Great Lakes Waters

Invasive species are a major concern and IMO is addressing this matter through ballast water regulations. The USA and most Great Lakes states have introduced even more stringent regulations than IMO, all this to preserve the ecosystem of the Great Lakes.

Canada and the US are doing a great job in controlling compliance of the ballast water measures in place, through a joint inspection program of ballast water tanks in ships, before they are allowed to enter the St. Lawrence Seaway System in Montreal. The hope is that no more nuisance species find their way into the worlds largest freshwater system.

While the entry door for foreign invaders is closing on this side, the backdoor in Chicago will remain open for the Asian Carp to enter the Great Lakes and potentially wreak havoc in this ecosystem.

On January 19, 2010 the US supreme court rejected a request by a coalition of US States to force the US Army Corps of Engineers to close the lakeside navigation locks of the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal. One economic argument was to protect the $ 7 Billion annual fishery on the Great Lakes, as this giant leaping fish can upset entire ecosystems.

Dennis Bryant made me aware of Representative Camp's H.R.4472 bill in the US House of Representatives, directing the Secretary of the Army to take action with respect to the Chicago waterway system to prevent the migration of bighead and silver carps into Lake Michigan, and for other purposes.

Maybe there is a chance this back door to Lake Michigan will be closed for invasive species?

Mercury; who would have thunk?

Continuing from yesterday, I learned the following:

I didn't know that coal fired power stations are today's largest emitters of mercury in Canada. According to government data, in 2003, the coal-fired electric power generation emitted an estimated 2,695kg of mercury. Electric power generation (EPG) is the largest single remaining source of mercury emissions in Canada from human activities. Therefore, the Environment Ministers have agreed to set a mercury Canada-wide standard (CWS) for this sector, with the goal of reducing mercury emissions from existing plants and ensuring new plants achieve emission levels based on best available technologies economical achievable, or equivalent.

There are two sets of targets. Provincial caps on mercury emissions for coal-fired EPG representing a 65% reduction by 2010; and the capture rate for new plants based on best technologies, as mentioned above.

A possible second phase of the CWS may explore the capture of 80% or more from coal burned for 2018 and beyond.

I find it interesting that the utilities have a reasonable time frame to lower mercury emissions, whereas the proposed ECA does not afford much time to domestic marine for conversion to cleaner fuels.

North American ECA

I have previously commented on the relatively limited impact a Great Lakes ECA would have on the air quality. I also disagreed with the statement contained in the proposal to IMO that emissions from land based sources had been addressed in Canada and the USA, before addressing marine emissions.

Here is the opening paragraph from "Sulphur Dioxide Controls for Small Utility Boilers" in the most recent "EM" magazine from the Air & Waste Management Association:

"There are more than 420 coal-fired boilers in the United States with capacities from 50 to 300 megawatts (MW) that currently are not equipped with a selective catalytic reduction (SCR) system, for NOx control, a flue gas desulfurization system, or a mercury control system. Many of these boilers, which collectively represent almost 60 gigawatts (GW) of installed capacity, are difficult to retrofit for deep emission reductions, because of space constraints or unfavorable economics of scale. Considering many boilers are over 50 years old, they are increasingly vulnerable to retirement in the face of progressively more stringent environmental regulations."

The installed capacity of these coal fired boilers is equivalent to the total installed power of 10,000 ships with 6MW (8,000HP) installed power! These power stations can meet the Clean Air Act by burning LS coal with S-content of 0.6-1.0%.

With the EPA proposed rulemaking Great Lakes ships will have to burn LS distillate, while some 420 power stations in the USA burn coal without SOx scrubbing!

Global Warming Time Bomb

Some of the papers Dr. James E. Hansen published on global warming heightened my awareness of the problem we, as a society, face.

The IEA in the WEO 2009 suggests that we should make an effort to stabilize atmospheric CO2 at 450ppm by 2030.This morning, when I browsed Jim Hansen's web-page I found a descending view. Hansen in an October presentation to the "Club of Rome Global Assembly 2009" suggests a safe Level of CO2 is <350ppm.

Since IMO is addressing GHG emissions, I thought Hansen's speech might be of interest.

GHG Emissions

Next month the world leaders will gather in Copenhagen to address climate change.

The scientists who believe man-made GHG emissions are a threat to the environment, suggest a safe carbon-dioxide limit in the atmosphere might be around 360 parts per million. Achieving this limit would impact too significantly on our way of living, as we would need to cut back fuel consumption too drastically.

The International Energy Agency released their 2009 World Energy Outlook November 10, 2009. The IEA states that a 450ppm CO2 limit can be achieved by 2030. The 450 scenario would keep the global temperature rise at around 2 Centigrade above pre-industrial levels. The IEA states that to achieve this scenario, fossil-fuel demand would need to peak by 2020 and energy related carbon-dioxide emissions to fall to 26.4 gigatonnes in 2030 from 28.8Gt in 2007.

