Towns take on new federal maritime emission limits - KTOO News - 104.3

Posted - July 30, 2012 5:21 pm - by Ed Schoenfeld, CoastAlaska News - KTOO News

Some Alaska communities are pushing back against a new requirement that ships sailing within 200 miles of the coast burn cleaner fuel. They say the rule, which goes into effect Wednesday, Aug.1st, will hurt cruise traffic and increase shipping costs.

One community is Skagway, where tourism dominates the summer economy.
“It takes years to get a cruise line. And it takes a second to drive one away,” says Steve Hites, owner of the Skagway Streetcar Company and a member of the town’s Port Commission.

He’s telling Skagway’s assembly about new air-emission limits set by the federal Environmental Protection Agency. They cover ships in coastal Emission Control Areas, also called ECAs.

Hites says cleaner fuel is more expensive, and cruise lines will pass that on to customers.
“The cost of the ECA on a cruise ticket could be $150, or three times the cost of the Alaska head tax. We lost five big ships because of the head tax. By extrapolation, will we lose 15 ships?” he asks.



Complete Post at:
http://www.ktoonews.org/2012/07/30/towns-take-on-new-federal-maritime-emission-limits/

EPA: Marine diesel harmful to human health - JUNEAU EMPIRE.com

Posted - Monday, July 23, 2012 -By RUSSELL STIGALL -JUNEAU EMPIRE.com

A treaty between the U.S. and Canada requires certain ships to burn low-sulfur diesel fuel in a North American Emissions Control Area in Alaska beginning August 1 (goo.gl/ZH2Eo). The rule would eventually require cruise and shipping companies to use fuel with sulfur levels at 1,000 parts per million.
John Binkley president of the Alaska Cruise Association has said the cruise industry typically uses emissions controls and fuel with less sulfur than that which is currently required. A change to the new fuel, however, could cost the cruise industry millions of dollars per ship, Binkley said.
The Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Coast Guard are in charge of enforcement. The agency said it is flexible with those affected by the rule in meeting the ECA, according to the EPA in an email interview.
The rule will result in “slashing harmful particulate pollution that causes heart and asthma attacks in communities near ports and hundreds of miles inland," according to the EPA’s response.
Emissions from large marine diesel engines affect populations near ports and hundreds of miles inland, the EPA said. Fine particles, which can cause of asthma and heart attack, and smog-causing nitrogen oxide are two pollutants the EPA expects will increase over time if Control Areas are not enforced.
President George W. Bush signed the Maritime Pollution Protection Act of 2008 in July of that year. This cleared the way for ratification of the MARPOL Annex VI Treaty – the treaty that allows for Emissions Control Areas.
The EPA announced in March of 2009 its proposal to enforce a 230-mile emission control area along U.S. and Canada coastlines. The Agency submitted its proposal to the United Nations International Maritime Organization for approval. The EPA later introduced domestic rules as part of the Clean Air Act to mirror the international treaty rules governing emissions control areas. The International Maritime Organization approved the U.S./Canada ECA in March of 2010. It is scheduled to go into effect Aug. 1.
“At that time, the maximum sulfur content of fuel oil used by ships in the ECA will be limited to 10,000 ppm,” according to the EPA’s email. By 2015 this number drops to 1,000 ppm. Requirements for ships to use advanced emissions controls begin in 2016.
The State of Alaska has sued the EPA to prevent enforcement of the Emissions Control Area in Alaska. The EPA did not comment on the lawsuit.

Post to be found at:
http://m.juneauempire.com/local/2012-07-23/epa-marine-diesel-harmful-human-health

The Urgent Need to Reduce Nitrogen Oxide (NOx) Emissions from Ships Read more: http://www.marineinsight.com/tech/the-urgent-need-to-reduce-nitrogen-oxide-nox-emissions-from-ships - Marine Insight

Posted July 31, 2012 -  Marine Insight

The continuous rise of Nitrogen Oxide (NOx) in the atmosphere is a matter of great concern. Several factors have been stated as the reason for the increase of this element in the air and toxic emission from ships is one of them.


Nitrogen Oxide (NOx) is formed in the atmosphere when fuels such as oil, gas, and coal are burned at a very high temperature. The pollution caused because of NOx is supposed to be known as one of the most dangerous forms, which eventually contributes towards global warming.
Nitrogen Oxide and its effects on the Environment
A high-level of nitrogen oxide being released into the atmosphere can result in to:

• Ground Level Ozone
• Acid Deposition
• Particulate Matter
• Nitrification
• Eutrophication
• Indirect Effect to Global Warming

Significant contributors to this toxic oxide are factories, coal-burning plants and emissions from motor vehicles and marine diesel engines.

Studies show that shipping is the source of 18-30% of the world’s nitrogen oxides. Moreover, though several steps have been taken to reduce the emission of NOx from ships, there is still a long way to go to bring down emissions to zero or an acceptable level.

IMO’s MARPOL Annex VI
MARPOL (Marine Pollution) is one of International Maritime Organization (IMO)’s regulatory policies focuses on preventing different forms of marine pollution including oil, noxious liquid substances, harmful substances, waste water, garbage and emissions of sulphur oxides and nitrogen oxides at sea.
MARPOL Annex VI Regulation 13 sets out the mandatory limitations on NOx. The regulation affects not only ships from signatory states but also ships entering MARPOL signatory-member waters.
MARPOL Annex VI and ECAs
Apart from the mandatory NOx limitations for oceangoing vessels around waters of the member states, IMO also defines Emission Control Areas or ECAs where the MARPOL NOx emission standards will apply.
The ECAs includes:

• Baltic Sea (2006)
• North Sea (2007)
• Waters in North American coasts that include waters adjacent to the Pacific coast, the Atlantic/Gulf coast extending to 200 nautical miles from US coast (2010)
• Waters around Puerto Rico and the US Virgin Islands that are just recently designated by IMO (effective 2014)
• Norway, Japan and Mediterranean areas are being considered for future ECA proposal.

In the past few years, IMO has become stricter in implementing norms to reduce shipping emissions and to minimize the effects of marine pollution.
Is there a way to reduce NOx emission?
In the hope of complying with IMO’s global limits on nitrogen oxides and the enforcement of more stringent standards within the three Emission Controlled Areas marine diesel engine operators, ship owners and seafarers are left with no option but to find the best technology in reducing the amount of NOx from their ship’s exhaust systems and to take steps to make their ship “greener”.

Among the various emission control applications Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) System comes out to be the most efficient, effectively reducing ship’s NOx emission by 90-95%. By mixing a reagent (SCR 40 – 40% Marine Urea Solution) to the exhaust gas, nitrogen oxides are converted to Nitrogen (N₂), water and Carbon Dioxide (CO₂).  Global Marine Urea Solution Suppliers
Some marine SCR System providers offer the supply of urea solution with their application. A known SCR System provider in Japan is Hitachi Zosen while Miratech is from the United States. Both suppliers offer Marine SCR application that complies with Tier III NOx emission standards.
For marine urea solution requirements, there are growing urea markets in the US, China and recently in Singapore. Read here for more information regarding marine urea solutions in Singapore.

