42 comments
Cruise ships carry a high environmental toll. Most cruise ships burn low grade bunker fuel laden with sulfur oxides, heavy metals, and other toxicants. Pollutants from exhaust emissions are removed by ship scrubbers spraying seawater into smokestacks and returning the acidic wash water laden with heavy metals etc. back into the environment, turning air pollution into a water pollution problem. This is unsatisfactory for the fragile Chesapeake Bay.
Cruise ship exhaust poisons the air. The low grade bunker fuel burned by cruise ships is laden with sulfur oxides and heavy metals that are carcinogenic to human lungs.
Cruise ships do nothing but spew toxic chemicals into the air. The rest of us have the right to breathe fresh air. You do not get to destroy the environment and kill wildlife for YOUR profit.
I am commenting in support of the petition due to the associated risks and negatives impact of ocean class cruise ships on the environment specifically regards air pollution, climate change, etc. As a people, a country, a state, we work hard to maintain clean air, particularly around areas of heavy activity, cities, ports, bays, and estuaries. Large cruise ships, essentially small floating cities, add to the challenge of maintaining clean air due to the types of fuels they use, producing toxic products. The onboard technologies employed to control these toxic discharges are often not operated OR particularly not maintained, in the proper manner as to achieve the levels of performance that they advertise, thus releasing the undesirable toxins into the atmosphere. Accordingly I support and recommend approval of the petition.
As a marine biologist, I write to urge this board to carefully consider the potential harms of cruise ship pollution to Virginia’s coastal ecosystems and the public health of our citizens. Most cruise ships use a very dirty grade of so called “bunker fuel”, or Heavy Fuel Oil (HFO), which is a tarry sludge leftover from the crude oil refining process. Emission of toxic nitrogen oxides and sulfur oxides from the burning of HFOs is an ongoing serious threat to global human and environmental health, and an acute spill of this low-grade fuel would be disastrous in any marine environment.
In 2020, the IMO (International Maritime Organization) set new tougher standards for sulfur emissions, and subsequently the global shipping fleet is in the process of switching to lighter, cleaner fuels. But to save money, the cruise industry has chosen to use scrubbers or Exhaust Gas Cleaning Systems (EGCS) to reduce sulfur in the exhaust, rather than switch to more expensive fuels. The types of scrubbers used by most are open-loop systems and do not solve the pollution problem, they just transfer it from the air to the water, which becomes more acidic and laden with toxic PAHs and heavy metals. The problem may be worse in estuaries (such as the Chesapeake Bay) than in the open ocean, because scrubbers are known to be less effective in brackish waters. Coastal habitats and fisheries are acutely vulnerable to the effects of water pollution, and are of major economic and recreational importance to coastal communities.
To summarize, environmental concerns include atmospheric pollution and ocean acidification, toxic discharges from open loop exhaust scrubbers (currently banned in 120 ports globally), and wastewater discharges. Fine particulates, residual sulfur oxides and nitrogen oxides
found in cruise ship exhaust can cause asthma, emphysema and cancer.
Cruise ship waste streams and accidental pollution incidents are increasing in proportion to the burgeoning growth of the industry, and the resulting public health and environmental issues are serious and complex. Please enact tougher cruise ship regulations for the good of the Commonwealth. The very real economic cost to human health, the seafood industry, and coastal ecosystems far outweighs the meager economic benefit of unregulated cruise traffic in our waters. For more detailed information, please visit https://protect-virginia.org/
Cruise ships are getting bigger, and the smaller ships are looking for other ways into land via ports that haven't even been established yet. These smaller ships (3000+ people) are older and lack the cleaner set up of the newer ships. These ships are not well maintained and have a history of pollution and accidents. We do not need to cause further harm to our environment and the precious Chesapeake Bay. Please protect our air and our precious ecosystem from these monstrosities. Putting bans on scrubbers would help protect our fragile ecosystem and forcing the ships to use shore power if they came into port would also help protect us from being overrun by these foreign flagged ships that evade U.S. taxes, labor laws, and exploit the poor cities that host them.
I am a resident of James City County. Having partaken in many cruises across the world, I would have the experience and critical thinking skills to opine.
Cruise ships are among the most significant contributors to climate change, particularly in Antarctica. The black carbon emissions from these vessels are accelerating the melting of snow on the continent. It’s important to note that Antarctica is melting at an accelerated rate and is responsible for a third of all sea level rise.
Consider the impacts a cruise ship would have on a small river town. It could devastate the environment through air pollution from carbon emissions and by dumping wastewater and sewage into the river, harming marine life and ecosystems.
Cruise ship pollution will disrupt and degrade the natural habitat of both the York River and the Chesapeake Bay, the largest estuary in the United States. One cruise ship can emit the same amount of sulfur dioxide as 13.1 million cars in a day. Imagine the impact this would have on our ecosystem and small community.
Facts:
All waste flushed down the toilet on the cruise liner will ultimately end up in the water, contaminating marine ecosystems.
The Environmental Protection Agency estimates that a cruise ship carrying 3,000 passengers produces 210,000 gallons of sewage each week.
The CO2 emissions from a cruise ship are 1,000 times greater than those from a train journey.
Princess Cruise Lines has faced multiple fines for environmental violations, including:
In 2016, Princess Cruises and its parent company, Carnival Corporation, pleaded guilty to seven felony charges for illegally dumping oil-contaminated waste and falsifying records to conceal this pollution. The waste included gray water, bilge water, and black oil. The resulting fine of $40 million was the largest ever imposed for intentional vessel pollution.
In 2019, Princess Cruise Lines and Carnival Corporation were fined $20 million for violating their probation due to environmental offenses committed in 2016.
During the first year of probation, up to 800 violations were recorded. Many of these offenses were deemed more serious than the original violation. One significant violation was the dumping by Holland America Westerdam, where 22,500 gallons of gray water were discharged into Glacier Bay National Park in Alaska, now the fastest-melting glacier on Earth.
Carnival Corporation committed thousands of violations from 2017 to 2022 while on federal criminal probation. It's obvious they would rather pay fines than improve their practices.
