In July, a state inspector boarded a cruise ship in Juneau for a routine review. The inspector\u2019s report includes a photo that shows a metal drum full of chunky, black sludge \u2014 a mixture laden with sulfur and heavy metals.<\/p>\n
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\u2019s because it\u2019s diluted with sea water and released back into the ocean.<\/p>\n
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 \u2013 and little regulated \u2013 source of water pollution.<\/p>\n
\u201cThere\u2019s still dirty fuel belching sulfur into Alaska. And that\u2019s a problem,\u201d Kiehl said in an interview last month<\/a>.<\/p>\n The issue is not isolated to Alaska. And neither are efforts to address it<\/a>. A growing list of ports, states and countries are zeroing in on the problem, which stems from rules adopted<\/a> by the International Maritime Organization in 2020.<\/p>\n Cutting air pollution led to new water pollution<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n The technology allows them to continue burning dirty fuels by using seawater to remove pollutants from ship exhaust. So-called \u201copen loop\u201d systems send that contaminated water right back into the sea.<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n When exhaust with high levels of sulfur and other pollutants is released into the air, they can increase the risk of\u00a0<\/a>cancer, respiratory complications and cardiovascular diseases.\u00a0<\/a><\/p>\n Scientists have been studying what happens when those pollutants are released into the ocean. But a growing body of research<\/a> indicates it can harm marine life<\/a>, including mussels and crustaceans, like crab, said Eelco Leemans, an advisor to the Clean Arctic Alliance, a global coalition focused on the shipping industry.<\/p>\n \u201cThe evidence is so clear that we have no reason to doubt that,\u201d Leemans said.<\/p>\n Regulatory challenges<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n But there\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n \u201cWe believe that scrubbers do not provide the solutions that they were designed for, because basically they transfer air pollution to water pollution,\u201d Leemans said during a recent webinar<\/a> hosted by the Clean Arctic Alliance ahead of the meeting. \u201cIn the end, IMO should really do something about this.\u201d<\/p>\n In the meantime, governments are taking matters into their own hands. In July, for example, 15 nations and the European Union<\/a> moved to prohibit scrubber discharge in internal waters and port areas \u2013 and will consider extending the ban to about 12 miles offshore.<\/p>\n 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 \u2013 despite hundreds of violations in some years.<\/a><\/p>\n The EPA did not respond to a request for comment by press time.<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n But in the end, the state Department of Environmental Conservation says it can\u2019t enforce the EPA\u2019s scrubber regulations themselves.<\/p>\n \u201cScrubber washwater is not addressed in State statutes, regulations, or the State\u2019s general permit for vessels, and the State currently has no authority to enforce a federal permit,\u201d Ben Eisenstein, DEC\u2019s cruise ship program manager, wrote in an email.<\/p>\n Kiehl says that puts Alaska and other states in a bind.<\/p>\n \u201cIt\u2019s really difficult with the federal government stepping in and telling the state: \u2018You have nothing to say about scrubber discharge,\u2019\u201d he said.<\/p>\n Clean fuel regulations<\/p>\n So localities and states can\u2019t punish ships for violating federal standards. But some are pursuing \u2013 or have already implemented \u2013 other ways to get at the problem.<\/p>\n Kiehl, the state lawmaker, didn\u2019t provide more details about what his legislation might entail, or when he might introduce it. But he said he\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n Most experts point to California. The state adopted a rule in 2008<\/a> that required ships to use cleaner, lower-sulfur fuels within 24 miles of shore. The goal was to reduce air pollution \u2013 plus cancer and other public health risks \u2013 from dirty fuels.<\/p>\n 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\u2019t need to scrub them clean.<\/p>\n \u201cWe don\u2019t have the issues with wastewater discharge because [scrubbers are] not a compliance option,\u201d Bonnie Soriano, of the California Air Resources Board, told KHNS.<\/p>\n Soriano was among experts who said that cleaner fuels don\u2019t require new technology or systems; ships can simply swap them in. She also said most vessels already carry them.<\/p>\n \u201cThere are some differences in prices, but likely they have the fuel on board if they\u2019re doing a string that involves California,\u201d Soriano said.<\/p>\n Meanwhile, in Washington state, the legislature is mulling a similar approach. A bill there would require cleaner fuels within 3 miles of shore.<\/p>\n State Rep. Debra Lekanoff is the bill\u2019s sponsor. She\u2019s originally from Yakutat but now represents communities in northern Washington, including the San Juan Islands. During a January hearing,<\/a> she drew a connection between her two homes.<\/p>\n \u201cWhat\u2019s happening in my own backyard, where my Tlingit name Xixch\u2019I See comes from, is the very impact that happens upon the Salish Sea,\u201d Lekanoff said.<\/p>\n