To achieve this, the IEA estimates cumulative incremental investments of $10.5 trillion is needed in the 450 scenario in low-carbon energy technology and energy efficiencies by 2030. These investments costs would be offset by economic, health and energy-security benefits. On the other hand, each year of delay adds $ 500 billion to mitigation costs between today and 2030.

Measuring Oil Content

Accepting that the term "oil" lacks specificity, we should accept that oil content measured can only be a reference and not a scientific value.

Scientific measurement of hydrocarbons can not be done on line, as it generally requires some kind of extraction method. A scientific instrument would be too complex for marine installation and could not analyze the effluent within the time constraint imposed by MARPOL for bilge water processing.

The solution MARPOL Annex I provides is both practical as well as reasonably accurate,and it prevents pollution from oil.

Since "oil" as used on ships covers quite a range of hydro-carbon chains, as well as oils from various origins, there is currently not one single accurate way to determine oil content expeditiously enough to use for continuous in-situ operation as is required for bilge water. Therefore Annex I does two things, it accepts that oil is a reference term and allows for reference measurement of oil content.

Today there are basically two measuring principles used. One is light scattering, the other fluorescence. None of the meters in use today, old or new, measure oil; they measure the effect of oil in the water on the light used in the analysis.

The "accuracy" of the meters has increased over the years, because IMO changed the reference mixtures used in the approval process, to better mirror real-life-bilge-water.

In the approval process the oil content meter is "calibrated" with simulated bilge water that has a known oil content. The meter is calibrated so that the meter reading corresponds to the ppm level of the sample water. The meter is not calibrated to read the oil, rather the meter is calibrated to the optical effect of the sample water.

That this is understood by the administrations is reflected by the fact that in a port state control situation, the accuracy of the meter is verified by the approved manufacturer's method rather than verification of the hydrocarbon content of the effluent in a lab analysis.

Oil and Regulations

The simple term of "oil" the oil pollution regulations, suggests that the regulations are precise. Actually, they are not, because the term oil lacks specificity.

In the oil pollution regulations, discharge of treated bilge water from machinery spaces is authorized, as long as the effluent quality is better than 5 or 15ppm oil content limit. That suggests something pretty specific, but is it?

Let us first look at "oil", what are we talking about? On a ship we are talking of fuel oil, lube oil, hydraulic oil, etc.

• In fuel oil we have a wide range of hydrocarbon chains, as it is generally a blend of residual with various cutter stocks;
• Lube oil is a complex blend of hydrocarbons plus detergents and additives, required for the job;
• And on goes the list with synthetic oils, bio oils, etc

All this to say that oil is not something defined, it is a summary expression for a range of hydrocarbon chains, meaning from the light fractions all the way to the heavy fractions in the refining process, singularly or in combination.

The absence of specificity on the term oil is not really the problem, the problem comes when attempting applying scientific limits to the determination of the oil content.

To be continued...

USCG and MARPOL Annex I

In 2008 the USCG carried out over 11,500 Port State Control exams. 18% of all deficiencies were related to Marine Pollution, with 69 MARPOL detainable deficiencies. In 2008 the USCG did 12 criminal referrals, the majority of which were MARPOL Annex I related cases. Virtually all USCG districts are represented, and the US Department of Justice handed out fines totaling about $20 million.

That was in 2008. This year the US House of Representative passed a bill allowing for an increase in USCG personnel by 1500 persons. At the same time USCG put in place a policy to improve the level of proficiency of the USCG port state control officer.

The above suggests that the capabilities and efficiencies of US port state control are improving and will continue to do so in the coming years. We suggest that ship owners and managers should look seriously at ensuring their crews are well trained, the records well kept and equipment adequately funded to reduce the risk of a port state incident.

The USCG states that they will not recommend criminal prosecution in case of a pollution incident, unless there is high level corporate involvement or willful blindness by management. USCG sees "willful blindness" in inadequate engine room budgets and spare parts availability.

The USCG has a clear plan on how to find polluters; the US DoJ has a clear perspective on how to deter polluters from polluting again; they are not doing this by the "seat of their pants". Shouldn't you have in place a "compliance management system" for "due diligence"?

The Benefits of Marine Transport

At this year's Global Greenship conference in Washington, DC, Andrew Riester of the Waterways Council, Inc. presented a summary of a paper, which the US National Waterways Foundation had co-sponsored. The Texas Transportation Institute did a "Modal Comparison of Freight Transportation Effects on the General Public", comparing US inland barge traffic with rail and road transport, which I believe can be used as a reference to the Eastern Canadian freight model, consisting of marine, truck ad rail.

According to the study, in the US 14% of intercity freight , valued at nearly $ 70 billion is transported on the inland waterways. I would guess, that the percentage of waterborne transport for Canadian inland waters is in the same range, if not nationally then regionally for the Great lakes St. Lawrence Seaway area.

