Marine
The Port of Los Angeles | Environment Draft Environmental Impact Report
Clear the Air says:
How come we have a bigger port than LA but we do not get such reports from our EPD and Marine Department?
Are they lazy or inept or want to conceal the data in Hong Kong? – or all three ?
http://www.portoflosangeles.org/EIR/SCIG/DEIR/deir_scig.asp
Comments can also be sent via e-mail to: ceqacomments@portla.org. Comments sent via email should include the project title in the e-mail’s subject line and a valid mailing address within the email.
For additional information, please contact the Port of Los Angeles Environmental Management Division at (310) 732-3675.
Comments can also be sent via e-mail to: ceqacomments@portla.org. Comments sent via email should include the project title in the e-mail’s subject line and a valid mailing address within the email.
For additional information, please contact the Port of Los Angeles Environmental Management Division at(310) 732-3675.
Jurong Port to ‘develop and implement major green projects with MPA’s funding support’
Singapore launches green port programme
12th October 2011 10:12 GMT
Singapore port operator Jurong Port (JP) and the Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore (MPA) jointly launched the Green Port and Productivity Solutions (GPPS) research and development programme.
A memorandum of understanding (MOU) has been signed by JP CEO Matthew Chan and MPA Chief Executive Lam Yi Young on Wednesday.
Co-funded by MPA’s Maritime Innovation and Technology (MINT) Fund and JP, the programme will see both organisations allocating SGD$6 million ($4.69 million) each for the next five years to “embark on green technology and productivity projects in the port.”
Under the MOU, up to SGD$12 million will be available to conduct research and test-bed green technologies to reduce carbon footprint and improve productivity for its existing and future terminals.
JP has identified four operational challenges such as rising labour costs, limited waterfront space, high energy consumption and the need to be more environmentally friendly.
“We’ve already completed a study on our carbon footprint. Now we will develop and implement major green projects with MPA’s funding support,” said Chan.
Meanwhile, Lam said: “I am pleased to note that under the Green Port and Productivity Solutions R&D Programme, Jurong Port will be working with tertiary and research institutions to identify greener solutions to enhance their port operations.”
Designation of US Caribbean Emission Control Area under MARPOL ANNEX VI
Oct. 7, 2011
ClassNK issues Technical Information TEC- 0866 regarding Designation of US Caribbean Emission Control Area under MARPOL ANNEX VI (Regulations for the Prevention of Air Pollution from Ships) as follows:
Information on Emission Control Areas (hereinafter referred to as ECA) specified in MARPOL ANNEX VI (hereinafter referred to as ANNEX VI) has already been provided in ClassNK Technical Information No.TEC-0654 issued on 13 April 2006, No.TEC-0771 issued on 13 May 2009 and No.TEC-0832 issued on 11 November 2010.
In this connection, the United States Caribbean Sea area has been designated as a new ECA in accordance with the amendments to ANNEX VI adopted at the 62nd session of the Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC 62) held in July 2011.
The relevant information has been circulated by the IMO as the attached Resolution MEPC.202(62). This ClassNK Technical Information provides information relating to the above matter.
1. Sea area newly designated as ECA
The United States Caribbean Sea area (the sea area located off the Atlantic and Caribbean coasts of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and the United States Virgin Islands) is designated as ECA for NOx, SOx and Particulate Matter (PM) emissions. Please refer to IMO Resolution MEPC.202(62) for the detailed definition of the sea area.
2. Application
The amendments will enter into force on 1 January 2013. However, the requirements regarding SOx and Particulate Matter (PM) emissions (Regulation 14 of ANNEX VI) in the United States Caribbean Sea area will commence on 1 January 2014, because an exemption clause for the first 12 months is specified in ANNEX VI. On the other hand, the requirements for NOx emissions in the United States Caribbean Sea area will commence after 1 January 2016*, because NOx Tier III requirements specified in Regulation 13 of ANNEX VI will be applied in the ECA at that time.
For more information, click here.
