Marine

Controlling Air Emissions from Marine Vessels:
Problems and Opportunities

Anthony Fournier * Donald Bren School of Environmental Science and Management University of California Santa Barbara February 2006
*Work supervised by Professor Charles D. Kolstad (kolstad@bren.ucsb.edu) and supported by the UC Institute for Global Conflict and Cooperation
Controlling air emissions from marine vessels Table of Contents List of Figures and Tables............................................................................................................ ii Acronyms ...................................................................................................................................... iii Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................... v I. Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 1 II. Background .............................................................................................................................. 3 A. The Role of Marine Shipping............................................................................................. 3 B. Marine Vessels ..................................................................................................................... 4 C. Marine Propulsion & Power .............................................................................................. 7 D. Operational Costs for Ocean-going Vessels.................................................................... 10 E. Flag states........................................................................................................................... 11 F. Shipping Industry.............................................................................................................. 14 G. Trade Distribution ............................................................................................................. 14 H. Forecasted trends.............................................................................................................. 15 I. Emissions............................................................................................................................ 16 1. Sensitive receptors ........................................................................................................... 17 2. Oxides of Nitrogen (NOx) ............................................................................................... 17 2. Particulate Matter (PM) ................................................................................................... 18 3. Sulfur Oxides (SOx) ........................................................................................................ 19 4. Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) .............................................................................. 20 J. Impacts of Marine Emissions............................................................................................ 21 III. Emission Control Technologies........................................................................................... 29 A. In-engine and operational modifications ...................................................................... 29 B. Water-based controls...................................................................................................... 32 C. After-treatment on-board controls................................................................................ 36 D. Shore-side controls.......................................................................................................... 38 E. Fuel switching.................................................................................................................. 41 IV. Regulations............................................................................................................................ 43 A. International Maritime Organization (IMO)............................................................... 43 B. United States.................................................................................................................... 49 C. European Union .............................................................................................................. 50 D. California ......................................................................................................................... 51 E. Asia ................................................................................................................................... 52 F. Canada ............................................................................................................................. 53 V. Non-Regulatory Emission Control Initiatives .................................................................... 54 A. Voluntary Incentive-based Approaches........................................................................ 54 B. Multi-Modal Emission Reduction Plans ....................................................................... 57 C. Business Initiated Emission Reduction Tools............................................................... 62 D. Information Sharing Groups ......................................................................................... 63 E. Legal Action..................................................................................................................... 64 VI. Conclusion ............................................................................................................................. 66 Appendix A .................................................................................................................................. 68 Appendix B .................................................................................................................................. 70 Appendix C .................................................................................................................................. 72 Appendix D .................................................................................................................................. 73 Works Cited................................................................................................................................. 75 Problems and Opportunities i
Controlling air emissions from marine vessels
List of Figures and Tables Figure 1: Vessel Traffic January 2006......................................................................................... 1 Figure 2: World Maritime Freight Waterways .............................................................................. 3 Figure 3: Major Ocean-going Vessel Types ................................................................................... 4 Figure 4: Total 2004 US port calls by: (a) region and (b) vessel type........................................... 7 Figure 5: Open Registries ............................................................................................................. 12 Figure 6: Typical Exhaust Gas Composition............................................................................... 17 Figure 7: California Shipping Activity ......................................................................................... 22 Figure 8: Port of Los Angeles Ship Activity ............................................................................... 24 Figure 9: Santa Barbara (a) shipping lanes and (b) California Coastal Waters ........................... 25 Figure 10: Santa Barbara County NOx Emissions Forecast......................................................... 26 Figure 11: Conventional vs. Slide Valve Design.......................................................................... 30 Figure 12: Design Principle of EGR Technology........................................................................ 32 Figure 13: HAM System............................................................................................................... 33 Figure 14: Pressurized Fuel Oil System with Homogeniser......................................................... 34 Figure 15: Direct Water Injection Schematic/ Wartsila................................................................ 35 Figure 16: Example of SCR configuration .................................................................................. 36 Figure 17: EcoSilencer Scrubbing System and Water Treatment Skid from DME ..................... 38 Figure 18: Cold Ironed Ship Schematic........................................................................................ 39 Figure 19: ACTI AMEC Ground based system............................................................................ 41 Figure 20: Annex VI Signatory Nations ....................................................................................... 45 Figure 21: IMO NOx Curve.......................................................................................................... 47
Table 1: Marine Vessel Types ....................................................................................................... 6 Table 2: Main and Auxiliary Engine Characteristics for Various Vessel Sizes ............................. 8 Table 3: Main and Auxiliary Engine Operating Parameters.......................................................... 9 Table 4: Sulfur Content Fuel Type Comparison.......................................................................... 10 Table 5: Annual Vessel Operation and Support Costs.................................................................. 11 Table 6: Negative Performance Indicators for Flag Nations ....................................................... 13 Table 7: Top 10 Most Important Maritime Countries & Territories (1/1/04)............................... 14 Table 8: Projected Growth in US Trade Volumes (Tonnes) Through 2020................................. 15 Table 9: 2004 Ocean-going Vessel Emissions by Type ............................................................... 22 Table 10: California Ocean-going Vessel Emission Estimates (TPD) ......................................... 22 Table 11: California Growth Rates by Vessel Types.................................................................... 23 Table 12: 2001 Emission Inventory by Port Emission Source Category (TPY) .......................... 23 Table 13: Estimated On-board Power Requirements for Selected Vessels .................................. 40 Table 14: 2006 Top 10 IMO Budgetary Member Contributors................................................... 44 Table 15: IMO Annex VI Signatory Nations (as of 12/31/05) ..................................................... 45 Table 16: IMO Annex VI NOx Limits ......................................................................................... 46 Table 17: EPA Marine Engine Categories.................................................................................... 49 Table 18: No Net Increase Ocean-going Vessel (OGV) Control Measures ................................. 61
ii
Controlling air emissions from marine vessels Acronyms ABS ACTI AE AMECS AMP AMVER ARB ASEAN ATCM BHC BMT BSR C1 C2 C3 CARB CEQA CFC COMESA DWI DWT EC EGR EIAPPC EIR EPA EU GATT GCC HAM HCFC HFO IAPPC IFO ILO IMO IOPC ISL ISO kW kWh MARAD MARPOL ME American Bureau of Shipping Advanced Cleanup Technologies Inc. Auxiliary Engine Advanced Marine Emission Control System Alternative Marine Power Atlantic Merchant Vessel Emergency Response California Air Resources Board Association of South-East Asian Nations ARB Air Toxic Control Measure Board of Harbor Commissioners British Maritime Technology Business for Social Responsibility EPA Category 1 Engine EPA Category 2 Engine EPA Category 3 Engine California Air Resources Board California Environmental Quality Act Chlorofluorocarbons Common Market of Eastern and Southern Africa Direct Water Injection Dead Weight Tonnage of a vessel European Commission Exhaust Gas Recirculation Engine International Air Pollution Prevention Certificate Environmental Impact Report United States Environmental Protection Agency European Union General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade Gulf Cooperation Council Humid Air Motor Hydro-chlorofluorocarbons Heavy Fuel Oil International Air Pollution Prevention Certificate Intermediate Fuel Oil International Labor Organization International Maritime Organization International Oil Pollution Compensation Fund Institute of Shipping Economics and Logistics International Organization for Standardization Kilowatt Kilowatt hour United States Department of Transportation Maritime Division IMO Convention for the prevention of pollution from ships Main Engine
iii
Controlling air emissions from marine vessels MEPC MERCOSUR MGMC MOU NAFTA NGO NNI NOAA NOx NPV NRDC ODS OECD OGV PAH PCB PM PMSA PoLA PoLB ppm PVC RO ROG SBCAPCD SCAQMD SCR SEAaT SECA SEK SFC SMA SIP SOx TAC TEU TOG TPD TPY UN UNCLOS UNCTD US DOT USCG VOC VSRP IMO Marine Environment Protection Committee South American Common Market Maritime Good Movement Coalition Memorandum of Understanding North American Free Trade Agreement Non-governmental Organization PoLA No Net Increase Plan US National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration Oxides of Nitrogen Net Present Value Natural Resource Defense Council Ozone Depleting Substance Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development Ocean Going Vessel Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons Polychlorinated biphenyls Particulate Matter Pacific Merchant Shipping Association Port of Los Angeles Port of Long Beach Parts per million Polyvinyl chlorides Residual Oil Reactive Organic Gases Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District South Coast Air Quality Management District Selective Catalytic Reduction Shipping Emissions Abatement and Trading SOx Emission Control Area Swedish Krona (Currency) Specific Fuel Consumption Swedish Maritime Association California State Implementation Plan Sulfur Oxides Toxic Air Contaminants Twenty-foot equivalent unit Total Organic Gases Tons per day Tons per year United Nations United Nations Law of the Sea United Nations Conference on Trade and Development United States Department of Transportation United States Coast Guard Volatile Organic Compounds Voluntary Speed Reduction Program
iv
Controlling air emissions from marine vessels Executive Summary Around the world ports are considered areas of high activity and revenue generation that serve as a primary point of entry for international goods and a point of departure for exports. They are also notorious for being major sources of air pollution, and will continue to be seen as such in the near future. The reason that ports will remain a major threat to air quality is that marine vessels, the largest source of air pollution operating in the area, are part of a dynamic, flourishing, complex, international industry that has been operating for centuries and has just recently begun to be subject to emission control regulations. While ports are the most visible receptors of the emissions generated by marine vessels they are not the only areas that are impacted from these activities as several studies have shown that coastal regions also feel the impact of shipping emissions transported onshore. An estimated 85% of ship traffic occurs in the northern hemisphere and 70% of that is within 400 km from land (IMO 2000). Each one of these marine vessels can have power capacities similar to power plants and operate virtually free of emission controls, while on-shore power plants are subject to permit, monitoring, recordkeeping and enforcement penalties. Marine vessel engines are remarkably well designed as they remain in service for decades and are able to burn the cheapest, lowest quality fuel available. While this is good from an operational standpoint, an uncontrolled engine burning low quality fuel for decades is a nightmare for air quality and public health in any region that the vessel serves. The shipping industry is extremely competitive and financially sensitive to disruptions in its routine, as delays in service could cost millions of dollars. The competitive nature of the industry has driven many ship owners to operate under flags of convenience that are wellknown for their leniency in implementing and enforcing international maritime legislation. The economic growth of developing nations has increased international trade volumes and has also created a demand for larger ships (size and capacity) with larger engines. Economists are forecasting a doubling or tripling of trade volumes in some areas, which will bring with it an increase in vessel traffic and air emissions threatening the ability of local communities to meet and maintain health-based air quality standards. Within the past few decades the technologies have been developed for controlling emissions from marine vessels and the major engine manufacturers acknowledge that it is technologically feasible to achieve much greater emission reductions than the newly adopted international standards will provide. There needs to be some form of motivation to create more of an interest from the maritime shipping industry in implementing these technologies on their vessels. That motivation could be voluntary or regulatory in nature and most likely will be a mixture of both in order to be effective. International cooperation on this issue needs to increase and regulators and policy makers need to realize that economic growth and environmental protection are not mutually exclusive issues and accept the challenge and responsibility mitigating the air quality impacts of increasing trade volumes.
Controlling air emissions from marine vessels I. Introduction Ocean-going marine vessels represent one of the largest, most difficult to regulate sources of air pollution in the world and are also an essential component of the international trade and goods movement process. These vessels are similar to floating power plants in terms of power, and would surely be subject to stricter regulations had their emissions been generated onshore. An estimated 85% of ship traffic occurs in the northern hemisphere and 70% of that is within 400 km from land (IMO 2000). Figure 1 is an image of the marine vessel traffic for January of 2006, recorded by the United States Coast Guards (USCG) voluntary, computer-based ship reporting system, AMVER i . This image shows the global scale of shipping activities and the highest density shipping lanes for January 2006. Figure 1: Vessel Traffic January 2006
Each colored dot displayed on the chart approximates a one-degree cell (60 minutes of latitude by 60 minutes of longitude) and is a monthly approximation of vessel traffic density. (Source: USCG AMVER system)
over 50 vessels
15 - 49 vessels
5 - 14 vessels
4 or fewer vessels
No vessels
These ships are an important link in the international system of goods movement and are increasing in size and power. Due largely to the rapid economic development in countries in Asia, the cargo that is transported on these ships is expected to double or triple in some areas by 2020. The emissions generated from these vessels threaten the air quality and public health in the communities surrounding ports, in coastal communities, in regions along inland waterways and even inland areas through emissions transport. As the economies of developing countries mature, their roles in world markets begin to increase. As these nations develop resources and skilled labor they begin to attract trading partners and investors. International trade policies also has an impact on the magnitude of trade and the demands and expectations placed on the modes (i.e. airplanes, vessels, locomotives, trucks) of goods movement. An example of the influence is the removal of textile and clothing quotas
i
Atlantic Merchant Vessel Emergency Response (AMVER) System- Developed by the USCG and used primarily for tracking vessels for potential search and rescue missions.
Controlling air emissions from marine vessels (1/1/05) that increased Chinas textile imports to the U.S. by about 60% during the first five months of 2005. Other factors that also have a strong influence on goods movement are: Natural disasters, the threat of rapidly spreading epidemics (i.e avian flu, SARS, etc.), security concerns, foreign relations, labor unions, and fuel costs. As an example of the complex international nature of the industry a seemingly simple transaction between two companies in different nations could involve people and property from a dozen different nations. The vessel could have been built in Korea, registered in Panama, owned by a Greek businessman, chartered to a Danish operator, who employs a Filipino crew through a crewing agent in Cyprus, insured in the UK, transports German cargo in the name of a Swiss freight forwarder from a Dutch port to Argentina, through terminals that are leased to port operators from Hong Kong and Australia (Kumar and Hoffman 2003). The complexity of the shipping industry and the numerous international stakeholders involved in every shipment shows that the most effective policy would be developed with a good understanding of the industry, and international relationships involved. This paper is intended to be used as an overview of the shipping industry the pollution generated by ocean-going vessels, and will summarize efforts being undertaken around the world in an attempt to control these emissions. This paper will begin with background information on the shipping industry, ocean-going vessels and the air quality impacts presented by ocean-going vessels. This will be followed by an analysis of several control methods that can effectively reduce the air quality impact presented by these ships. Finally, the paper will conclude with a summary of the regulatory and policy efforts in place and being developed around the world to control marine shipping emissions.
Controlling air emissions from marine vessels II. Background A. The Role of Marine Shipping The international marine transport of goods is responsible for roughly 90% of world trade. As of January 1, 2005 there were 46,222 merchant vessels (597,709,000 gross tons) involved in international trade, registered under the flags of over 150 nations. In 2003 the total goods loaded/ transported cargo tonnage exceeded 6 billion tons for the first time ever. In 2002 world-wide international trade related maritime freight payments exceeded $400 billion, roughly 6% of the value of the goods imported. Ocean-going vessels are responsible for carrying more than 90% of all goods imported into the US, while maritime commerce contributes over $78 billion annually and generates nearly 16 million jobs (NOAA 1998). The United States has about 133 ports that are capable of handling vessels of 10,000 DWT ii or greater. The ports of Los Angeles (PoLA) and Long Beach (PoLB) combine to form the worlds third largest port complex in the world (behind only Hong Kong and Singapore) with 2003 container volumes of 6.61 million and 4.66 million TEU iii (UNCTD 2004), respectively. The rest of the top five US ports, by both vessel calls and capacity, are the ports of: Houston, New York, New Orleans, and San Francisco.
T
Figure 2: World Maritime Freight Waterways This complex arrangement of shipping lanes shows the impact that marine shipping has on international trade. (Source: US DOT GeoFreight Display tool 2003)
In addition to the significant impact the maritime transportation industry has on the US and world economies, the pollution generated from this mode of goods movement comes at a substantial cost. An article (Gallagher 2005) written by Kevin Gallagher, Boston University Department of International Relations attempted to quantify the economic impact in the United States from air pollutants generated by vessels. This study showed that the economic costs
Deadweight tonnage (DWT) - A ships loaded capacity, including bunkers and other supplies necessary for the ships propulsion. iii Twenty foot Equivalent Unit (TEU) Standard unit of measurement for the capacity of a containership. A TEU refers to a container with dimensions of: 8 x 8 x 20
ii
Controlling air emissions from marine vessels from SO2 emissions was in the range of $77 to $435 million per year, and about $412 million per year for NOx emissions. Emissions related to the Uruguay Round trade talks were $10-$60 million per year for SO2 and about $82 million per year for NOx. Gallaghers analysis used European and American costs for tradeable permits to valuate the economic costs of shipping emissions. The SO2 emission costs were evaluated for a range of $750 to $4,208 per ton of SO2. This variation in costs is due primarily to the regional impact that SO2 emissions has, and the priority placed on reducing these emissions by the region. Similarly, the NOx emission cost ranged from $1,700 to $9,500 per ton. B. Marine Vessels Ocean-going vessels are generally very large vessels designed for deep water navigation. These vessels transport containerized cargo; bulk items such as vehicles, cement, and coke; liquids such as oil and petrochemicals; and passengers. Ocean-going vessels travel internationally and may be registered by the U.S. Coast Guard (U.S.-flagged), or under the flag of another country (foreign-flagged). A majority of these vessels can be classified as one of the following: Tanker, container ship, ro-ro vessel, general cargo vessel, bulk carrier or reefer. Figure 3 illustrates several different vessel types and Table 1 describes each of these ship types in greater detail, and provides information about each types presence in the world and US shipping market. Figure 3: Major Ocean-going Vessel Types
Source: (SOLENT)
Containership
Bulk Carrier
Controlling air emissions from marine vessels General Cargo Ship
Passenger ship
Vehicle / Ro-Ro Vessel
Oil and Product Tanker
Controlling air emissions from marine vessels Table 1: Marine Vessel Types
Ship Type Use Features Power (kw) Size (dwt) Dominant Nation : Registry / World Fleet % of total 2004 Ship 3 Ownership as of 1/1/05 World Fleet Calls (US)
2
% of total 4 2004 US calls
Single deck hull with an assortment of interconnected Tanker or independent tanks. Cargo pumped on and off of vessel. Transportation Single deck hull of containers with an (TEU) arrangement of holds (above Containership and below deck) fitted specifically for containers. Single-deck hull with an arrangement of topside ballast Bulk Carrier tanks and holds designed for the carriage of bulk cargo. Multi-deck hull, ramps and doorway that allow for the Ro-Ro rolling loading and unloading of cargo. Transportation Multi-deck hull of 12 or more and passengers for superstructure cruising or that provides Passenger excursions cabin (e.g. ferry, accomidations cruise ship, for passengers. etc.) Transportation Single deck hull, of diverse with an forms of dry arrangement of General Cargo cargo (e.g. holds or a single perishable hull. goods). Transportation of loose dry cargo of a homogeneous nature (e.g. wood chips, ore, cement, etc.) Transportation of road and/ or rail vehicles and other cargo on wheels.
Transportation of crude oil, chemicals and petroleum products (e.g. Oil, LPG, LNG, etc.)
2,30042,200
<10,000 560,000
Panama (1,134 vessels) / Greece (857 vessels)
11,356
25%
19,316
32%
3,300 67,000
5,700 93,000
Panama (587 Vessels) / Germany (945 vessels)
3,165
7%
18,279
31%
1,500 27,160
<10,000 >200,000
Panama (1,503 vessels) / Greece (1,334 vessels)
6,139
13%
11,631
19%
5,000 80,000
15,000 100,000
5,317
9%
40,000 85,000
35,000 135,000 +
Panama (1,598 vessels) / Russia 5 (1,107 vessels)
5,679
12%
4,463
n/a
5,000 80,000
25,000 100,000
18,150
39%
3,967
7%
1 2
Sources: (MARAD 2004), (UNCTD 2004), (MAN 2005), (CARB Oct. 2005) Dominant nation refers to the leader in the number of vessels in terms of country of ownership and flag of registry 3 Vessels over 10,000 dwt 4 Total 2004 US calls for vessels over 10,000 dwt = 59,885 5 Other: Ro-ro, passenger, partial containerships, reefers, general cargo 6 Passenger calls represent 2004 voyages by cruise ships not factored into total US calls
Figure 4 is a graphical representation of the 2004 US port calls, both US and foreign flagged, by regional activity and by vessel type (MARAD 2005). Greater detailed charts on the breakdown of vessel type by each region iv can be found in Appendix A. The charts in Figure
US regional definitions- (1) North Atlantic: All ports from Eastport, ME to Baltimore MD. (2) South Atlantic: All ports from Alexandria, VA to Miami, FL. (3) Puerto Rico. (4) U.S. Gulf: All ports from Key West, FL to
iv
Controlling air emissions from marine vessels 4(a) show that the Gulf Coast region (31%) is the most frequently visited port in 2004, followed by the North and South Atlantic regions (19% each) and the Pacific Southwest region (18%). Figure 4(b) shows that the most common vessel type were tankers (31%) and containerships (31%) followed by dry-bulk vessels (19%). Figure 4: Total 2004 US port calls by: (a) region and (b) vessel type Both US and foreign flagged. Source: (MARAD 2005)
2004 Vessel Calls in the US by Region (Total = 59,885 calls)
US Gulf Coast 31% North Atlantic 19%
2004 US Port Calls by Type (Total calls = 59,885)

General Cargo 7% Gas Carrier 2% Combination 1% Tanker 31%
Pacific Northwest 11%
Ro-ro 9%
Puerto Rico 2% South Atlantic 19%

