U.S. EPA has agreed to re-examine ballast water treatment standards for ships as part of a settlement negotiated with environmental groups that brings to a close two years of litigation.
Environmental groups, including the National Wildlife Federation and Alliance for the Great Lakes, filed suit in 2009, claiming that new regulations still allowed ships to dump invasive species into U.S. waterways (Greenwire, Jan. 13, 2009).
The legal challenge was part of a longer-term fight to force EPA to regulate ballast water treatment under the Clean Water Act. The agency had resisted such a move until environmentalists won a 2005 case in federal court.
Under the terms of the settlement, EPA will issue a new permit on ballast water treatment after taking a detailed look at what kind of water treatment technology ships should be required to install in order to minimize the discharge of invasive species into U.S. waters.
Species, such as the zebra mussel, have flourished in the Great Lakes and elsewhere. Environmentalists largely blame international shipping for the problem.
Currently, EPA's national permit on ballast water reflects current Coast Guard requirements.
The regulations require oceangoing vessels to conduct mid-ocean ballast water exchange before entering U.S. waters or to retain their ballast water while sailing through the nation's waterways. Ships can also use a Coast Guard-approved, environmentally sound method to manage their ballast water.
EPA also requires mandatory saltwater flushing for all vessels carrying unpumpable ballast water and residual sediment that leave U.S. waters and travel more than 200 nautical miles from any shore. The agency mandates flushing for any vessels engaged in Pacific near-shore voyages that travel through more than one port zone and also journey at least 50 miles from shore.
Environmentalists complained that the regulations did not reflect a thorough scientific analysis and do not stop the spread of invasive species.
The settlement effectively "requires EPA to go back to the drawing board," said Thom Cmar, an attorney at the Natural Resources Defense Council who worked on the case.
"We think it's a pretty good settlement," Cmar added. "It's probably the best we could have done."
EPA did not immediately respond to requests seeking comment on the settlement.
