Proposed Criteria for Evaluating Ballast
Technology Research Proposals for Possible Funding
For Discussion by Ballast Water and Shipping Committee
Allegra Cangelosi, Northeast-Midwest Institute -- June 8th,
1999
The USCG, NOAA and the FWS among others are helping to support research
and development of new technologies for on-board ballast treatment, and the Ballast Water
and Shipping Committee is responsible for helping these agencies direct their research
dollars to productive ends. Efforts create a research agenda which identifies particular
technological areas for most intensive research may be premature. The best approach is to
focus research support on projects which 1) develop technologies which are likely to be
consistent with US law and NISA (i.e. environmentally sound ans biologically effective);
2) develop technologies which industry is likely to use (i.e. safe practicable and
cost-effective, and 3) are of high technical quality.
Projects should not have to purport to "do it all" to receive
funding -- combining lab tests with field tests and full-scale tests. Indeed, those most
qualified to undertake laboratory research may not be qualified to design a field
installation. In addition, agencies should not presuppose that all technologies which
receive research support of any kind should be taken to full-scale installation or even
ship-board trial. The results of the laboratory and pilot scale tests should help agencies
in deciding if the technology warrants full-scale testing. A staged approach to funding
technology development will help assure that the good graces of our prospective
"ships of opportunity" are not squandered on technologies with low probability
of success. It is also premature to screen projects on the basis of the prospective cost
of full-scale installation. "Who pays?" and "How much does it cost?"
are two different questions. Society may decide that it is willing to help support use of
higher cost options if it provides better protection and/or fewer environmental
trade-offs.
The following criteria could be applied to help select the best proposals
for funding:
Partnership - Does the proposing team include
biologists and naval architects and marine engineers to help assure that the technology
has strong prospects for effectiveness and practicability? Are there letters of support
from environmental advocates and the industry?
Legal Requirements -- Does the proposing team hold all
necessary permits for any releases to the environment, and certifications for safety?
Prospects at Full-Scale -- Does the proposal detail the
ways in which the technology has promise for being safe, practicable, biologically
effective, and environmentally sound (note separate criteria for effectiveness
and environmental soundness proposed for screening technologies)? Does the proposal
envisage the means by which use of the technology at full scale could be monitored by the
USCG (i.e. a system of accountability)? Does it include a plan to
estimate cost of a full-scale installation?
In Context -- Are the proposers aware of past work and
does the project build on that work?
Scientifically Sound -- Is the scientific method
contained within the proposal robust? Does the proposal include peer review of the
results?
Back to Ballast
Demonstration Project
Back to Biological Pollution
Back to NE-MW Home Page |