U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

30–657 PDF 2007

BALLAST WATER MANAGEMENT AND

REDUCTION OF AIR POLLUTION

FROM SHIPS

(109–87)

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON

COAST GUARD AND MARITIME TRANSPORTATION

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON

TRANSPORTATION AND

INFRASTRUCTURE

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

JULY 11, 2006

Printed for the use of the

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

(
COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE

DON YOUNG, Alaska, Chairman

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin, Vice-Chair

SHERWOOD L. BOEHLERT, New York

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee

WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland

JOHN L. MICA, Florida

PETER HOEKSTRA, Michigan

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan

SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio

SUE W. KELLY, New York

RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana

ROBERT W. NEY, Ohio

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey

JERRY MORAN, Kansas

GARY G. MILLER, California

ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina

ROB SIMMONS, Connecticut

HENRY E. BROWN, JR., South Carolina

TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania

SAM GRAVES, Missouri

MARK R. KENNEDY, Minnesota

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas

JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania

MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida

JON C. PORTER, Nevada

TOM OSBORNE, Nebraska

KENNY MARCHANT, Texas

MICHAEL E. SODREL, Indiana

CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania

TED POE, Texas

DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington

CONNIE MACK, Florida

JOHN R. ‘RANDY’ KUHL, JR., New York

LUIS G. FORTUN ̃ O, Puerto Rico

LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia

CHARLES W. BOUSTANY, JR., Louisiana

JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio

JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota

NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of

Columbia

JERROLD NADLER, New York

CORRINE BROWN, Florida

BOB FILNER, California

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas

GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi

JUANITA MILLENDER-MCDONALD,

California

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland

EARL BLUMENAUER, Oregon

ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California

BILL PASCRELL, JR., New Jersey

LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa

TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania

BRIAN BAIRD, Washington

SHELLEY BERKLEY, Nevada

JIM MATHESON, Utah

MICHAEL M. HONDA, California

RICK LARSEN, Washington

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York

JULIA CARSON, Indiana

TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine

LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee

BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri

ALLYSON Y. SCHWARTZ, Pennsylvania

JOHN T. SALAZAR, Colorado

JOHN BARROW, Georgia

(II)
SUBCOMMITTEE ON COAST GUARD AND MARITIME TRANSPORTATION

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey, Chairman

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina

WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland

PETER HOEKSTRA, Michigan

ROB SIMMONS, Connecticut

MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida

DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington,ViceChair

CONNIE MACK, Florida

LUIS G. FORTUN ̃ O, Puerto Rico

CHARLES W. BOUSTANY, JR., Louisiana

DON YOUNG, Alaska

(Ex Officio)

BOB FILNER, California, Ranking Democrat

CORRINE BROWN, Florida

GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi

JUANITA MILLENDER-MCDONALD,

California

MICHAEL M. HONDA, California

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York

BRIAN BAIRD, Washington

JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota

(Ex Officio)

(III)

(V)

CONTENTS

TESTIMONY

Page

Hazlewood, Catherine L., Senior Policy Advisor, Global Invasive Species Initiative, The Nature Conservancy ........................................................................ 21

Keeney, Timothy R.E., Deputy Assistant Secretary for Oceans and Atmosphere, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department

of Commerce ......................................................................................................... 7

Metcalf, Kathy J., Director of Maritime Affairs, Chamber of Shipping of

America ................................................................................................................. 21

O’Hare, Donald L., Vice President, World Shipping Council ............................... 21

Salerno, Rear Admiral Brian, Director of Inspections and Compliance, U.S.

Coast Guard Headquarters ................................................................................. 7

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS

Ehlers, Hon. Vernon J., of Michigan ...................................................................... 33

Filner, Hon. Bob, of California ............................................................................... 35

Hoekstra, Hon. Peter, of Michigan ......................................................................... 50

LoBiondo, Hon. Frank A., of New Jersey .............................................................. 64

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY THE WITNESSES

Hazlewood, Catherine L .......................................................................................... 38

Keeney, Timothy R.E. .............................................................................................. 52

Metcalf, Kathy J ...................................................................................................... 65

O’Hare, Donald L ..................................................................................................... 74

Salerno, Rear Admiral Brian .................................................................................. 83

(1)

BALLAST WATER MANAGEMENT AND

REDUCTION OF AIR POLLUTION FROM SHIPS

Tuesday, July 11, 2006

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON COAST

GUARD AND MARITIME TRANSPORTATION, COMMITTEE

ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE, WASHINGTON, D.C.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in room

2167, Rayburn House Office Building, the Hon. Frank A. LoBiondo

[Chairman of the subcommittee] presiding.

Mr. LOBIONDO. Good morning. The Subcommittee will come to

order.

The Subcommittee is meeting this morning to review draft legislation that addresses the treatment of invasive species in ballast

water and the implementation of international vessel emission requirements under Annex VI of the MARPOL Convention. This Subcommittee has held numerous oversight hearings on the Federal

Government’s efforts to reduce the risk of aquatic invasive species

through the release of ballast water from vessels operating in U.S.

waters. The Coast Guard has issued regulations to require all vessels on a voyage originating in a foreign port to carry out ballast

water exchange before the vessels enter U.S. waters.

I am concerned, however, that the ballast water exchange alone

may not fully protect our coastal ecosystems from the threat of

invasive species.

This draft bill would require the Coast Guard to establish national ballast water discharge standards after the service has certified there exists alternative ballast water management methods

which are capable of reducing the concentration of organisms in

ballast water, at least to the international standard. If the Coast

Guard determines concentrations of invasive species can be reduced

to a level which exceeds the international standards, the draft bill

requires the Coast Guard to issue regulations implementing methods to do so.

The draft bill also proposes to use the Coast Guard Shipboard

Technology Evaluation Program to demonstrate the capabilities of

experimental alternative ballast water management methods on

board vessels active in maritime commerce.

The draft bill is a work in progress. It does not represent a consensus of all interested parties or members of this Subcommittee.

I look forward to hearing the comments of the witnesses and the

members of the Subcommittee on how we should direct the Coast

Guard to address ballast water management in the future.
2

The Subcommittee is also considering draft legislation that would

implement international vessel emission standards that were

agreed to in MARPOL Annex VI. Earlier this year, the Senate gave

its advice and consent to the treaty, contingent on the adoption of

legislation to implement these requirements here in the United

States.

The draft bill incorporates several provisions included in the Administration’s proposal to Congress with several changes regarding

the role of the Environmental Protection Agency to develop and administer and enforce regulation aboard vessels operating in the

United States.

The draft bill proposes to maintain these responsibilities of administering and enforcing U.S. laws aboard vessels under the authority of the Coast Guard. The Coast Guard currently administers

and enforces regulations regarding the release of oil, harmful substances, and garbage from vessels that were issued under the authority of the Act to prevent pollution from ships. The Coast Guard

should remain the primary Federal agency responsible for implementing the Act. The draft bill would require the Coast Guard, in

consultation with EPA, to issue regulations to reduce the emission

of pollutants from vessels operating in U.S. territorial waters.

The draft bill would also require ports and terminals to provide

vessel operators access to adequate reception facilities for ozone-depleting substances and other compounds.

I want to thank the members of the Subcommittee for their continuing involvement in the development of this legislation. I look

forward to working with those members as we continue to address

these importance issues

I would like to ask unanimous consent that Mr. Ehlers be able

to sit on the Committee this morning.

If no objection, so ordered.

I will turn to Mr. Filner for an opening statement.

Mr. FILNER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Welcome, Dr. Ehlers and

Mr. Hoekstra to this Committee. Thank you.

Those of us, like myself, who represent port regions of our Country, and I represent San Diego, California, are obviously concerned

about the pollution from ships entering our ports. While they do

bring economic activity, they also have the potential of bringing in

pollution.

The ballast water is important to maintaining a ship’s stability,

but it also contains plants and animals from foreign ports that pollute our waters. These foreign critters can grow and thrive in our

waters because they don’t have any natural predators. Ports and

communities around the United States spend billions of dollars annually to address the problems created by these invasive species.

Because of these concerns, Congress enacted a program for voluntary ballast water exchange for ships entering the United States

from overseas. People were under the misguided perception that

vessel owners would spend money voluntarily to pump out the ballast water they took on in a foreign port and replace it with saltwater mid-ocean. When shipowners failed to participate in this program, the Coast Guard made it a mandatory program for all vessels entering the United States.
3

As the Chairman said, now is the time to move to the next step

in solving this problem. The ballast water must be treated just as

we treat sewage before it is discharged in our waters.

The International Maritime Organization has adopted the new

convention entitled the International Convention for the Control

and Management of Ships’ Ballast Water and Sediments. While the

overall framework of this convention is good and commendable, the

treatment standards adopted by the IMO were the lowest common

denominator that could be agreed by the flag-of-convenience countries and the countries whose shipowners register their vessels in

flag-of-convenience countries. Attempts by the U.S. delegation to

strengthen the environmental standards in the convention were rejected.

It is time for Congress to enact meaningful standards for ballast

water treatment that will protect our environment and our communities. These standards should also apply to U.S.-flag ships that

move between two different ecosystems in the U.S.

The other portion of today’s hearing will deal with possible implementing legislation for so-called MARPOL Annex VI which deals

with emissions from ships and offshore platforms. Regional air

quality standards and global warming require us to look at every

source of pollution in our communities. Ships should not be allowed

to enter our ports unless they comply with these standards.

The question remains as to whether or not a State like California

should be allowed to enact more stringent emission standards for

vessels that are in our ports. The current Clean Water Act allows

California to do so. I believe that that authority should be maintained in any legislation to regulate emissions from ships.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman for scheduling this hearing today. I

look forward to working with you to develop bipartisan legislation

to regulate both ballast water and ship emissions. There are not

many days left in our session. I am hopeful that if we start early

to work with the other body on this legislation, we can enact it this

year.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. GILCHREST. [Presiding] Mr. Ehlers, an opening statement?

