Review Method Calculating Marine Vessel Emission

Review of Methods Used in Calculating Marine Vessel Emission Inventories
Prepared for: Environment Canada

Pollution Data Branch 351 St. Joseph Blvd. 9th Floor, Place Vincent Massey Gatineau, Quebec K1A 0H3
Prepared by: SENES Consultants Limited 1275 West 6th Avenue, Suite 300 Vancouver, BC V6H 1A6 Air Improvement Resource, Inc. 47298 Sunnybrook Lane, Suite 103 Novi, MI 48374
September 9, 2004
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page No. GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS.....................................................................................................III EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................................................1 1.0 2.0 INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................4 1995 NATIONAL MARINE EMISSIONS INVENTORY.................................................5 2.1 Outboard (Gasoline) Motors ....................................................................................5 2.2 Inboard (diesel) Engines ..........................................................................................6 2.2.1 Underway Emissions ...................................................................................7 2.2.2 Dockside Emissions .....................................................................................8 REVIEW OF CURRENT INVENTORY METHODS........................................................9 3.1 Recent Canadian Marine Inventories.....................................................................10 3.2 U.S. EPA Methods.................................................................................................15 3.2.1 Category 1 CI Engines ...............................................................................19 3.2.2 Category 2 CI Engines ...............................................................................20 3.2.3 Category 3 CI Engines ...............................................................................22 3.2.4 Steamships .................................................................................................24 3.2.5 Geographical Allocation ............................................................................25 FUTURE INVENTORY METHODS ...............................................................................26 4.1 General Overview ..................................................................................................26 4.2.1 Criteria Air Contaminant (CAC) Emissions ..............................................28 4.2.2 Toxic Compound Emissions ......................................................................31 4.2 Emissions Calculations ..........................................................................................34 4.2.1 Emission Factors........................................................................................34 4.2.2 Load Factors and Times-In-Mode .............................................................38 4.2.3 Other Vessel Categories.............................................................................41 4.3 Use of Surrogate Methods for Determining Emissions .........................................43 4.3.1 The Ton-Mile Method................................................................................43 4.3.2 Port Matching.............................................................................................43 SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDED METHODOLOGY ................................................45 5.1 Lloyds Data...........................................................................................................46 5.2 Recommended Best Practices Approach ...............................................................48 5.3 Alternative Inventory Approach ............................................................................51
3.0
4.0
5.0
REFERENCES ..............................................................................................................................53 APPENDIX A: SUMMARY OF ENTEC INVENTORY (2002) ................................................56 APPENDIX B: FUEL USAGE SURVEY FOR PORT OF VANCOUVER ...............................67
38108 Final Report September 9, 2004
SENES Consultants Limited AIR Improvement Resource, Inc.
LIST OF TABLES
Page No. 2.1 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.8 3.9 3.10 3.11 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 Ship Types Used in Fuel and Emissions Calculations For the 1995 National Marine Inventory .............................................................................7 Comparison of Emission Rates (in g/kWh) Used in Two Canadian Inventories ..............14 U.S. EPA Commercial Marine CI Engine Categories .......................................................17 References that Encompass U.S. EPA Modelling Guidelines...........................................19 Category 1 CI Load Factors and Annual Activity by Engine Power, EPA (1999) ...........20 Category 1 CI Emission Factors by Engine Power, EPA (1999) ......................................20 Estimated U.S. Population of Category 1 CI Engines (thousands), EPA (1999) ..............21 Category 2 CI Emission and Load Factors by Engine Type..............................................23 Vessel Speed Data Used to Estimate Load from Category 3 CI Engines, Environ (2002) ...................................................................................................................24 Category 3 CI Emission Factors by Engine Speed, EPA (1999).......................................25 Ratio of Manoeuvring Emission Factors to Full Load Emission Factors, EPA (1999) ........................................................................................................................25 Steamship Emission Factors, Environ (2002)....................................................................26 Comparison of Recent At-Sea Emission Factors For Ocean-Going Vessels..................30 Comparison of Recent Manoeuvring Emission Factors For Ocean-Going Vessels ..........31 Toxic Emission Factors for Marine Engines .....................................................................34 Diesel Auxiliary Engine Load Factors used by Starcrest (2004).......................................40
ii
GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS
AIS CAC CH4 CMC CO CO2 DFO DWT EC EEA GHG GIS GVRD HC HFO IPCC LFV LMIU MEPA NH3 NOx N2O PM PM10 PM2.5 rpm SOx TSP UK U.S. EPA VOC Automatic Identification System Criteria Air Contaminants Methane Council of Marine Carriers Carbon monoxide Carbon dioxide Diesel fuel oil Dead weight tonnage Environment Canada Energy and Environmental Analysis, Inc. Greenhouse gases Geographic Information System Greater Vancouver Regional District Hydrocarbons Heavy fuel oil Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Lower Fraser Valley in British Columbia Lloyds Maritime Intelligence Unit Marine Exchange/Port Authority Ammonia Nitrogen oxides Nitric oxide Same as TSP Inhalable particulate matter (mean aerodynamic diameter less than 10 m) Respirable particulate matter (mean aerodynamic diameter less than 2.5 m) revolutions per minute (designating engine speed) Sulphur oxides Total suspended particulate matter (mean aerodynamic diameter less than 30m) United Kingdom United States Environmental Protection Agency Volatile organic compounds
iii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Agreements between Canada and the United States for transboundary air quality management require compatibility in the development and use of emission inventory databases. In the past, Canada has relied on a fuel-based, top-down approach to compiling a national marine emissions inventory, consistent with other nations. As such, previous inventories were appropriate to estimate regional emissions of criteria air contaminants. The U.S. has been updating its inventory methodology and now uses an approach that includes vessel activity in ports and along shipping waterways. A greater spatial and temporal articulation within an emissions inventory facilitates better decision-making and also is desirable for the purpose of air dispersion modelling. At present, interest in Canadian (regional) gridded marine inventories is likely contained to a few higher population areas. Environment Canada has expressed the need to update its methodology to reflect the current understanding of marine emissions and to identify available sources of data in Canada that could be used to compile an updated national inventory. SENES Consultants Limited (SENES), in association with Air Improvement Resource (AIR) have completed a review of current marine inventory methodologies, with a recommendation for compiling a future national marine inventory for Canada. This report presents a summary of past Canadian marine emission inventories and an analysis of current best practices being used in Canada and internationally. Also, potential sources of information to support marine inventory development and data gaps that may impede the process have been identified. In addition to describing the approach used in the development of the 1995 national marine emissions inventory, two recent Canadian inventories are described; one conducted for the Lower Fraser Valley of British Columbia in 2002 and one for the Port of Halifax in 2004. Each of the recent Canadian marine inventories used what is commonly called an activity based methodology, which is a bottom-up accounting that estimates ship emissions by using vessel characteristics such as engine type and size, engine load, and type of fuel consumed. With this methodology, a marine fleet is broken down into groups with similar characteristics or activity profiles. A vessel group is assigned a representative time spent cruising (higher engine load), manoeuvring (lower engine load) and hotelling (at berth) while in the vicinity of a port. Air contaminant emission factors are determined for the group, reflecting the average engine type and fuel consumed. The emission factors are used to sum individual ship emissions during each visit to port. Activity profiles are either specific to an individual port, or are determined in a more general fashion to represent a number of different port locations. Some of the attractive features of an Activity Based Emission Inventory (ABEI) include: 1
Review of Methods Used in Calculating Marine Vessel Emission Inventories representation of local geographical features; representation of regional differences such as reduced speed zones or clean fuel initiatives; easily tailored to the level of detail desired in an inventory; incorporation of local knowledge; feasibility of using partnerships to access information (i.e., port authority surveys); and, ability to temporally and spatially allocate emissions for use in a gridded inventory.
ABEIs can be used to develop marine emission inventories either with or without temporal and spatial resolution. For a Canadian national inventory, SENES/AIR suggests that the Coast Guard database may be the most desirable source of detailed information on vessel movements. However, extracting necessary vessel data from the Coast Guard archives may be a non-trivial task. The effort required to access and utilize the Coast Guard data is recommended, due to the expected high quality of data, and to gain experience with a data source that will soon become entirely automated with the adoption of an Automatic Identification System (AIS). AIS is endorsed and recommended by the International Maritime Organization (IMO) and is currently being implemented in many other countries. Such an electronic database will be highly useful with GIS based applications, and may facilitate a better articulation of marine emissions both nationally and internationally. On a regional scale, the two recent Canadian studies are representative of current best-practices methodology in the construction of marine inventories, and are consistent with methodologies currently used in the U.S. There has been a rapid evolution of inventory methodology in the marine sector, due to a greater amount of research over the past several years. However, significant uncertainties are still prevalent within existing methodologies. These uncertainties, resulting from lack of data, will likely diminish in the near future, largely due to higher quality datasets becoming available. A marine inventory conducted for ports in the European Community by Entec Ltd (2002) was found to be a highly useful framework to use in the development of a future Canadian national marine emissions inventory. The Entec methodology is consistent with current U.S. EPA methodology and represents a considerable amount of effort in characterizing a large and varied marine fleet. SENES/AIR recommends a similar approach to the one used by Entec, and has identified sources of Canadian data to support the initiative. In addition, this study presents a discussion of current uncertainties that must be considered in the development of a national or international inventory. The most significant of these uncertainties include: the difficulty in establishing the quality of fuel (sulphur content) consumed in a particular region; 2
Review of Methods Used in Calculating Marine Vessel Emission Inventories poor characterization of vessels while manoeuvring and hotelling; and, significant variation in ship emissions due to age of vessel.
Current U.S. EPA national marine emissions inventory methodology can be gleaned from several recent EPA-sponsored reports outlined in this work. However, each was completed before release of the Entec work in 2002. Although the general methodologies applied or recommended in the U.S. reports are consistent with that used by Entec (2002), the emissions data used by Entec are more recent, and are representative of emissions testing programs that encompass a greater number of ocean-going vessels. Because of this, some of the Entec-derived activitybased emission factors are significantly different from those currently recommended by the EPA. The EPA has begun development of the next version of the National Emission Inventory (NEI), which is due to be released in September, 2004. Certain aspects of the methodologies chosen for this version may differ from the existing methodologies described in this report. SENES/AIR suggests that discussion between Environment Canada and the U.S. EPA would be helpful to avoid any significant differences in approach, particularly in the selection of activity-based emission factors.
1.0
INTRODUCTION
To support the compilation and reporting of the 2002 National Emissions Inventory of Criteria Air Contaminants (CACs), the Pollution Data Branch (PDB) requires an accurate methodology for the estimation of emissions from commercial marine sources. Estimation methodologies must be in harmony with those used by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) so that meaningful comparisons can be made with respect to trans-boundary air quality agreements between Canada and the U.S. SENES Consultants Limited (SENES), in partnership with Air Improvement Resources (AIR) Inc., was retained to review the current Environment Canada marine emission methodology, the current U.S. EPA methodology, and other recent studies on the subject. In addition, a path forward on where the U.S. EPA methodology is headed is identified. The objective of this review is to obtain detailed documentation on the methodology used by Environment Canada to date, the U.S. EPA, and other recent sources for marine emission inventories. The documentation is used to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the various methodologies, and to identify the types of data available in Canada that can be used to determine future inventories. Based on the results of this analysis, SENES/AIR have outlined two alternative strategies that Environment Canada could follow. The first strategy is based on the best practices found in the review of other inventories. Emphasis has been placed on the current, and potential future, methodologies being considered by the U.S EPA. Barriers to using the U.S. EPA methodology in Canada (such as availability of data, emission factors, etc.) have also been identified. The second strategy is based on a lower level of effort required to complete an inventory based on the availability of suitable data sources.
2.0
1995 NATIONAL MARINE EMISSIONS INVENTORY
The following discussion provides a general overview of the methodology and sources used to produce the 1995 National Marine Emissions Inventory for Canada. The principal sources of information used by Environment Canada to produce the Inventory were: 1. the Statistics-Canada publication 64-202, which quantified the number of outboard motors used in recreational vessels; 2. the Statistics-Canada publication 54-205 (Shipping in Canada), which details shipping movements; 3. the U.S. AP-42 Compilation of Emission Factors, which provides emission factors or equations that relate air contaminant emissions to some surrogate level of activity; 4. the 1995 report Gaseous Emissions from Ships prepared by Polar Design Associates (PDA) for Environment Canada; and, 5. the 1993 Marine Vessel Air Emissions Inventory for the Lower Fraser Valley prepared by Levelton Associates (1995). The latter report was likely the only recent, comprehensive marine emissions inventory available for a Canadian community at the time, and was therefore used as guidance in developing some of the individual strategies used to produce the national inventory. Environment Canada provided SENES with a copy of the marine section of the Criteria Contaminants Emissions Inventory Guidebook (First Draft), produced in March 1999 by PDB/Canadian ORTECH Environmental (which will be referred to as the Guidance Document), and a set of area source calculation spreadsheets (referred to as Spreadsheet). The Guidance Document provided a very general description of the methods used in producing the national marine inventory, and the Spreadsheet provided information on how vessel categories were used in determining provincial/territorial and national emissions of TPM (total particulate matter), PM10, PM2.5, SOx, NOx, VOC, CO and NH3. SENES also acquired the 1995 Levelton report from the Greater Vancouver Regional District (GVRD) and the Statistics Canada publications (64-202 and 54-205). SENES was not able to obtain the 1995 report by Polar Design Associates for this review. 2.1 OUTBOARD (GASOLINE) MOTORS
The inventory method used by Environment Canada (EC) analysed private, recreational vessels with outboard motors (i.e., gasoline powered) separately from all other (inboard) vessels that were assumed to use diesel or heavy fuel oil. Comments in the Guidance Document clearly indicate that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) AP-42 emission factors were 5
Review of Methods Used in Calculating Marine Vessel Emission Inventories applied to the estimated number of outboard motors existing in each province/territory. Recreational marine vessels with inboard engines were not represented in the 1995 inventory. Statistics Canada counts of outboard motors were available for the years 1990 and 1992. To determine representative counts for 1995, the previous two years engine counts were linearly extrapolated to 1995. The AP-42 emission factors are in the form of kilograms of pollutant per outboard motor. Emission factors from AP-42 are multiplied by the total number of engines to produce emission estimates. By comparing the provincial/territorial emissions summaries in the Guidance Document with the provincial/territorial summaries in the Spreadsheet (i.e., for all marine categories except outboard motors), it is clear that the relative contribution of emissions from outboard motors to the overall marine portion of the Inventory is significant. In general, the outboard motor category is the dominant contributor to provincial/territorial emissions of CO and VOCs, but plays a minor role in emissions of other air contaminants. 2.2 INBOARD (DIESEL) ENGINES
Shipping movements and activity, by province or territory, were designated either International or Domestic in order to facilitate the spatial allocation of emissions. To account for the different rates of fuel consumption, shipping activity was allocated to seven different ship types, as listed in Table 2.1. The decision to use the seven ship types is based largely on the categorization used in Environment Canada (1995). Fuel consumption was considered to occur while the ship was underway, or at dockside. Table 2.1 Ship Types Used in Fuel and Emissions Calculations For the 1995 National Marine Inventory Ship Types (1995) Freighter Tanker Tug Ferry Passenger Fishing Container
Review of Methods Used in Calculating Marine Vessel Emission Inventories Significant factors known to affect fuel usage (and therefore emissions) within a ship type include age of engine, speed of engine (i.e., operating rpm) and type of fuel used. To correspond to the data on fuel usage and emission rates available in Environment Canada (1995), age and engine speed were used to further categorize the 7 ship types noted in Table 2.1. Vessels within each ship type were classified as either old or new with an engine speed category of slow, medium, or fast. This resulted in 42 ship categories, although some of these categories did not contain any vessels. Each of the 42 ship categories was assigned to exclusively burn either heavy fuel oil or diesel. 2.2.1 Underway Emissions
For underway operations, the amount of fuel used was determined by using activity profiles for each ship category. The allocation of fuel use was based on lab testing done for each region, as outlined in PDA (1995)1. The significant factors in a ship profile include an average voyage length, vessel speed and fuel consumption rate. By comparison, the Levelton methodology (1995) for ocean-going vessels used fuel consumption factors applied to vessel categories that are based on vessel deadweight tonnage and engine horsepower. The fuel usage equations were obtained by Booz-Allen & Hamilton2, which in turn were developed from a marine vessel emissions model. The fuel usage rates correspond to engines at maximum power (load). For each vessel category, underway operation was divided into cruise mode and manoeuvring mode; each mode uses a set percentage of the fuel consumption at maximum power. This is more detailed than the EC Underway activity for a ship category, which combines the emissions from both manoeuvring (small engine load) and cruising (higher engine load) movements. The use of different modes of travel facilitates better spatial allocation of emissions (i.e., for a gridded inventory), but does not have a large influence on total emissions by region. The ship activity profiles were used by EC to determine total fuel consumed in each province and territory. Emission factors, in kilograms of pollutant per tonne of fuel consumed (for both diesel and heavy fuel oil), were then applied to determine a provincial/territorial total of particulate matter (TSP, PM10, and PM2.5), SOx, NOx, VOC and CO emissions. Underway emission factors for each air contaminant were obtained from Environment Canada (1995) and Levelton Associates (1995). Based on the emission factors listed in the Levelton report and in the EC Spreadsheet, it was clear that the emission factors for CO, NOx, and SOx were based on the EC study, while PM and VOC factors were taken from the Levelton work. Specific emission
1 2
Information provided by Brett Taylor (Environment Canada), March 2004. Booz-Allen & Hamilton, 1991. Commercial Marine Vessel Contributions to Emission Inventories Final Report. Prepared for the U.S. EPA, October.
Review of Methods Used in Calculating Marine Vessel Emission Inventories factors were applied to each category of vessel. The same emission factors for PM and VOC were used for all categories of ships. At the time, it was not possible to assign reliable emission factors based on differences in fuel type, age or engine speed for these two contaminants (Levelton, 1995). The VOC emission factor was obtained from Lloyds Register3 and the particulate factor is from Booz-Allen & Hamilton (1991) for underway ocean-going vessels. The emission factors used for CO, NOx, and SOx were specific to type of fuel used and engine speed, which is likely consistent with the 1995 EC Gaseous Emissions study. 2.2.2 Dockside Emissions
Dockside emissions are largely due to on-board auxiliary generators that are used to produce electrical power. However, some older vessels (e.g., bulk carriers) may also rely on main engines for dockside power. Different ship types have different requirements for the amount of electrical power needed while at berth. Levelton (1995) surveyed ship agents to estimate typical generator power levels, fuel consumption rates and fuel type for the common ship types visiting British Columbias Lower Fraser Valley. The survey allowed for a determination of average dockside fuel consumption rates and generator capacity by ship class. Levelton applied emission factors for auxiliary generators from Booz-Allen & Hamilton (1991) to determine dockside emissions. Although the Guidance Document shows that dockside emission estimates derive from the Levelton fuel usage rate estimates and emission factors, a methodology based on an overall assumption that each ship spends one day at dockside was used. This was probably an underestimation of the actual time spent at dockside for some vessel categories4. The number of ship-days dockside for each province/territory was determined by dividing the total number of movements, for inbound and outbound voyages, by two. The hours spent at dockside were distributed across the marine fleet based on the number of hours underway for a ship type and region as compared to the regional total hours underway. Dockside emissions were assumed to be negligible for tugs, ferries and fishing vessels, due to their typically short dockside activities. To validate the EC methodology, it was applied to the Lower Fraser Valley, with the resulting dockside emissions compared to those determined in the Levelton report. Correction factors were then used so that the final methodology produced results that agreed with the Levelton determination. The final methodology was then applied to each province/territory.