Fuel rules essential for harbour traffic
South China Morning Post – 15 Sept. 2011
The Star Ferry is a Hong Kong icon, as much a part of our history as a tourist attraction. As such, it should be striving to reduce the amount of air pollution created by its ferries. The same goes for other vessels plying their trade in our waters. The unsightly black smoke that pours from their funnels is a poor advertisement for our environmental awareness and the government’s commitment to clearing skies of smog and protecting health. Authorities have to regulate the sector and help firms use cleaner fuels and technology.
There is no more polluting fuel than the bunker oil burned by large vessels, which is many times more harmful to health than the emissions from even the dirtiest diesel used by buses and trucks. The public policy think tank Civic Exchange estimates that 3.8 million people are at risk of being exposed to excessive levels of emissions of sulphur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide and other pollutants from shipping and the port at Kwai Chung. Despite this, though, ocean-going shipping remains the only transport sector still unregulated by the government. There is no good reason why ferry and shipping companies should not use cleaner fuel.
The irony is that many want to, but need the authorities to help with regulations, supplies of cleaner fuels and infrastructure. The objective has to be to ensure that all vessels in our waters at least use ultra-low sulphur diesel. It has a sulphur content of no more than 0.005 per cent, considerably less than the 0.5 per cent that ferries and small craft are required to use. Bunker fuel can have as much as 4.5 per cent.
Voluntary schemes are under way and trials have been held. Under the industry-led, unsubsidised, Fair Winds Charter, a number of shipping and cruise lines have agreed to use fuel with a sulphur content of 0.5 per cent or less while at berth in Hong Kong until the end of next year. After a trial use of ultra-low sulphur diesel in its vessels proved unsatisfactory due to engine incompatibility, the Star Ferry Company is engaged in work with the University of Hong Kong to improve scrubber technology. However, as worthwhile as such measures are, without government regulations and assistance, there can be no guarantee of their permanent adoption.
Costs are an obvious concern. Ultra-low sulphur diesel or fuel cleaning technologies are more expensive and the charges are likely to be passed on to consumers of goods carried by ships and ferry passengers. That is especially troublesome for ferry operators, who have low profit margins. But authorities cannot sit on their hands and expect every company to volunteer. Incentives and help with infrastructure will be necessary. Ultimately, though, regulating for clean emissions is essential for Hong Kong’s well-being and image.
The Pollution Leviathan
Container ship can be serious pollution source.
To tackle air pollution problem, government’s effort is very important. If the government frames the problem properly, then she can increase the effectiveness of the policy adopted.
However, the HKSAR Government had made two mistakes on the air pollution issue. Firstly, she claimed that we can do nothing about the poor air quality in Hong Kong, as the pollutants are mainly coming from the Guangdong area but not coming from Hong Kong people. Secondly, she thought that the main source of air pollution is coming from the land, so the measures tackling air pollution are mainly imposed on vehicles. However the government is ignoring the impact of marine air pollution.
Study from University of Science and Technology shown that one of the main pollution sources in Hong Kong is the container port located in Kwai Chung. The sulphur dioxide emitted by port facilities and containers put the health of three million people at risk. But we can see the government do not adopted measure that tackling the problem, and let the pollution Leviathan, the containers, continuous to emitted pollutants.
The government claims that the cross-border winds bring the pollutants from the Guangdong area. But the case is that the control over the vessels and port facilities can improve the air pollution problem a lot. Hit the jump for more information about the facts about containers pollutions.
Kwai Chung is one of the sources of HK air pollution
SCMP
14th Oct, 2009
For years, the government shrugged off concerns about poor air quality as being all but out of its control. Factories in Guangdong, and weather patterns, were blamed for the grey pall hanging overhead. Study upon study, the latest involving the container port at Kwai Chung, have since found that the pollution is mostly our own doing. That it persists, and is in some instances getting worse despite cleaner industries across the border and closer environmental co-operation, confirms what we should have known – and been trying to tackle – all along.
