 712.77 1793.99 547 3.28 271877 GeoMeanBallast 11.54 7.55 869.64 1652.41 515 1.79 5308273 GeoMeanCollecting tank 9.14 9.46 1129.09 3321.24 1194 4.70 83843 
Impact of Cruise Ship Discharges on Alaska WatersAppendix 7

223

Appendix 7

Fecal Coliform

Monitoring Data

from 2000 and 2001
Impact of Cruise Ship Discharges on Alaska WatersAppendix 7

224

Bacteria data for black, gray and combined black and gray water for summer of 2000.

if < or >, then use the value df = dilution factor

if ND, then use 2

if *, then sample holding time exceeded, but used value anyway

bacteria concentrations after dilution

Bacteria after df after df after df

Ship Water Qualifier Data of 50,000 of 500,000 of 5,000,000

A gry nd 2 0.00004 0.000004 0.0000004

A gry 50000 1 0.1 0.01

A blk 300 0.006 0.0006 0.00006

A gry 32000000 640 64 6.4

A gry nd 2 0.00004 0.000004 0.0000004

A gry 27000 0.54 0.054 0.0054

A blk nd 2 0.00004 0.000004 0.0000004

B gry * 3500000 70 7 0.7

B gry 490000 9.8 0.98 0.098

B gry 350000 7 0.7 0.07

B blk 350 0.007 0.0007 0.00007

B blk 3500000 70 7 0.7

B blk 9200000 184 18.4 1.84

B blk nd 2 0.00004 0.000004 0.0000004

B gry 3000 0.06 0.006 0.0006

B gry 30 0.0006 0.00006 0.000006

B gry 16000000 320 32 3.2

B blk 230 0.0046 0.00046 0.000046

B blk 230 0.0046 0.00046 0.000046

B blk nd 2 0.00004 0.000004 0.0000004

B blk 12000 0.24 0.024 0.0024

C gry 170000 3.4 0.34 0.034

C blk 16000000 320 32 3.2

C blk > 24000000 480 48 4.8

C blk 1700000 34 3.4 0.34
Impact of Cruise Ship Discharges on Alaska WatersAppendix 7

225

Bacteria after df after df after df

Ship Water Qualifier Data of 50,000 of 500,000 of 5,000,000

C blk 8 0.00016 0.000016 0.0000016

C blk 7.3 0.000146 0.0000146 0.00000146

C blk 8 0.00016 0.000016 0.0000016

C gry < 2 0.00004 0.000004 0.0000004

C gry < 2 0.00004 0.000004 0.0000004

C gry < 2 0.00004 0.000004 0.0000004

C blk 23000 0.46 0.046 0.0046

C blk 110000 2.2 0.22 0.022

C blk 2400000 48 4.8 0.48

D gry > 16000000 320 32 3.2

D gry 170000 3.4 0.34 0.034

D gry 28000 0.56 0.056 0.0056

D blk 5000000 100 10 1

D blk 800000 16 1.6 0.16

D gry < 2 0.00004 0.000004 0.0000004

D gry 170000 3.4 0.34 0.034

D gry 50000 1 0.1 0.01

D gry 170000 3.4 0.34 0.034

D blk * 300000 6 0.6 0.06

D blk 16000000 320 32 3.2

D blk 30000 0.6 0.06 0.006

D blk 2 0.00004 0.000004 0.0000004

E gry 1300000 26 2.6 0.26

E gry 700 0.014 0.0014 0.00014

E gry > 24000000 480 48 4.8

E gry 5000000 100 10 1

E gry 280000 5.6 0.56 0.056

E blk 1400000 28 2.8 0.28

E blk 700000 14 1.4 0.14

F gry 900000 18 1.8 0.18

F gry 70000 1.4 0.14 0.014

F blk > 2 0.00004 0.000004 0.0000004

F blk 2 0.00004 0.000004 0.0000004

F blk 23 0.00046 0.000046 0.0000046

F blk < 2 0.00004 0.000004 0.0000004

F blk < 2 0.00004 0.000004 0.0000004

F gry 7000 0.14 0.014 0.0014

F blk/gry 50000 1 0.1 0.01

F blk 50000 1 0.1 0.01

F blk 700 0.014 0.0014 0.00014
Impact of Cruise Ship Discharges on Alaska WatersAppendix 7

226

Bacteria after df after df after df

Ship Water Qualifier Data of 50,000 of 500,000 of 5,000,000

F blk 30 0.0006 0.00006 0.000006

F blk 2300 0.046 0.0046 0.00046

F blk < 2 0.00004 0.000004 0.0000004

G blk/gry 35000 0.7 0.07 0.007

G blk/gry nd 2 0.00004 0.000004 0.0000004

G blk/gry nd 2 0.00004 0.000004 0.0000004

H gry/blk 4000 0.08 0.008 0.0008

H gry/blk 510 0.0102 0.00102 0.000102

H gry/blk 30000 0.6 0.06 0.006

H gry/blk 60000 1.2 0.12 0.012

J gry 16000000 320 32 3.2

J gry 22000 0.44 0.044 0.0044

J gry 490000 9.8 0.98 0.098

J gry 9200000 184 18.4 1.84

J gry > 24000000 480 48 4.8

J gry 16000000 320 32 3.2

J blk * 3300 0.066 0.0066 0.00066

J blk 9200000 184 18.4 1.84

J blk 940000 18.8 1.88 0.188

J blk 790000 15.8 1.58 0.158

J gry 800000 16 1.6 0.16

J gry 220000 4.4 0.44 0.044

J gry 1600 0.032 0.0032 0.00032

J gry nd 2 0.00004 0.000004 0.0000004

J gry 3000000 60 6 0.6

J blk 1100000 22 2.2 0.22

J blk 500000 10 1 0.1

K gry 8000 0.16 0.016 0.0016

K gry 28000 0.56 0.056 0.0056

K gry 8000 0.16 0.016 0.0016

K blk 5 0.0001 0.00001 0.000001

K blk 170 0.0034 0.00034 0.000034

K blk 110000 2.2 0.22 0.022

K blk 5000000 100 10 1

L gry 9000000 180 18 1.8

L blk 17000 0.34 0.034 0.0034

L blk nd 2 0.00004 0.000004 0.0000004

L blk 9000000 180 18 1.8

L gry < 2 0.00004 0.000004 0.0000004

L gry < 2 0.00004 0.000004 0.0000004

L blk > 16000000 320 32 3.2
Impact of Cruise Ship Discharges on Alaska WatersAppendix 7