Mr. EHLERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

As Mr. LoBiondo said a few moments ago, ballast water exchange is not enough. I want to thank the Chairman very much for

holding this important hearing today.

Ballast water management and the broader issue of aquatic

invasive species is a matter that receives far too little attention,

given its drastic impact on the economy and the environment. I

have been actively working on this issue for several years, and I

am pleased that the Chairman recognizes how critical this issue is,

and I am hopeful that we can work together to move forward with

legislation to improve and strengthen existing law in this area.

An aquatic invasive species is defined as a species that is both

non-native to the ecosystem and whose introduction causes or may

cause economic or environmental harm to harm to human health.

Aquatic invaders enter the ecosystem through many different pathways, for example, the ballast water of a shipping vessel, attached

to a ship, natural migration, et cetera, but clearly, the ballast

water is a major avenue or a major pathway.
4

The economic damage includes the cost of the control, damage to

property values, health costs, and other factors. Just one species

can cost Government and private citizens billions of dollars. For example, zebra mussels alone have cost the various entities in the

Great Lakes Basin an estimated $3 billion for the past 10 years for

cleaning water intake pipes, purchasing filtration equipment, and

so forth. Sea lamprey control measures in the Great Lakes cost at

least $10 to $15 million annually. The total annual cost for the

United States for the Governments and the citizens runs approximately $13 billion per year. This is not chump change.

This is not just a Great Lakes issue. From Asian carp in the Mississippi to Chinese mitten crabs in the North Pacific to moon jellyfish in the Gulf and on and on, we have many foreign invaders including those mentioned by the gentleman from San Diego a few

minutes ago.

Given the enormous economic and environmental impact that

these invaders cause, two clear goals emerge. First, we need to

focus more resources and energy into dealing with this problem at

all levels of Government. Second, our best strategy for dealing with

invasive species is to focus these resources to prevent them from

ever entering the United States. Spending millions of dollars to

prevent species introduction will save billions of dollars in control,

eradication, and restoration efforts. The old adage is still true: An

ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

Along with our colleague on this Committee, Mr. Gilchrest, I

have introduced comprehensive legislation that has received broad

bipartisan support. I won’t get into the details of that legislation

here, but it adds ballast water treatment technology certification,

not just ballast water exchange but a treatment technology certification program and incentives to shipowners to install experimental treatment technology.

Unfortunately, the draft bill that we are discussing here today is

not comprehensive. It is a good start, but we need something more.

It does not address the many other pathways that aquatic invasive

species enter into our waterways and ecosystems. I recognize this

Committee does not have jurisdiction over many of the elements

necessary to take a comprehensive approach, but I am hopeful that

we can move forward with a comprehensive bill at some point.

I have introduced legislation related to our existing research

needs. Let me emphasize research needs because that is all it concentrates on. When it comes to understanding invasive species, how

they get in, and how to stop them from entering and spreading, the

Aquatic Invasive Species Research Act, H.R. 1592, authorizes comprehensive research to ensure that efforts to prevent, control, and

eradicate aquatic invasive species are based on the best science and

done in the most cost-effective and environmentally sound manner.

It puzzles me why that bill has not received more support and passage because it does not adopt any policy changes; it just simply

says, look, let us do the research. We can’t make the right decisions

without doing the research first.

Mr. Chairman, we must have a strong research portfolio to understand as much as we can and how much we need to about these

critters and how to prevent them from entering an ecosystem and

wreaking havoc.
5

I appreciate the surveys included in the draft legislation which

will be very helpful. I hope that the Committee and the Chairman

will work with me in incorporating other provisions that have already been favorably approved by the Science Committee.

I look forward to hearing from the witnesses today. I look forward to working cooperatively with the Subcommittee and the full

Committee to try to address this very costly and environmentally

damaging phenomenon.

I yield back, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you, Mr. Ehlers, and I do look forward to

working with you on this issue, so that we can integrate policies

both from the Science Committee and the Transportation Committee.

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, may I respectfully ask that the remainder of my statement be entered into the record?

Mr. GILCHREST. Without objection.

The other gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Hoekstra?

Mr. HOEKSTRA. I thank the Chair for the opportunity just to

make some brief comments. I would like to submit my entire statement for the record.

Mr. GILCHREST. Without objection.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. I am glad that the Chairman is holding this

hearing. I am glad that we have bipartisan support in moving forward in addressing this issue.

Concrete action under the basis of the 1990 legislation and the

1996 amendments contained in the National Invasive Species Act

have been painfully slow. Action has been paralyzed by seemingly

endless analysis. We continue to await the required analyses and

standards, but new invasive species have been introduced and

taken up residence, and the people of the Great Lakes Region have

paid the price.

I prefer the terminology used by my colleague on the other side

of the aisle for invasive species. I like the term, critters. We keep

getting more of these critters into the Great Lakes, and it has a

direct economic impact as well as an environmental impact.

For many in the Great Lakes Region, the claim that the technology is not available to justify alternative ballast water treatment methods sounds more and more like excuses from those resistance to change or unwilling to acknowledge the severity of the

issue. Research in the area of ballast water treatment has taken

place for over a decade, but there has been no force or incentive

driving the implementation of solutions.

I think that the staff draft is a step in the right direction. I know

my colleague from Michigan, he has introduced legislation in this

area. I have introduced legislation in the past. I hope that, on a

bipartisan basis, we can actually implement some legislation that

gets this process moving forward.

On that, Mr. Chairman, I will yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FILNER. I am glad that ′′critters′′ will bring our two parties

together. Thank you.

Mr. GILCHREST. It sounds like a country and western song.

Thank you, Mr. Hoekstra.

We look forward to the witnesses testifying today, so we can have

some sense of understanding of where the Coast Guard is, where
6

NOAA is, where the Administration is on this basically international issue, and where the U.S. fits in with the IMO, and where

the vote is on international agreements, and what the status is for

the size of the critter that we want to eliminate in the ballast

water.

My colleagues are correct that this is an economic issue. It is an

ecological issue. It is a research issue. It is a science issue. It is

a public policy issue.

I guess the Founding Fathers didn’t envision that we would have

so much to do as individual members of Congress to focus on any

one particular issue, but I think for the remainder of this term and

certainly in the next Congress, we hope we can get something done

in this term. This is an issue that has been very fragmented, and

it is an issue that people have been focused on either in the Congress or the Administration.

So, we don’t want to take people to task here today for not coming up with a solution yet, but I want to make a comment, especially for my colleague from Michigan, Mr. Ehlers or Dr. Ehlers. I

am going to wait until he stops talking, so he hears this and corrects me where I am wrong. I am telling the audience that I want

to make a comment with your background in mind.

To understand the ecological issue, we need to understand the

physics of the ecology. If we can understand, and Vern does, the

Theory of General Relativity, quantum mechanics, and string theory as basic building blocks for the framework of understanding the

somewhat unknown origin of creation and what has happened

since then, this sets up the framework for our whole ecology.

If we can understand those vast, complex theories, I think we

can focus on planet Earth and understand the issue of invasive

species in ballast water and how they disrupt the ecological systems of the Great Lakes, the Chesapeake Bay, and the Gulf of

Mexico. You name it; they are disrupting it, costing a lot of money.

We are doing really unknown damage for millenniums to come

with species that we depend on, like oysters in the Chesapeake Bay

which have been devastated mainly because of ballast water, and

the problems that they have with a series of critters in the Great

Lakes.

If we can really, literally have ongoing dialogues about the intricacies of the universe and the tiny, tiny, tiny, infinitesimal particles that make up that and cause gravity to happen, well, we can

sure find technology to eliminate invasive species in ballast water.

I really think we can.

So, unless my colleague wants to make a comment about my layman’s perspective on physics.

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield to your greater authority of

layman’s knowledge of physics.

Mr. GILCHREST. Greater authority of layman’s knowledge—I have

a lot more confidence now, Vern, thank you.

We thank the gentleman for coming this morning and Rear Admiral Salerno and a good friend, Mr. Keeney. Welcome, and we

look forward to your testimony.

Admiral, you may begin.
7

TESTIMONY OF REAR ADMIRAL BRIAN SALERNO, DIRECTOR

OF INSPECTIONS AND COMPLIANCE, U.S. COAST GUARD

HEADQUARTERS; TIMOTHY R.E. KEENEY, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR OCEANS AND ATMOSPHERE, NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION,

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Admiral SALERNO. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Ranking

Member Filner and distinguished members of the Subcommittee. I

am Rear Admiral Brian Salerno, Director of Inspections and Compliance at U.S. Coast Guard Headquarters. It is my pleasure to appear before you today to provide the Coast Guard’s views on air

pollution reduction from ships and ballast water management.

In May, 2005, Annex VI to the International Convention for the

Prevention of Pollution from Ships entered into force. The Coast

Guard played a leading role in the development and adoption of

Annex VI at the International Maritime Organization, IMO. At

present, however, the U.S. has not ratified it. Annex VI represents

the first time that air pollution and air quality issues associated

with ships have been regulated internationally. It creates a foundation to build from as IMO parties seek to improve its effectiveness

at reducing ship source air pollution.

U.S. ratification of Annex VI is extremely important to furthering our interest in reducing maritime pollution and enactment of

the implementing legislation is the final remaining major statement.

Concerning ballast water management, the Coast Guard shares

this Committee’s concern with the significant environmental and

economic damage caused by aquatic invasive species introduced

through shipping. At this time, the Administration has not formed

official views on the discussion drafts provided by the Committee.

The comments provided in my written statement and those that

follow represent the Administration’s preliminary informal views.

There is no question that the current legislative framework

needs to be upgraded to move us to a greater level of protection.

We believe that aquatic invasive species present a complex international problem which requires a comprehensive international solution. The IMO has agreed to the text for an international convention for the control and management of ships’ ballast water and

sediment.

Because of the international nature of shipping, the Administration believes that the domestic approach must be compatible with

the structure and framework of the international provisions. In this

respect, a number of provisions in the discussion draft are problematic and others could actually delay reaching the goal of effective

ballast water management. In general terms, the Administration

prefers to see a standard that would encourage development of new

technologies rather than being based on currently available technology. For example, we would like to use a standard to set a goal

for developers to achieve fewer organisms per cubic meter of water.

