Controlling Introductions of Nonindigenous
Species by Ships' Ballast Water
Committee on Ships' Ballast Operations
Marine Board
Commission on Engineering and Technical Systems
National Research Council
NATIONAL ACADEMY PRESS
Washington, D.C. 1996
NATIONAL ACADEMY PRESS • 2101 Constitution Avenue, N.W. • Washington, DC 20418
NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing Board of the National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the councils of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The members of the panel responsible for the report were chosen for their special competences and with regard for appropriate balance.
This report has been reviewed by a group other than the authors according to procedures approved by a Report Review Committee consisting of members of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine.
The program described in this report is supported by Cooperative Agreement No. DTMA91-94-G-00003 between the Maritime Administration of the U.S. Department of Transportation and the National Academy of Sciences; and Grant No. N00014-95-1-1205 between the Department of the Navy, Office of Naval Research, and the NAS; and Grant No. NA56RG0142 between the Department of Commerce, NOAA, and the NAS; and Award No. S-OPRAQ-95-M-2148 between the U.S. Depart of State and the NAS. The views expressed herein do not necessarily reflect the views of the sponsors and no official endorsement should be inferred.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Stemming the tide: controlling introductions of nonindigenous speciesCIP
96-31920
Printed in the United States of America
JOEL D. SIPES, (chair), U.S. Coast Guard (retired), Houston, Texas
JOHN W. BOYLSTON, Argent Marine Operations, Inc., Yorktown, Virginia (from October 1995)
JAMES T. CARLTON, Williams College-Mystic Seaport, Mystic, Connecticut
MICHAEL J. FORDHAM, London, United Kingdom
MICHAEL G. PARSONS, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor (until March 1995)
RAY SKELTON, Seaway Port of Authority of Duluth, Duluth, Minnesota
ALAN H. TAYLOR, BHP Transport Limited, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
E. DAIL THOMAS II, Naval Research Laboratory, Washington, D.C.
THOMAS D. WAITE, University of Miami, Coral Gables, Florida
JUDITH S. WEIS, Rutgers University, Newark, New Jersey
CHARLES BOOKMAN, Director
KRISTIN CHURCHILL, Study Director (until May 1995)
JILL WILSON, Study Director (from June 1995)
SHARON RUSSELL, Project Assistant (until June 1995)
EILEEN TOLSON, Project Assistant (from August 1995)
ROBERT BLUMBERG, Office of Marine Law and Policy, Department of State, Washington, D.C.
LEON CAMMEN, National Sea Grant College Program, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Washington, D.C.
LAUREN KABLER, U.S. Coast Guard, Washington, D.C.
HERBERT KIRSCH, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Washington, D.C.
LAWRENCE KOSS, Office of the Chief of Naval Operations, U.S. Navy, Washington, D.C.
DANIEL LEUBECKER, Maritime Administration, Washington, D.C.
MICHAEL SLIMACK, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.
JAY TROXEL, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C.
