oEPA
United States Office of International and Tribal Affairs
Environmental Protection EPA-1 60-R-l 5-001
Agency May 201 5
U.S.-Mexico Cooperation on Reducing Emissions from
Ships through a Mexican Emission Control Area:
Development of the First National Mexican Emission
Inventories for Ships Using the
Waterway Network Ship Traffic, Energy, and Environmental
Model (STEEM)
-------
Disclaimer
This technical report does not necessarily represent final EPA decisions or positions. It is intended to
present technical analysis of issues using data that are currently available and were collected through
this project. The purpose in the release of such reports is to facilitate the exchange of technical
information and to inform the public of technical developments which may form the basis for policy
action by EPA or other entities.
Prepared under EPA Contract EP-W-09-024
Contributors to this report are Angela Bandemehr and Brian Muehling of the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Jim Corbett and Bryan Comer of Energy and Environmental Research Associates,
and Jeanine Boyle of the Battelle Memorial Institute.
For more information please contact: Angela Bandemehr
Office of International and Tribal Affairs
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
202.564.1427
Bandemehr.angela@epa.gov
-------
Table of Contents
Abbreviations and Acronyms iii
Executive Summary iv
1.0 Introduction 1
1.1 History of the Development of a Mexican Emission Control Area 1
1.2 Requirements for Establishing an Emission Control Area 2
1.3 Assessing the Impact of an EGA on Ship Emissions in Mexico 3
2.0 Methodology 3
2.1 Overview of the Emissions Inventory Modeling Process 4
2.2 STEEM 6
2.3 Estimating 2013 Ship Emissions 7
2.4 Estimating 2030 Ship Emissions 9
2.5 Port Emissions 10
3.0 Results 11
4.0 Conclusions 12
5.0 Reference 13
Appendices
APPENDIX I: Key MARPOL Annex VI Standards (Global and EGA)
APPENDIX II: Required Elements of an EGA Designation Proposal
APPENDIX III: 2011 Ship Emission Inventory Results
List of Figures
Figure 1. Progression of steps needed to support an EGA designation (adapted from SEMARNAT, 2013).
2
Figure 2. STEEM total modeling domain (inset box outlined in blue) and potential Mexican EGA (dark
green shaded area). The portion of the North American EGA near Mexico (light green shaded
area) is also shown 4
Figure 3. STEEM network representation, including ~1700 World Ports. STEEM estimates emissions from
nearly complete historical North American shipping activities and individual ship attributes 7
Figure 4. Example of pairing STEEM with CIS to estimate ship air emissions outside and inside a
potential Mexican EGA (dark green shaded area) but within the modeling domain; 2013 CO2
emissions are displayed (dark red represents high emissions) 9
EPA-160-R-15-001 | May 2015
-------
List of Tables
Table 1. A comparison of top-down and bottom-up ship emissions inventory approaches 5
Table 2. Uncontrolled emissions factors (g/kWh) used in 2011 ship emissions inventory calculations 7
Table 3. Activity growth rates by vessel type derived specifically for North American routes, including
Mexico shipping routes 8
Table 4. Emissions factors (g/kWh) for 2030 outside an EGA, reflecting 0.5% fuel sulfur and IMO Tier I
NOx marine engine standards 10
Table 5. Emissions factors (g/kWh) for 2030 within an EGA, reflecting 0.1% fuel sulfur and IMO Tier III
NOx marine engine standards 10
Table 6. 2013 Emissions (tonnes) within a potential Mexican EGA, outside the potential Mexican EGA,
and within the total modeling domain 11
Table 7. 2030 Emissions (tonnes) within the area of a potential Mexican EGA assuming (a) that a
Mexican EGA ;'s not designated by 2030 and (b) that a Mexican EGA ;'s designated by 2030 12
EPA-160-R-15-001 | May 2015
-------
Abbreviations and Acronyms
BC Black carbon
CARB California Air Resources Board
CEC Commission for Environmental Cooperation
CO Carbon monoxide
CO2 Carbon dioxide
EGA Emission Control Area
EERA Energy and Environmental Research Associates
GIS Geographic information system
HC Hydrocarbon
IMO International Maritime Organization
IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
MARPOL International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships
MX Mexico
NOX Oxides of nitrogen
PM Particulate matter
SEMARNAT Secretary of Environment and Natural Resources
SOX Sulfur oxides
STEEM Ship Traffic, Energy, and Environmental Model
U.S. United States
U.S. EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
EPA-160-R-15-001 | May 2015
-------
Executive Summary
Through ongoing, joint work with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S.EPA) and the
Commission for Environmental Cooperation (CEC), the Mexican government has been actively exploring
international actions to reduce air pollution from large commercial marine ships in Mexican waters,
particularly near coastal communities. Mexico is now working toward ratifying MARPOL Annex VI (an
international maritime air pollution agreement), and establishing a Mexican Emission Control Area (EGA)
pursuant to the provisions of Annex VI. An EGA would reduce pollution from large commercial marine
vessels that call on Mexican ports or operate within a designated distance from the coast.
In order for Mexico's EGA designation proposal to be approved, Mexico must demonstrate the need to
prevent, reduce, and control emissions of oxides of nitrogen (NOX) or sulfur oxides (SOX) and particulate
matter (PM), or all three types of emissions from ships. Mexico must also show that emissions from ships
operating in the proposed area of application are contributing to ambient concentrations of air pollution or
to adverse environmental impacts, including human health impacts. This report provides an overview and
is the result of U.S. and Mexican bilateral cooperation on planning for the Mexican EGA designation
proposal. The report presents the results of a Mexican ship emissions inventory conducted by Energy and
Environmental Research Associates (EERA) using the Ship Traffic, Energy, and Environmental Model
(STEEM), which informed the CEC modeling work. The CEC modeling results and policy
recommendations will be captured in separate documents developed by the CEC.
The STEEM model demonstrated that (1) emissions from ships operating in the proposed area of a
Mexican EGA contribute to ambient concentrations of air pollution; and (2) by 2030, a Mexican EGA
would avoid 70 to 80% of future emissions of harmful air pollutants including NOX, SOX, PM, and black
carbon (BC) from ships operating in the proposed area of a Mexican EGA, as compared to what would be
expected without an EGA. Additionally, an EGA is predicted to result in 2030 commercial marine ship
emissions that are lower in absolute terms than 2013 emissions for NOX, SOX, PM, and BC.
The purpose of this report is to help policy makers and stakeholders understand results, limitations and
advantages of the ship emissions estimations that will form the basis of a Mexican EGA designation
proposal. STEEM has been used to support successful EGA designation applications to the IMO by the
U.S. and Canada. Mexican officials and stakeholders should be confident that the results presented here
are robust. The potential for substantial reductions in future ship emissions shown in this report means
that an EGA would be expected to have considerable environmental and human health benefits. If Mexico
decides to pursue an EGA designation, the evidence contained in this report can help support a credible
proposal to the International Maritime Organization (IMO).
EPA-160-R-15-001 | May 2015 iv
-------
1.0 Introduction
1.1 HISTORY OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF A MEXICAN EMISSION CONTROL
AREA
The International Maritime Organization (IMO) is a specialized agency of the United Nations responsible
for overseeing the safety and security of shipping and the prevention of maritime pollution by ships. The
International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL) is the main environment-
related convention of the IMO, and it addresses the prevention of pollution of the marine environment
from operational or accidental causes. Six technical annexes currently exist under MARPOL, with Annex
VI covering the prevention of air pollution from - as well as the energy efficiency of- ocean-going
vessels. Entered into force on May 19, 2005, Annex VI sets limits on sulfur oxide (SOx) and nitrogen oxide
(NOx) emissions from ship exhausts and prohibits deliberate emissions of ozone-depleting substances.
