P.O. Box 20908  Tuscaloosa, Alabama 35402-0908  205-349-1677  FAX 205-758-0061

November 23, 2009

Docket Management Facility

U.S. Department of Transportation

West Building Ground Floor

Room W12-140

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E.

Washington, D.C. 20590

Re.: Standards for Living Organisms in Ships’

Ballast Water Discharged in U.S. Waters

(Docket ID No. USCG–2001–10486)

Dear Sir or Madam:

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)

establishing standards for living organisms in ships’ ballast water discharged in U.S. waters.

Parker Towing Company is a barge line moving dry bulk products by towboat and barge to

many users in the Southeast. We have been in this business for more than 65 years and

currently employ about 200 people in well paying jobs with very good benefits. Our major

customers are electric utilities, metallurgical coal exporters, and the iron and steel industries.

Parker Towing currently operates 18 boats and about 235 barges.

We are proud to be part of an industry that is the safest and most fuel-efficient, and has the

smallest carbon footprint, of any surface transportation mode. Parker Towing is a member of

the American Waterways Operators (AWO) and is certified as a Responsible Carrier (a code

of safe practice and environmental stewardship). We undergo independent third-party audits

every three years to demonstrate our continued compliance.

Parker Towing Company is in complete agreement with the American Waterways Operators

comments on the proposed rule. For your convenience, I have placed AWO’s comments

below verbatim:

The Administration Should Support a Uniform National Standard for Ballast Water

and Other Vessel Discharges

We note, first, the critical need for a uniform national standard for ballast water and other

vessel discharges. The issuance of this NPRM is a stark reminder of the untenable state of

affairs that currently exists with respect to the regulation of vessel discharges: the Coast
Docket ID No. USCG–2001–10486

12/2/2009

Page 2 of 8

Guard regulates ballast water under the National Invasive Species Act (NISA); the

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulates ballast water and other vessel discharges

under the Clean Water Act’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)

permit program; and, because neither NISA nor section 402 of the Clean Water Act preempts

state regulation of ballast water and other vessel discharges, dozens of states have established

their own regimes governing vessel discharges. This patchwork of federal and state

authorities poses enormous difficulties for vessels operating in interstate commerce. (A

barge tow traveling from Pittsburgh to New Orleans down the Ohio and Mississippi River

systems, for example, travels through 11 states, each of which is free to establish its own

unique requirements for vessel discharges in its waters.) While it is sometimes suggested

that better coordination among federal and state authorities to avoid conflicting standards is

the solution to this problem, coordination alone is insufficient. Even if the various federal

agencies and state authorities were to agree on a common discharge standard, for example,

vessel owners would still be faced with the significant burden of complying with the

multiplicity of administrative requirements (reporting, recordkeeping, inspections, training,

etc.) imposed by the different statutory or regulatory authorities governing vessel discharges.

The real solution is to establish a new, uniform statutory framework for the regulation of

ballast water and other vessel discharges – one that provides for effective, environmentally

protective standards based on sound science and is tailored to address the operational realities

of mobile sources in interstate commerce. We urge the Administration to take a leadership

role in working with Congress to bring about such a solution.

The Rulemaking Record Does Not Support the Proposed Regulations

AWO is deeply disappointed that, even after the many years that this NPRM has been under

development, the proposal is based on inaccurate assumptions and incomplete research that

do not support the regulations as proposed. These deficiencies have led to a one-size-fits-all

proposal that has not and cannot be justified in its application to barges and towing vessels in

the U.S. domestic trade.

First, the rulemaking record simply does not support the proposal that was published in the

Federal Register. Egregiously, neither the Preliminary Regulatory Analysis nor the Draft

Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (DPEIS) even discusses the two-tiered

standard approach proposed in the NPRM. Throughout these documents, the proposed Phase

I standard is referred to as the “preferred alternative,” and analysis and justification for this

standard is provided. Neither the Phase II standard nor the idea of a two-phase approach to

standard setting is even discussed in the regulatory analysis or DPEIS, much less analyzed

for environmental benefit and economic feasibility. This glaring procedural defect suggests

the troubling conclusion that the inclusion of the Phase II standard was a last-minute political

decision that was not subjected to the thorough and dispassionate analysis that is 1) required

by law and 2) the standard of care that the regulated public has a right to expect from

government. We urge the Administration not to short-circuit the regulatory process and to

ensure that all required procedural steps are undertaken as it proceeds toward the

development of a final rule.
Docket ID No. USCG–2001–10486

12/2/2009

Page 3 of 8

Moreover, the NPRM is also based on numerous inaccurate assumptions about the affected