RICHARD J. SEYMOUR, (chair), Texas A&M University and Scripps Institution of Oceanography, La Jolla, California
BERNARD J. ABRAHAMSSON, University of Wisconsin, Superior, Wisconsin
JERRY A. ASPLAND, Arco Marine, Inc., Long Beach, California
ANNE D. AYLWARD, Volpe National Transportation Systems Center, Cambridge, Massachusetts
MARK Y. BERMAN, Amoco Corporation, Tulsa, Oklahoma
BROCK B. BERNSTEIN, EcoAnalysis, Ojai, California
JOHN W. BOYLSTON, Argent Marine Operations, Inc., Yorktown, Virginia
SARAH CHASIS, Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., New York, New York
CHRYSSOSTOMOS CHRYSSOSTOMIDIS, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge
BILIANA CICIN-SAIN, University of Delaware, Newark
JAMES M. COLEMAN, NAE, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge
BILLY L. EDGE, Texas A&M University, College Station
MARTHA GRABOWSKI, LeMoyne College and Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Cazenovia, New York
M. ELISABETH PATE-CORNELL, NAE, Stanford University, Stanford, California
DONALD W. PRITCHARD, NAE, State University of New York at Stony Brook, Stony Brook
STEPHANIE R. THORNTON, Coastal Resources Center, El Cerrito, California
KARL K. TUREKIAN, NAS, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut
ROD VULOVIC, Sea-Land Service, Inc., Elizabeth, New Jersey
E.G. "SKIP" WARD, Shell Offshore, Inc., Houston, Texas
ALAN G. YOUNG, Fugro-McClelland BV, Houston, Texas
Staff
CHARLES A. BOOKMAN, Director
DONALD W. PERKINS, Associate Director
DORIS C. HOLMES, Staff Associate
A great many nonindigenous species have been introduced into new environments in the United States and throughout the world as a result of human activity. Although many introduced species do not become established and do not have a major impact, many have detrimental effects on the ecosystem and human society, including the economy, recreation, and health.
Reports of marine and freshwater invasions of nonindigenous species have increased as human activity continues to disperse organisms at a significant rate. Species are transferred to new environments, intentionally or unintentionally, by many vectors, including ship hulls and anchors, where organisms may attach or become entangled; commercial products, whereby organisms are unknowingly transferred along with cargo (e.g., predators and diseases carried with commercial oysters); and the planned release of edible species for aquaculture. One im importent pathway is through ships' ballast water, which is necessary for safe ship operations and which may be taken on and discharged at the port of departure, during the voyage, and at the arrival port. This study addresses the effects and control of ballast water. Ballast is defined as any solid or liquid placed in a ship to increase the depth of submergence of the vessel in the water (the draft), to change the trim, to regulate the stability, or to maintain stress loads within acceptable limits. For the purposes of this study, the term ballast also includes sediment.
The negative economic and environmental impact of introducing nonindigenous species has been substantial. In an effort to address the problem, the U.S. Congress passed P.L. 101-646, The Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Pre Prevention and Control Act of 1990. Several of the provisions of the act directly address the challenges of ballast water as a vector for exotic species.
Also in 1990, the International Maritime Organization (IMO), which establishes standards for the maritime industry, published voluntary guidelines for controlling the discharge of ballast water. Because the uncontrolled discharge of ballast water is an international problem that can be expected to get worse, the IMO has established a working group to consider adding regulatory measures. In 1995 a member of the U.S. delegation succeeded an Australian delegate as chair of the IMO ballast water working group. The working group is furthering development of the guidelines and considering the formulation of a new annex to MARPOL 73/781 regarding control of ballast water.
Strategies for preventing the introduction of unwanted aquatic organisms through the discharge of ballast water and sediment include controlling when and where ballast water can be taken on or discharged and treating ballast water by a range of physical, chemical, mechanical, and biological processes. Related issues include whether new or different standards are needed, whether the voluntary regime should be made mandatory, whether the problem should be addressed on a regional or a worldwide basis, and the extent to which record keeping is needed. In conjunction with these issues, the questions of operational practicability, seafarer and ship safety, biological effectiveness, environmental impact, post-treatment monitoring and assessment, and cost-effectiveness of various options must be considered.
Legislation was introduced in the 103rd U.S. Congress that would have mandated a program to demonstrate technologies for treating ballast water and identify current management practices. The legislation (which did not come to fruition ) included a feasibility study to be implemented by the National Research Council (NRC) that would identify the most promising technologies and management practices for demonstration. As a result of discussions with member agencies of the Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force (mandated under P.L. 101-646)2 and congressional staff, the NRC convened a committee under the auspices of the Marine Board to undertake a focused study of technologies for preventing and controlling the introduction of nonindigenous marine species by ships' ballast operations.
