# 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 Wast ewater 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 Ma rine Sediments .................................................xi VI. Impacts to the Surface Water Microl ayer of the Marine Environment.................................................xi VII. Criteria for Delineating Areas Potentially Sens itive to Cruise Ship Wast ewater Discharges ........... xii VIII. Sources of Shipboard Ch emicals 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 Wastew ater Discharges.......................... xiii

XI. Recommendations for Research and Program Improvements ........................................................... xiii XII. Best Management Practi ce and Recommended Policies .................................................................. xiii

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

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

Section –I .................................................................................................................... ...................................1 Dilution of Wastewater Discharg ed by Large Cr uise Ships ........................................................................ ....1 Summary........................................................................................................................ ..............................1 Significance ................................................................................................................... ..............................2 Initial approach to evaluating dilution ........................................................................................ .................3 Science Advisory Pa nel observ ations ............................................................................................ ..............4 Navy studies................................................................................................................... ..............................4 EPA dye studies................................................................................................................ ...........................4

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

Far-field Dilutio n ............................................................................................................. ............................8

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

Section II – ................................................................................................................... .................................12 Wastewater Sampling and Analysis fo r Commercial Passe nger Vessels ......................................................12

Summary........................................................................................................................ ............................12 Background..................................................................................................................... ...........................13 Samples........................................................................................................................ ..............................14

Pollutants Analy zed ............................................................................................................ .......................14 Sampling Strategy.............................................................................................................. ........................15 Ships treatment system s from 2000 to 2002 ...................................................................................... ........16

Data An alys is.................................................................................................................. ...........................16 Small Ships .................................................................................................................... ............................16 Large Ships .................................................................................................................... ............................24

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

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

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

Alaska’s Fecal Coliform Wa ter Quality Standards................................................................................ ....40

Alaska’s Fecal Coliform Effluent Standard s for Commercial Pa ssenger Vessels .....................................42 Dealing with Highly Variable Fecal Colifor m Data Sets.......................................................................... .42 Fecal Coliform and Cruise Ships ................................................................................................ ...............44

Dilution of Wastewater Behi nd a Moving Cruise Ship............................................................................. .45 Potential Exposure for Indi vidual Waterw ay Users............................................................................... ....45

Fate of Fecal Coliform Discha rged into the Environment ......................................................................... 46 Cruise Ship Discharges in Context .............................................................................................. ..............46

Conclusions.................................................................................................................... ............................47

# ii References..................................................................................................................... .............................49

Section IV ..................................................................................................................... ................................50 The Impact of Wastewater Nutrie nts on Alaska Ma rine Waters ...................................................................50

Summary........................................................................................................................ ............................50 Findings from Cruise Ship Wastew ater Sampling and Analysis ...............................................................50 Background Levels of Nutr ients in Alaska Waters................................................................................ ....51 Summary of nutrients in SE Alaska waters....................................................................................... .........52

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

Section V ...................................................................................................................... ...............................57 Evaluation of the Effect of Cruise Ship Discha rges 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 En vironment and Potential Impacts of Wastewater Discharges from Cruise Ships ................................................................................................... ..68 Summary........................................................................................................................ ............................68

Introduction: .................................................................................................................. ............................68 A Physical Description of the Sea Surface Microl ayer........................................................................... ...68 The Chemical and Biological Propertie s of the Sea Surf ace Microl ayer...................................................69 Contaminants and Toxicity in the Sea Surf ace Microl ayer........................................................................ 71 Microlayer Disruption, Forma tion and Biologi cal Activ ity:...................................................................... 74 Ultraviolet Energy Absorption and Eff ects on the Sea Surf ace Environment ...........................................75 Cruise Ship Wastewater Discharges and their Mi xing, Dilution, and Impacts on the Sea Surface ...........76

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

Section VII .................................................................................................................... ................................81 Criteria for Delineating Areas Potentially Sensitiv e to Cruise Ship Wast ewater Discharges........................81

Section VIII ................................................................................................................... ................................84 Sources of Shipboard Chemicals and Pathways by wh ich They Could Reach the Marine Environment......84

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

Introduc tion................................................................................................................... .............................84 Potentially Hazardous Chemi cals (General Shipboard Un iverse of Ch emicals) .......................................86 Fragrance Materials (FMs) as a specific cl ass of emerging tr ace contaminants: .......................................92 Review of the eight exposure pathways by which onboard chemicals could reach the surrounding environment........................................................................................................ ...................93 Suggestions for Monitoring Curre nt-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 Representativ e Sampling ........................................................................................................ .................118

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

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

Introduc tion................................................................................................................... ...........................120 Background A nd Appr oach ........................................................................................................ .............120 Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs)........................................................................................ ....123

# iii Polychlorinated Bi phenyls (PCBs) ............................................................................................... ...........124

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

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

Dieldrin and Rela ted Pesticides ................................................................................................ ...............126 HCH (Hexachlorohexane) Compounds ............................................................................................... ....126 Chlorpyrifos................................................................................................................... ..........................127

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

Chlorinated Benzenes ........................................................................................................... ...................127 Chlorophenols.................................................................................................................. ........................128 Butyltins (An ti-Foul ing) ....................................................................................................... ...................128 Lipid Content .................................................................................................................. .........................128

Trace Elem ents ................................................................................................................. .......................128 Discussion and Implications .................................................................................................... ................132

Assessment and Monito ring Reco mmendations ...................................................................................... 135 Acknowledgements............................................................................................................... ...................136

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

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

Recommendations for Mon itoring and Research .................................................................................... ....138

A. Continued Evaluation of Small Passeng er Vessels (Sectio n II & IX)................................................138 B. Additional Sampling and Aud its of Passeng er Vessels.......................................................................13 8 C. Measure Water Movement and Exchange in Selected Coastal Ar eas (Section VII)...........................139

D. Enhanced Environmental A ssessment and Mo nitoring:......................................................................139

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

Section XII .................................................................................................................... ..............................143 Best Management Practice an d Recommended Policies .............................................................................1 43

Wastewater discharge while u nderway (Section I & VII) .......................................................................143 Policies to prevent over-chlorination .......................................................................................... .............143 Best Management Practices for Large Cruise Sh ips with Advanced Wast ewater 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 Hypo thetical Ship ............................................................... ..7 Table I-3: Final Dilution Formula App lied – Four Large Cruise Ships..........................................................9 Table II-1: Small Ships: Summary Geomet ric Mean for Conven tional Pollu tants .......................................18 Table II-2: Alaska Marine Highway System: Summary Geometric Mean for Co nventional Pollutants.......19 Table II-3: Small Ships – Conventional Pollu tants, Detectable Me tals and BNAs. ......................................22

Table II-4: Sma ll Ships – VOCs................................................................................................. ...................23 Table II-5: 2000 Larg e ship summ ary data....................................................................................... .............25 Table II-6: 2001 Larg e Ship Summ ary Data ....................................................................................... ..........26 Table II-7: Large Ships Conventi onal Pollutants Geom etric Means ............................................................28 Table II-8: 2001 Large Ships Prio rity Pollutants for Graywater ................................................................. ..31 Table II-9: 2001 Large Ships Priority Pollutant s for Blackwater (includes GW&BW mixed) ....................33 Table II-10: 2000 Large Ship Prio rity Pollutants for Graywater................................................................. ..35 Table II-11: 2000 Priority Pollutants fo r Blackwa ter .......................................................................... .........37

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

Table V-1: Trace Metals in Surface Sediment s from the Strait of Georgia, British Columbia (1) 

# ..................58 Table V-2: Butyltin in Surface Sedime nts 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 a nd Biological Characteristics of the Sea Surface Microlayer off California...........70 Table VI- 2: Chemical and Biologi cal 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 an d Organic Compounds in the Surface Layer of Narraganse tt Bay RI ............................................................................................................ ........72

Table VI- 5: Contaminants in the S ea Surface Film in P uget Sound, WA ....................................................72 Table VI- 6: Spatial Variation in Contaminants in the Sea Surf ace 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 Biol ogical Characteristics of the Sea Surface Film........................74 Table VI- 9: Microbial Activity During Slick Buildup Unde r Calm C onditions ..........................................74

Table IX-1: Small Cr uise Ship Facts........................................................................................... ...............105

Table IX-2: AMHS Ferry Facts.................................................................................................. ................106 Table IX-3. Small Commercial Passenge r Vessel Wastewater Treatment.................................................111 Table IX-4: Alaska Marine Highway System: Summary Geometric Mean for Conventional Pollutants ...112 Table IX-5: Small Ships: Summary Geometri c Mean for Conventio nal Pollutants....................................115

Table IX-6. Conventional Samples taken by ADEC ................................................................................. ..116 Table IX-7: Samples take n for ADEC by Industry................................................................................ .....117

Table A1: Estimated Concentra tion of Priority Pollutants ...................................................................... ...163 Table B1: Small Ship 2001 and 20 02 Alaska Marine Highway Conv entional Data Comparison...............168 Table B2: Small Ships Treated Black water Conventional Pollutants.........................................................169 Table B3: Small Ships Black and Graywater mixed and treated Conven tional Polluta nts........................170 Table B4: Small Ships Graywater Mixed Conventional Pollutants............................................................171 Table B5: Small Ships Graywater Acco mmodations Conventiona l Pollutant s..........................................172 Table B6: Small Ships Laundry Gray water Conventional Pollutants.........................................................173 Table B7: Small Ships Galley Gray water Conventional Pollutants ...........................................................173 Table B8: Small Ship conventional pollutants th at were taken with Pr iority Pollu tant..............................174 Table B9: Small Ship Pr iority Polluta nts Me tals............................................................................... .........175 Table B10: Small Ship Priority Pollu tants PCBs................................................................................ ........176 Table B11: Small Ship Priority Pollu tants Base, Neutrals and Acids ........................................................177 Table B12: Small Ship 2002 Prior ity Pollutants Vola tile Organics............................................................17 8 Table C1: 2000 Large Ships Samples Evaluation of Biological Blackwater Treatment Systems ..............180 Table C2: 2000 Large Ships Mixed Blackwate r and Graywater from Double Bottom Tanks ...................182 Table C3: 2000 Large Ship Gray Wa ter Mixed from Coll ection Tanks.....................................................183

# v Table C4: 2000 Large Sh ips Laundry Graywater.................................................................................. .....184 Table C5: 2000 Large Ship Graywa ter Accommodations and Laundry.....................................................185 Table C6: 2000 Large Ship Galley Graywater .................................................................................... .......186 Table C7: 2000 Large Ship Accommodations Graywater..........................................................................18 7 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 Co llecting ta nks. .......................................191 Table C11: 2001 Large Ships Galley Stored in Ballast Tanks, Held until the Ship is 1 Mile from Shore and Traveling a Mini mum 6 Knots............................................................................................193 Table C12: 2001 Large Ships Graywater Mixed Held in Ballast Tanks (Discharged 1 Mile from Shore Traveling a Minimum 6 Knots) .................................................................................................19 4 Table C13: 2001 Large Ships Laundry Graywater in Ballast Tanks (Discharged 1 Mile from Shore Traveling a minimum 6 Knots)..................................................................................................1 95 Table C14: 2001 Large Ships Laundry Graywate r Collected and Discharg ed Immediately......................196 Table C15: 2001 Large Ships Mixed Graywater Held in Collecting Tanks and Immediately Discharged..................................................................................................................... ............197 Table C16: 2001 Large Ships Combining Blackwat er and Graywater and Immediately Treating and Discharging.................................................................................................................... ............198 Table C17: 2001 Large Ship Priority Pollutants/Ch lorinated Organics All Gr aywater 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 Meta ls. All Categories of Graywater. All units in ug/l or parts pe r billion (ppb)................................................................................................ .....202 Table C20: 2001 Large Ship Priority Po llutants. All Categories of Graywater Non-chlorinated Phenols

and Phthalate Esters A ll units in ug/l or part s per billion (ppb).................................................204 Table C21: 2001 Large Ship Conventional Pollutant s taken during Priority Pollutant Sampling. All Graywater Ca tegorie s. .......................................................................................................... .....205 Table C22: 2001 Large Ships Priority Pollutants for Blackwater Chlorinated Benzenes and

Halomethanes ................................................................................................................... .........207 Table C23: 2001 Large Ships Blackwater Prior ity Pollutants Total R ecoverable Me tals ..........................208 Table C24: 2001 Large Ships Blackwater Priority Pollutants ( Phtalate Es ters).........................................209 Table C25: 2001 Large Ships Blackwater Conventional Pollutants Sampled With Priority Pollutants.....210 Table C26: 2000 Priority Pollutants fo r Graywater............................................................................. .......211 Table C27: 2000 Priority Pollutants for Graywater............................................................................. .......213 Table C28: 2000 Priority Pollutants for Graywater............................................................................. .......215 Table C29: 2000 Large Ships Priority Pollutant s for Blackwater (in alph abetical or der) ..........................217 Table C30: 2000 Large Ships Priority Pollutant s for Blackwater (in alph abetical or der) ..........................218 Table C31: 2000 Large Ships Priority Pollutant s for Blackwater (in alph abetical or der) ..........................220 Table C32: Large Ships Conven tional Pollutants Minimums ....................................................................221 Table C33: Large Ships Conven tional Pollutants Maximums....................................................................222

Table D-1a: PAH Values in Alaska n Musse ls..................................................................................... .......241

Table D-1b: PAH Values in West Co ast Mu ssels .................................................................................. ....244 Table D-2a: Organic Comp ounds in Alas ka Mussels............................................................................... ..247 Table D-2b: Organic Compounds in West Co ast Musse ls .........................................................................25 1

Table D-3a: Metals in Alaska Mussels during 2000 and 2001...................................................................25 3

Table D-3b: Metals in West Coast Mussels during 2 000 and 20 01............................................................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 Efflue nt 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 Alas ka throughout the year (from Stekoll, 2001). .....................54 Figure IV-2. Phosphate concentra tions in SE Alaska throughout th e year (from Stekoll, 2001). ................54 Figure IV-3. Cycle of temperat ure and salinity in surface waters throughout the year in SE Alaska (from Steko ll, 2001 ). .......................................................................................................... .........55 Figure IV-4. Carbon production from phytoplankton photosynthesis in the spring and early summer in Auke Bay, SE Alaska (f rom Stekoll, 2001).................................................................................55 Figure IX-1 Small Passenge r Vessel Discha rge 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 re sources for nutriti on, cultural integrity, livelihoods, recreation, and spir itual 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 disc harges be treated and monitored. It is also

critical that we evaluate and understand the im pacts that cruise ship wastes have or can potentially have on Alaska’s waters and mari ne resources. To that end, the Alaska Cruise Ship Initiative wastewater and solid wast e work group -- comprised of industry, state, federal, and public members -- created a Science Advisory Panel to conduct an independent scientific inves tigation 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 Pa nel 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 Adviso ry Panel is a major milestone in the understanding of the impacts from cruise sh ip waste discharges in Alaska. The Alaska Department of Environmental Conservati on is very appreciative of the enormous contributions the Science Advisory Panel ha s 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 pr actices, 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 Wastew ater Discharge on Alaska Waters

Executive Summary

The Science Advisory Panel was assembled in ea rly 2001 to address all as pects of th e potential impact of cruise ship wastewater discharge on Alaska marine waters. Panel members are listed beginning on page vii. Using an assessment framew ork (Figure i, page x) , the Panel started with effluent characterization and dispersion modeli ng and concluded with exposure assessment and recommendations for risk management and additiona l 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

below 1



# .

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 repr esent only about 6% of passenger vessel wastewater discharge in Alaska wa ters, their effluent often contai ns high levels of fecal coliform and suspended solids. These vess els are currently allowed to di scharge everywhere. The Panel, therefore, recommends that these ships should avoi d stationary discharge, particularly in small fjords and embayments where the movement or flux of water is limited.

Research and evaluations to date indicate that st ate and federal regulations for large cruise ships which set effluent parameters and require wastew ater to be discharged while ships are moving (unless these ships meet stri ngent effluent limits through advanced treatment) appear to effectively limit the impact of discharge on Alas ka receiving waters. Th e 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, comb ined with concentration limits for certain wastewater constituents, is quite apparent. Evaluation of impacts should be continued and guidelines for establishing no discharge zones, s hould the need arise, are presented in Section VII of this paper.

I. Dilution

Through literature review, fieldwork and eval uation of the EPA plume study off Miami (2001), the Panel developed the following formulas for es timating dilution of wast ewater 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 sh ip draft x ship speed)/(volume discharge rate)

=4x (_____m x _____m x _____m sec -1 

# )/(_____m 3 

# sec -1 

# )

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

wastewater at 200m 3 

# /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 

# )/(_____m 3 

# sec -1 

# )

Far field dispersion processes a ssure that additional dilution will occur before any mixture of effluent and water approaches a shore. Unde r the least favorable c onditions, 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 dilu ting the effluent of a large vessel discharging at 200 m 3 

# /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 al l available wastewater sample and analysis

data to arrive at th e following conclusions:

Obtaining vessel samples that are consistently representative of a di scharge (particularly graywater) is difficult if not impossible. Howe ver, 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 anal yzing 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 se veral 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 designe d to remove priority pollutants but test results show that they do remove a significant portion.

Macerator-chlorinating systems have shown im provement 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 th at none of the conventional biol ogical treatment systems were functioning properly. Ships with this type of treatment system are not currently discharging in

Alaska waters.

# xi III. Assessment of Fecal Colif orm Bacteria in Cruise Ship Wastewater Discharge

The Panel determined that the relevant scenario s of exposure to large cruise ship discharges include secondary contact recr eation by fishermen, kayakers, and motor-powered watercraft crossing a cruise ship wake shor tly after passage of the cruise ship, and raw shellfish consumers harvesting shellfish along the shoreline. The avai lable data, coupled with the relevant dilutions,

indicate that violations of th e applicable bacterial water quali ty 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 phytoplankt on 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 nitroge n can be converted to a very small amount of phytoplankton over the next several days, appr oximately 0.03 micrograms of chlorophyll per liter. This amount of chlorophyll is only a hundredth to a thousa ndth of the standing phytoplankton. New treatment requirements a nd 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 we re shown to exceed sedi ment 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 unlikel y that there would be environmental impacts of contaminants in sediment s that could be associated directly with cruise ships.

VI. Impacts to the Surface Water Micr olayer of the Marine Environment

The Panel investigated the possibility that c ontaminants from large cruise ship wastewater discharge might adversely impact life-form activity in the 200-300 μ m 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 prope rties of the microlayer. Small cruise ships that discharge small amounts of wastewater wh ile anchored or stationary in fjords and embayments may have some limited potential for a dverse 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 recommenda tions 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 ship s – wastewater discharge at a minimum speed

of 6 knots and at least 1 nautical mile from shore unless they can m eet the strict effluent standards for stationary discharge – is good ma nagement 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 recommendati ons for identifying sensitive areas:

1. At this time, the Panel is not aware of any speci es 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 disc harge timing in a particular location.

2. Areas where long residence time or minimal n eap tidal exchanges occur are areas where chemicals from wastewater discharges are a po tential issue. Tidal exchange information could be used to prioritize areas for furthe r study to determine whether or not wastewater discharge is a problem.

VIII. Sources of Shipboard Chemicals and Pa thways 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 vis ited several large ships – spendi ng two days underway on one – and

conducted extensive interv iews with corporate managers, o fficers and crew. Eight possible pathways whereby onboard chemicals could be di scharged to the environment were identified and evaluated. The Panel concluded that a pr operly maintained, well-managed, modern cruise ship, operating in full compliance with governme nt regulations, will not release shipboard chemicals into the environment at a quantity or level that will cause measurable negative environmental impact. The authors suggest mon itoring several additional chemicals in the future for the purposes of validating be st practice or dilution models.

IX. Small Commercial Passenger Vessels

The small fleet discharges 6% of the total wa stewater discharged into Alaska waters from passenger vessels. This number includes the ferri es that operate year round. The Panel has noted that significant mixing and dispersion occu rs 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. St ationary 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 wastewat er effectively for bacteria and total suspended solids. However, this is achieved by the use of high levels of chlorine. Ch lorine is an effective disinfectant but excessive

chlorine residual is toxic to marine life. The State of Alaska should c onsider whether a residual chlorine standard is necessary to prevent exces sive chlorine entering the marine environment.

Sample results from biological treatment show th at 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 Tr ack 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 expe cted, organic chemicals and trace metals concentrations are much

lower at these sites than elsewh ere 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 benef it and reduces uncertain ty. Although the Panel believes cruise ships are not lik ely to contribute measurable c ontamination, a slightly-enhanced monitoring of contaminants in mussels and sediments in Southeast Alaska, Prince William Sound, along the Kenai Peninsula, and in Cook Inle t, during the tourist season, could provide a valuable tool in assuring that state coasta l waters remain relatively uncontaminated.

XI. Recommendations for Research and Program Improvements

The Panel finds that, while the risk of environm ental impacts from current discharge practices is low, continued targeted research monitori ng 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 Additiona l Audits of Passenger Vessels

Determining Water Movement and Exch ange in Selected Coastal Areas

Enhanced Environmental Assessment and Monitoring of Alaska Waters

XII. Best Management Practice and Recommended Policies

In addition to recommendations for monitori ng 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 ship s 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 se nsing, 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: Disper sion 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 Count y (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. Specialt y: 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 Biochemistr y, University of Alaska – Southeast. Specialty: Ocean pollution, shor eline 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 Envi ronmental 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 fo r the Science Panel. Special ty: Industrial toxicology and environmental health, waterways manage ment, marine environmental protection.

Mr. W. David Eley, President

Cape Decision Internat ional 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 En vironmental Conservation Science Advisory Panel Commercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance Program November 2002



# 1 

# Section I

Dilution of Wastewater Disc harged by Large Cruise Ships

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

Summary

The study, by itself, of effluent characteristic s is not sufficient to evaluate exposure and ecological/health risks associated with cruise ship wastewater discharge. An understanding of

dilution is essential. The Scie nce Advisory Panel (the Panel) has undertaken a number of efforts with the goal of developing a simple method of es timating wastewater dilution in the wake of a moving large cruise ship 2 

# . Starting in February 2001 a nd continuing through September 2002

the Panel has:

Reviewed several published wake mixing studies [C olonell et al. (2000), Curtis et al. (1999), Csanady (1980), Kim (2000), ESL (2000)];

Developed a preliminary conservative descripti on of wastewater dispersion behind moving large cruise ships [Science Advisory Panel June 26, 2001];

Made direct observations of th e depth and width of turbulence be hind 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 Miam i 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 cr uise ship is a functi on 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 horiz ontally beyond the beam (or width) and vertically below the draft (or depth) of the vessel. For a la rge cruise ship dischargi ng at a rate of 200 cubic meters per hour and traveling at the minimu m allowed speed of 6 knots, the mixing will be greater than 50,000 to 1. Different speeds, discharg e 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 sh ip 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 referen ce to the number of lower berths. Federal regulations written specifically for cruise ships ope rating 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 En vironmental Conservation Science Advisory Panel Commercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance Program November 2002



# 2 =4x (_____m x _____m x _____m sec -1 

# )/(_____m 3 

# sec -1 

# )

This formula is quite straightforward. A ship wi th a large cross sectiona l 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. D ecreased 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 e ffluent 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 addi tional dilution factor will be 100 by the time the mixed water reaches the shoreline, thus diluting the e ffluent of the vessel discharging at 200 m 3 

# /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 

# )/(_____m 3 

# sec -1 

# )

In this section and in later sect ions of this report, effluent obs ervations 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 toxicant s, bacteria, nutrients and toxicity on the marine

waters and sediments of Alaska.

Significance

Simply looking at effluent bacteriological, chemi cal, suspended solids or whole effluent toxicity data from cruise ship discharges is not sufficient to evaluate e xposure 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 standa rds after consideration of dilutions attained at allowed mixing zone boundaries. If that permitti ng process determines there is a reasonable potential to exceed any water qual ity 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 Alas ka 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 residu al chlorine may not exceed 10 mg/l.

# Alaska Department of En vironmental 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 qualit y problem. While cruise ships are not regulated under the same permitti ng program, a similar evaluation approach is relevant for determining whether there is a re asonable potential for impacts from cruise ship discharges.

Initial approach to evaluating dilution

The Panel considered previous observational st udies and modeling efforts and concluded that there would be considerable mixing when wastew ater was discharged from a moving vessel, due to the speed of the vessel, the ra te of the discharge, the turbulen ce associated with the passage of the hull through the water, and the propeller ac tion. The Panel submitted a report on June 26, 2001 (Science Advisory Panel 2001) that:

1. Reviewed various studies (Colonell et al., 2000; Csan ady, 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 pr ovide a conservative estimate of mixing that

would occur within less than 15 minutes 5 

# 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 pe r 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 tim e, the panel emphasized that dilutions calculated

in this manner were conservative.

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

observed in the Summer 2000 Alaska crui se ship wastewater sampling program 6 

# , calculated the toxicant concentrations (for detect ed priority pollutants) after a representative dilution factor of 12,000 and compared the values to Alaska’s wate r quality standards. Although not specifically

5 

# EPA’s Technical Support Document fo r Water Quality-based Toxics Cont rol (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 c onsiderations. 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 qu ality 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 ev aluating 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 En vironmental Conservation Science Advisory Panel Commercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance Program November 2002



# 4 stated, the effluent concentrati ons 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 turbulen ce behind the cruise ship s (Loehr et al., 2001).

The current studies identified considerable va riability in current di rections 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 ove r time as it rose and spread horizontally.

The current and turbulence observations provide d the Panel information supporting more than three times the mixing that was calculated by th e 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 diluti on achieved. Later dye study result s from EPA indicated that this did not appear to make a difference.

Navy studies

By the December 2001 meeting of the Panel, co pies of studies by the Navy behind a frigate, measuring dilution of a pulped waste paper discha rge released from the stern were available (Curtis et al., 1999). The studies included obser vations of dye as well as pulp, and provided good agreement with numerical modeling perfor med 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 re sults with the panel’s conservative formula. The Navy study measured and modeled dilutions a bout 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 pane l 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 EP A observations provided the best reference for estimating a factor to apply to the Panel’s form ula. 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 arrangeme nts. The dye studies provided “measured”

initial dilutions and “calculated” initial diluti ons. 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 we re 4.7, 4.2, 6.7 and 4.5 times that predicted by the

# Alaska Department of En vironmental Conservation Science Advisory Panel Commercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance Program November 2002



# 5 formula (hence the factor of 4 in the large cruise ship dilu tion formula now endorsed by the Panel).

For the M/V Explore r the measured mixing value was only 0.9 times the conservative Science Advisory Panel formula and was anomalous to the ot her results from the other cruise ships. The Panel initially attributed it to the ship’s unique azipod propuls ion 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 comp letely mixed and must have initially discharged at a much higher concentrati on than was intended. This analysis was achieved by a “massbalance” calculation comparing the amount of dye di scharged per meter travel ed to the dye in the water after the ship passed. At the rate of disc harge of the effluent, such high dye concentrations as observed would not have been possible had th e 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 tw o of the other ships. After a few hours the dye extended to a similar cross se ctional area in the ocean as fo r two other vessels, indicating

that a similar dilution w ould 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 “calcu lated” dilution for the Explorer was used in the Panel’s analysis.

Final recommended dilution factors

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

Large Cruise Ship

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

= 4 x (_____m x _____m x _____m sec -1 

# )/(_____m 3 

# sec -1 

# )

Since this formula accounts for ship size, speed a nd wastewater discharge rate it can be applied to a number of situations involving actual discharg es underway. It can also be used to develop best operating practices. Further ship and disc harge specific modeling or dye studies are not necessary for large cruise ships. Provided th e 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 disc harge, 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 suggest ed by the Panel. Tabl e I-1 illustrates how the EPA dye studies compared with the original Sc ience 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 disc harge rates and the speed of the vessels varied by a factor of 2

# Alaska Department of En vironmental 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 fo rmula with the mixing multiplier of 4 is reasonable to apply to various size, speed and discharge rates.

The original Science Advisory Panel formula wa s identified as conservative and assumed that the volume of water involved in mixing was limite d 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 sh ip’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 form ula 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 En vironmental Conservation Science Advisory Panel Commercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance Program November 2002



# 7 Science Advisory Panel’s original form ula 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 larg e cruise ships to calculate the diluted effluent

constituent concentrations disc harged from 21 cruise ships in 2000. The usefulness of such a formula is apparent when considering differe nt discharge rates. The June 26, 2001 Science Advisory Panel report calculated d ilutions on the basis that all di scharges occurred at the same

rate of 200 m 3 

# 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 pr actice 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. Ga lley waste tanks are generally much smaller than the other waste tanks (20 to 30 m 3 

# compared to about 100 m 3 

# ), and are usually pumped with smaller pumps at around 1/10 th 

# 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 fo r a hypothetical large cruise ship with a beam of 30 meters, a draft of 8 meters, discharge rates of 200 m 3 

# /hour (for large holding tanks)

and 20 m 3 

# /hour (for small holding tanks like galley wa stes). The calculations were for speeds of 6, 12 and 18 knots. Dilution factors for the high discharge rate (200 m 3 

# ) varied from over 53,000 to over 160,000 for the range of vessel speeds. D ilution factors for the low discharge rate (20

m 3 

# ) 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 m 3 

# /hr discharge rate a nd then using a 20 m 3 

# /hr discharge rate

200 m 3 

# /hr discharge rate example

Width (beam) m 30 30 30

Depth (draft) m 8 8 8

Speed knots 6 12 18

# Alaska Department of En vironmental 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 m 3 

# /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 la rge 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 ar e very large and occur very rapidly. For comparison, dilution factors av ailable for typical municipal discharges may range from less than 10 to several hundred. In Alaska, large cruise ship s 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 shoreline 7



# .

The public has expressed concerns regarding the concentr ation 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 ar e several hydrographic and physical oceanographic processes that could result in this type of transport. Currents typi cally flow parallel to the shore rather than toward shore, but th e rising and falling of the tides can transport water across areas of

mudflats and marshes. Eddies and wind induced su rface flows can also resu lt in transport toward or away from the nearshore. An onshore wind w ould 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 mi xing 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 En vironmental Conservation Science Advisory Panel Commercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance Program November 2002



# 9 For a modest 10-knot wind blowing directly on shor e, almost 3 hours would be required to move

surface water 1 nautical mile 8 

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

into the wave influenced surface layer of about one meter, the a dditional mixing ratio would be 1 cm:1 m or 1:100 (a dilution factor of 100). Ov er 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 th e surface layer would likely mix even more and

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

local currents and eddies.

Table I-3: Final Dilution Formula A pplied – 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 En vironmental 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 ve ssels have been collected from large cruise ships. However, there are data from both a si ngle propeller frigate (Cur tis et al. 1999) and from a towed barge (Csanady, 1980). The data from bot h 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 polluta nt at the calculated dilution, then further analysis or studies could be done at that time on the small ve ssel. 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 sh ip draft x ship speed)/(volume discharge rate)

=3x (_____m x _____m x _____m sec -1 

# )/(_____m 3 

# sec -1 

# )

# Alaska Department of En vironmental 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 Dump site Diffusion Experiments. pp. 109-129 B.H. Ketchum, D.R. Kester and P.K. Park (edito rs), 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 Disp ersion 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 Disper sion Analysis (for International Council of Cruise Lines), August 25, 2000

Loehr, L.C., A. Mearns and K. George. August 6, 2001. Initial Re port on the July 10, 2001 Study of Opportunity: Currents and Wa ke Turbulence Behind Cruise Ships. http://www.state.ak.us/local/akpages/ENV.C ONSERV/press/cruise/documents/sciencepa

nel.htm

Science Advisory Panel for Commercial Passeng er Vessel Wastewater Discharge. June 26, 2001. Report to the Alaska Cruise Ship Initia tive. 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 En vironmental 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 co mmercial 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. Wastewat er includes blackwater (BW) from toilets and graywater (GW) produced from sinks , showers and laundry facilities. During the 2000 season, commercial ships under went wastewat er sampling and analysis as a part of a voluntary program.

Over the last three years, the Alaska Depa rtment of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) received data from these sampling events. Obtain ing truly representative sampling data for ships that do not discharge in port is difficult becaus e 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 anal yzing 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 pa ssengers, 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 th e next cruise. There is us ually 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 consiste ntly representative of a discharge (particularly graywater) is difficult if not impossible. Howe ver, 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 th at is collected and discharged immediately compared with wastewater that is held in ta nks 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 designe d to remove priority pollutants but test results show that they do remove a significant portion.

# Alaska Department of En vironmental Conservation Science Advisory Panel Commercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance Program November 2002



# 13 The macerator chlorinator system has shown im provement 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 convent ional biological treatment systems were functioning properly. Ships with this type of treatment system are not discharging in Alaska waters and therefore are not require d 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 ove rnight accommodations for 500 or more people.

Commercial passenger ships produce two type s of wastewater: black water and graywater. Blackwater is wastewater from ship’s toilets and for the larger ships include medical facilities. Graywater is water produced from showers, si nks, and laundry. Graywater comes from three main sources: (1) galley or kitchen areas, (2) passenger/crew accommodations, and (3) laundry facilities. Anytime blackwate r 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 di fferent from other wastewater.

In June 2001, the Alaska legislat ure passed a law affecting commer cial passenger ships operating in Alaska marine waters with overnigh t accommodations for 50 or more passengers. 9 

# The law

set fecal coliform and TSS effluent discha rge 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 discha rging 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-d etect results with onehalf (1⁄2) the minimum detection limit (MDL). The ADEC included tables for all pollutants with geometric means 11 

# greater than the MDL or where at least one sample result was over 10 times the detection limit. If all sample of a particul ar priority pollutant were non-detects, they were

excluded from the table. This was done for the sa ke 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 an d blackwater effluent standa rds for fecal coliform at 20 0 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 En vironmental 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 conventiona l 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, Nitr ite, 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 “prior ity” pollutants on the EPA list 12 

# . 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 pol lutants on the USCG list have 110 chemical

constituents. 13 

# In order to reduce laboratory co sts and under guidance from the Panel 14 

# , the USCG and ADEC also removed every pest icide 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 comprehensiv e 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 En vironmental Conservation Science Advisory Panel Commercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance Program November 2002



# 15 future should include pesticides. Appendix 4 contai ns the list of pollutants that were analyzed in

2002.