Dry Bulk 19%
Pacific Southwest 18%
Containership 31%
In 2003 US ports were visited by 44% of the worlds active shipping fleet (6,157 vessels over 10,000 DWT), making a total of 56,759 calls. These calls were broken down by vessel type as; tankers (33%), containerships (30%), dry bulk carriers (18%) and ro-ro vessels (9%) and others (10%) (MARAD 2004). During the period from 1999-2003 the average vessel size (calls x vessel DWT) increased by 10% for all vessel types with the largest increases being in tankers and containerships 20% and 23%, respectively. The average TEU capacity of the containerships visiting the US during this five year period had increased by an average of 29%, while the number of containership calls only increased by 4% over this same period. The number of containerships visiting the US during this period increased by 20% to 1,025 (MARAD 2004). This shows that the shipping industry is accommodating the increased shipping volumes by increasing the individual vessel capacity as opposed to the overall number of vessels and that more vessels have been visiting the US . C. Marine Propulsion & Power 1. Hull Marine vessels used in international shipping are typically powered by diesel engines that turn a propeller. As vessels can vary in design and application, their engine revolutions and power vary by hull shape, and propeller design. The part of a vessels hull that is beneath the water line is important to the propulsion of the vessel. Since this part of the hull is in direct contact with the ocean it is important to properly maintain a vessel in
Brownsville, TX. (5) Pacific Northwest: All U.S. ports from Barrow, AK to Coos Bay, OR. (6) Pacific Southwest: All ports from Crockett, CA to San Diego, and all Hawaiian ports.
Controlling air emissions from marine vessels order to minimize the resistance of the drag so that the vessel operates at its optimal efficiency. The major factors influencing a vessels resistance is its displacement, speed and hull form. In addition a vessel also experiences air resistance and resistance due to waves and eddies (residual resistance). As a ship ages its paint breaks down, begins to erode, accumulates biological growth (e.g. barnacles) and can even experience localized bucking. All of these factors can be classified as hull fouling and will increase the resistance and will result in a loss in ship speed and propulsion efficiency. 2. Propeller The propeller design selected for a ship must be able to produce an adequate amount of thrust to overcome the resistance and move the vessel at the speed its being designed for. There are two primary types of propellers used for ocean-going vessels: fixed-pitch and controllable pitch propeller. A fixed pitch propeller is commonly cast from copper, is used to increase vessel maneuverability and cannot be changed during operating conditions. A controllable pitch propeller is three to four times more expensive than the fixed pitch model, has a larger hub that slightly lowers propeller efficiency, and can change the propeller performance with changing operational conditions (e.g. weather conditions). 3. Engines and boilers Diesel marine engines are the main power source for propulsion systems in ocean-going vessels. In response to increasing oil process and the large quantities of fuel needed to operate vessels the engines were designed to burn the cheaper, lower quality residual fuel. These engines provide reliable service and typically have lifetimes on the order of decades. In a report (Entec 2005) done by Entec for the European Commission a study was done on the average number of engines installed per ship and resulted in 1.4 main engines and 3.5 auxiliary engines. The engine/ power analysis was broken down to small, medium and large engine categories and is summarized in Table 2 and Table 3. Table 2: Main and Auxiliary Engine Characteristics for Various Vessel Sizes
Avg # of ME Avg # of AE ME Power Range AE Power Range ME % of total Power AE % of total Power Fuel consumption (Tons/yr) At Sea At Berth Manoevering Total Source: (Entec 2005) ME - Main Engine AE- Auxiliary Engine Small Vessels 1 4 <6,000 kW < 1,000 kW 84% 16% 3,082 40 4 3,126 Medium Vessels Large Vessels 1 1 4 4 6,000 - 14,999 kW 15,000 - 145,000 kW 2,000 kW 1,000 - 1,999 kW 88% 91% 12% 9% 10,133 110 12 10,255 25,368 281 31 25,680
Controlling air emissions from marine vessels Table 3: Main and Auxiliary Engine Operating Parameters
Operation At Sea Ships at berth Manoevering Source: (Entec 2005) ME - Main Engine AE- Auxiliary Engine ME Load factor 80% 20% 20% AE Load factor 30% 40% 50% Annual Engine Operating Hours 6,000 700 20
a. 2-Stroke diesel engines The largest diesel engines in use operate on the two-stroke cycle/ principle. This type of engine is commonly found as the main engine in the slower speed (less than 150 rpm engine), larger merchant vessels. This cycle generates more pollution than the four-stroke engines because it mixes lubrication oil with the fuel to lubricate the crankshaft bearings, therefore there are large amount of unburnt fuel and oil that exit the engine through the exhaust. The diesel 2-stroke engine operates by first compressing the intake air and then injecting the fuel for combustion. Because this process compresses only air (as opposed to air and fuel) the engine has a higher compression ratio which helps it produce more power and operate more efficiently than other types of spark ignited engines (e.g. gasoline). As a result of the high compression ratios diesel engines need to be deigned stronger, which requires more raw materials and increases the cost of the engines. A majority of the large 2-stroke, slow speed diesel engines in use in ocean-going vessels are manufactured by: Sulzer, MAN B&W or Mitsubishi. The combustion process in two-stroke engines differs from that of four-stroke engines. Two-stroke engines tend to have larger combustion chambers and a different fuel injector orientation than the four-stroke engines, leading to a different localization of the combustion. The slower speed (low revolutions) of the two-stroke engines means that the combustion time is a lot longer than that of medium and high speed four-stroke engines. The more time that the fuel and gases have in the combustion chamber the more complete the combustion will be, making for higher in chamber temperatures and more efficient process when compared to the four-stroke process. b. 4-Stroke diesel engines Diesel four-stroke engines are commonly found in the medium to large merchant vessels. These types of engines are favored on ships that are limited in their headroom (e.g. cruise ships, passenger ferries, etc.). Generally these medium speed engines operate between 250 and 850 rpm. In comparison to the two-stroke cycle the four strokes are not as powerful but are considered to be more efficient, require less maintenance, are cheaper and lower polluting. A majority of the 4-stroke, medium speed diesel engines in use in ocean-going vessels are manufactured by: Wartsila, Pielstick, Sulzer or MAK.
Controlling air emissions from marine vessels c. Auxiliary Engines Auxiliary engines on ocean-going vessels are primarily used to provide power for uses other than propulsion. Auxiliary engines are usually coupled with generators to produce electrical power. As seen in table 3, these engines operate at a higher load when at berth (40% load) or manoevering (50% load) than they do during cruise operations at sea (50% load). Auxiliary engines are typically 4-stroke, medium speed engines. d. Boilers Auxiliary boilers supply steam to the auxiliary services that are necessary for the ships operation at sea, but not to the main propulsion machinery. Domestic boilers supply steam to services that are not essential to the ships operation at sea. Boilers can operate on either residual or distillate fuel oil. 4. Fuels (Starcrest Fuel 2005) Most ocean going vessels use bunker fuel, also known as Intermediate Fuel Oil (IFO), Heavy Fuel Oil (HFO) or Residual Oil (RO), in their main engines and either bunker fuel or a Distillate fuel in their auxiliary engines. Bunker fuel contains high levels of sulfur, ash, and nitrogen compounds and generates higher emissions than distillate fuels. Specific fuel consumption (SFC) for large, slow speed engines has been estimated to be 194, 209 g/kW-hr, by IVL Swedish Environmental Research Institute and Lloyds Register Engineering Services, respectively. For medium speed engines IVL and Lloyds estimates SFC as 209 and 226 g/kW-hr, respectively (Entec 2002). Table 4 compares the sulfur content of different types of diesel fuels. Table 4: Sulfur Content Fuel Type Comparison
Sources: (Starcrest Fuel 2005) & (Entec 2002)
Name Grade No. 2-DS15 Grade No. 2-DS500 Grade No. 2-DS5000 LS MGO (0.1%) LS MGO (0.2%) DMX DMA DMB and DMC Intermediate Fuel Oil Intermediate Fuel Oil Intermediate Fuel Oil Category Distillate Distillate Distillate Distillate Distillate Distillate Distillate Distillate Residual Residual Residual Common Max. Sulfur Max. Sulfur Availability Name % ppm ULSD 0.0015% 15 CA & US in 2006 CARB/ EPA Diesel 0.05% 500 Currently available EPA Offroad 0.5% 5,000 Replaced with S500 by 2007 MGO MGO MGO MGO MDO IFO/ bunker fuel IFO/ bunker fuel IFO/ bunker fuel 0.1% 0.2% 1.0% 1.5% 2.0% 1.5% 4.5% 5.0% 1,000 2,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 15,000 45,000 50,000 New sulfur cap for Europe 2008 Currently available in Europe Available worldwide Available worldwide Available worldwide Baltic/ North Sea Sulfur cap 2007 Worldwide sulfur cap 2007 Common for OGV, replaced in 2007
D. Operational Costs for Ocean-going Vessels The operating costs for ocean-going vessels involved in international trade varies by vessel type, age, route, frequency of travel and vessel operating characteristics. The major costs can be divided into operating costs, periodic maintenance costs, voyage costs and capital costs. Operating costs (e.g. crew, stores, repairs and maintenance, insurance, and administrative costs) can make up 25% to 40% of a ships total annual costs. Periodic scheduled maintenance Problems and Opportunities 10
Controlling air emissions from marine vessels (e.g. dry-docking, or special surveys) can account for 5% to 10% of a ships total annual costs. Voyage costs (e.g. fuel oil, port fees/ costs, canal dues, etc.) can make up from 30% to 70% of a ships total annual costs. Capital costs make up the rest of a ships operating costs and can vary significantly on the financing arrangement made for the original construction of the vessel. Table 5 summarizes a typical cost breakdown for a variety of vessel types (BMT 2005) Table 5: Annual Vessel Operation and Support Costs
Source: (BMT 2005)
Vessel Size (DWT/TEU) Operating Costs Periodic Maintenance Voyage Costs Capital Costs Total Cost Per Day Bulk Carrier 35,000 80,000 $1,514,937 $1,851,410 $404,549 $511,535 $2,535,471 $3,121,729 $1,006,451 $1,421,051 $5,461,408 $6,905,725 $14,963 $18,920 Oil Tankers 20,000 70,000 $1,970,243 $2,294,012 $430,179 $613,555 $1,632,997 $2,712,522 $1,632,997 $2,712,522 $5,666,416 $8,332,611 $15,524 $22,829 Container 2,500 TEU 6,000 TEU $2,097,000 $3,376,252 $703,285 $1,326,811 $4,496,047 $9,190,668 $2,198,016 $4,018,220 $9,494,348 $17,911,951 $26,012 $49,074
E. Flag states The United Nations Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) delegates the overall responsibility for implementation and enforcement of international maritime regulations for all flags vessels that fly its flag. Flag states also have the responsibility of implementing and enforcing regulations developed by the International Labor Organization (ILO) and the International Oil Pollution Compensation (IOPC) Fund. There are three major types of flag nations: the traditional flag state, open registry flag states and a hybrid of the first two types. Traditional nations have national restrictions in terms of ownership, shipbuilding, crewing, and trading (CABOTAGE LAWS). Flag states with open registries, also known as flags of convenience, seldom have the national restrictions of the traditional states. The majority of these ships are registered under the flags of foreign nations, and its common for the ship owner to reside in a nation different from the registry nation. A study (ISL 2005) done by the Institute of Shipping Economics and Logistics (ISL) (ISL Market Analysis 2005: Ownership patterns of the World Merchant Fleet) analyzed the ownership trends in the world shipping fleet. At the beginning of 2005, 14,480 merchant vessels representing approximately 65% of the worlds total shipping tonnage were flagged, not by the home nation of the vessel owner but under foreign flag. This share of the world shipping tonnage is up from about 62% in 2001 and for each major vessel type the general trend is increasing towards foreign flagged vessels. The vessels that were under national flag (registered with the flag of the owners country) were found to be of average 18.6 years old, 4 years older than the foreign-flagged vessels. The study showed that 93.5% of the worlds shipping tonnage could be attributed to 30 nations. At the beginning of 2005 the top ten shipping nations represented 71.5% of the worlds merchant shipping tonnage (ISL 2005). In the shipping industry the major open registries nations are: Panama, Liberia, Bahamas, Malta and the Marshall Islands. At the beginning of 2005 the dwt of vessels registered with open registries was 432.7 million dwt, a 10% increase from 2001. Panama is the worlds leading open registry at the start of 2005, with 4,399 vessels with 181.9 million dwt (see Figure 5). The Panamanian open registry is dominated by general cargo ships, container ships tankers, and bulk carriers. The Liberian flag has a large population of tankers attributed to it, Problems and Opportunities 11
Controlling air emissions from marine vessels while the Bahamas is the leading registry for passenger vessels and Cyprus has a large population of bulk carriers (ISL 2005). At the start of 2005 OECD nations had about 35% of its foreign flagged shipping tonnage registered in Panama, followed by about 12% registered in Liberia. German ship owners used the Liberia registry for 39% of their flagged-out tonnage, the Marshall Islands flag for 11% of this tonnage and also Antigua and Barbuda. The Japanese owned fleet registered 84% of its foreign flagged tonnage under the Panamanian flag. Greek ship owners have frequently used Malta and Cyprus as their foreign flags for registry (ISL 2005). In a 2003 annual report reviewing Maritime Transport for the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development it was shown that well below 10% of the tonnage of open registry nations was owned or operated by interests connected to that nation. This review also showed that in international registries 30-80% of the total registered tonnage had a connection to the country of registry (UNCTD 2004). Figure 5: Open Registries
Source: (UNCTD 2004)
Foreign flagged Open Registry dwt (%) by Nation (All Vessels)

Liberia 18.60% Bahamas 9.70% Panama 42.00%
Others 29.70%
In 2005 the United States ship owners had 31% of their foreign flagged tonnage registered with the Marshall Islands and 35% with the Bahamas. In 2003, approximately 77% of the US dwt was flagged under a foreign nation. The US fleet at this time was made up of 948 foreign flagged vessels and 592 US flagged vessels. This information is based on the country of residence of the controlling interest of the fleet. A group of shipping industry organizations (BIMCO, INTERCARGO, INTERNATIONAL CHAMBER OF SHIPPING, INTERNATIONAL SHIPPING FEDERATION and INTERTANKO) collaborated to developed a criteria to evaluate the performance of individual flag states (ICS et al. 2004). The criteria focused on standards for safety, environment and social performance. Table 6 is a summary of the performance of the top 20 largest shipping flag states, ranked according to gross tonnage at the beginning of 2005.
12
Controlling air emissions from marine vessels Table 6: Negative Performance Indicators for Flag Nations
Source: (ICS et al. 2004)
Top 20 largest shipping flags as of 1/1/2005 Rank Flag GT * Nation 1 Panama 131 2 Liberia 54 3 Bahamas 34 4 Greece 32 5 Hong Kong 25 6 Singapore 25 7 Malta 23 8 Marshall Islands 22 9 Cyprus 21 10 China 19 11 Norway 19 12 Japan 12 13 United States 11 14 Italy 11 15 UK 10 16 Germany 8 17 Denmark 7 18 South Korea 7 19 India 7 20 Antigua & Barbuda 7 * In million tons Negative Indicators 1,2,5,6,7,9,11 5,8,17 5,8 None 8 8,11 1,2,3,5,6,8 5,11,17 1,2,3,5,6,8,18 5,8,11,12 None 5 8,12,14 4,6 None None None 1,3,5,6,11 1,2,3,5,6,18 5,6,11,18
Negative Indicators (ICS et al. 2004) Not on Paris MOU white list 1 2 Paris MOU black list Not on Tokyo MOU white list 3 4 Tokyo MOU black list 5 Not in USCG Qualship 21 6 USCG target list 7 SOLAS 74 (and 88 Protocol) 8 MARPOL 73/78 9 LL 66 (and 88 Protocol) 10 STCW 78 11 ILO 147 12 CLC/FUND 92 13 No. of non IACS bodies 14 High age (ship numbers) 15 High age (GT) 16 Not on STCW white list 17 Not completed full ILO reports 18 IMO meetings (low attendance)
Port State Control Port State Control Port State Control Port State Control Port State Control Port State Control Non-ratification Conventions Non-ratification Conventions Non-ratification Conventions Non-ratification Conventions Non-ratification Conventions Non-ratification Conventions A739 Average Age Average Age Reports Reports IMO
This analysis of flag state performance is an on-going effort that is intended to help the shipping industry make wise decisions when evaluating different flags. The analysis also informs vessel owners of the actions of their flag of choice while also indirectly encouraging them to put pressure on their flag administration to make any improvements that might be necessary for them to come into compliance with international maritime regulations. This can also be an important tool that can be used by companies selecting shippers for their goods by helping them with the evaluation of the fleet by looking at the flag it is registered to.
13
All ships must be surveyed in ordered to be issued certificates which establish their seaworthiness, type of ship, etc. and this is the responsibility of the flag State of the vessel. However, the flag State ("Administration") may "entrust the inspections and surveys either to surveyors nominated for the the purpose or to organizations recognized by it" (SOLAS Chapter 1, regulation 6). These "recognized organizations" are often the classification societies. The International Association of Classification Societies (IACS) is a Non-Governmental Organization which was granted Consultative Status with IMO in 1969. F. Shipping Industry The 2004 UNCTD report provided an analysis of the most important maritime Countries and Territories at the beginning of 2004. This study attempted to quantify the shipping interests of each nation, not by flag of registry, but by the location of the primary controlling interest. Table 7 provides a summary of this analysis looking primarily at the fleet and dwt of the country/ territory. The table shows that the top 5 most important maritime nations are: Greece, Japan, Norway, Germany and China. Greek and Japanese interests have the largest total fleets in terms of vessel size and dwt. About 90% of the vessels in each of these two fleets are registered with an open registry flag, or flag of convenience. China and Singapore have the lowest percentage of vessels registered in open registries (of the top 10 list provided in Table 7) with 59% and 41%, respectively. Table 7: Top 10 Most Important Maritime Countries & Territories (1/1/04)
Source: (UNCTD 2004)
Vessels National Country/ territory Flag Greece Japan Norway Germany China United States Hong Kong Republic of Korea Singapore Taiwan 751 732 840 307 1,627 592 254 485 449 111 Open registry 2,090 2,007 512 1,742 467 603 183 317 120 360 % Open registry 89% 91% 63% 81% 59% 64% 77% 83% 41% 85% Total Foreign Flag 2,361 2,216 813 2,161 788 948 238 380 291 426 DWT Foreign Flag % 68.12% 88.14% 57.82% 86.24% 48.93% 76.90% 50.21% 65.98% 49.72% 77.27% % Open registry 22.10% 21.30% 4.40% 7.90% 3.30% 4.80% 2.70% 3.70% 1.70% 3.20% % of World Total 20.26% 14.17% 6.66% 6.31% 6.10% 5.90% 3.98% 3.25% 3.00% 2.95%
Rank 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Total 3,112 2,948 1,653 2,468 2,415 1,540 492 865 740 537
Open Registry consists of major (Panama, Liberia, Bahamas, Malta, Cyprus and Bermuda) and six minor open registry nations The country/ territory indicates where the controlling interest (i.e. parent company) of the fleet is located.
G. Trade Distribution In 2003 the total loaded goods exceeded 6.1 billion tons. This total trade value can be broken down into exports by content as follows: Africas was 8.9%, America was responsible for 20.7%, Asia had the largest share at 37.2%, Europe had the second largest share at 25.1% while Oceania had the smallest share at 8%. This total trade value can be broken down by trading bloc as: European Union (EU) 17.4%, Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) 16.0%, North
14
Controlling air emissions from marine vessels America Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) 10.2%, Association of South-East Asian Nations (ASEAN) 6.9%, South Common Market (MERCOSUR) 5.2% and the Common Market of Eastern and South Africa (COMESA) 1.6%. (UNCTD 2004) The total loaded goods in the world during 2003 can be broken down by cargo type. Tanker cargo in 2003 made up about 36% of all loaded goods, with roughly 2.2 billion tons of cargo. Dry cargo made up about 40% of all loaded goods with approximately 2.5 billion tons of cargo. Finally, dry bulk made up about 24% of all loaded goods with roughly 1.5 billion tons of cargo (UNCTD 2004). H. Forecasted trends 1. Activities in the US A report (Haveman 2004) produced by the Public Policy Institute of California in 2004, called Californias Global Gateways: Trends and Issues analyzed, and projected trade growth for both the United States and California. Table 8 summarizes the projected increases in trade volumes (tons), both imports and exports, to 2010 and 2020. The authors of the report broke the mode of transportation of these goods out by either air or vessel. The table shows that by 2020 total trade (imports + exports) volumes in the U.S. will be about 3.75 times greater than 2002 levels, and total trade volumes in CA will be approximately 3.14 times greater than 2002 levels. This table also shows that the authors expect a significantly larger growth in the use of vessels to transport trade as opposed to air, and by 2020 the total trade volumes moved by vessel are expected to increase by about 3.75 and 3.15 times 2002 volumes for the U.S. and CA, respectively. Table 8: Projected Growth in US Trade Volumes (Tonnes) Through 2020
Source: (Haveman 2004)
2002 Exports Total Air Vessel Total US trade Total Air Vessel Total CA trade Imports Exports 2010 Imports Exports 2020 Imports
US Total
319,500,000 816,800,000 2,300,000 3,500,000 317,200,000 813,300,000 1,136,300,000 35,900,000 92,000,000 400,000 600,000 35,500,000 91,400,000 127,900,000 566,900,000 1,499,500,000 3,700,000 4,300,000 563,200,000 1,495,200,000 2,066,400,000 1,113,100,000 3,155,200,000 5,800,000 5,500,000 1,107,300,000 3,149,700,000 4,268,300,000 125,800,000 276,700,000 1,200,000 1,100,000 124,600,000 275,600,000 402,500,000
CA
65,300,000 147,800,000 700,000 800,000 64,600,000 147,000,000 213,100,000
2. Activities in Asia Due to steady economic and port development China is becoming a major player in the marine transportation industry. In 2003 12 major South and East Asian exporters were responsible for nearly 50% of the worlds total 2003 exports (UNCTD 2004). Some estimates (CDN 2004) predict that by 2010 China will be able to handle three billion tons of cargo and 100 million TEU by 2010.
15
Controlling air emissions from marine vessels Honk Kong is currently the largest container port complex in the world, with 2002 container volumes exceeding 19 million TEU. The Port of Hong Kong published a study (HK 2004), Hong Kong Port Master Plan: 2020 which analyzes the future growth of maritime trade and forecasts that the total ocean container throughput for Hong Kong could increase to exceed 40 million TEU by 2020. This plan also looks at several approaches to plan to accommodate this growth in trade volumes and expected increase in port competitiveness. This plan fails to mention any of the air quality impacts that the significant increases in trade volumes presents. I. Emissions This section will look at the major (NOx, PM, SOx and VOC) pollutants generated from ocean-going vessels. First, the sensitive receptors of pollutant exposure will be identified. Then regional concerns of air quality priorities will be discussed. Then each major pollutant will be looked at in terms of the following: Pollutant description, residence time v of the pollutant, health and other impacts, formation of the pollutants in diesel engines, and summarize existing, health-based ambient air quality standards. The primary pollutant of concern varies from region to region. Some factors that can influence the main problem pollutant are the climate of the regions, meteorological characteristics, local ecosystems, proximity to communities, and the composition of the local emissions sources. An example of this variation in pollutant priority can be seen when comparing the East and West coast of the U.S., as the East coast has been particularly concerned with SOx emissions while the West coast has been predominantly concerned with ozone formation. Diesel exhaust (See Figure 6) consists of hundreds of gas-phase, particle-phase, and semivolatile organic compounds, including typical combustion products, such as carbon monoxide (CO), carbon dioxide (CO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), oxides of nitrogen (NOx), reactive organic gases (ROG), water vapor, and excess air (nitrogen and oxygen). The chemical reactions which take place in the combustion chambers of engines are controlled by the pressures, temperatures, local fuel-air mixing processes and action times. Any alterations in the controlling factors of chemical processes to reduce a target pollutant may result in an increase in other pollutants of concern. In the 2-stroke marine engines commonly found as the main engine in ocean-going vessels, the combustion process takes place under high temperatures and pressures.
Residence time- The average time a pollutant spends in the atmosphere
16
Controlling air emissions from marine vessels Figure 6: Typical Exhaust Gas Composition
Source: (MAN 2004)
1. Sensitive receptors The population subgroups most susceptible to ozone health effects include individuals exercising outdoors, children and people with preexisting lung disease such as asthma, and chronic pulmonary lung disease and even heart disease. Children are more at risk from ozone exposure because they typically are active outside, during the summer when ozone levels are highest. Also, children are more at risk than adults from ozone exposure because their respiratory systems are still developing. Adults who are outdoors and moderately active during the summer months, such as construction workers and other outdoor workers, also are among those most at risk. These individuals, as well as people with respiratory illnesses such as asthma, especially asthmatic children, can experience reduced lung function and increased respiratory symptoms, such as chest pain and cough, when exposed to relatively low ozone levels during prolonged periods of moderate exertion. Appendix B lists the California and US Federal health-based Ambient Air Quality Standards. 2. Oxides of Nitrogen (NOx) a. Description NOx is a general term that encompasses the following compounds: nitric oxide (NO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2) and other oxides of Nitrogen. NOx is a precursor to the formation of ozone, and also contributes to the secondary formation of Particulate Matter (PM) in the lower atmosphere. Ozone is formed by the reaction of ROG and NOx in the atmosphere in the presence of heat and sunlight. The highest levels of ozone are produced when both ROG and NOx emissions are present in significant quantities on hot, clear summer days. Nitrogen dioxide (NO2), a component of NOx, along with particles in the
17
Controlling air emissions from marine vessels air can often be seen as a reddish-brown layer over many urban areas. NO2 and Ozone are listed as Criteria Air Pollutant vi as defined by the United States EPA. b. Residence time The average residence time of NO and NO2 in the atmosphere is on the order of days. c. Health and Other Impacts Ozone is powerful oxidant that can damage the respiratory tract, causing inflammation and irritation, which can result in breathing difficulties. Short-term exposure to high ambient ozone concentrations have been linked to increased hospital admissions and emergency visits for respiratory problems. (Peters, 2001) Repeated exposure to ozone can make people more susceptible to respiratory infection and lung inflammation and can aggravate preexisting respiratory diseases, such as asthma. Prolonged (six to eight hours), repeated exposure to ozone can cause inflammation of the lung, impairment of lung defense mechanisms, and possibly irreversible changes in lung structure, which over time could lead to premature aging of the lungs and/or chronic respiratory illnesses such as emphysema and chronic bronchitis. NOx emissions are also a key component in the formation of acid rain, see SOx section for more details on the formation of acid rain. d. Formation in Diesel Engines (Bludszuweit 1999) In the diesel marine engine process, NOx is formed by one of three methods; Thermal formation, prompt formation, and fuel formation (due to high Nitrogen contents in the fuel). A majority of the NOx emission generated by internal combustion engines is through the thermal process. Nitrogen Oxide (NO) is formed in engines as a result of high in-cylinder combustion temperatures, high excess air ratios, and the long periods of time the gases remain in the reaction zones (primarily in slow 2-stroke engines). A fraction of this NO that is formed will then go on to oxidize into NO2. 2. Particulate Matter (PM) a. Description Particulate Matter is listed as a Criteria Air Pollutant by the US EPA. Almost the entire diesel particle mass is in the fine particle range of 10 microns or less in diameter (PM10). Approximately 94 percent of the mass of these particles are less than 2.5 microns (PM2.5) in diameter. The organic fraction of the diesel particle contains compounds such as aldehydes, alkanes and alkenes, and high molecular weight polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) and PAH-derivatives. Many of these PAHs and PAH-derivatives, especially nitro-PAHs, have been found to be potent mutagens and carcinogens. Nitro-PAH compounds can also be formed during transport through the atmosphere by reactions of adsorbed PAH with nitric acid and by gas-phase radical-initiated reactions in the presence of oxides of nitrogen. Fine particles may also be formed secondarily from gaseous precursors such as SO2, NOx, or organic compounds.
Criteria Air Pollutant- A pollutant for which acceptable levels of exposure can be determined and for which an ambient air quality standard has been set.
vi
18
Controlling air emissions from marine vessels b. Residence time Fine particles can remain in the atmosphere for days to weeks and travel through the atmosphere for hundreds to thousands of kilometers, while coarse particles deposit to the earth within minutes to hours and within tens of kilometers from the emission source. c. Health and Other Impacts In 1998, the Air Resources Board identified diesel PM as a toxic air contaminant (TAC). Diesel PM is by far the most important TAC and contributes over 70 percent of the estimated risk from air toxic contaminants today. Diesel PM is of specific concern because it poses a lung cancer hazard for humans as well as a hazard from noncancer respiratory effects such as pulmonary inflammation. (ARB, 1998a) Because of their small size, the particles are readily respirable and can effectively reach the lowest airways of the lung along with the adsorbed compounds, many of which are known or suspected mutagens and carcinogens. d. Formation in Diesel Engines The composition of this mixture of gases, liquids and solids that are actually emitted into the air will vary depending on engine type, engine age and horsepower, operating conditions, fuel, lubricating oil, and whether or not an emission control system is present. Due to the nearly identical combustion process as smaller diesel engines, marine engines burning heavier bunker fuel are expected to produce PM with similar exhaust. Particulate Matter emissions consist primarily of soot, metal oxides, and sulphates, and they originate from incomplete combustion or impurities in the fuel and lubricating oil. Secondary reactions of NOx and SOx can also produce PM. 3. Sulfur Oxides (SOx) a. Description Sulfur dioxide (SO2) is a gaseous compound of sulfur and oxygen and is classified as a Criteria Air Pollutant by the United States EPA. SO2 is formed when sulfur-containing fuel is burned by mobile sources, such as locomotives, vessels, and off-road diesel equipment. Sulfates (SO4 2-) are the fully oxidized ionic form of sulfur. Sulfates occur in combination with metal and / or hydrogen ions. In marine vessels, emissions of sulfur compounds occur primarily from the combustion of petroleum-derived fuels that contain sulfur. This sulfur is oxidized to sulfur dioxide (SO2) during the combustion process and subsequently converted to sulfate compounds in the atmosphere. Sulfur emissions, like NOx, also contribute to the secondary formation of PM. b. Residence time The average residence time of SO2 is 25 hours. The average residence time for Sulfate is 80 hours. c. Health and Other Impacts SO2 causes a wide variety of health and environmental impacts because of the way it reacts with other substances in the air. Effects from SO2 exposures at levels near the onehour standard include bronchoconstriction accompanied by symptoms, which may include wheezing, shortness of breath and chest tightness, especially during exercise or
19
Controlling air emissions from marine vessels physical activity. Continued exposure at elevated levels of SO2 results in increased incidence of pulmonary symptoms and disease, decreased pulmonary function, and increased risk of mortality. Sulfur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen oxides (NOx) are the primary components of acid rain. Acid rain occurs when these gases react in the atmosphere with water, oxygen, and other chemicals to form various acidic compounds. Sunlight increases the rate of most of these reactions. The result is a mild solution of sulfuric acid and nitric acid. The acidic deposition (wet or dry) causes acidification of lakes and streams and contributes to damage of trees at high elevations and many sensitive forest soils. In addition, acid rain accelerates the decay of building materials and paints, including irreplaceable buildings, statues, and sculptures that are part of our nation's cultural heritage. d. Formation in Diesel Engines The emissions of SO2 and SO3 are directly linked to the content of sulfur in the fuel as virtually all sulfur contained in the fuel is oxidized to SO2 and SO3 during and immediately after the combustion. Since sulfur is seen as an important lubricant for the engine and it is not seen as feasible for the near-future for ships to have the capabilities to remove the sulfur from the fuel from the ship, the oil-industry will be the key stakeholder in reducing SOx emissions. 4. Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) a. Description Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) contain carbon and are organic chemical compounds that have high enough vapor pressures under normal conditions to significantly vaporize and enter the atmosphere. VOC contributes to ozone formation and may even be toxic themselves. They are called organic because they contain the element carbon in their molecular structures. VOCs have no color, smell, or taste. VOCs include a very wide range of individual substances, such as hydrocarbons (for example benzene and toluene), halocarbons and oxygenates. b. Residence time The residence time for VOCs can vary considerably. Formaldehyde has an atmospheric residence time of CH2O is ~3-9 hours, while methane can have an atmospheric residence time of about a decade. c. Health Impacts VOC also leads to the formation of Ozone, see health impacts under NOx and Ozone. Some VOCs, benzene, xylenes and toluene are carcinogens and formaldehyde and ethylene are known to harm plants. d. Formation in Diesel Engines VOC emissions are primarily a function of the fuel characteristics. VOC can also be released into the atmosphere as fuel is loaded or unloaded. Crude oil tankers can have particularly high levels of VOC emissions. These vessels emit VOC during loading, unloading and during transit. As the temperature of the cargo changes, expansion occurs
20
Controlling air emissions from marine vessels and pressure builds up so the vessel crew needs to release some pressure and with that VOC are emitted. J. Impacts of Marine Emissions Emissions generated by ocean going vessels can impact the air quality of onshore communities whether they have an active port, or not. The port areas are the most recognizable receptors of pollutants emitted from these vessels, but coastal areas also suffer from impacts of emissions generated near shore. This section will first look at emission inventories, studies and projections in the United States and then internationally. 1. United States (WOOD-THOMAS 2005) In 1996 Compression-Ignition (CI) marine engines were responsible for 7% of the total mobile source NOx emissions in the United States, with approximately 907,000 tons of NOx. The United States EPA predicts that by 2030, emissions from marine CI engines quadruple its share of total mobile source NOx emissions to 28%. The EPA also predicts PM emissions from these marine engines to have a similar growth. In 1996 CI marine engines were responsible for 6% of the total mobile source PM 2.5 emissions in the country, and this is expected to grow to 25% by 2030. The EPA SO2 emission analysis looked specifically at the contribution of large marine engines (C3 vii engines) as part of the total national mobile source SO2 inventory. This analysis showed that in 1996 C3 engines accounted for 21% of the total mobile source SO2 emissions in the US and is expected to grow to 81% by 2030. 2. State Example: California (CARB Oct. 2005) In October of 2005 the California Air Resources Board (ARB) finalized a study (CARB Oct. 2005) of emissions generated in California by ocean-going vessels. This study focused on marine emissions generated in ports, inland waterways, and in California Coastal waters (See Appendix C). The study used 2004 as the baseline year, and reported 9,875 visits by a total of 1,938 ocean-going vessels during this year. Figure 7 shows the breakdown of these 2004 CA visits by vessel type. This graph shows that containerships were responsible for nearly half of the ocean-going vessel visits to CA in 2004.
Category 3 (C3) engines are identified by the US EPA as engines at or greater than 30 L per cylinder displacement, burn heavy fuel oil and are used predominantly for propulsion.
vii
21
Controlling air emissions from marine vessels Figure 7: California Shipping Activity
Source: (CARB Oct. 2005)
2004 Ocean-going vessel visits to CA (Total visits = 9,875)