The present study addresses the needs outlined in the proposed federal legislation calling for a feasibility study and demonstration program and assesses the state of practice of measures used to control aquatic nuisance species from ballast operations in the regional, national, and international arenas. All aquatic environments that are affected by ballast water operations, including the Great Lakes, are included in the scope of this study. The committee's tasks were:
Committee members were selected to include a broad spectrum of view points at the regional, national, and international levels and to provide the wide range of expertise needed. Members represented the fields of biological oceanography, environmental biology, shipping, naval architecture, port operations, civil and sanitary engineering, and marine policy. Biographical information is presented in Appendix A.
The committee was assisted by liaison representatives from seven federal agencies with related programs or missions: the U.S. Department of Transportation, the U.S. Coast Guard, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Navy, the Department of Transportation-Maritime Administration, and the U.S. Department of State.
The full committee met five times over a 16-month period. The committee reviewed relevant literature-including a number of overseas reports on managing ballast water-and was briefed on activities at the federal level related to aquatic nuisance species, notably the actions of the Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force and the Risk Assessment and Management Committee. The committee also solicited information from researchers and practitioners in federal agencies, regional task groups, the shipping industry, and technology development organizations. In addition, the committee developed a questionnaire on candidate technologies for treating ballast water, which was sent to suppliers and developers of water treatment systems and research organizations (see Appendix G). These data-gathering activities were supplemented by visits to the ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles, California, where the committee was briefed on shipping practices while touring a tanker and a container vessel. The committee also visited the Port of Duluth to learn about control practices in the Great Lakes.
Committee members met several times in smaller groups to develop particular aspects of the report. The committee also held a two-part workshop in May and August 1995 to gather data on candidate technologies for treating ballast water. Information on committee meetings and other activities is given in Appendix B.
Chapter 1 of the report provides an overview of the role of ballast water in the dispersal of nonindigenous aquatic organisms. The use of ballast in ship operations is discussed in Chapter 2, which highlights the importance of ballast in ensuring ship safety. Chapter 3 addresses management of ballast water. Potential strategies for controlling ballast water are discussed in the context of ongoing activities by international, national, regional and other bodies; the chapter concludes with a brief discussion of the role of risk analysis in the development of options for managing ballast water. Chapters 4 and 5 comprise the technical core of the report. In these chapters, candidate technologies for shipboard treatment of ballast water are identified and evaluated based on criteria developed by the committee. The principal advantages and limitations of the most promising candidates are also discussed, with a view to developing systems for shipboard demonstration, and requirements for monitoring ballast water are discussed in the context of possible scenarios. Finally, opportunities for applying available and emerging monitoring techniques are identified. The committee's conclusions and recommendations are presented in Chapter 6.
The committee wishes to thank the many individuals who contributed their time and effort to this project in the form of presentations at meetings, correspondence, or telephone calls. Special thanks are due to Mr. Jerry Aspland, Captain Jim Morgan, and the crew of the ARCO tanker, Prudhoe Bay; Captain Kim Davis, Captain Joseph Delehant, and the crew of the Sea Land containership, The Patriot; and the Port of Duluth for hosting committee visits. The hospitality of BHP Hawaii during the implementing change task group meeting is gratefully acknowledged.
The committee wishes to acknowledge the valuable contributions to the study made by its liaisons with project sponsors: Robert Blumberg, Office of Marine Law and Policy, Department of State; Leon Cammen, National Oceanic and At Atmospheric Administration, National Sea Grant College Program; Lauren Kabler, Marine Environmental Protection Division, U.S. Coast Guard; Herbert Kirsch, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Office of Policy and Strategic Planning; Lawrence Koss, Office of the Chief of Naval Operations; Daniel Leubecker, Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration; Michael Slimack, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; and Jay Troxel, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The contribution made by Richard Seymour, the Marine Board liaison to the committee, is also gratefully acknowledged.
Finally, the chairman wishes to recognize the members of the committee for their hard work during meetings and reviewing drafts of the report and for their individual efforts in gathering information and writing sections of the report.