Sampling Strategy

The number and types of samples taken depende d on individual ship configuration and the ability to get the samples to a laboratory for an alysis within a 6-hour time frame. In 2000, the goal of the sampling program was to character ize the wastewater, determine if hazardous substances were discharged with the graywa ter, 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 discha rged 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 wa stewater that vessel’s discharged prior to th e 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 sample d 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 complia nce 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 discharg ing, but there were no people on board. The ferries’ sampling occurred while there were stopped in Jun eau, which typically lasted only 1-2 hours.

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

that had installed advanced treatment techno logy, from two in 2001 to seven in 2002. Of the seven ships with advanced treatment, si x met more stringent effluent standards 16



# .
The wastewater sampling strategy from small sh ips in 2002 was similar to that of 2001. Small ships took their first priori ty 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 En vironmental 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 disc harged when the ships are more than 12 miles from land. The MSD units use the following treatm ent systems: (1) biological treatment system, (2) macerator/chemical, or (3) advanced treatment.

Biological systems clarify the wastewater by al lowing solids to settle then use aeration to encourage biological growth that feeds on the organic waste. Biological systems use either chlorine or ultraviolet light fo r disinfecting the final discharge.

Macerator/chlorinator systems dilute the wastew ater 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 disinfecti ng. 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 wastewat er using a biological process followed by ultrafiltration (filter pore size less than a fracti on 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. Curren tly, 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 tr eatment 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-hal f (1⁄2) the minimum detection limit (MDL) for

results that are zeros or non-detects for statistic al purposes. In this chapter the ADEC included tables for all pollutants with geometric means gr eater than the MDL or wh ere 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 comm ercial passenger ship s 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 En vironmental Conservation Science Advisory Panel Commercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance Program November 2002



# 17 All small ships treat blackwater in an USCG approved Type II MSD 17 

# . Most small ships operating in Alaska treat sewage using a macerati ng/chlorinating system; two of the largest small ships treat sewage with a biological system.

Small ships either collect graywater in tanks a nd 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 gray water management practice depends on ship configuration. Most small ships do not have wastewater holding capacity.

The AMHS ferries and two small passenger ships mi x their gray with the black water and treat

both effluents with their MSD. Some small sh ips “treat” graywater with chlorine injection.

Chlorine is effective for disinfec ting but excessive chlorine residua l 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 fo r conventional pollutants. In 2002, the small ship samples were analyzed for both priority a nd 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 acco rding to wastewater effl uent 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 Tabl e II-1. The highest geometric means for fecal

coliforms are associated with untreated mixe d 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 ta nk shows little to no bact eria 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 prio r 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 compar ison shows that the correctly sampled samples have a slightly lower biological oxygen de mand (BOD), lower chemical oxygen demand (COD) and higher chlorine residual

17 

# A type II marine sanitation device is a device that under certain test conditi ons produces an effluent having a fecal coliform bacteria count not greater than 200 per 100 mill iliters 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 ConservationScience Advisory PanelCommercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance ProgramNovember 200218Table II-1: Small Ships: Summary Geometric Mean for Conventional Pollutants2001 and 2002 data# samplesAll dataWastewater TypeAmmoniapHBODCODTSSTotalClFREECLFECALCONDUCTFromtablemg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/LMPN/100mlUmhos/cm14Table B2Treated Blackwater31.5007.6521.511,004.397.60.300.151,54637,400.019Table B3BW&GW mixed &treated1.3407.2558.08930.061.11.120.381,41431,653.04Table B4Mixed Graywater(chlorine treated)Notanalyzed7.90382.70880.4186.978.6258.721,225.not analyzed9Table II-B4Mixed Graywater(untreated)7.2906.9795.42228.352.9NDND99,09653.1210Table B5GraywaterAccommodationsnotanalyzed6.74164.28174.024.30.110.059.not analyzed2Table-B6Graywater Laundry0.2459.13123.20319.021.50.350.182not analyzed2Table B7Graywater GalleynotanalyzedNotanalyzed247.40notanalyzed42.62.21Notanalyzed50not analyzedAlaska Department of Environmental ConservationScience Advisory PanelCommercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance ProgramNovember 200219Table II-2: Alaska Marine Highway System: Summary Geometric Mean for Conventional Pollutants# SamplesAll dataTimeTestAmmoniapHBODCODTSSTotal ClFREE CLFECALCONDUCTFromtablemg/LMg/LMg/LMg/LMg/Lmg/LMPN/100mlUmhos/cm11Table B1AMHSfrom 2000-April2002Geomean8.8807.3781.15875.050.80.670.14574035,316.16Table B1AMHSMay 2002-PresentGeomean0.3807.587.47686.845.89.086.12327,231.0

# 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 recoverabl e 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 geom etric 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 aci d, benzyl alcohol, bis (2-ethylhexyl)phthalate, and diethylphthala te) had geometric means that were above the MDL or had at least one sample th at was 10 times the MDL. Benzoic acid appeared in high levels. The maximum c oncentration 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 comparis on 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 co mpounds (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 Ta ble II-4 if the geometric mean was greater than the MDL or at least one pollutant wa s 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 gray water samples were non-detects. The graywater sample had high levels of chlo roform. Two of the four mixed BW&GW samples had chloroform levels over the de tection 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 c oncurrently 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 fo r 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 a nd total recoverable)

• Copper (Dissolved a nd total recoverable)

• Selenium (Dissolved and total recoverable)

• Zinc (Dissolved a nd total recoverable)

Small ships did not participate in the vo luntary 2000 sampling. They did not sample for priority pollutants in 2001. This anal ysis 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 prio rity pollutants in the wastewater effluent of small ships at this time.Alaska Department of Environmental ConservationScience Advisory PanelCommercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance ProgramNovember 200222Table II-3: Small Ships – Conventional Pollutants, DetectableMetals 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 m g/ 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 Zinc Dis Benzoic Acid Benzyl Alcohol Bis(2- Ethylhexyl)Phthalat DiethylphthalateMDL0.1601.000.31.00.120.100.100.11.33.61.92.31.01.21.51.14.24.82.5210.580.690.88MixedBW&GW29.400117.00495.022,800.073.92212.07.6720No metals were taken2208.002.103.70MixedBW&GW1.270134.00451.023,000.075.2110.06.882535.033.64.25.0163.0339.021.223.2164.0109.074.96005.602.802.20MixedBW&GW0.0800.50870.031,200.022.5125.08.104050.037.04.33.0119.0166.016.614.3171.0132.071.3120.295.100.28MixedBW&GW0.1210.50514.023,800.022.912.57.913.539.423.210.31.518.730.716.69.8101.094.167.3620.298.000.28TBWBlackwater6.3205.47512.034,500.066.610.17.000.0553.248.07.64.08.520.215.114.4233.0143.026.2120.290.350.028TGWGraywater0.080138.00228.0369.017.1110.08.19160.30.50.60.984.7173.01.82.60.61.286.9609.002.8014.00Min0.0800.05228.0369.017.110.16.880.050.30.50.60.98.520.21.82.60.61.226.2120.290.350.28Max29.400134.00870.034,500.075.222258.194053.248.010.35.0163.0339.021.223.2233.0132.086.96009.008.0014.00GeoMean0.75011.980476.213,058.038.523.947.616.1916.114.53.92.448.290.410.910.452.446.960.663.41.462.481.16Alaska Department of Environmental ConservationScience Advisory PanelCommercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance ProgramNovember 200223Table II-4: Small Ships – VOCs2002 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 m&p Xylenes NaphthaleneMDL0.150.510.111.20.180.230.320.760.130.360.250.290.320.420.150.098MixedBW&GW9.90.255.055452.6311303.42.11.4192.9733.188.5MixedBW&GW0.678.32.44728.98914.40.185.84.5300.210.551.2MixedBW&GW.0750.2550.05540.090.135360.380.0650.180.1250.151.10.210.0750.05MixedBW&GW.0750.2550.0550.60.091.6571.10.0650.180.1251.98.80.210.0750.05TBWBlackwater0.0750.2550.0559.10.090.1350.120.3810.180.1250.150.160.210.0750.05TGWGraywater0.0755.90.055520.097.20.120.380.0651.31402.71.70.210.0750.05Min0.0750.2550.0550.60.090.1350.120.380.0650.180.1250.150.160.210.0750.05Max9.98.32.4522.6311303.44.41.41404.5733.188.5GeoMean0.2440.7690.0698.440.2641.879.20.7680.3690.3521.761.074.040.330.2280.197

# 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 crui se 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 whet her the wastewater wa s 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 am bient water. The wastewater was often stored in the double bottom tanks for up to 20 hours.

It appears that the fecal coliform counts ar e 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 lo wer 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 gr aywater. 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 substantia lly for mixed treated blackwater and

graywater.

The geometric mean of ammonia in 2000 fo r 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

WaterSamples 

# 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

Galley 18 

# 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 re latively benign with a fecal coliform geometric mean of 8 MPN/100ml and TSS of 38 mg/l.

18 

# Galley graywater is the highest sour ce 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 WaterSamples 

# 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. Accomm odation 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 th e 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 chlori ne 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 m ean 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 ConservationScience Advisory PanelCommercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance ProgramNovember 200228Table II-7: Large Ships Conventional Pollutants Geometric Means2000 and 2001 dataWaste TypeAmmoniaPHBODCODTSST ClFECALCONDUCTFREE CLUnitsmg/lmg/lmg/lmg/lmg/lMPNUmhos/cmmg/l#SamplesAll DataIn tableAppendix6SampleDateSample FromMDL0.160.101.03.40.10.121.00.122Table C12000MSDTreated BW104.487.18104.6845.0478.00.218,213not taken0.111Table C22000Ballast TanksBW&GW7.126.73146.3338.0119.00.212,824not taken0.124Table C32000CollectingTanksGW1.416.62223.0573.0124.00.1118,052not taken0.110Table C42000CollectingTanksGW laundry0.3827.7273.6340.038.00.28not taken0.13Table C52000CollectingTanksGW laundry/Accommodation5.2396.9963.3240.077.50.46not taken0.111Table C62000CollectingTanksGW galley1.5476.43728.01,317.0420.00.213,750not taken0.23Table C72000CollectingTanksGWaccommodation6.5678.38324.01,340.0297.00.3104not taken0.115Table C82001Ballast tanksGWaccommodation0.086.36266.0573.077.00.210,896939.00.223Table C102001CollectingtanksGW Galley1.277.04728.01,414.0349.02.0Not taken904.00.310Table C112001Ballast tanksGW Galley0.144.801,587.02,404.0512.00.1784,0721,008.00.24Table C122001Ballast tanksGW mixed0.096.14259.0367.0113.50.1649,9941,220.00.17Table C132001Ballast tanksGW laundry0.627.56230.0634.066.00.2651,4605450.12Table C142001Collecting tankGW laundryNot taken8.3686.0571.022.00.3302,5100.313Table C152001Collecting tankGW mixed0.486.96245.9473.9108.00.238,933562.40.116Table C162001TreatmentGW&BW mixed1.086.886.716.72.70.122230.1Alaska Department of Environmental ConservationScience Advisory PanelCommercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance ProgramNovember 200229Waste TypeAmmoniaPHBODCODTSST ClFECALCONDUCTFREE CLUnitsmg/lmg/lmg/lmg/lmg/lMPNUmhos/cmmg/l#SamplesAll DataIn tableAppendix6SampleDateSample FromMDL0.160.101.03.40.10.121.00.1GeoMean1.176.89184.5515.5103.70.23,275806.60.1GeoMean-ballast0.346.25326.0641.1128.60.1135,921890.70.1GeoMeancollecting1.507.28209.9649.3118.10.3515.431,084.60.1

# 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 sample d is included in Appendix 4. These tables include total recoverable metals only.

Table II-8 includes the priority pollutants th at 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 ha d elevated levels of chloroethane whereas the other samples had non-detecti on 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 compar ed 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 majo rity 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 ConservationScience Advisory PanelCommercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance ProgramNovember 200231Table II-8: 2001 Large Ships Priority Pollutants for Graywater(All units of measure in μg/l unless noted)TankTypeWater typeSampleDateCODmg/ltotalCLmg/lbis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalateButylbenzylphthalateDiethylphthalatebromoformChloroformChromium (TR)copper(TR)Lead(TR)nickel(TR)Selenium(TR)zinc (TR)MDL3.40.10.690.380.550.320.252.31.21.41.14.82.8CTAccomo19-Sep-01765.05.08.200.199.400.16170.002.7255.04.527.91.0458.0CTGalley19-Sep-01642.010.09.101.406.900.160.1310.674.92.515.40.9173.0CTMixed Gray17-Aug-01722.00.155.000.197.900.1619.004.1275.078.651.99.110,300CTMixed Gray17-Aug-01520.00.115.000.197.401.4019.004.9272.012.656.06.61,390.0DBMixed Gray29-Aug-01NANA15.000.1917.006.3012.001.20.60.70.62.41.4DBMixed Gray29-Aug-01NANA21.000.1920.006.508.901.20.60.70.62.41.4DBMixed Gray29-Aug-01NA0.10.350.190.280.160.131.8338.01.715.000.6289.0DBMixed Gray29-Aug-01289.00.10.350.190.280.160.133.1267.02.313.70.8228.0DBGalley02-Aug-011,620.00.53.400.197.600.16140.0010.7652.01.117.11.2106.0DBGalley22-Aug-013,950.00.13.102.703.600.1637.008.869.32.713.21.3206.0DBGalley23-Jul-011,290.00.15.801.906.3031.0016.0013.61,710.094.732.331.5400.0DBAcc/galley26-Jul-01521.0NA14.000.1912.000.1695.003.9170.05.716.91.3411.0Alaska Department of Environmental ConservationScience Advisory PanelCommercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance ProgramNovember 200232TankTypeWater typeSampleDateCODmg/ltotalCLmg/lbis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalateButylbenzylphthalateDiethylphthalatebromoformChloroformChromium (TR)copper(TR)Lead(TR)nickel(TR)Selenium(TR)zinc (TR)MDL3.40.10.690.380.550.320.252.31.21.41.14.82.8DBLaundry26-Jul-01268.00.217.000.1915.000.1631.002.144.13.35.30.4163.0DBAccomo23-Jul-01765.00.18.902.309.603.0058.005.0174.04.310.79.0270.0DBAccomo02-Aug-01295.03.55.200.1913.000.160.132.6355.02.88.71.8276.0Min3.40.10.350.190.280.160.131.20.60.70.60.41.4Max3,950.010.055.002.702031.00170.0013.61,710.094.756.031.510,300.0GeoMean700.10.26.510.365.9130.527.773.8103.44.011.12.0179.3Alaska Department of Environmental ConservationScience Advisory PanelCommercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance ProgramNovember 200233Table II-9: 2001 Large Ships Priority Pollutants for Blackwater (includes GW&BW mixed)All units of measure in μg/l unless noted.TypeWater typeSampleDateChloroformBromoformbis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalateArsenicIIICopper(TR)Lead (TR)Nickel (TR)Selenium(TR)Zinc (TR)MDL0.190.320.380.21.41.14.80.930.33AdvancedMixedBW&GW20-Sep-014.200.160.191.12.70.118.31.0532.40AdvancedMixedBW&GW09-Sep-0111.000.164.200.10.50.20.70.213.02MaceratorMixedBW&GW08-Aug-0122.0026.000.1932.8203.03. 725.4105.00228.00MaceratorMixedBW&GW08-Aug-0127.0013.003.1036.098.70.622.7155.00111.00Notreatment/DBMixedBW&GW19-Aug-011.700.167.0053.4169.03.416.2152.00268.00BiologicalBW19-Aug-010.870.160.199.01,670.080.338.18.313,020.00Min0.870.160.190.10.50.10.70.213.02Max27.0026.007.0053.41,670.080.338.1155.003,020.00GeoMean5.860.780.936.344.31.412.812.89112.29

# Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation Science Advisory Panel Commercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance Program November 2002



# 34 Table II-10 includes the prior ity pollutants that had result s 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 contai ned 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 Prio rity 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 21.45Alaska Department of Environmental ConservationScience Advisory PanelCommercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance ProgramNovember 200237Table II-11: 2000 Priority Pollutants for BlackwaterAll units of measure in μg/l unless noted.Samples fromBis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalateBromodichloromethaneChloroChromium(TR)Copper(TR)Cyanide(total)Dibromochloromethanedi-n-butylphthalateLead(TR)MethylChloridePhenolZinc(TR)BromoformMDL0.380.460.252.31.21.60.321.41.41.20.852.80.32DB0.190.230.133.10.60.80.160.70.70.60.431.40.16Double bottom1.500.230.791.7510.00.80.160.730.00.6250.001200.00.1617.001.1015.001.7150.00.80.162.50.70.60.43460.00.166.506.306.701.7530.00.80.163.90.70.60.43530.016.003.700.230.1310.03900.00.80.998.20.70.6160.00390.00.16HT holding8.801.7013.001.76400.00.80.162.116.00.62.101800.01.10MSD1.900.230.131.7360.00.80.160.70.70.60.76170.00.162.000.232.901.7210.00.80.160.70.70.60.59390.03.301.901.901.601.750.00.81.44.80.70.60.27210.01.200.1918.0021.0018.0560.025.0400.723.025.00.431100.095.000.191.1018.001.5150.051.00.160.71.80.60.18350.00.160.1918.0020.001.7530.019.0180.727.00.61.901000.028.000.1977.00210.001.7240.073.0880.70.70.60.43580.0170.001.40110.00140.001.7170.00.8633.218.09.41.50800.014.002.3043.00200.001.7760.00.8162.00.70.60.431.46.106.20180.00380.0014.07100.028.02702.70.7160.02.00610.0440.005.1053.0093.0019.0360.026.0563.10.70.60.43620.080.000.190.231.6025.0130.00.80.162.60.70.60.43700.00.160.19190.001500.001.70.60.8880.70.781.00.431.425.001.800.233.701.754.00.80.162.10.7240.00.43250.00.16Alaska Department of Environmental ConservationScience Advisory PanelCommercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance ProgramNovember 200238Samples fromBis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalateBromodichloromethaneChloroChromium(TR)Copper(TR)Cyanide(total)Dibromochloromethanedi-n-butylphthalateLead(TR)MethylChloridePhenolZinc(TR)BromoformMDL0.380.460.252.31.21.60.321.41.41.20.852.80.32Overboard0.190.231.201.70.60.80.160.70.70.60.431.40.163.603.6015.0052.0740.00.8139.850.00.61.90140.030.00Reverse4.100.234.801.70.60.80.160.70.70.60.437.00.16Osmosis1.300.234.101.70.60.80.161.10.70.60.431.40.16Min0.190.230.131.50.60.80.160.70.70.60.181.40.16Max17.00190.001500.0052.07100.073.0270.009.850.0240.0250.001800.0440.00GeoMean1.252.588.843.1107.32.01.591.61.81.60.96124.12.17

# Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation Science Advisory Panel Commercial Passenger Vessel En vironmental Compliance Program November 2002



# 39 Priority Pollutant Conclusions

A majority of priority pollutant resu lts are below the minimum detection limit.

Out of the 55 priority pollutant categorie s 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 Su mmaries 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 merc ury 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 En vironmental Compliance Program November 2002



# 40 

# Section III

An Assessment of Fecal Coliform Ba cteria in Cruise Ship Wastewater Discharge

Charles McGee, Lincoln Loehr, and Kenwyn George

Summary

The Science Advisory Panel evaluated envir onmental 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 environmen tal waters and as an index of the sanitary quality of the water. Fecal coliform, as a gr oup, are not necessarily responsible for illness but because they are always found in the in testinal tract of humans and other warmblooded animals (including birds) their pres ence indicates the potential for exposure to other pathogenic microorganisms that are shed from the gastrointestinal tract.

This section discusses fecal coliform standard s 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 ra w shellfish consumers harvesting shellfish along the shoreline. Th e available data, coupled with the relevant dilutions, indicate that viola tions of the applicable bacter ial water quality standards are not predicted to occur fo r 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 partic ular uses, the most stringent criteria will apply. For the purposes of th is paper, the Panel considered and reports on those uses most likely to occur and be aff ected at particular locations. For example, contact recreation is feasible at sea, wher eas the collection of mo llusks and other aquatic life for raw consumption only occurs along th e shoreline. Alaska’s designated usages and the standards associated with those usag es 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 En vironmental Compliance Program November 2002



# 41 Aquaculture

For products normally cooked,

200 fecal coliform (FC)/100 ml as a geometric mean 20 

# 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 recreation 21



# 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 recreation 22



# 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 median 23 

# 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 (N SSP) requirements promulgated by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The NSSP is a cooperative State-FDA-Industry

20 

# “geometric mean” means the n th 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 intimat e 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 En vironmental 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 St andards for Commercial Passenger Vessels

Effluent standards were recently adopted fo r commercial passenger vessels in Alaska.

Effluent standards are not to be confused with water quality standard s. 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.

Federal 24 

# and State of Alaska standards 25 

# 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 th e shoreline if fecal coliform does not to exceed 20/100 ml (30-day geometric mean) 26



# .

State of Alaska 7 

# standards for Small Commercial Pa ssenger Vessels (accommodations for between 50 and 249 passengers)

200 FC/100 ml for graywater and treated blackwa ter. 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 singl e 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 environm ent generates data sets with specific challenges. These include significant tempor al variability, large ranges in values that affect data distribution, and the fact that th e 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 En vironmental 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 variabil ity by collecting and an alyzing samples at a frequency equal to the variabil ity interval, which is minutes. Cost and logistics prohibit such a monitoring program, and it is not atypi cal 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 variab ility, bacterial measurements are also subject to extreme ranges. It is possible for the da ta 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 estimat e the center of the da ta distribution and examples of those measures include mean, me dian 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 cente r of the frequency distribution of those

measurements.

However, a fecal coliform historical record poses its own challe nges to calculating a mean. When factors affecting variability of the measurements are few, small in effect, random in occurrence, and act in a simple a dditive fashion then the distribution of the

variations follow what is called a Gaussian or a normal distribution curve, and measures of central tendency are relative ly reliable. As mentioned a bove, such is not the case with

bacteria measurements. Bacteria monito ring data do not typically have a normal

distribution and this translates into a high level of uncertain ty with regard to statistical estimation and inference [Shumwa y and Azari, 1988; Parkin, 1990].

One mathematical approach to dealing with data r ecords that are non-normal is to use a process that transforms the individual measuremen ts 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 loga rithm, 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 reas on many of Alaska’s standards are based on a geometric mean.

Alaska’s shellfish harvesting standard is base d on a median value. The median is also a descriptive statistic of central tendency of the data. The valu e is the value that splits a

data set so that half of th e individual measurements are below the median value and half are above. The median is calculated by so rting the measurements numerically and determining the mid value. In the case wh ere 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 En vironmental 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 co mmon in microbiological data [Hurst, et al, 2002]. Medians are also useful when consider ing health risk from exposure to fecal

contamination. Consider a data record wher e 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 orga nisms per 100 mL. The majority of people recreating at this location we re not exposed to any additi onal risk of ga strointestinal illness. However, those recreating on the day when high fecal coliform were measured were exposed to significant ri sk. At no time were all the pe ople recreating in this area over the multiple days when samples were coll ected 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 o fficial does not have real tim e 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 fr om 1) mandating a technology ba sed level of treatment, 2) requiring the use of best management practi ces (including strategies to optimize mixing rates), or 3) establishing specific discharge limits and allowing industr y 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 years 28 

# the 2000 data provide a useful basis for establishing typical discharge concentra tions and a comparison to ba cteria standards. A typical practice for cruise ships is to separate toil et 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 c onsideration of sources of fecal coliform in water quality standards. In 2000, graywater sa mples often had fecal coliform counts that were as high as blackwater. As a result separation of the tw o 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 traditiona l 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 En vironmental 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 m unicipal sewage outfall relies on treatment to a certain level followed by dilution and disper sion of the discharge to mitigate potential environmental impact. As the ship moves th rough the water the discharge is spread over a larger area than from a static point source, the hull displ aces large amounts of water that fill in behind the ship, and the propellers assist in mixing the discharge into the surrounding water. Thus, the conc entration of fecal coliform a nd other constituents in the water behind the ship is directly influe nced by ship speed and discharge rates. Ultimately, additional dispersion, dilution, colifo rm die-off rates, sinking of particulates,

currents and winds further diminish the fecal coliform concentratio ns associated with releases from a large moving cruise ship.

Section I of this report discusses dilution f actors behind ships in detail. The findings

from that section state that a reasonabl e 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 mi nimum distance from shore that discharge is permitted under State and Federal regulati ons. 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 show s 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 th e geometric mean, the median, and the percent exceedances above specific levels of regul atory 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 behi nd a large cruise ship, it would be difficult

for an individual to attain any significant exposure to the discharge. The only “significant exposure” scenario envision ed would be an individual on a powered watercraft such as a jet ski following behi nd the ship. Sea kayaker exposure in this zone would be brief unless the kayake r’s track was along or close to the path of the cruise ship. The Alaska water quality standard that w ould apply to this dilution zone would be secondary recreation, one where exposure is inci dental with only minimal or no ingestion

# Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation Science Advisory Panel Commercial Passenger Vessel En vironmental 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 da ta set, the effluent geometric mean would have to be greater than 10,000,000 fecal colif orm/100 ml to be in violation of the standard. For the 10% requirem ent of the standard to be ex ceeded, more than 10% of the samples collected over a 30-day period woul d 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 a nd dilution, bacteria discharged into the environment begin to die off. Fecal colifo rm bacteria are best adapted to living in a warm, dark, isomotic, balanced pH envir onment with an abundance of food. Following discharge into marine waters, bacteria leve ls begin to decline due to environmental factors such as salinity, heavy metals, coagul ation and flocculation, nu trient deficiencies, predation, bacteriophages, alga e and bacterial toxins.[Hurs t et al 2002]. Hurst et al (2002) have also shown that because microbes have an intrinsic elec trostatic 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 fluctuat ions 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 conduct ed 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 mo st conducive to surviv al. Light is not as significant a factor in extremely turbid wate rs 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 ot her 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 lite rature supports a time range for 90% of the E. coli to die off (T 90 

# ) to be as short as four to six hours to several days [Cha mberlain, 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 su rvival during the cruise seas on should be similar to that described by Chamberlain.

Cruise Ship Discharges in Context

Cruise ship discharges shoul d 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 En vironmental Compliance Program November 2002



# 47 warm-blooded animals, including humans, ranges from 10 9 

# to 10 10 

# organisms per gram of feces [Eaton et al. 1995]. A Alderisio and DeLuca (1999) de monstrated that gull feces

contained about 3.68 X 10 8 

# bacteria per gram and that goose feces contain about 1.53 X

10 4 

# 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 al ong the shoreline present the opportunity for high fecal discharges, especially where the se ptic systems fail, which frequently happens in the rocky Alaskan coastal environment. Runoff from snowmelt and rainfall will contain fecal coliform from indigenous land anim als as well as pets. Waters adjacent to

marine mammal haul-out areas will also c ontain elevated fecal coliform levels. These background sources of fecal coliform complicat e 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 mi ght 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 initia l 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 disc harge will sink, and onshore tr ansport, 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, th e 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 st andards 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 incor porate 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 di scharging 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 pa thogenic 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 anal ytical techniques for directly detecting the presence of pathogenic microorganisms are be ing researched. However, nearly 60 years

# Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation Science Advisory Panel Commercial Passenger Vessel En vironmental Compliance Program November 2002



# 48 of experience with setting standards using in dicator 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 Ze non aerated membrane u ltra filtration system

and the ROCHEM Reverse Osmosis/UV disi nfection/activated carbon systems) can

attain a mean fecal coliform concentrati on 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 disc harges from small cruise ships will have substantially less mixing and there is an in creased 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 En vironmental Compliance Program November 2002



# 49 References

Alderisio, L. A., DeLuca, N., “Seasonal Enum eration 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, 19 th 

# 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 Repor t to California Regional Water Quality Control Board and the EPA, 1989.

Parkin, T., “Analysis of Lognormal Data”, Se lected Topics in Statistics for Research Microbiologists, American Society fo r 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 En vironmental Compliance Program November 2002



# 50 

# Section IV

The Impact of Wastewater Nutrients on Alaska Marine Waters

Marlin Atkinson, Michael St ekoll, and Lincoln Loehr

Summary

High nutrient concentrations (nitrogen, phosphorous) in wast ewater discharge can, under the right conditions, promote phytoplankton blooms in receiving waters, altering the

immediate marine environment. The Science Advisory Panel inves tigated the possibility

that nutrients in cruise sh ip 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 th e form of ammonia (NH 3 

# /NH 4 + 

# ), nitrate (NO

− 3 

# ), and/or nitrite

(NO

− 2 

# ). In open waters the total of nitrate plus nitrite (NO

x 

# ) is usually much more
important than ammonia. But ammonia beco mes more important in estuarine situations or near wastewater discharges. Naturally o ccurring nitrate concentr ations 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 la rge cruise ship wastewater discharges to be 5 mM. By applying a minimum mixing factor of 50,000 30 

# 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 am ount of chlorophyll is only a hundredth to a thousandth of the standing phytoplankton. Ne w treatment requirements and regulations for 2003 may further reduce the amount of nutrients discharged in cruise ship

wastewaters.

Findings from Cruise Ship Wa stewater 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 a nd, depending on the ship, includes gray water (i.e. that from showers and sinks, laundry facilities and th e 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 mo lecular 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 cr uise ship traveling at the minimum allowed speed of 6 knots and discharging wastewater at 200 m 3 

# /hr. This scenario is considered a typical average worst case. (See Section I)

# Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation Science Advisory Panel Commercial Passenger Vessel En vironmental Compliance Program November 2002



# 51 discharge of raw sewage or untreated bl ack water is prohibited in Alaska. The concentrations of total nitrogen and phosphorus (as phosphate) in th ese 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. Samp ling in summer 2001 was consistent with 2000 samples (see Section II). The 2000 and 2001 an alysis only included inorganic ammonia. The first data analysis and synthesis assu med a fixed relationship between ammonia and total nitrogen, based on a wide survey of th e literature on sewage (Smith 2000). The ratio assumed was total nitrogen equals 3.3 times amm onia. Review of sample analysis from 6 ships during the 2002 sampling shows total nitr ogen 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 ammoni a data, converted to total nitrogen by the factor 3.3, as discussed above

The statistical means for the total nitrogen c ontent of graywater, which is the significant majority volume of the cruise ship wastew ater 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, re sulting in a higher mean. Untreated black water, which is not discharged to the ocea n, has means of about 300 to 400 mg/l (20 to 30 mM). At this point in the development of sa mpling and analysis, each data set is biased by the types of water sampled within the c onfines of the ship. Better sampling during 2002 and in subsequent years will produce a higher quality data set with lower variability. New regulations for graywa ter discharge in 2003 and introduction of advanced or enhanced treatment technology throughout the large crui se ship fleet may

reduce nutrient concentrations even further. But for the purposes of our evaluation, the Panel conservatively estimates that disc harged water can ha ve 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 consis tent 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 diluti on 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 surf ace ocean water varies seasonally (Hood & Zimmerman 1986). In winter, the higher-concen tration deeper water, rich in nutrients, mixes to the surface giving highest concentr ation 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 phytopla nkton resulting in a peak of primary production during the spring. Nearly all pr oduction occurs in these spring-summer

# Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation Science Advisory Panel Commercial Passenger Vessel En vironmental 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 (nea r Juneau and Sitka, with some data from Prince William Sound). As stated above we estimate that the maximum concentrations of nitrates plus nitrit es from moving cruise ship discharges after dilution are about 0.1μM. In spring, the concen tration of nitrate pl us nitrite in surface water starts at 30 μM, nearly 300 times hi gher 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, whic h 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 m 3 

# /hr whereas a large cruise ship may discharge at 200 m 3 

# /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 re duce nutrient concentr ations in the wastewater discharge. This assumption should be validated thr ough continued sampling and analysis in 2003 and subsequent years.

Summary of nutrients in SE Alaska waters

Stekoll et.al (1992, 1998 & 2001) report nutrient da ta from relatively protected areas near Juneau and Sitka, with some data from Prince William Sound. There is considerable variability in nutrient concentrations in su rface waters (less than 20m). Below 20m the

values of nutrients are relati vely 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 (NH 3 

# ) can be
important in contained bays near cities a nd villages (wastewater discharges) and near stream outfalls during salmon runs. Nitrate varies from 0 to 40 μ M over the year. (Figure IV-1) Low values (0 – 3 μ M) 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 En vironmental 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, NH 4 + 

# ): Values are usually in the 0-4 μ M range. In Auke Bay the ammonia values peak in May-June at about 6 μ M. The source of ammonia is probably bacterial/microbi al/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 typi cally much lower than nitrate. Phosphate peaks at 2-3 μ M. Phosphate concentrations may stratify with depth. The surface layers lose phosphate earl ier than the deeper layers.

Silicate: Silicate is an essential nutrie nt for diatom organisms in the phytoplankton. Silicate values are from Auke Bay studies onl y. The silicate concentration rises and falls parallel to the nitrate and phosphate concentrations. Values peak at 60 μ M around March. Silicate is probably not a limiting nutrient at any time of the year.

