Analysis of Marine Emissions
in the South Coast Air Basin
ARCADIS Final Report FR-99-100
ARCADIS
GERAGHTY & MILLI
6 May 1999
PREPARED FO
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region IX
Air Division
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, California 94105
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION IX .
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
May 27, 1999
Dear Interested Party:
Because you are a key interested stakeholder, we are providing you with a copy of the
recently completed Arcadis Geraghty & Miller Final Report, "Analysis of Marine
Emissions in the South Coast Air Basin." This US EPA contracted report describes
expected emission reductions from international standards, potential national
standards, and hypothetical speed reduction scenarios.
As you may recall, in 1997 EPA contracted Acurex Environmental to assist with analysis
of the aforementioned emission reduction strategies. In December, 1997, a draft report
was sent out to interested stakeholders for comment. In April, 1998, the California Air
Resources Board announced the formation of a Technical Working Group to evaluate
the onshore air quality impacts of the two operational controls under consideration for
deep sea vessels. In May, 1998, EPA extended the contract with Acurex (now known
as Arcadis Geraghty & Miller) so that the report could be completed.
It is important to note tha't during the course of the work unanticipated, new information
become available which in some instances could not be incorporated into the final
report. Because of budget constraints within EPA and the need to avoid further delays
in completing the report, EPA decided to have Arcadis complete the work while
recognizing that all of the comments received could not be addressed and the report
could not take into account all of very recent information that might affect the analysis.
Given that precaution, the final report does provide a very useful analysis of the
reductions expected.
As the report was nearing completion, discussions within the Technical Working Group
revealed that previously reported ship speeds used in the draft report were higher than
actual ship speeds, possibly by as much as 15 to 20 percent. Therefor^ the results
presented in Chapter 5 of the final report must be tempered by recognition that the
inventory and subsequent reductions may be slightly less than what is reflected in the
report. Also, on December 11, 1998, EPA proposed new national emission standards
for marine engines. Agajn because of funding and timing limitations, the final report
does not take into account the proposed new standards, although the expected
reductions by 2010 from the proposed new standards are not anticipated to be
substantially different from the reductions described in Chapter 4.
-------
With that said, the final report does provide the most thorough analysis to date of the
expected reductions from the new international standards, expected national standards,
and various reduced speed scenarios. Consistent with the State Implementation Plan
and South Coast emission inventory, the reduction estimates provided in this report are
based on emissions occurring within the overwater boundary. Additional analysis of the
onshore air quality impacts of marine vessel emissions is currently under discussion
within the Technical Working Group.
EPA would like to thank those who provided significant comments on the draft report,
especially: James Corbett (Carnegie Mellon University); Robert Kanter (Port of Long
Beach); Donald Rice/TL Garrett (Port of Los Angeles); Mike Osborne/Bill Remley (US
Navy/John J. McMullen Associates, Inc); Zorik Pirveysian (South Coast Air Quality
Management District); and Scott Johnson (Ventura County Air Pollution Control
District). The revised report reflects many of the comments received. Unfortunately,
all of the comments could not be addressed in the report. A brief summary of the
comments which were not addressed Is provided in the attachment.
If you have any questions or comments, please contact me at 415-744-1286 or
ungvarsky.john@epa.gov. Thank you.
Sincerely,
)hn Ungvarsky
Air Division
Attachment
-------
Attachment
A summary of key comments not addressed in the final report
Comment: EPA should address whether the estimated reductions meet
the SIP target and the implications and intentions regarding
this study and related ongoing studies. (POLB)
Response: This will be addressed during closure of the consultative
process and upon completion of the pending report by the
Technical Working Group.
/
/
Comment: EPA should investigate'reductions from lower International
Maritime Organization (IMO) Standards. (POLA)
Response: Estimating reductions from lower IMO is beyond the scope
and budget for this contract. If and when the IMO considers
revisiting the standards, EPA will consider estimating the
potential benefits at that time.
Comment: EPA should conduct independent testing of marine vessels
visiting United States ports. (POLA)
Response: Testing of marine vessels is significantly beyond the scope
and budget for this contract.
Comment: Calculate the emission reductions from the current
precautionary zone restrictions. (POLA)
Response: The emission reductions from the precautionary zone are
incorporated into the speed reduction scenarios presented in
the report. Do undertake a separate analysis of the
precautionary zone restrictions would require that the
baseline be recalculated, which is beyond the budget
allocated to complete other portions of the report.
Comment: Calculate the emission reductions from the tankers already
using a relocated shipping route. (POLA)
Response: The contractor has indicated to EPA that the distance
traveled by the tankers did not significantly change because
of the rerouting. The issue is best addressed within the
" ongoing efforts of the Technical Working Group.
John Ungvarsky, USEPA Region 9
May 21. 1999
-------
Comment: Projected ship and age profiles should be verified.
(SCAQMD)
Response: The report relies on previous information used in "Marine
Vessel Emissions Inventory and Control Strategies" *Acurex
Environmental, December, 1.996). It is beyond the scope
and budget for the contract to verify the ship and age
profiles.
Comment: Potential controls for auxiliary/engines should be studied.
(SCAQMD)
Response: It is beyond the scope and budget for the contract to
address potential controls for auxiliary engines.
John Ungvarsky, USEPA Region 9
May 21, 1999
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS v
LIST OF EXHIBITS vi
LIST OF TABLES : vii
1. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY 1-1
1.1 OZONE POLLUTION IN THE SOUTH COAST AIR BASIN 1-1
1.2 CALIFORNIA'S 1994 OZONE PLAN AND THE CONSULTATIVE
PROCESS 1-1
1.3 OPTIONS FOR REDUCING NOX EMISSIONS FROM MARINE
VESSELS IN THE SOUTH COAST 1-2
1.4 RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS 1-3
2. MARINE VESSEL OPERATIONS IN SOUTH COAST WATERS 2-1
2.1 BACKGROUND 2-1
2.2 OVERWATER BOUNDARY 2-1
2.3 MARINE VESSEL OPERATIONS IN SOUTH COAST WATERS 2-3
2.3.1 Oceangoing Vessels That Use the San Pedro Bay Ports 2-3
2.3.2 Oceangoing Vessel Activity 2-6
2.3.3 Harbor Craft and Fishing Vessels 2-8
2.4 EMISSIONS INVENTORY SUMMARY 2-13
3. EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS EXPECTED FROM OCEANGOING VESSELS IN
THE SOUTH COAST DUE TO INTERNATIONAL MARITIME >
: ORGANIZATION (IMO) STANDARDS 3-1
3.1 INTRODUCTION 3-1
3.2 IMO EMISSION LIMITS 3-1
3.3 LLOYD'S MARINE EXHAUST EMISSIONS RESEARCH PROGRAM 3-2
3.4 METHODOLOGY FOR MAIN ENGINES 3-3
3.4.1 Developing NOX Emissions Rates from Lloyd's Data 3-3
3.4.2 Engine-Specific Methodology 3-6
3.4.3 Combined Data Methodology 3-18
3.4.4 Transiting Vessels 3-23
3.5 METHODOLOGY AND RESULTS FOR AUXILIARY ENGINES 3-24
3.6 SUMMARY OF NOX REDUCTIONS FROM IMO STANDARDS 3-25
in
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONCLUDED)
4. EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS EXPECTED FROM HARBOR CRAFT AND
FISHING VESSELS IN THE SOUTH COAST DUE TO INTERNATIONAL
MARITIME ORGANIZATION STANDARDS AND NATIONAL
STANDARDS ...4-1
4.1 EMISSIONS STANDARDS APPLICABLE TO HARBOR CRAFT AND
FISHING VESSELS 4-1
4.2 METHODOLOGY : 4-2
4.2.1 Introduction 4-2
4.2.2 Categorizing propulsion engines based on engine rated power and speed
(rpm) 4-3
4.2.3 Identifying the applicable NOX standard and baseline NOX rate for each category 4-6
4.2.4 Fleet age profiles '. 4-7
4.2.5 Annual energy consumption and calculation of NOX reductions 4-10
4.3 RESULTS 4-12
5. SPEED REDUCTION , 5-1
5.1 INTRODUCTION 5-1
5.2 CURRENT SHIP SPEEDS (BASELINE OPERATION) 5-2
5.3 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SHIP SPEED AND REQUIRED POWER 5-5
5.4 SPEED REDUCTION SCENARIOS 5-6
5.5 METHODOLOGY 5-9
5.6 EXECUTION 5-10
5.7 EMISSIONS RESULTS 5-18
5.8 COSTS OF SPEED REDUCTION 5-19
REFERENCES R-l
APPENDIX A — CHARACTERIZATION OF OCEANGOING VESSELS A-l
APPENDIX B — EMISSIONS CALCULATIONS FROM LLOYD'S DATA B-l
APPENDIX C — ANALYSIS OF SLOW AND MEDIUM SPEED DATA C-l
APPENDIX D — AUXILIARY ENGINE CALCULATIONS D-l
APPENDIX E — HARBOR CRAFT AND FISHING VESSEL CALCULATIONS E-l
APPEANDIXF —SHIP SPEED PROFILES.. F-l
APPENDIX G — SPEED REDUCTION ANALYSES G-l
IV
-------
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
Figure 1-1. The South Coast Air Basin includes Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, and San
Bernardino Counties [[[ 1-1
Figure 2-1 . Overwater boundary used in the inventory study (modified from Booz- Allen
Figure 2-1) [[[ 2-2
Figure 2-2. 1993 ship calls by shiptype ..... ,. ..................... . [[[ 2-4
Figure 2-3. Calls in 1994 by year ship constructed — ALL SHIPTYPES ................................ 2-5
Figure 2-4. VTIS Los Angeles-Long Beach, standard transit routes (provided by the
Marine Exchange) [[[ 2-7
Figure 3-1. NOX emission rates — Lloyd's slow speed ships — CT1 ............... . ....................... 3-8
Figure 3-2. NOX emission rates — Lloyd's medium speed engines — all data ....................... 3-18
Figure 3-3. NOX emission rates — Lloyd's medium speed ships loads over 10 percent
MCR [[[ 3-18
Figure 3-4 NOX emission rates — Lloyd's medium speed engines loads over 20 percent
[[[ 3-19
Figure 3-5. NOX emission rates — Lloyd's slow speed ships — all data ................................. 3-19
Figure 3-6. NQX emission rates — Lloyd's slow speed ships loads over 10 percent MCR ..... 3-19
Figure 3-7. NOX emission rates — Lloyd's slow speed ships loads over 20 percent MCR ..... 3-20
Figure 3-8. Comparison of methods — slow speed ships [[[ 3-23
Figure 3-9. Comparison of methods — medium speed ships .................................................. 3-23
Figure 5-1. VTIS Los Angeles-Long Beach, standard transit routes (provided by the
-------
LIST OF EXHIBITS
Exhibit 3-1. Lloyd's published data for each engine emission trial 3-5
/
Exhibit 3-2. Analysis of Lloyd's Data for Ship CT1 3-11
Exhibit 3-3. Analysis of Lloyd's Data for Ship R8-P 3-12
Exhibit 5-1. Speed reduction Scenario 3 — results 5-15
VI
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1-1. NOX reductions in the South Coast from control measures analyzed in this
study 1-3
Table 2-1. Auxiliary engine loads assumed in the SCAQMD inventory study 2-7
Table 2-2. Population of mooring and non-mooring tugs by horsepower category
operating in the South Coast 2-9
Table 2-3. Population of passenger vessels and workboats by horsepower category
operating in the South Coast 2-11
Table 2-4. NOX planning inventory for marine vessels in the South Coast (NOX tpd) 2-13
Table 2-5. NOX planning inventory for oceangoing vessels calling on the San Pedro
Bay Ports —2010 2-14
Table 3-1. Proposed IMO standards for NOX emissions from ship engines (for ships
constructed on or after January 1, 2000) 3-1
Table 3-2. Test cycles E2 and E3 — engine load and weighting factor for each of four
steady-state test modes 3-2
Table 3-3. Steady-state emission trials: vessels monitored 3-4
Table 3-4. Approximate engine loads by shiptype for each operating mode (South
Coast, 2010) 3-10
Table 3-5. Profile points — unique engine loads representing vessels operations in
the South Coast 3-10
Table 3-6. NOX rates (g/kWh) derived from Lloyd's data 3-13
Table 3-7. Annual energy consumption by profile engine load points (2010 inventory
distribution) 3-14
Table 3-8 Energy consumption and IMO-controlled NOX by mode (motorship main
engines) — 2010 : 3-15
Table 3-9. Summary of results for the engine-specific methodology — IMO NOX
reductions for motorship main engines by year 3-16
Table 3-10. E2/E3 results for Figures 3-2 through 3-6 3-21
Table 3-11. Summary of results for the combined data methodology — IMO NOX
,. reductions for motorship main engines by year 3-22
VII
-------
LIST OF TABLES (CONCLUDED)
Table 3-12. Summary of Results — NOX reductions from IMO standards in the South
Coast Air Basin - Engine Specific Methodology 3-25
Table 3-13. Summary of Results — NOX reductions from IMO standards in the South
Coast Air Basin — Combined Data Methodology 3-26
Table 5-1. Distances (nautical miles) used to characterize cruising in South Coast
waters 5-3
Table 5-2. Average ship cruise speeds (knots) by shiptype in 1990 and 2010 5-4
Table 5-3. Speed reduction scenarios 5-9
Table 5-4. Average cruising distances, speeds, and times — Scenario 3 5-11
Table 5-5. Impact of reduced ship speeds on engine output power — Scenario 3 5-11
Table 5-6. Example of calculation of energy consumption by mode — auto carrier,
Scenarios 5-12
Table 5-7. Energy consumed in full cruise, precautionary area cruise, and
maneuvering — Scenario 3 5-13
Table 5-8. Energy consumed in reduced speed zone cruise and associated percent
MCR — Scenario 3 5-14
Table 5-9. Total energy consumed by mode (all modes) — Scenario 3 5-14
Table 5-10. Speed reduction analysis: summary of results 5-18
Table 5-11. Base case assumptions for speed reduction cost example 5-22
Table 5-12. Estimated cost effectiveness of NOX reductions for a variety of case
assumptions 5-22
Table 5-13. Potentially schedule-sensitive runs in one year 5-24
vm
-------
1. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY
1.1 OZONE POLLUTION IN THE SOUTH COAST AIR BASIN
The South Coast Air Basin, located in Southern California, experiences higher levels of
ozone pollution than any other area in the United States (Figure 1-1). Such high ambient
concentrations of tropospheric ozone have been shown to be harmful to human pulmonary and
respiratory systems and damaging to natural ecosystems and agricultural crops. The social costs
of air pollution-related medical care, reduced worker productivity, reduced crop yields, and
environmental damage are difficult to quantify, but are widely acknowledged to be high (see for
example Hall et al.; Grantz et al.). In recognition of the seriousness of these problems, the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is authorized by the Clean Air Act to set national
ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for ozone and require regions which exceed these
standards to develop plans and implement measures to bring the region into attainment of the
NAAQS by a specified date. The South Coast is required to come into compliance with the
NAAQS by the year 2010.
South Coast Air Basin
SAN BERNARDINO
Figure 1-1. The South Coast Air Basin includes Los Angeles,
Orange, Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties
1.2 CALIFORNIA'S 1994 OZONE PLAN AND THE CONSULTATIVE PROCESS
States containing regions which exceed the NAAQS must submit State Implementation
Plans (SIP) describing how the nonattainment regions will come into compliance with the
1-1
-------
NAAQS. More specifically, ozone SEPs describe how emissions of hydrocarbons and oxides of
nitrogen (NOX)' will be reduced to acceptable levels by the attainment year. The 1994 California
SEP for ozone, which was approved by the U.S. EPA in September of 1996, commits to reduce
emissions of NOX from marine vessels in the South Coast Air Basin by 9 tons per day (tpd) in
2010, providing an important fraction of the total NOX reductions needed to reach NAAQS
attainment. The 1997 revision to the Air Quality Management Plan of the South Coast Air
District, which is a component of the California SIP, increases this NOX reduction commitment to
15 tpd. This revised estimate reflects an increased estimate of the inventory of NOX emissions
from marine vessels pursuant to a 1996 inventory study performed for the South Coast Air
Quality Management District (Acurex Environmental). According to the District's 1997 plan
revision, this 15 tpd is about 7 percent of the total NOX reductions needed in 2010 for attainment
and about 14 percent of the total NOX reductions needed from offroad mobile sources. In other
words, a very significant portion of the total NOX reductions needed to protect public health and
the environment from ozone pollution in the South Coast is expected to come from marine
vessels.
Several of the emissions reduction measures included in the 1994 California SIP
addressed such "national sources" as heavy-duty trucks, offroad heavy equipment, aircraft, and
marine vessels by calling for new national or international emissions standards, which are not
within the authority of local air districts or the California Air Resources Board (ARB) to
implement. Thus, EPA was requested to implement measures critical to the success of the
California air plan. To further explore emission reduction options for these sources and find
appropriate balances" between national and international emissions standards and measures that
could be implemented locally in California, EPA proposed a "public consultative process" in
March of 1996. The consultative process brought together representatives of industry,
environmental groups, and State and local government agencies who, with EPA, worked to
construct acceptable approaches to obtaining the emissions reductions committed to in the 1994
SIP. EPA's approval of the 1994 SIP included a mutual commitment of EPA and ARB to
conduct the public consultative process and incorporate the results of the process (including any
EPA commitments to rulemaking) into a revised plan for the South Coast Air Basin.
This report, which analyzes three strategies for reducing emissions from marine vessels in
the South Coast, has been prepared to assist the discussions that are underway in the marine
portion of the consultative process.
1.3 OPTIONS FOR REDUCING NOX EMISSIONS FROM MARINE VESSELS IN THE
SOUTH COAST
A number of options for reducing NOX emissions from marine vessels are under
discussion in the consultative process. These include:
• Implementing international emissions standards for engines used in marine vessels
' NOX and hydrocarbon emissions react in the presence of sunlight to form tropospheric ozone.
I-2
-------
c
•
Implementing national emissions standards for high speed marine engines used
domestically
Reducing ship cruising speeds in South Coast waters
Moving the Santa Barbara shipping channel farther off the Coast
Providing incentives to introduce various emission reducing technologies into the
fleet — technologies may include lower-emitting engines, emission-reducing fuels, or
add-on catalyst technology and 'would be applied as appropriate to marine propulsion
engines of all sizes and marine auxiliary engines
• Reducing land-side emissions related to port activities — these emissions are generated
by cargo handling equipment, trucks, and rail operations. These land-side sources were
discussed as part of the consultative process because they are wholly or partly under the
control of organizations involved in the process such as the Ports of Los Angeles and
Long Beach, the tenants of the ports, and the shippers which use the ports.
This study investigates the first three options listed above, international and national
emissions standards and speed reductions. In the marine vessel portion of the consultative
process, NOX emission reductions are the primary focus of the effort, therefore, this report
investigates NOX emissions only.
1.4 RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS
Sections 2 through 5 of this report assess the NOX reductions expected from the recently
agreed upon IMO NOX emission limits, the national emissions standards currently under
consideration at EPA, and a reduction in ship cruising speeds in the South Coast. The results of
these analyses are summarized in Table 1-1.
Table 1-1. NOx reductions in the South Coast from control measures analyzed in
this study
Measure
IMO emission standards
IMO emission standards
EPA + IMO emission standards
Speed reduction
Combined measures (total)
Affected Sector
Oceangoing vessels - main engines
Oceangoing vessels - auxiliary engines
Harbor craft and fishing vessels
Oceangoing vessels calling on South
Coast Ports
All of the above
Estimated NO, Reductions
in 2010 (tons per day)
0.2 to 0.8a
1.2
-0.8 (see Section 4)
Possibly 1 to 4b
3.2 to 6.8
" Range represents results from two different methods of treating the available data. See Section 3 for
discussion.
"Estimate based on analysis results of Section 5 discounted by 20 percent to approximate reduced benefit
associated (With actual cruise speeds lower than modeled. See Section 5 for discussion.
1-3
-------
2. MARINE VESSEL OPERATIONS IN SOUTH COAST WATERS
2.1 BACKGROUND
In December of 1996, ARCADIS Geraghty & Miller (formerly Acurex Environmental)
completed a study for the South Coast Air Quality Management District (District or SCAQMD)
which examined emissions from marine vessels in the South Coast Air Basin. The final report,
titled Marine Vessel Emissions Inventory and Control Strategies, updated the marine vessel
emissions inventory in the South Coast for several pollutants, including NOX, and covered all
types of marine vessels except for pleasure craft. The results of this study (hereafter called the
SCAQMD inventory study) were incorporated into the District's 1997 air plan revision.
We used the SCAQMD inventory study extensively as a resource for this evaluation of
the effects of international and national standards and speed reductions in the South Coast Air
Basin. It should be noted that this study is intended to evaluate reductions from the baseline
inventory that would accrue due to emissions standards and speed reduction measures. It is not
intended to update-the baseline inventory presented in the SCAQMD study. Therefore, we
attempted to maintain consistency with the inventory study and the data sources used in that
study, even though in a few cases more recent or more detailed information was available.
Several aspects of the SCAQMD inventory study were used in this evaluation of potential
control strategies, including the geographic area under consideration, ship characteristics, and
various measures of activity levels. These are described in further detail in the remainder of this
Section.
2.2 ' OVERWATER BOUNDARY
The SCAQMD inventory study was predicated on a defined overwater boundary within
which emissions were "counted" toward the inventory. There is much controversy over the
definition of this boundary and studies are underway to improve scientific understanding of the
extent to which emissions offshore affect air quality in the South Coast Air Basin2. Resolving
this controversy is well beyond the scope of this study. Here we continue to use the overwater
Inventory analyses, which simply describe the mass of pollutants emitted in a certain timeframe (often
reported as tons per day) are translated into ambient concentrations of pollutants using sophisticated
airshed models which incorporate their own assumptions about where pollutants are emitted (using a
grid overlay on the region being modeled) and how they travel and react in the atmosphere. As long as
the overwater boundary is large enough to enclose the area within which emissions are thought to
impact onshore air quality, it is the assumptions in the airshed model and not the inventory definition of
the overwater boundary that will determine the effect of offshore emissions on onshore air quality.
2-1
-------
boundary that was used in the SCAQMD inventory study. This boundary (shown in Figure 2-1,
modified from a figure presented in a Booz-Allen & Hamilton report "Inventory of Air Pollutant
Emissions from Marine Vessels") has been defined by the ARE3. The enclosed overwater area
extends approximately 100 miles offshore.
Precautionary
100 mile radius
from Ports
Figure 2-1. Overwater boundary used in the inventory study (modified from
Booz-Allen Figure 2-1)
3 ARE has the'responsibility to define air basin boundaries within California (26 CCR Section 39606).
2-2
-------
2.3 MARINE VESSEL OPERATIONS IN SOUTH COAST WATERS
Marine vessels included in the SCAQMD inventory study were grouped into several
categories. These were:
• Oceangoing vessels
— Calling on the San Pedro Bay Ports (the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach)
— Calling on the Chevron facility at El Segundo
— Transiting through South Coast waters without calling on a port
• Tugboats and other harbor vessels (e.g., workboats, crewboats, passenger cruise
boats)
• Fishing vessels
• U.S. Navy vessels
• U.S. Coast Guard vessels
Separate analyses were performed for each of these categories to reflect their unique
characteristics. The following sections describe vessel and operating characteristics for the three
categories that would be affected by the control strategies investigated herein: oceangoing vessels
that call on the San Pedro Bay, harbor craft, and fishing vessels. Information is taken directly
from the SCAQMD inventory study.
2.3.1 Oceangoing Vessels That Use the San Pedro Bay Ports
The SCAQMD inventory study focused on 1993 as the baseline study year, consistent
with the baseline year used in South Coast's 1997 air plan update. Therefore, the most detailed
characterization of oceangoing vessel operation in South Coast waters is based on 1993 and, to
some extent, 1994 data. Detailed data from the Marine Exchange of Los Angeles - Long Beach
Harbor and from Lloyd's Maritime Information Services of Lloyd's Register was combined to
evaluate vessel characteristics and activity for the 1993/1994 timeframe (see the SCAQMD study
for an explanation of available data sources and how they were used). The inventory was also
"backcast", based on Marine Exchange records of calls per shiptype, to 1990, which was the
baseline year for the 1994 SIP. And, 2000 and 2010 inventories were forecasted, so
characterizations for these years are also available, although they are more speculative, being
largely extrapolated from the 1993/1994 data.
About 1530 vessels made 5498 calls on the San Pedro Bay Ports in 1993. In 1990, a
similar number of vessels made 6672 calls on the Ports. These vessels included container ships,
bulk carriers, tankers, passenger cruise ships, and a variety of other vessel types which came to
the Ports for a number of purposes such as to load and offload cargo, be inspected or repaired, or
to take on fuel. In 2010, growth to 7856 calls per year is projected, with the most dramatic trend
being the increased number of calls by larger, faster, container ships (2010 projections in the
inventory are based on growth projections for the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach
contained in a report prepared by the Chambers Group for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and
the Los Angeles Harbor Department.)
2-3
-------
Many types of vessels call on the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, but calls are
dominated by container ships. Of the 5498 total ship arrivals recorded by the Marine Exchange
for 1993, by far the majority were made by container ships (about 2050 calls) followed by tankers
(about 950 calls) and passenger vessels (about 400 calls). Auto carriers, bulk carriers, general
cargo ships, and reefers each accounted for about 300 calls per year and barges for about 150.
RORO ships, and ships calling for repair and/or storage called fewer than 50 times each. About
700 arrivals were for the purpose of bunkering (Figure 2-2). Annual calls are fairly evenly
distributed over the 12 months, with the most calls per month occurring in March, May, and
October (between 480 and 500 calls per month), the next most occurring in December with about
465 calls, and the rest of the months seeing 'between about 432 and 455 calls per month (Figure
A-l, Appendix A).
2250
2000
CO
0
* 1000
I 750
Z
500
ll
Auto
ffl ill
Bargas Bufc
b
i:'
• <5
ft
t\
<>*<
j
^:
Pol
Fa
i
I)"!.
BinkerCab Container General Passenger Reefers RORO Repairs Storage Tankers
Ships
Cargo
Shrpe
1 Compiled from Marine Exchange data
2 Barge calls are not recorded regularly.
Shiptype
Figure 2-2. 1993 ship calls by shiptype1
Foreign flag ships powered by diesel engines are most prevalent. Of the 1529 vessels
identified as calling in 1993, 1438 were foreign flag and 91 (6 percent) were U.S. flag vessels.
The U.S. flag ships were typically repeat visitors, however, and so U.S. flag vessels account for
21 percent of the total calls in 1994. Most of the vessels calling in 1993 were powered by direct-
drive diesel engines while 169 had geared diesel engines and 70 were powered by geared-drive
steam turbines. Data from the Marine Exchange for 1994 showed steamships making 744 calls,
or 14 percent of the total calls. The SCAQMD inventory model projects steamship calls decline
to 11 percent of the total calls in 2000 and 5 percent of the calls in 2010.
Because emissions tests show medium-speed engines to emit less NOX than slow-speed
engines (see Section 3), it is important to distinguish these two engine types. The percentage of
main engines which are 4-stroke (mostly medium-speed) versus 2-stroke (slow-speed) varies
2-4
-------
from shiptype to shiptype. Bulk carriers, container ships, and tankers calling on the Ports in 1993
were dominated by 2-stroke engines; about 95 percent of these engines were 2-strokes.
Approximately 90 percent of main engines powering ROROs were 2-stroke engines, while about
80 percent of motorship reefers and general cargo ships had 2-stroke engines. Finally, passenger
ship engines were about half 2-stroke and half 4-stroke (Table A-l, Appendix A).
Figures 2-3 shows the number of calls in 1994 by the year the vessel was constructed.
This figure illustrates that it is common for ships as old as 20 to 25 years to call on the Ports.
Appendix A contains similar graphs for each shiptype (Figures A-5 through A-13).
« 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995
Ship Calls on San Pedro Bay Ports in 1994 by Year Ship Constructed
Figure 2-3. Calls in 1994 by year ship constructed — ALL SHIPTYPES
The size and speed of ships that use the San Pedro Bay Ports varies. Net and deadweight
tonnage profiles which were constructed as part of the inventory study show a wide range of
tonnages for most vessel types. The range of service speeds by shiptype is more narrow and for
some shiptypes varies by only about 3 knots. Container ships and tankers calling on the Ports
show the most variation with a more than 10 knot difference between the service speeds of the
slowest and fastest ships. Figures A-2 through A-4 in Appendix A shows the profiles for
container ships. Profiles for other shiptypes may be found in the SCAQMD inventory study4.
Ship size and speed strongly affects the amount of work required to move a ship through
water. The work required is directly correlated with ship emissions. Therefore, it is necessary to
characterize calls in terms of ship size and speed as well as other critical parameters. The
inventory study grouped vessels by shiptype (e.g., bulk carrier) and propulsion type (e.g.,
motorship or steamship) and by "design category" (e.g., 200-400, 400-600, etc.) . The design
categories were based on ship deadweight tonnage and service speed such that ships in a single
design category could be assumed to be well represented by a single average rated power
4Note that these profiles are based on the 1993 data which is per-ship data. The average ships speeds by
shiptype, which were incorporated into the SCAQMD model and are shown in Table 5-2 of this report,
are taken from the 1994 Marine Exchange data which provided data by call. Thus, unlike the speed
profiles in Appendix A and the SCAQMD inventory study, the average speeds by shiptype used in the
model are call-weighted.
2-5
-------
associated\yith the category. Section 3.2.3 of the SCAQMD inventory study contains more
discussion of the use of the design category and development of average rated power
characterizations. Distribution of annual ship calls by shiptype, propulsion type, and design
category, then, implied a certain distribution of annual calls by rated power. This power
distribution combined with ship activity information gives total energy requirements for a year
which can be multiplied by emission rates to calculate annual emissions inventories.
2.3.2 Oceangoing Vessel Activity
Ship activity information includes engine load in each operating mode and time spent in
each operating mode while in South Coast waters. The SCAQMD inventory study distinguished
four operational modes for ships using the San Pedro Bay Ports: full cruise, precautionary area
cruise, maneuvering, and hotelling. Ship operations were characterized based primarily on
Marine Exchange data.
In general, ships enter or exit the South Coast waters in cruise mode. Cruise mode in the
SCAQMD study was assumed to be associated with ship service speed (usually about 15 to 23
knots) and an engine load of about 80 percent of maximum continuous rating (MCR)5. Four
primary routes into and out of the Ports are used, designated in the inventory study as Northern,
Southern, Western, and Catalina (Figure 2-4). The ships remain in cruise mode until they near
the precautionary area within which ship speeds are regulated to be no more than 12 knots. The
precautionary area begins approximately 5 miles outside the breakwater. About 1 mile from the
breakwater, the ships slow to about 5 knots to take on a pilot and, typically assisted by tugboats,
maneuver into the harbor at low speeds, slowing further as they approach the pier6. The
inventory study estimates power requirements, separate for each shiptype, for operation within
the precautionary area and for maneuvering.
While in Port, motorships operate auxiliary engines and boilers (and steamships operate
their main boilers at low loads) to provide power for lights, ventilation, and other "hotelling"
requirements, and steam for hot water and to keep fuel from solidifying. Auxiliary engines may
also be used to offload cargo, especially to power pumps for offloading liquids such as crude oil.
Loads"on auxiliary engines can vary dramatically from ship to ship. The SCAQMD inventory
study characterized auxiliary engine loads and auxiliary boiler use, specific by shiptype, based on
a survey of about 60 ships made by the Environmental Management Division of the Los Angeles
Harbor Department during 1994. Table 2-1 shows the average load assumed for auxiliary
engines by mode for each shiptype.
5The power required to cruise at the service speed varies with the extent to which the ship is loaded. (A
more heavily-loaded ship sits lower in the water and requires more power for equal speed.) Data which
would allow the loading of ships calling on the San Pedro Bay Ports to be characterized is not available.
The assumption that service speed is associated with 80% MCR is consistent with most but not all ships
being fully or near-fully loaded and is taken from a 1994 report prepared by the Ports of Los Angeles
and Long Beach.
Instead of docking at a pier, ships sometimes go to anchor. Anchorages are available both inside and
outside the breakwater.
2-6
-------
LOS ANGELES-LONG BEACH HARBORS
NEWPORT
HARBOR
DEEP DRAFT . '
TRANSfT ROUTES .'
s«ng«r Furry
and
Tug and Tow
Rout**
DEEP DRAFT
TRANSfT ROUTES
VTIS LA-LB
AOR
Figure 2-4. VTIS Los Angeles-Long Beach, standard transit routes
(provided by the Marine Exchange)
Table 2-1. Auxiliary engine loads assumed in the SCAQMD inventory study
Shiptype
Passenger Vessels
All other shiptypes
Cruise Load
(kW)
5000
750
Maneuvering
Load (kW)
5000
1250
Hotelling
Load (kW)
5000
1000
Vessels may "shift" while in port, moving from one berth to another or between berths
and anchorages. Vessels may shift between the Port of Los Angeles and the Port of Long Beach,
as well. The estimates of time spent hotelling and maneuvering in port per ship call made in the
inventory study included this shifting, which is especially prevalent for tankers and bulk carriers.
Departure from the Ports is similar to arrival but tends to happen more quickly as
outgoing ships have the right-of-way over incoming ships and as outgoing ships drop off the pilot
2-7
-------
at the breakwater rather than a mile or so outside the breakwater. And, of course, ships may
depart on a different route than that over which they arrived.
The ports from which the most calls on the San Pedro Bay Ports originate are (based on
1994 Marine Exchange data and shown from highest number of calls to lowest):
• Yokohama
• Oakland
• Tokyo
• San Francisco
• Ensenada
• Kaohsiung
• Valdez
• Honolulu
• Hong Kong
• El Segundo
• Manzillo
• Vancouver, B.C.
Of a total of 5268 calls made on the San Pedro Bay Ports in 1994, 2620 of them
originated in one of the 12 ports listed above. The most calls by far came from Yokohama (536)
and Oakland (414).
Roughly half of the 1994 calls entered the breakwater by Queen Gate (Port of Long
Beach) and the other half by Angel Gate (Port of Los Angeles).
2.3.3 Harbor Craft and Fishing Vessels
2.3.3.1 Harbor Craft
As used in this study, "harbor craft" includes tugboats, towboats, pushboats, workboats,
crewboats, supplyboats, dredges, utility boats, and passenger/excursion vessels. Tugboats,
towboats, and pushboats are treated as one category of vessels while passenger/excursion vessels
are treated as another. All remaining harbor vessel types are grouped together and referred to in
this study as workboats.
Tugboats operating in the South Coast include mooring tugs which are certified to put
ships into berth at the San Pedro Bay Ports, "other" harbor tugboats or towboats or pushboats
(called "non-mooring tugs" for the remainder of this report) operating in the area, and
oceangoing tugs which tow barges into the harbor. Oceangoing tugs were estimated in the
SCAQMD inventory study to contribute very little to the NOX inventory (0.2 tpd in 1993 and
0.4 tpd in 2010 - less than 1 percent of the total marine NOX inventory) and were not included in
this study because reductions from this category would be negligibly small.
The SCAQMD inventory study used population and rated horsepower information on
mooring tugs from the Los-Angeles/Long Beach Harbor Safety Committee, which publishes
2-8
-------
certified bollard pull test results for all certified mooring tugs serving the San Pedro Bay Ports. It
also used information provided by Crowley Marine Services and Wilmington Transportation,
two of the three operators of mooring tugs in San Pedro Bay. Information on non-mooring tugs
operating in the South Coast was obtained from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers7. Table 2-2
shows the population of mooring and non-mooring tugs operating in the San Pedro Bay based on
these data.
Table 2-2. Population of mooring and non-mooring tugs by horsepower
category operating in the South Coast
Tug Horsepower
Category
<300
300-599
600-749
750-999
1000-1499
1500-1999
2000-2499
2"500-2999
3000-3499
3500-3999
• 4000-4499
4500-5499
5500-6499
6500-7499
Totals
# Mooring Tugs
(1995 data)
0
0
0
0
2
2
5
1
2
5
0
4
0
1
22
# Non-Mooring Tugs
(1993 data)
0
5
1
1
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
7The U.S. Army Corps maintains information through the Waterborne Commerce Statistics Center in
New Orleans, Louisiana on domestic vessels and operators of such vessels available for use on U.S.
waterways, harbors, and channels. This organization has collected vessel information since the late
1960's. For the South Coast inventory study, we purchased data from the Army Corps for the entire
United States, and then sorted out the vessels based in the South Coast. The data we purchased were
updated as of March 1, 1993. The vessel data includes horsepower, vessels length, net tonnage, and
vessel type. Although more recent data are now available from the Army Corps, this analysis uses the
same data which was used in the South Coast inventory study.
2-9
-------
Mooring tugs meet oceangoing ships near the breakwater and assist the ships to dock and
depart. Typical travel times across the harbor may be from 20 minutes to over an hour depending
on where the tug is based and to which gate it is traveling. The docking pilot decides whether or
not to request a tug assist and it is fairly rare that tugs are not used. One or two tugs per ship is
typical, and three tugs are required for tankers. The tugs are not necessarily maneuvering the
ship at all times during a docking event. Sometimes the tugs will only stand by in case they are
needed, sometimes they will accompany the ship for a distance before providing assistance.
Under conditions of high winds, tugs may be required to hold ships for 4 hours or more. Tugs
also provide assistance to ships that are shifting from berth to berth.
Because variability in tug operations made it difficult to construct a representative
operating profile (in terms of time spent over the year at various engine loads), the SCAQMD
study based tug emissions calculations on annual fuel consumption information provided by
Crowley Marine Services and Wilmington Transportation Company. The fuel consumption data
was used to calculate an average annual fuel consumption of 29.9 gallons per tug horsepower per
year for 1993 operation. The fuel requirements were then projected, based on increases in ship
calls, to be an estimated 42.7 gallons per tug horsepower per year in 2010.
In the absence of better information, the fuel consumption rates per horsepower
developed for the mooring tugs were also used to characterize the operation of non-mooring tugs
in the SCAQMD study. This approach was used because non-mooring tugs are relatively small
contributors to the marine inventory and because developing additional operating information for
these vessels would have been time-intensive and out of keeping with the scope of the inventory
study
Passenger/excursion boats and workboats operating in the San Pedro Bay were
characterized in the SCAQMD study based on data from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(which gave information on vessel population and horsepower) and on activity estimates for
harbor vessels made by Booz Allen & Hamilton in an earlier marine inventory study. The
SCAQMD study contains a discussion of this methodology. Table 2-3 shows the population of
these vessels operating in the San Pedro Bay as estimated in the SCAQMD study.
2.3.3.2 Fishing Vessels
The SCAQMD inventory study characterized fishing vessel activity in the South Coast
waters based on discussions with Department of Fish and Game representatives Mary Larson
(commercial fishing) and Kevin Hill (sport fishing).
Commercial fishing vessel activity varies considerably depending on the type of fishing
being done. Fishing vessels can be distinguished by gear type (e.g., set gill net) and by fishery
(e.g., sea urchin), to indicate how they fish. This is important for the emissions inventory
because the amount of time vessels spend cruising, idling, trawling, or drifting varies, both daily
and seasonally, with the type of fishing being done. The major gear types used in the South
Coast and typical activities are briefly described below based on discussions with Ms. Larson.
2-10
-------
Table 2-3. Population of passenger vessels and workboats by
horsepower category operating in the South Coast
Vessel Horsepower
Category
<500
500-999
1000-1499
1500-1999
2000-2499
2500-2999
3000-3499
3500-3999
4000-4499
4500-5499
5500-6499
6500-7499
- Totals
# Passenger/Excursion
(1993 data)
11
2
3
5
3
0
2
1
1
0
0
0
28
# Workboats
(1993 data)
12
3
4
2
3
0
2
1
0
0
0
1
28
Drift Gill Net
Used for shark and swordfish. Typical operation is to travel to an offshore location, set a
net, drift all night, and pull in the catch in the morning. Drift gill net fishing must be done a
minimum of 6 miles offshore. Certain areas are restricted for certain dates. Drift gill nets cannot
be used to take shark or swordfish from February 1 through April 30. From May 1 through
August 14, they may not be used within 75 nautical miles of the California coast. From
December 15 through January 31, they cannot be used within 25 miles of the California coast.
During the May through August period, a drift gill net fishing vessel will typically go out for 10
to 14 days at a time, anchoring up at the nearest island during the daytime when not fishing.
During other times in the year the vessels may go out and come in daily (when fishing close to
shore) or may go out for multiple day trips.
Set Gill Net
Used for halibut, seabass, barracuda, and others. Typical operation is to travel 3 to
5 miles offshore, set the nets and go out every two or three days to pull in the catch. It takes
approximately 10 hours at idle to pull in the nets. Set gill net fishing occurs all year round.
