U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Catalyst for Improving the Environment 

Evaluation Report 

EPA Needs to Improve Its Efforts 

to Reduce Air Emissions at 

U.S. Ports 

Report No. 09-P-0125 

 March 23, 2009 
Report Contributors: 

Abbreviations 

John Bishop 

 Chris Dunlap 

Dan Howard 

 Andrew Lavenburg 

 Bill Nelson 

Rick Beusse 

CAA Clean Air Act 

CARB California Air Resources Board 

CMAQ Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality 

CO Carbon Monoxide 

ECA Emission Control Area 

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

ETV Environmental Technology Verification 

FY Fiscal Year 

HC Hydrocarbons 

IMO International Maritime Organization 

kW	 Kilowatts 

MARPOL International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973, 

as modified by the Protocol of 1978 

MATES III Multiple Air Toxic Exposure Study III 

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

NCDC National Clean Diesel Campaign 

NOx	 Nitrogen Oxides 

OIG Office of Inspector General 

OMB Office of Management and Budget 

OTAQ Office of Transportation and Air Quality 

PM Particulate Matter 

PM 2.5 Fine Particulate Matter 

ppm Parts Per Million 

SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District 

SOx	 Sulfur Oxides 

TEU Twenty-Foot Equivalent Unit 

Cover photos:	 Clockwise, from top left: container ship at berth, heavy-duty diesel trucks 

entering terminal gates, harbor tug, and cargo-handling equipment (terminal 

tractors and container handlers). Photos taken by U.S. EPA OIG staff during 

site visits to the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 09-P-0125 

March 23, 2009 Office of Inspector General 

At a Glance 

Catalyst for Improving the Environment 

at (202) 566-2391. 

To view the full report, 

Why We Did This Review 

Controlling air emissions 

from ports was identified as a 

key issue in a prior Office of 

Inspector General report. For 

selected major U.S. ports, we 

sought to determine whether 

EPA’s (1) actions to address 

air emissions from 

oceangoing vessels have been 

effective, and (2) strategy to 

address air emissions from 

port sources is sufficient to 

protect human health and the 

environment. 

Background 

The U.S. has about 360 

commercial sea and river 

ports. Emissions from 

activities at these ports have 

significant environmental and 

human health impacts. By 

2020, many major U.S. ports 

are expected to double the 

amount of container traffic 

they handle; some will triple. 

EPA uses a multipronged 

approach to reduce emissions 

from these sources, including 

implementing existing 

regulations, developing new 

standards for diesel engines, 

and promoting emission 

reductions in existing diesel 

engines through voluntary 

strategies. 

For further information, contact 

our Office of Congressional, 

Public Affairs and Management 

click on the following link: 

www.epa.gov/oig/reports/2009/ 

20090323-09-P-0125.pdf 

EPA Needs to Improve Its Efforts to Reduce 

Air Emissions at U.S. Ports 

What We Found 

While EPA has issued air emissions regulations for most port sources, EPA’s 

actions to address air emissions from large oceangoing vessels in U.S. ports have 

not yet achieved the goals for protecting human health. The Clean Air Act (CAA) 

provides EPA with the authority to regulate emissions from oceangoing vessel 

engines when these emissions cause significant harm to human health. For over 14 

years, EPA has acknowledged that human health has been significantly harmed by 

emissions from these sources. Thus far, EPA has only regulated nitrogen oxides 

emissions from U.S.-flagged vessels. EPA has chosen to defer taking a position on 

whether it has authority to regulate emissions from foreign-flagged vessels, 

although these vessels account for about 90 percent of all U.S. port calls. However, 

after many years, EPA’s efforts with the International Maritime Organization (IMO) 

have the potential to significantly reduce these emissions. In October 2008 the IMO 

adopted new international standards for oceangoing vessel engines and fuels. Still, 

EPA must work to establish Emissions Control Areas for U.S. ports if significant 

emissions reductions are to be realized from oceangoing vessels. 

EPA’s strategy to address air emissions at U.S. ports is not sufficiently developed. 

Although the Agency is working to reduce these emissions through various 

regulatory and voluntary programs, it has not successfully implemented key 

elements of this approach. Despite the emphasis that EPA has placed on voluntary 

partnership programs, such as regional diesel collaboratives, such initiatives have 

not been implemented at many U.S. ports. In 2008, EPA built upon its efforts by 

publishing a Strategy for Sustainable Ports. This strategy is an Agency-wide, multimedia effort which includes goals and objectives for addressing key environmental 

issues at U.S. ports. EPA’s strategy sets goals, but lacks a transformation plan to 

assure that the goals are realized. EPA did not include the appropriate performance 

measures, milestones, and other management controls for many of the action items 

in the strategy. As a result, EPA lacks the management framework and controls 

necessary to assure the successful implementation of its strategy. 

What We Recommend 

We recommended that EPA (1) assess its authorities and responsibilities under the 

CAA to regulate air emissions from foreign-flagged vessels in U.S. ports, and report 

any shortfalls to Congress; (2) assess the extent to which Emissions Control Areas 

should be designated for U.S. coastal areas; and (3) revise its ports strategy to 

include a transformation plan. EPA’s comments on the first recommendation were 

not responsive and do not satisfy the intent of the recommendation. The Agency 

concurred with the second recommendation, but did not agree with the third 

recommendation. We consider Recommendations 1 and 3 open and unresolved. 
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 

OFFICE OF 

INSPECTOR GENERAL 

March 23, 2009 

MEMORANDUM 

SUBJECT:	 EPA Needs to Improve Its Efforts to Reduce Air Emissions at U.S. Ports 

Report No. 09-P-0125 

FROM:	 Wade T. Najjum 

Assistant Inspector General for Program Evaluation 

TO: Elizabeth Craig 

Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation 

This is our report on the subject evaluation conducted by the Office of Inspector General (OIG) 

of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). This report contains findings that describe 

the problems the OIG has identified and corrective actions the OIG recommends. This report 

represents the opinion of the OIG and does not necessarily represent the final EPA position. 

Final determinations on matters in this report will be made by EPA managers in accordance with 

established audit resolution procedures. 

The estimated cost of this report – calculated by multiplying the project’s staff days by the 

applicable daily full cost billing rates in effect at the time – is $1,680,991. 

Action Required 

In accordance with EPA Manual 2750, you are required to provide a written response to this 

report within 90 calendar days. You should include a corrective actions plan for agreed upon 

actions, including milestone dates. For the recommendations over which we disagree, please 

reconsider your position in your response to this final report. You may also propose alternative 

actions that you believe will meet the intent of our recommendations in your response. We 

have no objections to the further release of this report to the public. This report will be 

available at http://www.epa.gov/oig. 

If you or your staff have any questions regarding this report, please contact me at (202) 566-0827 

or najjum.wade@epa.gov; or Rick Beusse, Director for Program Evaluation, Air and Research 

Issues, at (919) 541-5747 or beusse.rick@epa.gov. 
EPA Needs to Improve Its Efforts to 09-P-0125 

Reduce Air Emissions at U.S. Ports 

Table of Contents 

Chapters 

1 Introduction ........................................................................................................... 1 

Purpose .......................................................................................................... 1 

Background .................................................................................................... 1 

EPA’s Multipronged Approach to Reducing Emissions at U.S. Ports............. 9 

 Noteworthy Achievements.............................................................................. 12 

 Scope and Methodology................................................................................. 12 

2 Recent Agency and International Actions Have Potential to Significantly
 

Reduce Harmful Emissions from Oceangoing Vessel Engines........................ 13
 

Air Emissions from Large Oceangoing Vessel Engines 

 Have Been Essentially Unregulated by EPA ......................................... 13 

EPA Has Chosen to Defer Taking a Position on Whether It 

Has Authority to Regulate Foreign-Flagged Vessels ............................ 16 

Proposed Revisions to MARPOL Annex VI Adopted ..................................... 18 

EPA’s Delay in Controlling Oceangoing Vessel Emissions 

May Have Long-Term Effects................................................................ 20 

Conclusions.................................................................................................... 22 

Recommendations ......................................................................................... 22 

Agency Comments and OIG Evaluation......................................................... 22 

3 Implementing EPA’s Approach to Reducing Air Emissions at U.S. Ports 

Needs Improving ..................................................................................................... 24 

EPA’s Approach Is Incomplete....................................................................... 24
 

Limited Data to Verify Results of Voluntary Actions ....................................... 25 

Voluntary Initiatives Have Not Been Implemented at Many U.S. Ports .......... 27 

Limited Resources for Implementing EPA’s Efforts 

to Reduce Port Emissions ..................................................................... 29 

EPA’s New Strategy for Sustainable Ports Lacks a Transformation Plan...... 31 

Conclusions.................................................................................................... 32 

 Recommendation ........................................................................................... 33 

Agency Comments and OIG Evaluation......................................................... 33 

Status of Recommendations and Potential Monetary Benefits................................. 35 

- continued - 
EPA Needs to Improve Its Efforts to 09-P-0125 

Reduce Air Emissions at U.S. Ports 

Appendices 

A Projected Growth of U.S. Ports Due to Container Shipping ............................. 36 

B Key EPA Regulations for Five Major Sources of Port Emissions .................... 39 

C Details on Scope and Methodology..................................................................... 42 

D Details on EPA’s Rationale for Not Taking a Position on Whether 

It Has Authority to Regulate Foreign-Flagged Vessels ..................................... 46 

E Timeline of Selected EPA Regulatory Actions Since 1990 

to Address Air Emissions from Port Sources ................................................... 48 

F Summary of Revised MARPOL Annex VI Standards 

Adopted by the IMO in October 2008 ................................................................. 49 

G Status of Participation in Regional Diesel Collaboratives 

for Ports in Nonattainment Areas........................................................................ 50 

H Details of EPA’s Strategy for Sustainable Ports.................................................. 51 

I Agency Response to Draft Report......................................................................... 54 

J OIG Evaluation of Agency Response.................................................................... 72 

K Distribution............................................................................................................... 80 
09-P-0125 

Chapter 1

Introduction 

Purpose 

This evaluation focuses on the efforts of the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) to control air pollution from mobile sources 

operating in and approaching U.S. ports.1 The evaluation, completed in 

accordance with the 2007 Annual Plan of the EPA Office of Inspector 

General (OIG), was initiated because a prior OIG report2 found that EPA 

faced significant challenges in controlling air emissions from port sources. 

The objectives of our evaluation were to determine whether EPA’s: 

•	 actions taken to address air emissions from oceangoing vessels at 

selected U.S. ports have been effective, and 

•	 management plan (strategy) to address emissions from port sources 

is sufficient to protect human health and the environment at 

selected major U.S. ports. 

Background 

The United States has approximately 360 commercial sea and river ports. 

Air emissions from activities at these ports contribute to local air quality 

problems impacting communities surrounding port areas. These emissions 

have significant environmental and human health impacts, such as cancer 

and asthma. EPA’s goal for clean air is to protect and improve the air so it 

is healthy to breathe, and reduce risks to human health and the 

environment. EPA employs a multipronged approach to address 

emissions from port sources. This approach includes implementing 

existing regulations, developing new standards for diesel engines, 

promoting voluntary emission reductions from existing diesel engines, and 

participating in international efforts to address air emissions from 

oceangoing vessels. 

Sources of Emissions 

Almost all port emissions come from five diesel-fueled source categories, 

including oceangoing vessels, heavy-duty trucks, cargo-handling 

equipment, locomotives, and harbor craft. The emissions of greatest 

1

 According to the Agency, air quality modeling recently conducted to support its proposed Emissions 

Control Area application shows that emissions from as far as 200 nautical miles from ports impact air 

quality, not only in the immediate port areas, but for 100 miles inland. When this report refers to 

oceangoing vessels “in U.S. ports,” it is also referring to vessels approaching U.S. ports.

2 Progress Report on EPA’s Nonroad Mobile Source Emissions Reduction Strategies, Report No. 2006-P00039, September 27, 2006. 

1
 
09-P-0125 

concern from these sources are nitrogen oxides (NOx), particulate matter 

(PM), sulfur oxides (SOx), carbon monoxide (CO), and hydrocarbons 

(HC), as well as some toxic air pollutants. Figure 1-1 provides brief 

descriptions for each of these major categories of port pollution. 

Figure 1-1: Descriptions of the Five Major Sources of Port Emissions 

Harbor Craft: 

Tugboats, towboats, 

ferries, excursion 

vessels, government 

vessels, dredges, 

commercial fishing 

vessels, and recreational 

vessels 

Locomotives: 

Switcher locomotives 

(assemble trains and 

move railcars) as well 

as line-haul 

locomotives. 

Cargo-Handling 

Equipment: 

Equipment and vehicles 

used to move cargo 

within terminals and 

other off-road areas. 

Heavy-Duty 

Trucks: 

Short-haul trucks 

transport goods to 

warehouses near port. 

Long-haul trucks 

transport goods across 

the country. 

Oceangoing 

Vessels: Auto 

carriers, bulk carriers, 

containerships, cruise 

ships, and bulk liquid 

tankers. 

Major 

Pollutants: 

NOx, PM, 

SOx, CO, HC, 

air toxics 

Source: The OIG compiled source categories based on review of existing literature on 

port air emissions. 

Port sources also emit air toxics, most notably diesel exhaust. Other air 

toxics emitted from diesel engines include benzene, 1,3-butadiene, 

formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, acrolein, polycyclic organic matter, and 

naphthalene. All of these compounds, except acetaldehyde, were 

identified as national or regional risk drivers in EPA’s 1999 NationalScale Air Toxics Assessment. These air toxics pose both cancer and noncancer health effects. For example, EPA’s December 2007 Advanced 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking stated that: 

2
 
09-P-0125 

...mobile sources, including Category 3 marine [oceangoing vessel] 

engines, were responsible for 44 percent of outdoor toxic emissions 

and almost 50 percent of the cancer risk among the 133 pollutants 

quantitatively assessed in the 1999 National-Scale Air Toxics 

Assessment. 

In January 2008, the South Coast Air Quality Management District 

(SCAQMD) released its draft final report, Multiple Air Toxic Exposure 

Study III (MATES III). MATES III studied the cancer risk from exposure 

to toxic air pollution in the Southern California air basin. The study 

measured air toxics at 15 locations throughout Southern California from 

2004 to 2006. MATES III found the cancer risk rate from air toxics in the 

Southern California air basin is nearly 1,200 per million, with the highest 

cancer risks at about 3,700 per million. Most of the risks were from diesel 

particulates. The highest air toxics risks are found near the port area, an 

area near Central Los Angeles, and near transportation corridors. The 

results from this study demonstrate the need for continued efforts to 

reduce air toxic emissions, particularly from diesel engines. The Clean Air 

Act set a lifetime cancer risk of 1 in 1 million as a threshold above which 

regulation may be warranted for individual sources of air toxics. 

A July 2008 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration study3 

found that emissions from shipping have a significant impact on air 

quality and health on both local and regional scales. Extensive 

measurements of the emissions of light absorbing carbon aerosol, or soot,4 

from commercial shipping showed increased concentrations of this aerosol 

at U.S. ports on the East Coast, West Coast, and Gulf Coast. The study 

also suggested that large oceangoing vessels may emit up to twice as much 

aerosol as previously estimated. 

Impacts of Air Pollution from Port Activities 

Diesel and other emissions from port activities have significant human 

health and environmental impacts in onshore communities. These impacts 

include increased cancer rates, asthma, other respiratory and 

cardiovascular diseases, and premature death. Port emissions also 

contribute to the formation of ground level ozone, acid rain, and crop 

damage. EPA has recognized that diesel engines at ports create emissions 

that affect the health of workers and people living in nearby communities, 

and contribute significantly to regional air pollution. EPA has determined 

that diesel exhaust is “likely to be carcinogenic to humans by inhalation” 

and that this hazard applies to environmental exposures.5 

3 Lack, D., B. Lerner, C. Granier, T. Baynard, E. Lovejoy, P. Massoli, A. R. Ravishankara, and E. Williams. Light
 

absorbing carbon emissions from commercial shipping, Geophys. Res. Lett., 35, L13815, 

doi:10.1029/2008GL033906, 2008. 

4

 Soot is diesel particulate matter, and results from burning fuel in diesel engines.
 5

 U.S. EPA (2002). Health Assessment Document for Diesel Engine Exhaust, prepared by the National 

Center for Environmental Assessment, Washington, DC, for OTAQ; EPA/600/8-90/057F. 

3
 
09-P-0125 

Recent studies show that populations living near large diesel emission 

sources such as major roadways,6 rail yards, and ports7are likely to 

experience greater diesel exhaust exposure levels than the overall U.S. 

population, exposing them to greater health risk. For example, according 

to the California Air Resources Board, nearly 60 percent of the 2 million 

people living in the area around the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach 

have a potential cancer risk of greater than 100 in 1 million (due in part to 

port emissions), while over 410,000 people living closest to the same ports 

have a cancer risk greater than 200 in 1 million.8 Recent studies have also 

shown an increased risk of cancer at other ports in the United States.9 

EPA recently conducted an initial screening level analysis on the size of 

the U.S. population living near 47 marine ports and 37 rail yards selected. 

According to EPA, this was useful in beginning to understand the 

populations exposed to diesel particulate matter in these areas. The results 

indicate that at least 13 million people, including a disproportionate 

number of low-income households, African-Americans, and Hispanics, 

live in the vicinity of these facilities and are exposed to ambient diesel 

particulate matter. Figure 1-2 below shows U.S. port locations and areas 

exceeding air quality standards in 2007. 

6

 Kinnee, E. J., J.S. Touman, R. Mason, J. Thurman, A. Beidler, C. Bailey, R. Cook. Allocation of onroad
 

mobile emissions to road segments for air toxics modeling in an urban area. Transport. Res. Part D 9: 139-

150, 2004. 

7

 California Air Resources Board (CARB), Roseville Rail Yard Study, October 14, 2004; and CARB, Diesel 

Particulate Matter Exposure Assessment Study for the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, April 2006. 8

 EPA does not agree with California’s methodology to determine cancer risks. 

9 Environmental Science & Technology, 2007, 41, 8512–8518.
 

4
 
09-P-0125 

Figure 1-2: U.S. Ports and Areas Exceeding Air Quality Standards as of 

March 2007. 

Source: EPA Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Control of Emissions From New 

Marine Compression-Ignition Engines at or Above 30 Liters per Cylinder. 

Federal Register: December 7, 2007, Volume 72, Number 235, pp. 69522-69552. 

The figure depicts counties which were designated nonattainment for either or 

both the 8-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and 

PM2.5 NAAQS as of March 2007. It also shows the location of mandatory class I 

Federal areas for visibility. 

Areas of the country where air pollution levels persistently exceed the 

ambient air quality standards10 may be designated as "nonattainment" 

areas. In 2007, 31 U.S. sea ports were located in nonattainment areas for 

ozone, fine particulate matter, or both. Further, in March 2008, EPA 

strengthened the air quality standards for ground-level ozone, revising the 

present 8-hour ozone standard from 0.084 to 0.075 parts per million 

(ppm). Many additional counties with ports are projected to be in 

nonattainment for the 0.075 ppm 8-hour ozone standard. According to 

EPA’s Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, EPA’s goal is to 

improve the air quality in areas where it is unacceptable and prevent 

deterioration in areas where the air is relatively free of contamination. 

In addition to public health impacts, serious public welfare and 

environmental impacts are associated with mobile source emissions at 

10 EPA has established National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for six pollutants common 

throughout the United States. These include ozone and particulate matter. 

5
 
09-P-0125 

ports. Pollutants such as NOx, SOx, and fine particulate matter (PM2.5) can 

impair visibility in many parts of the United States. These pollutants 

contribute to structural damage to bridges and other structures by 

corrosion or erosion, and damage the exteriors of buildings, monuments, 

and other culturally important articles. Finally, NOx and SOx emissions 

from diesel engines contribute to increased acidity and higher amounts of 

dissolved chemical nutrients (especially nitrogen and sulfur) in water 

bodies. For example, airborne NOx from diesel and other sources 

contributes about 32 percent of the excess nitrogen load to the Chesapeake 

Bay, North America’s largest and most biologically diverse estuary, home to 

more than 16 million people and 3,600 species of plants, fish, and animals.11 

Projected Port Growth and Impacts 

Generally, port emissions are expected to grow substantially over the next 

several decades, with oceangoing vessels showing the largest growth. 

According to EPA, excluding further regulatory controls,12 NOx emissions 

from oceangoing vessels are projected to more than double by 2030, 

growing to 2.1 million tons a year (or 34 percent of U.S. mobile source 

NOx emissions).13 

In 2007, Category 3 marine engines (large oceangoing vessel engines)14 

emitted more than half of the mobile source SOx inventory for the entire 

United States (almost 530,000 tons). According to EPA, without further 

regulatory controls, these emissions are expected to increase to 

approximately 1.4 million tons by 2030, or 95 percent of mobile source 

emissions. Without additional regulations or controls, some source 

categories will represent an increasingly larger percentage of the Nation’s 

mobile source emissions inventory. Figure 1-3 illustrates the projected 

emissions of NOx, PM2.5, and SO2 for mobile sources categories as a 

percentage of the total U.S. mobile source inventory in 2001 and 2030. 

11 EPA Relying on Existing Clean Air Act Regulations to Reduce Atmospheric Deposition to the Chesapeake 

Bay and Its Watershed, EPA Office of Inspector General, Report No. 2007-P-00009, Feb. 28, 2007. 12 On October 9, 2008, the International Maritime Organization (IMO) adopted new international standards 

for NOx from oceangoing vessel engines and sulfur in their fuels. Estimates in this report do not reflect 

potential reductions that may be achieved from recent revisions to IMO Annex VI standards. As discussed 

in Chapter 2, EPA will need to assess the impacts of these revisions on the Agency’s ability to meet its 

responsibilities under the CAA. 

13 These projections are based on growth rates ranging from 1.7 to 5.0 percent per year, depending on the 

geographic region (2007 EPA Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking). 

14 For the purpose of emission regulations, marine engines are divided into three categories based on 

displacement (swept volume) per cylinder. Each of the categories represents a different engine technology. 

Category 1 and Category 2 marine diesel engines are used to provide propulsion power on many kinds of 

vessels including tugboats, pushboats, supply vessels, fishing vessels, and other commercial vessels in and 

around ports. They are also used as stand-alone generators for auxiliary electrical power on many types of 

vessels. Category 3 marine diesel engines are very large and are used for propulsion power on oceangoing 

vessels such as container ships, oil tankers, bulk carriers, and cruise ships. 

6
 
09-P-0125 

Figure 1-3: Projected Emissions Contributions of Mobile Source Categories 

as a Percentage of the Total U.S. Mobile Source Inventory for 2001 and 

2030, Based Upon Current Regulations. 

