2012 Position Paper
Enacting Federal Legislation to Regulate Ballast Water
GOAL: Enact Federal legislation to end introduction of non-indigenous species via the ballast water on ocean-going vessels. However, such legislation must recognize that 1) U.S. and Canadian-flag lakers never leave the system, so have never introduced a non-indigenous species to the Lakes; 2) no ballast water treatment system currently exists that can handle the flow rates and volumes on lakers; and 3) since the Great Lakes are interconnected, exotics introduced by ocean-going vessels can and are freely migrating throughout the system, so treating lakers' ballast ultimately is of little value in controlling their spread.
BACKGROUND: Ocean-going vessels have inadvertently introduced a number of non-indigenous species. The Great Lakes shipping industry has been the world leader in taking voluntary steps to address the problem. As early as 1993, a plan was implemented to slow the spread of the ruffe from Duluth/Superior harbor at the western end of Lake Superior. Unfortunately, the ruffe is migrating on its own along the southern shore of Lake Superior at a rate of about 25 miles per year, and no ballast water treatment or management system can stop that.
While both industry and environmental interests have sought Federal legislation, the debate over an appropriate standard and regulatory regime has stalled efforts. The House of Representatives actually passed ballast water legislation in 2008 that was 100 times more protective than the current International Maritime Organization ("IMO") standard, but one Senator, Barbara Boxer (D-CA) blocked action in that chamber. As a result, Great Lakes states are enacting their own laws and/or adding their own requirements to an EPA Vessel General Permit that governs ballast water and other discharges. For example, Minnesota will require new U.S.-flag lakers to install ballast treatment systems as soon as 2012, this despite the fact no system that can work on a laker has been approved. New York has chosen a higher standard for ballast treatment than the other Great Lakes states, one so high that it basically requires ballast water be as clean as distilled water. If New York does not amend its provisions, the St. Lawrence Seaway will close no later than August 1, 2013 absent Federal regulations that pre-empt state policies.
In August 2009, the U.S. Coast Guard proposed regulations that initially require the current IMO standard, but then rise to the New York standard if a practicability review determines it is achievable. While the practicability review is a welcome reality check, the Coast Guard regulations would not pre-empt state laws or the EPA's Vessel General Permit, so the patchwork of differing state regulations would remain in place. Release of the Coast Guard's final rule on ballast water is expected soon.
The U.S. House of Representatives' Coast Guard bill passed in the fall of 2011 sets a Federal standard for ballast water, but the Senate has not taken action.
Vessel operators must have a standard that is attainable, environmentally protective, economically justified, and consistent in all U.S. waters. A grain cargo loaded in Duluth, Minnesota transits the waters of Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania before entering New York and being discharged in Buffalo. Imagine the operational nightmare if the requirements differ from state to state. (The vessel also spends a considerable amount of time in Canadian waters, so international standards must also be in harmony.)
Lakers are in a class of their own when it comes to ballast. The largest U.S.-flag lakers can take on 16.4 million gallons of ballast when discharging 70,000 tons of iron ore or coal. When they take on their next cargo, that ballast must be pumped out in 10 hours or so. That requires a flow rate as high as 80,000 gallons per minute.
In contrast, ocean-going vessels working the Lakes take on 3-4 million gallons of ballast when being unloaded and then can spend a day or more loading their outbound cargo. The ballast treatment systems currently being produced or nearing approval simply cannot handle lakers' operational requirements. Moreover, a system that could treat lakers' ballast would be so massive it could not fit on the vessel. Furthermore, most systems were not designed for use in fresh water and cannot tolerate the extreme cold temperatures experienced on the Lakes.
In December 2011 the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency released its draft Vessel General Permit and its provisions concerning lakers' ballast recognize that these vessels do not introduce non-indigenous species and so do not require treatment of ballast, but rather a number of practices that will minimize the potential that lakers' ballast might spread an exotic introduced by an oceangoing vessel. The spread issue is a complex one; the U.S. Geological Survey has identified 64 distinct vectors for spread, so treating lakers' ballast would be of questionable value.
ACTION: Seek Federal legislation that sets uniform standards for ballast water treatment systems on vessels that enter the Great Lakes and other U.S. waters from the oceans. Lakers never leave the Great Lakes, so have never introduced a non-indigenous species and should be exempted from these requirements and instead continue to employ the Best Management Practices that are in place.
