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 ( 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

Problems and Opportunities


● 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 Problems and Opportunities 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 Problems and Opportunities iv .

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. lowest quality fuel available. 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. the largest source of air pollution operating in the area. and will continue to be seen as such in the near future. That motivation could be voluntary or regulatory in nature and most likely will be a mixture of both in order to be effective. 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. Each one of these marine vessels can have power capacities similar to power plants and operate virtually free of emission controls. The reason that ports will remain a major threat to air quality is that marine vessels. Economists are forecasting a doubling or tripling of trade volumes in some areas. complex. are part of a dynamic. 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. as delays in service could cost millions of dollars. 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. 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.● 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. recordkeeping and enforcement penalties. While this is good from an operational standpoint. Marine vessel engines are remarkably well designed as they remain in service for decades and are able to burn the cheapest. The shipping industry is extremely competitive and financially sensitive to disruptions in its routine. They are also notorious for being major sources of air pollution. Problems and Opportunities v . monitoring. while on-shore power plants are subject to permit. international industry that has been operating for centuries and has just recently begun to be subject to emission control regulations. flourishing. An estimated 85% of ship traffic occurs in the northern hemisphere and 70% of that is within 400 km from land (IMO 2000). 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. 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.

and would surely be subject to stricter regulations had their emissions been generated onshore. recorded by the United States Coast Guard’s (USCG) voluntary. Due largely to the rapid economic development in countries in Asia. airplanes. 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.49 vessels 5 . their roles in world markets begin to increase.● Controlling air emissions from marine vessels ● I. in coastal communities. computer-based ship reporting system. An example of the influence is the removal of textile and clothing quotas i Atlantic Merchant Vessel Emergency Response (AMVER) System. trucks) of goods movement. locomotives. Figure 1 is an image of the marine vessel traffic for January of 2006.14 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. As the economies of developing countries mature. International trade policies also has an impact on the magnitude of trade and the demands and expectations placed on the modes (i. This image shows the global scale of shipping activities and the highest density shipping lanes for January 2006. AMVER i . 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. As these nations develop resources and skilled labor they begin to attract trading partners and investors. the cargo that is transported on these ships is expected to double or triple in some areas by 2020. in regions along inland waterways and even inland areas through emissions transport.Developed by the USCG and used primarily for tracking vessels for potential search and rescue missions. The emissions generated from these vessels threaten the air quality and public health in the communities surrounding ports. (Source: USCG AMVER system) over 50 vessels 15 . Problems and Opportunities 1 . An estimated 85% of ship traffic occurs in the northern hemisphere and 70% of that is within 400 km from land (IMO 2000). Introduction Ocean-going marine vessels represent one of the largest. vessels. These vessels are similar to floating power plants in terms of power.e.

Other factors that also have a strong influence on goods movement are: Natural disasters. 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. Finally. 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. owned by a Greek businessman. ocean-going vessels and the air quality impacts presented by ocean-going vessels. by about 60% during the first five months of 2005. insured in the UK.● Controlling air emissions from marine vessels ● (1/1/05) that increased China’s textile imports to the U. through terminals that are leased to port operators from Hong Kong and Australia (Kumar and Hoffman 2003). and international relationships involved. 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. This will be followed by an analysis of several control methods that can effectively reduce the air quality impact presented by these ships. and will summarize efforts being undertaken around the world in an attempt to control these emissions.e avian flu. chartered to a Danish operator. and fuel costs. labor unions. security concerns. The vessel could have been built in Korea. SARS.S. etc.). This paper will begin with background information on the shipping industry. foreign relations. who employs a Filipino crew through a crewing agent in Cyprus. transports German cargo in the name of a Swiss freight forwarder from a Dutch port to Argentina. This paper is intended to be used as an overview of the shipping industry the pollution generated by ocean-going vessels. the threat of rapidly spreading epidemics (i. registered in Panama. Problems and Opportunities 2 .

As of January 1. T Figure 2: World Maritime Freight Waterways This complex arrangement of shipping lanes shows the impact that marine shipping has on international trade. by both vessel calls and capacity. In 2002 world-wide international trade related maritime freight payments exceeded $400 billion. and San Francisco. This study showed that the economic costs Deadweight tonnage (DWT) . In 2003 the total goods loaded/ transported cargo tonnage exceeded 6 billion tons for the first time ever.A ship’s loaded capacity.● Controlling air emissions from marine vessels ● II. 2005 there were 46. The rest of the top five US ports. the pollution generated from this mode of goods movement comes at a substantial cost. registered under the flags of over 150 nations. The Role of Marine Shipping The international marine transport of goods is responsible for roughly 90% of world trade.61 million and 4. A TEU refers to a container with dimensions of: 8’ x 8’ x 20’ ii Problems and Opportunities 3 .709.000 gross tons) involved in international trade. An article (Gallagher 2005) written by Kevin Gallagher. (Source: US DOT GeoFreight Display tool 2003) In addition to the significant impact the maritime transportation industry has on the US and world economies. are the ports of: Houston. while maritime commerce contributes over $78 billion annually and generates nearly 16 million jobs (NOAA 1998).222 merchant vessels (597. The ports of Los Angeles (PoLA) and Long Beach (PoLB) combine to form the world’s third largest port complex in the world (behind only Hong Kong and Singapore) with 2003 container volumes of 6. New Orleans. Background A. Ocean-going vessels are responsible for carrying more than 90% of all goods imported into the US. Boston University Department of International Relations attempted to quantify the economic impact in the United States from air pollutants generated by vessels.000 DWT ii or greater.66 million TEU iii (UNCTD 2004). respectively. including bunkers and other supplies necessary for the ships’ propulsion. roughly 6% of the value of the goods imported. iii Twenty foot Equivalent Unit (TEU) – Standard unit of measurement for the capacity of a containership. New York. The United States has about 133 ports that are capable of handling vessels of 10.

Similarly.208 per ton of SO2. Emissions related to the Uruguay Round trade talks were $10-$60 million per year for SO2 and about $82 million per year for NOx. general cargo vessel. ro-ro vessel. Figure 3 illustrates several different vessel types and Table 1 describes each of these ship types in greater detail. and the priority placed on reducing these emissions by the region. B. cement. Figure 3: Major Ocean-going Vessel Types Source: (SOLENT) Containership Bulk Carrier Problems and Opportunities 4 . Coast Guard (U. and provides information about each type’s presence in the world and US shipping market. The SO2 emission costs were evaluated for a range of $750 to $4. A majority of these vessels can be classified as one of the following: Tanker. liquids such as oil and petrochemicals.● Controlling air emissions from marine vessels ● from SO2 emissions was in the range of $77 to $435 million per year. Gallagher’s analysis used European and American costs for tradeable permits to valuate the economic costs of shipping emissions. and coke.S. and passengers. or under the flag of another country (foreign-flagged). This variation in costs is due primarily to the regional impact that SO2 emissions has.-flagged). container ship.S.700 to $9. bulk carrier or reefer.500 per ton. These vessels transport containerized cargo. Ocean-going vessels travel internationally and may be registered by the U. Marine Vessels Ocean-going vessels are generally very large vessels designed for deep water navigation. the NOx emission cost ranged from $1. and about $412 million per year for NOx emissions. bulk items such as vehicles.

● Controlling air emissions from marine vessels ● General Cargo Ship Passenger ship Vehicle / Ro-Ro Vessel Oil and Product Tanker Problems and Opportunities 5 .

ME to Baltimore MD. etc.279 31% 1.000 35. LPG.) Transportation of road and/ or rail vehicles and other cargo on wheels.g.316 32% 3. reefers.631 19% 5. Transportation of crude oil.885 5 Other: Ro-ro.000 560. Cargo pumped on and off of vessel. partial containerships. Transportation Multi-deck hull of 12 or more and passengers for superstructure cruising or that provides Passenger excursions cabin (e.000 85.107 vessels) 5.967 7% 1 2 Sources: (MARAD 2004).300 67.(1) North Atlantic: All ports from Eastport. etc. ramps and doorway that allow for the Ro-Ro rolling loading and unloading of cargo.000 25.000 135. Multi-deck hull. for passengers.500 27.000 dwt = 59. ore.356 25% 19. passenger.● 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. Single-deck hull with an arrangement of topside ballast Bulk Carrier tanks and holds designed for the carriage of bulk cargo.000 80.000 >200. 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. Transportation of loose dry cargo of a homogeneous nature (e.200 <10.000 dwt 4 Total 2004 US calls for vessels over 10.139 13% 11. (UNCTD 2004). (3) Puerto Rico. Transportation Single deck hull of containers with an (TEU) arrangement of holds (above Containership and below deck) fitted specifically for containers.g.000 Panama (587 Vessels) / Germany (945 vessels) 3.463 6 n/a 5. (4) U.) Transportation Single deck hull. etc.503 vessels) / Greece (1. by regional activity and by vessel type (MARAD 2005).334 vessels) 6.150 39% 3.679 12% 4.000 100. LNG.000 + Panama (1. cement.317 9% 40. (CARB Oct. wood chips. VA to Miami.134 vessels) / Greece (857 vessels) 11.000 Panama (1. Gulf: All ports from Key West. chemicals and petroleum products (e. accomidations cruise ship.000 Panama (1. Oil. holds or a single perishable hull. 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 80.g.000 100. FL to iv Problems and Opportunities 6 . (MAN 2005).000 5. Greater detailed charts on the breakdown of vessel type by each region iv can be found in Appendix A. FL. The charts in Figure US regional definitions.g.160 <10.000 5.S.700 93. (2) South Atlantic: All ports from Alexandria. goods). of diverse with an forms of dry arrangement of General Cargo cargo (e. ferry.165 7% 18.000 18. both US and foreign flagged.) 2.30042.598 vessels) / Russia 5 (1.000 15.

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 . Source: (MARAD 2005) 2004 Vessel Calls in the US by Region (Total = 59. The number of containerships visiting the US during this period increased by 20% to 1. Since this part of the hull is in direct contact with the ocean it is important to properly maintain a vessel in Brownsville. Figure 4: Total 2004 US port calls by: (a) region and (b) vessel type Both US and foreign flagged. ports from Barrow. their engine revolutions and power vary by hull shape. (6) Pacific Southwest: All ports from Crockett. and propeller design. making a total of 56. CA to San Diego.885 calls) US Gulf Coast 31% North Atlantic 19% 2004 US Port Calls by Type (Total calls = 59. (5) Pacific Northwest: All U. AK to Coos Bay. 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%. Problems and Opportunities 7 .157 vessels over 10.885) 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 world’s active shipping fleet (6. Figure 4(b) shows that the most common vessel type were tankers (31%) and containerships (31%) followed by dry-bulk vessels (19%). As vessels can vary in design and application. The average TEU capacity of the containerships visiting the US during this five year period had increased by an average of 29%.● Controlling air emissions from marine vessels ● 4(a) show that the Gulf Coast region (31%) is the most frequently visited port in 2004. OR. TX. C. The part of a vessel’s hull that is beneath the water line is important to the propulsion of the vessel. and all Hawaiian ports. followed by the North and South Atlantic regions (19% each) and the Pacific Southwest region (18%). dry bulk carriers (18%) and ro-ro vessels (9%) and others (10%) (MARAD 2004).759 calls.025 (MARAD 2004). while the number of containership calls only increased by 4% over this same period. containerships (30%). respectively. These calls were broken down by vessel type as.000 DWT).S. tankers (33%). Marine Propulsion & Power 1. Hull Marine vessels used in international shipping are typically powered by diesel engines that turn a propeller.

14. In addition a vessel also experiences air resistance and resistance due to waves and eddies (residual resistance).g. 2. medium and large engine categories and is summarized in Table 2 and Table 3.126 Medium Vessels Large Vessels 1 1 4 4 6.368 281 31 25. lower quality residual fuel. begins to erode. weather conditions).000 kW 1.1.000 kW ≥ 2.000 .000 .5 auxiliary engines. These engines provide reliable service and typically have lifetimes on the order of decades. 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 . 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.000 . As a ship ages its paint breaks down. 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.g.000 kW < 1.255 25. Engines and boilers Diesel marine engines are the main power source for propulsion systems in ocean-going vessels. A fixed pitch propeller is commonly cast from copper. is used to increase vessel maneuverability and cannot be changed during operating conditions. and can change the propeller performance with changing operational conditions (e. speed and hull form.Auxiliary Engine Small Vessels 1 4 <6.999 kW 88% 91% 12% 9% 10.Main Engine AE. accumulates biological growth (e.145. 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 it’s being designed for. 3.082 40 4 3.4 main engines and 3. The engine/ power analysis was broken down to small. barnacles) and can even experience localized bucking. A controllable pitch propeller is three to four times more expensive than the fixed pitch model.133 110 12 10.680 Problems and Opportunities 8 .999 kW 15. There are two primary types of propellers used for ocean-going vessels: fixed-pitch and controllable pitch propeller. The major factors influencing a vessel’s resistance is its displacement.● Controlling air emissions from marine vessels ● order to minimize the resistance of the drag so that the vessel operates at its optimal efficiency. has a larger hub that slightly lowers propeller efficiency. In response to increasing oil process and the large quantities of fuel needed to operate vessels the engines were designed to burn the cheaper.000 kW 84% 16% 3.

In comparison to the two-stroke cycle the four strokes are not as powerful but are considered to be more efficient.g.). b.000 700 20 a. slow speed diesel engines in use in ocean-going vessels are manufactured by: Sulzer. 4-Stroke diesel engines Diesel four-stroke engines are commonly found in the medium to large merchant vessels. therefore there are large amount of unburnt fuel and oil that exit the engine through the exhaust. gasoline). Pielstick. require less maintenance. 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. MAN B&W or Mitsubishi. are cheaper and lower polluting. The diesel 2-stroke engine operates by first compressing the intake air and then injecting the fuel for combustion.● 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 . medium speed diesel engines in use in ocean-going vessels are manufactured by: Wartsila. The more time that the fuel and gases have in the combustion chamber the more complete the combustion will be. larger merchant vessels. Sulzer or MAK. The combustion process in two-stroke engines differs from that of four-stroke engines. This cycle generates more pollution than the four-stroke engines because it mixes lubrication oil with the fuel to lubricate the crankshaft bearings. 2-Stroke diesel engines The largest diesel engines in use operate on the two-stroke cycle/ principle. These types of engines are favored on ships that are limited in their headroom (e. 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. A majority of the 4-stroke. leading to a different localization of the combustion.g. Problems and Opportunities 9 . A majority of the large 2-stroke.Auxiliary Engine ME Load factor 80% 20% 20% AE Load factor 30% 40% 50% Annual Engine Operating Hours 6. As a result of the high compression ratios diesel engines need to be deigned stronger. This type of engine is commonly found as the main engine in the slower speed (less than 150 rpm engine). etc. passenger ferries. Generally these medium speed engines operate between 250 and 850 rpm. Two-stroke engines tend to have larger combustion chambers and a different fuel injector orientation than the four-stroke engines. making for higher in chamber temperatures and more efficient process when compared to the four-stroke process.Main Engine AE. which requires more raw materials and increases the cost of the engines. cruise ships.

