Testimony 

Before the Subcommittee on Regulatory 

Affairs, Committee on Government 

Reform, United States House of 

Representatives

United States Government Accountability Office

GAO

For Release on Delivery 

Expected at 2 p.m. EDT 

September 9, 2005 INVASIVE SPECIES 

Progress and Challenges in 

Preventing Introduction 

into U.S. Waters Via the 

Ballast Water in Ships 

Statement of Robin M. Nazzaro, Director 

Natural Resources and Environment 

GAO-05-1026T 
What GAO Found

United States Government Accountability Office

Why GAO Did This Study

Highlights

Accountability Integrity Reliability

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-1026T.

To view the full product, including the scope 

and methodology, click on the link above. 

For more information, contact Robin Nazzaro, 

(202) 512-3841 or nazzaror@gao.gov. 

Highlights of GAO-05-1026T, a testimony 

before the Subcommittee on Regulatory 

Affairs, Committee on Government 

Reform, United States House of 

Representatives 

September 9, 2005

INVASIVE SPECIES

Progress and Challenges in Preventing 

Introduction into U.S. Waters Via the 

Ballast Water in Ships 

Congress recognized ballast water as a serious problem in 1990 with passage 

of the Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act, 

legislation intended to help reduce the number of species introductions in 

the Great Lakes. A reauthorization of this law in 1996, the National Invasive 

Species Act, elevated ballast water management to a national level. As 

directed by the legislation, the federal government has promulgated several 

regulations requiring certain ships to take steps, such as exchanging their 

ballast water in the open ocean to flush it of potentially harmful organisms, 

to reduce the likelihood of species invasions via ballast water. Initially these 

regulations applied only to certain ships entering the Great Lakes; now they 

apply to certain ships entering all U.S. ports. In addition to these domestic 

developments, the United Nation’s International Maritime Organization has 

recently adopted a convention on ballast water management that could 

affect the global fleet. 

Since 1998, Coast Guard data show that compliance with existing ballast 

water exchange requirements has generally been high. However, key 

agencies and stakeholders recognize that the current ballast water exchange 

program is not a viable long-term approach to minimizing the risks posed by 

ballast water discharges. The primary reasons for this are that: 

• many ships are exempt from current ballast water exchange 

requirements, 

• the Coast Guard has not established alternate discharge zones that 

could be used by ships unable to conduct ballast water exchange for 

various reasons, and 

• ballast water exchange is not always effective at removing or killing 

potentially invasive species. 

Developers are pursuing technologies to provide more reliable alternatives 

to ballast water exchange, some of which show promise. However, 

development of such technologies and their eventual use to meet ballast 

water regulatory requirements face many challenges including the daunting 

technological task of developing large scale water treatment systems that 

ships can accommodate, and the lack of a federal discharge standard that 

would provide a target for developers to aim for in terms of treatment 

efficiency. As a result, ballast water exchange is still the only approved 

method for treating ballast water despite the concerns with this method’s 

effectiveness. Consequently, U.S. waters remain vulnerable to the 

introduction of invasive species via ships’ ballast water. State governments 

and others have expressed frustration over the seemingly slow progress the 

federal government has made on more effectively protecting U.S. waters 

from future species invasions via ballast water. As a result, several states 

have passed legislation that authorizes procedures for managing ballast 

water that are stricter than federal regulations. 

Numerous invasive species have 

been introduced into U.S. waters 

via ballast water discharged from 

ships and have caused serious 

economic and ecologic damage. 

GAO reported in 2002 that at least 

160 nonnative aquatic species had 

become established in the Great 

Lakes since the 1800s—one-third of 

which were introduced in the past 

30 years by ballast water and other 

sources. The effects of such 

species are not trivial; the zebra 

mussel alone is estimated to have 

caused $750 million to $1 billion in 

costs between 1989 and 2000. 

Species introductions via ballast 

water are not confined to the Great 

Lakes, however. The environment 

and economy of the Chesapeake 

Bay, San Francisco Bay, Puget 

Sound, and other U.S. waters have 

also been adversely affected. 

The federal government has been 

taking steps since 1990 to 

implement programs to prevent the 

introduction of invasive species 

from ships’ ballast water 

discharges. However, species 

introductions are continuing. 

This testimony discusses the 

legislative and regulatory history of 

ballast water management and 

identifies some of the issues that 

pose challenges for the federal 

government’s program for 

preventing the introduction of 

invasive species via ships’ ballast 

water. 
Page 1 GAO-05-1026T 

Madam Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: 

I am pleased to be here today to discuss actions to address the 

introduction of harmful invasive species via the ballast water in ships. 

Numerous harmful species have been introduced into U.S. waters via 

ballast water and have caused serious economic and ecologic damage. As 

you know, many of these species are now permanent residents in U.S. 

ecosystems and have significantly altered the structure of these systems, 

or promise to do so in the future. We reported in 2002 that at least 160 

nonnative aquatic species had become established in the Great Lakes since 

the 1800s, more than one-third of which had been introduced in the prior 

30 years. Ballast water is considered a major, although not the only, source 

of those introductions. 1

 This problem is not confined to the Great Lakes, 

however. The environment and economy of the Chesapeake Bay, San 

Francisco Bay, Puget Sound, and other coastal areas have also been 

affected by species transported in ballast water. The effects are not trivial; 

the zebra mussel alone is estimated to have caused $750 million to $1 

billion in costs between 1989 and 2000.2

Today, I am going to provide some information on the legislative and 

regulatory history of ballast water management and discuss some issues 

that pose challenges for the federal government’s program for preventing 

the introduction of invasive species into U.S. waters from ships’ ballast 

water discharges, including an update on concerns that we identified in 

our 2002 report. 

To update our work from 2002, we examined relevant statutes, 

regulations, and agency policies and documents. We also gathered recent 

data on compliance with current regulations. In addition, we interviewed 

agency officials and representatives of the shipping industry, technology 

developers, state agencies, environmental organizations, and academic 

researchers. We conducted our work from March through August 2005 in 

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

 1

GAO, Invasive Species: Clearer Focus and Greater Commitment Needed to Effectively 

Manage the Problem, GAO-03-1 (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 22, 2002), 12. 

2

Carlton, J.T., Introduced Species in U.S. Coastal Waters: Environmental Impacts and 

Management Priorities, (Arlington, VA: Pew Oceans Commission, 2001). 
Page 2 GAO-05-1026T 

In summary, ballast water as a potential source of invasive species has 

been a legislative concern since 1990, first with passage of the 

Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act, and again 

with an amendment in 1996 that expanded management of the problem. 

The Coast Guard has promulgated several guidelines and regulations since 

1991 concerning certain ballast water management activities. Initially 

these activities were only required of certain ships traveling into the Great 

Lakes and the Hudson River. Now, such activities are required of certain 

ships entering all U.S. ports. Also during this period, the international 

shipping community—via the International Maritime Organization—has 

been working on reaching agreement on ballast water management 

standards to apply to all shipping worldwide. The organization recently 

adopted a convention on this issue, although the convention has not been 

ratified by enough countries for it to enter into force. 

We reported in 2002 that despite such steps—and generally high 

compliance rates with existing ballast water management regulations—

U.S. waters were still vulnerable to species invasions. In particular, we 

reported that some ships were not required to conduct ballast water 

exchange and that exchange was not necessarily effective at removing 

potentially invasive species from ships’ ballast water. At the time, key 

agencies and stakeholders recognized that ballast water exchange was not 

a viable long-term approach to minimizing the risks posed by ballast water 

discharges. This sentiment continues today. 

