Establishing a Ballast Water Discharge Standard Mr. Lorne W. Thomas, Capt USCG (Ret) Governmental Affairs Officer U.S. Coast Guard Ninth District 6th Annual Great Lakes Restoration Conference Buffalo NY

Why a BW discharge standard?  In U.S. waters, over 60% of vessels can not exchange appropriately due to their routes (< 200 nm). (100% of GL ships)  Effectiveness of ballast water exchange varies  Provides a clearly defined benchmark for treatment technology development  Aids in verifying compliance with BWM requirements Photo courtesy of SERC

Ballast Water Discharge Standard BWDS NPRM establishes (August 2009):  Phased Approach  IMO Standard initially  1000 times more stringent than IMO after 2016  Practicability Review will determine if 1000x standard can be met  If Practicability Review determines 1000x cannot be met, then intermediary standards established  Type Approval Process

Phased Approach  Phase I is a significant improvement over BWE  Minimizes introductions through environmentally sound technologies  Phase I standard is achievable and verifiable  Technology presently under development can likely meet the Phase I standard by implementation date  Consistent with international community  System developers have targeted IMO standard – standardized testing/verification protocols

Phase One and Phase Two Discharge Standards >50 μ (large organisms) >10 μ & ≤ 50 μ (small organisms) ≤ 10 μ (very small organisms) Phase 1< 10 / m 3 < 10 / ml N/A Phase 2< 1 / 100 m 3 < 1 / 100 ml < 1,000 bacteria & 10,000 viruses per 100 ml

Sizes and Concentrations  Phase I standard for zooplankton = 50 μm  approx inches, or 2/1000 of an inch  Ten 50 μm particles equals 1.25 x M 3 :  Or, approx 1 trillionth of a M 3  Equivalent to 1 second in 31,700 years  One drop of water in 20 Olympic swimming pools  % free of organisms  1 cubic meter of water weighs ~ 2,200 lbs  Approx the weight of a VW Bug

Distribution of concentrations in unmanaged discharge (354 tanks) Unmanaged After BWE IMO Standard vs BWE (Zooplankton) Minton, et al, 2005 IMO

Public Meetings & Comments: Common Themes  Standard not stringent enough  Timeline not aggressive enough  National standard issues  Pre-emption or not  Adoption of state standards  EPA CWA vs. NISA BWE equivalent  Niche vessels (e.g. tugs, OSVs, barges, Lakers) not adequately addressed  Practicability review

Type Approval of BWT Systems  Conducted by CG-certified Independent Labs  month process for three existing labs  Using EPA ETV protocols as framework  Type Approval Testing by Administrations  Land-based testing: 6-8 weeks  Shipboard testing: 12 months (may be reduced)  Equivalency of foreign-flag administration type approval  Audit of BWTS dossiers submitted for type approval  QA/QC, test methodology & data verification issues

Type Approval of BWT Systems  No BWT systems with approval above IMO standard  Only one BWT system approved for fresh water  Great Lakes challenges; fresh water, cold water, quantities BW, power needs, small GL/FW market, short transit times  USCG & EPA will not conduct type approval for standards exceeding Phase I; Testing protocols don’t exist  Challenges with enforcing IMO/Phase I standard  Time & quantities of BW for statistical certainty  Exponentially more difficult for higher standards  USCG/EPA MOU on VGP compliance under development

Impact of multiple BWDSs  Uncertainty  Re-capitalization of Canadian fleet  Shippers shunning Great Lakes; further reduces already small market for FW systems  Delay to Ballast Water Convention  Will enter into force 12 months after ratification by 30 states representing 35% of world shipping tonnage --- currently ratified by 21 states, 23% tonnage  Since US is world’s largest port state, uncertainty of US standard may be delaying ratification by other countries

Timeline for Implementation  Review of comments  Revise NPRM, PEIS, Economic Analysis  Publish Final Rule  Certification of Independent Labs  Type Approval Testing  NAS/NRC study- “Methods for Determining Numeric Limits for Living Organisms” – will inform Phase II and EPA’s revision of VGP in 2013

? QUESTIONS ?

EXTRA SLIDES

Joint Ballast Water Working Group  U.S. Coast Guard  Transport Canada  St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation  St. Lawrence Seaway Management Corporation Mission: Reduce the risk of introducing aquatic invasive species into the Great Lakes via ballast water by enforcing existing regulations and educating mariners in best management practices

Compliance and Enforcement Objectives  Inspect all vessels with ballast on first voyage  Target and inspect high risk vessels on their subsequent voyages  Target 100% if resources available  Data collection (science and enforcement)  Increase compliance with regulatory requirements

2009 Statistics  100% (295) ships bound for Great Lakes examined  100% ballast water reporting forms checked  97.9% compliance rate  100% of non-compliant water retained on board