In July, a state inspector boarded a cruise ship in Juneau for a routine review. The inspector’s report includes a photo that shows a metal drum full of chunky, black sludge — a mixture laden with sulfur and heavy metals.
That particular drum was slated to be offloaded on land, in British Columbia. But on many ships, systems known as scrubbers ensure the toxic sludge never materializes on board. That’s because it’s diluted with sea water and released back into the ocean.
Now, state Sen. Jesse Kiehl is looking to address the issue. The Juneau Democrat is drafting legislation in hopes of cracking down on the technology, which produces a largely invisible – and little regulated – source of water pollution.
“There’s still dirty fuel belching sulfur into Alaska. And that’s a problem,” Kiehl said in an interview last month.
The issue is not isolated to Alaska. And neither are efforts to address it. A growing list of ports, states and countries are zeroing in on the problem, which stems from rules adopted by the International Maritime Organization in 2020.
Cutting air pollution led to new water pollution
The IMO wanted to cut air pollution, namely sulfur pollution, from ships that burn heavy marine oil. While some cruise and shipping companies complied by using cleaner fuels, known as distillate fuels, others invested in scrubbers.
The technology allows them to continue burning dirty fuels by using seawater to remove pollutants from ship exhaust. So-called “open loop” systems send that contaminated water right back into the sea.
Experts say each individual open loop scrubber can produce up to 3,600 metric tons of water per hour. And some ships run multiple scrubbers at once.
When exhaust with high levels of sulfur and other pollutants is released into the air, they can increase the risk of cancer, respiratory complications and cardiovascular diseases.
Scientists have been studying what happens when those pollutants are released into the ocean. But a growing body of research indicates it can harm marine life, including mussels and crustaceans, like crab, said Eelco Leemans, an advisor to the Clean Arctic Alliance, a global coalition focused on the shipping industry.
“The evidence is so clear that we have no reason to doubt that,” Leemans said.
Regulatory challenges
A tangled web of rules and regulations surrounds the issue. The IMO sets the global standard. And for now, the international body allows ships to use scrubbers to comply with its air pollution rules.
But there’s a growing push for that to change. Just this week, the agenda for an IMO subcommittee meeting in London featured more than a dozen proposals from member states and other organizations related to scrubber regulation.
“We believe that scrubbers do not provide the solutions that they were designed for, because basically they transfer air pollution to water pollution,” Leemans said during a recent webinar hosted by the Clean Arctic Alliance ahead of the meeting. “In the end, IMO should really do something about this.”
In the meantime, governments are taking matters into their own hands. In July, for example, 15 nations and the European Union moved to prohibit scrubber discharge in internal waters and port areas – and will consider extending the ban to about 12 miles offshore.
The U.S. has taken a less aggressive approach. The Environmental Protection Agency regulates scrubbers by way of a permit that sets limits for the concentration of pollutants in discharge. But at least in Alaska, the agency has rarely enforced those limits – despite hundreds of violations in some years.
The EPA did not respond to a request for comment by press time.
State regulators in Alaska, for their part, conduct routine environmental inspections on ships, which often entails observing scrubber operations and reviewing washwater data. In some cases, they flag problems for the EPA.
But in the end, the state Department of Environmental Conservation says it can’t enforce the EPA’s scrubber regulations themselves.
“Scrubber washwater is not addressed in State statutes, regulations, or the State’s general permit for vessels, and the State currently has no authority to enforce a federal permit,” Ben Eisenstein, DEC’s cruise ship program manager, wrote in an email.
Kiehl says that puts Alaska and other states in a bind.
“It’s really difficult with the federal government stepping in and telling the state: ‘You have nothing to say about scrubber discharge,’” he said.
Clean fuel regulations
So localities and states can’t punish ships for violating federal standards. But some are pursuing – or have already implemented – other ways to get at the problem.
Kiehl, the state lawmaker, didn’t provide more details about what his legislation might entail, or when he might introduce it. But he said he’s exploring a range of options, and nodded to other governments that have largely taken one common path: addressing the type of fuel that vessels use in the first place.
Most experts point to California. The state adopted a rule in 2008 that required ships to use cleaner, lower-sulfur fuels within 24 miles of shore. The goal was to reduce air pollution – plus cancer and other public health risks – from dirty fuels.
The California rule predated the proliferation of scrubbers. But it means the state dodged the problem before it even existed. Ships are already using low-sulfur fuels in California waters and don’t need to scrub them clean.
“We don’t have the issues with wastewater discharge because [scrubbers are] not a compliance option,” Bonnie Soriano, of the California Air Resources Board, told KHNS.
Soriano was among experts who said that cleaner fuels don’t require new technology or systems; ships can simply swap them in. She also said most vessels already carry them.
“There are some differences in prices, but likely they have the fuel on board if they’re doing a string that involves California,” Soriano said.
Meanwhile, in Washington state, the legislature is mulling a similar approach. A bill there would require cleaner fuels within 3 miles of shore.
State Rep. Debra Lekanoff is the bill’s sponsor. She’s originally from Yakutat but now represents communities in northern Washington, including the San Juan Islands. During a January hearing, she drew a connection between her two homes.
“What’s happening in my own backyard, where my Tlingit name Xixch’I See comes from, is the very impact that happens upon the Salish Sea,” Lekanoff said.
A growing list of tribes and organizations support Alaska taking a similar approach. Just one example: The Skagway Traditional Council in October adopted a resolution that called on the state to require the use of cleaner fuel – and on the shipping industry and the IMO to do their part, too.
Industry opposition
The cruise and shipping industries have opposed efforts to require clean fuels or eliminate scrubbers – a dynamic that is already playing out in Washington.
During the same hearing, industry representatives said a clean fuel requirement would be burdensome and unnecessary, and that it would amount to a roundabout attempt to address a water pollution problem by way of an air pollution regulation.
“This unnecessarily restricts authorized environmental technologies,” said Donald Brown, a vice president of Cruise Lines International Association.
The trade group did not respond to a request for comment. But pushback in Washington state and beyond suggests that any potential legislation in Alaska could have a long road ahead.
Aaron Brakel, of the Southeast Alaska Conservation Council, said he doesn’t expect any potential legislation would be signed into law this year.
“What’s really important, though, is getting a chance for the Legislature to start considering the issue,” Brakel said.
“To be having a conversation about the state of Alaska taking action on dirty fuel and exhaust scrubbers is a huge step in the right direction,” he added.
