Cruising for a Bruising

Transcription

1 Cruising for a Bruising Why Washington Needs Laws to Protect its Waters from Cruise Ship Dumping Chris Wells Washington Public Interest Research Group (WashPIRG) February 2005

2 Acknowledgments WashPIRG would like to gratefully acknowledge the help of Gershon Cohen (Campaign to Safeguard America s Waters, C-SAW), Ross Klein, and Teri Shore (Bluewater Network) for providing valuable information and guidance for this report. More information about Gershon Cohen s work is available at It should be noted that an earlier article by Gershon shared the head title with this report. Ross Klein s famous Cruise Junkie website is The Bluewater Network s website is The author alone bears responsibility for any factual errors. The recommendations in this report are those of WashPIRG WashPIRG WashPIRG is an environmental and consumer advocacy group working on environmental preservation, consumer protection, and good government in Washington. For more information, please call (206) or visit Cover: Puget Sound, photo by Stacey Jurgensen; photo insets (top to bottom): estuary, photo courtesy of WDFW; cruise ship, photo by Russell Lynch, courtesy of KAHEA; warning sign in Discovery Park, photo courtesy of Ivy Sager-Rosenthal. Graphic design: Harriet Eckstein Graphic Design

3 Table of Contents Executive Summary 5 Introduction 9 Part 1: The Environmental Record of the Cruise Ship Industry 11 The Growth of the Cruise Industry 11 The Cruise Industry s Legal Record 12 Alaska s Cruise Experience 12 Part 2: Costs to the State of Washington 15 The State of Washington Waters 15 Washington s Economy at Risk 17 Part 3: Legislation or MOU?: The Attempts of Six States to Address Cruise Ship Pollution 19 States that have passed legislation 19 States that have signed Memoranda of Understanding 20 Comparison of the results of legislation and MOUs 21 Conclusions and Recommendations 23 References 25

4 4 Cruising for a Bruising

5 Executive Summary In the thirty years since the cruise ship business became a major industry, taking cruises has become a vacation phenomenon. People seem to love the aspects of cruises that make them different from other vacations easy-going trips to exotic locations, constant service, seclusion and famously good and plentiful food; since 1980, the number of passengers cruising out of North America has increased from 1.4 million to 7 million in Around the globe, 12 million people took cruises in the year The cruise industry s popularity has made it a potent source of profits for its owners and shareholders, and a significant source of jobs for the 100,000 plus cruise industry workers. 2 But below the decks of these glamorous floating resort hotels floating cities in scale is a poor environmental record and disdain for environmental regulation. Cruise ship traffic poses major threats to delicate Puget Sound ecosystems, a region where biological health and diversity have enormous social, environmental, and economic significance and are already threatened. In the United States, six states have taken one of two approaches to protecting their waters from cruise ship wastes: three, including Washington, have signed Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs) with the cruise industry, and three have passed legislation. On the west coast, California and Alaska have both enacted laws to protect their waters from cruise ship wastes. While ships from both states regularly come to Seattle, Washington has no laws binding cruise ships to clean environmental practices. A comparison of MOUs and laws and a review of the experiences of states that have implemented each reveal that an MOU is insufficient for protecting Washington s waters and that the Legislature needs to pass laws to protect our marine waters. The Cruise Industry s Environmental Record The cruise industry s environmental record is poor. Between 1993 and 1998, the cruise industry was cited for 87 illegal Executive Summary 5

6 FACT: Ross Klein s records that several of the largest fines imposed on cruise lines for environmental violations included citations for falsifying ship logs and lying to the Coast Guard. This fact casts serious doubt on the credibility of an industry that routinely asks to be regulated by voluntary measures. 6 dumping events in U.S. waters and incurred over $100 million in fines. 3 When Alaska tested wastewater discharged by cruise ships into the ocean in 2000, concentrations of fecal coliform in the wastewater were as high as 100,000 times the federal standard. 4 In 2003, the Norwegian Sun discharged 16,000 gallons of raw sewage into Puget Sound between Whidbey Island and the Strait of Juan de Fuca. 5 Costs of Cruise Ship Wastes In a day, a typical cruise ship of 3000 passengers and crew generates as much waste as a small city: 11.5 tons of garbage from the passengers alone gallons of toxic waste, including silver nitrate (from photo labs), heavy metals, and PERC (perchloroethylene, from dry-cleaning facilities). 8, 9 30,000 gallons of sewage and additional tons of sewage sludge. 270,000 gallons of graywater, the wastewater from sinks, showers, dishwashing, and laundry. 7,000 gallons of oily bilge water. 10 Air pollution equivalent to that produced by more than 12,000 automobiles. 11 The enteric bacteria, fecal coliform, pathogens, diseases, viruses, intestinal parasites, excessive nutrients, heavy metals, and toxic chemicals in cruise ship wastes have a number of harmful effects on marine environments they enter. Three of the most severe are: 1. The threat to human health through direct contact with pathogens, viruses, other diseases, and parasites while swimming or otherwise enjoying the water. According to the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy, in 2002, more than 12,000 beach closings and swimming advisories were issued in the United States The threat to human health and the economy due to contamination of shellfish such as oysters and clams. As of July 2004, 30,000 acres of Puget Sound s 165,000 acres of shellfish beds were restricted from commercial and recreational harvest due to bacterial contamination in the Sound s water The eutrophication, or oxygen depletion, of marine environments due to excess nutrients. The oxygen-depleted dead zone now expanding in Hood Canal is the best-publicized example of this widespread process in the Puget Sound. 6 Cruising for a Bruising