A key element of an improved management program for preventing 

species invasions is the development of a discharge standard for ballast 

water. When we reported in 2002, the Coast Guard was working on a 

discharge standard that would set a limit on the amount of potentially 

harmful organisms that could be discharged by ships into U.S. waters. In 

addition, developers were researching technologies that could be used to 

more effectively “clean” ballast water discharges than ballast water 

exchange. However, at the time, it was not clear what type of 

technological approach would prove successful at treating ballast water. 

While progress has been made on both of these issues since our report, the 

bottom line remains the same. Specifically, the Coast Guard has yet to 

issue a discharge standard and there are no technologies that have been 

approved for treating ballast water. Without such a standard or 

technology, ballast water exchange is still the only available treatment 

method for reducing the amount of potentially invasive species in ships’ 

ballast water. Thus, U.S. waters remain vulnerable to invasive species 

carried in ballast water. In the absence of a stronger federal program for 

protecting U.S. waters against species invasions, several states including 

Summary 
Page 3 GAO-05-1026T 

Michigan, have passed legislation addressing various aspects of the 

problem. 

Species of plants, animals, and microscopic organisms are transported 

from their native environments around the world to new locations in many 

different ways, both intentionally and unintentionally. When they arrive in 

a new location, most of these species do not survive because 

environmental conditions are not favorable. However, some of the newly 

arrived species do survive and, unfortunately, a portion of these flourish to 

the point that they begin to dominate native species and are thus labeled 

as “invasive.” These invasive, nonnative species can seriously damage 

ecosystems, businesses, and recreation. 

Ballast water is one of many pathways by which nonnative and invasive 

species have arrived in the United States. Ships are designed to sail safely 

with their hulls submerged to a certain depth in the water. If a ship is not 

filled to capacity with cargo, it needs to fill its ballast tanks with water to 

maintain proper depth and balance during its travels. As a ship takes on 

cargo at ports of call, it must then discharge some of its ballast water to 

compensate for the weight of the cargo. When ships are fully loaded with 

cargo, their ballast tanks may be pumped down to the point where only 

residual water (also referred to as non-pumpable ballast water) is left. 

Ship masters may also manipulate the amount of water in their ballast 

tanks to account for different sea conditions. Different classes of ships 

have different ballast capacities, ranging from tens of thousands to 

millions of gallons of water. 

Ships generally fill and discharge their ballast tanks when they are in port, 

and the water and associated sediment they take in is likely to contain 

living organisms or their eggs. Because the ballast water may be fresh, 

brackish, or salty depending on where it is obtained, the organisms in the 

water will also vary accordingly. Worldwide, ships discharge an estimated 

3 billion to 5 billion metric tons of ballast water each year, and it is 

estimated that several thousand different species may be transported 

globally in ballast tanks on any given day. Well-known examples of 

invasive species brought to the United States in ballast tanks include the 

zebra mussel, round goby, Japanese shore crab, Asian clam, and Black Sea 

jellyfish. Collectively, these and other aquatic species transported in 

ballast water have caused billions of dollars in damage to our economy 

and unmeasured damage to the environment. For example, we reported in 

2002 that the Great Lakes commercial and recreational fishing industry—

which is worth about $4.5 billion annually—was being damaged or 

Background 
Page 4 GAO-05-1026T 

threatened by the sea lamprey, round goby, Eurasian ruffe, and two 

invertebrates from eastern Europe, just to name a few. 

While the Great Lakes feature prominently in today’s hearing, many other 

waters around the United States have also been invaded by harmful 

species. Notably, invasive species are found in virtually all of our coastal 

bays and estuaries—resources that are typically enormously productive 

and support multibillion dollar commercial fisheries and recreation 

industries. Given the pace and expansion of global trade, the movement of 

additional invasive species to these and other ecosystems can only be 

expected to continue. 

The federal government has been taking steps to address the introduction 

of potentially invasive species via the ballast water in ships for well over a 

decade. Congress recognized ballast water as a serious problem in 1990 

with the passage of the Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and 

Control Act, legislation intended to help reduce the number of species 

introduced into U.S. waters, focusing on the Great Lakes. Congress 

reauthorized appropriations for and amended that law in 1996, making it 

more national in scope. In 1999, the President issued an executive order to 

better address invasive species in general, including those transported in 

ballast water. In addition to these domestic developments, members of the 

United Nation’s International Maritime Organization have adopted a 

convention on ballast water management that, if ratified by a sufficient 

number of countries, could affect the global fleet. 

Ballast water as a conduit for invasive species was first legislatively 

recognized in 1990 with the passage of the Nonindigenous Aquatic 

Nuisance Prevention and Control Act (NANPCA).3

 This law was a 

response to the introduction of the zebra mussel in the Great Lakes and 

findings that the discharge of ballast water results in unintentional 

introductions of nonindigenous species. The zebra mussel reproduces 

rapidly, and soon after its introduction clogged municipal and industrial 

water pipes, out-competed native mussels for food and habitat, and cost 

millions of dollars in economic losses and remedial actions. 

 3

Pub. L. 101-646, 104 Stat. 4761 (1990), codified at 16 U.S.C. §§4701-4751. 

History of Ballast 

Water Management 

Nonindigenous Aquatic 

Nuisance Prevention and 

Control Act of 1990 
Page 5 GAO-05-1026T 

Specifically, NANPCA called for regulations to prevent the introduction 

and spread of aquatic invasive species into the Great Lakes through the 

ballast water of ships.4

 Among other things, it specifically called for the 

regulations to require ships carrying ballast water and entering a Great 

Lakes port after operating beyond the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ)—a 

zone generally extending 200 nautical miles from a country’s shores—to 

take one of the following actions: 

• Carry out what is known as ballast water exchange beyond the EEZ before 

entering a Great Lakes port; 

• Exchange ballast water in other waters where the exchange does not 

threaten introduction of aquatic invasive species to the Great Lakes or 

other U.S. waters; or 

• Use an environmentally sound alternative method of removing potentially 

invasive organisms if the Secretary determines that such method is as 

effective as ballast water exchange in preventing and controlling aquatic 

invasive species infestations. 

Exchanging ballast water in the ocean serves two purposes—to physically 

flush aquatic organisms from ships’ tanks and to kill remaining organisms 

that require fresh or brackish water with highly saline ocean water. 

After first issuing guidelines that became effective in March 1991, the 

Coast Guard replaced them with ballast water management regulations in 

April 1993 for ships carrying ballast water and entering the Great Lakes 

from outside of the EEZ.5

 In 1992, Congress amended NANPCA and called 

for the promulgation of regulations for ships entering the Hudson River 

north of the George Washington Bridge; in December 1994, the Coast 

Guard extended its regulations to these ships.6

 The regulations required 

ships with pumpable ballast water to: 

 4

The law called for regulations to be issued by the Secretary of the department in which the 

Coast Guard was operating. At the time, the Coast Guard was within the Department of 

Transportation; it is now within the Department of Homeland Security. Throughout this 

report, unless otherwise indicated, we use the term “Secretary” to refer to the Secretary of 

the department in which the Coast Guard is operating. 