vessel population and its operating characteristics. For example, the regulatory analysis

states that vessels under 100 feet in length, vessels operating on rivers and tugboats towing

astern generally do not carry ballast water. In fact, inland towboats of all sizes routinely

carry ballast water to maintain trim as fuel is burned during a voyage; coastal tugboats carry

ballast for trim and stability; and many barges, both inland and coastal, are ballasted for trim

and stability, to ensure proper tow configuration, or to allow for better seakeeping when

empty. An AWO member survey, which generated responses from 52 member companies

(or about 20 percent of AWO’s carrier membership) identified more than 1,300 inland and

coastal towing vessels and barges that carry ballast water in this small sample alone. The

majority of these vessels have not been accounted for in the Coast Guard’s estimate of 2,600

U.S. vessels that would be affected by the notice of proposed rulemaking.

The regulatory analysis also assumes that the proposed requirements would only affect

vessels with the capacity to carry large volumes of ballast water (450,000 gallons and up) and

flow rates of 1,100 gallons per minute or more. In fact, the proposed rule would affect

vessels with much smaller capacity and much lower flow rates. A typical inland towboat has

20,000-40,000 gallons of ballast water capacity; a typical coastal tug has 20,000-70,000

gallons. A small harbor tug might have a capacity of 2,000-3,000 gallons. While barges,

especially oceangoing barges, have larger ballast capacities, the ballast capacity of many

barges is still a fraction of that assumed in the regulatory analysis. Flow rates for barges and

towing vessels discharging ballast water are also considerably less than those of other

commercial vessels, ranging from 20 to 250 gallons per minute.

Ballast Water Treatment Should Not Be Required for Towing Vessels and Barges

in the U.S. Domestic Trade

Without an accurate understanding of the affected vessel population and its characteristics,

the Coast Guard cannot make a defensible assessment of the scientific basis for, cost and

cost-benefit of, and technical and operational feasibility of requiring ballast water treatment

systems on a particular class of vessels. In fact, there is considerable evidence, or in some

cases lack of evidence, to argue against the application of ballast water treatment

requirements to towing vessels and barges in the U.S. domestic trade.

First, the DPEIS provides no evidence to suggest that ballast water discharged by towing

vessels or barges operating exclusively on the inland river system, or within the same coastal

ecosystem, has contributed to the introduction or spread of invasive species in U.S. waters.

When the Coast Guard instituted nationwide ballast water reporting requirements in 2004,

the agency told AWO that one of the principal purposes of collecting this data was to map

vessel movements and ballast water discharge patterns against invasive species flows. AWO

was told that the Coast Guard would use this information to determine where ballast water

discharges had contributed to the introduction or spread of invasive species and thus, where

and on which classes of vessels ballast water treatment requirements would be justified.

While the National Ballast Water Information Clearinghouse (NBIC) contains a wealth of
Docket ID No. USCG–2001–10486

12/2/2009

Page 4 of 8

data submitted by vessel owners over the past five years, we are aware of no effort by the

Coast Guard to analyze the data to see what it suggests about the role of vessels, and

particularly domestic vessels, in the introduction and spread of invasive species. We note, as

well, that the National Invasive Species Act exempts from ballast water management

requirements crude oil tankers in the U.S. coastwise trade, presumably because they pose no

risk of introducing invasive species into U.S. waters. It would be patently unfair to subject

domestic towing vessels and barges with much smaller volumes of ballast water capacity to a

different standard.

Second, AWO is not aware of any ballast water treatment system that has been approved,

installed or even tested on vessels with the operating characteristics of many tugboats,

towboats and barges, such as the following:

• Vessels operating exclusively in freshwater: Well over half of U.S. towing vessels

and barges never operate in saltwater, and while some ballast water treatment

chemicals can work on organisms in freshwater environments, AWO is not aware of

any ballast water treatment system that has been tested or can be used on freshwater

vessels. Indeed, in AWO’s conversations with treatment system manufacturers, it has

been suggested that treatment systems for freshwater vessels have not yet been

developed because their risk of introducing invasive species is so small.

• Vessels of very limited size. Many towing vessels are less than 125 feet long, with

small engine rooms averaging between 900 and 1300 square feet. While treatment

systems range in size, one of the smallest ones would take up about one-tenth of this

space. In a towing vessel engineroom, there is virtually no space not already

dedicated to machinery or walkways. Keeping these areas clear and leaving enough

room for engineers to maintain the existing equipment is critical to the safe operation

of the vessel. Moreover, since ballast water treatment systems have not been tested on

tugboats or towboats, it is unclear whether or not their installation is even possible on

vessels of such small size.