3 4
Lloyds Register, 1990. Marine Exhaust Emissions Research Programme: Steady State Operation. For example, records of bulk carrier shipping at Roberts Bank Terminal near Vancouver indicate that the average time spent at dockside by coal carriers is over 60 hours [data provided to SENES by the Vancouver Port Authority, 2003]
3.0
REVIEW OF CURRENT INVENTORY METHODS
It should be noted that there is no standardized method for constructing marine emissions inventories, although it is likely that many port authorities desire greater harmonization in development methodologies. In addition to actual ship emissions, there is recent interest in the inclusion of shore-based equipment and even trucking activity5. The expansion of smaller-scale inventories to include shore-based activity is necessary to develop appropriate environmental plans and mitigation strategies as individual ports experience the significant expansion and growth that is projected over the next two decades. In contrast, a national marine inventory does not have the same need to represent shore-based activity within the marine sector. The general approach in determining marine emissions is to use emission factors that relate emissions generated to some level of surrogate activity. Regardless of the vessel, the installed engine type and fuel used largely dictate the ships emissions. Either fuel-based, or energy-based emission factors can be used. Earlier inventories relied mainly on fuel-based emission factors; for some vessels, fuel consumption data was available, for others, fuel consumption had to be estimated. There is now general agreement in the marine sector that the use of fuel-based emission factors for vessels without direct fuel consumption data is not preferred. Instead, energy-based emission factors (in g/kWh) should be used, based on vessel engine characteristics and power load factors (% of maximum power used). The use of these factors necessitates an estimate of the power load and duration of the activity for each vessel. The accuracy of air contaminant emission factors used in an emissions inventory has a significant effect on emissions estimates. There has been much more research in the last several years on marine engine emission factors, with notable differences in study findings. The difficulties associated with emissions testing include great variability between similar size engines due to age and mechanical differences, and the expense of treating a large number of vessels in a study initiative. In general, there will be greater potential error associated with applying emission factors derived from an emissions testing program to a smaller shipping fleet over a larger one, due to differences in machinery or typical fuel consumed from that used in the testing program. Due to the relatively small sample dataset used in most emissions studies, emissions testing in one region may not be representative of another. In the past, energy-based emission factors were thought to be representative of all types and sizes of vessel engines. Recent emissions research shows that there can be differences in emission rates (g/kWh) based on load factor, engine speed, and fuel type. A European report issued in
5
West Coast Region Conference on Marine Port Air Quality Impacts, April 21 22, 2004. Management Association, Seattle Washington.
Air & Waste
Review of Methods Used in Calculating Marine Vessel Emission Inventories 2002 by Entec6 provides a thorough analysis of emission rates, based on a relatively large dataset of emissions tests from two emissions testing programs; Lloyds from 1995 and IVL (a Swedish Company) from 2002. The analysis shows that different emission rates (g/kWh) can be attributed to vessel groups based on engine type (slow, medium or fast rpm) and fuel type. Although expected, no statistically significant dependence was found for size of engine. The lack of relationship between emission rate and engine size is likely due to the actual variability in emission rates for engines of the same size and type, based on age and mechanical differences. 3.1 RECENT CANADIAN MARINE INVENTORIES
There are two examples of recent Canadian marine emissions inventory development. An updated inventory for the Lower Fraser Valley in B.C. for the year 20007 was prepared by Levelton, and Environment Canada prepared an assessment of marine emissions in the Halifax Harbour for the year 20028. Although there are similarities in the methodologies applied in the two studies, the Levelton work produced a gridded emission inventory for a large geographic area while the EC study focused on aggregate emissions for the entire harbour area, without spatial allocation. In addition, a greater number of air contaminants were included in the Levelton report. Emissions of criteria air contaminants (CO, NOx, SOx, VOC, and PM), greenhouse gases (CO2, CH4, and N2O) and ammonia (NH3) were calculated by Levelton, whereas the EC study included the criteria air contaminants and the major greenhouse gas (CO2). The two studies applied a similar methodology of using energy-based emission factors for most vessels, except for those with accurate fuel consumption data (Ferries). This is consistent with current best-practices. The bulk of the work for both studies involved obtaining representative engine power ratings for each vessel, and the development of activity profiles for each class of ship. An activity profile is a breakdown of a ships movements into modes of operation (i.e., cruising, manoeuvring, or at berth) with a representative engine power load (fraction of full power) and time spent in each mode. In both cases, surveying of ship operators was the basis for the development of vessel category profiles. Each study either obtained main engine power values directly, or applied a regression formula using vessel dead weight tonnage (DWT) to estimate engine power. DWT is almost always available for each vessel, whereas engine power can be more difficult to obtain. Both studies obtained the regression equations from the same source9. Using various sources, including internet web-sites of the Coast Guard, Armed Forces
6
Entec, 2002. Quantification of Emissions from Ships Associated with Ship Movements Between Ports in the European Community. 7 Levelton, 2002. Marine Vessel Air Emissions in the Lower Fraser Valley for the Year 2000. 8 Environment Canada, November 27 2003. An Assessment of Marine Vessel Emissions and their Contribution to Air Quality in Halifax Harbour from the Year 2002. Draft Report. 9 Energy and Environmental Analysis Inc. (EEA), 2000. Analysis of Commercial Marine Vessels Emissions and Fuel Consumption Data. Prepared for EPA under contract to Sierra Research. EPA420-R-00-002.
10
Review of Methods Used in Calculating Marine Vessel Emission Inventories and Canadian Transportation Agency Fleet Lists, EC was able to obtain a relatively high percentage of engine power ratings directly. Levelton relied more heavily on the use of regression equations, in particular for ocean-going vessels. Levelton used a different set of emission factors for underway operations of ocean going vessels than for manoeuvring operations. SENES assumes the reliance on two sets of emission factors was based on the implied assumption that vessels switch from heavy fuel oil to diesel when entering the port, and that one dataset produced from testing in the Lower Fraser Valley may be more representative for emissions during manoeuvring. The underway emission factors used by Levelton were derived from a Lloyds emissions study in 199510 for CAC emissions, an Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report on GHG emissions11 for GHG emissions, and an EC report on ammonia12 emissions. Manoeuvring emission factors were obtained from a 1997 EC study of marine vessel emissions in the Port of Vancouver13 for criteria air contaminants, and the same sources that were used for underway emissions for GHG and ammonia emissions. For all modes of travel, the general equation shown below was used to determine emissions: Emissions = Average Engine Power (g/kWh) Total time (h) Engine Load Factor (%) Emission Factor (g/kWh) The 2002 EC marine inventory for the Halifax Harbour used energy-based emission factor equations from a U.S. EPA sponsored review of marine emission studies14. These equations were developed from an analysis of data from Lloyds Marine Exhaust Emissions Research Programme and the U.S. Coast Guard Test Program. Although the EPA review included emissions research done by Environment Canada, data from the EC research was not used to develop the emission factor equations. The general form of the emission factor equations is shown below: Emission Factor (g/kWh) = a (Engine Load Factor )
x
+b
where a, b and x are regression constants specific to each air contaminant.
Lloyds Register of Shipping, 1995. Marine Exhaust Emissions Research Programme. IPCC, 1997. IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories Volume 3, Reference Manual. 12 Environment Canada, 2001. 1995 National Emissions Inventory for Atmospheric Ammonia Guidebook, Final Draft, September. 13 Environment Canada, 1997. Port of Vancouver Marine Vessel Emissions Test Project, Interim Report ERMD#9704. 14 Energy and Environmental Analysis Inc. (EEA), 2000. Analysis of Commercial Marine Vessels Emissions and Fuel Consumption Data. Prepared for EPA under contract to Sierra Research. EPA420-R-00-002.
11
10
11
Review of Methods Used in Calculating Marine Vessel Emission Inventories This relation uses the current understanding that emissions of air contaminants from diesel engines, in g/kWh, increase at lower engine loads. The exponential shape of the emissions profile has been verified by other studies (e.g., Starcrest, 2004) and is widely accepted. By determining a load factor to use for each mode of operation, the equation is used to calculate specific emission factors that can then be applied in the same equation as that used by Levelton. A basic comparison of emission rates (g/kWh) used in the two Canadian studies at different engine load factors is shown in Table 3.1. A comparison for SO2 is not shown, as each study used estimated sulphur content of fuel as the basis for determining SO2 emission factors. In some cases, the emission factors used by the two studies are very different. SENES was able to review the EEA (2000) report that produced the emission factor equation used in the EC (2004) study and found that it was interpreted as intended by the authors. SENES reviewed the EC (1997) report used by Levelton to obtain manoeuvring emission factors, but not the Lloyds (1995) report. However, based on Lloyds emission factors used in other studies, the Levelton values are consistent with the Lloyds data. Similarly, the Levelton manoeuvring emission factors are consistent with EC (1997). The EC (1997) emission factors were determined through a testing program described as opportunistic. Emission testing was conducted by a research team coming aboard each vessel as it was performing its normal operations. During emissions assessment, the ship engineer was asked to keep the engine at steady-state15. The EC (2004) emission factors are reasonably close to those used in the Levelton study, with the exception of the hydrocarbon (VOC) and particulate matter (PM) emission factors. Newer marine engines have significantly lower NOx emissions, reflective of pending IMO restrictions first discussed in 199716; testing of a younger fleet should result in lower NOx emission rates, and may be the cause of the differences for this air contaminant. Differences in emissions testing procedures between Lloyds and EC are the likely cause for the different VOC factors determined. It was not readily apparent why the PM emission factors were significantly different.
Personal Communication with Greg Rideout (EC), February 12, 2004. Protocol of 1997 to amend the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL Annex VI).
16
15
12
Review of Methods Used in Calculating Marine Vessel Emission Inventories Table 3.1 Comparison of Emission Rates (in g/kWh) Used in Two Canadian Inventories Levelton (2002) Engine Load (fraction) 0.20 0.40 0.80 3.7 1.6 1.6 18.6 18 18 1.4 1.5 1.5 0.2 0.5 0.5 682 757 757 EC (2004) Engine Load (fraction) 0.20 0.40 0.80 4.19 2.10 1.05 11.85 10.95 10.63 0.32 0.28 0.26 0.75 0.26 0.09 869 759 704
CO NOx PM VOC CO2
Note: Although the same general equation was used by Levelton for each load factor, the Lloyds (1995) emission factors were used for underway (higher load) operations and the EC (1997) emission factors were used for manoeuvring (load factor 0.20) operations. This methodology was followed for the comparison shown above.
Further analysis was completed to determine the reasons for the discrepancy in emission factors, particularly for PM. Other marine emissions studies indicate that the PM emission rates used in EC (2004) are too low to adequately represent marine engines burning heavy fuel oil (HFO). The source of the emission factor equation used by EC is from an EEA analysis completed in 2000. This study used data from the Lloyds (1995) publication and the U.S. Coast Guard17. In conducting the analysis, EEA rejected 18% of the Lloyds engine test results, citing suspicious air to fuel (A/F) ratios. This resulted in poor representation of engines above 10,000 kW in size. In addition, the report shows very few data points included in the PM regression analysis. As a result, the authors of the report recommended that further investigation be conducted on the performance of large diesel engines18. The resulting determination of the PM emission factor equation may be somewhat biased to the performance of the Coast Guard vessels, which likely burn diesel fuel oil (DFO) (the summary of the EEA report claims that fuel specifications were not provided). Emissions testing programs such as Lloyds (1995) show that PM emission factors, in g/kWh, are far lower when DFO is consumed instead of HFO. SENES considers the general methodology used by the EPA to produce the specific emission factor equations representative of the current best practices. However, due to the limited dataset included in the analysis, the EPA emission factors may not adequately represent a marine fleet operating in a Canadian harbour.
Environmental Transportation Consultants, 1995. Shipboard Marine Engine Emission Testing for the United States Coast Guard. Prepared for the U.S. Coast Guard Headquarters Naval Engineering Division and Volpe National Transportation Systems Center. 18 Energy and Environmental Analysis Inc. (EEA), 2000. Analysis of Commercial Marine Vessels Emissions and Fuel Consumption Data. Prepared for EPA under contract to Sierra Research. EPA420-R-00-002.
17
13
Review of Methods Used in Calculating Marine Vessel Emission Inventories Auxiliary engines, for the generation of power to use for on-board activities, and in some cases for unloading activities, were also accounted for in both inventories. For the Lower Fraser Valley (LFV) inventory prepared by Levelton, EC (1997) fuel-based emission factors were used. The fuel-based factors were applied to average fuel consumption values that were determined by a separate survey of typical dockside visits for each class of vessel. In contrast, EC used the same energy-based emissions equation that was applied to main propulsion engines. For the latter study, the time-in-mode for dockside activities was included from the general activity profiles for each vessel group. A significant difference exists in the treatment of auxiliary engine emissions for the two studies. The Levelton inventory assumed that auxiliary engines were operated only while hotelling, whereas the EC research found that auxiliary generators are generally run at all times. The EC study determined that in many cases the total emissions from auxiliary engines were actually greater than the total emissions from propulsion engines for activities within the harbour. Entec (2002) supports the notion that auxiliary engines are in most cases run at all times. In addition, a different load factor can be applied to the auxiliary engines to reflect the greater power demands while hotelling (especially while loading and unloading)19. For the two inventories, ocean-going vessels were the dominant source of emissions, with the exception of CO and VOC. The Levelton study determined recreational vessels were the dominant contributors of CO and VOC; however, recreational vessels were not included in the EC inventory for Halifax Harbour. It is worth noting that characterizing emissions from recreational vessels continues to be problematic in most inventories20. Levelton estimated the population of recreational vessels in the LFV based on Statistics Canada data and an EPA nonroad engine and vehicle emission study done in 199121. Activity profiles were used (including engine type, engine power, load factor, hours of use and fuel consumption) based on studies done by the California Air Resources Board (CARB). The resulting emissions had to be significantly scaled down due to differences in fuel consumption predicted by the profiles and separate fuel consumption figures from Statistics Canada for British Columbia. Emissions from other categories of vessels (fishing, tugboats, workboats, and charterboats) were much smaller than those for the ocean-going groups. Levelton determined average engine power ratings for each group and sub-group and assigned activity profiles based on information from a number of different sources. Areas of operation were designated from office address (tugboats, workboats and charterboats) and fishing licenses (fishing vessels). Operation times (hours/year) were assumed based on information from surveys. By comparison, EC only included a tugboat
Starcrest Consulting Group and Eastern Research Group, 2003. Improvements to the Commercial Marine Vessel Emission Inventory in the Vicinity of Houston, Texas. July 28, 2003, Draft Final. 20 Corbett, J.J.; 2003. Review of the Year 2000 Marine Vessel Emission Inventory for British Columbia and Washington State. 21 U.S. EPA; November, 1991. Nonroad Engine and Vehicle Emission Study Report.
19
14
Review of Methods Used in Calculating Marine Vessel Emission Inventories category for Halifax Harbour, which may or may not include workboats. In this case, the number of movements was available, and therefore this category was treated in the same way as ocean-going vessels.
3.2
U.S. EPA METHODS
Overall, the method employed by the U.S. EPA follows the same general emissions estimation equation used in Canadian inventory efforts. This equation, shown below, estimates emissions from the parameters of gross engine power, total time, load factor and emission factor. The EPA inventory method thereby encompasses defining these input parameters, which can be resolved by the type of vessel, the type of fuel consumed and the mode of operation. g Emissions = Engine Power (kW ) Load Factor Time (hr ) Emission Factor kW - hr In the agencys current approach, the U.S. EPA classifies 3 types of commercial marine compression ignition (CI) engines for which the inventory methods and regulatory context are distinct. The definition of these categories, based on engine cylinder displacement, is presented in Table 3.2 and their general applications are summarized below. Category 1 engines, with a per-cylinder displacement of under 5 litres, are used as the main propulsion engines for relatively small commercial vessels such as fishing vessels, tugboats, and crewboats. Category 1 engines are also used to provide auxiliary power for a variety of vessel sizes and applications. Category 2 engines, with a per-cylinder displacement at or above 5 litres and up to 30 litres are the largest engines used for propulsion of vessels operating in harbour, coastal and inland waterways. Category 2 engines are also commonly used to provide auxiliary power on large (Category 3) ocean-going vessels. Category 3 engines, with a displacement at or above 30 litres per cylinder, represent the largest high-power engines that are used for the propulsion of vessels engaged in oceanic travel and trade. Category 3 engines are not typically used for auxiliary power generation except for a few specific vessel types that require high electrical loads, such as some refrigerated cargo and cruise ships.
15
Review of Methods Used in Calculating Marine Vessel Emission Inventories Table 3.2 U.S. EPA Commercial Marine CI Engine Categories Category Category 1 Category 2 Category 3 Specifications Gross Engine Power 37 kW,22 Displacement < 5 litres/cylinder Displacement 5 and < 30 litres/cylinder Displacement 30 litres/cylinder
The three classes of CI engines noted above power the majority of commercial shipping operations. The remainder is handled by steamship operation, which rely on steam from boilers to provide power. U.S. EPA also has distinct inventory methods and data for steamships. Notably, the share of commercial operations served by steam-powered vessels is declining over time in favour of more efficient CI engines. Historical U.S. EPA inventory methods include the last official guidance for emission inventory preparation released in 1992,23 which for the commercial marine sector was based on Booz-Allen & Hamilton (1991). Subsequent technical support documents have superseded the 1992 guidance document, and even though these later documents were not released as official guidance, the methods contained therein do represent the agencys current recommendations for commercial marine inventory development.24 Currently, there is not a single document that describes the inventory method for the whole commercial marine sector. The periodic release of technical support documents served to update portions of the method related to specific agency activities, but none of these are comprehensive. As such, the commercial marine methodology is contained in a patchwork of multiple references that must be drawn upon to get a complete inventory. A summary of the relevant references is presented in Table 3.3. The elements from these references that are still considered part of current U.S. EPA guidelines are also summarized in Table 3.3.
U.S. EPA assumes that all engines with gross power below 37 kW are used in recreational applications and are treated separately from the commercial marine category. Recreational marine emissions are estimated through the agencys NONROAD model. 23 U.S. EPA, Procedures for Emission Inventory Preparation, Volume IV: Mobile Sources, EPA-450/4-81-026d (Revised), 1992. 24 Those documents representing the U.S. EPAs recommended inventory methods were confirmed with Mr. Gregory Janssen of the Office of Transportation and Air Quality as part of this project. Other U.S. EPA documents, such as the U.S. EPA and EEA study (2000) contain valuable analyses and data but were not included in what the agency considers inventory guidance.
22
16
Review of Methods Used in Calculating Marine Vessel Emission Inventories The remaining discussion of EPA inventory guidelines is broken down into the following topics. Category 1 CI engines Category 2 CI engines Category 3 CI engines Steamships
17
Review of Methods Used in Calculating Marine Vessel Emission Inventories Table 3.3 References that Encompass U.S. EPA Modeling Guidelines Reference
Corbett and Fischbeck (1998)25 U.S. EPA (1999)26
Description
Completed for the U.S. EPA, the study evaluated Lloyds Register emissions test data and developed updated emission factors which were incorporated into revised estimates of emissions from Category 2 and 3 CI propulsion engines The final regulatory impact analysis (RIA) of the agencys 1999 rulemaking relied on the 1998 methods of Corbett and Fischbeck and added new methods for Category 1 CI propulsion and auxiliary engines. Two studies were completed for the U.S. EPA to improve the estimates of shipping activity and fleet characteristics. One report covered deep-sea ports and the second covered river and Great Lakes ports. Data collected covered ships powered by Category 2 and 3 CI engines as well as steamships. Activity from Category 1 CI engines is not considered complete as fishing, tug and dredging operations were not adequately captured. The final RIA completed by U.S. EPA for the 2003 rulemaking. Additional modeling details are contained in the contractor study prepared by Environ (2002).29 Updated emissions Category 3 emission factors for Category 3 engines based on a composite of test programs from Lloyds, U.S. Coast Guard, Environment Canada and TRC Environmental Consultants
Current Guideline Elements

