Shipping industry expresses concerns about costs and logistics,
while environmentalists demand full protection
By JULIE GEDEON
February 8, 2010
The U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) has received 400-plus responses to its proposed rulemaking for ballast water treatment standards (BWTS).
Comments range from shipping interests calling some elements illegal to an environmental coalition demanding zero release of aquatic invasive species (AIS) without delay.
The Lake Carriers’ Association (LCA) in the U.S. contends the USCG lacks the authority to regulate lakers. “The (U.S.) National Invasive Species Act is quite specific that (the USCG) governs only vessels that enter a U.S. port after operating outside the Exclusive Economic Zone,” the LCA stated.
It said the USCG’s environmental study “fails to make the case” for applying the same requirements as for ocean-going vessels, noting “the overarching goal” is to reduce or prevent new AIS from arriving, which lakers don’t introduce. The LCA called mandatory ballast exchanges for lakers “the most onerous requirements ever” and illegal given the USCG’s lack of factual rationale for them.
The Canadian Shipowners Association (CSA) said applying BWTS to domestic Great Lakes ships would be “inappropriate when their primary role may only be transference within the ecosystem and when that role is not well understood.”
Similarly, the Chamber of Marine Commerce (CMC) opposes particular standards for the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Seaway (GLSLS), warning they “would only serve to place the Seaway, ports and cargo interests at a competitive disadvantage versus coastal trade routes and likely result in diverting waterborne traffic to alternative modes of transport, thereby leading to a greater negative consequence for the environment.”
The CMC said the proposed Phase II standards – possibly 1,000 times the International Maritime Organization (IMO) standards (1,000xIMO) – “contravenes legal principles of certainty” by introducing regulations that would ostensibly come into effect at some future date contingent on a practicality review which isn’t currently well-defined or completely quantified.
The American Great Lakes Ports Association (AGLPA) called for a national standard exclusively for ocean-going vessels at all U.S. ports. Otherwise, the AGLPA predicted a loss of business to the East Coast and the Gulf of Mexico as operators looked to avoid the regulations proposed for the GLSLS.
Consistency sought
Virtually everyone agrees on the need for one binational regulation. The Shipping Federation of Canada encouraged the USCG to make the law in keeping with IMO standards which could then be harmonized with Canadian legislation.
The Alliance for the Great Lakes, Great Lakes United, Healing Our Waters-Great Lakes Coalition, (U.S.) Natural Resources Defense Council and (U.S.) National Wildlife Federation jointly presented a brief in consultation with the Conservation Law Center. They want 1000xIMO co-ordinated with Canada to prevent ships from avoiding stricter regulations by discharging ballast across borders.
Shipping interests praised the USCG for taking a lead role, but expressed disappointment at it not proposing to eliminate the ability by states to set higher standards under the Environmental Protection Agency’s Vessel General Permit regulations.
The Shipping Federation considers it essential to know by how much the IMO standard is considered insufficiently protective of American waters. “We are also concerned that the establishment of too high a target will make the installation of technologies below that target (but still protective of U.S. waters) irrelevant,” it stated.
It recommended that after Phase I standards (which are in line with the IMO ones) were implemented that USCG-appointed scientists determine whether those standards are sufficient to protect fresh water and salt water. If not, the USCG should figure out by exactly how much they need to be strengthened.
Arbitrarily raising the bar to 1,000xIMO, it warned, “resets the technology development and research agenda to zero” for developers that have been creating IMO-compliant systems.
Possible compliance debated
The environmental coalition urged the USCG to revise Phase I to establish 10xIMO requirements or the highest practical standards by January 2012. It pointed out that ballast-water exchanges already exceed IMO-approved treatments by 10 to 100 times.
Additionally, the environmental coalition wants Phase II implemented no later than January 2016. It noted California has already identified two systems demonstrating potential compliance. However, the Shipping Federation countered that none of these systems has proven to be consistently compliant. The LCA called 1000xIMO “arbitrary and capricious” given the lack of scientific rationale for a standard “unachievable by any known technology.”
The environmental coalition insists higher GLSLS standards are imperative. “Roughly 90 per cent of the commercial shipping operations in the Great Lakes area are domestic, and lakers account for over 95 per cent of the volume of ballast water transferred,” it stated in reference to a study accepted by the Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences.
“While only one per cent of lakers transport water from St. Lawrence River ports to Great Lakes, the absolute volume is equivalent to the contribution by coastal and transoceanic vessels combined,” it added, quoting Fisheries and Oceans Canada research.
Tide stemmed?
Yet the LCA cited a scientist who has noted the lack of AIS in Lake Superior even though it receives more ballast than other Great Lakes. The CSA and CMC credit the inspection of all seafaring vessels entering the GLSLS for ample ballast-tank salinity levels (achieved through saltwater flushing) for no new AIS introductions since 2006.
The USCG had recommended three- to five-year practicability reviews to determine what new technologies and standards are feasible to achieve Phase II.
Stressing the urgency, the coalition wants a review to begin immediately and remain ongoing to reach a zero-discharge level soonest. It also wants public access to documentation in support of new technologies. Otherwise, it fears practicability objections might delay 1000xIMO installations till 2031 or later for some vessels.
Noting technology development usually takes at least two years, the Shipping Federation suggests reviews occur every three years. “A shorter term would create confusion as to which standard to adopt,” it cautioned.
Practicability approach challenged
The LCA opposes the concept. “Stakeholders cannot be expected to comment on something that is never explained,” it said. It wants the USCG to withdraw Phase II, conduct the necessary analysis, and then describe its basis for higher standards in a later proposal.