Today, towns are starting to see the negative impacts from having cruise ships docked in their ports. This has resulted in many tourist spots pushing back against the industry's presence. We can't afford to take the chance that these horrifying practices won't continue to happen here.
The DEQ should carefully consider the issue of discharges by the cruise ship industry into sensitive environmental areas of Virgina's bays and rivers. The negative impact on the economically important fisheries industry and to the health of the public in the Hampton Roads and Chesapeake Bay communities, once contamination from these floating cities occurs, is not easily mitigated. Remediation is much more expensive than prevention.
Stop Polluting the water with Cruise Ships. Protect the Sea Life and their Natural Habitat.
NO cruise ships in any of Virginia’s waterways.
Recently two major hurricanes hit Florida and other states back-to-back. The economic cost of climate change is staggering, and the human toll is heartbreaking. My sister-in-law has been to Florida three times now to counsel victims of these storms. In one text she wrote, “So many vulnerable people in completely dire states,” and “the assessment of unmet needs in the state continues to grow exponentially.”
As storms continue to intensify and increase in frequency, damage in Virginia will also increase. Insurance companies already know this. My insurance rates went up significantly this year and so I started to look for a new policy. To my surprise, several companies would not even consider insuring our home, which is at the top of a hill nowhere near a flood zone. Climate change will impact all aspects of our lives if not addressed. In the Pacific Northwest, ocean acidification due to climate change has already had major impacts on their oyster industry. This will happen in Virginia if we do not work to address it now.
Cruise ships are a major contributor to climate change. They have a larger carbon footprint per passenger than virtually ALL other forms of transportation. Cruise ship passengers have eight times the carbon footprint of land-based tourists (land-based tourists also spend a lot more money locally BTW).
Based on the record of the cruise ship industry; I do not think they have earned the right to operate in Virginia waters without regulation. But also, I am deeply worried for my children. I want to leave them a world where there is not a constant threat of wildfires, hurricanes, tornados, floods, and other natural disasters occurring back-to-back. The time to debate is over, the Commonwealth needs to act now. The Commonwealth should lead our Nation in positive change to address climate change, and this petition is a good start. I strongly support it for myself, my children, and future generations.
I know this petition is about pollution, but the cruise industry often touts economic benefits to port communities to get their foot in the door. The Control Board should be aware that only a few reap benefits--namely the cruise lines.
Port communities world-wide are fighting back against cruise ships due to over-tourism and pollution. Simply google – "fighting the cruise industry" – to learn more. One cruise lines are entrenched they fight dirty. In Key West, Florida, and Sitka Alaska they built private piers after the local community voted down measures to allow them to expand.
A similar thing is now happening in Juneau, Alaska and Rome, Italy. After the initial promises of the cruise industry are not realized, communities fight back, but it is an uphill battle going against a billion-dollar corporation fighting to maximize their profits at all costs.
I am from Yorktown, Virginia. We saw the industry’s tactics firsthand. They invited members of our Board of Supervisors on their ships to sell their story. They donated to the organization where they wanted a pier. Their lobbyist aligned state legislators to support the effort. And all this was done outside of the public eye with correspondence marked “Confidential” and “For your eyes only.”
The cruise industry knows how to make a sale, but unfortunately there is no “lemon law” to protect us from this industry. That is what the state Control Boards are charged with doing. I know that board members are here to serve the Commonwealth – please do so by regulating large cruise ships.
I support this petition. Thank you for the opportunity to provide public comment, when the cruise industry was making its sales pitch to Yorktown, we had little to no opportunity to do so.
The longer we wait to protect our air and water from cruise ship pollution, the harder it will be. Act now!
It has been well documented across the globe that mega cruise ships are a polluting agent in every port of call. National governing agencies lack the resources to effectively assure compliance with regulatory policies, as evidence continues to surface putting the environment of life giving resources at risk. Virginia must be a leader to enacting policies that will restore healthy air and water for all habitats of our State. Ban mega cruise ships from Virginia's rivers and the unique Chesapeake Bay. Support clean, treated discharges, both in the air and the water. Virginia's seafood and fishing industries need your protective actions to insure the recreational and commercial areas for all of our citizens. When you do your personal research, you will find a pathway forward.
I have worked for NASA for over 20 years. I am a senior engineer and researcher that works across programs. When there are challenging problems related to avionics it is my job to pull together teams to solve them. About a year and a half ago I became acquainted with the cruise industry and began to learn first about their business practices, and later about their pollution, and its impacts. I started to do what I have been trained to do. I worked to bring a team of smart dedicated people together to understand and address the problems associated with the cruise industry. We have talked with people from around the world - many from port communities. We have worked with marine biologists and other researchers to understand pollution impacts. We have examined regulations and approaches to manage the negative impacts of this industry. We have identified approaches that worked to regulate this industry despite its strong well-funded lobby. As with most problems there are multiple facets to it: water pollution, air pollution, public health, community impacts, seafood industry impacts, and economic benefit. After taking a hard look at these issues, this petition for regulatory action points to needed measures for the Commonwealth to take to protect its citizens, our marine ecosystems, and our seafood industry. There is ample evidence from cities and states in the US and from around the world that the large "ocean-class" cruise ships with many thousands of passengers are an unhealthy industry when unregulated. If not already fully informed, I recommend the DEQ study the detrimental impacts caused by cruise ships and take action to put regulations in place. To paraphrase Apollo 13 astronaut Jim Lovell - Virginia, we have a problem. Now we need to pull together and fix it. Thank you for your consideration of this petition.
I oppose large Cruise Ships in Virginia waters.
Did you know that port cities have a higher rate of premature deaths due to pollution? Nitrogen Oxides have links to cancer, and Sulphur Oxides cause respiratory problems. Please watch this excellent video, "The Cruise Industry: a Floating Grave?" at https://www.youtube.com/
The cruise industry does not address issues of passenger or public health--even though being a passenger on a large cruise ship can be worse for human health than living in the most polluted cities in the world.
New York and Seattle are both moving to provide cruise ships with shore power that can reduce cruise ship pollution by 70% to 80%. Virginia should do the same to protect the health of our citizens and our waters.
