Washington state faces open water challenges. Tools to reduce air pollution from ships can cause water pollution. And this winter, for the second year in a row, proposals to untangle that contradiction ran into a deadlock in the Washington Congress.
Semi-retired KUOW reporter Tom Vance recently wrote a piece for Salish Current about this issue. He spoke to KUOW’s Paige Browning about his reporting.
This interview has been edited for clarity.
Paige Browning: This problem involves something called an exhaust scrubber. This is basically used to pressure wash the chimneys and exhausts of large ships, reducing nuisance air pollution. However, you are reporting that this is backfiring. Could you please explain what is happening?
Tom Vance: That’s correct. That’s kind of a conundrum. Basically, ships have two options under international maritime regulations to reduce air pollution. One is to switch to higher-end fuels, which are more expensive but burn cleaner. Another method is to use a scrubber. The problem with scrubbers is that this acidic, toxic wastewater has to go somewhere, usually being flushed overboard.
What Congress is trying to do, encouraged by the local environmental community, is to remove the scrubber option and force everyone to use cleaner-burning but more expensive premium fuels.
Why has it failed so far?
So to speak, we didn’t even leave the port and reach Congress. No vote was taken. Although the support was there, there were two major problems. One was the Port Association, shippers in our state who were still unconvinced that eliminating the scrubber option was a good idea from an aviation regulatory perspective and were vehemently opposed.
Second, the state would need to create a new regulatory division within the state Department of Ecology. It would cost millions of dollars, but state budget writers who were not on board as sponsors put their foot down at the beginning of the session. There is a deficit in the budget, and they will never consider increasing state spending on new programs. I mean, it wasn’t a starter.
Please tell us more about the opinions of port officials and the shipping industry.
They were concerned that the state would make ports less competitive for minimal profits. The problem, especially for the shipping industry, is that they are not convinced that wastewater discharges from scrubber residues are actually causing that much harm.
Now, the environmental community says there are many studies, especially laboratory studies, that show this substance is harmful to the environment. But in a study conducted at a cruise line in Washington state, researchers determined that the harm would be of “minimal environmental impact” after taking water out of the scrubber outlet and seeing how dilution can occur so quickly in a large body of water like Puget Sound. This has given people pause about the increasing costs of the shipping industry, which is considered to have minimal environmental benefits.
And was the study scientifically reviewed?
That’s a very good point. So this was the draft inquiry that Congress had to consider. Like the state Department of Ecology, the environmental community has taken issue with the researchers’ methodology and is calling for the findings to be revisited. Peer review has now begun, and the final paper is probably at least six months away.
What do environmental and salmon conservation groups want to do?
Well, they’re not daunted by setbacks in the state Legislature because they sense greater momentum. And this is truly a global problem. The Alaska State Legislature is also currently grappling with the issue. The ship departs from Seattle, passes through British Columbia, and heads to Asia via Alaska. This is also not allowed in some Asian countries.
So the immediate task in our region is for the Legislature to convene all the participants (environmentalists, ports, shipping companies) over the summer and see if they can rework the bill once again to lower compliance costs and get it through the appropriations committee and pass something in the 2027 legislative session.
As you have reported, our neighbors in California, Oregon, Alaska, and Canada are all involved in this issue. How is Canada faring so far?
This is definitely a transnational issue, as what is thrown into the water in Canada doesn’t stay in Canada, and vice versa. The same stakeholders – ports, environmentalists and shipping companies – are at odds in British Columbia. One difference is that states don’t really have the same role as their side of the border. It’s all because of Transport Canada’s permits.
They announced a year ago that they would ban the discharge of scrubber wastewater in southern resident killer whale habitat. What’s good for us on this side of the border is that we share almost all the water on the Canadian side of the border with us in the Salish Sea.
However, there is currently no implementation schedule. That’s why more consultations are taking place across borders, such as those taking place here this summer. Perhaps at some point this will be resolved with the same answer. But I’m not holding my breath.
Click the play button above to listen to the interview.