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.0015% 15 CA & US in 2006 CARB/ EPA Diesel 0. Table 4 compares the sulfur content of different types of diesel fuels. stores.1%) LS MGO (0. Periodic scheduled maintenance Problems and Opportunities 10 .2% 1. in their main engines and either bunker fuel or a Distillate fuel in their auxiliary engines.● Controlling air emissions from marine vessels ● c.5% 5. 2-DS5000 LS MGO (0. Operational Costs for Ocean-going Vessels The operating costs for ocean-going vessels involved in international trade varies by vessel type. Sulfur Availability Name % ppm ULSD 0. age. replaced in 2007 D. by IVL Swedish Environmental Research Institute and Lloyd’s Register Engineering Services.000 2. The major costs can be divided into operating costs. slow speed engines has been estimated to be 194. Fuels (Starcrest Fuel 2005) Most ocean going vessels use bunker fuel. Specific fuel consumption (SFC) for large.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.000 15.5% 5.0% 1. 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). but not to the main propulsion machinery.0% 1. repairs and maintenance. medium speed engines.g.05% 500 Currently available EPA Offroad 0. Auxiliary engines are typically 4-stroke. Boilers can operate on either residual or distillate fuel oil. voyage costs and capital costs. Sulfur Max.000 Replaced with S500 by 2007 MGO MGO MGO MGO MDO IFO/ bunker fuel IFO/ bunker fuel IFO/ bunker fuel 0. periodic maintenance costs. Bunker fuel contains high levels of sulfur. and nitrogen compounds and generates higher emissions than distillate fuels. d. 2-DS15 Grade No.1% 0.0% 1. also known as Intermediate Fuel Oil (IFO). Operating costs (e.000 20. insurance. Heavy Fuel Oil (HFO) or Residual Oil (RO).5% 2. For medium speed engines IVL and Lloyd’s estimates SFC as 209 and 226 g/kW-hr. frequency of travel and vessel operating characteristics. 209 g/kW-hr. respectively.5% 4. respectively (Entec 2002). ash. 4. Boilers Auxiliary boilers supply steam to the auxiliary services that are necessary for the ship’s operation at sea. Auxiliary Engines Auxiliary engines on ocean-going vessels are primarily used to provide power for uses other than propulsion. 2-DS500 Grade No.000 10. route.000 45. Table 4: Sulfur Content Fuel Type Comparison Sources: (Starcrest Fuel 2005) & (Entec 2002) Name Grade No. and administrative costs) can make up 25% to 40% of a ship’s total annual costs. Domestic boilers supply steam to services that are not essential to the ships operation at sea. crew.000 15.000 50. Auxiliary engines are usually coupled with generators to produce electrical power. As seen in table 3.

294. or special surveys) can account for 5% to 10% of a ship’s total annual costs. The Panamanian open registry is dominated by general cargo ships.963 $18.632.668 $2. 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 35.555 $1. port fees/ costs.179 $613.905. Panama is the world’s leading open registry at the start of 2005.000 $1. 4 years older than the foreign-flagged vessels. The vessels that were under national flag (registered with the flag of the owner’s country) were found to be of average 18.712.000 80.494.000 70.018.000 $3.220 $9.326.) can make up from 30% to 70% of a ship’s total annual costs.190. open registry flag states and a hybrid of the first two types.121. also known as “flags of convenience.012 $49.500 TEU 6.729 $1. The study showed that 93.451 $1.074 E. Flag states with open registries.951 $26. shipbuilding.997 $2.522 $5. dry-docking.7 million dwt.6 years old.666.” seldom have the national restrictions of the traditional states.522 $1.461.851.285 $1.712.332. Malta and the Marshall Islands.006.911. not by the home nation of the vessel owner but under foreign flag. At the beginning of 2005 the top ten shipping nations represented 71. Traditional nations have national restrictions in terms of ownership.829 Container 2.051 $5.632. 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.000 TEU $2.725 $14.535.514.535 $2.410 $404.g. 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.471 $3. and trading (CABOTAGE LAWS). container ships tankers.937 $1. Problems and Opportunities 11 .421.997 $2. The Liberian flag has a large population of tankers attributed to it.243 $2.480 merchant vessels representing approximately 65% of the world’s total shipping tonnage were flagged.376.524 $22.549 $511. In the shipping industry the major open registries nations are: Panama. crewing.970.399 vessels with 181.811 $4. a 10% increase from 2001.012 $430.5% of the world’s shipping tonnage could be attributed to 30 nations.9 million dwt (see Figure 5).● Controlling air emissions from marine vessels ● (e.416 $8.611 $15.097. 14.047 $9. Liberia.496. Voyage costs (e. with 4.920 Oil Tankers 20.408 $6. Bahamas.348 $17.252 $703. and bulk carriers. 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. At the beginning of 2005.198. fuel oil. 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 the dwt of vessels registered with open registries was 432. and it’s common for the ship owner to reside in a nation different from the registry nation.016 $4.g. There are three major types of flag nations: the traditional flag state.5% of the world’s merchant shipping tonnage (ISL 2005). The majority of these ships are registered under the flags of foreign nations.000 $1. etc. Capital costs make up the rest of a ship’s operating costs and can vary significantly on the financing arrangement made for the original construction of the vessel. canal dues.

German ship owners used the Liberia registry for 39% of their flagged-out tonnage. environment and social performance.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. 2004). In 2003. approximately 77% of the US dwt was flagged under a foreign nation. INTERNATIONAL SHIPPING FEDERATION and INTERTANKO) collaborated to developed a criteria to evaluate the performance of individual flag states (ICS et al. Greek ship owners have frequently used Malta and Cyprus as their foreign flags for registry (ISL 2005). Problems and Opportunities 12 . The criteria focused on standards for safety. INTERCARGO. 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.70% Panama 42. INTERNATIONAL CHAMBER OF SHIPPING.● 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).60% Bahamas 9. 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. A group of shipping industry organizations (BIMCO. 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. This information is based on the country of residence of the controlling interest of the fleet. At the start of 2005 OECD nations had about 35% of its foreign flagged shipping tonnage registered in Panama. The US fleet at this time was made up of 948 foreign flagged vessels and 592 US flagged vessels. ranked according to gross tonnage at the beginning of 2005. followed by about 12% registered in Liberia.00% Others 29. Table 6 is a summary of the performance of the top 20 largest shipping flag states.

5.● Controlling air emissions from marine vessels ● Table 6: Negative Performance Indicators for Flag Nations Source: (ICS et al.6.9.3. Problems and Opportunities 13 .5.12 None 5 8.8 None 8 8.11. 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.5.14 5.6.3. 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. 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 1.6 None None None 1.12.11 1.6. 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.18 5.18 5.18 Negative Indicators (ICS et al. 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.8.11 1.6.

e. F. G.70% 3. type of ship.17% 6.090 2. America was responsible for 20.14% 57.72% 77.653 2.98% 3. Table 7 provides a summary of this analysis looking primarily at the fleet and dwt of the country/ territory.161 788 948 238 380 291 426 DWT Foreign Flag % 68.90% 3.216 813 2.82% 86.93% 76. Cyprus and Bermuda) and six minor open registry nations ► The country/ territory indicates where the controlling interest (i.0%. Malta.1% while Oceania had the smallest share at 8%. Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) 16.70% 1.4%.1 billion tons. 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 1.468 2. respectively.40% 7.24% 48.7%.80% 2. parent company) of the fleet is located.415 1.30% 4.90% 50. Trade Distribution In 2003 the total loaded goods exceeded 6.540 492 865 740 537 ► Open Registry consists of major (Panama.10% 5. These "recognized organizations" are often the classification societies.98% 49.20% % of World Total 20. regulation 6). 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 2.95% Rank 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Total 3. Greek and Japanese interests have the largest total fleets in terms of vessel size and dwt. Liberia.30% 4. Norway.361 2. The International Association of Classification Societies (IACS) is a Non-Governmental Organization which was granted Consultative Status with IMO in 1969. The table shows that the top 5 most important maritime nations are: Greece. or flag of convenience.70% 3.007 512 1. This total trade value can be broken down into exports by content as follows: Africa’s was 8.25% 3.27% % Open registry 22. Asia had the largest share at 37.742 467 603 183 317 120 360 % Open registry 89% 91% 63% 81% 59% 64% 77% 83% 41% 85% Total Foreign Flag 2.112 2.948 1. North Problems and Opportunities 14 .9%.● Controlling air emissions from marine vessels ● All ships must be surveyed in ordered to be issued certificates which establish their seaworthiness.10% 21. This study attempted to quantify the shipping interests of each nation.00% 2.2%. and this is the responsibility of the flag State of the vessel. However. Germany and China. Shipping Industry The 2004 UNCTD report provided an analysis of the most important maritime Countries and Territories at the beginning of 2004. not by flag of registry.90% 3.21% 65. Japan. but by the location of the primary controlling interest. Bahamas. 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%.26% 14.31% 6. Europe had the second largest share at 25. About 90% of the vessels in each of these two fleets are registered with an open registry flag.66% 6. This total trade value can be broken down by trading bloc as: European Union (EU) 17. etc.12% 88.

called “California’s Global Gateways: Trends and Issues” analyzed. Some estimates (CDN 2004) predict that by 2010 China will be able to handle three billion tons of cargo and 100 million TEU by 2010.000 4.15 times 2002 volumes for the U.136. to 2010 and 2020.000 64.066.000 1.700.700. and projected trade growth for both the United States and California.S.800.200.2%.100.300.2 billion tons of cargo. Dry cargo made up about 40% of all loaded goods with approximately 2. both imports and exports.000 1.900. and CA.000 813.000 566. with roughly 2.000 92.000 400.000 1.000 4.75 times greater than 2002 levels.000 35.300. and by 2020 the total trade volumes moved by vessel are expected to increase by about 3.000 1.6%.600.75 and 3.200.000 275.100.2% and the Common Market of Eastern and South Africa (COMESA) 1.600.000 3.000 124.600. respectively.107.14 times greater than 2002 levels.499. In 2003 12 major South and East Asian exporters were responsible for nearly 50% of the world’s total 2003 exports (UNCTD 2004).000 800.000 147.000 317.300.800.200.000 3.268.000 South Common Market (MERCOSUR) 5.000 91.000 402. The table shows that by 2020 total trade (imports + exports) volumes in the U.000 3.● Controlling air emissions from marine vessels ● America Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) 10.900.700.000 2.000 35. Activities in Asia Due to steady economic and port development China is becoming a major player in the marine transportation industry.000.300. Association of South-East Asian Nations (ASEAN) 6.500. H.000 127.000. The authors of the report broke the mode of transportation of these goods out by either air or vessel.800. This table also shows that the authors expect a significantly larger growth in the use of vessels to transport trade as opposed to air.S.000 700.495.000 276.300.000 3. Problems and Opportunities 15 .9%.100.500.300. will be about 3.500.155. and total trade volumes in CA will be approximately 3.800. Table 8 summarizes the projected increases in trade volumes (tons).000 5.000 2.000 600.149.000 1.400. Forecasted trends 1.000 213.000 147.000 5.000 816.500. dry bulk made up about 24% of all loaded goods with roughly 1. Tanker cargo in 2003 made up about 36% of all loaded goods.000 1.900.500.400. 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. Finally.000 563.113.000 CA 65. (UNCTD 2004) The total loaded goods in the world during 2003 can be broken down by cargo type. Activities in the US A report (Haveman 2004) produced by the Public Policy Institute of California in 2004.000 125.5 billion tons of cargo.5 billion tons of cargo (UNCTD 2004).000 1.

v Residence time.● Controlling air emissions from marine vessels ● Honk Kong is currently the largest container port complex in the world. and summarize existing. Emissions This section will look at the major (NOx. The primary pollutant of concern varies from region to region. This plan also looks at several approaches to plan to accommodate this growth in trade volumes and expected increase in port competitiveness. water vapor. Some factors that can influence the main problem pollutant are the climate of the regions. The Port of Hong Kong published a study (HK 2004). PM. and the composition of the local emissions sources.The average time a pollutant spends in the atmosphere Problems and Opportunities 16 . local fuel-air mixing processes and action times. formation of the pollutants in diesel engines. and semivolatile organic compounds. as the East coast has been particularly concerned with SOx emissions while the West coast has been predominantly concerned with ozone formation. including typical combustion products. residence time v of the pollutant. “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. Then regional concerns of air quality priorities will be discussed. with 2002 container volumes exceeding 19 million TEU. such as carbon monoxide (CO). An example of this variation in pollutant priority can be seen when comparing the East and West coast of the U. the combustion process takes place under high temperatures and pressures. particle-phase.S. Diesel exhaust (See Figure 6) consists of hundreds of gas-phase. sulfur dioxide (SO2).. the sensitive receptors of pollutant exposure will be identified. meteorological characteristics. SOx and VOC) pollutants generated from ocean-going vessels. health and other impacts. First. temperatures. In the 2-stroke marine engines commonly found as the main engine in ocean-going vessels. Any alterations in the controlling factors of chemical processes to reduce a target pollutant may result in an increase in other pollutants of concern. Then each major pollutant will be looked at in terms of the following: Pollutant description. local ecosystems. I. health-based ambient air quality standards. carbon dioxide (CO2). proximity to communities. The chemical reactions which take place in the combustion chambers of engines are controlled by the pressures. This plan fails to mention any of the air quality impacts that the significant increases in trade volumes presents. and excess air (nitrogen and oxygen). oxides of nitrogen (NOx). reactive organic gases (ROG).

such as construction workers and other outdoor workers. Adults who are outdoors and moderately active during the summer months. such as chest pain and cough. during the summer when ozone levels are highest. nitrogen dioxide (NO2) and other oxides of Nitrogen. Children are more at risk from ozone exposure because they typically are active outside. as well as people with respiratory illnesses such as asthma. Also. can experience reduced lung function and increased respiratory symptoms. Oxides of Nitrogen (NOx) a. NOx is a precursor to the formation of ozone. Description NOx is a general term that encompasses the following compounds: nitric oxide (NO). 2. also are among those most at risk. Nitrogen dioxide (NO2). The highest levels of ozone are produced when both ROG and NOx emissions are present in significant quantities on hot. Sensitive receptors The population subgroups most susceptible to ozone health effects include individuals exercising outdoors. and chronic pulmonary lung disease and even heart disease. a component of NOx.● Controlling air emissions from marine vessels ● Figure 6: Typical Exhaust Gas Composition Source: (MAN 2004) 1. when exposed to relatively low ozone levels during prolonged periods of moderate exertion. along with particles in the Problems and Opportunities 17 . children are more at risk than adults from ozone exposure because their respiratory systems are still developing. These individuals. Appendix B lists the California and US Federal health-based Ambient Air Quality Standards. especially asthmatic children. and also contributes to the secondary formation of Particulate Matter (PM) in the lower atmosphere. children and people with preexisting lung disease such as asthma. Ozone is formed by the reaction of ROG and NOx in the atmosphere in the presence of heat and sunlight. clear summer days.

