U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

85–521 PDF 2014

S. HRG. 110–1239 

A HEARING ON THE MARINE VESSEL 

EMISSIONS REDUCTION ACT OF 2007 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

FEBRUARY 14, 2008 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress.senate 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

BARBARA BOXER, California, Chairman 

MAX BAUCUS, Montana 

JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, New York 

FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma 

JOHN W. WARNER, Virginia 

GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio 

JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho 

LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee 

CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri 

BETTINA POIRIER, Majority Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

ANDREW WHEELER, Minority Staff Director 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

FEBRUARY 14, 2008 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

Boxer, Hon. Barbara, U.S. Senator from the State of California ........................ 1 

Vitter, David, U.S. Senator from the State of Louisiana ..................................... 85 

Lautenberg, Frank R., U.S. Senator from the State of New Jersey .................... 91 

Cardin, Benjamin L., U.S. Senator from the State of Maryland ......................... 92 

WITNESSES 

Wood-Thomas, Bryan, Associate Director, Office Of Transportation And Air 

Quality, Environmental Protection Agency ....................................................... 13 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 16 

Ramirez, Jonah, Clean Air Ambassador For Children With Respiratory Disease ........................................................................................................................ 27

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 29 

Miller, John G., M.D., Fellow of The American College of Emergency Physicians ...................................................................................................................... 32 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 34 

Responses to additional questions from Senator Boxer ................................ 39 

Kassel, Richard, Senior Attorney, Director, Clean Fuels And Vehicles Project, 

Natural Resources Defense Council ................................................................... 41 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 44 

Responses to additional questions from Senator Boxer ................................ 53 

Wells, Ken, President, Offshore Marine Services Association ............................. 56 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 58 

Responses to additional questions from Senator Boxer ................................ 60 

Chaisson, Joel, Executive Director, Port of South Louisiana ............................... 61 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 63 

Accardo, Joe, Executive Director, Ports Association of Louisiana ....................... 65 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 67 

Responses to additional questions from Senator Boxer ................................ 72 

Wallerstein, Barry R., Executive Officer, South Coast Air Quality Management District ........................................................................................................ 96 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 99 

Responses to additional questions from Senator Boxer ................................ 101 

Jackson, Lisa P., Commissioner, New Jersey Department of Environmental 

Protection .............................................................................................................. 107 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 109 

Responses to additional questions from Senator Boxer ................................ 114 

Mouton, Jennifer J., Administrator, Air Quality Assessment Division, Louisiana Office of Environmental Assessment ...................................................... 115 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 117 

Responses to additional questions from Senator Boxer ................................ 124 

(1) 

A HEARING ON THE MARINE VESSEL 

EMISSIONS REDUCTION ACT OF 2007 

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 14, 2008 

U.S. SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS, 

Washington, DC. 

The full committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:30 a.m. in room 

406, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Barbara Boxer (chairman of the full committee) presiding. 

Present: Senators Boxer, Lautenberg, Vitter and Cardin. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA BOXER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Senator BOXER. Good morning, everybody. I am very happy. I got 

a Valentine from Jonah, so I am exceedingly happy. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator BOXER. When you meet Jonah, you will see why I am so 

happy to have a Valentine from him. 

What we are going to do today, because we have a lot of panels 

and we want to get through everything is first I want to say I 

apologize for setting this a little later today. We had the memorial 

service for Congressman Lantos, and I really wanted to pay my respects at the beginning of that service. 

I am going to place into the record my opening statement. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Boxer follows:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA BOXER, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Today we will hear about the serious health threats to children and families from 

air pollution that pours into our port communities from large ships. This is a legislative hearing to review a bill that would substantially cut air pollution from these 

ships. We cannot afford to wait for a solution to this problem. 

Large ocean going vessels—container ships, tankers, and cruise ships—are among 

the largest contributors to deadly diesel air pollution in our port communities. And 

with international trade projected to grow significantly, the problem will only get 

worse, unless something is done soon. 

I am especially concerned about the effects of air pollution on the health of those 

who are most vulnerable: our children, our elderly, and people with asthma or other 

diseases. 

I will never forget when I first saw a filter taken from an air monitor near the 

ports of Los Angeles-Long Beach, next to a school where children play. When the 

filter went in, it was pure white. Twenty-four hours later, it was totally black. 

That’s how much pollution a child’s lungs at that elementary school would receive 

in 3 and one half months. 

We all know that ports are powerful economic engines for states and the Nation 

as a whole. They spur business development and create jobs. 

2 

My own state’s Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach illustrate that point. They 

handle nearly 45 percent of the containerized cargo imported into the U.S., and they 

help sustain the region’s economic vitality. 

But ports are also a significant source of pollution from ships, harbor equipment, 

and trucks and trains that move the cargo to and from the docks. 

In Southern California, port activities are major contributors to smog and soot 

pollution that are responsible for 5,400 premature deaths, 2,400 hospitalizations, 

140,000 incidences of asthma and respiratory problems, and nearly one million lost 

work days each year. 

The diesel engines so prevalent at ports also emit toxic air pollutants that can 

cause cancer and other life-threatening diseases. And these harmful effects are disproportionately felt by low income families. 

For example, one mother named Martha from the Alliance for Children with Asthma recalls one of many frightening visits to the emergency room when her son Jose, 

then only 4 years old, struggled to breathe: 

‘‘We were rushing him to the hospital by car and it is really sad to see your son 

almost die because he cannot breathe. His lips and all of his body turned purple. 

If people and the politicians knew how it feels, they would cry with the mothers 

of children with asthma.’’ 

‘‘They have to miss school when they are sick and I have to miss work to be in 

the emergency room,’’ she says. ‘‘It’s very difficult. It has affected me in every way.’’ 

The good news is that we are beginning to see signs of progress in reducing port 

pollution. Citizens, state, and local officials are pushing for improvements, and some 

in industry like Maersk are taking voluntary action to reduce their emissions. 

But much more progress is needed. Shipping is expected to double and even triple 

in the next two decades as the result of global trade agreements. 

Oceangoing ships are subject to international standards, but these standards require virtually no control. And our own Federal Government has yet to step up to 

the task of requiring these large polluters to make significant emission reductions. 

The Federal Government should strictly regulate these ships. Most oceangoing 

vessels are foreign-owned, and foreign-flagged ships emit almost 90 percent of the 

vessel pollution in the U.S. 

The Bush administration has been waiting for international negotiations to 

produce tighter standards for big ships. Unfortunately, those negotiations have been 

slow and have not yet borne fruit. This has triggered a lawsuit by environmental 

groups over the delays. 

Because of the ongoing health threats and the slow government response, I introduced the Marine Vessel Emission Reduction Act. Senators Feinstein and 

Whitehouse have joined me in this effort. Our bill requires oceangoing vessels visiting U.S. ports to use cleaner fuel and cleaner engines, whether they are flagged 

in the U.S. or elsewhere. 

Our bill would require oceangoing vessels to dramatically lower the sulfur content 

of the fuel they use as they travel to and from our ports. Fuel sulfur content would 

drop from an average level of 27,000 parts per million to 1,000 parts per million, 

making a huge difference for our air quality. 

It would also significantly reduce emissions from both new and existing engines 

beginning in 2012 by requiring the use of the most advanced technologies. 

Local air officials estimate that our legislation would save 700 lives a year in 

Southern California, and many more lives nationally each year. 

We must work hard together to do everything we can to make progress on this 

issue. 

I believe that it is our moral duty to protect the health of our children, people 

with asthma, and all the people of ship air pollution. We cannot afford to wait any 

longer. We must protect the health of families in port communities across the Nation. 

Senator BOXER. We are going to waive all of them. I am going 

to insert into the record Friends of the Earth testimony, which is 

very strong and positive for us. We greatly appreciate that. 

[The referenced document follows:] 

3 


85521.055

Friends of 

the Earth 

WRITTEN TESTIMONY 

PREPARED BY THE STAFF OF FRIENDS OF THE EARTH U.S. AND CLEAN AIR TASK FORCE 

LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON THE MARINE VESSEL EMISSIONS REDUCTION ACT OF 2007, S.1499 

BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

FEBRUARY 14,2008 

INTRODUCTION 

Chairman Boxer, Ranking Member Inhofe. thank you for the opportunity to submit "'Titten 

testimony to the record. 

THE PROBLEM 

Historically, large vessels such as container ships, tankers, bulk carriers, and cruise ships have 

operated virtually unregulated, with few or modest standards to regulate their emissions, and 

very little oversight even of those. This may be the last genuine Wild West industry on the 

planet. 

In the vast majority of cases, the enormous engines that power large vessels bum residual fuel oil 

or "bunker fuel". I Bunker fuel contains far higher pollutant levels than other fuels, including 

higher levels of particulate matter, ash, sulfur, and nitrogen, as well as more heavy metals and 

other toxic substances such as aldehydes, benzene, and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons 

("PAHs,,)2 Bunker fuel, the bottom of the barrel in the refining process, has the consistency of 

mud and must be heated so that it can flow through engine fuel lines. 

Bunker fuel causes a wide array of harmful human health impacts. For instance, combustion of 

this fuel in a diesel engine produces fine particulate matter that leads to increased cancer risk and 

adverse health effects such as respiratory illness, impaired lung and heart function, and 

premature mortality. The negative health impacts of bunker fuel are magnified because large 

I In 2007, 84 percent of fuel consumed by vessels above 400 gross tons was bunker fuel. lMO panel gives new 

bunker consumption estlinate, SUSTAINABLESHIPPING.COM, Jan. 30, 2008, available at 

http://www.sustainableshipping.comlnews/2008/0 II7055S?gsid=f1 f40e4c818411 cIb42c353 fad22bac I &asi= I 

2 US EPA (2002), Health Assessment Documentfi>r Diesel Engine Exhaust, U.S. EPA, Office of Research and 

Development, National Center for Environmental Assessment, Washington Office, Washington D.C., EP Al6001S90/057F (2002), at I-I, available at http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfmlrecordisplay.efm?deid=29060. 
4 


85521.056

Friends of the Earth & Clean Air Task Force 

Testimony in Support of Marine Vessel Emissions Reduction Act of 2007 Page 2 

vessel emissions are concentrated in port areas wherc ships transit and dock, disproportionately 

impacting disadvantaged communities and communities of color, 3 while also impacting coastal 

cities and towns along busy shipping corridors,4 

Today, shipping accounts for about a quarter of the world's nitrogen oxide emissions, which 

causes smog,5 and shipping emissions are growing significantly (at a rate of 4.1 percent per year 

through 2040)6 as marine transportation increases.7 Smog causes harmful respiratory effects 

including shortness of breath, coughing, decreased lung tunction, inflammation of the lung 

tissue, aggravation of existing respiratory diseases, and may impair the body's immune system. 8 

Children and the elderly are most severely affected by these health effects. Exposure to smog 

leads to increased hospital admissions and emergency room visits and increases the use of 

medications. 9 

Ozone and PM2.5 emitted by large ocean-going vessels can also have severe public welfare 

effects. Exposure to fine particles can lead to aggravation of the respiratory system, 

cardiovascular disease, increased asthma, difficulty breathing, chronic bronchitis, and premature 

death. 1O Particulate matter also causes soiling and erosion damage to materials, including 

culturally important objects, increases the corrosion of metals, degrades paints, and deteriorates 

building materials. I I Emissions from large marine diesel engines also harm the environment by 

impairing visibility, contributing to haze, acid rain, eutrophication, and nitrophication, and 

reducing crop yields and productivity offorest ecosystems. 12 

3 While the impacts from marine diesel emissions can affect all people, those most likely to live and work near 

pollution sources such as ports and their transportation corridors also confront the challenges of poverty, limited 

access to medical care, low rates of insurance coverage, and virtual exclusion from the public policy decisions that 

most affect them. Environmental justice communities often suffer from disproportionately high cancer, disease, and 

mortality rates as they are exposed to the highest levels of carcinogenic, toxic, and hazardous chemicals. Friends of 

the Earth International, "Air Pollution from Shipping Emissions - Environmental Justice: Public Health and 

Community Impacts," submitted to the IMO's Marine Environment Protection Committee, May 12,2005 ("FOEI 

Environmental Justice Report"). 

4 The Santa Barbara Air Quality Management District has determined that, if Category 3 marine engines are not 

regulated, by 2020 marine vessel pollution will constitute 75 percent of the District's nitrogen oxide inventory and 

may cause the District to be classified as in nonattainment for the federal ozone standard. Complaint for Declaratory 

and Injunctive Relief, Santa Barbara Country Air Pollution Control District, U.S. District Court for the District of 

Columbia, Filed Dec. 26, 2007, at 4. 

5 A reaction of NO x and volatile organic compounds in the presence of heat and sunlight forms ground-level ozone, 

or smog. 

6 Friends of the Earth International, "New Global and Regional Inventories of Air Pollution from International 

Shipping," submitted to the IMO subcommittee on Bulk Liquids and Gases, Jan. 12,2007, BLG 11/5/5, BLG 

II/INF.3. 

7 Corbett, J.J., and Koehler, H. 2003. Updated Emissions from Ocean Shipping. Journal of Geophysical Research, 

Vol. 108 (as cited in the United States' proposal entitled "Development of Standards for NOx, PM, and SOx" 

submitted to the International Maritime Organization subcommittee on Bulk Liquids and Gases, Feb. 9, 2007)("U.S. 

NOx, PM, and SOx Standards Proposal"'). 

868 Fed. Reg. 975 I (February 28, 2003). 

"[d. 

10 [d., at 9752 (February 28, 2003). 

II [d. 

12 72 Fed. Reg. 69534-69536 (December 7,2007). 
5 


85521.057

Friends of the Earth & Clean Air Task Force 

Testimony in Support of Marine Vessel Emissions Reduction Act of 2007 Page 3 

Marine engine emissions contribute to pollution in coastal areas throughout the country, many of 

which are not currently in attainment with National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). J3 

Currently, more than 40 major U.S. coastal ports are located in nonattainment areas for ozone 

andlor PM25. 14 Currently, air pollution from vessel emissions represent more than 8 percent of 

U.S. mobile source NOx and 15 percent of U.S. mobile source PM2.S emissions. These numbers 

are projected to rise significantly by 2030 because of increased movement of international goods. 

EPA estimates that by 2030 emissions from Category 3 engines will represent 34 percent of 

NOx, 45 percent ofPM25, and 94 percent of SOx mobile source emissions in the U.S. IS 

Globally, the scope of the problem from ship air pollution is staggering. In 2002, marine vessel 

emissions resulted in 60,000 premature deaths, primarily due to the use of high sulfur bunker 

fuel. 16 This peer-reviewed, published scientific study, supported in part by Clean Air Task 

Force, estimated that without new regulations, premature deaths from shipping-related emissions 

will increase by 2012, along with the projected growth in shipping traffic. 

Proactive action can change this outcome, however. A new study has found that if shippers 

switch to marine distillate with a sulfur standard of 1,000 ppm within 200 miles of the world's 

coastlines, premature mortality could be cut in half, to 42,200 per year. 17 

For these reasons, we are pleased to see that S. 1499 is a top priority for federal policymakers. 

THE SOLUTION 

One of the primary methods of complying with S. 1499 would be switching from bunker fuel to 

marine distillate fuel. This is a highly cost-etTective, technically feasible way of lessening health 

impacts without causing economic harm to the shipping sector. The benefits in switching to 

marine distillate, when one considers environmental and public health factors, far exceed the 

13 While marine vessel emissions have a significant effect on communities near ports, many areas of the country are 

affected by pollution dispersion and regional haze. Studies have shown that emissions from marine vessels can 

substantially contribute to pollution from 400 to 1,200 kilometers inland, and that transport of secondary products 

such as ozone and fine aerosol particles can travel thousands of kilometers in the atmosphere. FOE! Environmental 

Justice Report; 72 Fed. Reg. 69530 (December 7, 2007); See e.g., Qinbin Li et aI., (2002) "Transatlantic transport of 

pollution and its effects on surface ozone in Europe and North America," Journal of Geophysical Research Vol. 107, 

NO. 013, 10. 10291200 IJDOOI422. 14 72 Fed. Reg. 69526 (December 7, 2007). 

15 72 Fed. Reg. 69526 (December 7, 2007). 

16 Corbett et aI., "Mortality from Ship Emissions: A Global Assessment," Environmental Sci. Technol, American 

Chemical Society, 42(24), p. 8512-8518, Dec. 15,2007. 

17 Corbett et aI., "Mitigating Health Impacts of Ship Pollution through Low Sulfur Fuel Options: Initial Comparison 

of Scenarios," Jan. 23, 2008, annex to Friends of the Earth International, "Avoided Global Premature Mortality 

Resulting from Reduction of Sulphur in Marine Fuel," submitted to the IMO's Marine Environment Protection 

Committee, Jan. 25, 2008. Almost 70 percent of global shipping emissions occur within 250 miles of shore, where a 

majority of the world's population lives. Corbett, J.J., P. Fischbeck, and S. Pandis, (1999), "Global nitrogen and 

sulphur inventories for oceangoing ships," Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 104, No. 03 (Feb. 20, 1999), at 

3465,3469. 
6 


85521.058

Friends of the Earth & Clean Air Task :Force 

Testimony in Support of Marine Vessel Emissions Reduction Act of 2007 Page 4 

costs. Although low sulfur fuel can cost from 50-72 percent more than bunker fuel, 18 the cleaner 

fuel standard of S. 1499 applies only to ocean-going vessels within a 200-mile distance from the 

U.S. west coast and from an as-yet undetermined distance from other U.S. coasts. Thus, vessel 

operators will only be required to use marine distillate for a small portion of their trip. As 

calculated by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (AQMD), a ship traveling from 

Hong Kong to Los Angeles would need to switch from bunker fuel to distillate fuel for only 

about 3 percent of its trip, resulting in a fuel increase of just 2.1 percent. 

The reductions in fuel sulfur content achieved by switching from bunker fuel can dramatically 

reduce vessel emissions. The California Air Resources Board (CARB) expects that moving from 

bunker fuel (approximately 25,000 ppm sulfur content) to 1,000 ppm marine gas oil will reduce 

PM, SOx, and NOx by 83 percent, 96 percent, and 6 percent, respectively. 19 Similarly, recent 

modeling of a container ship switch using 22,900 ppm bunker fuel (the average U.S. west coast 

sulfur content level) to 1,000 ppm marine gas oil found that PM, SOx, and NOx would decrease 

by 78 percent, 94 percent, and 6 percent, respectively.2o Finally, the U.S. proposal to the IMO, 

which would include coastal use of 1,000 ppm distillate, is estimated to reduce PM by 65 percent 

and S02 by 78 percent by 2020. 21 

The 2005 CARB auxiliary engine rule (which requires all ships visiting ports in California to use 

low-sulphur distillate fuel in their auxiliary engines while at berth and within 24 nautical miles of 

the California coastline), provides some frame of reference for the cost-effectiveness of reduced 

fuel sulfur measures. CARB staff found that its auxiliary engine rule would increase fuel costs 

by $38 million in 2010 when the lower sulfur fuel standard of 1,000 ppm was scheduled to be 

implemented. Staff also estimated total capital costs of about $11 to $18 million for vessel 

modifications. CARE staff determined that this regulation was cost-effective and compared 

favorably with the cost-effectiveness of other air quality regulations adopted by the Board. 22 

The attendant health benefits of using marine distillate in lieu of bunker fuel are immense. The 

Clean Air Task Force study indicates that societal benefits of approximately $225 billion per 

year will be realized from globally instituting a 1,000 ppm coastline standard, with annual 

mortalities reduced by approximately 40,000 [Corbett and Winebrake, 2008].23 

"Note by Secretary-General, "Report on the outcome ofthe Informal Cross Government/Industry Scientific Group 

of Experts established to evaluate the effects of the different fuel options proposed under the revision of MAR POL 

Annex VI," submitted to IMO subcommittee on Bulk Liquids and Gases, Dec. 20, 2007, at 15. 

19 Winebrake, J.J., and Corbett, J.J. Technical Memorandum - Total Fuel Cycle Analysis for Container Ships: A 

Comparison of Residual Oil, Marine Gas Oil and Marine Diesel Oil, prepared for Friends of the Earth, June 6, 2007, 

at 3-4. 

20 /d, at 6. 

21 Note by Secretary-General, "Report on the outcome of the Infonnal Cross Government/Industry Scientific Group 

of Experts established to evaluate the effects of the different fuel options proposed under the revision of MAR POL 

Annex VI," submitted to IMO subcommittee on Bulk Liquids and Gases, Dec. 20, 2007, at 35. 

22 California Air Resources Board, Staff Report: Initial Statement of Reasons for Proposed Rulemaking: Proposed 

Regulation for Auxiliary Diesel Engines and Diesel-Electric Engines Operated on Ocean-Going Vessels within 

California Waters and 24 Nautical Miles ofthe California Baseline, at ES-15- I 6 ("CARB Auxiliary Rule"). 

23 Friends of the Earth International, "Avoided Global Premature Mortality Resulting from Reduction of Sulphur in 

Marine Fuel," submitted to IMO committee on Marine Environment Protection, Jan. 25, 2008. 
7 


85521.059

Friends of the Earth & Clean Air Task Force 

Testimony in Support of Marine Vessel Emissions Rednction Act of 2007 Page 5 

EUROPEAN UNION AND THE INTERN A TTONAL MARITTME ORGANIZA TTON 

Several governmental entities, including the United States, have called for the use of/ow sulfur 

distillate. Executive officials representing the U.S. at IMO negotiations, including the U.S. EPA 

and Coast Guard, have as a central feature of their proposal a 1,000 ppm U.S. sulfur coastal 

zone.24 In addition, the European Union (E.U.) has a marine gas oil limit of2,000 ppm for 

vessels in port and, by January 20 10, will reduce the fuel standard to 1,000 ppm25 for inland 

vessels and ocean-going vessels at berth in its portS.26 As discussed above, CARB also has set 

its auxiliary engine fuel limit at 1,000 ppm by January 2010. CARB believes that "[bJy 

harmonizing with the 2010 EU requirements for low sulfur marine distillates, the staffs proposal 

promotes international consistency and increases the availability of cleaner marine distillates at 

ports that refuel Pacific Rim vessels.,,27 These developments indicate the recognized benefits 

and feasibility of switching to low sulfur distillate in the near term. 

Some contend that pressing for strong U.S. emission standards will interfere with IMO 

negotiations. However, it is important to understand, first, that the IMO has never adopted 

strong pollution controls. The IMO NOx standards currently in place simply codify emission 

levels that had already been achieved by industry, and its current fuel standard allows the 

extraordinarily high level of 45,000 ppm sulfur. Second, it is commonly understood that the 

IMO is currently considering adoption of new emission standards primarily due to the 

proliferation of legislative and regulatory actions and proposals at the national and sub-national 

levels. Without sufficient impetus, the international process could easily fracture and become 

bogged down, reverting back to a glacial pace. History suggests that U.S. action can precipitate 

strong international standards. For example, after Congress adopted the Oil Pollution Act of 

1990 - requiring all new tankers operating in U.S. waters to be equipped with double hulls - the 

international community quickly adopted the same requirement. 

While some may seek to defer and wait for an international consensus to develop around an 

uncertain level of pollution protection, we believe that the most effective way of resolving the 

health harms associated with dirty bunker fuels is for Congress to act now and demonstrate 

leadership by enacting stringent standards that the International community can follow. 

TECHNICAL FEASIBILITY 

Previously, some in the shipping industry have raised concerns about the technical feasibility of 

switching from bunker fuel to marine distillate. Those concerns have been allayed. At least one 

major shipping company, Maersk, has demonstrated the feasibility of this switch. It voluntarily 

switched from bunker fuel to distillate fuel (2,000 ppm) for ships operating within 24 nautical 

miles of certain California ports.28 In addition, since the early-I 990s, USS-POSCO has been 

24 PM and SOx standards in coastal zones would also be achievable through the use of seawater SOx scrubbers. U.S. 

NOx, PM, and SOx Standards Proposal. 

25 Several U.S. and foreign fuel producers have already begun production on grades of marine distillate with this 

level of sulfur. See e.g., Polish player already offering 0.1% sulphur fuel, SUST AINABLESHIPPING.COM, Jan. 7, 

200S, available at http://www.sustainableshipping.com/news/200S/01170274. 

26 Directive 20051331EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, July 6, 2005. 

27 CARB Auxiliary Rule, VI-I O. 

28 72 Fed. Reg. 69525 (December 7, 2007). 
8 


85521.060

Friends ofthe Earth & Clean Air Task Force 

Testimony in Support of Marine Vessel Emissions Reduction Act of 2007 Page 6 

making fuel switches from heavy fuel oil to ultra-low (less than 500 ppm) sulfur distillate prior 

to entering the Bay Area AQMD boundary on the regular routes between South Korea and 

Pittsburg, California. Ultra-low sulfur distillate was used to facilitate the use of on-board 

selective catalytic reduction (SCR) systems to further minimize air pollution.29 Furthermore, 

cruise ships within 24 nautical miles of the California coastline have had to use distillate fuel 

since January 1,2007.30 No significant incidents have been reported. 

u.S. EPA asserts that "properly designed ships would be able to operate on distillate fuel either 

under a fuel-switching strategy or for extended use." CARB has also addressed several technical 

issues relating to the use oflow sulfur distillate. For example, in response to concerns from 

industry that low sulfur fuels with lower lubricity could cause damage to fuel pumps, CARB 

stated that those concerns were associated with landside diesel fuels having very low sulfur 

levels, lower than the proposed 1,000 ppm standard.31 In addition, CARB summarized that 

concerns related to the low viscosity of distillate affecting pump leakage and engine performance 

could be resolved by minimum viscosity requirements or modifications such as the use of a fuel 

cooler, thereby lowering fuel temperature and increasing viscosity.32 In sum, actual experience 

and agency opinion demonstrate that marine distillate switching, when performed by competent 

professionals according to recommended procedures,33 is feasible. 

THE PUBLIC SUPPORTS A MOVE TO CLEANER FUELS 

Broad public support exists for a switch from bunker fuel to marine distillate fuel. This past 

November, the Cosco Busan ran into the Bay Bridge and spilled of 58,000 gallons of toxic 

bunker fuel into San Francisco Bay, demonstrating the risk that bunker fuel poses to marine life. 

In response to this accident, Friends of the Earth circulated a petition calling on Congress to 

require a complete phase-out of bunker fuel use. Over 7,400 individuals from across the country 

signed on to this petition to ban bunker fuel, a copy of which is attached to this testimony. 

CONCLUSION 

The Marine Vessel Emissions Reduction Act is urgently needed. A recent study indicates that by 

2012 nearly 84,000 people could die prematurely from global vessel emissions. Other health and 

quality of life impacts on communities in the U.S., especially port communities, are acute. 

Congress is the appropriate body to deal with this issue; the U .S. EPA still has not agreed to 

regulate foreign-flagged vessels a fatal flaw in any regulation of ocean-going ships, since 

foreign-flagged ships are responsible for about 90 percent of vessel emissions in US waters.34 In 

addition, EPA has not assured implementation of emission controls or fuel standards by a certain 

date or level of stringency. Congress should act now to ensure that significant emission 

reductions are achieved thereby improving health and facilitating efforts to attain federal air 

quality standards for impaired areas. S. 1499 will also send a firm and timely message to the 

29 CARB Auxiliary rule, VI-12. 

30 CARB Auxiliary Rule, ES-4. 

31 CARS auxiliary rule, VI-I6. 

32Id. 

33 Engine manufacturers and marine equipment suppliers publish guidance for vessel operators that set forth 

recommended procedures. CARB Auxiliary Rule, VI-I3. 34 72 Fed. Reg. 69536 (December 7, 2007). 
9 


85521.061

Friends of the Earth & Clean Air Task Force 

Testimony in Support of Marine Vessel Emissions Reduction Act of 2007 Page 7 

IMO that the U.S. Congress is serious about dealing with air emissions from vessels in the 

furthest reach of its waters, and will likely finally spur the international body into action. 

85521.062

Health Impacts from Ships are a Nationwide Prob

At least 2,000 to 5,000 Premature Deaths Per Year in the Continental 

are Caused by Particulate Pollution from Oceangoing Vessels 

Cleaner marine fuels would reduce nationwide ship health impacts by - 

Source: Corbett, J. J.; Winebrake, J. J.; Green, E. H.; Kasibhatla, P.; Eyring, V.; Lauer, A., Mort

Emissions: A Global Assessment Environmental Science & Technology 2007, 41, (24), 8512-8

85521.063

Vessel Pollution is Largely Unregula

Percentage of Pollution Control 

Adopted NOx Standards for New Units 

100,------------

90 

80 

70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

10 

o 

Passenger Cars 

(40CFR 86 

December 1999) 

Trucks 

(40CFR 69, 80, 86 

January 2001) 

Off Road 

Equipment 

(40CFR 9, 69, 80, 86, 89, 94 

January 2001) 

Locomotives 

(40CFR 85, 89, 92 

June 2004) 

Ship

(40CFR 

February 

85521.064

Cost of Low Sulfur Fuel is Reasonable 

And is Greatly Exceeded by Benefits 

• Increase in container shipping cost: 0.2% - 0.5% 

• Cost per 60" plasma TV: 43 ¢ - 96 ¢ 

• Cost per pair of shoes: 0.2 ¢ - 0.4 ¢ 

• U.S. deaths avoided: 1,200 - 3,000 per year (m

• Monetized benefit: $7.2 - $18 billion per year* • Benefit to Cost Ratio:** 4: 1 - 11: 1 

,. assuming value of statistical life consistent with USEPA, 

see http://www,epa.gov/oms/regs/nonroad/420d07001.pdf p 6·54 

*"'assuming 200 mile low sulfur fuel zone 
13 

Senator BOXER. I just say that we are really taking a look at a 

bill that I authored along with Senator Feinstein, the Clean Ports 

Act, because people are suffering from dirty filthy air, frankly, 

around ports. We have waited long enough to get this resolved. We 

keep waiting for the Administration to sign an international treaty. 

That day has not come. 

In the meantime, people are getting sick, and we have quantified 

the number of cancers and cases of asthma. So this isn’t a question 

of some ideological discussion. It is a question of health. 

So we really do welcome everybody here, and we will begin after 

I place my testimony in the record, with Bryan Wood-Thomas, Associate Director, Office of Transportation and Air Quality at the 

Environmental Protection Agency. 

Welcome, sir. 

STATEMENT OF BRYAN WOOD-THOMAS, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF TRANSPORTATION AND AIR QUALITY, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

Mr. WOOD-THOMAS. Madam Chairman, thank you. It is a pleasure to be here today. I very much appreciate the opportunity to testify on this important issue. 

In addition to my role as Associate Director of EPA’s Office of 

Transportation and Air Quality, I also lead our negotiation efforts 

at the International Maritime Organization and chair the work 

group currently responsible for those negotiations. 

I would like to first set some context for this important issue that 

we are here today to discuss. In the mid–1990’s, few parties considered air emissions from ships as a significant source of pollution. 

Indeed, most players reasoned that ships must constitute a minor 

source since the absolute number of ships is relatively modest and 

the common perception was that these ships spent most of their 

time far out to sea. 

This perception was made easier by the fact that very little data 

existed regarding the specific emissions generated by vessels. It 

should come as no surprise to members of this Committee that this 

perception is changing and changing dramatically. Marine vessels 

already are a significant source of air pollution in the U.S. and 

their relative contribution is growing rapidly. 

If we consider emissions within our exclusive economic zone, marine vessels accounted for approximately 13 percent of NOx, 17 percent of PM2.5 and 50 percent of SOx emissions in 2001. By 2030, 

we expect that vessels will contribute about 46 percent of oxides of 

nitrogen, 52 percent of particulate matter, and 95 percent of sulfur 

oxides. 

This is a function of two principal trends. First, other sources are 

becoming dramatically cleaner. Second, the growth of international 

trade is driving an increase in marine traffic that is impressive by 

any yardstick. Annual growth rates across the world fleet average 

more than 3 percent, and container traffic is growing at roughly 10 

percent per annum. 

If we look at this from the U.S. perspective, we have currently 

more than 40 U.S. ports that are located in non-attainment areas 

for ozone or fine particulates or both. We are working closely with 

14 

the Coast Guard, MARAD, other stakeholders to see how we can 

advance admissions standards for these sources. 

In April, 2007, EPA proposed a rule to adopt two new tiers of exhaust emission standards for smaller and medium-speed engines. 

The proposal when implemented will result in PM reductions of 

about 90 percent and NOx reductions of about 80 percent. We expect this rule to be finalized in the very near future, indeed measured in weeks. 

Slow-speed category three engines are those that are most commonly used on ships engaged in international trade. These engines 

are massive in scale and they represent a significant source of NOx

emissions, with studies estimating 18 percent or more of total NOx

emissions worldwide. 

As you are aware, the U.S. is currently engaged in negotiations 

at the IMO, and in February of last year the U.S. submitted a proposal to the IMO for establishing new tighter standards. The proposal represents the most comprehensive approach ever taken to 

address air pollution from ships, and it has gained considerable 

support from governments across the globe and from numerous 

non-government organizations. 

Last week in London, the IMO subcommittee agreed to tier two 

and tier three NOx standards for new ships. Beginning in 2011, we 

would see a reduction of approximately 20 percent in NOx beyond 

the existing standards, but more importantly the tier three standards, beginning in 2016, would require NOx reductions more than 

80 percent from tier one, bringing us to a cumulative reduction in 

excess of 90 percent from pre-2000 levels. 

Like the proposed legislation before us today, the U.S. proposal 

also includes stringent new SOx and PM reductions. We are advocating the use of low-sulfur distillate fuels at 1000 ppm applicable 

to ships operating in specific areas near the coast. If we are successful in this adoption, we will see 95 percent reduction in SOx

and significant PM reductions as well, beginning in the 2011–2012 

timeframe. 

As evidenced by last week’s agreement, we are seeing a broadening base of support for the U.S. proposal. Given developments 

last week, we will now focus our negotiating efforts on existing engines and agreement on sulfur and PM standards that should address the serious air quality needs we face here in the United 

States. 

While there has been considerable movement at the IMO in support of more stringent standards, and specifically what the United 

States has advocated, it is important that I note we are not yet a 

party to Annex VI, and indeed our success in the current negotiations will be threatened if we fail to submit our instrument of ratification. 

As you know, the House has passed H.R. 802 last March. This 

bill would amend the Act to prevent pollution from ships. The Senate has not yet acted on this bill. Please understand that failure 

to act on the MARPOL implementing legislation will weaken our 

position in London and mean that we will not have a vote in the 

upcoming final debate. 

Senator BOXER. Could you wrap in a minute please? 

Mr. WOOD-THOMAS. Certainly. 

15 

Senator BOXER. OK. 

Mr. WOOD-THOMAS. Given these developments, we are hopeful 

for a satisfactory outcome in London. If not, we will move to rely 

on our domestic authorities. Turning specifically to S. 1499, let me 

note that the Administration does not have an official position on 

the bill, but I should also note that the bill is generally consistent 

with the framework of the U.S. proposal to the IMO and introduction of the bill has helped demonstrate commitment in the U.S. to 

addressing this issue. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify here this morning. I 

would be happy to address any questions that you or members of 

the committee may have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Wood-Thomas follows:] 

16 


85521.001

STATEMENT OF 

BRYAN WOOD-THOMAS 

ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR 

OFFICE OF TRANSPORT A TION AND AIR QUALITY 

OFFICE OF AIR AND RADIATION 

U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

U.S. SENATE 

FEBRUARY 14,2008 

Madame Chairman and members of the Committee. I appreciate the opportunity to 

discuss the Environmental Protection Agency's efforts to reduce emissions from marine vessels 

and the Marine Vessel Emission Reduction Act currently being considered by this Committee. I 

am the Associate Director of EPA's Office of Transportation and Air Quality. and I am leading 

the United States' negotiating efforts at the International Maritime Organization (IMO). I also 

serve as the Chairman of the IMO workgroup responsible for negotiation of new marine 

emission standards under MARPOL Annex VI. 

Marine vessels are already a significant source of air pollution in the United States and 

their relative contribution is rapidly growing. Ifwe consider emissions within the Exclusive 

Economic Zone of the United States. marine vessels account for approximately 13 percent of 

NOx emissions, 17 percent of PM2.5 emissions, and 50 percent of SOx emissions. Without 

further action to regulate engine emissions and fuel quality, we expect that the relative 

contribution of emissions from marine vessels will grow rapidly as emissions from other sources 

are subjected to increasingly stringent controls. By 2030, we expect that engines on commercial 

marine vessels will contribute about 46 percent of mobile source emissions of nitrogen oxides 

(NOx), 52 percent of mobile source emissions of particulate matter (PM), and 95 percent of 
17 


85521.002

mobile source emissions of sulfur oxides (SOx) in the United States (see attachment). The 

contribution of ship emissions is most significant in U.S. ports and coastal areas that are subject 

to heavy maritime traffic. Currently more than 40 U.S. ports are located in non-attainment areas 

for ozone or fine particulates or both. However, the problem is not limited to port areas alone. 

Santa Barbara County, which has no commercial ports, estimates that by 2020, 67 percent of its 

NOx inventory will come from shipping traffic transiting the California coast, although the 

extent to which these emissions reach land depends on wind and weather patterns. 

EPA, in coordination with the U.S. Coast Guard, the U.S. Maritime Administration, and 

other stakeholders, is working intently to achieve additional emission reductions from marine 

vessels. For these efforts, we distinguish between very large engines used for propulsion on 

ocean-going vessels and smaller engines used for auxiliary power or for propulsion on smaller 

vessels. These large engines -- those with a displacement at or above 30 liters per cylinder -- are 

referred to as Category 3 engines, while smaller marine engines are referred to as either Category 

I or Category 2. 

