16 



Mr. Manton. It would seem the cheapest technology would be 

 discharge on high seas but how dangerous is that? What about the 

 cost benefit there? . . 



Mr. Ryan. Mr. Chairman, Great Lakes vessels have many simi- 

 larities to ocean vessels, so I will respond to that question. 



I think we have to just realize that every ship is merely a hull 

 girder that is under stress and you have to balance the weights on 

 that vessel to the buoyancy of the water underneath it. You start 

 removing any ballast to a significant extent on the high seas and 

 you will break that vessel and you will lose the crew. Simple as 



that. . X . 



Mr. Manton. So it is not really an option. It is too dangerous. 



Mr. Ryan. Perhaps on new vessels, if the strength characteristics 

 of the vessel, with smaller tanks and with perhaps permanent bal- 

 last, but that only comes at a severe economic loss. The more per- 

 manent ballast you carry, the more steel you carry, the less cargo 

 that is carried and that affects the commerce of the United States. 



Captain Donohoe. If I might, Mr. Chairman, jump in and add 

 onto Mr. Ryan's. 



Mr. Manton. Surely. 



Captain Donohoe. I think if you exchange the ballast at a high 

 rate, without any sensitivity to the impact, the disaster he men- 

 tioned is a high probability. 



We currently have a fair number of vessels that do comply and 

 they do it in a prudent way at the right time and at the right rate. 

 We are seeing between 80 and 95 percent compliance on the ships 

 inbound for the Great Lakes. 



I think the thing that is important to mention, and goes along 

 with what Mr. Ryan has indicated, is we leave the ultimate deci- 

 sion on whether or not to exchange ballast on the high seas to the 

 master and basically indicate in the regulations and in the interna- 

 tional guidelines that the master should not in any way, shape, or 

 form endanger the vessel as a result of trying to exchange ballast. 



Mr. Manton. Thank you. I yield back to the Chairman. 



Mr. LiPiNSKi. Thank you. Mr. Coble? 



Mr. Coble. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 



Gentlemen, thank you all for being here. You know, in this era 

 everybody says, well, let the Federal Government pick up the tab, 

 and oftentimes we on this end may seek alternative sources. So 

 with that in mind, Mr. Ryan, let me put a question to you. 



I am pleased to hear about your association's voluntary effort re- 

 garding the ballast water management plan to control the spread 

 of the European River Ruffe, for example, in the Great Lakes. 



Do you think it would be possible — well, strike that. I guess tech- 

 nically anything would be possible. Do you think it would be feasi- 

 ble for new demonstration projects on ballast water control to be 

 funded privately? 



Mr. Ryan. No, I do not think so. We are really at the threshold 

 of information on this subject. It is a worldwide problem. Only a 

 few nations are tackling it. Certainly Australia, New Zealand, 

 Canada, and the U.S. are leaders in this. 



I think the domestic industry and the international trade indus- 

 try would not be able to take this on piecemeal, test one piece of 

 technology at a time. I think this is definitely a case where the gov- 