Amid public pressure, authorities have taken tentative and small steps to make the air clearer and healthier. The strategy has been a bottom-up one: legislating for cleaner fuel for private cars, taxis and minibuses, but often leaving the obligations for the bigger polluters voluntary. Emission caps for the two electricity producers have been tightened. But they, together with bus companies, transport operators and ferry firms should be put under greater pressure to switch. The government, meanwhile, has seemingly turned a blind eye to shipping.
|
|
Emissions from our two power stations create the majority of the smog, yet the bulk of the electricity they generate still comes from the most polluting fuel, coal. More needs to be done to change this. Only a small proportion of their output is from natural gas, the choice of environmentally-conscious governments elsewhere.
While government measures have significantly lessened low-lying urban pollution, analysis by the South China Morning Post (SEHK: 0583, announcements, news) last month of data from monitors found it continued to be alarmingly high at street level in Central, Causeway Bay and Mong Kok. Of particular concern was the high prevalence of microscopic particulates that result from the burning of diesel; they are especially harmful to health. There can be no clearer evidence of a lack of attention to ensuring buses and trucks use cleaner fuel. Nor, given the finding, can the problem be blamed on cross-border winds.
A University of Science and Technology study last week found the same to be the case with emissions of sulphur dioxide from the container port at Kwai Chung. Contrary to assertions from authorities that high sulphur levels in the area had blown from the mainland, the research indicated it emanated from shipping and port operations. The health of as many as three million people had been put at risk, the study said.
Container ships use highly-toxic bunker fuel. Maritime industry data shows the biggest vessels each emit as much pollution as 50 million cars. International agreements permit sea-going craft to burn bunker fuel with up to 4.5 per cent sulphur content. Vehicles on Hong Kong roads use diesel containing 0.005 per cent sulphur.
Government proposals to clear the pollution from sea-going traffic do not mention container ships and the port. Ferries, pleasure craft and other small boats – which already use fuel with a sulphur content of 0.5 per cent – are being encouraged to use low-sulphur diesel. The lack of interest in port operations is down to the low volume of emissions. Such an approach ignores that the burning of bunker fuel is many times more dangerous to health.
International agreements are moving slowly. Fuel standards for ocean-going vessels will be changed to 3.5 per cent sulphur content by 2012. Port cities in Europe and North America, worried about public health, are forming partnerships to force ships entering their waters to use cleaner fuel. Hong Kong can no longer ignore the problem; it has to follow suit in the name of clean air and water.
Pollution mostly local, study finds
Cheung Chi-fai, SCMP
Sulphur dioxide pollution in Hong Kong is mostly generated in the city, particularly in the container port and by shipping, a leading atmospheric scientist has found.
Dr Alexis Lau Kai-hon, an associate professor at the University of Science and Technology’s Institute for the Environment, said the findings of a study suggested that pollutant criteria proposed in the government’s air quality review had to be tightened further or public health would continue to be at great risk.
Lau recently compared sulphur dioxide concentration data for winters and summers between 2007 and this year. He found that sulphur dioxide concentrations were higher in summer, when southerly winds from the ocean prevailed, than in winter, when northerlies blew from the mainland.
“It suggests the pollution source is local rather than regional,” he said.
Lau found some of the highest sulphur dioxide concentrations in and around the Kwai Chung container port area, indicating that cargo ships and port operations were a big source of pollution. He said they had huge health effects at ground level.
While power generation remained the single largest source of sulphur emissions in Hong Kong, accounting for nearly 90 per cent, Lau said that the shipping sector’s effects on health could be five times greater than that of power plants because of the port’s close proximity to more than three million residents. The medical community has long warned that exposure to high concentrations of sulphur emissions can impair respiratory functions and aggravate existing heart and lung diseases.
Lau said the emissions data studied also showed a remarkable difference in concentrations before and after the global economicdownturn, which began towards the end of last year.
Sulphur dioxide concentrations fell by an average of 25 per cent after the downturn began, when there was an 11 per cent drop in the number of cargo ships, Lau said. The first eight months this year saw 19,790 vessels calling at the port, compared with 22,340 in the same period last year.
Lau said the findings highlighted the urgent need to address air pollution from marine sources, as most ocean-going vessels were still using fuel oil with up to a 2.5 per cent sulphur content. That was 2,500 times higher than the sulphur content in diesel fuel used by road transport.
