# Dry Cargo Residue Discharges



## Hamilton Reef (Jan 20, 2000)

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Coast Guard
[USCG-2004-19621]

Dry Cargo Residue Discharges in the Great Lakes; Preparation of 
Environmental Impact Statement

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.
ACTION: Notice of intent; notice of availability; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard announces its intent to prepare an 
environmental impact statement (EIS) in connection with the development 
of proposed new regulations on the incidental discharge of dry cargo 
residue in the Great Lakes. Publication of this notice begins a public 
scoping process that will help determine the scope of issues to be 
addressed in the EIS and identify the significant environmental issues 
related to this EIS (40 CFR 1506.6). This notice also solicits public 
participation in the scoping process, and announces the availability of 
a study on current dry cargo residue discharge practices in the Great 
Lakes.

DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Docket Management 
Facility on or before July 31, 2006.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Coast Guard docket 
number USCG-2004-19621 to the Docket Management Facility at the U.S. 
Department of Transportation.

[[Page 12210]]

Address docket submissions for USCG-2004-19621 to: Docket 
Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh 
Street SW., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
The Docket Management Facility accepts hand-delivered submissions, 
and makes docket contents available for public inspection and copying 
at this address, in room PL-401, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday 
through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Facility's telephone is 
202-366-9329, its fax is 202-493-2251, and its Web site for electronic 
submissions or for electronic access to docket contents is 
http://dms.dot.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions regarding this 
notice, contact LCDR Mary Sohlberg, U.S. Coast Guard, fax 202-267-4690 
or e-mail [email protected]. If you have questions on viewing or 
submitting material to the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program 
Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 202-493-0402.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Request for Comments

We request public comments or other relevant information on 
environmental issues related to all aspects of incidental dry cargo 
residue discharges on the Great Lakes. You can submit comments to the 
Docket Management Facility during the public comment period (see 
DATES). We will consider all comments and material received during the 
comment period.
Submissions should include:
? Docket number USCG-2004-19621.
? Your name and address.
? Your reasons for making each comment or for bringing 
information to our attention.
Submit comments or material using only one of the following methods:
? Electronic submission to DMS, http://dms.dot.gov.
? Fax, mail, or hand delivery to the Docket Management 
Facility (see ADDRESSES). Faxed or hand delivered submissions must be 
unbound, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches, and suitable for copying 
and electronic scanning. If you mail your submission and want to know 
when it reaches the Facility, include a stamped, self-addressed 
postcard or envelope.
Regardless of the method used for submitting comments or material, 
all submissions will be posted, without change, to the DMS Web site 
(http://dms.dot.gov), and will include any personal information 
you provide. Therefore, submitting this information makes it public. You 
may wish to read the Privacy Act notice that is available on the DMS 
Web site, or the Department of Transportation Privacy Act Statement 
that appeared in the Federal Register on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477).
You may view docket submissions at the Docket Management Facility 
(see ADDRESSES), or electronically on the DMS Web site.

Background

The Coast Guard has previously published Federal Register documents 
concerning regulation of incidental dry cargo residue on the Great 
Lakes: 69 FR 1994 (January 13, 2004), 69 FR 57711 (September 27, 2004), 
69 FR 77147 (December 27, 2004; corrected at 70 FR 1400, January 7, 2005).
The historical practice of bulk dry cargo vessels on the Great 
Lakes is to wash non-hazardous and non-toxic cargo residues (``dry 
cargo residue'' or ``cargo sweepings'') overboard. These non-hazardous 
non-toxic discharges eliminate unsafe conditions onboard the vessel, 
without requiring alternatives that could involve time delays or added 
cost. Current environmental statutes, if strictly enforced, would 
prohibit these incidental discharges. However, under an ``interim 
enforcement policy'' (IEP) first adopted by the Coast Guard's Ninth 
District in 1993, incidental discharges of dry cargo residue are 
permitted in defined portions of the Great Lakes. Congress has 
authorized continuation of the IEP until September 30, 2008, unless the 
Coast Guard acts sooner to replace the IEP with new regulations.
Dry cargo residue on the Great Lakes generally includes, but is not 
limited to, limestone and other clean stone, iron ore such as taconite, 
coal and salt, and cement. The IEP applies only to such cargo residues, 
and does not alter the strict prohibition of any discharge of oily 
waste, untreated sewage, plastics, dunnage, or other things commonly 
understood to be ``garbage,'' from vessels on the Great Lakes. Nor does 
the IEP permit the discharge of any substance known to be toxic or 
hazardous, such as nickel, copper, zinc, or lead. The IEP permits 
incidental dry cargo residue discharges only in areas that are 
relatively far from shore, and that meet depth restrictions and other 
restrictions near special protection areas.
Our December 27, 2004 Federal Register document (69 FR 77147; 
corrected at 70 FR 1400, January 7, 2005) announced that we would 
conduct a study of current dry cargo residue discharge practices in the 
Great Lakes, and requested information from the public that could help 
us conduct that study. The study is now complete and is available for 
public review either electronically or at the Docket Management 
Facility (see ADDRESSES and Request for Comments).

