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) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

67–384 PDF 2011

REDUCING REGULATORY BURDENS, ENSURING 

THE FLOW OF COMMERCE, AND PROTECTING 

JOBS: A COMMONSENSE APPROACH TO 

BALLAST WATER REGULATION 

(112–45) 

JOINT HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

COAST GUARD AND MARITIME TRANSPORTATION 

AND THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

WATER RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

TRANSPORTATION AND 

INFRASTRUCTURE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

JULY 13, 2011 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

( 

Available online at: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/ 

committee.action?chamber=house&committee=transportation 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida, Chairman 

DON YOUNG, Alaska 

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

GARY G. MILLER, California 

TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

DUNCAN HUNTER, California 

ANDY HARRIS, Maryland 

ERIC A. ‘‘RICK’’ CRAWFORD, Arkansas 

JAIME HERRERA BEUTLER, Washington 

FRANK C. GUINTA, New Hampshire 

RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois 

LOU BARLETTA, Pennsylvania 

CHIP CRAVAACK, Minnesota 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas 

LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana 

BILLY LONG, Missouri 

BOB GIBBS, Ohio 

PATRICK MEEHAN, Pennsylvania 

RICHARD L. HANNA, New York 

JEFFREY M. LANDRY, Louisiana 

STEVE SOUTHERLAND II, Florida 

JEFF DENHAM, California 

JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma 

REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin 

CHARLES J. ‘‘CHUCK’’ FLEISCHMANN, 

Tennessee 

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 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland 

LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa 

TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania 

RICK LARSEN, Washington 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York 

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine 

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii 

JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota 

HEATH SHULER, North Carolina 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

LAURA RICHARDSON, California 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

(II) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COAST GUARD AND MARITIME TRANSPORTATION

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey, Chairman 

DON YOUNG, Alaska 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

ANDY HARRIS, Maryland 

FRANK C. GUINTA, New Hampshire 

CHIP CRAVAACK, Minnesota 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas 

JEFFREY M. LANDRY, Louisiana, 

Vice Chair 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida (Ex Officio) 

RICK LARSEN, Washington 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland 

CORRINE BROWN, Florida 

TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York 

MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii 

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine 

NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia 

(Ex Officio) 

(III) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT

BOB GIBBS, Ohio, Chairman 

DON YOUNG, Alaska 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

GARY G. MILLER, California 

TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

DUNCAN HUNTER, California 

ANDY HARRIS, Maryland 

ERIC A. ‘‘RICK’’ CRAWFORD, Arkansas 

JAIME HERRERA BEUTLER, Washington, 

Vice Chair 

CHIP CRAVAACK, Minnesota 

LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana 

JEFFREY M. LANDRY, Louisiana 

JEFF DENHAM, California 

JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma 

REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida (Ex Officio) 

TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York 

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

CORRINE BROWN, Florida 

BOB FILNER, California 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

LAURA RICHARDSON, California 

MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii 

NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia 

(Ex Officio) 

(IV) 

(V) 

CONTENTS Page 

Summary of Subject Matter .................................................................................... vi 

TESTIMONY 

PANEL ONE

Carlton, James T., Ph.D., Chair, Committee on Assessing Numeric Limits 

for Living Organisms in Ballast Water, National Research Council ............... 10 

Hanlon, James A., Director, Office of Wastewater Management, Environmental Protection Agency .................................................................................... 10 

Salerno, Vice Admiral Brian, Deputy Commandant for Operations, United 

States Coast Guard .............................................................................................. 10 

Swackhamer, Deborah L., Ph.D., Chair, EPA Science Advisory Board .............. 10 

PANEL TWO

Allegretti, Thomas A., President and CEO, The American Waterways Operators, on behalf of the Shipping Industry Ballast Water Coalition ................... 30 

Jewell, Michael, President, Marine Engineers’ Beneficial Association ............... 30 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS 

Carnahan, Hon. Russ, of Missouri ......................................................................... 41 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES 

Allegretti, Thomas A. .............................................................................................. 44 

Carlton, James T., Ph.D. ......................................................................................... 53 

Hanlon, James A. ..................................................................................................... 56 

Jewell, Michael ........................................................................................................ 65 

Salerno, Vice Admiral Brian ................................................................................... 74 

Swackhamer, Deborah L., Ph.D. ............................................................................ 77 

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Chart entitled, ‘‘Ballast Water & Incidental Discharge Regulation under the 

Clean Water Act,’’ referred to by Hon. Frank A. LoBiondo, a Representative 

in Congress from the State of New Jersey ......................................................... 2 

Letter signed by 25 organizations expressing their opinions and concerns 

with introducing ballast water legislation, referred to by Hon. Timothy 

H. Bishop, a Representative in Congress from the State of New York ........... 8 

United States Coast Guard: 

Response to question from Hon. Rick Larsen, a Representative in Congress 

from the State of Washington, regarding the technologies that the Coast 

Guard Shipboard Technology Evaluation Program is evaluating ................ 20 

Response to question from Hon. Timothy H. Bishop, a Representative in 

Congress from the State of New York, asking if the implementation 

of the vessel general permit has had a significant adverse impact on 

the flow of maritime commerce thus far ......................................................... 23 

ADDITIONS TO THE RECORD 

California State Lands Commission, Curtis L. Fossum, Executive Officer, 

letter, July 25, 2011 ............................................................................................. 86 

Passenger Vessel Association, Captain Jay W. Spence, President, written 

testimony .............................................................................................................. 90 

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, written testimony, July 20, 

2011 ....................................................................................................................... 94 

vi 


Insert offset folio 1 here 67384.001
vii 


Insert offset folio 2 here 67384.002
viii 


Insert offset folio 3 here 67384.003
ix 


Insert offset folio 4 here 67384.004
x 


Insert offset folio 5 here 67384.005
xi 


Insert offset folio 6 here 67384.006
xii 


Insert offset folio 7 here 67384.007
xiii 


Insert offset folio 8 here 67384.008
(1) 

REDUCING REGULATORY BURDENS, 

ENSURING THE FLOW OF COMMERCE, 

AND PROTECTING JOBS: A COMMONSENSE 

APPROACH TO BALLAST WATER REGULATION 

WEDNESDAY, JULY 13, 2011 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON COAST

GUARD AND MARITIME TRANSPORTATION, JOINT WITH

THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT, COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittees met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in Room 

2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Frank LoBiondo (chairman of the Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation) presiding. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Good morning. Subcommittee hearing will come 

to order. 

The joint subcommittees are meeting today to review the confusing, contradictory, and unsustainable approach to the regulation 

of ballast water and other incidental discharges from vessels that 

currently exist and explore options to simplify and improve it. 

I think we can all agree on the importance of reflectively regulating ballast water discharges. Invasive species have threatened 

ecosystems and the industries that rely on those ecosystems across 

the country. 

However, the current system of regulation is killing jobs and impeding the flow of commerce, which is vital at any time but especially now for our economic recovery. 

Currently the Coast Guard and the EPA have developed separate 

regulations under two different Federal laws to govern the discharge of ballast water. The EPA’s ballast water program under 

the Clean Water Act is especially burdensome and troublesome as 

it allows each individual State to add requirements on top of the 

Federal regulations; 29 States and tribes have done just that. 

And as you can see in the chart on the screens, which we do have 

up, the result is differing ballast water or incidental discharge 

standards for the vast majority of these States and tribal areas. 

[The information follows:] 

2 


Insert offset folio 9 here 67384.009
3 

Mr. LOBIONDO. While this provision of the Clean Water Act functions well for factories that are fixed in one location, it simply does 

not work for vessels engaged in interstate commerce or international commerce. It is unreasonable to ask a vessel operator to 

comply with two Federal standards and as many as 29 different 

State and tribal standards, several of which are not even achievable. 

Let’s take an example: The State of New York, what are they 

doing? New York is in the process of implementing standards for 

ballast water discharge that are 1,000 times stricter than the upcoming IMO requirements. As the Science Advisory Board will 

point out today, a standard 1,000 times IMO is simply not achievable and not verifiable. So what are we look—so what we are looking at is New York State dictating to the whole industry what they 

have to meet, and that is an impossible standard. And if they fail 

to meet that standard, they then face a daily fine of over $32,000. 

That is $32,000 a day to meet something that is impossible to 

meet. 

For entering the Saint Lawrence Seaway or the Port of New 

York and New Jersey. And this is absurd and ridiculous and cannot be allowed to stand. 

The problem is not just limited to ballast water. Other discharges, such as bilge water, gray water, deck wash, and even the 

condensation from air conditioners, is now being regulated by the 

EPA and the States in a confusing and contradictory manner. The 

current system threatens our international maritime trade. It is 

driving industry away from coastwise trade. It is undermining our 

attempts to revitalize the U.S.-flagged fleet, and simply it is killing 

jobs. It is hurting our economy. 

I hope our witnesses will address these concerns and offer ideas 

on how they can more efficiently and uniformly regulate these discharges. 

Additionally, I look forward to hearing from our witnesses representing the scientific community, specifically I am interested in 

their views on what the standards should be and the availability 

of technology to meet that standard. In other words, is it workable 

in the real world? 

My understanding is that both the Science Advisory Board and 

the National Research Council reports indicate that moving forward with the IMO standard is appropriate at this time. If this is 

the case, I think we will finally have a clear nonpartisan reason 

to endorse that standard as a baseline. I hope to hear more on your 

research so that we can use the specific finding to inform much 

needed and much delayed legislative action. 

We have to overcome this mind set that mandating a dozen different unachievable standards, each more stringent than the next, 

somehow protects our environment. It does not. The time has finally come to enact a clear, effective and uniform national standard 

that utilizes available and cost-effective technology to reduce the 

risk of future aquatic invasions. We cannot afford to delay any 

longer, as ballast water continues to threaten our environment and 

our economy. 

I would like to thank Chairman Gibbs of the Water Resources 

Subcommittee for agreeing to co-chair this hearing today. 

4 

And I want to thank the witnesses for taking your time to appear 

here today. 

At this part of the hearing, we will have a large number of witnesses that we want to hear from. We will ask that opening statements be limited to the chairs and ranking members. Other Members are welcome to submit their statements for the record or use 

their time during questions to make their statements. 

With that, I would like to yield to Mr. Larsen for his opening 

statement. 

Mr. LARSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Today, we review current information and new recommendations 

related to the discharge of ballast water and other pollutants from 

ships. I hope that following today’s hearing, we can develop bipartisan legislation to address these discharges. 

Mr. Chairman, the title of today’s hearing encompasses three 

concepts: reducing regulatory burdens, ensuring the flow of commerce, and protecting jobs. While I support all three, I believe we 

can do more. 

Reducing regulatory burdens, while advisable in many instances, 

cannot be a goal in and of itself. As we have learned from previous 

experience in the Deepwater Horizon disaster, the Wall Street 

meltdown, and the sub-prime mortgage crisis, when we have regulations in place that can actually protect lives, property, and the 

environment, we can actually get a better result. 

We should focus on smart regulations that accomplish national 

goals, grow the economy, and protect the public health and the environment. 

I also want to do more than just ensure the flow of commerce 

and protect jobs. I want to be sure that we are expanding the flow 

of commerce and increasing the number of jobs. At our subcommittee hearing on June 14, we heard of opportunities to grow 

our economy by enhancing our marine transportation system. 

Mr. Chairman, I look forward to working with you and all interested members of the committee to implement the investments in 

people and property presented to the subcommittee on that day. 

When the district court in California made its decision in March 

of 2005 that discharge from vessels could not be exempt from regulation from the Clean Water Act permitting requirements, both 

EPA and this committee began the process of determining how to 

comply with that court’s decision and whether changes to the law 

were necessary. Congress responded with two bipartisan pieces of 

legislation, and the EPA responded with a general permit. 

For small recreational vehicles, Congress developed and enacted 

the bipartisan Clean Boating Act of 2008. The law exempted recreational boats from permitting requirements, but in return for 

that exemption, the law tasked EPA and the Coast Guard with developing best management practices to protect water quality. The 

result will be improvements in water quality without the need for 

permitting individual boats, an example of a smarter bipartisan 

legislative response. 

A second bipartisan response that we have had in the past to 

clean water issues, Mr. Chairman, is that Congress developed legislation that provides a moratorium from permitting requirements 

for nonballast water discharges from fishing vessels and smaller 

5 

nonrecreational vessels until December 2013. This moratorium is to 

allow EPA, Congress and the boating community more time to analyze the impacts of discharges from vessels and develop the appropriate legislative or regulatory response. 