2 The interagency Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force is jointly chaired by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Other federal agencies with representatives on the task force are the Coast Guard, the Army Corps of Engineers, the Environmenal Protection Agency, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service of the Department of Agriculture , and the Department of State.
1 BALLAST WATER AND NONINDIGENOUS SPECIES
2 BALLAST WATER AND SHIPS
3 MANAGING BALLAST WATER
4 SHIPBOARD TREATMENT OPTIONS
5 MONITORING
6 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
APPENDICES
A BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCHES OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS
B COMMITTEE MEETINGS AND ACTIVITIES
C EXPLANATION OF BASIC STABILITY
D ALTERNATIVE SHIP DESIGNS
E GREAT LAKES MARITIME INDUSTRY VOLUNTARY BALLAST WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE CONTROL OF RUFFE IN LAKE SUPERIOR PORTS, 1993
F CANDIDATE SHIPBOARD TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES: SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
G TREATMENT OPTIONS QUERY
H EMERGING MONITORING TECHNOLOGIES
GLOSSARY AND CONVERSIONS
INDEX
1-1 Examples of Shipborne Introductions Worldwide since the 1980s
1-2 Examples of Shipborne Introductions in the United States since the 1970s
2-1 Typical Vessel Types, Ballast Needs, and Pumping Rates
4-1 Evaluation Matrix for Shipboard Treatment Technologies
5-1 Approaches to Monitoring
5-2 Basic Physical-Chemical Water Quality Parameters
1-1 Introductions of nonindigenous aquatic plants and animals in (a) the Great Lakes and (b) the San Francisco Bay region
2-1 Typical ballast tank arrangements
2-2 Typical ballast system
3-1 Voyage approach to managing ballast water
3-2 Basic options for changing ballast water
4-1 Operation of a self-cleaning strainer
C-1 Righting lever
C-2 Zero GM
C-3 Reduced GM with slack tanks (free surface effect)
C-4 Negative GM
1-1 Life beyond Ballast
2-1 Ballast Defined
2-2 Safety Is Paramount
3-1 International Maritime Organization (IMO)
3-2 U.S. Regulations for the Control of Nonindigenous Species
in Ballast Water in the Great Lakes
3-3 Theoretical Elements of Risk Assessment
Oceangoing ships disperse aquatic organisms through the uptake, transport, and subsequent discharge of water from ballast tanks. It has been estimated that more than 3,000 species of animals and plants are transported daily around the world in ballast water, which is required for safe operation under a range of conditions1. For the purposes of this study, the term ballast includes sediment, which is the debris suspended in ballast water as it is loaded that subsequently accumulates on horizontal surfaces in ballast tanks. Ship owners since time immemorial have endeavored to avoid using ballast, preferring to carry revenue-earning cargo. Nevertheless, ballast is always necessary for the successful and safe operation of ships.
Any approach to managing ballast water and controlling introductions of nonindigenous aquatic species must take into account that there may be several source regions and release sites of ballast water on any sea voyage. The biota in ballast water are correspondingly diverse, and predicting the presence of a particular unwanted species in a particular vessel or certifying a particular vessel as free of or safe from all unwanted species is extremely difficult. The diversity of potential introductions and the numerous environmental factors (e.g., water temperature, nutrient levels, and the extent and nature of pollution) determining the fate of organisms discharged with ballast water make it impossible to predict what the next introduction will be or when and where it will occur. Nevertheless, it can be stated with confidence that further introductions will take place and that ballast water is an important vector contributing to the dispersal of nonindigenous aquatic organisms.