Temperature and Salinity: There is a predic table cycle (Figure IV -3) of near surface temperature and salinity in the inside waters. In winter the temperatures are low at 2-4 o 

# C.

At the same time the salinities are relati vely high at 30-34 parts per thousand (ppt). Salinity drops only slightly as temper atures increase through August. Typical temperatures are: April, 7 o 

# C, May, 10 o 

# C, August, 14 o 

# C. Salinities during this time drop to about 29-30 ppt. During August to Septembe r there is a rapid salinity drop to less than 28 ppt. The salinity change is due to th e 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 sa line water. In estu arine areas, the surface salinity often drops to zero because the wa ter is primarily from surface runoff (rivers, streams, etc.) passing through the estuar y. 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 smalle r and short lived. The spring bloom always goes through a succession of specie s 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 En vironmental 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 SONDMicromoles N per liter



# Phosphate

0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5

J FMAMJ J ASONDMicromoles P per 

# Surface

10 m

# Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation Science Advisory Panel Commercial Passenger Vessel En vironmental Compliance Program November 2002



# 55 Figure IV-3. Cycle of temperature and sa linity in surface waters throughout the year in SE Alaska (from Stekoll, 2001).

Figure IV-4. Carbon production from phytopl ankton 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 Dayg C m-2d-1



# March April May June 

# Carbon Production

0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0

0 50 100 150 200

Julian Dayg C m-2d-1



# March April May June 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16

27 28 29 30 31 32 33

SalinityTemperataure



# Jan

Feb Mar A pr May Jun Jul A ug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

# Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation Science Advisory Panel Commercial Passenger Vessel En vironmental 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. Al aska SeaLife Center Technical Report 2000-1, p17-29

Stekoll, Michael S. 1998. The seaweed re sources 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 Scie nce Advisory Panel,

December 2001.

Zieman, D. A. and K. W. Fulton-Benne tt (eds). 1990. APPRISE – Interannual variability and fisheries recruitment. The Oceanic Institute. Honolulu, HI.

# Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation Science Advisory Panel Commercial Passenger Vessel En vironmental 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 ad sorb to particles in the wastewater effluent and in the receiving e nvironment. These contaminants settle and

accumulate in the bed sediments and can often present a chronological record of

contamination in an area. Bi oturbation (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 crui se ship discharges). Sediment contaminant levels are compared to several sediment guideline values. Next this paper discusses sediment contaminants a nd associated benthic studies associated with municipal wastewater discharges. Contaminants in cruise ship discharges are evaluated, focussing on metals and total suspended solids e ffluent data. Estimates of metals in the suspended solids are compared directly to se diment 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 con cern. The suspended solids in cruise ship discharges are widely disper sed and typically settle in deep depositional basins along with natural suspended sediments from ot her sources, notably major rivers. The incremental increase in copper sediment c oncentrations resulting from the combined particles from cruise ships with the natural de position of particles is quantified for several conservative scenarios and compared to sediment guideline values and background sediment copper concentrations. The Panel c oncludes it is unlikely that there would be environmental impacts of contaminants in se diments that could be associated directly with cruise ships.

Sediment Contaminants in the Strait of Georgia:

The Strait of Georgia is a semi-enclo sed basin between Vancouver Island and the mainland of British Columbia that receives discharges from anthropogenic (substances of human origin) sources such as sewage trea tment plants, industri al 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 En vironmental Compliance Program November 2002



# 58 MacDonald et al. (1991) determ ined the trace metals concen trations in sediment cores collected from the Bollenas Basin (>300 m deep) in the Strait of Georgi a as well as Jervis Inlet between 1980-1989 (Table V-1). They f ound surface enrichment of all metals that they attributed to anthropogeni c loading. Sediment concentr ations of copper, lead, and

zinc in the more remote Jervis Inlet were co mparable to the deep Bollenas Basin. Zinc in surface sediments exceeded the proposed Cana dian interim sediment quality criteria, ISQC (CCME, 2001). 31 

# Tributyl tin and its degrad ation products (DBT, MBT) were

found in a sediment core from Bollenas Ba sin (Table V-2). These contaminants were

distributed down to 25 cm in the core with the concentrations gr adually decreasing with depth (Stewart and Thompson, 1994). Yunker et al. (2000) conducted an extensive survey on the distribution of PAHs (polynuc lear 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 dens ity of ship traffic, discharges from nonpoint sources (storm water) and combined sewer overflows, which can contain PAHs.

Concentrations of PAHs in the Strait exceed ed the proposed ISQC for marine sediments. The sediment data do not implicate cruise sh ip wastewater discha rges but do implicate human contributions from a variety of common activities.

Table V-1: Trace Metals in Surface Sedime nts 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 cr iteria are based on thres hold 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 En vironmental Compliance Program November 2002



# 59 Table V-2: Butyltin in Surface Sedime nts 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 Aroma tic 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

C 1 

# -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 co llects 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. Extens ive investigations have been conducted by the Greater Vancouver Regional District as pa rt of their liquid waste management plan. The environmental impacts of these efflue nts 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 rela ted 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 di stribution of silver in the sediments (300-700 ng/g dry weight) have de monstrated that it is a good sedimentary tracer of effluent impacts on sediments (G ordon, 1997). Sediment fecal coliforms as well

# Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation Science Advisory Panel Commercial Passenger Vessel En vironmental 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 comm unity structure, over a two-year period at 16 stations along the 80 m depth contour through th e 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 polyc haetes, but lower numbers of ophiuroids (brittle stars) and crustaceans (a mphipods) in the near-field (outfall) area compared to reference stations. Guidelines for lead and some PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyls) were exceeded in some E nglish sole livers and Dungeness crab hepatopancreas but there was no difference betw een the near-field (outfall) and reference stations. A histopathological tissue examina tion of these organisms (sole and crabs) revealed no patterns of altered morphology be tween 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 flushe d 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 crui se 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. Tota l 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 me dian or geometric mean values of TSS are less than 150 mg/L. 150 mg/L TSS is a conser vative value for calculation purposes. This is also the permitted discharge limit set by th e 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 par ticulate fraction of the wastewater, one can calculate a possible metal concentration in the solid fraction of the wastewater 32 

# and compare the calculated concentrations to vari ous 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 co ncentration, 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 e quals 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 En vironmental Compliance Program November 2002



# 61 The calculations show that the TSS particle s 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). Th e 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 turb ulent mixing. The longer the particles are suspended in the water column, the farther from the point of entry th ey 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 va lue 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 criter ia (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 wa ke, sediment transport from high sediment sources such as large rivers, e.g. Fraser, Skee na, Stikine, as well as high sediment loads from melting glaciers, e.g. Taku, will effectiv ely combine with the particle associated contaminants from cruise ship discharges and reduce their concen tration 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 Sout hern 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 En vironmental Compliance Program November 2002



# 62 Table V-5: Natural Deposition Rates

Sedimentation

rate Depth Location Method Reference

13.3 g/day/m 2 

# 153 m Lynn Canal Sediment

trap Rescan Consultants (2000)

13.9 g/day/m 2 

# 225 m Lynn Canal Sediment

trap Rescan Consultants (2000)

38.8 g/day/m 2 

# 291 m Lynn Canal Sediment

trap Rescan Consultants (2000)

38.6 g/day/m 2 

# 291 m Lynn Canal Sediment

trap Rescan Consultants (2000)

1.88 g/day/m 2 

# 60 m Lynn Canal Sediment

trap Rescan Consultants (1990)

17.0 g/day/m 2 

# 290 m Lynn Canal Sediment

trap Rescan Consultants (1990)

34 g/day/m 2



# - Stephen’s Passage - CH2MHILL (1996) Reported by Rescan Consultants (2000)

41 g/day/m 2



# - Taku Inlet

- CH2MHILL (1996) Reported by Rescan Consultants (2000)

5.3 g/day/m 2



# - Lynn Canal Core Pb-210 Rescan Consultants (2000)

8.2 g/day/m 2 

# 150 m+ Puget Sound Core Pb-210 Crecelius (pers com 2002)

32.9 g/day/m 2 

# 150 m+ Puget Sound Core Pb-210 Crecelius (pers com 2002)

0.3 g/day/m 2 

# 60 m+ So. California Estimate Emery (1960)



# Development of a Deposition Model

The panel has developed a scenario to eval uate the potential fo r copper to enter the sediments in SE Alaska from cruise ship wa stewater discharges. This scenario shows how one could evaluate other potential se diment contaminants from cruise ship wastewater discharges. The panel selected copper as the contaminant with the most potential to be a problem based on the wastew ater priority pollutant data from cruise ships obtained in 2001 and 2002. The anal ysis requires several assumptions:

• Taking a realistic range of copper in effluents.

• Assuming that a percentage of that c opper 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 coppe r may settle, calculating a rate in milligrams per year per square meter.

• Comparing that to a reasonably conserva tive estimate of th e rate of natural

sedimentation.

# Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation Science Advisory Panel Commercial Passenger Vessel En vironmental 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 al so represent a steady state condition, not an

additive condition. The concentrations so determined could be compared to various sediment quality values that have be en derived. The detailed methodology and

calculations follow:

1. A large cruise ship discharges a gr aywater/treated blackwater mix at 200 m 3 

# /hr at a minimum speed of 6 knots (about 11,000 m/hr) at least one nautic al 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 complia nce 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 m 3 

# )(1000 l/m 3 

# ) = 12,450 mg Cu

6. The amount of copper discharged per mete r 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 m 3 

# /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 c opper 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 sw ath, but the ship track s are not exactly the same. The third option is th at the copper binds to very small particles that will be

# Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation Science Advisory Panel Commercial Passenger Vessel En vironmental Compliance Program November 2002



# 64 spread over a much wider area and in the cas e 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/m 2


# option 2: (509 mg Cu/year/m)/(300 m) = 1.70 mg Cu/year/ m 2


# option 3: (509 mg Cu/year/m)/(3,500 m) = 0.15 mg Cu/year/m 2



# Notice that if the ship track s differ by 100 m (i.e. a 300 m wide swath results from the 3 ships), the amount of copper/m 2 

# added to the sediments drops by a factor of 3 (from option 1 to option 2). Then not ice that letting the copper drif t a mile to either side of the main ship track decreases the copper/m 2 

# 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 washi ng back and forth with the tides. This slow rain of particles will spread away from the discha rge point in all directions. Individual particles could fall near the sh ip track, miles away from the ship track or

not sink at all. The Panel believes that all the above estimates of added copper/m 2 

# 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 se dimentation rates from cores in Southeast

Alaska have identified sedimenta tion rates varying from 1.88 gm/day/m 2 

# to 41 gm/day/m 2 

# . Sedimentation rates are greatest fo r deeper waters. Even in Puget Sound, Washington, sedimentation rates below 150 meters vary from 8 to 33 g/day/m 2 

# . The available data suggest that a natura l sedimentation rate of 5 g/day/m 2 

# would serve as a conservative low estimate for this analysis. Using the low rate of sedimentation of 5 g/day/m 2 

# we can determine a conservative ye arly rate of sedimentation as:

(5 g/day/m 2 

# )(365 day/year) = 1825 g/year/m 2



# Note that in deeper areas (where more sediments collect) individual particles will take longer to sink to the bottom, and t hus 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 bot tom, the currents are likely to be stronger, again allowing the particles to travel fa rther 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 botto m 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 fr om 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/m 2 

# )(1000 mg/gm) = 2.8 ppm option 2: (1.7 mg Cu/year/m 2 

# )/(1825 g/year/m 2 

# )(1000 mg/gm) = 0.9 ppm

# Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation Science Advisory Panel Commercial Passenger Vessel En vironmental Compliance Program November 2002



# 65 option 3: (0.15 mg Cu/year/m 2 

# )/(1825 g/year/m 2 

# )(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. No te 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 Refe rence 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 conc entrations in the above options are substantially lower than any of the refe rence values in step 12. The computed increases in copper in option 1 are sma ll and in options 2 and 3 are trivial.

14. The theoretical increases from the above cons ervative analyses may also be evaluated

in the context of the natura l 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 con centrations 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 c onservative one in all three cases. The analysis shows that copper in cruise ship discharg es is not expected to produce problems in marine sediments. Copper was selected for this example because the Panel believed it had the greatest pot ential to present an environmental problem among the pollutants present. The same type of analysis for othe r constituents would most likely produce similar demonstrations of non-problems. This is actually an expected result since areas of sediment c ontamination in the United States and Canada are usually related to industrialized wate rways or areas with historic inputs from stationary, continuous point s ource 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 En vironmental 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 Regi onal District, Burnaby, B.C.

Gordon, K. 1997. Sedimentary Tracers in Sewa ge 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 Wa ter Research Project, Long Beach,

CA

Hendricks, T. 1984. Predicting sedime nt qiuality around outfalls. 127-140 In Willard Bascom, ed., Coastal Water Research Project Bieenial report for the

Years 1981-1982. Southern Calidfornia Co astal 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., Ap ril 1990, Kensington Gold Project Alaska,

Environmental Baseline and Techni cal Background Information, Lynn Canal Oceanographic Data report

Rescan Environmental Services Ltd., 1996, Kensington Gold Project Alaska,

Environmental Baseline and Techni cal Background Information, Lynn Canal Oceanographic Data report

# Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation Science Advisory Panel Commercial Passenger Vessel En vironmental Compliance Program November 2002



# 67 Rescan Consultants, Inc., April 2000 Pr oject 554-5, Kensington Project Data Report

Sedimentation Rates

Stewart, C. and J.A.J. Thompson. 1994. Extensive Butyltin Contamination in

Southwestern Coastal British Colu mbia. Mar. Poll. Bull. 28: 601-606.

Yunker, M.B. et al. 2000. Assessment of Natura l and Anthropogenic Hydrocarbon Inputs Using

PAHs as Tracers. The Fraser River Basin and Strait of Georgia. 1987-1997. Fraser River Action Plan, Dept. of Environmen t, Vancouver, Vancouver, B.C.

# Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation Science Advisory Panel Commercial Passenger Vessel En vironmental 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 f ilm is a complex air-seawater interface 200-300 μ 

# m thick containing organic a nd inorganic material and concentrati ons of life-forms, often at levels significantly elevated from that of the waters be neath 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 ab sorption. The passage of a ve ssel’s propellers and hull is disruptive to the microlayer and probably cau ses some unknown quantity of plankton and fish larval mortality.

The Science Advisory Panel inves tigated the possibility that cont aminants from large cruise ship wastewater discharge might adversely impact lif e-form activity. The Panel concluded that the high dilution of wastewater ca used 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 (A ppendix 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 a nd biological propert ies of this zone

• The distribution and toxicity of cont aminants in the surface microlayer

• The impact of disturbance or stress on the su rface microlayer, particul arly 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. Th ese interface films have properties that are

# Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation Science Advisory Panel Commercial Passenger Vessel En vironmental 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 wa ter film since there is transfer across this boundary.

The air-water interface is a stressed environm ent, which is subject to dynamic non-equilibrium processes such as wind stress, water evapor ation, 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 orga nisms. The specialized organisms that have adapted to this interface habitat are collectiv ely called ‘pleuston’ while the microscopic component of the pleuston is called the ‘neust on’ (Wetzel 2001). The development of these aquatic surface oriented communities is most ex tensive in sheltered, quiescent environments. However, they are still considered to be impor tant in the marine environment (Zaitsev, 1970 ; Wanderschneider, 1979).

A chemical/biological description of this surf ace microlayer, often calle d the sea surface film, has been presented as a surface layer of lipids, proteins, polysaccharides and humic substances in

the order of 0.1 μ m followed by a bacterioneuston layer up to 1.0 μ m in thickness (Maki, 1993). Other organisms use the surface tension of th is 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 μ m layer is sampled by vari ous collection techniques and compared to the bulk water underneath (0.1 to 1.0 m).

The Chemical and Biological Prope rties of the Sea Surface Microlayer

Several studies have been conducted to investigat e the chemical and biological properties of the surface microlayer and compare it to the bulk wate r. In studies off California, Williams et al. (1986) studied the surface film (200-300 μ m) 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, pl ankton indicators (chlorophyll a , ATP) and organic carbon (Table VI1). There was more protein relati ve to carbohydrate in the surfac e film compared to the deeper water. However, the correlations between th e various chemical and biological measurements could not be adequately explaine d, reflecting the complexity of processes that form and maintain

surface films.

In similar studies conducted in the Mediterranean Sea off of Ma rseilles, France, De Souza Lima and Chretiennot-Dinet (1984), f ound higher levels of particulat e 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 fixati on, attributed to main ly dinoflagellates and diatoms, was slightly lower gi ving a lower produ ction/chlorophyll a ratio and indicating photoinhibition or possible contaminant inhibition in this surface microlayer (Table VI- 2). There is usually inhibition of aquatic photosynthe sis in surface waters due to photooxidative destruction of enzymes as well as the inactiva tion of photosystem II by the UV radiation (Wetzel 2001).

# Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation Science Advisory Panel Commercial Passenger Vessel En vironmental Compliance Program November 2002



# 70 Table VI- 1: Chemical and Biological Charac teristics 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 Charac teristics 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

14 

# C 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 collea gues (Albright, 1980; Bell and Albr ight, 1982; and Dietz et al., 1976) in the Strait of Georgia, which is highl y influenced by the freshwater runoff and high turbidity of the Fraser River, generally found lower autotrophic a nd heterotrophic activities in the

70-80 μ m neuston layer than in the plankton in the bul k water. They concluded that the neustonic microorganisms were not as metabolically acti ve as their planktoni c counterparts and were probably under greater stress in th is near-surface microlayer.

Therefore there appears to be considerable vari ability 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 En vironmental 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 microl ayer, it is obvious that this in terface should provide a favorable

environment for contaminants to accumulate since they can adsorb to part iculate 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 fo r the marine environment in Table VI- 3.

Table VI- 3: Contaminants in Surf ace 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 biphenyl s, PAHs=polycyclic aromatic hydrcarbons. Adapted from Maki (1993)

# Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation Science Advisory Panel Commercial Passenger Vessel En vironmental 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 μ m surface microlayer relative to the bulk water at 20 cm below the surface (Table VI- 4) . Hardy et al. (1987a) found a vari ety of contaminants associated with the microlayer in Puget Sound, Washington (T able 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 runo ff, 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

100-150 μm 

# 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 th e 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 En vironmental Compliance Program November 2002



# 73 Table VI- 6: Spatial Variation in Contaminan ts 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 Puge t Sound generally resulted in more chromosomal aberrations in developing sole larvae, reduced ha tching 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 co mpared to deep offshore stations (Table VI- 7). The toxicity correlated well with the contaminant le vels (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 microl ayer, the question remains whether cruise ship wastewater discharges elevate the microl ayer concentrations of contaminants.

# Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation Science Advisory Panel Commercial Passenger Vessel En vironmental Compliance Program November 2002



# 74 Microlayer Disruption, Forma tion and Biological Activity:

Some information exists on the rate of reform ation of the surface laye r after disruption. Studies on the physical properties of the organic surf ace 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 wa ters 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 S ouza 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 prot ected 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 poten tially stimulate autotrophic and heterotrophic processes. However, the accumulation of contam inants from anthropogenic sources in coastal areas could have some negative a ffects on these natural processes.

Table VI- 8: The Effect of Sea State on Bi ological 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 Chretie nnot-Dinet (1984). ssf = sea surface film

Table VI- 9: Microbial Activity Duri ng 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 Chretie nnot-Dinet (1984). ssf =sea surface film.

# Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation Science Advisory Panel Commercial Passenger Vessel En vironmental 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 ri ch 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 st ress from propellers and tow configurations of barge towboats in the upper Mississippi Ri ver was estimated to be about 6300 dynes/cm 2


# (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/cm 2 

# . Morgan et al (1976) found that the amount of shear required to kill fish eggs and larvae increases with shear fo rce and time of exposure. Mean LC 50 

# (exposures required to kill 50% of the eggs or larvae) ranged from 125 dyne/cm 2 

# at 4 minutes exposure of white perch larvae to 542 dynes/cm 2 

# at 1-minute exposure for striped bass eggs. High turbulence (6370 dynes/cm 2 

# ; one event per hour) resulted in 87% mortality to paddlefish larvae; those exposed to low turbulence (1838 dynes/cm2) suffe red only 3% mortality (Killgore et al., 1987). Holland (1986) found that the mean catch of ic hthyoplankton was reduced in both surface and bottom waters for 90 minutes following the passa ge 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 scal e 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 th at 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 disruptiv e, if not more so, than wastewater discharge.

Ultraviolet Energy Absorption and Effects on the Sea Surface Environment

The depletion of stratospheric ozone and the s ubsequent 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 formati on of highly reactive, transient chemical species such as hydroxyl radicals as well as relatively stable hydrogen peroxide (H 2 

# O 2 

# ), nitric oxide (NO), and carbon dioxide (CO 2 

# ) (Mora et al. 2000). The net effects of many of these reactive chemical species fr om 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 phos phate, 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 En vironmental Compliance Program November 2002



# 76 Mopper, 1997). These processes can also enha nce the geochemical cy cling of carbon, nitrogen and sulfur compounds in the marine environmen t 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 organi sms (Larson and Berenbaum, 1988).

The photochemical degradation of dissolved orga nic matter can make compounds more available for bacterial growth especially in coastal areas with higher levels of di ssolved 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 mol ecular weight organic matter and made more available to organisms. The DNA, RNA, and ar omatic 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 su rface can decrease algal primary production with the UV-B inhibiting su rface photosynthetic carbon incorporation by 25 to 50% (Vernet, 2000). The damage to zooplan kton and fish is highly variable, but studies indicate that it can depress the immune system and increase the vulnera bility 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 thei r 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 disc harges from the large cruise ships that travel along the coast. These data indicate that there is high variability in the qua lity of these effluents (Section II). Also, the quality of these discharges continues to impr ove 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 discha rges will depend on thei r 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 desi gn, speed of the vessel during discharge, as well as currents and wind veloc ity. 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 dynami cs would still provid e 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 indi cator 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 c oncentrate some contaminants 50 to 100 times

the ambient level in the sea su rface microlayer (Table VI- 5). It appears that these higher

# Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation Science Advisory Panel Commercial Passenger Vessel En vironmental 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 w ith the discharge of very hydrophobic substances such as oil and grease from galleys since these s ubstances 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 ma gnitude 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 c ontrol 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 passenge rs into the bays and fjords for recreational activities, and wildlife/scener y viewing. If small vessels ar e 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 En vironmental 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. Bacteriologi cal Investigation of the Neuston and Plankton in the Fraser River Estuary, British Columb ia. Est., Coastal & Shelf Sci. 15: 385-394.

Bidleman T.F. and C.E. Olney. 1974. Chlori nated Hydrocarbons in the Sargasso Sea Atmosphere and Surface Water. Science 183: 516-518.

Boehm, P.D. 1980. Evidence of the Decoupli ng 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 Wastew ater Discharge into Alaskan Coastal Waters. Alaska Sealife Center, Tech. Report No. 2000-01, 48 p.

Cross, N.J. et al. 1987. Contaminant Concentrati ons and Toxicity of S ea-water Microlayer Near Los Angeles, California. Mar. Environ. Res. 23: 307-323.

De Souza Lima, Y. and M.J. Chretiennot-Din et. 1984. Measurements of Biomass and Activity of Neustonic Microorganisms. Est., Coastal and Shelf Sci. 19: 167-180.

Dietz, A.S. et al. 1976. Heterotrophic Activitie s of Bacterioneuston a nd Bacterioplankton. Can.

J. Microbiol. 22: 1699-1709.

Dragcevic, D.J. and V. Pravdic. 1981. Propertie s of the Seawater-Air Interface 2. Rates of Surface Film Formation Under Steady Stat e 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 Hydrocar bons 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 Me tals 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 En vironmental Compliance Program November 2002



# 79 Hardy, J.T. 1987b. The Sea-surface Microlayer of Puget Sound: Part II. Concentrations of

Contaminants and Relation to Toxic ity. Mar. Environ. Res. 23: 251-271.

Hardy, J.T. et al. 1990. Aquatic Surface Microl ayer 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 Se a Surface Microlayer.

Mar. Chem. 9: 49-70.

Kieber, D.J., J. McDaniel and K. Moppe r. 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 st ages 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 Am erican Fisheries Society 116:670-673.

Larson, R.A. and M.R. Berenbaum. 1988. Envir onmental 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 (N ormal 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. Rasi n, 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 Enrichme nt 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 En vironmental 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. Mo ra et al. (eds.) The Effects of UV Radiation in the Marine Environment, Ca mbridge 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 3 rd 

# 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 Ak ad. Nauk. Ukrainskoi. SSR, Naukova Dumka, Kiev 207 p. (Translat. Into En glish, Programs for Scientif ic Translation, Jerusalem, 1971).

Zhou, X. and K. Mopper. 1997. Photochemical Production of Low Molecular Weight Carbonyl Compounds in Seawater and Surface Microl ayer and their Air-Sea Exchange. Mar.

Chem. 56: 201-214.

# Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation Science Advisory Panel Commercial Passenger Vessel En vironmental Compliance Program November 2002



# 81 

# Section VII

Criteria for Delineating Areas Potentia lly 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 sensitiv e than other areas to cruise ship discharges? So much more sensit ive that discharging should be restricted?”

Two approaches need to be considered: se nsitive 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 qua lity criteria, gu idelines 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 th rough 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 like ly 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 wate r in the exact same place day afte r day is very unlikely to leave a trace. We are also considering sensitive specie s rather than land types. So sensitive areas for cruise ship discharges will have some funda mental 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 polluta nts do not affect the wate r itself. Rather, it is

# Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation Science Advisory Panel Commercial Passenger Vessel En vironmental Compliance Program November 2002



# 82 the living things that live in the water and the animals furthe r up the food web that depend on those local resources that are potentially aff ected. 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 pa rticular area at particular ti mes, which limits contaminant

exposure.

The simplest consideration is of things that are of interest to humans and that do not change

locations – confined or sessil e 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 pa rticularly 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 sensiti ve creatures move through an area could lead to temporary closures to discharges. Sensitive life stages of animal ubi quitous in the area would

not cause the same restrictions since the population is so large.

A particular concern of many people is the poten tial impact of ship wa stewater discharge on humpback whales ( 

# Megaptera novaeangliae ) 

# . The Panel reviewed avai lable 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 wastewat er 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 m oving 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 shor e – 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 beds 33



# .

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 reco mmends minimizing these elem ents 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 vesse l 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 En vironmental 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 sp ecies that has both a se nsitive life stage and a population that is limited to an area where crui se ships discharge wastewaters. (Ubiquitous species are not considered for se nsitive area delineation). Ho wever, 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 exchange 34 

# occurs are areas where chemicals from wastewater discharges are a po tential issue. Tidal exchange information could be used to prioritize areas for furthe r 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 defi ned before it can be used as a criterion for establishing no-discharge zones.

# Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation Science Advisory Panel Commercial Passenger Vessel En vironmental 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 – spendi ng two days underway on one– and

conducted extensive interv iews with corporate managers, o fficers and crew. Eight possible pathways that onboard chemicals could be discha rged 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, wi ll 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 verify ing the full extent and nature of chemicals on board cruise vessels is no simple matter. Crui se vessels – as floating, self-propelled, selfcontained huge hotels which tr avel 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 spectr um of chemical materi als typically associated with, for example, large resort hotels. But with cruise vessels, additiona l varieties of chemicals and chemical waste products ar e 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 typi cally 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 sh all 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 chem icals utilized, brought, or generated aboard ship.

# Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation Science Advisory Panel Commercial Passenger Vessel En vironmental Compliance Program November 2002



# 85 Two of the more important and obvious mechanis ms by which chemicals stored, used, generated, or otherwise associated with these vessels (i.e ., the “likely chemical i nventory”) can reach the marine environment are of course, the graywate r 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 cal culations, which are set forth in Section I in greater detail 35



# .

However, graywater and blackwater are by no means the only two pathways by which shipboard chemicals can reach the surrounding marine envi ronment. Chemicals associated with such vessels can reach the sea (and in some cases the ai r as well) via such other routes as bilge water, incineration of certain wastes, offloading of haza rdous wastes for special disposal, and accidental spillage or leakage. Chemicals present in hull pa ints and anti-fouling coatings can also reach the sea from simple electrolysis and diffusion. Tr ace 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 r outes, 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 wh ich 54 environmental organizations initiated an ongoing national EPA review of impacts of crui se 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 fi rst hand, and learning as much as possible about the general issue of chemicals used, associated w ith, 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 Networ k Report. The Panel thus tends to concur in principle with this general sche me. However, we also propose three additional exposure “pathways” by which chemicals associated with cruise vessels could conceivably reach and impact the surrounding marine environmen t. The three additional pathways are:

6. Incineration (air),

35 

# For the purposes of this section the dispersion scenario of ten 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 kno ts, the mixing will be greater than 50,000 to 1.

# Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation Science Advisory Panel Commercial Passenger Vessel En vironmental 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 conti nuously interrelate with and contribute to the primary sources (the likely chemical universe) of chemicals associ ated 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) ha s recently instituted a number of mandatory (must comply to maintain ICCL membersh ip) 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 (Gener al Shipboard Universe of Chemicals)

Potentially hazardous chemicals th at could come from large crui se 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 tetrach loroethylene, 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. (Not e: 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 or der to allow increased employee safety, greater control and chemical management, and reduced consumption of PERC. This procedure will reduce PERC vapors during machine charging. Al so in place are filtration systems, which remove PERC from dry cleaning process conde nsate 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 CO 2 

# 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 CO 2 

# system will continue to be evaluated by HAL in the coming year.

Other Degreasing fluids /cleaning fluids (engine room, etc): Our vi sits to assess stocks and types of chemicals aboard cruise ship s have revealed relatively large quantities of various degreasing and cleaning compounds used in areas where pr opulsion and engine-related work is performed.

These areas are also at and around the lowerm ost levels or bilge. The exact chemical composition(s) of these degreasing fluids is di fficult 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 En vironmental 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 wa ste 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 a nd very important for machinery. Fairly large quantities of liquid degreasing materials are commonplace on the vessels. Identifying the various chemical ingredients making up these de greasing 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 bac k, because of health and environmental concerns

about this chemical. The Panel notes that wast ewater sampling and analysis in 2000-2002 has not detected the presence of TCE in cruise ship wastewater.

Most of the rather large quantit ies of degreasers used on the vess els we have visited carry trade names such as “Enviroclean”, in either 25-liter pa ils, 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 ethyl enes or ethanes as active ingred ients. 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 ve ssels like these typically have extensive interior and exterior “brightwork”, which involves ex tensive 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 conti nually at sea, the types of chem ical products in question do appear to not differ significantly from t hose 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 environm ent does not seem to be practiced. Review of the available records fo r lines like Holland America have revealed that most, perhaps all, of the “insecticides” used on board are in fact t hose which are pyrethroid based, thus (under reasonable situ ations of use and management) posing only a minimal to nil amount of potentially significant environmental ha rm and environmental persistence. This, plus the fact that no “priority” pe sticides like DDT, or other environmentally undesirable organochlorine pesticides have ever been det ected in any of the samples taken from Alaska cruise vessels during the past three years of State led or ma ndated monitoring, makes it unlikely in our view that pesticides currently used aboa rd 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 En vironmental Compliance Program November 2002



# 88 One particular pesticide of modern times – chlorpyrifos – is of routine concern to ecotoxicologists and others who assess potential chemical impact s to the environment. Although chlorpyrifos is apparently not us ed at all on the cruise vessels we have visited, its high-moderate toxicity and its ability to persist for several w eeks in aquatic environments makes it probably the single most important type of “modern” or “rec ent” insecticide in terms of potential ecosystem impacts. For this reason, we recommend that chlo rpyrifos 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 situa tions requiring insect control.

Photo lab: The photo labs on large vessels are no t unlike photo labs on land. They utilize significant quantities of developer, stop bat h, fixer solution, etc. We have no detailed information about specific quantities of chemical s 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 sa fely stored and utilized. Wast e 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 la b 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 Cr uise Lines, most modern cruise vessels will have a small but modern and well-equipped medi cal laboratory and infirmary on board. These facilities contain the usual small but necessary co re 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 stream s or exposure pathways in any significant ways which could impact the marine environment.

Printers: Holland-America Lines indicate that fleet -wide, the use of prin ting plates which require chemical printing solution have been replaced wi th 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/Batteri es/Butane Lighters: According to HAL environmental report of 2000, these three materials are specifi cally targeted on board as hazardous waste materials, and separated out from all other waste streams. Sp ecially trained employees individually sort all materials coming from such places as kitche n 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 appropria te landfill disposal in Vancouve r, by a private contractor. We

# Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation Science Advisory Panel Commercial Passenger Vessel En vironmental Compliance Program November 2002



# 89 assume that other cruise lines do the same thi ng, but have no way of subs tantiating this at this time other than recognizing the manda tory practices set forth by ICCL.

Miscellaneous: In food serving area s, 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 burni ng, and is not considered an air pollutant. It also has a lower flash point and is housed in spill-resistant co ntainers. We do not know the precise chemical identity of this “ecofuel” at this time.