EPA’s response to the court’s decision is a vessel general permit 

for those vessels and discharges not covered by the legislation. 

That permit expires December 2013, and the general permit contains a requirement that apply to large commercial vessels, including discharges of ballast water. 

At this point, EPA has done about as much as it can with the 

law and the court’s decision, and any additional action concerning 

the Clean Water Act will be up to this committee and Congress. 

I bring these up, Mr. Chairman, because this committee should 

continue its bipartisan approach and develop legislation that resolves the uncertainty surrounding discharges of ballast water and 

other discharges from vessels. The goals of the legislation should 

be to help the EPA and the Coast Guard, ensure that water quality 

is protected and to allow vessels to operate safely and cost effectively. 

For example, on issues of safety and cost effectiveness, I have 

heard from representatives of the tug and barge industry in my 

district raising issues about what we should consider. They asked 

that we carefully consider the impacts of differing State laws or requirements on navigation as we consider a legislative approach to 

ballast or other discharges. 

The issues we need to consider are well-known and include: Will 

discharges from vessels be addressed under the Clean Water Act, 

some other law, or some combination of laws? What standards will 

be set for pollutants and species and discharges? Will the discharge 

standards be uniform across the country? What will the role of the 

States be in addressing vessel discharges? How might we address 

different types of vessels? 

While there is not yet a consensus on the resolution of these 

issues, I believe that one is available. Given the opportunity, the 

Coast Guard Subcommittee and the Water Resources Subcommittee can work together in a bipartisan way to develop legislation that effectively addresses discharges from ships and boats. 

So I look forward to today’s witnesses, Mr. Chairman, and to 

hear how they seek to help us address this critical water quality 

issue. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Thank you, Mr. Larsen. 

We will now turn to Chairman Gibbs of the Water Resources 

Subcommittee. 

Mr. GIBBS. It is my pleasure to join Chairman LoBiondo and the 

Coast Guard Committee to hear testimony on the ballast water discharge regulations today. A necessity to maintain stability during 

water board transit, ballast water has also will been recognized as 

one of the ways invasive species are transported globally. 

Lawsuits filed by environmental groups and the subsequent 

March 2006 court decision require the Environmental Protection 

Agency to regulate and issue point-source discharge permits under 

the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System, NPDES. 

Pursuant to a court order, the EPA established a vessel general 

permit. Vessel operators that did not file a notice of intent to comVerDate Aug 31 2005 13:59 Nov 29, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\112\JOINT_~2\7-13-1~1\67384.TXT JEAN
6 

ply with a vessel general permit can be found in violation of the 

Clean Water Act, a criminal and civil offense. In addition to the 

Coast Guard and EPA standards, the discharge of ballast water is 

managed by an assortment of international, State, territorial, and 

tribal regulations. As a result, our Nation’s vessel owners and operators must ensure that they are in compliance with a burdensome 

patchwork of regulations. Changes in ballast water regulation loom 

on the horizon. 

An international standard has been ratified in 28 nations and 

could become the first international method for controlling invasive 

species in ballast water. Current EPA regulation is set to expire 

December 2013. Both the Coast Guard and the EPA have proposed 

new methodologies of regulation. States have also proposed new 

and, in some cases, unrealistically stringent standards. 

As new regulations are considered the Coast Guard and EPA 

have asked for scientific studies that would provide them with a 

better understanding of ballast water management. The studies 

found that inflexible regulation has not necessarily provided more 

effective control of invasive species. Also, technology hasn’t caught 

up with the regulations. We simply do not have the technology to 

uphold some of the proposed standards. 

As we consider ballast water standards, we should not burden 

our shippers with unattainable, unrealistic, expensive regulations 

that have not demonstrated a significant environmental benefit. Instead, we need a commonsense approach that can be enacted quickly, protects the environment, reduces red tape, grows maritime jobs 

and opens the flow of maritime commerce. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I look forward to the hearing and 

look forward to the witnesses. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Thank you, Mr. Gibbs. 

Now we will turn to Ranking Member Mr. Bishop for a statement. Thank you. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you to both of the chairmen for holding this hearing. 

The spread of invasive species as a result of ballast water discharges has significant impacts. While the Long Island sound, 

which borders my district on its northern edge, has fortunately not 

had significant problems, there are many areas of the country 

where invasive species introduced through ballast water are wreaking havoc on ecosystems and economies. 

Consider the Great Lakes. Zebra mussels clog water intake 

pipes, impede recreational activities by accumulating on boats, 

docks, and buoys and have a wide range of impacts on the Great 

Lakes’ native species. The States and Federal Government have 

spent two decades trying to control zebra mussels at an estimated 

cost of $500 million per year. 

The San Francisco Bay Area, where oceangoing ships from 

around the globe come into port, has the dubious distinction of 

being the most invaded aquatic ecosystem on earth. The economic 

and environmental costs associated with invasive species are mind 

boggling, as green crabs originally from the Black Sea feast on native shellfish and Chinese mutant crabs weaken the levee system 

when it burrows into the banks. Thousands of other species also 

7 

cost the State hundreds of millions of dollars a year in lost revenues and mitigation expenses. 

In short, controlling invasive species after they have been introduced through ballast water discharges is often difficult, if not impossible, and extremely costly. So while it is easy to categorize ballast water discharge rules as yet another regulatory burden, as the 

title of this hearing implies, the facts are much more complex. 

It is true that there are costs associated with ballast water controls, but the costs of doing nothing are much greater. It makes 

sense that we should implement discharge standards that are technologically feasible, but we should not become complacent with existing technology. We should encourage and support the development of new technologies that will reduce costs while providing 

greater benefits in terms of ballast water treatment. That is good 

for business. It is good for jobs, and it is good for the environment. 

It is a win-win-win. 

Finally, while I certainly understand the argument for a consistent national discharge standard for ballast water given the 

interstate nature of maritime commerce, I hope we will all find it 

ironic that some would be arguing over the need to preempt States 

at the very time when this committee just reported H.R. 2018, the 

Clean Water Cooperative federalism Act, that would turn implementation of virtually the entire Clean Water Act over to the 

States. One has to wonder how divergent the discharge standards 

for ballast water would become if that bill were to ever take on the 

force of law. 

In closing, I thank the chairman again for holding this hearing. 

I look forward to hearing from our witnesses on this important subject. Before I yield back, Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent 

to enter into the record a letter from 25 environmental organizations in which they state their views on this issue. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Without objection, so ordered. 

[The information follows:] 

8 


Insert offset folio 10 here 67384.010
9 


Insert offset folio 11 here 67384.011
10 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Thank you, Mr. Bishop. 

We have two distinguished panels today. For Members who may 

have come in a little bit past the opening gavel, we are going to 

ask you to withhold your opening statements. If you choose to 

make an opening statement, you will be able to do it during your 

time for questioning as we try to move forward. 

Our first distinguished panel includes Coast Guard Vice Admiral 

Brian Salerno, Deputy Commandant for Operations; Mr. James 

Hanlon, director of the EPA’s Office of Wastewater Management; 

Dr. Deborah Swackhamer, chair of the EPA Science Advisory 

Board; and Dr. James Carlton, chair of the Committee on Numeric 

Limits for Living Organisms in Ballast Water of the National Research Council. 

We won’t try to say that three times fast, but I thank our witnesses for being here today. 

Admiral, you are up. 

TESTIMONY OF VICE ADMIRAL BRIAN SALERNO, DEPUTY 

COMMANDANT FOR OPERATIONS, UNITED STATES COAST 

GUARD; JAMES A. HANLON, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY; DEBORAH L. SWACKHAMER, PH.D., CHAIR, EPA 

SCIENCE ADVISORY BOARD; AND JAMES T. CARLTON, PH.D., 

CHAIR, COMMITTEE ON ASSESSING NUMERIC LIMITS FOR 

LIVING ORGANISMS IN BALLAST WATER, NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL 

Admiral SALERNO. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LoBiondo, Chairman Gibbs, Ranking Member Larsen, 

Ranking Member Bishop, and distinguished members of the subcommittees, I am very happy to be here this morning to have this 

opportunity toinform both committees about the Coast Guard’s actions to strengthen ballast water management regulations. 

Coast Guard has been involved in reducing the risk of invasive 

species from ballast water since the early 1990s, and since that 

time, we have worked in close collaboration with other Federal 

agencies, the States, the affected industry and the international 

community to develop standards which are rigorous enough to protect our environment and which can be practically adhered to by 

those who must operate within these standards. 

The Coast Guard has established its existing ballast water regulations and its proposed new regulations under the authority of the 

National Invasive Species Act, NISA. In so doing, we have worked 

very closely with the Environmental Protection Agency, which has 

a similar mandate under the Clean Water Act. 

NISA and Clean Water Act represent two different legal frameworks, each focussed on achieving similar outcomes related to 

invasive species. The Coast Guard and EPA are committed to harmonizing, to the degree possible, the requirements of both legal regimes in the proposed ballast water rulemaking and to further expand the excellent level of cooperation and field enforcement already established under EPA’s vessel general permit. 

The proposed ballast water discharge standards, which we published in 2009, represent a significant improvement in the level of 

11 

protection from invasive species. Currently, the risk of invasion is 

reduced through mandatory exchange of ballast water in mid 

ocean. However, this practice varies in effectiveness based upon 

ship design and route. 

In contrast, the proposed rule will shift to a standard whereby 

the concentration of organisms in a known quantity of ballast 

water will be specifically limited. In determining the concentration 

limits, we relied heavily on inputs from the scientific community, 

from industry and equipment manufacturers, and from policymakers at the Federal and State levels. 

We also led the U.S. Delegation to the International Maritime 

Organization, IMO, joining the negotiations and the ultimate adoption of the International Convention on the Management of Ships’ 

Ballast Water and Sediment. Although this convention has not yet 

entered into force internationally and has yet to undergo ratification by Congress, it has nevertheless provided a useful benchmark 

in our proposed rulemaking. 

Our proposed rule follows a two-phased approach. Phase one 

would establish a standard similar to that adopted by IMO. This 

is consistent with the level of technology currently available, and 

it represents a significant improvement over the current practice of 

mid ocean exchange. To put the IMO or phase one standard into 

some context, the standard of ten 50-micron-sized organisms in a 

cubic meter of ballast water is on the order of 1 part per trillion. 

This is analogous to 1 second in 31,700 years. 

As these ratios suggest, we are talking for the most part about 

relatively small numbers of microscopic organisms. This phase one 

standard is the most protective standard that can be practicably 

implemented at that time. 

Phase two is based on the most stringent quantitative discharge 

limits proposed in U.S. State regulations and essentially provides 

a target to encourage the development of significantly more effective ballast water management systems. Since neither NISA nor 

the Clean Water Act preempt State requirements, it remains very 

important in this process to develop a standard that will satisfy the 

States and thereby provide a consistent target for industry compliance. 

The rulemaking will also contain provisions for Coast Guard type 

approval of systems used to treat ballast water for discharge. The 

Coast Guard has relied heavily on scientific input, and in that regard, we would like to thank the EPA’s Science Advisory Board and 

the National Research Council’s Water Science and Technology 

Board for their essential efforts to inform the way ahead on this 

issue. 

We believe that the proposed two-phased approach will significantly reduce the risk of invasive species and will ensure the environmental protection is increased as science and technology allow. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I look forward to answering any 

questions you may have. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Admiral, thank you very much. 

Mr. Hanlon, you are now recognized. 

Mr. HANLON. Good morning, Chairman Gibbs, Chairman 

LoBiondo, Ranking Members Bishop and Larsen, and members of 

the subcommittee. 

12 

Thank you for the opportunity to discuss EPA’s regulation of ballast water discharges from vessels under the Clean Water Act. My 

testimony will provide an update. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Mr. Hanlon, excuse me, could you just pull the 

microphone a little closer to you? 

Mr. HANLON. My testimony will provide an update on our current activities with respect to regulating ballast water under the 

vessel general permit, including the role of the recent National 

Academy of Sciences and EPA’s Science Advisory Board reports 

will play in the development of the ballast water provisions for the 

next iteration of the permit. 

