NAMEPA 2014 Annual Conference

New York City

Canada andNorth American Emission Control Area

RDIMS # 10059439

Overview

• The case for the Emission Control Area

• Stakeholder concerns

• Domestic implementation

• Regulations for the Great Lakes

• Alternative compliance

• Results so far

• Next steps

2

Making the case for an Emission Control Area (ECA)

• 2006 agreement with US at head of state level

• Follow criteria of Appendix III, Annex IV to MARPOL

• Environment Canada carried out modeling of emissions and their deposition over Canada

• Health Canada carried out assessment of public health impacts based on above modeling

3

An ECA requires an amendment to Annex VI of the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL)

Impacts of sulphur oxides

4

Influence of marine emissions on summertime ozone levels (top) and sulphur deposition levels (bottom) in Canada

• Marine emissions contribute to smog levels (O3 and PM2.5) in all Canadian provinces where there is commercial marine activities (BC, Ontario, Quebec, Maritimes)

• Large portions of the Canadian population and ecosystems are affected by air pollution associated with marine transportation.

The North American Emission Control Area

5

Stakeholder views

6

• International sector

Accept the ECA, concern for fuel availability TC worked with US on policies for fuel availability

• Domestic sectorOperate in the Great Lakes System; concern for fuel costs

TC negotiated alternative regime to address concerns

• Ports and Port CommunitiesGenerally support ECA, concern for competition between ports for trade corridors

and cruise destinations Compliance alternatives for cruise sector available to others

• Cruise sectorContinuously operate in ECA; concern for fuel costsTC worked with US on alternative compliance regime

Domestic implementation

• Amendments to the Vessel pollution and dangerous chemicals regulations published May 8, 2013

• Consultations with stakeholders were key and identify concerns related to fuel costs and availability

• Fleet averaging addressed domestic marine operators in Great Lakes and Seaway system

• Alternative compliance addressed ocean going vessels and cruise sector

7

Regulations for the Great Lakes System

8

• Canadian fleet undergoing renewal

• The Regulations include significant flexibility based on discussions held with industry associations and individual firms operating domestic vessels in Canada

• Compliance is assessed based on the average sulphur content in fuel used by a firm’s fleet rather than on an individual vessel basis.

• Vessels built after December 31, 2008 get a 10% efficiency credit and vessels built after August 1, 2012, get a 20% credit.

• Additional flexibility is provided to shipowners through the Marine Technical Review Board process.

Fleet targets for fuel sulphur content for domestic “laker” vessels compared to ECA

Flexible timeframeFlexible timeframe

Alternative compliance options

• MARPOL Annex VI provides options to flag States under Regulations 3 and 4 for research into new technology and equivalent performance

• Canada, the US and France are of the view flag States need to consult with ECA states prior to approving a measure under Regulation 3 or 4

• Flag States prefer to work with ECA states to ensure smooth implementation of such measures

9

Results so far: Domestic

• Five firms participating in Great Lakes regulations option• Canadian Great Lakes bulk carrier fleet to receive 15 new builds

before January 1, 2016• Other new builds planned for ferry fleet, over 25 new builds into 2020• Scrubbers and LNG in the mix of options for compliance• LNG now has lower price than HFO bunkers on the west coast

10

Results so far: International

• Canada received to date some 30 fuel oil non-availability reports (FONAR) on Atlantic coast and 15 on the Pacific coast. • Expected for the 1.0% standard, not foreseen for 0.1%

• Alternative compliance

Scrubbers: cruise sector 57 vessels– plus 38 vessels not under Regulation 3 exemptions

LNG: two vessels under permit, several planned

Shore power: three ports • Vancouver, Prince Rupert, Halifax

• Cruise sector has led the way

• Other sectors trading North American coasts now working on alternative options

11

Timeline for IMO Air Emissions Standards

12

Next steps

Sulphur oxides

• 0.1 percent sulphur comes into effect January 1, 2015

• Fuel expected to be available -distillates

• Compliance promotion, enforcement, detection, penalties • Trident alliance, informal discussions among ECA states

• Deterrence measures need to be equal or greater than savings of using non-compliant fuel

• Managing scrubbers and LNG emerging,

• Shore power program continuing

• Alternative fuels still to be developed

• January 1, 2020 global sulphur content standard of 0.5%?• Study under preparation, due Jan 1, 2018

13

Next steps

Nitrogen oxides

• Tier III NOx standards for North American and US Caribbean Sea ECAs enter into effect January 1, 2016

• New builds, re-powering, major conversions affected

• IMO concluded SCR available

• LNG emerging

Health monitoring

• Health Canada to examine public health data to verify benefits

14

Questions

Paul Topping

Manager, Environmental Protection

Transport Canada

Marine Safety and Security

paul.topping@tc.gc.ca

THANK YOU!

15