[討論]US ballast water ruling threatens shipowners with more bureaucracy

Monday April 11 2005 EVERY ship calling at a US harbour, including the Great Lakes ports, would be required to obtain a permit for the discharge of ballast water in normal ship operations, according to a US federal court ruling in San Francisco. If enforced the ruling would create an entirely new set of paperwork and bureaucracy involving the US Environmental Protection Agency. These requirements would be in addition to existing US Coast Guard and international laws on safety, security and environmental compliance. The ruling appears to ignore the existence of these regimes as well as new shipboard technology under development to bring ballast water within acceptable environmental limits. Judge Susan Illston of the US District Court for the northern district of California has ordered the US Environmental Protection Agency to repeal an existing rule that exempts ships from obtaining a permit that regulates the discharge of pollutants. Ships』 ballast water is to be considered equivalent to pollution and regulated as such, the ruling appears to imply. Shipping interests have expressed alarm at the development. However, a guardedly conciliatory attitude displayed by trade associations as well as Ocean Conservancy, one of the plaintiffs against the EPA, could mean a compromise is possible. Nevertheless, well-placed sources have warned that the initiative now rests entirely with the EPA and the 「shipping industry」. An EPA appeal against Judge Illston』s ruling is therefore seen as the most likely next step, even if only to buy time. Judge Illston has ordered both parties to attend a 「further case management conference」 in her chambers on Friday this week. The agenda for the conference remains uncertain. EPA spokesman Dave Ryan said the agency reserved the right to file an appeal before the conference. However, the agency had 60 days until after the final order is entered to decide on the merits of an appeal, Mr Ryan added. Ocean Conservancy, a Washington environmental group, and two other conservation groups brought the lawsuit in federal court in 2003 after the EPA rejected their 1999 request to start regulating ballast under the Clean Water Act. The Act prohibits the discharge of pollutants, including invasive species of marine life, into US waters without a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Systems permit. The EPA based its stance on a clause that exempts certain discharges, including those 「inci- dental to the normal operation of a vessel」, from requiring an NPDES permit. Technically, this statutory exemption applies only to vessels of the armed forces. Judge Illston』s ruling eliminates this exemption for commercial vessels. She has held that the EPA overstepped its authority in exempting an entire class of discharge — ballast water — from regulation. The judge has also rejected the EPA』s defence that her court did not have jurisdiction on the matter but that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals did. Any appeal would now be heard by the Circuit Court. The 18-page ruling notes that ballast water released in US waters 「exceeds 21bn gallons each year」. Justifying ballast water as a legitimate menace, the judge quotes scientific reports that 「more than 10,000 species each day hitch rides around the globe in ballast water」 and that such species 「have taken over wetland habitats and deprived waterfowl and other species of food sources」. Invasive species have been a big political and local newspaper issue in the US Great Lakes and regions such as San Francisco since at least the 1980s. Zebra mussels, round goby and Eurasian ruffe are among the alien species to achieve notoriety. （資料來源：英國Lloyd's List 海事日報）