Dumping Waste Water in Alaska Ports. How Do You Feel?

Three of HAL's ships, the Statendam, Volendam and the Zaandam have received permits that allow them to dump waste water while tied up to port in Alaska. The Statendam, for instance, can discharge treated mix, black and grey water only.

You can read more about this here at this link: http://www.krbd.org/2015/06/16/six-cruise-ships-release-treated-sewage-into-harbors/

The list of cruise ships that have permits to discharge in Alaska can be found here: https://dec.alaska.gov/water/cruise_ships/gp/Auth_14.html

How do you feel knowing that these ships may be discharging its wastewater while you are tied up in port?

When treated to EPA standards the discharged waste water probably exceeds drinking water standards in many parts of the world.

When treated to EPA standards the discharged waste water probably exceeds drinking water standards in many parts of the world.

The ships have better processing than most cities that dump into the oceans.

If Alaska issues permits, I feel confident no danger to the environment exists. They rightfully are vigilant in keeping conditions as safe and clean as possible.

The water dumped over is not raw sewage. It is treated water. This is a regulated process and like any municipal waste water system on the east and west coast, it is also dumped into the ocean. Solid waste is separated and processed as ash.

What I am more worried about is not a cruise ship dumping their water, but the cargo ships. Those operate more in the gray area and less likely to care less what some small city or the US public opinion of them are.

Since Alaska has some of the strictest environmental laws plus penalties for violating them in the world, I feel fine, thank you

I believe that the permits are for discharge, not "dump' ing. Sloppy lawyers make me sad.

Three of HAL's ships, the Statendam, Volendam and the Zaandam have received permits that allow them to dump waste water while tied up to port in Alaska. The Statendam, for instance, can discharge treated mix, black and grey water only.

 

You can read more about this here at this link: http://www.krbd.org/2015/06/16/six-cruise-ships-release-treated-sewage-into-harbors/

 

The list of cruise ships that have permits to discharge in Alaska can be found here: https://dec.alaska.gov/water/cruise_ships/gp/Auth_14.html

 

How do you feel knowing that these ships may be discharging its wastewater while you are tied up in port?

Boy, must be a slow news day in Alaska, as this has been allowed for years. The ships that are permitted to discharge treated waste water while docked in Alaska all have advanced waste water treatment systems. In fact, most cruise ships today have these systems, but ships that don't call in Alaska, or only do so infrequently do not go through the expense of getting permitted.

An advanced waste water treatment plant, as fitted aboard a cruise ship takes all of the water used onboard (black water from toilets, gray water from sinks and showers, galley water, and laundry water) and processes it. I worked for 4 years on cruise ships maintaining these systems, and the effluent from them is virtually clean, pure drinking water. I routinely took a sample in a wineglass and showed new crew how clear it was. The only unpleasant thing about the water is the sulfur smell, but this is caused by the ultra-violet sterilizer the water passes through at the end, which kills all remaining bacteria, and when the bacteria die they release sulfur.

Due to the quantity of water used onboard, this treatment system discharges continually on a 24 hour basis. Hawaii did not want to go Alaska's route, so the NCL ships that sail there continuously must hold their water until out to sea, but the water is still tested for purity and could be discharged in port without harm should the state allow.

The water effluent is tested by third party testing laboratories for pollutants and bacteria count on a two weekly basis. Not only is the system monitored 24/7 by the ship's engineers for performance, the manufacturer can remotely access the system to check performance.

Most of the cruise ships go even further and incinerate the solid waste left over from the treatment system (mostly paper fibers from toilet paper which cannot be digested given the short treatment time) rather than pump it overboard as is allowed once out at sea.

In contrast, cargo ships must treat only their black water, and all gray water (soapy water from sinks, showers, galley and laundry) is allowed to go overboard untreated.

Why anyone would think that the state of Alaska would do anything to endanger their waters is beyond me. Cruise ships probably have one of the smallest footprints in the Alaskan environment of any industry there.

Since Alaska has some of the strictest environmental laws plus penalties for violating them in the world, I feel fine, thank you

Ding ding, we have a winner.

<snip>Boy, must be a slow news day in Alaska, as this has been allowed for years. The ships that are permitted to discharge treated waste water while docked in Alaska all have advanced waste water treatment systems. In fact, most cruise ships today have these systems, but ships that don't call in Alaska, or only do so infrequently do not go through the expense of getting permitted.

 

Thanks for this. I wondered why permits were only issued for 3 of HAL's ships, when many more sail in Alaska. Perhaps HAL just didn't want to go through the expense of getting other ships permitted?

Thanks for this. I wondered why permits were only issued for 3 of HAL's ships, when many more sail in Alaska. Perhaps HAL just didn't want to go through the expense of getting other ships permitted?

Honestly?

As much of the money is spent in Alaska.... I totally support this plan. It's better than dumping in Canada.

Since Alaska has some of the strictest environmental laws plus penalties for violating them in the world, I feel fine, thank you

I agree.. Cruise ships pumping clean waste water is no problem at all..

