BILL ANALYSIS
AB 471
Page 1
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
AB 471 (Simitian)
As Amended June 2, 2003
Majority vote
ENVIRONMENTAL SAFETY 5-2
APPROPRIATIONS 16-6
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Laird, Chu, Levine, |Ayes:|Steinberg, Berg, Kehoe, |
| |Lieber, Lowenthal | |Corbett, Diaz, Goldberg, |
| | | |Leno, Nation, Chan, |
| | | |Nunez, Pavley, |
| | | |Ridley-Thomas, Simitian, |
| | | |Wiggins, Yee, Laird |
| | | | |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
|Nays:|Aghazarian, Maddox |Nays:|Bates, Daucher, Haynes, |
| | | |Pacheco, Runner, |
| | | |Samuelian |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY : Places 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 (CARB
diesel) as of January 1, 2005.
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
AB 471
Page 2
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 :
1)Moderate costs, about $180,000 in fiscal year (FY) 2004-05, to
ARB if the board exercises its authority to adopt standards
and rules and regulations. (Air Pollution Control Fund
(APCF.)
2)Moderate ongoing costs, about $250,000 annually starting in FY
2005-06, to ARB to adequately administer and enforce cruise
ship air pollution reduction requirements. (General Fund or
APCF.)
COMMENTS :
1)According to the sponsor, Bluewater Network, a modern cruise
ship in a single port visit generates air pollution equivalent
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.
AB 471
Page 3
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; and,
b) Concerned parties contend that barring the use of
incinerators within 90 miles of the California coast is not
warranted given the technology used by cruise ships. They
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
yet been subject to constraints on either air emissions or
the types of materials that can be incinerated.
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; and,
b) According to 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. ARB estimates that requiring cruise ships
AB 471
Page 4
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%.
5)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;
b) AB 121 (Simitian), pending on the floor, prohibits
cruise ships from dumping sewage, sewage sludge, or oily
bilge water into state waters; and,
c) AB 433 (Nation), pending on the floor, 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 on the floor, 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.
Analysis Prepared by : Joanne Wong / E.S. & T.M. / (916)
319-3965
FN: 0001519