Pollution from ships big worry
Officials look closer at serious health issue
By David Slade
If there's one thing on which environmentalists, port officials and government regulators agree, it's that something must be done to reduce the tremendous amount of air pollution from large ships that call on U.S. ports.
The ships, including the large containerships that ply the Charleston Harbor, burn a cheap, sludgelike diesel fuel that's 1,800 times dirtier than truck fuel.
The air pollution from a single ship can rival what's produced by every vehicle in a small city, and those emissions are linked to acid rain, lung disease and an estimated 60,000 deaths worldwide.
The Post and Courier/File
A containership heads out of the Charleston Harbor. Air pollution from large ships is a growing concern in coastal areas around the world.
"It is a very intense international problem," said Byron D. Miller, director of public relations for the S.C. State Ports Authority.
He said SPA is taking a leadership role on the issue and supporting the push for stronger international rules, but "we, really, as a nation, are coming to the dance late."
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency said that without changes, ships could account for nearly half the nation's lung-damaging particulate emissions from all vehicles and ships by 2030.
Although there is broad agreement on the problem, there is disagreement about the solutions.
"Where we differ is on pushing for unilateral action," said Dana Beach, director of the Coastal Conservation League in Charleston. "We should not allow (ships) to use fuel that kills people."
Some environmental groups and West Coast lawmakers want quick action on state or national regulations to reduce ship emissions.
Ports, the shipping industry and the Bush administration say they think an international agreement would be better because of the international nature of the industry.
"This industry thirsts for consistency," Miller said. "The last thing you want is to have a patchwork of regulations."
A patchwork already has started to emerge.
Last year, California began requiring large ships to switch to cleaner-burning fuel for auxiliary engines within 24 miles of the shore.
How dirty are they?
Large vessels, mostly operating under foreign flags, now account for 13 percent of the nation's nitrogen oxide, 17 percent of lung-damaging soot and half of sulfur oxide emissions, according to the EPA.
Worldwide, ships' emissions of soot, sulfur oxides and nitrogen oxides are blamed for 60,000 deaths annually, according to a report last year by the scientific journal Environmental Science & Technology.
Only six countries in the world emitted more of the greenhouse gases blamed for climate change than was produced collectively in 2001 by all ships larger than 100 tons, according to U.N. statistics and the International Council on Clean Transportation.
The largest ships entering the busiest harbors can produce the smog-forming emissions of 350,000 new cars, according to calculations by Friends of the Earth, a national environmental organization.
A 2006 California Air Resources Board study found that the Los Angeles and Long Beach ports generated more than one-fifth of all the diesel-particulate matter in Southern California in 2002.
International regulations on ship emissions, which the United States has not ratified, require the use of low-sulfur fuel in the areas of the Baltic Sea and the North Sea.
The EPA, after being sued by environmental groups, proposed tougher regulations to the U.N. International Maritime Organization and plans to issue its own rules in 2009.
In Congress this month, the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee heard testimony from an emergency room doctor from San Pedro, Calif., who said ship emissions are responsible for "diesel death zones" around ports.
Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., has proposed a bill that would require ships to use low-sulfur fuel within 200 miles of U.S. shores.
"We can't afford to give special interests more opportunities to weaken the rules, and children with asthma can't afford to wait," she said Feb. 13.
If the EPA deems upcoming international standards inadequate, it will impose its own rules on ships that sail along American coastlines and dock at U.S. seaports, said Margo Oge, director of EPA's Office of Transportation and Air Quality.
In Charleston, the Coastal Conservation League would like to see the same type of regulations that California has imposed upon shippers, requiring them to switch to cleaner fuel near the coast.
"We have air pollution problems like any large port," Beach said. "Other large ports have acted, and we have not."
In fact, Charleston's air quality is better than Columbia's or Greenville's, according to state and federal environmental agencies.
Unlike port cities in California, Charleston meets EPA goals for particulates, the small particles in diesel emissions that are blamed for lung disease and asthma. "We are an attainment area, so we don't have some of the issues they have on the West Coast," Miller said.
Miller said the port has nonetheless acted to improve air quality by switching from diesel to electric cranes, reducing truck idling, using low-sulfur fuel for trucks and equipment and taking other measures.
The Coastal Conservation League argues that air pollution statistics for Charleston are inaccurate because the two monitors maintained by the Department of Health and Environmental Control, near The Citadel and in Summerville, are essentially upwind from the ports.
Myra C. Reece, chief of DHEC's Bureau of Air Quality, said that under an agreement with the SPA, a full inventory of emissions, including those from ships, is due to be completed by September.
"That will create a road map for us of all the emissions coming from port-related activities, certainly including ships and trucks," she said. "When we have that data, that will be an opportunity for us to sit back down with the Ports Authority and discuss things we can do to reduce emissions."
Meanwhile, the Coastal Conservation League plans to buy a monitor to sample air quality in the Neck Area and east of the Cooper River, with DHEC's cooperation.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Reach David Slade at 937-5552 or dslade@postandcourier.com.
E-mail this story
Printer-friendly versionComments
MotoryachtSoCo (anonymous) says...
Politicians and Government Officials have an amazing talent for trivializing the momentous and complicating the obvious.