I strongly support this petition. Thank you for your consideration.
The dockings here in Norfolk are always a noticeable boon to the local downtown economy. At a time when local businesses and the local governments are strapped for revenue, these cruise shops bring passengers from all over the world eager to spend their money here. We see hundreds of them especially when the German cruise ships are docking, and the passengers are always carrying bags of merchandise bought here locally. I feel that additional restrictions on the cruise ships will discourage them from stopping in Virginia. Several years ago, we ran off the BMW interest in our region, and they took their money to South Carolina, along with tax revenues and jobs.
Recently the MSC Cruises was found guilty of fraud for greenwashing – making false claims about their pollution practices to come across as being eco-friendly (https://gofossilfree.org/nl/msc-cruises-guilty-of-greenwashing/). Misleading claims about pollution are not uncommon for this industry and the State Control Board should take this in account when making decisions about pollution. They should look at the track record of the industry, the funding source of pollution studies (some are funded by the cruise industry), and carefully parse the industry’s pollution claims. There are now multiple peer-reviewed studies on the pollution and impacts of this industry and they should be used to make sound decisions for the Commonwealth. I urge you to consider this when making your decisions about regulating the cruise industry in Virginia. I strongly support this petition. Thank you for your service to our Commonwealth.
Ms. Sabasteanski,
On behalf of the Virginia Pilot Association, I respectfully submit comments on the petition filed seeking new regulatory rule making on ocean class passenger vessels.
The petition proposes new state environmental regulations to the commercial maritime domain. These proposed regulations would be duplicative as currently the commercial maritime domain is regulated by state and federal regulations and international conventions.
Sincerely,
Whiting Chisman
President
The Virginia Maritime Association is the 104-year-old trade association representing over 450 businesses directly and indirectly engaged in the flow of waterborne commerce through Virginia’s ports, to include vessel operators, terminal operators, and all manner of companies involved in transportation and logistics. As the “Voice of Port Industries,” we write in objection to the “New Regulatory Rulemaking on Ocean-class Passenger Cruise Ships“ petition, filed October 1, 2024, requesting unnecessary and burdensome regulations on Virginia’s cruise ship industry.
A recent economic impact study from The College of William and Mary shows that in fiscal year 2022, The greater Port of Virginia supported nearly 730,000 jobs statewide and generated $87.8 billion in gross state product. Beyond maintaining and growing Virginia’s economy, our greater port serves the nation as a major East Coast transportation gateway, as well as an ideal mid-Atlantic cruise ship hub. Given the importance of the maritime economy to the Commonwealth, we offer the following comments in response to the requests of the filed petition.
Vessels calling on Virginia’s port already use low-sulphur fuels or permitted exhaust gas cleaning systems in compliance with international, federal, and state law. The International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL) Annex VI regulates air pollution from ships, and the International Maritime Organization (IMO) enforces those rules globally:
As mentioned above, in accordance with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the U.S. adheres to IMO's ECA standards within 200 nautical miles of the coast, and ships operating in U.S. ECAs must use fuel with a sulfur content not exceeding 0.10% or a permitted exhaust gas cleaning system. Additionally, the EPA’s Vessel General Permit (VGP) program includes fuel-related provisions focusing on emissions compliance and recordkeeping. Finally, the U.S. Coast Guard enforces compliance with MARPOL standards and conducts inspections to ensure ships meet EPA emission limits and other federal environmental standards.
Furthermore, the Clean Air Act regulates emissions from stationary and mobile sources, including vessels. While it primarily applies to shore-based facilities, it requires adherence to federal ECA standards and other pollution limits.
At the state level, Virginia enforces EPA standards through the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ).
Again, the IMO regulates fuel emissions from ships under MARPOL Annex VI, and under these rules ships can use exhaust gas cleaning systems like open-loop scrubbers to meet sulfur emissions standards if they discharge washwater within allowable parameters.
MARPOL allows individual countries to enforce stricter local standards if desired. In the U.S., the EPA’s VGP requires that vessels using open-loop scrubbers within 3 nautical miles of our shores must meet additional monitoring, effluent limitation, and reporting requirements.
Shore power, also called cold ironing or alternative maritime power, is currently not mandated under IMO or the EPA, as their above-mentioned existing fuel and exhaust treatment regulations adequately address the established emissions standards.
Additionally, the infrastructure to support shore power does not exist in Virginia’s ports, and the installation of such would be costly and time consuming, hindering the economic viability of vessels calling on Virginia and driving the cruise industry to competing East Coast ports.
In addition to emissions, the IMO sets the main standards for overboard discharge for international waters through MARPOL Annex’s IV, V, & VI:
In this case, U.S. laws are stricter than international regulations, especially regarding waters within the 200-nautical mile Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) and 3-nautical mile territorial waters:
Virginia does not have unique laws specifically targeting vessel discharges, but several state laws align with federal regulations to protect local waterways:
The IMO, through various MARPOL Annexes, establishes global reporting standards:
These records must be maintained onboard and available for inspection by authorities at any port under IMO signatory countries, including the U.S. Coast Guard.
In U.S. waters, vessels are subject to stringent reporting requirements under federal laws, particularly through the EPA and the U.S. Coast Guard.
Overboard Discharge Reporting
Air Emissions Reporting
Virginia does not impose additional reporting requirements for discharges or air emissions beyond federal standards, but vessel operators must comply with the above-mentioned federal laws and Virginia DEQ enforces these standards in collaboration with federal agencies.
As detailed above, the maritime industry in Virginia, including the cruise ship industry, is well-regulated at the international, national, and state level to combat pollution and protect the environment while also facilitating commerce and economic growth. Additionally, redundant and restrictive state regulations could create a precedent that inadvertently impact other commercial vessels operating in our greater port.
Further, the establishment of a new and redundant state regulatory regime and the additional resources needed for ongoing administration would place an additional burden on DEQ and the taxpayers of Commonwealth.