Aquatic nuisance species introductions contribute to the loss of 

aquatic biodiversity and have associated significant social, economic, and biological impacts. Economic loss from invasions of 

aquatic nuisance species are estimated to be over $1 billion annually. In particular, the Coast Guard and EPA, operating under different statutory authorities, have worked to develop a strong Federal ballast water management program, which will reduce the risk 

of new introductions. 

In administering our respective authorities, the Coast Guard and 

EPA have worked closely to harmonize as appropriate the proposed 

Coast Guard ballast water discharge standard regulations and 

EPA’s vessel general permit. I want to recognize at this time that 

the Coast Guard has been a trusted and valuable partner in our 

ballast water activities, and we would not have accomplished this 

significant progress to date without their expertise and cooperation. 

The vessel general permit issued by EPA in December of 2008 

regulates approximately 69,000 domestic and foreign vessels while 

in U.S. waters. In the development of the vessel permit, EPA found 

that it was infeasible to calculate numeric limits for ballast water 

discharges. Therefore, the current permit contains best management practices that permittees must employ, such as all of the 

Coast Guard’s ballast water and saltwater flushing standards and 

offers increased environmental protection with several additional 

management practices, such as requiring U.S.-bound vessels with 

empty ballast water tanks to conduct saltwater flushing, and mandating ballast water exchange for vessels engaged in certain Pacific 

near-shore voyages. 

The current vessel permit expires in December of 2013. EPA 

plans on proposing for public comment a draft of the next permit 

in November of this year and expects to finalize the permit in November of 2012 so that vessel owners and operators will have time 

to plan for and implement any new permit conditions. 

In order to further our scientific understanding of the state of 

ballast water science and technology, EPA and the Coast Guard 

commissioned a report from the National Academy of Sciences to 

inform our understanding of the relationship between the concentration of living organisms in ballast water and the likelihood 

of nonindigenous organisms successfully establishing populations 

in U.S. waters. 

EPA and the Coast Guard also sought advice from EPA’s Science 

Advisory Board on the performance and availability of ballast 

water treatment technologies. EPA’s primary purpose in requesting 

the National Academy and the Science Advisory Board reports was 

13 

to receive expert input and advice regarding the derivation of numeric limits for ballast water and the status and availability of ballast water treatment technologies. 

The National Academy report identified the strengths and weaknesses of existing approaches in evaluating the risks from ballast 

water discharges and made recommendations on how to improve 

our future scientific understanding of this risk. The report also recommended that a benchmark discharge standard should be established that reduces concentrations of organisms below current levels resulting from ballast water exchange. 

EPA will use the results of this study to inform development of 

the next vessel permit. Furthermore, EPA will also work with our 

Federal partners to implement the recommendations of the report 

for improving our understanding of the risk posed by ballast water 

in the future. 

The Science Advisory Board in their draft report found that 

treatment systems currently exist to meet the International Maritime Organization standard. EPA will also use the results of the 

SAB study to inform our next vessel permit. EPA and the Coast 

Guard will continue to work closely to minimize the risk of the introduction and spread of aquatic nuisance species. This cooperative 

EPA–Coast Guard effort, augmented with other Federal expertise 

provides substantial opportunities for moving forward with enhanced communication, coordination of Federal activities, and engagement with external stakeholders to develop and implement an 

effective national ballast water management program. 

Once again, Chairman Gibbs and LoBiondo and members of both 

subcommittees, thank you for the opportunity to discuss EPA’s ballast water-related activities, and I look forward to answering any 

questions. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Well, thank you very much. 

Now Dr. Swackhamer, you are now recognized. 

Ms. SWACKHAMER. Thank you. 

Good morning, Chairman LoBiondo and Chairman Gibbs, Ranking Members Mr. Larsen and Mr. Bishop, and members of the subcommittee. 

My name is Deborah Swackhamer, and I serve as chair of EPA’s 

Science Advisory Board. I am a professor at the University of Minnesota and codirector of the university’s Water Resources Center. 

I am here today on behalf of the Science Advisory Board to 

present testimony on our review of the background and issue paper 

prepared by the U.S. EPA and U.S. Coast Guard staff. This review 

was conducted by the SAB Ballast Water Advisory Panel, whose 

members had expertise across a wide array of relevant disciplines. 

The SAB reviewed and accepted the advisory panel report. 

EPA’s Office of Water asked the SAB for advice on the effectiveness of existing technologies for shipboard treatment of vessel ballast water. The SAB reviewed data on 51 existing ballast water 

management systems provided by EPA. Detailed data were available, however, for only 15 ballast water management systems. 

These data were mostly from the time period of 2008 to 2010, and 

it should be kept in mind that this dynamic industry continues to 

evolve. EPA asked the SAB to address four charge questions, and 

I will summarize our responses. 

14 

The first question asked about the ability of existing shipboard 

ballast water management systems to meet proposed discharge 

standards. Only 9 of the 15 systems had reliable data, and they 

consisted of 5 different treatment types. The SAB concluded that 

these five treatment types of existing ballast water management 

systems could meet what is known as the phase one standard proposed by the U.S. Coast Guard. Also, the SAB concluded that none 

of the existing ballast water management systems can meet a 

standard that is 100 or 1,000 times more stringent than the phase 

one standard. It may be possible in the near future for the five system types identified to meet a standard that is 10 times more stringent than phase one if both treatment performance and testing approaches improve. The SAB also found that the available data indicate that none of these systems will meet a no-living-organism 

standard. 

The second question asked what types of systems, based on their 

engineering design, would be likely to meet different discharge 

standards? The SAB concluded that all of the current ballast water 

management systems are based on reasonable engineering designs 

and use adaptations of standard water treatment processes. However, significant difficulties are encountered in adapting standard 

water treatment technologies to shipboard operation, and there 

were insufficient data to determine whether particular types of systems could meet standards more stringent than phase one. The 

SAB noted that factors beyond biological efficacy need to be considered as these technologies improve and mature. 

The third question asked about ways in which ballast water 

management system performance could be improved. The SAB concluded that reasonable changes in existing systems are likely to result in incremental improvements but are not likely to lead to 100 

or 1,000 times further reduction in organism concentration. It is 

likely that entirely new systems will need to be developed. 

The fourth question asked about limitations of existing studies 

and how the limitations could be overcome in future ballast water 

management system assessments. The SAB recommends using improved and consistent testing protocols for verifying discharge concentrations and exploring the use of surrogate test organisms and 

performance measures. The SAB suggests using a practical stepwise approach to compliance, reporting, inspections, and monitoring. Also, developing standards to limit organisms that are less 

than 10 microns in diameter is essential to protect against certain 

harmful algae. 

Finally, the SAB’s overall recommendation is that EPA adopt a 

systems- and risk-based approach to minimize the impacts of 

invasive species, rather than relying solely on numeric standards 

in ballast water discharge. The SAB found that insufficient attention has been given to integrative sets of practices that could used 

to systemically advance ballast water management. These practices 

include, one, managing ballast uptake to reduce the presence of 

invasive species; two, reducing invasive risk through changes in 

ship operation and design to reduce or eliminate the need for ballast water; three, development of voyager-based risk or hazard assessment; and four, consider treatment of ballast water in onshore 

reception facilities. 

15 

The SAB refers to an example used in the food industry, known 

as Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points, or HACCP. 

HACCP identifies specific steps in the process where hazards can 

be addressed, rather than focusing only on the end result. In the 

context of ballast water management, this would mean identifying 

critical points throughout the process where invasive species could 

be controlled in developing monitoring and control systems for 

these critical points. 

You will find much more detail in our report to the EPA Administrator and my written testimony. Thank you for your interest and 

attention, and I will be happy to provide answers to any questions 

you may have. Thank you. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Thank you, Doctor. 

Now, Dr. Carlton, you are now recognized. 

Mr. CARLTON. Good morning, Chairman LoBiondo, Chairman 

Gibbs, Ranking Members Mr. Bishop and Mr. Larsen, and members of the subcommittees. 

My name is James T. Carlton. I am a professor of marine 

sciences at Williams College, and I served as chair of the Committee on Assessing Numeric Limits for Living Organisms in Ballast Water of the National Research Council, the arm of the National Academy of Sciences that operates to advise the Government 

on matters of science and technology. 

Our study, requested by the EPA and the U.S. Coast Guard, was 

to advise these agencies as they develop plans to regulate the concentration of living organisms discharged from ballast water. These 

plans assume that there is a quantitative relationship between 

invasive species concentrations in the released ballast and the 

probability of their successful establishment. 

Here are our five key conclusions: First, the methods for determining an exact numeric standard for ballast water discharge are 

limited by profound lack of data by which to develop and validate 

the necessary models that relate organism release to the probability of invasion. 

Second, while the number of released organisms is important, it 

is only one of many variables that determine when, why, and 

where species will invade. Any method that attempts to predict invasions based on only one factor is likely to suffer from a high level 

of uncertainty. 

Third, that said, there is evidence that significantly reducing the 

number of released organisms reduces invasion probability. Therefore, a benchmark discharge standard that reduces the concentration of organisms below the levels achieved by open sea ballast 

water exchange is an important first step. 

Fourth, we urge the development of robust statistical models, experimental studies, and field investigations that are focused on the 

relationship between the quantity, quality and frequency of released organisms and invasion risk. This research could be focused 

on the types of species that have the highest probability of being 

good invaders and are likely to pose the greatest threats to our 

economy and health. 

This focus on the best case for invasion scenarios sets the regulatory bar high, noting that by best case for invasions, we mean of 

course the worst case for our society. 

16 

And fifth, our databases on what invasive species are now becoming established in American waters and our knowledge of the details of many vectors that bring these species to the United States, 

including ballast water, vessel fouling, the aquarium industry, and 

the live seafood and bait trades are patchy and substantially mismatched. For example, we have anecdotal accounts that there are 

now fewer invasions since extensive open ocean ballast water exchange has been in place for ships arriving from foreign shores. On 

the other hand, there is no—no—national survey program to determine if in fact invasions have decreased. 

Let me conclude on a personal note, as a marine biologist and 

as a scientist who has worked on invasive species for 49 years. I 

have had the privilege to testify before Congress nine times since 

1990 and my message is the same as it was 20 years ago. Our 

oceans are under great pressure. Our natural resources and our 

economic health derived from our rich maritime assets and heritage are under great pressure. Our fundamental goal has been and 

remains to limit invasions of exotic species in order to protect and 

preserve our existing populations of fish, wildlife, shell fish and the 

many other beneficial uses of our Nation’s waters. 

Given the sobering reality of the uncertainty of our knowledge 

about what regulates and promotes nonnative species, our ability 

to make accurate predictions is severely limited,underscoring more 

than ever that only the strongest science behind the policy will ensure the outcomes we seek. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify. I welcome any questions. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Thank you, Doctor, very much. 

I want to start, Admiral Salerno, with you. What will the Coast 

Guard do if the practicality review you plan to conduct to ensure 

a verifiable system is available to meet phase two standard comes 

back negative? Will you implement the best available technology, 

even if such technology is only marginally more effective than 

phase one? And my concern is if there is mandated technology that 

only gives us a little bit better edge, are we going to force vessel 

owners and operators to buy that technology and put it on board 

if there is only a minimal ability to increase their effectiveness? 

Admiral SALERNO. Sir, we did include in our rulemaking a provision to have an interim standard, in other words, if it appears that 

technology has advanced to such a degree that you can have a significant improvement in protection but still not fully meet the 

phase two requirement, that there is a provision for an interim 

standard. So that is part of the framework of the regulation, yes, 

sir. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Where would be the definition of significant improvement? Is it in the eye of the beholder or something that can 

be tangibly measured? 

Admiral SALERNO. It would need to be tangibly measured. That 

is the framework for this, is that we need to have the technology 

in place to measure the number of organisms in a specific quantity 

of ballast water. So, without the ability to measure, there is not 

that tangible proof of an improvement. So only in the case of technology that that can achieve a significant improvement would we 

seek to impose an additional rule. 

17 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Also, for you, Admiral, the EPA and the Coast 

Guard signed a memorandum of understanding in March of this 

year to outline Coast Guard enforcement of EPA vessel general 

permits. Is the Coast Guard checking to see if vessel operators are 

following these vessel general permits best management practices 

for incidental discharges, other than ballast water, such as gray 

water? For instance, if you board, are you checking to ensure that 

vessels are carrying only phosphate-free soap? Is that something 

you are doing? 

Admiral SALERNO. Typically, sir, we are boarding vessels in the 

course of our normal duties, and we are including verification of 

compliance as part of our routine boardings. Essentially it is checking records, making sure that they have the proper procedures laid 

out to be followed by the crew and look for apparent compliance. 

