Longhorn
Registered
What is done with the solids taken out of the black water?
filthy cruise ship thread (resurrected)
- Thread starter archman
- Start date
Please register or login
Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.
Benefits of registering include
- Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
- A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
- You can make this box go away
Natasha
Contributor
Longhorn:
Longhorn:
I really don't want to argue this subject. I always try as a moderator, to show both sides of any debate. I have done this in the past with dive operators, that also had threads written about them.
If you have any other questions concerning the cruises lines and their policies concerning these issues, I think you should write to them directly.
Let me know if you need the email addresses or phone numbers.
Natasha
Contributor
Here are two links to Royal Caribbean's policies.
http://www.royalcaribbean.com/content/pdf/fainletter.pdf
http://www.royalcaribbean.com/content/pdf/environmentalreport.pdf
http://www.royalcaribbean.com/content/pdf/fainletter.pdf
http://www.royalcaribbean.com/content/pdf/environmentalreport.pdf
Longhorn
Registered
Natasha:
Man the guns .
Full speed ahead.
Launch the torbedos and sink all the cruise ships.
Great real people. You can whine and complain about this till your blue in the face. Without the cruise ships the Carribean Islands would be alot worse than with a little polution caused be the ships.
There's nothing on the islands. Once you've been to one you've seen them all. The days of Cruise ships dumping are gone. If the cruise ships stopped running the lost of revenue to these Islands would be unbeleivable. They survive by the tourist that come to them. There is no industry to speak of and if there was the envionmentalist would find something to complain about there too. There's no pleasing an enviormentalist. If the world was perfect and all was good they would just shift to some other cause and if there wasn't one they would make one up.
All I can say is ask them how many people have they feed this week. I'll bet the cruise line have feed thousands, most likey tens of thousands. I'll side with the Cruise lines.
Just one mans opinion.
Fred
Full speed ahead.
Launch the torbedos and sink all the cruise ships.
Great real people. You can whine and complain about this till your blue in the face. Without the cruise ships the Carribean Islands would be alot worse than with a little polution caused be the ships.
There's nothing on the islands. Once you've been to one you've seen them all. The days of Cruise ships dumping are gone. If the cruise ships stopped running the lost of revenue to these Islands would be unbeleivable. They survive by the tourist that come to them. There is no industry to speak of and if there was the envionmentalist would find something to complain about there too. There's no pleasing an enviormentalist. If the world was perfect and all was good they would just shift to some other cause and if there wasn't one they would make one up.
All I can say is ask them how many people have they feed this week. I'll bet the cruise line have feed thousands, most likey tens of thousands. I'll side with the Cruise lines.
Just one mans opinion.
Fred
CuriousMe
Guest
....I could be wrong, but I think it's all broken down so that it's all liquid. What you put into them is very regulated....anything besides what comes out of you and toilet paper messes up the system.Longhorn:
I also know that because it's a system that breaks it down with bacteria's and such....we can't use traditional cleaning products but instead ones that won't destroy the biologicals in the system used to break down everything.
Peace,
Cathie
OP
My, how the thread has grown. This is quite nice, personal attacks notwithstanding. This thread was started to foster constructive discussion on the environmental effects of a cruise ships on Caribbean reefs. There is obviously a large amount of emotion involved here, but surprisingly few facts, or at least facts that are believed by the general public. I particularly appreciate the contrasting info Natasha has posted on Royal Caribbean and Princess cruise lines. I would have included them with the original set of links myself, but viewed the material biased as coming direct from the industry at stake. I didnt think that opposing statements by environmental groups would be biased to the same degree, but apparently many of you do, and I apologize for using them. I must admit that after a great deal of looking at both sides, I am perplexed that so much ambiguity still exists regarding the publics views of water quality. This is exemplified a great deal by my thread here, where misinformation or lack of information (from both cruise lines and enviro-groups) drives most debates. Confusion due to wording explains some of the problem, I admit. Coast Guard regulations for example only apply in U.S. waters, while statements about how much garbage a typical cruise ship creates tends to use larger ship sizes as examples and are ambiguous about ultimate disposition (most I believe is properly disposed of).So instead of posting links which you may not or cannot read, Ill use direct quotes instead.