227

Bacteria after df after df after df

Ship Water Qualifier Data of 50,000 of 500,000 of 5,000,000

L blk 300 0.006 0.0006 0.00006

L blk < 2 0.00004 0.000004 0.0000004

M gry nd 2 0.00004 0.000004 0.0000004

M gry nd 2 0.00004 0.000004 0.0000004

M blk 2 0.00004 0.000004 0.0000004

M blk nd 2 0.00004 0.000004 0.0000004

M blk 500000 10 1 0.1

M gry 2200000 44 4.4 0.44

M gry 5000000 100 10 1

M gry 3000000 60 6 0.6

M blk 500000 10 1 0.1

M blk > 16000000 320 32 3.2

M blk 500000 10 1 0.1

N gry 9000000 180 18 1.8

N gry > 2 0.00004 0.000004 0.0000004

N blk 80 0.0016 0.00016 0.000016

N gry 130000 2.6 0.26 0.026

N gry 30 0.0006 0.00006 0.000006

N gry 1200 0.024 0.0024 0.00024

N blk nd 2 0.00004 0.000004 0.0000004

O gry 110000 2.2 0.22 0.022

O gry 5 0.0001 0.00001 0.000001

O blk 14 0.00028 0.000028 0.0000028

O blk 4 0.00008 0.000008 0.0000008

O blk 2800000 56 5.6 0.56

O gry * 9 0.00018 0.000018 0.0000018

O blk 9000 0.18 0.018 0.0018

O blk 5 0.0001 0.00001 0.000001

O blk 7 0.00014 0.000014 0.0000014

O blk < 2 0.00004 0.000004 0.0000004

P gry > 16000000 320 32 3.2

P gry 5000000 100 10 1

P blk 16000000 320 32 3.2

P blk 23 0.00046 0.000046 0.0000046

P gry > 16000000 320 32 3.2

P gry 5000000 100 10 1

P blk 3000000 60 6 0.6

Q gry nd 2 0.00004 0.000004 0.0000004

Q blk nd 2 0.00004 0.000004 0.0000004

Q blk nd 2 0.00004 0.000004 0.0000004
Impact of Cruise Ship Discharges on Alaska WatersAppendix 7

228

Bacteria after df after df after df

Ship Water Qualifier Data of 50,000 of 500,000 of 5,000,000

Q blk nd 2 0.00004 0.000004 0.0000004

Q blk nd 2 0.00004 0.000004 0.0000004

Q gry 1400000 28 2.8 0.28

Q gry 5000000 100 10 1

Q gry 280000 5.6 0.56 0.056

Q blk 13 0.00026 0.000026 0.0000026

Q blk < 2 0.00004 0.000004 0.0000004

Q blk < 2 0.00004 0.000004 0.0000004

Q blk 13000 0.26 0.026 0.0026

S blk nd 2 0.00004 0.000004 0.0000004

S blk 6700 0.134 0.0134 0.00134

S blk 260000 5.2 0.52 0.052

S gry 1100000 22 2.2 0.22

S gry 1100000 22 2.2 0.22

S gry < 2 0.00004 0.000004 0.0000004

S blk < 2 0.00004 0.000004 0.0000004

S blk < 2 0.00004 0.000004 0.0000004

S blk 1700000 34 3.4 0.34

T gry 350000 7 0.7 0.07

T gry 130 0.0026 0.00026 0.000026

T blk 170000 3.4 0.34 0.034

T blk 5000 0.1 0.01 0.001

T blk 5000000 100 10 1

T gry 11000 0.22 0.022 0.0022

T gry 900000 18 1.8 0.18

T blk 13 0.00026 0.000026 0.0000026

T blk < 2 0.00004 0.000004 0.0000004

T blk 140000 2.8 0.28 0.028

T blk 13 0.00026 0.000026 0.0000026

U gry 50000 1 0.1 0.01

U gry 220000 4.4 0.44 0.044

U gry 220000 4.4 0.44 0.044

U blk 1700000 34 3.4 0.34

U gry 170000 3.4 0.34 0.034

U gry 8 0.00016 0.000016 0.0000016

U gry > 16000000 320 32 3.2

U blk > 16000000 320 32 3.2

V

blk/gr

y

< 2 0.00004 0.000004 0.0000004

V < 2 0.00004 0.000004 0.0000004
Impact of Cruise Ship Discharges on Alaska WatersAppendix 7

229

Bacteria after df after df after df

Ship Water Qualifier Data of 50,000 of 500,000 of 5,000,000

blk/gr

y

V

blk/gr

y

nd 2 0.00004 0.000004 0.0000004

Summary data after applying after df after df after df

various dilution factors of 50,000 of 500,000 of 5,000,000

geomean = 5.46 0.55 0.05

median = 27.5 2.75 0.28

% > 400 = 2% 0% 0%

% > 43 = 20% 2% 0%

M bl/gr 2 0.00004 0.000004 0.0000004

M bl/gr 1 0.00002 0.000002 0.0000002

M bl/gr 1 0.00002 0.000002 0.0000002

M bl/gr 1 0.00002 0.000002 0.0000002

M bl/gr 1 0.00002 0.000002 0.0000002

M bl/gr 1 0.00002 0.000002 0.0000002

M bl/gr 1 0.00002 0.000002 0.0000002

M bl/gr 1 0.00002 0.000002 0.0000002

M bl/gr 1 0.00002 0.000002 0.0000002

M bl/gr 1 0.00002 0.000002 0.0000002

S bl/gr 1 0.00002 0.000002 0.0000002

S bl/gr 1 0.00002 0.000002 0.0000002

UE bl/gr 60 0.0012 0.00012 0.000012

UE bl/gr 5 0.0001 0.00001 0.000001

UE bl/gr invalidated

UE bl/gr invalidated

geomean = 0.0000316 0.0000032 0.0000003

median = 0.0000200 0.0000020 0.0000002

% > 400 = 0% 0% 0%

% > 40 = 0% 0% 0%

Bacteria data from large cruise ships, graywater discharges, summer 2001

bacteria after df after df after df

ship water

qualifie

r

data of 50,000 of 500,000 of 5,000,000

D butch 16000000 320 32 3.2

D gr 2 0.00004 0.000004 0.0000004

D gr 70000 1.4 0.14 0.014

D gr 90 0.0018 0.00018 0.000018

D gr 50000 1 0.1 0.01
Impact of Cruise Ship Discharges on Alaska WatersAppendix 7

230

Bacteria data from large cruise ships, graywater discharges, summer 2001

bacteria after df after df after df

ship water

qualifie

r

data of 50,000 of 500,000 of 5,000,000

D fish 500000 10 1 0.1

D galley 7000 0.14 0.014 0.0014

D gr 500000 10 1 0.1

D butch 80000 1.6 0.16 0.016

D gr 16000000 320 32 3.2

D galley 230000 4.6 0.46 0.046

N gr 1600000 32 3.2 0.32

N gr 30 0.0006 0.00006 0.000006

N gr 30 0.0006 0.00006 0.000006

N gr 1700000 34 3.4 0.34

N gr 700000 14 1.4 0.14

N gr 300000 6 0.6 0.06

N gr 1 0.00002 0.000002 0.0000002

N gr 9000000 180 18 1.8

N gr 9000000 180 18 1.8

N gr 2800000 56 5.6 0.56

N gr 3500000 70 7 0.7

N gr 16000000 320 32 3.2

O gr 300000 6 0.6 0.06

O gr 300000 6 0.6 0.06

O galley 5000 0.1 0.01 0.001

O gr 300000 6 0.6 0.06

O gr 1 0.00002 0.000002 0.0000002

O gr 170000 3.4 0.34 0.034

O butch 1 0.00002 0.000002 0.0000002

O gr 16000000 320 32 3.2

O gr 2400000 48 4.8 0.48

O fish 1 0.00002 0.000002 0.0000002

O galley 230000 4.6 0.46 0.046

R gr 22000 0.44 0.044 0.0044

R gr 350000 7 0.7 0.07

R gr 33 0.00066 0.000066 0.0000066

R galley 50 0.001 0.0001 0.00001

R galley 358000 7.16 0.716 0.0716

R gr 600000 12 1.2 0.12

R fish 624 0.01248 0.001248 0.0001248

R butch 1 0.00002 0.000002 0.0000002

R galley 15300000 306 30.6 3.06

R gr 1 0.00002 0.000002 0.0000002

R gr 1 0.00002 0.000002 0.0000002

R gr 48000 0.96 0.096 0.0096

R gr 50000 1 0.1 0.01

R galley 30 0.0006 0.00006 0.000006

S gr 170 0.0034 0.00034 0.000034

S gr 1 0.00002 0.000002 0.0000002

S gr 1 0.00002 0.000002 0.0000002

S galley 1 0.00002 0.000002 0.0000002
Impact of Cruise Ship Discharges on Alaska WatersAppendix 7

