cruise industry ocean pollution

More From Forbes

Cruise ship pollution is causing serious health and environmental problems.

• as nations strive to reduce their CO2 emissions and companies come under pressure to decrease their carbon footprint, the maritime industry is finding itself under growing scrutiny
• Carbon emissions and dangerous particulates emitted by cruise ships are caused by the quantity and quality of the fuel used by these floating citadels
• Share to Facebook
• Share to Twitter
• Share to Linkedin

The cruise industry transported over 26 million customers  last year and was worth upwards of $117 billion in 2017. All market projections show that the industry will continue to grow as operators continue to build new state-of-the-art ships with the latest in leisure opportunities. However, as nations strive to reduce their CO2 emissions and companies come under pressure to decrease their carbon footprint, the maritime industry is finding itself under growing scrutiny . Whilst commercial shipping has always been at the center of environmental concerns, the issues surrounding cruise ships are being increasingly called out in the port cities in which they dock.

↪ Read Also:   Renewable Energy Could Save $160 Trillion In Climate Change Costs by 2050

A cruise ship sails past the International Commerce Centre (ICC) in Hong Kong under polluting ... [+] conditions in 2013.

Leisure & Pollution

Cruise ships have often been described as ‘floating cities’, and as environmental groups have pointed out that they are just as if not more polluting. A passenger’s carbon footprint triples in size when taking a cruise and the emissions produced can contribute to serious health issues. On top of the pollution caused by their exhaust fumes, cruise ships have been caught discarding trash, fuel, and sewage directly into the ocean .

Last year, the German watchdog Nabu surveyed 77 cruise ships and found that all but one used toxic heavy fuel oil that the group described as “dirtiest of all fuels”. This came a year after  the same watchdog blew the whistle on German cruise operators for failing to adhere to their own air quality safety standards. The data collected reveals that standing on the deck of a cruise ship is similar to being in one of the world’s most polluted cities, with health experts warning of the issues surrounding poor air quality.

↪ Read Also:   After Pollution Crisis, Puerto Rico To Eliminate All Coal Power Next Year

The Blue Star Ferry Boat in Piraeus Port, Greece.

In France, 10% of air pollution in the port city of Marseilles can be directly contributed to the shipping industry. Locals lament the increase in pollution and health issues with more luxury cruise liners docking in the harbor, and now environmental groups and the regional government are implementing emissions tests and issuing fines to the offending cruise lines. It is estimated that over 50,000 Europeans die prematurely every year as a result of shipping-based pollution.

Meanwhile, in the United Kingdom, local environmental groups have demonstrated that a single cruise ship can emit as much pollution as 700 trucks and as much particulate matter as a million cars. It has been estimated that between 40,000 and 100,000 Britons die prematurely every year as a result of emissions from the shipping and cruise industries, with major port-cities such as Southampton, Grimsby and Liverpool particularly affected. In recent years there have been several moves towards reducing the amount of pollution being emitted by ships, however, half the UK seashore lacks the legal protection of maritime pollution laws.

↪ Read Also:   16-Year-Old Activist Demands EU Parliament Act On Climate Change As Quickly As Notre-Dame

Cruise ship 'Independence of the Seas' at the cruise terminal on Wilhelmina Pier, Netherlands, ... [+] sending black smoke into the atmosphere.

Solutions Versus Reality

Carbon emissions and dangerous particulates emitted by cruise ships are caused by the quantity and quality of the fuel used by these floating citadels . The biggest issues with cruise emissions are the levels of nitrogen oxide, which has been linked to acid rain, higher rates of cancer and other forms of respiratory diseases. As such, cruise operators have been urged to switch to cleaner fuel alternatives with a lower sulfur content by 2020, but few have heeded these calls.

Safer fuel, such as liquefied natural gas, is more expensive and operators have favored using scrubbers, which have been called “emission cheat” systems. These scrubbers wash cheap fuel in order to meet environmental standards, but then discharge the pollutants collected directly into the ocean, as independent shipping analyst Ned Molloy explains : “This is sulfurous waste going into the sea. It would be illegal to just dump this anywhere on land anywhere in the EU, except in specialist facilities.”

The dumping of sewage and other such pollutants into the ocean has only aggravated environmental groups and governments charged with cleaning it up, leading the decisions made by some in the cruise industry’s to release more pollutants to be met with widespread condemnation. There exists a range of new technologies aimed at reducing the waste produced by cruise liners, such as onboard incineration plants, recycling programs, as well as cheaper, less polluting fuel options such as LNG. However, without  homogenized  standards and strictly enforced  international rules, the cruise and shipping industry is likely to continue side-stepping many of the possible solutions.

• Editorial Standards
• Reprints & Permissions

Cruise industry faces choppy seas as it tries to clean up its act on climate

• Medium Text

• The cruise industry is the fastest growing in tourism and is expected to exceed pre-COVID record highs in passenger numbers and revenues by next year
• The industry promises to make zero-emission vessels and fuels widespread by 2030, and to achieve a goal of 'net-zero carbon' cruising by 2050
• Environmental groups cite its record on pollution, greenhouse gas emissions, and over-tourism, and raise doubts about its ability to reach goals
• Concerns include widespread use of "scrubbers", LNG as transition fuel, and limited capacity for shore-based power in ports

Caroline Palmer is a freelance journalist specialising in business, health, sustainability and the artisan economy. She has worked for the Financial Times, The Guardian and The Observer and is a contributor to Ethical Corporation magazine.

Read Next / Editor's Picks

An official website of the United States government

Here’s how you know

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( Lock A locked padlock ) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

JavaScript appears to be disabled on this computer. Please click here to see any active alerts .

Cruise Ship Discharges and Studies

• bilge water (water that collects in the lowest part of the ship's hull and may contain oil, grease and other contaminants)
• graywater (waste water from showers, sinks, laundries and kitchens)
• ballast water (water taken onboard or discharged from a vessel to maintain its stability)
• solid waste (food waste and garbage)

These discharges can have impacts on water quality. Impacts depend on the characteristics of the discharge (e.g., constituents present, levels of discharge) and the characteristics of the receiving waters (e.g., currents, temperature).

Work to Date on Cruise Ship Discharges

Cruise ship discharge assessment report (2008) *.

• what the waste stream is and how much is generated
• what laws apply to the waste stream
• how the waste stream is managed
• potential environmental impacts of the waste stream
• ongoing actions by the federal government to address the waste stream
• a wide range of options and alternatives to address the waste stream from cruise ships in the future

Plume dilution study (2008) *

Nitrogen compounds sampling report (2005) *

The EPA sampled wastewater from four cruise ships that operated in Alaska during the summer of 2005, to collect information on nutrients in cruise ship wastewater. 

Alaskan cruise vessel survey (2004) *

In 2004, the EPA distributed a "Survey Questionnaire to Determine the Effectiveness, Costs, and Impacts of Sewage and Graywater Treatment Devices for Large Cruise Ships Operating in Alaska" to all cruise ships authorized to carry 500 or more passengers that operated in Alaska at the time.

The final version of the survey (approved by the Office of Management and Budget), associated Federal Register notices, supporting documents and comments received can be found at   www.regulations.gov   under the EPA's docket ID: EPA-HQ-OW-2003-0081.

Sampling reports (2004) *

Plume tracking survey (2001)

The EPA conducted a plume tracking survey to study the dilution of cruise ship discharges from wastewater systems in offshore waters.

Public hearings (2000)

The EPA, together with the U.S. Coast Guard and other Federal agencies, solicited public input on the issue of cruise ship discharges during public hearings in Los Angeles, Juneau and Miami .

* For access to these reports, please submit a request through the Contact Us link at the bottom of this page.

• Vessels, Marinas, and Ports Home
• Sewage Discharges
• Commercial Vessel Discharges
• Recreational Vessel Discharges
• Military Vessel Discharges
• Aquatic Nuisance Species
• Cruise Ship Studies

• Transportation

The Cruise Industry Is On a Course For Climate Disaster

T o future archeologists, mega cruise ships might be some of the strangest artifacts of our civilization—these goliaths of mass-engineered delight, armed with dangling water slides and phalanxes of umbrellas. Looking up at one, you might gain the impression that cruise companies are trying to awe their customers into having a nice time. We have built battleships of pleasure, toiling the world’s oceans, hunting for fun.

It probably won’t come as a shock that the whole thing isn’t exactly sustainable. A medium-sized cruise ship spews greenhouse gas emissions equivalent to those of 12,000 cars , while environmentalists accuse big industry players of investing little in decarbonization, and of covering up endless delay tactics in a heavy coat of greenwash. And for years, the industry has been dogged by bad PR from everything from routine dumping of toxic sludge to increasingly organized outrage from communities tired of hordes of tourists getting dumped at their docks.

The big question, though, is whether those customers buying cruise packages to the Bahamas or Alaska particularly care. It’s easy to make the case that they don’t. Despite the industry’s continued investment in new fossil fuel-powered ships, cruise ticket sales are projected to climb back to record 2019 sales levels this year after a hit during the pandemic, according to the latest industry association report .

More from TIME

At least one cruise company, though, is betting that at least some potential customers care about sustainable vacations. Hurtigruten, a specialty cruise line based in Norway, says it has built its last fossil fuel-powered ship. On June 7, the company unveiled new details about the technologies it’s testing in pursuit of the world’s first zero-emission cruise ship, and renderings of what the boat might look like. Instead of towering over the ocean, the ship seems to cling close to the water, the better to reduce air resistance. In place of smokestacks, the designers envision retractable sails that double as solar panels. It runs on batteries instead of the thick, sticky fuel oil that powers most ships. And it’ll be ready, the company hopes, by 2030.

With time running short to phase out fossil fuels and avert the worst effects of climate change, the moral argument is compelling. But big businesses often make their decisions on what they might consider more practical concerns than what is “right” and “wrong.” It’s possible that Hurtigruten and its zero-emissions vessels could turn the industry ship around. But it could just be a green fluke, a new offering for a small slice of climate-conscious vacationers, as the rest of the industry chugs on as before.

Designing a green cruise line

Just about every CEO wants to be counted as an environmentalist these days. But Daniel Skjeldam, the CEO of Hurtigruten is one of those few who doesn’t dance around one of the more uncomfortable dimensions of our climate problem: the apparent conflict between the endless pursuit of more, bigger, better, and the limits of the earth’s biosphere.

“I think it’s sheer wrong to build bigger and bigger and bigger cruise ships,” Skjeldam says. The average cruise ship has around 3,000 passengers, but cruise companies have been investing in ever-bigger liners. “7,000 [passengers], 8,000, 9,000,” Skjeldam says. “It’s just wrong.”

The idea of running a cruise line occurred to Skjeldam back in 2012. Hurtigruten (the name means “Express Route” in English) was losing money, and Skjeldam, then commercial director at European budget airline Norwegian Air Shuttle, thought he could turn things around. He wasn’t in consideration for the role, though, so over the course of several weeks, the ambitious then-37-year-old executive repeatedly called through to the switchboard at the office of the company’s chairman, until finally he was able to come in and give his pitch in person.

It wasn’t long after that Skjeldam, officially appointed as CEO in October of that year, was on a Hurtigruten ship sailing past the Svalbard archipelago, home to the world’s northernmost inhabited town. He was on the bridge, having a cup of coffee with the captain, a five-decade veteran at the company, who pointed out a glacier several miles away. When he started sailing for the company in 1980, the captain said, the glacier had reached all the way to where they were floating now.

The experience, for Skjeldam, was eye-opening, and under his leadership, the company began making investments in sustainability long before some of the bigger players in the industry started doing the same. In 2016, the company began outfitting its ships to use power from the grid while tied up in port instead of burning their own fuel—the technology can reduce air pollution when ships are docked by up to 70%. That year, Hurtigruten ordered the world’s first hybrid-power cruise ships, and started offering cruises on its first, the MS Roald Amundsen in 2019, which the company says has about 20% lower emissions than a similarly sized conventional ship. The company now operates four such vessels.

Skjeldam says the changes have to do with both customer desires for more sustainable travel, which he expects to grow in the years ahead, as well as employee demands. Hurtigruten is the largest employer in Longyearbyen, Svalbard’s main settlement. Temperatures there are warming six times faster than the global average, bringing unseasonably hot weather, glacial retreat, and more frequent avalanches triggered by unstable snow. “I speak to these people, and they reflect upon the massive changes that have happened just over the last decade, and it scares them,” says Skjeldam. “That’s driven this interest and desire from within the company on driving change and being part of the solution.”

Hurtigruten is aiming for carbon-neutral operations by 2040, and to cut all scope three emissions—those from the company’s supply chain—by 2050. But despite investing more than $70 million into emissions-reduction technology, progress has been slow, which the company blames partially on energy prices, which made it more expensive to buy low-carbon biofuels. Indeed, while Hurtigruten managed to cut about 2% of overall emissions between 2018 and 2022—emissions per customer trip remained essentially unchanged.

Still, Skjeldam is pushing ahead with the company’s next major project: building the industry’s first entirely zero-emission vessel. In 2021, the team began reaching out to technology firms and shipbuilders, and doing feasibility studies, figuring out what technologies—a small nuclear reactor, perhaps, or maybe using more biofuels—might work. Eventually, they settled on batteries.

There was no way to make a battery that would last long enough to use on what the company calls its “expedition” cruises—where trips vary from week-long pleasure rides the Galapagos to multi-month odysseys between the Arctic and Antarctica, and fares can range from a few thousand dollars to the price of a luxury sports car. But it might work for their flagship service: a multi-stop cruise up the Norwegian coast (which also serves as a mail and transit service between isolated fjord communities) that would offer frequent opportunities to recharge.

Even with many stops, the battery would have to be huge. Currently, the engineers are eyeing a capacity of 60 megawatt-hours, equivalent to 1,200 Tesla Model 3 batteries. This would allow it to run for well over 300 miles before recharging. Maximizing that range means finding ways to drastically cut the ship’s energy usage. To do this, the company is exploring using underwater maneuvering jets that can retract into the hull to cut drag, and a streamlined profile with a tiny cockpit-style bridge to reduce air resistance, as well as adding sails and solar panels to harness extra power. The company plans to have a final design by 2025.

Batteries vs. Biofuels

Hurtigruten’s work may prove out some worthy technologies that the rest of the cruise industry could adopt. But the central idea of using a big battery may ultimately be impossible for bigger cruise ships, because batteries can’t store enough power in a small enough space—to get across an ocean, you’d need a battery that might take up much of an entire ship. Sails can help, but they wouldn’t be able to do more than provide an energy boost for many kinds of shipping. That leaves either biofuels or synthetic fuels produced using renewable energy—each with its own drawbacks.

Methanol, made from renewable energy and CO2, is a good choice, but making it requires obtaining CO2 from a limited supply of global biomass (demand for agricultural waste and other forms of plant-based carbon are set to explode with global demand for alternative fuels) or else using huge amounts of renewable energy to pull CO2 from the atmosphere. Ammonia is another option for the shipping industry, and it gets around the CO2 supply problem, but it wouldn’t work for passenger ships, since a leak would expose thousands of people to poisonous ammonia fumes. Then there’s hydrogen, though the lightest element can be tricky to work with , since it leaks easily and needs to be supercooled to get to high enough densities to transport, which uses a lot of energy.

Four companies—Carnival, Royal Caribbean, Norwegian Cruise Lines, and MSC—control the lion’s share of the cruise market. They’ve made some positive moves, such as investing in ships capable of running on methanol, though such vessels might continue to mostly use diesel for the time being due to lack of refueling infrastructure . But, with the notable exception of Norwegian , the big players’ current environmental plans primarily hinge on using liquified natural gas (LNG) in the newest generation of ships. Using LNG does cut down on particulate emissions and certain dangerous pollutants like sulfur and nitrogen oxides. The industry also cites the fact that LNG has about 30% lower carbon dioxide emissions than using heavy fuel oil. But CO2 isn’t the only thing that escapes from the smokestacks—the engines popular in the cruise industry leave a lot of the natural gas unburned, which gets emitted as well.

Natural gas, also known as methane, is itself a powerful greenhouse gas. With a warming potential more than 80 times greater than CO2 over a 20-year timescale, the overall emissions picture of using LNG is likely worse for global climate change than if the cruise lines had stuck with petroleum.

When asked about the use of LNG on its vessels, a representative for Carnival pointed to the company’s “long term aspirations to achieve net carbon-neutral ship operations by 2050.” MSC Cruises and Royal Caribbean did not respond to requests for comment. “There is [an] abundance of scientific data and well-respected studies that showcase the environmental benefits and value of using LNG, one of the cleanest fuels available today,” the Carnival spokesperson wrote over email. “We also are piloting other next-generation green technologies such as biofuels, fuel cells and large battery storage systems, among others.”

Currently there’s little in the way of regulations to limit greenhouse gasses like CO2 and methane from shipping. Cruise industry emissions fall under the jurisdiction of the International Maritime Organization (IMO) of the United Nations, which technically has the authority to force deep sustained emissions cuts across worldwide shipping. In practice, though, the IMO has historically been heavily influenced by those very interests, with many countries appointing industry representatives to their IMO delegations. And the powerful Cruise Lines International Association (CLIA), the industry’s international lobbying arm, has not exactly fallen over itself to help strengthen emissions standards in ongoing IMO talks on greenhouse gas reductions, according to Bryan Comer, marine shipping program lead at the International Council on Clean Transportation.

“Anything that they can do to try and make the math work in their favor and to not have to do anything is what they’re trying to do at the International Maritime Organization,” says Comer. “They set targets that already include loopholes for them, and then they fight against climate regulations in foreign policy forums, and then once the regulations are agreed, they start fighting for exemptions and adjustment factors and special treatment. And oftentimes they get it.” CLIA representatives did not respond to requests for comment. Hurtigruten is not a member of the organization.

What matters to vacationers?

Some climate activists say there’s a good argument that the cruise industry shouldn’t exist at all. Cruise ships are, on the whole, basically inherently wasteful—if you want to see the world, dragging an entire resort around with you is probably not going to be the most efficient way to do it. Compared to flying to a destination and staying in a hotel, cruising almost always has a far higher emissions profile, according to research by Comer and others . A five-night, 1,200 mile cruise results in about 1,100 lbs of CO2 emissions, according to Comer. Flying the same distance and staying in a hotel would emit less than half of that. And that’s not counting for the fact that cruise guests often also have to fly to the port where they will embark.

Bringing that argument to cruise customers, though, can be an uphill battle. The cruise industry puts a lot of money into defending its environmental image. Activists in cities like Seattle, Wash., and Juneau, Ala., often greet disembarking passengers with leaflets on cruising’s environmental effects. But some campaigners say that passengers are often impervious to volunteers’ arguments. Some passengers, says Karla Hart, an activist with Juneau Cruise Control and co-founder of the Global Cruise Activist Network, will even stop to defend the industry, saying how switching to LNG or phasing out plastic straws has solved cruising’s environmental problem. It’s a symptom, in her view, of a broader dynamic between the cruise industry and its passengers: that customers want to believe they can have the perfect vacations advertised on television and online, even though they know the reality of what they will get is far different.

“It’s a suspension of reality, to go with one’s desire for an experience that you must know you can’t have,” Hart says. “The same as suspending your rational thinking that because they’re not using plastic straws, and they switch to LED lights, that they’re not completely polluting the environment.”