Figure 1-3-a: Mobile Source Category NOx Emissions as a Percentage of Total 

U.S. Mobile Source Emissions Inventory. 

0 

10 

20 

30 

40 

50 

60 

70 

Percent Total 

Mobile Emissions 

OGV 

C1 & C2 

LOCO 

Land NRD 

HWY 

Other NRD 

Air 

Sources 

2001 

2030 

Figure 1-3-b: Mobile Source Category PM2.5 Emissions as a Percentage of Total 

U.S. Mobile Source Emissions Inventory. 

0 

15 

30 

45 

Percent Total 

Mobile Emissions 

OGV 

C1 & C2 

LOCO 

Land NRD 

HWY 

Other NRD 

Air 

Sources 

2001 

2030 

7
 
09-P-0125 

Figure 1-3-c: Mobile Source Category SO2 Emissions as a Percentage of Total 

U.S. Mobile Source Emissions Inventory. 

0 

25 

50 

75 

100 

Percent Total 

Mobile Emissions 

OGV 

C1 & C2 

LOCO 

Land NRD 

HWY 

Other NRD 

Air 

Sources 

2001 

2030 

Legend for Figure 1-3-a to 1-3-c: 

OGV Oceangoing Vessels 

C1 & C2 Category 1 and Category 2 marine engines15
 

LOCO Locomotives 

Land NRD Land-based nonroad diesel 

HWY Highway
 

Other NRD Other nonroad diesel 

Air Aircraft 

Source: OIG analysis of EPA Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking; Control of 

Emissions of From New Marine Compression-Ignition Engines at or Above 30 

Liters per Cylinder; Proposed Rule. Federal Register pp. 69522-69552, 

December 07, 2007. 

Increasing emissions at ports can be attributed to rising demands in 

international trade, as well as expanded port infrastructure. The Panama 

Canal is being expanded to accommodate larger oceangoing vessels and 

allow for more frequent use. According to the Panama Canal Authority, 

the expansion is scheduled to be completed in 2014. This expansion will 

include a new wider, deeper channel that will allow larger ships to pass 

through and the number of ships to increase. To accommodate the 

increased cargo volume attributable to the Panama Canal expansion, some 

Eastern U.S. and Gulf Coast ports are expected to significantly increase 

their capacity. 

Figure 1-4 illustrates the expected growth in container trade projected at 

selected U.S. ports between 2004 and 2020. 

15 These engines are typically are used to provide propulsion power on many kinds of vessels including 

tugboats, pushboats, supply vessels, fishing vessels, and other commercial vessels in and around ports. 

8
 
09-P-0125 

Figure 1-4: Projected Growth in U.S. Maritime Container Trade at Selected 

U.S. Ports (2004-2020) 

Source: American Society of Civil Engineers 2005 Report Card for America’s 

Infrastructure, U.S. Department of Transportation. 

For example, according to the U.S. Department of Transportation, by 2020 

the Port of Savannah is projected to increase its container traffic by over 

400 percent. Similarly, the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach 

(combined) and Houston are expected to increase their container traffic by 

over 300 percent. Increased cargo volume means more activity for cargohandling equipment, heavy-duty trucks, harbor craft, and locomotives. 

This type of growth will add to air quality concerns in these areas. 

Appendix A provides details on projected growth at U.S. ports due to 

container shipping and port expansion plans. 

EPA’s Multipronged Approach to Reducing Emissions at U.S. 

Ports 

EPA employs three main approaches to reduce emissions from portrelated mobile sources. These approaches include (1) developing emission 

standards and regulations, (2) using voluntary strategies to promote 

emission reductions from existing diesel engines, and (3) participating in a 

U.S. delegation to establish new international standards for oceangoing 

vessel emissions. 

EPA Regulatory Authority 

The Clean Air Act (CAA) seeks to protect human health and the 

environment by authorizing EPA to set limits on how much of a pollutant 

9
 
09-P-0125 

can be in the air anywhere in the United States. EPA’s goal is to ensure 

that all Americans have the same basic health and environmental 

protection. To achieve this goal, the CAA authorizes EPA to regulate 

significant sources of pollution from nonroad sources. Specifically, 

Section 213 of the CAA directs the Administrator to issue (and, from time 

to time, revise) regulations containing emission standards for those classes 

or categories of new nonroad engines or new vehicles which the 

Administrator determines to be significant contributors to air pollution. 

Since the 1990 amendments to the CAA, EPA has issued various 

regulations to control emissions from the five major categories of port 

pollution. For example, the Agency has issued regulations for oceangoing 

vessels, heavy-duty diesel trucks, cargo-handling equipment, harbor craft, 

and locomotives. Appendix B contains a detailed description of EPA 

progress to date in each of these categories. 

A key program EPA uses to address air emissions from port sources is the 

National Clean Diesel Campaign (NCDC). EPA launched the NCDC in 

2004 to mitigate the impact of diesel emissions on public health and the 

environment. The NCDC includes both regulatory and voluntary 

approaches. EPA stated that the NCDC works aggressively to reduce 

pollution from diesel engines across the country through implementing 

varied control strategies and involving national, State, and local partners. 

The NCDC established a collaborative process to help States meet the 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards and other air quality goals. The 

NCDC attempts to help reduce emissions from a variety of industrial 

sectors including ports, freight, construction, and agriculture. 

Key EPA Voluntary Strategies – Clean Ports USA Program, 

SmartWay Transport Partnership, and Regional Diesel 

Collaboratives 

Operating under the umbrella of the NCDC, EPA established the Clean 

Ports USA program in 2005 to address diesel emissions from port sources 

through the use of voluntary strategies. Clean Ports USA is an incentivebased, voluntary program designed to reduce emissions from existing 

diesel engines and nonroad equipment at ports. The strategies provided as 

part of the Clean Ports USA program include a list of technological 

strategies (e.g., clean fuel, retrofit, repair, rebuild, repower, and 

operational strategies) for stakeholders, as well as information on grants 

and other funding opportunities. Another component of the NCDC is the 

SmartWay Transport Partnership, a program between EPA and the freight 

sector to voluntarily reduce greenhouse gas and air pollution emissions. 

While the NCDC and Clean Ports USA programs are national in scope, 

EPA said that much growth in these programs will come from focused 

partnerships and collaborative efforts at the State and local level, including 

regional diesel collaborative initiatives. The goal of these collaboratives is 

10
 
09-P-0125 

to create partnerships with businesses, government, community 

organizations, and other stakeholders at the regional level in an effort to 

reduce diesel emissions. According to EPA, regional diesel collaboratives 

are able to acquire funding for local projects in addition to what can be 

provided at the national level for local emission reduction projects. The 

NCDC and the seven regional diesel collaboratives are broad-based efforts 

to reduce diesel emissions and do not necessarily focus on those sources 

specifically operating at ports. 

EPA’s Work with the International Maritime Organization 

In addition to the Agency’s regulatory efforts and promoting voluntary 

initiatives and partnerships, EPA has pursued emission reductions among 

the international community through negotiations at the International 

Maritime Organization (IMO). Created in Geneva in 1948, the IMO's 

main task has been to develop and maintain a comprehensive regulatory 

framework for shipping. Its scope of activity today includes safety, 

environmental concerns, legal matters, technical cooperation, maritime 

security, and shipping efficiency. 

One function of the IMO is to administer the International Convention for 

the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973, as modified by the Protocol 

of 1978 (known as MARPOL). The purpose of MARPOL is to minimize 

sea pollution, including dumping, oil, and exhaust pollution. MARPOL 

Annex VI specifically relates to air pollution from ships. Annex VI was 

adopted in 1997 and entered into force in May 2005. It applied to engines 

installed on ships constructed on or after January 1, 2000, or engines that 

undergo a major conversion on or after that date. The IMO originally 

estimated that Annex VI standards would result in a 30 percent reduction 

in new engine NOx emissions. However, the actual reduction will be 

significantly smaller, perhaps on the order of 15 to 20 percent by 2030, 

due to the long transition time required for new engines to enter the fleet, 

according to EPA. 

In February 2007, the U.S. delegation submitted a proposed revision to 

MARPOL Annex VI which included long-term standards for NOx, PM, 

and SOx based on advanced technology and providing industry with 

appropriate lead time. In April 2008, an IMO subcommittee reached 

agreement on revised standards for MARPOL Annex VI that were similar 

to those proposed by the U.S. In October 2008, parties to MARPOL 

Annex VI adopted new international standards for NOx emissions for 

marine diesel engines above 130kW (including oceangoing vessel 

engines) and the sulfur content of fuel used onboard ships (to address SOx 

and PM emissions). At the same time, according to EPA, the U.S. 

deposited its instrument of ratification with the IMO and adopted 

amendments to the "Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships,” a U.S. Act 

11
 
09-P-0125 

which makes it possible for the U.S. to enforce the Annex VI standards for 

foreign-flagged vessels that enter U.S. ports and territorial waters. 

Noteworthy Achievements 

Through its regulatory process, EPA has successfully implemented several 

emission reduction requirements for port sources. For example, the 

Agency has issued emission standards that apply to engines on heavy-duty 

diesel trucks, cargo-handling equipment, small marine vessels, and 

locomotives. While emission reductions from these regulations may not 

be fully realized for several years, EPA projects its rulemakings to achieve 

significant emission reductions from these categories of port sources by 

2030. 

In addition to these regulations, the Agency has helped to reduce 

emissions from the existing fleet of diesel engines operated at U.S. ports 

through its NCDC. Some examples include: 

•	 Retrofitting cargo-handling equipment at the Port of Tacoma with 

emission reduction technology. 

•	 Using low sulfur diesel fuel at the Ports of Boston, Houston, and 

New York/New Jersey. 

•	 Retrofitting rubber tire gantry cranes, stackers, and tractors at the 

Port of Boston with emission reduction technology. 

•	 Facilitating installation of shore power infrastructure at the Los 

Angeles, Long Beach, and Seattle ports. 

Scope and Methodology 

We conducted our evaluation from November 2006 to December 2008. 

We conducted a site visit to the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, 

interviewed managers and staff and collected data from eight EPA 

regions, one State agency, three port authorities, and one global shipping 

company. We designed and implemented a survey to collect data on 

EPA’s efforts to reduce air emissions at 18 of the largest U.S. ports. 

We conducted this performance evaluation in accordance with generally 

accepted government auditing standards. Those standards require that we 

plan and perform the evaluation to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence 

to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on 

our evaluation objectives. We believe the evidence obtained provides a 

reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our evaluation 

objectives. Appendix C provides details on our scope and methodology. 

12
 
09-P-0125 

Chapter 2

Recent Agency and International Actions Have 

Potential to Significantly Reduce Harmful Emissions 

from Oceangoing Vessel Engines 

To date, EPA’s actions to address air emissions from oceangoing vessel 

engines in U.S. ports and along U.S. coastlines have not been successful in 

achieving EPA’s clean air goal of protecting and improving air quality. 

The CAA provides EPA with the authority to promulgate standards to 

regulate emissions from oceangoing vessel engines when these emissions 

cause significant harm to human health. Oceangoing vessels contribute 

significantly to elevated air pollution levels in many nonattainment areas 

around U.S. ports. For over 14 years, EPA has acknowledged that human 

health is being significantly harmed by air emissions from these vessels in 

U.S. ports. While EPA has issued regulations for air emissions from most 

other port sources, to date EPA has only regulated NOx emissions, and 

only from U.S.-flagged vessel engines. 

EPA has not regulated any air emissions from foreign-flagged vessel 

engines in U.S. ports, although these vessels account for approximately 90 

percent of all U.S. port calls. EPA has chosen to defer taking a position on 

whether the Agency has authority to regulate air emissions from foreignflagged vessel engines. EPA decided not to issue emission standards for 

oceangoing vessel engines while negotiating with IMO to set more 

stringent standards. This decision not to issue emission standards has 

delayed controlling emissions from foreign-flagged vessels entering U.S. 

ports. However, after many years, EPA’s efforts to work with the IMO 

have the potential to significantly reduce oceangoing vessel emissions. In 

October 2008, the IMO adopted new international standards for NOx 

emissions from oceangoing vessel engines and the sulfur content of fuels 

used by such vessels. Still, EPA must work with the IMO to establish 

Emission Control Areas (ECAs) if significant reductions are to be realized 

from foreign-flagged vessels. 

Air Emissions from Large Oceangoing Vessel Engines 

Have Been Essentially Unregulated by EPA 

In 1994, EPA proposed to regulate emissions from oceangoing vessel 

engines along with other nonroad engine sources. However, due in part to 

comments to the proposal, EPA chose to delay the establishment of 

emission standards for oceangoing vessel engines. 

To date, EPA has not developed emission standards for large diesel 

engines, known as Category 3 marine engines, except for a NOx standard 

13
 
09-P-0125 

issued in 2003. Also, EPA’s NOx standard only applies to engines on U.S. 

vessels, which represent about 10 percent of U.S. port calls. Category 3 

marine engines emit significant amounts of air pollution in and around 

ports, as well as along U.S. coastlines. For example, the SCAQMD in 

California stated in 2007 that marine vessels in the South Coast Air Basin 

(which includes Los Angeles) emitted more nitrogen oxides than the 

combined total of all refineries, power plants, and the other 350 largest 

stationary sources in the area. 

NOx 

In its 2003 rulemaking, EPA set its NOx standards for U.S.-flagged vessel 

engines equivalent to the Tier 1 standards adopted by the IMO in 

MARPOL Annex VI in 1997. These international standards allow 

oceangoing vessel engines to emit relatively high levels of NOx. For 

example, EPA’s NOx standards for heavy-duty diesel trucks16 are from 36 

to 63 times more stringent than those for Category 3 oceangoing vessel 

engines, depending on engine speed. EPA’s 2003 NOx emission standards 

for oceangoing vessel engines are projected to result in a 20 percent 

reduction in NOx emissions from oceangoing vessel engines by 2030. 

According to EPA, without more stringent controls on Category 3 

oceangoing vessel engines, NOx emissions from oceangoing vessels are 

projected to more than double by 2030, growing to 2.1 million tons a year. 

According to EPA’s projections, Category 3 oceangoing vessel engine 

emissions alone would represent 34 percent of all U.S. mobile source NOx 

emissions. 

PM and SOx 

In its 2003 rulemaking, EPA’s regulation for Category 3 marine engines 

did not contain any emissions limits or standards for PM or SOx, although 

PM and SOx emissions from such engines are expected to increase 

substantially in the future. PM2.5 emissions are expected to almost triple 

to become 45 percent of U.S. mobile source PM2.5 emissions by 2030, and 

SOx emissions are expected to increase to 94 percent of mobile source 

emissions at that time.17 A 2007 study estimated that PM2.5 emissions 

16 Office of Transportation and Air Quality (OTAQ) representatives said comparing emission standards 

between mobile source sectors should be made on “an equivalent technology basis.” According to OTAQ, 

Tier 1 Category 3 marine engine standards should not be compared against Tier 4 onroad standards. They 

suggested a more appropriate comparison might be between Tier 1 Category 3 standards and Tier 2 

nonroad standards. We believe it is illustrative to compare the existing standards since, prior to 1993, 

heavy-duty diesel trucks used fuel with 5,000 ppm sulfur, but now use fuel with 15 ppm sulfur, a more than 

99 percent reduction achieved over approximately the same period of time that EPA has acknowledged that 

human health is being significantly harmed by oceangoing vessel emissions in U.S. ports. It is also 

illustrative because EPA overcame concerns about the potential impact to diesel engines, costs, and lead 

time for manufacturers and refineries. 

17 Particulate matter is a complex mixture of extremely small particles and liquid droplets. Particles are 

made up of a number of components, including acids (such as nitrates and sulfates) and organic chemicals. 

The size of particles is directly linked to its potential for causing health problems. “Fine particles” are 

those particles that are 2.5 micrometers in diameter and smaller. There is a NAAQS standard for PM2.5 . 

14
 
09-P-0125 

from ships are responsible for approximately 8,800 deaths in North 

America annually.18 

Although EPA has not issued a standard for SOx emissions, the Agency 

said in its 2003 rule that it fully expected that vessels would comply with 

the IMO Annex VI standards, which included a fuel standard for SOx. 

The Tier 1 fuel standards in Annex VI require that oceangoing vessels use 

fuel with a sulfur content less than or equal to 45,000 parts per million 

(ppm).19 These standards allow oceangoing vessels to use residual fuel, 

which is a waste product of the oil refining process and produces high SOx 

and direct sulfate PM emissions. It is the least expensive fuel that 

oceangoing vessels can burn. When residual fuel is burned, it emits high 

levels of SOx. The higher the sulfur content in the fuel, the greater the 

SOx and PM emissions. The former OTAQ Associate Director said that 

residual fuel with a sulfur content of 50,000 ppm would be the highest 

sulfur fuel that a Category 3 engine would be capable of burning. By 

comparison, the EPA standard for sulfur content in fuel used in onhighway diesel engines (such as trucks and buses) in the United States is 

set at 15 ppm. Thus, the SOx emission standard for cars, trucks, and some 

other nonroad sources is 3,000 times more stringent than the standard for 

Category 3 marine diesel engines. EPA said it would consider requiring 

lower sulfur fuel in a future rulemaking. 

CO, HC, and Air Toxics 

In its 2003 rulemaking, EPA’s regulation for Category 3 marine engines 

did not contain any emissions limits or standards for carbon monoxide 

(CO), hydrocarbons (HC), or air toxics. EPA stated in its 2003 

rulemaking that CO and HC emission standards for oceangoing vessel 

engines may be necessary to prevent increases in these pollutants that 

might otherwise result from controlling NOx emissions alone. EPA also 

has not established any air toxics emission standards for Category 3 

marine engines on oceangoing vessels. The Agency expects to achieve air 

toxic emissions reductions as a co-benefit of reducing SOx and PM 

emissions in a future rulemaking requiring use of lower sulfur fuel in 

marine diesel engines. 

During our fieldwork, OTAQ told us the Agency did not have a timetable 

for regulating CO or HC emissions from oceangoing vessel engines 

because EPA’s focus should be on higher priority SOx, NOx, and PM 

emissions. However, in its comments to our draft report the Agency stated 

that “EPA’s approach to addressing HC and CO has evolved since the IG 

discussed this with OTAQ representatives.” The Agency now plans to 

18 Corbett, James J., James J. Winebrake, Erin H. Green, Prasad Kasibhatla, Veronika Eyring, and Axel
 

Lauer, Mortality from Ship Emissions: A Global Assessment, Journal of Environmental Science & 

Technology, 2007, 41, 8512-8518. 

19 A standard of 45,000 ppm allows for sulfur concentrations of up to 4.5 percent of the fuel, by weight. 

15
 
09-P-0125 

address emission limits for CO, HC, and air toxics in its Category 3 

marine engine rule scheduled to be finalized in December 2009. 

EPA Has Chosen to Defer Taking a Position on Whether It Has 

Authority to Regulate Foreign-Flagged Vessel Engine Emissions 

For more than 14 years, EPA has not taken a position on whether it has the 

authority to regulate emissions from foreign-flagged vessel engines when 

operating in and around U.S. ports. The issue concerns interpreting the 

words “new nonroad engines” in the Clean Air Act. The Act provides that 

EPA may regulate new nonroad engines. In a draft notice of proposed 

rulemaking (Draft Notice),20 EPA stated it would be reasonable to 

interpret new nonroad engines to include marine engines installed on 

foreign-flagged vessels that enter U.S. ports. According to EPA’s Office 

of General Counsel, EPA has identified arguments both for and against 

this interpretation. EPA included in a draft proposed rule to OMB 

arguments supporting such an interpretation, stating that the Agency “has 

discretion in interpreting [CAA] section 213 as it applies to new marine 

engines and vessels, and is considering which interpretation is most 

appropriate from a policy perspective.” In its final rule, EPA did not 

interpret new nonroad engines to include engines installed on foreignflagged vessels. 

After more than 5 years, EPA still has not taken a position on whether 

such an interpretation would be reasonable in light of the language and 

purpose of section 213 of the CAA. Therefore, according to OTAQ and 

the Office of General Counsel, this issue is still before the Agency, and 

will be considered again in a 2009 Category 3 marine engine rulemaking. 

The Agency’s rationale for not taking a position is detailed in Appendix 

D. The OIG believes strong arguments support the conclusion that EPA 

has the authority under the Clean Air Act to regulate foreign-flagged 

vessel engine emissions when operating in and around U.S. ports. 

EPA Stated a Need to Regulate Foreign-Flagged Vessel Engine 

Emissions in 2002 

EPA identified marine diesel engines as a significant source of emissions 

that could be regulated under Section 213 of the CAA. Section 213(a)(3) 

requires EPA to adopt regulations that contain standards reflecting the 

greatest degree of emission reductions achievable through the application 

of technology that will be available, taking into consideration the 

availability and costs of the technology, and noise, energy, safety factors, 

and existing motor vehicle standards. In 2002, EPA indicated in its Draft 

Notice to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) that it was 

appropriate to regulate emissions from new engines installed on foreign20 Draft Proposal for the Control of Emissions from New Marine Compression-Ignition Engines at or 

Above 30 Liters/Cylinder, documents forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget, April 5, 2002, 

EPA Docket ID No.EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0045-0077. 

16
 
09-P-0125 

flagged vessels. EPA stated in its Draft Notice to OMB that emissions 

from foreign-flagged vessel engines contributed significantly to air quality 

problems in the U.S. Therefore, EPA regulation of engines on these 

vessels would be consistent with the goal of CAA Section 213. EPA 

stated that: 

...it may be appropriate and within EPA’s authority to treat 

engines on foreign vessels that enter U.S. ports as new engines and 

subject to regulation under section 213 based on their significant 

emissions contribution to air quality problems in the United States. 

Further, the Agency indicated that “the significance of... [marine engine] 

emissions in coastal areas and port cities, warrants interpreting ‘new 

nonroad engine’ under section 213 to include marine engines on foreign 

vessels....” 

The Draft Notice (a) requested comments on the merits of regulating 

foreign-flagged vessel engine emissions, and (b) stated that EPA might 

decline to regulate foreign-flagged vessel emissions “because of the 

potential implications that setting engine emission standards for foreign 

vessels might have on international commerce and future international 

negotiations....” After interagency and OMB review, EPA deleted the 

rationale for regulating foreign-flagged vessel engine emissions. 

However, EPA requested comments on the merits of regulating foreignflagged vessel engine emissions in the notice the Agency subsequently 

issued. EPA received comments both supporting and opposing regulation 

of foreign-flagged vessel engine emissions. Ultimately, according to 

OTAQ, the Agency deferred addressing the issue to a future rulemaking. 

In its 2003 rule, EPA said that by April 2007 it would consider regulating 

emissions from foreign-flagged vessels as new engines under section 213 

of the CAA. However, EPA did not adopt more stringent standards for 

emissions from large oceangoing vessel engines by this date but instead 

extended the deadline for addressing such emissions until December 2009. 

