AQUATIC NUISANCE SPECIES IN

BALLAST WATER DISCHARGES:

Issues and Options

DRAFT REPORT FOR PUBLIC COMMENT 

September 10, 2001 

Prepared by: 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water 

Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds 

Office of Wastewater Management 

Washington, DC 
PREFACE 

This draft report, Aquatic Nuisance Species in Ballast Water Discharges: Issues and Options was 

prepared in response to a petition the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) received on January 

13, 1999, from the Pacific Environmental Advocacy Center. The petition was filed on behalf of fifteen 

nongovernmental and State and Tribal governmental organizations. The petition asked that EPA eliminate 

a regulatory exemption that currently prevents ballast water discharges from vessels from needing permits 

under EPA’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program. The petition was 

closely followed by a letter from eighteen members of Congress, requesting that EPA examine whether the 

Clean Water Act can be used to provide effective regulation of aquatic nuisance species in vessel ballast 

water. 

In response to the petition, Congress’s inquiry, and the growing national concern about aquatic nuisance 

species introductions, former Assistant Administrator for Water J. Charles Fox directed Office of Water 

staff to research the issue of aquatic nuisance species in ballast water discharges, and report back what 

mechanisms are available under the Clean Water Act or other relevant statutes or programs to effectively 

control the introduction of aquatic nuisance species through ballast water. 

EPA is seeking public comment on this draft report, and will finalize the report, taking into account public 

comments received. 

If you have information or comments, please email them to Ballast.Water@epa.gov, or mail them to: 

Marine Pollution Control Branch, ATTN: Ballast Water, US Environmental Protection Agency (4504F), 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC, 20460. Please include your name, affiliation, address, 

phone number and/or email address. All comments received before January 11, 2002, will be made part of 

the official record, and will be considered when finalizing the report. 

An electronic copy of the entire draft report can be viewed or downloaded from EPA’s internet web site at 

“http://www.epa.gov/owow/invasive_species/petition.html”. A paper copy of the draft report can be 

obtained by sending a written request to: Marine Pollution Control Branch, ATTN: Ballast Water, US 

Environmental Protection Agency (4504F), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC, 20460. 
AQUATIC NUISANCE SPECIES IN BALLAST WATER DISCHARGES: Issues and Options 

DRAFT FOR PUBLIC COMMENT – September 10, 2001 

CONTENTS

 1.. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ....................................................... 1

a. Purpose of Report .............................................. 1

b. Summary of Draft Recommendations ................................ 1

c. Other Options for Addressing Ballast Water ........................... 2

 2.. BACKGROUND ............................................................... 4

a. Petition ...................................................... 4

b. Ballast Water ANS .............................................. 4

c. Other Pathways for ANS Introductions ............................... 6

d. Vessel Traffic Information ........................................ 7

i. Description of Vessels ............................... 7

ii. Economics of Vessel Commerce ....................... 8

iii. Potential Costs of Controlling Ballast Water ANS .......... 8

iv. Potential Costs of Not Controlling Ballast Water ANS ....... 9

e. Ballast Water Management Methods ................................. 9

i. Mid-ocean Exchange ................................ 9

ii. Special-Case Ballast Water Management Methods ......... 10

iii. Alternative Methods in Research, Development or Demonstration

Stages .......................................... 11

 3.. CURRENT ACTIONS TO ADDRESS ANS ......................................... 16

a. Federal Actions ............................................... 16

i. Executive Order 13112 ............................. 16

ii. National Invasive Species Act of 1996 (NISA) ............ 16

(1) NISA’s Ballast Water Regulations (33 CFR 151) 17 

(2) National Ballast Water Clearinghouse ...... 17

(3) Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force (ANSTF)

.................................. 19

(4) Ballast Technology Demonstration Program

.................................. 19

(5) Environmental Protection Agency’s Role under

NISA ............................. 19

iii. Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships (APPS) ............. 19

iv. Current Activities Under the Clean Water Act (CWA) ...... 20

(1) Section 303 ......................... 20

(2) Section 311 ......................... 20

(3) Section 312 ......................... 20

v. Other Federal Laws ................................ 20

b. International Actions ........................................... 21

i. Foreign Laws .................................... 21

ii. International Agreements ............................ 21

(1) International Maritime Organization (IMO)

.................................. 21

(2) International Joint Commission (IJC) ...... 22

(3) Other Treaties and Agreements ........... 22

c. State And Regional Programs ..................................... 23

i. State ANS Management Plans ........................ 23

(1) Michigan ........................... 24

(2) Washington ......................... 25

ii. Historical State Laws and Regulations .................. 25

iii. Recent State Laws to Address Ballast Water ANS ......... 25

(1) California ........................... 25
AQUATIC NUISANCE SPECIES IN BALLAST WATER DISCHARGES: Issues and Options 

DRAFT FOR PUBLIC COMMENT – September 10, 2001 

d. Local programs ............................................... 26

ii. Port of Oakland, California .......................... 27

iii. Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, California ......... 27

(2) Washington ......................... 25

(3) Maryland ........................... 26

(4) Virginia ............................ 26

i. 