5

58 Fed. Reg. 18,330 (Apr. 8, 1993). 

6

59 Fed. Reg. 67,632 (Dec. 30, 1994). 
Page 6 GAO-05-1026T 

• exchange ballast water beyond the EEZ at a minimum depth of 2,000 

meters before entering the Great Lakes or Hudson River;7

• utilize another environmentally sound ballast water management method 

approved by the Coast Guard; or 

• retain the ballast water on board. 

The Coast Guard did not approve any alternative method and, therefore, 

ships that did not exchange their ballast water beyond the EEZ were 

required to retain it on board. The Coast Guard also required these ships 

to submit reports attesting to, among other things, their ballast water 

management actions. 

NANPCA also established the Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force 

(ANSTF), consisting of representatives from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Coast Guard, the Army 

Corps of Engineers, and other agencies deemed appropriate, as well as exofficio members from the Great Lakes Commission and other nonfederal 

groups or agencies.8

 NANPCA required the task force and the Secretary to 

cooperate in conducting a number of studies within 18 months of 

enactment of the act on such issues as: 

• The environmental effects of ballast water exchange on native species in 

U.S. waters; 

• Alternate areas, if any, where ballast water exchange does not pose a 

threat of infestation or spread of aquatic invasive species in the Great 

Lakes and other U.S. waters; 

• The need for controls on ships entering U.S. waters other than the Great 

Lakes to minimize the risk of unintentional introduction and dispersal of 

aquatic invasive species in those waters; and, 

 7

The Coast Guard later removed the depth requirement. See 64 Fed. Reg. 26,672 (July 28, 

2004). 

8

The general mission of the task force is to develop and implement a program for the 

waters of the United States to prevent introduction and dispersal of aquatic invasive 

species; to monitor, control, and study such species; and to disseminate related 

information. This mission is not confined to species transported in ballast water. 
Page 7 GAO-05-1026T 

• Whether aquatic invasive species threaten the ecological characteristics 

and economic uses of U.S. waters other than the Great Lakes. 

Recognizing that many water bodies around the country in addition to the 

Great Lakes had been invaded by harmful, nonindigenous aquatic species, 

Congress reauthorized appropriations for and amended NANPCA with the 

passage of the National Invasive Species Act of 1996 (NISA).9

 NISA 

expanded upon NANCPA and called for voluntary national guidelines for 

ships equipped with ballast water tanks that operate in waters of the 

United States. NISA required the voluntary guidelines to direct ships to 

manage ballast water in a manner similar to the mandatory requirements 

for ships sailing to the Great Lakes by conducting ballast water exchange 

beyond the EEZ, exchanging their ballast water in an alternative discharge 

zone recommended by the ANSTF, or using an alternative treatment 

method approved by the Secretary. The law also required that the 

guidelines direct ships to carry out other management practices that were 

deemed necessary to reduce the probability of transferring species from 

ship operations other than ballast discharge and from ballasting practices 

of ships that enter U.S. waters with no ballast water on board. In addition, 

the law required that the guidelines provide that ships keep records and 

submit them to the Secretary to enable the Secretary to determine 

compliance with the guidelines. 

The Coast Guard issued an interim rule in May 1999 and promulgated a 

final rule in November 2001 setting forth national voluntary guidelines 

under NISA.10 The guidelines encouraged ships carrying ballast water 

taken on in areas less than 200 nautical miles from any shore or in waters 

less than 2,000 meters deep to employ at least one of the following ballast 

water management practices: exchange their ballast water outside of the 

EEZ in waters at least 2,000 meters deep before entering U.S. waters, 

retain it on board, use an approved alternative ballast water management 

 9

Pub. L. No. 104-332, 110 Stat. 4073 (1996). 

1064 Fed. Reg. 26,672 (May 17, 1999); 66 Fed. Reg. 58,381 (Nov. 21, 2001). The voluntary 

guidelines also encourage ships with ballast tanks operating in U.S. waters to take other 

actions including: avoiding discharge or uptake of ballast water in areas within or affecting 

marine sanctuaries, preserves, parks, or coral reefs; minimizing or avoiding uptake in areas 

near sewage outfalls, near dredging operations, in darkness, where sediment may be stirred 

up by propellers, or where tidal flushing is known to be poor or times when a tidal stream 

is known to be more turbid; rinsing anchors and chains; and regularly removing fouling 

organisms from hulls, piping, and tanks. 

National Invasive Species 

Act of 1996 
Page 8 GAO-05-1026T 

method, discharge the ballast water to an approved reception facility, or 

under extraordinary conditions conduct an exchange in an area agreed to 

by the Captain of the Port.11 The voluntary guidelines also encouraged all 

ships equipped with ballast water tanks and operating in U.S. waters to 

take various precautions to minimize the uptake and release of harmful 

aquatic organisms, pathogens and sediments. Such precautions may 

include regularly cleaning ballast tanks to remove sediment and 

minimizing or avoiding the uptake of ballast water in areas known to have 

infestations of harmful organisms and pathogens such as toxic algal 

blooms. In issuing the voluntary guidelines, the Coast Guard said that it 

was considering the results of a study on alternate discharge exchange 

zones but had not decided whether to allow ballast water exchanges in 

any of the possible locations the task force identified. 

NISA also required a report to Congress on, among other things, 

compliance with the voluntary ballast water exchange and reporting 

guidelines no later than 3 years after their issuance. In addition, NISA 

required that the guidelines be revised, or additional regulations 

promulgated, no later than 3 years after the issuance of the guidelines and 

at least every 3 years thereafter, as necessary. Importantly, NISA required 

the promulgation of regulations making the guidelines mandatory if the 

Secretary determined that reporting or the rate of ship compliance was not 

adequate. As required by NISA, the Coast Guard issued its report to 

Congress in June 2002, but was not able to evaluate compliance with the 

voluntary guidelines because the rate of reporting was so poor. (From July 

1, 1999, to June 30, 2001, less than one-third of all vessels required to 

report ballast water management information met the requirement.) 

Accordingly, as authorized by NISA, the Coast Guard published a 

proposed rule for a national mandatory program for ballast water 

management for all ships operating in U.S. waters in July 2003 and a final 

rule in July 2004.12 In addition, the Coast Guard promulgated another rule, 

effective August 13, 2004, establishing penalties for, among other things, 

 11The Captain of the Port, in American waters, is a U.S. Coast Guard officer who is 

responsible for Coast Guard law enforcement activities in his area of responsibility. A 

Captain of the Port enforces regulations for the protection and security of vessels, harbors, 

and waterfront facilities; anchorages; bridges; safety and security zones; and ports and 

waterways. 

1268 Fed. Reg. 44,691 (July 30, 2002) and 69 Fed. Reg. 44,952 (July 28, 2004). The final rule 

removed the provision contained in the voluntary guidelines that suggested ballast water 

exchange be conducted in waters at least 2,000 meters deep. 
Page 9 GAO-05-1026T 

ship owners who do not file the required reports on their ballast water 

operations.13

Finally, a key provision in NISA recognized the need to stimulate 

development of ballast water treatment technologies. Specifically, NISA 

called for the establishment of a grant program to provide funds to 

nonfederal entities to develop, test, and demonstrate ballast water 

treatment technologies. The Secretary of the Interior was authorized to 

enter into cooperative agreements with other federal agencies and 

nonfederal entities to conduct the program. NOAA and the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service created the Ballast Water Technology Demonstration 

Program that provides grants to entities pursuing technologies that could 

be used to treat ballast water. 