Lau said pollution by ships was a huge problem, and criteria proposed by the Environment Bureau under the air quality objectives review seemed far too loose to protect people’s health.
The proposed sulphur emissions objective, an average daily concentration of 125 micrograms per cubic metre of air – the lowest interim target allowed by the World Health Organisation – had already been met, Lau said. A more stringent standard of 50 micrograms per cubic metre of air should be used, he said. That would bolster moves to clean up pollution.
“Without a further tightening of the sulphur dioxide standard, there is little basis for further control of the pollutant in the marine sector even though we know the sulphur-laden fumes from marine sources are posing a significant health threat to the population,” Lau said.
Nineteen measures, ranging from using cleaner fuel for power generation to phasing out polluting vehicles, have been proposed by the bureau. None specifically tackle emissions from ocean-going ships.
The only ship-related measure was a proposal, without a clear time frame, to require local vessels, including ferries, to use low-sulphur diesel fuel.
According to a report last year by the Civic Exchange think tank, the pollution related to port activities and ocean-going vessels could also be addressed by designating Hong Kong and its neighbouring regions as sulphur-emission control areas.
A similar zone is in place in the Baltic Sea and North Sea, where ships are only allowed to burn fuel with a sulphur content of 1.5 per cent or less. But any proposal for such a designation for Hong Kong would have to be raised by Beijing at the International Maritime Organisation, which sets global fuel-use standards for ships.
The organisation has also endorsed a plan to limit sulphur content in cargo-ship fuel to just 0.5 per cent sulphur content by 2020, although the port of Los Angeles has already implemented that.
On Wednesday, Secretary for the Environment Edward Yau Tang-wah told lawmakers that the government would raise the low-emission shipping zone issue with the mainland in discussions on post-2010 emission-reduction matters.
An existing agreement on emission-reduction issues will expire by the end of next year.
Arthur Bowring, managing director of the Hong Kong Shipowners’ Association, said ship-fuel issues needed to be tackled from both global and local angles.
He said there should be local laws in Hong Kong and Guangdong to control ship fuel, and both places should endorse such laws simultaneously so that all ships entering the region had to comply.
Bowring said that it would neither be practical nor conducive to fair competition to unilaterally impose fuel restrictions in either Hong Kong or Shenzhen but not both together. But he said he was optimistic that a cross-border agreement would be ready in a few years.
“It will need strong government and political will to put it in place. With the right incentives, right regulations and funding, it can be done.”
Natural partnership
SCMP
Reducing highly toxic emissions from ships must be a key part of the government’s clean-air strategy. Right now, shipping emissions are regarded as a problem that can wait. Officials have not given this a higher priority because they take a total-quantity approach rather than a public health one. Total emissions from power plants and road vehicles are many times higher than that from ships. But this approach misses the high toxicity of bunker fuel. Data from the maritime industry shows that the 15 biggest ships in the world today may emit the same amount of pollution as all the cars in the world.
Imagine a large container ship coming into Kwai Chung terminal. It stays there for, say, a day to load and unload cargo. While the ship is docked, it is still burning bunker fuel to generate electricity. Under international agreements, oceangoing vessels can burn bunker fuel with up to 4.5 per cent sulphur content, although the average is about 3 per cent. This is extremely high compared to the 0.005 per cent sulphur content of ultra-low sulphur diesel that road vehicles burn in Hong Kong. Kwai Chung is close to the homes and workplaces of millions of people. Even light breezes can blow the emissions to heavily populated areas.
The issue, then, is straightforward. The government must multitask – while it prepares plans to drive down power and vehicular emissions, it must at the same time deal with ships. So far, officials have only proposed to deal with local vessels. These are the smaller vessels operating in local waters, such as pleasure boats, ferries, hydrofoils and barges. They are already burning much cleaner fuels, with 0.5 per cent sulphur content. The government is proposing that all local vessels should use ultra-low sulphur diesel, which will help. A refinement to this proposal is to set a limit on emissions and allow owners to use other means to achieve the same emission levels as ultra-low sulphur diesel, since other technology may be able to achieve the same results.