b. which can result in breathing difficulties. 2. high excess air ratios. NOx is formed by one of three methods. Health and Other Impacts Ozone is powerful oxidant that can damage the respiratory tract. have been found to be potent mutagens and carcinogens. Approximately 94 percent of the mass of these particles are less than 2. A majority of the NOx emission generated by internal combustion engines is through the thermal process.A pollutant for which acceptable levels of exposure can be determined and for which an ambient air quality standard has been set. Prolonged (six to eight hours). and possibly irreversible changes in lung structure. repeated exposure to ozone can cause inflammation of the lung.● Controlling air emissions from marine vessels ● air can often be seen as a reddish-brown layer over many urban areas. (Peters. Residence time The average residence time of NO and NO2 in the atmosphere is on the order of days. A fraction of this NO that is formed will then go on to oxidize into NO2. 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. Formation in Diesel Engines (Bludszuweit 1999) In the diesel marine engine process. impairment of lung defense mechanisms. c. Short-term exposure to high ambient ozone concentrations have been linked to increased hospital admissions and emergency visits for respiratory problems. alkanes and alkenes. and fuel formation (due to high Nitrogen contents in the fuel). especially nitro-PAHs. Description Particulate Matter is listed as a Criteria Air Pollutant by the US EPA. vi Problems and Opportunities 18 . 2001) Repeated exposure to ozone can make people more susceptible to respiratory infection and lung inflammation and can aggravate preexisting respiratory diseases. NO2 and Ozone are listed as Criteria Air Pollutant vi as defined by the United States EPA. which over time could lead to premature aging of the lungs and/or chronic respiratory illnesses such as emphysema and chronic bronchitis. The organic fraction of the diesel particle contains compounds such as aldehydes. Almost the entire diesel particle mass is in the fine particle range of 10 microns or less in diameter (PM10). Criteria Air Pollutant. NOx.5 microns (PM2. Many of these PAHs and PAH-derivatives. Particulate Matter (PM) a.5) in diameter. NOx emissions are also a key component in the formation of acid rain. Fine particles may also be formed secondarily from gaseous precursors such as SO2. causing inflammation and irritation. see SOx section for more details on the formation of acid rain. and the long periods of time the gases remain in the reaction zones (primarily in slow 2-stroke engines). d. Thermal formation. such as asthma. and high molecular weight polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) and PAH-derivatives. Nitrogen Oxide (NO) is formed in engines as a result of high in-cylinder combustion temperatures. or organic compounds. prompt formation.

liquids and solids that are actually emitted into the air will vary depending on engine type. and they originate from incomplete combustion or impurities in the fuel and lubricating oil. Formation in Diesel Engines The composition of this mixture of gases. Due to the nearly identical combustion process as smaller diesel engines. Particulate Matter emissions consist primarily of soot. d. SO2 is formed when sulfur-containing fuel is burned by mobile sources. c. shortness of breath and chest tightness. emissions of sulfur compounds occur primarily from the combustion of petroleum-derived fuels that contain sulfur. operating conditions. also contribute to the secondary formation of PM. b.● Controlling air emissions from marine vessels ● b. the particles are readily respirable and can effectively reach the lowest airways of the lung along with the adsorbed compounds. 1998a) Because of their small size. vessels. marine engines burning heavier bunker fuel are expected to produce PM with similar exhaust. Residence time Fine particles can remain in the atmosphere for days to weeks and travel through the atmosphere for hundreds to thousands of kilometers. c. engine age and horsepower. Secondary reactions of NOx and SOx can also produce PM. Sulfur emissions. 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. Effects from SO2 exposures at levels near the onehour standard include bronchoconstriction accompanied by symptoms. 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. Health and Other Impacts In 1998. such as locomotives. which may include wheezing. Sulfur Oxides (SOx) a. many of which are known or suspected mutagens and carcinogens. and sulphates. especially during exercise or Problems and Opportunities 19 . 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. lubricating oil. Residence time The average residence time of SO2 is 25 hours. Diesel PM is by far the most important TAC and contributes over 70 percent of the estimated risk from air toxic contaminants today. and off-road diesel equipment. like NOx. This sulfur is oxidized to sulfur dioxide (SO2) during the combustion process and subsequently converted to sulfate compounds in the atmosphere. while coarse particles deposit to the earth within minutes to hours and within tens of kilometers from the emission source. fuel. In marine vessels. 3. The average residence time for Sulfate is 80 hours. the Air Resources Board identified diesel PM as a toxic air contaminant (TAC). and whether or not an emission control system is present. Sulfates (SO4 2-) are the fully oxidized ionic form of sulfur. metal oxides. (ARB. Sulfates occur in combination with metal and / or hydrogen ions.

Sulfur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen oxides (NOx) are the primary components of acid rain. Formaldehyde has an atmospheric residence time of CH2O is ~3-9 hours. c. including irreplaceable buildings. and increased risk of mortality. or taste. unloading and during transit. VOCs have no color. As the temperature of the cargo changes. halocarbons and oxygenates. decreased pulmonary function. d. acid rain accelerates the decay of building materials and paints. The result is a mild solution of sulfuric acid and nitric acid. Acid rain occurs when these gases react in the atmosphere with water. 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. the oil-industry will be the key stakeholder in reducing SOx emissions. benzene. b. d. Formation in Diesel Engines VOC emissions are primarily a function of the fuel characteristics. Sunlight increases the rate of most of these reactions. Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) a. smell. 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. while methane can have an atmospheric residence time of about a decade. Crude oil tankers can have particularly high levels of VOC emissions. and sculptures that are part of our nation's cultural heritage. In addition. see health impacts under NOx and Ozone. expansion occurs Problems and Opportunities 20 . and other chemicals to form various acidic compounds. 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. Some VOCs. Residence time The residence time for VOCs can vary considerably. VOCs include a very wide range of individual substances.● Controlling air emissions from marine vessels ● physical activity. These vessels emit VOC during loading. VOC can also be released into the atmosphere as fuel is loaded or unloaded. statues. Health Impacts VOC also leads to the formation of Ozone. such as hydrocarbons (for example benzene and toluene). They are called organic because they contain the element carbon in their molecular structures. 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. VOC contributes to ozone formation and may even be toxic themselves. Continued exposure at elevated levels of SO2 results in increased incidence of pulmonary symptoms and disease. oxygen. xylenes and toluene are carcinogens and formaldehyde and ethylene are known to harm plants. 4.

or not. 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.000 tons of NOx. 2005) of emissions generated in California by ocean-going vessels. J.875 visits by a total of 1. This study focused on marine emissions generated in ports. The study used 2004 as the baseline year.5 emissions in the country. 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. State Example: California (CARB Oct. with approximately 907. Figure 7 shows the breakdown of these 2004 CA visits by vessel type. studies and projections in the United States and then internationally. and in California Coastal waters (See Appendix C). Impacts of Marine Emissions Emissions generated by ocean going vessels can impact the air quality of onshore communities whether they have an active port. The port areas are the most recognizable receptors of pollutants emitted from these vessels. vii Problems and Opportunities 21 . The United States EPA predicts that by 2030. 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. and this is expected to grow to 25% by 2030. Category 3 (C3) engines are identified by the US EPA as engines at or greater than 30 L per cylinder displacement.938 ocean-going vessels during this year. but coastal areas also suffer from impacts of emissions generated near shore. inland waterways. emissions from marine CI engines quadruple its share of total mobile source NOx emissions to 28%. 2005) In October of 2005 the California Air Resources Board (ARB) finalized a study (CARB Oct.● 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. and reported 9. This section will first look at emission inventories. This graph shows that containerships were responsible for nearly half of the ocean-going vessel visits to CA in 2004. The EPA also predicts PM emissions from these marine engines to have a similar growth. 1. In 1996 CI marine engines were responsible for 6% of the total mobile source PM 2. burn heavy fuel oil and are used predominantly for propulsion. 2.

6 Table 11 summarizes the forecasted growth in CA vessel numbers by type for 2010 and 2020.17 12.01 0.43 7.09 0.89 7.13 132.1 2.31 0.6 1.44 4.66 1. 2005) 2004 Ocean-going vessel visits to CA (Total visits = 9.875) RoRo 0.04 0.3% Container 48.8 39.74 1.39 0.09 0. Table 10: California Ocean-going Vessel Emission Estimates (TPD) Source: (CARB Oct.78 142.44 1.6 13.21 2.66 0.7 24. and projected out to 2010 and 2020. This data takes into account emissions from both the main and auxiliary engines.8 18.82 Table 10 is a summary of the emissions generated in CA by ocean-going vessel activity for 2004.67 10.81 1.0% Tanker 19.3% Reefer 0.28 18.68 1.39 0.7% Auto 7.0% General 7. This analysis also uses 2004 inventory data as a baseline.52 27.9 4.19 2.● Controlling air emissions from marine vessels ● Figure 7: California Shipping Activity Source: (CARB Oct.5% Passenger 7.97 0. 2005) Vessel Type Auto Bulk Container General Passenger Reefer RoRo Tanker Totals PM (TPD) 0.78 14. This table shows that containerships are responsible for the most emissions when compared to other vessel types.06 CO (TPD) 0.65 NOx (TPD) 9.16 HC (TPD) 0.09 0.6% Bulk 9.25 0. Table 9: 2004 Ocean-going Vessel Emissions by Type Source: (CARB Oct.24 0. This table shows that ARB is predicting a doubling of NOx and PM emissions emitted by ocean-going vessels by 2020.05 10. This data are for the total emissions generated by the main and auxiliary engines.09 218. This table shows that Problems and Opportunities 22 .32 84.6% Table 9 summarizes the pollutants emitted by each vessel type in terms of tons per day for 2004.3 2020 456.75 SOx (TPD) 5.5 16.09 16.08 0. 2005) Pollutant NOx PM 2004 218.73 8.6 2010 283.

5 2.1 87.6 PM2.80 725.60 204.5. The table shows that ocean-going vessels are responsible for: 36% of the total NOx. Starcrest used 2001 as its emission baseline.8 33.70 233.70 376 1. 14% of CO. The report focused on the following port emission sources: Ocean-going vessels.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. trucks. followed by cruise ships at 12% and tankers at 10%.9 1.7 102. harborcraft and locomotives. 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.● Controlling air emissions from marine vessels ● vessel types with the largest projected growth rates are.50 185.622.245. Table 12 summarizes the emissions inventory. in terms of tons per year.2 77. cargo handling equipment.9 163. and 86% SO2 emitted in the port area.50 506.5 249. Table 11: California Growth Rates by Vessel Types Source: (CARB Oct. by source category for the port in 2001. 56% of PM10.6 3.099.9 849.922.30 CO 553.9 998.1 89.7 4. 53% of PM2.6 4.4 44.40 The Starcrest analysis reported that a total of 769 vessels called on the port with 2.5 19.6 55. 21% of the total organic gases (TOG). This graph shows that the most frequent vessel types calling on the port were container vessels at 59%.30 1. LLC finalized an analysis and report (Starcrest EI 2005) commissioned by the Port of Los Angeles to develop a port-wide emission inventory.3 3. container ships and tankers.791. Port example: Port of Los Angeles (Starcrest EI 2005) In July 2005 Starcrest Consulting Group. 2005) 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% 3.3 SO2 4. passenger ships. Problems and Opportunities 23 .530.117.465.80 99.6 60.966.463.4 815.862.90 PM10 561 178 111.5 449.

and this particular study showed that very little dilution occurred as the emissions traveled over the water. The study resulted in tracer gases being recorded at monitoring stations that ran the entire length of the study area. and would also assess the accuracy of modeling to simulate the transport processes of the ship emissions. b.0% Reefer 2. also known as the CA Coastal Waters ranges from 25 to 102 miles from the coastline. In 1983 the California Air Resources Board released a report to the legislature on Air Pollution from Marine Vessels.5% 4.8% RoRo 1. airplanes and other boats. This boundary. The report analyzed meteorological data for coastal California to determine boundaries within which emissions released will be transported to shore.2% Auto Carrier 5. CA Marine Emission Studies (CARB 2005) a. 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.4% Containership 58. This study was the focused on collecting trajectory data for ship emissions traversing shipping lanes.7% Tanker 10.4% Bulk Carrier 7. and that the dispersion of the pollutants is strongly influenced by meteorological conditions. 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. The 1997 Southern California Ozone Study was another tracer study (CARB 2000).3% General Cargo 2. The results of the study showed that the tracer gases were detected on shore.6% Misc 0.3% Cruise Ship 11. 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 Problems and Opportunities 24 . California Marine Vessel Emission Studies The impact of emissions generated offshore has been studied for decades. The emissions were sampled for the tracer gases from onshore sites.● 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.

● Controlling air emissions from marine vessels ● Beach. marine vessel maneuvering and hotelling had a stronger impact than the transiting emissions despite the higher emission rates the vessels experience while in transit. without a port. harborcraft. and were analyzed in different modes of operation: hotelling.435 acres in which 1. Problems and Opportunities 25 . 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).770 people resided.000 minor restricted activity days. Within 5 to 10 miles of the Santa Barbara shore are the heavily traveled north and southbound shipping lanes (See Figure 9 (a)). There was shown to be an elevated cancer risk throughout the region. The annual non-cancer impacts in the area were estimated to be. Oceangoing vessels.970 tons of PM per year) in the South Coast Air Basin. The study showed that the sources in the region studied were responsible for 21% of the total PM emissions (1. 29 pre-mature deaths. cargo-handling equipment. 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. maneuvering and in transit in CA coastal waters. 750 Asthma attacks. Oceangoing vessels made up 73% of the PM emissions in the study area. therefore. These shipping lanes are frequented by vessels traveling along a great circle route to or from Asia.600 lost days of work and 35. trucks and locomotives. The study looked at diesel emissions generated by various port sources. c. The region of study was approximately 163.977. ranging from 50 to 500 per million people within 15 miles of the port. Coastal (non-port) Example: Santa Barbara (SBCAPCD 2004) Santa Barbara County is a coastal community on the south central California coast. and vessels traveling up the CA coast and pass well within the California Coastal Waters viii boundary (Figure 9 (b)). The study also showed that PM emissions from the breakwater in had a much greater impact than the PM emitted outside the breakwater. 6.

59 vessels emitted over 50 tons of NOx 4. The study also showed that the region experiences its highest levels of ocean-going vessel emissions between May and September. of the sources previously listed. and recreational vessels. 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.200 transits of the SB coastline 2. Approximately 19 vessel transits per day 6. and looked at marine emissions in the Lower Fraser Valley and greater Vancouver areas of southwestern British Columbia. 92% of the NOx emissions were from foreign vessels 5.584 tonnes of NOx.866 tonnes of SOx and 745 tonnes of PM. 9% of the vessels that transited the coastline were responsible for 50% of the marine NOx emissions. and Green House Gases (58%) in the region. When SBCAPCD forecasted emissions from marine vessel as part of its Clean Air Plan. Problems and Opportunities 26 . Canada (Levelton 2002) In April 2002. fishing vessels. PM (82%). ocean-going vessels are the predominant contributor of NOx (58%). The emission sources analyzed in this study were: ocean-going vessels. The results of the study shows that. Over 7. 3. In 2000 the report estimates that ocean-going vessels emitted 10.● Controlling air emissions from marine vessels ● generated off-shore. Levelton Engineering Ltd. habor craft. completed their analysis of marine vessel emissions generated in the Lower Fraser Valley for Environment Canada and the Greater Vancouver Regional District. ferries. SOx (95%). Figure 10: Santa Barbara County NOx Emissions Forecast Source: (SBCAPCD 2004) The 2004 marine shipping emission inventory resulted in the following: 1. Approximately 40 Tons of NOx and 3 tons of PM emitted daily 5. 4. International a. The analysis was done for the year 2000. 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).