Senate Bill 363 closely tracks the approach in the convention,

and the Administration is willing to support the approach taken in

S. 363 with minor modifications. We recommend that this Subcommittee consider that approach as well.
8

The Coast Guard has determined that a discharge standard for

ballast water is the most expedient approach to approving appropriate technologies for use on board vessels. In conjunction with

the discharge standard, the Coast Guard is working in partnership

with EPA to develop test procedures for approving ballast water

management systems and with the Naval Research Laboratory to

validate and refine the procedures. We are also working with

NOAA in facilitating the testing and demonstration of practical and

effective shipboard ballast water management methods.

Turning to the Great Lakes specifically, the Great Lakes ballast

water regulations remain the most stringent in the world for restricting the discharge of unmanaged ballast water. However, for

the Great Lakes, there is a justified concern regarding vessels that

enter the lakes fully loaded with cargo and declaring no ballast on

board, commonly referred to as NOBOB vessels. This is because

the regulations for ballast water exchange do not apply when ships

enter as a NOBOB. However, the risk of invasion remains due to

residual freshwater and sediment in empty ballast tanks which are

sufficient to sustain invasive species.

To address this risk, in 2005, the Coast Guard announced new

policy that encourages vessels that enter the Great Lakes as

NOBOBs to conduct specific best management practices wherever

possible. The Coast Guard and Transport Canada are cooperatively

examining the degree to which industry is able to conduct these

practices and their efficacy in reducing the risks of introducing

aquatic invasive species.

Until approved, alternative ballast water management methods

are available. Consistent application of these practices should result in a significant reduction in the risk of introducing aquatic

nuisance species.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on air pollution reduction from ships and ballast water management. The

Coast Guard looks forward to working with Congress as we continue our ongoing efforts to safeguard the maritime environment.

I will be happy to answer any questions that you may have.

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you very much, Admiral.

Mr. Keeney?

Mr. KEENEY. Good morning, Chairman Gilchrest, Ranking Member Filner, Dr. Ehlers, and members of the Committee. I am Tim

Keeney, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Oceans and Atmospheres at

NOAA. Thank you for inviting me to testify on the Ballast Water

Management Act.

The Administration supports the goal of this legislation to provide for the management and treatment of ballast water, to prevent the introduction of non-indigenous or invasive aquatic species.

The President’s Ocean Action Plan recognizes the urgent need for

ballast water management, and we remain committed to working

with our Congressional partners to address this issue in a comprehensive way.

The transfer of organisms from ballast water has resulted in the

introduction and establishment of hundreds of aquatic invasive

species into the United States. The consequences of these invaders

are being felt from the Great Lakes to Maine to the Gulf Coast to
9

the shores of California. In fact, every coastal State is experiencing

this problem.

The introduction of zebra mussels provided the initial impetus

for coordinated Federal action on aquatic invasive and nuisance

species and led directly to the passage of the Non-indigenous

Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of 1990. Recognizing

the pathway that brought zebra mussels to the United States can

bring other species, the Act required that steps be taken to manage

ballast water.

In 1996, Congress passed the National Invasive Species Act

which led to the creation of the Ballast Water Technology Demonstration Program by NOAA and the Fish and Wildlife Service.

Since its inception, the program has spent over $13.2 billion in support of 63 ballast water technology research and development

projects. As our understanding of ballast water management as developed, the state of ballast water technology has also advanced.

This is evidenced by fewer laboratory-scale projects and more fullscale demonstration projects on ships being funded by the program.

In fact, now more than 50 percent are full-scale projects. We believe the program is a good example of how different agencies can

work together to reach a common goal.

In other research, NOAA’s Great Lakes Environmental Research

Laboratory led the first extensive biological characterization and

assessment of risk association with the residual ballast water and

sediment in ships. The Coast Guard used the assessment in issuing

new policies for ballast water management of No Ballast On Board

or NOBOB vessels entering the Great Lakes.

NOAA would prefer the reauthorization of the Non-indigenous

Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act but appreciates the

Committee’s attention to the ballast water issue. We want to work

with you on the issue since it is an immediate, pervasive, and well

known vector for the introduction of invasive species.

I would like to highlight several significant concerns in the draft

legislation that are addressed in greater detail in our written testimony.

The IMO has approved the International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships’ Ballast Water and Sediment. NOAA

believes the domestic legislation including the Ballast Water Management Act should be compatible with international provisions

such as the convention because of the international nature of shipping. For example, S. 363 closely tracks the approach in the convention, and the Administration is willing to support the approach

taken in S. 363 if minor modifications are made. We strongly recommend the Committee consider this approach as well.

A number of provisions in the proposed legislation could actually

delay effective ballast water management. For example, one section

requires surveys on the number of organisms in untreated ballast

water and in exchange ballast water. However, several surveys

have already been conducted in both these areas, and the results

are available in published literature.

The proposed legislation is also weaker than the IMO convention

discharge standards. The Act only requires regulating the upper

standard for organisms greater than 50 microns. The convention

standard includes organisms between 10 and 50 microns, and orga-
10

nisms in this category include dinoflagellates that cause harmful

algal blooms. In general, NOAA prefers to see a standard that addresses organisms down to 10 microns and encourages development

of new technologies.

NOAA supports the Coast Guard’s Shipboard Technology Evaluation Program, or STEP, and supports the bill of statutory authorization of that program. NOAA is concerned that the proposed legislation prevents ballast water technology demonstration programs

at NOAA from supporting any projects other than the shipboard

technology demonstration under the STEP program. Smaller-scale

control projects are still needed before some promising technologies

will be ready for demonstration on board ships.

R and D projects are also needed to perfect monitoring and assessment technology to assure that organisms have been rendered

non-viable and that compliance can be effectively monitored. The

proposed document appears to prevent NOAA’s ballast waster technology demonstration program from supporting either of these

kinds of projects. These and other examples included in our written

testimony indicate NOAA’s difficulty in supporting legislation until

these significant changes are made.

To conclude, we only have to look at the spread of aquatic

invasive species that have come to our shores through ballast

water to realize we will be living with the consequences of past introductions for a long time to come. We are optimistic that the ongoing ballast waster research will lead to a number of promising

technologies that will enhance our ability to prevent new invasions.

NOAA welcomes the opportunity to work with the Committee

staff to provide technical drafting and other assistance in order to

address our concerns. Thank you again. I am happy to respond to

any questions the Committee might have.

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you, Mr. Keeney.

It appears that both your testimonies would prefer that our draft

bill incorporated Senate Bill 363. I feel that is a pretty accurate

statement.

Mr. KEENEY. That is correct.

Mr. GILCHREST. Would Senate Bill 363 I am not familiar with

it—more closely align with the international agreement at the

IMO?

Mr. KEENEY. It would, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. GILCHREST. Would the international agreement and Senate

Bill 363 deal uniformly with ballast water in the Great Lakes or

the Chesapeake Bay or the San Francisco Bay or any other port

throughout the United States?

Mr. KEENEY. It will do that as well.

Mr. GILCHREST. So for the exchange of ballast water that now

goes on outside U.S. territorial waters that is for the purpose of

bringing a ship into the Great Lakes, I guess the question is: How

will Senate Bill 363 or even our draft bill deal with ships exchanging ballast water at sea or not exchanging ballast water at sea because of safety reasons?

Then, that means that some ships may exchange ballast water

after going into the Great Lakes, and some ships may not exchange

ballast water if they are coming into the Chesapeake Bay. How will
11

the international agreement or Senate Bill 363 deal with that?

That is a concern that I have.

Admiral SALERNO. Sir, the IMO convention would, in fact, phase

out ballast water exchange after a number of years and replace it

with a discharge standard which would limit the number of organisms per unit volume of ballast water. The technology for achieving that is still under development, but that is the basic construct.

Mr. GILCHREST. That is the goal.

Admiral SALERNO. Yes.

Mr. GILCHREST. Is that in Senate Bill 363?

Admiral SALERNO. That is the goal of the IMO provision. I believe that is reflected in 363.

Mr. GILCHREST. Is that discharge standard still 10 organisms

greater than 50 microns?

Admiral SALERNO. The IMO standard is a weaker standard that

what we would envision for ships entering the United States. We

have not yet determined what the discharge standard will be for

vessels entering the United States. That is currently under development. But, under the terms of the IMO convention, we do have

the authority to set a more strict standard than may be in place

internationally.

Mr. GILCHREST. So countries can set stricter standards than the

IMO agreement.

Admiral SALERNO. That is correct, sir.

Mr. GILCHREST. The Senate Bill is similar to that, to allow a

country to set stricter standards for their discharge. After a number of years, is there a set number of years that they would eliminate ballast water because of technology that will eliminate the

invasive species in the ballast water?

Admiral SALERNO. Yes, sir, there is a phase-out provision in Senate 363 as well.

Mr. GILCHREST. A phase-out for exchange of ballast water, is

there a technology on the horizon that would enable us to do that,

that you can point to?

Admiral SALERNO. Sir, the technology is still under development.

We don’t have any approved technology at present. In the STEP

program, there are a number of applications which we are considering that look very promising to test prototype technologies on board

ships, but currently there are no approved systems.

Now, there are also systems being tested internationally, some

that use chemical means, some that use filtration and so forth,

some that use physical.

Mr. GILCHREST. Are they in use right now?

Admiral SALERNO. There are some that are in use currently.

Mr. GILCHREST. Do we have any that are in use?

Admiral SALERNO. None that are approved.

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Keeney?

Mr. KEENEY. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to say that with

regards to technology, NOAA has been involved for many years in

the development and in the review of various different technologies. As I mentioned in my testimony, we are well beyond the

proof of concept stage for a number of different technologies. We

believe that if development efforts continue at the present rate,

technologies meeting the IMO standard will be available by 2009
12

at least for some ships. Several technologies are already ready for

field demonstrations, full-scale tests.

