P.O. Box 1209 Seattle, Washington 98111 www.portseattle.org 206.787.3000 APPROVED MINUTES COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING February 10, 2026 The Port of Seattle Commission met in a regular meeting Tuesday, February 10, 2026. The meeting was held at the Port of Seattle Headquarters Building Commission Chambers, located at 2711 Alaska Way, Seattle Washington, and virtually on Microsoft Teams. Commissioner Mohamed was absent and excused from attendance. Commissioner Hasegawa arrived at 12:59 p.m. 1. CALL to ORDER The meeting was convened at 12:08 a.m. by Commission President Calkins, who led the flag salute. 2. EXECUTIVE SESSION pursuant to RCW 42.30.110 No Executive Session was held. 3. APPROVAL of the AGENDA The agenda was approved as presented without objection. 4. SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY 4a. 2026 Black History Month Proclamation. Requested document(s) included a proclamation. Presenter(s): Preston Tucker, Strategic Aide, Commission Office Martin Doyal, Senior Investigation Specialist, EEO and Professional Standards Darrell Thomas, EDI Training and Engagement Program Manager, Office of Equity, Diversity and Inclusion Clerk Hart read Item 4a into the record. Executive Director Metruck introduced the item. Commission Strategic Aide Preston Tucker introduced representatives from the Port's Employee Resource Group BIG to read the proclamation. Martin Doyal, BIG President, and Darrell Thomas, BIG Vice-President, read the proclamation into the record. Digital recordings of the meeting proceedings and meeting materials are available online - www.portseattle.org. PORT COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 10, 2026 Page 2 of 8 Members of the Commission thanked the proclamation readers and BIG for their representation. Members of the Commission spoke regarding: • taking time to process and appreciate the words of the proclamation - to remember our history; • eraser of Black history by the federal government; • understanding blind spots as an organization; and • remaining committed to equity, diversity, and inclusion at the Port. The motion, made by Commissioner Cho, to adopt the proclamation, carried by the following vote: In favor: Calkins, Cho, and Felleman (3) Opposed: (0) 5. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT Executive Director Metruck previewed items on the day's agenda and made general and meetingrelated announcements. 6. COMMITTEE REPORTS No committee reports were presented. 7. • • • • • • PUBLIC COMMENT The following people spoke regarding a continued pause on the discharge of scrubber wastewater in the Salish Sea: Stacy Oaks; Iris Antman (written comments also submitted); Rein Attemann; Elizabeth Burton; and Kirsten Kane. The following people spoke regarding the closure of Salmon Bay Marina, including the impact of liveaboard residents: Michelle Giarmarco; Natalie Wentworth; and John Chaney (written comments also submitted). The following person spoke regarding her business product, Veluxe pods: Theresaviane Crossman (written comments also submitted). In lieu of spoken comment, the following people submitted written comments asking the Port to reduce the number of cruise sailings due to environmental and human impact: Sarah Christensen and Joanne Donohue. In lieu of spoken comment, the following person submitted written comments asking the Port to work towards a shipping industry that does not pollute either the air or waters and urged the Port to work for a permanent bans of scrubber discharge and for state-level requirements to mandate clean maritime fuels: Brandon Bowersox-Johnson. In lieu of spoken comment, the following people submitted written comments asking the Port to continue the pause on scrubber waste discharge: the South Sound Bird Alliance Conservation Committee; Dr. Robert Hodson, and Gabby Alvira. Minutes of October 27, 2020, submitted for review on November 5, 2020, and proposed for approval on November 10, 2020. PORT COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 10, 2026 Page 3 of 8 [Clerk's Note: Clerk Hart advised that over 315 {*this number was updated upon review and final count, excluding duplicate senders} additional comments were received via form letters on the same topic of continuing the ban on scrubber discharge. A list of names will be compiled and included as part of the public record.] [Clerk's Note: All written comments are combined and attached here as Exhibit A.] 8. CONSENT AGENDA [Clerk's Note: Items on the Consent Agenda are not individually discussed. Commissioners may remove items for separate discussion and vote when approving the agenda.] 8a. Approval of the Regular Meeting Minutes of January 27, 2026. 8b. Monthly Notification of Prior Executive Director Delegation Actions January 2026. Request document(s) included an agenda memorandum for information only. 8c. Commission Adoption of the 2026 International Policy Agenda. Request document(s) included an agenda memorandum and presentation. 8d. Authorization for the Executive Director to Approve Additional Funding in the Amount of $3,300,000 for Completion of the Terminal 91 Berths 6 and 8 Redevelopment Project, to Resolve All Outstanding Contractor Claims, and Advance the Completion of the Two Berths to Allow for Fishing Fleet Use Starting in March 2026. (CIP# C102475, C801350). Request document(s) included an agenda memorandum and presentation. 8e. Commission Determination that a Competitive Process is Not Appropriate or Cost Effective Consistent with Revised Code of Washington 53.19.020(5) and Authorizing the Executive Director to Execute a Contract with the Workforce Development Council of Seattle-King County to Advance Maritime Workforce Recruitment and Case Management through 2028, in the Requested Amount of $200,000 Annually, for a Total Request of $600,000. Request document(s) included an agenda memorandum. 8f. Authorization for Executive Director to Execute an Interlocal Agreement with the Washington State Department of Transportation, Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority, City of Seattle, and King County to Implement the Capacity Building Mentorship Program for the Purpose of Strengthening the Capacity of Small Businesses in Construction and Consulting Projects. Request document(s) included an agenda memorandum, agreement, and presentation. Minutes of October 27, 2020, submitted for review on November 5, 2020, and proposed for approval on November 10, 2020. PORT COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 10, 2026 Page 4 of 8 The motion for approval of consent agenda items 8a, 8b, 8c, 8d, 8e, and 8f carried by the following vote: In favor: Cho, Calkins, Felleman and Hasegawa (4) Opposed: (0) 9. UNFINISHED BUSINESS There was no Unfinished Business presented. 