• Vessels with very low ballast water flow rates. The Preliminary Regulatory Analysis

examined vessels with flow rates of 1,100 gallons per minute and above; however,

the flow rates of some tugboats are as low as 20 gallons per minute, and average flow

rates for typical towing vessels are approximately 250 gallons per minute. Since flow

rates must be high enough to pump water through the treatment system, vessels with

low flow rates must install additional pumps in order to ensure that the system will

work effectively. Not only was the cost of additional pumping equipment not

assessed in the rulemaking record, it has not been demonstrated whether treatment

systems employing additional pumps are feasible for installation on barges or towing

vessels.

• Vessels without installed ballast water piping. The ballast tanks of many barges and

towing vessels are simply void spaces filled with water to keep the vessel stable. In

many cases, these tanks do not have any piping; they are filled and emptied shoreside
Docket ID No. USCG–2001–10486

12/2/2009

Page 5 of 8

with hoses or portable pumps. In order to install a ballast water treatment system,

piping would have to be installed, an extensive and expensive process that may

require developing an approved vessel-specific design, conducting stability studies

and taking the vessel out of service for weeks.

• Tank barges. There are serious safety and possibly regulatory impediments to the

installation of ballast water treatment systems that rely on electricity on tank barges.

Coast Guard regulations for electric equipment on vessels (46 CFR 111.105-31(l))

prohibit the placement of such equipment within 10 feet of any cargo tank vent outlet,

cargo tank ullage opening, cargo pipe flange, or cargo valve unless it is intrinsically

safe, explosion proof, or purged and pressurized in order to prevent cargo vapors

from exploding. It is unclear whether and how ballast water treatment systems could

be installed on inland tank barges so as not to conflict with this regulation and avoid

posing serious personnel safety risks.

Third, requiring the installation of treatment systems costing a half-million dollars or more

on thousands of towing vessels and barges with very limited ballast water capacity is most

likely cost-prohibitive, and surely not cost-effective. A 2009 survey by the California State

Lands Commission contained cost estimates for 14 ballast water treatment systems, ranging

in cost from $150,000 to $2.3 million per system, with an average cost of $895,000. These

estimates do not include the cost of removing the vessel from service in order to install the

system, any modifications to the vessel (as would almost certainly be required for towing

vessels and barges, for the reasons discussed above), or operation and maintenance of the

system once installed. These cost estimates are truly staggering when compared to the value

of a barge or towing vessel on which such a system might be installed. An inland barge can

cost $400,000, less than half the cost of the average treatment system examined in the

California survey! An inland towing vessel can cost as little as $3 million and a coastal

tugboat as little as $5 million, meaning a vessel owner could be required to install a piece of

equipment worth one-third to one-fifth of the vessel’s value. These costs (which were neither

assessed nor justified in their application to most towing vessels and barges, given the Coast

Guard’s erroneous assumptions about the affected vessel population) are particularly

egregious given the very high percentage of barge and towing companies that are small

businesses. The Congressionally-authorized Towing Safety Advisory Committee estimated

in a 2008 analysis that some 90 percent of barge and towing companies qualify as small

businesses under the Small Business Administration definition. These costs must be

considered not only in absolute terms, but against the backdrop of the lack of evidence that

domestic towing vessels or barges have contributed to the introduction or spread of invasive

species, the smaller volumes of ballast water transported by these vessels, and the

technological and operational impediments to the installation of ballast water treatment

systems on towing vessels and barges.

The Coast Guard Should Exempt Other Vessel Operations That Do Not Pose a Risk of

Introducing Invasive Species
Docket ID No. USCG–2001–10486

12/2/2009

Page 6 of 8

In addition to not requiring ballast water treatment systems on towing vessels and barges in

the U.S. domestic trade, the Coast Guard should exempt any vessel with the following

operational characteristics, which pose little or no risk of introducing or spreading invasive

species:

• Vessels that use only municipal or commercial water for ballast. Many towing

vessels and barges fall into this category, using potable water from shoreside sources

for ballast instead of river or sea water.

• Vessels that carry ballast water or have ballast tanks but do not take on or discharge

ballast water in U.S. waters. These vessels do not pose a risk of transferring invasive

species into or within U.S. waters and should not be required to install treatment

systems.

