[House Hearing, 111 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
CONTROL OF ANTI-FOULING SYSTEMS ON SHIPS
=======================================================================
(111-40)
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
COAST GUARD AND MARITIME TRANSPORTATION
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON
TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
June 10, 2009
__________
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
50-568 PDF WASHINGTON: 2009
________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
(202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota, Chairman
NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia, JOHN L. MICA, Florida
Vice Chair DON YOUNG, Alaska
PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin
JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina
ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee
Columbia VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan
JERROLD NADLER, New York FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey
CORRINE BROWN, Florida JERRY MORAN, Kansas
BOB FILNER, California GARY G. MILLER, California
EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas HENRY E. BROWN, Jr., South
GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi Carolina
ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois
ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania
LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa SAM GRAVES, Missouri
TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania
BRIAN BAIRD, Washington JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
RICK LARSEN, Washington SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West
MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts Virginia
TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania
MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida
RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania
GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California CONNIE MACK, Florida
DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois LYNN A WESTMORELAND, Georgia
MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio
JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan
TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota MARY FALLIN, Oklahoma
HEATH SHULER, North Carolina VERN BUCHANAN, Florida
MICHAEL A. ARCURI, New York ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio
HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky
CHRISTOPHER P. CARNEY, Pennsylvania ANH ``JOSEPH'' CAO, Louisiana
JOHN J. HALL, New York AARON SCHOCK, Illinois
STEVE KAGEN, Wisconsin PETE OLSON, Texas
STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
LAURA A. RICHARDSON, California
ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey
DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland
SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas
PHIL HARE, Illinois
JOHN A. BOCCIERI, Ohio
MARK H. SCHAUER, Michigan
BETSY MARKEY, Colorado
PARKER GRIFFITH, Alabama
MICHAEL E. McMAHON, New York
THOMAS S. P. PERRIELLO, Virginia
DINA TITUS, Nevada
HARRY TEAGUE, New Mexico
(ii)
SUBCOMMITTEE ON COAST GUARD AND MARITIME TRANSPORTATION
ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland, Chairman
CORRINE BROWN, Florida FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey
RICK LARSEN, Washington DON YOUNG, Alaska
GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina
BRIAN BAIRD, Washington VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan
TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania
STEVE KAGEN, Wisconsin PETE OLSON, Texas
MICHAEL E. McMAHON, New York
LAURA A. RICHARDSON, California
JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota
(Ex Officio)
(iii)
CONTENTS
Page
Summary of Subject Matter........................................ vi
TESTIMONY
Jones, James, Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of
Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances, Environmental
Protection Agency.............................................. 4
Lantz, Jeffrey G., Director of Commercial Regulations and
Standards, U.S. Coast Guard.................................... 4
PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES
Jones, James..................................................... 15
Lantz, Jeffrey G................................................. 21
SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD
Lantz, Jeffrey G., Director of Commercial Regulations and
Standards, U.S. Coast Guard, response to question from Rep.
Elijah Cummings, of Maryland................................... 11
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0568.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0568.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0568.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0568.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0568.005
CONTROL OF ANTI-FOULING SYSTEMS ON SHIPS
----------
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime
Transportation,
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:08 p.m., in
Room 2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Elijah E.
Cummings [Chairman of the Subcommittee], presiding.
Mr. Cummings. This hearing is called to order.
At the beginning of the 110th Congress, one of the charges
to the Chairman of the Full Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure, Congressman Oberstar, said that each
Subcommittee was to protect the environment from the impacts
that modes of transportation imposed on it. In our Subcommittee
we have worked diligently to keep that charge by taking
specific steps to lessen the impact of commercial shipping on
the marine environment as well as on air quality.
Last year, for example, this Subcommittee developed and the
Congress eventually passed the Maritime Pollution Act, H.R.
