« General Motors and Clean Energy to Open Hydrogen Station in Los Angeles | Main | Ford Delivers FlexFuel PHEV to DOE »
California ARB Proposes Low-Sulfur Fuel Rules for Ocean-Going Vessels
11 June 2008
The California Air Resources Board (ARB) has released a proposed regulation that would require ocean-going vessels within 24 nautical miles off California’s coastline to use lower-sulfur marine distillates rather than heavily polluting heavy fuel oil (bunker fuel) in their main and auxiliary engines, and boilers.
The measure, to be considered by the ARB at its 26-27 July meeting, would annually affect about 2,000 ocean-going vessels visiting California.
The proposed regulation requiring ships to use more refined fuel with lower sulfur content would be implemented in two steps. In 2009, MGO (marine gasoil) would have a sulfur limit of 1.5% (15,000 ppm), while MDO (marine diesel oil) would have a limit of 0.5% (5,000 ppm). In 2012, the limits for both fuels drops to 0.1% (1,000 ppm).
Both US-flagged and foreign-flagged vessels would be to subject to the statewide regulation.
The draft regulation would reduce emissions of toxic particulate matter from the vessels’ diesel engines by 15 tons per day, an 80% reduction of the uncontrolled emissions now. Emissions of oxides of sulfur and nitrogen, major contributors to California’s air pollution problems, would also be reduced by 90% and 6%, respectively.
The proposed regulation would have large health benefits for Californians, according to ARB. An estimated 2,000 premature deaths between 2009 and 2015 would be avoided, and the cancer risk caused by emissions from these vessels would be reduced by more than 80%. In addition, the emission reductions would aid the South Coast Air Quality Management District meet federal clean air requirements for fine particulate matter by 2014. The regulation is also needed for ARB to achieve its targeted 85 percent reduction of diesel PM by 2020.
In February, the Ninth US Circuit Court of Appeals torpedoed an earlier ARB regulation requiring low-sulfur diesel use in auxiliary engines. The court ruled that California must get a waiver from the US Environmental Protection Agency before it can limit sulfur emissions from ocean-going ships that enter the state’s waters. (Earlier post.)
The new ARB regulation is written as in-use fuel regulation and does not require a waiver, as did the earlier regulation, which was an emissions limitation regulation.
The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has also issued plans for new emission standards for Category 3 compression-ignition marine engines at or above 30 liters on board large ocean-going vessels. (Earlier post.) These emissions standards would likely result in the use of fuel with sulfur content on the order of about 1,000 ppm or through the use of exhaust aftertreatment technologies, according to EPA.
Resources
June 11, 2008 in Emissions, Policy, Ports and Marine | Permalink | Comments (6) | TrackBack (0)
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/22062/30069184
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference California ARB Proposes Low-Sulfur Fuel Rules for Ocean-Going Vessels:
Comments
The California Air Resources Board comes up with a good idea and the US Environmental Protection Agency quashes it. Some protection!!!
I think this is a great idea to regulate ship fuels, and should be extended to the USA 200 mile limit.
Also, other jurisdictions should adopt similar regulations. Polluting the oceans with acidity is not nice, and we don't need to do this just to have minimal savings on cargo fuel prices.
Posted by: | Jun 11, 2008 2:02:28 PM
There used to be a three mile limit for countries. Now California thinks that it can control the fuel used in international waters. California should read up on the constitution about its ability to control international trade independent of the US government. California ought to clean up its own act about air pollution first. I doubt if sea going vessels contribute a measurable amount to the haze in Los Angeles. Did not CARB say something about having ZEVs more than ten years ago. ZEBRA batteries could have made the EV-1 a 100 mile vehicle more than ten years ago. Now you can get them in the production version of TH!NK. Series-Plug-In-Hybrid vehicles with a very small engine are all that are needed by most car users. Put in two or three engines for people who climb hills. California ought to tell the US postal service to use ZEBRA powered delivery vans and see how far it gets.
Large cars and large houses are the main contributors of air contamination. The percentage contribution of sea-going vessels to air contamination over land probably cannot even be measured. California ought to make laws that realy count rather than show laws that inconvenience a few people very greatly and make no real difference. Houses can only be 1000 square feet per person. Vehicles must get 30 miles per gallon. The US government should cut the massive amounts of clean hydro electric power that flows into California, use it in the states wher it is generated and tell California to make its own power if they do not want to abide by constitutional law and get its own house in order. No number of compact fluorescent bulbs will make up for air-conditioning a 20,000 square foot house or a Hummer. California has passed no laws that require combined-heat-and-power facilities in commercial buildings and apartments. Get your act together don't require foreigners to get their act together first. ..HG..
Posted by: Henry Gibson | Jun 11, 2008 2:21:25 PM
Henry, the air quality downwind from ports is very, very dirty because of the amount of pollution big ships spew in to the air.
In fact, GCC has had articles in the past showing you how bad it is.
I would not want to live/work downwind of the Oakland and Long Beach ports.
I am glad that CARB is pushing to clean up the ports.
Posted by: Dave | Jun 12, 2008 1:24:27 AM
Hi Dave...ditto. Henry's shotgun arguments are rants only. Even tho he sends out lots of pellets, he still misses the target.
Posted by: litesong | Jun 12, 2008 8:45:50 AM
I applauded the CARB in trying to clean up Marine Vessel pollution.
Until I found out that this proposal will just compete with an ALREADY existing broader and better national standard.
It was a useful thing when CARB wanted tougher standards to clean the LA basin air, and no standards yet existed elsewhere.
It is quite a bureaucratic waste to now produce a reg, when one already exists that is broader in scope and probably better for all environmental purposes.
If the US natioanl standards requires pollution limiting equipmemnt to be installed on vessels calling on all American ports; then there is a broader incentive for shipowners to do so, and once done, that equipment would continue to clean the air on the entire ships' voyages.
The CARB reg would only lead to a special tank of boutique fuel, used only for a few hundred miles of operation, in California waters.
Meanwhile the vessel would polute un-tamed on the rest of its thousands of miles of sea voyage.
In that case, all you are doing is building bureaucratic empires, and justifying the raison d'etre for your continued bureaucratic existance. Why am I not surprised >
Boutique fuel formulations are expensive, and a problem to create, when world refinery capacity is limited. I'm sure that California refineries would never get the approval to add capacity for this new boutique fuel. So as always, these regulators would want someone else, to do the dirty work of making such fuel.
Posted by: | Jun 12, 2008 10:13:49 AM
Article 2 interstate commerce clause, the feds could over turn them if they wanted to for any vessel used to transport goods from once state to another and internationally come on didnt we all take us govt in high school. State waters only go to 12 miles not sure how the socialist anex 12 more miles while federal EEZ water to 200 miles.
Posted by: jg | Jun 16, 2008 3:24:21 PM