7 Puget Sound s Economy in Jeopardy The impacts of cruise ship wastes directly or indirectly affect millions of people living in the Puget Sound region, and tens of thousands who make their livings from the Sound s resources: Each year, Washington s oysters, mussels, clams, and geoducks generate around $77 million in sales, supporting 1,200 jobs in Mason and Pacific counties alone. 15 The recreational harvest of shellfish is also culturally and economically very significant. During the season, 30,000 people a day go out to dig razor clams on Washington s coast. 16 Combined commercial landings and expenditures for recreational fishing in Washington are worth around $1.2 billion annually, directly supporting 24,000 jobs. 17 The opportunities to go boating, waterskiing, swimming, fishing, clam-digging, and whale-watching; the ability to catch and eat wild FACT: The U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy found that harmful algal blooms, caused by excess nutrients, cost the United States an average of $49 million per year in fisheries closures, tourism and recreation losses, and health care and monitoring expenses. 14 Puget Sound fish and shellfish; and corresponding tourism and property values all contribute to the economy and social structure of the region and are adversely impacted by marine pollution. Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs) Versus Regulations Out of concern for their coastal resources, several states have taken one of two approaches to regulating cruise ship wastes: binding statutory laws, and voluntary memoranda of understanding (MOUs). Alaska, California, and Maine have passed laws to regulate cruise ships; Washington, Florida and Hawaii have signed MOUs with the cruise industry. During the 2004 cruise season, Washington saw three violations of its MOU, including one discharge of untreated gray water that contained high levels of fecal coliform, biochemical oxygen demand, and total suspended solids. 18 And the contrasting experiences of Alaska and Hawaii clearly illustrate the superiority of laws to MOUs in protecting marine waters. The first year it was in effect, Hawaii s MOU was violated 16 times. Violations included mostly the discharge of graywater and blackwater in the protected fishing ground known as Penguin Bank. Also cited were an instance of incinerating waste while in port, the discharge of almost 20,000 gallons of galley waste and graywater in marine areas, and reporting errors. 19 In Alaska, wastewater discharge violations by cruise ships since the passage of regulations have been nearly nonexistent, and air emissions violations have gone from 39 between 1999 and 2001 to just one in 2002 and Executive Summary 7

8 Policy Recommendations To protect its marine waters from the threats posed by cruise ship wastes, Washington State needs measures stronger than an MOU. Washington lawmakers should pass legislation that will: 1. Ban the discharge of blackwater, graywater, oily bilge water, ballast water, and hazardous wastes in state waters. 2. Establish clear penalties for violating regulations. Penalties should provide an economic deterrent to violation and cover the damage to state ecosystems. 3. Create a per-passenger fee system to pay for a state monitoring program. A graduated fee scale could provide economic incentives for cruise lines to be environmentally responsible. An average fee of $1-2 per passenger would pay the major part of the expenses of cruise ship monitoring. FACT: In contrast to Hawaii s MOU, which was violated 16 times the first year it was in effect, Alaska has seen almost no wastewater discharge violations and just one air emission violation in A recent exception was a Holland America Line dumping of 20,000 gallons of sewage into Juneau harbor, for which the company paid $2 million in fines and mandatory preventive measures Cruising for a Bruising

9 Introduction Since the 1970s, taking cruises has become a vacation phenomenon. People seem to love the aspects of cruises that make them different from other vacations easy-going trips to exotic locations, constant service, seclusion, and famously good and plentiful food; since 1980, the number of passengers cruising out of North America has increased from 1.4 million to 7 million in Around the globe, 12 million people took cruises in the year The cruise industry s popularity has made it a potent source of profits for its owners and shareholders, and a significant source of jobs for the 100,000 plus cruise industry workers. 23 But below the decks of these glamorous floating resort hotels floating cities in scale is a deplorable environmental record and a blatant disregard for environmental regulation. The first part of this report catalogues some of the most egregious and harmful violations, especially in Washington and Alaska. Before 1998, when a series of events unfolded that ultimately forced state governments to begin taking cruise ship environmental practices into their own hands, cruise ships had environmental records nothing short of disgraceful. The watershed events of 1998 began in June, when Royal Caribbean agreed to pay a total of $18 million for twenty-one total violations of environmental laws around the country. Also in 1998, Holland America Line paid a total $2 million for dumping oily bilge water into pristine Inside Passage waters in Alaska. And in 2000, Alaska sued Royal Caribbean for dumping toxic chemicals and oily water and was awarded $3.5 million. 24 After testing implemented by the first Alaska cruise ship initiative in 2000 revealed that cruise ships were dumping huge quantities of pollution into pristine North Pacific waters, and that even ships running Coast Guard-certified Marine Sanitation Devices were releasing effluent with up to 100,000 times federally legal levels of fecal coliform, Alaskan public sentiment demanded legislation. In response, the Alaska State Legislature enacted in 2001 legislation with three main components: 1. A sampling component, including requirements for sampling and Introduction 9

