
[Federal Register: December 1, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 231)]
[Notices]               
[Page 72814-72817]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr01de08-83]                         

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[Docket No. USCG-2007-0042]

 
Application for the Containerized Cargo Ship ATLANTIC COMPASS, 
Review for the Inclusion in the Shipboard Technology Evaluation 
Program; Final Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant 
Impact

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of availability.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard announces the availability of the Final 
Environmental Assessment (FEA) and Finding of No Significant Impact 
(FONSI) that evaluated the potential environmental impacts resulting 
from accepting the vessel the ATLANTIC COMPASS into the Shipboard 
Technology Evaluation Program (STEP). Under the STEP, the ATLANTIC 
COMPASS will be using and testing the Ecochlor TM Inc. 
Ballast Water Treatment System (BWTS), as the vessel operates in U.S. 
waters.

ADDRESSES: Comments and material received from the public, as well as 
documents mentioned in this notice as being available in the docket, 
are part of the docket USCG-2007-0042. These documents are available 
for inspection or copying at the Docket Management Facility (M-30), 
U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room 
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001, 
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal 
holidays. You can also find all docketed documents on the Federal 
Document Management System at http://www.regulations.gov, United States 
Coast Guard docket number USCG-2007-0042.
    You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-2007-0042 
using any one of the following methods:
    (1) Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
    (2) Fax: 202-493-2251.
    (3) Mail: Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of 
Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New 
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
    (4) Hand delivery: Same as mail address above, between 9 a.m. and 5 
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone 
number is 202-366-9329.
    To avoid duplication, please use only one of these methods.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this 
assessment please contact LCDR Brian Moore at 202-372-1434 or e-mail: 
brian.e.moore@uscg.mil. If you have questions on viewing or submitting 
material to the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket 
Operations, telephone 202-366-9826.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This document has been tiered off the 
Programmatic Environmental Assessment (PEA) for STEP dated December 8, 
2004 (69 FR 71068, Dec 8,

[[Page 72815]]