I don’t believe we are checking soap. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. OK. And Mr. Hanlon, will the draft VGP include 

regulation of commercial fishing vessels and other commercial vessels less than 79 feet, which are currently subject to a moratorium? 

Mr. HANLON. Mr. Chairman, our current plans are, given the 

earlier conversation this morning and the recognition that the moratorium expires in December of 2013 is to prepare a permit that 

would be available to the moratorium vessels, those under 79 feet 

and all fishing vessels, so that if the moratorium does expire in December of 2013, there would be a permit available for that class of 

vessels to be able to apply for the permit. 

In the alternative, if we did not include them in the permit and 

the moratorium were to expire, then that whole class of vessels 

would be vulnerable under the Clean Water Act for discharging 

without a permit. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Do you have any idea how many vessels would 

come under that? 

Mr. HANLON. Approximately 120,000 to 140,000. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. And does the EPA have the resources to administer to these additions. 

Mr. HANLON. Yes, sir. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. OK. 

Also, Mr. Hanlon, the science to establish a foundation for regulation and incidental discharges other than ballast water is seriously lacking. Does the EPA fully understand that the impact of 

these discharges, that they have on water quality—so, I mean, do 

you know what it is doing to water quality? Can you measure that? 

Mr. HANLON. As we have discussed this morning, the 2008 vessel 

general permit was EPA’s first permit dealing with this class of 

dischargers. Clean water permits under the Clean Water Act had 

a term of 5 years. It is an iterative process, and so as I outlined 

in my statement, we are in the process, and we gathered information. That is why we, along with the Coast Guard, commissioned 

the National Academy report, why we commissioned the work done 

by the Science Advisory Board, to better inform us in terms of 

where the science is at, where the release risk paradigm is at, as 

Dr. Carlton spoke to; where the technologies are at, as Dr. 

Swackhamer spoke to; to inform the EPA decisionmaking process 

as we work to propose the next vessel general permit in December—in November of this year. And so that understanding is being 

18 

developed with—across this category of dischargers and will be reflected in the proposed permit. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Well, correct me if I am wrong, is that not just 

for ballast water? 

Mr. HANLON. No, basically EPA’s vessel general permit that we 

issued in December of 2008 includes the consideration of 26 different waste streams from vessels, including ballast water, and 

that scope will be continued in the proposed permit in November. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. But have you studied these other discharges, 

such as air conditioner condensation or deck wash-off, the way you 

have studied ballast water to determine the impact? 

Mr. HANLON. As part of the bill or law that included the moratorium, the Congress directed EPA to do a study of vessel discharges. 

We did that study and delivered it to Congress. Again, it was based 

on a limited study, not a comprehensive study of all vessel classes 

and all dischargers, and that report identified across a number of 

waste streams where there are potential concerns, not globally, not 

nationally, but in specific locations where there are discharges from 

vessels that could have adverse water quality impacts. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. OK. Well, I will end with that for you, but I just 

have to say that I have a very, very serious concern that air conditioner condensation or deck wash-off that could result in serious 

fines, that we don’t fully know the impact that these are having 

and that it is a little bit different than ballast water. And I hope, 

as we move along, that we can get a better handle on that. 

Dr. Swackhamer, what are the major challenges in adopting 

standards more stringent than the IMO standard? 

Ms. SWACKHAMER. I would say the major challenges, Mr. Chair, 

are with the technologies themselves. We can probably, by improving detection limits of the verification methods and by tweaking 

some of the technologies that are currently being developed, we 

could meet the standard, those systems could meet a standard that 

is 10 times more stringent than the phase one. However, it is unlikely that the current systems, even with tweaking, would get to 

100 or 1,000 times more restrictive than the phase one standard. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. OK thank you. 

Dr. Carlton, and this is my last question in this round, in your 

report you find that available methods for determining a numeric 

standard for ballast water discharge are limited by a profound lack 

of data to develop and validate models determining risks of invasion. Why, given your finding that available methods of determining a numeric standard for ballast water discharge are limited 

by a profound lack of data, do you feel the IMO standards should 

be implemented? 

Mr. CARLTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

What we suggest in the report is that we now seek a benchmark 

discharge standard that is lower than what can be achieved by current ballast water exchange, which is limited and often very 

patchy. What we identify in the report was that was a different 

kind of discharge standard and what we suggested was that something like the IMO D–2 standard—such as the IMO D–2 standard—would be a direction to go in, but we did demure from specifically saying that that particular standard should be implemented 

because of our concern with being able to identify a specific numVerDate Aug 31 2005 13:59 Nov 29, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\112\JOINT_~2\7-13-1~1\67384.TXT JEAN
19 

ber, based upon all the models we discussed in the report, but we 

did go in that direction of saying that a standard that would 

achieve concentrations lower than that—than what is achieved by 

ballast water exchange, such as the IMO D–2 as an example, would 

be a direction to go in. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. OK. Thank you. 

Mr. Larsen. 

Mr. LARSEN. Thank you. 

Dr. Carlton, continuing on that point, again, while your report 

doesn’t endorse a specific standard, it sure seems to point in a direction, the IMO D–2 or Coast Guard phase one standard, at least 

in the direction of it. If that standard is put in place, did you—in 

regulation or legislation—does the NRC consider at all whether 

that should be a uniform standard or a baseline for States to build 

on, and if it didn’t, do you have your own personal opinion? 

Mr. CARLTON. We did not go in that direction. We did not address the question as to whether it should be a national or how it 

would work at State or international levels. It was more of a broad 

approach to where we should go to get beyond ballast water exchange. And my personal opinion is that a uniform standard would 

certainly the wise direction to go in terms of what the industry 

could respond to. 

Mr. LARSEN. Could you explain why, in your opinion? 

Mr. CARLTON. Yes. Certainly, and again, this is my personal 

opinion; the committee did not address this. That various vessels 

that are arriving at different ports, different port facilities, various 

COTP regions would be faced with potentially a wide variety of different regulatory frameworks, which would make putting on-board 

or other kinds of ballast water management systems a tremendous 

challenge. I look at that internationally as well. These vessels are 

visiting many different countries, and certainly something that 

would achieve a strong global standard would be the way to go, in 

my opinion. 

Mr. LARSEN. Dr. Swackhamer, regarding the standards and technology, for many years, this debate has included the question of 

whether standards should be set at the level of available technology or whether standards should be set and then basically give 

the incentive for the private sector to move technology to the standard. Based on the results of your review, it appears the establishment of the IMO standard caused the private sector to develop 

technologies designed to meet the standard. Do you believe the five 

technologies that you identified would have been developed in the 

absence of this standard? 

Ms. SWACKHAMER. Mr. Larsen, it is hard for me to second-guess 

what the industry would do, but I would agree with your statement 

that once they have a regulatory goal or guidance, they then can— 

that spurs innovation to develop the technologies to meet those 

goals. 

Mr. LARSEN. Would strengthening standards in the future result 

in further improvements in technology? 

Ms. SWACKHAMER. I am sorry could you repeat that. 

Mr. LARSEN. Would strengthening standards in the future result 

in improvements in technology? 

20 

Ms. SWACKHAMER. Mr. Larsen, I do believe that that would be 

the case, that once you set another standard, you begin to show 

where the road map is going to go, it does spur the innovation to 

develop those technologies. 

Mr. LARSEN. Admiral Salerno, the Coast Guard Shipboard Technology Evaluation Program is currently evaluating four different 

technologies on six vessels. The SAB identified five technologies 

that can meet the phase one IMO D–2 standard. Are any of these 

the same technologies? 

Admiral SALERNO. I believe they are, sir. There are also some additional applications that are currently being reviewed, and some 

of these are fleet-wide applications, so an additional—actually, a 

total of 60 vessels that have applied for entry into the step program, which provides that platform to test new technologies. So I 

can get back to you for the record, but I believe all of the available 

technologies would be represented in these additional step applicants. 

[The information follows:] 

The Science Advisory Board report identified five different 

categories or general types of Ballast Water Management 

System (BWMS) technologies that are able to definitively 

meet the D–2 (and hence the U.S. Coast Guard Phase I) 

standard. These five general categories are: 

(1) Deoxygenation + Cavitation 

(2) Filtration + Chlorine Dioxide (Cl O2) 

(3) Filtration + Ultra-violet light (UV) 

(4) Filtration + UV + Titanium Oxide (TiO2) 

(5) Filtration + Electro-chlorination 

Vessels that are enrolled in or that have applied for enrollment in the Coast Guard’s Shipboard Technology Evaluation Program employ all categories of BWMS technologies 

except ‘‘Filtration + UV + Titanium Oxide.’’ There are no 

pending applications which have identified this technology 

as their treatment method. 

Mr. LARSEN. A question I have with regard—is the relationship 

here between the vessel general permit and the science and the research that is being done because I think—and Dr. Carlton, your 

fourth point is about urging the development of robust statistical 

models, studies, further investigations and so on. Do you have an 

idea, a concept of the timing of the kind of research that we need 

to get done to get to the, you know, highest probability of killing 

the bad guys, killing the critters? 

Mr. CARLTON. Mr. Larsen, in terms of timetable of the research 

agenda, that kind of thing? 

Mr. LARSEN. Yeah. 

Mr. CARLTON. We suggest in the report that there was low-hanging fruit that was available within 3 to 5 years if some of these programs could be instituted, complementary programs that would be 

both experimental and field in nature. Basically, what our committee found again and again was that when we turned to looking 

for research data that would support the basic constructs, the basic 

parameters and models of where we were going, it just wasn’t 

there. We felt that there were some programs that could be deVerDate Aug 31 2005 13:59 Nov 29, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\112\JOINT_~2\7-13-1~1\67384.TXT JEAN
21 

signed if they were to be implemented where we could get very useful data in fairly short term. 

Mr. LARSEN. Mr. Chairman, I think I will hold there and, perhaps on the second round, come back. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. OK, thank you, Mr. Larsen. 

Mr. Gibbs. 

Mr. GIBBS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I want to explore a little bit invasion prevention with Dr. Carlton 

in just a second, but start with Admiral Salerno. 

You mentioned, currently, technology is there I think you said 

10—I will call them critters—per 1 cubic meter of water was that 

equal to 1 parts per trillion, correct? 

Admiral SALERNO. There are different size categories of the critters, sir, and what I referenced was the largest size, which is 50 

microns, which is essentially the size of a human cell, and that the 

standard, the phase one standard is 10 organisms or less in a cubic 

meter. 

Mr. GIBBS. And that would be the equivalent to parts per trillion? 

Admiral SALERNO. Yes. 

Mr. GIBBS. So that would be the phase one, that would be similar 

to the IMO standard that 28 nations have ratified? 

Admiral SALERNO. That is correct. 

Mr. GIBBS. OK. I guess, to Dr. Carlton, then, your testimony 

about invasion prevention, I guess what I am hearing, the science 

isn’t there to determine, even at parts per trillion, if that is a 

threshold that is great enough for, the zebra mussels in the Great 

Lakes to be able to adapt and multiply—is that correct? We just 

don’t know what the number should be, or it has to be zero? 

Mr. CARLTON. Right. At those kinds of numbers, where we have 

something like 10 or less organisms at 50 micrometers (50 microns) 

per cubic meter, that is well within the size range of quite a number of different organisms. The tiny larvae of a number of invertebrates, the cysts of organisms that cause red tides are all within 

that 50-micron and smaller range. When we multiply that times 

the cubic meters that are in a ship, the volume, so that number actually goes up substantially. So, within that range, we understand 

that there is still an inoculum available, even at what seems like 

disappearingly small numbers. It is multiplied by the volume of 

water in that ship, how many hundreds of thousands of cubic meters, and then the number of ships that continue the arrive. That 

said, it is those kinds of numbers that we struggled with in terms 

of what minimum inoculum density is necessary to get an exotic 

species population going. 

Mr. GIBBS. So, knowing all this and knowing we don’t have technology to go further, are you supportive of the United States ratifying the IMO and before when this permit expires, I think in a year 

or two? Would you support that, or something else? 

Mr. CARLTON. As my personal opinion—again, the committee 

didn’t address this—I would certainly support going in the strong 

directions that move us beyond ballast water exchange. Ballast 

water exchange has very large gaps in the management system for 

coast-wide trade. A number of vessels are exempt from it. We know 

that vessels in the foreign trade in fact cannot achieve ballast 

22 

water exchange at times or not efficiently, and so we know that we 

need to move beyond that. And so I am supportive of both a global 

and national program that ratchets this down considerably and 

gets us beyond what was widely considered to be a stopgap measure for the past 20 years. 