In April of2007, EPA proposed a rule to adopt two new tiers of exhaust emission 

standards for smaller vessels that operate with high and medium speed engines (Category I and 2 

marine engines). The proposal includes near-term emission standards, referred to as Tier 3 

standards, and longer-term Tier 4 standards that reflect the application of high-efficiency exhaust 

aftertreatment technology. The proposal, when implemented, would result in PM reductions of 

about 90 percent, and NOx reductions of about 80 percent. We expect this rule to be completed 

in the near future. 
18 


85521.003

Category 3 engines are most commonly used on ships engaged in international trade and 

cruise ships. These engines are massive in scale and they represent a significant source of NO x 

emissions with studies estimating emissions as 18 percent or higher of total NOx emissions 

worldwide. 

As you are aware, the United States is engaged in negotiations currently underway at the 

IMO to amend the international standards applicable to ship emissions. In February oflast year, 

the United States Government submitted a proposal to the IMO for establishing new, tighter 

emission standards for ships. This proposal represents the most comprehensive approach ever 

taken to reducing air pollution from ocean-going ships, and it has gained considerable support 

from governments across the globe and from numerous non-government organizations. The U.S. 

proposal is based on performance-based standards that reflect the use of cleaner fuels and 

advanced emission control technology, including exhaust aftertreatment. 

Our current national Tier 1 NOx standards for Category 3 engines are consistent with the 

existing international standards developed through the IMO for these large engines. The U.S. 

proposal to the IMO includes two additional tiers of NO x emission standards. The Tier 2 NOx 

limits would begin as early as 20 II and would result in a reduction of approximately 20 percent 

beyond the existing Tier 1 standard. Tier 3 standards, beginning in 2016, would require NOx 

emission reductions of more than 80 percent from Tier I levels. These cumulative reductions, if 

adopted, will result in NOx emission reductions well in excess of90 percent. 
19 


85521.004

The U.S. proposal to the IMO also includes stringent new SOx and PM reductions to be 

achieved through the use of cleaner, distillate fuel with a sulfur level not exceeding 1,000 ppm 

when ships are operated in specified areas near the coast. These standards would achieve SOx 

reductions as high as 95 percent and significant PM reductions as well, beginning in the 20 II I 

2012 time frame. 

The most recent negotiating session at the IMO occurred just last week, and it produced 

considerable progress in reaching an agreement (consistent with the U.S. proposal submitted in 

February 2007). We are seeing the fruits of our efforts payoff in broadening support for the 

reductions in ship emissions of NO x, PM, and SOx advocated by the United States. We are also 

seeing increasing support for a framework that allows for the application of more stringent 

standards in areas that are subject to severe air quality problems. 

While there has been considerable movement at the IMO in support of the U.S. 

proposals, I should point out that the United States is not yet a party to Annex VI. Indeed, our 

success in the current negotiations underway at the IMO will be threatened if we fail to submit 

our instrument of ratification for MARPOL Annex VI, thereby undermining our credibility in the 

negotiation of the Annex. As you know, the House of Representatives passed the Maritime 

Pollution Prevention Act of 2007 (H.R. 802) last March. This bill would amend the Act to 

Prevent Pollution from Ships to provide for the adoption of Annex VI of the International 

Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL 73178). The Senate has not 

yet acted on this bill. Failure to act will mean that the U.S. government will not be able to vote 

on amendments that we have taken the lead in negotiating at the IMO. 
20 


85521.005

As part of our comprehensive strategy to address emissions from transoceanic ships, EPA 

Administrator Stephen Johnson signed an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in 

November 2007 to establish rigorous exhaust emission standards consistent with our proposal 

before the IMO. In this notice, we provided an inventory of emissions from ocean-going vessels 

in the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (200 nautical miles off the coast of the United States), 

describe the proposal submitted to the IMO, and requested public comment on these standards. 

Comments on the Advance Notice are due by March 6 of this year. 

In addition, we are performing extensive technical analysis and modeling to assess the 

possibility of designating emission control areas along the coasts of North America. Under the 

proposal being considered by the IMO, ships would be required to meet the most stringent 

standards in designated emissions controls areas. Our analyses include vessel traffic studies, fate 

and transport of ship emissions on the West, Gulf, and East coasts, environment and human 

health impacts, as well as studies concerning the global fuels market and how requirements in 

North America would affect the market both in terms of price and supply. Any decision on the 

matter will need to await completion of the analytic studies noted above. 

We are also engaged in cooperative programs with stakeholders to address marine 

emissions through a series of collaborative partnerships. As part of the National Clean Diesel 

Campaign, EPA's Clean Ports USA has been at the forefront of encouraging innovative diesel 

emissions reduction strategies at ports across the country. In the past three years, we have 

funded multiple port-related projects with $1.9 million in federal dollars and $2.5 million in 
21 


85521.006

matching funds provided by our partners. As a result, leading port authorities are reducing air 

pollution now. 

The Marine Vessel Emission Reduction Act of2007 would amend the Clean Air Act to 

add a new set of requirements for establishing clean fuel and engine exhaust standards for oceangoing vessels. While the bill is generally consistent with the framework of the U.S. proposal to 

the IMO, the Administration is continuing to review the bill and does not have an official 

position at this time. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify before the Committee and we look forward to 

working with you on this important issue. 

I would be happy to address any questions that you or members of the Committee may 

have. 

85521.007

62% 

Attachment A: 

u.s. Marine Emissions Inventory 

,y" 

Marine diesel engines contribute significant

to mobile source pollution in the U.S. 

2001 Mobile Source NOx Inventory 

(12,960,000 tons) CINR 

2/13/2008 

C3 Marine 

6% 

Locomotive Other Nonroad 

9% 5% 

4% 

2030 Mobile Source NOx Inve

(6,010,000 tons) 

CINR 

14% 

Source of inventory estimates: C3 Marine ANPRM, 72 FR 69522 (Dec 7,2007) 

85521.008

----

PM 2.5 

The marine contribution is expected to grow 

as emissions from other sources decrease 

2001 Mobile Source PM2.5 Inventory 

(500,400 tons) 

CINR 

2030 Mobile Source PM2.5 Inven

(366,300 tons) 

Highway CI NR 

18% 5% CI 

33% Other Nonroad 

16% 

6% 

7% 

6% 

85521.009

SOx Emissions 

1% 

7% 

SOx emissions are high due to the sulfur 

content of residual fuel used in C3 engines 

2001 Mobile Source S02 Inventory 

(1,080,000 tons) 

CINR 

2030 Mobile Source S02 In

(1,480,000 tons) 

Other Nonroad 

1% 

Locomotive 

Highway CI NR 

3% /- 0% CI 

8% 0% 

2/13/2008 C3 Marine 

42% C3 Marine 

95% 
25 

Senator BOXER. OK. 

I guess the frustrating thing to me is that we started negotiating 

for this international agreement in 2003, and it is 2008. Kids are 

getting asthma. People are getting cancer. The ports are growing 

and I thought your testimony was solid testimony. Your clear testimony is that this is only going to get worse, and you show us the 

great increases, that we are going to 46 percent of nitrogen oxides 

will come from the commercial marine vessels by 2030, and 52 percent of soot, and 95 percent of sulfur oxides from all mobile 

sources. 

So I think your testimony is strong, but the actions of the EPA, 

I just don’t get it. Our people are suffering because foreign flags 

are coming in and they are filthy and they are polluting. And we 

are sitting back saying, well, we just can’t do anything until we get 

this international agreement. I don’t get it. 

Do you support the bill that the House sent over? And do you 

support my bill and Senator Feinstein’s bill that would say you just 

can’t come into a port until you change the fuel? 

Mr. WOOD-THOMAS. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator BOXER. Yes. 

Mr. WOOD-THOMAS. The Administration does not have an official 

position on the bill before us, but as noted, certainly the approach 

outlined in the legislation is largely consistent with the approach 

we are advocating. Indeed, we are arguing for 1,000 parts per million to be applied as is contained in the draft legislation. 

Senator BOXER. OK. Well, I am very heartened that you said 

that, but it doesn’t change the fact that nothing is happening for 

5 years. And so I am going to just ask you to take this back to Mr. 

Johnson, and to, if you can get the ear of the President and his 

people, that it would be a tremendous legacy if this Administration 

said we are ready to move right here. 

Why should our people suffer because the foreign flags are using 

the filthiest bunker fuel? It is bunker fuel, isn’t it? Why? When all 

they have to do is when they get to a certain point, just change 

over to a clean fuel. It is a fairly simple point. 

So the fact is, I love that we are in agreement on the eventual 

level that should be allowed in terms of the pollution. I am glad 

we are in agreement, but it doesn’t give my people great solace to 

know that it has gone on for 5 years of international negotiation 

to no end. Do you have any idea of an end-date here? What are you 

looking for? What are you working toward? 

Mr. WOOD-THOMAS. We are expecting completion of the negotiation in October. 

Senator BOXER. OK. Well, then we will call you back in September to get a report, and we hope that you will sit there with 

a great big smile on your face, because I know you want to get this 

done. But I will tell you, we have to get it done because people are 

suffering. 

And then the other question that we are concerned about is that 

our understanding is that the options that are before the international organization do not match what we want. Are you concerned about that? 

Mr. WOOD-THOMAS. With respect to the options before the committee in London, we reached agreement last week on the NOx

26 

standards for new builds, fully consistent with what we have argued for as the United States. 

Senator BOXER. Good. 

Mr. WOOD-THOMAS. With respect to the sulfur and PM-related 

issues, we narrowed those options to three last week. The second 

option is essentially the United States proposal. 

Senator BOXER. Are we talking about new ships? 

Mr. WOOD-THOMAS. This would apply to all ships with respect to 

sulfur and PM. 

Senator BOXER. OK, good. 

Mr. WOOD-THOMAS. With respect to NOx, the agreement last 

week is with respect to new ships, new builds. 

Senator BOXER. So NOx does not go back? 

Mr. WOOD-THOMAS. We have agreement in the subcommittee 

with no square brackets, and we intend to the best of our efforts 

to maintain that agreement. 

Senator BOXER. Well, so you are saying that what you are negotiating does not go as far as my bill in terms of NOx. 

Mr. WOOD-THOMAS. With respect to the agreement on NOx for 

new builds, yes. 

Senator BOXER. I am not talking about new builds. 

Mr. WOOD-THOMAS. On existing engines, that will be a further 

point of debate in the first week of April. We are pressing to try 

and reach agreement on retrofit standards applicable to existing 

ships. 

Senator BOXER. That is extremely important, because these ships 

hang around. I would hope, if there is a chance, and I don’t know 

what your schedule is, if you could just hear our next panel, our 

little boy on the next panel who is now turning into a big boy, actually, I think it would be wonderful, so that you could take back the 

urgency of this matter. This is so not ideological. This is so real. 

This is hurting people. 

Do you have a chance, Mr. Wood-Thomas, to stay just for that 

little boy’s testimony? 

Mr. WOOD-THOMAS. Certainly. 

Senator BOXER. It would be meaningful to me. Thank you very 

much. 

OK. We are going to take our third panel now. So Dr. John Miller, Jonah Ramirez, Richard Kassel, Joe Accardo, Joel Chaisson, 

and Ken Wells. 

I say to our second panel, you will come right after that. So if 

you would take your seats as quickly as possible. 

And Mr. Wood-Thomas, if you could tell your friends in the international community that the way things are going with November 

and changes, that I said, not you said, that stronger regulations 

are coming one way or the other. We are going to make sure those 

foreign flags do the right thing in our ports. So if you could tell 

them they ought to act now, rather than have to be subjected to 

American law that is different, because that is what is coming 

down the pike. I thank you so much, and I thank you for your 

strong testimony and for staying to hear our panel. 

And you know what? Jonah, do you mind going first? Do you 

mind? Because I wanted so much to have Mr. Wood-Thomas hear 

27 

you, and he may have a busy schedule. So Jonah, you are on with 

your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF JONAH RAMIREZ, CLEAN AIR AMBASSADOR 

FOR CHILDREN WITH RESPIRATORY DISEASE 

Mr. RAMIREZ. OK. Well, good morning. 

First of all, I would like to thank Senator Boxer for inviting me 

here to speak to you today. Anytime the Senator invites you to 

speak at her hearing, it is quite an honor, but it is even more so 

when you are a sixth-grader. 

Today, I am here to testify not as a 12-year-old boy, but as a victim—a victim of pollution, a victim of the air I breathe, a young 

boy who has been forced to grow up way too fast. I have asthma. 

I wasn’t born with it. I developed it. I developed asthma by breathing dirty air. You see, the place I call home, the place where I have 

always felt safe, felt free to run around, play and be myself received failing grades last year in almost all categories in the American Lung Association’s State of the Air Report. 

With this said, I believe it is fair to State the laws we have now, 

the laws that we believe protect us, are way too lenient. Our current laws permit heavy exhaust, smoke and debris to be considered 

safe. Safe? If these particles that I breathe every day are safe, then 

why do I depend on daily medication and the fast relief of my inhaler to do something that everyone has the right to do: breathe. 

I live in San Bernardino County, but at the ports, large ships 

from other countries come in and are the largest unregulated 

sources of pollutants in Southern California. Why? The high level 

of sulfur in the marine fuels causes ships to produce over half of 

the sulfur oxides pollution in Southern California. That is one of 

the major components of soot and smog. Then it blows across to 

where I live and I can’t breathe. 

When I was younger, I played with GI Joes. Most boys do. Well, 

a boy in New Jersey or Georgia or even here in Washington, DC. 

will pay about $17 for a GI Joe shipped from China. But the cost 

to me is much higher. Because of all that soot and smog pollution 

blowing across Southern California, I pay with my health. 

Since I developed asthma, I have learned a lot about the air we 

all breathe. I have learned that we all need to do something because our air is making us sick. Breathing is a common bond we 

share, something we all do. It should not be something we have to 

think about, but the reality is some of us do need to think about 

it. We need to change the way we see air quality. It is not just a 

topic on the news. It is affecting all of us. Our dirty air is shortening our lives. It is shortening the lives of our children. Nearly 

five million Californians suffer from asthma, five million. 

Over the past 5 years, I have testified at the AQMD urging lawmakers to change laws regarding air quality. I have testified at an 

EPA hearing at San Francisco and, more recently, one in Los Angeles asking legislators to make drastic changes in laws regarding air 

quality. I have spoken to the press on numerous occasions expressing my concern for people, especially children, all over the world 

who are forced to breathe such polluted air. 

I have appeared on TV twice sharing my knowledge of asthma 

and air quality and the relationships that, unfortunately, they 

28 

share. Last April, I introduced our Governor at the Small World 

Asthma Conference at Disneyland, California. Now today, I speak 

to you at the same hearing as Senator Boxer. 

Look at me. I am the face of asthma, but not just asthma. I have 

become the fact of the asthma-air quality relationship. I am the 

face of our future, our future if our laws remain unchanged. I am 

a direct product of our environment, an environment that we 

helped create and we need to repair with your help. 

Every one of us needs to take steps to reduce air pollution. I have 

and I am 12. Together, let’s make my dream of breathing clean, 

pollution-free air a reality. Please support us by approving the Marine Vessel bill by Senator Boxer. 

I thank you from the bottom of my lungs. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Ramirez follows:] 

29 


85521.010

Testimony of Jonah Ramirez 

Youth Community Member from Southern California 

In Support of S.1499 - Marine Vessel Emissions Reduction Act of 2007 

Presented to the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee 

February 14,2008 - Washington D.C. 

Good morning. First of all, I would like to thank Senator Boxer for inviting 

me here to speak to you today. Anytime the Senator invites you to speak at 

her Hearing, it is quite an honor, but it is even more so when you're a sixth 

grader!! 

Today I am here to testifY not as a twelve-year-old boy but as a victim; a 

victim of pollution. A victim of the air I breathe. A young boy who has 

been forced to grow up way too fast. I have asthma. I wasn't born with it; I 

developed it. I developed asthma by breathing dirty air. You see, the place I 

call home, the place where I have always felt safe, felt free to run around, 

play and be myself, received failing grades last year in almost all categories 

in the American Lung Association's State of the Air Report. With this said, I 

believe it is fair to state the laws we have now, the laws that we believe 

protect us, are way too lenient. Our current laws permit heavy exhaust, 

smoke and debris to be considered "safe." Safe? If these particles that [ 

breathe every day are safe, then why do I depend on daily medication and 

the fast relief of my inhaler to do something that everyone has the right to 

do? Breathe. 

I live in San Bernardino County, but at the ports, large ships from other 

countries come in and are the largest unregulated sources of pollutants in 
30 


85521.011

southern California. Why? The high level of sulfur in the marine fuels 

causes ships to produce over half of the sulfur oxides pollution in Southern 

California - that's one of the major components of soot and smog. Then it 

blows across to where I live and I can't breathe. 

When I was younger, I played with G.I. Joes. Most boys do. Well, a boy in 

New Jersey or Georgia or even here in Washington D. C. will pay about $17 

for a G.I. Joe shipped from China. But the cost to me is much higher. 

Because of all of the soot and smog pollution blowing across Southern 

California, I pay with my health. 

Since I developed asthma, I have learned a lot about the air we all breathe. I 

have learned that we all need to do something because our air is making us 

sick. Breathing is a common bond we share; something we all do. It should 

not be something we have to think about, but the reality is, some of us do 

need to think about it. We need to change the way we see air quality. It is 

not just a topic on the news. It is affecting all of us. Our dirty air is 

shortening our lives. It is shortening the lives of our children. Nearly 5 

million Californians suffer from asthma. 5 million. 

Over the past 5 years, I have testified at the AQMD urging lawmakers to 

change laws regarding air quality. I have testified at an EPA Hearing in San 

Francisco and, more recently, one in Los Angeles asking legislators to make 

drastic changes in the laws regarding air quality. I have spoken to the press 

on numerous occasions expressing my concern for people, especially 

children, all over the world who are forced to breathe such polluted air. 

have appeared on TV twice sharing my knowledge of asthma and air quality 
31 


85521.012

and the relationship that, unfortunately, they share. Last April, I introduced 

our Governor at the Small World Asthma Conference at Disneyland, 

California. Now today, I speak to you at the same hearing as Senator 

Barbara Boxer. 

Look at me. I am a face of asthma ..... But not just asthma. I have become 

the face of the asthma/ air quality relationship. I am the face of our future. 

Our future if our laws remain unchanged. I am a direct product of our 

environment. An environment that we helped create and now we need to 

repair with your help. 

Everyone of us needs to take steps to reduce air pollution. I have and I am 

twelve. Together, let's make my dream of breathing clean, pollution-free 

air a reality. Please support us by approving the Marine Vessel bill by 

Senator Boxer. 

I thank you, from the bottom of my lungs. 
32 

Senator BOXER. Jonah, thank you. 

I wanted to mention that a couple of colleagues came in. Senator 

Lautenberg, Jonah, you should know, is so passionate on cleaning 

the air because he has a lot of kids and grandkids, and one of his 

grandchildren has asthma. And so he is so strong on it, and I can 

see why. You really make us think about the consequences of our 

actions or inactions. I just want to thank you so much for being 

here. 

I also want to say to Mr. Wood-Thomas, thank you so much for 

staying because I could try to explain this, but I can’t. This is what 

we need. And you ought to note that Jonah is the Clean Air Ambassador for children with respiratory disease, and we are so glad 

you are here. So stay there, Jonah. 

And now we are going to call on Dr. Miller next. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. May I interrupt for 1 second, Madam 

Chairman? 

Senator BOXER. Yes, you may, certainly. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Jonah, thank you for speaking for my 

grandson, Alexander. Your delivery of your message, I hate to say 

this in front of the older folks here, but it was one of the best that 

I have ever heard. I congratulate you and I urge you to keep on 

fighting until the day when you take your seat here. Thank you. 

Mr. RAMIREZ. Thank you. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator BOXER. Thank you very much. 

Dr. Miller. 

STATEMENT OF JOHN G. MILLER, M.D., FELLOW OF THE 

AMERICAN COLLEGE OF EMERGENCY PHYSICIANS 

Dr. MILLER. Good morning. I am honored to be able to speak 

after Jonah here. 

I am Dr. John G. Miller. I am an emergency room physician. I 

live in the diesel death zone in the Los Angeles port town of San 

Pedro. I have practiced in various emergency departments on the 

South Coast air basin for more than 30 years. Thank you for this 

opportunity to testify. I am speaking in support of this bill, but I 

will give a clinician’s perspective on why it should be enacted. 

The bill addresses a serious problem we have in Souther California. The twin ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach have been 

identified as contributing 25 percent of the total air pollution in the 

region, with the majority of this attributable to ships. Large foreign-owned or flagged ships have had a free ride. They are allowed 

to use our air as their toxic dumping site, yet local land-based businesses have been heavily regulated to prevent this. 

International standards for pollution from ship engines written 

mostly by the shipping industry itself are so lax as to be meaningless. In the diesel death zone that I live in, we have a broad swath 

of severe air pollution that extends from the ports inland across the 

air basin that adversely affects the lives and health of over 14 million citizens. This ugly swath of pollution disproportionately affects 

lower-income and predominantly minority communities in places 

such as Wilmington, Compton, Carson, South Central and East Los 

Angeles. This is clear documentation of a serious environmental 

justice issue. 

33 

The medical literature on the harmful effects of air pollution is 

vast and growing. Many important studies were done in L.A. at 

USC and UCLA Schools of Medicine. Cancer, heart attacks, 

strokes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and asthma are 

major killers, as are sudden infant death syndrome, low birth 

weight infants, and serious perinatal congenital anomalies. These 

killers are related to air pollution in a largely simple linear fashion 

with no known lower threshold of safe exposure. More pollution 

means more disease, death and costs to our society. 

The first person I saw die from asthma was when I was a medicine intern at L.A. County General Hospital. On a smoggy day, a 

22 year old woman came in with a severe asthma attack. She died 

before we could save her. It turned out that she was the sister of 

one of our respiratory therapists at the hospital. I will never forget 

having to tell her sister. 

It keeps happening. I have certainly treated cases, seen fatalities, that appear to be pollution-related. Recently on a routine busy 

night in the ER, we got a sudden call from the paramedics. They 

were bringing in a 14 year old boy in full cardiopulmonary arrest 

due to a severe asthma attack. Two minutes away, we got as prepared as we could in 120 seconds, and soon we were in the handto-hand struggle with death and destruction that we often fight. 

This child survived despite the severity of his condition. But in 

many cases, the person does not survive. When that happens, I am 

the person who must walk down the long hallway, sit down with 

the family, and tell them that their loved one didn’t make it. This 

is a very tough job. It is still as hard as it was the first time. I 

would like not to have to do it so often. 

Eighteen months ago, the 48 year old wife of one of my colleagues developed a nagging dry cough. Debbie was a fit, nonsmoking, no risk factor person. Her workup revealed lung cancer. 

As 90 to 95 percent of lung cancer victims do, she died after a lot 

of suffering. It was my sad duty to prescribe morphine tablets 

when she ran out of them in her last week of life. Her funeral was 

attended by hundreds of mourners. I was one of them. She left behind a devastated family, including one 12 year old child with special needs, who still really needs his mother. Air pollution from living in the diesel death zone was the most likely cause of her death. 

The point here is that we are not just talking about numbers. 

Real people are sick and dying. Physicians are seeing increasing 

numbers of cases like these where the only risk factor seems to be 

living in this diesel death zone, this area of high diesel pollution, 

and we have these areas all over this Country. 

In studying this, I came to realize that if I were able to reduce 

the air pollution by a few micrograms per cubic meter, I would save 

more lives than I ever did working in the ER. Enactment of this 

bill will prevent many needless premature deaths and the enormous related costs in America. It is wrong to allow the needless 

deaths of Americans so corporations, often foreign-owned, can make 

bigger profits. 

Thank you for your kind attention to my testimony. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Miller follows:] 

34 


85521.013

Testimony of Dr. John G. Miller, M.D., FACEP 

In Support of S.1499 - Marine Vessel Emissions Reduction Act of 2007 

Presented to the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee 

February 14,2008 - Washington D.C. 

Good Morning. I am Dr John G. Miller, an Emergency Physician. I live in the Southern 

California Diesel Death Zone in the "Port Town" of San Pedro. I have practiced in various 

Emergency Departments in the South Coast Air Basin for more than 30 years. I am certified by 

the American Board of Emergency Medicine and I am a Lifetime Fellow of the American 

College of Emergency Physicians. I was originally trained in Radiation Oncology at USC 

Medical Center. Medical School-Baylor College of Medicine, Houston TX, Professional 

Societies: Society of Orange County Emergency Physicians, Society for Scientific Exploration, 

Board of Directors: Coalition for a Safe Environment, Wilmington, CA. I was the only medical 

doctor on Mayor Hahn's No Net Increase Task Force. 

Thank you for this opportunity to testify. 

HEALTH. I am speaking in support of this bill. I will givc a clinician's perspective on why it 

should be enacted. The bill addresses the ship pollution problem in a way that is workable and 

provides a level playing field for all American ports and shippers. 

The bill addresses a serious problem we have in Southern California. The twin ports (LA and 

Long Beach) have been identified as the single largest unregulated source of air pollution in the 

South Coast Air Basin. Port related activity (ships, trucks, trains and cargo handling equipment) 

contributes a total of roughly 25% of the mass of air pollutants in the South Coast Air Basin. 

Angelenos breathe the most unhealthy air in America. In a study done by the Port of Los 

Angeles, ship operations were shown to contribute 55% of port related air pollution. Thus ships 

are the largest source of port related air pollution. (From: Port Wide Baseline Air Emissions 

Inventory, Final Draft, page 26, June 2004, Port of Los Angeles, Starcrest Consulting Group) 

Large foreign owned or flagged ships have had a free ride. They are allowed (0 use our air as 

their toxic dumping site. Yet local land based businesses have been heavily regulated to prevent 

this. International standards for pollution from ship engines, written mostly by the shipping 

industry, are so lax as to be meaningless. 

This is the "Diesel Death Zone". (See Attachment A) As demonstrated in the MATES II and 

Mates III studies, (Multiple Air Toxics Exposure Study II, March 2000, and Multiple Air 

Toxics Exposure Study III, Jan 2008, viiww.agmd.gov) we have a broad swath of severe air 

pollution that extends from the ports inland across the Air Basin that adversely affects the lives 
35 


85521.014

and health of over 14 million citizens.). This area has come to be known as the Diesel Death 

Zone: (l show the map of cancer risks due to air pollution from MATES II. Darkest areas-near 

the ports- show risks of cancer from breathing air of 5000 to 6000 cases per million (I show 

the map of cancer risks due to air pollution from MATES II. Darkest areas-near the ports- show 

risks of cancer from breathing air of 5000 to 6000 cases per million population. MATES III 

map shows the same structure with somewhat different numbers. Federal Standard for this risk 

from one project should be less than I per million population, from all sources in an area 

should be less than 300 cases per million population. AQMD Rules require a risk ofless than 

10 per million for any new facility. 

Attachments A: "Cancer Risks fi'om Breathing Air-Mates II, and MATES III" maps of our 

region showing risk stratified areas. First map was done from data supporting figure 5-3a page 

5-10 in MATES II. This black and white figure (5-3a) is also attached but this figure merely 

shows the high risk areas as large black spots due to printer inadequacy. Note that risks of up 

to 5,800 cases per million are demonstrated. 

Attachment B: "Heart Disease Deaths -1996 Communities in Los Angeles County" (Source 

L.A. County Dept of Health Services). This map illustrates areas with highest numbers of heart 

disease deaths in darker colors. It looks very similar to the Cancer risks map I just showed. I 

assert that some of these heart disease deaths are being caused by air pollution from the ports. 

This ugly swath disproportionately atTects lower income communities and people of color in 

places such as Wilmington, Compton, Carson, South Central and East L.A. This map provides 

clear documentation of a serious environmental justice issue. 

The medical literature on the effects of air pollution on human health is vast and growing. 

Many important studies were done at USC and UCLA Schools of Medicine. It would take 

longer than my 5 minutes to read through even a partial list of all the adverse effects related to 

diesel air pollution. Cancer, heart attacks, strokes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and 

asthma are major killers. Additionally Sudden Infant Death Syndrome, premature birth, low 

birth weight, major cardiovascular birth defects and elevated miscarriage rates have all been 

linked to air pollution. These constitute tragic and expensive burdens to our 

society.(Attachment C: "Health Effects of Diesel Exhaust Air Pollution", August 28, 2003, Port 

of Los Angeles Port Community Advisory Committee Air Quality Group, with references from 

the medical/scientific literature attached). These killers are related to air pollution in a largely 

simple, linear fashion with no known lower threshold of safe exposure. More pollution means 

more disease, death, and cost to our society. 

COST. Industry spokespersons have asserted that the costs of this are "unknown and 

unknowable". However it is possible to estimate societal costs due to ship related air pollution. 

The Union of Concerned Scientists estimated that the cost of "Health Incidences from diesel 
36 


85521.015

exhaust in 2004 in the South Coast" was $ 10.2 Billion! This was for only the one year they 

studied. (Source: Sick of Soot. Reducing the Health Impacts of Diesel Pollution in California, 

Union of Concerned Scientists, June 2004. available at www.ucsusa.org) Knowing that the 

Ports contribute 25% of the total pollution causing this, we get the Ports total share of the cost 

as $2.55 Billion. (0.25 x $10.2 Billion= $2.55 Billion). Then, knowing from the Emissions 

Inventory that ships contribute 55% of the total Port related air pollution (DPM), we find that 

the total health care costfrom ship exhaust alone is $ 1.4 Billion! (0.55 x $2.55 Billion= $1.4 

Billion) 

That is $1,400,000,000 in health care costs to be born by our citizens! 

We further crunched these numbers, comparing total port related health costs and number of 

ship calls. We obtained the astonishing result that it appears that each large ship call at the Ports 

is generating a cost to society of $315,000 to $455,000! California is massively subsidizing this 

industry when externalized costs are considered. 

More on this can be found in Paying With Our Health, The Real Cost of Freight Transport in 

California. The Pacific Institute, June 2006 available at www.pacinst.org. 

Another way to look at this is to use the US EPA's "value of one premature death in 2004 

dollars". The value set by EPA was $6 Million per avoidable premature death. Union of 

Concerned Scientists estimated 1400 premature deaths from air pollution in the South Coast 

Air Basin in 2004. The twin Port's share of these would be 246 deaths. (0.25 of total pollution 

x 1400 deaths from pollution = 246 deaths) The value of these would be $1,476,000,000. (246 

deaths x $6million per death= $1.476 Billion!) 

The California Air Resources Board (CARB) has estimated that there are more than 5000 

deaths per year in the South Coast Air Basin due to air pollution. CARB also estimated 1200 

premature deaths per year in the Air Basin from emissions due to goods movement. (Cost in 

2004 dollars would be 7.2 Billion Dollars) AQMD Staff estimate there are more than 700 

premature deaths per year from ship emissions in the South Coast Air Basin. (Cost in 2004 

dollars would be 4.2 Billion Dollars) 

Whichever estimates we choose to use they are all huge! 

These are disturbing numbers. However my point is that real people are getting sick and dying. 

Yet, large often foreign owned corporations get to make maximum profits unhindered by 

concerns about the health of Americans. The medical costs are externalized and born by our 

citizens. 
37 


85521.016

MEDICAL. Often we cannot absolutely say that air pollution caused an individual heart 

attack, stroke, cancer case, sudden death etc. (The tobacco industry used this dodge for 

decades!) However the epidemiologists have shown, in aggregate, air pollution is responsible 

for a significant fraction of the total of these cases. 

I have treated cases, seen fatalities that appear to be pollution related. 

In my years as an Emergency Medicine physician I have of course seen hundreds of fatal or 

near fatal cases of the illnesses we associate with air pollution. Some stand out in my mind. In 

my brief time to testify, I can share only a few cases with you. 

On a routine busy night in the ER we got a sudden call from the paramedics. They were 

bringing in a 14 year old boy in full cardiopulmonary arrest due to an asthma attack. Two 

minutes away. We got as prepared as we could in 120 seconds and soon we were in the hand-to 

-hand struggle with death and destruction we often tight. 

This child survived despite the severity of his condition. 

But in many cases, the person does not survive. When that happens, I am the person who must 

walk down the long hallway, sit down with the family and tell them their loved one didn't make 

it. This is a very tough job. I would like not to have to do it so often. Enactment of this bill will 

prevent many needless premature deaths and enormous related costs in America. 

More cases from my own experience: 

At I :30 one July morning three years ago, in the ER, I saw a 55 year old woman complaining 

ofleft chest pain. She feared she was having a heart attack. My initial evaluation ruled out a 

myocardial infarction (heart attack) but unfortunately I found something far more ominous than 

a "mere" heart attack. Her chest x-ray showed a large tumor mass in her left chest. I feared 

cancer, but this lady had no risk factors for cancer other than having breathed the air here all 

her life (no history of smoking, radon gas exposure, asbestos exposure, second hand smoke at 

work). Unfortunately, my fears were proven correct by further evaluation. It was lung cancer 

and it had spread to the area around her heart and her brain. She died 6 months later. In my 

opinion she died from air pollution. 

Eighteen months ago, the 48 year old wife of one of my colleagues developed a nagging dry 

cough. Debbie was a fit nonsmoking, "no risk factor" person. Her workup revealed lung 

cancer. As 90-95% of lung cancer victims do, she died after a lot of suffering. It was my sad 

duty to prescribe morphine tablets when she ran out in her last week of life. Her funeral was 

attended by hundreds of mourners. I was one of them. She left behind a devastated family 
38 


85521.017

including one 12 year old child with special needs who still really needs his mother. Air 

pollution was the most likely cause of her death. 

The point here is that we are not just talking about "numbers". Real people are sick and dying. 

Physicians are seeing increasing numbers of cases like these where the only risk factor seems to 

be living in the Diesel Death Zone. 

"But enactment of this bill will send the freight to other ports and destroy many jobs here!" 

This is one standard response from industry to any proposals that would seek to limit their 

ability to bum the cheapest, dirtiest fuel in their ships. 

The best response to this was actually provided by the Port of Los Angeles. In a reeent Draft 

Environmental Impact Report for a major terminal expansion/increased throughput project, the 

options of diversion of cargo to other West Coast ports inside and outside Southern California 

was considered and studied. The Port concluded that this is simply not possible because the 

facilities to do this simply do not exist and "are not being contemplated" by other major West 

Coast ports. In Southern California sufficient capacity outside Port of LA/Port of Long Beach 

"does not exist and cannot be constructed". According to POLA's own studies, thefreight must 

come through these 2 ports. Put bluntly the shippers need to be able to use these two ports 

more than the ports need the freight from the shippers. 

(See Attachment D: Sections 2.5.2.1 and 2.5.2.2 from "Berths 136-147 Container Terminal 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIE) Environmental Impact Report EIR", June 2007. 

Prepared by Port of Los Angeles, US Army Corps of Engineers and SAIC) 

"But it will cost way too much. Consumers costs will go way up!" We are indebted to the 

Maersk Corporation for proactively adopting the use of low Sulfur diesel fuel in ships serving 

their Pier 400 facility, demonstrating that the cost of this is not prohibitive. Additionally, Mr. 

Jesse Marquez with Coalition for a Safe Environment calculated that even if costs went up 

$100 per container (an increase 01'$200.000 in a 2000 container ship) the net increase in cost to 

consumers for, say a pair of sneakers, would be 0.25 cents! 

Thus measures such as this legislation that may increase some costs to shippers but protect the 

health of Americans should be acceptable, enacted, and enforced. 

Thank you for your kind attention to my testimony. 
39 

RESPONSES BY JOHN G. MILLER TO ADDITIONAL QUESTION

FROM SENATOR BOXER

Question 1. Based on your experience with, air pollution, health impacts, what do 

you believe are the most significant adverse health effects from air emissions from 

marine vessels? Please describe both the types of effects that you have observed, 

and the effects discussed in the medical and scientific literature that are of the 

greatest concern to you? 

Response. I believe that the most significant impacts from ship emissions are 

those that are happening to our children for they are America’s future. Childhood 

asthma is a huge and growing burden on our society. It is now associated at the 

level of ‘‘causation’’, according to many researchers, with the sort of air pollution 

produced by marine vessel emissions. The finding by researchers at USC that air 

pollution is causing stunted lung growth or loss of growth in children’s lung function 

that is non-recoverable seems particularly ominous. As these children progress into 

adult life they face a future clouded by likely premature death due to the damage 

they sustained. 

The UCLA Medical Center at Los Angeles County Harbor General Hospital completed a Wilmington Children’s Asthma Study in 2007, but the report has not been 

released yet. They have disclosed that their results showed that 24 percent of all 

children in Wilmington, California have asthma. Wilmington, like my hometown of 

San Pedro, is immediately adjacent to the Port. 

We do not have the right to allow our children to be poisoned so various corporations can make fatter profits. I am concerned that in the case of ship emissions we 

are doing exactly that. 

The non-cancer adverse health effects such as deaths from heart attacks, strokest 

chronic obstructive pulmonary diseaset accelerated atherosclerosist and elevated ‘‘all 

cause mortalityU have been estimated to be at least 10 times greater than the well 

known cancer effects. Thus, numerically they are of great concern to me. 

Lung cancer remains almost uniformly (90–95 percent!) fatal. Of course it remains 

a major concern. 

The overall magnitude of the effect of breathing the air in an area with levels as 

high as we have in most of America’s major port regions has been compared to the 

effect of passive smoking by some experts in this field. As a physician I find this 

very alarming. 

Unlike the situation with asbestos and mesothelioma, there is no single ‘‘signature diseaseUassociated with marine vessel emissions. This may make it easier for 

the polluters to try to say that one can’t blame a personts illness on ship emissions. 

However we know that in the overall picture many cases of the illnesses mentioned 

above are being caused by ship emissions. The epidemiologists have made a good 

case that ship emissions are causing a significant fraction of the death and destruction of lives that I have seen in my 3 decades of practice as an Emergency Physician 

in the South Coast Air Basin. 