April. Elsinore (Helsingør). ozone (15%). During 2000 there were 1. however only four months (January. e.7 mgm-2). SO2 and PM in three Danish harbors. was published in “Atmospheric Environment” in 2005.578 Kte/ yr of SO2 and 21 Kte/yr of PM in port.831. The study focused on the region for a 21 month period while focusing mainly on the summer of 2002. marine emissions would increase to. When the model was run without the ship emission contributions there was a significant reduction of sulfate (29%). The study used the year 2000 as the period of analysis. 2. and that ferries operating in the port of Elsinore also contributed significantly to the total NOx pollution of the neighboring communities.838 vessel movements in the region. 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. quantified the emissions from ships as they moved between ports in the European community. hydroxy radicals (42%) and formaldehyde (24%).845 Kte/yr of SO2 and 24 Kte/yr of PM in port. The study found that NOx emissions generated by vessels made up a significant amount of the total NOx levels in central Copenhagen. and then between the original 15 EU member states (22%). The authors differentiated between emissions generated onshore and emissions generated by vessels so they could analyze the individual impacts. c. d. from the EU original 15 to non-member states (14%) and from non-member states to the EU original 15 (13%). Copenhagen and Køge. Mediterranean Sea Emissions Modeling (Marmer 2005) A study done on vessel emissions in the Mediterranean Sea by Elina Marmer. Danish Port Emission Analysis (Saxea & Larsena 2004) A study was done by Saxe and Larsen in Copenhagen. Baerbel Langmann of the Max-Planck-Institute for Meteorology. Finally the report estimates that under a “business as usual” analysis. July and October) were analyzed to reduce the amount of data being reviewed. Europe (Entec 2002) A report finalized in July of 2002 by Entec UK Limited. 2. A majority of the vessel movements (51%) occurred between nonmember EU states. The study showed that domestic ferries in Istanbul in 1998 Problems and Opportunities 27 . In Copenhagen PM was found to be about 8-15% of all urban road traffic generated PM. The Mediterranean Sea is subject to high vessel traffic and mean summer sulfate levels (7.● Controlling air emissions from marine vessels ● b. 4. Between the original 15 EU member states (40%).8 mgm-2) much greater than the mean summer sulfate levels found throughout the rest of Europe (4. Denmark to model the dispersal of NOx.617 Kte/ yr of NOx. nitric acid (66%). for the European Commission. The Entec report also showed that the majority of the SO2 emissions generated in the area of interest occurred in trade. The low magnitude of vessel activities in Køge lead to a relatively low contribution of pollution to the regional air quality. 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. The PM emissions from ships had a lesser effect in Elsinore than they did in Copenhagen. Approximately 29% of this emission estimates occurred in the North and Baltic Sea areas.015 Kte/ yr of NOx. The study resulted in the following emissions estimates for 2000: 3.

the Malaysian Peninsula.9% per year during this period due largely in part to the increasing need for raw materials and fossil fuels. 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. It is also estimated that SO emissions from shipping grew by 5. The most heavily impacted regions. This acidic deposition significantly threatens the ecosystems of these regions. 1. The total pollutants emitted in 1998 for these straits (Bosporous + Canakkle) were: 12.818 tons of NOx. Crude oil maritime shipments alone were found to be responsible for an 8. 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.7% of the total PM from motor vehicles. In 1998.4% per year during the time of the study (1988-1995). Sumatra. the Bosphorus Strait and the Canakkale Strait were transited by 49.304 and 38. Problems and Opportunities 28 . and Singapore were found to receive more than 10% of their atmospheric deposition from shipping activities.2% annual growth in SO2 emissions. Japan (1. The study found that Southeast Asia was most heavily impacted by these ship emissions.194 tons of CO. and 194 tons of PM. In 1995. f. Roughly 66% of these emissions were generated in the Canakkale strait.625 Mg per year) and Chiba.777 vessels respectively.● Controlling air emissions from marine vessels ● were responsible for 4% of the total NOx and 0. 388 tons of VOC. SO2 Ship Emissions in Asian Waters (Streets et al. The atmospheric deposition from these vessels during the summer months turned out to be at least 25% greater than during the winter or spring. Approximately 62% of the transiting vessels in the Bosphorus Strait and 76% of the transiting vessels in the Canakkle strait were foreign flagged. the two Asian ports with the largest SO2 emissions were Singapore (2.514 Mg per year). 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.

These technologies will be studied in terms of target pollutants. 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. This section will analyze several different control technologies. Maritime Division (MARAD) in 2003 by Dr. (4) Shore-side controls and (5) Fuel switching. In-engine and operational modifications 1.● Controlling air emissions from marine vessels ● III. 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. Since vessels are designed and constructed to be in service for decades the careful selection of the appropriate control method is crucial. called.400 Large engine (25. (1) In-engine modifications. A.920 Medium engine (10. The best approach for reducing emissions may not be a single solution described in this section but may be a combination of technologies. 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. as the quantity of available space for control hardware varies from ship to ship.000 kW) $36.” This paper identified the important objectives that need to be considered for technology selection.000 - Problems and Opportunities 29 . 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. emission reduction efficiency and estimated cost (annual and capital). The retrofit option is a lot more difficult.000 kW) $91. 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. (3) After-treatment onboard controls. The technologies can be categorized as. suggests a ranking scheme for technologies. 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.000 kW) $10. James Corbett and David Chapman. “Decision Framework for Emission Control Technology Selection (Corbett 2003). 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. (2) Water-based controls.

5 years Since PM is a product of incomplete combustion. The fuel injection valve of an engine can be optimized to achieve different objectives. 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. Figure 11: Conventional vs. Figure 11 shows a comparison of a traditional slide valve and a slide-type valve. slide valves) that optimize the fuel injected into the cylinder and therefore also reduce PM emissions.g. The replacement of typical valves with emissions optimized valves is simple as they replace existing valves. 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). There are also NOx optimized valves that are optimized to reduce NOx emissions. Slide Valve Design Source: (MAN 2004) 2. and unburnt fuel the optimization of the fuel injection system could result in the reduction of fuel consumption and a reduction of PM emissions.● Controlling air emissions from marine vessels ● Change in Fuel Consumption: 0% Lifespan: 2. There are fuel efficient valves (e. with the main difference being the sac volumes of the valve. 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. Advanced operational modifications Emission Reductions: NOx -30% PM 0% SO2 0% CO 0% VOC 0% Problems and Opportunities 30 .

and decrease in the engine’s air intake temperature. Figure 12 illustrates the basic design principle involved in EGR technology.105 Medium engine (10. flexible injection system.725 - Change in Fuel Consumption: 0% Lifespan: 25 years Since NOx is a byproduct of high cylinder temperatures. use of a fuel injection system that can be easily adjusted (e. common –rail.g. increasing the turbo efficiency. In some engines the timing adjustment can be made while in service. etc. 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 vessel’s power system. Retarding the engine timing too much will result in a loss in fuel efficiency and an increase in the emission of PM (MATSON). increase in cylinder pressure.). The NOx reduction generated by this operational change is around 2-3%. Change in Fuel Consumption: 0% Lifespan: No EGR system installations are known (by the author) so no accurate lifespan analysis can be provided.000 kW) $149.000 kW) $134. Problems and Opportunities 31 . The EGR process of injecting exhaust gas into the intake air also increases the specific heat capacity of the intake air.000 kW) $215. a lowering of the combustion temperature by retarding the engine timing would also result in NOx reductions. 3. 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. 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. Exhaust Gas Recirculation (EGR) takes the exhaust gas from the engine and cools and reroutes it back into the engines air intake. Other operational modifications that could be made to reduce emissions are. therefore reducing the combustion temperature and reducing NOx formation.705 Large engine (25.● Controlling air emissions from marine vessels ● Costs: Description Capital Cost Annual Operation & Maintenance Costs Small engine (3. Increasing the compression ratio.

Humid Air Motor (HAM) Emission Reductions: NOx -70% PM 0% SO2 0% CO 0% VOC 0% Problems and Opportunities 32 . 1. As the concentration of water introduced into the combustion chamber changes so will the concentration of the pollutants emitted. because of the evaporation of the water. There is also a need for wet-scrubbing technology to remove the sulfur components of the exhaust stream prior to reintroduction into the engine. 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. 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. B. Introducing water into the combustion cylinder reduces the maximum peak combustion temperature. Water-based controls Water based controls reduce emissions from diesel engines by introducing water at different stages of the combustion process. A cooling unit is also needed to reduce the temperature of the exhaust gas before it returns to the engine.● 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. and the formation of NOx. The in-cylinder evaporation of the water also improves the atomization of the fuel and causes it to burn more completely.NOx 2005).

000 kW) $1.000 kW) $4. 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). 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.500 $2.055. Figure 13 shows the basic design of a HAM system. The quantity of water introduced into the engine is about three times the amount of fuel. This technology utilizes the heat generated by the engine to produce the temperatures needed to vaporize the seawater.000 $23.615.430.740. Water Emulsion (30% water) Emission Reductions: NOx -30% PM 0% SO2 0% CO 0% VOC 0% Problems and Opportunities 33 .900 Change in Fuel Consumption: 0% Lifespan: 12-15 years The Humid Air Motor (HAM) uses heated intake air.500 $9.575 Large engine (25.500 $1. This ratio of water to fuel would yield NOx reductions on the order of 70-80%. saturated with water vapor typically produced by the evaporation of seawater.000 $3.500 $578. Figure 13: HAM System Source: (Aabo/ Niels Kjemtrup ) 2.000 kW) $578.● Controlling air emissions from marine vessels ● Costs: Description Capital Cost (Retrofit) Capital Cost (New build) Annual Operation & Management Costs Small engine (3.950 Medium engine (10.

at which point the combustion temperature decreases too much resulting in an increase in PM emissions. 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. Change in Fuel Consumption: ~3% Water emulsion is the process of introducing water into the fuel prior to injection into the combustion cylinder. This system is unable to use seawater in its operation so there is a need for either distillers or additional tanks for fresh water. Figure 14 is a schematic of a water emulsion system. This emission reduction technology is also associated with a slight loss in the maximum power capacity of the engine. and therefore can reduce the emissions generated as the vessel travels close to shore or is in port. The cost of this equipment will vary between $550. and the need for a distillation unit.● 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. Figure 14: Pressurized Fuel Oil System with Homogeniser Source: (MAN 2004) Problems and Opportunities 34 . This technology has the advantage that the system can easily be turned on or off during operation.000 to $750.000 depending on the availability of water storage tanks on the vessel. 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.

223 $135. like the water-fuel emulsion system. The system uses electric pumps to inject the water into the combustion chamber at pressures of 200-400 bar.000 kW) $686.750 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.000 kW) $338.700 Large engine (25.● Controlling air emissions from marine vessels ● 3.166 $338. 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. Problems and Opportunities 35 . This technology.000 kW) $169. Water Injection Emission Reductions: NOx -50% PM 0% SO2 0% CO 0% VOC 0% Costs: Small engine (3.665 $41. This water to fuel ratio would reduce NOx formation by 50-60% (Entec-NOx 2005).488 Medium engine (10. needs fresh water to operate. Figure 15 is a schematic of the operating principles behind a water injection system. 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. The water is injected into the chamber just before the fuel is injected. Installation of the system is possible when the vessel is underway.

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.001. The SCR process involves injecting a reagent (e.263. Figure 16 shows an example of an SCR installation on an engine. catalyst. After-treatment on-board controls 1.000 kW) $2.) and therefore would be easier for installation on new build ships as opposed to retrofits. Ammonia or Urea) into the exhaust stream which then passes through a catalyst to achieve upwards of 90% NOx reduction. Urea tanks.000 kW) $423. Figure 16: Example of SCR configuration Source: (MAN 2004) This system requires a lot of space.763 $427.656 $282.509.400 Medium engine (10.g.880 $1.254 $1. etc.● Controlling air emissions from marine vessels ● C. Problems and Opportunities 36 . Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) Emission Reductions: NOx -90% PM 0% SO2 0% CO 0% VOC 0% Costs: Small engine (3.438 $169.576 Large engine (25.000 kW) $985.144 $656. and additional weight (e.g.

410. The soot.000 kW) $747.700 Medium engine (10. Problems and Opportunities 37 . The use of Urea (NH3) in the system breaks down the NOx emissions to N2 and H2O.● 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.233. After mixing the seawater with the exhaust gas the solid particles are removed and the seawater is then returned to the ocean. and sulfur compounds typically found in the exhaust of an engine operating on bunker fuel can deactivate the catalyst.687. Figure 17 is a schematic of the EcoSilencer seawater scrubbing system.048. Ammonia is an air pollutant and its presence in the exhaust stream can corrode the exhaust system (Entec-NOx 2005). By allowing the vessel operator to burn high sulfur fuels. 2.600 $42. This scrubbing technology provides an alternative to fuel switching for vessel operators traveling in SECA areas. The catalyst in the system has to be changed out as it decays. phosphorus oxides. and is sensitive to the pollutants in the exhaust gas.751 Large engine (25.000 kW) $6.336 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. The SCR system needs exhaust gas temperatures at or above 270 degrees Celsius to be effective.000 kW) $2.600 $523. which is a natural reservoir for sulfur as it contains high quantities of Sulfur. alkaline metal oxides. therefore the use of low sulfur fuel can extend the life of the catalyst. A NOx reduction efficiency of 90% can be achieved using a urea injection rate of 15 g/ kWh. Seawater Scrubbing Emission Reductions: NOx 0% PM -25% SO2 69%-94% CO 0% VOC 0% Costs: Small engine (3. 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.000 $4.800 $1.560 $33.320 $15. the system will lower fuel costs and reduce the sensitivity to the low-sulfur fuels market.

These costs take into account capital costs on the vessel side. Shore-side controls 1. 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.5%.● 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. 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). D. The Environ study found a range from $1. Problems and Opportunities 38 . Since the technology assumes the ship’s 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. The scrubbing action is also believed to reduce the quantity of particulates (PM) in the exhaust stream. 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). Costs: The costs for cold-ironing a vessel are dependent on the types of vessels being evaluated.2 million to $6. and work barge (Environ 2004). electricity provider. 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. terminal side.7 million in capital costs from the vessels that it studied.

Problems and Opportunities 39 .● Controlling air emissions from marine vessels ● Change in Fuel Consumption: Reduction in fuel consumption as the ship’s engines will be turned off. Figure 18: Cold Ironed Ship Schematic Source: (Environ 2004) Electrifying the vessels basically transfers the vessel’s 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. 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. While in port a vessel operates its auxiliary engines. Figure 18 is a schematic of a ShorePowered dockside configuration. The pollutants emitted as a result of a vessel’s in-port operations have been identified as a major threat to the air quality and public health of the nearby communities. Lifespan: The Environ report assumed a 15 year useful life for the equipment. and in some cases its main engine. Shore-power. to produce electricity for the vessel and to power unloading and loading operations. 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.

Urea).● 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. Problems and Opportunities 40 .2 hours and 51. 2. 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. 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. the uniformity of the required infrastructure between ports. 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.g. Operating costs would include many of the same annual costs as described for the SCR system (e. This technology has been in use since the late 1980s. 102. Potential problems arise in the capacity of the local grid to handle the large power demands of the ships.1 hours (Environ 2004).8 hours. 62.

effective emission reduction technologies and would provide another emission control option for ship owners that would help them reduce their in-port emissions. Figure 19 shows a schematic of one of the ACTI AMECS ground based system. Fuel switching Emission Reductions: Switching fuels from 2.● 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. called the Advanced Maritime Emissions Control System (AMECS).7% to 1. 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. This design is developmental but the emission controls it utilizes are proven.5% Sulfur content NOx 0% PM -18% SO2 -44% CO 0% VOC 0% Problems and Opportunities 41 . This system would allow ship owners to reduce emissions without modifying their vessel and could be used on just about every vessel type. utilizes SCR technology and a scrubber technology in the multi-stage emission reduction system. 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 vessel’s exhaust gas through a line that connects the hood to the emission control system. The company’s approach. The AMECS system can have the emission control system either on a barge or dockside.

