Joe Ludwiczak - Dir. of Environmental and Safety Affairs, Stolt Nielsen Transportation Group
Ludwiczak emphasized the legal conundrum facing the shipping industry in environmental affairs. He said environmental statutes are now considered by the
judiciary to be public welfare statutes. This means company officials, masters and anyone involved risk criminal liability in marine pollution incidents.
To manage these issues, Ludwiczak felt shippers need an Environmental Management System such as ISO 14001. He cleared up some of the confusion
surrounding ISO 14000, ISO 9000 and ISM. ISO 14000 takes a broad view with respect to the environment, while ISM takes a broad view with respect to safety.
Joseph J. Cox - Pres., Chamber of Shipping
Cox overviewed the invasive species in ballast water situation. He discussed some
of the multiple regulations popping up around the U.S. One state, California, has separate reporting requirements for Federal, State and even local ports such as
Oakland. He felt the Supreme Court decision on ballast water was a victory for shipping over the states.
Future issues to watch for according to Cox:
- In 1999, 13 environmental groups claimed the EPA is not responding properly to the Clean Water Act by allowing ballast water discharge. A judicial determination will have to be made on this situation.
- The EPA & the Chamber of shipping are working on an environmental handbook for vessels.
- Criminal Liability - if there is a spill, shippers are criminally liable. This should be a driver for more active participation by management.
Michael Bohlman - Dir. for Marine Services, CSX Lines
Bohlman discussed ballast water discharge and the difficulties of open ocean ballast water exchange.
Issues with ballast water (BW) Open Ocean Exchange process:
- Time Lost – Bohlman noted the loss of time to Owners is a minimum 28 hrs for a vessel exchanging only four BW tanks.
- Excessive Paper work – Results from the situation that ships must report to so many agencies. There is a strong need for centralized reporting.
- Salinity checks – Regulatory agencies have not decided who checks salinity in tanks for compliance. Is it the USCG, State inspectors or the ships themselves?
- Coastwise voyages and short voyages - Some voyages do not go far enough offshore or into deep enough waters according to ballast water exchange rules.
- Ship designs - Newer ships are much more sensitive to weight shifting from ballast operations due to lighter, faster designs.
- Pumping BW to shore - Few facilities are available.
- Exchange technology – Open ocean BW exchange procedure is only 90% effective.
- BW Treatment – There is a pressing need for alternative technologies.
Robert Loseth - Head of Dept. of Hydrodynamics, Materials & Structures, Det Norske Veritas
Loseth explained how BW exchange is being taken into account in new ship designs. He outlined BW dangers including stability, loss of maneuverability, personnel safety, pressure drops and pressure stresses.
For all new ship building projects Loseth believes sequential exchange is a MUST. He asked designers to try to keep the number of steps in the BW process down and the time of exchange limited.
Steve Candito – President, National Response Corp.
Canditio was very vocal in his opposition to multi-state regulations in oil spill
industry. He said "dealing with changes in local regulations from national regulations poses a nightmare to ship owners." Candito made reference to a number
of instances where local regulations and national ones are mutually exclusive.
As an example, he mentioned the State of California's regulations for spill control in
port are stricter for non-tanker operators then for tanker operators. During a port call, tanker vessels can rely on a port facility's spill coverage in case of an incident.
The State of California says non-tanker operators cannot use the port's spill prevention procedures unless they have a written exemption. This means owners
must hire oil spill response organizations to be on-hand during vessel operations. Candito pointed out this is very expensive to the non-tanker owner and is not practical.
Dennis Bryant - Partner Haight Gardner Holland & Knight
Bryant summed up the day's activities with some candid comments on the potential
effects of environmental shipping legislation.
Bryant mentioned the recent Supreme Court decision on ballast water regulation for
the State of Washington (U.S. v. Locke). He noted that the Supreme Court held the provisions in the State of Washington ballast water regulations to be operational statutes trying to pass off as
environmental.
How will this affect other states? Bryant explained-
- California - most of their requirements relate to response, therefore they will not be held into question under US v. Locke. Recent additional requirements may place California regulations into Locke provisions.
- Maine - likely to fall
- Rhode Island - likely to fall
- Most other states with BW regulations will likely survive except perhaps Michigan.
Bryant made the point that under the recent Supreme Court decision, states are allowed the authority to create regulations for ballast water as long as they fall under pollution response and ballast water management.
Most importantly, Bryant stressed all shippers must be aware of a new player in marine environmental regulations. In Bryant's words, "The EPA has discovered ships."
He noted the Environmental Protection Agency is getting involved in areas not covered under existing provisions. They will impact the industry greatly, Bryant warned.
