US and Canada Request IMO Create Emissions Control Area Around Coastlines
30 March 2009
| Chart of the proposed North American Emission Control Area. Source: EPA Click to enlarge. |
The US and Canada have submitted a proposal to the International Maritime Organization (IMO) for the designation of an Emission Control area (ECA) around their coastlines in which stringent international emission controls would apply to ocean-going ships.
The proposed area of the ECA includes waters adjacent to the Pacific coast, the Atlantic/Gulf coast and the eight main Hawaiian Islands. The proposed ECA would extend 200 nautical miles (230 miles, 370 km) from the coastal baseline, except that it would not extend into marine areas subject to the sovereignty, sovereign rights, or jurisdiction of any State other than the United States or Canada.
ECAs, as defined under the MARPOL regulations, carry more stringent emissions requirements—which will continue to strengthen— for ocean-going vessels (OGVs). ECA standards will ultimately cut sulfur in fuel by 98%, and achieve reductions of NOx by 80%, PM by 85%, and SOx by 95%, relative to current levels from OGVs. (Earlier post.)
In the US and Canada combined, the ECA is expected to reduce emissions of NOx by 320,000 tons, PM2.5 by 90,000 tons, and SOx by 920,000 tons per year, which is 23%, 74%, and 86% below current levels, respectively. The overall cost of the ECA is estimated at $3.2 billion. The ECA would be expected to save as many as 8,300 lives and provide relief from respiratory symptoms for over three million people each year.
Under this program, large ships such as oil tankers and cargo ships that operate in ECAs will face stricter emissions standards. To achieve these reductions, ships must use fuel with no more than 1,000 parts per million sulfur (0.1%) beginning in 2015, and new ships must used advanced emission control technologies beginning in 2016.
| US Ports and non-attainment areas. Source: EPA. Click to enlarge. |
Air pollution from ships is expected to grow rapidly as controls on other mobile sources take effect and port traffic increases. Ocean-going vessels, which are primarily foreign owned and operated, dock at more than 100 US ports, more than 40 of which are in metropolitan areas that fail to meet federal air quality standards.
EPA led the US effort to develop the proposal in coordination with federal partners such as the Coast Guard, State Department and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Canada joined the US as a co-proposer on the ECA proposal, advancing a strategy for a coordinated geographic emissions control program.
The proposal, submitted to the IMO on 27 March, is one part of a comprehensive EPA program to address harmful emissions from ocean going vessels under the National Clean Diesel Campaign and the Clean Ports Program.
In parallel to the ECA proposal, EPA is developing standards for Category 3 marine diesel engines (per-cylinder displacement of 30 liters or greater) that are expected to require the application of high efficiency aftertreatment emission controls similar in stringency to the new NOx standards that will apply to all engines in the ECA. The agency plans to issue the CAA Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in Spring 2009 and finalize it by December 2009.
The IMO, a United Nations agency, will begin reviewing the proposal in July. Approval of the proposal could occur as soon as next year.
Finally! I thought the Clueless One's loons would never do anything reasonable. The MARPOL Treaty allows this and EU nations have done it in the Baltic. This encourages early conversion to the MARPOL Tier III and IV cleanup. Wonderful.
I have never objected to cleaning the environment of toxic emissions. Especially when the approach is sane, allows an appropriate time to implement, and will accomplish the aims. MARPOL ANNEX VI, as negotiated and approved by the Bush Administration does all this.
But I object heavily to regulation of non polluting CO2 that might barely effect a tiny rise in global temperatures in a couple hundred years, if ever. When it is based on assumption that Mankind will continue burning fossil for all that time without any improvement in technology that we know will come.
And a mad rush to do so long before there is any reason, or surety that it is needed. Every day more and more scientific evidence falsifies the potential harm; and documents the increases in the benign effect.
For example The CARBite idiots regulations on OGV on other sovereign nations vessels in only California waters, is stupid. But they did it anyway, without sufficient time of anyone to comply, so it will be ignored.
But it will justify the useless jobs of the California eco-loons, who long ago should have been penshioned off. It will also justify alarmist PR campaigns to increase fundraising to the "environmental" organizations. To insure the luxurious lifestyles, for the cynical leaders, that they pay themselves, and that now rule these eco-loon organizations.
Posted by: ExDemo | 30 March 2009 at 11:12 AM
The maniacal spew of Stan Petersen above would be entertaining if not a cause for alarm about his extremist perception of reality.
Posted by: Will S | 30 March 2009 at 01:58 PM
yeah how did I know it was Stan...
Posted by: Mark_BC | 30 March 2009 at 02:58 PM
And then we have these "loons" who should definitely be gagged if not imprisoned:
http://tinyurl.com/c48kzx
Posted by: sulleny | 31 March 2009 at 06:49 PM
Ah, Richard Lindzen, who charges $2500 speaking fees at countless speaking engagements and dinners for fossil fuel companies and Republicans. Making quite a padded nest egg, he is...
Posted by: Will S | 01 April 2009 at 12:22 PM