California ARB Expands Measure to Reduce Emissions From Onboard Ship Incineration; Requires Upgrades of Diesel Agricultural Engines
19 November 2006
In response to recent legislation, the California Air Resources Board (ARB) expanded its regulation prohibiting onboard cruise ship incineration to include ocean-going ships, such as container vessels, that weigh more than 300 gross registered tons. The ARB also amended an existing rule to require some owners to upgrade or replace their diesel-powered stationary agricultural engines beginning in 2011.
The Board amended the Airborne Toxic Control Measure (ATCM) for cruise ship incineration, passed by the ARB in November 2005, to implement the requirements of Senate Bill 771, also known as the California Clean Coast Act. This legislation prohibits ships from incinerating waste while operating within three miles of the California coast. The only exception would be when it is done under the direction and supervision of the US Coast Guard.
Air pollution from marine vessels is a significant and growing concern in California. In 2005, non-cruise ships accounted for over 9,900 port calls in California. Onboard incineration is a source of toxic air contaminants (TACs); exposure to air toxics may cause cancer and other health impacts. The expanded regulations are expected to further reduce public exposure to TACs such as dioxins, furans, and metals.
In addition to prohibiting onboard incineration within three miles of the California coast, the ATCM requires oceangoing ships to keep incineration records. With the exception of military ships, ARB can access and review incinerator records out to 24 nautical miles, which are required under international regulations. The US Navy already adheres to a policy that prohibits incineration within 12 miles of the California coast and the US Coast Guard cannot incinerate within three miles of the coast.
According to ARB staff, costs to comply with the amendments are negligible.
In another hearing, the ARB amended an existing rule to require owners of diesel-powered stationary agricultural engines of more than 50 hp to either be upgraded or replaced by newer, cleaner engines beginning in 2011. In conjunction with local air quality district rules and incentive programs, the new requirements will result in emission reductions of 330 tons per year of particulate matter and 5,800 tons per year of nitrogen oxides (NOx) by 2012.
ARB scientists ultimately expect to reduce particulate emissions by 440 tons per year and to cut as much as 8,100 tons per year of nitrogen oxides by 2022, when the rule is fully implemented. According to ARB staff, most of those engines are currently used as irrigation pumps throughout the state.
The most pressing emissions component from both ships and agricultural equipment is actually SO2, which turns to sulfuric acid attached to the PM. On-road diesel is being switched to ULSD (15ppm) right now, but nonroad grades are lagging behind but fortunately not by much. Low sulfur fuel is also an essential prerequisite for deploying NOx aftertreatment systems such as NOx store catalysts and urea-based SCR systems.
The EPA mandated reductions in sulfur content in nonroad diesel fuels, as follows:
* 500 ppm effective June 2007 for nonroad, locomotive and marine (NRLM) diesel fuels
* 15 ppm (ultra-low sulfur diesel) effective June 2010 for nonroad fuel, and June 2012 for locomotive and marine fuels
http://www.dieselnet.com/standards/us/offroad.html
ARB's additional restrictions on waste incineration near shore seem sensible enough, though three miles may be too modest a distance to shoot for. Why not 12 or 24, especially for large ships that make it that far out anyhow?
The requirement to retrofit agricultural machinery will be expensive but also sensible. PM released during harvesting ends up on food, so retrofitting DPFs ought to be a priority. Since this type of machinery operates at part load much of the time, the rules should mandate the most effective filters available on new engines and encourage their use in retrofit kits. These may require a small burner, possibly fueled by their own propane-butane cartridge, to initiate filter regeneration; otherwise, you'd have to update the control logic for hundreds of engine designs that have been produced in low volume over the past 30 years or so. Tractor engines have very high life expectancies.
Posted by: Rafael Seidl | 19 November 2006 at 06:48 AM
Don't ships use bunker oil that has 4500 ppm sulphur? There might be regulations that force them to burn cleaner diesel near shore for pollution control, but the majority of the time they burn that cheap nasty stuff.
Posted by: Erick | 19 November 2006 at 07:38 AM
Erick -
according to international maritime law, territorial waters and hence, national jurisdiction, extends 12 nautical miles out to sea. Countries do have some rights, arguably including the sovereign regulation of emissions from shipping, in a contiguous zone up to 24 nautical miles from shore.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_waters
Out in international waters, ships can and many do indeed burn heavy fuel oil with 3000-4500ppm sulfur. Using current petrochemical technology (Claus process), the cost of eliminating sulfur from these fuel grades would be quite high. There is, as yet, no scientific evidence that sulfur emissions from ocean shipping is materially contributing to the formation of acid rain or harming fisheries in economic exclusion zones (such as Iceland's 200 mile claim). However, the population of the industrialized world will swell from ~1 billion to ~3 billion by ~2050 and shipping volume will increase even faster. An increase in *local* sulfur concentrations in certain parts of the ocean could conceivably have an indirect impact on the dimethyl sulfide cycle and cloud formation over the oceans.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/10/061026185631.htm
http://www.cosis.net/abstracts/EGU06/05410/EGU06-J-05410-1.pdf
Posted by: Rafael Seidl | 19 November 2006 at 08:39 AM
I worked in the engine room of a steam ship. Bunker C is gross fuel. It is anything but clean or green. Just cheap! We don't need a study to prove this burned road tar is dirty just smell and look at it. Anything is better than this garbage. As for incineration use plasma instead and inject the Syngas in the engine to clean up combustion process.
Posted by: Andy | 19 November 2006 at 09:15 AM