2-11
-------
Purse Seine (round haul net)
Used for tuna, sardines, mackerel, anchovies, squid. Typical operation is to encircle
schools with net and pull them in. Considerable time spent searching for schools at a higher rpm;
once a school is located the boat idles for the 3 to 5 hours it takes to bring the catch on board.
Generally fish at night when schools are close to the surface leaving in the late afternoon and
returning between 8 pm and 11 am.
Trawling
Used for sea cucumbers, spot prawns, pink shrimp. Typically travel to their preferred
location, put the trawl gear overboard and trawl at 2 to 3 knots and about 25 to 30 percent full
power for 20 minutes to a few hours and then go into idle and pull in the catch. Locations are
usually just outside the 3-mile limit. Pulling the catch onboard typically takes 30 minutes to one
hour. These vessels go out daily, year-round. They usually leave after 7 pm and return with their
catch around 10 in the morning.
Trapping
Used for spiney lobster (winter), spot prawn (spring, summer, fall). Typically out 12 to
16 hours per day, seven days per week, weather permitting. Travel to location, set strings in the
evening and come back in the morning to pull strings (traps strung together — 25 or 30 are
connected in a "string"), take in the catch, and re-bait the strings. About 11 hours per day might
be spent at the strings, the rest traveling to, from, and between strings. Engine at idle or low rpm
when pulling in and setting traps.
Rakes, airlifts
Used for sea urchins. Sea urchins may be harvested year-round, at times 7 days per week,
but in the summertime only 2 to 4 days per week (depending on the month) are open. The
vessels travel to a location which may be very close to the coast (urchins are found at depths of
10 to 60 feet) or may be near an offshore island such as San Clemente, and turn off the engines.
Divers go down and use rakes to harvest the urchins and then airlift them up to the boat (using a
small auxiliary gasoline engine to power the lift). There may be short trips between diving spots
during the day and the boats working around the offshore islands typically make a short trip each
evening to where they anchor at night.
Others (very few vessels)
• Abalone diving
• Harpoon (swordfish)
• Long lines
• Hook and line
• Kelp harvesting
2-12
-------
This information was used in the SCAQMD study to characterize fishing vessel activity
in terms of hours spent each day in four modes: 80 percent power (traveling at about 10 knots),
25 percent power (trawling or maneuvering within the harbor), idle, and drifting (no propulsion
engines) based on typical operation on a summertime day. The study (which provides more
detail) estimates a commercial fleet composition-weighted average of 3.0 hours per day per
vessel at 80 percent power, 3.3 hours per day per vessel at idle, and 1.1 hour per day at
25 percent power for a summertime day.
Commercial Passenger Fishing Vessels (CPFV or sport fishing vessels) activity data were
developed in the SCAQMD study based on" data provided by the Kevin Hill of the CPFV unit of
the Department of Fish and Game. The study estimates a CPFV fleet composition-weighted
average of 0.8 hours per day per vessel at 80 percent power, 1.4 hours per day per vessel at idle,
and 1.0 hour per day at 25 percent power for a typical day.
2.4 EMISSIONS INVENTORY SUMMARY
The SCAQMD inventory study estimated that marine vessels contributed about 41 tons
per day of NOX to the South Coast NOX inventory in 1993 and would contribute about 53 tons per
day of NOX in 2010, in the absence of new regulations or programs (such as those evaluated in
this study) to reduce emissions from the marine sector. Most of these emissions are from the
oceangoing vessels that call on the San Pedro Bay Ports. Other categories of marine vessels that
contribute substantially to the marine inventory include fishing vessels, tugboats, and oceangoing
vessels that pass through South Coast waters without calling on the San Pedro Bay Ports
("transiting vessels"). Table 2-4 shows the NOX results for each of these categories for the
inventory study years, 1990, 1993, 2000, and 2010. Table 2-5 shows a further breakdown (for
2010) of the emissions of oceangoing vessels calling on the San Pedro Bay Ports.
Table 2-4. NOX planning inventory for marine vessels in the South Coast (NOX tpd)
Vessel Category
Oceangoing, San Pedro Bay Ports
El Segundo traffic
Transiting vessels
Tugboats (harbor)
Tugboats (oceangoing)
Harbor vessels
Fishing vessels
U.S. Navy
U.S. Coast Guard
Totals
1990
28.1
0.5
5.7
1.7
0.4
2.1
6.3
0.1
0.8
45.7
1993
24.0
0.5
5.7
1.4
0.2
2.1
6.3
0.1
0.8
41.1
2000
26.8
0.5
5.7
1.5
0.4
2.1
6.3
0.1
0.8
44.2
2010
34.7
0.5
5.7
1.9
0.4
2.1
6.3
0.1
0.8
52.5
2-13
-------
Table 2-5. NOX planning inventory for oceangoing vessels calling on the San
Pedro Bay Ports — 2010
Main engine/boiler
Auxiliary engine
Auxiliary boiler
Totals
Cruise
15.8
P-Area Cruise
1.2
1.6
—
—
18.6 .
Maneuvering
1.5
0.9
0.0
2.4
Hotelling
0.5
12.1
1.0
13.6
Totals
19.0
14.6
1.0
34.6
2-14
-------
3. EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS EXPECTED FROM
OCEANGOING VESSELS IN THE SOUTH COAST DUE TO
INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANIZATION (IMO) STANDARDS
3.1 INTRODUCTION
The first emission control strategy evaluated in this report is the new NOX emission limits
recently finalized at the International Maritime Organization (IMO). This Section uses the
information presented in Section 2 and the SCAQMD inventory model together with the results
of the Lloyd's Marine Exhaust Emissions Research Programme to estimate the impact of these
new emission limits on the South Coast Air Basin.
3.2 IMO EMISSION LIMITS
On September 26, 1997, the IMO adopted a new Annex VI, Air Pollution, to the
International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL 73/78). This
Annex contains regulations addressing NOX emissions from diesel engines, the sulfur content of
fuel, CFCs and HFCs, and VOCs from tanker operations, and emissions from shipboard
incineration. The NOX requirements, contained in Regulation 13, will apply to any new diesel
engine, propulsion or auxiliary, greater than 130 kW installed on a vessel constructed on or after
January 1, 2000. While the provisions of the Annex are intended to cover ships operated
anywhere in the world, a provision in Regulation 13 allows a country to set different emission
limits for engines installed on vessels that operate domestically. Table 3-1 sets out the EVIO NOX
emission limits.
Table 3-1. Proposed IMO standards for NOX emissions from ship engines
(for ships constructed on or after January 1, 2000)
Engine Speed, n
n< 130
130
-------
after January 1, 2000 must comply regardless of whether the required number of countries have
ratified the Annex by that date. Because of this feature, it is expected that engines on new ships
will comply with the requirements. Consequently, this study assumes that all new ships built on
or after January 1, 2000, are fitted with IMO-compliant engines.
The Draft Technical Code on Emission of Nitrogen Oxides from Marine Diesel Engines
(NOX Technical Code), which accompanies the proposed IMO standards, specifies that main
engines shall verify compliance with the standards over either the E2 or E3 test cycle. The E2
cycle applies to constant speed propulsion engines and the E3 cycle applies to propeller law-
operated propulsion engines. These cycles are 4-mode, steady state cycles. The modes for both
cycles are 100, 75, 50, and 25 percent MCR. The emissions in each mode are weighted
identically for both cycles, with the weighting shown in Table 3-2. The difference between the
two cycles is the percent rated speed associated with the percent rated power in each mode.
Table 3-2. Test cycles E2 and E3 — engine load and weighting
factor for each of four steady-state test modes
Power (% MCR)
Speed (% Rated) E2
E3
Weighting Factor
100
100
100
0.2
75
100
75
0.5
50
100
50
0.15
25
100
25
0.15
3.3 LLOYD'S MARINE EXHAUST EMISSIONS RESEARCH PROGRAM
To estimate the emissions benefits of the EVIO NOX emission limits, it is necessary to
estimate ship emission levels that would occur absent MO requirements. This study relies on
research performed by Lloyd's Register of Shipping (Lloyd's) to evaluate emission rates of slow
and medium speed marine propulsion engines.
Beginning in 1989, and largely in response to early IMO discussions of controlling air
emissions from ships, Lloyd's conducted a Marine Exhaust Emissions Research Programme to
evaluate the environmental impact of emissions from ships. Prior to the Lloyd's Research
Programme, little information was available on emissions rates from ship engines and most of
the data available was from test bed engine trials which might not have given an accurate picture
of emission rates of ships at sea. The Lloyd's Research Programme was intended to provide
needed data to inform the development of marine emissions control programs such as the IMO
standards. (Lloyd's 1995). As part of the Programme, Lloyd's conducted emissions tests on a
variety of ship engines under a range of load conditions.
More specifically, Lloyd's conducted steady state emissions trials on about 60 engines in
50 ships, and transient emissions trials on 8 engines in 8 ships. Steady state testing for
paniculate emissions was also conducted on 6 engines in 6 vessels. Engines tested included both
medium speed (all but one 4-stroke) and slow-speed (2-stroke) technologies and, although most
3-2
-------
engines tested were main propulsion engines, a few generator-set engines were tested, as well.
The smallest engine tested was a 364 kW (488 hp) engine in a dredger and the largest were two
21,634 kW (29,000 hp) engines in two container vessels. Table 3-3, taken from the 1995 Lloyd's
report, lists the ships and engines tested in the steady-state test phase (data was published for
48 engines in 40 ships). Note that, although Lloyd's grouped the tug engines with all other
medium-speed engines in their analysis, we did not include the tug emission trials in the data
used to characterize the emissions of medium speed ocean-going vessels because tug emissions
are evaluated separately from ocean-going vessels in the SCAQMD inventory study and in this
study. A series of reports published by Lloyd's (Lloyd's 1990; 1993; 1995) provide a more
detailed description of the Research Programme, and a discussion of sampling and analytical
procedures.
Lloyd's published test parameters and results of the emissions trials (Lloyd's 1995;
Lloyd's 1990). Exhibit 3-1 shows a sample of the data that was published for the emissions trials
for one engine. In addition to this detailed information, Lloyd's also published line graphs of
emissions rates (kg emissions / tonne fuel consumed) with each line representing one engine at a
variety of speeds and loads, and average emission factors at 85 percent MCR operation for the
slow speed and medium speed engines tested.
Based on the results of the emission tests, Lloyd's estimated average NOX emission
factors of 17 and 12 g/kWh (87 and 57 kg/tonne fuel) for slow speed and medium speed engines,
respectively (Lloyd's 1995). These emission factors were used in the SCAQMD inventory study.
However, evaluation of the benefits of the IMO NOX emission limits required a somewhat more
sophisticated use of the Lloyd's data. Section 3.4 explains how the Lloyd's data was used in this
analysis.
3.4 METHO.DOLOGY FOR MAIN ENGINES
3.4.1 Developing NOX Emissions Rates from Lloyd's Data
The first step in assessing ship emissions was to use the published data from Lloyd's
Research Programme to calculate NOX emission rates in g/kWh for each emissions trial8.
Emissions calculations were performed in accordance with the NOX Technical Code using a
8The Lloyd's reports contain detailed emissions trial data as were shown in Exhibit 3-1, average emission
factors at 85% MCR, and line graphs of kg emissions per tonne fuel burned. The detailed data are "raw
data" and do not show calculated emission rate results. Further, the line graphs did not identify the
engine corresponding to each line. Emission rates in kg/kWh (or kg/tonne fuel) for each engine tested
and at each test load condition were not published and were not readily available from Lloyd's Register
as the materials associated with the test program had been archived and the key technical staff person
who had performed the original calculations was no longer with the company. Therefore, it was
necessary for us to calculate NOX emission rates from the raw data so that the data could be used fully.
3-3
-------
Table 3-3. Steady-state emission trials: vessels monitored
Vessel Code
B6
CT1
CT2
R8
R9
TK6
TK7
TK8
TK9
B1
B2
B3
B4
B5
CT1
D1
D2
D3
D4
D5
D6
R1
R2
R3
R4
R5
R6
R7
R7
tK1
TK2
TK3
TK4
TK5
TG1
TG2
TG3
TG4
TG5
TG6
TG7
Ship Type
Bulk carrier
Container
Container
RORO ferry
RORO ferry
Tanker
Tanker
Tanker
Tanker
Bulk carrier
Bulk carrier
Bulk carrier
Bulk carrier
Bulk carrier
Container
Dredger
Dredger
Dredger
Dredger
Dredger
Dredger
RORO ferry
RORO ferry
RORO ferry
. RORO ferry
RORO ferry
RORO ferry
RORO ferry
RORO ferry
Tanker
Tanker
Tanker
Tanker
Tanker
Tug
Tug
Tug
Tug
Tug
Tug
Tug
Launch Date
1987
1980
1977
1980
1980
1970
1974 •
1971
1977
1979
1983
1975
1986
1986
1980
1975
1969
1963
1969
1974
1971
1974
1987
1978
1978
1976
1974
1987
1987
1978
1967
1975
1985
1979
1968
1964
1969
1985
1965
1989
1969
Engine Type
SS
ss
SS
2xSS
2xSS
SS
SS
SS
SS
MS
MS
MS
MS
MS
MS
MS
MS
MS
- MS
MS
MS
2xMS
2xMS
2xMS
MS
2xMS
MS
MS
2xMS
MS
MS
MS
MS
MS
MS
MS
MS
MS
MS
.MS
MS
Engine Duty
Main
Main
Main
Main
Main
Main
Main
Main •
Main
Main
Main
Main
Main
Main
Generator
Main
Main
Main
Main
Main
Main
Main
Main
Main
Main
Main
Main
Generator
Main
Main
Main
Main
Main
Main
Main
Main
Main
Main
Main
Main
Main
Max. MCR (kW)
14,123
21,634
21,634
6,510
6,606
5,296
6,914
18,389
20,081
1,346
886
736
4,355
4,355
960
3,531
1,640
364
861
1,725
971
3,371
7,698
5,737
4,193
3,371
3,089
1,400
7,700
912
3,750
4,016
588
912
1,350
615
1,260
1,250
1,350
1,270
1,260
MS = Medium speed
SS = Slow speed
3-4
-------
Ship number B6
Trial data
Engine Output (kW)
Engine Revs (rpm)
Fuel Consumption (l/min)
Ship Speed Grd. (knots)
NO(ppm)
SOj (ppm)
CO(ppm)
C0j(%)
02(%)
Gaseous hydrocarbons (ppm.C)
Exhaust temperature at probe (deg C)
Principal particulars
Ship type: bulk carrier
LB.P. (m): 277
Ship size (dwt): 172810
Launched: 1987
Propeller type: FPP
Ambient test conditions
Air temperature (deg C ): 5.0
Air pressure (mbar): 1037
Humidity (g/kg): 4.2
Wind speed (knots): 5
Weather conditions (Beaufort): 2
Height of swell (m): 1.0
486 1703 2997
27 41 49.5
4.79 7.7 10.78
4.8 5.8 8.0
250 670 910
40 80 105
10 30 50
. 0.3 2.1 3.05
19.3 16.7 15.1
54 48 60
156 165 171
Engine
Engine: main
Engine type: slow speed— 2 stroke
Max. continuous rating (kW): 14323
Number of cylinders: 6
Fuel
Grade : heavy fuel oil
Density @ 15 deg C (Kg/1): 0.974
Viscosity @ 100 deg C (cSt): 19.2
Viscosity e 50 deg C (cSt): 140
Elemental composition (X m/m)
Carbon: B&32
Hydrogen: 11.22
Nitrogen: 0.41
Sulphur 1.20
3277 10012 1128O 11324
51 74 77 77.1
11.81 33.2 37.47 37.65
7.2 12.0 — 13.4
950 1060 1150 1140
115 90 90 80
60 20 15 • 20
3.3 3.0 3.1 3.1
1S.1 15.1 15.4 17.4
66 27 36 24
161 186 . 177 183
12650
80
44.32
13.0
1240
80
10
3.3
17.7
39
184
Exhibit 3-1. Lloyd's published data for each engine emission trial
carbon balance methodology9. Exhibits B-l through B-3 in Appendix B show the formulas used
and a sample calculation for one engine test. Our results compared very well with Lloyd's
results. Specifically, we compared average emissions at 85 percent MCR (see Exhibits B-4 and
B-5), the shape of the NOX emissions (kg/tonne fuel consumed) vs. percent MCR curves, and the
results for one engine at one test point for which Lloyd's provided us with a sample of their own
analysis.
These calculations yielded NOX emission rates in g/kWh for several engine loads for each
engine tested. However, the test results did not directly indicate emissions in South Coast waters
or whether or not the engine tested would meet or exceed the IMO NOX limits. This was because
the test engine loads varied from engine to engine and rarely coincided with the South Coast
profile loads or with any of the four modes of the E2 test cycle. Furthermore, the test loads
9Data on the temperature of the intercooled air, needed for calculating the humidity correction factor,
were not readily available from Lloyd's except for one engine at one test point, and for a few engine
tests gaseous hydrocarbon exhaust data were not available. For the temperature of intercooled air, we
simply used the temperature we had for the single test point of one engine in all calculations. Where
gaseous hydrocarbon data was not available (only a few engines) we assumed gaseous HC emissions of
0, which seemed to give better results, especially at low loads, than the oxygen balance method. Neither
of these assumptions had a very large effect on the results.
3-5
-------
typically did not cover the entire load range (recall that the E2 cycle covers a range from 25 to
100 percent MCR). Some sort of curve-fitting was necessary in order to use the Lloyd's results
to estimate future emissions in the South Coast Air Basin.
Two curve-fitting methods were used which ultimately provided a range of emission
reduction estimates. In both cases medium-speed and slow-speed engines were analyzed
separately. The first method combined all of the test data10 into a single scatter plot and fit a
linear curve. The second method considered the data on an engine-by-engine basis and
interpolated between test data to fill in an estimated emission curve over the load range. These
two methods, and their results, are discussed-in more detail below.
3.4.2 Engine-Specific Methodology
Engine-Specific Methodology — Overview
This method considered the data on an engine-by-engine basis and interpolated between
test data to fill in an estimated emission curve over the load range. The engine-specific method
gives rise to a number of issues, which are discussed later in this section, but it has the
advantage, compared to the combined data method described in Section 3.4.3, of retaining some
of the valuable information developed by Lloyd's on ship-to-ship emissions variation over the
load curve. Conceptually, this is important because, although the data for all ships combined
yield average results very similar to IMO standards, the data also show that many engines tested
would not individually comply with EVIO standards. If the non-compliant engines were brought
into compliance with the standards, and if the emissions characteristics of the engines already
complying did not change, the average emissions would decrease significantly. Of course, there
is no guarantee that engine models that might have tested below IMO limits in the past would not
be modified to improve performance and thereby become higher emitting, just meeting the IMO
requirements. Because of this and other uncertainties, described at the end of this section, the
engine-specific methodology is assumed to provide an upper-bound estimate of the emissions
reductions that might be achieved by the EVIO standards. This overview section summarizes the
engine-specific methodology. Subsequent sections provide additional detail.
First, average emission factors in grams of NOX per kiloWatt hour (g NOX / kWh) were
developed for each of several engine load conditions that reflect vessel operations in the South
Coast waters ("profile loads") based on test data from the Lloyd's Marine Exhaust Emissions
Research Programme. Two sets of emission factors were developed from the data, one for
uncontrolled engines and one for IMO-controlled engines. The IMO-controlled factors reflected
10 Based on engineering judgement, six of the emission rates at the test loads (out of 234 total) were not
used in the analysis. These were rates which appeared very incongruous compared with the other test
results for that engine and were also associated with some oddity in the reported test data. For
example, the lowest-load result for the RORO R8, both port and starboard engines, appeared suspicious
because they implied the very low NOX emission rates of 3.4 and 4.6 g/ kWh, respectively.
Examination of the data reported by Lloyd's showed that the fuel consumption rates reported for these
two load points were extremely low for the engine output power. Because both the reported data and
the calculated emission rates appeared questionable, these points were neglected.
3-6
-------
the NOX emission rates expected once IMO standards are fully implemented (that is, at some future
time when even the oldest ships in operation were built after the IMO standards went into effect).
Next, to calculate the percentage NOX reduction in any given calendar year from 2000
through 2010, IMO-controlled emission factors specific to the calendar year were needed. The
calendar-year specific factors reflect the mix of ships in operation in the South Coast built before
and after January 1, 2000, the date on and after which new ships are required to meet IMO
emission limits. An age profile of the ships calling on the San Pedro Bay Ports from the
SCAQMD inventory study (see Section 2) was used to estimate the percentage of ships built
before and after this date in each calendar year evaluated. These percentages were then applied
to the uncontrolled and IMO-controlled emission factors to calculate weighted-average IMO
factors specific to the calendar year.
The slow speed and medium speed engine emission factors, both uncontrolled and
calendar year MO factors, still specific by profile load (e.g., 80 percent MCR), were averaged to
calculate load-specific factors for the fleet (slow and medium speed combined) under the two
scenarios: uncontrolled and calendar-year controlled operation. These load-specific factors were
then weighted by the total energy spent by each ship speed type at each engine load to calculate
energy-weighted average NOX emission factors in g/kWh. Characterizations of vessel operations
in the South Coast in terms of energy spent at various engine loads were taken from the
SCAQMD inventory study. This provided average NOX emission factors representing the main
engine emissions of all ships using the San Pedro Bay Ports in each calendar year from 2000
through 2010 for two scenarios: with and without IMO control.
Energy-weighted average uncontrolled NOX emission factors were then compared with
IMO-controlled results for each calendar year to calculate a percentage NOX reduction associated
with the introduction of the IMO NOX emission limit. This percentage reduction was then
applied to the relevant portion" of the NOX inventory, as estimated in the SCAQMD study, to
give an estimated reduction in tons of NOX per year.
Engine-Specific Methodology — Uncontrolled and IMO-Controlled NOX Factors
In order to use the engine-specific test data available from Lloyd's to estimate emissions
rates over the load range, we used the following methodology for each engine tested. Emission
rates at loads in between tested loads were assumed to be best approximated by linearly
interpolating between the two nearest test points12. For example, for the container ship CT1, the
11 The relevant portion of the NOX inventory for this part of the analysis was total NOX from oceangoing
vessels, main engines (motorships only, not steamships), calling on the ports. Emissions reductions
from transiting vessels and from auxiliary engines were evaluated separately (see Sections 3.4.4 and
3.5).
12 Note that a series of 3 tests on a single engine performed over a 3 month period by Lloyd's in order to
investigate the repeatability of test results gave a standard deviation of about 1 percent of the average
(average in kg NOX per tonne fuel) at 25 and 85 percent MCR and about 2 percent of the average at
50 percent MCR. This indicates that the NO* test results on a particular engine would be expected to
be very consistent from test to test over the load range.
3-7
-------
emission rate at 75 percent MCR .(one of the E2/E3 test loads) was estimated by interpolating
between the emissions rates at 49 and 76 percent MCR, two loads tested by Lloyd's. To estimate
emissions at loads higher or lower than tested loads, we assumed that the emission rate of the
nearest load point was the best indicator. For CT1, for example, the NOX rate at 100 percent
MCR (the highest E2/E3 test point) was assumed to be equal to the NOX rate at 76 percent MCR,
the highest engine load tested for CT1. For two engines, CT1 and the port engine of the RORO,
R9, the same load was tested twice with different results. In these cases we used the average of
the two results to represent the emissions at that load in the calculations.
Figure 3-1 shows the results for the slow speed container ship, CT1. The diamond-
shaped points represent actual test data, while the dashes represent interpolated (and
extrapolated) emission rates. Similar graphs for each engine tested are contained in Appendix C.
NOx Emission Rates - Lloyd's Slow Speed Ships -
CT1
QO no
on 00 -
70 no
•C en 00 -
•* RO no -
* — 40 on -
X W'UU
O ^o no -
Oft ftft .
10 no -
0 00 -
+
**
"
BB
•>
- . «- - = • .
•
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
%MCR
Figure 3-1. NOx emission rates — Lloyd's slow speed ships — CT1
For each engine, we estimated the following using the methodology described above:
• NOX g/kWh emission rates at 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, 85, 90, and 100 percent
MCR ("point estimates")
• NOX g/kWh emission rates at each of the E2/E3 test procedure loads: 25, 50, 75, and
100 percent MCR (see Section 3.1)
3-8
-------
• The E2/E3-weighted NOX g/kWh emission rate (see Section 3.1) that determines
whether or not an engine is in compliance with the IMO standard13
• NOX g/kWh emission rates at South Coast "profile points": 80, 40, 35, 20, 15, and
10 percent MCR - these engine loads represent a set of engine loads consistent with
operating modes assumed in the SCAQMD inventory study
To estimate IMO controlled emissions, the E2/E3-weigh ted NOX g/kWh result was
compared with the applicable IMO standard for each engine tested (the applicable IMO standard
is a function of the rated speed of the engine). Where rated speeds were not available in the
Lloyd's data, we estimated them based on the correlation between percent MCR and percent
rated speed presented in test cycle E3. For engines that exceeded the IMO standard, we
calculated a revised set of NOX emission rates based on the interpolated curve minus the
difference between the E2/E3-weighted rate and the IMO standard (the rationale for and
shortcomings of this methodology are discussed later in this section). For example, for the 6,606
kW port main engine of RORO R8 tested by Lloyd's, the E2/E3-weighted NOX rate was 18.6
g/kWh, exceeding the applicable EVIO standard of 17 g/kWh by 1.6 g/kWh. Using a revised
emissions curve equal to the original interpolated curve minus 1.6 g/kWh at every point,
recalculated NOX rates are such that the revised E2/E3-weighted NOX rate equals 17 g/kWh,
complying with the IMO standard.
For engines that were higher-emitting than the IMO standards would allow, this method
was used to calculate a revised E2/E3-weighted NOX rate (always equal to the applicable IMO
standard) and a revised set of NOX rates at the "profile points", the percent MCRs characterizing
vessel operation in the South Coast waters. These revised points, combined with the
unmodified14 profile points results for compliant engines were used to represent IMO-controlled
emissions rates. .
The "profile points" (or "profile engine loads") were developed from the inventory
model. There are three operating modes for main engines considered in the model: cruise,
precautionary area cruise, and maneuvering. The fourth operating mode for oceangoing vessels,
hotefling, is not relevant here because main engines are not used for hotelling power (see Section
3.6 for discussion of auxiliary engines). In the model all cruising (full cruise) was assumed to
occur at 80 percent MCR. Power requirements for cruising in the precautionary area, where ship
speeds are limited to 12 knots, were assumed to vary from shiptype to shiptype based on the ratio
between 12 knots and the average speed at full cruise for the shiptype. Engine power required to
propel the vessel was assumed to vary with ship speed cubed (a standard assumption which gives
a very good first estimate). For example, an autocarrier, with an assumed average cruise speed of
13 The E2/E3-weighted emissions rate is calculated consistent with IMO requirements: E2/E3 NOX = [(0.2
X 1.0 X NOX@100% MCR) + (0.5 X 0.75 X NOX@75%MCR) + (0.15 X 0.5 X NOX@50%MCR) +
(0.15 X 0.25 X NOX@25%MCR)]/0.6875
14 The interpolated curves and associated emissions rates for compliant engines were not modified,
consistent with the assumption that the emissions of engines already cleaner than required by IMO
would not'increase.
3-9
-------
18.3 knots at 80 percent MCR, would be assumed to operate at 22 percent MCR while traveling
at 12 knots in the precautionary area. Power required during maneuvering was estimated for
each shiptype based on shiptype average speed, typical maneuvering speeds (about 5 knots), and
Lloyd's test data which included ship speed at various engine loads. Table 3-4 shows the engine
loads (percent MCR) for each operating mode by shiptype as included in the inventory model.
For simplicity, engine loads associated with precautionary area cruise in the inventory model
were grouped and rounded to the nearest 5 percent MCR for use in this study of the effects of
IMO standards. Table 3-5 summarizes the "South Coast profile points."
Table 3-4. Approximate engine loads by shiptype for each operating mode
(South Coast, 2010)
Shiptype
Autocarrier
Bulk
Container
General Cargo
Passenger
Reefer-
RORO
Tanker
Cruise
(%)
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
Precautionary
Area Cruise
(%)
20
40
10
35
20
20
15
40
Maneuvering
(%)
15
20
10
20
15
15
10
20
Table 3-5. Profile points — unique engine loads representing vessels
operations in the South Coast
Operating Mode
Full Cruise
Lower Speed Modes
(includes cruising in the
precautionary area and
maneuvering — % MCR
varies by shiptype)
% MCR
80
40
35
20
15
10
Appendix C shows all of these calculated emissions rates for each engine tested. Exhibits
3-2 and 3-3, taken from Appendix C, show examples of these calculations. Exhibit 3-2 (ship
CT1) shows the calculations for an engine that already complies with IMO standards while
Exhibit 3-3 (ship R8-P) shows the calculations for an engine that is higher-emitting that the EVIO
standard requires.
3-10
-------
m
X
:r
o;
r+
(JO
O
«<
Q.
NOx Emission Rates - Lloyd's Slow Speed Ships - CT1
f
80 00 -
70.00
jz 60.00
f,
*— • 40 00
20.00
^
"
-
• •- - . • .
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
%MCR
Point Estimates
% MCR NOx g/kWh
10% 67.71
20% 35.43
30% 18.66
40% 16.32
50% 14.28
60% 14.07
70% 13.86
80% 13.73
90% 13.73
100% 13.73
Profile Points
Uncon. IMO
%MCR NOxg/kWh
85% 13.73 13.73
80% 13.73 13.73
40% 16.32 16.32
35% 17.49 17.49
20% 35.43 35.43
15% 51.57 51.57
10% 67.71 67.71
Test Information:
E2 Test Procedure
% MCR NOx g/kWh Revised NOx
25% 19.86 NA
50% 14.28 NA
75% 13.75 NA
100% 13.73 NA
&)
-h
O
•
n
test =>
test=>
use avg.
Test
% MCR
6%
25%
49%
76%
76%
76%
Test NOx
(g/kWh)
81.33
19.86
14.31
13.96
13.49
13.73
Vessel:
Type:
Size:
Launched:
Engine:
MCR
Test%MCR
Test RPM
Test % rated RPM
Propeller
Est. rated RPM
CT1
Container
27630
1980
main
21634
76%
118
91%
FPP
129
dwt (tonnes)
kW
E2 Wghtd NOx g/kWh Revised E2 NOx
14.13 NA
Applicable IMO std:
17.00
17.00
Comply with IMO? Revised?
TRUE NA
-------
NOx Emission Rates - Lloyd's Slow Speed Ships - R8-P
U)
Is)
m
X
U)
U)
3
w
O
Q.
wi"
O
S?
-*i
o
oo
•u
25.00
20.00
15.00
X 10.00
5.00
0.00
0%
20%
40% 60%
%MCR
80%
100%
Point Estimates
% MCR NOx g/kWh
10% 19.89
20% 19.89
30% 21.24
40% 20.33
50% 18.80
60% 18.61
70% 18.64
80% 18.42
90% 18.42
100% 18.42
Profile Points
Uncon.
IMO
%MCR
85%
80%
40%
35%
20%
15%
10%
NOxg/KWh
18.42
18.42
20.33
21.09
19.89
19.89
19.89
16.21
16.21
18.11
18.88
17.68
17.68
17.68
Test Information:
Test
% MCR
23%
32%
51%
70%
80%
Test NOx
(g/kWh)
19.89
21.58
18.58
18.64
18.42
Vessel:
Type:
Size:
Launched:
Engine:
MCR
Test%MCR
Test RPM
Propeller:
Est. rated RPM
R8
RORO
3855 dwt (tonnes)
1980
Port main
6606 kW
all
155
CPP
155
E2 Test Procedure
%MCR NOxg/kWh Revised NOx
25% 20.31 18.10
50% 18.80 16.59
75% 18.53 16.32
100% 18.42 16.21
E2 Wghtd NOx g/kWh Revised E2 NOx
18.62 16.41
Applicable IMO std:
16.41
16.41
Comply with IMO? Revised?
FALSE TRUE
-------
Exhibits B-6 through B-ll in Appendix B summarize the uncontrolled and the EvlO-
controlled (revised) emission rates at 85 percent MCR and at the profile points for each vessel
tested by Lloyd's. The 85 percent uncontrolled rates, as noted in Section 3.4.1, matched the
average NOX results presented by Lloyd's (Lloyd's 1995) of 17 g/kWh and 12 g/kWh for slow
speed and medium speed engines, respectively. Based on the methodology described in this
section, the MO-controlled NOX rates are significantly lower than the average uncontrolled NOX
rates. For example, the average uncontrolled result for slow speed ships at 85 percent MCR of
17.0 g/kWh falls to 15.6 g/kWh with EVIO control (see Appendix B). Reductions are obtained at
other loads, as well, as reported in Table 3-6.
Table 3-6. NOX rates (g/kWh) derived from Lloyd's data
South Coast Profile Engine
Loads (% MCR)
80
40
35
20
15
10
Slow Speed
Uncontrolled
17.06
18.26
18.14
20.94
23.94
28.89
IMO Controlled
15.28
16.38
16.64
19.26
22.28
27.21
Medium Speed
Uncontrolled
12.77
13.53
13.87
16.93
20.42
25.27
IMO Controlled
11.56
12.33
12.67
15.73
19.22
24.06
The next two sections describe how these results were weighted to represent calendar
year-specific emission factors at the profile loads and then energy-weighted to calculate final
NOX factors which could be used to estimate total emissions reductions.
Engine-Specific Methodology — Calendar Year NOX Factors
.... To estimate the benefits of the IMO standards in each calendar year from 2000 through
2010, it was necessary to estimate how many IMO-compliant ships would be operating in each
year. We used the ship age data, which was presented in Figure 2-3, to characterize the
percentage of vessel calls in each calendar year that would be made by ships built before and
after January 1, 2000 (assuming that ships built after this date would comply with EVIO
standards.) The age profile shown in Figure 2-3, which reflects actual data for all calls on the
San Pedro Bay Ports in 1994, is assumed to apply in any calendar year through 2010. Exhibits B-
12 and B-13 in Appendix B show how these percentages were combined with the average
uncontrolled and EVIO-controlled emission rates to calculate calendar year-specific emission rates
for each of the profile engine loads. For example, in the year 2005, Figure 2-3 implies that about
23 percent of the calls will be made by EvIO-controlled vessels. To estimate the 2005 NOX rate
at 80 percent MCR, then, 23 percent is multiplied by the IMO-controlled emission rate of
15.4 g/kWh (slow speed vessels) and the result is added to 77 percent times the uncontrolled rate
of 17.1 g/kWh to calculate a 2005 rate of 16.7 g/kWh at 80 percent MCR.
3-13
-------
Engine-Specific Methodology — Energy-Weighted NOX Factors
Next, the SCAQMD model was used to calculate the total energy consumed (according to
the model) in South Coast waters by oceangoing vessels calling on the Ports in 2010, specific to
each engine load in the South Coast operating profile. Energy consumed by medium and slow
speed ships (motorships only) was estimated separately (Appendix B, Exhibit B-14)15. Table 3-7
shows the energy consumption distribution.
Table 3-7. Annual energy consumption by profile engine
load points (2010 inventory distribution)
Profile Loads
(%MCR)
80
40
35
20
15
10
Total energy, all modes
Energy
MWh per year
494,592
13,289
1,487
15,152
7,729
28,856
561,106
% Medium
Speed
10
11
11
11
11
11
Table 3-8 shows how the emission factor and energy output information is combined to
calculate an energy-weighted, final NOX factor (shown for the calendar year 2010). A NOX
emission factor, the weighted average of the slow speed and medium speed NOX factors specific
to the calendar year, is calculated for each engine load (NOX g/kWh). The engine-load factors are
then combined with the energy consumed in each mode to calculate an energy-weighted, final
NOX factor which represents all operating modes and all main engines in motorships calling on
the Ports. This calculation was made using emission factors for each of the calendar years 2000
through 2010, and using uncontrolled and IMO-controlled (full IMO) emission factors16.
15 This estimate was based on the assumed percentage of medium speed versus slow speed ships in each
shiptype used in the SCAQMD model. The percentage by shiptype was derived from Lloyd's data for
the set of ships that called on the San Pedro Bay Ports in 1993. Data on medium speed versus slow
speed ships on a per-call basis was not available.
16 To simplify calculations, the 2010 energy consumption distribution by engine load was used to
represent operations in all calendar years from 2000 through 2010. Although the total energy consumed
in the SCAQMD model in each of these calendar varies considerably, the relative distribution of the
energy consumption by mode varies only slightly, not enough to affect the results significantly.
3-14
-------
Table 3-8 Energy consumption and IMO-controlled NOX by mode (motorship main
engines) — 2010
Profile Loads
(%MCR)
80
40
35
20
15
10
Total energy, all modes
MWh per
Year
494,592
13,289
1,487
15,152
7,729
28,856
561,106
SSNOx
g/kWh
16.30
17.41
17.46
20.18
23.20
28.13
MSNOx
g/kWh
12.23
12.99
13.33
16.39
19.88
24.72
% MS
10
11
11
11
11
11
MWh-weighted NO, g/kWh
SS/MS NOx
g/kWh
15.89
16.93
17.00
19.76
22.84
27.76
16.73
Energy-Specific Method — Results for Main Engines
Comparison of the uncontrolled and IMO-controlled, energy-weighted NOX factors in
each calendar year provided an estimated percentage reduction in NOX that might be expected
from IMO standards. For example, in 2010 the energy-weighted NOX factor assuming IMO
control was estimated to be 16.73 g/kWh, as was shown in Table 3-8. Compared to an
uncontrolled factor of 17.47 (calculated similarly but using uncontrolled NOX factors), this
implied an expected reduction of the NOX inventory in 2010 of 4.2 percent. The percentage
reduction was then applied to the appropriate portion of the NOX inventory,17, taken from the
SCAQMD model.
Results are shown in Table 3-9. NOX reductions due to the IMO standards increase from
0 percent of the emissions from motorship main engines in 2000 to 4 percent of these emissions
in 2010. Under full IMO implementation (after 2020), an ultimate reduction of 9 percent is
projected. This translates to an estimated reduction in the South Coast Air Basin of 0.8 tpd NOX
in 2010 and an ultimate reduction of 1.7 tpd NOX (when all ships in operation are IMO-
controlled).
17 The percentage reduction was applied to NOX from main engines in motorships calling on the ports as
estimated in the SCAQMD model. Emission reductions expected from auxiliary engines and from
transiting'vessels due to IMO standards were estimated separately.
3-15
-------
Table 3-9. Summary of results for the engine-specific methodology — IMO NOx
reductions for motorship main engines by year
Calendar Year
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Full
Implementation
Energy-
weighted
Uncontrolled
NO, (g/kWh)
17.47
17.47
17.47
17.47
17.47
17.47
17.47
17.47
17.47
17.47
17.47
17.47
Energy-
weighted
Controlled NO.
(g/kWh)
17.43
17.36
17.28
17.22
17.15
17.10
17.02
16.96
16.86
16.81
16.73
15.83
Controlled NO,
Divided by
Uncontrolled
NO,
99.8%
99.4%
. 98.9%
98.6%
98.2%
97.9%
97.5%
97.1%
96.5%
96.2%
95.8%
90.6%
Percentage
NO, Reduction
0.2
0.6
1.1
1.4
1.8
2.1
2.5
2.9
3.5
3.8
4.2
9.4
Applies to
SCAQMD NO,
Inventory (tpd)
13.7
14.2
14.6
15.1
15.5
16.0
16.4
16.9
17.3
17.8
18.2
18.2
Reduction
from IMO
NO, tpd
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
1.7
Notes:
1. Uncontrolled and controlled NO, values are based on the energy consumption by mode in 2010 from the SCAQMD
inventory study.
2. Inventory NO, for main motorship engines is taken from the SCAQMD inventory study for 2000 and 2010. The NO,
inventory in intervening years is filled in by linear interpolation.
3. Reduction under full implementation shown calculated from the 2010 uncontrolled baseline for illustration, even
though IMO standards would not be fully rolled into the fleet until after 2020.
Issues With This Methodology
Although this method was designed to use the available emissions test data to the
maximum extent reasonable, aspects of this method are non-ideal and require discussion.
First, this method assumes that the set of engines tested by Lloyd's adequately represents
the fleet of vessels calling on the San Pedro Bay Ports (the combined data method makes this
assumption, as well). In other words, in using all of the Lloyd's test data to develop an average
emission rate (at a given operating mode) and using that rate to estimate the benefits of the IMO
standard in the South Coast, we implicitly assume that if we had the same emissions data for all
of the vessels calling on the San Pedro Bay Ports and calculated an average emission factor from
all these data, the average would exactly match the average rate from the (relatively small) set of
Lloyd's data. Of course, the averages would not match exactly. To the extent that this
assumption is incorrect there will be an associated error in the NOX reduction estimates.
Unfortunately, there is no way to test this assumption.