The annex allows countries or regions to establish emission control areas (EGAs) that specify more
stringent standards for vessel pollution in and around coastal areas. These designated EGAs protect
public health and the environment by reducing exposure to harmful levels of air pollution resulting from
ship emissions within a certain distance from the coast.
The U.S., Canada, and France proposed the designation of an EGA for most of North America in 2009,
and the North American EGA entered into force in August 2012. Since 2009, Mexico's Secretary of
Environment and Natural Resources (SEMARNAT) has been actively working with the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) to explore parallel actions to reduce air pollution from ships
in Mexican waters, including potential ratification of Annex VI and establishment of a Mexican EGA.
Throughout this project, SEMARNAT and U.S. EPA reached out to other relevant Mexican government
ministries and stakeholders, initially to raise their awareness of the benefits of reducing ship emissions,
and, as the substantial benefits to Mexico became clearer, to gain their support for this effort. This
collaboration resulted in the development of a work plan and strategy to develop technical information to
inform an EGA designation (SEMARNAT, 2013), beginning with preliminary modeling of the Mexican
emissions inventory as described in this report.
The work plan outlined the steps required to generate the technical information needed to convince policy
makers to ratify MARPOL Annex VI and to build the case for the Mexican EGA. The work plan
documented the need to first understand the status and trends of shipping emissions. For an EGA
designation proposal to be approved, the proposal must demonstrate the need to prevent, reduce, and
control emissions of NOX or SOX and particulate matter (PM), or all three types of emissions from ships,
and show that emissions from ships operating in the proposed area of application are contributing to
ambient concentrations of air pollution or to adverse environmental impacts, including human health
impacts. The first step is to assess emissions from ships operating in the proposed area of application.
The ship emissions inventory is used as an input to air quality models that estimate air quality impacts
from large commercial ship activities. These impacts are then input into health effects models to estimate
the public health impacts from large commercial ship activities. Thus, producing a ship emissions
inventory is the first step in generating the technical information necessary to support an EGA designation
proposal. This is reflected in Figure 1 (adapted from the 2013 Mexican work plan).
EPA-160-R-15-001 | May 2015
-------
Activities Database
L1 .F"!'.Cl!lra?!rJS_ti51 J '" " Con'cenfra'ron mVps'
Inventory WRF-chem1
-i ,
• Emission 2011
• Emission scenario 2030: t
• BAU, MARPOL+ECA
BenMAP2
*
Economic and
health impact
Fuel Analysis:.
Possible ratification:
MARPOL,
MARPOL+ECA.
£
^^-
Cost-benefit
,
Figure 1. Progression of steps needed to support an ECA designation (adapted from SEMARNAT, 2013).
In 2008, as part of its ECA designation proposal, the U.S. developed a ship emissions inventory for North
America. The inventory was developed by Energy and Environment Research Associates (EERA) based
on a model called the Ship Traffic, Energy and Environment Model (STEEM). This model included region-
specific data for Mexico and, in 2012, pursuant to a request by U.S. EPA and SEMARNAT, EERA
adapted STEEM to produce the 2011 Mexican ship emissions inventory.
More recently, SEMARNAT, U.S. EPA, Environment Canada, and Transport Canada have been
collaborating on a project1 run by the North American Commission for Environmental Cooperation (CEC)
to carry out the additional technical analyses needed to support Mexico's possible ratification of MARPOL
Annex VI and establishment of a Mexican ECA. The CEC work is informed by a separate work plan,
which is more recent than the 2013 SEMARNAT strategy. As part of the project, and at the request of
SEMARNAT, the CEC project team developed an emission inventory methodology for ships that Mexico
can use for future inventory efforts using non-proprietary methods. This is intended to confirm and update
the emissions inventory described in this report, which is based on a proprietary model (i.e., STEEM). The
work of the CEC will be reported in separate documents.
1.2 REQUIREMENTS FOR ESTABLISHING AN EMISSION CONTROL AREA
Countries that are parties to MARPOL Annex VI may apply to the IMO to designate an ECA. If an ECA
designation proposal is approved, large commercial ships that operate within the ECA are subject to
engine and fuel sulfur regulations that substantially reduce emissions of air pollutants linked to deleterious
human health and environmental effects such as NOX, SOX, and PM. As shown in Appendix I, the
globally-applicable standards established by MARPOL Annex VI have been strengthened somewhat over
time, but the limits applicable in the ECA are far more stringent because they are intended to address
regional air quality problems.
In order for an ECA designation proposal to be approved, the proposal must meet several criteria
including an assessment of the contribution of ships to ambient concentrations of air pollution and related
health and environmental impacts; a description of ship traffic in the proposed ECA; and an estimate of
the economic impacts on shipping engaged in international trade. (Appendix II provides a full listing of the
criteria.) One of Mexico's main goals is to assess the magnitude of the public health benefits of the ship
emission reductions achieved from an ECA. Because ship emissions impact air quality and are linked to
1 For project details, visit the CEC Active Projects webpage at:
http://www.cec.orq/Paqe. asp?PaqelD=122&ContentlD=25624
EPA-160-R-15-001 | May 2015
-------
health effects, the first step in demonstrating that an EGA would benefit public health is determining how
ship emissions would change with and without an EGA. In order to assess the public health impacts of
ship emissions, it is necessary to quantify the emissions from ships. This is done through an emissions
inventory. Various approaches can be used for conducting ship emissions inventories, as described later
in the report (see section on Methodology). This report describes the approach used for the 2011 and
2013 Mexican ship emissions inventory using the proprietary model STEEM.
1.3 ASSESSING THE IMPACT OF AN EGA ON SHIP EMISSIONS IN MEXICO
To quantify ship emissions and determine how they would change with and without an EGA, the U.S.
EPA commissioned Battelle Memorial Institute and EERA, experts in preparing ship emissions
inventories. EERA quantified changes in ship emissions using geographic information systems (CIS) and
STEEM. The IMO has recognized STEEM as an appropriate means of estimating changes in ship traffic
and emissions. In fact, the U.S. and Canada used STEEM to show the emissions benefits of an EGA
when they proposed that the IMO designate the North American EGA; the IMO approved the designation
proposal in 2010 and the EGA entered into force in 2012. Further, the CEC, U.S. EPA, and the California
Air Resources Board (GARB) have recognized and utilized STEEM as a reliable and valuable tool for
estimating ship emissions inventories.
To assess the impact of an EGA on ship emissions in Mexico, EERA initially used STEEM to prepare a
2011 ship emissions inventory to evaluate how ship emissions near Mexico would change with and
without an EGA (Appendix III provides the final results of the 2011 inventory). EERA then updated the
2011 inventory to reflect a 2013 base year, pursuant to SEMARNAT's request of U.S. EPA. EERA then
projected year 2030 ship emissions in waters near Mexico for two scenarios: (1) assuming that a Mexican
EGA was not designated by 2030; and (2) assuming that a Mexican EGA was designated by 2030. This
report presents the results of the 2013 Mexican ship emissions inventory and the two projected 2030
Mexican ship emissions inventories and discusses the implications of these results for Mexico as it
considers submitting an EGA designation proposal to the IMO.