Therefore, we respectfully ask that this petition be denied on the basis that sufficient regulations governing the cruise ship industry already exist and any additional regulations would cripple Virginia’s cruise ship industry, threaten our broader maritime economy, and unnecessarily increase the cost of government bourn by the citizens of Virginia.
Mayor Kenneth Alexander has asked that I write on behalf of the City of Norfolk to express opposition to the petition for proposed Cruise Ship Environmental Regulations filed by Robert Hodson on October 1, 2024. The cruise ship industry is already highly regulated, and it is the City of Norfolk's position that the proposed regulations impose unnecessary and prohibitively restrictive costs on the local cruise ship industry to the detriment of our local economy. The City is glad to provide a more detailed analysis as needed for further discussion.
Thank you for this opportunity to comment on the proposed regulations.
Heather Kelley
Norfolk City Attorney's Office
At this link: https://tinyurl.com/Cruise-Pollution-Signatures you will find a petition with the signatures of 7,039 Friends of the Earth supporters. The petition reads:
Re: Please grant Protect-Virginia.org’s petition to initiate a new regulatory rulemaking for
ocean-class passenger cruise ships
Virginia Dept. of Environmental Quality, Air Pollution Control Board & Water Control Board,
I am writing to urge you to grant the petition request submitted by Protect-Virginia.org to
initiate new regulatory rulemakings for ocean-class passenger cruise ships.
Virginia’s residents, environment, and rich history are currently threatened by the ongoing
and growing pollution from the massive cruise ships that travel to the state. The cruise
industry is expanding in Virginia. With this comes mega-ships with thousands of
passengers and the associated water and air pollution on a scale unparalleled by other
ships. The increased pollution threatens public health, coastal ecosystems, and Virginia’s
seafood industry.
I support Protect-Virginia.org’s petition requesting that Virginia develop new regulations for
cruise ships in Virginia waters as follows: (1) Mandate the use of low-sulfur fuel, (2) Ban the
use of Exhaust Gas Cleaning Systems (open-loop scrubbers), (3) Require the use of shore
power, (4) Restrict the dumping of graywater, blackwater, and other environmentally
detrimental waste products, and (5) Require incident reporting and independent
monitoring to ensure compliance.
Please grant the petition of Protect-Virginia.org to rein in the pollution from the cruise
industry in the Commonwealth of Virginia.
Please contact me at mkeever@foe.org if you are unable to access the full petition at the link above.
At this link: https://tinyurl.com/Cruise-Pollution-Comments there are 210 individualized letters from supporters of Friends of the Earth asking you to grant Protect-Virginia.org's petition for a new regulatory rulemaking for cruise ships.
Please contact me at mkeever@foe.org if you are unable to access the PDF at the link above.
Thank you,
Marcie Keever, Friends of the Earth
Cruise ships burn the cheapest, dirtiest and most toxic fuel (Heavy Fuel Oil also called bunker fuel) that’s available. Engines run 24/7 to accommodate passenger needs and exhaust emissions from that process are emitted into the atmosphere even after the so called scrubber process has removed some of the larger particulates and some gasses. Sulfur oxides and nitrogen oxides in the exhaust gasses are know to cause emphysema, asthma, lung cancer and contribute to other respiratory problems. Scrubbers do not remove the nano particles from exhaust gasses which are also known carcinogens .
Health impact assessments of shipping and port-sourced air pollution on a global scale: A scoping literature review, states, "Globally, ~265,000 premature deaths were projected for 2020 (~0.5% of global mortality) attributable to global shipping-sourced emissions." Large cruises generating megawatts of power by burning fuel in ports will lead to health impacts that are not factored into the economics presented by this industry. And once again this is by choice to maximize profit as cleaner alternatives do exist. Mega cruise ships are bad business partners and the hazards they cause environmentally and health wise are not worth the price of permits and meager tourist dollars. These ships are being excluded from over 100 ports globally. We do NOT NEED THEM IN VIRGINIA WATERS, especially the Chesapeake Bay!
Thank you for considering my comments.
While reading through the comments, I notice one about the economic benefits of cruise ships. This is a common claim from the cruise ship industry. And while some will benefit, when you look at the big picture it turns out that there is little to no benefit. Many things needs to be considered: added security, garbage cleanup, infrastructure upgrades, community health impacts, and environmental impacts. This has been studied and is published in a peer-reviewed journal. Initial claims by the cruise ship industry are grossly inflated. Their business model is to upsell passengers on the ship where they will make the most profit and pay very little tax as a foreign-flagged ship. A Key West study finds exaggerated economic benefits as well, and discusses a pay-to-play scheme where the industry gets kickbacks from local agreements. The cruise ship industry is selling their product to passengers and to localities to make a profit. And they are very good salesmen! They wine and dine local officials and business leaders as needed. They invest in advertising. They make targeted donations in the community that can influence decision making. They have multiple paid lobbyists in Virginia. The State Control Board should be careful to not let perceived economic benefits unduly influence their decision to protect our Commonwealth from cruise ship pollution. The petition for cruise ship regulations cites considerable evidence as to the impact of the industry. I strongly support this petition.
As Virginia becomes a more popular cruise destination, we must protect our air and water resources.
I live in Yorktown and I am concerned about the protection of the environment, in particular air and water quality. I also want to minimize habitat loss due to environmental insults that are unnecessary.
Anyone who says that setting limits on pollution is burdensome to the economy is ignoring the impact that pollution has on Virginia's historic wealth generated by fishing, oystering and recreation. Cruise line companies seek to maximize profit and minimize expense. They have no motivation to protect the waters they move through. Virginia's officials, on the other hand, have the obligation to protect our resources. A clean environment is an economically robust environment. This is our Common Wealth. The link between air pollution and adverse health outcomes, such as increased child asthma is clear. Driving up pollution related health care costs affects everyone. We face many environmental challenges in the coming years. Coddling luxury cruise ship companies should be low on the list of priorities to protect our state's environment. Thank you for your consideration of my comment in your decision.