Another weakness is evident in the graphs shown in Appendix C. Lloyd's data gives
actual emissions results at different load points for each engine tested. However, estimates must
be made to cover the load range from 10 to 100 percent to cover all of the engine loads of interest
3-16
-------
for the South Coast profile and the E2 test points. Often the tested load points are clustered,
leaving emissions in large segments of the load range to be estimated by linear interpolation, or
to be extrapolated as equal to the emissions at the nearest test point. Particularly as it is difficult
to predict the shape of the emission versus engine load curves for each engine, based either on
physical principles or on comparison with other engines tested (Appendix C shows a wide variety
of implied curves), our chosen method of "filling in" the emissions curve may introduce errors.
The combined data methodology, discussed in Section 3.4.3, presents an alternative way of using
the data to develop emissions estimates over the load range. Other treatments of the data might
be devised, as well. We believe the two methods used in this study provide a reasonable range of
results.
Another difficulty is that it is not known how the requirement to comply with IMO
standards will affect the emissions of marine engines over the load range. For example, a low
rpm engine emitting 17 g/kWh across its entire load range would comply with the IMO standard,
but so would an engine emitting 17.5 g/kWh at 100 percent MCR, 16 g/kWh at 75 percent MCR,
18 g/kWh at 50 percent MCR, and 18.5 g/kWh at 25 percent MCR, What the emission profile
over the load range for an average or typical IMO-compliant engine will look like (or even if
there will be a typical IMO-compliant engine) is unknown. So is any "compliance margin"
manufacturers might incorporate into their IMO-compliant engine design. That is, engine
manufacturers usually design their engines to test slightly under the standard to ensure that the
engine will meet the standard and continue to meet the standard in service.
As was described, the engine-specific method addresses these unknowns by assuming (in
the absence of better information) that emissions profiles over the load range for each engine
tested by Lloyd's remain unchanged as to shape and that the compliance margin is zero (a
conservative assumption in the sense that it probably overestimates emissions rates from IMO-
compliant engines). If an engine tested by Lloyd's already complied with the IMO standard, its
emissions profile was used "as is" to represent that engine under IMO control, including those
engines in the Lloyd's data set that proved significantly lower-emitting than IMO would require.
As noted above, this is a questionable assumption; it is possible that such engines would, in the
future, be redesigned to improve performance and also have new emissions profiles, profiles
which just meet IMO standards. If the engine was higher-emitting than the IMO standard would
allow, then the amount by which that engine exceeded the IMO standard was subtracted from the
entire profile. In other words, the curve was "moved down", its shape unchanged, until it would
exactly meet the IMO standard. The revised set of Lloyd's data (where the emissions profiles of
those engines exceeding the IMO standard were "moved down" until the engines were exactly in
compliance and the emissions profiles of the already-compliant engines were left "as is") was
used to represent the emissions of a hypothetical fleet 100 percent compliant with the IMO
standards. Other assumptions might be made about how EVIO control would affect emissions
over the load range. Different assumptions would change the estimated reductions associated
with the IMO standard in the South Coast.
3-17
-------
3.4.3 Combined Data Methodology
Combined Data Methodology — Analysis
Although the Lloyd's data set is a large one compared to other available ship emissions
test data, the set of ships and engines tested is very small compared to the worldwide fleet. The
dataset is too small to provide meaningful results by subcategories such as shiptype, ship age, or
categories of engine rated power. Another issue with the dataset is that the test loads (percent
MCR) vary from test to test, sometimes with quite large gaps between test points. Because the
data are limited, a reasonable use of the data .is to combine all of the results for all of the engines
tested (still treating medium speed and slow speed separately) into a single scatter plot and apply
a linear fit to the data. Figures 3-2 through 3-7 show this approach.
^
£
i
X
O
%
i - cj ii i r * 4 i s f, • , i i > r i - '"
, NOx'Emission Rates- Lloyd's Medium^Speed Engines , ' * '
* r ' i"1 AII^Ddfa i " i * *r r'
10000-
90 OO"-
8000-
7000-
6000,-
'5000-
4000n
, 30 OO1-
, 20,00 •
10"08<
OOOJ
6
^.
1 i*. M ?
»
y = -18.9x + 26.242
• *
/,
JA^
1
5
,
i.
>/o" - ' ,' 20% " 40% , /x 60%'' «( ^ 80% '100% V ' 1 ,'1 1
1 '' NOx Emissions Rates - Lloyd's Medium Speed Ships ,
'j * toads Over 10% MCR ' , '>•,'''"
- . ., , , ,, • " .(,*<•, ' , -,
N 25-
\
1 20
1»X15-
; i TO"-
^ j M ;
'6*-
4^ y = -3.0442x + 15.245
* * **
»> * * * **» * A *
$** ^ # »*»*^* *
0 01 02 03 04 V05* 06 0.7^*08 09 1 11 1
2
Figure 3-3. NOX emission rates — Lloyd's medium speed ships loads over
10 percent MCR
3-18
-------
'- " NOx Emission Rates,- Lloyd's Medium'Speed Engines' ' *
Loads Over 20% MCR
25
*
£*
**
******* *
r 4* ** <** ******* **
* * * * * t *
— i — i 1 1 —
y = -0.2752X +
*
13.227
*
^ ^
1
'\04
06
~
%MCR
OS
Figure 3-4 NOX emission rates — Lloyd's medium speed engines loads over
20 percent MCR
> * NOx Emission Rates - Lloyd's Slow Speed Ships ;-
' i - ' ' ^ i u All Data ^ " , " ' . r
"140'00 ' * * ' '
w 10000-
j: i-
>n 8000-
S x i'eooo-
i O \*. i
Z 4000-
i
v*2000-
i ^ o no .
•
y = -17.37x + 28.576
• *
*
-*
* . * . *
i i
%
<
0% - ^ 20% ^40% 60%" t o 80% v ^ 100%
, %Maxlmum Continuous Rating (%MCR) -
t ' 5 1 * ] j
Figure 3-5. NOX emission rates — Lloyd's slow speed ships — all data
V ' , t ' i')J
', NOx Emissions Rates - Lloyd's Slow Speed Ships
i - , ,, " x ' , Loads Over 10% MCR ,( ( >>
I * >• *' QQ ' ' ' ' I I r > s" "'
^ s. r
*
y = -1.8162x + 18.771
* %/* * A *. ** ***** *t *
*** * ** «**
** » **** ^*
*|IIRro> 5, 02 /V^ ,04 /^ ^ o'e1 , ^0% ,', 1
'j.'/'VS',^ , % Maximum Continuous Rating (%MCR) i *s *
>
t
5-
Figure 3-6. NOX emission rates — Lloyd's slow speed ships loads over
10 percent MCR
3-19
-------
NOx Emissions Rates - Lloyd's Slow 'Speed Ships
< ,*v»i i
' Loads Over 20%MCR y _ .3 8086x +19 436
.- 'n 1 i v , i ' , #• ^ f 1
I,
>20
f
is
10-
5-
0.2 > ;:* .0.4' __ , 0.6. '.
' % Maximum Continuous Rating (%MCR)
'O.8l'\/' - » 1
^ • r ^'. ^
Figure 3-7. NOX emission rates — Lloyd's slow speed ships loads over
20 percent MCR
Three sets of graphs are shown for each engine speed type. The graphs labeled "All"
include all reported test data that appeared reasonable based on both the emission rate result and
the raw data reported (see Section 3.4.2), that is, all but 6 points. This data is identical to the data
used in the engine-specific methodology. The graphs labeled "10 percent MCR +" exclude all
emissions test results under 10 percent MCR. This was done because a number of test results for
operation under 10 percent MCR are dramatically higher than emissions rates for higher engine
loads. Since relatively little energy is consumed by ships operating at such low loads and since
the lowest load included in the E2/E3 test cycle is 25 percent MCR, a curve fit which excludes
data at the lowest end of the load spectrum is a simple way of investigating the impact of very
low load results and may be a better way of predicting how existing ships would fare on the
E2/E3 cycle. Finally, for comparison, graphs are shown including only data for 20 percent MCR
and higher for what might be an even better depiction of E2/E3 test cycle results. (Twenty
percent MCR is used instead of 25 because for a few ships test results for 20 to just under
25 percent MCR are the best indication of how the ship is emitting at 25 percent MCR, the
closest test results over 25 percent MCR being considerable higher.
Table 3-10 shows the E2/E3 results implied by each of the six graphs. The E2/E3 results
are lowest for the graphs that include all of the data. This is because the high NOX data at very
low loads result in a steeper negative slope, giving lower NOX estimates at typical cruise engine
loads which are more heavily weighted by the E2/E3 cycle.
In this study, we chose to use the curves fit to the data for 10 percent MCR and higher to
estimate emissions reductions. Note that excluding the data for loads below 10 percent MCR
does not make results from this method incomparable to results from the engine-specific method.
Because the engine-specific method interpolates between available data points, and because for
most engines tested data was available at or near the 25 percent MCR load, especially high
3-20
-------
emission results at less than 10 percent MCR rarely18 had significant influence on the NOX
estimates at 25 percent MCR, the lowest load included in the E2/E3 cycle.
Table 3-10. E2/E3 results for Figures 3-2 through 3-6
Slow Speed Engines
All data
10 percent + MCR data
20 percent + MCR data
Medium Speed Engines
All data
10 percent + MCR data
20 percent + MCR data
E2/E3 Results
15.2
17.4
17.3
E2/E3 Results
12.5
12.9
13.0
IMO Standard
17.0
17.0
17.0
IMO Standard
12.5
12.5
12.5
In order to estimate the effect of IMO standards, the "10 percent MCR +" curve fits were
adjusted in the same way as the engine-specific curves. That is, the linear fit was "moved down"
until the E2/E3 cycle results would equal the IMO standard. For slow speed engines, the
17 g/kWh standard was used. For medium speed engines, the IMO standards implied by the rpm
of each engine were averaged and the result (12.5 g/kWh NOX) was used as the representative
IMO standard for the whole set of medium speed engine data. The resulting equations used to
characterize emissions under the combined data methodology are shown below:
Uncontrolled:
Slow Speed: NOX (g/kWh) = -1.8162 X (percent MCR) + 18.77
Medium Speed: NOX (g/kWh) = -3.0442 X (percent MCR) + 15.245
Controlled (full IMO):
Slow Speed: NOX (g/kWh) = -1.8162 X (percent MCR) + 18.77 - 0.38
Medium Speed: NOX (g/kWh) = -3.0442 X (percent MCR) + 15.245 - 0.42
Emission factors at the South Coast profile loads were calculated using these equations.
The uncontrolled and full-IMO controlled factors were then weighted to produce calendar year -
specific factors as in the engine specific methodology. And, also as in the engine-specific
methodology, the calendar year factors were weighted for medium speed versus slow speed
operations and energy-weighted based on annual energy consumption in South Coast waters by
approximate engine load. These calculations are shown in Appendix D.
1 Dredger EH and tanker TK3 are perhaps the only exceptions (see Appendix C).
3-21
-------
Combined Data Methodology — Results
Table 3-11 is analogous to Table 3-9, above, but presents results based on the combined-
data methodology rather than the engine-specific methodology.
Table 3-11. Summary of results for the combined data methodology — IMO NOX
reductions for motorship main engines by year
Calendar
Year
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Full IMO
Energy-weighted
Uncontrolled NO,
(g/kWh)
17.00
17.00
17.00
17.00
17.00
17.00
17.00
17.00
17.00
17.00
17.00
17.00
Energy-weighted
Controlled NO,
(g/kWh)
16.99
16.98
16.96
16.94
16.93
16.91
16.90
16.88
16.86
16.85
16.83
16.62
Controlled NO,
Divided by
Uncontrolled NO,
99.9%
99.9%
99.7%
99.7%
99.6%
99.5%
99.4%
99.3%
99.2%
99.1%
99.0%
97.7%
Percentage
NO, Reduction
0.1
0.1
0.3
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
2.3
Applies to
SCAQMD NO,
Inventory (tpd)
13.7
14.2
14.6
15.1
15.5
16.0
16.4
16.9
17.3
17.8
18.2
18.2
Reduction
from IMO
NO, tpd
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.4
Figures 3-8 and 3-9 show how the results of the engine-specific and combined-data
methodologies compare. The most obvious difference between the two methods is that the
engine-specific method gives much higher NOX emission factors at the low end of the load range.
Results are about 60 percent higher for slow speed engines and about 70 percent higher for
medium-speed engines at the 10 percent MCR load point. The other key difference is that the
engine-specific methodology shows a slightly larger difference between uncontrolled and IMO-
controlled NOX factors than the combined-data method. This is largely due to the assumption in
the engine-specific methodology that the engines tested by Lloyd's and shown to be significantly
lower-emitting than would be required by the IMO limits are representative as-is. In other words,
the method assumes (implicit in the treatment of the Lloyd's data) that some IMO-compliant
engines manufactured after January 1, 2000 would emit significantly less than the IMO limits.
Such an assumption is not required for the combined-data method which does not consider
whether or not individual engines tested by Lloyd's would be IMO-compliant.
The most significant conclusion that can be drawn from Figures 3-8 and 3-9, however, is
that over the load range from about 25 or 30 percent MCR to 80 percent MCR the two methods
give very similar results. Because most of the energy consumed by marine vessels is associated
with higher engine loads, this implies that emissions inventory results will be similar, regardless
of which method is used to derive emission factors.
3-22
-------
V !
' SOOT
*- fr
^ Comparison of Methods- Slow Speed Ships
"5.00
l-000-Hn ; 3 T*> ^ ^—; 1 ^•?vf •£< oVs1'
ft.u ' , ' 0% ! '' 20%' %">r~40%" " 60% '-^80%^'V V| \J P'-i it.
ercent MCR
Figure 3-8. Comparison of methods — slow speed ships
'v' H ' Comparison of Methods- Medium Speed Ships
i , ' ,'> * »k " • ' ;
3000 1s
"•> c ' 25^00 -
t* 20.00-
15.00 -
L §Ij.'io,jOOi,.
500.-
nnn -
/o 20% 40% 60% 80
' , " Percent MCR ' f , '
ftti
:*i|
i"
s "*
j r
i
-*— ESM-unc n
-CO— ESM-IMO |
A CDM-unc jl
— X— CDM-IMO ;;
ir,:;,,rai'ii!,iffi,:''>'n;.flj;f;
|^I;^||a?
•'-;;•;•. -Mv'r^'-X-
Figure 3-9. Comparison of methods — medium speed ships
3.4.4 Transiting Vessels
The IMO standards will also reduce emissions from oceangoing vessels that pass through
South Coast waters without calling on the Ports ("transiting vessels"). As estimated in the
SCAQMD study, these vessels contribute 5.7 tpd of NOX in 2010 as they cruise (at an assumed
engine load of 80 percent MCR) through South Coast waters19. Comparison of uncontrolled NOX
rates at 80 percent MCR and the 2010-controlled NOX rates at 80 percent MCR (energy-weighted
average of medium and slow speed factors) shows that, for the engine-specific method the
controlled rate (15.9 g/kWh) is about 96 percent of the uncontrolled rate (16.6 g/kWh), indicating
that a 4 percent NOX reduction is expected from the main engines of transiting vessels. This
19 This NOX estimate includes main engine emissions only. The emissions of auxiliary engines during
cruise mode for transiting vessels were neglected in the SCAQMD inventory study.
3-23
-------
represents an additional reduction of 0.25 tpd NOX in 2010. For the combined data method, the
estimated reduction is similarly calculated to be 1 percent or about 0.06 tpd NOX in 2010.
Therefore, the total reduction in NOX from motorship main engines expected from the
IMO standards in 2010 for the engine-specific method equals 0.8 tpd plus 0.3 tpd, for a total of
1.1 tpd NOX reduced. The total for the combined data method equals 0.2 plus 0.1, a total of
0.3 tpd NOX reduced. Additional reductions from the effect of IMO standards on the emissions
from marine auxiliary engines are estimated in Section 3.5.
3.5 METHODOLOGY AND RESULTS .FOR AUXILIARY ENGINES
The methodology used to estimate NOX reductions from auxiliary engines due to the IMO
standard is similar to that used for main engines. Uncontrolled emissions factors are developed
from data presented in a 1989 report prepared by TRC Environmental Consultants. TRC reports
results from emissions tests of 16 auxiliary engines tested in the San Pedro Bay in 1989. The
report tabulates fuel consumption rates, power output, and NOX emissions for each test. The
arithmetic average of the emission rates (in g/kWh) for the engines tested is used to represent the
uncontrolled emissions rates of all auxiliary engines operating in South Coast waters in a year.
This is consistent with the SCAQMD inventory model which used this same source to
characterize auxiliary engine emissions. Table E-l in Appendix E shows the development of the
uncontrolled emission rate.
To estimate average controlled emission factors, we assumed that all IMO-controlled
engines would emit at their IMO standard which, for the typical auxiliary engine, is dependent on
engine rated speed (see Table 3-1). Therefore, a profile of auxiliary engine rated speed was
required. Data that could be used to characterize the rated speeds of auxiliary engines in ships
that call on the San Pedro Bay Ports (or anywhere else) was not readily available. No electronic
database appears to be available which contains this information. Manufacturer literature showed
that marine auxiliary engines are available in a wide range of rated speeds and that rated speed
cannot be well-correlated with engine rated power. To characterize auxiliary engine rated
speeds, then, we contacted a number of shipping companies whose ships call on the Los Angeles
and Long Beach Ports and requested rated speed and horsepower information for their own
auxiliary engines. Table E-2 in Appendix E summarizes this information and shows how it was
used to calculate a power-weighted, average, IMO-controlled NOX emission rate. The data for
the 268 auxiliary engines (excluding the data received for energy generators) was assumed to
adequately represent the larger fleet.
A ship's auxiliary engines are typically rebuilt (to original specifications) over their
lifetimes but are not replaced with new models (Reference 11). Thus it can be assumed that the
age profile of auxiliary engines in ships calling on the San Pedro Bay Ports is the same as the age
profile of the ships themselves. Table E-3 in Appendix E uses the same percentage of ships
calling in a given calendar year that will have been built after January 1, 2000 as was used for
propulsion engines in Exhibit B-ll and B-12 of Appendix B to calculate calendar year-specific
NOX emission rates for auxiliary engines. The calendar year-specific NOX factors were then
divided by the uncontrolled NOX rate to calculate a percentage. The uncontrolled NOX inventory
from auxiliary engines for 2000 and 2010 was taken directly from the inventory model and the
3-24
-------
inventory for 2001 through 2009 was estimated with linear interpolation. The inventory values
were multiplied by the percentage to give the IMO-controlled inventory for each calendar year.
As Table E-3 in Appendix E shows, IMO standards were estimated to reduce auxiliary engine
NOX by 8 percent in 2010, which translates into a 1.2 tpd reduction.
3.6 SUMMARY OF NOX REDUCTIONS FROM IMO STANDARDS
Tables 3-12 and 3-13 summarize the NOX reductions projected due to IMO standards in
the South Coast Air Basin. Reductions come from the main and auxiliary engines in ships
calling on the San Pedro Bay Ports and from main and auxiliary engines in vessels transiting
South Coast waters without calling on a local port. Table 3-12 reflects the engine-specific
methodology while Table 3-13 is based on the combined data methodology.
Table 3-12. Summary of Results — NOX reductions from IMO standards in the
South Coast Air Basin - Engine Specific Methodology
Calendar
Year
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
NO, Reductions in the South Coast Air Basin (tpd)
Oceangoing Ships that Call on Ports
Main Engines
0:0
0.1
0.2
, 0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
Auxiliary Engines
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.9
1.0
1,2
Transiting Oceangoing Ships
Main Engines
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.3
Auxiliary Engines
negligible
negligible
negligible
negligible
negligible
negligible
negligible
negligible
negligible
negligible
negligible
Total
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.8
2.0
2.3
3-25
-------
Table 3-13. Summary of Results — NOX reductions from IMO standards in the
South Coast Air Basin — Combined Data Methodology
Calendar
Year
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
NO. Reductions in the South Coast Air Basin (tpd)
Oceangoing Ships that Call on Ports
Main Engines
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.4
Auxiliary Engines
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.9
1.0
1.2
Transiting Oceangoing Ships
Main Engines
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
Auxiliary Engines
negligible
negligible
negligible
negligible
negligible
negligible
negligible
negligible
negligible
negligible
negligible
Total
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
1.1
1.2
1.3
3-26
-------
4. EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS EXPECTED FROM HARBOR CRAFT AND FISHING
VESSELS IN THE SOUTH COAST DUE TO INTERNATIONAL MARITIME
ORGANIZATION STANDARDS AND NATIONAL STANDARDS
IMPORTANT NOTE TO READERS: On December 11, 1998, U.S. EPA proposed
new national emission standards for new compression-ignition marine engines
rated at or above 37 kilowatts (see 63 Federal Register 68508). Because of
budget constraints within EPA, this section of the report has not been updated
(from the September 30, 1997 draft) to reflect the recently proposed standards.
Despite the differences, the estimated emission reductions are similar. A more
accurate estimate of the reductions may be undertaken after EPA finalizes the
standards applicable to marine diesel engines.
4.1 EMISSIONS STANDARDS APPLICABLE TO HARBOR CRAFT AND FISHING
VESSELS .
Section 3.1 discussed current International Maritime Organization (IMO) efforts to limit
air pollution from ships. In addition to applying to oceangoing ships engaged in international
voyages, the IMO requirements would apply to engines of less than 1600 rpm20 powering harbor
craft and fishing vessels. For engines of 1600 rpm and greater, national emissions standards,
different from IMO standards, could be adopted by the EPA provided the engines are used in
vessels which do not travel to ports outside of the United States. EPA is considering setting
emission standards for these 1600+ rpm marine engines equivalent to the Tier 2 standards that
EPA" has proposed for engines used in nonroad equipment. This study estimates the NOX
reductions that would be created from harbor craft and fishing vessels assuming that EPA adopts
the Tier 2 standards for 1600+ rpm engines and that IMO standards will apply to engines of less
than 1600 rpm.
Table 4-1 shows the emissions standards which are assumed for this analysis. The
standards proposed for nonroad engines are in terms of non-methane hydrocarbons (NMHC) plus
NOX. EPA staff provided assumptions for the expected NOX emissions from marine engines
meeting the proposed NMHC+NOX standards. Note that engines in these smaller craft are rated
at higher speeds than 130 rpm, so only the IMO NOX standard for 130 rpm to 1599 rpm applies.
20 At the time the draft report was being completed (see Important Note to Readers, above) it was
expected that engines under 1600 rpm would not be subject to EPA rulemaking. However, EPA's
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for compression-ignition engines, published in November of 1998,
address all marine engines at or above 37 kW that are used domestically, regardless of engine speed.
4-1
-------
Table 4-1. NOX emissions standards which apply to harbor craft and fishing
vessels in this analysis
Implementing
Agency
IMO
EPA
Engine rpm
130 to 1599
1600+
Engine hp
All over 174hp
25-49'
50-99
100-174 .
175-299
300-599
600-749
750+
NMHC+NO,
Standard,
g/bhp-hr
NA
5.6
5.6
4.9
4.9
4.8
4.8
4.8
Implied NO,,
g/bhp-hr
45*rf2 g/kWh
5.0
5.0
4.6
4.6
4.4
4.4
4.4
First Year
Standard
Applies
2000
2004
2004
2003
2003
2001
2002
2006
4.2 METHODOLOGY
4.2.1 Introduction
The basic elements of the methodologies used to calculate NOX reductions from harbor
craft and fishing vessels are
• Categorizing propulsion engines within each vessel type based on engine rated power
and speed (rpm)
• Identifying the applicable NOX standard (from Table 4-1) for each category
• Identifying the applicable baseline (uncontrolled) NOX emission rate from the
SCAQMD inventory study for each category
•*• • Characterizing the age profile of the fleet in 2010 (to estimate the percentage of
vessels built after emissions standards take effect)
• Combining uncontrolled and emissions standard NOX rates along with age profiles
(specific to the vessel type) to calculate average, controlled NOX emission rates for
each category in 2010
• Calculating annual energy (or fuel) consumption for each category based on the
SCAQMD inventory study
• Combining energy (or fuel) consumption for each category with baseline uncontrolled
NOX rates for each category to calculate an energy-weighted average uncontrolled
NOX rate (g/kWh) in 2010
4-2
-------
• Combining energy (or fuel) consumption for each category with 2010 controlled NOX
rates to calculate an energy-weighted average controlled NOX rate in 2010
• Comparing the energy-weighted average controlled and uncontrolled NOX rates to
calculate the NOX reductions expected in 2010 from IMO and national standards.
Each of these elements is discussed in this section. Appendix E contains the detailed
calculations for harbor craft and fishing vessels.
4.2.2 Categorizing propulsion engines based on engine rated power and speed
(rpm)
Information on vessel and engine populations by horsepower was obtained from the data
sources used in the SCAQMD study and directly from operators of harbor craft in the San Pedro
Bay. The principals of the data sources used in the SCAQMD study were the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (which maintains a database of all domestic vessels by homeport), local tug operators,
the Los Angeles/Long Beach Harbor Safety Committee, and the California Department of Fish
and Game. More detail on these data sources can be found in the SCAQMD study.
In that study, vessels were categorized by total vessel horsepower as recorded in the
various data sources used. The total vessel horsepower may be the total power of two main
(propulsion) engines21, or it may be the power of a single main engine. Auxiliary engine
horsepower is usually not included in the vessel horsepower (Castagnola)22. For this study, it was
necessary to categorize by engine horsepower rather than vessel horsepower. This was not
entirely straightforward since the data sources used in the SCAQMD study only record vessel
horsepower and do not note how many main engines produce this power. To categorize by
engine power we made the following assumptions, based on conversations with and data
provided by harbor craft operators (Castagnola, Bolen, McMahon, Rutter, Selga) and
examination of the available data sources.
• Assume all tugs, passenger/excursion vessels, and workboats are twin-screw and the
engines are of equal rated horsepower (that is, vessel horsepower = 2 times engine
horsepower) except assume 1 main engine for:
— Vessels of less than 600 hp built before 1976
21 According to local operators, most of the harbor craft operating in the Los Angeles/Long Beach Harbor
are twin-screw (2-engine) because of the greater maneuverability offered by twin screw vessels
compared with single-engine vessels.
22 Auxiliary engines in harbor craft and fishing vessels were neglected in the inventory study because
they were unlikely to contribute substantially to the inventory and would have been time-intensive to
investigate. The one exception is that auxiliary engines were implicitly included for mooring tugs
where the emissions inventory was based on annual fuel use (main plus auxiliary diesel engines) per
vessel. Auxiliary engines are treated similarly in this study, that is, neglected as not having a
significant impact except for their inclusion in tug fuel consumption.
4-3
-------
— Vessels for which the total horsepower is an odd number
— Vessels for which operator data shows only one main engine
• Assume all fishing vessels (most of which are under 500 hp) are powered by a single
main engine
Average horsepower for each category was also calculated from the SCAQMD study data
sources, using the assumptions listed above, and data provided by vessel operators.
Engine rated speeds were estimated for each category based on information from vessel
operators in the San Pedro Bay and on manufacturer literature. Tables 4-2 through 4-5 show how
engines were categorized by horsepower and the associated engine speed assumption for each
vessel type.
Table 4-2. Horsepower and rated speed for tug engines operating in the South
Coast
Horsepower
Category
<300
300-599
600-749
749-999
1000-1499
1500-1999
2000-2499
2500-2999
. 3000-3499
3500-3999
4000-4499
4500-5499
Totals
Engine Number
Mooring Tugs
0
0
5
2
10
16
1
8
0
2
0
0
44
Non-mooring
4
9
0
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
16
Total
4
9
5
4
11
16
1
8
0
2
0
0
60
Average Rated Power (hp)
Mooring Tugs
620
925
1130
1708
2150
2500
3500
Non-mooring
225
405
825
1005
Assumed
Rated
Speed, rpm
1600+
1600+
1600+
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
4-4
-------
Table 4-3. Horsepower and rated speed for passenger/excursion
vessel engines operating in the South Coast
Horsepower
Category
0-49
50-99
100-174
175-299
300-599
600-749
750-999
1000-1499
1500-1999
2000-2499
Totals
Engine
Number
0
0
3
3
22
0
4
6
8
2
48
Average hp
143
235
442
850
1115
1683
2000
rpm
1600+
1600+
1600+
1600+
1600+
1600+
1600+
1600+
1600+
1600+
Table 4-4. Horsepower and rated speed for work/crew/supply
boat engines operating in the South Coast
Horsepower
<300
300-599
600-749
750-999
1000-1499
1500-1999
2000-2499
2500-2999
3000-3499
Totals
Number
4
30
4
4
2
2
0
2
0
48
Average hp
200
456
600
802
1125
1700
2870
rpm
1600+
1600+
1600+
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
4-5
-------
Table 4-5. Horsepower and rated speed for fishing boat
engines operating in the South Coast
Horsepower Category
0-49
50-99
100-174
175-299
300-599
600-749
750+
Totals
Number of Engines
Commercial
71
35
134
195
167
29
14
645
CPFV
2
3
8
25
58
23
25
144
Total
73
38
142
220
225
52
39
789
Assumed rpm
1600+
1600+
1600+
1600+
1600+
1600+
1000
4.2.3 Identifying the applicable NOX standard and baseline NOX rate for each category
The NOX standards that apply to each engine were shown in Table 4-1. These standards
are dependent on engine rated speed and, for 1600+ rpm engines, rated power. Engines built
after (or installed in ^vessels built after, as in the IMO language) the date the standard goes into
effect are assumed in this study to emit at NOX rates equal to the standard23.
As described in Section 4.1, the standards that would apply to the 1600+ rpm engines are
given in terms of NMHC plus NOX. EPA supplied the assumptions that marine engines that
would certify to 5.6, 4.9, and 4.8 g/bhp-hr NMHC+NOX standards would emit 5.0, 4.6, and
4.4 g/bhp-hr NOX, respectively.. These were the NOX rates used for certified engines of
1600+rpm (Table 4-1).
' Baseline NOX emission rates were taken from the SCAQMD study. For all of the harbor
craft vessel types and for fishing vessels, the SCAQMD study assumed a baseline (uncontrolled)
NOX emission rate of 12 g/kWh which was the average emission rate for medium speed engines
reported by Lloyd's (Lloyd's, 1995). This factor was converted to 419 pounds of NOX per
1000 gallons of fuel consumed for use in the inventory study, consistent with an assumption of
160 g/hp-hr BSFC and a fuel density (for marine diesel) of 0.9 kg/1 (7.5 Ib/gal). In this study we
use 12 g/kWh as the baseline rate for fishing vessels, workboats, and passenger/excursion vessels
and characterize the activity of these vessels in terms of energy consumption (kWh or hp-hr).
23 It is likely that engines will be designed to emit slightly less than the standard to give manufacturers a
"compliance margin". For example, heavy truck engines required to meet a 5 g/bhp-hr NOx standard
often emit at levels of 4.7 or 4.8 g/bhp-hr. However, in this study we will make the conservative
assumptioa,that certified engines emit at the standard.
4-6
-------
Because tug operations were best characterized in terms of annual fuel consumption, we use the
419 lbs/1000 gal figure for tugs.
Average NOX emission rates in 2010 were calculated as an average of baseline and
emissions certified rates, weighted by the percentage of the 2010 fleet expected to have been
built after the date the emissions standards take effect. Section 4.2.4 describes how the age
profile of the 2010 fleet was characterized.
4.2.4 Fleet age profiles
Because the EVIO and national emission standards would take effect between 2000 and
2006, it is critical, for estimating emissions reductions in 2010, to make assumptions about how
many new vessels are introduced into operation in the South Coast between 2000 and 2010.
In general, harbor craft and fishing vessels are very long-lived. Engines are maintained
and rebuilt and upgraded over the course of the vessel life, but it is very uncommon for an
operator to replace an existing engine with a new engine. Therefore for this study the age of the
vessel was used as a surrogate for the age of the engine in it. Figures 4-1 through 4-5 show
vessel age distributions based on the U.S. Army Corps data (for 1993) and California Department
of Fish and Game data.
Age of Tugboats Operating in the South
Coast
o 5
(0
% 4 -I
5 2H
1 -
Median age = 26 years
1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 28 31 34 37 40 43 46 49 52 55 58 61
Age in 1993 (years)
Figure 4-1. Age of tugboats operating in the South Coast
4-7
-------
Age of Passenger/Excursion Vessels
Operating in the South Coast
_to
0)
CO 3
CO
0)
0)
E 1 -I
Median age = 20 years
1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29 33 37 41 45 49 53 57 61 65 69
Age in 1993 (years)
Figure 4-2. Age of passenger/excursion vessels operating in the South Coast
Age of Workboats Operating in the
South Coast
5
0) &
CO
84
"5 3
I 2
Median age = 14 years
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35
Age in 1993 (years)
Figure 4-3. Age of workboats operating in the South Coast
4-8
-------
Age of Sport Fishing Vessels Operating
in the South Coast
jtn
Q>
w
W
0)
44
i_ 3
0)
I2
Median age = 22 years
1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29 33 37 41 45 49 53 57 61 65 69 73 77
Age in 1995 (years)
Figure 4-4. Age of sport fishing vessels operating in the South Coast
Age of Commercial Fishing Vessels
Operating in the South Coast
0)
w
w
o
.Q
I
z
50
45 -
40 -
35 -
30 -
25 -
20 -
15 -
10 -
5 -
Median age =18 years
1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29 33 37 41 45 49 53 57 61 65 69 73 77
Age in 1995 (years)
Figure 4-5. Age of commercial fishing vessels operating in the South Coast
4-9
-------
Figures 4-1 through 4-5 show that it is difficult to use age data on the current fleet to
characterize the age profile of the fleet in 2010. The graphs show no particular trend for vessel
population as a function of vessel age, even for the relatively large commercial fishing fleet
which comprises almost 700 vessels. As the graphs show, these vessels can be as much as 70+
years old and median ages range from 14 years for workboats to 26 years for tugs, with median
age for sport fishing vessels at 22 years, median age for commercial fishing vessels at 18 years
and median age for passenger/excursion vessels at 20 years.
Harbor craft operators (Castagnola, Bolen, McMahon, Selga) indicate that it is very
difficult to predict how many new vessels might be introduced into operation in San Pedro Bay
between 2000 and 2010. Various factors effect how many vessels of what power ratings will be
needed and any need for additional (or different) vessels may be supplied by chartering or
purchasing existing vessels rather than by ordering new ones. It is possible that as of 2010, no
tugs, workboats, or passenger/excursion vessels built after emission standards take effect will be
operating in the South Coast. It is also (perhaps equally) possible that many emissions-certified
vessels will be operating in the South Coast in 2010. One operator described that some number
of new boats were expected to be added through 2010 because the harbor craft fleet operating in
San Pedro Bay is aging, and because it is hard to buy used boats right now24 (Bolen).
Fishing vessels present another modeling difficulty in that much attention is currently
being directed toward the depleted state of the world's fish resources from overfishing. Shrinking
supplies of fish and government actions to protect fish species may result in few new fishing
vessels being added to the South Coast fleet. In other words, the age profile of fishing vessels in
2010 may look much different than the 1995 age profile shown in Figures 4-4 and 4-5.
With these caveats about the inherent difficulties in modeling fleet turnover, we made
assumptions based on Figures 4-1 through 4-5, and conversations with industry representatives. All
types of harbor craft and fishing vessels were assumed to be adequately represented as having 40-
year lifespans, with an equal number of vessels of every age through 40 (and no vessels older than
40 years)25. These assumptions make possible a scoping assessment of the benefits of EVIO and
national standards for harbor craft and fishing vessel emissions. Estimates can be refined as time
passes and more information becomes available on the likely age composition of the 2010 fleet.
4.2.5 Annual energy consumption and calculation of NOX reductions
Annual energy (or fuel) consumption for each vessel category was combined with
baseline and certified NOX emission rates to calculate the NOX reductions expected in 2010 from
the IMO and national standards for harbor craft and fishing vessels. For example (from
Appendix E):
24 According to Mr. Bolen this is, in part, because increased oil field activity in the Gulf of Mexico has
increased the demand for harbor craft in the Gulf.
25 Note that Figure 4-3 indicates a lifespan of 30 years might be more appropriate for workboats.
However, since none of the statements made by vessel operators implied that workboats would have
different lifespans than other harbor craft, and since the data set used to create Figure 4-3 is relatively
small, we chose to characterize workboats as having a 40-year lifespan, as well.
4-10
-------
• 225 fishing vessels powered by 300 to 599 hp engines (assumed to be high speed,
1600+ rpm engines) are modeled to consume in total about 233,000 hp-hr per day of
energy.
• For engines of this size a NOX standard of 4.4 g/bhp-hr26 applies beginning in 2001,
which is much lower than the uncontrolled baseline NOX rate of 9.0 g/bhp-hr.
• Assuming, as in Section 4.2.4, that the entire fishing fleet turns over in 40 years with
vessel age distributed evenly over those years (that is, there are an equal number of
vessels of each year of age up to' 40 years and no vessels older than 40 years), 25% of
the fishing vessels with engines of this size will be emissions-certified in 2010. In
other words, 25% of this category of vessels will emit NOX at 4.4 g/bhp-hr while the
rest emit at 9.0 g/bhp-hr.
• This is represented by a composite 2010 NOX emission rate of
(25%)(4.4 g/bhp-hr) + (75%)(9.0 g/bhp-hr) = 7.8 g/bhp-hr
• Therefore the NOX reduction from this category of fishing vessels in 2010 can be
calculated as
(233,000 hp-hr/day)(9.0 g/bhp-hr - 7.8 g/bhp-hr) / 454 g/lb =616 Ib/day NOX reduced
This type of calculation was performed for all vessel types and horsepower categories. All
annual energy or fuel consumption values were taken from the SCAQMD inventory study. For
tugboats, annual fuel consumption based on data provided by two of the three operators of
mooring tugs in the San Pedro Bay was used to calculate emissions (see Section 2.3.3.1) rather
than energy consumption. For workboats and passenger/excursion vessels, the SCAQMD study
took activity estimates in terms of time spent at various engine loads directly from an earlier
study (Booz-Allen) without modification. From this engine load and time information we
calculated, in this study, energy consumption (hp-hr per year) for each engine category for
workboats and passenger/excursion vessels. Activity for fishing vessels in the SCAQMD study
was based on typical summertime operations of fishing vessels of various gear types (see Section
2.3.3.2). This analysis yielded an estimated average time spent at specific engine loads (80%
MCR, 25% MCR, idle, and drifting) which was used in this study to calculate energy
consumption (hp-hr per year) for each engine category for fishing vessels. These assumptions and
calculations are shown in detail in Appendix E.
26
This is really an NMHC + NOX standard of 4.8 g/bhp-hr.
4-11
-------
4.3 RESULTS
Results are shown in Table 4-6. Note that reductions from tugs and workboats are
projected to be negligible largely because most of these vessels are powered by medium speed
engines (under 1600 rpm) which would not fall under national standards. Because IMO
standards for these engines are not much lower than the assumed baseline NOX rate, little
reduction is expected.
Table 4-6. Estimated NOX Reductions from Harbor Craft
and Fishing Vessels (South Coast, 2010)
Vessel Type
Tugs
Passenger/Excursion
Workboats
Fishing
Total
NOx Reductions in 2010
Percent Reduction
98
93
93
90
Tons per day
0.05
0.10
0.06
0.57
0.78
This 0.8 ton per day NOX reduction is significant compared with the reductions projected
(in Section 3) to come from oceangoing vessels.
4-12
-------
5. SPEED REDUCTION
5.1 INTRODUCTION
Table 2-4, in Section 2, summarized the results of the SCAQMD inventory study.
According to these results, oceangoing vessels calling on the San Pedro Bay Ports are the largest
source of NOX emissions generated by marine vessels in the South Coast (nearly 70 percent of the
marine NOX inventory in 2010 comes from these vessels). The inventory model estimates that
about half of the emissions of the oceangoing vessels are from propulsion engines and boilers
operating in full cruise mode. It is reasonable, therefore, to explore ways to reduce these cruising
emissions. EvlO emission limits (discussed in Section 3) will reduce cruise emissions to some
extent. Additional reductions could be obtained by modifying how vessels are operated in South
Coast waters.
Speed reduction is an operational modification that has the potential to provide
significant emissions reductions from propulsion engines in vessels calling on the Ports27.
Reducing ship cruising speeds has two effects. At lower speeds a ship requires more time to
travel a given distance, tending to increase emissions over that distance. However, lower speeds
also require less power from the engine to move the ship, tending to decrease emissions. The
increase in emissions due to increased travel time is less significant (linear with ship speed) than
the decreased power requirements (power is approximately proportional to the ship speed,
cubed). The net result is that a ship traveling 20 miles28 at a speed of 20 knots for 1 hour emits
more NOX than the same ship travelling 20 miles at 15 knots for 1.3 hours.
The costs of speed reductions are the costs of losing time while cruising at reduced speeds
in South Coast waters. Typically, this lost time would translate into money outside of South
Coast waters where the ship would presumably travel faster than its normally scheduled speed to
make up for the lost time. The faster speed would mean greater fuel use and, therefore, added
cost. (There would also be fuel savings in South Coast waters, because of the lower power
requirements, but more fuel would potentially be used in making up for lost time than would be
saved while cruising at reduced speed due to the variation of power with ship speed, cubed.)