The problem remains that oceangoing vessels are not included in this proposal and they are the heavy polluters burning bunker fuel. Let’s face facts. The container ports of Hong Kong, Shenzhen and Guangzhou handle about 12 per cent of the global container traffic. This is an awful lot for a small body of water. Hong Kong and Shenzhen are, in fact, sister ports because of their proximity, and also because they share essentially the same investors and operators. And even if ships are heading for Shenzhen, many pass through Hong Kong waters and their emissions affect our residents.
In fact, all major port cities and cross-jurisdiction regions face the same problems. International maritime agreements on emissions have moved quite slowly. For example, oceangoing ships will only have to meet fuel standards with 3.5 per cent sulphur content by 2012, and perhaps 0.5 per cent by 2020. This is far too slow, so port authorities are taking the initiative to clean up marine emissions and related container-truck pollution.
The US ports of Seattle and Tacoma and their neighbouring Canadian port of Vancouver have formed an extensive partnership to maintain clean waterways and air quality. Its members include port operators, local environmental authorities and public health experts. The ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles are also co-operating to find solutions that include using financial incentives for ships to burn cleaner fuel as they enter Californian waters. European ports are exploring similar initiatives.
Hong Kong and Shenzhen are ideal partners to devise green port policies. The public should insist that it becomes part of the government’s push to work with Guangdong to improve air quality, and also make it an important element of cross-border collaboration. The good news is that many ship owners, liners and terminal operators are ready to act because their ships and overseas operations have already been forced to clean up. They know the global trend. The authorities here need to demand action so there is a level playing field. In other words, discriminate against the laggards, not those who can lead.
Christine Loh Kung-wai is chairperson of the Clean Air Network and chief executive of the think tank Civic Exchange. cloh@civic-exchange.org
Natural partnership
SCMP
17 Sep, 2009
Reducing highly toxic emissions from ships must be a key part of the government’s clean-air strategy. Right now, shipping emissions are regarded as a problem that can wait. Officials have not given this a higher priority because they take a total-quantity approach rather than a public health one. Total emissions from power plants and road vehicles are many times higher than that from ships. But this approach misses the high toxicity of bunker fuel. Data from the maritime industry shows that the 15 biggest ships in the world today may emit the same amount of pollution as all the cars in the world.
Imagine a large container ship coming into Kwai Chung terminal. It stays there for, say, a day to load and unload cargo. While the ship is docked, it is still burning bunker fuel to generate electricity. Under international agreements, oceangoing vessels can burn bunker fuel with up to 4.5 per cent sulphur content, although the average is about 3 per cent. This is extremely high compared to the 0.005 per cent sulphur content of ultra-low sulphur diesel that road vehicles burn in Hong Kong. Kwai Chung is close to the homes and workplaces of millions of people. Even light breezes can blow the emissions to heavily populated areas.
The issue, then, is straightforward. The government must multitask – while it prepares plans to drive down power and vehicular emissions, it must at the same time deal with ships. So far, officials have only proposed to deal with local vessels. These are the smaller vessels operating in local waters, such as pleasure boats, ferries, hydrofoils and barges. They are already burning much cleaner fuels, with 0.5 per cent sulphur content. The government is proposing that all local vessels should use ultra-low sulphur diesel, which will help. A refinement to this proposal is to set a limit on emissions and allow owners to use other means to achieve the same emission levels as ultra-low sulphur diesel, since other technology may be able to achieve the same results.
The problem remains that oceangoing vessels are not included in this proposal and they are the heavy polluters burning bunker fuel. Let’s face facts. The container ports of Hong Kong, Shenzhen and Guangzhou handle about 12 per cent of the global container traffic. This is an awful lot for a small body of water. Hong Kong and Shenzhen are, in fact, sister ports because of their proximity, and also because they share essentially the same investors and operators. And even if ships are heading for Shenzhen, many pass through Hong Kong waters and their emissions affect our residents.
In fact, all major port cities and cross-jurisdiction regions face the same problems. International maritime agreements on emissions have moved quite slowly. For example, oceangoing ships will only have to meet fuel standards with 3.5 per cent sulphur content by 2012, and perhaps 0.5 per cent by 2020. This is far too slow, so port authorities are taking the initiative to clean up marine emissions and related container-truck pollution.