Addressing concerns with the introduction of potentially harmful 

organisms via ballast water also falls under the purview of the National 

Invasive Species Council. The council was created in 1999 under 

Executive Order 13112, which broadly addressed all types of invasive 

species. The council consists of the heads of the principal departments 

and agencies with invasive species responsibilities. The order directed the 

council to develop a plan for managing invasive species across agencies 

and to do so through a public process in consultation with federal 

agencies and stakeholders. 

The council issued a national invasive species management plan in 

January 2001 containing 57 primary action items calling for about 168 

separate actions to be taken by a variety of federal agencies. Two actions 

in the plan relate to ballast water. First, because ballast water exchange 

was recognized as only an interim measure to address nonnative species 

introductions via ballast water, the plan called for NOAA, the Coast Guard, 

Interior, and EPA to sponsor research to develop new technologies for 

ballast water management by July 2001. Second, the plan called for the 

Coast Guard to issue standards for approving the use of ballast water 

management technologies as alternative ballast water management 

methods by January 2002. NANPCA and NISA require that, in order for an 

alternative ballast water management method to be used, the Secretary 

must first approve the method as being “at least as effective as ballast 

water exchange in preventing and controlling infestations of aquatic 

 1369 Fed. Reg. 32,864 (June 14, 2004). 

National Invasive Species 

Council 
Page 10 GAO-05-1026T 

nuisance species,” however, standards for approving alternative measures 

had yet to be developed. 

The effect of the National Invasive Species Council and the national 

management plan on efforts to address species introductions via ballast 

water appears to be minimal. While research on technologies has been 

supported by the Ballast Water Technology Demonstration Program, 

which is managed by NOAA and the Fish and Wildlife Service, this 

program began in 1998 in response to NISA—before the management plan 

was written or before the council was even created. Little action has been 

taken on developing standards for approving ballast water treatment 

technologies even though its completion date was January 2002. 

The council has focused on ballast water in its “cross-cut budget” for 

invasive species that it began in 2002 (for the fiscal year 2004 budget), 

although its influence on ballast water management also appears limited. 

The cross-cut budget effort is intended to encourage agencies to, among 

other things, develop shared goals and strategies, and to promote 

cooperation and coordination on invasive species issues. As a part of the 

cross-cut budget, agencies have developed three performance measures 

for ballast water management. For fiscal year 2005, agencies were to (1) 

sponsor eight ballast water technology projects, (2) develop and 

implement a standardized program to test and certify the performance 

capabilities of ballast water treatment systems, and (3) conduct a pilot 

scale verification trial of a full-scale treatment system to validate the 

standardized program. However, these measures call for agencies to take 

certain actions as opposed to achieving some desired outcome. This is 

similar to what we observed in our 2002 report about the actions in the 

national management plan. In addition, we note that the Coast Guard is 

not included in the cross-cut budget for ballast water despite being the 

primary regulatory agency for managing this issue. 
Page 11 GAO-05-1026T 

While Congress, the Coast Guard, and other federal agencies have sought 

to reduce the threats posed by ballast water through domestic regulation, 

the United Nation’s International Maritime Organization (IMO) has worked 

for over 10 years toward a global solution to the problem.14 In February 

2004, IMO member countries adopted the International Convention for the 

Control and Management of Ships’ Ballast Water and Sediments.15 The 

convention calls for ballast water exchange as an interim measure. This 

would be followed by the imposition of a treatment standard that would 

place limits on the number of organisms that ships could discharge in their 

ballast. To enter into force, the convention must be ratified by at least 30 

countries constituting at least 35 percent of the gross tonnage of the 

world’s merchant shipping. As of August 2005, eight countries had signed 

the convention but only one—the Maldives—had ratified it.16

The convention’s ballast water performance standard would require ships 

conducting ballast water management to discharge less than 10 viable 

organisms greater than or equal to 50 microns in size per cubic meter of 

water and less than 10 viable organisms less than 50 but greater than 10 

microns in size per milliliter of water.17 In addition, the ballast water 

performance standard would set limits on the discharge of several disease 

causing pathogens including cholera and E. coli. The dates by which ships 

would need to meet the ballast water performance standard, if the 

convention enters into force, would depend upon when the ship was built 

and what its ballast water capacity is. For example, the ships first required 

to meet the standard would be those built in 2009 or later with a ballast 

capacity of less than 5,000 cubic meters. Ships built before 2009 with a 

 14The IMO is an organization of 160 member countries with observers from governmental, 

industry, environmental, public interest, and labor organizations that is concerned with the 

safety of shipping and cleaner oceans. To achieve its objectives, the IMO has promoted the 

adoption of some 30 conventions and protocols, and has adopted well over 700 codes and 

recommendations concerning maritime safety, the prevention of pollution, and related 

matters. 

15The adoption of a convention marks the conclusion of only the first stage of a long 

process. Before the convention comes into force, that is before it becomes binding upon 

governments that have ratified it, it has to be accepted formally by individual governments. 

16The seven are Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Finland, the Netherlands, Spain, and the Syrian 

Arabic Republic. 

17A micron is one millionth of a meter in length. A milliliter is one thousandth of a liter. To 

provide some context on the number of organisms this would allow, large ships may carry 

over 60,000 cubic meters of ballast water. This means that under the IMO standard, a ship 

discharging that amount of ballast water could legally discharge up to 600,000 organisms 

measuring more than 50 microns and 600 billion organisms measuring less than 50 microns. 

International Maritime 

Organization Convention 

on Ballast Water 
Page 12 GAO-05-1026T 

ballast capacity between 1,500 cubic meters and 5,000 cubic meters would 

have to meet the standard by 2014. Regardless of age or size, all ships 

subject to the convention would need to meet the standard by 2016. 

The federal government has continued to take steps to strengthen controls 

over ballast water as a conduit for potentially harmful organisms. Since 

1998, Coast Guard data show that compliance with conducting ballast 

water exchange, when required, has generally been high. However, key 

agencies and stakeholders recognize that the recently adopted mandatory 

national program for ballast water exchange is not a viable long-term 

approach to minimizing the risks posed by ballast water discharges. Major 

limitations with this approach include the fact that despite relatively high 

compliance rates with the regulations, U.S. waters remain vulnerable to 

species invasions because many ships are still not required to conduct 

ballast water exchange. In addition, the ANSTF has not recommended 

alternate areas for ballast water exchange and thus, the Coast Guard has 

not established alternate discharge zones that could be used by ships. And 

lastly, ballast water exchange is not always effective at removing or killing 

potentially harmful species. 

With the Coast Guard’s mandatory ballast water management regulation 

for ships traveling into U.S. waters after operating beyond the EEZ and 

carrying ballast water taken on less than 200 nautical miles from shore—

effective September 2004—more ships are generally required to conduct 

ballast water exchange or retain their ballast water than before. We noted 

in 2002 that compliance with ballast water exchange requirements for 

ships entering the Great Lakes was high, and the Coast Guard maintains 

that it remains high. According to the Coast Guard, from 1998 through 

2004, 93 percent of the ships entering the Great Lakes with pumpable 

ballast water were in compliance with the exchange requirement. More 

recently, data show that about 70 percent of those arriving from outside 

the EEZ to ports other than the Great Lakes conducted an exchange. Most 

notably, reporting on ballast water management activities has increased 

dramatically. According to the Coast Guard, reporting increased from 

approximately 800 reports per month in January 2004 to over 8,000 per 

month since September 2004; this reflects reporting from about 75 percent 

of ships arriving from outside the EEZ. The Coast Guard attributes the 

increase in reporting to an effort beginning in 2004 to encourage ship 

masters to file reports electronically and to the new regulations that allow 

the Coast Guard to levy penalties for non-reporting. According to data 

provided by the Coast Guard, nearly five percent of ships arriving at U.S. 

