1 / 17

Establishing a Ballast Water Discharge Standard

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

nolen
Download Presentation

Establishing a Ballast Water Discharge Standard

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

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

  2. 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

  3. 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

  4. 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

  5. Phase One and Phase Two Discharge Standards

  6. Sizes and Concentrations • Phase I standard for zooplankton = 50 μm • approx 0.00197 inches, or 2/1000 of an inch • Ten 50 μm particles equals 1.25 x 10-12 M3: • Or, approx 1 trillionth of a M3 • Equivalent to 1 second in 31,700 years • One drop of water in 20 Olympic swimming pools • 99.999999999% free of organisms • 1 cubic meter of water weighs ~ 2,200 lbs • Approx the weight of a VW Bug

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

  8. 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

  9. Type Approval of BWT Systems Conducted by CG-certified Independent Labs • 12-24 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

  10. 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

  11. 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--- currentlyratified by 21 states, 23% tonnage • Since US is world’s largest port state, uncertainty of US standard may be delaying ratification by other countries

  12. 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

  13. ? QUESTIONS ?

  14. EXTRA SLIDES

  15. 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

  16. 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

  17. 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

More Related