If Mr. Smith is referring to the Carnival Fantasy and the Carnival Glory, which make the majority of cruise calls on Charleston, both have older, 1990s-era marine sanitation systems that provide minimal treatment of waste. According to a 2008 report by the Environmental Protection Agency, cruise ship sanitation systems perform poorly. In Alaska, 79 out of 80 cruise ship waste samples were out of compliance with state water quality standards. [U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2008. Cruise Ship Discharge Assessment Report] This same report revealed that cruise ship waste had even higher levels of contamination than the raw sewage that flows into municipal sewage plants, which brings us to the next inaccuracy in the op-ed. Smith writes: "In fact, [cruise ships'] sewage handling, treatment and discharge practices not only exceed all legal requirements, but they are safer to our harbor than the handling of treated sewage from our homes that actually is discharged into our harbor." EPA findings conclude that this is incorrect, and for some obvious reasons. Charleston Waterworks Plum Island plant provides secondary treatment of municipal waste, in contrast to only primary treatment of cruise ship wastes on the Fantasy and Glory. Plum Island, like all municipal sewage facilities in the state, is monitored continuously by a team of professional operators. Further, its operations are reviewed monthly and that data is made public by the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control. In sharp contrast, there are no requirements for sampling cruise ship discharges, record-keeping or reporting cruise ship wastewater facility performance. The U.S. Government Accountability Office has found that Coast Guard inspectors assigned to oversee cruise ship operations "rarely have time during the scheduled ship examinations to inspect sewage treatment equipment or filter systems to see if they are working properly and filtering out potentially harmful contaminants." Smith also writes: "Every cruise ship coming to the United States is subject to both international regulation and United States law. Where the rules are not equal, the higher standard prevails." This, again, is false. The international regulations that deal with sewage discharges, called Marpol Annex IV, have not been ratified by the U.S. and are, therefore, not in effect in this country. So while cruise ships are subject to some international regulations, they are exempt from the most important ones -- those that prohibit sewage discharges within twelve miles of shore. It is legal under U.S. regulations to discharge treated sewage in Charleston Harbor and untreated sewage three miles out. Mr. Smith and other SPA board members may feel this provides adequate protection, but we do not. Mr. Smith disputes our assertion that federal environmental regulations for cruise ships have not been revised in decades. He writes, "The Oil Pollution Act of 1990 established further environmental standards. ... Most recently, these ships are now subject to the Environmental Protection Agency's new regulations under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System, which covers more than two dozen discharges." First, as we have suggested, the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 is decades old -- two, to be exact. Second, the new regulations under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System do not cover sewage discharges from cruise ships. Mr. Smith's underlying proposition is that we should simply trust the SPA, which will make more than $7 million in revenues from cruise ship visits in 2010, and the cruise lines to ensure that Charleston's quality of life and environment are not damaged by two, or potentially three, four or five cruise ship visits a week. We believe this is both unrealistic and inequitable. Every other business that operates in Charleston, whether it is a hotel, a restaurant, a carriage company, or a retail store, abides by extensive regulations governing architecture, size of the building, types of activities that can take place, traffic impacts and more. The proprietors and owners of these businesses are honest, hard-working Charleston residents. Nonetheless, the standards they must follow are encoded in legally enforceable ordinances. This is not because we do not trust the businessmen and women in the city. It is because written statutes offer the fairest and most straightforward way to establish a level playing field for everybody while protecting Charleston's history and quality of life. To allow cruise lines, which are neither Charleston-based nor incorporated in the U.S., to operate with impunity, outside of the framework of local controls that apply to other commercial enterprises, is unfair and potentially dangerous to the future of our city. Dana Beach is executive director of the Coastal Conservation League.

Kiawah resident Paul Roberts argues that the best way to improve traffic safety on Johns Island is to build a new road across the middle of the island, through what he describes as "mostly empty land." Roberts fails to understand that this "empty land," with forests, wetlands, pastures and farm fields, is precisely what Johns Island residents have fought to protect over the past three decades. Because of their efforts, and because of the courage of past and present County Councils, the island retains its unique character and history. This may be a blur to some as they cross the island at a minimum of 45 miles per hour, but the island's beauty and authenticity today continue to inspire Johns Islanders, black and white, long-time residents and new arrivals, to oppose the expressway, which Roberts has dubbed a "greenway," with the same passion they brought to earlier protection campaigns. One critical point Roberts fails to mention is that the expressway was deemed to be helpful by the engineering firm LPA for congestion relief only if it is not tolled and if Interstate 526 is extended. Neither of these conditions is certain. Further, the total cost of both projects exceeds half a billion dollars. This begs the question: With the pressing transportation challenges we face in a growing region, is it reasonable, prudent and equitable to devote such a large quantity of transportation funds to saving a few minutes on a trip from Kiawah to Costco, a benefit Roberts recently noted on the Savage Report? Not only is this expressway through "mostly empty land" detrimental to Johns Island, it also has regional consequences. There are many places in Charleston County where more than half of a billion dollars could alleviate traffic congestion, improve safety and invest in infrastructure suitable for supporting slated industrial growth. In a few years, the new Boeing plant will open, with 4,000 new employees; the wind turbine drive train testing facility at the Clemson Restoration Institute will begin operation; spin-off business from both facilities will be in the works; the new port terminal will be complete, and other large projects along I-26 from the Neck to Summerville will come on line. Every morning and evening, thousands of commuters lose time in traffic on the region's most congested interstate. The safety problem on Johns Island is real and Roberts and his allies emphasize the fact that lives have been lost. However, the tragic losses of life on Bohicket and River roads shouldn't be used to advance a road project that is unnecessary and destructive to the community and the environment. Just in the past week we have heard about the recent crackdown on speeding and reckless driving along the stretch of I-26 north of Summerville. For the same reasons, this is precisely the approach needed on Johns Island. According to data from the Department of Public Safety, half of the fatal accidents on Maybank, River or Bohicket Roads from 2004-2009 are due to speeding or driving under the influence. Unfortunately, the desire for this road by its proponents has clouded the safety discussion. This engineering study was set in its trajectory toward an expressway from the beginning: Studying alignments does not suggest in name or intent that safety improvements would be more than a secondary recommendation. Thankfully, County Council elevated these safety proposals to advance the true needs of Johns Islanders rather than the wants of some on Kiawah and Seabrook. Members of County Council chose last Thursday to see Johns Island for what is truly is: a place that residents have chosen to live and worked to protect. Mr. Roberts argues that the expressway saves Johns Island from a path toward development like other congested urban areas. For the families who would lose their land and for residents who have fought to protect Johns Island from development-inducing infrastructure and land use choices, this road does not save Johns Island from anything. The members of County Council have shown that they see the Johns Islanders' vision. Tonight they have the opportunity to respond to the needs of Johns Island residents by making a choice that reflects their future land use plan, echoes the voice of the residents and moves the best option forward. Kate Parks is a project manager for the Coastal Conservation League.

