The EPA is dangling a carrot in front of Great Lakes steamship owners to phase out engines that emit high levels of pollutants that can
trigger lung diseases.
The federal agency is proposing steamships that convert from steam to diesel engines be allowed to use residual fuel through 2025. That’s the sludgy stuff at the bottom of the barrel and is very high in sulfur.
The Paul Tregurtha is a former steamship that's been converted to a cleaner burning diesel engine. Photo: CodyHanson (Flickr)
Great Lakes steamships are already exempt from sulfur limits coming this August to the Great Lakes. Their old engines can’t handle the lower sulfur fuels. But if they switch to the cleaner burning diesel engines, they would no longer be steamships. They’d lose their exemption.
So the feds hope that continuing to let them use cheap, higher sulfur fuel will offset the costs of switching to the diesel engines. The environment would benefit because the EPA says steam engines use 30 to 50 percent more fuel than diesel engines, leading to higher sulfur dioxide and particulate matter emissions.
Sulfur dioxide and particulates in the air lead to asthma, emphysema and bronchitis in people.
While residual fuel use is declining in the U.S., its use has remained steady in transportation, mostly used in ships (Chart: US Energy Information Agency).
Steamships are powered by old, inefficient steam boilers which belch sulfur and carbon dioxide. There are 13 U.S. steamships in the Great Lakes, all built between 1942 and 1960. Operating in freshwater rather than in the corrosive salt of the oceans allows them to continue to operate at an advanced age with old technology.
Twelve of the Great Lakes steam vessels burn residual fuel and another burns coal to produce the steam that rotates their propellers.
The agency estimates that sulfur dioxide emissions would drop about 34 percent for steamships that switched to diesel engines even if they stayed on residual fuel. But after 2025, the EPA estimates the repowered ships’ emissions would reduce by 97 percent when the low sulfur fuel requirements would kick in.
Some costs of switching engines can be recovered through fuel savings and efficiency but with more stringent sulfur emission standards on the way, the compliant fuels will be more expensive.
Some ship owners are already there. The Interlake Steamship Co. in Richfield, Ohio, has converted two Great Lakes steamships — the Paul Tregurtha and Charles M. Beeghly (now renamed James L. Oberstar) – to diesel engines.
“The ships were getting older so we looked at long term maintenance, and the cost and ability of us to maintain them,” said Mark Barker, president of Interlake Steamship Co. “And we decided to move forward with the switch.”
There were no federal incentives to repower the ships, Barker said. He wouldn’t speak to fuel savings or the costs of repowering. But the company is converting yet another steamship to diesel.
The switch isn’t cheap — approximately $15 to $20 million, which is about 20 percent of a new ship’s cost. Steam engines are a prominent part of the ship and the hull has to be cut away. Barker said workers cut a hole in the top of the Interlake boats to get to the engine room.
The most infamous steamship, the S.S. Badger, is the one using coal. It doesn’t seem the proposal will affect the big, old Badger as conversion apparently isn’t under consideration
Lake Michigan Carferry is seeking a permit to keep the Badger operating on coal.
“We’re working with the EPA to get an individual permit … it would allow us a timeline of five years to continue using best available technology,” said Lynda Matson, vice president of customer service and marketing for Lake Michigan Carferry. “And hopefully in those five years we could come up with a solution.”
It is unclear if the feds’ offer appeals to other Great Lakes steamship owners. They couldn’t be reached for comment.
While the EPA bills the proposal as a potential environmental victory, others engaged in clean air protection aren’t sold.
“We are looking into the legislation with some of our allies and haven’t yet come to a conclusion,” said Frank O’Donnell, president of Clean Air Watch in Washington, D.C. “But there is definitely some concern that this would just be a delay and act as a permit for extended pollution.”
The public can submit comments on the proposal until Feb. 17.