New Ob Pwc Engine Technology example essay topic

You Can Make a Difference In Preventing Marine Engine Pollution Currently 12 million marine engines are operated in the United States. These marine engines are among the highest contributors of hydrocarbons (HC) and oxides of nitrogen (NOx) emissions in many areas of the country. HC and NOx produce ground-level ozone, which irritates the respiratory system causing chest pain and lung inflammation. Ozone can also aggravate existing respiratory conditions such as asthma. Boaters can join many others who are working to make a difference in preventing pollution from marine engines.

Improving the Marine Engine The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is working to develop and implement emission standards for commercial and recreational marine engines. The marine industry has been working to develop technology for a new generation of low emission, high performance engines. Recreational boaters will begin seeing this new generation of engines in coming years. Boaters Can Prevent Pollution Even with the new technology, the cooperation of individual boaters is essential in the effort to improve air quality and prevent pollution. Boaters can make a difference that will help protect the environment now and in the future by adopting the following practices: Limit engine operation at full throttle.

Eliminate unnecessary idling. Avoid spilling gasoline. Use a gasoline container you can handle easily and hold securely. Pour slowly and smoothly. Use a funnel or a spout with an automatic stop device to prevent overfilling the gas tank. Close the vent on portable gas tanks when the engine is not in use or when the tank is stored.

Transport and store gasoline out of direct sunlight in a cool, dry place. Use caution when pumping gasoline into a container at the gas station. Carefully measure the proper amounts of gasoline and oil when refueling. Follow the manufacturer's recommended maintenance schedule. Prepare engines properly for winter storage. Buy new, cleaner marine engines.

By combining these strategies, boaters can reduce pollution from marine engines and help improve air quality across the nation and protect public health. What are the human health and welfare effects of these pollutants? The engines that are covered by this proposal contribute to ozone formation and ambient PM and CO levels. These pollutants are subject to our National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), and states that exceed NAAQS levels are required to take measures to reduce emissions. In addition, these engines also emit Mobile Source Air Toxics.

Ozone. Ground-level ozone, the main ingredient in smog, is formed by complex chemical reactions of volatile organic compounds (VOC) and NOx in the presence of heat and sunlight. Ozone forms readily in the lower atmosphere, usually during hot summer weather. Volatile organic compounds are emitted from a variety of sources, including motor vehicles, chemical plants, refineries, factories, consumer and commercial products, and other industrial sources. Volatile organic compounds also are emitted by natural sources such as vegetation. Oxides of nitrogen are emitted largely from motor vehicles, off-highway equipment, power plants, and other sources of combustion.

Hydrocarbons (HC) are a large subset of VOC, and to reduce mobile source VOC levels we set maximum emissions limits for hydrocarbon as well as particulate matter emissions. Elevated ozone concentrations remain a serious public health concern throughout the nation. In 1999, 90.8 million people lived in 31 areas designated non attainment under the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. Increases in ozone concentrations in the air have been associated with increases in hospitalization for respiratory causes for individuals with asthma, worsening of symptoms, decrements in lung function, and increased medication use, and chronic exposure may cause permanent lung damage. The risk of suffering these effects is particularly high for children and for people with compromised respiratory systems. There is strong and convincing evidence that exposure to ozone is associated with exacerbation of asthma-related symptoms.

Carbon Monoxide. Carbon monoxide (CO) is a colorless, odorless gas produced through the incomplete combustion of carbon-based fuels. Carbon monoxide enters the bloodstream through the lungs and reduces the delivery of oxygen to the body's organs and tissues. The health threat from CO is most serious for those who suffer from cardiovascular disease, particularly those with angina or peripheral vascular disease. Healthy individuals also are affected, but only at higher CO levels. Exposure to elevated CO levels is associated with impairment of visual perception, work capacity, manual dexterity, learning ability and performance of complex tasks.

In 1999, 30.5 million people lived in 17 areas designated non attainment under the CO NAAQS. High concentrations of CO generally occur in areas with elevated mobile-source emissions. Peak concentrations typically occur during the colder months of the year when mobile-source CO emissions are greater and nighttime inversion conditions are more frequent. Snowmobiles, which have relatively high per engine CO emissions, contribute to ambient CO levels in CO non attainment areas.

