| |
|
Published in Summer 2005
|
Air pollution from ships a growing concern
|
| |
|
By Ron Orol
|
| |
|
|
|
© iStockphoto
A tugboat assists a container ship entering the port of Savannah in Georgia.
|
An ocean-going oil tanker approaches the Port of Long Beach with its precious slick, black cargo. Once in the port, the idling ship’s smokestacks continue to spew a raft of pollutants such as sulfur oxides into the air in order to power all the lighting, pumping, refrigeration and other ship functions while the valuable cargo is unloaded.
At Berth 121, however, two of BP’s (formerly British Petroleum) large, ocean-going oil tankers are going to be retrofitted with a more environmentally friendly "cold ironing" system that will allow the ships to be plugged into electrical outlets on shore and shut off their polluting smokestacks. The London-based company and the Port of Long Beach are investing US$4.5 million into the project, which is expected to be completed this fall.
"Obviously if such a system makes sense here we’ll start working on doing it in other places," says BP spokesman Phil Cochrane. He adds that in addition to being an environmental solution, BP will be doing an economic analysis about whether the program could save the oil company money over the long term.
Such novel approaches to reducing air pollution from ships are being thought about voluntarily by shipping companies in Canada and the United States. But environmentalists argue that these efforts, combined with emission reduction rules being considered by regulators in Canada, Mexico and the United States, are not likely to be enough, as large vessels represent an ever-increasing source of atmospheric pollution.
The Bluewater Network, a San Francisco-based marine environmental organization, predicts that global commercial vessel traffic and the related emissions are expected to double or triple in the next 20 years. The California Air Resources Board expects smog from ships to represent 20–25 percent of the total pollution in Los Angeles by 2020. And marine sources are projected to be the largest contributor to "smog-forming pollutants" by 2015, according to a June 2004 study produced by the Chamber of Shipping of British Columbia.
"As we’ve cleaned up other sources of pollution on land, the problem of pollution from ships gets bigger and bigger," says California Air Resources Board spokesman Jerry Martin.
An international pollution-reducing agreement designed by the International Maritime Organization (IMO), a United Nations agency, was ratified in May by 22 countries, representing 62.5 percent of world merchant ships. While many countries, including the United Kingdom, Denmark, Japan and Germany, have ratified the agreement, dubbed "MARPOL Annex VI," Canada, Mexico and the United States have yet to approve it.
Legislative observers in both Canada and the United States contend that it’s just a matter of time before their governments ratify the agreement. Annex VI requires that the heavy fuel oil large ocean vessels use have a sulfur oxide (SOx, pronounced "socks") content of 4.5 percent or less.
Most environmentalists point out that it will not be difficult for ocean-going vessels to meet the 4.5 percent standard. The global average sulfur content in heavy fuel burned by ships is already down to 2.7 percent. Andrew Green, an air program engineer at Environment Canada, says only five percent of international fuel samples exceed the Annex VI limit. But regulators agree it’s a step in the right direction.
The IMO measure also sets emission standards for nitrogen oxides from engines installed on vessels constructed on or after 1 January 2000. And while only countries that have ratified the agreement are bound by the new limits, the provision generally affects all ocean-going vessels, including those coming and going from Canada, Mexico and the United States. That’s because the vast majority of international engine manufacturers—like Wärtsilä Corp. of Helsinki, Finland—have been building marine propulsion units that meet the new limits, anticipating that the IMO would make the new law retroactive to engines in ships built since 2000.
Regulators in Canada and the United States must adopt domestic rules before legislators can ratify Annex VI. In the United States these efforts have been moving a little faster than in Canada. The US Environmental Protection Agency adopted an engine control rule in 2003 that meets the IMO requirements for US ships. Legislative observers expect Congress will ratify the IMO standards next year, after key congressional committees hold hearings on the subject.
It’s widely expected to pass because there is support from the environmental and business communities. The agency is currently collecting comments from environmental groups and business interests to amass data and help prepare for a proposed emission reduction rule that should be announced next year.
