Ships held to unfair standard

The drinking water that comes from your faucet in Anchorage contains too much copper for cruise ships to discharge it back into Alaska waters. Ditto for tap water in Fairbanks and in Wasilla.

A new large commercial passenger vessel wastewater discharge general permit issued by the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) sets standards for some trace metals so high no community in Alaska can meet them. Neither can cruise ships, even those that have spent more than $200 million developing the most advanced wastewater treatment systems in Alaska.

And that means less business for Alaska.

The permit requirement is part of a cruise ship initiative that voters approved in 2006. That initiative imposed a number of environmental provisions, including one that requires ships to have a discharge permit and meet all Alaska water quality standards. The initiative also established the Ocean Ranger program.

Backers of the initiative repeatedly told voters ships would be held to the same standards every other industrial and municipal discharger must meet, and that a new permitting program is not necessary.

Just days before the election, one initiative backer told the Alaska Journal of Commerce, “You have to play by the rules we have established for everyone.”

That’s fair.

But the permit ADEC issued holds ships to a much different standard, one that will cost Alaska communities and businesses.

Like every other state, Alaska’s water quality standards contemplate the use of dilution factors, such as mixing zones or short-term variances. They are not applied at the end of the pipe, which is the exact point of release. Yet, the ADEC permit for cruise ships adopts end-of-the-pipe effluent limits, which means that neither the ships, nor any other discharging entity, can attain them.

That means ships will have to hold all discharges until they are out of Alaska waters. This will shorten times in port, which will negatively impact Alaska businesses. It also means fewer ports of call, which will financially harm port communities.

The issue here is trace metals, not fecal coliform or other pathogens that caused such concerns in the past. And the issue is not the ships’ treatment systems. Both state and federal regulators monitor and test ship discharges. In December, the Environmental Protection Agency released a draft cruise ship discharge assessment report that described the new systems as “very effective.”

Last season the state put three Coast Guard-licensed engineers and eight environmental professionals aboard ships to monitor environmental compliance. These professionals, part of the Ocean Ranger program, made 114 trips between May 9 and Sept. 28, traveling at least once on all 27 ships that operate in Alaska on a regular basis, according to a summary prepared by ADEC.

The observers uncovered no incidents that prompted ADEC enforcement and noted only two incidents on their checklists. One entailed a drip of hydraulic fluid that had already been reported and was brought to the observer’s attention by the ship’s environmental officer. Another observer suggested a ship’s crew delay routine hull maintenance to avoid any possibility of paint chips or paint dropping into Alaska waters. The crew voluntary stopped the work actions immediately, ADEC reports, and promptly retrieved the paint chips.

A copy of the ADEC summary is posted on the state Web site at www.dec.state.ak.us/-water/cruise_ships/index.htm.

Alaska should hold cruise ships to the same stringent standards as its coastal communities. That’s in Alaska’s best interests, but it’s not in the state’s best interest to shorten the time cruise visitors have ashore or to eliminate some ports of call altogether.

Alaska needs to base its permits on good judgment.

Stan Stephens has owned and operated Stephens Cruises out of Valdez since 1971. He served on the Prince William Sound Regional Citizens Advisory Council for 19 years.