Post to be found at:

http://www.marineinsight.com/tech/the-urgent-need-to-reduce-nitrogen-oxide-nox-emissions-from-ships/

ICS Seeks Changes to Avoid BWTS “Chaos” - MarineLink.com

Posted - Monday, July 30, 2012, 8:19 AM - MarintLink.com

The International Chamber of Shipping (ICS), which represents all sectors and trades and over 80% of the world merchant fleet, has called on the International Maritime Organization (IMO) to address some critical issues concerning the imminent implementation of the IMO Ballast Water Management (BWM) Convention. 
Despite delays by governments with respect to ratification, the 2004 BWM Convention, which is intended to prevent damage to local ecosystems by invasive species of marine micro-organisms carried in ships’ ballast water, is expected to enter into force within the next 2 years. 
ICS Director of Regulatory Affairs, David Tongue, explained: “Shipping companies represented by our member national associations have serious concerns about the availability of suitable ballast water treatment equipment, the robustness of the type approval process and, above all, the difficulties of retrofitting tens of thousands of existing ships within the time frame established by the BWM Convention.”
In a submission to the IMO Marine Environment Protection Committee, which meets in October, ICS has requested that the issue of fixed dates for the retrofitting of expensive new equipment by large numbers of ships, perhaps as many as 60,000, needs to be addressed urgently.  ICS believes that a serious discussion is needed at IMO before the Convention enters into force.
In particular, in view of the bottlenecks that will be created when the Convention enters in force, with many ships having to be retrofitted either before their next special survey or their next intermediate survey, ICS has proposed that the IMO should modify the BWM Convention’s requirements so that existing ships should not be required to be retrofitted with treatment equipment until their next full special survey.  In view of the pressures on shipyards that will need to fit the equipment, this would smooth out implementation over a 5 year timeline around the date of entry into force of the Convention, rather than 2 or 3 years as at present.  
Moreover, in order to make it possible for other ships to be retrofitted within the required timeline, ICS proposes that ships approaching their 4th special survey should be exempted from the equipment requirements.
Tongue added: “Given that the costs of fitting the treatment equipment may be in the order of 1 to 5 million dollars a ship, it does not make economic sense for older ships approaching the end of their lives to incur this huge expenditure.  However, the impact on the environment of exempting them would be negligible since these ships will still be required to perform deep water ballast exchange at sea for the 2 or 3 remaining years that most of them will continue to operate.”     
In the event that IMO does not accept the suggestion that ships should not be required to retrofit until their next 5 year renewal survey, ICS suggests that ships over 18 years old should be exempted from the equipment requirements.
In practice, changes to the BWM Convention cannot be adopted until after it enters into force, but given the importance of ensuring smooth implementation ICS sees no reason why IMO cannot agree provisional changes with respect to detailed implementation in advance.
In a separate submission to IMO, ICS has requested that IMO considers modifying its current draft guidelines for type approval of equipment, and for ballast water sampling and analysis that will be used by port state control, so that as far as possible they are comparable with those recently adopted by the United States. 
David Tongue saod: “A large proportion of the fleet will have to comply with the US requirements which cannot be changed.  For the sake of global uniformity we think it would be helpful if the relevant IMO Guidelines can be modified.”
A most important consideration, according to ICS, is that the US standards for type approval of equipment, under its Environmental Verification Program, are far more robust than the IMO equivalent.   Some of the equipment which has already been approved in line with original IMO standards has already had to be withdrawn because it has been demonstrated not to deliver the agreed IMO ‘kill standard’ for removing unwanted marine micro-organisms.    


Post to be found at:
http://www.marinelink.com/news/changes-seeks-avoid346612.aspx

World First in Maritime Industry: NYK Certified GHG Protocol up to 'Scope 3' Standard - NKY Line

Posted July 20, 2012 - NKY Line web page

NYK has received certification (assurance statement) from a third-party certifier that attests that NYK reports and discloses accurate numerical values regarding the data for greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions collected from NYK Group companies, after having performed calculations that meet the framework of Scope 1, 2, and even 3 of the GHG Protocol¹ — the international standards for accounting and reporting GHG emissions. This is the first time in the maritime industry that data collection, calculation, and reporting in line with Scope 3 have been certified by a third-party certifier and received the certification.

 

LRQA Japan,² a third-party certifier, checked NYK's GHG data for compliance with ISO14064³ standards and the Corporate Value Chain (Scope 3) Accounting and Reporting Standard, and confirmed the credibility of the data. The GHG Protocol defines three scopes of GHG emissions: Scope 1 targeting direct GHG emissions from sources that are owned or controlled by a company; Scope 2 targeting indirect GHG emissions for consumption of purchased energy; and Scope 3⁴ targeting indirect GHG emissions generated through the total value (supply) chain from purchasing, transport, to disposal of materials and services required for the company’s business activities.

 

The NYK Group has been aware that the need to respond to Scope 3 as a trend for data certification will be globally expanded. Thus, NYK reviewed its business activities of maritime and air cargo transport from life cycle assessment (LCA)⁵ perspectives, and started monitoring and reducing CO₂ emissions from a wider framework, by positioning it as an NYK value chain where the group provides its services. Specifically, from this fiscal year, NYK is involved in activities to monitor and reduce CO₂ emissions generated not only at the time when vessels and air freighters are operated as transport means, but also at the time when vessels and air freighters are manufactured, as well as when ship and jet fuels are refined.

 

By 2015, NYK aims to reduce CO₂ emissions, the main GHG, generated from NYK’s operating vessels by 10 percent in basic units compared with 2010. NYK — including its group companies — is thus involved in the reduction of fuel usage in the operation of its vessels, air freighters, and land vehicles in daily business activities. Moreover, initiatives to reduce electricity consumption are proactively implemented at all NYK offices. In addition, targeting 69 companies in Japan and 114 overseas companies by using its proprietary systems, NYK collects and totals the monthly numerical values for fuel consumed during transport, as well as the electricity, gas, steam, and water used at each office—including waste materials. Using this data, NYK draws up charts of monthly trends and provides feedback to each company, thus enabling employees to understand trends.

 

Against a backdrop of a global trend for monitoring and calculating data on environmental loads in line with international standards, and to meet requests from customers and related groups/organizations, NYK will promote data monitoring and disclosure throughout the group, and reinforce the corporate stance to reduce its environmental load.

 

The NYK Group strives to pursue environmental conservation and preserve biodiversity to attain a sustainable society.