Major Issues with 

Current Ballast Water 

Management Program 

Compliance with Existing 

Ballast Water Exchange Is 

Generally High 
Page 13 GAO-05-1026T 

ports between January 2005 and July 2005 were inspected for compliance 

with ballast water regulations. On the basis of its inspections, the Coast 

Guard reports a 96.5 percent compliance rate with the mandatory ballast 

water management regulations. During the first two quarters of 2005, 

inspections revealed 124 deficiencies that range from problems with 

ballast water management reporting to illegal discharge of ballast water in 

U.S. waters. As a result of these findings, Coast Guard took nine 

enforcement actions. 

Although the Coast Guard believes that compliance with ballast water 

management regulations is high, U.S. waters may still not be adequately 

protected because many ships are not required to conduct ballast water 

exchange even though they may discharge ballast water in U.S. waters. 

NOBOBs. Ships with no ballast water in their tanks (referred to as “no 

ballast on board” ships or NOBOBs) are not required to conduct ballast 

water exchange or retain their ballast water.18 While the term “NOBOB” 

indicates that a ship has no ballast on board, these ships may, in fact, still 

be carrying thousands of gallons of residual ballast water and tons of 

sediment that cannot be easily pumped out because of the design of their 

tanks and pumps. This water and sediment could harbor potentially 

invasive organisms from previous ports of call that could be discharged to 

U.S. waters during subsequent ballast discharges. NOBOBs are a particular 

concern in the Great Lakes, where greater than 80 percent of ships 

entering from outside the EEZ fall into this category. While still a concern 

for other U.S. ports, it appears that a significantly smaller portion (about 

20 percent) of ships arriving at U.S. ports other than the Great Lakes from 

beyond the EEZ claimed NOBOB status. Officials responsible for gathering 

and managing data on ship arrivals estimate that about 5 percent of those 

NOBOB ships take on ballast water and discharge it in U.S. waters. 

When the Coast Guard conducted an environmental assessment of its new 

national mandatory ballast water exchange regulations in 2003, it did not 

review the potential threat that NOBOB ships pose to future species 

invasions, although it received comments raising concerns about this 

omission. In response to comments on its 2004 rule, the agency noted that 

 18Since 2004, NOBOBs have been required to comply with other ballast water management 

practices listed at 33 CFR §151.2035(a), which includes practices such as rinsing anchors 

and chains and avoiding ballast water uptake near sewage outfalls. 

Many Ships with 

Potentially Harmful 

Organisms in Their Ballast 

Water Are Not Required to 

Conduct Ballast Water 

Exchange or Retain Their 

Ballast Water 
Page 14 GAO-05-1026T 

NOBOBs were required to submit ballast water reporting forms, that it 

would continue to explore the issue of NOBOBs, and that these vessels 

may be included in a future rulemaking. In May 2005, the Coast Guard 

convened a public workshop in Cleveland to discuss and obtain comments 

on NOBOBs, particularly as they affect the Great Lakes. Following the 

public meeting, the Coast Guard held a closed meeting for an invited group 

of government officials and technology experts. The overall purpose of the 

closed meeting was to discuss technological approaches that are now 

available or soon to be available to address the potentially invasive 

organisms in NOBOB ships. The agency has not published any record of 

the closed meeting. 

The Coast Guard just issued a notice, published in the Federal Register on 

August 31, 2005, containing a voluntary management practice for NOBOBs 

that enter the Great Lakes and have not conducted ballast water 

exchange.19 This practice indicates that such ships should conduct salt 

water flushing of their empty ballast tanks in an area 200 nautical miles 

from any shore, whenever possible. Salt water flushing is defined as “the 

addition of mid-ocean water to empty ballast water tanks; the mixing of 

the flush water with residual water and sediment through the motion of 

the vessel; and the discharge of the mixed water, such that the resultant 

residual water remaining in the tank has as high a salinity as possible, and 

preferably is greater than 30 parts per thousand.” Scientists believe that 

this process will either flush out residual organisms from the ballast tanks 

or kill remaining organisms with highly saline ocean water. The 

effectiveness of this process, however, has not been demonstrated. A 

Coast Guard official in the ballast water program explained that issuance 

of voluntary best management practices were favored over regulations 

because of the relative speed with which they can be issued. 

Coastal Traffic. Ships traveling along U.S. coasts that do not travel farther 

than 200 nautical miles from any shore are also not required to conduct 

ballast water exchange or to retain their ballast water. One such group of 

ships includes those that travel within the EEZ from one U.S. port to 

another, such as from the Gulf of Mexico to the Chesapeake Bay. 

However, these ships may act as a vector for unwanted organisms 

between ports. The second group of ships falling in this category includes 

those that come from foreign ports but do not travel more than 200 

nautical miles from any shore. These can include ships arriving from the 

 1970 Fed. Reg. 51,831 (Aug. 31, 2005). 
Page 15 GAO-05-1026T 

Caribbean, Central America, South America, Panama Canal, and Canada. 

The Coast Guard regulations explicitly exempt ships traveling within 200 

nautical miles of any shore from conducting ballast water exchange. 

However, these ships also represent a possible conduit for invasive 

species. Approximately 65 percent of ships arriving at U.S. ports from 

outside the EEZ—over 28,000 in 2003—do not travel more than 200 

nautical miles from shore.20

Key stakeholders have raised concerns about this gap in regulatory 

coverage over coastal traffic. For example, in commenting on the Coast 

Guard’s proposed regulations for national mandatory ballast water 

exchange, NOAA, the Fish and Wildlife Service, the states of Washington 

and Pennsylvania, the Northeast Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force, a 

state port association, and environmental advocacy organizations 

expressed concern that coastal traffic was not addressed by the 

rulemaking. The Coast Guard has also acknowledged this gap. Specifically, 

the agency noted in its July 2003 assessment of the potential impacts of its 

new regulations on mandatory ballast water exchange and in its 

environmental assessment of the final regulations, that discharges from 

coastal shipping could result in the introduction or spread of invasive 

species within regions of the United States.21 However, the agency did not 

quantify the additional risks posed by coastal traffic nor did it discuss 

what should be done to mitigate those risks. 

Several of the issues described above revolve around the requirement that 

ballast water exchange be done at least 200 nautical miles from shore. 

However, Congress recognized that there might be areas within the 200-

nautical mile limit of the EEZ in which ballast water exchange might not 

 20Shipping Traffic Analysis and Cost Assessment for Ballast Water Exchange En Route to 

the United States—an analysis revisited, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 

September 2004. 

21Regulatory Evaluation: Mandatory Ballast Water Management Program for U.S. 

Waters, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking USCG-2003-14273, prepared by Standards 

Evaluation and Analysis Division, U.S. Coast Guard, Washington, DC, July 15, 2003; 

Programmatic Environmental Assessment for Ballast Water Management Program for U.S. 

Waters, prepared for Commandant, United States Coast Guard, Washington, DC, submitted 

by Battelle, Duxbury, MA, February 2004. 