Meanwhile in Canada, regulators have yet to adopt the IMO standards. The provision is tied up in a larger piece of legislation, the Canada Shipping Act, which is being held up by other unrelated measures and isn’t expected to be approved until November 2006.
Regulators in both countries are also considering taking other steps to limit SOx emissions by boats, but the efforts are not likely to take effect until 2007 or 2008. After the countries ratify Annex VI, they will be eligible to petition the IMO to have coastal zones recognized as SOx Emission Control Areas, or SECAs, geographic zones with even tighter restrictions on the sulfur content in fuel. Heavy fuel oil that large ocean vessels use would need to have a sulfur oxide content of 1.5 percent or less to meet the SECA requirements, as laid out by Annex VI.
Chris Rolfe, executive director of the Vancouver-based West Coast Environmental Law Association, says it’s unlikely for any of the North American countries to go alone with its own SECA application because of worry that new sulfur oxide restrictions would drive vessel traffic to the other two countries. But, he adds, there is a possibility that Canada and the United States could collectively work out an application for the west coast of the region before other regions are ready to go. "There is a pretty big cost implication for shippers deciding to have their vessels go through the Panama Canal to dock on the East Coast of North America just to avoid new sulfur oxide restrictions on the West Coast," Rolfe says.
North America is behind parts of Europe with regards to SECA. The Baltic Sea, near Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, has already received a SECA designation that should take effect shortly. And a proposed amendment to Annex VI to include the North Sea between Britain and Scandinavia as a SECA region should be approved in mid-2005.
The CEC is preparing a program to engage experts in North America to develop consistent air emissions information across all three countries that can help support SECA applications and other initiatives. "We want to create a seamless picture of environmental information for North America," says Paul Miller, the air quality coordinator at the CEC.
In addition to eventually meeting international standards, regulators in Canada and the United States are working on other approaches to limit emissions. California Air Resources Board’s Martin says the state of California will, in some circumstances, help small and mid-sized ship owners invest in upgrading their engines to reduce emissions of nitrogen oxides. "If marine vessel owners agree to spend a certain amount of money to upgrade their engines, the state of California will provide additional capital to make the engine emit even less pollution," Martin says.
Martin adds that regulators in California also require ocean-going ships to slow down in approaching the Port of Los Angeles as a means of reducing emissions.
John Newhook, an engineer at the Greater Vancouver Regional District, says regulators in Canada and the United States are also examining whether ports would consider restructuring their fee collection structure for ships entering the port to take into account the quality of fuel ships are using. Following a system used at some Swedish ports, administrators would collect lower fees from ships using cleaner fuels and higher fees from vessels burning dirtier fuels. "The amount netted in fees would remain the same but the port would encourage more environmentally-friendly ships," Newhook says.
Transport Canada is selecting potential port locations where it may consider providing federal funds for the installation of cold ironing units. Environment Canada’s Green says the Port of Vancouver may be a strong candidate for selection because some US cruise ships that move back and forth along the Pacific side of North America have already upgraded their technology to use cold ironing. The ports of Seattle, Washington, and Juneau, Alaska, already have shore power facilities for some cruise ship lines.
"This kind of cold ironing for cruise ships would be great for Vancouver, especially since so many ships coming through the port are already outfitted for this," Newhook says.
But Rolfe points out that shippers could use other mechanisms to reduce dangerous emissions, which could be less costly than cold ironing. He points out that vessels could invest in pollution control devices called scrubbers that would absorb some noxious emissions. Newhook says many vessels could have a harder time meeting expected SECA limitations and may want to eventually invest in such a scrubber, which would allow them to continue using cheaper higher sulfur content fuels without violating the provision.
But despite all these efforts most environmental groups still don’t think shippers and lawmakers are doing enough. Bluewater Network’s Long says the Annex VI provision will not do anything to reduce air pollution. He contends that the IMO process is largely controlled by the shipping industry, which successfully rebuffed efforts to make stricter emission limits.
"Annex VI is a starting point, but I hope we can soon get some real reductions in marine air pollutants," Long says.
|
Top