(5) State Bills Introduced .................. 26

Humboldt Bay Harbor, Recreation and Conservation District,

California ....................................... 26

NONREGULATORY APPROACHES TO BALLAST WATER CONTROL ................... 28

e. Support the U.S. Coast Guard’s Ballast Water Regulation Program ........ 28

f. Establish a National Voluntary Partnership that Emphasizes Environmental

Management Systems (EMS) Approaches to Controlling Ballast Water ANS

........................................................... 28

g. Support Other ANS Programs .................................... 29

i. Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force (ANSTF) .......... 29

ii. Invasive Species Council ............................ 29

iii. Interagency Committee on the Marine Transportation System

............................................... 29

iv. National Estuary Program (NEP) ..................... 29

v. Coral Reef Task Force ............................. 30

vi. Voluntary Partnership with Ports ...................... 30

h. Support State Ballast Water Programs .............................. 30

REGULATORY APPROACHES TO BALLAST WATER ................................. 31

i. Overview of the NPDES Program .................................. 31

j. Ballast Water ANS as Pollutants .................................. 32

k. The Current Vessel Exemption from NPDES Permit Requirements ......... 32

l. Approaches for Regulating Ballast Water Discharges with NPDES Permits .. 33

i. Revising the NPDES Regulations ..................... 34

ii. Development of a National Effluent Guideline under 304(b)

............................................... 36

iii. Ballast Water Treatment Requirements Based on CWA §402(g)

............................................... 36

OTHER ....................................................................... 38

m. Other Clean Water Act authorities ................................. 38

i. Ballast Water Treatment by Publicly Owned Treatment Works

(POTWs) ....................................... 38

ii. Section 504 ...................................... 38

n. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) .......................... 38

DRAFT CONCLUSIONS .......................................................... 39

DRAFT RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................... 41

 4.. LIST OF ACRONYMS ......................................................... 43

REFERENCES .................................................................. 45

 Appendix A. State Laws And Regulations Relating to Ballast Water ........................ A - 1

 Appendix B. Federal Laws Potentially Relating to ANS in Ballast Water .................... B - 1
AQUATIC NUISANCE SPECIES IN BALLAST WATER DISCHARGES: Issues and Options 

DRAFT FOR PUBLIC COMMENT – September 10, 2001 
AQUATIC NUISANCE SPECIES IN BALLAST WATER DISCHARGES: Issues and Options 

DRAFT FOR PUBLIC COMMENT – September 10, 2001 

1.. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

a. Purpose of Report 

This draft report examines the issue of aquatic nuisance species (ANS) introduction by the discharge of 

ballast water from vessels. It first discusses vessel traffic and the technical aspects of ballast water 

management. It then surveys existing Federal, State and international actions to address ANS. The draft 

report then discusses options for controlling ballast water through legal, technical, and practical 

mechanisms. It identifies regulatory and non-regulatory actions that the EPA and other agencies are taking 

or might take to minimize the spread of aquatic nuisance species in ballast water. Finally, the draft report 

proposes recommendations about what actions EPA should take to address the issue of preventing aquatic 

nuisance species spread by ballast water. 

b. Summary of Draft Recommendations 

This draft report finds that the greatest impediment to effectively controlling ANS introductions from 

ballast water discharges is the current lack of technical solutions to remove ANS from ballast water 

discharges. While mid-ocean ballast water exchange may offer some relief from ANS introductions, it has 

significant shortcomings. It is not effective in removing 100% of organisms in ballast water, it can involve 

significant safety risks to vessels during adverse weather, it cannot be practically applied to most domestic 

U.S. traffic, and it is difficult to inspect for compliance. However, regulatory and scientific developments 

are expected to provide significant new tools in the fight against ballast water ANS, and EPA believes it 

can best combat ANS introductions by taking a leadership role in those developments. Therefore, this draft 

report proposes the following recommendations for EPA actions: 

One: EPA should promote the development of effective ballast water treatment technologies by: 

• Actively promoting research, outreach, and technology development through its participation in the 