Large ocean-class cruise ships pose numerous and well-documented threats to coastal ecosystems and inhabitants, and Virginia's coastal ecosystems, which are home to hundreds of thousands of residents and support a billion-dollar seafood industry, are particularly vulnerable. Our region relies heavily on the health of the Chesapeake Bay estuary and its surrounding waters. Cruise lines are turning out record profits while coastal communities pay the price, largely because existing regulations are outdated (and sometimes intentionally ignored) - it is time for these companies to assume the cost for protecting our waters and our residents by complying with modern and updated science-based regulations. Impact studies might suggest it is in our best interest to turn our backs and allow this pollution to continue because of the short-term impact that an influx of cruise passengers has on the "dockside economy", but this rationale will have devastating long-term effects - we have seen this time and time again. Virginia needs to put itself on the right side of history here by taking a far-sighted approach that utilizes the most recent scientific data to regulate both air and wastewater pollution generated by these ships.
For a comprehensive and well-written review of modern cruise ship environmental impact data, please visit: https://www.pacificenvironment.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/Ship-pollution-From-air-to-ocean-Scrubbers_August-2024.pdf
11 November 2024
Natural and Historic Resources
Department of Environmental Quality
Air Pollution Control Board
Karen G. Sabasteanski
111 East Main Street, Suite 1400
P.O. Box 1105
Richmond, 23218
CLIA COMMENTS ON A PETITION FOR NEW REGULATORY RULEMAKING ON OCEAN-CLASS PASSENGER CRUISE SHIPS
Dr. Robert F. Hodson has purported to submit a petition to the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) regarding “Cruise Ship Environmental Regulations in Virginia.” The petition “requests that the DEQ and the Commonwealth develop new regulations for cruise ships in Virginia waters as follows: (1) Mandate the use of low-sulphur fuel, (2) Ban the use of Exhaust Gas Cleaning Systems (open-loop scrubbers), (3) Require the use of shore power, (4) Restrict the dumping of graywater, blackwater, and other environmentally detrimental waste products, and (5) Require incident reporting and independent monitoring to ensure compliance.”[1]
Cruise Lines International Association (CLIA) submits that this petition should be rejected for not meeting the bare minimum requirements of the Virginia statute which allows citizens to petition for the adoption of regulations.[2] That statute requires that the petition make “reference to the legal authority of the agency to take the action requested.”[3] By ignoring clear federal preemption, the petition does not even satisfy this basic requirement.
The petition seems to argue that states are essentially free to regulate in this area without concern about federal preemption. But the U.S. Supreme Court has held that there is “no beginning assumption” that state laws which “bear upon national and international maritime commerce” are a “valid exercise of [the state’s] police powers.”[4] Whenever states regulate maritime commerce, courts “ask whether the local laws in question are consistent with the federal statutory structure, which has as one of its objectives a uniformity of regulation for maritime commerce.”[5]
Entirely absent from the petition is any substantive discussion of the most important statute in this area, the Vessel Incidental Discharge Act (VIDA). Signed into law in 2018, VIDA established a new section of the Clean Water Act, entitled, “Uniform National Standards for Discharges.”[6] As the name suggests, this statute was meant to provide for regulatory standards which were both “national” and “uniform.” The federal government has been working for years on issuing such national uniform standards – and the petition does not analyze any of this work or its effect on state regulation in this area.
The petition admits that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has “recently posted a new Vessel Incidental Discharge National Standard” and that the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) has two years to issue final implementing regulations implementing the standard.[7] But what the petition does not mention is that, after these USCG regulations are issued, all state regulation of vessel discharges would be subject to a very explicit preemption provision. As of that date, “with respect to every discharge…[subject to regulation under VIDA] no State, political subdivision of a State, or interstate agency may adopt or enforce any law, regulation, or other requirement of the State, political subdivision, or interstate agency with respect to any such discharge.”[8] The only exceptions are essentially for state regulations “identical or less stringent than the Federal regulations under VIDA.”[9]
In other words, the petition asks Virginia to analyze, study, and issue regulations regarding vessel discharges -- a process that will be very expensive and time-consuming -- when in less than two years, these regulations will be preempted by the very national standard mentioned (though not analyzed) in the petition itself.
For example, the petition asks that Virginia ban the use of open loop scrubbers, mandate the use of low-sulfur fuel, and require the use of shore power. But the EPA has specifically rejected these proposals, stating that “EPA has not received information demonstrating that there is sufficient low sulfur fuel (which may be needed to comply with emissions standards if scrubber discharges are not permitted) or that adequate onshore reception facilities are available for disposal of scrubber washwaters and residues that would be generated by the use of other scrubber configurations such as closed- loop or hybrid systems.”[10] In other words, the petition asks that Virginia issue regulations which would be on a collision course with express federal preemption the moment they were issued. The petition totally ignores the fact that, as of October 2026, less than two years from now, this entire subject area will be subject to final, preemptive federal regulations. And none of the state or local laws cited in the petition are analyzed under VIDA’s preemption provision.
What about the short time period before October 2026? In other words, assuming DEQ could study, analyze, and promulgate regulations regarding scrubbers, low-sulfur fuel, shore power, graywater, and blackwater before then (obviously not a likely scenario), would Virginia even have such authority to issue short-lived regulations?
The answer is no – even if the petition were to be interpreted as seeking regulation by Virginia DEQ only until October 2026, such regulation would still be preempted. As the petition acknowledges, there is a document called the “General Permit” which was issued by EPA in 2013, which also concerns itself with vessel discharges.[11] In VIDA, Congress mandated that the 2013 General Permit “shall remain in force and effect, and shall not be modified” until the USCG issues its final VIDA regulations – that is, until October 2026.[12] Essentially, the 2013 General Permit was used by Congress as a mandatory placeholder until final VIDA regulations could be issued.
The General Permit also expressly permits scrubbers, with limits for “for exhaust gas scrubber effluent that are generally consistent with those established by International Maritime Organization guidelines for this discharge type.”[13] The General Permit also “contains monitoring requirements for certain larger vessels for ballast water, bilgewater, graywater, and/or exhaust gas scrubber effluent if they discharge into waters subject to the permit.”[14] In other words, the EPA, using guidance from international bodies, has decided not to regulate discharges in the way the petition seeks. So, even if the petition were (somewhat absurdly) interpreted as asking for regulations to be promulgated by DEQ, with a validity only until October 2026, the bans and mandates sought by the petition would have the effect of altering the General Permit, which is prohibited by VIDA.