Mr. GILCHREST. What do you need in order to implement those

full-stage tests?

Mr. KEENEY. I think we need to continue the existing program.

Mr. GILCHREST. Do you need this legislation passed to do that?

Mr. KEENEY. We can continue the testing of that technology. I

think what we are talking about today is setting a standard that

the technology can aim towards.

Mr. GILCHREST. Do you want in the legislation to set a standard,

or would you rather us say that we accept the IMO standard of less

than 10 organisms greater than 50 microns and we can eventually

do better than that, some flexibility in the actual standard?

Mr. KEENEY. Well, NOAA believes that the correct standard is

the standard that we negotiated at the Ballast Water Convention

in February of 2004 which is .0 organisms per cubic meter greater

than 50 microns and 0.1 organisms per milliliter for organisms between 10 and 50 microns, which again is the same and is the

standard that we agreed to as a group going into the IMO negotiations.

Mr. GILCHREST. I see. We may have a second round. I guess I

was in time. I must be close to five minutes.

I will yield to Mr. Filner.

Mr. FILNER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

While I don’t often agree with the Administration on a lot of

things, I think your support of S. 363 is appropriate, and I think

if we are going to get a bill this year, we ought to start with that.

From my perspective for the Pacific Coast, with all this talk

about the Great Lakes, let me bring in the Pacific Coast. Would

you agree with my assessment that, number one, if you are going

between two biological different ecosystems like California and Hawaii, we should not exempt the U.S.-flag ships from the ballast

water treatment requirements?

Admiral SALERNO. Sir, we believe that ultimately we should not

exempt those vessels, that there is a risk of transmission of aquatic

nuisance from ecosystems within the United States. Currently, our

regulations do not provide for ballast water exchange even for ships

on a coastwise voyage unless they transit outside 200 miles.

Now, in the example you cited, there is that opportunity to exchange ballast water beyond 200 miles, but on more domestic

coastwise voyages, most ships do not transit outside 200 miles and

therefore have the ability, under current regulations, to enter with

that ballast water. Typically, they would discharge that ballast

water in order to take on cargo. So that risk exists, and it is something that we would anticipate addressing with the discharge

standard.

Mr. FILNER. I think that is the difference between S. 363 and the

draft coming out of this Committee.

Secondly, we have a lot of ships that go from San Diego or other

parts of California to Mexico and return, and they may not have

enough time to treat all the water before they enter back in our

port. Do you agree that there should be a designated ballast water

exchange for such situations or landside water treatment discharge?
13

Admiral SALERNO. Sir, a designated ballast water exchange area

is something that would be considered, but we don’t have any specifics that I can offer you at this point. It is something that could

be considered as part of the ballast water treatment.

Mr. FILNER. Under S. 363, I think you can.

Do you want to add anything, Mr. Keeney?

Mr. KEENEY. Yes, Congressman Filner, just last week, NOAA

hosted a conference in Seattle that looked at alternative exchange

zones, and we would be willing to share with the Committee staff

any information we get out of that session.

Mr. FILNER. I agree with the Chairman on the standards issue.

I think we ought to have a higher standard than is proposed in the

IMO regulations, and I think I heard you say you agree with that,

both of you.

Admiral SALERNO. Yes, sir, that is correct.

Mr. KEENEY. That is correct. Mr. Filner, again, just to give you

an idea, the standard that we went into the IMO negotiations with,

that we still agree to, is 100 times more stringent than the IMO

standard. So we are well beyond what we think is needed beyond

the IMO standard.

Mr. FILNER. Let me just quickly ask you a question about the

MARPOL Annex VI. In Annex V, ships are subject to it, even if

they are just transiting through our waters, say going from Mexico

to Canada off of San Diego. Aren’t we concerned about the pollution coming from that ship to California equally as if they were on

our shores? Is that clear? Did I hear you clear?

Mr. GILCHREST. It is clear. It is clear to me. That was a good

question.

Admiral SALERNO. Sir, I would like to maybe get back to you on

that one. There may be some law of the sea issues there for vessels.

Mr. FILNER. I think I and Chairman Gilchrest would agree that

we ought to have that authority in VI, similar as it was in V.

Also, in giving the Coast Guard the authority to enforce air pollution standards, the Coast Guard, as I understand it, enforces

Annex V even if that country of the foreign flag does not subscribe

to the international treaty. Shouldn’t we do the same for Annex VI?

If they are in our waters but not a signatory to the treaty,

shouldn’t we enforce that?

Admiral SALERNO. Yes, sir. Generally, with all the annexes to

MARPOL that we are party to, we would hold any ships from other

nations, coming into our waters, accountable for those standards,

regardless of whether they are parties to that convention.

Mr. FILNER. Is there anything that would diminish my State of

California from establishing more rigorous air pollution standards

in the proposed legislation?

Admiral SALERNO. Sir, to give you a more complete answer, I

would like to consult with our EPA colleagues, but my understanding is that the rights of the States to impose more strict standards

is preserved.

Mr. FILNER. I just want to bring that to the record, Mr. Chairman, to make sure we continue that practice.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you, Mr. Filner.

Dr. Ehlers?
14

Mr. EHLERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

First of all, I have to register considerable disappointment with

the IMO standards, and I am pleased to hear that you are both discussing far more stringent standards than the IMO. I totally agree

with that.

A simple question about scientific expertise: I am not at all familiar with the Coast Guard’s scientific abilities. Admiral, can you

give me a quick summary of what you have available to you to do

this work scientifically?

You mentioned the EPA a moment ago. Do you make use of their

scientists, or do you have a strong scientific effort within your

agency?

Admiral SALERNO. We do work with other agencies that have

specific scientific expertise. The Coast Guard also has scientific experts on staff as well as a research and development center which

provides scientific capability as well.

Mr. EHLERS. Do you make use of NOAA’s scientists?

Admiral SALERNO. We are working with NOAA in the demonstration projects, yes, sir.

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Keeney, do you believe you have sufficient scientific expertise within your agency to resolve these issues?

Mr. KEENEY. Mr. Chairman, of course, we do have significant scientific expertise within NOAA. We also try to take advantage of expertise through other organization. As you know, through Sea

Grant and through our Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory and through our demonstration program, we have competitive grant programs that try to bring in top scientists from all over

the Country. As I mentioned in my testimony, we have really

worked with over 20 different technologies and have made some

significant advances in many of them.

Mr. EHLERS. Thank you.

Just a little side note, my colleague, Mr. Hoekstra from Michigan

who was here earlier, introduced a bill some years ago requiring

treatment of ballast waters. This mirrored a bill that eventually

passed the Michigan Legislature and is in effect.

I recall someone affiliated with the shipping industry was on my

doorstep the next day, saying, you can’t do that.

I said, why not?

He said, well, it is far too expensive.

I said, well, I am willing to listen to that argument. In fact, I am

quite willing to say we shouldn’t have those standards as long as

we simply pass the law of making the shipping industry liable for

any critters that get into our waters.

He said, well, we couldn’t possibly do that. It would be way too

expensive.

I said, that is my point.

That is precisely what we face. This is a very, very costly problem for the United States and for the State Governments. If we

think aquatic species are bad at $13 billion a year, the terrestrial

ones are far more expensive, well over $100 billion a year. That is

a lot of money. So I think we have a very strong base, not only ecologically but also financially for supporting very, very high standards for anything coming into this Country.
15

Admiral, I am impressed with what you are saying and what you

are trying to do, and that is refreshing to me because, frankly, I

have been very disappointed in the performance of the Coast Guard

up to this point.

The Congress first passed a law in the early nineties and gave

the responsibility to the Coast Guard, and absolutely nothing happened. In the mid–1990’s, another law was passed which more explicitly put requirements on the Coast Guard; nothing happened.

When I first introduced my bill dealing with this issue, I immediately had a visit from one of your predecessors trying to persuade

me that we couldn’t possibly be that stringent.

I hope that you are really taking this to heart and really trying

to establish decent standards. I, for one, and there are many in the

Congress who feel the same way, question whether or not the

Coast Guard should even be involved in view of their track record.

And so, I hope you will work very, very diligently on this issue to

try to overcome the perception that the Coast Guard has neither

the interest nor the expertise to deal with this problem. I just

wanted to get that off my chest.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I will yield back.

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you very much, Dr. Ehlers.

I don’t know if this is Mr. Baird or Dr. Baird.

Mr. BAIRD. Today, it is Dr. Baird.

Mr. GILCHREST. Dr. Baird.

Mr. BAIRD. First of all, I thank the Chairman for convening this,

and I thank the panelists.

An issue that is very important in my particular region right

now, we are obviously very concerned about the ballast water and

ultimately about zebra mussels infiltrating potentially the West

Coast, but particularly prominent recently has been the proposal to

establish a number of LNG terminals on the West Coast.

I wonder if either of the panelists, I know you may not be prepared for this. I wonder if you have any insights into two things:

one, ballast water issues vis-a-vis LNG ships, but two, how the regulatory structure of the sites’ terminals would interface with any

proposed regulations for ballast water.

Admiral SALERNO. Sir, regarding ballast water and LNG ships,

the regulations that would apply to any ship would also apply to

LNG ships. Typically, the LNG ships, when they arrive in the

United States, are loaded, and then they would take on ballast

water in the U.S. port to return back to their point of origin. So,

it is not quite the same risk issue that we have with vessels that

are discharging ballast water in our waters.

Mr. BAIRD. It is your take then that the FERC siting process that

was passed in the Energy Bill a year or so ago would not necessarily be impacted or would not necessarily override any ballast

water discharge issues.

Admiral SALERNO. I am not as familiar with the FERC issue, sir,

so perhaps we could get back to you on the record.

Mr. BAIRD. I don’t think it has been tested yet, but just for the

record, I would say that this should be one of the factors that gets

considered in the EIS, as far as siting LNG terminals, that we look

at this issue in general.

Admiral SALERNO. I am told that it is being considered, sir.
16

Mr. BAIRD. Being considered, meaning looking at this interface?

Admiral SALERNO. As part of the Environmental Impact Statement.