 

1 GHG Protocol

A globally used international guideline and standard for accounting and reporting greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. GHG Protocol Initiatives, which have developed a methodology for the GHG Protocol, started in 1998 as cooperative activities by stakeholders including global companies, NPOs, and government organizations, centering on the World Resources Institute (WRI) — a U.S. think tank — and the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) that comprises 170 companies around the world. The GHG Initiatives develop accounting and reporting methodologies for GHG emitted by organizations (companies), including those in consideration of a life cycle assessment (LCA).⁵

 

2 LRQA Japan

A Japanese subsidiary of Lloyd’s Register Quality Assurance (LRQA) that was established in the United Kingdom in 1985 by a 100 percent investment by Lloyd’s Register, and was certified as the first third-party certification organization in the country. LRQA Japan verifies environment management systems for the NYK Group’s 49 companies and 122 offices in Japan and overseas (as of June 2012), and issues certifications for ISO 14001 to individual companies and offices.

 

3 ISO14064

A comprehensive environmental standard published by the International Organization for Standardization, and a requirement to quantify mainly GHG emissions and absorptions

 

4 See the table below for details of NYK's compliance with Scope 1 to 3

	Remarks	Sample objects for calculation
Scope 1	Sources of manageable direct emissions GHG emissions through the company’s own activities at owned facilities, such as fuel usage	l         CO2 emissions from fuels (city gas, heavy oil, light oil, gasoline, etc.)
Scope 2	Sources of manageable indirect emissions Among GHG emissions by energy consumption, those generated by purchased electricity, heat (steam/hot and cold water)	l         CO2 emissions from power companies in electricity usage, and CO2 emissions by regional heat suppliers in the usage of steam, and hot and cold water
Scope 3	Indirect emissions through a company’s value chain apart from Scope 2 GHG emissions through the value chain, including purchasing raw materials and products required for business operations, and product transport and services to offer	l         CO2 emissions resulting from commuting and business trips by NYK employees; at the time of the manufacture of vessels and air freighters; and at the time of refining bunker and jet fuels l         CO2 emissions attributed to the production and transport of raw materials l         CO2 emissions attributed to additional product fabrication at the destination where products are delivered and sold. l         CO2 emissions in line with employees' commuting and business trips

 

5 Life Cycle Assessment

To clarify and access the environmental load in each stage from production ??usage (vessel operation) ?to disposal of materials and services provided

 

http://www.nyk.com/english/release/dbps_data/_material_/NYKCOM_ENGLISH/NYK_Assurance_statement_PC_dmz_mk_PC1.pdf

Post at::
http://www.nyk.com/english/release/1964/NE_120720_2.html

Hawaii Shippers Council: New Bunker Surcharge for Low Sulfur Fuel - Pacific News Center | Sorenson Media Group

Posted - Thursday, 26 July 2012 13:46 - Pacific News Center | Sorenson Media Grou

Honolulu, Hawaii - The Hawaii Shippers Council is advising that shipping lines are expected to adjust their bunker surcharges in coming weeks to account for the higher cost of low sulfur fuel that they are required to use in the "emission control area" (ECA) within 200 miles of the U.S. and Canada coasts.

The Coast Guard will begin enforcing a requirement that ships burn 1 percent sulfur fuel on Aug. 1.
Worldwide, ships can burn fuel with as much as 3.5 percent sulfur, though there is also an ECA off the coast in the Baltic and North Sea.
READ the news letter from the Hawaii Shippers Council below:
[The Hawaii Shippers Council (HSC) is a business league organization incorporated in 1997 to represent cargo interests – known as “shippers” – who tender goods for shipment in the Hawaii trade]
New Bunker Surcharge for Low Sulfur Fuel

Dear Friends,

Shippers get ready for a brand new bunker surcharge on ocean freight to cover the additional costs to be incurred by carriers switching to low sulfur ship fuels as required by an international convention, which the United States Senate has not ratified but is being imposed anyway by President Obama’s administration beginning on August 1, 2012.

The American Shipper Magazine reports that one of the world’s largest container shipping companies, Mediterranean Shipping Company (MSC), has announced it will impose a low sulfur surcharge on all international shipments in and out of U.S. ports.  MSC’s new low sulfur bunker surcharge will be an additional $12 per 20-foot container and $24 per 40-foot container for cargo moving through Canadian and U.S. West Coast ports.

That’s probably a very good guide to the level of new bunker fuel charges that will inevitably be levied in the domestic Alaska, Guam and Hawaii trades by the Jones Act container carriers operating therein.

The American Shipper further reported that The International Chamber of Shipping has been “expressing concern for some time about whether sufficient fuel will be available to allow ships to comply with strict International Maritime Organization regulations aimed at reducing sulfur emissions and whether, as result of insufficient supply, the costs for those ships which are able to obtain the required fuels might be prohibitively expensive."

In response to imposition of this impending new requirement, the State of Alaska under the leadership of Governor Sean R. Parnell (R) sued the federal government in the person of Secretary of State Hillary R. Clinton in federal district court on July 13, 2012, asserting that enforcement of the North American Emissions Control Area (ECA) lowering the allowed maximum sulfur content for bunker fuel from 3.5% to 1% within the 200 mile Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) limits is unconstitutional. (See North American ECA  http://www.epa.gov/nonroad/marine/ci/420f10015.htm )

The 1% sulfur requirement means that the shipowners will have to switch from lower cost and higher energy content residual intermediate fuel oils (IFO) to much higher cost distillate fuels – which are akin to diesel road fuel and called marine diesel oil (MDO) – for the typical modern motor ship.

The Alaska lawsuit alleges “low-sulfur fuel is more expensive, and more difficult to obtain, than the fuel currently used by many marine vessels operating in the waters off the coast of Alaska . . . . . requiring the use of low-sulfur fuel in the ECA will greatly increase operating costs for vessels that supply Alaska’s residents with basic necessities, and for cruise ships that facilitate Alaska’s tourism industry. Enforcement of the ECA will therefore have an immediate and adverse effect on Alaska’s citizens and economy.”

Alaska further claims “the extension of the ECA to Alaska was unlawful because two-thirds of the U.S. Senate did not consent to that extension as required by the U.S. Constitution. Under the Constitution’s Treaty Clause, a treaty cannot bind the U.S., and is not enforceable as domestic law, unless two-thirds of the Senate give advice and consent to the treaty.”