27 In this study we assume that speed reductions could only practically be applied to vessels calling on the
San Pedro Bay Ports. It is unlikely that a speed limit could be enforced on vessels passing by the coast
without coming in to port.
28 All references to "miles" refer to nautical miles unless otherwise noted.
5-1
-------
This section investigates potential NOX emissions that might result from reduction in ship
cruising speeds in South Coast waters. Emissions reductions 29are assessed based on a set of
possible speed reduction scenarios, defined in this section, which provide a range of estimates.
The section concludes with a brief discussion of potential cost impacts associated with such a
strategy.
5.2 CURRENT SHIP SPEEDS (BASELINE OPERATION)
In the SCAQMD inventory study vessels were assumed to operate at full cruise, that is, at
ship service speed, outside of the precautionary area. Within the precautionary area, ships were
assumed to travel at the precautionary area speed limit of 12 knots. Figure 5-1 and Table 5-1,
taken from the inventory study, show the routes used to enter and leave the Ports of Los Angeles
and Long Beach and the distances traveled over each route. To simplify modeling, the SCAQMD
study did not take into account the time and distance over which the ships slow or speed up
(ships slow from cruise speed in order to enter the precautionary area at the 12 knot limit and
LOS ANGELES-LONG BEACH HARBORS
DEEP DRAFT
TRANSIT ROUTES
VT1S LA-LB
AOR
Figure 5-1. VTIS Los Angeles-Long Beach, standard transit routes
(provided by the Marine Exchange)
29 IMPORT ANT NOTE TO READERS: Because of new gathered information on the actual speeds of
ships, the emission reduction estimates in this report are overestimated, possibly by 15 to 20 percent.
This new information came to light as this contract was nearing completion and could not be
incorporated into the analysis contained in Section 5. See the discussion near the end of Section 5.2 for
more detail
5-2
-------
Table 5-1. Distances (nautical miles) used to characterize cruising
in South Coast waters
Inbound Route: South Coast border to Precautionary
North
South
Western (most tanker)
Catalina (Honolulu traffic)
Area
40 miles
34 miles
43.5 miles
66 miles
Inbound Route: Precautionary Area to POLA
North
South
Western (most tanker)
Catalina (Honolulu traffic)
4.5 miles
7.5 miles
4.5 miles
5 miles
Inbound Route: Precautionary Area to POLB
North
South
Western (most tanker)
Catalina (Honolulu traffic)
8 miles
6.5 miles
8 miles
8 miles
Outbound Route: South Coast border to Precautionary Area
North
South
Western (most tanker)
Catalina (Honolulu traffic)
39 miles
38 miles
43.5 miles
66 miles
Outbound Route: Precautionary Area to POLA
North
South
Western (most tanker)
Catalina (Honolulu traffic)
3.5 miles
6 miles
3.5 miles
5 miles
Outbound Route: Precautionary Area to POLB
North
South
Western (most tanker)
Catalina (Honolulu traffic)
6 miles
6 miles
6 miles
8 miles
5-3
-------
slow further as they approach the breakwater to take on the pilot.) To be consistent with the
inventory assumptions, this study continues to use the simplified model that one set of ship
speeds applies for the full distance in each speed zone, neglecting the distances over which ships
accelerate and decelerate. According to Captain Dick McKenna of the Marine Exchange, ships
typically require 1 to 2 miles or roughly 5 minutes to slow from full speed to the precautionary
area speed of 12 knots and to slow from 12 knots to approximately 5 to 6 knots to pick up the
pilot just outside the breakwater.
As part of the SCAQMD inventory study, data was obtained from Lloyd's Maritime
Information Services (LMIS) for 1529 ships, the ships that called on the San Pedro Bay Ports in
1993. Ship service speeds from this data were graphed to show speed profiles for each shiptype
(Figures F-l through F-8 in Appendix F). These profiles show a modest range of speeds within
each shiptype. Although the speeds of the slowest and fastest ships within a shiptype differ by as
much as 12 knots, most of the ships within a shiptype fall within a narrow, 3 to 4 knot range of
cruising speeds. Ship service speeds on a per-call basis were'provided to us by the Marine
Exchange for all calls on the Ports in 199430. Averaging the ship speeds within each shiptype in
the Marine Exchange database gave the following results (Table 5-2)31. The 1994 averages were
used to characterize ship speeds in 1990, 1993 and, for all shiptypes but containers, 2010. The
average speed of container vessels was assumed to increase by 2010 based on analysis by the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Chambers, 1992).
Table 5-2. Average ship cruise speeds (knots) by
shiptype in 1990 and 2010
Shiptype
Auto Carrier
Bulk Carrier
Container Ship
General Cargo
Passenger Ship
Reefer
RORO
Tanker
1990
18.3
15.1
21.5
15.7
19.9
19.7
22.0
15.4
2010
18.3
15.1
23.4
15.7
19.9
19.7
22.0
15.4
30 The Marine Exchange receives ship speed data from Lloyd's, so the LMIS and Marine Exchange
databases are consistent.
31 Because Table 5-2 was derived from Marine Exchange (per-call, 1994) data rather than the LMIS (per-
ship, 1993) data, the tabulated average service speeds can not be directly compared with the speed
profiles sho'wn in Appendix F.
5-4
-------
In the SCAQMD inventory study, these service speeds were assumed to be associated
with operation at 80 percent of the maximum continuous power rating of the propulsion engines
(80 percent MCR).
The draft report for this study assumed baseline average cruising speeds consistent with
the SCAQMD inventory study. The service speed was associated with 80 percent MCR
operation and with the "cruise" mode as in the SCAQMD inventory.
In November of 1998, however, new information was presented by the Marine Exchange
of Los Angeles-Long Beach Harbor showing actual ship speeds for ships cruising in South Coast
waters to be somewhat lower, on average, than the service speeds recorded for those ships in the
LMIS database. In addition to its electronic database of ship calls which includes both ship
activity in the ports and ship characteristics,32 the Marine Exchange also maintains limited data
through their Vessel Traffic Information Services (VTIS) system. The VTIS data includes actual
ship speed at a distance of 25 miles from Point Fermin. In late 1998, the Marine Exchange
compared actual ship speed data with service speed data from Lloyd's for several ships and
concluded that many ships cruise at speeds somewhat below their service speeds in South Coast
waters.33 A more extensive data comparison over 60 days of calls indicated that, on average,
ships appear to cruise at approximately 90 percent of service speeds in the South Coast,
excepting passenger ships which cruise considerably slower, at about 66 percent of service speed.
Estimating the effect of this new information on the results of the speed reduction
analysis is not entirely straightforward. Because ships appear, on average, to cruise below
service speed, the baseline inventory can be assumed to overestimate power requirements and
emissions. Revised estimates of the potential benefits of speed reduction can best be made in
conjunction with a revision of the baseline inventory. Due to EPA budget constraints, it was not
possible to perform the more extensive analyses needed to revise the speed reduction estimates in
the light of this new information. However, for purposes of rough estimation, we will
provisionally assume that the range of emissions reduction results in this section are high by 15
to 20 percent, based on comparing the lower power requirements of the lower actual speeds with
the previous assumption that ships cruise at 80 percent MCR. Future revisions to the SCAQMD
inventory will take the new actual speed information into consideration.
5.3 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SHIP SPEED AND REQUIRED POWER
As described previously, the power required to drive a ship varies approximately with the
ship speed, cubed. In other words, if a ship traveling at 20 knots and 80 percent MCR slowed to
15 knots, the speed ratio, cubed, (15/20)3 = 0.4219 also equals the ratio of power required so that
the power required at 15 knots would be about 0.4219 X 80 percent MCR. As part of the
SCAQMD inventory study, the inventory model was used to estimate emissions reductions under
32 Because the Marine Exchange obtains their ship characteristic data from Lloyd's, these data are
entirely consistent with the data from LMIS used in the SCAQMD inventory study.
33 The Marine Exchange reports that ship speeds 25 miles out should adequately represent ship cruising
speeds within South Coast boundaries.
5-5
-------
a few speed reduction scenarios, using the approximation that power varies with ship speed,
cubed.
Although the speed cubed (V3) approximation is well-accepted, in this study we used
speed-power curves provided by the Navy and their consultant, John J. McMullen (JJMA)
(Osborne; Henderson). JJMA developed these curves from data for commercial ships. One set
of curves was developed for tankers and bulk carriers and a separate set was developed for
container ships, ROROs, and general cargo ships. Curves were for 100, 75, and 50 percent
displacement34. These curves are shown in Figures 5-2 and 5-3. According to JJMA, these
curves are representative above about 40 of the percent ship service speed (Remley).
Because the inventory study assumed ship service speed to be associated with 80 percent
MCR, we adjusted the JJMA 75 percent displacement curve35 (for which 100 percent service
speed operation was associated with nearly 80 percent MCR) so that the 100 percent speed point
would coincide with 80 percent power. These are the curves which were used to estimate reduced
power (and, therefore, reduced NOX emissions) at lower ship speeds. The JJMA curves are very
similar to the V3 curve (Figures 5-4 and 5-5).
5.4 SPEED REDUCTION SCENARIOS
Eight scenarios were defined for the purpose of estimating emissions reductions that
might result from reduced cruising speeds compared with baseline operation (Table 5-3). The set
of scenarios provides a range of potential reductions.
The scenarios were defined in terms of a "reduced speed zone" (RSZ) within which ship
speeds would be limited. The reduced speed zone was assumed to begin at a certain distance
from the boundary of the precautionary area. The distance was assumed to be the same
regardless of the route the ship takes to or from the port, and regardless of whether the ship
travels inbound or outbound. This assumption might or might not be consistent with real-life
implementation, were a speed reduction program to be established in the San Pedro Bay, but it
simplifies the analysis and avoids making more specific assumptions about implementation,
whieh would be premature at this time.
34 A more heavily loaded ship (greater percent displacement) travels lower in the water and incurs higher
drag forces, requiring more power to drive the ship at a certain speed.
35 According to JJMA the 75 percent displacement curve was equal to the 50 percent displacement curve
plus 2/3 times the difference between the 100 and 50 percent displacement curves. To adjust the
75 percent curve, we changed the 2/3 multiplier slightly (to 2.47/3 and 2.15/3 for tanker and container
curves, respectively) so that 100 percent speed implied 80 percent power.
5-6
-------
Percent Power
0 800
0.700 -
0 600 -
0 500 -
0.400 -
0 300
0 200
0 100 -
0.000 -
^. i IMA -inn0/ <-iin-.i *
* JJMA lUU/o QISpl
+ JJMA 75% displ *
A JJMA50%displ j
+
^
» +
* +
» +
1
+
* + '
A
* + x
* + A*
• + A
+ AA
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Percent Ship Speed
Figure 5-2. Speed-power relationship for tankers and bulk carriers — three
displacements
Percent Pow,er
0.800 -
0.700 -
0 600 -
0.500 -
0.400 -
0.300 -
0.200 -
0 100 -
0.000 -
-^ 1 IMA 1fWY Hionl
* JJIVIM IUU/O Ulbpl. ^ .
+ JJMA 75% displ.
A JJMA 50% displ. * +
v i
•
i
• +
A
• +
• + .
" "" TV*
t *A
t A
t J
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
Percent Ship Speed
0.8
0.9
Figure 5-3. Speed power relationship for container, RORO, and general cargo
; ships — three displacements
5-7
-------
1_
0)
1
Q.
0)
o
0)
Q.
0 700 -
ORfin
0 500 -
0 400 -
O^nn
0 200 -
0 100 -
0000 -
*
»JJMA .
+ vt3 +
,T
/
+
+ *
»
*
*
•
i
• '
+
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Percent Ship Speed
Figure 5-4. Speed-power relationship for tankers and bulk carriers — adjusted
for 80 percent MCR at 100 percent speed
^
0)
1
Q_
0)
£
u>
a
0 700 -
0 600 -I
0 500 -
O 400
0 300 -
0 200 -
0 100 -
0000 -
+
A
» JJMA +
+ V3 •
' +
+ »
•
+ +*
•
•
+
•
*
A
$
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
Percent Ship Speed
0.8
0.9
Figure 5-5. Speed-power relationship for container, RORO, and general cargo
, ships — adjusted for 80 percent MCR at 100 percent speed
5-8
-------
Table 5-3. Speed reduction scenarios
Scenario
No.
baseline
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
RSZ
Distance*
NA
all cruise"
all cruise"
30
30
20
20
15
15
Maximum allowed ship speed (knots) in RSZ by shiptype
Auto
18.3
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
Bulk
75.7
12
15
12
15
12
15
12
15
Container
23.4
15
18
15
18
15
18
15
18
General
Cargo
75.7
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
Passenger
19.9
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
Reefer
19.7
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
RORO
22.0
15
18
15
18
15
18
15
18
Tanker
15.4
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
'Distance from the start of the reduced speed zone (RSZ) to the precautionary area in nautical miles (one-way
distance)
b "All cruise" denotes that the entire distance from the outer boundary used for the inventory to the
precautionary area is considered to be the RSZ. For "all cruise" scenarios, distances from the inventory study
are used which differ somewhat by shipping lane and inbound vs. outbound traffic. For all other scenarios,
the distance between the start of the RSZ and the precautionary area in assumed to be one distance,
independent of shipping lane or inbound vs. outbound.
Each scenario specifies the distance from the start of the RSZ to the precautionary area,
the maximum allowed speed within the RSZ for each shiptype, and whether or not the speed
limit is assumed to apply to all vessels. Note that only the effect of speed reductions on diesel
motorships was analyzed. Steamships calling on the Ports were neglected in this analysis
because in 2010 steamships were projected in the emissions inventory to produce only 0.2 tpd of
NOxJn cruise mode out of total ship cruise emissions of about 16 tpd of NOX.
5.5 METHODOLOGY
For each scenario, the following steps were taken (additional discussion of each step is
provided below):
1. Recalculate distances by operational mode (full cruise and RSZ cruise — all other
modes unaffected)
2. Use recalculated distances with scenario speeds to calculate revised hours by
operating mode and shiptype
3. Use scenario speeds and the JJMA curves to estimate engine load (percent MCR) by
operating mode and shiptype
5-9
-------
4. Combine revised hours and engine loads to calculate energy consumption (MWh).
Calculate total energy consumed in one year as well as distribution of energy by
engine profile loads developed in Section 3 (e.g. 80 percent MCR, about 40 percent
MCR, about 35 percent MCR, etc.)
5. Use the revised energy consumption with 2010, IMO-controlled NOX emission rates
(see Section 3 — NOX factors based on the engine-specific methodology were used in
this analysis36) to calculate normalized emissions in 2010, with IMO and speed
reduction, compared with baseline operation (with and without IMO standards).
6. From revised hours by operating mode, calculate total increased time spent cruising
compared with baseline operation and calculate the associated increased emissions
from auxiliary engines.
7. Calculate net NOX reductions attributable to speed reduction in 2010.
5.6 EXECUTION
As part of the SCAQMD inventory study, average distances traveled inbound and
outbound were estimated for each shiptype, based on the distances shown in Table 5-1 and
estimated distribution of traffic by route. For example, approximately half of the RORO traffic
in 1994 was between Honolulu and San Pedro Bay. This traffic is associated with the "Catalina"
route into the Ports which, as Table 5-1 shows, is significantly longer within South Coast waters
than the Northern, Western, or Southern routes. Therefore, the average distance traveled at full
cruise by ROROs is longer than for any other shiptype (50.8 miles inbound versus a range of 37.0
to 42.2 miles inbound for the other shiptypes). The speed reduction scenario defines the RSZ
distance, that is the distance between the outer boundary of the RSZ and the boundary of the
precautionary area. For each scenario, we subtracted the RSZ distance from the inventory full
cruise distance. For example, if the scenario defined the RSZ distance as 20 miles, an inbound
RORO would be assumed to travel in South Coast waters for 50.8 - 20 = 30.8 miles at full cruise
and for 20 miles at reduced speed cruise.
The scenario also defines the RSZ speeds for each shiptype. The RSZ distance (inbound
plus outbound) divided by the RSZ speed for a shiptype gives the time required to travel through
the RSZ for that shiptype. The time spent at full cruise (outside of the RSZ) was calculated using
the average ship speeds for 2010 from the SCAQMD inventory study which were shown in
Table 5-2. Table 5-4 shows these calculations of distance and time for Scenario 3.
36 The engine-specific methodology NOX factors give more conservative results (that is, lower reductions)
for the speed reduction analysis because this method resulted in a greater increase in NOX emission
rates at lower engine loads than the combined-data method.
5-10
-------
Table 5-4. Average cruising distances, speeds, and times — Scenario 3
Shiptype
Auto Carrier
Bulk Carrier
Container
Ship
General
Cargo
Passenger
Reefer
RORO
Tanker
Distance', Boundary
to Precautionary
Area
Inbound
37.83
37.24
38.82
37.00
37.15
37.00
50.80
42.15
Outbound
39.03
38.61
41.43
38.50
38.50
38.50
51.32
41.79
Distance', Boundary
to Reduced Speed
Zone
Inbound
7.83
7.24
8.82
7.00
7.15
7.00
20.80
12.15
Outbound
9.03
8.61
11.43
8.50
8.50
8.50
21.32
11.79
Cruise
Speed
(Knots)
18.34
15.06
23.36
15.73
19.87
19.65
22.01
15.39
Hours
Cruise
per call
0.9
1.1
0.9
1.0
0.8
0.8
1.9
1.6
Distance; Reduced
Speed Zone to
Precautionary Area
Inbound
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
Outbound
30
30
30
30
.30
30
30
30
RSZ
Speed
(Knots)
15
12
15
15
15
15
15
12
Hours
RSZ
per call
4.0
5.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
5.0
' One-way distance in nautical miles. "Boundary" is the boundary of South Coast waters (see Section 2).
Using the RSZ speed for each shiptype and the JJMA power curves, an engine load
(percent MCR) associated with the RSZ speed was calculated for each shiptype. The JJMA
tanker/bulk carrier curve was used for these shiptypes while the container/RORO/general cargo
curve was used for all other shiptypes. The JJMA curves were also used to estimate engine load
associated with cruising in the precautionary area. This is a slight modification to the SCAQMD
inventory methodology where power requirements in the precautionary area were calculated
using the V3 relationship. Power requirements during maneuvering were left unchanged from the
inventory study. Table 5-5 shows these calculations for Scenario 3.
Table 5-5. Impact of reduced ship speeds on engine output power — Scenario 3
Shiptype
Auto Carrier
Bulk Carrier
Container Ship
General Cargo
Passenger
Reefer
RORO
Tanker
Full Cruise
Speed
(knots)
18.34
15.06
23.36
15.73
19.87
19.65
22.01
15.39
RSZ Speed
(knots)
15
12
15
15
15
15
15
12
RSZ/Cruise
Speed Ratio
82
80
64
95
75
76
68
78
RSZ
% MCR
37
43
18
65
29
30
22
40
PAVCruise
Speed Ratio
65%
80%
51%
76%
60%
61%
55%
78%
PA
% MCR
19
43
11
30
16
16
13
40
3 Based on a "PA" (precautionary area) speed of 12 knots.
5-11
-------
Appendix G contains the spreadsheet which calculates energy consumption by mode.
This spreadsheet was modified from spreadsheet W1S5 in the SCAQMD inventory model.
Table 5-6 shows a portion of the spreadsheet (auto carriers, non-bunker calls) for illustration.
The inventory groups annual ship calls by shiptype, propulsion type, and design category37. For
each design category, an average cruise power (horsepower at 80 percent MCR) was calculated
from the LMIS database. The italicized percents at the top of the four power columns are the
engine loads (percent MCR) associated with the indicated operating mode for the shiptype. For
example, for the scenario shown (Scenario 3), RSZ cruising is associated with 37 percent MCR.
Power requirements in horsepower for each mode were calculated from engine load and the
80 percent MCR horsepower for the design category. Power requirements were then multiplied
by hours spent in each mode to calculate energy consumption per call and per year and converted
to kiloWatt-hours.
Table 5-6. Example of calculation of energy consumption by mode — auto
carrier. Scenario 3
Shiptype
Auto
Carrier
Propulsion
Type
Motorships
Design
Categories
-
0-200
200-400
400-600
>600
Non-
Bunker
Calls in
2010
0
331
131
2
Power by mode (hp)
Cruise
80%
0
11,784
13,916
15,652
RSZ
Cruise
37%
5,470
6,460
7,266
PA
Cruise
19%
0
2,847
3,362
3,781
Maneu
vering
15%
0
2,210
2,609
2,935
Time in Mode (hours/call)
Cruise
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
RSZ
Cruise
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
PA
Cruise
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Maneu
vering
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
Shiptype
Auto
Carrier
Propulsion
Type
Motorships
Design
Categories
0-200
200-400
400-600
>600
Non-
Bunker
Calls in
2010
NB calls
0
331
131
2
Energy Consumed (kWh/call)
Cruise
0
8081
9543
10734
RSZ
Cruise
0
16323
19276
21681
PA
Cruise
0
2044
2414
2716
Maneu
vering
0
2473
2920
3284
Energy Consumed (kWh/year)
Cruise
0
2674860
1250093
21467
RSZ
Cruise
0
5403059
2525114
43362
PA
Cruise
0
676722
316265
5431
Maneu
vering
0
818399
382478
6568
37 Design category, used in the SCAQMD inventory model, is equal to ship speed cubed times dead
weight tonnage raised to the two-thirds power divided by 10,000. See the SCAQMD inventory study
for a discussion of this parameter.
5-12
-------
Using this spreadsheet, energy consumed was summed for each of the South Coast
"profile engine loads" developed in Section 3 (see Exhibit 3-4 and the associated discussion).
These were 80, 40, 35, 20, 15, and 10 percent MCR, chosen because, under baseline operation,
the power required of each shiptype in each operating mode was easily classified under one of
these engine loads. Energy consumed at these profile loads for all operating modes other than
RSZ cruising is shown in Table 5-7 (for Scenario 3). For each scenario analyzed, the RSZ
percent MCR for each shiptype (which varied substantially depending on the scenario) was
associated with the nearest profile engine load38 (Table 5-8). The distribution of energy'
consumed by engine load is important because the NOX emission rates developed in Section 3 are
different at different engine loads. And, of course, the total energy consumed is also important
since it is directly related to the total NOX produced. Table 5-9 shows the total energy
consumption distribution (baseline modes plus the RSZ cruise mode) for Scenario 3.
With these scenario-specific estimates of annual energy consumption by profile load in
hand, and using the NOX emission factors developed in Section 3 as a function of engine load, it
is possible to estimate an energy-weighted average NOX emission factor for each speed reduction
scenario. For each scenario, a spreadsheet was created (see Exhibit 5-1 for an example) which
summarizes the scenario parameters, records the energy consumption distribution in 2010 under
baseline operation (same for all scenarios) and under reduced speed operation and also records
the percent of total energy estimated to be consumed by medium speed ships39. The scenario
spreadsheet then calculates the energy-weighted average NOX emission rate (g/kWh) for the
reduced speed scenario from the 2010 IMO-controlled NOX rates for each profile load.
Table 5-7. Energy consumed in full cruise, precautionary area cruise,
and maneuvering — Scenario 3
Profile Engine Load
(% MCR)
80
40
35
20
15
10
Total
MWh per year
120,870
13,289
1,487
15,152
7,729
28,856
187,384
Energy,
% of Total
65
7
1
8
4
15
38 There is a rather large gap in the profile loads between 80 and 40 percent MCR. Any energy consumed
at engine loads of greater than 60 percent was grouped with the 80 percent MCR energy and 60 percent
and lower (down to 38 percent) was grouped with 40 percent. The NOX emission rates do not vary
much over this power range (see Section 3), so this broad grouping has little effect on the results.
39 The medium speed energy consumption was based on the percentage of medium speed ships by
shiptype Which was derived from the LMIS data in the inventory study.
5-13
-------
Table 5-8. Energy consumed in reduced speed zone cruise and
associated percent MCR — Scenario 3
Shiptype
Auto Carrier
Bulk Carrier
Container
General Cargo
Passenger
Reefer
RORO
Tanker
RSZ % MCR
37
43
18
65
29
30
22
40
Nearest Engine
Profile % MCR
35
40
20
80
35
35
20
40
TOTAL
MWh per year
9,106
31,525
69,985
12,959
12,692
10,063
887
33,274
180,491
Table 5-9. "Total energy consumed by mode (all modes) — Scenario 3
Profile Engine Load
(% MCR)
80
40
35
20
15
10
Total
MWh per year
133,829
78,088
33,348
86,024
7,729
28,856
367,875
Energy,
% of Total
36
21
9
23
2
8
100a
a Numbers may not add due to rounding.
5-14
-------
Scenario Description:
Reduced Speed Zone boundary distance from the Precautionary Area (nautical miles): all cruise
Ship speed in Reduced Speed Zone (knots):
Auto Carrier
Bulk Carrier
Container Ship
General Cargo
Passenger
Reefer
RORO
Tanker
Speed reduction assumed to apply to:
15
15
18
15
15
15
18
12
all ships
Profile Loads
(% MCR)
80
40
35
20
15
10
TotaC all modes
2010 Baseline Operation
MWh per
-year
494,592
13,289
1,487
15,152
7,729
28,856
561,106
% of total
88
2
0
3
1
5
Med. Speed
%
10
11
11
11
11
11
2010 Reduced Speed Operation
MWh per
year
79.749
59,835
173,806
15,152
7,729
28,856
365,128
% of total
22
16
48
4
2
8
Med. Speed
%
10
11
11
11
11
11
Exhibit 5-1. Speed reduction Scenario 3 — results
5-15
-------
Energy use in 2010 and NOX g/kWh by mode (motorship main engines)
2010 Baseline Operation — Uncontrolled NO, Rates
Profile Loads
(%MCR)
80
40
35
20
15
10
Total energy/year
MWh / year
494,592
13,289
1,487
15,152
7,729
28,856
561,106
SSa g/kWh
17.06
18.26
18.14
20.94.
23.96
28.89
MS" g/kWh
12.77
13.53
13.87
16.93
20.42
25.27
MWh-weighted
% MS
10
11
11
11
11
11
NO, g/kWh
SS&MS g/kWh
16.63
17.74
17.67
20.50
23.57
28.49
17.47
2010 Reduced Speed Operation —
Profile Loads
(%MCR)
80
40
35
20
15
10
• Total energy/year
MWh / year
79,749
59,835
173,806
15,152
7,729
28,856
365,128
2010 NO, Rates
SS g/kWh
16.30
17.41
17.46
20.18
23.20
28.13
M g/kWh
12.23
12.99
13.33
16.39
19.88
24.72
MWh-weighted
% MS
10
11
11
11
11
11
NO, g/kWh
SS&MS g/kWh
15.89
16.92
17.01
19.76
22.83
27.75
17.84
a "SS" = slow speed engines
b"MS" = medium speed engines
Increased Auxiliary Engine Emissions
Shiptype
Auto Carrier
Bulk Carrier
Container Ship
General Cargo
Passenger
Reefer
RORO
Tanker
Totals (tpy)
Increased Hours/Call
From Speed
Reduction
0.93
0.02
1.02
0.23
1.24
1.19
1.03
1.54
Inventory
Aux Engine
NO, lb/hra
22.05
22.05
22.05
22.05
147.00
22.05
22.05
22.05
Motorship
Calls per Year
in 2010
523
1260
2442
720
584
773
49
1054
Increased NOX
Aux Engines
(tons per year)
5.4
0.3
27.5
1.9
53.1
10.2
0.6
17.9
116.7
a Taken from the SCAQMD inventory study.
Exhibit 5-1. Speed reduction scenario 3 — results (concluded)
5-16
-------
Exhibit 5-1 (Scenario 3 — see Appendix G for the rest of the scenarios) shows the energy
distribution and energy-weighted average NOX rate in 2010 for two cases: (1) baseline operation
(no RSZ) plus uncontrolled NOX rates and (2) reduced speed operation plus IMO-controlled rates.
The first case produces an energy-weighted NOX factor consistent with operation in 2010 in the
absence of IMO control or speed reductions ("baseline"). The second case reflects both IMO and
speed control. Comparison of the energy-weighted NOX factor multiplied by the total annual
energy consumption for these two cases provides an estimate of the total NOX reductions
expected from the combination of IMO and speed control. Expected reductions from IMO alone,
estimated in Section 3, can then be subtracted from this result to estimate reductions attributable
solely to speed reductions (this is done in Section 5-7).
Note that the energy-weighted average NOX rate for the reduced speed + IMO scenario is
higher than the rate for the baseline + uncontrolled scenario (18.2 versus 17.4 g/kWh for
Scenario 3), even though the 2010 EVIO-controlled NOX rate at any given profile load is lower
than the uncontrolled rate for that profile load. This is because as the engine load becomes lower
both the IMO and the uncontrolled NOX rates become higher. In the reduced speed scenario, the
energy consumption which under baseline operation was concentrated at the 80 percent MCR
load, shifts largely into lower-power operating modes, weighting more heavily those higher NOX
rates. This increase in the energy-weighted average NOX rate slightly offsets the benefit of
reducing overall energy consumption.
Exhibit 5-1 also shows the calculation of increased auxiliary engine emissions. From the
revised hours spent "cruising in the reduced speed scenario compared with baseline operation, the
total increased hours per call were calculated for each shiptype. The increased hours were
multiplied by a NOX emission rate in pounds per hour representing auxiliary engines at sea taken
from the SCAQMD inventory study. This information, combined with the calls in 2010 per
shiptype gave an estimate of the total annual increase in auxiliary engine emissions associated
with reduced ship speeds.
Total energy consumed (MWh per year) multiplied by the energy-weighted NOX emission
rate (g/kWh) for baseline operation and speed reduction scenarios gives values for the NOX
emissions inventory. Because the methods used in this study were somewhat different than the
methods used in the inventory study, giving somewhat different results, the tons of annual NOX
emissions calculated in this analysis were normalized to 2010 baseline, uncontrolled operation.
Normalized NOX results were then multiplied by the appropriate NOX inventory in tons per day
taken directly from the SCAQMD inventory study to, estimate NOX reductions associated with
reduced cruising speeds, consistent with the inventory model. Increased emissions from
auxiliary engines were added in to calculated net NOX reductions. These calculations are detailed
in the next section.
5-17
-------
5.7 EMISSIONS RESULTS
Table 5-10 shows results for each speed reduction scenario analyzed. All results are for
operation in 2010. The "baseline uncontrolled" NOX) which is normalized to 1, was calculated
from the baseline operation energy consumption distribution (total energy consumed per year of
561,106 MWh) and the uncontrolled NOX factors which were weighted by the energy distribution
to arrive at the weighted-average uncontrolled NOX rate of 17.47 g/kWh. The "baseline BVIO-
2010" NOX was calculated using the baseline energy consumption numbers in combination with
the IMO-controlled, 2010 average NOX factor of 16.73 g/kWh. Use of the IMO 2010 NOX factor
gave a normalized result of 0.96, a 4 percent NOX reduction from baseline, uncontrolled
operation.
Table 5-10. Speed reduction analysis: summary of results
For 2010, baseline operation (no speed reduction measures):
Total energy consumed per year (MWh) 561,106
Uncontrolled energy-weighted average NOX rate (g/kWh) 17.47
IMO-controlled (2010) energy-weighted average NOX rate (g/kWh) 1 6.73
Results in 2010 — Motorships calling on the San Pedro Bay Ports
Speed
Reduction
Scenario
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Baseline
Uncontrolled
NO,
(normalized)
1
1
1
1
1
1
•«-. 1
1
Baseline IMO-
2010"
NO,
(normalized)
0.96
0.96
'6.96
0.96
0.96
0.96
0.96
0.96
Speed Reduction
Scenario w/ IMO
Energy
MWh
304654
365128
367875
414010
432285
463042
464490
487558
NO.
g/kWh
19.08
17.84
18.21
17.48
17.56
17.17
17.31
17.04
Speed
Reduction +
IMO
NO,
(normalized)
0.59
0.66
0.68
0.74
0.77
0.81
0.82
0.85
Baseline
Uncontrolled
NO inventory
' (tpd)
15.6
15.6
15.6
15.6
15.6
15.6
15.6
15.6
IMO only
NO,
Reduction
(tpd)
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
Speed
Reduction +
IMO
NO, Red-
uction (tpd)
6.3
5.2
4.9
4.1
3.5
2.9
2.8
2.4
Speed
Reduction
Only NO.
Reduction
(tpd)
5.7
4.6
4.3
3.4
2.9
2.3
2.1
1.7
New
Auxiliary
Engine
NO
(tpd)
0.44
0.32
0.33
0.25
0.22
0.16
0.03
0.12
Speed
Reduction
Net NO,
Reduction
(tpd)
5.2
4.3
3.9
3.2
2.6
2.1
2.1
1.6
For each speed reduction scenario, Table 5-10 shows the total annual energy use and the
weighted-average NOX emission factors that were calculated in Exhibit 5-1 and Appendix G.
These were combined to give the normalized NOX emissions for each scenario. Note that the
emission factors used for each scenario were the IMO, 2010 factors. The weighted average
factors were different for each scenario because, as described in Section 5.4, the energy
consumption distribution was different for each scenario.
5-18
-------
All of the normalized NOX results were then applied to the appropriate portion40 of the
NOX inventory (15.6 tpd). For example, this baseline NOX inventory of 15.6 multiplied by the
normalized factor for IMO standards in 2010 of 0.96 gives 14.9 tons per day. This implies a
reduction due to the IMO standard alone of 0.7 tpd from motorship main engines in cruise mode.
The normalized NOX factor for Scenario 3 including both IMO and speed reduction is 0.68,
implying a reduced NOX inventory of 15.6 X 0.68 = 10.7 and giving a reduction of 4.9 tpd.
Subtracting the benefit of the IMO standard gives a speed reduction-only benefit of 4.9 - 0.7 =
4.2 tpd (4.3 tpd in Table 5-10 because the table is not using rounded numbers for the
calculations). Finally, increased auxiliary engine emissions are added back in giving a net speed
reduction benefit of 4.3 - 0.3 = 4.0 tpd (3.9 in Table 5-10) for Scenario 3.
The 2010 NOX reductions from speed reduction alone for the scenarios analyzed range
from 1.6 tpd for Scenario 8 (speed limits of 12, 15, and 18 knots depending on the shiptype
beginning 15 miles from the precautionary area) to 5.2 tpd for Scenario 1 (a speed limit of
12 knots for bulk carriers and tankers and a speed limit of 15 knots for all other shiptypes,
applied everywhere in South Coast waters outside of the precautionary area.)
5.8 COSTS OF SPEED REDUCTION
As described above, a speed reduction strategy may also lead to increased costs for
shipping companies due to increased time spent in South Coast waters. In the most aggressive
scenario (that is, Scenario 1, which provides the most NOX reductions) the fastest shiptypes,
containers and ROROs, lose about 2 hours per call due to the reduced cruise speed. Other
shiptypes lose from 0.2 to 1.5 hours per call. And, of course, these estimates are based on
average shiptype speeds. Individual ships within each shiptype may lose more or less time,
depending on their own speeds.
This lost time affects different shipping companies in different ways. In early 1997, the
Pacific Merchant Steamship Association and the Steamship Association of Southern California
along with contractor, Seaworthy Systems, conducted a survey of shipping companies, outlining
a few potential speed reduction scenarios and asking for information on how such scenarios
would affect the companies' costs. Five companies responded and the responses were provided
to assist with this study. We spoke with the five responders and with a few other shipping
companies, as well. Of course, these were only a small portion of the number of shipping
companies that use the San Pedro Bay Ports. The information gained does not represent the
entire fleet calling on the San Pedro Bay Ports in any given year and cannot support a rigorous
quantification of the costs associated with speed reduction. However, important insights
emerged from the survey information and interviews which may be useful in considering speed
reduction strategies. The following picture emerged from these discussions.
40 The "appropriate portion" of the inventory is the NOX tpd generated in modes of operation which
would be affected by speed reduction. That is, emissions from main engines in cruise (outside of the
precautionary area).
5-19
-------
• Most ships would likely respond to reduced speeds in the South Coast by traveling
faster outside of the South Coast to make up the time lost. Traveling faster would
increase fuel consumption and therefore would increase cost. To the extent the ship
could make up the lost time between Los Angeles or Long Beach and the next port of
call, the only cost of the speed reduction would be the cost of increased fuel use41.
• For some ships on some runs it would not be easy to make up the lost time. This is
true for short runs, such as San Pedro Bay to Oakland, or for runs where the schedule
is based on the ship running at maximum speed42. For longer runs (such as
transpacific runs) and assuming the ship were not scheduled based on maximum
speed, making up for as much as 2 hours lost in the South Coast would not be
difficult.
• The extent to which schedules are arranged based on ships traveling at maximum
speed varies by company. For example, Maersk Pacific schedules their container
vessels based on maximum speed (Blichfeld) whereas APL, which also operates
container vessels, does not (Sinclair).
• The costs associated with not being able to make up the lost time and arriving at a
destination late can be large43. These costs can include the cost of the longshoremen
gangs which may be waiting for the ship to arrive. A typical gang costs about $2000
per hour (Lemke)44. The hourly cost of the ship itself, which includes amortized
capital c0st, the cost of the crew, supplies, maintenance, insurance, as well as fuel,
41 There might be maintenance cost implications of operating at lower speeds in South Coast waters and
higher speeds elsewhere, but these would be harder to predict and are likely to be much smaller than
increased fuel costs.
42 According to Mr. Andy Sinclair of APL, the maximum speed is usually associated with 90 to
95 percent MCR and operating above that speed would be risky in terms of wear on the engine,
especially for older engines. According to Mr. Sinclair, most engines are governed so that the ships
could not travel faster than the maximum speed without an engineering modification.
43 Note that not being able to make up lost time in transit doesn't necessarily mean the ship will arrive at
its destination late. A ship may leave the port early and so arrive at the next port of call in time without
traveling faster than planned (Watson-Jones).
44 How any delay due to reduced speeds in the South Coast would produce increased labor costs at the
destination port would be situation-specific. One situation-specific factor is that the number of gangs
ordered varies depending on how much cargo needs to be transferred. (A typical container vessel
might require 2 to 4 gangs (Lemke).) Also, the shipping company pays for the entire 8-hour shift
regardless of the amount of time the longshoremen are needed (Campbell). This means that if a ship
can be offloaded in, for example, 6 hours and the ship arrives one hour late, no additional costs are
incurred because the shipping company pays for the 8-hour shift regardless. However, if a ship arrives
late and can not be handled by a single shift, the shipping company would need to pay for another 8-
hour shift, even if only one more hour of work was required. Night shifts are more costly than day
shifts (Blichfeld).
5-20
-------
can be more than $1000 per hour45. If the delay into Los Angeles/Long Beach or into
the destination port cannot be made up before the next port of call, extra costs will be
incurred at each destination until the ship is able to get back on schedule. Especially
sensitive to delays are runs which take the ship through the Panama Canal. A limited
number of ships are allowed through the Canal each day, and ships schedule their
passage ahead of time. If a ship is late for its scheduled passage, it must wait until the
next day to pass through the Canal. Clearly, the loss of a day is to be avoided.
• Schedule sensitivity varies with shiptype as well as company. Tankers carry crude oil
and refined petroleum products between oil fields and refineries and bulk storage
terminals. Because of the large on-site storage at typical tanker vessel destinations, it
may not be considered essential for tankers to arrive at destinations on precise
schedules (Kraatz). Furthermore, because oil spill prevention is so important for
tankers, these ships are not scheduled as tightly as other vessels types, allowing the
ship captain a great deal of discretion to slow the ship as needed to ensure ship safety
(Kraatz).
• Bulk carriers, although more schedule-sensitive than tankers, would be less impacted
by speed reduction than container vessels. Unlike container cargo, bulk commodities
are not typically moved up and down the West Coast of the United States by ship.
Most bulk carriers calling on the San Pedro Bay Ports would be coming from or going
to a foreign port. The transpacific runs would allow plenty of distance for the ship to
make up for time lost due to speed reduction in the South Coast.
Keeping these factors in mind, it is possible to make some case study-style estimates of
the costs and cost-effectiveness of speed reductions. For these estimates, we assume the ship in
question would be able to make up for lost time in South Coast waters and keep to its schedule.
The costs calculated are the costs of increased fuel consumption. The parameters assumed in the
base case are shown in Table 5-11. Again, while these parameters might be reasonable for a
particular ship, this is merely an example based on certain assumptions and is not intended to be
representative of all vessels calling on the San Pedro Bay Ports.
These assumptions yield the following results (results are per call; the ship was assumed
to reduce speed in the RSZ each way, for a total RSZ distance per call of 60 miles):
• A savings of 5.2 tonnes of fuel in the South Coast and a cost of 15.1 tonnes of fuel
outside of South Coast waters, for a net increase of 9.9 tonnes of fuel used
• A net cost of $ 1,490 for the increased fuel used
45 Whether or not the hourly cost of the ship itself is relevant to the costs of reducing speeds in the South
Coast depends on whether or not the lost time is eventually made up. Presumably, most ships would
eventually be able to make up the lost time by increasing their cruising speed over some relatively long
run.