What the study found was that a shift from marine to land based transport would double traffic on the Interstates and rail tonnage would increase 25%. To drive this point home, a hypothetical case study was done for St. Louis, assuming all marine freight there would shift to truck. In this scenario:

• Highway costs over 10 years would more than double
• Truck traffic on St. Louis Interstates would increase 200%
• Traffic delays would increase by 500%
• Injuries and fatalities on Interstate segments would increase from 36% to 45%
• Maintenance costs would increase 80% to 93%

I am wondering how the proposed ECA, if implemented for the Seaway System, would affect a mode shift from marine to land-based transport. The increase in cost from increased fuel costs will cause some shift in freight traffic from ship to truck or rail. With the traffic density already high on our highways, any additional trucks will cause an:

• Increase in Highway costs in the Windsor - Quebec corridor
• Increase in truck traffic
• Increase in traffic delays
• Increase in fatalities and injuries
• Increase in pollution from accidents

The ultimate question is then, how big is the net benefit of an ECA in the Seaway System?

Global Greenship

MarineLog hosted the Global Greenship conference September 17 & 18, 2009 at the Washington Marriott Hotel. This environmental conference had a number of interesting presentations and covered a wide spectrum of environmental concerns.

Matters discussed were the coming North America ECA (coastal and inland waters) and environmental compliance enforcement from the perspective of the USCG and the US Dept. of Justice. Green issues covered were exhaust gas scrubbing, marine paints, hybrid propulsion, inland barge transport's smaller carbon footprint and the proposed ballast water discharge standards by the USCG.

I was surprised to be the only Canadian at this conference.

EPA's proposed rulemaking

On August 28, 2009 the US EPA posted the proposed rulemaking for ECA compliant air emissions in the internal waters of the USA.

I did not read the full text of the ECA document, but had some e-mail exchanges with a US consultant.

The question I had was in regard to ECA compliance for the St. Lawrence Seaway. As everyone knows, there is no provision for innocent passage in an ECA, the ship has to comply with the ECA requirements. Which for a Canadian ship sailing from Montreal to Lake Ontario means it has to meet with the EPA imposed emission criteria. The implications are that with a rigid ECA application, Canadian ships would need to conform with US emission requirements on internal trade.

Dennis Bryant suggests that there is nothing limiting the EPA from issuing a waiver to Canadian Lakers on the ECA requirements; which would be a nice, neighborly gesture.

The wild card in all of this is the states' liberty to impose more stringent requirements for their waters, as they did in the VGP. The question I have then, could New York void the EPA's waver on ECA compliance for Canadian Lakers by insisting on ECA compliance?

MARPOL Annex I issues

Under current MARPOL regulations, older bilge filtering equipment is "grandfathered". Older ships are permitted to keep existing equipment and are able to repair same, but are required, under resolution MEPC.107(49), to fit new equipment when replacing defective/ non-repairable equipment.

Before MEPC.107(49) was adopted the United States submitted a request for phase-out of existing (older) equipment, requiring the fitting of MEPC.107(49) compliant bilge water treatment system with the next dry-docking of the vessel. This proposal was not adopted, because replacing bilge separators on something like 50,000 ships within a five year span would have been difficult.

It seems the United States keep pushing for this phase out at MEPC meetings, to date it has not been recommended for adoption.

From a practical point of view, the US proposal seems like a mute point. Technical progress and port state control take pretty well care of this matter because:

• Bilge separators (meeting resolution A.393(X) or MEPC.60(33)) can be repaired and do separate oil from water to prevent an oil sheen.
  
• Bilge Alarms A.393(X) compliant have been out of production since 1995; technology has progressed and the after sales market has disappeared, so repair of these units is virtually no longer possible.
• Similarly, the MEPC.60(33) compliant equipment faces the same road to extinction; it's just a matter of a few years before these bilge alarms are no longer repairable.
• By changing older bilge alarms to the MEPC.107(49) compliant unit, the owner (generally) requires an upgrade of the bilge separator to current generation, because the effluent quality from the old coalsecer type separator will not meet the <15>

For ship owners adhering to Green Marine, upgrading to more efficient pollution prevention equipment is one of the criterias to achieve the level of industrial leadership.

The North American ECA

I have to appologize for the speed with which I posted the July 23 blog; I didn't read the whole draft.

The Canada/ USA proposal was endorsed by the "Technical Committee" who found that

• the application met the required guidelines,
  
• the breadth of the ECA was determined through application of the criteria in Appendix II, and was not based or linked to the extent of the EEZ
• approved the proposal to designate an ECA for the coastal waters of the United States and Canada...

My view differs on 2 points. One is that the submission overstates the effort by the proponents in regard to land-based pollution. The other is that the East Coast marine emissions from ships is blown offshore rather than inshore, therefore are based on poor science.

The fact that the most vulnerable area, the Canadian Arctic (north of 60) is being excluded from the ECA suggests poor science.

The ECA will be submitted for approval at MEPC.60, in March 2010.If approved we have an ECA by 2012.

Update on the North American ECA Proposal

In IMO document MEPC 59/WP.12/Add.1 the IMO Secretariat issued the draft report of the Marine Environment Protection Committee on its 59th session, commenting also on the US-Canadian proposal for ECA designation of the Atlantic and Pacific Coasts.

