Proposal of Emission Control Area
Designation for Geographic Control
of Emissions from Ships
Regulatory Announcement
T he United States and Canada have proposed designation of an
area off our coasts in which stringent international emission controls
would apply to ships. When adopted, this control program would
dramatically reduce air pollution from ships and deliver substantial
benefits to large segments of the population, as well as to marine and
terrestrial ecosystems. This fact sheet contains an overview of the
proposal.
Overview
In July 2009, the United States and Canada jointly proposed designation of an Emission
Control Area (ECA) for specific portions of U.S. and Canadian coastal waters,
reflecting common interests, shared geography and interrelated economies. In addition,
France has joined the ECA proposal on behalf of its island territories of Saint-Pierre
and Miquelon, which form an archipelago off the coast of Newfoundland.
Designation of this ECA would control the emission of nitrogen oxides (NOx), sulfur
oxides (SOx), and particulate matter (PM) from ships, most of which are flagged
outside of the United States. These ships are significant contributors to our national
mobile-source emission inventory. In the U.S. and Canada combined, the ECA is
expected to reduce emissions of NOx by 320,000 tons, PM2.5 by 90,000 tons, and
SOx by 920,000 tons per year, which is 23 percent, 74 percent, and 86 percent below
current levels, respectively. The overall cost of the ECA is estimated at $3.2 billion.
The ECA would be expected to save as many as 14,000 lives and provide relief from
respiratory symptoms for nearly five million people each year. In total, the monetized
health-related benefits of the proposed ECA are estimated to be as much as $110
billion in the U.S. in 2020.
Office of Transportation and Air Quality
EPA-420-F-09-015
December 2009
For the U.S., the proposed ECA designation is one component of EPA’s coordinated strategy
to address harmful ship emissions. Complementing the ECA proposal are final Clean Air Act
(CAA) engine and fuel standards for ships that EPA issued December 2009.1 These standards
are similar in stringency to the new standards that will apply to all ships in the ECA.
The proposed area of the ECA includes waters adjacent to the Pacific coast, the Atlantic/Gulf
coast and the eight main Hawaiian Islands.2 The proposed ECA would extend up to 200 nautical
miles from the coastal baselines of United States, Canada and France, except that it would not
extend into marine areas subject to the sovereignty, sovereign rights, or jurisdiction of other
States.
Regulatory Announcement
Figure 1: Area Proposed for ECA Designation
The proposed ECA does not include the Pacific U.S. territories, the smaller Hawaiian Islands,
the U.S. territories of Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands, Western Alaska including the
Aleutian Islands, and the U.S. and Canadian Arctic. While these areas also experience the
Control of Emissions from New Marine Compression-Ignition Engines at or Above 30 Liters per Cylinder (signed
1
December 18, 2009). See www.epa.gov/otaq/oceanvessels.htm
2
As used here, the main Hawaiian Islands include the islands of Hawaii, Maui, Oahu, Molokai, Niihau, Kauai, Lanai, and
Kahoolawe. These islands are the main populated islands of the Hawaiian Islands chain, with the exception of Kahoolawe,
which is an uninhabited nature reserve.
2
environmental impacts of ship emissions, further information must be gathered to properly
assess these areas and determine how ECA controls will help. If further information supports
the need for an ECA designation in any of these areas, a separate proposal would be submitted
to the IMO, following the criteria contained in MARPOL Annex VI.
The Need to Reduce Emissions from Engines on Ships
The large marine diesel engines on ships are significant contributors to our national mobile-source
emission inventory. Today’s Category 3 marine engines must meet relatively modest emission
requirements and therefore generate significant emissions of fine particulate matter (PM2.5),
NOx, and SOx that contribute to nonattainment of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards
for PM2.5 and ozone. Emissions from these engines also cause harm to public welfare, contributing
to visibility impairment and other detrimental environmental impacts across the United States.
Regulatory Announcement
Many of our nation’s most serious ozone and PM2.5 nonattainment areas are affected by emissions
from ships. Currently more than 40 major U.S. ports3 along our Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, and
Pacific coasts are located in nonattainment areas for ozone and/or PM2.5
The contribution of these engines to air pollution is expected to grow even more over the next
two decades. Without further action, by 2030, NOx emissions from ships are projected to more
than double, growing to 2.1 million tons a year while annual PM2.5 emissions are expected to
almost triple to 170,000 tons. Designation of the proposed ECA would significantly reduce emissions
from ships and deliver substantial benefits to large segments of the population, as well as to
marine and terrestrial ecosystems.
3
American Association of Port Authorities (AAPA), Industry Statistics, port rankings by cargo tonnage
3
Regulatory Announcement
Figure 2: U.S. Ports and Nonattainment Areas
Emission Control Area Standards
In October 2008, the IMO adopted stringent new standards to control harmful exhaust emissions
from the engines that power ships. The member states of IMO agreed to amend Annex VI to
the International Convention on the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL), adopting
new tiers of NOx and fuel sulfur controls. The most stringent of these new emission standards
apply to ships operating in specially designated Emission Control Areas (ECAs):
• Beginning in 2015, fuel used by all vessels operating in these areas cannot exceed 0.1
percent fuel sulfur (1000 ppm) . This requirement is expected to reduce PM and SOx
emissions by more than 85 percent.