2.0 Methodology
EERA used STEEM to conduct a 2013 emissions inventory that quantifies and then compares ship
emissions with and without an EGA. The inventory considered emissions for two areas within the
modeling domain: within and outside a potential Mexican EGA. Figure 2 shows the STEEM modeling
domain (outlined in the rectangle bounded by a blue line) that was used to create the 2013 inventory. It
also shows the U.S. portion of the existing North American EGA near Mexico (light green shaded area)
and the potential Mexican EGA (dark green shaded area). Note that the boundary of the Mexican EGA
modelled by EERA is 200 nautical miles from the coastline, which matches the boundary formally
established for the North American EGA. Results summarize emissions of NOX, SO, PM, black carbon
(BC), carbon dioxide (CO2), carbon monoxide (CO) and hydrocarbons (HC) within and outside a potential
Mexican EGA for the year 2013, as well as for the year 2030.
EPA-160-R-15-001 | May 2015
-------
MEXICO
Torr«on "'' *'•
Wlbcta
Sources Esri. DeLorsne, NAVTEQ. USGS, Intermap. iPC. NRCAN, Esn Japan, METI, Esn China (Hong
Kong), Esri (Thailand). TomTom. 2013
Figure 2. STEEM total modeling domain (inset box outlined in blue) and potential Mexican EC A (dark
green shaded area). The portion of the North American EC A near Mexico (light green shaded area) is
also shown.
2.1 OVERVIEW OF THE EMISSIONS INVENTORY MODELING PROCESS
While there are many specific examples of ways to produce a ship emissions inventory, most follow one
of two main approaches: "top-down" or "bottom-up." While each approach may generate the same types
of outputs (e.g., tonnes of NOX, SOX, PM, etc. from commercial ship activities), the inputs and
methodologies used to arrive at those outputs differ, and each approach has limitations and advantages.
EPA-160-R-15-001 | May 2015
-------
Table 1. A comparison of top-down and bottom-up ship emissions inventory approaches
"Top-down" approaches attributing
total emissions to fleet fuel
consumption
"Bottom-up" approaches
relying on partial or substantial
observation of fleet activity
Inputs
• Total fuel consumption by fuel type
• Emissions factors (g/tonne of fuel)
Shipping routes
Ship characteristics (e.g.,
engine power)
Time operating in open seas,
near port, and in port
Vessel-type-specific
emissions factors (e.g.,
g/kWh)
Modeling Methodology
Algebra
• Algebra
• CIS
Outputs
Total amount of pollutants (e.g.,
tonnes of NOx) from ships
Total amount of pollutants
(e.g., tonnes of NOx) from
ships
Limitations
Under-reporting of fuel consumption
Consumption not broken out by
vessel type
Difficult to apportion fuel
consumption among countries
Difficult to apportion fuel
consumption (and thus emissions)
along shipping routes and within
geographic areas, like EGAs
Requires collecting and
analyzing years of ship
activity data
Must extrapolate current year
activity from previous years'
activity
Uncertainty surrounding ship
characteristics and emissions
factors
Advantages
Easy to calculate
Relatively precise compared
to top-down approaches
Can estimate vessel-type-
specific emissions
Can apportion emissions
along shipping routes and
within geographic areas like
EGAs using CIS
In a top-down approach, total ship fuel consumption within the area of interest is used as the key input. If
one knows the types and amounts of fuel consumed, one can use emissions factors (e.g., grams of
pollutant per tonne of fuel consumed) to estimate the amount of air emissions produced by ship activity.
Despite the ease of calculation, there are well-known limitations. These include:
• top-down approaches have been documented to exhibit routine under-reporting of domestic fuel
consumption
• top-down fuel consumption is not broken out by vessel type
• top-down approaches are difficult to attribute consumption (and thus emissions) among countries,
shipping routes, and geographic areas, like EGAs
Bottom-up approaches use ship traffic activity, ship characteristics (e.g., engine power measured in
kilowatts), time operating in open seas, near port, and in port (measured in hours), and activity-based
EPA-160-R-15-001 | May 2015
-------
emission factors (e.g., grams of pollutant per kilowatt-hour) as inputs. While there are some limitations to
bottom-up approaches (Table 1), there are clear advantages. These include:
• bottom-up approaches can be relatively precise and more accurate compared to top-down
approaches
• bottom-up approaches can estimate vessel-type-specific emissions (i.e., they can distinguish the
amount of air pollutant emissions from container ships, reefers, etc.)
• bottom-up approaches can apportion emissions along shipping routes and within geographic areas
like EGAs using CIS
There are, of course, limitations to the bottom-up approach, which include:
• bottom-up approaches require collecting and analyzing years of ship activity data
• bottom-up approaches must extrapolate current year activity from previous years' activity
• bottom-up approaches are subject to uncertainty surrounding ship characteristics (e.g., vessel power
in-use along a route) and emissions factors
Despite these limitations, it is important to recognize that no country in the world, including the U.S., has a
maritime emissions inventory based entirely on emissions monitoring of the ships operating in its
waters. Instead the U.S., other countries, and the IMO now regularly use bottom-up approaches, like
STEEM, in developing ship emissions inventories because these methods are recognized as producing
reasonable estimates of ship emissions for large coastal areas.
2.2 STEEM
STEEM was constructed as a bottom-up ship emissions inventory that combines ship characteristics
including engine power, period of operation (time operating in open seas, near port, and in port), and
activity-based emission factors that account for variations in emissions based on vessel type. These
bottom-up methods have been peer-reviewed and follow methods described as best practices for
commercial marine vessel inventories (U.S. EPA, 2009). The methods are similar to those recommended
by the 2006 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Guidelines for Greenhouse Gas
Inventories (IPCC, 2006).
Ship routes in STEEM, as shown in Figure 3, are derived from actual ship position reports over a 20-year
period to determine where international shipping lanes were located. These ship position reports
contained vessel IMO identification numbers used by EERAto determine important characteristics such
as vessel type and installed main engine and auxiliary engine power (kW), for vessels traveling along
each shipping lane. In earlier work, EERA combined the ship energy use (kW) along each segment of the
shipping lanes with the emissions factors in Table 2 to calculate a 2011 ship emissions inventory for
Mexico. EERA developed these emissions factors in previous STEEM work (Corbett, 2010).
EPA-160-R-15-001 | May 2015
-------
-'
Figure 3. STEEM network representation, including -1700 World Ports. STEEM estimates emissions from
nearly complete historical North American shipping activities and individual ship attributes.
Table 2. Uncontrolled emissions factors (g/kWh) used in 2011 ship emissions inventory
calculations
Vessel Type
Bulk
Container
Fishing
General
Miscellaneous
Passenger
Reefer
RO-RO
Tanker
NOx
17.9
17.9
14
17.9
14
17.9
17.9
17.9
17.9
SOx
10.6
10.6
11.5
10.6
11.5
10.6
10.6
10.6
10,6
CO2
622.9
622.9
677
622.9
677
622.9
622.9
622.9
622.9
HC
0.6
0.6
0.5
0.6
0.5
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
PM
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
CO
1.4
1.4
1.1
1.4
1.1
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.4
2.3 ESTIMATING 2013 SHIP EMISSIONS
EERA estimated year 2013 ship emissions by multiplying STEEM's emission estimates for 2011 and the
vessel-specific compound annual growth rates for shipping activity shown in Table 3. The emissions
factors for 2011 and 2013 were the same because no new national or international maritime emissions
control regulations that would reduce pollutant emissions factors went into effect between 2011 and 2013.