I still find the Canadian policy report the best balanced source online. I find it especially relevant as Canadian environmental policy is on a par or higher than what you find in Caribbean nations. Therefore what you see here is what youd maximally expect in Jamaica, the Caymans, etc.. The U.S. in contrast has the tightest regulations within their waters, or more appropriately within 12 miles of U.S. lands. Enforcement of such regulations is another issue entirely.
http://www.policyalternatives.ca/ns/cruising.pdf
Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives Nova Scotia
March 2003 ISBN: 0-88627-313-7
Cruise Ship Wastes
There are seven main sources of waste from cruise
ships. These include:
Black water is the waste that goes down toilets. A ship produces ten gallons of sewage per passenger per day. The typical ship visiting Halifax produces more than 40,000 gallons of sewage every day. There are no Canadian laws that explicitly control discharge of black water. In the U.S. it is legally discharged three miles from shore. International regulations that would set a 12 mile limit are not yet in effect.19 In spite of U.S. regulations, Regal Empress discharged sewage into the harbour of Portland, Maine, during the 2002 season.20
Grey water is the wastewater that goes down the sink and showers, the wastewater from the galley, and from the spa and beauty parlour. A ship produces 90 gallons of grey water per person per day. The typical ship visiting Halifax produces more
than 360,000 gallons of grey water per day. There are no national or international regulations that control the discharge of grey water. A cruise ship purportedly discharged grey water into the Port of Vancouver during the 2002 season.21 In January 2003, the Carnival ship Ecstasy accidentally discharged grey water while anchored a half mile off Santa Catalina Island (off the west coast of California)
Garbage and solid waste A cruise ship produces
3.5 kilograms of solid waste per passenger every day.23 The typical ship visiting Halifax produced 14,000 kilograms of solid waste every day. Some of this is retained onboard and landed onshore for recycling, some is incinerated, and some (including food waste) is ground and discharged at sea. Because plastics are often incinerated, dioxins, furans, and heavy metals are released into the air. In addition, because the incinerator ash is dumped at sea, there may be particles of plastic included in the discharge, as well as dioxins and other chemicals.
Hazardous waste A typical cruise ship produces 15 gallons of toxic waste every day. These include dry cleaning sludge, photofinishing chemicals, paint waste and solvents, print shop waste, fluorescent lamps and batteries. While the cruise industry has mandatory regulations controlling the discharge of toxic waste, these regulations (promulgated by the International Council of Cruise Lines) do not include monitoring for compliance, nor do they require penalties when they are violated. There continue to be occasional cases where hazardous waste becomes known to have been improperly
handled. In December 2001, Celebrity Cruises Zenith offloaded a 55 gallon drum of hazardous waste at Tampa, Florida, but the drum was not labelled as containing hazardous waste.24 There was no penalty.
Oily bilge A cruise ship produces 7000 gallons of oily bilge water every day. Oily bilge is a combination of the water that collects in the hull of the
ship from condensation, water-lubricated shaft seals, propulsion system cooling, and other engine sources. It contains fuel, oil, wastewater from engines, and may include rags, metal shavings, paint, glass and cleaning agents. If filtered to 10 to 15 parts per million (ppm) of oil, the water can be legally discharged into the ocean. The Regal
Empress discharged 200 gallons of oil into the harbour at Portland, Maine. It paid a fine of US$50025. On the east coast of Canada, 300,000 birds a year are killed by bilge from ships (not only cruise ships).
Ballast water is used by a ship for stability. It will take on ballast to offset the weight of fuel that has been consumed, and for stability during voyages. A cruise ship releases ballast water when it enters ports. Each release can be up to 1000 metric tons of ballast water, literally millions of gallons. Ballast water is a concern because it introduces nonnative species bio-invaders as they are called in a Globe and Mail article27 to areas of discharge. The Government of Canada has recognized the problem and has promulgated federal marine guidelines, but these have been opposed by shipping interests. California legislated a prohibition of release of ballast water into its waters. Since this legislation came into force in 2001, two-thirds of cruise ships have ignored and violated the law.
Diesel exhaust emissions A cruise ship produces roughly the equivalent in exhaust emissions as 12,240 automobiles. A study in Vancouver showed that large ships (not only cruise ships) are responsible for 58 percent of greenhouse gases over the city and 95 percent of sulphur compounds, a major cause of smog and the cause of acid rain A single large ship visiting port could pump out as much sulphur dioxide as 2000 cars and trucks driving all year round.29 Given the experience in Vancouver, Environment Canada plans to monitor emissions in 2003 to assess the amount of sulphur oxide and nitrous oxide going into Halifaxs air. Reduction of both sulphur oxide and nitrous oxide can be easily achieved when ships use low sulphur fuel.