Proposed Action and Alternatives

The proposed action is to adopt the IEP as the basis for permanent 
regulations, adding new requirements for standardized record-keeping by 
vessels that discharge dry cargo residue. The discharges that require 
logging, the format for log entries, the retention time of the logs, 
and the physical location of the log would be specified. The 
alternatives to the proposed action include:
? Allowing the IEP to terminate on September 30, 2008, after 
which the Coast Guard would enforce all laws applicable to the 
discharge of dry cargo residues into the Great Lakes. For the purposes 
of our environmental review this represents the ``no-action'' alternative;
? Adopting the IEP as the basis for permanent regulations, 
without significant change;
? Adopting the IEP as the basis for permanent regulations, 
possibly with significant changes (other than record-keeping) designed 
to reduce the environmental impact. Possible changes would be specified 
and could include adoption of best management practices, quantity limits, 
cargo type limits, or additional restrictions on discharge locations;
? Developing a Coast Guard permit system for vessels 
discharging incidental dry cargo residue; and
? Regulating shoreside facilities to control or eliminate 
dry cargo spillage during vessel loading or unloading.

Scoping Process

The scoping process (40 CFR 1501.7) is an early and open process 
for determining the scope of issues to be addressed in an EIS and for 
identifying the significant issues related to the proposed action. The 
scoping process begins with publication of this notice and ends when 
the Coast Guard has completed the following actions:
? Invites the participation of Federal, State, and local 
agencies, any affected Indian tribe, the applicant, and other 
interested persons;
? Determines the actions, alternatives, and impacts 
described in 40 CFR 1508.25;
? Identifies and eliminates from detailed study those issues 
that are not significant or that are previously documented and can be 
incorporated by reference;
? Allocates responsibility for preparing EIS components;

[[Page 12211]]

? Indicates any related environmental assessments or 
environmental impact statements that are not part of the EIS;
? Identifies other relevant environmental review and 
consultation requirements;
? Indicates the relationship between timing of the 
environmental review and other aspects of the application process; and
? At its discretion, exercises the options provided in 40 
CFR 1501.7(b).
The Coast Guard will publish a Federal Register Notice to announce 
a public meeting and will include the time, location, and venue for the 
meeting as part of the scoping process under NEPA for this action. The 
Coast Guard intends to announce these details after gauging the level 
of public interest in response to the current notice. Once the scoping 
process is complete, the Coast Guard will prepare a draft EIS, and we 
will publish a Federal Register notice announcing its public 
availability. If you wish to be mailed or e-mailed the public meeting 
notice or the draft EIS notice of availability, please contact the 
person named in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. We will provide the 
public with an opportunity to review and comment on the draft EIS. 
After the Coast Guard considers those comments, we will prepare the 
final EIS and similarly announce its availability and issue a Record of 
Decision 30 days later.

Dated: March 6, 2006.
Howard L. Hime,
Acting Director of Standards, Assistant Commandant for Prevention.
[FR Doc. 06-2258 Filed 3-6-06; 4:25 pm]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P


----------



## Hamilton Reef (Jan 20, 2000)

HR's reply to the emailer that sent me this tip.
Remember when you sent out the following email covering this?
Coast Guard EIS on discharge of "dry cargo residue" from freighters to the Great Lakes..... 
Well, since Muskegon Lake AOC has a history of GL shipping, I passed it on to Jeff Alexander and Rick Rediske (GVSU & Muskegon Lake AOC Chair). The following article is the result. Thanks for your help.
Tom

Coast Guard study will look at effects of ship 'sweepings' 

http://www.mlive.com/news/muchronicle/index.ssf?/base/news-8/114235300684330.xml&coll=8

Tuesday, March 14, 2006 By Jeff Alexander CHRONICLE STAFF WRITER 
Shipping companies that transport iron ore, coal and other materials across the Great Lakes are using the lakes as a dumping ground for leftover cargo, despite federal laws and an international treaty that prohibit the practice. 