10. NEW BUSINESS 10a. Authorization for the Executive Director to Advertise and Execute a Construction Contract for the Flight Corridor Management Project 2024 in the Requested Amount of $6,000,000, for an Estimated Total Project Cost of $9,700,000. Request document(s) included an agenda memorandum and presentation. Presenter(s): Robert Kikillus, Development Manager, Airfield Operations Marco Milanese, Senior Community Engagement Manager, External Relations Clerk Hart read Item 10a into the record and Executive Director Metruck introduced the item. The presentation addressed: • the requested action to advertise and execute a construction contract for the work; • overview of the Flight Corridor Management Program; and • outreach, engagement, and communications on the project in 2025. Discussion ensued regarding: • confirmation that the other tagged trees in the park were not tagged by the city of Burien and the Port will remove these tags; • timeline for the needed tree removal; • the timeline for removal of the six trees and replanting of the new trees per the Port's tree replacement standards; • all work being completed prior to the end of 2026; • removal of trees waiting until the end of the summer months; • signage about the tree removal; and • working with the city of Burien to understand their communication plan to their community. The motion, made by Commissioner Cho, carried by the following vote: In favor: Calkins, Cho, Felleman, and Hasegawa (4) Opposed: (0) Minutes of October 27, 2020, submitted for review on November 5, 2020, and proposed for approval on November 10, 2020. PORT COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 10, 2026 Page 5 of 8 10b. Order No. 2026-02: An Order of the Port Commission to Increase Transparency and Reporting Standards and Requirements for the Port of Seattle Police Department. Request document(s) included an Order. Presenter(s): Aaron Pritchard, Chief of Staff, Commission Office Francis Choe, Strategic Advisor, Commission Office Clerk Hart read Item 10b into the record and Chief of Staff Aaron Pritchard introduced the item. The presentation addressed elements of the Order to distinguish Port of Seattle Police Department Officers from federal ICE agents. Police Chief Michael Villa thanked the Commission for the Order, noting that it does not negatively reflect on the department and increasing transparency. Chief Villa noted the department's commitment to accomplishing all aspects of the Order. Members of the Commission spoke regarding confusion by the public regarding law enforcement agencies; spoke to real accountability needed by the federal government; and philosophies of policing in the United States, noting the high standards of accountability held by the Port. The main motion was made by Commissioner Hasegawa to adopt Order No. 2026-02. The motion to amend Order No. 2026-02, made by Commissioner Felleman, to amend the title of the Order, to read as follows: "Order No. 2026-02: An Order of the Port Commission Advancing the Port of Seattle's Police Department's commitment to transparency and reporting standards and requirements." carried by the following vote: In favor: Calkins, Cho, Felleman, and Hasegawa (4) Opposed: (0) The main motion, as amended, carried by the following vote: In favor: Calkins, Cho, Felleman, and Hasegawa (4) Opposed: (0) Minutes of October 27, 2020, submitted for review on November 5, 2020, and proposed for approval on November 10, 2020. PORT COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 10, 2026 Page 6 of 8 10c. Introduction of Resolution No. 3844: A Resolution of the Port of Seattle Commission Sunsetting the Ad Hoc Airport Workforce Conditions Committee and Amending the Charter of the Equity and Workforce Development Committee, Previously Adopted by Resolution No. 3770, to Update the Name of the Committee to the 'Equity, Workforce Development, and Conditions Committee,' and to further update the scope of the committee. Request document(s) included an agenda memorandum and draft resolution. Presenter(s): Aaron Pritchard, Chief of Staff, Commission Office Preston Tucker, Strategic Aide, Commission Office Clerk Hart read Item 10c into the record and Chief of Staff Aaron Pritchard introduced the item. Commission Strategic Aide Preston Tucker presented. The presentation addressed the proposed amendments to update the committee's charter, scope and responsibilities, as well as a change to the committee's name to reflect the expanded scope of work. The name of the committee upon adoption of the resolution will be the 'Equity, Workforce Development, and Conditions Committee.' Discussion ensued regarding: • why the AdHoc Committee was originally formed and accomplishments of that committee; and • continuing to work towards healthcare for airport workers under the standing committee. The motion, to introduce Resolution No. 3844, made by Commissioner Hasegawa, carried by the following vote: In favor: Calkins, Cho, Felleman, and Hasegawa (4) Opposed: (0) 11. PRESENTATIONS AND STAFF REPORTS 11a. Commission Committees Briefing: 2025 Accomplishments and 2026 Work Plans. Presentation document(s) included an agenda memorandum and presentation. Presenter(s): Vy Nguyen, Strategic Advisor, Commission Office LeeAnne Schirato, Deputy Chief of Staff, Commission Office Clerk Hart read Item 11a into the record and Executive Director Metruck introduced the item. The presentation addressed accomplishments of the Commission's standing and AdHoc committees in 2025 and the committees' workplans for 2026. Minutes of October 27, 2020, submitted for review on November 5, 2020, and proposed for approval on November 10, 2020. PORT COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 10, 2026 Page 7 of 8 Members of the Commission expressed their appreciation for the committee structure and reporting to the full Commission. Commission Chief of Staff Pritchard recognized all those involved in the committee process. 