The growth rates in Table 3 were derived from previous STEEM work (Corbett, 2010) that were
EPA-160-R-15-001 | May 2015
-------
developed specifically for North American routes, including Mexico shipping routes, and were reviewed by
SEMARNAT. These growth rates represent growth in activity (i.e., percent growth in the use of shipboard
power) for the international fleet of commercial vessels. These growth rates presented in Table 3 are
reasonable estimates for expected vessel activity growth in the modeling domain, including Mexico
shipping lanes. While growth rates vary by vessel type, EERA calculated a domain-wide activity growth
rate of 5% per year, accounting for variations in activity by vessel type within the modeling domain.
Table 3. Activity growth rates by vessel type derived specifically for North American routes,
including Mexico shipping routes
Vessel Type
Bulk Carrier
Container
Fishing
General Cargo
Miscellaneous
Passenger
Reefer
RO-RO
Tanker
Average Growth Rate
Growth Rate
1.1%
7.8%
0.1%
0.7%
0.4%
4.3%
6.4%
4.3%
1.4%
5.0%
Aggregate Domain-Wide, Activity-Weighted Growth rate is 5% per year.
Because Mexico and U.S. EPA are interested in the amount of ship-related air pollutant emissions within
particular geographic areas, EERA used CIS to apportion ship emissions inside and outside of a potential
Mexican EGA, but within the modeling domain. (See Figure 2 fora visual representation of the modeling
domain and the area of a potential Mexican EGA.) Figure 4 provides an example where EERA used
STEEM and CIS to determine the amount of CO2 outside and inside a potential Mexican EGA (the dark
green shaded area). EERA divided the shipping lanes into grid cells in CIS and calculated the amount of
each air pollutant for each cell. Then EERA used CIS to identify those grid cells that were outside and
inside the potential Mexican EGA. From there, EERA summed the amount of ship air emissions for each
area.
EPA-160-R-15-001 | May 2015
-------
Sources Esn. DcLorme. NAVTEO. USGS. Intermap iPC MRCAN Esri Japan METI Esn Cnma(Hong
Kong) Esn (Thailand). TomTom. 2013
Figure 4. Example of pairing STEEM with GIS to estimate ship air emissions outside and inside a
potential Mexican ECA (dark green shaded area) but within the modeling domain; 2013 CC>2 emissions
are displayed (dark red represents high emissions).
2.4 ESTIMATING 2030 SHIP EMISSIONS
EERA utilized STEEM results to present two future emissions scenarios for the year 2030. Both scenarios
use the vessel-type-specific activity growth rates found in Table 3. The first scenario assumes that a
Mexican ECA has not been designated by 2030, and thus uses emissions factors shown in Table 4 that
are adjusted to reflect a 0.5% global marine fuel sulfur cap and the globally-applicable NOX marine engine
standards established by MARPOL Annex VI. The second scenario assumes that a Mexican ECA ;"s
designated prior to 2030 and uses emissions factors that are adjusted to reflect a 0.1% marine fuel sulfur
cap and IMO Tier III NOX marine engine standards (Table 5). EERA developed the emissions factors
found in Table 4 in previous STEEM work (Corbet, 2010) and reduced the NOX, SOX, and PM emissions
factors found in Table 5 to reflect IMO (2008a) Tier III NOX marine engine standards (80% reduction from
Tier I) and a 0.1% marine fuel sulfur standard for ships operating in EGAs (IMO, 2008b). (See Appendix I
for a summary of key MARPOL Annex VI fuel sulfur limits and marine engine NOX standards.) For
emissions within the modeling domain and outside of the already-established North American ECA or the
potential Mexican ECA, the emissions factors from Table 4 are applied.
EPA-160-R-15-001 | May 2015
-------
Table 4. Emissions factors (g/kWh) for 2030 outside an EGA, reflecting 0.5% fuel sulfur and IMO
Tier I NOx marine engine standards
Vessel Type
Bulk
Container
Fishing
General
Miscellaneous
Passenger
Reefer
RO-RO
Tanker
NOx
17
17
14
17
14
17
17
17
17
SOx
1.96
1.96
2.13
1.96
2.13
1.96
1.96
1.96
1.96
CO2
622.9
622.9
677
622.9
677
622.9
622.9
622.9
622.9
HC
0.6
0.6
0.5
0.6
0.5
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
PM
0.28
0.28
0.28
0.28
0.28
0.28
0.28
0.28
0.28
CO
1.4
1.4
1.1
1.4
1.1
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.4
Table 5. Emissions factors (g/kWh) for 2030 within an EGA, reflecting 0.1% fuel sulfur and IMO Tier
III NOx marine engine standards
Vessel Type
Bulk
Container
Fishing
General
Miscellaneous
Passenger
Reefer
RO-RO
Tanker
NOx
3
3
2
3
2
3
3
3
3
.11
.11
.83
.11
,83
.11
.11
.11
.11
SOx COZ
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.392
.392
.392
.392
.392
.392
.392
.392
.392
622
622
.9
.9
677
622
.9
677
622
622
622
622
.9
.9
.9
.9
HC
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.6
.6
.5
.6
.5
.6
.6
.6
.6
PM
0.08
0.08
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.08
.08
.08
.08
.08
.08
.08
CO
1.4
1.4
1.1
1.4
1.1
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.4
2.5 PORT EMISSIONS
While emissions from ships in ports were used in addition to STEEM in developing the North American
marine emissions inventory, EERA did not do so in developing the initial 2011 Mexican marine emissions
inventory. No national-scale inventory of ship emissions in ports in Mexico was known to exist at the time
of EERA's work, and SEMARNAT officials agreed to proceed on this task without one. Moreover, EERA,
Battelle, SEMARNAT, and U.S. EPA concluded that the addition of national port ship emissions data for
Mexico would make a very marginal difference to the overall results of this marine emissions inventory.
Further, EERA, Battelle, SEMARNAT, and U.S. EPA determined that the 2011 Mexican marine emissions
inventory would provide Mexico with sufficient information to demonstrate that ships operating in the
proposed area of application are contributing to ambient concentrations of air pollution or to adverse
environmental impacts, including human health impacts, if they prepared an EGA designation proposal for
IMO. This does not mean, however, that port emissions are irrelevant in terms of air quality, public health
and the environment in local areas, as demonstrated in many port areas around the world. In a separate
effort, the CEC has developed an emission inventory approach for future updates to ship emissions as
part of the national emission inventory that will include Mexican ship emissions while in port (CEC, 2015).
EPA-160-R-15-001 | May 2015 10
-------
3.0 Results
Emissions of NOX, SOX, PM, BC, CO2, CO, and HC within and outside a potential Mexican EGA, but
within the modeling domain, for the year 2013 are shown in Table 6. These estimates reflect all MARPOL
Annex VI requirements applicable at that time. In other words, for 2013 emissions estimates (Table 6),
EGA-applicable MARPOL Annex VI standards apply to shipping activity in within the existing North
American EGA; less stringent globally-applicable Annex VI standards apply to shipping activity in the area
of the potential Mexican EGA and within the rest of the total modeling domain (see Figure 2 for a
description of these areas).
Table 6. 2013 Emissions (tonnes) within a potential Mexican EGA, outside the potential Mexican
EGA, and within the total modeling domain
Pollutant (tonnes)
Mexican (MX)
EGA
Outside MX
EGA
NOX
5,303,000
22,839,000
sox
613,500
2,650,000
PM
86,800
374,300
BC
2,600
11,200
C02
194,674,000
840,995,000
CO
436,600
1,880,000
HC
187,200
806,200
Total Modeling
Domain 28,142,000 3,263,500 461,100 13,800 1,035,669,000 2,316,600 993,400
These emissions are expected to grow in the future as a function of increased economic activity and
international trade, despite the existence of current Annex VI standards that apply globally. However, an
EGA can reduce future emissions of pollutants in both relative and absolute terms. Table 7 highlights the
expected emissions of these pollutants within the area of a potential Mexican EGA for the year 2030.