A new TIME survey conducted by The Harris Poll backs up some of those points. To environmental campaigners, cruising stands out as perhaps the most polluting sort of vacation. But fully half of Americans surveyed consider taking a cruise to be “eco-friendly,” with only one in three regarding such vacations as being bad for the environment.

More Americans regard flying as being bad for the environment, despite cruising’s bigger carbon footprint per passenger.

Trying to convince vacationers to make greener choices probably has limited effectiveness anyway. Many Americans consider cruising to be an affordable vacation option—mega cruises especially tend to benefit from economies of scale. Three out of five Americans surveyed by Harris Poll consider cost to be a very important factor in their vacation planning. Meanwhile, only one in five Americans think of the environmental impacts of their vacation in the same way.

Ujwal Arkalgud, who studies consumer decision-making at Lux Research, says that a specialty cruise provider like Hurtigruten might be able to attract customers genuinely interested in sustainability, but that the mass market customers will likely only ever be interested in having a kind of green alibi. “People are not buying to save the planet,” says Arkalgud. “Because you know, one simple way to save the planet would be to not go on the cruise.”

Absent a real push from customers, activists and environmental experts say that only regulation on the level of the IMO, or across enough big ports or markets like the U.S. or the E.U., can make the industry invest in decarbonization in a serious way. “The reason why you’re not seeing a lot of investment and innovation in zero-emission vessels is because it’s a competitive global industry,” says Comer. “If you do something that costs you more, and you’re still competing on price, and you can’t demonstrate to the passenger why they ought to pay more for this, there’s not really any incentive for you to do it.”

Skjeldam supports more regulation—to a certain extent, he says, such measures to limit cruise industry pollution are inevitable. But he also has more faith that cruise-goers actually care about the environment than either activists or other cruise executives. And as the effects of climate change become more pronounced, he says, more of the world’s cruise-buying masses will begin to see the light.

“Unfortunately, there is a misconception in part of the industry, where they don’t think that their guests really are focusing on this. I think that is wrong—I think the guests will focus heavily on it in the future,” Skjeldam says. “The public demands are coming.”

More Must-Reads from TIME

• Welcome to the Noah Lyles Olympics
• Melinda French Gates Is Going It Alone
• What to Do if You Can’t Afford Your Medications
• How to Buy Groceries Without Breaking the Bank
• Sienna Miller Is the Reason to Watch  Horizon
• Why So Many Bitcoin Mining Companies Are Pivoting to AI
• The 15 Best Movies to Watch on a Plane
• Want Weekly Recs on What to Watch, Read, and More? Sign Up for Worth Your Time

Write to Alejandro de la Garza at [email protected]

Cruise Ship Pollution: Background, Laws and Regulations, and Key Issues

July 2, 2004 – December 15, 2010 RL32450

The cruise industry is a significant and growing contributor to the U.S. economy, providing more than $32 billion in benefits annually and generating more than 330,000 U.S. jobs, but also making the environmental impacts of its activities an issue to many. Although cruise ships represent a small fraction of the entire shipping industry worldwide, public attention to their environmental impacts comes in part from the fact that cruise ships are highly visible and in part because of the industry’s desire to promote a positive image.

Cruise ships carrying several thousand passengers and crew have been compared to “floating cities,” and the volume of wastes that they produce is comparably large, consisting of sewage; wastewater from sinks, showers, and galleys (graywater); hazardous wastes; solid waste; oily bilge water; ballast water; and air pollution. The waste streams generated by cruise ships are governed by a number of international protocols (especially MARPOL) and U.S. domestic laws (including the Clean Water Act and the Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships), regulations, and standards, but there is no single law or rule. Some cruise ship waste streams appear to be well regulated, such as solid wastes (garbage and plastics) and bilge water. But there is overlap of some areas, and there are gaps in others. Some, such as graywater and ballast water, are not regulated (except in the Great Lakes), and concern is increasing about the impacts of these discharges on public health and the environment. In other areas, regulations apply, but critics argue that they are not stringent enough to address the problem—for example, with respect to standards for sewage discharges. Environmental advocates have raised concerns about the adequacy of existing laws for managing these wastes, and they contend that enforcement is weak.

In 2000, Congress enacted legislation restricting cruise ship discharges in U.S. navigable waters within the state of Alaska. California, Alaska, and Maine have enacted state-specific laws concerning cruise ship pollution, and a few other states have entered into voluntary agreements with industry to address management of cruise ship discharges. Meanwhile, the cruise industry has voluntarily undertaken initiatives to improve pollution prevention, by adopting waste management guidelines and procedures and researching new technologies. Concerns about cruise ship pollution raise issues for Congress in three broad areas: adequacy of laws and regulations, research needs, and oversight and enforcement of existing requirements. Legislation to regulate cruise ship discharges of sewage, graywater, and bilge water nationally was introduced in the 111th Congress (H.R. 3888 and S. 1820), but no legislative activity occurred on either bill.

This report describes the several types of waste streams that cruise ships may discharge and emit. It identifies the complex body of international and domestic laws that address pollution from cruise ships. It then describes federal and state legislative activity concerning cruise ships in Alaskan waters and activities in a few other states, as well as current industry initiatives to manage cruise ship pollution. Issues for Congress are discussed.

Topic areas

Economic Policy

Introduction

Cruise ship waste streams, applicable laws and regulations, international legal regime, domestic laws and regulations, solid waste, hazardous waste, bilge water, ballast water, air pollution, considerations of geographic jurisdiction, alaskan activities, federal legislation, alaska state legislation and initiatives, other state activities, industry initiatives, issues for congress, laws and regulations, oversight and enforcement.

The cruise industry is a significant and growing contributor to the U.S. economy, providing more than $32 billion in benefits annually and generating more than 330,000 U.S. jobs, but also making the environmental impacts of its activities an issue to many. Although cruise ships represent a small fraction of the entire shipping industry worldwide, public attention to their environmental impacts comes in part from the fact that cruise ships are highly visible and in part because of the industry's desire to promote a positive image.

Cruise ships carrying several thousand passengers and crew have been compared to "floating cities," and the volume of wastes that they produce is comparably large, consisting of sewage; wastewater from sinks, showers, and galleys (graywater); hazardous wastes; solid waste; oily bilge water; ballast water; and air pollution. The waste streams generated by cruise ships are governed by a number of international protocols (especially MARPOL) and U.S. domestic laws (including the Clean Water Act and the Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships), regulations, and standards, but there is no single law or rule. Some cruise ship waste streams appear to be well regulated, such as solid wastes (garbage and plastics) and bilge water. But there is overlap of some areas, and there are gaps in others. Some, such as graywater and ballast water, are not regulated (except in the Great Lakes), and concern is increasing about the impacts of these discharges on public health and the environment. In other areas, regulations apply, but critics argue that they are not stringent enough to address the problem—for example, with respect to standards for sewage discharges. Environmental advocates have raised concerns about the adequacy of existing laws for managing these wastes, and they contend that enforcement is weak.

In 2000, Congress enacted legislation restricting cruise ship discharges in U.S. navigable waters within the state of Alaska. California, Alaska, and Maine have enacted state-specific laws concerning cruise ship pollution, and a few other states have entered into voluntary agreements with industry to address management of cruise ship discharges. Meanwhile, the cruise industry has voluntarily undertaken initiatives to improve pollution prevention, by adopting waste management guidelines and procedures and researching new technologies. Concerns about cruise ship pollution raise issues for Congress in three broad areas: adequacy of laws and regulations, research needs, and oversight and enforcement of existing requirements. Legislation to regulate cruise ship discharges of sewage, graywater, and bilge water nationally was introduced in the 111 th Congress ( H.R. 3888 and S. 1820 ), but no legislative activity occurred on either bill.

More than 53,000 commercial vessels—tankers, bulk carriers, container ships, barges, and passenger ships—travel the oceans and other waters of the world, carrying cargo and passengers for commerce, transport, and recreation. Their activities are regulated and scrutinized in a number of respects by international protocols and U.S. domestic laws, including those designed to protect against discharges of pollutants that could harm marine resources, other parts of the ambient environment, and human health. However, there are overlaps of some requirements, gaps in other areas, geographic differences in jurisdiction based on differing definitions, and questions about the adequacy of enforcement.

Public attention to the environmental impacts of the maritime industry has been especially focused on the cruise industry, in part because its ships are highly visible and in part because of the industry's desire to promote a positive image. It represents a relatively small fraction of the entire shipping industry worldwide. As of October 2010, passenger ships (which include cruise ships and ferries) composed about 13% of the world shipping fleet. 1 The cruise industry is a significant and growing contributor to the U.S. economy, providing $40 billion in total benefits in 2009 and generating more than 357,000 U.S. jobs, 2 but also making the environmental impacts of its activities an issue to many. Since 1990, the average annual growth rate in the number of cruise passengers worldwide has been 7.4%, and in 2010, cruises hosted an estimated 14.3 million passengers. The worldwide cruise ship fleet consists of more than 230 ships, and the majority are foreign-flagged, with Liberia and Panama being the most popular flag countries. 3 Foreign-flag cruise vessels owned by six companies account for nearly 95% of passenger ships operating in U.S. waters. Each year, the industry adds new ships to the total fleet, vessels that are bigger, more elaborate and luxurious, and that carry larger numbers of passengers and crew. Over the past two decades, the average ship size has been increasing at the rate of roughly 90 feet every five years. The average ship entering the market from 2008 to 2011 will be more than 1,050 feet long and will weigh more than 130,000 tons. 4

To the cruise ship industry, a key issue is demonstrating to the public that cruising is safe and healthy for passengers and the tourist communities that are visited by their ships. Cruise ships carrying several thousand passengers and crew have been compared to "floating cities," in part because the volume of wastes produced and requiring disposal is greater than that of many small cities on land. During a typical one-week voyage, a large cruise ship (with 3,000 passengers and crew) is estimated to generate 210,000 gallons of sewage; 1 million gallons of graywater (wastewater from sinks, showers, and laundries); more than 130 gallons of hazardous wastes; 8 tons of solid waste; and 25,000 gallons of oily bilge water. 5 Those wastes, if not properly treated and disposed of, can pose risks to human health, welfare, and the environment. Environmental advocates have raised concerns about the adequacy of existing laws for managing these wastes, and suggest that enforcement of existing laws is weak.

A 2000 General Accounting Office (GAO) report focused attention on problems of cruise vessel compliance with environmental requirements. 6 GAO found that between 1993 and 1998, foreign-flag cruise ships were involved in 87 confirmed illegal discharge cases in U.S. waters. A few of the cases included multiple illegal discharge incidents occurring over the six-year period. GAO reviewed three major waste streams (solids, hazardous chemicals, and oily bilge water) and concluded that 83% of the cases involved discharges of oil or oil-based products, the volumes of which ranged from a few drops to hundreds of gallons. The balance of the cases involved discharges of plastic or garbage. GAO judged that 72% of the illegal discharges were accidental, 15% were intentional, and 13% could not be determined. The 87 cruise ship cases represented 4% of the 2,400 illegal discharge cases by foreign-flag ships (including tankers, cargo ships and other commercial vessels, as well as cruise ships) confirmed during the six years studied by GAO. Although cruise ships operating in U.S. waters have been involved in a relatively small number of pollution cases, GAO said, several have been widely publicized and have led to criminal prosecutions and multimillion-dollar fines.

In 2000, a coalition of 53 environmental advocacy groups petitioned the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to take regulatory action to address pollution by cruise ships. 7 The petition called for an investigation of wastewater, oil, and solid waste discharges from cruise ships. In response, EPA agreed to study cruise ship discharges and waste management approaches. As part of that effort, in 2000 EPA issued a background document with preliminary information and recommendations for further assessment through data collection and public information hearings. 8 Subsequently, in December 2008, the agency released a cruise ship discharge assessment report as part of its response to the petition. This report summarized information on cruise ship waste streams and findings of recent data collection activities (especially from cruise ships operating in Alaskan waters). It also identified options to address ship discharges. 9

This report presents information on issues related to cruise ship pollution. It begins by describing the several types of waste streams and contaminants that cruise ships may generate and release. It identifies the complex body of international and domestic laws that address pollution from cruise ships, as there is no single law in this area. Some wastes are covered by international standards, some are subject to U.S. law, and for some there are gaps in law, regulation, or possibly both. The report then describes federal and state legislative activity concerning cruise ships in Alaskan waters and activities in a few other states. Cruise ship companies have taken a number of steps to prevent illegal waste discharges and have adopted waste management plans and practices to improve their environmental operations. Environmental critics acknowledge these initiatives, even as they have petitioned the federal government to strengthen existing regulation of cruise ship wastes. Environmental groups endorsed legislation in the 109 th and 110 th Congresses (the Clean Cruise Ship Act) that would require stricter standards to control wastewater and other discharges from cruise ships. Similar legislation was introduced in the 111 th Congress (the Clean Cruise Ship Act, H.R. 3888 and S. 1820 ), but no legislative action occurred.

Cruise ships generate a number of waste streams that can result in discharges to the marine environment, including sewage, graywater, hazardous wastes, oily bilge water, ballast water, and solid waste. They also emit air pollutants to the air and water. These wastes, if not properly treated and disposed of, can be a significant source of pathogens, nutrients, and toxic substances with the potential to threaten human health and damage aquatic life. It is important, however, to keep these discharges in some perspective, because cruise ships represent a small—although highly visible—portion of the entire international shipping industry, and the waste streams described here are not unique to cruise ships. However, particular types of wastes, such as sewage, graywater, and solid waste, may be of greater concern for cruise ships relative to other seagoing vessels, because of the large numbers of passengers and crew that cruise ships carry and the large volumes of wastes that they produce. Further, because cruise ships tend to concentrate their activities in specific coastal areas and visit the same ports repeatedly (especially Florida, California, New York, Galveston, Seattle, and the waters of Alaska), their cumulative impact on a local scale could be significant, as can impacts of individual large-volume releases (either accidental or intentional).

Blackwater is sewage, wastewater from toilets and medical facilities, which can contain harmful bacteria, pathogens, diseases, viruses, intestinal parasites, and harmful nutrients. Discharges of untreated or inadequately treated sewage can cause bacterial and viral contamination of fisheries and shellfish beds, producing risks to public health. Nutrients in sewage, such as nitrogen and phosphorous, promote excessive algal growth, which consumes oxygen in the water and can lead to fish kills and destruction of other aquatic life. Cruise ships generate, on average, 8.4 gallons/day/person of sewage, and a large cruise ship (3,000 passengers and crew) can generate an estimated 15,000 to 30,000 gallons per day of sewage. 10

Graywater is wastewater from the sinks, showers, galleys, laundry, and cleaning activities aboard a ship. It can contain a variety of pollutant substances, including fecal coliform bacteria, detergents, oil and grease, metals, organics, petroleum hydrocarbons, nutrients, food waste, and medical and dental waste. Sampling done by EPA and the state of Alaska found that untreated graywater from cruise ships can contain pollutants at variable strengths, and that it can contain levels of fecal coliform bacteria one to three times greater than is typically found in untreated domestic wastewater. Cruise ships generate, on average, 67 gallons/day/person of graywater (or, approximately 200,000 gallons per day for a 3,000-person cruise ship); by comparison, residential graywater generation is estimated to be 51 gallons/person/day. 11 Graywater has potential to cause adverse environmental effects because of concentrations of nutrients and other oxygen-demanding materials, in particular. Graywater is typically the largest source of liquid waste generated by cruise ships (90%-95% of the total).

Solid waste generated on a ship includes glass, paper, cardboard, aluminum and steel cans, and plastics. It can be either non-hazardous or hazardous in nature. Solid waste that enters the ocean may become marine debris, and it can then pose a threat to marine organisms, humans, coastal communities, and industries that utilize marine waters. Cruise ships typically manage solid waste by a combination of source reduction, waste minimization, and recycling. However, as much as 75% of solid waste is incinerated on board, and the ash typically is discharged at sea, although some is landed ashore for disposal or recycling. Marine mammals, fish, sea turtles, and birds can be injured or killed from entanglement with plastics and other solid waste that may be released or disposed off of cruise ships. On average, each cruise ship passenger generates at least two pounds of non-hazardous solid waste per day and disposes of two bottles and two cans. 12 With large cruise ships carrying several thousand passengers, the amount of waste generated in a day can be massive. For a large cruise ship, about 8 tons of solid waste are generated during a one-week cruise. 13 It has been estimated that 24% of the solid waste generated by vessels worldwide (by weight) comes from cruise ships. 14 Most cruise ship garbage is treated on board (incinerated, pulped, or ground up) for discharge overboard. When garbage must be off-loaded (for example, because glass and aluminum cannot be incinerated), cruise ships can put a strain on port reception facilities, which are rarely adequate to the task of serving a large passenger vessel (especially at non-North American ports). 15

Cruise ships produce hazardous wastes from a number of on-board activities and processes, including photo processing, dry-cleaning, and equipment cleaning. Types of waste include discarded and expired chemicals, medical waste, batteries, fluorescent lights, and spent paints and thinners, among others. These materials contain a wide range of substances such as hydrocarbons, chlorinated hydrocarbons, heavy metals, paint waste, solvents, fluorescent and mercury vapor light bulbs, various types of batteries, and unused or outdated pharmaceuticals. Although the quantities of hazardous waste generated on cruise ships are relatively small, their toxicity to sensitive marine organisms can be significant. Without careful management, these wastes can find their way into graywater, bilge water, or the solid waste stream.

On a ship, oil often leaks from engine and machinery spaces or from engine maintenance activities and mixes with water in the bilge, the lowest part of the hull of the ship. Oil, gasoline, and byproducts from the biological breakdown of petroleum products can harm fish and wildlife and pose threats to human health if ingested. Oil in even minute concentrations can kill fish or have various sub-lethal chronic effects. Bilge water also may contain solid wastes and pollutants containing high amounts of oxygen-demanding material, oil, and other chemicals, as well as soaps, detergents, and degreasers used to clean the engine room. These chemicals can be highly toxic, causing mortality to marine organisms if the chemicals are discharged. Amounts vary, depending on the size of the ship, but large vessels often have additional waste streams that contain sludge or waste oil and oily water mixtures that can inadvertently get into the bilge. A typical large cruise ship will generate an average of eight metric tons of oily bilge water for each 24 hours of operation. 16 To maintain ship stability and eliminate potentially hazardous conditions from oil vapors in these areas, the bilge spaces need to be flushed and periodically pumped dry. However, before a bilge can be cleared out and the water discharged, the oil that has been accumulated needs to be extracted from the bilge water, after which the extracted oil can be reused, incinerated, and/or off-loaded in port. If a separator, which is normally used to extract the oil, is faulty or is deliberately bypassed, untreated oily bilge water could be discharged directly into the ocean, where it can damage marine life. According to EPA, bilge water is the most common source of oil pollution from cruise ships. 17 A number of cruise lines have been charged with environmental violations related to this issue in recent years.