Changing ballast at sea is currently the favored technique for reducing the risk of introducing nonindigenous aquatic organisms into the marine environment through discharged ballast water. Ballast water loaded in port or taken on board while transiting inshore waters is changed with ocean water during passage between ports of call. This method is usually effective because most freshwater, estuarine, and inshore coastal organisms cannot survive when discharged into the ocean environment. Similarly, freshwater, estuarine, or inshore coastal waters are inhospitable to oceanic organisms. One of the main functions of ballast is to ensure the stability and manageability of ships at sea. Therefore, altering the ballast condition while under way may jeopardize vessel safety. In addition, the design of most ballast systems does not permit the removal of all ballast and associated biota. Thus, while changing ballast may be an acceptable and effective control method under certain circumstances, it is neither universally applicable nor totally effective, and alternative strategies are needed.
The committee categorized the range of potential strategies for controlling ballast water as follows:
Biological scientists cannot currently state what level of ballast water control is effective, and existing guidelines for controlling introductions of nonindigenous aquatic nuisance species do not identify an acceptable level of risk. Risk-based approaches to managing ballast water, using quantitative risk assessment methodology , are being investigated in the United States and Australia.
There is currently no universally applicable option for controlling ballast water that can totally prevent the unintentional introduction of nonindigenous aquatic nuisance species. The use of available control methods is limited by requirements for safety, environmental acceptability, technical feasibility, practicality, and cost effectiveness. Nonetheless, there are a number of control options that could be undertaken today that would immediately reduce the transport of nonindigenous species by ballast water. These options include avoiding ballasting if water is likely to contain unwanted organisms (for example, in areas of sewage discharge or high sediment loads). A plan for managing ballast water developed in conjunction with the ship cargo plan would provide flexibility for meeting contingencies and avoiding ballasting in certain locations.
Both shipboard and shore-based facilities for treating ballast water merit further investigation. The concept of shore-based reception facilities for oily ballast has gained acceptance, although such facilities are not widely used. Shore-based treatment of ballast water may have some advantages, but there is no precedent in the United States for recovering associated infrastructure costs, and shipboard treatment is more likely to be implemented.
In the absence of a universally applicable method of managing ballast water, the committee identified a need for additional research and development to improve methods of killing or removing organisms in ballast water. In the view of the committee, international coordination of research on ballast water would both stimulate activity and avoid duplication of effort.
Shipboard treatment provides the most flexibility in managing ballast water. The committee identified 10 major categories of candidate shipboard treatment technologies: biocides (oxidizing and nonoxidizing), filtration, thermal treatment, electric pulse/pulse plasma treatment2, ultraviolet, acoustics, magnetic, deoxygenation, biological, and anti-fouling coatings. A number of these technologies are used extensively in waste-water treatment. However, the requirements for the shipboard treatment of ballast water are somewhat different. The space and power available on board ship are limited, and very large volumes of ballast water must be treated without compromising the safety of the ship or crew.
As a basis for gathering information on candidate systems, the committee developed a questionnaire about the options for treating ballast water. Two representative scenarios of ballasting requiring treatment were defined:
Data were sought on a range of system characteristics, including equipment and space requirements; capital and operating costs; safety; effectiveness in destroying or removing a range of aquatic organisms; byproducts of treatment; operation, training, and manpower requirements; and performance over a range of temperatures and salinities in the presence of sediment. Responses to the questionnaire were received from equipment suppliers, technology developers, and research organizations. Additional information on candidate treatment technologies was obtained from product literature and articles in scientific and technical journals.
The committee identified a series of parameters for rating technologies for potential application in shipboard treatment of ballast water. Safety is critical in evaluating strategies for managing ballast water. In addition, strategies are only worthwhile if they effectively reduce the number of viable organisms in ballast water. Therefore, safety and effectiveness were used as the first gate in evaluating candidate systems. Four technologies were judged by the committee to meet requirements for safety and effectiveness: biocides, filtration (media and film), thermal, and electric pulse/pulse plasma. Biological treatment and antifouling coatings were not evaluated in any detail. The other candidate systems were deemed safe but did not meet the criterion for effectiveness in treating the wide range of organisms found in ballast water.