Compared to the base case in which only the globally-applicable Annex VI standards apply to Mexican
waters, a Mexican EGA would avoid 80% of future NOX and SOX emissions and 70% of future PM and BC
emissions in 2030 within 200 nm of the Mexican coast (i.e., within the area of the potential Mexican EGA).
Further, an EGA can reduce absolute emissions estimates below the 2013 values despite growth in
commercial marine vessel activity. For example, within the area of a potential Mexican EGA, 2013 NOX
emissions are estimated to be approximately 5.3 million tonnes (Table 6); in 2030, these emissions are
expected to decrease to approximately 2.4 million tonnes in that same area (Table 7), assuming a
Mexican EGA is designated. Similarly, within the area of a potential Mexican EGA, 2030 emissions are
expected to be lower, in absolute terms, than 2013 emissions for NOX, SOX, PM, and BC.
EPA-160-R-15-001 | May 2015 11
-------
Table 7. 2030 Emissions (tonnes) within the area of a potential Mexican EGA assuming (a) that a
Mexican EGA is not designated by 2030 and (b) that a Mexican EGA is designated by 2030
Pollutant (tonnes)
NO SO^ PMBCCO2CO HC
2030 without MX EGA (a) 12,738,000 1,472,000 208,000 6,200 467,106,000 1,049,000 450,000
2030 with MX EGA (b) 2,372,000 289,000 60,000 1,800 467,106,000 1,049,000 450,000
Emissions Avoided
Emissions Avoided (%)
10,366,000 1,183,000 148,000 4,400
80% 80% 70% 70%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
4.0 Conclusions
Establishing a Mexican EGA is expected to substantially reduce future ship emissions of NOX, SOX, PM,
and BC in Mexican waters. Using STEEM and CIS, EERA estimates that a Mexican EGA would avoid
80% of the future NOX and SOX emissions and 70% of future PM and BC emissions in 2030 compared to
what would be expected without an EGA (and pursuant to the globally-applicable MARPOL Annex VI
standards) from commercial marine ships operating within 200 nm off the Mexican coast. Additionally, an
EGA is predicted to result in 2030 commercial marine ship emissions that are lower in absolute terms
than 2013 emissions for NOX, SOX, PM, and BC. These pollutants have been linked to serious negative
health consequences, including premature mortality. Thus, an EGA would be expected to have
considerable air quality and public health benefits, as well as positive environmental impacts.
Mexican officials and stakeholders should be confident that the results presented here are robust.
STEEM has been used to support successful EGA designation applications to the IMO by the U.S. and
Canada. If Mexico decides to pursue an EGA designation, the evidence contained in this report can help
support the development of a compelling proposal to the IMO. An EGA would avoid substantial emissions
of harmful pollutants from large commercial marine ships - most of which are flagged to countries other
than Mexico and thus not subject to any existing Mexican air pollution control standards.
The fact that the North American EGA is expected to provide significant health benefits to Canada, the
U.S., and indirectly even to Mexico, coupled with the emissions avoidance in Mexican waters predicted
here, supports the claim that a Mexican EGA would produce public health benefits. Further, the STEEM
inventory provides evidence that a Mexican EGA would meet IMO's criterion of producing public health
benefits, and is an appropriate and acceptable means to quantify estimates of those benefits.
EPA-160-R-15-001 | May 2015 12
-------
5.0 References
Commission for Environmental Cooperation (CEC). 2015. Reducing emissions from goods movement via
maritime transportation in North America: Update of the Mexican port emissions data - Draft for
review. Montreal: CEC.
Corbett, J.J. 2010. Improved geospatial scenarios for commercial marine vessels. Sacramento, CA:
California Air Resources Board and the California Environmental Protection Agency.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2006. Chapters: Mobile combustion. In IPCC, 2006
Guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories, Volume 2: Energy. Prepared by the National
Greenhouse Gas Inventories Programme, Eggleston, H.S., Buendia, L, Miwa, K., Ngara, T., and
Tanabe, K. (eds). Japan: IGES.
International Maritime Organization (IMO). 2008a. Nitrogen oxides (NOx) - Regulation 13. In MEPC
58/23/Add.1, Annex 13: Resolution MEPC.176 (58). London: IMO.
International Maritime Organization (IMO). 2008b. Sulfur oxides (SOx) - Regulation 14. In MEPC
58/23/Add.1, Annex 13: Resolution MEPC.176 (58). London: IMO.
Mexico Secretary of Environment and Natural Resources (SEMARNAT). 2013. Work plan and strategy for
technical analyses needed for MARPOL Annex VI ratification and development of an EC A
proposal.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2009. Current methodologies in preparing mobile
source port-related emission inventories final report. Prepared by ICF International. Washington,
DC: U.S. EPA. Report No: 09-024
EPA-160-R-15-001 | May 2015 13
-------
APPENDIX I: Key MARPOL Annex VI Standards (Global
and EGA)
Fuel sulfur limit (sulfur content cap) (from Regulation 14 of MARPOL Annex VI)
Applicability
Global
EGA
Effective Date
Priorto 1 Jan. 2012
As of 1 Jan. 2012
As of 1 Jan. 2020 (*)
1 July 2010
1 Jan. 201 5
Sulfur Limit
4.5% (45,000 ppm)
3.5% (35,000 ppm)
0.5% (5,000 ppm)
1.0% (10,000 ppm)
0.1% (1,000 ppm)
Comment
Applies to all ships
*subject to feasibility review in 2018,
could delay effective date to 2025
NOx marine engine emission standards (from Regulation 13 of MARPOL Annex VI)
Applicability
Global
EGA
Effective Date
1 Jan. 2000
1 Jan. 2011
1 Jan 2016
NOx Limit
Tier 1
Tier 2: -20%
reduction below Tier
1 for new vessels
Tier 3: 80% reduction
below Tier 1 for new
vessels
Comment
Applies to marine diesel engines on
ships constructed on or after this date
Applies to ships constructed on or after
this date
Applies to ships built as of 2016 when
they operate in the North American and
U.S. Caribbean Sea EGAs.
EPA-160-R-15-001 | May 2015
A 1-1
-------
APPENDIX II: Required Elements of an EGA Designation
Proposal
The required elements of an EGA designation proposal are as follows:
1. A delineation of the geographic scope of the proposed EGA
2. The type(s) of emissions proposed for control (SOx/PM and/or NOx)
3. A description of the human populations and environmental areas at risk from ship emissions
4. An assessment that emissions from vessels operating in the proposed EGA contribute to ambient
concentrations of air pollution or adverse environmental impacts
5. Relevant meteorological, topographical, geographical, oceanographic, and morphological information
6. Information about the nature of vessel traffic in the proposed EGA
7. A description of the party or parties' land-based emission control regime
8. The economic impacts and relative costs of reducing vessel emissions as compared to land-based
controls
Source: Appendix III of MARPOL Annex VI, as amended in 2008
EPA-160-R-15-001 | May 2015 A 11-1
-------
APPENDIX III: 2011 Ship Emission Inventory Results
EPA-160-R-15-001 | May2015 AIII-1
-------
TO: Ken Cowen, Battelle Memorial Institute
FROM: James J. Corbett, Energy and Environmental Research Associates (EERA)
SUBJECT: Ship Emissions Inventory Scenarios for U.S.-Mexico technical exchange on reducing
shipping emissions
DATE: 17 December 2012
CC: Angela Bandemehr, U.S. EPA; David Alejandro Parra Romero, La Secretarfa de Medio
Ambiente y Recursos Naturales (SEMARNAT); Hugo Landa Fonseca, SEMARNAT
This memorandum summarizes in outline form, the scope, methods, and results of a ship emissions
inventory for the Mexico domain. This memorandum is accompanied by delivery of the inventory data
for 2011, a 2030 growth scenario incorporating current MARPOL Annex VI standards without specifying
an Emissions Control Area (EGA), and a 2030 control scenario implementing EGA conditions within a
possible EGA boundary defined by SEMARNAT. These data are provided in model-ready format,
specified by SEMARNAT.