A large majority of the delegates expressed support, in principle, for the proposed ECA, since it met the requirements of appendix 3 of MARPOL Annex VI. A total of 9 points were raised for careful consideration and clarification when reviewing the proposal in detail; such as extend of proposed ECA, position of Saint-Pierre et Michelon, gain/loss between 150 and 200 nautical miles, availability of low sulfur fuel, additional cost of fuel used in the ECA, etc.

The Committee agreed to forward the United States/Canadian proposal to the Technical Group for further consideration, taking in account the above and in particular:
.1 the availability of LS fuel and its consequences; and
.2 the position of the Saint-Pierre et Michelon Archipelago as French territories in the proposed ECA.

For the full text of the IMO document, please contact me at gernot@hermont.com

USCG to hire civilian inspectors

The USCG has announced the opening of the first installment of Civilian Vacancy Announcements for five new National Centers of Expertise (NCOE), stating that each center will have four to a maximum of nine inspectors/ investigators. The center employees are resources marine inspectors or investigators fully engaged in their primary inspection/ investigation assignments, who will also train student inspectors, advise policy-makers, regulation developers or operational program managers on trends, best practices, leading indicators, problematic issues or other functional area concerns.

It seems to me that the USCG is following Transport Canada's lead, where we have seasoned seagoing persoonnel employed as "steamship inspectors". And it seems reasonable to expect that with the training provided by these "civilian experts" the level of proficiency of the USCG inspectors will be raised.

2008 Annual Report Paris MOU

The (to me) surprising statistic in the 2008 annual report is the relatively high percentage (6.01% in 2008) of MARPOL Annex I deficiencies. While there is a downward trend in the deficiencies, the 6.01% suggests that oil pollution is still considered a "step child" in shipboard operations.

It is interesting to note that deficiencies in "ship's certificates" are at 6.55% and "ISM related deficiencies" are at 5.54%, since both categories are (sort of) connected with Annex I.

Prevention of Air Pollution from Ships

The recent IMO document MEPC 59/INF.28, which is dated June 22, 2009 is a report by the IMO secretariat on June 2009 sessions of the subsidiary bodies of the UNFCCC that continued the intensive negotiation phase leading up to the Copenhagen Climate Change Conference (COP 15) later this year, which is tasked with agreeing on a post-2012 climate regime.

One of the drafts for submission to COP 15, suggests the following alternatives for the greenhouse gas emission scenario for marine:

IMO shall be encouraged to continue without delay its activities for the development of policies and measures to reduce GHG emissions, and specifically: [To achieve, through the use of its policies and mechanisms, total GHG emmission reductions which are at least as ambitious as the total GHG emmission reductions under the convention;]

Alternative text:

Recognizing that in order to achieve a necessary two degree scenario, global greenhouse gas emissions should follow a pathway that includes a peak year no later than 2015 and results in emission reductions of 50-85% by 2050, in accordance with findings in the 4th Assessment Report of the IPCC.

In the June issue of "Shipping World & Shipbuilder" M.A.N. state that the energy demand for shipping one TEU has dropped by 84% between 1960 and 2008. This reduction is a result of increased carrying capacity of ships and increases in hull form, coating and propulsion efficiencies. MAN suggests further 33% GHG reductions can be obtained by shifting from marine fuel to natural gas.

How will domestic shipowners deal with future GHG emission limits?

Phase-Out of Oily Water Separators?

The U.S submission MEPC 59/10/10 re-introduces the need for a phase-out of oil pollution prevention equipment as follows, referring to the outcome of DE-52: "The United States supports the Sub-Committee's conclusion regarding the proposal for mandatory phase-out of oily water separators and oil discharge monitoring systems complying with resolutions MEPC.60(33) and A.586(14). Specifically, the Sub-Committee concluded it could not achieve the Committee's tasking because the issue was not a dedicated item on the Sub-Committee-s agenda or work programme. Therefore the United States proposes that the Committee establish a dedicated item in the Sub-Committee's work programme and agenda to facilitate completion of the Committee's instructions.

It should be recalled that the U.S. made the request for the phase-out of existing oily water separators (OWS) when MEPC.107(45) came into force. That proposal suggested an OWS replacement at the next dry-docking of an existing ship. It appears that with a positive response to the current U.S. submission a phase-out of pre-MEPC.107(49) OWS in less than 7 years might come to pass; which would be pretty well in line with most clean ship initiatives, including "Green Marine".

MEPC 59

IMO posted document MEPC 59/1/2, dated June 1, 2009.

The Note by the Chairman proposes the following arrangements for the working, drafting and other groups at MEPC 59:

1. Working Group on GHG Issues;
2. Working Group on Guidelines for Ship Recycling;
3. Joint MSC/MEPC Working Group on Human Element;
4. Drafting Group on Amendments to MARPOL Annex I; and
5. Technical Group on Emission Control Area (ECA) and other MARPOL Annex VI related issues.