Ballast water exchange has always been a temporary measure, 

and what we need to do is get beyond that and get moving on to 

these programs, where combining what we can with ballast water 

management systems and however those are manifested reduces 

the concentration of those organisms considerably, and that we 

think will have a huge impact on invasion probability. 

Mr. GIBBS. Dr. Swackhamer, I guess I am intrigued with HACCP 

because I know a little something about that in the food supply 

line. Has that been more developed, or is there an actual proposal 

for critical points in how we could work to prevent the invasion of 

a species? 

Ms. SWACKHAMER. Mr. Gibbs, to my knowledge, it has not been 

developed specifically for invasive species, but the SAB feels that 

that particular HACCP approach, which has been in play for a long 

time and been quite successful at protecting the food supply, that 

that approach would be an ideal—it would translate ideally to the 

management of invasive species, from the taking of ballast water 

to its final discharge. So it would really be—instead of—it would 

include the numeric standard, but it would be managing ballast 

water from start to finish and finding those critical points in that 

process and then putting in place controls and monitoring to make 

sure that you are dealing with invasive species at each critical 

point in that line. 

Mr. GIBBS. I guess my last question is for Admiral Salerno. 

When I was back in the Ohio legislature, we had some committee 

hearings on ballast water exchanges and issues in the Great Lakes. 

Mechanically, ships are coming in and staying in the Saint Lawrence Seaway. They are required to exchange their ballast water 

200 miles out or something like that. Most ships, can they exchange it, or do they flush through? Can you just explain briefly 

the mechanics of how all that works? 

Admiral SALERNO. Yes, sir, the exchange is required to take 

place beyond 200 miles, which is our exclusive economic zone. It 

can, it is required to occur, but there are some provisions for allowing a ship not to do it. Mostly they are safety related; if, for example, if a ship is engaged in a storm, then it would be unsafe for the 

ship to shift ballast; there is an exemption there. 

The seaway also has a requirement for flushing. Coast Guard 

has a policy; the seaway has a requirement for flushing for empty 

ballast tanks, and that obviously also takes place out in mid ocean. 

And what we do is, in conjunction whether the seaway and Canadian authorities, is verify compliance at Massena, New York, so, essentially, in the seaway prior to entering the Lakes, and we are 

finding a high degree of compliance with those requirements. 

Mr. GIBBS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Mr. Bishop. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Hanlon, the title of this hearing is, ‘‘Reducing Regulatory 

Burdens, Ensuring the Flow of Commerce and Protecting Jobs,’’ 

23 

and I think it is fair to say that the implication of that title is that 

there is a view of some that ballast water treatment requirements 

and discharge standards constitute a regulatory burden that is impeding commerce. To your knowledge, has the implementation of 

the vessel general permit had a significant adverse impact on the 

flow of maritime commerce thus far? 

Mr. HANLON. Chairman Bishop, thank you—— 

Mr. BISHOP. I can only hope. 

Mr. HANLON. Or Ranking Member Bishop, thank you for your 

comment and question. The effective date of vessel general permit 

was February of 2009. We are going on 21⁄2 years of implementation. To the best of my knowledge, there have been no interruptions of trade or commerce resulting from the permit. 

Mr. BISHOP. Any other member of the panel wish to comment on 

that? 

Admiral Salerno, are you in a position to comment on that? 

Admiral SALERNO. If I can take that one for the record, sir. 

[The information follows:] 

With regard to the ballast water requirements in Section 

2 of the Vessel General Permit (VGP), which mirrors preexisting ballast water requirements in the pollution regulations in force before VGP came into effect, there is no 

significant adverse impact to the flow of maritime commerce. This is based on the exams conducted by the Coast 

Guard since March 2011, where only minor deficiencies 

have been identified and provided to the Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) for further action. 

Mr. BISHOP. All right. 

Mr. Hanlon, the second question. One argument that is raised is 

that we have two different laws. We have the Clean Water Act and 

we have the National Invasive Species Act, and that the two are 

duplicative and that we don’t really need regulation under the 

Clean Water Act with respect to this issue. Is that of a view that 

you share? And if so, why, and if not, why not? 

Mr. HANLON. The last time I appeared before this committee on 

a hearing on this subject, I testified that the EPA view was that 

we did not need duplicative coverage. That was a view supported 

by the last administration. This administration has not taken a position in terms of the value of NISA and Clean Water Act coverage 

of ballast water. 

I believe that EPA, working very closely with the Coast Guard, 

has succeeded in implementing a system that has successfully 

made progress in the management of ballast water; in our case, implementing a commonsense workable permit. 

Mr. BISHOP. But more specifically, do you believe that the application of the Clean Water Act provides protections beyond those 

that the National Invasive Species Act provides? 

Mr. HANLON. Yes, I do. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you, anyone else care to comment on this 

issue? 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Mr. Coble, Master Chief Coble. 

24 

Mr. COBLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate that. I thank 

you for that elevation. 

Admiral Salerno, when will the Coast Guard release its final ballast water regs? 

Admiral SALERNO. Sir, they are in clearance. Of course, they 

were published initially in 2009. We have received over 2,000 comments largely from industry. Very carefully went through all of 

those. But the interim final rule is in clearance. 

We do feel a great sense of urgency to get these regulations published for the simple reason that we are seeking to harmonize with 

EPA, and EPA has a deadline to revise its vessel general permit. 

So when these regulations are published, that would be useful to 

EPA. And their deadline is really later this fall. So we are working 

very aggressively within the administration to meet that deadline. 

Mr. COBLE. Thank you, sir. 

Will the Coast Guard regulations, Admiral, allow the use of 

shore-side systems, rather than shipboard systems? 

Admiral SALERNO. Shore-side systems are a possibility, sir. But 

it brings with it a great number of complications. Similar to what 

we have for sludge or oily waste, every facility would have to have 

that capability for the system to work. 

So, currently, the proposed regulations are really shipboardbased so that every ship has its own system to deal with the limitation of invasive species. 

Mr. COBLE. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. Hanlon, as you note in your testimony, EPA expects to release a draft vessel general permit, VGP, to replace the existing 

one by the end of the year. Has the EPA worked with the Coast 

Guard in developing its due discharge standards to prevent duplicity, and how can you ensure the uniformity if the VGP becomes 

subject to another lawsuit or further litigation? 

Mr. HANLON. We continue to work closely with the Coast Guard 

in terms of the development of options that will be considered for 

the draft general permit to be released by the end of the year. 

Again, we develop permits, the vessel general permit in this case, 

under the authorities of the Clean Water Act implementing regulations, and that based on that, we make decisions, Administrator 

Jackson makes decisions based on final permits, final regulations. 

It is not uncommon we are challenged on those decisions like we 

were challenged on the 2008 vessel permit. But as I mentioned a 

minute ago, we continue to implement that permit and have done 

so successfully. 

Mr. COBLE. Thank you all for being with us. 

Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Thank you, Master Chief. 

Mr. Cummings. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Admiral Salerno and Mr. Hanlon, Dr. Dennis King with the University of Maryland Maritime Environmental Resource Center has 

written that based on planned IMO compliance deadlines, over 

50,000 merchant ships will need to install certified BWT systems 

by 2016 to 2017. That is about 10,000 ships per year for 5 years 

or so. 

25 

And since many larger ships may need to install multiple BWT 

units to meet IMO discharge standards, the number of actual BWT 

units that will need to be manufactured and installed during those 

years to achieve widespread compliance may be closer to 20,000 or 

30,000 per year. 

Based on the Coast Guard’s research, how many vessels would 

need to install ballast water treatment systems if the U.S. adopts 

the proposed ballast water standards? 

Admiral SALERNO. Morning, Mr. Cummings. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Good morning. Good to see you again. 

Admiral SALERNO. Good to see you, sir. 

Sir, let me talk about the international fleet first. 

Every year, the U.S. is visited by between 8,000 and 9,000 individual ships. All of those vessels would need to comply with our 

standards. Internationally, of course, that number is much higher 

because the international fleet includes ships that don’t necessarily 

visit the United States. So 40,000 to 50,000 is probably in the accurate range. 

There is also a domestic fleet that would need to comply under 

the NPRM, and there the numbers are not as clear. Our proposed 

rulemaking estimated about 2,600. The feedback we received from 

industry suggests that number needs to be revised upwards significantly. I don’t have an absolute number for you, but I would say 

it would be a several-fold increase in the number of domestic vessels that would need to comply with the proposed standard. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Now, Dr. Swackhamer, are existing companies 

capable of producing the number of treatment systems needed to 

meet the demand. 

Ms. SWACKHAMER. Our panel did not actually address that question so I don’t know the answer to that question. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Is there anybody that can answer that question 

on the panel? 

Admiral SALERNO. Sir, I can tell you that a lot of the feedback 

we received from industry suggests there is concern about the 

availability of equipment. So that is something that we are paying 

very close attention to. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. All right. 

Admiral Salerno, a report that the EPA commission found that 

the systems currently exist to meet the International Maritime Organization’s standards. Can you state how many such systems 

exist, and roughly speaking, how much does each system cost to install and maintain? Further, how large are such systems, and could 

they be easily accommodated in the existing vessels? 

Admiral SALERNO. Sir, as far as the availability of systems, internationally, there are about seven other countries that have approved systems under the provisions of IMO, totaling about 11 individual system types. The Coast Guard has not yet approved any 

of those systems, but we are aware of them and would go through 

the approval process with those manufacturers. 

The cost to acquire and install, obviously, will vary depending on 

the ship type and service. For a large ocean-going ship, the cost of 

acquisition is probably somewhere at $1.8 million. And then installation, you are probably $2.5 million on average. Less so for a doVerDate Aug 31 2005 13:59 Nov 29, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\112\JOINT_~2\7-13-1~1\67384.TXT JEAN
26 

mestic vessel. But you are still talking probably several hundred 

thousand. 

As far as size goes, again, that will vary, but for a large oceangoing ship, this is a significant bit of installation, roughly equivalent in volume to a large freight container. And that would require 

additional pumping and power requirements so that, in many 

cases, it will require the ship to have that installation done in a 

shipyard. 

For smaller vessels, obviously, the units would be smaller but 

still quite substantial. For example, a small coastal vessel, probably looking at several hundred thousand for installation and the 

unit, maybe the size of one or two home-sized refrigerators. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. With the chair’s indulgence, I just want to ask 

one quick other question. 

I just want to—I am concerned. Before I close, I also want to 

take a moment and note that yesterday the National Transportation Safety Board issued its report on a 2009 accident—are you 

familiar with that—in San Diego, in which a Coast Guard patrol 

boat collided with a recreational boat killing a young child. The 

NTSB identified excessive speed of the Coast Guard patrol boat as 

a cause of this accident. This report of course is very troubling to 

us. As the NTSB noted, it is the Coast Guard that is charged with 

ensuring the safety of our recreational boating activities and enforcing the rules of the road on our waterways. I hope that you all 

are acting on that because that is of great concern to us. It sets 

a very poor example, I think. 

And wouldn’t you agree, if we have got our own folks who are 

supposed to be saving lives speeding down the waterways and leading to such a tragic incident? I wouldn’t be making this comment 

if the NTSB had not already made its finding. 

Admiral SALERNO. Sir, I can assure you we take that incident 

and anything like that incident extremely seriously. It did trigger 

very in depth internal investigation, and disciplinary action has 

been taken as well as policy measures that have been put in place 

to ensure that that type of situation does not occur again. But we 

take that extremely seriously. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Thank you, Mr. Cummings. 

We will now recognize the gentleman from coastal Louisiana, Mr. 

Landry. 

Mr. LANDRY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Carlton, I can’t help but sit here listening to all of this and 

think about being down on the coast and growing up and doing a 

lot of fishing and having a lot of social interaction with commercial 

fishermen. 

I could think of one old shrimper down in my district, Mr. 

Sharem. He is about 85 years old. He has got no formal education. 

And as you all were talking, and I think if he would be sitting here, 

he would probably look at me and say, ‘‘You know, boy, just put 

a little more Clorox in the ballast, and we could solve the problem.’’ 

