Revised Smog Rules Leave Ships on Cruise Control

Smog-forming emissions from oceangoing ships will remain virtually unchanged under a new regulation the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency announced on Wednesday.

The federal Clean Air Act requires the EPA to approve pollution controls for new cargo carriers, tankers and cruise liners, but environmentalists contended that the agency failed to take action on the biggest vessels and sued. A settlement was reached in the fall of 2000 but it did not specify what the measure should be.

The regulation EPA Administrator Christie Whitman proposed this week does not require emissions reductions beyond those set five years ago under an international accord. Those limits have been widely criticized as unduly lenient. New ships already comply.

About 30,000 ships are in service worldwide, producing about 15% of the world’s the nitrogen- and sulfur-based pollutants. Those pollutants contribute to the lung irritant ozone, haze and acidic fallout.

Yet ships are among the least controlled pollution sources in the world. They typically have no emissions controls and burn a low-grade diesel fuel that produces 50 times more haze-forming pollutants than the dirtiest diesel trucks on U.S. highways.

As part of its announcement Wednesday, the EPA also promised to consider measures to cut emissions from U.S.-owned ships at least 30% by 2007. Yet that level of pollution control, which was contained in the EPA regulation as recently as a few weeks ago, was rejected by officials of the Bush administration intent on keeping controls on U.S. ships in line with commercial vessels operated by other nations.

“We’re going to enforce this international regulation for our ships in the United States and we’re considering whether to go beyond that to reduce [smog-forming] nitrogen oxide emissions beyond what the international community has done,” said Margo Oge, director of EPA’s office of transportation and air quality.

The EPA’s decision won praise from industry representatives, who had lobbied to prevent the agency from pursuing controls for ships more aggressive than other nations. They questioned whether the United States has authority to order foreign ships to comply with U.S. environmental standards.

“That is a very progressive and positive step,” said Jonathan Benner, a lobbyist for the International Assn. of Independent Tanker Owners, which represents operators of 2,000 ships around the world. “We need a global standard that follows a ship as it makes its way from port to port around the world.”

But the proposal infuriated environmentalists, who have pressured the EPA for years to crack down on ship emissions. They vowed to return to court to seek more stringent controls. State and local air quality officials expressed dismay; they lack direct authority over ships, but say they will be hard-pressed to meet health-based air pollution standards without reductions from ship smokestacks.

“This is a ridiculous regulation. There is absolutely zero air quality benefit here,” said Russell Long of San Francisco-based Bluewater Network, a plaintiff in the lawsuit. “The Bush administration has punted again. This is terrible news for Americans living around coastal cities because ships are among the world’s biggest polluters.”

“It doesn’t give us much, that’s for sure,” said Doug Allard, executive officer for the Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District, where clean-air gains are slipping away in the face of increased shipping along the California coast. “I don’t’ see anything that provides any benefit. It is disappointing.”

The workhorses of international commerce, ships carry 65% of all consumer goods used in the United States as well as millions of tourists cruising to Alaska, Mexico, Bermuda and the Caribbean.

“When it comes to controlling ships, we are about where we were with cars in 1965,” said James Corbett, professor of marine policy at the University of Delaware.

In the Los Angeles region, no other facility produces more air pollution than the Los Angeles-Long Beach port complex, one of the busiest in the world. On average, 16 giant ships arrive at the ports daily, unloading sneakers, TVs and tropical fruit and releasing more smog-forming gases than 1 million cars. As trade around the Pacific Rim increases, cargo shipments are expected to double in the next decade, according to port officials.

Under the measure EPA Administrator Whitman proposed, all new U.S.-flagged ships would be required to meet pollution limits established under amendments to the 1997 International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution for Ships. The accord established variable pollution limits for different types of large ships, but generally reduced emissions by about 11%. However, the accord permits ships to emit 50% more sulfur-based pollutants than are found in modern fuels. The pollution limits apply only to new ships, though it takes nearly four decades before smoky, older vessels are ready for replacement.

Nor do the standards apply to all the pollutants ships produce.

Moreover, the EPA has acknowledged that even if the international standards were fully in force, pollution from big ships would increase by about 13% in the United States in 30 years.

Under the EPA proposal, the approximately 300 ships operated by U.S. companies have until 2004 to meet the standard. It applies only to U.S. vessels, although nine of every 10 vessels coming to the nation’s ports are operated by foreign companies or governments, Corbett said.

Oge at the EPA said that the agency will consider comments on whether to hold foreign vessels to U.S. pollution limits at a later date. However, officials question whether the federal government has such authority. Environmentalists insist they do have that authority, pointing out that the U.S. has required foreign carriers to use double-hulled tankers and provide facilities for disabled people on cruise ships.

A final version of the rule is due by Jan. 31 and public comments can be sent to the EPA. The agency plans to hold a public hearing on the proposed regulations June 13 at Hyatt Regency in Long Beach.