5-21
-------
Table 5-11. Base case assumptions for speed reduction cost example
Parameter
Assumed Value
Price of 1 tonne of heavy fuel oil ($)
One-way RSZ distance (nautical miles)
Baseline ship speed (knots)
RSZ ship speed (knots)
Baseline % MCR
MCR (horsepower)
Brake-specific fuel consumption (g/hp-hr)
Distance to next port (nautical miles)
150
30
23
15
80
30,000
130
3,500
• A total NOX reduction of approximately 0.5 tons for the single call (a slow speed
vessel was assumed and uncontrolled NOX emission rates from Section 3 at 80 and
20 percent MCR were used)
• A cost effectiveness of approximately $3,100 per ton of NOX reduced
These calculations are shown in Appendix G.
To investigate how different assumptions would affect the results, we varied some of the
assumptions listed above while holding the other parameters constant. Table 5-12 shows the
results.
Table 5-12. Estimated cost effectiveness of NOX reductions for a variety of case
assumptions
Parameter Varied
One-way RSZ distance
Baseline ship speed
RSZ speed
Engine power (MCR)
Brake-specific fuel
consumption
Distance to next port
Effect of Parameter
Increase on Cost
Effectiveness
Improves
Worsens
Improves
No effect
Worsens
Improves
Parameter Range
(See Table 5-11
for Units)
20-40
16-24
12-20
NA
120- 150
500 - 5000
Associated Cost
Effectiveness
Range ($/ton NOx)
3,000-3,100
190-4,800
750-6,700
NA
2,900-3,600
3,000-4,800
5-22
-------
These are only a few cases presented for illustration. Actual costs would vary
significantly from company to company, ship to ship, and call to call. These examples do
indicate, however, that for some ships speed reduction might provide a relatively cost-effective
way to reduce emissions.
It is important to remember that, in many cases, the costs of speed reduction may be
prohibitively high. Some ships on some runs may not be able, practically, to make up for time
lost in South Coast waters. As described above, ships making short, coastwise runs might not be
able to increase speeds enough to make up for the time lost in the South Coast. Vessels leaving
from Los Angeles/ Long Beach for the Panama Canal may not find -it practical to risk missing
their scheduled passage through the canal. Of course, schedules can be changed to be consistent
with any speed limits in the South Coast. However, the speed with which vessels can carry cargo
from one port to another and the amount of cargo transported in a year clearly affect the
competitive position and revenue-generating potential of a ship. Analysis of these types of
schedule-related cost issues are beyond the scope of this analysis, but in order to recognize that in
some cases there might be schedule impacts associated with unacceptable costs, we examined
how much of the traffic in and out of the Ports might experience schedule impacts were speed
reductions required.
As described earlier, the runs most likely to experience schedule impacts are those to or
from nearby ports or leaving for the Panama Canal. The data provided by the Marine Exchange
for 1994 which was used in the inventory study identifies the previous port of call and the next
port of call for each" call on the San Pedro Bay Ports. We examined this data to determine how
many calls in one year might be coming from or departing for nearby ports. In addition, the
Marine Exchange identified for us the number of vessels which left the Ports in January of 1997
for the Panama Canal (the Canal is not identified as the next port, so this analysis required
identifying those-ports of call which would be reached from the South Coast through the Panama
Canal.) Table 5-13 shows these runs for all shiptypes excepting tankers, which are assumed to
be less schedule-sensitive than other shiptypes. January 1997 results for the Panama Canal for all
shiptypes but tankers were multiplied by 12 to estimate total annual departures for the Canal.
This table shows that about one quarter of the arrivals and departures at the San Pedro
Bay Ports in a given year might have difficulty reducing speeds in the South Coast without
modifying their schedules in some way. Since the most schedule-sensitive ships are likely to be
those operating at high speeds (higher NOX emissions) on tight schedules, 24 percent of the runs
would probably translate into more than 24 percent of the total NOX reduction potential.
This 24 percent estimate is probably an upper bound on the percentage of arrivals and
departures that might experience higher costs if required to reduce speeds in South Coast waters.
Whether or not these runs really would incur serious cost impacts would require closer
examination, probably by the shipping companies, themselves. For example, a ship arriving
from Oakland and then departing for Hong Kong would probably be able to reduce speeds in the
South Coast and still arrive in Hong Kong as scheduled. Even if the arrival time in San Pedro
had to be delayed by a few hours, provided that longshoremen gangs could be scheduled
appropriately, the only extra costs incurred would be the cost of increased fuel consumption on
the San Pedro to Hong Kong run. By contrast, a ship dedicated to a route between Oakland and
5-23
-------
Long Beach and scheduled based on maximum speed would not be able to make as many trips in
one year if it was required to reduce speed in South Coast waters. The cost impact in such a case
would likely be unacceptably large.
Table 5-13. Potentially schedule-sensitive runs in one year
Port
Oakland
San Francisco
San Diego
Richmond
Port Hueneme
Stockton
Sacramento
Panama
Totals
No. Departing For
930
244
76
60
68
3
2
588
1,971
No. Coming From
413
96
52
34
18
9
3
NA
625
Approximate annual arrivals + departures in 1994 and 1997
Potentially schedule-sensitive percentage of arr. + dept.
Total In + Out
1,343
340
128
94
86
12
5
588
2,596
11,000
24%
Another important "cost" to a speed reduction strategy would be incurred by other air
basins. If ships sped up outside of South Coast waters to make up for time lost, neighboring
areas such as Ventura, Santa Barbara, and San Diego counties might experience increased marine
vessel emissions. This drawback to a speed reduction strategy in the South Coast would need to
be evaluated as part of the consideration of control options.
* Obtaining the greatest amount of NOX reduction available at reasonable cost and
implementing a speed reduction measure in a fair and safe manner would require careful program
design. Input from the shipping industry would be needed to better evaluate what a variety of
possible speed reduction scenarios would mean to individual companies in terms of cost,
competitive position, and safety. Assistance from the Marine Exchange, the Ports, and the Coast
Guard would be needed to ensure that any speed reduction program could be implemented and
enforced uniformly. Program design features would need to be considered recognizing that
different shipping companies would experience different cost impacts from speed reductions.
5-24
-------
REFERENCES
Acurex Environmental, "Marine Vessel Emissions Inventory and Control Strategies," Final
Report FR-119-96, prepared for the South Coast Air Quality Management District,
Diamond Bar, California, December 12, 1996.
Blichfeld, Torbin, Maersk Pacific, Ltd., personal communication.
Bolen, Greg, Manson Construction and Engineering Co., Long Beach, California, personal
communication.
Booz-Allen & Hamilton, Inc., "Inventory of Air Pollutant Emissions from Marine Vessels" and
revisions, prepared for the California Air Resources Board, Sacramento, California, 1991,
1992, 1993.
Campbell, Paul, COSCO North America, Inc., Secaucus, New Jersey, personal communication.
Castagnola, Larry, Wilmington Transportation Co., San Pedro, California, personal
communication.
Chambers Group, "Deep Draft Navigation Improvements, Los Angeles and Long Beach Harbors,
San Pedro Bay, California," Final Feasibility Report prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers and the Los Angeles Harbor Department, San Pedro, California, September,
1992.
Grantz, David A., et al., "Study Demonstrates Ozone Uptake by SJV Crops," California
Agriculture, July-August 1994.
Hall, Jane V., et al., "Valuing the Health Benefits of Clean Air," Science, Vol. 255, p. 812,
February 24, 1992.
•*•.
Henderson, Laurie, John M. McMullen Associates, Inc., Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, personal
communication.
Hill, Kevin, California Department of Fish and Game, CPFV Unit, California, personal
communication.
Kraatz, Glenn, Chevron Shipping Co., San Francisco, California, personal communication.
Larson, Mary, California Department of Fish and Game, Long Beach, California, personal
communication.
Lemke, Karsten, Zim Container Service, Los Angeles, California, personal communication.
Levin, Kenny, Seaworthy Systems, San Francisco, California, personal communication.
Lloyd's Register of Shipping, London, "Marine Exhaust Emissions Research Programme," 1995.
R-l
-------
Lloyd's Register of Shipping, London, "Marine Exhaust Emissions Research Programme: Steady
State Operation," 1990.
Lloyd's Register of Shipping, London, "Marine Exhaust Emissions Research Programme: Phase
. II Transient Emission Trials," 1993.
Lloyd's Register of Shipping, London, "Marine Exhaust Emissions Research Programme: Phase
II Air Quality Impact Evaluation," 1993.
McKenna, Captain Richard, Marine Exchange of Los Angeles - Long Beach Harbor, Inc., San
Pedro, California, personal communication.
McMahon, Jerry, The American Waterways Operators, Seattle, Washington, personal
communication.
Osborne, Michael, U.S. Navy Sea Systems Command Propulsion Group, personal
communication.
Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, San Pedro and Long Beach, California, "Control of Ship
Emission in the South Coast Air Basin: Assessment of the Proposed Federal
Implementation Plan Ship Emission Fee Program," August, 1994.
Remley, Bill, John M. McMullen Associates, Inc., Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, personal
communication.
Rutter, Tom, Catalina Express, San Pedro, California, personal communication.
Selga, Dave, Foss Maritime Co., Long Beach, California, personal communication.
Sinclair, Andy, American President Line, Oakland, California, personal communication.
TRC Environmental Consultants, Mission Viejo, California, "Ship Emissions Control Study for
" the Ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles," Volumes I and II, December, 1989.
Watson-Jones, George D., Columbus Line, USA, Inc., personal communication.
R-2
-------
ANALYSIS OF MARINE EMISSIONS IN
THE SOUTH COAST AIR BASIN
APPENDIX A
A-l
-------
J2
"5
o
o>
.a
3
400
Compiled from Marine Exchange data
Month
Figure A-l. 1993 ship calls by month1
Table A-l. Main engines — % 4-stroke (medium speed)
Shiptype
AutoCarrier
Bulk carrier
Container ship
General cargo
Passenger
Reefer
RORO
Tanker
% 4-Stroke
29
5
4
22
52
18
10
10
A-3
-------
10,000
50 100 150 200
Each Point Represents One Vessel
Figure A-2. Container ship net tonnage profile
250
300
g, 20,000
03
50 100 150 200
Each Point Represents One Vessel
250
300
Figure A-3. Container ship deadweight tonnage profile
A-4
-------
50 100 150
Each Point Represents One Vessel
200
250
Figure A-4. Container ship service speed profile
A-5
-------
Figure A-5. Calls in 1994 by year ship constructed — AUTOCARRIERS
60
>. 40
« 20
M n
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i 1 I r~~
CO °
0 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970
r-i_n-T"
i r~n — i i i i j
1111
n^ JL
I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1975 1980 1985 1990 199
-------
Figure A-8. Calls in 1994 by year ship constructed — GENERAL CARGO
•o
»
.Q
i i i i i i i i i I I I i._i i i i i i i i —
^^~
1,
H
~^_
i
TH
1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995
Figure A-9. Calls in 1994 by year ship constructed — PASSENGER
T3
0)
o ifio
w 1 Ow
2 140
2 120
o 1°o
CO 80
o 60
^. 40
^ 20
M n
_
-
-
-
..
i i i i i I I i i i i i i i i i i i i i
— —
1 I i i i i i i i
i i I | — | i i i i ^i
CO °
0 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 199
T3
0)
Figure A-10. Calls in 1994 by year ship constructed — REEFER
U DU
Iso
^30
|20
OT n
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
"U .
1
-n
CO
O 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995
-------
r Constructed
-•• ro ro w
ji o en o
£10
>* c
.Q *^
w /^
\
-
-
'
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i 1
1 — |
j-i
1
1 ,
I — l — i
n
i-.
i i i i i i i — i i i i
0 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 199
>
00
0)
lioo
I 80
15 60
£ 40
^ 20
1 o
O
1950
Figure A-12.
in 1994 by
ip constructed — TANKER
i 1 i 1
1 1 1 1
1955
1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
1950
Figure A-13. Calls in 1994 by year ship constructed — ALL SfflPTYPES
1955
1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
-------
ANALYSIS OF MARINE EMISSIONS IN
THE SOUTH COAST AIR BASIN
APPENDIX B
Emissions calculations from Lloyd's Data
Exhibit B-l — Variables Used in Analysis
Exhibit B-2 — Equations Used in Analysis
Exhibit B-3 — Sample calculation for Ship B6 at 70% MCR
Demonstration that ARCADIS Geraghty & Miller, Results are Consistent with Lloyd's
Results
Exhibit B-4 — Average NOX Emission Rates at 85% MCR for Slow Speed Vessels
Exhibit B-5 — Average NOX Emission Rates at 85% MCR for Medium Speed
Vessels
Calculations of Average NOX rates
Exhibit B-6 through B-13
Energy consumption calculations by medium speed versus slow speed ships
Exhibit B-14
B-l
-------
Exhibit B-l. Variables Used in Analysis
Symbol
ALF
AWH
BET
C02D
COD
DEL
EAFCDO
EAFEXH
EXHCPN
EXHDENS
FFH
GAIRW
GAIRD
GAIRD
GAM
GEXHW
GEXHW
GFUEL
Ha
HCD
HCW
HTCRAT
KHDES
MVH2O
NOCONC
NO, rate
STOIAR
Ta
TSC
TsCRef
Description
H content of fuel
Atomic weight of H
C content of fuel
Concentration of CO2
Concentration of CO
N content of fuel
Excess-air-factor based on complete combustion and the CO2-
concentration
Excess-air-factor based on the exhaust gas concentration of
carbon containing components
Exhaust gas ratio of components with carbon
Density of wet exhaust
Fuel specific factor used for calculation of wet concentration
from dry concentration
Intake air mass flowrate on wet basis
Intake air mass flowrate on dry basis
Combustion air mass flow
S content of fuel
Exhaust gas mass flowrate on wet basis
Exhaust mass flow
Fuel mass flow
Absolute humidity of the intake air
Hydrocarbons
Hydrocarbons
Hydrogen-to-Carbon ratio of the fuel
Humidity correction factor for NOX for intercooled diesel engines
Molecular volume of H2O
NO concentration
NOX emission rate
Stoichiometric air demand for the combustion of 1 kg fuel
Absolute temperature of intake air
Temperature of intercooled air
Intercooled air reference temperature
Units
%m/m
%m/m
%V/V
ppm
%m/m
kg/kg
kg/kg
V/V
kg/m3
kg/h
kg/h
kg/h
%m/m
kg/h
kg/h
kg/h
g/kg
ppm Cl
ppm Cl
mol/mol
—
1/mol
ppm
g/kWh
kg/kg
K
K
K
Remarks
in dry exhaust
in dry exhaust
dry basis
dry combustion air
wet exhaust
in dry exhaust
in wet exhaust
individual gas
in wet exhaust '
B-3
-------
Exhibit B-2. Equations Used in Analysis
Equation
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
.»
9
10
11
12
13
Equation
( BET ALF GAM \ 31.9988
1,12.011 (4*1.00794) 32.060J 23.15
BET*\ 0*22. .262 S7t>M/?*0.2315 BET* 10*22.262 CAM* 10* 21.891
nnntinmtfC02Dl U2895 (12.011*1000)) (32.060*1000)
L v 100 J
± ( 0.7685 0.2315"|
U-2505 1.42895 J
HTCH\T ALF*12-011
(1.00794 *BET)
GAIRD = EAFCDO * GFUEL * STOIAR
rru (0.1 11 127* ALF)
r (GFUEL}'
(_ ^ GAIRD J
HCW* EAFCDO* STOIAR
(EAFCDO * STOIAR - FFW)
(co2D} (COD} (HCD}
CXUCPN ( 100 J'l,0«J U6J
r 1 COD HCD HTCRAT J HCD "}
EXHCPN 106* 2* EXHCPN 106 * EXHCPN 4 ^ 106 * EXHCPN J
0.75 *HTCRAT
( 35 *io6* EXHCPN} 1-33
[ COD } ' T //CD "j
EAFEXH ~ ^ 106* EXHCPN)
( HTCRAT}
I 4 J
GEXH W = GFt/EL * (l + EAFEXH *STOIAR)
1
«L»/^ i_o.012* (Ha - 10.71)- 0.00275 *(ra - 298) + 0.00285 + (Tsc -7;5CRey )
( GFUEL\
p ptr * 200 * A W// * 1* •" 1
ALF*MVH2O
0.002053
AfO^. /fare = « * GEXHW *NOCONC
NOX
Technical
Equation
Code No.
(1-4)
(1-5)
(1-6)
(1-15)
(1-12)
(1-18)
d-19)
(1-20)
(1-24)
(14)
(2-61)
5.12.4.2
(15)
B-4
-------
Exhibit B-3. Sample Calculation — B6 at 70% MCR
Symbol
Fuel
ALF
BET
GAM
DEL
GFUEL
Intake Air
Ta
Ha
Power Output
Emissions Measurements
NOCONC
O2D
CO2D
COD
HCW
Calculations
STOIAR
EAFCDO
HTCRAT
GAIRD
FFH
HCD
EXHCPN
EAFEXH
GEXHW
KHDIES
EXHDENS
u
NOX Rate
Description
H content of fuel %m/m
C content of fuel, %m/m
S content of fuel, %m/m
N content.of fuel, %m/m
Fuel density kg/1
Fuel flow rate, 1/min
Calculated fuel mass flow rate, kg/hr
Ambient temperature, K
Absolute humidity of intake air, g/kg
Power output at test point, kW
Rated power of engine, kW
Power output, %MCR
NO ppm wet
O2 %V/V dry
CO2 %V/V dry
CO ppm dry
HCppmCl wet
See Exhibit B-l
See Exhibit B-l
See Exhibit B-l
See Exhibit B-l
See Exhibit B-l
See Exhibit B-l
See Exhibit B-l
See Exhibit B-l
See Exhibit B-l
See Exhibit B-l
See Exhibit B-l
See Exhibit B-l
See Exhibit B-l
Value
11.22
88.32
1.20
0.41
0.974
33.2
1940
278.15
4.2
10012
14323
70%
1060
15.10
3.00
20
27
14.062
5.055
1.514
137912.817
1.595
27.620
0.030
5.119
141600
0.837
1.293
0.001588
19.91
B-5
-------
Exhibit B-4. Average NOX Emission Rates at 85% MCR for Slow Speed Vessels
Ship/Engine
B6
CT1
CT2
R8-P
R8-S
R9-P
R9-S
TK6
TK7
TK8
TK9
Average, SS
Average reported by
Lloyd's
Match?
NOxg/kWhat85%
MCR
21.8
13.7
11.8
18.4
19.2
15.5
20.4
12.7
18.6
16.2
22.1
17.3
17
YES
Source
ARCADIS Geraghty &
Miller analysis of
Lloyd's data
•
Lloyd's
B-6
-------
Exhibit B-5. Average NOX Emission Rates at 85% MCR for Medium Speed Vessels
Ship/Engine
Bl
B2
B3
B4
B5
CTlgen
Dl
D2
D3
D4
D5
D6
Rl-C
Rl-S
R2-P
R2-C
R3-P
R3-S
R4
R5-C
R5-S
R6
R7-C
R7-Sgen
R7-P
TK1
TK2
TK3
TK4
TK5
Tl
T2
T3
T4
T5
T6
TV
Average, MS
Average reported by Lloyd's
Match?
NOxg/kWhat85%MCR
16.2
8.8
11.6
16.4
15.5
15.8
12.0
14.3
12.4
11.9
11.5
7.7
9.7
10.7
16.4
13.8
14.6
13.7
11.4
14.4
12.1
14.9
. 15.5
10.1
15.0
12.0
10.8
11.0
8.1
13.2
9.9
9.5
12.2
9.0
11.6
11.8
10.9
12.3
12
YES
Source
ARCADIS Geraghty &
Miller analysis of
Lloyd's data
Note that for this
comparison we
include the tug data
in the average, as
Lloyd's did.
We did not include
the tug data,
however, in the
IMO analysis for
ocean-going vessels.
Lloyd's
B-7
-------
Exhibit B-6. Average NOX rates (g/kWh) at 85% MCR — slow speed ships
Ship/Engine
B6
CT1
CT2
R8-P
R8-S
R9-P
R9-S
TK6
TK7
TK8
TK9
NOX g/kWh at
85% MCR
21.85
13.73
11.82
18.42
19.15
15.51
20.41
12.66
18.57
16.16
- 22.11
Average 17.31
Meets IMO?
FALSE
TRUE
TRUE
FALSE
FALSE
TRUE
FALSE
TRUE
FALSE
TRUE
FALSE
NOX g/kWh
Meeting IMO
13.73
11.82
15.51
12.66
16.16
Revised
NOX
18.10
16.21
15.77
16.22
16.86
18.87
Revised Average
Revised
Complying NOX
Rates
18.10
13.73
11.82
16.21
15.77
15.51
16.22
12.66
16.86
16.16
18.87
15.63
B-8
-------
Exhibit B-7. Average NOX rates (g/kWh) at 85% MCR — medium speed ships
Ship/Engine
Bl
B2
B3
B4
B5
CTlgen
Dl
D2
D3
D4
D5
D6
Rl-C
Rl-S
R2-P
R2-C
R3-P
R3-S
R4
'R5-C
R5-S
R6
* R7-C
R7-Sgen
R7-P
TK1
TK2
TK3
TK4
TK5
Average, all ships
NOX g/kWh at
85% MCR
16.2
8.8
11.6
16.4
15.5
15.8
12.0
14.3
12.4
11.9
11.5
7.7
9.7
10.7
16.4
13.8
14.6
13.7
11.4
14.4
12.1
14.9
15.5
10.1
15.0
12.0
10.8
11.0
8.1
13.2
12.7
Meets IMO?
FALSE
TRUE
TRUE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
TRUE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
TRUE
TRUE
TRUE
TRUE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
TRUE
FALSE
TRUE
FALSE
FALSE
TRUE
FALSE
FALSE
TRUE
TRUE
TRUE
FALSE
NOX g/kWh
Meeting IMO
8.77
11.61
12.04
11.46
7.69
9.68
10.70
11.39
12.09
10.10
10.85
10.99
8.11
Revised
NOX
10.81
12.86
12.16
11.36
11.56
11.23
11.08
14.77
13.40
12.30
11.94
13.39
13.36
13.64
13.57
10.81
11.71
Revised
Complying NOX
Rates
10.81
8.77
11.61
12.86
12.16
11.36
12.04
11.56
11.23
11.08
11.46
7.69
9.68
10.70
14.77
13.40
12.30
11.94
11.39
13.39
12.09
13.36
13.64
10.10
13.57
10.81
10.85
10.99
8.11
11.71
11.51
B-9
-------
Exhibit B-8. Uncontrolled NOX g/kWh at South Coast %MCRs — slow speed engines
Ship/Engine
B6
CT1
CT2
R8-P
R8-S.
R9-P
R9-S
TK6
TK7
TK8
TK9
Average
80% MCR
20.96
13.73
11.82
18.42
19.15
15.51
20.41
12.66
18.57
16.16
20.25
17.06
40% MCR
18.46
16.32
16.23
20.33 .
21.98
20.33
21.17 •
10.55
16.50
19.25
19.80
18.26
35% MCR
18.22
17.49
18.24
21.09
22.86
16.19
21.36
10.82
16.01
18.47
18.78
18.14
20% MCR
18.83
35.43
31.47
19.89
27.02
15.60
21.88
12.70
17.16
14.61
15.75
20.94
15% MCR
22.19
51.57
43.03
19.89
28.90
15.53
21.88
13.68
18.09
13.23
15.62
23.96
10% MCR
48.65
67.71
54.58
19.89
28.90
15.53
21.88
20.01
12.56
11.28
16.80
28.89
Exhibit B-9. IMO-complying NOX g/kWh at South Coast % MCRs — full IMO — slow
speed engines
Ship/Engine
B6
CT1
Ct2
R8-P
R8-S
R9-P
R9-S
TK6
TK7
TK8
TK9
Average
80% MCR
17.22
13.73
11.82
16.21
15.77
15.51
16.22
12.66
16.86
16.16
17.02
15.38
40% MCR
14.71
16.32
16.23
18.11
18.60
18.11
16.98
10.55
14.79
19.25
16.56
16.38
35% MCR
14.47
17.49
18.24
18.88
19.47
18.11
17,17
10.82
14.30
18.47
15.55
16.64
20% MCR
15.08
35.43
31.47
17.68
23.64
15.60
17.69
12.70
15.46
14.61
12.51
19.26
15% MCR
18.44
51.57
43.03
17.68
25.52
15.53
17.69
13.68
16.38
13.23
12.39
22.28
10% MCR
44.90
67.71
54.58
17.68
25.52
15.53
17.69
20.01
10.85
11.28
13.57
27.21
B-10
-------
Exhibit B-10. Uncontrolled NO g/kWh at South Coast % MCRs — medium speed engines
Ship/Engine
Bl
B2
B3
B4
B5
CTlgen
Dl
D2
D3
D4
D5
D6
Rl-C
Rl-S
R2-P
R2-C
R3-P
R3-S
R4
R5-C
R5-S
R6
R7-C
R7-Sgen
R7-P
TK1
TK2
TK3
TK4
TK5
Average
80% MCR
16.20
9.11
11.61
16.39
15.91
15.82
12.31
14.34
12.42
11.91
11.42
7.69
9.68
10.70
15.57
13.81
14.88
13.98
11.67
14.43
11.99
14.78
15.29
10.20
14.93
12.28
10.85
11.12
8.11
13.70
12.77
40% MCR
17.67
16.95
10.33
14.32
14.32
21.13
12.13
19.99
15.73
12.58
11.21
11.39
11.99
11.92
10.94
11.19
18.21
17.01
11.10
12.32
11.35
12.51
12.64
12.89
11.52
15.83
12.89
12.39
8.86
12.66
13.53
35% MCR
19.28
16.45
10.15
14.02
14.57
21.35
13.33
20.87
16.65
12.98
11.03
12.61
12.53
12.20
10.77
10.62
18.86
17.46
11.66
12.20
11.17
13.18
12.15
13.42
10.74
15.93
13.43
14.35
9.32
12.83
13.87
20% MCR
24.15
17.67
8.48
12.14
23.86
22.14
22.13
23.59
19.39
17.35
10.69
16.27
12.59
14.82
9.68
8.98
22.33
24.58
13.36
11.65
15.11
15.22
14.05
16.05
13.44
22.60
14.34
20.21
28.27
12.85
16.93
15% MCR
27.83
23.85
10.02
22.04
29.20
23.17
25.06
28.50
20.35
19.69
12.93
23.16
12.59
16.10
8.87
8.60
27.91
27.30
13.62
12.13
17.12
15.89
16.51
17.61
15.22
33.99
18.31
22.17
50.12
12.73
20.42
10% MCR
39.05
30.03
14.17
31.61
34.55
24.20
28.00
44.16
25.63
29.53
15.18
30.96
12.59
21.41
8.87
8.22
33.48
33.36
13.62
12.13
19.13
16.57
18.97
19.17
17.00
45.39
22.27
24.13
71.98
12.61
25.27
B-ll
-------
Exhibit B-ll. IMF-complying NOX g/kWh at South Coast % MCRs — full IMO —
medium speed engines
Ship/Engine
Bl
B2
B3
B4
B5
CTlgen
Dl
D2
D3
D4
D5
D6
Rl-C
Rl-S
R2-P
R2-C
R3-P
R3-S
R4
R5-C
R£S
R6
R7-C
R7-Sgen
R7-P
TK1
TK2
TK3
TK4
TK5
Average
80% MCR
10.81
9.11
11.61
12.86
12.61
11.36
12.31
11.56
11.23
11.08
11.42
7.69
9.68
--10.70
13.90
13.44
- 12.59
12.25
11.67
13.39
11.99
13.21
13.46
10.20
13.50
11.04
10.85
11.12
8.11
12.22
11.56
40% MCR
12.28
16.95
10.33
10.79
11.02
16.67
12.13 •
17.21
14.54
11.75
11.21
11.39
11.99
11.92
9.27
10.82
15.91
15.28
11.10
11.28
11.35
10.93
10.81
12.89
10.09
14.59
12.89
12.39
8.86
11.19
12.33
35% MCR
13.89
16.45
10.15
10.49
11.27
16.89
13.33
18.09
15.45
12.16
11.03
12.61
12.53
12.20
9.10
10.25
16.56
15.73
11.66
11.16
11.17
11.61
10.32
13.42
9.31
14.69
13.43
14.35
9.32
11.35
12.67
20% MCR
18.76
17.67
8.48
8.60
20.56
17.68
22.13
20.80
18.19
16.52
10.69
16.27
12.59
14.82
8.01
8.61
20.04
22.85
13.36
10.61
15.11
13.64
12.21
16.05
12.01
21.36
14.34
20.21
28.27
11.37
15.73
15% MCR
22.44
23.85
10.02
18.51
25.91
18.71
25.06
25.71
19.16
18.86
12.93
23.16
12.59
16.10
7.20
8.23
25.61
25.57
13.62
11.09
17.12
14.32
14.68
17.61
13.79
32.75
18.31
22.17
50.12
11.25
19.22
10% MCR
33.66
30.03
14.17
28.08
31.25
19.74
28.00
41.38
24.43
28.70
15.18
30.96
12.59
21.41
7.20
7.85
31.19
31.63
13.62
11.09
19.13
15.00
17.14
19.17
15.57
44.15
22.27
24.13
71.98
11.13
24.06
B-12
-------
Exhibit B-12. Calendar year NOX g/kWh at South Coast %MCRs — slow speed engines
%MCR
Uncontrolled NOX
IMONOx
Calendar
Year
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
%IMO
2%
6%
11%
15%
19%
23%
27%
31%
37%
41%
45%
80%
17.06
15.38
40%
18.26
16.38
35%
18.14
16.64
20%
20.94
19.26
15%
23.96
22.28
10%
28.89
27.21
Calendar Year-Specific NOX Rates (g/kWh)
17.0
16.9
16.9
16.8
16.7
16.7
16.6
16.5
16.4
16.4
16.3
18.2
' 18.1
18.1
18.0
17.9
17.8
17.8
17.7
17.6
17.5
17.4
18.1
18.0
18.0
17.9
17.8
17.8
17.7
17.7
17.6
17.5
17.5
20.9
20.8
20.7
20.7
20.6
20.6
20.5
20.4
20.3
20.3
20.2
23.9
23.9
23.8
23.7
23.6
23.6
23.5
23.4
23.3
23.3
23.2
28.8
28.8
28.7
28.6
28.6
28.5
28.4
28.4
28.3
28.2
28.1
Exhibit B-13. Calendar year NO g/kWh at South Coast % MCRs — medium speed engines
%MCR
Uncontrolled NOX
Calendar
Year
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
IMONOX
%IMO
2%
6%
11%
15%
19%
23%
27%
31%
37%
41%
45%
80%
12.77
11.56
12.7
12.7
12.6
12.6
12.5
12.5
12 A
12.4
12.3
12.3
12.2
40%
13.53
12.33
Calendar
13.5
13.5
13.4
13.3
13.3
13.3
13.2
13.2
13.1
13.0
13.0
35%
13.87
12.67
Year-Specific
13.8
13.8
13.7
13.7
13.6
13.6
13.5
13.5
13.4
13.4
13.3
20%
16.93
15.73
NOX Rates
16.9
16.9
16.8
16.7
16.7
16.7
16.6
16.6
16.5
' 16.4
16.4
15%
20.42
19.22
(g/kWh)
20.4
20.3
20.3
20.2
20.2
20.1
20.1
20.0
20.0
19.9
19.9
10%
25.27
24.06
25.2
25.2
25.1
25.1
25.0
25.0
24.9
24.9
24.8
24.8
24.7
B-13
-------
Exhibit B-14. Calculation of energy consumption from medium speed versus slow speed
motorships
Shiptype
Auto carrier
Bulk
Container
General cargo
Passenger
Reefer
RORO
Tanker
Total
Total Cruise
MWh/yr
20,553
58,993
260,955
19,026
33,556
25,955
3,826
71,728
494,592
% Total
MWh/yr
4
12
53
4
7
5
1
15
% Ships MS
29
5
4
22
52
18
10
6
Total cruise MWh/yr in MS engines
Shiptype
Auto carrier
Bulk
Container
General cargo
Passenger
Reefer
RORO
Tanker
Total
Precaut. Area and
Maneuvering
MWh/yr
2,497
11,258
28,703
3,045
5,697
3,461
268
11,585
66,514
% Total
MWh/hr
4
17
43
5
9
5
0
17
% Ships MS
29
5
4
22
52
18
10
6
Total low speed MWh/yr in MS engines
MS MWh/hr
5,960,227
2,949,671
10,438,191
4,185,814
17,448,998
4,671,961
382,588
3,755,133
49,792,583
10%
MS MWh/yr
769,846
539,327
1,255,755
738,802
3,071,705
633,296
27,163
585,161
7,621,053
11%
B-14
-------
ANALYSIS OF MARINE EMISSIONS IN
THE SOUTH COAST AIR BASIN
APPENDIX C
Analysis of Slow Speed Data C-3
Analyses of Medium Speed Data C-14
C-l
-------
' -.-
JC
1
X
0
z
NOx Emission Rates - Lloyd's Slow Speed Ships - B6
120.00
100.00
80.00
60.00
40.00
20.00
0 00
*
.
.. .. .. .
- - - -
» _ _ ___ ^ ^. ^.
f
•
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
%MCR
n
Test Information:
Point Estimates
% MCR
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
NOx g/kWh
48.65
18.83
17.98
18.46
18.95
19.43
19.91
20.96
22.43
22.43
Profile Points
% MCR
85%
80%
40%
35%
20%
15%
10%
Uncon.
IMO
NOx g/kWh
21.85
20.96
18.46
18.22
18.83
22.19
48.65
18.10
17.22
14.71
14.47
15.08
18.44
44.90
E2 Test Procedure
% MCR
25%
50%
75%
100%
NOx g/kWh
17.74
18.95
20.51
22.43
Revised NOx
13.99
15.20
16.76
18.68
Test
% MCR
3%
12%
21%
23%
70%
79%
79%
88%
Test NOx
(g/kWh)
133.83
24.28
18.21
17.64
19.91
20.96
20.80
22.43
Vessel:
Type:
Size:
Launched:
Engine:
MCR
Test %MCR
Test RPM
Test % rated RPM
Propeller:
Est. rated RPM
B6
Bulk Carrier
172810
1987
main
14323
79%
77
93%
FPP
83
dwt (tonnes)
kW
E2 Wghtd NOx g/kWh Revised E2 NOx
20.75 17.00
Applicable IMO std:
17.00
17.00
Comply with IMO? Revised?
FALSE TRUE
-------
NOx Emission Rates - Lloyd's Slow Speed Ships - CT1
''" 80.00
70.00
£* 60.00
2 50 00 -
O)
""•" 40 on -
J5
O on nn
20.00
10.00 •
' 0.00
0
4
•
-
•- - - • -
{
>/o 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
%MCR
Test Information:
Point Estimates
% MCR NOx g/kWh
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
67.71
35.43
18.66
16.32
14.28
14.07
13.86
13.73
13.73
13.73
Profile Points
Uncon.
% MCR
85%
80%
40%
35%
20%
15%
10%
IMO
NOXg/kWh
13.73
13.73
16.32
17.49
35.43
51.57
67.71
13.73
13.73
16.32
17.49
35.43
51.57
- 67.71
E2 Test Procedure
% MCR
25%
50%
75%
100%
NOx g/kWh
19.86
14.28
13.75
13.73
Revised NOx
NA
NA
NA
NA
test =>
test =>
use avg.
Test
% MCR
6%
25%
49%
76%
76%
76%
Test NOx
(g/kWh)
81.33
19.86
14.31
13.96
13.49
13.73
Vessel:
Type:
Size:
Launched:
Engine:
MCR
Test %MCR
Test RPM
Test % rated RPM
Propeller:
Est. rated RPM
CT1
Container
27630
1980
main
21634
76%
118
91%
FPP
129
dwt (tonnes)
kW
E2 Wghtd NOx g/kWh Revised E2 NOx
14.13 NA
Applicable IMO std:
17.00
17.00
Comply with IMO? Revised?
TRUE NA
-------
£"
S
X
0
NOx Emission Rates - Lloyd's Slow Speed Ships - CT2
70 00
60.00
50.00 -
40 00 •
30 00
1000 -
n nn
•
-
«* -
'* - *'
(
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
%MCR
n
Test Information:
Point Estimates
% MCR NOx g/kWh
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
54.58
31.47
20.26
16.23
12.19
10.98
10.90
11.82
11.82
11.82
Profile Points
Uncon.
% MCR
85%
80%
40%
35%
20%
15%
10%
IMO
NOxg/kWh
11.82
11.82
16.23
18.24
31.47
43.03
54.58
11.82
11.82
16.23
18.24
31.47
43.03
54.58
E2 Test Procedure
% MCR
25%
50%
75%
100%
NOx g/kWh
20.75
12.19
10.87
11.82
Revised NOx
NA
NA,
NA
NA
Test
% MCR
6%
25%
27%
53%
77%
78%
Test NOx
(g/kWh)
63.60
20.75
21.34
11.03
10.85
11.82
Vessel:
Type:
Size:
Launched:
Engine:
MCR
Test%MCR
Test RPM
Test % rated RPM
Propeller:
Est. rated RPM
CT2
Container
27893
1977
main
21634
78%
113
92%
FPP
122
dwt (tonnes)
kW
E2 Wghtd NOx g/kWh Revised E2 NOx
11.83 NA
Applicable IMO std:
17.00
17.00
Comply with IMO? Revised?
TRUE NA
-------
NOx Emission Rates - Lloyd's Slow Speed Ships - R8-P
°5 00
20.00
2-
5 15.00
S
X 10.00
z
5.00
0 00
•-•--* .- . .. .....
•• - *• •
" " "
•
1
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
%MCR
Point Estimates
% MCR NOx g/kWh
10%
20%
30%
• 40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
19.89
19.89
21.24
20.33
18.80
18.61
18.64
18.42
18.42
18.42
Profile Points
Uncon.
% MCR
85%
80%
40%
35%
20%
15%
10%
IMO
NOx g/kWh
18.42
18.42
20.33
21.09
19.89
19.89
19.89
16.21
16.21
18.11
18.88
17.68
17.68
17.68
E2 Test Procedure
% MCR
25%
cr\n/
— — OU70
75%
9 Test Information: 100%
ON
NOx g/kWh
20.31
A o Of\
18.80
18.53
18.42
Revised NOx
18.10
* c en
16.59
16.32
16.21
Test
% MCR
23%
32%
51%
70%
80%
Test NOx
(g/kWh)
19.89
21.58
18.58
18.64
18.42
Vessel:
Type:
Size:
Launched:
Engine:
MCR
Test %MCR
Test RPM
Propeller:
Est. rated RPM
R8
RORO
3855
1980
Port main
6606
all
155
CPP
155
dwt (tonnes)
kW
E2 Wghtd NOx g/kWh Revised E2 NOx
18.62 16.41
Applicable IMO std:
16.41
16.41
Comply with IMO? Revised?
FALSE TRUE
-------
NOx Emission Rates - Lloyd's Slow Speed Ships - R8-S
30.00
25.00
£ 20.00
j£
£> 15.00
X
o 10.00
5.00
0.00
0
- »
»
* - «- 4
'/o 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
%MCR
Point Estimates
% MCR NOx g/kWh
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
E2 Test P
% MCR
25%
50%
75%
9 Test Information: 100%
--J
28.90
27.02
23.73
21.98
20.23
19.98
19.87
19.15
19.15
19.15
rocedure
NOx g/kWh
25.08
20.23
19.52
19.15
Profile Points
Uncon.
% MCR
85%
80%
40%
35%
20%
15%
10%
Revised NOx
21.70
16.85
16.14
15.77
IMO
NOx g/kWh
19.15
19.15
21.98
22.86
27.02
28.90
28.90
15.77
15.77
18.60
19.47
23.64
25.52
25.52
Test Test NOx
% MCR (g/kWh)
15% 28.90
27% 24.21
51% 19.97
68% 20.00
80% 19.15
Vessel:
Type:
Size:
Launched:
Engine:
MCR
Test %MCR
Test RPM
Propeller:
Est. rated RPM
R8
RORO
3855
1980
starboard
6606
all
155
CPP
155
dwt (tonnes)
main
kW
E2 Wghtd NOx g/kWh Revised E2 NOx
19.79 16.41
Applicable IMO std:
16.41 16.41
Comply with IMO? Revised?
FALSE TRUE
-------
NOx Emission Rates - Lloyd's Slow Speed Ships - R9-P
r.
