Cruise Ship Pollution – Air and Water : Cruise Ship Pollution – Air and Water Teri Shore, Bluewater Network
Tim Eichenberg, Oceana
Air Pollution Summary : Air Pollution Summary Cruise ships produce significant volumes of air pollution while in port and in transit.
Air pollution from cruise ships can be reduced by using cleaner fuels and technologies
Cruise lines, ports and regulators are already taking steps to address the pollution.
In order to achieve an environmentally friendly cruse terminal in San Francisco, studies must be conducted and measures implemented before terminal construction begins.
Cruise Ship Air Pollution : Cruise Ship Air Pollution The California Cruise Ship Task Force determined that:
“cruise ships are a major source of emissions of criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants in California, and that the impact of these emissions is significant because most of the coastal areas where cruise ships travel are not in compliance with state and federal ambient air quality standards.”
In CA waters, Cruise Ships produce
10 tons per day
combined nitrogen oxide and PM emissions
(Year 2000)
Cruise Ship Air Pollution : Cruise Ship Air Pollution A cruise ship in port for one day =
12,400 cars
Monterey Air Pollution Control District, 1.5 tons of Nitrogen Oxides
Includes emissions from maneuvering, berthing and auxiliary power generators while “hoteling” at anchor in Monterey Bay. Equal to 12,400 cars operating for same period (on-road inventory).
San Francisco Bay : San Francisco Bay INCREASE in DAILY emissions from cruise ships at the new cruise terminal are equal to those of the Hunter's Point Power Plant. 1 ship per day.
Hunters Point SF Cruise Ships
Power Plant
Particulate Matter 80 lbs per day 87 lbs per day
NOx 1200 lbs per day 1153 lbs per day
Based on one extra ship per day. This includes emissions entering the bay, cruising and maneuvering, boilers and tug escorts, all of which add to the air emissions inventory in SF Bay.
San Francisco Bay : San Francisco Bay Total emissions for two ships are much higher
3,372 pounds per day of NOx;
260 pounds of PM (exceed 80 pounds per day significance criteria)
Total emissions for ONE Ship in Port Only
Large ship 464 pounds of NOx, 24 pounds of PM
Small ship 285 pounds of NOx, 14 pounds of PM July 23, 2002: Cruise ship inundate Juneau with blue smoke
San Francisco Cruise Traffic : San Francisco Cruise Traffic Cruise ship visits more than doubled 44 in 2002 to 91 in 2004 – already exceeding EIR
No new environmental protections
A ship every other day during September 2003
New cruise terminal will draw 100 or more calls
Solutions - Cleaner Fuels : Solutions - Cleaner Fuels Low-sulfur marine fuels are available in California and the Northwest.
Northwest -- low sulfur fuels.
California -- Marine Gas Oil widely available
Extra Cost per voyage is small: $1,600
Less than 50 cents per passenger
Based on HFO $170/ton; MGO $250 per ton
8 hours in Port, 2.5 tons fuel per hour, 20 tons
Total Fuel Used on Ensenada Trip (4 days) 254 tons or $43,265.
Revenue per voyage for fares only is about $1.25 million based on $500 for 2,500 passengers.
Solutions – Shoreside Power : Solutions – Shoreside Power Shoreside power has been proven feasible for cruise ships in Juneau, possibly Seattle and may be feasible for San Francisco.
This would eliminate diesel emissions at the dock. It could be funded jointly by the cruise industry, the developer and possibly the local utility.
Conservation programs can also help fund the project.
Solutions – Other measures : Solutions – Other measures Cleaner engines and air pollution controls to reduce emissions.
Comparisons should be made between the technologies.
Other measures are acceptable if they achieve emissions reductions.
Gas turbine engines produce less emissions, but use larger volumes of fuel that produce far more greenhouse gases than diesel engines.
Legislative efforts : Legislative efforts AB471
Require cruise ships in California to use marine fuels with 1.5 percent or less sulfur content in port.
An automatic waiver is granted if such a fuel is not available.
Cruise ships can also receive a waiver if they use other methods of their choosing to meet a similar emissions reduction.
AB471 – Incineration Ban : AB471 – Incineration Ban The bill also bans on-board incineration in port and out to state waters.
The state of California does not allow any unregulated incineration in California without controls and permits.
Air emissions along our coast impact air quality on shore from 27 to 100 miles.
Cruise ships can suspend burning in incinerators while traveling to three miles, which takes about 15 minutes at cruising speed.
Cruise ships typically travel out to 20 miles.
Air Pollution Actions : Air Pollution Actions
Port of SF commission an independent study on low-sulfur fuels
--The BCDC permit requires that the port and the committee provide such an analysis by April 2005, so action is urgent.
Port of SF commission an independent study on shoreside power
-- The BCDC permit requires that the port and the committee provide such an analysis by April 2005.
The port does not need CTEAC approval, but recommend that this group adopt a resolution instructing the port to undertake studies at the end of this meeting.
We urge the Port of San Francisco and the cruise industry to support AB471.
Water Pollution Summary Average wastes generated (approx) : Water Pollution Summary Average wastes generated (approx) Blackwater: 20,000 gals/day
Graywater: 200,000gals/day
Oily bilge: 4,000 gals/day
Ballast water: 700,000 gals/day
Toxic wastes: 15 gals/day
Water Pollution Background : Water Pollution Background 1993-1998: More than 100 cases of illegal cruise ship dumping documented by GAO Report
1998-99: RCCL fined $27M
2000: Bluewater petitions EPA to close CWA loopholes
2000: AK Cruise Ship Initiative tests wastes - finds federal MSD standards grossly exceeded in graywater
2001: Title XIV and HB 260 passed in AK – 18 vessels certified for AWT
2002: Carnival fined $18M for 5 years of oily bilge violations
2002: Norwegian pays $1.5 million for falsifying oil discharge records for 3 yrs
Violations summary: $50 million in fines in 5 years
On probation: Carnival, Holland America, RCCL
CA Cruise Ship Environmental Task Force Report August 2003 : CA Cruise Ship Environmental Task Force Report August 2003 Cruise ships should be regulated by the State
Inspection and monitoring program should be implemented to protect the state’s air and water quality and marine environment
Cruise ships generate considerable quantities of sewage, graywater, bilge and ballast water, solid wastes and hazardous materials
CA Task Force Report (Cont’d) : CA Task Force Report (Cont’d) Cruise ships and other vessels are significant source of air pollution, criteria pollutants and TACs; engines subject to little regulatory control
MSDs frequently fail to meet federal standards, and graywter frequently exceeds MSD standards
No sewage discharges in CA waters
Graywater should meet MSD effluents standards, or discharges should be prohibited
No wastewater discharges in CA’s marine sanctuaries
Ensure cruise ships subject to hazardous wastes generator requirements
California legislation : California legislation 2003: AB 121 and 906 ban sewage sludge, oily bilge and hazardous waste dumping in State waters and sanctuaries
2004: New bills to prohibit discharge of sewage and graywater into CA waters and sanctuaries
Cruise industry proposes “pilot project” to “test” effluent from systems
Other Legislation : Other Legislation MOUs have not been effective
Crystal Harmony banned in Monterey Bay
Carnival Holiday discharged into San Pedro for 5 months
Carnival fined $200,000 for CA ballast dumping
16 violations of HI MOU
Norwegian Sun dumped 16,000 gals of blackwater into Juan de Fuca
WA bill would ban wastewater discharges in state waters, set effluents standards for sewage, impose fees, require reporting
HI bill would ban discharges
ME bill would establish NDZ
Key West pursuing shoreside treatment
Water Pollution Summary Port of SF: July 2003 : Water Pollution Summary Port of SF: July 2003 Directs staff to prepare standard berthing agreement for cruise ships using new terminal:
banning discharge in Bay of sewage, graywater, hazardous waste, solid wastes, and fuel or oil related substances “until such time as shipboard wastewater treatment methods that adequately meet WQS are authorized by state or federal agencies.”
banning release of “unauthorized ballast water.”
requiring ships to report all discharges within 24 hours
restricting or prohibiting future berthing rights to ships out of compliance more than 3 times in any 24 month period.
Requires mechanism to verify compliance with government agencies having jurisdiction over the Bay water quality
Consider adopting recommendations of Advisory Group periodically
BCDC Water Quality Conditions Nov. 2003 : BCDC Water Quality Conditions Nov. 2003 Permittees must “ deny berth access to ships that repeatedly violate the discharge prohibition” as determined by BCDC, with advice from Port, RWQCB, and WQ Advisory Group
By April 30, 2005, (1) submit report on feasibility of implementing recommendations of the Advisory Group, and shoreside wastewater treatment, (2) implement and enforce a monitoring and reporting mechanism with BCDC and RWQCB annually beginning 1 year after the 1st visit, and (3) implement and enforce reporting discharges monthly to BCDC, USCG and RWQCB
BCDC will determine within 90 days of submission the feasibility of onshore treatment
BCDC review and approval of berthing agreement 90 days prior to entering into agreement, with provision requiring compliance with AB 433 and NISA on ballast water
Water Pollution Summary : Water Pollution Summary No-discharge policies and permits provides the maximum protection for State and Bay.
Cruise ships already comply under voluntary agreements.
Advanced wastewater technology requirements needed, but exemptions for advanced sewage treatment should not be considered without adequate third party monitoring, sampling and reporting.
State oversight needed
Gaps exist on monitoring, inspection, sampling, reporting, ballast water.
Water Quality Action Items : Water Quality Action Items The Port of San Francisco should:
immediately implement berthing agreements in policy adopted last July
begin work on the mandates in the BCDC permit.
support statewide legislation to prohibit discharges into coastal waters
consider design for shoreside sewage
The CTEAC should:
Address gaps in state reporting/verification, inspections, and ballast water regs
forward a resolution to Port