Likewise, the CSA questions Phase II’s legitimacy. “We do not have any information on the costs to upgrade a Phase I compliant system to a Phase II system,” it said. “It is unlikely that these costs can even be estimated given the lack of known systems at this time meeting the Phase II standard.”
The Shipping Federation says it’s impossible to have BWTS on all its vessels by 2014, given the number of ships, commercial availability of systems, and limited dry docks. It suggests vessels transiting specific areas, such as the Great Lakes, could be retrofitted in time.
However, the environmental coalition notes that some developers say their systems can be installed while a ship remains in commercial operation.
Laker specifications
The LCA maintains there’s no system in sight that can meet a freshwater freighter’s operational requirements by the proposed deadlines – namely, technology to achieve IMO standards by 2016 with an upgrade within five years, or the higher standards upon a vessel’s first dry-docking after 2016.
Likewise, the CSA remains unaware of any system proven to work in the GLSLS where fresh water gets icy in winter and low chloride levels exist. It noted three approved systems had problems operating in fresh water (two of them in the Great Lakes). There’s also a question of whether these systems can transition between sea water and fresh water.
With the biggest lakers gulping up to 60.5 million cubic metres (16.4 million gallons) at a rate of almost 303 m3(80,000 gallons) per minute, the LCA emphasized how massive a system would have to be on vessels where space is already at a premium.
The CSA also noted that space on typical lakers is 30 per cent less than on ocean-going vessels. Tankers have even greater constraints. In addition, the Seaway’s draft limitations and restrictive width make below-deck space imperative. Even if there were enough space on deck (which the CSA says there isn’t), winter conditions might cause equipment to falter. Most vessels also lack the power to run BWTS. Installing and operating new sources would be costly and generate other pollution, it added.
The CSA said its ships can’t accommodate the approximately 42 square metres (450 square feet) for an ultraviolet system, or the 93 square metres (1,000 square feet) for a sufficient filtration system. While deoxygenation systems could take significantly less room, the CSA said they don’t work fast enough for laker routes.
Shortage of vessels
Lakers carry 50 to 130 cargoes annually, the LCA added, often delivering goods within hours. Having to ballast and de-ballast every cargo would slow deliveries to the point of creating a shortage of vessels and docks and wiping out profit. Waiting 30 hours to treat ballast would render lakers uneconomical.
CSA-registered vessels are also expected to de-ballast at rates matching customers’ loading equipment – about 5,000 m3(1.3 million gallons) per hour. A BWTS “would have to be capable of cleaning 4,000 to 5,000 tonnes of water, or the equivalent of about two Olympic-sized swimming pools, in an hour,” the CSA stated.
The LCA and CSA urged the USCG to thoroughly investigate the availability, suitability, efficiency and financial implications of systems that achieve Phase I standards on lakers in fresh water and at freezing temperatures. “Failure to do so could regulate vessels, fleets and industries out of business with little advance warning,” the LCA cautioned.
Estimating the cost of installing systems as exceeding US$385 million for the 55 LCA-registered vessels, the LCA called the USCG’s proposals “a tremendous expense to ask the industry to bear.”
As is, the 53-vessel LCA dry bulk cargo fleet expected to be in operation in 2016 would be phased out by 2021 for non-compliance (see chart on Pages 8-9). This could result in steel mills being cut off from raw materials. “ArcelorMittal Steel’s mill in Cleveland, Ohio, has no ability to receive iron ore by rail,” the LCA noted. “U.S. Steel’s Gary Works can receive iron ore by rail but, to our knowledge, not in quantities sufficient to support operating the mill at capacity.” It also suggested rail connections in Michigan couldn’t handle the huge limestone shipments quarried in Calcite, Stoneport (Presque Isle), Cedarville, Port Inland and Drummond Island.
Disparate estimates
The USCG estimated retrofitting would cost an average of US$447,630 per vessel. The LCA criticized this as grossly underestimated, citing two companies that put the price tag at up to US$6 million for a two-pump vessel and more than US$20 million for 18 pumps.
Retrofitting aging vessels specifically designed for the Seaway would be costly and difficult, the CSA warned. Tankers pose the biggest challenge with all their piping and pumps located within the ballast tanks.
It also characterized the USCG’s calculation of US$250,000 per vessel to comply with Phase I as greatly underestimated and put the cost up to US$5 million. Among the reasons for the higher cost would be the larger system required for a self-unloader’s 5,000 m3/hr (1.2 million gallons/hr) ballast capacity – compared to the 1,000 to 2,000 m3/hr (264,000 to 528,000 gallon/hr) rate of a seafaring vessel.
Rather than the USCG’s suggestion that costs would equal benefits, the CSA sees expenditures outweighing benefits 20-1.
Citing similar concerns, the CMC urged the USCG to review the rulemaking for domestic ships, extending the timeline until a proper analysis of costs and benefits could be done.
Grandparenting concerns
All the shipping interests supported in principle a grandparent clause for vessels installing equipment before 2016 to satisfy Phase I, but wanted it for the life of the vessel or BWTS rather than the proposed five years. “Otherwise, the financial viability of new vessels and reinvestment in the fleet may be in jeopardy,” the CSA warned. “Shipowners cannot be expected to invest in new vessels that will require meeting technology targets that continually move.”
The AGLPA warned five years might encourage shipowners to seek the cheapest equipment or delay installation as long as possible.
Vessels operating solely in fresh water last longer, the LCA added. “To repeatedly incur the cost of upgrading a ballast water management system will be a considerable expense with no payback for the vessel operator and little, if any, real benefit for the environment.
“Note also that any requirement for all vessels to install Phase II technology at their first dry-docking after January 1, 2016, is completely unworkable and would remove any incentive for shipowners to install a Phase I compliant system prior to this date,” it added.