18.00 i - ,
16.00 - »- • "* • -i • - L
14.00 • - -
g 12.00 | ..... . i
JJ 10.00 - - - - . . . .
x ' i
O 6.00 j-
4.00 .... . . . . |
2.00 - - - . -i
i
0.00 , • : - - !
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
%MCR
Point Estimates
% MCR NOx g/kWh
10% 15.53
20% 15.60
30% 15.99
40% 16.38
50% 16.28
60% 16.03
70% 15.77
80% 15.51
90% 15.51
100% 15.51
E2 Test Procedure
% MCR NOx g/kWh
25% 15.80
ena/ H c oo
3U70 lO.^O
75% 15.64
Test Information: 100% 15.51
Profile Points
Uncon.
% MCR
85%
80%
40%
35%
20%
15%
10%
Revised NOx
NA
KIA
IN A .
NA
NA
IMO
NOx g/kWh
15.51
15.51
16.38
16.19
15.60
15.53
15.53
15.51
15.51
16.38
16.19
15.60
15.53
15.53
use avg.
test=>
test=>
Test
% MCR
18%
42%
73%
73%
73%
80%
Test NOx
(g/kWh)
15.53
16.48
15.69
15.39
16.00
15.51
Vessel:
Type:
Size:
Launched:
Engine:
MCR
Test %MCR
Test RPM
Propeller:
Est. rated RPM
R9
RORO
3060
1980
port main
6606
all
155
CPP
155
dwt (tonnes)
kW
E2 Wghtd NOx g/kWh Revised E2 NOx
15.68 NA
Applicable IMO std:
16.41
16.41
Comply with IMO? Revised?
TRUE NA
-------
NOx Emission Rates - Lloyd's Slow Speed Ships - R9-S
25.00
20.00
£"
5 15.00
^r 10.00
o
z
5.00
0.00
0
• * • .- * ,. *» * -
-••
>/o 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
%MCR
Point Estimates
% MCR NOx g/kWh
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
E2 Test P
% MCR
25%
50%
75%
Test Information: 100%
21.88
21.88
21.55
21.17
20.79
20.45
20.10
20.41
20.41
20.41
rocedure
NOx g/kWh
21.74
20.79
20.56
20.41
Profile Points
Uncon.
% MCR
85%
80%
40%
35%
20%
15%
10%
Revised NOx
17.54
16.60
16.36
16.22
IMO
NOX g/kWh
20.41
20.41
21.17
21.36
21.88
21.88
21.88
16.22
16.22
16.98
17.17
17.69
17.69
17.69
Test
% MCR
21%
50%
71%
74%
80%
Test NOx
(g/kWh)
21.88
20.79
20.06
20.58
20.41
Vessel:
Type:
Size:
Launched:
Engine:
MCR
Test %MCR
Test RPM
. Propeller:
Est. rated RPM
R9
RORQ
3060
1980
starboard
6606
all
155
CPP
155
dwt (tonnes)
main
kW
E2 Wghtd NOx g/kWh Revised E2 NOx
20.60 16.41
Applicable IMO std:
16.41
16.41
Comply with IMO? Revised?
FALSE TRUE
-------
£
B)
3
NO
40.00
35.00
30.00
25.00
20.00
15.00
10.00
5.00
0.00
0
x Emission Rates - Lloyd's Slow Speed Ships - TK6
w
... . _..
• --- .
• - — - - . ...
••-..., :::^', * • • -
• - - •
i
•
>/o 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
%MCR
j_ Test Information:
o
Test
% MCR
2%
12%
28%
43%
62%
60%
80%
Test NOx
(g/kWh)
39.43
14.17
11.23
10.37
13.36
11.77
12.66
Vessel: TK6
Type: Tanker
Size: 8317
Launched: 1970
Engine: main
MCR 5371
Test %MCR 80%
TestRPM 130
Test % rated RPM 93%
Propeller: FPP
Est. rated RPM 140
dwt (tonnes)
kW
Point Estimates
% MCR NOx g/kWh
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
20.01
12.70
11.09
10.55
10.91
11.77
13.04
12.66
12.66
12.66
Profile Points
Uncon.
% MCR
85%
80%
40%
35%
20%
15%
10%
IMO
NOx g/kWh
- 12.66
12.66
10.55
10.82
12.70
13.68
20.01
12.66
12.66
10.55
10.82
12.70
13.68
20.01
E2 Test Procedure
% MCR
25%
50%
75%
100%
NOx g/kWh
11.72
10.91
12.85
12.66
Revised NOx
NA
NA
NA
NA
E2 Wghtd NOx g/kWh Revised E2 NOx
12.52 NA
Applicable IMO std:
16.76
16.76
Comply with IMO? Revised?
TRUE NA
-------
NO)
-. 20.00 -,
18.00
16.00
2- 14.00
3 12.00
0) 10.00
x 8.00
Z 6 00
4 00
2 00 -
0 00 -
c Emission Rates - Lloyd's Slow Speed Ships - TK7
• «
••
»
•
•
(
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
%MCR
o
Test Information:
Point Estimates
% MCR NOx g/kWh
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
E2 Test
12.56
17.16
15.52
16.50
17.47
18.45
18.57
18.57
18.57
18.57
Procedure
% MCR NOx g/kWh
25%
50%
75%
100%
16.24
17.47
18.57
18.57
Profile Points
Uncon.
% MCR
85%
80%
40%
35%
20%
15%
10%
Revised NOx
14.53
15.76.
16.86
16.86
IMO
NOxg/kWh
18.57
18.57
16.50
16.01
17.16
18.09
12.56
16.86
16.86
14.79
14.30
15.46
16.38
10.85
Test
% MCR
2%.
6%
11%
12%
29%
61%
Test NOx
(g/kWh)
4.98
10.62
12.97
18.71
15.45
18.57
Vessel:
Type:
Size:
Launched:
Engine:
MCR
Test %MCR
Test RPM
Test % rated RPM
Propeller:
Est. rated RPM
TK7
Tanker
20691
1976
port main
7012
61%
124
85%
FPP
146
dwt (tonnes)
kW
E2 Wghtd NOx g/kWh Revised E2 NOx
18.32 16.61
Applicable IMO std:
16.61 16.61
Comply with IMO? Revised?
FALSE TRUE
-------
NOx Emission Rates - Lloyd's Slow Speed Ships - TK8
25.00
20.00
15.00
* 10.00
5.00
0.00
0%
20%
40% 60%
%MCR
80%
100%
O
to
Test Information:
Test
% MCR
9%
10%
16%
37%
53%
54%
72%
77%
Test NOx
(g/kWh)
10.85
11.28
13.52
19.11
20.00
18.59
18.20
16.16
Vessel:
Type:
Size:
Launched:
Engine:
MCR
Test %MCR
Test RPM
Test % rated RPM
Propeller:
Est. rated RPM
TK8
Tanker
131576
1971
main
18650
77%
98
92%
FPP
107
dwt (tonnes)
kW
Point Estimates
%MCR NOxg/kWh
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
11.28
14.61
17.18
19.25
19.82
18.47
18.25
16.16
16.16
16.16
Profile Points
Uncon.
% MCR
85%
80%
40%
35%
20%
15%
10%
IMO
NOx g/kWh
16.16
16.16
19.25
18.47
14.61
13.23
11.28
16.16
16.16
19.25
18.47
14.61
13.23
11.28
E2 Test Procedure
%MCR NOxg/kWh Revised NOx
25% 15.90 NA
50% 19.82 NA
75% 16.95 NA
100% 16.16 NA
E2 Wghtd NOx g/kWh
16.97
Applicable IMO std:
17.00
Comply with IMO?
TRUE
Revised E2 NOx
NA
17.00
Revised?
NA
-------
NOx Emission Rates - Lloyd's Slow Speed Ships - TK9
o
20.00 ^
~ * .
g 15.00
1)
g 10.00
z
5.00
0 00
0%
-
• • -
20%
' V . -
- - -
40% 60% 80%
%MCR
.
100%
Test Information:
Test
% MCR
4%
5%
6%
7%
17%
58%
59%
66%
Test NOx
(g/kWh)
24.02
21.17
19.60
17.54
15.14
23.36
21.94
20.25
Vessel:
Type:
Size:
Launched:
Engine:
MCR
Test %MCR
Test RPM
Test % rated RPM
Propeller:
Est. rated RPM
TK9
Tanker
125457
1977
main
20299
66%
110
87%
FPP
126
dwt (tonnes)
kW
Point Estimates
% MCR
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
NOx g/kWh
16.80
15.75
17.77
19.80
21.82
21.70
20.25
20.25
20.25
20.25
Profile Points
% MCR
85%
80%
40%
35%
20%
15%
10%
Uncon.
IMO
NOx g/kWh
22.11
20.25
19.80
18.78
15.75
15.62
16.80
18.87
17.02
16.56
15.55
12.51
12.39
13.57
E2 Test Procedure
% MCR
25%
50%
75%
100%
NOx g/kWh
16.76
21.82
20.25
20.25
Revised NOx
13.53
18.59
17.02
17.02
E2 Wghtd NOx g/kWh Revised E2 NOx
20.23 17.00
Applicable IMO std:
17.00
17.00
Comply with IMO? Revised?
FALSE TRUE
-------
NOJ
70.00
60.00
_ 50.00
| 40.00
| 30.00
2 20.00
10.00
0.00
0
( Emission Rates - Lloyd's Medium Speed Ships •
B1
• . . .
.. ..^ ^ _--•_-
'
>/o 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
%MCR
Test Information:
Point Est
% MCR
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
E2 Test P
% MCR
25%
50%
75%
100%
mates
NOx g/kWh
39.05
24.15
20.88
17.67
16.20
16.20
16.20
16.20
16.20
16.20
rocedure
NOx g/kWh
22.47
16.20
16.20
16.20
Profile Points
Uncon. IMO
% MCR NOx g/kWh
85% 16.20 10.81
80% 16.20 10.81
40% 17.67 12.28
35% 19.28 13.89
20% 24.15 18.76
15% 27.83 22.44
10% 39.05 33.66
Revised NOx
17.08
10.81
10.81
10.81
Test
% MCR
4%
7%
13%
20%
40%
49%
50%
Test NOx
(g/kWh)
69.54
50.81
29.54
24.15
17.67
17.53
16.20
Vessel:
Type:
Size:
Launched:
Engine:
MCR
Test %MCR
Test RPM
Test % rated RPM
Propeller Type:
Est. rated RPM
B1
Bulk carrier
1720
1979
Main
1350
50%
850
80%
FPP
1068
dwt (tonnes)
kW
E2 Wghtd NOx g/kWh Revised E2 NOx
16.55 11.16
Applicable IMO std:
11.16
17.00
Comply with IMO? Revised?
FALSE TRUE
-------
n
NOx Emission Rates - Lloyd's
B2
35 oo
30.00 *•
_ 25.00 • - -
3 20 00
| 15.00 V • - " * '
2 10.00 -
5.00
0 00
0% 20% 40%
%MC
Test Information:
Test Test NOx
% MCR (g/kWh)
9% 30.84
22% 15.16
45% 17.42
67% 12.72
80% 9.11
89% 8.46
Medium Speed Ships -
<
• .
» ••
60% 80% 100%
R
Vessel: B2
Type: Bulk carrier
Size: 2018 dwt (tonnes)
Launched: 1982
Engine: Main
MCR 749 kW
Test.%MCR all
Test RPM 900
Test % rated RPM
Propeller Type: CPP
Est. rated RPM 900
Point Estimates
% MCR NOx g/kWh
Profile Points
Uncon.
IMO
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
30.03
17.67
15.95
16.95
16.29
14.16
11.84
9.11
8.46
8.46
% MCR
85%
80%
40%
35%
20%
15%
10%
NOx g/kWh
8.77
9.11
16.95
16.45
17.67
23.85
30.03
E2 Test Procedure
%MCR NOxg/kWh Revised NOx
25% 15.46 NA
50% 16.29 NA
75% 10.49 NA
100% 8.46 NA
E2 Wghtd NOx g/kWh Revised E2 NOx
10.80 NA
Applicable IMO std:
11.54 11.54
Comply with IMO? Revised?
TRUE NA
8.77
9.11
16.95
16.45
17.67
23.85
30.03
-------
o
NOx Emission Rates - Lloyd's Medium Speed Ships -
B3
°0 00
15.00
z
S 10.00
X
5.00
0 00
•
- * -
. .. ._.,». ... .
* "
••- - - -
(
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
%MCR
Point Estimates
% MCR NOx g/kWh
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
14.17
8.48
9.57
10.33
10.70
11.07
11.45
11.61
11.61
11.61
Profile Points
Uncon.
% MCR
85%
80%
40%
35%
20%
15%
10%
IMO
NOX g/kWh
11.61
11.61
10.33
10.15
8.48
10.02
14.17
11.61
11.61
10.33
10.15
8.48
10.02
14.17
E2 Test Procedure
% MCR
25%
50%
75%
Test Information: 100%
NOx g/kWh
9.03
10.70
11.61
11.61
Revised NOx
NA
NA-
NA
NA
Test
% MCR
5%
17%
35%
74%
Test NOx
(g/kWh)
18.71
8.18
10.15
11.61
Vessel:
Type:
Size:
Launched:
Engine:
MCR
Test %MCR
Test RPM
Test % rated RPM
Propeller Type:
Est. rated RPM
B3
Bulk carrier
1593
1975
Main
552
74%
320
91%
FPP
353
dwt (tonnes)
kW
E2 Wghtd NOx g/kWh Revised E2 NOx
11.37 NA
Applicable IMO std:
13.92
13.92
Comply with IMO? Revised?
TRUE NA
-------
o
NOx Emission Rates - Lloyd's Medium Speed Ships -
B4
«
45.00
40.00
35.00
2- 30.00
1 25.00
f 20.00
z 15.00
10.00
5.00
0 00
*
-
-^ ..^ ... .. • - .-..*.-
i
•
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
V.MCR
Point Estimates
% MCR NOx g/kWh
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
31.61
12.14
13.80
14.32
14.99
15.60
16.11
16.39
16.39
16.39
Profile Points
Uncon.
% MCR
85%
80%
40%
35%
20%
15%
10%
IMO
NOx g/kWh
16.39
16.39
14.32
14.02
12.14
22.04
31.61
12.86
12.86
10.79
10.49
8.60
18.51
28.08
E2 Test Procedure
% MCR
25%
CftO/
UU/0
75%
Test Information: 100%
NOx g/kWh
12.96
MQQ
.yy
16.39
16.39
Revised NOx
9.43
11 Af\
I 1 .HD
12.86
12.86
Test
% MCR
5%
20%
30%
37%
56%
75%
Test NOx
(g/kWh)
41.57
12.14
13.80
14.09
15.39
16.39
Vessel:
Type:
Size:
Launched:
Engine:
MCR
Test %MCR
Test RPM
Test % rated RPM
Propeller Type:
Est. rated RPM
B4
Bulk carrier
14201
1986
Main
3965
all
600
CPP
600
dwt (tonnes)
kW
E2 Wghtd NOx g/kWh Revised E2 NOx
16.05 12.52
Applicable IMO std:
12.52
12.52
Comply with IMO? Revised?
FALSE TRUE
-------
O
oo
NO
T:
45.00
40.00
35.00
•Z 30.00
1 25.00
^ 20.00
i 15.00
10.00
5.00
0.00
0
x Emission Rates - Lloyd's Mediym Speed Ships -
B5
« . . .- -
*- > - .+- + .'. «
1
>/o 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
SMCR
Test Information:
Test
% MCR
5%
28%
40%
66%
75%
91%
Test NOx
(g/kWh)
40.38
14.92
14.32
14.84
16.33
14.91
Vessel:
Type:
Size:
Launched:
Engine:
MCR
Test %MCR
Test RPM
Test % rated RPM
Propeller Type:
Est. rated RPM
B5
Bulk carrier
14201
1986
Main
3963
all
595
CPP
595
dwt (tonnes)
kW
Point Estimates
% MCR NOx g/kWh
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
34.55
23.86
14.84
14.32
14.52
14.72
15.48
15.91
15.00
14.91
Profile Points
Uncon.
% MCR
85%
80%
40%
35%
20%
15%
10%
IMO
NOx g/kWh
15.46
15.91
14.32
14.57
23.86
29.20
34.55
12.16
12.61
11.02
11.27
20.56
25.91
31.25
E2 Test Procedure
% MCR
25%
50%
75%
100%
NOx g/kWh
18.52
14.52
16.33
14.91
Revised NOx
15.22
11.22
13.03
11.61
E2 Wghtd NOx g/kWh Revised E2 NOx
15.84 12.54
Applicable IMO std:
12.54
12.54
Comply with IMO? Revised?
FALSE TRUE
-------
n
NO
25.00
20.00
1 15.00
Ot
S 10.00
5.00
0.00
0
x Emission Rates - Lloyd's Medium Speed Ships -
CT1
* • -*
•._•-..
'
>/o 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
SMCR
Test Information:
Point Esti
% MCR
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
. 60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
E2 Test P
% MCR
25%
50%
75%
100%
mates
NOx g/kWh
24.20
22.14
21.57
21.13
19.36
17.48
16.37
15.82
15.82
15.82
rocedure
NOx g/kWh
21.79
19.36
15.82
15.82
Profile Points
Uncon. IMO
% MCR NOxg/kWh
85% 15.82 11.36
80% 15.82 11.36
40% 21.13 16.67
35% 21.35 16.89
20% 22.14 17.68
15% 23.17 18.71
10% 24.20 19.74
Revised NOx
17.33
11.36
11.36
Test
% MCR
6%
21%
42%
58%
75%
Test NOx
(g/kWh)
24.97
21.97
21.06
17.67
15.82
Vessel:
Type:
Size:
Launched:
Engine:
MCR
Test %MCR
Test RPM
Test % rated RPM
Propeller Type:
Est. rated RPM
CT1
Container
22858 dwt (tonnes)
1980
Gen Set
960 kW
NA
720
NA
720
E2 Wghtd NOx g/kWh Revised E2 NOx
16.53 12.07
Applicable IMO std:
12.07 12.07
Comply with IMO? Revised?
FALSE TRUE
-------
O
NO
35.00
30.00
25.00
| 20.00
| 15.00
z 10.00
5.00
0.00
0
x Emission Rates - Lloyd's Medium Speed Ships -
D1
• . ... .
»- *- *-
f
>/o 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
SMCR
Test Information:
Point Esti
% MCR
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
E2 Test P
% MCR
25%
50%
75%
100%
mates
NOx g/kWh
28.00
22.13
16.26
12.13
12.25
12.29
12.34
12.31
11.78
11.24
rocedure
NOx g/kWh
19.20
12.25
12.37
11.24
Profile Points
Uncon. IMO
% MCR NOx g/kWh
85% 12.04 12.04
80% 12.31 12.31
40% 12.13 12.13
35% 13.33 13.33
20% 22.13 22.13
15% 25.06 25.06
10% 28.00 28.00
Revised NOx
NA
NA.
NA
NA
Test
% MCR
4%
37%
48%
79%
105%
Test NOx
(g/kWh)
31.65
12.09
12.24
12.38
10.96
Vessel:
Type:
Size:
Launched:
Engine:
MCR
Test %MCR
Test RPM
Test % rated RPM
Propeller Type:
Est. rated RPM
D1
Dredger
5271
1974
main
3042
all
600
CPP
600
dwt (tonnes)
kW
E2 Wghtd NOx g/kWh Revised E2 NOx
12.40 NA
Applicable IMO std:
12.52
12.52
Comply with IMO? Revised?
TRUE NA
-------
NO
70.00 i
en nn
50 00 •
c
5 40 00 -
"* 30 00
2 20.00
10 00
0 00
x Emission Rates - Lloyd's Medium Speed Ships -
D2
-
* • - «
-
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
SMCR
n
Test Information:
Point Estimates
% MCR
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
NOx g/kWh
44.16
23.59
21.78
19.99
18.41
16.82
15.24
14.34
14.34
14.34
Profile Points
% MCR
85%
80%
40%
35%
20%
15%
10%
Uncon.
IMO
NOxg/kWh
14.34
14.34
19.99
20.87
23.59
28.50
44.16
11.56
11.56
17.21
18.09
20.80
25.71
41.38
E2 Test Procedure
% MCR
25%
50%
75%
100%
NOx g/kWh
22.68
18.41
14.45
14.34
Revised NOx
19.90
15.63
11.66
11.56
Test
% MCR
5%
16%
39%
76%
Test NOx
(g/kWh)
60.28
24.25
20.20
14.34
Vessel:
Type:
Size:
Launched:
Engine:
MCR
Test %MCR
Test RPM
Test % rated RPM
Propeller Type:
Est. rated RPM
D2
Dredger
2636
1969
main
1504
76%
550
91%
FPP
601
E2 Wghtd NOx g/kWh Revised E2 NOx
15.30 12.51
dwt (tonnes)
kW
Applicable IMO std:
12.51
12.51
Comply with IMO? Revised?
FALSE TRUE
-------
NOx Emission Rates - Lloyd's Medium Speed
D3
15 00 l
40.00
35.00
_ 30.00 •
£
| 25.00 -
f 20.00 » --.-
o
z 15.00 .-- « .
10.00
5.00
0 00
0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
SMCR
•j . Test Information:
to
Test Test NOx Vessel:
%MCR (g/kWh) Type:
4% 44.76 Size:
6% 30.36 Launched:
15% 20.35 Engine:
46% 14.63 MCR
78% 12.42 Test%MCR
Test RPM
Ships -
•
.
100%
Point Estimates
% MCR NOx g/kWh
10% 25.63
20% 19.39
30% 17.56
40% 15.73
50% 14.36
60% 13.67
70% 12.99
80% 12.42
90% 12.42
100% 12.42
E2 Test Procedure
% MCR NOx g/kWh
25% 18.47
cr\Q/ A A oe
JU /O It.OU
75% 12.65
100% 12.42
D3 E2 Wghtd NOx g/kWh
Dredger 13.09
2467 dwt (tonnes)
1 963 Applicable IMO std:
main 11.89
369 kW
78% Comply with IMO?
716 FALSE
Profile Points
Uncon. IMO
% MCR NOx g/kWh
85% 12.42 11.23
80% 12.42 11.23
40% 15.73 14.54
35% 16.65 15.45
20% 19.39 18.19
15% 20.35 19.16
10% 25.63 24.43
Revised NOx
17.28
A O -1 O
To. 1p
11.45
11.23
Revised E2 NOx
11.89
11.89
Revised?
TRUE
Test % rated RPM 92%
Propeller Type:
Est. rated RPM
FPP
776
-------
n
NO
40.00
35.00
30.00
1 25.00
| 20.00
g 15.00
10.00
5.00
0.00
0
x Emission Rates - Lloyd's Medium Speed Ships -
D4
•. . ••
• »
".. ."*".' - *- - .'- - . - '
'
/o 20% 40% 60% 80% ' 100%
SMCR
Test Information:
Point Esti
% MCR
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
E2 Test P
% MCR
25%
50%
75%
100%
mates
NOx g/kWh
29.53
17.35
13.38
12.58
11.91
11.91
11.91
11.91
11.91
11.91
rocedure
NOx g/kWh
15.19
11.91
11.91
11.91
Profile Points
Uncon. IMO
% MCR NOx g/kWh
85% 11.91 11.08
80% 11.91 11.08
40% 12.58 11.75
35% 12.98 12.16
20% 17.35 16.52
15% 19.69 18.86
10% 29.53 28.70
Revised NOx
14.37
11.08
11.08
11.08
Test
% MCR
7%
15%
29%
48%
Test NOx
(g/kWh)
35.51
19.69
13.46
11.91
Vessel:
Type:
Size:
Launched:
Engine:
MCR
Test %MCR
Test RPM
Test % rated RPM
Propeller Type:
Est. rated RPM
D4
Dredger
1944
1969
main
872
48%
800
78%
FPP
1019
dwt (tonnes)
kW
E2 Wghtd NOx g/kWh Revised E2 NOx
12.09 11.26
Applicable IMO std:
11.26
11.26
Comply with IMO? Revised?
FALSE TRUE
-------
NOx Emission Rates - Lloyd's Medium Speed Ships -
D5
, 18.00
16.00
14.00
_ 12.00
§ 10.00
f 8.00
z 6.00
4.00
2.00
0.00
0%
20% 40% 60%
%MCR
80%
100%
n
Test Information:
Test
% MCR
6%
24%
37%
50%
76%
89%
Test NOx
(g/kWh)
16.75
8.89
11.38
10.72
11.38
11.49
Vessel:
Type:
Size:
Launched:
Engine:
MCR
Test %MCR
Test RPM
"~ Test % rated RPM
Propeller Type:
Est. rated RPM
D5
Dredger
4734
1974
main
1725
all
825
CPP
825
dwt (tonnes)
kW
Point Estimates
% MCR
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
NOx g/kWh
15.18
10.69
10.06
11.21
10.72
10.98
11.23
11.42
11.49
11.49
Profile Points
% MCR
85%
80%
40%
35%
20%
15%
10%
Uncon.
IMO
NOx g/kWh
11.46
11.42
11.21
11.03
10.69
12.93
15.18
11.46
11.42
11.21
11.03
10.69
12.93
15.18
E2 Test Procedure
% MCR
25%
50%
75%
100%
NOx g/kWh
9.09
10.72
11.36
11.49
Revised NOx
NA
NA.
NA
NA
E2 Wghtd NOx g/kWh Revised E2 NOx
11.20 NA
Applicable IMO std:
11.75
11.75
Comply with IMO? Revised?
TRUE NA
-------
NOx Emission Rates -
Ffl ftfi
50.00 *
_ 40.00
g -
3 30.00 *- - - •
° 20.00 - - - - -
10.00 -
0 00
0% 20%
^ Test Information:
Test Test NOx
% MCR (g/kWh)
4% 53.13
9% 32.93
19% 16.43
40% 11.39
62% 8.14
75% 7.69
Lloyd's Medium Speed Ships -
D6
._ .
-*• - -* . -
•* »
40% 60% 80%
%MCR
Vessel:
Type:
Size:
Launched:
Engine:
MCR
Test %MCR
Test RPM
Test % rated RPM
Propeller Type:
Est. rated RPM
100%
Point Estimates
% MCR NOx g/kWh
10% 30.96
20% 16.27
30% 13.83
40% 11.39
50% 9.89
60% 8.40
70% 7.86
80% 7.69
90% 7.69
100% 7.69
E2 Test Procedure
% MCR NOx g/kWh
25% 15.05
50% 9.89
75% 7.69
100% 7.69
D6 E2 Wghtd NOx g/kWh
Dredger 8.33
5209 dwt (tonnes)
1971 Applicable IMO std:
main 11.72
984 kW
75% Comply with IMO?
760 TRUE
91%
FPP
835
Profile Points
Uncon. IMO
% MCR
85%
80%
40%
35%
20%
15%
10%
Revised NOx
NA
NA-
NA
NA
Revised E2 NOx
NA
11.72
Revised?
NA
NOxg/kWh
7.69 7.69
7.69 7.69
11.39 11.39
12.61 12.61
16.27 16.27
23.16 23.16
30.96 30.96
-------
NO
14.00
12.00
10.00
1 8'°°
3 6.00
Z 4.00
2.00
0.00
0
x Emission Rates - Lloyd's Medium Speed Ships -
R1-C
- »
* *-•' - « . -
•
Ji 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
SMCR
Test Information:
Point Esti
% MCR
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
E2 Test P
% MCR
25%
50%
75%
100%
mates
NOx g/kWh
12.59
12.59
12.59
11.99
10.93
10.32
9.88
9.68
9.68
9.68
rocedure
NOx g/kWh
12.59
10.93
9.68
9.68
Profile Points
Uncon. I MO
%MCR . NOxg/kWh
85% 9.68 9.68
80% 9.68 9.68
40% 11.99 11.99
35% 12.53 12.53
20% 12.59 12.59
15% 12.59 12.59
10% 12.59 12.59
Revised NOx
NA
NA
NA
NA
Test
% MCR
34%
53%
61%
75%
Test NOx
(g/kWh)
12.59
10.64
10.28
9.68
Vessel:
Type:
Size:
Launched:
Engine:
MCR
Test %MCR
Test RPM
Test % rated RPM
Propeller Type:
Est. rated RPM
R1
RORO
2467
1974
dwt (tonnes)
centre main
3420
all
530
CPP
530
kW
E2 Wghtd NOx g/kWh Revised E2 NOx
9.97 NA
Applicable IMO std:
12.83 12.83
Comply with IMO? Revised?
TRUE NA
-------
NOx Emission Rates - Lloyd's Medium Speed Ships -
R1-S
25.00
20.00
15.00
10.00-
5.00
0.00
• .
0%
20%
40% 60%
V.MCR
80%
100%
Test Information:
Point Estimates
% MCR NOx g/kWh
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
21.41
14.82
12.51
11.92
11.34
10.90
10.70
10.70
10.70
10.70
Profile Points
Uncon.
% MCR
85%
80%
40%
35%
20%
15%
10%
IMO
NOx g/kWh
10.70
10.70
11.92
12.20
14.82
16.10
21.41
10.70
10.70
11.92
12.20
14.82
16.10
21.41
E2 Test Procedure
% MCR
25%
50%
75%
100%
NOx g/kWh
13.62
11.34
10.70
10.70
Revised NOx
NA
NA
NA
NA
Test
% MCR
6%
8%
15%
30%
54%
66%
Test NOx
(g/kWh)
18.65
23.31
16.10
12.51
11.10
10.70
Vessel:
Type:
Size:
Launched:
Engine:
MCR
Test %MCR
Test RPM
Test % rated RPM
Propeller Type:
Est. rated RPM
R1
RORO
2467
1974
starboard
3281
68%
502
CPP
500
dwt (tonnes)
main
kW
E2 Wghtd NOx g/kWh Revised E2 NOx
10.93 NA
Applicable IMO std:
12.98 12.98
Comply with IMO? Revised?
TRUE NA
-------
o
N)
oo
NOJ
18.00
16.00
14.00
2- 12.00
1 10.00
~ 8.00
° 6.00
4.00
2.00
0.00
0
c Emission Rates - Lloyd's Medium Speed Ships -
R2-P
J9
;. -:>-V- ; •*";-'. ":-•:
i
% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
%MCR
Test Information:
Point Estii
% MCR
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
E2 Test Pi
% MCR
25%
50%
75%
100%
•nates
NOx g/kWh
8.87
9.68
10.60
10.94
11.28
12.11
13.84
15.57
17.31
16.44
rocedure
NOx g/kWh
10.42
11.28
14.71
16.44
Profile Points
Uncon. IMO
% MCR NOx g/kWh
85% 16.44 14.77
80% 15.57 13.90
40% 10.94 9.27
35% 10.77 9.10
20% 9.68 8.01
15% 8.87 7.20
10% 8.87 7.20
Revised NOx
8.75
9.61
13.04
14.77
Test
% MCR
17%
22%
57%
92%
102%
115%
Test NOx
(g/kWh)
8.87
10.33
11.50
17.60
16.11
14.99
Vessel:
Type:
Size:
Launched:
Engine:
MCR
Test %MCR
Test RPM
Test % rated RPM
Propeller Type:
Est. rated RPM
R2
RORO
4621 dwt (tonnes)
1987
port main
6545 kW
all
510
CPP
510
E2 Wghtd NOx g/kWh
14.60
Applicable IMO std:
12.93
Revised E2 NOx
12.93
12.93
Comply with IMO? Revised?
FALSE TRUE
-------
NOx Emission Rates
T;
19 nn
I£.UU
_ 10.00
I 8.00 * -
i
J 6.00
i
4.00
2.00
0 00
0%
-*
20%
- Lloyd's Medium Speed
R2-C
* — =~
w*
40% 60% 80%
SMCR
(ij . Test Information:
VO
Test
% MCR
8%
22%
41%
76%
96%
105%
Test NOx
(g/kWh)
8.06
9.13
11.33
13.84
13.67
13.75
Vessel:
Type:
Size:
Launched:
Engine:
MCR
Test %MCR
Test RPM
Ships -
* •
t
100%
Point Estimates
% MCR NOx g/kWh
10% 8.22
20% 8.98
30% 10.05
40% 11.19
50% 11.96
60% 12.67
70% 13.38
80% 13.81
90% 13.72
100% 13.70
E2 Test Procedure
% MCR NOx g/kWh
25% 9.48
CAO/ 4
-------
U)
o
NO
45.00
40.00
35.00
2- 30.00
1 25.00
? 20.00
° 15.00
10.00
5.00
0.00
0
x Emission Rates - Lloyd's Medium Speed Ships -
R3-P
* -.
'
>/o 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
KMCR
Test Information:
Test
% MCR
4%
8%
22%
52%
72%
100%
Test NOx
(g/kWh)
43.47
36.05
20.60
16.61
15.34
13.75
Vessel:
Type:
Size:
Launched:
Engine:
MCR
Test %MCR
Test RPM
Test % rated RPM
Propeller Type:
Est. rated RPM
R3
RORO
8704
1987
port main
4780
all
512
CPP
512.
dwt (tonnes)
kW
Point Estimates
% MCR NOx g/kWh
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
33.48
22.33
19.51
18.21
16.91
16.11
15.47
14.88
14.31
13.75
Profile Points
Uncon.
% MCR
85%
80%
40%
35%
20%
15%
10%
IMO
NOx g/kWh
14.60
14.88
18.21
18.86
22.33
27.91
33.48
12.30
12.59
15.91
16.56
20.04
25.61
31.19
E2 Test Procedure
% MCR NOx g/kWh Revised NOx
25% 20.16 17.86
50% 16.91 14.61
75% 15.17 12.88
100% 13.75 11.45
E2 Wghtd NOx g/kWh Revised E2 NOx
15.22 12.92
Applicable IMO std:
12.92
12.92
Comply with IMO? Revised?
FALSE TRUE
-------
NO
45.00
40.00
35.00
2- 30.00
1 25.00
f 20.00
i 15.00
10.00
5.00
0.00
0
x Emission Rates - Lloyd's Medium Speed Ships -
R3-S
•
• -" "- -*•-• ------ • +
1
'/o 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
%MCR
Test Information:
Point Esti
% MCR
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
E2 Test P
% MCR
25%
50%
75%
100%
mates
NOx g/kWh
33.36
24.58
19.15
17.01
16.12
15.25
14.61
13.98
13.36
13.29
rocedure
NOx g/kWh
21.86
16.12
14.29
13.29
Profile Points
Uncon. IMO
% MCR NOx g/kWh
85% 13.67 11.94
80% 13.98 12.25
40% 17.01 15.28
35% 17.46 15.73
20% 24.58 22.85
15% 27.30 25.57
10% 33.36 31.63
Revised NOx
20.13
14.39
12.56
11.56
Test
% MCR
4%
13%
33%
60%
91%
100%
Test NOx
(g/kWh)
42.11
28.13
17.67
15.25
13.29
13.29
Vessel:
Type:
Size:
Launched:
Engine:
MCR
Test %MCR
Test RPM
Test % rated RPM
Propeller Type:
Est. rated RPM
R3
RORO
8704
1987
starboard
4780
all
520
CPP
520
dwt (tonnes)
main
kW
E2 Wghtd NOx g/kWh Revised E2 NOx
14.61 12.88
Applicable IMO std:
12.88
12.88
Comply with IMO? Revised?
FALSE TRUE
-------
NOx Emission Rates - Lloyd's Medium Speed Ships -
R4
14.00
12.00
10.00
8.00
6.00
4.00
2.00
0.00
* '
*
0%
20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
%MCR
n
U)
K)
Test Information:
Test
% MCR
18%
42%
56%
78%
93%
Test NOx
(g/kWh)
13.62
10.86
12.17
11.77
10.97
Vessel:
Type:
Size:
Launched:
Engine:
MCR
Test %MCR
Test RPM
Test % rated RPM
Propeller Type:
Est. rated RPM
R4
RORO
3767 dwt (tonnes)
1978
port main
4246 kW
all
570
CPP
570
Point Estimates
% MCR NOx g/kWh
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
13.62
13.36
12.23
11.10
11.59
12.10
11.92
11.67
11.11
10.97
Profile Points
Uncon.
% MCR
85%
80%
40%
35%
20%
15%
10%
IMO
NOx g/kWh
11.39
11.67
11.10
11.66
13.36
13.62
13.62
11.39
11.67
11.10
11.66
13.36
13.62
13.62
E2 Test Procedure
% MCR
25%
50%
75%
100%
E2 Wghtd
NOx g/kWh
12.79
1 1 759
11.83
10.97
NOx g/kWh
11.61
Revised
NA
NA
NA
NA
Revised
NA
NOx
E2NOx
Applicable IMO std:
12.65
12.65
Comply with IMO? Revised?
TRUE NA
-------
NOx Emission Rates - Lloyd's Medium Speed Ships -
R5-C
16.00
14.00
12.00
1 10.00
| 8.00
g 6.00
4.00
2.00
0.00
o%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
9
U)
Test Information:
Test
% MCR
19%
21%
35%
64%
79%
Test NOx
(g/kWh)
12.13
11.23
12.20
12.95
14.43
Vessel:
Type:
Size:
Launched:
Engine:
MCR
Test %MCR
Test RPM
Test % rated RPM
Propeller Type:
Est. rated RPM
R5
RORO
1616
1976
dwt (tonnes)
centre main
3952
all
530
CPP
530
kW
Point Estimates
% MCR NOx g/kWh
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
12.13
11.65
11.84
12.32
12.59
12.85
13.58
14.43
14.43
14.43
Profile Points
Uncon.
% MCR
85%
80%
40%
35%
20%
15%
10%
IMO
NOxg/kWh
14.43
14.43
12.32
12.20
11.65
12.13
12.13
13.39
13.39
11.28
11.16
10.61
11.09
11.09
E2 Test Procedure
% MCR
25%
50%
75%
100%
NOx g/kWh
11.50
12.59
14.07
14.43
Revised NOx
10.46
11.55
13.03
13.39
E2 Wghtd NOx g/kWh Revised E2 NOx
13.87 12.83
Applicable IMO std:
12.83
12.83
Comply with IMO? Revised?
FALSE TRUE
-------
NOx Emission Rates - Lloyd's Medium Speed Ships -
R5-S
o
25.00
20.00
| 15.00
$ 10.00
z
5.00
0.00
0%
20%
40% 60%
SMCR
80%
100%
Test Information:
Point Estimates
% MCR NOx g/kWh
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
E2 Test
19.13
15.11
11.00
11.35
11.58
11.67
11.80
11.99
12.18
12.23
Procedure
% MCR NOx g/kWh
25%
50%
75%
100%
13.10
11.58
11.89
12.23
Profile Points
Uncon.
% MCR
85%
80%
40%
35%
20%
15%
10%
Revised NOx
NA
NA.
NA
NA
IMO
NOx g/kWh
12.09
11.99
11.35
11.17
15.11
17.12
19.13
12.09
11.99
11.35
11.17
15.11
17.12
19.13
Test
% MCR
7%
30%
45%
67%
93%
Test NOx
(g/kWh)
20.21
11.00
11.54
11.73
12.23
Vessel:
Type: .
Size:
Launched:
Engine:
MCR
Test %MCR
Test RPM
Test % rated RPM
Propeller Type:
Est. rated RPM
R5
RORO
1616
1976
starboard
3281
see data
570
CPP
570
dwt (tonnes)
main
kW
E2 Wghtd NOx g/kWh Revised E2 NOx
12.02 NA
Applicable IMO std:
12.65
12.65
Comply with IMO? Revised?
TRUE NA
-------
n
NO
18.00
16.00
14.00
S 12.00
1 10.00
f 8.00
° 6.00
4.00
2.00
0.00
0'
x Emission Rates - Lloyd's Medium Speed Ships -
R6
• .
"".':-..... : .» .- .- *-.:. "
«--• •*- "
t
/o 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
%MCR
Test Information:
Point Esti
% MCR
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
E2 Test P
% MCR
25%
50%
75%
100%
mates
NOx g/kWh
16.57
15.22
13.86
12.51
11.52
12.90
14.49
14.78
15.03
15.03
rocedure
NOx g/kWh
14.54
11.52
14.64
15.03
Profile Points
Uncon. IMO
% MCR NOx g/kWh
85% 14.93 13.36
80% 14.78 13.21
40% 12.51 10.93
35% 13.18 11.61
20% 15.22 13.64
15% 15.89 14.32
10% 16.57 15.00
Revised NOx
12.97
9.95
13.07
13.46
Test
% MCR
8%
48%
56%
64%
88%
Test NOx
(g/kWh)
16.89
11.47
11.65
14.33
15.03
Vessel:
Type:
Size:
Launched:
Engine:
MCR
Test %MCR
Test RPM
Test % rated RPM
Propeller Type:
Est. rated RPM
R6
RORO
1268
1974
dwt (tonnes)
centre main
3281
all
530
CPP
530
kW
E2 Wghtd NOx g/kWh Revised E2 NOx
14.41 12.83
Applicable IMO std:
12.83
12.83
Comply with IMO? Revised?