RoRo 0.3% Reefer 0.5% Passenger 7.0% General 7.3% Container 48.0% Tanker 19.7% Auto 7.6% Bulk 9.6%
Table 9 summarizes the pollutants emitted by each vessel type in terms of tons per day for 2004. This data are for the total emissions generated by the main and auxiliary engines. This table shows that containerships are responsible for the most emissions when compared to other vessel types. Table 9: 2004 Ocean-going Vessel Emissions by Type
Vessel Type Auto Bulk Container General Passenger Reefer RoRo Tanker Totals PM (TPD) 0.81 1.17 12.01 0.66 1.39 0.09 0.21 2.28 18.65 NOx (TPD) 9.6 13.78 142.43 7.78 14.44 1.1 2.52 27.09 218.75 SOx (TPD) 5.73 8.32 84.9 4.67 10.24 0.68 1.5 16.13 132.16 HC (TPD) 0.31 0.44 4.66 0.25 0.39 0.04 0.08 0.89 7.06 CO (TPD) 0.74 1.05 10.97 0.6 1.09 0.09 0.19 2.09 16.82
Table 10 is a summary of the emissions generated in CA by ocean-going vessel activity for 2004, and projected out to 2010 and 2020. This data takes into account emissions from both the main and auxiliary engines. This table shows that ARB is predicting a doubling of NOx and PM emissions emitted by ocean-going vessels by 2020. Table 10: California Ocean-going Vessel Emission Estimates (TPD) Source: (CARB Oct. 2005)
Pollutant NOx PM 2004 218.8 18.6 2010 283.7 24.3 2020 456.8 39.6
Table 11 summarizes the forecasted growth in CA vessel numbers by type for 2010 and 2020. This analysis also uses 2004 inventory data as a baseline. This table shows that
22
Controlling air emissions from marine vessels vessel types with the largest projected growth rates are; passenger ships, container ships and tankers. Table 11: California Growth Rates by Vessel Types
Vessel Type Auto Carrier Bulk Carrier Container Ship General Cargo Passenger Refrigerated Vessel Ro-Ro Tanker Total All Vessels 2010 15% -27% 39% -9% 94% 1% 15% 29% 20% 2020 43% -67% 130% -24% 496% 3% 43% 92% 90%
3. Port example: Port of Los Angeles (Starcrest EI 2005) In July 2005 Starcrest Consulting Group, LLC finalized an analysis and report (Starcrest EI 2005) commissioned by the Port of Los Angeles to develop a port-wide emission inventory. Starcrest used 2001 as its emission baseline. The report focused on the following port emission sources: Ocean-going vessels, cargo handling equipment, trucks, harborcraft and locomotives. Table 12 summarizes the emissions inventory, in terms of tons per year, by source category for the port in 2001. The table shows that ocean-going vessels are responsible for: 36% of the total NOx, 21% of the total organic gases (TOG), 14% of CO, 56% of PM10, 53% of PM2.5, and 86% SO2 emitted in the port area. Table 12: 2001 Emission Inventory by Port Emission Source Category (TPY) y y Source: (Starcrest EI 2005) ) g y(
Categoty Type Ocean-Going Vessels Harbor Craft Cargo Handling Equipment Locomotives HD Vehicles Total Port Sources NOX TOG 6,922.70 233.6 3,530.70 376 1,862.60 204.5 2,465.80 99.7 4,463.50 185.5 19,245.30 1,099.30 CO 553.9 1,622.80 725.5 249.4 815.3 3,966.90 PM10 561 178 111.6 60.1 87.9 998.6 PM2.5 449.9 163.7 102.6 55.2 77.9 849.3 SO2 4,117.50 506.4 44.1 89.8 33.6 4,791.40
The Starcrest analysis reported that a total of 769 vessels called on the port with 2,717 total calls in 2001. Figure 8 is a graphical breakdown of the ocean-going vessel fleet that visited the Port of Los Angeles in 2001. This graph shows that the most frequent vessel types calling on the port were container vessels at 59%, followed by cruise ships at 12% and tankers at 10%.
23
Controlling air emissions from marine vessels Figure 8: Port of Los Angeles Ship Activity Source: (Starcrest EI 2005)
2001 PoLA Vessel Calls by Type

Other Tug 0.6% Misc 0.3% General Cargo 2.4% Containership 58.3% Cruise Ship 11.8% RoRo 1.0% Reefer 2.7% Tanker 10.2% Auto Carrier 5.4%
Bulk Carrier 7.5%
4. CA Marine Emission Studies (CARB 2005) a. California Marine Vessel Emission Studies The impact of emissions generated offshore has been studied for decades. A tracer study (CARB 1983) was conducted in 1977 with a naval research vessel traveling 8 to 20 miles from the coast. The location of the study was between Long Beach and the Santa Barbara Channel. The study resulted in tracer gases being recorded at monitoring stations that ran the entire length of the study area. Another tracer study (CARB 1984) was conducted in the Santa Barbara Channel in 1980 and once again the emissions generated off shore were felt onshore, and this particular study showed that very little dilution occurred as the emissions traveled over the water. The emissions were sampled for the tracer gases from onshore sites, airplanes and other boats. The 1997 Southern California Ozone Study was another tracer study (CARB 2000). This study was the focused on collecting trajectory data for ship emissions traversing shipping lanes, and would also assess the accuracy of modeling to simulate the transport processes of the ship emissions. The results of the study showed that the tracer gases were detected on shore, and that the dispersion of the pollutants is strongly influenced by meteorological conditions. In 1983 the California Air Resources Board released a report to the legislature on Air Pollution from Marine Vessels. The report analyzed meteorological data for coastal California to determine boundaries within which emissions released will be transported to shore. This boundary, also known as the CA Coastal Waters ranges from 25 to 102 miles from the coastline. b. California Health Impact Analysis (CARB PM 2005) In 2005 the California Air Resources Board issued a draft study on diesel particulate matter exposure for the region encompassing both the ports of Los Angeles and Long
24
Controlling air emissions from marine vessels Beach. The region of study was approximately 163,435 acres in which 1,977,770 people resided. The study looked at diesel emissions generated by various port sources; Oceangoing vessels, cargo-handling equipment, harborcraft, trucks and locomotives. Oceangoing vessels made up 73% of the PM emissions in the study area, and were analyzed in different modes of operation: hotelling, maneuvering and in transit in CA coastal waters. The study showed that the sources in the region studied were responsible for 21% of the total PM emissions (1,970 tons of PM per year) in the South Coast Air Basin. There was shown to be an elevated cancer risk throughout the region, ranging from 50 to 500 per million people within 15 miles of the port. The annual non-cancer impacts in the area were estimated to be; 750 Asthma attacks, 29 pre-mature deaths, 6,600 lost days of work and 35,000 minor restricted activity days. The study also showed that PM emissions from the breakwater in had a much greater impact than the PM emitted outside the breakwater; therefore, marine vessel maneuvering and hotelling had a stronger impact than the transiting emissions despite the higher emission rates the vessels experience while in transit. c. Coastal (non-port) Example: Santa Barbara (SBCAPCD 2004) Santa Barbara County is a coastal community on the south central California coast, without a port. Within 5 to 10 miles of the Santa Barbara shore are the heavily traveled north and southbound shipping lanes (See Figure 9 (a)). These shipping lanes are frequented by vessels traveling along a great circle route to or from Asia, and vessels traveling up the CA coast and pass well within the California Coastal Waters viii boundary (Figure 9 (b)). Figure 9: Santa Barbara (a) shipping lanes and (b) California Coastal Waters
The Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District (SBCAPCD) began an annual emission inventory in 1999 to track the emissions generated off its coast and put together a report to summarize its findings (SBCAPCD 2004). The report found that the emissions
viii
California Coastal Waters was defined by the CA Air Resources Board in 1983 as the boundary off the coast of CA where emissions generated between the boundary and the coast will be transported onshore.
25
Controlling air emissions from marine vessels generated off-shore, and the expected increase in ship traffic and emissions will jeopardize its ability to meet and maintain state and federal health-based air quality standards. When SBCAPCD forecasted emissions from marine vessel as part of its Clean Air Plan, it found that by 2020 the increase in marine vessel emissions will cancel out all onshore reductions if nothing is done to control these emissions (see Figure 10). Figure 10: Santa Barbara County NOx Emissions Forecast
Source: (SBCAPCD 2004)
The 2004 marine shipping emission inventory resulted in the following: 1. Over 7,200 transits of the SB coastline 2. 9% of the vessels that transited the coastline were responsible for 50% of the marine NOx emissions. 3. 59 vessels emitted over 50 tons of NOx 4. 92% of the NOx emissions were from foreign vessels 5. Approximately 19 vessel transits per day 6. Approximately 40 Tons of NOx and 3 tons of PM emitted daily 5. International a. Canada (Levelton 2002) In April 2002, Levelton Engineering Ltd. completed their analysis of marine vessel emissions generated in the Lower Fraser Valley for Environment Canada and the Greater Vancouver Regional District. The analysis was done for the year 2000, and looked at marine emissions in the Lower Fraser Valley and greater Vancouver areas of southwestern British Columbia. The emission sources analyzed in this study were: ocean-going vessels, habor craft, ferries, fishing vessels, and recreational vessels. The results of the study shows that, of the sources previously listed, ocean-going vessels are the predominant contributor of NOx (58%), SOx (95%), PM (82%), and Green House Gases (58%) in the region. In 2000 the report estimates that ocean-going vessels emitted 10,584 tonnes of NOx, 4,866 tonnes of SOx and 745 tonnes of PM. The study also showed that the region experiences its highest levels of ocean-going vessel emissions between May and September.
26
Controlling air emissions from marine vessels b. Europe (Entec 2002) A report finalized in July of 2002 by Entec UK Limited, for the European Commission, quantified the emissions from ships as they moved between ports in the European community. The study used the year 2000 as the period of analysis, however only four months (January, April, July and October) were analyzed to reduce the amount of data being reviewed. During 2000 there were 1,831,838 vessel movements in the region. The study resulted in the following emissions estimates for 2000: 3,617 Kte/ yr of NOx, 2,578 Kte/ yr of SO2 and 21 Kte/yr of PM in port. Approximately 29% of this emission estimates occurred in the North and Baltic Sea areas. The Entec report also showed that the majority of the SO2 emissions generated in the area of interest occurred in trade; Between the original 15 EU member states (40%), from the EU original 15 to non-member states (14%) and from non-member states to the EU original 15 (13%). A majority of the vessel movements (51%) occurred between nonmember EU states, and then between the original 15 EU member states (22%). Finally the report estimates that under a business as usual analysis, marine emissions would increase to; 4,015 Kte/ yr of NOx, 2,845 Kte/yr of SO2 and 24 Kte/yr of PM in port. c. Mediterranean Sea Emissions Modeling (Marmer 2005) A study done on vessel emissions in the Mediterranean Sea by Elina Marmer, Baerbel Langmann of the Max-Planck-Institute for Meteorology, was published in Atmospheric Environment in 2005. The Mediterranean Sea is subject to high vessel traffic and mean summer sulfate levels (7.8 mgm-2) much greater than the mean summer sulfate levels found throughout the rest of Europe (4.7 mgm-2). The study focused on the region for a 21 month period while focusing mainly on the summer of 2002. The authors differentiated between emissions generated onshore and emissions generated by vessels so they could analyze the individual impacts. The study found that 54% of the total summer sulfate aerosol column over the region in the summertime was due to Ships and this contributed over 50% to the direct radiative forcing in the area. When the model was run without the ship emission contributions there was a significant reduction of sulfate (29%), ozone (15%), nitric acid (66%), hydroxy radicals (42%) and formaldehyde (24%). d. Danish Port Emission Analysis (Saxea & Larsena 2004) A study was done by Saxe and Larsen in Copenhagen, Denmark to model the dispersal of NOx, SO2 and PM in three Danish harbors; Elsinore (Helsingr), Copenhagen and Kge. The study found that NOx emissions generated by vessels made up a significant amount of the total NOx levels in central Copenhagen, and that ferries operating in the port of Elsinore also contributed significantly to the total NOx pollution of the neighboring communities. In Copenhagen PM was found to be about 8-15% of all urban road traffic generated PM. The PM emissions from ships had a lesser effect in Elsinore than they did in Copenhagen. The low magnitude of vessel activities in Kge lead to a relatively low contribution of pollution to the regional air quality. e. Emissions in the Turkish Straits (Kesgin & Varder 2001) A study was done in 2000 by Kesgin and Vardar on exhaust gas emissions from marine vessels in the Turkish straits. The study showed that domestic ferries in Istanbul in 1998
27
Controlling air emissions from marine vessels were responsible for 4% of the total NOx and 0.7% of the total PM from motor vehicles. In 1998, the Bosphorus Strait and the Canakkale Strait were transited by 49,304 and 38,777 vessels respectively. Approximately 62% of the transiting vessels in the Bosphorus Strait and 76% of the transiting vessels in the Canakkle strait were foreign flagged. The total pollutants emitted in 1998 for these straits (Bosporous + Canakkle) were: 12,818 tons of NOx, 1,194 tons of CO, 388 tons of VOC, and 194 tons of PM. Roughly 66% of these emissions were generated in the Canakkale strait. f. SO2 Ship Emissions in Asian Waters (Streets et al. 2000) A study focusing on the impact of SO2 emissions from shipping activities found that due to the rapid development of Asian economies the shipping trade grew by an average of 5.4% per year during the time of the study (1988-1995). It is also estimated that SO emissions from shipping grew by 5.9% per year during this period due largely in part to the increasing need for raw materials and fossil fuels. The study found that Southeast Asia was most heavily impacted by these ship emissions. The most heavily impacted regions, Sumatra, the Malaysian Peninsula, and Singapore were found to receive more than 10% of their atmospheric deposition from shipping activities. This acidic deposition significantly threatens the ecosystems of these regions. The atmospheric deposition from these vessels during the summer months turned out to be at least 25% greater than during the winter or spring. The study showed that the two routes that were responsible for the most emissions in the area were from the Gulf through the Indian Ocean and from Singapore to Taiwan across the South China Sea. The total SO2 emissions in the study are increased from about 545 Gg per year in 1988 to about 816 Gg per year in 1995. In 1995, the two Asian ports with the largest SO2 emissions were Singapore (2,625 Mg per year) and Chiba, Japan (1,514 Mg per year). Crude oil maritime shipments alone were found to be responsible for an 8.2% annual growth in SO2 emissions.
28
Controlling air emissions from marine vessels III. Emission Control Technologies Emission control technologies can be implemented either as a feature of the original design of the vessel or as a retrofit control device added onto an existing vessel. New build installations of these controls is the preferred option as the space needed for the selected technology can be allocated in the original planning layout and fuel and engine components can be selected that are compatible with the control technology. The retrofit option is a lot more difficult, as the quantity of available space for control hardware varies from ship to ship, compatibility with other ship components may make it impossible for some methods to be implemented so the emission control technology options are a lot greater for new builds. Since vessels are designed and constructed to be in service for decades the careful selection of the appropriate control method is crucial. A detailed and analytical look at the selection process of appropriate technologies can be found in a paper written for the US Department of Transportation, Maritime Division (MARAD) in 2003 by Dr. James Corbett and David Chapman, called, Decision Framework for Emission Control Technology Selection (Corbett 2003). This paper identified the important objectives that need to be considered for technology selection, suggests a ranking scheme for technologies, takes into account the Net Present Value (NPV) analysis combining the capital cost and annual operating costs and even introduces a decision tree for technology selection. The NPV analysis is extremely important because some of the technologies have significant annual costs and may even decrease the fuel efficiency of the power system by increasing fuel consumption or decrease the available power of the engine. This section will analyze several different control technologies. The technologies can be categorized as; (1) In-engine modifications, (2) Water-based controls, (3) After-treatment onboard controls, (4) Shore-side controls and (5) Fuel switching. These technologies will be studied in terms of target pollutants, emission reduction efficiency and estimated cost (annual and capital). The best approach for reducing emissions may not be a single solution described in this section but may be a combination of technologies. A. In-engine and operational modifications 1. Fuel injection: Slide Valves Emission Reductions:
NOx -20% PM -25% to 50% SO2 0% CO 0% VOC up to -50%
Costs:
Description Capital Cost Annual Operation & Maintenance Costs Small engine (3,000 kW) $10,920 Medium engine (10,000 kW) $36,400 Large engine (25,000 kW) $91,000 -
29
Change in Fuel Consumption: 0% Lifespan: 2.5 years Since PM is a product of incomplete combustion, and unburnt fuel the optimization of the fuel injection system could result in the reduction of fuel consumption and a reduction of PM emissions. The fuel injection valve of an engine can be optimized to achieve different objectives. There are fuel efficient valves (e.g. slide valves) that optimize the fuel injected into the cylinder and therefore also reduce PM emissions. There are also NOx optimized valves that are optimized to reduce NOx emissions. Figure 11 shows a comparison of a traditional slide valve and a slide-type valve, with the main difference being the sac volumes of the valve. The replacement of typical valves with emissions optimized valves is simple as they replace existing valves. These valves differ from conventional valves in their spray patterns and they are designed to reduce the dripping of fuel from the injector into the combustion zone post injection. This fuel that enters the combustion zone late is subject to lower temperatures and therefore results in the emission of unburnt fuel (PM) and VOCs. The retrofitting of older engines with slide valves will require some additional engineering costs in order to properly select and fit the valves for the engine (Entec NOx 2005). Figure 11: Conventional vs. Slide Valve Design Source: (MAN 2004)
2. Advanced operational modifications Emission Reductions:

NOx -30% PM 0% SO2 0% CO 0% VOC 0%
30
Costs:
Description Capital Cost Annual Operation & Maintenance Costs Small engine (3,000 kW) $134,105 Medium engine (10,000 kW) $149,705 Large engine (25,000 kW) $215,725 -
Change in Fuel Consumption: 0% Lifespan: 25 years Since NOx is a byproduct of high cylinder temperatures, a lowering of the combustion temperature by retarding the engine timing would also result in NOx reductions. In some engines the timing adjustment can be made while in service. The NOx reduction generated by this operational change is around 2-3%. Retarding the engine timing too much will result in a loss in fuel efficiency and an increase in the emission of PM (MATSON). Other operational modifications that could be made to reduce emissions are; Increasing the compression ratio, increasing the turbo efficiency, use of a fuel injection system that can be easily adjusted (e.g. common rail, flexible injection system, etc.), increase in cylinder pressure, and decrease in the engines air intake temperature. Non-engine related modifications like the optimization of hull and propeller design could also reduce the amount of work and power needed for vessel propulsion and therefore the emissions generated by the vessels power system. 3. Exhaust Gas Recirculation (EGR) Emission Reductions:
NOx -35% PM 0% SO2 0% CO Not available VOC Not available
Costs: No EGR system installations are known (by the author) so no accurate cost analysis can be provided. Change in Fuel Consumption: 0% Lifespan: No EGR system installations are known (by the author) so no accurate lifespan analysis can be provided. Exhaust Gas Recirculation (EGR) takes the exhaust gas from the engine and cools and reroutes it back into the engines air intake. Figure 12 illustrates the basic design principle involved in EGR technology. Using the exhaust gas as intake air reduces the oxygen content (from 21% for typical air to 13% for exhaust air) of the air going into the cylinder which limits the NOx that can be formed and reduces the amount of combustion that can take place. The EGR process of injecting exhaust gas into the intake air also increases the specific heat capacity of the intake air; therefore reducing the combustion temperature and reducing NOx formation.
31
Controlling air emissions from marine vessels Figure 12: Design Principle of EGR Technology
Source: (Aabo/ Niels Kjemtrup )
There are many different components to an EGR system. The system requires the use of an electrostatic precipitator and catalysts to remove the particulates from the exhaust gas before injecting it as intake air. There is also a need for wet-scrubbing technology to remove the sulfur components of the exhaust stream prior to reintroduction into the engine. A cooling unit is also needed to reduce the temperature of the exhaust gas before it returns to the engine. The importance of removing the sulfur species and particulates of the exhaust gas shows that the system would be best suited for vessels that burn a high quality fuel that has low sulfur content (Entec- NOx 2005). B. Water-based controls Water based controls reduce emissions from diesel engines by introducing water at different stages of the combustion process. Introducing water into the combustion cylinder reduces the maximum peak combustion temperature, and the formation of NOx, because of the evaporation of the water. The in-cylinder evaporation of the water also improves the atomization of the fuel and causes it to burn more completely. As the concentration of water introduced into the combustion chamber changes so will the concentration of the pollutants emitted. 1. Humid Air Motor (HAM) Emission Reductions:
NOx -70% PM 0% SO2 0% CO 0% VOC 0%
32
Controlling air emissions from marine vessels Costs:

Description Capital Cost (Retrofit) Capital Cost (New build) Annual Operation & Management Costs Small engine (3,000 kW) $578,500 $578,500 $2,950 Medium engine (10,000 kW) $1,740,500 $1,615,500 $9,575 Large engine (25,000 kW) $4,055,000 $3,430,000 $23,900
Change in Fuel Consumption: 0% Lifespan: 12-15 years The Humid Air Motor (HAM) uses heated intake air, saturated with water vapor typically produced by the evaporation of seawater. This technology utilizes the heat generated by the engine to produce the temperatures needed to vaporize the seawater. Figure 13 shows the basic design of a HAM system. The technology needs to be integrated with the engine so inclusion in the original build of the ship would ensure the space requirements of the system. The quantity of water introduced into the engine is about three times the amount of fuel. This ratio of water to fuel would yield NOx reductions on the order of 70-80%. Given the large amount of water vapor needed for this control measure the vessel may need to use its boilers or install new boilers to ensure the effectiveness of the design (Entec-NOx 2005). Figure 13: HAM System
Source: (Aabo/ Niels Kjemtrup )
2. Water Emulsion (30% water) Emission Reductions:

NOx -30% PM 0% SO2 0% CO 0% VOC 0%
33
Controlling air emissions from marine vessels Costs: The cost information for this technology was not available in the same form as for a majority of the other technologies. The cost of this equipment will vary between $550,000 to $750,000 depending on the availability of water storage tanks on the vessel, and the need for a distillation unit. Change in Fuel Consumption: ~3% Water emulsion is the process of introducing water into the fuel prior to injection into the combustion cylinder. The water emulsion process can be greatly improved by introducing a fuel mill into the system that grinds the fuel up allowing for better emulsion and more complete combustion. Figure 14 is a schematic of a water emulsion system. Typically this control method will yield a 1% reduction in NOx for 1% concentration of water in the emulsion. This one-to-one ratio is consistent up to about 30% water content, at which point the combustion temperature decreases too much resulting in an increase in PM emissions. This emission reduction technology is also associated with a slight loss in the maximum power capacity of the engine. This system is unable to use seawater in its operation so there is a need for either distillers or additional tanks for fresh water. This technology has the advantage that the system can easily be turned on or off during operation, and therefore can reduce the emissions generated as the vessel travels close to shore or is in port. Figure 14: Pressurized Fuel Oil System with Homogeniser
Source: (MAN 2004)
34
Controlling air emissions from marine vessels 3. Water Injection Emission Reductions:
NOx -50% PM 0% SO2 0% CO 0% VOC 0%
Costs:
Small engine (3,000 kW) $169,665 $41,488 Medium engine (10,000 kW) $338,223 $135,700 Large engine (25,000 kW) $686,166 $338,750
Description Capital Cost (New Build) Annual Operation & Maintenance Costs
Change in Fuel Consumption: 0% Lifespan: 25 years Water injection is the process of directly introducing water into the combustion cylinder. Figure 15 is a schematic of the operating principles behind a water injection system. This technology, like the water-fuel emulsion system, needs fresh water to operate. The system uses electric pumps to inject the water into the combustion chamber at pressures of 200-400 bar. The water is injected into the chamber just before the fuel is injected. Figure 15: Direct Water Injection Schematic/ Wartsila
Source: (Wartsila 2005)
This system can also be turned off without impacting the performance of the engine as it is not integrated with the fuel delivery system. Installation of the system is possible when the vessel is underway. Typically the water to fuel ratios are 40-70% and therefore significant tank capacity or distilling units will most likely be required for the system. This water to fuel ratio would reduce NOx formation by 50-60% (Entec-NOx 2005). Problems and Opportunities 35
Controlling air emissions from marine vessels C. After-treatment on-board controls 1. Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) Emission Reductions:
NOx -90% PM 0% SO2 0% CO 0% VOC 0%
Costs:
Small engine (3,000 kW) $423,656 $282,438 $169,400 Medium engine (10,000 kW) $985,144 $656,763 $427,576 Large engine (25,000 kW) $2,263,880 $1,509,254 $1,001,500
Description Capital Cost (Retrofit) Capital Cost (New build) Annual Operation & Maintenance Costs
Change in Fuel Consumption: 0% Lifespan: 15 years The Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) process is an after-treatment technology that can be used to effectively reduce exhaust gas emissions. The SCR process involves injecting a reagent (e.g. Ammonia or Urea) into the exhaust stream which then passes through a catalyst to achieve upwards of 90% NOx reduction. Figure 16 shows an example of an SCR installation on an engine. Figure 16: Example of SCR configuration
Source: (MAN 2004)
This system requires a lot of space, and additional weight (e.g. catalyst, Urea tanks, etc.) and therefore would be easier for installation on new build ships as opposed to retrofits.
36
Controlling air emissions from marine vessels A majority of the installations of SCR technology have taken place on smaller four-stroke engines as opposed to the larger two-stroke main engines. The SCR system needs exhaust gas temperatures at or above 270 degrees Celsius to be effective. The catalyst in the system has to be changed out as it decays, and is sensitive to the pollutants in the exhaust gas. The soot, alkaline metal oxides, phosphorus oxides, and sulfur compounds typically found in the exhaust of an engine operating on bunker fuel can deactivate the catalyst; therefore the use of low sulfur fuel can extend the life of the catalyst. The use of Urea (NH3) in the system breaks down the NOx emissions to N2 and H2O. A NOx reduction efficiency of 90% can be achieved using a urea injection rate of 15 g/ kWh. The system also has the potential for ammonia slip which is the entrance of pure (not reacted with NOx) Urea into the exhaust stream due to overestimation of the amount of Urea needed to react with the NOx in the exhaust. Ammonia is an air pollutant and its presence in the exhaust stream can corrode the exhaust system (Entec-NOx 2005). 2. Seawater Scrubbing Emission Reductions:
NOx 0% PM -25% SO2 69%-94% CO 0% VOC 0%
Costs:
Small engine (3,000 kW) $747,600 $523,320 $15,700 Medium engine (10,000 kW) $2,410,800 $1,687,560 $33,751 Large engine (25,000 kW) $6,048,000 $4,233,600 $42,336
Description Capital Cost (Retrofit) Capital Cost (New build) Annual Operation & Maintenance Costs
Change in Fuel Consumption: 0% Lifespan: 15 years Seawater scrubbing technology utilizes the natural alkalinity of Seawater to reduce the SOx emission from the exhaust stream. After mixing the seawater with the exhaust gas the solid particles are removed and the seawater is then returned to the ocean, which is a natural reservoir for sulfur as it contains high quantities of Sulfur. This scrubbing technology provides an alternative to fuel switching for vessel operators traveling in SECA areas. Figure 17 is a schematic of the EcoSilencer seawater scrubbing system. By allowing the vessel operator to burn high sulfur fuels, the system will lower fuel costs and reduce the sensitivity to the low-sulfur fuels market.
37
Controlling air emissions from marine vessels Figure 17: EcoSilencer Scrubbing System and Water Treatment Skid from DME
Source: (MAN 2004)
The seawater scrubbing technology has been found to reduce exhaust gas SO2 levels by 69-94% from vessels operating on fuel with a Sulfur content of 2.5%. The scrubbing action is also believed to reduce the quantity of particulates (PM) in the exhaust stream. Studies of the EcoSilencer seawater scrubbing device have shown that the discharge water produced by the system conforms to the IMO OILPOL petroleum hydrocarbon limit (15 ppm) that can be discharged overboard. The primary costs of the Seawater scrubbing system are in the initial capital investment. The operation and maintenance costs of the system involve routine pump maintenance and sludge disposal (from the discharged seawater). The costs of the system can be made up and even exceeded by the savings from the price differential between Bunker fuel and low sulfur fuels that are required for vessels operating in SECA designated regions (Entec-SOx 2005). D. Shore-side controls 1. Shore Power Emission Reductions: Emission reductions from shore power will vary by vessel type and the amount of time the engines spend at berth in port. Since the technology assumes the ships engines will be turned off while in port the emission reductions can be assumed to be equal to the emissions produced in port minus the emissions generated during connection and disconnection from the cold-ironing hardware. Costs: The costs for cold-ironing a vessel are dependent on the types of vessels being evaluated. The Environ study found a range from $1.2 million to $6.7 million in capital costs from the vessels that it studied. These costs take into account capital costs on the vessel side, terminal side, electricity provider, and work barge (Environ 2004).
38
Change in Fuel Consumption: Reduction in fuel consumption as the ships engines will be turned off. Lifespan: The Environ report assumed a 15 year useful life for the equipment. The pollutants emitted as a result of a vessels in-port operations have been identified as a major threat to the air quality and public health of the nearby communities. While in port a vessel operates its auxiliary engines, and in some cases its main engine, to produce electricity for the vessel and to power unloading and loading operations. Shore-power, also called cold-ironing or ship electrification is the process of connecting the ship to the electrical grid while in port so that the ship can avoid the use of their main or auxiliary engine while in port and also reduces the emissions generated in port. Although pollutants are emitted from vessels at greater rates while in transit the emissions generated while a vessel is maneuvering and at berth in port are important because of their proximity to heavily populated communities. Figure 18 is a schematic of a ShorePowered dockside configuration. Figure 18: Cold Ironed Ship Schematic
Source: (Environ 2004)
Electrifying the vessels basically transfers the vessels on-board power generation needs from the on-board engines to the typically better emission controlled grid power. Table 13 is a table of on-board power requirements for different types of marine vessels form an Environ study prepared for the Port of Long Beach.
39
Controlling air emissions from marine vessels Table 13: Estimated On-board Power Requirements for Selected Vessels
Source: (Environ 2004)
The Environ report estimates the ship types with the highest average berthing times are bulk carriers, tankers and container ships with the following respective times; 102.8 hours, 62.2 hours and 51.1 hours (Environ 2004). Potential problems arise in the capacity of the local grid to handle the large power demands of the ships, the uniformity of the required infrastructure between ports, the installation of the infrastructure on the ship required to retrofit them for plug in service and safety concerns associated with the handling of high voltage cables. This technology has been in use since the late 1980s, is used in several different countries and therefore creates a need for standardization of system specifications so electrified ships are able to visit multiple ports and connect to their electrical systems. 2. Advanced Maritime Emissions Control System (AMECS) Emission Reductions:
NOx -95% PM -99% SO2 -99% CO Not available VOC -50%
Costs: A detailed cost analysis for this technology was not available. Operating costs would include many of the same annual costs as described for the SCR system (e.g. Urea).
40
Controlling air emissions from marine vessels Change in Fuel Consumption: 0% Lifespan: 10 years Advanced Cleanup Technologies Incorporated (ACTI) is a company in Oxnard California specializing in hazardous waste management and is developing a method for treating marine emissions from marine vessels while berthing in port or anchored. The companys approach, called the Advanced Maritime Emissions Control System (AMECS), utilizes SCR technology and a scrubber technology in the multi-stage emission reduction system. Figure 19 shows a schematic of one of the ACTI AMECS ground based system. The AMECS system can have the emission control system either on a barge or dockside. Figure 19: ACTI AMEC Ground based system
Source: (ACTI CD)
The unique characteristic of this approach is that the system uses adjustable hoods to cap the exhaust stack(s) while the vessel is in port and transfers the vessels exhaust gas through a line that connects the hood to the emission control system. This design is developmental but the emission controls it utilizes are proven, effective emission reduction technologies and would provide another emission control option for ship owners that would help them reduce their in-port emissions. This system would allow ship owners to reduce emissions without modifying their vessel and could be used on just about every vessel type. The drawback to this approach is that the emission reductions would not occur in regions where the vessel is transiting operations and in other ports that were not equipped with such controls. (ACTI CD) E. Fuel switching Emission Reductions: Switching fuels from 2.7% to 1.5% Sulfur content
NOx 0% PM -18% SO2 -44% CO 0% VOC 0%
41
Switching fuels from 2.7% to 0.5% Sulfur content

NOx 0% PM -20% SO2 -81% CO 0% VOC 0%
Cost: Switching fuels from 2.7% to 1.5% Sulfur content

Description Capital Cost Annual Operation & Maintenance Costs Small engine (3,000 kW) $0 $196,134 Medium engine (10,000 kW) $0 $642,118 Large engine (25,000 kW) $0 $1,602,796
Switching fuels from 2.7% to 0.5% Sulfur content