10 reporting of wastewater discharges and air emissions. Ships must sample their effluent at least twice per year and must share the results with the state. Alaska may also conduct unlimited sampling while the ship is in Alaskan waters. 2. A standard component, establishing standards and enforcement. For graywater or blackwater to be discharged in state waters, the effluent must meet state standards for suspended solids, fecal coliform and other substances. Also, several nodischarge zones were created. 3. A fee component, to ensure the cruise industry bears the cost of regulation. The fee established was $.75 to $1.75 per passenger per cruise. Cruise ship pollution has proven itself a threat to Washington waters as well. In 2003, the Norwegian Sun discharged 16,000 gallons of raw sewage in Puget Sound between Whidbey Island and the Strait of Juan de Fuca. 25 And in September of 2003 it was revealed that despite more than one commitment to burn lowsulfur fuel while at dock at the Port of Seattle, the cruise lines were not and had never been doing so. 26 The irony of the cruise industry s tarnished environmental record is that the industry spends considerable resources not only to brand itself environmentally responsible, but also to advertise the very places and wildlife that are threatened by its unethical environmental practices. All together, the industry spends over $500 million a year in advertising. 27 For cruises to the Northwest and Alaska, much of that money goes towards attracting potential passengers to wild images scenic shots of Alaskan glaciers, mountains, grizzly bears and seals. This report will analyze what should be done to protect Washington waters, especially Puget Sound, from cruise ship pollution. Around the United States, states have taken two approaches. Some have passed tough legislation to hold cruise ships to strict standards and punish them for violations. Other states, including Washington, have adopted voluntary agreements with cruise lines. This report will demonstrate that voluntary agreements are significantly less effective than legislation in preventing cruise ship pollution and will recommend that Washington adopt into law legislation comparable to that in Alaska and California. The report is divided into three parts: In Part 1, the report will overview the history of the cruise ship industry and some of the environmental threats that cruise ships pose to marine waters in general and to Washington waters in particular. The history of the cruise ship industry and its regulation is important context for understanding the positions of states, such as Alaska and California, which have taken regulatory action, and states that are pursuing voluntary agreements, including Washington. Part 2 focuses on the economy of coastal Washington and Puget Sound, and the numerous small businesses and large businesses that are impacted by the degradation of marine waters and the threats posed by cruise ship pollution. Part 3 will show that signing Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs), which are voluntary agreements, is not as effective a tool for protecting marine waters from cruise ship pollution as enacting legislation. The experiences of states with MOUs in place will be compared with the experiences of states that have passed legislative regulations, and particular attention will be drawn to the contrasting degrees of success of Alaska's laws and Hawaii's MOU. The conclusion presents additional factors supporting legislation and recommendations for legislation to protect Washington waters from cruise ship pollution. 10 Cruising for a Bruising

11 Part 1: The Environmental Record of the Cruise Ship Industry The Growth of the Cruise Industry The modern cruise ship industry was born in the 1950s, when large numbers of Americans began being able to afford luxury vacations. 28 The cruise industry grew steadily alongside the affluence of American vacationers, but the industry took off in the 1970s; between 1970 and 2002, the number of people taking cruises increased 1,000%, and continues to grow. 29 The increase in the total number of cruise ship passengers is paired with not only more ships plying American waters, but with ships of increasing size. In the 1970s, most ships carried around passengers; today, the smallest major-line cruise ships carry more than a thousand, and modern cruise ships top out at more than 5,000 passengers and crew. 30 Today, a typical cruise ship of 3,000 passengers and crew, in a single day, generates: 11.5 tons of garbage from the passengers alone. In many places without strict regulations, 75-80% of garbage is incinerated and the ash containing toxics from the burning of plastics and heavy metals is dumped into the sea. 23 gallons of toxic waste, including silver nitrate (from photo labs), which is toxic to fish and is not permitted to be used outdoors 31 ; heavy metals; and PERC (perchloroethylene, from dry-cleaning facilities), which evaporates quickly in the air and affects the nervous system, among other human health impacts. At the environmental scale, PERC can add to the development of photochemical smog ,000 gallons of sewage and additional tons of sewage sludge. Sewage, or blackwater, is highly contaminated with human waste. Such waste contains fecal coliform bacteria, other pathogens, diseases, viruses, intestinal parasites, and harmful nutrients including nitrogen and phosphorus. 33 The major risks posed by these substances will be discussed Part 1: The Environmental Record 11