FALSE TRUE
-------
NO
25.00
20.00
| 15.00
"&
I 10.00
5.00
0.00
0
x Emission Rates - Lloyd's Medium Speed Ships -
R7-C
«
.._--• - •
* -
I
'/o 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
%MCR
Test Information:
Point Esti
% MCR
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
E2 Test P
% MCR
25%
50%
75%
100%
mates
NOx g/kWh
18.97
14.05
11.65
12.64
13.63
14.39
14.84
15.29
15.51
15.26
raced u re
NOx g/kWh
11.58
13.63
15.06
15.26
Profile Points
Uncon. IMO
% MCR NOx g/kWh
85% 15.48 13.64
80% 15.29 13.46
40% 12.64 10.81
35% 12.15 10.32
20% 14.05 12.21
15% 16.51 14.68
10% 18.97 17.14
Revised NOx
9.75
11.80
13.23
13.43
Test
% MCR
5%
26%
56%
84%
95%
102%
Test NOx
(g/kWh)
21.34
11.23
14.20
15.47
15.54
15.16
Vessel:
Type:
Size:
Launched:
Engine:
MCR
Test %MCR
Test RPM
Test % rated RPM
Propeller Type:
Est. rated RPM
R7
RORO
4478
1987
dwt (tonnes)
centre main
7700
see data
510
CPP
508
kW
E2 Wghtd NOx g/kWh Revised E2 NOx
14.78 12.94
Applicable IMO std:
12.94
12.94
Comply with IMO? Revised?
FALSE TRUE
-------
NOx Emission Rates - Lloyd's Medium Speed Ships -
R7-Sgen
25.00
20.00
f 15.00
I
5 10.00
z
5.00
0.00
0%
20%
40% 60%
%MCR
80%
100%
n
Test Information:
Test
% MCR
5%
25%
50%
75%
93%
Test NOx
(g/kWh)
20.72
14.49
11.81
10.30
9.94
Vessel:
Type:
Size:
Launched:
Engine:
MCR
Test %MCR
Test RPM
Test % rated RPM
Propeller Type:
Est. rated RPM
R7
RORO
4478 dwt (tonnes)
1987
starboard generator
1400 kW
NA
1050
NA
1050
Point Estimates
% MCR
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
NOx g/kWh
19.17
16.05
13.96
12.89
11.81
11.21
10.60
10.20
10.00
9.94
Profile Points
Uncon.
% MCR NOx
85% 10.10
80% 10.20
40% 12.89
35% 13.42
20% 16.05
15% 17.61
10% 19.17
IMO
g/kWh
10.10
10.20
12.89
13.42
16.05
17.61
19.17
E2 Test Procedure
% MCR
25%
50%
75%
100%
NOx g/kWh
14.49
11.81
10.30
9.94
E2 Wghtd NOx g/kWh
Applicable
10.59
IMOstd:
11.19
Comply with IMO?
TRUE
Revised
NA
NA
NA
NA
Revised
NA
11.19
NOx
E2NOx
Revised?
NA
-------
NOx Emission Rates
'!
1Q 00
15.00
I
| 10.00 ' *
o
z
5.00
0 00
0% 20%
^ Test Information:
oo
Test Test NOx
% MCR (g/kWh)
5% 18.71
30% 9.94
55% 13.79
83% 15.05
90% 14.87
97% 14.71
- Lloyd's Medium Speed Ships -
R7-P
.. _>
- *
40% 60% 80%
SMCR
Vessel:
Type:
Size:
Launched:
Engine:
MCR
Test %MCR
Test RPM
Test % rated RPM
Propeller Type:
Est. rated RPM
-+ -• •
'
100%
Point Estimates
% MCR NOx g/kWh
10% 17.00
20% 13.44
30% 9.94
40% 11.52
50% 13.08
60% 14.04
70% 14.48
80% 14.93
90% 14.87
100% 14.71
E2 Test Procedure
% MCR NOx g/kWh
25% 11.67
cno/ ^ o no
iJUVO IO.UO
75% . 14.70
100% 14.71
R7 E2 Wghtd NOx g/kWh
RORO 14.36
4478 dwt (tonnes)
1 987 Applicable IMO std :
port main 12.93
7700 kW
all Comply with IMO?
510 FALSE
CPP
510
Profile Points
Uncon. IMO
% MCR
85%
80%
40%
35%
20%
15%
10%
Revised NOx
10.24
1 1 KH
\ \ .DO
13.27
13.28
Revised E2 NOx
12.93
12.93
Revised?
TRUE
NOx g/kWh
15.00 13.57
14.93 13.50
11.52. 10.09
10.74 9.31
13.44 12.01
15.22 13.79
17.00 15.57
-------
O
NO)
60.00
50.00
j 40.00
| 30.00
i 20.00
10.00
0.00
0
c Emission Rates - Lloyd's Medium Speed Ships -
TK1
*
v - -> - - •- * '•
<
'/o 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
V.MCR
Test Information:
Point Esti
% MCR
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
E2 Test Pi
% MCR
25%
50%
75%
100%
mates
NOx g/kWh
45.39
22.60
16.03
15.83
15.34
14.58
13.68
12.28
11.97
11.97
•ocedure
NOx g/kWh
16.13
15.34
12.98
11.97
Profile Points
Uncon. IMO
% MCR NOx g/kWh
85% 12.05 10.81
80% 12.28 11.04
40% 15.83 14.59
35% 15.93 14.69
20% 22.60 21.36
15% 33.99 32.75
10% 45.39 44.15
Revised NOx
14.89
14.10
11.74
10.73
Test
% MCR
5%
23%
45%
68%
81%
90%
Test NOx
(g/kWh)
57.47
16.18
15.73
13.99
12.11
11.97
Vessel:
Type:
Size:
Launched:
Engine:
MCR
Test %MCR
Test RPM
Test % rated RPM
Propeller Type:
Est. rated RPM
TK1
Tanker
844 dwt (tonnes)
1978
main
745 kW
81%
730
93%
FPP
781
E2 Wghtd NOx g/kWh Revised E2 NOx
13.11 11.88
Applicable IMO std:
11.88
11.88
Comply with IMO? Revised?
FALSE TRUE
-------
NOx Emission Rates - Lloyd's Medium Speed Ships -
TK2
,,
30 00
25.00 * . .
_. 20.00 - _ . .
| 15.00 - - i
i 10.00 "*-*•-
5.00
0 00
0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
%MCR
^ Test Information:
o
Test Test NOx Vessel:
% MCR (g/kWh) Type:
5% 25.97 Size:
21% 13.29 Launched:
35% 13.43 Engine:
53% 11.45 MCR
70% 10.85 Test%MCR
Test RPM
Test % rated RPM
Propeller Type:
Est. rated RPM
•
. -
100%
Point Estimates
% MCR NOx g/kWh
10% 22.27
20% 14.34
30% 13.37
40% 12.89
50% 11.77
60% 11.19
70% 10.85
80% 10.85
90% 10.85
100% 10.85
E2 Test Procedure
% MCR NOx g/kWh
25% 13.32
CrtO/ A 4 T7
75% 10.85
100% 10.85
TK2 E2 Wghtd NOx g/kWh
Tanker 1 1 .08
18371 dwt (tonnes)
1968 Applicable IMO std:
centre main 1 3.32
3750 kW
all Comply with IMO?
440 TRUE
CPP
440
Profile Points
Uncon. IMO
% MCR
85%
80%
40%
35%
20%
15%
10%
Revised NOx
NA
MA
INM .
NA
NA
Revised E2 NOx
NA
13.32
Revised?
NA
NOx g/kWh
10.85 10.85
10.85 10.85
12.89 12.89
13.43 13.43
14.34 14.34
18.31 18.31
22.27 22.27
-------
n
NO
30.00
25.00
s 20.00
S 15.00
° 10.00
5.00
0.00
0
x Emission Rates - Lloyd's Medium Speed Ships -
TK3
.? * -._.*. - -*
'
/o 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
SMCR
Test Information:
Point Esti
% MCR
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
E2 Test P
% MCR
25%
50%
75%
100%
mates
NOx g/kWh
24.13
20.21
16.30
12.39
11.52
11.43
11.35
11.12
10.87
10.77
rocedure
NOx g/kWh
18.26
11.52
11.24
10.77
Profile Points
Uncon. IMO
% MCR NOx g/kWh
85% 10.99 10.99
80% 11.12 11.12
40% 12.39 12.39
35% 14.35 14.35
20% 20.21 20.21
15% 22.17 22.17
10% 24.13 24.13
Revised NOx
NA
NA-
NA
NA
Test
% MCR
5%
41%
50%
71%
94%
Test NOx
(g/kWh)
26.24
11.92
11.52
11.34
10.77
Vessel:
Type:
Size:
Launched:
Engine:
MCR
Test %MCR
Test RPM
Test % rated RPM
Propeller Type:
Est. rated RPM
TK3
Tanker
12317 dwt (tonnes)
1978
port main
3257 kW
all
450
CPP
450
E2 Wghtd NOx g/kWh Revised E2 NOx
11.52 NA
Applicable IMO std:
13.26
13.26
Comply with IMO? Revised?
TRUE NA
-------
NOx Emission Rates
...
80.00
| 60.00
I
3 40.00
20.00
0%
* '
20%
- Lloyd's Medium Speed Ships -
TK4
* - «- *- » -
40% 60% 80%
%MCR
P Test Information:
to
Test
% MCR
5%
24%
37%
49%
58%
66%
Test NOx
(g/kWh)
93.73
10.99
9.09
8.24
8.08
8.11
Vessel:
Type:
Size:
Launched:
Engine:
MCR
Test %MCR
Test RPM
Test % rated RPM
Propeller Type:
Est. rated RPM
'
-
100%
Point Estimates
% MCR NOx g/kWh
10% 71.98
20% 28.27
30% ' 10.08
40% 8.86
50% 8.22
60% 8.09
70% 8.11
80% 8.11
90% 8.11
100% 8.11
E2 Test Procedure
% MCR NOx g/kWh
25% 10.83
50% 8.22
75% 8.11
100% 8.11
*
TK4 E2 Wghtd NOx g/kWh
Tanker 8.27
1673 dwt (tonnes)
1985 Applicable IMO std:
main 13.42
597 kW
66% Comply with IMO?
370 TRUE
87%
FPP
424
Profile Points
Uncon. IMO
% MCR NOx g/kWh
85%
80%
40%
35%
20%
15%
10%
Revised NOx
NA
NA
NA
NA
Revised E2 NOx
NA
13.42
Revised?
NA
8.11 8.11
8.11 8.11
8.86 8.86
9.32 9.32
28.27 28.27
50.12 50.12
71.98 71.98
-------
NOx Emission Rates - Lloyd's Medium Speed Ships -
TK5
""'
16 00
14.00
12.00
1 10.00
| 8.00
o 6.00
4.00
2.00
0 00
*
*•-*•-*-" -»
0% 20% . 40% 60% 80% 100%
%MCR
Point Estimates
% MCR NOx g/kWh
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
12.61
12.85
12.99
12.66
12.48
13.51
14.54
13.70
12.68
12.48
Profile Points
Uncon.
% MCR
85%
80%
40%
35%
20%
15%
10%
IMO
NOxg/kWh
13.19
13.70
12.66
12.83
12.85
12.73
12.61
11.71
12.22
11.19
11.35
11.37
11.25
11.13
E2 Test Procedure
% MCR
25%
mn/
— OU70
75%
Test Information: 100%
NOx g/kWh
12.97
1 O A Q
12.48
14.21
12.48
Revised NOx
11.49
1 H r\f\
1 l.UU
12.73
11.01
Test
% MCR
9%
28%
49%
71%
92%
Test NOx
(g/kWh)
12.60
13.04
12.38
14.63
12.48
Vessel:
Type:
Size:
Launched:
Engine:
MCR
Test %MCR
Test RPM
Test % rated RPM
Propeller Type:
Est. rated RPM
TK5
Tanker
2566
1979
main
745
all
750
CPP
750
dwt (tonnes)
kW
E2 Wghtd NOx g/kWh Revised E2 NOx
13.45 11.97
Applicable IMO std:
11.97 11.97
Comply with IMO?
FALSE
Revised?
TRUE
-------
ANALYSIS OF MARINE EMISSIONS IN
THE SOUTH COAST AIR BASIN
APPENDIX D
D-l
-------
Table D-l. Characterization of emissions from uncontrolled auxiliary engines
Ship Name
Manhattan Bridge
President Adams
Spring Bride
Beltimber
National Dignity
Walter Jacobs
California Jupiter
Sealand Explorer
Aurora Ace
Dynachem
Star Esperanza
Madame Butterfly
Evergroup
President Washington
Thorseggen
Hyundai Challenger
Test
kW
330
830
400
213
66
408
485
535
340
328
171
560
- 515
1315
248
670
Ib N
-------
Table D-2. Characterization of IMO-controlIed emissions for auxiliary engines
Shipping
Line
APL
APL
APL
Chevron
Chevron
Chevron
Chevron
Evergreen
Evergreen
Evergreen
Evergreen
Evergreen
Maersk
Matson
Malson
Matson
Matson
Zim
Zim
Chevron
APL
APL
APL
vlatson
Evergreen
Evergreen
vlatson
vlatson
Matson
Vlatson
TOTALS
Ship Class/Ship
C-10 "Adams"
C-9 "Lincoln"
Eisenhower
Carla Hills
Samuel Ginn
Kenneth Hill
Atlantic
R
G
GX
L
B
Mayview
Mahi Mahi
Chief Gadao
R.J. Pfeiffer
Maui
Unknown Class 2
Unknown Class 1
Louisville
C-10 "Adams""
C-9 "Lincoln"
Eisenhower
Vtatsonia
R
GX
vlahi Mahi
Chief Gadao
vlaui
R.J. Pfeiffer
TOTALS Less Emergency Gens
# Ships
5
3
2
6
2
2
1
10
20
11
6
3
1
3
3
1
2
8
7
4
5
3
2
2
10
11
3
3
2
1
142
100
Application
Gen
Gen
Gen
Gen
Gen
Gen
Gen
Gen
Gen
Gen
Gen
Gen
Gen
Gen
Gen
Gen
Gen
Gen
Gen
GTGen
Emer Gen?
Emer Gen?
Emer Gen?
Emer Gen
Emer Gen
Emer Gen
Emer Gen
Emer Gen
Emer Gen
Emer Gen
# Engines
per ship
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
1
3
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Total
Engines
15
9
4
12
4
4
2
40
60
33
18
9
3
9
3
3
2
16
14
8
5
3
2
2
10
11
3
3
2
1
310
268
hpper
engine
3351
3351
2145
805
1307
939
1200
2000
1100
1200
1100
385
2574
3500
2793
2681
3500
1800
1780
2950
525
670
268
469
167
150
670
335
375
670
Rated
RPM
600
450
600
720
900
720
720
720
720
720
720
720
720
450
900
720
1200
720
720
1800
1800
1800
1800
1800
1800
1800
1800
1200
1800
1800
Total kW
37500
22500
6400
7206
3900
2802
1790
59680
49236
29542
14771
2585
5760
23499
6251
6000
5222
21485
18592
17606
1960
1500
400
700
1246
1231
1500
750
560
500
352672
342326
IMONO,
g/kWh
12.5
13.3
12.5
12.1
11.5
12.1
12.1
12.1
12.1
12.1
12.1
12.1
12.1
13.3
11.5
12.1
10.9
12.1
12.1
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.9
10.0
10.0
Total less emergency gens g/hr divided by total kW
Weighted1
NO. g/hr
469476
298368
80124
86989
45023
33823
21612
720402
594332
356599
178299
31202
69529
311616
72160
72426
56913
259345
224425
176933
19698
15075
4020
7035
12520
12370
15075
8174
5623
5025
4264211 g/hr
4159597 g/hr
12.2 g/kWh
Notes:
'Weighted NO, g/hr is weighted by total power output at each NO, emissions rate to calculate an appropriate weighted average NO, rate
D-4
-------
Table D-3. Results — IMO NOX reductions from auxiliary engines by year
Uncontrolled NOx
IMO NOx
Calendar
Year
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
%IMO
2.44%
6.48%
11.27%
15.37%
19.49%
22.74%
27.23%
31.03%
37.09%
40.57% '
45.19%-
14.9 g/kWh
12.3 g/kWh
Calendar
Year-Specific
NOX Rates
(g/kWh)
14.8
14.7
14.6
14.5
14.4
14.3
14.2
14.1
13.9
13.8
13.7
As Percent of
Uncontrolled
Rate
99.6%
98.9%
98.0%
97.3%
96.6%
96.0%
95.2%
94.5%
93.4%
92.8%
92.0%
Uncontrolled
NO* Inventory
(tpd) Auxiliary
Engines
10.9
11.27
11.64
12.01
12.38
12.75
13.12
13.49
13.86
14.23
14.6
IMO-Controlled
NOX Inventory
(tpd) Auxiliary
Engines
10.9
11.1
11.4
11.7
12.0
12.2
12.5
12.8
13.0
13.2
13.4
NOX Reduction
from IMO
(tpd)
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.9
1.0
1.2
D-5
-------
ANALYSIS OF MARINE EMISSIONS IN
THE SOUTH COAST AIR BASIN
APPENDIX E
E-l
-------
Harbor Craft and Fishing Vessels - Analysis of Effects of National and International Standards
Introductory notes: 1. Distribution of engines by hp categories and calculation of average hp for each category were
made based on original data sets used for the SCAQMD study plus information from operators.
See text for more detail. *
2. RPM assumptions based on manufacturer literature, information provided by operators
of harbor craft operating in San Pedro Bay, and discussion with EPA staff.
3. Standards applicable to high-speed engines (1600+ rpm) are assumed to be those set forth for nonroad engines
in the Statement of Principles. These are NMHC+NOx standards of 5.6, 4.9, and 4.8 g/bhp-hr. For this study,
it is assumed that NMHC emissions from SOP-certified marine engines will be 0.6, 0.3, and 0.4 g/bhp-hr, respectively.
4. For engines under 1600 rpm, the IMO standard is applied.
5. Fleet turnover is expressed in terms of years to 100% turnover of the fleet. The fleet is assumed to be
distributed evenly over all years up to the "turnover age"
6. For tugs where the activity is modeled in terms of annual fuel consumption, NOx emission rates in g/bhp-hr
are converted to g/1000 gal fuel with the assumptions of BSFC = 160 g fuel/bhp-hr (Reference 3) and a fuel density
of 7.5 Ibs per gallon (0.9 kg/I).
7. For passenger vessels and workboats, load factors and activity were taken from the SCAQMD
study (which took them from an earlier study (Booz-Allen).
-------
TUG/TOW/PUSH BOATS
Assumed years to 100% fleet turnover:
40
Horsepower
Category
<300
300-599
600-749
749-999
1000-1499
1500-1999
2000-2499
2500-2999
3000-3499
3500-3999
4000-4499
4500-5499
Number
1995
Mooring Tugs
0
0
5
2
10
16
1
8
0
2
0
0
Totals 44
1993
Non-mooring
4
9
0
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
16
total
4
9
5
4
11
16
1
8
0
2
0
0
60
jAssumed
rated speed
rpm
1600+
1600+
1600+
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
NOx std.
g/bhp-hr
4.6
4.4
, 4.4
8.4
8.4
8.4
8.4
8.4
8.4
8.4
8.4
8.4
Year
of effect
2003
2001
2002
2000
' 2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
% cert Unc. NOx
in 2010 g/bhp-hr
20% 9.0
25% 9.0
23% 9.0
28% 9.0
28% 9.0
28% 9.0
28% 9.0
28% 9.0
28% 9.0
28% 9.0
28% 9.0
28% 9.0
Unc. NOx
lbs/1000gal
420
420
420
420
420
420
420
420
420
420
420
420
2010 NOx
g/bhp-hr
8.1
7.8
7.9
8.8
8.8
8.8
8.8
8.8
8.8
8.8
8.8
8.8
2010 NOx
lbs/1000gal
379
366
372
413
413
413
413
413
413
413
413
413
TUG/TOW/PUSH BOATS
Horsepower
Category
<300
300-599
600-749
749-999
1000-1499
1500-1999
2000-2499
2500-2999
3000-3499
3500-3999
4000-4499
4500-5499
Average Rated Power (hp)
Mooring Tugs| Non-mooring
225
405
620
925 825
1130 1005
1708
2150
2500
3500
Totals
2010
fuel use
(gal/hp/year)
42.7
42.7
42.7
42.7
42.7
42.7
42.7
42.7
42.7
42.7
42.7
42.7
Fuel used (gal/category/year)
Mooring Tugs | Non-mooring
0 38430
0 155642
132370 0
78995 70455
482510 42914
1166906 0
91805 0
854000 0
0 0
298900 0
0 0
0 0
3105486 307440
Unc. NOx
lbs/1000gal
0
420
420
420
420
420
420
420
420
420
420
420
Unc. NOx
tpy
0
33
28
31
110
245
19
179
0
63
0
0
708
2010 NOx
lbs/1000gal
0
366
372
413
413
413
413
413
413
413
413
413
2010 NOx
tpy
0
29
25
31
108
241
19
176
0
62
0
0
690
controlled/
uncontrolled
NOx
NA
87%
89%
98%
98%
98%
98%
98%
NA
98%
NA
NA
98%
-------
PASSENGER/EXCURSION
assumed average load factor=
assumed years to 100% fleet turnover =
47%
40
Horsepower
Category
0-49
50-99
100-174
175-299
300-599
600-749
750-999
1000-1499
1500-1999
2000-2499
Engine
Number
0
0
3
3
22
0
4
6
8
2
Totals 48
Avg hp
143
235
442
850
1115
1656
2000
Hours/yr
per boat
1760
1760
1760
1760
1760
1760
1760
3900
3500
3500
hp-hr/yr
per category
0
0
354869
583176
8043693
0
2812480
12262770
21792960
6580000
rpm
1600+
1600+
•'1600+
1600+
1600+
1600+
1600+
1600+
1600+
1600+
NOx std.
g/bhp-hr
5.0
4.6
, 4.6
4.4
4.4
4.4
4.4
4.4
4.4
Year
of effect
2004
2003
2003
2001
2002
2006
2006
2006
2006
% cert
in 2010
18%
20%
20%
25%
23%
13%
13%
13%
13%
Unc. NOx
g/bhp-hr
9.0
9.0
9.0
9.0
9.0
9.0
9.0
9.0
9.0
9.0
2010 NOx
g/bhp-hr
8.3
8.1
8.1
7.8
7.9
8.4
8.4
8.4
8.4
52429948
PASSENGER/EXCURSION
Horsepower
Category
0-49
50-99
100-174
175-299
300-599
600-749
750-999
1000-1499
1500-1999
2000-2499
Totals
Number
0
0
3
3
22
0
4
6
8
2
48
hp-hr/yr
per category
0
0
354869
583176
8043693
0
2812480
12262770
21792960
6580000
52429948
Unc. NOx
g/bhp-hr
9.0
9.0
9.0
9.0
9.0
9.0
9.0
9.0
9.0
2010 NOx
g/bhp-hr
8.3
8.1
. 8.1
7.8
7.9
8.4
8.4
8.4
8.4
Unc. NOx
tpy
0
3
6
79
0
28
121
215
65
517
2010 NOx
tpy
0
3
5
69
0
26
113
201
61
479
201 0/
Uncontrolled
NA
90%
90%
87%
NA
94%
94%
94%
NA
93%
-------
WORK/SUPPLY/CREW/UTILITY
Assumed years to 100% fleet turnover:
40
Horsepower
<300
300-599
600-749
750-999
1000-1499
1500-1999
2000-2499
2500-2999
3000-3499
Totals
Number
4
30
4
4
2
2
0
2
0
48
Avg hp
200
456
600
802
1125
1700
2870
Hours/yr
per boat
880
880
1320
1320
880
880
880
880
880
fip-hr/yr
per category
704000
12038400
3168000
4234560
1980000
2992000
0
5051200
0
rpm
1600+
1600+
1600+
•' 1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
NOx std.
g/bhp-hr
4.6
4.4
4.4
8.4
< 8.4
8.4
8.4
8.4
8.4
Year
of effect
2003
2001
2002
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
% cert
in 2010
20%
25%
23%
28%
28%
28%
28%
28%
28%
Unc. NOx
g/bhp-hr
9.0
9.0
9.0
9.0
9.0
9.0
9.0
9.0
9.0
2010 NOx
g/bhp-hr
8.1
7.8
7.9
8.8
8.8
8.8
8.8
8.8
8.8
30168160
WORK/SUPPLY/CREW/UTILITY
Horsepower
<300
300-599
600-749
750-999
1000-1499
1500-1999
2000-2499
2500-2999
3000-3499
Totals
Number
4
30
4
4
2
2
0
2
0
48
hp-hr/yr
per category
704000
12038400
3168000
4234560
1980000
2992000
0
5051200
0
30168160
Unc. NOx
g/bhp-hr
9.0
9.0
9.0
9.0
9.0
9.0
9.0
9.0
9.0
20 10 NOx
g/bhp-hr
8.1
7.8
7.9
8.8
8.8
8.8
8.8
8.8
8.8
Unc. NOx
tpy
6.9
118.7
31.2
41.7
19.5
29.5
0.0
49.8
0.0
297.4
2010 NOx
tpy
6.3
103.6
27.7
41.1
19.2
29.0
0.0
49.0
0.0
275.8
201 0/
Uncontrolled
90%
87%
89%
98%
98%
98%
NA
NA
NA
93%
-------
FISHING VESSELS
Assumed years to 100% fleet turnover:
40
Horsepower
Category
0-49
50-99
100-174
175-299
300-599
600-749
750+
Totals
Number of Vessels
Commercial | CPFV | TOTAL
71 2 73
35 3 38
134 8 142
195 25 220
167 58 225
29 23 52
14 25 39
645 144 789
assumed rpm
(both)
1600+
1600+
1600+
1600+
1600+
1600+
1000
NOx std.
g/bhp-hr
5.0
5.0
4.6
• 4.6
4.4
4.4
8.4
Year
of effect
2004
2004
2003 .
2003
, 2001
2002
2000
% cert
in 2010
18%
18%
20%
20%
25%
23%
28%
Unc. NOx
g/bhp-hr
9.0
9.0
9.0
9.0
9.0
9.0
9.0
2010 NOx
g/bhp-hr
8.3
8.3
8.1
8.1
7.8
7.9
8.8
Notes:
1. 0-49 hp category includes 51 vessels at "0" hp, 4 vessels under 25 hp, and 13 vessels 25-49 hp. We assume all of these vessels to be 25 to 49 hp.
Note that vessels with "0" hp are about 20 to 60+ ft long and are of all ages and are from commercial landings file so seems clear 0 does not mean boat has no engine
2. The data file from the Department of Fish and Game was modified to remove duplicate records. Duplicate records were assumed to be those for which
the vessel name, owner name, and vessel horsepower were all identical.
FISHING VESSELS
Horsepower
Category
0-49
50-99
100-174
175-299
300-599
600-749
750+
Totals
Number of Vessels
Commercial | CPFV
71 2
35 3
134 8
195 25
167 58
29 23
14 25
645 144
Assumed
avg hp
25
75
137
237
450
675
1383
Commercial
%MCR * hrs/
day / boat
2.77
2.77
2.77
2.77
111
2.77
2.77
CPFV
%MCR * hrs/
day / boat
0.93
0.93
0.93
0.93
0.93
0.93
0.93
hp-hr per
day/category
4970
7491
51947
133723
232791
68770
85934
585627
Unc. NOx
g/bhp-hr
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
uncontrolled
NOx
tpd
0.05
0.07
0.51
1.32
2.30
0.68
0.85
5.8
2010 NOx
g/bhp-hr
8.3
8.3
8.1
8.1
7.8
7.9
8.8
2010
NOx
tpd
0.05
0.07 .
0.46
1.19
2.00
0.60
0.83
5.2
201 0/
uncontrolled
NOx
92%
92%
90%
90%
87%
89%
98%
90%
-------
TOTAL NOx REDUCTIONS FROM HARBOR CRAFT AND FISHING VESSELS IN 2010
Vessel Type
Tugs
Passsenger
Workboats
Fishing "
Total
NOx Reduction in 2010
Percent tpd
98% 0.05
93% 0.10
93% 0.06
90% 0.57
0.78
-------
ANALYSIS OF MARINE EMISSIONS IN
THE SOUTH COAST AIR BASIN
APPENDIX F
F-l
-------
25
CO
I 15
1 10
Q.
CO
5
~«*««~~***
0
4-
10 20 30 40 50
Each Point Represents One Vessel
60
70
Figure F-l. Auto carrier service speed profile
T3
0)
Q.
CO
8
0
100 200 300 400
Each Data Point Represents One Vessel
500
Figure F-2. Bulk carrier service speed profile
F-3
-------
0
50 100 150 200
Each Point Represents One Vessel
250
Figure F-3. Container ship service speed profile
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Each Point Represents One Vessel
140
160
Figure F-4. General cargo service speed profile
F-4
-------
10 15 20
Each Point Represents One Vessel
25
30
Figure F-5. Passenger vessel service speed profile
20 40 60 80 100
Each Point Represents One Vessel
120
140
Figure F-6. Reefer cargo service speed profile
F-5
-------
I 10
Q.
CO
5
0
0
10 20 30 40
Each Point Represents One Vessel
50
60
Figure F-7. RORO service speed profile
0
0
50 100 150 200
Each Point Represents One Vessel
250
Figure F-8. Tanker service speed profile
F-6
-------
ANALYSIS OF MARINE EMISSIONS IN
THE SOUTH COAST AIR BASIN
APPENDIX G
G-l
-------
FROM MARINE EMISSIONS INVENTORY - Distances, Speeds, Times, and Engine Loads
Ocean-going Vessels calling on SPBP: Average Distance and Time period of Cruising within South .
Coast Waters by Ship type and Propulsion type
Source: Marine Exchange of Los Angeles - Long Beach Harbor
Inbound Route: South Coast border to Precautionary Area
North
South
Western (most tanker)
Catalina (Honolulu traffic)
40 miles
34 miles
43.5 miles
66 miles
W1S2, Page 1
Inbound Route: Precautionary Area to POLA
North
South
Western (most tanker)
Catalina (Honolulu traffic)
4.5 miles
7.5 miles
4.5 miles
5 miles
Inbound Route: Precautionary Area to POLB
North
South
Western (most tanker)
Catalina (Honolulu traffic)
8 miles
6.5 miles
8 miles
8 miles
Outbound Route: South Coast border to Precautionary Area
North
South
Western (most tanker)
Catalina (Honolulu traffic)
39 miles
38 miles
43.5 miles
66 miles
Outbound Route: Precautionary Area to POLA
North
South
Western (most tanker)
Catalina (Honolulu traffic)
3.5 miles
6 miles
3.5 miles
5 miles
Outbound Route;- Precautionary Area to POLB
North
South
Western (most tanker)
Catalina (Honolulu traffic)
6 miles
6 miles
6 miles
8 miles
SPEEDREDRV
5/2/99
-------
W1S2, Page 2
Assumed Distribution of Traffic over Sea-lane Routes for Non-Honolulu Traffic:
SHIPTYPE
Auto Carrier
Bulk Carrier
Container Ship
General Cargo
Passenger
Reefer
RORO
Tanker
Inbound from ..
North
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
30%
South
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
10%
West
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
60%
Outbound to ...
North
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50% .
30%
South
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
10%
West
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
60%
Source: Estimate from inspection of Marine Exchange 1994 data
Distribution of Honolulu Traffic:
SHIPTYPE
Auto Carrier
Bulk Carrier
Container Ship
General Cargo
Passenger
Reefer
RORO
Tanker
% 1994
POLA
67%
24%
50%
46%
100%
65%
94%
35%
Calls by Port
POLE
33%
76%
50%
54%
0%
35%
6%
65%
% Calls Honolulu - POLA
Inbound Outbound
3%
1%
6%
0%
1%
0%
48%
1%
2%
0%
6%
0%
0%
0%
47%
1%
% Calls Honolulu - POLE
Inbound Outbound
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
1%
0%
0%
5%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
% Total Honolulu Calls
Inbound Outbound
3%
1%
6%
0%
1%
0%
48%
3%
2%
0%
11%
0%
0%
0%
47%
1%
SPEEDREDRV
5/2/99
-------
W1S2, Page 3
Scenario Description:
Reduced Speed Zone boundary distance from the Precautionary Area (nautical miles) 30
Ship speed in Reduced Speed Zone (knots):
Auto Carrier 15
Bulk Carrier 12
Container Ship 15
General Cargo 15
assenger 15
Reefer 15
RORO 15
Tanker 12
Speed reduction assumed to apply to: all
SPEEDREDRV 5/2/99
-------
W1S2, Page 4
Average Cruising Distances (nautical miles), Speeds (knots), and Times (hours):
SHIPTYPE
Auto Carrier
Bulk Carrier
Container Ship
General Cargo
Passenger
Reefer
RORO
Tanker
Boundary to
Precautionary Area
Inbound Outbound
37.83 39.03
37,24 38.61
38.82 41.43
37.00 38.50
37.15 38.50
37.00 38.50
50.80 51.32
42.15 41.79
Boundary to
Reduced Speed Zone
Inbound Outbound
7.83 9.03
7.24 8.61
8.82 11.43
7.00 8.50
7.15 8.50
7.00 8.50
20.80 21.32
12.15 11.79
2010 Full
Cruise Speed
(Knots)
18.34
15.06
23.36
15.73
19.87
19.65
22.01
15.39
Hours
Cruise
per call
0.9
1.1
0.9
1.0
0.8
0.8
1.9
1.6
Reduced Speed Zone
to Precautionary Area
Inbound Outbound
30 30
30 30
30 30
30 30
30 30
30 30
30 30
30 30
RSZ
Speed
(Knots)
15
12
15
15
15
15
15
12
Hours
RSZ
per call
4.0
5.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
5.0
Precautionary Area Distances (nautical miles), Speeds (knots), and Times (hours):
SHIPTYPE
Auto Carrier
Bulk Carrier
Container Ship
General Cargo
Passenger
Reefer
RORO
Tanker
Precautionary Area to
Breakwater
Inbound Outbound
6.38
6.94
6.57
6.68
5.99
6.44
5.60
6.78
5.17
5.70
5.49
5.43
4.75
5.19
4.95
5.22
PArea
Speed
(knots)
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
PArea
Hours
per Call
1.0
1.1
1.0
1.0
0.9
1.0
0.9
1.0
Impact of Reduced Speeds on Engine Output Power:
SHIPTYPE
Auto Carrier
Bulk Carrier
Container Ship
General Cargo
Passenger
Reefer
RORO
Tanker
Full Cruise
Speed (knts)
18.34
15.06
23.36
15.73
19.87
19.65
-. 22.01
15.39
RSZ/Cruise
Speed Ratio
. 82%
80%
64%
95%
75%
76%
68%
78%
100%displ
% MCR
41%
45%
20%
73%
31%
32%
23%
43%
50% displ
% MCR
28%
33%
15%
47%
23%
23%
17%
31%
RSZ
%MCR
37%
43%
18%
65%
29%
30%
22%
40%
PA/Cruise
peed Rat
65%
80%
51%
76%
60%
61%
55%
78%
100%disp
% MCR
21%
45%
12%
32%
17%
17%
13%
43%
50% displ
% MCR
16%
33%
10%
23%
13%
14%
• 11%
31%
PA
%MCR
19%
43%
11%
30%
16%
16%
13%
40%
Notes:
Full cruise speed is assumed to be at 80 percent MCR
Percent MCR required is taken from equations developed by JJMA (for commercial vessels) under contract to the Navy. See text.
One set of equations was used to characterize tankers and bulkers. A different set of equations was used for all other shiptypes.
Increased Time Cruising Outside the Precautionary Area (for calculating increased emissions from auxiliary engines)
SHIPTYPE
Auto Carrier
Bulk Carrier
Container Ship
General Cargo
Passenger
Reefer
RORO
Tanker
Naut. Miles -Boundary to
Precautionary Area
Inbound Outbound
37.83 39.03
37.24 38.61
38.82 41.43
37.00 38.50
37.15 38.50
37.00 38.50
50.80 51.32
42.15'' 41.79
Full Cruise
Speed (knts)
18.34
15.06
23.36
15.73
19.87
19.65
22.01
15.39
Baseline
Operation
Cruise hrs
4.19
5.04
3.44
4.80
3.81
3.84
4.64
5.45
With Speed Reduction
Cruise RSZ Total
hours hours hours
0.92 4.0 4.92
1.05 5.0 6.05
0.87 4.0 4.87
0.99 4.0 4.99
0.79 4.0 4.79
0.79 4.0 4.79
1.91 4.0 5.91
1.56 5.0 6.56
S.R. minus
baseline
hours
0.73
1.02
1.43
0.19
0.98
0.95
1.27
1.10
SPEEDREDRV
5/2/99
-------
MARINE EMISSIONS INVENTORY
Ocean-going VesselsCalling on SPBP: Main Engine Fuel Consumption Calculations and Time in Operating Mode
W1S5, Page 1
Shiptype ...