1. Overall Scope Summary
In April 2012, EERA was contracted by Battelle Memorial Institute to support a U.S. -Mexico
technical exchange on reducing shipping emissions. Mexico is beginning the extensive modeling
work necessary to develop an EGA under International Maritime Organization MARPOL convention
Annex VI. Ultimately air quality modeling will be needed to show health and environmental benefits
in implementing an EGA in Mexico. This analysis is critical for Mexican ratification of MARPOL Annex
VI and establishment of an EGA, as required by the IMO.
Mexico region-specific data were generated during the North American EGA technical analyses,
supporting the IMO designation of waters that surround a large portion of North American coasts as
an area in which stringent international emission standards will apply to ships. In spring 2012, EERA
prepared for SEMARNAT, a summary of the shipping data that was used in previous analysis and
suggested how these data could be updated and applied within a potential Mexico EGA domain.
Based on discussions related to this work, including a review of updated ship traffic data provided by
Mexico to cover the interim years between the prior study and this work, EERA produced shipping
emissions estimates for a Mexico domain for the years 2011 and 2030. The base year 2011
represents estimates for a "current" year prior to potential MARPOL Annex VI implementation. The
2030 future year shipping estimates enable Mexico to compare two scenarios: a) No-MX-ECA, where
global IMO MARPOL Annex VI global sulfur limits will apply; and b) MX-ECA, where additional sulfur
reductions would correspond to a Mexico Emission Control Area.
2. Methodology Outline
2.1. Previous work used as starting point
a. Vessel-specific STEEM runs from prior study provided a geospatial representation of
shipping traffic patterns and associated emissions. This work was extensively presented and
reviewed by SEMARNART and other agencies during meetings in May 2012, and in
teleconference webinar discussions. Copies of all prior work were provided to SEMARNAT.
EPA-160-R-15-001 | May2015 A III-2
-------
b. Defined domain for Mexico analysis, with approval from SEMARNAT staff
a. GIS projection used the existing GCS_WGS_1984, to be converted prior to
transmittal
b. Top (north boundary): 35.00 decimal degrees
c. Bottom (south boundary): 10.00 decimal degrees
d. Left (west boundary): -130.00 decimal degrees
e. Right (east boundary): -80.00 decimal degrees
c. Per request from SEMARNAT, we redefined the grid size for output
a. grid cells are 0.25 degrees x 0.25 degrees on GCS WGS84
b. grid cells are approximately 28 kilometer x 28 kilometer at center of domain
c. final output will be re-projected to desired coordinate system for modeling,
specified as Lambert Conformal by SEMARNAT
2.2. Updated Emissions Rates
a. Based on current IMO MARPOL VI legislation, emissions limits applying to non-ECA regions
and to EGA regions will become progressively stricter over the next two decades. Table 1
shows the MARPOL Annex VI limits for oxides of sulfur.
Table 8. Present and upcoming fuel oil sulfur limits inside and outside EGAs
Outside an EGA
4.50% m/m prior to 1 January 2012
3.50% m/m on and after 1 January 2012
0.50% m/m on and after 1 January 2020*
Inside an EGA
1.50% m/m prior to 1 July 2010
1.00% m/m on and after 1 July 2010
0.10% m/m on and after 1 January 2015
*depending on the outcome of a review, to be concluded in 2018, as to the availability of the required
fuel oil, this date could be deferred to 1 January 2025.
b. Emissions in 2011 are shown in Table 2. These rates are taken directly from the previous
analysis for the North American EGA application, and applied to estimate 2011 inventory for
this work. Black Carbon emissions rates are proportional to total PM rates, although the
literature reports a range of typical proportions. For Vessels that are uncontrolled for PM
currently, we use a BC:PM ratio of approximately 3%, per the U.S. EPA Report to Congress
on Black Carbon (2012), by Sauser E., Hemby J., Adler K., e al.
Table 9. Summary of uncontrolled emissions factor in 2002, 2010 (g/kWh).
Bulk
Container
Fishing
General
Miscellaneous
Passenger
Reefer
RO-RO
Tanker
17,
17,
14
17,
14
17,
17,
17,
17,
.9
.9
.9
.9
.9
.9
.9
10.
10.
11.
10.
11.
10.
10.
10.
10.
,6
,6
,5
,6
,5
,6
,6
,6
,6
622.
622.
677
622.
677
622.
622.
622.
622.
,9
,9
,9
,9
,9
,9
,9
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
.6
.6
.5
.6
.5
.6
.6
.6
.6
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
,5
,5
,5
,5
,5
,5
,5
,5
,5
1.4
1.4
1.1
1.4
1.1
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.4
EPA-160-R-15-001 | May2015 A III-3
-------
c. Emissions in 2030, under baseline conditions, are adjusted to represent the global sulfur
emissions cap of 0.5%. Based on published literature, reduced sulfur content in fuels also
reduces total PM. These emissions rates are shown in Table 3.
Table 10. Summary of emissions factor in 2030, representing 0.5% global sulfur, and presuming all ships meet
Tier I NOx standards, and associated PM reductions (proportional to SOx changes for 2030)
Bulk
Container
Fishing
General
Miscellaneous
Passenger
Reefer
RO-RO
Tanker
17
17
14
17
14
17
17
17
17
1.96
1.96
2.13
1.96
2.13
1.96
1.96
1.96
1.96
622.9
622.9
677
622.9
677
622.9
622.9
622.9
622.9
0.6
0.6
0.5
0.6
0.5
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.28
0.28
0.28
0.28
0.28
0.28
0.28
0.28
0.28
1.4
1.4
1.1
1.4
1.1
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.4
d. Emissions in 2030, under potential EGA conditions, are adjusted to represent the sulfur
limits of 0.1%. These emissions rates are shown in Table 4.
Table 11. From Current scope, representing a EGA reduction to ~0.1% Sulfur, and presuming ships meet Tier II
NOx, and associated PM reductions (proportional to SOx changes for 2030)
Bulk
Container
Fishing
General
Miscellaneous
Passenger
Reefer
RO-RO
Tanker
3.
3.
2.
3.
2.
3.
3.
3.
3.
,11
,11
,83
,11
,83
,11
,11
,11
,11
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
.392
.392
.392
.392
.392
.392
.392
.392
.392
622,
622,
677
622,
677
622,
622,
622,
622,
.9
.9
.9
.9
.9
.9
.9
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
,6
,6
,5
,6
,5
,6
,6
,6
,6
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
.08
.08
.08
.08
.08
.08
.08
.08
.08
1.4
1.4
1.1
1.4
1.1
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.4
2.3. Growth rates
Vessel specific rates are derived from prior work, and were reviewed by SEMARNAT. The
vessel-specific shipping data was then recalculated using a compounding growth rate to
represent asymmetric pattern growth on routes used by multiple ship types. Table 5
presents the growth rates used for this work, conforming to a domain-average growth rate
of 5% per year. (The domain-average growth rate is weighted by shipping traffic intensity
on each segment in the geospatial routes within the domain, so does not represent a
directly calculable result from the growth rates in Table 5.)
