Cruise Ship Pollution – Air and Water - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

niveditha
cruise ship pollution air and water l.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Cruise Ship Pollution – Air and Water PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Cruise Ship Pollution – Air and Water

play fullscreen
1 / 23
Download Presentation
Cruise Ship Pollution – Air and Water
592 Views
Download Presentation

Cruise Ship Pollution – Air and Water

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

  1. Cruise Ship Pollution – Air and Water Teri Shore, Bluewater Network Tim Eichenberg, Oceana

  2. 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. Air Pollution Summary

  3. 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)

  4. 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).

  5. 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 PointSF 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.

  6. 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

  7. 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

  8. 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.

  9. 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 – Shoreside Power

  10. 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.

  11. 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.

  12. 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.

  13. 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.

  14. Water Pollution SummaryAverage 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

  15. 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

  16. 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

  17. 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

  18. 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

  19. 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

  20. Water Pollution SummaryPort 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

  21. BCDC Water Quality ConditionsNov. 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

  22. 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.

  23. 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