Pharmaceuticals, personal care products, fragranc e materials and other emerging contaminants in water; including “other organic wastewater co ntaminants” (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 th e general population who ut ilize land- based sewage systems and publicly owned treatment works (P OTWs)-- 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 signifi cant portion of the middle aged and elderly in our society of today. Such me dications 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 concen trations (maximum levels were less than one part per billion (ppb), and more typically only a few parts per trilli on (ppt)) of various pharmaceuticals, other personal care products, and hormonal residues in river water resources by the US geological Survey (Kolpi n 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; st ockyards) the thirty most frequently detected individual compounds found at trace (parts per tril lion) levels belonged to the following general

groups:

1. Steroids (89% freq uency 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 En vironmental Compliance Program November 2002



# 90 4. Detergent metabolites (69%) 4-nonylphenol in particular is a co mmon 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 “plast ics include the phthalate acid esters, such as diethyl-hexyl phthalate DEHP, and di-n-butylphthalate (DNBP), which are frequently noted at trace leve ls 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 rese arch efforts at identifying a nd 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. Ge ological Survey (USGS) is currently developing methodology for a list of some 95 “new” target co mpounds 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., chlo rtetracycline, N=4), Fluoroquinones (e.g., cipr oflaxicin, 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), Ci metidine, Ranitidine (antacids) Enalaprilat, Diltiazem (antihypertensi ves), Digoxin, Digoxige nin (cardiac care) Fluoxetine, Paroxetine (antidepressa nts), Warfarin (anticoagulant) Salbutamol (antiasthmatic), Ge mfibrozil (antihyperlipidemic) Dehydronifedipine (antianginal metabolite)

3. Human Drugs (non-prescription): N=6

Acetominophen (analgesic), Ibuprophe n (anti-inflammatory, analgesic) Codeine (analgesic), Caffeine (stimulant) , 1,7,dimethylxanthine (caffeine metabolite)

# Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation Science Advisory Panel Commercial Passenger Vessel En vironmental Compliance Program November 2002



# 91 Cotinine (nicotine metabolite)

4. Industrial and Household Wastewater Products: N=39

• Insecticides: N=8

Chlorpyrifos, Diazi non, Methyl parathion cis-Chlordane, Lindane, Dieldrin Carbaryl N,N-diethyltoluamide (DEET)

• Plasticizers: N=5

bis(2-Ethylhexylphtha late, Diethylphthalate bis(2-Ethylhexyl)adipate Ethanol-2-butoxy-phosphate, Triphenylphosphate

• Detergent Metabolites: N=5

p-Nonylphenol Nonylphenol monoethoxylate (NPE 01), Nonylphenol diethoxylate

• (NPE02)

Octylphenol monoethoxylate (OPE01), Octylphenol diethoxylate (OPE02)

• Fire Retardants: N=2

Tri(2-chloroethyl)phosphate Tri(dichloroisopropyl)phosphate

• Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAH; fo ssil 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) (solve nt), 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 En vironmental Compliance Program November 2002



# 92 17b-Estradiol, 17a-Estradiol, Estrone, Estriol Testosterone, cis-Androsterone Progesterone

• Pharmaceuticals: N=5

17a-Ethynylestradiol, Mestranol, 19-Nor ethisterone (ovulation inhibitors) Equilenin, Equilin (hormone replacement therapy agents)

• Sterols: N=3

Cholesterol (fecal indicator) 3b-Coprostanol (carnivo re fecal indicator) Stigmastanol (plant sterol)

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

Simonich et al (2002) report th at the primary route of FMs into the environment is via consumer products discharged down the drain to municipa l wastewater systems. From the various USGS studies cited above, fragrances or FMs made up a relatively low 27 per cen t of the various types of pharmaceutical and personal ca re types of ingredients dete cted in various wastewaters sampled in the USGS (2002) survey. However, this structurally dive rse class of compounds is definitely an emerging group of chemicals, whic h merits attention. In recent years several investigators have reported dete ctions of trace quantities of some of these FM compounds and their metabolites in both surface waters and aqua tic organisms (Simonich et al, 2000). Simonich and her colleagues indicate that the more comm on specific types of FMs detected to date in wastewater most commonly bel ong to the following four groups:

1. nitromusks (e.g., musk xylene; (1-(1,1-di methyl)-3,5-dimethyl-2,4,6-trinitrobenzene)

2. musk ketone (3,5-dinitro-2,6-d imethyl-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-hexame thylcyclopenta-[gamma]-2- benzopyran)

For other recent summaries about emerging “non-pr iority 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), a nd detergent metabolites. In te rms of highest concentrations noted in most studies of POTW wastes, detergen t metabolites, steroids a nd plasticizers were the three categories that stood out from the others. Fragrance materials (F Ms) and certain of the other of the other emerging target compounds being examined by the USGS and other researchers may also reveal other future ex amples of personal care products/pharmaceuticals

which merit future attention.

# Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation Science Advisory Panel Commercial Passenger Vessel En vironmental Compliance Program November 2002



# 93 Whether or not these heretofore mostly ignore d, emerging chemical residues; or so-called “nonpriority pollutants”, are of impor tance to marine ecosystems is not known. However in view of the very low (ppt) levels typi cally 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 whic h apply to the comparatively low volumes of gray water and blackwater discharge, the Panel is quite doubtful that imp acts of these chemicals

in the case of cruise vessels ar e significant. Certainl y 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 treatme nt facilities. In other words, compared to POTWs on a massbalance basis, the contributions of these chemi cals to the environment by cruise ships has to be relatively minor in extent.

Review of the eight exposure pathways by whic h onboard chemicals coul d reach the surrounding

environment

1. Sewage & Graywater:

The past three years of sampling and analysis i ndicate that blackwater (sewage) and graywater (shower, sink, and galley water) are remarkably sim ilar 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 concen trations 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 wate r soluble or capable of being su spended 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 variati on 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 combin ed daily generation of graywater and treated

blackwater was 567 m 3 

# /ship (~150,000 US gallons) or 240 liters per person on board. Three years of sampling and analysis have not indicate d vessels are using this pathway as a source of hazardous waste disposal. Elevated concentratio ns of copper, zinc and plastiziers have been detected. These levels, in ge neral, are above marine water quality criteria but mirror the

concentrations found in residential tap water. Recent whole efflue nt toxicity tests of graywater

and blackwater effluent i ndicate little if any synergistic toxi city 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 th e wastewater pathway is not a significant one.

2. Hazardous wastes:

# Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation Science Advisory Panel Commercial Passenger Vessel En vironmental 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” (likel y chemical inventory).

Holland America Lines specifically identifies and deals with a specia l category of hazardous wastes (which they designate “S pecial Waste”) which includes fl uorescent ballast, batteries and butane lighters, as well as discarded and expire d chemicals, medical wastes, explosives, rags /debris /fuel filters, dry clean ing wastes, photo wastes, spent pa ints and thinners. Holland America Lines indicates that on its vessels, thes e specific wastes are sorted by hand, from other waste streams on board. They are then pooled t ogether as special hazardous waste to be offloaded for land filling by “approved” hazardous ma terial private contractors in Vancouver, B.C., which they indicate is one of just fifteen port s world-wide where specia l wastes are sanctioned for offloading for handling and disposal by qu alified 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 material s which are used for packaging products, for transportation or storage, and is makes up a re latively large portion of the waste generated by cruise vessels. Dunnage includes primarily paper and plastic, and (at leas t in the case of Holland America Lines, and presumably large cruise vesse ls in general) is ei ther incinerated on board (paper, cardboard), or landed for recycling or disposal. Holland Amer ica Lines indicates that their vessels land or incinerate approximate ly 30 cubic meters of non-hazardous paper and plastic, per ship per week.

Plastic types of containers, wrappings, and sim ilar 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-ethylhe xyl phthalate), and similar materials used in common everyday plastics such as bread wrappe rs) are now routinely detected in various environmental media, as a mark of our industr ialized society. Indee d, elevated levels of phthalates have been detected in gray and black water discharge.

# Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation Science Advisory Panel Commercial Passenger Vessel En vironmental 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 plasti c 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 it s passenger staterooms, and replaced them with refillable bulk dispensers. To quote from Ho lland America Lines’ 2000 Environmental Report: “...The company makes a significant effort in tr ying to eliminate packaging before products are even brought to our ships. In some cases, dispos able packaging has been replaced with reusable cartons that are emptied and returned to the s upplier for recycling and reuse. In other cases, plastic wrapping materials have been replaced with paper and wood that can be reused or incinerated. Cardboard, particul arly cartons and packaging, is bundled for recycling in certain ports. Plastic pails, from items such as laundr y 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 vari ous 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 obs erved 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 comp acted aluminum cans per vessel per week.

Food Wastes (see also Incineration Pathway): Large cruise vessels typically house several specialized restaurants a nd cafes. Disposing of food wastes is a major segment of their waste management. Using the waste management pract ices 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 uni ts on board (“pulpers”), which grind up the wastes and remove the aqueous portion. This “waste wa ter” then is recycled through the food slurry line and discharged as gray water (see also gr ay water pathway). The remaining dried food

wastes are then incinerated on board. Holland Am erica 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 s ource of chemicals aboard cruise vessels. Whether or not this pathway allo ws 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 En vironmental Compliance Program November 2002



# 96 contaminants (removing oil and associated sludg e), and the level of compliance with MARPOL regulations and Alaska water quali ty 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 th e vessel. The bilge area thus becomes a natural repository for water and various other liquid mate rials, from sources such as the engines and propulsion system, and other mechanical and ope rational sources. As such, bilge water is normally a mixture of not only water, but also va rious 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 flui ds are periodically pum ped dry, and processed to

remove contaminants of concern. Most of the c oncern and regulations abou t 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 fl uid 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 f acilities. According to Holland America Lines 2000 Environmental Report, all of their cruise vessels now contain equipment capable of cleaning bilge water to le ss than 5 ppm oil.

Oily sludge: According to Holland America Li nes documents, and substantiated by our on-board site visits to large cruise vessels, oily sludge mate rial is first filtered from the bilge water, using a series of sludge tanks. Holland America indicate s that in this process, waste oils, greases, lubricants and fuel filtering sludge coming from various shipboa rd 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 ocea n discharge of this oily sludge. It must be landed for disposal. In most countries, includi ng 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, Holla nd- America Lines indicates that all sludge from its vessels is recycled after landing, by approved waste c ontractors. Holland- America Lines’ oily sludge material is recycled as a fuel source for su ch purposes as factory heating, energy production, and in some situ ations 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 tons 36 

# to a maximum of 30 metric tons. The amount of oily sludge recycled for landing–per sh ip 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 En vironmental Compliance Program November 2002



# 97 5. Incineration (Air-Water):

As highlighted elsewhere in other sections, inci neration of waste materials, particularly dried food wastes and dunnage, is a common and efficien t way to reduce the ve ry large quantities of wastes generated aboard large cruise vesse ls 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 incine ration at land- based faciliti es we know that under certain situations (especially inadequate temperatur e 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 inci neration 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 ma terials 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 inci neration 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 incinera tion 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 a ppreciable 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 pl ace outside the 12-mile limit. In the case of Holland- America Lines, their 2000 Environmenta l Report indicates that the bulk of their incinerator ash is landed and disposed by approved shoreside waste contractors.

Waste management information provided to the Pa nel by Holland- America Lines, indicates that an average of 1 bag (1,100 pounds) of ash is land ed, 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 sh ip, usually called the double bottoms, when filled with liq uid 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 a nd ballast tanks are not interchangeable; otherwise oily water could be illegally discha rged. Ballast and wastewater tanks may be interchangeable, if the vessel follo ws 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 En vironmental Compliance Program November 2002



# 98 organisms. The U.S. Coast Guard is now finalizi ng a national ballast wate r policy to prevent the introduction of foreign aquatic spec ies into coastal and internal waters of the United States. For now, cruise ships voluntarily ch ange out ballast water well out to sea during their positioning voyages to the Pacific Northwest from other pa rts of the world. Thus, for ships operating between Vancouver, BC and Alaska, North Pacific ba llast water is exchanged with North Pacific

ballast water.

7. Vessel coatings:

Underwater hull coating systems typically include a base antico rrosive coating (AC) covered by an antifouling (AF) coati ng. If the AC is not damaged or ot herwise exposed to the seawater, it will not leach. The anti-fouling co at serves to inhibit marine gr owth 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 applie d will vary with the hu ll material. For instance, steel, fiberglass, and wood hulls are typically coated with copper-based coatings, and aluminum hulls with tributyltin (TBT) or bioc ide-free silicone-based coatings.

AF topcoats control biological growth by ablati ng and/or releasing antifouling agents into the surrounding water. This release is gradual and continuous. Sin ce most hulls use copper-based coatings; copper and zinc (another biocide co mmonly found in antifouli ng paints) are the most

common releases. Those aluminum-hulled vessels with TBT-containing co atings will release TBT and small amounts of zinc, and may rel ease 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 sacrific ial anodes for cathodic protection are also obvious

sources of zinc.

Well-maintained large cruise ships, with th eir 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 leve ls of antifoulants. Stallard et al. (1987) noted that the sediments of nearly every California ma rina tested had high con centration of butyltins.

Marina sites in North Carolina had significantly higher levels of arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, mercury, nickel, and zinc th an did reference sites (NCDEM, 1991). McMahon (1989) found significantly higher concentrations of copper, lead, zinc, and mercury in the

sediments at a marina site th an in the parent waterbody.

Suggestions for Monitoring Curr ent-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 pa thway, then they could be discontinued. Note:

# Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation Science Advisory Panel Commercial Passenger Vessel En vironmental Compliance Program November 2002



# 99 1. Contaminants:

Measure for chlorpyrifos and other new-generati on pesticides, cosmetics, fragrances, drugs and fire retardants for environmental impacts and their presence in landsid e 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. Selec tive 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 wast ewaters are not cumulative in coastal waters, sediments or shellfish (such as mussels).

# Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation Science Advisory Panel Commercial Passenger Vessel En vironmental 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. stream s, 1999-2000. USGS Open-File Report 02-94. 7 pp. U.S. Geological Survey, Informati on 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? Envi ronmental Health Persp ectives 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 STAN DARD 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 Ma nagement, 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 wastew ater. 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 materi als during U.S. and European wastewater treatment. Environmental Science and Technology 36 :(13), 2839-2847.

Stallard, M., V. Hodge, and E.D. Goldbe rg. 1987. TBT in California Coastal Waters: Monitoring and Assessment. Environmental Mon itoring and Assessment, 9:195-220. D. Reidel Publishing Company.

# Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation Science Advisory Panel Commercial Passenger Vessel En vironmental 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 gu idances on the discharge of pharmaceutical

chemicals into the environment from manufact uring, use, and disposal. Environmental Health Perspectives 110 : (3). P213 - 220. March.

# Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation Science Advisory Panel Commercial Passenger Vessel En vironmental Compliance Program November 2002



# 103 

# Section IX

Small Commercial Passenger Vessels

Carolyn Morehouse

Summary

Small ships are defined as having 50-249 ove rnight passengers. These ships discharge continuously, including at anchor and in port. Because they disc harge 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 gray water management practice depends on ship configuration. Most small ships do not have sp ace for wastewater holdi ng tanks. Black water is treated in Marine Sanitation Devices (MSD) be fore 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 sma ll vessels operate in the Aleutians and Bering Sea for less than 20 days per season.

To put the quantity of wastewater discharged fr om 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 m 3 

# (147,704,923 gallons) of wastewater annually in Alaskan waters 37 

# . Of this total, small cruise ships and ferries discharge an estimated 33,666 m 3 

# (8,882,860 gallons), roughly 6% of the total annual cruise ship and ferry wastewater discharge.

Sampling and analysis of small ship graywa ter and treated blackwater in 2000 and 2001 found high concentrations of fecal coliform and tota l suspended solids on most ships (Section II).

Sample results from the biological treatment sy stems 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 sm all 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 leve ls 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 Pl ans received by the DEC in 2000, 2001, and 2002.

# Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation Science Advisory Panel Commercial Passenger Vessel En vironmental Compliance Program November 2002



# 104 Section I discusses the signifi cant mixing and dispersion of wa stewater 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 anc hor or in port, the wastewater is not diluted with ambient water by dynamic mixi ng that occurs when underway. The Panel therefore, recommends that wast ewater discharge from small ship s should be avoided at the head of fjords, bays, and other areas of low ne t marine water outflow (Sections VI, VII).

ADEC hired a contractor to perfor m a risk screen to determine if the discharge from small ships presents an ecological or human health risk. The results of this risk scr een should be completed in January 2003 and will be availa ble 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 ship s 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 wastew ater: 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 area s, (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 wate r 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 En vironmental Compliance Program November 2002



# 105 Small ships have more flexibility with their itinerary th an 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 a nd do not visit another port until they arrive back in Juneau many days later.

The dilution white paper (Section I) concluded th at there is little environmental effect from wastewater discharges that occur while a vessel is traveling at least 6 knot s and is one mile from shore. This is due to the large volume of wa ter displaced by the hull and the mixing action from the propellers. Small ships, wi th exception of three large sma ll ships that have holding tank capacity, discharge automatically. When the tr eatment system is complete, the wastewater effluent is discharged. Discharges that occur wh ile the vessel is tied up in port or at anchor are not mitigated by dilution.

Some small ships provide kayak tours from the ve ssels. If the vessel is discharging above the waterline while the kayaks are around the boat, there is the po tential 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 tr ack their wastewater discharge locations. Most large ships comply by keeping a log that includes the time and la titude and longitude where the discharge began and ended. This method of tr acking a discharge even t works reasonably well for large cruise ships that have discrete discharge events. Howe ver, for small cruise ships and ferries that discharge continuousl y, the operators could only state the vessel route and the times

and dates that the vessel was an chored. 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 En vironmental 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 informati on system (GIS) map. Th e maps are therefore intended to provide general information rega rding small vessel movements and discharge quantities and are not an exact tool.

# Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation Science Advisory Panel Commercial Passenger Vessel En vironmental 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 En vironmental Compliance Program November 2002



# 108 Figure IX-1 Small Passenger Vessel Discharge Events

# Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation Science Advisory Panel Commercial Passenger Vessel En vironmental 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 En vironmental Compliance Program November 2002



# 110 Treatment Systems

The AMHS ferries and two small passenger sh ips mix their gray and blackwater before

treating the combined flows with their macerator/chlorinator MSD.

Some small ships treat graywater by adding ch lorine to the discharge line or holding tank.

Chlorine is effective for disinfec ting, however excessive chlorine re sidual is toxic to marine life.

Small ships collect graywater in tanks and th en discharge using a pump or discharge the graywater by gravity to the ambient water. So me ships manage graywater using a combination of both practices. Graywater management pract ices depend on the ship’s configuration. Most small ships do not have wastewater holding tanks.

Individual ship’s tr eatment systems are li sted in Table IX- 3. All small ships treat blackwater in a USCG approved Type II Marine Sanitation Devi ce (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 elec trolysis 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 macerat or/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 ma intained according to their specifications. Regardless of the reason for pump failure, the so lids 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 wate rs 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 (b leach) to supplement the limited amount of chlorine produced by the electroche mical cell in low saline waters.Alaska Department of Environmental ConservationScience Advisory PanelCommercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance ProgramNovember 2002111Table IX-3. Small Commercial Passenger Vessel Wastewater TreatmentSmall Vessel OperatorSmall Vessel NameDischargingGraywater (GW)within Alaska?DischargingBlackwater (BW)within Alaska?Wastewater TreatmentSystem Type****CommentsAlaska Marine Highway SystemColumbiaYesYesMacerator/chlorinatorTreats BW & GWAlaska Marine Highway SystemKennicottYesYesMacerator/chlorinatorTreats BW & GWAlaska Marine Highway SystemMalaspinaYesYesMacerator/chlorinatorTreats BW & GWAlaska Marine Highway SystemMatanuskaYesYesMacerator/chlorinatorTreats BW & GWAlaska Marine Highway SystemTakuYesYesMacerator/chlorinatorTreats BW & GWClipper Cruise LinesClipper OdysseyYesYesGraywater treated with ChorineClipper Cruise LinesYorktown ClipperYesYesMacerator/ ElectrocatalyticGraywater treated with ChlorineCruiseWestSpirit of 98YesYesBiological/ChemicalNo graywater treatmentCruiseWestSpirit of ColumbiaYesYesMacerator/ ElectrochemicalNo graywater treatmentCruiseWestSpirit of DiscoveryYesYesBiological / ChemicalNo graywater treatmentCruiseWestSpirit of EndeavorYesYesMacerator/chlorinatorNo graywater treatmentCruiseWestSpirit of OceanusYesYesBiological & ChemicalNo graywater treatmentGlacier Bay ToursWilderness AdventurerYesYesMacerator/chlorinatorTreats BW & GWGlacier Bay ToursWilderness DiscovererYesYesMacerator/chlorinatorTreats BW & GWHapag-LloydHanseaticNoNoBiological/ ChlorinationNo graywater treatmentLindblad ExpeditionsSea BirdYesYesMacerator/chlorinatorGraywater treated with ChlorineLindblad ExpeditionsSea LionYesYesMacerator/chlorinatorGraywater treated with ChlorineSeabourn Cruise LinesSeabourn SpiritNoNoBiological & ChemicalNo graywater treatmentSociety ExpeditionsWorld DiscovererYesYesUnknown  Treats both black and gray water inthe MSD unless indicated in the commentsAlaska Department of Environmental ConservationScience Advisory PanelCommercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance ProgramNovember 2002112SamplingComparison Of Treatment System SuccessMacerator/chlorinatorIn April 2002, the Alaska Marine Highway System (AMHS) discovered that their wastewatersamples had been collected at a point inthe treatment process prior to chlorination. Samples taken after May 1, 2002 were collected after chlorination. Table IX- 4 shows thatsamples takenbeforeMay 1, 2002 have a fecal coliform geometric mean of5,740 fecal coloniesper 100 ml of water (MPN/100ml).Samples takenafterMay 1, 2002 have a geometric mean of3.4 MPN/100 ml fecal coloniesper 100 ml of water (MPN/100ml). Thiscomparison also shows that those samplescollected in the proper location have a slightly lower biological oxygen demand (BOD),lower chemical oxygen demand (COD) and higher chlorine residual.Table IX-4: Alaska Marine Highway System: Summary Geometric Mean forConventional PollutantsTimeNumberofsamplesTestAmmoniapHBODCODTSSTotal Cl2Free Cl2FecalColiformBacteriaConductivityn =mg/lmg/lmg/lmg/lmg/lmg/lMPN/100mlUmhos/cmGeo8.887.3781.15874.9550.80.670.145,74035,316.07AMHSfrom2000-April 200211MeanGeo0.387.587.47686.7945.89.086.123.427,231.01AMHSMay 2002-Present6Mean

# Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation Science Advisory Panel Commercial Passenger Vessel En vironmental Compliance Program November 2002



# 113 This data demonstrates that a properly operate d macerator/chlorinator systems can meet the

effluent standards of 200 fecal coliform coloni es/100 ml and 150 mg/l of total suspended solids (TSS). A residual chlorine limit is needed, howev er, to prevent over-chlor ination and its toxic effects to aquatic life.

Biological

Sample results from the five ships with biologi cal systems show that this treatment system, as currently operated on board sma ll ships, cannot meet effluent standards for bacteria and suspended solids. Those vessels, however, have holding tanks and could wa it 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 dist ance 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 a nd galley wastewater samp le data indicate low fecal coliform counts for these types of graywa ter. The laundry sample data collected from dedicated holding tanks shows few to no fecal co liform. 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 coli form bacteria than untreated graywater, however it had higher BOD and COD. The higher COD coul d 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 sample s, 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 ConservationScience Advisory PanelCommercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance ProgramNovember 25, 2002115Table IX-5: Small Ships: Summary Geometric Mean for Conventional Pollutants2001 and 2002 dataWastewater Typen =Ammoniamg/lpHBODmg/lCODmg/lTSSmg/lTotal Cl2mg/lFREE Cl2mg/lFecal ColiformbacteriaMPU/100mlConductivityUmhos/cmTreated Blackwater1431.507.6521.511004.2597.570.300.151,54637,400BW&GW mixed &treated191.347.2558.08930.0161.141.120.381,41431,653Mixed Graywater(chlorine treated)4-7.90382.70880.36186.8878.6258.721,225-Mixed Graywater(untreated)97.296.9795.42228.3052.90NDND99,09653GraywaterAccommodations10-6.74164.28174.0024.330.110.059-Graywater Laundry20.259.13123.21319.0021.450.350.182-Graywater Galley2--247.40-42.632.21-50-ND = non detectDashes “-“ indicate that a pollutant was not analyzedSince the regulations were not in place in2002, the small ships sampled only parameterslisted in the law. Alkalinity, Ammonia as N,Oil & Grease, Conductivity, Total KjeldahlNitrogen (TKN), Phosphorous, Total OrganicCarbon (TOC), and total settleable solids(TSS) data werenotcollected. The 2002 ADEC samples include these analyses.The individual small ship conventional sampledata are listed in the Tables IX-6 andIX-7. More discussion of these samples isincluded in Section II.Alaska Department of Environmental ConservationScience Advisory PanelCommercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance ProgramNovember 25, 2002116Table IX-6. Conventional Samples taken by ADECAlkalinityTotal asCaCO3Ammonia asNBOD 5DayCODOil &GreaseFecalColiformMPNFreeCl2ConductivityTKNpHPhosphorous,TotalTotal Cl2T OCTotalsettleablesolidsTSSMDL0.340.0161.03.41.020.11.00.10.10.0110.10.30.11.3Jul-20-02MatanuskaBW&GW-MSD79.51.27134451271102300017.66.882.38253360.0575.2Jul-22-02ColumbiaBW&GW-MSD16629.41174953022122280042.47.675.65204190.2373.9Jul-10-02KennicottBW&GW-MSD76.30.00080.058700.051253120028.78.10.0055402740.0522.5Jul-9-02MalaspinaMSD-162.30.1210.055141312.5238000.87.910.3453.560.0522.9Sep-4-02Spirit ofColumbia ** TBW21.41467002000.05NA7.260.1133Jul-9-02Spirit ofOceanusBW&GW-MSD21.1870161030000000.05NA5.260.25295Aug-22-02TakuBW&GW-MSD14810.71777803750001028200488.334.921518623311Jul-13-02York ClipperTBW-MSD1166.325.475128.524000.05345005.772.330.052990.0566.6Jul-13-02York ClipperGW610.00081382285210.053690.48.190.8560.053520.0517.1Min610.00080.052280.0510.053690.45.260.00550.0560.0517.1Max16629.487016105230000002534500488.335.654041923311GeoMean94.20.820.6601.19.881.50.9145767.97.30.81.6172.40.169.9** Graywater sample not taken for this ship because no graywater was produced during the sampling period on board theship.Alaska Department of Environmental ConservationScience Advisory PanelCommercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance ProgramNovember 25, 2002117Table IX-7: Samples taken for ADEC by IndustryAmmoniaNitrogenBOD5 DayCODFecalColiformTotalCl2Free Cl2pHTSSDateVessel NameWatertypemg/lmg/lmg/lMPNmg/lmg/lmg/lMDL0.0161.03.420.10.10.11.37/18/02Sea BirdTBW23.510546140002.21.47.833297/18/02Sea BirdGW0.97126362112.71.87.05N/A7/21/02Sea LionTBW10.933576730,000,0000.050.058.018017/21/02Sea LionGW0.75236467810.050.057.3256.38/4/02Sea LionGW1.48536121050000.050.056.262508/4/02Sea LionTBW26.72939962200000.10.056.24867/6/02Spirit of 98GW0.79647.114920.050.057.191297/6/02Spirit of 98TBW1021278972201.20.88.0296.88/3/02Spirit of 98TBW15.316494030,0000.050.056.9532.87/22/02Spirit of ColumbiaTBW21.470.11020100.20.057.3768/5/02Spirit of ColumbiaTBW21.41467002000.10.057.261337/18/02Spirit of DiscoveryTBW77.21129495,000,0000.050.057.163337/18/02Spirit of DiscoveryGWND35.444.260,0000.220.147.1794.27/11/02Spirit of EndeavourTBW83.3478140016,000,0000.050.057.486577/11/02Spirit of EndeavourGW0.69145092716,000,0000.050.0510.10.6917/17/02Spirit of OceanusBW&GW58.4106018105,000,0000.20.056.892327/1/02Wilderness AdventurerBW&GW74.21756141402.01.08.212387/3/02Wilderness DiscoveryBW&GW52.46431120230.050.056.7998/19/02Wilderness AdventurerBW&GW39.217493122000002.11.18.16155Wilderness AdventurerBW&GW42.41638005000002.11.18.2114Min0.00835.444.210.050.056.20.65Max10210601810300000002.71.810.1801GeoMean9.7203.870185860.200.147.4398.00ND= non detect

# Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation Science Advisory Panel Commercial Passenger Vessel En vironmental 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 tim e is spent disembarking passengers and getting ready for the next trip. There is us ually 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 woul d be an economic hardship to leave quarters empty to accommodate the sampler. The Alaska “cruise ship program” regulations, effective November 15, 2002 39 

# , will allow for vessel employees who meet particular qualifications to conduct wastew ater sampling. This has th e potential to increase the representativeness of small ship wastewater samples in the future.

It is also difficult to get a representative sa mple from some small vessels because of the ship’s physical configuration. It is sometimes economically infeasible or physically impossible to sample every wastewater discha rge 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 9 8 (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 possibl e 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 atypica l. The discharge line had a room number on it, and when the sampler asked to see th e room, it was found that the crew had been running the shower. Although s hower 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 availabl e 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 En vironmental 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) a nd 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, concentr ations 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 prob ably 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 highe r in mussels from the least "urbanized" site, Unakwik Inlet, than from the more ur banized 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 else where in Alaska. With the possible exception of mercury, there have been no long term increases in contamination but some, such as PCB's and PAHs, have been decreasi ng 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 Alas ka from large-scale surveys conducted during the late 1960s through the 1970's.

Obviously, more data from Alaska coastal site s are needed, at the right time (summer), to determine if passenger vessel ac tivity 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 En vironmental Compliance Program November 2002



# 120 Environmental monitoring provides a check th at regulatory actions have their intended

benefit and reduces un certainty that there are no surpri ses. Although it is important to note that the Panel believes cruise ship s 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 Pane l 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 increas ing, 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 Alas ka coast, but it was not specifically designed to intercept contamination from pa ssenger vessels, or distinguish vessels from other sources. It was designed to track regi onal 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 prog rams have yet been established along the Alaskan coast to adequately document contam inant 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 St atus and Trends Program and the Prince

# Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation Science Advisory Panel Commercial Passenger Vessel En vironmental 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 be gan 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 Ke tchikan, 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 ch emical 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 releva nt because the sites are located along routes of high vessel activity. For example, Mount ain 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 ha ve done so in the past, their contributions to

contaminants could be measurable.

Why Mussels?

Mussels are filter feeding bivalve (two-shell ed) mollusks that live in sometimes-large clusters in the inter-tidal zone along the enti re 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, hydrocar bons) and other trace substances in their soft tissues, from very low (often undetectable) c oncentrations in the wa ter. They can retain accumulated contaminants for periods of seve ral weeks to several months (depending onthe 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 on e- 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 En vironmental Compliance Program November 2002



# 122 Mussels from Baja California to British Colu mbia were first used as biomonitors during

the 1960's to track the rise and fall of radionuc lide contamination originating from atomic testing in the Pacific and di scharges from the Columbia River (Hanford) in Washington. Since then mussels, and oysters, have been employed in numerous national, regional and local surveys to monitor tre nds in chemical pollution. In Alaska, beginning in the early 1990's, the Prince William Sound Regional C itizens Advisory Committee (PWS RCAC) has employed a "mussel watch" program to track contaminant trends in that area. Since 1986, the NOAA National Status a nd Trends (NS&T) Program has used mussels (and, on the east coast, oysters) to track contaminant tr ends at the national and regional scale. The NOAA NS&T Mussel Watch Program has five musse l watch sites in Alas ka as part of its 250 station program.

The 2000-2001 Mussel Watch program genera ted data on 106 individual chemical analytes including 18 PCB congeners, 6 DDT isomers, 3 dieldrin-related pesticides (dieldrin, aldrin and endr in), 7 chlordane-related compounds, 4 hexachlorohexane compounds (HCHs, including lindane), pe ntachloroanisole (a pentachlorophenol product), 4 chlorinated benzenes, mirex, chlo rpyrifos, 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 sour ce will remain uncertain pending further investigation.

There is a second constraint to using these da ta. Samples collected to date were taken in late-winter/early-sp ring, 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 pol lution from sources occurring a year earlier than the

collection. Thus the data cu rrently 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 contamin ant 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 Marc h 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, Ca lifornia to Point Roberts, WA, near the USCanada boundary. This summary allows comp arison of the Alaska sites with those elsewhere on the same coast, providing persp ective. In addition, we began, but did not

# Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation Science Advisory Panel Commercial Passenger Vessel En vironmental 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 "fingerp rints" 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 c oncentration 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 to tal of all PAHs. A high ratio (well above 0.5) indicates oil or fuel may be a dominant fact or 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 Skagwa y (NBES) to 0.68 at the Homer Spit site. By contrast, the average FFPI for PAHs in mu ssels 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 else where along the US West Coast more of the PAH pattern was driven by combustion sources.

Trends. Analytic uncertainties preclude de veloping 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 En vironmental Compliance Program November 2002



# 124 the two long-term sites, to about 1995-97, and d ecreasing at all five sites thereafter. By comparison, TPAH concentrations in mussels along the outer coast of the Pacific Northwest (PNW) (12 sites) have been comp arable, in the range of 20 to 400 ppb dw, but

with no clear trend other than low concen trations 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 concen tration 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, th e 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 curren t 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 contaminan t data for use in fish tissue advisories (USEPA, 2000), a screening level of appr oximately 10 ug/kg (ppb, wet weight) total

PCBs in fish tissue is calculated as th e upper level value below which non-carcinogenic health endpoints due to PCBs would be unlikel y in subsistence fisher s. Using theoretical carcinogenic health endpoints as an even mo re conservative risk assessment endpoint—a screening value for “avoiding” theoretical excess PCB can cer risk of 10^-5 (or one

chance of excess cancer in one hundred thousand)—is calcu lated by EPA using a fish tissue level of about 2.4 ug/kg, wet weight to tal PCBs. These values are based on an individual who consumes about 19 meals pe r 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) th e average PCB concentrations in mussels

from these five Alaska sites are consisten tly 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 y ear) sites, Valdez and Unakwik Inlet, were high in 1986 decreasi ng 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: increas ing until 1999 and then decreasing.

Comparable data from 11 sites along the outer coast of the Pacific Northwest (Washington to California) indicate that Tota l PCB's in mussels there were higher (range

# Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation Science Advisory Panel Commercial Passenger Vessel En vironmental 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 regi ons suggest that both areas experienced the same systematic and/or larg e-scale pattern, with absolute concentrations at individual varying as a result of local conditions.

DDTs

Status. The 2001 average (mean) total DDT con centration (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 Al aska 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 con centrations 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 le vel in edible fish tissue of 245 ppb wet wt. for non-carcinogeni c 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 pe sticide was banned in the ear ly 1980's. An analysis of trends for Alaska is underway.

Chlordanes

Status. The 2001 average (mean) total chlordanes concentra tion (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 Skag way. 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 chlord ane mix) at all five sites were heptachlor epoxide, alpha chlordane, and trans-nonachlo r. Heptachlor was not found at any site. Oxychlordane was not detected in musse ls at two sites: Valdez and Unakwik.