Local Issues: People Pollution
The largest social issue in many places is what may be termed people pollution. The issue of people pollution is not yet an issue in Halifax or other Maritime ports, but established ports are increasingly confronted by the problem. At the extreme are places like Skagway, Alaska, a town of 1200 that can have 10,000 cruise passengers in a day. Juenau, a town of 30,000, similarly has 10,000 passengers or more per day during peak summer months. St. Thomas in the U.S. Virgin Islands can receive as many as 13 cruise ships with more than 20,000 visitors in a single day. On December 26, 2000, Cozumel, Mexico welcomed 16 cruise ships with close to 40,000 passengers. In each of these settings, local residents have a lovehate relationship with the cruise ships.
I still find the Canadian policy report the best balanced source online. I find it especially relevant as Canadian environmental policy is on a par or higher than what you find in Caribbean nations. Therefore what you see here is what youd maximally expect in Jamaica, the Caymans, etc.. The U.S. in contrast has the tightest regulations within their waters, or more appropriately within 12 miles of U.S. lands. Enforcement of such regulations is another issue entirely.
http://www.policyalternatives.ca/ns/cruising.pdf
Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives Nova Scotia
March 2003 ISBN: 0-88627-313-7
Cruise Ship Wastes
There are seven main sources of waste from cruise
ships. These include:
Black water is the waste that goes down toilets. A ship produces ten gallons of sewage per passenger per day. The typical ship visiting Halifax produces more than 40,000 gallons of sewage every day. There are no Canadian laws that explicitly control discharge of black water. In the U.S. it is legally discharged three miles from shore. International regulations that would set a 12 mile limit are not yet in effect.19 In spite of U.S. regulations, Regal Empress discharged sewage into the harbour of Portland, Maine, during the 2002 season.20
Grey water is the wastewater that goes down the sink and showers, the wastewater from the galley, and from the spa and beauty parlour. A ship produces 90 gallons of grey water per person per day. The typical ship visiting Halifax produces more
than 360,000 gallons of grey water per day. There are no national or international regulations that control the discharge of grey water. A cruise ship purportedly discharged grey water into the Port of Vancouver during the 2002 season.21 In January 2003, the Carnival ship Ecstasy accidentally discharged grey water while anchored a half mile off Santa Catalina Island (off the west coast of California)
Garbage and solid waste A cruise ship produces
3.5 kilograms of solid waste per passenger every day.23 The typical ship visiting Halifax produced 14,000 kilograms of solid waste every day. Some of this is retained onboard and landed onshore for recycling, some is incinerated, and some (including food waste) is ground and discharged at sea. Because plastics are often incinerated, dioxins, furans, and heavy metals are released into the air. In addition, because the incinerator ash is dumped at sea, there may be particles of plastic included in the discharge, as well as dioxins and other chemicals.
Hazardous waste A typical cruise ship produces 15 gallons of toxic waste every day. These include dry cleaning sludge, photofinishing chemicals, paint waste and solvents, print shop waste, fluorescent lamps and batteries. While the cruise industry has mandatory regulations controlling the discharge of toxic waste, these regulations (promulgated by the International Council of Cruise Lines) do not include monitoring for compliance, nor do they require penalties when they are violated. There continue to be occasional cases where hazardous waste becomes known to have been improperly
handled. In December 2001, Celebrity Cruises Zenith offloaded a 55 gallon drum of hazardous waste at Tampa, Florida, but the drum was not labelled as containing hazardous waste.24 There was no penalty.
Oily bilge A cruise ship produces 7000 gallons of oily bilge water every day. Oily bilge is a combination of the water that collects in the hull of the
ship from condensation, water-lubricated shaft seals, propulsion system cooling, and other engine sources. It contains fuel, oil, wastewater from engines, and may include rags, metal shavings, paint, glass and cleaning agents. If filtered to 10 to 15 parts per million (ppm) of oil, the water can be legally discharged into the ocean. The Regal
Empress discharged 200 gallons of oil into the harbour at Portland, Maine. It paid a fine of US$50025. On the east coast of Canada, 300,000 birds a year are killed by bilge from ships (not only cruise ships).
Ballast water is used by a ship for stability. It will take on ballast to offset the weight of fuel that has been consumed, and for stability during voyages. A cruise ship releases ballast water when it enters ports. Each release can be up to 1000 metric tons of ballast water, literally millions of gallons. Ballast water is a concern because it introduces nonnative species bio-invaders as they are called in a Globe and Mail article27 to areas of discharge. The Government of Canada has recognized the problem and has promulgated federal marine guidelines, but these have been opposed by shipping interests. California legislated a prohibition of release of ballast water into its waters. Since this legislation came into force in 2001, two-thirds of cruise ships have ignored and violated the law.