The treaty in question is Annex Vi of the International Convention to Prevent Pollution by Ships (MARPOL) which is administered by the International Maritime Organization (IMO), a specialist agency of the United Nations based in London, U.K.   The Protocol of 1997 (MARPOL Annex VI) was adopted in 1997 and entered into force on May 19, 2005. (See http://www.imo.org/ourwork/environment/pollutionprevention/airpollution/pages/the-protocol-of-1997-(marpol-annex-vi).aspx)

U.S. implementation of MARPOL Annex VI is through the U.S. Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships, 33 U.S.C. §§ 1901 et seq.  The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) through a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) of June 27, 2011 will jointly enforce U.S. and international air pollution requirements for vessels operating in U.S. waters.  These requirements establish limits on nitrogen oxides (NOx) emissions and require the use of fuel with lower sulfur content with the most stringent requirements applying to ships operating within 200 nautical miles of the coast of North America.  (See http://www.epa.gov/oecaerth/civil/caa/annexvi-mou.html )

Former USCG Captain and maritime attorney Dennis L. Bryant in his Bryant’s Maritime Consulting blog wrote on July 17, 2012,  “the MARPOL Convention (as approved by a two-thirds majority of the Senate) includes a tacit or presumptive consent provision whereby amendments to Annexes to the Convention are presumed to be approved by the party states unless a party state affirmatively objects. For example, the United States affirmatively objected to Regulations 13F and 13G of MARPOL Annex I (relating to alternatives to double hulls on oil tankers) when those regulations were proposed. Therefore, those regulations did not come into force for the United States. It would appear that the constitutionality claim in the Alaska complaint will fail based on tacit consent.” ( See http://brymar-consulting.com/?p=22884 )

That is because the Obama Administration chose not to submit MARPOL Annex VI to  the U.S. Senate for ratification, the governing treaty provisions presume that without a Senate vote that actually defeats the new Protocol of 1997, it becomes effective under U.S. law.

Given Hawaii’s tradewind climate in the middle of the Pacific Ocean it’s not clear that the new low sulfur fuel requirements for ships will benefit the Islands’ environment any more than Alaskans think it will theirs, so perhaps a new U.S. administration would chose to submit MARPOL Annex VI to the U.S. Senate for ratification, and that future Senate would see fit to reject it.

Best regards.

Michael N. Hansen
President
Hawaii Shippers Council
 
Post at:
http://www.pacificnewscenter.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=25804:hawaii-shippers-council-new-bunker-surcharge-for-low-sulfur-fuel&catid=45:guam-news&Itemid=156

Shipping Urges Global Approach To Taxing Carbon - Tax-News.com

Posted - 26 July 2012 - by Ulrika Lomas, Tax-News.com, Brussels

The Chairman of the International Chamber of Shipping (ICS), the international trade association which represents 80% of the world merchant fleet, has reiterated in a letter to the head of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) that any tax on shipping emissions must be imposed by all nations, and should be agreed through the International Maritime Organization (IMO) at a level commensurate to the industry's contribution to global emissions.
In a letter to IMF Managing Director, Christine Lagarde, which was recently made public, ICS Chairman, Masamichi Mooroka, warned against new market-based carbon reduction measures for the shipping industry while economic conditions are depressed, and while a method to apply a fiscal mechanism on emissions has yet to be agreed.
"The position of the ICS and its member national shipowners’ associations is that if all governments so decide then shipowners, in principle, will have no objection to contributing, at some point in the future, to the Green Climate Fund, or a similar mechanism that might be established by IMO, provided that such money is indeed used for climate change adaptation or mitigation, and that the same charges apply to all ships internationally regardless of flag," Mooroka wrote.
However, he underscored that, "market-based measures are very controversial and most shipowners believe, given the severely depressed state of global shipping markets, that now is certainly not the time to impose an additional major cost on international shipping".
"Any contribution by shipping must be proportionate to shipping's share of total global emissions (less than 3%) and the forum where the details of such a mechanism should be developed is the IMO," he asserted.
The letter responds to comments made by Lagarde in a recent speech which touched on the challenges of meeting climate change targets. In her speech, she called for nations to speed efforts towards the introduction of a fiscal mechanism to apply a price to the environmental damage that their industries cause.
Lagarde suggested the shipping and aviation industries could raise about a quarter of the USD100bn needed to meet climate change mitigation objectives in developing nations by 2020 - resources that developed countries have committed to mobilize under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change Green Climate Fund.
She noted however, that countries which have adopted carbon pricing mechanisms are "only at 'base camp' in terms of getting the prices right. Right now, less than 10% of worldwide greenhouse gas emissions are covered by formal pricing programs," she said.
However, Mooroka warned that if changes were introduced as an extension of the Kyoto Protocol it would likely create significant distortions to competition between nations included in Annex I of the Kyoto Protocol (those that have committed to reduce output of polluting gases), and non-Annex I nations (mainly developing nations that have not agreed a legally-binding commitment).
"If any carbon changes were only to apply to ships registered in Kyoto Protocol nations, these ships would be at a major competitive disadvantage to ships registered in Annex I nations. Because of the serious market distortion that would be created, many of these ships would simply change their flag to a jurisdiction where the carbon charge did not apply," Mooroka's letter states.
"For any carbon charges to be acceptable to the international maritime community, it is important to understand that the IMO principle of uniform global rules for shipping will have to be reconciled with the UNFCCC principle of Common but Differentiated Responsibility. This is why the negotiations with respect to shipping that are taking place at IMO and at UNFCCC are so complicated," he adds.
Concluding, Mooroka wrote: "I wish to stress that the shipping industry is committed to playing its part in further reducing its CO2 emissions. We fully support the IMO agreement on technical measures which will help shipping achieve its goal of significantly reducing emissions. We are also participating constructively in the international negotiations about a possible market-based measure that might apply to international shipping. However, it is vital for all concerned to recognize the global character of the shipping industry which transports about 90% of world trade. The application of any carbon charges to shipping, without causing serious market distortion or impeding the smooth flow of world trade, is a very complex matter."


Post to be found at:
http://www.tax-news.com/news/Shipping_Urges_Global_Approach_To_Taxing_Carbon____56487.html

Port authorities urged to monitor waste disposal - ippmedia.com

Posted - 26th July 2012 - By Beatrice Philemon - ippmedia.com

Port authorities have been urged to recruit qualified administrative and legal staff and competent inspectors to prevent importation and dumping of hazardous chemicals and wastes in the country.

This was revealed recently by Jean Claude, former Director of the Marine Environment Division of International Maritime Organization (IMO) at during a workshop on Capacity Building for control and Management of Hazardous chemicals and Wastes.
He said the port should have sufficiently qualified and experienced surveyors and inspectors, to carry out qualified investigation and prosecution and to manage hazardous chemicals and wastes within the country.

He said there was need for Tanzanian ports to know that as a port, before hazardous chemicals were allowed to enter the country, their treatment and disposal place of the wastes should be known.

“As a port you need to receive things or chemicals from overseas that you can handle. If you can’t handle them don’t receive them,” he noted.
He said many people in developing countries including Tanzania are at a high risk to various forms of contamination from hazardous wastes and such exposures often lead to chronic or acute disease. These interfere in their contribution to economic activities and thus increasing poverty levels.
He pointed out that special training and tools are needed to ensure the staffs do their job effectively and in a sustainable manner.

 “Our focus was just to prevent hazardous chemicals and wastes from being dumped in the country as well as protect human health and the environment in areas where it is used,” he noted He said port authorities should have licensed service providers who will collect waste, noting that they should understand what procedures they have to follow to effectively carry out the work.