Every doctor is concerned when he or she sees preventable death or disability. 

The air pollution impacts mentioned above are preventable. Statistically, ship emissions are causing part of this problem. I applaud your Committee’s efforts to reduce 

this avoidable burden to our society. 

Question 2. You mentioned in your written testimony a few patients that you believe were likely to have been affected by air pollution. Please describe additional 

specific instances of health effects that were likely caused by air pollution that you 

or your colleagues at local hospitals have observed in patients from areas where marine vessel air pollution is a problem. 

It would be difficult to say with 100 percent certainty that any individual case 

of the myriad illnesses that have been associated with diesel exhaust air pollution 

is due specifically to ship exhaust. The tobacco industry hid behind this lack of absolute certainty in individual cases for decades. However, given that ship exhaust is 

a major contributor to the total regional air pollution on all U.S. coasts, marine vessel emissions are major contributors to the total morbidity and mortality this air 

pollution brings to American citizens. 

That being said, I will describe some cases I am aware of in which air emissions 

from marine vessels were the most likely culprit or at least a possible major contributing factor. 

We know from the epidemiological literature that persons occupationally exposed 

have about 150 percent higher risk for the diseases associated with air pollution 

than the general population in the same area. Thus some cases from the Ports: 

—A 40-year-old ILWU member (longshoreman) who died of ‘‘a massive asthma attack’’ according to the Union’s benefit coordinator. He had worked on the docks since 

he was in his 20’s 

40 

—‘‘R’’, a friend of mine who was a 50-year-old nonsmoking longshoreman who suffered a myocardial infarction. 

—‘‘P’’ A nonsmoker who grew up in San Pedro, worked for the Port and recently 

retired from that job, diagnosed at age 60 with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. 

—‘‘V’’ a member of the pile drivers union, and one of my neighbors who died of 

sudden cardiac arrest in his early 50’s. 

—‘‘B’’ a Port crane operator who could no longer work because of the asthma and 

repeated precancerous polyps he keeps getting on his vocal cords. (Crane operators 

sit in a cab at about smokestack height as they perform the highly skilled mechanical ballet that gets the 35-ton boxes off or on the ships.) His doctors have told him 

he can no longer work at his high daylight skill job, indeed they told him he 

shouldn’t work in or near the Port. 

—Recently one of the cancer surgeons at our local hospital saw 3 cases of young 

men (30’s to 40’s) with unusual malignancies. All were dockworkers referred via the 

ILWU. He thought this was ‘‘strange’’. 

As I was writing this, I found some notes my wife wrote last Fall. She is a Registered Nurse who works as one of the hospital Nursing Supervisors at the local hospital (Little Company of Mary San Pedro Hospital), a small community hospital located near the Port of LA. As a nursing supervisor she has to stay on top of what 

is going on throughout the hospital and knows most of the personnel who work 

there. One day she was suddenly struck by how many staff members were sick or 

had died. She decided to list the ones she could remember. 

From her notes: (using person’s sex and job title only to avoid HIPPA violations) 

Female CCT—GYN.Cancer 

Female RN—Thoracic Cancer 

Female RN—Breast Cancer 

Female RN—Lung Cancer 

Female. RN—Cancer 

Female RN—Sudden Death, cause unknown 

Female MD—Cancer, expired 

Female RN—Cancer, expired 

Female RN—Cancer 

Female secretary, Multiple. Sclerosis 

Female. RN—suicide 

Female RN—Cardiomyopathy, expired 

Female RN—immune response disorder 

Female. US-Lung Cancer, expired 

Female RN—Breast Cancer, expired 

Female. PBX-Systemic Lupus Erythematosis, expired 

Female US—Sudden Death unexplained 

Female LVN—Ovarian Cancer, expired Male MD—Cardiac Arrest-penn. Disabled 

Female., CCT-Brain Cancer-expired 

Male priest—Lymphoma—Cancer expired 

Female. RN,—Thyroid Cancer 

Female manager,—Pancreatic Cancer 

Female RN Lung cancer-expired 

Female RN—Breast Cancer 

Female—Brain tumor 

NEIGHBORS we know in the community surrounding the Port of LA: 

My friend G, a fit, nonsmoking Brit who has developed severe asthma since he 

moved here. 

K.L. neighbor—Cancer—expired 

K.D. husband—Cancer-expired 

P.T.husbandtlongshoreman-LungCancer 

A.M. husband—Cancer—expired 

L.M. neighbor—Cancer—expired 

S.E. neighbor—Breast cancer-expired 

M.M. neighbor—Brain Tumor—expired 

M. from MOW—Breast Cancer 

M.T. son-Cancer 

C.O. son-Leukemia 

T.O. neighbor—melanoma 

J.M. friend at ILWU—throat Cancer 

Are all these folks victims of our local air pollution? I doubt it but I believe some 

are. They all lived and worked here in the Diesel Death Zone. For example some 

41 

of the many carcinogenic compounds that are found in diesel exhaust/ship emissions 

have been implicated in breast cancer. 

In the nearby town of Wilmington mentioned in my response to question I.Ot a 

health survey was conducted by Communities for a Safe Environment (CFASE) of 

which I am proud to be a Board member. Three hundred 20 nine residents living 

within 5 blocks of the waterfront were interviewed in a door to door face to face 

survey using an extensive standardized list of health and demographic questions. 

26 percent reported respiratory diseases including 3 lung cancers. The results of this 

grassroots effort await further analysis. 

Once again the simple point is that real people friends neighbors are getting sick 

and dying. 

Whenever I see a person who have lived in a high air pollution area such as ours 

who develop a heart attack, stroke, or sudden death respiratory arrest or chronic 

obstructive pulmonary disease I think they may be a victim of air pollution. I know 

that a fraction of all the cases I see are undoubtedly the effects of air pollution. The 

fact that we are not yet absolutely able to say which death was due to air pollution 

does not relieve us of the responsibility to reduce the causes of these aggregate 

deaths. 

When I hear about a child in one of the local high schools with leukemi? I list 

air pollution as one likely cause or contributing factor. I have seen the high school 

students doing a car wash to raise money for a classmate ill with leukemiat one 

of the myriad illnesses associated with ship emission type air pollution. My heart 

goes out to them. 

Indeed many things are wrong with this picture. 

Thank you for your attention to one physician’s perspective on this problem. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you very much, Doctor. 

Our next speaker is Richard Kassel, Senior Attorney, Director, 

Clean Fuels and Vehicles Project, Natural Resources Defense 

Council. 

STATEMENT OF RICHARD KASSEL, SENIOR ATTORNEY, DIRECTOR, CLEAN FUELS AND VEHICLES PROJECT, NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL 

Mr. KASSEL. Thank you, Madam Chairman, members of the 

Committee. My name is Richard Kassel. I am here representing the 

1.2 million members and online activists of the Natural Resources 

Defense Council, NRDC, a national non-profit environmental organization. 

I thank you for the opportunity to testify today in support of S. 

1499. Frankly, I think that Jonah and Dr. Miller have already said 

just about everything that needs to be said. I hope I can add something meaningful to their incredibly strong words. 

You know, all of us can agree. We all rely on ocean-going ships 

to bring us what we want, what we need, and when and where we 

want it. But as Jonah has told us, as Dr. Miller has told us, these 

ships also bring us staggering levels of pollution that trigger asthma attacks, bronchitis, cancer, emphysema and even premature 

death. 

Ocean-going ships really are the last bastion of dirty diesels in 

our Country. If we were to look at a map of the health impacts 

from these ships, and I understand that you may have one. It is 

in my written testimony and everybody can see it there. You would 

see that it covers not just the obvious big ports that we hear about 

every day, but it covers areas that include more than half the people who live in the Country. It would dovetail nicely, unfortunately, 

with a map of the most serious ozone and particulate matter nonattainment areas of the Country. All of these places overlap, and 

of course they overlap because the problem is real and ships are 

a big part of it. 

42 

Senator BOXER. Let me interrupt without taking time away. 

Mr. KASSEL. Please. 

Senator BOXER. Freeze his time for a second. 

I just want to make sure people understand this. At least 2,000 

to 5,000 premature deaths per year in the continental U.S. are 

caused by particulate pollution from ocean-going vessels. 

Mr. KASSEL. That is right. 

Senator BOXER. This is a fact. And if we do nothing, shame on 

us. We are complicit in this. 

OK. Continue. 

Mr. KASSEL. Yes, thank you. 

I absolutely agree. And of course, if no action is taken, the problem will get worse. Business as usual projections suggest that global shipping will roughly double by 2020 and roughly triple by 2030. 

From an environmental and a public health perspective, the emissions from that business as usual are unacceptable. 

But luckily, we have learned over the last decade that diesel pollution is a solvable problem. As Mr. Wood-Thomas has noted, EPA 

has gone through several rulemakings that have shown that if you 

reduce the sulfur levels and you bring in technology at the end of 

the tailpipe that reduces the particulates and the nitrogen oxides, 

you can reduce 90 percent or more of these harmful emissions. And 

of course, your bill will adapt that model to these ocean-going vessels. 

Consider a few comparisons. The Metro bus outside operates on 

15 parts per million sulfur fuel. The Amtrak that I will take to get 

home to New York tonight will run on 500 parts per million sulfur. 

But the ship that carried the coffee that I had this morning runs 

on average on 27,000 parts per million and has no meaningful 

emission controls whatsoever. 

So passing S. 1499 is critical for several reasons. First, it goes 

to the heart of the problem. A recent study commissioned by the 

Clean Air Task Force showed that reducing sulfur to the levels in 

your bill within 200 nautical miles of the North American coast 

would reduce shipping-related premature mortalities by more than 

50 percent by 2012. Doing so would result in health benefits to society that could be valued at roughly $250 million per year, which 

is higher by order of magnitude of any implementation cost estimates that have been presented. 

Further, sticking to 200 miles makes sense because that is where 

most of the impacts are. Recently, the International Council on 

Clean Transportation reported that roughly three-quarters of all 

ship emissions are happening within 400 kilometers, or roughly 

250 miles, of the coasts. It was a global study. 

So what that says is that if you want to tackle the problem, as 

they are doing at the IMO level, and you were to consider a very, 

very strict regime in the coastal zones, or a weaker but global regime, you would do more good for public health with the approach 

that you are taking in this bill, and that EPA is taking at IMO. 

But of course, what is at IMO is a selection of options, which include the less effective approach. 

So your bill is important not just for what it will do, but also for 

the leverage and the message it sends to IMO. We think that passing your bill adds to the likelihood that the best outcome happens 

43 

at the international level. We were just as happy as anybody else 

about last week’s news. It is promising. But do put it in perspective, what happened last week was a strong breakthrough on NOx

and a suite of options on sulfur out of a subcommittee. 

To analogize to this building, we all know that if a subcommittee 

puts out a bill, that is a long way from a President’s signature. 

That is where we are in the process. And yes, historically the IMO 

has tended to rubber stamp as it goes through the process, but historically the IMO takes the lowest common denominator approach. 

The committee and the full IMO has never had this situation before it where it is being asked to actually push technology the way 

we do in our EPA rules all the time. 

Senator BOXER. Mr. Kassel, just if you could finish up. 

Mr. KASSEL. I am happy to wrap up and to say that we support 

your bill strongly. 

Senator BOXER. Well, I like that. 

Mr. KASSEL. I want to thank you for bringing it, and I hope that 

we can work together toward its passage. And thank you for the 

opportunity to testify. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Kassel follows:] 

44 


85521.018

www,nrdc.org 

~DC NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL 

Testimony ofthe 

Natural Resources Defense Council 

In Support Of 

S.1499, 

The Marine Vessel Emissions Reduction Act of 2007 

U.S. Senate 

Committee on Environment and Public Works 

February 14, 2008 

By Richard Kassel 

Senior Attorney 

1200 New York Avenue, NW, Suite 400 

Washington. DC 20005 

TEL 202 289-6868 FAX 202 :289-"1060 

NEW YORK • LOS ANGELES • SAN FRANCISCO 
45 


85521.019

My name is Richard Kassel, and I am pleased to testify in support of S. 

1499, the Marine Vessel Emissions Reduction Act of 2007, on behalf of the 

Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC). NRDC is a national, non-profit 

environmental organization dedicated to protecting human health and the 

environment. On behalf of our more than 1.2 million members and online 

activists in all fifty states, I thank you for the opportunity to testify today. 

The Continuing-and Chronic-Problem of Ocean-Going Ship Pollution 

As the Committee knows, the nation's marine ports are major hubs of 

economic activity for our nation. Every year, more than 2.5 billion tons of cargo 

enter the U.S. through out ports, 1 includin~ roughly three-quarters (by weight) of 

all goods shipped in and out of the nation. 

All of us rely on the goods that arrive on our shores from distant ports. It 

is highly likely that that the coffee that started our day, the car or subway that we 

took to this hearing, and the clothes we are wearing first entered the United 

States on a large, ocean-going ship. Much of the nation's economic growth of 

the past decade has been inextricably linked to the globalization of trade, and the 

growth of ocean-going cargo traffic to and from our shores. 

But these ships come with a price: they are also major sources of the 

diesel pollution that threatens the health of nearby residents and communities 

that are miles away. The engines on these ships emit huge amounts of 

particulate matter (PM) and nitrogen oxides (NOx), as well as dozens of other 

toxic air contaminants that can cause or exacerbate an array of environmental 

impacts that seriously affect millions of Americans. These impacts include 

increased asthma attacks and emergencies, chronic bronchitis, emphysema, 

heart disease, and premature death, among others. The California Air 

Resources Board (CARB) has estimated that, in 2005, port-related activities (i.e., 

the ships and related trucks, trains and equipment servicing the ports) were 

linked with a long laundry list of health and economic impacts, including more 

than 2,400 premature deaths, 360,000 lost work days, more than 1.1 million 

school absences and other health impacts that collectively cost their state 

roughly $19 billion dollars3 

Moreover, these dirty diesel engines hamper state and local efforts to 

attain and maintain EPA's National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for 

PM and ozone. Indeed, the map below, which illustrates the most serious health 

I US ports handled 2,631,429,240 tons of cargo in 2005 according to the US Army Corps of Engineers 

Waterborne Commerce Statistics Center.l:!.!1!2;.iiwww.iwr.usace.army.mil/ndc/wcsc/portname05.htm 

2 US Department of Transportation. Research and Innovative Technology Administration. Bureau of 

Transportation Statistics. Freight in America. January 2006. Washington, DC: 2006. Pg 44 

3 California Air Resources Board, Emission Reduction Plan for Ports and Goods Movement. March 22, 

2006. Appendix A, pp. 71, 79. 
46 


85521.020

impacts from ships, would dovetail well with a map of the nation's most serious 

ozone and soot nonattainment areas-and would include the homes of tens of 

millions of Americans, including much of Southern California, the Pacific 

Northwest, Houston and east Texas, New Orleans, most of Florida, Atlanta, 

Chicago, Detroit, and the entire east coast from Virginia to Boston and beyond. 

Health Impacts from Ships are a Nationwide Problem 

Pollution from oceangoing vessels causes at least 

2,000 to 5,000 premature deaths in the U.S. every year 

) 

I\' ), 

Cleaner marine fuels would reduce nationwide ship health impacts by - 60 %. 

Soulce Cornett. J J Wmebrake. J J. Green, E H Kastbhatla. P ,Eyting. V , Laue( A, Mortalrty ~f(lm 

SM,., Em1S~>on$ AGlobalAssessrnent £tlymmmOOIIlI Scrarn;€!& TfJChno/ogy2007. 41, (24). 8512-8518 

In March 2004, NRDC analyzed the ten largest marine ports in the nation, 

In its report, Harboring Pollution: The Dirty Truth About U.S. Ports, NRDC 

compared the aggregate PM and NOx emissions from several large ports to the 

average refinery, power plant and cars (each of which is subject to significant 

emissions regulations and/or permit requirements, unlike ocean-going ships). 

We found that marine terminals at the Port of Seattle, for example, emit more 

NOx than the average power plant and more PM than the average refinery, and 

marine vessels account for roughly half of those emissions-and those are the 

emissions at the marine terminals, not even counting the emissions of the ships 

going out 200 miles from shore. Additional findings are shown in the figure below. 

These findings underscore the critical need to close the regulatory loopholes that 

the shipping trade currently enjoys. 
47 


85521.021

Nitrogen Oxide (NOx) and Particulate Matter (PM10) Pollution from Ports 

Compared to Refineries, Power Plants, and Cars 

NO~ EMISSIONS PM10 EMISSIONS 

18 30.0 

16 

25.0 1.4 

£ 

.t 1.0 

iii i 20,0 

! 15,0 ~ 0.8 

10.0 0.6 

0.4 

0,2 

0.0 00 

Sources: 

Seaports of the Americas, American Association of Port Authorities Directory, p, 127, 2002; www,aapaports,org/industryinfo/statistics/htm. 

U,S, EPA, National Emission Trends, Average Annual Emissions, All Criteria Pollutants, 1970-2001, August 

13, 2003; www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/trends/index.htm!. 

Energy Information Administration, Petroleum Supply Annual 1982, Volume 1, DOE/EIA-0340(82)/1 (June 

1983, Washington, DC), pp, 97-103 and Petroleum Supply Annual 2000, Volume 1, DOE/EIA-0340(2000)/1 

(Washington, DC, June 2001), Table 40; and company press releases; as posted at 

www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/finance/mergers/fefcaptab2.htm!. 

Energy Information Administration, Form EIA-861, "Annual Electric Utility Report," As posted at 

www,eia,doe,gov/cneaf/electricity/public/t01 pO 1 ,txt 

US Dept of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, 2000 Highway Statistics, State Motor-VehiCle 

Registrations, www,fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/hsOO/xls/mv1.xls 

Unless strong action is taken, the heavy toll of shipping-related pollution will only 

get worse. EPA estimates that by 2030, marine diesel engines on ocean-going 

vessels will emit 12% of ali mobile source NOx emissions, 21% of mobile source 

direct PM emissions, and approximately 83% of mobile source SOx emissions, 

nationwide,4 According to these projections, PM2,5 emissions from ocean-going 

ships in the U,S, will exceed those from all of the engines covered by EPA's 

current locomotive and marine diesel engine proposaL5 

A recent study of global shipping emissions commissioned by the Clean 

Air Task Force, and conducted by Dr, James Corbett and his team, projects that 

global shipping emissions, under business-as-usual conditions, will roughly 

4 U,S, EPA Activities Related to Marine Air Pollution at 7-10, See also U,S, Sub-committee on Bulk 

Liquids and Gases, "Review of Marpol Annex VI and the NOx Technical Code," II'" Session, 2 (February 

9,2007), available at http://www,sname,orgicommittcesitech ops/044/imoibigi II-S-IS,pdf (stating that 

EPA predicts ocean going vessels to claim an even higher percentage of NO x emissions-28% rather than 

12%), 

572 Fed, Reg, 15,964, 
48 


85521.022

double by 2020 and triple by 2030. 6 The chart below summarizes projected SOx 

emissions for various scenarios: 

Projected SOx emissions (millions of metric tons) under several BAU 

and global sulfur-control scenarios. 

2002 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 

BAU: 4.1 % Growth 4.72 6.51 7.96 9.73 11.89 14.54 

1.5% Fuel-sulfur at 4.1% Growth 4.72 3.62 4.42 5.40 6.61 8.08 

1.0% Fuel-sulfur at 4.1% Growth 4.72 2.41 2.95 3.60 4.40 5.39 

0.5% Fuel-sulfur at 4.1 % Growth 4.72 1.21 1.47 1.80 2.20 2.69 

BAU: IMO GHG-study growth (3%) 4.72 5.98 6.93 8.04 9.32 10.80 

1.5% Fuel-sulfur at 3% Growth 4.72 3.32 3.85 4.46 5.18 6.00 

Obviously, given the growth rate of international shipping, "business-asusual" emissions are unacceptable. And, it may be that the future shipping off 

our shores may grow even faster-in another study, Dr. Corbett and his 

colleagues projects even higher rates of emissions growth (5.9% compounded 

annually) for shipping in North American waters? 

There are significant health impacts from this rate of emissions growth. In 

Dr. Corbett's most recent publication, he compared a "No-Action" scenario with a 

global adoption of a 1000 ppm sulfur cap within 200 nautical miles of the coast 

("CoastaL 0.1 "), and estimated the impacts of these two scenarios in 2012. They 

found that switching to the lower sulfur fuel in coastal areas can reduce 

premature mortalities by 50-60 percent from the "No-Action" case. They 

estimated that adopting the CoastaLO.1 scenario would eliminate more than 

40,000 premature deaths annually around the world. They further estimated that 

such a change would reduce North American premature mortality from ships by 

more than 50 percent. 8 Avoiding these deaths and other related health impacts 

would result in benefits to society that the Clean Air Task Force, using EPA 

methodologies, estimates at $225 - 275 billion per year. 9 

6 Corbett, J., Wang, C, Winebrake, J and Green, E., "Allocation and Forecasting of Global Shipping 

Emissions," (January II, 2007). 

7 Corbett, J. and Wang, C, "Estimation, Validation and Forecasts of Regional Commercial Marine Vessel 

Inventories," (2006), available on the Internet at: http://www.arb.ca.!!ov!research/seca/jctaskI2.pdfand 

http://www.arb.ca.gov/research!seca/jctask34.pdf 

8 Corbett, et aI., Mitigating Health Impacts a/Ship Pollution through Low Sulfur Fuel Options: Initial 

Comparison o/Scenarios, January 23,2008, submitted to IMO MEPC on January 25, 2008. 

9 News report in SSuslainableShippingNews.com, February 4, 2008. 
49 


85521.023

Diesel Pollution is a Solvable Problem 

Over the past decade, diesel fuels and emission control technologies have 

progressed dramatically, thanks to a series of EPA regulations that have been 

implemented over the course of the past eight years. Today, ultra-low sulfur 

diesel (ULSD) fuel, capped at 15 parts-per-million (ppm), is now the norm for all 

highway diesel trucks and buses. This ULSD will be standard for all farm, 

construction, industrial and other so-called "non-road" diesel engines by June 

2010, and for domestic locomotive and marine diesel engines by June 2012. 

Again, thanks to EPA's regulatory programs for diesel engines, tailpipe 

emissions from these engines will be dramatically cut-in most cases, by more 

than 90 percent, as advanced emission-cutting catalysts and filters become 

standard equipment. (The last of the EPA diesel rule-makings, covering 

locomotives and marine diesel engines less than 30 liters/cylinder, is under 

review at the White House Office of Management and Budget, and is expected to 

be finalized shortly). When all of today's dirty diesels have been replaced by 

new, cleaner engines that meet these new standards, EPA estimates that more 

than 20,000 premature deaths and more than $150 billion in health costs will be 

eliminated, nationwide, every year. 

The key first step in each of EPA's diesel programs-or in any other 

meaningful diesel clean-up program in the world-is to reduce sulfur levels in the 

fuel. Just as lead had to be removed from gasoline to reduce car emissions in 

the 1970s and 1980s, sulfur has to be removed from diesel fuel to enable the use 

of effective pollution-cutting devices for diesel engines. 

As with removing lead, reducing sulfur in diesel fuel has two emissionscutting benefits. First, removing sulfur reduces the emissions of sulfur-based 

pollutants (e.g., sulfur dioxides and sulfate-based PM) from all diesel engines, 

immediately. Second, removing sulfur to ultra-low levels (e.g., below 50 ppm, but 

preferably as close to zero as possible) enables the use of sulfur-sensitive 

catalysts and filters that remove almost all of the smog-forming and particulate 

soot emissions. 

It is worth noting that reducing sulfur levels to the S. 1499 levels should 

not pose a meaningful cost to the shippers or consumers who might bear any 

cost. Estimates for the incremental cost of 1000 ppm fuel are only a few pennies 

a gallon. Indeed, Maersk, Inc., which operates the largest container terminal in 

the Port of Los Angeles, voluntarily switched all 37 of its cargo ships to low-sulfur 

fuel in 2006. Certainly, this step helps prove the feasibility of fuel-switching close 

to shore. More important, given the intense competition in the shipping industry, 

this move demonstrates that switching to a cleaner fuel doesn't impair a shipper's 

ability to compete in an intensely-competitive marketplace. And, indeed, that 

seems to be the case: in the February 4, 2008 edition of The Journal of 

Commerce, the chairman and CEO of Trailer Bridge, a U.S.-flagged company, 
50 


85521.024

said his company would also use lower sulfur distillate fuels. He was convinced 

by the argument that, in California, there is one premature death per 20,888 

TEUs handled. 1o The bottom line: if Maersk and Trailer Bridge can switch fuels in 

LA without economic impact, so can any other shipper. 

Why S. 1499 Can Bring Significant Benefits to the Nation 

With EPA soon to finalize its current locomotive and marine diesel engine 

rule, ocean-going vessels will soon be the last bastion of dirty diesel engines. S. 

1499 can help speed up their clean-up in several ways. 

First, NRDC believes that S. 1499 adds leverage and momentum to the 

growing calls for an international resolution to the global problem of ship pollution. 

Earlier this week, we read about the progress on efforts to reduce sulfur levels at 

the most recent International Maritime Organization (IMO) meeting. In sum, the 

IMO subcommittee on bulk liquids and gases announced that it would present 

three proposals for consideration by the IMO's Marine Environment Protection 

Committee (ME PC). Of the three,1 one foresees a 1000 ppm sulfur cap in the 

Sox Emission Control Areas (SECAs) that already exist in Europe or that may be 

added later,12 starting in 2012. Another envisions a similar sulfur cap for "microemission control areas" in 2015. The bottom line: 1000 ppm is clearly feasible, 

especially in the dense shipping corridors off the U.S. and European coasts. 

The IMO news may include some promising components, but should not 

be mistaken for the promise of actual action. Here's why: many steps remain 

between this week's news and an IMO agreement that has been ratified by its 

member countries. First, the IMO subcommittee on bulk liquids and gases will 

present its three new options to the IMO's marine environment protection 

committee (ME PC) in April. Then, if an acceptable option (of the three) passes 

the MEPC, it would go to the full IMO for consideration in October. Then, 

assuming that one of these three proposals is actually approved by the IMO in 

October, the IMO's member countries would have to ratify the IMO's action 

before it is implemented globally. In other words, there has been some progress 

this week, but implementing a global agreement still seems to be a long way off. 

10 John McCown, Chairman and CEO of Trailer Bridge, writing in The Journal o{Commerce, February 4, 

2008, page 42. 

II One of the three proposals that will be reviewed by the IMO MEPC in April foresees a sulfur cap similar 

to S. 1499. Another calls for a 5000 ppm cap worldwide, in 2015, and a third calls for a global cap of 

30,000 ppm (more than today's average global sulfur level in ocean-going shipping vessels, which is 

roughly 27,000 ppm) and more localized sulfur caps in the 1000-5000 ppm range. 

12 Currently, SECAs are in place in the Baltic Sea, the North Sea, and the English Channel. SECAs are 

being considered for the west coast of the U.S. and other locations around the world. In addition, 

California state law requires 1000 ppm sulfur fuel to be used in its coastal waters and ports by 2010, and 

European law requires this fuel to be used in European ports and inland waterways by 2010. 
51 


85521.025

Moreover, the IMO has a long history of adopting final standards that 

merely reflect the lowest common denominator of the international community. 

Through that lens, it seems as likely that the option that includes the 30,000 ppm 

global cap will be adopted as that our preferred option will be chosen, unless the 

substantial threat of national action (whether via S. 1499, by European nations, 

or by other key government stakeholders) alters the pattern of the IMO's past 

decisions. In sum, notwithstanding the positive efforts of the U.S. EPA and 

others to convince the IMO to adopt stronger global standards for marine fuels, 

NRDC believes strongly that legislation like S. 1499 adds to the leverage and 

political pressure that is necessary to eventually adopt a global standard. 

Second, a coastal sulfur reduction brings most of the benefits of reduced 

sulfur levels to the communities that are most affected by ship pollution. From 

the perspective of reducing the public health impacts of port communities, 

lowering sulfur standards within a coastal zone of 200 miles makes a lot of sense. 

Recently, the International Council on Clean Transportation, an organization that 

represents leading regulators and experts around the world, reported that 70-80 

percent of all ship emissions occur within 400 kilometers (248 miles of land).13 

So, in fact, the sulfur limitations in S. 1499 will not only make sense to coastal 

communities that are home to the nation's ports, but would effectively target 

roughly three-quarters of the overall ship pollution problem if applied globally. 

Plus, many of the communities that neighbor the nation's ports are low-income 

communities and/or communities of color, and already bear a disproportionate 

impact of the truck, rail, and terminal emissions at these ports. Reducing ship 

emissions would bring a well-deserved relief to these communities. For these 

reasons, NRDC recommends that the 200 mile coastal zone be applied off the 

east and Gulf coasts of the U.S., in addition to the Pacific coast. 

Third, reducing sulfur opens the door to adding emission control 

technologies that can reduce NOx and other pollutants further. This model, first 

used on a large scale by New York City's transit buses (where diesel transit 

buses are now 97 percent cleaner than they were in the mid-1990s) and adapted 

by EPA for use in its recent rulemakings, would be feasible for the ocean-going 

vessels also. At 1000 ppm, selective catalytic reduction (SCR), a time-tested 

pollution-control technology used in stationary and mobile applications around 

the world, would be feasible. 

The IMO information supports this notion that SCR or other technologies 

could provide dramatic emission reductions once 1000 ppm sulfur levels were in 

place. In one of the IMO scenarios, NOx emissions would be cut by as much as 

80 percent by 2016 in the sulfur control areas that were capped at 1000 ppm. In 

other words, if S. 1499 were adopted, similar NOx reductions could be 

considered for ocean-going vessels serving American ports. Consequently, 

NRDC strongly supports the requirement in S. 1499 that directs EPA to 

13 International Council on Clean Transportation, Air Poilution and Greenhouse Gas Emissions from 

Ocean-Going Ships, Executive Summary, p. 5 (March 2007). 
52 


85521.026

promulgate new emission standards for newly-manufactured and in-use main 

and auxiliary engines in ocean-going vessels that enter or leave a port or 

offshore terminal in the U.S. 

Conclusion 

NRDC strongly supports S. 1499, the Marine Vessels Emissions 

Reduction Act of 2007. We look forward to working with the Senate Environment 

and Public Works Committee towards its passage, and towards cleaner ships in 

our ports in the future. 

Thank you very much for the opportunity to testify today. 
53 

1One of the three proposals that will be reviewed by the IMO MEPC in April foresees a sulfur 

cap similar to S. 1499. Another calls for a 5000 ppm cap worldwide, in 2015, and a third calls 

for a global cap of 30,000 ppm (more than today’s average global sulfur level in ocean-going shipping vessels, which is roughly 27,000 ppm) and more localized sulfur caps in the 1000–5000 ppm 

range. 2Currently, SECAs are in place in the Baltic Sea, the North Sea, and the English Channel. 

SECAs are being considered for the west coast of the U.S. and other locations around the world. 

In addition, California State law requires 1000 ppm sulfur fuel to be used in its coastal waters 

and ports by 2010, and European law requires this fuel to be used in European ports and inland 

waterways by 2010. 3 International Council on Clean Transportation, Air Pollution and Greenhouse Gas Emissions 

from Ocean-Going Ships, Executive Summary, p. 5 (March 2007). 

RESPONSES BY RICHARD KASSEL TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS

FORM SENATOR BOXER

Question 1. Would moving forward toward enactment of S. 1499 assist the U.S. 

in its current negotiations before the IMO? 

Response. Yes. 

NRDC believes that S. 1499 adds significant leverage and momentum to the growing calls for an international resolution to the global problem of ship pollution. In 

February, we were pleased to read about the progress on efforts to reduce sulfur 

levels at the then most recent International Maritime Organization (IMO) meeting. 

In sum, the IMO subcommittee on bulk liquids and gases announced that it would 

present three proposals for consideration by the IMO’s Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC). Of the three,1 one foresees a 1000 ppm sulfur cap in the 

Sox Emission Control Areas (SECAs) that already exist in Europe or that may be 

added later,2 starting in 2012. 

Another envisions a similar sulfur cap for ‘‘micro-emission control areas’’ in 2015. 

The bottom line: 1000 ppm is clearly feasible, especially in the dense shipping corridors off the U.S. and European coasts. 

The IMO news may include some promising components, but should not be mistaken for the promise of actual action. Here’s why: many steps remain between an 

IMO Subcommittee proposal and a final IMO agreement that has been ratified by 

its member countries. First, the IMO subcommittee on bulk liquids and gases will 

present its three new options to the IMO’s marine environment protection committee (MEPC) in April. Then, if an acceptable option (of the three) passes the 

MEPC, it would go to the fulliMO for consideration in October. Then, assuming that 

one of these three proposals is actually approved by the IMO in October, the IMO’s 

member countries would have to ratify the IMO’s action before it is implemented 

globally. In other words, there has been some progress, but implementing a global 

agreement still seems to be a long way off. 

Moreover, the IMO has a long history of adopting final standards that merely reflect the lowest common denominator of the international community. Through that 

lens, it seems as likely that the option that includes the 30,000 ppm global cap will 

be adopted as that our preferred option will be chosen, unless the substantial threat 

of national action (Whether via S. 1499, by European nations, or by other key government stakeholders) alters the pattern of the IMO’s past decisions. In sum, notwithstanding the positive efforts of the U.S. EPA and others to convince the IMO 

to adopt stronger global standards for marine fuels, NRDC believes strongly that 

legislation like S. 1499 adds to the leverage and political pressure that is necessary 

to eventually adopt a global standard. 

It is worth noting that a coastal sulfur reduction brings most of the benefits of 

reduced sulfur levels to the communities that are most affected by ship pollution. 

From the perspective of reducing the public health impacts of port communities, 

lowering sulfur standards within a coastal zone of 200 miles makes a lot of sense. 

Recently, the International Council on Clean Transportation, an organization that 

represents leading regUlators and experts around the world, reported that 70–80 

percent of all ship emissions occur within 400 kilometers (248 miles of land).3 So, 

in fact, the sulfur limitations in S. 1499 will not only make sense to coastal communities that are home to the nation’s ports, but would effectively target roughly threequarters of the overall ship pollution problem if applied globally. Plus, many of the 

communities that neighbor the nation’s ports are low-income communities and/or 

communities of color, and already bear a disproportionate impact of the truck, rail, 

and terminal emissions at these ports. Reducing ship emissions would bring a welldeserved respite to these communities. 

Third, reducing sulfur opens the door to adding emission control technologies that 

can reduce NOx and other pollutants further. This model, first used on a large scale 

by New York City’s transit buses (where diesel transit buses are now 97 percent 

54 

4 In responding to this question, NRDC is deeply indebted to our colleagues at Oceana, 

Friends of the Earth, the Center for Biological Diversity, and Earth justice. Their expert analysis of this issue, discussed in detail in their October 3, 2007 petition October 2007 Petition’’) 

to the EPA for a Clean Air Act rulemaking 10 reduce emissions from ocean-going vessels, was 

invaluable to NRDC’s preparation of our response 10 Senator Boxer on this question. 5 IPCC, Climate Change 2007, The Physical Science Basis, Contribution of Working Group 

I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (‘‘IPCC 

Summary for Policymakers’’), Feb. 2007, at 2. 6 United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Carbon Dioxide Emissions, 

Thousands o( Metric Tons, available at hltp:/Imdgs.un.orgJunsd/mdg/SenesDetail.aspx?srid=749 

(August 1, 2007). 7 October 2007 Petition, at 11. 8 Id. At 13. 

cleaner than they were in the mid–1990’s) and adapted by EPA for use in its recent 

locomotive and marine diesel rule, would be feasible for the ocean-going vessels also. 

At 1000 ppm, selective catalytic reduction (SCR), a time-tested pollution-control 

technology in used in stationary and mobile applications around the world, would 

be feasible. 

The IMO information supports this notion that SCR or other technologies could 

provide dramatic emission reductions once 1000 ppm sulfur levels were in place. In 

one of the IMO scenarios, NOx emissions would be cut by as much as 80 percent 

by 2016 in the sulfur control areas that were capped at 1000 ppm. In other words, 

if S. 1499 were adopted, similar NOx reductions could be considered for ocean-going 

vessels serving American ports. Consequently, NRDC strongly supports the requirement in S. 1499 that directs EPA to promulgate new emission standards for newly 

manufactured and in-use main and auxiliary engines in ocean.going vessels that 

enter or leave a port or offshore terminal in the U.S. 

In sum, passing S. 1499 would provide significant leverage on the IMO negotiations, as well as significant health and environmental benefits to communities near 

our ports. 

Question 2. Some have argued that reducing the levels of air pollutants like PM, 

SOX, and NOx emitted from large marine vessels would have the effect of increasing 

overall global greenhouse gas emissions, while other experts have concluded that 

global warming would actually be reduced when these pollutants are addressed. 

Would you please provide your views on this issue. 

Response. Pollution from large marine vessels contributes significantly to global 

greenhouse gas emissions, in addition to air pollution and public health impacts in 

the United States.4 Ocean-going vessels account for an estimated 2.7–5 percent of 

the world’s greenhouse gases, roughly equivalent to the carbon dioxide emissions of 

all U.S. cars and trucks, combined. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on 

Climate Change (IPCC), these emissions are estimated to be between 600–900 million metric tons/year.5 Only six countries in the world emit more carbon dioxide 

than the world’s fleet of large marine vessels.6 Moreover, emissions from these vessels are likely to grow by 75 percent over the next two decades and may double by 

2050. 

