Cruise Ship Blues: The Underside of the Cruise Ship Industry (20 page)

Glacier Bay became a hot environmental issue in 1994. Late that year, Congressman Don Young and Senator Murkowski pressured the Department of the Interior to increase the number of cruise ships allowed per year in Glacier Bay National Park by more than 70 percent, from 107 to 184.
⁵⁴
Each politician was assuming the chairpersonship for the committee that had jurisdiction over most agencies and programs of the Department of the Interior. From that position, they instructed the Secretary of the Interior to direct the National Park Service to change the vessel management part of its plan to allow 184 visits per year — an average of two visits per day during the 92-day season.
⁵⁵

Environmentalists and the park service’s own experts opposed the increase in the number of permits, citing concern for the abundant wildlife in the park — including several species of whales, Stellar sea lions, seals, and otters — as the mouth of the bay is a major feeding area. Following a sharp decline in the number of humpback whales in the bay, in 1978 strict speed limits had been imposed on cruise ships, and the number of entry permits issued for the park was reduced by 20 percent. Between 1982 and 1991, this reduction was slowly rolled back.

under pressure to increase ship entries, the park service solicited public comments. Eighty-five percent of respondents favored fewer rather more permits. Consequently, the Alaska politicians were unsuccessful in forcing the number of permits to 184, but the limit was raised to 139 for the peak months of June, July, and August. (Visits during May and September are not included in the quota.) The new limits took effect in 1996.

In response to the decision, in 1997 the National Parks Conservation Association sued the Park Service. In February 2001 the ninth circuit court of appeals found that the Park Service had erred when it responded to industry appeals by allowing a 30-

INTERIM CRUISE SHIP SAMPLING DATA SUMMARY ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION DIVISION OF AIR AND WATER QUALITY SEPTEMBER 6, 2001

Summary of Results

•    Preliminary 2001 ambient air monitoring data collected in downtown Juneau area through late July 2001 show that the maximum levels measured for three pollutants of concern — sulfur dioxide (SO
2
), oxides of nitrogen (NOx), and particulates that are 2.5 micron in size or smaller (PM
2
.
5
) — are well below state and federal allowable limits.

•    A total of 238 smokestack opacity readings have been taken in Juneau, Skagway and Haines from the start of the cruise season in May through August 28, 2001. Nineteen are currently under review for potential violations of the marine vessel visible air emission opacity standards. Last year there were 30 alleged violations for opacity violations and 2 alleged violations for air pollution violations.

•    Six of the seven ships for which wastewater sampling results are summarized are discharging graywater within Alaska waters; only one is discharging blackwater in Alaska waters. One vessel is discharging both gray- and blackwater outside Alaska waters. The samples are for conventional pollutants only. Difficulty in transporting samples from ships to the laboratory in a timely manner resulted in nearly 50 percent of the fecal coliform samples being invalidated. Some ships are being resampled for fecal coliform.

•    Overall, the wastewater samples show variable pollutant levels, e.g.,

—    chlorine residual ranges from non-detectable to 70 mg/l (Water Quality standard 0.002 mg/l)

—    fecal coliform bacteria: 19 to 9,000,000 per 100 ml (HB 260 limit 200/100 ml)

—    pH: 4 to 10 (Water Quality standard 6.5 to 8.5)

— and total suspended solids: 18 to 26,000 mg/l (HB 260 limit 150 mg/l)

•    While they are not subject to enforcement action, some results for fecal coliform bacteria and total suspended solids from samples taken prior to the effective date of HB 260 exceed the state's new effluent limits.

•    There also are wastewater sample results that exceed Alaska's water quality standards for residual chlorine or pH. However, it is important to recognize that effluent limits only apply to fecal coliform bacteria and total suspended solids and water quality criteria are not directly applicable to the concentration of a pollutant in a holding tank, wastewater stream or effluent.

( . )

•    One wastewater sample data set taken from a discharge line, of two collected after the July 1, 2001 effective date of the new state law, shows a total suspended solids of 189 mg/l, above the effluent standard of 150 mg/l. Both post-July 1 samples were well below the state's fecal coliform effluent standard of 200 colonies/100 ml under the new law. The one sample is under review by ADEC [Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation] for consideration of a TSS [total suspended solids] violation.

•    The cruise industry has introduced some procedures for stack emission reduction, including: gas turbine engines, enhanced combustion technology, and shore-side power hook-ups.

•    The industry continues to evaluate, test and bring on-line new technology for advanced wastewater treatment. The USCG [US Coast Guard] has approved two ships for wastewater discharge anywhere in Alaska (except specifically prohibited areas) this season, including in-port. These ships have achieved very low fecal coliform, TSS, biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) and chlorine sample results, through installation of state-of-the-art treatment technology.
⁵³

[*HB260 = House Bill 260: Commercial Passenger Vessel Regulation and Fees]

percent increase in summer cruise ship traffic in Glacier Bay without doing a full study of the environmental impact the additional ships would have. The government appealed the decision. uS district court judge James Singleton upheld it in August 2001, ordering an immediate reduction in the number of ships allowed into Glacier Bay National Park.

Senator Ted Stevens sought to override the court decision with a rider to the appropriations bill for the Department of the Interior. The rider instructed the National Park Service to freeze cruise ship entries at the current level of 139 ships until it completed an environmental impact statement as had been ordered by the court in February.
⁵⁶
The rider passed the Senate in August but didn’t pass the House early enough to take effect in 2001. It did take effect in 2002.