Emission factors and load factors for Category 2 CI propulsion engines. Emission factors, load factors and activity data for Category 1 CI engines (propulsion and auxiliary)
Arcadis (1999)27
Port activity data for Category 2 and 3 CI engines and steamships; includes auxiliary engines.
U.S. EPA (2003)28
Emission factors and load factors for Category 3 CI engines (propulsion and auxiliary); emission factors and load factors for Category 2 auxiliary engines; steamship emission factors; vessel speed data; between port activity data.
Corbett and Fischbeck, Commercial Marine Emissions Inventory for EPA Category 2 and 3 CompressionIgnition Marine Engines in the United States Continental and Inland Waterways, EPA 420-R-98-020, prepared by J.J. Corbett and P.S. Fischbeck, Carnegie Mellon University, August 1998. 26 U.S. EPA, Control of Emissions from Marine Diesel Engines, Final Regulatory Impact Analysis, EPA 420-R99-026, November 1999. 27 Two reports: Commercial Marine Activity for Great Lake and Inland River Ports in the United States, prepared by Arcadis Geraghty & Miller, Inc., EPA420-R99-019, September 1999. Commercial Marine Activity for Deep Sea Ports in the United States, prepared for EPA by Arcadis Geraghty & Miller, Inc., EPA420-R-99-020, September 1999. 28 U.S. EPA, Final Regulatory Support Document: Control of Emissions from New Marine Compression-Ignition Engines at or Above 30 Liters per Cylinder, Final Regulatory Impact Analysis, EPA420-R-03-004, January 2003. 29 Environ, "Commercial Marine Emission Inventory Development", prepared for U.S. EPA by Environ Corporation under subcontract to E.H. Pechan and Associates, April 2002.
25
18
Review of Methods Used in Calculating Marine Vessel Emission Inventories 3.2.1 Category 1 CI Engines The 1999 Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) contains the current U.S. estimate for Category 1 CI engines that follows what EPA considers as their recommended inventory method. The RIA obtained the inventory data (emission factors and populations) from engine manufactures and trade associations. Emission factors, distinguished by specific engine technologies, are based largely on testing of equivalent land-based applications. The EPAs method relies on the load factors and annual hours of activity shown in Table 3.4 and the emission factors shown in Table 3.5. There is no distinction for variation by vessel type, fuel used or operating mode; and these values encompass all vessels under all operation. Table 3.4 Category 1 CI Load Factors and Annual Activity by Engine Power, EPA (1999) Engine Power (kW) 37-75 75-130 130-225 225-450 450-560 560+ Load Factors Propulsion Auxiliary 0.60 0.65 0.60 0.65 0.60 0.65 0.71 0.65 0.73 0.65 0.79 0.65 Annual Activity (Hours) Propulsion Auxiliary 2320 2500 2350 2500 2270 2500 3240 2500 3770 2500 4500 2500
Table 3.5 Category 1 CI Emission Factors by Engine Power, EPA (1999) Engine Power (kW) 37-75 75-130 130-225 225-450 450-560 560-1000 1000+ Emission Factors (g/kW-hr) NOx CO 11 2.0 10 1.7 10 1.5 10 1.5 10 1.5 10 1.5 13 2.5
HC 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27
PM 0.9 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3
19
Review of Methods Used in Calculating Marine Vessel Emission Inventories Another distinction for the Category 1 engines is that EPA has little or no data on geographic resolution of Category 1 CI vessel operation and emissions (i.e., EPA has not compiled portspecific activity or populations). Comparatively, there is much more geographically resolved activity data on the remaining commercial marine sector.30 The 1999 RIA relied on U.S. national Category 1 engine populations estimates, based on data submitted by the Engine Manufactures Association (EMA), which are shown in Table 3.6. Table 3.6 Estimated U.S. Population of Category 1 CI Engines (thousands), EPA (1999) Engine Type Propulsion Auxiliary 1995 57 10 2000 58 13 2005 61 14 2010 64 15 2020 70 17 2030 76 20
There have been detailed harbour craft data (vessel types typically powered by Category 1 CI engines) collected by various stakeholders (e.g., the Port of Vancouver and by the State of California). In discussions with EPA, the agency feels that Category 1 engine populations and activity is dependent on local conditions and data from one port may not generally transfer to other locations. Therefore, the agency prefers that population and activity data are collected locally whenever possible.31 3.2.2 Category 2 CI Engines Corbett and Fischbeck (1998) completed an inventory evaluation for Category 2 and Category 3 CI engines (propulsion engines only) from which EPA still relies on the reported emission factors and load factors for Category 2 CI engines. However, the remaining data and methods used in this study are no longer considered current. Updated activity and vessel data were collected by Arcadis (1999) for the EPA. Highly detailed data from ships powered by Category 2 (as well as Category 3) engines were collected from 12 typical U.S. ports of which 8 were ocean ports, 2 were Great Lakes ports and 2 were river ports. Data collection included vessel characteristics, engine characteristics, vessel and engine speed, dead weight tonnage, and time spent by mode of operation. These updated data, when
See the 1999 Arcadis and 2002 Environ studies which rely on detailed data collected by port authorities on vessels engaged in commercial trade. 31 Individual states in the U.S. typically permit or register Category 1 vessels (e.g., tugs, fishing boats, ferries) which can provide data on vessel populations.
30
20
Review of Methods Used in Calculating Marine Vessel Emission Inventories combined with emission factors and load factors, form the basis of inventory estimates at U.S. ports.32 Supplementing the Arcadis data is the Environ (2002) evaluation completed in support of EPAs 2003 RIA. The evaluation presents the guidelines for evaluating ports not included in the group of 12 typical ports. The remaining U.S. ports are assigned to one of the 12 typical ports based on type of waterway, region and maximum vessel draft. Inventory estimates for assigned ports are then estimated by multiplying the ratio of total vessel calls (assigned port to typical port) times the inventory of the typical port. Other pertinent information contained in the Environ study includes the following. The method and data to estimate emissions from Category 2 auxiliary engines is defined. All types Category 3 CI powered vessels are assumed to have Category 2 CI auxiliary engines except for refrigerated cargo (reefer) and passenger ships (which are assumed to have Category 3 CI auxiliary engines). Category 2 auxiliary engines are assumed to be active only during hotelling. The method and data to estimate emissions from travel between ports is defined based on estimated emission factors (reported in the units of gram per ton-nautical-mile) and estimates of total vessel ton-miles. Additional operational information for ports with reduced speed zones is reported.
The currently used Category 2 CI emission factors and load factors are summarized in Table 3.7. Notably, a single set of emission and load factors data from propulsion engines are being used for all vessels under all modes of operation. As such, the emission factor method has not been updated to complement the detailed vessel activity data collected, and the usefulness of the activity data is not being realized. EPA recognizes the need to update the Category 2 CI propulsion engine emission factors to address key vessel and operation mode distinctions defined by the activity data collected and is planning to complete a study of Category 2 CI emissions and load factors during this fiscal year.33
32 33
Port inventories, as prepared by EPA, include all activity with in a 25-mile radius of the port. This project had not begun at the time of this review and no details are available.
21
Review of Methods Used in Calculating Marine Vessel Emission Inventories Table 3.7 Category 2 CI Emission and Load Factors by Engine Type* Engine Type Propulsion Auxiliary
*
Reference Corbett and Fischbeck (1998)34 Environ (2002)
Emission Factors (g/kW-hr) HC NOx CO PM 0.50 0.13 12.0 13.4 1.6 2.5 0.25 0.32
Load Factor 0.57 N/D35
Note: Current emissions research shows that there are no statistically significant differences between emission factors based on size of engine. Therefore, a distinction between Category 2 and Category 3 emission factors may not be necessary for inventory development.
3.2.3 Category 3 CI Engines For Category 3 CI engines, the 1998 Corbett and Fischbeck method and data have been completely replaced and updated by the EPAs 2003 RIA. The 2003 RIA does not report all of the methodological assumptions needed for inventory development and specific supporting studies must be consulted to get additional information. The activity data updates are based on the efforts of Arcadis (1999) and Environ (2002), which are described above for Category 2 CI engines. Moreover, the Environ study contains updated methods and data for emission and load factors. These updates are summarized below. Load factors as a function of vessel speed were developed. Speed data for various modes by vessel type were collected including reduced speed zones (RSZ) specific to each port evaluated. Revised emission factors were updated using more available test data. Data from programs conducted by Lloyds, U.S. Coast Guard, Environment Canada and TRC Environmental Consultants were included. Separate NOx emission factors for slow and medium speed CI engines were developed. Separate emission factors at light operating loads (vessel manoeuvring) were developed which take into account higher emissions per unit work at lighter loads.
The updated load assumptions employed are as follows. Vessel operation at cruise or service speed is assumed to occur at 80 percent engine load. Manoeuvring operation is assumed to occur
Reported values (in the units of kg of emissions per tonne of fuel) converted to g/kW-hr using an EPA recommended Category 2 brake-specific fuel consumption (BSFC) 0.21 kg fuel per kW-hr. 35 N/D = Not determined. The product of gross engine power and load for auxiliary engines is assumed to equal 10 percent of the gross power of the propulsion engines and distinct values for gross power and load are not reported for auxiliary engines.
34
22
Review of Methods Used in Calculating Marine Vessel Emission Inventories at 10 percent engine load. For other speeds below cruise speed, the load factor is estimated by the equation shown below while using the vessel-specific speed data shown in Table 3.8. Notably, at a speed of zero (i.e., while hotelling or docked), the load requirement is assumed to equal 10 percent. This load is met by the auxiliary engines operating during hotelling.36 Actual Speed Load Factor = 0.1 + 0.7 Cruise Speed
3
Table 3.8 Vessel Speed Data Used to Estimate Load from Category 3 CI Engines, Environ (2002) RSZ (knots) Bulk Cargo Carrier All Vessel Types Cruise (knots) Other or Unknown
Passenger Cruise
General Cargo
RORO/Ferry
Port
Lower Mississippi area New York area Delaware area Puget Sound area Corpus Christi Tampa Baltimore Coos Bay Cleveland Burns Harbour
10 10 10 13 10 9 14 7 9 9
15 15 15 14 15 15 15 14 1437 14
20 21 19 21 24 22 20 15 -
15 16 14 16 16 14 15 15 14 13
14 14 14 14 13 13 15 15 -
21 21 22 19 20 21 -
19 22 19 16 18 19 -
17 18 16 23 14 18 -
15 15 15 16 15 15 15 14 14
The updated emission factor data are summarized in Tables 3.9 and 3.10. Table 3.9 contains the emission factors for Category 3 CI engines (auxiliary and propulsion), which are used for all modes of operation except manoeuvring. The data in Table 3.9 are split by engine speed, where
Hotelling operation is assumed to be powered by auxiliary engines. The power requirements during hotelling are assumed to equal 10 percent of the propulsion engines gross power; thereby load and gross power of auxiliary engines are not explicitly defined in EPAs method. Auxiliary CI engines are assumed to be Category 2 except for reefers and passenger cruise vessels, which are assumed to be Category 3. 37 A separate speed for Great Lakes bound bulk cargo carriers of 13 knots was reported.
36
23
Vehicle Carrier 15 18 18 18 18 18 -
Container Ship
Tanker
Reefer
Review of Methods Used in Calculating Marine Vessel Emission Inventories low and medium speed engines operate at approximately 150 and 300 rpm, respectively. Emission factors while manoeuvring include the adjustment ratio shown in Table 3.10, where the reported multiplicative factor is the increase in emission factor over that reported in Table 3.9. Table 3.9 Category 3 CI Emission Factors by Engine Speed, EPA (2003) Engine Speed Low Speed Medium Speed Emission Factors (g/kW-hr) NOx CO 23.6 1.10 16.6 0.70
HC 0.53 0.53
PM 1.73 1.76
Table 3.10 Ratio of Manoeuvring Emission Factors to Full Load Emission Factors, EPA (2003) Engine Speed Low Speed Medium Speed Emission Factors (g/kW-hr) NOx CO 1.36 8.52 1.36 7.41
HC 5.28 5.50
PM 1.69 1.68
3.2.4
Steamships
According to the 2003 RIA, no new steamships have been constructed since the 1980s and steamship operation is slowly being replaced by vessels powered by Category 3 CI engines, as these are more energy efficient. According to Environ (2002), between 0 and 30 percent of U.S. vessel calls from oceanic travel and trade are steamships, depending on the port. Tankers are the most common steamship vessel. EPAs latest evaluation of steamships is included in the Environ (2002) study. Activity and load assumptions for steamships are exactly the same for Category 3 CI engines (as discussed above). For emission factors, no new test data has been collected and the Environ study relies on the earlier on Booz-Allen & Hamilton (1991) effort. A single set of emission factors for all modes (cruise, manoeuvring, and hotelling) are used, which are summarized in Table 3.11.
24
Review of Methods Used in Calculating Marine Vessel Emission Inventories Table 3.11 Steamship Emission Factors, Environ (2002) Emission Factors (g/kW-hr) NOx CO 2.8 0.30
HC 0.07
PM 2.49
3.2.5
Geographical Allocation
The studies and references discussed in this section have been used by the EPA to develop official, regulatory inventories reported on a national basis. Port-specific emissions, occurring in and around each port are reported for vessels powered by Category 2 and 3 CI engines and by steam boilers. These data are summed to a national total. Estimates of emissions from Category 1 CI engines and in-transit emissions outside the port areas have only been estimated on a national aggregate basis with no further geographic distinction. In recent efforts, EPA has relied on the efforts carried out under the National Emission Inventory (NEI) for geographic allocation of the agencys national commercial marine emissions inventory. The version of the NEI currently under development represents calendar year 1999 and the final version is due out in September 2004. EPA has begun development of the next version of the NEI, which will cover calendar year 2002. The 1999 NEI resolves emissions to the county-level. For the commercial marine inventory, the 1999 NEI relies on the 1996 NEI for county allocation by assuming that each countys proportion of the national total would remain the same as reported for the 1996 NEI.38 The 1996 NEI in turn, relied on county-level data developed under the 1985 National Acid Precipitation Assessment Program adjusted for changes in activity levels as reported by the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis.39
U.S. EPA, Procedures Document for National Emission Inventory, Criteria Air Pollutants 1985-1999, EPA454/R-01-006, March 2001. 39 U.S. EPA, National Air Pollutant Emission Trends Procedures Document for 1900-1996, EPA-454/R-98-008, May 1998.
38
25
4.0
FUTURE INVENTORY METHODS
SENES believes that future large-scale marine inventories will be modelled after the Entec 2002 methodology, which is similar in approach to inventories recently completed by Levelton and Environment Canada. Current U.S. EPA methodology follows the same general approach with two differences: surrogate data, such as vessel ton-miles, is used to estimate the emissions from many (generally smaller) ports; and geographical allocation of emissions occurs down to the county level only. However, the EPA methodology is currently being revised. SENES does not know if the EPA plans on continuing the use of the ton-mile method for estimating emissions for any of their ports. The Entec report described an analysis of emissions from ships moving in and between ports in the European Community. Analysis of emissions data from two of the largest and most recent emissions testing programs enabled construction of a set of specific base emission factors accounting for engine load, fuel type and engine type. By considering the variability in each of the 26 vessel categories chosen, different energy-based emission factors were determined for each vessel group by assigning appropriate weightings to the set of base emission factors. SENES considers this methodology a considerable improvement over past practices that commonly applied a single emission factor to represent all vessel engines. The primary source of information in terms of ship movements for the Entec work was the LMIU and in terms of ship characteristics was the Lloyds Register Fairplay. Consistent with other recent inventories, Entec used surveys to estimate the other parameters needed to complete emissions calculations. The surveys were used for developing representative estimates of the time periods vessels spend on in-port activities such as loading and unloading. Appendix A has a summary of the vessel categories and emission factors used in the Entec 2002 inventory. 4.1 GENERAL OVERVIEW