Comparison to Seafood Consumption Guidelines . On a wet weight basis (the basis for evaluating seafood consumption risk), the Al aska 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 En vironmental Compliance Program November 2002



# 126 concentrations (ref) for total chlordane in fi sh 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 woul d be likely to pose a likeli hood of theoretical health risk

concern to subsistence fishers.

Trends. Chlordane was banned for use in th e US and Canada in 1977 although remaining stockpiles could be used under speci fic 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 tr ends for Alaska is needed to confirm concentrations have been decreasing here.

Dieldrin and Related Pesticides

Three compounds make up the dieldrin-relate d 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 fo r 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 Berkel ey in San Francisco Bay. Aldrin was not detected at any Alaska site whereas its mean concentr ation 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 n eeded to confirm concentrations have been decreasing here.

HCH (Hexachlorohexane) Compounds

The pesticide lindane (gamma HCH) was co mmonly 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 concentr ation (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 fo r 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 detect ed at any of the sites. Alpha HCH

# Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation Science Advisory Panel Commercial Passenger Vessel En vironmental 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 c ondense 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 concen trations 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 th e 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 mu ssels 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 detect ed in any Alaska mussels in 2001.

Concentrations in mussels from the remain ing 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 pentachlor obenzene 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 En vironmental Compliance Program November 2002



# 128 Chlorophenols

Pentachloro anisole is a de rivative of pentachloropheno l, 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 pentachloroanis ole 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 com pound 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 ra nging 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, re spectively) and the Va ldez 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, tetr abutyltin, was not dete cted 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 concentrati ons. 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 P acific 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 En vironmental Compliance Program November 2002



# 129 Human health standards for the consump tion of seafood are included for several

elements. Please note that standards do not exist for all elements.

Silver (Ag)

Silver concentrations in mussels vary cons iderably and, in the pa st, high concentrations have been interpreted as indicators of se wage pollution (Martin et al., 1988). The high

concentrations once indicative of municipal wastewater no longe r exist. Sources of silver from cruise ships could include photo-lab wa stes 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 th e Unakwik Inlet site (Table X- 2). By contrast, silver concentrations in mussels fr om 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 th e 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 increase d 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 musse ls, where the range was higher (5.9 to 30.8 ppm dw).

Over the period from 1986 to 2001, arsenic c oncentrations 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 (CapeFlattery and Grays Harbor Jetty, WA, and Hobson Point, Tillamook Bay, OR). No longterm trend was obvious in either region, but ar senic 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, wher eas concentrations experienced more interannual variation at the Pacific Northwest sites.

# Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation Science Advisory Panel Commercial Passenger Vessel En vironmental 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 experi ence episodes of upwelling of deep ocean water containing naturally-enriched conc entrations of several trace elements.

Cadmium (Cd)

Cadmium, common in batteries and other me tallurgical 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 tr end in either region.

As mentioned above, it is now well known th at high concentrations of cadmium can

occur in mussels and other shellfish collec ted near upwelling area s (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 se wage 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 Paci fic Coast. The aver age 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 slig htly lower than the average (3.1 ppm dw) for the remainder of the West Coast mussels, but the ra nge there was higher (1.07 to 11.8 ppm dw).

Copper (Cu)

Copper is a potentially toxic (to aquatic organi sms) 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 elemen t with well-known uses in medicine, electronics and other

activities. It too is a natural trace elemen t in the ocean, and, with the possible exception of cadmium in certain situations, is the on ly metal (in an organic form) known to undergo

# Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation Science Advisory Panel Commercial Passenger Vessel En vironmental 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 ar e dry weight. Mussel tissue averages about 80% water. Therefore on a wet basis (dry concentration divide d 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 concentr ations 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-fol d, 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 hum an 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 hum an 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 na tural 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 th e mean of 1.43 ppm dw for the entire Pacific Coast collection, but the Pacific Coas t range was higher (0.14 to 7.2 ppm dw).

# Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation Science Advisory Panel Commercial Passenger Vessel En vironmental 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 processi ng 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 Unakwi k 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 ti n as well as the organic-bound butyltin compounds described above. Aside from the s ynthetic butyltin formulations, tin is a commonly used and toxic trace element, w ith 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 oc ean, a required trace element for life, and common in wastewaters. The average concen tration 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 averag e 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 Alas ka sites, when compared with a larger body of comparable data for the entire US Pacific Co ast (58 sites), is sufficient to demonstrate

that shorelines of Southeastern Alas ka, Prince William Sound, and Cook Inlet have experienced relatively low levels of contamination by petroleum hydrocarbons, most chlorinated hydrocarbons, and butyltin-bas ed anti-fouling compounds. With several notable exceptions, concentrations of PAHs and organochlorine compounds in Alaskan

muscles have been several to 20 times lower th an muscles in the rest of the US Pacific Coast. The notable exception is for seve ral 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 En vironmental 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 concentrat ions) of various organochlorine compounds (PCB's, pesticides) and butyltin(from antifouling paint) occu rred 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 a nd 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 re st of the West Coast; however, other data associated with oil spill monitoring indicate d 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 prec ipitation of these compounds from global atmospheric sources. For trace metals, c oncentrations in Alaska mussels have been typical of expected "background" concentrati ons: however, the trace metal lead (Pb) has been elevated in mussels from a site at Skagway.

Trends

Time and resources did not permit a t horough 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 Inle t). The rise, during the 1990's, was also matched by a rise at the three shorter-te rm 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-te rm 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 concentr ations 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 En vironmental Compliance Program November 2002



# 134 Biomagnification

While concentrations of these contaminants ar e 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 su ch 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 biomagnifi cation. However, detailed food-web studies

have been done in other marine coastal areas and they clearl y 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 statemen ts can be made about sources, specifically passenger vessels? The primary routes of cr uise 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 containe r ships and barges. Floatplanes and private boats may be c onsidered small passenger vessels as well.

Selected contaminants - PAHs, PCBs, arseni c, cadmium, and mercury- measured in the Mussel Watch program in Alaska were eith er declining or remaining unchanged over time during the past decade and during a pe riod, 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 concentrati ons 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-te rm and large-scale vari ability. In addition,

the Panel’s literature review , fieldwork, research and mode ling 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 lo wer 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 resp ect to two possible sources: fossil fuel and combustion. As

# Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation Science Advisory Panel Commercial Passenger Vessel En vironmental Compliance Program November 2002



# 135 noted above, the average Fossil Fuel Polluti on 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, especia lly 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 combus tion 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; RCA C, 2001). These data generally show that PAHs declined from extremely high to near-background concentrations by the mid1990s. However, they also show that musse ls 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 record ed 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 conc entration 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 originat ing from both local and global sources. The variation of PCB concentrations among the Alas ka sits is low and none of the sites appear to be near PCB "hot spots". However, lik e 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 pestic ide may need to be watched.

Silver, a potential indi cator 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 activit y in Alaska is not contributing sufficient

wastewater to cause silver to rise a bove 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 she llfish collected near upwelling areas (Martin et al., 1976) . There is a possibility th at arsenic, like cadmium, is higher in mussels from open coastal promont ories, 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 En vironmental Compliance Program November 2002



# 136 What if any additional assessment and m onitoring needs to be done to make sure passenger vessels and other sources are not contaminating Alaskan shorelines?

Obviously, this section has st ressed the importance of a "mussel watch" type program for evaluating the status and trends of contam inants in Alaskan marine waters. Much remains to be done with the existing data, es pecially for analyzing trends and sources (using chemical fingerprint techniques). Fu rther, 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 protect ed 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 th at any of the trace elements have sources significant enough to cause long-term contamin ation at the scale of large water bodies except immediately adjacent to mining operati ons. Certainly there can be local sources and gradients that could be re flected 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 an alyzed 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, frag rance 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 St atus and Trends Program, for providing Mussel Watch data and assisting in the in terpretation of the thousands of numbers provided to us.

# Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation Science Advisory Panel Commercial Passenger Vessel En vironmental Compliance Program November 2002



# 137 References

Martin, M., M.D. Stephenson, D.R. Smit h, E.A. Gutierrez-Galindo, and G. Flores

Munoz. 1988. The use of silver in musse ls as a tracer of domestic wastewater discharge. Marine Poll ution Bulletin 19(10):512-520.

Martin, J.H., K.W. Bruland and W. Br oenkow. 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. La uenstein. 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. Debaer e and W.S. Eckhoff. 2000. Trace analysis of fragrance materials in wastewater and tr eated wastewater. Environmental Science and Technology, 34: 959-965.

USEPA, 2000. Guidance for assessing chemi cal contaminant data for use in fish advisories. Vol. 1. Fish Sampling and Analysis. 3 rd 

# Ed. Table 5-4. Doseresponse variables and recommended screen ing 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 En vironmental 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 Additiona l Audits of Passenger Vessels

• Determining Water Movement and Exch ange in Selected Coastal Areas

• Enhanced Environmental Assessment and Monitoring of Alaska Waters

A. Continued Evaluation of Small Pa ssenger 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 trea tment 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 th e 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 shou ld be taken, perhaps using a Venturi sampler that would bleed off several li ters 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 En vironmental 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 exchange 40 

# occurs are areas where pollutants from wastewater discharges may be a problem. Tidal exchange information c ould 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 eff ects based on modeling (Section I), dye measurements (Section I), bioa ssays (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 bacter ia 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, in cluding boat harbors, in order to characterize water quality. It will identi fy areas violating standards because of

natural land-based sources or other hum an 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 fo r 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 (P b-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, si nce 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 wa tch" sites in coastal Alaska, and adjust sampling to encompass the tourist season, and increase sampling

40 

# Neap tides occur just after the first and th ird 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 smalle st. The Panel recognizes that “minimal neap tidal exchange” must be more precise ly 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 En vironmental Compliance Program November 2002



# 140 frequency from biennial (NOAA Nati onal Status and Trends Program) to annual or semi-annual (beginni ng/end of tour ist 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 co astal 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, Na tional Marine Fisheries Service, ADEC, Alaska Department of Fish and Game , Governor's Office, EVOS Trustee Council, Regional Citizen’s Advisory C ouncil, 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 Estuar y Institute (SFEI). No such program currently exists in Alaska.

6. Current-Use and "New" Chem icals (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 blackwa ter, 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 indica te a need for cruise ship monitoring. In this regard, Alaska s hould coordinate the research of other states and federal agencies in accessing the signifi cance of the use of these materials and their impact. Selective monitori ng 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 En vironmental Compliance Program November 2002



# 141 • Mass Balance Markers . Coprostanol (fecal ster ol) and Caffeine, and /or its metabolite 1,7-dimethylxanthine , though not toxic, would be good markers for mass balance study to unde rscore 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 pape r. Utilize the Stat e 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 En vironmental 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 environmen tal 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 En vironmental 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 wastew ater 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 so lution to pollution." However, the mitigating effect of the vigorous mixing action of a moving ship, combined

with concentration limits for certain wast ewater constituents, is quite apparent.

Nonetheless, the cruise ship industry, regu latory agencies and concerned stakeholders

should continue to their work to further mi nimize potential adverse impacts. Research and enhanced monitoring is important and the ar eas 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 da ta collection, certain new best management practices and policies may be effective in reduc ing impacts. These have been identified and justified in various sections of this report. For the sa ke 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 discharg e – is good management practice and should be practiced by all passenger ships. The Pa nel recognizes the difficulty of holding wastewater on board small passenger vessels until the wastewater can be discharged underway. Space is limited on board these vessel s, both for wastewater storage and for

installation of advanced treatme nt technology. However, the small cruise vessel industry should continue to energetical ly 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 crui se ships, including Alaska Marine Highway System ferries, have demonstrated that th e macerator/chlorinator system can treat wastewater to meet fecal coliform bacteria and total suspended solids standards. However, this is achieved by th e 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 enteri ng the marine environment.

# Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation Science Advisory Panel Commercial Passenger Vessel En vironmental Compliance Program November 2002



# 144 Best Management Practices for Large Cr uise Ships with Advanced Wastewater

Treatment

USCG regulations allow large cruise ships to discharge in any lo cation and at anytime provided their effluent meets the following sta ndards: a geometric mean of 20 fc/100 ml, with not more than 10% of the samples great er 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 Regulations 41



# . Installation and employment of advanced treatment is encouraged. In addition, continuous discharge of effluent that m eets these stringent standards avoids the possibility of re-contaminati on in holding tanks. Holdi ng tanks have high levels of

bacteria and would contam inate 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 achie ve. Accordingly, in order to protect sensitive species near shorelines and other locations, effluents with residual chlorine c oncentrations above 0.2 mg/l should avoid stationary discharge 42



# .

Prohibiting discharge within 0.5 mile of shellfish beds rela tes to the protection of human health. Because there are many chemicals, (e.g. drugs and endocrine disrupters) and possibly viruses, discharged in all efflue nts, including those from advanced treatment systems, minimizing these elements from r eaching 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 consid erable dilution. A vess el 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. Shel lfish harvest for human consumption near ports is not recommended a nd often prohibited, sin ce 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 En vironmental 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 En vironmental 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 wast ewater 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 develope d by the Alaska Cruise Ship Initiative 43 

# . The Panel was also given some preliminary information on passenger vessel treatment and disposal of wastewater. Stakeholder co ncerns included aqua tic 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 th at the concerns and questions could only be addressed by following a step-wise process that addresse d 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 th e 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 id entify 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 show n in the flow diagram in Figure 1 and is

described in more detail below. The thre e 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, co ncerned 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 En vironmental 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 tempor al and spatial extent, in the water as a result of discharges from the ships.

This requires two basic kinds of informa tion: (a) amounts of ma terials in discharged wastewater effluents, and from other source s or pathways (upper left box), and (b) the

extent to which the wastewaters are mixed a nd dispersed into the water from moving and non-moving ships (upper right box). Wast ewater concentration data and mixing information are not ends in themselves, but necessary inputs to Exposure Assessment

. Exposure Assessment is a necessa ry input to evaluating Risk.

To quantify expected environmental concentra tions we had to: (a) carefully analyze what is discharged (effluent charac terization) and (b) how the wast ewater and its materials are

distributed in the environment once discha rged (dispersion model development and verification). Wastewater sampling comm issioned 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 incl uded: adequacy and quality of the process of wastewater sampling, completeness and of th e 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 En vironmental Compliance Program
The Impact of Cruise Ship Wastewater Discharge on Alaska Waters November 2002



# 148 Meanwhile, to determine pollutant concentrat ions in the water following discharges, our oceanographers took a hard, i ndependent 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 di scharging vessels. They also made a strong case for participating in and making eff ective use of effluent dye dispersion

measurements that were about to be conducte d by EPA in Florida. These actions resulted in our best estimates of expected environmen tal concentrations of pollutants in the water, during and following discharge events, includi ng our preliminary estimates of cumulative exposure concentrations.

Ecological and Human Health Risk Assessment

Once we understood the range of actual or ex pected environmental concentrations of chemical and microbial pollutants in the wate r, we could proceed w ith evaluating risks to marine life and humans exposed to those concen trations. 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-selec ted, whole effluent t oxicity testing (WET) with sensitive life stages of marine organi sms, 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 b acteria and chemicals in marine life and sediments and sought out limited data on con centrations of contam inants actually in sediments and organisms in the area of concern. From this we could make preliminary objective statements about the probability of im pacts 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 st atements about expected or actual impacts, the Panel was able to make some preliminary comment on the effectiveness of existing regulations in protecting resour ces and public health. In addition, the Panel has been able to address the benefits, if any, of additio nal 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 existi ng 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 En vironmental Compliance Program
The Impact of Cruise Ship Wastewater Discharge on Alaska Waters November 2002



# 149 It also prevented the Panel from spending t oo much of its limited resources and time on any one piece of the process, or be ing overtly diverted by single issues.

Communicating the Results

Ideally the chapters in this report woul d be organized according to the Framework. However, we thought it would be more effec tive 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 th e 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 ri sk assessment and served as an efficient guide to producing a quite complex, multi-component assessment.Alaska Department of Environmental ConservationScience Advisory PanelCommercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance ProgramThe Impact of Cruise Ship WastewaterDischarge on Alaska Waters November 2002150Appendix 2Dilution – Calculated PriortyPollutant Concentration inAmbient Marine WaterAlaska Department of Environmental ConservationScience Advisory PanelCommercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance ProgramThe Impact of Cruise Ship WastewaterDischarge on Alaska Waters November 2002151A1. Estimated maximum and average concentrations attributableto detected priority pollutants in cruise ship waste waterdischarges after initial dilution,compared with Alaska's surface water quality standards for toxicants44(Analysis of graywaterand treated blackwater from 21 cruise ships, 2000)MATERIALNumber ofsamplesanalyzed/Number ofsamplesmaterialdetectedDETECTIONLIMITμg/liter(approx. ppb)Maximumconcentrationsdetected ingraywater and/ortreated blackwaterdischarge* (μg/literor ppb)AverageConcentration(μg/liter or ppb)Wasteconcentrations(μg/liter) afterdilution, <15minutes (dilutionfactor 50,000)Maximum/ AverageState Criteria forMarine Waters(μg/liter) ACUTE45or CHRONIC46Volatiles by GC/MSChloromethane95/95.02406.430.02/0.0005NoneVinyl Chloride952.0Not detectedChloroethane955.0Not detectedNot detected1,1-Dichloroethene952.0Not detectedNot detectedMethylene Chloride955.0Not detectedNot detected44State-adopted aquatic life criteria will be shown unless there are no aquatic life criteria available. If not, federally promulgated criteria [National ToxicsRule(NTR)] may be shown that may include human health criteria.Chronic criteria are applied to ambient waters of the state.If acute criteria are shown, thenthere are no chronic criteria available.45An acute criterion is the highest concentration of a pollutantto which aquatic life can be exposed for a short period of time(i.e., 1-hour, based on exposure tothe average concentration)without deleterious effects.46A chronic criterion is the highest concentration of a pollutant towhich aquatic life can be exposed for an extended period oftime (i.e., 4-day average) withoutdeleterious effects. Human health criteria are also applied aschronic (70 year exposure to the chronic pollutant level, for the average lifetime of a human).Alaska Department of Environmental ConservationScience Advisory PanelCommercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance ProgramThe Impact of Cruise Ship WastewaterDischarge on Alaska Waters November 2002152MATERIALNumber ofsamplesanalyzed/Number ofsamplesmaterialdetectedDETECTIONLIMITμg/liter(approx. ppb)Maximumconcentrationsdetected ingraywater and/ortreated blackwaterdischarge* (μg/literor ppb)AverageConcentration(μg/liter or ppb)Wasteconcentrations(μg/liter) afterdilution, <15minutes (dilutionfactor 50,000)Maximum/ AverageState Criteria forMarine Waters(μg/liter) ACUTE45or CHRONIC46trans-1, 2-Dichloroethene952.0Not detectedNot detected1,1-Dichloroethane952.0Not detectedNot detectedChloroform95/812.0150048.30.03/0.0001None1,1,1-Trichloroethane952.0Not detectedNot detectedCarbon Tetrachloride95/122.0270.53Negligible50,000 (acute)Benzene952.0Not detectedNot detected1,2-Dichloroethane95/102.01.90.09Negligible113,000 (acute)Trichloroethene95/52.0710.870.001/0.00002Toluene95/132.05.10.22Negligible5000 (chronic)trans-1,3-Dichloropropene952.0Not detectedNot detected1,1,2-Trichloroethane952.0Not detectedNot detectedAlaska Department of Environmental ConservationScience Advisory PanelCommercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance ProgramThe Impact of Cruise Ship WastewaterDischarge on Alaska Waters November 2002153MATERIALNumber ofsamplesanalyzed/Number ofsamplesmaterialdetectedDETECTIONLIMITμg/liter(approx. ppb)Maximumconcentrationsdetected ingraywater and/ortreated blackwaterdischarge* (μg/literor ppb)AverageConcentration(μg/liter or ppb)Wasteconcentrations(μg/liter) afterdilution, <15minutes (dilutionfactor 50,000)Maximum/ AverageState Criteria forMarine Waters(μg/liter) ACUTE45or CHRONIC46Tetrachloroethene(ortetrachloroethylene)95/132.074013.20.014/0.0002450(chronic)Dibromochloromethane95/422.09311.8Negligible6400(chronic)Chlorobenzene952.0Not detectedNot detectedEthylbenzene95/142.04.70.21Negligible430(acute)Bromoform95/412.017012.20.004/0.0002No aquatic lifecriteria3,600(NTR humanhealth criteria)1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane952.0Not detectedNot detectedAcrylonitrile9510Not detectedNot detected2-Cholorethyl VinylEther9510Not detectedNot detectedAlaska Department of Environmental ConservationScience Advisory PanelCommercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance ProgramThe Impact of Cruise Ship WastewaterDischarge on Alaska Waters November 2002154MATERIALNumber ofsamplesanalyzed/Number ofsamplesmaterialdetectedDETECTIONLIMITμg/liter(approx. ppb)Maximumconcentrationsdetected ingraywater and/ortreated blackwaterdischarge* (μg/literor ppb)AverageConcentration(μg/liter or ppb)Wasteconcentrations(μg/liter) afterdilution, <15minutes (dilutionfactor 50,000)Maximum/ AverageState Criteria forMarine Waters(μg/liter) ACUTE45or CHRONIC46Semivolatile OrganicsNNitrosodimethylamine485.0Not detectedNot detectedPhenol48/115.025012.050.005/0.00025800(acute)bis(2-Chloroethyl)ether485.0Not detectedNot detected2-Chlorophenol485.0Not detectedNot detected1,3-Dichlorobenzene48/15.0380 (one detect)7.9Negligible1970(acute)1,4-Dichlorobenzene48/75.03507.70.007/0.00011970(acute)1,2-Dichlorobenzene48/15.0390 (one detect)8.12Negligible1970(acute)Bis (2-Chloroisopropyl)ethe485.0Not detectedNot detectedn-Nitroso-di-npropylamine485.0Not detectedNot detectedAlaska Department of Environmental ConservationScience Advisory PanelCommercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance ProgramThe Impact of Cruise Ship WastewaterDischarge on Alaska Waters November 2002155MATERIALNumber ofsamplesanalyzed/Number ofsamplesmaterialdetectedDETECTIONLIMITμg/liter(approx. ppb)Maximumconcentrationsdetected ingraywater and/ortreated blackwaterdischarge* (μg/literor ppb)AverageConcentration(μg/liter or ppb)Wasteconcentrations(μg/liter) afterdilution, <15minutes (dilutionfactor 50,000)Maximum/ AverageState Criteria forMarine Waters(μg/liter) ACUTE45or CHRONIC46Hexachloroethane485.0Not detectedNot detectedNitrobenzene485.0Not detectedNot detectedIsophorone485.0Not detectedNot detected2-Nitrophenol48/15.05.4 (one detect)0.11Negligible4850(acute)2,4-Dimethylphenol4825Not detectedNot detectedbis(2-Chloroethoxy)methane485.0Not detectedNot detectedNaphthalene*48/1103.0 (one detect)0.06Negligible2350(acute)Hexachlorobutadiene485.0Not detectedNot detected4-Chloro-3-methylphenol485.0Not detectedNot detectedHexachlorocyclopentadiene4810Not detectedNot detectedAlaska Department of Environmental ConservationScience Advisory PanelCommercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance ProgramThe Impact of Cruise Ship WastewaterDischarge on Alaska Waters November 2002156MATERIALNumber ofsamplesanalyzed/Number ofsamplesmaterialdetectedDETECTIONLIMITμg/liter(approx. ppb)Maximumconcentrationsdetected ingraywater and/ortreated blackwaterdischarge* (μg/literor ppb)AverageConcentration(μg/liter or ppb)Wasteconcentrations(μg/liter) afterdilution, <15minutes (dilutionfactor 50,000)Maximum/ AverageState Criteria forMarine Waters(μg/liter) ACUTE45or CHRONIC462, 4, 6-Trichlorophenol48/25.03.20.08NegligibleNo aquatic lifecriteria65 (NTR humanhealth criteria)2-Chloronaphthalene485.0Not detectedNot detectedDimethylphthalate48/15.01.1 (one detect)0.023Negligible3.4 (chronic)Acenaphthylene*485.0Not detectedNot detectedAcenaphthene*48/15.07.7 (one detect)0.16Negligible710(chronic)2,4-Dinitrophenol4870Not detectedNot detected4-Nitrophenol48/15.08.0 (one detect)0.17Negligible4850(acute)2,6-Dinitrotoluene485.0Not detectedNot detected2,4-Dinitrotoluene485.0Not detectedNot detectedDiethylphthalate48/235.027.02.120.0005/0.000023.4(chronic)4-Chlorophenyl-485.0Not detectedNot detectedAlaska Department of Environmental ConservationScience Advisory PanelCommercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance ProgramThe Impact of Cruise Ship WastewaterDischarge on Alaska Waters November 2002157MATERIALNumber ofsamplesanalyzed/Number ofsamplesmaterialdetectedDETECTIONLIMITμg/liter(approx. ppb)Maximumconcentrationsdetected ingraywater and/ortreated blackwaterdischarge* (μg/literor ppb)AverageConcentration(μg/liter or ppb)Wasteconcentrations(μg/liter) afterdilution, <15minutes (dilutionfactor 50,000)Maximum/ AverageState Criteria forMarine Waters(μg/liter) ACUTE45or CHRONIC46phenylether1,2-Diphenyl hydrazine485.0Not detectedNot detected4-Bromophenylphenylether485.0Not detectedNot detectedHexachlorobenzene485.0Not detectedNot detectedPentachlorophenol485.0Not detectedNot detectedPhenanthrene*48/25.03.10.13NegligibleNoneAnthracene*485.0Not detectedNot detectedDi-n-butylphthalate48/115.0201.570.06/0.000023.4(chronic)Fluoranthene*48/15.01.2 (one detect)0.03Negligible16(chronic)Benzidine4890Not detectedNot detectedPyrene*485.0Not detectedNot detectedButylbenzylphthalate48/65.09.60.34NegligibleNoneAlaska Department of Environmental ConservationScience Advisory PanelCommercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance ProgramThe Impact of Cruise Ship WastewaterDischarge on Alaska Waters November 2002158MATERIALNumber ofsamplesanalyzed/Number ofsamplesmaterialdetectedDETECTIONLIMITμg/liter(approx. ppb)Maximumconcentrationsdetected ingraywater and/ortreated blackwaterdischarge* (μg/literor ppb)AverageConcentration(μg/liter or ppb)Wasteconcentrations(μg/liter) afterdilution, <15minutes (dilutionfactor 50,000)Maximum/ AverageState Criteria forMarine Waters(μg/liter) ACUTE45or CHRONIC463,3'-Dichlorobenzidine4810Not detectedNot detectedBenzo(a)Anthracene*485.0Not detectedNot detectedChrysene485.0Not detectedNot detectedBenzo(b)fluoranthene*485.0Not detectedNot detectedBenzo(k)fluoranthene*485.0Not detectedNot detectedDibenz(a,h)anthracene*485.0Not detectedNot detectedBenzo(g,h,i)perylene*485.0Not detectedNot detectedMetalsAntimony48variableNot detectedNot detectedArsenic48variableNot detectedNot detectedCadmium48/3variable0.350.024Negligible9.3(chronic)Chromium (total)48/18variable53.07.320.001/0.000150()(VI) (chronic)Alaska Department of Environmental ConservationScience Advisory PanelCommercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance ProgramThe Impact of Cruise Ship WastewaterDischarge on Alaska Waters November 2002159MATERIALNumber ofsamplesanalyzed/Number ofsamplesmaterialdetectedDETECTIONLIMITμg/liter(approx. ppb)Maximumconcentrationsdetected ingraywater and/ortreated blackwaterdischarge* (μg/literor ppb)AverageConcentration(μg/liter or ppb)Wasteconcentrations(μg/liter) afterdilution, <15minutes (dilutionfactor 50,000)Maximum/ AverageState Criteria forMarine Waters(μg/liter) ACUTE45or CHRONIC46Copper48/23207100789.60.14/0.0162.9(acute)Beryllium481.0Not detectedNot detectedNickel48/154063033.80.01/0.00078.3(chronic)Zinc48/235.01800537.60.036/0.00986 (chronic)Lead48/147.525015.10.005/0.00025.6(chronic)Mercury48/30.200.670.0070.00001/ Negligible0.025(chronic)Selenium483.0Not detectedNot detectedSilver48/180.157.50.730.0001/0.000012.3(acute)Thallium4815Not detectedNot detectedCyanide, Total48/51073 (interferences?)Interference?0.0051.0 (acute)(measure as freecyanide)

# Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation Science Advisory Panel Commercial Passenger Vessel En vironmental 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 En vironmental 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 desi gn, to data gathering, to stat istical 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 contaminan ts that would be of concern if discharged into Alaska waters.

The design of a sampling protocol requires care ful thought be given to the potential variables that would influence the interp retation of the measurements. Statistical methods can cope with random errors, but statistics will not eliminate the influence of sy stematic errors (bias) on the measurements upon which findings will be based (Colquhoun 1971). Qu estions like does the design really measure what is wanted to be lear ned, and is the cost and time necessary for those measurements reasonable (Green, 1979).

