Analysis and Enforcement of MARPOL Annex VI: Controlling Ship Emissions

1. CONTROL OF EMISSIONS FROM SHIPS: ANALYSIS AND ENFORCEMENT OF THE REVISED MARPOL ANNEXVI Presented by capt. Evaldas Zacharevičius, director of Lithuanian Maritime Safety Administration Quality Shipping: XXI Century Standard. Safety and Pollution Prevention: Prospects We Face. Saint-Petersburg 21 and 22 October 2009.

2. THE NATURE OF THE PROBLEM • The shipping industry burns 300 million tons of bunker fuel per year. • Ships generate 30 percent of the world’s smog-forming emissions. • Bunker fuel burned by ships is 1,000 times dirtier than highway diesel used by trucks and buses. • Ship engines are far dirtier than on-road engines due to lack of strong regulation.

3. HUMAN HEALTH • Ship exhaust gases contains harmful air toxics, that cause cancer, respiratory illness and premature death. • Ship air pollution often harms people who live near ports. • More than one in 10 children has asthma in the world’s biggest port cities. • Near the big ports cancer risk due to breathing air toxics is five times higher than normal.

4. CLIMATE CHANGE • Ships burn tons of fuel per hour, generating large volumes of global warming gases that contribute to climate change. • Researches suspect, that the black soot from ship smokestacks settle on polar ice sheets and help cause melting. • The world’s shipping fleet generates about four percent of the world’s carbon dioxide emissions.

5. INTERNATIONAL ACTION • In 1973, an International conference of the IMO adopted the International Convention for the Prevention of Marine Pollution from Ships (MARPOL). • In 1997, the IMO agreed to MARPOL Annex VI, a global treaty to reduce air emissions from ships. • Annex VI entered into effect on May 19, 2005 (Internationally). 

6. IMPLEMENTATION OFREQUIREMENTS OF FIRST EDITIONМARPOL 73/78 ANNEX VI INLITHUANIA • 13 December 2005 – Entry into force date of ANNEX VI for Lithuania • Limits for sulphur content were set to: • 1,5% for SECA areas • 4,5 % for other areas • HFO sulphur contentin the area of the Baltic seaamounted from 1,9 to 2,2% on average. • Average sulphur content of fuelusedby Lithuanian ferriesamountedfrom 2,2 to 2,7%. • Therefore,limitations of fuel’ssulphur contentin SECA areas, after the entry into force of Annex VI, were appliedonlyforvessels, which used HFO.

7. IMPLEMENTATION OFREQUIREMENTSOF FIRST EDITION OF МARPOL 73/78 ANNEX VI IN LITHUANIA Use of low-sulphur content fuel (LSFO) instead of high-sulphur content fuel (HSFO) for engines of vessels,originatedsome relatedproblems, which were successfully solved by Lithuanian shipowners: • Increasing of fuel’s prices; • Investmentsin applicability offuel system towork in accordance withrequirements of 14th regulation; • Efforts to safeguard the resources of engines; • Limitations related with bunkering of vessels.

8. ADOPTION OF THE REVISED ANNEX VI OF MARPOL 73/78 • Following the entry into force of MARPOL Annex VI on 19 May 2005, MEPC 53 (July 2005) agreed to the revision of MARPOL Annex VI and the NOx Technical Code with the aim of significantly strengthening the emission limits in light of technological improvements and implementation experience. • IMO Sub-Committee on Bulk Liquids and Gases, as instructed by MEPC,prepared the draft amendments to MARPOL Annex VI. • As a result, MEPC 58 (October 2008) considered and adopted the revised MARPOL Annex VI and the NOx Technical Code.

9. REVISED МARPOL 73/78 ANNEX VI 19 May 2005 – ANNEX VI enters into force internationally Global sulphur limit 4.5% 1st July 2010 – entry into force of revised ANNEX VI Sulphur limit for SECA 1% 1 January 2015 Sulphur limit for SECA 0,1% 13 December 2005 MARPOL ANNEX VI enters into force for Lithuania 19 May 2006 Sulphur limit for SECA 1.5% 1 January 2012 Global sulphur limit 3.5% 1 January 2020 Global sulphur limit 0.5%

10. REVISED МARPOL 73/78 ANNEX VI: LITHUANIAN CASE Most topical problemswhich shipowners will face with regard offuturechanges,areincreasingfinancial expensesdue to thefulfillmentof new sulphur requirements. • Solutions for reduction of such costs which were applied by Lithuanian shipowners: • plugging of vessel to the ashore electricity; • using of siliconepaintfor coveringthe hull of vessel.

11. COST REDUCTION BY PLUGGING OF VESSEL TO THE ASHORE ELECTRICITY • Attempts of Lithuanian shipowners to plug the vessel to ashore electricity in Klaipeda port: • No detailed calculations were carried on, however experience shows, that this method is financialy justifiable, in particular after entry into force of revised Marpol Annex VI. • The existing capacity of electricity supply in Klaipeda port is sufficient only for few ships, therefore for the wide-scale use of such method additional transformer station is necessary.

12. USE OF SILICONE PAINTFOR COVERING THE HULL OF VESSEL (1) The hull of vesseliscovered by specialsilicone tissuealong whichwaterslides during the voyage of vessel. Advantages of use of silicon paint: • The silicone paint helps to savea big quantity of fuel for vessel. Drawbacks: • The method is quite expensive –to coverthe hull of one vessel (for example, vessel “Lisco Optima” – gross tonnage 25206 tones) by silicone paintcosts about0,3million Euro. • The vessel has always to be kept in working condition. Otherwise slimesorwracks will grow on the bottom of vessel very quickly.

13. USE OF SILICONE PAINTFOR COVERING THE HULL OF VESSEL (2) • When the vesselison dock, the hullhas to be affected by sunas less as possible,becausesunbeamsstimulates growing of slimes or wracks on hull as well. • In the case of the needto coverthe hull of vesselby new silicone tissue, it is necessary to remove awaythe old paint tissue,because otherwisethis new tissuewill not be held onthe hull ofvessel.Old paint tissuecan be removed very hardlyand this process takes a lot of time. Calculations revealed, thatnotwithstanding to all aforementioned drawbacks, this methodentirely justifies all expenditures related to the application of the silicon paint on the hull of vessel and on the end of the day allows to save money.

14. CONCLUSIONS • Although concerns about the cost implications of the switch to low sulphur fuels are raised, experience shows, that in light of technological improvements, cost effective solutions with regard to use of low sulphur fuels are available for the industry. • Efforts made by IMO with regard to reduction of air pollution are based on scientific information, therefore revised Annex I of Marpol 73/78 undoubtedlywill havepositiveinfluenceon atmosphere environmentand health of people, especially these people who live oncoasts ofport townsandin coastalareas.