Concern voiced over low sulfur fuel

   Both support and concerns about looming requirements for the use of ultra-low sulfur fuel by ships were aired Thursday during a meeting of the U.S. House Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation.
   Chris Koch, president and chief executive officer of the World Shipping Council, told the subcommittee his organization supported amendments to MARPOL Annex VI, as adopted by the International Maritime Organization, which he said “will result in significant improvements in air quality, particularly with respect to NOx (nitrogen oxides), SOx (sulfur oxides) and particulate matter (PM).”
   Pursuant to the authority provided in the Annex VI amendments, the U.S. and Canada have jointly established a North American Emission Control Area (ECA) which establishes a 200-nautical-mile zone covering all the heavily trafficked waters adjacent to the two countries, he noted.
   Starting Aug. 1, ships entering the ECA will be required to use fuel with a maximum sulfur content of 1 percent or some alternative compliance technology, such as exhaust gas scrubbing.
   The regulation will get tougher in January 2015 when the permissible sulfur content in marine fuel allowed in the ECA will be further reduced to 0.1 percent.
   Rep. Frank LoBiondo, R-N.J., chairman of the subcommittee, said he was “concerned the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) and Coast Guard have yet to establish a process on how they will deal with vessels whose engines cannot burn the lower sulfur fuels; or vessels that cannot acquire the new fuel because it is not widely available; or vessels seeking to achieve the same air quality improvements through alternative compliance methods and foreign equivalences.”
   Paul Cozza, president of CSL International, which operates self-unloading bulk carriers in short-sea trades, said it will cost millions of dollars for his firm to comply with the 1 percent sulfur requirement, but that CSL was “prepared to meet and support” the standard.
   However, he said the January 2015 standard will be more challenging.
   “Prices for this ultra-low sulfur fuel—to the extent the fuel is available—will raise our cargo rates and challenge our business and more importantly the customers we serve,” he said, also noting “marine diesel fuel has different flash point specifications than road diesel which means we can’t simply adjust to a ‘generic’ low sulfur diesel fuel.”
   He said unlike companies involved in foreign trade, CSL’s vessels generally trade within 100 miles of the coast and will have to use more expensive fuel all of the time.
   Cozza said efforts should be made to align the environmental goals of the ECA with the Maritime Administration’s Marine Highway initiative and that Congress and EPA should “reduce the 200-nautical-mile ECA to 50 miles for 0.1 percent sulfur fuels (in 2015) for lower emitting ships of 20,000 horsepower and below. This revision will move away from the current ‘one size fits all’ regulation.”
   LoBiondo also expressed concern about ballast water regulations that have been developed by the Coast Guard, and the ability for local governments to have their own standards.
   “Under EPA’s current program, 29 states and tribes have added their own differing discharge standards. I think it is completely unreasonable to ask vessel operators to comply with two federal standards and as many as 29 different, contradictory, and unachievable state and tribal standards. The situation is out of control,” he said.
   “Some of these states plan to enforce ballast water discharge standards in the next year for which no treatment technology has yet been invented. The Commercial Vessel Discharges Reform Act, which originated in this subcommittee and passed in the House, will correct these issues by creating a uniform national standard for ballast water.”
   He asked members of the Senate to “show their understanding of the gravity of this situation by adopting the bill as soon as possible.”
   Koch said “we appreciate the joint efforts of the Coast Guard and EPA to coordinate the development and implementation of a single, uniform federal approach to the installation of ballast water treatment technology on ships, and we remain hopeful that these efforts will result in the next VGP (vessel general permit) being made consistent with the Coast Guard’s final rule.” — Chris Dupin