U.S. and Canadian freighters dump about 2 million pounds of so-called "cargo sweepings" into the Great Lakes each year, according to federal data. Cargo sweepings are residual materials left on deck and inside freighters after a ship is unloaded; those residuals must be removed to avoid contaminating future cargo loads. 

Shipping companies have discarded cargo sweepings for more than 75 years by pumping the materials and wash water into the Great Lakes. Because the dumping usually takes place several miles offshore -- where each ship dumps anywhere from a few pounds to a few thousand pounds of cargo residuals -- few people outside the industry know about it.

Federal officials have known about the dumping for nearly two decades. But regulators have turned a blind eye because shipping industry officials and some scientists claim cargo sweeping is environmentally harmless and contend there are no viable disposal alternatives. 

But there could be changes on the horizon. 

The U.S. Coast Guard is about to launch the first scientific study to determine whether "dry cargo sweeping" is harming the Great Lakes. That study could determine whether government agencies restrict the practice or ban it outright; at the present time, the Coast Guard wants to permit cargo sweeping. 

The shipping industry, of course, is opposed to any restrictions. 

"Banning cargo sweeping would be catastrophic to the shipping industry -- it would shut down power production, steel production and all kinds of construction activities in the region," said James Weakley, president of the Lake Carriers Association, a shipping industry group based in Cleveland, Ohio. 

One Great Lakes expert questioned why government agencies that spend billions to keep pollutants out of surface waters would allow freighters to dump tons of iron ore, coal, salt and cement dust into the world's largest source of fresh surface water. 

"We have to ask ourselves if this is good public policy. Are there better alternatives?" said Mark Coscarelli, a Lansing environmental consultant who worked in Michigan's Office of the Great Lakes for more than a decade.

Coscarelli said the huge volume of cargo sweepings dumped in the lakes over the past 75 years has left what could best be described as underwater gravel roads on the bottom of lakes Michigan, Huron, Superior, Erie and Ontario. Most of the sweepings are discarded in or near shipping lanes, according to government reports. 

Weakley said the cargo sweepings dumped overboard do not contain hazardous substances. 

"It's the equivalent of sweeping out my garage," he said. "I'm pretty sure the dust and dirt I sweep out of my garage is non-toxic, but I don't have any scientific data to back that up."

Weakley said every human activity has some impact on the environment. "We don't stop farming because of soil erosion and the environmental impact it causes," he said. 

The federal Clean Water Act prohibits waste dumping in the Great Lakes. So does an international shipping treaty, called MARPOL Annex V, that Congress adopted in 1990. 

U.S. officials who approved MARPOL V, which banned trash dumping at sea, apparently were unaware at the time that the treaty effectively outlawed cargo sweeping in the Great Lakes. 

Instead of banning cargo sweeping, the U.S. Coast Guard in 1993 adopted an interim exemption policy that allowed the practice to continue virtually unregulated. The Coast Guard now wants to make that interim policy a permanent rule, a move that would essentially legitimize an illegal activity but increase reporting requirements for shipping firms. 

U.S. and Canadian freighters dumped 432,242 pounds of cargo sweepings in Lake Michigan in 2001, according to federal data. The biggest load of cargo sweepings that year, 680,300 pounds, was dumped in Lake Huron. 

The cargo sweepings discarded in Lake Michigan in 2001 included 187,530 pounds of iron ore, 80,132 pounds of coal and 138,548 pounds of stone, according to federal data. 

Coast Guard officials said it would be impractical to outlaw cargo sweeping in the lakes. Great Lakes freighters were not designed to carry cargo residuals, and disposing of the material while docked would be too expensive, according to federal officials.

Coast Guard officials said there is no scientific evidence that cargo sweeping is harming water quality or suffocating fish habitat in the Great Lakes. And they noted that the amount of cargo residue dumped overboard is less than 1 percent of the cargo freighters transport on the lakes. 

