On August 25, a proposed rule banning the discharge of sewage from cruise ships and many other large oceangoing vessels within three miles of the California shore was signed by United States Environmental Protection Agency Pacific Southwest Regional Administrator Jared Blumenfeld at a press conference held at San Francisco’s Crissy Field.
Jared Blumenfeld, the United States Environmental Protection Agency’s Pacific Southwest Regional Administrator, explains the importance of the EPA’s proposed “no discharge zone” at a press conference on August 25 at San Francisco’s Crissy Field. The rule would prohibit cruise ships and most other large vessels from discharging any sewage within three miles of the California Coast. Photo courtesy of U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
By Bill Picture
Published: October, 2010
Protecting a largely unaware public
“In talking to people, I found that most were surprised we even needed a rule like this,” said David Smith, manager of the EPA’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System. “We see these big ships in our ports, but we don’t think about how their sewage is handled. We certainly don’t assume that it’s being discharged into the water.”
Stricter regulation and better management of land-based municipal sewage discharge and stormwater runoff have greatly improved ocean water quality, but sewage from vessels has never been as closely scrutinized. According to the EPA, which closely monitors the presence of harmful bacteria and viruses in coastal water, the frequent health advisories being issued to California beaches are partially the result of the 25 million-plus gallons of sewage currently being discharged into California marine waters each year.
In 2009, the water at 40 percent of the state’s 434 beaches was found to contain unsafe levels of potentially harmful pathogens. That includes 85 percent of the beaches in the Bay Area. In humans, exposure to these pathogens, particularly at such high levels, can result in symptoms ranging from ear infections and skin rashes to serious digestive problems.
“It’s nasty stuff, and that’s a big concern for surfers and swimmers,” said Smith. “There’s also some evidence that it can be harmful to marine mammals.”
Smaller “no discharge zones” have been created in the past to protect specific areas, such as national marine sanctuaries. Nine of these smaller “no discharge zones” already exist in California, but the EPA’s new rule represents the first time that an entire state’s coastal waters will be protected. The proposed three-mile boundary corresponds to state jurisdiction of waters off the coast of the United States.
This larger application of the federal government’s 33-year-old Clean Water Act is necessary for many reasons, say proponents. Not only does 77 percent of the state’s population live and/or work on or near the coast, its beaches are also California’s primary tourist draw, attracting more than 150 million visitors each year. Protecting those beaches, they say, is both a sound public health decision and a wise economic one for the state.
In a written statement, Linda Adams, California’s Secretary for Environmental Protection said, “Pollution from these ships is a direct threat to our natural resources and the local economies that depend on tourism dollars.”
“The EPA’s ‘no discharge zone’ protects our coastal economy, our environment and our public health,” added State Senator Joe Simitian (D-Palo Alto).
Current laws
Under the current rule, sewage treated onboard may be discharged by large vessels into waters not already protected by an existing “no discharge zone.” That treatment process involves using sewage-eating bacteria to reduce levels of harmful pollutants, then disinfecting the treated sewage with chlorine before discharging it.
Large vessels without the ability to treat sewage onboard must discharge untreated sewage in deeper ocean waters (beyond the three-mile limit). There, ships are moving faster, and untreated sewage is quickly and easily diluted, rendering it less harmful.
“In deeper salt water, the bacteria gets broken down and dies off more quickly,” explains David Smith.
The new rule specifies that all sewage from large vessels (treated or not) must be discharged beyond the three-mile limit, provided the vessel has sufficient sewage holding capacity (defined as two days’ capacity).
“The problem now is, we’re not sure who is obeying the rules and who isn’t,” Smith said. “It’s hard to tell if what’s being discharged is treated or not treated. This new rule will make enforcement much simpler for the Coast Guard.”
That’s especially important now, Smith said, because the scope of the Coast Guard’s responsibility has changed since 9/11 to include a heightened focus on national security. “Once the rule goes into effect, all they have to look for is a plume,” he said. “If they detect one coming from a vessel within the ‘no discharge zone,’ that’s a red flag. It takes a lot of the guess work out of enforcement.”
Recreational vehicles will continue to be required to hold sewage (treated or untreated) until they reach a harbor pump-out station. Large vessels without sufficient holding capacity, meaning they cannot hold sewage until they leave state waters, will continue to be required to treat sewage before discharging it.
The EPA estimates that the new rule will eliminate 80 percent of the treated waste that is now being discharged within the proposed “no discharge zone.”
Industry feedback
One might expect the proposed rule to ruffle a few feathers within the cruise line and shipping industries. But Smith says the feedback has been very positive.
“The cruise ship lines say they’re already complying,” he says. “The others seem to want to do the right thing. They understand why we have to do this, and they support our efforts.”
Another reason for the industry’s support of the proposed rule is that it includes continued exemptions for those large vessels without sufficient sewage holding capacity. Without those exemptions, the shipping companies would have to remove those vessels, many of which are older, from their fleets.
“That exemption won’t apply to most vessels, though,” Smith says. “Our sense is that most have the capacity.”
Looking forward
Once the rule goes into effect, the EPA intends to reach out to those companies affected by the rule to help them understand what is expected and what they need to do to comply.
At the state level, interest has been expressed in developing a means of surveillance that would complement the existing enforcement efforts of the Coast Guard. “Of course, resources are tight right now, so that’s way down the line,” Smith explains.
The EPA also intends to strengthen its efforts to address sewage discharges from smaller vessels. “We felt we needed to narrow our focus for now,” adds Smith. “Focusing on the larger ships, we felt, was a more cost-effective way to make a meaningful difference now.
Health advisories were issued for 85 percent of Bay Area beaches in 2009 due to the presence of unsafe levels of pathogens. Some of these pathogens were discharged into the water by oceangoing vessels. For humans, exposure to these pathogens through swimming or surfing can result in symptoms ranging from skin rashes to digestive problems. Photo courtesy of U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Though EPA water quality standards are largely in place for the protection of humans, studies show that marine mammals, like this sea lion photographed near Crissy Field, can also be negatively affected by pathogens from sewage discharge.
