# EPA’s Vessel Emission Control Program

Mike Samulski U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

September 30, 2009 Sustainable Shipping

# Overview
 

# Sustainable Must Mean Healthy Air  

# Regulatory Roadmap

2 

##  

# Coordinated Strategy  

# Impacts

# Sustainable Must Mean Healthy Air: U.S. Ports and Nonattainment Areas

• More than 40 major ports are located in PM 2.5 or ozone nonattainment areas • About 88 million people live in 39 areas that do not meet the PM 2.5 NAAQS or that contribute to violations in other counties

3

# EPA’s National Clean Diesel Campaign RegulatoryR oadmap Ti er 2 Light - Duty final rule 1999 fully p hased in 2009 Diesels held to same stringent standards as gasoline vehicles

Heavy - Duty

H ighw ay sales 800,000 / y r 40B gallons / y r These standard -setting rulemakings are key enablers for collaborative partnerships with industry and state & local governments

4 Nonroad Diesel sales over 650,000 / y r 12B gallons / y r final rule 2004 fully p hased in 2015

40B gallons / y r final rule 2000 fully p hased in 2010

Locomotive/Marine sales 40,000 m arine engines, 1,000 locom otives / y r 6B gallons / y r final rule 2008 fully p hased in 2017 Note: sales and diesel fuel usage vary

year- to - ye ar; these figures are for comparison purposes only Ocean Going Ve ssels CAA Rule Dec 2009 IMO MARPOL

A nnex VI ECA Controls

- Fuel Based 2015

- SCR Catalyst Based 2016

# Ship Contribution to U.S. PM Inventory 2009 Mo bi leS ou rceP M2 .5 I nv en to ry Other N R 14% Di esel N R 28%
Di esel M arine < 30 l/cyl 7% 2030 Mob ile Sour cePM 2.5 I nventory Aircraft Locomot iv

e 0%

5 Source of inventory estimates: C3 Marine NPRM (July, 2009) Does not reflect IM O MARPOL Annex VI Amendments (October 2008) Hi ghw ay 24% OGV Marine 17% Locomotive 6% Ai rc raft 4% OGVMari ne 48% Aircraft 7%

Dies el NR

5% Oth er NR 15% Hi ghwa y 20%

Dies el Ma ri ne <3 0 l/c yl 3% 0%

# Coordinated Strategy

U.S. Domestic Rulemaking

6 

# U.S./Canada/France ECA Proposal Global Annex VI Standards

# U.S. Domestic Rulemaking  

## Rulemaking timing  

### Proposal was signed on June 26, 2009  

### Final Rule deadline of December 17, 2009  

## New engine standards  

### Tier 2 and 3 NOx limits for U.S. vessels harmonized with MARPOL Annex VI

7  

### HC and CO cap standards for U.S. vessels  

## New fuel sales standards  

### 0.1%S fuel limit for use in ECAs  

### Allow for 0.1%S distillate sales, in U.S., for marine use  

## Adopt Annex VI implementation regulations for all vessels operating in U.S. waters

# Voluntary Programs  

# Clean Ports USA Program  

## working with port authorities, terminal operators, shipping, truck and rail companies  

## promote cleaner diesel technologies and strategies through education, incentives, and financial assistance for diesel

8 

## emissions reductions at ports  

## voluntary diesel retrofit verification program  

# In NPRM, we requested comment on a Voluntary Marine Verification Program for existing vessels  

## extend our existing diesel retrofit verification program to these largest marine vessels

# New Annex VI Amendments  

# October 2008 Annex VI amendments approved  

# Global NOx Controls  

## Tier 2: 20% reduction from new vessels (2011)  

## Existing engine standards

9 

###  

# Global PM and SOx controls  

## 2012: 3.5% fuel sulfur  

## 2020: 0.5% fuel sulfur  

## Could be delayed to 2025; subject to 2018 fuel availability review  

# A country (or countries) can propose to designate an Emission Control Area (ECA), where more stringent standards apply

# Emission Control Area  

# On March 27, 2009, we submitted a joint U.S./Canada proposal for ECA designation  

## This was approved, in principle, at MEPC 59 (July 2009)  

## Expect adoption at MEPC 60 (March 2010)

10 

###  

# ECA NOx Controls  

## Tier 3 NOx 80% reduction new vessels (2016)  

# ECA PM and SOx Controls  

## 1.0% Fuel Sulfur (2010 - 2014)  

## 0.1% Fuel Sulfur 2015+  

## Up to 96% reduction in SOx  

## ~85% reduction in PM

# U.S./Canada ECA Proposal

Ca nad a Alaska (U .S.) Greenland (D enmark)60°70°

11 Un it ed S tate s (48 st at es)
Mexico Sai nt - Pi er re & Miquelon

Hawa ii (U .S.) 160 ° 140 ° 120 ° 100 ° 80 ° 60 °20°30°40°50°

Bahamas

# For Comparison: Impact of NewL ocomotive and Marine Diesel Engine Rule on PM 2.5 

# levels in 2020

ug/m3

12

# 2020 Potential ECA PM 2.5 

# Reductions

13

# 2020 Potential ECA Ozone Reductions

14 

## Ozone (Smog) reductions from the proposed ECA

reach w ell into the U.S. interior 14

### Improvements in deposition for marine and 

# 2020 Potential Sulfur Deposition Reductions

15 

### % 

### for marine and terrestrial ecosystems

# Benefits and Costs of the Coordinated Strategy  

# The NPRM presents the benefits and costs of the coordinated strategy  

### Engine and fuel requirements for U.S. and foreign vessels  

# In 2030 the estimated benefits are between $110 and $280 billion

16 

###  

# By 2030, the emission reductions associated with the coordinated strategy will annually prevent:  

### Between 13,000 and 32,000 PM - related premature deaths  

### Between 220 and 980 ozone - related premature deaths  

### About 1,500,000 work days lost  

### About 10,000,000 minor restricted - activity days  

# The estimated costs are much smaller: $3.1 billion

# Example Cost Scenario

17 

### Distance in ECA 1,700 nm

17 

### Increased operating costs in ECA only For this scenario:

- 3%i ncrease in operating costs

- $18/TEU

# Impact Modeling Health Ef fects Modelling

18 

### Emissions Inventory Ecosystem Results Air Quality Modelling

# Low Sulfur Fuel Availability

 

### ECA volume will increase global distillate demand less than 0.9%  

### U.S. used the Ensys WORLD model to estimate refinery capacity expansions & prices  

### Same model used by Secretary General’s Expert Group Study  

### Estimates a price spread between residual and distillate of $145/ton  

### Total new

i nvestment 3 coking units, 3 hydrocrackers, and 2

19  

### Total new

i nvestment 3 coking units, 3 hydrocrackers, and 2 hydrotreaters  

## “ Moreover, many investors, especially in the US and Europe, are deferring final decisions on major projects as they are being confronted with mixed, even confusing, signals from policy makers concerning the future demand levels for refinery products .”

- OPEC World Oil Outlook 2008  

### Timely approval of an ECA will provide certainty for refiners

# Additional Information

 

# The NPRM, proposed ECA, and supporting information are available at:  

## www.epa.gov/otaq/oceanvessels.htm

20 

###  

# Contact: Michael Samulski  

## U.S. Environmental Protection Agency  

## Samulski.Michael @ epa.gov  

## 1 (734) 214 - 4532