Ships are also a major source of nitrogen oxide emissions. These emissions are 

a principal component of ground-level ozone, or smog. But they are also a greenhouse gas that acts similarly to carbon dioxide, by trapping heat in the atmosphere 

for decades at a time. Ships contribute as much as 30 percent of global NOx emissions, an estimated 27.8 million tons/year. Without significant policy intervention, 

the contribution of ships to global NOx emissions will grow substantially in coming 

decades, keeping pace with the growth in overall shipping rates and other aggregate 

emissions from ships. Thus, marine NOx emissions are expected to nearly double by 

2050.7

Ships are also a major source of ‘‘black carbon,’’ also known as soot. These microscopic particles result from incomplete fuel combustion-and have well-known health 

impacts, as well as global warming impacts. These impacts include, among others, 

increased asthma emergencies, bronchitis, cancer, emphysema, heart attacks and 

premature deaths-with no known threshold of exposure required to trigger these impacts. 

At sea, black carbon is a potent global warming pollutant. As soot particles absorb 

heat from sunlight, they warm the air, water, and ice nearby. Consequently, black 

carbon is increasingly viewed as a major contributor to Arctic ice melting.8 And, 

shipping is, of course, the source of much of the black carbon released over the 

oceans. Switching to lower-sulfur fuels would reduce each of these global warming pollutants, and enable the use of emissions control technologies that could lower emissions even further-technologies that are impossible to use with the current bunker 

55 

9 Winebrake and Corbett, Technical Memorandum: Total Fuel Cycle Analysis for Container 

Ships: A Comparison of Residual Oil, Marine Gas Oil and Marine Diesel Oil (2007) at 6. 10 Sustainableshipping.com, July 10, 2007, available at http /lwww.suslainableshipping.com/ 

news/2007/07/68418 11 See Clean Air Task Force, Diesel & Health in America, available at http:// 

www.catf.uslprojectsldieselldieselheathfState php?slte-O&s–22 12 EDF, Fact Sheet: ‘‘Air Quality and Health: Smog Alert How Commercial Shipping is Polluting Our Air,’’ available at htlp:ffwww.environmenlaldefense.orgfgo/cmv 13 International Council on Clean Transportation, Overview of Current and Proposed Policies 

in the United States (2007). 

fuel. For example, NOx-reducing selective catalytic reduction (SCR) systems can effectively reduce NOx by 80 percent or more, assuming that sulfur levels are no more 

than 1,000 parts-per-million (ppm). SWitching from heavy fuel oil to marine diesel 

oil would reduce C02 by almost 3 percent by 2020, as well as reduce NOx by nearly 

5 percent and particulate soot by 63 percent.9 Beyond the global warming benefits, 

this fuel switch would reduce the public health impacts of today’s ships that operate 

on bunker or residual fuel. 

Admittedly, the switch to low sulfur fuels could increase refinery C02 emissions 

slightly, e.g., by 2–5 percent. However, mitigating these emissions would be more 

easily addressed at a stationary source location than onboard a ship. And, to the 

extent marine-based mitigation was desired, they could be easily offset by time-tested, successful marine-based strategies, such as reducing ship speeds near ports, as 

is done at the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. 

Real-world experience tells the best story, as always. Maersk Line ships voluntarily switch to lower-sulfur fuels within 24 nautical miles of California ports. This 

switch has reduced overall emissions by approximately 400 tons annually, including 

an 80 percent reduction in particulate soot emissions and a 17 percent reduction in 

NOx emissions.10

In sum, NRDC believes that the net global warming and health benefits of reduced sulfur levels in the fuel that powers the global shipping industry would far 

outweigh the minimal increases in C02 emissions at oil refineries that result from 

the enhanced refining required to produce lower-sulfur fuels. 

Question 3. Are emissions from marine vessels arriving in ports in Louisiana likely to affect the health of citizens of Louisiana or other states, and if so, how? 

Response. Every year, thousands of Louisiana residents are harmed by diesel soot 

pollution, 

According to the Clean Air Task Force, there were 324 premature deaths, 339 

non-fatal heart attacks, 7,131 asthma attacks, 188 cases of chronic bronchitis, 

40,740 lost work days, and other health impacts in Louisiana that were attributable 

to diesel soot pollution in 1999. Furthermore, there were 468 cancers per million 

person in Louisiana, thanks to diesel soot pollution, in 1999, compared to only a risk 

of 28 cancers per million due to all other inhaled toxic chemicals.11 Clearly, diesel 

pollution is a serious problem for the Louisiana’s citizens, residents and visitors. 

Shipping plays a major role in this pollution and its resultant health impacts. The 

aggregate emissions from the ships operating in the Lower Mississippi are roughly 

equivalent to the emissions of almost 600,000 cars, trucks and urban buses, according to the Environmental Defense Fund.12

Ocean-going marine vessels are an especially significant component of this pollution. These vessels contribute 14 percent of the NOx emissions in New Orleans, as 

well as 24 percent of the fine particulate soot (PM2.5) and 59 percent of the sulfur 

oxides. Incredibly, these vessels contribute a larger share of the regional NOx and 

PM2.5 emissions than more publicized ports such as Los Angeles and Long Beach, 

California (5 percent of the NOx and 10 percent of the PM2.5), the port of New York 

and New Jersey (4 percent of the NOx and 10 percent of the PM2.5), and Galveston, 

Texas (5 percent of the NOx and 12 percent of the PM2.5).13

In sum, people who breathe air in Louisiana are no different than people who 

breathe air in California and other heavily polluted states of our county: they 

breathe huge amounts of diesel pollution that harms their hearts, lungs, and healthand much of this pollution comes from shipping activities. 

CONCLUSION

I hope that these responses are helpful to you and the Committee. Because I am 

currently in China, I am transmitting this letter electronically. If you wish to discuss them in greater detail, please do not hesitate to contact me. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you very much. 

56 

And now we are pleased to turn to Ken Wells, President of the 

Offshore Marine Services Association. 

STATEMENT OF KEN WELLS, PRESIDENT, OFFSHORE 

MARINE SERVICES ASSOCIATION 

Mr. WELLS. Madam Chair, members of the Committee, good 

morning. My name is Ken Wells. I am President of the Offshore 

Marine Services Association. Our association represents the owners 

and operators of U.S.-flag vessels that work to support the offshore 

oil and gas industry. So our work boats carry all of the components, 

the equipment, and many of the industrial workers that make it 

possible for our Country to access its offshore energy resources. 

We appreciate the opportunity to testify today on the Marine 

Vessel Emissions Reduction Act of 2007. Madam Chair, we share 

your goal of reducing air emissions from all sources in the United 

States. 

We do have a unique perspective on this bill and this issue. We 

don’t represent companies that run large ocean-going ships. The 

vessels in our fleet are smaller than ships. They run on medium 

and high speed diesel engines. So our industry is already covered 

by the current EPA rulemaking process reducing emissions from 

category one and two diesel engines. 

We already use low-sulfur fuel. We are already trying to come 

into compliance for engines and after-treatment in the rulemaking. 

Frankly, we don’t know if we are going to make it by the deadline. 

We don’t know if the engines with the new technology can be built 

and installed in time, and we don’t know if the after-treatment 

equipment will fit within our smaller, more compact engine rooms. 

I can only tell you that we are trying, and we intend to meet the 

deadline. 

Looking specifically at the bill, frankly we agree with the key 

purpose, to require foreign vessels to meet the same requirements 

as U.S. vessels. We are already on record calling for that in our 

sector. But within the caveat that unlike most of the ships you may 

be more familiar with, foreign work boats in the offshore industry 

don’t just come to a U.S. port, drop their cargo, and leave again. 

They come to offshore projects. They stay for months at a time. 

They compete with U.S. boats for construction work, seismic testing and dive operations. And yet we face difficult clean air mandates, and they are currently exempt. It is a little like forcing Ford 

to meet auto emissions standards for cars running on our highways, and then giving Toyota a free pass. 

We would like for them to play by the rules. However, as we look 

at the larger issue, we have to recognize that it is a double-edged 

sword for us. When our vessels try to go to work overseas with all 

that expensive mandated equipment, it may make them unable to 

compete with the foreign boats that don’t ever come to the U.S. We 

have to look at how we would deal with that. The U.S. owners of 

these vessels, if they can’t get relief for the vessels at home, and 

then they can’t compete overseas, they may be forced to re-flag 

those vessels, leave the U.S., and simply not work in our market. 

Enough about our industry. We have to look at the Country’s 

international competitiveness. If we as a Country move unilaterally 

to create a requirement that doesn’t exist anywhere else in the 

57 

world, the ships will simply not call on our ports unless the rates 

rise so much that it would justify the expense. Now, different parts 

of the Country will feel that shock in different ways. In some areas, 

it may not be felt by the consumers. In others, it will. 

I am from Louisiana, where one-third of the grain is exported 

through the Mississippi River. Our grain exports can rise or fall 

based on slight fluctuations in currency, fuel costs, or a good soaking rain on the plains of Argentina. Cargo like steel and coal also 

moves or doesn’t move through our ports based on extremely narrow margins. 

So our State’s maritime industry, and it is a large part of our 

State’s industry, would need for you to consider the impact of this 

bill on our local economy before you took action. We do feel that 

there is a better option. It has been talked about today, an option 

that solves your needs, gives our industry a chance to compete, and 

improves the air quality worldwide, which should be our goal. 

Rather than forcing through this narrow bill, we would urge you 

to push hard for the International Maritime Organization to set 

standards for all of the world’s vessels, push the U.S. delegation to 

take the leading role in achieving the goal, and give them the legislation they need to accomplish that. The U.S. should not, in our 

opinion, go this one alone, especially when a global solution appears to be so close at hand. 

We thank you for giving us the opportunity today. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Wells follows:] 

58 


85521.027

Testimony of Ken Wells 

President, Offshore Marine Service Association 

Concerning the Marine Vesse) Emissions Reduction Act of 2007, 

S.1499 

Before The 

Full Committee on Environment and Public Works 

United States Senate 

Thursday, February 14,2008 

Madam Chair. Members of the Committee. Good morning. My name is Ken Wells and 

I am President of the Onshore Marine Service Association. Our association represents 

the owners and operators of U.S. flag vessels that work to support the offshore oil and gas 

industry. Our workboats carry all of the components and equipment and many of the 

industrial workers that make it possible for our country to access its offshore energy 

resources. 

We appreciate having the opportunity to testify today on the Marine Vessel Emissions 

Reduction Act of 2007, S.1499. Madam Chair, we share your goal of reducing air 

emissions from all sources in the United States. As we understand it, the bill would take 

the Clean Air mandates that are currently envisioned for domestic vessels and would 

extend them to foreign vessels that come to America for trade or other purposes. 

Our association is already on record calling for similar requirements for foreign flag 

vessels that work in offshore oil and gas areas. Offshore workboats operate very 

differently from the types of vessels that call on your ports and the ones that you are 

probably most familiar with. Rather than carry cargo from some foreign location to the 

U.S. and then leaving again, offshore vessels may come here to work in one area for 

months at a time. They compete directly with U.S. flag vessels for construction jobs, 

seismic work or in supporting dive operations. Under the current EPA emission 

reduction rules, these foreign vessels are not required to meet the same standards as U.S. 

vessels. This puts our U.S. companies at a distinct disadvantage. They must bear the 

expense of equipment and other restrictions while their foreign competitors largely avoid 

those costs. Because these foreign vessels work in our waters and gain revenue from our 

resources for weeks, months or even years at a time without having to play by the same 

rules as U.S. operators, it is a little like forcing Ford to meet auto emission standards for 

cars running on our highways and then giving Toyota a free pass. So yes, we would like 

the competition to play on an even playing field and not enjoy this unfair competitive 

advantage. Let me point out that the foreign vessels that work in the offshore oil business 

enter our Exclusive Economic Zone, but may not ever enter a U.S. port, and so the bill as 

written may not address the problem I just described. We would be willing of course to 

work with your staffto address this issue. 
59 


85521.028

However, taken as a whole, the bill and the ongoing EPA rulemaking area a real doubleedged sword for our industry. What would help us compete in domestic waters could 

prevent us from competing internationally. Our vessels work all over the world. Our 

business model is based on having the ability to relocate vessels overseas when activity in 

U.S. waters slows down. To force our members to install expensive equipment or replace 

engines would put them at a real cost disadvantage to foreign vessels. The end result is 

that they may be forced to reflag the vessels foreign and avoid the restrictions. 

The other concern goes beyond the offshore industry and addresses our country's 

international competitiveness. While our industry has a number of foreign vessels that 

come to work in our waters for extended periods, most of the foreign vessels that call on 

U.S. ports carry cargo on international voyages as a part of a world trade. That world is 

too big for one player to set a standard that is out of sync with the other trade partners. 

The predictable result of that kind of unilateral action is that fewer vessels choose to meet 

the standard, demand for vessels outstrips the supply of qualified vessels and rates 

skyrocket. 

Now you may justifiably ask, is this a real concern? I come from Louisiana where 

roughly a third of the nation's export grain is loaded and shipped out. Grain exports shift 

dramatically over fluctuations in currency, transportation fuel costs or a bountiful rainfall 

in Argentina. So yes, the concern that unilateral action by the U.S. could increase rates 

enough to hurt the Mississippi River's main export is real and must be considered. 

Finally, we are still unsure whether the requirements for advanced emissions controls in 

this legislation and in the ongoing EPA rulemaking are achievable for our types of 

vessels. Our early analysis is that the mandated aftertreatment equipment may not fit in 

the confined spaces in the engine rooms of our smaller boats. 

All of this leads us to one conclusion - The U.S. should not go this one alone. We are 

talking about international trade. The solution needs to be international in scope. The 

International Maritime Organization sets the standards for world maritime trade and the 

United States is a recognized leader in that forum. Push IMO to address this issue 

around the globe. That will solve your problems in California's non-attainment areas. It 

will force our competitors in the Gulf of Mexico to meet universal standards and it will 

allow us to move freely between domestic and overseas projects without being put at a 

cost disadvantage. 

We thank you for giving us the opportunity to testify. I would be happy to answer any 

questions. 
60 

RESPONSES BY KEN WELLS TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS

FROM SENATOR BOXER

Question 1. Data from a study of mortality resulting from marine vessel emissions, Corbett and Winebrake 2007, indicate that there are between 100 and 1SO 

premature deaths in Louisiana caused by pollution emitted from marine vessels 

each year. If enacted, S. 1499 would substantially reduce the emissions causing 

these deaths by requiring international shippers to use low sulfur fuel in proximity 

to U.S. ports. Do you agree that these effects should be addressed? 

Response. Operators ofU:S. flag offshore support vessels are addressing vessel engine emissions by working to implement recent changes to Environmental Protection Agency regulations. These include switching to low sulfur fuel and working 

with engine manufacturers to develop improvements in the design of engines used 

on offshore vessels. Therefore we hope that the offshore sector will be seen as living 

up to its responsibilities as a U.S. citizen that is working diligently to reduce emission from its vessels. 

On a related point, the bill may not address emissions from many of the foreign 

vessels that come into U.S. waters for offshore oil and gas work. These large construction vessels come into the exclusive economic zone (EEl) and stay for several 

months at a time, but may not actually enter a U.S. port, thus triggering the emission requirements contained in the bill. The legislation would need to be changed 

to include vessels working on the EEl if it is to include those vessels. 

We do need to point out that the question asked here may not be entirely correct. 

The Corbett and Winebrake study does not make the statement or draw the conclusion that vessel emissions cause 100 to 150 deaths in Louisiana. The focus of the 

study is global emissions, not localized emissions. Attempts to extrapolate localized 

data from this sort of study risks being inaccurate. The conclusions may also conflict 

with other statistical studies. For example, the study predicts mortality in statistical 

probabilistic terms, yet the actual total rate of mortality in Louisiana from all respiratory disease from all causes is in reality lower than the national average, which 

includes both coastal states and states that are well outside the reach of vessel 

emissions. That is not to question the major theme and finding of the study, but 

rather to point out the dangers of focusing on minute slices of data taken from probabilistic analysis to derive conclusions about limited geographic areas. 

The study also does not take into account the tradeoffs that could result from unilateral action. Given the much higher emissions per ton mile from other modes of 

transportation, this is a real consideration. Under one very likely scenario, higher 

shipping costs could keep some low margin cargoes such as grain from moving down 

the Mississippi River for export, resulting in that cargo shifting to trucks and trains 

for domestic transportation. Under a second scenario, cargo could be unloaded at 

Mexican ports and trucked into the U.S. through the California and Texas corridors. 

Either scenario would represent a net increase in air emissions, not to mention a 

statistically significant increase in traffic injuries. 

Most importantly, this focus on one region detracts from the larger point of the 

study 

that vessel emissions is a worldwide issue and one that requires an international 

approach. That means recognizing international economics and trade relationships, 

leveraging international technological solutions and negotiating on the international 

stage. 

Question 2. Do you believe that in light of the substantial evidence that diesel 

emissions harm human health, that we should wait indefinitely for the IMO process 

to be completed and for IMO to adopi stringent standards? 

Response. On behalf of our sector of the maritime industry, we again emphasize 

that vessels belonging to OMSA members are working to meet EPA regulations governing emissions. The question does not apply to the offshore oil and gas sector, 

with the exception of foreign offshore vessels that may not be covered by either EPA 

regulations or the Senate bill, as mentioned in question 1. 

Further, the IMO process is very far along. In fact, recommendations were completed last week and await action in the fall. As was seen in the implementation 

of the International Ship and Port Security Code with strong and vigorous leadership from the 

U.S. IMO can make significant changes in a single year. The United States should 

take an active and aggressive role in leading the IMO to developing appropriate 

international standards. The referenced study from Corbett and Winebrake indicate 

the international effect of vessel emissions is significant in Europe and Asia. This 

may present the opportunity for the U.S. to positively impact international standards in a fashion that will benefit all of the world’s citizens. 

61 

Question 3. Are you aware that as of the date of the hearing the IMO negotiations 

included no proposals to require installation of NOx pollution control equipment on 

existing large marine engines? How can we be assured that pollution and health effects of such pollution will be reduced? 

Response. The Congress should request that the United States expand the scope 

of the treaty negotiations to include NOx pollution control equipment on large marine engines. The installation of NOx pollution control equipment will involve substantial research and development by international engine manufacturers, which 

will have to comply with international standards as will be estimated by the IMO 

treaty. This will require considerable cost to the maritime industry to transition and 

retrofit vessels with those engines. 

Question 4. Is it acceptable that citizens ofLouisiana, California, New Jersey, 

Texas and other states affected by marine vessel pollution should be forced to suffer 

debilitating illnesses such as asthma and bronchitis, and thousands of premature 

deaths due to cancer and heart disease, while the United States waits for the international shipping interests to do something about this problem? 

Response. In every instance when illness or death is caused by individual or commercial activity it should be incumbent upon government, and each of us to mitigate 

the effects of that activity, and including international shipping. However, we must 

be cognizant of broad consequences of acting unilaterally to the detriment of the 

maritime industry which provides economic security for millions of our citizens. 

Therefore, we again urge that the Congress allow the IMO treaty process to be concluded. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you so much, Mr. Wells. 

We are not so sure that my bill affects any of the ships you are 

talking about, so we are going to in the meantime hold off, but we 

will get into that in a minute. But at first blush, we don’t think 

that you will be impacted, but let’s wait until the questions, and 

go to Mr. Joel Chaisson, Executive Director of the Port of South 

Louisiana. We welcome you, sir. 

STATEMENT OF JOEL CHAISSON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

PORT OF SOUTH LOUISIANA 

Mr. CHAISSON. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman Boxer, Senator 

Vitter, other members of the Committee. Thank you for this opportunity to testify here today. 

It certainly is a very difficult act to follow this young man, with 

which we all sympathize. 

I am Joel Chaisson, the Executive Director of the Port of South 

Louisiana. The Port of South Louisiana is the largest tonnage port 

in the Western Hemisphere. The port occupied 54 miles of the 

Lower Mississippi River and is located between the Port of New 

Orleans and the Port of Baton Rouge. Our jurisdiction comprises 

three Louisiana parishes, the parishes of St. Charles, St. John the 

Baptist, and St. James. 

Besides our port being the largest tonnage port in the Western 

Hemisphere, the port also handles 50 percent of all of the import 

and export cargo in the State of Louisiana. Within our port district, 

we have 4 major oil refineries, 12 chemical plants, 8 grain elevators, and numerous other industrial facilities. The Port of South 

Louisiana receives over 4,000 deep draft vessels called in each 

year, as well as 55,000 barge movements within the port. 

The parishes surrounding the Port of South Louisiana, not to 

mention the entire State of Louisiana, are considered entertainment for particulate matter and NOx . The bill you are considering 

here today which seeks to address an air quality problem certainly 

is a problem and certainly I recognize the problem in California. It 

62 

appears at this time it is more of a problem for California in certain areas than it is in South Louisiana. 

In the port, we are very concerned that without this being handled internationally, this legislation would place our ports in Louisiana, including our port, at a disadvantage cost-wise and could 

cause us to lose the market share of trade that comes into our 

ports. The Lower Mississippi River, including our district, is responsible for 15 to 20 percent of our Nation’s refining of gasoline, 

jet fuel, diesel, heating fuel, which we ship through pipelines to all 

parts of this Country, and which America so desperately needs. 

Therefore, by placing the Louisiana ports at an economic disadvantage, this legislation will truly affect not only the Port of 

South Louisiana, but also the State of Louisiana and the United 

States of America. 

The Port of South Louisiana has been willing and continues to 

support legislation for hydrocarbons and oil and gas production in 

the Gulf of Mexico. Without the Gulf of Mexico, and the products 

its produces, the United States would find itself in a very difficult 

position. Additionally, our ports have many exports and imports to 

and from and across the world, including Mexico, Venezuela, the 

North Sea, and from Africa. A great deal of the imports of all of 

our oil comes from these areas abroad to be refined at the refineries in our port district in Louisiana. 

Therefore, the United States should not put our ports at an economic disadvantage to the rest of the world, and instead address 

this from an international level, not unilaterally. While we don’t 

oppose cleaner air, and in fact we support cleaner air, we fear that 

this legislation would truly affect Louisiana and the United States 

without an international approach. Negotiations are being worked 

out, and hopefully they will solve this problem where we will all 

be playing on a level field. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify before this Committee 

today, and I will attempt to answer any questions if you have any. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Chaisson follows:] 

63 


85521.029

Statement of Joel T. Chaisson 

Executive Director 

Port of South Louisiana 

Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works 

"Legislative Hearing on the Marine Vessel Emissions Reduction Act of200T', S. 1499 

February 14,2008 

Thank you, Madam Chairwoman Boxer, Ranking Member Inhofe, and Senator Vitter and 

other Members of the Committee for the opportunity to testify today. I am Joel Chaisson, 

the Executive Director of the Port of South Louisiana. 

The Port of South Louisiana is the largest tonnage port in the Western Hemisphere. The 

Port occupies 54 miles of the Lower Mississippi River and is located between the Port of 

New Orleans and Port of Baton Rouge. Our jurisdiction comprises the three Parishes of 

St. Charles, St. John The Baptist, and St. James. 

Besides OUf Port of South Louisiana being the largest tonnage port in the Western 

Hemisphere, the port also handles 50% of all of the import and export cargo in the State 

of Louisiana. Within our port district, we have four major oil refineries, twelve chemical 

plants, eight grain elevators, and numerous other industrial facilities. The Port of South 

Louisiana receives over 4,000 deep draft vessel calls in our port each year, as well as 

55,000 large movements within the port. 

The parishes surrounding the Port of South Louisiana, not to mention the entire State of 

Louisiana, are considered in attainment for Particulate Matter and NOx. S. 1499, the 

"Marine Vessel Emissions Reduction Act of200T', which seeks to address an air quality 

problem, appears to be more of a California problem than for those of us in Louisiana on 
64 


85521.030

the lower Mississippi River. In the Port of South Louisiana, we are very concerned that 

without this being handled internationally, this legislation would place our ports in 

Louisiana including the Port of South Louisiana, at a disadvantage cost-wise and could 

cost us to lose the market share of trade that comes into our ports. 

The lower Mississippi River including the district of our ports are responsible for 15-20% 

of our nation's retining of gasoline, jet fuel, diesel, and heating fuel which we ship these 

through pipelines across the United States is so desperately needed by Americans. 

Therefore, by placing our Louisiana ports at an economic disadvantage, this legislation 

would truly affect not only the Port of South Louisiana, but also the State of Louisiana 

and the United States. 

The Port of South Louisiana has been willing and continues to support exploration for 

hydrocarbons, and oil and gas in the Gulf of Mexico. Without the Gulf of Mexico and 

the hydrocarbons it produces, thc United States would tind itself in a very difticult 

position. Additionally, our Port has many exports and imports to and from across the 

world including Mexico, Venezuela, the North Sea, and from Africa. A great deal of the 

imports of all of our oil comes from these areas abroad to be retined at the retineries in 

our port district in Louisiana. Therefore, the United States should not put our ports at an 

economic disadvantage to the rest of the world and instead address this from an 

international level, not unilaterally. While I don't oppose cleaner air, I fear this legislation 

would truly affect Louisiana and the United States without being approached 

internationally and while negotiations are being worked out internationally to address this 

issue. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify before this committee today. I look forward to 

answering any questions. 
65 

Senator BOXER. Thank you very much, sir. 

And last on our panel, but certainly not least, is Joe Accardo, Executive Director, Ports Association of Louisiana. Lots of 

Louisianans here today. We certainly do welcome you. 

STATEMENT OF JOE ACCARDO, EXECUTIVE 

DIRECTOR, PORTS ASSOCIATION OF LOUISIANA 

Mr. ACCARDO. Thank you, Senator Boxer, Senator Vitter, Senator 

Lautenberg, Senator Cardin. 

I am Joe Accardo, Executive Director of the Ports Association of 

Louisiana. 

Jonah, I, too, have a grandson who has asthma and I have assisted in giving him breathing treatment, so I know the problem. 

One of the most difficult problems you have as a legislator is to 

try to balance the public health needs of our citizens with the commercial needs of the Country and the citizens whose jobs depend 

upon that commercial activity. The Ports Association of Louisiana 

is a non-profit trade association which represents the six deepwater 

ports of the State, working inland ports, and ten coastal offshore 

oil and gas supply ports. The association was formed to promote 

and advance Louisiana ports. 

As has been pointed out here by Joel Chaisson and Ken Wells, 

Louisiana is a leader in the maritime trade. Twenty percent of the 

Nation’s waterborne commerce occurs in the ports of our State, 

with 485 million tons of cargo each year, with 83 percent of that 

commerce occurring in the six deepwater ports of our State—the 

Ports of New Orleans, South Louisiana, Baton Rouge, Plaquemine, 

St. Bernard, and Lake Charles on the Calcasieu Ship Channel. 

More than 200 million tons of that cargo is transported annually 

in 6,500 ships. Twenty percent of the Nation’s import and export 

of petroleum products come through our ports, and 53 percent of 

the Nation’s exports of grain occur at our ports. And as Ken Wells 

pointed out, sometimes a few pennies difference in shipping costs 

may shift that grain trade to Argentina or Canada or Australia. 

The maritime industry is an extremely important part of our 

economy. Dr. Tim Ryan of the University of New Orleans has found 

that the ports of the maritime industry provide $33 billion of impact to our State’s economy, with 23 percent of our gross State 

product, supporting 270,000 jobs in our State. 

Madam Chairman, the facts demonstrate that the ports of the 

maritime industry and the people of our State have an important 

economic stake in the legislation you are sponsoring. Maritime 

trade affects our deepwater ports and it also provides tremendous 

economic benefits to our people, but we recognize that it also has 

an impact on the air quality of the communities which surround 

our ports. 

We recognize that sometimes this air quality can be detrimental 

to the health of our citizens. But you have heard this statement before: the most detrimental effect you can have on our citizens is to 

have that family lose its jobs and not have health insurance. We 

caution Congress. We suggest that Congress should proceed cautiously. 

66 

The emissions from ships impact our air quality. We understand 

that. In Louisiana, the five parishes which surround the Port of 

Greater Baton Rouge do not meet the ambient air quality standard 

for ozone. We recognize the earlier statement that 40 ports in the 

U.S. operate in areas that are in non-attainment areas. If the ozone 

standard is further reduced by EPA, as has been suggested, there 

will be 28 parishes in our State which will be out of attainment 

and it will affect the four deepwater ports along the entire 250 

miles of the Lower Mississippi River. This will make it increasingly 

more difficult to secure permits for ports to expand its maritime operations, as well as manufacturing and other transportation-related 

operations. 

The Ports Association recognizes that some definitive action 

must be taken to clean the air around our ports. The members of 

our organization recognize that deteriorating air quality is a great 

concern on the West Coast and other parts of our Country and it 

contributes to the lower air quality in some parts of our Country. 

We support the American Association of Ports’ position that ports 

should voluntarily reduce air emissions by retrofitting cargo-handling equipment, using cleaner fuels, and reducing truck idling, but 

however Federal support is needed for the voluntary port efforts. 

If S. 1499 is enacted into law, significantly increased air quality 

requirements would be imposed on the vessels utilizing America’s 

ports, while our neighbors in Canada and Mexico will most likely 

not have adopted similarly restrictive requirements. It is our understanding that Canada, too, is trying to rely on the adoption of 

the standards that the IMO would ultimately agree to. 

Senator BOXER. Can you finish up, sir? 

Mr. ACCARDO. Yes. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you. 

Mr. ACCARDO. In the alternative, we recommend that Congress 

support the Administration’s efforts to try to secure amendments 

to the MARPOL Treaty and to amend Annex VI so that way it has 

the same standards that you are proposing in your legislation. We 

believe that is the best way to approach this. We recommend that 

this is the best way to achieve clean air quality, while at the same 

time allying the U.S. ports and the ports of Louisiana to play on 

a level playing field. This will ensure that the ports of the United 

States are competitive with the ports of most of its international 

trading partners. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Accardo follows:] 

67 


85521.031

STATEMENT OF JOE ACCARDO, JR. 

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR 

PORTS ASSOCIATION OF LOUISIANA 

ON BEHALF OF THE PORTS ASSOCIATION OF LOUISIANA 

SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

"LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON THE MARINE VESSEL EMISSIONS REDUCTION 

ACT OF 2007, S. 1499" 

FEBRUARY 14,2008 

Madam Chairwoman and Members of the Committee, I am Joe Accardo, Jr., Executive 

Director of the Ports Association of Louisiana (PAL). 

In behalf of our members, I would like to express our appreciation for the opportunity to 

appear before your committee today to speak about this important issue of Marine Vessel 

Emissions Reduction, and we commend the committee for bringing attention to this 

subject. 

The Ports Association of Louisiana is a non-profit trade association consisting of 6 deep 

water ports, 14 inland river ports, and 10 coastal oil/gas service ports. The Association 

was fomled to promote and advance Louisiana ports, maritime support industry and 

services. 

Louisiana is a national leader in the maritime industry, and its expansive waterway 

system and multiple public and private docks and terminals accounts for 20% of the 

nation's total waterborne commerce, or approximately 485 million tons of cargo a year. 

The vast majority of this activity, 83%, occurs at the deep water ports along the Lower 

Mississippi River in the Ports of New Orleans, South Louisiana, Baton Rouge, St.Bernard 
68 


85521.032

and Plaquemine and in the Port of Lake Charles on the Calcasieu Ship Channel. More 

than 200 million tons of this cargo are foreign trade, transported on more than 6500 ships 

annually and include 20% of the nation's import and export of petroleum and petroleum 

rclated products, 53% of the nation's export of grains, and one of the Nation's three 

Liquid Natural Gas terminals. 

The maritime industry is extremely important to the economy of Louisiana. Recent 

studies by Dr. Timothy Ryan of the University of New Orleans found that the ports and 

maritime industry have a $33 billion impact on the state's economy, or approximately 

23% of the gross state product, and that industry directly and indirectly supports 270,000 

jobs. 

Madam Chairwoman, the facts discussed above demonstrate that the ports and maritime 

industry and the people of our state have an important economic stake in how this 

legislation will affect the vessels which call at the deep water ports of our state. While 

maritime trade yields tremendous economic benefits for the port community, as well as 

for the local, state and federal governments, it can impact air quality in and around the 

community which surrounds our ports and affects the public health and environment of 

our citizens. We support efforts to remove emissions and improve air quality, but we 

suggest that the greatest detriment to the health of our citizens would be to take actions 

which may unnecessarily cause the loss of jobs in the maritime industry. Therefore, we 

suggest that the Congress proceed cautiously. 

Because of incomplete data, it is uncertain at this time as to the extent that emissions 

from ships impact the air quality in the communities in and around many of our ports. 

However, in Louisiana, the five parishes in and around the Port of Greater Baton Rouge 

do not meet the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone (NAAQS). The 

American Associations of Port Authorities (AAP A) survey shows that 30 ports in the U. 

S. are now located in non-attainment areas. If the ozone standard is further reduced by 

EP A as is proposed, it appears that 28 parishes in southeast Louisiana will be classified as 

"out of attainment", which will include the remaining 4 deep water ports along the entire 
69 


85521.033

250 miles of the lower Mississippi River. If this should occur, it would become 

increasingly more difficult to secure permits for new or expanded port and maritime 

operations as well as other manufacturing or transportation related operations. For many 

of the foregoing reasons, PAL recognizes that some definitive actions must be taken in 

the near future as discussed below ... 

The members of the Ports Association of Louisiana recognized that in many areas of the 

United States deteriorating air quality is of great concern, and particularly on the West 

Coast whcre the emissions from vessels and port operations may contribute to the lower 

air quality. We support the (AAPA) position that ports voluntarily reduce air emissions 

by retrofitting cargo-handling equipment, using cleaner fuels, and making operational 

changes to reduce truck idling and improve efficiency. However, federal support is 

needed for these voluntary port efforts. 

If S.1499 is enacted into law as now proposed, significantly increased air quality 

requirements would be imposed on the vessels utilizing American ports while our 

neighbors in Canada and Mexico most likely will not have adopted similarly restrictive 

requirements. In the alternative, we suggest that Congress should support efforts by the 

United States to address the problems of emissions from oceangoing vessels in consort 

with the international trading community. 

The United States has signed the International Convention for the Prevention of 

Pollution from Ships of 1973, as modified in 1978 (MARPOL 73178). The IMO has 

issued air pollution standards under MARPOL Annex VI-Regulations for the Prevention 

of Air Pollutions from Ships. Those regulations became effective on May 18, 2004. 

Today 46 countries representing 55%of world shipping tonnage have ratified Annex VI. 

In addition to setting standards for oxides of sulfur (SOx) and nitrogen (NOx) emissions, 

Annex VI contains provisions allowing for special Sulfur Emissions Control Areas 

(SECAs) to be established with more stringent controls on sulfur emissions, requiring 

ships to use fuel oil not to exceed 1.5% sulfur content. The Baltic Sea Area is designated 

as a SECA in the Protocol, and a proposal to establish a SECA in the North Sea has also 
70 


85521.034

been adopted, with pending proposals for SECA in several other areas desiring more 

restrictive standards. 

The United States has not yet ratified Annex VI: however the United States has in 

February of 2007 proposed amendments to Annex VI, which would dramatically reduce 

air pollution from ships by establishing a new tier of performance-based standards for 

marine diesel engines on all vessels and by establishing stringent emission requirements 

for ships that operate in coastal areas where air-quality problems are acute. Amendments 

proposed to Annex VI by the International Association of Independent Tanker Owners 

(INTERT ANKO) representing 2500 ships comprising 210 million deadweight tons, 

proposes that IMO mandate the use of Marine Diesel Oil which would reduce sulfur 

content of fuel to 0.50% and in their view removing the need for SECA. Additionally, 

Maersk Lines recently established a policy of utilizing .20% or 2000ppm fuel on its West 

Coast U. S. ports voyages. The Intertanko proposal and Maersk policy demonstrates that 

the shipping industry which will bear the capital cost of compliance is active in seeking 

solutions to the emissions issues. The infonnation we have received is that U. S. 

negotiations for amending Annex VI are continuing and are expected to be completed in 

2008. 

If Congress enacts S. 1499, the strict standards have the potential to put United States 

ports at a disadvantage when compared to international ports which follow the IMO 

Annex VI standard. The requirement in S 1499 for use of fuel with not more than 1000 

parts per million (.10%) of sulfur is significantly more restrictive than required in the 

SECA under Annex VI. However, if the ultimate goal of Congress is to achieve the more 

restrictive standards proposed in S. 1499, we recommend that this be achieved through 

amendments to Annex VI. The alternative is for Congress to amend S. 1499 to include 

the provisions of Annex VI with amendments proposed by the U. S. This would result in 

unilateral and less acceptable action by the U. S. unless the Annex VI is amended and 

adopted by the United States. Reports to the maritime industry indicated that IMO has 

demonstrated an impressive record of monitoring air pollution emissions as well as sulfur 

content of marine fuel oil which has resulted in reducing the sulfur content for all vessels 
71 


85521.035

in 2006 to an average of 2.59 % and it continues to make adjustments to regulatory 

standards to achieve further reductions. Further the IMO has demonstrated by its granting 

of SECA to multiple countries and regions that it will respond to the demonstrated 

requirements for more restrictive emission standards. 

The Ports Association of Louisiana supports the AAPA policy which recommends that 

the United States continues to pursue the adoption of amendments to the Annex VI with 

the goal of ratifying Annex VI, thereby aligning the U. S standards for emissions with 

most of its trading partners. The Ports Association of Louisiana also supports and urges 

the IMO to adopt the amendments to Annex VI proposed by the United States. The 

Annex VI standards with the U. S. amendments, and with the provisions for SECA will 

allow the global shipping companies to have an achievable standard to which it can 

engineer vessels engines. Once the U. S. has ratified Annex VI, areas of the country 

which have experienced NAAQS non-attainment status, such as the areas in which the 

West Coast ports operate, can apply for a Sulfur Oxides Emissions Control Area (SECA) 

to further restrict emissions if they desire. The adoption of Annex VI with the U. S. 

proposed amendments levels the field and will ensure that the ports of the United States 

are competitive with the ports of most of its international trading partners. 