Mr. BAIRD. Excellent, good, that is what I wanted to know.

I thank the Chairman and yield back.

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you, Dr. Baird.

Dr. Boustany?

Mr. BOUSTANY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I have a question for Mr. Keeney. Your testimony also states that

the Administration prefers to see a standard that would encourage

of new technologies rather than being based on current available

technology. In light of your comment that developing technologies

are not even ready for full-scale evaluation by the Coast Guard,

shouldn’t we start with an achievable standard and then ratchet it

down as better technologies become available?

Mr. KEENEY. Congressman, we believe that the technology development is moving in the right direction and that, but for a standard, the technology development would be much further along than

it is. So we believe that a standard actually can be very helpful in

giving the developers of the technology a target to shoot for. Therefore, and because of the vast experience we have had with dealing

with various technologies, we believe that they are well along the

way to meet a strict standard, and we are confident that can happen, and we think, therefore, even though the technology may not

be actually able to be applied today, that it could be ready when

needed.

Mr. BOUSTANY. Thank you.

Have existing ballast water treatment technologies been demonstrated to effectively remove or kill small organisms, bacteria,

and viruses in the ballast water?

Mr. KEENEY. Yes, they have. There are several technologies that

can kill organisms less than 50 microns. For example, ozone and

nitrogen injection are currently being investigated. There also has

been substantial research on the potential utilities of biocides, such

as hypochloride which is used in sewage treatment facilities.

Through the Ballast Water Technology Development Program at

NOAA and the National Sea Grant College Program, NOAA is

funding projects dealing specifically with technology to monitor

treatment effectiveness.

Mr. BOUSTANY. Is there an estimate of the number or impact of

unidentified invasive species that potentially fall into a smaller

class size? Do we have any information this now?

Mr. KEENEY. I am not sure about numbers, sir, but harmful algal

blooms are a category that do fall into that, and dinoflagellates do

fall into that arena that we believe are very, very important with

regards to their potential impact on water quality and human

health.

Mr. BOUSTANY. Thank you.

Could you comment on how the international community arrived

at the standards that were established in the convention? Could either of you do that?

Admiral SALERNO. At the IMO, of course, the member nations get

together in a committee format and hammer out the standards that

they feel they can all live with. In this case, the result was not re-
17

flective of the U.S. position. As Mr. Keeney mentioned, we went in

with a very aggressive proposed standard, discharge standard that

was not what was ultimately adopted, but the success of this overall process is that we did retain the ability to establish a national

standard under the conditions of the convention which is more

strict than which may apply worldwide.

Mr. BOUSTANY. What data or observations were used to support

standards that were established in the convention and the standards that were proposed by our U.S. delegation?

Mr. KEENEY. The standard that the U.S. went in there with was

the result of a technical workshop sponsored by the National Academy of Sciences and basically represents a zero risk of species invasions.

Mr. BOUSTANY. Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, that is all I have.

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you, Dr. Boustany.

I am going to have to go, and I think Dr. Boustany is going to

take the Chair, but I have one last quick question and Dr.

Boustany will have a second round as we complete the questions

on this first one.

Regarding the standards that the U.S. went in with to recommend to the IMO and then the IMO adopted a certain standard,

does the Coast Guard and NOAA, do you both agree? Does the

Coast Guard and NOAA agree on the standard, or are there still

differences of opinions on what the standard should be between the

Coast Guard and NOAA?

Is the IMO standard of less than 10 organisms greater than 50

microns in size per cubic meter of ballast water, is that the standard at the IMO?

Admiral SALERNO. Sir, both of us would agree that the IMO

standard is not stringent enough.

Mr. GILCHREST. And you both agree that you want to be more

stringent.

Admiral SALERNO. That is correct, yes, sir.

Mr. GILCHREST. Do you both agree on how more stringent?

Admiral SALERNO. That is yet to be decided.

Mr. GILCHREST. Yet to be decided.

Admiral SALERNO. We have a range.

Mr. GILCHREST. So we can decide that, can’t we?

Admiral SALERNO. You certainly can, yes, sir.

Mr. GILCHREST. But we want to be more strict than the standard

right now at IMO.

Admiral SALERNO. We do want to be more strict than the IMO

standard. What is currently taking place is that we are evaluating

a number of different standards within the range that Mr. Keeney

mentioned, looking at the economic and the environmental aspects

of that as part of a programmatic Environmental Impact Statement. Through that process, we will be able to better determine

what the most appropriate standard would be.

Mr. GILCHREST. I see.

I yield to Mr. Filner and turn over the Chair to Dr. Boustany.

Mr. FILNER. I think just for the record, I think the U.S. at that

meeting proposed 0.01 organisms per cubic meter of water. The delegation had some standard, right?
18

Admiral SALERNO. That is correct, sir. It was a range, the 0.01

to 1, if I understand correctly.

Mr. KEENEY. Actually, I believe, Mr. Filner, we actually did

agree that the standard should be 0.01 organisms per cubic meter,

greater than 50 microns, and 0.01 organisms per milliliter for organisms between 10 and 50 microns, and that was agreed to by the

delegation.

Mr. GILCHREST. I want to thank Dr. Filner for that question.

Now, here is Dr. Boustany.

Mr. BOUSTANY. [Presiding] Before we get to the second round of

questions, we will recognize Mr. Diaz-Balart.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Very briefly, it may sound like kind of a weird thing, but in Florida, the fifth largest port in Florida is the Miami River. As you all

know, those are actually mom and pops. It is not a port. It is a

number of small businesses.

I want to talk a little bit about the air emissions portion and

probably the other part as well. How would that affect those?

We are talking about mostly small freighters that go to the Caribbean. A lot of them are very small. These new standards, how do

they deal with that situation? Does it treat them all the same, including the case of small little freighters that are in some cases one

freighter that is owned by one company or one individual that then

docks in the Miami River?

It is not a huge port facility. It would be a small business. How

do you deal with that? Does it affect that situation at all, or does

it have no effect on them?

Admiral SALERNO. Regarding the air pollution from the smaller

ships, sir, the convention itself applies to ships of a certain size.

Many of the ships in the Miami River would be non-solace vessels.

However, we would still, under our domestic legislation, impose

standards on vessels visiting our ports.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BOUSTANY. We will start off with the second round of questioning now. Mr. Filner, you are recognized.

Mr. FILNER. I just want to clarify again for the record my one

question, Mr. Chairman.

The IMO adopted a standard for discharge a thousand times

higher than the U.S. proposal, and the U.S. proposed 0.01 organisms per cubic meter. I assume you would support something in

that range and not the IMO standard.

Mr. KEENEY. That is correct, Congressman Filner. Actually, it

was a hundred times less stringent than the U.S. position, and we

would certainly support something within that range. What our negotiating position was at the IMO convention was on the one side;

on the other side was what the IMO standard eventually ended up

being.

Mr. FILNER. I don’t mean to argue with you on a hundred versus

a thousand, but if our proposal is 0.01, isn’t 10 a thousand times

that?

Mr. KEENEY. I am sorry. You actually are correct, of course.

Sorry about that.

Mr. FILNER. We have too many Ph.Ds up here in these seats to

try to get away with that.
19

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BOUSTANY. Dr. Ehlers, you are recognized.

Mr. EHLERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

First, a short one, the California U.S. District Court recently

ruled that the EPA does have responsibility for aquatic invasive

species under the Clean Water Act and also in relationship to ballast water. How is that going to affect your work?

It is being appealed, by the way, to the Ninth Circuit, but I suspect they will uphold it. What impact do you expect this will have?

Admiral SALERNO. Sir, if I may, the court decision would not

change the Coast Guard’s authority to approve ballast water treatment systems, and as mentioned, we are working with EPA in that

approval process.

Mr. EHLERS. Is that your opinion, too, Mr. Keeney?

Mr. KEENEY. That is correct.

Mr. EHLERS. Next, getting on to the NOBOB vessels, the current

law requires that all vessels equipped with ballast water tanks

must carry out ballast water exchange prior to entering U.S. waters. However, the Coast Guard exempts vessels that report no ballast on board. Why and how can you exempt them under the current law because the current law doesn’t say all vessels with ballast water? It says equipped with ballast water tanks which includes all of them.

Admiral SALERNO. Sir, the way the regulations are structured, if

there is no ballast on board, a ship coming across would not have

any ballast to exchange. What the guidelines that we have issued

propose and suggest to the shipowner is that the conduct flushing

of those tanks, so that although it is not an exchange, it does rinse

out the tanks and remove, to the greatest extent possible, any residual organisms or sediments that are in those tanks. That is not

a regulation. It is a policy which I mentioned earlier is being reviewed in conjunction with our Canadian colleagues. What we have

seen so far is that there is a fairly high rate of compliance by the

shipowners.

Mr. EHLERS. That concerns me a great deal because that especially affects the Great Lakes because they may, in the course of

their travel through the Great Lakes, take water in and discharge

water. So I really think it should be part of the regulations rather

than simply a guideline. A guideline doesn’t guarantee it is going

to happen.

Admiral SALERNO. Yes, sir, we would agree. The guidelines are

a interim step.

Mr. EHLERS. When do you expect to change the regulations?

Admiral SALERNO. Sir, we are really just now looking at what is

feasible, so I don’t have an exact date.

Mr. EHLERS. I would guess if it is not done soon, you are likely

to face suit from the environmental organizations, too, because it

is very clear in the law that it says all vessels equipped with ballast water tanks, not just those that are carrying water.

The second issue is, of course, the one I mentioned with the

Great Lakes. This presents a huge problem in the Great Lakes if

they are not actually examined. Do you just take the captain’s word

for it when that ballast water has been exchanged, or do you run
20

some tests on the ballast water to see what type of water is in

there or what type of organisms are present?

Admiral SALERNO. The ships are required to maintain records

which we do verify, and we also have the authority to test ballast

water and can determine the salinity of the ballast water.

Mr. EHLERS. I would suggest that would be very good for you to

at least take samples from every ship. You may not have the

money or the time to test every one, but if you take samples, at

least the shipowner knows and the captain knows that there is a

high probability that they be tested.