231

Bacteria data from large cruise ships, graywater discharges, summer 2001

bacteria after df after df after df

ship water

qualifie

r

data of 50,000 of 500,000 of 5,000,000

S butch 1 0.00002 0.000002 0.0000002

S gr 50 0.001 0.0001 0.00001

S fish 1 0.00002 0.000002 0.0000002

S galley 23 0.00046 0.000046 0.0000046

S galley 30000 0.6 0.06 0.006

S fish 1 0.00002 0.000002 0.0000002

S gr 170000 3.4 0.34 0.034

S galley 300000 6 0.6 0.06

S gr 2400000 48 4.8 0.48

S gr 16000000 320 32 3.2

geomean = 0.12889 0.01289 0.00129

median = 1.2 0.12 0.012

% > 400 = 0% 0% 0%

% > 40 = 19% 0% 0%
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

Science Advisory Panel

Commercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance Program

Review and Comment Regarding Whole Effluent Toxicity Test Results for Five Commercial Passenger Vessels in Alaska July 2002

232

Appendix 8

Whole Effluent

Toxicity Tests
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

Science Advisory Panel

Commercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance Program

Review and Comment Regarding Whole Effluent Toxicity Test Results for Five Commercial Passenger Vessels in Alaska July 2002

233

Science Advisory Panel

for

Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

Commercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance Program

Review and Comment Regarding

Whole Effluent Toxicity Test Results

for

Five Commercial Passenger Vessels

in

Alaska

July 2002

Summary

Bioassays conducted in July 2002 by the Alaska Department of Environmental

Conservation (ADEC) on a variety of commercial passenger vessel effluents indicate that

acute or chronic toxic effects on marine organisms are not expected at the high dilutions

that occur when vessels are underway.

The highest toxicities observed were from a graywater sample taken from a small cruise

ship. The no observed effect concentration (NOEC) of 0.05% graywater effluent (a

dilution factor of 2000) from this small cruise ship could be a concern if the effluent was

discharged when moored, drifting or at anchor because dilution benefits are greatly

reduced at such times.

The lowest toxicities were from (1) a sample of blackwater from a large cruise ship with

reverse osmosis treatment and (2) an untreated blackwater sample from a small cruise

ship. In fact these samples gave no toxic response even at the greatest concentration

tested.

The Panel concludes that excess chlorine is the mostly likely cause of the observed

toxicities.

These test results suggest tradeoffs between disinfection and chlorine toxicity and the

difficulty of optimizing the amount of chlorine usage. The vessels sampled with

advanced treatment technology (ultrafiltration and reverse osmosis) had very low marine

organism toxicity and can safely discharge even when moored, drifting or at anchor.
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

Science Advisory Panel

Commercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance Program

Review and Comment Regarding Whole Effluent Toxicity Test Results for Five Commercial Passenger Vessels in Alaska July 2002

234

Methodology

Six different effluent samples from five different cruise ships operating in Alaska waters

were taken and analyzed for whole effluent toxicity (WET) in July 2002. The sampling

events were arranged and scheduled in advance. The effluents covered a range of sources

and treatments and came from both large and small cruise ships. The sampling,

transporting, and testing followed standard EPA methods, met all test acceptability

criteria, and fulfilled the requirements of the quality assurance (QA) plan. The laboratory

conducting the testing was certified by the Washington Department of Ecology for

conducting WET tests. Observations of conventional water quality parameters were

made upon receipt at the lab. The tests were run on a dilution series of six different

concentrations of effluent. Because of the high initial dilution rates associated with

moving cruise ships, the dilution series started at 50% effluent and increased by a factor

of 10 in each step such that the percent effluent tested progressively decreased and

included concentrations of 50%, 5%, 0.5%, 0.05%, 0.005% and 0.0005% effluent. The

dilution series represented concentrations that are attained in receiving waters with

dilution factors of 2, 20, 200, 2,000, 20,000 and 200,000. For comparison, a typical large

cruise ship discharging 200 cubic meters per hour while traveling at 6 knots (11 km/hour)

would have a dilution factor of about 50,000.47

The test species were selected because they were the marine species most likely to be

sensitive to the effluents and have well established testing protocols. Each effluent was

tested using two different species for acute tests (where lethality was the effect measured)

and using two different species for chronic tests (where sub-lethal effects were

measured).

Validity of the test

The Science Advisory Panel has reviewed the Whole Effluent Toxicity study results48

(hereafter called the Study) and a separate laboratory analysis of the conventional and

priority pollutant concentrations of each sample49. The Panel concluded that the Study is

a valid and useful characterization.

What do the test results say?

Table 6 from the Study summarizes the results of all the bioassay tests. It is repeated

here with some changes in vessel order and column headings. For the purposes of our

comments and conclusions and for ease of understanding, we focused on comparisons of

no observable effects concentrations (NOEC).

 

47 The Panel has developed a formula for predicting dilution/dispersion in the wake of large cruise ships.

 Dilution factor = 4 x (ship width x ship draft x ship speed)/(volume discharge rate)

48 AMEC Earth & Environmental Northwest Bioassay Laboratory. 2002. Results of Toxicity Evaluation of

Cruise Ship Wastewater Whole Effluent - Southeast Alaska. Prepared for Alaska Department of

Environmental Conservation, Juneau, AK. Project no. 31-1-11132-003

49 Analytica Environmental Laboratories, Juneau
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

Science Advisory Panel

Commercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance Program

Review and Comment Regarding Whole Effluent Toxicity Test Results for Five Commercial Passenger Vessels in Alaska July 2002

235

Numbers represent the highest effluent concentration at which the tests exhibited no

observable acute or chronic effects. Values in parentheses show dilution ratios associated

with the no observed effect concentrations (NOEC).

Whole Effluent Toxicity Test Results

No Observed Effect Concentration (NOEC) in % Effluent

Vessel Treatment System

Mysid

Acute

NOEC

Topsmelt

Acute

NOEC

Bivalve

Larvae

NOEC

Echinoderm

Fertilization

NOEC

Dawn 5 5 0.5 0.5

Princess

Graywater

Chlorine added to

collection tanks (1:20) (1:20) (1:200) (1:200)

Mercury 50 50 50 50

Mixed

Effluent

Reverse Osmosis

(1:2) (1:2) (>1:2) (1:2)

Volendam 50 5 5 5

Mixed

Effluent

Aerated

Membrane

(Ultrafiltration) (1:2) (1:20) (1:20) (1:20)

Kennicott 5 5 5 0.5

Mixed

Effluent

Macerator/

Chlorinator (1:20) (1:20) (1:20) (1:200)

Yorktown 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.05

Clipper

Graywater

Chlorine injection

(1:200) (1:200) (1:200) (1:2000)

Yorktown 50 50 50 50

Clipper

Blackwater

Macerator/

Chlorinator (>1:2) (1:2) (1:2) (1:2)

What do the test results mean?

Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET) testing is an alternative to directly analyzing

environmental samples for individual constituents. WET testing addresses the effect that

simultaneous exposure to a mixture of pollutants has on an organism. A full description

of the WET process is provided as an appendix to these comments.

In summary, samples from the Mercury and of the Yorktown blackwater did not

demonstrate any toxicity at any concentration. The Volendam sample demonstrated an

effect at 50% (one part seawater to one part wastewater) for the Topsmelt acute and both

chronic test species. The Dawn Princess and the Kennicott demonstrated some effect at

50% concentration in the acute test and some effect at 5% wastewater concentration in

the chronic tests. The Yorktown graywater sample exhibited the most observable toxicity

effect of all vessels tested.
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

Science Advisory Panel

Commercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance Program

Review and Comment Regarding Whole Effluent Toxicity Test Results for Five Commercial Passenger Vessels in Alaska July 2002

236

If the wastewater effluents were all from large cruise ships that were discharging

underway, the observed WET values would not be of concern because of the high dilution

rates1

. Because the greatest chronic toxicity measurement was observed from a small ship

which discharges continuously (Yorktown Clipper graywater), attaining the necessary

dilution might be a concern.

The chronic toxicity of the Yorktown Clipper graywater and the Kennicott mixed effluent

may be explained by the excessive chlorination of the effluent. Alaska’s water quality

standard for total residual chlorine is 2 ppb for salmonids and 10 ppb for other organisms.

The total residual chlorine in the Yorktown Clipper graywater and Kennicott mix was

16,200 ppb and 30,300 ppb, respectively. These chlorine concentrations support the

NOEC measured for these two vessels, where effects were observed at lower

concentrations than those of other vessels and effluents. The observed toxicity of the

Dawn Princess graywater is not readily explained. There was no residual chlorine in the

sample, but nevertheless, the toxicity of the Dawn Princess graywater would not be

significant at the dilutions estimated for cruise ships discharging underway.

An interesting observation from the above data set is the lack of toxicity of the Yorktown

Clipper blackwater sample. When the sample was drawn, it was evident that the

treatment system was not functioning properly. The bacteria concentration of 2,400

MPN/100 ml indicates that the effluent must have been chlorinated, but not with enough

chlorine to have any residual chlorine left at the time of the test. For all four tests, the

sample exhibited no acute or chronic toxicity at the highest concentration (50%).

Conclusions of the Science Advisory Panel

The bioassay (WET test) conducted by AMEC Earth & Environmental on behalf of the

Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation is valid and useful to the Panel’s

study of the potential for impacts or effects of commercial passenger vessel wastewater

discharges.

The various effluents tested and analyzed would be expected to impart no acute or

chronic toxic effects to marine organisms at the high dilutions that occur when vessels are

underway.

The highest toxicities were observed from a graywater sample taken from a small cruise

ship. The highly chlorinated graywater effluent from this small cruise ship could be a

concern if the effluent was discharged when moored, drifting or at anchor because

dilution benefits are greatly reduced at such times.

The effluents from the vessel employing reverse osmosis advanced treatment technology

(Mercury) would not be expected to impart observable effects on marine organisms if

discharged in port.

The effluents from the vessel employing ultrafiltration advanced treatment technology

(Volendam) would not be expected to impart observable effects on marine organisms if

discharged in port, provided the effluent is diluted by a factor 20. The Panel believes this
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

Science Advisory Panel

Commercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance Program

Review and Comment Regarding Whole Effluent Toxicity Test Results for Five Commercial Passenger Vessels in Alaska July 2002

237

mixing rate is easily achieved for large cruise ships, given the discharge velocity required

to overcome the static head pressure at the depth of the discharge port50. 

This study highlights the trade-offs created when chlorine is used for disinfection. 

Science Advisory Panel Members participating in the preparation of these

comments

C.J. Beegle-Krause, US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Kenwyn George, Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

Lincoln Loehr, Heller Ehrman White & McAuliffe LLP

Charles McGee, Orange County (CA) Sanitation District

Alan Mearns, US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

*Madonna Narvaez, US Environmental Protection Agency

Michael Watson, US Environmental Protection Agency

* Associate member providing advice on WET testing 

October 2, 2002

 

50 We made the following assumptions regarding the dilution achieved when a vessel is at rest. One is that

the effluent is being pumped. One can also assume that the discharge pipe diameter would be no larger

than 8 inches. The EPA approved dilution-modeling CORMIX model shows that at a discharge rate of

50m3

/hr yields a dilution factor of 36 at a distance about 4.5m from the ship, and a dilution factor of 50 at

7m from the ship after 43 seconds.
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

Science Advisory Panel

Commercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance Program

Review and Comment Regarding Whole Effluent Toxicity Test Results for Five Commercial Passenger Vessels in Alaska July 2002

238

Appendix

Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET) Testing

Theory, Procedures, and Process

Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET) testing is an alternative to directly analyzing

environmental samples for individual constituents. In WET testing, impact of a discharge

stream on the environment can be evaluated in terms of its short (acute) or long-term

(chronic) lethal or reproductive effects on indigenous animal species. Test organisms are

exposed to various dilutions. Conditions of exposure can be varied based on the desired

type of response. In a static non-renewal test, the test organisms are exposed to a single

portion of the test solution for the duration of the test. In a static renewal test, the test

organisms are exposed to fresh changes of the test water every day for the duration of the

test. In a flow through test, the test organisms are continuously exposed to fresh batches,

or mixes of test solution. Both the acute and the chronic tests were static. Effect of the

exposure is measured in terms of a no observable effect concentration (NOEC) and a

lowest observable effect concentration (LOEC) based on whether there is a statistical

difference between controls and test samples. Additionally, a lethal concentration (LC)

or a dose response curve can be calculated from the test results. LC is the concentration

of the test material that kills a specified percentage of the test organisms over the

observation time. An example of how the LC is expressed would be a "48-hr LC50."

This is the concentration of the test sample that resulted in death of 50% of the organisms

after a 48-hour exposure. A dose response expresses the response of the organism to a

toxicant based upon body weight or dilution. The curve plots percent response verses log

dose.51 Sub-lethal effect concentrations (EC) can be similarly described.

This WET testing investigation examined the toxicity of six effluent samples from five

commercial cruise ships using marine organisms. Mysid shrimp (Mysidopsis bahia) and

Topsmelt ( Atherinops affinis) were selected as the test organisms for the acute testing.

Survival was evaluated after a 48-hour exposure period to the Mysid shrimp and a 96-

hour exposure period to the Topsmelt. The bivalve Mytilus galloprovincialis and the

echinoderm Strongylocentrotus purpuratus were used as the test organisms for the

chronic tests. Test concentrations examined were 50%, 5%, 0.5%, 0.05%, 0.005%, and

0.0005% of the effluent.

EPA has a method for calculating a concentration from an LC50 that represents "virtually

no mortality." However, the reported acute NOECs are sufficient for our evaluation. The

acute NOECs varied from 50% to 0.5% effluent. The lowest acute NOEC of 0.5% was

for a heavily chlorinated effluent. Note that a 0.5% effluent concentration is attained

after a dilution factor of only 200. Discharges from moving cruise ships attain much

greater dilutions and acute whole effluent toxicity is not a concern for discharges when

moving.