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before this committee today. I would be pleased 

to answer any questions or submit additional information you may request. 
72 

RESPONSES BY JOE ACCARDO TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS

FROM SENATOR BOXER

Question 1. Data from a study of mortality resulting from marine vessel emissions, Corbett and Winebrake 2007, indicate that there are between 100 and 150 

premature deaths in Louisiana caused by pollution emitted from marine vessel each 

year. If enacted, S1499 would substantially reduce the emissions causing these 

deaths by requiring international shippers to use low sulfur fuel in proximity to U. 

S. ports. Do you agree that these effects should be addressed? 

Response. The member ports of the Ports Association of Louisiana agree that the 

effects of sulfur emissions from marine vessels should be addressed. In my statement to the Committee on Environment and Public Works on February 14,2008 our 

association supported the efforts of the United States to amend the pertinent IMO 

treaties to substantially encompass the standards for emissions as provided in 

S1499. We support the joint efforts between the United States and our trading partners to amend the IMO treaty to address the issue of sulfur emissions. 

Question 2. Do you believe that in light of the substantial evidence that diesel 

emissions harm human health, that we should wait indefinitely for the IMO process 

to be completed and for IMO to adopt stringent standards? 

Response. We do not believe that the United States should wait indefinitely for 

the IMO treaty to be amended. However, the Congress should monitor the progress 

of the negotiations and if reports of progress are forth coming, the Congress should 

allow a reasonable period for the treaty to be concluded. 

Question 3. Are you aware that as of the date of the hearing the IMO negotiations 

include no proposals to require installation of NOx pollution control equipment on 

existing large marine engines? How can we be assured that pollution and health effects of such pollution will be reduced? 

Response. The Congress should request that the United States expand the scope 

of the treaty negotiations to include NOx pollution control equipment on large marine engines. The installation of NOx pollution control equipment will involve substantial research and development by international engine manufacturers, which 

will have to comply with international standards as will be established by the IMO 

treaty. This will require considerable cost to the maritime industry to transition and 

retrofit vessels with those engines. 

Question 4. Is it acceptable that citizens of Louisiana, California, New Jersey, 

Texas and other states affected by marine vessel pollution should be forced to suffer 

debilitating illnesses such as asthma and bronchitis, and thousands of premature 

deaths due to cancer and heart disease, while the United States waits for the international shipping interest to do something about this problem? 

Response. In every instance when illness or death is caused by individual or commercial activity it should be incumbent upon government, and each of us to mitigate 

the effects of that activity, and including international shipping. However, we must 

be cognizant of broad consequences of acting unilaterally to the detriment of the 

maritime industry which provides economic security for millions of our citizens. 

Therefore, we again urge that the Congress allow the IMO treaty process to be concluded. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you, sir. 

Before I start my questioning, and we will each have 5 minutes 

to question, I would like to place in the record a summary of a new 

study just last month that found that if 1,000 parts per million sulfur standard is adopted within 200 miles of the world’s coastlines, 

premature mortality would be cut in half, saving more than 40,000 

lives every single year. And the second thing I want to place in the 

record is a letter coming from the National Association of Clean Air 

Agencies, this is national and not just about California by any 

stretch, supporting the legislation. So we will put those in the 

record. 

[The referenced documents follow:] 

73 


85521.053

BOARD OF DIRECTORS 

Co-Presidents 

Andrew 

l1!sufa Kramer 

Co-Vice Presidents 

Cripps 

Co-Treasurers 

G, Vms-on Hellwig 

Anne Gobm 

1<' 

James Hodrna 

Keith 

Mary Uhl 

Executive Directo( 

WI!lia!ll 

444 North Capitol NW'" 

The Honorable Barbara Boxer 

Chair 

Committee on Environment and Public Works 

U,S, Senate 

410 Senate Dirksen Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

February 8, 2008 

RE: Support for Marine Vessel Emissions Reduction Act of 2007 (S, 1499IH,R, 

2548) and U,S, Proposal to International Maritime Organization for Marine Fuel 

and Engine Standards 

Dear Senator Boxer: 

We write to you on behalf of the National Association of Clean Air Agencies 

(NACAA) - the national association of air pollution control agencies in 53 states and 

territories and over 165 metropolitan areas across the country to express our 

association's support for federal legislative action and international action to curb 

emissions from domestic and foreign-flagged Category 3 (ocean-going) marine vessels, 

Category 3 marine engines emit large quantities of oxides of nitrogen (NOx) 

and sulfur oxides (SOx) - which are precursors to the formation of ambient particulate 

matter and ozone - as well as toxic particulates, All of these adversely affect the air 

quality in port cities across the nation, as well as areas downwind of those cities, 

Studies confirm that exposure to these pollutants causes increased mortality, cancer 

risks and respiratory illnesses, and substantially increases health costs, For example, 

in the South Coast Air Basin of California, emissions from Category 3 vessels are 

responsible for more than half of the region's SOx and will soon become the area's 

single largest source of NOx, The South Coast Air Quality Management District has 

estimated that marine vessel pollution causes hundreds of premature deaths each year 

and, further, contributes to cancer risks near ports that are well over 2,000 in a million, 

Notwithstanding such impacts, emissions from Category 3 marine vessels, such as 

container ships, are virtually uncontrolled, Moreover, Category 3 vessel emissions are 

expected to grow since cargo throughput is projected to increase substantially in the 

coming years, 

For these reasons, NACAA supports adoption of the Marine Vessel Emissions 

Reduction Act of 2007 (S, 1499IH,R, 2548), which would require domestic and foreignflagged ships to use cleaner-burning, low-sulfur fuels that reduce health-threatening 

particulate emissions, The Act will also impose tougher emissions standards for marine 

vessel engines that will reduce exposure to ambient particulate matter and ozone, 

307 ;,. Wa.<:,i"ilngtoc, ~ fa~ .'U,'.bL'UI'bO 
74 


85521.054

Likewise, NACAA supports the February 9, 2007 U,S, proposal 10 the international Maritime 

Organization (IMOI regarding marine fuel and engine standards If adopted by the IMO, this 

which is based on the same substantive fuel and emission standards as S, 1499 and HR - will 

substanlially reduce ship emissions on an international scale, 

Meaningful controls on vessel emission - such as those established in S, 14991H,R 2548 and 

by the U,S, to Ihe IMO - will contribute to state and local efforts to attain health· 

And these controis can be achieved at 

Although international on the regulation of 3 marine engines would 

rRITnflr·mRCnlni1 benefits than domestic action alone, history has shown with the many nations 

involved in the process, there is no assurance that the IMO will achieve consensus 

international standards that are sufficient, and 10 meellhe air quality needs of the 

Therefore, prompt action on S, 1499/H,R. 2548 will send an important message to the IMO that the U,S, is 

serious about controlling vessel emissions, thus helping to spur IMO action, In addilion, it will ensure thaI, 

in the event that the IMO does not take sufficienl and/or timely action, the U,S, is prepared to move ahead 

quickly to adopt standards to protect the health and welfare of its citizens, 

Action to decisive~ address the air quality and public health Ihreats posed by emissions from 

Category 3 overdue, As we continue to observe the IMO process with hopes that it 

will 0eld rigorous in with those proposed by the US, NACAA is pleased that you and 

Represenlative Hilda Solis have proposed legislalion to ensure thai rules limiting the sulfur content of fuel 

used by domestic and foreign-flagged ships entering U.S. ports and establishing maximum achievable NO" 

SO, and particulate emission standards for marine vessel engines will be adopted in the U.S. In the event 

the tMO does not achieve timely Sliccess, 

On behalf of NACAA, thank you for your leadership on this important issue, Our association 

stands ready to work with you and your staff, as well as other stakeholders, to support adoption of this 

important bilL 

Andrew Ginsburg (Oregon) 

NACAA Co-President 

Ursula Kramer (T IIcson, AZI 

NACAA Co-President 
75 

Senator BOXER. And now if you could start my time. 

You know, in the history of our Country, every time we pass a 

bill to protect the health of our citizens and cleanup the environment, there are always people who say it is going to take away 

jobs. From the State and the Nation that has been in the vanguard 

here, the opposite has been proven true. We can do it. This is 

America. We can work and be safe at the same time. And as a matter of fact, I want to praise some in the industry. Maersk Shipping 

Company is doing this without a regulation. They get it. 

So for people to say this is the worst thing that could happen, 

I just think talk to some of the people in your own shipping business. I just feel this is something we ought to be on the same page 

on. Now, let me be clear. I favor the international treaty and moving forward. 

Again, I want to thank Mr. Wood-Thomas. And by the way, if 

you have to leave, I understand. I am so appreciative of your being 

here. 

We would much prefer to do it that way, but we are not going 

to sit around and see people die. Would you put up that chart 

again? We are not talking about California, sir. We are talking 

about the Gulf Coast. We are talking about the Texas Coast. We 

are talking about the Florida, New Jersey, New York, all the way 

up the West Coast. This is a national problem, so let’s be very clear 

about it. That is why we have a lot of folks from different port 

areas on this bill. 

Jonah, I want to ask you because I do have one person in my 

family with asthma, but I am not familiar with a child having asthma. In other words, my kids didn’t have asthma. So could you just 

give us a sense of what it feels like when you have an asthma attack? And what do you do when you have one? And what effect 

does asthma have on you and your family? 

Mr. RAMIREZ. Well, when you have an asthma attack, it feels like 

as if a grown man was sitting on your chest. It hurts really bad 

and then you start wheezing and you start coughing a lot and trying to get air in and out. And so you are supposed to try and take 

it easy and get your inhaler and take a puff of that, and then wait 

and take another one. And then once you start feeling better, you 

will feel your chest start to clear up. 

But it affects me because like if I am playing a sport, and all of 

a sudden I will just start having the asthma attack, only to go back 

and sit down and get my inhaler and it would be better. Because 

if I didn’t have asthma, then I could just play out there without 

coming in and worrying about do I have my inhaler or do I not. 

Senator BOXER. Do you have to take your inhaler all the time? 

Mr. RAMIREZ. Yes. 

Senator BOXER. Everywhere you go? 

Mr. RAMIREZ. Yes, I can’t leave it at home. 

Senator BOXER. Right. Do you know a lot of other kids in school 

or in your neighborhood who have asthma or other breathing problems? Is it common? 

Mr. RAMIREZ. Yes, like just recently a bunch of my friends started coming up with asthma, my cousins. 

Senator BOXER. Do they live in the neighborhood around where 

you live? 

76 

Mr. RAMIREZ. Yes. They all live in California. 

Senator BOXER. Yes. Well, we are going to do everything we can 

to clear up the air. 

I would ask Dr. Miller, because we all feel bad about this, regardless. Can you explain how reducing port pollution could have 

immediate benefits, or would they not? In other words, if a kid is 

resilient, would they come back? 

Dr. MILLER. Well, there is evidence that if you take a child out 

of a high-polluted environment, if the family moved, and this is 

from the children’s study done at USC, if a child moves from a 

high-polluted environment to a less-polluted environment, they do 

better. So clearly if you can make the entire environment better, 

we would have a lot of children doing a lot better with that particular disease process, sure. 

Senator BOXER. So it is a direct relationship. 

Dr. MILLER. This would have immediate benefit. 

Senator BOXER. Good. 

Dr. MILLER. Get the poison out of the air and help the children 

live better. It is that simple. 

Senator BOXER. I hear you. 

Mr. Accardo, you said in your written testimony submitted to the 

Committee that the IMO has demonstrated an impressive record of 

monitoring air pollution emissions, as well as sulfur content of marine fuel. Given that the industry averages about 27,000 parts per 

million sulfur, more than 1,000 times the level we impose for our 

own trucks and buses, and given the fact that between 2,000 and 

5,000 people die per year as a result of ship emissions, how do you 

call what they are doing ‘‘impressive’’? 

Mr. ACCARDO. Well, in 1 year they have reduced the average 

from 2.7 to 2.59. Now, in the scheme of things, you are right. It 

is not a great deal of reduction. Senator Boxer, I would like to 

make it clear that we support the reduction of pollutants as far as 

it is economically possible. We support the concept you have in 

your bill. 

The differences are we support taking action on an international 

basis with our trading partners. We commend you for your efforts 

on this bill, but we suggest that if we can do this through the IMO 

with the negotiations that are going on now and achieve exactly 

the same kind of standards you have in your bill, we support that. 

As I said, we are personally involved. We all have children and 

even adults who have asthma. 

Senator BOXER. I know. 

Mr. ACCARDO. And we don’t want to see one person die because 

of a pollutant coming from anywhere, ships or any other place. 

Senator BOXER. Well, my time is running out. I do understand 

that. I do. I just feel that we have waited since 2003. It is 2008. 

How long does Jonah have to wait? That is the issue. I mean, October, if we are going to get it done, will we get it done? Or will we 

just stand still. 

So I want to place in the record that according to a report by Dr. 

James Corbett, there are 100 to 150 premature deaths per year in 

Louisiana due to these ship emissions. So it is a major health 

issue, as I said, all over the Country, in my State and in Louisiana 

77 

as well, and I am sure in Maryland, New Jersey, wherever you look 

where there is a port. 

[The referenced document follows:] 

78 


85521.067

Environ. Sci. Techno!. 2007, 41, 8512-8518 

Mortality from Ship Emissions: A 

Global Assessment 

JAMES J. CORBETT,'" 

JAMES J. WINEBRAKE,' ERIN H. GREEN,' 

PHASAD KASIBHATLA," 

VERONIKA EYRING,~ AND AXEL LAUER' 

College of Marine and Earth Studies, 

305 Robinson Hall, Newark, Delaware 19716, 

STS/Public PaHey, Rochester Institute 

1356 Eastman, Rochester, New York School of 

the Environment, Duke University, Box 90328, Durham, 

North Garolina 22708, alld Delaches Zentrum fller Luft- und 

Haum/allTt (DLR) DLR-Institute fuer Physik der Atmosphaere, 

Oberpfaffenhofen, Wessling, Germany 

ReceivedJuly09, 2007. Revised manuscript receilled September 

28, 2007. Accepted October 04, 2007. 

Epidemiological studies consistently link ambient concentrations 

of particulate matter (PM) to negative heatth impacts, 

including asthma, heart attacks, hospital admissions, and 

premature mortality. We model ambient PM concentrations 

from oceangoing ships using two geospatial emissions inventories 

and two global aerosol models. We estimate global and 

regional mortalities by applying ambient PM increases due to 

ships to cardiopulmonary and lung cancer concentrationrisk functions and population models. Our results indicate that 

shipping-related PM emissions are responsible for approximately 

60,000 cardiopulmonary and lung cancer deaths annuaJJy, with 

most deaths occurring near coastlines in Europe, East Asia, 

and South Asia. Under current regulation and with the expected 

growth in shipping activity, we estimate that annual mortalities 

could increase by 40% by 2012. 

Introduction 

The marine transport sector contributes significantly to air 

pollution, particularly in coastal areas (1-8). Annually, oceangoing ships are estimated to emit 1.2-1.6 million metric tons 

{Tgl of particulate matter (PM) with aerodynamic diameters 

of 10 11m or less (PM w), 4.7-6.5 Tg of sulfur oxides (SO, as 

S), and 5-6.9 Tg of nitrogen oxides (NO, as N) (9-12). Recent 

studies have estimated around 15% ofglobaJ NOx and 5-8% 

of global SOx emissions are attributable to oceangoing ships 

(1O, 11). Given nearly 70% of ship emissions occur within 

400 krn of land (2, 11, 12). ships have the potential to 

contribute Significant pollution in coastal communitiesespecially for 50.,-. For instance, Capaldo et al. (1) estimate 

that ship emissions contribute between 5 and 20% of nonsea-salt sulfate concentrations and 5-30% of S02 concentrations in coastal regions. 

Numerous studies in recent years have consistently linked 

air pollution to negative health effects for exposed populations (13, 14). Ambient concentrations of PM have been 

"Corresponding author phone: (302) 831-0768; e-mail: 

jcorbett@udei.edu. 

t University of Delaware. 

j Rochester Institute of Technology. 

II Duke University. 

1 DLR.lnstitute fuer Physik der Atmosphaere. 

8512. ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY! VOl. 41, NO. 24, 2007 

associated with a wide range of health impacts including 

asthma, heart attacks, and hospital admissions. An important 

PM~related health effect is premature mortality; in particular, 

increases in concentrations of PM with aerodynamic diarn~ 

eters of 2.5 t<m or less (PM25) have been closely associated 

with increases in cardiopulmonary and lung cancer mortalities in exposed populations (15). Cohen et aI. estimated 

approximately 0.8 million deaths per year worldwide from 

outdoor urban PM25 air pollution, 1.2% of global premature 

mortalities each year (16). 

Emissions from international ships are increasingly a focus 

for proposed regulation in local, national, and international 

arenas (8,17,18). Yet, in many ways regulatory deliberations 

have not been fully informed, as the extent of shipping 

emissions health impacts has been unknown. Previous 

assessments of regional shipping-related health impacts 

focused on European or Western United States regions, and 

ignore long-range and hemispheric pollutant transport (8, 19). 

This undercounts international shipping impacts within local 

and regional jurisdictions, and does not properly inform 

international policy decision making. 

Assessing Mortality Irom Atmospheric Modeling 01 Ship 

Emissions 

Our approach is similar to that of other studies (15, 16, 20, 21): 

(1) determine pollutant emissions from ships; (2) apply 

atmospheric transportation and chemistry models to estimate 

the increased concentrations due to ships; (3) estimate 

increased risk to exposed population due to these additional 

concentrations; and (4) calculate additional mortalities due 

to that increased risk. 

We use two different geospatiaJ ship data sets to heJp us 

construct geospatial emission inventories: the International 

Comprehensive Ocean-Atmosphere Data Set (ICOADS) by 

Corbett et aL (10). and the Automated Mutual~assistance 

Vessel Rescue system (AMVER) by Endresen et al. (12). These 

two data sets combine detailed information about veRsel 

characteristics with vessel traffic densities to determine 

emissions geospatially. However, each data set allocates shiptraffic intensities differently. For example, while all oceangoing commercial ship types are included in these data sets, 

ICOADS oversamples container ship traffic and refrigerated 

cargo ship (Le., reefer) traffic, and AMVER oversamples bulk 

carrier and tanker traffic. Ship inventory differences affect 

regional atmospheric pollution concentrations, potentially 

influencing health effects estimates. Both inventories provide 

emissions data on a monthlytirne-resolution; for atmospheric 

modeling, we assume emissions occur uniformly throughout 

each month. 

We generated three emissions inventory data sets for 

comparison. First, we used monthly resolved ICOADS 2002 

emissions estimates of NOx, sax, black carbon (BC), and 

particulate organic matter (POM) at a 0.10 x 0.10 global grid 

resolution (Inventory A). Second, we used AMVER 2001 

emissions estimates of NOx, SOx, BC, and POM at a lOx 10 

global grid resolution from Eyring et aL (Inventory B) (l1). 

Because of recent attention on the growth in commercial 

shipping activity, we also produced ICOADS-based ship 

inventories for 2012 (Inventory C) forecast using a uniform 

global average growth rate of 4.1% (3, 10). Both inventories 

represent shipping routes for most cargo shipping, and some 

oceangoing passenger shipping activity, but neither adequately represents typical Hshing fleets and passenger ferry 

service; therefore, we adjust global inventories to represent 

only cargo and passenger ships. Table 1 shows total annual 

shipping~attributable emissions for each inventory. 

10.1021fes071686z CCC: $37,00 (e) 2007 American Chemical Society 

Published on Web 11/0512007 
79 


85521.068

TABLE 1. Annual Emission Totals of Particulate Matter and Trace Gases from Shipping in Tg/yr for the Three Different 

Inventories Considered in This Study 

spatial ship traffic proxy 

fuel consumption in million tonnes 

NO, 

SOx 

primary S04 

CO 

BC 

POM 

Inventory A for 2002 

(Corbett et al .. 2007 (4)) 

ICOADS 

200 {cargo and 

passengers only} 

16.4 

9.2 

0.35 

1.08 

0.07 

0.71 

Global-scale models may model differently the PM,,, 

concentrations used in health¥effects estimates. We compare 

increased ambient PM2.5 concentrations from marine ship¥ 

ping using two atmospheric models. The first, GEOS~Chem 

(22). is a giobal3wD atmospheric composition model driven 

by assimilated meteorological observations from the Goddard 

Earth Observing System (GEOS). GEOS-Chem output provided us with ambient dry concentrations of BC, paM, and 

sulfates from oceanwgoing ships separately from total PMz 5 

attributed to all other sources. The second model. ECHAMSJ 

MESSyl-MADE (referred to as ES/Ml-MADEJ, is an aerosol 

microphysics module (MADE) coupled to a general circula~ 

tion model (ECHAM5), within the framework of the Modular 

Earth Submodel System MESSy (23). Along with global PM, 5 

concentrations attributed to nonship sources, the ES/M1" 

MADE model provided ambient concentrations ofBC, POM, 

and sulfates for direct comparison with GEOS~Chem results; 

separately the model produced concentrations of tot a! PM25 

constituents related to shipping (including nitrates and 

ammonium ions). The Supporting Information includes 

additional detail for both models. 

Comparing results of each model with and without ship 

inventories of PM25 components, we quantify ambient 

concentrations of PM2.5 due to marine shipping. Worldwide 

concerns about SO.\" emissions from ships are motivating the 

replacement of marine residual oil (RO) with cleaner fuels, 

such as marine gas oil (MGO) and marine diesel oil (MDO), 

which will directly impact BC, POM, and sulfates attributed 

to ships; therefore, we model total PM and the subset of PM 

from ships most commonly associated with current marine 

Inventory 8 for 2001 

(Eyring et aI., 2005 (11)) 

AMVER 

280 (world fleet 

including auxiliary engines) 

21.3 

11.7 

0.77 

1.28 

0.05 

0.13 

Inventory C for 2012 

(this study) 

ICOADS 

299 (cargo and 

passengers only) 

24.5 

13.7 

0.50 

1.61 

0.10 

1.06 

fuels. We defined the following cases to investigate robustness 

of mortality estimates under different inventory and modeling 

choices: 

Case 1 compares PM2 5 concentrations with and without 

ship emissions from model simulations with Inventory A. 

This was done three times: Case 1a examines BC, paM, and 

sulfates only, using the GEOS*Chem model; Case Ib uses the 

ESIMI-MADE model to examine BC, POM, and sulfates for 

direct comparison with GEOS-CHEM; Case Ic uses the E5! 

M 1" MADE model to examine total PM from ships. 

Case 2 compares PM25 concentrations with and without 

ship emissions from model simulations with Inventory B in 

the E5/MlwMADE modeL This was done twice: Case 2a for 

BC, POM, and sulfates only; and Case 2b for all PM 

constituents, 

Case 3 compares PM2.5 concentrations with and without 

ship emissions from model simulations with Inventory C 

representing estimated 2012 emissions from increased ship¥ 

ping activity. The case examines BC, POM, and sulfates only, 

using the GEOS~Chem model. Note that Case 3 estimates 

ignore potential emissions grmvth (or reduction) from other 

sources between 2002 to 2012; however, we use Case 3 only 

to estimate the additional mortality from oceangoing trade 

growth, not to estimate total change in mortality due to all 

sources of PMz s. 

Figure 1 depicts an annual aggregation of one of our two 

midrange estimated contributions of PM2.

s concentrations 

due to shipping in 2002 (Case 2a). Concentration increases 

from ships range up to 2 ,ug per cubic meter tug/m:l) and 

occur primarily over oceans and coastal regions. 

FIGURE 1, Annual average contribution of shipping to PM,., concentrations for Case 2b lin "g[m~ 

VOL 41, NO. 24, 2007 I ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY. 8513 
80 


85521.069

Cardiopulmonary 

1·10 

q) 11·50 '* 51-100 

,.,,~,~ '" 101·200 

8201.300 

.301-600 

FIGURE 2. Cardiopulmonarv mortality attributable to ship PM2.5 emissions worldwide. Case 2b. 

Annual PMl .5 concentrations were used to assess annual 

mortality due to long· term PM exposure, consistent with 

Pope et a1. (15). This requires an estimate of exposed 

population, We used 2005 global population estimates 

(obtained in a 1° x 1° format) from the Socioeconomic Data 

and Applications Center (SEDAC) at Columbia University 

(24). To conform to the population data resolution, we 

interpolated to a ] ° x 1° resolution the atmospheric 

concentration output for each of our cases (provided at 2° 

latitude x 2.5° longitude in GEOS-Chem and at 2.8° x 2.8° 

longitude by latitude in ES/Ml-MADE), We note that for 

most areas (with population growth) the use of 2005 

population estimates will slightly overestimate our 2002 

mortalities and slightly underestimate our 2012 mortalities. 

Our mortality estimates are based on cardiopulmonary 

and lung cancer causes of death for adults over 30 years of 

age. Therefore, we applied US Census Bureau International 

Database estimates to derive, by continent, the percentage 

of each grid cell's population over 30 years old (25). 

We also required background incidence rates of mortality 

due to the health effects under study. Incidence rates were 

estimated using World Health Organization (WHO) 2002 data 

aggregated to the WHO region level (26). WHO cause of death 

by age estimates were used to derive incidence rates for the 

30-99 age group for each of the six WHO regions. Similar to 

another a~sessment of global mortality from outdoor pol~ 

Jution, lung, tracheal, and bronchial cancers were considered 

"lung cancers" for our purposes (20); these cancers are 

aggregated and nondistinguishable in v\THO burden of disease 

estimates. United States cardiopulmonary incidence values 

obtained from the U.S. EPA (27) were used for North 

America. 

In calculating mortality effects we used C-R functions 

derived from an American Cancer SOciety cohort study that 

examined the relationship between PMl .5 and lung cancer 

and cardiopulmonary mortality in the United States (15). 

We apply these U.S.-derived C-R functions to our entire 

spatial data set, recognizing that transferring U.S,-derived 

functions to the global population introduces uncertainty to 

the analysis, because socioeconomic factors have been 

associated with effects of PM exposure on mortality and 

relative risks (28, 29). However, other researchers have 

demonstrated that the relationship between short-term PM 

exposure and mortality is relatively consistent across several 

8514. ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGy I VOL 41, NO. 24, 2007 

countries and continents (21, 30, 31), We employ a 10g*linear 

exposure function using Pope (I5) to estimate long*term 

mortality effects of PMl 5, as recommended and described 

by Ostro (21). These equations reduce to an effects equation 

as follows: 

(I) 

where E represents total effects (deaths/year); Xl is the 

pollutant concentration for the case under study in ,ug/m3; 

Xi) is the pollutant baCkground concentration in J/g/m:>;,6 is 

an estimated parameter based on the health effect under 

study; B represents the general incidence of the given health 

effect (e.g., cardiopulmonary deaths/person/year), and P 

represents the relevant exposed population (detailed equations are derived in the Supporting Information). 

Ship PM-Induced Global and Regional Premature 

Mortality 

Exposure to shipping-related PMZ.5 emissions in 2002 resulted 

in 19,000 (Case Ia) to 64,000 (Case Ie) cardiopulmonary and 

lung cancer mortalities globally, depending on the emission 

inventory and on the particles considered. Approximately 

92% of the estimated premature mortalities are from cardiopulmonary illnesses. Mortalities increase by approxi· 

mately 40% in 2012 due to trade-driven gro\Nth in shipping 

emissions. 

Figure 2 reveals that mortalities are concentrated in 

distinct regions. We estimate regional impacts separately in 

Table 2 for North America (NA); Europe/Mediterranean 

(EUM); East Asia (EA), including China and Japan; South 

Asia (SA), including India and Indonesia; and Eastern South 

America (ESA) , Regional burden of mortality varies, with the 

greatest effects seen in the EUM (20-40% of global mortalities). EA (20-30%), and SA (15-30%) regions. 

Figures 2, 3, and 4 depict our cardiopulmonary mortality 

estimates by grid cell for Case 2a for the entire globe, the 

EUM region, and the FAISA regions, respectively. Mortality 

estimates ofless than 1 per grid cell are excluded to facilitate 

readability. 

As expected, regions with the greatest mortality effects 

are also those where Shipping-related PMz.5 concentrations 

85521.070

z 

:S 

e: 

z 

iii 

z 

'" iil 

z 

hl 

"" iii 

2 

z 

o 

5 

G> 

-< 

., 

m 

TABLE 2. Annual Cardiopulmonary and lun9 Cancer Mortality Attributable to Ship PMz.s Emissions by Region and by Case (Best Estimate from CoR function" (95% confidence inte

Case la Case lb Case Ie Case 2a Case 2b Case 3 (2012 

Inventory A Inventory A Inventory A Inventory B Inventory B Invento

Model: GEOS-Chem Model: E5IMI-MADE Model: E5IMI-MADE Model: E5IMI-MADE Model: E5IMI-MADE Model: GE

Region PM: BC, POM. SO. PM: Be. POM, SO, PM: All PM: Be. POM. SO, PM: All PM: BC, P

North America (NA) Region 

cardiopulmonary 1,860 (680-3,050) 2,820 (1,020 4,610) 4,590 (1,660 -7,510) >5,470 (1,980 - 8,950) 7,910 (2,870 -12,940) 2,770 (1,010 

lung cancer 210 (80 - 350) 320 (120 - 520) 520 (190 - 850) 620 (230 1,020) 900 (330 1,470) 320 (120 5

NA Total 2,070 (760 - 3,400) 3,140 (1,140- 5,130) 5,110 (1,850 - 8,360) 6,090 (2,210 - 9,970) 8,810 (3,200 - 14,410) 3,090 (1,130 

Europe/Mediterranean (EUM) Region 

cardiopulmonary 6,770 (2,450 11,070) 11,830 (4,290 - 19,350) 24,350 (8,840 - 39,810) 7,250 (2,630 - 11,860) 15,100 (5,480 - 24,690) 8,990 (3,260 

lung cancer 670 (250 - 1,090) 1,100 (410 1,800) 2,360 (870 3,840) 650 (240 - 1,060) 1,430 (530 - 2,320) 880 (330 - 1

EUM Total 7,440 (2,700 - 12,160) 12,930 (4,700 - 21,150) 26,710 (9,710 - 43,650) 7,900 (2,870 -12,920) 16,530 (6,010 - 27,010) 9,870 (3,590 

East Asia (EA) Region 

cardiopulmonary 3,490 (1,270 - 5,710) 11,970 (4,340 19,590) 17,920 (6,500 29,300) 9,640 (3,500 - 15,780) 13,800 (5,010 - 22,570) 5,170 (1,880 

lung cancer 370 (140 - 610) 1,300 (480 - 2,110) 1,950 (720 - 3,170) 1,030 (380 - 1,680) 1,480 (550 2,410) 550 (200 9

EA Total 3,860 (1,410 - 6,320) 13,270 (4,820 - 21,700) 19,870 (7,220 - 32,470) 10,670 (3,880 - 17,460) 15,280 (5,560 - 24,980) 5,720 (2,080 

South Asia (SA) Region 

cardiopulmonary 4,050 (1,470 - 6,630) 7,250 (2,630 -11,870) 9,440 (3,420 - 15,450) 11,240 (4,080 - 18,390) 15,460 (5,610 - 25,260) 6,090 (2,210 

lung cancer 230 (90 380) 390 (150-640) 510 (190 - 830) 600 (220 - 970) 820 (300 - 1,340) 350 (130 5

SA Total 4,280 (1,560 - 7,010) 7,640 (2,780 - 12,510) 9,950 (3,610 - 16,280) 11,840 (4,300 - 19,360) 16,280 (5,910 - 26,600) 6,440 (2,340 

East South America (ESA) Region 

cardiopulmonary 380 (140 620) 520 (190 - 850) 690 (250 -1,130) 1,120 (410 - 1,840) 1,540 (560 - 2,520) 570 (210 9

lung cancer 50 (20 - 90) 70 (30 -120) 100 (40 - 160) 160 (60 260) 220 (80 350) 80 (30 130

ESA Total 430 (160 - 710) 590 (220 - 970) 790 (290 - 1,290) 1,280 (470 - 2,100) 1,760 (640 - 2,870) 650 (240 - 1

Global 

cardiopulmonary 17,340 (6,290 - 28,390) 35,610 (12,910 - 58,260) 58,640 (21,270 - 95,900) 36,970 (13,410 - 60,490) 56,790 (20,600 92,870) 24,780 (8,98

lung cancer 1,580 (580 - 2,570) 3,260 (1,200 5,310) 5,540 (2,050 9,020 3,220 (1,190 5,240) 5,050 (1,870 - 8230) 2,240 (830 

Global Total 18,920 (6,870 - 30,960) 38,870 (14,110 - 63,570) 64,180 (23,320 - 104,920) 40,190 (14,600 - 65,730) 61,840 (22,470 101,100) 27,020 (9,81

a Values are rounded to the nearest 10, b Confidence interval range is based on uncertainty in the concentration-response function coefficients. 
82 


85521.071

FIGURE 3. Case 2b annual cardiopulmonary mortality attributable to ship PMz.s emissions for Asia. 

FIGURE 4. Case 2b annual cardiopulmonary mortality attributable to ship PMz.s emissions for Europe/Mediterranean. 

are high (compare Figures 1 and 2)-near coastal regions, 

major waterways, and in highly populated areas. For Case 

8516. ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY! VOL. 41, NO. 24, 2007 

I 2a we estimate annual cardiopulmonary mortalities from 

shipping reaching densities greater than 300 per grid cell in 
83 


85521.072

regions of Asia, and between 100 and 200 in the RUM region, 

as shown in Figures 3 and 4; coastal health~impact densities 

are thousands of times greater than those seen in inland 

regions. 

Multiscale Cross-Comparisons 

We compare our findings with other studies ofPMz.5 related 

mortality that employed alternative modeling or inventories 

to estimate PMv; concentrations and health effects on three 

scales: global, national/continental, and state/regionaL 

Concentration-response functions are used to estimate 

global mortality for PMl5 from anthropogenic sources 

including shipping. These are compared to an analysis of 

global mortality associated with long-term exposure to PM2.~ 

pollution (J 6,20). Cohen et al. estimated that approximately 

712,000 cardiopulmonary deaths are attributable to urban 

outdoor PM2s pollution annually. With adjusting assumptions, our Case la estimate of737,000 is within 4% of Cohen's 

(20) findings, and our Case 2b estimate is within 25% {sec 

table in Supporting Information}. 

We evaluate potential bias of using WHO region-level 

incidence rates and continent-level age demographic estimates in predicting mortalities at the national scale (24-26) J. 

We compare Case la mortality results over the United States 

with mortality estimates from a similar analysis using the 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Benefit Mapping 

and Analysis Program (BenMAP). BenMAP is a geographic 

information systems program which combines U.s. Censuslevel population and incidence data at county-level resolution 

with user-supplied air quality data to estimate heath effects. 

We input our P xl" PM2.5 concentration data in BenMAP 

for the United States, and applied the C-R functions within 

BenMAP. We obtain Case la mortality estimates within 6% 

of BenMAP estimates, as detailed in the Supporting Infor~ 

mation. The close agreement indicates that our population 

demographics and incidence rate approximations produce 

suitably accurate results when examining large regions, 

recognizing that our confidence in this statement is based 

on a U.S.-based analysis. 

Direct comparison of our mortality estimates with recent 

work estimating PM health effects in 'Europe by Cofala et a1. 

(8) is not possible because that study used an approach that 

estimates loss onife expectancy in months rather than total 

number of premature deaths. However, our patterns of health 

impacts for Europe among our cases appear consistent with 

patterns reported for their health-effects analysis (see 

Figure 6,] of Cofala et aI.), 

Lastly, we compare our California global grid results for 

Case la and Ca::;e 2c with results from a report by the 

California Air Resources Board (18). As described in the 

Supporting Information, our Case la estimate is about 186% 

of the ARB estimate, and our Case 2b estimate is about 242% 

of the ARB estimate. In addition to differences in population 

and incidence at local scale, reasons to expect larger California 

mortality estimates in our assessment include the following. 

First, ARB excluded sulfates from its source-specific analyses. 

We include sulfates in our PMZ.5 concentrations, which on 

average comprise 24% of ambient PM concentrations; ARB 

includes nitrates, which on average may comprise some 13% 

of ambient PM concentrations (32). Second, ARB only 

included PMz 5 emissions from ocean-going ships within 24 

nautical miles from shore in its analysis; all other emissions 

were allocated to the outer continental shelf air basin (19). 

ARB also assumed that between 10% and 25% of ship 

emissions reached populated areas. In contrast, our modeling 

directly estimates land-exposure from worldwide oceangoing ship inventories, considering atmospheric transport 

of ship emissions to California from unbounded distances 

as attributed by atmospheric chemical transport functions 

in GEOS-Chem and E5/Ml-MADE, Third, our "California" 

case is made up of 1'" xl" grid cells that overlap small parts 

of Nevada, Utah, and Mexico and could lead to slightly higher 

estimates than a strict California-only comparison. On the 

other hand, ARB used smaller (more resolved) grid cells; all 

else equal, we would have expected this to yield larger not 

smaller health impacts in the CARB report because CARB 

would more accurately capture near-source population 

density, 

Discussion 

Our results indicate that shipping-related PM emissions from 

marine shipping contribute approXimately 60,000 deaths 

annually at a global scale, with impacts concentrated in 

coastal regions on major trade routes. Most mortality effects 

are seen in Asia and Europe where high populations and 

high shipping-related PM concentrations coincide. Based 

on previous estimates of global PM2 -,-related mortalities (16), 

our estimates indicate that 3% to 8% of these mortalities are 

attributable to marine shipping. Vve identify three categories 

of uncertainty, ranked by their importance to estimates in 

this work: (i) ship inventory and PM constituent uncertainties 

most influence our best estimates across all Cases; (ii) the 

95% confidence intervals on the health effects C-R functions 

represent significant uncertainty (capturing toxicity and 

response effects) that similarly affects each case; (iii) atmospheric modeling uncertainties vary where emissions offshore 

expose coastal and inland populations, Uncertainties are 

discussed in the Supporting Information; results may be more 

uncertain at local scales, given the lack of detailed localized 

data pertaining to incidence, demographics, PM2 5 concentrations, and other factors. 