Elaborating he said port authorities must develop a wastes management plan in consultation with the relevant parties such as ministry of environment, relevant administrations and agencies as well as port users or their representatives and operators.

On monitoring, control, and follow up, port authorities should collect data on maritime traffic and ship-generated waste cargo residue as well as monitor and evaluate the performances of the waste operators.

http://www.ippmedia.com/frontend/index.php?l=44083

Court Upholds Sulfur Dioxide Standards - Texas Clean Air Matters

Posted - 25 Jul 2012 08:04 AM PDT - By Elena Craft, PhD - Texas Clean Air Matters

Thanks to last week’s federal appeals court decision, the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) health-based air quality standards for sulfur dioxide (SO2) will stand firm.
These National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for SO2 will improve health protections, especially for children, the elderly and individuals with asthma.
EDF Attorney Peter Zalzal praised the decision saying it “strongly affirms that EPA’s clean air protections addressing dangerous sulfur dioxide are firmly grounded in science and the law.”
EDF, along with the American Lung Association and attorneys at Earthjustice, intervened in a lawsuit to defend the standard against attacks from large industrial sources and several states. In rejecting the petitioners’ claims that this new SO2 standard is too stringent, the court noted “[t]he quotations [relied on by petitioners] only support petitioners’ arguments when taken out of their original context.”
The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) expressed support of EPA’s new standards for SO2 emissions via comments released in February 2010. Though TCEQ recommended that results of “human data” should be weighted more than that of epidemiological studies and also noted concern for resources needed to follow the ruling, they stood firm with the EPA’s SO2 regulations.
Despite the TCEQ backing of EPA’s new SO2 standards, the State of Texas challenged the rule, citing concerns for how epidemiological and other health-related data was chosen and weighed, along with the necessity of computer modeling that would be needed for implementation.
The unanimous three-judge panel rejected that EPA "arbitrarily" chose epidemiological studies to warrant a tougher SO2 standard, as suggested by the petitioners.  Texas, in particular, has sued the federal government 17 times and the EPA at least six times in the last two years, not including this most recent challenge of the SO2 rule.
The Court also declined to hear other arguments on the grounds that they did not represent the agency’s final decision concerning implementation of the SO2 standards.
The power plant industry releases the largest emissions of SO2, a highly reactive, toxic gas considered a precursor to particulate pollution and a huge public health concern.
Friday’s victory ensures that these public health measures will remain in place, providing American families with protections against harmful, short-term SO2 exposures.


Post to be found at:
https://mail.google.com/mail/?tab=wm#inbox/138c39824bffd159

Graig Takes Delivery of Fuel-Efficient, Reduced Emissions Bulker - Ship & Bunker World News

Posted - July 25, 2012 -  Ship & Bunker World News

Shipping firm Graig Group said in a press release that on July 17, 2012 it took delivery of the first of two 35,000 dwt fuel-efficient handysize Bulk Carriers.
The Graig Cardiff which was built at Jiangdong Shipyard, Wu Hu, China and is owned by Graig Group's Graig Shipping Plc and partners, has entered into the Lauritzen Bulkers pool.
The firm said its sister ship Graig Rotterdam "is due for delivery later this year."
According to marine specialists Marine Power Ltd., the goal of the bulkers' Seahorse 35 "Green ship of the future" design was to create a vessel with less resistance, lower fuel consumption, and reduced emissions.
Design focus elements included economical and efficient operation, and environmental friendliness and maintenance incorporating all existing and known future regulations.
A fuel switching system allows the vessel to change from heavy fuel oil to low sulfur fuels.

According to the press release, both vessels have been constructed under the supervision of Graig China Limited and will be managed by Graig’s ship management divisions in Cardiff and Shanghai operating with a full Chinese crew.

Post to be found at:
http://shipandbunker.com/news/world/922589-graig-takes-delivery-of-fuel-efficient-reduced-emissions-bulker

Update On North American Emission Control Area Enforcement And Fuel Availability Guidance - Mondaq

Posted - July 24, 2012 - Mondqa - Article by Jeanne M. Grasso , Jonathan K. Waldron and Dana S. Merkel 

New Development

Enforcement of the North American Emission Control Area ("ECA") begins August 1, 2012. All vessels subject to MARPOL, with certain exceptions, will be required to utilize fuel oil with a sulfur content not exceeding 1.00% (10,000 ppm) while operating in the North American ECA or install and use an equivalent compliance method approved by its flag State. Recent Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") guidance provides insight on EPA's intentions with regard to addressing ECA compliant fuel oil availability. The following is a summary of the key enforcement guidance and EPA's guidance on fuel oil availability.

Background

The North American ECA was established in 2009 pursuant to Annex VI of the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships ("MARPOL"), which is implemented domestically through the Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships ("APPS"). The North American ECA encompasses most of the United States and Canada's coastal waters out to 200 nautical miles from the coastline. It does not include the Pacific U.S. territories, smaller Hawaiian Islands, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands, the Aleutian Islands and Western Alaska, and the U.S. and Canadian Arctic. In 2011, the U.S. Caribbean ECA was established and includes the waters adjacent to the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands out to approximately 50 nautical miles from the coastline. However, the U.S. Caribbean ECA requirements will not be enforceable until January 2014. 

Further information regarding creation of the North American and U.S. Caribbean ECAs may be found in our previous advisories: " United States and Canada Propose 200 Nautical Mile 'Emission Control Area' Under MARPOL Annex VI"; " EPA Finalizes Emissions Standards for Category 3 Marine Diesel Engines and Implements North American ECA"; and " Update on Compliance Requirements – EPA's Vessel General Permit and MARPOL Annex VI."

ECA Requirements

All vessels subject to MARPOL operating within the North American ECA, with limited exceptions, will be required to use fuel oil with a sulfur limit not exceeding 1.00% (10,000 ppm). In the alternative, vessels may install and use equivalent methods that are approved by its flag State in accordance with MARPOL Annex VI Regulation 4 and 40 C.F.R. § 1043.55, such as an exhaust gas cleaning device. On January 1, 2015, the sulfur limit will be further reduced to 0.10% (1,000 ppm).

In addition, marine diesel engines on vessels constructed on or after January 1, 2016 will be required to have Tier III NOx after-treatment controls when operating within an ECA. The after-treatment controls must meet a NOx emission limit of 3.4 grams per kilowatt hour for engines operating below 130 revolutions per minute ("rpm") and 2.0 grams per kilowatt hour for engines operating above 2,000 rpm. Engines running between 130 and 2,000 rpm will be required to meet NOx limits on a sliding scale.

Vessels operating in the North American ECA will also be required to meet certain requirements to demonstrate compliance with ECA standards, including:

• Bunker delivery notes on vessels 400 gross tons or more;
• Representative fuel oil samples, taken at the time of delivery;
• Written fuel changeover procedures establishing how and when fuel oil changeover is to be done to comply with ECA requirements; and
• A fuel changeover logbook, which includes the date, time, and position of the ship when the changeover is completed, as well as the volume of compliant fuel oil in each tank.