And it seems that is exactly what you were saying. You know, 

we could spend millions of dollars trying to come up with processes 

to filter the water, but it seems like if we just put a little more CloVerDate Aug 31 2005 13:59 Nov 29, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\112\JOINT_~2\7-13-1~1\67384.TXT JEAN
27 

rox in the ballasts, we would do a lot more good and save a lot 

more money. Is that not what you were kind of alluding to? 

Mr. CARLTON. It is an interesting question. I am going to pass 

this over to Dr. Swackhamer; her committee looked at all of these 

various technologies. But I do appreciate—I spend time at Grand 

Isle and Cocodrie and along the Louisiana coast. And I appreciate 

those senses of those who are living and working along the coastline as to the more pragmatic strategies that we should take. 

But in fact, chemical control, although it wasn’t something our 

committee looked at, has been looked at for ballast water management and it has been considered to be a challenge, of course, as to 

chemically treating water. But let me pass that over to Dr. 

Swackhamer, whose committee looked at that question. 

Ms. SWACKHAMER. Mr. Landry, on a small scale, certainly using 

diluted bleach is a good way to clean your kitchen, but it is not a 

very good way to actually get at large volumes of ballast water. 

And the reason is the number of organisms and the number of particles in the water. So you have to go through multiple kinds of 

treatments to really, one, remove as many organisms as you can 

from some sort of physical filtration, and then you want to disinfect 

using—— 

Mr. LANDRY. Would you say there is more ballast water than 

there are household sinks in this country? 

Ms. SWACKHAMER. No. It is a small-scale issue versus a largescale. 

Mr. LANDRY. It is a small-scale issue if you look at it from a sink 

to a ballast, but if you go from a city to a ship, I think the amount 

that you are putting down the drain is probably more in the city 

than it would be in the ballast. 

But I guess my problem is we seem to not be taking pragmatic 

approaches and rather trying to look at something, which I think 

you all do a lot of, and that is to dream up what is the best case 

scenario to just filter the water to a point where even sometimes 

it seems like you are just going above and beyond what we need. 

And it strangles industry, and it kills jobs. And that is my concern whether it is Clorox or some other agent that we could use, 

it seems like you all could come up with something that is a lot 

cheaper. 

Before I run out of time, I wanted to ask the Admiral why is it— 

tell me what we could do to keep EPA from having to get involved 

in maritime vessels. I would rather keep enforcement of these 

issues strictly under the Coast Guard’s supervision, just because I 

think that is where it belongs. And now we are paying for two 

agencies to basically do the same thing, and then we can’t seem to 

come to an agreement. 

Admiral SALERNO. Sir, the way we have approached that is in cooperation with EPA, we have actually signed a memorandum of understanding—— 

Mr. LANDRY. I don’t want you all to cooperate. I just want to give 

it to you. 

Admiral SALERNO. I will leave that to Congress, sir. 

What we do is our people go out on the vessels. They are trained 

in what the EPA requirements are, and we act as detectors. We 

wrap that into our normal requirements. 

28 

Mr. LANDRY. I wouldn’t want to task the Coast Guard with making sure that we enforce household—you know, sewage treatment 

facilities land-based. And that is my point is, I don’t want you all 

to be doing their job and them to do your job. And I think they 

would be better off where you are. 

But one quick before—I have got 20 seconds. Mr. Hanlon, you 

testified that approximately 69,000 domestic and foreign vessels, 

which are subject to the permit requirement while in U.S. waters. 

Do you know how many of these regulated vessels are owned by 

the U.S. Government? 

Mr. HANLON. I don’t have that information. We can certainly get 

back to you for the record on that. 

Mr. LANDRY. Are those Government vessels going to have to adhere to these same guidelines as the private vessels, or are we 

going to exempt DOD vessels? 

Mr. HANLON. Under provisions of the Clean Water Act, military 

vessels are not subject to the 402 Clean Water Act permit. That is 

a separate rulemaking process under way for military vessels. 

Mr. LANDRY. So the Coast Guard vessels won’t have to meet the 

same criteria as the private vessels, is that what you are saying? 

Mr. HANLON. That is correct. But EPA vessels—basically, we 

have a very limited number of vessels—they have applied for and 

are complying with the permits. 

Mr. LANDRY. Would they have to? 

Mr. HANLON. Yes, sir. Only military vessels. 

Mr. LANDRY. I yield back. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Ms. Herrera Beutler, do you have questions? 

Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. I mean, I have more questions for the 

second panel. 

But just maybe just to the group, what happens if Congress 

doesn’t step in and do something? In terms of where we are at in 

the regulatory framework, what happens, and what would the cost 

be? That is really to the group. 

Mr. HANLON. I think the path forward—well, as the Admiral testified, their regulation is in the final review process and will be 

issued. EPA will continue to coordinate and work with the Coast 

Guard staff in terms of their final regulation. The next generation 

of the vessel permit that is supposed to be proposed in November 

of this year and as we have with the past permit and Coast Guard 

regulations, we will continue to coordinate to ensure that there are 

sort of commonsense implementable solutions on the ground that 

ship owners and ship operators can comply with and will sort of 

know what the standards are so that there isn’t any fuzziness in 

terms of what the requirements are at any point in time for any 

vessel on the water. 

Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. Those rules, both of them, they don’t supersede State, any kind of State, the State framework at all. So if 

a State has additional—so it is what you are putting out in addition; correct? 

Mr. HANLON. That is correct. 

Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. Thank you. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Mr. Gibbs indicated he had some additional questions. 

Mr. GIBBS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

29 

This is for Mr. Hanlon, kind of a follow up on my last round of 

questions. We were talking about the parts per trillion and the 

IMO standard. My understanding is New York and California are 

putting into place standards 100 to 1,000 times greater than the 

IMO standard. And do you have any idea how vessel operators 

could expect to comply with those standards? 

Mr. HANLON. The conditions that New York, for example, has 

placed on the EPA 2008 vessel permit was under the authority of 

Section 401 of the Clean Water Act, where Congress said, for any 

Federal license or permit, a State can attach conditions relative to 

that license or permit complying with State water quality standards, so those are independent decisions that are made by States 

and are subject to challenges in courts. As Dr. Swackhamer testified, we are not aware of any technologies today why—— 

Mr. GIBBS. My follow-up question to that is does the U.S. EPA 

have any mechanism to override any burdensome restrictions put 

on by States then? 

Mr. HANLON. Under 401 certifications, we do not. 

Mr. GIBBS. So in the EPA’s opinion, should the Federal Government have the primacy in determining ballast water regulations 

then? Would you agree with that? 

Mr. HANLON. The vessel general permit was issued by EPA. That 

is our permit, yes, sir. 

Mr. GIBBS. Can vessel owners or operators face citizens’ lawsuits 

for failure to comply with the 401 certifications? 

Mr. HANLON. In as much as a 401 condition is a condition of the 

permit, the answer to that is yes. 

Mr. GIBBS. Would the EPA support a waiver of 401 certifications 

for vessels engaged in interstate commerce? 

Mr. HANLON. That is a question we would be happy to get back 

to you on the record. 

Mr. GIBBS. I am just trying to address some uniformity on the 

issue with regard to interstate commerce. 

Mr. HANLON. We understand that. We also understand that in 

the 2008 permit and the 401 certifications, for some States, it had 

been 30 or more years before they had been in a position to issue 

a 401 certification on an EPA permit. And they had to do that in 

a relatively short period of time. 

Our plans are to give States a minimum of 6 months on the next 

permit to consider their certification requirements, if any, that may 

continue after a proposal of the next permit. And again, that permit will be informed by the work of both the National Academy 

and—— 

Mr. GIBBS. Giving States more time wouldn’t guarantee uniformity, though, under that permitting process, correct? 

Mr. HANLON. I am sorry, I didn’t hear—— 

Mr. GIBBS. Giving States more time under this permitting process wouldn’t guarantee uniformity, correct? 

Mr. HANLON. Correct. 

Mr. GIBBS. OK, thank you. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Do any Members have additional questions for 

the first panel? 

Well, thank you very much for a helpful, very informative session. 

30 

We are now going to move to our second panel, give a chance to 

switch out and announce who they are. 

Our second panel includes Mr. Thomas Allegretti, who is the 

president The American Waterways Operators, who is also representing the Shipping Industry Ballast Water Coalition; and Mr. 

Michael Jewell, who is president of the Marine Engineers’ Beneficial Association. 

I would like to thank them for being here today, and in just a 

second, we will go forward with their testimony. 

TESTIMONY OF THOMAS A. ALLEGRETTI, PRESIDENT AND 

CEO, THE AMERICAN WATERWAYS OPERATORS, ON BEHALF 

OF THE SHIPPING INDUSTRY BALLAST WATER COALITION; 

AND MICHAEL JEWELL, PRESIDENT, MARINE ENGINEERS’ 

BENEFICIAL ASSOCIATION 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Mr. Allegretti, whenever you are ready you are 

recognized. 

Mr. ALLEGRETTI. Good morning, Chairman LoBiondo. 

Today’s hearing is aptly titled and most timely. Our Nation urgently needs the commonsense approach which your subcommittees 

are seeking. 

Without congressional action, the flow of critical maritime commerce will be constrained, American jobs will be jeopardized, regulatory burdens on business and workers will multiply, and American taxpayers will continue to foot the bill for duplicative and contradictory programs. 

The bipartisan leadership of these two subcommittees is crucial 

to ensure that our Nation avoids these unwarranted outcomes. 

The good news is that Congress has a huge opportunity to 

change the situation by enacting legislation that is good for U.S. 

business and American mariners, is good for the U.S. environment, 

and is good for the American economy and jobs. 

In my remarks to you this morning, I would like to address three 

fundamental issues: First, we must streamline existing regulations 

so they are clear to companies and mariners. The 30,000 American 

mariners who live and work aboard the 4,000 towing vessels in our 

industry are currently subject to the regulations of two Federal 

agencies and 26 States. These regulations have overlapping and 

conflicting requirements about how to use and discharge water on 

vessels that are operating in interstate commerce. The situation is 

confusing and unfair for hardworking Americans. And it is legally 

treacherous for law-abiding companies. 

These mariners and companies are at risk of unwittingly committing a felony because of the patchwork of requirements that differ 

from one side of an invisible line in the water to another. Consider 

this: A tug and barge unit on a typical Northeast coastal voyage 

must traverse the waters of seven States to move petroleum from 

a refinery in New Jersey to a terminal in Maine. A typical inland 

barge tow will traverse the waters of 11 States moving cargo on the 

Ohio and Mississippi rivers from Pittsburgh to New Orleans. These 

vessels are required to comply with Federal standards established 

by both the EPA and the Coast Guard. The vessels must also comply with State and sometimes water-body specific conditions estabVerDate Aug 31 2005 13:59 Nov 29, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\112\JOINT_~2\7-13-1~1\67384.TXT JEAN
31 

lished by each of the States through which they are passing. Failure to comply with these rules is a crime. 

This simply is not the right way to regulate an interstate industry that is vital to the American economy. The lack of uniform Federal rules creates confusion that makes it more difficult for companies and mariners to comply with environmental regulations, and 

it puts hardworking Americans at risk of becoming felons. American companies, mariners and taxpayers deserve better and more 

streamlined standards from their Government. 

Second, we need to really protect the environment. The current 

regulatory situation actually undermines that objective. The absence of uniform national standards has encouraged a competition 

among States to establish the most stringent treatment standards 

on the books. Under the logic of this competition, if the international standard is good, a standard 100 or 1,000 times more 

stringent must be better. 

There are two big problems with this thinking. One, the technology to achieve those standards, or even the science to measure 

them, simply does not exist. And two, no responsible business can 

invest millions of dollars per vessel to install a ballast water treatment system that might be accepted in some States but not in others. 

The unfortunate result of the situation is that we have spent 

much of the last several years arguing about and litigating fantasy 

standards instead of implementing effective ones. That is as bad for 

the environment as it is bad for business. 

Third, we must protect American jobs. The economic stakes are 

very high. The barges and towing vessels in our industry safely 

and efficiently move more than 800 million tons of critical cargo 

each year. Our industry is mostly comprised of small businesses 

and the regulatory burdens of this broken system are complex to 

the point of crushing. 

Mr. Chairman, the problem is not that vessels discharges are 

regulated; it is how they are regulated. The current situation is untenable for the movement of American commerce. It is harmful to 

the high-quality jobs that our industry provides. It is an obstacle 

to the real protection of the marine environment. 