2004), and was prepared in accordance with the National Environmental 
Policy Act of 1969 (Section 102 (2)(c)), as implemented by the Council 
of Environmental Quality regulations (40 CFR parts 1500-1508) and Coast 
Guard Commandant Instruction M16475.1D. From these documents, the Coast 
Guard has prepared an FEA and FONSI for accepting the ATLANTIC COMPASS 
into the STEP.
    Response to Comments: The Coast Guard requested comments on the 
Draft Environmental Assessment (DEA) when the Notice of Availability 
and Request for Public Comments was published in the Federal Register 
on April 4, 2008 (73 FR 18543, Apr. 4, 2008). The Coast Guard received 
31 substantive comments total from 4 agencies. The Coast Guard has 
responded to all of the comments that were within the scope of the DEA.
    One commenter requested a description of the circumstances under 
which ballast is discharged without any treatment.
    These circumstances are described in 33 CFR 151.2030(b). The Coast 
Guard has determined that in order to keep the FEA concise this 
background information should not be included in the document.
    One commenter asked for clarification regarding the statement ``* * 
* treatment system is expected to have no impact on water quality, 
biological resources * * *''. The commenter asked how there could be no 
impact when residuals (biocides) would be released.
    The Coast Guard acknowledges this comment, but disagrees with the 
inference. This paragraph refers strictly to the effects of the BWT 
system as it pertains to coastal barrier systems, and, as such, we 
conclude there will be no impact on water quality as it affects coastal 
barrier systems. The overall effects of residuals on water quality are 
discussed elsewhere in the FEA.
    One commenter asked under what circumstances a vessel would be 
granted a safety waiver.
    The circumstances in which a safety waiver can be used are 
described in 33 CFR 151.2030(b). The Coast Guard has determined that in 
order to keep the FEA concise, this background information should not 
be included in the FEA.
    One commenter requested examples of accuracy and precision related 
to the target final concentration of the automated system (i.e., does 
it produce a 5.0 ppm concentration every time or is there some 
variation involved?).
    The Coast Guard has determined that the initial dosage values that 
have been proposed by the applicant are based solely upon laboratory 
results using validated Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) methods. 
The STEP program is intended to provide the sort of detailed 
information requested by the commenter. As of now, only laboratory 
values have been established. Gathering actual shipboard examples of 
dosing parameters is a primary goal of the STEP.
    One commenter requested clarification regarding the statement ``* * 
* that chlorite reacts with metals.'' The commenter asked which metals 
would cause a reaction and if processes have been developed to assess 
vessel damage.
    The Coast Guard has determined that the clarification of potential 
for metal reactions with the treatment chemicals is outside the scope 
of this FEA, which is narrowly focused on the potential for impacts to 
the environment. The Coast Guard, the ship's owner/operator, 
classification society, and flag administration are also monitoring the 
ship's structure under different laws, rules, and regulations.
    One commenter asked how long it would take chlorate to decompose 
and if chlorate and chlorite have an impact on organisms.
    The Coast Guard has determined that the degradation rate of 
chlorate is similar to that of chlorite, but was not included because 
it is such a small fraction of the degradation products of 
ClO2. Both chlorate and chlorite are biocides.
    One commenter requested estimated water residency times for the 
harbors.
    The system manufacturer has not provided the Coast Guard with any 
information about harbor water residency times (for the chemical 
residuals associated with this system). However, the Coast Guard 
believes that based on the non-persistent nature of the ClO2 
and the long residence time associated with this vessel's voyages, that 
the amount of residual available for discharge is negligible and should 
not present an accumulation hazard.
    One commenter requested clarification regarding the statement 
``residual chemical levels are thought to be below applicable EPA and 
state discharge standards.'' The commenter asked if there were any data 
to support this statement and what the preliminary testing levels and 
standards were.
    The Coast Guard has determined that there are no known state or 
Federal standards for discharge of ClO2, or its degradation 
products, into marine waters. However, the reported discharge 
concentrations of these residuals are not detected when held beyond 
five days and up to 1.5 ppm when held between one and two days. These 
levels are below the levels associated with significant toxicity to 
aquatic organisms, even before the dilution effects of discharge into 
unconfined waters.
    One commenter asked what sodium sulfate concentrations were 
produced and if they would be toxic. The commenter also asked if there 
was any information available regarding sodium sulfate and its effects.
    The Coast Guard has determined that sulfates in several forms are 
common constituents of seawater. The EcochlorTM system is 
expected to introduce ~5 ppm sulfate against a background of ~2600 ppm 
sulfate. The impact of this additional load is expected to be 
negligible.
    One commenter requested that a description of the planktonic 
communities and potential indirect effects on fisheries should be 
included in the document. The commenter also suggested including a map 
of the ports.
    The Coast Guard disagrees with the suggestion of including a map of 
the harbor locations. Each port is part of a major metropolitan area of 
the same name and easily located on any map, chart or Web mapping 
service. Information on plankton and fisheries is included in the FEA.
    One commenter asked if the chlorite residues from the Ecochlor 
TM system could impact small marine invertebrates, the food 
source for the endangered piping plover.
    The Coast Guard has consulted with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Services which has stated that accepting the ATLANTIC COMPASS into the 
STEP is not likely to adversely affect any listed species including the 
piping plover, if the ship operates in accordance with its application.
    One commenter stated that there was an introduction to Baltimore 
Harbor, but not Portsmouth Harbor.
    The Coast Guard agrees with this comment and has added introductory 
information about Portsmouth Harbor to the FEA.
    One commenter stated that the biological surveys in the section 
Benthos, Baltimore Harbor are out-dated (conducted in 1975 and 1983). 
The commenter requested that more recent data be provided.
    The Coast Guard agrees with this comment and has updated this 
section.
    One commenter stated that the benthic index of biological integrity 
information seemed out of place. The commenter suggested that the 
information be removed or described in more detail. The commenter also 
requested that information about dominant species be included.

