Ballast bill trucks through Senate Commerce, minus Boxer amendment
Posted on September 28th, 2007By Lucy Kafanov
E&E News: The Senate Commerce Committee yesterday moved along legislation meant to combat invasive marine species in the ballast water of ships.
The “Ballast Water Management Act,” S. 1578, would require mandatory ballast water treatment technology on all ships that travel to U.S. ports. It also would force the United States to adopt the International Maritime Organization convention on ballast water management.
On top of those requirements, Senate Commerce Committee Chairman Daniel Inouye’s (D-Hawaii) bill would let states create “no discharge” zones in sensitive state waters. The legislation authorizes a total of $200 million for the Coast Guard to implement the provisions. Any person who violates the standards would face a fine of up to $32,500 per violation.
Unloaded ships take on ballast at port to provide stability and discharge it when they reach their destinations. Aquatic invaders often hitch rides in the ballast tanks, wreaking havoc on their new environments thousands of miles away.
The current law gives U.S. EPA the authority to regulate ballast water under the Clean Water Act, which requires a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit for all point-source pollution discharges. But while ships are considered point sources, EPA exempts effluent discharges that are “incidental to the normal operation of a vessel.
At the moment, the Coast Guard is the lead agency in charge of ballast transfers. Under the National Invasive Species Act, the agency is required to review ballast treatment technologies and eventually develop ballast permits — a process that is still ongoing. 
For the time being, ships must empty and refill their ballast tanks at sea at least 200 miles off shore.
But according to Nina Bell of Northwest Environmental Advocates, many ships fail to comply with this requirement to save time and money. And the Coast Guard lacks the resources neccessary to check the ballast of every ship entering U.S. waters, Bell said.
Further complicating matters is a recent federal ruling in California that requires EPA to start regulating ballast water as pollution under the Clean Water Act, starting Sept. 30, 2008. The ruling from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California in Northwest Environmental Advocates v. EPA, et al. would make EPA, and not the U.S. Coast Guard, the main agency in charge of ballast water.
All of this worries the shipping industry, which is wary of burdensome ballast treatment requirements or complex permitting rules under the Clean Water Act.
“You’re talking about what is effectively an impossible burden,” industry attorney Bill Anderson said in a recent interview. “This would affect discharges of some 13 million recreational boats in the United States in addition to the oceangoing ships.”
Boxer yanks amendment on states’ rights
The Commerce Committee was scheduled to mark up Inouye’s S. 1578 before the August recess, but the bill was pulled from the agenda at the last minute to address some jurisdictional issues between the Commerce Committee and the Environment and Public Works panel.
One of the major concerns expressed by EPW Committee Chairwoman Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) at the time was that the bill would pre-empt state and Clean Water Act authority. Inouye’s measure allows states to create their own invasive species regulations, as long as these do not conflict with the federal program.
Boxer and Inouye could not resolve their differences prior to yesterday’s markup, prompting Boxer to offer and then withdraw an amendment that would have established a savings clause to preserve the Clean Water Act and stricter state ballast standards.
Boxer, whose concerns were shared by Sens. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.), Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), John Kerry (D-Mass.) and others, withdrew her amendment but promised to voice her concerns on the Senate floor.
Corry Westbrook, legislative director at the National Wildlife Federation, said she was disappointed in the withdrawal of Boxer’s amendment.
“A uniform federal standard is certainly everyone’s goal, but states should not be prohibited from enacting measures to complement and strengthen the federal program,” Westbrook said.
In the absence of strict federal regulations, states have started to impose standards of their own. At the start of this year, Michigan started requiring permits for ships to release ballast. Other states could soon follow suit.
According to the Union of Concerned Scientists, the United States is home to an estimated 7,000 invasive species of plants, mammals, birds, amphibians, reptiles, fish, arthropods and mollusks. Zebra mussels alone were estimated to have cost the nation $750 million to $1 billion from 1989 to 2000, the group said.
Some want to exempt recreational boating
Another amendment — offered and later withdrawn by Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.) — would have added a provision to exempt recreational vessels from NPDES permitting. If the California federal court ruling stands, all U.S. boat owners could potentially need a water-pollution permit to discharge deck runoff, bilge water and other runoff.
The permits would affect an estimated 18 million recreational boats across the country, Nelson said.
Nelson withdrew his amendment because of the way it was crafted, several Senate sources said. However, an independent measure was introduced recently by Sen. Mel Martinez (R-Fla.). S. 2067, or the “Recreational Boating Act” of 2007, would exempt recreational boat owners from having to secure multiple permits for the normal operation of their boats.
“Requiring family boaters to secure a Clean Water Act permit so they can wash their boat, fish or go waterskiing is ridiculous,” Martinez said in a statement. “This permit requirement is unnecessary and onerous.”
Boxer supports exempting recreational boats from permitting requirements and promised to work with Nelson on an independent measure.