802, which instituted the legal changes needed to bring the
United States in compliance with the International Convention
for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, MARPOL Convention
Annex VI. MARPOL Annex VI limits the emissions from ships of
sulfur oxide and nitrogen oxide, which are ozone-depleting
substances. H.R. 802 was enacted after the Annex VI Treaty was
ratified by the Senate in April, 2006, and had come into force
internationally in May of 2006.
Today we convene to consider another international
convention which has now come into force and to which the
United States Senate has now given its consent, the
International Convention on the Control of Harmful Antifouling
Systems on Ships. The following is defined by the International
Maritime Organization as the "unwanted growth of biological
materials such as barnacles and algae on a surface immersed in
water."
If such organisms grow on the hull of a vessel, they can
add significant weight to the vessel and slow its movement
through the water, thus causing it to consume more fuel and to
release more polluting emissions than it might otherwise do.
Additionally, as biological materials accumulate on a vessel,
the vessel becomes the vector by which these plants and animals
are introduced into environments in which they are not native.
The buildup of biological material on untreated surfaces
can proceed at an astonishing rate. The IMO has written that if
a vessel bottom is exposed to the water without any treatment,
up to 300 pounds of material could gather on each square yard
of the ship's hull over just a 6-month period. This could add
up to 6,000 tons of weight on a deep-draft vessel.
Antifouling systems are the systems used to prevent the
buildup of biological materials on a ship's hull. In the 1960s
and 1970s an antifouling system was developed that relied on a
compound called tributyltin, known more commonly as TBT. This
compound was initially known as the most effective way of
preventing fouling, and later advances in the formulation of
this system required that a new coating of antifouling paint be
applied only once every 5 years.
Unfortunately, TBT had not been fully studied before it was
released into the marine environment and it has proven to be
highly toxic to marine life, including crustaceans, fish, and
even marine mammals.
TBT has caused alterations in oyster shells and has caused
female dogwhelts, a type of snail, to begin to developing male
sexual characteristics. There is even some evidence that TBT is
boracic, meaning that larger animals can ingest it as they
consume smaller animals on the food chain. Thus, the IMO
reports that traces of TBT contamination have now been found
even in whales.
In October of 2001, after nearly a decade of work, the IMO
adopted the International Convention on the Control of Harmful
Antifouling Systems on Ships, which now bans the use of TBT
among Convention signatories. This Convention also establishes
a system under which new antifouling coatings can be tested to
assess their effect on the marine environment. Coatings can be
added to the list of prohibited antifouling systems under the
Convention if they are found to be harmful.
The Convention on the Control of Harmful Antifouling
Systems on Ships was drafted to enter into force 1 year after
25 States, representing 25 percent of the merchant shipping
tonnage in use around the world, adopted a Convention. The
Convention came into force internationally on September 17,
2008. The United States Senate gave its consent to the
Convention just a few days later in September of 2008.
I note that currently under the U.S. law, TBT, like all
organotins, is regulated under the Antifouling Paint Control
Act of 1998. Under this Act, the sale and most applications of
TBT antifouling coatings in the United States are prohibited.
However, the United States does not yet have the ability to
prohibit vessels from other States using TBT-based antifouling
coatings from entering our waters.
At this time, the United States needs to adopt the laws
that will bring our Nation into full compliance with the
Convention, thus completing our ratification of the Convention
and finally banning the entry into U.S. waters of ships with
TBT coatings. Today's hearing will help inform the development
of such legislation.
I look forward to the testimony of today's witnesses and
recognize our distinguished Ranking Member, Congressman
LoBiondo.
Mr. LoBiondo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Last September, the Senate gave its advice and consent to
the International Convention on the Control of Harmful
Antifouling Systems on Ships in 2001. The Bush administration
submitted draft legislation to implement the requirements of
the Convention for the purposes of U.S. law, and it is my
understanding that the current administration also supports
legislation to implement the Convention.
The International Convention prohibits vessels of any size
from being treated with certain antifouling paints that have a
harmful impact on the marine environment and human health. The
largest class of these toxic compounds, organotins and
tributyltins, has largely been prohibited from maritime use in
the United States.