The absence of localized C-R functions and incidence 

rates prevents precise quantification of all anticipated PM~ 

related health effects, such as asthma and hospital admissions, etc. Though we only examine cardiopulmonary and 

lung cancer mortalities, we expect that regions where ships 

contribute most to mortality effects (concentrated population 

areas with high shipping-related PM levels) will also suffer 

other related health impacts. We anticipate future work to 

investigate variation and uncertainty in these inputs further. 

Higher resolved atmospheric models could provide more 

accurate or precise results on a regional level by targeting 

regions of interest where better localized data for ship 

emissions, incidence rates, and population demographics 

are available. 

Our work demonstrates that mortality and health benefits 

in ,?ultipie regions globally could be realized from policy 

action to mitigate ship emissions of primary PM2.

S formed 

during engine combustion and secondary PMl .

5 aerosols 

formed from gaseous exhaust pollutants, These results 

support regional assessments of health impacts from ship 

PMl5 emissions, and identify other regions where similar 

impacts may be expected. Current policy discussions aimed 

at reducing ship emissions are focused On two concerns: (i) 

the geospatial aspects of policy implementation and compliance (e.g., uniform global standards versus requirements for 

designated control areas); and on the benefits and costs of 

various emission-reduction strategies (e.g., fuel switching 

versus aftertreatment technologies or operational changes). 

Our work quantifies the baseline estimates of mortality due 

to ship emissions from which future work would estimate 

mitigation benefits. 

Acknowledgments 

This work Was partly supported by the Oak Foundation (j,j,C" 

J.l.W., E.RG., P.K.), and the German Helmholtz-Gemeinschaft 

Deutscher Forschungszentren (HGF) and by the German 

Aerospace Center (DLR) within the Young Investigators Group 

VOL. 41, NO. 24, 2007 ! ENV!RONMENTAl SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY. 8517 
84 


85521.073

SeaKLIM (V.E. and A.L.). We acknowledge Chengfeng Wang, 

currently with the California Air Resources Board, for his 

efforts in constructing some of the emissions inventory data. 

Supporting Information Available 

Description of atmospheric aerosol model parameters, 

calculations for cardiopulmonary mortality estimates, discussion of uncertainty in OUf analysis, and additional 

discussion of our results. This material is available free of 

charge via the Internet at http://pubs.acs.org, 

Literature Cited 

(l) Capaldo, K. P.; Corbett, J.}.; Kasibhatla, P.; Fischbeck, P.; Pandis, 

S. N. Effects of Ship Emissions on Sulphur Cycling and Radiative 

Climate Forcing Over the Ocean. Nature 1999, 400, 743-746. 

(2) Corbett, J.1.; fischbeck. P. S.; Pandis, S. N. Global Nitrogen and 

Sulfur Emissions Inventories for Oceangoing Ships. J. Geophys. 

Res. 1999, 104 (D3)' 3457-3470. 

(3) Corbett, J. J.; Pischbeck, P. S. Emissions from Waterborne 

Commerce in United States Continental and Inland Waters. 

Environ. Sci. Technol. 2000, 34 (15), 3254-3260. 

(4) Wang, c.; Corbett, J. I.; firestone, J. Modeling Energy Usc and 

Emissions from North American Shipping: Application of the 

Ship Traffic, Energy, and Environment Model. EntJiron. Sci. 

Techno!. 2007, 41 (9). 3226-3232. 

(5) Streets, D. G.; Guttikunda, S. K; Carmichael, G. R. The Growing 

Contribution of Sulfur Emissions from Ships in Asian Waters 

1988-1995. Atmos. Environ. 2000, 34 (26), 4425-4439. 

(6) Streets, D. G.; Bond, T. C.: Carmichael, G. R.; Fernandes, S. D,; 

Fu, Q.: He, D.; Klimont, Z.; Nelson, S. M,; Tsai, N. Y.; Wang, 

M. Q,: Woo, 1. H.: Yarber, K. F., An inventory of gaseous and 

primary aerosol emissions in Asia in the year 2000, j. Geopllys. 

Res. 2003, lOB, (D21), 

(7) European Commission; ENTEe UK Limited, Quantification of 

emissions from ships associaTed with ship motJements between 

ports in the European Communit}~ FS 13881; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium. 2002. 

(8) Cofala, J.; Amann, M.: Chris Heyes; Klimont, Z.; Posch, M.; 

Schopp, \'11,: Tarasson, L.; Jonson, j, E,; Whall, c.; Stavrakaki. A. 

Final Repor!: Analysis of Poliq Measures to Reduce Ship 

Emissions in the Conlext of tile Revision oftTle National Emissions 

Ceilings Directiue; International Institute for Applied Systems 

Analysis: Laxenburg, Austria, 2007; p 74. 

(9) Corbett, J. J.; Koehler, H. W. Updated Emissions from Ocean 

Shipping. ]. Geophys. Res" D: Atmos. 2003, lOB (D20), 465(}-

4666. 

(IO) Corbett, J. J.; Wang, C; Winebrake, 1. J,; Green, E. Allocation and 

Forecasting of Global Ship Emissions; Clean Air Task Force and 

Friends of the Earth International: Boston, MA, January, 11, 

2007; 26. 

(l I) Eyring, V.; Kohler, H. W.; van Aardenne, J.; Lauer, A. Emissions 

from international shipping: 1. The last 50 years, I. Geophys. 

Res., D: Atmos, 2005, 110 (D17), D17305. 

(12) Endresen. 0.; Soergaard, E.; Sundet, J, K.; Dalsoeren, S. B.; 

Isaksen, I. S. A.; Berglen, T, F,; Gravir, G., Emission from 

international sea transportation and environmental impact. /. 

Geophys. Res., D; Atmos. 2003, 108, (Dl7.) 

(13) Nel,A, ATMOSPtIEHE: Enhanced:Air Pollution· Related Illness: 

Effects of Panicles. Science 2005, 308 804-806. 

(14) Kaiser, J. EPIDEMlOLOGY: Mounting Indicts FineParticle Pollution, Science 2005,307 (5717), IB58a-1861. 

(15) Pope, C. A.; Burnett, R. T.; Thun, :-'1. J.; Calle, E. E.; Krewski, D.: 

Ito, K.: Thurston, G. D. Lung cancer, cardiopulmonary mortality, 

and long-term exposure to One paniculate air pollution. lAMA 

2002,287 (9), 1132-1141. 

(16) Cohen, A. j,; Anderson, H, R.: Ostra, S.; Pandey, K. D.; 

Krzyzanowski, M.: KUnzJi, ;\I,; Gutschmidt, K.; Pope, A.; Ramieu, 

1.: Samet, J. ::vi,; Smith, K. The global burden of disease due to 

8518. ENV!RONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY f VOL 41, NO. 24. 2007 

outdoor air pollution. I Toxicol. Enl'iron. Health, Par( A 2005, 

68, 1301-1307. 

(17) Bailey, D.: Solomo, G. Pollution prevention at ports: clearing 

the air. Environ, impacI Assess. Rell, 2004, 24, 749--774. 

(18) California Air Resources Board. Proposed Emission Reduction 

Plan for Ports and Goods MOllemenl ill G.A; CA Air Resources 

Board: Sacramento, CA, Murch 22, 2006. 

(19) California Air Resources Board, Appendix A: Quantification of 

{he Hearth Impacts and Economic Valuation of Air PollUlion 

[rom Porlsand Goods Motlement in Ct1; CAAirResources Board: 

Sacramento, CA, March 2006. 

(20) Cohen. A. J.; Anderson, It: Ostra, B.; Pandey, K. D.: 

Krzyzanowski, M.; Kunzli, N,; Gutschmidt, K.; Pope, C. A.; 

Romieu, L; Samet, J. M.; Smith, K. R, Mortalityimpacrsofurban 

air pollution. in Comparative Quallfification of Health Risks: 

Global and Regional Burden of Disease Due To Selected Major 

RiskFactors; EZ7..ati, M.,Lopez,A.D"Hodgers,A., Murray, C], L., 

Eds.; World Health Organization: Geneva, 2004; Vol. 2, pp 1353-

1394. 

(21) Ostro, B. Outdoor air pollution: the environmental 

burden of disease at national and World Health 

Organization: Geneva, 2004. 

(22) Bey, L; Jacob, D. I.; Yantosca, H. M,; Logan, J. A: Field, B. D.; 

Fiore,A. M.: U, Q.; UU, H. Y.: Mickley, LJ.: Schultz, M.G. Global 

modeling of tropospheric chemistry with assimilated meteorology: Model description and evaluation. f. Geophys. Res. 2001, 

106 (D 19), 23073-23096. 

(23) Lauer,A; Eyring, V,; Hendricks, f.; Jockel, p,; Lohmann, U. Global 

model simulations of the impact of ocean-going ships on 

aerosols, clouds, and the radiation budget. Atmos. Chern. Phys. 

2007, 7(19). 5061-5079. 

(24) SEDAe (Socioeconomic Data and Applications Center). Gridded 

Population of the World; Columbia University, 2007. 

(25) U,S. Census Burcau. International Data Base, IDB Data -IDB 

Aggregation - Table 94 Midyear Population, by Age and Sex; 

Washington, DC, 2006. 

(26) World Health Organization (WHO). Revised Global Burdell of 

Disease (GBD) 2002 Estimates: Mortality Data, GBD2002: Deaths 

by age, sex and cause for the year 2002; Geneva, 2004. 

(27) Abt Associates. BenMap.' Environmental Benefits Mapping and 

Analysis Program, Tec1l11ical Appendices; Office of Air Quality 

Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: 

Research TriangJe Park, :\fC, May, 2005; p 275. 

(28) O'Neill, M.: lerrett, M,; Kawachi. L Health, wealth, and air 

pollution. Enlliron. Health Paspec!. 2003, 111, 1861-1870, 

(29) Krewski, D.; Burnett, H. T.: Goldberg, M. S, Reanalysis of the 

Harllard Six Cities Study and theAmerican Cancer Society Study 

ofparriculateair pollution and mortality. A special report of the 

institute's particle epidemiology reanalysis project. Health Effects 

Institute: Cambridge, MA, 2000. 

(3D) Davis, D. L.; Kjellstrom, T.; Sloat, R.; McGartland, A; Atkinson, 

D.; Barbour, W.; Hohenstein, W.: Nalgclhout. P.; Woodruff, '1'.; 

Divita, F,; Wilson, J.; Deck. L; Schwartz, J. Short term improvements in public health from global-climate policies on fossilfuel combustion: an interim report. The Lancet 1997, 350, l341-

1349. 

(31) Anderson, H. R; Atkinson, R. W,; Peacock, }. L; Marston, L; 

Konstantinou, K Meta-analysis of time-series studies ami panel 

studies of Particulate 1vlatter (PM) and Ozone (03); 5042688; 

World Health Organization: Copenhagen, 2004. (32) Ilodan. W. M,; Barnard, W, R. In Evaluating the Contribution 

of PM2.5 Precursor Gases and He-entrained Road Emissions (0 

i'vtobile Source PM2.5 Particulate Mauer Emissiom.~ 13th annual 

emission inventory conference, Clearwater, FL, 8-10 June, 2004; 

Administration, M. F. p, U. t. t. F. H., Ed.; Emission Factors 

and Inventory Group lnventory Improvement Program, Emissions, tvfonitoring and Analysis Division, Office of 

Air Quuliry Planning & Standards, U.S, Environmental Protection 

Agency: Clearwater, FL, 2004. 

ES071686Z 
85 

Senator BOXER. Thank you. 

Senator Vitter. 

STATEMENT OF HON. DAVID VITTER, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE 

STATE OF LOUISIANA 

Senator VITTER. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Before my time begins, I would just like to ask unanimous consent to put my written opening statement in the record. 

Senator BOXER. Without objection. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Vitter follows:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. DAVID VITTER, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE

STATE OF LOUISIANA

Thank you, Chairwoman Boxer and Ranking Member Inhofe, for holding this 

hearing on the Marine Vessel Emissions Reduction Act of 2007. It is legislation that 

I think we need to further examine and I look forward to discussing today in Committee. 

I would like to welcome all the witnesses, and also introduce several witnesses 

from Louisiana who are testifying today. We are joined by: 

• Ms. Jennifer Mouton, of the Louisiana Department on Environmental Quality, 

Administrator of the Air Quality Assessment Division of the Louisiana Office of Environmental Assessment; 

• Mr. Joe Accardo, Executive Director of the Ports Association of Louisiana; 

• Mr. Joel Chaisson, Executive Director of the Port of South Louisiana; and 

• Mr. Ken Wells, President, Offshore Marine Service Association. 

I respect that California is struggling to meet their air quality standards, especially with regards to particulate matter and NOx. While this legislation appears 

straightforward, addressing sulfur in marine diesel fuel to lessen particulate matter, 

I believe that this bill may have unintended and severe economic consequences for 

other states like Louisiana, who are in attainment with particulate matter and NOx. 

The maritime industry is essential to Louisiana’s economy. Louisiana’s ports contribute 33 billion dollars to our State economy, and support over a quarter million 

jobs. Two of the nation’s top ports are located within Louisiana. In fact, the Port 

of South Louisiana, represented at this hearing by Mr. Joel Chaisson, is the nation’s 

#1 port in total tonnage. 

This bill seeks to impress stringent regulations on both domestic and foreign 

flagged vessels. For Louisiana ports, this could negatively affect us in several ways. 

First, we are concerned about the impacts this legislation would have on business 

at Louisiana ports. Foreign vessels could take their business elsewhere if they are 

not wishing to comply with the regulations proposed in S. 1499 and could simply 

dock in Mexico instead and truck their cargo across the U.S. border. 

These same foreign vessels are part of the U.S. export trade, so this bill could 

lessen our export capability. Rate-sensitive Mississippi River exports, like grain, 

could be severely impacted. This would not affect just Louisiana, but all states that 

depend on the Mississippi River for transport of their goods. 

A second concern is this legislation would place U.S. vessels in the Gulf of Mexico 

at a worldwide economic disadvantage. Engine upgrades and control technology required by this legislation are costly. Domestic vessels working overseas would have 

to absorb these costs, lessening their international competitiveness against foreign 

flagged vessels. 

Marine vessel emissions are a global issue, and should be addressed from a global 

perspective. The U.S. has already submitted a proposal for stronger emissions 

standards to the International Maritime Organization, and they are currently examining it as an option. Supporting S. 1499 would push the U.S. toward unilateral action, rather than global cooperation. 

I understand that the international marine emissions agreement (MARPOL 

Annex VI) prohibits unilateral action on the part of a signatory state. As a signatory 

to this Treaty, the U.S. would be required to abide by the Treaty’s various obligations, including aligning domestic legislation to conform to the Treaty. 

I am interested in hearing more about the progress made with the IMO negotiations. Rather thank create a blanket, one-size fits all approach for both areas in attainment and non-attainment, I am interested to hear more about proposals that 

have come up through the IMO negotiations that create specific Sulfur Emission 

Control Areas (SECA) to address air quality problem areas such as California that 

86 

really have an air quality problem and are in non-attainment for particulate matter 

and NOx. 

We should also be cautious of unintended environmental impacts. According to the 

IMO Secretary General’s report on the outcome of the Informal Cross Government/ 

Industry Scientific Group of Experts, ‘‘in countries that are subject to the Kyoto Protocol, the addition of major new refinery equipment resulting in an increase in CO2

emissions may be a concern’’. Low sulfur marine diesel fuel requires additional refining, which may increase greenhouse gases like CO2. This legislation should not 

have the world exchange one set of air quality problems for another. 

I would like to ask UC to include a letter in the record from the Engine Manufacturers Association opposing passage of S1499. The EMA is actively involved and 

working with the U.S. EPA, other nations and international regulatory organizations to reduce exhaust emissions from ocean going vessels. 

We all agree that improving air quality is important. However, I don’t think nationalizing California’s standard is a good precedent. Unlike California, Louisiana 

is in attainment for both particulate matter and NOx. This bill seeks to force a ‘‘one 

size fits all’’ ruling on all ports in all states, when the factors are certainly not the 

same across the board. 

We need to consider not just the benefits of this legislation, but how this impacts 

our economy, so that we can work toward the best interest of all states, and also 

in the best interest of the U.S. compared to the rest of the world. Thank you, and 

I look forward to hearing from our witnesses. 

Senator VITTER. And also to put in the record a letter of opposition to the bill from the Engine Manufacturers Association. 

Senator BOXER. Without objection, so ordered. 

Senator VITTER. Thank you. 

[The referenced document follows:] 

87 


85521.051

February 200g 

The Ilonorable Barbara Boxer, Chair 

The Honorable James inhofe. RankIng Merl1ber 

EJl' ... 'iromncnt and PubEc \Vorks Committe\: 

United Stat,;;s Senate 

Washington, DC 20501 

RE: Position of the Engine Manufacturers Association on Senate nill 1499, the Marine 

Vesse! Emissions Reduction Act of 21)07 

Dear Senators Boxer lli":d Inhofe: 

The Engine n.1anl1fucturers Assuciation (ErviA) the trade a~sociation representing the 

mujor manufacturers int('rnal cOl1l.bustilm engines! t11os.;: engines used to 

marine \'c~seL. 1.::\11\ n;pr~sents the indw;try on issu~s to emissions '.vith l:S 

PPA, other international regulatory and icdl.:ral and state legislative bodies, 

EI'AA is activt'iy iIl\'olved and \\orking \-viih the CS EPA. other nalions and internationai 

org;mizatiom, to reduce c;-'l.haust ertlis~ions from ocean \/esseis, E1ViA suppons 

!hc 10 lrn\'cf sulfur !i.tds Rnd or ~1dva:]c<..:;d 10 hlrther redllce 

cmi'3s10ns fh"!m this rcgu13tcd "'O\m::c category, 

Utll)fOnnate and venue 

10 develop and auopt the best control1edmolog-ics 

for marine engines and vessels. The regulatory authcritics tI'om the United Sta1x's~ 

the Coast Guard and US Prokction 

in an ongoing regul8tory process, 1n fact. 1he LTS 

cnfi)fccd consent decf,x' to additional regulations affecting the 

addressed in S 1499 by 

Although supportive of tn(!: o\'crall gouls to l"l2ducc the sulfur COnlent of marine fuel~ and to 

further r~duce emissions H:om marine vessels, E~1A opposes passJ.gc of S 1499 for thc foltll\ving 

relisons: 

Techninl1 emissJuns and fuel standards should be and 

process as opposed to federal In and 

Jre nnmerous technicnL feasibility, 3nd ecoHomic must be 

and incorporated a m!emnking process. Such decisions arc best ioentified. 

discussed. and addressed lh;'Ollgh reg-ubtory rro.;:~ss as opposed to a legislative one. 
88 


85521.052

• S 1499 establishes deadlines ttJr the promulgation of regulations. The US EPA already is 

developing such regulations and is under a consent decree to promulgate regulations by the 

end 01'2009. As such, there is no need lor the added legislation. Given the complexity of the 

issues and international concerns, it is not reasonable or feasible It)f EPA to develop 

regulations at a faster pace, and certainly not by S 1499's proposed December 15. 2008 date. 

• The legislation also proposes to establish an ciTectivc date of January 1,2012 lor new 

emissions standards. Regulatory implementation dates must account for the ability orlhe 

marine engine and shipbuilding industry to develop any engine and emissions control 

kclmologies to meet final regulatory programs, and should not be established in 

legislation. feasible emissions reductions and their appropriate implementation 

dates should be established through lact finding within the regulatory process and should not 

be arbitrarily set as January 20]2 as proposed in the bilL 

• Similarly, the ability of fuel producers to supply surticicm quantities of 1000 ppm sulfur Ihel 

and the feasibility of ship owners and operators to make the needed physical changes to ships 

to use such a thel by the Deeember 20 IOdate have not been analyzed or demonstrated (and 

certainly appears unlikely). The transition to lOOO ppm fuel is dependent on worldwide 

refining capacity and supplies, and the relining industry has identified capacity and supply 

concerns that need to be addressed. Moreover, it is not dear that 1000 ppm sulfur fuel is the 

appropriate limit necessary to achieve the maximum emissions reduction feasible. 

For the above reasons, EMA opposes passage of S I 499 and urges the Senate to support 

current US efforts to reduce marine emissions through the ongoing regulatory development 

process. 

Very truly yours, 

JcdlR, rAtmllfer 

Jed R. 'vlandel 

President 
89 

Senator VITTER. Thank you all for being here. 

And Jonah, thank you especially. You are a very impressive and 

poised young man. 

Mr. RAMIREZ. Thank you. 

Senator VITTER. I say that with real appreciation, having two 11 

year olds at home. You are really impressive. Thanks for being 

here. 

And I thank all of you for being here. 

Dr. Miller, I want to ask you, as I understand and read your testimony, it comes out of great personal experience in Southern California, with what you call a diesel death zone there. Do you have 

personal work experience or personal study work with regard to 

Louisiana? 

Dr. MILLER. Well, Senator, no, although I did go to medical 

school in Houston, at Baylor down the way. When I was in medical 

school in Houston, we had a bad air problem in Houston. Houston 

also has a port, but I have never practiced in Louisiana. 

Senator VITTER. Right. OK. And Dr. Miller, this California diesel 

death zone that you talked about so compellingly, it is out of compliance, in non-compliance for particulate matter and NOx. Correct? 

Dr. MILLER. That is my understanding, yes. And I assume if it 

got in compliance—— 

Senator VITTER. For particulate matter and NOx, the issues, the 

problems you are talking about, the problem that Jonah so eloquently talked about from personal experience, that would be a lot 

better, I assume. Correct? 

Dr. MILLER. That is what we would think, yes, sir. 

Senator VITTER. OK. You are aware, I assume, that these similar 

port areas in Louisiana are in compliance for particulate matter. 

Dr. MILLER. That is what the gentlemen over here were saying, 

yes. 

Senator VITTER. OK. I think that is a pretty significant difference. I can understand why Senator Boxer has this bill. There 

is a big problem in your area in California. That area is out of compliance, and so why not penalize and hurt the competitiveness of 

every U.S. port so they can get in compliance and not lose ground 

competitively to other U.S. ports. I understand that from the distinguished Chair’s perspective. I obviously disagree with it from 

the Louisiana perspective because Southern California is out of 

compliance and Louisiana is in compliance. 

I would just ask why isn’t it a much more straightforward approach, at least as an initial step, to say to those areas out of compliance in particulate matter and NOx, get in compliance. Do something about it. Do whatever it takes. And if it means you have to 

put a seal on the traffic coming into your ports or you have to reduce it, then do that. Why wouldn’t that be a reasonable first approach? 

Dr. MILLER. With all due respect, Senator, I do see that this is 

a nationwide problem. We just heard of a number of pollution-related deaths in Louisiana, whether or not you are in compliance 

there. But this bill would provide a level playing field all across the 

Nation. 

As I hear this testimony, it sounds just like the old usual job 

blackmail that comes up every time change is presented to an inVerDate Aug 31 2005 08:54 Mar 06, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00093 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\85521.TXT VERN
90 

dustry. You know, when the automobile industry was told that we 

had to use unleaded gasoline, they all said the sky was going to 

fall, we are all going to lose our jobs, we are all going to be poor, 

et cetera, et cetera. It didn’t happen. 

This is just knee-jerk opposition to change that is needed. This 

is needed on a nationwide basis to establish a nationwide level 

playing field. These shippers need our ports more than we need 

these shippers, in China, for example. 

Senator VITTER. Let me just clarify, because I don’t think I am 

stating that sort of knee-jerk opposition. What I am saying is, there 

is a problem in Southern California under current law. You are out 

of compliance. Don’t drag us down to fix it. 

There is current law. Southern California is out of compliance. 

Why doesn’t that area do something about it, including putting restriction on the port if that is necessary? But why are we being 

dragged down the same amount? I would suggest it is so that those 

ports aren’t hurt competitively. 

Dr. MILLER. Sir, I can’t answer that question because I am a 

medical doctor. I am not a policymaker. I am here to try to save 

people’s lives. I am here to try to speak for people like Jonah, people who have had cancer, heart attacks, strokes. From my perspective, America would save an awful lot of money if we started cutting into this enormous health burden that this industry has gotten 

off scot-free on for so long. The testimony has been very clear. This 

industry gets off scot-free. American companies are heavily regulated on the ground to try to fix this. It is not that we haven’t tried 

to fix this in Southern California. 

Senator VITTER. Well, it is that you haven’t succeeded. Again, the 

comparable areas in Louisiana are in compliance. 

Senator BOXER. This will be your last question because you are 

over time. 

Senator VITTER. Thanks. 

The other obvious approach besides what I outlined in terms of 

let’s do something about those areas that are not in compliance is, 

as you suggested, to do something internationally, which is being 

worked on. Now, the argument is, well this would affect all U.S. 

ports equally, no competitive disadvantage there, but I think that 

sort of ignores the international nature of all the commerce we are 

talking about. Can you comment on that? 

Mr. ACCARDO. Yes. That is our position, that we should approach 

this with our international trading partners. That way, the same 

standard should apply across the board to every port. We in Louisiana particularly are fearful of the fact that the huge amount of 

grain we export could easily shift to another country—Brazil, Argentina, or Canada—if those ports aren’t similarly required to follow the same standard that we follow. 

Now, as I said earlier, we agree that there needs to be similar 

standards as you propose in your bill imposed upon the international community. We disagree on the approach. We say the way 

to do that is through the IMO Annex VI amendments, which the 

U.S. is trying to put into effect. That is what we advise and ask 

you to do, rather than doing this on a unilateral basis as this bill 

might do. 

Senator VITTER. OK. Thank you all very, very much. 

91 

Senator BOXER. Thank you. 

I want to place in the record testimony from a Republican witness saying that Louisiana does not have ozone attainment. So that 

is an important point, I think. 

All right, Senator Lautenberg. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Thank you, Madam Chairman, for holding 

today’s hearing and identifying a source of difficulty with asthma 

in particular, but other respiratory diseases as well that come from 

ships, as well as from cars, trucks and factories. We have to get 

to work on it. 

I am going to take a moment to tell you about my sister, who 

is named Marian. She was a member of the school board in Rye, 

New York, and she had asthma. She used to carry a little respirator-type machine in her car that she could plug into the cigarette lighter. She was at the school board one night and she began 

to feel a little queasy, and she started out for her car, and she collapsed in the parking lot, never to recover. Three days later, she 

perished. So we have seen it up front and personal. 

And Jonah, you sounded just like my grandson, because when he 

goes to play sports, he plays baseball and soccer and you name it. 

My daughter, his mother, first finds out where the nearest emergency clinic is so if he starts to wheeze, she takes him there right 

away, so it is exactly what you said. We thank you. 

I missed my colleagues here, and I heard reference to a geographic problem that ought to be taken care of, and why penalize 

Louisiana. Well, if we listen to Senator Mary Landrieu, she constantly pleads the case for Louisiana as a result of a national problem that occurred when Hurricane Katrina hit Louisiana. It became a national problem, even though it didn’t affect everybody’s 

neighborhood. 

So I don’t understand that. This is a national problem, and by 

golly if we worry about stealing from one another, we don’t understand what our responsibilities are here as national governmental 

officials. 

I want to put that sign up again. Bring it closer please. Do you 

see this? This is among the darkest spots on the map. That is New 

Jersey. We are terribly affected by it. I congratulate once again our 

Chairwoman. She knows where the problems are and she’s out to 

get them. 

We don’t have to agree on the process. We do have to agree that 

there is a plague in the United States, a plague across this world, 

and we have to start dealing with it. The example we had today 

from listening to your testimony, and Dr. Miller, yours as well, we 

touched on the human equation. 

Yes, there is an economic side, and I take the second seat to no 

one in the U.S. Senate. I started a company called ADP. It has 

46,000 employees today. So I know something about the corporate 

world and I know something about economics. So we have to deal 

with the problems as we see them. 

One of the things that I must say, and I ask unanimous consent 

that my full opening statement be placed in the record. 

92 

Senator BOXER. Without objection. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Lautenberg was not received 

at time of print.] 

Senator LAUTENBERG. I wanted to ask a question about, we recently learned about the threat that asthma poses, along with 

other threats to our environment and to the health and well being. 

I am told that there are 20 million asthma sufferers in the United 

States, and that includes 9 million children. I have also learned 

that in the State of Louisiana, there are 200,000 adults suffering 

from asthma, and one in ten out of the children in that beautiful 

State has asthma. 

But I guess what we have to do is just make sure that the problems when they are in another place, they take care of them and 

it shouldn’t affect what goes on in a State away from the issue. 

Forgive me for a moment. Mr. Wells, some opponents of the legislation to lower pollution from ships argue that the technology necessary to do so would cost too much. Won’t the market for this 

technology become more competitive, more products available? We 

have seen this as we fight for a greener world that there are industries and opportunities creeping up all over the place to search for 

alternative energy uses for different standards for buildings and so 

forth. Don’t you think that also might happen or would happen in 

the industry that produces these products? 

Mr. WELLS. We certainly hope so. We absolutely agree with you 

that that should happen. We hope it will happen. Recognize that 

our industry is already trying to come into compliance with the 

EPA regulations that will released soon, but our vessel operators 

are making vessel orders to the year 2010, 2011. So they are having to order equipment now which has never been produced. We 

are going to find out if the market can deliver. 

Senator BOXER. [Remarks off microphone.] 

Senator LAUTENBERG. OK. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. 

Senator BOXER. Senator Cardin. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND 

Senator CARDIN. Well, Madam Chair, first let me thank you for 

your leadership in introducing the Marine Vessel Emissions Reduction Act of 2007. I would ask unanimous consent that my opening 

statement be made part of the record, along with a letter from the 

Maryland Department of the Environment in support of the legislation. 

Senator BOXER. Without objection, so ordered. 

[The referenced documents follow:] 

93 


85521.065

~ 

MDE 

MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT 

1800 Washington Boulevard. Baltimore MD 21230 

410-537-3000.1-800-633-6101 

Martin O':v1.alley 

Governor 

Anthony G, Brown 

Lieutenant Governor 

february 8, 2008 

The Honorable Benjamin L Cardin 

509 lIart Senate Ofiice l3uilding 

Washington, DC 20510 

Shari T. Wilson 

Secrdary 

Robel1 M. Summas, Ph.D, 

Deputy Secretary 

RE: Support tor Federal Legislation: ~arine Vessel Emissions Reduction Act 01'2007 

Senate (S 1499)! House (fIR 2548) 

Dear Senator Cardin: 

On bchalfofthc Maryland Department of the Environment) the environmental agency with 

jurisdiction over air quality planning issues in the State of Maryland, I am writing to express my 

agency's support of the Marine Vessel Emissions Reduction Act 01'2007 ~ Senate (S 1499) / 

House (HR 2548) which will achieve landmark reductions in dangerous emissions caused by the 

large numbers of marine vessels that ust: United States ports. Specifically, this important federal 

legislation will require both domestic and foreign-flagged ships to use cleaner-burning, lowersulfur fuels that reduce health-threatening 500t and smog-producing emissions when the ships arC 

in or ncar U,S, ports. ·rhe Act will also impose tougher emissions standards. for marine vessel 

engines, 

This bill is needed hecause large marine vessels are a mostly unregulated and substantial source 

of pollutants, Marine vessels burn fuel with extremely high sulfur content knov,.n as bunker fuel. 

which averages approximately 27,000 parts per million (ppm) sulfur. By contrast, most 

equipment in the U. S. is required, or will be required, to burn fuel with no more [han 

15 ppm sulfur. Bunker fuel is a black, viscolls substance laden with heavy metals, sulfur and 

other polluting chemicals and is the dirtiest fuel in usc anywhere, 

The usc of bunker fuel by marinc vessels in and around U.S. ports has severe health cf'fcc1s. 

Such vessels calise dangerQus emissions which include nitrogen oxides (NOx) and sulfur oxides 

(SOx). both of which arc major components and precursors of smog and particulates. and release 

cancer-causing diesel particulate matter emissions which are extremely toxic to 

sutTounding ports. Studies confirm that exposure to harmful air pollutants, diesel 

emissions, increase morttllity and hospital. physician and emergency room visits, as well as 

exacerbate respiratory illnesses including asthma, thus significantly increasing health costs. The 

marine vessel emission problem is expected to worsen since goods movement and cargo 

throughput in U.S. ports in the aggregate is projected to substantially increase over the next 10 to 

20 years. 

\vww.mdt!.sta!e.md.us. 
94 


85521.066

Page 2 

A minimum national standard that meets the air quality needs of all areas of the country would 

help creale a level playing lido lor ports nationwide. Precedence exists that demonstrates that 

marine vessel standards in the proposed bill are technologically IcasibJc. MAERSK, the largest 

marine carrier ill the world, recently hegan voluntarily using 2,000 ppm sulfur fuel within 

24 miles of ports in California. Additionallv, by acting to address the serious pollution caused by 

both domestic and ships, it will send a message to the international Maritime 

Organization (lMO) that t);" United Slates is serious about controlling dangerous marine vessel 

pollution sources, and ma), spur the IMO to act to address this issue on an international leveL 

We respecttlilly request you to initiate and/or support the holding of Congressional hearings 

regarding this legislation and lieid hearings in port communities where people arc impacted the 

most. Also, please let mv agency know how we can provide additional support to help gain 

passage of this critical which will provide far· reaching bend1ts to air quality and to 

the well·being of citizens throughout the nation. If Ima)' be of !urther assistance, please contact 

me or Mr. George (TaJ) S. Anum. Jr. Director of the Air and Radiation Management 

Admillistration at 4)0·537·3255, tol!·lree at 800·63HIOl, by mail at 1800 Washington 

Boulevard, Baltimore, Maryland 212}O, or by email atgat;!urn@rndc .. sta!te.!nd.us. 

cc: George (Tad) Aburn, Jr" Director of Air and Radiation Mall3gement Administration 

Heather Bm1heL MDE Legislative Liaison 

Dana Thompson, Director of Federal Relations, Oftice of Governor :vlartin O'Malley 
95 

Senator CARDIN. At the Port of Baltimore, we have about 2,000 

vessel calls. When I take a look at the map that you put up, you 

are certainly in an area of major concern. I might also point out 

that where the emissions occur is not always where the problems 

will center. We do have atmospheric pressures and winds and it affects this entire Country. So I do believe we have a national problem. 

To Jonah Ramirez and to Dr. John Miller, I want to thank both 

of you for putting a face on the problem. I listen to statistics all 

the time, but I can tell you it is a lot more powerful to see the real 

people that are affected by what we do here. I know it is an inconvenience to come to our Committee, and we thank you very much 

for being here. 

I want to ask our representatives from the various ports a question. I have been in the legislating business for a long time. I know 

that your intentions are correct in trying to get stronger standards 

for dealing with vessels. However, it seems to me that it is easy 

to say that and go on to the next issue. We have been trying to 

deal with this problem for some time. 

We have had other problems in the history of this Country where 

we have had to impose or want to impose restrictions on our ports, 

dealing with commerce, because we don’t want to deal with certain 

countries for whatever reasons as part of our foreign policy. I recall 

very vividly the same statements being made by the different ports 

saying, gee, if only this was international, we support it; we don’t 

want to do business with this country, but why would you want to 

pick on our ports, when we would be at a competitive disadvantage? 

I have seen the same thing happen at times when we have done 

environmental rules. Why do it locally when it just penalizes our 

economy. And we went ahead and did it. And then I found that for 

some reason, our leaders were much more effective in convincing 

their colleagues that we did need an international standard and 

international support. 

So my question to you in dealing with your colleagues on the an 

international basis, and dealing with the ship lines, which by the 

way come to more ports than just California ports. I am glad, 

Madam Chair, that you have been able to have some success with 

one shipper in California, but some of us would like to see that in 

our ports, and we don’t have it in our ports. 

I would just like your view as to whether the passage of this bill 

might in fact help you get the international standards that are so 

important here. Because I agree with you, I want to see this internationally. I am worried about what is in the atmosphere, because 

what happens in Canada affects the United States. 

So I think we would be doing you a favor by getting your colleagues much more engaged on the urgency of getting this done, if 

the Congress showed some leadership, the United States showed 

some leadership on this very important environmental issue that 

we all agree is important and we need to get done. 

Mr. ACCARDO. We suggest that the better way to approach it is 

through the IMO and the Annex VI amendments that the United 

States is trying to achieve. One of the alternatives we suggest is 

that if you are going to adopt this S. 1499 that it should perhaps 

96 

contain the exact proposals that the United States is offering in its 

amendments to Annex VI. 

Senator CARDIN. Can I ask how much time your members have 

spent in lobbying the international community to try to get this 

done? Do you spend time talking to your colleagues around the 

world about the importance of getting this done? 

Mr. ACCARDO. I didn’t understand the first part of your question. 

Senator CARDIN. I am curious as to how much effort is being 

made by the port operators in our Country to get these international standards achieved. 

Mr. ACCARDO. I can only speak from the prospect of Louisiana 

Ports, we are relying on the Administration to do that through the 

IMO. 

Senator CARDIN. That is exactly my point. I am sure the Administration is working hard at this. But if you had an invested interest not only for the health of the people of our community, but also 

because you perceive an economic problem if we don’t have an 

international standard, I would suggest you would get personally 

involved. The more people who get personally involved, the better 

chance we have of getting this done. We have been waiting a long 

time to get these standards improved. I think the United States 

needs to show leadership. When we do, we find that a lot more people get involved in the political process and we get results. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you very much. 

We are going to move to our final panel. Again thank you to all 

of you, our Louisiana friends for coming, to Jonah and Dr. Miller. 

We are so happy to have your testimony. Happy Valentine’s Day, 

Jonah. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator BOXER. And Richard Kassel, thank you. 

So we will move to panel two, which has now become panel 

three: Dr. Barry Wallerstein, Lisa Jackson, and Jennifer Mouton. 