Cruise ships, large tankers, and bulk cargo carriers use a tremendous amount of ballast water to stabilize the vessel during transport. Ballast water is often taken on in the coastal waters in one region after ships discharge wastewater or unload cargo, and discharged at the next port of call, wherever more cargo is loaded, which reduces the need for compensating ballast. Thus, it is essential to the proper functioning of ships (especially cargo ships), because the water that is taken in compensates for changes in the ship's weight as cargo is loaded or unloaded, and as fuel and supplies are consumed. However, ballast water discharge typically contains a variety of biological materials, including plants, animals, viruses, and bacteria. These materials often include non-native, nuisance, exotic species that can cause extensive ecological and economic damage to aquatic ecosystems. Ballast water discharges are believed to be the leading source of invasive species in U.S. marine waters, thus posing public health and environmental risks, as well as significant economic cost to industries such as water and power utilities, commercial and recreational fisheries, agriculture, and tourism. 18 Studies suggest that the economic cost just from introduction of pest mollusks (zebra mussels, the Asian clam, and shipworms) to U.S. aquatic ecosystems is about $2.2 billion per year. 19 These problems are not limited to cruise ships, and there is little cruise-industry specific data on the issue. Further study is needed to determine the role of cruise ships in the overall problem of introduction of non-native species by vessels.

Air pollution from cruise ships is generated by diesel engines that burn high sulfur content fuel, producing sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, and particulate matter, in addition to carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, and hydrocarbons. Diesel exhaust has been classified by EPA as a likely human carcinogen. EPA recognizes that emissions from marine diesel engines contribute to unhealthy air and failure to meet air quality standards, as well as visibility degradation, haze, acid deposition, and eutrophication and nitrification of water. 20 EPA estimates that ocean-going vessels account for about 10% of mobile source nitrogen oxide emissions, 24% of mobile source particulate emissions, and 80% of mobile source sulfur dioxide emissions in the United States in 2009. These percentages are expected to increase as other sources of these pollutants are controlled. Emissions from marine diesel engines can be higher on a port-specific basis. Ships are also an important source of greenhouse gas (GHG) pollutants. The International Maritime Organization estimates that international shipping contributed 2.7% of global carbon dioxide emissions in 2007. 21 Vessels also emit significant amounts of black carbon and nitrogen oxides, which contribute to climate change.

One source of environmental pressures on maritime vessels recently has come from states and localities, as they assess the contribution of commercial marine vessels to regional air quality problems when ships are docked in port. A significant portion of vessel emissions occur at sea, but they can impact areas far inland and regions without large commercial ports, according to EPA. Again, there is little cruise-industry specific data on this issue. They comprise only a small fraction of the world shipping fleet, but cruise ship emissions may exert significant impacts on a local scale in specific coastal areas that are visited repeatedly. Shipboard incinerators also burn large volumes of garbage, plastics, and other waste, producing ash that must be disposed of. Incinerators may release toxic emissions as well.

The several waste streams generated by cruise ships are governed by a number of international protocols and U.S. domestic laws, regulations and standards, which are described in this section, but there is no single law or regulation. Moreover, there are overlaps in some areas of coverage, gaps in other areas, and differences in geographic jurisdiction, based on applicable terms and definitions.

The International Maritime Organization (IMO), a body of the United Nations, sets international maritime vessel safety and marine pollution standards. It consists of representatives from 152 major maritime nations, including the United States. The IMO implements the 1973 International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, as modified by the Protocol of 1978, known as MARPOL 73/78. Cruise ships flagged under countries that are signatories to MARPOL are subject to its requirements, regardless of where they sail, and member nations are responsible for vessels registered under their respective nationalities. 22 Six Annexes of the Convention cover the various sources of pollution from ships and provide an overarching framework for international objectives, but they are not sufficient alone to protect the marine environment from waste discharges, without ratification and implementation by sovereign states.

• Annex I deals with regulations for the prevention of pollution by oil.
• Annex II details the discharge criteria and measures for the control of pollution by noxious liquid substances carried in bulk.
• Annex III contains general requirements for issuing standards on packing, marking, labeling, and notifications for preventing pollution by harmful substances.
• Annex IV contains requirements to control pollution of the sea by sewage.
• Annex V deals with different types of garbage, including plastics, and specifies the distances from land and the manner in which they may be disposed of.
• Annex VI sets limits on sulfur oxide, nitrogen oxide, and other emissions from marine vessel operations and prohibits deliberate emissions of ozone-depleting substances.

Compliance with the Annexes is voluntary. In order for IMO standards to be binding, they must first be ratified by a total number of member countries whose combined gross tonnage represents at least 50% of the world's gross tonnage, a process that can be lengthy. Parties/countries that have ratified an Annex may propose amendments; MARPOL specifies procedures and timelines for parties to adopt amendments and for amendments to take effect. All six Annexes have been ratified by the requisite number of nations; the most recent is Annex VI, which took effect in May 2005. The United States has ratified Annexes I, II, III, V, and VI, but has taken no action regarding Annex IV. The country where a ship is registered (flag state) is responsible for certifying the ship's compliance with MARPOL's pollution prevention standards. IMO also has established a large number of other conventions, addressing issues such as ballast water management, and the International Safety Management Code, with guidelines for passenger safety and pollution prevention.

Each signatory nation is responsible for enacting domestic laws to implement the convention and effectively pledges to comply with the convention, annexes, and related laws of other nations. In the United States, the Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships (APPS, 33 U.S.C. §§1905-1915, and regulations at 33 CFR Subchapter O—Pollution) implements the provisions of MARPOL and the annexes to which the United States is a party. The most recent U.S. action concerning MARPOL occurred in April 2006, when the Senate acceded to ratification of Annex VI, which regulates air pollution (Treaty Doc. 108-7, Exec. Rept. 109-13). Following that approval, in July 2008, Congress approved legislation to implement the standards in Annex VI, through regulations to be promulgated by EPA in consultation with the U.S. Coast Guard ( P.L. 110-280 ). Even before enactment of this legislation, the United Stated participated in international negotiations to strengthen MARPOL Annex VI , which resulted in amendments to Annex VI in October 2008 (see discussion of " Air Pollution ," below). 23

APPS applies to all U.S.-flagged ships anywhere in the world and to all foreign-flagged vessels operating in navigable waters of the United States or while at port under U.S. jurisdiction. The Coast Guard has primary responsibility to prescribe and enforce regulations necessary to implement APPS in these waters. The regulatory mechanism established in APPS to implement MARPOL is separate and distinct from the Clean Water Act and other federal environmental laws.

One of the difficulties in implementing MARPOL arises from the very international nature of maritime shipping. The country that the ship visits can conduct its own examination to verify a ship's compliance with international standards and can detain the ship if it finds significant noncompliance. Under the provisions of the Convention, the United States can take direct enforcement action under U.S. laws against foreign-flagged ships when pollution discharge incidents occur within U.S. jurisdiction. When incidents occur outside U.S. jurisdiction or jurisdiction cannot be determined, the United States refers cases to flag states, in accordance with MARPOL. The 2000 GAO report documented that these procedures require substantial coordination between the Coast Guard, the State Department, and other flag states and that, even when referrals have been made, the response rate from flag states has been poor. 24

In the United States, several federal agencies have some jurisdiction over cruise ships in U.S. waters, but no one agency is responsible for or coordinates all of the relevant government functions. The U.S. Coast Guard and EPA have principal regulatory and standard-setting responsibilities, and the Department of Justice prosecutes violations of federal laws. In addition, the Department of State represents the United States at meetings of the IMO and in international treaty negotiations and is responsible for pursuing foreign-flag violations. Other federal agencies have limited roles and responsibilities. For example, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA, Department of Commerce) works with the Coast Guard and EPA to report on the effects of marine debris. The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) is responsible for ensuring quarantine inspection and disposal of food-contaminated garbage (these APHIS responsibilities are part of the Department of Homeland Security). In some cases, states and localities have responsibilities as well. This section describes U.S. laws and regulations that apply to cruise ship discharges.

The Federal Water Pollution Control Act, or Clean Water Act (CWA), is the principal U.S. law concerned with limiting polluting activity in the nation's streams, lakes, estuaries, and coastal waters. The act's primary mechanism for controlling pollutant discharges is the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program, authorized in Section 402. In accordance with the NPDES program, pollutant discharges from point sources—a term that includes vessels—are prohibited unless a permit has been obtained. While sewage is defined as a pollutant under the act, sewage discharges from cruise ships and other vessels are statutorily exempt from this definition and are therefore exempt from the requirement to obtain an NPDES permit.

Marine Sanitation Devices

Section 312 of the Clean Water Act seeks to address this gap by prohibiting the dumping of untreated or inadequately treated sewage from vessels into the navigable waters of the United States (defined in the act as within 3 miles of shore). Cruise ships are subject to this prohibition. It is implemented jointly by EPA and the Coast Guard. Under Section 312, commercial and recreational vessels with installed toilets are required to have marine sanitation devices (MSDs), which are designed to prevent the discharge of untreated sewage. EPA is responsible for developing performance standards for MSDs, and the Coast Guard is responsible for MSD design and operation regulations and for certifying MSD compliance with the EPA rules. MSDs are designed either to hold sewage for shore-based disposal or to treat sewage prior to discharge. Beyond 3 miles, raw sewage can be discharged.

The Coast Guard regulations cover three types of MSDs (33 CFR Part 159). Large vessels, including cruise ships, use either Type II or Type III MSDs. In Type II MSDs, the waste is either chemically or biologically treated prior to discharge and must meet limits of no more than 200 fecal coliform per 100 milliliters and no more than 150 milligrams per liter of suspended solids. Type III MSDs store wastes and do not treat them; the waste is pumped out later and treated in an onshore system or discharged outside U.S. waters. Type I MSDs use chemicals to disinfect the raw sewage prior to discharge and must meet a performance standard for fecal coliform bacteria of not greater than 1,000 per 100 milliliters and no visible floating solids. Type I MSDs are generally only found on recreational vessels or others under 65 feet in length. The regulations, which have not been revised since 1976, do not require ship operators to sample, monitor, or report on their effluent discharges.

Critics point out deficiencies with this regulatory structure as it affects cruise ships and other large vessels. First, the MSD regulations only cover discharges of bacterial contaminants and suspended solids, while the NPDES permit program for other point sources typically regulates many more pollutants such as chemicals, pesticides, heavy metals, oil, and grease that may be released by cruise ships as well as land-based sources. Second, sources subject to NPDES permits must comply with sampling, monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements, which do not exist in the MSD rules.

In addition, the Coast Guard, responsible for inspecting cruise ships and other vessels for compliance with the MSD rules, has been heavily criticized for poor enforcement of Section 312 requirements. In its 2000 report, the GAO said that Coast Guard inspectors "rarely have time during scheduled ship examinations to inspect sewage treatment equipment or filter systems to see if they are working properly and filtering out potentially harmful contaminants." GAO reported that a number of factors limit the ability of Coast Guard inspectors to detect violations of environmental law and rules, including the inspectors' focus on safety, the large size of a cruise ship, limited time and staff for inspections, and the lack of an element of surprise concerning inspections. 25 The Coast Guard carries out a wide range of responsibilities that encompass both homeland security (ports, waterways, and coastal security, defense readiness, drug and migrant interdiction) and non-homeland security (search and rescue, marine environmental protection, fisheries enforcement, aids to navigation). Since the September 11 terrorist attacks on the United States, the Coast Guard has focused more of its resources on homeland security activities. 26 One likely result is that less of the Coast Guard's time and resources are available for vessel inspections for MSD or other environmental compliance.

Annex IV of MARPOL was drafted to regulate sewage discharges from vessels. It generally requires that ships be equipped with either a sewage treatment plant, sewage comminuting (i.e., to grind or macerate solids) and disinfecting system, or a sewage holding tank. It has entered into force internationally and would apply to cruise ships that are flagged in ratifying countries, but because the United States has not ratified Annex IV, it is not mandatory that ships follow it when in U.S. waters. However, its requirements are minimal, even compared with U.S. rules for MSDs. Annex IV requires that vessels be equipped with a certified sewage treatment system or holding tank, but it prescribes no specific performance standards. Within three miles of shore, Annex IV requires that sewage discharges be treated by a certified MSD prior to discharge. Between three and 12 miles from shore, sewage discharges must be treated by no less than maceration or chlorination; sewage discharges beyond 12 miles from shore are unrestricted. Vessels are permitted to meet alternative, less stringent requirements when they are in the jurisdiction of countries where less stringent requirements apply. In U.S. waters, cruise ships and other vessels must comply with the regulations implementing Section 312 of the Clean Water Act.

On some cruise ships, especially many of those that travel in Alaskan waters, sewage is treated using Advanced Wastewater Treatment (AWT) systems that generally provide improved screening, treatment, disinfection, and sludge processing as compared with traditional Type II MSDs. AWTs are believed to be very effective in removing pathogens, oxygen demanding substances, suspended solids, oil and grease, and particulate metals from sewage, but only moderately effective in removing dissolved metals and nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorous). 27

No Discharge Zones

Section 312 has another means of addressing sewage discharges, through establishment of no-discharge zones (NDZs) for vessel sewage. A state may completely prohibit the discharge of both treated and untreated sewage from all vessels with installed toilets into some or all waters over which it has jurisdiction (up to 3 miles from land). To create a no-discharge zone to protect waters from sewage discharges by cruise ships and other vessels, the state must apply to EPA under one of three categories.

• NDZ based on the need for greater environmental protection, and the state demonstrates that adequate pumpout facilities for safe and sanitary removal and treatment of sewage from all vessels are reasonably available. As of 2009, this category of designation has been used for waters representing part or all of the waters of 26 states, including a number of inland states.
• NDZ for special waters found to have a particular environmental importance (e.g., to protect environmentally sensitive areas such as shellfish beds or coral reefs); it is not necessary for the state to show pumpout availability. This category of designation has been used twice (state waters within the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary and the Boundary Waters Canoe area of Minnesota).
• NDZ to prohibit the discharge of sewage into waters that are drinking water intake zones; it is not necessary for the state to show pumpout availability. This category of designation has been used to protect part of the Hudson River in New York.

In the 2008 Discharge Assessment Report, EPA identified several possible options to address sewage from cruise ships, such as revising standards for the discharge of treated sewage effluent, restricting discharge of treated or untreated sewage effluent (e.g., no discharge out to 3 miles from shore), requiring sampling and testing of wastewater treatment equipment to ensure that its meets applicable standards, requiring certain reports by cruise ship operators, or imposing uniform requirements on all ships as a condition of port entry and within U.S. waters. 28

Under current federal law, graywater is not defined as a pollutant, nor is it generally considered to be sewage. There are no separate federal effluent standards for graywater discharges. The Clean Water Act only includes graywater in its definition of sewage for the express purpose of regulating commercial vessels in the Great Lakes, under the Section 312 MSD requirements. However, those rules prescribe limits only for bacterial contaminant content and total suspended solids in graywater. Pursuant to a state law in Alaska, graywater must be treated prior to discharge into that state's waters (see " Alaskan Activities ," below). In addition, in 2008, EPA issued a CWA general permit applicable to large commercial vessels, including cruise ships, that contains restrictions on graywater discharges similar to those that apply in Alaskan waters (see " EPA's Response: General Permits for Vessels ," below).

The National Marine Sanctuaries Act (16 USC § 1431 et seq.) authorizes NOAA to designate National Marine Sanctuaries where certain discharges, including graywater, may be restricted to protect sensitive ecosystems or fragile habitat, such as coral. NOAA regulations do restrict such discharges from cruise ships and other vessels in areas such as the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary and the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary.

In the 2008 Discharge Assessment Report, EPA identified several options or alternatives for addressing graywater discharges, such as establishing and/or revising standards for graywater discharges, placing geographic restrictions on graywater discharges, requiring monitoring and reporting, or imposing penalties for failure to meet graywater standards. 29

Cruise ship discharges of solid waste are governed by two laws. Title I of the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA, 33 U.S.C. §§ 1402-1421) applies to cruise ships and other vessels and makes it illegal to transport garbage from the United States for the purpose of dumping it into ocean waters without a permit or to dump any material transported from a location outside the United States into U.S. territorial seas or the contiguous zone (within 12 nautical miles from shore) or ocean waters. EPA is responsible for issuing permits that regulate the disposal of materials at sea (except for dredged material disposal, for which the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is responsible). Beyond waters that are under U.S. jurisdiction, no MPRSA permit is required for a cruise ship to discharge solid waste. The routine discharge of effluent incidental to the propulsion of vessels is explicitly exempted from the definition of dumping in the MPRSA. 30

The Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships (APPS, 33 U.S.C. §§ 1901-1915) and its regulations, which implement U.S.-ratified provisions of MARPOL Annex V, also apply to cruise ships. APPS prohibits the discharge of all garbage within 3 nautical miles of shore, certain types of garbage within 12 nautical miles offshore, and plastic anywhere. As described above, it applies to all vessels, whether seagoing or not, regardless of flag, operating in U.S. navigable waters and the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). It is administered by the Coast Guard which carries out inspection programs to insure the adequacy of port facilities to receive offloaded solid waste. According to EPA, there have been discharges of solid waste and plastic from cruise ships. 31 The IMO also is reportedly evaluating the need to amend Annex V of MARPOL.

In the 2008 Discharge Assessment Report, EPA identified several possible options to address solid waste from cruise ships, such as increasing the use and range of on-board garbage handling and treatment technologies (e.g., compactors and incinerators); initiating a rulemaking to provide stronger waste management plans than the current voluntary cruise industry practices; prohibiting discharge of incinerator ash from cruise ships into U.S. waters; expanding port reception facilities to accept solid waste; or ensuring that there is no discharge of solid waste into the marine environment through monitoring and sanctions. 32

The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA, 42 U.S.C. §§ 6901-6991k) is the primary federal law that governs hazardous waste management through a "cradle-to-grave" program that controls hazardous waste from the point of generation until ultimate disposal. The act imposes management requirements on generators, transporters, and persons who treat or dispose of hazardous waste. Under this act, a waste is hazardous if it is ignitable, corrosive, reactive, or toxic, or appears on a list of about 100 industrial process waste streams and more than 500 discarded commercial products and chemicals. Treatment, storage, and disposal facilities are required to have permits and comply with operating standards and other EPA regulations.

The owner or operator of a cruise ship may be a generator and/or a transporter of hazardous waste, and thus subject to RCRA rules. Issues that the cruise ship industry may face relating to RCRA include ensuring that hazardous waste is identified at the point at which it is considered generated; ensuring that parties are properly identified as generators, storers, treaters, or disposers; and determining the applicability of RCRA requirements to each. Hazardous wastes generated onboard cruise ships are stored onboard until the wastes can be offloaded for recycling or disposal in accordance with RCRA. 33

A range of activities on board cruise ships generate hazardous wastes and toxic substances that would ordinarily be presumed to be subject to RCRA—for example, for use of chemicals in cleaning and painting, or in passenger services such as beauty parlors and photo labs. Cruise ships are potentially subject to RCRA requirements to the extent that chemicals used for operations such as ship maintenance and passenger services result in the generation of hazardous wastes. However, it is not entirely clear what regulations apply to the management and disposal of these wastes. 34 RCRA rules that cover small-quantity generators (those that generate more than 100 kilograms but less than 1,000 kilograms of hazardous waste per month) are less stringent than those for large-quantity generators (generating more than 1,000 kilograms per month), and it is unclear whether cruise ships are classified as large or small generators of hazardous waste. Moreover, some cruise companies argue that they generate less than 100 kilograms per month and therefore should be classified in a third category, as "conditionally exempt small-quantity generators," a categorization that allows for less rigorous requirements for notification, recordkeeping, and the like. 35

A release of hazardous substances by a cruise ship or other vessel could also theoretically trigger the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA, or Superfund, 42 U.S.C. §§ 9601-9675), but it does not appear to have been used in response to cruise ship releases. CERCLA requires that any person in charge of a vessel shall immediately notify the National Response Center of any release of a hazardous substance in amounts above regulatory thresholds (other than discharges in compliance with a federal permit under the Clean Water Act or other environmental law, as these discharges are exempted) into waters of the United States or the contiguous zone. Notification is required for releases in amounts determined by EPA that may present substantial danger to the public health, welfare, or the environment. EPA has identified 500 wastes as hazardous substances under these provisions and issued rules on quantities that are reportable, covering releases as small as 1 pound of some substances (40 CFR Part 302). CERCLA authorizes the President (acting through the Coast Guard in coastal waters) to remove and provide for remedial action relating to the release.

