Standards for Living Organisms in Ships Ballast Water Discharged in U.S. Waters

Docket ID: USCG-2001-10486

Comments to USCG Proposed Rule for Ballast Water:

Introduction:

We (Icicle Seafoods, Inc.) are commenting t oday on 33 CFR Part 151 and 46 CFR Part 162; {USCG-2001-10486} Standards for Living Organisms in Shi ps’ Ballast Water Discharged in U.S. Waters: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.

Before we begin with our comments on the proposed rule, we will briefly share some details about our company, and the industr y-specific purposes of our vesse ls that would be affected by

the new ballast water rule.

Icicle Seafoods, Inc., is a Seattle, Washingt on, based seafood company whose operations include seafood processing in Alaskan waters. Our operations, as they relate to balla st water; involve two non-motorized processing barges, three motori zed processing vessels , one motorized support vessel, and eight fishing and te ndering vessels. These vessels, only three of which possess tanks specifically designed for ballast, en compass several classes and type s related to a wide array of gross tonnages, lengths, and ballast tank design.

Our vessels primarily travel and moor in Alaskan waters; however, most of the vessels engage in Pacific near-coastal transits to Washington Stat e on the average of two to four times annually. Furthermore, when these vessels ar e in Alaskan waters they engage in near-coastal transits and during certain times of the year , they can cross Captain of th e Port Zone (COTPZ) boundaries several times daily in order to conduct fishi ng and fishing support operations. So clearly the proposed rule would affect these vessels.

First Comment:

Our first concern regarding the proposed rule for ballast water, stems from a recent determination by the USCG Environmental Standa rds Division that concluded with our fishing and tendering vessels considered as fitting within the “Safety Exception,” as defined in 151.2045; for design limitation; as our fishing an d tendering vessels are not equipped with specifically designed ballast water tanks.

These vessels have refrigerated seawater (RSW) fi sh holding tanks that ca n also act as ballast tanks, although these tanks were not specifically designed for that pu rpose; and therefore, it has been determined that it is unsafe to pe rform ballast water exchanges by the USCG

Environmental Standards Division.

Our concern as it applies to the proposed rule , concerns the primary purpose of these tanks,

which is to hold live fish/crab. It would be in direct conflict with that purpose to install treatmentsystems in these tanks. Furthermore, it does not appear to fit within the scope of the intent of the proposed regulatory changes. I have spoken about this concern with high-ranking USCG officers

within the Environmental Standards Division and the Vessel Compliance Division, and they concur with this opinion.

Therefore; we strongly ur ge that there be an exemption incl uded into the final regulation that addresses classes, or types of vessels, such as fishing vessels. We propose that this exemption be included for all types of fishi ng vessels that do not have spec ifically-designed ballast tanks, Additionally; the exemption shoul d include vessels under 300 gro ss tons (GT) to mirror the Washington State ballast water laws.

Beyond including an exemption into the final vers ion of the ballast wa ter rule, we support delaying the implementation of Phase I & Ph ase II until a comprehens ive strategy can be developed. This improved strategy would take in to account the unique ba llast water needs and challenges present in certain types and classes of vessels.

Finally; an improved strategy that is achievable and produces sustai nable results, will be one that is reasonable to comply with, and has measur able results for compliance and enforcement

purposes.

Second Comment:

Our second concern involves the overall scope of the proposed ru le as it woul d apply to our larger fish processing vessels wh ich are equipped with specifically-designed ballast water tanks.

Currently, there is a provision in the USCG ballast water regu lations for an exemption from ballast water exchange if the vessel utilizes fr esh (potable) water in their tanks. We can find no wording in the proposed rule that speaks to utiliza tion of fresh (potable) water as an alternative to ballast water treatment systems.

Obviously, fresh water originati ng from municipal or treated sources does not contain aquatic invasive species, so including this provision wo uld cause no risk to a ny water body. We strongly urge the provision for an alternative to ballast water treatment systems, such as fresh (potable) water be included in the final regulation.