Agency Efforts Have Only Recently Resulted in an 

International Agreement Which Could Achieve Substantial 

Emission Reductions 

EPA, through a U.S. delegation, has worked through the IMO to gain 

international consensus to establish more stringent emission standards for 

oceangoing vessel engines. Due in part to EPA’s efforts, and the U.S. 

proposal, the IMO revised Annex VI standards in 2008. Over the 14 year 

period (1994 to 2008) since EPA first proposed to regulate emissions from 

oceangoing vessel engines, EPA only issued emission standards for NOx 

from Category 3 U.S.-flagged oceangoing vessel engines, and these 

standards only matched the existing international NOx standards 

(Appendix E provides a timeline of EPA’s efforts to regulate oceangoing 

vessel engines since 1990). The revised Annex VI standards have the 

potential to result in substantial emission reductions. 

17
 
09-P-0125 

In 1994, EPA proposed more stringent NOx emission standards for 

Category 3 marine engines than those contained in Annex VI. The 

Agency also proposed to regulate emissions of CO, HC, and PM. Annex 

VI did not establish emissions standards for any of these other pollutants. 

However, several commenters requested that EPA “harmonize” its 

proposed emission standards for U.S marine diesel engines with the 

IMO’s emissions standards. Due in part to these comments, EPA delayed 

its development of further emission standards for Category 3 marine 

engines until 2003. 

EPA stated in its 2003 rule that its standards would not result in any 

emission reductions beyond the Annex VI standards.21 The Agency 

deferred promulgating more stringent emission standards for Category 3 

engines on both U.S. and foreign-flagged vessels to April 2007. In its 

2003 rule, EPA stated that: 

We [EPA] believe that deferring this decision may help facilitate 

the adoption of more stringent consensus international standards... 

Adoption of appropriate international consensus standards has the 

clear potential to maximize the level of emission reductions from 

domestic and international vessels.

22 

Proposed Revisions to MARPOL Annex VI Adopted 

In February 2007, the U.S. Government developed a proposal for the IMO 

to revise MARPOL Annex VI emission standards. In April 2008, the IMO 

Marine Environment Protection Committee reached agreement on revising 

these standards, and this agreement has the potential to significantly 

reduce emissions from U.S.- and foreign-flagged oceangoing vessel 

engines. These standards were adopted by parties to MARPOL Annex VI 

in October 2008. 

The IMO agreement provides for revised NOx emission standards for both 

new and existing engines. It also provides for limits on the percentage of 

sulfur contained in marine engine fuel. This percentage varies depending 

on whether a vessel is operating inside or outside of an IMO-designated 

Emission Control Areas (ECAs). A lower sulfur percentage would be 

required inside ECAs than would be required outside ECAs. For example, 

proposed reductions include reducing: 

•	 NOx by 80 percent beginning in 2016 from new vessels in 

designated ECAs; and 

21 International standards for Category 3 marine engines were adopted in September 1997. These standards 

were not enforceable until a sufficient number of member countries ratified the treaty in May 2005. 22 Control of Emissions From New Marine Compression-Ignition Engines at or Above 30 Liters Per 

Cylinder; Final Rule; Federal Register/Vol. 68, No. 40/Friday, February 28, 2003, page 9759. 

18
 
09-P-0125 

•	 SOx by 93 percent beginning in 2015 for all vessels operating 

in designated ECAs. 

Comparing the IMO Agreement and the U.S. Proposal 

Neither the IMO agreement nor the U.S. proposal contains standards for 

CO, HC, or air toxics. According to OTAQ representatives, the Agency 

does not have a timetable for regulating CO or HC emissions from 

oceangoing vessel engines because the foreseeable benefits would not be 

significant. The Agency expects to achieve air toxic emissions reductions 

as a co-benefit of reducing PM and SOx emissions. 

The IMO agreement differs from the U.S. proposal in a number of ways 

including the following five ways: 

•	 It requires NOx percentage reductions that are either within the 

lowest range or slightly below the level recommended in the U.S. 

proposal23 for emissions from engines on vessels constructed after 

January 1, 2011. 

•	 In regard to engines on existing vessels, both contain the same 

recommended standard for NOx. However, the agreement would 

apply a NOx standard to engines on vessels constructed 5 years 

later than the date in the U.S. proposal (1990 instead of 1985). 

•	 In regard to sulfur emissions, while both contain the same 

standard for sulfur content in fuel, the agreement provides for 

achieving a sulfur level goal (0.1 percent of fuel composition in 

Emissions Control Areas) 4 years after the date in the U.S. 

proposal (2015 instead of 2011). 

•	 The agreement does not establish an emissions limit for SOx but 

does allow alternative means to meet the fuel standard for the 

limits on the percentage of sulfur contained in fuel. In contrast, 

the U.S. proposed a performance-based approach for reducing 

sulfur emissions. Under this approach, in addition to proposed 

sulfur limits, the U.S. proposal contained a specific SOx standard 

(0.4 g/kW-hr) which might be met by different compliance 

methods, such as exhaust gas cleaning technology. 

•	 The agreement also does not contain specific PM standards. In 

contrast, the U.S. proposed PM standards (from 0.2 to 0.5 g/kWhr) that would vary according to engine characteristics. The U.S. 

proposal provided that these PM standards could be met by 

seawater SOx scrubbers or low sulfur fuel. 

23 The U.S. proposed a Tier 2 NOx limit ranging from 15 percent to 25 percent below the current limit and a 

Tier 3 NOx limit 80 percent below the Tier 2 NOx limit. The agreement calls for a Tier 2 NOx limit 15.3 - 

21.4 percent (depending on engine speed) below the current limit and a Tier 3 NOx limit 74.0 - 76.4 percent 

(depending on engine speed) below the Tier 2 NOx limit (80 percent below tier 1) for emissions from 

marine diesel engines above 130 kilowatts (kW) installed on vessels constructed after January 1, 2011. 

19
 
09-P-0125 

Appendix F provides a summary of the revised Annex VI standards 

adopted in October 2008. 

Importance of IMO Emission Control Areas 

According to the IMO agreement, the most stringent SOx and NOx 

standards will only apply in ECAs. Where an ECA is not established, 

oceangoing vessels can use fuel with a sulfur content up to 35,000 ppm 

until 2020, and up to 5,000 ppm thereafter. By comparison, in areas 

where an ECA is established, oceangoing vessels will be required to use 

fuel with a sulfur content of 10,000 ppm by 2010 and 1,000 ppm by 2015. 

The IMO agreement will not reduce NOx emissions more than 15.3 

percent below the current Annex VI standards where an ECA has not been 

established. In contrast, where an ECA has been established, oceangoing 

vessels must reduce NOx emissions by 80 percent from the current Annex 

VI standards. Therefore, ECAs must be established if significant SOx and 

NOx emission reductions are to be realized. 

Next Steps in the IMO Process 

The IMO adopted new international standards for NOx emissions from 

oceangoing vessel engines and the sulfur content of fuels used by such 

vessels in October 2008. In addition, in October 2008, the U.S. ratified 

Annex VI. According to OTAQ, EPA is now preparing an ECA 

application that implements the proposed geographic-based standards 

along U.S. coasts. The application must be submitted to and approved by 

the IMO prior to becoming effective. EPA will need to work with its 

Federal partners to prepare an ECA application for U.S. coastal areas. 

Among other things, the application will describe the adverse health and 

environmental impacts caused by oceangoing vessel emissions to U.S. 

populations, terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems, critical habitats, water 

quality, and areas of cultural and scientific significance. The most 

immediate emissions reductions possible for the U.S. from the IMO 

agreement would be from establishing an ECA. Therefore, the U.S. 

expeditiously submitting an application for an ECA is important. 

EPA’s Delay in Controlling Oceangoing Vessel Engine 

Emissions May Have Long-Term Effects 

Delays in establishing additional emissions regulations for oceangoing 

vessels may result in uncontrolled emission levels for some pollutants and 

a growing fleet of unregulated diesel engines. These emissions contribute 

to pollution levels in many nonattainment areas in the United States. New 

unregulated engines have the potential to contribute pollution to these 

areas for several decades. In its 2007 proposal, the United States informed 

the IMO that emissions from oceangoing vessels prevent many areas in 

the United States from attaining ambient air quality levels that protect 

20
 
09-P-0125 

human health and the environment. As shown in Table 2-1, emissions 

from large commercial marine engines account for substantial percentages 

of mobile source inventories in many port areas. 

Table 2-1: Contribution of Commercial Marine Vesselsa to Mobile Source 

 Inventories for Selected Ports in 2002 

Port Area 

NOx 

Percent 

PM 2.5 

Percent SOx Percent 

Baltimore, MD 12 27 69 

Beaumont, TX 6 20 55 

Boston, MA 4 5 30 

Charleston, SC 22 33 87 

Galveston, TX 5 12 47 

Houston, TX 3 10 41 

Jacksonville, FL 5 11 52 

Los Angeles/Long Beach, CA 5 10 71 

Miami, FL 13 25 66 

New Orleans, LA 14 24 59 

New York/New Jersey, NY/NJ 4 9 39 

Oakland, CA 8 14 80 

Port Everglades, FL 9 20 56 

San Francisco, CA 1 1 31 

Savannah, GA 24 39 80 

Seattle, WA 10 20 56 

South Louisiana, LA 12 24 58 

Tacoma, WA 20 38 74 

Valdez, AK 4 10 43 

Wilmington, NC 7 16 73 a

This category includes emissions from Category 3 propulsion engines, as well as Category 2 

and 3 auxiliary engines used on oceangoing vessels. 

Source: EPA Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Control of Emissions From New 

Marine Compression-Ignition Engines at or Above 30 Liters per Cylinder. 

Federal Register: December 7, 2007, Volume 72, Number 235, pp. 69522-69552. 

Table VIII-4, p. 69547. 

At least one nonattainment area may not meet the 8-hour ozone standard 

by the deadline established by EPA because of emissions from large 

oceangoing vessel engines. A representative from California’s SCAQMD 

told us that EPA standards for oceangoing vessels would not reduce 

emissions enough for the Los Angeles area to achieve air quality standards 

for ozone and particulate matter. In 2006, the California Air Resources 

Board (CARB) adopted emission limits for auxiliary diesel engines that 

were more stringent than EPA’s current standards for these engines. 

However, the Pacific Merchant Shipping Association challenged 

California’s authority to enforce these standards, and the Court found that 

CARB lacked authorization to enforce such standards.24 

24 Pacific Merchant Shipping Association v. James Goldstene, No. 07-16695 (9th Cir. Feb. 27, 2008). 

The Federal District Court found that CARB needs EPA authorization under Clean Air Act, Section 209(e) 

to enforce such standards; upheld on appeal. 

21
 
09-P-0125 

According to EPA, the average age of an oceangoing vessel in the global 

fleet is 25 years. Delays in establishing additional emissions regulations 

for oceangoing vessels result in uncontrolled emission levels for some 

pollutants and a growing fleet of unregulated diesel engines. These 

emissions contribute to pollution levels in many nonattainment areas in the 

U.S. New unregulated engines have the potential to contribute pollution 

to these areas for several decades into the future. 

Conclusions 

Recent EPA and international actions have the potential to significantly 

reduce harmful air emissions from oceangoing vessel engines if an ECA is 

established for the U.S. The international agreement addresses harmful 

emissions from oceangoing vessels differently, and in some instances less 

stringently, than the U.S. delegation’s February 2007 proposal to the IMO. 

In the event that additional actions to address oceangoing vessel emissions 

are warranted in the future, EPA should determine its authorities to 

regulate air emissions from foreign-flagged vessels in U.S. ports, and 

report any limitations to Congress. The Agency also needs to show how 

the IMO provisions meet the Agency’s responsibilities under the Clean 

Air Act. 

Recommendations 

We recommend that the Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation: 

2-1 Assess EPA's authorities and responsibilities under the CAA to 

regulate air emissions from foreign-flagged vessel engines in U.S. 

ports, in light of the new IMO Treaty, and report any shortfalls in 

such authorities to Congress. EPA should include in its analysis 

key air pollutants emitted by Category 3 marine engines not 

covered by the IMO Treaty and show how the Agency will meet its 

responsibilities under the CAA. 

2-2 Assess the extent to which Emission Control Areas (ECAs) should 

be designated for all U.S. coastal areas, under the revised Annex 

VI provisions. For all areas where ECAs are needed, ensure that 

the appropriate application materials and supporting 

documentation are submitted to the IMO in a timely manner. 

Agency Comments and OIG Evaluation 

The Agency said that it concurred, with comment, with Recommendation 

2-1. However, EPA did not agree to assess its authorities and 

responsibilities under the CAA to regulate air emissions from foreignflagged vessel engines in U.S. ports and report that assessment to the 

Congress. EPA’s comments were not responsive and do not satisfy the 

22
 
09-P-0125 

intent of the recommendation. Due to the length of time it has taken EPA 

to get more stringent standards for oceangoing vessel engines by working 

with the IMO, we believe that EPA should conduct such an assessment 

and report any shortfalls in its authorities to Congress. We consider 

Recommendation 2-1 to be open and unresolved. 

The Agency concurred with Recommendation 2-2, with comment. EPA 

stated that it is working with other U.S. Government agencies and the 

Government of Canada to develop a comprehensive application to 

establish ECAs along all U.S. and Canadian coasts. We view this effort as 

being essential to any significant reduction of emissions from oceangoing 

vessels in or approaching U.S. ports. The actions the Agency outlined in 

its response to Recommendation 2-2 satisfy the intent of our 

recommendation. 

The Agency also provided several technical clarifications and comments 

on Chapter 2. We made changes to the final report based on these 

comments, as appropriate. The Agency’s complete written response is in 

Appendix I. Our evaluation of the Agency’s response is in Appendix J. 

23
 
09-P-0125 

Chapter 3

Implementing EPA’s Approach to Reducing Air 

Emissions at U.S. Ports Needs Improving 

EPA has not successfully implemented all the key elements of its 

approach to address air emissions at U.S. ports. EPA’s approach generally 

falls under the scope of the National Clean Diesel Campaign (NCDC), and 

consists of (1) developing standards and regulations, (2) using voluntary 

initiatives to promote emission reductions from existing diesel engines, 

and (3) supporting the establishment of revised international emission 

standards for oceangoing vessel engines (as discussed in Chapter 2). 

However, regulations to significantly reduce emissions from oceangoing 

vessel engines have not been established by the Agency, and were only 

recently adopted by the IMO. Additionally, despite the emphasis that 

EPA has placed on voluntary partnership programs, such as those within 

the NCDC and regional diesel collaboratives, voluntary initiatives had not 

been implemented through these programs at many U.S. ports. 

During our evaluation, EPA built upon its NCDC efforts by developing 

and publishing a Strategy for Sustainable Ports (Strategy). This Strategy 

is an Agency-wide, multi-media effort which includes goals and objectives 

for addressing key environmental issues at U.S. ports, as well as some 

timeframes for action. However, EPA’s Strategy lacks an adequate 

transformation plan for achieving the Strategy’s goals. For example, the 

Strategy does not include appropriate performance measures, milestones, 

and other management controls for many of the action items in it. As a 

result, EPA’s Strategy lacks the management framework and controls 

necessary to assure that it will be successfully executed. 

EPA’s Approach Is Incomplete 

EPA’s approach to reducing emissions from U.S. ports includes 

developing emission standards and regulations for the five major 

categories of port sources. EPA has issued regulations to significantly 

reduce emissions from heavy-duty diesel trucks, cargo-handling 

equipment, harbor craft, and locomotives. If properly implemented and 

enforced, EPA projects that these regulations will achieve significant 

emission reductions from each of these four categories of port sources 

over the years. EPA projects that these regulations will achieve the 

following emissions reductions: 

Heavy-Duty Diesel Trucks – 2.6 million tons of NOx and 109,000 

tons of PM emissions annually by 2030. 

24
 
09-P-0125 

Cargo-Handling Equipment – over 129,000 tons of PM2.5 and 

738,000 tons of NOx emissions annually by 2030.25 

Harbor Craft and Locomotives – 27,000 tons of PM2.5 and 800,000 

tons of NOx emissions annually by 2030 (for both harbor craft and 

locomotives combined). 

However, implementation of EPA’s approach is incomplete because it has 

not yet been successful in promulgating regulations to significantly reduce 

emissions from oceangoing vessels. As discussed in Chapter 2, 

oceangoing vessel engine emissions are a significant and growing source 

of emissions. For example, in 2007, large oceangoing vessel engines 

emitted more than half of the mobile source SOx inventory for the entire 

U.S. (almost 530,000 tons). The Agency’s lack of success in establishing 

more stringent emission standards for Category 3 marine diesel engines 

has been a significant limitation to the implementation of EPA’s approach 

to controlling air emissions at U.S. ports. The revised Annex VI 

standards, adopted by the IMO in October 2008, should help advance 

EPA’s approach to reducing air emissions at U.S. ports. 

Limited Data to Verify Results of Voluntary Actions 

Another component of EPA’s approach involves voluntary initiatives to 

reduce emissions from the existing legacy fleet of diesel engines. These 

voluntary initiatives are important because of the long useful life of many 

diesel engines, and because EPA regulations generally apply only to 

newly built engines.26 Implementation of EPA’s Strategy for Sustainable 

Ports27 relies heavily on a voluntary partnership with key stakeholders in 

the port sector. The success of many action items in the strategy hinges on 

the voluntary participation of port authorities, private marine terminal 

operators, and other entities within the marine transportation system. 

However, we found EPA has little data to demonstrate the results of the 

voluntary activities to control air emissions at U.S. ports. 

Each port is unique in its operations and the impacts that it has on the air 

quality in surrounding communities. As such, EPA needs reliable 

information on emissions sources at each individual port to understand the 

challenges each port faces in reducing its emissions. We asked OTAQ 

personnel to list all significant port-related air quality projects for which 

25 The projected emission reductions represent all nonroad diesel engines subject to EPA’s 2004 Nonroad 

Diesel Rule. Cargo handling equipment operating at ports are subject to these standards, but emission 

reductions from these sources represent only a portion of the overall projected emission reductions. 

26 Beginning in 2008, EPA required that marine diesel engines above 600 kW and locomotives built in or 

after 1973 meet more stringent emission limits when they are remanufactured, if a certified remanufacture 

system is available (73 FR 25098). The MARPOL Annex VI amendments also contain a similar program 

for existing marine engines that will begin to apply as soon as kits are certified. 

27 EPA’s Strategy for Sustainable Ports, issued in February 2008, is discussed later in Chapter 3 and in 

Appendix H. 

25
 
09-P-0125 

EPA Headquarters provided complete or partial funding from fiscal years 

(FY) 2002 through FY 2007. OTAQ identified 24 projects EPA had 

supported at ports throughout the country. However, OTAQ only 

provided results for 5 of the 24 emission reduction projects listed. OTAQ 

did not provide results for 19 of the projects listed. These projects were 

either listed as “ongoing,” or had not yet started. According to OTAQ, 13 

of the 24 projects were funded in FY 2004, FY 2005, or FY 2006 but were 

still listed as ongoing projects with no results. Because OTAQ did not 

provide results for the majority of the projects it listed, the success or 

failure of those projects could not be assessed. 

The Agency has not obtained consistent and reliable emissions data on 

voluntary initiatives that would allow for evaluation. However, according 

to OTAQ, EPA encourages local government and port authorities to 

quantify air emissions. The Agency has several tools to estimate 

emissions reductions by modeling, including the MOBILE and 

NONROAD emission inventory models, the Diesel Emissions Quantifier, 

and the FLEET model. While EPA can use these tools to estimate 

emission reductions, the tools rely on EPA verified technologies. They 

also rely on activity data provided by the project (e.g., hours of operation, 

age, and other properties of the affected vehicles). According to OTAQ, 

improvements to the Diesel Emissions Quantifier and FLEET models are 

underway to expand the scope of the fleets it evaluates. 

According to OTAQ, it completed an additional modeling tool, called 

DrayFLEET, after our draft report was issued. This model was developed 

to assist terminal operators and drayage28 companies in evaluating 

emissions reduction efforts. OTAQ also said that the SmartWay Transport 

Partnership is working with its stakeholders to develop an emissions 

database. According to OTAQ, this database will interface with existing 

logistics models currently used by major shippers to make shipping 

choices that minimize the environmental impacts of goods movement on a 

systemwide basis. 

EPA has contributed funding and technical assistance for developing 

emission inventories for some U.S. ports.29 Nevertheless, according to the 

Director of OTAQ, a consistent baseline emissions inventory has not been 

established for many U.S. ports. In its Strategy for Sustainable Ports, EPA 

committed to work with the 75 largest ports in the U.S. to develop 

baseline emission inventories. If this initiative is successful it may aid 

EPA in evaluating the effectiveness of future emission reduction activities. 

28 The term “dray” means any vehicle, such as a truck, used to haul goods, especially one used to carry 

heavy loads. 

29 According to OTAQ, EPA has funded efforts to establish emissions inventories for ports in the Pacific 

Northwest, and a project for the Port of Los Angeles and the Port of Shanghai to work together on 

emissions inventory issues. OTAQ said EPA has also reviewed, commented, or provided technical 

assistance on numerous port emissions inventories (e.g., Baltimore, Houston, Los Angeles, Long Beach, 

MASSPORT (Boston), New York/New Jersey, Seattle, Tacoma, and Vancouver (Washington). 

26
 
09-P-0125 

Voluntary Initiatives Have Not Been Implemented at Many 

U.S. Ports 

EPA utilizes several voluntary partnership programs that impact ports. A 

voluntary “partnership” program, according to EPA’s 2006 definition:30

 •	 is designed to proactively target and motivate external parties to 

take specific environmental action steps; 

•	 does not compel by law external parties to take environmental 

action steps; and 

•	 [is one where] EPA is responsible for providing leadership and 

decision-making authority [for the partnership]. 

According to OTAQ, EPA provides multiple ways for ports to participate 

in its programs. Port stakeholders can work on diesel emissions 

reductions programs on their own (i.e., by using EPA verified 

technologies), through their State air agencies, with EPA Headquarters, or 

via EPA regional collaboratives. Regional diesel collaboratives, Clean 

Ports USA, and EPA’s technology verification program are all key 

partnership programs in EPA’s NCDC. In addition, EPA’s SmartWay 

Transport program includes freight owners and carriers, many of whom 

operate in and around ports. However, EPA’s voluntary initiatives to 

reduce air emissions from port sources have not been implemented at 

many U.S. ports 

Opportunities Exist to Improve Participation in Regional 

Diesel Collaboratives 

Regional diesel collaboratives are a significant component of the 

Agency’s overall effort to reduce diesel emissions. Six of eight EPA 

regions we surveyed identified their respective regional diesel 

collaboratives as key elements of their strategies to address emissions 

from port sources. Nonetheless, we found that many sea ports located in 

nonattainment areas for either ozone or particulate matter were not 

participating in regional diesel collaboratives. Of 31 U.S. sea ports 

located in nonattainment areas for ozone or PM2.5, 14 were not 

participating in regional diesel collaboratives. Five of the 14 ports not 

participating in diesel collaboratives were located in nonattainment areas 

for both ozone and PM2.5. Appendix G provides details on participation in 

regional diesel collaboratives by ports located in nonattainment areas. 