The Chairman also proposes to re-establishing the Review Group on Ballast Water Technologies at MEPC 59.

The GHG issue is one area where the the Friends of the Earth Int'l and other NGOs are pushing hard for progress, asking for considerable fuel consumption reductions.

The Drafting Group for amendments to MARPOL Annex I suggests tightening of the oil pollution regulations. It should be noted there is a US proposal before the MEPC 59 to phase out MEPC.60(33) compliant bilge filtering equipment.

Does the Technical Group on ECA and other Annex VI issues suggest a planned global approach to ECA designations? If so, could it delay passage of the US - Canada application at MEPC 59.

Mandatory Requirements for Polar Shipping

The World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) expressed the support of a submission by Denmark, Norway and the United States on mandatory requirements for vessels operating in the Polar Regions, with document MEPC 59/20/7, which was posted at the IMO website June 4,2009.

The submission states that due to climate change and the melting of the ice in the Arctic Ocean, it is predicted that international maritime transport will increase significantly in the High Arctic waters.There is also an urgent need to develop vital Arctic maritime infrastructure to support shipping in the region, including: emergency response capacity, appropriate training for mariners, binding requirements for ships operating in polar areas, accurate navigational charts, adequate communications systems and accurate and timely ice information.

It is noteworthy that Canada is not mentioned in the original submission.

ECA for All

Dennis L. Bryant, who does maritime regulatory consulting since his retirement as a marine lawyer, discusses the joint US - Canada proposal for an ECA in the current Maritime Reporter. The interesting portion of his article is his reference "after several years of indecision and debate, the United States Senate gave its advice and consent to the Protocol on April 7, 2006 and, on July 21, 2008, Congress enacted the Maritime Pollution Prevention Act of 2008 to implement MARPOL Annex VI domestically."
The above suggests to me that all North American waters will be governed by the ECA requirements, once IMO approves the application. The reason for this thinking is the primary argument for seeking the designation of an ECA. The core argument in the US - Canada submission is the projected health benefit from lower marine air emissions. If the submission is approved, it is approved to protect the health of the population. If the coastal population benefits from fuel switching 200 nautical miles offshore, surely 1/3 of Canada's population will benefit from cleaner fuels in ships traveling HWY H2O!

GESAMP invites MEPC 59 to:

agree that Final Approval is given to RWO Ballast Water Management System CleanBallast submitted by Germany comprising:

• Disc Filter unit
• Advanced EctoSys electrolysis
• Neutralization (thiosulphate)

Therefore the CleanBallast system will be submitted for approval to the MEPC 59 , July 2009. It is expected that CleanBallast will receive type approval from the German Administration BSH after MEPC 59.

RWO comments additionally: The RWO CleanBallast uses extremely short lived OH-radicals when operating in fresh water. Therefore the system is capable of operating efficiently in fresh water; the system was successfully tested with river water in the port of Bremen.

Some interesting IMO documents of June 1, 2009

MEPC 59/10/7

The International Fund for Animal Welfare expressed their support of IMarEST proposal (DE 52/20/3) on a guide for diagnosing contaminants in oily bilge water, to maintain, operate and troubleshoot bilge water treatment systems. DE-52 observed that "the proposed Guide could be an excellent tool to help engine-room crews to comply with MARPOL Annex I".

MEPC 59/10/10

The USA supports the mandatory phase-out of oily water separators and oil discharge monitoring systems complying with Resolution MEPC.60(33) and A.586(14). Specifically, the Sub-Committee concluded it could not achieve the Committee's tasking, because the issue was not a dedicated item on the Sub-Committe's agenda or work programme. Therefore, the United States proposes that the Committee establish a dedicated item in the Sub-Committee's work programme and agenda to facilitate completion on the Committee's instructions.

I believe that when the above request is followed, we will see the phasing out of "grand-fathered" oil pollution prevention equipment.

If you are interested in the referenced documents, don't hesitate to contact me for a copy.

USCG preparing for MEPC.59

Dennis L. Bryant sent me the link to the proposed Shipping Coordinating Meeting in Washington, DC on June 26, 2009.

The purpose of the meeting is to prepare for the 59th session of the International Maritime Organization (IMO) Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC.59) to be held at IMO's London head quarters July 13-17, 2009. One of the agenda items of the June 26 meeting is the ECA proposal, which the USA submitted jointly with Canada.

Ecological is economical, in oily water

In the engine room bilge water and oils collect. The more leaks and drips there are, the more bilge water is accumulated. The more bilge water there is, the more complex it tends to be and the more difficult it is to get it overboard. The more bilge water there is, the more time has to be allotted to bilge water separation, more parts and consumables tend to be used as well. In the worst case there is too much bilge water and not enough time to process it. In this case the crew may be tempted to "increase the efficiency" of the bilge separator by by-passing the oil content meter or the system altogether. In other words, lax (costly) shipboard practices create large quantities of bilge water, which are expensive to remove. Managing bilge water by following best practices and the "Integrated Bilge Water Treatment System", as per IMO guidelines results in a twofold cost saving. Managing the inflows tends to reduce waste, reduced quantities reduce time and wear on equipment as well as the frequency to discharge waste oil to shore. Green Marine provides an excellent guide. A company that operates at level 4 in "oily water" limits oily water quantities and is cost effective in bilge water processing. At level 4 the company is environmentally friendly and operates economically.