171 Medium engine (10.796 Switching fuels from 2. The costs associated with fuel switching shown above assume no capital cost is required for adjustments in the vessel’s fuel delivery system.5% (Entec SOx-2005).5% Sulfur content Description Capital Cost Annual Operation & Maintenance Costs Small engine (3. Problems and Opportunities 42 .602.000 kW) $0 $252.● Controlling air emissions from marine vessels ● Switching fuels from 2. therefore this analysis would apply to vessels that operate predominantly within a SECA area. The costs also assume that the vessel switches its current tanks over to carry only the lower sulfur fuel.580 Large engine (25.7% to 1.134 Medium engine (10.000 kW) $0 $642.000 kW) $0 $196. 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.7% not the IMO standard of 4. The sulfur content assumed for the baseline has Sulfur content consistent with the world average of 2.060.7% to 0.7% to 0.000 kW) $0 $825.5% Sulfur content NOx 0% PM -20% SO2 -81% CO 0% VOC 0% Cost: Switching fuels from 2. 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.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.118 Large engine (25.5% Sulfur content Description Capital Cost Annual Operation & Maintenance Costs Small engine (3. 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.000 kW) $0 $2.000 kW) $0 $1.

1988 and was created to prevent the pollution by garbage from ships. at a conference in Geneva the United Nations (UN) adopted a convention establishing the Inter-governmental Maritime Consultative Organization (IMCO). The regulations section of this document will look into activities by the IMO. 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. which was modified in 1978. Annex VI. 1992 and targeted the prevention of pollution by harmful substances in packaged form. 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. in which 120. entered into force on April 6. (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. Annex II. The IMO has identified six areas of focus regarding pollution from ships at sea. The IMO convention went into force in 1958. Problems and Opportunities 43 . and has a membership consisting of 166 nations. A. entered into force on May 19. Annex I. entered into force on September 27. entered into force on October 2. the IMO is one of the smallest braches of the UN in terms of staff. 2003 and was designed to prevent sewage pollution from ships. packaged goods. In addition to accidental oil spills. garbage. US EPA. and delegates the power to implement and enforce the regulations to its member states. The IMO is responsible for developing and adopting regulations. identified as annexes to the original MARPOL 73/78 actions. 1983 and focused on preventing pollution from oil. Annex IV. International Maritime Organization (IMO) In 1948. once approved are implemented and enforced by the member states. 1987 and was designed to control pollution by noxious liquid substances. 2005 and was developed to prevent air pollution from ships. The shipping industry and other maritime interests are represented at IMO with consultative status and are often involved in the development of IMO legislation. The biggest fleets in the world are currently operated by Panama and Liberia and so they pay the biggest share of IMO budget. Regulations The International Maritime Organization (IMO) is the primary regulatory agency tasked with developing regulations for the control of pollution from international shipping activities. this convention also addressed pollution created from chemical cargo. entered into force on July 1.000 tonnes of oil was spilled the IMO began to focus on the problem of pollution in the maritime industry. Annex III. Based in London. 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. sewage.● Controlling air emissions from marine vessels ● IV. These regulations. In 1973 the IMO adopted the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from ships (MARPOL). and air pollution. The IMO was to support and adopt the highest feasible standards for maritime safety. entered into force on December 31. Annex V. Following the Torrey Canyon oil spill in 1967. navigation and the prevention and control of pollution from ships. later renamed the International Maritime Organization (IMO).

● 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 world’s 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 world’s 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)

Problems and Opportunities


● 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 ) 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 ( )

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:

Problems and Opportunities


● 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 engine’s technical file that is required to demonstrate compliance and is also available on the IMO website:

Problems and Opportunities


A SECA is adopted by Amendment to Annex VI. where all vessels operating in the SECA have to meet a fuel sulfur limit of 1. The diligence in maintaining an accurate oil book is essential to the demonstration of compliance with SECA requirements. The amendment to designate a SECA will enter into force 26 months after adoption. 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. or a maximum SOx emission limit of 6.5% 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.7 percent m/m. Mediterranean. In addition to the oil book there needs to be a record of bunker deliveries to the vessel.5 percent m/m. Annex VI also allows for the designation of specified areas as SOx Emission Control Areas (SECA).g. This book will contain the date. 2006) and the North Sea (October 2007) are the only areas currently designated as SECA.6-2.● Controlling air emissions from marine vessels ● Figure 21: IMO NOx Curve Source: (Wartsila 2005) 4. This limit is considered easily obtainable. In the future other areas (e.0 g SOx/ kWh. US Coastal Waters. unless 1/3 of the parties formally object to the designation within the first 10 months of the process (EPA CHAMLEY). time and position of the vessel when the fuel changeover occurred (upon entrance and exit of a SECA territory). etc. SOx Requirements Annex VI sets the maximum sulfur limit for marine fuel oil at 4. A county must apply for designation of a SECA.5 percent m/m. Problems and Opportunities 47 . and is followed by a vote of the parties to the Annex.) are expected to apply for SECA designation under Annex VI. The Baltic Sea (May 19. 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.

● 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.

Problems and Opportunities


● 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 EPA’s 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 agency’s 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-

Problems and Opportunities


● 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 Senate’s 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 Union’s (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).

Problems and Opportunities


D. The ATCM will also allow for vessels to reduce emissions from its main engine as an Alternative Compliance Plan. as well as studies evaluating the existing control options for marine emissions (Entec 2005). This legislation is expected to reduce the public's exposure to toxic air contaminants. and air quality and public health impacts in California. enhance public and port safety and improve California’s quality of life. 2005 the CARB Board approved an Air Toxic Control Measure (ATCM) preventing the incineration of passenger vessels within three miles of the California Coast. This ATCM will apply to all ocean-going vessels visiting a CA port. The measure began as a result of CA legislative action defined in Senate Bill 471. 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. and applies to all passenger vessels. This regulation would attempt to reduce the emissions from ocean-going vessels that Problems and Opportunities 51 . and would impose significant fines for violations of the rule. On November 17. (RULE CARB 2005) CARB has also announced its intention to develop another regulation for ocean-going vessels in 2006. Along with the ARB the other major state agencies responsible for developing a Goods Movement Action Plan are the California Business. 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. foreign and domestic. such as dioxins and toxic metals. On December 8. generate jobs. 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. The commission has funded a study (NERA 2004) on the feasibility of emission trading approaches to marine air emissions. California The California Air Resources Board (CARB) has been involved in the development and evaluation of measures to reduce emissions created by international trade. improve air quality and protect public health. This working group faces the challenge of balancing economic growth. reduce traffic congestion. Transportation and Housing Agency (BT&H) and the California EPA. 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. for residents living near ports and along the California coastline. increase mobility. evaluate future increases in trade. The 1998 classification of diesel PM as a Toxic Air Contaminant and the development of CARB’s Diesel Risk Reduction Plan have identified marine vessels and port related activities as a major source threatening the air quality in California.● Controlling air emissions from marine vessels ● 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. In 2004 Governor Schwarzenegger’s Goods Movement Action Plan created a task force/ multiagency working group to.

Hong Kong is not yet a signatory to the IMO’s Marpol Annex VI legislation. 313) for ship emissions. Senate Bill 763 would give priority berthing to ships that use a marine fuel with less than 0. would impose a $30 fee per TEU processed at the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. Senate Bill 764 would finalize the No Net Increase (NNI) Plan initiated by former Los Angeles Mayor James Hahn. Other legislative attempts at reducing air emissions from ships operating in California were introduced in 2005. 1. Hong Kong is also considering additional air quality measures that would apply to marine vessels. 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. Senate Bill 760. SB763 and SB764) in 2005 targeting emissions from goods movement. SB761. Senate Bill 762 would create intermodal authorities at the ports of Los Angeles/ Long Beach and Oakland.● Controlling air emissions from marine vessels ● frequently visit California ports. Singapore has updated its Bunker regulations. Finally. but is in the process of developing implementing legislation. The revenue generated from this fee would be used to increase port security and for clean air projects in the port areas. and like the Singapore and Hong Kong has established an opacity limit for maritime ship emissions. the increase in trade activity. Senate Bill 761 would reduce the truck idling time in the port areas. This ordinance is basically designed to prevent opacity/ nuisance emissions from vessels and does not set limits for the criteria pollutants.2% sulfur content. Currently Hong Kong’s 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. and is aimed at preventing the excessive emission of ash or black smoke. 2. (Lowenthal 2005). With the recent economic boom in Asian countries. and prosecuted and convicted 1 violator (CTA 2005). 2005. Between 2000 and 2002 the marine department received 51 complaints of violations of the ordinance. unlike Hong Kong is a signatory to IMO’s Marpol Annex VI. China China has not yet ratified IMO Marpol Annex VI. California Senator Alan Lowenthal introduced five bills (SB760. Hong Kong As a major shipping representative at IMO. E. practices and procedures for consistency with Annex VI requirements. issued 18 warnings. SB762. 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. 3. and the start of reducing emissions from onshore facilities the region will likely see marine vessels emerge as a major source of air pollution. It also has a nuisance law (Regulation 66 of the Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore Regulations 1997). This regulation sets opacity Problems and Opportunities 52 . The success of this regulation will greatly depend on the success of the auxiliary engine ATCM approved on December 8. A majority of Asian nations have yet to ratify the legislation of Annex VI. Singapore Singapore.

NOx and H2S. On March 13. The provision to do so is tied up in a larger piece of legislation.● Controlling air emissions from marine vessels ● limts for marine diesel engines based on the engine’s displacement. As a result of this agreement Canada’s marine standards typically correspond to those set in the US. Canada In Canada. fuel sulfur content and standards for marine engines (Taylor 2005). focuses on the commitments of both nations to reduce sulfur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen oxides (NOx) emissions. The current Canada Protection Act (CEPA) does not address emissions from ocean-going vessels. Studies will be conducted. to determine if the Great Lakes and St. the Canada Shipping Act (originally adopted in 1964). 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. which is the major component of smog (US-CAN). hopefully in collaboration with the U. Lawrence Seaway and East and West North American coasts should be similarly designated. Acid Rain Program. China also has established standards for marine incinerators.. 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. such as the U. The Air Quality Agreement signed in 1991 has been revised to included three annexes. the Acid Rain Annex. SO2. Annex 1. More stringent global standards may be considered in the future to further limit NOx.S. dust.S. regulating opacity. which is being held up by other unrelated measures and isn’t expected to be approved until November 2006. to address air pollution issues. (HAO 2005) F. Annex 2. Canada and the United States agree to coordinate their air pollution monitoring networks. the Scientific and Technical Activities and Economic Research Annex. use compatible formats and methods for monitoring and reporting. Finally. the primary precursors of acid rain. Problems and Opportunities 53 . It seems unlikely that either nation will apply for a SECA without some sort of international cooperation. and cooperate and exchange information about the causes and effects of air pollution and the use of market-based programs. regulators have yet to adopt the IMO Annex VI legislation. The Canadian Shipping act only addresses black smoke emitted by marine vessels within one mile of shore. 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.

9 per gross ton for using fuel with a Sulfur content of 0. (2) Multi-modal emission reduction plans. The voluntary incentive-based approach focuses on financial incentives and the development of market-based systems for reducing emissions from ocean-going vessels. one based on the size of the ship (Gross Tonnage) and the other based on the volume of the ship’s cargo. The basic principle of the system is that the “polluter pays” for its impact on air quality. while Problems and Opportunities 54 . Emission rates between 2 g/kWh and 12 g/kWh will have their fees adjusted linearly. On January 1. (1) Voluntary incentive-based approaches.30 per gross ton. locomotives. while ferries and other ships can be charged a maximum of 18 times per year. The approaches were divided into five categories. The system is completely voluntary. ship operators can have their fairway dues reduced an additional SEK 0. 1998 the Swedish collaborative began its environmental incentive program to reduce emissions from ships visiting their ports. The differentiated fee can be charged to cargo ships a maximum of 12 times per year. (4) Information sharing groups and (5) Legal driven emission reduction. For tankers emitting NOx at a rate greater than 12 g/kWh they will have to pay a fee of SEK 5.40 for a similar emission rate. Swedish Ship Owners Association. In addition to the NOx based fee reduction. the Swedish Ports and the Stevedore Association agreed to develop aggressive measures to significantly reduce NOx and SOx emissions from ships. and the original program has increased its environmental benefit by introducing stricter conditions in 2005 for the fee reduction. Finally legal driven emission reductions are achieved as a result of lawsuits.g. (3) Business initiated emission control efforts. Non-Regulatory Emission Control Initiatives This section describes several non-regulatory approaches that have been utilized to reduce emissions from ocean-going vessels. and can be obtained by using lower sulfur fuel and retrofit control devices.● Controlling air emissions from marine vessels ● V.5% for passenger ships and 1. Marine vessels. cooperation and information sharing on different approaches to reducing marine air emissions. Voluntary Incentive-based Approaches 1. This program or a version of it is currently active in at least 20 Swedish ports. The target pollutants of this system are NOx and SOx. etc.70 while the other vessels would pay SEK 3. but provides its participants the incentive of paying reduced fairway dues for reducing their air emissions. By reducing the NOx emission level to 2 g/kWh the tanker fee would be reduced to SEK 3. Information sharing groups are assembled to create forums for collaboration. Sweden: Differentiated Fairway Dues (SMA 2005) In April 1996 the Swedish Maritime Administration (SMA). The fairway dues have two parts.0. The portion of the fee based on the gross tonnage of the ship is the part that is differentiated with emission reductions. while other vessels operating at a 12 g/kwh NOx rate will pay SEK 5. The multi-modal emission reduction plans focus on creating strategies for reducing emissions from all of the modes of transportation (e. A. The business initiated efforts are actions taken by private industry to reduce air pollution from marine vessels.) involved in the transportation of goods. trucks.0% for other ships.