Particulate Matter. Particulate matter represents a broad class of chemically and physically diverse substances. It can be principally characterized as discrete particles that exist in the condensed (liquid or solid) phase spanning several orders of magnitude in size. All particles equal to and less than 10 microns are called PM 10. Fine particles can be generally defined as those particles with an aerodynamic diameter of 2.5 microns or less (also known as PM 2.5), and coarse fraction particles are those particles with an aerodynamic diameter greater than 2.5 microns, but equal to or less than a nominal 10 microns. Particulate matter, like ozone, has been linked to a range of serious respiratory health problems, including premature mortality, aggravation of respiratory and cardiovascular disease (as indicated by increased hospital admissions and emergency room visits, school absences, work loss days, and restricted activity days), aggravated asthma, acute respiratory symptoms, including aggravated coughing and difficult or painful breathing, chronic bronchitis, and decreased lung function that can be experienced as shortness of breath.

The most recent PM 10 monitoring data indicate that 14 designated PM 10 non attainment areas with a population of 23 million violated the PM 10 NAAQS in the period 1997-99. In addition, there are 25 unclassifiable areas that have recently recorded ambient concentrations of PM 10 above the PM 10 NAAQS. According to our national modeled predictions, there were a total of 76 million people (1996 population) living in areas with modeled annual average PM 2.5 concentrations at or above 16 ug / m 3 (29 percent of the population), a level that is associated with harmful human health effects, including premature mortality. Sources contribute to ambient PM levels directly, through PM in their emissions, and indirectly, through their emissions of organic carbon, especially NOx and SOx. Organic carbon accounts for between 27 and 36 percent of fine particle mass depending on the area of the country. Secondary PM is dominated by sulfate in the eastern U.S. and nitrate in the western U.S. The vast majority ( 90 percent) of the direct mobile source PM emissions are in the fine PM size range.

Air Toxics. Emissions from the engines covered by this proposal also contain several Mobile Source Air Toxics, including benzene, 1, 3-butadiene, formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, and acrolein. Users of these engines and vehicles can experience high levels of personal exposure to these substances. For example, snowmobile riders and those directly exposed to snowmobile exhaust emissions can be exposed to benzene levels two to three orders of magnitude greater than the 1996 national average benzene concentrations. These elevated levels are also known as air toxic "hot spots", which are of particular concern to EPA.

Visibility. Fine PM is the major cause of reduced visibility in parts of the United States, including many of our national parks. In particular, HC emissions from snowmobiles in the winter months can contribute significantly to the organic carbon fraction of fine particles which are largely responsible for visibility impairment. In Yellowstone National Park, a park with high snowmobile usage during the winter months, snowmobile HC emissions can exceed 500 tons per year, as much as several large stationary sources, and account for nearly 65 percent of annual HC emissions in the park.

How would the proposed standards affect emissions and air quality? When the proposed emission standards for Large SI, recreational engines, and marine diesel engines are fully implemented in 2020, we expect a 70 percent reduction in HC emissions from these engines, a 75 percent reduction in NOx emissions, and a 56 percent reduction in CO emissions. These emission reductions will help reduce ambient concentrations of ozone, CO, and fine PM. In addition, they will reduce personal exposure for people who operate or who work with or are otherwise in close proximity to these engines and vehicles. They will also improve visibility in national parks. Emission Standards for New Gasoline Marine Engines Working cooperatively with the marine industry, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is issuing regulations that will bring forth a new generation of marine engines featuring cleaner technology and providing better engine performance to boat owners.

Controlling exhaust emissions from new gasoline spark-ignition (SI) marine engines will result in an unprecedented 75 percent reduction in hydrocarbon (HC) emissions from these engines by the year 2025. Emissions from Marine Engines Because states are finding it increasingly difficult to maintain the quality of air citizens have come to need and expect, efforts to improve air quality throughout the nation are shifting focus to controlling pollution from sources other than on-highway vehicles and engines. Until recently, emissions from non road engines and vehicles have been essentially uncontrolled. The results of a study conducted by EPA, however, proved the need for control of air pollution to reach into the non road engine and vehicle arena. Of non road sources, EPA has determined that gasoline marine engines are one of the largest average contributors of HC emissions. As illustrated in Figure 1, of all categories of non road engines, recreational marine engines contribute the second highest average level of HC exhaust emissions.