Of course, the best sample is the whole item. Ho wever, this is typically not feasible due to the item’s size or location or the laboratory’s size locati on or analytical abilitie s. As a result, small portions of the whole must be colle cted 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 w hole to eventually understand th e 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 base d upon obtaining a standard size while holding constant one of the domains of samp le 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 gr ab samples together to form a well-mixed composite and then sub-sampling the mixture. Va lues 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 En vironmental 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 En vironmental 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 En vironmental 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 En vironmental 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 Pyrene167Appendix 5Small Ship DataAlaska Department of Environmental ConservationScience Advisory PanelCommercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance ProgramThe Impact of Cruise Ship WastewaterDischarge on Alaska Waters November 2002168Table B1: Small Ship 2001 and 2002 Alaska Marine Highway Conventional Data ComparisonAmmoniamg/lpHBODmg/lCODmg/lTSSmg/lTotal Clmg/lFREE CLmg/lFECALMPN/100mlCONDUCTumhos/cmShip NameDateMDL0.0160.11.03.70.10.10.121.0Columbia13-Aug-01Not analyzedNotanalyzed84.27651111.50.7110034400Columbia13-Aug-01Not analyzed7.589.374411810.5130034700Columbia13-Aug-01Not analyzed7.580.68631051.20.650034700Kennicott11-Dec-00Not analyzed7.13.5not analyzed433.535not analyzedKennicott01-Apr-02Not analyzed7.0424611800.50.050.05900000036000Malaspina02-Jul-011.47.920470400.050.057000034800Matanuska09-Apr-01227.3150not analyzed730.20.052200not analyzedMatanuska18-Dec-01not analyzed7.3811060869.73.10.05235900Matanuska25-Feb-02not analyzed7.5154124073.750.055000035500Kennicott1-Apr-02127.042461,1801790.050.059,000,00036,400Matanuska25-Feb-0216.87.51541,24073.750.0550,00035,500Kennicott25-Jun-020.0088.020.51,20032221437,000Malaspina26-Jun-0210.16.9988.887610043.5528,300Columbia22-Jul-0229.47.6711749573.920122222800Kennicott10-Jul-020.0088.10.587022.54025131200Malaspina9-Jul-020.1217.910.551422.93.52.5123800Matanuska20-Jul-021.276.8813445175.22510123000Alaska Department of Environmental ConservationScience Advisory PanelCommercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance ProgramThe Impact of Cruise Ship WastewaterDischarge on Alaska Waters November 2002169Table B2: Small Ships Treated Blackwater Conventional Pollutants2001 data (nosamplestaken in 2000)Treatment TypeAmmoniaMg/LpHBODmg/lCODmg/lTSSmg/lTotal Clmg/lFREE CLmg/lFECALMPN/100mlCONDUCTumhos/cmMDL0.0160.11.03.70.10.10.121.0Macerator-CLnot analyzed7.560.5509323.50.0533not analyzedMacerator-CLnot analyzed7.780.577828.20.050.05110not analyzedMacerator-CLnot analyzednot analyzednot analyzednot analyzed83.50.050.055not analyzedMacerator-CL3.27.5251100970.550.350not analyzedMacerator-CLnot analyzed7.3416118203331177037400Macerator-CLnot analyzedNot analyzed0.5not analyzed70.050.0517not analyzedMacerator-CLnot analyzed8.119.169748.83.50.4130not analyzedMacerator-CLnot analyzed7.96.0264425.81.50.91not analyzedMacerator-CLnot analyzed6.431814706380.30.12400000not analyzedMacerator-CLnot analyzed7.558512408800.050.0516000000not analyzedMacerator-CLnot analyzed7.95.0998272.22.10.8300not analyzedMacerator-CLnot analyzed7.9924.386389.60.050.05500000not analyzedMacerator-CLnot analyzed7.9926411604210.050.05500000not analyzedBiological310859916502160.050.051100000not analyzedMin3.26.40.550970.050.05137400Max3108.158518208801171600000037400GeoMean31.507.6521.511004.2597.570.300.151545.7937400NOTES: The biological system does not perform as well as the average macerator chlorinating units but only one point is available.8 ships have fecal coliform counts below 130, one ship is at 300 and 5 are over 500,000.Alaska Department of Environmental ConservationScience Advisory PanelCommercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance ProgramThe Impact of Cruise Ship WastewaterDischarge on Alaska Waters November 2002170Table B3: Small Ships Black and Graywater mixed and treated Conventional Pollutants2001 and 2002 data (no samples taken in 2000)SampleDateAmmoniaMg/LpHBODmg/lCODmg/lTSSmg/lTotal Clmg/lFREE Clmg/lFecal ColiformMPN/100mlCONDUCTUmhos/cmTreatment TypeMDL0.0160.11.03.70.10.10.121.0Macerator/Cl13-Aug-01Not analyzed7.589.374411810.5130034700Macerator/Cl13-Aug-01Not analyzed7.580.68631051.20.650034700Macerator/Cl11-Dec-00Not analyzed7.13.5not analyzed433.535not analyzedMacerator/Cl01-Apr-02Not analyzed7.0424611800.050.050.05900000036000Macerator/Cl02-Jul-011.47.920470400.050.057000034800Macerator/Cl09-Apr-01227.3150not analyzed730.20.052200not analyzedMacerator/Cl18-Dec-01Not analyzed7.3811060869.73.10.05235900Macerator/Cl25-Feb-02Not analyzed7.5154124073.750.055000035500Macerator/Cl09-Aug-01Not analyzed7.2580134010300.80.19000not analyzedMacerator/Cl23-Aug-01Not analyzed6.252080285012000.050.0516000000not analyzedMacerator/Cl17-Sep-01Not analyzed5.54131018501460.050.0516000000not analyzedMacerator/Cl1-Apr-02127.042461,1801790.050.05900000036400Macerator/Cl25-Jun-020.0088.020.51,20032221437000Macerator/Cl26-Jun-0210.16.9988.887610043.5528300Macerator/Cl25-Feb-0216.87.5154124073.750.0550,00035500Macerator/Cl22-Jul-0229.47.6711749573.920122222800Macerator/Cl10-Jul-020.0088.10.587022.54025131200Macerator/Cl9-Jul-020.1217.910.551422.93.52.5123800Macerator/Cl20-Jul-021.276.8813445175.22510123000MIN0.0.0085.543.545122.50.20.1122800MAX29.48.120802850120040251600000037000GeoMean1.347.2558.08930.0161.141.120.38141431653Alaska Department of Environmental ConservationScience Advisory PanelCommercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance ProgramThe Impact of Cruise Ship WastewaterDischarge on Alaska Waters November 2002171Table B4: Small Ships Graywater Mixed Conventional Pollutants2001 and 2002 data (no samples taken in 2000)Treatment TypeAmmoniaMg/LpHBODmg/lCODmg/lTSSmg/lTotal Clmg/lFREE CLmg/lFECALMPN/100mlCONDUCTumhos/cmMDL0.0160.11.03.70.10.10.121.0CommentsChlorinenot analyzed7.8not analyzed9013161801801Not analyzedHolding tankChlorinenot analyzed8.2430137037227015050Not analyzedHolding tankChlorinenot analyzed839567478.60.050.0530000not analyzedHolding tankChlorinenot analyzed7.6330722132107.51not analyzedHolding tankNonenot analyzedNot analyzed74.5not analyzed1060.05not analyzed16000000not analyzedNoneNonenot analyzedNot analyzed62.9not analyzed280.05not analyzed1680not analyzedNoneNonenot analyzed7.332.7925.35.730.05not analyzed146.8NoneNonenot analyzed7.2511522544.40.05not analyzed130000060.3NoneNonenot analyzed7.9820547283.60.050.05300000not analyzedNoneNonenot analyzed73725781430.050.0511000not analyzedNoneNonenot analyzedNot analyzed60not analyzed280.050.051680not analyzedNone7.297.1894.410647.70.050.053000not analyzedNoneNonenot analyzed5.3910108602690.050.0516000000not analyzedNoneMin7.295.392.7925.35.730.050.05146.8NoneMax7.298.2101013703722701801600000060.3NoneGeoMean7.297.33135.04391.7178.000.270.53354553.12NoneGeoMean ChlorineNot analyzed7.90382.70880.36186.8812.4910.0335not analyzedNoneGeoMean Untreated7.296.97295.422228.352.90.050.052760253.123NoneAlaska Department of Environmental ConservationScience Advisory PanelCommercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance ProgramThe Impact of Cruise Ship WastewaterDischarge on Alaska Waters November 2002172Table B5: Small Ships Graywater Accommodations Conventional Pollutants2001 and 2002 data (no samples taken in 2000)TreatmentTypeAmmoniapHBODCODTSST ClFREE CLFECALCONDUCTMg/Lmg/lmg/lmg/lmg/lmg/lMPN/100mlumhos/cmMDL0.0160.11.03.70.10.10.121.0Nonenotanalyzed6.6349.7notanalyzed41.40.050.051not analyzedNonenotanalyzednotanalyzed224.37notanalyzed8051.56notanalyzed1400not analyzedNonenotanalyzednotanalyzed208.6notanalyzed112.50.36notanalyzed1not analyzedNonenotanalyzednotanalyzed223.17notanalyzed17.30.11notanalyzed1not analyzedNonenotanalyzednotanalyzed309.1notanalyzed2.70.05notanalyzed1not analyzedNonenotanalyzednotanalyzed215.57notanalyzed59.50.28notanalyzed1not analyzedNonenotanalyzednotanalyzed112.67notanalyzed19.50.13notanalyzed1000not analyzedNonenotanalyzednotanalyzed205.13notanalyzed2.50.05notanalyzed20not analyzedNonenotanalyzednotanalyzedNDnotanalyzed6.50.02notanalyzed1not analyzedNonenotanalyzed6.86109174220.050.05200not analyzedMin06.6349.71742.50.020.0510Max06.86309.11748051.560.0514000GeoMeanNotanalyzed6.744164.2817424.330.1110.059.44#NUM!Alaska Department of Environmental ConservationScience Advisory PanelCommercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance ProgramThe Impact of Cruise Ship WastewaterDischarge on Alaska Waters November 2002173Table B6: Small Ships Laundry Graywater Conventional Pollutants2001 and 2002 data (no samples taken in 2000)TreatmentTypeAmmoniamg/LpHBODmg/lCODmg/lTSSmg/lT Clmg/lFREE CLmg/lFECALMPN/100mlCONDUCTumhos/cmMDL0.0160.11.03.70.10.10.121.0CommentsNone0.24510.713837422.90.30.052not analyzedFromholding tankNoneNot taken7.7911027220.10.40.31not analyzedFromholding tankMin0.2457.7911027220.10.30.051notanalyzedNoneMax0.24510.713837422.90.40.320NoneGeoMean0.2459.1298123.20731921.450.3460.1751.5notanalyzedNoneTable B7: Small Ships Galley Graywater Conventional Pollutants2001 and 2002 data (no samples takenin 2000)TreatmentTypeAmmoniamg/lpHBODmg/lCODmg/lTSSmg/lT Clmg/lFREE CLmg/lFECALMPN/100mlCONDUCTumhos/cmMDL0.0160.11.03.70.10.10.121.0CommentsNonenot analyzednotanalyzed222.7notanalyzed81.56notanalyzed100not analyzedNoneNonenot analyzednotanalyzed274.83notanalyzed22.30.81notanalyzed1not analyzedNoneMinnotanalyzednotanalyzed222.7notanalyzed22.30.81notanalyzed1not analyzedNoneMaxnotanalyzednotanalyzed274.83notanalyzed81.56notanalyzed100not analyzedNoneGeoMeannot analyzednotanalyzed247.396notanalyzed42.6322.205notanalyzed50not analyzedNoneAlaska Department of Environmental ConservationScience Advisory PanelCommercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance ProgramThe Impact of Cruise Ship WastewaterDischarge on Alaska Waters November 2002174Table 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 Total Nitrate & Nitrite as N mg/l TOC mg/l Total settleable solids mg/l TSS mg/l