11b. 2026 External Relations Workplan Briefing. Presentation document(s) included an agenda memorandum, attachment, and presentation. Presenter(s): Pearse Edwards, Senior Director, External Relations Nate Camino, Director, Office of Government Relations Kathrine Fountain, Acting Director, Communications and Marketing Sally del Fierro, Director, Community Engagement Karin Zaugg Black, Manager, International Relations and Protocol Clare Gallagher, Director External Relations Capital Project Delivery Clerk Hart read Item 11b into the record and Executive Director Metruck introduced the item. The presentation addressed: • organization and teams of the External Relations Department; • 2025 Communications Division performance; • 2025 community engagement activities; • 2025 Government Relations highlights; • workplans for External Relations in 2026; • 2026 Communications and Marketing major projects, initiatives, and moments; • 2026 Community Engagement - countywide, aviation, aviation environmental, maritime, and maritime industrial and environmental; • Duwamish Valley engagement and Duwamish Hub utilization, programming, and partnerships; • East King County engagement; • 2026 Government Relations - legislative and policy; • International engagement in 2025 and priorities for 2026; and • highlights of key conferences and events in 2026. Discussion ensued regarding engagement in communication with respect to removal of the trees in Mathison Park; and communicating through External Relations and the Port of Seattle Police Department regarding anti-drugs, guns, and human-trafficking. 12. QUESTIONS on REFERRAL to COMMITTEE and CLOSING COMMENTS Commissioner Hasegawa spoke regarding her sponsorship of two upcoming Orders. Commissioner Felleman spoke regarding the recent influx of scrubber wastewater correspondence. A response will be issued from the Port in this regard. Commissioner Felleman also mentioned the recent SeaTac acquisition application for N. SeaTac Park. Minutes of October 27, 2020, submitted for review on November 5, 2020, and proposed for approval on November 10, 2020. PORT COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 10, 2026 Page 8 of 8 Commissioner Cho reported out on his recent Port trip to India, noting there is a lot for us to work on with India's two largest ports. Commissioner Cho further wished everyone a happy Luner New Year. 13. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 3:34 p.m. Prepared: Michelle Hart Attest: Michelle Hart (Feb 27, 2026 17:13:27 PST) Michelle M. Hart, Commission Clerk Sam Cho, Commission Secretary Minutes approved: February 24, 2026 Minutes of October 27, 2020, submitted for review on November 5, 2020, and proposed for approval on November 10, 2020. 2/10/26, 8:45 AM Inbox - Commission-Public-Records - Outlook Outlook [EXTERNAL] Pacific Environment Comments for Port Commission Meeting 2/10/2026 From Gabby Alvira Date Tue 2/10/2026 8:39 AM To Commission-Public-Records Cc Fern Uennatornwaranggoon 1 attachment (227 KB) 2.10.26 Comment Letter Scrubber Discharge Port of Seattle.pdf; WARNING: External email. Links or attachments may be unsafe. To whom it may concern: Please see the attachment for Pacific Environment's comment letter for general public comment at the Port of Seattle's Commission meeting today February 10, 2026. Best, Gabby Gabby Alvira (she/her) Program Coordinator, Ports Pacific Environment galvira@pacificenvironment.org www.pacificenvironment.org 1012 Torney Ave San Francisco, CA 94129 c. 650-703-8086 Sign up to receive updates from the field https://outlook.office365.com/mail/commission-public-records@portseattle.org/inbox/id/AAQkAGE1YmYzYTk0LWE2N2YtNGZmYi05YjgxLTE5MDVjO... 1/1 February 10th, 2026 Re: Temporary pause on scrubber washwater discharge in Puget Sound Dear Port of Seattle Commissioners: Pacific Environment commends Port of Seattle for its proactive measures to be a good steward of the environment and public health, including the collaborative agreement to pause scrubber wastewater discharge in Puget Sound. Since that decision in 2021, evidence has continued to mount demonstrating the harmful effects of scrubber discharge on marine ecosystem and human health, even threatening critical endangered species like the Southern Resident Killer Whale. We urge the Port to advocate to continue the ban on scrubber discharge, upholding the Port's mission to act in an environmentally responsible manner. Pacific Environment is a global 501(c)(3) public-benefit corporation with a permanent consultative status at the International Maritime Organization (IMO), the United Nations entity that sets international shipping law. Through our Ports for People campaign, we are committed to rapidly eliminating emissions from ports and ships on a 1.5-degree Celsius timeline through action at the international, federal, state and local level. Just last year, Pacific Environment authored a report compiling evidence from multiple peerreviewed studies demonstrating scrubber discharge toxicity to marine and human health. Scrubber wastewater is highly toxic and significantly hotter and more acidic than surrounding waters. Scrubber wastewater contains various pollutants, including heavy metals and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), which are toxic to marine and human health. The toxic effects from scrubber wastewater start at concentrations as low as 0.001% where the wastewater affects the larvae of various species, which can cause cascading effects on the broader marine ecosystem.1 For instance, scrubber discharge contaminants including PAHs, copper, cadmium, lead and mercury, are all priority contaminants for Chinook salmon, the primary prey of Southern Resident Killer Whales (SRKW), threatening salmon populations and therefore SRKW prey availability. In a report issued by the Canadian agency Environment and Climate Change Canada, they estimated that 40-98% of the loading of these priority contaminants came from marine vessel scrubbers, in close range of SRKW critical habitat. 2 The PAHs and heavy metals in scrubber discharge are especially worrisome given their ability to 1Magnusson, K., & Granberg, M. (2022). Evaluation, control and Mitigation of the EnviRonmental impacts of shippinG Emissions (EMERGE): D2.3. Report on scrubber water whole effluent toxicity testing, at different geographical regions. https://www.ivl.se/download/18.5ae47fd818530c6f06024d0a/1676036161374/D2.3.