Re: Support for Auxiliary Diesel Engines and Diesel Electric Engines Operated on Oceangoing Vessels Regulation

Transcription

1 December 7th, 2005 Barbara Riordan, Interim Chairwoman and Board Members California Air Resources Board 1001 I Street, P.O. Box 2815 Sacramento, CA Re: Support for Auxiliary Diesel Engines and Diesel Electric Engines Operated on Oceangoing Vessels Regulation Dear Chairwoman Riordan and Board Members: We are writing to you on behalf of the Coalition for Clean Air, Natural Resources Defense Council, Union of Concerned Scientists, Bluewater Network, American Lung Association of California, Coalition for a Safe Environment, Center for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Technologies, Neighborhood House of North Richmond, Sierra Club California, San Pedro Peninsula Homeowners Coalition, Steven and Michele Kirsch Foundation, Environmental Working Group and EWG Action Fund, Breast Cancer Fund, Pacific Institute, Long Beach Alliance for Children with Asthma, Regional Asthma Management and Prevention Initiative, Environmental Defense, Our Children s Earth Foundation and the West Oakland Environmental Indicators Project in support of the California Air Resources Board s (ARB) proposed regulation for oceangoing vessel (OGV) auxiliary diesel engines and diesel electric engines that operate within state waters. At the December 8 th Board Hearing, we urge you to adopt this important regulation, which will address a primary source of significant health impacts and elevated cancer risk from port operations statewide. Ocean Going Vessel Auxiliary Engines and their Impacts Auxiliary engines, which are used to power onboard system needs such as refrigeration and electricity, predominantly rely on the dirtiest and most polluting marine fuel available on the market today bunker fuel. OGVs such as cargo carrying ships, cruise ships and tankers run their auxiliary engines upon entering California coastal waters and continue to operate these engines while docked, often for days at a time, emitting significant pollution in close proximity to neighboring communities. At dock, one cargo carrying ship can generate over a ton of pollution per day. As ARB recently reported, roughly 2 million people living within 15 miles of the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach face elevated cancer risks solely from OGV auxiliary engines. Many of the impacted areas are communities heavily impacted by the numerous sources of pollution related to port operations. Additionally, if unaddressed, premature deaths directly related to auxiliary engines are estimated to increase 150% by Given additional well documented health implications from diesel exhaust including heart disease and respiratory illnesses such as asthma, you are well aware of the urgent need for strong action to reduce toxic diesel emissions. Benefits of Proposed Regulation This rule would reduce diesel particulate matter emissions by 75% for each ship that switches from bunker fuel (27,000 parts per million sulfur content) to a cleaner marine fuel that has a sulfur content of 5,000 parts per million (ppm) or less. Smog forming pollutants such as NOx and SOx emissions will also be reduced. This regulation could prevent over 500 premature deaths and over ten thousand asthma attacks in the next 15 years. These significant public health

2 protections will benefit workers and communities in the vicinity of California s ports and along major shipping lanes up and down California s coast. Support for Regulation and Key Concerns We strongly commend ARB staff for tackling this complicated issue and are pleased that the regulation will apply to all OGVs, including foreign flagged vessels, by January 2007 within a 24 nautical mile enforcement boundary. We are also in strong support of ensuring that dieselelectric engines used on cruise ships and tankers are subject to the requirements of this Diesel electric engines on board cruise ships produced the second highest volume of emissions from auxiliary engines in the state after container ships. Because cruise ships produce significant volumes of air pollution even with fewer ships and ports calls compared to other ocean going vessels, it is important to include their diesel electric engines in the rule as proposed by staff. Staff has crafted a critical regulation with many strong components that can dramatically reduce diesel emissions from marine vessels. To ensure that the regulation delivers the promised emission reductions, the following four issues must be addressed: 1) Require a firm cap on the sulfur content levels established under this regulation The regulatory language as it now stands does not set a firm 5,000 ppm cap on the fuel required by the January 1, 2007 deadline. Our understanding is that the regulation as drafted aims to achieve the 5,000 ppm level by relying on results of fuel surveys, which show that distillate marine fuels should have less than a 5,000 ppm sulfur content on average. However, marine distillate fuels such as marine gas oil (MGO) can have sulfur contents up to 15,000 ppm and marine diesel oil (MDO) can have up to 20,000 ppm sulfur. We strongly urge the ARB Board to establish an enforced cap of 5,000 ppm for both MDO and MGO to close this significant loophole in the proposed regulation language and ensure full emission reductions are realized. Additionally, the Sunset and Technology Review Provision within the regulation requires ARB to reevaluate the supply of 1,000 ppm sulfur marine fuel a few years prior to solidifying the January 2010 deadline. We are concerned that ARB is unwittingly putting itself in a similar position as they faced in earlier phases of this regulation: having to explain that there is sufficient supply to require the 2,000 ppm level, which had originally been proposed. It is our strong sentiment that until there is a clear requirement and resulting demand for a specific fuel type, it stands to reason that there will be no incentive for industry to increase supply. It is also important to note that this 1,000 ppm sulfur content cap and the 2010 timeframe falls instep with European Union requirements previously adopted. We urge the Board to unequivocally require the 1,000 ppm sulfur level by 2010 in this 2) Alternative Compliance Plan (ACP) must clearly define a limited number of viable strategies, guarantee equivalent emission reductions, and be subject to public review In the current proposed regulation, operators are allowed to use alternative methods to comply with the regulation by showing they can achieve equivalent reductions through another approach