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? Problems and Opportunities 55 . The groups secretariat and consultants operate out of London. Shipping Emissions Abatement and Trading Demonstration (SEAaT proj. The main objectives of the project are: (1) To gain an understanding of the benefits and challenges of emissions trading.5% Sulfur fuel limit equivalent (SECA requirement) will be used to offset emissions from the higher polluting vessels. are charged by the gross tonnage per vessel and are used for ice breaking and other maritime services. Vessels will be tagged as either emission credit generators or emission credit purchasers. The group was founded by representatives from the shipping and oil industries and members also include ship owners. shipping interest group formed in 2002 to raise awareness and acceptance of feasible. 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. not only for Swedish waters but for the world. The data collected will include fuel consumption. 2. In April 2005 SEAaT started a 9 month Sulfur Emissions Trading offset pilot project. brokers. 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). As of May 2005. Cost-effective solutions for emission reductions.g.2% Sulfur fuel. The differentiated fairway dues system has created a market and encouraged the development of emission control technologies. (2) To assess the environmental impact of Sulfur offsetting. The fairway dues existed before the program began.● Controlling air emissions from marine vessels ● the environmentally conscious ship operators can reduce their operating costs by reducing their emissions.2% Sulfur fuel or virtually operating abatement equipment that is capeable of reducing emissions to the 0. The generators will be able to generate the emission reduction credits by operating on 0.2% Sulfur fuel equivalent. 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. The pilot project will take place in the North Sea region that will go into force as an IMO designated SECA in 2007. and route information/ location of the vessels while they operate in the proposed North Sea SECA area and at port. 38 vessels were registered in the Swedish system using NOx control devices (e. technology companies and fuel suppliers. virtually operating on 0. Any reductions below the 1. 2005) Shipping Emissions Abatement and Trading Demonstration (SEAaT) is a self-funded. and (3) To allow for the participants to develop their own strategies for complying with emission reduction legislation. SCR or HAM).

htm 3. ships are operating on 0. Participation in the program is currently estimated at 70% of the shipping lines that call on the ports. a reduction in vessel speed will result in a reduction of exhaust emissions. 2005). California Air Resources Board (ARB). fuel grades. 4. This program is most effective for ships that generally travel at faster speeds (greater then 20 knots) such as containerships. P&O Ferries. Problems and Opportunities 56 . US EPA. and final reporting. • More information about SEAaT and the pilot project can be found on the following website: http://www. The program calls for participating vessels to reduce their speed to 12 knots or less within 20 miles from Point Fermin. Alaskan Low Sulfur Fuel Use Agreement Under a voluntary agreement between the State of Alaska and tanker operators. BMT tasks include: Project setup. NOL and OOCL. 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. SEAaT has hired British Maritime Technology (BMT) as an independent third party contractor to manage the● 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. 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. and cruise ships (PoLA NNI 2005). analysis. the Marine Exchange of Southern California and the Pacific Merchant Shipping Association (PMSA). BP. reporting. 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 South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). Future revisions to the program are looking at extending the 20 mile radius to 40 miles and the possibility of making the program mandatory. The project is scheduled to conclude in December 2005 and a final report will produced early in 2006 (SEAaT proj. therefore. routes and sizes from six of the area’s major vessel operators: Teekay. 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. 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 2005.5% sulfur (or lower) residual fuel while entering Valdez or alongside. This works out to a little over one ton of NOx emissions reduced per day. Stena Line. auto carriers. The program was a collaborative effort between the two ports.

5. The MGMC is evaluating both an open market and cap and trade approach. 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. 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. while the MGMC proposes to use the California State Implementation Plan (SIP) as its primary driver. As of December 2005 the coalition consisted of port representatives. the total incremental cost amounts to about $330. A 10 to 15 ton reduction in PM are likely also achieved (BMT 2005). The Board also expressed the potential for contributing an additional $2 million to help launch the maritime emission market program. 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. SO2 and ROG emissions. California Goods Movement Action Plan Problems and Opportunities 57 . B. Multi-Modal Emission Reduction Plans 1. 35 tankers call at the port per month. 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. Each zone would also address “hot spot” areas of high emission concentrations by designating priority trading zones. Environmental benefits would be in the order of 250 tons of SOx reduction per year. 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. Assuming a fuel consumption rate of four tons/day while alongside and an average port duration of three days per vessels. NOx.● Controlling air emissions from marine vessels ● On average. 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. terminal operators and fuel and energy providers.000 to help start the (MGMC). A white paper (SCHARY) produced in February 2006 compares the SEAaT emissions trading program described above with the proposed MGMC.000 (all operators). comprehensive market-based program to meet the challenges of a growing good movement industry. The market driver for the SEAaT program is the internationally recognized SECA designation under IMO MARPOL Annex VI. A summary table from this paper describing the main attributes of each program can be found in Appendix D.

labor. 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.htm Problems and Opportunities 58 .gov/gmp/gmp. 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.Vessel Speed Reduction Program (2001) . local and regional governments. The list below summarizes the mitigation measures and emission reduction tools that the working group identified for ocean-going vessels.arb.● Controlling air emissions from marine vessels ● On January 27. and the NNI plan focuses on emissions generated within the port boundaries. environmental groups and other interested stakeholders) to improve and expand California’s 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 California’s quality of life An initiative lead by the California EPA and the California Transportation and Housing Agency is responsible for developing a goods movement action plan.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. 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. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • VSRP. controls For more information on the Goods Movement Action plan see: http://www. 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. neighboring communities.20 miles from PoLA/ PoLB EPA Category 3 engine standards (2003) EPA Non-road diesel fuel rule (2004) ARB Aux engine rule (proposed. business. In response to the forecasted growth in goods handled in California the Governor established a Cabinet level working group (made up of: logistics industry.

b. 2005 the Long Beach Board of Harbor Commissioners preliminarily approved a $2. The policy’s 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.00 per day plus $29. Vessels over 390 meters in overall length shall be charged a dockage fee of $11.● Controlling air emissions from marine vessels ● 2.242 per day for vessels with lengths between 375 and 390 meters. Problems and Opportunities 59 . which address the following aspects. and sustainable practices. Green Port Policy (PoLB 2005) On January 31. Port of Long Beach: Green flag and Green Port Programs a. or bank (inside berth). Air.2 million incentive program to reward ship operators and their vessels for their participation in the Voluntary Speed Reduction Program (VSRP). calculated in accordance with the dockage charges named … assessed against a vessel for berthing at or making fast to a municipal wharf. bulkhead structure. The Dockage fee is defined as “The charge. pier. soil/ sediment. The flags will allow the vessel operators to pay a 15% discounted dockage rate for the next year for its contribution to air quality. Shore power is being incorporated into new leases that specify targets for vessel compliance and selected existing berths are being retrofitted with shore power.00 per day for each meter of overall length in excess of 390 meters (PoLB 1995). 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.242. The dockage fees range from $77 per day for vessels under 30 meters in length to $11. water. 2005 the Long Beach Board of Harbor Commissioners (BHC) voted unanimously to adopt the “Green Port Policy. or for mooring to another vessel so berthed (outside berth) (PoLB 1995). wildlife.” The policy intends to interact and educate the community on its environmental programs. Green Flags Program On October 31.” 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.

● 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.g.4 billion in health care costs.5%) diesel or equivalent. from the baseline year of 2001. 2005 and will set limits on sulfur oxide and nitrogen oxide emissions from ship exhausts and prohibit deliberate emissions of ozone depleting substances. The plan also contains forecasted growth estimates. marine vessels. the Port of Los Angeles Board of Harbor Commissioners adopted the No Net Increase (NNI) policy. Annex VI. adopted in 1997. • Main Engine Fuel Improvement – the Port is considering incentives as part of the Green Flag Program for the use of low-sulfur (initially 1. 2005 the task force submitted their 603 page. Currently the plan sits on the desk of current Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villarigossa awaiting approval (PoLA NNI 2005). and Councilwoman Hahn. harborcraft. Problems and Opportunities 60 . The comprehensive document identified 68 specific measures applying to a range of sources (e. enters into force on May 19. rail and commerce representatives. federal. On June 24.asp 3.200 premature deaths over the next 20 years and save $1. port labor representatives. legal and financial analysis and recommendations and stakeholder opinions. 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). in response to a request from the Mayor of Los Angeles. trucks and locomotives) and implementing various technologies and policies to achieve the no net air pollutant increase from the 2001 baseline. The policy stated that there would be no net increase in air emissions from future port operations. James Hahn appointed a diverse task force to develop the policies that would achieve the No Net Increase policy. in auxiliary engines while ships are at berth. Green Port Program see: The ARB estimates that the plan will prevent 2. or exhaust gas treatment. Port of Los Angeles: No Net Increase (NNI) Program In October of 2001. • Auxiliary Engine Fuel Improvement – lease language will require the use of fuel with 0. • West Coast Sulfur Emissions Control Area (SECA) – in January 2005.2% or lower sulfur content or equivalent. The 68 total measures include 31 regulatory measures and 37 nonregulatory measures. cargo-handling equipment. Annex VI calls for a global cap of 4. The former Mayor of Los Angeles. No Net Increase plan to the former Mayor of Los Angeles. neighborhood/ community representatives. maritime. • For more information on the Port of Long Beach. • 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.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. state and local air quality agencies. Harbor department and environmental and health experts (PoLA NNI 2005). The task force consisted of representatives from.

000 Lead Agency Costs * * Cost data is in 2005 dollars.000 $9. (2) Water.500.pdf 4. 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 . the following environmental provisions.224.950.000 $1.000 $702. Port of Los Angeles Comprehensive Real Estate Leasing Policy On February 1.000 $154.550.000 $2.900. Problems and Opportunities 61 .000 $ MOU Port Operations Alternative Maritime Power (AMP) Port Operations Auxiliary Engine Fuel Improvement Program Port Fuel Requirement a near-term program OGV .000 $32.Repower/Retrofit Additional Auxiliary Engine Reductions for Frequent Callers ARB Retrofit/Repower Requirements for Infrequent Callers Port Additional measure OGV . Table 18: No Net Increase Ocean-going Vessel (OGV) Control Measures Source: (PoLA NN1 2005) No.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 .000 $3.000 $0 $402.100.702.000 $164.● Controlling air emissions from marine vessels ● The No Net Increase Plan contains 17 control measures designed to educe emissions from ocean-going vessels.333. Some of the air emission-reduction provisions include: • Compliance with vessel speed reduction programs.000 $434. The policy creates a transparent process and includes environmental requirements that will be used to negotiate future port leases.500.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.portoflosangeles. 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. and (7) CEQA mitigation measures and reporting requirements. The new policy directs leases to include.000. 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.253. (1) Air emission controls.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 .000 $8. The total cost of implementing these 17 measures out to 2025 is estimated to be more than $9 billion (PoLA NNI 2005).500.000 $510.200.100. 2006 the Port of Los Angeles Board of Harbor Commissioners approved a comprehensive leasing real estate leasing policy for Port tenant selection.100.Adopted Measures New Engine Standards for Ships IMO/EPA Vessel Speed Reduction (VSR).300.000.000 $263.900.000 $19. A summary of these control measures can be found in Table 18.000 $3.

BSR promotes cross sector collaboration and contributes to global efforts to advance the field of corporate social responsibility (BSR 2005). • More information about the BSR Clean Cargo Working Group can be found at: http://www.. The working group focuses on the following aspects of global goods movement: Air quality. the Rio Summit generated a commitment to protection of the environment across the world. Nordstrom. Ltd. A nonprofit organization.bsr. The environmental field has seen a steady growth of Problems and Opportunities 62 . tools.● Controlling air emissions from marine vessels ● • • • • Use of clean Alternative Maritime Power (“AMP” or cold-ironing technology). IKEA. NYK Line. The group has created a methodology for its members to follow to calculate emissions. impact on local communities.. evaluate environmental performance. “K” Line. Low sulfur fuel use in main and auxiliary engines while sailing within the boundaries of the South Coast Air Basin. where appropriate. 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. The Home Depot.. communities and the environment. biodiversity. management systems. The working group’s vision is to benefit the people and environment. and Clean. “low emission” truck and locomotive use within terminal facilities. 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. Inc.cfm 2. NIKE. P&O Nedlloyd and Wallenius-Wilhelmsen. Some of the cargo members of the working group include: Chiquita Brands.. training and advisory services to make corporate social responsibility an integral part of business operations and strategies. OOCL. This group is made up of ocean carriers. and labor and human rights. Hanjin Shipping co. Starbucks Coffee Company and The Coca-Cola Company. and shippers of cargo. A subgroup of BSR. & Great White Fleet. Hapag-Lloyd Container Line. Ltd. resource management. plugging into shore-side electric power while at 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). Inc. Inc. While GATT concentrates on the need to reduce non-tariff barriers to trade. Inc. Some of the ocean-going vessel operators that are part of the working group include: APL Limited.. Business Initiated Emission Reduction Tools 1. BSR provides information. Maersk-Sealand (A. C. International Organization for Standardization (ISO) The International Organization for Standardization has developed a set of standards (ISO 14000) for businesses’ environmental practices. Hewlett-Packard Company. Moller). 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. Hyundai Merchant Marine.P. people. freight forwarders. Use of alternative fuel in all new yard tractors.

The collaborative Problems and Opportunities 63 . On November 25. The award program is managed by the European Commission (EC). The development of this relationship between the two ports will result in an exchange of best management practices. On October 12. Some ship operators are classified as ISO 14000 and as a part of their environmental improvements have reduced their emission of air pollutants. the US EPA developed a national Clean Diesel Campaign. • More information on the “Clean Marine Award” can be found at: http://europa.● 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. (1) EU Ship Operator. 3. and EU Shipping. Department of Transportation Maritime Division (MARAD) for $185. EU strategy on marine vessel emissions and was created to give positive publicity for environmentally responsible 2002 the two ports entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to cooperate in the establishment of green ports. 2. This model for information sharing could eventually lead to the development of a larger-scale Pacific Rim Ports Air Quality Working port and NGO interests. air quality information. and (3) EU Authority. The MOU identified efforts to share technological information designed to improve air and water quality that is threatened by port operations.htm D. US EPA: West Coast Collaborative & Clean Ports USA In a non-regulatory initiative. (2) EU Shipper. Port of Los Angeles/ Port of Shanghai Agreement The ports of Los Angeles and Shanghai have established a cooperative working arrangement. and the development of a Chinese multi sector maritime advisory group modeled after the California Air Resources Board Maritime Working Group (PoLA Agenda 2005). (EU CMA). European Union: “Clean Marine Award” The commission developed an award system for low-emission shipping called the “Clean Marine Award. improved corporate image and a framework for continued environmental performance. On September 2.S.000. 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 corporate benefits of ISO 14000 include: Reduction of waste.” The award scheme was part of the original 2002. 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. 2005 the two ports signed a Friendship Agreement and letter of intent to collaborate on air quality issues. Information Sharing Groups 1. specifically low-emission initiatives. savings in consumption of energy and materials. 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. and to disseminate best practice. Awards are made on a biannual basis (beginning in 2004) and recognize achievements in three categories. technological knowledge.

technologies. shipping companies and fuel and technology companies. state and local). 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. industry associations.arb. The initiative provides information on best practices. EPA Emission Standards for Marine Engines In January of 2001 the EPA pledged to establish emission standards for ocean-going vessels. projects and research being conducted throughout the region. This collaborative has been an important tool in addressing this regional problem. The Problems and Opportunities 64 . The collaborative focuses on reducing diesel emissions from the following sectors: Agriculture. The goals of the working group were community and environmental groups.htm E. and has allowed partners learn from each other and work together to make progress towards a common goal (WCC 2005). and (3) Provide an opportunity to receive input on emission reduction strategies. The pledge was part of a settlement that ended a lawsuit filed by Earthjustice legal defense fund on behalf of Bluewater Network. (1) Promote constructive dialogue and participation. EPA’s Clean Ports USA initiative is also part of the National Clean Diesel Campaign.epa. CARB Maritime Working Group The California Air Resources Board initiated the Maritime Working Group in 2001. • For more information on the Maritime Working Group see: http://www. Clean Ports USA is an incentive-based. marine vessels and ports.● Controlling air emissions from marine vessels ● consists of international (Canada and Mexico). The lawsuit challenged EPA’s 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 For more information on the Clean Ports USA program see: http://www. state and local governments. a San Francisco based NGO. Currently the working group members consist of government representatives (Federal. private companies. The U.htm 3. port representatives. available funding and case studies for reducing emissions in port areas. construction. • • For more information on the West Coast Collaborative see: http://www. and trucking. (2) Identify key issues and offer creative solutions. and environmental groups. cooperation and coordination. open to all interested stakeholders on the issues of air quality and maritime sources of pollution. Legal Action 1. The marine vessel and ports working group has been an important forum for sharing information regarding federal. The working group was designed as a forum for communication.