Under the Convention, all ships greater than 400 gross tons
that engage in international voyages would be required to be
inspected for the presence of prohibited antifouling paints and
systems. Additionally, smaller vessels may be required to carry
some certification that they are outfitted only with approved
antifouling measures.
While I support the removal of these toxic products from
our waters, I think that we need to be mindful of the impacts
that the Convention and any implementing legislation might have
on the hundreds of thousands of recreational and commercial
boat owners nationwide.
Lastly, I would like to hear more about whether the
Convention will prohibit or restrict the use of other compounds
currently utilized for antifouling purposes and how any new
additions to the Convention would come into effect under U.S.
law.
I want to commend the Coast Guard and the EPA for their
work over the last 10 years to address this issue and for their
stewardship of the marine environment. I look forward to
working with you, Mr. Chairman, and both agencies to draft
legislation to this effect in the coming months.
Mr. Cummings. Thank you very much.
Mr. Ehlers.
Mr. Ehlers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for having
this hearing. As one of the chief defenders of the Great Lakes,
let me say I am very, very concerned about the use of
antifouling paints, particularly tributyltin, but also others
that could contaminate the Great Lakes or any other bodies of
waters in the United States. So I appreciate you holding the
hearing, giving us an opportunity to hear testimony and try to
make certain that we preserve and protect the waters of the
United States.
Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Cummings. Thank you very much.
We will now welcome our panelists. Mr. Jeffrey G. Lantz is
the Director of Commercial Regulations and Standards with the
United States Coast Guard. Welcome, Mr. Lantz. Mr. James Jones
is the Acting Assistant Administrator of the Office of
Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances with the
Environmental Protection Agency.
TESTIMONY OF JEFFREY G. LANTZ, DIRECTOR OF COMMERCIAL
REGULATIONS AND STANDARDS, U.S. COAST GUARD; AND JAMES JONES,
ACTING ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR, OFFICE OF PREVENTION,
PESTICIDES, AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
Mr. Cummings. Gentlemen, we will now hear from you,
starting with Mr. Lantz.
Mr. Lantz. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and distinguished
Members of the Subcommittee. It is a pleasure to be here. And I
look forward to discussing the Coast Guard's role in preventing
environmental damage that can result from the use of harmful
antifouling systems and our willingness to work with Congress
should legislation for the International Convention on the
Control of Harmful Antifouling Systems be developed.
Mr. Chairman, I ask that my written testimony be included
in the record.
Mr. Cummings. Without objection, so ordered.
Mr. Lantz. Antifouling coatings and systems are designed to
minimize the amount of marine growth which accumulates on a
ship's hull during normal operation. Unfortunately, some of the
antifouling coatings have proven extremely harmful to the
marine environment and may pose risk to human health.
Organotin compounds such as tributyltin, or TBT, are
particularly troublesome. They can remain in the sediments for
several years. They are highly toxic to marine organisms, and
bioaccumulate in fish, mammals, and birds as TBT is absorbed
through the food chain. There has also been some public concern
over TBT's potential harmful effects on human health.
In the 1980s, concern over these health hazards motivated
many countries, including the United States, to enact
legislation restricting the use of organotin antifouling
systems on smaller vessels. In 1988, the Organotin Antifouling
Paint Control Act was passed by Congress. Later, the
International Maritime Community recognized the need for
further action to control and ultimately eliminate the use of
organotin compounds on ships.
Under the International Maritime Organization, the
International Convention on the Control of Harmful Antifouling
Systems, commonly known as the Antifouling Convention, was
adopted in October, 2001, and entered into force on September
17, 2008.
The Convention prohibits the new application of organotin
antifouling systems and requires existing systems to be removed
or overcoated to prevent leaching. It contains surveys,
certification, and inspection mechanisms to ensure
international compliance, and also provides a mechanism for the
inclusion of additional antifouling systems that are determined
to pose too great a threat to the marine environment.