No Alternate Exchange 

Zones Have Been 

Designated 
Page 16 GAO-05-1026T 

be harmful.22 Congress required the Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force 

to conduct a study to identify any possible areas within the waters of the 

United States and the EEZ where ballast water exchange would not pose a 

threat of infestation or spread of aquatic invasive species. NANPCA, as 

amended by NISA, called upon the Coast Guard regulations and guidelines 

to allow or encourage ships to exchange ballast water in alternate 

locations, based on the Task Force’s recommendations. The required 

study on alternate exchange areas was delivered to NOAA and EPA—

members of the task force—in November 1998. According to the study, it 

was impossible to guarantee that organisms in ballast water would not be 

transported by winds or currents toward suitable shoreside habitats when 

discharged within 200 nautical miles of shore.23 The study also noted that 

suitable discharge areas varied depending upon winds and currents at a 

particular time. However, in looking at conditions around the United 

States, the study identified many locations where it appeared that ballast 

water exchange could safely occur less than 200 nautical miles from shore. 

Ultimately, the Task Force did not recommend alternate discharge areas 

and the Coast Guard has not authorized ballast water exchange in any 

such areas under its regulations. In its 2004 final rule for the mandatory 

national ballast management program, the Coast Guard stated that it was 

examining the possibility of establishing alternate ballast water exchange 

zones and that information obtained at an October 2003 workshop, and 

future workshops, could provide a sound, scientific basis for establishing 

ballast water exchange zones within the EEZ. In 2004, the Massachusetts 

Institute of Technology published the proceedings from the October 2003 

workshop.24 The workshop attendees—which included stakeholders from 

the marine industry, scientific community, policy makers, regulators, and 

 22In addition, under NISA, ships are allowed to claim a safety exemption from conducting 

an exchange and these ships, other than those entering the Great Lakes after operating 

beyond the EEZ, are not prevented from subsequently discharging ballast water in U.S. 

waters. 

23Ballast Exchange Study: Consideration of Back-up Exchange Zones and Environmental 

Effects of Ballast Exchange and Ballast Release, Alfred M. Beeton, James T. Carlton, 

Bridget A. Holohan, Glen H. Wheless, Arnoldo Valle-Levinson, Lisa A. Drake, Gregory Ruiz, 

Linda McCann, William Walton, Annette Frese, Paul Fofonoff, Scott Godwin, Jason Toft, 

Lisa Hartman, and Elizabeth von Holle, a project of the Cooperative Institute for Limnology 

and Ecosystems Research, Ann Arbor, Michigan, a report to the National Sea Grant 

Program, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the Environmental 

Protection Agency, November 1998. 

24The area of focus was from Cape Hatteras in North Carolina through the northern ports of 

the Canadian Maritime Provinces. 
Page 17 GAO-05-1026T 

nongovernmental organizations—developed a consensus statement 

regarding proposed alternate exchange zones along the northeastern 

coastline of the United States and Canada. The group proposed that 

alternate ballast water exchange areas, where there is consensus, be 

adopted as a working policy statement by both the United States and 

Canada for coastal vessel traffic until other treatment methods are 

available. In their statement, the attendees focused more on the depth of 

waters than on the distance from shore, noting that the continental shelf 

marks a location that helps determine whether organisms are likely to 

float toward shore or away from shore. 

However, the Coast Guard reports that it has no plans to consider the use 

of alternate discharge zones. The ballast water program manager told us 

that designating alternate zones would take a significant amount of 

environmental analysis and a lengthy rulemaking process. She also said 

that alternate discharge zones will not be needed once other treatment 

technologies are installed on ships. 

While the United States has not identified alternate locations for 

conducting ballast water exchange, the IMO and other countries have 

proposed allowing, or already allow, ballast exchange to occur in locations 

closer than 200 nautical miles from shore. The IMO convention, should it 

take effect as adopted, states that all ships conducting ballast water 

exchange should, whenever possible, do so at least 200 nautical miles from 

the nearest land and in water at least 200 meters deep. However, the 

convention recognizes that exchange at that distance may not be possible; 

if not, exchange should be conducted as far from the nearest land as 

possible, and in all cases at least 50 nautical miles from the nearest land 

and in water at least 200 meters deep. Australia requires that exchange be 

done outside 12 nautical miles in water exceeding 200 meters in depth. 

The Canadian government proposed regulations in June 2005 that would 

allow transoceanic ships, unable to exchange ballast water more than 200 

nautical miles from shore where the water is at least 2,000 meters deep 

because it would compromise the stability of the ship or the safety of the 

ship or of persons on board, to make the exchange in one of five alternate 

discharge zones that Canada’s Department of Fisheries and Oceans 

determined could receive ballast water with little risk. For nontransoceanic ships that do not travel at least 200 nautical miles from shore 

and in waters at least 2,000 meters deep (for example, ships arriving from 

U.S. ports that travel near the coast), the proposed regulations would 

require ships to exchange ballast water at least 50 nautical miles from 

shore where the water is at least 500 meters deep. If that were not 
Page 18 GAO-05-1026T 

practical or possible, the ships would be allowed to use an alternate 

discharge zone. The minimum allowable depth in the alternative areas 

would be from 300 to 1,000 meters. 

In 2002, we reported on numerous concerns about the effectiveness of 

ballast water exchange in removing potentially harmful organisms. There 

are two presumptions behind ballast water exchange as a method for 

ballast water treatment. First, it is presumed that the exchange will 

physically remove the water and organisms from ballast tanks. Second, 

ballast water exchange presumes that there are significant differences in 

the salinity of the original ballast water, mid-ocean water, and the 

ecosystem into which the water is ultimately discharged, such as the Great 

Lakes. If the original ballast water were fresh, organisms in that water 

would, in theory, not survive in the salt water taken on in mid-ocean. 

Similarly, any mid-ocean organisms taken on during the exchange would 

not survive in the fresh water of a destination port. Evidence has shown, 

however, that these presumptions are not always borne out. For one thing, 

ballast pumps are not always able to remove all of the original water, 

sediment, and associated organisms. In addition, elevated levels of salinity 

do not necessarily kill all forms of potentially invasive organisms. 

Therefore, scientists believe that viable organisms can survive ballast 

water exchange and possibly become invasive when discharged to a new 

environment. The National Research Council highlighted the need for 

alternatives to ballast water exchange by stating in its 1996 report on 

ballast water management, “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.”25 We noted in our 2002 report that despite the high compliance 

rate with mandatory ballast water exchange in the Great Lakes, invasive 

organisms, such as the fish-hook water flea discovered in 1998, were still 

entering the ecosystem. 

 25Stemming the Tide: Controlling Introductions of Nonindigenous Species by Ships’ 

Ballast Water, (Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1996), 2. 

Concerns Persist Over the 

Effectiveness of Ballast 

Water Exchange 
Page 19 GAO-05-1026T 

Developers are pursuing technologies for use in treating ballast water, 

some of which show promise that a technical solution can be used to 

provide more reliable removal of potentially invasive species. However, 

the development of such technologies and their eventual use to meet 

regulatory requirements face many challenges, including the daunting 

technological challenges posed by the need for shipboard treatment 

systems and the lack of a discharge standard that would provide a target 

for developers to aim for in terms of treatment efficiency. 

Researchers and technology companies have been investigating the 

potential capabilities of many different ballast water treatment options, 

such as subjecting the water to filtration, cyclonic separation, ultraviolet 

radiation, chlorine, heat, ozone, or some combination of these methods. 