Diesel exhaust emissions A cruise ship produces roughly the equivalent in exhaust emissions as 12,240 automobiles. A study in Vancouver showed that large ships (not only cruise ships) are responsible for 58 percent of greenhouse gases over the city and 95 percent of sulphur compounds, a major cause of smog and the cause of acid rain A single large ship visiting port could pump out as much sulphur dioxide as 2000 cars and trucks driving all year round.29 Given the experience in Vancouver, Environment Canada plans to monitor emissions in 2003 to assess the amount of sulphur oxide and nitrous oxide going into Halifaxs air. Reduction of both sulphur oxide and nitrous oxide can be easily achieved when ships use low sulphur fuel.
Local Issues: People Pollution
The largest social issue in many places is what may be termed people pollution. The issue of people pollution is not yet an issue in Halifax or other Maritime ports, but established ports are increasingly confronted by the problem. At the extreme are places like Skagway, Alaska, a town of 1200 that can have 10,000 cruise passengers in a day. Juenau, a town of 30,000, similarly has 10,000 passengers or more per day during peak summer months. St. Thomas in the U.S. Virgin Islands can receive as many as 13 cruise ships with more than 20,000 visitors in a single day. On December 26, 2000, Cozumel, Mexico welcomed 16 cruise ships with close to 40,000 passengers. In each of these settings, local residents have a lovehate relationship with the cruise ships.
OP
This didn't fit on the other post. The recommendation here are quite valid for use in other seaports, be they Canadian, U.S., or a teeny little island nation.
Recommendation: Consider the need for:
1 No discharge zones up to 12 miles from the coast line. This would prevent discharge of sewage (treated and untreated), grey water, oily bilge and ballast, and anything else from the waste stream. It is a reasonable request, but it is in stark contrast to current Canadian law that does not explicitly prohibit discharge of sewage by cruise ships and that has only limited prohibitions applying to garbage.
2 The requirement that air emissions be curtailed when within 12 miles of the port. This would include the use of low sulphur fuel and refraining from using the ships incinerators while in port.
3 Securing the funding and making arrangements so that Halifax has the capability for ships to plug into the local power grid. This would allow a ship to shut down all engines while it is in port. This is available in Juneau and is being explored by both Los Angeles and San Francisco. The cruise industry is likely to argue that these matters are best resolved through a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the cruise industry and the Government of Canada or by Environmental Guidelines. Representatives will argue that MOUs have been agreed to in Hawaii and Florida, and that the terms of these MOUs put into place practices already in place in Alaska. However, left out of this argument is that Alaskas regulations provide for direct monitoring of cruise ship effluents and for enforcement and clear penalties for violations. An MOU does not include provisions for monitoring or for meaningful enforcement. Guidelines are even less enforceable. It is in the interest of local communities to 1) ensure that Canadas ocean environment is protected from the cruise industry by more than voluntary and unenforceable measures; 2) take steps to decree no-discharge zones to areas around and within harbours; and 3) have the Canadian Government promulgate regulations, with the force
of law, that set clear standards for cruise ship discharges to the air and the water and which include regular monitoring for compliance and impose real and significant penalties for non-compliance.
Recommendation: Consider the need for:
1 No discharge zones up to 12 miles from the coast line. This would prevent discharge of sewage (treated and untreated), grey water, oily bilge and ballast, and anything else from the waste stream. It is a reasonable request, but it is in stark contrast to current Canadian law that does not explicitly prohibit discharge of sewage by cruise ships and that has only limited prohibitions applying to garbage.
2 The requirement that air emissions be curtailed when within 12 miles of the port. This would include the use of low sulphur fuel and refraining from using the ships incinerators while in port.
3 Securing the funding and making arrangements so that Halifax has the capability for ships to plug into the local power grid. This would allow a ship to shut down all engines while it is in port. This is available in Juneau and is being explored by both Los Angeles and San Francisco. The cruise industry is likely to argue that these matters are best resolved through a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the cruise industry and the Government of Canada or by Environmental Guidelines. Representatives will argue that MOUs have been agreed to in Hawaii and Florida, and that the terms of these MOUs put into place practices already in place in Alaska. However, left out of this argument is that Alaskas regulations provide for direct monitoring of cruise ship effluents and for enforcement and clear penalties for violations. An MOU does not include provisions for monitoring or for meaningful enforcement. Guidelines are even less enforceable. It is in the interest of local communities to 1) ensure that Canadas ocean environment is protected from the cruise industry by more than voluntary and unenforceable measures; 2) take steps to decree no-discharge zones to areas around and within harbours; and 3) have the Canadian Government promulgate regulations, with the force
of law, that set clear standards for cruise ship discharges to the air and the water and which include regular monitoring for compliance and impose real and significant penalties for non-compliance.