12 later and include direct threats to human health, threats to shellfish beds and the people who eat them, and a general degradation in the waters they contaminate through eutrophication. 270,000 gallons of graywater, the wastewater from sinks, showers, dishwashing, and laundry. Although fecal coliform is usually associated with blackwater, testing by the state of Alaska in 2000 found significant levels in graywater also. 34 7,000 gallons of oily bilge water. Air pollution equivalent to that produced by more than 12,000 automobiles. Almost all cruise ships burn diesel fuel, which has been linked to lung cancer, other types of cancer, and a rising rate of asthma. 35 Not surprisingly, more people cruising on more ships in greater concentrations than ever before has had significant consequences for the marine environments that they explore. Before 1998 and 1999, when the environmental impacts of cruise ships began attracting attention, 36 the industry s environmental record was what one might expect from a fast-growing, unregulated industry operating below the view of public scrutiny and mainstream media: horrific. The Cruise Industry s Legal Record The U.S. General Accounting Office records 87 illegal dumping events in U.S. waters between On his website, Dr. Ross Klein records 117 environmental violations by various cruise ships cumulatively resulting in $100 million in fines between 1992 and These violations include the dumping of oil or oily water; discharges of sewage (blackwater), graywater, garbage, plastic waste, fuel, paint, and ballast water. A distressing number of violations also include falsification of Coast Guard records, which calls into question the cruise industry's credibility when it insists that it does not harm the environment. 38 There is also one citation for damage to a reef. The combination of the incredible size of modern cruise ships and the volume of waste they produce with the number and frequency of environmental violations by cruise ships during the last decade makes cruise ship pollution a serious threat to marine ecosystems. Alaska s Cruise Experience Between 1998 and 2001, several highprofile events took place that significantly reshaped both the Alaskan public s attitudes towards the cruise industry and legislators willingness to pursue regulatory options. First, Royal Caribbean International agreed to an $18 million fine in pleading guilty to twenty-one violations that included the illegal discharges of oil and hazardous wastes around the United States and lying to the Coast Guard. In 1998, Holland America Line paid a $1 million fine and $1 million in restitution for intentionally discharging oily bilge water into Alaska s pristine Inside Passage in Then, in 2000, the state of Alaska won a suit against Royal Caribbean for dumping toxic chemicals and oily water into Alaskan waters; the company paid a $3.5 million fine. 39 Not surprisingly, following these widely publicized incidents, there was strong support in Alaska for investigating and stopping further abuses of its 12 Cruising for a Bruising

13 waters by the cruise ship industry. In late 1999, Alaska s Department of Environmental Conservation, along with the Coast Guard, the industry, and conservationists, began a cruise ship initiative to assess environmental impacts of cruise ships. They created a sampling plan to measure cruise ship wastewater discharges and air emissions, which went into effect in 2000, and in the words of then-alaska governor Tony Knowles, the results were disgusting and disgraceful. 40 Tests of blackwater effluent from cruise ships operating federally mandated, Coast Guard-certified Marine Sanitation Devices revealed fecal coliform levels as high as 9 to 24 million colonies per 100 millileters of treated water. Those fecal coliform levels exceeded federal standards by 10,000 to 100,000 times. The tests found that not one of 22 tested ships was in compliance with all blackwater standards; the reason for the unanimous failure of the Marine Sanitation Devices, the Coast Guard found, was that they were either not being operated properly by the cruise company, or they had not been properly maintained. 41 After the cruise ship testing, the cruise industry found itself facing even more Alaskan public support for meaningful rules to bring cruise ship companies to bay and punish them when they fouled state waters. Because of the public outcry, the U.S. Congress passed legislation to protect certain federal waters off Alaska and give Alaska the right to regulate blackwater in state waters. 42 Also, bipartisan leadership from Democrats Governor Knowles and Representative Beth Kerttula, and Republican Senator Rick Halford helped to craft the Alaska Cruise Ship Initiative, 43 which created a threepart cruise ship regulation. Alaska s cruise ship regulations will be discussed in Part 3 of this report. Part 1: The Environmental Record 13

14 Photo courtesy of WDFW Estuarine habitats are critically important to hundreds of species of marine life. Delicate and close to shore, they are also highly sensitive to marine water pollution. 14 Cruising for a Bruising

15 Part 2: Costs to the State of Washington The State of Washington Waters States like Alaska and Washington have good reason to worry about the risk of cruise ship pollution on our beaches and in our water. As the recent reports of the Pew Oceans Commission and U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy found, the deadly combination of pollution (including the substances cruise ships discharge), overfishing, and coastal overdevelopment has pushed ocean ecosystems around America s coasts to the brink of collapse. And estuarine habitats like the Puget Sound have been hardest hit because they receive most of the non-point source (land source) pollution, toxins are often not swiftly washed away by ocean currents, and they are habitat and breeding ground for thousands of 44, 45 species. Any kind of marine water pollution has the potential to impact marine life, the economy, and human health through short term impacts, which are usually the most visible and get the most news coverage, and long term impacts, which build over time and may be more destructive, though they receive less recognition. While the Puget Sound has so far been spared any major cruise ship discharge resulting in immediate and highly visible damage of estuarine habitat or human health, two recent oil spills in the Sound, in December 2003 and October 2004, clearly illustrate the incredible financial cost of even relatively small spoils of toxic substances. The smaller of these spills was a 1,000 gallons oil spill between Tacoma and Maury Island in the middle of the night on October 14, Even with the early alert of authorities and oil spill containment crews, which were hampered by morning fog, the toxic oil spread across southern Puget Sound and soiled beaches from the Tacoma Narrows to Bainbridge Island. As of November 8, 2004 the estimated cleanup cost of the spill was nearly $2 million. 46 All this from 1,000 gallons of fuel oil, which is minuscule compared to the fuel holds of cruise ships. (The Cunard company s Queen Elizabeth 2, a ship with beds for fewer than 2,000 passengers, has a capacity of more than 4,300 tons of fuel oil. 47 ) Of course, on a cruise Part 2: Costs and Benefits 15