• Vessels that operate in more than one Captain of the Port (COTP) zone but only take

on and discharge ballast water in a single zone. A towing vessel might, for example,

operate throughout the inland river system but only take on ballast water to ride lower

in the water when passing under the low bridges near Chicago, discharging the ballast

water in the same zone when the bridge transit is completed. Such vessels should be

exempted for the same reasons as vessels that operate exclusively within a single

COTP zone.

We also urge the Coast Guard to correct what appears to be a technical error in the regulatory

text and ensure that the proposed exemption for vessels operating exclusively in one COTP

zone (33 CFR 151.2105) extends to the ballast water management requirements (33 CFR

151.2025), consistent with the description of this provision in the preamble to the NPRM.

Eliminate the Two-Tier Approach or Provide Lifetime Grandfathering

for Vessels with Installed Treatment Systems

AWO urges the Coast Guard to eliminate the proposed two-tier standard and adopt a single

ballast water discharge standard that is both effective in neutralizing invasive species in

ballast water and practicable for installation on vessels. While we are sympathetic to the

conceptual rationale for the two-tier approach – set an achievable standard in the near term

and ramp up to a higher standard if and when technology allows – it is simply impractical to

expect a vessel owner to install a treatment system costing as much as $1 million and then

replace that system before the end of its useful life. We see two options to avoid this

unacceptable situation: first, the Coast Guard could elect to conduct a practicability review

now to assess whether the proposed Phase II standard is feasible and, if so, eliminate Phase I

and establish an appropriate timeline for installation of Phase II systems. Alternatively, the

Coast Guard could implement the Phase I standard as proposed (and subject to the

modifications discussed in these comments), with the proviso that any vessel that installs a

system meeting the Phase I standard will not be required to replace that system before the

end of the system’s, or the vessel’s, useful life. If a practicability review subsequently allows

for adoption of the Phase II standard, the Coast Guard could apply the Phase II requirement
Docket ID No. USCG–2001–10486

12/2/2009

Page 7 of 8

to new vessels (or vessels replacing systems that have reached the end of their useful life)

only.

The Practicability Review Should Ensure That Systems Are Practicable

for Any Class of Vessels on Which They Will Be Required

AWO urges the Coast Guard to ensure that the proposed practicability review is robust and

comprehensive. Specifically, we recommend that the practicability review examine the

following factors and ensure that any proposed standard is:

• Effective in neutralizing invasive species. This requires ensuring that tools and

protocols exist to measure the effectiveness of the standard;.

• Technologically feasible for installation on the vessels that will be required to install

treatment systems meeting the standard. Treatment systems should not be required

on any class of vessels unless the system has been tested and proven practicable given

those vessels’ engineroom size and design, ballast water capacity, tank configuration,

flow rate, etc.;

• Commercially available. That is, systems meeting the standard are on the market and

available in sufficient quantity to allow for purchase and installation by the

population of affected vessels on the required regulatory schedule;

• Safe for use with the characteristics of the vessels to which it will be applied (i.e.,

proximity to flammable or combustible cargo, etc.); and,

• Cost-effective for use on the vessels that will be required to use it. A system whose

cost would drive vessel owners out of business or impose severe economic hardship

is not cost-effective and should not be required.

While the Coast Guard has specifically solicited comments on the factors to be included in

the practicability review that takes place before implementation of the Phase II standard, the

same considerations are no less relevant to the application of the Phase I standard. We urge

the Coast Guard to ensure that a complete analysis of these factors is conducted in the

process of finalizing the proposed regulations and before ballast water treatment system

requirements are applied to any given vessel class.

Conclusion

AWO urges the Coast Guard to:

• Play a lead role in encouraging the Administration to support a uniform federal

statutory framework for the regulation of ballast water and other vessel discharges;

• Ensure that the rulemaking record is complete and accurate, following all required

procedural steps and reflecting accurate assumptions about the affected vessel

population, before proceeding to finalize the proposed regulations;

• Refrain from requiring treatment standards on towing vessels and barges in the U.S.

domestic trade;
Docket ID No. USCG–2001–10486

12/2/2009

Page 8 of 8

• Exempt from the proposed requirements vessels using municipal or commercial water

for ballast, vessels that do not discharge ballast water in U.S. waters, and vessels that

only take on and discharge ballast water in a single COTP zone, in addition to vessels

that operate exclusively within a single COTP zone;

• Eliminate the two-tier standard or, alternatively, provide that a vessel installing a

treatment system that complies with the Phase I standard will not be required to

replace that system if and when a Phase II standard is implemented; and,

• Conduct a robust and comprehensive practicability review prior to requiring ballast

water treatment systems on any class of vessels.

If you should have any question, please let me know.

Sincerely

Charles A Haun

President