Description Capital Cost Annual Operation & Maintenance Costs Small engine (3,000 kW) $0 $252,171 Medium engine (10,000 kW) $0 $825,580 Large engine (25,000 kW) $0 $2,060,738
Vessels operating in regions that are designated as SECA areas under IMO Annex VI have options for complying with the requirements of the regulation. The vessels can either operate on fuel with a Sulfur content of 1.5% or utilize after-treatment technology that brings the SOx content of the exhaust gas down to 6 g/ kWh or less. The Seawater scrubbing technology described earlier is an example of the after-treatment approach and this section looks at the costs involved in the fuel switching approach. The sulfur content assumed for the baseline has Sulfur content consistent with the world average of 2.7% not the IMO standard of 4.5% (Entec SOx-2005). The costs associated with fuel switching shown above assume no capital cost is required for adjustments in the vessels fuel delivery system. The costs also assume that the vessel switches its current tanks over to carry only the lower sulfur fuel; therefore this analysis would apply to vessels that operate predominantly within a SECA area. Vessels that split their time in between regions inside of and outside of the SECA region may be able to store various grades of fuel onboard and switch to the low-sulfur fuel only when within the SECA boundaries.
42
Controlling air emissions from marine vessels IV. Regulations The International Maritime Organization (IMO) is the primary regulatory agency tasked with developing regulations for the control of pollution from international shipping activities. These regulations, once approved are implemented and enforced by the member states. The regulations section of this document will look into activities by the IMO, US EPA, European Union and other agencies that are attempting to control air pollution from ocean-going vessels. This section will primarily cover regulatory actions both mandatory and voluntary. A. International Maritime Organization (IMO) In 1948, at a conference in Geneva the United Nations (UN) adopted a convention establishing the Inter-governmental Maritime Consultative Organization (IMCO), later renamed the International Maritime Organization (IMO). The IMO convention went into force in 1958. The purpose of the IMO was defined as a forum for the cooperation among governments in terms of regulations and practices relating to technical matters affecting international shipping. The IMO was to support and adopt the highest feasible standards for maritime safety, navigation and the prevention and control of pollution from ships. Based in London, the IMO is one of the smallest braches of the UN in terms of staff, and has a membership consisting of 166 nations. The IMO is responsible for developing and adopting regulations, and delegates the power to implement and enforce the regulations to its member states. The shipping industry and other maritime interests are represented at IMO with consultative status and are often involved in the development of IMO legislation. Following the Torrey Canyon oil spill in 1967, in which 120,000 tonnes of oil was spilled the IMO began to focus on the problem of pollution in the maritime industry. In 1973 the IMO adopted the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from ships (MARPOL), which was modified in 1978. In addition to accidental oil spills, this convention also addressed pollution created from chemical cargo, packaged goods, sewage, garbage, and air pollution. The Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) was created by the IMO to serve as the primary technical working group for matters relating to marine pollution. The IMO has identified six areas of focus regarding pollution from ships at sea, identified as annexes to the original MARPOL 73/78 actions. Annex I, entered into force on October 2, 1983 and focused on preventing pollution from oil. Annex II, entered into force on April 6, 1987 and was designed to control pollution by noxious liquid substances. Annex III, entered into force on July 1, 1992 and targeted the prevention of pollution by harmful substances in packaged form. Annex IV, entered into force on September 27, 2003 and was designed to prevent sewage pollution from ships. Annex V, entered into force on December 31, 1988 and was created to prevent the pollution by garbage from ships. Annex VI, entered into force on May 19, 2005 and was developed to prevent air pollution from ships. (IMO 1997) Costs of the IMO are shared between the 166 Member States primarily in proportion to the size of the respective fleet of merchant ships. The biggest fleets in the world are currently operated by Panama and Liberia and so they pay the biggest share of IMO budget.
43
Controlling air emissions from marine vessels The top ten contributors for 2006 were assessed as shown in Table 14 (the figures show the amount payable and as a percentage of the total budget). The IMO budgetary analysis in Table 14 shows that four of the top ten contributors to the 2006 IMO budget are made up of nations classified as Open Registries, accounting for over one-third of the entire budget. Table 14: 2006 Top 10 IMO Budgetary Member Contributors
Member Nation 1. Panama 2. Liberia 3. Bahamas 4. United Kingdom 5. Greece 6. Singapore 7. Japan 8. Marshall Islands 9. United States 10. China Source: (IMO WEB) Contribution % of IMO Budget 4,141,951 1,730,648 1,128,559 1,040,068 973,151 900,531 842,596 802,983 771,737 749,093 18.47 % 7.72 % 5.03 % 4.64 % 4.34 % 4.02 % 3.76 % 3.58 % 3.44 % 3.34 %
1. Annex VI: Regulations for the Prevention of Air Pollution from Ships MARPOL Annex VI, Regulations for the Prevention of Air Pollution from Ships was part of the 1997 MARPOL protocol and adopted on May 19, 2004, when the minimum requirements for ratification of the annex were achieved; a minimum of 15 member states, representing at least 50% of the worlds shipping tonnage. One year after the ratification the regulations of Annex VI went into force for the member nations that have ratified the Annex. As of November 2005, Annex VI has been ratified by 30 nations, representing over 63% of the worlds shipping tonnage (See Table 15 and Figure 20). Panama, Cyprus, Liberia and Singapore are amongst the nations that have ratified the Annex, while the United States, China, Canada and Mexico are among the nations that have yet to ratify. (IMO 1997)
44
Controlling air emissions from marine vessels Table 15: IMO Annex VI Signatory Nations (as of 12/31/05)
Azerbaijan 16 Lithuania Bahamas 17 Luxembourg Bangladesh 18 Marshall Islands Barbados 19 Norway Bulgaria 20 Panama Croatia 21 Poland Cyprus 22 Saint Kitts and Nevis Denmark 23 Samoa Estonia 24 Saudi Arabia Finland 25 Singapore France 26 Spain Germany 27 Sweden Greece 28 Tuvalu Japan 29 United Kingdom Vanuatu Liberia 30 Total % of World's Shipping Tonnage 63.72% (Source: Official IMO website http://www.imo.org/home.asp ) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Figure 20: Annex VI Signatory Nations
Source: Data from IMO website plotted using online map tool (http://douweosinga.com/projects/visitedcountries )
2. Applicability & Compliance Once a regulation developed by the IMO is adopted by a nation, the nation agrees to make that legislation a national law and enforce it accordingly. Since it has been ratified, Annex VI applies to all ships registered to the nations that have ratified the legislation, and ships operating in waters controlled under the jurisdiction of nations that have ratified the legislation. The flag states that ratify Annex VI after May 18, 2005 will be subject to the legislation three months from signing on (ABS 2005). Information on the latest list of signatory nations can be found at the IMO website: http://www.imo.org
45
Controlling air emissions from marine vessels Annex VI legislation covers the following pollutants; Oxides of Nitrogen (NOx), Sulfur Oxides (SOx), Ozone depleting substances and Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC). The legislation also addresses fuel oil quality and on-board incinerators. The Annex will apply to ships of 400 gross tons and greater used on international voyages. Each compliant vessel will be issued an International Air Pollution Prevention Certificate (IAPPC) by their flag nation, and an Engine International Air Pollution Prevention Certificate (EIAPPC) by the flag nations administration (USCG for the United States) or an organization acting on its behalf (US EPA for the United States). Vessels of flag nations that have yet to ratify the Annex, and intend to operate in waters controlled by nations that are signatories to the Annex, will have to obtain a statement of compliance from their flag nation. 3. NOx Requirements The NOx requirements under Annex apply to diesel engines over 130 kW which have been installed on a ship built after January 1, 2000 or the engine has been subject to a major conversion since January 1, 2000. Major conversions include an increase in power greater than 10% and any technical or operational modifications that could increase NOx emissions. Boilers, gas turbines and emergency equipment are not subject to the NOx requirements of Annex VI. Table 16 below lists the NOx requirements for engines subject to Annex VI. Table 16: IMO Annex VI NOx Limits
Engine NOx Speed : n Emission (rpm) Limit Slow Speed ( <130 ) 17 Medium Speed -0.2 ( 130-1999 ) 45 x n High Speed ( 2000+ ) 9.8 Source: (IMO 1997) Units
g/ kWh g/ kWh g/ kWh
The NOx emission limits are a duty-cycle weighted value under defined conditions (e.g. humidity, fuel type, inlet air temperature, and coolant temperature). The IMO has issued a NOx technical code to aid in the understanding of the NOx requirements, and certification procedures. Figure 21 is a graphical representation of the NOx limits that Annex VI sets for engines shown in Table 16. The NOx technical code is an important document that lists the requirements of the engines technical file that is required to demonstrate compliance and is also available on the IMO website: http://www.imo.org
46
Controlling air emissions from marine vessels Figure 21: IMO NOx Curve Source: (Wartsila 2005)
4. SOx Requirements Annex VI sets the maximum sulfur limit for marine fuel oil at 4.5 percent m/m. This limit is considered easily obtainable, as a study (Starcrest Fuel 2005) of global sulfur fuel levels found that the average sulfur content of marine fuel used in ocean-going vessels was 2.6-2.7 percent m/m. Annex VI also allows for the designation of specified areas as SOx Emission Control Areas (SECA), where all vessels operating in the SECA have to meet a fuel sulfur limit of 1.5 percent m/m, or a maximum SOx emission limit of 6.0 g SOx/ kWh. The Baltic Sea (May 19, 2006) and the North Sea (October 2007) are the only areas currently designated as SECA. In the future other areas (e.g. Mediterranean, US Coastal Waters, etc.) are expected to apply for SECA designation under Annex VI. The establishment of SECA has created the need for vessels that operate in and out of the designated areas to either completely switch all fuel used to the 1.5% Sulfur fuel or utilize segregated tanks so that they are able to carry different fuel types and switch the fuel being burned as the vessel crosses SECA boundaries. The diligence in maintaining an accurate oil book is essential to the demonstration of compliance with SECA requirements. This book will contain the date, time and position of the vessel when the fuel changeover occurred (upon entrance and exit of a SECA territory). In addition to the oil book there needs to be a record of bunker deliveries to the vessel. A SECA is adopted by Amendment to Annex VI. A county must apply for designation of a SECA, and is followed by a vote of the parties to the Annex. The amendment to designate a SECA will enter into force 26 months after adoption, unless 1/3 of the parties formally object to the designation within the first 10 months of the process (EPA CHAMLEY).
47
Controlling air emissions from marine vessels 5. Ozone Depleting Substances (ODS) The ratification of Annex VI prohibits the installation of systems on vessels that use Ozone Depleting Substances (ODS) such as chlorofluorocarbons (CFC). Systems that utilize Hydro-chlorofluorocarbons (HCFC) are permitted onboard vessels until January 1, 2020. Existing systems using ODS can remain in use and be recharged after the adoption of Annex VI; however the deliberate venting of the ODS is prohibited. 6. Incinerators Annex VI requires that all incinerators installed on, or after January 1, 2000 meet specifications set by the MEPC (MEPC 76(40) specifications for Incinerators). Incinerators installed before January 1, 2000 can continue in use but cannot incinerate the following materials: Oil or chemical cargo residues or associated contaminated packaging. Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) an older form of stabilized transformer oil. Garbage containing more than trace quantities of heavy metals (these include mercury, cadmium, lead as, for example, found in some cell type batteries). Refined petroleum products containing halogen (fluorine, chlorine, bromine etc.) compounds. Polyvinyl chlorides (PVC) except in incinerators certified to either MEPC 76(40) or MEPC 59(33).
The operators of the equipment must be trained as to how to correctly operate incinerators and the flue gas outlet temperature is to be monitored together with start up controls. 7. Future Developments The first meeting of the IMO MEPC (53rd MEPC session, London, July 18-22, 2005) following the entry into force of Annex VI resulted in a discussion of potential future amendments to the regulation. Thee committee realized the need to review and consider revisions to the annex, and directed the sub-committee on bulk liquids and gases to address the following issues by 2007: Review the development of emission control technologies Consider the potential for tighter NOx and SOx standards Consider the inclusion of Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) emissions from cargoes in the regulation Study PM emissions from marine engines, and recommend actions to be taken to include PM in the regulation Consider reducing NOx and PM emissions from exiting engines Consider inclusion of alternative fueled engines in the regulation Review the texts of Annex VI, NOx Technical Code and related guidelines and recommend necessary amendments.
48
Controlling air emissions from marine vessels B. United States The United States EPA has developed emission standards for engines that vary by type and size of marine engine. These standards apply only to newly manufactured engines that are on vessels operating under the flag of the United States. In its rulemaking the EPA has identified five different types of marine diesel engine categories (Table 17). Category 1 (C1) engines are similar to on-road diesel engines, are used for propulsion on recreational and small commercial harbor craft vessels, and for auxiliary power on larger vessels. Category 2 (C2) engines are similar to locomotive engines and are used for propulsion on commercial vessels and as auxiliary engines on ocean-going vessels. Category 3 (C3) engines are used for propulsion on ocean-going vessels and some great lake vessels. Table 17: EPA Marine Engine Categories Source: (EPA 2004)
Category Small Commercial Category 1 (C1) Category 2 (C2) Category 3 (C3) Recreational C1 Rated Power Displacement per Cylinder < 37 kW any 37 kW 37 kW < 5 liters 5 liters and < 30 liters 30 liters < 5 liters Final Rule Publication 1998 1999 1999 2003 2002
Propulsion engines used in ocean-going maritime activity are typically covered under the EPAs Commercial Category 3 engine category. The tier 1, emission standards for these engines mirror those set by the IMO under Annex VI (Table 16). These standards, like those set by the IMO only address NOx emissions, while the second tier of EPA standards for the other marine categories now address PM, CO and total hydrocarbon emissions. While the EPA has set a second tier of engine standards for the smaller engines, C1 and C2 engines it has not set tighter emission standards for the C3 engines. The 2003 EPA C3 engine rulemaking development was catalyzed by the settlement of a lawsuit by Natural Resource Defense Council (NRDC) and Bluewater Network requesting that the agency set the strongest standards for C3 engines as required to protect public health, under the Clean Air Act. The NRDC and Bluewater were not satisfied with the EPA efforts, as they believed that the standards were not strict enough and would fail to provide any real emission reductions. The NRDC and Bluewater proceeded to challenge the agencys rule in court; however this time the judge ruled that the EPA was within its authority to delay stricter standards for C3 engines, including the applicability to other pollutants, until 2007. (Bluewater) Bluewater Network believed that the engine standards should be applied to all vessels that operate in US waters, not just US flagged-vessels; however EPA deferred the responsibility for regulating emissions from foreign vessels to the IMO. The EPA also stated that under 213(a) (3) of the Clean Air Act, their authority to regulate emissions from marine vessels is limited to new marine engines making it clear that it does not believe that it has the authority to regulate in-use marine engines (EPA 1999). EPA has expressed its intentions to work with the IMO to develop stricter international emissions standards for marine vessels as a parallel effort to its own C3 engine rule developments. The EPA will consider applying standards to foreign-
49
Controlling air emissions from marine vessels flagged vessels visiting US ports and waters, and consider IMO developments in its pursuit of more stringent C3 emission standards by its 2007 deadline (EPA CHARMLEY). The United States has not yet ratified IMO Annex VI regulations. The US treaty, #108-7 was received by the Senate and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relation on May 15, 2003. The Senates Foreign Relations Committee had a hearing on Annex VI on September 29, 2005 where it had its questions about the treaty answered and are hopeful that the treaty could soon move to the Senate floor for their advice and ratification. Ratification of the Annex VI treaty is supported by environmental groups, local air agencies, the US EPA, community and public health groups, ports and the shipping industry. The support comes from many different interests as ratification would represent US support for world-wide standards for ship emissions. Along with the treaty for US ratification the Senate will be evaluating the US EPA and USCG development of legislation for US implementation and enforcement of the Annex VI regulatory requirements (EPA CHAMLEY). The EPA is also in the process of evaluating the feasibility of a SECA in the United States. Ratification of Annex VI by the US is required before a SECA application can be submitted to the IMO. The EPA feasibility study will consider technological feasibility, economic impact and the following air quality impacts: Emission contribution from ships, existing land-based measures, public health and ecological impacts and the impact of SECA SOx limits. The EPA is also evaluating the potential for submitting a multi-national SECA application including Canada and Mexico (EPA CHAMPLEY). The EPA foresees the completion of the feasibility study and submittal of a SECA application to the IMO by the spring of 2007 (EPA JOHNSON). C. European Union The European Unions (EU) commission on transportation and the environment adopted a strategy to reduce air pollution generated by ocean-going vessels. Adopted in November 2002, the strategy quantified the magnitude of ship emissions in the region and identified measures to reduce the shipping contribution to acidification, ground-level ozone formation, eutrophication, health, climate change, and ozone depletion. The EU strategy will implement the European SECA designations set forth by Annex VI (North Sea in 2006 and the Baltic Sea in 2007), and recognizes the need for tougher NOx emission standards. The EU Sulfur Directive was finalized in April of 2005, published in the EU Journal on July 22, 2005, entered into force on August 11, 2005 and its first provisions will apply starting from August 11, 2006. The directive establishes SECA implementation measures for the sulfur content of fuel to be less than 1.5% for the North and Baltic Seas, and allows scrubbing technologies to substitute for the use of the lower sulfur fuels. The directive also calls for passenger vessels operating in European territorial seas to use marine fuel with a sulfur content of less than 1.5% by 2006, and all ships in EU ports to use marine fuel with sulfur content less than 0.1% by 2010. Finally, the directive contains a review clause, where the commission is to consider the following items for inclusion into the directive by 2008: (1) Economic instruments, (2) Fuel specifications for inclusion in EU funding agreements, (3) Ships/ string emission trading schemes, (4) More EU SECA designations, and (5) The possibility of reducing the marine fuel sulfur cap from 1.5% to 0.5% (EC 2005).
50
The EU commission on transport and the environment has also supported non-regulatory approaches to controlling emissions from ocean-going vessels and funded research of possible emission control measures. The commission has funded a study (NERA 2004) on the feasibility of emission trading approaches to marine air emissions, as well as studies evaluating the existing control options for marine emissions (Entec 2005). D. California The California Air Resources Board (CARB) has been involved in the development and evaluation of measures to reduce emissions created by international trade. With several large ports participating in International Trade and growing trade increases CARB has been one of the lead agencies responsible for attempting to control emissions from marine vessels and port related activities. The 1998 classification of diesel PM as a Toxic Air Contaminant and the development of CARBs Diesel Risk Reduction Plan have identified marine vessels and port related activities as a major source threatening the air quality in California. In 2004 Governor Schwarzeneggers Goods Movement Action Plan created a task force/ multiagency working group to; evaluate future increases in trade, generate jobs, increase mobility, reduce traffic congestion, improve air quality and protect public health, enhance public and port safety and improve Californias quality of life. This working group faces the challenge of balancing economic growth, and air quality and public health impacts in California. Along with the ARB the other major state agencies responsible for developing a Goods Movement Action Plan are the California Business, Transportation and Housing Agency (BT&H) and the California EPA. On November 17, 2005 the CARB Board approved an Air Toxic Control Measure (ATCM) preventing the incineration of passenger vessels within three miles of the California Coast. The measure began as a result of CA legislative action defined in Senate Bill 471, and applies to all passenger vessels, foreign and domestic. The regulation goes into effect on 1/1/06 and represents one of the first state actions that are designed to reduce air emissions from vessels used in international activities. This legislation is expected to reduce the public's exposure to toxic air contaminants, such as dioxins and toxic metals, for residents living near ports and along the California coastline. On December 8, 2005 the CARB Board unanimously approved a rulemaking ATCM that will require ocean-going vessels operating within 24 miles of the California coast to burn a lower sulfur fuel in their auxiliary engines. This ATCM will apply to all ocean-going vessels visiting a CA port, and would impose significant fines for violations of the rule. The ATCM will also allow for vessels to reduce emissions from its main engine as an Alternative Compliance Plan. The hearing of this rule represents the first state regulatory action in the United States attempting to reduce emissions from engines on foreign and domestic ocean-going vessels. (RULE CARB 2005) CARB has also announced its intention to develop another regulation for ocean-going vessels in 2006. This regulation would attempt to reduce the emissions from ocean-going vessels that
51
Controlling air emissions from marine vessels frequently visit California ports. The success of this regulation will greatly depend on the success of the auxiliary engine ATCM approved on December 8, 2005. Other legislative attempts at reducing air emissions from ships operating in California were introduced in 2005. California Senator Alan Lowenthal introduced five bills (SB760, SB761, SB762, SB763 and SB764) in 2005 targeting emissions from goods movement. Senate Bill 760, would impose a $30 fee per TEU processed at the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. The revenue generated from this fee would be used to increase port security and for clean air projects in the port areas. Senate Bill 761 would reduce the truck idling time in the port areas. Senate Bill 762 would create intermodal authorities at the ports of Los Angeles/ Long Beach and Oakland. Senate Bill 763 would give priority berthing to ships that use a marine fuel with less than 0.2% sulfur content. Finally, Senate Bill 764 would finalize the No Net Increase (NNI) Plan initiated by former Los Angeles Mayor James Hahn. The NNI plan would establish a plan of action to prevent emissions from the Port of Los Angeles from exceeding a 2001 baseline by 2008, (Lowenthal 2005). E. Asia Unlike the activities in Europe and the United States air quality measures for marine vessels in Asia have not developed much beyond the requirements of IMO Marpol Annex VI. With the recent economic boom in Asian countries, the increase in trade activity, and the start of reducing emissions from onshore facilities the region will likely see marine vessels emerge as a major source of air pollution. A majority of Asian nations have yet to ratify the legislation of Annex VI. 1. Hong Kong As a major shipping representative at IMO, Hong Kong is not yet a signatory to the IMOs Marpol Annex VI legislation, but is in the process of developing implementing legislation. Hong Kong is also considering additional air quality measures that would apply to marine vessels. Currently Hong Kongs marine department is in charge of implementing and enforcing its shipping and port control ordinance (Section 50 of the Shipping and Port Control ordinance Cap. 313) for ship emissions. This ordinance is basically designed to prevent opacity/ nuisance emissions from vessels and does not set limits for the criteria pollutants. Between 2000 and 2002 the marine department received 51 complaints of violations of the ordinance, issued 18 warnings, and prosecuted and convicted 1 violator (CTA 2005). 2. Singapore Singapore, unlike Hong Kong is a signatory to IMOs Marpol Annex VI. It also has a nuisance law (Regulation 66 of the Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore Regulations 1997), and is aimed at preventing the excessive emission of ash or black smoke. Singapore has updated its Bunker regulations, practices and procedures for consistency with Annex VI requirements. 3. China China has not yet ratified IMO Marpol Annex VI, and like the Singapore and Hong Kong has established an opacity limit for maritime ship emissions. This regulation sets opacity
52
Controlling air emissions from marine vessels limts for marine diesel engines based on the engines displacement. China also has established standards for marine incinerators, regulating opacity, dust, SO2, NOx and H2S. (HAO 2005) F. Canada In Canada, regulators have yet to adopt the IMO Annex VI legislation. The provision to do so is tied up in a larger piece of legislation, the Canada Shipping Act (originally adopted in 1964), which is being held up by other unrelated measures and isnt expected to be approved until November 2006. The Canadian Shipping act only addresses black smoke emitted by marine vessels within one mile of shore. The current Canada Protection Act (CEPA) does not address emissions from ocean-going vessels. On March 13, 1991 the Canadian government entered into agreement with the US government on air quality matters to control trans-boundary transport of air pollutants between the two countries. The Air Quality Agreement signed in 1991 has been revised to included three annexes. Annex 1, the Acid Rain Annex, focuses on the commitments of both nations to reduce sulfur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen oxides (NOx) emissions, the primary precursors of acid rain. Annex 2, the Scientific and Technical Activities and Economic Research Annex, Canada and the United States agree to coordinate their air pollution monitoring networks; use compatible formats and methods for monitoring and reporting; and cooperate and exchange information about the causes and effects of air pollution and the use of market-based programs, such as the U.S. Acid Rain Program, to address air pollution issues. Finally, Annex 3 was added in December of 2000 and commits the two nations to reducing emissions of NOx and volatile organic compounds (VOCs)the precursor pollutants to ground-level ozone, which is the major component of smog (US-CAN). As a result of this agreement Canadas marine standards typically correspond to those set in the US. It seems unlikely that either nation will apply for a SECA without some sort of international cooperation, as there will be the threat of marine cargo being shifted out of the country as air quality regulations would be seen as an economic disadvantage for shippers. Studies will be conducted, hopefully in collaboration with the U.S., to determine if the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Seaway and East and West North American coasts should be similarly designated. More stringent global standards may be considered in the future to further limit NOx, fuel sulfur content and standards for marine engines (Taylor 2005).
53
Controlling air emissions from marine vessels V. Non-Regulatory Emission Control Initiatives This section describes several non-regulatory approaches that have been utilized to reduce emissions from ocean-going vessels. The approaches were divided into five categories; (1) Voluntary incentive-based approaches, (2) Multi-modal emission reduction plans, (3) Business initiated emission control efforts, (4) Information sharing groups and (5) Legal driven emission reduction. The voluntary incentive-based approach focuses on financial incentives and the development of market-based systems for reducing emissions from ocean-going vessels. The multi-modal emission reduction plans focus on creating strategies for reducing emissions from all of the modes of transportation (e.g. Marine vessels, trucks, locomotives, etc.) involved in the transportation of goods. The business initiated efforts are actions taken by private industry to reduce air pollution from marine vessels. Information sharing groups are assembled to create forums for collaboration, cooperation and information sharing on different approaches to reducing marine air emissions. Finally legal driven emission reductions are achieved as a result of lawsuits. A. Voluntary Incentive-based Approaches 1. Sweden: Differentiated Fairway Dues (SMA 2005) In April 1996 the Swedish Maritime Administration (SMA), Swedish Ship Owners Association, the Swedish Ports and the Stevedore Association agreed to develop aggressive measures to significantly reduce NOx and SOx emissions from ships. On January 1, 1998 the Swedish collaborative began its environmental incentive program to reduce emissions from ships visiting their ports. The system is completely voluntary, but provides its participants the incentive of paying reduced fairway dues for reducing their air emissions. The fairway dues have two parts, one based on the size of the ship (Gross Tonnage) and the other based on the volume of the ships cargo. The portion of the fee based on the gross tonnage of the ship is the part that is differentiated with emission reductions. The differentiated fee can be charged to cargo ships a maximum of 12 times per year, while ferries and other ships can be charged a maximum of 18 times per year. For tankers emitting NOx at a rate greater than 12 g/kWh they will have to pay a fee of SEK 5.30 per gross ton, while other vessels operating at a 12 g/kwh NOx rate will pay SEK 5.0. By reducing the NOx emission level to 2 g/kWh the tanker fee would be reduced to SEK 3.70 while the other vessels would pay SEK 3.40 for a similar emission rate. Emission rates between 2 g/kWh and 12 g/kWh will have their fees adjusted linearly. In addition to the NOx based fee reduction, ship operators can have their fairway dues reduced an additional SEK 0.9 per gross ton for using fuel with a Sulfur content of 0.5% for passenger ships and 1.0% for other ships. This program or a version of it is currently active in at least 20 Swedish ports, and the original program has increased its environmental benefit by introducing stricter conditions in 2005 for the fee reduction. The target pollutants of this system are NOx and SOx, and can be obtained by using lower sulfur fuel and retrofit control devices. The basic principle of the system is that the polluter pays for its impact on air quality, while
54
Controlling air emissions from marine vessels the environmentally conscious ship operators can reduce their operating costs by reducing their emissions. The differentiated fairway dues system has created a market and encouraged the development of emission control technologies, not only for Swedish waters but for the world. As of May 2005, 38 vessels were registered in the Swedish system using NOx control devices (e.g. SCR or HAM). The fairway dues existed before the program began, are charged by the gross tonnage per vessel and are used for ice breaking and other maritime services. The competitive nature of the ferry systems operating in Swedish ports has made it difficult for operators not to participate in the program and the individual vessel operators have taken great pride in their commitment to reducing emissions. This program benefited from a large captive fleet of vessels and an existing fee structure that could be differentiated as environmental incentives without taking away from the original purpose of the fee (SMA 2005). 2. Shipping Emissions Abatement and Trading Demonstration (SEAaT proj. 2005) Shipping Emissions Abatement and Trading Demonstration (SEAaT) is a self-funded, shipping interest group formed in 2002 to raise awareness and acceptance of feasible, Cost-effective solutions for emission reductions. The group was founded by representatives from the shipping and oil industries and members also include ship owners, brokers, technology companies and fuel suppliers. The groups secretariat and consultants operate out of London. In April 2005 SEAaT started a 9 month Sulfur Emissions Trading offset pilot project. The main objectives of the project are: (1) To gain an understanding of the benefits and challenges of emissions trading, (2) To assess the environmental impact of Sulfur offsetting, and (3) To allow for the participants to develop their own strategies for complying with emission reduction legislation. The pilot project will take place in the North Sea region that will go into force as an IMO designated SECA in 2007. The data collected will include fuel consumption, and route information/ location of the vessels while they operate in the proposed North Sea SECA area and at port. Vessels will be tagged as either emission credit generators or emission credit purchasers. The generators will be able to generate the emission reduction credits by operating on 0.2% Sulfur fuel, virtually operating on 0.2% Sulfur fuel or virtually operating abatement equipment that is capeable of reducing emissions to the 0.2% Sulfur fuel equivalent. Any reductions below the 1.5% Sulfur fuel limit equivalent (SECA requirement) will be used to offset emissions from the higher polluting vessels. The objective is for the group to achieve SOx reductions that meet or exceed those that will be enforce when the region officially becomes a SECA in 2007. The pilot project will explore the following concerns identified for a potential offsetting scheme: What kind of agreement is necessary to ensure the group works effectively? How difficult will administration and co-ordination be? What is the optimum syndicate size? Can market liquidity be achieved?
