California's air board bows to the US Navy

Jul 31, 2011, 10:23PM EST
California's air board bows to the US Navy
But the sulfur regulations still leave an unpleasant residue

California is posturing over the use of low sulfur in main and auxiliary engines. Industry technocrats say that the Air Resources Board has bowed to pressure from the Navy to "get commercial ships the heck out of the Point  Mugu missile range" and so has extended the boundary of the enforced use of low sulfur to 24 nautical miles BEYOND the Channel Islands (Santa Catalina and the rest of the eight islands). The aim is to get ships back into the Santa Barbara Channel.

This gives the state jurisdiction for about 35 NM off the coast, a world first for a non-government authority.

The 0.1 percent sulfur rule has been postponed from January 2012 to January 2014, with the fuel specification applying to a viscosity of 3 centistokes (cSt) instead of the current 2 cSt.

While the state has relented somewhat on the date of fuel compliance, this is still one year before the US/Canada Emission Control Area, although the sulfur limit is the same as that of the joint country limit.

The board's summary of the situation goes: "Under the North American ECA, OGVs traveling within a 200 nm zone of the North American coastline are required to use fuels with no more than 1.0 percent sulfur beginning on August 1, 2012 and no more than 0.1 percent sulfur beginning on January 1, 2015. The North American ECA does not specify what type of fuel must be used; it only establishes a fuel sulfur limit.

"To align California’s Phase 1 fuel requirements with the North American ECA’s August 2012 fuel sulfur requirement, staff suggested that a 1.0 percent fuel sulfur limit for the Phase 1 marine gas oil be included in the regulations and that this limit begin August 1, 2012 to coincide with the North American ECA implementation date."

Comments and objections have to be sent to the board by August 9, not that officials will take the slightest bit of notice. The board refuses to listen to maritime experts and industry representatives, who have far more knowledge.

 
Report abuse



Bookmark this page to:Add to Faves Add to MyAOL Add to Simpy Add to Delicious Add to Live Add to Digg Add to Newsvine Add to Reddit Add to Multiply Add to Blogmarks Add to Yahoo MyWeb Add to Slashdot Add to Mister Wong Add to Spurl Add to Furl Add to Link-a-Gogo Add to Yahoo Bookmarks Add to Twitter Add to Facebook Add to Diigo Add to Mixx Add to Segnalo Add to StumbleUpon Add to Magnolia Add to Ask Add to Backflip Add to Terchnorati Add to Google Bookmarks Add to MySpace

Comments
Jeff Cowan
Martin have I met you at one of various meetings??
8/5/2011 1:38:53 PM
 

Sign in

Latest blog comments

5/22/2012

Bob Condon
Joseph has hit the nail on the head, politics seem to overr...

5/16/2012

Colin Henthorne
Thanks for your response, Dennis. You are correct that the...

5/16/2012

Dennis Bryant
From its commissioning until 1957, the LABRADOR was a ship ...

5/15/2012

Colin Henthorne
LABRADOR was decommissioned in 1962. In 1987, as a Coast G...

5/11/2012

CAPT SANDEEP KALIA
Dear Editor, Compliments for a very well written article...

5/7/2012

Murray Goldberg
Hey John - I think you tried to give me your e-mail address...

5/7/2012

John Douglas
email address

5/2/2012

Martin Rushmere
I must add a clarification to this. I am referring to the a...

5/1/2012

Dennis Bryant
John, You are swimming against the tide. Dennis

5/1/2012

Murray Goldberg
John - thank you so much! Incredibly we are approaching 130...