OTAQ and the EPA regions we surveyed cited multiple reasons for lack of 

port participation in regional diesel collaboratives. These included: 

30 EPA, OPEI Definition of EPA Partnership Programs, December 2006. 

27
 
09-P-0125 

•	 many small ports do not have the resources to attend meetings of 

the collaboratives (which focus on many sectors, such as school 

buses, transit buses, agriculture, etc); 

•	 some port authorities are not convinced of a need to participate in 

collaborative efforts; 

•	 smaller ports may not see a need to participate in a collaborative 

because they do not experience the magnitude of air quality issues 

associated with large ports; 

•	 some State environmental agencies do not participate in port 

workgroups organized by regional collaboratives; 

•	 some port authorities do not have staff devoted to managing 

environmental issues; and 

•	 ports have not been a focus of diesel collaborative efforts in one 

EPA region. 

Because regional diesel collaboratives are a key component of EPA’s 

voluntary partnership program, and a tool for reducing emissions from 

port sources, the Agency needs to proactively target and motivate port 

stakeholders to participate in these collaborative efforts, particularly for 

those ports located in nonattainment areas. 

EPA Verified Technologies Are Major Component of Voluntary 

Emission Reduction Efforts, But Funding is Limited 

One of the key resources that EPA has in promoting voluntary emission 

reductions is its ability to independently verify engine retrofit 

technologies. Through EPA’s technology verification efforts, the Agency 

certifies that certain retrofit technologies will achieve the emission 

reductions claimed by the manufacturer. EPA uses data from projects 

employing verified technologies to estimate emission reductions for clean 

diesel activities. 

According to EPA’s Diesel Retrofit Technology Verification Website, 

EPA and CARB have verified 22 nonroad engine retrofit technologies.31 

However, OTAQ said that more nonroad retrofit technologies could be 

developed. According to OTAQ staff, manufacturers have only just begun 

to project an adequate market volume for certain nonroad retrofit 

technologies. Continued Agency work in this area may help to broaden 

the menu of EPA-verified technologies available to source owners and 

operators. For example, no verified retrofit devices exist for three of the 

seven retrofit technologies identified by the Clean Ports USA Website.32 

Ports are hesitant to adopt new technologies that are not verified because 

31 CARB also verified nonroad engine technologies that were recognized by EPA under a reciprocity 

agreement. For nonroad engines, EPA has verified 4 engine retrofit technologies, and CARB has verified 

18. All 22 technologies are officially recognized by EPA. 32 At the time we surveyed OTAQ in 2007, EPA had not verified any Lean NOx Catalyst Closed Crankcase 

Ventilation or Exhaust Gas Recirculation retrofit technologies for nonroad engines. 

28
 
09-P-0125 

they cannot risk interrupting their business operations, according to a 2006 

report by the Clean Air Act Advisory Committee.33 Further EPA work 

with manufacturers may result in a broader list of verified nonroad retrofit 

devices that could be applied to voluntary emission reduction activities at 

ports. 

Despite the fact that EPA acknowledges the importance of verified 

technologies in obtaining voluntary emission reductions, funding for 

EPA’s Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) program was 

discontinued in FY 2007. The ETV program provided a complementary, 

independent role for OTAQ’s technology verification program.34 

According to OTAQ representatives,35 discontinuing funding for the ETV 

program may impact EPA’s technical coordination with industry 

stakeholders, and result in delays in getting products verified. 

Limited Resources for Implementing EPA’s Efforts to Reduce 

Port Emissions 

In responding to our 2007 survey, OTAQ and EPA regions said that 

obtaining more funding for voluntary and incentive programs was one of 

the most important options available to EPA for reducing diesel emissions 

from port sources. EPA’s regulations generally only apply to newly built 

engines. The existing fleet of diesel engines may last up to several 

decades before being replaced by new engines subject to EPA regulations. 

Thus, EPA’s initiatives also need to address the existing fleet. 

Port emission reduction activities can be costly to implement. For 

example, the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach developed a 

comprehensive plan (the San Pedro Bay Clean Air Action Plan) to address 

air emissions at their ports. The estimated cost to implement the San 

Pedro Bay Clean Air Action Plan exceeds $2 billion over a 5-year period 

(2006-2011).36 A bond initiative for California’s Goods Movement Plan 

is expected to fund over half of the San Pedro Bay Clean Air Action 

Plan’s total cost. The Port Authorities of Los Angeles and Long Beach, as 

33 Recommendations for Reducing Emissions From the Legacy Diesel Fleet. Report from the Clean Air 

Act Advisory Committee, April 10, 2006. 

34 OTAQ and EPA’s Office of Research and Development work in partnership to verify engine retrofit 

technologies and certify emission reductions. OTAQ works with manufacturers to assure that the engines 

are appropriately tested in the ETV process. OTAQ is responsible for interpreting the ETV testing results 

and assigning the appropriate level of emission reductions for the engine technologies. 35 The key OTAQ representatives were a manager in the Innovative Strategy Group, a team leader for the 

Diesel Retrofit Technology Verification Team, and an engineer for the Compliance and Innovative 

Strategies Division. 

36 The San Pedro Bay Clean Air Action Plan describes measures that the Ports of Los Angeles and Long 

Beach will take toward reducing emissions related to port operations. The major stakeholders involved in 

the plan’s development were the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, California’s South Coast Air 

Quality Management District, the California Air Resources Board, and U.S. EPA Region 9. 

29
 
09-P-0125 

well as the SCAQMD, have budgeted over $400 million to implement the 

plan. 

EPA has attempted to leverage Federal funding with partnerships formed 

through efforts such as regional diesel collaboratives. Only recently has 

EPA begun to allocate funding for port emission reduction activities. In 

FY 2003, EPA Region 9 was the only Region that committed funding to 

port emission reduction activities. OTAQ did not allocate any funds for 

Federal grants for port emission reduction activities in FY 2002 or FY 

2003. According to OTAQ, EPA had its first port-related demonstration 

grants under the Clean Air Act in FY 2004 ($368,000). Our survey results 

show that over the 6-year period from FY 2002 to FY 2007, EPA 

headquarters and regions collectively contributed less than $5.3 million for 

air quality projects that impacted the ports in our sample.37 

Some EPA regions with major U.S. ports did not allocate funds for port 

emission reduction activities until FY 2006 or later. For example, EPA 

Region 4, with over 35 key ports, did not commit any funding to address 

port air quality issues until FY 2006. Region 4 cited the fact that the 

majority of ports in its Region were in attainment of EPA’s National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards as the primary reason for not allocating 

funds to address these sources. Although ports may be located in 

attainment areas, emissions from port sources can still have a significant 

impact on local communities. For example, EPA’s 2003 marine rule cited 

local air quality impacts from ports in Wilmington, NC, and Miami, FL 

(both located in EPA Region 4) as examples of why EPA action was 

necessary to control marine engine emissions. 

In FY 2008, Congress appropriated approximately $50 million to help 

reduce emissions from diesel engines.38 While not all of this funding is 

allocated for the port sector, port stakeholders are eligible to receive some 

of this grant funding, according to OTAQ. Port authorities, State and local 

governments, and other eligible entities can apply for competitive Federal 

grants under this program to deploy verified and certified technologies for 

reducing diesel emissions. Additionally, funding from the Congestion 

Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) Improvement Program can be used 

for projects that reduce pollution from port sources, such as on-highway 

trucks and construction equipment.39 

37 For 18 major ports, we asked OTAQ and 8 EPA regions to identify all port-related air quality projects 

that they contributed partial or complete funding to from FY 2002 to FY 2007 (Appendix C lists the 18 

ports). EPA headquarters contributed about $2.7 million to 24 such projects from FY 2002 to FY 2007, 

and EPA regions funded 21 projects over the same time with approximately $2.5 million. Because OTAQ 

and EPA regions responded individually to our survey, some of the projects identified and the funds 

claimed may have been duplicated.

38 Under authority of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. 

39 According to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Congress adopted 

the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act in 1991. This law authorized the CMAQ program, 

and provided $6.0 billion in funding for surface transportation and other related projects that contribute to 

30
 
09-P-0125 

EPA’s New Strategy for Sustainable Ports Lacks a 

Transformation Plan 

In February 2008, EPA released its Strategy for Sustainable Ports. 

According to OTAQ, the Strategy is multi-media oriented, and cuts across 

the various EPA offices to leverage Agency resources and opportunities to 

work with ports towards sustainability. OTAQ stated that the Strategy is 

intended to bring together the various programs that deal with ports across 

the Agency. It was developed with the participation of EPA Regional and 

Assistant Administrators through Regional Leadership Forums to address 

the environmental implications of port operations and growth. Two 

forums have been held: the first was held in September 2006 at the Ports 

of Los Angeles/Long Beach; the second in September 2007 at the Port of 

New York/New Jersey. 

EPA’s Strategy has six themes, one of which directly relates to air quality 

issues at U.S. ports. The Agency has committed to several action items 

and goals as part of this Strategy. While this Strategy is a step in the right 

direction, it does not contain all the components necessary to assure its 

success. Specifically, EPA’s Strategy does not contain a transformation 

plan which would link strategies to goals through programs, milestones, 

and metrics. EPA provided us with a draft, working document that 

generally identified lead and participating offices and regions for the 

action items in its Strategy; however, the Strategy does not clearly link 

action items to desired outcomes. 

The stated mission of EPA’s Strategy for Sustainable Ports is to: 

...collaborate with marine port authorities, their business partners 

and port communities to promote sustainability and to minimize 

the negative effects of inter-modal marine and land-side goods 

movement on human health and the environment. 

However, parts of the Strategy related to reducing air emissions in ports 

do not have milestone dates for achieving many of the specific action 

items listed. For example, four of five action items listed under the 

“Goods Movement Actions” section (Clean Air and Affordable Energy 

theme) of the Strategy do not provide milestone dates as to when those 

actions are expected to be completed. Further, some action items in the 

Strategy contain vague language as to how the Agency will complete the 

item or how success will be measured. For example, 7 of 16 action items 

listed under the “Clean Air and Affordable Energy” theme of the Strategy 

air quality improvements and reduce congestion. However, prior to passage of the Safe, Accountable, 

Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) in 2005, CMAQ funds 

were not eligible for offroad diesel retrofit projects. 

31 
09-P-0125 

use vague directives, such as “utilize,” “work with,” “collaborate,” and 

“actively work with.” Examples include: 

•	 “1.B. Utilize existing EPA programs, such as the National 

Clean Diesel Campaign, Regional Diesel Retrofit 

Collaboratives, and Smartway Transport to promote emission 

reductions in the supply chain.” 

•	 “1.E. Work with ports to encourage their business partners to 

establish meaningful (LEED-like) agreements with SmartWay 

Transport Partners (e.g., freight owners) to reduce the impacts 

of shipping goods by using cleaner fuels and more efficient 

routes, operations & technologies.” 

•	 “1.P. Participate actively in the DOT/MARAD National 

Congestion Initiative, the Committee on Marine System 

Transportation, and other relevant efforts.” 

None of the action items listed above present information that indicates 

how EPA plans to execute the action, or how and when performance will 

be measured. Appendix H provides details on EPA’s Strategy for 

Sustainable Ports that relate to air quality issues. 

Our detailed review of three EPA regions’ efforts at the Ports of New 

York/New Jersey, Houston, Long Beach, and Los Angeles demonstrated 

that some EPA regions have assisted some ports on an individual basis in 

implementing clean diesel initiatives. For example, EPA Regions 2 and 6 

worked through their respective regional diesel collaboratives to help 

facilitate clean diesel activities at the Ports of New York/New Jersey and 

Houston. Similarly, EPA Region 9 staff assisted in developing a 

comprehensive strategic plan to address air emissions at the Ports of Los 

Angeles and Long Beach. 

EPA’s Strategy for Sustainable Ports lacks appropriate performance 

measures, milestones, and other management controls that would enable 

the Agency to transform its strategic goals into measurable results. It also 

contains vague language as to how some action items are to be completed. 

These deficiencies raise concerns as to whether the Strategy can be 

successfully executed. OTAQ representatives noted that an Agency-wide 

team is updating the Strategy. 

Conclusions 

The Agency’s implementation of voluntary initiatives to reduce emissions 

from port sources has been hampered by a lack of emissions data, 

participation, and funding. EPA regulations requiring further air emission 

reductions from oceangoing vessel engines have not been promulgated. 

Nevertheless, EPA has made some progress towards improving air quality 

in port areas through its initiatives. EPA has developed a Strategy for 

Sustainable Ports in an effort to leverage Agency resources and 

32
 
09-P-0125 

opportunities across various EPA offices to work proactively with ports 

towards sustainability. The multi-media strategy establishes goals and a 

general direction for EPA’s ports initiatives. 

However, EPA’s strategy does not include the management controls 

necessary to execute, oversee, and measure the success of its approach to 

addressing air quality issues at ports. Despite recognizing the significance 

of air quality issues from port sources, EPA’s strategy only provides 

general guidance for coordinating efforts to reduce emissions from U.S. 

port sources. The Agency has not developed a transformation plan to link 

its desired strategic results with the actions that EPA regions and 

stakeholders need to take. EPA’s strategy should include designations of 

accountability and responsibility with appropriate milestones, performance 

measures, and other management controls. Currently, EPA’s strategy 

lacks the management framework and controls, as well as an assessment 

of the resources, necessary to successfully implement it. 

Recommendation 

We recommend that the Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation: 

3-1 Revise the Strategy for Sustainable Ports to include a transformation 

plan with appropriate designations of authorities and responsibilities, 

milestones, performance measures, other management controls, and 

an assessment of resources, to assure the Agency’s port-related 

efforts under the NCDC are successfully implemented. 

Agency Comments and OIG Evaluation 

The Agency generally agreed with the importance of establishing 

milestones, performance measures, and other reporting requirements to 

ensure successful implementation of EPA’s port-related efforts. EPA also 

agreed that a general lack of funding has hampered implementation of 

voluntary initiatives at ports. However, EPA disagreed with our finding 

that voluntary initiatives had not been effectively implemented at many 

U.S. ports, and stated that participation in regional diesel collaboratives is 

not sufficient to judge whether a port is engaged with EPA to voluntarily 

reduce air pollution. EPA also said that the Strategy for Sustainable Ports 

was not an appropriate vehicle for closely monitoring progress toward 

reducing air emissions at ports. EPA further stated that it already had 

management processes in place that are adequate for the broader purposes 

for which the Strategy for Sustainable Ports was developed. 

We disagree with the Agency. We continue to believe that voluntary 

initiatives have not been effectively implemented at many U.S. ports. 

EPA identified regional diesel collaboratives as key elements of its 

NCDC. These collaboratives are significant parts of EPA’s effort to 

33
 
09-P-0125 

reduce emissions from port sources through voluntary initiatives, thus we 

focused on port participation in these programs. Although the Agency has 

provided multiple ways for ports to participate in voluntary emission 

reduction programs, EPA has yet to address air emissions from ports with 

a focused, comprehensive management plan that specifically targets air 

quality improvements in port areas. 

EPA’s Strategy for Sustainable Ports was the strategic plan for reducing 

pollution at U.S. ports that EPA provided to the OIG and which the 

Agency has provided to the public. The Strategy for Sustainable Ports 

remains a public document on EPA’s Website with its stated purpose 

being to “... support existing and new EPA programs and projects that 

will produce measurable results within the next 18 months....” The 

Agency’s NCDC does not have a specific strategy to direct the Agency’s 

port-related efforts. If EPA intends for its efforts to reduce air emissions 

from U.S. ports to remain outside of the Strategy for Sustainable Ports, 

then an appropriate framework for overseeing these activities should be in 

place. We concluded that such a framework is not in place. Given the 

health and environmental impacts of air emissions in port areas, and the 

projected growth in these emissions, we believe that EPA needs to develop 

a plan to address the major sources of air emissions at ports that EPA 

plans to reduce. The plan should include appropriate designation of 

authorities and responsibilities, milestones, performance measures, other 

management controls, and an assessment of resources to transform the 

Agency’s port-related efforts under the NCDC into successful 

implementation. We consider this recommendation open and unresolved. 

The Agency’s complete written response is in Appendix I. Our evaluation 

of those comments is in Appendix J. 

34
 
09-P-0125 

Status of Recommendations and 

Potential Monetary Benefits 

POTENTIAL MONETARY 

RECOMMENDATIONS BENEFITS (in $000s) 

Rec. 

No. 

2-1 

2-2 

3-1 

Page 

No.

22 

22 

33 

 Subject 

Assess EPA's authorities and responsibilities under 

the CAA to regulate air emissions from foreignflagged vessel engines in U.S. ports, in light of the 

new IMO Treaty, and report any shortfalls to 

Congress. EPA should include in its analysis key 

air pollutants emitted by Category 3 marine 

engines not covered by the IMO Treaty and show 

how the Agency will meet its responsibilities under 

the CAA. 

Assess the extent to which Emission Control Areas 

(ECAs) should be designated for all U.S. coastal 

areas, under the revised Annex VI provisions. For 

all areas where ECAs are needed, ensure that the 

appropriate application materials and supporting 

documentation are submitted to the IMO in a timely 

manner. 

Revise the Strategy for Sustainable Ports to 

include a transformation plan with appropriate 

designations of authorities and responsibilities, 

milestones, performance measures, other 

management controls, and an assessment of 

resources, to assure the Agency’s port-related 

efforts under the NCDC are successfully 

implemented. 

Status1 

U 

O 

U 

Action Official 

Assistant Administrator for 

Air and Radiation 

Assistant Administrator for 

Air and Radiation 

Assistant Administrator for 

Air and Radiation 

Planned 

Completion 

Date 

Claimed 

Amount 

Agreed To 

Amount 

1 O = recommendation is open with agreed-to corrective actions pending 

C = recommendation is closed with all agreed-to actions completed 

U = recommendation is undecided with resolution efforts in progress 

35
 
09-P-0125 

Appendix A 

Projected Growth of U.S. Ports Due to 

Container Shipping 

Since 1995 container growth worldwide has increased by at least 10 percent every year 

and this growth is expected to continue. A Bureau of Transportation Statistics report 

shows that one in every nine maritime containers in the world is either bound for or 

coming from the United States. The United States expects to have total container traffic 

(imports and exports) of greater than 60 million containers in 2010 and 110 million in 

2020. See Figure A-1. 

Figure A-1: Historic and Projected Increases in U. S. Container Traffic (TEUs)40 

Source: PowerPoint presentation by John Horsley, Executive Director, American Association of State 

Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), February 13, 2007. 

Contributing to this growth is the use of very large container ships (post-Panamax)41 and 

the use of these large ships is occurring globally. Through the economies of scale 

achieved by deploying these ships on major trade routes between Asia, Europe, and 

North America, many more containers are moving through ports worldwide. The 

proposed widening of the Panama Canal (projected completion in 2014) would bring 

40 Twenty-Foot Equivalent Unit (TEU) is a unit of measurement equal to the space occupied by a standard 

20-foot container. It is used in stating the capacity of container vessel or storage area. 

41 Post-Panamax and Over-Panamax are the terms used to describe ships larger than Panamax that do not 

fit in the current Panama Canal. The current canal can handle vessels of 5,000 TEU, after expansion, the 

Panama Canal is expected to be able to handle vessels up to 12,000 TEU. 

36
 
09-P-0125 

more post-Panamax ships to ports along the Gulf of Mexico and the East Coast of the 

United States. 

In order to receive the growth in container traffic, by 2020 every major U.S. container 

port is expected to double the volume of cargo it must process with East Coast ports 

tripling in volume and some West Coast ports quadrupling in volume. Table A-2 shows 

the projected increases of specific ports by 2020, starting from 2004. This shows the 

anticipated impact of the Panama Canal expansion on port growth. 

Table A-2: Growth of Container Traffic in Selected U.S. Ports 

Port 2004 volume 

(1000 TEUs) 

2020 Volume 

(1000 TEU) 

Increase 

(Percent) 

Seattle 1,776 2,557 44 

Tacoma 1,798 4,396 144.5 

Oakland 2,043 3,382 65.5 

Los Angeles/Long Beach 13,101 59,420 353.6 

Houston 1,437 6,165 329 

Miami 1,010 2,152 113.1 

Savannah 1,662 9,420 466.8 

Charleston 1,860 6,639 256.9 

Virginia 1,809 5,566 207.7 

New York/New Jersey 4,478 15,835 253.6 

Source: American Society of Civil Engineers – 2005 Report Card for America’s Infrastructure, U.S. 

Department of Transportation. 

Table A-3 on the next page shows examples of actual and planned port expansion 

projects for selected ports contained in our survey (see Appendix C). 

37
 
09-P-0125 

Table A-3: Examples of Actual and Planned Expansion Projects in Selected U.S. 

Ports 

Port Examples of Increasing Port Capacity 

Seattle • Plans building a capacity by 2013 of 4 million TEUs, including planned 

transfer of 32 acres from cruise operation into an expanded 70-acre 

container handling facility ($125 million). 

Tacoma • Plans to build a $300 million, 168-acre container terminal. 

• investing in its near-terminal rail facility, including a $10.5 million capital 

project. 

• Developing a logistics center south of Olympia, Washington. 

Oakland • Half of the former Oakland Army Base was conveyed to the port (2003 and 

2006). 

• Negotiations with the two class I carriers-BNSF and Union Pacific, to 

establish an expanded intermodal rail facility (September 2007). 

• Current 5-year plan allocates $341 million in capital investment for the port. 

• Priority at Oakland is deepening both its channel and berth areas. 

Long Beach • Port of Long Beach sees no capacity issues surfacing in the next 2-5 years. 

• ''Green Port'' covenants with two of its seven major cargo terminals. The 

more recent-carried in a long-term lease agreement with International 

Transportation Service, Inc. (a subsidiary of NYK Line) targets a 90-percent 

reduction in air pollution. 

Houston • Bayport Container Terminal at Houston will be expanded over the next 15-

20 years as market conditions dictate. Eventual container traffic capacity at 

the site will be 2.3 million TEUs, which will triple container traffic at the site. 

• Bayport facility follows the 2005 completion of a 5-year effort to deepen the 

port's main channel from 40-45 feet, while widening that channel from 400-

530 feet. 