[[Page 72816]]

    The Coast Guard agrees and the section has been simplified to 
improve readability and consistency with other sections including 
discussion of dominant species.
    One commenter asked if there were any wetlands in Portsmouth 
harbor.
    The Coast Guard has determined that wetlands in Portsmouth harbor 
are typical for the Chesapeake and that they are described in the FEA.
    One commenter asked if there were any planktivorous fish that may 
be indirectly affected by potential impacts on planktonic communities.
    The Coast Guard believes that the analysis of ecosystems conducted 
in the PEA includes the potential direct and indirect impacts upon all 
fish species, including plankton eaters. This analysis has concluded 
that the range of impacts resulting from the preferred alternative runs 
from not significant to potentially beneficial based on the probability 
that the BWMS under evaluation may prevent the introduction of non-
indigenous species which could have very significant adverse impacts on 
the ecosystems under study, including plankton eaters.
    One commenter asked for the average salinity and turbidity values 
for the Newark Bay, what levels were considered low for dissolved 
oxygen and requested that a list of the toxic pollutants in the 
Chesapeake Bay be included in the document.
    The Coast Guard disagrees that the additional water body 
characterization information requested by the commenter is necessary to 
make a determination about whether to accept the ATLANTIC COMPASS into 
the STEP because the Coast Guard has determined that ambient turbidity, 
dissolved oxygen, and toxic pollutant levels are not relevant to the 
degradation pathways for the potential treatment residuals. For the 
same reason, the Coast Guard declines to include a list of toxic 
pollutants in the Chesapeake Bay in the document.
    One commenter stated that the potential impact of chlorite is 
underestimated and the toxicity of chlorite is not mentioned in the 
document. The commenter stated that according to http://
www.pesticideinfo.org, chlorite causes serious sub-lethal effects 
including carcinogenicity and reproductive, developmental, and 
neurological toxicity. The commenter also stated that it is inadequate 
to only examine the LC50 of chlorite and that the 
LC50 is too extreme of an endpoint to determine whether or 
not the biological resources will be impacted.
    Due to the non-persistent nature of the chemicals, the Coast Guard 
believes that all treatment residues will have degraded to levels 
sufficiently safe for discharge for the purposes of making a decision 
about STEP acceptance. Physical and chemical analysis of the treated 
ballast water is a primary goal of the STEP.
    One commenter asked for clarification regarding the statement ``the 
potential impacts from this action will primarily be to the planktonic 
community''. The commenter stated that out of 13 studies that were 
listed in Addendum F, only 3 were performed on plankton, and had 
LC50 well below the value for ``compiled toxicity levels'' 
reported in the text (``The compiled toxicity levels are mostly greater 
than * * * 75,000 ug/L for chlorite * * *'').
    Based on the extended residence times that the biocide will be 
stored in the vessel ballast tanks, the Coast Guard has determined that 
all treatment residues will have degraded to levels sufficiently safe 
for discharge for the purposes of making a decision about STEP 
acceptance. Physical and chemical analysis of the treated ballast water 
is a primary goal of the STEP.
    One commenter stated that the link for EPA Aquire (Addendum F) was 
broken, and the previous studies need to be properly referenced. The 
commenter also stated that the table is not reader friendly, and it is 
unclear whether the algae species tested were not affected by chlorite 
exposure because chlorite is not toxic to algae, or because the 
concentrations administered were low.
    The Coast Guard was not able to replicate the difficulty locating 
the EPA Aquire database. The Coast Guard appreciates the time and 
expertise the EPA has placed into its toxicity database. However, the 
Coast Guard is not an appropriate agent for making changes to an EPA 
work product. The data show that algae are not being affected by 
chlorite. Since the evaluated dosages include the expected maximum 
discharge concentrations, the negligible impact conclusion is 
supported.
    One commenter asked how chlorite, chlorate, and chlorine dioxide 
impact biological resources. The commenter also stated that a 
discussion of the local planktonic communities should be included in 
the document.
    The Coast Guard has determined that the treatment chemical--
chlorine dioxide--and its initial degradation products are toxic to 
biological organisms. That is why they are proposed for use as ballast 
water treatments. The applicant has provided bench top data that show 
the residuals of these biocides are small enough and dilute quickly 
enough upon discharge from the ship that they are not likely to have a 
long term or cumulative adverse impact on the receiving water. However, 
characterization and assessment of the effluent is a principal goal of 
the STEP and these values will be used to determine further suitability 
of the BWTS for use in U.S. waters. The use of the pesticide info.org 
report is not directly relevant as that information is based on human 
exposures which are not likely to occur since the water will be 
discharged directly to the sea in industrial harbors.
    One commenter asked what the typical port pH values were. The 
commenter also asked what would cause a drop in pH.
    The Coast Guard disagrees that the information requested by the 
commenter is necessary, because of the de minimis volumes on water 
discharge into the unconfined industrial port waters. Therefore, the 
requested information is not needed to make a determination whether to 
accept the ATLANTIC COMPASS into the STEP. Characterization of the 
effluent is a primary component of the STEP.
    One commenter asked for clarification regarding the statement ``* * 
* the discharge pH will still generally be near neutrality * * * not 
likely pose a significant negative impact.''
    The Coast Guard has determined that the actual impact from a single 
ship discharging into a harbor is too small to have other than a 
negligible impact to the harbor itself and no measurable impact on the 
larger coastal environment.
    One commenter asked what the chlorine (gas) emission limits were. 
The commenter also asked if it was harmful and if testing for 
Cl2 will be conducted.
    The Coast Guard has determined that none of the degradation 
pathways for chlorine dioxide include formation of elemental chlorine 
(Cl2, a gas at normal temperature); the end product of 
degradation is chloride ion (Cl-), a harmless and ubiquitous 
component of seawater.
    One commenter asked if there were any long term impacts from 
chlorite. The commenter stated that chlorite decomposition appears to 
take between 70-200 days and that this amount of time and the 
continuous discharges from the vessel (described as every 35 days for a 
round trip voyage), may result in a build up of chlorite levels in the 
harbor depending on circulation patterns.
    The applicant has provided bench top data that show the residuals 
of these biocides are very small and dilute below the no observable 
effect concentration