A 'bottom-up approach has been consistently applied to recent local and regional inventories in Canada, the U.S. and elsewhere. A bottom-up methodology uses averaged operational characteristics of marine vessels to determine emissions as opposed to a top-down process where local, or regional estimates of fuel consumption are used. In theory, the two methodologies would determine the same emission totals. In practice, this tends not to occur, due to limitations in available fuel data. The bottom-up methodology is starting to be applied to national and international inventories as well (e.g., Entec 2002, Corbett et al, 2003). It is now generally considered the preferred methodology for marine (and other) emission inventories. Marine emissions testing programs have improved significantly over time, partly due to the relatively short history of marine inventory analyses. Both the testing of a greater number of
26
Review of Methods Used in Calculating Marine Vessel Emission Inventories ships and a better accounting for variability between marine (diesel) engines, has led to recent improvements in the development of emission factors for criteria pollutants. Energy-based emission factors can be developed that account for differences in engine type (slow, medium or fast rpm) and in fuel consumed (DFO vs. HFO). Research continues to show that there is no significant difference in emission factors (g/kWh) by size of engine (e.g., EEA 2000, Entec 2002). The use of such emission factors requires the availability of detailed vessel characteristics. In general, vessel engine power and type is not difficult to either acquire or estimate with reasonable accuracy. However, determining representative information on the type and composition of fuel (i.e., sulphur content) a vessel consumes can be more difficult. It is likely that estimates of the type of fuel consumed by a vessel have greater ramifications to emission calculations than potential variability in the emission factors themselves (in particular for SO2 and PM). Some of the apparent differences or inconsistencies between recent marine emissions studies derive from an assumption of a particular fuel being consumed. In other cases, emission factors have been applied that may not adequately characterize the fleet in question. Much more attention has been applied to marine diesel engine emissions over gas and steam turbines during the last decade. This is a reflection of the small, and decreasing portion of the international (and likely domestic) marine fleet that uses turbine engines. Further, greater attention has been applied to the ocean-going class of vessels (those with large, slow and medium speed diesel engines), since earlier marine inventories have shown that this category is the dominant source of marine emissions for most air contaminants. As such, it should be expected that emissions from larger marine diesel engines are relatively well characterized, whereas smaller marine diesel and turbine engines of all sizes may not be. However, Entec (2002) claims that there is insufficient data available to confidently characterize some of the emissions from ocean-going vessels while manoeuvring and hotelling. This is evident in the comparison between the Levelton (2002) and EC (2004) emission estimates for manoeuvring operations (Table 2.1). Even considering a correct accounting for engine and fuel type being used, Entec estimates that the error margin in a particular emission factor applied to manoeuvring operations can be as high as 50%. Reasons for the high variability include the fact that manoeuvring involves transient engine rpm and the use of engines while both warm and cold. Cruising, on the other hand, has propulsion engines running at steady-state, and therefore there is lower variability in emissions for ships in this mode of operation. Emission estimates for at-sea conditions tend to have better agreement between different studies. At present, the best practices approach to calculating ship emissions involves using emission factors that account for engine speed (slow, medium or fast) and fuel type. However, emissions of SO2 and CO2 are currently thought to depend almost exclusively on the amount (and type, in the case of SO2) of fuel consumed. Analysis of recent emissions datasets allows determination of equivalent emission factors based on either engine power developed (g/kWh) or fuel
27
Review of Methods Used in Calculating Marine Vessel Emission Inventories consumed (g/l). The fuel usage data also allows for a comparison of emissions developed with a bottom up approach against a top-down emissions estimate using aggregate fuel sales receipts by region. One recent U.S. regional marine inventory has shown good agreement between fuel consumption estimates obtained through application of a bottom-up engineering approach and state fuel receipts40. 4.2.1 Criteria Air Contaminant (CAC) Emissions Past marine emission inventories that used the preferred bottom-up methodology likely suffered to some degree from use of emission factors that are derived from a small sample pool of engine tests. As well, assumptions may be inherent in the emission factors used that do not properly represent a particular marine fleet being considered. In some cases, incomplete reporting makes it difficult to assess the influence these factors may have on a specific inventory. SENES considers both of the recent Canadian marine emission inventories to have used sound methodologies. However, each has at least one notable weakness. The LFV inventory completed by Levelton relied on emission factors that were, at the time, appropriate. But, the assumption that DFO is burned exclusively for ocean-going vessels while manoeuvring is not appropriate. General opinion expressed at the recent West Coast Region Conference on Marine Port Air Quality Impacts (April 21-22, 2004, Seattle Wa) suggests that fuel switching generally does not occur. An assumption that HFO is exclusively burned is likely more accurate. The assumption of DFO being used for manoeuvring may have caused an underestimation of SO2 emissions within the harbour. However, due to the relatively short time that vessels spend manoeuvring, as opposed to hotelling, this assumption likely does not have a large impact on the inventory. The assumption of exclusive DFO use likely did not affect emission estimates for other pollutants, because the EC (1997) manoeuvring emission factors used for all other contaminants were representative of actual fuel used in the LFV, which, both then and now is primarily HFO41. The EC (2004) study of marine emissions in the Halifax area used emission factors derived from emissions data that were blended and did not take into account differences in fuel type. Also, the vessels used to determine these factors may not be a good representation of ships frequenting the Halifax harbour. The Entec 2002 study includes an analysis of emissions data from 142 different main (propulsion) engines. This is a greater number than those considered in any single, previous
Corbett, J. J. 2001. A Waterborne Commerce Inventory Integrating Economic, Transportation, and Emissions Data. www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/conference/ei10/mobile/corbett.pdf 41 Environment Canada, 1997. Port of Vancouver marine Vessel Emissions Test Project, Interim Report, ERMD #97-04.
40
28
Review of Methods Used in Calculating Marine Vessel Emission Inventories study42. In addition, the emissions data used in the Entec study are from two of the most recent emissions research programs: Lloyds Register in 1995 and IVL in 2002. Another feature that makes the Entec study attractive is its clear description of methodologies used and assumptions made in the construction of specific emission factors. Table 4.1 shows a comparison of at-sea (cruising) emission factors for large diesel propulsion engines used in the Levelton 2002 inventory, the EC 2004 inventory and the Entec 2002 inventory. Entec listed individual factors for 3 speeds of engines and 3 types of fuel for each pollutant, whereas EC and Levelton applied one emission factor to represent emissions of each pollutant. For cruising operations, the large diesel engines used are predominantly of the slow-speed and medium-speed types, using HFO. For comparison purposes, Entec emission factors for both medium-speed (the first value indicated) and slow-speed diesel engines burning HFO are shown. Table 4.1 Comparison of Recent At-Sea Emission Factors For Ocean-Going Vessels Air Contaminant NOx PM CO VOC SO2 CO2 Entec (2002) (g/kWh) 14.0, 18.1 0.9* n/a 0.5, 0.6 11.5, 10.5 677, 620 Levelton (2002) (g/kWh) 18 1.5 1.6 0.5 10.3 757 EC (2004) (g/kWh) 10.63 0.26 1.05 0.09 n/a 704
Note: PM and CO emission factors were not listed in the Entec report for at-sea operations, for reasons that were not made clear. Based on indirect comments found further in the document, SENES believes that a factor of 0.9 was used to represent PM emissions for this mode of operation.
Table 4.1 shows reasonable agreement between the Entec and Levelton studies for cruising operations. This is not surprising, since Levelton relied on the same data sources (Lloyds, IPCC) that were incorporated into the Entec study. Table 4.2 shows a similar comparison, but for manoeuvring operations. For both manoeuvring and in-port activities, Entec clearly states that there are concerns with the amount and quality of data available to apply to emission factor development. By assessing the available information
Starcrest Consulting Group and Eastern Research Group, 2004. Update to the Commercial Marine Inventory for Texas to Review Emissions Factors, Consider a Ton-Mile EI Method, and Revised Emissions for the Beaumont-Port Arthur Non-Attainment Area. Submitted to the Houston Advanced Research Center, January, 2004.
42
29
Review of Methods Used in Calculating Marine Vessel Emission Inventories from the Lloyds and IVL datasets, Entec decided to multiply the at-sea factors by 0.8 for NOx, 3.0 for HC (VOC) and 3.0 for PM for all diesel and steam turbine engines to produce manoeuvring emission factors43. The analysis used to justify these scaling factors was not presented. Two Entec emission factors are presented in Table 4.2, one for medium-speed diesel engines and the other for slow-speed engines, each using HFO. For SO2 and VOC, there are significant differences between the factors used in the Entec and Levelton studies. For manoeuvring operations, Levelton used the Environment Canada (1997) emission factors that were based on testing within the LFV. The differences in the SO2 factors are directly attributable to Leveltons assumption that DFO, which has a much lower sulphur content than HFO, is used while manoeuvring. The lower VOC emission factor used by Levelton is taken straight from the EC (1997) report. As previously indicated, the VOC emission factor discrepancy is due to the use of a different sampling and analysis procedure. The EC (2004) VOC emission factor is significantly different than both of the values used in the other inventories. Consistent with findings from other studies, the comparison presented in Table 4.2 indicates that there exists considerable uncertainty in VOC (HC) emission factors and it remains difficult to assess an appropriate factor to use. Table 4.2 Comparison of Recent Manoeuvring Emission Factors For Ocean-Going Vessels Air Contaminant NOx PM CO VOC SO2 CO2 Entec (2002) (g/kWh) 11.2, 14.5 2.4, 2.4 n/a 1.5, 1.8 11.6, 12.7 647, 710 Levelton (2002) (g/kWh) 18.6 1.4 3.7 0.2 2.1 682 EC (g/kWh) 11.85 0.32 4.19 0.75 n/a 869
The development of emission factors by Entec is consistent with the methodology applied by EEA (2000), but represents an improvement due to Entecs consideration of a larger sampling of ships, and delineation by engine and fuel type. SENES suggests that the Entec methodology is currently an appropriate representation of a best practices approach to developing a large-scale marine emissions inventory. In his 2003 review of the LFV marine emissions inventory, Corbett
Entec U.K. Limited, 2002. Quantification of Emissions from Ships Associated with Ship Movements Between Ports in the European Community. Final Report, July 2002.
43
30
Review of Methods Used in Calculating Marine Vessel Emission Inventories expresses a similar opinion44. However, some of the estimates used in the Entec study need to be examined in light of potential differences between operating characteristics of the European marine fleet and vessels operating in Canadian ports. The Entec methodology can be applied to any region, by either using or updating the specific emission factors that were developed in their 2002 inventory for ports in the European Community. 4.2.2 Toxic Compound Emissions
Although there has been research into the characterization of toxic emissions from on-road vehicles and engines, relatively little in formation is available on toxic emissions from off-road engines. Furthermore, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA), the majority of the available speciation profiles used to characterize emissions of trace organic and inorganic pollutants in marine engine exhaust are either very old and/or are limited in terms of the range of engine types represented. Since off-road engines can be substantially different from their on-road counterparts due to the use of different technologies, engine size and engine use, toxics will be emitted at a different rate from diesel marine engines than from heavy duty onroad diesel engines. In particular, manoeuvring of marine vessels in port is characterized by highly variable engine loading, which can be expected to significantly affect emission rates of some toxic pollutants during such operations. A comprehensive literature review45 of toxic emissions from off-road engines was completed in 2002 for Environment Canada. Although the emissions from internal combustion engines consists of a complex mixture of hundreds of trace organic and inorganic compounds, the review focused on only five specific compounds which are included as part of the Canadian Priority Substances List (PSL). The specific compounds considered included acetaldehyde, acrolein, benzene, 1,3 butadiene, and formaldehyde. According to the U.S. EPA, these five compounds account for approximately 25% of the total emissions of gaseous toxic pollutants from off-road engines. For the five toxic pollutants, the recommended method for developing toxic emission factors was to multiply the representative hydrocarbon (HC) emission rate by a representative speciation profile. In the case of commercial marine engines, the speciation profile chosen was that for compression ignition engines. The source of the best available speciation profile was considered to be the 1999 Base year Nonroad National Emission Inventory for Hazardous Air Pollutants
Corbett, J. J., 2003. Review of the Year 2000 Marine Vessel Emission Inventory For British Columbia and Washington State. 31 March. 45 SENES Consultants Limited (SENES) 2002. Literature Review: Toxic Emissions from Off-Road Engines. Prepared for Environment Canada, Transportation Systems, Branch, Ottawa, Ontario.
44
31
Review of Methods Used in Calculating Marine Vessel Emission Inventories (HAP)46. Conversion methodologies developed by the U.S. EPA in the latter report were used to convert HC emissions from the NONROAD Model into VOC emissions. Table 4.3 summarizes the recommended toxic emission factors for marine engines. The methodology used to develop the emission factors listed in Table 4.3 yields values that are within a factor of two of emission rates reported in published literature sources. As better speciation data become available, the HAP/VOC factors used in Table 4.3 should be revised with more up-to-date information.
46
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2001. Documentation for the Draft 1999 Base Year Nonroad Emission Inventory for Hazardous Air Pollutants. Prepared by the Emission Factor and Inventory Group (MD-14), Monitoring and Analysis Division, October 29, 2001.
32
Review of Methods Used in Calculating Marine Vessel Emission Inventories Table 4.3 Toxic Emission Factors for Marine Engines (diesel,4-stroke, compression ignition)
THC Emissions (g/hp-hr)
VOC/THC Ratio
PM Emissions (g/hp-hr)
VOC SPECIATION PROFILE (HAP/VOC Ratio)

