Special Features & Items of Interest

Vessels that sail into Californian ports must use cleaner-burning fuel

California regulators yesterday approved the nation's strictest rules to reduce polluting emissions from oceangoing ships, saying it will help prevent cancer and premature deaths along the state's coast.
 

Oceangoing ships, which are among the fastest-growing sources of air pollution, are facing increasing pressure to curtail their emissions. New regulations approved by the California Air Resources Board are targeting cargo ships, so beginning next July, all tankers, cargo and cruise ships sailing into a California port will have to switch to a more expensive but cleaner-burning fuel to power their vessels when they come within 24 nautical miles of California's coast.

The rules, unanimously approved by the California Air Resources Board, are similar to international regulations slated to take effect in 2015. They apply to ships headed in and out of ports in San Diego, Los Angeles, Long Beach and the San Francisco Bay Area, as well as inland ports for oceangoing vessels in Sacramento and Stockton.

Highlights
New rules: Beginning July 1, 2009, oceangoing vessels that use the state's ports must use cleaner fuel to power their engines and boilers. Ships at the ports in San Diego, the San Francisco Bay Area, Los Angeles and Long Beach, as well as inland ports for oceangoing vessels in Sacramento and Stockton, would have to adhere to the new rules.

Exempted: Military, government and research vessels would be exempt. Ships needing modifications to use cleaner fuels would be exempt until renovations were completed.

“It's one of the most significant regulations with respect to controlling air emissions that's been done in years,” said Ron Roberts, a San Diego County supervisor who serves on the air board. “The impact of these oceangoing vessels that are running up and down the coast is very, very significant on California air quality. No one disputes that.”

In 2006, ships made nearly 11,000 port calls in California, a number expected to rise with the increase in international trade. Without new regulations, vessel emissions are projected to more than double by 2020, state air regulators say.

The nitrogen-oxide, diesel-particulate-matter and sulfur-oxide emissions from some large ships headed to California ports are among the biggest contributors to a toxic stew permeating port communities, the air board says. The emissions are linked to asthma, as well as respiratory and cardiac problems.

This month, President Bush signed the Maritime Pollution Prevention Act, a bill that implements the air-quality standards being crafted by an international treaty.

Shipping companies and cruise lines oppose the state air board's rules, arguing that California has no jurisdiction to regulate their operations beyond the state's coastal zone.

The Pacific Merchant Shipping Association said California can, at best, regulate only ships within state waters that extend three nautical miles from the coast under the federal Submerged Lands Act.

“International ships running in international waters under international treaties should be handled under international laws,” said T.L. Garrett, vice president of the association, which represents about 60 ocean-carrier lines and cargo terminals. “We know it's the right thing to do. The question is, who should be telling us to do it?”

A state attempt to impose a similar rule failed in 2006 after a federal judge ruled that California didn't have the authority to set ship-emission standards without approval of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

This time around, the board sidestepped those legal issues by defining the new pollution standards as a fuel requirement.

Using cleaner fuels close to California's coast is estimated to prevent 3,600 premature deaths between 2009 and 2015, and reduce the cancer risk associated with ship emissions by more than 80 percent, said air board spokesman Dimitri Stanich.

“The international maritime community is moving toward similar standards, but (they) won't be implemented until 2015,” Stanich said. “This is a bridge measure that allows California to enjoy the benefits of cleaner air until then.”

A vessel making one visit a year to a California port would pay about $30,000 more for fuel, less than 1 percent of the cost of a typical trans-Pacific voyage, the air board says. That cost would increase to several million dollars for a large fleet that makes frequent visits to California.

For passenger cruise ships, increased fuel costs would amount to about $15 extra per passenger on each cruise, Stanich said.

John Gilmore, a spokesman for the Unified Port of San Diego, said the port isn't anticipating a major impact on local shipping operations because of the new air regulations. Last year, about 660 ships traveled to the port.

“Many of the ships that come into the Port of San Diego are switching fuels when vessels are approaching the port,” Gilmore said. “Simply put, the ships are going from a heavy fuel to a low-sulfur, cleaner-burning fuel.”

The new regulations will ban ships from using bunker fuel – a dirty, heavy crude oil that has the consistency of asphalt and must be heated aboard the ships to power the engines.

Military, government and research vessels would be exempt. Ships needing modifications in order to comply would be exempt until they complete equipment renovations.

The Navy raised concerns that ship captains might abandon a long-established shipping route along the Southern California coast and instead travel into the open ocean, which could take the vessels through the Navy's missile-testing range.

“If a ship comes through our range, we have to shut it down. We can't do missile tests,” said Randal Friedman, California government affairs officer for the Navy in the Southwest region.

Air board Chairwoman Mary Nichols said the state would try to address the Navy's concerns.

Same basic idea - different approach to the problem

For those who are not familiar with the term "Cold Ironing" it is a term that describes the process of providing shore-side electrical power to a ship at berth while its main and auxiliary engines are turned off.

The use of clean shore power for cruise ships will accelerate with Norway, the Baltic countries and Venice likely to be among the destinations that transition to cold ironing for ships in port.

Although it’s costly for destinations to build the shoreside facilities no doubt the ports will pass the infrastructure cost onto the ship owners with the electrical power being sold at a price that will amortize the investment cost in a reasonable time frame. 

There is also a considerable expense for the cruise lines to retrofit ships to use shore power but it could work out to be slightly less expensive than fuel at current bunkering prices as depending on size, a ship can burn 10 tons of fuel in port.

One of the Regent vessels has begun preparations for retrofitting to cold ironing.

News - All cruise lines have a policy to ban certain customers

Needless to say the customer has to do something pretty serious to get banned, but in a from of self protect both for the cruise lines and their other clients sailing onboard there have to be some parameters to keep things safe and courteous.

Royal Caribbean Line recently made headlines by banning a couple who it appears have been seriously upsetting the line in various unspecified ways.

Royal Caribbean (along with sister companies Celebrity Cruises and Azamara) has put into place one of the industry's most concrete procedures and processes as related to its "no sail" list. First, it established a "guest conduct policy" that identifies specific behaviors it considers worthy of "no sail" potential. These, available in every passenger cabin on its ships, include but are not limited to harassment, solicitation, underage drinking, reserving deck chairs (okay, chances of being banned for snagging deck chairs are, er, minimal but it's in the policy), smoking in non-designated areas, and carrying illegal drugs onboard. It also spells out unacceptable forms of unsafe behavior, including "sitting, standing, laying or climbing on, over or across any exterior or interior railings or other protective barriers."

We have no policy, Royal Caribbean's Sheehan tells Cruise Critic, "for banning people who write negative reviews or posts."

The "no sail" status is fairly rare, with one in 20,000 passengers winding up on the list. "Just to keep it in perspective, we really are doing everything we can to provide a wonderful guest vacation. Unfortunately, it is necessary, on rare occasions, to take more drastic steps when there's an unruly guest. But we're not in the business of throwing people off ships."

I am advised there is also an industry wide - "no sail list" - I can't imagine what you would have to do to join that - hopefully - small list of unpleasant souls.

Russian Conflict May Impact Black Sea Cruises