Miami • Federal water bill includes authorization for the Miami Harbor Project: an 

Army Corps of Engineers deepening of the 6,200-foot wharf to 50 feet. 

• Nearly $1 billion 1.1 mile underground Miami Tunnel Project, which would 

give truckers ''seamless access from the Interstate'' (currently, the port's 

considerable truck traffic is routed through surface streets). 

• New $90 million cruise ship facility, multi-level garage, new office space, 

and bulk head improvements. 

Savannah • Savannah Harbor Expansion Project will deepen the harbor to 48 feet 

(before the Panama Canal improvements are completed). 

• Georgia Port Authority wants to raise the port's potential capacity to 6.5 

million TEUs by 2018. 

Charleston • The port expansion includes a $600 million terminal at the former Navy 

base. 

• $300 million highway to take terminal traffic to I-26. 

Virginia 

(Norfolk, Newport News, 

Portsmouth, Hampton 

Roads, and the Virginia 

Inland Port in Front 

Royal) 

• Renovation of Norfolk International Terminal-South (by 2010) will add eight 

new Suez class cranes to operation and completely re-figure the back 

lands. At NIT-North, 1,900 linear feet of new berth is being added, with 

new cranes. 

• Increase TEU capacity from 2.1 million to 3 million. 

• Heartland Corridor, slated for completion late in 2009 (a major inland port 

project). 

New York/ • $1.7 billion investment package to pay for reconfiguring existing terminals, 

New Jersey deepening harbors and berths, and improving inland rail access. 

• The Port Authority acquired a 153-acre parcel in nearby Bayonne, New 

Jersey ($50.5 million, September 2007). 

Source: America's Ports Take on the Challenge of Trade Growth, World Trade Magazine, February 2008. 

38
 
09-P-0125 

Appendix B 

Key EPA Regulations for Five Major Sources 

of Port Emissions 

Oceangoing Vessels 

The EPA has undertaken a parallel regulatory effort for oceangoing vessels, setting 

emissions standards for U.S.-flagged vessels under the Clean Air Act (CAA) while 

seeking international standards for foreign-flagged vessels under the International 

Maritime Organization (IMO). 

In February 2003, EPA adopted Tier 1 NOx emission standards for Category 3 new 

marine diesel engines that would be installed on vessels flagged or registered in the 

United States. This regulation did not apply to foreign-flagged vessels which were held 

to an equivalent set of international standards under the International Maritime 

Organization. These standards went into effect in 2004 and were based on readily 

available emission-control technology. EPA committed to issue a second tier of more 

stringent standards for Category 3 marine engines by April 2007. At the same time, EPA 

continued to work as part of the U.S. delegation to the IMO to seek more stringent 

international standards for oceangoing vessels. 

EPA has since delayed its Tier 2 standards for Category 3 marine engines, citing a need 

for additional time to evaluate new data becoming available on control technologies for 

this category of engines. EPA issued a rule on April 27, 2007, that extends the deadline 

to issue Tier 2 rules for Category 3 marine engines to December 17, 2009. Further, on 

December 7, 2007, EPA issued an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to invite 

comment from all interested parties on its plan to propose new emission standards and 

other related provisions for new Category 3 engines. EPA is considering standards for 

achieving large reductions in NOx and PM with technologies such as in-cylinder controls, 

after-treatment, and low sulfur fuel, starting as early as 2011. 

Heavy-Duty Diesel Trucks 

In 2001, EPA issued a rule that established new PM and NOx emission standards for 

heavy-duty highway engines and vehicles. The new standards were required to be phased 

in beginning in 2007, and relied on a low-sulfur fuel requirement (sulfur content of fuel 

was not to exceed 15 ppm) that was required to be in place for all terminal and retail fuel 

stations by September 2006. Because of this rulemaking, EPA projected a reduction of 

2.6 million tons of NOx emissions and an annual emission reduction of 109,000 tons of 

PM by 2030. 

Cargo-Handling Equipment 

In June 2004, as part of the Clean Air Nonroad Diesel Rule, EPA adopted new emission 

standards for nonroad diesel engines and sulfur reductions in nonroad diesel fuel to 

reduce harmful emissions and to help States and local areas designated as 8-hour ozone 

39
 
09-P-0125 

nonattainment areas to improve their air quality. Diesel engines used on cargo-handling 

equipment at U.S. ports were generally subject to these standards. EPA concluded that 

the standards would achieve reductions in PM and NOx emission levels in excess of 95 

percent and 90 percent, respectively. It also concluded that the standards would reduce 

the sulfur level in nonroad diesel fuel by 99 percent. These fuel improvements began to 

take effect in 2007. 

Harbor Craft and Locomotives 

EPA’s standards for small marine diesel engines were adopted in 1998 for engines under 

37 kilowatts (kW), in 1999 for commercial marine engines, and in 2002 for recreational 

marine engines. EPA’s standards provided for various Tier 1 and Tier 2 standards phased 

in from 1999 through 2009, depending on engine size and application. 

In 1999, EPA issued a rule controlling emissions from new marine compression-ignition 

engines for Category 1 and 2 marine diesel engines (i.e., engines generally used on 

harbor craft such as tugboats and fishing vessels). The rule did not set mandatory 

emissions standards for marine compression-ignition engines before 2004. Rather, the 

rule urged manufacturers to voluntarily comply with international standards until the 

proposed Tier 2 standards for Category 1 and Category 2 marine diesel engines were 

scheduled to come into effect. 

EPA’s standards for newly-built and remanufactured locomotives were adopted in 1998 

and were implemented in three tiers (Tiers 0, 1, and 2) between 2000 and 2005. EPA’s 

current program includes Tier 0 emission limits for existing locomotives originally 

manufactured in 1973 or later, that apply when they are remanufactured. The most 

stringent of these existing locomotive and marine diesel engine standards are similar in 

stringency to EPA’s nonroad Tier 2 standards that are now being replaced by Tier 3 and 4 

standards. 

On May 6, 2008, EPA finalized regulations for more stringent emission standards for 

Category 1 and Category 2 diesel marine engines, as well as diesel locomotives. These 

categories include harborcraft vessels found at ports as well as ferries, fishing vessels, 

Great Lakes freighters, and recreational boats. According to EPA, the regulations will, 

by 2030, reduce annual PM2.5 emissions by about 27,000 tons, and annual NOx emissions 

by 800,000 tons. 

The finalized rule is a three-part program to address both new and existing diesel engine 

emissions from these sources. 

First, stringent emission standards for existing locomotives and for existing commercial 

marine diesel engines above 600 kilowatt (kW) (800 horsepower) were adopted. These 

standards apply when the engines are remanufactured. This part of the program will take 

effect as soon as certified remanufacture systems are available, for some engines as early 

as late 2008. Under the existing program, locomotives have been certified to one of three 

tiers of standards: Tier 0 for locomotives originally built between 1973 and 2001, Tier 1 

for those built between 2002 and 2004, and Tier 2 for those built in or after 2005. Under 

the new program, certified locomotive remanufacture systems must be made available by 

40
 
09-P-0125 

2010 for Tier 0 and Tier 1 locomotives, and by 2013 for Tier 2 locomotives. 

Remanufactured systems certified for use in marine engine remanufactures are likewise 

required to be used. 

Second, a set of near-term emission standards, referred to as Tier 3, for newly-built 

locomotives and marine engines, was adopted. The Tier 3 standards reflect applying 

technologies to reduce engine-out particulate matter (PM) and NOx. Longer-term 

standards, referred to as Tier 4, for newly-built locomotives and marine engines, will also 

occur. Tier 4 standards reflect applying high-efficiency catalytic aftertreatment 

technology enabled by the availability of ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel. These standards 

take effect in 2015 for locomotives, and phase in over time for marine engines, beginning 

in 2014. 

Finally, provisions to eliminate emissions from unnecessary locomotive idling were also 

adopted for each of the above described program phases. 

According to EPA, locomotives and marine diesel engines designed to these Tier 4 

standards will achieve PM reductions of 90 percent and NOx reductions of 80 percent, 

compared to engines meeting the current Tier 2 standards. The new standards will also 

yield sizeable reductions in emissions of nonmethane hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide 

(CO), and hazardous compounds known as air toxics. 

41
 
09-P-0125 

Appendix C 

Details on Scope and Methodology 

Our evaluation focused on EPA’s Office of Air and Radiation, Office of Transportation 

and Air Quality (OTAQ), located in Washington, DC, and Ann Arbor, MI. We reviewed 

documentation and interviewed EPA Regions 2 (New York), 6 (Dallas), and 9 (San 

Francisco); and administered a survey to OTAQ and EPA Regions 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, and 

10 as part of our evaluation. The staff we contacted at these EPA offices all dealt with air 

quality issues at U.S. ports to varying extents. We met with EPA’s Office of General 

Counsel, located in Washington, DC. We also interviewed representatives from the 

following non-Federal stakeholder groups: A.P. Moller-Maersk, the California Air 

Resources Board, the Los Angeles/Long Beach Port Community Advisory Committee, 

the Port of Long Beach, the Port of Los Angeles, and the SCAQMD. 

To determine whether Agency actions to address air emissions from oceangoing vessels 

at selected U.S. ports have been effective, we reviewed EPA’s actions related to 

oceangoing vessels dating back to EPA’s 1994 determination that human health is being 

significantly harmed by emissions from large oceangoing vessels in U.S. ports. We 

reviewed EPA’s 1994 final nonroad rule, the Agency’s Advanced Notices of Proposed 

Rulemakings, Proposed, and Final Rulemakings for 1999, 2002, 2003, and 2007, as 

appropriate. We reviewed selected documents in EPA’s docket for these rulemakings, as 

appropriate. We also reviewed the February 2008 testimony of the former Associate 

Director of OTAQ before the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. We 

also interviewed OTAQ officials and reviewed the U.S. proposal to the IMO. 

To determine whether EPA's management plan to address emissions from port sources 

was sufficient to protect human health and the environment at selected major U.S. ports, 

we reviewed documentation and studies related to air quality issues at selected U.S. ports 

including: 

•	 EPA’s Vision, Mission, and Strategy for Sustainable Ports dated February 12, 

2008 

•	 Final 2006 San Pedro Bay Clean Air Action Plan, November 2006. 

•	 U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration report, Vessel Calls 

at U.S. & World Ports 2005. 

•	 Summary Judgment in United States Court of Appeals Case No. 03-1120- 

Bluewater Network v. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Michael O. 

Leavitt, Administrator, United States Environmental Protection Agency. 

•	 EPA’s 2006-2011 Strategic Plan. 

•	 U.S. proposal to the IMO, MARPOL Annex VI, and the NOx, Technical Code: 

Development of Standards for NOx, PM, and SOx. Submitted to the IMO 

Subcommittee on Bulk Liquids and Gases, February 9, 2007. 

•	 Emission inventory and emission reduction efforts documentation for the Ports of 

Houston, Los Angeles, Long Beach, and New York/New Jersey. 

42
 
09-P-0125 

•	 Various EPA regulations for controlling emissions from nonroad sources, 

particularly those regulations relating to heavy-duty trucks, cargo-handling 

equipment, locomotives, and marine diesel engines. 

•	 Studies and stakeholder comments in the EPA docket for selected regulations. 

•	 Journal of Environmental Science & Technology, 2007, 41, 8512-8518, Article 

entitled Mortality from Ship Emissions: A Global Assessment, James J. Corbett, 

James J. Winebrake, Erin H. Green, Prasad Kasibhatla, Veronika Eyring, and 

Axel Lauer. 

As part of the evaluation, we conducted Web reviews and analyzed documentation from 

OTAQ, the American Association of Port Authorities, the International Maritime 

Organization, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the U.S. Department of 

Transportation, among others. We also reviewed information related to the Panama 

Canal Expansion. 

In addition to document reviews, we selected four U.S. ports for more in-depth analysis. 

Based upon size, volume of shipping traffic, and proximity to population centers, we 

chose the ports of Houston, Long Beach, Los Angeles, and New York/New Jersey. Our 

analysis of issues and activities at these ports included reviews of emissions inventories 

for each port, studies of potential health impacts from port pollution, and air emission 

reduction efforts. We interviewed EPA region personnel familiar with port operations 

and Agency activities at each port. We toured the port facilities in Los Angeles and Long 

Beach, and met with staff at EPA Region 9, the California Air Resources Board, 

SCAQMD, A.P. Moller-Maersk, and the Port Authorities for both the Port of Long Beach 

and the Port of Los Angeles. 

We obtained data independently, as part of a survey, to assess the extent of air pollution 

problems and EPA actions at selected ports across the U.S. We surveyed OTAQ and 

eight EPA regions that had coastal or Great Lakes ports located within their jurisdiction. 

As part of our survey, we asked EPA regions to provide information about their efforts to 

reduce air emissions at 18 specific ports. The 18 ports we identified in the survey were: 

the Port of Boston, Port of Providence, Port of New York and New Jersey, Port of 

Camden, Port of Baltimore, Port of Philadelphia, Port of Savannah, Port of Charleston, 

Port of Chicago, Port of Detroit, Port of Houston, Port of Greater Baton Rouge, Port of 

Los Angeles and Port of Long Beach (grouped together for the purposes of the OIG 

survey), Port of Oakland, Port of Seattle and Port of Tacoma (grouped together for the 

purposes of the OIG survey), and the Port of Portland, OR. The survey was also 

administered to OTAQ, with general questions about EPA activities to reduce air 

emissions. We field tested our survey with both OTAQ and EPA Region 9. 

We selected two significant ports from each EPA region above in order to identify the 

issues and challenges being faced by a variety of ports throughout the U.S. We selected 

regions with either coastal or Great Lakes ports for our survey (EPA regions 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 

6, 9, and 10). We obtained responses to our survey from OTAQ and the eight EPA 

regions in 2007. Follow-up was conducted as necessary via phone interviews with 

appropriate staff from each survey respondent. The following table shows the criteria 

used to select the 18 ports: 

43
 
09-P-0125 

Table B.1: Criteria for Port Selection 

Criteria Source Title Data Source 

Annual tonnage passing 

through the port 

Final Waterborne Commerce 

Summary Tables for Calendar 

2005. 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 

February 2007 

Population of the area 

surrounding the port 

Data from U.S. Census 

Bureau’s 2000 Census http://www.census.gov/ 

Attainment status of the 

port area 

EPA Green Book data as of 

April 9, 2007 http://www.epa.gov/air/oaqps/greenbk/ 

Number of vessel calls 

(10,000 deadweight tons or 

greater) 

Vessel Calls At U.S. & World 

Ports 2005 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Maritime Administration, April 2006. 

Container traffic through 

the port (TEUs) 

North American Port Container 

Traffic 2006 

American Association of Port 

Authorities 

Source: Developed by OIG staff based on information from sources cited 

Review of Management (Internal) Controls 

Generally accepted government auditing standards require that auditors obtain an 

understanding of internal controls significant to the audit objectives and consider whether 

specific internal control procedures have been properly designed and placed in operation. 

We examined management and internal controls as they related to our objectives. We 

reviewed the laws that impact air emissions from port sources, and EPA’s authority to 

regulate marine engines on foreign-flagged vessels with assistance from the OIG Office 

of Counsel. We focused on the responsibilities and authorities that EPA has to protect 

human health from unsafe ambient air quality, including the extent to which EPA has 

statutory authority to develop a regulatory-based program to control emissions from port 

sources. We reviewed the policies and procedures and performance measures that EPA 

had established to carry out voluntary emission reduction initiatives at ports. We 

reviewed results of an Office of Management and Budget Program Assessment Rating 

Tool for the Mobile Source Standards and Certification Program. We also reviewed 

analytical, documentary, and testimonial evidence from OTAQ and EPA regions 1, 2, 3, 

4, 5, 6, 9, and 10. Sections 2 and 3 identify findings and recommendations where EPA 

can improve the implementation of its strategy to reduce emissions from mobile sources 

operating at U.S. ports. 

Prior Reports 

The OIG conducted one prior evaluation that related to air emissions at ports. This report, 

Progress Report on EPA’s Nonroad Mobile Source Emissions Reduction Strategies, 

Report No. 2006-P-00039, dated September 27, 2006, noted that EPA was addressing the 

overall diesel emissions program’s progress based on total emissions reductions. 

The OIG also conducted a prior evaluation related to voluntary programs. This report, 

Voluntary Programs Could Benefit from Internal Policy Controls and a Systematic 

Management Approach, Report No. 2007-P-00041, dated September 25, 2007, identified 

issues related to this evaluation. The report noted that EPA does not have uniform 

implementation policies that allow staff to determine whether voluntary programs are 

achieving their overall goals. The report also noted that EPA has not implemented a 

44
 
09-P-0125 

systematic process to develop, test, and market voluntary programs, or to regularly 

evaluate the impact of these programs on the environment. 

Prior GAO Reports 

•	 Air Pollution. EPA Could Take Additional Steps to Help Maximize the Benefits 

from the 2007 Diesel Emissions Standards, GAO-04-313, March 2004. 

•	 Environmental Justice. EPA Should Devote More Attention to Environmental 

Justice When Developing Clean Air Rules, GAO-05-289, July 2005. 

45
 
09-P-0125 

Appendix D 

Details on EPA’s Rationale for Not Taking a 

Position on Whether It Has Authority 

to Regulate Foreign-Flagged Vessels 

EPA’s Office of General Counsel and OTAQ provided the following rationale for 

delaying its decision to regulate foreign flagged vessels: 

•	 In its 1999 rulemaking to regulate emissions from new diesel marine engines, EPA 

interpreted “new” marine engines and vessels to include imported marine engines and 

vessels, and relied on the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) 

for determining when a marine engine and vessel is imported. “According to the 

HTSUS, vessels used in international trade or commerce or vessels brought into the 

territory of the United States by nonresidents for their own use in pleasure cruising 

are admitted without formal customs consumption entry or payment of duty. ... This 

means that engines installed on vessels flagged in another country that come into the 

United States temporarily will not be subject to the emission standards, because they 

are not imported and are therefore not new engines under the Clean Air Act Section 

216(3) and 213(d).” 64 Fed. Reg. at 73302 (December 29, 1999). 

•	 As part of the follow-up rulemaking process to regulate emissions from ocean-going 

vessels, the largest of the diesel marine engines, EPA considered the merits of 

amending the regulatory definition of a “new” marine engine to find that marine 

engine emission standards apply to Category 1, 2, and 3 marine diesel engines that are 

built after the standards become effective and that are installed on foreign flag vessels 

that enter U.S. ports. EPA included in a draft proposed rule to OMB arguments 

supporting such amended definition, stating that it “has discretion in interpreting 

section 213 as it applies to new marine engines and vessels, and is considering which 

interpretation is most appropriate from a policy perspective.” 

•	 As part of the interagency review process, EPA revised the proposed rule to solicit 

comment “on whether it would be appropriate and within EPA’s authority to exercise 

this discretion to define ‘new nonroad engine’ to include marine engines on foreign 

vessels that enter US ports, in light of environmental and international oceans policy 

and any other relevant factors, including consideration of their significant emissions 

contribution to air quality problems in the United States.” 67 Fed. Reg. at 37565/3. 

•	 In the final rule, EPA did not revise the definition of “new” marine engine to include 

marine diesel engines installed on foreign flag vessels. EPA explained that it need 

“not decide whether we have the discretion to interpret ‘new’ nonroad engine or 

vessel ...” to include foreign vessels at that time because “no significant emission 

reductions would be achieved by treating foreign vessels as ‘new’ for purposes of the 

46
 
09-P-0125 

near-term standards in this final rule and there is no significant loss in emission 

reductions by not including them.” 68 Fed. Reg. at 9759/2. 

•	 EPA’s decision to defer whether it had authority to revise the definition of “new” 

marine engine to include engines installed on foreign flag vessels was challenged as 

arbitrary and capricious in the D.C. Circuit Court. That Court denied Petitioner’s 

challenge on this issue; the Court held that Petitioner’s challenge was premature 

given EPA had adopted standards of similar stringency as those that already applied 

to foreign flag vessels and thus there would be no significant loss of emission 

reductions by the deferral. Bluewater Network v. EPA, 372 F.3d 404, 413 (D.C. Cir. 

2004). 

•	 Thus, although EPA has identified arguments for revising the definition of “new” to 

include foreign flag vessels, it has not taken a position on whether such an 

interpretation would be reasonable in light of the language and purpose of section 213 

of the CAA. EPA’s decision not to take a position on the issue was upheld by the 

D.C. Circuit Court. 

47
 
09-P-0125 

Appendix E 

Timeline of Selected EPA Regulatory Actions 

Since 1990 to Address Air Emissions from Port 

Sources 

2004 Agency issues emission standards for 

nonroad mobile sources, including fuel standards 

1990 Amendments to Clean Air Act directs EPA to for nonroad diesel. The fuel standards did not 

1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 

promulgate regulations for emissions from new nonroad 

engines and vehicles that significantly contribute to air 

pollution that endangers public health or welfare 

1994 EPA issues Federal Register Notice 

stating that nonroad engines contribute 

significantly to ozone and CO concentrations 

in more than one nonattainment area. 

1999 EPA promulgates Tier 1 standards for 

Category 1 and Category 2 marine engines. 

No standards for Category 3 engines were 

contained in this rule 

2003 EPA issues final rule setting Tier 1 

standards for Category 3 marine engines, and Tier 

2 standards for Category 1 and 2 marine engines. 

2008 EPA issues Tier 3 and Tier 4 standards for Category 1 and 2 

marine engines, as well as more stringent standards for 

locomotives. 

2007 EPA issues Federal Register Notice delaying 

Tier 2 standards for Category 3 marine diesel 

engines until December 2009 

2009 New EPA deadline for issuing Tier 2 

standards for Category 3 marine engines (Dec. 

2009). 

apply to fuel used by Category 3 marine engines 

All standards applied only to vessels registered in 

the U.S. 

Source: Timeline constructed by OIG staff based on proposed and final EPA actions published in the 

Federal Register. 

48
 
09-P-0125 

Appendix F 

Summary of Revised MARPOL Annex VI 

Standards Adopted by the IMO in October 2008 

Summary of Proposed Revisions to Annex VI Standards 

Effective Date Pollutant(s) Engines Subject to Standard Standard 

Upon ratification 

of revised Annex 

VI standards 

NOx (Tier I) All engines on vessels registered to 

treaty members constructed 

between 1990 and 2011.* 

Current Annex VI 

requirements (up to 

17.0 g/kW-hr) 

January 1, 2011 NOx (Tier II) Diesel engines installed on any 

ship, registered to treaty members 

or operating in ports of treaty 

members, that is constructed on or 

after January 1, 2011 

Up to 14.4 g/kW-hr 

January 1, 2016 NOx (Tier III) Diesel engines installed on any ship 

that is constructed on or after 

January 1, 2016 which is operating 

in an established emission control 

area. 

