Ports, system chart new course for diesel emissions: Second in a series

Diesel Fuel News, Feb 18, 2002 by Jack Peckham

Washington, DC -- The headaches of air pollution non-compliance are starting to throb at a growing number of ports, and ship operators likewise will be searching the medicine cabinet soon thanks to upcoming government regulations, as seen at a U.S. Maritime Administration (MARAD) international conference on marine emissions here.

"It's a question of when ports will face regulation, not if," as Port of Houston environmental manager Laura Fiffick emphasized here. The types of equipment affected include off-road vehicles, cranes, trucks, rubber-tire gantrys, railroad locomotives, dredges, tugs/tows and port construction equipment.

Among U.S. cities, Houston faces particularly complex, critical deadlines for cutting ozone-forming nitrogen oxides (NOx) emissions as well as mandates to reduce particulate matter (PM) and "air toxics," in a metro region that includes giant stationary source emitters including oil refineries, petrochemical plants and millions of cars and trucks.

Probably no city in the U.S. other than Los Angeles faces such mind-boggling, complex and costly air pollution reduction mandates as Houston, now ranked as the worst air-pollution area in North America. It's additionally one of the world's biggest shipping ports, critically dependent on the diesel-powered maritime industry to sustain its economy.

But like some other port cities, Houston faces EPA-mandated "state implementation plan" (SIP) emissions-reduction requirements, along with "general conformity" limits that require offsets to emissions triggered by new, federally funded or federally permitted projects, such as ship-channel dredging that's getting underway.

Meantime, the metropolitan transportation authorities that draw up periodic "transportation conformity" plans to qualify for federal highway dollars don't necessarily include port emissions in their plans. "If you haven't been working with them, then they'll say, 'you're not in our SIP,"' Fiffick pointed out. So, ports won't always be able to scratch offsetting emissions increases from other sources.

That means the Port has to figure out its own offsets -- and figure out a way to pay for these at costs that won't drive shippers and carriers to competing ports not facing such strict regulatory emissions offsets. That makes the Port of New Orleans "salivate," Fiffick said.

But maybe only temporarily. If the tough emissions regulations now hitting refiners, automakers, truckers, railroads, airports, construction and agriculture also hit ships, tugs, barges and port equipment operators, then New Orleans - and other big-city ports in the U.S. and around the world -- eventually could face the sort of headaches that have Houston, Los Angeles and New York chugging emissions-aspirin today.

That problem could come sooner rather than later, thanks to an expected imposition of even tougher EPA limits on fine-PM ([PM.sub.2.5]) and ozone under National Ambient Air Quality Standards now awaiting decision in a U.S. Appeals Court, upon remand from the U.S. Supreme Court. Many cities currently in PM compliance are expected to fall out of compliance under the new P[M.sub.(2,5)] standard, and it will "put a lot more port cities in trouble," Fiffick said.

Cutting emissions is tough enough, but drawing up an EPA "general conformity" plan is a mind-boggling task, made even worse because Ports have no idea what sort of emissions credits they should expect from upcoming U.S. EPA marine emissions limits for the big "category 3" ships, and whether these will be imposed on foreign-flag ships, the biggest portion of port sulfur oxides (SOx) and a fair portion of local nitrogen oxides (NOx), particulates (PM) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) emissions.

Nor do ports have any idea when the International Maritime Organization's "Marpol-6" ship emissions limits will take effect, since nowhere near enough nations and representative shipping tonnage have signed the treaty. Even if Marpol-6 were to take effect soon, it has very weak limits on fuel sulfur (4.5%, even higher than today's commercial average) and rather feeble limits on NOx for engines over 130 kilowatts.

That leaves the near-term clean-up job to the local port companies: industrial equipment operators, heavy cranes, the trucks/trains coming and going, the dredging operators, and the local vessel operators, none of whom have the slightest idea about emerging low-emissions technologies, cleaner fuels, and most important: costs.

So, Port of Houston had to seek out low-emissions demonstration projects, trying to figure out which technologies can work with port equipment, at what costs. The goal: cut NOx emissions by 25%, by 2004.

To do that, the Port first had to figure out baseline emissions inventories, and get some idea of how much emissions reduction it could get with low-emissions technologies.

That led to decisions to buy low-emissions, propane-powered light vehicles, good for 25% lower Nox compared to conventional vehicles. It also led to tests of diesel-water emulsions (PuriNOx) on yard trucks and yard cranes, delivering about 30% NOx reduction for these applications. (By contrast, California Air Resources Board gives Port of Los Angeles only 13% NOx credit from using a PuriNOx emulsion, due to the mandatory New York City Bus test-cycle used in CARB's current emulsion retrofit protocol).