In addition to RCRA, hazardous waste discharges from cruise ships are subject to Section 311 of the Clean Water Act, which prohibits the discharge of hazardous substances in harmful quantities into or upon the navigable waters of the United States, adjoining shorelines, or into or upon the waters of the contiguous zone.

In the 2008 Discharge Assessment Report, EPA identified several possible options for addressing hazardous wastes, such as establishing standards of BMPs to decrease contaminants in hazardous wastes or the volume of hazardous waste on cruise ships; beginning a rulemaking to prohibit the discharge of hazardous materials into U.S. waters out to the 200-mile Exclusive Economic Zone; increasing inspections on cruise ships; or increasing inspections of authorized facilities that receive cruise ship hazardous wastes. 36

Section 311 of the Clean Water Act, as amended by the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (33 U.S.C. §§ 2701-2720), applies to cruise ships and prohibits discharge of oil or hazardous substances in harmful quantities into or upon U.S. navigable waters, or into or upon the waters of the contiguous zone, or which may affect natural resources in the U.S. EEZ (extending 200 miles offshore). Coast Guard regulations (33 CFR §151.10) prohibit discharge of oil within 12 miles from shore, unless passed through a 15-ppm oil water separator, and unless the discharge does not cause a visible sheen. Beyond 12 miles, oil or oily mixtures can be discharged while a vessel is proceeding en route and if the oil content without dilution is less than 100 ppm. Vessels are required to maintain an Oil Record Book to record disposal of oily residues and discharges overboard or disposal of bilge water.

In addition to Section 311 requirements, the Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships (APPS) implements MARPOL Annex I concerning oil pollution. APPS applies to all U.S. flagged ships anywhere in the world and to all foreign flagged vessels operating in the navigable waters of the United States, or while at a port under U.S. jurisdiction. To implement APPS, the Coast Guard has promulgated regulations prohibiting the discharge of oil or oily mixtures into the sea within 12 nautical miles of the nearest land, except under limited conditions. However, because most cruise lines are foreign registered and because APPS only applies to foreign ships within U.S. navigable waters, the APPS regulations have limited applicability to cruise ship operations. In addition, most cruise lines have adopted policies that restrict discharges of machinery space waste within three miles from shore.

In the 2008 Discharge Assessment Report, EPA identified several possible options for addressing oily bilge water from cruise ships, such as establishing standards; conducting research on alternative lubricants; treating effluents from oily bilge water to meet specified standards and establishing penalties for failure to meet standards; banning discharge of bilge water into U.S. waters; or revising inspection practices to more aggressively identify noncompliant equipment. 37

Since the 1970s, Clean Water Act regulations had exempted ballast water and other discharges incidental to the normal operation of cruise ships and other vessels from NPDES permit requirements. Because of the growing problem of introduction of invasive species into U.S. waters via ballast water (see discussion, page 5 ), in January 1999, a number of conservation organizations, fishing groups, Native American tribes, and water agencies petitioned EPA to repeal its 1973 regulation exempting ballast water discharge, arguing that ballast water should be regulated as the "discharge of a pollutant" under the Clean Water Act's Section 402 permit program. EPA rejected the petition in September 2003, saying that the "normal operation" exclusion is long-standing agency policy, to which Congress has acquiesced twice (in 1979 and 1996) when it considered the issue of aquatic nuisance species in ballast water and did not alter EPA's CWA interpretation. 38 Further, EPA said that other ongoing federal activities related to control of invasive species in ballast water are likely to be more effective than changing the NPDES rules. 39 Until 2004, these efforts to limit ballast water discharges by cruise ships and other vessels were primarily voluntary, except in the Great Lakes. Since then, all vessels equipped with ballast water tanks must have a ballast water management plan. 40

After the denial of their administrative petition, the environmental groups filed a lawsuit seeking to force EPA to rescind the regulation that exempts ballast water discharges from CWA permitting. In 2005, a federal district court ruled in favor of the groups, and in 2006, the court remanded the matter to EPA with an order that the challenged regulation be set aside by September 30, 2008. The ruling was upheld on appeal in July 2008. 41

EPA's Response: General Permits for Vessels

Significantly, while the focus of the environmental groups' challenge was principally to EPA's permitting exemption for ballast water discharges, the court's ruling—and its mandate to EPA to rescind the exemption in 40 CFR § 122.3(a)—applies fully to other types of vessel discharges that were covered by the long-standing regulatory exemption for "discharges incidental to the normal operation of vessels," including graywater and bilge water. In response to the court's order, in December 2008, EPA issued a Clean Water Act general permit, 42 the Vessel General Permit (VGP), applicable to an estimated 69,000 large recreational and commercial vessels, including tankers, freighters, barges, and approximately 175 U.S. and foreign flagged cruise ships that carry and provide overnight accommodations for more than 100 passengers. 43

The VGP applies to pollutant discharges incidental to the normal operation from non-recreational vessels that are 79 feet or more in length, and to ballast water discharges from commercial vessels of less than 79 feet and commercial fishing vessels of any length. Geographically, it applies to discharges into waters of the United States in all states and territories, extending to the reach of the 3-mile territorial limit.

In the permit, EPA identified 26 types of waste streams from the normal operation of covered vessels (some are not applicable to all vessel types). The types of pollutant discharges subject to the permit include aquatic nuisance species, nutrients, pathogens, oil and grease, metals, and pollutants with toxic effects. Most of the categories of waste streams from the normal operations of these vessels would be controlled by best management practices (BMPs) that are described in the permit, many of which are already practiced or are required by existing regulations. To control ballast water discharges, the VGP primarily relies on existing Coast Guard requirements (at 33 CFR Part 151, Subparts C and D), plus certain flushing and ballast exchange practices, especially for vessels in Pacific nearshore areas. To control discharges of bilge water, the draft VGP provides for BMPs, which EPA indicates are consistent with current rules and industry practice. Monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements apply.

The VGP does not include sewage discharges from vessels, which are already regulated under CWA Section 312, as discussed previously in this report. Likewise, discharges of wastes associated with passenger services on cruise ships, such as photo developing and dry cleaning, that are toxic to the environment are not authorized by the permit.

Under the VGP, cruise ships are subject to more detailed requirements for certain discharges, such as graywater and pool and spa water, and additional monitoring and reporting. It includes BMPs as well as numeric effluent limits for fecal coliform and residual chlorine in cruise ship discharges of graywater that are based on U.S. Coast Guard rules for discharge of treated sewage or graywater in Alaska (see discussion below, page 19 ). It also includes operational limits on cruise ship graywater discharges in nutrient-impaired waters, such as Chesapeake Bay or Puget Sound.

The 110 th Congress considered ballast water discharge issues, specifically legislation to provide a uniform national approach for addressing aquatic nuisance species from ballast water under a program administered by the Coast Guard ( S. 1578 , ordered reported by the Senate Commerce Committee on September 27, 2007; and H.R. 2830 , passed by the House April 28, 2008). Some groups opposed S. 1578 and H.R. 2830 , because the legislation would preempt states from enacting ballast water management programs more stringent than Coast Guard requirements, while the CWA does allow states to adopt requirements more stringent than in federal rules. Also, while the CWA permits citizen suits to enforce the law, the legislation included no citizen suit provisions. There was no further action on this legislation.

The Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.) is the principal federal law that addresses air quality concerns. It requires EPA to set health-based standards for ambient air quality, sets standards for the achievement of those standards, and sets national emission standards for large and ubiquitous sources of air pollution, including mobile sources. Cruise ships emissions were not regulated until February 2003. At that time, EPA promulgated emission standards for new marine diesel engines on large vessels (called Category 3 marine engines) such as container ships, tankers, bulk carriers, and cruise ships flagged or registered in the United States. 44 The 2003 rule resulted from settlement of litigation brought by the environmental group Bluewater Network after it had petitioned EPA to issue stringent emission standards for large vessels and cruise ships. Standards in the rule are equivalent to internationally negotiated standards set in Annex VI of the MARPOL protocol for nitrogen oxides, which engine manufacturers currently meet, according to EPA. 45 Emissions from these large, primarily ocean-going vessels (including container ships, tankers, bulk carriers, as well as cruise ships) had not previously been subject to EPA regulation. The rule is one of several EPA regulations establishing emissions standards for nonroad engines and vehicles, under Section 213(a) of the Clean Air Act. Smaller marine diesel engines are regulated under rules issued in 1996 and 1999.

In the 2003 rule, EPA announced that it would continue to review issues and technology related to emissions from large marine vessel engines in order to promulgate additional, more stringent emission standards for very large marine engines and vessels later. Addressing long-term standards in a future rulemaking, EPA said, could facilitate international efforts through the IMO (since the majority of ships used in international commerce are flagged in other nations), while also permitting the United States to proceed, if international standards are not adopted in a timely manner. Environmental groups criticized EPA for excluding foreign-flagged vessels that enter U.S. ports from the marine diesel engine rules and challenged the 2003 rules in federal court. The rules were upheld in June 2004. 46 EPA said that it would consider including foreign vessels in the future rulemaking to consider more stringent standards.

As noted previously, the 110 th Congress enacted legislation to implement MARPOL Annex VI, concerning standards to control air pollution from vessels. Soon after that U.S. action, in October 2008, the IMO adopted amendments to Annex VI that to establish stringent new global nitrogen oxide standards beginning in 2011, new global fuel sulfur standards beginning in 2012, plus more stringent emission controls that will apply in designated Emission Control Areas (ECAs). The United States supported the amendments during IMO negotiations. Complementing the IMO revisions, in December 2009, EPA promulgated changes to the 2003 CAA rules for Category 3 marine engines that essentially adopt the amended IMO requirements. 47 The EPA rule also establishes emissions standards for hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide. Like the new Annex VI requirements, the EPA rule applies to newly built engines (not existing) and only to U.S.-flagged or registered vessels. On the latter point, EPA said that engines on foreign vessels are subject to the nitrogen oxide limits in MARPOL Annex VI, which the United States can enforce through the Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships (APPS).

Related to these actions, in October 2010, the IMO approved a U.S. request to designate waters in the U.S. Caribbean (around Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands) as an ECA. A treaty amendment to Annex VI will be circulated among IMO members, and if approved by July 2011, ships operating in the designated area would be subject to more stringent emission limitations for sulfur oxides, nitrogen oxides, and particulate matter beginning in 2014.

The various laws and regulations described here apply to different geographic areas, depending on the terminology used. For example, the Clean Water Act treats navigable waters, the contiguous zone, and the ocean as distinct entities. The term "navigable waters" is defined to mean the waters of the United States, including the territorial seas (33 U.S.C. §1362(7)). In turn, the territorial seas are defined in that act as extending a distance of 3 miles seaward from the baseline (33 U.S.C. §1362(8)); the baseline generally means the land or shore. In 1988, President Reagan signed a proclamation (Proc. No. 5928, December 27, 1988, 54 Federal Register 777) providing that the territorial sea of the United States extends to 12 nautical miles from the U.S. baseline. However, that proclamation had no effect on the geographic reach of the Clean Water Act.

The contiguous zone is defined in the CWA to mean the entire zone established by the United States under Article 24 of the Convention of the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone (33 U.S.C. §1362(9)). That convention defines "contiguous zone" as extending from the baseline from which the territorial sea is measured to not beyond 12 miles. In 1999, President Clinton signed a proclamation (Proc. No. 7219 of August 2, 1999, 64 Federal Register 48701) giving U.S. authorities the right to enforce customs, immigration, or sanitary laws at sea within 24 nautical miles from the baseline, doubling the traditional 12-mile width of the contiguous zone. As with the 1988 presidential proclamation, this proclamation did not amend any statutory definitions (as a general matter, a presidential proclamation cannot amend a statute). Thus, for purposes of the Clean Water Act, the territorial sea remains 3 miles wide, and the contiguous zone extends from 3 to 12 miles. Under CERCLA, "navigable waters" means waters of the United States, including the territorial seas (42 U.S.C. §9601(15)), and that law incorporates the Clean Water Act's definitions of "territorial seas" and "contiguous zone" (42 U.S.C. §9601(30)).

The CWA defines the "ocean" as any portion of the high seas beyond the contiguous zone (33 U.S.C. §1362(10)). In contrast, the MPRSA defines "ocean waters" as the open seas lying seaward beyond the baseline from which the territorial sea is measured, as provided for in the Convention of the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone (33 U.S.C. §1402(b)).

Limits of jurisdiction are important because they define the areas where specific laws and rules apply. For example, the Clean Water Act MSD standards apply to sewage discharges from vessels into or upon the navigable waters, and Section 402 NPDES permits are required for point source discharges (excluding vessels) into the navigable waters. Section 311 of the CWA, as amended by the Oil Pollution Act, addresses discharges of oil or hazardous substances into or upon the navigable waters of the United States or the waters of the contiguous zone. Provisions of the Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships (APPS, 33 U.S.C. §§1901-1915) concerning discharges of oil and noxious substances apply to navigable waters. Other provisions of that same act concerning garbage and plastics apply to navigable waters or the EEZ, but the term "navigable waters" is not defined in APPS. The MPRSA regulates ocean dumping within the area extending 12 nautical miles seaward from the baseline and regulates transport of material by U.S.-flagged vessels for dumping into ocean waters.

Further complicating jurisdictional considerations is the fact that the Clean Water Act refers to these distances from shore in terms of miles, without other qualification, which is generally interpreted to mean an international mile or statute mile. APPS, the MPRSA, and the two presidential proclamations refer to distances in terms of nautical miles from the baseline. These two measures are not identical: a nautical mile is a unit of distance used primarily at sea and in aviation; it equals 6,080 feet and is 15% longer than an international or statute mile. 48

In Alaska, where tourism and commercial fisheries are key contributors to the economy, cruise ship pollution has received significant attention. After the state experienced a three-fold increase in the number of cruise ship passengers visits during the 1990s, 49 concern by Alaska Natives and other groups over impacts of cruise ship pollution on marine resources began to increase. In one prominent example of environmental violations, in July 1999, Royal Caribbean Cruise Lines entered a federal criminal plea agreement involving total penalties of $6.5 million for violations in Alaska, including knowingly discharging oil and hazardous substances (including dry-cleaning and photo processing chemicals). The company admitted to a fleet-wide practice of discharging oil-contaminated bilge water. The Alaska penalties were part of a larger $18 million total federal plea agreement involving environmental violations in multiple locations, including Florida, New York, and California.

Public concern about the Royal Caribbean violations led the state to initiate a program in December 1999 to identify cruise ship waste streams. Voluntary sampling of large cruise ships in 2000 indicated that waste treatment systems on most ships did not function well and discharges greatly exceeded applicable U.S. Coast Guard standards for Type II MSDs. Fecal coliform levels sampled during that period averaged 12.8 million colonies per 100 milliliters in blackwater and 1.2 million in graywater, far in excess of the Coast Guard standard of 200 fecal coliforms per 100 milliliters.

Concurrent with growing regional interest in these problems, attention to the Alaska issues led to passage of federal legislation in December 2000 (Certain Alaskan Cruise Ship Operations, Division B, Title XIV of the Miscellaneous Appropriations Bill, H.R. 5666 , in the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2001 ( P.L. 106-554 ); 33 U.S.C. § 1901 Note). This law established standards for vessels with 500 or more overnight passengers and generally prohibited discharge of untreated sewage and graywater in navigable waters of the United States within the state of Alaska. It authorized EPA to promulgate standards for sewage and graywater discharges from cruise ships in these waters. Until such time as EPA issues regulations, cruise ships may discharge treated sewage wastes in Alaska waters only while traveling at least 6 knots and while at least 1 nautical mile from shore, provided that the discharge contains no more than 200 fecal coliforms per 100 ml and no more than 150 mg/l total suspended solids (the same limits prescribed in federal regulations for Type II MSDs).

The law also allows for discharges of treated sewage and graywater inside of one mile from shore and at speeds less than 6 knots (thus including stationary discharges while a ship is at anchor) for vessels with systems that can treat sewage and graywater to a much stricter standard. Such vessels must meet these minimum effluent standards: no more than 20 fecal coliforms per 100 ml, no more than 30 mg/l of total suspended solids, and total residual chlorine concentrations not to exceed 10 mg/l. The legislation requires sampling, data collection, and recordkeeping by vessel operators to facilitate Coast Guard oversight and enforcement. The Coast Guard issued regulations to implement the federal law in 2001; the rules became effective immediately upon publication. 50 The regulations stipulate minimum sampling and testing procedures and provide for administrative and criminal penalties for violations of the law, as provided in the legislation.

Pursuant to Title IV, EPA has carried out a multi-year project to evaluate the performance of various treatment systems and to determine whether revised and/or additional standards for sewage and graywater discharges from large cruise ships operating in Alaska are warranted. In particular, EPA sampled wastewater from four cruise ships that operated in Alaska during the summers of 2004 and 2005 to characterize graywater and sewage generated onboard and to evaluate the performance of various treatment systems. 51 Much of the information collected through this effort is summarized in the 2008 Cruise Ship Discharge Assessment Report. Also in 2004, EPA distributed a survey questionnaire on the effectiveness, costs, and impacts of sewage and graywater treatment devices for large cruise vessels in Alaska. EPA has collaborated with the state of Alaska on a cruise ship plume tracking survey (in 2001) and a study in Skagway Harbor to estimate the near-field dilution of treated sewage and graywater discharges from docked cruise ships (in 2008). These sampling efforts generally show that advanced wastewater treatment systems are effective in treating pathogens, oxygen-demanding materials, suspended solids, oil and grease, and particulate matter, and are moderately effective in treating metals, volatile chemicals, and nutrients.

Building on the federal legislation enacted in 2000, the state of Alaska enacted its own law in 2001 (AS 46.03.460-AS 46.03.490). The state law sets standards and sampling requirements for the underway discharge of blackwater in Alaska that are identical to the blackwater/sewage standards in the federal law. However, because of the high fecal coliform counts detected in graywater in 2000, the state law also extends the effluent standards to discharges of graywater. Sampling requirements for all ships took effect in 2001, as did effluent standards for blackwater discharges by large cruise ships (defined as providing overnight accommodations to 250 or more). Effluent standards for graywater discharges by large vessels took effect in 2003. Small ships (defined as providing overnight accommodations for 50 to 249 passengers) were allowed three years to come into compliance with all effluent standards. The law also established a scientific advisory panel to evaluate the effectiveness of the law's implementation and to advise the state on scientific matters related to cruise ship impacts on the Alaskan environment and public health.