Up to 3.4 g/kW-hr 

July 1, 2010 PM and SOx All engines on vessels operating 

within emission control areas 

approved by the IMO 

Use of fuel with 10,000 

ppm sulfur content 

January 1, 2012 PM and SOx All oceangoing vessel engines on 

vessels registered to treaty 

members, or operating in ports of 

treaty members 

Use of fuel with 35,000 

ppm sulfur content 

January 1, 2015 PM and SOx All engines on vessels operating 

within emission control areas 

approved by the IMO 

Use of fuel with 1,000 

ppm sulfur content 

January 1, 

2020** 

PM and SOx All oceangoing vessel engines on 

vessels registered to treaty 

members, or operating in ports of 

treaty members 

Use of fuel with 5,000 

ppm sulfur content 

*Engines built after January 1, 2000 were already subject to Tier 1 standards. The 

revised Annex VI standards will also apply Tier 1 standards to engines that were built 

between 1990 and 2000. Exceptions to this standard would be allowed if the required 

emission reduction was impractical. 

**The IMO may, after review, delay the effective date of this standard to 2025 if there is 

evidence that application of the standard is impractical at that time. 

Source: Associate Director, EPA OTAQ 

49
 
09-P-0125 

Appendix G 

Status of Participation in Regional Diesel 

Collaboratives for Ports in Nonattainment Areas 

Port State Pollutant Exceeding 

NAAQS 

Participant in Regional 

Diesel Collaborative? 

Albany New York 8 hr ozone Yes 

Baltimore Maryland 8 hr ozone, PM 2.5 Yes 

Greater Baton Rouge Louisiana 8 hr ozone No 

Beaumont42 Texas 8 hr ozone No 

Boston Massachusetts 8 hr ozone Yes 

Bridgeport Connecticut 8 hr ozone, PM 2.5 Yes 

Camden New Jersey 8 hr ozone, PM 2.5 Yes 

Chicago Illinois 8 hr ozone, PM 2.5 No 

Cleveland Ohio 8 hr ozone, PM 2.5 No 

Detroit Michigan 8 hr ozone, PM 2.5 No 

Freeport Texas 8 hr ozone No 

Galveston Texas 8 hr ozone No 

Houston Texas 8 hr ozone Yes 

Hueneme California 8 hr ozone No 

Indiana (Burns Harbor) Indiana 8 hr ozone, PM 2.5 No 

Los Angeles California 8 hr ozone, PM 2.5 Yes 

Long Beach California 8 hr ozone, PM 2.5 Yes 

Milwaukee Wisconsin 8 hr ozone No 

New Bedford Massachusetts 8 hr ozone Yes 

New York & New Jersey New York/New Jersey 8 hr ozone, PM 2.5 Yes 

Oakland California 8 hr ozone Yes 

Orange1 Texas 8 hr ozone No 

Philadelphia Pennsylvania 8 hr ozone, PM 2.5 Yes 

Port Arthur1 Texas 8 hr ozone No 

Portsmouth New Hampshire 8 hr ozone No 

Providence Rhode Island 8 hr ozone Yes 

Redwood City California 8 hr ozone Unsure 

San Diego California 8 hr ozone Yes 

San Francisco California 8 hr ozone Yes 

Stockton California 8 hr ozone Yes 

Wilmington Delaware 8 hr ozone, PM 2.5 No 

Total Ports in Nonattainment Status Not Participating in Regional Diesel 

Collaboratives 

14 of 31 (45%) 

Source: OIG-developed table based on information provided by EPA and the American Association of Port 

Authorities (AAPA). Attainment status for each port area determined by combining August 2007 data 

from AAPA and EPA’s Green Book Nonattainment Areas for Criteria Pollutants 

(http://www.epa.gov/air/oaqps/greenbk/). Information on port participation in regional diesel 

collaboratives obtained from EPA regional responses to our survey. 

42 According to EPA Region 6, the Beaumont-Port Arthur area, which includes the Ports of Beaumont, Port 

Arthur, and Orange, has made strides toward attaining the 8-hr. ozone NAAQS. A maintenance plan for 

these areas has been proposed to EPA. 

50
 
09-P-0125 

Appendix H 

Details of EPA’s Strategy for Sustainable Ports 

Purpose Using the framework of the Administrator’s Action Plan, support existing and new EPA programs and projects that will 

produce measurable results within the next 18 months and lay the groundwork for further actions in support of EPA 's 

Vision for Sustainable Ports, as well as related components of EPA’s 2006-2011 Strategic Plan. 

Goods Movement Actions 

1.A Develop a transportation supply chain approach to reducing air pollution from freight movement that recognizes 

the critical role the ports play in goods movement and allows shippers to choose cleaner methods to move 

goods. 

1.B Utilize existing EPA programs, such as the National Clean Diesel Campaign, Regional Diesel Retrofit 

Collaboratives & SmartWay Transport, to promote emission reductions in the supply chain. 

1.C Develop a supply chain model to help shippers & carriers quantify the environmental footprint of goods 

movement & establish corporate improvement goals for emissions performance by December 2008. 

1.D Develop a tiered set of emissions reductions goals for major ports responsible for a significant percentage of U.S. 

international trade, focusing on port operations/expansion, intermodal fleet modernization & key maritime 

sources. 

1.E Work with ports to encourage their business partners to establish meaningful (LEED-like) agreements with 

SmartWay Transport Partners (e.g., freight owners) to reduce the impacts of shipping goods by using cleaner 

fuels and more efficient routes, operations & technologies. 

Emissions Inventory Actions 

1.F Work with the top 75 ports in the U.S. to develop port specific baseline emissions inventories and emissions 

reduction targets based on 1) EPA's national port inventory guidance (to be completed this winter 2007/2008) or 

2) air emissions inventories completed by the port authorities in accordance with EPA-approved methodologies. 

1.G Where port authorities have complete port-specific emissions inventories, initial emission reduction targets should 

be developed by mid to late 2008. 

1.H Where port authorities are relying on an EPA-generated inventory guidance, initial emission reduction targets will 

be developed by late 2008 to early 2009. 

1/I Emission reduction targets should promote early retirement of vehicles/engines and encourage the purchase of 

new or upgraded vehicles/equipment and the early introduction of 2010-compliant trucks in the supply chain. 

1.J All targets should include a reduction of emissions from Category 1 and Category 2 marine vessels and harbor 

craft of at least 20 percent NOx and PM2.5 by 2020. 

Innovative Funding & New Technologies Actions 

Note: the extent to which these targets can be met is dependent upon available funding. 

1.K Innovative Financing Funds (e.g. state low-interest loan funds) will be set up in up to 25 states with EPA seed 

money to provide small owner-operators of equipment like drayage trucks, incentives or access to funds to 

facilitate vehicle/engine upgrade or replacement and meeting targets. 

1.L Start at least 3 emerging technology demonstration projects each year between 2008-12, demonstrating new 

emissions reduction technologies of strategically high value on equipment used at ports or to carry freight to and 

from ports including maritime shipping, intermodal transport modes. 

1.M EPA will collaborate with other key federal entities to facilitate the use and exportation of cleaner technology, 

such as the hydraulic hybrid, through partnerships with domestic and foreign ports and other key stakeholders. 

General Collaborations/Programs Actions 

1.N Work within EPA, across federal agencies and with stakeholders to support ratification of MARPOL Annex VI and 

adoption of the U.S. proposal for stricter Annex VI standards by October 2008. 

1.O Actively work with the Department of Transportation, other government entities and key stakeholders on broader 

transportation system planning and financing efforts that will reduce congestion in goods movement and enable 

ports to meet their emission reduction targets (e.g. expand the use of CMAQ funds). 

Theme: 

Clean 

Air & 

Affordable 

Energy 

1.P Participate actively in the DOT/MARAD National Congestion Initiative, the Committee on Marine System 

Transportation, and other relevant efforts. 

51
 
09-P-0125 

Theme: 

Clean & 

Safe 

Water 

[Note: EPA’s actions to achieve Clean and Safe Water are not included in this appendix as these 

do not relate to port air pollution issues. EPA’s full Strategy is available at the website listed below.] 

Theme: 

Healthy 

Communities 

& EcoNational Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Actions 

3.A Promote the use of NEPA as a tool to evaluate and promote efforts to address impacts from transportation 

infrastructure development plans. 

Trade Associations Actions 

systems 3.B Support development and implementation of the Sustainability Plan of the American Association of Port 

Authorities (AAPA). 

3.C Support issue analysis and development of tools and web-based resources, e.g. revised Port Environmental 

Mgmt. Handbook. 

3.D Support the development of industry environmental goals and performance measures. 

3.E Continue to promote the development of Environmental Management Systems (EMS). (e.g. encourage ports to 

participate in the third round of AAPA's EMS assistance project) 

Environmental Justice (EJ) Actions 

3.F Work with communities surrounding ports to address environmental justice and public health concerns (e.g. 

capacity building) 

3.G Consider the advice and recommendations of the National Environmental Justice Advisory Council to be 

developed in the next 18 months. 

Portfields/Solid Waste Actions 

3.H Track the progress of the Southern Louisiana Regional Portfields and the Port of New York/New Jersey Portfields 

Initiatives, and facilitate engagement of appropriate federal, state, and local partners through EPA's "convening" 

role. 

3.I Encourage, facilitate, and support diesel emissions & greenhouse gas reductions technologies & practices at 

Superfund cleanup and redevelopment sites through Cleanup- Clean Air Program. 

3.J Identify venues and forums to share information regarding material reuse & recycling related to port operations & 

redevelopment, & redevelopments surrounding ports. 

Security Actions 

3.K OHS will assist with any of the activities that have homeland security implications. 

3.L Encourage ports to minimize environmental impacts during the development of systems that address security 

management and other security requirements (e.g. gate efficiencies). Encourage ports to make green 

purchasing decisions in all of their security procurements. 

General Collaborations/Programs Actions 

3.M Promote regional transportation planning & national congestion initiative. 

3.N Work with ports to explore ways to incorporate Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) activities into long-range 

planning. 

3.O Encourage the use of environmental commitments in port lease agreements and contracts. 

Theme: 

The 

Global 

EnvironEmission Reductions Actions 

4.A Continue efforts to better quantify emissions of air pollution from maritime shipping around the world and to assist 

major foreign ports in developing emission inventories. 

ment 4.B Using voluntary measures and binding international agreements (e.g., MARPOL Annex VI), promote cuts in air 

pollution from maritime shipping and land-side transportation networks, both domestically and internationally. 

4.C Engage maritime shipping interests in mechanisms for reducing NOx, SOx, PM, and greenhouse gas emissions 

globally. 

Invasive Species Actions 

4.D Continue to raise awareness domestically and abroad of the problem of invasive species in freight transportation 

(e.g., in pallets and packaging). 

4.E Promote efforts to address this problem, including through learning networks for Customs, USDA APHIS, and 

other inspections entities, and the development of a mechanism to respond rapidly to reports of infestations. 

52
 
09-P-0125 

Non-Compliant Goods Actions 

4.F Promote the use of all available authorities to stop the importation of illegal and harmful products at the border. 

4.G Coordinate with OPPTS to participate in the inter-agency Working Group on Import Safety to address this 

problem, including improvement of inter-agency coordination with customs, USDA, and other inspection entities. 

4.H Work with major trading partner countries to identify and address environmental and human health problems with 

non-compliant goods, e.g. through MOUs. 

General Collaborations/Programs Actions 

4.I Expand collaborative efforts with key foreign ports and nations to better understand and address environmental 

concerns associated with maritime shipping, port operations, and intermodal transportation at national, regional 

and international scales. 

4.J Establish an International Sustainable Ports and Carriers Partnership that would serve as a mechanism for 

international collaboration on projects to address the range of environmental problems associated with shipping 

and ports. 

4.K Identify an appropriate clearinghouse, agency or organization (e.g., UNCSD, IAPH etc.), similar to other 

successful international partnerships supported by OIA, to support the International Sustainable Ports and 

Carriers Partnership and increase international awareness of and interest in the Partnership. 

4.L Work with the Office of the United States Trade Representative and other economic agencies in the development 

and negotiation of trade policies and agreements to help minimize adverse localized consequences associated 

with growth in international trade. 

4.M Work with the International Maritime Organization’s London Convention to complete international guidelines on 

environmental action levels for assessment and management of dredged material for disposal into marine 

waters. 

4.N Support State Department in working with the Senate in ratification of the London Protocol to prevent pollution of 

marine waters, which focuses upon ocean dumping of wastes. 

4.O Continue to work with UNEP, IMO and other appropriate entities on the development and implementation of 

marine pollution treaties that pertain to port and maritime shipping operations. 

Theme: 

Ports 

Communication 

Actions 

5.A Regularly communicate to ports and port stakeholders the status of and accomplishments attributable to EPA 

initiatives that have and present opportunities for positive environmental impacts on port operations, e.g. Clean 

Ports USA, WasteWise, etc. 

5.B Establish and sustain dialogues with communities adjacent to Ports through which accomplishments of EPA and 

its partners can be shared and explained, and communities can share their concerns regarding environmental 

impacts of Ports with EPA. 

5.C EPA Regions will host Port Summits with the leadership of their respective state environmental agencies and port 

authorities where opportunities for and barriers to improved environmental performance of ports can be shared 

and discussed. 

5.D EPA Regions will establish and utilize multi-media Green Teams comprised of regional staff experts, to 

communicate through a highly coordinated approach, best environmental practices associated with the various 

media to port operators and their business partners 

5.E Establish an Agency communications plan to publicly release EPA's Sustainable Ports Vision and Strategy within 

a target timeframe of early 2008 

Theme: 

Enforcement 

Actions 

6.A Promote opportunities to integrate clean port projects with linkages to enforcement actions, e.g. through 

Supplemental Environmental Projects. 

6.B Continue to use EPA tools to ensure enforcement of and compliance with all applicable laws. 

Source: Strategy taken from EPA Port Sector Strategies Website, http://www.epa.gov/sectors/ports/index.html 

on March 12, 2008. See http://www.epa.gov/sectors/ports/epastrategy.xls for a direct link to EPA’s 

Strategy for Sustainable Ports identified above. 

53
 
09-P-0125 

Appendix I 

Agency Response to Draft Report 

MEMORANDUM 

SUBJECT: Draft Office of Inspector General (OIG) Evaluation Report, "EPA Needs 

to Improve Its Efforts to Reduce Air Emissions at U.S. Ports" 

FROM: Elizabeth Craig 

Acting Assistant Administrator 

TO: Bill Roderick 

Acting Inspector General 

I am writing to provide you the Office of Air and Radiation’s comments on the 

draft Inspector General Evaluation Report, “EPA Needs to Improve Its Efforts to Reduce 

Air Emissions at U.S. Ports Assignment No. 2007-00296, January 12, 2009.” Thank you 

for the opportunity to comment. We appreciate your interest on our work to reduce air 

emissions at U.S. ports. 

As a general matter, OIG’s findings are consistent with our experience with 

regard to addressing emissions from large ocean going vessels. We were pleased to see 

that this current draft has been updated to reflect the success we have had over the past 

year in working with the International Maritime Organization (IMO) to adopt new 

international standards for oceangoing vessels and engines. We are also pleased that it 

recognizes the need to further enhance the benefits of these standards though the 

establishment of Emissions Control Areas for the U.S. 

We believe that the report’s assessment of the efficacy of the Agency’s voluntary 

programs to address air pollution at ports is currently incomplete and does not reflect 

many of the activities of our National Clean Diesel Campaign (NCDC), our regional 

offices and collaboratives, or the ports themselves. We realize that the research for this 

report was done sometime ago. Today, most ports located in nonattainment areas, along 

with their tenants and customers, are undertaking actions to address air pollution, whether 

or not they are members of their regional diesel collaborative. Therefore, as written, we 

believe that the report under-represents the activities of the port authorities, their tenants 

and customers to voluntarily address air issues. We also believe that the intent and 

purpose of Regional Administrators and Assistant Administrators in developing the 

Agency Sustainable Ports Strategy are not fully captured by the report. 

See Appendix J

Note 1 for OIG Response 

54
 
09-P-0125 

I trust the attached comments from OAR, as well as Regions 1, 2 and 4, will be 

helpful in completing your work on this report. Please feel free to contact Gay 

MacGregor at 734 214-4438 if you have any questions about our comments or if we can 

provide additional information. 

Attachments 

55
 
09-P-0125 

Attachment 1 

Comments on the Draft Inspector General Evaluation Report 

"EPA Needs to Improve Its Efforts to Reduce Air Emissions at U.S. Ports, 

(No. 2007-00296, January 12, 2009)" 

Recommendations-Chapter 2 

“We recommend that the Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator for Air and 

Radiation: 

2-1 Assess EPA’s authorities and responsibilities under the CAA to regulate air 

emissions from foreign-flagged vessel engines in U.S. ports, in light of the 

new IMO Treaty, and report any shortfalls in such authorities to Congress. 

EPA should include in its analysis key air pollutants emitted by Category 3 

marine engines not covered by the IMO Treaty and show how the Agency 

will meet its responsibilities under the CAA.” 

Response: Concur with comment. As part of EPA’s rulemaking for Category 3 Engines, 

which EPA is under a regulatory deadline to finalize no later than December 17, 2009, 

EPA plans to discuss how best to address emissions from foreign-flagged vessels in light 

of the new IMO Treaty and the U.S. Government’s subsequent submittal to the IMO 

proposing Emission Control Areas (ECAs) along all U.S. coastlines. We believe that our 

decision to defer addressing this issue has been appropriate and necessary and has been 

upheld by the D.C. Circuit Court by our understanding of the court's statement that the 

delay would not "lead to any significant loss in emission reductions." Bluewater Network 

v. EPA, 372 F.3d 404, 413 (D.C. Cir. 2004). With regard to key air pollutants emitted by 

these engines, EPA plans to discuss and evaluate other pollutants emitted by Category 3 

marine engines in its upcoming rule. Under the requirements of the Congressional 

Review Act the rule will be submitted to Congress. 

See Appendix J

Note 2 for OIG Response 

2-2 “Assess the extent to which Emissions Control Areas (ECAs) should be 

designated for all U.S. coastal areas, under the revised Annex VI provisions. 

For all areas where ECAs are needed, ensure that the appropriate 

application materials and supporting documentation are submitted to the 

IMO in a timely manner.” 

Response: Concur with comment. OAR’s Office of Transportation and Air Quality is 

working with the U.S. State Department, U.S. Coast Guard, and the Government of 

Canada to develop a comprehensive application to establish ECA’s along all U.S. and 

Canadian coasts. EPA expects to submit the application to the IMO so that it may be 

considered by the IMO at its next regularly scheduled meetings in July 2009. Approval 

by the IMO of this joint U.S. and Canadian Government ECA application could then take 

place as early as the IMO’s March 2010 meeting. 

56
 
09-P-0125 

See Appendix J

Note 3 for OIG Response 

Recommendation-Chapter 3 

“We recommend that the Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator for Air and 

Radiation: 

3-1 Revise the Strategy for Sustainable Ports to include a transformational 

plan with appropriate designations of authorities and responsibilities, milestones, 

performance measures, and other management controls, and an assessment of 

resources, to assure the Agency’s port-related efforts under NCDC are 

successfully implemented.” 

Response: We generally agree that it is important to establish milestones, performance 

measures and reporting requirements to ensure successful implementation of EPA’s port 

related efforts. It is important to recognize that the National Clean Diesel Campaign 

(NCDC) already has a stringent set of milestones, performance measures and reporting 

requirements, including a bi-annual Report to Congress and quarterly reporting through 

the Agency reporting processes that are intended to outline a transformational plan 

toward continued air emission reductions including reduced air emissions at U.S. Ports. 

The Strategy for Sustainable Ports addresses all of EPA’s programs and all environmental 

media and would not be an appropriate vehicle for closely monitoring progress toward 

the reduction of air emissions at ports. 

We believe we already have management processes in place that are adequate for the 

broader purposes for which the Strategy for Sustainable Ports was developed. The 

Strategy is the product of two meetings of Regional Administrators (RAs) and Assistant 

Administrators (AAs) from across the agency; one in September of 2006 and the other in 

September 2007. The Strategy was developed with the intent of supporting all EPA 

programs by fostering knowledge across the Agency of efforts underway in various 

offices and regions to address environmental issues at the nation’s ports. In addition, it 

was intended to clarify and provide a uniform Agency view as well as promote 

coordination and synergy between the EPA program offices and regions working with 

ports and other port-related stakeholders. It was not intended to be a stand alone plan of 

action. An EPA-wide Ports Team, comprised of headquarters and regional 

representatives, meets periodically for the purpose of keeping each other updated on the 

activities in the strategy. The Agency-wide Team has offered semi-annual informational 

updates for the Regional Administrators. 

At the meeting of the RAs and AAs in New York in September 2007, there was 

consensus among the RAs, AAs and the EPA Deputy Administrator, that the items 

captured in the Strategy for Sustainable Ports were ongoing activities in existing 

programs that already had adequate management controls in place, as well as designated 

responsible organizations. All managers agreed that the program offices and regions had 

sufficient management controls in place for each of the action items in the Strategy and, 

therefore, any added controls or reporting beyond these informational updates would be 

57
 
09-P-0125 

duplicative rather than value-added. This further underscores the rationale for using the 

NCDC program as the best vehicle for monitoring air emission reductions at ports. 

See Appendix J

Note 4 for OIG Response 

General Comments and/or Clarifications 

p. 2: “At a Glance”... “ Despite the emphasis that EPA has placed on voluntary 

partnership programs, such as the diesel collaborative, such initiatives have not been 

implemented at many U.S. ports.” Based on our experience, this statement is inaccurate 

as most of the port authorities located in nonattainment areas have established programs 

to address air pollution at their ports (see list of additional ports in comments on 

Attachment G below). Even in attainment areas, the EPA regions are engaged with their 

port authorities on the issue of air pollution-whether or not they are part of the regional 

diesel collaborative. In addition, EPA is active with the American Association of Port 

Authorities (AAPA) to promote action at the ports to reduce air emissions. Membership 

by port authorities in the regional diesel collaborative is not sufficient to judge whether a 

port is engaged with EPA to voluntarily reduce air pollution. Smaller ports may not have 

staff to actively participate in the collaborative, but it does not mean that they are not 

addressing air pollution or working with EPA to do so. In our comments on Appendix G 

(below), we provide several examples of activities not captured by the report. 