 

51 Smith, Roy-Keith, Handbook of Environmental Analysis, Fourth Edition, Genium Publishing

Corporation, 1999.
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

Science Advisory Panel

Commercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance Program

Review and Comment Regarding Whole Effluent Toxicity Test Results for Five Commercial Passenger Vessels in Alaska July 2002

239

The chronic bioassay results have NOECs varying from 50% to 0.05% effluent. Alaska

has a water quality standard of 1 chronic toxic unit (TUc). The chronic toxic units for a

discharge may be determined by dividing 100 by the NOEC. Consequently, the chronic

toxic units observed in the above effluents varied from 2 to 2,000. Following Alaska and

EPA’s approach, dilution is considered in determining where the 1 TUc standard is to be

applied. The chronic toxic units actually are the same as the amount of dilution needed to

meet the 1 TUc standard.

For large cruise ships traveling at a speed of at least 6 knots, a dilution factor of 50,000 is

considered reasonable and conservative. For small cruise ships also traveling at 6 knots it

may be around 37,500. It is clear that as soon as effluent is entrained in turbulence

behind the stern of a ship moving at 6 knots or greater, within a minute or so a dilution

factor substantially greater than 2000 will have been achieved for either small or large

vessels. In terms of the NOEC, this means that the concentration of the effluent in

seawater will be substantially less than 0.05% at that same location. It is also evident that

small cruise ships will require better methods to ensure highly chlorinated discharges are

not released while the vessels are stationary, or (preferably) traveling at less than 6 knots.
240

Appendix 9

Mussel Contaminants
The Impact of Cruise Ship Wastewater Discharge on Alaska Waters Novembe

241

Table D-1a: PAH Values in Alaskan Mussels

SEQ 248 249 250 254 257

Mean

Alaska Median Min M

Site KTMP NBES PVMC UISB CIHS

Year 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001

Sample NST0854 NST0863 NST0856 NST0855 NST0859

Unit: ppb (ug/kg) dw

Naphthalene 8.60 14.10 11.90 11.70 10.20 11.30 11.70 8.60 14

C1-Naphthalenes 4.10 6.10 6.60 6.00 5.60 5.68 6.00 4.10 6.C2-Naphthalenes 3.70 5.00 5.30 4.90 7.10 5.20 5.00 3.70 7.C3-Naphthalenes 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 8.40 2.08 0.00 0.00 8.C4-Naphthalenes 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.50 2.50 0.00 0.00 12

Biphenyl 1.90 3.10 3.20 4.60 2.30 3.02 3.10 1.90 4.Acenaphthylene 0.40 0.90 0.40 0.30 0.60 0.52 0.40 0.30 0.Acenaphthene 0.60 1.60 0.40 0.70 1.60 0.98 0.70 0.40 1.Fluorene 0.70 1.10 0.70 0.70 1.80 1.00 0.70 0.70 1.

C1-Fluorenes 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.10 0.82 0.00 0.00 4.C2-Fluorenes 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.40 1.08 0.00 0.00 5.C3-Fluorenes 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.00 0.80 0.00 0.00 4.

Phenanthrene 6.30 21.00 10.40 2.50 13.10 10.66 10.40 2.50 21Anthracene 0.20 1.70 0.20 0.40 1.10 0.72 0.40 0.20 1.

C1-Phenanthrenes/Anthracenes 2.50 5.30 5.10 1.80 5.90 4.12 5.10 1.80 5.C2-Phenanthrenes/Anthracenes 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 7.00 1.40 0.00 0.00 7.C3-Phenanthrenes/Anthracenes 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.80 0.76 0.00 0.00 3.C4-Phenanthrenes/Anthracenes 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.

Dibenzothiophene 0.30 0.70 0.90 0.30 0.80 0.60 0.70 0.30 0.
The Impact of Cruise Ship Wastewater Discharge on Alaska Waters Novembe

242

SEQ 248 249 250 254 257

Mean

Alaska Median Min M

Site KTMP NBES PVMC UISB CIHS

Year 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001

Sample NST0854 NST0863 NST0856 NST0855 NST0859

Unit: ppb (ug/kg) dw

C1-Dibenzothiophenes 0.00 0.00 1.70 0.00 2.50 0.84 0.00 0.00 2.C2-Dibenzothiophenes 0.00 0.00 3.10 0.00 4.30 1.48 0.00 0.00 4.C3-Dibenzothiophenes 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.80 0.36 0.00 0.00 1.

Fluoranthene 2.70 11.60 3.60 0.50 6.30 4.94 3.60 0.50 11Pyrene 1.10 3.30 1.50 0.30 5.80 2.40 1.50 0.30 5.

C1-Fluoranthenes/Pyrenes 1.50 5.10 0.00 0.00 2.60 1.84 1.50 0.00 5.

Benzo(a)anthracene 1.20 5.90 1.30 0.20 1.20 1.96 1.20 0.20 5.Chrysene 4.10 9.70 5.20 1.00 2.10 4.42 4.10 1.00 9.

C1-Chrysenes 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.C2-Chrysenes 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.C3-Chrysenes 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.C4-Chrysenes 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.

Benzo(b)fluoranthene 0.00 3.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.64 0.00 0.00 3.Benzo(k)fluoranthene 0.00 4.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.88 0.00 0.00 4.Benzo(e)pyrene 1.40 2.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.70 0.00 0.00 2.Benzo(a)pyrene 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.Perylene 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.70 6.80 2.30 0.00 0.00 6.Indeno(1,2,3-c,d)pyrene 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.2-Methylnaphthalene 3.90 5.70 6.00 5.70 5.60 5.38 5.70 3.90 6.1-Methylnaphthalene 2.40 3.60 4.10 3.40 2.90 3.28 3.40 2.40 4.
The Impact of Cruise Ship Wastewater Discharge on Alaska Waters Novembe

243

SEQ 248 249 250 254 257

Mean

Alaska Median Min M

Site KTMP NBES PVMC UISB CIHS

Year 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001

Sample NST0854 NST0863 NST0856 NST0855 NST0859

Unit: ppb (ug/kg) dw

2,6-Dimethylnaphthalene 1.60 1.60 2.20 1.70 3.20 2.06 1.70 1.60 3.Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 0.40 0.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.16 0.00 0.00 0.1,6,7-Trimethylnaphthalene 0.30 0.00 0.60 0.40 1.70 0.60 0.40 0.00 1.1-Methylphenanthrene 0.60 1.10 1.20 0.60 2.00 1.10 1.10 0.60 2.NS&T TPAH 44.00 106.00 62.00 41.00 129.00 76.40 62.00 41.00 129TPAH (44) 52.50 118.30 75.60 52.40 144.10 88.58 75.60 52.40 144FFPI numerator 28.20 53.30 45.70 27.90 98.30 50.68 45.70 27.90 98FFPI (52/51) 0.54 0.45 0.60 0.53 0.68 0.56 0.54 0.45 0.
The Impact of Cruise Ship Wastewater Discharge on Alaska Waters Novembe