NOAA’s Ballast Water Technology Demonstration Program has assisted in 

this regard by providing over $12 million in grants to 54 research projects 

since 1998. Related to this issue, the International Maritime Organization 

convention on ballast water required an assessment of the state of 

treatment technology to determine whether appropriate technologies are 

available to achieve the standard proposed in the convention. Toward this 

end, the United States and five other member countries submitted 

assessments of the state of treatment technology development. The United 

States’ assessment was based on a study conducted by the Department of 

Transportation’s Volpe National Transportation Systems Center. The 

center assessed about a dozen potential ballast water technologies and 

identified four basic approaches that it believed are sufficiently well 

developed to indicate that effective and practicable systems will be 

available to treat ballast water to some measurable performance standard. 

These technologies are (1) heat, (2) chlorine dioxide, (3) separation 

followed by ultraviolet radiation, and (4) separation followed by advanced 

oxidation treatment. 

On the basis of this assessment, the United States took the position that 

developers of treatment technologies have made enough progress to 

suggest that the first proposed deadline in the convention could be met; 

namely, that ships built on or after 2009 and with a ballast water capacity 

of under 5,000 cubic meters could have treatment systems that could meet 

the discharge standards. However, the United States also stated that it was 

too early to tell whether treatment systems would be available for other 

categories of ships that will need them at a later date. After reviewing and 

discussing the evidence on the status of technology development provided 

by the United States and other member countries, the IMO’s Marine 

Environment Protection Committee’s technology review group 

Technologies Are 

Being Developed to 

Treat Ballast Water, 

but Challenges 

Remain Before They 

Can Be Used 

Some Promising Ballast 

Water Treatment 

Technologies Exist 
Page 20 GAO-05-1026T 

recommended that there was no need to consider amending the schedule 

for implementing the convention due to a lack of progress on technology, 

although it recommended that the committee reexamine the status of 

technology in October 2006. 

Several challenges hamper development and use of ballast water 

treatment technologies. First, development of such technologies is a 

daunting task given the many operational constraints under which the 

technologies must operate. Beyond this hurdle, there is no discharge 

standard for how clean ballast water must be to help developers determine 

how effective their technologies need to be. Related to this, there is also 

no process for testing and approving technologies to determine how 

effective they are in removing potentially harmful organisms from ballast 

water. Coast Guard and other agencies have some actions underway on 

these issues, but they have not committed to firm schedules for 

completion. 

The challenges of developing technologies to “treat” or remove potentially 

invasive species from ballast water are numerous. On the one hand, 

treating ballast water is not unlike treating household and industrial 

wastewater—now a rather routine treatment process. Like wastewater 

treatment facilities, ballast water treatment technology will need to be safe 

for the environment and crew, and achieve a specific level of pollutant 

removal (in the case of ballast water—removal of potentially invasive 

species). On the other hand, shipboard ballast water treatment systems 

will have to meet additional challenges that land-based wastewater 

treatment facilities do not, such as: (1) treating large volumes of water at 

very high flow rates and (2) removing or killing a much broader range of 

biological organisms—including unknown organisms. Importantly, the 

treatment systems must be able to operate in a manner that does not 

compromise ship safety. In addition, to make any treatment option 

palatable to the shipping industry, the systems must not displace an 

unacceptable amount of valuable cargo space. Consequently, the 

technologies must be dramatically smaller in scale than those currently 

used in the wastewater industry while still achieving a high level of 

removal or “kill” rates. Further complicating matters, because ships differ 

in their structural designs, it is unlikely that one type of treatment 

technology will be appropriate for all types of ships. And, depending on 

how regulations are written, ships may need to be retrofitted to 

incorporate treatment technology—a potentially complex and expensive 

proposition. 

Development and Use of 

Ballast Water Treatment 

Technologies Face Many 

Challenges 

Difficult Treatment 

Environment 
Page 21 GAO-05-1026T 

When we reported in 2002, a key part of the Coast Guard’s effort to move 

forward on dealing more effectively with the ballast water problem was its 

work to develop a discharge standard for ballast water—that is, a standard 

for determining how “clean” ballast water should be before it could be 

discharged into U.S. waters.26 According to many stakeholders we have 

spoken with, one reason for the apparent slow progress on developing 

treatment technology is the lack of a discharge standard. Identifying a 

standard is necessary to provide a target for companies that develop 

treatment technologies. The lack of a discharge standard makes it 

uncertain what level of “cleanliness” treatment technologies will have to 

achieve. Companies may be hesitant to pursue research and development 

of a potential treatment technology not knowing what the standard may 

ultimately be—they stand to lose significant amounts of money if a 

standard turns in an unanticipated direction that they are unable to 

accommodate with their technology. In addition, until the shipping 

industry is required to meet some discharge standard, there is no incentive 

for ship owners to purchase ballast water treatment technology. 

In 2002, the Secretary of Transportation reported to Congress that he 

expected to have a final rule on a ballast water management standard in 

the fall of 2004. The Coast Guard has been working with the EPA and 

other agencies to prepare a proposed regulation that will contain a 

discharge standard as well as an assessment of the environmental impacts 

of five possible discharge standards. The five alternatives being analyzed 

are: (1) taking “no action,” which would mean continuing with ballast 

water exchange, (2) requiring that ballast water be sterilized before 

discharge, (3) matching the proposed IMO discharge standard, (4) 

allowing one-tenth the number of organisms allowed by the proposed IMO 

standard, and (5) allowing one-hundredth the number of organisms in the 

proposed IMO standard. In December 2004, the Coast Guard announced 

that it expected to propose a discharge standard by December 2005, 

however, the agency has since retracted that plan and was not able to give 

us a new date. 

Complicating the development of technology is the lack of a process to 

approve ballast water treatment systems for use on ships. In August 2004, 

 26The United States District Court for the Northern District of California has held that EPA 

exceeded its authority under the Clean Water Act by excluding discharges incidental to the 

normal operation of a vessel from Clean Water Act permit requirements. See Northwest 

Environmental Advocates v. EPA, 2005 WL 756614. Court proceedings are still ongoing as 

to the appropriate remedies. 

No Discharge Standard for 

How “Clean” Ballast Water 

Must Be 

No Process for Approving 

Treatment Technologies 
Page 22 GAO-05-1026T 

the Coast Guard published a Federal Register notice requesting comments 

by December 3, 2004, on how to establish a program to approve alternative 

ballast water management methods.27 The agency stated in the notice its 

intention to promulgate the new program in the near future, but it has yet 

to do so. In the meantime, the Coast Guard, EPA, and the Navy have 

collaborated on preparing laboratory facilities in Key West, Florida that 

will be used to verify the performance of ballast water treatment 

technologies. According to the Coast Guard, the agencies will begin to test 

the new facilities in a few weeks. On a parallel track, NOAA’s Ballast 

Water Technology Demonstration Program hopes to help address this gap 

as well by establishing a Research, Development, Test and Evaluation 

facility. This facility would be directed to establish standardization and 

quality control in experiments on ballast water technology. Current plans 

are to devote nearly $1 million to this facility over a 4-year period 

beginning in fiscal year 2006; depending on funding availability, operation 

of the facility could be continued. In addition, EPA’s Environmental 

Technology Verification program is working to develop testing protocols 

in order to verify treatment technologies for eventual approval. 