The results of a study looking at plans for a new road that would stretch across Johns Island from the area of the Maybank Highway and River Road intersection to Betsy Kerrison Parkway will be presented Thursday afternoon. The Sea Islands Greenway Preliminary Environmental and Traffic Analysis Concept Study will be presented to Charleston County Council during the 4:15 p.m. Finance Committee meeting, which will be held in council chambers at the Public Services Building, 4045 Bridge View Drive, North Charleston. The public is invited but no comments will be allowed. The meeting can be viewed at www.charlestoncounty.org. Video of the meeting will air on Comcast channel 60 at 7 p.m. Friday. Post and Courier

The S.C. Coastal Conservation League agreed to drop court challenges against the port expansion, according to the deal announced Friday. In return, the port agreed to use cleaner-burning cargo trucks and consider rail service to reduce air pollution from the new site. In a joint announcement, the Conservation League and the Ports Authority said they are comfortable with the settlement after four years of legal wrangling. “This agreement and the forward-looking measures it contains are in the best interest of the citizens, the economy, and the environment of South Carolina,’’ the joint statement said. Jim Newsome, the authority’s chief executive, said the agreement enables his agency to focus on improving and expanding the port. From a business perspective, expanding the port is vital to accommodate bigger container ships, business leaders say. Charleston, home to the state’s largest port operations, has dropped from the nation’s fourth biggest container ship port to ninth during the past 10 years. Shippers want to know they have a place to bring their cargo, Ports Authority spokesman Byron Miller said. Savannah is one of Charleston’s major competitors. Both Charleston and Savannah are already working on harbor-deepening plans. “This sends a message that South Carolina will have capacity well into the future to handle growing global trade,’’ Miller said. “States that have ports are going to be able to grow faster. States that have successful ports are going to be able to take advantage of this global shipping. That’s, obviously, of economic importance.’’ Newsome said plans are to have the expanded port site operational by early 2017. It was originally to open in 2014, but the legal challenges and a down economy pushed that back, according to the Ports Authority. Much of the work done so far is site preparation for the port at the old Charleston Navy base. The port expansion project will cost anywhere from $500 million to $900 million. Charleston’s existing port serves about 700 South Carolina businesses. At one point, the expansion at the North Charleston base was projected to increase port business by about 50 percent. The new North Charleston terminal would be the second largest of the port’s six terminals. Conservation League director Dana Beach said his group agreed to settle lawsuits against the port expansion after receiving assurances the authority would for the first time consider rail service to the new terminal site in North Charleston. Until the league filed suit, the Ports Authority planned to rely on cargo trucks to haul freight from the expansion site – a move that would clog traffic on already jammed Interstate 26, Beach said. That, the league contended, would further pollute the air with truck exhaust in underprivileged communities that have historically suffered from industrial air pollution. The expansion site is in an industrial area peppered with small neighborhoods where some residents complain about asthma and other respiratory ailments. “These are real improvements for people who live around these ports,’’ Beach said. In addition to considering rail service, the authority agreed to install new air pollution monitors and switch to cleaner-burning freight trucks. The authority will begin relying on trucks built after 1994, which are less polluting. Diesel trucks are the concern because the fuel they burn often contributes more to air pollution than standard cars. The trucks to be replaced comprise only about 15 percent of the terminal traffic, but their older engines contribute about one-third of the air pollution from port operations, according to The Associated Press. The Conservation League, in return, will drop four lawsuits challenging the port expansion, Conservation League attorney Blan Holman said. Among other things, the suits claimed South Carolina regulators illegally issued environmental permits for the port expansion that would hurt air and water quality. State regulators approved the expansion before waiting on the results of at least three key environmental studies, league officials have said. Beach said he’s optimistic freight train service will come to the port site because both the CSX and Norfolk Southern railroads are interested. Beach, whose environmental group is the state’s largest, said the settlement shows that the Ports Authority and the league can work together. The two have fought over port expansion plans on two different occasions, dating to the massive “Global Gateway’’ proposal about 10 years ago. That plan was abandoned in favor the smaller expansion at North Charleston. The authority and the league also are at odds today over the increasing number of cruise ship voyages out of Charleston. “This illustrates that the port, by working with its adversaries and citizens in the community, can reach an agreement that is beneficial to everyone,’’ Beach said.

Read more: http://www.thestate.com/2010/08/07/1407797/charleston-port-settlement-announced.html#ixzz0wD7vA1z6