Ballast Water Management:   Developments in Policy and Technology

Presentation of Allegra Cangelosi
First National Conference on Marine Bioinvasions

Introduction

United States policy to prevent ballast water transfers of harmful aquatic organisms and pathogens has evolved rapidly throughout the 1990s. Events in the United States and elsewhere ensued from each other like links in a chain. This paper briefly outlines some of the major policy and technology developments in the United States to date, and discusses pressing policy and technology needs of the future.

A Ballast Policy and Technology Time Line

The Great Lakes region, ground-zero for some of the worst harmful aquatic organism infestations including the zebra mussel, was the first to become politically active over the detrimental effects of non indigenous species. Interest in the impacts of exotic aquatic organisms on the Great Lakes ecosystem increased throughout the 1980s, and in 1989, with the explosion of the zebra mussel population in the lakes, the region sought Congressional action. Congress responded with the Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of 1990 (P.L 101-646). This legislation, as introduced, would have created a national regulatory ballast management program, along with a national program for managing aquatic nuisance species impacts (S. ). But the demand for ballast management from other coastal regions was not yet adequate to overcome industry opposition and the legislation as enacted created a ballast program targeted at the Great Lakes only. In 1993, the program became the first mandatory prevention program globally, requiring ballast management on all ships entering the Great Lakes after operating outside the Exclusive Economic Zone.

While the ballast program was Great Lakes-only, NANPCA did set up a national aquatic nuisance species task force and program, and planted strategic information requirements to cultivate interest in a national ballast management program. In particular, the legislation called for a study of the risk posed by invasive aquatic organisms in U.S. waters other than the Great Lakes. The resulting "Shipping Study", completed in 1993 by Carlton et al, and published in 1995 by the Coast Guard showed very clearly that foreign ballast water was discharged in commercial harbors and port ranges around the country. The report indicated that these coastal areas were already sustaining impacts of ballast mediated transfers of exotic organisms.

Events also highlighted the interests of other regions. In 1992, the Food and Drug Administration and the Centers for Disease Control responding to detection of Vibrio cholerae in shellfish beds of Mobile Bay, analyzed ships' ballast tanks entering Mobile Bay from South America. The agencies found a strain of cholera consistent with that in the shellfish beds and in harbors in South America in several vessels.

Work began in 1995 on the reauthorization of NANPCA, particularly to make it national in scope. The Northeast-Midwest Institute held a National Forum on Nonindigenous Species Invasions of Marine and Fresh Waters in early 1996 to raise the awareness of Congressional offices regarding the national scope of the problem (NE-MWI, 1996). Scientists from around the country came together for the first time to present their respective findings regarding impacts of invasive aquatic organisms on their regions. The Pacific Northwest, California, Hawaii, the Gulf of Mexico, the Mississippi, the Great Lakes, New England, the Mid-Atlantic and the Southeast were represented. The Forum was effective at communicating a national need, and the National Invasive Species Act of 1996 became law (P.L 106-232).

With the enactment of the National Invasive Species Act in the United States, negotiations to create an international ballast management regulation at the International Maritime Organization took on new urgency. Flag countries began to take the process more seriously as it became clear that unilateral mandatory action beyond that in the U.S. Great Lakes would take place in the absence of a timely international framework. This outcome is still likely. Even though the Coast Guard published its final rule establishing the national ballast management program 18 months late (in mid-1998), the program must become regulatory by 2001 if compliance or reporting on a voluntary basis is not adequate. This time-frame will precede any final IMO action, currently scheduled for the 2002-2003 biennium. Meanwhile, environmental groups petitioned EPA to regulate ballast water under the Clean Water Act. The time-frame for initiating regulation under the Clean Water Act may not be quicker than that outlined in NISA (even given the Coast Guard delay), but the interest in it underscores the reality that ballast management requirements are coming in the U.S; the question is more who will regulate than whether regulation will occur.

Pressure has built for technology research and development in direct response to ballast policy innovations. In 1990, while Congress considered NANPCA, concern over the limitations of the ballast exchange option for treatment led to a statutory provision calling for a National Research Council study of ballast water treatment alternatives (P.L. ). The NRC report, Stemming the Tide, was completed in 1996, recommended research and development work on a number of potential treatment technologies (NRC, ). As a result of the report, the Northeast-Midwest Institute and the Lake Carriers' Association launched the Great Lakes Ballast Technology Demonstration Project in collaboration with several federal, state and industry interests primarily with state-level funds from the Great Lakes Protection Fund. The GLTDP has researched the merits of filtration and will review various forms of secondary treatment during 2000. More funds for research and development of treatment technologies became available pursuant to NISA. The Fish and Wildlife Service and NOAA's Sea Grant began to solicit proposals for ballast treatment research pursuant to this program in 1998. Table 1 provides a summary of policy and technology developments in ballast management.

Table 1: Time Line for Ballast Management Policy in the U.S.A.

Future Directions

Developments in the state-of-the-art of ballast treatment have tended to follow from policy advancements. The reason for this effect is that as demand for action increased, focus on the insufficiencies of the suite of currently available ballast treatments also increased. The current set of options and some of their limitations are summarized below:

1. High Seas Ballast Water Exchange -- This technique is fairly effective but has several limitations associated with it. Probably the greatest limitation of the technique is that it is effective only in high seas voyages. The technique involves replacement of near coastal ballast water and organisms with high seas ballast water and organisms. The method its efficacy to the fact that high seas organisms are not likely to survive in near coastal ports of call. Thus, in instances of coastal voyages, the efficacy of ballast exchange is greatly compromised if not eliminated because the ship would be replacing near coastal ballast water with similar water, with organisms adapted to near coastal areas. A second limitation is that ships may be fully loaded in their transoceanic voyage. In this case, a ballast exchange would overload the vessel. Yet unpumpable sludge in the bottom of the tank can later be resuspended in subsequent ballast operations and discharged into harbors. In addition, there are sea conditions that are considered unsafe for ballast exchange operations. Finally, ballast exchange is difficult to verify complicating accurate compliance monitoring.