• Beginning in 2016, new engines on vessels operating in these areas must use emission
controls that achieve an 80 percent reduction in NOx emissions.
In most cases, ships already have the capability to store two or more fuels. However, to meet the
2015 requirement of 1,000 ppm fuel sulfur, some vessels may need to be modified for additional
distillate fuel storage capacity. As an alternative to using lower sulfur fuel, ship operators may
choose to equip their vessels with exhaust gas cleaning devices (“scrubbers”). In this case, the
scrubber extracts sulfur from the exhaust.
4
Costs
The costs of implementing and complying with the proposed ECA are expected to be small in
comparison to the health and welfare benefits and within the costs of achieving similar emissions
reductions through additional controls on land-based sources. We estimate the total costs of
improving ship emissions from current performance to ECA standards while operating in the
proposed ECA will be approximately $3.2 billion in 2020. The cost to reduce a ton of NOx,
SOx and PM is estimated at $2,400, $1,100 and $10,000, respectively. In comparison, the 2007
heavy-duty highway truck rule cost $2,300/ ton for NOx and $15,000/ ton for PM. Improving
current ship emission levels to ECA standards is one of the most cost-effective measures available
to obtain necessary improvements to the air quality in the U.S. and Canada.
The economic impacts of complying with the program on ships engaged in international trade
are expected to be modest. For example, operating costs for a ship in a route that includes about
1,700 nm of operation in the proposed ECA would increase by about 3 percent. This operating
Regulatory Announcement
cost increase would raise the cost of transport of a 20 foot container by about $18.
Benefits
The U.S. coastline and much of the interior of the country will experience significant improvements
in air quality due to reduced PM and ozone from ships complying with ECA standards. Coastal
areas would experience the largest improvements; however, significant improvements would
extend hundreds of miles inland to reach nonattainment areas in states such as Nevada,
Tennessee and Pennsylvania. National treasures such as the Grand Canyon National Park and
the Great Smoky Mountains would also see air quality improvements.
5
Regulatory Announcement
Figure 3: Potential Benefits of U.S. ECA Ambient PM2.5 Reductions in 2020
Figure 4: Potential Benefits of U.S. ECA Ozone Reductions in 2020
6
Table 1 presents the estimated annual reduction of ship-related adverse health impacts in 2020
that would result from applying the ECA standards. The figures in this table clearly illustrate the
health benefits of designating the proposed ECA for the U.S. and Canada. Our analysis shows
that as many as 14,000 lives will be saved and nearly five million people will experience relief
from acute respiratory symptoms each year
Table 1: Estimated PM2.5- and Ozone-Related Human Health Impacts
Associated with Ship Emissions in the U.S. and Canada
2020 Annual Ship-Related 2020 Annual Reduction in Ship-Related
Health Effect
Incidence Incidence with an ECAa
Premature Mortalityb
8,100 – 21,000 5,500 – 14,000
Chronic Bronchitis 5,500 3,900
Regulatory Announcement
Hospital Admissions c
11,000 4,800
Emergency Room Visits 6,700 3,800
Acute Bronchitis 13,000 9,300
Acute Respiratory Symptoms 8,900,000 4,900,000
Total U.S.-Related Monetized Benefits $47 - 110 billion b,d
a
Based on ship emission inventory reductions due to switching from 2.7% sulfur residual fuel to 0.1% sulfur distil-
late fuel and an overall fleet NOx reduction in the ECA of 23%, in 2020, from Tier II levels. In the long term, a
75% reduction in NOx emissions from Tier II levels would be expected in the ECA.
b
Includes both PM2.5- and ozone-related estimates of premature mortality. The range is based on the high- and
low-end estimate of incidence derived from several alternative studies used to estimate PM2.5- and ozone-related
premature mortality in the U.S.
c
Includes estimates of both cardiovascular- and respiratory-related hospital admissions.
d
The monetized benefits, presented in year 2006 dollars, are for the U.S. only, and reflect the use of a 3 percent
discount rate in the valuation of premature mortality and nonfatal heart attacks.
Next Steps
On July 17, 2009, the joint U.S.-Canada proposal was accepted in principle at MEPC 59. The
amendments to MARPOL Annex VI designating this ECA will circulate among member states
until March 2010, when MEPC 60 will be held. At MEPC 60, member states who are Parties
to MARPOL Annex VI (those who have ratified the treaty) will vote on the adoption of these
amendments. Given the MARPOL amendment acceptance process and the lead time specified
in the regulations, an ECA adopted at MEPC 60 could be expected to enter into force as early
as August 2012.
7
For More Information
You can access the U.S. proposal and related documents on EPA’s Office of Transportation and
Air Quality web site at:
www.epa.gov/otaq/oceanvessels.htm
For additional information, please contact the Assessment and Standards Division at
[email protected], 734-214-4636, or:
Assessment and Standards Division
Office of Transportation and Air Quality
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
2000 Traverwood Dr.
Ann Arbor, MI 48105
Regulatory Announcement