Acetaldehyd e Formaldehyd e Acetaldehyd e 1,3 Butadiene Acrolein
HAP EMISSION FACTORS (mg/hp-hr)

Formaldehyd e
253 111 111 126 111 63 63 47 47 47
hp Range
>0 to 11 >11 to 16 >16 to 25 >25 to 50 >50 to 100 >100 to 175 >175 to 300 >300 to 600 >600 to 750 >750
0.8 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.72 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4
1.6 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.7 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 1.05 0.074 0.0115 0.02 0.0019 0.15
125 55 55 62 55 31 31 23 23 23
19 8 8 10 8 5 5 4 4 4
34 15 15 17 15 8 8 6 6 6
33
1,3 Butadiene
3 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1
Acrolein
Benzene
Benzene
Review of Methods Used in Calculating Marine Vessel Emission Inventories 4.2 EMISSIONS CALCULATIONS
In general, the Entec methodology is similar to that used by Levelton for the 2000 inventory of the LFV, and the approach used by Environment Canada for the Halifax Harbour. The methodology uses energy-based emission factors for all vessels, except when specific fuel consumption data exists (which is generally true only for the Ferry ship type). Emissions for a vessel group are calculated with the equation: E = P EF LF T where E = Emissions (g/s) P = Engine power at full load (kW) EF = Emission Factor (g/kWh) LF = Load Factor (%) T = Time in a particular mode of activity (hours)
A marine fleet is grouped into categories of vessels that have similar operating characteristics. By analyzing the variability in each category, weighted average emission factors can be calculated for each mode of operation. Similarly, average load factors for three or four operating activities are determined, in conjunction with characteristic times-in-mode for each. Finally, depending on whether or not a gridded emissions inventory is to be developed, travel vectors are applied with which to spatially and temporally allocate vessel emissions. 4.2.1 Emission Factors
For a current marine emissions inventory, emission factors are needed for both criteria air contaminants (NOx, SOx, PM, VOC and CO) and Greenhouse Gases (GHGs). Some jurisdictions may also wish to consider toxic air pollutant emissions, while the 2000 inventory for the Lower Fraser Valley compiled by Levelton included estimates of ammonia emissions from marine vessels. Criteria Air Contaminants (CAC) At present, the emission factors for criteria air contaminants (CACs) listed in Entec 2002 are recommended. Corbett claims that the Entec study provides the 'best current summary of emission factors available for large-scale emission inventories'.47
Corbett, J.J., Koehler, H.W., 2003. Updated Emissions from Ocean Shipping. Journal of Geophysical Research, 108. 29 Oct, 2003.
47
34
Review of Methods Used in Calculating Marine Vessel Emission Inventories The recommendation for the use of the Entec emission factors over the EEA 2000, or current EPA NEI emission factors is due to both a large number of vessels included in the Entec analysis, and a clear discussion of the methodology used. In addition, the Entec base emission factors are specific to 5 engine types and 3 fuel types, whereas the EEA equations are averaged for the smaller pool of vessels analyzed, and have no dependence on engine speed or fuel type (with the exception of SO2, which depends strictly on fuel sulphur content). A different set of base emission factors are present for cruising, manoeuvring and hotelling (where vessels generally use their auxiliary engines). It has been well documented by Corbett and others that emissions in g/kWh for diesel engines increase at low engine loads (e.g., Corbett 2003). This fact is not inconsistent with fuel-based emission factors (kg/tonne) that remain constant, since the rate of fuel consumption increases during slower speed operations. Starcrest (2004) analyzed vessel emissions below 20% load factor to produce exponential emission factor equations similar in structure to those produced by the EPA in 2002, but are representative of a larger emissions testing dataset. The resulting manoeuvring emission factors determined from the exponential profiles are considerably higher than those used for cruising operations. As an example, scaling ratios of 4.33 and 17.21 were used for PM and HC (VOC) respectively, to increase the emission factors for manoeuvring. These ratios are higher than those used by Entec. However, Starcrest also used manoeuvring engine load factors that are much lower than values used in the Entec or other emissions inventories, as will be discussed in the next section. At present, it is clear that emissions during manoeuvring are difficult to characterize, and further research is required before a satisfactory understanding is achieved. For this reason, a conservative approach should be considered in forthcoming studies, until the issue has been resolved. A preferred methodology for determining a marine inventory needs to be structured so that advances in understanding can be accommodated either before or after the work is done. If superior data becomes available to represent one of the operational modes (i.e., manoeuvring), updated emission factors can easily be utilized within the general Entec methodology. By considering the variability within each vessel group of a particular marine fleet, a weighted emission factor can be established for each group, for each mode of activity. Entec determined weighted emission factors for 26 different vessel groups. However, due to probable differences between the European marine fleet and the marine fleets of other countries or regions, these emission factors are not easily transferable to other regions. It is relatively straightforward to produce weighted emission factors for vessel groups specific to Canadian waters by application of the Entec base emission factors to a database of ship movements such as the Lloyds Maritime Intelligence Unit (LMIU).
35
Review of Methods Used in Calculating Marine Vessel Emission Inventories There is considerable difficulty regarding the correct designation of fuel type and composition (sulphur content) for a particular vessel group. Due to the fact that fuel can originate from just about any port in the world, much of this difficulty is inherent in any marine inventory. To obtain reasonable estimates of both the type (HFO, DFO, or other) and composition of fuel(s) used by a particular class of vessel, either communication with port authorities, or vessel operators (via surveys) or both must be used. Initial communication with the Vancouver Port Authority (VPA) and the Toronto Port Authority has indicated that Port Authorities appear willing to facilitate surveys of their members. Information available to SENES from a recent fuel usage survey conducted in the Port of Vancouver by the B.C. Chamber of Shipping indicates that the survey data used by Levelton may have overestimated emissions in the LFV from some marine vessel activities and underestimated emissions from others. It is likely that better quality data can be obtained with the cooperation of Port Authorities in different regions. Greenhouse Gases (GHG) The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 'Good Practice Guidance' is the most appropriate source to use as a basis for selection of GHG emission factors. At present, the IPCC recommends use of Lloyds factors48. The IPCC Good Practice document notes that CO2 emission factors are generally well determined within 5%. This is due to the fact that emissions of CO2 depend mainly on the carbon content of fuel, which does not vary a great deal, even with different fuel types. The variability in CH4 and N2O factors are thought to be considerably higher. However, the 2000 LFV Inventory indicates that emissions of these two GHGs are much smaller than CO2, even when scaled as CO2-equivalent amounts. Due to greater concern with GHG emissions, it is likely that updated emission factors for CH4 and N2O will be determined in the near future, and may have a dependence on engine type. At present, SENES recommends use of the Entec determined CO2 emission factors (which are similar in magnitude to the Lloyds factors), and the IPCC (1997) emission factors for CH4 and N2O. The CH4 and N2O emission factors are presented below. Note that these are fuel based emission factors, but can be converted to energy based emission factors (g/kWh) using the specific fuel consumption values determined in Entec (2002), which are provided in Appendix A. GHG CH4 N2O Emission Factor (kg/tonne fuel) 0.18 1.18
48
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2000, Good Practice Guidance and Uncertainty Management in National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. IPCC Plenary, Montreal, May 2000.
36
Review of Methods Used in Calculating Marine Vessel Emission Inventories Toxic Air Pollutants (TAPs) Emission factors for five selected air toxics (acetaldehyde, acrolein, benzene, 1,3-butadiene and formaldehyde) are available from a review completed for Environment Canada on emissions from off-road engines49. Alternatively, the emissions of toxic pollutants from marine engines could be prorated to the emission factors developed for large, land-based diesel engines as listed in the U.S. EPA developed NONROAD emission model. The set of emission factors summarised for Environment Canada in 2002 (outlined in section 4.2) are recommended.
49
SENES Consultants Limited, 2002. Literature Review: Toxic Emissions from Off-Road Engines. Prepared for Environment Canada, Transportation Systems Branch, Ottawa, Ontario.
37
Review of Methods Used in Calculating Marine Vessel Emission Inventories 4.2.2 Load Factors and Times-In-Mode
Appropriate load factors with corresponding times-in-mode for each vessel group are generally referred to as 'profiles'. A profile for a particular vessel group involves establishing a representative time spent cruising, manoeuvring, and hotelling (loading, unloading and idly waiting) for each visit to port, and a typical engine load (percentage of maximum horsepower) that is used while engaging in each operation. If a reduced speed zone exists in a region, two modes may be needed to represent cruising. In most cases, the profile will include the use of both main (propulsion) engines and auxiliary engines for electricity and heat generation. Previous studies have assumed that a load factor of approximately 80% is representative of most vessels while in full-cruise mode. This is in agreement with commonly accepted heavy-duty engine specifications. There have been greater differences in load factors used for manoeuvring operations and auxiliary engine use. Corbett states that many studies have applied the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) standard duty cycles for marine engines to estimate average load factors. However, while conducting a global marine inventory, Corbett found that these profiles did not agree with survey data gathered. Instead, survey data and 'industry experience' was used to establish load factors for most vessels (Corbett, 2003). Corbett identifies the proper establishment of vessel load factors as a critical component to marine emissions estimates. Load Factors Most marine studies during the past several years used engine load factors largely in the range of 80% for cruising down to 20% for manoeuvring. Engineering experience was typically the justification for these choices. The Propellor Law can also be used to determine main engine load factors. This law relates engine power to the fraction of maximum speed being used. The Propellor Law in its general form, and as used by Starcrest (2004), is can be expressed as: Load Factor = (Actual Speed/Maximum Speed )
3
Earlier work by Starcrest and others assumed that this law had a lower limit of approximately 10%, representing an assumed stall speed for diesel engines. This is consistent with existing U.S. EPA methodology50. Other inventories have used main engine load factors as low as 10% to represent passenger vessels in manoeuvring mode (e.g., EC 2004). In updating the marine inventory for Texas, Starcrest collected evidence from over 70 engineers that suggested load factors could be as low as 2-3%. Application of common manoeuvring speeds to the Propellor
50
Environ 2002. Commercial Marine Emission Inventory Development. subcontract to E.H. Pechan and Associates, April 2002.
Prepared for the U.S. EPA under
38
Review of Methods Used in Calculating Marine Vessel Emission Inventories Law indicated load factors as low as 1%. In their 2004 inventory, Starcrest assigned a load factor of 3% to represent manoeuvring. Although this value is significantly lower than load factors used in other inventories, the use of correspondingly higher emission factors for manoeuvring in effect may result in emissions estimates that are not significantly different than those estimated by others for manoeuvring conditions. The Starcrest work is very recent and the engine load factors used for manoeuvring may not be representative of other regions. Recent work by Corbett (Corbett 2003) also applies a similarly low load factor for manoeuvring operations. Clearly, a consistent methodology must be applied for manoeuvring operations. In light of the fact that recent emissions research shows emissions in g/kWh follow an exponential profile with engine load factors, the choice of emission factors directly corresponds with the estimated load factors chosen for a ship group and region. The Entec emission factors for manoeuvring were chosen based on an average engine load factor of 20% for all vessel groups. Therefore, the decision to use the Entec emission factors requires that the 20% load factors are also used. SENES recommends the use of the Entec load factors of 80% for cruising, 40% for slow-cruising (for ports needing this designation), and 20% for manoeuvring, to properly correspond to the Entec emission factors. Survey data used by Entec indicates that most vessel categories spend 1 hour or less in manoeuvring mode; therefore the significant uncertainty in estimating emissions during this mode of activity likely does not have a large impact on the inventory as a whole. In many cases, emissions during hotelling may constitute up to 50% or more of the total marine vessel emissions originating from a particular harbour (e.g., EC 2004). As such, the designation of appropriate load factors for this mode is almost certainly more significant to total marine emissions than is the designation of manoeuvring load factors. In general, Entec estimated auxiliary engine load factors from engineering judgment. In a recent global analysis of marine emissions, Corbett used an average load factor of 50% for auxiliary engines, for all modes of operation51. This choice may reflect a conservative approach, dealing with a large and varied marine fleet. Starcrest (2004) re-evaluated the data used by Entec and made minor corrections based on local information. SENES suggests that the Starcrest load factors are reasonable default load factors for use with diesel auxiliary engines. Adjustments can be made to these values based on survey results. The auxiliary load factors used by Starcrest are shown in Table 4.3. The In-Port values represent load factors for both manoeuvring and hotelling, whereas Out-Port represents cruising (at-sea) operations. The Other vessel category includes all other ocean-going ships.
51
Corbett, J.J., and H.W. Koehler, 2003. Updated Emissions from Ocean Shipping. Journal of Geophysical Research, 108, 29 October.
39
Review of Methods Used in Calculating Marine Vessel Emission Inventories Table 4.4 Diesel Auxiliary Engine Load Factors used by Starcrest (2004) Vessel Type Tanker Cruise Other In-Port 50% 50% 33% Out-Port 20% 40% 20%
Times-In-Mode A dataset such as the LMIU vessel movements includes dates of arrival and departure, but not actual times. For large-scale inventories, such as the Entec study of ports within the European Union, survey data can be used to establish average time periods each vessel group spends manoeuvring and hotelling, and vessel cruising speeds are used to determine the time cruising while at-sea. However, there are other sources of data, such as Pilotage and Coast Guard records, that can be used to calculate typical times-in-mode that are more representative of regional marine fleets. These data sources include times of arrival and departure, and can readily be used to construct time periods specific to a particular harbour. In general, Pilotage data has been used for regional marine inventories, such as the Levelton 2000 inventory for the LFV. However, since February 2002, the Coast Guard Deep Sea History File includes data on all international commercial vessels over 20m in length and can be used to determine the actual amount of time ships spend hotelling. In addition, the Coast Guard Track Table records the position of all such vessels in real time. This database can be used to export vessel position data in a GIS format, and can establish times-in-mode for all vessel activities, as well as to allocate emissions on a geographically referenced basis. SENES does not currently know the availability of Coast Guard marine data prior to February 2002. In the near future, the Coast Guard will be using the International Marine Organization (IMO) mandated Automatic Identification System (AIS) to track virtually all commercial vessels. SENES suggests that Environment Canada research the possibility of accessing and using the Coast Guard Track Table to obtain movement data for the purpose of marine inventory development. Particularly for construction of gridded inventories, the Track Table could be a highly useful source of data. By using the LMIU for vessel characteristics of ships travelling in Canadian waters and either the Pilotage or the Coast Guard databases for time spent hotelling, activity profiles can be developed relating to specific ports or regions. The activity profiles, specific to each ship group and potentially sub-group, are suitable to apply to corresponding weighted emission factors. 40
Review of Methods Used in Calculating Marine Vessel Emission Inventories 4.2.3 Other Vessel Categories Non-ocean going vessels have not received the same level of attention applied towards determining operation profiles as has been applied to the larger commercial ships. This is not surprising, since marine emissions for most pollutants are clearly dominated by the ocean-going group. In many cases, the same approach of using energy-based emission factors with estimated engine load factors and operating periods of time has been used to estimate the emissions from fishing, tugboat, workboat and private vessels. For these types of vessels, a ship characteristics database, such as the LMIU for ocean-going ships, does not exist. Estimates of engine size and load factor must be determined by either survey or data from vessel manufacturers. In some inventories, however, when accurate total fuel consumption is available, the older top-down approach has been used with fuel-based emission factors. In this manner, the total emissions for a particular vessel group can then be spatially and temporally allocated over a region, if desired. Fishing Vessels Some larger fishing vessels are included in the LMIU database of characteristics and movements, although these are not representative of the entire fishing fleet. For the marine inventory of European ports, Entec obtained total fuel consumption for the UK fishing fleet, but this was not available for other countries. The total tonnage of fish caught by each country was compared to the UK total and this information was used to scale the UK fuel consumption amount to represent all other countries. These fuel estimates were assumed to be completely consumed in corresponding fishing areas and subsequent emission estimates were determined. There was not enough information to apply emissions over the journeys to and from the fishing grounds. Starcrest found that fishing vessels were a minor contributor to the total emissions for the Houston-Galveston region of Texas and also the most difficult to model52. SENES considers the approach used by Levelton for the 2000 inventory of the LFV a good general methodology to use, and more practical than the Entec methodology. Levelton estimated a main engine power rating for each of three fishing vessel groups, with estimates of the number of vessels, dates of operation and typical engine load factors derived from consultations with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. Levelton used emission factors from Lloyds (1995), which are similar to the appropriate Entec factors representing the smaller diesel engines of the fishing fleet. By using average vessel speeds, a small portion of the total emissions was applied over the travel routes to each fishing area, with the remainder allocated to the fishing grounds. The LFV marine inventory for 2000 indicates that fishing vessels contribute a relatively small amount of
Starcrest Consulting and Eastern Research Group LLC, 2003. Improvements to the Commercial Marine Vessels Emissions Inventory in the Vicinity of Houston Texas. Draft Final. Produced for the Houston Advanced Research Center (HARC), July 28, 2003
52
41
Review of Methods Used in Calculating Marine Vessel Emission Inventories emissions to the total for all air contaminants. Therefore, over- or under-estimates resulting from the use of a simplified approach such as that used by Levelton would have very little impact on the total emission inventory. Tugboats Tugboat and towboat movements are generally not included in ship movement databases. However, the EC report for the Halifax 2002 inventory (EC 2004) suggests that information on tug movements may be obtained (either directly or indirectly) from the Pilotage Authority. With or without such data, some assumptions must be made to allow emissions estimates for this category. The LFV inventory indicates that emissions from this vessel category are significant and much higher than those from fishing vessels. Both bottom-up and top-down approaches have been used to characterize emissions from tug/tow boats in the past, with the choice of methodology depending largely on the availability of fuel consumption data. As with fishing vessels, it is not difficult to determine a representative engine size/load factor/fuel type profile to represent these vessels in one or more sub-groupings. Therefore, SENES recommends the same activity based emissions methodology be used for tug and towboats as is recommended for fishing vessels. There has been some controversy over the estimated emissions from tugboats in the LFV inventory of 2000. Levelton used engine size, load estimates and hours of operation as is consistent with activity-based emissions methodology. Emissions were allocated spatially based on the office addresses of the tug companies. The Council of Marine Carriers (CMC) has very recently conducted their own survey of tugboat operators in the LFV, which accounted for fuel use and vessel movements over a period of one month. SENES has been informed by a representative of the CMC that the results of this survey indicate that tugboat emissions in the Vancouver region were overestimated by Levelton by over 50%53. SENES has not had access to the CMC survey in order to independently review its findings. As discussed previously, Port Authorities are willing to participate in the surveys that are needed to produce operating profiles, and gaining such cooperation likely leads to greater accuracy in emission estimates. Navy and Coast Guard Vessels The Environment Canada marine inventory for Halifax indicates that the Canadian Navy is able and willing to provide data on their ships. Similarly, SENES expects that Coast Guard vessel data is also available. Operating profiles can be developed for these categories of ships in the same manner as for other ocean-going ships. Determining a set of energy-based emission factors from Entec 2002 for each vessel group, and potentially sub-groups, will likely be
42
Review of Methods Used in Calculating Marine Vessel Emission Inventories straightforward, as designation of fuel type and composition does not have the same level of difficulty as exists with the commercial marine vessels. 4.3 4.3.1 USE OF SURROGATE METHODS FOR DETERMINING EMISSIONS The Ton-Mile Method