Sample TypeMDL0.161.00.31.020.11.00.0190.10.10.220.10.30.10.1MixedBW&GW*Macerator/Chlorinator16629.4117495228002212300.009542.47.675.6520Nottaken4190.2373.9MixedBW&GWMacerator/Chlorinator79.51.271344512300011027Nottaken17.66.882.3825Nottaken3360.0575.2MixedBW&GWMacerator/Chlorinator76.30.080.5870312001250.50.009528.78.10.1140Nottaken2740.0522.5MixedBW&GWMacerator/Chlorinator62.30.1210.55142380012.5130.00950.87.910.3453.5Nottaken60.0522.9TBWBlackwaterMacerator/Chlorinator1166.325.475123450010.058.50.00955.772.330.05Nottaken2990.0566.6TGWGraywaterChlorine610.08138228369110520.00950.48.190.85616Nottaken3520.0517.1*Metals data missing from this event.Alaska Department of Environmental ConservationScience Advisory PanelCommercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance ProgramThe Impact of Cruise Ship WastewaterDischarge on Alaska Waters November 2002175Table B9: Small Ship Priority Pollutants MetalsAll units are in ug/l or parts per billion (ppb)TypeAntimonyTRArsenicDiss.ArsenicTRCadmiumTRChromiumDiss.ChromiumTRCopperDiss.CopperTRLeadDiss.LeadTRNickelDiss.NickelTRSeleniumDiss.SeleniumTRSilverTRThalliumThalliumTRZincDiss.MDL1.51.33.60.811.92.31.01.20.91.41.51.14.24.80.930.511.52.5MixedBW&GW0.3513533.60.44.184.961633390.451.3521.223.21641090.60.2550.41574.9MixedBW&GW0.40950370.44.322.971191661.216.7416.614.31711320.471.280.7571.3MixedBW&GW1.5539.423.20.410.31.5418.730.70.450.52816.69.810194.10.470.2550.7567.3TBWBlackwater0.0453.2480.47.563.958.4820.20.450.80415.114.42331430.470.6190.7526.2TGWGraywater0.05460.2970.4640.2660.6390.94484.71730.2941.621.772.550.6011.170.470.2550.12186.9MIN0.040.2970.4640.2660.6390.9448.4820.20.450.5281.772.550.6011.170.470.2550.7526.2MAX1.5553.2480.26610.34.961633391.216.7421.223.22331320.61.280.41586.9GEO Mean0.21716.12314.5060.3693.902.4348.2290.400.5041.4410.9310.3652.4446.880.4940.4210.46360.62Non-detected dissolved antimony, dissolved cadmium, and dissolved silver.Alaska Department of Environmental ConservationScience Advisory PanelCommercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance ProgramThe Impact of Cruise Ship WastewaterDischarge on Alaska Waters November 2002176Table B10: Small Ship Priority Pollutants PCBs(Both shown are surrogates that were added to samplefor QA) all units are in ug/l or parts per billion (ppb)TypeTreatment TypeDecachlorobiphenylTetrachlorometaxyleneMixed BW&GWMacerator/Chlorinating0.0860.2Mixed BW&GWMacerator/Chlorinating0.0460.075Mixed BW&GWMacerator/Chlorinating0.0720.073Mixed BW&GWMacerator/Chlorinating0.0550.092TBWMacerator/Chlorinating0.0590.064TGWChlorine0.0150.049Min0.0150.049Max0.0860.2Median0.0570.074Average0.0598571430.107571429GeoMean0.0490135080.082527052All 7 PCBs (Aroclor 1016, Aroclor 1221, Aroclor 1232, Aroclor1242, Aroclor 1248, Aroclor 1254, andAroclor 1260) results arenon-detection.Alaska Department of Environmental ConservationScience Advisory PanelCommercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance ProgramThe Impact of Cruise Ship WastewaterDischarge on Alaska Waters November 2002177Table 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 Di-n-Butylphthalate PhenolMDLSurrogates1.2210.580.69Surrogates0.551.40.88MixedBW&GWMacerator/Chlorinating17060550.622082.13068343.70.70.44MixedBW&GWMacerator/Chlorinating13037515.36005.62.81649582.20.70.44MixedBW&GWMacerator/Chlorinating68770.440.611.50.295.141840.50.2750.70.44MixedBW&GWMacerator/Chlorinating54657.84.5620.29836736.60.2750.71.1TBWMacerator/Chlorinating8765810.611.50.290.353074920.2752.60.44TGWChlorine11081740.66092.84013091140.70.44Min54370.440.611.50.290.3516490.50.2750.70.44Max17081815.3600984113092142.62.6GeoMean95.8762.3119.661.2163.401.462.4830.7876.326.531.1550.870.51Shaded columns are surrogate pollutants that are added to the samplesAlaska Department of Environmental ConservationScience Advisory PanelCommercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance ProgramThe Impact of Cruise Ship WastewaterDischarge on Alaska Waters November 2002178Table B12: Small Ship 2002 Priority Pollutants Volatile OrganicsALL 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 Iodomethane m&p Xylenes Naphthalene tert-Butyl Methyl Ether TolueneMDL0.150.230.510.111.20.180.340.230.320.760.130.360.250.290.320.210.190.420.150.0980.120.25MixedBW&GWMacerator/Chlorinating9.91.90.255.055452.60.54311303.42.11.4192.9730.512.23.188.51.40.5MixedBW&GWMacerator/Chlorinating0.670.1158.32.44720.178.98914.40.185.84.5301.41.30.210.551.20.060.125MixedBW&GWMacerator/Chlorinating.0750.1150.2550.05540.090.170.135360.380.0650.180.1250.151.10.1050.0950.210.0750.050.060.125MixedBW&GWMacerator/Chlorinating.0750.1150.2550.0550.60.090.171.6571.10.0650.180.1251.98.80.1050.0950.210.0750.050.060.125TBWMacerator/Chlorinating0.0750.1150.2550.0559.10.090.170.1350.120.3810.180.1250.150.160.1050.0950.210.0750.050.061.2TGWChlorine0.0750.1155.90.055520.090.177.20.120.380.0651.31402.71.70.1050.0950.210.0750.051.41.2Min0.0750.1150.2550.0550.60.09ND0.1350.120.380.0650.180.1250.150.160.1050.0950.210.0750.050.060.125Max9.91.98.32.4522.60.54311303.44.41.41404.5731.42.23.188.51.41.2GeoMean0.2440.1840.7690.0698.440.2640.2061.879.20.7680.3690.3521.761.074.040.210.2570.330.2280.1970.1010.335Nondetection results are 1⁄2 the MDL for statistical purposes.Alaska Department of Environmental ConservationScience Advisory PanelCommercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance ProgramThe Impact of Cruise Ship WastewaterDischarge on Alaska Waters November 2002179Appendix 6Large Vessel Data TablesAlaska Department of Environmental ConservationScience Advisory PanelCommercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance ProgramThe Impact of Cruise Ship WastewaterDischarge on Alaska Waters November 2002180Table C1: 2000 Large Ships Samples Evaluationof Biological Blackwater Treatment SystemsWaste TypeUnitsAmmoniamg/LpHBODmg/LCODmg/LTSSmg/LT Clmg/LFECALmg/LCONDUCTMPN/100mlFREE CLumhos/cmSampleDateSampleNameMDL0.0160.11.03.70.10.1210.102-Aug-00CompositeBlackwater1005.375Not taken236CompositeCompositeNot takenComposite13-Sep-00CompositeBlackwater64.16.9130Not taken6501.54,410Not taken1.13329-Sep-00CompositeBlackwater667.6150140014300.108182,436Not taken0.07929-Sep-00CompositeBlackwater527.3250Not taken14801.53,504Not taken0.520-Sep-00CompositeBlackwater747.749Not taken3000.24318,027Not taken0.0903-Aug-00One UnitBlackwater5208.4140Not taken5890.051,400,000Not taken0.0521-Sep-00One UnitBlackwater7308.7320Not taken9500.05700,000Not taken0.0522-Sep-00CompositeBlackwater444.6585102500.922.47Not taken0.0525-Aug-00CompositeBlackwaterNot takenMissingNot takenNot takenNot taken0.05300Not taken0.0505-Aug-00CompositeBlackwater90.257.92108.89Not taken231.760.07387,493Not taken0.0512-Aug-002 of 4 unitsBlackwater65.897.6565.04Not taken4070.051,100,000Not taken0.0529-Aug-00CompositeBlackwater1097.865Not taken3300.424,650Not taken0.0506-Sep-00CompositeBlackwater967.5580Not taken335.50.56InvalidatedNot taken0.0509-Aug-00CompositeBlackwater1006.9130Not taken12600.4645,349Not taken0.1820-Sep-00CompositeBlackwater507.4140Not taken860Not taken6.7Not taken3.3309-Aug-00CompositeBlackwater1107.5170Not taken1230Not taken100Not taken0.9614-Sep-00CompositeBlackwater1408.282Not taken2800.056,300Not taken0.0502-Sep-00UnitBlackwater1807.615012102000.0580Not taken0.0518-Sep-00UnitBlackwater1306.7110Not taken30031Not taken209-Sep-00CompositeBlackwater1557.5250Not taken980Not taken540Not taken0.5418-Sep-00UnitBlackwater17.67.6146Not taken5800.8723.7Not taken0.12506-Aug-00UnitBlackwater1608.5120Not taken280923Not taken0.05Alaska Department of Environmental ConservationScience Advisory PanelCommercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance ProgramThe Impact of Cruise Ship WastewaterDischarge on Alaska Waters November 2002181Waste TypeUnitsAmmoniamg/LpHBODmg/LCODmg/LTSSmg/LT Clmg/LFECALmg/LCONDUCTMPN/100mlFREE CLumhos/cmSampleDateSampleNameMDL0.0160.11.03.70.10.1210.1GeoMean104.487.18104.608454780.2118,213Not taken0.086Min17.64.6495102000.051Not taken0.05Max7308.73201400148091,400,000Not taken3.33Alaska Department of Environmental ConservationScience Advisory PanelCommercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance ProgramThe Impact of Cruise Ship WastewaterDischarge on Alaska Waters November 2002182Table C2: 2000 Large Ships Mixed Blackwater and Graywater from Double Bottom TanksSample DateWaste TypeAmmoniapHBODCODTSST ClFECALCONDUCTFREE CLmg/lmg/lmg/lmg/lmg/lMPN/100mlumhos/cmmg/lMDL0.0160.11.03.70.10.1210.125-Aug-00Blk/Gry DB0.1956502303800.0550000Not taken0.0530-Jul-00Blk/Gry DB575.9220395400.0535000Not taken0.0510-Sep-00Blk/Gry ROtreated1.225.980130Not taken0.051Not taken0.0510-Sep-00Blk/Gry ROtreated,1.246.175130Not taken0.051Not taken0.0519-Aug-00Gry/Blk aft8.17.511067013014000Not taken0.219-Aug-00Gry/blkforward137.4130710921.3510Not taken0.7529-Aug-00Gry/Blk aft3.77.872135891.130000Not taken0.729-Aug-00Gry/Blkforward8.57.61501351501.160000Not taken0.7505-Aug-00Gry/Blk DBtank177110710550.0516000000Not taken0.0512-Aug-00Gry/Blk DBtank136.31806801100.053000000Not taken0.0506-Aug-00Gry/Blk DB2008.325010303200.055000000Not taken0.05MIN0.19572130400.051Not taken0.05MAX2008.365010303801.316000000Not taken0.75GeoMean7.126.73146.283381190.15612824Not taken0.118Alaska Department of Environmental ConservationScience Advisory PanelCommercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance ProgramThe Impact of Cruise Ship WastewaterDischarge on Alaska Waters November 2002183Table C3: 2000 Large Ship Gray Water Mixed from Collection TanksSample DateAmmoniamg/lpHBODmg/lCODmg/lTSSmg/lT Clmg/lFECALMPN/100mlCONDUCTumhos/cmFREE CLmg/lMDL0.0160.11.03.70.10.1210.107-Aug-003.47.281190670.0550000Not taken0.0513-Sep-00not takennot takennot takennot takennot takennot taken30not taken02-Aug-001.46.1112020604970.053500000.0529-Sep-000.127.57304401900.05invalid0.0529-Sep-005.36.7190286860.051700000.0520-Sep-00not takennot takennot takennot takennot takennot taken170000not taken03-Aug-001.74.78612501710.0513000000.0521-Sep-002.16.61803701100.052800000.0525-Aug-003.83.8Invalidated1570030000.0570000.0522-Sep-001.27150410690.05700000.0505-Aug-000.4510.3440850980.054900000.0505-Aug-000.996.889410370.2220000.0505-Aug-000.264.778011602940.0592000000.0505-Aug-000.56.4170350570.1160000000.0512-Aug-0029.1150170670.052200000.0515-Aug-001.34.8103015305000.05invalid0.0512-Aug-001.15.781011901500.0516000.0512-Aug-000.527.7130380540.058000000.0529-Aug-002.17.2130250510.0580000.0518-Sep-001.482304002300.05invalid0.0509-Sep-0026.96.81704701100.051100000.0520-Sep-002.97.6150290511.2invalid0.609-Aug-00not taken7.940400620.05invalid3.514-Sep-00not taken6.6270360730.0522000000.05Min0.123.840170370.05300.05Max26.910.311201570030001.2160000003.5GeoMean1.416.622235731240.061180520.068Alaska Department of Environmental ConservationScience Advisory PanelCommercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance ProgramThe Impact of Cruise Ship WastewaterDischarge on Alaska Waters November 2002184Table C4: 2000 Large Ships Laundry GraywaterSample DateSample NameAmmoniapHBODCODTSST ClFECALCONDUCTFREE CLmg/lmg/lmg/lmg/lmg/lMPN/100mlumhos/cmmg/lMDL0.0160.11.03.70.10.1210.129-Aug-00Gry laundry0.177.612040039not taken80000.0507-Aug-00Gry laundry0.3910.57023040.8510.422-Aug-00Gry stbrdlaundry0.19.66.718054not taken10.0529-Sep-00Gry laundrynot takennot takennot takennot takennot taken0.5not takennot taken20-Sep-00Gry laundrycoll. Tanknot takennot takennot takennot takennot taken110.803-Aug-00Gry laundry39.285300190.057000.0512-Aug-00Gry laundryroom10329013104200.0510.0506-Sep-00Gry laundry0.0087.686270460.0510.0502-Sep-00Gry laundry0.7510.29830038110.418-Sep-00Gry laundrytanknot takennot takennot takennot takennot taken0.05300.05Min0.00836.718040.0510.05Max1010.52901310420180000.8GeoMean0.3827.7273.6340380.2080.11Alaska Department of Environmental ConservationScience Advisory PanelCommercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance ProgramThe Impact of Cruise Ship WastewaterDischarge on Alaska Waters November 2002185Table C5: 2000 Large Ship Graywater Accommodations and LaundrySampleDateAmmoniapHBODCODTSST ClFECALCONDUCTFREECLmg/lmg/lmg/lmg/lmg/lMPN/100mlumhos/cmmg/lMDL0.0160.11.03.70.10.1210.120-Sep-000.617.369240300.0510.0513-Sep-00not foundnot foundnot foundnot foundnot found2.82300.125-Aug-00456.758not found200not found10.4Min0.616.758240300.0510.05Max457.3692402002.82300.4GeoMean5.2396.99463.26124077.4600.3746.1270.126Alaska Department of Environmental ConservationScience Advisory PanelCommercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance ProgramThe Impact of Cruise Ship WastewaterDischarge on Alaska Waters November 2002186Table C6:2000 Large Ship Galley GraywaterWasteTypeAmmoniamg/lpHBODmg/lCODmg/lTSSmg/lT Clmg/lFECALMPN/100mlCONDUCTumhos/cmFREE CLmg/lSampleDateMDL0.0160.11.03.70.10.1210.106-Sep-00Gray(Galley)27.3112521not foundnot foundnot found13-Sep-00Gray(Galley)0.639.512101730320not foundnot foundnot found13-Sep-00Gray(Galley)not foundNot foundnot foundnot foundnot found2.530000.229-Sep-00Gray(Galley)not foundNot foundnot foundnot foundnot found4not found403-Aug-00Gray(Galley)1.66.117201090257not foundnot foundnot found05-Aug-00Gray(Galley)117.1180430140not foundnot foundnot found29-Aug-00Gray(Galley)9.56.94907901600.05280000.0502-Sep-00Gray(Galley)0.0085.63307851900.0590000000.0518-Sep-00Gray(Galley)not foundNot foundnot foundnot foundnot found0.051300000.0509-Sep-00Gray(Galley)2.376.831901042045000.0551.218-Sep-00Gray(Galley)8.23.73703069080294000.05not found0.05Min0.0083.71125210.0550.05Max119.5370306908029400490000004GeoMean1.5476.4372813174200.163512137500.179Alaska Department of Environmental ConservationScience Advisory PanelCommercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance ProgramThe Impact of Cruise Ship WastewaterDischarge on Alaska Waters November 2002187Table C7:2000 Large Ship Accommodations GraywaterSampleDateAmmoniapHBODCODTSST ClFECALCONDUCTFREECLmg/lmg/lmg/lmg/lmg/lMPN/100mlumhos/cmmg/lMDL0.0160.11.03.70.10.1210.106-Sep-000.889500Not found110not foundnot foundnot found18-Sep-00not foundnot foundnot foundnot foundnot found0.0512000.0518-Sep-00497.821013408001.590.05Min0.887.821013401100.0590.05Max49950013408001.512000.05GeoMean6.5678.3832413402970.2741040.05Alaska Department of Environmental ConservationScience Advisory PanelCommercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance ProgramThe Impact of Cruise Ship WastewaterDischarge on Alaska Waters November 2002188Table C8: 2001 Accommodations Graywater Held in Double Bottom Tanks and Discharged Greater than 1 Mile from Shore going atleast 6 knots.Sample DateSampleNameFecalColiform(f.c./100 ml)TSS (mg/l)Ammonia(mg/l)pHBOD (mg/l)COD (mg/l)Cl, Residual(mg/l)Cl, Free(mg/l)Conductivity(umhos/cm)MDL20.10.0160.11.03.70.10.11.06/5/2001DB11 -invalidated56.0not taken6.8097.0240.00.050.054,100.06/5/2001DB4 -invalidated230.0not taken4.201,000.02,300.00.050.053,240.06/5/2001DB8 -invalidated150.0not taken4.30870.02,100.00.050.054,320.07/23/2001DB4invalidated102.00.0085.20373.0765.00.050.052,060.05/31/2001DB11invalidated66.0not taken7.60190.0450.02.000.20440.05/31/2001DB4invalidated66.0not taken7.10210.0460.00.100.05410.07/26/2001DB 416,000,00050.70.8326.50217.0410.00.050.05418.06/21/2001DB 4Pinvalidated107.0not taken7.20241.0565.00.201.50559.06/22/2001DB 4S600,00067.2not taken6.70182.0382.00.101.20867.08/2/2001DB 4P131.00.0087.70151.0295.03.500.70953.08/2/2001DB 4S139.20.0087.30158.0327.014.0014.00857.07/10/2001DB 4invalidated52.40.7186.95157.0342.00.300.05868.07/10/2001DB 8invalidated240.00.5506.00750.01,470.00.300.051,040.06/7/2001DB8invalidated54.0not taken7.00250.0510.00.050.05401.08/22/2001DB 816,000,00074.60.1096.30281.0582.00.300.05306.0Alaska Department of Environmental ConservationScience Advisory PanelCommercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance ProgramThe Impact of Cruise Ship WastewaterDischarge on Alaska Waters November 2002189Sample DateSampleNameFecalColiform(f.c./100 ml)TSS (mg/l)Ammonia(mg/l)pHBOD (mg/l)COD (mg/l)Cl, Residual(mg/l)Cl, Free(mg/l)Conductivity(umhos/cm)MDL20.10.0160.11.03.70.10.11.0Min1310.014.20972400.050.05306Max16,000,0002400.837.701,0002,30014.0014.004,320Geo Mean10,896770.086.362665730.210.15939Alaska Department of Environmental ConservationScience Advisory PanelCommercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance ProgramThe Impact of Cruise Ship WastewaterDischarge on Alaska Waters November 2002190Table C9: 2001 Large Ship Accommodations Graywater Collected in Small Collecting Tanks and Discharged.Sample DateSampleNameFecalColiform(fc/100 ml)*TSS (mg/l)Ammonia(mg/l)pHBOD(mg/l)COD(mg/l)Cl,Residual(mg/l)Cl, Free(mg/l)Conductivity(umhos/cm)MDL20.10.0160.11.03.70.10.11.08/21/2001CT F16,000,0002880.01.0805.344,230.05,650.00.050.05173.06/27/2001CT 7 PTInvalidated49.0not taken6.90150.0270.00.050.05334.06/27/2001CT 7 SBInvalidated36.0not taken7.00150.0280.00.050.05371.05/24/2001CT G300,00079.0not taken6.70230.0300.02.500.0596.05/24/2001CT E300,00038.0not taken6.60130.0200.03.002.00100.07/26/2001CT C1not found1.0909.80487.0825.04.003.50441.05/25/2001CT 422,00022.0not taken7.40130.0220.03.500.30470.05/25/2001CT 5350,00056.0not taken7.60170.0300.01.800.40270.05/25/2001CT 63355.0not taken7.50450.01,200.02.000.10430.09/25/2001CT50,000126.00.8928.971,340.02,320.00.900.05536.06/5/2001CT 3 E170100.0not taken9.20500.0970.03.500.301,080.06/5/2001CT 4 D122.0not taken7.90100.0250.070.0050.004,220.06/5/2001CT 6F125.0not taken8.90120.0240.019.0018.00503.09/19/2001CT C5056.60.2517.57296.0765.05.000.70891.06/8/2001CT 8170,00087.0not taken9.40170.0390.08.004.00418.0Min1220.255.341002000.050.0596Max16,000,0002,8801.099.804,2305,65070.0050.004,220GeoMean2,189670.727.692825271.820.49420Alaska Department of Environmental ConservationScience Advisory PanelCommercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance ProgramThe Impact of Cruise Ship WastewaterDischarge on Alaska Waters November 2002191Table C10: 2001 Large Ships Galley, Fish and Butcher Shop Collecting tanks.SampleDateSample NameFecalColiformMPN/100 mlTSS (mg/l)Ammonia(mg/l)pHBOD(mg/l)COD(mg/l)Cl,Residual(mg/l)Cl, Free(mg/l)Conductivity(umhos/cm)MDL20.10.0160.11.03.70.10.11.006/06/01CT (butcher)16000000804.0Not taken7.10941.03,320.00.050.05427.008/21/01CT (butcher)80000148.09.2706.50530.01,030.03.500.10692.007/26/01CT I (butcher)1141.01.3507.00311.0712.0100.000.052,360.008/02/01CT9 (butcher)129.60.5747.4089.9240.04.000.50915.006/12/01HT (butcher)Missing130.0Not taken7.50720.01,500.04.000.051,160.009/19/01CT (butcher)Missing393.00.8546.93669.01,410.035.0035.003,300.008/21/01CT (galley)230000230.00.9999.89846.01,150.03.500.10427.006/27/01HT 14PT (galley)1600000700.0Not taken4.802,200.03,500.00.050.051,090.006/27/01HT 3C (galley)Missing860.0Not taken4.701,700.02,700.00.050.05672.005/24/01CT H – (galley)50002300.0Not taken4.105,900.06,400.00.050.051,200.006/06/01CT (galley)7000492.0Not taken9.401,460.02,360.00.400.20665.009/19/01CT (galley)23266.00.24510.20599.0642.010.003.40878.006/01/01CT (galley)Missing780.0Not taken9.601,600.02,300.03.500.05665.005/25/01CT 8 (galley)50880.0Not taken7.601,600.01,700.02.801.301,100.007/26/01CT H (galley)1700002520.00.8594.80not found3,700.0not foundnot foundnot found09/25/01CT (galley)30173.02.1906.62239.0536.02.800.20260.006/05/01CT (galley)1130.0Not taken9.30760.01,400.030.001.001,180.007/26/01CT L (fish prep)1238.07.4106.80663.01,290.050.007.001,710.006/12/01HT (fish shop)1170.0Not taken8.20550.01,100.04.001.501,150.009/19/01CT (fish shop)1163.03.2906.95414.0914.035.0010.001,640.008/02/01CT 10 (fish prep)624124.00.2107.1082.6308.03.003.50267.006/08/01CT (fish shop)1580.0Not taken7.001,000.01,900.02.000.101,850.0Alaska Department of Environmental ConservationScience Advisory PanelCommercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance ProgramThe Impact of Cruise Ship WastewaterDischarge on Alaska Waters November 2002192SampleDateSample NameFecalColiformMPN/100 mlTSS (mg/l)Ammonia(mg/l)pHBOD(mg/l)COD(mg/l)Cl,Residual(mg/l)Cl, Free(mg/l)Conductivity(umhos/cm)MDL20.10.0160.11.03.70.10.11.006/06/01CT (fish shop)5000001610.0Not taken7.001,470.02,670.00.050.05563.0Min1300.214.10832400.050.05260Max16,000,0002,5209.2710.205,9006,400100353,300GeoMean4023491.277.047281,41420.34904Alaska Department of Environmental ConservationScience Advisory PanelCommercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance ProgramThe Impact of Cruise Ship WastewaterDischarge on Alaska Waters November 2002193Table C11: 2001 Large Ships Galley Stored inBallast Tanks, Held until the Ship is 1Mile from Shore and Traveling a Minimum 6Knots.SampleDateSample NameFecal Coliform(MPN/100 ml)*TSS (mg/l)Ammonia(mg/l)pHBOD(mg/l)COD(mg/l)Cl,Residual(mg/l)Cl, Free(mg/l)Conductivity(umhos/cm)MDL20.10.0160.11.03.70.10.11.005/31/01DB8 (galley)Invalidated270.0not taken4.001,300.02,700.00.050.051,300.007/23/01DB 8 (galley)Invalidated383.00.0084.101,150.01,290.00.050.052,870.007/26/01DB T and #8,11,13domestic/galley230,00046.20.6507.60not found521.0not foundnot found521.006/21/01DB 15P (galley)Invalidated430.0Not taken6.201,440.01,920.00.101.70509.006/22/01DB 15S (galley)358,000597.0Not taken4.401,520.02,270.00.102.00757.008/02/01DB 15P (galley)Invalidated368.00.8845.10980.01,550.03.303.00885.008/02/01DB 15S (galley)15,300,000Not foundNot taken5.301,080.01,620.00.500.50883.007/10/01DB 11 (Galley)Invalidated149.00.008not found814.01,520.00.050.05803.006/07/01DB11 (Galley)Invalidated26000.0Not taken3.607,800.054,000.00.050.052,670.008/22/01DB 11 (galley)300,0001390.01.3804.052,900.03,950.00.050.05863.0Min230,000460.013.608145210.050.05509Max15,300,00026,0001.387.607,80054,0003.303.002,870Geo Mean784,0725120.144.801,5872,4040.120.231,008Alaska Department of Environmental ConservationScience Advisory PanelCommercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance ProgramThe Impact of Cruise Ship WastewaterDischarge on Alaska Waters November 2002194Table C12: 2001 Large Ships Graywater Mixed Held in Ballast Tanks (Discharged 1 Mile from Shore Traveling a Minimum 6 Knots)Sample DateSampleNameFecalColiform(MPN/100ml)*TSS (mg/l)Ammonia(mg/l)pHBOD (mg/l)COD (mg/l)Cl, Residual(mg/l)Cl, Free(mg/l)Conductivity(umhos/cm)MDL20.10.0160.11.03.70.10.11.008/20/01DB 11500,000259.00.6346.302169820.050.0530,50008/29/01DB3C1,700,000365.00.0084.779361740.050.05691.008/29/01DB7P700,00040.30.0086.75130Not taken0.050.05296.008/29/01DB7S300,00043.61.9207.011712890.050.05355.0Min300,00040.30.014.771301740.050.05296Max1,700,000365.01.927.019369820.050.0530,500GeoMean649,994113.50.096.142593670.050.051,220Alaska Department of Environmental ConservationScience Advisory PanelCommercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance ProgramThe Impact of Cruise Ship WastewaterDischarge on Alaska Waters November 2002195Table C13: 2001 Large Ships Laundry Graywater in Ballast Tanks(Discharged 1 Mile from Shore Traveling a minimum 6 Knots)Sample DateSample NameFecalColiform(MPN/100ml)*TSS (mg/l)Ammonia(mg/l)PHBOD(mg/l)COD(mg/l)Cl,Residual(mg/l)Cl, Free(mg/l)Conductivity(umhos/cm)MDL20.10.0160.11.03.70.10.11.005/31/01DB-Laundry)Invalidated23.0not taken9.90120.0410.00.200.10350.007/26/01DB (laundry)2,400,00018.00.3946.9075.0268.00.200.05153.006/21/01DB 9 (laundry)Invalidated68.0not taken9.70160.0410.00.400.70465.008/02/01DB Laundry48,00043.00.3999.20164.0502.01.201.00300.007/10/01DB (Laundry)Invalidated14.60.1318.2579.0310.00.300.05200.006/07/01DB6 (Laundry)Invalidated400.0not taken4.201,400.02,600.00.050.053,360.008/22/01DB 6 (laundry)2,400,000743.07.3506.671,320.02,250.00.100.052,830.0Min48,000150.134.20752680.050.05153Max2,400,0007437.359.901,4002,6001.201.003,360GeoMean651,460660.627.562306340.220.12545Alaska Department of Environmental ConservationScience Advisory PanelCommercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance ProgramThe Impact of Cruise Ship WastewaterDischarge on Alaska Waters November 2002196Table C14: 2001 Large Ships Laundry Graywater Collected and Discharged ImmediatelySample DateSample NameFecalColiform(MPN/100ml)*TSS (mg/l)Ammonia(mg/l)pHBOD(mg/l)COD(mg/l)Cl,Residual(mg/l)Cl, Free(mg/l)Conductivity(umhos/cm)MDL20.10.0160.11.03.70.10.11.006/27/01HT 7PT(laundry)3024.0not taken9.20150.0340.02.002.00647.006/27/01HT 7SB(laundry)3020.0not taken7.6049.0960.00.050.059,740.0Min3020not taken7.60493400.050.05647Max3024not taken9.201509602.002.009,740GeoMean3022not taken8.36865710.320.322,510Alaska Department of Environmental ConservationScience Advisory PanelCommercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance ProgramThe Impact of Cruise Ship WastewaterDischarge on Alaska Waters November 2002197Table C15: 2001 Large Ships Mixed Graywater Heldin Collecting Tanks and Immediately DischargedSample DateSample NameFecalColiform(MPN/100ml)*TSS (mg/l)Ammonia(mg/l)pHBOD(mg/l)COD(mg/l)Cl,Residual(mg/l)Cl, Free(mg/l)Conductivity(umhos/cm)MDL20.10.0160.11.03.70.10.11.006/06/01CT B221.0not taken7.8086.6155.00.800.50271.006/06/01CT C70,0004770.0not taken5.201,920.03,100.00.050.05501.006/06/01CT E9045.0not taken7.90101.0151.00.500.30236.006/06/01CT F50,00040.4not taken7.4055.8144.00.050.05174.005/30/01HT – 21021260.0not taken9.80110.0540.03.000.603,970.005/30/01HT – 91499,000,000710.0not taken6.40770.01,100.00.050.051,020.005/30/01HT – 92499,000,000370.0not taken6.50510.0690.00.050.051,310.008/17/01HT – 22292,800,00045.40.7396.08194.0361.00.050.05345.008/17/01HT – 91493,500,000144.00.3016.25325.0722.00.050.051,710.008/17/01HT – 924916,000,00076.50.4816.00324.0520.00.050.051,310.006/12/01HT EInvalidated27.0not taken7.50110.0230.02.500.05337.006/12/01HT FInvalidated94.0not taken7.20600.01,200.04.001.80399.006/12/01HT GInvalidated18.0not taken7.60220.0380.00.300.05183.0Min1180.3015.2055.80144.000.050.05174.00Max16,000,0004,7700.7399.801,920.003,100.004.001.803,970.00GeoMean38,9331080.4756.96245.88473.940.220.11562.35Alaska Department of Environmental ConservationScience Advisory PanelCommercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance ProgramThe Impact of Cruise Ship WastewaterDischarge on Alaska Waters November 2002198Table C16: 2001 Large Ships Combining Blackwater and Graywater and Immediately Treating and DischargingTreatment TypeSampleDateWasteTypeFecalColiform(MPN/100ml)TSS (mg/l)Ammonia(mg/l)pHBOD(mg/l)COD(mg/l)Cl,Residual(mg/l)Cl, Free(mg/l)Conductivity(umhos/cm)MDL20.10.0160.11.03.70.10.11.0Advanced05/14/01Black/Gray20.71.1803.9663.299.70.050.0516.1Advanced07/31/01Black/Gray10.70.7327.400.51.70.050.0561.9Advanced08/08/01Black/Gray10.70.6167.102.21.70.050.0536.2Advanced08/08/01Black/Gray10.70.9547.005.410.40.100.0569.3Advanced08/09/01Black/Gray10.70.4636.803.41.70.050.0545.8Advanced08/10/01Black/Gray10.70.5417.200.51.70.050.0546.1Advanced08/10/01Black/Gray10.70.4857.0010.823.20.050.0565.0Advanced08/11/01Black/Gray10.70.2677.402.11.70.050.0585.0Advanced08/11/01Black/Gray10.70.1717.300.512.60.050.0586.8Advanced09/09/01Black/Gray10.70.4547.050.514.70.050.0513.2Advanced06/28/01Black/Gray10.70.6407.20not foundnot foundnot foundnot foundnot foundAdvanced08/01/01Black/Gray10.717.9007.550.51.70.050.05570.0Macerator/Chlorinator07/13/01Black/Gray60189.00.3407.00134.01,100.05.001.4040,400.0Macerator/Chlorinator07/13/01Black/Gray5128.03.4907.10190.0973.02.500.4034,400.0Macerator/Chlorinator08/08/01Black/GrayInvalidated326.011.200not found313.0not found0.050.05not foundMacerator/Chlorinator08/08/01Black/GrayInvalidated173.016.7007.20180.01,100.00.050.0528,500.0Min10.70.1713.960.501.70.050.0513.2Median10.70.6287.103.4411.50.050.0567.2Max60326.017.9007.55313.001,100.05.001.4040,400.0Alaska Department of Environmental ConservationScience Advisory PanelCommercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance ProgramThe Impact of Cruise Ship WastewaterDischarge on Alaska Waters November 2002199Treatment TypeSampleDateWasteTypeFecalColiform(MPN/100ml)TSS (mg/l)Ammonia(mg/l)pHBOD(mg/l)COD(mg/l)Cl,Residual(mg/l)Cl, Free(mg/l)Conductivity(umhos/cm)MDL20.10.0160.11.03.70.10.11.0GeometricMean22.71.0766.886.7316.70.090.07223.0Alaska Department of Environmental ConservationScience Advisory PanelCommercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance ProgramThe Impact of Cruise Ship WastewaterDischarge on Alaska Waters November 2002200Table C17: 2001 Large Ship Priority Pollutants/Chlorinated Organics All Graywater CategoriesSampleNameWater typeSample DateChloroethaneCarbonTetrachlorideChloroform1,1-DichloroPropaneTetrachloroetheneTrichloroetheneMDL0.360.170.250.190.120.26CTAccomo19-Sep-017.90.0851700.0950.060.13CTGalley19-Sep-010.180.0850.1250.0950.060.13CTMixed Gray17-Aug-010.180.085190.095355.1CTMixed Gray17-Aug-010.180.085190.095409DBMixed Gray29-Aug-010.180.085120.0950.70.13DBMixed Gray29-Aug-010.180.0858.90.0950.780.13DBMixed Gray29-Aug-010.180.0850.1250.0950.060.13DBMixed Gray29-Aug-010.180.0850.1250.0950.060.13DBGalley02-Aug-010.181.91401.30.060.13DBGalley22-Aug-010.180.085370.0950.060.13DBGalley23-Jul-010.180.085160.0950.060.13DBAcc/galley26-Jul-010.180.085950.0950.060.13DBLaundry26-Jul-010.180.085310.0950.960.13DBAccomo23-Jul-010.180.085580.0950.060.13DBAccomo02-Aug-01163.50.1250.0950.060.13Min0.180.0850.1250.0950.060.13Max163.51701.3409GeoMean0.3120.1347.7690.1130.2380.220Alaska Department of Environmental ConservationScience Advisory PanelCommercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance ProgramThe Impact of Cruise Ship WastewaterDischarge on Alaska Waters November 2002201Table C18: 2001 Large Ship Priority Pollutants/Chlorinated Phenols and HalomethanesAll graywater categories. All unitsin ug/l or parts per billion (ppb).Sample Date2,4-dichlorophenol2,4,6-trichlorophenolbromoformdibromochloromethanebromodichloromethanemethyl chloridemethylene chlorideTankTypeWatertypeMDL0.530.390.320.320.231.21.2CTAccomo19-Sep-012.20.1950.160.162.58.40.6CTGalley19-Sep-0142400.160.1660.60.6CTMixedGray17-Aug-010.2750.1950.162.130.60.6CTMixedGray17-Aug-010.2750.1951.42.43.40.60.6DBMixedGray29-Aug-010.2750.1956.33.42.70.61.8DBMixedGray29-Aug-010.2750.1956.53.53.10.61.9DBMixedGray29-Aug-010.2750.1950.160.160.1150.60.6DBMixedGray29-Aug-010.2750.1950.160.160.1150.60.6DBGalley02-Aug-010.2750.1950.160.161.658.2DBGalley22-Aug-010.2750.1950.160.161.30.60.6DBGalley23-Jul-010.2750.195311.20.1150.60.6DBAcc/galley26-Jul-010.2750.1950.160.163.40.60.6DBLaundry26-Jul-010.2750.1950.160.161.40.60.6DBAccomo23-Jul-010.2750.19530.161.60.60.6DBAccomo02-Aug-013.25.60.160.160.1158112Min0.2750.1950.160.160.1150.60.6Max4240313.568112GeoMean0.5200.3480.5220.3921.0881.1431.013Alaska Department of Environmental ConservationScience Advisory PanelCommercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance ProgramThe Impact of Cruise Ship WastewaterDischarge on Alaska Waters November 2002202Table C19: 2001 Large Ships Total Recoverable Metals. All Categories of Graywater.All units in ug/l or parts per billion (ppb).Tank TypeWatertypeSampleDateantimonyarsenic IIIberyliumcadmium(TR)chromium(TR)copper(TR)lead(TR)nickel(TR)selenium(TR)silver(TR)zinc (TR)MDL1.53.60.20.812.31.21.41.14.80.932.8CTAccomo19-Sep-010.751.440.10.07242.722554.4727.90.9650.367458CTGalley19-Sep-010.750.4340.10.410.674.92.5115.40.8621.43173CTMixedGray17-Aug-012.743.520.08670.7894.1127578.651.99.140.4310300CTMixedGray17-Aug-010.4172.550.01670.44.8827212.6566.630.1671390DBMixedGray29-Aug-010.750.180.10.41.150.60.70.552.40.451.4DBMixedGray29-Aug-010.750.180.10.41.150.60.70.552.40.451.4DBMixedGray29-Aug-011.010.4190.01570.3171.823381.7150.5660.231289DBMixedGray29-Aug-010.8930.4470.02740.263.12672.2513.70.7710.138228DBGalley02-Aug-010.1250.8460.02890.17710.76521.0617.11.160.294106DBGalley22-Aug-010.3652.380.02060.1088.7669.32.7313.21.251.18206DBGalley23-Jul-010.7488.270.10.413.6171094.732.331.51.68400DBAcc/galley26-Jul-010.3640.4540.02730.1113.871705.716.91.280.15411DBLaundry26-Jul-010.6350.1920.10.3082.0544.13.275.250.3960.384163DBAccomo23-Jul-010.4342.430.10.44.961744.2510.78.990.901270DBAccomo02-Aug-010.3380.5590.10.2812.623552.758.711.760.431276Alaska Department of Environmental ConservationScience Advisory PanelCommercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance ProgramThe Impact of Cruise Ship WastewaterDischarge on Alaska Waters November 2002203Tank TypeWatertypeSampleDateantimonyarsenic IIIberyliumcadmium(TR)chromium(TR)copper(TR)lead(TR)nickel(TR)selenium(TR)silver(TR)zinc (TR)MDL1.53.60.20.812.31.21.41.14.80.932.8Min0.1250.180.01570.07241.150.60.70.550.3960.1381.4Max2.748.270.10.78913.6171094.75631.51.6810300GeoMean0.5910.8350.0540.2733.833103.4394.03911.0842.0470.430179.346Alaska Department of Environmental ConservationScience Advisory PanelCommercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance ProgramThe Impact of Cruise Ship WastewaterDischarge on Alaska Waters November 2002204Table C20: 2001 Large Ship Priority Pollutants. All Categories of GraywaterNon-chlorinated Phenols and Phthalate EstersAll units in ug/l or parts per billion (ppb).TankTypeWater TypeSample DateAcrylonitrileEthylBenzeneToluenePhenolBis(2-Ethylhexyl)PhthalateButylbenzylphthalateDiethylphthalateDi-NButylphthalateDi-N-OctylphthalateMDL0.330.190.250.880.690.380.551.40.33CTAccomo19-Sep-010.1650.0950.1250.448.20.199.40.70.125CTGalley19-Sep-0140.0950.1250.449.11.46.91.70.125CTMixed Gray17-Aug-010.1650.0950.1250.44550.197.92.93.5CTMixed Gray17-Aug-010.1650.0950.1250.44150.197.43.80.125DBMixed Gray29-Aug-010.1650.521.14150.19170.70.125DBMixed Gray29-Aug-010.1650.510.1250.44210.19200.70.125DBMixed Gray29-Aug-010.1650.0950.1250.440.350.190.2750.70.125DBMixed Gray29-Aug-010.1650.0950.1250.440.350.190.2750.70.125DBGalley02-Aug-010.1650.0952.20.443.40.197.62.20.125DBGalley22-Aug-010.1650.0950.1250.443.12.73.62.70.125DBGalley23-Jul-010.1650.511.71.85.81.96.32.90.125DBAcc/galley26-Jul-010.165580.1250.44140.1912140.125DBLaundry26-Jul-010.1651.80.1250.44170.191540.125DBAccomo23-Jul-010.1650.0950.830.448.92.39.61.90.125DBAccomo02-Aug-010.1650.0950.1250.445.20.19133.70.125Min0.1650.0950.1250.440.350.190.2750.70.125Max4582.24552.720143.5GeoMean0.2040.2480.2360.5606.5100.3575.9131.9440.156Alaska Department of Environmental ConservationScience Advisory PanelCommercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance ProgramThe Impact of Cruise Ship WastewaterDischarge on Alaska Waters November 2002205Table C21: 2001 Large Ship Conventional Pollutants taken during Priority Pollutant Sampling. All Graywater Categories.SampleDateAmmoniamg/lPHBOD5mg/lCODmg/lTSSmg/ltotalCLmg/lFecalcoliformMPU/100mlConductivityUmhos/cmFreeCLmg/lOil &greasemg/lTOCmg/lAlkalinitymg/l asCaCO3totalNmg/lphosphorusmg/lTKNmg/lSettableSolidsmg/lTankTypeWatertypeMDL0.0160.113.41.30.1210.110.30.0190.0190.220.10.1CTAccomo19-Sep-010.2517.5729676556.65508910.70.55291930.5942.111.10.11CTGalley19-Sep-010.24510.259964226610238783.40.53042420.7215.211.10.72CTMixedGray17-Aug-010.3016.253257221440.05350000017100.0513088565.50.00955.412.92.8CTMixedGray17-Aug-010.481632452076.50.051600000013100.059845462.70.00954.1718.51.4DBMixedGray29-Aug-01NaNaNaNaNaNaNaNaNa46NaNaNaNaNaNaDBMixedGray29-Aug-01NaNaNaNaNaNaNaNaNa38NaNaNaNaNaNaDBMixedGray29-Aug-01Na6.75130Na40.30.057000002960.05Na30535.8Na1.043.70.05DBMixedGray29-Aug-011.927.0117128943.60.053000003550.05Na27967.20.00952.769.10.05DBGalley02-Aug-01Na5.310801620Na0.5153000008830.5290480330.00957.9622.20.73DBGalley22-Aug-011.384.052900395013900.053000008630.052001570NaNa1961.135DBGalley23-Jul-01Na4.1115012903830.05invalid28700.05Na3360.0950.00956.1501.3DBAcc/galley26-Jul-010.657.6Na52146.2Na230000521NaNa13750.20.00953.49Na0.21DBLaundry26-Jul-010.3946.975268180.224000001530.05Na6528.20.00955.545.60.1Alaska Department of Environmental ConservationScience Advisory PanelCommercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance ProgramThe Impact of Cruise Ship WastewaterDischarge on Alaska Waters November 2002206SampleDateAmmoniamg/lPHBOD5mg/lCODmg/lTSSmg/ltotalCLmg/lFecalcoliformMPU/100mlConductivityUmhos/cmFreeCLmg/lOil &greasemg/lTOCmg/lAlkalinitymg/l asCaCO3totalNmg/lphosphorusmg/lTKNmg/lSettableSolidsmg/lTankTypeWatertypeMDL0.0160.113.41.30.1210.110.30.0190.0190.220.10.1DBAccomo23-Jul-01Na5.23737651020.05invalid20600.05Na23156.50.00955.8920.90.11DBAccomo02-Aug-01Na7.7151295313.5Invalid9530.74787820.00952.187.50.05Min0.0160.113.41.30.05210.050.50.30.0190.00950.220.10.05Max1.9210.2290039501390101600000028703.429015702420.7242.161.135GeoMean0.5286.31368.72700.0892.8000.221179261808.4520.13429.146310.48238.1450.0205.85414.050.376Alaska Department of Environmental ConservationScience Advisory PanelCommercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance ProgramThe Impact of Cruise Ship WastewaterDischarge on Alaska Waters November 2002207Table C22: 2001 Large Ships Priority Pollutants for Blackwater Chlorinated Benzenes and HalomethanesAll units in ug/l or parts per billion (ppb).1,4ChlorobenzeneChloroformTetrachloroetheneTrichloroetheneBromoformDibromochloromethaneBromodichloromethaneAntimony(Tr)TypeWater typeSample Date0.360.190.260.530.320.231.23.6AdvancedMixedBW&GW20-Sep-010.184.2110.510.160.1150.681.8AdvancedMixedBW&GW09-Sep-010.18110.130.250.160.1150.60.104MaceratorMixedBW&GW08-Aug-013.9220.130.25269.64.81.8MaceratorMixedBW&GW08-Aug-010.18270.130.25133.30.61.8Notreatment/DBMixedBW&GW19-Aug-010.181.70.130.250.160.1150.622.7BiologicalBW19-Aug-010.180.870.130.250.160.1150.61.99Min0.180.870.130.250.160.1150.60.104Max3.927110.51269.64.822.7GeoMean0.3015.8620.2720.2820.7780.4210.8661.736Alaska Department of Environmental ConservationScience Advisory PanelCommercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance ProgramThe Impact of Cruise Ship WastewaterDischarge on Alaska Waters November 2002208Table C23: 2001 Large Ships Blackwater Priority Pollutants TotalRecoverable MetalsAll units in ug/l or parts per billion (ppb).TypeWater typeSampleDateArsenic IIIBeryliumCadmium(TR)Chromium(TR)Copper(TR)Lead (TR)Nickel (TR)Selenium(TR)Silver (TR)Zinc (TR)MDL0.20.812.31.21.41.14.80.932.80.33AdvancedMixedBW&GW20-Sep-011.090.41.150.6852.660.062818.31.051.432.4AdvancedMixedBW&GW09-Sep-010.10.41.150.1960.5010.1950.6880.2131.43.02MaceratorMixedBW&GW08-Aug-0132.80.4651.158.122033.6725.41051.4228MaceratorMixedBW&GW08-Aug-01360.41.156.9298.70.5522.71551.4111Notreatment/DBMixedBW&GW19-Aug-0153.40.3811.150.61693.4316.21521.66268BiologicalBW19-Aug-019.030.42.522.61167080.338.18.310.9833020Min0.10.3811.150.1960.5010.06280.6880.2130.9833.02Max53.40.4652.528.12167080.338.11551.663020GeoMean6.2920.4071.3111.50944.2781.37712.84012.8951.358112.286Alaska Department of Environmental ConservationScience Advisory PanelCommercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance ProgramThe Impact of Cruise Ship WastewaterDischarge on Alaska Waters November 2002209Table C24: 2001 Large Ships Blackwater Priority Pollutants(Phtalate Esters)All units in ug/l or parts per billion (ppb).TypeWaterTypeSample DateEthylbenzenePhenolBis(2-Ethylhexyl)PhthalateButylbenzylphthalateDiethylphthalateDi-NButylphthalateMDL0.250.690.380.551.40.33AdvancedMixedBW&GW20-Sep-010.1250.350.190.2750.73.2AdvancedMixedBW&GW09-Sep-010.1250.354.20.2750.70.165MaceratorMixedBW&GW08-Aug-010.1250.350.190.2750.70.165MaceratorMixedBW&GW08-Aug-010.532.33.10.2752.32.9Notreatment/DBMixedBW&GW19-Aug-010.1250.3571.20.73.7BiologicalBW19-Aug-010.1250.350.190.2750.71.8Min0.1250.350.190.2750.70.165Max0.532.371.22.33.7GeoMean0.1590.4790.9250.3520.8531.091Alaska Department of Environmental ConservationScience Advisory PanelCommercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance ProgramThe Impact of Cruise Ship WastewaterDischarge on Alaska Waters November 2002210Table C25: 2001 Large Ships Blackwater Conventional Pollutants Sampled With Priority PollutantsSampleDateUnitsAmmoniamg/lpHBOD5mg/lCODmg/lTSSmg/lTotalCLmg/lFecalColiformMPU/100mlConductivityUmhos/cmFreeCLmg/lOil &Greasemg/lTOCmg/lAlkalinitymg/l asCaCO3Total Nmg/lPhosphorusmg/lTKNmg/lSettableSolidsmg/lTypeWatertypeMDL0.113.41.30.1210.110.30.0190.0190.220.10.10.12AdvancedMixedBW&GW20-Sep-0117.97.551.70.650.050.0515700.05n/a1299.71.9314.319.40.05AdvancedMixedBW&GW09-Sep-010.4547.051.714.7n/an/an/a13.2n/a0.0516.250.110.0511.10.05MaceratorMixedBW&GW08-Aug-0111.27.131311803260.05n/a264000.05n/a229n/a0.59n/a29.610MaceratorMixedBW&GW08-Aug-0116.77.218011001730.05n/a285000.05351001510.463.7927.84.5Notreatment/DBMixedBW&GW19-Aug-01n/an/an/an/an/an/an/an/an/an/an/an/an/an/an/an/aBiologicalBW19-Aug-012927.8525816306920.05170000035900.050.1537374341.210236332Min0.4547.051.70.650.050.05113.20.050.0516.250.110.0511.10.05Max2927.8531316306920.051700000285000.053537374341.210236332GeoMean13.4727.3433.471115.1237.3750.0501303.841826.4110.0500.64040.00891.4401.1894.07736.51.292Alaska Department of Environmental ConservationScience Advisory PanelCommercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance ProgramThe Impact of Cruise Ship WastewaterDischarge on Alaska Waters November 2002211Table C26: 2000 PriorityPollutants for Graywater.All units in ug/l or part per billion (ppb)Sample Name1,4DichlorobenzeneChloroethane1,2-Dichloroethane1,1,2,2,-TetrachloroethaneBis(2-Chloroethoxy)MethaneCarbontetrachlorideChloroformTetrachloroetheneTrichloroethene2,4,6-TrichlorophenolBromoformDibromochloromethaneBromodichloromethaneMethylchlorideMDL0.280.360.370.220.390.170.250.120.260.500.320.320.231.2Ballast tank 5S0.7515230711.1Composite graywater2.3Composite# 4,6,11Gray water accumulation tank 442.12.82Gray water composite(galley,accumulation,laundry)14Gray water galley tank 421.21.30.98Gray water overboard0.521.8Graywater compositeGraywater port15Graywater starboard191.1Gry 78 port441.3Gry accom0.70.911.831311.650.6741.227.129.5228.3Gry ballast #64.10.741.41.5Gry comp11Gry composite2.2Gry gal/acco191Gry galley1292.82.22.58Gry galley #111.41.9Gry galley tank #111.5489.814163Gry galley tank H0.7614Gry HTS compositeGry laundry2079548.20.57Gry pump accom.2.3Gry tank #20.651.87.71.6Gry tank 3C260.51Alaska Department of Environmental ConservationScience Advisory PanelCommercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance ProgramThe Impact of Cruise Ship WastewaterDischarge on Alaska Waters November 2002212Sample Name1,4DichlorobenzeneChloroethane1,2-Dichloroethane1,1,2,2,-TetrachloroethaneBis(2-Chloroethoxy)MethaneCarbontetrachlorideChloroformTetrachloroetheneTrichloroethene2,4,6-TrichlorophenolBromoformDibromochloromethaneBromodichloromethaneMethylchlorideMDL0.280.360.370.220.390.170.250.120.260.500.320.320.231.2Gry tank 7 port and starboard161.21.12Gry tank C150.862.1Gry Tank F6.54.20.544.21.1Grywtr 5 tank (composite)0.61Grywtr laundry room132.30.76Grywtr shaft tank3423Grywtr stabilizer port tank250.69Main graywater0.91151.30.650.7Starboard graywater960.46326489Alaska Department of Environmental ConservationScience Advisory PanelCommercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance ProgramThe Impact of Cruise Ship WastewaterDischarge on Alaska Waters November 2002213Table C27: 2000 PriorityPollutants for GraywaterAll unitsin ug/l or part per billion (ppb) except for CYANIDESample NameMethylene chlorideCadmiuim(TR)Chromium(TR)Copper (TR)Cyanide (total)mg/LLead (TR)Mercury (TR)Nickel (TR)Silver (TR)Zinc(TR)MDL1.20.0270.0760.0400.00160.0470.0500.180.0310.094Ballast tank 5S15046460Composite graywater260227.5560Composite# 4,6,1122001.5860Gray water accumulation tank 4Gray water composite(galley,accumulation,laundry)23021480Gray water galley tank 4Gray water overboard0.294622.50.330.3350Graywater composite0.48301203.421.4997.5770Graywater starboardGry 78 port180222.3750Gry accom4.8Gry ballast #63.2Gry comp1443203870.331844.92860Gry composite577102867641460Gry DHTS composite72046600Gry gal/accoGry galley41Gry galley #11Gry galley tank #115365062530Gry galley tank HGry HTS composite83044400Gry laundry67Gry pump accom.0.69Gry tank #213085340Gry tank 3C121500140540Gry tank 7 port and starboard150740Gry tank CGry Tank F1.1210330Grywtr 5 tank (composite)0.35480143.5Alaska Department of Environmental ConservationScience Advisory PanelCommercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance ProgramThe Impact of Cruise Ship WastewaterDischarge on Alaska Waters November 2002214Sample NameMethylene chlorideCadmiuim(TR)Chromium(TR)Copper (TR)Cyanide (total)mg/LLead (TR)Mercury (TR)Nickel (TR)Silver (TR)Zinc(TR)MDL1.20.0270.0760.0400.00160.0470.0500.180.0310.094Grywtr laundry roomGrywtr shaft tankGrywtr stabilizer port tankMain graywaterStarboard graywaterAlaska Department of Environmental ConservationScience Advisory PanelCommercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance ProgramThe Impact of Cruise Ship WastewaterDischarge on Alaska Waters November 2002215Table C28: 2000 PriorityPollutants for GraywaterAll units in ug/l or part per billion (ppb)Sample NameEthylbenzeneNaphthaleneToluenePhenolHeptachlorBis(2-Ethylhexyl)PhthalateButylbenzylPhthalateDiethylPhthalateDimethylPhthalateDi-N-ButylPhthalateAcenaPhtheneFluoranTheneFluorenePhenanThreneMDL0.370.200.510.850.150.670.370.530.491.40.470.520.440.53Ballast tank 5S0.77173.72.5Composite graywater1031.1Composite# 4,6,1111Gray water accommodation tank 4Gray water composite mixed1.16.5Gray water galley tank 4Gray water overboard32Graywater composite2.9151.65.88.4Graywater port1.61.4Graywater starboard2.61.7Gry 78 port0.530.47201.14.52.21.4Gry accom11.41Gry ballast #61.51.3Gry comp0.0821831.2138.1Gry composite1.21129.612.810.3Gry DHTS composite33565.37.71.24.13.1Gry gal/accoGry galley1.3Gry galley #111.15.8Gry galley tank #113.76.33.3Gry galley tank HGry HTS composite511.18.56.8Gry laundryGry pump accom.2.81.7Gry tank #2205.82.1Gry tank 3C0.687.63.63.3Gry tank 7 port and starboard0.683.114113Gry tank C0.59Gry Tank F13151.11.6Grywtr 5 tank (composite)2.2190.619.7Grywtr laundry room241.7Grywtr shaft tank1Alaska Department of Environmental ConservationScience Advisory PanelCommercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance ProgramThe Impact of Cruise Ship WastewaterDischarge on Alaska Waters November 2002216Sample NameEthylbenzeneNaphthaleneToluenePhenolHeptachlorBis(2-Ethylhexyl)PhthalateButylbenzylPhthalateDiethylPhthalateDimethylPhthalateDi-N-ButylPhthalateAcenaPhtheneFluoranTheneFluorenePhenanThreneMDL0.370.200.510.850.150.670.370.530.491.40.470.520.440.53Grywtr stabilizer port tankMain graywaterAlaska Department of Environmental ConservationScience Advisory PanelCommercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance ProgramThe Impact of Cruise Ship WastewaterDischarge on Alaska Waters November 2002217Table C29:2000 Large Ships Priority Pollutantsfor Blackwater (inalphabetical order)All units in ug/l or parts per billion (ppb)TypeSampleDate1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane1,2-Dichlorobenzene1,2-Dichloroethane1,3-Dichlorobenzene1,4-Dichlorobenzene2,4,6-Trichlorophenol2-Nitrophenol4-NitrophenolAlphaBhcBis(2-Ethylhexyl)PhthalateBromodichloromethaneBromoformButylbenzylphthalateCarbonTetrachloride0.440.420.740.440.570.380.560.150.003520.670.460.630.370.3408-Sep-001.11.51.114-Sep-000.75171.120-Sep-006.56.31621-Sep-002.823.7HT21-Sep-008.81.71.1MSD11-Aug-001.915-Aug-0023.318-Aug-001.21.91.91.222-Aug-001.5189525-Aug-005.41.106-Sep-000.970.14182813-Sep-00771704.214-Sep-000.891.411014215-Sep-000.972.3436.118-Sep-005.93903803503.26.21804405.820-Sep-000.665.153801.622-Sep-00190252726-Sep-007.71.829-Aug-001.23.63.630RO02-Sep-001.94.110-Sep-001.21.3Alaska Department of Environmental ConservationScience Advisory PanelCommercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance ProgramThe Impact of Cruise Ship WastewaterDischarge on Alaska Waters November 2002218Table C30: 2000 Large Ships Priority Pollutants for Blackwater (in alphabetical order)All units in ug/l or parts per billion (ppb), except for TOTAL CYANIDETypeSampleDateCadmium(TR)CarbontetrachlorideChloroFormChromium (TR)Copper(TR)cyanide(total)mg/ldeltabhcDibromoChloromethaneDiethylphthalatedi-n-butylphthalatedi-n-octylphthalateEndosulphansulfateEthylbenzeneLead(TR)MDL0.0270.341.30.0760.0400.00160.0040.210.531.40.320.003820.370.047DB15-Aug-003.108-Sep-000.795100.0683014-Sep-00151503.72.520-Sep-006.75302.73.90.8721-Sep-001039000.998.2HT21-Sep-001364003.32.10.9216MSD11-Aug-0036015-Aug-000.432.92102.70.9318-Aug-001.6501.44.822-Aug-00211856025402325-Aug-000.26181.5150511.806-Sep-0020530190.073180.0352713-Sep-004.2210240738814-Sep-002140170633.21815-Sep-0020076016218-Sep-005.8380147100282702.71.24.720-Sep-001.6931936026563.121-Sep-001.6251302.622-Sep-002715008826-Sep-000.243.7542.1Alaska Department of Environmental ConservationScience Advisory PanelCommercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance ProgramThe Impact of Cruise Ship WastewaterDischarge on Alaska Waters November 2002219TypeSampleDateCadmium(TR)CarbontetrachlorideChloroFormChromium (TR)Copper(TR)cyanide(total)mg/ldeltabhcDibromoChloromethaneDiethylphthalatedi-n-butylphthalatedi-n-octylphthalateEndosulphansulfateEthylbenzeneLead(TR)MDL0.0270.341.30.0760.0400.00160.0040.210.531.40.320.003820.370.047OB11-Aug-001.229-Aug-001552740131.69.80.5350RO02-Sep-004.810-Sep-004.11.1Alaska Department of Environmental ConservationScience Advisory PanelCommercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance ProgramThe Impact of Cruise Ship WastewaterDischarge on Alaska Waters November 2002220Table C31: 2000 Large Ships Priority Pollutants for Blackwater (in alphabetical order)TypeSample DateMercury(TR)MethylbromideMethylchlorideMethylenechlorideNickel (TR)PhenanThrenePhenolSilver(TR)TetrachloroetheneTolueneTrichloroetheneZinc (TR)0.0501.21.22.30.0360.530.850.0310.230.510.510.094DB08-Sep-000.93250120014-Sep-00462300.777146020-Sep-00142330.691.353021-Sep-000.3160390HT21-Sep-000.84172.11800MSD11-Aug-00130.7617015-Aug-001.8290.5939018-Aug-000.2721022-Aug-0025110025-Aug-001300.1835006-Sep-00411.9100013-Sep-000.6758014-Sep-009.41.580015-Sep-000.240.7318-Sep-000.2671604227.62.261020-Sep-000.231.88962021-Sep-000.3710070022-Sep-008126-Sep-00240250OB29-Aug-001.9140RO02-Sep-000.58710-Sep-002.1Alaska Department of Environmental ConservationScience Advisory PanelCommercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance ProgramThe Impact of Cruise Ship WastewaterDischarge on Alaska Waters November 2002221Table C32: Large Ships Conventional Pollutants MinimumsWaste TypeUnitsAmmoniaMg/LPHBODMg/LCODMg/LTSSMg/LT ClMg/LFECALMPNCONDUCTUmhos/cmFREE CLMg/LSampleDateSample FromMDL0.160.11.00.30.10.121.00.12000MSDTreated BW17.64.6495102000.051not taken0.052000Ballast tankBW&GW0.19572130400.051not taken0.052000Collecting tanksGW mixed0.123.840170370.0530not taken0.052000Collecting tanksGW laundry0.00836.718040.051not taken0.052000Collecting tanksGW laundryAccommodation0.616.758240300.051Not taken0.052000Collecting tanksGW Galley0.0083.71125210.055Not taken0.052000Collecting tanksGW accommodation0.887.821013401100.059Not taken0.052001Ballast tanksGW Accommodation0.014.2097240310.0513060.052001Collecting tanksGW Accommodation0.255.34221002000.051960.052001Collecting tanksGW Galley0.214.183240300.05Not taken2600.052001Ballast tankGW Galley0.013.6814521460.052300005090.052001Ballast tankGW mixed0.014.7713017440.30.05649,9942960.052001Ballast tankGW laundry0.134.2075268150.05480001530.052001Collecting tankGW laundryNot taken7.649340200.05306470.052001Collecting tankGW mixed0.3015.255.8144180.0511740.052001TreatmentGW/BW mixed0.1713.960.501.70.70.05112.20.05Geo Mean all0.114.6844.58160.3027.500.0523.131840.05Geo Mean Collecting0.0304.33140.85237.6532.180.0514832900.05Geo Mean Ballast0.134.9938.35187.7030.400.053.772300.05Alaska Department of Environmental ConservationScience Advisory PanelCommercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance ProgramThe Impact of Cruise Ship WastewaterDischarge on Alaska Waters November 2002222Table C33: Large Ships Conventional Pollutants MaximumsWaste TypeUnitsAmmoniaMg/LpHBODMg/LCODMg/LTSSMg/LT ClMg/LFecalMPN/100mlConductUmhos/cmFree ClMg/LSampleDateSample FromMDL0.160.11.00.30.10.121.00.12000MSDTreated BW7308.73201400148091400000not taken3.332000Ballast tanksBW&GW2008.365010303801.316000000not taken0.752000Collecting tanksGW mixed26.910.311201570030001.216000000not taken3.52000Collecting tanksGW laundry1010.5290131042018000not taken0.82000Collecting tanksGW laundryAccommodation457.3692402002.8230not taken0.42000Collecting tanksGW galley119.537030690802940049000000not taken42000Collecting tanksGWaccommodation49950013408001.51200not taken0.052001Ballast tanksGWaccommodation0.837.701,0002,30024014.00160000004,32014.002001Collecting tanksGWaccommodation1.099.804,2305,6502,88070.00160000004,22050.002001Collecting tanksGW galley9.2710.20590064002520100Not taken3300352001Ballast tanksGW galley1.384.8158724045123.31530000028703.02001Ballast tanksGW mixed1.927.019369823650.05170000030,5000.052001Ballast tanksGW laundry7.359.9140026007431.20240000033601.02001Collecting tanksGW laundryNot taken9.2150960242.003097402.002001Collecting tanksGW mixed0.7399.81920310047704.001600000039701.802001Treatment tanksGW/BW mixed17.97.553.4411.50.7560404001.4GeoMean10.498.57712.771793.995473.2827187767121.78GeoMeanBallast11.547.55869.641652.415151.79530827359701.32GeoMeanCollecting tank9.149.461129.093321.2411944.708384348172.24