Senator Stevens’ position — that conservationists needed to prove allegations of adverse impacts on the park — was temporarily undermined by discovery of a dead pregnant female humpback whale floating very near the entrance to Glacier Bay on July 16, 2001. The whale, first observed in 1979 and followed for 22 years, was known as Whale Number 68. An autopsy indicated that the death was most probably the result of a collision with a cruise ship, a conclusion confirmed a month later. Tips from passengers suggest that the whale and Princess Cruises’
Dawn Princess
had collided.
⁵⁷

The incident gave increased credence to claims by the National Parks Conservation Association. However, it appears that environmental decisions are so politicized that the support may not change government policies. This politicization is reflected by contributions to the Alaska Republican party of $25,000 each from Holland America Line, Princess Cruises, and Royal Caribbean International. Within one month of a federal judge’s ruling in June

2001 that struck down major sections of Alaska’s campaign finance law and which legalized so-called soft money contributions, the Republican party had received $90,000 in corporate donations; in contrast, the Democratic party had received $5,000.
⁵⁸

DESTINATION: THE CARIBBEAN

Environmental concerns among Caribbean countries have had less success than Alaska. As in Juneau, these concerns have been reflected in efforts to raise the head tax charged for each passenger. But in the Caribbean, the situation is a bit different.

Increased Port Charges to Pay for Garbage Disposal

Caribbean ports made several efforts to increase their port charges in the early 1990s. In most cases, these increases were intended to increase revenue. For example, in 1992 the seven-member Organization of Eastern Caribbean States (OECS) raised port fees from $3.00 to a uniform $9.25 per visitor, but pressure from the cruise industry forced them to roll the fees back to their original level.
⁵⁹
They raised them to $10 per visitor in 1995 and again were forced to roll them back. After bowing to pressure in 1992 when it raised port charges and faced threats of boycott,
⁶⁰
the Bahamas successfully resisted pressure from cruise lines to lower its new $15 head tax in 1994.
⁶¹
In 1993 Jamaica gave into pressure, reduced its tax, and agreed to phase in an increase over four years.
⁶²
As a means of persuasion, cruise lines used the credible threat of moving their ships to another port.

Disputes over port fees resumed in 1997 after six Caribbean islands — Antigua, Dominica, Grenada, St. Kitts, St. Lucia, and St. Vincent (all OECS members) — announced that, effective December 1, they would begin charging every cruise ship passenger an additional $1.50 head tax. Unlike earlier efforts, the extra cash in this case was earmarked to defray the cost of improving waste management systems at the islands. They were participating in a region-wide program of waste disposal based in Port of Spain, Trinidad, sponsored by the International Maritime Organization and financed by the World Bank. The entire program across the region was expected to cost $54 million.

Implementation of MARPOL’s designation of the Caribbean as a “special area” depends on construction of the waste management system. There is perverse incentive for the cruise industry to oppose the taxes needed to fund its operation; as long as construction is delayed, Annex V will not take effect.

After almost a year, cruise lines withdrew their opposition to the new tax in April 1998, following intervention by the World Bank. The bank explained that the island governments had no choice in the matter — they had signed on with the waste disposal project, and collecting the tax from each visitor was part of the agreement. The agreement provided that the World Bank would finance new landfills for each nation, provided that the new tax revenues were used to run the landfills.

Although Carnival Cruise Line had opposed the tax, in March 1998 it agreed to accept the additional $1.50 in the case of Grenada in order to help the country deal with its garbage problem. Carnival’s vice-president of public relations, Tim Gallagher, indicated that the cruise line still viewed the new tax as unfair and a dangerous precedent for a company that disposes of most of its solid waste aboard its modern fleet. He said that Carnival had yet to decide whether to pay the tax in the other five nations. “We do not mind paying for something if it’s a service being provided for us,” he said. “But we do not want to pay for facilities we don’t use.”
⁶³

Further insight into the company’s attitude is reflected in Gallagher’s concession that $1.50 a head — on top of the current $3 arrival tax, the lowest in the region — seems paltry. But, he stressed, “The reason that Carnival Corp. makes the kind of money we do is because we pay great, great attention to controlling our costs. Sure it’s just $1.50. But it’s $1.50 here, then $1.50 there, then $1.50 over there. When you allow people to unfairly charge for things, then you open a Pandora’s box.”
⁶⁴

In November 1999 Carnival Cruise Line reversed its decision and announced that it would again boycott Grenada over the tax.
⁶⁵
The resulting confrontation remains a stalemate.

At the same time, the problem of pollution in the Caribbean region continues. It isn’t just solid waste, which Carnival Cruise Lines says it holds onboard until the end of the cruise, but food waste, graywater, and blackwater that continue to foul the waters around a number of Caribbean islands frequented by cruise ships.

Increased Enforcement against Dumping

Some Caribbean ports have attempted to tighten enforcement against ocean pollution. The Cayman Islands was perhaps the first to take on the cruise industry when in 1992 it levied a $3,750 fine against the
Seaward
for dumping untreated sewage.
⁶⁶
A year later it fined Royal Caribbean Cruise Line’s
Majesty of the Seas
$2,500 for dumping kitchen waste with an unacceptably high level of bacteria harmful to marine life, and began investigating a second incident involving the
Seaward.
⁶⁷
Bermuda also enforced environmental regulations, fining Royal Caribbean’s
Nordic Prince
$8,500 in 1992 after deeming it responsible for an oil spill that extended for more than a quarter mile in St. George’s harbor.