Coast Guard/EPA Enforcement

On June 27, 2011, the U.S. Coast Guard and EPA entered into a Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU") setting forth the terms by which the Coast Guard and EPA will cooperate in connection with compliance and enforcement of MARPOL Annex VI, as implemented by APPS. Both the Coast Guard and EPA have the authority and responsibility under APPS for fuel oil quality and availability. The MOU provides that EPA will verify compliance with fuel oil availability and quality and maintain a register of local fuel oil suppliers. The Coast Guard will examine bunker delivery notes and records during its routine port State control inspections. The two agencies will share information about inspections, examinations, and investigations. In addition, EPA may, either on its own or at the Coast Guard's request, attend or assist with flag State and port State control inspections. When a violation is suspected, the agency with the relevant expertise will investigate. The Coast Guard and EPA must mutually agree on which agency will initiate enforcement action.

Also on June 27, 2011 the Coast Guard and EPA issued a joint letter to industry as a reminder of MARPOL Annex VI and ECA requirements. The letter explains that violation of such requirements may result in criminal liability for knowing violations or a civil penalty of up to $25,000 per day of violation, with each day the violation continues constituting a separate offense. The Coast Guard previously published CG-543 Policy Letter 09-01 (February 4, 2009), on MARPOL Annex VI compliance guidelines.

Further information regarding the MOU may be found in our previous advisory: " Update on Compliance Requirements—EPA's Vessel General Permit and MARPOL Annex VI."  In addition, the MOU may be found at http://www.epa.gov/oecaerth/civil/caa/annexvi-mou.html" target=blank, the joint letter to industry may be found at http://www.epa.gov/oecaerth/resources/agreements/caa/jointletter062711.pdf, and the Coast Guard Policy letter at http://www.epa.gov/nonroad/marine/ci/cgpol0901.pdf.

 ECA Compliant Fuel Oil Availability

EPA expects that ECA compliant fuel oil will be available from fuel oil suppliers serving vessels that operate in the North American ECA, particularly as it has reportedly been available for vessels operating in North Sea and Baltic ECAs since July 2010. Recognizing, however, that it is possible some vessels may not be able to obtain ECA compliant fuel prior to entering the North American ECA, EPA published "Interim Guidance on the Non-Availability of Compliant Fuel Oil for the North American Emission Control Area" on June 26, 2012 to describe how vessels can make fuel oil non-availability notifications. The guidance may be found at: http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/policies/civil/caa/mobile/finalfuelavailabilityguidance-0626.pdf.

Best Efforts

Vessels are required to make "best efforts" to obtain ECA compliant fuel prior to entering the North American ECA. When it is expected that a vessel will enter the North American ECA, the vessel owners and operators must take care in voyage planning to ensure that reasonable efforts are made to obtain ECA compliant fuel oil at every port along the intended voyage. Vessels are not required to deviate from their intended voyage to obtain ECA compliant fuel oil. However, having to change berths or anchor within a port to receive compliant fuel oil is not considered a deviation.

EPA also does not require vessels to use a fuel oil with viscosity less than 11 centistokes to meet the sulfur standards. Although EPA stated that it does "expect distillate fuels of various grades to be used as blending agents" to produce an ECA compliant fuel oil blend, EPA does not require vessels to blend their own ECA compliant fuel oil blend onboard. Thus, owners and operators are not expected to purchase distillate fuel to meet ECA fuel oil requirements.

If a vessel is unable to obtain ECA compliant fuel oil prior to entering the North American ECA, it must ensure that it obtains the lowest sulfur fuel oil available prior to entering the North American ECA. It must also obtain compliant fuel oil at the first U.S. port-of-call at which it is available in a sufficient quantity to allow it to complete its voyage in the North American ECA. Furthermore, if the vessel, owner, or operator is aware that the vessel will be returning to the North American ECA in the future and likely will not be able to obtain ECA compliant fuel oil prior to re-entering, the vessel must obtain a sufficient quantity of compliant fuel oil from a U.S. port-of-call to make the return trip. 

Unavailability

If, despite best efforts, a vessel is unable to obtain ECA compliant fuel oil prior to entering the North American ECA, the owner or operator of the vessel must notify the Coast Guard and the vessel's flag Administration before entering the North American ECA. Notification should be made to the Coast Guard Sector at the vessel's U.S. port of destination. Notification should also be made to EPA via e-mail at marine-eca@epa.gov. 

In addition, the owner or operator should submit a Fuel Oil Non-Availability Report as soon as it becomes aware that it will not be able to procure and use ECA compliant fuel oil in the North American ECA, but in any event no later than 96 hours prior to entering the North American ECA. Fuel Oil Non-Availability Reports are not required; however, they should be submitted if the owner or operator wants the EPA to consider its efforts to obtain ECA compliant fuel when determining what enforcement action to take in response to a violation. The filing of a Fuel Oil Non-Availability Report does not mean a vessel is deemed in compliance with MARPOL Annex VI. However, the EPA will review the information provided in the report and will consider the following in determining whether to impose a penalty:

• Whether the sulfur content of the fuel used was the lowest sulfur available at the time of purchase and along the vessel's intended voyage;
• Whether the vessel obtained ECA compliant fuel oil at its first port call in the United States and continued to use ECA compliant fuel oil for the remainder of its voyage in the North American ECA;
• How many Fuel Oil Non-Availability Reports have been previously filed;
• Whether owners or operators of other vessels on similar voyages submitted Fuel Oil Non-Availability Reports; and
• Any other relevant factors.

The EPA is in the process of creating an electronic system to receive Fuel Oil Non-Availability Reports. Prior to implementation of an electronic system, the reports should be sent to marine-eca@epa.gov.

Conclusion

Owners and operators with vessels that operate in the North American ECA should review the MARPOL Annex VI requirements and applicable Coast Guard and EPA compliance guidelines, including the recently published guidance on ECA compliant fuel oil availability, to help ensure compliance in light of the August 1, 2012 enforcement date.

 
Post  to be found at:
http://www.mondaq.com/404.asp?404;http://www.mondaq.com:80/unitedstates/x/188278/Marine+Shipping/Update+On+North+American+Emission+Control+Area+Enforcement+And+Fuel+Availability+Guidance&login=true

ICS Presses for Early IMO Study Into Availability of Low Sulfur Fuel - Maritime Executive

Posted - Monday, July 23, 2012 - Maritime Executive

Low sulfur switch will have billion dollar implications says ICS

The International Chamber of Shipping (ICS), whose 36 member national shipowners’ associations represent all sectors and trades and more than 80% of the world merchant fleet, has called on the International Maritime Organization (IMO) to accelerate a critical study into the global availability of low sulphur fuel for ships.