The Convention has widespread support among multiple
sectors of the maritime community, including ship owners and
operators and marine paint manufacturers, as it provides a
single regulatory international program as well as a market for
non-organotin-based hull coatings.
The United States shipyards also support the Convention, as
they must currently comply with a ban on organotin coating for
vessels less than 25 meters in length and must meet strict
leaching standards unique to the United States.
In support of the Convention, the United States Senate gave
advice and consent to the President on September 26, 2008, for
ratification of the Antifouling Convention. However, this
Treaty is not self-executing. If the United States completes
ratification and becomes a party, implementing legislation will
be required to give it effect.
Implementing legislation on the Antifouling Convention will
provide a number of positive aspects for the United States.
First, it would deliver an even higher standard of
environmental protection by building on the success with the
Organotin Antifouling Paint Control Act of 1988, as it would
expand the application of existing organotin prohibitions to
all vessels, regardless of size.
It would further protect U.S. ports and other waters
against organotin deposition from all foreign-flagged ships.
Through the Coast Guard's robust Port State Control program, we
would significantly contribute to the international effort to
prevent environmental damage from harmful antifouling systems
and it would enable U.S. engagement in the international effort
to identify future antifouling systems that should similarly be
prohibited or controlled.
In conclusion, deposit of an instrument of ratification at
IMO would provide concrete evidence of the United States'
continued commitment to protect the environmental health of our
waters and the waters of those beyond our borders from the
effects of harmful antifouling systems.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today
and the opportunity to provide you with the Coast Guard's view
in support of the Antifouling Convention. The Coast Guard
appreciates the work of our partners in the Environmental
Protection Agency and we look forward to further working with
them on this important issue.
Thank you again. I would be happy to answer any questions
you may have.
Mr. Cummings. Thank you very much.
Mr. Cummings. Mr. Jones.
Mr. Jones. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member
LoBiondo, and Members of the Subcommittee. Thank you for the
opportunity to testify before the Subcommittee on legislation
to control harmful antifouling systems on ships. I am pleased
to be here with my colleague Jeff Lantz from the U.S. Coast
Guard.
Mr. Chairman, I ask that my written testimony be introduced
into the record.
Mr. Cummings. So ordered.
Mr. Jones. Thank you. The Agency supports the passage of
legislation to implement the Antifouling Treaty as a means of
protecting domestic waters, safeguarding the global
environment, and promoting the development of safer
technologies for controlling fouling on ship hulls.
The treaty relies on rigorous scientific review as the
basis of determining when controls are needed to limit the
negative effects and impacts of antifouling systems.
Implementation of the treaty will uphold the standing of the
United States as an environmental leader. We are eager to
assist your Subcommittee and Congress in implementing the
protections afforded by the treaty through legislation.
Let me provide some background. Organotin-based antifouling
systems, mainly those containing in tributyltin, or TBT, are
extremely effective and have long service lives, but they are
extremely hazardous to aquatic organisms, including
economically important species like oysters.
Research has revealed that tributyltin is a potent
endocrine disrupter and immunotoxin responsible for
reproductive anomalies and other adverse effects in marine
animals. Additionally, tributyltin from hull coatings would
persist for many years in aquatic sediment.
As the science on tributyltin has evolved, the Agency and
Congress have taken steps to control the risks. The first step
included prohibiting the use on smaller vessels and limiting
the release rate of tributyltin from paint; the second step
included regulating tributyltin paint waste in shipyards and
analyzing monitoring data to see if these early controls reduce
the risk. The science indicated that tributyltin levels in near
coastal waters were dropping, but not enough to protect marine
life.
With this science in hand, the EPA became a full partner in
negotiating the international agreement and worked with the
tributyltin manufacturers on a phaseout. In 2005, the Agency
canceled the last remaining registration for tributyltin
antifouling paint and set December 31, 2005 as the last date
such products could legally be sold in this country, except as
allowed under existing stocks provisions. Canceling the
registration effectively prohibits the use in the United
States.