The committee evaluated the technologies that met the safety and effectiveness criteria in terms of other important criteria for shipboard use, namely:
Monitoring ballast water has two major purposes in the context of current efforts to control introductions of nonindigenous aquatic nuisance species. First, monitoring (supported by appropriate record keeping) is needed to audit methods of controlling ballast water for compliance with regulations or guidelines; therefore, monitoring is an integral part of the process for managing ballast water. Second, monitoring is a research and development tool for assessing the effectiveness of ballast water treatments, increasing understanding of the nonindigenous species problem, and developing plans for managing ballast water. Thus, the committee identified monitoring as a very important component of both current and future efforts to control introductions by ships' ballast water.
Shipboard monitoring systems need to be safe, inexpensive, rugged, compact, easy to use, and quick to operate-even for personnel with little training. Onboard monitoring imposes more constraints and requirements than land-based monitoring. Because implementing measures for managing ballast water will require practical measures for verification, accountability, and responsibility, automated monitoring methods are desirable.
The monitoring needed in any given situation will be closely linked to approaches adopted for managing ballast water. In general, the monitoring effort and associated costs will decrease as the effectiveness and cost of strategies for managing ballast water increase. The trade-off between levels of treatment and monitoring must be taken into account in assessing the cost effectiveness of strategies for managing ballast water.
The committee identified three levels of monitoring that might be needed for vessels that have either changed ballast at sea or have taken no action to control potential nuisance organisms in ballast. Vessels that have undertaken shipboard treatment of ballast water represent a somewhat different situation because monitoring requirements will generally be determined by the treatment method. The three proposed levels are as follows:
The committee believes that level I monitoring could be readily implemented and that it would be effective for ships that change ballast at sea. The basic parameters indicative of water quality-turbidity, salinity, temperature, dissolved oxygen content, and pH-can be readily measured using commercial instruments and test kits suitable for marine applications. In addition, records of ballast water operations are already kept by the vast majority of vessels. Examination of these records, in conjunction with testing of basic water quality parameters to confirm ballast movements, would generally provide adequate assurance that the ballast tanks contain oceanic rather than estuarine water. Thus, mandatory maintenance of ships' logs and records with data on all ballast-water movements for verification by shore officials would assist in implementing control measures and would reduce the need for detailed monitoring in many instances.
Vessels that have not treated or changed ballast water at sea are unlikely to be able to rely on level I monitoring approaches and will require level II or level III analyses3. The presence of life in ballast water (level II monitoring) can easily be determined in a laboratory environment by assessing levels of bioactivity based on measurements of photosynthetic pigment, adenosine triphosphate, nucleic acids, and nutrients. Advanced biological analysis (level III monitoring) requires the taxonomic identification of organisms, possibly to species level; is time consuming and expensive; and cannot currently be performed on board ship. It may be possible to develop inexpensive biomonitoring techniques for ballast water that are amenable to shipboard use.
Monitoring ships' ballast is complicated by the need to analyze not only the water column but also the sediment that accumulates at the bottom of tanks and holds. Periodic monitoring of sediment is necessary because sediment may be a source of transported organisms.
Under certain circumstances onboard monitoring systems are not practical or are too expensive to install. A system of ballast water sampling and dispatch has been suggested as an alternative to shipboard monitoring. Developing this approach for a range of organisms represents a major challenge in terms of both sampling and testing. It is also not clear if potentially harmful species can be identified as such prior to their introduction. However, baseline sampling of ports for the presence of specific organisms to standardized, internationally accepted criteria would be helpful in determining the risk associated with voyages between specified ports. Port baseline surveys represent a significant scientific undertaking and would require periodic updating.
The U.S. Coast Guard regulations for controlling nonindigenous species in ballast water in the Great Lakes, which were promulgated in response to P.L. 101-646, are the only mandatory regulations for managing ballast water in effect in the United States. The regulations apply to vessels that have operated outside the exclusive economic zone of either the United States or Canada. Overseas, Chile and the port of Haifa in Israel have introduced requirements making it mandatory that ballast water be changed prior to being discharged.