See Appendix J

Note 5 for OIG Response 

p. 4: “EPA’s actions to address air emissions from large oceangoing vessels in U.S. ports 

have not yet achieved the goals for protecting human health.” While it is true that ocean 

going vessels contribute to air emissions while “in” port, the EPA is also greatly 

concerned about emissions from ocean going vessels “entering” ports. “Entering” ports 

could include distances up to 200 nautical miles (nm) from an actual “in” port area and 

significant river transit. This distinction goes to the heart of the foreign-flag vessel issue 

regarding the reach of EPA’s authority under the CAA to establish emission standards to 

control Category 3 emissions. Air quality modeling recently conducted by the EPA to 

support its proposed ECA application show that emissions from as far as 200 nm from 

ports impact air quality, not only of the immediate port areas, but for 100 of miles inland 

from these ports. These findings will be a key element of EPA’s application to the IMO 

for establishing Emissions Control Areas -- oceangoing vessel significantly contributes to 

air quality problems at great distances from the port proper. This same language either 

“in port” or “at ports” is found throughout the report on pages 1, 3, 8, 13, 14 and 16. 

EPA suggests clarifying this language to make clear EPA’s actions are meant to include 

emissions from oceangoing vessels “entering” and “in” port. 

58
 
09-P-0125 

See Appendix J

Note 6 for OIG Response 

p. 11: Last paragraph, we suggest clarifying the last sentence as follows: 

“In October 2008 Parties to Annex VI of the MARPOL Protocol adopted new 

international standards for NOx emissions for marine diesel engines above 130kW 

(including ocean going vessel engines) and the sulfur content of fuel oil used onboard 

ships to address both SOX and PM emissions. At the same time, the U.S. deposited its 

instrument of ratification and adopted amendments to the Act to Prevent Pollution from 

Ships making it possible for the U.S. Government to enforce the Annex VI standards for 

foreign vessels that enter our ports and territorial waters.” 

With regard to PM, the Annex was revised to make it very clear that the fuel sulfur limits 

are intended to address both SOx and PM emissions (the title of Regulation 14 is now 

Sulphur Oxides (SOx) and Particulate Matter). We’ve also change the language to make 

clear that the Annex does not address just residual fuel, but covers all fuel, including 

distillate. This is important because distillate fuel sulfur levels can be quite high in some 

countries, and the 1,000 ppm fuel sulfur level can easily be exceeded. 

See Appendix J

Note 7 for OIG Response 

p. 13: 2nd paragraph, 3rd sentence beginning with “EPA”, delete sentence and replace 

with following, “EPA deferred more stringent emissions standards for ocean going vessel 

engines because EPA believed it needed additional technical data to determine feasibility 

of new emission control technologies prior to developing a proposed rule. During this 

time, negotiations with the IMO continued regarding the creation of more stringent 

emissions standards for ocean-going vessels.” This change more accurately states the 

rationale for EPA’s decision to defer rulemaking. EPA issued a final rule on November 

29, 2007 deferring Category 3 engine emission standards until December 17, 2009 

because it needed additional information regarding promising control technologies. The 

advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) on controlling emissions from marine 

diesel engines was published on December 7, 2007 and requested that interested parties 

provide us with any additional technical data they might have (72 FR 69522). We 

received a number of comments and new data as a result. 

See Appendix J

Note 8 for OIG Response 

p.14: 1st sentence, revise as follows, “While this NOX standard only applies to engines 

on U.S. vessels, which represent about 10 percent of U.S. port calls, foreign-flagged 

vessels meet IMO/Annex VI - Tier 1 standards because they are required under Annex 

VI. However ...” This rephrasing makes clear that, while modest, currently all OGVs 

59 
09-P-0125 

whether U.S.-flagged or not are currently subject to the same NOx standards, and this is 

why we didn’t apply the CAA standards to foreign-flag vessels; this approach was upheld 

by the D.C. Circuit Court. 

See Appendix J

Note 9 for OIG Response 

p. 14: 2nd paragraph... Suggest revising first sentence so that it reflects current state of 

standards in U.S. and world. “In its 2003 rulemaking, EPA set its NOX standards for 

U.S.-flagged vessel engines equivalent to the Tier 1 standards adopted by the IMO in 

MARPOL Annex VI.” 

See Appendix J

Note 10 for OIG Response 

p.15: 1st paragraph, footnote 19. Suggest either moving footnote to 3rd sentence right 

after “residual fuel” or deleting since the clause following the first use of this term 

essentially states the same information that is in the footnote. 

See Appendix J

Note 11 for OIG Response 

p.15: Section entitled “CO, HC, and Air Toxics”, 3rd sentence, suggest adding text so 

that it would now read, “The Agency plans to address emission limits for CO, HC and air 

toxics in their C3 rule scheduled to be finalized in December 2009. According to OTAQ 

representatives,...” EPA’s approach to addressing HC and CO has evolved since the IG 

discussed this with OTAQ representatives. This proposed language incorporates the most 

recent status of how these emissions will be addressed. 

See Appendix J

Note 12 for OIG Response 

p. 17: 2nd paragraph, last two sentences. The last sentence in this paragraph inaccurately 

characterizes EPA actions with regard to the Category 3 April 2007 rulemaking date. 

EPA did not miss this date rather it proposed and finalized a new rule which extended the 

deadline to December 17, 2009. A correct statement would be, “However, EPA extended 

that deadline to December 17, 2009”. 

See Appendix J

Note 13 for OIG Response 

60
 
09-P-0125 

p. 18: 3rd paragraph, After the last sentence we suggest an additional sentence be inserted 

to clarify that the Marpol Annex VI revisions were finalized and adopted by the Parties to 

MARPOL Annex VI in October 2009. Add the following, “These standards were 

adopted by Parties to Annex VI of the MARPOL Protocol in October 2008.” 

See Appendix J

Note 14 for OIG Response 

p. 19: There are a number of bullets which outline the differences between the U.S 

submittal and the final IMO agreement which inaccurately state the differences. We 

request the following changes be made to these bullets: 

• ∀It requires NOx percentage reductions that are either within the lowest range or 

slightly below the level recommended in the U.S. proposal”... change footnote to read: 

The U.S. proposed a Tier 2 NOx limit ranging from 15% to 25% below the current limit 

and a Tier 3 NOx limit 80% below the Tier 2 NOx limit. The agreement calls for a Tier 2 

NOx limit 15.3%-21.4% (depending on engine speed) below the current limit and a Tier 

3 NOx limit 76.4%-74.0% (depending on engine speed) below the Tier 2 NOx limit (80% 

below Tier 1) for emissions from engines above 130 kW installed on vessels constructed 

after January 1, 2011. 

See Appendix J

Note 15 for OIG Response 

• The following statement is not correct and we suggest deleting it: 

"The agreement does not provide for SOx reductions to be obtained by means other than 

setting limits on the percentage of sulfur contained in fuel. In contrast, the U.S. proposed 

a performance-based approach for reducing sulfur emissions. Under this approach, in 

addition to proposed sulfur limits, the U.S. proposal contained a specific SOx standard 

(0.4g/kW-hr) which might be met by different compliance methods, such as exhaust gas 

cleaning technology. " 

We believe the confusion comes from the way Regulation 14 is organized. In the past, 

section 14(4)(b) specifically stated a SOx limit of 6.0 g/kW-hr as an alternative to the 

1.5% fuel sulfur standard for SECAs. The alternative SOx standard is no longer 

discussed in Regulation 14, but still exists. 

Regulation 4 of the amended Annex VI states: "The Administration of a Party may allow 

any fitting, material, appliance or apparatus to be fitted in a ship or other procedures, 

alternative fuel oils, or compliance methods used as an alternative to that required by this 

Annex..." It later states that "the Administration or Party should take into account any 

relevant guidelines developed by the Organization pertaining to the equivalents..." 

Under the new structure of the regulations in Annex VI, an exhaust gas cleaning system 

(EGCS or "scrubber") may still be used as an alternative to low sulfur fuel. 

61
 
09-P-0125 

See Appendix J

Note 16 for OIG Response 

p. 24: 2nd paragraph, 2nd sentence, beginning with, “These voluntary...” after “..because..” 

suggest inserting the following new text, “ and because EPA regulations generally apply 

to newly built engines and only to existing locomotives. There are two exception to this 

which impact port emissions: first, EPA requirements that marine diesel engines above 

600kW meet more stringent emission limits when they are remanufactured beginning in 

2008 (73 FR 25098) and second, the Annex VI amendments which also contain a 

remanufacturing program for engines that will begin to apply as soon as kits are certified, 

which could be as soon as 2010.” 

See Appendix J

Note 17 for OIG Response 

p. 25: 3rd paragraph: The DrayFleet Model is now complete. 

See Appendix J

Note 18 for OIG Response 

p. 25: “In its Strategy for Sustainable Ports, EPA committed to work with the 75 largest 

ports to develop baseline emissions inventories.” EPA is providing inventory guidance 

so that port authorities or state agencies can develop their own inventories consistent with 

that guidance. The Current Methodologies and Best Practices for Port Emissions 

Inventories guidance document is being updated under contract. 

See Appendix J

Note 19 for OIG Response 

p. 26: “Voluntary Initiatives have not been implemented at many U.S. port.” We believe 

this is an inaccurate statement and the title of the section should be changed. We believe 

that many more ports are addressing air issues through our voluntary efforts than what is 

reflected in this report. We have provided examples of some of these omissions in our 

comments on Appendix G (below) and many examples are provided in the attachment 

from Regions 1 and 4. 

Whether a port authority is an official member of its regional diesel collaborative is not 

necessarily indicative of whether that port is addressing air pollution through voluntary 

actions or whether they actively engaged with our voluntary programs. The National 

Clean Diesel Campaign (NCDC) Clean Ports USA Program has held terminal operators 

workshops in Duluth, New York and Philadelphia, Puget Sound, and Houston as well as 

workshops in Corpus Christi and an international Clean Ships conference in San Diego. 

62
 
09-P-0125 

In addition, EPA supports Faster Freight- Cleaner Air conferences around the country 

(Long Beach, Puget Sound, and New York City). The Clean Ports USA Program works 

directly with the American Association of Port Authorities to reach out to their members, 

which include the largest 88 port authorities in the U.S. In addition, Clean Ports USA 

works directly other stakeholder groups such as state and local air agencies, 

transportation agencies, environmental and community groups, and the maritime 

industry. 

See Appendix J

Note 20 for OIG Response 

Appendix G: 

Of the port authorities listed as not participating in the Regional Collaboratives, several 

have reduced their diesel emissions or are in the process of developing projects and 

working with EPA. It would be helpful to indicate what constitutes “participation” in 

Regional Collaboratives. We believe there are at least an additional 6 port authorities 

that are participating, which would be two thirds of the ports in nonattainment areas. 

Bridgeport, CT is participating in the Northeast Diesel Collaborative (NEDC). They 

participate in the NEDC working group calls and emails and the port authority applied for 

an EPA competitive grant but did not score high enough to be selected. 

Cleveland’s tenant FMC has retrofitted cargo handling equipment (CHE) as part of an 

EPA consent decree with Caterpillar and was recognized by the EPA Deputy 

Administrator and their US Senator for their efforts to reduce diesel emissions. FMT 

have had several discussions with EPA about technologies to reduce emissions from their 

vessels as well. 

Port of Detroit has hosted EPA on tours and has met with EPA to discuss possible 

projects. Lack of funding has precluded their participation so far. 

Port of Indiana has met with EPA on several occasions. The Indiana Department of 

Environmental Management (DEM) has applied on the port’s behalf for competitive 

grant funding but the application did not score high enough to receive an award. 

The Port of Stockton participates in West Coast Collaborative (WCC) events and has 

indicated a willingness to reduce its diesel emissions. The port executive director has 

met with EPA about what the port might do to reduce its diesel emissions. 

Port of Wilmington has investigated using biodiesel in their CHE and has had discussions 

with EPA. Port of Wilmington representatives have attended Clean Port USA workshops 

in Philadelphia. 

See Appendix J

Note 21 for OIG Response 

63
 
09-P-0125 

p. 28: We agree that the Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) program was a 

good compliment to OTAQ’s own verification program and that it enhanced our program 

when it was fully funded. 

See Appendix J

Note 22 for OIG Response 

p. 29: 2nd paragraph. It was not until FY08 that we had substantial funding dedicated to 

diesel emissions reductions. With the exception of funding for school bus retrofits, all 

projects were funded either out of general EPA money under CAA Section 103 or 

regional discretionary funds. These funds were limited, in fact in some years OTAQ had 

no funds for diesel reduction programs and were only able to fund any port related 

projects because the Office of International Activities (OIA) did have money to 

contribute to our efforts. Furthermore, EPA’s voluntary Clean Ports USA began in 2005. 

Given the resource constraints, we believe it is significant that EPA was able to spend 

$5.3M over the period of 2002 – 2007 for air quality projects at ports, however, we agree 

that lack of funding has hampered the program. The FY08 Diesel Emissions Reduction 

money was received late in FY08, but we believe that when all of they FY08 grants are 

awarded, we will see the amount of money awarded for port related projects increase 

substantially. 

See Appendix J

Note 23 for OIG Response 

p. 31: EPA’s Strategy for Sustainable Ports, as stated earlier, was not intended to be a 

plan with measurable results. It was intended as a cross program coordination tool and as 

a means to have dialogue with outside stakeholders. The elements of the plan are 

embedded in ongoing agency programs that have management controls and are 

consistently reviewed and revised within the offices and regions. It was explicitly 

decided by the plan’s authors, who were political appointees under the previous 

administration that no additional management controls or reporting requirements were to 

be associated with this plan. 

See Appendix J

Note 24 for OIG Response 

64
 
09-P-0125 

Attachment 2 

EPA Region 1 Comments on Draft OIG Evaluation Report 

"EPA Needs to Improve Its Efforts to Reduce Air Emissions At U.S. Ports" 

(No. 2007-00296, January 12, 2009) 

Re pp. 26-27: Opportunities Exist to Improve Participation in Regional Diesel 

Collaboratives 

Many Northeast ports have participated in the Northeast Diesel Collaborative ports work 

group over the three-plus years since it was formed. Most Northeast states also 

participate. See the current roster of participants appended below; others (academics, 

state agency staff, SmartWay partners, etc) participate informally in some calls and 

receive information distributed to the work group. 

The Northeast ports are extremely diverse, ranging from huge container and bulk 

shipping facilities to small fishing ports. Many New England (EPA Region 1) ports are 

small, cramped, low-volume ports. Most ports own very little land and so have few 

tenant businesses, let alone operations of their own, minimizing their leverage. Some are 

primarily fishing ports or bulk liquid import ports, or have evolved substantially more 

land-oriented uses (e.g., processing seafood trucked in and out by land) than waterdependent activity. Some ports would like to reinvigorate maritime business but face 

significant challenges due to harbor siltation, property contamination and/or community 

opposition. Meeting needs this diverse is challenging. Over the years we have learned 

more about what topics, opportunities and incentives engage our ports, and have focused 

our bi-monthly NEDC ports work group calls and other outreach on those levers. 

Likewise, not all New England states focus on ports because emissions attributed to 

vessels and cargo-handling equipment do not represent a significant portion of statewide 

air emissions. (Port-oriented truck traffic has been difficult to quantify because access to 

most port businesses is diffuse rather than centralized and controlled. DrayFLEET may 

help with this.) 

We respect the scarce resources and diverse interests of our ports by holding all NEDC 

ports work group meetings (except for our kickoff workshop three years ago) by 

conference call. Each call is organized around a topic that the group has expressed 

interest in (port trucking efficiencies, approaches to controlling vessel sulfur emissions, 

etc), and features one or more presentations by expert speakers, followed by discussion of 

how to apply the lessons heard to Northeast operations. Several of our ports have 

attended special events that EPA has helped stage, such as the Short Sea Shipping 

Symposium (www.umassd.edu/sustainability/shortsea.cfm) and Faster Freight Cleaner 

Air East Coast (www.ffcaeastcoast.com/index.html). 

Because gatherings and conference calls alone cannot fully engage our ports, EPA 

Region 1 and 2 staff have visited many Northeast ports to promote Clean Ports USA and 

NEDC efforts, raise interest in seeking clean diesel funding, and urge ports to work with 

us to assess their emissions and fuel-efficiency and develop "green port" strategies. Thus 

far Region 1 staff have visited the ports of Boston, Gloucester, Salem, New Bedford, 

Fall River, Fairhaven, Bridgeport, and New Haven. We have met with most of these 

ports several times, and almost always in the company of state agency counterparts, for 

65
 
09-P-0125 

smoothest coordination among levels of government. We sent each New England port 

our Options for the Marine Ports Sector: Green Strategies for Sustainable Ports document 

(see www.epa.gov/region1/eco/diesel/ports.html) with an invitation to ask Region 1 staff 

for help in developing individual port strategies based on these suggestions. We plan to 

visit other New England ports in 2009. 

Two of our ports, with assistance from Region 1 staff, have drafted "sustainable port" 

strategies modeled on our "Options" document and tailored to their operations and 

resources. In addition, Massport is working a comprehensive portwide sustainability 

strategy, informed by an emissions inventory underway. Massport has solicited Region 

1's input on both efforts and we have been able to bring regional and state expertise and 

Clean Ports USA tools to the table. With these three examples now in hand, we hope to 

inspire other ports to undertake similar self-examination and planning. (For more 

information on these individual efforts, scroll down to "Current Sustainable Port 

Strategies in New England" at www.epa.gov/region1/eco/diesel/ports.html). 

See Appendix J

Note 25 for OIG Response 

Re pp. 28-29: Limited Resources for Implementing EPA’s Efforts to Reduce Port 

Emissions 

Until the Diesel Emissions Reduction Act received appropriations, EPA Regions could 

offer little or no seed funding to inspire ports to think about making capital investments 

in emission-reduction technology. Financial incentives are especially important in the 

ports sector because few fuel-saving (cost-effective) technologies pertain to operations 

owned by ports, and many of these are currently expensive and relatively unproven (e.g., 

hybrid CHE). (Recognizing that many New England ports of necessity need to focus on 

easy, low-cost emissions reduction projects first, we "tiered" our Options document to 

present these suggestions first.) EPA Regions 1 and 2 heavily advertised 2008 Clean 

Diesel grant funds to our ports, and we received more worthwhile applications than we 

could fund. We are about to announce two such grants to ports, and hope to fund 

additional port-based projects with 2009 Clean Diesel funds. 

See Appendix J

Note 26 for OIG Response 

Re p. 25: Limited Data to Verify Results of Voluntary Actions 

Anticipating the need to demonstrate conformity with air quality standards for future 

dredging projects, Massport began working on an emission inventory in 2008. EPA 

Region 1 hosted a kickoff meeting comprising Massport staff, their consultant, EPA and 

state air modeling staff, and EPA and state NEDC participants; Clean Ports USA staff 

participated by phone. Later in 2008, Region 1 recruited NEDC ports work group 

participants (and New England -based SmartWay partners) to listen in on a presentation 

66
 
09-P-0125 

on DrayFLEET given by SmartWay staff to the Mid-Atlantic Diesel Collaborative's 

goods movement workgroup. By openly offering support as convener, sounding board, 

and provider of agency tools and expertise, EPA can facilitate ports' own efforts to assess 

their emissions and track improvements. 

See Appendix J

Note 27 for OIG Response 

Re pp. 30-31: EPA’s New Strategy for Sustainable Ports Lacks a Transformation 

Plan 

Like other regions and offices, EPA Region 1, provides semi-annual informational 

updates through the Agency-wide Ports Team giving great detail on how we are fulfilling 

our commitments under the national Strategy for Sustainable Ports. Region 1 appreciates 

the flexibility granted by the RAs and AAs attending the September 2007 meeting, in 

choosing which aspects of the Strategy to address in these first few years of its existence, 

given the needs of our ports, our existing expertise, available funding, and the 

advisability of growing our efforts in cooperation with our ports in order to insure 

maximum buy-in and results. It appears that the draft OIG report may under-represent 

EPA involvement with ports, which should be corrected before the agency is asked to 

“transform” its work and institute new management controls. 

See Appendix J

Note 28 for OIG Response 

Re p. 48: Appendix G 

Correction: Bridgeport CT is one of the most active participants in the Northeast Diesel 

Collaborative. 

See Appendix J

Note 29 for OIG Response 

Note: Region 1 also provided the OIG with a list of names of Northeast Diesel 

Collaborative workgroup participants as of February 4, 2009. These names have been 

excerpted from the Agency response. 

67
 
09-P-0125 

Attachment 3 

Region 2 Comments on Draft OIG Evaluation Report 

"EPA Needs to Improve Its Efforts to Reduce Air Emissions At U.S. Ports" 

(No. 2007-00296, January 12, 2009) 

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the draft report. We appreciate the 

importance of this report on the Ports Sector to ensure that the air is protected and healthy 

to breathe. 

The ratification of MARPOL Annex VI significantly enhances emission control potential 

on foreign-flagged ocean going vessels. Also, the Agency’s work with the U.S. State 

Department, U.S. Coast Guard and the Government of Canada to develop an application 

to establish an emission control area along the North American coasts will provide 

greater controls on ship emissions farther from the shore. 

Region 2 believes that voluntary initiatives have been successfully implemented at ports 

throughout the U.S. Region 2 and our ports have partnered well on various clean diesel 

projects and the ports have made an effort to voluntarily reduce their environmental 

footprint. In 2008, the Puerto Rico Ports Authority joined the Northeast Diesel 

Collaborative Ports Workgroup in an effort to learn emission reduction strategies to 

employ at their ports. 

We would like the voluntary efforts of Region 2 ports to be reflected in the Noteworthy 

Achievements section of the report. For example, 

•	 Region 2, OTAQ, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection and Port of 

New York and New Jersey are working with industry to develop and test hydraulic 

hybrid yard tractor project that is expected to reduce diesel emissions by 70%. 

•	 In addition to the use of ultra low sulfur diesel in cargo handling equipment, port 

terminals in the Port of New York and New Jersey have been purchasing terminal 

equipment with cleaner on-road engines. 

•	 The Ports of Philadelphia, Delaware and South Jersey have formed a Green Ports 

Initiative to develop short term and long term strategies for making port operations 

more environmentally friendly. A few examples of greening solutions that may be 

explored include energy/water conservation, electric or alternative fuel vehicles and 

equipment,, renewable sources of energy (solar and wind installations), new 

technologies and innovations in logistics processes (traffic management controls, 

congestion mitigation) and green buildings/facilities. 

See Appendix J

Note 30 for OIG Response 

68
 
09-P-0125 

Attachment 4 

Region 4 Response to OIG Report titled 

“EPA Needs to Improve Its Efforts to Reduce Air Emissions at U.S. Ports” 

The report is generally accurate in the representation of EPA Region 4 efforts at inland 

and marine ports. Due to resource limitations and statutory requirements relating to the 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), Region 4 focused its resources on 

ozone and PM 2.5 nonattainment areas. This decision to maximize the impacts of limited 

resource has reaped significant gains in air quality in the Southeast. Due to these focused 

efforts, air quality has improved at many ports, and EPA redesignated the South Florida, 

Tampa and Jacksonville ozone nonattainment area to attainment to attainment for the 

NAAQS. Four major ports are located in these regions and the citizens and local 

community benefited from this approach (Miami, Everglades, Tampa and Jacksonville 

ports). This air quality improvement was accomplished by coordinating efforts with state 

and local agencies and leveraging non-EPA resources to achieve emission reductions. 

