Whit Smith’s Aug. 23 op-ed calling for “just the facts” on cruise ships was largely devoid of said facts. Most of his statements were either incorrect or irrelevant. To begin with: “Cruise ships are the most technologically advanced sailing today.”

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.