The US ports of Seattle and Tacoma and their neighbouring Canadian port of Vancouver have formed an extensive partnership to maintain clean waterways and air quality. Its members include port operators, local environmental authorities and public health experts. The ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles are also co-operating to find solutions that include using financial incentives for ships to burn cleaner fuel as they enter Californian waters. European ports are exploring similar initiatives.
Hong Kong and Shenzhen are ideal partners to devise green port policies. The public should insist that it becomes part of the government’s push to work with Guangdong to improve air quality, and also make it an important element of cross-border collaboration. The good news is that many ship owners, liners and terminal operators are ready to act because their ships and overseas operations have already been forced to clean up. They know the global trend. The authorities here need to demand action so there is a level playing field. In other words, discriminate against the laggards, not those who can lead.
Hong Kong’s port is an economic lifeline – and one of its worst sources of pollution, writes Christine Loh
Low-hanging fruit is ripe for picking. But it can only be harvested at the optimal time. And, so, the government must move ahead to deal with marine and port-related emissions now because emission levels are rising, yet many stakeholders are ready to perform at a higher environmental level. By taking decisive action in the near future, the government will win political kudos.
The authorities have a duty to act if they are serious about protecting public health. Hong Kong and the Pearl River Delta have some of the busiest ports in the world. Between 2001 and 2006, Hong Kong’s container throughput increased by about 32 per cent, from 17.8 million to 23.5 million 20-foot equivalent units (teus), a measurement for containerised tonnage. Our neighbour, Shenzhen, has also seen massive increases, from about 5 million teus in 2001 to nearly 18.5 million teus in 2006.
Millions of people in the region live and work close to ports and are directly exposed to very harmful levels of shipping and port-related emissions. After all, ship emissions come from the burning of bunker fuel, which is highly toxic. While in total tonnage terms, marine emissions are much less than from power plants, bunker fuel is nevertheless very dirty and its emissions affect more than 3 million people in Hong Kong, according to a government-commissioned study. Despite the lower quantity, ship emissions have a large negative impact on people’s health.
Moreover, port activities include the operation of many types of equipment, such as cranes, as well as tens of thousands of barges and trucks moving goods round the clock. They all burn lower-quality diesel and thus contribute to Hong Kong’s and the delta’s poor air quality. There is no doubt that old, polluting lorries are a major contributor to this city’s roadside pollution, which is desperately high.
While long-term predictions are less precise, current government-sponsored estimates show that our city may handle a staggering 40 million teus by 2030. With Shenzhen’s ports also growing quickly – some believe they will grow even faster – there is, in fact, an urgent need to clean up, otherwise the rising tonnage of cargo will become an even bigger public health threat.
Our ship owners know Hong Kong can do better. This is because their ships sail around the world and, in European and North American ports, there have been much greater efforts in recent years to promote green port policies to reduce the public health impact on port cities. Their ships have to improve their environmental performance when they dock at those ports, for example, by using cleaner fuels and reducing speed.
So, ship owners know they can do the same when their ships sail into Hong Kong and Shenzhen, and it would mean lower emissions for the residents of this region.
There is an additional cost component to using cleaner fuel. But if all ships entering a port have to meet the same tighter emissions levels, it is a new, level playing field. The ship owners insist that voluntary measures don’t work because there will always be the temptation for some to save costs by continuing to use dirtier fuel, for example.
Cargo terminal operators in Hong Kong have also started to use cleaner fuels for their equipment as part of their corporate social responsibility programmes. Since they are in fact global port operators, these companies are also affected by international trends. Some of the larger companies that operate various types of harbour craft – tugs and ferries – are also looking at what emissions improvements they can make and are providing key staff with environmental management training. The most difficult stakeholder group is the lorry operators, many of whom feel they are in a sunset industry. But, even here, better driving skills can help with fuel efficiency, leading to lower costs at a time when energy prices are very high.
The government needs to be willing to convene ongoing dialogue with the stakeholders to press home green port policies and work with the marine and port operation sector to explore a range of clean-up options.