Great Lakes Seaway Review
Current issue

October-December 2009
Volume 38, Number 2

AIR EMISSIONS

GREAT LAKES THROWN INTO THE MIX

Shipping industry works for reasonable timeline in
implementation of emissions standards

WITH MORE STRINGENT air emission standards on the horizon, the shipping industry is looking for ways to improve its performance while keeping its fleet active. Research and preparation for the recent U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) regulation focused on addressing air emission standards on all U.S. coasts. However, the Great Lakes region was added at the end of the process, creating a stir throughout the system.

As presented, the regulation limits sulfur emissions from ships within 200 nautical miles of U.S. coasts, calling those zones emission control areas (ECA). Because of the size and configuration of the system, it would essentially become an ECA in its entirety, with bunker fuel not allowed to be burned in Category 3 engines, starting in 2012. The operation of 26 U.S.-flag lakers would be adversely impacted, 13 because steamships cannot safely burn the higher-class fuel and 13 would be endangered by significantly increased fuel costs.

“The cost for intermediate fuel would go up $1 per gallon,” said Glen Nekvasil, Vice President-Corporate Communications for Lake Carriers’ Association. Prior to passing Congress, however, wording was added at the crafting of Rep. Dave Obey (D-Wis.) and Rep. James Oberstar (D-Minn.) that will encourage passage of the bill with the following three-part compromise:

• Great Lakes steamships will be exempted from the new regulations. The steamships cannot burn low-sulfur fuel without being at risk of an engine explosion.

• The final rule issued by the EPA will include a waiver provision to address either the inadequate supply of low-sulfur fuel or the serious economic hardship caused by the increased cost of the fuel. Category 3 diesel ships could apply for the waiver.

• The EPA will evaluate the economic impact for the final rule on Great Lakes carriers and issue a report within six months.

“This compromise will allow EPA to go ahead with a new clean air rule without sinking the Great Lakes fleet—and all the jobs it creates in the region,” said Obey, Chair of the House Appropriations Committee, which oversees the EPA budget. “The goals of clean air and a strong economy are not mutually exclusive. This deal allows economic recovery to continue on Minnesota’s Iron Range by ensuring that Great Lakes shipping is not unfairly disadvantaged by new EPA rules.”

The rider is anticipated to give U.S. and Canadian shipowners time to plan for modifications and renewal programs that will introduce new engines and technologies, similar to what has been done in the past for the automobile, rail and trucking industries.

“We appreciate the effort of the Great Lakes Congressional delegation and Administration officials who crafted a solution that extends the useful lives of the 13 U.S.- flag steamships to 2020, when the .5 percent sulfur standard is implemented worldwide,” Nekvasil said.

“It’s not a question of moving to cleaner fuels. We plan to bring in new ships to improve efficiencies and a better environmental performance,” said Bruce Bowie, President of the Canadian Shipowners Association (CSA). “Air emissions from marine transportation in the Great Lakes/St. Lawrence waterway must be reduced in a way that allows marine transportation to remain competitive with other modes and to continue to serve the public interest.”

Great Lakes vessels have a useful life of 40 to 50 years, or more. A solution that forces older-technology ships out of service in two to three years, or doubling the fuel prices for more modern diesel ships could have an opposite effect on a nationwide effort to maximize the use of the nation’s marine highways.

When EPA instituted emissions regulations for the trucking industry, it was given 10 years to phase in fuel standards. And, trucks have a much shorter lifespan—generally about one-fifth-that of lakers.

According to the U.S. Maritime Administration, expanding the use of the country’s commercial waterways can help reduce landside congestion, GHG emissions, energy use and highway infrastructure dollars spent on construction and maintenance. It has calculated that congestion of the landbased transportation system costs the U.S. an estimated $200 billion a year and wastes 2.9 billion gallons of fuels because of time spent idling.

Without adequate time to prepare for the changing regulations, vessel owners from both sides of the bi-national border are concerned that the sudden increase in maritime transportation costs will cause shippers to choose more landbased transportation options, which would actually increase emissions similar to when automobile buyers shifted from regular-size cars equipped with catalytic converters to large SUVs, which had yet to implement the technology.

CSA studies indicate that, as a direct result of a 15 percent modal shift due to lost competitiveness and lost production, greenhouse gas emissions associated with CSA’s current traffic will increase by more than 60 percent, NOx will increase by more than 10 percent, VOCs will increase by close to 30 percent and CO by more than 70 percent. Shipping associations from both countries estimate that 10-20 percent of the waterway’s cargo could be shifted from ships to land-based modes if passed without further thought and planning.

“The environment needs Great Lakes shipping, too,” Nekvasil said. “Ships burn less fuel and produce fewer emissions than trains and trucks. The 13 vessels that currently are powered with Category 3 diesel engines using intermediate fuel hauled 29 million tons of cargo in 2008. It would take 1.1 million trucks or 290,000 railcars to replace their carrying capacity. We all win when we keep these cargoes on vessels working the Great Lakes.”

“The adverse environmental impacts of shifting marine traffic onto rail and already overcrowded roads are so negatively staggering that there is an obvious need for the U.S. EPA to take a step back and do a full and complete analysis prior to moving forward with any rulemaking on marine air emissions in the Great Lakes/St. Lawrence,” Bowie said. “The effect of the proposed rulemaking is so environmentally negative that to do otherwise would be indefensible.”

—Janenne Irene Pung

800.491.1760 | Fax 866.906.3392 | harbor@harborhouse.com | www.harborhouse.com
Copyright © 2010 by Harbor House Publishers. All rights reserved. SiteMap