According to the state, the federal and state standards have prompted large ships to either install advanced wastewater treatment systems that meet the effluent standards or to manage wastes by holding all of their wastewater for discharge outside of Alaskan waters (beyond 3 miles from shore). 52 As of 2006, 23 of 28 large cruise ships that operated in Alaskan waters had installed advanced wastewater treatment systems, and the quality of wastewater discharged from large ships has improved dramatically, according to the state.

Small ships, however, have not installed new wastewater treatment systems, and the effluent quality has remained relatively constant, with discharge levels for several pollutants regularly exceeding state water quality standards. In particular, test results indicated that concentrations of free chlorine, fecal coliform, copper, and zinc from stationary smaller vessels pose some risk to aquatic life and also to human health in areas where aquatic life is harvested for raw consumption.

In addition to the state's 2001 action, in August 2006 Alaska voters approved a citizen initiative requiring cruise lines to pay the state a $50 head tax for each passenger and a corporate income tax, increasing fines for wastewater violations, and mandating new environmental regulations for cruise ships (such as a state permit for all discharges of treated wastewater). Revenues from the taxes will go to local communities affected by tourism and into public services and facilities used by cruise ships. Supporters of the initiative contend that the cruise industry does not pay enough in taxes to compensate for its environmental harm to the state and for the services it uses. Opponents argued that the initiative would hurt Alaska's competitiveness for tourism, and have filed a legal challenge to the tax in federal court. At least two cruise ship lines (Norwegian Cruise and Royal Caribbean) have reportedly stopped operating cruise ships in Alaskan waters because of the citizen initiative. In 2009, Alaska enacted legislation (HB 134) giving the Department of Environmental Conservation more time to implement the stringent wastewater treatment standards and creating a scientific review board to assess whether the standards can be achieved.

Activity to regulate or prohibit cruise ship discharges also has occurred in several other states.

In April 2004, the state of Maine enacted legislation governing discharges of graywater or mixed blackwater/graywater into coastal waters of the state (Maine LD. 1158). The legislation applies to large cruise ships (with overnight accommodations for 250 or more passengers) and allows such vessels into state waters after January 1, 2006, only if the ships have advanced wastewater treatment systems, comply with discharge and recordkeeping requirements under the federal Alaska cruise ship law, and get a permit from the state Department of Environmental Protection. Under the law, prior to 2006, graywater dischargers were allowed if the ship operated a treatment system conforming to requirements for continuous discharge systems under the Alaska federal and state laws. In addition, the legislation required the state to apply to EPA for designation of up to 50 No Discharge Zones, in order that Maine may gain federal authorization to prohibit blackwater discharges into state waters. EPA approved the state's NDZ request for Casco Bay in June 2006.

California enacted three bills in 2004. One bars cruise ships from discharging treated wastewater while in the state's waters (Calif. A.B. 2672). Another prohibits vessels from releasing graywater (Calif. A.B. 2093), and the third measure prevents cruise ships from operating waste incinerators (Calif. A.B. 471). Additionally, in 2003 California enacted a law that bans passenger ships from discharging sewage sludge and oil bilge water (Calif. A.B. 121), as well as a bill that prohibits vessels from discharging hazardous wastes from photo-processing and dry cleaning operations into state waters (Calif. A.B. 906). Another measure was enacted in 2006: California S.B. 497 requires the state to adopt ballast water performance standards by January 2008 and set specific deadlines for the removal of different types of species from ballast water, mandating that ship operators remove invasive species (including bacteria) by the year 2020.

Several states, including Florida, Washington, and Hawaii, have entered into memoranda of agreement with the industry (through the Cruise Lines International Association and related organizations) providing that cruise ships will adhere to certain practices concerning waste minimization, waste reuse and recycling, and waste management. For example, under a 2001 agreement between industry and the state of Florida, cruise lines must eliminate wastewater discharges in state waters within 4 nautical miles off the coast of Florida, report hazardous waste off-loaded in the United States by each vessel on an annual basis, and submit to environmental inspections by the U.S. Coast Guard.

Similarly, in April 2004 the Washington Department of Ecology, Northwest Cruise Ship Association, and Port of Seattle signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) that would allow cruise ships to discharge wastewater treated with advanced wastewater treatment systems into state waters and would prohibit the discharge of untreated wastewater and sludge. The MOU has been amended several times and now covers other ports, as well. Environmental advocates are generally critical of such voluntary agreements, because they lack enforcement and penalty provisions. States respond that while the Clean Water Act limits a state's ability to control cruise ship discharges, federal law does not bar states from entering into voluntary agreements that have more rigorous requirements. 53 In June 2009, the Department of Ecology reported that cruise ships visiting the state during the 2008 sailing season mostly complied with the MOU to stop discharging untreated wastewater, and found that wastewater treatment systems generally produce high quality effluent that is as good or better than on-land plants. Although enforcement of what is essentially a voluntary agreement is difficult, the state argues that having something in place to protect water quality is beneficial and enables the state to obtain data on vessels and waste treatment equipment. 54

Pressure from environmental advocates, coupled with the industry's strong desire to promote a positive image, have led the cruise ship industry to respond with several initiatives. Members of the Cruise Lines International Association (CLIA), which represents 25 of the world's largest cruise lines, have adopted a set of waste management practices and procedures for their worldwide operations building on regulations of the IMO and U.S. EPA. The guidelines generally require graywater and blackwater to be discharged only while a ship is underway and at least 4 miles from shore and require that hazardous wastes be recycled or disposed of in accordance with applicable laws and regulations. 55

CLIA's cruise line companies also have implemented Safety Management System (SMS) plans for developing enhanced wastewater systems and increased auditing oversight. These SMS plans are certified in accordance with the IMO's International Safety Management Code. The industry also is working with equipment manufacturers and regulators to develop and test technologies in areas such as lower emission turbine engines and ballast water management for elimination of non-native species. Environmental groups commend industry for voluntarily adopting improved management practices but also believe that enforceable standards are preferable to voluntary standards, no matter how well intentioned. 56

The industry joined with the environmental group Conservation International (CI) to form the Ocean Conservation and Tourism Alliance to work on a number of issues. In December 2003 they announced conservation efforts in four areas to protect biodiversity in coastal areas: improving technology for wastewater management aboard cruise ships, working with local governments to protect the natural and cultural assets of cruise destinations, raising passenger and crew awareness and support of critical conservation issues, and educating vendors to lessen the environmental impacts of products from cruise ship suppliers. Because two-thirds of the top cruise destinations in the world are located in the Caribbean and Mediterranean, two important biodiversity regions, in 2006, CLIA and CI announced a joint initiative to develop a map integrating sensitive marine areas into cruise line navigational charts, with the goal of protecting critical marine and coastal ecosystems.

In 2004, Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd.(RCCL) announced plans to retrofit all vessels in its 29-ship fleet with advanced wastewater treatment technology, becoming the first cruise line to commit to doing so completely. The company had been the focus of efforts by the environmental group Oceana to pledge to adopt measures that will protect the ocean environment and that could serve as a model for others in the cruise ship industry, in part because of the company's efforts to alter its practices following federal enforcement actions in the 1990s for environmental violations that resulted in RCCL paying criminal fines that totaled $27 million.

Concerns about cruise ship pollution raise issues for Congress in three broad areas: adequacy of laws and regulations, research needs, and oversight and enforcement of existing programs and requirements. Attention to these issues is relatively recent, and more assessment is needed of existing conditions and whether current steps (public and private) are adequate. Bringing the issues to national priority sufficient to obtain resources that will address the problems is a challenge.

A key issue is whether the several existing U.S. laws, international protocols and standards, state activities, and industry initiatives described in this report adequately address management of cruise ship pollution, or whether legislative changes are needed to fill in gaps, remedy exclusions, or strengthen current requirements. As EPA noted in its 2000 white paper, certain cruise ship waste streams such as oil and solid waste are regulated under a comprehensive set of laws and regulations, but others, such as graywater, are excluded or treated in ways that appear to leave gaps in coverage. 57 Graywater is one particular area of interest, since investigations, such as sampling by state of Alaska officials, have found substantial contamination of cruise ship graywater from fecal coliform, bacteria, heavy metals, and dissolved plastics. State officials were surprised that graywater from ships' galley and sink waste streams tested higher for fecal coliform than did the ships' sewage lines. 58 One view advocating strengthened requirements came from the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy. In its 2004 final report, the Commission advocated clear, uniform requirements for controlling the discharge of wastewater from large passenger vessels, as well as consistent interpretation and enforcement of those requirements. It recommended that Congress establish a new statutory regime that should include

• uniform discharge standards and waste management procedures;
• thorough recordkeeping requirements to track the waste management process;
• required sampling, testing, and monitoring by vessel operators using uniform protocols; and
• flexibility and incentives to encourage industry investment in innovative treatment technologies. 59

A proposal reflecting some of these concepts, the Clean Cruise Ship Act, was introduced in the 111 th Congress as S. 1820 (Durbin) and H.R. 3888 (Farr). No legislative action occurred on either bill. The legislation would amend the Clean Water Act to prohibit cruise vessels entering a U.S. port from discharging sewage, graywater, or bilge water into waters of the United States, including the Great Lakes, except in compliance with prescribed effluent limits and management standards. It further would direct EPA and the Coast Guard to promulgate effluent limits for sewage, graywater, and bilge water discharges from cruise vessels that are no less stringent than the more restrictive standards under the existing federal Alaska cruise ship law described above. It would require cruise ships to treat wastewater wherever they operate and would authorize broadened federal enforcement authority, including inspection, sampling, and testing. The legislation also would impose passenger fees for use by EPA and the Coast Guard to implement the legislation. Environmental advocates supported similar versions of this legislation in previous Congresses. Industry groups have argued that it would target an industry that represents only a small percentage of the world's ships and that environmental standards of the industry, including voluntary practices, already meet or exceed current international and U.S. regulations. 60

As noted above, a few states have passed legislation to regulate cruise ship discharges. If this state-level activity were to increase, Congress could see a need to develop federal legislation that would harmonize differences in the states' approaches.

Another issue for Congress is the status of EPA's efforts to manage or regulate cruise ship wastes. As discussed previously, in 2000 Congress authorized EPA to issue standards for sewage and graywater discharges from large cruise ships operating in Alaska. In response, the agency has been collecting information and assessing the need for additional standards, beyond those provided in P.L. 106-554 , but has not yet proposed any rules. In December 2008, EPA released a Cruise Ship Discharge Assessment Report that builds on a 2007 draft assessment report and the 2000 White Paper. The final report examines five cruise ship waste streams (sewage, graywater, oily bilge water, solid waste, and hazardous waste) and discusses how the waste streams are managed and current actions by the federal government to address the waste streams. For each waste stream, the report identifies possible options and alternatives to address cruise ship discharges, but it also states that EPA has not determined that any of the options are necessary, feasible, or warranted, or that EPA or any other entity has the legal authority to implement the options. 61

Other related issues of interest could include harmonizing the differences presented in U.S. laws for key jurisdictional terms as they apply to cruise ships and other types of vessels; providing a single definition of "cruise ship," which is defined variously in federal and state laws and rules, with respect to gross tonnage of ships, number of passengers carried, presence of overnight passenger accommodations, or primary purpose of the vessel; or requiring updating of existing regulations to reflect improved technology (such as the MSD rules that were issued in 1976).

Several areas of research might help improve understanding of the quantities of waste generated by cruise ships, impacts of discharges and emissions, and the potential for new control technologies.

The U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy noted in its 2004 final report that research can help identify the degree of harm represented by vessel pollution and can assist in prioritizing limited resources to address the most significant threats. The commission identified several directions for research by the Coast Guard, EPA, NOAA, and other appropriate entities on the fates and impacts of vessel pollution: 62

• Processes that govern the transport of pollutants in the marine environment.
• Small passenger vessel practices, including the impacts of stationary discharges.
• Disposal options for concentrated sludge resulting from advanced sewage treatment on large passenger vessels.
• Cumulative impacts of commercial and recreational vessel pollution on particularly sensitive ecosystems, such as coastal areas with low tidal exchange and coral reef systems.
• Impacts of vessel air emissions, particularly in ports and inland waterways where the surrounding area is already having difficulty meeting air quality standards.

In the 2008 Cruise Ship Assessment Report, EPA identified several possible research options, including establishing a detailed nationwide sampling, testing, and monitoring program to gather data; increasing studies on human health an environmental effects of cruise ship discharges; directing research to geographic areas that may be impacted by cruise ship discharges; or directing future assessments to potential cumulative impacts from multiple cruise ships, from stationary cruise ships, and in semi-enclosed environments such as bays and harbors. 63

The 2000 GAO report documented—and EPA's 2000 cruise ship white paper acknowledged—that existing laws and regulations may not be adequately enforced or implemented. GAO said there is need for monitoring of the discharges from cruise ships in order to evaluate the effectiveness of current standards and management. GAO also said that increased federal oversight of cruise ships by the Coast Guard and other agencies is needed concerning maintenance and operation of pollution prevention equipment, falsifying of oil record books (which are required for compliance with MARPOL), and analysis of records to verify proper off-loading of garbage and oily sludge to onshore disposal facilities. 64

The Coast Guard has primary enforcement responsibility for many of the federal programs concerning cruise ship pollution. A key oversight and enforcement issue is the adequacy of the Coast Guard's resources to support its multiple homeland and non-homeland security missions. The resource question as it relates to vessel inspections was raised even before the September 11 terrorist attacks, in the GAO's 2000 report. The same question has been raised since then, in light of the Coast Guard's expanded responsibilities for homeland security and resulting shift in operations, again by the GAO and others. 65

EPA has identified several possible options for enforcement and compliance, including improving monitoring and inspections; rewarding passengers who aid in detecting illegal activities; allowing state personnel (as well as the Coast Guard) to inspect cruise ship pollution control equipment; or charging a passenger fee to put a marine engineer onboard cruise ships to observe ship waste treatment practices. 66

In its 2000 report, GAO also found that the process for referring cruise ship violations to other countries does not appear to be working, either within the Coast Guard or internationally, and GAO recommended that the Coast Guard work with the IMO to encourage member countries to respond when pollution cases are referred to them and that the Coast Guard make greater efforts to periodically follow up on alleged pollution cases occurring outside U.S. jurisdiction.

• svg]:stroke-accent-900">

Care about the planet? Skip the cruise, for now.

By Thor Benson

Posted on Jun 27, 2022 10:00 AM EDT

3 minute read

COVID-19 lockdowns are no longer preventing vacationers from traveling the globe this summer, which has caused a jump in travel among Americans and elsewhere . More interest in travel, however, means renewed excitement for cruises. Carnival Cruise Line and other top cruise ship companies have been breaking records for ticket sales this year. But a water-bound vacation isn’t just a concern for infectious disease—these ships are having a massive effect on the climate.

Cruise ships are incredibly large—among the largest ships in the world—and it takes a lot of fuel to keep them moving. They’re often over three football fields long and can feature pools, ice skating rinks, basketball courts and more. A ship can burn up to 250 tons of fuel in a single day . Studies have shown one cruise ship produces roughly the same amount of carbon emissions as 12,000 cars. They’re also poorly regulated.

Even without the risks of COVID, all that fuel can still lead to breathing in unhealthy levels of pollution. Researchers have found the air quality on cruise ships to be extremely poor due to the pollution these ships generate. The conditions are generally equivalent to living in a heavily polluted city.

Mark Jacobson, a professor of civil and environmental engineering at Stanford University, tells Popular Science that the type of fuel cruise ships burn contributes to their many harmful environmental effects. “They generally use bunker fuel, which is the dirtiest type of fuel. Bunker fuel puts out lots of black carbon, sulfates and other chemicals,” Jacobson says. “Black carbon is the second leading cause of global warming after carbon dioxide.”

[Related: The world’s largest hybrid ship will set sail in 2024 .]

Bunker fuel is a thick, tar-like fuel that’s high in sulfur. It comes from leftovers of the refining process and is used for large ships. Black carbon is often referred to as soot, and it is produced by burning this fuel and by wildfires. The EPA claims it is linked to “cardiovascular disease, cancer, and even birth defects.” Jacobson says black carbon is often burned by ships that travel near the Arctic and Antarctic, and the pollutant lands on sea ice and snow—in turn melting them faster. It can also get into clouds and help evaporate them more quickly, which causes further warming because clouds help reflect sunlight.

The particulates from burning bunker fuel often get cleared out of the air through precipitation, thus eventually polluting the ocean, Jacobson says.  

What’s the solution? Cruise ships could just be banned, of course, but Jacobson says there’s a pretty simple technological solution. Like with cars, it’s a matter of transitioning these ships to clean energy. He says ships can be transitioned to batteries or hydrogen fuel cells.

Batteries are more energy efficient for small to medium-sized ships that aren’t going long distances. But for journeys longer than a few dozen miles, hydrogen fuel cells are necessary because the weight of the batteries starts affecting efficiency levels. 

“For a long distance, you probably need fuel cells. That’s usually the case,” Jacobson says. “Otherwise you’re just spending a lot of energy carrying around more and more batteries. Hydrogen is a very light fuel.”

Some ferries are already being transitioned to battery power. A battery-powered ferry in Denmark just set the record for the longest trip on a single charge by traveling 50 nautical miles. That ferry is less than 200 feet long. Norway unveiled the world’s largest battery-powered ferry last year, and it’s over 400 feet long. The world’s largest hybrid ferry will start transporting passengers between Britain and France in the next few years. Cruise ships are thought of as luxurious and built for fun, but they’re taking a major toll on the environment. Transitioning them to clean energy is the only solution to this problem if they’re going to continue to exist. A Norwegian company called Hurtigruten has already developed hybrid cruise ships, so perhaps change is on the way. Jacobson says it will just be a matter of convincing the cruise lines to invest in making that change.

Latest in Ocean

Comb jellies won’t give into the extreme pressures of deep-sea life comb jellies won’t give into the extreme pressures of deep-sea life.

By Laura Baisas

Actor Anthony Mackie and marine biologist Jasmin Graham talk sharks Actor Anthony Mackie and marine biologist Jasmin Graham talk sharks

6 Ways Cruise Ships are Destroying the Oceans

Cruise ships are a popular way to travel, offering passengers a chance to visit multiple destinations while enjoying luxurious amenities on board.

However, these massive ships have a significant impact on the environment, particularly the oceans they travel through.

In fact, cruise ships are responsible for a wide range of ocean pollution , from wastewater discharge to oil spills.

Before you book your next cruise, read more below to learn about the harsh reality of the cruise ship industry and its impact on our marine environment.

Table of Contents

Direct Discharge of Waste

Cruise ships generate a significant amount of waste, including air emissions, ballast water, wastewater, hazardous waste, and solid waste. One of the most significant ways cruise ships cause ocean pollution is through the direct discharge of waste into the ocean.

According to a study conducted on Southampton, cruise ships can discharge untreated oily bilge water, which can damage marine life and ecosystems. If the separator, which is usually used to extract oil, is faulty or deliberately bypassed, untreated oily bilge water could be discharged directly into the ocean .