Prevention of air pollution from ships

IMO Document MEPC 59/INF.15 submitted by the United States informs the Committee of a recently-released, important study that is directly pertinent to the Committee's work on prevention of air pollution from ships. The study is the first to provide a global estimate of maritime shipping's total contribution to air particle pollution based on direct measurements of emissions from ships. The results confirm that ships contribute a significant amount of air pollution, including almost half as much particulate matter pollutants as the total amount released by the world's on-road vehicles, and thus adversely affects local air quality and human health.

If the United States apply the same standard to particulate emissions as Canada, then dust pollution from paved and unpaved roads are considered "open source pollution", meaning they are not road transport related.

2006 Environment Canada data gives the following totals for particulate matter:

• Marine transportation: 10,404.9 tons
• H.D diesel vehicles: 6,771.9 tons
• Off-road diesel: 35,738.6 tons
• Tire wear and brakes: 5,051.7 tons
  
• Dust from paved roads: 3,248,367.6 tons
• Dust from unpaved roads: 8,202,814.4 tons

Joint ECA submission USA/Canada

The United States submitted a document in support of the proposal to designate an Emission Control Area for specific portions of the coastal waters of the United States and Canada. It provides references and other information considered in developing the proposal.

The document is listed MEPC 59/INF.13, dated April 9, 2009. It was posted on the IMO Documents Website May 11, 2009

Hercules Beta

Hercules Beta is the second leg of a joint research effort between MAN- Diesel and Wartsila. The project's aim is to develop future generations of optimally efficient and clean marine diesel engines; i.e. reduce marine diesel engine fuel consumption by 10% and improve the efficiency of the marine diesel propulsion system to more than 60%, thereby significantly reducing CO2 emissions. A further aim of the project is to target ultra-low exhaust emissions by eliminating 70% of NOx and 50% of particulates from marine engines by 2020.

More on climate change

I have a hard time accepting an East Coast ECA, while excluding the Arctic, because the Arctic is the most vulnerable environment with the least buffering. It is the region most affected by climate change already, as average temperature changes there are outpacing all other regions on the globe.

The World Health Organization (WHO) is concerned about the fate of low lying coastal areas and low lying Pacific Islands, which are already seriously affected by rising sea levels. In their document titled "Health and Environment: Managing the Linkages for Sustainable Development", WHO provides “A Tool Kit for Decision Makers”. WHO discuss major environmental risk factors with quantifiable disease impacts, attributing 150,000 excess deaths annually to climate change.

James E. Hansen has written many articles on the subject of air pollution. In his 2003 piece "As pure as snow" he explains the effect dirt on snow. When I saw the ECA submission I asked him whether we should be concerned about PM emissions from more ships sailing into Churchill. Two of his colleagues came back and concurred that we should be concerned. One of them, Mark Flanner in his e-mail reply said "I am currently working with some folks here at NCAR [National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, Colorado] and NOAA [National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration] to quantify impacts on sea-ice of future Arctic shipping. Also, shipping emission scenarios (including Arctic sources) are currently being drawn-up for inclusion in studies for the next IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] report." – These are people who know; maybe Canada should listen to science and consider the WHO concerns about climate change. Maybe we should look for an ECA solution that doesn't divert traffic into the Arctic?

Bill C-16

My first piece in Canadian Sailings was on whether a Canadian owner should be concerned about the approach by the Dept. of Justice in the USA in regards to fraudulent entries in the Oil Record Book (ORB). Under US law, presenting an ORB with untrue entries to a Coast Guard inspector is a criminal offense, regardless of where and when these entries were made in the ORB. You present such an ORB and you have defrauded the USA.

A company facing the courts in such a situation is typically assessed a few million dollars in fines, the company is put on 5 year probation and is required to implement an Environmental Compliance Plan (ECP) for all the ships in its fleet or under management.This ECP covers all waste streams and usually requires annual auditing of 75% of the fleet. We were involved with a couple of cruise lines and their implementation of the ECP. Their shipboard audits were carried out by third parties (typically marine consultants) in 3-5 day cruises by a team of 2-3 persons, at considerable cost.

Bill C-16 seems to introduce the above mentioned method in dealing with pollution offenders. By adding "directing the offender to implement an environmental management system that meets a recognized Canadian or international standard specified by the court" in paragraph 66 (1)(c) the company will have to implement a court imposed ECP.

We find a company is better served by implementing a voluntary, vigorously managed ECP. This helps to demonstrate due diligence and thereby helps to shield the corporation, its managers and directors from the implied liabilities in paragraphs 50 and 51 of the proposed bill-16.