Furthermore, Region 4 made the determination that the statutory requirements related to 

the 8-hour ozone standard predicated focusing limited resources on those areas that could 

potentially attain the 8-hour standard through early voluntary reductions. This Early 

Action Compact (EAC) program was successful and Region 4 achieved significant air 

quality reductions in those areas up to 5 years before the statuary deadlines and millions 

of people are breathing cleaner air because of this decision. Both of these efforts should 

be mentioned in the report to demonstrate that while efforts were not focused on the 

ports, EPA Region wisely managed its limited resources. The appropriate page for these 

insertions is Page 29. 

See Appendix J

Note 31 for OIG Response 

The report mentions the port of Wilmington and the Port of Charleston as examples cited 

in the 2003 marine rule for why regulations were necessary and implies that EPA Region 

4 has not worked with these ports on air quality efforts. It is factual that EPA Region 4 

did not target for air quality improvements at these ports during the evaluation period, but 

Region 4 has had conversations with both the NC Port Authority and the SC Port 

Authority about air quality improvements at ports. In NC, EPA is part of a Green Port 

effort looking at how expansions at the port of Wilmington and a smaller port can grow 

“green.” These discussions have been intermittent since 2006. 

Since the Southeast Diesel Collaborative (SEDC) began, EPA Region 4 has been 

involved with many of the major ports in the southeast (Charleston, Savannah, Tampa, 

Everglades, Jacksonville, Miami, and Louisville) through the partnerships developed 

through the SEDC. A major philosophy of the EPA Region 4 efforts and the SEDC is 

that one agency can’t do it all and that we should leverage partner resources to achieve 

faster and more significant reductions in all aspects of the diesel reduction strategies. In 

this manner, EPA Region 4 is able to obtain broader and larger engagement (and 

69
 
09-P-0125 

corresponding emission reductions that GAO did not attribute to EPA efforts) by creating 

ownership of the outcome at all levels of participation including government, nongovernment and private organizations. Projects that are ongoing in these areas that are 

affiliated with the SEDC are: 

1.	 Charleston “partnership for Growth”-This program involves developing and 

comprehensive strategy to address environmental issues (air, water and land) 

associated with port operations. Region 4 was a key partner in the development 

of a state MOA which committed the port to reducing diesel emissions. A key 

part of this was the development of a comprehensive emissions inventory to 

identify emission sources. This $100,000 project was recently completed and is 

currently in review. In addition, the SEDC is providing $750,000 as part of a 

$1.8 million effort to reduce diesel emissions through retrofits, electrification 

and other land side emission reduction strategies. Region 4 expects to award the 

grant by the end of January. 

2.	 Savannah-“Green CHE project”-Through the SEDC assistance agreement 

competition, EPA Region 4 selected the port of Savannah to retrofit a 

significant portion of its cargo handling equipment. This award should be 

funded by the end of January 2009. As part of this effort, the port also switched 

to ULSD 1 year in advance of the regulatory mandates. 

3.	 Port Everglades-EPA partners and Port Everglades have worked on several 

environmental initiatives related to air quality. Port Everglades has used 

biodiesel in the past and is looking for a reliable high-quality supply. 

4.	 Port of Jacksonville-EPA Region 4 and local partners are working to ensure that 

the expansion of the port of Jacksonville will limit the environmental impact. 

Local leaders are looking at logistics and other creative measures to decrease 

idling times and delays associated with the new container portion of the port. 

5.	 Port of Louisville-SEDC partners worked with port to institute a biodiesel 

program. 

6.	 Port of Memphis-EPA Region 4 and Region 6 have worked in the Port of 

Memphis to evaluate Tug and Barge emissions. 

7.	 Port of Memphis- The Memphis-Shelby County (TN) Health Department will 

begin monitoring of volatile organic compounds (vocs) that are emitted from 

barges traveling along the Mississippi River that enter and dock at ports in 

Memphis. The monitoring will involve the use of optical remote sensing 

technology and will begin in June 2009. 

8.	 Savannah-EPA Region 4 is working with a local community through the CARE 

grant program to evaluate and develop a strategy to reduce emissions in the 

area. Region 4 is facilitating discussions with the port regarding truck travel 

patterns and emissions associated with nearby warehousing activities. 

9.	 Charleston-EPA Region 4 is working with the Charleston community on 

another CARE grant. This program will focus on education and outreach 

related to heavy duty diesel idling. 

In addition to these projects, EPA Region 4 has specifically targeted the inclusion of 

ports in the SEDC. Representatives of several ports have been key speakers on SEDC 

monthly calls and at the annual SEDC Partners meeting. 

70
 
09-P-0125 

There is a port representative on the influential SEDC Strategic Planning Committee and 

on the SEDC Leadership Council. The Leadership Council consists of key leaders in the 

Southeast, and EPA Region 4 is an ex-officio member of this group. 

Finally, the SEDC Strategic Plan for 2009 prioritizes the development and 

implementation of a Green Corridors strategy for freight movement. Ports are a critical 

part of this effort and the starting point of the freight chain. Over the next 3 years, EPA 

Region 4 anticipates that this effort will focus on distribution centers associated with 

Ports, port specific emissions and logistic decision related to rail and land transport of 

freight from ports. 

See Appendix J

Note 32 for OIG Response 

71
 
09-P-0125 

Appendix J 

OIG Evaluation of Agency Response 

While we agree that progress has been made because of the October 2008 international 

agreement to control emissions, EPA still needs to do more to assure that air emissions at 

ports are sufficiently addressed. We agree with EPA’s commitment in its response to 

address emission limits for CO, HC and air toxics in its rule for Category 3 marine 

engines scheduled to be finalized in December 2009. We are encouraged by EPA’s 

commitment to work with the U.S. State Department, U.S. Coast Guard, and the 

Government of Canada to develop a comprehensive application to establish ECAs along 

all U.S. and Canadian coasts. 

Note 1 - We do not believe that our report is incomplete in our description of EPA's 

efforts under the National Clean Diesel Campaign. Our report states that 

EPA has provided multiple ways for ports and stakeholders to participate 

in EPA’s voluntary programs. However, we focused on participation in 

regional diesel collaboratives and technology verification, because these 

partnership programs were identified by OTAQ and EPA region personnel 

as significant components of the NCDC. We have updated some of the 

information in our report to more accurately reflect participation from 

certain stakeholders. However, EPA has not provided convincing 

evidence to support the idea that our findings are no longer accurate (see 

Note 20 for further details). 

EPA presented its Strategy for Sustainable Ports as its strategy for 

reducing pollution at U.S. ports. As we point out in Note 24, the Strategy 

for Sustainable Ports remains a public document on EPA’s Website with 

its stated purpose to “... support existing and new EPA programs and 

projects that will produce measurable results within the next 18 months...” 

As written, the Strategy for Sustainable Ports lacks the management 

controls to assure that its stated purpose is achieved. If the Agency 

intends for its efforts to reduce air emissions from U.S. ports to remain 

outside of the Strategy for Sustainable Ports, then an appropriate 

framework to oversee these activities should be in place. The OIG has 

concluded that such a framework is not in place. We continue to believe 

that because of the significance of port emissions and because of the 

projected increases in air emissions from port activities, EPA needs to 

develop a plan to address the major sources of air emissions at ports that 

EPA plans to reduce. The plan should include appropriate designation of 

authorities and responsibilities, milestones, performance measures, other 

management controls, and an assessment of resources to transform the 

Agency’s port-related efforts under the NCDC into successful 

implementation. We consider this recommendation open and unresolved. 

72
 
09-P-0125 

Note 2 - Although the Agency said that it concurred, with comment, with 

Recommendation 2-1, it did not state that it would assess its authorities 

and responsibilities under the CAA to regulate air emissions from foreignflagged vessel engines in U.S. ports and report any shortfalls in such 

authorities to Congress. EPA’s comments were not responsive and do not 

satisfy the intent of the recommendation. Due to the length of time (over 

14 years) it has taken EPA to get more stringent standards for oceangoing 

vessel engines by working with the IMO, we believe that EPA should 

conduct such an assessment and report any shortfalls in its authorities to 

Congress. The Agency agreed to evaluate the need to regulate pollutants 

other than those covered by the IMO Treaty as part of EPA’s rulemaking 

for Category 3 marine engines, which will be finalized by December 17, 

2009. We consider Recommendation 2-1 to be open and unresolved. 

Note 3 - The Agency concurred with comment on Recommendation 2-2. The 

Agency stated that it is working with other U.S. Government agencies and 

the Government of Canada to develop a comprehensive application to 

establish ECAs along all U.S. and Canadian coasts. We view this effort as 

being essential to any significant reduction of emissions from engines of 

oceangoing vessels that are approaching or in U.S. ports. The actions the 

Agency outlined in its response to Recommendation 2-2 satisfy the intent 

of our recommendation. 

Note 4 - We continue to believe that because of the significance of port emissions 

and because of the projected increases in air emissions from port activities, 

EPA needs to develop a plan to address the major sources of air emissions 

at ports that EPA plans to reduce. 

EPA’s Strategy for Sustainable Ports was the only strategic plan for 

reducing pollution at U.S. ports that EPA provided to the OIG. If EPA 

intends for its efforts to reduce air emissions from U.S. ports to remain 

outside of the Strategy for Sustainable Ports, then an appropriate 

framework to oversee these activities should be in place. The OIG has 

concluded that such a framework is not in place. 

EPA has not yet produced its annual performance report to Congress 

detailing the results of NCDC projects in FY 2008. While we believe that 

such reporting is important, this is only one element of a management 

plan. These types of efforts have not been incorporated into a focused 

management plan that specifically targets air quality improvements in port 

areas. Therefore, we continue to recommend that EPA create a 

transformation plan with appropriate designation of authorities and 

responsibilities, milestones, performance measures, other management 

controls, and an assessment of resources to transform the Agency’s portrelated efforts under the NCDC into successful implementation. We 

consider this recommendation open and unresolved. 

73
 
09-P-0125 

Note 5 - The OIG does not believe the statement is inaccurate. We acknowledge 

that EPA has reached out to a number of ports through its voluntary 

partnership programs; however, we believe that more work needs to be 

done. Because OTAQ and EPA region staff identified regional diesel 

collaboratives as a significant component of the NCDC, we emphasized 

stakeholder participation in these partnerships in the report. Many ports 

still have not implemented voluntary emission reduction initiatives 

through regional diesel collaborative efforts. See Note 20, below, for 

further details. 

Note 6 - We have amended our final report to state that the Agency is concerned 

about the harmful effects of emissions from engines of large oceangoing 

vessels that are approaching U.S. ports, as well as those that are already in 

U.S. ports. In addition, we added the following footnote on the first page 

of our final report when reference is made to “mobile sources operating at 

U.S. ports.” 

According to the Agency, air quality modeling recently conducted 

by EPA to support its proposed ECA application shows that 

emissions from as far as 200 nautical miles from ports impact air 

quality, not only in the immediate port areas, but for 100 miles 

inland from these ports. When this report refers to vessels “in U.S. 

ports,” it is also referring to vessels that are approaching U.S. 

ports. 

Note 7 - We have clarified the sentence concerning the adoption of new NOx 

standards and sulfur content of fuel oil used onboard ships as suggested by 

the Agency. 

Note 8 - In its response to our draft report, the Agency stated that EPA deferred 

more stringent emissions standards because “. . . it needed additional 

technical data to determine feasibility of new emission control 

technologies . . .” However, statements by EPA and CARB before the 

U.S. 2007 proposal to IMO indicated that the prospect of new technology 

did not preclude the adoption of more stringent emission standards for 

Category 3 engines. For example, in its advanced notice of proposed rule 

making, dated December 7, 2007, the Agency stated that “. . . as early as 

the 1997 conference, many countries 'already recognized that the NOX 

emission limits established in Regulation 13 [of Annex VI] were very 

modest when compared with current technology developments.'" Further, 

EPA stated in the draft of its 2003 rule that a NOx emission standard 30 

percent below international standards “. . . [could] be met relatively soon 

using in-cylinder controls.” In 2007, CARB stated that technology is 

available to achieve a 90 percent reduction in NOx emissions and a 60 

percent reduction in PM emissions from Category 3 engines. Further, 

while EPA’s standard allowed the use of fuel with a sulfur content of 

45,000 ppm, a large global shipping company had successfully used fuel 

74
 
09-P-0125 

with a sulfur content of 3,000 ppm in vessels operating off the coast of 

California. This practice demonstrated that the technological capability of 

existing engines allowed the use of fuel with substantially less sulfur. As 

such, we did not amend our report to include EPA’s assertion regarding 

technology. 

Note 9 - We do not agree with the Agency that reference needs to be made to the 

international NOx standard in the cited paragraph. Such a reference would 

be redundant with the next paragraph where the first sentence states that 

EPA’s NOx standard is equivalent to the international NOx standard. 

Accordingly, we did not change the cited paragraph. 

Note 10 - We agree with the Agency’s suggestion for revising the cited sentence and 

have changed the report accordingly. 

Note 11 - We agree with the Agency’s observation that there is some redundancy 

between the cited sentence and the footnote, and we have deleted the 

footnote and revised the text accordingly. 

Note 12 - We are pleased that the Agency’s position regarding the control of CO, 

HC, and air toxics has evolved since we completed our field work, and 

that EPA plans to address emission limits for CO, HC, and air toxics in its 

December 2009 rule. 

Note 13 - We believe that the terminology used in our draft report accurately 

describes the situation – that EPA said in its 2003 rulemaking that the 

Agency would address emissions for large oceangoing vessels by April 

27, 2007. Nonetheless, we have revised our report to eliminate the phrase 

that EPA “missed” this date and have added that EPA extended the 

deadline for addressing such emissions until December 2009. 

Note 14 - We clarified the report as suggested by the Agency. 

Note 15 - We corrected the footnote as requested by the Agency. 

Note 16 - While the IMO allows alternative means to meet the fuel standard for the 

sulfur content of fuel, it does not establish an emissions limit for SOx nor 

for PM. An emissions limit sets a limit on the actual emissions that can be 

legally emitted from a source (oceangoing vessels). A fuel standard, on 

the other hand, only limits the amount of sulfur contained in the fuel used 

by the source. Limiting the amount of sulfur in fuel will reduce a source's 

emissions, but the amount actually emitted may legally vary with engine 

age and condition, vessel load, speed, wind, ocean current, and other 

factors. The fact that Annex VI allows other methods to be used "as an 

alternative to that required by this Annex . . ." does not change the basic 

requirement – which is a fuel standard on the sulfur content of fuel, not an 

emissions limit for SOx or PM. We have clarified the text in this section 

75
 
09-P-0125 

to make it clear that the agreement does not establish an emissions limit 

for SOx but does allow alternative means to meet the fuel standard for the 

limits on the percentage of sulfur contained in fuel. 

Note 17 - We have revised the text and added a clarifying footnote that includes the 

language suggested by the Agency. 

Note 18 - We revised the sentence in the final report to read: “According to OTAQ, 

it completed an additional modeling tool, called DrayFleet, after our draft 

report was issued.” 

Note 19 - We believe that issuing effective guidance is a good first step towards 

establishing consistent baseline emissions inventories. As the draft report 

pointed out, we believe that creating consistent baseline emissions 

inventories at the largest 75 U.S. ports may aid EPA in evaluating the 

effectiveness of future emission reduction activities at these ports. 

Note 20 - The OIG does not believe the section title is inaccurate. EPA has provided 

multiple ways for ports to participate in voluntary emission reduction 

programs. However, we believe that more work needs to be done. Some 

of the examples provided in OAR’s response to Appendix G below do not 

constitute implementation of voluntary initiatives to reduce air emissions. 

For example, the information provided in support of activities at the Port 

of Detroit (tours and discussions), and the Port of Indiana (meetings and 

an unawarded grant application) is not convincing evidence that voluntary 

initiatives have been implemented at these ports. During fieldwork for 

this evaluation, OTAQ and EPA region personnel identified regional 

diesel collaboratives as a significant component of EPA’s NCDC. The 

OIG is aware that being a member of one of these collaboratives is not the 

only indication of a port’s efforts to reduce air emissions through 

voluntary initiatives. However, because OTAQ and EPA region staff 

identified regional diesel collaboratives as a significant component of the 

NCDC, we emphasized stakeholder participation in these partnerships in 

our report. Due to the collaboratives’ ability to leverage EPA funding and 

partner with numerous local and regional stakeholders, the OIG viewed 

these partnerships as a primary means of EPA oversight and guidance for 

voluntary emission reduction activities at U.S. ports. Our report 

acknowledges the presence of EPA’s other voluntary partnership 

programs, e.g., the SmartWay Transport program and Clean Ports USA, as 

well as alternative means for working with EPA, e.g., working through 

State agencies, etc. 

As we stated in Chapter 3, EPA has not developed a transformation plan to 

link its desired strategic results with actions that EPA regions and 

stakeholders need to take. This type of plan would allow EPA to tie 

together the efforts of its various voluntary programs and allow the 

76
 
09-P-0125 

Agency to assign priority, track results, and identify needs within its 

partnership program as a whole. 

Note 21 - The OIG is aware that participating in a diesel collaborative is not the only 

indication of the extent to which ports are taking voluntary measures to 

reduce diesel emissions. However, based on the significant role regional 

diesel collaboratives play in promoting voluntary initiatives through the 

NCDC, the OIG asked eight EPA regions to identify any ports not 

participating in their respective regional diesel collaboratives. We believe 

a reasonable expectation of participation in a diesel collaborative would 

include a commitment to action by the stakeholder. 

We have revised the report to include the Ports of Bridgeport and Stockton 

as participants in regional diesel collaboratives. 

Note 22 - No change needed. 

Note 23 - This section of the draft report acknowledged the budget constraints that 

EPA faced. However, $5.3 million of funding over a 6-year period does 

not appear to be significant when compared to the magnitude of air quality 

and human health concerns raised in certain port areas. We do not offer 

any specific conclusions regarding whether EPA’s level of funding was 

appropriate for reducing emissions from port sources. Instead, the section 

describes the level of EPA funding since FY 2002, and points out that a 

general lack of funding has hampered the Agency’s ability to implement 

voluntary initiatives to reduce air emissions at ports. 

Note 24 - EPA’s Strategy for Sustainable Ports was the strategic plan for reducing 

pollution at U.S. ports that EPA provided to the OIG. The Strategy for 

Sustainable Ports remains a public document on EPA’s Website with its 

stated purpose to “... support existing and new EPA programs and 

projects that will produce measurable results within the next 18 months...” 

If OAR intends for its efforts to reduce air emissions from U.S. ports to 

remain outside of the Strategy for Sustainable Ports, then an appropriate 

framework to oversee these activities should be in place. The OIG has 

concluded that such a framework is not in place. Therefore, we 

recommend that EPA create a transformation plan with appropriate 

designation of authorities and responsibilities, milestones, performance 

measures, other management controls, and an assessment of resources to 

assure the Agency’s port-related efforts under the NCDC are successfully 

implemented. 

Note 25 - We are pleased that EPA Region 1 is active with the ports in its Region, 

and encourage the Region to continue to promote Clean Ports USA and 

Northeast Diesel Collaborative efforts. 

77
 
09-P-0125 

Note 26 - We look forward to EPA Region 1 continuing to promote voluntary diesel 

emission reduction projects at all ports in the region through its 

competitive grant process and the Northeast Diesel Collaborative. 

Note 27 - We believe that efforts, such as those outlined by EPA Region 1 above, 

are important steps in measuring progress to reduce air emissions at ports. 

We agree that EPA has the capacity and, we believe, the responsibility to 

facilitate efforts to assess emissions at U.S. ports and track improvements. 

We encourage the Agency to follow through on its commitment in the 

Strategy for Sustainable Ports to “work with the top 75 ports in the U.S. to 

develop port specific baseline emissions inventories and emissions 

reduction targets based on 1) EPA’s national port inventory guidance or 2) 

air emissions inventories completed by the port authorities in accordance 

with EPA-approved methodologies.” 

Note 28 - We are pleased that EPA Region 1 has taken an active role in fulfilling its 

commitments under the national Strategy for Sustainable Ports. We 

acknowledge in Chapter 3 of our report that “...EPA provides multiple 

ways for ports to participate in its programs.” While EPA may be 

involved with many different stakeholders, we concluded that the Agency 

does not have a sufficient management framework in place to transform 

all of these efforts into measurable results. The action items contained in 

EPA’s Strategy for Sustainable Ports do not contain the necessary 

milestones and management controls to ensure that the desired strategic 

results are linked with actions that EPA regions and stakeholders need to 

take. 

Note 29 - We have revised the report to include the Port of Bridgeport as a 

participant of the Northeast Diesel Collaborative. 

Note 30 - We are pleased that EPA Region 2 has expanded its efforts under the 

Northeast Diesel Collaborative to include the Puerto Rico Ports Authority, 

and that the Region is promoting voluntary emission reduction activities at 

ports. We revised the report to add a reference to the Port of New York 

and New Jersey regarding its use of ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel. 

Note 31 - Our report accurately describes the resources that were allocated and spent 

across EPA, and within Region 4, to address port air emissions from FY 

2002 through FY 2007. This description of resources is meant to illustrate 

that the lack of overall funding has hampered EPA’s implementation of 

voluntary strategies to reduce emissions at U.S. ports. EPA’s Office of 

Air and Radiation agreed with this assessment in its response to our draft 

report. 

Note 32 - We are pleased that EPA Region 4 is targeting the inclusion of ports in the 

Southeast Diesel Collaborative. As stated in the report, even ports located 

in attainment areas may cause local air quality impacts. We acknowledge 

78
 
09-P-0125 

that EPA Region 4 is working to address these impacts through broader 

efforts, and encourage the Region to continue expanding its work with 

port stakeholders in the Southeast Diesel Collaborative. 

79
 
09-P-0125 

Appendix K 

Distribution 

Office of the Administrator 

Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation 

Director, Office of Transportation and Air Quality 

Deputy Director, Office of Transportation and Air Quality 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 2 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 6 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 9 

Agency Follow-up Official (the CFO) 

Agency Follow-up Coordinator 

Acting General Counsel 

Acting Associate Administrator for Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations 

Acting Associate Administrator for Public Affairs 

Audit Follow-up Coordinator, Office of Air and Radiation 

Audit Follow-up Coordinator, Region 2 

Audit Follow-up Coordinator, Region 6 

Audit Follow-up Coordinator, Region 9 

Acting Inspector General 

80