ANS Task Force, the Invasive Species Council, and their appropriate committees and working 

groups on ballast water; 

• Promoting technology development, for example through its Environmental Technology 

Verification (ETV), Small Business Innovative Research, and Green Ships and Green Ports 

programs; 

• Establishing the prevention of ANS introductions as an EPA research priority; 

• Providing technical assistance to ANS research projects initiated or funded by the National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 

the U.S. Coast Guard, or other government, academic, or non-governmental organizations; 

• Supporting the U.S. Coast Guard’s efforts to evaluate the effectiveness of its regulations and to 

revise them, if necessary to enhance their effectiveness in preventing ANS introductions, including 

the development of domestic ballast water standards and encouraging the development and 

adoption of new technologies; and 

• Continuing EPA’s participation on the U.S. delegation to the Ballast Water Working group of the 

Marine Environmental Protection Committee of the International Maritime Organization, which is 

working toward an international ballast water agreement, including developing standards. 

1
AQUATIC NUISANCE SPECIES IN BALLAST WATER DISCHARGES: Issues and Options 

DRAFT FOR PUBLIC COMMENT – September 10, 2001 

Two: EPA should work to prevent species introductions by: 

• Encouraging public participation and education/outreach (e.g., through the National Estuary 

Programs, Great Waters programs, Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force, National Invasive 

Species Council, Interagency Committee on the Marine Transportation System, and web sites); 

• Working with the U.S. Coast Guard to maximize compliance with its regulations at 33 CFR 151 

by: 

- Providing technical assistance, coordination, and advocacy support to U.S. Coast Guard 

outreach, education, and research projects; and 

- Participating actively on the ANS Task Force, its regional Panels, and its Ballast Water 

Committees. 

• In cooperation with other Federal agencies, engaging the regulated community in a governmentshipper partnership emphasizing the use of Environmental Management Systems (EMS) to address 

all aspects of ship-borne transfers of ANS, by: 

- Formally recognizing the efforts of shipping interests which commit to real, significant 

actions that reduce the risk of ANS transfer; 

- Providing technical assistance, coordination, and where appropriate, financial support to 

shippers’ projects designed to address ANS; and 

- Where appropriate, providing regulatory flexibility for ANS prevention projects using 

EPA’s Project XL program;1 

• Providing encouragement for national consistency and coordination to State and local governments’ 

efforts to control ANS invasion from ballast water; 

• Developing EPA’s Invasive Species Management Plan to identify appropriate EPA-specific 

activities to implement the Invasive Species Council’s National Invasive Species Management 

Plan; 

• Using EPA’s authority to review NEPA documents and other documentation, to promote the 

adequate consideration of the effects of ANS in Federal actions which involve ballast water; and 

• Deferring consideration of the application of National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

(NPDES) permits to ballast water discharges pending these actions. The effectiveness of other 

programs, including the level of compliance with the U.S. Coast Guard’s program under NISA, 

will be a factor in EPA’s future consideration of this issue. 

c. Other Options for Addressing Ballast Water 

The report describes a number of different approaches by which EPA or other agencies might prevent or 

minimize the spread of ballast water ANS. They include: 

• Working with the U.S. Coast Guard, using CWA Section 402(g), to incorporate National Invasive 

Species Act (NISA) requirements into NPDES permits; 

• Using EPA’s authority to review NEPA documents and other documentation, to promote the 

adequate consideration of the effects of ANS in Federal actions which involve ballast water; and 

2
AQUATIC NUISANCE SPECIES IN BALLAST WATER DISCHARGES: Issues and Options 

DRAFT FOR PUBLIC COMMENT – September 10, 2001 

• Invoking EPA’s Emergency Powers authority under CWA §504, to halt the discharge if a situation 

is found where the discharge of ballast water containing exotic species presents an imminent and 

substantial endangerment to public health or public welfare, for example, the ability to market 

shellfish. 

3
AQUATIC NUISANCE SPECIES IN BALLAST WATER DISCHARGES: Issues and Options 

DRAFT FOR PUBLIC COMMENT – September 10, 2001 

2.. BACKGROUND 

a. Petition 

On January 13, 1999, the Pacific Environmental Advocacy Center submitted on behalf of the California 

Assembly, the Chippewa-Ottawa Treaty Fishery Management Authority, and a number of environmental 

advocacy groups, a petition to the Administrator stating that invasive species in ballast water were a major 

cause of environmental degradation in U.S. waters, and requesting that EPA eliminate the exemption under 

40 CFR 122.3(a) for discharges that are incidental to normal operation of a vessel. The petition requested 

that ballast water be regulated under the NPDES program. The petition was closely followed by letter 

from eighteen members of Congress requesting that EPA examine whether the Clean Water Act can be 

used to provide effective regulation of ANS in vessel ballast water. 