55
Controlling air emissions from marine vessels What are the economic benefits to participants/industry/society? What is the cost of reaching a range of environmental benefits? What reporting is necessary? How might changing circumstances (fuel prices, fuel grades, technology) affect the operation of an offsetting group? How does where the emissions occur affect offsetting? (hot spots?) How is non-compliance managed? How are the group rules enforced?
The participants in the project include 40 vessels of various types, routes and sizes from six of the areas major vessel operators: Teekay, Stena Line, BP, P&O Ferries, NOL and OOCL. SEAaT has hired British Maritime Technology (BMT) as an independent third party contractor to manage the project. BMT tasks include: Project setup, reporting, analysis, and final reporting. The project is scheduled to conclude in December 2005 and a final report will produced early in 2006 (SEAaT proj. 2005).
More information about SEAaT and the pilot project can be found on the following website: http://www.seaat.org/index.htm
3. Port of Los Angeles/ Long Beach: Vessel Speed Reduction Program In May 2001 the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach began implementation of a voluntary Vessel Speed Reduction Program (VSRP). The program was a collaborative effort between the two ports, US EPA, California Air Resources Board (ARB), the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), the Marine Exchange of Southern California and the Pacific Merchant Shipping Association (PMSA). The program calls for participating vessels to reduce their speed to 12 knots or less within 20 miles from Point Fermin. Vessel speed is directly related to the engine power required by the propulsion engines of ocean-going vessels and engine power is directly coupled to engine exhaust emissions; therefore, a reduction in vessel speed will result in a reduction of exhaust emissions. An arriving or departing ship would slow to 12 knots for the 20-mile inbound or outbound transit and thus reduce the power requirements of the propulsion engine. This program is most effective for ships that generally travel at faster speeds (greater then 20 knots) such as containerships, auto carriers, and cruise ships (PoLA NNI 2005). The program is the first of its kind and is seen as an on-going success story as it is responsible for eliminating over 100 tons of vessel generated NOx emissions during the first quarter of 2005. This works out to a little over one ton of NOx emissions reduced per day. Participation in the program is currently estimated at 70% of the shipping lines that call on the ports. Future revisions to the program are looking at extending the 20 mile radius to 40 miles and the possibility of making the program mandatory. 4. Alaskan Low Sulfur Fuel Use Agreement Under a voluntary agreement between the State of Alaska and tanker operators, ships are operating on 0.5% sulfur (or lower) residual fuel while entering Valdez or alongside.
56
Controlling air emissions from marine vessels On average, 35 tankers call at the port per month. Assuming a fuel consumption rate of four tons/day while alongside and an average port duration of three days per vessels, the total incremental cost amounts to about $330,000 (all operators). Environmental benefits would be in the order of 250 tons of SOx reduction per year. A 10 to 15 ton reduction in PM are likely also achieved (BMT 2005). 5. Maritime Goods Movement Coalition (MGMC) The Maritime Good Movement Coalition (MGMC) is a group of stakeholders representing the maritime goods movement sector in the Southern California region looking to put together a long-term, comprehensive market-based program to meet the challenges of a growing good movement industry. As of December 2005 the coalition consisted of port representatives, terminal operators and fuel and energy providers. The coalition recommends that a goods movement plan contain the following: A long term (20 year) goods movement master plan An emissions trading market for all emission sources involved in goods movement A system of enforcement and monitoring to ensure goals are met
In July 2005 the Port of Long Beach Board of Harbor Commissioners gave their preliminary approval to participate in and spend $500,000 to help start the (MGMC). The Board also expressed the potential for contributing an additional $2 million to help launch the maritime emission market program. This program would provide goods movement sources the flexibility to select the appropriate emission reduction technologies or purchase emission reduction credits that have been banked by other sources. A white paper (SCHARY) produced in February 2006 compares the SEAaT emissions trading program described above with the proposed MGMC. A summary table from this paper describing the main attributes of each program can be found in Appendix D. The SEAaT program is more developed than the MGMC program and focuses solely on SO2 emissions while the MGMC is being designed to focus on PM, NOx, SO2 and ROG emissions. The market driver for the SEAaT program is the internationally recognized SECA designation under IMO MARPOL Annex VI, while the MGMC proposes to use the California State Implementation Plan (SIP) as its primary driver. The MGMC is looking at a trading zone is the Southern California/ Los Angeles area and an additional zone in the Northern California/ San Francisco area. Each zone would also address hot spot areas of high emission concentrations by designating priority trading zones. The MGMC is evaluating both an open market and cap and trade approach. Unlike the SEAaT program that allows trading solely among vessels (closed-market), the MGMC is looking at allowing trading among any source (open-market) that is subject to emissions performance targets. B. Multi-Modal Emission Reduction Plans 1. California Goods Movement Action Plan
57
Controlling air emissions from marine vessels On January 27, 2005 California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger released a policy statement identifying the improvement of goods movement as a high priority issue that has a significant impact on the economy and quality of life of Californians. In response to the forecasted growth in goods handled in California the Governor established a Cabinet level working group (made up of: logistics industry, local and regional governments, neighboring communities, business, labor, environmental groups and other interested stakeholders) to improve and expand Californias goods movement infrastructure with the following objectives: Generate jobs Increase mobility and relieve traffic congestion Improve air quality and protect public health Enhancing public and port safety Improve Californias quality of life
An initiative lead by the California EPA and the California Business, Transportation and Housing Agency is responsible for developing a goods movement action plan. A lot of the measures identified in this plan are similar to those identified by the Port of Los Angeles No Net Increase (NNI) Plan; however the primary difference is that the goods movement action plan addresses goods movement activities throughout the state and within 24 nautical miles of the coast, and the NNI plan focuses on emissions generated within the port boundaries. Both of these plans take a multi-modal approach to emissions generated from the expected increase in trade and both identify the need for a diverse group of stakeholders and a mix of voluntary and regulatory measures. The list below summarizes the mitigation measures and emission reduction tools that the working group identified for ocean-going vessels. VSRP- Vessel Speed Reduction Program (2001) - 20 miles from PoLA/ PoLB EPA Category 3 engine standards (2003) EPA Non-road diesel fuel rule (2004) ARB Aux engine rule (proposed- 12/8/05 to ARB board) Cleaner marine fuels Emulsified fuel use Expanded VSRP Installation of engines w/ lower than IMO required emission standards Dedication of the cleanest vessels to CA Shore-based electrical power Extensive retrofit of existing engines Highly effective controls on main and existing engines SECA development Expanded use of cleanest vessel in CA service Maximum use of shore power or alt. controls For more information on the Goods Movement Action plan see: http://www.arb.ca.gov/gmp/gmp.htm
58
2. Port of Long Beach: Green flag and Green Port Programs a. Green Flags Program On October 31, 2005 the Long Beach Board of Harbor Commissioners preliminarily approved a $2.2 million incentive program to reward ship operators and their vessels for their participation in the Voluntary Speed Reduction Program (VSRP). Vessels that operate within the parameters of the VSRP 12-knott speed limit for its voyages to and from the Port of Long Beach will be given green flags. The flags will allow the vessel operators to pay a 15% discounted dockage rate for the next year for its contribution to air quality. The Dockage fee is defined as The charge, calculated in accordance with the dockage charges named assessed against a vessel for berthing at or making fast to a municipal wharf, pier, bulkhead structure, or bank (inside berth), or for mooring to another vessel so berthed (outside berth) (PoLB 1995). This dockage fee is to be assessed to the vessel by the overall length in meters and will accrue with each 24-hr period the vessel spends at berth. The dockage fees range from $77 per day for vessels under 30 meters in length to $11,242 per day for vessels with lengths between 375 and 390 meters. Vessels over 390 meters in overall length shall be charged a dockage fee of $11,242.00 per day plus $29.00 per day for each meter of overall length in excess of 390 meters (PoLB 1995). b. Green Port Policy (PoLB 2005) On January 31, 2005 the Long Beach Board of Harbor Commissioners (BHC) voted unanimously to adopt the Green Port Policy. The policy intends to interact and educate the community on its environmental programs, which address the following aspects; Air, water, wildlife, soil/ sediment, and sustainable practices. The policys guiding principles are to: Distinguish the Port as a leader in environmental stewardship and compliance Protect the community from harmful side effects of Port operations Promote sustainability Employ best available technology to avoid/reduce environmental impacts Engage and educate the community
There were several measures identified in the policy to reduce air emissions from oceangoing vessels: Vessel Speed Reduction Program (VSRP) and the aforementioned Green Flag program Shore Power- The Port has committed to a goal of providing shore power (See emission reduction technologies section) to all new and existing container terminals. Shore power is being incorporated into new leases that specify targets for vessel compliance and selected existing berths are being retrofitted with shore power.
59
Controlling air emissions from marine vessels Retrofit/Re-power Requirements for Infrequent Callers Port lease language will require the use exhaust controls or clean fuels in the auxiliary engines of vessels that do not use shore power. Main Engine Fuel Improvement the Port is considering incentives as part of the Green Flag Program for the use of low-sulfur (initially 1.5%) diesel or equivalent. Auxiliary Engine Fuel Improvement lease language will require the use of fuel with 0.2% or lower sulfur content or equivalent, or exhaust gas treatment, in auxiliary engines while ships are at berth. Vessel Smoke Stack Emission Reduction PoLB Security will continue to issue warnings and citations to vessels in order to eliminate excess smoke and reduce vessels emissions while at berth. West Coast Sulfur Emissions Control Area (SECA) in January 2005, the BHC adopted a resolution urging the United States to ratify Annex VI of the International Convention for the Prevention of Marine Pollution From Ships (MARPOL); Annex VI, adopted in 1997, enters into force on May 19, 2005 and will set limits on sulfur oxide and nitrogen oxide emissions from ship exhausts and prohibit deliberate emissions of ozone depleting substances; Annex VI calls for a global cap of 4.5% m/m on the sulfur content of fuel oil land calls on IMO to monitor the worldwide sulfur content of fuel once the Protocol comes into force. For more information on the Port of Long Beach, Green Port Program see: http://www.polb.com/environment/green_port_policy.asp
3. Port of Los Angeles: No Net Increase (NNI) Program In October of 2001, in response to a request from the Mayor of Los Angeles, the Port of Los Angeles Board of Harbor Commissioners adopted the No Net Increase (NNI) policy. The policy stated that there would be no net increase in air emissions from future port operations, from the baseline year of 2001. The former Mayor of Los Angeles, James Hahn appointed a diverse task force to develop the policies that would achieve the No Net Increase policy. The task force consisted of representatives from; federal, state and local air quality agencies, neighborhood/ community representatives, maritime, rail and commerce representatives, port labor representatives, Harbor department and environmental and health experts (PoLA NNI 2005). On June 24, 2005 the task force submitted their 603 page, No Net Increase plan to the former Mayor of Los Angeles, and Councilwoman Hahn. The comprehensive document identified 68 specific measures applying to a range of sources (e.g. marine vessels, harborcraft, cargo-handling equipment, trucks and locomotives) and implementing various technologies and policies to achieve the no net air pollutant increase from the 2001 baseline. The 68 total measures include 31 regulatory measures and 37 nonregulatory measures. The plan also contains forecasted growth estimates, legal and financial analysis and recommendations and stakeholder opinions. The ARB estimates that the plan will prevent 2,200 premature deaths over the next 20 years and save $1.4 billion in health care costs. Currently the plan sits on the desk of current Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villarigossa awaiting approval (PoLA NNI 2005).
60
The No Net Increase Plan contains 17 control measures designed to educe emissions from ocean-going vessels. The total cost of implementing these 17 measures out to 2025 is estimated to be more than $9 billion (PoLA NNI 2005). A summary of these control measures can be found in Table 18. Table 18: No Net Increase Ocean-going Vessel (OGV) Control Measures Source: (PoLA NN1 2005)
No. OGV-1 OGV-2 OGV-3 OGV-4 OGV-5 OGV-6 OGV-7 OGV-8 OGV-9 OGV-10 OGV-11 OGV-12 OGV-13 OGV-14 OGV-15 OGV-16 OGV-17 Title OGV - Adopted Measures New Engine Standards for Ships IMO/EPA Vessel Speed Reduction (VSR), MOU Port Operations Alternative Maritime Power (AMP) Port Operations Auxiliary Engine Fuel Improvement Program Port Fuel Requirement a near-term program OGV - Engine Standards New Engine Standards for Category 3 Marine Engines EPA Reroute Cleaner Ships Port Additional measure Low Emission Main Propulsion Engines Port Additional measure OGV - Fuel Requirements Cleaner Fuel for Ship Auxiliary Engines ARB Proposed measure Main Engine Fuel Improvement Program Port Proposed measure Creation of a Sulfur Emission Control Area (SECA) Port Additional measure Expanded Auxiliary Engine Fuel Improvement Program Port Additional measure Expanded Main Engine Fuel Improvement Program Port Additional measure OGV - Repower/Retrofit Additional Auxiliary Engine Reductions for Frequent Callers ARB Retrofit/Repower Requirements for Infrequent Callers Port Additional measure OGV - Operational Efficiencies or Improvements Expanded VSR Program Port Additional measure Expanded Alternative Maritime Power Program Port Additional measure Additional In-Use Measures for Ships EPA and ARB Total Cost $150,500,000 $263,500,000 $19,100,000 $3,100,000 $434,300,000 $32,900,000 $3,333,100,000 $164,000,000 $8,900,000 $154,500,000 $0 $402,300,000 $46,200,000 $1,224,000,000 $702,200,000 $2,253,950,000 $510,000,000 $9,702,550,000 Lead Agency Costs *
* Cost data is in 2005 dollars, and includes regulatory and industry costs as well as capital and operational costs through 2025
For more information on the Port of Los Angeles No Net Increase plan see: http://www.portoflosangeles.org/DOC/NNI_Final_Report.pdf
4. Port of Los Angeles Comprehensive Real Estate Leasing Policy On February 1, 2006 the Port of Los Angeles Board of Harbor Commissioners approved a comprehensive leasing real estate leasing policy for Port tenant selection. The policy creates a transparent process and includes environmental requirements that will be used to negotiate future port leases. The new policy directs leases to include, the following environmental provisions; (1) Air emission controls, (2) Water, storm water and sediment quality (3) Trash management and recycling (4) Lighting and noise control and facility appearance (5) Hazardous material management requirements (6) Facility restoration and decommissioning requirements, and (7) CEQA mitigation measures and reporting requirements. Some of the air emission-reduction provisions include: Compliance with vessel speed reduction programs;
61
Controlling air emissions from marine vessels Use of clean Alternative Maritime Power (AMP or cold-ironing technology), plugging into shore-side electric power while at dock, where appropriate; Low sulfur fuel use in main and auxiliary engines while sailing within the boundaries of the South Coast Air Basin; Use of alternative fuel in all new yard tractors; and Clean, low emission truck and locomotive use within terminal facilities.
C. Business Initiated Emission Reduction Tools 1. Business for Social Responsibility (BSR): Clean Cargo Working Group Business for Social Responsibility (BSR) is a global organization that helps member companies achieve success in ways that respect ethical values, people, communities and the environment. BSR provides information, tools, training and advisory services to make corporate social responsibility an integral part of business operations and strategies. A nonprofit organization, BSR promotes cross sector collaboration and contributes to global efforts to advance the field of corporate social responsibility (BSR 2005). A subgroup of BSR, called the Clean Cargo Working Group operates with the primary objective of helping its members pursue sustainable product transportation by sharing information and promoting best practices in the industries. This group is made up of ocean carriers, freight forwarders, and shippers of cargo. Some of the ocean-going vessel operators that are part of the working group include: APL Limited, Maersk-Sealand (A.P. Moller), Hanjin Shipping co., Ltd., Hapag-Lloyd Container Line, Hyundai Merchant Marine, K Line, NYK Line, OOCL, P&O Nedlloyd and Wallenius-Wilhelmsen. Some of the cargo members of the working group include: Chiquita Brands, Inc. & Great White Fleet, Ltd., Hewlett-Packard Company, The Home Depot, Inc., IKEA, NIKE, Inc., Nordstrom, Inc., Starbucks Coffee Company and The Coca-Cola Company. The working groups vision is to benefit the people and environment. The working group focuses on the following aspects of global goods movement: Air quality, resource management, biodiversity, management systems, impact on local communities, and labor and human rights. The group has created a methodology for its members to follow to calculate emissions, evaluate environmental performance, and provides guidance on improvements of environmental performance to promote environmentally and socially responsible transportation through open dialogue and business to business collaboration (BSR 2005). More information about the BSR Clean Cargo Working Group can be found at: http://www.bsr.org/CSRResources/WGO/CC-GF/index.cfm
2. International Organization for Standardization (ISO) The International Organization for Standardization has developed a set of standards (ISO 14000) for businesses environmental practices. The ISO 14000 series was primarily developed at the Uruguay round of the GATT negotiations and the Rio Summit on the Environment held in 1992. While GATT concentrates on the need to reduce non-tariff barriers to trade, the Rio Summit generated a commitment to protection of the environment across the world. The environmental field has seen a steady growth of
62
Controlling air emissions from marine vessels national and regional standards and the ISO standards were looked at as an International method of encouraging best environmental practices in the business world. To be classified as an ISO 14000 organization a business needs to make environmental improvements in its corporate policy and plan to continue to improve its environmental performance into the future. The corporate benefits of ISO 14000 include: Reduction of waste, savings in consumption of energy and materials, improved corporate image and a framework for continued environmental performance. Some ship operators are classified as ISO 14000 and as a part of their environmental improvements have reduced their emission of air pollutants. 3. European Union: Clean Marine Award The commission developed an award system for low-emission shipping called the Clean Marine Award. The award scheme was part of the original 2002, EU strategy on marine vessel emissions and was created to give positive publicity for environmentally responsible shipping, specifically low-emission initiatives, and to disseminate best practice. The award program is managed by the European Commission (EC), and EU Shipping, port and NGO interests. Awards are made on a biannual basis (beginning in 2004) and recognize achievements in three categories; (1) EU Ship Operator, (2) EU Shipper, and (3) EU Authority, (EU CMA). More information on the Clean Marine Award can be found at: http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/clean_marine/index.htm
D. Information Sharing Groups 1. Port of Los Angeles/ Port of Shanghai Agreement The ports of Los Angeles and Shanghai have established a cooperative working arrangement. On November 25, 2002 the two ports entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to cooperate in the establishment of green ports. The MOU identified efforts to share technological information designed to improve air and water quality that is threatened by port operations. On September 2, 2005 the two ports signed a Friendship Agreement and letter of intent to collaborate on air quality issues. On October 12, 2005 the Port of Los Angeles Board of Harbor Commissioners approved the acceptance of a grant to facilitate the exchange of ideas regarding air pollution between the two ports from the U.S. Department of Transportation Maritime Division (MARAD) for $185,000. The development of this relationship between the two ports will result in an exchange of best management practices, technological knowledge, air quality information, and the development of a Chinese multi sector maritime advisory group modeled after the California Air Resources Board Maritime Working Group (PoLA Agenda 2005). This model for information sharing could eventually lead to the development of
a larger-scale Pacific Rim Ports Air Quality Working Group.
2. US EPA: West Coast Collaborative & Clean Ports USA In a non-regulatory initiative, the US EPA developed a national Clean Diesel Campaign. As part of the Campaign the West Coast Collaborative was created in June 2004 with the objective of reducing diesel emissions along the west coast of the US. The collaborative
63
Controlling air emissions from marine vessels consists of international (Canada and Mexico), federal, state and local governments, private companies, and environmental groups. The collaborative focuses on reducing diesel emissions from the following sectors: Agriculture, construction, locomotives, marine vessels and ports, and trucking. The marine vessel and ports working group has been an important forum for sharing information regarding emissions, projects and research being conducted throughout the region. This collaborative has been an important tool in addressing this regional problem, and has allowed partners learn from each other and work together to make progress towards a common goal (WCC 2005). The U.S. EPAs Clean Ports USA initiative is also part of the National Clean Diesel Campaign. Clean Ports USA is an incentive-based, voluntary program designed to reduce emissions from existing diesel engines and nonroad equipment at ports with comprehensive strategies and information for the diverse range of ports and their staff. The initiative provides information on best practices, technologies, available funding and case studies for reducing emissions in port areas. For more information on the West Coast Collaborative see: http://www.westcoastcollaborative.org/ For more information on the Clean Ports USA program see: http://www.epa.gov/cleandiesel/ports/index.htm
3. CARB Maritime Working Group The California Air Resources Board initiated the Maritime Working Group in 2001. The working group was designed as a forum for communication, cooperation and coordination, open to all interested stakeholders on the issues of air quality and maritime sources of pollution. The goals of the working group were to; (1) Promote constructive dialogue and participation, (2) Identify key issues and offer creative solutions, and (3) Provide an opportunity to receive input on emission reduction strategies. Currently the working group members consist of government representatives (Federal, state and local), port representatives, community and environmental groups, industry associations, shipping companies and fuel and technology companies. For more information on the Maritime Working Group see: http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/offroad/marinevess/maqtwg.htm
E. Legal Action 1. EPA Emission Standards for Marine Engines In January of 2001 the EPA pledged to establish emission standards for ocean-going vessels. The pledge was part of a settlement that ended a lawsuit filed by Earthjustice legal defense fund on behalf of Bluewater Network, a San Francisco based NGO. The lawsuit challenged EPAs failure to set any NOx standards for these engines. The Clean Air Act requires EPA to establish regulations to reduce air pollution from non-automobile engines that significantly contribute to pollution in areas with poor air quality. The
64
Controlling air emissions from marine vessels settlement is directly responsible for the Category 3 engine marine engine standards that the EPA finalized in 2003 (Earthjustice 2001). As mentioned in the regulatory section the Bluewater Network and NRDC were not satisfied with the EPA initial Category 3 emission standards. The standards mirrored those engine standards identified by the IMO in its Annex VI regulation. The Bluewatre Network and NRDC then filed a follow up lawsuit to force the EPA to set tougher standards. This lawsuit failed as the judge ruled that the EPA was within its authority to delay stricter standards for C3 engines, including the applicability to other pollutants, until 2007. 2. China Shipping Terminal Settlement In 2001 the City of Los Angeles was sued for allegedly approving the construction of the China Shipping Line terminal without considering or providing a plan to mitigate the environmental impacts from the project on the neighboring communities. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires the project conduct a review of the impact that the project will have on the environment. The plaintiff in this case was an assemblage of partners; National Resources Defense Council (NRDC), the Coalition for Clean Air, Communities for a Better Environment and two San Pedro homeowner associations. In March of 2003 a settlement was announced that allowed the terminal to open, and created a series of environmental programs designed to reduce air emissions in the port area. The settlement called for: The Port of Los Angeles to commit $50 million over five years to mitigation projects o $10 million for repowering, replacing or retrofitting diesel trucks o $20 million for air quality mitigation o $20 million for community aesthetic mitigation To undertake new Environmental Impact Reports (EIR) on all phases of the China Shipping terminal project Evaluate the feasibility of using cleaner marine fuels Install shorter cranes when the terminal expands The use of alternative fueled equipment at the new terminal The use of Alternative Maritime Power (AMP) by vessels hotelling at the terminal Creation and implementation of a traffic mitigation plan for the area around the terminal
On June 21, 2004 the Port of Los Angeles unveiled the AMP feature of the China Shipping terminal and became the worlds first electrified container terminal. The terminal allows the ships to plug into electrical outlets so they dont have to run their diesel engines to produce electricity at port. The AMP program is expected to eliminate 3 tons of NOx and 350 pounds of PM for each ship that uses it.
65
Controlling air emissions from marine vessels VI. Conclusion Marine vessels play an important irreplaceable role in the international transportation of goods. Unlike onshore goods movement modes of transportation (e.g. trucks and locomotives) marine vessels have no alternative transportation mode able to cross large bodies of water carrying large quantities of cargo with such efficiency. With the rapid growth of economies of developing nations like is being seen in Asia, trade activity is increasing and along with this comes an increase in ship traffic and the need for larger ships that are able to carry more cargo. Many areas around the world are predicting a doubling or tripling of trade volumes over the next couple of decades, creating the need for balance between maintaining (or improving) air quality and economic growth. Marine vessels represent one of the largest under-regulated (virtually unregulated) threats to air quality. If these vessels were treated as onshore sources they would have been subject to regulatory emission controls years ago. The emissions from these vessels threaten the air quality and public health in port communities while berthing or maneuvering and in coastal communities while transiting along the coast. Air pollutants emitted by ships and port related equipment are also creating an international network of environmental justice communities that share the common link of being disproportionately exposed to emissions while benefiting very little from the pollution generating activities. The shipping industry is extremely difficult to regulate, as up to a dozen different countries could have a financial interest in the movement of goods from one country to another. The industry allows ship owners to register their vessels with foreign nations that least threaten their profits while the actual ship owners can be almost impossible to identify. The laws that govern the sea also restrict the amount of regulation a nation has over foreign vessels, so the areas that are being exposed to these toxics and other pollutants may have little or no ability to directly control these emissions. One of the major concerns of ports in establishing regulations to control marine emissions is port competitiveness. Ports profit from the activities of the shipping companies that operate at its facilities and financial penalties for emitting air pollutants can drive their business to other ports nearby that have not established comparable regulations. Shipping companies face the same problem, if they take actions to reduce their emissions and their competitors dont then they would be at an economic disadvantage because of the high capital and potential operating costs involved with installing emission control technologies. Recent international regulations have done little to achieve significant emission reductions from these sources that resemble power plants in terms of their power capacities. The IMO Annex VI regulations set a sulfur content cap (4.5% S) on marine fuels that is greater than the global average (2.7% S), therefore not achieving any real reductions. NOx limits set under these regulations only apply to engines built after 1/1/2000 and engines that experience major modifications after 1/1/2000. Engine manufactures have anticipated these regulations, have been building engines to meet these standards for years and since the engines that power these vessels remain in service for decades the emission reductions resulting from this regulation are minimal. Another major criticism of the IMO regulation is that the implementation and enforcement of
66
Controlling air emissions from marine vessels Annex VI is left up to the nation that the vessel is flagged under. Since a majority of vessels that operate in international trade are flagged under open registries, flags of convenience, notorious for their loose enforcement of international regulations the effectiveness of the IMO legislation becomes questionable. Controlling the emission of toxics and other air pollutants from marine vessels is complicated endeavor that will require the international cooperation of various industry stakeholders, regulatory agencies and community groups and the use of a toolbox of control measures (e.g. regulations, incentives, voluntary measures, development of technologies, etc.). The nonregulatory approaches to controlling emissions from marine vessels has the potential to achieve real, near-term air quality benefits that would complement the long-term emission reductions achieved through regulations. Incentive programs like Swedens differentiated fairway dues system, the market-based emission trading schemes being demonstrated by SEAaT and the Voluntary Speed Reduction Program at the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach are examples of voluntary approaches. Information sharing between ports and multi-sector working groups shows that the stakeholders are realizing the importance of collaboration in addressing the issue of maritime air emissions. These groups work to prevent re-inventing the wheel by sharing information on projects, studies, technologies and other measures that have and have not worked in reducing emissions. These groups are becoming international in their participants and allow for collaboration between stakeholders, identify the concerns and interests of the various parties and work towards the development of technologies and control measures. The major marine engine manufacturers have acknowledged that the technology exists to achieve significant emission reductions from marine vessels. There needs to be some form of motivation to create more of an interest from the maritime shipping industry in implementing these technologies on their vessels. That motivation could be voluntary or regulatory in nature and most likely will be a mixture of both in order to be effective. International regulations that attempt to reduce emissions from in-use vessels, and address PM as a pollutant of concern would be a good start to developing an effective regulation. These changes are being considered by a sub-committee of the IMO as amendments to Annex VI and need to be supported for inclusion in the legislation. International cooperation on this issue needs to increase and regulators and policy makers need to realize that economic growth and environmental protection are not mutually exclusive issues and take responsibility for the air quality impacts of increasing trade volumes.
67
Controlling air emissions from marine vessels Appendix A 2004 Regional distribution of ship calls by type (foreign & domestic) (MARAD 2005)
2004 Product Tanker Calls in the US by Region (Total = 11,572 calls)