I don’t think you can distinguish between ballast water and no

ballast water because of the large number residual organisms in

the tank. I think the have to be treated equally. I would encourage

you to begin that as soon as possible because I am sure some environmental group is going to come up with a lawsuit which you will

lose, and that takes a lot of time, money, and effort away from your

work if you have to do that.

With that, I yield back.

Mr. BOUSTANY. I thank the gentleman.

One final round of questions here: The draft bill would direct the

Coast Guard to utilize the existing STEP program to encourage onboard testing and evaluation of experimental ballast water management systems. What have been the major difficulties in activating the program and commencing testing aboard of oceangoing vessels?

Admiral SALERNO. Sir, we have had five applications for the

STEP program. The first two were very incomplete, and we could

not proceed any further with them. The remaining three look very

promising. So we envision that we will have some prototype testing

under the STEP program in the near future.

Mr. BOUSTANY. I thank the Admiral.

Would a STEP program at full participation levels provide sufficient data over a period of one or two years perhaps to make a determination that experimental ballast water management systems

are functioning at a sufficient level to begin the establishment of

ballast water discharge standards as provided under the draft bill?

Admiral SALERNO. Yes, sir, the STEP systems would provide valuable information as well as other prototype systems that are being

evaluated as part of the NOAA program.

Mr. BOUSTANY. I thank the Admiral. That is all I have.

Mr. Filner?

With that, thank you, gentleman. We appreciate your testimony

and your answers to the questioning.

We will proceed now with the second panel.

Mr. EHLERS. May I just make a comment while we are going

through the change here? I just want to comment that there is a

serious proposal floating around to close the Great Lakes, to close

the St. Lawrence seaway, I should say, to any shipping. I don’t

know why it is being seriously considered, but it is a serious proposal being entertained because a study has shown that the cost

of the invasive species is greater than the net income to the shipping industry. They are contesting that, but I want to get that

statement on the record. Thank you.
21

Mr. BOUSTANY. Let me begin by welcoming our second panel.

First, we have Ms. Catherine Hazlewood, Senior Policy Advisor

with the Nature Conservancy; Ms. Kathy Metcalf, Director of Maritime Affairs, Chamber of Shipping of America; and Mr. Donald

O’Hare, Vice President of the World Shipping Council.

Welcome.

We look forward to your testimony. Mr. O’Hare, you may begin.

TESTIMONY OF DONALD L. O’HARE, VICE PRESIDENT, WORLD

SHIPPING COUNCIL; KATHY J. METCALF, DIRECTOR OF

MARITIME AFFAIRS, CHAMBER OF SHIPPING OF AMERICA;

CATHERINE L. HAZLEWOOD, SENIOR POLICY ADVISOR,

GLOBAL INVASIVE SPECIES INITIATIVE, THE NATURE CONSERVANCY

Mr. O’HARE. Ranking Member Filner and members of the Committee, we appreciate the opportunity to speak to you today on

these critical environmental issues that have been very important

to the shipping industry for the past five to eight years.

My name is Donald O’Hare. I am Vice President of the World

Shipping Council, a non-profit trade association representing international ocean carriers. We were established to address public policy issues of interest to the international liner shipping industry.

Our members include the full spectrum of ocean carriers from large

container and roll-on/roll-off carriers to car carriers. Last year, we

carried approximately 93 percent of U.S. imports and exports or approximately $500 billion worth of American commerce.

The World Shipping Council and the Chamber of Shipping of

America, from whom you will be hearing shortly, are both members

of a very large industry coalition which represents the carriers as

well as maritime labor. For five years, this coalition has been advocating ratification of the MARPOL Annex VI treaty regulating vessel air emissions and seeking an effective ballast water management system.

In 2004, the report by the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy

raised the awareness level, both in Government and the private

sector,, of the fragile nature of our oceans and coastlines. We applaud this Committee’s leadership in dealing with these two issues

of critical importance to the long term well-being of those invaluable resources.

Mr. Chairman, since the Chamber of Shipping of America and

the World Shipping Council are both members of this industry coalition, I will focus my remarks primarily on MARPOL Annex VI,

and Ms. Metcalf will focus hers on ballast water management. We

are in harmony on all of those issues, and the members of both of

our organizations represent the vast majority of vessels coming in

and out of U.S. ports.

We thank you for holding the first Congressional hearing, Mr.

Chairman, on implementing legislation for the MARPOL Annex VI

treaty which internationally regulates air emissions from large

oceangoing ships. As the Chairman pointed out in his opening

statement, the Senate gave its advice and consent to ratification of

the treaty this past April, and it is appropriate, we feel, that Congress enact the implementing legislation during this session.
22

Shipping is an inherently international business with more than

30,000 vessels flying the flags of more than 100 countries and serving the commerce of virtually every nation of the world. International regulation of vessel air emissions is a critical and timely

issue, particularly here in the United States and in other major

trading countries which host large numbers of vessels each year in

their ports and waters. According to the U.S. Maritime Administration, commercial ships made more than 55,000 calls at U.S. ports

last year.

U.S. ratification of MARPOL Annex VI will be a major first step

toward improving vessel air emissions and air quality at U.S. ports

and in U.S. waters.

We would like to provide some brief background on MARPOL

Annex VI for the Committee.

The treaty is the sixth annex of the International Convention for

the Prevention of Pollution from Ships. It was adopted by the

International Maritime Organization in 1997 after five years of negotiation in which the United States played a leadership role.

Annex VI sets limits of sulfur oxide and nitrogen oxide emissions

from ship exhaust and prohibits deliberate emission of ozone-depleting substances. The treaty also provides for the establishment,

through the IMO, of Sulfur Emission Control Areas or SECAs with

stricter sulfur control.

In order for the treaty to enter into force, 15 countries with at

least 50 percent of world merchant tonnage needed to ratify. That

threshold was met in May of 2004, and the treaty entered into

force in May of 2005. This provided the incentive for other countries to ratify, and as of June 1 of this year, 35 countries with more

than 70 percent of world tonnage are parties to the treaty, including most of the United States’ major trading partners.

Here in the United States, two important things happened regarding this issue in 2003.

In January, the Environmental Protection Agency published a

final rule establishing vessel air emission standard for U.S.-flag

vessels. The standards mirrored Annex VI standards. The rule also

committed EPA to establish stricter standards for U.S.-flag ships

by 2007 and to seek comment on its potential regulatory authority

over non-U.S.-flag at the same time. EPA also recognized in the

rule that the Administration was seeking ratification of Annex VI

and that they, EPA, would work at the IMO to develop stricter

standards that would be accepted and applied internationally to all

ships.

In May, the Bush Administration sent Annex VI to the Senate

for its advice and consent. This was done with the full support and

encouragement of the maritime industry. The Administration also

began an interagency process to draft implementing legislation for

the treaty.

These two efforts were not coincidental. The Administration recognized the need for an international solution to this issue.

It remains an open legal question as to the scope of EPA’s authority to regulate engine emission standards for foreign-flag ships

which make over 90 percent of the vessel calls at U.S. ports. Accordingly, if the United States wishes to have clear and certain

legal authority over ships of all registries and have a meaningful
23

impact on air quality in our ports and waters, we must ratify

MARPOL Annex VI.

As I stated earlier, the Senate gave its advice and consent in

April. However, the Administration has made it clear that it will

not deposit the U.S. instrument of ratification until the implementing legislation is enacted.

Work has begun at IMO to develop stricter SOx and NOx standards and to regulate emission of particulate matter. While the U.S.

is participating in that process, we will have no real influence over

final decisions and no vote for or against the new standards unless

the U.S. is a party to the treaty. U.S. ratification of MARPOL

Annex VI is essential to enable the United States to work with our

trading partners, to strengthen the treaty, and establish meaningful international air emission standards for the first time.

Mr. Chairman, we fully recognize that the current standards in

Annex VI need to be updated in order to bring about meaningful

improvement in vessel emissions. It is important for the United

States Government to be an effective participant in developing

those standards which can only happen if our trading partners

know that we will implement those standards as a party to the

convention.

The Council and our coalition partners have supported the Administration’s draft implementing legislation for Annex VI which

was sent to Congress last October. We understand that this draft

was achieved after extensive interagency discussion and compromise.

We have reviewed your Committee’s proposed amendments to

that draft bill, which primarily relate to agency jurisdiction, and

we are neutral on them. Our industry has consistently remained

neutral on matters of Government agency jurisdiction in environmental matters. Our concern, however, is that such jurisdictional

issues could delay the enactment of this important legislation and

thus the U.S. ratification of MARPOL Annex VI.

We urge the Subcommittee to send this bill to the full Committee

as soon as possible, so that it may take action before the August

recess. We believe it is important to leave time to resolve any differences which may exist between the House and the Senate or between the Congress and the Administration, so that the legislation

can be enacted this year and the treaty ratification process can be

completed.

We thank the Committee for the opportunity to present our

views on vessel air emissions, and Ms. Metcalf will present the industry coalition views on ballast water management. Thank you.

Mr. BOUSTANY. Thank you, Mr. O’Hare.

We are expecting a vote probably sometime in the next 15 minutes. So I will ask you to try to stick to the five-minute rule, and

we will try to get some questioning going. Thank you.

With that, Ms. Metcalf, you may proceed.

Ms. METCALF. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the

Subcommittee.

Dr. Ehlers, it is always good to see you. I think we have been

seeing each other for about the last 10 years on this issue.

I am about to do something that I will apologize in advance for,

but I am hopeful that it will be of benefit to the members and to
24

the Subcommittee in doing this. I am throwing my testimony right

out the window, what I was going to say to you, and try and restructure it off the cuff.

Excuse me, sir?

Mr. FILNER. Have those papers been tested for microorganisms

that you are going to throw away?

Ms. METCALF. Well, the critters, yes, sir.

I noticed a certain theme running through the questions that you

provided the first panel, and I would like to hopefully address those

aspects to your satisfaction.

Very briefly, my name is Kathy Metcalf. I am testifying today on

behalf of the Chamber of Shipping of America.