%20%E2%80%9CReport%20o n%20scrubber%20water%20whole%20effluent%20toxicity%20testing,%20at%20different%20geographical%20regi ons%E2%80%9D.pdf 2 Government of Canada, Response to USMCA submission SEM-23-007 (Vessel Pollution in Pacific Canada) (12 April 2024), online at . bioaccumulate and tendency to persist in the environment.3,4 Additionally, heavy metals biomagnify in species, which not only affects marine species higher up in the food chain, but also humans that consume contaminated seafood.5 With the impending release of the industry sponsored study on scrubber discharge, we urge the Port to listen to the overwhelming evidence documenting scrubber discharge's toxic effects on marine ecosytems and human health. The 2021 agreement to pause all scrubber discharge in the Puget Sound was the right decision to protect our ocean and communities and we urge the Port to use its influence to maintain the ban. Sincerely, Gabby Alvira Program Coordinator, Ports Pacific Environment 3Abdel-Shafy, H. I., & Mansour, M. S. M. (2016). A review on polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons: Source, environmental impact, effect on human health and remediation. Egyptian Journal of Petroleum, 25(1), 107-123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejpe.2015.03.011 4Wang, H., Huang, X., Kuang, Z., Zheng, X., zhao, M., Yang, J., Huang, H., & Fan, Z. (2023). Source apportionment and human health risk of PAHs accumulated in edible marine organisms: A perspective of "source-organismhuman." Journal of Hazardous Materials, 453, 131372. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2023.131372 5Endres, S., Maes, F., Hopkins, F., Houghton, K., Mårtensson, E. M., Oeffner, J., Quack,B., Singh, P., & Turner, D. (2018). A New Perspective at the Ship-Air-Sea-Interface: The Environmental Impacts of Exhaust Gas Scrubber Discharge. Frontiers in Marine Science, 5. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2018.00139 2/9/26, 12:00 PM Inbox - Commission-Public-Records - Outlook Outlook [EXTERNAL] Environmental stewardship this Tuesday From Brandon Bowersox-Johnson Date Sat 2/7/2026 2:44 PM To Commission-Public-Records WARNING: External email. Links or attachments may be unsafe. Dear Port Commissioners, You work hard to be environmental stewards, and this week is a big opportunity for impact. I urge you to fight hard to keep the current pause on dumping toxic scrubber pollution into the Salish Sea. Please, for the sake of my son and future generations, keep the scrubber discharge pause in place. I heard that Carnival Cruise funded a report and claims scrubber pollution has no impact on marine ecosystems. That's obviously false industry propaganda that neither Ecology nor the scientific consensus would agree with. Don't fall for it. Please work towards a shipping industry that does not pollute either our air or our waters. Please work for permanent bans of scrubber discharge and for state-level requirements to mandate clean maritime fuels. Thanks for your service. Brandon Bowersox-Johnson, Bremerton, WA https://outlook.office365.com/mail/commission-public-records@portseattle.org/inbox/id/AAQkAGE1YmYzYTk0LWE2N2YtNGZmYi05YjgxLTE5MDVjO... 1/1 2/9/26, 12:26 PM Inbox - Commission-Public-Records - Outlook Outlook [EXTERNAL] Take Action to Reduce Cruise Harms! From Sarah Christensen Date Mon 2/9/2026 12:22 PM To Commission-Public-Records WARNING: External email. Links or attachments may be unsafe. Commission_Testimony Port Meeting, Dear Port Commissioners and staff, I urge you to take immediate action to reduce the harms caused by Seattle's cruise sector. Giant cruise ships pollute our waters and air, endanger our health and our climate, exploit onboard workers, and overwhelm destination communities. I urge the Port of Seattle to take the following actions: 1) Annually reduce the number of sailings, until there is zero water, air and climate pollution. The "Green Cruise Corridor" is a plan that may eventually reduce emissions; however, we need to start now! 2) Lobby the WA state legislature to expand the mission of WA ports to include stewardship. The Port should advocate to update state law so that ports are no longer mandated to continually grow business at the expense of the environment and our health. The current mission is obsolete and dangerous in light of the climate and environmental crises we now face. 3) Implement the emissions reduction timetable in the proposed U.S. Clean Shipping Act, which would end emissions from all ships by 2040 and would also electrify ports to stop health-harming pollution. The "Greenest Port in North America'' should lead the way, raising the bar for all US vessels. 4) Reject false solutions and speak out publicly about the need for true solutions. LNG from fracked gas has been proven to be as bad or worse for the climate than traditional fuels, yet cruise companies sailing out of Seattle make claims that LNG cruise ships are environmentally friendly. Engine "scrubbers" that turn air pollution into water pollution should not be allowed along the Seattle-Alaska cruise route; instead of using scrubbers, cruise companies could simply pay for a higher grade of available fuel. "Net zero" and "carbon neutral" are goals that allow climate pollution to continue and are not consistent with keeping global warming below 1.5 degrees - we need actual zero emissions vessels and targets. 5) Conduct discussions, goals, studies, and presentations about the cruise sector in an unbiased way. When economics are discussed, there should be a transparent breakdown of the purported financial benefit to our region, AND a breakdown of negative costs caused by the industry https://outlook.office365.com/mail/commission-public-records@portseattle.org/inbox/id/AAQkAGE1YmYzYTk0LWE2N2YtNGZmYi05YjgxLTE5MDVjO... 1/2 2/9/26, 12:26 PM Inbox - Commission-Public-Records - Outlook directly, the costs of worsening the climate crisis, and by its adverse impacts on human health. Emissions from the flights associated with cruise passengers, and from the ships' entire journeys, should be counted in the greenhouse gas inventories. Environmental accomplishments, such as shore power, must be framed in the context of total emissions/pollution generated to give a true picture of their effectiveness. Acknowledge the four billion gallons of water pollution annually dumped along the SEA-AK route. 6) Work in collaboration to support regional solutions that could reduce harm immediately. The entire Seattle-Alaska route should be a "no discharge zone," to stop the dumping of sewage, toxic engine scrubber waste, garbage, oily bilge water, and greywater. Support state legislation to prohibit the use of high-sulfur marine fuel; this would eliminate the need for scrubbers. The "Alaska Rangers" onboard observer program needs to be funded by passenger fees, and expanded to enforce environmental regulations along the entire route. The destructive impacts of cruises are enormous and fundamental to the industry's business model: cruise profits depend directly upon externalizing the costs of pollution and exploitation. Seattle should lead the way for all North American ports to immediately reduce harms, while exploring ways to equitably transition away from this devastating form of toxic tourism. Please consider this to be a written comment as part of public comment at the next Port Commission meeting. Sarah Christensen schrtnsn@gmail.com Seattle, Washington 98109 https://outlook.office365.com/mail/commission-public-records@portseattle.org/inbox/id/AAQkAGE1YmYzYTk0LWE2N2YtNGZmYi05YjgxLTE5MDVjO... 