Only small gasoline engines used in lawn and garden equipment emit higher levels on average. The statistics in Figure 1, however, include some areas in which marine engines are not in use because there are no nearby lakes or waters. Marine engines contribute higher levels than reflected by this average for areas in which marine engines are used. Depending on the specific area, the contribution may be in excess of ten percent of the total Non road sources as a whole on average contribute ten percent to average HC inventories. HC contributes to ground level ozone which is known to cause irritation to the respiratory system.

Controlling emissions from these engines will help reduce adverse health and welfare impacts associated with ozone. New Emission Standards Established The gasoline marine final rule, published in August 1996, establishes emission standards for new SI gasoline marine engines. Covered by the rule are outboard engines and gasoline marine engines used in personal watercraft and jet boat applications. Emission standards are not set for stern drive and inboard engines due to the inherently clean nature that the technology of these engines provide. Manufacturers may begin introducing these new, clean technology engines as early as 1997. Boat engines currently in-use are not affected by this regulation.

Cleaner and Better Performing Engines The new generation of outboard and personal watercraft (OB / PWC) marine engines will be over 75 percent cleaner than current marine engine technology. That is, once the program is fully implemented, hydrocarbon emissions from these engines are expected to be reduced by over 75 percent from present levels. Since the reduction in the inventory depends on sales of these newer technology engines, EPA expects to achieve this reduction in HC emissions from marine engines by the year 2025. EPA expects a 50 percent reduction to occur by the year 2020. In addition to being more environmentally friendly, the new OB / PWC engine technology will provide boaters with many performance advantages. The engines will generally provide easier starting, faster acceleration, quicker throttle response, and a reduction in smoke, fumes and noise.

Significant improvements in fuel economy could provide hundreds of dollars in fuel savings. Furthermore, the new fuel systems and engine designs will relieve boaters from the hassle of mixing fuel and oil. As an added benefit to the boat owner, the emissions performance of these new OB / PWC marine engines will be covered by a three-year or 200 hour warranty, more than double the warranty currently provided by most engine manufacturers. Flexibility Provided to Engine Manufacturers With the cooperative efforts of marine engine manufacturers, EPA has developed regulations that are not overly burdensome or costly to manufacturers or consumers, while still achieving the overall pollution reduction goals of the program. This regulation requires manufacturers of OB / PWC marine engines to achieve the appropriate yearly emission reductions by meeting a corporate average emission standard which allows them to build some engines to emission levels lower than the emission standard and some engines to emission levels higher than the standard, provided the manufacturer's overall corporate average is at or below the standard. Manufacturers have the flexibility to develop their own technological solutions to achieve these results based on market demand.

The result will be a wide range of new products that this regulation will encourage. Likely options for achieving compliance include converting current OB / PWC 2-stroke engine technology to 4-stroke, direct-injection 2-stroke, or possibly equipping engines with catalytic converters in some applications. Responsibility of Current and Future Boat Owners Boat owners are in no way responsible for making modifications to their current engines to meet the standards or subject to any penalties as a result of this rule. Boaters can actively participate in controlling air pollution from these sources, however, by adopting a few simple practices. These practices include operating only well maintained boats, limiting full throttle operation, eliminating unnecessary idling, following recommended maintenance schedules, eliminating spillage when refueling, and properly measuring fuel and oil if required for a particular engine. In addition to practicing environmentally friendly operating procedures, EPA encourages consumers to do their part in preventing pollution by purchasing the cleaner technology engines.

EPA anticipates the price of the new technology OB / PWC engines to be slightly higher than the engines currently offered, but is confident that consumers will see this as affordable when compared to the performance advantages and improved fuel economy to be enjoyed by the boat owner from these improved engines. Effect on Boat Dealers As with boat owners, boat dealers are not responsible for compliance with this regulation. Boat dealers are encouraged to be aware of this rule and understand the technological advancements expected of the future OB / PWC marine engines. Dealers will likely find it advantageous to have the ability to supply consumers with the performance advantages and potential fuel economy savings associated with the new generation of OB / PWC marine engines. TOP TEN JET SKI MYTHS Myth 1: The US Coast Guard recognizes personal watercraft (PWC) and small boats as 'Class A vessels' and regulates them equally. Reality: The 'Class A vessel' classification has no meaning in regard to Coast Guard regulations.