Food waste is another type of waste generated by cruise ships, and it can also be discharged directly into the ocean.

While minimal attention is paid to food waste management by many ships and catering typical of cruise liners, it can still have a significant impact on the environment.

The direct discharge of waste from cruise ships can also include untreated wastewater, which can contain pathogens, nutrients, and other contaminants. This wastewater can be harmful to marine life and ecosystems, and it can also contribute to the growth of harmful algal blooms.

To reduce the impact of direct waste discharge, some regulations have been put in place. However, there is still a need for more stringent regulations and enforcement to ensure that cruise ships do not cause further harm to the ocean and its inhabitants.

Air Pollution from Cruise Ships

Cruise ships are one of the major sources of air pollution in the world. The emissions from these ships have a significant impact on the air quality of the surrounding areas, including coastal cities and ports.

Emission of Greenhouse Gases

Cruise ships emit significant amounts of greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide.

These gases contribute to global warming and climate change. According to a study published in Science Direct, the emissions from cruise ships in the port of Naples, Italy, impacted the air quality of the surrounding areas.

The study found that while cruise ship emissions were not the sole source of air pollution in the port, they did contribute to the overall levels of pollution.

Release of Sulfur Dioxide

Cruise ships also release sulfur dioxide, a harmful gas that can cause respiratory problems and acid rain. According to a study published in Science Direct, the energy consumption and emissions of air pollutants from ships in harbors in Denmark were measured.

The study found that sulfur dioxide emissions from cruise liners were higher than other types of ships, and the emissions were highest when the ships were docked.

To reduce air pollution from cruise ships, some countries have implemented regulations that require ships to use cleaner fuels and technologies.

For example, in 2020, the International Maritime Organization (IMO) implemented new regulations that require ships to use fuels with a lower sulfur content. While these regulations are a step in the right direction, more needs to be done to reduce the impact of cruise ship emissions on air quality.

Cruise Ships and Oil Spills

Cruise ships are a significant source of oil pollution in the ocean. Accidental oil spills from cruise ships can cause significant harm to marine life and the environment.

According to a study published in the Journal of Marine Pollution Bulletin, cruise ships have the potential to contribute to accidental oil spills due to their large size and the amount of fuel they carry [1] .

One of the main sources of oil pollution in the ocean is from cruise ships. In a study conducted in Ha Long Bay, Vietnam, it was found that oil spills from sunken cruise boats were responsible for more than 60% of biodiesel and petroleum diesel spills in the area [2] .

The impact of oil spills from cruise ships can be devastating to marine life and the environment. Oil spills can harm marine mammals , fish, and birds, and can also impact coastal habitats and beaches.

In a study published in the Journal of Environmental Science and Pollution Research, it was found that oil spills can cause both short-term and long-term damage to marine ecosystems [3] .

To prevent oil spills from cruise ships, it is essential to have proper regulations and management in place. Alaska’s Commercial Passenger Vessel Compliance Program has been cited as a model for other states to follow.

The program has implemented strict regulations for cruise ships to prevent oil spills and protect the environment [4] .

Impact on Marine Life

Cruise ships are known to cause significant harm to marine life due to their pollution. The following sub-sections describe how noise pollution and destruction of coral reefs are two ways that cruise ships impact marine life.

Noise Pollution

Noise pollution from cruise ships can have a significant impact on marine life, particularly on species that rely on sound for communication, navigation, and hunting.

Noise pollution can cause hearing loss, stress, and behavioral changes in marine animals, which can ultimately lead to decreased reproduction rates and population decline.

Destruction of Coral Reefs

Cruise ships contribute to the destruction of coral reefs in several ways, including anchoring, sewage discharge, and the release of chemicals.

Anchoring can cause physical damage to coral reefs , while sewage discharge and chemical releases can lead to water pollution, which can harm coral and marine life.

In addition, the large amount of waste generated by cruise ships can cause nutrient imbalances in the water, leading to the growth of harmful algae that can suffocate and kill coral reefs.

Cruise Ships and Plastic Pollution

Cruise ships are notorious for generating a significant amount of plastic waste, which is a major contributor to ocean pollution.

Single-use plastics: Cruise ships are known for providing passengers with single-use plastics such as straws, cups, and cutlery. These items are often used once and then discarded, contributing to the plastic waste that ends up in the ocean.

Packaging waste: In addition to single-use plastics, cruise ships generate a significant amount of packaging waste from items such as food and beverage containers, toiletries, and souvenirs.

Improper waste management: Despite regulations and guidelines for waste management, some cruise ships still dispose of plastic waste improperly, either by dumping it into the ocean or by not properly recycling it.

Graywater contamination: Cruise ships generate a significant amount of graywater, which can contain microplastics from sources such as laundry detergents and personal care products. This contaminated water can be discharged into the ocean, contributing to plastic pollution .

Dumping of garbage: Some cruise ships have been caught illegally dumping garbage, including plastic waste, into the ocean. This not only contributes to plastic pollution but also violates international laws and regulations.

Lost or discarded fishing gear: Cruise ships may accidentally or intentionally lose or discard fishing gear, such as nets and lines, which can entangle and harm marine life.

Port pollution: Cruise ships generate plastic waste not only while at sea but also while in port. This can contribute to plastic pollution in the surrounding waters and on nearby beaches .

Sewage Dumping from Cruise Ships

Cruise ships generate a significant amount of sewage waste, which is often disposed of in the ocean.

The untreated sewage contains harmful pathogens and bacteria that can cause health problems for marine life and humans.

Volume of sewage: A single cruise ship can generate up to 1 million gallons of sewage waste per week. This volume of waste can cause significant damage to marine ecosystems if not properly treated and disposed of.

Untreated sewage: Many cruise ships discharge untreated sewage directly into the ocean, which can contain harmful bacteria and pathogens. This untreated sewage can cause health problems for marine life, including fish, dolphins, and whales , and can also pose a risk to humans who come into contact with contaminated water.

Marine life impact: The discharge of sewage waste can have a significant impact on marine life, including coral reefs, fish, and other sea creatures . The high levels of nitrogen and phosphorus in the sewage can cause harmful algal blooms, which can suffocate marine life and cause dead zones in the ocean.

Beach pollution: Sewage waste from cruise ships can wash up on beaches, causing pollution and health risks for beachgoers. The sewage can contain harmful bacteria that can cause skin infections, respiratory problems, and other health issues.

Illegal dumping: Despite regulations prohibiting the discharge of untreated sewage waste within certain distances from shore, some cruise ships continue to illegally dump sewage waste in the ocean. This illegal dumping can cause significant damage to marine ecosystems and pose health risks for humans.

Limited treatment facilities: Many ports of call do not have the necessary treatment facilities to properly treat sewage waste from cruise ships. This can lead to the discharge of untreated sewage waste into the ocean, causing pollution and health risks for marine life and humans.

Inadequate regulations: The regulations governing the disposal of sewage waste from cruise ships are often inadequate, with many countries having no regulations in place to protect marine ecosystems and human health. This lack of regulation can lead to the discharge of untreated sewage waste into the ocean, causing pollution and health risks for marine life and humans.

Cruise ships contribute significantly to ocean pollution through the dumping of sewage waste. It is essential that proper regulations and treatment facilities are put in place to protect marine ecosystems and human health.

Frequently Asked Questions

How do cruise ships contribute to ocean pollution.

Cruise ships contribute to ocean pollution in many ways. They generate large amounts of waste, including sewage, gray water, and solid waste, which can contain harmful chemicals and pathogens.

They also emit air pollution, including sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and particulate matter, which can harm human health and the environment.

Additionally, cruise ships can damage marine ecosystems through activities such as anchoring, dredging, and discharging ballast water.

What are the main types of pollution caused by ships?

The main types of pollution caused by ships are air pollution, water pollution, and noise pollution. Air pollution is caused by emissions from ship engines and includes sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and particulate matter.

Water pollution is caused by discharge of untreated sewage, gray water, and ballast water, which can contain harmful chemicals and pathogens. Noise pollution is caused by ship engines, which can disrupt marine ecosystems and harm marine mammals.

What are some of the environmental impacts of cruise ships?

Cruise ships can have a range of environmental impacts, including damage to marine ecosystems, harm to marine mammals, and contribution to climate change.

They can also affect local air and water quality, and contribute to the spread of invasive species .

What is the impact of cruise ship emissions on air and water quality?

Cruise ship emissions can have a significant impact on air and water quality. Air pollution from ship engines can harm human health and contribute to climate change.

Water pollution from untreated sewage, gray water, and ballast water can harm marine ecosystems and contaminate local water sources.

How can we reduce the pollution caused by cruise ships?

There are several ways to reduce the pollution caused by cruise ships. These include using cleaner fuels, such as liquefied natural gas, improving waste management practices, and implementing technologies that reduce air and water pollution.

Additionally, regulations and policies can be put in place to limit the environmental impacts of cruise ships.

What are the long-term consequences of cruise ship pollution on marine life and ecosystems?

The long-term consequences of cruise ship pollution on marine life and ecosystems can be significant. Pollution can harm marine mammals, disrupt food chains, and damage coral reefs and other sensitive habitats.

Additionally, pollution can contribute to the spread of invasive species, which can have long-term impacts on local ecosystems.

Add comment

Cancel reply.

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

You may also like

Over 1000 Abandoned Lobster Traps Removed From Long Island Sound

Critically Endangered Dolphin Contain Record High Levels of “Forever Chemicals” PFAS

Scientists Say Sea Turtles Will Be Plagued By Plastic Forever

Dolphins and Manatees Poisoned in Miami’s Biscayne Bay, Authorities Investigating

Heavy Metal Pollution is Causing Sea Turtles to Be Born Female

Scientists Find the Best Strategy for Tackling the Plastic Pollution in the Ocean

Latest articles.

• California Kayakers Nearly Swallowed: Humpback Encounter Turns Surprise Adventure
• Seven Seals Rescued from the Clutches of Ocean Debris
• What’s the Difference Between Seaweed and Seagrass?
• Hilarious Video Shows How Dolphins Use Pufferfish to Get High!
• The Tallest Bridge Ever Built: A Marvel of Modern Engineering
• Are There Sharks in the North Sea?

About American Oceans

The American Oceans Campaign is dedicated primarily to the restoration, protection, and preservation of the health and vitality of coastal waters, estuaries, bays, wetlands, and oceans. Have a question? Contact us today.

Explore Marine Life

• Cephalopods
• Invertebrates
• Marine Mammals
• Sea Turtles & Reptiles
• Sharks & Rays
• Shellfish & Crustaceans

Copyright © 2024. Privacy Policy . Terms & Conditions . American Oceans

• Ocean Facts

8 Ways Cruise Ships Can Cause Marine Pollution

No road travelled is without problems. At sea, when talking about marine transport, there are no clear-cut roads, but issues in the form of pollution exist and persist, threatening our marine environment badly.

The shipping industry that fulfils more than 90 per cent of trade across the world with the help of around 90,000 marine vessels contributes heavily to global pollution and climate change.

The studies indicate that the shipping industry is responsible for large quantities of pollutants being omitted, including over three per cent of global carbon dioxide emissions, apart from deadly emissions of nitrogen oxide and sulfur oxides. Being one of the world’s most polluting sectors, the increase in marine transport in huge magnitudes these days also increase ship pollution substantially. Hence, the International Maritime Organization, a branch of the United Nations, has established regulations to check the shipping industry’s emissions.

Related Read: How Are Cruise Ships Powered?

Within the shipping industry, the cruise lines make no difference. Though representing a small fraction of the industry, cruise liners, as much as the entertainment they provide, are also a source of significant pollution in the oceanic and marine areas like commercial vessels. A luxury cruise ship releases ten times more carbon emissions than all of Europe’s cars.

A 3000-capacity cruise ship generates 150,000 gallons of sewage and graywater, enough to fill 10 swimming pools. Many other hazardous wastes such as oily bilge water and bio-waste containing viruses are generated on a cruise trip.

In 2019, Carnival Cruise Lines was fined 60 million US dollars for obstructing justice and illegally dumping vast quantities of oil, plastics and garbage into the sea.

In 2018, the cruise industry offered service to more than 26 million customers. It is expected the industry will continue to grow in the coming years. Environmental groups state that the passenger’s carbon footprint triples when one opts for a cruise journey as these ‘floating cities’ produce around 15 gallons of hazardous chemical waste every single day.

Though maritime environmental protection agencies and marine organisations are working to resolve issues, a lot still needs to be done.

Here are the significant ways cruise ships threaten the marine environment and contribute to global pollution.

Table of Contents

Ballast Water Pollution

Cruise ships, like other big vessels, use a huge amount of ballast water to stabilise the boat while travelling. As these vessels travel longer, the Ballast water is often filled from one region and discharged in another whenever required. The amount of ballast water released typically is around 1,000 metric tons. This discharge of the ballast water from the cruise ships is a significant cause of cruise pollution.

Since the ballast water contains microbes and micro-organisms in addition to vegetation and other sea animals, the pollution is mainly caused by the local species and marine life. One example of such ecological damage would be the massive swell of jellyfish in the Black Sea.

Related reading:

How ballast water treatment system works?

Air Pollution

As we are all aware, poor air quality is one of the major global health hazards as, according to the World Health Organisation, 4.2 million people die due to air pollution. Just as vehicle exhaust tanks emit waste fumes and toxic air, cruise ships’ engines also emit such unwanted air.

What are NOx emissions from ships?

What are SOx emissions from ships?

The scope of the gases emitted from the vehicular emissions on the road and the cruise ship emissions on the sea differs hugely, leading to the pollution of immense proportions in the marine areas. Similarly, recent research also found that the air on the aft areas of cruise ships, particulate matter pollution in detail, is as polluted as the air in significant cities, such as Beijing.

10 Technologies for controlling NOx and SOx emissions from Ships?

Noise pollution

The noise the passing ships produce badly affects the environment as it disturbs the marine ecosystem. Unlike other ships, Cruise ships contribute heavily to marine noise pollution as the windows of noise pollution are high in cruise ships.

In addition to the noise pollution from the ship’s machinery, cruise ships produce more noise thanks to the entertainment activities on board. These noises disturb the marine animals and mammals, including killer whales and dolphins, whose sensitive hearing gets harmed and debilitated, often leading to their unwanted death and an overall loss to the ecosystem.

Grey Water Pollution

Unlike other vessels, cruise ships dump more wastewater offshore (after passing through a treatment plant), mainly Grey water from sinks, laundries, showers and galleys abroad the vessel. Thus, even the most regular activity onboard the cruise ship, such as cleaning utensils and doing the laundry, causes cruise ship pollution.

Classified under the head of the greywater, this water accumulation contains not just harmful chemicals but sometimes even metals and minerals. The potency of greywater harming the marine environment is greater because of its high concentration in oceanic waters. Studies show that a large cruise ship releases around one million gallons of grey water during a single week’s voyage.

Blackwater/ Sewage Pollution

What happens when someone flushes the loo on a cruise ship? The answer is straightforward. The ship dumps human waste into our oceans (after passing through sewage treatment plants ). And, we have larger cruise ships that can accommodate up to 6680 passengers and 2200 crew members.  Yes, the next colossal cruise pollution cause is sewage.

Classified as Blackwater, cruise ships deposit around 210,000 gallons of human sewage into the ocean during a week’s voyage. Sewage includes waste from the toilets and the health facilities on the cruise ship. Such wastewater is rich in bacteria and algae, adversely affecting the oceanic life-forms and the entire marine ecosystem.

Chemical Pollution

The entry of chemicals from the cruise ships to the oceans through the grey water or the black water channels is another threat the cruise ships make to the marine ecosystem.

Cruise ships emit toxic chemicals from batteries, dry cleaning and industrial products, chemicals for daily operations, and several other substances past their expiry, polluting the waters the ships travel. Environmentalists argue that these chemicals pose a huge threat to the lives of marine creatures and life forms.

Oil Pollution/ Bilge Oil Pollution

Oil pollution from the shipping industry is the main reason for the increased marine pollution . Cruise ships, huge compared to other vessels, end up burning more heavy fuel oil, one of the dirtiest fossil fuels on the market. This oil contains dangerous levels of sulfur and heavy metals etc.

It is estimated that cruise ships use, on average, 150 tons of heavy fuel oil every day. With the bilge oil mixing with oceanic water, the use of this oil causes marine pollution. Faulty engine systems and improper repair work are two areas where oil could leak and mix with the oceanic water. Collisions and accidents also act as a reason for such oil pollution.

Related Reading – 10 methods for oil spill cleanup at sea

Solid Waste Pollution

It is estimated that cruise ships contribute 24% to the total solid waste generated by maritime traffic across the world as one of such luxury vessels can produce seven tons of garbage and solid waste in a single day.

A cruise ship’s solid waste materials include paper, cardboard, aluminium, etc. Such materials form unwanted debris on our oceans’ surface, posing large-scale threats to marine plants and creatures.

Related Reading – Tips for reducing and recycling waste at sea

Destruction of Coral Reefs

Cruise ships are a severe threat to coral reefs and their related organisms. As tourist vessels, the entry and anchoring of cruise ships on disturbed and undisturbed areas of coral reefs across the world have resulted in several incidents that involve the destruction of these natural wonders.

These accidents also affect these coral reefs’ rich ecological integrity and biodiversity.  In 2017, the British cruise ship MS Caledonian crashed onto the pristine coral reefs of Indonesia, destroying 17,222 square feet of coral reefs and causing more than $19 million in irreparable damage.

Physical damages to marine life

In addition to the air and water pollution these cruise ships cause, Whales and Dolphins are also victims of the increasing traffic of these ships. These massive ships are responsible for injuring, often killing, marine lives, particularly fin whales, killer whales and humpback whales.

Considering the risks and the damages caused to the marine environment, countries have laid proper resolutions to protect the oceanic surroundings.

Slowly and steadily, even cruise shipping conglomerates have begun to understand the importance and necessity of preserving the marine ecosystem. For the time being, a better cruise shipping experience with the necessary caution and care for the aquatic life remains a dream to be realized and attained.  Hopefully, it will be in the days and years to come.

Frequently Asked Questions

1. how much pollution is caused by a cruise ship.

As per the Bureau of Transportation Statistics, a 3000-passenger cruise ship generates one million gallons of gray water, 210,000 gallons of sewage and 25,000 gallons of oily bilge water in just 7 days.

2. How are cruise ships harmful to our environment?

Cruise ships utilise enormous amounts of fuel. They also generate vast quantities of solid and liquid waste, often dumped into oceans and seas, affecting marine flora and fauna. The carbon emissions released into the atmosphere pollute the air.

3. How toxic are cruise ships?

Some waste is incinerated onboard, so cruise ships generate ash and smoke containing toxic substances. Due to this waste treatment, toxic materials like polychorate biphenyls or PCBs, dioxins, and furans have been found in fuel from burning fuel.

4. How much emissions does a cruise ship generate?

A medium-sized cruise ship uses about 150 tonnes of fuel daily, emitting as much particulate as one million cars. The quantity is far greater for large-sized cruise ships.

5. Are there any eco-friendly cruise ships?

With technological progress and innovation, there have been efforts to curtail the emissions of the shipping industry. Cruise ships are usually associated with waste generation and pollution. However, some eco-friendly ones are being built. One such is the MSC Europa which will run on LNG.

You might also like to read

• Effects of Noise Pollution from Ships on Marine Life
• What Are Anti-Pollution Vessels?
• How to Avoid Oil Pollution From Ships?
• Marine Pollution by Ships -Tips for Reducing & Recycling Waste at Sea

What is Sulphur oxide or SOx air pollution from Ships?

About Author

Zahra is an alumna of Miranda House, University of Delhi. She is an avid writer, possessing immaculate research and editing skills. Author of several academic papers, she has also worked as a freelance writer, producing many technical, creative and marketing pieces. A true aesthete at heart, she loves books a little more than anything else.

Read More Articles By This Author >

Disclaimer : The information contained in this website is for general information purposes only. While we endeavour to keep the information up to date and correct, we make no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, about the completeness, accuracy, reliability, suitability or availability with respect to the website or the information, products, services, or related graphics contained on the website for any purpose. Any reliance you place on such information is therefore strictly at your own risk.

In no event will we be liable for any loss or damage including without limitation, indirect or consequential loss or damage, or any loss or damage whatsoever arising from loss of data or profits arising out of, or in connection with, the use of this website.

Do you have info to share with us ? Suggest a correction

Daily Maritime News, Straight To Your Inbox

Sign Up To Get Daily Newsletters

Join over 60k+ people who read our daily newsletters

By subscribing, you agree to our  Privacy Policy  and may receive occasional deal communications; you can unsubscribe anytime.

BE THE FIRST TO COMMENT

Am an environmental engineeer your work is lovely.

Friends of mine who have taken holidays on cruiseships have said they have seen garbage loads tipped overboard at night, weighted down so that ‘no-one knows’. Plastics, non-recyclables, poisonous materials, food etc go to the bottom of the ocean and gradually rise to the surface once the ships have long passed. She tells me she has seen this happening on several occasions. If the ships have to carry their rubbish to port and pay fees to dispose of it, then of course they’ll do this. There needs to be free rubbish disposal at port, built into the harbour fees, and some big-time prosecutions for those who are caught. Or just don’t bother, and kill the oceans……

I have never been on a cruise ship but, I’m sure that there would be loads of waste, oil spills and pollution in the water/ocean/sea. it is very sad to see all the rubbish in the water and that the mammals/se animals have to swim in it and also die from it being caught around their neck, or from them accidentally eating it.

It really helped with my school project

@S.W : Glad it helped. Best of luck. ????????

I used this for my school project.

This was a good resource for my school project [thanks].

Relevant information.

Glad I found it useful

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Subscribe to Marine Insight Daily Newsletter

" * " indicates required fields

Marine Engineering

Marine Engine Air Compressor Marine Boiler Oily Water Separator Marine Electrical Ship Generator Ship Stabilizer

Nautical Science

Mooring Bridge Watchkeeping Ship Manoeuvring Nautical Charts  Anchoring Nautical Equipment Shipboard Guidelines

Explore 

Free Maritime eBooks Premium Maritime eBooks Marine Safety Financial Planning Marine Careers Maritime Law Ship Dry Dock

Shipping News Maritime Reports Videos Maritime Piracy Offshore Safety Of Life At Sea (SOLAS) MARPOL

WAIT! Did You Download 13 FREE Maritime eBooks?

Sign-up and download instantly!

We respect your privacy and take protecting it very seriously. No spam!

WAIT! Did You Download 12 FREE Maritime eBooks?

Cruise ships are back, but how much pollution are they bringing with them?

After a two-year hiatus because of COVID-19, cruise ships are back on the west coast, plying the waters and sensitive ecosystems of British Columbia, primarily travelling to and from Alaska. The industry expects record amounts of ships this year, with 300 ships the size of small cities visiting Vancouver (an 8% increase over pre-COVID-19 times), and 350 ships visiting Victoria carrying nearly 760,000 passengers .

The cruise industry does generate economic activity in the communities it visits, but it also leaves a swath of pollution in its wake. In fact, recent research has shown that cruise ships are the biggest polluters of the entire shipping sector – producing more than 60% of all sewage and other types of pollution dumped in Canadian waters.

In April 2022, on the eve of the new cruise ship season, Transport Canada announced new measures to address cruise ship pollution. This is a welcome step. But as our research suggests, these measures are insufficient to properly address the environmental impacts of these large vessels.

Canada at the low water mark

Last January, West Coast Environmental Law collaborated with Stand.earth to produce a report on cruise ship pollution that highlighted how lax Canadian regulations were compared to those of our American neighbours.

Canada’s cruise ship dumping regulations were much more permissive than their U.S. counterparts, which encourages ships travelling the Alaskan cruise ship routes (from Washington to BC to Alaska and back) to hold on to their waste while travelling through American waters and to dump it once in Canadian waters. We called on the federal government to rectify these weak regulations prior to the reopening of the cruise ship season after COVID-19 shutdowns.

Types of cruise ship water pollution

Our report identified three main types of water pollution from cruise ships:

• Sewage (also known as blackwater) is the waste from bathroom and toilets. The sewage from cruise ships is more concentrated than household sewage and it can contain fecal coliform, ammonia, chlorine and a variety of toxic pollutants, such as pharmaceuticals, heavy metals, hydrocarbons and organochlorines.
• Greywater is the waste from sinks, laundry machines, bathtubs, shower-stalls, or dishwashers. It can contain high amounts of fecal coliform, as well as detergents, cleaners, lotions and topical creams, nutrients, solids, oil and grease, and hazardous carcinogens.
• Scrubber washwater accounts for the vast majority of the billions of litres of pollution dumped into Canadian waters by cruise ships. Scrubber washwater is acidic, toxin laden thermal pollution created by Exhaust Gas Cleaning Systems, known as "scrubbers." Ships have traditionally burned heavy oil fuel, one of the cheapest and dirtiest fossil fuels. In 2020, the International Maritime Organization adopted a new legal requirement for ships to use cleaner fuels. However, an exception in the regulation permits ships to continue to burn heavy oil fuel as long as they employ scrubbers. These scrubbers reduce the amount of air pollution that is generated, but this pollution is often simply discharged into the ocean as scrubber washwater.

For each of these three types of pollution, the dumping regulations in either Washington, California or Alaska are much stricter than Canadian regulations. For example, fecal coliforms limits are permitted to be higher in BC compared to sewage and greywater dumped in Alaska, and Washington prohibits sewage dumping outright in Puget Sound. Moreover, Canada permits the dumping of scrubber washwater, a practice that has been prohibited in Californian waters.

WWF ocean dumping report

In March 2022, the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) released a report on dumping from ships in Canadian waters that further confirmed how big the problem of cruise ship pollution actually is. The WWF report found that cruise ships were responsible for 60.8% of sewage, 69.6% of greywater, and 66% of scrubber washwater released in Canadian waters, despite cruise ships making up only 2% of ships in their analysis. Moreover, WWF found that scrubber washwater accounted for 97% of all waste produced by ships in Canada.

New measures not enough

On April 3, 2022, Transport Canada finally announced new measures to reduce the impact of the discharge of sewage and greywater in coastal waters.

These measures include:

• Prohibiting the discharge of greywater and treated sewage within three nautical miles from shore where geographically possible;
• Treating greywater together with sewage before it is discharged between three and twelve nautical miles from shore to the greatest extent possible;
• Strengthening the treatment of blackwater between three and twelve nautical miles from shore using an approved treatment device; and
• Reporting to Transport Canada compliance with these measures as they relate to discharges made within Canadian waters.

While these measures are a welcome step forward, they still leave serious concerns about the pollution being generated from cruise ships.

The first issue of concern is that these new measures are voluntary at this point. Transport Canada stated that it is developing mandatory regulations, but has not provided a timeline for when those regulations would be ready. Thus, there are currently no legal consequences if cruise ships ignore these new measures.

Second, instead of requiring independent third-party monitoring of cruise ships’ compliance with the new measures, as Alaska required through its Ocean Ranger Program , cruise ships will self-report their compliance with these measures. For an industry that has a history of illegal ocean dumping , we have concerns that self-reporting will not be accurate and trustworthy.

Lastly, the new measures do not address the biggest source of pollution, which is scrubber washwater. As found in the WWF report, scrubber washwater comprises 97% of the pollution dumped in Canadian waters by ships. And cruise ships account for 66% of this pollution. Thus, while new stricter measures for sewage and greywater dumping are appreciated, they will not protect our coastal communities and ecosystems from the overwhelming majority of the water pollution generated by these ships.

Political momentum to address scrubber washwater

Thankfully, on the west coast, political momentum is mounting to address the scrubber washwater issue. As of March 1, 2022, the Port of Vancouver has banned ships from dumping contaminated scrubber washwater while at berth and at anchor within the confines of the Port. Prior to this ban, the Port of Vancouver had been the “ fourth most impacted port in the world in terms of washwater discharges within 1 nautical mile of the port .” In phase 2, which the Port will implement sometime in the future, scrubber washwater discharges will also be prohibited when ships are travelling at cruising speeds or manoeuvring within the area of the Port.

On March 2, 2022, the City of Vancouver passed a motion supporting the Port of Vancouver’s new prohibition on scrubber washwater and calling for the federal and provincial governments to address the scrubber washwater issue on the west coast. The City of Vancouver will also be submitting scrubber washwater resolutions to the policy conventions of the Lower Mainland Local Government Association and the Union of BC Municipalities.

Canadians need Transport Canada to stop the pollution

As the cruise ship industry continues to grow, more ships will be travelling the coast of British Columbia, generating even more waste. Canadians need Transport Canada to develop stronger regulations, equivalent or more stringent than those of our American neighbours. The regulations need to be mandatory and they must address the scourge of scrubber washwater. They must also include a third-party monitoring program so that coastal communities can at least feel some sense of security as these small cities on water pass them by.

Photo credit: pacesetterforchange via Pixabay

View the discussion thread.

You are using an outdated browser. Please upgrade your browser or activate Google Chrome Frame to improve your experience.

Thanks for signing up as a global citizen. In order to create your account we need you to provide your email address. You can check out our Privacy Policy to see how we safeguard and use the information you provide us with. If your Facebook account does not have an attached e-mail address, you'll need to add that before you can sign up.

This account has been deactivated.

Please contact us at [email protected] if you would like to re-activate your account.

Cruise ships are known for limbo, shrimp cocktails, and luxury accommodations.

But from the environment’s perspective, they’re known for staggering pollution.

This week, a German environmental group called Nabu released a ranking of the Europe’s cruise ships based on their eco-friendliness.

The report was not flattering.

“Pollution from the cruise ship industry is still massive, despite claims newer vessels are clean and green,” the report read. “No company comes recommended in NABU’s 2017 cruise ship rankings, which show just how little progress companies have made towards cutting pollution.”

Read More: Princess Cruises Fined $40M for Polluting Oceans Since 2005

Nabu claims that all of the vessels are powered by heavy fuel oil, a sludgy tar-like fuel that produces noxious fumes when burned that can harm not only passengers of the cruise, but all those in the vicinity of the ship, while greatly accelerating climate change.  

Estimates from Nabu put the average fuel usage of each of these ships at 150 tons of fuel a day, which releases as much particulate matter into the air as about 1 million automobiles each day.

To make matters worse, many of the companies operating the vessels have failed to install soot filters that would at least marginally improve the environmental impact of their massive fuel combustion.

Filters would help to capture some of the fine particulates that are released when the diesel engines burn fuel, thereby preventing them from escaping into the atmosphere. However, of the 23 ships that the industry claimed would be equipped with this technology, not a single one of them is operational .

Read More: The perils of cruise ships as told by Titanic

The EU based non-profit Transport and Environment, which advocates for cleaner means of transportation in Europe, reports that pollution from the shipping industry causes about 50,000 premature deaths and costs over €58 billion per year .

Cruise ships also devastate oceans when they dump raw sewage from their passengers. A 2014 study by the non-governmental environmental agency Friends of the Earth estimated that the entire industry dumps over 1 billion gallons of sewage yearly.

Devastating statistics like these have caused some cities and local governments to take action to protecting their residents from the harmful effects of cruise ship pollution.

In 2016, the Australian government passed a measure that would force cruise ships at berth to reduce their emissions when in the famous Sydney Harbour .

Similarly, Londoners fought the expansion of a cruise ship port because they feared it would increase pollution from the dedicated docking station.

Powerful cities like London and Sydney may have some bargaining power that allows them to negotiate with massive cruise liner companies.

In less affluent countries that are popular as cruise ship destinations, however, residents will likely suffer more when cruise ships that failed to improve their pollution levels dock in cities reliant on tourism dollars.

Global Citizen campaigns on the Global Goals , and climate action is number 13. To take action on this issue, click here .

Defend the Planet

Report: Pollution from the Cruise Ship Industry is Still Massive

Sept. 6, 2017

Switch language:

Roundtable: how can cruise lines reduce their environmental impact?

A return to sailing will give cruise operators to make their operations greener and more sustainable. In this roundtable, we reach out to industry experts to ask their opinion on what cruise lines can do to reduce their environmental impact.

• Share on Linkedin
• Share on Facebook

The biggest cruise ships are effectively floating settlements, offering more entertainment, food and accommodation than ever before. Unfortunately, this ‘go big or go home’ mentality has sometimes pushed the industry into hot water, particularly with regards to its environmental impact.

This year, cruise lines need to get passengers back on board. It needs to make cruise a necessity for people who’ve been living without it. A survey in our office highlighted that most millennials want cruise companies to be held more accountable for their emissions. As cruise prepares to exit its scariest period ever, will operators step up to the plate?

Go deeper with GlobalData

Innovation in Ship: Anti-fouling Ship Hull Coatings

Environmental sustainability in ship: bio-fuel propulsion marine ve..., premium insights.

The gold standard of business intelligence.

Find out more

Related Company Profiles

Carnival corporation & plc, norwegian cruise line holdings ltd.

To find out what steps the cruise industry needs to take, we gathered experts from both sides of the debate to ask a simple question: how can cruise lines reduce their environmental impact once sailing resumes?

Please note: experts’ opinions DO NOT represent the views of Future Cruise or any other expert included in this roundtable.  

Dan Hubbell, shipping emissions campaign manager at Ocean Conservancy

Cruise lines have a duty to their customers and the environment to reduce their impact post-pandemic and sailing can resume safely. Switching to truly green fuels like hydrogen or ammonia as they become available, rather than climate-damaging options like LNG, would dramatically reduce the industry’s carbon footprint.

How well do you really know your competitors?

Access the most comprehensive Company Profiles on the market, powered by GlobalData. Save hours of research. Gain competitive edge.

Your download email will arrive shortly

Not ready to buy yet? Download a free sample

We are confident about the unique quality of our Company Profiles. However, we want you to make the most beneficial decision for your business, so we offer a free sample that you can download by submitting the below form

Scrubbers are another area where cruises should steer clear on, or at a minimum look to fully closed-loop systems that store rather than open-loop ones that discharge scrubber effluent back into the ocean.

Finally, treating both sewage and greywater with properly functioning advanced water treatment systems should be a priority. Cruises take their passengers to some of the most beautiful places on earth, and when sailing resumes those aboard will feel better knowing they’re leaving nothing behind when they travel on.

Brian Salerno, senior vice president of maritime policy, Cruise Lines International Association

CLIA and our cruise line members are passionate about clean oceans and are committed to responsible tourism practices and environmental stewardship.

While cruise lines comprise far less than 1% of the global maritime community, the cruise industry works every day to advance its responsible tourism efforts . While much progress has been made , the cruise industry recognizes that continued and greater investment in research and development is critical in order to achieve the ultimate objective of zero carbon emissions across the global maritime fleet.

Last year, CLIA joined an array of partner associations in the maritime sector to put forth a proposal to the International Maritime Organization (IMO) to fund and establish a $5 billion Research and Development Board dedicated to working collaboratively across the maritime sector to identify—and in some cases, develop—the technologies and energy sources that will enable the cruise industry to pursue solutions that do not yet exist.

All of this is to say, even as cruise lines have worked to address the Covid-19 pandemic , the industry has remained focused on its commitment to preserving the air and oceans in which the industry operates. With over $23bn invested in ships with new technologies and cleaner fuels, substantial progress has been achieved and our cruise line members will continue to work diligently to meet rising expectations.

Cruising is one of the best ways to experience the world and CLIA and our cruise line members look forward to welcoming passengers back.

Roger Frizzell, chief communications officer, Carnival Corporation

At Carnival Corporation , our highest responsibility and top priorities are compliance, environmental protection and the health, safety and well-being of our guests, the people in the communities we visit, and our shipboard and shoreside employees. On this foundation, our company and nine global cruise line brands are committed to continuously enhancing our operations and environmental progress.

As an industry, we continue to work together on our shared commitment to reducing the global cruise fleet’s rate of carbon emissions by 40% over the next 10 years. At Carnival Corporation, we are committed to doing our part to achieve that goal while sharing in the International Maritime Organization’s vision for a carbon-free shipping industry.

We recently achieved key sustainability targets for the company and committed to new far-reaching goals that will carry us well beyond as we continue to support our environmental priorities with concrete actions and improvements.

This includes launching the world’s first cruise ships powered by liquefied natural gas (LNG), the marine industry’s most advanced fuel technology; adding high-tech electrical shore power capabilities; expanded use of onboard Advanced Waste Water Treatment Systems; food waste bio-digester technology; and Advanced Air Quality Systems. We also have extensive initiatives already underway to significantly reduce single-use plastics and food waste on board our ships, and we are pursuing new sustainable solutions to power cruise ships to further reduce our environmental footprint, such as battery power storage systems and advanced fuel cell technology.

As we look toward the future, we will continue to work closely with the communities we visit, investing in new emerging technologies and initiatives to ensure sustainability is ingrained in all aspects of our business as we work towards achieving zero emissions over time while providing travellers with the world’s best vacation experience

Eamonn Ferrin, Norwegian Cruise Line VP and managing director, UK & Ireland

Sustainability has always been a cornerstone of our business at Norwegian Cruise Line (NCL) and will remain a key pillar as we look to amplify and innovate our practices and offering in the next years.

For instance, we established a dedicated Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) department in 2020 to enhance our Sail & Sustain Environmental Programme’s reach and impact. Offering support of key environmental initiatives, the ESG team ensures the coordination of our environmental agenda between departments as diverse as health, medical and safety to human resources, legal and even our supply chain.

As part of our Sail & Sustain programme, we are striving to minimise waste sent to landfill, reduce CO 2 emissions, increase the use of sustainably sourced goods, and invest in emerging environmental technologies. As a result of our continuous efforts, the CDP, a global environmental non-profit that evaluates 9,600 companies worldwide annually, recently recognised us with a ‘B’ climate change score – improving on the previous year and higher than the Marine Transport sector average of ‘C’.

This follows on from NCL becoming the first major global cruise line to eliminate single-use plastic bottles onboard our fleet and private destinations following a partnership with JUST Water via JUST® Goods, Inc at the start of 2020. In addition, we recently announced a partnership with the Port of Southampton for its’ new terminal which will feature both Shore Power and Roof-Mounted Solar Power to provide clean, green renewable energy and further strengthen our commitment to the sustainable future for the category.