Auto Carrier
Auto Carrier
Propulsion
Type
(% MCR)
Motorships
(% MCR)
Motorships
Design
Catego-
ries
0-200
200-400
400-600
>600
0-200
200-400
400-600
>600
NB/B
Calls In
2010
NB calls
0
331
131
2
B calls
0
58
3
6
Power by mode (hp)
I RSZ
Cruise | Cruise
80% 37%
0
11,784 5,470
13,916 6,460
15,652 7,266
80% 37%
0
11,784 5,470
13,916 6,460
15,652 7,266
PA Maneu-
Cruise | vering
19% 15%
0 0
2,847 2,210
3,362 2,609
3,781 2,935
19% J5%
2,847 2.210
3,362 2,609
3,781 2,935
Time In Mode (hours/call)
I RSZ I PA
Cruise | Cruise | Cruise
0.9 4.0 1.0
.-0.9 4.0 1.0
0.9 4.0 1.0
0.9 4.0 ' 1.0
0.9 4.0 1.0
0.9 4.0 1.0
0.9 4.0 1.0
0.9 4.0 1.0
Maneu-
vering
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
Energy Consumed (kWh/call)
Cruise
0
8081
9543
10734
0
8081
9543
10734
RSZ
Cruise
0
16323
19276
21681
0
16323
19276
21681
PA
Cruise
0
2044
2414
2716
0
2044
2414
2716
Maneu-
vering
0
2473
2920
3284
0
2143
2530
2846
Energy Consumed (kWh/year)
Cruise
0
2674860
1250093
21467
0
468707
28628
64401
RSZ
Cruise
0
5403059
2525114
43362
0
946760
57827
130086
PA
Cruise
0
676722
316265
5431
0
118580
7243
16293
Maneu-
vering
0
818399
382478
6568
0
124285
7591
17077
Bulk Carrier (% MCR)
Motorships
Steamships
Bulk Carrier (% MCR)
Motorships
0-200
200-400
400-600
600-800
800-1000
>1000
600-600
800-1000
1000-120
0-200
200-400
400-600
600-800
800-1000
>1000
NB calls
8
145
151
169
2
2
0
0
0
B calls
11
186
202
266
60
58
80% 43% 43% 20%
7,081 3,811 3,811 1.770
8,785 4,729 4,729 2,196
10,877 5,855 5,855 2,719
13,588 7,314 7,314 3,397
20,663 11,123 11,123 5,166
27,130 14,604 14,604 6,783
80% 43% 43% 20%
7,081 3,811 3,811 1,770
8,785 4,729 4,729 2,196
10,877 5,855 5,855 2,719
13,588 7.314 7,314 3,397
20,663 11,123 11,123 5,166
27,130 14,604 14,604 6,783
1.1 5.0 1.1 2.5
1.1 5.0 1.1 2.5
1.1 5.0 1.1 2.5
1.1 5.0 1.1 2.5
1.1 5.0 1.1 2.5
1.1 5.0 1.1 2.5
1.1 5.0 1.1 2.5
1.1 5.0 1.1 2.5
1.1 5.0 1.1 2.5
1.1 5.0 1. 1.1
1.1 5.0 1. 1.1
1.1 5.0 1. 1.1
1.1 5.0 1. 1.1
1.1 5.0 1. 1.1
1.1 5.0 1. 1.1
5559 14217 2993 3301
6897 17639 3713 4096
8539 21837 4597 5071
10667 27281 5743 6335
16222 41487 8734 9634
21299 54471 11467 12650
0000
0000
0000
5559 14217 2993 1453
6897 17639 3713 1802
8539 21837 4597 2231
10667 27281 5743 2788
16222 41487 8734 4239
21299 54471 11467 5566
44472 113733 23943 26412
1000063 2557583 538413 593936
1289359 3297434 694164 765748
1802784 4610477 970581 1070670
32444 82974 17467 19269
42598 108942 22934 25299
0 000
0 000
0 000
61149 156383 32921 15979
1282840 3280761 690654 335225
1724839 4411137 928617 450726
2837518 7256727 1527660 741486
973334 2489223 524022 254347
1235355 3159322 665089 322817
SPEEDREDRV
5/2/99
-------
W1S5, Page 2
Shlptype
Container
Ship
Container
Ship
Propulsion
Type
(% MCR)
Motorships
( % MCR)
Motorships
Design
Catego-
ries
0-200
200-400
400-600
600-800
800-1000
1000-120
1200-140
1400-160
1600-180
1800-200
2000-220
2200-240
0-200
200-400
400-600
600-800
800-1000
1000-120
1200-140
1400-160
1600-180
1800-200
2000-220
2200-240
Calls in
2010
NB calls
10
41
45
20
60
86
441
88
121
399
366
761
B calls
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
Cruise
80%
6,957
13,082
13,360
16,725
22,173
22,710
26,188
33,686
36,985
41,436
46,267
58,330
80%
6,957
13,082
13,360
16,725
22,173
22,710
26,188
33,686
36,985
41,436
46,267
58,330
Power by mode (hp)
RSZ I PA
Cruise | C(uise
18% 11%
1,602 972
3,013 1,828
3,077 1,867
3,852 2,337
5,107 3,098
5,230 3,174
6,031 3,660
7,758 4,707
8,518 5,168
9,543 5,790
10,656 6,465
13,434 8,151
18% 11%
1,602 972
3,013 1828
3,077 1867
3,852 2337
5,107 3098
5,230 3174
6,031 3660
7,758 4707
8,518 5168
9,543 5790
10,656 6465
13,434 8151
Maneu-
vering
J0%
870
1,635
1,670
2,091
2,772
2,839
3,273
4,211
4,623
5,179
5,783
7,291
70%
870
1635
1670
2091
2772
2839
3273
4211
4623
5179
5783
7291
Time in Mode (hours/call)
Cruise
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
, 0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
RSZ
Cruise
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
PA
Cruise
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
< .0
.0
.0
.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Maneu-
vering
1.9
1.9
1.9
1.9
1.9
1.9
1.9
1.9
1.9
1.9
1.9
1.9
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
Energy Consumed (kWh/call)
Cruise
4497
8456
8636
10812
14333
14681
16928
21775
23908
26785
29908
37706
4497
8456
8636
10812
14333
14681
16928
21775
23908
26785
29908
37706
RSZ
Cruise
4781
8990
9182
11494
15238
15607
17997
23150
25418
28476
31796
40087
4781
8990
9182
11494
15238
15607
17997
23150
25418
28476
31796
40087
PA
Cruise
729
1370
1399
1752
2322
2379
2743
3528
3874
4340
4846
6109
729
1370
1399
1752
2322
2379
2743
3528
3874
4340
4846
6109
Maneu-
vering
1233
2318
2367
2963
3929
4024
4640
5968
6553
7341
8197
10335
973
1830
1869
2339
3101
3177
3663
4712
5173
5796
6472
8159
Energy Consumed (kWh/year)
Cruise
44969
346710
388630
216231
859990
1262527
7465432
1916241
2892880
10687202
10946340
28694377
0
0
0
0 •
0
0
0
0
0
107140
0
0
RSZ
Cruise
47808
368601
413168
229884
914290
1342244
7936800
2037233
3075537
11361993
11637493
30506143
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
113905
0
0
PA
Cruise
7286
56177
62969
35036
139343
204566
1209614
310486
468730
1731633
1773621
4649311
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
17360
0
0
Maneu-
vering
12325
95028
106518
59266
235711
346040
2046164
525213
792896
2929203
3000229
7864703
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
23183
0
0
General (% MCR)
Cargo Motorships
General (% MCR)
Cargo Motorships
0-200
200-400
400-600
600-800
800-1000
>1000
0-200
200-400
400-600
600-800
800-1000
>1000
NB calls
172
342
47
0
0
7
B calls
22
126
4
0
0
0
80% 65% 30% 20%
2,259 1,846 840 565
8.851 7,234 3,290 2,213
11,294 9,230 4,198 2,823
14,670 11,989 5,453 3,667
30,442 24,879 11,315 7,610
22,609 18,477 8,404 5,652
80% 65% 30% 20%
2,259 1,846 840 565
8,851 7,234 3290 2213
11,294 9,230 4198 2823
14,670 11,989 5453 3667
30,442 24,879 11315 7610
22,609 18,477 8404 5652
.0 4.0 .0 1.8
.0 4.0 .0 1.8
.0 4.0 .0 1.8
.0 4.0 .0 1.8
.0 4.0 .0 1.8
1.0 4.0 .0 1.8
1.0 4.0 1.0 0.8
1.0 4.0 1.0 0.8
1.0 4.0 1.0 0.8
1.0 4.0 1.0 0.8
1.0 4.0 1.0 0.8
1.0 4.0 1.0 0.8
1661 5509 632 758
6507 21586 2477 2971
8302 27543 3160 3791
10783 35775 4105 4925
22377 74239 8518 10219
16619 55136 6326 7590
1661 5509 632 337
6507 21586 2477 1321
8302 27543 3160 1685
10783 35775 4105 2189
22377 74239 8518 4542
16619 55136 6326 3373
286142 949301 108918 130675
2222700 7373990 846053 1015057
390440 1295318 148618 178305
0 000
0 000
117240 388954 44627 53541
36535 121207 13907 7415
819822 2719828 312059 166397
33208 110171 12640 6740
0 000
0 000
0 000
SPEEDREDRV
5/2/99
-------
W1S5, Page 3
Shiptype
Passenger
Ship
,,
Passenger
Ship
Propulsion
Type
( % MCR)
Motorships
(% MCR)
Motorships
Design
Catego-
ries
0-100
100-200
200-300
30CMOO
400-500
500-600
600-700
700-800
0-100
100-200
200-300
300-400
400-500
500-600
600-700'
700-800
NB/B
Calls in
2010
NB calls
3
348
139
89
3
0
0
2
B calls
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Cruise
80%
12,124
17.864
22,698
25,095
29,418
-
-
42,389
80%
12,124
17,864
22,698
25,095
29,418
-
-
42,389
Power by mode (hp)
RSZ I PA
Cruise | Cruise
29% 16%),
4,365 2,405
6,431 3,543
8,172 4,502
9,034 4,977
10,591 5,835
-
-
15,260 8,407
29% 16%
4,365 2405
6,431 3543
8,172 4502
9,034 4977
10,591 5835
-
-
15,260 8407
Maneu-
vering
15%
2,273
3,350
4,256
4,705
5,516
-
.
7,948
15%
2273
3350
4256
4705
5516
-
-
7948
Time in Mode (hours/call)
Cruise
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
..0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
RSZ
Cruise
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
PA Maneu-
Cruise I vering
0.9 2.5
0.9 2.5
0.9 2.5
0.9 2.5
0.9 2.5
0.9 2.5
0.9 2.5
' 0.9 2.5
0.9 0
0.9 0
0.9 0
0.9 0
0.9 0
0.9 0
0.9 0
0.9 0
Energy Consumed (kWh/call)
Cruise
7123
10496
13336
14744
17284
-
-
24905
7123
10496
13336
14744
17284
-
-
24905
RSZ
Cruise
13025
19191
24384
26959
31603
-
-
45537
13025
19191
24384
26959
31603
-
-
45537
PA
Cruise
1606
2367
3007
3325
3898
-
-
5616
1606
2367
• 3007
3325
3898
-
-
5616
Maneu-
vering
4240
6247
7937
8775
10287
-
-
14823
0
0
0
0
0
-
-
0
Energy Consumed (kWh/year) |
Cruise
21370
3652555
1853693
1312211
51852
-
-
49809
0
0
0
0
0
.
-
0
RSZ
Cruise
39075
6678526
3389391
2399317
94810
-
-
91074
0
0
0
0
0
-
-
0
PA
Cruise
4819
823638
418001
295899
11693
-
-
11232
0
0
0
0
0
-
-
0
Maneu-
vering
12719
2173935
1103284
781005
30862
-
-
29646
0
0
0
0
0
-
-
0
Reefer (% MCR)
Motorships
Reefer (% MCR)
Motorships
0-100
100-200
200-300
300-400
400-500
500-600
600-700
700-800
>800
0-100
100-200
200-300
300-400
400-500
500-600
600-700
700-800
>800
NB calls
0
114
21
63
227
105
87
42
3
B calls
0
36
24
20
12
4
16
0
0
80% 30% 16% 15%
4,464 1,663 909 837
5,678 2,115 1,156 1,065
7,817 2.911 1,592 1,466
11,170 4,160 2,275 2,094
10,770 4,011 2,193 2,019
14,443 5,379 2,941 2,708
18,084 6,735 3,683 3,391
20,174 7,513 4,108 3,783
22,174 8,258 4,516 4,158
80% 30% 16% 15%
4.464 1,663 909 837
5.678 2,115 1156 1065
7,817 2,911 1592 1466
11,170 4,160 2275 2094
10,770 4,011 2193 2019
14,443 5,379 2941 2708
18,084 6.735 3683 3391
20,174 7,513 4108 3783
22,174 8,258 4516 4158
0.8 4.0 1.0 1.8
0.8 4.0 1.0 1.8
0.8 4.0 1.0 1.8
0.8 4.0 1.0 1.8
0.8 4.0 1.0 1.8
0.8 4.0 1.0 1.8
0.8 4.0 1.0 1.8
0.8 4.0 1.0 1.8
0.8 4.0 1.0 1.8
0.8 4.0 1.0 0.8
0.8 4.0 1.0 0.8
0.8 4.0 1.0 0.8
0.8 4.0 1.0 0.8
0.8 4.0 1.0 0.8
0.8 4.0 1.0 0.8
0.8 4.0 1.0 0.8
0.8 4.0 1.0 0.8
0.8 4.0 1.0 0.8
2627 4961 658 1124
3341 6310 837 1430
4600 8686 1152 1968
6573 12414 1646 2812
6337 11968 1587 2712
8499 16050 2128 3636
10642 20097 2664 4553
11871 22419 2972 5079
13048 24642 3267 5583
2627 4961 658 500
3341 6310 837 635
4600 8686 1152 875
6573 12414 1646 1250
6337 11968 1587 1205
8499 16050 2128 1616
10642 20097 2664 2024
11871 22419 2972 2257
13048 24642 3267 2481
0000
380915 719365 95364 162979
96592 182416 24182 41328
414113 782060 103676 177183
1438573 2716773 360155 615512
892366 1685250 223409 381810
925827 1748443 231786 396127
498594 941605 124826 213330
39145 73925 9800 16749
0 0.0 0
120289 227168 30115 22874
110391 208475 27637 20992
131464 248273 32913 24999
76048 143618 19039 14461
33995 64200 8511 6465
170267 321553 42627 32378
0000
0 000
SPEEDREDRV
5/2/99
-------
W1S5, Page 4
Shiptype
RORO
'•'
RORO
Propulsion
Type
( % MCR)
Motorships
(% MCR)
Motorships
Design
Catego-
ries
0-200
200-400
400-600
600-800
800-1000
1000-120
0-200
200-400
400-600
600-800
800-1000
1000-120
NB/B
Calls In
2010
NB calls
1
7
5
4
17
11
B calls
0
3
0
0
0
0
Power by mode (hp)
Cruise
80%
0
14,507
16,596
24,261
26.217
30,423
80%
0
14.507
16,596
24,261
26,217
30,423
RSZ
Cruise
22%
0
3,901
4,463
6,524
7,050
8,181
22%
0
3,901
4,463
6,524
7,050
8,181
PA
Cruise
13%
0
2,290
2,620
3,830
4,139
4,803
13%
0
2290
2620
3830
4139
4803
Maneu-
vering
10%
0
1,813
2,074
3,033
3,277
3,803
10%
0
1813
2074
3033
3277
3803
Time in Mode (hours/call)
Cruise
1.9
1.9
1.9
1.9
•'1.9
1.9
1.9
1.9
1.9
1.9
1.9
1.9
RSZ
Cruise
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
PA
Cruise
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
, 0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
Maneu-
vering
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
Energy Consumed (kWh/call)
Cruise
0
20706
23687
34628
37421
43424
0
20706
23687
34628
37421
43424
RSZ
Cruise
0
11641
13317
19468
21038
24413
0
11641
13317
19468
21038
24413
PA
Cruise
0
1502
1718
2512
2714
3150
0
1502
1718
2512
2714
3150
Maneu-
vering
0
2029
2321
3393
3667
4255
0
1759
2012
2941
3178
3688
Energy Consumed (kWh/year)
Cruise
0
144942
118436
138512
636150
477664
0
62118
0
0
0
0
RSZ
Cruise
0
81486
66585
77871
357642
268542
0
34923
0
0
0
0
PA
Cruise
. 0
10513
8591
10047
46143
34647
0
4506
0
0
0
0
Maneu-
vering
0
14204
11607
13574
62342
46810
0
5276
0
0
0
0
Tanker (% MCR)
Motorships
Tanker (% MCR)
Motorships
0-200
200-400
400-600
600-800
800-1000
1000-120
1200-140
>1400
0-200
200-400
400-600
600-800
800-1000
1000-120
1200-140
>1400
NB calls
21
t12
287
188
120
27
0
167
B calls
0
11
35
30
30
5
0
21
80% 40% 40% 20%
5,125 2,593 2,593 1,281
10,296 5,209 5,209 2,574
13,263 6,711 6,711 3,316
14,131 7,150 7,150 3,533
16,635 8,417 8,417 4,159
21,501 10,879 10,879 5,375
19,730 9,983 9,983 4,933
30,435 15,400 15,400 7,609
80% 40% 40% 20%
5,125 2,593 2593 1281
10,296 5,209 5209 2574
13,263 6,711 6711 3316
14,131 7,150 7150 3533
16,635 8,417 8417 4159
21,501 10,879 10879 5375
19,730 9,983 9983 4933
30,435 15,400 15400 7609
1.6 5.0 .0 1.5
1.6 5.0 .0 1.5
1.6 5.0 .0 1.5
1.6 5.0 .0 1.5
1.6 5.0 .0 1.5
1.6 5.0 .0 1.5
1.6 5.0 1.0 1.5
1.6 5.0 1.0 1.5
1.6 5.0 1.0 1.5
1.6 5.0 1.0 1.5
1.6 5.0 1.0 1.5
1.6 5.0 1.0 1.5
1.6 5.0 1.0 1.5
1.6 5.0 1.0 1.5
1.6 5.0 1.0 1.5
1.6 5.0 1.0 1.5
5946 9673 1934 1434
11944 19431 3885 2880
15386 25031 5005 3710
16393 26670 5332 3953
19298 31395 6277 4654
24943 40579 8113 6015
22889 37238 7445 5520
35307 57440 11484 8514
5946 9673 1934 1434
11944 19431 3885 2880
15386 25031 5005 3710
16393 26670* 5332 3953
19298 31395 6277 4654
24943 40579 8113 6015
22889 37238 7445 5520
35307 57440 11484 8514
124859 203132 40614 30109
1337702 2176304 435122 322583
4415686 7183872 1436317 1064832
3081963 5014041 1002489 743208
2315718 3767438 753248 558430
673453 1095639 219058 162401
0 000
5896225 9592558 1917901 1421860
0 000
131381 213744 42735 31682
538498 876082 175161 129858
491803 800113 159972 118597
578930 941860 188312 139607
124713 202896 40566 30074
0 000
741441 1206250 241173 178797
TOTAL ENERGY CONSUMPTION BY MODE/SHIPTYPE
SPEEDREDRV
5/2/99
-------
W1S5. Pages
Energy Consumed by Mode (Full Cruise, PA Cruise, and Maneuvering):
MWh/yr % of total
At 80% MCR 120,870 65%
At40%MCR 13,289 7%
At35%MCRr. 1.487 1%
At 20% MCR' 15,152 8%
At 15% MCR 7,729 4%
At 10% MCR 28,856 15%
Total 187,384
SPEEDREDRV 5/2/99
-------
W1S5. Page 6
Energy Consumed by Mode (RSZ Cruise):
Nearest
%MCR %MCRbin MWh/yr
Autocarrier 37% 35% 9106
Bulk 43% 40% 31525
Container ™ 18% 20% 69985
General Carg 65% 80% 12959
Passenger 29% 35% 12692
Reefer 30% 35% 10063
RORO 22% 20% 887
Tanker 40% 40% 33274
Energy Consumed by Mode (All modes):
MWh/yr % of total
At 80% MCR
At 40% MCR
At 35% MCR
At 20% MCR
At 15% MCR
At 10% MCR
Total
133,829
78,088
33,348
86,024
7,729
28,856
367,875
36%
21%
9%
23%
2%
8%
Cruise energy by shiptype:
MS
MWh/yr % total %MS MWh/yr
Autocarrier
Bulk
Container
General Carg
Passenger
Reefer
RORO
Tanker
Total
Autocarrier
Bulk
Container
General Carg
Passenger
Reefer
RORO
Tanker
Total
4508
12327
65829
3906
6941
5329
1578
20452
120870
PA
1140534
6636467
10666131
1486822
1565282
1334041
114447
6652669
29596393
4%
10%
54%
3%
6%
4%
1%
17%
MNV
1356397
4621914
18036479
1558131
4131450
2127189
153812
4932038
36917410
29%
5%
4%
22%
52%
18%
10%
6%
sum
2496931
11258381
28702610
3044952
5696732
3461230
268260
11584707
66513803
1307
616
2633
859
3610
959
158
1227
11370
%MS
29%
5%
4%
22%
52%
18%
10%
6%
9%
MS
MWh/yr
724110
562919
1148104
669890
2962301
623021
26826
695082
7412253
11%
SPEEDREDRV
5/2/99
-------
Scenariol
Speed Reduction Scenario - Results
Scenario Description:
Reduced Speed Zone boundary distance from the Precautionary Area (nautical miles) all cruise
Ship speed in Reduced Speed Zone (knots):
uto Carrier 15
Bulk Carrier 12
Container Ship 15
General Cargo 15
Passenger 15
Reefer 15
RORO 15
Tanker 12
Speed reduction assumed to apply to: all ships
2010 Baseline Operation
Profile Loads (% MCR) M Wh per year % of total
80%
40%
35%
20%
15%
10%
Total, all modes
2010 Reduced Speed Operation
Med. Speed % MWh per year % of total Med. Speed %
494,592
13,289
1,487
15,152
7,729
28,856
561,106
88%
2%
0%
3%
1%
5%
10%
11%
11%
11%
11%
11%
16,306
99,687
41,817
110,257
7,729
28,856
304,654
5%
33%
14%
36%
3%
9%
10%
11%
11%
11%
11%
11%
-------
Scenario!
Speed Reduction Scenario - Results
Page 2
Energy Use (in 2010) and NOx g/kWh by Mode (Motorship main engines)
2010 Baseline Operation
Profile Loads (%MCR)
80%
40%
35%
20%
15%
10%
Total energy/year
- Uncontrolled NOx Rates
MWh / year
494,592
13,289
1,487
15,152
7,729
28,856
561,106
SSg/kWh '
17.06
18.26
18.14
20.94
23.96
28.89
MSg/kWh
12.77
13.53
13.87
16.93
20.42
25.27
MWh-weighted
%MS
10%
11%
11%
11%
11%
11%
NOx g/kWh
SS&MS
g/kWh
16.63
17.74
17.67
20.50
23.57
28.49
17.47
2010 Reduced Speed Operation
- 2010 NOx
Profile Loads (%MCR) MWh / year
80%
40%
35%
20%
15%
10%
Total energy/year
16,306
99,687
41,817
110,257
7,729
28,856
304,654
Rates
SSg/kWh
16.30
17.41
17.46
20.18
23.20
28.13
MSg/kWh
12.23
12.99
13.33
16.39
19.88
24.72
%MS
10%
11%
11%
11%
11%
11%
MWh-weighted NOx g/kWh
SS&MS
g/kWh
15.89
16.92
17.01
19.76
22.83
27.75
19.08
Increased Auxiliary Engine Emissions
SfflPTYPE
Auto Carrier
Bulk Carrier
Container Ship
General Cargo
Passenger
Reefer
RORO
Tanker
Totals (tpy)
S.R. minus
baseline
hours/call
0.93
1.28
1.91
0.23
1.24
1.19
2.17
1.54
Inventory
Aux Engine
NOx Ib/hr
22.05
22.05
22.05
22.05
147.00
22.05
22.05
22.05
Motorship
Calls per year
in 2010
523
1260
2442
720
584
773
49
1054
Increased NOx
Aux Engines
(tons per year)
5.4
17.8
51.5
1.9,
53.1
10.2
1.2
17.9
158.9
-------
Scenario 2
Speed Reduction Scenario - Results
Scenario Description:
Reduced Speed Zone boundary distance from the Precautionary Area (nautical miles) all cruise
Ship speed in Reduced Speed Zone (knots):
uto Carrier 15
Bulk Carrier 15
Container Ship 18
General Cargo 15
Passenger 15
Reefer 15
RORO 18
Tanker 12
Speed reduction assumed to apply to: all ships
Profile Loads (% MCR)
80%
40%
35%
20%
15%
10%
Total, all modes
2010 Baseline Operation
M Wh per year % of total
2010 Reduced Speed Operation
Med. Speed % MWh per year % of total Med. Speed %
494,592
13,289
1,487
15,152
7,729
28,856
561,106
88%
2%
0%
3%
1%
5%
10%
11%
11%
11%
11%
11%
79,749
59,835
173,806
15,152
7,729
28,856
365,128
22%
16%
48%
4%
2%
8%
10%
11%
11%
11%
11%
11%
-------
Scenario 2
Speed Reduction Scenario - Results
Page 2
Energy Use (in 2010) and NOx g/kWh by Mode (Motorship main engines)
2010 Baseline Operation -
Profile Loads (%MCR)
80%
40%
35%
20%
15%
10%
Total energy/year
Uncontrolled NOx Rates
MWh / year
494,592
13,289
1,487
15,152
7,729
28,856
561,106
SSg/kWh '
17.06
18.26
18.14
20.94
23.96
28.89
MS g/kWh % MS
12.77 10%
13.53 11%
13.87 11%
16.93 11%
20.42 11%
25.27 1 1%
MWh-weighted NOx g/kWh
SS&MS
g/kWh
16.63
17.74
17.67
20.50
23.57
28.49
17.47
2010 Reduced Speed Operation
- 2010 NOx
Profile Loads (%MCR) MWh / year
80%
40%
35%
20%
15%
10%
Total energy/year
79,749
59,835
173,806
15,152
7,729
28,856
365,128
Rates
SSg/kWh
16.30
17.41
17.46
20.18
23.20
28.13
MSg/kWh
12.23
12.99
13.33
16.39
19.88
24.72
MWh-weighted
%MS
10%
11%
11%
11%
11%
11%
NOx g/kWh
SS&MS
g/kWh
15.89
16.92
17.01
19.76
22.83
27.75
17.84
Increased Auxiliary Engine Emissions
SfflPTYPE
Auto Carrier
Bulk Carrier
Container Ship
General Cargo
Passenger
Reefer
RORO
Tanker
Totals (tpy)
S.R. minus
baseline
hours/call
0.93
0.02
1.02
0.23
1.24
1.19
1.03
1.54
Inventory
Aux Engine
NOx Ib/hr
22.05
22.05
22.05
22.05
147.00
22.05
22.05
22.05
Motorship
Calls per year
in 2010
523
1260
2442
720
584
773
49
1054
Increased NOx
Aux Engines
(tons per year)
5.4
0.3
27.5
1.9
53.1
10.2
0.6
17.9
116.7
-------
Scenario 3
Speed Reduction Scenario - Results
Scenario Description:
Reduced Speed Zone boundary distance from the Precautionary Area (nautical miles) 30
Ship speed in Reduced Speed Zone (knots):
uto Carrier 15
Bulk Carrier 12
Container Ship 15
General Cargo 15
Passenger 15
Reefer 15
RORO 15
Tanker 12
Speed reduction assumed to apply to: all ships
Profile Loads (% MCR)
80%
40%
35%
20%
15%
10%
Total, all modes
2010 Baseline Operation
MWh per year % of total
2010 Reduced Speed Operation
Med. Speed % MWh per year % of total Med. Speed %
494,592
13,289
1,487
15,152
7,729
28,856
561,106
88%
2%
0%
3%
1%
5%
10%
11%
11%
11%
11%
11%
133,829
78,088
33,348
86,024
7,729
28,856
367,875
36%
21%
9%
23%
• 2%
8%
9%
11%
11%
11%
11%
11%
-------
Scenario 3
Speed Reduction Scenario - Results
Page 2
Energy Use (in 2010) and NOx g/kWh by Mode (Motorship main engines)
2010 Baseline Operation
Profile Loads (%MCR)
80%
40%
35%
20%
15%
10%
Total energy/year
- Uncontrolled NOx
Rates
MWh / year SS g/kWh '
494,592
13,289
1,487
15,152
7,729
28,856
561,106
17.06
18.26
18.14
20.94
23.96
28.89
MSg/kWh
12.77
13.53
13.87
16.93
20.42
25.27
%MS
10%
11%
11%
11%
11%
11%
MWh-weighted NOx g/kWh
SS&MS
g/kWh
16.63
17.74
17.67
20.50
23.57
28.49
17.47
2010 Reduced
Profile Loads
80%
40%
35%
20%
15%
10%
Speed Operation
-2010 NOx
(%MCR) MWh / year
Total energy/year
133,829
78,088
33,348
86,024
7,729
28,856
367,875
Rates
SS g/kWh
16.30
17.41
17.46
.20.18
23.20
28.13
MS g/kWh
12.23
12.99
13.33
16.39
19.88
24.72
MWh-weighted
%MS
9%
11%
11%
11%
11%
11%
NOx g/kWh
SS&MS
g/kWh
15.93
16.92
17.01
19.76
22.83
27.75
18.21
Increased Auxiliary Engine Emissions
SfflPTYPE
Auto Carrier
Bulk Carrier
Container Ship
General Cargo
Passenger
Reefer
RORO
Tanker
Totals (tpy)
S.R. minus
baseline
hours/call
0.73
1.02
1.43
0.19
0.98
0.95
1.27
1.10
Inventory
Aux Engine
NOx Ib/hr
22.05
22.05
22.05
22.05
147.00
22.05
22.05
22.05
Motorship
Calls per year
in 2010
523
1260
2442
720
584
773
49
1054
Increased NOx
Aux Engines
(tons per year)
4.2
14.1
38.5
1.5
42.1
8.1
0.7
12.8
122.0
-------
Scenario 4
Speed Reduction Scenario - Results
Scenario Description:
Reduced Speed Zone boundary distance from the Precautionary Area (nautical miles) 30
•Ship speed in Reduced Speed Zone (knots):
uto Carrier 15
Bulk Carrier 15
Container Ship 18
General Cargo 15
Passenger 15
Reefer 15
RORO 18
Tanker 12
Speed reduction assumed to apply to: all ships
Profile Loads (% MCR)
80%
40%
35%
20%
15%
2010 Baseline Operation
M Wh per year % of total
2010 Reduced Speed Operation
Med. Speed % MWh per year % of total Med. Speed %
Total, all modes
494,592
13,289
1,487
15,152
7,729
28,856
561,106
88%
2%
0%
3%
1%
5%
10%
11%
11%
11%
11%
11%
184,015
46,563
131,694
15,152
7,729
28,856
414,010
44%
11%
32%
4%
2%
7%
9%
11%
11%
11%
11%
11%
-------
Scenario 4
Speed Reduction Scenario - Results
Page 2
Energy Use (in 2010) and NOx g/k\Vh by Mode (Motorship main engines)
2010 Baseline Operation
Profile Loads (%MCR)
80%
40%
35%
20%
15%
10%
Total energy/year
-Uncontrolled NOx
Rates
MWh/year SS g/kWh
494,592
13,289
1,487
15,152
7,729
28,856
561,106
17.06
18.26
18.14
20.94
23.96
28.89
MSg/kWh
12.77
13.53
13.87
16.93
20.42
25.27
MWh-weighted
%MS
10%
11%
11%
11%
11%
11%
NOx g/kWh
SS&MS
g/kWh
16.63
17.74
17.67
20.50
23.57
28.49
17.47
2010 Reduced Speed Operation - 2010 NOx
Profile Loads (%MCR)
80%
40%
35%
20%
15%
10%
Total energy/year
MWh / year
184,015
46,563
131,694
15,152
7,729
28,856
414,010
Rates
SS g/kWh
16.30
17.41
17.46
20.18
23.20
28.13
MS g/kWh
12.23
12.99
13.33
16.39
19.88
24.72
MWh-weighted
%MS
9%
11%
11%
11%
11%
11%
NOx g/kWh
SS&MS
g/kWh
15.93
16.92
17.01
19.76
22.83
27.75
17.48
Increased Auxiliary Engine Emissions
SfflPTYPE
Auto Carrier
Bulk Carrier
Container Ship
General Cargo
Passenger
Reefer
RORO
Tanker
Totals (tpy)
S.R. minus
baseline
hours/call
0.73
0.02
0.76
0.19
0.98
0.95
0.61
1.10
Inventory
Aux Engine
NOx Ib/hr
22.05
22.05
22.05
22.05
147.00
22.05
22.05
22.05
Motorship
Calls per year
in 20 10
523
1260
2442
720
584
773
49
1054
Increased NOx
Aux Engines
(tons per year)
4.2
0.2
20.6
1.5
42.1
8.1
0.3
12.8
89.8
-------
Scenario 5
Speed Reduction Scenario - Results
Scenario Description:
Reduced Speed Zone boundary distance from the Precautionary Area (nautical miles) 20
Ship speed in Reduced Speed Zone (knots):
uto Carrier 15
Bulk Carrier 12
Container Ship 15
General Cargo 15
Passenger 15
Reefer 15
RORO 15
Tanker 12
Speed reduction assumed to apply to: all ships
Profile Loads (% MCR)
80%
40%
35%
20%
15%
10%
Total, all modes
2010 Baseline Operation
MWh per year % of total
2010 Reduced Speed Operation
Med. Speed % MWh per year % of total Med. Speed %
494,592
13,289
1,487
15,152
7,729.
28,856
561,106
88%
2%
0%
3%
1%
5%
10%
11%
11%
11%
11%
11%
254,083
56,488
22,728
62,400
7,729
28,856
432,285
59%
13%
5%
14%
2%
7%
10%
11%
11%
11%
11%
11%
-------
Scenario 5
Speed Reduction Scenario - Results
Page 2
Energy Use (in 2010) and NOx g/kWh by Mode (Motorship main engines)
2010 Baseline Operation
Profile Loads (%MCR)
80%
40%
35%
20%
15%
10%
Total energy/year
- Uncontrolled NOx
Rates
MWh/year SS g/kWh
494,592
13,289
1,487
15,152
7,729
28,856
561,106
17.06
18.26
18.14
20.94
23.96
28.89
MSg/kWh
12.77
13.53
13.87
16.93
20.42
25.27
%MS
10%
11%
11%
11%
11%
11%
MWh-weighted NOx g/kWh
SS&MS
g/kWh
16.63
17.74
17.67
20.50
23.57
28.49
17.47
2010 Reduced
Profile Loads
80%
40%
35%
20%
15%
10%
Speed Operation
- 2010 NOx
(%MCR) MWh / year
_
Total energy/year
254,083
56,488
22,728
62,400
7,729
28,856
432,285
Rates
SS g/kWh
16.30
17.41
17.46
20.18
23.20
28.13
MS g/kWh
12.23
12.99
13.33
16.39
19.88
24.72
MWh-weighted
%MS
10%
11%
11%
11%
11%
11%
NOx g/kWh
SS&MS
g/kWh
15.89
16.92
17.01
19.76
22.83
27.75
17.56
Increased Auxiliary Engine Emissions
SfflPTYPE
Auto Carrier
Bulk Carrier
Container Ship
General Cargo
Passenger
Reefer
RORO
Tanker
Totals (tpy)
S.R. minus
baseline
hours/call
0.49
0.68
0.95
0.12
0.65
0.63
0.85
0.73
Inventory
Aux Engine
NOx Ib/hr
22.05
22.05
22.05
22.05
147.00
22.05
22.05
22.05
Motorship
Calls per year
in 2010
523
1260
2442
720
584
773
49
1054
Increased NOx
Aux Engines
(tons per year)
2.8
9.4
25.7
1.0
28.1
5.4
0.5
8.5
81.3
-------
Scenario 6
Speed Reduction Scenario - Results
Scenario Description:
Reduced Speed Zone boundary distance from the Precautionary Area (nautical miles) 20
Ship speed in Reduced Speed Zone (knots):
uto Carrier 15
Bulk Carrier 15
Container Ship 18
General Cargo 15
Passenger 15
Reefer 15
RORO 18
Tanker 12
Speed reduction assumed to apply to: all ships
2010 Baseline Operation 2010 Reduced Speed Operation
Profile Loads (% MCR) MWh per year % of total Med. Speed % MWh per year % of total Med. Speed %
80% 494,592 88% 10% 287,540 62% 10%
40% " 13,289 2% 11% 35,472 8% 11%
35% 1,487 0% 11% 88,292 19% 11%
20% 15,152 3% 11% 15,152 3% 11%
15% 7,729 1% 11% 7,729 2% 11%
10% 28,856 5% 11% 28,856 6% 11%
Total, all modes 561,106 463,042
-------
Scenario 6
Speed Reduction Scenario - Results
Page 2
Energy Use (in 2010) and NOx g/kWh by Mode (Motorship main engines)
2010 Baseline Operation
Profile Loads (%MCR)
80%
40%
35%
20%
15%
10%
Total energy/year
- Uncontrolled NOx
Rates
MWh/year SS g/kWh '
494,592
13,289
1,487
15,152
7,729
28,856
561,106
17.06
18.26
18.14
20.94
23.96
28.89
MSg/kWh
12.77
13.53
13.87
16.93
20.42
25.27
MWh-weighted
%MS
10%
11%
11%
11%
11%
11%
NOx g/kWh
SS&MS
g/kWh
16.63
17.74
17.67
20.50
23.57
28.49
17.47
2010 Reduced Speed Operation
- 2010 NOx
Profile Loads (%MCR) MWh / year
80%
40%
35%
20%
15%
10%
Total energy/year
287,540
35,472
88,292
15,152
7,729
28,856
463,042
Rates
SS g/kWh
16.30
17.41
17.46
20.18
23.20
28.13
MS g/kWh
12.23
12.99
13.33
16.39
19.88
24.72
MWh-weighted
%MS
10%
11%
11%
11%
11%
11%
NOx g/kWh
SS&MS
g/kWh
15.89
16.92
17.01
19.76
22.83
27.75
17.17
Increased Auxiliary Engine Emissions
SfflPTYPE
Auto Carrier
Bulk Carrier
Container Ship
General Cargo
Passenger
Reefer -,
RORO
Tanker
Totals (tpy)
S.R. minus
baseline
hours/call
0.49
0.01
0.51
0.12
0.65
0.63
0.40
0.73
Inventory
Aux Engine
NOx Ib/hr
22.05
22.05
22.05
22.05
147.00
22.05
22.05
22.05
Motorship
Calls per year
in 2010
523
1260
2442
720
584
773
49
1054
Increased NOx
Aux Engines
(tons per year)
2.8
0.1
13.7
1.0
28.1
5.4
0.2
8.5
59.8
-------
Scenario 7
Speed Reduction Scenario - Results
Scenario Description:
Reduced Speed Zone boundary distance from the Precautionary Area (nautical miles) 15
Ship speed in Reduced Speed Zone (knots):
uto Carrier 15
Bulk Carrier 12
Container Ship 15
General Cargo 15
Passenger 15
Reefer 15
RORO 15
Tanker 12
Speed reduction assumed to apply to: all ships
2010 Baseline Operation
2010 Reduced Speed Operation
Profile Loads (% MCR)
80%
40%
35%
20%
15%
10%
Total, all modes
MWh per year % of total Med. Speed % MWh per year % of total Med. Speed %
494,592
13,289
1,487
15,152
7,729
28,856
561,106
88%
2%
0%
3%
1%
5%
10%
11%
11%
11%
11%
11%
314,210
45,688
17,418
50,588
7,729
28,856
464,490
68%
10%
4%
11%
2%
6%
10%
11%
11%
11%
11%
11%
-------
Scenario 7
Speed Reduction Scenario - Results
Page 2
Energy Use (in 2010) and NOx g/kWh by Mode (Motorship main engines)
2010 Baseline Operation
Profile Loads (%MCR)
80%
40%
35%
20%
15%
10%
Total energy/year
- Uncontrolled NOx Rates
MWh / year
494,592
13,289
1,487
15,152
7,729
28,856
561,106
SSg/kWh
17.06
18.26
18.14
20.94
23.96
28.89
MSg/kWh
12.77
13'.53
13.87
16.93
20.42
25.27
MWh-weighted
%MS
10%
11%
11%
11%
11%
11%
NOx g/kWh
SS&MS
g/kWh
16.63
17.74
17.67
20.50
23.57
28.49
17.47
2010 Reduced
Profile Loads
80%
40%
35%
20%
15%
10%
Speed Operation
- 2010 NOx
(%MCR) MWh / year
„
Total energy/year
314,210
45,688
17,418
50,588
7,729
28,856
464,490
Rates
SSg/kWh
16.30
17.41
17.46
20.18
23.20
28.13
MS g/kWh
12.23
12.99
13.33
16.39
19.88
24.72
MWh-weighted
%MS
10%
11%
11%
11%
11%
11%
NOx g/kWh
SS&MS
g/kWh
15.89
16.92
17.01
19.76
22.83
27.75
17.31
Increased Auxiliary Engine Emissions
SfflPTYPE
Auto Carrier
Bulk Carrier
Container Ship
General Cargo
Passenger
Reefer
RORO
Tanker
Totals (tpy)
S.R. minus
baseline
hours/call
0.36
0.51
0.72
0.09
0.49
0.47
0.64
0.55
Inventory
Aux Engine
NOx Ib/hr
22.05
22.05
22.05
22.05
147.00
22.05
22.05
22.05
Motorship
Calls per year
in 2010
523
1260
2442
720
584
773
49
1054
Increased NOx
Aux Engines
(tons per year)
2.1
7.1
19.3
0.7
21.0
4.0
0.3
6.4
61.0
-------
Scenario 8
Speed Reduction Scenario - Results
Scenario Description:
Reduced Speed Zone boundary distance from the Precautionary Area (nautical miles) 15
Ship speed in Reduced Speed Zone (knots):
uto Carrier 15
Bulk Carrier 15
Container Ship 18
General Cargo 15
Passenger 15
Reefer 15
RORO 18
Tanker 12
Speed reduction assumed to apply to: all ships
Profile Loads (% MCR)
80%
40%
35%
20%
15%
10%
Total, all modes
2010 Baseline Operation
MWh per year % of total
2010 Reduced Speed Operation
Med. Speed % MWh per year % of total Med. Speed %
494,592
13,289
1,487
15,152
7,729
28,856
561,106
88%
2%
0%
3%
1%
5%
10%
11%
11%
11%
11%
11%
339,303
29,926
66,590
15,152
7,729
28,856
487,558
70%
6%
14%
3%
2%.
6%
10%
11%
11%
11%
11%
11%
-------
Scenario 8
Speed Reduction Scenario - Results
Page 2
Energy Use (in 2010) and NOx g/kWh by Mode (Motorship main engines)
2010 Baseline Operation
Profile Loads (%MCR)
80%
40%
35%
20%
15%
10%
Total energy/year
- Uncontrolled NOx Rates
MWh / year
494,592
13,289
1,487
15,152
7,729
28,856
561,106
SS g/kWh-
17.06
18.26
18.14
20.94
23.96
28.89
MSg/kWh
12.77
13.53
13.87
16.93
20.42
25.27
MWh-weighted
%MS
10%
11%
11%
11%
11%
11%
NOx g/kWh
SS&MS
g/kWh
16.63
17.74
17.67
20.50
23.57
28.49
17.47
2010 Reduced Speed Operation
- 2010 NOx
Profile Loads (%MCR) MWh / year
80%
40%
35%
20%
15%
10%
Total energy/year
339,303
29,926
66,590
15,152
7,729
28,856
487,558
Rates
SS g/kWh
16.30
17.41
17.46
20.18
23.20
28.13
MSg/kWh
12.23
12.99
13.33
16.39
19.88
24.72
%MS
10%
11%
11%
11%
11%
11%
MWh-weighted NOx g/kWh
SS&MS
g/kWh
15.89
16.92
17.01
19.76
22.83
27.75
17.04
Increased Auxiliary Engine Emissions
SfflPTYPE
Auto Carrier
Bulk Carrier
Container Ship
General Cargo
Passenger
Reefer
RORO
Tanker
Totals (tpy)
S.R. minus
baseline
hours/call
0.36
0.01
0.38
0.09
0.49
0.47
0.64
0.55
Inventory
Aux Engine
NOx Ib/hr
22.05
22.05
22.05
22.05
147.00
22.05
22.05
22.05
Motorship
Calls per year
in 2010
523
1260
• 2442
720
584
773
49
1054
Increased NOx
Aux Engines
(tons per year)
2.1
0.1
10.3
0.7
21.0
4.0
0.3
6.4
45.1
------- |