2. Ballast Water Exchange in Alternate Exchange Zones -- The effectiveness of ballast water exchange as a treatment option in coastal voyages and in stormy conditions could be enhanced by the designation and use of alternative exchange zones in near coastal areas. To be effective, such zones must be located where prevailing currents are to sea. The Ballast Exchange Study, required by NANPCA 1990 and released in draft by Carlton, et al in 1998, surveyed U.S. coastal waters for possible alternate exchange sites. The study concludes that few if any near coastal areas meet statutory requirements for alternate exchange zones. The only such zone which has been designated is located in the Gulf of St. Lawrence in Canadian waters. Canadian scientists are currently investigating possible detrimental effects of ballast exchange at this site on the Gulf ecosystem.

3. Retention of Ballast Water on Board -- Ships can retain ballast water on board and not threaten the environment. However, this option is consistent with cargo loading and unloading operations only rarely. However, when it is applied, no other treatment is needed.

4. Best Management Practices -- that we can ask ships to undertake which will provide a marginal improvement in the amount of damage they might do, but this isn't going to make or break the invasive species problem for us.

The current set of options while better than nothing presents serious gaps in resource protection (especially related to coastal voyages and treatment of ballast residuals), and problems for ship operators (relating to safety, monitoring difficulty, and crew time). On-board and shore-side treatment are the best prospects for improving the practicability and effectiveness of the system. These approaches could be used alone or together to achieve adequate treatment. The technologies of greatest interest are heat, ultraviolet radiation, filtration, cyclonic separation, ozonation, and biocides.

The next generation of ballast management in the United States will likely incorporate some or all of these options. Which technologies gain prominence is of less importance than the integrity of the overall system of coastal protection from ballast-mediated invasions. The integrity of that system will depend upon whether it is:

• Comprehensive -- Future ballast management should address coastal as well as transoceanic voyages, loaded and unloaded vessels. This requirement almost requires that treatment technology replace to a large extent ballast exchange as the primary approach to ballast management.
• Flexible -- The system should be flexible geographically because trade and shipping are quite dynamic. Invasive species are also capricious. The system should accommodate fluctuations and changes in both the nature and patterns of shipping and the nature and patterns of invasions. The system also should include a diverse enough set of treatment alternatives so that operators can maximize efficiencies given the particulars of their ships and voyage patterns. Some treatments, such as forms of heat treatment, may be effective only on ships engaged in lengthy and tropical voyage patterns, for these ships the method may prove the least costly, yet the same method would be insufficient for ships on other types of voyages.
• Safe and Practicable -- It should include methods which protect the safety of crew and ship, and present minimum maintenance and operational difficulties, and not create undue delay for ships. This characteristic will prevent the system from failing due to non-use.
• Effective -- The system should include methods which are better and more consistent than ballast exchange at removing or killing organisms. It should also incorporate a level of redundancy providing backup for instances in which the primary system of treatment fails or becomes unavailable (for example, shore-side treatment for ships should be available for those ships for which on-board treatment malfunctions, or ballast exchange is unsafe).
• Environmentally Sound -- Given today's level of sophistication in pollution prevention technology, the system can be expected to actually solve environmental problems rather than replace one with another.
• Efficient -- The system should provide this protection for coastal resources at a minimum cost to society.
• Accountable -- The system will need to be one in which effective participation can be monitored actively and accurately.
• Globally Applicable -- The United States system should be supportive of a credible global system of ballast management. A U.S.-only system will never be enough to protect U.S. waters because a proliferation of source areas abroad would raise the odds that transfers to U.S. waters will take place passively or through the cracks on our own prevention system. The next system must be compatible with the needs and realities of developing countries as well as relatively wealthy nations like our own.

Shore-side treatment, ship-board treatment, and ballast water exchange are all likely elements of the next generation of ballast management. One scenario that meets the above criteria and which we are on the way to achieving is to: 1) Continue to allow high seas ballast exchange for transoceanic voyages but over time combine it with an obligatory back-up system of alternate exchange zones or shore-side treatment to address instances in which ballast exchange is not an option (e.g. coastal voyages and stormy conditions); and 2) Continue to provide ships the option of installing and using shipboard treatment to relieve themselves of the obligation to conduct ballast exchange/back-up treatment. Retaining the treatment obligation on board the vessel as much as possible will help make this system flexible, and globally applicable. However, adding the backup requirements will help improve the comprehensiveness and effectiveness of the system and create incentive to industry to move from ballast exchange to more reliable technological alternatives.

A great deal of thought and experimentation should precede any conclusions about which particular technologies and treatment alternatives should or should not be part of the next generation of ballast management. Hopefully more rather than fewer such options will be inducted as consistent with a long-term and effective ballast management system. If the next generation of ballast management is to become a reality in the foreseeable future, government, industry and resource protection interests should actively undertake new research which reflects a partnership between resource management and industry interests, is scientifically rigorous, and meets environmental and safety requirements.