ICS has been expressing concern for some time about whether sufficient fuel will be available to allow ships to comply with strict IMO regulations aimed at reducing sulphur emissions and whether, as result of insufficient supply, the costs for those ships which are able to obtain the required fuels might be prohibitively expensive.
In an important submission to the IMO Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC), which meets in October, ICS is once again pressing IMO to start work now on a study that can consider the impact all of the major changes required by the new MARPOL regime, before it is too late for the oil refining industry to respond and invest.
There is already a formal mechanism in MARPOL Annex VI for IMO to complete a review, by 2018, of progress made towards meeting the demand for 0.5% sulphur fuel that must be used globally outside of Emission Control Areas (ECAs) by 2020 or 2025. However, ICS stresses that the enormity of the switch to distillate and its economic impact on shipping should not be underestimated.

ICS Secretary General, Peter Hinchliffe said: “Governments will surely want to avoid any perception that a blind eye has been turned to the practical implementation of the measures as the issue of fuel availability becomes increasingly pressing. It is essential that a global fuel availability study is carried out sufficiently in advance of 2020 in order to give the refiners adequate time to invest and react. The major refinery upgrading required could take a minimum four or five years, perhaps longer, and we fear that completing the study in 2018 would simply be too late.”
He added: “The need to move forward the IMO study is more important than ever now that the European Union has signalled that it will definitely implement the 0.5% requirements in 2020, even if the IMO study results suggest, as permitted by MARPOL, that full implementation should be postponed until 2025 to ensure the availability of sufficient quantities of compliant fuel.”
In its submission to IMO, ICS has suggested that a preliminary IMO study of the availability of compliant fuel, taking into account the introduction of the 0.1% sulphur in fuel requirements to be used in the Baltic Sea, North Sea and the North American ECAs in 2015, would provide a suitable test case. Such a study would provide a projection of possible scenarios resulting from the introduction of the 2015 0.1% ECA standard, against the background of the world market. This could then be considered in comparison with the real situation encountered in 2015.
Mr Hinchliffe emphasised: “When the global requirement to switch to distillate was adopted four years ago, ICS supported the agreed IMO timetable as an acceptable compromise. But if the switch to low sulphur fuel is to be successful, those governments that advocated such ambitious goals need to do everything possible to help ensure that the refineries are able to deliver. We strongly believe this means undertaking the required studies of fuel availability as soon as possible.”
Fuel is by far the largest operational cost for shipowners and has already increased in price by about 300% since 2000. However, the current 50% price differential between low sulphur distillate and the residual fuel oil that is currently in use is predicted to increase further if the new demand that will be created by the MARPOL requirements is not matched by increased supply. (Exhaust gas cleaning systems or ‘scrubbers’ have been predicted to cost in excess of US$2 million per engine if fitted on board larger ships. However, it is still unclear whether these will be technically, environmentally, or economically viable for use on a widespread basis before the 2015 or 2020 deadlines).

---

ICS Paper MEPC 64 - 'Ensuringavailability of fuels compliant with MARPOL Annex VI by 2020'

Timetable for new limits to sulphur content in ships’ fuel agreed by IMO (2008 amendment to MARPOL Annex VI):

2010 - Emission Control Area ( ECA ) limit reduced to 1%
(from 1.5%)

2012 - Global limit reduced to 3.5% (from 4.5%)

2015 - ECA limit reduced to 0.1%

2020 - Global limit to 0.5% but a review in 2018, with authority to delay implementation, will determine whether this is achievable.

2025 - Global limit to 0.5% notwithstanding the result of the 2018 review.

http://www.maritime-executive.com/article/ics-presses-for-early-imo-study-into-availability-of-low-sulfur-fuel

Emissions control function added to distance tables - Digital Ship

Posted - July 20, 2012 - Digital Ship

AtoBviaC has launched a new Port to Port - Online version of the BP Shipping Marine Distance Tables, offering the user the ability to calculate both SECA (Sulphur Emission Control Area) distances and distances in the North America ECA (Emission Control Area).

From 1 August 2012, for vessels operating within the North American ECA, the sulphur content of fuel oil used on board must not exceed 1.00 per cent.

“Our research has shown that it is rarely cost effective or practical to avoid these routes entirely,” said Captain Trevor Hall, director of AtoBviaC.

“It is, however, essential to accurately calculate in advance the impact on vessel operating costs and to identify where a slight adjustment of route will avoid unnecessary incursion into an ECA.”

“We have implemented SECA distance calculations into our distance table matrix from the time the various control areas came into effect, but with only a few weeks to go until implementation of the North American ECA, ship operators need to be aware they are on a countdown to unexpected costs if they do not make the correct provision for the additional fuel costs they will incur.”

The introduction of this new product also sees the launch of a new interface which uses Microsoft's Silverlight technology. Working on a Windows PC or an Apple Mac, it now incorporates a purchasing structure which enables the user to purchase a block of distances.

Also available is a route scanning function, which provides the user with distances within the various SECAs and ECAs and distances within Load Line Zones via marine information map overlays.

All voyage reports and maps can be saved and exported in PDF and spreadsheet formats.

Post to be found at:
http://www.thedigitalship.com/conferences/2006/displaynews.asp?NewsID=2250

Zero emissions are the new goal, but the dispute about who shoulders the environmental burden rumbles on. Martin Rushmere reports - Port Strategy