However interpreted, Dr. Hodson’s petition would lead to regulations clearly preempted by federal law. There is no explanation of why Virginia should step into the vessel discharge area, just as years of federal agency work has resulted in the issuance of a national standard, with only one step remaining before that standard is implemented. The petition should be rejected.
We appreciate the opportunity to provide comments. The Appendix below provides detailed information about Cruise Lines International Association (CLIA) and sustainability policies and practices of its cruise line members.
Sincerely,
Cruise Lines International Association
Appendix: Additional Background about CLIA and member policies and practices
Cruise Lines International Association is the world’s largest cruise industry trade association, providing a unified voice and leading authority of the global cruise community. The association has 15 offices globally with representation in North and South America, Europe, Asia and Australasia. CLIA supports policies and practices that foster a secure, healthy, and sustainable cruise ship environment, for more than 31 million passengers who cruise annually.
Background
The cruise industry is highly regulated and subject to regulations and guidelines developed by the International Maritime Organization (IMO), implemented through National legislation, and enforced through flag state inspections and port state verifications (e.g., U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Protection, Federal Maritime Commission, and the Environmental Protection Agency, among others). Every cruise ship receives multiple inspections a year – announced and unannounced – to support implementation of strict environmental and safety regulations. In addition, CLIA cruise line members adhere to a strict and robust set of policies and practices which undergo constant review and improvement and often exceed what international, national, and local laws require.
Use of low-sulphur fuel and EGCS
On January 1, 2020, an international limit on sulphur content in the fuel oil used on board ships came into force, known as “IMO 2020.” This requirement from the International Maritime Organization (IMO) lowers the amount of allowable sulfur content in ship emissions globally from 3.5% to 0.5%. The cruise industry has taken various strides to meet the IMO’s requirements, including the use of compliant fuels, the uptake of alternative fuels, and the use of exhaust gas cleaning system (EGCS) technologies consistent with regulatory requirements and guidance from IMO, the operation of which is authorized by the ship’s Administration.
Fuel oil with a sulfur content at or below .5% is used to curtail pollutants in engine exhaust systems. In designated Emission Control Areas (ECA), such as in Virginia waters which are within the North American ECA, the sulfur content is further limited to no more than 0.1%. Ships must use compliant fuel or an approved alternative that achieves the same emissions result.
EGCS process emissions from ships to almost completely remove sulfur content and significantly reduce particulate matter found in exhaust. Several credible, peer reviewed, science-based studies have found that ships equipped with EGCS have wash water discharge that is well within stringent water quality standards. These include the following:
Greenhouse Gas Reduction
CLIA member cruise lines are actively pursuing net zero emissions by 2050, consistent with the International Maritime Organization’s (IMO) 2023 Strategy on Reduction of Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions from Ships. Cruise lines are reducing emissions at berth and at sea by investing in new ships and engines that allow for fuel flexibility to use low-to zero-GHG fuels, once available at scale; conducting multiple trials and pilot programs to test sustainable fuels and technologies; and employing a range of environmental technologies and practices to advance sustainability initiatives. Each year, the global cruise fleet becomes more efficient as cruise lines embrace new technologies, innovations, and as available, the uptake of alternative fuels.
Shore Power
CLIA champions the advancement of onshore power infrastructure as an important component in the industry’s pursuit of net zero emissions by 2050 and supports continued development of cost-effective infrastructure for clean shore-side electricity in ports where cruise ships call when the net impact delivers an overall emissions reduction.
Plugging into shoreside electricity allows ship engines to be switched off while in port, reducing emissions by up to 98%, depending on the mix of energy sources, according to the studies conducted by a number of the world’s ports and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Initiatives to install shore-side power align with the cruise industry’s goal to reduce carbon emissions.
CLIA member lines have committed that all ships calling at shore-side electricity (SSE)-capable ports will be equipped to either use SSE by 2035 or be able to use alternative low carbon technologies in port, as available. These are all steps towards the industry’s pursuit of net-zero emissions by 2050.
Across the CLIA cruise-line member fleet, there are now 120 ships (almost half of the total fleet) that are equipped to connect to shoreside electricity. This represents an increase of close to 50% in just two years. CLIA cruise lines led the use of shore power in North America, starting with an agreement with the Port of Juneau in 2003, and since then 10 North American ports have activated at least one shorepower berth able to support cruise ships. However, only 34 ports worldwide, comprising less than 3% of the world’s cruise ports, have at least one cruise berth equipped with shore power where cruise ships can plug in to reduce emissions.
Adopting the petition for a new regulatory rulemaking as drafted will bar cruise ships from calling in the state of Virginia, as Virginia does not have the necessary shoreside infrastructure to allow ships to plug in. Overcoming this limitation will require support and engagement from all parts of society, including government, cities, and industry. Designing, constructing and operating shore power for vessels requires sophisticated systems and represents significant financial investment by all involved. There are many details to be worked out and to be addressed going forward, including port infrastructure investments, financing, and a timeline for availability of electrical power infrastructure. CLIA will continue to work with its port partners as they evolve their shoreside sustainability offerings.