Third Comment:

On the subject of the discharge standa rd defined in the USCG proposed rule:

Adequate technology does not exist to test for microbes at the specified levels outlined in 151.1511. Maritime industry groups, as well as the USCG have voiced concern that the best available technology (BAT) does not exist to test for a ll parameters of alle ged problem microbes in ballast water, and it most likely will not be available in 2012, or even in 2016.We are concerned that this standard has b een proposed prematurely and the timeline for implementation should be delayed until the techno logy exists to effectively gauge compliance.

Fourth Comment:

Adequate technology for ballast water treatment systems, as required in 151.1510 does not, and might not, ever exist to treat ballast water at th e prescribed levels for Phase I & Phase II of the USCG proposed rule.

We request that the implementation schedule be delayed until treatment systems have been developed and adequately tested. Furthermore; th ese treatment systems should be proven to be effective in minimizing the risk of aquatic invasive species alleged to be carried in ship’s ballast water, before such time as they are required to be installed.

The cost for implementation of treatment syst ems that would comply with the requirement ($250,000.00-$1,200,000.00 on average per vessel ) is absolutely prohibi tive for most, if not all operations in our industry. Such an exorbitant cost could easily translate to a loss of jobs and/or business entities. As you know, a single fishing vessel often represents the so le source of income for many families in the Pacific Northwest and Alaska.

There needs to be time provided for adequate research and development of treatment systems proven to be effective and affordable for small business entities before imposing a requirement that would cause such a damaging financial imp act to affected businesses, and local economies that are sustained through fisher ies or marine related commerce.

Final Comment:

On the topic of ballast water treatment systems:

Many of the ballast water treatment systems currently in development use chemicals such as chlorine to treat and eradicate organisms. The use of chlorine especially, would pose a compliance challenge for our operations permitted under APDES and NPDES discharge permits.

A mandate requiring ballast water treatment syst ems must account for the likelihood of violating water quality standards as outlined in the Cl ean Water Act (CWA) and in water quality regulations for individual states. For example; this could potentially put this rule at odds with the EPA Vessel General Permit conditions; consequently, placing a vessel owner in a non-compliant position through no fault of his or her own.

Furthermore; as our seafood processing i nvolves packaging food products for human consumption, the end product is regulated by th e FDA. The chemical based ballast water treatment systems could present a problem through c ontact with fish tank su rfaces that are also

used as ballast tanks.The final ballast water rule must include a se t of exemptions per our recommendations, and/or should be delayed until such time that all the unk nowns can be reasonably and logically worked

out.

Closing:

In closing, Icicle Seafoods, Inc. would like to thank the United States Coast Guard for granting us the time to submit our comments, and for inviting us to engage in this very important process. All of the USCG officers that we have spoken w ith over the past months have been extremely responsive to our questions, and forthright with their opinions and determinations.

While we agree with those that are calling for one consistent guideline to be developed for regulating ballast water management; we do not be lieve that this proposed rule, in its present form, fits the bill. This rule, like existing ba llast water regulations, is not an all-inclusive

document that has been cr eated with consideration for all affected vessels.

More time needs to be devoted to creating a set of ballast water gu idelines that make sense for all vessels and applies to all regions of the count ry. More education on th e subject needs to be delivered, and more outreach to al l involved stakeholders needs to be conducted before a rule of this important nature is to be hande d down and implemente d through directive.

At the very least; if this rule is to be finalized with the core components intact, then exemptions must be provided for vessels such as fishi ng vessels, which through design limitation and/or commerce type, cannot reasonably comply with the proposed sta ndard. After all; a similar industry-wide exemption is included in the propo sed rule for oil tankers; therefore, it is obviously possible to do this for othe rs where it makes sense to do so.

We trust that the deciding parties will listen to our concerns, and exercise their common sense in coming to a conclusion that all aff ected parties can live with. Thank you.

Best Regards,

Lance Wischler Environmental Compliance Technician Icicle Seafoods, Inc.

4019 21 st Avenue West Seattle, WA 98199

(206) 282-0988

lancew@icicleseafoods.com