Corbett and Fischbeck determined a method by which ship emissions could be estimated from ton-mile shipping summaries constructed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and other sources54. The method requires estimation of emission factors on a per ton-mile basis, which can then be applied to any region that has representative ton-mile data. This approach can be useful to determine emissions for between-port activities, but is not easily applied to withinor near-port emissions. A benefit of this methodology is that it allows a quick determination of marine emissions for a region, and can easily accommodate estimates due to future increases in shipping trade. Ton-mile emission factors can be found in the original report, or in Environ (2002), which has a refined set of factors for U.S. Category 3 engines. Environ (2002) states that the direct use of Marine Exchange/Port Authority (MEPA) data (for next and last port of call) to determine between-port emissions on U.S. waterways can be problematic at times for two reasons: 1) there can be more than one possible route of passage in many cases; and, 2) there can be errors or omissions in MEPA data records. However, they also acknowledge that the use of ton-mile (USACE) data can lead to underestimation of emissions55. Starcrest (2004) outlines some of the difficulties in determining ton-mile emission factors, and the uncertainties involved with the adoption of factors developed in previous studies. Starcrest also suggests that the EPA will favour the direct application of energy-based emission factors instead of reliance on ton-mile methodologies for future inventories. A current EPA sponsored study involving the use of GIS spatial data to articulate marine movements may support this initiative56. 4.3.2 Port Matching
Arcadis (1999) developed a strategy whereby activity profiles for commercial vessels at an individual port are obtained from the adoption, potentially with modifications, of profiles from a
Phillip Nelson, Council of Marine Carriers. Personal Communication March 25, 2004. Corbett, J.J. and P.S. Fischbeck, 1998. Commercial Marine Emissions Inventory for EPA Category 2 and 3 Compression-Ignition Marine Engines in the United States Continental and Inland Waterways. Prepared for the EPA, August 1998. EPA 420-R-98-020. 55 Environ 2002. Commercial Marine Emission Inventory Development. Prepared for the U.S. EPA under subcontract to E.H. Pechan and Associates, April 2002. 56 Personal communication with Mr. Gregory Janssen of the Office of Transportation and Air Quality (U.S. EPA), June 21, 2004.
54 53
43
Review of Methods Used in Calculating Marine Vessel Emission Inventories detailed analysis of a Typical Port. Eight MEPA areas were selected, to provide data on 25 Typical deep sea ports57. In the same fashion, two river and two Great Lake ports were selected and analysed to provide templates for river and lake ports58. Detailed information on vessel movements was collected for 1996, using the following sources: United States Army Corps of Engineers total domestic trips and total domestic tonnages, in addition to more detailed data of individual vessel movements. United States Bureau of Census total foreign trips and tonnages, as well as individual foreign vessel movements. MEPAs vessel movement data and hotelling time averages. Lloyds Maritime Information Service (LMIS) vessel characteristics such as horsepower and engine (rpm) speed. Operator Data anecdotal information to augment other data sources and time-in-modes for vessel activities. Pilot Data Used for estimates of distance and speed characteristics for development of time-in-modes. Port Series Reports Used in conjunction with pilot data to develop detailed port characteristics Other Sources determination of vessel characteristics. The Typical Ports data allows an individual port to estimate the emissions per ship-type for each activity mode of operation for a given year, using the same activity-based methodology (i.e., use of energy-based emission factors) used in recent Canadian and International Marine Inventories.
Arcadis Geraghty & Miller, Inc., 1999. Commercial Marine Activity for Deep Sea Ports in the United States. Prepared for the EPA September 1999, EPA420-R-99-020. 58 Arcadis Geraghty & Miller, Inc., 1999. Commercial Marine Activity for Great Lake and Inland River Ports in the United States. Prepared for the EPA September 1999, EPA420-R-99-019.
57
44
5.0
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDED METHODOLOGY
As evidenced by the two recent Canadian small-scale marine inventories (LFV, Halifax), future marine inventories for individual ports or regions will likely be constructed using an activitybased methodology similar to that recommended in this report. However, as is also evident from the studies reviewed in this report, the methodology for calculating marine emission inventories is still evolving, and there have been inconsistencies in methods being used even for inventories that rely on similar sources of data for emission factors and vessel operating profiles. A positive development in the preparation of emission inventories is the increase in the basic level of information about vessel activity in the past two years. Information databases are available which can be used to track vessel activity in Canadian waters on a vessel-by-vessel basis, with accurate spatial allocation of time-in-mode activities. The downside of having so much information available is the potential time and cost associated with processing that data. For this reason, the two alternative recommended methodologies outlined below are based on: 1. the use of best practices, regardless of the time/cost required to complete the inventory; and 2. the use pilot-scale studies (or previous studies) to establish average vessel activity profiles for a small number of Canadian ports, with extrapolation of similar assumptions for activity at other ports. The activity profiles are used with summary datasets of vessel movements. The latter approach is consistent with the methodology proposed by the U.S. EPA for both deep sea ports and inland waters. The U.S. EPA methodology permits individual port operators to develop their own emission inventories if they choose to do so, and substitutes those more portspecific inventories for those ports in the national inventory of marine emissions. SENES recommends that Environment Canada follow a similar approach in allowing local port authorities to conduct their own inventories, provided that the inventories follow the best practices approach outlined in this review. Should future Canadian port-specific emissions inventories include shore-based activity, some modification may be required before they can be utilized within a national inventory. Such modification would ensure that double-counting of shore-based equipment or trucking activity does not occur in a comprehensive gridded emissions inventory.
45
Review of Methods Used in Calculating Marine Vessel Emission Inventories Given the improved availability of data sources on vessel activity, the largest remaining data gaps for commercial marine vessel inventories are: a better understanding of fuel quality and the quantities of various types of fuel used by commercial marine vessels in each part of the country; more detailed information about marine vessel power use (load factor) at dockside, specifically with respect to auxiliary engines; and, knowledge of the potential variability in emissions from engines of similar size and speed due to age.
The first two data gaps could be addressed through targeted surveys at a small number of ports across the country. An example of an attempt to conduct one such survey was the fuel usage survey conducted by the Chamber of Shipping of British Columbia (CSBC) during the period July-December 2003, in which a total of nearly 200 vessels were surveyed as to the type of fuel they were using during both transit and at dockside. Although the design of the survey was not ideal and did not provide all of the data that would be desired, the CSBC survey provides a good example of the potential for improving on available information by involving local port authorities in the preparation of emission inventories. A summary of this survey is provided in Appendix B. The third data gap is gradually decreasing due to the expansion of emissions testing programs to include a greater number of vessels, and international agreements on emissions testing procedures. The two recommended alternatives for compiling future marine vessel emission inventories are described in Sections 5.2 and 5.3. 5.1 LLOYDS DATA
The Lloyds Register of Ships is considered to be the authoritative source of information for ship details59. Lloyds is an insurance underwriter; as such, if Lloyds does not insure a particular vessel some ship characteristics will likely be missing. Environment Canada provided SENES with a copy of a Lloyds dataset for Canadian vessels, called Canadian Port Calls 1998 2003. The dataset included both ship characteristics (ie installed engine power) and ship movements. The Canadian vessel movements data is likely a complete accounting of movements for all ships greater than 500 tonnes. A considerable number of entries were missing in the characteristics database for some fields.
59
Starcrest Consulting Ltd., 2003. Update to the CMV Emissions Inventory in the Vicinity of Houston, Texas. Draft Report, July.
46
Review of Methods Used in Calculating Marine Vessel Emission Inventories Several recent emissions studies have used the Lloyds movements and characteristics databases. Although some indicate that auxiliary, or generator engine specifics are included in the Registry database (e.g., Starcrest 2003), the Canadian Port Calls dataset does not include this information. Further, the engine speed field, which is crucial to the proper selection of emission factors, has a high percentage of missing entries. Fortunately, surrogate variables such as type of ship and dead-weight tonnage are present and can be used to estimate engine type with a reasonable degree of certainty. A full subscription to the Lloyds data sourcing (not just the LMIU) includes the fields that are missing in the Canadian Port Calls dataset that was reviewed60. Starcrest (2003) conducted an analysis to determine representative total auxiliary power ratings by class of vessel. This was a non-trivial task, as many ships have more than one auxiliary engine, and much better data was available for generator power (i.e., electrical output) than auxiliary power. Factors such as electrical line loss prevent an assumption that generator power is equivalent to auxiliary power. Table 5.1 presents the results of this analysis, which provide the average total auxiliary power demand by ship type. The average is representative of the worldwide fleet, and not just the vessels involved in the specific study. Table 5.1: Average Auxiliary Power (kW) Estimated by Starcrest (2003) Bulk Car Carrier Container General Cargo LPG Carrier Misc RORO Tanker Cruise*
*
1,132 2,181 2,918 913 2,356 1,000 2,518 2,214 6,000
Data was not available for cruise ships, and therefore this value is based on anecdotal information.
SENES suggest that the Lloyds ship characteristics database can be used in the development of activity profiles for vessels visiting Canadian ports. The estimates provided in Table 5.1 can be used to represent auxiliary engine power if this data cannot be acquired from Lloyds; preferentially after verifying them from either survey data or discussion with ship operators.
60
Electronic Communication with Brett Taylor (Environment Canada), July 5, 2004.
47
Review of Methods Used in Calculating Marine Vessel Emission Inventories 5.2 RECOMMENDED BEST PRACTICES APPROACH
The Entec methodology, and the base emission factors develop in Entec (2002), is recommended as the current best practices approach in the development of a future Canadian National Marine Inventory. This methodology relies on the use of the Lloyds database (LMIU) for determination of average vessel characteristics. However, some vessel groups are not listed in the LMIU and alternate strategies need to be determined (e.g., fishing vessels). Further description of the Entec work is provided in Appendix A. The best practices methodology would be suitable for the development of either a gridded inventory (potentially GIS-based) or a regionally based, aggregate inventory, for the whole country. At this time, interest in gridded inventories is limited to a few regions in Canada with higher populations. A breakdown of the recommended methodology is provided below. Ocean-going Vessels: o Analysis of the LMIU for Canadian ports to determine the number of vessel categories to adequately represent the national marine fleet; o Use of the LMIU and Coast Guard (Track Table and/or Deep Sea History File) databases to construct activity profiles (average main and auxiliary engine size [kW] and type, average load factors for each mode of operation and average times-in mode) for each vessel category. Use either survey data or results of recent studies to provide estimates of missing information (i.e., auxiliary engine power); o Adjustment of activity profiles based on geographical location and port operating constraints; o Use of survey data to determine type and composition of fuel consumed by the vessel categories, in particular during hotelling; o Determine appropriate weighted emission factors for each vessel category from the Entec (2002) set of base emission factors. o Use Coast Guard movement data to temporally and spatially allocate ship emissions, if desired. Ferries o Collect fuel data from Ferry companies and information on travel routes; o Develop basic profiles for each Ferry company, similar to the profiles used by Levelton (2002); o Determine appropriate fuel consumption emission factors from Entec (2002).
48
Review of Methods Used in Calculating Marine Vessel Emission Inventories o Temporally and spatially allocate ship emissions, if desired. Fishing Vessels o Consult with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to obtain information on the number of vessels operating in each region, and the location of fishing grounds; o Develop simplified operating profiles, similar to those used by Levelton (2002); o Determine appropriate emission factors from the Entec (2002) set of energy-based emission factors. o Allocate emissions over travel routes and fishing grounds, if desired. Tugboat/Towboat and other Harbour Vessels o Solicit the cooperation of Port Authorities in the larger Canadian ports to conduct surveys of vessel operators and obtain numbers of vessels operating in each region; o Develop activity profiles by region, based on survey results; o Adjust activity profiles to represent smaller ports that are not represented by survey data; o Use the Entec (2002) base emission factors to determine appropriate emission factors for each mode of operation. o Allocate emissions temporally and spatially over areas of operation, if desired. Naval and Coast Guard Vessels o Solicit the Canadian Navy and Coast Guard to obtain data on vessel and operating characteristics; o Develop activity profiles by region; o Develop emission factors from the Entec (2002) base emission factors. o Allocate emissions temporally and spatially, if desired. Recreational Vessels o SENES understands Environment Canada is considering using the NONROAD model to determine emissions from this category, and agrees that the recreational vessels should be considered separately from other marine emissions.
49
Review of Methods Used in Calculating Marine Vessel Emission Inventories Ancillary Shore-based Equipment o SENES recommends that Environment Canada address emissions from shorebased heavy-duty engines operating within port facilities separately from marine vessel emissions using the NONROAD model.
50
Review of Methods Used in Calculating Marine Vessel Emission Inventories 5.3 ALTERNATIVE INVENTORY APPROACH
The recommended alternative inventory approach is based on the assumption that a lesser level of effort will be expended in developing a future inventory than that which would be required for the best practices approach. The same activity based approach is used, but with a greater number of assumptions and reliance on summary-based data sources. The alternative strategy may not be suitable for developing a gridded (regional) marine inventory, to support transboundary air quality studies. Ocean-going Vessels: o Use the 26 vessel categories defined by Entec, subdivided from the LMIU to represent the marine vessel fleet; o Use operating profiles (average main and auxiliary engine size [kW] and type, average load factors for each mode of operation and average times-in mode) for each vessel category as derived from other inventories, with adjustments to timein-modes based on geographical considerations; o Assume average fuel quality, specifically sulphur content, for DFO and HFO; o Use the weighted emission factors determined by Entec (2002) for each of the 26 vessel categories. Adjust PM and SO2 emission factors if sulphur content of fuel is considered significantly different than that assumed by Entec. Use survey data or discussion with port authorities to validate the Entec assumption that a small fraction of vessels use main engines while at berth. Adjust hotelling emission factors if necessary. o Use Statistics Canada summary data, or the Lloyds database to obtain number of vessel calls for Canadian ports. If greater temporal resolution is desired, consider using summary data from a different source, such as Coast Guard history data, or port authority data. o Allocate emissions over port areas and travel routes, if desired. Ferries o Collect fuel data from Ferry companies and information on travel routes; o Assume estimated fuel consumption rates over travel routes; o Determine appropriate fuel based emission factors from Entec (2002), based on the average engine and fuel type. o Allocate emissions over travel routes, if desired.
51
Review of Methods Used in Calculating Marine Vessel Emission Inventories Fishing Vessels o Consult with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to obtain information on the number of vessels operating in each region, and the location of fishing grounds; o Determine appropriate emission factors from the Entec (2002) set of energy-based emission factors, based on average engine and fuel type. o Allocate emissions over travel routes and fishing grounds, if desired. Tugboat/Towboat and other Harbour Vessels o Solicit the cooperation of Port Authorities in the larger Canadian ports to conduct surveys of vessel operators and obtain numbers of vessels operating in each region; o Estimate the number of Tugboat/Towboat trips based on surrogate data such as marine vessel visits to port by vessel category; o Estimate number of barge towing trips from surrogate quantities of goods shipped (e.g., wood chips, aggregate, etc.); o Use the Entec (2002) base emission factors to determine appropriate emission factors for each mode of operation, based on average engine and fuel type. o Allocate emissions over areas of operation, if desired. Naval and Coast Guard Vessels o Same as for best practices approach. Recreational Vessels o Same as for best practices approach. Ancillary Shore-based Equipment o Same as for best practices approach.
52
References
Arcadis Geraghty & Miller, Inc., 1999. Commercial Marine Activity for Deep Sea Ports in the United States. Prepared for the EPA September 1999, EPA420-R-99-020. Arcadis Geraghty & Miller, Inc., 1999. Commercial Marine Activity for Great Lake and Inland River Ports in the United States. Prepared for the EPA September 1999, EPA420-R-99-019. Booz-Allen & Hamilton, 1991. Commercial Marine Vessel Contributions to Emission Inventories Final Report. Prepared for the U.S. EPA October 1991. Corbett, J. J. and P.S. Fischbeck, 1998. Commercial Marine Emissions Inventory for EPA Category 2 and 3 Compression-Ignition Marine Engines in the United States Continental and Inland Waterways. Carnegie Mellon University, August 1998. EPA 420-R-98-020. Corbett, J. J., 2001. A Waterborne Commerce Inventory Integrating Economic, Transportation, and Emissions Data. Department of Ecology, University of Washington. Contract # C0100086. www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/conference/ei10/mobile/corbett.pdf. Corbett, J. J., 2003. Review of the Year 2000 Marine Vessel Emission Inventory For British Columbia and Washington State. 31 March, 2003. Letter to Morris Mennell, Environment Canada. Corbett, J.J., Koehler, H.W., 2003. Updated Emissions from Ocean Shipping. Journal of Geophysical Research, 108. 29 Oct, 2003. Energy and Environmental Analysis Inc. (EEA), 2000. Analysis of Commercial Marine Vessels Emissions and Fuel Consumption Data. Prepared for EPA under contract to Sierra Research. EPA420-R-00-002. Entec, 2002. Quantification of Emissions from Ships Associated with Ship Movements Between Ports in the European Community. Prepared for the European Commission, http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/air/background.htm. Environ, 2002. Commercial Marine Emission Inventory Development. Prepared for U.S. EPA by Environ Corporation under subcontract to E.H. Pechan and Associates, April 2002. Environmental Transportation Consultants, 1995. Shipboard Marine Engine Emission Testing for the United States Coast Guard. Prepared for the U.S. Coast Guard Headquarters Naval Engineering Division and Volpe National Transportation Systems Center. Environment Canada, 1997. Port of Vancouver marine Vessel Emissions Test Project, Interim Report, ERMD #97-04.
53
Review of Methods Used in Calculating Marine Vessel Emission Inventories Environment Canada, 2001. 1995 National Emissions Inventory for Atmospheric Ammonia Guidebook, Final Draft, September. Environment Canada, November 27 2003. An Assessment of Marine Vessel Emissions and their Contribution to Air Quality in Halifax Harbour from the Year 2002. Draft Report. Levelton Engineering Ltd., 2002. Marine Vessel Air Emissions in the Lower Fraser Valley for the Year 2000. Prepared for the Greater Regional Vancouver District and Environment Canada Pacific and Yukon Region. Lloyds Register, 1990. Operation. Marine Exhaust Emissions Research Programme: Steady State
Lloyds Register of Shipping, 1995. Marine Exhaust Emissions Research Programme. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), 1997. IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories Volume 3, Reference Manual. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), 2000, Good Practice Guidance and Uncertainty Management in National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. IPCC Plenary, Montreal, May 2000. SENES Consultants Limited (SENES) 2002. Literature Review: Toxic Emissions from Off-Road Engines. Prepared for Environment Canada, Transportation Systems, Branch, Ottawa, Ontario. Starcrest Consulting and Eastern Research Group LLC, 2003. Improvements to the Commercial Marine Vessels Emissions Inventory in the Vicinity of Houston Texas. Draft Final. Produced for the Houston Advanced Research Center (HARC), July 28, 2003 Starcrest Consulting Group and Eastern Research Group, 2004. Update to the Commercial Marine Inventory for Texas to Review Emissions Factors, Consider a Ton-Mile EI Method, and Revised Emissions for the Beaumont-Port Arthur Non-Attainment Area. Submitted to the Houston Advanced Research Center, January, 2004. U.S. EPA; November, 1991. Nonroad Engine and Vehicle Emission Study Report. U.S. EPA, 1992. Procedures for Emission Inventory Preparation, Volume IV: Mobile Sources. EPA-450/4-81-026d (Revised). U.S. EPA, 1998. National Air Pollutant Emission Trends Procedures Document for 1900-1996. EPA-454/R-98-008, May. U.S. EPA, 1999. Control of Emissions from Marine Diesel Engines. Final Regulatory Impact Analysis, EPA 420-R-99-026, November.
54
Review of Methods Used in Calculating Marine Vessel Emission Inventories U.S. EPA, 2001. Procedures Document for National Emission Inventory, Criteria Air Pollutants 1985-1999. EPA-454/R-01-006, March. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2001. Documentation for the Draft 1999 Base Year Nonroad Emission Inventory for Hazardous Air Pollutants. Prepared by the Emission Factor and Inventory Group (MD-14), Monitoring and Analysis Division, October 29. U.S. EPA, 2003. Final Regulatory Support Document: Control of Emissions from New Marine Compression-Ignition Engines at or Above 30 Litres per Cylinder. Final Regulatory Impact Analysis, EPA420-R-03-004, January.
55
Appendix A: Summary of Entec Inventory (2002)
56
Review of Methods Used in Calculating Marine Vessel Emission Inventories This section provides a summary of the Entec methodology used in the Quantification of emissions from ships associated with ship movements between ports in the European Community, which can be obtained from the European Commission website61. The baseline emission factors determined from analysis of the Lloyds and IVL emissions testing datasets are shown, which were used to calculate the specific emission factors for each ship group and mode of operation. For emissions inventory development, both shipping movements and ship characteristics are required in addition to the air contaminant emission factors. The primary source of data for ship movements was the Lloyds Marine Intelligence Unit (LMIU) and the Lloyds Registry of Ships was used for ship characteristics. The Lloyds registration number allows ship information in one dataset to be linked to information in the other. The two datasets were used to extract the following information:

Vessels operating between European ports; Vessel type; Engine type(s) and size(s); Vessel size (DWT); Port/Place details, such as arrival/departure dates, previous port, next port.
LMIU includes all ships of 500 gross tonnes or higher; therefore, smaller vessels were not included in the inventory. Such vessels would include research ships, oil industry service ships, and smaller harbour vessels. The LMIU does not have data on Ferry movements, so this category of vessel was analyzed separately. In addition, many Fishing vessels are too small to be included in the LMIU; this category was also analyzed separately, by using harvesting tonnage as a surrogate. The most recent full-year of shipping movements was used to construct the inventory, which was the year 2000. Ship categories were used to distinguish ships of similar mechanical and operating characteristics. The Lloyds Registry has its own categories or Codes and these were used directly in the inventory. Table A.1 shows the ship types used by Entec, the Lloyds code and the average speed for each ship category. To develop an activity based emission inventory (ABEI), each ship type requires an activity profile. Activity profiles were developed for each category from a simple analysis of the ship characteristics within each group. Table A.1 shows the number of ships within each group and the number of ships that had to be excluded from the activity profile development, due to missing fields within the Lloyds dataset.
61
http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/air/background.htm
57
Table A.1: Ship Categories

Ship Type
Liquefied Gas Chemical Oil Other Liquids Bulk Dry Bulk Dry / Oil Self-Discharging Bulk Dry Other Bulk Dry General Cargo Passenger/General Cargo Container Refrigerated Cargo Ro-Ro Cargo Passenger/Ro-Ro Cargo Passenger Other Dry Cargo Fish Catching Other Fishing Offshore Supply Other Offshore Research Towing / Pushing Dredging Other Activities Other Activities Other Activities Other Activities
LMIU Code
A11 A12 A13 A14 A21 A22 A23 A24 A31 A32 A33 A34 A35 A36 A37 A38 B11 B12 B21 B22 B31 B32 B33 B34 W11 W12 W13
Ship Count
781 1712 3706 124 4617 186 79 373 9702 42 2503 1094 1274 496 386 197 1024 185 577 165 217 777 164 266 11 7 2
ShipsExcluded
11 19 77 0 19 0 0 6 410 3 22 37 16 17 27 6 109 5 22 38 25 53 13 36 0 2 1
AverageSpeed(km/hr)
31.2 25.3 26.0 24.0 26.5 25.0 25.7 23.9 22.8 27.0 35.7 31.4 28.6 28.4 38.5 25.1 25.7 24.7 24.6 23.1 25.1 23.8 21.2 25.2 18.1 15.1 22.2
58
Review of Methods Used in Calculating Marine Vessel Emission Inventories Several recent studies have shown that marine engine emission rates (in g/kWh) have an exponential relationship with engine load factor (e.g., EEA 2000, Starcrest 2004). As each ship operating mode has a typical engine load factor, corresponding emission factors must be used in the development of activity profiles for each vessel group. Tables A.2 and A.3 show the base emission factors developed by Entec for higher engine load operations (cruising, or at-sea) and lower engine load operations (manoeuvring and in-port) for main engines. In-port activities include both hotelling and loading/unloading operations. It was determined through survey data that on average, 5% of vessels use their main engines while in-port, whereas 100% of vessels use their main engines while manoeuvring. In general, an 80% engine load factor was used to represent cruising (at-sea) operations and a 20% load factor was used to represent manoeuvring and in-port activities. The base emission factors were determined by considering these load factors with emissions data from the Lloyds and IVL emissions testing programs. A lack of data was noted for emissions at lower engine loads (20%). Due to this fact, professional judgment played a large role in determining the manoeuvring and in-port emission factors. The final approach taken was to multiply the diesel engine cruising emission factors by 0.8 for NOx, 3.0 for HC, and 3.0 for PM. For gas turbine, the multiplication factors used were 0.5 for NOx, 5.0 for HC, and 5.0 for PM. Finally, the specific fuel consumption was estimated to increase by 10% at 20% engine load (which increases SO2 and CO2 emissions correspondingly). A similar approach was used for steam turbines, although this was not explained in the report. The resulting emission factors account for all possible engine type/fuel type combinations. The emission factors for CO2 and SO2 were calculated by assuming that all fuel carbon and sulphur is burned to produce CO2 and SO2. The sulphur content of fuel varies significantly with type of fuel. Entec assumed that the sulphur content of marine gas oil (MGO) was 0.5%, marine diesel oil (MDO) was 1.0% and residual oil (RO) was 2.7%, consistent with information supplied by the International Maritime Organization (IMO). Each table of base emission factors also lists the specific fuel consumption (g/kWh), which allows determination of equivalent emission factors in kg/tonne of fuel. It was not clear in the Entec report why particulate matter (PM) emission factors were not included for cruising operations. The PM emission factors were included for all other operating modes. Table A.4 presents the base emission factors for auxiliary engines. Auxiliary engines are used primarily for electrical power generation, during all modes of operation. Fewer engine/fuel combinations exist for auxiliary engines, since they are exclusively diesel burning, with medium to fast engine rpm.
59
Review of Methods Used in Calculating Marine Vessel Emission Inventories Table A.2: Base Emission Factors (g/kWh) for Cruising Operations Main Engines
Engine/Fuel Combination
SSD / MGO SSD / MDO SSD / RO MSD / MGO MSD / MDO MSD / RO HSD / MGO HSD / MDO HSD / RO GT / MGO GT / MDO GT / RO ST / MGO ST / MDO ST / RO
NOx
17.0 17.0 18.1 13.2 13.2 14.0 12.0 12.0 12.7 5.7 5.7 6.1 2.0 2.0 2.1
SO2
0.9 3.7 10.5 1.0 4.1 11.5 1.0 4.1 11.5 1.5 5.8 16.5 1.5 5.8 16.5
CO2
588 588 620 645 645 677 645 645 677 922 922 970 922 922 970
HC
0.6 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1
Specific Fuel Consumption

185 185 195 203 203 213 203 203 213 290 290 305 290 290 305
SSD = slow speed diesel, MSD = medium speed diesel, HSD = high speed diesel, GT = gas turbine, ST = steam turbine, MGO = marine gas oil, MDO = marine diesel oil and RO = residual oil
60
Review of Methods Used in Calculating Marine Vessel Emission Inventories Table A.3: Base Emission Factors (g/kWh) for Manoeuvring and In-port Operations Main Engines
SSD / MGO SSD / MDO SSD / RO MSD / MGO MSD / MDO MSD / RO HSD / MGO HSD / MDO HSD / RO GT / MGO GT / MDO GT / RO ST / MGO ST / MDO ST / RO
NOx
13.6 13.6 14.5 10.6 10.6 11.2 9.6 9.6 10.2 2.9 2.9 3.1 1.6 1.6 1.7
SO2
1.0 4.1 11.6 1.1 4.5 12.7 1.1 4.5 12.7 1.6 6.4 18.1 1.6 6.4 18.1
CO2
647 647 682 710 710 745 710 710 745 1014 1014 1067 1014 1014 1067
HC
1.8 1.8 1.8 1.5 1.5 1.5 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.3
PM
0.9 0.9 2.4 0.9 0.9 2.4 0.9 0.9 2.4 0.5 0.5 1.5 0.9 0.9 2.4
Specifc Fuel Consumption

204 204 215 223 223 234 223 223 234 319 319 336 319 319 336
Table A.4: Base Emission Factors for Auxiliary Engines - All Activities and Load Factors
MSD / MGO MSD / MDO MSD / RO HSD / MGO HSD / MDO HSD / RO
NOx
13.9 13.9 14.7 10.9 10.9 11.6
SO2
1.1 4.3 12.3 1.1 4.3 12.3
CO2
690 690 722 690 690 722
HC
0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4
PM
0.3 0.3 0.8 0.3 0.3 0.8

217 217 227 217 217 227
SSD = slow speed diesel, MSD = medium speed diesel, HSD = high speed diesel, GT = gas turbine, ST = steam turbine, MGO = marine gas oil, MDO = marine diesel oil and RO = residual oil
61
Review of Methods Used in Calculating Marine Vessel Emission Inventories Entec used the base emission factors to determine representative emission factors for each ship category. Weighted emission factors were established by analyzing the fraction of vessels within each category for each engine/fuel combination. For example, the Oil Tanker category has a high percentage of ships with slow speed diesel main engines that consume residual oil. As a result, the emission factors for each mode of operation are weighted heavily towards the base emission factors for SSD/RO. Weighted emission factors for each vessel category are shown in Table A.5, A.6, and A.7. A detailed account of the procedure for calculating the weighted emission factors was not provided. The weighted emission factors represent the combination of main engines and auxiliary engines operating together. During cruising and manoeuvring, emissions from the main engines are far greater than emissions from the auxiliary engines. In that sense, these emission factors are representative of the emissions from the main engines. However, during in-port operations, it was assumed that ships use their main engines 5% of the time. It is likely that this assumption was used for all ship categories. For this reason, the in-port emission factors may be appropriate only when considering an averaged value for the entire marine fleet operating in European ports and may not be representative of vessels operating at specific Canadian ports. Other recent studies have assumed that main engines do not operate while at-berth.
62
Review of Methods Used in Calculating Marine Vessel Emission Inventories Table A.5: Cruising (At-Sea) Emission Factors by ship type (g/kWh)
Ship Type
A11 Liquefied Gas A12 Chemical A13 Oil A14 Other liquid A21 Bulk dry A22 Bulk dry/oil A23 Self-discharging bulk dry A24 Other bulk dry A31 General cargo A32 Passenger/general cargo A33 Container A34 Refrigerated cargo A35 Roro cargo A36 Passenger/Roro cargo A37 Passenger A38 Other dry cargo B11 Fish catching B12 Other fishing B21 Offshore supply B22 Other offshore B31 Research B32 Towing/Pushing B33 Dredging B34 other activities W11 Other activities W12 Other activities
NOx
8.5 16.5 14.9 16.6 17.9 16.8 14.3 17.4 16.3 15.8 17.5 17.4 15.6 13.3 13.2 11.1 13.9 13.3 14.0 13.5 14.2 13.7 14.1 12.5 14.0 12.7
SO2
12.4 11.0 11.7 10.9 10.6 10.3 11.5 10.6 10.9 11.1 10.7 10.7 11.2 9.8 11.7 12.9 11.5 12.3 11.0 11.1 11.4 10.8 11.4 10.7 11.5 11.5
CO2
822 645 689 641 624 643 695 631 644 653 631 631 659 686 696 757 685 722 675 682 673 673 674 705 678 677
HC
0.3 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.5 0.2

258 203 217 202 196 202 218 198 203 205 199 198 207 216 219 238 215 227 212 215 212 212 212 222 213 213
63
Review of Methods Used in Calculating Marine Vessel Emission Inventories Table A.6: Manoeuvring Emission Factors by Ship Type (g/kWh)
Shipe Type
A11 Liquefied Gas A12 Chemical A13 Oil A14 Other liquid A21 Bulk dry A22 Bulk dry/oil A23 Selfdischarging bulk dry A24 Other bulk dry A31 General cargo A32 Passenger/general cargo A33 Container A34 Refrigerated cargo A35 Roro cargo A36 Passenger/Roro cargo A37 Passenger A38 Other dry cargo B11 Fish catching B12 Other fishing B21 Offshore supply B22 Other offshore B31 Research B32 Towing/Pushing B33 Dredging B34 other activities W11 Other activities W12 Other activities
NOx
7.4 13.3 12.0 13.3 14.3 13.5 12.0 13.9 13.1 12.8 14.0 13.9 12.5 10.6 10.7 9.3 13.0 10.7 11.2 10.9 11.4 11.0 11.4 10.1 11.5 10.2
SO2
13.5 12.1 12.8 12.0 11.7 11.4 12.5 11.6 12.0 12.2 11.8 11.8 12.3 10.8 12.9 14.0 12.2 13.5 12.1 12.2 12.6 11.8 12.5 11.8 12.6 12.6
CO2
887 710 754 706 688 708 751 695 709 718 696 697 724 754 764 821 725 792 742 749 740 740 741 774 742 744
PM
0.9 1.5 1.4 1.6 1.7 1.6 1.1 1.6 1.6 1.4 1.6 1.5 1.5 1.3 1.4 1.1 0.6 1.3 1.4 1.3 1.4 1.2 1.4 1.2 1.4 0.6
HC
2.1 2.2 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.2 1.9 2.3 2.3 2.1 2.3 2.2 2.3 2.1 2.3 2.2 1.1 2.4 2.3 2.2 2.4 2.3 2.4 2.2 2.2 2.4

279 223 237 222 217 223 236 219 223 226 219 219 228 237 240 258 228 249 233 236 233 233 233 243 233 234
64
Review of Methods Used in Calculating Marine Vessel Emission Inventories Table A.7: Hotelling (In-port) Emission Factors by Ship Type (g/kWh)
Ship Type
A11 Liquefied Gas A12 Chemical A13 Oil A14 Other liquid A21 Bulk dry A22 Bulk dry/oil A23 Selfdischarging bulk dry A24 Other bulk dry A31 General cargo A32 Passenger/general cargo A33 Container A34 Refrigerated cargo A35 Roro cargo A36 Passenger/Roro cargo A37 Passenger A38 Other dry cargo B11 Fish catching B12 Other fishing B21 Offshore supply B22 Other offshore B31 Research B32 Towing/Pushing B33 Dredging B34 other activities W11 Other activities W12 Other activities
NOx
7.5 13.3 12.1 13.3 13.8 13.4 13.1 13.6 13.3 13.2 13.7 13.5 13.0 11.3 11.6 11.8 13.4 11.3 12.0 12.0 11.8 11.8 11.9 11.1 12.7 11.2
SO2
13.4 12.1 12.8 12.0 12.0 11.9 12.3 12.0 12.1 12.2 12.1 12.1 12.3 11.2 12.6 12.9 12.2 13.2 11.9 12.2 12.5 12.0 12.4 11.5 12.4 12.5
CO2
884 710 754 707 706 715 727 709 716 721 710 714 723 746 750 761 722 776 734 737 736 734 736 756 729 738
PM
0.9 1.5 1.4 1.5 1.0 0.9 0.5 1.0 0.9 0.6 1.0 0.7 0.9 1.0 1.0 0.7 0.4 1.1 1.1 0.9 1.2 1.0 1.2 1.0 0.8 0.5
HC
2.1 2.2 2.2 2.2 1.5 1.4 1.0 1.5 1.5 1.1 1.5 1.2 1.4 1.8 1.8 1.4 0.8 2.0 1.7 1.6 2.0 1.8 2.0 1.7 1.3 1.9

278 223 237 222 222 225 229 223 225 227 223 225 227 235 236 239 227 244 231 232 232 231 232 238 229 232
65
Review of Methods Used in Calculating Marine Vessel Emission Inventories The specific emission factors were used to determine air emissions for each ship group. The equation used for this purpose is shown below: E = P EF LF T where E = Emissions (g/s) P = Engine power at full load (kW) EF = Emission Factor (g/kWh) LF = Load Factor (%) T = Time in a particular mode of activity (hours)
Entec provided a discussion of the uncertainties inherent in this marine inventory, which include:

The emission factors for SO2 and CO2 assume that all fuel carbon and sulphur is used in producing these gases. Emission factors for at-sea were developed by averaging all emissions data for engine loads in the range of 70 100%. The manoeuvring and in-port emission factors are not a straight derivation from emissions data, but also incorporate professional judgment. This is due in part to the non-steady-state operation of main engines during these modes of operation. Emissions data is scarce for gas and especially steam turbines. The data used to derive the steam turbine emission factors originates from the 1980s. Total fuel use for shipping fleets was available only for the UK. Tonnage of fish caught was used as a surrogate to estimate emissions for each country except the UK. In addition, it was assumed all fuel was consumed in the fishing zones. Not all fields for each vessel in the Lloyds database were complete. Either assumptions were made, based on other vessel characteristics, or those vessels were excluded from emission factor development. Some ships used dual fuels. In many cases it was not clear which fuel was used for which engine; residual oil (RO) was assumed to be used in those cases. Vessels were assumed to use main engines in port 5% of the time. This likely is not representative of several ship categories. IMO average sulphur content was assumed for the three types of fuel considered in the inventory. The actual sulphur content of fuel in an individual ship can vary significantly. Vessels of less than 500 gross tonnes, and all river shipping movements are not represented.
66
Appendix B: Fuel Usage Survey For Port of Vancouver
67
Review of Methods Used in Calculating Marine Vessel Emission Inventories B.1 Port of Vancouver Fuel Usage Survey
The Chamber of Shipping of British Columbia (CSBC) conducted a survey of vessels operating in the Port of Vancouver in order to gather data on the types and quantities of fuels being used by ocean-going vessels. The survey data are reproduced in this report with the permission of the CSBC. Information requested by the CSBC from the vessel operators included: vessel type gross weight tonnage year commissioned main engine type and size auxiliary engine type and size fuel type and sulphur content transit time (cruising and manoeuvring) and fuel usage during transit alongside time (hotelling) and alongside fuel usage.
The survey was conducted during the period June-December 2003, and obtained data from a total of 190 vessels. The total numbers of records by vessel type in the CSBC survey data set are listed in Table B.1. Table B.1 Number of Records in CSBC Survey Database Vessel Type Break Bulk Carriers Bulk Container Carriers General Cargo Carriers Passenger Vessels Container Carriers Roll-on/Roll-off Tankers Car Carriers Ore Carriers Bulk Wood Chip Carriers Total BBU BCB GGC MPR UCC URR TCH/TCR MVE BOR BWC 60 8 38 12 54 9 3 4 1 1 190 No. of Records 31.6% 4.2% 20.0% 6.3% 28.4% 4.7% 1.6% 2.1% 0.5% 0.5%
Three vessel categories (BBU, GGC & UCC) accounted for 80% of the data records in the survey. 68
Review of Methods Used in Calculating Marine Vessel Emission Inventories B.1.1 Sources of Error and Limitations of the CSBC Database In reviewing the data collected during the CSBC survey, a number of sources of error were identified which should be considered when using this data. Specifically, SENES noted: Data entry errors; Non-specified engine power values which were assumed to be HP; Survey respondents provided engine power units of HP and kW (or PS) using different conversion factors, resulting in slight computational errors/reported engine power (HP) values; Survey respondents specified MCR (Maximum Continuous Rating) power rating rather than NOR power rating (which is a more representative value for continuous and normal engine operation); Total generator (auxiliary) power questionably reported: some power values were per generator unit, even though multiple generators were specified (i.e., 750 kW generator x 4 generators/vessel = 3000 kW total generator power and not 750 kW generator power, as indicated in the survey form).
Some examples of other suspected sources of error for fuel use and fuel sulphur content included: transit , anchorage and alongside times not always accurately summed; vessel activity sometimes included data outside of specified study area (i.e., Squamish, Nanaimo, Woodfibre, etc.) leading to possible overestimation of fuel usage (tonnage) during vessel transit times; many vessels reported zero diesel fuel usage, or fuels with 0.0% sulphur content, or did not indicate fuel sulphur content at all.
69
Review of Methods Used in Calculating Marine Vessel Emission Inventories B.2 Fuel Usage
The fraction of vessels in the CSBC survey that reported using heavy fuel oil (HFO) and diesel fuel oil (DFO) having less than or greater than 1.5% S content is listed below. Percentage of Vessels Reporting Fuel Sulphur Content HFO DFO 0.1 5.0% S 0.02 3.8% S 10% 39% 85% 7% 5% 54%
Fuel Sulphur Content <1.5% S >1.5% S not reported
Most of the HFO burned by vessels (88% of total fuel usage) consisted of fuel with sulphur contents greater than 1.5%. This is reasonably consistent with the estimate that a total of 7-10% of total fuel sales in the Port consist of marine diesel having a sulphur content of less than 1.5%. The CSBC survey also indicated that 53% of all fuel burned by vessels operating in the Port of Vancouver was used during transit operations, while 47% was burned at dockside. Heavy fuel oil (HFO) accounted for 82% of the total fuel burned by vessels either in transit or at dockside. HFO accounted for approximately 92% of the total fuel burned during transit, and for about 70% of the total fuel burned at dockside. Figure B.1 shows the fraction of total HFO burned in the Port of Vancouver during both transit and dockside operations, subdivided by the range of fuel sulphur content reported by vessels in the CSBC survey. Nearly 75% of the total HFO burned in the Port has a fuel sulphur content greater or equal to 2%, almost all within the range 2-4% S content. Only about 12% of the HFO burned has less than 1.5% S content.
70
Review of Methods Used in Calculating Marine Vessel Emission Inventories Figure B.1 Percentage of Total Heavy Fuel Oil Burned by Marine Vessels In the Port of Vancouver, B.C. by Fuel Sulphur Content (% S)
40.3%
31.5%
11.9%
13.7%
2.5%
<1.5% S
1.5-2% S
2-3% S
3-4% S
4-5% S
B.2.1 Diesel Fuel (DFO) Sulphur (S) Content It was not feasible to determine a good average for diesel fuel S content based on the CSBC data set because too many vessels reported 0.0% S for diesel fuel. For the portion of vessels reporting non-zero S content, the average and the range of diesel S contents are listed in Table A.2. Table B.2 Diesel Fuel Sulphur Content by Vessel Type
Vessel Type Break Bulk Carriers Bulk Container Carriers General Cargo Carriers Passenger Vessels Container Carriers Roll-on/Roll-off Tankers Car Carriers Ore Carriers Bulk Wood Chip Carriers BBU BCB GGC MPR UCC URR TCH/TCR MVE BOR BWC Diesel Fuel S Content (%) (non-zero records) 0.02 - 3.02 0.1 - 1.0 0.1 - 3.8 0.2 - 1.82 0.33 - 1.40 0.1 - 0.84 0.2 - 1.82 1.28 Average DFO S Content (%) (non-zero records) 0.88% 0.38% 1.12% 1.16% 0.89% 0.50% 1.28% No. of Vessels Reporting 0.0% Diesel S Content 37/60 0/8 22/38 1/12 37/54 1/9 3/3 2/4 1/1 1/1
71
Review of Methods Used in Calculating Marine Vessel Emission Inventories B.2.2 Heavy Fuel Oil (HFO) Sulphur (S) Content Heavy fuel oil (HFO) S content records were more complete than for the DFO. The average HFO sulphur content for the CSBC survey is 2.70% S for all vessels reporting non-zero HFO sulphur content. The breakdown of fuel oil S contents by vessel type in the data set is summarized in Table B.3.
Table B.3 Fuel Oil Sulphur Content by Vessel Type

Vessel Type Break Bulk Carriers Bulk Container Carriers General Cargo Carriers Passenger Vessels Container Carriers Roll-on/Roll-off Tankers Car Carriers Ore Carriers Bulk Wood Chip Carriers BBU BCB GGC MPR UCC URR TCH/TCR MVE BOR BWC Fuel Oil S Content (%) (non-zero records) 0.90 3.89 2.10 3.50 0.10 5.00 1.40 1.75 1.75 5.00 1.81 3.50 1.75 1.90 3.07 3.32 3.27 Average HFO S Content (%) (non-zero records) 2.76 2.60 2.68 1.57 2.88 2.76 1.80 3.20 No. of Vessels Reporting 0.0% Fuel Oil S Content 10/60 0/8 2/38 0/12 5/54 1/9 0/3 0/4 0/1 1/1
B.2.3 Dockside Fuel Usage Table B.4 lists the fuel usage rates per dockside reported in the CSBC survey for break bulk carriers (BBU). The deadweight tonnage (DWT) of the vessels was obtained from the Lloyds Registry database using the IMO number for each vessel. The DWT for four of the vessels was not available from the Registry. The fuel usage rates for the other vessel categories are listed in Table B.5.
72
Review of Methods Used in Calculating Marine Vessel Emission Inventories Table B.4 Average Fuel Usage Rates For Break Bulk Carriers (BBU) (tonnes per dockside visit)
Vessel Class 0-24,999 DWT 25,000-49,999 DWT 50,000-74,999 DWT 75,000-100,000 DWT >100,000 DWT DWT not available HFO 2.9 10.7 12.7 15.1 16.5 CSBC Fuel Usage Survey # vessels # vessels burning HFO HFO burning DFO 11/12 8.6 11/12 25/28 13.5 22/28 13/14 11.7 9/14 1/1 10.7 1/1 0/1 0.0 1/1 3/4 11.0 2/4
DFO 3.8 2.7 7.1 0.2 42.4 0.2
Table B.5 Average Fuel Usage Rates for Other Vessels (tonnes per dockside visit)
Vessel Type General Cargo Carriers (GGC) Passenger Vessels (MPR) Container Carriers (UCC) Roll on/Roll off (URR) Tankers (TCH/TCR) Bulk Container Vessels (BCB) Car Carriers (MVE) Ore Carriers (BOR) Bulk Wood Chip Carriers (BWC) # vessels burning HFO 34/38 12/12 44/54 8/9 3/3 8/8 1/1 0/1 CSBC Fuel Usage Survey # vessels HFO burning DFO 15.4 18/38 14.4 5/12 7.5 24/54 7.4 9/9 14.2 3/3 13.3 8/8 2.6 1/4 0.6 1/1 0.0 0/1
DFO 4.5 0.05 2.1 31.1 1.7 2.9 0.1 0.1 0.0
B.2.4 In-Transit Fuel Usage Table B.6 lists the fuel usage rates for vessels in-transit in the Port of Vancouver, as reported in the CSBC survey. The data indicate that approximately 92% of the total fuel burned by vessels during in-port transit operations consists of heavy fuel oil. All vessels burn HFO during transit, and a majority of vessels also burn small quantities of DFO during transit.
73
Review of Methods Used in Calculating Marine Vessel Emission Inventories Table B.6 Average Fuel Usage Rates for Vessels In-Transit (tonnes per vessel during transit)
Vessel Type Break Bulk Carriers (BBU) General Cargo Carriers (GGC) Passenger Vessels (MPR) Container Carriers (UCC) Roll on/Roll off (URR) Tankers (TCH/TCR) Bulk Container Vessels (BCB) Car Carriers (MVE) Ore Carriers (BOR) Bulk Wood Chip Carriers (BWC) # vessels burning HFO 55/56 38/38 12/12 50/50 9/9 3/3 8/8 4/4 1/1 1/1 CSBC Fuel Usage Survey Average # vessels HFO Usage burning DFO 12.4 49/56 22.0 25/38 12.9 5/12 16.6 18/50 17.3 9/9 7.6 3/3 19.7 8/8 6.3 2/4 13.8 1/1 4.8 1/1 Average DFO Usage 1.7 1.5 0.1 0.8 5.3 0.5 1.2 0.2 0.9 0.1
B.3
Transit Time
The CSBC survey lists the number of hours reported by each vessel in transit. The average time in transit for each vessel type was calculated for the CSBC survey and compared with the average travel time estimated for the GVRD inventory of marine vessel emissions. The travel time was used to calculate underway emissions for the GVRD inventory using the formula:
Emission (tonnes) = Average Engine Power (kW) x Total Travel Time (h) x Engine Load Factor (%) x Emission Factor (g/kWh)/106 (g/tonne)
Therefore, pollutant emission rates estimated by the GVRD were directly proportional to the estimated vessel travel time. Table A.7 lists the total estimated travel times for each vessel category reported by vessel operators in the CSBC survey.
74
Review of Methods Used in Calculating Marine Vessel Emission Inventories Table B.7 Comparison of Estimated Transit Time Reported to CSBC Vessel Type Break Bulk Carriers (BBU) Bulk Container Vessels (BCB) Ore Carriers (BOR) Container Carriers (UCC) General Cargo (GGC) Passenger (MPR) Tankers (TCH/TCR) Roll-On/Roll-Off (URR) Car Carriers (MVE) Wood Chip Carriers (BCW) Transit Time (in hours) 18.5 20.2 19.0 8.4 26.3 4.5 5.3 28.2 5.3 6.5
B.4
Marine Vessel Engine Power
The size of engines reported by the vessels in the CSBC survey was compared with engine power listed for that vessel in the Lloyds Registry. Due to inconsistencies in reporting by vessel operators in the CSBC survey, the following assumptions were used to convert reported engine size to HP rating: 1. all non-specified power units from CSBC survey data were assumed to be in HP; 2. conversion factors (CFs) used62: 1 PS63 = 0.9863 HP 1 kW = 1.3410 HP 3. in the case that a CSBC survey respondent indicated2 two engine power ratings, the average of the 2 was taken and used for purposes of HP comparison64; and, 4. unless otherwise indicated, engine power indicated by survey respondents was assumed to be the NCR/NOR power rating (see note 3 below).
62 63
Heywood, J.B. Fundamentals of Internal Combustion Engines, p.900 (incomplete reference) where PS = Pferdstarke (German word for horsepower) 64 The two possible ratings for marine engines are: MCR/MCO (Maximum Continuous Rating, or Operation) & NCR/NCO (Normal Continuous Rating, or Operation). MCR is generally used for vessel applications involving varying loads, limited by (engine) application guidelines & leaving a power reserve for unusual operating conditions, limited to 1 hr in 12, or 8.3% of total operating hours (Caterpillar website). In other words, MCR corresponds to a higher engine power rating than the normal operating rated load/speed power delivered by the engine for normal use. 38108 Final Report September 9, 2004
75
Review of Methods Used in Calculating Marine Vessel Emission Inventories Figure A.1 shows that there was a relatively good correlation between engine horsepower rating reported by vessels in the CSBC survey versus the Lloyds Registry database. Thus, the Lloyds Registry engine power data appear to provide a suitable database for obtaining engine power ratings.
Figure A.1
80000
70000
Main Engine Horsepower (Lloyd's Registry)
60000
y = 1.014x - 93.004 R2 = 0.9522
50000
40000
30000
20000
10000
0 0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 60000 70000 80000 Main Engine Horsepower (CSBC Survey)
76

Review Method Calculating Marine Vessel Emission

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Descrizione originale:

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Review Method Calculating Marine Vessel Emission

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Review of Methods Used in Calculating Marine Vessel Emission Inventories

Prepared for: Environment Canada

Review of Methods Used in Calculating Marine Vessel Emission Inventories

SENES Consultants Limited AIR Improvement Resource, Inc.

Review of Methods Used in Calculating Marine Vessel Emission Inventories

38108 Final Report September 9, 2004

SENES Consultants Limited AIR Improvement Resource, Inc.

Review of Methods Used in Calculating Marine Vessel Emission Inventories

38108 Final Report September 9, 2004

SENES Consultants Limited AIR Improvement Resource, Inc.

Review of Methods Used in Calculating Marine Vessel Emission Inventories

38108 Final Report September 9, 2004

SENES Consultants Limited AIR Improvement Resource, Inc.

38108 Final Report September 9, 2004

SENES Consultants Limited AIR Improvement Resource, Inc.

38108 Final Report September 9, 2004

SENES Consultants Limited AIR Improvement Resource, Inc.

Review of Methods Used in Calculating Marine Vessel Emission Inventories

38108 Final Report September 9, 2004

SENES Consultants Limited AIR Improvement Resource, Inc.

Review of Methods Used in Calculating Marine Vessel Emission Inventories

1995 NATIONAL MARINE EMISSIONS INVENTORY

38108 Final Report September 9, 2004

SENES Consultants Limited AIR Improvement Resource, Inc.

38108 Final Report September 9, 2004

SENES Consultants Limited AIR Improvement Resource, Inc.

38108 Final Report September 9, 2004

SENES Consultants Limited AIR Improvement Resource, Inc.

SENES Consultants Limited AIR Improvement Resource, Inc.

Review of Methods Used in Calculating Marine Vessel Emission Inventories

REVIEW OF CURRENT INVENTORY METHODS

Air & Waste

SENES Consultants Limited AIR Improvement Resource, Inc.

SENES Consultants Limited AIR Improvement Resource, Inc.

where a, b and x are regression constants specific to each air contaminant.

38108 Final Report September 9, 2004

SENES Consultants Limited AIR Improvement Resource, Inc.

38108 Final Report September 9, 2004

SENES Consultants Limited AIR Improvement Resource, Inc.

CO NOx PM VOC CO2

SENES Consultants Limited AIR Improvement Resource, Inc.

SENES Consultants Limited AIR Improvement Resource, Inc.

U.S. EPA METHODS

38108 Final Report September 9, 2004

SENES Consultants Limited AIR Improvement Resource, Inc.

SENES Consultants Limited AIR Improvement Resource, Inc.

38108 Final Report September 9, 2004

SENES Consultants Limited AIR Improvement Resource, Inc.

Current Guideline Elements

U.S. EPA (2003)28

SENES Consultants Limited AIR Improvement Resource, Inc.

HC 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27

PM 0.9 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3

38108 Final Report September 9, 2004

SENES Consultants Limited AIR Improvement Resource, Inc.

SENES Consultants Limited AIR Improvement Resource, Inc.

38108 Final Report September 9, 2004

SENES Consultants Limited AIR Improvement Resource, Inc.

Reference Corbett and Fischbeck (1998)34 Environ (2002)

Load Factor 0.57 N/D35

SENES Consultants Limited AIR Improvement Resource, Inc.

SENES Consultants Limited AIR Improvement Resource, Inc.

38108 Final Report September 9, 2004