According to the Commandant of the Coast Guard 'the term [Class A vessel] has no meaning insofar as Coast Guard regulations are concerned, except with regard to the fire extinguisher regulations. ' Myth 2: PWC cannot be singled out for regulation; if PWC are regulated, all boats must be regulated equally. Reality: Government agencies have already singled out PWC for regulation. In 1995 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) banned PWC within the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary.

NOAA restricted PWC based on evidence that these vessels harmed the marine environment of the sanctuary. The Personal Watercraft Industry Association (PWIA) sued the Department of Commerce arguing that NOAA's prohibition was unconstitutional because it singled out PWC. On March 3, 1995 the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals upheld NOAA's PWC restrictions. In PWIA vs. the Department of Commerce (48 F. 3 D 540,310 U.S. APP.D. C 364) the court found that although NOAA's restrictions did indeed single out PWC, the agency's actions were not 'arbitrary and capricious' and therefore constitutional. More importantly the court ruled that a when a resource management agency regulates a recreational activity such as boating, in order to protect the environment, it does not need 'to make progress on every front before it makes progress on any front. ' Myth 3: PWC operators pay licensing and registration fees, therefore they have a right to access public waterways.

Reality: Paying a boat license and / or fee is a prerequisite to operating a PWC; it does not guarantee access to public waterways. On July 9th 1998, the Washington State Supreme Court upheld a local PWC ban in San Juan County, Washington. In John We den II et al vs. San Juan County et al (Docket number 96-2-00376-6) the court ruled that when a PWC rider obtains a boat registration or buys a license it is nothing more than a precondition to legally operating a PWC. Just as purchasing a hunting license doesn't permit hunting of endangered species, the court made it clear that registering a PWC does not confer an unconditional right of access. Myth 4: All PWC related problems can be attributed to a few 'bad apples.

' Most riders just need to be educated. Reality: The 'bad apples' are using the PWC exactly the way the industry markets them to be used. PWC advocates assert that it is a few aggressive 'bad apples' who are spoiling the fun for the responsible riders. Industry advertisements which use words like 'hard-charging' 'aggressive handling' and 'run at full throttle' prove that the bad apples are operating their PWC exactly the way the industry intends them to be used - as high speed, high impact 'thrill craft. ' It is the rare PWC operator who does not rip across public waters in an aggressive and dangerous manner. Industry's claims about the need for increased education begs the question: if PWC are safe, why the need for education?

According to Coast Guard statistics for the years 1990 to 1996, while traditional boating injury accidents held steady or declined nationwide, PWC injury accidents increased three fold! Is the American public to assume that all buyers of conventional boats are practiced boaters, hence the decline in accidents? Law Enforcement agencies also question the effectiveness of education. Officers, such as those in the Santa Barbara Harbor Patrol, believe that no amount of education can change PWC's 'thrill craft' image, and therefore it will have little impact on PWC accident statistics.

Myth 5: PWC operators have a constitutional right to ride their PWC on park waters. Reality: The Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld the Park Service's authority to restrict recreational activities. The case law surrounding the government's authority to limit access and restrict / prohibit action on public property is extensive. In Light vs. United States the Supreme Court found that the Congress has the authority to permanently withhold sections of the public domain. This case upholds the creation of federal reserves such as National Forests, Wildlife Refuges, and National Parks. In the United States vs. Grim aud, the Supreme Court ruled that Congress has the Constitutional authority to create federal resource management agencies.

In Organized Fisherman vs. Watt the court found that the task of weighing the competing uses of federal property has been delegated by Congress to the Secretary of the Interior. As such, the Secretary has 'broad discretion in determining what actions are best calculated to protect park or public land resources. ' In National Rifle Association vs. Potter the Court upheld the Park Service's ban on hunting. This time the Court found that nowhere in the legislative history of the Organic Act did Congress contemplate 'consumptive' uses of the park System. More important, the court specifically equated the charge to 'conserve' in the Organic Act as 'preserve. ' These cases show unequivocally that federal resource management agencies, such as the National Park Service, are acting within their constitutional authority when they restrict access, and / or prohibit uses on public property.

