WASHINGTON -- Some Alaska ports of call, along with Gov. Sean Parnell, have asked the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to rethink -- or at least slow down -- its plans to impose stricter air-quality requirements for cruise ships and other large oceangoing vessels.

The EPA wants all large vessels to stop using so-called "bunker fuel" within 200 nautical miles of U.S. shorelines, saying that reducing air pollution from the dirty fuel could save the lives of 8,300 people each year, help an additional 3 million people avoid respiratory problems and clear hazy skies as far inland as the Grand Canyon.

The new rules could take effect this fall and they apply to other large vessels besides cruise ships, from oil tankers to cargo ships that call at Alaska and other U.S. ports.

Some industry groups are welcoming the standards because they want one international standard. But bringing cruise ships under the rules has sparked a backlash in Alaska, an outcry that befuddles environmentalists who say the rules are designed to protect Alaska's main selling point: pristine wilderness.

Some cities, such as Juneau, where there's long been a concern about air pollution from cruise ships, asked for the EPA to slow down its process. Others, like Ketchikan, complain that no modeling has been done to determine that there's an ambient air problem in Alaska's coastal communities. In Alaska, the emission-control area the EPA wants to impose would cover most of the coastline east of Kodiak, including the approach to Anchorage.

"The cruise ships have been coming here since the 1980s and I don't think there's enough traffic here to cause a problem," said Ketchikan Mayor Lew Williams III.

He worries that regulations would make cruise operators reluctant to choose Alaska. Already, some lines are planning fewer sailings to Alaska next year because of the economic downturn; that could bring an estimated 140,000 fewer passengers to Alaska next year compared with roughly a million who visited Alaska in the season that just ended.

"We're just trying to make a living and keep the economy going," Williams said. "The cruise industry's been vital for Southeast Alaska."

That concern was shared by both of Alaska's senators, Democrat Mark Begich and Republican Lisa Murkowski. Both submitted comments to the EPA, with Murkowski asking the agency to consider gathering some Alaska-specific data before imposing air-quality standards based on modeling done at other U.S. port cities.

Nearly 14 percent of all employment in Alaska is tied to tourism, Begich said, adding that he is "concerned the imposition of a rule developed without consideration of environmental and economic impacts in Alaska might have the unintended consequences of exacerbating this decline."

Parnell went a step further, noting the importance of cruise ships to the economies of Alaska coastal communities but also calling into the question the science used to include most of Alaska in the EPA's proposed emission control area. Little air-quality data is backing up the EPA's rule, Parnell noted, and the agency's proposal "reflects a misunderstanding of Alaska's geography and ecosystems."

There's reference to the air-quality impact on lichen near Juneau and related impacts to caribou herds, Parnell notes. But although caribou do rely on lichen as a food source, "no caribou live in Southeast Alaska, where this study was conducted."

puzzled environmentalists

Clean-air advocates say they're dumbfounded why Alaskans who tout the natural beauty of the areas cruise ships visit would object to stricter fuel standards that keep the environment pristine.

"It's one of the great things about the cruise ships in Alaska; they're sold as 'come see this pristine environment,' " said Frank O'Donnell of Clean Air Watch. "Well, what's wrong with making it pristine?"

International marine protection groups like Oceana would like to see more of Alaska included in the rules, not excluded, said Jackie Savitz, one of the organization's senior campaign directors. They're concerned that rapidly melting sea ice will open up parts of the Arctic to more ships, increasing pollution. Already, Savitz said, black carbon -- soot -- has been proven to reduce the reflective qualities of snow and ice and lead to additional melting.

"A lot of the impacts that we're seeing with air-pollution issues, whether it be carbon dioxide or particulate matter from ships, it's having a great effect on Alaska," Savitz said. "Alaska is in the cross hairs. You would think Alaska would be one of the first states calling for tougher regulations."

plugging into juneau

In Juneau, Mayor Bruce Botelho stopped short of either endorsing or criticizing the EPA proposal but he does want more time to evaluate it. Juneau is widely considered to be the first port in the world to provide shore-side power for cruise ships so they can turn off their engines while in port. It's a model that is being emulated in other ports worldwide.

Botelho said the additional customer on the local power grid helps lower rates for other consumers, and it helps lower smokestack emissions in a city where the number of cruise ship passengers grew from 200,000 in 1990 to in excess of 1 million this year, Botelho said.

One cruise line, Princess, plugs into the municipal system while its ships are docked in Juneau.

The EPA's rule should be final by December. At that time, the EPA plans to issue a rule banning the sale of high-sulfur fuel in U.S. coastal and internal waters beginning in 2012. It also would require that new engines in U.S. ships meet nitrogen oxide controls that match a North American emission control area supported by the U.S. and Canada.

By 2016, the EPA would require that new engines on ships in the regulated area use equipment that cuts nitrogen oxide emissions by 80 percent. Many large vessels, such as cruise ships, emit nitrogen oxides and sulfur oxides that contribute to unhealthy ground-level ozone, acid rain and the particulate matter that leads to hazy skies.

The EPA estimates that by 2020, the total cost of lowering emissions will add up to about $3.2 billion for shipping and cruise lines. That operating increase could raise the cost of transporting a 20-foot container by about $18, the agency estimates.

Find Erika Bolstad online at adn.com/contact/ebolstad or call her in Washington, D.C., at 1-202-383-6104.

ADVERTISEMENT