244

Table D-1b: PAH Values in West Coast Mussels

Mean

West Median Min Max STDEV Count

Ratio AK to W

Mea

Unit: ppb (ug/kg) dwNaphthalene 16.70 11.60 5.40 174 22.51 58 0.68

C1-Naphthalenes 15.80 7.35 2.40 348 45.70 58 0.36C2-Naphthalenes 14.93 5.13 0.00 360 47.33 58 0.35C3-Naphthalenes 13.69 3.60 0.00 241 33.62 58 0.15C4-Naphthalenes 10.36 2.95 0.00 87 18.50 58 0.24

Biphenyl 7.48 3.50 1.50 188 24.38 58 0.40Acenaphthylene 4.30 1.00 0.00 60 9.71 58 0.12Acenaphthene 27.50 1.28 0.00 1060 141.28 58 0.04Fluorene 38.92 1.90 0.40 1600 211.32 58 0.03

C1-Fluorenes 11.15 0.00 0.00 304 41.40 58 0.07C2-Fluorenes 14.10 0.00 0.00 194 34.23 58 0.08C3-Fluorenes 16.60 0.00 0.00 220 38.22 58 0.05

Phenanthrene 191.94 20.15 2.90 6140 817.59 58 0.06Anthracene 28.45 2.50 0.00 737 102.06 58 0.03

C1-Phenanthrenes/Anthracenes 81.60 9.88 0.00 1870 258.90 58 0.05C2-Phenanthrenes/Anthracenes 66.50 10.25 0.00 952 151.47 58 0.02C3-Phenanthrenes/Anthracenes 41.17 7.60 0.00 427 78.73 58 0.02C4-Phenanthrenes/Anthracenes 12.00 0.00 0.00 107 23.44 58 0.00

Dibenzothiophene 13.46 1.30 0.20 473 62.51 58 0.04

C1-Dibenzothiophenes 10.34 1.60 0.00 180 27.85 58 0.08C2-Dibenzothiophenes 18.86 3.30 0.00 236 40.62 58 0.08
The Impact of Cruise Ship Wastewater Discharge on Alaska Waters Novembe

245

Mean

West Median Min Max STDEV Count

Ratio AK to W

Mea

Unit: ppb (ug/kg) dw

C3-Dibenzothiophenes 18.29 1.38 0.00 157 35.30 58 0.02

Fluoranthene 325.49 20.60 0.50 7250 1022.76 58 0.02Pyrene 192.62 16.50 0.30 4290 602.10 58 0.01

C1-Fluoranthenes/Pyrenes 118.61 9.65 0.00 2620 370.69 58 0.02

Benzo(a)anthracene 113.27 5.65 0.30 3370 453.42 58 0.02Chrysene 148.04 16.00 1.00 3240 449.65 58 0.03

C1-Chrysenes 55.53 2.35 0.00 1520 205.81 58 0.00C2-Chrysenes 14.40 0.00 0.00 359 50.12 58 0.00C3-Chrysenes 0.82 0.00 0.00 35 4.70 58 0.00C4-Chrysenes 0.17 0.00 0.00 6 0.91 58 0.00

Benzo(b)fluoranthene 75.38 5.55 0.00 1680 238.12 58 0.01Benzo(k)fluoranthene 83.69 5.40 0.00 2410 323.18 58 0.01Benzo(e)pyrene 63.78 7.50 0.00 1480 203.39 58 0.01Benzo(a)pyrene 27.32 1.10 0.00 814 110.34 58 0.00Perylene 14.02 5.35 0.00 268 36.59 58 0.16Indeno(1,2,3-c,d)pyrene 12.97 1.85 0.00 335 45.04 58 0.00Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene 3.17 0.25 0.00 89 11.89 58 0.00Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 9.84 2.60 0.00 205 27.74 58 0.022-Methylnaphthalene 18.19 7.85 2.40 379 50.47 58 0.301-Methylnaphthalene 6.94 2.95 1.30 181 23.52 58 0.472,6-Dimethylnaphthalene 7.73 2.40 0.90 202 26.50 58 0.271,6,7-Trimethylnaphthalene 2.58 0.80 0.20 40 5.89 58 0.23
The Impact of Cruise Ship Wastewater Discharge on Alaska Waters Novembe

246

Mean

West Median Min Max STDEV Count

Ratio AK to W

Mea

Unit: ppb (ug/kg) dw1-Methylphenanthrene 12.84 1.85 0.00 288 39.31 58 0.09TPAH (44) 1981.54 251.13 34.80 46698 6357 58 0.04FFPI numerator 664.34 119.55 20.70 15513 2094 58 0.08FFPI (52/51) 0.45 0.45 0.16 0.88 0.16 58 1.24NS&T TPAH 1933.30 231.05 28.40 45608 6218 58 0.04
The Impact of Cruise Ship Wastewater Discharge on Alaska Waters Novembe

247

Table D-2a: Organic Compounds in Alaska Mussels

SEQ 248 249 250 254 257SITE KTMP NBES PVMC UISB CIHSGeneral Loc Ketchikan Skagway Port Valdez Unakwik Inlet Cook InletSpecific Mountain Point East Side Mineral Creek FLats Siwash Bay Homer SpitLAT 55.301 59.456 61.136 60.956 59.624LONG 131.558 135.339 146.463 147.658 151.451Sample Name NST0854 NST0863 NST0856 NST0855 NST0859Coll Date 3/28/2001 4/19/2001 3/3/2001 3/29/2001 4/8/2001YEAR 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 Alaska Alaska Alaska Unit: ppb or ug/kg (ng/g) dw Mean Median Min % Dry 16.95 12.11 12.16 13.73 14.29 13.85 13.73 12.11 % Moisture 83.05 87.89 87.84 86.27 85.71 86.15 86.27 83.05 % Lipid Based (dry) 4.76 4.35 2.62 3.54 3.99 3.85 3.99 2.62 % Lipid Based (wet) 0.81 0.53 0.32 0.49 0.57 0.54 0.53 0.32 Aldrin 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Dieldrin 0.33 0.85 0.23 0.39 0.38 0.44 0.38 0.23 Endrin 0.00 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 Heptachlor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Heptachlor-Epoxide 0.16 0.36 0.23 0.20 0.19 0.23 0.20 0.16 Oxychlordane 0.08 0.49 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.13 0.08 0.00 Alpha-Chlordane 0.33 0.73 0.23 0.30 0.38 0.39 0.33 0.23 Gamma-Chlordane 0.08 0.24 0.12 0.10 0.10 0.13 0.10 0.08 Trans-Nonachlor 0.24 0.85 0.23 0.20 0.38 0.38 0.24 0.20 Cis-Nonachlor 0.08 0.36 0.12 0.10 0.00 0.13 0.10 0.00 
The Impact of Cruise Ship Wastewater Discharge on Alaska Waters Novembe