North Atlantic 22% Pacific Northwest 4%
2004 Crude Tanker Calls in the US by Region (Total = 7,744)

North Atlantic 17% Pacific Northwest 14%
US Gulf Coast 50%
US Gulf Coast 55%
Puerto Rico 2% South Atlantic 12% Pacific Southwest 10%

Puerto Rico 1% South Atlantic 1%
2004 Container Calls in the US by Region (Total = 18,279)

US Gulf Coast 7% North Atlantic 17% Pacific Northwest 10%
2004 Container Capacity in the US by Region (Total = 58,881,858 TEU)

South Atlantic 33%
South Atlantic 32%
Puerto Rico 3% Pacific Southwest 30%
Puerto Rico 1% Pacific Southwest 34%
68
2004 Ro-Ro Vessel Calls in the US by Region (Total = 5,317)

US Gulf Coast 7%
2004 General Cargo Calls in the US by Region (Total = 3,967)

South Atlantic 29%
North Atlantic 29%
Pacific Northwest 11% Puerto Rico 4%

South Atlantic 20% Pacific Southwest 17% Puerto Rico 6%
2004 Gas Carrier Calls in the US by Region (Total = 916)

North Atlantic 17% Pacific Northwest 4% Puerto Rico 5% US Gulf Coast 59%
South Atlantic 8%
69
Controlling air emissions from marine vessels Appendix B US Ambient Air Quality Standards (CARB Nov. 2005)
70
71
Controlling air emissions from marine vessels Appendix C California boundaries for calculating ocean-going vessel emissions (RULE CARB 2005).
72
Controlling air emissions from marine vessels Appendix D Comparison of the SEAaT Trading Program and the Marine Goods Movement Coalitions Proposal (MGMC)
Source: (SCHARY)
Element
Market Driver
SEAaT
Baltic Sea SECA starts May 2006, North Sea SECA starts Nov. 2007, and fuel limit 1% sulfur for inland waterways Jan. 2010 SO2 Tons of SO2 = SO2 content in fuel x Fleet fuel consumption
MGMC
Significant reduction of emissions from goods movement required and attainment of ozone and PM-2.5 standards, as identified in CARBs State Implementation Plan for each nonattainment region due 2007-2008. PM, NOx, SO2, ROG Option 1 Open Market Trading: credits generated by [required emissions performance standard minus actual emissions rate] standard multiplied by applicable activity level Option 2 Cap and Trade: Allowances allocated to regulated sources, measured as emissions performance standards multiplied by current activity levels Emissions performance targets established in GMAP Option 1 Open Market Trading: approach would require the program to periodically adjust performance targets and timetables to ensure environmental goal is met Option 2 Cap and Trade: Allowances would ensure cap is met. To be determined, pending development of forthcoming attainment plans Some regulated sources would be required to be in the program, others could opt in or be regulated in a separate program Yes non-capped sources can opt-in as a category, or possibly on source/project basis to sell credits
Pollutant Unit of Trade
Cap or Goal
1.5% SECA
Baseline Year Source Categories Trades with Sources Outside of Cap Size of Trading Zone Allocation of allowances to Sources
April 2005 Ships 46 total
No
North Sea Allowances created at outset of program per ship through records showing sulfur content in fuel credit buyers are those whose fuel > 1.5%
Priority zones designated as subsets of larger Los Angeles zone. Separate Bay Area zone. Option 1: credits generated by reduction activity Option 2: allowances allocated to some sources, based on current activity levels but more allowances needed for growth could be purchased. Not yet decided, but may be appropriate to allocate allowances to terminal operators rather than to specific vessels that visit the ports. Priority Zones will be established for purposes of accelerating investments to address air quality impacts. Priority sources would be identified as contributing significantly to the disproportionate risk in such zones
Tools to address hot spots
Not yet plan to study impacts first
73
Controlling air emissions from marine vessels Element

Emissions monitors or emissions factors Use of third party certifiers of emissions Emissions Data Reporting & Frequency
SEAaT
Ship owners provide fuel consumption and position data, from which sulfur emissions are calculated. No (SEAaT plays that role as neutral program administrator) Only reporting at outset of Phase I so far, which ends Dec. 2005 Collecting data daily onboard and reported to SEAaT weekly: - Time entering SECA area - Fuel consumption in SECA area at berth & at sea - Sulfur content of fuel consumed in SECA area at berth & at sea - Route taken in SECA area - Time on leaving SECA area - Position on leaving SECA area - Distance traveled inside SECA area
MGMC
and not allowed to purchase credits from outside those zones to use inside the priority zone. Not addressed.
Not addressed.
Sources required to log and report their emitting activities when located within the goods movement zone (to be determined), and will be subject to periodic inspections.
Who administers trading system
SEAaT
Proposes a newly established joint-powers authority, the Goods Movement Authority, consisting of representatives of agencies and entities with expertise in the goods movement sector (e.g., Ports of LA & LB and their cities, CARB, SCAQMD, SCAG, and appropriate advisory role for USEPA). There would be one for Southern CA and an analogous one for Northern CA.
74
Controlling air emissions from marine vessels Works Cited

1. (Aabo/ Niels Kjemtrup ) Kjeld Aabo and Niels Kjemtrup both from MAN B&W Diesel A/S, Denmark. PAPER NO.: 126 Latest on Emission Control Water Emulsion and Exhaust Gas Re-Circulation - for INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL ON COMBUSTION ENGINES. CIMAC Congress 2004, Kyoto. 2. (ABS 2005) American Bureau of Shipping (ABS). Understanding MARPOL Annex VI: A guide for Ship Owners. 2005. 3. (ACTI CD) Advanced Cleanup Technologies Incorporated. Advanced Maritime Emissions Control System (AMECS) CD. Oxnard, California. Received 2005. 4. (Anderson 2005) Bruce Anderson, Starcrest Consulting Group. Haagen Smit Symposium Presentation: Policy Levers for Reducing Emissions from Goods Transport. April 18-21, 2005. More information can be found at the following website: http://www.westcoastcollaborative.org/files/clearinghousemarine/Emission%20Reduction%20Projects/HaagenSmit%20Symposium%20Policy%20Levers%20for%20Reducing%20Emissions2.pdf 5. (Becker 2005) Bill Becker, STAPPA/ALAPCO. Haagen Smit Symposium Presentation: Policy Levers for Reducing Emissions from Goods Transport: State Policy Options. April 1821, 2005. More information can be found at the following website: http://www.westcoastcollaborative.org/files/clearinghousemarine/Emission%20Reduction%20Projects/HaagenSmit%20Symposium%20Policy%20Levers%20for%20Reducing%20Emissions1.pdf
6.
(Bludszuweit 1999) S. Bludszuweit, H. Jungmichel, B. Buchholz; Motoren- und Energietechnik GmbH. Todays Targets & Technologies for Reducing Emissions from Large Marine Diesel Engines. Motor Ship Conference 1999. March 1999, Athens.
o More information can be found at the following website:
http://www.met-online.com/download/motorship1999_e.pdf
7. (Bluewater) Bluewater Network. Safeguarding the Seas Stopping the pollution of our oceans by ships and fast ferries and preventing deadly collisions with whales. o More information can be found at: http://www.bluewaternetwork.org/campaign_ss_ships.shtml 8. (BMT 2005) BMT Fleet Technology Limited, for Environment Canada, Management Options for Marine Vessel Air Emissions, March, 2005. o More information can be found at the following website: http://www.westcoastcollaborative.org/files/clearinghousemarine/Management%20Options/Final%20BMT%20Management%20Options%20Repor t.pdf 9. (BSR 2005) Business for Social Responsibility. A Path to Sustainable Transport, BSRs Clean Cargo Working Group. 2005.
75

o More information can be found at the following website: http://www.bsr.org/CSRResources/WGO/CC-GF/Docs/CC_2005_Info.pdf
10. (CARB 1983) California Air Resources Board. Report to the California Legislature on Air Pollutant Emissions from Marine Vessels, Volume 1; June 1983. 11. (CARB 1984) California Air Resources Board. Report to the California Legislature on Air Pollutant Emissions from Marine Vessels, Appendices H to M, Volume VII; June 1984. 12. (CARB 2000) California Air Resources Board ,et al. Air Quality Impacts from NOx Emissions of Two Potential Marine Vessel control Strategies in the South Coast Air Basin.; November 2000. 13. (CARB 2002) California Air Resources Board (CARB), Oceangoing Marine Vessel Emission Control Technology Matrix. October 30, 2002. o More information can be found at the following website: http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/offroad/marinevess/documents/matrix.pdf 14. (CARB 2005) California Air Resources Board. Offshore Emissions Impacts on Onshore Air Quality. 2005. 15. (CARB Nov. 2005) California Air Resources Board (ARB). Ambient Air Quality Standards. As of 11/10/05. o More information can be found at the following website: http://www.arb.ca.gov/aqs/aaqs2.pdf 16. (CARB Oct. 2005) California Air Resources Board. Emissions Estimation Methodology for Ocean-Going Vessels. October 2005. o More information can be found at the following website: http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/marine2005/appd.pdf 17. (CARB PM 2005) Pingkuan Di, California Air Resources Board (CARB). Draft- DIESEL PARTICULATE MATTER EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT STUDY FOR THE PORTS OF LOS ANGELES AND LONG BEACH. October 2005. o More information can be found at the following website: http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/offroad/marinevess/documents/100305draftexposrep.pdf 18. (CARB SECA) CARB. CARB Maritime Air Quality Working Group Meeting. Sacramento, CA. May 17, 2005. ARB updates. More information can be found at the following website: http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/offroad/marinevess/presentations/051705/051705mwgarb pres.pdf 19. (CDN 2004) China Daily News. China - emerging force in global marine transport. 9/26/2004. o More information can be found at the following website: http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2004-09/26/content_377823.htm
20. (Cooper 2003) D.A. Cooper* Exhaust emissions from ships at berth. Science Direct, 5/12/2003.
76

o More information can be found at the following website: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=MImg&_imagekey=B6VH3-490GXD5-144&_cdi=6055&_user=112642&_orig=search&_coverDate=09%2F30%2F2003&_sk=9 99629972&view=c&wchp=dGLbVtbzSkzS&md5=992907b7ba65d64ebdb25f6b0ceb95de&ie=/sdarticle.pdf
21. (Cooper 2004) Cooper, D.A. and Gustafsson, T., Methodology for calculating emissions from ships.Update of emission factors. IVL report U 878. IVL Swedish Environmental Research Institute, Gothenburg, Sweden. 2004. 22. (Corbett 2003) James J. Corbett, PE. University of Delaware and David S. Chapman, PE University of Delaware. DECISION FRAMEWORK FOR EMISSION CONTROL TECHNOLOGY SELECTION _ Prepared for MARAD. December 2003. o More information can be found at the following website: http://www.marad.dot.gov/nmrec/energy_technologies/images/Decision%20Framework %20for%20Technology%20Selection.pdf 23. (CTA 2005) Clear The Air website. Hong Kong. Boats Ships and Ferries. Accessed November 27, 2005. o More information can be found at: http://www.cleartheair.org.hk/boats.htm 24. (DOT 2002) U.S. Department of Commerce. China Environmental Technologies Export Market Plan. September 2002. o More information can be found at the following website: http://www.export.gov/china/industry_information/ChinaEMP.pdf 25. (Earthjustice 2001) Earthjustice news release. EPA to Regulate Air Pollution from Big Ocean Vessels, Report Finds Ships to be Dirtiest Transportation Source. January 16, 2001. o More information can be found at: http://www.earthjustice.org/news/display.html?ID=53 26. (EC 2005) DIRECTIVE 2005/33/EC OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL. Marine fuel sulfur directive. EU Official Journal L191, July 6, 2005. o More information can be found at the following website: http://europa.eu.int/eurlex/lex/LexUriServ/site/en/oj/2005/l_191/l_19120050722en00590069.pdf 27. (Eddington, Lee and Rosenthal, Jay, 2003) The Frequency if Offshore Emissions Reaching the continental UW Coast Based on Hourly Surface Winds from a 10 Year Mesoscale Model Stimulation, Geophysics Branch Technical Note; March 2003. 28. (Entec 2002) Entec UK Ltd. Quantification of emissions from ships associated with ship movements between ports in the European Community. July 2002. o More information can be found at the following website: http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/air/pdf/chapter1_ship_emissions.pdf 29. (Entec 2005) Entec UK Limited. European Commission Directorate General Environment Service Contract on Ship Emissions. August 2005. o More information can be found at the following website: http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/air/transport.htm#3
77
o o o o o o
Task/ report 1- Preliminary Assignment of Ship Emissions to European Countries Task/ report 2a- Assignment, Abatement and Market-Based Instruments (Entec NOx-2005) Task/ report 2b- NOx Abatement (Entec SOx- 2005) Task/ report 2c- SOx Abatement Task/ report 3- Shore-side electricity Task/ report 4- Economic Instruments
30. (Environ 2004) Environ International Corporation, Los Angeles, CA for the Port of Long Beach. Cold-Ironing Cost-Effectiveness Study. March 30, 2004. o More information can be found at the following website: http://www.polb.com/pdfs/4_environment/Cold-Ironing-Report.pdf 31. (EPA CHAMLEY) United States EPA, Bill Charmley, Office of Transportation and Air Quality. BunkerWorld Conference 2005. US EPA Marine Update. October 6, 2005. More information can be found at: http://www.westcoastdiesel.org/files/clearinghousemarine/EPA%202005%20Bunkerworld%20Conf,%20Charmley,%20Final.pdf 32. (EPA JOHNSON) Roxanne Johnson, US EPA. CARB Maritime Air Quality Working Group Meeting. Sacramento, CA. May 17, 2005. US EPA Updates on Reducing Emissions from Diesel Marine Vessels. More information can be found at the following website: http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/offroad/marinevess/presentations/051705/051705mwgepa pres.pdf 33. (EPA 1999) United States EPA, Office of Air and Radiation/ Office of Mobile Sources. Summary and Analysis of Comments: Control of Emissions from Marine Diesel Engines. November 1999. o More information can be found at: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/regs/nonroad/marine/ci/fr/r99028.pdf 34. (EPA 2003) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 40 CFR Parts 9 and 94. Control of Emissions from New Marine Compression-Ignition Engines at or Above 30 Liters per Cylinder; Final Rule. February 28, 2003. o More information can be found at the following website: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/url-fr/fr28fe03.pdf 35. (EPA 2004) United States EPA. Regulatory Update: Overview of EPAs Emission Standards for Marine Engines. August 2004. o More information can be found at: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/regs/nonroad/marine/420f04031.pdf 36. (EU CMA) European Union, Environment. Clean Marine Award website. Accessed 11/26/05. o More information can be found at: http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/clean_marine/index.htm 37. (Fraser et al. 2004) Fraser, Marchman, Padilla Martnez, Thomson. Reducing Air Emissions from Marine Diesel Engines: A Regional Approach. June 3, 2004.
78