Myth 6: Boats are just as polluting as PWC; if PWC are inappropriate for the National Parks then all boats are inappropriate. Reality: PWC are more polluting than conventional boats. According to the California Air Resources Board, a typical PWC releases more than two times as much pollution as a conventional marine outboard of comparable horsepower. The Air Board also found that one hour on a typical jet ski produces more smog-forming emissions than a modern car emits in one year.

PWC also release more raw fuel than conventional boats based on higher fuel consumption rates. Many 1999 model year PWC burn 14 gallons of fuel per hour, more than any two-stroke outboard. Two-strokes discharge 25-30% of their fuel unburned into the environment, or in this case, 3.5 gallons per hour. This figure exceeds the raw fuel pollution rate of any conventional boat. Myth 7: A ban on PWC will lead to a ban on all boating.

Reality: Failure to control PWC may lead to severe restrictions on all boats. No evidence or regulatory trends support this slippery slope theory. Rather, uncontrolled PWC activity may lead regulators to severely restrict all boating. Irwin Jacobs, CEO of Gen mar, the largest independent boat manufacturer, supports banning PWC in the National Parks. In a recent article for Boating Industry, Mr. Jacobs stated that he fears the abuse of waterways by PWC users could lead to federal, state, and local governmental agencies passing severe restrictions both on Pwc and more traditional types of craft.

Myth 8: The American public will accept PWC use in the parks. Reality: A majority of Americans support a total prohibition on PWC activity in the National Parks. A poll conducted in 1998 by Colorado State University disproves this myth. It found that 92% of Americans support prohibiting or severely restricting PWC use in the National Parks (52% support prohibition, 40% support severe restrictions). Myth 9: The average PWC owner is a 41 year old male.

Reality: The average PWC operator is much younger. Recent Coast Guard statistics show that over 70% of the people injured while operating a PWC were under 29 years of age. Myth 10: PWC are critical to Park Service search and rescue efforts. Reality: The search and rescue capabilities of jet skis are overstated.

PWC are being advertised as park-friendly due to their alleged effectiveness during search-and-rescue (SAR) efforts. However, park rangers find the SAR capabilities of PWC overstated. They note that the unstable PWC platform, limited equipment storage space, and PWC's inability to be used at night hinder PWC's search and rescue effectiveness's. These rangers also point out that white or aerated water tends to cause PWC engines to lose thrust, a very dangerous problem when attempting a rescue on fast flowing rivers or ocean waves. Parks across the county are concluding that rubber rafts, and conventional motorboats often prove far superior to PWC for SAR operations. Did you know...

Every year, the collective effect of all two-stroke engine personal water craft put 40 million gallons of petroleum into our waters. This is 4 times more pollution into our waters that the Exxon Valdez tanker spill in Alaska. Jet skis use a highly polluting two-stoke engine. The Environmental Protection Agency has identified these engines as a main source of toxic water pollution in the United States. Drinking water supplies are threatened by jet ski contamination. Jet skis discharge about one-third of their fuel unburned into the water and air.

Pollution from jet skis poses an especially serious threat to shallow waters. Jets skis are dangerous toys Jet skis comprise 8 percent of all recreational motorized boats in U.S. waters but are involved in a startling 40 percent of all boating accidents. A 13-year-old boy was killed when his jet ski collided with a motor boat on boyd Lake in Colorado. Not Everybody wants to play along Jet skis endanger swimmers, disrupt fisherman, and interfere with canoeing and sailing. In short if you like to spend time on a lake or river, jet skis are making life on the water an unpleasant and risky experience.

Friends of the Earth is working to limit the damage caused by jet skis No one has the right to pollute America's pure waters or to defile them with loud noise at all hour of the day and night. It's time to do something! 1. Ban jet skis in national parks and wildlife refuges 2. Establish off-limit zones for jet skis, including drinking water supplies, 600 foot shoreline buffer strips, and wildlife areas. 3.

Petition state and local law enforcement officials to enforce existing no-wake, speed and noise regulations. 4. Outlaw the two-stroke engine which is a major polluter of America's waters. 5. Restrict the operation of jet skis to those qualified to handle watercraft, with a water safety instructor license. 6.

Establish times of day requirements to preserve hours of quiet in the morning and evening. 7. Outlaw the chasing or harassing of wildlife from jet skis. 'Just one hour of running a personal watercraft causes as much smog-forming pollution as a 1998 car does in a year. '.