248

SEQ 248 249 250 254 257SITE KTMP NBES PVMC UISB CIHSGeneral Loc Ketchikan Skagway Port Valdez Unakwik Inlet Cook InletSpecific Mountain Point East Side Mineral Creek FLats Siwash Bay Homer SpitLAT 55.301 59.456 61.136 60.956 59.624LONG 131.558 135.339 146.463 147.658 151.451Sample Name NST0854 NST0863 NST0856 NST0855 NST0859Coll Date 3/28/2001 4/19/2001 3/3/2001 3/29/2001 4/8/2001YEAR 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 Alaska Alaska Alaska Unit: ppb or ug/kg (ng/g) dw Mean Median Min Alpha-HCH 1.06 1.21 0.93 0.99 1.14 1.07 1.06 0.93 Beta-HCH 0.73 0.73 0.00 0.59 0.86 0.58 0.73 0.00 Delta-HCH 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Gamma-HCH 0.33 0.49 0.23 0.39 0.48 0.38 0.39 0.23 2,4'-DDD 0.00 0.49 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.00 4,4'-DDD 0.41 0.49 0.35 0.30 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.30 2,4'-DDE 0.16 0.24 0.12 0.10 0.19 0.16 0.16 0.10 4,4'-DDE 0.41 1.21 0.35 0.20 0.29 0.49 0.35 0.20 2,4'-DDT 0.16 0.61 0.23 0.20 0.19 0.28 0.20 0.16 4,4'-DDT 0.00 0.24 0.12 0.10 0.10 0.11 0.10 0.00 1,2,3,4-Tetrachlorobenzene 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.30 0.10 0.09 0.08 0.00 1,2,4,5-Tetrachlorobenzene 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hexachlorobenzene 0.49 0.97 0.58 0.49 0.48 0.60 0.49 0.48 Pentachloroanisole 0.24 0.24 0.23 0.20 0.29 0.24 0.24 0.20 Pentachlorobenzene 0.08 0.12 0.00 0.10 0.10 0.08 0.10 0.00 
The Impact of Cruise Ship Wastewater Discharge on Alaska Waters Novembe

249

SEQ 248 249 250 254 257SITE KTMP NBES PVMC UISB CIHSGeneral Loc Ketchikan Skagway Port Valdez Unakwik Inlet Cook InletSpecific Mountain Point East Side Mineral Creek FLats Siwash Bay Homer SpitLAT 55.301 59.456 61.136 60.956 59.624LONG 131.558 135.339 146.463 147.658 151.451Sample Name NST0854 NST0863 NST0856 NST0855 NST0859Coll Date 3/28/2001 4/19/2001 3/3/2001 3/29/2001 4/8/2001YEAR 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 Alaska Alaska Alaska Unit: ppb or ug/kg (ng/g) dw Mean Median Min Endosulfan II 0.08 0.24 0.12 0.10 0.10 0.13 0.10 0.08 Endosulfan I 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Endosulfan Sulfate 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Mirex 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Chlorpyrifos 0.00 0.73 0.70 0.30 0.29 0.40 0.30 0.00 PCB8/5 0.00 0.85 0.93 0.59 0.67 0.61 0.67 0.00 PCB18 0.00 0.24 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.07 0.00 0.00 PCB28 0.00 0.49 0.35 0.10 0.00 0.19 0.10 0.00 PCB44 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 PCB52 0.33 0.73 0.35 0.20 0.38 0.40 0.35 0.20 PCB66 0.00 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 PCB101/90 0.33 0.73 0.12 0.20 0.38 0.35 0.33 0.12 PCB105 0.16 0.24 0.12 0.10 0.10 0.14 0.12 0.10 PCB118 0.16 0.24 0.12 0.00 0.10 0.12 0.12 0.00 PCB128 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 
The Impact of Cruise Ship Wastewater Discharge on Alaska Waters Novembe

250

SEQ 248 249 250 254 257SITE KTMP NBES PVMC UISB CIHSGeneral Loc Ketchikan Skagway Port Valdez Unakwik Inlet Cook InletSpecific Mountain Point East Side Mineral Creek FLats Siwash Bay Homer SpitLAT 55.301 59.456 61.136 60.956 59.624LONG 131.558 135.339 146.463 147.658 151.451Sample Name NST0854 NST0863 NST0856 NST0855 NST0859Coll Date 3/28/2001 4/19/2001 3/3/2001 3/29/2001 4/8/2001YEAR 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 Alaska Alaska Alaska Unit: ppb or ug/kg (ng/g) dw Mean Median Min PCB138 0.57 1.21 0.46 0.30 0.57 0.62 0.57 0.30 PCB153/132/168 0.73 1.46 0.35 0.20 0.57 0.66 0.57 0.20 PCB170/190 0.41 0.85 1.16 0.59 0.38 0.68 0.59 0.38 PCB180 0.65 2.67 0.93 0.20 0.19 0.93 0.65 0.19 PCB187 0.16 0.24 0.12 0.10 0.10 0.14 0.12 0.10 PCB195/208 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 PCB206 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 PCB209 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 Total HCH 2.12 2.43 1.16 1.97 2.47 2.03 2.12 1.16 Total Chlordane 0.98 3.03 0.93 0.89 1.14 1.39 0.98 0.89 Total DDT 1.14 3.27 1.16 0.89 1.14 1.52 1.14 0.89 Total PCB 10.22 24.23 13.13 7.81 9.89 13.06 10.22 7.81 
The Impact of Cruise Ship Wastewater Discharge on Alaska Waters Novembe

251

Table D-2b: Organic Compounds in West Coast Mussels 

Unit: ppb or ug/kg (ng/g) dw Mean Median Min Max Stdev % Dry 15.70 15.28 8.28 22.16 2.90 % Moisture 84.30 84.73 77.84 91.72 2.90 % Lipid Based (dry) 5.05 4.69 2.68 13.15 1.86 % Lipid Based (wet) 0.80 0.73 0.32 2.25 0.35 Aldrin 0.03 NA 0.00 1.66 0.22 Dieldrin 7.32 2.59 0.42 183.82 24.34 Endrin 0.54 0.11 0.00 8.98 1.58 Heptachlor 0.30 0.00 0.00 13.52 1.78 Heptachlor-Epoxide 0.76 0.68 0.00 3.05 0.54 Oxychlordane 0.96 0.48 0.09 8.60 1.41 Alpha-Chlordane 5.21 3.24 0.36 44.16 6.66 Gamma-Chlordane 3.72 1.25 0.00 46.90 7.08 Trans-Nonachlor 3.23 1.46 0.18 30.55 5.05 Cis-Nonachlor 1.75 0.75 0.00 10.46 2.59 Alpha-HCH 1.20 1.07 0.00 3.43 0.69 Beta-HCH 0.89 0.72 0.14 3.92 0.60 Delta-HCH 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.16 0.05 Gamma-HCH 0.42 0.33 0.10 1.33 0.25 2,4'-DDD 3.03 1.35 0.00 28.89 4.68 4,4'-DDD 6.27 1.73 0.26 62.61 10.93 2,4'-DDE 3.94 0.67 0.00 51.63 9.70 4,4'-DDE 43.32 10.74 1.16 341.86 76.76 2,4'-DDT 4.09 0.64 0.00 152.03 19.93 4,4'-DDT 6.88 0.95 0.00 193.35 26.62 1,2,3,4-Tetrachlorobenzene 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.52 0.09 1,2,4,5-Tetrachlorobenzene 0.15 0.00 0.00 3.21 0.65 Hexachlorobenzene 0.64 0.37 0.00 10.91 1.41 Pentachloroanisole 1.34 1.09 0.30 4.13 0.82 Pentachlorobenzene 0.24 0.09 0.00 2.02 0.42 Endosulfan II 1.16 0.10 0.00 18.31 3.37 
The Impact of Cruise Ship Wastewater Discharge on Alaska Waters Novembe