2/2 2/9/26, 12:09 PM Mail - Commission-Public-Records - Outlook Outlook [EXTERNAL] Take Action to Reduce Cruise Harms! From Joanne Donohue via email.actionnetwork.org Date Sun 2/8/2026 1:03 PM To Commission-Public-Records WARNING: External email. Links or attachments may be unsafe. Commission_Testimony Port Meeting, Dear Port Commissioners and staff, I urge you to take immediate action to reduce the harms caused by Seattle's cruise sector. Giant cruise ships pollute our waters and air, endanger our health and our climate, exploit onboard workers, and overwhelm destination communities. I urge the Port of Seattle to take the following actions: 1) Annually reduce the number of sailings, until there is zero water, air and climate pollution. The "Green Cruise Corridor" is a plan that may eventually reduce emissions; however, we need to start now! 2) Lobby the WA state legislature to expand the mission of WA ports to include stewardship. The Port should advocate to update state law so that ports are no longer mandated to continually grow business at the expense of the environment and our health. The current mission is obsolete and dangerous in light of the climate and environmental crises we now face. 3) Implement the emissions reduction timetable in the proposed U.S. Clean Shipping Act, which would end emissions from all ships by 2040 and would also electrify ports to stop health-harming pollution. The "Greenest Port in North America'' should lead the way, raising the bar for all US vessels. 4) Reject false solutions and speak out publicly about the need for true solutions. LNG from fracked gas has been proven to be as bad or worse for the climate than traditional fuels, yet cruise companies sailing out of Seattle make claims that LNG cruise ships are environmentally friendly. Engine "scrubbers" that turn air pollution into water pollution should not be allowed along the Seattle-Alaska cruise route; instead of using scrubbers, cruise companies could simply pay for a higher grade of available fuel. "Net zero" and "carbon neutral" are goals that allow climate pollution to continue and are not consistent with keeping global warming below 1.5 degrees - we need actual zero emissions vessels and targets. 5) Conduct discussions, goals, studies, and presentations about the cruise sector in an unbiased way. When economics are discussed, there should be a transparent breakdown of the purported https://outlook.office365.com/mail/commission-public-records@portseattle.org/inbox/id/AAQkAGE1YmYzYTk0LWE2N2YtNGZmYi05YjgxLTE5MDVjO... 1/2 2/9/26, 12:09 PM Mail - Commission-Public-Records - Outlook financial benefit to our region, AND a breakdown of negative costs caused by the industry directly, the costs of worsening the climate crisis, and by its adverse impacts on human health. Emissions from the flights associated with cruise passengers, and from the ships' entire journeys, should be counted in the greenhouse gas inventories. Environmental accomplishments, such as shore power, must be framed in the context of total emissions/pollution generated to give a true picture of their effectiveness. Acknowledge the four billion gallons of water pollution annually dumped along the SEA-AK route. 6) Work in collaboration to support regional solutions that could reduce harm immediately. The entire Seattle-Alaska route should be a "no discharge zone," to stop the dumping of sewage, toxic engine scrubber waste, garbage, oily bilge water, and greywater. Support state legislation to prohibit the use of high-sulfur marine fuel; this would eliminate the need for scrubbers. The "Alaska Rangers" onboard observer program needs to be funded by passenger fees, and expanded to enforce environmental regulations along the entire route. The destructive impacts of cruises are enormous and fundamental to the industry's business model: cruise profits depend directly upon externalizing the costs of pollution and exploitation. Seattle should lead the way for all North American ports to immediately reduce harms, while exploring ways to equitably transition away from this devastating form of toxic tourism. Please consider this to be a written comment as part of public comment at the next Port Commission meeting. Joanne Donohue sailorjd@msn.com Seattle, Washington 98112 https://outlook.office365.com/mail/commission-public-records@portseattle.org/inbox/id/AAQkAGE1YmYzYTk0LWE2N2YtNGZmYi05YjgxLTE5MDVjO... 2/2 2/10/26, 8:19 AM Inbox - Commission-Public-Records - Outlook Outlook [EXTERNAL] banning scrubbers From Robert Hodson Date Mon 2/9/2026 4:35 PM To Commission-Public-Records 2 attachments (226 KB) Port of Seattle Scubber Ban.pdf; Port of Seattle Scubber Ban.pdf; WARNING: External email. Links or attachments may be unsafe. Port of Seattle Commissioners, I respectfully request that the Port of Seattle ban all scrubber discharges within Port-controlled waters. Please see the attached letter justifying this request. Thank you for your consideration, Dr. Robert Hodson https://outlook.office365.com/mail/commission-public-records@portseattle.org/inbox/id/AAQkAGE1YmYzYTk0LWE2N2YtNGZmYi05YjgxLTE5MDVjO... 1/1 Commissioners of the Port of Seattle via email: commission-public-records@portseattle.org RE: Request to Ban Scrubber Discharge to Protect Seattle's Public Health, Marine Environment, and Economy Dear Port of Seattle Commissioners, I am writing to urge the Port of Seattle to implement an immediate ban on the use of Exhaust Gas Cleaning Systems (scrubbers) within port waters. This has been an area of research for me and I want to share some of what I have learned so you can make an informed decision. While scrubbers were intended to mitigate air pollution, current data reveals they have created a "pollution shell game" - transferring toxic chemicals from the air into our water, at a massive cost to our public health and regional economy. The Port of Seattle prides itself on being environmentally aware (e.g. shore power) but allowing scrubber discharge creates a significant environmental and economic liability. A recent study in the Baltic Sea has quantified the marine damage from scrubbers at over $730M. In Seattle, the marine economy driven by shellfish harvesting, commercial fishing, and tourism-depends entirely on water quality. ● Externalizing Costs: Shipowners who use scrubbers save millions by burning cheap, heavy fuel oil (HFO), but they externalize the cleanup costs onto the public. Most ships have already recouped their initial scrubber investment; there is no longer a financial justification for allowing them to dump toxic waste into our harbor. ● Protecting Local Industry: Scrubber discharge is 100,000 times more acidic than seawater and contains heavy metals that accumulate in the food chain. It should also be noted that cruise industry studies neglect toxin bioaccumulation that affects the health of marine life including the Orca - Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) accumulation has already been detected. PAHs and lead to deformities, reduce survival rates, and lead to reproductive disruption, and developmental delays. This directly threatens the salmon and shellfish industries that provide thousands of jobs. The industry also takes credit for double buffering (pre-diluting wastewater) to make measurements more acceptable and used fuel with a sulfur content less than regulations allow. Industry funded studies are a conflict of interest, and the goal of safeguarding marine life and Seattle's seafood economy is highly suspect. The environmental damage from shipping is not confined to the water. The widespread use of Heavy Fuel Oil (HFO)-often described as the "dirtiest type of fuel"-by large commercial vessels creates significant air quality and public health risks for those who live and work in and around our port communities. The combustion of HFO is a primary vector for several harmful air pollutants with well-documented consequences for public health. The primary health concern is from fine particulate matter (PM2.5). These microscopic particles, smaller than a dust mote, can penetrate deep into the lungs and enter the bloodstream. Exposure to these particles is linked with cardiovascular disease, cancer, brain atrophy, Alzheimer's disease, and birth defects, as they can potentially cross the placenta and affect a developing fetus. One study showed that exposure to high levels of fine particulate in the third trimester of pregnancy was associated with 42% increased stillbirth risk. The EPA estimates that fine particulates are responsible for over 90% of air pollution-related health damages in the U.S. Comparison of Heavy Fuel Oil (HFO) to cleaner Marine Gas Oil (MGO) Long-term exposure to this combination of air pollutants creates a substantial public health burden for port communities. According to a major study by the International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT), approximately 1,200 premature deaths annually in the United States are attributed to ship pollution. This transfers the significant economic burden of these public health crises from the polluters directly onto the taxpayers. California and Connecticut have already recognized that "turning air pollution into water pollution" is an unacceptable trade-off. According to a 2023 report, 93 measures across 45 countries have been implemented to regulate or ban the use of ship scrubbers, recognizing that transferring pollution from the air to the water is not a sustainable solution. This is a global trend; to maintain its status as an environmental leader, Seattle must follow suit. We should not subsidize the shipping industry's fuel costs with our collective health and the health of our marine environment. I look forward to seeing the Port take the necessary steps towards a fair solution that holds the cruise industry accountable for well-documented detrimental impacts of air and water pollution. I respectfully request that the Port of Seattle ban all scrubber discharges within Portcontrolled waters. Sincerely, Dr. Robert Hodson 2/20/26, 8:43 AM Disposed of - Commission-Public-Records - Outlook Outlook [EXTERNAL] Scrubber Wash Pollution will destroy the Salish Sea From JoAnn Locktov Date Mon 2/9/2026 7:59 AM To Commission-Public-Records WARNING: External email. Links or attachments may be unsafe. Clerk of Port_Seattle, The Port of Seattle is a leader in green practices: from installing shore power and establishing a green corridor to prohibiting scrubber wash discharge while cruise ships are at berth. To lift the current scrubber wash "pause" would make a mockery of the port's commitment to keep the residents of Seattle and the marine ecosystem as healthy as possible, while welcoming the cruise industry. If anything, it is time to make the "pause" permanent. We have the scientific evidence, which you are well aware of. A study by the industry that perpetuates the pollution is not credible, we know that from the entire fossil fuel industry. The Carnival study, which your own Department of Ecology questions, should not be accepted as evidence that scrubber wash is not harmful. Over 45 countries disagree with that conclusion. In Portland, Maine, we look to Seattle for your stewardship. Please continue to lead ports throughout the country by demonstrating that your first concern is to the residents of Seattle and the irreplaceable marine ecosystem of the Salish Sea. respectfully submitted, JoAnn Locktov Portland Cruise Control JoAnn Locktov jlocktov@gmail.com Portland, Maine 04101 https://outlook.office365.com/mail/commission-public-records@portseattle.org/id/AAQkAGE1YmYzYTk0LWE2N2YtNGZmYi05YjgxLTE5MDVjOGU1ZT... 1/1 2/5/26, 12:19 PM Inbox - Commission-Public-Records - Outlook Outlook [EXTERNAL] Please Keep Scrubber Pollution Out of the Salish Sea! From James Little Date Thu 2/5/2026 11:08 AM To Commission-Public-Records WARNING: External email. Links or attachments may be unsafe. Clerk of Port_Seattle, I am concerned that cruise companies whose ships visit Seattle may soon seek to withdraw from the voluntary agreement to pause the discharge of toxic scrubber emissions into our local waters. I urge you to do everything in your power to ensure the current agreement stays in place. I expect the Port to use all available tools - both carrots and sticks - to keep the scrubber discharge pause in place. There are more than 90 scrubber wash bans and restrictions in place around the world, to protect water quality, marine life, public health, and local ocean economies. Our water - and its inhabitants - is irreplaceable. Carnival Cruise commissioned and financed a report that claims to show that scrubber discharge has no impact on the marine environment of Puget Sound. Importantly, the Washington Department of Ecology does not fully agree with the report's results, and there is substantial recent scientific evidence demonstrating the toxicity and harm of this pollution. Also of note: Carnival Corporation has a 50-year history of felony convictions for