Invasive Species in Ship Ballast

S T.  C L A I R,   M i c h.,   Aug. 14, 2001 -- Capt. Pat Nelson gazes about the cavernous, mud-slicked interior of the ballast tank deep in thebowels of the 1,000-foot cargo ship, Oglebay Norton.

“This thing holds more than a million gallons, and that’s justone tank,” Nelson says. “How are you supposed to sterilize thismuch water?”

The question is at the center of a debate that has turned thelowly ballast tank into one of the Great Lakes region’s hottestpolitical battlegrounds. The issue: how to stem an invasion byballast stowaways, such as the hated zebra mussel without sinkingthe shipping industry.

A Soupy Mixture

Ballast is a soupy mixture of water, sediment and seaweed whoseweight keeps ships stable during voyages. But it’s also home to avast array of aquatic organisms that end up being hauled thousandsof miles and then released into new territories as ships dumpballast while taking on cargo in port.

Once in their new homes, the uninvited immigrants can multiplyquickly and wage war on native species, gobbling up their food andstealing their habitat.

Among the most notorious are the parasitic sea lamprey, whichdecimated the native trout population by the mid-1900s, and thezebra mussel, which arrived in the late 1980s and did hundreds ofmillions in damage by clogging water pipes.

Governments around the world are trying to close their bordersto unwanted biological travelers. But the sense of urgency isparticularly strong in the Great Lakes, where nuisance aliens havedrastically altered the world’s largest surface fresh water system.

“It’s an ecological disaster,” says Mark Coscarelli, anenvironmental specialist with Michigan’s Office of the Great Lakes.

“Exotic species are the No. 1 issue facing the lakes, thesingle largest threat,” says Ken Sikkema, chairman of the MichiganSenate’s environmental affairs committee.

An estimated 145 aquatic foreigners have taken up residence inthe Great Lakes ecosystem since the early 1800s — many, though notall, brought by ballast. More are on the way, scientists warn.

Shipping companies say they have made good-faith efforts toflush out the pests. And the Coast Guard requires ocean freightersto dump their ballast and take on more water before entering thelakes via the St. Lawrence Seaway.

Critics say more is needed.

Sterilization a Problem

Bills proposed in the Michigan, Minnesota and New Yorklegislatures would order shippers to sterilize ballast, usinggovernment-approved methods of killing every critter, beforedumping it into waters under their jurisdiction. A similar bill ispending in the U.S. House, and the Ontario provincial legislaturealso is considering ballast legislation.

Possible ballast sterilization methods include heating water,chemical disinfectants, ultraviolet light, screens and filters. Butno workable technology has been devised.

Shippers say the bills make unrealistic, costly demands thatcould scuttle the industry in the region. They acknowledge theproblem exists and say they are progressing — slowly — toward asolution. But for now, they insist, there is no way to completelypurge live exotics from ballast.

“We’ve been working for almost a decade. The technology simplydoes not exist,” says Ray Skelton, government affairs director forthe Duluth, Minn., Seaway Port Authority.

Even if a successful program were found, shippers say, it couldcripple them by requiring costly upgrades and fees not leviedagainst trains, trucks or ships that visit only ocean ports.

“If the owner of a ship that operates on the Great Lakes has toinstall $2 million in filtration equipment while those that servethe port of Baltimore don’t, that’s a tremendous competitivedisadvantage,” says Steve Fisher, executive director of theAmerican Great Lakes Ports Association.

Shippers are particularly unhappy with the prospect of all eightU.S. states and the two Canadian provinces bordering on the lakescreating a regulatory monster by enacting separate ballast laws.

“What would the railroads do if every state had differentrequirements for smokestacks or track width?” Fisher says. Heleads a coalition of 83 ports, labor unions and shipping companiesand customers fighting the Michigan bill.

Georges Robichon, senior vice president of the Montreal shippingcompany Fednav Limited, says the industry might accept some kind ofballast regulation.

“But it needs to be on a regional basis,” he says. “Nothingelse makes sense.”

Sikkema, sponsor of the Michigan bill that served as a model forthe others, says he would gladly defer if the U.S. and Canadiangovernments approved a strong ballast policy. But he says they aremoving too slowly.

Economic Woes

Skelton says if Sikkema’s bill is enacted as written, “it’s theend of maritime commerce” on Lakes Huron, Michigan and Superior,large sections of which are subject to Michigan law. That wouldhave a serious ripple effect on the Midwestern economy, he says.

Much of the wheat grown in Minnesota and the Dakotas is shippedoverseas via Duluth, the largest Great Lakes port, says DaveTorgerson, executive director of the Minnesota Association of WheatGrowers.

Costs would jump if ballast legislation disrupted Lake Superiorshipping and wheat farmers had to find other means of reachingforeign markets, such as sending crops to the Gulf of Mexico byriver barge or to Pacific ports by rail, Torgerson says.

Other industries are in the same boat, says John Jamian,director of the Detroit Port Authority. About 46,000 jobs on theGreat Lakes and the St. Lawrence Seaway are linked directly toshipping, Jamian says. Michigan automobile and furnituremanufacturers depend on steel and heavy equipment transported bywater.

“All of us in the business understand the problem … and wewant to fix it, but don’t do it in a fashion that kills an entireindustry,” he says.

Sikkema says his bill merely holds shippers to the same standardas other industries, which are prohibited from dumping potentiallyharmful substances into the lakes.

“Nobody’s going to put the shipping industry out of business,”he said. “They’re exaggerating and they know it.”

Still, he has agreed to make clear in his bill that shipperswould have to use only methods that are “financially reasonableand technologically feasible.”

Sikkema plans to bring a revised draft before his committee forhearings and a vote this fall.

Tipping the Balance

Shippers are not the only people with a financial stake in thedebate, say supporters of a crackdown. Predators have wreaked havocon the $4.5 billion Great Lakes fishing industry.

Governments and businesses have spent perhaps $1 billionrepairing and preventing zebra mussel damage to water pipelines,boat hulls, dock pilings and other surfaces, says researcherCharles O’Neill of the Sea Grant agency in New York.

To environmentalists, more is involved than money.

“We’ve already monkeyed with the ecosystem by introducingexotic species, to the point that it’s not recognizable from even100 years ago,” says Wil Cwikel of the Tip of the Mitt WatershedCouncil in Harbor Springs. “We need to protect the biodiversityand uniqueness that we still have.”

But to veteran sailors such as Nelson, captain of the OglebayNorton, the ballast fight is very much a pocketbook issue.

Son of a freighter crewman, Nelson was raised just north of St.Clair, where his ship now unloads coal at a Detroit Edison powerplant. At 47, he has sailed the Great Lakes for three decades andwonders how the controversy could affect the only way of life heknows.

“At a certain point you become golden handcuffed by age andwage,” he says. “There’s no way I could go on shore and earn asmuch as I do now.”