The end result is that vessels that are painted with
antifouling paints in the U.S. are no longer significant
contributors to environmental loading with tributyltin.
Unfortunately, ships that are maintained in places where
tributyltin is still in use enter U.S. ports and leach
tributlytin into our waters. Through the international
agreement, vessels painted with tributlytin are identified and
can be excluded from ports of countries that are parties.
The treaty provides a mechanism for us to protect our
domestic waters from foreign tributyltin and to influence the
use of tributyltin by joining in united front with parties of
the treaty. New statutory authorities, especially in
enforcement of the tributyltin ban, are needed to supplement
our domestic controls of tributyltin by keeping tributyltin-
painted vessels from other countries out of U.S. waters.
We expect other benefits resulting from the implementing of
the treaty. For example, once we become a party we will be able
to participate fully in the scientific evaluation of proposed
controls on other antifouling systems that may be viewed as
problematic in the future. In addition, we expect that because
of increased pressure on tributyltin-based systems, the current
movement toward developing safer alternatives will expand.
The scientific standards for evaluating the risks
associated with antifouling systems as laid out by the treaty
provide a roadmap for the paint and shipping industry to
develop and adopt safer substitutes. Several safe and effective
substitutes are already available.
In summary, the controls and process to be implemented
through the Antifouling Treaty are clearly beneficial to the
environment and national interests. There is much to be gained
in implementing the global Antifouling Treaty at this time, and
little controversy exists regarding the impacts.
Mr. Chairman and other Members, on behalf of EPA we are
grateful for your work and the work of your staff in holding
this hearing. Thank you for your leadership concerning this
issue. We look forward to working with you.
I will be happy to answer any questions you may have.
Mr. Cummings. Thank you very much.
Mr. Cummings. Mr. Jones, you said in your testimony that
the production and use of TBT in some parts of the world
continues to pose a problem that can be addressed only through
a coordinated global effort; is that right?
Mr. Jones. That is correct, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Cummings. How common is TBT on ships today? And given
that the international Convention has now come into force, I
mean how do you see us resolving this in the most effective and
efficient manner?
Mr. Jones. If there is legislation allowing the United
States to exclude ships with TBT on their hulls from U.S.
waters, regardless of where they were painted with TBT, we will
be able to effectively protect our marine environment from TBT.
Mr. Cummings. How common is it to find TBT on ships today?
Mr. Jones. My understanding is that there are a number of
Asian countries that still allow TBT to be used in shipping for
antifouling purposes.
Mr. Cummings. You also stated in your testimony that under
the treaty, the U.S. and foreign-flagged vessels would be
subject to the organotin prohibition, with the exception of
ships used for government and noncommercial service. Is the TBT
used on U.S. Government ships today?
Mr. Jones. I would defer to my colleague from the Coast
Guard. My understanding is that there is no use of organotin
hull coatings on government-owned vessels.
Mr. Cummings. Mr. Lantz.
Mr. Lantz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. To our knowledge, the
Navy does not use TBT, and hasn't for over a decade. The same
with the Coast Guard. I don't believe that TBT is used on any
U.S. Government vessels. It hasn't been allowed. If it was on
some existing ships, it would have been--should have been
coated so that there wouldn't be any leaching into the water.
Mr. Cummings. Can either of you, or both of you, comment on
whether TBT began to be used both in the United States and in
other countries before its harmful effects on marine
environment were fully understood, or whether it was introduced
even though concerns about its safety existed at the time it
was introduced?
Mr. Jones. Mr. Chairman, it was introduced well before we
began to understand its effects on the environment.
Mr. Cummings. So you think that if we had known those
effects, it might not have been used as much as it has been
used. Is that right?
Mr. Jones. Certainly, if it were--if a manufacturer, for
example, brought TBT to the Environmental Protection Agency
today to license it for this use, they would not likely obtain
a license, which is what they would need to use TBT on ships.
Mr. Cummings. I note that you also stated that the review
process for antifouling systems will consider impacts to the
shipping industry and to society of potential replacement
systems. Just as we need to ensure that antifouling systems are
safe for the environment, we must also ensure that they are
effective in preventing the fouling.
Will new systems be assessed by the IMO to ensure that they
meet performance standards?
Mr. Lantz. Mr. Chairman, yes. The new systems will be
analyzed by the IMO and looked at. As for the exact criteria,
there are a number of criteria listed in the Convention that
they use. I don't know those all off the top of my head, but I
would provide that as an answer in the record to follow up, if
that would be acceptable.
Mr. Cummings. I would appreciate that.
Did you have a comment on that, Mr. Jones?
Mr. Jones. With respect to the IMO, new systems are brought
before the U.S. EPA for pesticide licensing, as these are
treated as pesticides in the United States, and we have
licensed a number of chemicals that are relatively new for
antifouling purposes in the last 10 years.
Mr. Cummings. It has been stated in some industry magazines
that copper will reemerge as the antifouling system of choice.
Have the full effects of copper on the marine environment been
evaluated and, if so, are there any concerns about the use of
products based on copper?
Mr. Jones. Mr. Chairman, the Environmental Protection
Agency has authorized the use of a number of copper compounds
as antifouling pesticides, and we do feel like we have a
significant understanding of the environmental effects of
copper.
Copper does have effects on aquatic environments, but they
are far less profound and pronounced than the effects observed
from TBT. As you had mentioned in an earlier statement, our job
is to balance the benefits and risks provided by a compound
such as copper. We have found that the benefits of copper
compounds for antifouling haveoutweighed the risks.
Mr. Cummings. Mr. LoBiondo.
Mr. LoBiondo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Gentlemen, thank you for being here. Can you discuss what
you think the impacts will be for becoming a party to the
Convention? We have a couple different categories I am
interested in. Whether it is recreational boaters, the average
fishing vessel owner, or the average commercial boat owner in
the U.S., what effects would this have on them? Any speculation
about that?
Mr. Lantz. Thank you, Mr. LoBiondo. Sir, the effect really
should not have any effect by ratifying this Convention. In the
U.S. the use of organotin is already essentially prohibited for
use by these vessels. Therefore, us ratifying the Convention
will not increase the burden on those two vessel types that you
cited, the rec boats and the fishing vessels.
This Convention, what it does for the U.S. is it gets
larger U.S.-flagged vessels that perhaps go overseas and get
this put on their bottom, or foreign-flagged ships who are not
party to the Convention who come to our waters. So that is the
main benefit that this Convention provides.
But as far as additional burden, I don't see an additional
burden to the vessel groups that you cited.
Thank you.
Mr. LoBiondo. These larger type U.S.-flagged vessels that
might be having this treatment over there-- can you give us a
guesstimate of how long you would think it would take the Coast
Guard and the EPA to conduct initial surveys and certify that
all applicable ships are following the legislation?
Mr. Lantz. Thank you. If we ratified the Convention we
would be obligated to survey the vessels to verify that they
don't have the organotin on them. We would have to certificate
them because they would need this for traveling
internationally. So I would envision that as soon as we
ratified the Convention, became a party, the first inspection
we would conduct on all U.S.-flagged vessels would verify
whether or not organotin.
Mr. LoBiondo. No guess as to how long that would take,
though.
Mr. Lantz. The inspection cycle--I don't want to really
guess on that. I can provide a more concrete answer for the
record on that as we work out the implementing details.
Mr. LoBiondo. What would they do in the meantime, before
they are inspected, if this is implemented? Would it impact the
abilities of U.S.-flagged vessels to engage in international
voyages to countries that are parties to the Convention if they
are not certified?
Mr. Lantz. No, sir. Currently, U.S.-flagged vessels that do
trade to countries that are party are already receiving a
certificate of voluntary compliance with the Convention. This
is issued to them by the four classification societies that we
have recognized. So they are already complying with the
Convention.
Mr. LoBiondo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Cummings. Mr. Taylor.
