CLEARING THE AIR
When we last checked, just three countries representing a puny 8.42% of the world fleet had ratified Annex VI of the MARPOL convention. This is the bit of MARPOL that deals with emissions from marine diesels—notably NOx and SOx. It will only come into effect12 months after being accepted by at least 15 states with not less than 50% of world merchant shipping tonnage. Meantime, though, shipowners are having to go the expense of having engines certified as meeting MARPOL requirements, on the assumption that it will enter into effect. And every day that no international convention is in place, it becomes a little more tempting for local regulators to impose their own standards for emissions from ships.
One area where emissions are a major concern is, of course, Alaska. That has led cruise ship operators to specify engines meeting strict limits, not only for the emission of NOx but also of particulates, or “smoke.”
P&O Princess Cruises, for example, recently ordered is supplying 12 Wärtsilä Corporation EnviroEngines for four cruise ships. All 12 engines are being built in Finland.
EnviroEngines use electronically-controlled, common-rail fuel injection to provide optimum combustion over the entire load range, to give the particular benefit of no visible smoke at any load and when starting or during transient load changes. They also employ electronically controlled direct water injection to achieve the low NOx emission value of 6 g/kWh. The EnviroEngines for P&O Princess Cruises are the first to incorporate both technologies. As diesel engines, their high efficiency also means they have the lowest CO2 emissions of all prime movers.
The smokeless operation of EnviroEngines is of particular attraction to P&O Princess Cruises, as it meets the need for a clear engine exhaust when operating in environmentally sensitive areas such as Alaska.
The first eight Wärtsilä EnviroEngines—two Wärtsilä 9L46 engines, two Wärtsilä 8L46 engines and four Wärtsilä 16V46 engines—have successfully completed factory acceptance tests for Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Chantiers de l’Atlantique and P&O Princess Cruises.
Two of the P&O Princess ships are building at Chantiers de l’Atlantique in France, with delivery scheduled this year and next. They will each have two Wärtsilä 16V46 EnviroEngines, each delivering 16,800 kW at 514 rev/min. The ships will be named respectively Coral Princess and Island Princess. When delivered, the Coral Princess will be the first vessel to enter service with fully fledged EnviroEngines.
Two ships, the Diamond Princess and Sapphire Princess, are being built at Mitsubishi Heavy Industries in Japan. They are due for delivery from the Nagasaki yard in 2003 and 2004, respectively. These will each be equipped with two Wärtsilä 9L46 and two Wärtsilä 8L46 EnviroEngines. The nine-cylinder engines are rated at 9,450 kW output each at 514 rev/min and the eight-cylinder engines 8,400 kW at the same speed.
Twenty-seven Wärtsilä EnviroEngines of three different engine types have so far been ordered for 16 ships and in addition low-speed engines with similar technology have been ordered for six further ships.
CARROTS AS WELL AS STICKS
Sometimes “engine internal” emission reduction techniques are not sufficient to meet particularly stringent local controls. In our November 2000 issue, p. 35, we reported on the SCR (selective catalytic reduction) system fitted to the MAN B&W main engine of a 7,500 m3 LPG tanker.
In that case, fitting the SCR unit enabled the ship to benefit from a Swedish incentive scheme that rewards lower emissions with reduced port charges. Similar “green” incentives are available in other places. In Germany, for instance, the Port of Hamburg reduces charges for ships with TBT-free antifouling.
ONE DEAD BIRD AND YOU’RE
A DEAD DUCK
Unfortunately, U.S. attitudes to achieving greenness can be a little harsher—particularly where oil spills or oily water discharges are concerned.
While shipowners once protested the harshness of sanctions available to prosecutors under OPA ’90, these now seem reasonable enough. Prosecutors, instead, have turned to such measures as the Migratory Birds Act (“one dead bird and you’re a dead duck” being the burden of proof) and the Refuse Act to threaten shipowners and seafarers with criminal sanctions.
In fact, the Department of Justice can argue persuasively that it has only brought criminal prosecutions against shipowners and seafarers in a very limited number of flagrant cases. The other side of this particular coin, though, is that it has used the possibility of such prosecutions to get plea bargains in other less egregious cases.
MORE DOUBLE TROUBLE
Meantime, regulators worldwide continue to see the double hull as the magical answer that will stop all future tanker spills. As we went to press, various European Union officials were congratulating themselves on their success in getting IMO to accelerate the phase out of single hulled tankers under MARPOL as part of the post-Erika-spill reaction.
In the real world, double hull requirements are highly desirable in so far as they create work for shipbuilders and ship designers. What remains to be seen is how regulators will react when we have a major oil spill from a vigorous grounding by a double hulled tanker.
In the real world, too, the most effective post-Erika response thus far taken may well turn out to be the French court’s decision to include the charterers of the Erika in their investigation.
On a parallel track, the U.S. Coast Guard continues to move towards including charterers in its Port State Control matrix.
Everyone knows there is a tiny minority of shipowners who operate inadequately maintained ships in a way that presents an unacceptable risk of pollution. If charterers can be persuaded not to patronize them, the seas will be somewhat cleaner! ML
PREVIOUS