16 Photo courtesy of Ivy Sager-Rosenthal A pollution warning at Discovery Park, Seattle. ship, fuel oil is only one of many hazardous materials, and it is not even a waste like blackwater and graywater. The most egregious case of cruise ship dumping in Washington waters was the dumping of 16,000 gallons (40 tons) of raw sewage into the Strait of Juan de Fuca on May 3 rd, Like the vast majority of ship discharges, the great damage caused by the discharge was not any sea life that turned up dead at the scene. Instead, these discharges contribute to the pollution increasing in the waters surrounding our coasts. The types of pollutants contained in cruise ship blackwater and graywater waste include enteric bacteria, fecal coliform, pathogens, diseases, viruses, intestinal parasites, and harmful nutrients including nitrogen and phosphorus. 49 There are multiple environmental consequences for releasing these substances into the water. The most serious are: The threat to human health through direct contact with pathogens, viruses, other diseases, and parasites while swimming or otherwise enjoying the water. According to the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy, in 2002, more than 12,000 beach closings and swimming advisories were issued in the United States. Most of those are due to the presence of bacteria associated with fecal contamination ; the number of beach closings is rising each year; and they are costing the nation millions of dollars in lost income from tourism. 50 The threat to human health and the economy through consumption of shellfish such as oysters and clams. The U.S. Commission found that harmful algal blooms are on the rise; that toxins associated with such blooms cause 62% of worldwide seafood-caused illness; and that they cause 15% of the deaths from food poisoning outbreaks with a known cause. 51 As of July 2004, 30,000 acres of Puget Sound s 165,000 acres of shellfish beds were restricted from commercial and recreational harvest due to bacterial contamination in the Sound s water. 52 In Washington, the Department of Health in April 2003 mapped 19 Threatened Shellfish Growing Areas, which included major growing areas on the coast and in Puget Sound threatened by marine biotoxins tied to excess levels of nutrients. Shellfish beds at Grays Harbor, on the west side of the Olympic Peninsula, at Henderson Bay in the south Sound, at Hood Canal and at Port Townsend and Skagit Bay further north were all listed. 53 The steady eutrophication, or build up of excess nutrients, which the Pew Oceans Commission found to have moderately or severely degraded two-thirds of the estuaries and bays in the United States. 54 Perhaps the most tragic threat pollution poses to ocean 16 Cruising for a Bruising

17 Photo courtesy of WDFW ecosystems, the process of eutrophication is the literal destruction of ocean areas; excess nutrients feed giant algae blooms, which die off, feeding the aerobic activity of bacteria, which plunge the dissolved oxygen levels of the area below concentrations that fish and other organisms need to breathe. In the Puget Sound the dead zone now expanding in Hood Canal is the bestpublicized example of this process. The threat to fish, humans, and the environment from toxic chemicals such as silver nitrate, which kills fish 55 ; mercury, a potent neurotoxin linked to birth defects and learning disabilities in human children; other heavy metals; and perchloroethylene, which contributes to smog and is toxic to humans at moderate to high concentrations 56. Washington s Economy at Risk Three sectors of the marine economy should be considered when understanding the potential impacts of the contributions cruise ships make to marine pollution: shellfish, both recreationally Digging for clams on a Washington beach. and commercially harvested; fishing, including commercial fishing, recreational fishing, charter boat fishing, and the supported processing and sale sectors; and impacts on Puget Sound quality of life, property value and tourism. Shellfish Shellfish growing is one of Washington s trademark cultural and economic activities. In fact, Washington leads the nation in producing farmed bivalve shellfish. This is a major driver of Western Washington economies, especially in the most rural areas where waters tend to be the purest which is what shellfish need most to be grown safely. Each year, Washington s oysters, mussels, clams, and geoducks generate around $77 million in sales, supporting 1,200 jobs in Mason and Pacific counties alone. 57 The recreational harvest of shellfish is also culturally and economically significant. During the season, 30,000 people a day go out to dig razor clams on Washington s coast. 58 As described above, human wastes from cruise ships and other sources, because of the high levels of dangerous bacteria they contain and their potential for overfeeding harmful algae, pose a serious threat to shellfish farms around the state. Fishing Washington s fishing economy is one of the biggest in the country, with major fishing and processing companies based in Seattle and operating in the waters off Alaska. There are also major commercial fishing operations in Washington State waters, and combined with expenditures for recreational fishing, fishing in Washington State is worth around $1.2 billion annually, directly supporting 24,000 jobs. 59 Cruise ship wastes pose a two-pronged threat to fish in Puget Sound. First, as Part 2: Costs and Benefits 17