[[Page 72817]]

level upon discharge from the ship. The Coast Guard has determined that 
they are not a long term or cumulative hazard on the receiving water 
because of their non-persistent nature.
    One commenter stated that the information found in Appendix E 
should be discussed in the body of the document. The commenter also 
stated that the possibility of residual ClO2 discharge was 
discussed in the Appendix, but the potential amounts of these 
discharges should be discussed earlier in the document.
    The Coast Guard disagrees with this comment. The specific chemical 
equations describing the outcome are beyond the scope of the FEA, 
however, they are provided in the Appendix so that interested parties 
may verify the conclusions on a scientific basis.
    One commenter stated that they did not object to the proposed 
project, but if this program were to expand, they would recommend 
review of the environmental assessment by the New Jersey Division of 
Water Quality (NJDEP). The commenter also stated that if the 
determination was made that a ship is a fixed pipe discharger, a 
discharge permit should be required, and reporting requirements should 
be imposed.
    The Coast Guard appreciates the comment and will inform NJDEP of 
all applicable future STEP vessels.
    All of the commenters stated their support and approval for the 
ATLANTIC COMPASS acceptance into the STEP, and recommended that the 
application should be granted.
    The Coast Guard appreciates all of the comments and support for 
including the ATLANTIC COMPASS into STEP. FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL 
ASSESSMENT: The Final PEA for STEP identified and examined the 
reasonable alternatives available to evaluate novel ballast water 
management systems for effectiveness against nonindigenous species 
(NIS) transportation by ships' ballast water.
    The FEA for acceptance of the ATLANTIC COMPASS into the STEP and 
the subsequent operation of the experimental treatment system analyzed 
the no action alternative and one action alternative that could fulfill 
the purpose, and need of identifying suitable technologies capable of 
preventing the transportation of NIS in ships ballast water. 
Specifically, the FEA for the ATLANTIC COMPASS acceptance into the STEP 
is tiered off of the PEA for the STEP, and considers the potential 
impacts to the environment from the operation of the treatment system 
on the ATLANTIC COMPASS, by examining the functioning of the system, 
the operational practices of the vessel, and the potential affects on 
discharge water quality.
    This notice is issued under authority of the National Environmental 
Policy Act of 1969 (Section 102(2)(c)), as implemented by the Council 
of Environmental Quality regulations (40 CFR parts 1500-1508) and Coast 
Guard Commandant Instruction M16475.1D.

    Dated: November 21, 2008.
Brian M. Salerno,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Assistant Commandant for Marine Safety, 
Security and Stewardship.
[FR Doc. E8-28470 Filed 11-28-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-15-P