CMAC meetings

I sat in on two days meetings on the environmental side of this spring’s CMAC meeting in Ottawa, April 28&29.

In the Ballast Water working group a comment was made that no ballast Water Treatment System had been tested, specifically in fresh water. The assumption was voiced that therefore reliable performance of such systems was not guaranteed. RWO have submitted their application for approval and it is expected that approval will be issued at the July MEPC session.

• The system was tested in Bremen, Germany, a fresh water port, and it performed as expected.

In the Air Emissions working group, Environment Canada summarized the benefits from an ECA, referring to some 159 lives saved with total health benefits of $ 900 Million per annum.

The health problems are, to a large degree, caused by particulate matter. The latest Environment Canada statistic shows PM from marine transport at 10,404.9t out of 18,377,707.2t for all of Canada. Marine represents 0.056% of the total. Dust from paved and unpaved roads (generated primarily by vehicle traffic) is about 11,450,000t or 62.3%, which is considered an “open source”. PM totals for vehicles including tire break lining wear (but without open sources) comes to about 13,800t, which is about the same as marine transport. What I see is that the ECA proposal addresses the proverbial "straw that broke the camel's back" in pollution, ignoring the potential increase in greenhouse gas emissions from a modal shift and also ignoring the increased PM emissions for road and rail traffic. With the ECA submission, we address a narrow emission sector and ignore the climate changing millions of tons of PM, which accelerate the shrinking of snow and ice cover.

Environment Canada gives some interesting graphs on Canadian pollution, which may provide some additional reference as to how skewed the ECA proposal is.

At the standing committee on the environment, Environment gave a presentation on the current Bill C-16. Below is the link to the bill, and underneath a link to an opinion by one of the marine lawyers.

Bill C-16

Osler opinion

If the industry was concerned about Bill-15, the amendment to the migratory bird act, I feel 16 indicates that this is Bill 15 on steroids.

ECA, Pink Floyd and Leonard Cohen

This post was published in the April 20th 2009 issue of Canadian Sailings.

With the recent proposal by Canada and the United States for a North American Emission Control Area, Pink Floyd’s “Is There Anybody Out There?” comes to mind. When reading the submission to the International Maritime Organization, one may also think of Leonard Cohen’s “Everybody Knows” lyrics: “Everybody knows that the dice are loaded, everybody rolls with their fingers crossed.”

Pink Floyd comes to mind because marine did not really participate in the debate. Yes, many spoke, but they did not speak with one voice and therefore were not heard. Many looked at the proposal but few, if any, stepped back and looked at the ECA picture holistically.

Map 1, from the submission, is the proposed ECA, which covers the coasts but not Arctic waters. The Great Lakes would have ECA status as well. What will happen on the East Coast? Some bulker traffic that now goes into the Lakes will shift to Churchill (no ECA) and container traffic that comes to Montreal may go to Halifax (shorter sailing distance in the ECA) and Churchill. Why would a ship pick up grain in Thunder Bay (Map 2, black-dotted line) if it can sail into Churchill (red line) on heavy fuel oil? On the Great Lakes, the ECA will bring about a modal shift to land transport. This shift will increase local air pollution, accidents, etc.

Leonard Cohen comes to mind because the data used by Canada and the U.S. is flawed and at times seems twisted to suit the purpose.

The pre-emptive reason for the ECA is that up to 8,300 lives will be saved. In a July 2008 article in Air & Waste Management Association’s EM magazine, Environmental Protection Agency scientists state that “linking changes in emissions to human exposure and health end points (respiratory related hospital admissions, mortality effect estimates) remains to be a major area of research.” So this projection is not science but opinion.

A second article in the same issue addresses improving exposure assessments with models, going from global to regional to urban to local to human scale. Looking at air pollution from this angle, pollution starts concentrated at the tailpipe and then thins out. Therefore, as a person at the local street level, we are exposed to concentrated emissions from road and rail before they thin out into the atmosphere. This concentrated local pollution has a greater effect on our health because pollution is delivered more efficiently to our lungs. The same is true for the crane operator in a port; he has to breathe the stack emissions before they spread out.

Could data be custom-made to support the ECA ­proposal? Is it really possible that marine contributes more than 100 per cent of the excess in critical loading (Environment Canada graphic) in the Athabasca oilsands area? I find it difficult to believe that ships calling Vancouver and/or Prince Rupert would affect the air quality in the oilsands to such a degree. Who would have thunk?

Why not take the time to consider the bigger picture? Are we affected as badly from marine emissions as the people living around the Mediterranean or the Suez Canal or the ports of Hong Kong or Shanghai? Is our Highway H2O in the same league, traffic wise, as the English Channel?