3 (e.g. engine modifications, fuel additives, etc.). However, the current regulation does not propose sufficient criteria for determining which alternative strategies would provide quantifiable and enforceable emission reductions and would benefit nearby communities as well as regional air quality. We are deeply concerned that this provision may create a significant loophole. For example, we strongly recommend that fleet wide averages not be considered as an ACP strategy given the difficulty to enforce and the likelihood for disproportionate emission impacts on local communities. Similarly, operational controls should be explicitly eliminated from consideration also due to difficulties to enforce and to quantify emission benefits. These are only two examples of why ARB must clearly establish any alternative compliance methods and ensure that they will achieve, real, enforceable and quantifiable emission reductions otherwise required by this Given current efforts such as the joint efforts of the Business, Transportation and Housing Agency and California Environmental Protection Agency to reduce Goods Movement related pollution below 2001 levels by 2010 and as evidenced by the Port of Los Angeles No Net Increase Plan, we need a full suite of control measures which build on one another to address pollution from ships not one measure that can rely on any number of alternative options. Additionally, the regulation does not include public notice or provide the opportunity for the public to comment on ACPs. ARB must clearly define a limited number of viable strategies under the ACP provision and must provide the public an opportunity for public review and comment on an ACP s viability to produce real, enforceable and quantifiable emission reductions otherwise required by this 3) Mitigation Fee use should be allowed only in unexpected circumstances, guarantee equivalent emission reductions, and be subject to public review We have significant concerns that a mitigation fee option may create a pay to pollute approach that would set a dangerous precedent for future regulations and requirements. Although we do agree that rare, unexpected situations out of the operators control may occur and should be accounted for appropriately, the overwhelming majority of ship visits including infrequent visitors must meet the cleaner fuel requirements of this Additionally, the regulation does not specify how such mitigation funds would be spent or a process for the public to provide input on how funds should be spent. The mitigation fee should only be applied to rare, unexpected circumstances where the situation clearly falls out of the operator s control. Additionally, the regulation should include a provision to allow public comment and review of how the funds will be appropriated to ensure equivalent, real, enforceable and quantifiable emission reductions otherwise required by this 4) ARB must implement strong enforcement provisions We strongly urge ARB to implement enforcement provisions as described in this regulation during transit (inbound and outbound), maneuvering and hotelling (on dock) operations. We

4 recommend that all OGVs be required to provide supporting documentation to ARB enforcement officials upon request of fuel specifications and usage data for all fuels used on board. We also recommend that the appropriate authority enforce this regulation by conducting random fuel sampling aboard vessels, both at the dock and out at sea. We also urge the ARB to work with other state and federal agencies to gain efficiencies in enforcing this The state of California is already engaged in enforcement of state laws related to ballast water management and discharge of wastewater and other wastes generated on board ocean going ships. ARB must implement strict enforcement procedures to ensure proper compliance with the Summary California is at a critical juncture in deciding how to address the goods movement system and the pollution that ship traffic generates. This regulation is an important step as part of California s Diesel Risk Reduction Plan and State Implementation Plan. Unless air pollution control measures such as this regulation are implemented, port related emissions will continue to increase as trade volumes potentially triple over the next 20 years. As previously stated, we strongly support the auxiliary engine regulation and thank ARB staff for their significant efforts to date. Particularly, we support a comprehensive fuel requirement by the January 1, 2007 deadline for all OGVs. Additionally, we support the 24 nautical mile enforcement boundary. We urge the ARB Board to address our four key concerns including strict enforceable caps on the sulfur content requirements, incorporating public review of Alternative Compliance Plans and Mitigation Fee use, and establishing stringent enforcement procedures. Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have any questions. Sincerely, Tom Plenys Research Manager Coalition for Clean Air Diane Bailey Scientist Natural Resources Defense Council Don Anair Vehicles Engineer Union of Concerned Scientists Teri Shore Clean Vessels Campaign Director Bluewater Network Bonnie Holmes Gen Assistant VP, Government Relations America Lung Association of California V. John White Center for Energy Efficiency & Renewable Technologies

5 Jesse Marquez Coalition for a Safe Environment Jeanne Rizzo, R.N Breast Cancer Fund Lee Jones Community Outreach Specialist Neighborhood House of North Richmond Bill Magavern Senior Representative Sierra Club California Noel Park President San Pedro Peninsula Homeowners Coalition Susan Frank Vice President, Public Policy Steven and Michele Kirsch Foundation Bill Walker Vice President/West Coast Environmental Working Group & EWG Action Fund Elina Green Project Manager Long Beach Alliance for Children with Asthma Kathryn Phillips Manager California Clean Air for Life Campaign Environmental Defense Andrea Samulon Research Associate Pacific Institute Joel Ervice Interim Director Regional Asthma Management and Prevention (RAMP) Initiative Tiffany Schauer Our Children s Earth Foundation Brian Beveridge Co Chair West Oakland Environmental Indicators Project Cc: Catherine Witherspoon, Executive Officer, ARB Peggy Taricco, Manager, Technical Analysis Section, Stationary Source Div., ARB Daniel Donohue, Chief, Emissions Assessment Branch, Stationary Source Div., ARB