We respectfully urge the Subcommittees to take the lead in correcting a regulatory, environmental, and economic wrong by passing legislation that establishes a national framework for the regulation of vessel discharges. 

Thank you for your leadership in holding today’s hearing and for 

providing us the opportunity to testimony. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Thank you, Mr. Allegretti. 

Mr. Jewell, you are recognized for your statement. 

Mr. JEWELL. Good morning, Chairman LoBiondo, Gibbs and 

Ranking Members Larsen and Bishop. I am Mike Jewell, president 

of the MEBA. And I hold a U.S. Coast Guard chief engineer’s license and am a captain in the U.S. Navy Reserve. 

On behalf of the Marine Engineers’ Beneficial Association, the 

American Maritime Officers, the International Organization of 

Master Mates and Pilots, and Seafarers International Union, I 

thank you for the opportunity to testify and for your continued support of the U.S. Merchant Marine. 

32 

Collectively, our maritime leader organizations represent men 

and women working aboard U.S.-flag commercial vessels operating 

our Nation’s foreign commerce and domestic trades. The regulations that govern this fleet are very important. They have a large 

impact on its ability to compete for a larger share of America’s foreign trade and the creation of vibrant coastwise shipping industry 

and maritime related jobs. 

There is a need for clear and consistent measures to address ballast water. The discharge of ballast water in U.S. could disrupt the 

environment if it contains invasive species. The U.S.-flag maritime 

community continues to work diligently to address the issue. 

As the subcommittee moves forward in their consideration of ballast water regulatory policies, we ask you to include the following 

factors: The uniformity by flag. In order for its intended effect to 

stay competitive in the world market, any ballast water regulation 

applied to the vessels operating in U.S. waters should apply to both 

U.S.- and foreign-flagged vessels. 

A comprehensive Federal standard. Under current law, individual States are able to implement their own regulations and establish State-specific permits. Unfortunately, the State permit development process does not always follow the Federal model of public comment and industry involvement. With constantly changing 

laws and regulations, it is difficult for vessel operators to formulate 

and conduct a sound business plan. 

The maritime industry will be well-served by a comprehensive 

Federal standard rather than individual legislation by the States. 

The consideration of lakers. Vessels operated exclusively on the 

Great Lakes require a unique consideration because of the particular environment in which they operate. First, Congress should 

question the need for any enhanced ballast regulations on those 

vessels that spend their entire life solely on the Great Lakes. Since 

the lakers do not leave the system, they will never introduce nonindigenous species into the Great Lakes. 

Second, most vessels operating on the Lakes rely on a higher 

level and speedier transfer of ballast water. Because of the uniquely rapid transfer, many of the ballast treatment systems proposed 

for their coastal and inland counterparts are not suitable for use 

on these vessels. 

Finally, there is no system today that satisfies the proposed regulatory changes. Because of this and the cost associated, the shipping industry on the Lakes would be put in jeopardy. Well-intentioned environmental policies could have unintended effect of pushing cargo to transportation means that are vastly less environmental friendly than shipping. Therefore when considering regulations on the Lakes, it is important to consider the unique regionspecific factors and operating parameters 

The promotion of coastwise shipping. Congress and the administration have strongly supported the development of a vibrant coastwise shipping industry that can supplement and compliment the 

increasingly congested rail and roadways. This energy-efficient and 

economically friendly industry would create many new transportation jobs that would require little or no Federal funding. Like the 

lakers, these vessels will spend their entire life in the same waters. 

Therefore, the risk of introduction of invasive species to the coastal 

33 

communities would be limited. To that end, Congress should consider coastwise shipping when drafting regulations that stay within 

U.S. waters. 

Safety. Foremost in the consideration for the ballast standards 

and the corresponding implementation deadline should be safety. 

Both the rate and volume of ballast transfers ensure ships remain 

stable. And should requirements be put in place, where improper 

technology exists, the ship’s integrity and safety of its mariners are 

put at risk. 

In conclusion, the American policymakers have long recognized 

the best interest of the United States to maintain and support a 

strong U.S.-flag Merchant Marine industry, our men and women 

protect, strengthen and enhance our Nation’s economic and military security. 

Promoting the water-borne shipment of goods would dramatically 

reduce the country’s environmental footprint and create good jobs. 

Developing highly skilled middle class jobs in today’s economic environment is invaluable. To best serve the economy surrounding 

the U.S.-flag industry, the United States should develop a safe, 

sound, economically feasible regulations that affect ballast water 

transfer. 

Working together we can achieve a high level of environmental 

standards as well as foster developments of new jobs. 

Thank you. I welcome your questions. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Thank you, Mr. Jewell. 

Mr. Allegretti, would you tell the committee from your perspective, what would the impact be if the 401 certifications in California and New York were enforced? 

Mr. ALLEGRETTI. It is difficult to contemplate what the effect is 

on real people when something like that happens. We are talking 

about real mariners who work aboard vessels. We are talking about 

companies that have been developed over the course of generations, 

family-owned companies. And the impacts of those kinds of enforcement are real. 

The situation we face with the State certification requirements, 

as I said in my remarks, is untenable. 

Mr. Chairman, you said it is unsustainable. I think that is absolutely correct. It is totally unsustainable. 

Today we live with a dysfunctional system that we comply with 

at great cost, with great difficulty and, at the end of the day, with 

great uncertainty about whether we are actually in compliance 

with the law. 

There is no way that over the long term, our industry can live 

with that kind of a system without impacting the folks who make 

their living aboard the vessels and the ability to move commerce 

in the interstate system. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. So it would, from your perspective, have a dramatic and very negative impact on the ability to retain the level 

of jobs we have now, let alone hire more people? 

Mr. ALLEGRETTI. Absolutely. I mean, companies have to make decisions about future investments. Nobody can make rational judgments about investing millions of dollars in the capital equipment 

and in the training that goes into their workforce when they look 

34 

down the road and see a system that is fundamentally dysfunctional. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Your opinion, how would you suggest we, the 

Congress, go about creating a uniform Federal framework for regulation of vessel discharges? 

Mr. ALLEGRETTI. Our coalition, the Shipping Industry Ballast 

Water Coalition, has spent a lot of time talking about that, consulting with folks on the Hill about the art of the possible and also 

looking at the legal paths forward to make sure that if and when 

Congress enacts remedial legislation, that it will not be subject to 

being overturned in the courts. 

And the best thinking that we can provide to the subcommittees 

is that the regulation of ballast water and vessel discharges in the 

future should be done under the framework of the Clean Water 

Act. That is the proper place for the regulation to take place. But 

it has to take place within a new subtitle of the law which provides 

for a national system of regulation, a national system of uniformity, and removes vessel discharges from the NPDES permit 

system that it is currently subject to as a result of the Circuit 

Court decision in California. 

So we would recommend that the Clean Water Act be amended 

to allow for a national framework. We would also recommend that 

the authorities for implementing that framework be jointly provided to the Coast Guard and to EPA. Which should take advantage of the natural strengths of those two agencies. EPA has enormous scientific expertise. The Coast Guard has enormous operational and Maritime expertise. And together, they can set effective 

national standards, and they can implement and enforce them. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Thank you. 

Mr. Jewell, we have had a lot of discussion over the last couple 

of years and I think pretty broad-based acceptance that we have 

to really focus on marine highways and implement a short seas 

shipping program. Your opinion, if we continue to move forward 

with dozens of State and Federal laws regulating ballast water and 

other incidental discharges, what impact will that have on our efforts to revitalize our marine highways and implement a short seas 

shipping program? 

Mr. JEWELL. When you look at the short seas shipping, and if— 

you can overregulate it. And if you do overregulate it, you are not 

going to have people and companies willing to invest in the short 

seas shipping if you overregulate the ballast water concerns. 

You are in the EEZ zone of the United States, and these ships 

are going to be designed supposedly not to transfer outside the EEZ 

zone of the United States. Therefore, they are going to stay in the 

intercoastal waters of the United States. Very rarely will they 

probably go outside the 50 miles. And if you regulate them too 

much, you will not find owners coming in to want to build ships 

and invest in the marine highway system. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. In your opinion, what issues should Congress 

consider when developing legislation to address these ballast water 

issues? 

Mr. JEWELL. I look at it as a very simple thing. Less than a year 

ago, I was on a ship. We had to come into the United States, and 

we did have ballast water. And under a U.S.-flag ship, it is very 

35 

simple; once we get inside the EEZ zone, we do not pump ballast 

out. And when we go to the dock, we do not pump ballast water 

out in the pier or in the bays. We just simply do not do that. One 

of the reasons we don’t do that is you have fuel lines that run 

through ballast tanks. And what those ballast tanks—and you 

don’t know the age of the ships, the United States fleet, it could 

contain oil. We simply do not—and I think it is very simple—is we 

don’t deballast at the pier or dock or in the bays or estuaries. We 

just simply don’t do that. It is a very simple rule. 

We exchange the five times out there in the middle of the ocean. 

Coming from Korea, we actually ballast in Korea to get the ship 

down to the water to make it safe to passage. Once we get the middle of the ocean, we actually do our five exchanges with good water. 

Then when we come into the United States, we do not deballast in 

the bays and estuaries. Simply put. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Larsen. 

Mr. LARSEN. Mr. Allegretti, is the issue facing your industry the 

two Federal agencies or the 26 States? 

Mr. ALLEGRETTI. It is the 26 States. 

Mr. LARSEN. So from what I understood you to say in response 

to the chairman’s question is that what you propose a separate 

subtitle under the Clean Water Act that would be specific to ballast 

water discharge, taking it out of the NPDES process and creating— 

well, I don’t know if you could create a standard—but create a separate subtitle with regard to discharge. 

Mr. ALLEGRETTI. Ballast water discharge and all vessel discharge; they should all be regulated together within the same subtitle. And Mr. Larsen, there is precedent for doing that. In the 

Clean Air Act, there are separate subtitles, one of which deals with 

point sources and one of which deals with mobile sources and so 

you would be kind of modeling it along the Clean Air Act model. 

Mr. LARSEN. Do you have—does the industry have a view on the 

Coast Guard’s phase one standard? 

Mr. ALLEGRETTI. Yes. We think that the Coast Guard’s phase one 

standard is the appropriate standard because it is the internationally recognized standard, and it is the only standard on which 

there is general consensus is technologically achievable. 

Mr. LARSEN. Are any of your members participating in any of the 

technology evaluations that Admiral Salerno discussed? 

Mr. ALLEGRETTI. I don’t believe so, but I would like to clarify for 

the record. There may in fact be some who are participating. And 

the challenges of ballast water management on towing vessels are 

unique to what we understand. Most of the knowledge and the 

science today focuses on large ocean-going vessels and international 

commerce. The amount of ballast water they carry and their flow 

rates, are very different, of course, than the smaller towing vessels 

that operate domestically. 

So just a technical challenge that we face as we move forward 

is making sure that we size the ballast water requirements to the 

vessels so that it is practicable and achievable. 

Mr. LARSEN. And you don’t want the technology applied to the 

vessel to be larger than the vessel itself? 

36 

Mr. ALLEGRETTI. That would be a good standard to start with, 

yes, sir. 

Mr. LARSEN. Just trying to help. 

Mr. Jewell, are any of the vessels that your members work on 

participating in technology evaluations. 

Mr. JEWELL. Not that I know of, no. 

Mr. LARSEN. Can you get back to us? 

Mr. JEWELL. Yes, we will. My staff will. 

Mr. LARSEN. And then, from your point of view as well, is the 

issue the two Federal agencies or the 26 States? 

Mr. JEWELL. As a deep sea person, it is mainly the Federal, but 

I truly, and being on the Great Lakes also, so it is kind of a twofold 

so it is kind of both. 

Mr. LARSEN. OK, that is great. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Mr. Gibbs. 

Mr. GIBBS. I thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Jewell, I just want to highlight in your written testimony, 

you state, on January 1, 2012, New York State regulations add to 

the EPA’s vessel general permit will require that ballast water be 

as pure as distilled water or similar to bottled drinking water before it can be discharged into the waters of the State. These wellintentioned regulations would have the effect of closing the St. 

Lawrence Seaway thus disrupting shipping throughout the region 

and eliminating the waterway’s workforce. 

I want to highlight that because if you close the Saint Lawrence 

Seaway because New York State is allowed to do this and January 

1, if that was implemented, that would shut down the whole Great 

Lakes—it is unbelievable to me. I don’t know if you want to expound on that or not, but I wanted to make sure that was highlighted because I don’t know if you said that in your oral testimony. I don’t believe I heard it. I just wanted to highlight that. 

