January
11, 2002
Marine Pollution Control Branch
ATTN: Ballast Water
US Environmental Protection
Agency (4504F)
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue,
NW
Washington DC 20460
Re: Comments on the draft
report, Aquatic Nuisance Species
in Ballast Water Discharges
To Whom it May Concern:
I am writing on behalf of
the Great Lakes United coalition
in response to the EPA’s
draft report, “Aquatic
Nuisance Species in Ballast
Water Discharges: Issues and
Options.” Great Lakes
United is an international
coalition of groups and individuals
dedicated to the protection
and restoration of the Great
Lakes-St. Lawrence River basin.
We have been involved in the
development of effective and
environmentally sound regional
strategies to prevent ANS
introductions in the region
through our participation
on the Great Lakes Aquatic
Nuisance Species Panel. Great
Lakes United also cosigned
the 1999 petition for inclusion
of ballast water discharges
under the EPA’s National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System.
Great Lakes United is extremely
disappointed with the EPA’s
draft report. We believe that
by deferring consideration
of NPDES regulation of ballast
water discharge the EPA is
failing in its mission “to
safeguard the natural environment”
and its mandated responsibility
under the Clean Water Act
to protect the beneficial
uses of the Nation’s
waters.
In general, we have three
major recommendations:
1) The EPA should not defer
NPDES regulation of ballast
water discharge. NPDES regulation
is the best mechanism to set
ecologically based ballast
water discharge standards
and ecologically based standards
for specific receiving water
bodies.
2) The EPA should not repeatedly
project that no technology
option exists beyond ballast
water exchange, and that the
lack of technology is the
major impediment in preventing
ANS introductions.
3) The EPA should invoke emergency
powers under the Clean Water
Act to prohibit any ballast
water discharge from a ship
originating from a foreign
freshwater port into the Great
Lakes-St. Lawrence River basin.
Comments on EPA deferment
of NPDES regulation of ballast
water discharge:
Great Lakes United objects
to the EPA deferring NPDES
regulation of ballast water
discharge. Great Lakes United
signed onto the 1999 petition
for the explicit reason that
NPDES is the best, most developed
mechanism to define water
quality criteria for ballast
water discharge and receiving
water body standards. The
EPA must assume its mandated
responsibility to take a leadership
role to ANS prevention. Trying
to place the full responsibility
on the U.S. Coast Guard is
avoiding the responsibility
given to the EPA under the
Clean Water Act.
We are dismayed at the repeated
attempts made within the draft
report to rationalize the
deferment. The draft report
states regulation under the
NPDES permitting process would
have “significant shortcomings”
(pg 33) and would be a “complex
undertaking with enormous
implications for the NPDES
program” (pg. 35). As
currently no government entity
has taken an effective lead
role in regulating ballast
water discharges, of course
these statements are true--
any governmental entity could
make similar statements regarding
their current programs capacity
and the overwhelming amount
of energy needed to undertake
such an endeavor. But such
statements only underscore
the dire need to develop programmatic
capacity, actively set criteria
for ballast water discharge
and receiving water body standards,
and invest in implementation
such regulations..
The EPA fails to take into
consideration the ecological
implications of such a deferment
to the Nation’s water
and, of paramount concern
to Great Lakes United, the
globally unique Great Lakes-St.
Lawrence River freshwater
ecosystem. The EPA’s
failure to take an aggressive
leadership role in ANS prevention
through setting criteria for
ballast water discharge will
have “significant”,
“enormous” and
“complex” repercussions
on the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence
River basin and dependent
communities. For just one
alarming example, recent invasions
of species from the Ponto-Caspian
are establishing benthic dominated
Ponto-Caspian food webs in
the Great Lakes (Riccardi
and Rasmussen, Ca. J. Fish.
Aquat. Sci (1998)), collapsing
native, freshwater, invertebrate
and fish populations and the
Lakes multibillion dollar
fisheries.
Great Lakes United believes
that a vital leadership role
should be assumed by both
the EPA and the U.S. Coast
Guard in the definition of
ecologically based ballast
water discharge standards
and an interim technology
approval process, respectively.
As the USCG is responsible
under NISA to determine whether
proposed ballast water treatment
technology is as effective
as ballast water exchange,
it seems apparent that the
USCG is best suited to work
on the development of criteria
by which to approve a given
technology—comparing
the efficacy of one practice
to the other. The EPA must
assume its responsibility
to protect the Nation’s
waters by developing ecological
standards to protect both
the biological integrity (through
the prevention of exotic species
introductions) and chemical
integrity (through the prevention
of chemical pollution from
biocide treatment) of receiving
water bodies.
Comments on the EPA stating
that no technology option
exists beyond ballast water
exchange:
Through information gathered
by Great Lakes United it is
apparent that developed, effective
technology does exist. However
it is “stand alone”
technology, not yet applied
for specific use onboard ships
because the requirements for
treatment technology—the
standard(s)—have not
yet been defined. Investment
firms, the technology industry
and the shipping industry,
are not going to invest in
the significant modification
of this technology for shipboard
application and implement
such technology unless there
is a standard. Moreover, they
CANNOT modify technology for
shipboard application without
clear criteria that indicates
whether the technology passes
or fails.
From the manufacturing of
new products to the offering
of new services, technology
development regularly must
overcome this “chicken
and the egg” scenario.
The EPA unfortunately is engaging
in this scenario and projecting
the lack of progress onto
technology development and
not on the regulatory agencies
lack of progress in setting
and implementing a standard.
The EPA must instead quickly
get us out of this dilemma
by using its authority and
mandated responsibility to
protect the Nation’s
waters to set ecologically
based standards.
In order to take advantage
of the range of technology
that has already been developed,
and to promote the modification
of technology for the use
of ballast water treatment
while an ecological standard
is being developed, Great
Lakes United strongly recommends
that the USCG coordinate an
interim technology approval
process which will define
interim technology standards
that are better than ballast
water exchange and are biocide
free. As new technologies
are developed, Great Lakes
United believes they should
meet or exceed the interim
technology standard.
In order to see such progress
happen, the EPA and other
regulatory agencies must stop
projecting that no technology
exists beyond ballast water
exchange. The EPA and other
regulatory agencies must promote
actions that will allow these
technologies to be used onboard
ships, provided that they
improve on current ballast
water regulations and add
no additional harm (ex: harmful
chemical release) to the environment
through their application.
And the EPA must set ecologically
based standards for technology
to meet.
Specific instances of statements
that the major impediment
in ANS prevention is the lack
of technology include:
Page 1/1.b. Summary of Draft
Recommendations: “This
draft report finds that the
greatest impediment to effectively
controlling ANS introductions
from ballast water discharges
is the current lack of technical
solutions to remove ANS from
ballast water discharges”
Page 9/2.ei. Ballast Water
Management Methods: “A
technical challenge facing
any effort to set policy regarding
ballast water is the fact
that there are currently no
ballast water management methods
that are both universally
applicable and proven effective
at preventing ANS introductions.”
Page 14/Table: Estimated Costs
to Vessel operators for Ballast
Water Invasive Species Control:
The draft report projects
that no technology can be
applied as a ballast water
treatment, when it states,”
No technology is undergoing
large-scale implementation
yet as an alternative to ballast
water exchange.
Page 39: Draft Conclusions:
“At this time, the greatest
impediment to preventing ANS
introductions to U.S. waters
is the lack of effective and
affordable ballast water treatment
technologies.”
Comments to specific sections
of the report:
Page 1/1.b. Summary of Draft
Recommendations:
The sixth and last point on
the page states “…the
International Maritime Organization…is
working towards an international
ballast water agreement, including
developing standards.”
This statement raises four
extremely important concerns.
1) From reviewing the 2001
IMO document, “Harmful
Aquatic Organisms in Ballast
Water” it is apparent
that preliminary recommendations
to define ecologically based
standards will have no relevance
to the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence
River basin, as they are based
on the detection of harmful
marine (saltwater) organisms.
2) Based on our understanding,
there is no firm timeline
for the IMO to set international
standards beyond a “guesstimated”
5-year minimum. This is unacceptable
for protecting the integrity
of the US aquatic ecosystems,
particularly the extensive,
globally unique and Great
Lakes-St. Lawrence River freshwater
ecosystem.
3) The IMO heavily relies
on the U.S. recommendations
to make progress on ballast
water regulation. It appears
illogical that the EPA is
implying in their deferment
that they are in some way
relying on the IMO to develop
standards, when the IMP relies
on the U.S.
4) Will an international
ballast water agreement pre-empt
the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence
region from setting stricter
standards to protect our unique
resource? This question should
be answered as soon as possible.
Page 2/1.b. Summary of Draft
Recommendations:
The fourth point states the
EPA should work to prevent
species introductions by:
“Providing encouragement
for national consistency and
coordination to State and
local governments’ efforts
to control ANS invasion from
ballast water.” Great
Lakes United strongly believes
that the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence
River freshwater ecosystem
should have a more stringent
ballast water discharge standard
protecting the biological
and chemical integrity of
the basin. This standard must
be rapidly set and strictly
enforced. If increased protection
through stringent regulation
is not provided to the basin
very soon, Great Lakes United
believes that ships traveling
outside the freshwater basin
should be prohibited from
discharging ballast water
into the basin at any time.
Page 2/1.b. Summary of Draft
Recommendations:
The seventh and last point
under the Summary of Draft
Recommendations defers consideration
of the application of NPDES
permits to ballast water discharges.
We implore the EPA to set
ecologically based water quality
standards, for ballast water
discharge or to the receiving
water body through the NPDES
program. The draft report
goes on to state “The
effectiveness of other programs,
including… the U.S.
Coast Guard’s program
under NISA, will be a factor
in EPA’s future consideration
of the issue.” This
is completely unacceptable.
When does the EPA plan on
considering this issue in
the future? Currently, the
USCG is about to release the
results from their call for
public input on approaches
for setting ballast water
standard. No standard has
been set. Further, the approach
has yet to even be defined.
Representatives from the USCG
provided another “guesstimated”
timeline for a final federal
standard of 5-7 years. Will
the EPA consider this issue
10 years from now? Longer?
It is to the critical need
of the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence
River basin that the EPA considers
the issue now and takes the
responsibility of setting
ecologically based standards.
Page 3/1.c. Other Options
for Addressing Ballast Water:
This point states that the
EPA will invoke emergency
powers under the Clean Water
Act to halt discharge if the
discharge of ballast water
“presents an imminent
and substantial endangerment
to public health or public
welfare.” Great Lakes
United strongly believes that
ANY discharge of ballast water,
or NOBOB mixture from a ship
originating at a foreign freshwater
port presents an imminent
and substantial endangerment
to public welfare. Foreign
freshwater species are establishing
primarily benthic dominated
Ponto-Caspian food webs in
the Great Lakes (Riccardi
and Rasmussen, Ca. J. Fish.
Aquat. Sci (1998)), causing
the collapse of the Great
Lakes multibillion dollar
fisheries. We strongly call
upon the EPA to immediately
invoke this section of the
CWA for all ballast water
discharge into the Great Lakes-St.
Lawrence River basin from
ships originating from foreign
freshwater ports. This prohibition
of ballast water discharge
must apply to ships entering
the basin classified as “Ballast
on Board” or “No
Ballast on Board.”
Page 9/2.d.iii. Potential
costs of controlling Ballast
Water ANS:
The last sentence of iii.
states, “EPA will explore
the full range of options,
including any lower cost regulatory
approaches that can significantly
reduce ANS introductions.”
Great Lakes United strongly
believes that cutting costs
should not in any way be at
the expense of environmental
protection. The economic value
of a stable, functioning ecosystem
to humans has not been incorporated
in economic estimates included
in this report. Hence any
reduction in efficacy in preventing
ANS introductions due to the
desire to reduce cost of control
is not acceptable.
Page 11/2.e.ii. (2) Chlorine
treatment on some passenger
vessels:
As stated in this section,
a significant adverse environmental
impact from this treatment
technology is the discharge
of large amounts of chlorine.
Great Lakes United is opposed
to the use of chlorine, chlorinated
products, or chemical biocides
in general to prevent introductions
via ballast water. The use
of any such product should
be prohibited from being discharged
into the Great Lakes in accordance
with the Great Lakes Water
Quality Agreement and the
pollution prevention policy
adopted by the United States
Congress, US Code, Title 42,
Chapter 133.
Page 13/2.e.iii Alternative
Methods in Research, Development
or Demonstration Stage:
Great Lakes United has been
told that the Michigan Ballast
Water Technical Work Group
has abandoned the shipboard
testing program for gluteraldehyde.
Page 19/3.a.ii. (5). Environmental
Protection Agency’s
Role under NISA:
We applaud the EPA in providing
research grants that identify
“environmentally sound
methods” for controlling
the dispersal of ANS, and
further encourage the EPA
to specifically encourage
the development of environmentally
sound, biocide-free methods,
in concordance with the U.S.
pollution prevention policy
(US Code, Title 42, Chapter
133.
Page 19/3.b.ii. (1). International
Maritime Organization:
Again, we stress the concern
that setting an international
standard is apparently inapplicable
to the ecological, economic
and regulatory needs of the
Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River
basin. We also reiterate the
concern that an international
agreement on ballast water
may preempt a region from
setting more stringent standards
and protecting the unique
integrity of their environmental
resources.
Page 26/3.c.i. (5). State
Bills Introduced :
Great Lakes United would like
to stress, that while we support
a strong binational standard
set specifically for the Great
Lakes-St. Lawrence River basin,
we emphasize and support the
“common feature”
of the state bills introduced
in the Great Lakes states.
That is, we support stronger
and stricter controls on ballast
water management than are,
or will be, required nationally.
We emphasize that the Great
Lakes-St. Lawrence River basin
MUST be provided stricter
regulations specifically tailored
to an unstable freshwater
ecosystem, for its effective
protection and restoration.
Page 32/3.j. Ballast Water
ANS as Pollutants:
We are dismayed with the last
sentence of this section,
which states, “Although
some ballast water ANS may
be pollutants, EPA has not
determined whether all ANS
meet this definition.”
How does this predicate that
standards cannot be developed?
Firstly, we believe that trying
to regulate only those ANS
that are determined pollutants
is impossible, considering
the dynamic and often actively
degrading nature of the Great
Lakes-St. Lawrence River basin.
Any ANS that the EPA determines
is not currently a pollutant
may be well suited to invade
in the next few years, after
the basin is further impacted
and weakened by new invasions.
Secondly, this statement implies
again to Great Lakes United
that the EPA just doesn’t
want to step up to the plate
and deal with ANS through
ballast water standards.
Page 38/4.m.i. Ballast Water
Treatment by POTWs :
Publicly Owned Treatment Works
may be very effective in closed
systems such as the Great
Lakes-St. Lawrence river basin,
due to a single constrained
access point through the St.
Lawrence Seaway. If the EPA
believes that POTWs are “unlikely
to provide for the widespread
solution for preventing ANS”
it should acknowledge that
POTWs could be effectively
used to prevent ANS introductions
in closed systems such as
the Great Lakes.
Page 39: Draft Conclusions:
First paragraph, forth sentence:
The Great Lakes environmental
community does not agree that
substantial resources are
being spent developing ballast
water technologies, especially
considering the magnitude
of ecological and economic
impacts of ANS introductions.
We further believe that many
governmental and non-governmental
entities are concerned that
ANS prevention is significantly
under funded.
In conclusion, Great Lakes
United reiterates our main
concerns and recommendations:
1) The EPA must take a lead
role in setting the ecological
criteria for final ballast
water discharge standards,
and for a receiving water
body under NPDES. Such ecological
standards set by the EPA should
address the need to protect
more sensitive receiving water
bodies from biological and
chemical pollution, such as
the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence
River basin. The EPA should
continue to support and coordinate
with the U.S. Coast Guard,
as they lead the definition
of an interim technology approval
process, which should include
interim technology defined
standards.
2) The EPA should strike or
significantly rephrase their
repeated statements on the
lack of technology being the
major impediment in the progress
towards prevention of ANS.
Clearly the lack of standards
is the major impediment.
3) In light of the lack of
progress, the undefined timelines
for a standard, and the critical
instability of the Great Lakes-St.
Lawrence River basin, Great
Lakes United recommends that
the EPA invoke emergency powers
under the Clean Water Act
to prohibit any ballast water
discharge into the Great Lakes-St.
Lawrence River basin from
a ship originating from a
foreign freshwater port.
Thank you very much for this
opportunity to comment to
the EPA draft report, “Aquatic
Nuisance Species in Ballast
Water Discharges: Issues and
Options.”
Please feel free to contact
me at Great Lakes United’s
Buffalo office for questions
or clarification.
|