o More information can be found at the following website: http://depts.washington.edu/poeweb/gradprograms/envmgt/2004symposium/marinefinal.pdf
38. (Gallagher 2003) Gallagher and Taylor. International Trade and Air Pollution: The Economic Costs of Air Emissions from Waterborne Commerce Vessels in the United States. September 2003. o More information can be found at the following website: http://ase.tufts.edu/gdae/publications/working_papers/03-08WaterborneCommerce.PDF 39. (Gallagher 2005) Kevin P. Gallagher. International trade and air pollution: Estimating the economic costs of air emissions from waterborne commerce vessels in the United States. 2/22/2005. o More information can be found at the following website: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=MImg&_imagekey=B6WJ7-4GHBPP6-23&_cdi=6871&_user=112642&_orig=search&_coverDate=10%2F31%2F2005&_sk=99 9229997&view=c&wchp=dGLbVtbzSkzS&md5=89d1995ba19bdf0e5c862ca290e4f6fa&ie=/sdarticle.pdf 40. (Ha 2005) Kong Ha, Hong Kong Environmental Protection Department. Haagen Smit Symposium Presentation: Transportation Emissions in Hong Kong. April 18-21, 2005. 41. (Hao 2005) Jiming Hao, Institute of Environmental Science and Engineering Tsinghua University, Beijing. Haagen Smit Symposium Presentation: Legal and Regulation Challenges for Reducing Emissions from Goods Transport in China. April 19, 2005. More information can be found at: http://www.westcoastdiesel.org/files/clearinghousemarine/Emission%20Reduction%20Projects/HaagenSmit%20Symposium%20Challenges%20for%20Reducing%20Emissions%20in%20Chin a.pdf 42. (Haveman 2004) Jon D. Haveman and David Hummels, Public Policy Institute of California. Californias Global Gateways: Trends and issues (ISBN: 1-58213-083-3). 2004. o More information can be found at the following website: http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/R_404JHR.pdf 43. (HK 2004) Hong Kong Legislative Panel on Economic Services. Hong Kong Port - Mater Plan 2020. November 22, 2004. o More information can be found at the following website: http://www.legco.gov.hk/yr0405/english/panels/es/papers/es1122cb1-230-4e.pdf 44. (ICS et al. 2004) ICS, ISF, BIMCO, Intercargo and Intertanko. Shipping Industry Flag State Performance. June 2004. o More information can be found at the following website: http://www.marisec.org/flagperformance/ 45. (IMO 1997) International Maritime Organization (IMO) Legislation. IMO MARPOL (73/78) Annex VI Prevention of Air Pollution from Ships. Adopted September 1997, entered into force May 19, 2005. o More information can be found at the following website: http://www.imo.org/Environment/mainframe.asp?topic_id=233#annexvi
79
46. (IMO 2000) MARNEK Det Norske Veritas, Econ Centre for Economic Analysis, and Carnegie Mellon University for International Maritime Organization, Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) 45(8) Agenda Item #2. Study of Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Ships. March 31, 2000. o More information can be found at the following website: http://unfccc.int/files/methods_and_science/emissions_from_intl_transport/application/pd f/imoghgmain.pdf 47. (IMO 2005) IMO Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC), 53rd Session, Agenda Item #4. Prevention from Air Pollutnion from Ships. London, July 21, 2005. o More information can be found at the following website: http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/air/pdf/report_wg.pdf 48. (IMO WEB) IMO website. IMO Frequently Asked Questions. Accessed 2/11/06. o More information can be found at the following website: http://www.imo.org/home.asp 49. (ISL 2005) Institute of Shipping Economics and Logistics (ISL). ISL Market Analysis 2005: Ownership patterns of the World Merchant Fleet. April 2005. o More information can be found at the following website: http://www.isl.org/products_services/publications/pdf/COMM_4-2005-short.pdf 50. (JGR 2005) JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 108, NO. D17, 4560, doi:10.1029/2002JD002898, yvind Endresen and Eirik Srgard, Jostein K. Sundet, Stig B. Dalsren, Ivar S. A. Isaksen, and Tore F. Berglen, Gjermund Gravir, Norway. Emission from international sea transportation and environmental impact. 2003. 51. (Kesgin & Varder 2001) Ugur Kesgin, Nurten Vardar. A Study on Exhaust Gas Emissions from Ships in the Turkish Straits. Atmospheric Environment 35 (2001) 1863-1870. o More information can be found at the following website: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=MImg&_imagekey=B6VH3-42D29Y3-HT&_cdi=6055&_user=112642&_orig=search&_coverDate=04%2F30%2F2001&_qd=1 &_sk=999649989&view=c&wchp=dGLbVlbzSkWA&md5=c910e1aa7aff518e33d6b1e7b2a78541&ie=/sdarticle.pdf 52. (Kumar & Hoffman 2002) S Kumar, J Hoffmann. Handbook of Maritime Economics. LLP: London, 2002. o More information can be found at the following website: http://bell.mma.edu/~skumar/IAMEBook.pdf 53. (Levelton 2002) Levelton Engineering Ltd. for Greater Vancouver Regional District and Environment Canada. MARINE VESSEL AIR EMISSIONS IN THE LOWER FRASER VALLEY FOR THE YEAR 2000. April 30, 2002. 54. (Lina 2005) Bin Lina, Cherng-Yuan Linb. Compliance with international emission regulations: Reducing the air pollution from merchant vessels. Science Direct, 1/26/05. o More information can be found at the following website: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=MImg&_imagekey=B6VCD-4FRKVN5-11&_cdi=5952&_user=112642&_orig=search&_coverDate=03%2F19%2F2005&_sk=99
80

9999999&view=c&wchp=dGLbVtbzSkzS&md5=ab3b2aad6d81c337df4f0b130e7df0b6&ie=/sdarticle.pdf 55. (Lowenthal 2005) CA Senator Alan Lowenthals proposed marine vessel legislature; SB760, SB761, SB762, SB763, SB764. Proposed February 22, 2005. o More information can be found at the following website: http://www.westcoastcollaborative.org/files/clearinghousemarine/Lowenthal%20CA%205%20Bill.doc 56. (MAN 2004) MAN B&W Diesel A/S, Copenhagen, Denmark. Emission Control MAN B&W Two-stroke Diesel Engines. 9/1/04. o More information can be found at the following website: http://www.manbw.com/files/news/filesof4458/p9000.pdf 57. (MAN 2005) MAN B&W Diesel A/S, Copenhagen, Denmark. Propulsion Trends in Container Ships. 1/19/05. o More information can be found at the following website: http://www.manbw.com/files/news/filesof4672/P9028.pdf 58. (MARAD 2004) US Department of Transportation, Maritime Division. Vessel Calls at US Ports 2003. July 2004. o More information can be found at the following website: http://www.marad.dot.gov/Marad_Statistics/vcalls2003.pdf 59. (MARAD 2005) US Department of Transportation, Maritime Division. Vessel Calls at US Ports 2004- (excel data set). 2005. o More information can be found at the following website: http://www.marad.dot.gov/Marad_Statistics/2005%20STATISTICS/vcalls2004.xls 60. (Marmer 2005) Elina Marmer, and Berbel Langmann. Impact of ship emissions on the Mediterranean summertime pollution and climate: A regional model study. Science Direct, 4/12/05. o More information can be found at the following website: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=MImg&_imagekey=B6VH3-4GGWHYD-1R&_cdi=6055&_user=112642&_orig=search&_coverDate=08%2F31%2F2005&_sk=99 9609973&view=c&wchp=dGLbVtbzSkzS&md5=566bda97b33b0c3385fa056f9f9939a8&ie=/sdarticle.pdf 61. (MATSON) Ramani Srinivasan, Matson Navigation Company Inc. MATSON- Exhaust emission reduction technologies from large marine diesel engines. o More information can be found at the following website: http://www.marad.dot.gov/nmrec/energy_technologies/images/Emission%20Reduction% 20Technologies%20-%20Matson.pdf 62. (Mercator 2005) Mercator Transport Group, in association with Herbert Engineering Corp., and MDS Transmodal, Ltd. Forecast of Container Vessel Specifications and Port Calls Within San Pedro Bay. February 22, 2005. o More information can be found at the following website: http://www.portoflosangeles.org/DOC/SPB_Vsl_Forecast.pdf
81

63. (NERA 2004) NERA Economic Consulting, London. Evaluation of the Feasibility of Alternative Market-Based Mechanisms To Promote Low-Emission Shipping In European Union Sea Areas. March 2004. o More information can be found at the following website: http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/air/pdf/04_nera_report.pdf 64. (NOAA 1998) Office of the Chief Scientist, NOAA. Year of the Ocean Discussion Papers: US Marine Transportation System. 1998. o More information can be found at: http://www.yoto98.noaa.gov/yoto/meeting/mar_trans_316.html 65. (NRDC 2003) NRDC News Release. City of Los Angeles and Community and Environmental Groups Reach Record Settlement of Challenge to China Shipping Terminal Project at Port. March 5, 2003. o More information can be found at the following website: http://www.nrdc.org/media/pressreleases/030305.asp 66. (NRDC 2004) NRDC. Accomplishments: Big Ships Air Pollution To Be Regulated by EPA. 6/28/04. o More information can be found at the following website: http://www.earthjustice.org/accomplishments/display.html?ID=82 67. (Palmer 2000) William Palmer, prepared for Transportation Development Centre of Transport Canada. Cost-Benefit Study of Marine Engine NOx Emissions Control Systems A Case Study of the MV Cabot. February 2000. o More information can be found at the following website: http://www.tc.gc.ca/tdc/publication/pdf/14300/14373e.pdf 68. (Paro 2005) D. Paro, Wartsila. Haagen Smit Symposium Presentation: Technical Improvements for Ships. April 18-21, 2005. More information can be found at the following website: http://www.westcoastcollaborative.org/files/clearinghousemarine/Emission%20Reduction%20Projects/HaagenSmit%20Symposium%20Technical%20Improvements%20for%20Ships2.pdf 69. (PoLA Agenda 2005) Port of Los Angeles. Executive Directors Report to the Board of Harbor Commissioners: Special Meeting of October 12, 2005. APPROVAL OF COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES HARBOR DEPARTMENT AND THE UNITED STATES MARITIME ADMINISTRATION FOR U.S.-CHINA COOPERATION IN MANAGING AIR POLLUTION FROM MARINE VESSELS AND PORTS. October 12, 2005. o More information can be found at the following website: http://lacity.org/portofla/agenda/portoflaagenda30932745_10122005.pdf 70. (PoLA NNI 2005) Port of Los Angeles- No Net Increase Task Force. No Net Increase Final Report. July 24, 2005. o More information can be found at the following website: http://www.portoflosangeles.org/DOC/NNI_Final_Report.pdf 71. (PoLA VSR 2005) Port of Los Angeles. Vessel Speed Reduction Program eliminates 100 tons of Emissions from Air in 3 Months. August 17, 2005.
82

o More information can be found at the following website: http://www.portoflosangeles.org/Press/REL-%20VSRProgram.pdf
72. (PoLB 1995) Port of Long Beach. TARIFF NO. 4 NAMING RATES, RULES AN REGULATIONS GOVERNING THE PORT OF LONG BEACH CALIFORNIA FOR PILOTAGE, DOCKAGE, WHARFAGE, WHARF DEMURRAGE AND WHARF STORAGE, FREETIME, BERTH AND AREA ASSIGNMENTS, PUBLIC LANDING, WATER AND ELECTRICITY, HANDLING EQUIPMENT AND GENERAL RULES AND REGULATIONS. May 19, 1995. o More information can be found at: http://www.polb.com/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=2267 73. (PoLB 2005) Port of Long Beach. Long Beach Harbor Department Green Port Policy, White Paper. 2005. o For more information see: http://www.polb.com/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=2268 74. (PPI 2005) Jon Haveman, Public Policy Institute of CA. Haagen Smit Symposium Presentation: Challenges Facing Asia-Pacific Trade. April 19, 2005. 75. (Robinson 2005) Nicola Robinson, European Commission. Swedish Conference: Stockholm, Sweden - Air Pollution from Ships- EU Developments. May 22, 2005. 76. (RULE CARB 2005) California Air Resources Board (CARB). Draft- Proposed Regulation: EMISSION LIMITS AND REQUIREMENTS FOR AUXILIARY DIESEL ENGINES AND DIESEL-ELECTRIC ENGINES OPERATED ON OCEAN-GOING VESSELS WITHIN CALIFORNIA WATERS AND 24 NAUTICAL MILES OF THE CALIFORNIA BASELINE. October 2005. o More information can be found at the following website: http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/offroad/marinevess/documents/093005auxengdraftreg.pdf 77. (Saxea & Larsena 2004) H. Saxea, T. Larsena. Air pollution from ships in three Danish ports. Atmospheric Enviroment, 38, 4057-4067; 2004. 78. (SBCAPCD 2004) Allard, Murphy and Fournier, Santa Barbara County APCD. The Need to Reduce Marine Shipping Emissions: A Santa Barbara Case Study. April 2004. 79. (SCHARY) Claire Schary, USEPA Region 10. White Paper: Emissions Trading in the
Marine Sector. Prepared for the Marine Vessels and Ports Sector Workgroup West Coast Collaborative. February 2006.
80. (SEAat proj. 2005)SEAat. Update- SEAat Sulfur Emissions Offsetting pilot project. 2005. o More information can be found at the following website: http://www.seaat.org/index.htm# 81. (SEAat Tech. 2005) SEAat. Emission Control- An Overview of Technologies. January 13, 2005. o More information can be found at the following website: http://www.seaat.org/media/EmissionControlv052.doc 82. (Singapore) Singapore, Legislation relating to the Ocean.
83

o More information can be found at the following website: http://www.apec-oceans.org/economy%20profile%20summaries/singapore-approved.pdf
83. (Sinhaa et al. 2003) Parikhit Sinhaa, Peter V. Hobbsa,*, Robert J. Yokelsonb, Ted J. Christianb, Thomas W. Kirchstetterc, Roelof Bruintjesd. Emissions of trace gases and particles from two ships in the southern Atlantic Ocean. Science Direct, 1/9/2003. o More information can be found at the following website: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=MImg&_imagekey=B6VH3-488G0Y1-1J&_cdi=6055&_user=112642&_orig=search&_coverDate=05%2F31%2F2003&_sk=999 629984&view=c&wchp=dGLbVtbzSkzS&md5=e56204b809264b18ab99c8737b379289&ie=/sdarticle.pdf 84. (SMA) Swedish Maritime Administration. Environmental Differentiated Fairway and Port Dues. o More information can be found at: http://www.sjofartsverket.se/upload/Pdf-Gemensamma-Eng/Differentiated_Dues.pdf 85. (SMA 2005) Swedish Maritime Administration, for International Marine Symposium. Information concerning the applied Incentives to curb ship emissions from vessels calling upon Swedish ports. March 1, 2005. 86. (SOLENT) Solent Maritime Website. Vessel Types. Accessed 2/11/06. o More information can be found at: http://www.solentwaters.co.uk/ 87. (SSA 2002) The Swedish Shipowners Association and PriceWaterhouseCoopers. A COMMUNITY STRATEGY ON AIR POLLUTION FROM SEAGOING SHIPS- Proposal of Emissions Trading Scheme of sulphur dioxide and nitrogen oxides. Gothenburg, February 26th, 2002. o More information can be found at the following website: http://www.pwc.com/se/swe/about/svcs/demoproject/emissions_trading_scheme_SSA_sh ort.pdf 88. (Starcrest EI 2005) Starcrest Consulting Group LLC for the Port of Los Angeles. Port of Los Angeles Baseline Air Emissions Inventory- 2001. July 2005. o More information can be found at the following website: http://www.portoflosangeles.org/DOC/POLA_Final_BAEI.pdf 89. (Starcrest Fuel 2005) Starcrest Consulting Group, LLC for the Port of Los Angeles. Evaluation of Low Sulfur Marine Fuel Availability Pacific Rim. July 2005. o More information can be found at the following website: http://www.portoflosangeles.org/DOC/Fuel_Study_Jul_7_2005.pdf 90. (Streets et al. 2000) David G. Streets, Sarath K. Guttikunda, Gregory R. Carmichael. The Growing Contribution of Sulfur Emissions from Ships in Asian Water, 1998-1995. Atmospheric Environment, 34, 4425-4439; 2000. o More information can be found at the following website: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=MImg&_imagekey=B6VH3-40XNWHP-3K&_cdi=6055&_user=112642&_orig=search&_coverDate=08%2F02%2F2000&_qd=1 &_sk=999659973&view=c&wchp=dGLbVlbzSkzS&md5=ce5652c500fc147b5e9c35d4371cc8fc&ie=/sdarticle.pdf
84

91. (Taylor 2005) Rod B. Taylor. Report on the Proceedings of, Charting the Course: Marine Fuel and Efficiency Conference. Toronto, ON. January 18-19, 2005. o More information can be found at: http://www.tc.gc.ca/programs/environment/Freight/training/marine/pdf/Chart.pdf 92. (UNCTD 2004) United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTD). Review of Maritime Transport. ISBN 92-1-112645-2, ISSN 0566-7682. Geneva, 2004. o More information can be found at the following website: http://www.unctad.org/en/docs/rmt2004_en.pdf 93. (US-CAN) United States EPA. United States-Canada Air Quality Agreement (1991). Website accessed December 1, 2005. o More information can be found at: http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/usca/ 94. (US Embassy 2003) US Embassy. U.S.-China Cooperation on Environment, Science & Technology and Health. June 2003. o More information can be found at the following website: http://www.usembassy-china.org.cn/sandt/BilateralActivities.html 95. (Wartsila 2005) D. Paro Wartsila Corporation. Swedish Conference: Stockholm, Sweden - NOx reduction by Internal Engine Modifications. May 24-25, 2005. 96. (WCC 2005) West Coast Collaborative. West Coast Collaborative Fact Sheet. August 2005. o More information can be found at: http://www.westcoastcollaborative.org/files/outreach/Collaborative%20Fact%20Shee t.pdf http://www.westcoastcollaborative.org/ 97. (WOOD-THOMAS 2005) Brian C. Wood-Thomas, US EPA. Swedish Conference: Stockholm, Sweden - Air Emissions from Ships: A U.S. Perspective on the Challenges and Possible Solutions. May 25, 2005. 98. (Yua et al. 2003) Jian Zhen Yua,*, Joanne Wai Ting Tunga, Alan Wai Man Wub, Alexis Kai Hon Lauc, Peter K.-K. Louied, Jimmy Chi Hung Fungb. Abundance and seasonal characteristics of elemental and organic carbon in Hong Kong PM10. Science Direct, 11/2003 o More information can be found at the following website: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=MImg&_imagekey=B6VH3-4BGHFT3-3F&_cdi=6055&_user=112642&_orig=search&_coverDate=03%2F31%2F2004&_sk=99 9619989&view=c&wchp=dGLbVtbzSkzS&md5=da9456352be9a12db97c6576a970c08e&ie=/sdarticle.pdf 99. (Zwaniecki 2005) Zwaniecki, US Dept. of State Staff writer. U.S. Hopes for Open Skies Agreement with China, Official Says. 3/14/05 o More information can be found at the following website: http://usinfo.state.gov/eap/Archive/2005/Mar/14-492650.html
85

Marine

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Marine

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Controlling Air Emissions from Marine Vessels:

Problems and Opportunities

Controlling air emissions from marine vessels

Problems and Opportunities

Problems and Opportunities

Problems and Opportunities

Problems and Opportunities

Problems and Opportunities

Problems and Opportunities

Problems and Opportunities

Problems and Opportunities

Controlling air emissions from marine vessels General Cargo Ship

Vehicle / Ro-Ro Vessel

Oil and Product Tanker

Problems and Opportunities

% of total 4 2004 US calls

Panama (1,134 vessels) / Greece (857 vessels)

Panama (587 Vessels) / Germany (945 vessels)

Panama (1,503 vessels) / Greece (1,334 vessels)

Panama (1,598 vessels) / Russia 5 (1,107 vessels)

Problems and Opportunities

2004 US Port Calls by Type (Total calls = 59,885)

Pacific Northwest 11%

Puerto Rico 2% South Atlantic 19%

Pacific Southwest 18%

Problems and Opportunities

Problems and Opportunities

Problems and Opportunities

Foreign flagged Open Registry dwt (%) by Nation (All Vessels)

Problems and Opportunities

Problems and Opportunities

Controlling air emissions from marine vessels

Problems and Opportunities

Problems and Opportunities

Residence time- The average time a pollutant spends in the atmosphere

Problems and Opportunities

Problems and Opportunities

Problems and Opportunities

Problems and Opportunities

Problems and Opportunities

Problems and Opportunities

2004 Ocean-going vessel visits to CA (Total visits = 9,875)

Problems and Opportunities

Problems and Opportunities

2001 PoLA Vessel Calls by Type

Bulk Carrier 7.5%

Problems and Opportunities

Problems and Opportunities

Problems and Opportunities

Problems and Opportunities

Problems and Opportunities

Problems and Opportunities

Controlling air emissions from marine vessels

2. Advanced operational modifications Emission Reductions:

Problems and Opportunities

Controlling air emissions from marine vessels

Problems and Opportunities

Problems and Opportunities

Controlling air emissions from marine vessels Costs:

2. Water Emulsion (30% water) Emission Reductions:

Problems and Opportunities

Problems and Opportunities

Problems and Opportunities