EPA-160-R-15-001 | May2015 A III-4
-------
Table 12. Summary of growth rate calculations supporting a regional compound average growth rate ~5%.
Vessel Type
Bulk Carrier
Container
Fishing
General Cargo
Miscellaneous
Passenger
Reefer
RO-RO
Tanker
Growth Rate
1.1%
7.8%
0.1%
0.7%
0.4%
4.3%
6.4%
4.3%
1.4%
Average Growth Rate 5.0%
3. Results
The application of growth rates mentioned in previous sections defines emissions estimates for
2011 and 2030. Table 6 presents emissions totals for 2011. Table 7 presents emissions totals
for 2030, without adjusted emissions representing control under a Mexico EGA. Table 8
presents emissions totals for 2030, including reductions for those areas that conform to
expected EGA controls and no reductions for those areas not expected to conform that fall
within a Mexico domain.
These totals are identified by whether they fall within the potential Mexico EGA, within the
current U.S. EGA, or outside an EGA domain. Comparing Table 7 and Table 8, one can see that
the US EGA region remains unchanged (controlled within EGA limits in both scenarios); similarly,
the area outside EGA control is unchanged, conforming only to global MARPOL Annex VI
standards, applicable to oxides of sulfur, oxides of NOx, and PM (with BC a subset of PM).
Additionally, one can observe that controlled emissions within the Mexico EGA in 2030 after
growth escalation are lower than uncontrolled emissions in 2011. This demonstrates significant
potential reductions attributed to a Mexico EGA designation in coastal waters surrounding
Mexico.
All emissions values are presented in the gridded data file for modeling with columns for X and Y
coordinates indicating point location, additional columns designating estimated emissions and
rows representing each point.
EPA-160-R-15-001 | May2015 A III-5
-------
Table 13. Emissions estimates presented within each EGA zone, 2011 (Metric Tons).
Mexico EGA
Outside EGA
USA EGA
Total
178,229,000
689,959,000
83,982,000
952,170,000
Table 14. Emissions estimates presented
4,855,000
18,732,000
2,278,000
25,865,000
within each EGA zone,
562,000
2,174,000
265,000
3,000,000
2030 without
79,000
307,000
37,000
424,000
2,000
9,000
1,000
13,000
400,000
1,541,000
187,000
2,129,000
171,000
661,000
80,000
913,000
Mexico EGA
Outside EGA
USA EGA
Total
467,106,000
1,746,884,000
190,362,000
2,404,353,000
Table 15. Emissions estimates presented
12,738,000
47,571,000
965,000
61,273,000
within each EGA zone,
1,472,000
5,505,000
118,000
7,095,000
208,000
778,000
24,000
1,011,000
6,200
23,500
700
30,000
1,049,000
3,916,000
426,000
5,392,000
450,000
1,679,000
183,000
2,312,000
2030 with Mexico EGA (Metric Tons).
Mexico EGA
Outside EGA
USA EGA
Total
467,106,000
1,746,884,000
190,362,000
2,404,353,000
2,372,000
47,571,000
965,000
50,907,000
289,000
5,505,000
118,000
5,911,000
60,000
778,000
24,000
863,000
1,800
23,500
700
26,000
1,049,000
3,916,000
426,000
5,392,000
450,000
1,679,000
183,000
2,312,000
EPA-160-R-15-001 | May2015 A III-6
-------
The prior work used as a basis for this work included port-call data specific to each nation (U.S., Canada,
and Mexico). Thus, we can evaluate the underlying information to estimate emissions proportions by
these nations. These are indicative only - i.e., the national shares are not certain, given the assumed
constancy of shipping patterns, the use of constant growth rates, etc. Table 9-11 presents proportional,
speciated emissions for these nations. Totals for all emissions data are presented in the gridded data
file, after merging the nation-by-nation data into a single value representing each grid point for
modeling.
Table 16. Summary of SOx emissions estimated for 2030 EGA scenario (Metric Tons).
Nation and Vessel Type
Mexico
USA
Canada
Total
Mexico EGA
81,000
193,000
14,000
289,000
USA EGA
587,000
4,765,000
153,000
5,505,000
Outside EGA
860
116,000
450
118,000
Total
669,000
5,075,000
168,000
5,911,000
Table 17. Summary of NOx emissions estimated for 2030 EGA scenario (Metric Tons).
Nation and Vessel Type
Mexico
USA
Canada
Total
Mexico EGA
666,000
1,588,000
119,000
2,372,000
USA EGA
5,082,000
41,172,000
1,316,000
47,571,000
Outside EGA
7,100
954,000
3,700
965,000
Total
5,755,000
43,714,000
1,439,000
50,907,000
Table 18. Summary of PM emissions estimated for 2030 EGA scenario (Metric Tons).
Nation and Vessel Type Mexico EGA USA EGA Outside EGA Total
Mexico
USA
Canada
Total
17,000
40,000
3,000
60,000
83,000
674,000
22,000
778,000
180
24,000
90
24,000
100,000
738,000
25,000
863,000
For clarity in transmittal, we present a selected set of maps to visualize the results presented in
the new data across the entire study domain. These maps are to be used for understanding the
data as a whole, rather than pinpointing specific emissions. Maps are reproduced full size at the
end of this memorandum. Figure 1 illustrates several key comparisons in three panels:
a. the percent change (increase) in energy use and/or CO2 emissions attributed to growth in
shipping within the domain.
b. the percent change (increase in warm colors, decrease in cool colors) in SOx emissions
attributed to both a growth in shipping activity and implementation of sulfur emissions
controls to comply with MARPOL Annex VI limits within a Mexico EGA.
c. the percent change in sulfur emissions between a scenario in which no-ECA condition is
adopted in 2030 and a scenario in which a Mexico EGA is designated.
EPA-160-R-15-001 | May2015 A III-7
-------
Growth in ship Energy/CO2
Change in SOx with EGA
a)
b)
UNITED STATES
•t PANAMA
Legend
(SOX 3030 Me
H| -SLV,
Meiico JOD Mite Coastal Suffer -Gulf cEZ
United States Exclusive Economic Zone
I I Stu* Dorwr,
C)
Figure 5. Change in emissions produced by 2030 Mexico EGA scenario compared with a) 2011 energy and CCh
emissions; b) 2011 SOx emissions; and c) 2030 Baseline Scenario emissions.
EPA-160-R-15-001 | May 2015
AIII-8
-------
a)
b)
c)
Figure 6. Illustration of SOx estimates for a) 2011 Scenario; b) 2030 Baseline Scenario; and c) 2030 Mexico EGA Scenario;
MARPOL Annex VI policy is explicitly controls SOx, NOx, and PM, with similar regulatory limits varying by pollutant.
EPA-160-R-15-001 | May 2015
AIII-9
-------
a)
UNITED STATES
b)
Figure 7. Illustration of COz estimates for a) 2011 Scenario; and b) 2030 Scenarios (both Baseline and EGA have
same estimates for CCh, CO, and HC; MARPOL Annex VI policy is explicitly controls SOx, NOx, and PM.
EPA-160-R-15-001 | May 2015
A 111-10
-------
a. Study assumption biases and limitations mostly relate to well-documented conditions underlying
the data used in prior studies, or the adjustments made for this inventory. Table 12 presents a
summary of potential impacts that may be associated with additional information, not addressed
in this inventory methodology. The degree by which combinations of these conditions may affect
the inventory values is not quantifiable within the methods followed here. However, these
conditions are largely similar to those in the successful North American EGA for the U.S. and
Canada. In fact, by holding these conditions constant, the potential impact (benefit) of reduced
emissions from ships can be directly evaluated.