But there has never been a thorough scientific study of the environmental risks associated with cargo sweeping. Scientists at a 1993 conference convened to examine the issue said 75 years of dumping iron ore, coal and other minerals into the lakes could cause environmental problems. 

"Iron ore, coal, petroleum coke and slag were determined by the committee to have the potential for both acute and chronic environmental impacts and were worthy of more intense scrutiny," according to a report titled "The environmental implications of cargo sweeping in the Great Lakes."

"Of greatest concern to the committee, however, is the repetitive addition and probable buildup of these materials in bottom sediments and the potential chronic effects on both hard and soft bottom habitats," the report said. 

Coal that is shipped to power plants around the Great Lakes contains traces of heavy metals and other chemicals that can be toxic to humans, fish and wildlife if ingested. Iron ore and slag contain metals that can be "quite toxic," according to the report. 

The 1993 report urged more study to determine whether cargo sweeping was burying fish habitat or causing other problems in the lakes. But those studies never materialized, federal officials said. 

"If all the Coast Guard does is take the interim policy from 13 years ago and make it permanent, that doesn't make me very happy," said Eric Reeves, the retired chief of environmental safety at the Coast Guard's Cleveland district office. 

Reeves wrote the Coast Guard's interim policy in 1993. He said he hoped the interim policy would prompt more studies of cargo sweeping. 

Though Coast Guard officials have repeatedly defended cargo sweeping, a 2003 report by the agency said "discharges greater than 1,000 pounds should be avoided aggressively." 

Reeves said the Coast Guard should not adopt a final policy on cargo sweeping without a thorough scientific examination of the issue. 

"Let's conduct the scientific studies and not just say the problem is solved just because they have an administrative solution to it," Reeves said.


----------



## Hamilton Reef (Jan 20, 2000)

Can Great Lakes afford to remain cargo 'sweep site'?

http://www.mlive.com/news/muchronicle/index.ssf?/base/news-0/114381631726650.xml&coll=8

Editorial: Thursday, March 30, 2006

With Congress unwilling to commit to helping the Great Lakes financially, investigating "cargo sweeping" by freighters should at least be pushed hard. Failure to stop what may be a very hazardous practice could further endanger what is already a threatened and precious resource. 

This ongoing issue was revealed in our Tuesday investigative story. Can it be stopped? Should it be stopped? Let's find out at the very least! 

Despite federal laws and an international treaty that prohibits the practice, shippers under U.S. and Canadian flags routinely wash an estimated 2 million pounds of what are commonly known as "cargo sweepings" off the decks and into the lakes.

While there is divided opinion on the exact threat these "sweepings" pose to the lakes' health, no formal study has thus far been conducted. Thank goodness that's about to change. 

The U.S. Coast Guard is about to launch the first scientific study as to whether these sweepings -- the residue of cargo carried aboard the freighters -- hold grave peril to the lakes. According to the Coast Guard, some 432,242 pounds of stuff were "swept" into Lake Michigan in just one year alone. That was in 2001, the last year for which estimates were available. 

Since the residue consists of tons of different substances -- iron ore, coal, salt, coal, cement dust and the like -- it goes without saying that the question is one that ought to be answered. 

Yet the shipping industry seems opposed from the get-go to such an investigation. Banning cargo sweeping would be "catastrophic," suggests James Weakley, president of the Lake Carriers Association. That seems a premature assessment. 

If analysis determines the sweepings are dangerous to the health of the lakes, it may prove more costly to set up areas where this debris can be disposed of safely, but such precautions shouldn't necessarily "cripple" the shipping industry. Rhetoric and scare tactics are counterproductive to informed dialogue on issues that matter to everyone, not just a particular business segment.


----------



## Hamilton Reef (Jan 20, 2000)

Alder sweep to measure cargo deposits

Using sophisticated electronics, the U.S. Coast Guard cutter Alder is mapping portions of Lake Superior 300 to 500 feet below the surface. 

The sonar images collected by researchers aboard the Alder will be used to help assess the effects of cargo sweeping on the Great Lakes. Cargo sweeping is the practice of cleaning  usually spraying out  a ships holds to prevent cross-contamination of materials.

http://www.duluthnewstribune.com/ar...rn&freebie_check&CFID=737659&CFTOKEN=89768856


----------



## Hamilton Reef (Jan 20, 2000)

Policy would allow freighters to keep dumping refuse

Freighters could continue dumping tons of coal and other dry cargo residues into the Great Lakes indefinitely under a proposed U.S. Coast Guard policy. 

