New environmental regimes are a patchwork of regulations,
say shipowners
By D’ARCY JENISH
August 2, 2010
Freshly brewed coffee and crisp Danishes were being served during the mid-morning break at the 74th International Joint Conference of the Canadian Shipowners Association and Lake Carriers’ Association. But Allister Paterson was in no mood for either as he strolled out of the Georgian Ballroom at Queen’s Landing Hotel in Niagara-on-the-Lake, Ont. He and several dozen other shipping executives had just spent two hours listening to Canadian and U.S. government officials, who provided a snapshot of new environmental regimes being developed to deal with shipborne emissions and ballast water management. Mr. Paterson, like many others, was not exactly delighted with what he heard.
“We’re looking to renew our fleet over the next decade,” said the president of St. Catharines, Ont.-based Seaway Marine Transport. “But it’s very hard to buy a 40-year asset in a five-year regulatory regime, especially when there’s a patchwork of regulations. We need a predictable environment in order to invest in the future.”
Gerry Carter, president of Montreal-based Canada Steamship Lines, skipped the coffee and sweets as well and his reaction to the presentations was pretty much thumbs down. “My biggest problem is that the regulators don’t look at things holistically,” he said. “Everyone is in their own silo, doing their own thing without considering the overall impact on the industry. We could be looking at $3 to $5 million per ship in emissions controls and ballast water treatment and we have to amortize those investments over the life of a ship, which is 25 to 40 years.”
Shipping executives that morning heard from representatives of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which is responsible for emissions control, the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG), which is developing ballast water management regulations, and Transport Canada, which for the most part is drafting rules that will align with those of the American agencies as well as the International Maritime Organization (IMO). Jean Marie Revelt, a team leader in EPA’s assessment and standards division, was the first speaker up. She outlined new marine engine requirements aimed at reducing shipborne output of nitrous dioxide (NOx), particulate matter (PM) and sulphur dioxide (SOx), among other substances.
New emission standards
These standards will apply throughout the newly established North American Emission Control Area (ECA), which includes coastal waters to a distance of 200 miles from shore and inland waterways, such as the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Seaway. By 2020, the agency expects NOx emissions from ships operating in the ECA to be cut by 320,000 tons per year, which represents a 23 per cent reduction from where they would be were nothing done. Particulate matter will drop by 90,000 tons or 74 per cent and SOx by 920,00 tons or 86 per cent.
The agency is also introducing new standards to regulate the sulphur content of marine fuel. From 2012 until 2015, sulphur cannot exceed one per cent, or 10,000 parts per million, and, as of January 1, 2015, that falls to 0.1 per cent or 1,000 ppm. These standards can be met through consumption of cleaner fuel or through the use of scrubbers to remove sulphur from emissions.
Mr. Carter points out that the use of scrubbers presents a steep challenge for the industry. It means installing separate systems to deal with different substances because at present no technology can remove all the regulated pollutants.
However, the EPA has recognized that its new marine fuel standards will increase the costs of operating vessels on the Great Lakes and is currently conducting a study to determine the likelihood shippers may drop marine transport in favour of moving some goods to market entirely by rail.
Ms. Revelt said that the agency is comparing the cost of shipping coal from Montana to Michigan by rail and ship versus all rail. Likewise, it is also examining the economics involved in transporting iron ore from Minnesota to Illinois, again by rail and ship as opposed to rail only. The results of the study are expected by the end of the summer. If it demonstrates that marine transport would be unduly or adversely affected, the EPA may consider some special provisions for Great Lakes shipping.
Evolving treatment systems
Ballast water regulations are very much a work in progress and so, for that matter, are the treatment systems currently available on the market and that became apparent from the presentations at the joint conference. Commander Gary Croot, the Washington-based chief of the Coast Guard’s environmental standards division, provided an outline of the USCG’s evolving standards for treating ballast water.
The Coast Guard will adopt the IMO standards to start with, although the effective dates when these rules kick in varies depending on the size of the vessel and whether it is a new or older ship. But the American regulators have set a far more ambitious target. They plan to adopt a ballast water standard that is 1,000 times more stringent than the IMO’s after 2016.
But the Coast Guard must first conduct a feasibility study to determine whether such a standard can be met. Cdr Croot acknowledged in his presentation that regulators are attempting to eliminate some very tiny creatures from ballast water. Treatment systems are supposed to be capable of killing organisms that measure 50 microns across, or about 2/1,000th of an inch. The current IMO standard allows fewer than 10,000 of these things in one cubic metre of water.
The impending Coast Guard rule would lower that number to less than 100 per cubic metre of water. Cdr Croot put that in perspective in his presentation by noting 10 creatures that small in a cubic metre of water would represent about one part per trillion, or one drop of water in 20 Olympic-size swimming pools.
At this point, acknowledged Cdr Croot, the technology does not exist to treat or test ballast water to that level of purity. To make matters even more perplexing for the shipping industry, U.S. states have the authority to impose their own ballast water standards and 11 have already done so, including the Great Lake states of Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.
At present, Cdr Croot added, seven ballast water treatment systems have been approved for use by flag administrations in Great Britain, Germany, Norway and South Korea. These systems treat ballast water to the IMO standard and kill organisms through one of three processes: by introducing chemical agents known as biocides, by de-oxygenation or the rapid removal of oxygen from the water or by exposing water to ultraviolet light.
Double-decker size treatment systems
These systems are not only expensive, they’re very large and that presents a big problem for Canadian shipping companies thinking about retrofitting older vessels to meet emerging ballast water treatment standards. “You’re looking at trying to install a system that’s as big as one or two double-decker buses in an engine room that’s already cramped,” Mr. Paterson pointed out. “The old boats were not made with this in mind. Retro-fitting them will be a much bigger challenge than building new.”
Meantime, shipowners looking at purchasing a ballast treatment system would be well advised to consult first with the Great Ships Initiative, located in the harbour at Superior, WI. GSI is one of about five research facilities worldwide that tests the effectiveness of ballast treatment systems. Project manager Allegra Cangelosi, who made a presentation at the international joint conference, said GSI can conduct three levels of testing.
The first is bench testing, which is a proof of concept analysis of the designs and specifications. GSI can also perform a land-based test of the actual hardware at the facility. A treatment system is hooked up to a 12-inch intake line and water is drawn from the harbour and run through the equipment at a rate of 680 cubic metres per hour. A control sample of untreated water is collected at the same time from a second intake pipe. The treated and untreated samples are then pumped into retention tanks and their contents analyzed. Ms. Cangelosi adds that the GSI facility can also test the effectiveness of treatment systems that have already been installed on a ship.
In any event, it’s buyer beware at this point. That was one of the underlying messages Jon Stewart delivered to those attending the conference. Stewart, president of International Marine Technology Consultants Inc., of Fort Lauderdale, FL, has advised the U.S. delegation dealing with ballast water issues at the IMO. “We’re still looking at first generation technology,” he said. “As we all know, first generation systems are seldom perfect.”
Currently, some 50 companies are manufacturing or developing ballast treatment systems, but most of their products have been designed to meet the IMO standard, which will give them access to the broadest possible market. Mr. Stewart advised shipowners to ensure that they have a system tested and validated prior to purchasing it to ensure it does what it’s supposed to do. “It’s not just a case of ensuring that the green light is spinning on the control panel,” he said.