OK. Again, we welcome you and we look forward to your testimony. 

We will start with Dr. Wallerstein, Executive Officer, South 

Coast Air Quality Management District. 

STATEMENT OF BARRY R. WALLERSTEIN, EXECUTIVE OFFICER, SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 

Mr. WALLERSTEIN. Good morning, Madam Chair and members of 

the Committee. Thank you for this opportunity to appear before 

you today on this critical air quality issue. 

The South Coast Air Quality Management District is tasked with 

achieving Federal clean air standards in the Greater Los Angeles 

region. It is home to 16 million Americans, about 4 percent to 5 

percent of the Nation’s population. We are big supporters of S. 

1499 quite simply because it will save lives. It is feasible. It is costeffective, and the time to act is now. 

The legislation is needed because marine vessels are the largest 

uncontrolled source of air pollution in many areas of the Country, 

causing at least 2,000 to 5,000 premature deaths every year across 

the Nation. Marine vessels burn fuel with sulfur content 1,800 

times higher than allowed for on-road large trucks or off-road moVerDate Aug 31 2005 08:54 Mar 06, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00100 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\85521.TXT VERN
97 

bile equipment. As a result, in Southern California vessels create 

70 percent of our sulfur oxide emissions. 

We will not be able to attain the Federal ambient air quality 

standard for fine particulate by the 2015 deadline unless these 

emissions are cut by approximately 90 percent. Ocean-going vessels 

will soon also become our single largest source of nitrogen oxide 

emissions, emitting more than all of our refineries and power 

plants combined. We will not attain the Federal ozone standard by 

mandated deadlines unless those emissions are substantially reduced. 

Moreover, particulates emitted by marine vessels create significant cancer risk for millions of people. Let me note that attainment 

of the Federal particulate standard does not mean an absence of 

significant carcinogenic risk. In our area, controlling these emissions will prevent over 700 premature deaths annually, and will 

substantially reduce thousands of deaths occurring nationwide, as 

you have heard, if the proposed bill is enacted. 

It will also reduce asthma, other respiratory diseases, as well as 

acid rain and regional haze. These emissions reductions are feasible. As you have heard, Maersk, the largest container line in the 

world, is now switching to low-sulfur fuel in all ships approaching 

Southern California ports. The United States, as you have heard, 

recognized the feasibility and need for such actions when it proposed to the IMO a requirement of 1,000 ppm sulfur fuel beginning 

in 2011, requirements that are consistent with S. 1499. Key shipping industry representatives support this U.S. proposal. 

The costs to implement this bill, in our view, are reasonable. Although low-sulfur fuel is more expensive, the added shipping costs 

would be relatively low because the clean fuels would only be required for a relatively small portion of each voyage. 

So let’s put this into perspective. The fuel costs would increase 

per container shipping costs by only one-fifth to one-fourth of 1 percent. From the standpoint of a consumer, the cost of a 60 inch plasma TV would rise due to higher fueling cost, but by only 43 cents 

to 96 cents. The cost for a pair of shoes would go up by one-fifth 

to two-fifths of one penny. The thousands of lives that would be 

saved by these moderate costs make this bill a true environmental 

bargain. 

Now, you have heard that maybe we should wait for the IMO to 

adopt these standards. We believe you should reject this notion for 

two reasons. First, there is no assurance that the IMO will adopt 

standards sufficient for this Country. Indeed, the IMO has never 

adopted standards even approaching U.S. needs. It is notable that 

at least since 2003, U.S. EPA has cited its desire to work through 

IMO as reason to delay deciding whether EPA can and should regulate foreign-flag vessels. After years, we still don’t have effective 

IMO standards or EPA rules. 

Second, S. 1499 is entirely consistent with the U.S. proposal to 

IMO. Moving ahead with this bill should help spur IMO action in 

a manner that is more appropriate relative to the U.S. needs. It is 

important to note that U.S. EPA has better authority under the 

Clean Air Act to restrict emissions. So we really do need Federal 

action on this item. 

98 

In closing, there is a growing coalition of support for S. 1499. The 

Port and city of Long Beach and the Port and city of Los Angeles 

are two examples of supporters. They want their ports to grow and 

they know that clean air is a critical component of economic development. 

The National Association of Clean Air Agencies is also in support, as are individual air agencies from States such as California, 

New York, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Montana, Maryland, Colorado, Pennsylvania, Oregon and Washington State. 

We thank you, Madam Chair, for introducing this landmark legislation. We also thank the Committee members for their consideration of this important national issue. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Wallerstein follows:] 

99 


85521.037

Testimony of Barry R. Wallerstein, D. Env. 

Executive Officer, South Coast Air Quality Management District 

In Support of S.1499 - Marine Vessel Emissions Reduction Act of 2007 

Presented to the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee 

February 14,2008 - Washington D.C. 

Good morning. My name is Dr. Barry Wallerstein, Executive Officer of the South Coast 

Air Quality Management District (AQMD). The AQMD is tasked with achieving federal 

clean air standards in the greater Los Angeles area, a region with over 16 million 

residents including the urban portions of Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside and San 

Bernardino Counties. 

On behalf of the AQMD, I want to commend you, Madame Chair, for your leadership in 

recognizing a serious national public health problem and introducing S. 1499 to address 

it. This legislation quite simply will save lives. It is feasible and cost effective ... and 

the time to act is now. 

Necessity. The legislation is necessary because marine vessels are the largest 

uncontrolled source of air pollution in many areas of the country, causing at least 2,000 to 

5,000 premature deaths every year across the U.S. 

Marine vessels bum fuel with sulfur content 1,800 times higher than allowed for on-road 

and off-road sources in the U.S. As a result, vessels create 70 percent of sulfur oxides 

emissions in the South Coast region. We cannot attain the ambient standard for 

particulates by the year 2014 federal deadline unless these emissions are cut by over 

90%. 

Oceangoing vessels are also on track to become the single largest source of nitrogen 

oxides in our region, emitting more than all refineries and power plants combined. We 

cannot attain the national ozone standard unless those emissions are substantially cut. 

Moreover, particulates emitted by marine vessels create significant cancer risks for 

millions of people. 

Controlling these emissions, as S. 1499 would, will prevent over 700 premature deaths 

annually in the South Coast region, and will substantially reduce the thousands of deaths 

occurring nationwide. It will also reduce asthma and other respiratory diseases, as well 

as acid rain and regional haze. 

Feasibility. The emission reductions required by S. 1499 are feasible. In fact, some 

vessel operators are already using cleaner fuels. Maersk, the largest container line in the 

world, is currently switching to low sulfur fuels in all ships approaching California ports. 

The United States government recognized the feasibility and need for such actions when 

it proposed that the International Maritime Organization (IMO) require 1,000 ppm sulfur 

fuel beginning in 2011, a sulfur limit and deadline that is consistent with S. 1499. Key 

shipping industry representatives support the U.S. proposal. 

Cost. The cost to implement the bill is reasonable. Although low sulfur fuels are more 

expensive, the added shipping costs would be relatively low because clean fuels would 

only be required for a relatively small portion of each voyage. 
100 


85521.038

The fuel cost would amount to an increase in per-container shipping costs of only onefifth to one-half of one percent. From the standpoint of a consumer, the cost of a 60-inch 

plasma television would rise due to fuel costs by only 43 to 96 cents. The cost for a pair 

of shoes would go up by one-fifth to two-fifths of one penny. 

The thousands of lives that would be saved by these moderate costs make this bill a true 

environmental bargain. 

Wait for IMO? You may hear the suggestion that the U.S. should wait for IMO to adopt 

standards. You should reject this idea for two key reasons: 

• First, there is no assurance that IMO will adopt standards sufficient for this 

country. Indeed, IMO has never adopted standards even approaching U.S. needs. 

It is notable that, at least since 2003, EPA has cited its desire to work through 

IMO as a reason to delay deciding whether EPA can and should regulate foreign 

f1ag vessels (which are responsible for 90% of vessel emissions). After years of 

such delay, we still don't have effective IMO standards, or EPA rules. 

• Second, S. 1499 is entirely consistent with the U.S. proposal to IMO. Moving 

ahead with this bill should help spur IMO to act, and to do so in a manner that 

satisfies U.S. needs. S. 1499 will place the U.S. in a clear position ofleadership. 

Support. In closing, there is a growing coalition of support for S. 1499. The Port and 

City of Long Beach and the Port and City of Los Angeles support the bill. They want 

their ports to grow, and they know that there is not conflict between clean air and growth; 

rather, clean air is a critical component of the ports' economic development. The 

National Association of Clean Air Agencies is also in support, as are individual air 

agencies from states such as California, New York, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Montana, 

Maryland, Colorado, Pennsylvania, Oregon, and Washington State. 

We thank you again Madame Chair for introducing this landmark legislation and we offer 

our continued assistance. We also thank the Committee members for their consideration 

of this important national issue. 
101 

1 http://epa.gov/olaq/regs/nonroadlmarinelcilmvbenefils20071018-b.pdf. 

RESPONSES BY BARRY R. WALLERSTEIN TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS

FROM SENATOR BOXER

Question 1. The California Air Resources Board has attempted to enforce regulations based on California State laws that would help reduce pollutant emissions 

from marine vessels, but Federal court rulings have found that they were preempted. Do these court rulings suggest a need and urgency for passing 8.1499? 

Please explain. 

Response. These rulings clearly support the need and urgency for passing S. 1499, 

for the following reasons: 

Background: The Litigation. The court rulings came in a case brought by the Pacific Merchant Shipping Association (PMSA), an industry group made up of marine 

carriers. The case challenged a rule adopted by the California Air Resources Board 

(CARB) which sought to reduce sulfur in fuel burned in oceangoing marine vessels’ 

auxiliary engines in order to limit emissions of particulates and sulfur oxides. The 

district court and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals determined that the rule is 

preempted by the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA). The court stated that California 

cannot enforce the rule unless it obtains an authorization under CAA § 209(e) from 

U.S. EPA. This type of authorization is similar to a waiver for 

California automobile standards under CAA § 209(b) (such as the waiver that EPA 

recently refused to grant California for greenhouse gas standards). 

Additional Litigation is Likely. PMSA stated additional grounds for challenging 

the CARB rule. but the court did not decide them since it invalidated the rule on 

the grounds described above. IfCARB seeks to implement the rule. such as by seeking a waiver, more litigation on these additional claims can be expected. More importantly. litigation can also be expected if CARB adoptc; a main engine fuel sulfur 

rule. If such litigation similarly results in delay or invalidation of fuel sulfur rules. 

compliance with Federal attainment deadlines would be jeopardized and public 

health impacts would be substantial, as is described below. 

Question 2. Only a Federal law can assure that rules requiring emission reductions from oceangoing vessels will be implemented without the threat of further 

legal challenges based on preemption grounds. 

Response. Cutting Fuel Sulfur is Essential to Attain National Ambient Air Quality Standards as required by Federal Law. Ship pollution impacts many areas of the 

country which are designated non attainment for particulates or ozone. or which are 

affected by toxic diesel particulate emissions. In California, for example, the invalidated CARB auxiliary engine rule is an essential part of the State Implementation 

Plan (SIP) to attain the Federal ‘‘annual’’ PM2.5 ambient air quality standard. Another essential part of this plan is a measure to cut oceangoing vessel main engine 

fuel sulfur. The SIP assumes that both auxiliary and main engine fuel sulfur will 

be reduced to .1 percent (1.000 ppm) by 2011 (consistent with S. 1499). Marine vessels create close to 70 percent of regional sulfur oxides emissions, as well as substantial quantities of directly emitted particulates. Sulfur oxides react in the atmosphere to form fine particulates. It will be mathematically impossible for the South 

Coast Basin to attain the Federal PM2.5 ambient air quality standards unless marine fuel sulfur reductions on the order required by the CARB rule or S. 1499 occur. 

Urgency to Meet Federal Deadlines. Such fuel sulfur reductions must occur soon 

in order for the South Coast Air Basin to comply with Federal deadlines. The State 

must demonstrate attainment of the Federal ‘‘annual’’ PM2.5 ambient air quality 

standard by 2014 in order to comply with the 2015 attainment deadline in the 

South Coast Air Basin. 

Urgency to Prevent Public Health Impacts. The recent study by Dr. James 

Corbett of the University of Delaware projected that at least 2.000 to 5.000 premature deaths per year in the continental U.S. are caused by particulate pollution 

from oceangoing vessels. Analysis by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) concluded that over 700 premature deaths would be prevented 

every year in the South Coast Basin if the marine vessel controls in the State Implementation Plan were implemented. 1 This accounts for over one third of the 

health benefits of the entire SIP to attain the annual PM2.5 standard in the South 

Coast Air Basin. The low sulfur fuels that would be required by CARB rules or S. 

1499 would provide a large part of this health benefit. Marine vessels also create 

cancer risks of over 100 in a million for over four million persons in the South Coast 

Air Basin. with maximum risks exceeding 1,000 in a million. By comparison, stationary sources in the South Coast Air Basin are subject to regulatory risk limits 

of between 1 and 25 in a million. 

102 

2 http://www.worldshipping.orgIVesseCair—ernissions—WSC—posilion—papecon—USG—proposal.pdf. 3 Based on CARB 4th Public Workshop to Discuss Development of Regulations for Ocean 

Going Ship Main Engines and Auxiliary Boilers, Proposed Regulatory Language. March 5, 2008. 

slides 29–30, h.lp:/Iwww.arb.ca.gov/pons!marinevessipresentatjonsl030508/030S08regpres,pdf. 4 Low Sulfur Marine Fuel Availability Study, Final Repor,’’, prepared for the Port of Long 

Beach and the Port of Los Angeles by Tetra Tech and U1traSystems Environmental Inc., March 

10, 2008, pg. 80. 

Urgency Due to Large Number ofShips on Order for Construction. There are currently an extraordinary number of oceangoing vessels on order for construction. 

Once those vessels are built and in the water, the technical and economic challenges 

to retrofit emission controls will grow tremendously. Some advanced technologies 

may not be able to be retrofitted into existing vessels at all due to space constraints 

(e.g. selective catalytic reduction (SCR) of NOx emissions). There is thus great urgency to establish standards for new-build vessels, as S. 1499 would require. 

Application of advanced NOx control technologies such as SCR to ships is essential. Such controls are needed to attain both Federal particulate and ozone standards. Oceangoing marine vessels will soon be the third largest source of nitrogen 

oxides in the South Coast Basin and, if not controlled, will by 2023 become the single largest source. 

The litigation challenging CARB’s auxiliary engine rule is an indication that any 

State rules seeking to limit nitrogen oxides emissions from oceangoing vessels 

(which rules would have greater impact on vessel equipment than the auxiliary engine rule) will be similarly challenged. Again, only a Federal law can assure that 

rules requiring emission reductions from oceangoing vessels will be implemented 

without the threat of further legal challenges based on preemption grounds. 

Question 2. Would moving forward toward enactment of S. 1499 assist the U.S. 

in its negotiations before the IMO? 

Response. Yes. There is a clear tie between our nation’s efforts to control vessel 

pollution—including S. 1499—and action by the International Maritime Organization (IMO). It is the view of many if not most observers that a primary reason IMO 

is currently discussing the possibility of more stringent standards is a concern by 

industry that nations, states and ports are moving to adopt vessel standards to address their public health needs. illustrating this motivation, the World Shipping 

Council, in supporting a U.S. proposal to IMO, stated: 

Failure to take decisive and effective action would puttheIMOatrisk of losing its 

leadership role and its ability to establish international standards that will be 

adopted and respected. For local, national and regional authorities to defer to the 

IMO, the organization must produce effective standards that meet the environmental objectives of those authorities, particularly in major urban port areas.2

Further, as stated by the U.S. representative to IMO at the February 14, 2008 

EPW Committee hearing on S. 1499, ‘‘introduction of the bill has helped demonstrate a commitment in the U.S. to addressing this issue.’’ 

Moving toward adoption of the Marine Vessel Emissions Reduction Act will thus 

demonstrate the leadership that will help spur IMO to act effectively; conversely, 

slowing this legislation will reduce pressure on IMO to act. With the recent meeting 

of the IMO Marine Environmental Protection Committee. and an upcoming meeting 

in October. this is clearly the time to maintain pressure on IMO. 

Also. continuing to move the legislation will ensure that. if WO once again fails 

to address critical air quality needs, the residents of this country will be protected. 

Question 3. Would you please expand upon what you have described as the reasonable costs of controlling marine vessel air emissions? Please describe in more detail the costs per item consumers are likely to see from these controls and how those 

costs compare to the benefits of controlling these emissions. 

Response. The AQMD estimates that the use of low sulfur marine fuel (LSMF) 

will result in an increase in fuel costs of $397 per ton, based on a recent assessment 

provided by the California Air Resources Board (CARB).3 This estimated fuel cost 

differential is consistent with the estimate of $400 per ton provided in recent study 

for the Port of Long Beach and the Port of Los Angeles.4 CARB estimates that the 

total annualized cost associated with the use of LSMF within 24 miles of the California coastline to be $272 million, which includes both the annualized fuel cost plus 

the annualized capital cost where needed to modify certain vessels. On a per container 20 foot equivalent unit (TEU) basis, CARB estimates that the use of LSMF 

represents an average cost increment of $9.90 per TEll. 

The AQMD has extrapolated these estimates to the 200 mile Exclusive Economic 

Zone (EEZ) using the inventory stud;’ performed by Dr. James Corbett of the UniVerDate Aug 31 2005 08:54 Mar 06, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00106 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\85521.TXT VERN
103 

5 Estimation. Validation and Forecasts of Regional Commercial Marine Vessel Inventories’’, 

James Corbett. Jeremy Firestone. and Chengfeng Wang, for ARB, AprilS, 2007, Table 4, pg. 19, 

hllp:llwww.arb.ca.gov/researchlseca/jcfinal.pdf. 6 Container Diversion and Economic impact StUdy’’, Port of Long Beach and Port of Los Angeles, September 27. 2007, pg.4. This data is adjusted to TEUs based on a factor of 1.85 TEUs 

I FEU. 7 20 x 8 x 10 feet TEU plus shoe box size of 1 x 9 x 6 inches. 9 Communication with Mr. Paul Milkey. CARB staff. April 3. 2008. Mr. Milkey indicated that 

the $47 per pound cost effectiveness estimate on slide 29 in the staff proposal was a typo and 

is actually $37 per pound. 

versity of Delaware on behalf of CARB.5 Based on Dr. Corbett’s study, it is estimated that 45 percent of the fuel use within the 200 mile EEZ occurs within 24 

miles of shore from the U.S. coastline. For the 200 mile zone, the AQMD estimates 

that the annualized cost from the use of LSMF will be approximately $576 million. 

which represents an average incremental cost per TEU of $20.97. 

The AQMD has estimated the relative impact these costs represent relative to 

baseline TEU transportation costs as well as selected consumer goods. The average 

baseline transportation cost per TEll, including both water and land transport segments, is $1.925, according to a Port of Los Angeles and Port of Long Beach study.6

Based on this data, the AQMD estimates that the use of LSMF will increase the 

price of shipping costs by 0.5 percent to 1.1 percent for the 24 mile zone and 200 

mile zone, respectively. 

The AQMD has chosen two typical consumer goods to estimate the relative impact 

of the use of LSMF on consumer costs. For a 60’’ plasma TV, we estimate that the 

differential cost impact ranges from 55 θ to $1.17 per TV, assuming 18 plasma TVs 

per TEU, for the 24 mile zone and 200 mile zone respectively. For a pair of shoes, 

we estimate a differential cost of 1I5th to Vz of one cent per pair of shoes for the 

24 mile and 200 mile zones, respectively, assuming 4,160 boxes of shoes per TEU.7

These cost impact estimates are based on new data presented by CARB on March 

5, 2008 but are very similar to the data based on prior analyses that was presented 

at the February 14, 2008 EPW Committee hearing regarding S. 1499. For example, 

the percentage increase in container shipping cost was revised from a range of 0.2— 

0.5 percent to a range of 0.6 percent—1.1 percent. This small percentage increase 

likely overstates the relative degree of cost burden, as the baseline transportation 

cost used in these estimates has likely increased since early 2007 when the baseline 

cost estimate was derived. The cost per 60’’ plasma TV increased slightly from a 

range of 43—96 to a range of 55—$1.55; the cost per pair of shoes increased from 

a range of 0.2 —0.4 to a range of 0.2—0.5. 

The AQMD believes these cost estimates are very realistic and reflect the best 

available data on this issue. The following table provides the basis of the estimates 

discussed above. 

8 CARB. March 5. 2008 Workshop, as referenced in footnote 1. 

The cost effectiveness of LSMF use has been estimated by CARB to be $37 per 

pound of PM, assuming that the entire $272 million annualized cost is allocated 

solely to the reduction of 3,650 tons of PM per year.9 This cost effectiveness is comVerDate Aug 31 2005 08:54 Mar 06, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00107 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\85521.TXT VERN

85521.074
104 

10 Cost Effectiveness of Heavy Duty Retrofits and other Mobile Source Reduction Projects’’, 

U.S. EPA. May 2007, pg. 11–12, http:Uwww.epa.gov/oms/stateresQurceslpolicy/ 

genera1l420b01006.pdf. 11 Communication with Mr. Paul Milkey, CARB staff. April 3, 2008, regarding the emission 

reduction estimates underlying the estimated cost effectiveness of LSMF provided in the CARB 

March S, 2008 staff presentation. 

parable to other PM control measures such as the use of retrofit control devices on 

class 6 & 7 trucks, school buses and off-road trUcks.10 It should be noted that CARB 

estimates that LSMF will result in significant reductions in NOx and SOx emissions 

of 2,092 and 29,930 tons per year, in addition to the PM reductions noted above.11

The cost effectiveness of LSMF use is therefore expected to be far better than $37 

per pound if these emission reductions are included in such estimates. The following 

table provides the cost effectiveness comparison of various PM control strategies. 

Question 4. Please provide any additional information or studies you have on the 

health effect of marine vessel pollution In other port areas In the United States. 

Response. There is limited information on marine vessel pollution health impacts 

in areas outside of California. A study by Dr. James Corbett estimated the amount 

of premature mortality from ship emissions on a global level. This analysis included 

estimates near ports in the United States as well. The figure below gives the estimates calculated. The emissions were derived from ships emissions inventories, and 

a computer model was used to estimate population exposures to particulate matter 

derived from ship emissions. The technical details can be found in the published 

study, which is attached. As shown, premature mortality in the various areas analyzed ranged up to 300 per year. 

Source: Corbett, J. J.; Winebrake, J. J.; Green, E. H.; Kasibhatla. P.; Eyring. V.; 

Lauer, A., Mortality from Ship Emissions: A Global Assessment, Environmental 

Science & Technology, 41(24):8512–8518,2007 

The California Air Resources Board (CARB) has recently released an assessment 

of cancer risks from diesel emissions in West Oakland, California. This community 


85521.075 85521.076
105 

is adjacent to the Port of Oakland and a rail yard. CARB estimated an average cancer risk in the community from diesel exhaust exposure from the ports and other 

sources of about 1,200 per million over a lifetime exposure. Marine vessels contributed about 20 percent of this risk. The report is available at: http://www.arb.ca.gov/ 

ch/communities/ralwestoaklandlwestoakland.htm. 

Also, regulators in Santa Barbara, California have calculated that even though 

the area bas no commercial ports, passing ships release so much nitrogen oxides 

(NOx ) emissions in the area that they ‘‘will be unable to meet air quality standards 

for ozone without significant emissions reductions from [ocean-going] vessels, even 

if they completely eliminate all other sources of pollution:’ 72 Fed. Reg. 69,522 at 

69,527 (Dec. 7,2007). 

Furthermore, the U.S. EPA has conducted an analysis of toxic air pollutant levels 

throughout the U.S. Emissions inventories were used to model the average level of 

pollutants on a county level. Although health effects from exposure to diesel particulate were not calculated, the ambient levels estimated are presented in the figure 

below, and the levels are likely significant contributors to health risk. As can be 

seen in the figure, high levels of diesel particulate are in areas that are served by 

ports. Ship emissions likely contribute to these levels. 

As shown in the above map the highest range of diesel particulate shown is 1.12— 

8.41 micrograms/cubic meter. This corresponds to a lifetime cancer risk of 336 per 

million to 2,523 per million. 

To put port emissions into perspective, the table below shows the emissions of 

NOxt PM2.5 and sulfur oxides (SOx) from ships for several ports in the U.S. (Source: 

U.S. EPA Commercial Marine Port Inventory Development—Baseline Inventories 

ICF International, September, 2006) All of these emissions are related to particulate 

emissions and secondary particulate formation. While the Los Angeles and Long 

Beach ports show the highest emissions other ports are also associated with substantial emissions. 


85521.077
106 

AQMD staff estimated the health impacts from ship emissions at the Los Angeles 

and Long Beach ports, and calculated that about 800 premature deaths per year result from particulate exposures related to ship emissions. In addition, vessel emissions create cancer risks of over 100 in a million for over 4 million residents of 

Southern California, with maximum risks over 1,000 in a million (AQMD Multiple 

Air Toxic Exposure Study 3 (2008)). The emissions data above indicates that health 

effects are likely to occur at other ports as well. 

In conclusion, although there are limited analyses of the health impacts available, 

ship emissions are major contributors to particulate emissions in port areas. These 

areas are also generally of high population density and the resultant exposures to 

particle emissions likely create significant adverse health effects. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you so much. 

And now Senator Lautenberg has asked if he can introduce a 

very special New Jersey witness. So Senator? 

Senator LAUTENBERG. I am so pleased to welcome Commissioner 

Lisa Jackson, Commissioner of the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, back to Washington. She spent some time 

here, 16 years with EPA. When New Jersey sent out our alarm on 

environmental problems, we were so fortunate to have Ms. Jackson 

come and join the Administration. 

We have worked on projects important to New Jerseyans, from 

keeping our water clean, fighting global warming. Even global 

warming, though it is a national thing, we are still fighting to 

make sure that we do our share and want to protect our State’s 

strong environmental chemical security laws, reactivating Superfund cleanups, and all those things. 

I am so pleased to have her here today. I look forward to her testimony and our continuing to work together to solve lots of problems that we see ahead of us. 

Thank you very much. 


85521.078
107 

Senator BOXER. Thank you. 

With that, Commissioner Jackson. 

STATEMENT OF LISA P. JACKSON, COMMISSIONER, NEW 

JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

Ms. JACKSON. Thank you, Madam Chair. And thanks to you and 

your staff for holding this important hearing. 

And thanks to my State’s Senator for his leadership on this issue 

and so many that are so important to New Jersey and our Country. 

I come as Governor Corzine’s representative today to thank you 

and to implore this Committee and eventually this Congress to 

pass this very important piece of legislation. I come as a child of 

a port city, having been born, raised and educated in the great city 

of New Orleans spoken about earlier, and knowing how important 

ports are to the life of a community. 

I come as the mother of a 12 year old who spent his first Christmas in the hospital with a severe asthma attack, and knowing how 

that feels to wonder about his next breath at such a young age. 

Madam Chair, you said this was a matter of health, and I 

couldn’t agree more. I think it is also a matter of fairness. This is 

about leveling the playing field in this Country, and we saw and 

don’t need to see again, I think, the map that shows that this is 

a national problem, with ports all over our Country that suffer to 

varying degrees, but all suffer. It is about understanding that airsheds are regional and sometimes national in nature, and that in 

New Jersey, being on the East Coast, know that as the air blows, 

we are on the tail-end of emissions that affect the health of our 

residents. 

It is about realizing that in heating oil for our residents who 

have to buy heating oil in times when things are very expensive, 

we require 500 parts per million of sulfur, not 27,000 parts per million of sulfur. And it is about understanding and realizing that it 

is only fair that the health costs that are borne by children like we 

saw earlier, and he was very eloquent, are borne by our society, 

whether that is employers and benefit plans or Medicaid or Social 

Security, the costs associated with the impacts on the lives of people become disabled. And I think we need to remember that the 

costs need to be looked at in that context as well. 

It is a matter of environmental justice. New Jersey is the most 

densely populated State in the Country, and two of our ports, Newark and Camden, are areas that include large numbers of minorities and large numbers of people who can’t afford yet to move elsewhere and shouldn’t have to move elsewhere in order to have clean 

air. 

It is about the fact that Newark is locked by rail and air and cars 

and trucks, and that a child in a park in Newark faces air that is 

two to five times more contaminated than a child in a park somewhere else. 

And port vessels aren’t the only reason for that, but they are an 

important part of it, and they are the only unregulated source of 

SO2 emissions that large that still have no regulation on them. 

It is a matter of what I think is unshakable science and taking 

action based on unshakable science. Wind in this Country blows 

108 

from west to east, from southwest to northeast, and we all know 

that being at the end of those kinds of currents means that we 

must do all we can to reach attainment for priority pollutants. 

I want you to understand that New Jersey has taken action to 

do just that. With respect to diesel programs, we have a mandatory 

diesel retrofit program in our State that requires that school buses 

and garbage trucks and transit buses and Government-owned vehicles are retrofitted to address diesel pollution. We pay for that out 

of our tax dollars. 

We have an idling outreach and education campaign, and we are 

phasing out a trucker’s ability to have sleeper berths that run all 

night. And we require heavy duty diesels to be inspected. We have 

a suite of dozens of actions that we take on our own sources in our 

State to address air pollution. So we agree that we must step up 

and address it, but air blows across this Country from our own port 

over to New York and up the Northeast Coast and from areas 

south and west of us. 

Finally, I would just like to implore this Committee to realize 

that it really is, as Senator Cardin said, a matter of authority and 

leadership and impetus to force our own EPA and the international 

community to deal with this issue and to have the resolve and commitment needed to do it in an urgent manner, because every year 

is affecting people’s lives and some lives are lost. 

Thank you very much, and I am happy to answer questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Jackson follows:] 

109 


85521.039

Statement by 

Lisa P. Jackson, Commissioner 

New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection 

Before the 

United States Senate 

Committee on Environment And Public Works 

On S.1499, the Marine Vessel Emissions Reduction Act of2007 

February 14,2008 

Good morning Madam Chair and members of the Committee. I would like to thank you 

for inviting me to testify here today on the chair's bill, S.1499, the Marine Vessel 

Emissions Reduction Act of2007, which I strongly support. 

New Jersey is the most densely populated state in the country and home to two of the 

busiest ports on the eastern seaboard. Our ports are thriving and are expected to continue 

to grow at an unprecedented rate. However, this activity and growth has been shown to 

have adverse health and environmental impacts. The communities where the ports are 

located are disproportionately impacted by emissions from numerous sources, many of 

which are associated with the economic activities of the port. We, as a nation, must 

address this environmental justice issue. 

Ships are the last major sulfur dioxide (S02) source category that burns high sulfur fuels 

in New Jersey. However, because of the national and international nature of the shipping 

industry, the reduction of these emissions are best handled on a national or international 

basis not on a local basis. 

Therefore, I commend you, Madam Chair, for sponsoring this legislation along with 

Senators Feinstein and Whitehouse. I would call on the Congress to pass this important 

bill without delay. Legislation such as this not only protects the health of our citizens but 

it helps to keep our ports competitive with each other. 

HEALTH IMPACTS 

Ships are powered by diesel engines that use a fuel with a very high sulfur content (about 

2.7% sulfur or 27,000 ppm). Emissions from diesel sources are linked to cancer, asthma, 

premature death, and other adverse effects, including reduced visibility. Health studies 

have shown that there is no clear threshold below which adverse effects are not 

experienced by at least certain segments of the population. Based on national air toxics 

data, mobile sources in New Jersey are estimated to contribute two-thirds of the average 

cancer risk to the residents of the state. 

The emissions from these ships include many different pollutants, including particulates, 

nitrogen oxides, sulfur oxides, and numerous air toxics. Although tIne particulate matter 

generated from all sources can cause serious health impacts, particulate matter generated 

from diesel combustion is particularly harmful. This is due to the adsorbed toxics, as well 

as its very small size that can be inhaled very deep into the lungs (most diesel particles 
110 


85521.040

are in the ultratine size range). Furthermore, depending on local weather conditions, 

some of the particles may stay in the local neighborhoods for long periods of time. 

The health effects associated with exposure to the tine particles that are fonned include 

increased respiratory disease, aggravated existing heart disease, and temporary breathing 

difficulty, particularly for people with asthma. The elderly and children are at highest 

risk of health effects from exposure to S02. 

The oxides of nitrogen from combustion also contribute to the fonnation of ozone. 

Ozone causes health problems because it damages lung tissue, reduces lung function, and 

sensitizes the lungs to other irritants. Ozone has long been known to increase the 

incidence of asthma attacks in susceptible individuals. Ozone exposure also makes the 

lungs more vulnerable to lung diseases such as pneumonia and bronchitis. Ozone not 

only affects people with impaired respiratory systems, such as asthmatics, but healthy 

adults and children as well. 

New Jersey's ports are located in Newark and Camden - two environmental justice 

commumtles. The residents of these cities, along with many other urban residents 

throughout the State, are disproportionately impacted by diesel exhaust. Newark is a 

transportation hub with its international port, airport, major highways and rail lines. 

While Camden is a smaller community, it is also adversely affected by many sources of 

pollution within its boundaries, including those at the port. 

According to a report by the New Jersey Environmental Federation in June 2006, "Diesel 

Hot Spots: A Snapshot of Newark, New Jersey," the county in which the Newark port is 

located has the highest asthma related mortality rates in the state, with a doubling of the 

rates within minority populations. Furthermore, a short-tenn monitoring study 

commissioned by the same organization found that levels of diesel exhaust at parks and 

playgrounds along several busy Newark streets were two to tive times higher than a 

quieter street in that same city. At one location, an average of 250-300 trucks passed by 

per hour. These are just a few examples of the far-reaching effects that the ports can have 

on environmental justice communities. 

While the effects of ship emissions are especially evident in urban areas in and around 

port communities, the high levels of sulfates formed from burning 27,000 ppm sulfur fuel 

can travel great distances northward along the entire marine corridor. The wind on the 

East Coast frequently blows from the southwest to the northeast, right along the eastern 

seaboard. Hence, the ports have a cumulative impact on air quality as air masses pass 

over many ports and urban areas. 

S02 and oxides of nitrogen (NO x), and the particles fonned from S02, and NOx, as well 

as direct emissions of tine particles, can be transported over long distances and deposited 

far from their point of origin, contributing to air quality problems far beyond the areas 

where they were emitted. Emissions from sources in the New Jersey New York 

Metropolitan area are blown by the winds along the coast many miles, impacting Rhode 
111 


85521.041

Island, Massachusetts and beyond. This is not just a local air quality problem for New 

Jersey; it impacts many states. 

INVENTORY 

Based on the emission data developed by the Port Authority of New York and New 

Jersey, emissions from ships calling on the North Jersey port contributed significant 

amounts of air pollution. 

Year NOx PM25 S0 2 

2000 2170 108 2330 

2015 2830 140 3030 

*EmlsslOns are expressed as tons per year 

These emissions are approximately equivalent to having a small to mid-size power plant 

in your neighborhood. 

There are a number of initiatives to reduce emissions from the other source sectors. As 

we reduce emissions from power plants, industry, motor vehicles and heating oil, port 

emissions will be a much bigger portion of the air pollution problem in the future. The 

relative contribution of our ports to the local pollution burden will continue to grow, 

especially as the economic activity of the port continues to grow. 

NJDEP ACTIONS 

I am proud to say that New Jersey has been aggressive in its efforts to reduce diesel 

emissions. We have: 

• Passed a law creating the most comprehensive statewide diesel retrofit program in 

the nation. We are aggressively moving forward in mandating the retrofit of: 

school buses, garbage trucks, transit buses and government owned diesel vehicles. 

• Implemented an extensive idling outreach and education campaign and stringent 

idling rules that phase out the truckers' "sleeper berth" exemption in 2010. 

• Required heavy diesel trucks to undergo an annual inspection for opacity or 

smoke, the first state in the nation to impose such a requirement. 

New Jersey has been equally aggressive in efforts to reduce NOx, SOx, volatile organic 

compounds (VOC) and fine particulates (PM25) in anticipation of the 2010 attainment 

deadlines for the ozone and fine particulate air quality standards. 

At this time, New Jersey does not comply with the current federal health standard for 

ozone. That standard will only be made more stringent in the future as we increase our 

understanding of the adverse health effects of ozone. Next month, the USEPA is expected 

to issue a revised standard for ozone, which we expect will be more stringent than the 

current health standard. 
112 


85521.042

New Jersey is proposing regulations for the following control measures to assist us in 

attaining the health standards: 

• Consumer products (VOC) 

• Asphalt paving (VOC) 

• VOC stationary storage tanks (VOC) 

• Asphalt production plants (NO,) 

• Industrial! commercial!institutional boilers (NOx) 

• Electric generating units which operate on high electric demand days (NOx) 

• Glass manufacturing furnaces (NOx) 

• Municipal waste combustors (NOx) 

• Boilers serving electric generating units (NOx, SOx, PM) 

• Petroleum refineries (VOC, NOx, PM) 

New Jersey is also monitoring air quality that does not meet the annual and new daily 

fine particulate standard (2006). 

Taken together, this means that more needs to be done to protect the health and welfare 

of our citizens. 

SUPPORT FOR S.1499 

Lowering the sulfur content of the fuel used by oceangoing vessels is an essential strategy 

and is an important part of a larger port strategy under development by New Jersey. As I 

mentioned, ships are the last major source of S02 in New Jersey that bums high sulfur 

fuels but are not yet part of a plan to reduce emissions. Your bill would reduce these 

emissions but will not place any ports at a competitive disadvantage because it will 

impose the same requirements on all the US ships/ports. S.1499 will level the playing 

Held and would avoid the need for New Jersey or any other state to independently pursue 

strategies to reduce emissions from the ships. 