Posted - July 19, 2012 - Port Strategy

Cost/benefit analysis considerations and the like are out the window in today's emotionally-charged political debate about curbing gas emissions and improving air quality at ports.
Politicians and regulators cartwheel over public indignation and come up with restrictions on emissions that ignore hard-pressed economies.
Port executives mostly shy away from being drawn into discussions about costs, because overriding public opinion decrees that any effort that succeeds in reducing deaths and/or illness is worth price. The result is that, publicly, ports proclaim unconditional support but in private are more realistic and base emission reduction plans on the assumption that private partners will be involved and/or help from government grants.
Coupled with this are arguments about the main sources of emissions. In no way can ports themselves be cited as the main culprits. That position continues to be held by vessels and heavy vehicles - the fixed assets in a port (including terminals) emit anything between 2% and 20% of the total. Vessels and vehicles are at least 60%.
So, the ports are telling the carriers to stump up, in no-nonsense terms. Until 2008, carriers were happy to do as much as possible but the subsequent slump has made them nervous. The main reduction method is still cold ironing at berth - and therein lies huge costs. APL in the US reckons that modifying a terminal costs $4m, while the cost for each vessel is $2m. Robert Clark, environmental affairs head at APL, told an environmental conference in Long Beach in February that the 23 years it would take to get back the cost of equipping a terminal "is not very good. We need partnerships."
The carriers have other cost worries, most notably in bunker fuel and ballast water. Maersk says the cost of equipping its vessels with ballast water treatment to IMO standards will eat up $500m.
Shipping line customers are voicing their vexation at Europe's determination to impose 0.1% sulphur in bunker fuel by 2015. Juan Riva Francos, president of the European Community Shipowners' Association, warns that the cost to shipping lines will be at least 70% more, which could end up with 45% of cargo switching from sea to road.
Unfortunately for the carriers, the debate about emissions control has moved on and the talk on the boundaries of the environmental universe now is openly about zero emissions. Los Angeles/Long Beach stake their claim as the most advanced and ambitious in the world in heading down that path.
Reaching the prize at the end of the path is probably not a case of settling the argument of whether the ports or the lines should do more but attaining co-operation between the two sides. Ashebir Jacob, vice-president at Moffatt and Nichol, reckons that a combination of slow steaming (17.5 knots) and 40 quay-crane moves per hour can reduce CO2 emissions by 150,000 tonnes a year and reduce fuel costs by $20/teu (compared with 25 crane moves an hour and a vessel speed of 19.8 knots).
But despite all the technological progress and planning, sudden changes in national policy can throw a spanner into the works. Such has been the case with aviation and the European Union's Emissions Trading Scheme. Payments are due from 2013, and the EU can fine carriers E100 for each tonne of carbon dioxide emitted, which airlines have not offset.
Port executives wince at the thought that a similar measure might be applied to maritime commerce, but do not discount the possibility.
Allied to this is the contentious issue of carbon offsetting. At the moment, this is an unpopular device, but if the economic situation gets worse it could come in for greater consideration.
An indication of this has been given by the company Carbon Positive, which has just issued its Carbon Positive Programme for Ports. Three elements make up the approach - measure, reduce and offset.
While ports are anxious to further the cause of emissions reduction, they are equally keen to make sure that politicians and the public see the full picture of the causes of emissions. "A port is a combination of privately owned assets such as vehicles, ships and companies operating their own assets,” says Meredith Martino, director of Environmental Policy and Advocacy Outreach for the American Association of Port Authorities. "The port itself is responsible for very few emissions."
Also fundamental to the success of emissions reduction is the right balance between incentive and regulation. In the US, incentives are used at the federal level through laws such as the Diesel Emission Reduction Act, which rewards users who achieve set reductions. States such as California are upending this approach through an "or else" policy that slaps on heavy penalties for failure to comply, even though the technology has still to be developed.
The two ports of the San Pedro Bay in Southern California may well be justified in claiming to be the world leaders. And yet their combined throughput is about 13m teu, while Shanghai is more than double that and has this to say about modifying rubber-tyred gantries: "To effectively reduce air emissions from cargo handling equipment, Shanghai Port implemented an RTG electrification programme in 2008 and by 2010, a total of 131 have been retrofitted with electric motors. The result is a reduction of energy consumption by 47% and a 72% reduction of energy consumption costs."
Such a huge exercise in such a short time is an amazing achievement. There have been ports in the Western Hemisphere that have taken more than two years to modify less than 10 RTGs.
For the International Association of Ports and Harbors, emissions control continues to be high on the agenda. Says Geraldine Knatz, IAPH president (and Port of Los Angeles executive director): “IAPH's near-term priorities include encouraging new ports to adopt the Environmental Ship Index, an IAPH WPCI initiative that rewards ships that obtain an environmental score based on its NOx, SOx, and greenhouse gas emissions, and curbing pollution from vessels and port-related operations. Other IAPH projects include developing international guidelines for fuelling ships with liquefied natural gas.”

Post to be found at:
http://www.portstrategy.com/features101/safety-and-security/environment/zero-emissions-is-becoming-the-aim-in-the-environmental-debate

Shipping's Environmental Impact Is Well Regulated By IMO And UNCLOS Should Be Left Alone - Green4Sea

Posted - July 13, 2012 - Green4Sea

There is no shortfall in governance so far as the international regulation of shipping is concerned, which responsibly utilises the excellent facility that the sea provides for international transport - about 90% of world trade is carried by sea.  This is the view of the International Chamber of Shipping (ICS) whose Secretary General, Peter Hinchliffe, took part in a major debate about oceans governance in New York on 13 July.
The ICS Secretary General was addressing an international academic conference on "Developing a New International Architecture for Maritime Policy" organised by the Dräger Foundation and the Earth Institute at Columbia University.  He praised the virtues of the comprehensive regulatory framework developed by the International Maritime Organization (IMO) within the umbrella for oceans governance provided by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).
ICS reported that the number of significant oil spills had decreased from about 23 per year in the 1970s to just three per year during the past 10 years, while the volume of maritime trade had more than tripled during the same period.
"In part this is because IMO environmental regulations are genuinely implemented and enforced on a global basis through a combination of flag state and port state control" said Mr Hinchliffe.

IMO has also developed binding rules to address damage to local ecosystems potentially caused by ship's ballast water, as well as mandatory international rules to reduce sulphur and CO₂ emissions.
He explained that shipping is a global industry requiring a global regulatory framework, not a patchwork of national rules which would bring about chaos, inefficiency and have a negative impact on the smooth flow of world trade, as well as being detrimental to the protection of the oceans.
Speaking just before the New York event, Mr Hinchliffe remarked that because of the delicate balance of rights and responsibilities that exists between flag states, port states and coastal states, the shipping industry is very reluctant to support a fundamental revision of UNCLOS - as has been proposed by sections of the European Commission and some environmentalist NGOs.
Apart from enshrining the principle of global maritime rules, which are vital to the industry, UNCLOS also establishes the right of all nations to freedom of navigation on the high seas and the right of innocent passage in territorial waters.  It also deals with delicate issues such as the rights of all ships to use international straits which are of great strategic importance.
However, because UNCLOS addresses a number of other sensitive issues, not just affecting shipping, ICS believes it is very unlikely that governments would be willing to reopen what is a delicately balanced package.
"Shipping has a hundred years' experience of international governance of its activities, and we would question any suggestion that UNCLOS is no longer fit for purpose, at least so far as the regulation of shipping is concerned," he said.
Mr Hinchliffe suggested that if there were concerns about other areas of oceans governance, lessons could be learned by other sectors from the shipping industry's global regulator, IMO, whose successful MARPOL Convention is enforced and implemented by 150 Flag States covering 99% of the world fleet.
He pointed out: "Unlike many other activities involving the oceans, shipping is probably unique in having a specialist UN agency to regulate our activities - the International Maritime Organization.  We have experience of many intergovernmental organisations that impact on our industry.  But through ICS's participation at every IMO Committee meeting, we know that IMO is actually a model of efficiency, made up of experts from virtually every government in the world, who develop and adopt very complex regulations directly relevant to the protection of the marine environment."

Post to be found at:
http://www.green4sea.com/page/12368/3/shipping-s--environmental-impact-is-well-regulated--by-imo-and-unclos-should-be-

Aritime Air Emissions Pdf - Download Owners Manual PDF and other good information

Aritime Air Emissions Pdf - Download Owners Manual PDF
aritime air emissions pdf contents introduction 2 maritime emissions legislation current and proposed 3 the marpol annex vi revision process and other ...
www.ownersguidepdf.com/.../aritime-air-emissions-pdf.pdf