Great Lakes ships face choppy waters
Planned EPA rules could make sailing rough for transports
Published: October 25, 2009, 12:30 am
Story tools:
More Photos
Share this story:
The St. Marys Challenger was built in 1906 and still plies the Great Lakes.
But critics of proposed federal rules regarding ship emissions say the venerable vessel and a dozen other steamships on the Great Lakes could be forced off the waters by the more stringent requirements.
The rules proposed by the Environmental Protection Agency have spawned a debate between environmentalists, who claim the changes are needed to combat air pollution caused by commercial vessels, and critics with ties to the shipping industry, who contend the rules would impose an unfair, costly burden on Great Lakes carriers and lead to lost business.
The EPA rules, which have yet to be finalized, are aimed at cutting harmful emissions near the U. S. coastline, as well as on lakes and rivers. The agency wants to force vessels traveling inside of a 230- mile buffer zone of the U. S. coastline, known as an emissions control area, to burn low-sulfur fuels, instead of the “bunker fuel” they now use.
The Lake Carriers’ Association, which represents 18 U. S. companies that operate ships on the Great Lakes, has raised
a host of objections. It says the rules would disproportionately affect its members’ vessels, since they would have to comply with the toughest standards wherever they operated on the Great Lakes.
Oceangoing vessels, by contrast, for most of their trip to a U. S. port would be able to burn the less-expensive “bunker fuel” the EPA intends to crack down on, the LCA said.
Bad for business
The LCA and other critics of the proposed rules say U. S.- flagged ships on the Great Lakes would incur higher fuel costs, and risk losing cargo shipments to trucks and railroads. And they say unless the proposed rules are modified, the 13 U. S.-flagged steamships on the Great Lakes could be forced out of service.
The ships’ boilers are not equipped to safely burn the low-sulfur fuel, and the cost of altering the vessels’ systems to meet the new standards would be so high that the owners would likely scrap the ships, said Phil Linsalata, a spokesman for Warner Petroleum, a Michigan-based company that fuels vessels.
The 13 vessels represent about 19 percent of the cargo capacity of U. S.-flagged ships on the Great Lakes. The St. Marys Challenger is the oldest of the 13 steamers, while the newest vessel of the bunch was built in 1960.
American Steamship Co., which has its corporate offices in Amherst, owns and operates three steamships that would be impacted by the rules change: the American Valor, American Fortitude and American Victory. They are among 18 vessels in American Steamship’s fleet.
Interlake Steamship in Cleveland has two steamships in its nine-vessel fleet, including the Herbert C. Jackson, which calls on the ADM grain terminal in Buffalo. Under the proposed rules, those two vessels could be impacted as soon as 2012, said Mark Barker, Interlake’s president. “These boilers were not designed to burn light oil,” he said.
Matter of opinion
The LCA and an advocate of the stricter EPA rules for the Great Lakes disagree over the expense shipowners would face in converting their vessels.
The LCA said converting the steamers to diesel power would be lengthy and very costly, making it cost prohibitive. The organization cited the example of a vessel that was converted at a cost of $22 million and was in a shipyard for eight months.
But David Marshall, senior counsel for the Clean Air Task Force in New Hampshire, says the conversion cost would not necessarily be that high. Marshall said many of the systems changes made in such an extensive upgrade would not be required to satisfy the EPA rules, and he said a Canadian vessel was recently repowered at a lower cost, with an estimated payback period of three to four years.
And replacing the steamships’ engines with modern diesel engines could reduce their fuel consumption by one half, Marshall said.
James Weakley, the LCA’s president, counters that the U. S. Coast Guard requires shipowners to make a number of upgrades when it makes major modifications, and that engines are just part of the cost, and with more-expensive fuel, the payback period would not be the same. As for the Canadian example, Weakley said those vessels are smaller.
Good for environment
When the EPA announced the proposed rules last March, the agency said establishing an “emissions control area” around the nation’s coastline would save up to 8,300 American and Canadian lives each year by 2020, by curbing emissions near coastal communities.
The proposed rules fit into a
U. S.-Canada plan to create a North American emissions control area on the coastline, which has been submitted to the International Maritime Organization.
The EPA says its new standards would cut sulfur in fuel by 98 percent, particulate matter emissions by 85 percent, and nitrogen oxide emissions by 80 percent from the current global requirements.
“EPA believes that diesel exhaust is likely to be carcinogenic to humans by inhalation,” the agency said.
Environmental groups such as Great Lakes United, a navigation watchdog, favor applying the EPA’s proposed tougher standards to the Great Lakes.
“We don’t want to see goods moved from lakers to rail, but you can’t burn dirty fuel,” said Jennifer Nalbone, a campaign coordinator for Great Lakes United. “This is the 21st century.”
Nalbone acknowledged the industry’s complaint that U. S.- flagged Great Lakes carriers would have to comply with the strictest standards whenever they operated.
“I guess we’d say, ‘That’s the point. You operate in close proximity [to people who live near coastal communities] all the time,’ ” Nalbone said.
Nalbone said the solution is to modernize the vessels, to address not only air emissions but other challenges they face on the horizon, such as new ballast discharge standards and the prospect of lower lake levels in the future.
“I think they would find a lot of support from the environmental community for upgrading their fleet,” she said.
Concerns about trade
Some members of Congress from the Great Lakes are concerned about the potential economic impact of the EPA rules.
One of those members, Rep. James Oberstar, a Minnesota Democrat, is chairman of the House’s transportation and infrastructure committee. He asked EPA staff to meet with him and other members of his committee to talk about the EPA’s proposal.
The Globe and Mail, a Canadian newspaper, reported this month that the Canadian embassy in Washington, D. C., had asked the EPA to weaken the proposed rules, fearing a harmful effect on trade.
In a letter to the EPA last month, Weakley, the LCA’s president, said the agency lacked the scientific data and legal authority to extend the 230- mile buffer zone to the Great Lakes. He urged the EPA to “postpone implementation until the need has been substantiated.”
Weakley said the EPA had failed to fully understand the potential consequences for the Great Lakes.
But Nalbone, of Great Lakes United, worries that such major exceptions to the proposed EPA rules could “compromise” the larger U. S.-Canada agreement for an emissions control area.
“If you poke too many holes in this, it’s going to fall apart,” she said.
mglynn@buffnews.com
Newsletters
Sign up now for daily and weekly newsletters from BuffaloNews.com and get quick links to the info you want delivered directly to your inbox.Reader comments
Log into MyBuffalo to post a comment
MyBuffalo is the new social network from Buffalo.com. Your MyBuffalo account lets you comment on and rate stories at buffalonews.com. You can also head over to mybuffalo.com to share your blog posts, stories, photos, and videos with the community. Join now or learn more.
Comments have been disabled.
Due to a high volume of submissions that violate The News’ guidelines, commenting is no longer available on this story. If you’d like to share your thoughts on this story, click here to get information on contributing to The News’ opinion pages.