In 2004, the Coast Guard implemented a new program intended to 

encourage ship owners to test potential treatment technologies on their 

ships. With the Shipboard Technology Evaluation Program (STEP), the 

agency hopes to encourage ship owners to install experimental treatment 

technologies by agreeing that vessels accepted into the program may be 

granted an exemption from future ballast water discharge standards for up 

to the life of the vessel of the system. Notably, the program approves the 

use of a system on a single ship; it does not approve the use of that system 

for other ships. To be accepted into the program, the experimental 

technology needs to be capable of removing or killing at least 98 percent 

of organisms larger than 50 microns. To date, only two ship owners have 

applied to this program, but the Coast Guard has not yet accepted their 

applications. The Coast Guard has recognized that the application process 

is complex and plans to clarify it in hope of attracting more applicants. 

Representatives of technology developers, shipping interests, and other 

stakeholders have offered several reasons for the low participation in the 

program. According to the stakeholders we spoke with, the primary 

reason is the lack of a defined discharge standard, rather than any 

particular aspect of the STEP program itself. The lack of a discharge 

 2769 Fed. Reg. 47,453 (Aug. 5, 2004). 

New Incentive Program 
Page 23 GAO-05-1026T 

standard, as well as the fact that use of ballast water treatment technology 

is not currently required, has made it difficult for technology developers to 

gather the venture capital needed to proceed aggressively on technology 

development since use of such technology is not required. Consequently, 

few technologies are ready to be installed and tested on board ships. One 

representative of a technology firm believes the Coast Guard should 

expand the size of the STEP program to provide more incentive to 

shipping companies and technology developers that want to test variations 

of technologies or test their technology on different types of ships. 

Currently, the agency is limiting the number of applicants to about 5 or 6 

per year and expects each application to cover just one ship. Another 

stakeholder echoed this point, saying that the program requires ship 

owners to go to great lengths for the benefit of getting one ship approved. 

One representative of a shipping association speculated that, although the 

STEP program is open to foreign companies, another possible reason for 

low participation is that foreign ships may spend little time in the United 

States. 

Stakeholders to the technology development issue told us that technology 

development has also been hampered by a lack of resources. I have 

already noted that without a discharge standard or requirements for use of 

treatment technologies, it is difficult for companies to expend significant 

resources on development. In addition, as technology development 

progresses, the scale of testing required will increase and move beyond 

what can be done in a laboratory. At this point, developers will need to 

conduct “operational” testing on-board ships. However, estimates for 

shipboard studies exceed $1 million. Given the disincentives to pursuing 

technology development in this time of uncertainty, technology 

development will likely remain a problem. 

As we reported in 2002, some states have expressed frustration with the 

federal government’s progress on establishing a more protective federal 

program for managing the risks associated with ballast water discharges. 

Since then, several coastal and Great Lakes states have enacted legislation 

that is more stringent than current federal regulations. As you know, in 

June 2005, the governor of Michigan signed a bill into law that will require 

all oceangoing vessels to obtain a state permit before discharging ballast 

water into state waters. The state will issue the permit only if the applicant 

can demonstrate that the vessel will not discharge aquatic nuisance 

species or, if it will, that the operator of the vessel will use 

environmentally sound technology and methods as determined by the 

Lack of Resources 

States Are Moving 

Forward With 

Programs Because of 

Frustration with Lack 

of Federal Progress 
Page 24 GAO-05-1026T 

state department that can be used to prevent the discharge of aquatic 

invasive species. This requirement takes effect January 1, 2007. 

Similarly, owing to concerns with possible species introductions via 

currently unregulated coastal shipping, California, Oregon, and 

Washington have enacted laws to regulate coastal traffic. The states’ laws 

provide for additional measures that ships must currently take or will have 

to take in the future before entering state waters. All three states provide 

for safety exemptions. 

• California. California law required the State Lands Commission to adopt 

new regulations governing ballast water management practices for ships 

of 300 gross tons or more arriving at a California port or place from 

outside of the Pacific Coast Region by January 1, 2005. The California 

State Lands Commission has proposed, but not yet finalized, these 

regulations. Upon implementation of the regulations, California law will 

require the ships to employ at least one of the following ballast water 

management practices: (1) exchange its ballast water more than 200 miles 

from land and at least 2,000 meters deep before entering the state’s coastal 

waters; (2) retain its ballast water; (3) discharge water at the same 

location where the ballast water originated; (4) use an alternative, 

environmentally sound method; (5) discharge the ballast water to a 

reception facility approved by the commission; or (6) under extraordinary 

circumstances, exchange ballast water within an area agreed upon by the 

commission and the Coast Guard. The proposed California regulation 

would require ships carrying ballast water from within the Pacific Coast 

Region to conduct any ballast water exchange in waters that are more 

than 50 miles from land and at least 200 meters deep. 

• Oregon. Oregon law prohibits certain ships from discharging ballast water 

in Oregon waters unless the ship has conducted a ballast water exchange 

more than 200 miles from any shore, or at least 50 miles from land and at a 

depth of at least 200 meters if its ballast water was taken onboard at a 

North American coastal port. Oregon exempts ships that: (1) discharge 

ballast water only at the location where the ballast water originated; (2) 

retain their ballast water; (3) traverse only internal state waters; (4) 

traverse only the territorial sea of the U.S. and do not enter or depart an 

Oregon port or navigate state waters; (5) discharge ballast water that has 

been treated to remove organisms in a manner that is approved by the 

Coast Guard; or (6) discharge ballast water that originated solely from 

waters located between 40 degrees latitude north and 50 degrees latitude 
Page 25 GAO-05-1026T 

north on the west coast.28

• Washington. Washington’s ballast water law applies to self-propelled ships 

in commerce of 300 gross tons or more and prohibits discharging ballast 

water into state waters unless a ship has conducted an exchange of ballast 

water 50 miles or more offshore, or further offshore if required by the 

Coast Guard. Some ships are exempt from this requirement, including 

ships that retain their ballast water or that discharge ballast water or 

sediments only at the location where ballast water was taken on. The 

coordinator of Washington’s aquatic nuisance species program told us that 

during the legislative process, shipping industry representatives and 

oceanographic experts concurred that the 50-mile boundary for exchange 

was both feasible for the ships and protective against invasive species. 

After July 1, 2007, discharge of ballast water in state waters will be 

authorized only if there has been an exchange at least 50 miles offshore or 

if the vessel has treated its ballast water to meet standards set by the 

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 

Madam Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. I would be 

happy to respond to any questions you or other Members of the 

Subcommittee may have. 

 28The southern border of Oregon is at latitude 42 degrees north, while the northern border 

is at 46 degrees north. 

(360567) 
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further 

permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or 

other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to 

reproduce this material separately. 
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; 

and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help 

Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s 

commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability. 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost 

is through GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday, GAO posts 

newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site. To 

have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon, go 

to www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to Updates.” 

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 each. 

A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of 

Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or 

more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders 

should be sent to: 

U.S. Government Accountability Office 

441 G Street NW, Room LM 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 

TDD: (202) 512-2537 

Fax: (202) 512-6061 

Contact: 

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm 

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470 

Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov (202) 512-4400 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

Paul Anderson, Managing Director, AndersonP1@gao.gov (202) 512-4800 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

GAO’s Mission 

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony 

Order by Mail or Phone 

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs 

Congressional 

Relations 

Public Affairs 

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER