BILL ANALYSIS
AB 471
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 29, 2003
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENTAL SAFETY AND TOXIC MATERIALS
John Laird, Chair
AB 471 (Simitian) - As Amended: April 3, 2003
SUBJECT : Air emissions: cruise ships.
SUMMARY : Places several restrictions on cruise ships in order
to reduce air pollution. Specifically, this bill :
1)Prohibits cruise ships from conducting on-board waste
incineration while operating within 90 miles of the California
coast as of January 1, 2004.
2)Requires cruise ships operating within 25 miles of the
California coast to use only California diesel fuel (also
known as CARB diesel) as of January 1, 2005.
3)Prohibits cruise ships from operating its main propulsion or
auxiliary engines while docked, beginning 30 minutes after
docking time until one hour prior to scheduled departure time.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Case law indicates that as long as the ship emissions are felt
onshore within California jurisdiction, the state has the
authority to impose reasonable operational requirements that
do not constitute design or construction specifications.
2)Authorizes the state Air Resources Board (ARB) to regulate air
emissions in California Coastal Waters, which range from 27 to
102 miles from shore.
3)Identifies the areas in which transported air pollutants from
upwind areas cause or contribute to a violation of the state
ambient air quality standard for ozone and the areas of origin
of the transported pollutants.
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown.
COMMENTS :
1)According to the sponsor, Bluewater Network, a modern cruise
ship in a single port visit generates air pollution equivalent
AB 471
Page 2
to 12,240 cars. Cruise ships in California coastal waters
emit more than 10 tons per day of smog-forming emissions and
cancer-causing particulate matter. The air pollution
threatens the public health of passengers, crew, and
dockworkers, as well as raises environmental justice concerns
for local communities near port areas. The sponsor contends
that cruise ships generate up to five times greater power
needs and commensurate air pollution per vessel than other
large ships such as oil tankers, due to energy needs
associated with large volumes of passengers, including space
and water heating, lighting, refrigeration, cooking, and
recreational activities for up to 5,000 people per ship.
2)The sponsor asserts that the impacts of these emissions are
significant because most of the coastal areas where cruise
ships travel are not in compliance with ambient air quality
standards. In particular, the South Coast Air Quality
Management District (SCAQMD) experiences the state's worst air
quality and receives the majority of cruise ship port calls.
Throughout the state, all sources of emissions, including
cruise ships, need to be controlled to attain state and
federal ambient air quality standards.
3)Incineration:
a) Cruise ships are equipped with incinerators and boilers
that burn a variety of wastes including: hazardous wastes,
oil, oily sludge, sewage, medical and bio-hazardous waste,
outdated pharmaceuticals, and other solid wastes such as
plastics, paper, metal, glass, and food. The emissions
from onboard incineration include dioxins, nitrogen oxide,
sulfur oxide, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, particulate
matter, hydrogen chloride, hydrocarbons, and toxic metals
such as lead, cadmium, and mercury.
b) Opponents contend that barring the use of incinerators
within 90 miles of the California coast is not warranted
given the technology used by cruise ships. Opponents refer
to U.S. Navy studies that show that modern,
state-of-the-art shipboard incinerators are equivalent to
or better than shoreside incinerators. However, the
sponsor asserts that while regulations for shipboard
incinerators do exist under the International Maritime
Organization, they inadequately protect human health and
the environment primarily because the technology has not
AB 471
Page 3
yet been subject to constraints on either air emissions or
the types of materials that can be incinerated.
c) Several questions arise in regards to enforcement of
this bill's incineration provision. What agency or board
will be in charge of enforcement duties? How will the
enforcement be funded? How will the enforcer monitor the
cruise ships up to 90 miles out from the coast? This bill
has yet to address these issues.
4)CARB diesel fuel:
a) Most ocean-going ships run their main propulsion engines
(and many newer ships also run their auxiliary engines) on
intermediate fuel oil (IFO 180 or IFO 380). This fuel is
also referred to as "bunker fuel," and requires heating to
reduce its viscosity to a point where it can be properly
atomized and combusted. Bunker fuel typically contains
much higher levels of sulfur, nitrogen, ash, and other
compounds that increase exhaust emissions. For example,
typical bunker fuel used by ships visiting the Ports of Los
Angeles and Long Beach averages about 2.8% sulfur (28,000
ppm), compared to about 120 ppm sulfur for California
on-road diesel.
b) According to the ARB, the three largest pollutants from
cruise ships are sulfur oxides (SOx), nitrogen oxides
(NOx), and particulate matter (PM). Cruise ships emit on
average 5.4 tons per day (tpd) of SOx, 5.6 tpd of NOx, and
0.65 tpd of PM. The ARB estimates that requiring cruise
ships to switch from bunker fuel to CARB on-road low-sulfur
diesel when operating in California coastal water within 25
miles offshore will reduce SOx by 99.6%, NOx by 16%, and PM
by 58%.
c) Opponents argue that CARB fuel is not readily available,
and that they do not have the design capacity to carry CARB
fuel. According to the ARB, CARB diesel is readily
available at most of the larger California ports at which
cruise ships dock.
d) Opponents raise the following issue in regards to this
bill's fuel requirement: If a cruise ship is not planning
on entering a California port, or if they are coming from
other nations, how are the ships expected to meet this
AB 471
Page 4
requirement? The sponsor states that many large vessels
already have separate fuel tanks in order to switch between
fuel types for safety and maneuvering purposes. Also, the
sponsor asserts that to meet the requirements of this
legislation, cruise operators will have to dedicate
sufficient clean fuel tankage to retain an adequate
quantity of clean fuel supplies for operating within 25
miles of California's coast, and for in-port operations.
5)Shoreside power:
a) When cruise ship engines run in port to generate
electricity for on-board operations, it is called
"hoteling". According to the ARB, hoteling emissions are a
significant component of marine vessel emissions,
especially in the South Coast Air Basin. For example, in
2000, cruise ships were responsible for nearly 30% of the
NOx emissions from commercial marine vessels within the
district.
b) Opponents contend that in order to comply with the
shoreside power requirement, most ships will require new
engineering at considerable expense and would only be used
a few times per year since most of the ships do not call in
California very often. Opponents also state that such a
requirement does not take into consideration the ships that
have already installed turbines and advanced technology
engines specifically designed to reduce emissions while in
port.
c) The sponsor concedes that most California ports are not
yet equipped with shoreside hook-ups for cruise ships.
However, the sponsor points out that other vessels such as
tugboats, ferries, military vessels and recreational boats
all routinely hook-up to shoreside power while in port.
By shutting down the engines and hooking up to cleaner
shoreside electrical power, the sponsor states that cruise
ship engine emissions can be eliminated at the dock.
d) One cruise line has implemented shoreside hook-ups in
Alaska. The sponsor cites that Princess Cruise Line has
formed a partnership with a utility in Juneau, Alaska, to
provide hook-ups for its vessels. Each ship cost $500,000
for retrofitting. The total project cost $4.5 million,
shared by the cruise line and the utility. Questions
AB 471
Page 5
arise, as to the funding of such a program in California
ports and who will be responsible for the expenses.
6)Related legislation:
a) AB 2746 (Nakano) (Chapter 504, Statutes of 2000),
created a cruise ship environmental task force. The role
of the task force was to evaluate environmental practices
and waste streams of large passenger vessels and to gather
information for a report by the California Environmental
Protection Agency to the Legislature in 2003. This report
has been drafted and is currently going through the review
process.
b) AB 121 (Simitian), pending in this committee, prohibits
cruise ships from dumping sewage, sewage sludge, or oily
bilge water into state waters.
c) AB 433 (Nation), pending in this committee, revises the
California Ballast Water Management for Control of
Nonindigenous Species Act and extends the Act's sunset date
to January 1, 2010. The author and sponsor of AB 433 are
working closely with cruise lines, members of the
commercial shipping industry and the California port system
in developing the bill.
d) AB 906 (Nakano), pending in this committee, prohibits
cruise ships from discharging graywater from kitchens,
laundries and showers, and hazardous materials such as dry
cleaning and photo processing chemicals, into state waters.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
Bluewater Network (Sponsor)
Bay Area Air Quality Management District
CA Air Pollution Control Officers' Association
FourWinds Travel
Friends of the Sea Otter
Natural Resources Defense Council
Ocean Advocates
Oceana
Planning and Conservation League
Save the Bay
AB 471
Page 6
Sierra Club, Ventana Chapter
The Ocean Conservancy
Individuals (4)
Opposition
International Council of Cruise Lines
Analysis Prepared by : Joanne Wong / E.S. & T.M. / (916)
319-3965