"Unlike port cities in California, Charleston meets EPA goals for particulates, the small particles in diesel emissions that are blamed for lung disease and asthma. We are an attainment area, so we don't have some of the issues they have on the West Coast," - Byron D. Miller, director of public relations for the S.C. State Ports Authority
In other words the ocean wind blows the diesel exhaust to Columbia.
http://cedarposts.blogspot.com
February 23, 2008 at 6:12 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
majorjohnson (anonymous) says...
The fuel they use (bunker fuel) come from cracking oil for other fuels. The cracking process produces incredible amounts of bunker fuel and it's only value is on these ships. If it isn't burned for fuel, more cleaner fuel will have to be cracked to replace it, which will not only deplete the supply of kerosene, diesel and gasoline but will produce even more bunker fuel. Bunker fuel is a tar like substance that has to be heated just to make it flow into the ships fuel tanks or into the engines...you can actually walk on it at room temperature. What do you suggest we do with the millions of tons of this stuff if we don't use it for fuel?
As far as grandfathering existing engines, retrofitting those engines in every ship that burns bunker fuel would be incredibly expensive and take ships out of service for years...do you really want to do without all of the goods that are shipped in and out of the country while that's being done, then pay double the price of those goods once they're moving again?
Solving the problem is a tad more problematic than just not allowing it to be burned in ships. That solution will reduce fuel supply, increase fuel costs, and leave an incredible waste disposal problem. Not grandfathering existing vessels would shut down the global economy and increase the cost of goods once it was moving again. We have new ethanol rules that sounded good to the non-thinkers, but ended up increasing fuel costs, increasing pollutants from fuel, increasing food costs, and reducing grain for food supplies. Knee jerk poorly thought out solutions to problems just add new, more and generally worse problems to the mix.
February 23, 2008 at 8:35 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
truthseeker (anonymous) says...
The only responsible thing for our elected officials to do is demand air quality testing around the SPA's terminals - like they do in California.
The SPA has NEVER tested their air quality around their terminals for PM 2.5 particulates - the deadliest form of diesel exhaust.
They are afraid to do testing. Imagine what the homeowners in ION and around Long Point road would do if they knew their children's asthma was caused by the port's dirty diesel activities???
Our legislators need to be held accountable for allowing our health to be jeopardized.
Look at the Wando terminal - and notice the air monitors are nowhere near the air pollution.
DHEC's strategy - If you do not monitor for air pollution where it is occurring - you do not have a problem .
http://www.charlestoncleanair.com/mon...
February 23, 2008 at 8:58 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
ChrisPia (anonymous) says...
For Al this talk on Global warming and air pollution we need to look at the Chemical Weapons convention.Not Ships.
February 23, 2008 at 10:19 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Horratio (anonymous) says...
"Unlike port cities in California, Charleston meets EPA goals for particulates, the small particles in diesel emissions that are blamed for lung disease and asthma. We are an attainment area, so we don't have some of the issues they have on the West Coast," - Byron D. Miller, director of public relations for the S.C. State Ports Authority
Thats pretty typical of heavey industry. Assure the public they have no measurable problem and as an excuse to continue to refuse to measure. Brilliant.
If they are sure they dont have a problem with air pollution, why are they so opposed to measuring at the terminal?
The heavey particulates likly fall out close by and are never picked up at the far away up wind monitors. It would be obvious to anyone else to measure near the source.
It also speaks volumes of DHEC. They must know this.
Its ok to spew poison as long as it doesn't kill anyone right away and the right people make easy money.
February 23, 2008 at 10:25 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
rollo (anonymous) says...
I agree, majorjohnson.
I'm going to look up some stories on gas prices and see if some of the same who are whining about the shipping industry here are also complaining that the energy companies are soaking the consumer.
Wanna make a friendly wager?
February 23, 2008 at 8:11 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
toastchee (anonymous) says...
Look, there are advances in clean energy that can also benefit the shipping industry...and save costs:
February 25, 2008 at 9:22 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
toastchee (anonymous) says...
http://www.climatebiz.com/sections/ne...
February 25, 2008 at 9:22 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Postandcourier.com is pleased to offer readers the enhanced ability to comment on stories. We expect our readers to engage in lively, yet civil discourse. Postandcourier.com does not edit user submitted statements and we cannot promise that readers will not occasionally find offensive or inaccurate comments posted in the comments area. Responsibility for the statements posted lies with the person submitting the comment, not postandcourier.com. If you find a comment that is objectionable, please click "report abuse" and we will review it for possible removal. Please be reminded, however, that in accordance with our Terms of Use and federal law, we are under no obligation to remove any third party comments posted on our website.
Users can now build user-to-user connections, follow friends' recent posts, add an avatar that fits their personality, and more. If you have posted here before you'll need to sign up again, or if you've never posted before, start now by signing up!
Full terms and conditions can be read here.
Thank you for your interest in this story. The comment thread for this article has been closed.
- Most Commented
- Most Emailed
- S.C. losing port traffic to other states
- Out with old ...
- Water — 'The smell is gone'
- Cart gives Buddy new lease on life
- Schools plan to update visitor-security system
- GenPhar site 'red-tagged'
- Man, 17, killed in motorcycle wreck
- Off campus
- Historic manor house used by Girl Scouts is among buildings that might be torn down to make way for future
- Biting research