2. the Coalition for Clean Air. In March of 2003 a settlement was announced that allowed the terminal to open. Communities for a Better Environment and two San Pedro homeowner associations. National Resources Defense Council (NRDC). The Bluewatre Network and NRDC then filed a follow up lawsuit to force the EPA to set tougher standards. 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 terminal allows the ships to plug into electrical outlets so they don’t have to run their diesel engines to produce electricity at port. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires the project conduct a review of the impact that the project will have on the environment. Problems and Opportunities 65 . including the applicability to other pollutants. 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. The settlement called for: • The Port of Los Angeles to commit $50 million over five years to mitigation projects o $10 million for repowering. 2004 the Port of Los Angeles unveiled the AMP feature of the China Shipping terminal and became the world’s first electrified container terminal. 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. and created a series of environmental programs designed to reduce air emissions in the port area.● 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). The AMP program is expected to eliminate 3 tons of NOx and 350 pounds of PM for each ship that uses it. The plaintiff in this case was an assemblage of partners. This lawsuit failed as the judge ruled that the EPA was within its authority to delay stricter standards for C3 engines. until 2007.

Conclusion Marine vessels play an important irreplaceable role in the international transportation of goods.● Controlling air emissions from marine vessels ● VI. 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. 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. as up to a dozen different countries could have a financial interest in the movement of goods from one country to another. 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. Unlike onshore goods movement modes of transportation (e.7% S). Marine vessels represent one of the largest under-regulated (virtually unregulated) threats to air quality. The IMO Annex VI regulations set a sulfur content cap (4. With the rapid growth of economies of developing nations like is being seen in Asia. 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. The shipping industry is extremely difficult to regulate. 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. 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. therefore not achieving any real reductions. Another major criticism of the IMO regulation is that the implementation and enforcement of Problems and Opportunities 66 . 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. 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. creating the need for balance between maintaining (or improving) air quality and economic growth.g. Many areas around the world are predicting a doubling or tripling of trade volumes over the next couple of decades. The laws that govern the sea also restrict the amount of regulation a nation has over foreign vessels. If these vessels were treated as onshore sources they would have been subject to regulatory emission controls years ago. 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. Recent international regulations have done little to achieve significant emission reductions from these sources that resemble power plants in terms of their power capacities. if they take actions to reduce their emissions and their competitors don’t then they would be at an economic disadvantage because of the high capital and potential operating costs involved with installing emission control technologies.5% S) on marine fuels that is greater than the global average (2.

International regulations that attempt to reduce emissions from in-use vessels. regulatory agencies and community groups and the use of a toolbox of control measures (e. Incentive programs like Sweden’s differentiated fairway dues system.).● Controlling air emissions from marine vessels ● Annex VI is left up to the nation that the vessel is flagged under. near-term air quality benefits that would complement the long-term emission reductions achieved through regulations. identify the concerns and interests of the various parties and work towards the development of technologies and control measures. 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. regulations. These groups work to prevent “re-inventing the wheel” by sharing information on projects.” notorious for their “loose” enforcement of international regulations the effectiveness of the IMO legislation becomes questionable. These groups are becoming international in their participants and allow for collaboration between stakeholders. voluntary measures. etc. The nonregulatory approaches to controlling emissions from marine vessels has the potential to achieve real. That motivation could be voluntary or regulatory in nature and most likely will be a mixture of both in order to be effective. studies. 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. “flags of convenience. incentives. 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. 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. The major marine engine manufacturers have acknowledged that the technology exists to achieve significant emission reductions from marine vessels. Since a majority of vessels that operate in international trade are flagged under open registries. development of technologies. 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.g. Problems and Opportunities 67 . technologies and other measures that have and have not worked in reducing emissions. 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.

572 calls) North Atlantic 22% Pacific Northwest 4% 2004 Crude Tanker Calls in the US by Region (Total = 7.279) US Gulf Coast 7% North Atlantic 17% Pacific Northwest 10% 2004 Container Capacity in the US by Region (Total = 58.881.● 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 = 11.744) North Atlantic 17% Pacific Northwest 14% US Gulf Coast 50% US Gulf Coast 55% Puerto Rico 2% South Atlantic 12% Pacific Southwest 10% Pacific Southwest 12% Puerto Rico 1% South Atlantic 1% 2004 Container Calls in the US by Region (Total = 18.858 TEU) US Gulf Coast 5% North Atlantic 16% Pacific Northwest 12% South Atlantic 33% South Atlantic 32% Puerto Rico 3% Pacific Southwest 30% Puerto Rico 1% Pacific Southwest 34% Problems and Opportunities 68 .

317) US Gulf Coast 7% 2004 General Cargo Calls in the US by Region (Total = 3.967) US Gulf Coast 28% North Atlantic 23% Pacific Northwest 6% South Atlantic 29% North Atlantic 29% Pacific Southwest 20% 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% Pacific Southwest 7% Problems and Opportunities 69 .● Controlling air emissions from marine vessels ● 2004 Ro-Ro Vessel Calls in the US by Region (Total = 5.

2005) Problems and Opportunities 70 .● Controlling air emissions from marine vessels ● Appendix B US Ambient Air Quality Standards (CARB Nov.

● Controlling air emissions from marine vessels ● Problems and Opportunities 71 .

Problems and Opportunities 72 .● Controlling air emissions from marine vessels ● Appendix C California boundaries for calculating ocean-going vessel emissions (RULE CARB 2005).

NOx. Priority Zones will be established for purposes of accelerating investments to address air quality impacts. Separate Bay Area zone. 2007. as identified in CARB’s State Implementation Plan for each nonattainment region due 2007-2008. pending development of forthcoming attainment plans Some regulated sources would be required to be in the program. Option 1: credits generated by reduction activity Option 2: allowances allocated to some sources. others could opt in or be regulated in a separate program Yes – non-capped sources can opt-in as a category. 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.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. To be determined. or possibly on source/project basis to sell credits Pollutant Unit of Trade Cap or Goal 1. SO2. but “may be appropriate to allocate allowances to terminal operators rather than to specific vessels that visit the ports.5 standards. Not yet decided. based on current activity levels but more allowances needed for growth could be purchased. 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.● Controlling air emissions from marine vessels ● Appendix D Comparison of the SEAaT Trading Program and the Marine Goods Movement Coalition’s Proposal (MGMC) Source: (SCHARY) Element Market Driver SEAaT Baltic Sea SECA starts May 2006. 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. North Sea SECA starts Nov. 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 Problems and Opportunities 73 . and fuel limit 1% sulfur for inland waterways Jan. PM.5% Priority zones designated as subsets of larger Los Angeles zone.

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

(Anderson 2005) Bruce Anderson. Starcrest Consulting Group. Jungmichel. 3. (BSR 2005) Business for Social Responsibility. Understanding MARPOL Annex VI: A guide for Ship Owners. Athens. 2005. A Path to Sustainable Transport. 2. B.pdf 5.shtml 8.und Energietechnik GmbH. April 18-21. (ABS 2005) American Bureau of Shipping (ABS). More information can be found at the following website: http://www. STAPPA/ALAPCO.● Controlling air emissions from marine vessels ● Works Cited 1. (Bludszuweit 1999) S. Bludszuweit. April 1821. March 1999. Denmark.bluewaternetwork. Haagen Smit Symposium Presentation: Policy Levers for Reducing Emissions from Goods Transport. Buchholz. (BMT 2005) BMT Fleet Technology CIMAC Congress 2004. Safeguarding the Seas Stopping the pollution of our oceans by ships and fast ferries and preventing deadly collisions with whales. BSR’s Clean Cargo Working Group. Advanced Maritime Emissions Control System (AMECS) – CD.for INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL ON COMBUSTION ENGINES. Problems and Opportunities 75 .org/campaign_ss_ships. Received 2005.westcoastcollaborative.met-online. Motoren. 2005.pdf 6. PAPER NO.pdf t. Management Options for Marine Vessel Air Emissions. Haagen Smit Symposium Presentation: Policy Levers for Reducing Emissions from Goods Transport: State Policy Options. Oxnard. Kyoto. o More information can be found at the following website: http://www. Today’s Targets & Technologies for Reducing Emissions from Large Marine Diesel Engines.westcoastcollaborative. 2005.: 126 Latest on Emission Control Water Emulsion and Exhaust Gas Re-Circulation .pdf 7. for Environment Canada. o More information can be found at the following website: http://www. (Bluewater) Bluewater Network. (Aabo/ Niels Kjemtrup ) Kjeld Aabo and Niels Kjemtrup both from MAN B&W Diesel A/S. (Becker 2005) Bill Becker. 2005. 4. More information can be found at the following website: http://www. (ACTI CD) Advanced Cleanup Technologies Incorporated. H. Motor Ship Conference 1999. o More information can be found at: http://www. 2005.

o More information can be found at the following website: http://www. (Cooper 2003) D.arb. 13. (CARB SECA) 19. 2005.arb. (CARB Nov. Appendices H to o More information can be found at the following website: http://www. (CARB PM 2005) Pingkuan Di.. China .pdf 10.bsr.pdf 14. 11. June 1983. 5/12/2003.pdf 17. (CARB 2005) California Air Resources Problems and Opportunities 76 . ARB updates. June 1984. Oceangoing Marine Vessel Emission Control Technology Matrix. CARB Maritime Air Quality Working Group Meeting.arb. Report to the California Legislature on Air Pollutant Emissions from Marine Vessels.DIESEL PARTICULATE MATTER EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT STUDY FOR THE PORTS OF LOS ANGELES AND LONG BEACH. Cooper* Exhaust emissions from ships at berth. (CDN 2004) China Daily News. Air Quality Impacts from NOx Emissions of Two Potential Marine Vessel control Strategies in the South Coast Air Basin. 9/26/2004. (CARB 2002) California Air Resources Board (CARB). California Air Resources Board (CARB). o More information can be found at the following website: http://www. 2005) California Air Resources Board. November 2000. Report to the California Legislature on Air Pollutant Emissions from Marine Vessels. 15.● Controlling air emissions from marine vessels ● o More information can be found at the following website: http://www.pdf (CARB 1983) California Air Resources Board. Ambient Air Quality Standards.arb. (CARB Oct. October 30.htm 20. Volume pres. Sacramento. 2005) California Air Resources Board (ARB) force in global marine transport. (CARB 1984) California Air Resources May 17. More information can be found at the following website: http://www. 12. October al. Offshore Emissions Impacts on Onshore Air Quality.A. (CARB 2000) California Air Resources Board . 2005. October 2005. o More information can be found at the following website: http://www. Science Direct. o More information can be found at the following website: http://www.pdf 2002. CA. Emissions Estimation Methodology for Ocean-Going Volume VII. Draft. As of 11/10/05.

EPA to Regulate Air Pollution from Big Ocean Vessels.sciencedirect. (Eddington. (Corbett 2003) James Lee and Rosenthal. Quantification of emissions from ships associated with ship movements between ports in the European Community. Jay.htm#3 Problems and Opportunities 77 . August 2005. July 2002.cleartheair. (Earthjustice 2001) Earthjustice news release.html?ID=53 26.pdf 23. (EC 2005) DIRECTIVE 2005/33/EC OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL. December 2003. IVL Swedish Environmental Research Institute. 2001. (Entec 2005) Entec UK Limited. Methodology for calculating emissions from ships. July 6.pdf 25.htm of emission factors. (DOT 2002) U. (CTA 2005) Clear The Air website. China Environmental Technologies Export Market 2005. (Cooper 2004) Cooper. and Gustafsson. DECISION FRAMEWORK FOR EMISSION CONTROL TECHNOLOGY SELECTION _ Prepared for MARAD. 28. o More information can be found at: http://www. 2004. 2003) The Frequency if Offshore Emissions Reaching the continental UW Coast Based on Hourly Surface Winds from a 10 Year Mesoscale Model Stimulation. Corbett.A. Marine fuel sulfur directive.. o More information can be found at the following website: http://www. o More information can be found at: 99629972&view=c&wchp=dGLbVtbzSkzS&md5=992907b7ba65d64ebdb25f6b0ceb95de&ie=/sdarticle.● Controlling air emissions from marine vessels ● o More information can be found at the following website: http://www. D.pdf 21. o More information can be found at the following website: http://europa. Sweden. (Entec 2002) Entec UK Ltd.S. European Commission Directorate General Environment Service Contract on Ship PE. Report Finds Ships to be Dirtiest Transportation Source. IVL report U 878. University of Delaware and David S. o More information can be found at the following website: http://europa. Gothenburg. Accessed November %20for%20Technology%20Selection. 22. PE University of Delaware. 2005. o More information can be found at the following website: http://www. January 16. o More information can be found at the following website: EU Official Journal L191. September 2002.earthjustice.pdf 29. Department of Commerce. T. Hong March Boats Ships and Ferries. Geophysics Branch Technical Note.export.

o More information can be found at: http://europa. 2005. CA for the Port of Long Beach. o More information can be found at the following website: http://www. (EPA 2004) United States 31. (EPA 1999) United States Office of Air and Radiation/ Office of Mobile Sources. Control of Emissions from New Marine Compression-Ignition Engines at or Above 30 Liters per Cylinder. Problems and Opportunities 78 .gov/otaq/regs/nonroad/marine/ BunkerWorld Conference 2005.NOx Abatement (Entec SOx. o More information can be found at: http://www. o More information can be found at: http://www.Assignment. Marchman. Regulatory Update: Overview of EPA’s Emission Standards for Marine Engines. More information can be found at the following website: http://www.Preliminary Assignment of Ship Emissions to European Countries Task/ report 2a.SOx Abatement Task/ report 3. February 28. Final Rule. US EPA Updates on Reducing Emissions from Diesel Marine Vessels. Reducing Air Emissions from Marine Diesel Engines: A Regional Approach. (Environ 2004) Environ International Corporation.arb.pdf 34.westcoastdiesel. August 2004. Accessed 11/26/05. May 17.epa. pres. US EPA.htm 37. June 3.%20Final. Clean Marine Award website. (EPA CHAMLEY) United States EPA. Abatement and Market-Based Instruments (Entec NOx-2005) Task/ report 2b. (Fraser et al. Cold-Ironing Cost-Effectiveness Study. 2004. 2005. o More information can be found at the following website: http://www.pdf 35. March 30. October 6. Padilla Martínez. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).eu. 2003.pdf 32. CA.S.Shore-side electricity Task/ report 4.Economic Instruments 30. 40 CFR Parts 9 and 94.epa. (EU CMA) European Union. Los Angeles.● Controlling air emissions from marine vessels ● o o o o o o Task/ report 2004.%20Charmley. More information can be found at: http://www.pdf 36. 2004) Fraser. November 1999. Summary and Analysis of Comments: Control of Emissions from Marine Diesel Engines. (EPA JOHNSON) Roxanne Johnson.epa. CARB Maritime Air Quality Working Group Bill Charmley. Sacramento.2005) Task/ report 2c.pdf 33. US EPA Marine Update. Thomson. Office of Transportation and Air Quality. (EPA 2003) U.