252

Unit: ppb or ug/kg (ng/g) dw Mean Median Min Max Stdev Endosulfan I 1.50 0.25 0.00 18.50 3.75 Endosulfan Sulfate 0.17 0.00 0.00 2.81 0.45 Mirex 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.77 0.15 Chlorpyrifos 0.39 0.27 0.00 3.78 0.65 PCB8/5 0.11 0.00 0.00 2.02 0.36 PCB18 0.59 0.23 0.00 5.17 1.02 PCB28 0.83 0.31 0.00 7.50 1.49 PCB44 1.41 0.53 0.00 12.12 2.32 PCB52 4.95 2.93 0.00 25.55 5.77 PCB66 1.88 0.61 0.00 24.76 4.16 PCB101/90 7.55 2.67 0.39 83.01 14.86 PCB105 1.80 0.67 0.06 23.46 3.66 PCB118 6.02 2.16 0.06 74.46 12.71 PCB128 1.64 0.55 0.00 20.23 3.44 PCB138 11.15 4.27 0.32 151.02 24.93 PCB153/132/168 16.78 6.71 0.58 159.65 29.54 PCB170/190 1.92 1.32 0.10 9.45 1.83 PCB180 5.54 3.47 0.25 19.97 5.43 PCB187 4.78 1.89 0.10 50.22 9.43 PCB195/208 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.02 PCB206 0.06 0.00 0.00 1.72 0.23 PCB209 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.86 0.17 Total HCH 2.54 2.23 0.29 8.67 1.44 Total Chlordane 15.92 9.34 1.51 148.6 22.47 Total DDT 64.90 16.91 2.01 491.5 112.87 Total PCB 148.65 65.40 7.46 1429.4 247.72 
The Impact of Cruise Ship Wastewater Discharge on Alaska Waters Novembe

253

Table D-3a: Metals in Alaska Mussels during 2000 and 2001

SEQ 248 249 250 254 257 Mean All All All SITE KTMP NBES PVMC UISB CIHS Alaska Alaska Alaska AlaskYEAR 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 Mean Median Min Max Unit: ppm (mg/kg) dwSilver (AG) 0.901 0.301 0.684 1.696 0.151 0.747 0.684 0.151 1.69Aluminum (AL) 62 241 1149 756 1011 644 756 62 114Arsenic (As) 13.90 12.00 14.00 15.00 12.90 13.56 13.90 12.00 15.0Cadmium (CD) 5.76 6.28 3.48 4.17 1.95 4.33 4.17 1.95 6.28 Chromium (CR) 0.38 0.71 2.09 6.01 1.21 2.08 1.21 0.38 6.01 Copper (CU) 7.17 7.31 7.52 10.75 9.28 8.41 7.52 7.17 10.7Iron (FE) 151 386 1368 774 1133 762 774 151 136Mercury (HG) 0.092 0.116 0.083 0.154 0.106 0.110 0.106 0.083 0.15Manganese (MN) 9.37 14.14 28.12 25.89 27.20 20.94 25.89 9.37 28.1Nickel (NI) 1.51 5.46 7.03 3.19 2.48 3.93 3.19 1.51 7.03 Lead (PB) 0.372 1.777 1.346 1.054 0.654 1.041 1.054 0.372 1.77Selenium (SE) 4.64 5.74 3.73 8.09 4.32 5.30 4.64 3.73 8.09 Tin (SN) 0.260 0.067 0.993 0.072 0.003 0.279 0.072 0.003 0.99Zinc (ZN) 91.4 66.8 48.2 111.4 92.0 82.0 91.4 48.2 111.Monobutyltin MBT) 0.00 3.72 2.27 0.00 0.00 1.20 0.00 0.00 3.72 Dibutyltin DBT) 0.00 8.96 5.57 0.00 2.14 3.33 2.14 0.00 8.96 Tributyltin (TBT) 2.78 7.10 7.43 2.93 4.60 4.97 4.60 2.78 7.43 Tetrabutyltin (TetBT) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total Butyltins (Sum BT) 2.78 19.78 15.27 2.93 6.74 9.50 6.74 2.78 19.7
The Impact of Cruise Ship Wastewater Discharge on Alaska Waters Novembe

254

Table D-3b: Metals in West Coast Mussels during 2000 and 2001

SEQ West West West West West RatioSITE Coast Coast Coast Coast Coast AK/WestYEAR Mean Median Min Max Stdev nUnit: ppm (mg/kg) dwSilver (AG) 1.010 0.690 0.031 6.484 1.198 58 0.74Aluminum (AL) 506 424 29 1668 377 58 1.27Arsenic (As) 11.62 10.50 5.90 30.80 4.32 58 1.17Cadmium (CD) 4.24 3.17 0.43 15.56 2.89 58 1.02Chromium (CR) 3.10 2.94 1.07 11.76 1.75 58 0.67Copper (CU) 9.10 8.78 3.64 15.78 2.81 58 0.92Iron (FE) 679 588 55 2305 492 58 1.12Mercury (HG) 0.137 0.112 0.034 0.501 0.086 58 0.80Manganese (MN) 23.92 17.09 4.36 145.56 23.05 58 0.88Nickel (NI) 2.69 2.36 0.25 8.65 1.78 58 1.46Lead (PB) 1.430 1.012 0.140 7.278 1.309 58 0.73Selenium (SE) 4.30 3.85 2.13 10.64 1.67 58 1.23Tin (SN) 0.274 0.164 0.000 1.659 0.387 58 1.02Zinc (ZN) 168.4 166.6 70.1 308.7 52.5 58 0.49Monobutyltin MBT) 1.95 0.00 0.00 38.75 5.65 58 0.61Dibutyltin DBT) 9.89 3.11 0.00 80.23 18.38 58 0.34Tributyltin (TBT) 24.84 9.50 0.00 188.56 37.18 58 0.20Tetrabutyltin (TetBT) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 58 NATotal Butyltins (Sum BT) 36.68 14.62 0.00 277.69 57.76 58 0.26
255

Appendix 10

Marine Discharge

Glossary
The Impact of Cruise Ship Wastewater Discharge on Alaska Waters Nove

256

 Marine Discharge Glossary*

adapted from ADEC website:

http://www.state.ak.us/dec/press/cruise/crugloss.htm

Bilge Water: Water that collects in the lowest inner part of a ship’s hull. Bilge water is frequently

contaminated with oil and other lubricants from the engine room. Under various national and international

standards, discharged bilge water must not exceed a certain maximum oil concentration (for example, 15

parts per million).

Black Water: Water contaminated with human waste, collected from shipboard toilets. Under various

national and international standards, black water must be treated before being discharged from a vessel.

Discharge: In this context, any solid or liquid material that emanates from a vessel to a body of water,

including anything spilled, leaked, poured, pumped, emitted or dumped from the vessel.

Geometric mean: The nth root of the product of a series of n numbers computed by taking the logarithm of

each number, computing the arithmetic mean of the logarithms, and raising the base used to take the

logarithms to the arithmetic mean.

Gray Water: Used water from showers, sinks or basins, including used kitchen water. 

Marine sanitation device: Equipment that is installed on board a vessel, and that is designed to receive,

retain, or discharge sewage; and any process to treat sewage on board a vessel.

MARPOL: Name given to the standards and requirements adopted by the International Convention for the

Prevention of Pollution from Ships governing the discharge of oil and other hazardous substances, sewage,

and garbage.

Sewage: Human body wastes and the wastes from toilets and other receptacles intended to receive or retain

human body wastes. 

* These are general definitions and are not intended to conform to any specific State, federal, or

international requirement. They are provided as a general background to the issues being discussed in this

paper.