Limits on Wastewater Discharges
CLIA Members recognize the sensitivity of discharging wastewater and follow international, national and local requirements in planning wastewater (sewage and gray water) discharges where permitted, and often, CLIA Member policies are more stringent than federal regulations. CLIA Members are to process all sewage through a sewage treatment plant certified in accordance with international requirements, prior to discharge during regular operations. For ships not able to use onshore reception facilities, and those who routinely navigate beyond the territorial waters of coastal states, treated discharges are permitted only when the vessel is more than 4 nautical miles from the nearest land and traveling at a minimum speed of 6 knots, except in emergencies or due to geographic or technical constraints. Regarding graywater, CLIA Members, at a minimum, discharge graywater only when the ship is underway and proceeding at a speed of not less than 6 knots and at a distance not less than 4 nautical miles from the nearest land, except in an emergency or due to geographic or technical limitations. Sewage discharges from cruise ships are subject to regulations under Federal statues and international requirements, including the EPA’s Clean Water Act (CWA) which provides the statutory framework under which the EPA and the U.S. Coast Guard regulate sewage discharges from vessels; the EPA’s Vessel General Permit (VGP), regulating discharges incidental to the normal operation of vessels operating as a means of transportation (including ballast water, bilge water, graywater, and deck runoff); and the EPA’s Vessel Incidental Discharge Act (VIDA), which will replace the VGP and streamline the patchwork of federal, state, and local requirements for the commercial vessel community. VIDA aims to create a more consistent, nationwide framework for managing incidental discharges by consolidating various federal and state regulations, which are often overlapping or conflicting. Moreover, VIDA largely pre-empts state-specific discharge requirements, bringing all vessels operating in U.S. waters under a unified regulatory regime. Further restricting wastewater discharges as outlined in the petition would be duplicative and counterintuitive to the VIDA.
Under the EPA’s VGP, Virginia is designated as a state with special conditions, meaning it can receive additional protections due to its environmental sensitivity. These areas may have stricter discharge requirements or prohibitions for certain vessel – generated wastewaters to protect local ecosystems and water quality. Virginia’s Chesapeake Bay is one such special area under the VGP that imposes additional restrictions on ballast water discharges, graywater, and other wastewaters.
As part of CLIA’s overarching sustainability focus, cruise lines have committed to not discharge untreated sewage anywhere in the world under normal operations, CLIA members agree to process sewage through a sewage treatment system that is certified in accordance with international regulations, and consistent with national requirements, prior to discharge during normal operations. In addition, cruise lines utilize Advance Wastewater Treatment Systems (AWTS) that operate to a higher standard than shoreside treatment plants in many coastal cities and go well beyond international requirements. Currently, 77% of ships (representing 80% of cruise capacity) that are owned and operated by CLIA-member line cruises have AWTS.
Incident Reporting and Independent Monitoring
Cruise lines self-report certain incidents and violations as part of regulatory compliance. Self-reports and independent monitoring range from onboard safety accidents, environmental violations, public health concerns, and crime reports. Examples of environmental self-reports include waste discharges and air emissions. CLIA cruise lines work closely with federal and local authorities, as well as ports, to ensure compliance with all applicable regulations.
CLIA and its members are proud of the sustainability of the cruise industry and are committed to working with government partners to responsibly reduce the environmental impact of our operations.
Recognizing the highly regulated nature of the entire maritime industry through international and national requirements, including for cruise ships, the Petitioner’s request is largely duplicative with, and pre-empted by, existing Federal regulations. Moreover, the cruise industry has implemented environmental protection and stewardship policies and practices which go above and beyond regulatory requirements.
Footnotes
[1] Petition at 4.
[2] Va. Code § 2.2-4007.
[3] Id., § 2.2-4007(a).
[4] United States v. Locke, 529 U.S. 89, 108 (2000).
[5] Ibid. (emphasis added).
[6] 33 U.S.C. § 1322(p).
[7] Petition at 4.
[8] 33 U.S.C. § 1322(p)(9)(A)(i) (emphases added).
[9] See EPA, Vessel Incidental Discharge National Standards of Performance, Oct. 9, 2024, 89 Fed. Reg. 82027, 82127 (“VIDA National Standards”).
[10] Id. at 82110.
[11] See EPA, Final National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of a Vessel, 78 Fed. Reg. 21938, 21943 (Apr. 12, 2013) (2013 General Permit).
[12] 33 U.S.C. § 1322(p)(3)(A)
[13] 2013 General Permit, 78 Fed. Reg. at 21943.
[14] Ibid.
As a resident of Norfolk and a frequent visitor to Yorktown/ Jamestown I oppose the extension of cruise ship ports in the Hampton Roads area. The ships can not be trusted not to discharge pollutants and to use the right kind of cleaner fuels on the coastline. There is a big need to regulate and ban cruise ship discharge and/or require cleaner fuels.
besides this I visited a number of european cities/ towns and the influx of daily visitors is awful to those communities. They do not spend much money, they overuse cultural and natural places of significance and often behave pretty badly towards the people. The ships are to large, the visitors to many and the effect on the coastal communities and the wetlands/ coastline to significant to be gambled on.
The cruise industry is expanding in Virginia. With this comes mega-ships with thousands of passengers and the associated water and air pollution on a scale unparalleled by other vessels. The increased pollution threatens public health, our coastal ecosystems, and Virginia’s seafood industry.
The DEQ and the Commonwealth of Virginia should develop new regulations for cruise ships in Virginia waters including:
(1) Mandate low-sulfur fuel.
(2) Ban Exhaust Gas Cleaning Systems (open-loop scrubbers),
(3) Require the use of shore power.
(4) Restrict the dumping of graywater, blackwater, and other environmentally detrimental waste products, and
(5) Require incident reporting and independent monitoring to ensure compliance.
These standards are reasonable and would protect human health and the health of marine life along the rivers.
Many people do not understand that gigantic cruise ships impact communities and regions where they operate, in ways that are damaging and irreversible. If they did, they would not support them. Since so much of the public is currently unaware of the proven dangers, it is up to the state of Virginia to be proactive and diligent in the protection of public health, fragile ecosystems, fisheries, and recreational areas. It is assumed that the members of the board are knowledgeable and aware of the massive problems that arise when cruise ships are allowed to pollute unregulated. There is documentation from Europe and other places where the long-term effects have been seen. There is really no excuse for Virginia to lag behind and reinvent the wheel on this. The evidence is clear that enforceable regulation is immediately needed, and pressure must be put on the cruise industry to step up. The industry will not honor nor respect the rights of the residents of Virginia otherwise. Future generations will inherit the mess. Now is the time for prevention.
The City of Norfolk, the Virginia Pilots Association, the Virginia Tourism Authority, the Virginia Maritime Association, and the Cruise Lines International Association (CLIA) oppose any new regulations on the cruise ship industry which of course is their right. But a fair question to ask is – Is a primary driver for their opposition related to their economic self-interest?
