An environmental decision framework applied to marine engine control technologies

Journal of the Air and Waste Management Association

Volumn 56, Issue 6, 2006, Pages 841-851

  Corbett, James J ^a   Chapman, David ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF DELAWARE   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF DELAWARE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CODES (STANDARDS); DECISION MAKING; DECISION THEORY; ITERATIVE METHODS; PROBABILITY;

DECISION CRITERIA; ENVIRONMENTAL DECISION FRAMEWORK; MARINE ENGINE CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES;

MARINE ENGINES;

AIR POLLUTION CONTROL; ARTICLE; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; DECISION MAKING; ENGINEERING; ENVIRONMENTAL FACTOR; ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROBABILITY; SCORING SYSTEM; SCREENING TEST; TECHNOLOGY; UNITED STATES;

EID: 33745474355     PISSN: 10962247     EISSN: 21622906     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/10473289.2006.10464490     Document Type: Article

References (43)

1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Approval and Promulgation of State and Federal Implementation Plans; Proposed Rule; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, 1994.
2. U.S. Department of Transportation and Maritime Administration. Report to Congress on the Performance of Porst and the Intermodal System; U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration: Washington, DC, 2005; p 83.
3. Eyring, V., Kohler, H.W., Lauer, A., Lemper, B. Emissions from International Shipping: 2. Impact of Future Technologies on Scenarios until 2050. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 2005, 110, D17306.
4. Olivier, J.G.J., Peters, J.A.H.W. International Marine andAviation Bunker Fuel: Trends, Ranking of Countries and Comparison with National CO2 Emissions. RIVM: Bilthoven, The Netherlands, 1999.
5. United States Maritime Administration (MARAD), Maritime Transportation System Brochure; Maritime Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation: Washington, DC, 1999.
6. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. United States Waterway Data; U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Institute for Water Resources, Navigation Data Center: Alexandria, VA, 2004.
7. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Waterborne Commerce of the United States: Part 5-National Summaries; U.S. Army Corps of Engineers: Alexandria, Virginia, 2005; p 100.
8. Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission. Revisions to the State Implementation Plan for the Control of Ozone Pollution; Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission: Austin, TX, 1999; p 74.
9. Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission. Houston/Galveston State Implementation Plan (revised). Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission: Houston, TX, 1999.
10. California Air Resources Board, 1994 California State Implementation Plan: Volume IV; California Air Resources Board: Sacramento, CA, 1994.
11. California Air Resources Board. Proposed 2003 State and Federal Strategy for California SIP; California Environmental Protection Agency: Sacramento, CA, 2003; p 157.
12. California Air Resources Board and South Coast Air Quality Management District. Air Quality Impacts from NOx Emissions ofTwo Potential Marine Vessel Control Strategies in the South Coast Air Basin; California Air Resources Board and the South Coast Air Quality Management District in Consultation with the Deep Sea Vessel/Shipping Channel Technical Working Group: Sacramento, CA, 2000; p 132.
13. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 40 CFR Parts 89, 92, and 94: Control of Emissions of Air Pollution from New CI Marine Engines at or above 37 kW: Final Rule; Federal Register; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: Washington, DC, 1999.
14. Department of Transportation. The Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement (CMAQ) Program under the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21): Program Guidance; Department of Transportation: Washington, DC, 1999.
15. Federal Highway Administration. The CMAQ Brochure: The Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ); Federal Highway Administration: Washington, DC, 2000; p 32.
16. Voelker, R.P. MARAD's LowAirEmissionMarinePowerPlantProgram, in Workshop on Alternative Fuels forFerries and Other Vessels; United States Maritime Administration: Alameda, CA, 2001.
17. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 40 CFR Parts 9 and 94: Control ofEmissions from New Marine Compression-Ignition Engines ator above 30 Liters per Cylinder: Final Rule; Federal Register; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: Washington, DC, 2003; p 96.
18. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 40 CFR Parts 9, 69, et al. Control of Emissions of Air Pollution From Nonroad Diesel Engines and Fuel; Final Rule; Federal Register; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: Washington, DC, 2004; p 317.
19. Perata, D. Senate Bill No. 428; Government Code. 1999.
20. Water Transit Authority. A Strategy to Reduce Traffic Congestion and Improve Air Quality: Draft Implementation & Operations Plan. San Francisco Bay Area Water Transit Authority: San Francisco, CA, 2002; p 66.
21. Water Transit Authority. A Strategy to Improve Public Transit with an Environmentally Friendly Ferry System: Final Implementation & Operations Plan; San Francisco Bay Area Water Transit Authority: San Francisco, CA, 2003; p 70.
22. Diesel Technology Forum. Cleaner Air, Better Performance: Strategies for Upgrading and Modernizing Diesel Engines; Diesel Technology Forum: Frederick, MD, 2003; p 36.
23. Clemen, R.T., Reilly, T. Making Hard Decisions with Decision Tools; Duxbury Press: Belmont, CA, 2001; p 733.
24. Keeney, R.L. Value Focused Thinking: A Path to Creative Decision Making; Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA, 1992; p 416.
25. Corbett, J.J., Fischbeck, P.S. Commercial Marine Emissions and LifeCycle Analysis of Retrofit Controls in a Changing Science and Policy Environment; Naval Eng. J. 2002, 14, 93-106.
26. Winebrake, J.J., Corbett, J.J., Wang, C., Farrell, A.E., Woods, P. Optimal Fleetwide Emissions Reductions for Passenger Ferries: An Application of a Mixed-Integer Nonlinear Programming Model for the New York-New Jersey Harbor; J. Air & Waste Manage. Assoc. 2005, 55, 458-466.
27. John J. McMullen Associates, Hamilton BA. New Technologies and Alternative Fuels: Working Paper on Alternative Propulsion and Fuel Technology Review. San Francisco Bay Area Water Transit Authority: San Francisco, CA, 2002; p 453.
28. Keeney, R.L. Decision Analysis: An Overview. Op. Res. 1982, 30, 803-838.
29. Raiffa, H., Metcalfe, D. Negotiation Analysis: The Science and Art of Collaborative Decision Making; The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA, 2002; p 548.
30. Yu, P.-L. Mulitple-Criteria Decision Making: Concepts, Techniques, and Extensions, Miele, A. ed; Plenum Press: New York, NY, 1985; p 388.
31. Kleindorfer, P.R., Kunreuther, H.C., Schoemaker, P.J.H. Decision Sciences: An Integrative Perspective; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, United Kingdom, 1993; p 470.
32. Saaty, T.L. Decision Making for Leaders; Wadsworth, Inc.: Belmont, CA, 1982; p 291.
33. Andrews, R.N.L. Risk-Based Decision Making. In Environmental Policy: New Directions for the 21st Century, 5th Ed; Vig, N., Kraft, M., eds., Congressional Quarterly Press: Washington, DC, 2002; pp 223-248.
34. Corbett, J.J., Fischbeck, P.S. International Technology-Policy: Challenges in Regulating Ship Emissions. In Improving Regulation: Cases in Environment, Health and Safety; Fischbeck, P.S., Farrow, S., eds., RFF Press: Washington, DC, 2001.
35. Corbett, J.J., Fischbeck, P.S. Commercial Marine Emissions and LifeCycle Analysis of Retrofit Controls in a Changing Science and Policy Environment; Naval Eng. J. 2002, 114, 93-106.
36. Farrell, A., Corbett, J.J., Winebrake, J.J. Controlling Air Pollution from Passenger Ferries: Cost Effectiveness of Seven Technological Options; J. Air & Waste Manage. Assoc. 2002, 52, 1399-1410.
37. Block, M. RetrofitPrimer-Emission Reduction Technologies and Strategies. Presented at the EPA/NESCAUM Diesel Retrofit Workshop. New York, NY, 2003.
38. Austin, I., Bruzzone, A., Castleberry, S. Completion of Milestone for Bay Area Ferry Planning: Water Transit Authority's EIR Process and Result (P04-0486). Presented at the 83rd Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board. National Academies: Washington, DC, 2004.
39. Outwater, M., Modugula, V., Castleberry, S., Bhatia, P. A Market Segmentation Approach to Mode Choice and Ferry Ridership Forecasting. Presented at the Transportation Research Board 83rd Annual Meeting. National Academies: Washington, DC, 2004.
40. Energy Information Administration and Department of Energy. Crude Oil Spot Prices, Version 2004. Energy Information Administration: Washington, DC, 2004.
41. Energy Information Administration and Department of Energy. U.S. Natural Gas Prices, Version 2004. Energy Information Administration: Washington, DC, 2004.
42. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Final Regulatory Impact Analysis: Control ofEmissions From Compression-Ignition Marine Engines. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Air and Radiation, Office of Mobile Sources, Engine Programs and Compliance Division: Ann Arbor, MI, 1999; p 132.
43. NAVSEA. U.S. Navy Marine Diesel Engine and Gas Turbine Exhaust Emissions; Naval Sea Systems Command 03X31: Washington, DC, 1994