Ross A Klein, PhD, international expert on cruise industry and cruise tourism and professor, Memorial University of Newfoundland

The most straightforward way to reduce environmental impacts is for the cruise industry to behave as it says it behaves. Recent court hearings following Carnival Corporation’s violation of its plea agreement/probation demonstrate with alarming clarity that the cruise corporation is not serious about the industry’s frequently repeated claim that they “meet or exceed all environmental regulations”.

A Court-Appointed Monitor found hundreds of environmental violations in Carnival’s first year on probation; Carnival Corporation admitted to six charges of violating probation and paid a $20m fine (above the $40m already paid). Violations continued into year two and year three. Transparency through a Court-Appointed Monitor doesn’t appear to be sufficient to “fix” the problem.

Cruise corporations consequently have a credibility problem. Behaving as they say they do would go a long way – something as simple as no discharges within twelve miles of the coastline. Augment this with no dumping solid waste at sea, (e.g. ground glass, cardboard and packing material, plastic), no discharges of hazardous chemicals or materials of unknown environmental impact (e.g., incinerator ash, sludge from smokestack scrubbers), and on all cruise ships have independent human monitors to observe and record all waste streams and discharges.

The cruise industry would argue this level of monitoring is unnecessary – that they can be trusted. This is undermined by their history of gaming the system and paying hundreds of millions in fines rather than spend the money on environmentally responsible systems.

Sign up for our daily news round-up!

Give your business an edge with our leading industry insights.

More Relevant

What is driving the demand for underwater drone detection?

Researchers develop new system to measure ship underwater noise, streaming service: could micro bubbles speed up shipping, beam me up: using blue laser technology to improve underwater detection, sign up to the newsletter: in brief, your corporate email address, i would also like to subscribe to:.

Ship Technology In Brief

Ship Technology Global : Ship Technology Focus (monthly)

I consent to Verdict Media Limited collecting my details provided via this form in accordance with Privacy Policy

Thank you for subscribing

View all newsletters from across the GlobalData Media network.

Oceana Works To Stop Cruise Ship Pollution

Press Release Date: October 6, 2009

Location: Washington

Anna Baxter | email: [email protected] Anna Baxter

Today, Oceana launches a week-long media tour in three cities – Washington, New York and Boston – to continue raising awareness about cruise ship pollution. The campaign to protect our oceans and stop cruise ship pollution exposes how cruise ships threaten the health of the world’s oceans, including some of the most pristine and delicate parts of our ocean where cruise ships travel.

Cruise ship passengers have suffered from sewage-borne illnesses as reported in recent news reports. Cruise ship companies should take responsibility and stop dumping raw sewage in the ocean.

Thirty thousand (30,000) gallons of sewage are dumped into the oceans every day by an average-sized cruise ship with three thousand (3,000) passengers and crew. Raw, untreated sewage can be dumped in the ocean once a ship is more than three miles off U.S. shores. Inside the three-mile limit, cruise ships can eject “treated” sewage into our oceans. However, no government agency is charged with ensuring that sewage is properly treated and that it won’t harm humans or aquatic life.

Solutions to cruise pollution exist and they work. Installation of these technologies would not significantly raise the cost of a cruise ticket. For example, over a 5 year time frame, sewage treatment technology could be installed for little more than the cost each passenger would pay for a can of soda each day. Learn more about the cruise industry’s 10 year record of environmental violations and fines:

Environmental Fines, 1992-1999 Large Environmental Fines ($100,000+), 1992 – 2002 Violations and Fines in Alaska, 1999 – 2002 Source: Cruise Ship Junkie  www.cruisejunkie.com   More Facts:

Every day 255,000 gallons of gray water, water from laundries, showers, sinks and dishwashers, are poured right into the ocean by a mid-sized cruise ship. Cruise ships are exempt from the discharge permitting program of the nation’s preeminent water pollution control law, the Clean Water Act. On average, a cruise ship generates 15 gallons of toxic chemicals each day. These materials come from on-board dry cleaning and photo-processing facilities, painting and other activities. Seven thousand gallons of oily bilge water are released into the oceans every time the ship empties its bilge tanks. Thirty-three tanker trucks-worth of ballast water per cruise ship, complete with aquatic plants and animals, are taken in by ships in faraway ports and released into U.S. harbors and bays. When the ballast water is released, so too are the non-native plants and animals that were taken up with it. Non-native species can colonize, replace and harm local species. Ballast water can also carry diseases like cholera and paralytic shellfish poisoning into our harbors. A single cruise ship produces smokestack and exhaust emissions equivalent to 12,000 automobiles every day. The average cruise ship produces seven tons of garbage and solid waste every day. Who’s Minding the Cruise Ship Environmental Performance?

Cruise ships are not held to the same important environmental protection standards that apply to cities and industries that produce a similar amount of waste.

The Clean Water Act requires industries and cities to have a permit to treat and discharge wastes. By also requiring monitoring, testing and reporting, these permits help ensure that sewage treatment systems are effective, and that both the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the public know how much pollution is actually being discharged. This system also gives citizens the right to sue to enforce provisions of the law when necessary.

Cruise ships, however, are not required to have permits to dump raw sewage into the oceans, and they are not required to test or report what they release. This makes it difficult for the government and the public to know precisely how much pollution is released, and there is no opportunity for citizen enforcement. What Are the Solutions to Cruise Ship Pollution?

A few ships are testing these technologies and proving they work in Alaska, where the state applies the strictest laws in the country. The technology that works in Alaska should be installed on every cruise ship so that they can stop dumping raw sewage in our oceans. So far the cruise industry has refused to do this.

Just installing technology is not enough. The industry has a history of by-passing and disabling pollution control devices, especially oil-water separators. While treatment systems may be installed, there is no guarantee that they are being used. Electronic monitors or on-board observers should be used to make sure that the waste treatment solution is real. ——————————————————————————– For More Information, Contact:

Jackie Savitz Director, Pollution Campaign Phone: (202) 833-3900 Email: [email protected] Mobile: (202) 486-6113

Bianca DeLille Communications Director Phone: (202) 833-3900 Email: [email protected] Mobile: (202) 215-1426

Oceana is a non-profit international advocacy organization dedicated to protecting and restoring the world’s oceans through policy advocacy, science, law and public education. Founded in 2001, Oceana’s constituency includes members and activists from more than 190 countries and territories who are committed to saving the world’s marine environment. In 2002, the American Oceans Campaign became part of Oceana’s international effort to protect ocean eco-systems and sustain the circle of life. Oceana, headquartered in Washington, D.C., has additional offices in key U.S. coastal areas and will open offices in Latin America and Europe in 2003.

• Press Releases
• In the News
• PSAs and Videos
• Annual Reports
• Media Contacts

BECOME A WAVEMAKER

FEATURED CAMPAIGN

Save the oceans, feed the world.

We are restoring the world’s wild fish populations to serve as a sustainable source of protein for people.

More CAMPAIGNs

Protect Habitat

Oceana International Headquarters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, Suite 200 Washington, DC 20036 USA

General Inquiries +1(202)-833-3900 [email protected]

Donation Inquiries +1(202)-996-7174 [email protected]

Press Inquiries +1(202)-833-3900 [email protected]

OCEANA'S EFFICIENCY

Sign up today to get weekly updates and action alerts from Oceana.

SHOW YOUR SUPPORT WITH A DONATION

We have already protected nearly 4 million square miles of ocean and innumerable sea life - but there is still more to be done.

QUICK LINKS:

Press Oceana Store Marine Life Blog Careers Financials Privacy Policy Revisit Consent Terms of Use Contact

Put your cruise on silent mode, please: Why ships need to curb noise pollution

When Carnival Corp. ships sail into Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve , a protected area teeming with wildlife and striking landscapes, they go into quiet mode.

The vessels don't make any announcements on outside weather decks, and they also slow down from between 14 and 18 knots – between roughly 16 and 21 mph – to often less than 10 knots.

That way, passengers can see animals like seals lounging on bergy bits, while the ship minimizes disruptions to the marine environment.

“Most often, the ship can transit in a place like Tracy Arm or Endicott Arm or Glacier Bay, and typically, we don't see any of the seals move at all,” said Patrick McGuire, vice president of environmental operations and policy for the company’s Holland America Group, which is comprised of Holland America Line, Princess Cruises, Seabourn and P&O Cruises Australia. “So, that's certainly our objective is to not have any noisy interference with marine mammals because that's what everyone comes to see.”

Those kinds of measures are among a number of steps cruise lines have taken to reduce noise pollution from their ships, which has become a point of increased focus in recent years for many cruise lines.

How do cruise ships create noise pollution?

Sound is a common sensory modality for animals underwater, according to Leila Hatch, Research Ecologist with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Office of National Marine Sanctuaries, specializing in underwater sound monitoring and management.

“As light degrades, sound travels really efficiently over really large distances, and particularly sounds that are ... low tones on the piano or lower frequency,” she said. A wide range of creatures, from invertebrates to whales, use sounds to communicate with one another and pick up other cues, such as when predators or prey are close by.

Can we have eco-friendly cruising? What to know about zero-emission ships

Large commercial ships, meanwhile, are the dominant human-generated contributors to low-frequency noise across ocean basins, which can interfere with animals’ ability to hear signals they need to detect. Oceangoing traffic can also add to coastal noise from smaller regional and local vessels in areas like traffic lanes approaching ports.

A ship’s propulsion system is the main culprit in emitting underwater noise, though other machinery can create a vibration that can transmit noise beneath the surface too.

Are cruise ships the main source of noise pollution?

Passenger cruise ships represent significantly less than 1% of all oceangoing vessels, according to Cruise Lines International Association, the industry’s leading trade group. However, Hatch noted that in popular cruise destinations, those ships may make up a larger portion of ships in the area.

Animals in more remote places may also be at higher risk of complications from noise pollution, but that doesn’t mean those living in urbanized environments are accustomed to it.

“Marine animals that depend on habitats where vessel noise levels are persistently high are documented to show higher stress rates, elevated predation risk and lower foraging success,” Hatch said. “These are chronic conditions that become particularly concerning if animals are already vulnerable or endangered. In areas where vessel noise levels have historically been low but traffic is increasing, such as a warming Arctic, animals have the potential for heightened disturbance as they encounter more commonly what has until now been rare noisy events.”

How are cruise ships reducing noise pollution?

Carnival Corp. and Holland America Group have developed protocols for sensitive areas, McGuire said.

Before operating in Glacier Bay, which already limits cruise ship entry to two per day, they conduct underwater sound profiling for the first vessel in each new class by sailing at different speeds, as part of a concession agreement with the National Park Service.

The process is done under the auspices of the Naval Surface Warfare Center, which sends the results to both Carnival Corp. and the park service, and ships are tested at various speeds.

When ships go at higher speeds of around 18 knots, McGuire said propeller cavitation – when vapor bubbles form and dissolve, inhibiting performance and creating noise – is the predominant audible sound source. At lower speeds, the rotation of diesel generators or motors powering functions like air conditioning shows up more clearly. That information allows the operator to evaluate the noise coming from a ship and adjust plans as needed.

Holland America Group cruise lines have measured ship noise in other ways too.

Seabourn Venture, an expedition ship optimized for sailing in polar regions, marked its first class to have its underwater noise level certified by a classification society when the vessel launched in 2022. The voluntary process provides operators with notations that a ship operates within a given sound range.

“So … because these vessels are designed to operate in sensitive areas, we've taken particular attention to have that noise profile measured as well,” McGuire said. Venture’s underwater sound levels came in under the relevant standard, he added.

MSC Cruises has also received “underwater radiated noise” notations for its MSC Grandiosa, MSC Virtuosa, MSC World Europa, and MSC Euribia ships, according to Linden Coppell, MSC Cruises’ vice president of sustainability & ESG.

Down the coast from Glacier Bay, Holland America Group ships also cooperate with the Enhancing Cetacean Habitat and Observation Program led by the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority, which includes several voluntary initiatives to reduce underwater noise from large commercial vessels.

In the waters around northern Washington and southern British Columbia, ships turn off their ultrasonic anti-fouling systems, McGuire said, which help prevent unwanted organisms from attaching to a ship’s exterior, Hatch noted that ultrasonic anti-fouling systems have become increasingly prevalent on cruise ships and other kinds of vessels over the last two or three years, and are “causing some concern in the scientific community” as they emit sounds at a frequency that disturbs some toothed whale species.

“The ECHO Program is aware some ships are equipped with ultrasonic anti-fouling systems and has discussed with some operators the benefits of disabling the technology when transiting through southern resident killer whale critical habitat to further reduce underwater noise,” a spokesperson for the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority said in an email.

Other initiatives aimed at reaching sustainability goals, such as plugging into shore power in port so ships can turn off their engines, have the added benefit of reducing noise, though they may be limited in scale.

Less than 2% of cruise ports worldwide have on-shore power capabilities, though that number is expected to increase to 3% by 2025, according to Cruise Lines International Association’s 2023 State of the Cruise Industry report. Among its member ships, more than half will be equipped to plug into shore power where available by the end of this year.

Coppell said MSC also works closely with shipyards to identify opportunities to further reduce inefficiencies, which she said are often associated with noise. “(With) every ship, there's going to be potentially incremental improvements,” she said.

Those advances may be increasingly important.

“With a larger human population and the globalization of goods, the projectile for how much sound from vessels is in the world's oceans is sort of ever-growing,” Hatch said.

NOAA works to highlight the circumstances that may pose risks to marine life, Hatch said.

"(Noise) has increasingly well-understood physiological consequences for animals, and if they are already having a hard time making a living in the ocean, then that is a stressor we have to address," she said. "We have to figure out ways to improve the quality of that habitat."

Nathan Diller is a consumer travel reporter for USA TODAY based in Nashville. You can reach him at [email protected].

HX Partners With Ocean Bottle to Combat Marine Plastic Pollution

• June 7, 2024

HX (Hurtigruten Expeditions) announced a partnership with Ocean Bottle to battle marine plastic pollution, according to a press release.

Launching ahead of World Oceans Day on June 8, every guest sailing with HX will receive a complimentary reusable Ocean Bottle. Each Ocean Bottle funds the collection of 1,000 plastic bottles in weight.

“We are thrilled to embark on this journey with Ocean Bottle,” said Stefan Engl, vice president of hotel operations. “Together, we recognize the urgent need to protect our oceans and combat the pervasive issue of plastic pollution in marine environments. By providing each guest with a complimentary Ocean Bottle, part of our all-inclusive offering, we’re not only mitigating waste but also contributing to the preservation and cleaning up of our oceans, amplifying our impact.”

“We’re proud to partner with HX, a leader in the cruise expedition industry known for innovations like banning single-use plastics and launching the first battery hybrid-powered cruise ship. By partnering with us and funding the collection of ocean-bound plastic waste, HX is taking their commitment to environmental stewardship even further. With a whopping 507,058 kg of plastic waste collected, they’ve prevented the equivalent of 44,604,000 plastic bottles from entering the ocean – a great example of taking action, leading up to World Oceans Day!” said Will Pearson, co-founder and CEO of Ocean Bottle.

Cruise Industry News Email Alerts

• Breaking News

Get the latest breaking  cruise news .  Sign up.

62 Ships | 142,732 Berths | $46.7 Billion | View

Highlights:

• Mkt. Overview
• Record Year
• Refit Schedule
• PDF Download
• Order Today

• 2033 Industry Outlook 
• All Operators
• Easy to Use
• Instant Access
• Advertising
• Cruise News
• Magazine Articles
• Quarterly Magazine
• Annual Report
• Email Newsletter
• Executive Guide
• Digital Reports

Privacy Overview

We've detected unusual activity from your computer network

To continue, please click the box below to let us know you're not a robot.

Why did this happen?

Please make sure your browser supports JavaScript and cookies and that you are not blocking them from loading. For more information you can review our Terms of Service and Cookie Policy .

For inquiries related to this message please contact our support team and provide the reference ID below.

• CruiseMapper
• Cruise news
• Cruise Industry
• New agreement reduces cruise ship visits at Port Amsterdam...

New agreement reduces cruise ship visits at Port Amsterdam (Holland) from 2026

Amsterdam (Netherlands) has reached an agreement to begin limiting the number of cruise ship calls at its seaport starting in 2026. This is part of a broader strategy to eventually relocate the cruise terminal from the city center and better manage the influx of tourists.

Efforts to reduce cruise traffic gained traction nearly a year ago, following initial proposals by local leaders in 2016. A popular tourist destination, Amsterdam has faced increasing noise, air pollution, and congestion due to the growing number of tourists. According to the now-disbanded Amsterdam Cruise Port foundation, the city was receiving up to 150 cruise calls annually, handling 300,000+ passengers. Current municipal rules allow for up to 190 calls from ocean-going cruise vessels per year. The port accommodates both ocean-going and river cruise ships.

Effective immediately, the Passenger Terminal Amsterdam (PTA) will be limited to a single berth daily. The 2024 schedule shows 111 ocean cruises planned, but starting in 2026, the annual limit will be 100 calls. Additionally, by 2027, all ships will be required to use shore power . The council also voted to halve the number of river cruise ships calling at Amsterdam.

Following a study initiated in July 2024, it was determined that Rotterdam could accommodate 40 sea cruises no longer permitted in Amsterdam. Some cruise ships already call at Rotterdam , offering bus tours to Amsterdam.

City officials acknowledge that restricting cruise calls will decrease spending by sea cruise passengers and shipping companies, impacting museums, catering, shops, and excursions. The city will also collect less tourist tax and port revenue. They are examining the financial implications of this decision, which will be included in the next budget, while also noting benefits such as reduced fuel consumption and air pollution.

In collaboration with the Ministry of Infrastructure and Water Management, the Port Authority, and the province of North Holland, Amsterdam is conducting a financial and legal feasibility study on relocating the PTA to Coenhaven. The goal is to move the PTA from its current location on Veemkade by 2035.

Some cruise ships have already adjusted their schedules, with others using berths in Coenhaven, an industrial area west of the city center. However, passengers have complained about its accessibility, prompting cruise lines to provide bus services to the city center.

Amsterdam joins other major cities, such as Barcelona , in relocating cruise terminals from city centers. In Juneau, Alaska , a voluntary agreement has been reached to cap the number of daily cruise passengers, following the implementation of a daily limit on cruise ships.

We use cookies to ensure best experience for you

We use cookies and other tracking technologies to improve your browsing experience on our site, show personalize content and targeted ads, analyze site traffic, and understand where our audience is coming from. You can also read our privacy policy , We use cookies to ensure the best experience for you on our website.

• The Middle East and Africa
• Leaders Speak
• Brand Solutions
• Villages near DR Congo mine count cost of river pollution

• Published On Jul 1, 2024 at 12:14 PM IST

• Updated On Jul 1, 2024 at 12:14 PM IST

All Comments

By commenting, you agree to the Prohibited Content Policy

Find this Comment Offensive?

• Foul Language
• Inciting hatred against a certain community
• Out of Context / Spam

Join the community of 2M+ industry professionals

Subscribe to our newsletter to get latest insights & analysis., download etenergyworld app.

• Get Realtime updates
• Save your favourite articles

• DR Congo mine
• river pollution
• Ruashi mine
• water pollution
• environmental pollution
• mining pollution