Manager backs off
cruise waste idea

By Jessica Edwards

Haines Borough officials this week backed off a plan to seek a deadline extension for cruise ship wastewater discharge standards that would have bought time for the town  to develop shore-based treatment.

Borough manager Tom Bolen planned to submit two resolutions to the assembly March 10: one supporting legislative efforts to water down discharge standards approved by voters in the 2006 cruise ship initiative, and another seeking extension of a 2010 deadline to adopt the new standards in order to build a shore-based system.

Bolen said Monday proposing a shore-based treatment here may be perceived as an unfriendly message to the cruise industry as it seeks relaxed standards. “The Haines Borough is trying to get more cruise ships to Haines,” Bolen said. “I’d hate to send the wrong signal.”

If standards are relaxed, Bolen said, ships have no reason to treat water to higher standards. But if state lawmakers don’t amend the standards in the law, “the Haines Borough will aggressively pursue an option for a shore-based facility.”

The cruise industry is seeking municipal support of House Bill 134, which would allow mixing zones when measuring pollution discharged by ships. The cruise ship initiative passed by Alaska voters in 2006 requires pollutant levels to be measured at the point of discharge.

Skagway, Juneau, Ketchikan, Seward, and Whittier have passed municipal resolutions asking for state review of “point of discharge” standards, using language ranging from “modify” to “examine.”

New wastewater permit standards are set to take effect in 2010. Cruise lines say they can’t meet the standards for removing ammonia, copper, nickel and zinc by the deadline because treatment technologies don’t exist. They also say ships should have the same mixing zones allowed municipalities, mines, and seafood processors.

Opponents say cruise ships’ discharges pose a greater threat to marine life because ships are mobile. Fish and other aquatic life can’t just avoid the discharge zones, they say. Opponents also say taking the teeth out of current law means ships would have no incentive to make discharges cleaner, and would nullify potential for dockside treatment.

Bolen attended a Jan. 18 wastewater treatment technologies conference in Juneau, hosted by the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation. 

Attendees included scientists and technology vendors, cruise line representatives, state and municipal officials.

The upshot of the conference was that land-based advanced treatment systems to remove effluents did exist, but had not yet been adapted for use on ships, Bolen said.

Bolen previously said investing in advanced land-based treatment systems was the practical solution over changing the law because building shore facilities in several Southeast communities would allow cruise lines to meet the new standards without retrofitting entire fleets.

The borough could charge for the service, Bolen said, and treatment facilities would serve as an enticement to ships to dock here.

The 2010 deadline still posed a problem, he said, as municipalities would need time to design and construct facilities.

Should HB 134 not pass, cruise ship head tax money, collected by the state as part of the 2006 law, could be used to build and operate a facility, which Bolen envisioned near the Port Chilkoot Dock.

Details such as capacity and compatibility with different existing wastewater treatment systems on ships would require an engineer’s expertise, and it isn’t yet clear what a facility would cost, Bolen said.

While spending cruise head tax money might preclude building a new system that could serve both ships and the municipality, he said, the facility might be able to treat cruise ship wastewater only for the metals and ammonia.

An on-shore system to service ships might cost $1 million as opposed to $4 or $5 million for a new municipal wastewater plant, said Bolen.

Initiative sponsor Gershon Cohen said HB 134 was premature because ships aren’t required to meet the standards for another year.

If the industry needs another extension, Cohen said, the Department of Environmental Conservation has authority to grant more time without changing the law, as it did by pushing the original 2008 deadline back to 2010. 

Cohen said advanced land-based systems were a “win-win” situation. “It may not even be necessary to adapt (technologies) to ships.”

Nearly $35 million in annual, non-restricted tax revenues from on-board gambling and corporate income might be used to build the facility for community as well as for ship waste, Cohen said.

DEC cruise ship program manager Denise Koch said the Feb. 18 conference was important because it helped inform a reasonable permitting process.

Koch said Alaska’s cruise ship discharge standards were the most stringent in the world and acknowledged water treatment on board surpassed that of all Alaska municipalities.

But, said Koch, “It is ultimately the cruise lines’ responsibility to comply with the permit. This shouldn’t be the first time (cruise lines) are thinking about technologies.”

Koch said DEC in April would publish a technology feasibility study that would direct the agency’s approach to cruise ship wastewater permits in light of state discharge laws.

Koch said she didn’t know if DEC would grant the industry another permit extension for wastewater compliance. That would depend on the legislature’s decision and on implementation time and cost to the industry of new technology, she said.