Federal law and an international treaty prohibit ships from dumping waste into the Great Lakes. But since 1993, Congress and the Coast Guard has approved an interim policy -- essentially a loophole to subvert the law -- that has allowed freighters to wash nontoxic cargo residues off ship decks and into the Great Lakes after leaving port, though the practice must be conducted at least five miles offshore.

"Cargo sweeping is against the law," said Jennifer Nalbone, campaign director for Buffalo-based Great Lakes United.

Pleasure boaters who throw trash into the Great Lakes can face fines of up to $50,000 and five years in jail, according to the Boat U.S. Foundation.

Critics said the practice violates U.S. and Canadian environmental laws and international treaties, including the Great Lakes Water Quality Act.

http://www.mlive.com/news/chronicle/index.ssf?/base/news-14/1213281920151600.xml&coll=8


----------



## USST164 (May 6, 2008)

The key word is Non-toxic. What this issue revolves around is poor dockside supervision.

Interesting that Ms Nalbone wants to compare household trash from boaters to Non Toxic dockside materials.

Even our own DNR dumps ten's of thousands of tons of a Non Toxic material into the Great Lakes.


----------



## Hamilton Reef (Jan 20, 2000)

USST164 said:


> The key word is Non-toxic. What this issue revolves around is poor dockside supervision. Interesting that Ms Nalbone wants to compare household trash from boaters to Non Toxic dockside materials. Even our own DNR dumps ten's of thousands of tons of a Non Toxic material into the Great Lakes.


Typical USST164 to promote dumping and trashing the Great Lakes.


----------



## USST164 (May 6, 2008)

Hamilton Reef said:


> Typical USST164 to promote dumping and trashing the Great Lakes.


More of your personal attacks again ,make that number six .

Tell us how the DNR dumping tens of thousands of tons of Lime stone to make artificial fish habitat is trashing the Great Lakes. 

We'll just chalk up your last post as another one of those clueless posts your so well known for , but why change now.


----------



## Hamilton Reef (Jan 20, 2000)

USST164 said:


> Tell us how the DNR dumping tens of thousands of tons of Lime stone to make artificial fish habitat is trashing the Great Lakes.


FYI according to DNR Fisheries Rich O'Neal placing artificial reefs is trashing the Great Lakes. Nothing but a landfill dump in the Great Lakes. He claims creating fishery habitat in the Great Lakes is bad for fishing. That includes diving structures for tourism that also increase fishing tourism at the same time like the thousands of diving-fishing structures around the nation's shoreline.

Of couse using O'Neal's case the Republicans would claim dumping and trashing the Great Lakes for thier maritime lobby campaign money is just great.


----------



## USST164 (May 6, 2008)

Never heard of Rich O'Neal , does he have a degree that says the University of the Caribbean.

Here's a document that he's involved with, implying how people mow their lawn is one of the causes to the lack of fish habitat. A real Einstein there.

Page # 21 , with all their circles well out of the water , people must be throwing their lawnmowers out in the lake.

http://www.epa.gov/glnpo//aoc/whtlake/WL Habitat Management Plan.pdf

Artificial reef worked here.

http://www.michigan.gov/documents/2005-15CarpTroutLake_158916_7.pdf

http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/tex...firstpubl1=1965&firstpubl2=2005&Submit=Search

http://www.ohioseagrant.osu.edu/_documents/publications/FS/FS-021%20Lake%20Erie's%20artificial%20reef%20program.pdf


----------



## Hamilton Reef (Jan 20, 2000)

USST164 said:


> Never heard of Rich O'Neal , does he have a degree that says the University of the Caribbean.
> 
> Here's a document that he's involved with, implying how people mow their lawn is one of the causes to the lack of fish habitat. A real Einstein there.
> 
> ...


I've seen all those reef studies and more over the years. In the White Lake document note the preface photo that I took downstream of my place and take note of pages 15&16 on how I spent my summer of 2000. O'Neal is correct that poor shoreline management impacts the fishery habitat. O'Neal and I don't always agree, but I have to support him when he is correct.


----------