Table 19. Summary of key conditions that could affect the inventory scenario results.
Conditions that may bias the
inventory lower
Investment in new port
capacity that attracts new
volume
Vessels transiting Panama
Canal without calling on North
America
Conditions with unquantified or
unknown inventory bias
Shifting shipping patterns due to
emerging markets
Constrained source of compliant
fuels; expanded use of after-
treatment
Conditions that may
bias the inventory
higher
Change in vessel speed,
i.e., slow steaming
operations
Fleet modernization
efficiencies reducing fuel
use
1. Deliverable details
Layout and resolution for the delivered data set will use a Lambert conformal resolution, per
specification by SEMARNAT. Among various Lambert projections in ESRI CIS tools we are
using, we confirmed with SEMARNAT that a projection using "North America Lambert Conformal
Conic" meets specifications (see http://spatialreference.org/ref/esri/102009/).
Fields in inventory files will include those identified in Table 13. Essentially there will be twenty-
seven data columns, three scenarios for each of seven pollutants. These are geo-located using
x- and y-coordinates appropriate to the specified projection.
With these inventories, modelers can evaluate fate and transport of emissions including shipping
within the domain, and compute the difference between 2030 scenarios with and without EGA
emissions reductions.
EPA-160-R-15-001 | May 2015
A 111-11
-------
Table 20. Summary of inventory fields contained in the delivered inventory file.
First four Field Names
North
American
Lambert
Conformal
North
American
Lambert
Conformal
WGS 1984
Decimal
Degrees X-
Coordinate
List of next 21 Fields
WGS 1984
Decimal
Degrees Y-
Coordinate
Conic (NALCC) Conic (NALCC)
X-coordinate
(meters)
XXX
XXX
XXX
XXX
XXX
XXX
XXX
XXX
XXX
XXX
XXX
XXX
XXX
XXX
XXX
XXX
XXX
XXX
XXX
XXX
XXX
X-coordinate
(meters)
yyy
yyy
yyy
yyy
yyy
yyy
yyy
yyy
yyy
yyy
yyy
yyy
yyy
yyy
yyy
yyy
yyy
yyy
yyy
yyy
yyy
XXX
XXX
XXX
XXX
XXX
XXX
XXX
XXX
XXX
XXX
XXX
XXX
XXX
XXX
XXX
XXX
XXX
XXX
XXX
XXX
XXX
yyy
yyy
yyy
yyy
yyy
yyy
yyy
yyy
yyy
yyy
yyy
yyy
yyy
yyy
yyy
yyy
yyy
yyy
yyy
yyy
yyy
Pollutant Projection
C02 2011
CO2 2030 Base
C02 2030 Mex EGA
SOx 2011
SOx 2030 Base
SOx 2030 Mex EGA
NOx 2011
NOx 2030 Base
NOx 2030 Mex EGA
HC 2011
HC 2030 Base
HC 2030 Mex EGA
CO 2011
CO 2030 Base
CO 2030 Mex EGA
PM 2011
PM 2030 Base
PM 2030 Mex EGA
BC 2011
BC 2030 Base
BC 2030 Mex EGA
EPA-160-R-15-001 | May 2015
A 111-12
-------
Figures. Full size map of Figure la.
UNITED STATES
Louiiwifl* -
N.MVIII. Kf
re«,v
Memphis
Legend
(C02 2030 Bas* - CO2 2011 Base» / CO2 2011 Base " 10O = % change
| | 2-50%
50-1 CO?-:.
|^| 100-220^',
HH 200-300%
Mexico 200 Mile Coastal Buffer- Gulf E6Z
EPA-160-R-15-001 | May 2015
A 111-13
-------
Figure 9. Full size map of Figure Ib.
UNITED STATES ,w'=""-
Louisvitl«-
Okl*.oma City .
Allnirjtiprquv
.
t i.W.V
M.mpMs
Legend
(SOx 2030 Mex EGA -2011 Base) f 2011 Base* 100 = % change
m -59% to -40%
|__| -39% to -20%
[ ] -19%toO %
[___ J 1% to 50%
| ] 51% to 10D%
gjj^l 101% to 200%
^B 201% Lo j.j;:"-.
Me* ico 200 Mile Coastal Buffer - Gulf EEZ
United States Exclusive Economic Zone
Study Domain
EPA-160-R-15-001 | May 2015
A 111-14
-------
Figure 10. Full size map of Figure Ic.
UNITED STATES
Tegucigalpa
. ,San Salvador
EL SAfriJifWuf ' ' NICARAGUA
Legend
(SOX 2030 Mex ECA - ZO^OBase): 2030 Base * 100 = % change
Mexico 200 Mile Coasla! Bufer - Gulf EEZ
Untied States Exclusive Eccnomic Zone
I I S:udy Domain
EPA-160-R-15-001 | May 2015
A 111-15
-------
Figure 11. Full size map of Figure 2a.
UNITED STATES
Louisville'
Legend
SOx 2011 Base (Metric Tons)
I 1-1,000
[ 1,001-5,000
^^| 5,001-15,000
^^| 15.001-30.000
^^| 30.001-100.000
Mexico 2OO Mile Coastal Buffer - Gulf EEZ
United States Exclusive Economic Zone
| | Study Domain
EPA-160-R-15-001 | May 2015
A 111-16
-------
Figure 12. Full size map of Figure 2b.
UNITED STATES
Legend
SOX 2030 Base (Metric Tons)
| 1-1.000
| 1.001-5.000
^H 5.001-15,000
^H 15.001-30.000
^H 30.001-100.000
Mexico 200 Mile Coastal Buffer - Gulf EE2
United States Exclusive Economic Zone
| | Study Domain
EPA-160-R-15-001 | May 2015
A 111-17
-------
Figure 13. Full size map of Figure 2c.
UNITED STATES
Legend
SOx 2030 Mex EGA (Metric Tons)
| 1-1.000
[ 1,001-5,000
m| 5,001-15,000
^H 15.001-30.000
^H 30.001-100.000
Mexico 200 Mile Coastal Buffer - Gulf EEZ
United States Exclusive Economic Zone
1 | Study Domain
EPA-160-R-15-001 | May 2015
A 111-18
-------
Figure 14. Full size map of Figure 3a.
, ,Sjn Sa'fvador
NICARAGUA
Hani
Legend
CO2 2011 Base (Metric Tons)
] 1 -250,000
250 001 - 1.000 000
|^H 1.000.001 - 2.000.000
|^H 2,000 001 - s,ooo.ooo
^B 5.000.001 -10.000,000
IH 10.000,001 - 30.000.000
Mexico 200 Mile Coastal Buffer - Gulf EEZ
United States Exclusive Economic Zone
| | Study Domain
EPA-160-R-15-001 | May 2015
A 111-19
-------
Figure 15. Full size map of Figure 3b.
UNITED STATES o
Legend
CO2 2030 Base (Metric Tons)
1 - 250.000
| 250001 - 1,000.000
^^t 1.000.001 -2.000.000
|^H 2,000.001 - 5.000 ODD
^B 5.000.001 - 10.000.000
^H 10.000.001 - 30.000,000
Mexico 200 Mile Coastal Buffer - Gulf EEZ
United States Exclusive Economic Zone
^ Study Domain
EPA-160-R-15-001 | May 2015
AIII-20
------- |