18 Photo courtesy of WDFW septic systems and agricultural fertilizer; nonetheless, in blackwater and graywater, cruise ships are releasing exactly the same elements and compounds into the water, and without strong monitoring they can do it directly, without valuable biological buffers. A block seiner in Puget Sound. described above, toxic substances such as silver nitrate are simply toxic for fish to ingest; it kills them. Also, Puget Sound is already experiencing severe eutrophication from mostly human wastes washing into the Sound and feeding algal blooms. The leading sources of these wastes are Other Impacts There are countless reasons people choose to live in the Puget Sound region and spend their money here buying homes, boats, and property. And there is no question that as the waters are the Puget Sound are degraded, Washington citizens lose some of the value of their recreational activities, such as boating, waterskiing, wildlife watching, swimming, fishing, and clam-digging. The strictly economic value of property on Puget Sound is affected, the special ability to safely produce and feed themselves with Puget Sound products is reduced, and numerous other elements of the high quality of life here are threatened. 18 Cruising for a Bruising

19 Part 3: Legislation or MOU?: The Attempts of Six States to Address Cruise Ship Pollution States That Have Passed Legislation To date, six states have taken formal actions to attempt to control the pollution left by cruise ships in their waters. Three Alaska, California, and Maine have passed legislation. Alaska: The momentum for passing legislation to control cruise ship dumping was generated after several egregious dumping episodes outside of Alaska in the late nineties, and the horrific results of testing in 2000 (see Part 1, Alaska s Experience ). The Alaska Cruise Ship Initiative of 2001: 1. Banned the dumping of untreated sewage by cruise ships; set effluent standards for cruise ships blackwater and graywater that are as strong as those for municipal facilities and required that cruise ships meet one of three standards to be allowed to dump anywhere, one mile from shore, or outside state waters (3 miles from shore); 2. Established comprehensive sampling requirements for cruise ships and sampling rights for the state Department of Environmental Protection; and 3. Enacted a per-passenger fee system of between $.75 and $1.75 to pay the Department of Environmental 60, 61 Protection s costs for their program. The bill also outlined damages to be levied. The scale was set at $500- $100,000 for a violation, and up to $10,000 per day for violations that continued past an initial event. The bases for determining the amount of the penalty were identified as compensation for the cost of damages to the environment; the cost to the state to detect and investigate the violation; the savings benefiting the violator for not complying with the law; and any additional cost necessary to encourage compliance. 62 Also in 2000, Alaska s Senator Frank Murkowski sponsored legislation at the federal level to regulate the dumping of Part 3: Legislation or MOU 19

20 raw sewage in specific parts of Alaska s Inside Passage, close donut holes between islands in the Inside Passage, and give the state of Alaska the power to regulate sewage dumping in state waters. 63 This last clause was provided as a clarification to the Clean Water Act (CWA), ensuring that Alaska s exercise of authority over sewage dumping in its waters would not be challenged in court. California s approach to what the cruise industry has claimed to be an ambiguity in the CWA is different, as we will see. The battle to clean up cruise ships in Alaska is not over. In negotiating the provisions of the 2001 legislation, standards for waste streams other than blackwater and graywater were removed. A new Alaskan cruise ship initiative to protect against other discharges, including hydrocarbons, plastics, and metals, is backed by the Campaign to Safeguard America s Waters (C-SAW) and has qualified for the Alaska ballot in California: California has passed a number of pieces of legislation to regulate the wastes dumped by cruise ships. In 2001, the State Assembly passed legislation to mitigate the impact of ballast water on state waters. It gave cruise ships a number of options for treating ballast water or exchanging their ballast water before they came within 200 miles of the coast. In 2003, the Assembly banned the dumping of sewage sludge, oily bilge water and hazardous wastes in state waters. 65 And in 2004, the Assembly made California s standards the most comprehensive in the country by banning the dumping of graywater and blackwater treated or untreated in state waters, and banning the use of onboard waste incinerators while within 2 miles of shore. 66 The approach taken by California is theoretically now the strongest in the country, but it does have some problems. One disadvantage is that because the law contains no funding mechanism, enforcement agencies have no additional funds to pay for field monitoring or water quality testing in the event of a possible incident. On the other hand, because no discharge is allowed in state waters, funding to pay for more expensive boarding and sampling of ships effluent is not necessary. Also, civil penalties of up to $25,000 per violation provide a strong deterrent. 67 Maine: Maine passed legislation in 2004 in an attempt to replicate Alaska s success at protecting its water. Maine s legislation allows dumping of graywater and blackwater only if ships have Alaska-certified Advanced Wastewater Treatment Systems. After 2006, ships discharging must have state discharge permits. Also, the Board of Environmental Protections and the Legislature are directed to approve regulations in January States That have Signed Memoranda of Understanding Three states have attempted to control cruise ship pollution by signing non-enforceable, voluntary, Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs). These states are Hawaii, Florida, and Washington. Hawaii and Florida: Hawaii and Florida signed MOU s with their local cruise line associations in 2002 and 2001 respectively. Both agreements basically accept the protections developed by the International Council of Cruise Lines (ICCL) in December 2001, which 20 Cruising for a Bruising