S.1499 would enhance the ability of the USEPA and the International Maritime 

Organization (IMO) to come to an agreement on reducing sulfur levels internationally 

and provide a necessary backstop if they fail to reach an accord. It is my understanding 

the US proposal to the IMO is consistent with this legislation and thus there is no 

inconsistency between moving this legislation and concurrently seeking IMO action. 

At least one major shipper, who also operates a terminal in New Jersey, already uses low 

sulfur fuel in container ships calling on California ports. This bill requires the use of low 

sulfur fuel near shore only, not for the entire transoceanic voyage, which means only a 

small portion of a vessel's fuel would be affected by this bill. 

Further, this bill is consistent with a memorandum of agreement (MOU) recently 

negotiated amongst the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic states to reduce sulfur in home 

heating oil. The agreement would require 500 ppm home heating oil in 2012 for New 

Jersey, New York, Delaware and Pennsylvania. Therefore, the requirements of this bill 

(1000 ppm fuel) will coincide with our more stringent home heating oil requirements. I 
113 


85521.043

do note that the end of 2012 would be a logical compliance date for the east coast to 

enable construction of more desulfurization facilities for both heating oil and ship fuel. 

In conclusion, I again thank you for this opportunity and strongly support moving this bill 

forward. It will help address a disproportionate burden placed on our communities by the 

ports, address emissions that are best addressed on a national and international level and, 

most of all, protects the health of our citizens. 

I am available to answer any questions you may have. 
114 

RESPONSES BY LISA P. JACKSON TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS

FROM SENATOR BOXER

Question 1. Do you believe the emissions reductions that would be achieved by 

S. 1499 are important for port communities throughout the United States, and if 

so, why? 

Response. Yes, I believe that the reductions achieved by S. 1499 would benefit all 

port communities. 

• First, by regulating marine fuel on a national level, you will ensure that all 

ports are kept on a level playing field; legislation such as this not only protects the 

health of our citizens, but it helps to keep our ports competitive with each other. 

• Second, as states continue to control emissions from other sources (e.g., power 

plants, industry, motor vehicles) and the number of ships picking up and dropping 

off goods at the ports continue to increase, the relative contribution of port emissions will be much larger. As indicated by U.S. EPA in its recent rulemaking, locomotive and marine diesel engine emissions currently represent approximately 20 

percent of mobile source NOx and 25 percent of mobile source diesel PM2.5. By 2030, 

without additional emissions controls, locomotive and marine diesel engines will 

emit about 35 percent of the total mobile source oxides of nitrogen emissions and 

65 percent of the total mobile source diesel fine particulate matter emissions. Therefore, S. 1499 is important to ensure that the environmental ramifications of increased goods movement are minimized. 

• Third, because ports typically are located in close proximity to highways and rail 

networks, the confluence of mobile sources results in high emissions and high exposure in port areas. By way of example, the Elizabeth, NJ air quality monitor near 

our north Jersey port has the highest PM2.5 readings in the entire State. In addition, the national air toxics assessment shows that mobile source emissions in New 

Jersey (including those operating at or near the port areas) result in the greatest 

cancer risk of all air pollution sources in the State. 

Question 2. Would moving forward toward enactment of S. 1499 assist the U.S. 

in its negotiations before the IMO? 

Response. Yes, I believe S. 1499 would enhance the ability of the U.S. EPA and 

the IMO to come to an agreement on reducing sulfur levels internationally and provide a necessary backstop if they fail to reach an accord. It is my understanding 

the U.S. proposal to the IMO is consistent with this legislation and thus there is 

no inconsistency between moving this legislation and concurrently seeking IMO action. 

I am also encouraged by the reported action by an IMO committee last Friday to 

propose standards similar to those contained in your bill. Specifically, if U.S. waters 

are designated as ‘‘special protection areas,’’ as set forth by the IMO committee, 

then a 1000 ppm limit would apply, although not until 2015. I believe S. 1499 may 

spur the IMO to move quickly to adopt stringent fuel sulfur limits. 

Question 3. Would you please elaborate upon the environmental justice issues that 

you testified upon, and whether such issues could be applicable in other parts of 

the country? Please explain. 

Response. New Jersey’s ports are located in Newark/Elizabeth and Camden—two 

comrilUnities with environmental justice issues. These communities are disproportionately impacted by emissions from numerous sources, many of which are associated with the economic activities of the port. As an example, a report by the New 

Jersey Environmental Federation in June 2006, ‘‘Diesel Hot Spots: A Snapshot 

ofNewark, New Jersey,’’ stated that the county in which the Newark port is located 

has the highest asthma related mortality rates in the State, with a doubling of the 

rates within minority populations. 

According to U.S. EPA, recent studies show that populations living near large diesel emission sources, such as major roadways, rail yards, and marine ports, are likely to experience greater diesel exhaust exposure levels than the overall U.S. population, putting them at greater health risk. The recent U.S. EPA rulemaking for marine and locomotive engines analyzed 47 ports and 37 rail yards and found that 

more than 13 million people living nearby are exposed to diesel PM levels above 

urban background levels, including a disproportionate number of low-income households, AfricanAmericans, and Hispanics. (Also see: State of California Air Resources Board. Diesel 

Particulate Matter Exposure Assessment Study for the Ports of Los Angeles and 

Long Beach, April 2006. http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/marine2005/portstudy0406.pdf) 

While some may contend that emissions from ships are a small portion of total 

fine particle emissions in a particular non-attainment area, I would emphasize that 

115 

the localized impacts of diesel emissions are significant and justify the action envisioned by S. 1499. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you so much, Commissioner. 

And last, but not least, is Jennifer J. Mouton, Administrator, Air 

Quality Assessment Division, Louisiana Office of Environmental 

Assessment. Welcome. 

STATEMENT OF JENNIFER J. MOUTON, ADMINISTRATOR, AIR 

QUALITY ASSESSMENT DIVISION, LOUISIANA OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 

Ms. MOUTON. Good morning, Senator Boxer, Senator Vitter and 

distinguished members. 

My name is Jennifer Mouton. I am the Administrator of the Air 

Quality Assessment Division at the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality. 

Senator Boxer and members of the Environment and Public 

Works Committee, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to 

address the Committee today and to provide these comments on S. 

1499, the Marine Vessel Emissions Reduction Act of 2007. 

Due to Louisiana’s geographic situation and natural assets, Louisiana is home to some of the most diverse economic interests in 

the United States. These interests include pulp and paper, agriculture, synthetic chemical manufacturing, natural gas transportation, processing and storage, power generation and petrochemical 

and refineries. There are extensive port systems. We serve as a 

major distribution center for many products that serve a significant 

portion of the United States. 

In fact, according to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Navigation Data Center, tonnage for selected ports in the 2006 report, the 

Port of South Louisiana and Port of New Orleans are ranked No. 

1 and No. 8 in the United States in total tonnage. The Ports of 

Lake Charles, Greater Baton Rouge, and Plaquemine are ranked 

11th, 12th, and 13th respectively. Taken together, the ports along 

the Lower Mississippi River represent one of the busiest areas of 

marine commerce in the Country. 

Louisiana is a recognized leader in the protection of the environment, natural resources, health and quality of life. A spirit of cooperation and trust exists between State government, local government, business, universities and private citizens in seeking solutions to environmental problems. A healthy, beautiful environment, 

complementary job opportunities, and the unique culture of Louisiana all create an unmatched quality of life. 

The State of Louisiana has made significant progress in improving and maintaining air quality. The significant and continued 

progress in reducing air pollutant levels has resulted in Louisiana 

achieving attainment for all criteria pollutants, including the recently revised fine particulate standard, with the exception of a five 

parish area in and around Baton Rouge which is out of attainment 

for ozone only. 

Last year, we celebrated the success of a comprehensive collaborative effort of LDEQ, EPA, local industries, local government and 

community leaders in bringing the five parish Baton Rouge area 

into attainment with the previous 1 hour ozone standard. Although 

the 1-hour standard has been recently replaced by the new 8 hour 

116 

standard, attainment of the old standard underscores the commitment of air quality improvement in the Baton Rouge area. 

Prevailing thought during earlier planning efforts was that attention for air quality improvement should be focused on major industrial sources and significant progress has been made in reducing industrial emissions. With stationary point sources well controlled, we must now look to additional areas such as mobile 

sources such as cars, trucks, trains, ships and area sources, such 

as homes, consumer products, small businesses, for the needed reductions. 

Therefore, we believe that it is appropriate to look at port activities, among others, and consider their impacts on air quality. S. 

1499 proposes to amend the Clean Air Act to direct the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to promulgate regulations that limit the sulfur content in fuels for specified marine 

vessels in their main and auxiliary engines. A reduction in diesel 

particulates and sulfur oxide emissions as envisioned in S. 1499 

would obviously benefit the citizens of fine particulate and sulfur 

oxide non-attainment areas in this regard. Such reductions would 

provide for improved air quality for all of the coastal and river corridor communities. 

However, Louisiana is in attainment with the fine particulate national ambient air quality standard and our efforts are currently 

aimed toward ozone attainment. Therefore, determining the ports’ 

contribution and impact of ozone precursors, NOx and volatile organic compounds, particularly highly reactive volatile organic compounds, is our priority. Our needs relate more specifically to ozone 

precursors. Although this bill would provide some NOx reductions, 

it is not primarily aimed at reducing ozone. 

Last, in order to fully understand how sources affect air quality, 

and thus to compose and implement effective regulations, it is necessary to accurately identify and quantify air emissions. As more 

areas move forward with ozone attainment demonstration modeling, the need to gather air emission inventories for marine traffic 

and port activities, much like we do for stationary sources, has become evident. If our air quality planning efforts are to be successful. 

Emission inventories are critical in assessing air quality impacts 

and are the starting point for estimating needed emission reductions and possible control strategies. It should be noted that as proposed, S. 1499 has no provisions for ports to prepare or submit air 

emission inventories, or for funding for States to prepare such inventories. We would respectfully suggest that a requirement for 

ports to develop and update at specific intervals an air emissions 

inventory is necessary and requisite in order to ensure that emissions reductions are quantifiable and verifiable. 

In closing, we do believe that assessing air emission impacts 

from ports and marine vessels is important to further improve air 

quality and to assist the States in reaching Federal and local air 

quality goals. We commend the Committee for raising this most important subject and we look forward to working with our regulatory 

and industry partners in addressing this issue. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Mouton follows:] 

117 


85521.044

TESTIMONY 

OF 

JENNIFER J. MOUTON, ADMINISTRATOR 

LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL 

QUALITY 

AIR QUALITY ASSESSMENT DIVISION 

ON THE 

MARINE VESSEL EMISSIONS REDUCTION ACT OF 2007 

Senate Bill 1499 

BEFORE THE 

SENATE 

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

THE HONORABLE SENATOR BARBARA BOXER 

CHAIR 

FEBRUARY 14,2008 
118 


85521.045

Good morning Senator Boxer, Senator Inhofe, Senator Vitter 

and distinguished committee members. My name is Jennifer 

Mouton. I am Administrator of the Air Quality Assessment 

Division at the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality. 

Senator Boxer and members of the Environment and Public Works 

Committee, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to 

address the committee today and to provide these comments on 

Senate Bill 1499, the Marine Vessel Emissions Reduction Act of 

2007. 

Due to Louisiana's geographic situation and natural assets, 

Louisiana is home to some of the most diverse economic interests 

in the United States. These interests include pulp and paper, 

agriculture, synthetic chemical manufacturing, natural gas 

transportation, processing and storage, power generation, 

petrochemicals and refineries. Through our extensive port system, 

we serve as a major distribution center for many products that 

serve a significant portion of the United States. In fact, according 

to the US Army Corps of Engineers, Navigation Data Center, 
119 


85521.046

Tonnage for Selected Ports in 2006 report, the Port of South 

Louisiana and Port of New Orleans are ranked No. 1 and No.8 in 

the United States in total tonnage. Ports of Lake Charles, Greater 

Baton Rouge and Plaquemine are ranked 11th, 12th and 13t

\ 

respectively. Taken together, the ports along the lower Mississippi 

River represent one of the busiest areas of marine commerce in the 

country. 

Louisiana is a recognized leader in the protection of the 

environment, natural resources, health and the quality of life. A 

spirit of cooperation and trust exists between state government, 

local government, business, universities, and private citizens in 

seeking solutions to environmental problems. The healthy, 

beautiful environment, complementary job opportunities, and 

unique culture of Louisiana all create an unmatched quality of life. 

The state of Louisiana has made significant progress in 

improving and maintaining air quality. This significant and 

continued progress in reducing air pollutant levels has resulted in 

Louisiana achieving attainment for all criteria pollutants, including 
120 


85521.047

the recently revised fine particulate standard, with the exception of 

a five-parish area in and around Baton Rouge which is out of 

attainment for ozone only. Last year we celebrated the success of 

a comprehensive and collaborative effort of DEQ, EPA, local 

industries, local governments and community leaders in bringing 

the five-parish Baton Rouge area into attainment with the previous 

I-hour ozone standard. Although the I-hour ozone standard has 

been recently replaced by the new 8-hour standard, attainment of 

the old standard underscores the commitment of air quality 

improvement in the Baton Rouge area. 

Prevailing thought during earlier planning efforts was that 

attention for air quality improvements should be focused on major 

industrial sources and significant progress has been made in 

reducing industrial emissions. With stationary point sources well 

controlled, we must now look to additional areas such as mobile 

sources (cars, trucks, planes, trains, ships), and area sources 

(homes, consumer products, small businesses) for the needed 

reductions. Therefore, we believe that it is appropriate to look at 
121 


85521.048

port activities, among others, and consider their impacts on air 

quality. 

Senate Bill 1499 proposes to amend the Clean Air Act to 

direct the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA) to promulgate regulations that limit the sulfur content in 

fuels for specified marine vessels in their main and auxiliary 

engines. A reduction in diesel particulates and sulfur oxide 

emissions as envisioned in Senate Bill 1499 would obviously 

benefit the citizens of fine particulate and sulfur oxide 

nonattainment areas in this regard. And such reductions would 

provide for improved air quality for all of the coastal and river 

corridor communities. 

However, Louisiana is in attainment with the fine particulate 

national ambient air quality standard and our efforts are currently 

aimed towards ozone attainment. Therefore, determining the port's 

contribution and impact of ozone precursors, NOx and volatile 

organic compounds (particularly highly reactive volatile organic 

compounds) is our priority. Our needs relate more specifically to 
122 


85521.049

ozone precursors and, although this bill would provide some NOx 

reductions, it is not aimed at reducing ozone. 

Lastly, in order to fully understand how sources affect air 

quality and thus, to compose and implement effective regulations, 

it is necessary to accurately identify and quantifY air emissions. As 

more areas move forward with ozone attainment demonstration 

modeling, the need to gather air emissions inventories for marine 

traffic and port activities much like we do for stationary sources 

has become evident if our air quality planning efforts are to be 

successful. Emission inventories are critical in assessing air 

quality impacts and are the starting point for estimating needed 

emission reductions and possible control strategies. It should be 

noted that, as proposed, Senate Bill 1499 has no provisions for 

ports to prepare or submit air emission inventories or for funding 

for states to prepare such inventories. We would respectfully 

suggest that a requirement for ports to develop and update at 

specific intervals an air emissions inventory is necessary and 
123 


85521.050

requisite in order to ensure that emissions reductions are 

quantifiable and verifiable. 

In closing, we do believe that assessing air emission impacts 

from ports and marine vessels is important to further improve air 

quality and to assist the states in reaching federal and local air 

quality goals. We commend the Committee for raising this most 

important subject and look forward to working with our regulatory 

and industry partners in addressing this issue. 
124 

RESPONSES BY JENNIFER J. MOUTON TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS

FROM SENATOR BOXER

Question 1. In light of these types of health effects, shouldn’t efforts be made to 

limit or reduce such impacts of marine vessel diesel emissions as soon as possible? 

Response. The Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality supports the efforts of U.S. EPA to reduce and or limit impacts from emissions from marine vessel 

diesel engines. We also support EPA’s efforts in reducing emissions from ocean 

going vessels by working toward international agreement through the MARPQL 

Treaty. EPA’s proposal for regulating marine and locomotive diesel engines is a critical step in improving human health by providing much needed emission reductions. 

Therefore, we support Federal efforts to help states with nonattainment areas 

achieve compliance with the national ambient air quality standards as expeditiously 

and practically as possible. 

Question 2. Data from a study of mortality resulting from marine vessel emissions, Corbett and Winebrake 2007, indicate that there are between 100 and 150 

premature deaths in Louisiana caused by pollution emitted from marine vessels 

each year. Do you support measures to reduce the impacts of pollution such as those 

described in that study? If so, please provide the measures that you support. 

Response. The Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ) consistently supports measures that serve to reduce the impacts of pollution on human 

health and the environment. Compliance with the PM2.5 standards serves to protect 

the public from serious health problems ranging from increased symptoms, hospital 

admissions and emergency room visits for people with heart and lung disease, to 

premature death in people with heart or lung disease. The concentrations of in 

PM2.5 in Louisiana have historically been in compliance with the Federal PM2.5

standards. In addition, based on modeling conducted by the Environmental Protection Agency, Louisiana is projected to continue to comply with the PM2.5 standards 

through the year 2020. 

The Corbett and Winebrake 2007 modeling exercise was designed to estimate the 

potential contribution of oceangoing ship emissions to ambient PM concentrations 

on a global basis with interpretative focus on various regions of the world. This type 

of study is very useful for gaining insight into trends in ambient PM concentrations 

over large regions, as discussed in the study, but does not serve to provide meaningful quantitative results for small, select areas such a a single State within a modeled region. It also important to note that uncertainty is inherent in any modeling 

exercise and that the interpretation of the modeling results should always take into 

consideration those uncertainties and the level of confidence that can be placed in 

quantitative modeling results. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you very much. 

I want to point out that there is a national call for this legislation. People have a right to say they don’t think there should be 

and they don’t agree there should be, but the National Association 

of Clean Air Agencies, representing the pollution control agencies 

in 53 States and territories, and over 165 metropolitan areas across 

the Country, have given us their support. So I think it is very important. 

I guess I have some questions for Dr. Wallerstein, and I will save 

the New Jersey questions for Senator Lautenberg to ask. 

You note that the National Association of Clean Air Agencies and 

many State agencies support this bill. Would you explain why you 

think there is wide support for this legislation nationwide? 

Mr. WALLERSTEIN. It is for the simple reason that ship emissions 

are a major pollution source throughout the coastal United States, 

and that the emissions from those ships travel large distances, impacting other communities that are more inland. 

We have also learned regarding carcinogenic risk that proximity 

matters, that even if you attain a Federal ambient air quality 

standard for a pollutant such as particulates, if you are near the 

sources of particulate pollution, in this case diesel exhaust, then 

you are exposed to very high levels of carcinogenic risk. 

125 

We have done calculations in Southern California, as an example, where our staff has estimated that more than four million 

Southern Californians are exposed to a carcinogenic of greater than 

100 in a million due to ship emissions alone in out twin ports. 

While the number is obviously going to be a bit different depending 

upon which port area one looks at, it is quite clear that you are 

going to have significant risk in any major port area. 

I might last note that if you look at that map on the right and 

you see the bright pinkish color going down the California coastline, that communities even such as Santa Barbara, California, 

which most people think of as having clean air, are gravely concerned about ship emissions in the channel and the effect that it 

has on their citizens. In fact, ship emissions were their No. 1 pollution source. 

Senator BOXER. So if you look at this chart showing the nationwide problem, we see people are dying early in really all of these 

port areas, all of these port areas. 

Mr. WALLERSTEIN. That is correct, Madam Chair. 

Senator BOXER. And so you think, as I do, and I know it is a national issue. Just because I wrote the bill doesn’t mean it is not important to Senators from all over the Country, and we have many 

Senators on this bill from places pretty far away because people 

are dying in these other areas. Is that correct? 

Mr. WALLERSTEIN. That is correct, Madam Chair. That comes 

from a study that was published in a highly noted journal, Environmental Science and Technology, and is a peer-reviewed study 

before publication in that journal. 

Senator BOXER. OK. I thought your testimony when it came to 

showing the cost of how much a TV would go up in cost and how 

much a pair of shoes, I think you said, would go up. Could you repeat that? Because I think if you ask the people of this Country 

if they would be willing to pay a little bit more if it meant that we 

could save 2,000 to 5,000 lives, and I see we have a chart here that 

shows a plasma TV, 43 cents to 96 cents; a pair of shoes not even 

a penny more, and U.S. deaths avoided 1,200 to 3,000 per year 

minimum, and the monetized benefit, $7 billion to $18 billion; the 

benefit-to-cost ratio of 4.1 to 11, meaning it cost four and you get 

eleven? 

Mr. WALLERSTEIN. It means the health benefits—— 

Senator BOXER. It goes from four to one to 11 to one. 

Mr. WALLERSTEIN. That is correct. 

Senator BOXER. Somewhere in there. My long-suffering staff, no, 

it is OK, Eric. We are fine, Eric. Thank you. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator BOXER. I appreciate all these charts and what you have 

done to help prepare for this, Eric, and all the staff. Thank you. 

Let me just say, because this will be my concluding remarks in 

terms of this panel, that I want to thank all three of you for coming 

here today, and to the panel before, if I didn’t thank them as well. 

You know, sometimes there are issues that are right in front of 

you that I call no-brainers. It is really going to be such a benefit. 

A few special interests are going to say, well, we support the idea, 

but not so fast, go a little slower. And I appreciate where they are 

coming from. It is OK. 

126 

But I think history has shown us that when we are timid when 

it comes to the environment, we make a mistake. When we step out 

there and we are not afraid to act, and here is sort of the last piece. 

We have dealt with trucks. We have dealt with cars. We are dealing with these others. We are dealing with rail, although I don’t 

think we are doing enough on rail, but we are dealing with rail. 

And this is the last piece, with 27,000 parts per million when it 

should be 1,000. Think about it. It is outrageous. 

The other fact is we know it is foreign ships. It is foreign ships 

that are causing the problem. So what we want to do is say when 

you come within 200 miles of a port, cleanup your act because we 

love our kids and we love our families and we love our people, and 

we want to protect them, and we welcome you into our port, but 

cleanup your act. That is it, and it is very simple. 

You know, I am going to push very hard for this, along with 

other colleagues on the Committee. If we get resistance to it, let 

the people see who is for it and who is against it. That is what 

makes our democracy tick, but we will push hard for this. 

Thank you for your help. 

Senator Vitter. 

Senator VITTER. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

And thanks to all of you for being here. 

I want to pick up on an earlier theme, because I think it is very 

interesting to see who is for the bill, where they come from, are 

they in or out of compliance. 

Dr. Wallerstein, am I correct that your area is out of compliance 

for NOx and particulate matter? 

Mr. WALLERSTEIN. Yes, we are out of compliance for particulate 

and ozone. 

Senator VITTER. I am sorry, ozone not NOx. 

Mr. WALLERSTEIN. The oxides of nitrogen, or NOx , is a building 

block to ozone formation, as well as particulate formation, Senator. 

Senator VITTER. OK. And you believe this maritime traffic is a 

significant contributor to that? 

Mr. WALLERSTEIN. We know it is, as well as causing carcinogenic 

risks to the population, yes. 

Senator VITTER. So in your area, what have you all done about 

that? 

Mr. WALLERSTEIN. We are doing a number of things. We have 

been working with our ports on requirements that the ports could 

put into place through leases to tenants. 

Senator VITTER. I am sorry. That would restrict traffic or mandate certain air standards? 

Mr. WALLERSTEIN. The ports would specify certain provisions like 

clean equipment on docks as a requirement. 

Senator VITTER. Excuse me. I am talking about ships. What have 

you all done with regard to ships in your area to address this? 

Mr. WALLERSTEIN. Well, the principal thing that has been done 

in Southern California or throughout the State of California is our 

State Air Resources Board enacted a 1,000 to 2,000 ppm sulfur 

limit for fuel used in auxiliary engines, which has been challenged 

in court and is now in litigation where the plaintiffs have said if 

anyone is to establish such a standard, it should be the U.S. EPA. 

127 

Senator VITTER. But certainly, it is beyond question that your 

port, for instance, could limit activity and traffic if it wanted to. 

Mr. WALLERSTEIN. There is no need for it to do such—— 

Senator VITTER. But you are out of compliance, aren’t you? 

Mr. WALLERSTEIN. Well, as Maersk has demonstrated, it is not 

necessary because they are already switching to low-sulfur fuel as 

they come within 24 miles of our ports. 

Senator VITTER. And so you all are now in compliance because 

of that? 

Mr. WALLERSTEIN. No. It is one shipping line demonstrating 

what we believe everyone else can do, which will provide a piece 

to the overall puzzle of Federal attainment. 

Senator VITTER. I guess what I am suggesting is why don’t you 

all lead and take local action and lead the rest of the Country by 

mandating that in your port, by mandating a limitation or a decline of traffic or activity so that you get into compliance. 

Mr. WALLERSTEIN. Well, Senator, we believe that you can put 

pollution controls in place and allow for economic development, and 

that is why the Port of Long Beach and the Port of Los Angeles 

support this bill and other actions. I want to assure you that if you 

look across the board at what is being done in Southern California, 

we are in a leadership role in pollution control for all sources, including those related to maritime operations. 

Senator VITTER. Well, again I would beg to differ because there 

are actions you all could take locally with regard to this traffic, 

with regard to these ships, and that activity, and you have chosen 

not to do so. I would suggest the same in New Jersey. You mentioned doing a lot of things, which you are, ground-based. 

I believe I am correct, you haven’t restricted port activity or 

capped that or limited that, to have an impact with regard to these 

emissions, even though you are out of compliance with regard to 

the relevant particulate matter and NOx standards. 

Ms. JACKSON. Thank you, Senator. 

We wouldn’t consider that an appropriate public policy response 

to the air pollution problem when there is such an easy one afforded by this bill. This bill gives us an incredibly important tool 

to address the source of pollution, rather than stopping the ships 

in their tracks. We actually believe that our citizens and the folks 

on the East Coast deserve the goods and services that the ships 

bring in. Why not simply control the pollution as the ships approach our port? 

Senator VITTER. What about an amendment to the bill to limit 

the applicability to ports with a non-attainment issue? 

Ms. JACKSON. In New Jersey, about one-third of our air pollution, 

Senator, comes from out of State. We have several studies that 

show that because of the way the wind blows, you can see what the 

Northeast Corridor looks like. Some of that are our own cars. Some 

of that are trucks. We perfectly and willingly acknowledge that, 

and are working on those issues. But we know that no matter we 

do, one-third of our air pollution comes from sources outside of our 

attainment area. So I wouldn’t agree that that would effectively reduce our problem. 

Senator VITTER. OK. Well, I will wrap up, but I just want to 

point out the strong support on the Committee, with Senator LauVerDate Aug 31 2005 08:54 Mar 06, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00131 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\85521.TXT VERN
128 

tenberg and Senator Cardin, along with Senator Boxer. All of those 

port areas, all of those coastal areas are in non-attainment. Mine 

is not. 

I don’t think that is a coincidence that is unrelated to our approach to this bill because speaking for coastal Louisiana ports, we 

are not in that non-attainment. 

Ms. JACKSON. Thank you, Senator. It sounds like you still have 

an ozone issue in the area surrounding the Port of New Orleans 

and Baton Rouge. 

Senator VITTER. [Remarks off microphone] and yet we just met the 1-hour standard. We are working to meet the 8 hour standard, but that is—— 

[remarks off microphone]. 

Senator BOXER. OK. Before I call on Senator Lautenberg, you all 

are not in attainment in ozone. So you all could stop some traffic 

until you all get in compliance. But let me just say this, because 

I feel so strongly about it. We are here as national legislators. We 

are here to work together for the good of the people of the United 

States of America. OK? 

Now, again I just want to make a point. People in Louisiana are 

dying premature deaths because of this problem, people in California, people in New Jersey, people in Florida and people inland. 

If we suddenly turn to say to one region, just close down your port; 

we are happy to take it. 

I will tell you why I am against it. Because then the people in 

Louisiana, who don’t seem to want to move such a bill, they will 

really have a hot spot of death. And I am not interested in saying 

one State do it and then the other States become the hot spots of 

death. That is not my purpose here, because I am an American and 

I think every single family deserves to have clean air, whether they 

live in Louisiana or they live in San Francisco or Los Angeles, San 

Diego, Trenton, New Jersey, on and on. 

And that is why this is so interesting. What I really find interesting is Senator Vitter’s continual repetition that the only people 

who want this are the people who are not in attainment, when you 

have a national organization that represents every State in the 

Union backing this. So the facts simply don’t comport with that 

theory. Again, I would say to my colleague to take a look at this 

letter, because it represents every State in the Union. 

OK. Senator Lautenberg. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

This is a place where anomalies are not unusual. I think about 

how our dear colleague, Mary Landrieu, is constantly begging, begging for Federal funds to help Louisiana get back on its feet. By 

the way, we support it. 

So when we look at what the Bush administration has done to 

demonstrate worldwide leadership to improve air quality at ports 

by strengthening international standards, I don’t think there is any 

evidence of that. Any of you can answer. Commissioner Jackson or 

Dr. Wallerstein, would you feel equipped to answer that question? 

Ms. JACKSON. Thank you, Senator. 

I was heartened to hear the representative from EPA earlier say 

that they are proceeding with negotiations. I think the issue is 

time, and I also think that there have been arguments made by 

129 

EPA in the past that they didn’t have the legal authority to push 

these reductions. This legislation would take that issue off of the 

table. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Thanks very much. 

And because one of the things that stands out in my mind is 

kind of let the States take care of themselves, when it just doesn’t 

wash. Otherwise, California with its PAVLE standards, Madam 

Chairman, would be able to move ahead, instead of having EPA obstruct that decision by California to go ahead with it. But there are 

times when States would like to do things to improve air quality 

and environmental conditions, and we don’t have the wholehearted 

support of EPA in many of those occasions, and want to reduce the 

standards for the number of chemicals, for right to know and 

things of that nature. So we are fighting an uphill battle we 

shouldn’t have to fight. 

Ms. Jackson, you mentioned that our low-income residents in 

parts of New Jersey pay high health risks from maritime air pollution. Because of the perilous growth and incidence of asthma, I 

note that more than 150 million Americans, Dr. Wallerstein, over 

half of the Nation’s population live in areas with poor air quality. 

The prevalence of asthma in the United States has increased more 

than 75 percent since 1980. Does that kind of approach an epidemic proportion, wouldn’t you think? 

Mr. WALLERSTEIN. Yes, it does. There are studies that have been 

conducted in Southern California, for example, that show that children that live in our most air-polluted areas have higher incidence 

of asthma, and children that play two sports instead of one have 

an even higher incidence of asthma in those communities. So there 

is a direct relationship. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. So Ms. Jackson, why then isn’t there a 

greater sense of urgency for States to act to reduce the health risks 

in the absence of strong Federal regulation, and ask for Federal 

support for these things? 

Ms. JACKSON. Thank you, Senator. 

States are doing just that with NACA and State support of this 

bill. As you know, the county that Newark resides in, Essex County, has the highest asthma death rates, mortality rates in our 

State. Those rates are even higher among the minority population 

for issues that probably relate to everything from income level to 

the ability and access to adequate health care. 

Again, I just need to remind the Committee that those health 

care costs are borne by society, just as surely as the ravages of a 

hurricane are borne by society. This is a national health epidemic 

and it is a national problem. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. You made mention of this I think before, 

but I just want to focus on it for a minute more. Ships going into 

ports of neighboring States, they contribute without a shred of 

doubt to poor air quality in New Jersey. So even if we have strong 

State law in place regarding pollution from ships, we are not protected. 

Ms. JACKSON. Absolutely right, Senator. One-third of our air pollution comes from out of State, one-third. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Thank you. 

Thanks very much, Madam Chairman. 

130 

Thank you to all the witnesses for your testimony. We appreciate 

it. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you, colleagues. 

We thank you very, very much for your presence here today. I 

would ask consent to place in the record the chart that I keep referring to, which by the way in case anyone wanted to know, it is 

a global assessment, Environmental Science and Technology 2007. 

It is a peer-reviewed study. And also a chart that shows, and this 

is so intriguing to me, the percentage of air pollution that is regulated from mobile source: 98 percent of pollution from passenger 

cars is subject to regulation; 98 percent of pollution from trucks; 97 

percent pollution from off-road equipment; 58 percent of pollution 

from locomotives; and only 11 percent from ships. So it is just lagging. 

[The referenced documents follow:] 


85521.070

z 

:S 

e: 

z 

iii 

z 

'" iil 

z 

hl 

"" iii 

2 

z 

o 

5 

G> 

-< 

., 

m 

TABLE 2. Annual Cardiopulmonary and lun9 Cancer Mortality Attributable to Ship PMz.s Emissions by Region and by Case (Best Estimate from CoR function" (95% confidence inte

Case la Case lb Case Ie Case 2a Case 2b Case 3 (2012 

Inventory A Inventory A Inventory A Inventory B Inventory B Invento

Model: GEOS-Chem Model: E5IMI-MADE Model: E5IMI-MADE Model: E5IMI-MADE Model: E5IMI-MADE Model: GE

Region PM: BC, POM. SO. PM: Be. POM, SO, PM: All PM: Be. POM. SO, PM: All PM: BC, P

North America (NA) Region 

cardiopulmonary 1,860 (680-3,050) 2,820 (1,020 4,610) 4,590 (1,660 -7,510) >5,470 (1,980 - 8,950) 7,910 (2,870 -12,940) 2,770 (1,010 

lung cancer 210 (80 - 350) 320 (120 - 520) 520 (190 - 850) 620 (230 1,020) 900 (330 1,470) 320 (120 5

NA Total 2,070 (760 - 3,400) 3,140 (1,140- 5,130) 5,110 (1,850 - 8,360) 6,090 (2,210 - 9,970) 8,810 (3,200 - 14,410) 3,090 (1,130 

Europe/Mediterranean (EUM) Region 

cardiopulmonary 6,770 (2,450 11,070) 11,830 (4,290 - 19,350) 24,350 (8,840 - 39,810) 7,250 (2,630 - 11,860) 15,100 (5,480 - 24,690) 8,990 (3,260 

lung cancer 670 (250 - 1,090) 1,100 (410 1,800) 2,360 (870 3,840) 650 (240 - 1,060) 1,430 (530 - 2,320) 880 (330 - 1

EUM Total 7,440 (2,700 - 12,160) 12,930 (4,700 - 21,150) 26,710 (9,710 - 43,650) 7,900 (2,870 -12,920) 16,530 (6,010 - 27,010) 9,870 (3,590 

East Asia (EA) Region 

cardiopulmonary 3,490 (1,270 - 5,710) 11,970 (4,340 19,590) 17,920 (6,500 29,300) 9,640 (3,500 - 15,780) 13,800 (5,010 - 22,570) 5,170 (1,880 

lung cancer 370 (140 - 610) 1,300 (480 - 2,110) 1,950 (720 - 3,170) 1,030 (380 - 1,680) 1,480 (550 2,410) 550 (200 9

EA Total 3,860 (1,410 - 6,320) 13,270 (4,820 - 21,700) 19,870 (7,220 - 32,470) 10,670 (3,880 - 17,460) 15,280 (5,560 - 24,980) 5,720 (2,080 

South Asia (SA) Region 

cardiopulmonary 4,050 (1,470 - 6,630) 7,250 (2,630 -11,870) 9,440 (3,420 - 15,450) 11,240 (4,080 - 18,390) 15,460 (5,610 - 25,260) 6,090 (2,210 

lung cancer 230 (90 380) 390 (150-640) 510 (190 - 830) 600 (220 - 970) 820 (300 - 1,340) 350 (130 5

SA Total 4,280 (1,560 - 7,010) 7,640 (2,780 - 12,510) 9,950 (3,610 - 16,280) 11,840 (4,300 - 19,360) 16,280 (5,910 - 26,600) 6,440 (2,340 

East South America (ESA) Region 

cardiopulmonary 380 (140 620) 520 (190 - 850) 690 (250 -1,130) 1,120 (410 - 1,840) 1,540 (560 - 2,520) 570 (210 9

lung cancer 50 (20 - 90) 70 (30 -120) 100 (40 - 160) 160 (60 260) 220 (80 350) 80 (30 130

ESA Total 430 (160 - 710) 590 (220 - 970) 790 (290 - 1,290) 1,280 (470 - 2,100) 1,760 (640 - 2,870) 650 (240 - 1

Global 

cardiopulmonary 17,340 (6,290 - 28,390) 35,610 (12,910 - 58,260) 58,640 (21,270 - 95,900) 36,970 (13,410 - 60,490) 56,790 (20,600 92,870) 24,780 (8,98

lung cancer 1,580 (580 - 2,570) 3,260 (1,200 5,310) 5,540 (2,050 9,020 3,220 (1,190 5,240) 5,050 (1,870 - 8230) 2,240 (830 

Global Total 18,920 (6,870 - 30,960) 38,870 (14,110 - 63,570) 64,180 (23,320 - 104,920) 40,190 (14,600 - 65,730) 61,840 (22,470 101,100) 27,020 (9,81

a Values are rounded to the nearest 10, b Confidence interval range is based on uncertainty in the concentration-response function coefficients. 
132 

Senator BOXER. As I say, it is a place where we can really feel 

the benefits. Even Ms. Mouton, in your very good testimony, you 

say there would be benefits. You acknowledge that. We appreciate 

that. 

And then this cost of low-sulfur fuel, the cost of getting to lowsulfur fuel, what it would cost, these really pennies for consumer 

goods, which I think is also key. 

I think it is a win-win. I am really sorry that we don’t have, you 

know, agreement here across the line today, but we will work hard 

to get something done. 

We so appreciate everybody being here today. Again, to our 

young man who graced us with his testimony, I think everybody 

felt it was really important and we thank you so much for being 

here. 

We do stand adjourned on this Valentine’s Day. 

[Whereupon, at 12:35 p.m. the committee was adjourned.] 

Æ