Mr. Allegretti, you just said you are in support of phase one uniform standard. What would be the—what is the cost per vessel approximately in order to implement the technology to comply to 

phase one? 

Mr. ALLEGRETTI. It is largely an unknown. I can tell you what 

I think we understand the range of costs to be. 

There was a survey done in California a couple of years ago that 

looked at 14 different ballast water technologies and tried to price 

them out. And the average number as I recall—the average cost of 

the ballast water system was about $900,000 according to the survey. If you think about that relative to the cost of equipment in the 

towing industry, a barge can cost $400,000 to $500,000 so you 

would be putting a system on a barge that costs twice the actual 

construction cost of the barge. An inland towing vessel can cost 

somewhere in the $3 to $4 million range. So you are putting equipment on the vessel that is 20 to 25 percent of the cost of the original construction price. 

So you are talking about very significant, potentially significant 

economic burdens relative to the cost of the equipment that was 

constructed and bought for the purposes of the transportation. 

Mr. GIBBS. To go beyond phase one, you know I have heard testimony that technology doesn’t exist anyway to determine that the 

37 

thousands or hundred times the IMO standard, the phase one 

standard, I am not going to speculate or assume that to put in a 

ballast water system to go beyond phase one to phase two would 

be totally out of reach for most people and would shut down the 

industry. 

Mr. ALLEGRETTI. Sir, I guess what I would ask the subcommittee 

to be particularly attentive to is not using the industry as a test 

bed for driving the improvement in technology or further stringency of the standards. Those are very good—I think those are very 

good goals that we should try to achieve. But there is a different 

way to come at those as opposed to requiring new technologies on 

vessels to figure out how well it works. We should first make sure 

that it is technologically feasible, practicable and available commercially before we put a regulation in place that requires people 

to purchase it. 

Mr. GIBBS. My last question, Mr. Jewell, on training and in preparing engineers to operate these ballast water management systems and what is all involved in that and manpower requirements. 

Mr. JEWELL. As far as the training, I can honestly say as far as 

the American merchant marine, we are probably one of the best 

trained in the world for all of us. I would think that we would 

adapt very quickly to the training aspects. Each of the unions have 

their own schools, and what I would expect is that we would go to 

the manufacturer and get one of their engineers to come in there 

and set up a class, and we would adapt ourselves very quickly to 

the new ballast system if that were to be put in place. 

I truly look at it as it is not the American domestic fleet that 

should be the problem because they are actually taking in water 

from the coasts of the United States. And that way, I truly look at 

it as a foreign-flag coming into this country that brings in more of 

the invasive species and everything else like that. 

But on the domestic trade, you are taking water, if you are in 

the Great Lakes, you are taking in the Great Lakes. The Gulf 

Stream that comes up from Florida all the way to New York, that 

is where you are going to be getting your ballast water, and then 

to treat it, it seems to be not productive and at a cost to the companies that right now, the way shipping is, cannot really afford $1 

million or $2 million of new equipment to be put on ships. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Ms. Richardson. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Jewell and Mr. Allegretti, you have heard our chairman reference, as well as Chairman Mica, of an interest in putting some 

things in place to increase short seas shipping. Do you feel that our 

current systems are in place to support that potential growth? 

Mr. JEWELL. Yes, I do. I think we are moving more and more and 

to get the trucks and everything else off the highways, I think it 

is very important to establish the short sea shipping, so to speak, 

and to build a short sea shipping up to get the shipyards more productive, to build ships in the United States, to provide the jobs. 

And as the ships are built, then the mariners get to man the ships, 

and they are all U.S.-crude, U.S.-flag vessels. And I think it is very 

productive. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. Is there anything that you think you need 

prior to this being implemented? Is there any support or any reguVerDate Aug 31 2005 13:59 Nov 29, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\112\JOINT_~2\7-13-1~1\67384.TXT JEAN
38 

lations or anything that you think you need from this Congress in 

order to implement that effectively? 

Mr. JEWELL. Can I get back to you with that? 

Ms. RICHARDSON. Sure. Absolutely. 

Mr. Jewell, actually I have a couple more questions for you. 

In your testimony, you described some of the imbalances you see 

currently implemented on the U.S.- versus foreign-flag vessels. 

Could you describe some of those imbalances that you are currently 

experiencing? 

Mr. JEWELL. The cost of the foreign-flag crew is a big thing, and 

foreign flags, they actually do not have the same regulatory burdens that the Americans do. The American Merchant Marines are 

probably the most regulated individuals in the country, with driving records—we have to renew our license every year—every 5 

years, excuse me. Every 5 years, we renew our license. We have to 

go through a driving check. We have to go through two or three different other steps to be able to sit there and get our license and 

to be able to sail. One DUI could actually hurt your career as a 

U.S. Merchant Marine. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. Mr. Allegretti, what impact do you think would 

we see if we were to impose a national standard on the shipping 

industry, meaning from these 26 States that multiple people have 

asked these questions about today? Have you heard discussions as 

far as are they supportive, or are they completely opposed? 

Mr. ALLEGRETTI. You would have national jubilation. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. From States. 

Mr. ALLEGRETTI. Did you ask about the States? 

Ms. RICHARDSON. Yes. 

Mr. ALLEGRETTI. I can’t speak for the States. 

I will say that one of the major impediments to the movement 

of this legislation has been the kind of theoretical and philosophical 

arguments about the authority of States and the unwillingness to 

preempt their actions in this area. And it is obviously a significant 

issue that the subcommittees have to deal with. I understand it is 

a sensitive issue. 

But in the case of the movement of interstate commerce, it is 

very clear, it is very clear in the Constitution, it is very clear in 

two centuries of case law, it is very clear in recent enactments of 

Congress that there are a small handful of areas where the national interest trumps the authority of States to act independently, 

and this is one of them. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. Are you aware of any specific opposition that 

has been presented by the State? 

Mr. ALLEGRETTI. Not personally, no. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. If you have any information, would you mind 

supplying it to the committee? 

Mr. ALLEGRETTI. Be happy to, ma’am. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. Thank you. And then my last question. 

Mr. Jewell, you state in your testimony that domestically U.S. 

vessels operate more efficiently, safely, and more environmentally 

consciously than any other means of transportation. And having 

worked on transportation now for my entire legislative career, I 

thought that was an interesting comment. Could you explain further why you feel that is the case? 

39 

Mr. JEWELL. Well, we put Americans to work and Americans are 

the greatest people in the world and that efficiently we do things— 

the American Merchant Marine adapts so quickly and so well. The 

ships are run very efficiently in how we do it. Even though we are 

regulated, we go by all of the regulations. Safety, I think the safety 

record of the American Merchant Marine—I don’t remember the 

last time a merchant ship crashed into the Golden Gate or the San 

Francisco Bay Bridge. So I think our safety record speaks for itself. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. Thank you. 

I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Mr. Cravaack. 

Mr. CRAVAACK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you for our witnesses for being here today. 

The steel-making facilities across the country cannot operate 

without vessel delivery from ore from the range in Minnesota. Vessels typically deliver 8 to 9 million tons of ore from my district to 

Gary, Indiana, alone each year. 

In 2009, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers reports estimates 

that the Great Lakes shipping annually saves its customers $3.6 

billion in transportation costs when compared to the next least 

costly mode of transportation. 

All vessels seeking to travel within the Great Lakes, between 

Lake Erie and Lake Ontario, or between the Great Lakes and the 

Saint Lawrence Seaway must transit New York waters. Imposing 

requirements that simply cannot be met technology-wise, such as 

the New York ballast water treatment system requirements 100 

times or 1,000 times the IMO standard will of course have huge 

negative effect on North American steel industry. 

If it does not disrupt it entirely, even trying to comply will drive 

up transportation costs significantly. It would also set dangerous 

precedent that could eventually affect other U.S. waterways and 

threaten international commerce in profound ways. 

So, essentially, under U.S. law and the Federal Clean Water Act, 

a single State can effectively blockade traffic from leaving or entering the Great Lakes, New York Harbor or any other harbor they 

deem fit. For example, if Michigan adopted such a standard, they 

could affect the waterways down line and affect millions of jobs all 

over the U.S. and Canada, on the Great Lakes, Saint Lawrence 

Seaway, Hudson River, and the New Jersey and New York Harbor, 

including 260,000 jobs in New York Harbor alone. 

In understanding all of this, it just seems to me that this is not 

only going to affect jobs within the maritime community on the 

docks and at sea, but it is also going to affect the average American 

downstream. 

Mr. Allegretti, could you address that and tell us how this is 

going to affect just the average American if this was adopted? 

Mr. ALLEGRETTI. Well, you said it very well, sir, and there is not 

a lot that I can add to what you said. And it really underscores the 

urgency of moving forward remedial legislation. 

I guess I would say with respect to the impact on the American 

consumer, there are really two, I think. One is that to the extent 

that you raise transportation costs, those costs get passed down the 

line to the end of the retail chain, and they ultimately end up in 

the shopping basket of Americans in one way, shape, or form. 

40 

The other thing may be a little more philosophical than sort of 

the economic impact, is really the proper expectation of American 

citizens that its Government functions well and functions smartly. 

And this system of the taxpayer paying for two Federal programs 

and then paying State tax bills to underwrite 26 additional contradictory programs really is a poster child for wasteful Government spending. 

Mr. CRAVAACK. Thank you very much, sir. I appreciate those 

comments, and I would have to agree; we do have the best maritime sailors in the world. So thank you very much for those comments. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. I want to thank you, Mr. Allegretti, Mr. Jewell, 

very much. We will try to come up with a commonsense real-world 

solution that accomplishes what the goals are but allows for us to 

continue to move forward. 

And the hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:00 p.m., the subcommittees were adjourned.] 

41 


Insert offset folio 12 here 67384.012
42 


Insert offset folio 13 here 67384.013
43 


Insert offset folio 14 here 67384.014
44 


Insert offset folio 15 here 67384.015
45 


Insert offset folio 16 here 67384.016
46 


Insert offset folio 17 here 67384.017
47 


Insert offset folio 18 here 67384.018
48 


Insert offset folio 19 here 67384.019
49 


Insert offset folio 20 here 67384.020
50 


Insert offset folio 21 here 67384.021
51 


Insert offset folio 22 here 67384.022
52 


Insert offset folio 23 here 67384.023
53 


Insert offset folio 24 here 67384.024
54 


Insert offset folio 25 here 67384.025
55 


Insert offset folio 26 here 67384.026
56 


Insert offset folio 27 here 67384.027
57 


Insert offset folio 28 here 67384.028
58 


Insert offset folio 29 here 67384.029
59 


Insert offset folio 30 here 67384.030
60 


Insert offset folio 31 here 67384.031
61 


Insert offset folio 32 here 67384.032
62 


Insert offset folio 33 here 67384.033
63 


Insert offset folio 34 here 67384.034
64 


Insert offset folio 35 here 67384.035
65 


Insert offset folio 36 here 67384.036
66 


Insert offset folio 37 here 67384.037
67 


Insert offset folio 38 here 67384.038
68 


Insert offset folio 39 here 67384.039
69 


Insert offset folio 40 here 67384.040
70 


Insert offset folio 41 here 67384.041
71 


Insert offset folio 42 here 67384.042
72 


Insert offset folio 43 here 67384.043
73 


Insert offset folio 44 here 67384.044
74 


Insert offset folio 45 here 67384.045
75 


Insert offset folio 46 here 67384.046
76 


Insert offset folio 47 here 67384.047
77 


Insert offset folio 48 here 67384.048
78 


Insert offset folio 49 here 67384.049
79 


Insert offset folio 50 here 67384.050
80 


Insert offset folio 51 here 67384.051
81 


Insert offset folio 52 here 67384.052
82 


Insert offset folio 53 here 67384.053
83 


Insert offset folio 54 here 67384.054
84 


Insert offset folio 55 here 67384.055
85 


Insert offset folio 56 here 67384.056
86 


Insert offset folio 57 here 67384.057
87 


Insert offset folio 58 here 67384.058
88 


Insert offset folio 59 here 67384.059
89 


Insert offset folio 60 here 67384.060
90 


Insert offset folio 61 here 67384.061
91 


Insert offset folio 62 here 67384.062
92 


Insert offset folio 63 here 67384.063
93 


Insert offset folio 64 here 67384.064
94 

Æ 


Insert offset folio 65 here 67384.065