IMPLEMENTATION OF THE NORTH AMERICAN EMISSION CONTROL AREA IN THE UNITED STATES

Walker B. Smith, Director Angela Bandemehr, Project Manager U.S. EPA Office of Global Affairs and Policy Mexico City, Mexico May 19, 2015

OUTLINE

• • •

Why have an ECA How the NA ECA was established Implementation of the NA ECA in the US

BENEFITS OF US ESTABLISHING AN ECA

• • • • •

Growing ship emissions reducing air quality (most from non-U.S. ships) Consistent standards across all U.S. ports and internationally ECAs require greater reduced fuel sulfur levels than the global standard MARPOL Annex VI ratification important, but not enough U.S. could not meet domestic air quality goals without an ECA

Why the US has an ECA: Ship Emissions in a No Action Scenario

SHIP EMISSIONS RELATIVE TO OTHER MOBILE SOURCE PM2.5 EMISSIONS IN U.S.

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

83% 17%

2009

Source of inventory estimates: C3 Marine NPRM (July, 2009) Does not reflect IMO MARPOL Annex VI Amendments (October 2008) 52% 48%

2030 ALL OTHER MOBILE SOURCES OGV MARINE

IMPROVED AIR QUALITY

COST-BENEFIT OF THE NA ECA IN THE US

•

By 2030, emission reductions associated with the ECA will annually prevent:

–

Between 12,000 and 31,000 premature deaths

– –

About 1,400,000 work days lost About 9,600,000 days with respiratory symptoms

•

Estimated 2030 benefits are between $110 and $270 billion, while estimated costs are much lower at $3 billion

•

Benefit to cost ratio of up to 90:1

Mexican ship traffic projected to increase by 50-200% by 2030

Percent change (increase) in energy use and/or CO2 emissions attributed to growth in shipping within the Mexican modeling domain

EMISSION CONTROL AREAS

•

North American ECA

• US becomes party to MARPOL Annex VI: January 8, 2009 • NA ECA proposed by US/approved by IMO: July 2009 • Adopted by IMO: March 26, 2010 • Entry-into-force: August 1, 2011 • Enforcement: August 1, 2012 •

U.S. Caribbean Sea ECA

• Adopted by IMO: July 15, 2011 • Entry-into-force: January 1, 2013 • Enforcement: January 1, 2014

IMO FEEDBACK ON THE NA ECA PROPOSAL

• Presented proposal and answered questions at Marine Environmental Protection Committee (MEPC) meeting in July 2009 • MEPC concluded that the ECA proposal satisfied ECA designation criteria and approved the proposal • •

Examples of Comments by Parties

How size of the ECA determined Fuel availability in US and impact on shipping

IMO Determination

• •

200 nm boundary based on scientific analysis Proposal contained information on costs and fuel availability

STAKEHOLDER OUTREACH

TO DESIGN AND IMPLEMENT THE NA ECA

Via domestic rulemaking process, existing clean air advisory body, stakeholder meetings and conferences, inter-agency working group, bi-lateral industry and government meetings Government Industry • Canada and Mexic0 • U.S. Congress, multiple U.S. Government entities • State of California, local governments • National, regional and local clean air agencies • National and International Shipping Associations • American Association of Port Authorities, major ports • Engine and emission control manufacturers • Petroleum, refining and bunker supply industry • Shipping companies (cargo and cruise line) Public Groups • American Lung Association • EDF, NRDC, Clean Air Task Force • Community and environmental justice organizations

US APPROACH TO ECA COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT

• • • •

US Coast Guard (USCG) is lead for vessels – verify compliance with Annex VI/ECA during vessel exams EPA is the lead for U.S. fuel suppliers (shore-side) and issuing Engine International Air Pollution Prevention certificates.

Fuel Oil Non-Availability Reports (FONARs) are submitted to EPA EPA and Coast Guard are jointly:

–

Enforcing the ECA

–

Working on a vessel (fuel) sampling program

–

Coordinating with Canada and the EU on enforcement

NA ECA IMPLEMENTATION IN THE US

• • •

Coast Guard reports high compliance EPA not seeing significant fuel availability issues

–

Number of fuel non-availability reports is decreasing

–

Compliant fuel available in US

–

Seems to be available in most regions globally

–

Pursuing enforcement of non compliance No reports that the ECA is hindering business at ports

•

We could use existing programs and policies to verify and enforce

LESSONS LEARNED

• •

Collaboration between EPA and Coast Guard important

•

Communication with stakeholders important Strong enforcement is important to ensure a level playing field for the maritime industry

•

Some new programs and polices were needed

NEW PROGRAMS AND POLICIES

• • • •

USCG and EPA cooperation on ECA enforcement EPA guidance for industry on fuel non availability and the FONAR system Compliance monitoring

–

EPA shore-side fuel suppliers sampling

–

EPA fly-over ship emissions sampling

–

USCG and EPA vessel fuel sampling program EPA and USCG work with carriers and Flag States on compliance flexibility as provided for in Annex VI

SUMMARY

•

Because ships have high pollutant emissions and are a growing source, there is no better opportunity to improve the environment and public health than with an ECA

•

Tremendous health benefits of an ECA, more protective than global standards

•

Good experiences in the US implementing the NA ECA

QUESTIONS?

•

ANNEX VI RESOURCES

Coast Guard: www.uscg.mil/hq/cgcvc Select the following links: Foreign Compliance > Port State Control > MARPOL

o

APPS 33 U.S.C.

§

1901 – 1912 (US law to implement MARPOL)

o

EPA Engine Emissions: 40 CFR 94 (US law for MARPOL NOx Standards)

o

CG-543 Policy Letter 09-01 (Annex VI Implementation)

o

CG-CVC Policy Letter 12-04 (ECA Compliance)

o

EPA Revised Protocols (enforcement referral protocol)

•

EPA MARPOL Annex VI http://www2.epa.gov/enforcement/marpol-annex-vi

•

EPA Ocean Going Vessels Air Emissions Web Page: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/oceanvessels.htm

ADDITIONAL BACKGROUND

Improved Ecosystem Health

Improvements in deposition for marine and terrestrial ecosystems %

FUEL OIL NON-AVAILABILITY

• • • • • A vessel is expected to use compliant fuel when operating in the ECAs. If a ship owner is not able to obtain compliant fuel because it is not available, a Fuel Oil Non-Availability Report (FONAR) must be submitted. A FONAR is not a waiver! It is a formal statement of noncompliance. If 0.10% (1,000 ppm) is not available, another ECA-compliant fuel must be used if it is available. ECA-compliant fuel will not be deemed “unavailable” for the purposes of a FONAR if another compliant fuel is available, for example a low sulfur marine distillate (MGO/MDO) below 1,000 ppm.

ECA EXEMPTIONS & EQUIVALENCIES

•

USCG works with EPA in considering exemptions (Reg 3) and equivalencies (Reg 4).

•

The Coast Guard, in consultation with EPA, is responsible for issuing exemptions or equivalencies for U.S. flagged vessels.

•

Foreign ships must follow their flag administration exemption or equivalency process.

•

EPA and USCG review foreign ship proposals to consider acceptability to U.S. government.

•

USCG verifies compliance with method approved and documented in the IAPP to achieve equivalent emissions reductions.