Mr. Taylor. Mr. Lantz, I don't want to put words in your
mouth, but I think you said that the U.S. fleet is more or less
fully in compliance. Something to that extent. So who isn't in
compliance now? Who would be affected by this as far as either
a government agency or U.S.-flagged carrier?
Mr. Lantz. Sir, I don't have an exact answer on who would
be affected. To our knowledge, I don't know of any in the U.S.
fleet that would be. There may be some out there that are using
it that I am not aware.
Mr. Taylor. Let's go back to the 25-meter rule. I have got
to assume there is a significant number of U.S.-flagged vessels
that are over 25 meters in length. Are those vessels at the
moment excluded and would be included later on as far as
compliance, or are they in compliance now?
Mr. Lantz. Under the terms of the Convention, they would be
swept up under the Convention.
Mr. Taylor. Tell me about right now. Who does this affect
as far as U.S.-flagged vessels? The rules were changed for
whom?
Mr. Lantz. For the larger vessels, those over 25 meters.
Mr. Taylor. Over 25 meters.
Mr. Lantz. Yes.
Mr. Taylor. I think Mr. Jones had made the statement that
there are safe and effective substitutes out there already, or
already available. What are they? Are they as effective?
I mean, number one, if they are not as effective you, are
going to see your fuel costs soar as you are dragging barnacles
and other things through the sea. The second thing is you are
going to be hauling your vessel more often. There is a cost
associated with that, the sand-blasting, et cetera. So how
certain are you of that statement?
Mr. Jones. Congressman Taylor, we are fairly certain of the
statement as thanks to the fact that TBT has been phased out
over the last, really, 10 years. The ingredients that are
currently registered, approved for this antifouling use include
zinc pyrithione; as I mentioned, a number of copper compounds.
There is a compound IrgArol and a compound by the name of SEA-
NINE.
Mr. Taylor. Does the EPA limit the percentage of copper
that can go into a paint?
Mr. Jones. In our licensing decisions around any chemical,
we evaluate and approve them in the context of the percent of
the ingredient in it.
Mr. Taylor. What is the maximum copper content available
now under the law?
Mr. Jones. I would need to get back to you.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0568.006
Mr. Taylor. Because they are very real life questions,
where I have actually had boatyards complain to me that people
happen to haul more often because you have significantly
limited the amount of copper that can go. In fact, one brand I
know of, Interlux Coppertox, was actually taken off the market
because I am told it had too high a percentage of copper in it.
This isn't a nebulous question.
Mr. Jones. It is a factual question. We can go back and
look in our records to find what the percent allowed in active
ingredients of approved products is.
Mr. Taylor. I guess my question is: What are the unintended
consequences of this? What problems do we create by trying to
solve the problem you have outlined? Has anyone bothered to ask
that question?
Mr. Jones. As I mentioned, because we have a fair amount of
experience, because this didn't happen overnight, it has
actually been phased out for a while; we have also been
monitoring the degree to which vessel owners have struggled
with the transition. And thus far the transition has gone quite
smoothly. That doesn't mean there won't be some issues by some
individuals along the way. But in general, the transition away
from TBT compounds has been pretty smooth.
Mr. Taylor. The next question. Mr. Lantz, this is just a
practical question. We have had ongoing problems with the Coast
Guard ignoring what I consider to be rebuilds overseas of Jones
Act vessels, even when we show them the photographs. My boaters
back home were regularly complaining that the navigation lights
weren't changed when they burn out. I remember when the Coast
Guard actually used to rescue people for free, as opposed to
now you have got to call a commercial towing service.
Given the fact that the Coast Guard certainly appears to me
to be stretched well beyond its boundaries right now with just
existing missions, are you telling me that the Coast Guard now
is going to be responsible for taking a bottom paint sample of
every vessel that comes from overseas and they would determine,
I guess at that point, whether or not the vessel can enter our
waters?
What is the practical--how do you foresee this happening,
because that is the way I visualize it, is that they would
actually take a scraping off the bottom paint and run a test on
it.