In addition to these mandatory requirements, there are a number of international, national, regional, state, and local initiatives to control introductions of nonindigenous aquatic nuisance species. In particular, the IMO has developed guidelines for preventing the introduction of unwanted aquatic organisms from discharged ballast water and sediment, and IMO member states have been requested to apply these guidelines on a voluntary basis. The Marine Environment Protection Committee of IMO is currently drafting a set of regulations for a possible new annex to MARPOL 73/784 that would make use of the guidelines mandatory. If acceptable to IMO's contracting nations, the new annex could be ratified around the turn of the century. The guidelines can be continuously updated, incorporating the results of research and development and improved technologies, without changing the regulations of the annex.
In an international context, the committee concluded that regulations to control introductions would be most effective in the form of an amendment to an existing international convention or treaty. The introduction of unilateral legislation and regulations by individual nations would result in a complicated "patchwork" of national requirements, which operators of vessels in international trade would find difficult to understand and comply with. The committee proposes that, in the interest of simplifying compliance, the United States develop domestic guide lines for managing ballast water that mirror the IMO voluntary guidelines. The implementation of national guidelines would be facilitated by a targeted education program for those directly involved in managing ballast water.
Regional initiatives include those in the Great Lakes and Chesapeake Bay. A notable feature of these regional initiatives is the involvement of a broad group of participants, including the representatives of the shipping industry, ports, the scientific community, and regional, state, and federal governments. Cooperation at the regional level goes beyond legal mandates. The committee judged this kind of cooperation to be an important factor in addressing the problem of nonindigenous species transfer, which is not simply an issue for the shipping industry but has implications for society as a whole.
The committee identified measures that could be taken now-in parallel with research and development and demonstration programs-to facilitate managing ballast water. The mandatory maintenance of logs recording all ballast water movements was addressed above. The committee also anticipates that onboard monitoring of basic water quality parameters could be implemented in the near future. In addition, the committee determined that the development of a plan to manage ballast water, in conjunction with the cargo plan, would provide flexibility in loading and discharging ballast water. The plan should be mandatory when the ports of call include one or more known sources of unwanted organisms.
On the basis of its review, the committee recommends the following:
Recommendation for the U.S. Coast Guard. Managing the unintentional introduction of nonindigenous organisms into U.S. waters through ballast water should follow two parallel courses:
Recommendation for the Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force. National research and development, including one or more demonstration projects, should focus on the following:
Recommendation to the Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force. The results of this study should be disseminated to coastal states, including states bordering the Great Lakes.
Recommendation for the U.S. maritime industry. At the same time research and development are undertaken to address long-term solutions for controlling introductions of nonindigenous aquatic organisms, the U.S. maritime industry should pursue implementation of a combination of practices for managing ballast water and the control options described herein, within the framework of existing international guidelines.
Recommendation for the member states of IMO. Future international considerations should include establishing guidelines for baseline sampling of ports for specific organisms. Samples should be tested to agreed-upon international standards to facilitate comparisons of the water of each ballast uptake port with the water of receiving ports.
Recommendation for the member states of IMO. In future discussions and updates of the existing voluntary guidelines (IMO Assembly Resolution A.774(18), 1993), consideration should be given to the maintenance of appropriate logs and records of ballast water movements and any management practices used. These data could be valuable when used in conjunction with basic water-quality measurements to verify that ballast water has been effectively managed.
2 For the purposes of the present technology evaluation, electric pulse and pulse plasma treatments were addressed together. In both cases, organisms are inactivated by the application of an energy pulse.
3 Exceptions may occur when vessels are transiting climatic extremes; for example, when they ballast in polar waters and deballast in tropical waters.
4 The Protocol of 1978 relating to the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973.
5 The cognizant U.S. authority may be the Coast Guard, the state, or the port authority, depending on circumstances.