21 include promises to minimize or eliminate the discharge of several types of waste, including silver and other photoprocessing chemicals, dry cleaning wastes, printing and cleaning chemicals, pharmaceuticals, mercury and fluorescent light bulbs, and batteries; meet or exceed international standards for removing oil from wastewater; follow the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL) with respect to general garbage wastes including glass, cardboard, and cans; discharge graywater only when moving at 6 knots or more and more than 4 nautical miles from shore; and to discharge blackwater only after processing by a certified Marine Sanitation Device and when moving at 6 knots or more, and more than 4 nautical miles from shore. The only substantive difference between the two MOUs is that the reach of Florida s MOU is the state s territorial waters (out to 3 miles from shore), while Hawaii s MOU allows ships with advanced wastewater treatment systems to discharge a mile or further from shore, and prevents ships without advanced wastewater treatment systems from discharging within four miles of shore. 69 Washington: Washington s MOU, signed in April 2004, attempts to emulate the strength of Alaska s regulation, but without the teeth of state law. Cruise ships discharging in Washington waters must be using Alaska-certified Advanced Wastewater Treatment Systems; they must be moving at least 6 knots at the time of discharge, but if they use a more rigorous treatment program including ultraviolet light, they may be allowed to discharge in port; sewage sludge may not be discharged within 12 miles of any Washington coast; sampling and reporting requirements require cruise lines to submit monthly reports on self-administered tests, and the Department of Ecology is allowed to audit testing at any time. 70 Because the MOU does not include a funding mechanism, the Department of Ecology estimates that implementing the agreement will cost taxpayers $44,767 from June 2004 to June The cruise industry has agreed to take on the costs of MOU implementation, but as of the end of January 2005 this had not happened. 71 Comparison of the Results of Legislation and MOUs The contrast between the effectiveness of legislation and MOUs could not be more clear than the different experiences of Hawaii and Alaska. The first year it was in effect, Hawaii s MOU was violated 16 times. Violations included mostly the discharge of graywater and blackwater in the protected fishing ground known as Penguin Bank. Also cited were one instance of incinerating waste while in port, the discharge of almost 20,000 gallons of galley waste and graywater in marine areas, and reporting errors. 72 Because the cruise lines were subject to only a voluntary agreement, no fines or charges were imposed. Alaska, a state which saw 39 confirmed air emissions violations in the period from 1999 to 2001, has seen only one violation between 2002 and 2003, and wastewater discharge violations since 2001 have been nearly nonexistent. 73 Clearly the Alaska Cruise Ship Initiative, passed in 2001 and setting clear standards and penalties for violation, was the key reason for this dramatic improvement. Though its MOU was only signed in April 2004, Washington has already seen cruise ships violate it three times. In one instance, Holland America Lines Part 3: Legislation or MOU 21

22 Photo by Russell Lynch, courtesy of KAHEA A cruise ship at dock in Hawaii. Zaandam discharged black and gray water from an advanced wastewater treatment system while at port in Port Angeles. It violated the MOU because the Zaandam had not submitted paperwork necessary to be approved for discharge in port. The Princess Line s M.S. Sapphire was guilty of two violations by first discharging treated effluent throughout the 2004 season when it was not certified to do so; and second the worst violation of the year by discharging untreated gray water during its first voyage from Seattle to Victoria. The untreated gray water contained high fecal coliform, biochemical oxygen demand, total suspended solids, and low ph, all of which are damaging to the health of Puget Sound. 74 While all three violations can be explained to some degree by the ships crews being unfamiliar with the new procedures, they also underscore the need for cruise lines to have a greater incentive to meet clean environmental standards. In addition to Washington s little experience with its MOU, its experience with two prior voluntary agreements should be considered for how effective the MOU as another voluntary agreement will be in the future. One was the discharge of 16,000 gallons of raw sewage into the Strait of Juan de Fuca near Whidbey Island in 2003 by the Norwegian Sun, after the cruise industry had agreed to follow Alaska s standards while in Washington waters. 75 In response to the state of Washington s citation, the cruise line claimed both that the discharge was a mistake and that the state didn t have jurisdiction over cruise ships anyway. The second was the cruise industry s disregard of 2002 and 2003 commitments to burn only low sulfur fuels while in port at Seattle. In September 2003 the environmental groups Bluewater Network and Ocean Advocates discovered and revealed that ships at the Port of Seattle were not and had never used low sulfur fuels there. 76 Again, because the agreement was a voluntary one between the Port of Seattle and the cruise lines, no penalty was imposed on the cruise lines. In the first case, though they had clearly broken a stated promise, Norwegian Cruise Lines argued that the state did not have the power to regulate cruise ships. And in the second, the broken promise to burn low sulfur fuels at the Port of Seattle was only discovered when cruise industry lobbyists claimed they did not have the technology to burn low sulfur fuels, though they had already committed to burning low sulfur fuels in Seattle. The cruise industry s broken promises and ambivalence toward environmental protection will continue as long as Washington relies on voluntary agreements to safeguard its marine waters health. 22 Cruising for a Bruising

