FEASIBILITY STUDY: REDUCING CONCENTRATIONS OF DISSOLVED METALS AND AMMONIA IN LARGE PASSENGER VESSEL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES FINAL June 1, 2010 Prepared for: Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation Cruise Ship Program Prepared by: 825 W. 8th Ave. Anchorage, AK 99501 AND SUB-CONTRACTOR TEAM Cruise Ship Wastewater Systems Evaluation Final Report ADEC CONTRIBUTORS: Max Schwenne OASIS Olga Stewart OASIS Cody Black, PE (State of Alaska) OASIS Joe Mercure OASIS Levia Shoutis OASIS Anita Erickson, PE (State of California) OASIS David Eley Cape International Patrick Eberhardt, PE (State of Washington) Coastwise Corporation Steve Anzelc, PE (State of Michigan) Burns & McDonnell Ira Donovan, MSF Burns & McDonnell Reinaldo González, PhD Burns & McDonnell Denise Koch Alaska DEC Albert Faure Alaska DEC Ed White Alaska DEC Feasibility Report Final.docx ii 6/3/2010 Cruise Ship Wastewater Systems Evaluation Final Report ADEC TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................ v 1. INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................... 1 2. BACKGROUND ........................................................................................................ 3 2.1. Cruise Ship General Permit .............................................................................. 3 2.2. Current State of Practice .................................................................................. 4 2.3. Sources of Technology Information .................................................................. 6 2.4. Feasibility Evaluation Criteria ........................................................................... 6 2.5. Systemic Approach to Technology Selection .................................................... 7 3. PROPERTIES AND SOURCES OF METALS AND AMMONIA ................................ 9 3.1. Dissolved Copper, Nickel, and Zinc .................................................................. 9 3.2. Ammonia ........................................................................................................ 10 4. WASTEWATER TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES.................................................... 13 4.1. Chemical Precipitation .................................................................................... 13 4.2. Ion Exchange ................................................................................................. 17 4.3. Reverse Osmosis ........................................................................................... 21 4.4. Surface Clay Filtration .................................................................................... 24 4.5. Electrowinning ................................................................................................ 25 4.6. Electrodialysis ................................................................................................ 26 4.7. Air / Steam Stripping ...................................................................................... 28 4.8. Aerobic Biological Oxidation / Nitrification ...................................................... 30 4.9. Breakpoint Chlorination .................................................................................. 34 4.10. Land-Based Facility References ..................................................................... 35 4.11. Treatment Technology Combinations ............................................................. 36 5. POTENTIAL EXPERIMENTAL TECHNOLOGIES .................................................. 43 5.1. Removal of Ammonia as Magnesium Ammonium Phosphate ........................ 43 5.2. Ammonia Removal by Thermally Activate Charcoal ....................................... 43 5.3. Anaerobic Ammonium Oxidation .................................................................... 43 5.4. Electrolytic Treatment of Aqueous Media ....................................................... 43 5.5. Biosorption by Immobilized Microorganisms ................................................... 43 6. VENDOR INFORMATION ....................................................................................... 45 6.1. CASTion ......................................................................................................... 45 6.2. Det Norske Veritas AS ................................................................................... 45 6.3. DOW Chemicals ............................................................................................. 46 6.4. Evac Oy ......................................................................................................... 46 6.5. Ferrate Treatment Technologies, LLC ............................................................ 46 6.6. Filter Flow Technology, Inc. ............................................................................ 46 6.7. GE Water and Process Technologies ............................................................. 47 6.8. NORAM Engineering ...................................................................................... 48 Feasibility Report Final.docx iii 6/3/2010 Cruise Ship Wastewater Systems Evaluation Final Report ADEC 6.9. Ohio University Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering ............................... 49 6.10. ROCHEM ....................................................................................................... 49 7. IMPLEMENTATION CONSIDERATIONS ............................................................... 51 7.1. Selection of Treatment System ...................................................................... 51 7.2. Regulatory Approval of Device ....................................................................... 52 7.3. Installation of Device ...................................................................................... 54 7.4. Conceptual Timeline....................................................................................... 55 8. CONCLUSIONS ...................................................................................................... 57 8.1. Technical Feasibility ....................................................................................... 57 8.2. Implementation Feasibility .............................................................................. 58 8.3. Summary ........................................................................................................ 58 9. REFERENCES ........................................................................................................ 61 APPENDICES A: Vendors Directly Solicited for Technology B: Vendors Responding to Solicitation C: Vendor Supplied Treatment Information D: MEPC 159(55) Device Approval Feasibility Report Final.docx iv 6/3/2010 Cruise Ship Wastewater Systems Evaluation Final Report ADEC EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) issued the Large Commercial Passenger Vessel Wastewater Discharge General Permit in March 2008 (“2008 General Permit”) to meet the requirement of Alaska Statute 46.03.462. ADEC analysis prior to permit issuance had indicated that cruise ships could not immediately comply with the statute’s strict requirement that effluent meet Alaska Water Quality Standards at the “point of discharge” for ammonia, copper, nickel, and zinc. Therefore, the 2008 General permit contained interim effluent limits that were less stringent for the 2008 and 2009 cruise ship seasons. The permit contained a requirement that the long term effluent limits for these parameters, which were equal to the Alaska Water Quality Standards, be met by the 2010 cruise ship season. Although it was the cruise ships’ responsibility to comply with the terms of the 2008 General Permit, it was important for ADEC to be knowledgeable about the types of technology that may exist to enable cruise ships to meet the long term effluent limits. Therefore, ADEC hired the OASIS team to evaluate successful shore-based technologies as well as existing, new, and emerging technologies that could potentially be adapted for use on cruise ships. A draft of this feasibility study was released on February 16, 2009 in advance of an ADEC Cruise Ship Technology Workshop that was held in Juneau, Alaska on February 18, 2009. The final draft of this feasibility study includes 2009 General Permit sampling data, but does not comprehensively include all new information that may have become available in 2009. In this feasibility study, the OASIS team evaluated nine existing proven technologies that may be able to reduce concentrations of the four pollutants of concern: ammonia, dissolved copper, dissolved nickel and dissolved zinc. Of the nine current technologies, three treat all four pollutants, three only treat ammonia and three only treat dissolved metals. This study also discusses an additional five experimental technologies. An analysis of 2008 and 2009 cruise ship General Permit sampling data reveals that under current operational practices, most existing wastewater treatment systems installed on large cruise ships cannot consistently treat wastewater to Alaska Water Quality Standards for ammonia, copper, nickel, and zinc. Some ships have consistently met the limits for one contaminant and some ships have met the limits when treating only selected waste streams and limited quantities, but none have consistently met the Alaska Water Quality Standards for all four pollutants. The information on the technologies contained in this report comes from a variety of research sources