# 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 gr ay 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

after df after df after df Summary data after applying

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 sh ips, 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 sh ips, 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 sh ips, 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 En vironmental Compliance Program

Review and Comment Regarding Whole Effluent Toxicity Test Results for Five Commerc ial Passenger Vessels in Alaska July 2002



# 232 

# Appendix 8

Whole Effluent Toxicity Tests

# Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation Science Advisory Panel Commercial Passenger Vessel En vironmental Compliance Program

Review and Comment Regarding Whole Effluent Toxicity Test Results for Five Commerc ial Passenger Vessels in Alaska July 2002



# 233 Science Advisory Panel



# for

Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation Commercial Passenger Vessel En vironmental 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 commerci al passenger vessel e ffluents indicate that acute or chronic toxic effects on marine orga nisms 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 concentrati on (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 exce ss chlorine is the mostly li kely cause of the observed

toxicities.

These test results suggest tradeoffs between disinfection and chlori ne toxicity and the difficulty of optimizing the amount of chlo rine 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 En vironmental Compliance Program

Review and Comment Regarding Whole Effluent Toxicity Test Results for Five Commerc ial Passenger Vessels in Alaska July 2002



# 234 Methodology

Six different effluent samples from five different cruise sh ips operating in Alaska waters were taken and analyzed for whole effluent toxicity (WET) in July 2002. The sampling events were arranged and scheduled in advan ce. 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 a ll test acceptability criteria, and fulfilled the requirements of th e quality assurance (QA) plan. The laboratory conducting the testing was certified by th e Washington Department of Ecology for conducting WET tests. Observations of c onventional 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 th e high initial dilution rates associated with moving cruise ships, the diluti on series started at 50% effl uent and increased by a factor of 10 in each step such that the percent e ffluent 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 establ ished testing protocols. Each effluent was tested using two different species for acute te sts (where lethality wa s the effect measured) and using two different species for chroni c tests (where sub-lethal effects were measured).

Validity of the test

The Science Advisory Panel has reviewed the Whole Effluent Toxicity study results 48


# (hereafter called the Study) and a separate laboratory analysis of the conventional and priority pollutant concentrations of each sample 49 

# . 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 En vironmental Compliance Program

Review and Comment Regarding Whole Effluent Toxicity Test Results for Five Commerc ial Passenger Vessels in Alaska July 2002



# 235 Numbers represent the highest effluent con centration at which the tests exhibited no

observable acute or chronic effects. Values in parentheses show di lution ratios associated with the no observed effect concentrations (NOEC).

Whole Effluent Toxicity Test Results

No Observed Effect Concentr ation (NOEC) in % Effluent

Vessel Treatment System Mysid

Acute

NOEC Topsmelt

Acute

NOEC Bivalve

Larvae

NOEC Echinoderm

Fertilization

NOEC

5 5 0.5 0.5 Dawn

Princess Graywater Chlorine added to

collection tanks (1:20) (1:20) (1:200) (1:200)

50 50 50 50 Mercury

Mixed

Effluent Reverse Osmosis (1:2) (1:2) (>1:2) (1:2)

50 5 5 5 Volendam

Mixed

Effluent 

# Aerated

Membrane
(Ultrafiltration) (1:2) (1:20) (1:20) (1:20)

5 5 5 0.5 Kennicott

Mixed

Effluent Macerator/

Chlorinator (1:20) (1:20) (1:20) (1:200)

0.5 0.5 0.5 0.05 Yorktown Clipper Graywater Chlorine injection (1:200) (1:200) (1:200) (1:2000)

50 50 50 50 Yorktown 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 constitu ents. WET testing addresses the effect that simultaneous exposure to a mixture of polluta nts 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 concentra tion. The Volendam sample demonstrated an effect at 50% (one part seaw ater to one part wastewater) for the Topsmelt acute and both chronic test species. The Dawn Princess a nd 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 En vironmental Compliance Program

Review and Comment Regarding Whole Effluent Toxicity Test Results for Five Commerc ial 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

rates 1 

# . Because the greatest chronic toxicity measurement was observed from a small ship which discharges continuously (Yorktown C lipper graywater), attaining the necessary dilution might be a concern.

The chronic toxicity of the Yorktown Cli pper 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 chlo rine concentrations support the NOEC measured for these two vessels, wh ere effects were observed at lower

concentrations than those of other vessels and effluents. The observed toxicity of the Dawn Princess graywater is not readily expl ained. There was no resi dual 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 t oxicity of the Yorktown Clipper blackwater sample. When the sample was drawn, it was evident that the treatment system was not functioning prope rly. 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 toxi city at the highest concentration (50%).

Conclusions of the Science Advisory Panel

The bioassay (WET test) conducted by AMEC Ea rth & Environmental on behalf of the Alaska Department of Environmental Conser vation is valid and useful to the Panel’s study of the potential for impacts or effect s 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 efflue nt from this small cruise ship could be a concern if the effluent was discharged wh en moored, drifting or at anchor because dilution benefits are greatly reduced at such times.

The effluents from the vessel employing reve rse osmosis advanced treatment technology (Mercury) would not be expect ed to impart observable effects on marine organisms if discharged in port.

The effluents from the vessel employing u ltrafiltration advanced treatment technology (Volendam) would not be expected to impa rt 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 En vironmental Compliance Program

Review and Comment Regarding Whole Effluent Toxicity Test Results for Five Commerc ial Passenger Vessels in Alaska July 2002



# 237 mixing rate is easily achieved for large cruise ships, given the disc harge velocity required to overcome the static head pressure at the depth of the discharge port 50



# .

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 At mospheric 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 At mospheric 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

50m 3 

# /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 En vironmental Compliance Program

Review and Comment Regarding Whole Effluent Toxicity Test Results for Five Commerc ial 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 constituen ts. In WET testing, impact of a discharge

stream on the environment can be evaluated in terms of its shor t (acute) or long-term (chronic) lethal or reproductiv e 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 te st, 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 fo r the duration of the test. In a flow through test, the test organisms are continuous ly 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 obser vable effect concentration (NOEC) and a lowest observable effect concentration (LOE C) based on whether there is a statistical difference between controls and test samples. Additionally, a leth al 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 specifie d percentage of the test organisms over the observation time. An example of how the LC is expressed would be a "48-hr LC 50 

# ." 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 expr esses the response of the organism to a toxicant based upon body weight or dilution. Th e 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 afte r 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 con centrations 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 LC 50 

# that represents "virtually no mortality." However, the reported acute NOECs are sufficient for our evaluation. The

acute NOECs varied from 50% to 0.5% effl uent. The lowest acute NOEC of 0.5% was for a heavily chlorinated effluent. Note th at a 0.5% effluent con centration is attained after a dilution factor of only 200. Discharg es from moving cruise ships attain much greater dilutions and acute whole effluent to xicity 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 En vironmental Compliance Program

Review and Comment Regarding Whole Effluent Toxicity Test Results for Five Commerc ial Passenger Vessels in Alaska July 2002



# 239 The chronic bioassay results have NOECs va rying from 50% to 0.05% effluent. Alaska has a water quality standard of 1 chronic toxic unit (TU

c 

# ). 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 TU

c 

# standard is to be applied. The chronic toxic units actually are the same as the amount of dilution needed to

meet the 1 TU

c 

# standard.

For large cruise ships traveling at a speed of at least 6 knots, a dilution factor of 50,000 is

considered reasonable and conser vative. For small cruise ship s also traveli ng at 6 knots it may be around 37,500. It is clear that as soon as effluent is entr ained 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 e ither 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 chlo rinated discharges are

not released while the vessels are stationary, or (preferably) traveling at less than 6 knots.240Appendix 9Mussel ContaminantsThe Impact of Cruise Ship WastewaterDischarge on Alaska Waters November 2002241Table D-1a: PAH Values in Alaskan MusselsSEQ248249250254257MeanAlaskaMedianMinMaxSTDEVnSiteKTMPNBESPVMCUISBCIHSYear20012001200120012001SampleNST0854NST0863NST0856NST0855NST0859Unit: ppb (ug/kg) dwNaphthalene8.6014.1011.9011.7010.2011.3011.708.6014.102.055C1-Naphthalenes4.106.106.606.005.605.686.004.106.600.955C2-Naphthalenes3.705.005.304.907.105.205.003.707.101.225C3-Naphthalenes2.000.000.000.008.402.080.000.008.403.645C4-Naphthalenes0.000.000.000.0012.502.500.000.0012.505.595Biphenyl1.903.103.204.602.303.023.101.904.601.045Acenaphthylene0.400.900.400.300.600.520.400.300.900.245Acenaphthene0.601.600.400.701.600.980.700.401.600.585Fluorene0.701.100.700.701.801.000.700.701.800.485C1-Fluorenes0.000.000.000.004.100.820.000.004.101.835C2-Fluorenes0.000.000.000.005.401.080.000.005.402.415C3-Fluorenes0.000.000.000.004.000.800.000.004.001.795Phenanthrene6.3021.0010.402.5013.1010.6610.402.5021.007.055Anthracene0.201.700.200.401.100.720.400.201.700.665C1-Phenanthrenes/Anthracenes2.505.305.101.805.904.125.101.805.901.845C2-Phenanthrenes/Anthracenes0.000.000.000.007.001.400.000.007.003.135C3-Phenanthrenes/Anthracenes0.000.000.000.003.800.760.000.003.801.705C4-Phenanthrenes/Anthracenes0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.005Dibenzothiophene0.300.700.900.300.800.600.700.300.900.285The Impact of Cruise Ship WastewaterDischarge on Alaska Waters November 2002242SEQ248249250254257MeanAlaskaMedianMinMaxSTDEVnSiteKTMPNBESPVMCUISBCIHSYear20012001200120012001SampleNST0854NST0863NST0856NST0855NST0859Unit: ppb (ug/kg) dwC1-Dibenzothiophenes0.000.001.700.002.500.840.000.002.501.185C2-Dibenzothiophenes0.000.003.100.004.301.480.000.004.302.075C3-Dibenzothiophenes0.000.000.000.001.800.360.000.001.800.805Fluoranthene2.7011.603.600.506.304.943.600.5011.604.265Pyrene1.103.301.500.305.802.401.500.305.802.205C1-Fluoranthenes/Pyrenes1.505.100.000.002.601.841.500.005.102.135Benzo(a)anthracene1.205.901.300.201.201.961.200.205.902.255Chrysene4.109.705.201.002.104.424.101.009.703.385C1-Chrysenes0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.005C2-Chrysenes0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.005C3-Chrysenes0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.005C4-Chrysenes0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.005Benzo(b)fluoranthene0.003.200.000.000.000.640.000.003.201.435Benzo(k)fluoranthene0.004.400.000.000.000.880.000.004.401.975Benzo(e)pyrene1.402.100.000.000.000.700.000.002.100.995Benzo(a)pyrene0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.005Perylene0.000.000.004.706.802.300.000.006.803.245Indeno(1,2,3-c,d)pyrene0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.005Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.0052-Methylnaphthalene3.905.706.005.705.605.385.703.906.000.8451-Methylnaphthalene2.403.604.103.402.903.283.402.404.100.655The Impact of Cruise Ship WastewaterDischarge on Alaska Waters November 2002243SEQ248249250254257MeanAlaskaMedianMinMaxSTDEVnSiteKTMPNBESPVMCUISBCIHSYear20012001200120012001SampleNST0854NST0863NST0856NST0855NST0859Unit: ppb (ug/kg) dw2,6-Dimethylnaphthalene1.601.602.201.703.202.061.701.603.200.685Benzo(g,h,i)perylene0.400.400.000.000.000.160.000.000.400.2251,6,7-Trimethylnaphthalene0.300.000.600.401.700.600.400.001.700.6551-Methylphenanthrene0.601.101.200.602.001.101.100.602.000.575NS&T TPAH44.00106.0062.0041.00129.0076.4062.0041.00129.0039.225TPAH (44)52.50118.3075.6052.40144.1088.5875.6052.40144.1041.065FFPI numerator28.2053.3045.7027.9098.3050.6845.7027.9098.3028.835FFPI (52/51)0.540.450.600.530.680.560.540.450.680.095The Impact of Cruise Ship WastewaterDischarge on Alaska Waters November 2002244Table D-1b: PAH Values in West Coast MusselsMeanWestMedianMinMaxSTDEVCountRatio AK to West CoastMeanUnit: ppb (ug/kg) dwNaphthalene16.7011.605.4017422.51580.68C1-Naphthalenes15.807.352.4034845.70580.36C2-Naphthalenes14.935.130.0036047.33580.35C3-Naphthalenes13.693.600.0024133.62580.15C4-Naphthalenes10.362.950.008718.50580.24Biphenyl7.483.501.5018824.38580.40Acenaphthylene4.301.000.00609.71580.12Acenaphthene27.501.280.001060141.28580.04Fluorene38.921.900.401600211.32580.03C1-Fluorenes11.150.000.0030441.40580.07C2-Fluorenes14.100.000.0019434.23580.08C3-Fluorenes16.600.000.0022038.22580.05Phenanthrene191.9420.152.906140817.59580.06Anthracene28.452.500.00737102.06580.03C1-Phenanthrenes/Anthracenes81.609.880.001870258.90580.05C2-Phenanthrenes/Anthracenes66.5010.250.00952151.47580.02C3-Phenanthrenes/Anthracenes41.177.600.0042778.73580.02C4-Phenanthrenes/Anthracenes12.000.000.0010723.44580.00Dibenzothiophene13.461.300.2047362.51580.04C1-Dibenzothiophenes10.341.600.0018027.85580.08C2-Dibenzothiophenes18.863.300.0023640.62580.08The Impact of Cruise Ship WastewaterDischarge on Alaska Waters November 2002245MeanWestMedianMinMaxSTDEVCountRatio AK to West CoastMeanUnit: ppb (ug/kg) dwC3-Dibenzothiophenes18.291.380.0015735.30580.02Fluoranthene325.4920.600.5072501022.76580.02Pyrene192.6216.500.304290602.10580.01C1-Fluoranthenes/Pyrenes118.619.650.002620370.69580.02Benzo(a)anthracene113.275.650.303370453.42580.02Chrysene148.0416.001.003240449.65580.03C1-Chrysenes55.532.350.001520205.81580.00C2-Chrysenes14.400.000.0035950.12580.00C3-Chrysenes0.820.000.00354.70580.00C4-Chrysenes0.170.000.0060.91580.00Benzo(b)fluoranthene75.385.550.001680238.12580.01Benzo(k)fluoranthene83.695.400.002410323.18580.01Benzo(e)pyrene63.787.500.001480203.39580.01Benzo(a)pyrene27.321.100.00814110.34580.00Perylene14.025.350.0026836.59580.16Indeno(1,2,3-c,d)pyrene12.971.850.0033545.04580.00Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene3.170.250.008911.89580.00Benzo(g,h,i)perylene9.842.600.0020527.74580.022-Methylnaphthalene18.197.852.4037950.47580.301-Methylnaphthalene6.942.951.3018123.52580.472,6-Dimethylnaphthalene7.732.400.9020226.50580.271,6,7-Trimethylnaphthalene2.580.800.20405.89580.23The Impact of Cruise Ship WastewaterDischarge on Alaska Waters November 2002246MeanWestMedianMinMaxSTDEVCountRatio AK to West CoastMeanUnit: ppb (ug/kg) dw1-Methylphenanthrene12.841.850.0028839.31580.09TPAH (44)1981.54251.1334.80466986357580.04FFPI numerator664.34119.5520.70155132094580.08FFPI (52/51)0.450.450.160.880.16581.24NS&T TPAH1933.30231.0528.40456086218580.04The Impact of Cruise Ship WastewaterDischarge on Alaska Waters November 2002247Table D-2a: Organic Compounds in Alaska MusselsSEQ248249250254257SITEKTMPNBESPVMCUISBCIHSGeneral LocKetchikanSkagwayPort ValdezUnakwik InletCook InletSpecificMountainPointEast SideMineralCreek FLatsSiwash BayHomer SpitLAT55.30159.45661.13660.95659.624LONG131.558135.339146.463147.658151.451Sample NameNST0854NST0863NST0856NST0855NST0859Coll Date3/28/20014/19/20013/3/20013/29/20014/8/2001YEAR20012001200120012001AlaskaAlaskaAlaskaAlaskaAlaskaAlaskaUnit: ppb or ug/kg (ng/g) dwMeanMedianMinMaxStdevn% Dry16.9512.1112.1613.7314.2913.8513.7312.1116.951.985% Moisture83.0587.8987.8486.2785.7186.1586.2783.0587.891.985% Lipid Based (dry)4.764.352.623.543.993.853.992.624.760.825% Lipid Based (wet)0.810.530.320.490.570.540.530.320.810.185Aldrin0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.005Dieldrin0.330.850.230.390.380.440.380.230.850.245Endrin0.000.120.000.000.000.020.000.000.120.055Heptachlor0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.005Heptachlor-Epoxide0.160.360.230.200.190.230.200.160.360.085Oxychlordane0.080.490.000.000.100.130.080.000.490.205Alpha-Chlordane0.330.730.230.300.380.390.330.230.730.195Gamma-Chlordane0.080.240.120.100.100.130.100.080.240.075Trans-Nonachlor0.240.850.230.200.380.380.240.200.850.275Cis-Nonachlor0.080.360.120.100.000.130.100.000.360.145The Impact of Cruise Ship WastewaterDischarge on Alaska Waters November 2002248SEQ248249250254257SITEKTMPNBESPVMCUISBCIHSGeneral LocKetchikanSkagwayPort ValdezUnakwik InletCook InletSpecificMountainPointEast SideMineralCreek FLatsSiwash BayHomer SpitLAT55.30159.45661.13660.95659.624LONG131.558135.339146.463147.658151.451Sample NameNST0854NST0863NST0856NST0855NST0859Coll Date3/28/20014/19/20013/3/20013/29/20014/8/2001YEAR20012001200120012001AlaskaAlaskaAlaskaAlaskaAlaskaAlaskaUnit: ppb or ug/kg (ng/g) dwMeanMedianMinMaxStdevnAlpha-HCH1.061.210.930.991.141.071.060.931.210.115Beta-HCH0.730.730.000.590.860.580.730.000.860.345Delta-HCH0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.005Gamma-HCH0.330.490.230.390.480.380.390.230.490.1152,4'-DDD0.000.490.000.000.000.100.000.000.490.2254,4'-DDD0.410.490.350.300.380.380.380.300.490.0752,4'-DDE0.160.240.120.100.190.160.160.100.240.0654,4'-DDE0.411.210.350.200.290.490.350.201.210.4152,4'-DDT0.160.610.230.200.190.280.200.160.610.1954,4'-DDT0.000.240.120.100.100.110.100.000.240.0951,2,3,4-Tetrachlorobenzene0.080.000.000.300.100.090.080.000.300.1251,2,4,5-Tetrachlorobenzene0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.005Hexachlorobenzene0.490.970.580.490.480.600.490.480.970.215Pentachloroanisole0.240.240.230.200.290.240.240.200.290.035Pentachlorobenzene0.080.120.000.100.100.080.100.000.120.055The Impact of Cruise Ship WastewaterDischarge on Alaska Waters November 2002249SEQ248249250254257SITEKTMPNBESPVMCUISBCIHSGeneral LocKetchikanSkagwayPort ValdezUnakwik InletCook InletSpecificMountainPointEast SideMineralCreek FLatsSiwash BayHomer SpitLAT55.30159.45661.13660.95659.624LONG131.558135.339146.463147.658151.451Sample NameNST0854NST0863NST0856NST0855NST0859Coll Date3/28/20014/19/20013/3/20013/29/20014/8/2001YEAR20012001200120012001AlaskaAlaskaAlaskaAlaskaAlaskaAlaskaUnit: ppb or ug/kg (ng/g) dwMeanMedianMinMaxStdevnEndosulfan II0.080.240.120.100.100.130.100.080.240.075Endosulfan I0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.005Endosulfan Sulfate0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.005Mirex0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.005Chlorpyrifos0.000.730.700.300.290.400.300.000.730.315PCB8/50.000.850.930.590.670.610.670.000.930.375PCB180.000.240.000.000.100.070.000.000.240.115PCB280.000.490.350.100.000.190.100.000.490.225PCB440.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.005PCB520.330.730.350.200.380.400.350.200.730.205PCB660.000.120.000.000.000.020.000.000.120.055PCB101/900.330.730.120.200.380.350.330.120.730.245PCB1050.160.240.120.100.100.140.120.100.240.065PCB1180.160.240.120.000.100.120.120.000.240.095PCB1280.080.000.000.000.000.020.000.000.080.045The Impact of Cruise Ship WastewaterDischarge on Alaska Waters November 2002250SEQ248249250254257SITEKTMPNBESPVMCUISBCIHSGeneral LocKetchikanSkagwayPort ValdezUnakwik InletCook InletSpecificMountainPointEast SideMineralCreek FLatsSiwash BayHomer SpitLAT55.30159.45661.13660.95659.624LONG131.558135.339146.463147.658151.451Sample NameNST0854NST0863NST0856NST0855NST0859Coll Date3/28/20014/19/20013/3/20013/29/20014/8/2001YEAR20012001200120012001AlaskaAlaskaAlaskaAlaskaAlaskaAlaskaUnit: ppb or ug/kg (ng/g) dwMeanMedianMinMaxStdevnPCB1380.571.210.460.300.570.620.570.301.210.355PCB153/132/1680.731.460.350.200.570.660.570.201.460.495PCB170/1900.410.851.160.590.380.680.590.381.160.335PCB1800.652.670.930.200.190.930.650.192.671.025PCB1870.160.240.120.100.100.140.120.100.240.065PCB195/2080.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.005PCB2060.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.005PCB2090.080.000.000.000.000.020.000.000.080.045Total HCH2.122.431.161.972.472.032.121.162.470.535Total Chlordane0.983.030.930.891.141.390.980.893.030.925Total DDT1.143.271.160.891.141.521.140.893.270.995Total PCB10.2224.2313.137.819.8913.0610.227.8124.236.535The Impact of Cruise Ship WastewaterDischarge on Alaska Waters November 2002251Table D-2b: Organic Compounds in West Coast MusselsUnit: ppb or ug/kg (ng/g) dwMeanMedianMinMaxStdevn% Dry15.7015.288.2822.162.9058% Moisture84.3084.7377.8491.722.9058% Lipid Based (dry)5.054.692.6813.151.8658% Lipid Based (wet)0.800.730.322.250.3558Aldrin0.03NA0.001.660.2258Dieldrin7.322.590.42183.8224.3458Endrin0.540.110.008.981.5858Heptachlor0.300.000.0013.521.7858Heptachlor-Epoxide0.760.680.003.050.5458Oxychlordane0.960.480.098.601.4158Alpha-Chlordane5.213.240.3644.166.6658Gamma-Chlordane3.721.250.0046.907.0858Trans-Nonachlor3.231.460.1830.555.0558Cis-Nonachlor1.750.750.0010.462.5958Alpha-HCH1.201.070.003.430.6958Beta-HCH0.890.720.143.920.6058Delta-HCH0.030.000.000.160.0558Gamma-HCH0.420.330.101.330.25582,4'-DDD3.031.350.0028.894.68584,4'-DDD6.271.730.2662.6110.93582,4'-DDE3.940.670.0051.639.70584,4'-DDE43.3210.741.16341.8676.76582,4'-DDT4.090.640.00152.0319.93584,4'-DDT6.880.950.00193.3526.62581,2,3,4-Tetrachlorobenzene0.040.000.000.520.09581,2,4,5-Tetrachlorobenzene0.150.000.003.210.6558Hexachlorobenzene0.640.370.0010.911.4158Pentachloroanisole1.341.090.304.130.8258Pentachlorobenzene0.240.090.002.020.4258Endosulfan II1.160.100.0018.313.3758The Impact of Cruise Ship WastewaterDischarge on Alaska Waters November 2002252Unit: ppb or ug/kg (ng/g) dwMeanMedianMinMaxStdevnEndosulfan I1.500.250.0018.503.7558Endosulfan Sulfate0.170.000.002.810.4558Mirex0.070.000.000.770.1558Chlorpyrifos0.390.270.003.780.6558PCB8/50.110.000.002.020.3658PCB180.590.230.005.171.0258PCB280.830.310.007.501.4958PCB441.410.530.0012.122.3258PCB524.952.930.0025.555.7758PCB661.880.610.0024.764.1658PCB101/907.552.670.3983.0114.8658PCB1051.800.670.0623.463.6658PCB1186.022.160.0674.4612.7158PCB1281.640.550.0020.233.4458PCB13811.154.270.32151.0224.9358PCB153/132/16816.786.710.58159.6529.5458PCB170/1901.921.320.109.451.8358PCB1805.543.470.2519.975.4358PCB1874.781.890.1050.229.4358PCB195/2080.000.000.000.150.0258PCB2060.060.000.001.720.2358PCB2090.080.000.000.860.1758Total HCH2.542.230.298.671.4458Total Chlordane15.929.341.51148.622.4758Total DDT64.9016.912.01491.5112.8758Total PCB148.6565.407.461429.4247.7258The Impact of Cruise Ship WastewaterDischarge on Alaska Waters November 2002253Table D-3a: Metals in Alaska Mussels during 2000 and 2001SEQ248249250254257MeanAllAllAllAllAllSITEKTMPNBESPVMCUISBCIHSAlaskaAlaskaAlaskaAlaskaAlaskaAKYEAR20012001200120012001MeanMedianMinMaxStdevnUnit: ppm (mg/kg) dwSilver (AG)0.9010.3010.6841.6960.1510.7470.6840.1511.6960.6095Aluminum (AL)62241114975610116447566211494755Arsenic (As)13.9012.0014.0015.0012.9013.5613.9012.0015.001.155Cadmium (CD)5.766.283.484.171.954.334.171.956.281.755Chromium (CR)0.380.712.096.011.212.081.210.386.012.295Copper (CU)7.177.317.5210.759.288.417.527.1710.751.565Iron (FE)1513861368774113376277415113685055Mercury (HG)0.0920.1160.0830.1540.1060.1100.1060.0830.1540.0285Manganese (MN)9.3714.1428.1225.8927.2020.9425.899.3728.128.595Nickel (NI)1.515.467.033.192.483.933.191.517.032.265Lead (PB)0.3721.7771.3461.0540.6541.0411.0540.3721.7770.5555Selenium (SE)4.645.743.738.094.325.304.643.738.091.725Tin (SN)0.2600.0670.9930.0720.0030.2790.0720.0030.9930.4115Zinc (ZN)91.466.848.2111.492.082.091.448.2111.424.65Monobutyltin MBT)0.003.722.270.000.001.200.000.003.721.725Dibutyltin DBT)0.008.965.570.002.143.332.140.008.963.885Tributyltin (TBT)2.787.107.432.934.604.974.602.787.432.225Tetrabutyltin (TetBT)0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.005Total Butyltins (Sum BT)2.7819.7815.272.936.749.506.742.7819.787.665The Impact of Cruise Ship WastewaterDischarge on Alaska Waters November 2002254Table D-3b: Metals in West Coast Mussels during 2000 and 2001SEQWestWestWestWestWestRatioSITECoastCoastCoastCoastCoastAK/WestYEARMeanMedianMinMaxStdevnUnit: ppm (mg/kg) dwSilver (AG)1.0100.6900.0316.4841.198580.74Aluminum (AL)506424291668377581.27Arsenic (As)11.6210.505.9030.804.32581.17Cadmium (CD)4.243.170.4315.562.89581.02Chromium (CR)3.102.941.0711.761.75580.67Copper (CU)9.108.783.6415.782.81580.92Iron (FE)679588552305492581.12Mercury (HG)0.1370.1120.0340.5010.086580.80Manganese (MN)23.9217.094.36145.5623.05580.88Nickel (NI)2.692.360.258.651.78581.46Lead (PB)1.4301.0120.1407.2781.309580.73Selenium (SE)4.303.852.1310.641.67581.23Tin (SN)0.2740.1640.0001.6590.387581.02Zinc (ZN)168.4166.670.1308.752.5580.49Monobutyltin MBT)1.950.000.0038.755.65580.61Dibutyltin DBT)9.893.110.0080.2318.38580.34Tributyltin (TBT)24.849.500.00188.5637.18580.20Tetrabutyltin (TetBT)0.000.000.000.000.0058NATotal Butyltins (Sum BT)36.6814.620.00277.6957.76580.26

# 255 

# Appendix 10

Marine Discharge Glossary

# The Impact of Cruise Ship Wastewat er Discharge on Alaska Waters Nov e



# 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 wast e, collected from shipboar d 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 mate rial 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 n th root of the product of a series of n numbers computed by taking the logarithm of each number, computing the arithmetic mean of the l ogarithms, 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 th at 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.