I will admit that I too was initially motivated by self-interest when Princess Cruise Lines decided it wanted to come to Yorktown. Me and others saw this as character-altering and enjoyed living in a small village with a reasonable approach to tourism. But since learning about this industry, my motivation has changed. We worked hard on this petition with the help of others to affect positive change for port communities today and our environment for my children and future generations. In my opinion a thriving, healthy, stable long-term approach should be preferred to short term gains. Furthermore, moving to the sustainable long-term solution, need not be done disruptively. Phased approaches are effective and reasonable. For example, the Port of Seattle has used a phased approach to require shore power which can reduce emissions by as much as 80%.
Economic benefit is cited for not supporting regulations in this petition. I would like to point out that 120 ports around the world regulate this industry through scrubber bans and they still reap an economic benefit from the industry. Sensible regulation can co-exist with a stable sustainable economy – that indeed seems to be a role of the DEQ and its Air and Water Control Boards. Several economic arguments are presented. One discusses the over 700,000 jobs and the over $87B gross state product from ports in Virginia. I have not researched these numbers but find it hard to fathom that ocean-class cruise ship regulation will impact this economy negatively in any significant way. Today’s cruise ship industry is a relatively small player in the greater Port of Virginia, but it wants to expand. Therefore, now is the time to act to ensure managed growth that protects Virginians and our fragile ecosystems that our seafood industry is built upon.
A second economic argument is based on port fees and tourist dollars fueling a local economy. As stated in the petition, some will benefit from this industry, but these benefits are frequently exaggerated. Multiple economic studies are called out in the petition to refute this claim. One economist that studies the cruise industry stated in terms of dollars spent by tourists, cruise ship passengers spend less than any other class of tourist. The cruise line model is, to the extent possible, to keep the passengers well-fed on the ship and up-sell them. And being foreign-flagged ships, they pay little to no U.S. tax on their profits. The claims of economic benefit forget to mention the cost of infrastructure and maintenance, and the cost of increased security and emergency services. They do not account for the health cost to residents in port communities related to respiratory ailments; they do not account for the damage to our waters and the impact on the seafood industry; and they do not account for their contribution to or the cost of climate change and the destruction it brings.
A recurring theme in the opposing comments is that the cruise industry is already regulated and that this petition is duplicative. After examining a great deal of evidence, I do not feel that his perspective is accurate. The regulatory requests in this petition have not been fully addressed by MARPOL or the EPA. Furthermore, the petition cites papers, articles, documentaries, and examples of laws in other states that support the need for additional state regulatory action. A claim of redundancy is simply not justified.
CLIA’s certainly has self-interest at heart. They are a powerful lobby for the cruise industry. The petition regulation discusses the funding spent on lobbying to ensure maximizing profits. I am sure they know the law better than anyone, but what they are saying in essence is that Virginia has no authority over its waters. Currently, Virginia has no discharge zones which I believe fall under federal authority when petitioned by the state. If I am right Virginia at least has that mechanism. I suspect Virginia also has control of its ports, the security, and a future influx of passengers that can lead to over-tourism like in Sitka, AL, Bar Harbor, ME, Juneau AL, Venice, Rome and many other places in the U.S. and around the world that have instituted restrictions. They are saying we cannot require ships to plug into shore power even though they are using our ports and lands. What they are telling the Commonwealth is that they are a large multi-billion dollar foreign-operated enterprise, and Virginians and our elected representatives can have no say what-so-ever in what they do in Virginia. Again, they know the law better than us – but if what they are saying is true, something is seriously broken. This is exactly why they need to be managed before they expand in Virginia. The industry will spare no expense to put up a fight but ask then to purchase cleaner fuel and they will work tirelessly regardless of the cost. Here is a link to the GoFundMe page to fight cruise industry legal challenges in Bar Harbor: https://www.gofundme.com/f/8aeb5n-protect-acadia-from-cruise-ships . The town voted to limit this industry and they have face repeated legal challenges (which have held up to date). Do we really want to create a situation in Virginia where we have no control of this industry?
I am sure the organizations opposed to this petition are much more politically savvy than I am and have powerful lobbies or connections working at the state-level. Furthermore, the cruise industry has hired multiple lobbyists and a high-powered firm to support their efforts in Virginia. They are well-funded, and I am sure well-connected. The Protect Virginia coalition is not but we have learned that when average citizens are made aware of the impacts of this industry, they want regulation. As of today, over 8300 people have signed Change.org petitions to stop the current practices of these large cruise ships in Virginia and over time this number is sure to grow. We are not a well-oiled firm with polished lobbyists, but I believe we have valid concerns supported by evidence. We may not have everything just right, but it is certainly not all wrong. This is why I am asking the DEQ and its Control Boards to take this request seriously and not to dismiss it out of hand as powerful entities will certainly recommend. My hope, although possibly naïve, is the Virginia will lead the nation with a sustainable tourism approach for the benefit of all.
Thank you for your service to the Commonwealth.
Respectfully
Robert Hodson
Yorktown, Virginia
The York River Group Sierra Club, a grassroots environmental organization of over 900 members located in the Virginia Peninsula area, stands in support of Protect Virginia's petition for stricter regulation of cruise ships in Virginia. The cruise ship companies such as Princess Cruise Lines have incurred large fines for illegal dumping of contaminated wastewater. Most ships use bunker fuel, or Heavy Fuel Oil (HFO) a tarry sludge left over from the crude oil refining process. The emissions of toxic nitrogen oxides and sulfur oxides from the burning of HFOs are a threat to human health and to the surrounding marine life. Some gases from the ship can convert to acid rain, and then can return to harm the waterways. The cruise ships generate contaminants that impact the watermen, sportsmen, and businesses who depend on a healthy marine environment.
I support the petition to regulate cruiseships in Virginia.
Increased cruise ship traffic burning dirty bunker fuel will be a major source of air pollution in the ports where the ship dock and as they cruise the bay and coastal Virginia. For this reason I support the cruise ship regulation petition.