23 Conclusions and Recommendations Factors demonstrating the importance of legislation In addition to the quantifiably different experiences of states that have enacted laws and states that have signed MOUs, there are several factors that show Washington should pass legislation. First, Washington is in a geographic position where strict laws make sense. Both Alaska and California have passed legislation to protect state waters and punish polluters. Ships traveling from Alaska and California are already equipped to meet high environmental standards. There is no reason for Washington s waters to be the dumping ground for west coast cruise ships. Second, as described in Part 2, Washington s marine resources deserve the highest standard of protection because of their high aesthetic and economic value, and because they are already seriously threatened by pollution. Legislation provides both a powerful incentive for environmental responsibility as well as the opportunity for the state to recover the costs of damages and repair harm. Third, MOUs not only fail to penalize polluters, but they include no mandatory fee system, often leaving the costs of monitoring and recovery to taxpayers. The Department of Ecology estimated it will cost Washington State $44,767 to implement the MOU from June 2004 to June While the cruise lines have agreed to take on the cost of implementation, that arrangement has not been completed. 77 Thus citizens of Washington have so far paid for both the regulation and the violationsof an industry that takes home tens of millions of dollars in profits. Fourth, there is the question of trust. As Ross Klein has pointed out, MOUs are an expression of trust. Given the cruise industry s record of breaking verbal and written agreements, betting Washington s marine resources on the trustworthiness of cruise lines is a very risky proposition. The most concerning violation of trust in Washington to date was the Norwegian Cruise Lines response to the state, after dumping 16,000 gallons of sewage in the Strait of Juan de Fuca, that only a promise, not a law, had been broken. 78 Taking up voluntary protections with an industry with this attitude is unwise. Conclusions and Recommendations 23

24 Last, cruise lines regularly insist that their ships meet the standards of proposed law, even while resisting regulation. If their ships meet proposed standards already, then cruise lines should accept legislation. In fact, lines whose ships meet standards of proposed law should support that legislation because they stand to gain a competitive advantage over lines that need to upgrade their ships. Recommendations To protect Washington s marine environment, legislation regulating cruise ship discharges should include: 1. A ban on the discharges of blackwater, graywater, oily bilge water, ballast water, and hazardous wastes in state waters. 2. Clear penalties for violating regulations. Penalties should provide an economic deterrent to violation and cover the damage to state ecosystems. 3. A per-passenger fee system to pay for a state monitoring program. A graduated fee scale could provide economic incentives for cruise lines to be environmentally responsible. An average fee of $1-2 per passenger would pay the major part of the expenses of cruise ship monitoring. Conclusion Perhaps the futility of pursuing voluntary action as a means of protecting public resources is summed up best by Larry Lau, Hawaii s state deputy director for environmental health. In response to the many violations of Hawaii s MOU by the cruise industry, Lau told the Honolulu Advertiser that the MOU beats nothing I m trying to do the best with what we have. 79 In Washington, an MOU is the best we have only because we have not demanded better protection for our coasts. The protection of Washington s incredible marine waters are in the hands of our state Representatives, Senators, and Governor, and they need to make sure that Washington s resources are better protected. Washington s marine waters are too precious to the state, its citizens, and its economy and already far too endangered to accept anything less than strong, specific, and enforceable standards for what cruise ships may leave here. 24 Cruising for a Bruising

25 References 1. Klein, Ross. Cruise Ship Blues: The Underside of the Cruise Industry. New Society Publishers: Gabriola Island, Canada, p Ibid. p U.S. General Accounting Office. Marine Pollution: Progress Made to Reduce Marine Pollution by Cruise Ships, but Important Issues Remain. Report to Congressional Requesters, February rc00048.pdf Viewed Dec. 17, Herz, Michael. Cruise Control: A Report on How Cruise Ships Affect the Marine Environment. The Ocean Conservancy, May p Bluewater Network. Trust Us is not an effective environmental policy. Factsheet, Klein, Ross. Cruisejunkie.com Viewed November 11, Herz, Michael. Cruise Control: A Report on How Cruise Ships Affect the Marine Environment. The Ocean Conservancy, May pp EPA Silver Nitrate Factsheet viewed Dec. 3, EnviroTools.org factsheet (adapted from U.S. EPA) contaminants/perchloroethylene.shtml#effect viewed Dec. 3, Herz, Michael. Cruise Control: A Report on How Cruise Ships Affect the Marine Environment. The Ocean Conservancy, May pp Seattle Post-Intelligencer Staff. Cruise ships to plug in to reduce pollution. Oct. 1, U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy. Preliminary Report of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy. April p Puget Sound Action Team Puget Sound Conservation and Recovery Plan p U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy. Preliminary Report of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy. April p Puget Sound Action Team. Treasure of the Tidelands (Factsheet). July fact_sheets/economy_web1.pdf viewed Dec. 3, Puget Sound Action Team. A Heritage of Harvest (Factsheet). July fact_sheets/heritage_web1.pdf viewed Dec. 3, Koenings, Jeff, Ph.D., Director of Washington Dept. of Fish and Wildlife. Presentation to the Northwest Sportfishing Association, October 25, director/oct2503.htm viewed Dec. 3, References 25