And, ultimately, how will the proposed ECA affect the global environment? Will it improve humanity’s condition? Will it slow the melting of the polar ice caps and the Greenland ice cover? Will it slow global warming? The answer is “no” on all these counts. Worse, the ECA will actually help to speed up the melting of the ice because of increased traffic in the Arctic and thereby contribute to faster-rising sea levels, which in turn will affect millions more people in poor, low-lying areas of this world. World Health Organization research indicates that today, 115,000 deaths per year can be attributed to climate change and rising sea levels. How much will the faster-rising sea levels, caused by the proposed ECA, increase these numbers? Why not listen to WHO and first address climate change, as it sees this is the more pressing problem.

Should you be concerned about U.S. justice in a case of oil pollution?

This post was published in the March 30th 2009 issue of Canadian Sailings.

March 9, 2009, U.S. Department of Justice: “Chief Engineer Pleads Guilty to Concealing Vessel Pollution.”

March 10, 2009, U.S. Department of Justice: “Shipping Line Pays $1.4 Million for Environmental Crimes.”

Both headlines cover oil pollution from ships, committed outside U.S. waters, based on false oil record book entries.

The criminal charges laid by the U.S. Department of Justice in a case of oil pollution are not directly based on the pollution incident but on the fraudulent statements made, or oil record book (ORB) entries made, to hide the incident. A criminal act is committed when the ship’s ORB containing the fraudulent entries is presented to the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) port state control officer.

The USCG has laid out the directives for its port state control officers for the inspection of oil pollution prevention equipment aboard ships. He is to go on board, check the documentation, verify the emergency response procedures and equipment, then proceed with the engine room inspection. He is encouraged to form an opinion on whether bilge filtering equipment is likely to perform as required on his impression of the ship’s engine room condition; i.e. based on oil leaks, disassembled equipment, etc. He is instructed to have the crew operate the equipment, which usually requires 15-20 minutes. He is to check that the influent is not diluted and visually verify the condition of the effluent.

If he suspects cheating or that the equipment cannot perform, he is directed to look for tell-tale signs of tampering, such as oil on discharge line shut-off valve stems, for loose bolts on discharge line connections, chipped paint on flanges, and other signs of recently reconnected bilge water processing lines.

Minor violations are considered errors on the notation in the international oil pollution prevention certificate – signatures missing on ORB entries. Most of these errors can be corrected either on the spot or in concert with the flag state.

Major violations are the inability of the crew to operate the bilge filtering system, or disassembled equipment. These major violations result in a detention until the deficiency is corrected. The potential criminal charges by the Department of Justice arise from fraudulent ORB entries, “magic hoses” for bypassing the bilge filtering equipment, false statements to the port state control officer, and such.

Under U.S. law, the fraudulent entries in the official record (the oil record book) represent false statements when it is presented to a port state control officer. It is this fraudulent statement that then becomes the basis for the criminal prosecution of the crew and the company.

The criminal prosecution of oil pollution incidents has frightened crews into not operating their oily water separators, worrying that operating the equipment is an auto­matic ticket for criminal prosecution. That is not quite the case, and the USCG actually provides some guidance on how a company can safeguard against criminal prosecution.

In its winter 2008-09 issue of Proceedings, the USCG outlines measures to improve MARPOL Annex I compliance for commercial vessel owners. It recommends creating an environmental compliance program (ECP), which includes a comprehensive system to verify MARPOL Annex I compliance. It suggests that the typical environmental management system (EMS) document incorporates policies and procedures, establishes third-party verification of performance and incorporates also non-regulatory practices.

In the same issue of Proceedings, two partners of Blank Rome LLP, a major Washington, D.C., law firm, talk the same language. They list the following elements for an effective ECP:

• High level management oversight;
• Defined shipboard responsibility;
• Auditing process;
• Technical requirements;
• Budget;
• Procedures to determine reasons for nonconformity.

They state that from a law enforcement perspective, the existence and adequacy of an ECP is viewed as a potentially mitigating factor in the exercise of ­prosecutorial discretion concerning the decision whether to file criminal charges against an organization.

Another Washington law firm, Holland & Knight, in its Alert of Feb. 10, states that although an effective ECP “could be useful in defeating a criminal charge at trial, and, under the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines for Organizations, such a program can help to substantially reduce the fine imposed after a conviction, the primary benefit of an effective program is its use in persuading Department of Justice prosecutors not to bring criminal charges in the first place.”

The lawyers state that numerous ECP models have been developed. They continue: “What is key, however, is tailoring the plan to a particular company’s operations and getting buy-in from all levels of the company, management and employees.”

The USCG “strongly encourages” owners to ensure that their vessels are in compliance with MARPOL Annex I prior to entering the waters of the United States, and states that its port state control officer will hold the vessel personnel accountable for infractions and will ensure that discrepancies are corrected.

So to the question posed in the column title: yes, you should be concerned about the U.S. Department of Justice’s approach in oil pollution matters. The fact is that if an ORB with fraudulent entries is presented to the USCG inspector and the fraud is discovered, the U.S. will proceed with criminal charges for defrauding the country, regardless of where the pollution occurred. Only the existence of an adequate ECP can shield management and the company from such criminal prosecution; but the intent of an ECP is to guide employees in compliant operation of oil pollution prevention equipment.