With all due respect and to shorten our testimony time, everything he said about MARPOL Annex VI, we agree with. Certainly,

to enable the United States to keep its leadership role at IMO and

making more stringent air emission reductions for marine vessels

and to allow the U.S. EPA to begin to construct Sulfur Emission

Control Areas within the United States, it is imperative that the

U.S. become a party. So that is all I will say very quickly on Annex

VI.

There is a mantra that the coalition has had for a number of

years relative to the ballast water issue. It is no surprise to most

of the folks whom we have worked with, but it can be summarized

in one simple sentence: We need a national ballast water program,

and we need it yesterday.

The industry from time to time has been portrayed as unwilling

to take action. I am not suggesting that there were not members

of the industry that were slow to move as were other aspects. What

I will tell you is that, as of right now with 27 member companies,

we have five companies that have onboard shipboard systems that

are under test. They have not been approved under STEP because

the administrative part of the program and the approvals and the

package that you have to submit isn’t there. We have one individual company that has spent over $5 million on testing an ozone

system aboard a West Coast tanker. So there truly is a commitment by the majority of the industry to solve this problem.

The mantra that we have created for years is as follows: We

would like to see an international system. We need an international system because, unfortunately, we don’t live in the cocoon

of our own coastal waters. We would like the national program to

be as consistent with an international framework as it possibly

could be, and we believe that recently we have gone on record and

testified in support of S. 363 which, as was indicated by the earlier

panel, very closely parallels the IMO convention.

There are some areas of concern, the standard not the least of

which, but I would also suggest to you in the discussions that you

have, and I have said a number of times, the standard can be set

at zero or a million as long as there is a realistic pre-review process

before that standard is implemented. We don’t know what we can

do yet with technology, and that is the step we need to take.

We also know we need to do something, about what is the less

than satisfactory concept of ballast water exchange. That is what

is creating a lot of the no deviate and delay issues. That is what

is creating a lot of why we need a coastwise exemption issue. As
25

an example, a company on the West Coast has estimated that on

a one-week coastal trip, they will add one additional day to comply

with the new California State regulations at $50,000 a day charter

hire on an average. That is about $2.4 million a year for one ship.

Multiply it by the number of ships out there, and that gets fairly

pricey.

What my position is on this is that we don’t want ballast waste

exchange. We want to find a treatment solution, and that is what

we are committed to doing. We have worked closely with and it has

been our honor to work with the U.S. delegation at MEPC, and we

support ratification of the ballast water convention, acknowledging

that each country can make more stringent provisions, which worries us but it is something we are going to have to live with because we need a structure, both internationally and nationally.

We need more explicit, rather than less explicit, legislation. The

legislation that is proposed, we support most of the concepts in

that, but we are concerned that there are a number of issues that

are missing in that bill that we think the synthesis of that bill with

363 could be helpful.

I will wrap up very briefly, Mr. Chairman.

There are two very big points of contention. One is preemption.

Right now, we have a number of State programs that are at odds,

one with the other and with the IMO convention and with the Federal program. A shipmaster that wants to comply needs a staff of

attorneys to try and figure out, well, at this port, I have to do this,

but at this port, I have to do that.

We believe and support the creation of a strong, robust Federal

program that is the program this Nation employs in its waters

without other State programs diverging from that.

We need a quantitative standard in the legislation. The NEPA

analysis that is involved with the creation of an environmental

standard by regulation can take five to seven years, I am told, but

if it is contained in the legislation, it is far shorter.

The last issue I would like to just briefly touch on is the issue

associated with the California court case. The appeal process is not

started. The remedy order is still pending, last that I know. We believe that there should be language in there that specifically carves

out ballast water discharges from ships under the enacted statute

which we hope will have the markings of all of you who have distinguished yourselves in leadership on this issue.

Lastly, Mr. Ehlers and Mr. Gilchrest, this bill that has been out

there, we do not object to a comprehensive aquatics bill. Our only

concern with that and the similar S. 770 over in the Senate is the

budgetary potential delays associated with budgetary issues which

we will leave to the experts to deal with. Certainly, to take the provisions of this bill, S. 363 and to use that as the ballast water portion of a comprehensive bill would be certainly endorsable by the

industry.

Thank you.

Mr. BOUSTANY. I thank you.

I will assure all three witnesses that your full testimony will be

included in the record.

Ms. Hazlewood, you have been waiting patiently. You may proceed.
26

Ms. HAZLEWOOD. Thank you. I tend to speak quickly, so maybe

that will come in handy today.

Good morning. I am Catherine Hazlewood, a Senior Policy Advisor with the Nature Conservancy’s Global Invasive Species Initiative.

I wish to thank the Subcommittee for its consistent support of

legislation to prevent new invasions from aquatic invasive species.

The Nature Conservancy has previously endorsed both the National Aquatic Invasive Species Act as well as the Aquatic Invasive

Species Research Act, legislation introduced with significant leadership and support from this Subcommittee. So we thank you for

your efforts on that.

We additionally welcome today’s opportunity to comment on prospects for more targeted proposals to look at invasive species from

ships’ ballast water. The Conservancy has not taken a position on

the draft bill to implement MARPOL annex with regard to air pollution, and so I will focus my comments on the draft ballast bill.

I appreciate your staff’s collaborative efforts to address this

issue, and we look forward to providing continued assistance.

As you may know, we are an international non-profit organization, dedicated to protecting biological diversity. While we own and

manage a large, private network of nature preserves in the world,

in fact, the largest private network in the world, we recognize we

cannot achieve our mission simply through site-based efforts alone.

For this reason, about five years ago, the Conservancy created the

Global Invasive Species Initiative within our organization to create

a core team of specialists who could help enhance our own capacity

to prevent invasive species and work to advocate for better policies

to help us prevent them. We do so through a combination of advocacy, through collaborative efforts with industry, through sitebased management on our own preserves, and through promotion

of research and development.

As the Subcommittee well knows, invasive species pose an imminent and growing threat to our freshwater and marine biodiversity

in the world. I won’t tell you the things that you already well

know. In fact, I would like to take the opportunity to speak to some

of the issues that have been raised by previous people testifying

today.

Broadly speaking, I want to touch briefly on the issue of the

standard. I will submit, when I first saw the standard proposed to

IMO, I looked at it thought, oh my God, that is page of numbers,

and I promptly called four different scientists with different agencies. I then called ballast management technology vendors. I then

called industry.

I said, so, what do you think? It looks like a lot of numbers to

me, and it seems like they have looked at the organisms, and it

seems like they have looked at the right indicators. Does that make

sense?

Then I heard the story that what was going into IMO and what

came out of IMO, they simply moved the decimal point three

places. While the science going into the IMO might have been intelligent to a lawyer’s mind, the science coming out of the IMO might

not have made as much sense.
27

I think to some extent, similarly with industry, we thought that

if you would like to set a numeric standard as a floor in your legislation, then we would encourage a review process to make sure it

is the right standard. Where we probably differ from industry a bit

is that we would like to ensure a review process prior to the establishment of the numeric floor, and the review process should detail

that technology which moves forward forces improvement over

time. We simply don’t know our current technological capacity to

address invasive species, but it seems that we need to make improvements on this important issue.

I recognize industry’s need for some consistency in their economic

constraints, and so we would welcome perhaps consideration of the

factors that the Agencies should consider in reviewing the standard, including economic factors.

Secondly, I would like to ask the Committee to consider addressing a few additional sources of shipboard invasive species, such as

NOBOBs and ships engaging in coastal traffic. As Mr. Keeney mentioned earlier today, NOBOBs are posing a problem with our Great

Lakes where about 80 percent of the ships currently entering the

Great Lakes do so under this regulatory exemption. These ships do

carry residual ballast water, and our thought is that they could be

subject to ballast management measures without imposing significant delays in their voyage time or significant technology expenses.

We would urge the Subcommittee to continue a lot of the staff’s

efforts in looking at this issue. We commend the staff for some

prior work on this issue, and we suggest moving ahead quickly on

this issue.

Similarly, it has been previously mentioned, the issue of coastwise traffic. We would suggest including coastal traffic in the draft

ballast bill. We recognize that S. 363 does include language that we

would recommend on coastal traffic and that we would encourage

your incorporation on this issue. On the West Coast, one of the

greatest problems facing the Northwest Coast are the ships that

enter first into San Francisco Bay and then continue up the coast.

The San Francisco Bay is overrun with about 260 different invasive

species, and many of these species then are spread up the West

Coast.

Lastly, I would like to touch very briefly on the two controversial

issues that I recognize were mentioned, I thought very well, by Ms.

Metcalf’s remarks.

The issue of State preemption, my personal opinion is that State

preemption comes up where States are faced with the prospect of,

in their view, settling for a Federal program that may not afford

them adequate guarantees of moving ahead on this issue. For example, I heard from our staff in Washington that they would be potentially concerned about moving forward with this legislative proposal because it includes a coastwise exemption. Since the Washington State law deals with coastal traffic, they would prefer to be

able to continue with their State law.

I think that if the Federal proposal raised the bar high enough,

this would alleviate States’ concerns.

Additionally, I cannot speak to the litigation specifically since I

am not a litigant at this time, working for the Nature Conservancy,

but I would like to suggest that I think here, too, this is an issue
28

that needs to be addressed in legislation. In my mind, the States

and environmental groups that have supported Clean Water Act

application of this issue have done so largely out of frustration at

both the EPA and Coast Guard’s inadequacy in dealing with these

issues. They wish to bring all available Federal authorities to bear

on the situation.

I would encourage the Committee to think very carefully about

exemptions to the Clean Water Act and to just continue to work

through to figure out what are the tools available under the Clean

Water Act that we would like to emulate in further Federal legislation. These include tools like adequate State involvement through

delegated programs, even citizens who do evaluation and user fees.

I think these are all tools that are critically important and could

be brought to bear on this issue.