OP
I hesitate to quote additional reports from non government organizations, as many of you seem to be wary or hostile towards them. I will just stick in these two:
March 2004 Bluewater Network http://216.239.51.104/search?q=cach...cruise+ship+nutrient+discharge&hl=en&ie=UTF-8
March 2004 Some Hawaiian article I lost the URL
A fellow scubaboard member tipped me off to this cutesy little link detailing the last 11 years of legal fines and infractions from cruise ships regarding air/water pollution. Keep in mind that these are only within the U.S., where enforcement and regulation is much higher than most other countries. Most of the infractions here are minor, but you can select out all the big boys by clicking a secondary link.
http://www.cruisejunkie.com/envirofines.html
Now for a quick heads-up in tropical ecosystem nutrient levels. I have to drill this into my students once a year, so Ive got it down cold.
It is often overlooked that waters in the tropics are nutrient depauperate. Coral reefs cannot tolerate even minute increases in dissolved nutrient concentrations. Here is what the norm should be:
Nitrogen: 0.014 ppm N or 0.040 ppm
NO3 Phosphorous 0.003 ppm P or 0.007 ppm PO4
Gray water, despite even mammoth treatment, still contains heavy amounts of nutrients, particularly nitrogen types. It is thus unavoidable to pollute a tropical system, unless you have zero discharge of liquid waste. As this is economically impractical, the only alternative is to limit the amount of discharges. Discharge bears direct function to number of people on a boat, so the more people, the more discharge. Cruise ships allow island countries to massively exceed terrestrial carrying capacities. Without managing the number of cruise ships to such areas, your nutrient loads bloom out of control. So long as you have liquid discharges, however free of hazardous waste and pathogens, you still get high dissolved nutrients. Diluting offshore is a partial solution, but cannot sustain itself over the long term. The solution to pollution is dilution was a popular adage coined throughout the 1970s in America, but is now anathema to current thinking. It is unfortunate that this mindset still persists in most demographics.
March 2004 Bluewater Network http://216.239.51.104/search?q=cach...cruise+ship+nutrient+discharge&hl=en&ie=UTF-8
March 2004 Some Hawaiian article I lost the URL
A fellow scubaboard member tipped me off to this cutesy little link detailing the last 11 years of legal fines and infractions from cruise ships regarding air/water pollution. Keep in mind that these are only within the U.S., where enforcement and regulation is much higher than most other countries. Most of the infractions here are minor, but you can select out all the big boys by clicking a secondary link.
http://www.cruisejunkie.com/envirofines.html
Now for a quick heads-up in tropical ecosystem nutrient levels. I have to drill this into my students once a year, so Ive got it down cold.
It is often overlooked that waters in the tropics are nutrient depauperate. Coral reefs cannot tolerate even minute increases in dissolved nutrient concentrations. Here is what the norm should be:
Nitrogen: 0.014 ppm N or 0.040 ppm
NO3 Phosphorous 0.003 ppm P or 0.007 ppm PO4
Gray water, despite even mammoth treatment, still contains heavy amounts of nutrients, particularly nitrogen types. It is thus unavoidable to pollute a tropical system, unless you have zero discharge of liquid waste. As this is economically impractical, the only alternative is to limit the amount of discharges. Discharge bears direct function to number of people on a boat, so the more people, the more discharge. Cruise ships allow island countries to massively exceed terrestrial carrying capacities. Without managing the number of cruise ships to such areas, your nutrient loads bloom out of control. So long as you have liquid discharges, however free of hazardous waste and pathogens, you still get high dissolved nutrients. Diluting offshore is a partial solution, but cannot sustain itself over the long term. The solution to pollution is dilution was a popular adage coined throughout the 1970s in America, but is now anathema to current thinking. It is unfortunate that this mindset still persists in most demographics.
Boogie711
Guest
Try again. The Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives is (surprise) a leftist social-justice think tank, which has recently published articles with such well reasoned titles like (again, no surprise) "What Was The Real Motivation For War On Iraq?," and "Balanced Budget Legislation, Tax Cuts Threaten Prosperity." I would hardly view them as a credible source on ANYTHING, much less environmental policies.
Furthermore, I fail to see what point, if any, you are making about cruise ships in the points you've listed above.
Dead topic. Nothing to see here people. Move on... move on.
Furthermore, I fail to see what point, if any, you are making about cruise ships in the points you've listed above.
Dead topic. Nothing to see here people. Move on... move on.
