Cruise ships choke peninsula

Cruise ships choke peninsula
Image: White Bay Cruise Terminal. Photo: Port authority of NSW.

BY LANIE TINDALE

The Port Authority of NSW has not published a report into White Bay Cruise Terminal air pollution since January 2018, despite them being expected monthly.

Monthly reports authored by Pacific Environment have been published on the Port Authority website since September 2015. The January report was published this April after City Hub contacted the authority. The reports monitor concentrations of sulphur dioxide (SO2) and particulate matter (PM2.5) on the corner of Grafton and Adolphus streets in Balmain. The reports for February, March and April have not been released.

Inner West councillor for Balmain, John Stamilos said he “is not surprised” the reports have not been consistently published, and that the community “must not accept any report that says there are acceptable levels [of SO2 and PM2.5]”.

A spokesperson for the Port Authority said: “There is no set time by which these air quality reports have to be published but we do our best to make them as timely as possible … we publish as soon as they are ready”.

There is also a live monitoring site available to the public. The January 2018 report did not record concentrations of SO2 or PM2.5 that exceeded the air quality standards.

The White Bay Cruise Ship Terminal has caused controversy since it opened in 2013 to replace the Barangaroo Wharf. In 2015, a NSW Upper House Parliamentary inquiry found that building the wharf in Balmain, “a high density residential area” was a “serious error” because “when sizeable multi-story cruise ships are at berth, emissions from the ship funnels flow directly into homes”.

In October 2015 the state government announced two stages of regulations that would enforce the use of low-sulphur fuel, meaning fuel made up of 0.1 per cent or less of sulphur dioxide. Stage 1 allowed ships to use higher concentrations of fuel for one hour before and after berthing. Both regulations were discovered to be inoperable in June 2016 because of an inconsistency between State and Federal law. In December 2016, the Federal government regulated that ships use 0.1 per cent sulphur fuel while berthed. Ships are still allowed to use fuel with sulphur concentrations of up to 3 per cent while in transit. This fuel is known as bunker fuel.

State MP for Balmain Jamie Parker said that while in transit, “ships are still allowed to burn fuel in Sydney Harbour, which has up to 35 times higher levels of sulphur than the fuel they are required to use in Europe and 3,500 times the level required by Australian diesel cars”.

Federal Member for Grayndler, Anthony Albanese, told City Hub that “all ships operating in Sydney Harbour should be made to adopt the use of low-sulphur fuel, and while the responsibility lies with the NSW Government, as Shadow Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, I will continue to advocate on behalf of the community in order to make this a reality”.

The NSW EPA told City Hub that “[a] review of national ambient air pollutant standards for ozone, nitrogen dioxide (NO2) and sulfur dioxide (SO2) is currently underway. The review is being led by Victoria with input from other states, including NSW”.

Prior to December 2016, the NSW EPA was responsible for enforcing fuel standards on the cruise ships at the White Bay terminal. It is now the responsibility of the Australian Maritime Safety Authority (AMSA).

In February of this year AMSA CEO Mick Kinley told a Federal Senate Estimates hearing that “the sulphur limit for marine fuels [will] be reduced in 2020 from a maximum of three per cent down to 0.5 per cent” across Australia, in line with a global regulation set by the International Maritime Organisation (IMO).

In a statement to City Hub, the Cruise Lines International Association expressed support for this new standard, stating that “the cruise industry actively pursues pragmatic application of global standards via the International Maritime Organization [sic]”.

Federal Labor Senator Malarndirri McCarthy confronted AMSA CEO Mick Kinley during the Senate Estimates hearing, asking “there are a number of unscheduled overnight stays at the White Bay Cruise terminal, often due to bad weather or mechanical issues … Does AMSA monitor whether those cruise ships which have already switched to bunker fuel … switch back to low-sulphur fuel once their departure is delayed?”

Mr Kinley replied that his “understanding is that the operators are very much aware of the requirements in Sydney but he is “never 100 per cent confident” that cruise operators comply with the regulations.

Bulk carrier ship the Indus Fortune was docked at the White Bay Terminal for 18 days from the 25th of March for emergency repairs. Local resident Nazli Munir said that a “low humming noise was throughout our house day in day out for all that time”.

The cruise ships berthed at the White Bay Terminal must run their engines overnight because they cannot access an on shore power source. The 2015 NSW Upper House inquiry recommended that “the White Bay Terminal be retrofitted to include shore to ship power”. In 2017 the Port Authority of NSW conducted a feasibility study, estimating the cost of the retrofit to be $36 million. Maritime Services Minister Melinda Pavey then announced that the NSW government would not pay for the power source.

State MP for Balmain Jamie Parker said that this decision gave “the cruise ship industry… a licence to pollute Sydney’s air at will” and expressed support for White Bay to be retrofitted to include ship to shore power.

Federal Labor member for Grandylr, Anthony Albanese, told City Hub he would “continue to fight for the residents of Balmain to have ship to shore power installed at the White Bay Cruise Terminal.”

Ms Munir expressed frustration with the decision, saying “If they had ship to shore power we wouldn’t have any concerns, there’d be no concern about the fumes and there would be certainly no concern about noise … The frustrating thing is, the cost of installing ship to shore power is insignificant compared to the cost on people’s health”.

Resident and campaigner Kate Horrobin said that “by not implementing shore power, the government clearly signals that they put profits for business above the health of the community”.

Melinda Pavey declined to comment.

You May Also Like

Comments are closed.