environmental crimes, including multiple instances of falsifying evidence and over 700 probation violations. Carnival's report appears to be an example of industry-funded studies, which are designed to produce a specific result, in order to allow harmful behavior to continue. The heavy metals and other toxins present in scrubber discharges can be absorbed and ingested by marine life, from plankton to salmon to orcas. These contaminants accumulate in organisms and persist and multiply as they move up the food chain. Scrubber waste is up to 100,000 times as acidic as surrounding seawater, and discharging it exacerbates ocean acidification, which is already harming the Salish Sea. In addition, the marine life in the millions of gallons of seawater pulled up by the scrubber's incredibly powerful intake pumps is unlikely to survive its trip through the scrubber. Larger fish are crushed against the filter, while plankton are sprayed into a hot, acidic chamber, full of toxic gases. Ships burning heavy fuel oil with scrubbers emit more air pollution - specifically, more black carbon - than those using low-sulfur fuels, worsening human health issues like asthma, cardiovascular disease, and cancer. Further, Washington residents and visitors are at risk for ingesting the heavy metals and toxins that accumulate in marine animal tissues as they sit down for their next seafood meal. https://outlook.office365.com/mail/commission-public-records@portseattle.org/inbox/id/AAQkAGE1YmYzYTk0LWE2N2YtNGZmYi05YjgxLTE5MDVjO... 1/2 2/5/26, 12:19 PM Inbox - Commission-Public-Records - Outlook According to the Washington Department of Commerce, our state's marine economy brings in over $24 billion per year. This economy depends on clean, productive waters, not end-of-pipe workarounds that externalize pollution costs onto fishing communities. Maintaining the discharge ban helps protect our working waterfronts. I understand that the Port cannot force cruise companies to continue this voluntary scrubber discharge pause, but ports have an obligation to prevent local environmental harm. Please do everything in your power to protect our waters, marine life, public health, and our region's economy by ensuring that we keep toxic scrubber pollution out of the Salish Sea. I am submitting this as a written comment for the upcoming Port Commission meeting. James Little littlejamesw@gmail.com Seattle, Washington 98105 https://outlook.office365.com/mail/commission-public-records@portseattle.org/inbox/id/AAQkAGE1YmYzYTk0LWE2N2YtNGZmYi05YjgxLTE5MDVjO... 2/2 2/5/26, 12:18 PM Inbox - Commission-Public-Records - Outlook Outlook [EXTERNAL] Please keep toxic scrubber pollution out of the Salish Sea From Cheryl Biale Date Thu 2/5/2026 11:46 AM To Commission-Public-Records WARNING: External email. Links or attachments may be unsafe. Dear Seattle Port Commissioners, I am submitting this as a written comment for the upcoming Port Commission meeting on February 10, 2026 The Port's strong commitment and ethos to environmental responsibility and sustainability is commendable and I expect the Port of Seattle to keep the voluntary scrubber discharge agreement with the cruise industry in place. There are more than 90 scrubber wash bans and restrictions in place around the world, to protect water quality, marine life, public health, and local ocean economies. Our water - and its inhabitants - is irreplaceable. I am concerned that the cruise companies whose ships visit Seattle may soon try to withdraw from the voluntary agreement to pause the dumping of toxic scrubber pollution into the Puget Sound. Recently, Carnival Cruise commissioned and financed a report that claims to show that scrubber discharge has no impact on the marine environment of Puget Sound. Importantly, the Washington Department of Ecology does not fully agree with the results of the report, and there is a huge body of recent scientific work that shows how toxic and harmful this pollution is. The heavy metals and other toxins present in scrubber discharges can be absorbed and ingested by marine life, from plankton to salmon to orcas. These contaminants accumulate in organisms and persist and multiply as they move up the food chain. Scrubber waste is up to 100,000 times as acidic as surrounding seawater, and discharging it exacerbates ocean acidification, which is already harming the Salish Sea. In addition, the marine life in the millions of gallons of seawater pulled up by the scrubber's incredibly powerful intake pumps is unlikely to survive its trip through the scrubber. Larger fish are crushed against the filter, while plankton are sprayed into a hot, acidic chamber, full of toxic gases. Ships burning heavy fuel oil with scrubbers emit more air pollution - specifically, more black carbon than those using low-sulfur fuels, worsening human health issues like asthma, cardiovascular disease, and cancer. Further, Washington residents and visitors are at risk for ingesting the heavy metals and toxins that accumulate in marine animal tissues as they sit down for their next seafood meal. According to the Washington Department of Commerce, our state's marine economy brings in over $24 billion in revenue per year. This economy depends on clean, productive waters, not end-of-pipe workarounds that externalize pollution costs onto fishing communities. Maintaining the discharge ban helps protect our working waterfronts. https://outlook.office365.com/mail/commission-public-records@portseattle.org/inbox/id/AAQkAGE1YmYzYTk0LWE2N2YtNGZmYi05YjgxLTE5MDVjO... 1/2 2/5/26, 12:18 PM Inbox - Commission-Public-Records - Outlook I understand that the Port cannot force cruise companies to continue this voluntary scrubber discharge pause, but ports have an obligation to prevent local environmental harm. Please continue to implement efforts to protect our waters, marine life, public health, and our region's economy by ensuring that we keep toxic scrubber pollution out of the Salish Sea. https://outlook.office365.com/mail/commission-public-records@portseattle.org/inbox/id/AAQkAGE1YmYzYTk0LWE2N2YtNGZmYi05YjgxLTE5MDVjO... 