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 today on 33 CFR Part 151 and 46 CFR Part 162; 

{USCG-2001-10486} Standards for Living Organisms in Ships’ 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 industry-specific purposes of our vessels that would be affected by 

the new ballast water rule. 

Icicle Seafoods, Inc., is a Seattle, Washington, based seafood company whose operations include 

seafood processing in Alaskan waters. Our operations, as they relate to ballast water; involve two 

non-motorized processing barges, three motorized processing vessels, one motorized support 

vessel, and eight fishing and tendering vessels. These vessels, only three of which possess tanks 

specifically designed for ballast, encompass several classes and types 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 State on the average of two to four times annually. 

Furthermore, when these vessels are in Alaskan waters they engage in near-coastal transits and 

during certain times of the year, they can cross Captain of the Port Zone (COTPZ) boundaries 

several times daily in order to conduct fishing 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 Standards 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 and tendering vessels are not equipped with 

specifically designed ballast water tanks. 

These vessels have refrigerated seawater (RSW) fish holding tanks that can also act as ballast 

tanks, although these tanks were not specifically designed for that purpose; and therefore, it has 

been determined that it is unsafe to perform 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 treatment 
systems 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 urge that there be an exemption included 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 fishing vessels that do not have specifically-designed ballast tanks, 

Additionally; the exemption should include vessels under 300 gross tons (GT) to mirror the 

Washington State ballast water laws. 

Beyond including an exemption into the final version of the ballast water rule, we support 

delaying the implementation of Phase I & Phase II until a comprehensive strategy can be 

developed. This improved strategy would take into account the unique ballast water needs and 

challenges present in certain types and classes of vessels. 

Finally; an improved strategy that is achievable and produces sustainable results, will be one that 

is reasonable to comply with, and has measurable results for compliance and enforcement 

purposes. 

Second Comment:

Our second concern involves the overall scope of the proposed rule as it would apply to our 

larger fish processing vessels which are equipped with specifically-designed ballast water tanks. 

Currently, there is a provision in the USCG ballast water regulations for an exemption from 

ballast water exchange if the vessel utilizes fresh (potable) water in their tanks. We can find no 

wording in the proposed rule that speaks to utilization of fresh (potable) water as an alternative to 

ballast water treatment systems. 

Obviously, fresh water originating from municipal or treated sources does not contain aquatic 

invasive species, so including this provision would cause no risk to any 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 standard 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 all parameters of alleged 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 been proposed prematurely and the timeline for 

implementation should be delayed until the technology 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 the 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; these 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 systems that would comply with the requirement 

($250,000.00-$1,200,000.00 on average per vessel) is absolutely prohibitive 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 sole 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 impact to affected businesses, and local economies 

that are sustained through fisheries 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 systems must account for the likelihood of violating 

water quality standards as outlined in the Clean 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 involves packaging food products for human 

consumption, the end product is regulated by the FDA. The chemical based ballast water 

treatment systems could present a problem through contact with fish tank surfaces that are also 

used as ballast tanks. 
The final ballast water rule must include a set of exemptions per our recommendations, and/or 

should be delayed until such time that all the unknowns 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 with 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 believe that this proposed rule, in its present 

form, fits the bill. This rule, like existing ballast water regulations, is not an all-inclusive 

document that has been created with consideration for all affected vessels. 

More time needs to be devoted to creating a set of ballast water guidelines that make sense for all 

vessels and applies to all regions of the country. More education on the subject needs to be 

delivered, and more outreach to all involved stakeholders needs to be conducted before a rule of 

this important nature is to be handed down and implemented 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 fishing vessels, which through design limitation and/or 

commerce type, cannot reasonably comply with the proposed standard. After all; a similar 

industry-wide exemption is included in the proposed rule for oil tankers; therefore, it is 

obviously possible to do this for others 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 affected parties can live with. Thank you. 

Best Regards, 

Lance Wischler 

Environmental Compliance Technician 

Icicle Seafoods, Inc. 

4019 21st Avenue West 

Seattle, WA 98199 

(206) 282-0988 

lancew@icicleseafoods.com