Mr. Lantz. Congressman, normally we would look for
certification by the flag state of the ship. If the certificate
is there which indicates that they have compliance with the
Convention, we would usually accept that.
Mr. Taylor. Sort of like the guy telling us he really
didn't get his vessel rebuilt overseas. Right? That really does
fail the commonsense test, sir.
Mr. Lantz. If we have evidence that the certificate isn't
valid, then of course we would investigate further, and if we
had to take a sample, we would take a sample.
Mr. Taylor. So you are basically counting on someone to
tell you, who has no commercial incentive to tell you, he has
got every commercial incentive to use this stuff because it is
going to cut down on his maintenance, get better performance,
and haul his boat less often. If he sends you a piece of paper
saying he is compliant, you are going to trust him.
Mr. Lantz. No, sir. These ships, when they show up on our
shores, have a certificate issued by the government of the
flagged state, the same as we would issue to the ships of our
flag. It is very similar to virtually all the international
conventions.
Mr. Taylor. Of course, another government would never try
to mislead the United States.
Mr. Lantz. Maybe. I don't know, sir.
Mr. Taylor. So the North Koreans--think about this. Again,
what you are trying to do is well intended. All I see is one
more time where we are putting rules on our vessels, raising
the cost of doing business once again on an American vessel,
making it that much easier for a foreign competitor to flaunt
the rules, get an economic advantage over us, and no one is
really going to enforce it because if they hold up a piece of
paper from Panama or the British Virgin Islands or whoever that
says they are in compliance, nobody is going to check to see if
they really are. Is that correct?
Mr. Lantz. Usually we do accept it on its face value unless
we have evidence that there is something wrong. Then we would
investigate further. We do this the same as we do virtually all
of our ports.
Mr. Taylor. Sort of like when I handed the photographs of
the ship being rebuilt in China as opposed to repaired in
China. And there is a still a Jones Act vessel and no one from
the Coast Guard ever bothered to look into it. Sort of like
that instance?
Mr. Lantz. Unfortunately, I don't know exactly about the
situation you are talking.
Mr. Taylor. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Cummings. Now, you wrote in your testimony about the
harmful effects of TBT on marine organisms. Many sources have
noted the chemical effects on oysters and digwhelk snails. How
long does it take an organism affected by TBT to recover.
Mr. Lantz?
Mr. Lantz. Mr. Chairman, if I could defer to the EPA on
that.
Mr. Jones. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I can't give you a
specific answer to that. I can say that the TBT tends to be
rather persistent in the environment. And so it does take a
while for the exposure of the chemical, even after we have
withdrawn it from the environment, for that exposure to
actually cease.
Mr. Cummings. Can the United States opt out of the IMO
regulations regarding antifouling systems? Can we opt out of
it?
Mr. Lantz. Mr. Chairman, once we have signed onto the
Convention, no, we cannot opt out of any particular regulation.
We would get the opportunity, if the Convention were amended,
we would then have the opportunity whether or not to accept
that amendment. Once they are in place and we have accepted
them, there is no opt-out unless we make the decision to opt
out of the Convention completely.
Mr. Cummings. What would be the cost of noncompliance?
Mr. Lantz. Well, if we didn't comply after we had ratified
it, certified our ships, they would be held up when they are
trading internationally by those other parties. They would be
subject to ports they control by the other parties. So it would
be detrimental to their commerce.
Mr. Cummings. How many states representing what percentage
of shipping tonnage are now parties to the Convention under the
control of harmful antifouling systems?
Mr. Lantz. Mr. Chairman, currently there are 39 countries
party to the Convention, representing just about 67 percent of
the world's international shipping.
Mr. Cummings. Very well.
Ms. Richardson.
Mr. Richardson. I have nothing.
Mr. Cummings. Thank you very much. This hearing is now
concluded. Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 2:44 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0568.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0568.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0568.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0568.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0568.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0568.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0568.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0568.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0568.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0568.010