In conclusion, again, I welcome the leadership demonstrated by

the Subcommittee over the years in looking at this issue. I hope the

Subcommittee will take immediate action on the NOBOB issue. We

look forward to continued collaboration with your staff and other

stakeholders in developing the larger legislative proposal to address ballast management from ships.

Thank you.

Mr. BOUSTANY. We thank you.

Dr. Ehlers, you are recognized.

Mr. EHLERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I have several comments and questions. First of all, Ms. Metcalf,

I really appreciate your testimony and I hope you don’t understand

my earlier comment to be critical of the shipping industry because

that occurred at the very first introduction of the first bill, and I

have worked with the shippers or tried to.

I guess my one concern is, though, that I think it would have

been very, very helpful to have strong support from your community on my bill to do the research. Then your shipowners wouldn’t

have to be spending $5 million doing it. I would hope the Federal

Government would be funding that research and working together

with the shipping industry. Unfortunately, it is water over the

dam, but had that bill been passed when first introduced, most of

the questions we still have would have been resolved, at least the

scientific questions, and perhaps we would have had a better result

at the IMO.

I believe it is absolutely essential that we come to a uniform

standard for the shipping industry. I know from my years in Government that the worst thing you can have is to have multifaceted

regulatory Agencies, all of whom adopt different rules in different

ports. You have to know what you are dealing with. If the business

community can’t know what the rules are, it leads to critical uncertainty and expense. So I very much appreciate your testimony and

your comments.

I have a couple questions for Ms. Hazlewood. Your testimony

states that one new invasive species is established in the Great

Lakes on average every eight months. Has that rate decreased

since the establishment of ballast water exchange requirements in

the Great Lakes?

Ms. HAZLEWOOD. It has not, that I know of, decreased, and I

don’t know of recent studies in the last couple of years that would
29

speak to that issue. Just looking at the curve as it represents

maybe the last 40 years, the rate continues to curve, more or less.

It has not increased in part because the new traffic coming into the

Great Lakes hasn’t had a corollary increase. It seems to be about

leveled off over the last five to ten years.

Mr. EHLERS. You also note that monitoring and rapid response

capabilities are critical to minimize the spread of invasives once

they are introduced. What efforts are you aware of that are currently in place to monitor coastal ecosystems to identify new introductions of invasive species before they are completely established?

What do we have going on now?

Ms. HAZLEWOOD. I would be happy to follow up in greater detail

with your staff on the variety of programs. I admit to only knowing

probably a few areas of current partnership between the Nature

Conservancy and Federal Agencies to provide monitoring on some

of the projects that we work on together.

For example, in Mr. Gilchrest’s District, we have a nutria monitoring project and eradication project, and it is hoped that with

continued Federal funding, that project will be successful in eradicating nutria in the Delmarva Peninsula.

In Washington, we have worked to provide early detection and

monitoring capacity to the State Wildlife Agency in monitoring for

spartina, an invasive weed in Willapa Bay, and based on the monitoring, we were able to help the State in developing an early detection and rapid response fund, an authority that would allow the

State to successfully try to eradicate that weed as well.

In other areas, I believe that success really is difficult in the

aquatic environment simply because we don’t have the same ability

to monitor them as easily as we might on land. For that reason,

I have admired and supported Mesa’s earlier provision of increased

Federal capacity to cooperate with States in early detection and

rapid response efforts, and I think that is a critical component of

legislation that we would greatly support.

Mr. EHLERS. Thank you.

Mr. O’Hare, I just want to comment again and give my sympathy

to your industry in terms of the emission problem, exactly the same

thing that I have said about the invasive species, that business and

industry need the certainty of regulation and also fair and equitable application of the regulations. I can certainly understand

your frustration up to this point, and I hope we can clarify that

even though some of that is outside the bailiwick of this Committee.

Mr. O’HARE. Can I respond to that?

Mr. EHLERS. Yes, please.

Mr. O’HARE. Thank you for those thoughts, Congressman Ehlers.

Just to emphasize our industry’s position, we are very eager to

see stricter standards brought about through MARPOL Annex VI.

We want international regulation. We would very much like to see

a low sulfur standard, so that the energy companies produce low

sulfur fuel that becomes commercially available on a worldwide

basis. We would very much like to see low nitrogen and particulate

matter levels, so that stack technology and emulsion technology

and those types of new developments are speeded up.
30

We appreciate your thoughts, and we look forward to a very improved MARPOL Annex VI in the coming years. Thank you.

Mr. EHLERS. Thank you.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BOUSTANY. Mr. O’Hare, Annex VI requires facilities to provide receptacles to receive ozone-depleting substances and solid

waste from exhaust cleaning systems, and the draft bill would implement this international requirement by requiring such facilities

at U.S. ports and terminals. Do any of our ports in our Country

have such pollution receptacle facilities?

Mr. O’HARE. They have. My understanding is they do have reception facilities but not necessarily for the kinds of chemicals and the

kinds of pollutants that we will be talking about that will come

from the types of technology that are being developed to eliminate

the nitrogen and the sulfur. They have reception facilities to deal

with some of the other MARPOL annexes, dealing with perhaps

noxious liquids and other various chemicals that are byproducts of

other processes but not necessarily those that are going to come out

of this annex.

So that is going to be something that will have to be developed.

It will have to be determined how that will be disposed of. Our

shipping industry along with the port industry will certainly be

eager to work on that.

Mr. BOUSTANY. Do we have any cost estimates in implementing

such systems?

Mr. O’HARE. We don’t have any cost estimates at this point because we don’t know what technology will be available to do it,

Congressman.

Mr. BOUSTANY. OK, thank you.

How is the shipping industry supporting the onboard testing of

ballast water treatment systems, any of you?

Ms. METCALF. Well, Mr. Chairman, I would like to start out by

saying that I think for about the last five years, I waded through

about 10,000 pages of proposals, and it was my pleasure to do so

because I like pain, no, because I was allowed to participate in the

technology review process with NOAA and MARAD and Coast

Guard. Not only was that a good process, but it was a great experience for me because it allowed me to learn a little bit more about

the different technologies and where they were in their development. So in that respect, we are supporting here in Washington

within the Executive Branch deliberations.

We also have a number of companies out there. I wish I could

turn around and see my Coast Guard staff guy there, but I think

he left. I think there are well over 100 testing programs that are

beyond just the sort of: I have a great idea; let us put it on the

lab countertop. I think there are over 100 projects globally that are

at least at pilot stage which would be a higher capacity shore-based

program that would be testing real seawater. I would say there are

probably 30 that are on board ships right now all over the world.

The support of that is very sporadic. Some companies have received support through the NOAA and the demonstration projects,

while other companies have just kind of mined out on their own

and said, we need to solve this problem, so let us put some money

up.
31

Mr. BOUSTANY. Thank you.

What is the relative risk of NOBOB vessels operating in U.S. waters without having first carried out ballast water exchange? Do we

have a pretty good estimate of that risk?

Ms. HAZLEWOOD. Well, an estimate of the risk, I think, to some

extent is dependent upon the geographic area that has been studied. In the Great Lakes, I believe the issue has been studied better

perhaps than in other areas of the Country.

There was a fairly high level study recently concluded, I think

in 2004, from Cornell University and University of Michigan with

support from NOAA that tried to quantify the risk associated with

NOBOB vessels entering the Great Lakes. At the time, and I apologize for an oversimplification, but they concluded it was a significant risk that should be addressed. Coast Guard has included, I

think, recognition of this study in some of their recent efforts to

study the NOBOB issue and to consider it. I would be happy to follow up with you to just give you an update of the Coast Guard’s

activity on that, if that would be helpful.

Mr. BOUSTANY. I thank you.

Dr. Ehlers, do you have a follow-up question?

Mr. EHLERS. Just a comment to wrap things up, I really appreciate the hearing. It has been very, very helpful to me, and I want

to thank the witnesses on both panels for stimulating some new

ideas in my head. The older I get, the more difficult that seems to

be. So I definitely appreciate it.

I also want to mention one thing to Ms. Metcalf that I forgot to

mention earlier, and that is I absolutely, totally agree with your

comment that ballast water transfer is not the answer. I think it

is dangerous. I think there are far better, simpler ways of doing it

that will be lower cost, but we haven’t found them yet.

I am convinced we can do a better job if we really take a look

at it from ground zero, a thorough, good, technical, scientific approach to the issue. I think if we do that together, we can come

up with solutions that are less costly for you as well as safer and

also less costly for the Government and the taxpayers.

With that, I yield back.

Mr. BOUSTANY. Thank you, Dr. Ehlers.

I have one final question, and I asked a similar question to the

first panel. That is: Are existing ballast water treatment technologies capable of effectively removing or killing smaller organisms, bacteria, and viruses in the ballast water? I would be interested in hearing all three of you comment on that.

Ms. HAZLEWOOD. Here, too, I have had to defer to greater experts

than me. In talking to staff at EPA and Coast Guard along with

ballast technology vendors, I have been assured that they can address even the smaller mechanisms.

I would suggest that in drafting a significant proposal, though,

simply that if you start with a numeric floor, you include a process

to ensure agency review that includes participation from stakeholders to ensure it is a meaningful standard that is robust. I think

that is my greatest justification for always encouraging a technology-forcing standard that looks to what can we do better in time

because it will force the same study of the meaningful standard.

Mr. BOUSTANY. Thank you.
32

Do either of the two of you have other comments?

Ms. METCALF. Yes, there is technology available that can kill

anything.

[Laughter.]

Ms. METCALF. Hospitals have employed it for a number of years.

The difficulty is taking the leap from a small-scale system and putting it on a thousand foot long vessel that carries 40,000 metric

tons of ballast water that needs to move that ballast water at 5,000

metric tons per hour to meet its current economies of motion.

Absolutely, the technology is there. The difficulty is taking that

step through wonderland and actually making it a reality on a

large-scale application.

Mr. BOUSTANY. Thank you. That is all I have.

Dr. Ehlers, do you have any further questions?

Mr. EHLERS. No further questions.

Mr. BOUSTANY. We thank you very much for your testimony and

your answers to these questions.

With that, the Subcommittee stands adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 11:47 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88Æ