Institute of Environmental Science and Engineering Tsinghua University. o More information can be found at the following website: http://www. International trade and air pollution: Estimating the economic costs of air emissions from waterborne commerce vessels in the United States.pdf 40. Gallagher.marisec. 41.imo. Hong Kong Environmental Protection Department.pdf 42. 2005.washington. (Hao 2005) Jiming Hao. 2004. o More information can be found at the following website: o More information can be found at the following website: http://www. Public Policy Institute of California. (Gallagher 2005) Kevin P. IMO MARPOL (73/78) Annex VI – Prevention of Air Pollution from Ships.legco. (ICS et al.pdf 44.westcoastdiesel. Haagen Smit Symposium Presentation: Legal and Regulation Challenges for Reducing Emissions from Goods Transport in China. 2005. o More information can be found at the following website: 45. (HK 2004) Hong Kong Legislative Panel on Economic Services. Haveman and David a.pdf 38. o More information can be found at the following website: http://www. (Ha 2005) Kong (Gallagher 2003) Gallagher and Taylor.sciencedirect. Shipping Industry Flag State Performance. September 2003. ISF.PDF 39. 2005.pdf 43. International Trade and Air Pollution: The Economic Costs of Air Emissions from Waterborne Commerce Vessels in the United States. 2004) ICS. Intercargo and Intertanko. More information can be found at: http://www. (Haveman 2004) Jon D. o More information can be found at the following website: http://ase.Mater Plan 2020. Adopted September 1997. Beijing. Haagen Smit Symposium Presentation: Transportation Emissions in Hong 9229997&view=c&wchp=dGLbVtbzSkzS&md5=89d1995ba19bdf0e5c862ca290e4f6fa&ie=/sdarticle. BIMCO. April 19. entered into force May 19. November Problems and Opportunities 79 .ppic. (IMO 1997) International Maritime Organization (IMO)● Controlling air emissions from marine vessels ● o More information can be found at the following website: http://depts. California’s Global Gateways: Trends and issues (ISBN: 1-58213-083-3). 2/22/ 2004. June 2004. April 18-21. Hong Kong Port .

Gjermund Gravir. LLP: London. (JGR 2005) JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH. IMO Frequently Asked Questions. 2003. for Greater Vancouver Regional District and Environment Canada. March Prevention from Air Pollutnion from Ships. Øyvind Endresen and Eirik Sørga°rd. Nurten Vardar.sciencedirect. 2000. o More information can be found at the following website: http://bell.1029/2002JD002898. London. 2002. Norway.pdf 47.pdf (IMO 2000) MARNEK Det Norske Veritas. April &_sk=999649989&view=c&wchp=dGLbVlbzSkWA&md5=c910e1aa7aff518e33d6b1e7b2a78541&ie=/sdarticle. o More information can be found at the following website: http://www. Atmospheric Environment 35 (2001) 1863-1870. July 21. J Hoffmann. Berglen. o More information can be found at the following website: http://www. Science Econ Centre for Economic Analysis.pdf 52.pdf 53. 1/26/05. o More information can be found at the following website: http://www. o More information can be found at the following website: http://europa.isl. Jostein K. doi:10. Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) 45(8) Agenda Item #2. 54. (ISL 2005) Institute of Shipping Economics and Logistics (ISL). Ivar S. Agenda Item #4. Accessed 2/11/06. 108. (Levelton 2002) Levelton Engineering Ltd. VOL.sciencedirect. Handbook of Maritime Economics. A Study on Exhaust Gas Emissions from Ships in the Turkish Straits. and Tore F. (IMO 2005) IMO Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC).com/science?_ob=MImg&_imagekey=B6VCD-4FRKVN5-11&_cdi=5952&_user=112642&_orig=search&_coverDate=03%2F19%2F2005&_sk=99 Problems and Opportunities 80 . (Kumar & Hoffman 2002) S f/imoghgmain. Compliance with international emission regulations: Reducing the air pollution from merchant vessels. MARINE VESSEL AIR EMISSIONS IN THE LOWER FRASER VALLEY FOR THE YEAR 2000. o More information can be found at the following website: http://www. (Kesgin & Varder 2001) Ugur Kesgin. Emission from international sea transportation and environmental impact. Sundet. (Lina 2005) Bin Lina. April 30. Study of Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Ships. 51.imo. Stig B. NO. Dalsøren. Cherng-Yuan Linb. (IMO WEB) IMO website.● Controlling air emissions from marine vessels ● 46. and Carnegie Mellon University for International Maritime Organization.asp 49. 2002. 53rd Session. 4560.pdf 50. A. o More information can be found at the following website: http://unfccc. Isaksen. ISL Market Analysis 2005: Ownership patterns of the World Merchant Fleet.

SB763. SB762.(excel data set).marad. o More information can be found at the following website: http://www. (Marmer 2005) Elina Marmer.doc 9609973&view=c&wchp=dGLbVtbzSkzS&md5=566bda97b33b0c3385fa056f9f9939a8&ie=/ 9/1/04.pdf Problems and Opportunities 81 .pdf 62.pdf 59.manbw. 2005. Ltd. o More information can be found at the following website: http://www. Maritime Division.marad. and Bäerbel Langmann.● Controlling air emissions from marine vessels ● 9999999&view=c&wchp=dGLbVtbzSkzS&md5=ab3b2aad6d81c337df4f0b130e7df0b6&ie=/ Copenhagen.pdf 57. 4/12/05.westcoastcollaborative. SB760. (MAN 2005) MAN B&W Diesel A/ 1/19/05. o More information can be found at the following website: http://www. MATSON. o More information can be found at the following website: http://www. Denmark. (MAN 2004) MAN B&W Diesel A/S. o More information can be found at the following website: http://www. Proposed February 22. Science Direct. o More information can be found at the following website: http://www.portoflosangeles.marad. Maritime Division.Exhaust emission reduction technologies from large marine diesel engines. in association with Herbert Engineering Vessel Calls at US Ports 2004. (Mercator 2005) Mercator Transport 20Technologies%20-%20Matson. July 2004. 2005. Propulsion Trends in Container Ships. Copenhagen. (Lowenthal 2005) CA Senator Alan Lowenthal’s proposed marine vessel legislature. Denmark.pdf 55. Matson Navigation Company Inc. Impact of ship emissions on the Mediterranean summertime pollution and climate: A regional model study. Forecast of Container Vessel Specifications and Port Calls Within San Pedro Bay. Vessel Calls at US Ports o More information can be found at the following website: http://www. o More information can be found at the following website: http://www.manbw.xls 60.pdf 58.. (MATSON) Ramani Srinivasan. and MDS Transmodal.sciencedirect.pdf 61. (MARAD 2005) US Department of Transportation. February 22. (MARAD 2004) US Department of Transportation. SB761. Emission Control MAN B&W Two-stroke Diesel Engines. COOPERATION IN MANAGING AIR POLLUTION FROM MARINE VESSELS AND PORTS. July 24. (NRDC 2003) NRDC News Release. o More information can be found at the following website: http://www.westcoastcollaborative.pdf 69.pdf 68.S. Vessel Speed Reduction Program eliminates 100 tons of Emissions from Air in 3 o More information can be found at the following website: http://www. (PoLA NNI 2005) Port of Los Angeles. Haagen Smit Symposium Presentation: Technical Improvements for Ships.noaa. February 2000. August 17. o More information can be found at the following website: http://www. NOAA. 2003. London.html 65. (PoLA Agenda 2005) Port of Los Angeles. 2005. March 2004. (NRDC 2004) NRDC. More information can be found at the following website: http://www.● Controlling air emissions from marine vessels ● 63. (NERA 2004) NERA Economic Consulting. 2005. Evaluation of the Feasibility of Alternative Market-Based Mechanisms To Promote Low-Emission Shipping In European Union Sea (Paro 2005) D.asp 66. prepared for Transportation Development Centre of Transport Canada.pdf 64. 2005. March 5. (PoLA VSR 2005) Port of Los Angeles. 6/28/04. (NOAA 1998) Office of the Chief o More information can be found at the following website: 1998. o More information can be found at: http://www. Problems and Opportunities 82 .pdf 71. City of Los Angeles and Community and Environmental Groups Reach Record Settlement of Challenge to China Shipping Terminal Project at Port. Executive Director’s Report to the Board of Harbor Commissioners: Special Meeting of October 12. o More information can be found at the following website: Net Increase Task Force. Paro. 2005.gc. Year of the Ocean Discussion Papers: US Marine Transportation System. (Palmer 2000) William Palmer. APPROVAL OF COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES HARBOR DEPARTMENT AND THE UNITED STATES MARITIME ADMINISTRATION FOR U. No Net Increase Final Report.pdf April 18-21. o More information can be found at the following website: http://lacity. Cost-Benefit Study of Marine Engine NOx Emissions Control Systems A Case Study of the MV Cabot.yoto98. October 12. Wartsila. 2005.html?ID=82 Accomplishments: Big Ships’ Air Pollution To Be Regulated by EPA.

htm# 81. 78. April 19. Emission Control. 4 NAMING RATES. White Paper: Emissions Trading in the Marine Sector. o For more information see: http://www. o More information can be found at the following website: http://www. 2005.pdf 77. USEPA Region 10. Public Policy Institute of CA.polb. o More information can be found at: http://www. January 13.Air Pollution from Ships. (SEAat Tech. (PPI 2005) Jon Haveman.pdf 72. (SCHARY) Claire Schary. European Commission. WHARFAGE. DOCKAGE. (Singapore) Singapore. Long Beach Harbor Department Green Port Policy. 38. (Robinson 2005) Nicola Robinson. (PoLB 2005) Port of Long Beach. (Saxea & Larsena 2004) H. Haagen Smit Symposium Presentation: Challenges Facing Asia-Pacific May 22.● Controlling air emissions from marine vessels ● o More information can be found at the following website: 2005) SEAat. 2005)SEAat. Prepared for the Marine Vessels and Ports Sector Workgroup – West Coast Collaborative. The Need to Reduce Marine Shipping Emissions: A Santa Barbara Case Study. April 2004. October 2005.portoflosangeles. 2005.asp?BlobID=2268 74.An Overview of Technologies. Larsena. 2004. 76. 2005. Sweden . BERTH AND AREA ASSIGNMENTS.polb. “White Paper. Legislation relating to the Ocean. Saxea.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. WHARF DEMURRAGE AND WHARF (SBCAPCD 2004) May 19.asp?BlobID=2267 73. HANDLING EQUIPMENT AND GENERAL RULES AND REGULATIONS. RULES AN REGULATIONS GOVERNING THE PORT OF LONG BEACH CALIFORNIA FOR PILOTAGE. 79. 1995.SEAat Sulfur Emissions Offsetting pilot project.doc 82. PUBLIC LANDING. Swedish Conference: Stockholm. Santa Barbara County APCD. (RULE CARB 2005) California Air Resources Board (CARB).EU Developments.seaat. o More information can be found at the following website: http://www. Draft.seaat. 4057-4067. Murphy and Fournier.arb. WATER AND ELECTRICITY. Problems and Opportunities 83 . FREETIME. o More information can be found at the following website: http://www. Atmospheric Enviroment. (SEAat proj. 75.” 2005. TARIFF NO. 2005. Air pollution from ships in three Danish ports. February 2006. (PoLB 1995) Port of Long Beach.

July &_sk=999659973&view=c&wchp=dGLbVlbzSkzS&md5=ce5652c500fc147b5e9c35d4371cc8fc&ie=/sdarticle. March 1. Yokelsonb. Emissions of trace gases and particles from two ships in the southern Atlantic ort. A COMMUNITY STRATEGY ON AIR POLLUTION FROM SEAGOING SHIPS. Science Direct. o More information can be found at the following website: http://www. Christianb. Gregory R.portoflosangeles. 2002. Information concerning the applied Incentives to curb ship emissions from vessels calling upon Swedish ports. Streets.pdf 88. (SMA 2005) Swedish Maritime Kirchstetterc.sjofartsverket. Accessed 2/11/06.pdf 83. 86. Carmichael. (Sinhaa et al.Proposal of Emissions Trading Scheme of sulphur dioxide and nitrogen oxides.solentwaters. Thomas W.*. Port of Los Angeles Baseline Air Emissions Inventory. o More information can be found at the following website: LLC for the Port of Los Angeles. (Streets et al.pdf 89.pdf 84. Atmospheric Environment. for International Marine 87. 4425-4439. 2000) David 629984&view=c&wchp=dGLbVtbzSkzS&md5=e56204b809264b18ab99c8737b379289&ie=/sdarticle. Sarath K. Ted J. 34. o More information can be found at the following website: http://www.● Controlling air emissions from marine vessels ● o More information can be found at the following website: http://www.2001. (Starcrest Fuel 2005) Starcrest Consulting Group. Vessel Types. Evaluation of Low Sulfur Marine Fuel Availability – Pacific Rim.sciencedirect. February 26th. Hobbsa. Robert J. 2005. (SMA) Swedish Maritime Peter V. (Starcrest EI 2005) Starcrest Consulting Group LLC for the Port of Los Angeles. Roelof Bruintjesd. Guttikunda. The Growing Contribution of Sulfur Emissions from Ships in Asian Water. July 2005. Gothenburg.pdf Problems and Opportunities 84 . 1998-1995. 1/9/ 85. (SOLENT) Solent Maritime Website. o More information can be found at: http://www. Environmental Differentiated Fairway and Port Dues.portoflosangeles. o More information can be found at the following website: http://www. (SSA 2002) The Swedish Shipowners´ Association and PriceWaterhouseCoopers.pdf 90.sciencedirect. o More information can be found at: http://www. o More information can be found at the following website: http://www. 2003) Parikhit Sinhaa.

(Yua et 9619989&view=c&wchp=dGLbVtbzSkzS&md5=da9456352be9a12db97c6576a970c08e&ie=/sdarticle. Alexis Kai Hon Lauc. Website accessed December 1. Science & Technology and Health. o More information can be found at the following website: http://www. 2003) Jian Zhen Yua. ISSN 0566-7682. Alan Wai Man http://www. January 18-19. August 2005.westcoastcollaborative. June 2003. (WOOD-THOMAS 2005) Brian C. o More information can be found at: http://www.-K.● Controlling air emissions from marine vessels ● 91. Peter K.Air Emissions from Ships: A 94. (Taylor 2005) Rod B. (US Embassy 2003) US Embassy. Louied.NOx reduction by Internal Engine Modifications. 2004. 2005.-China Cooperation on Environment. (WCC 2005) West Coast Collaborative.pdf 99. 96. 95. (Wartsila 2005) D.*. Wood-Thomas. U. West Coast Collaborative Fact Sheet. ISBN o More information can be found at the following website: http://www. 2005.S.state. US EPA. Swedish Conference: Stockholm. Paro Wartsila May 25.html Problems and Opportunities 85 .org/ 97. ON. Official Says. “Charting the Course: Marine Fuel and Efficiency Conference. o More information can be found at: http://www. 11/2003 o More information can be found at the following website: http://www.usembassy-china. 98. Science Direct. Swedish Conference: Stockholm.westcoastcollaborative. Joanne Wai Ting Tunga. United States-Canada Air Quality Agreement (1991). Sweden . (US-CAN) United States EPA. (Zwaniecki 2005) Zwaniecki.sciencedirect.pdf 92. Hopes for Open Skies Agreement with China. 2005. Perspective on the Challenges and Possible Sweden .tc. May 24-25. Report on the Proceedings of.” Toronto. of State Staff writer. Abundance and seasonal characteristics of elemental and organic carbon in Hong Kong PM10. Taylor. o More information can be found at: http://www.pdf 93. US Dept.unctad. (UNCTD 2004) United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTD). 3/14/05 o More information can be found at the following website: http://usinfo. Review of Maritime t.gc. Geneva. U. Jimmy Chi Hung Fungb.S.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful