Thursday, July 14, 2011

House Subcommittees Hearing On Ballast Water Discharge Regs

Jul 13: The House Transportation &  Infrastructure (T&I) Committee, Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Subcommittee, chaired by Representative Frank LoBiondo (R-NJ), and the Water Resources and Environment Subcommittee, chaired by Representative Bob Gibbs (R-OH), held a hearing to explore current ballast water and incidental discharge management, as well as potential ways to implement cost effective and common sense approaches to future regulations.

    According to a Republican Committee release, in order to maintain stability during transit, most ocean going vessels fill internal tanks with ballast water during the loading of cargo and then release it during unloading. Ballast water has long been recognized as one of several pathways by which invasive species are transported globally and introduced into coastal waters where they did not live before. The EPA Science Advisory Board (SAB) released a report on the effects of ballast water discharges, which found that any ballast water management strategy that is more stringent than the one being imposed by the International Maritime Organization (IMO) is not currently achievable [See WIMS 7/13/11]. However, some states are pushing for more stringent standards.

    The discharge of ballast water and other substances from vessels are currently regulated by the Coast Guard, the U.S. EPA, 26 states, 2 Indian Tribes and a U.S. territory. The release indicates, "The current overlapping and contradictory patchwork of ballast water regulations hampers the flow of commerce, threatens international trade, unduly burdens vessel operations in U.S. waters, undermines job creation and hurts our economy."

    Chairman LoBiondo said, "We have to overcome this mindset that mandating a dozen different, unachievable standards, each more stringent than the next, somehow protects our environment. It does not. The time has finally come to enact a clear, effective, and uniform national standard that utilizes available and cost effective technology to reduce the risk of future aquatic invasions. We cannot afford to delay any longer as ballast water continues to threaten our environment and our economy." Chairman Gibbs said, "As we consider ballast water standards, we should not burden our shippers with unobtainable, unrealistic, expensive regulations that have not demonstrated a significant environmental benefit. Instead we need a common sense approach that can be enacted quickly, protects the environment, reduces red tape, grows maritime jobs and opens the flow of maritime commerce."

    Thomas Allegretti, President and CEO of the American Waterways Operators testified to the strong economic impacts of ballast water management saying, "We hope that Congress will seize the opportunity to fix this broken system because the economic stakes are very high. Each year, barges and towing vessels -- just one segment of the domestic and international maritime industry that is harmed by the current regulatory patchwork -- safely and efficiently move more than 800 million tons of cargo critical to the U.S. economy such as coal, grain, petroleum products, chemicals, steel, aggregates, and containers. The economic impact of this commerce extends far beyond the maritime industry, to the shippers, producers, and communities that rely on the safe, efficient, and cost-effective transportation of critical commodities, including commodities for export."

    Other witnesses testifying at the hearing included: Vice Admiral Brian Salerno, Deputy Commandant for Operations, U.S. Coast Guard; James Hanlon, Director Office of Wastewater Management, U.S. EPA; the Chair EPA Science Advisory Board; the Chair Committee on Numeric Limits for Living Organisms in Ballast Water, National Research Council; and the President Marine Engineers' Beneficial Association. The hearing focused on options to improve current regulations to ensure the free flow of commerce, grow maritime jobs, and protect the environment.

    Access a Republican release on the hearing (click here). Access the Republican hearing website for background, testimony, video and statements (click here).

1 comment:

Don M said...

The ocean flush dose not remove human bacteria and virus in sludge, cyst and bio films remaining in ballast tanks. No ballast on board dose not prevent these systems being used in the Great Lakes from introducing these problems and spreading existing ones already in the lakes. This is about American politicians of both party’s being bought by big money helping the shipping industry (which according to reports for Congress is comprised of mainly foreign flags) avoid cost by not requiring installation of the needed technology to insure safety of Americans health and environment. Lets hope New York’s governor, who has already delayed the timeline for NY regulations in conjunction with the Obama administrations Coast Guard delay plan, dose not cave in to political pressure after he spent NY taxpayer dollars developing and defending NY laws while he was attorney general. Those who care need to inform the public about this disregard for Americans health and environment before they set a precedent through laws that will likely remain in affect for decades. The general public is not aware of the danger these politicians are willing to impose on Americans, on behalf of foreign shipping interest and the major news media’s will not talk about issues that curtail economic globalization, regardless of the toll on human health such as the spread pollutants like tar balls, oil, nuclear waste water, or even cholera that ocean flush’s do not remove and may even promote.

If this bill passes the House it will be interesting to see if California’s Senator Boxer will object to it and stop it the way she stopped HR.2830 in 2008 from authorizing the Coast Guard to protect the whole country from ballast water because of her alledged contention it would overide her states rights to stronger ballast water protection, especially since the state of California has since backed off from their strong stance on ballast water protection. Obviously any Senator could stop this bill from becoming law over state rights.