2/2 2/9/26, 2:26 PM Mail - Commission-Public-Records - Outlook Outlook [EXTERNAL] SHIP SCRUBBER EXHAUST WATER HARMS AQUATIC LIFE From South Sound Bird Alliance Gneiding Date Mon 2/9/2026 9:09 AM To Commission-Public-Records WARNING: External email. Links or attachments may be unsafe. Clerk of Port_Seattle, The South Sound Bird Alliance (SSBA) strongly encourages the Port Commission to exert pressure on the cruise ship industry to keep the voluntary discharge pause in place. In contrast to the single Carnival Cruise study, there are a multitude of studies contradicting their results - ship scrubber exhaust water is highly toxic to the marine ecosystem. Toxicants such as polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), volatile organic chemicals (VOC, e.g., benzene) and heavy metals, many of which are known or potential human and wildlife carcinogens, are present in the discharge water. Additionally, these chemicals are known to bioaccumulate in the foodchain and are persistent in the environment with half-lives ranging up to three years (Jőnander et al., 2023). Thus, these chemicals will contribute to both adverse effects and the bioaccumulation in both aquatic biota and humans (contact and ingestion of seafood) in areas near ports. It should be noted that studies indicate that the chemicals in the scrubber water may have synergistic effects (e.g., Li et al., 2022). known adverse effects from a few of these studies are listed below. In summary, concentrations less than 1% have been shown to adversely affect aquatic biota (bacteria, algae, small crustacea, and fish) that form the basis of the foodchain and would thus, affect the entire foodchain, including humans. Therefore, we ask that the discharge pause continue until regulations can be put in place. Respectfully, South Sound Bird Alliance Conservation Committee Laurie Gneiding MSc. Toxicology, CEP Betsy Norton Charlotte Persons SCRUBBER WATER ADVERSE EFFECTS (Hassellőv, 2023, Rudén 2019, Geneitsaris et al., 2023, Jőnander et al., 2023, Hermansson et al., 2025, Zapata-Restrepo & Williams, 2025) • Copepod mortality within minutes @80-100% concentration https://outlook.office365.com/mail/commission-public-records@portseattle.org/ 1/3 2/9/26, 2:26 PM Mail - Commission-Public-Records - Outlook • At 1% concentration: o Reduced survival o Reduced feeding rates o Delayed development/molting • Diatom acute population decline within first 24 hr at a concentration of 1% v/v • Reduced o copepod survival at 1.5% CLSW o molting in copepods at 0.1% CLSW • Acute/chronic (A/C) species sensitivity distribution curve from exposure to CLSW from various studies at various concentrations and distances at/from discharge point: o 0.007% A/C = 8/20 o 0.01% A/C = 9/22 o 0.001-0.1% A/C = 2-9/10-22 o 4-6% A/C = 60-65/78-80 o 0.01-0.1 A/C = 10-24/22-42 (< 1km) o 0.01-0.1 A/C = 24-46/42-65 (>1km) o 0.0005-0.003 A/C = 1-5/8-15 o 0.0002-0.0004 A/C = ~1/5-7 o 0.00002-0.002 A/C = <1%) on fertilization success and larval development in blue mussels and sea-urchins. ADVERSE EFFECTS FROM SCRUBBER WATER CONTAMINANTS *Sulfur dioxides/Nitrogen dioxides: Increased ocean acidification (Kuitten 2024) *Polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs)(Ji et al., 2022) • A concentration of 22.81 μg/L resulted in an effects concentration for 50% of the animals (EC50)of 4.8% of green algae • The 7-day lethal concentration for 50% of the crustacean and gobyfish tested (LC50) was 3.57% and 20.50%, respectively. *Particulates (Pope&Dockery 2006, Gondikas 2025) • Cardiovascular mortality. • Metal/PAH-contaminated particles (nano to micro size) impacting benthic organisms * Metals (sulfur, vanadium, iron, nickel, Chromium, titanium)(Jőnander et al., 2023, Ji et al., 2022) • Nickel @ 10μg/L in 0.3% CLSW reduced o hatching success marine plankton o nauplii production of copepods • Copper at 30 μg/L reduced copepod egg production • A concentration of 23.67 μg/L resulted in an EC50 of 4.8% of green algae REFERENCES Geneitsaris, S, P Kourkoutmani, N Stefanidou, E Michaloudi, M Gros, E Garcia-Gomez, M Petrovic, L Ntziachristos, M Moustake-Gounid, 2023. Effects from maritime scrubber effluent on phytoplankton and bactierioplankton communities of a coastal area, Eastern Mediterranean Sea. Ecological Informatics 77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoinf.2023.102154 https://outlook.office365.com/mail/commission-public-records@portseattle.org/ 2/3 2/9/26, 2:26 PM Mail - Commission-Public-Records - Outlook Gondikas, A, K. Mattsson, M. Hassellőv, 2025. A new form of hazardous microparticulate contaminated to the marine environment from ships using heavy fuel oil with exhaust gas scrubbers - Characterization and implications for fate, transport and ecotoxicity. Science of the Total Environment 959(10). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2024.178263 Hassellőv, I-M. Scrubber Technology: Bad News for the Marine Environment. Regulation of Risk - Transport, Trade and Environment in Perspective. AG Bal, T. Rajput, G Argüello, D. Langlet ED. Brill Nijhoff Boston - 2023. Hermansson, AL, AT Nylund, I-M Hassellőv, N Abrantes, A Re, CY Chen, M Granberg, K Magnusson, M Picone, E Giubilato, ID Williams, LM Zapata-Restrepo. E Ytreberg, 2025. Impact assessment of shp scrubber effluents reveals adverse effects at realistic environmentl concentrations - combining a systematic review of whole effecuen ecotoxicological studies with dilution modeling. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management vjaf192. https://doi.org/10.1093/inteam/vjaf192 Ji, Z, Y Yang, Y Ling, D Ren, Z Huo, N Zhang, 2022. Toxic Effects on Dunaliella salina, Mysidopsis bahia, and Mugilogobius chulae from ship exhaust gas closed-loop scrubber wash water. https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-1324578/v1 Jőnander, C, J Egardt, I-M Hassellőv, P Tiselius, M Rasmussen, I Dahllőf, 2023. Exposure to closed-loop scrubber washwater alters biodiversity, reproduction, and grazing of marine zooplankton. Marine Science 19(10). https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2023.1249964 Kuittinen, N, H Timonen, P Karjalainen, T. Murtonen, H Vesala, M Bloss, M Honkanen, K Lehtoranta, P Aakko-Saksa, T Rőnkkő, 2024. In-depth characterization of exhaust particles performed on-board a modern cruise ship applying a scrubber. Science of the Total Environment 946(10). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2024.174052 Pope, CA and DD Dockery, 2006. Health effects of fine particulate air pollution: lines that connect. J. Air Waste Management Association 56: p709-742. Rudén,C, 2019. Future chemical risk management. Accounting for combination effects and assessing chemicals in groups, SOU 2019:45. Zapata-Restrepo, LM and ID Williams, 2025. Mytilus edulis and Psammechinus miliaris as bioindicators of ecotoxicological risk by maritime exhaust gas scrubber water. Marine Environmental Research 209. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marenvres.2025.107157 South Sound Bird Alliance Gneiding laurierg@comcast.net Olympia, Washington 98502 https://outlook.office365.com/mail/commission-public-records@portseattle.org/ 3/3