U.S. Water News Online
JUNEAU -- The floating cities that will bring 800,000 to 900,000 tourists to Alaska this summer are a far cry from the cruise ships that got in trouble for polluting state waters in the 1990s.
Many of the ships have new technology and those that don't are more careful about where they dump wastewater from toilets, sinks, laundries and showers.
While still under government scrutiny and still criticized by environmental activists, few expect a repeat of the late '90s dumping incidents that led to millions of dollars in fines against Royal Caribbean Cruise Lines and greater regulation of all ships.
Carolyn Morehouse of Alaska's Department of Environmental Conservation said stringent pollution control systems are now in place on most large ships.
"They have really done a good job considering the amount of time they've had and they've had to retrofit the systems,'' Morehouse said. "They've done it very quickly.''
Even industry critics said the ships are doing a better job in some but not all areas of concern. Gershon Cohen of Haines, who works with the environmental group Earth Island Institute, said Alaska's pollution rules are part of the improvement.
"I don't think the rules are as much as we need, but we still have the best rules in the country,'' Cohen said.
Alaska's pollution rules limit the amount of fecal coliform bacteria, an indicator of potential pathogens, in wastewater discharged from ships. The rules also limit oil, chlorine and some other substances.
The state Department of Environmental Conservation and the U.S. Coast Guard enforce the federal and state regulations. Wastewater testing is done by private contractors and government workers, from twice a year to twice a month, depending on the standard the ship wants to meet.
Last year, 18 large Alaska cruise ships had advanced treatment systems allowing continuous wastewater discharge anywhere. But 14 ships chose not to meet those standards. Instead, they held sewage and most other wastewater until they were at least three miles offshore, where they were allowed to discharge it untreated.
Numbers are not yet available for this year, since several different ships are in the fleet and have not completed the regulatory process.
Ships also have a third option. They can release wastewater meeting lower standards at least a mile away from shore, while cruising at a speed of at least 6 knots, which dilutes the discharge.
Ships also face air pollution regulations. They limit the opacity of smoke, which is monitored by a contractor who mostly checks ships in Juneau's harbor.
Rules much like Alaska's are also in place this year in Washington state, the home port of an increasing number of Alaska-bound ships.
John Hansen of the Vancouver, British Columbia-based North West Cruiseship Association said his group signed an agreement last month with the Port of Seattle and the Washington Department of Ecology extending Alaska's standards.
"We think it is important to have one consistent, seamless regime throughout the whole region,'' Hansen said. "After all, you run the same ships and the same crews and the same equipment on board the ships.''
Extending Alaska's cruise-ship laws nationwide is one aim of legislation under debate in Washington, D.C. It's known as the Durbin bill, for Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Illinois.
The bill starts with federal rules for Alaska drafted by Gov. Frank Murkowski when he served in the U.S. Senate. But the Durbin bill goes further. Among its provisions is a new no-discharge zone reaching 12 miles out from shore.
John Shively of Holland-America Cruise Lines' Anchorage office said such provisions reach too far. He said a 12-mile discharge ban would negate new ship anti-pollution systems.
"The problem with that kind of thinking is then why would we put in wastewater purification plants that cost the millions of dollars we're currently spending?'' Shively asked.
Cohen, who worked on part of the Durbin bill, said such limits are needed because other pollutants, such as plastics and heavy metals, may make it past cruise ship treatment systems.
"Those systems may be doing a better job with sewage, bacteria and total suspended solids, but it doesn't mean they're doing better with all pollutants,'' Cohen said.
Industry analyst Mike Driscoll said he doubts the Durbin bill will pass, given the makeup of Congress.
Driscoll, of the publication Cruise Week, said the industry has improved its pollution record, spending millions of dollars on water and air controls. But the effort isn't consistent.
Driscoll, of Wilmington, N.C., said he recently sat in on a teleconference where one line announced plans to use cheaper fuel, which critics claim causes more air pollution.
"It goes back and forth,'' Driscoll said. "I think they are doing a lot of things differently now, but it's because of constant prodding by government officials or environmentalists that they do make these changes.''
State reports show no wastewater violation notices issued to big cruise ships during the 2003 season, and only two air emission violations were noted.
State environmental staff members said that's a sign of improvement. But critics said it's not enough, and they'll continue to pursue stronger state laws through an initiative they hope to put on the ballot in 2006.
Return to the U.S. Water News Archives page Or Return to the U.S. Water News Homepage
Editor@uswaternews.com
*Your Name:
*Your Email:
*Friend's Email:
Use a comma to separate e-mail addresses:
*Your Comments:
Hi, I thought you might like to read this article.
*Required Fields