The problem lies with some smaller boaters who anchor in our Bays /Canals & dump their waste in the middle of the night!:mad::mad:

I have a far bigger problem with Victoria B.C.'s lack of proper sewage treatment for their city, their last big improvement several years ago was to make the discharge pipe longer in the strait of juan de fuca. I do not choose to get off cruise ships at that port to spend any of my money there, will drive up to Vancouver, but [personally] will not visit Victoria until they get a sewage treatment plant that does more than pump raw sewage into the sound. I have no issue with cruise ships in AK waters.

I think it's a non-issue. No problem with it at all.

As long as those 3 HAL (hopefully more in the future) I have no problems with HAL dumping waste water in Alaska.

Thanks for this. I wondered why permits were only issued for 3 of HAL's ships, when many more sail in Alaska. Perhaps HAL just didn't want to go through the expense of getting other ships permitted?

Also, if you looked at the list of ships permitted, they were all licensed in 2015, while these same ships, probably others, and most likely many more, were permitted for many years before this, under the older, stricter permits. Under the old license, water was taken from a sample point in the ship just before the treated water went overboard. Now, a water sample can be taken in the harbor, up to 90 meters away from the ship's discharge to "show what is actually happening in the "mixing zone"". This distant sampling is what was allowed for municipalities and industries ashore for years, but the cruise ships were held to a stricter standard. The new ruling places everyone on a level footing. Personally, I don't agree with the new rule, the ships were capable of meeting the older, stricter, standard and should continue to do so. I doubt whether the performance of the ships' systems have been changed to meet a lesser standard, but I believe that the shoreside discharges should be brought up to meet the standards met by the cruise ships' investments in treatment plants.

And who is treating the discharge from Orcas, Bears, Moose, etc.? ALL warm blooded creatures can harbor fecal coliform. As has been stated, the cruise ships discharge is of little consequence. Run off from paved roads and golf courses is much more damaging to the environment.

Boy, must be a slow news day in Alaska, as this has been allowed for years.

 

Why anyone would think that the state of Alaska would do anything to endanger their waters is beyond me. Cruise ships probably have one of the smallest footprints in the Alaskan environment of any industry there.

Thank you for adding a post with facts and data rather than someone trying to stir the pot with negative reactive information.

I lived in Alaska for 8 years and found the regulations to be the very best for the environment - contrary to what you hear on the news today...... A few years ago, one news station even went so far as to Photoshop a picture of the pipeline with trash and junk all around it. It hit the fan when a resident identified the location and supplied another picture of what it really looked like (not a speck of trash to be found).

NW Gardener - I totally agree with your comments on the sewage issue in Victoria. When we go boating in the San Juan Islands or Gulf Islands in Canada, we wouldn't even dream of crabbing or trying to dig clams!

I remember Mr. Floatie!

[YOUTUBE]W-NWbzB3ut0[/YOUTUBE] [YOUTUBE]I3sj8CxOPH8[/YOUTUBE]

Since Alaska has some of the strictest environmental laws plus penalties for violating them in the world, I feel fine, thank you

Me too!

I remember Mr. Floatie!

[YOUTUBE]W-NWbzB3ut0[/YOUTUBE] [YOUTUBE]I3sj8CxOPH8[/YOUTUBE]

Thank you for the afternoon laugh of the day! I had never seen these videos before but to think that a candidate would ignore the real issue of putting in a treatment plant is just crazy.

That "crap" comes across the Straits of Juan De Fuca right on to the coast of Washington and to say that we aren't pleased is an understatement. What civilized country dumps their waste directly into the ocean without first being in a full treatment facility? I may love much about Canada and have many relatives there but Victoria is the exception. Until they clean up their sewer mess, I won't spend a dime there.

Where is the public outcry about this situation?

Karen

I have a far bigger problem with Victoria B.C.'s lack of proper sewage treatment for their city, their last big improvement several years ago was to make the discharge pipe longer in the strait of juan de fuca. I do not choose to get off cruise ships at that port to spend any of my money there, will drive up to Vancouver, but [personally] will not visit Victoria until they get a sewage treatment plant that does more than pump raw sewage into the sound. I have no issue with cruise ships in AK waters.

Victoria and Vancouver Island with over 800,000 residents discharge their raw sewerage into Puget Sound and contaminate the waters of the Strait of Juan De Fuca and all of northern Puget sound down to Seattle. All of the cities in Western Washington discharge their treated sewage into Puget Sound. Why are some people making a big deal about the cruise ships discharging their treated sewage into the ocean at the Alaska Ports. All of the Alaska cities do the same.

I have a far bigger problem with Victoria B.C.'s lack of proper sewage treatment for their city, their last big improvement several years ago was to make the discharge pipe longer in the strait of juan de fuca. I do not choose to get off cruise ships at that port to spend any of my money there, will drive up to Vancouver, but [personally] will not visit Victoria until they get a sewage treatment plant that does more than pump raw sewage into the sound. I have no issue with cruise ships in AK waters.

I guess you don't spend any money in San Diego either? And we don't have any industry spewing chemicals into the sea. Purely treated sewage which is a fertilizer.