In response to the petition, Congress’s inquiry, and the growing national concern about ANS introductions, 

the Assistant Administrator for Water directed Office of Water staff to research and report back what 

mechanisms are available under the Clean Water Act, or other relevant statutes or programs, to effectively 

control the introduction of ANS through ballast water. 

b. Ballast Water ANS 

Ships have been sailing the world’s seas for thousands of years. The suitability of ships as long-term 

homes to a wide variety of creatures led to use of the term “biological island” to describe the ship 

ecosystem.2 The organisms that live aboard or in a ship have the opportunity to depart, or to disperse eggs 

or young, at each port of call, which resulted in extensive dispersal of many of the marine, estuarine, and 

even terrestrial species. Many species we usually consider native are really the result of anthropogenic 

introductions by ships over the last 500 years. 

As the nature of ships and shipping changed, so did the nature of the organisms which lived and moved 

with the ships. Trade routes changed, creating new “donor regions” of potentially invasive species.3 Ships 

traveled faster, so hitchhiking species were more likely to survive the voyage from the donor area to 

receiving waters. Ships’ hulls were coated with antifouling paint to render them less hospitable to 

hitchhiking species, so that although some ANS are still transported on ship hulls, the primary vector for 

ANS transport at this time is probably ballast water. 

As a ship’s cargo is loaded and unloaded, the ship must accommodate changes in its weight and trim by 

taking on or discharging ballast water. For this purpose, ships use dedicated ballast water tanks, empty 

cargo or fuel tanks, or some combination of the three. A modern tanker ship working on the Great Lakes 

can contain as much as 14 million gallons of ballast water,4 most of which would be discharged in port as 

the ship takes on its cargo. Seagoing tankers can carry twice that amount. Other kinds of cargo ships can 

carry from 100,000 to 5,000,000 gallons of ballast water. The total amount of ballast water discharged in 

U.S. waters each year is in excess of 21 billion gallons.5 

It is estimated that more than 10,000 marine species each day hitch rides around the globe in the ballast 

water of cargo ships.6 The volume of water is so enormous, and the transit time that organisms spend in 

ballast water tank is so short, that the number of species successfully invading new habitats via shipping 

pathways is increasing at an increasingly higher rate.7 Table 1 shows a listing of all the species found in 

ballast water in a recent sampling research project.8 

4
AQUATIC NUISANCE SPECIES IN BALLAST WATER DISCHARGES: Issues and Options 

DRAFT FOR PUBLIC COMMENT – September 10, 2001 

from J. T. Carlton and J. B. Geller, “Ecological roulette: the global transport of nonindigenous marine organisms,” Science, 261 78-82 (1993) 

The following figure shows the rate of known successful introductions of nonindigenous species into two 

well-studied areas since the early nineteenth century.9 

5 
AQUATIC NUISANCE SPECIES IN BALLAST WATER DISCHARGES: Issues and Options 

DRAFT FOR PUBLIC COMMENT – September 10, 2001 

Introductions of nonindigenous aquatic plants and animals in (left) the Great 

Lakes and (right) the San Francisco Bay region. 

The threat to the environment and the economy of ANS introduction via ballast water is well established 

(see section 2.d.iv), and there is growing concern of the possibility of direct threats to human health from 

pathogens such as cholera in ballast water that was taken up in foreign ports.10 Methods to manage ballast 

water to reduce these threats are undergoing extensive study in this country11,12 and internationally.13,14 

c. Other Pathways for ANS Introductions 

Aquatic nuisance species are introduced by means other than ships. A recent study of ANS in the Great 

Lakes concluded, as shown in the figure below, that while ships were the most frequent pathway for species 

introductions, they were by no means the only pathway.15 While most studies agree that ballast water 

discharges are the primary source of ANS introductions from vessels, ships can also transport living 

organisms on the hull, in sea chests, in seawater piping systems, on the rudder, entangled in the anchor or in 

the anchor chain, in chain lockers or caught up in fishing nets.16 

6
AQUATIC NUISANCE SPECIES IN BALLAST WATER DISCHARGES: Issues and Options 

DRAFT FOR PUBLIC COMMENT – September 10, 2001 

d. Vessel Traffic Information 

i. Description of Vessels 

In developing its regulations implementing NISA, the U.S. Coast Guard estimated that approximately 

31,000 voyages occur annually from beyond the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ)* into waters of the U.S.17 

This number represents voyages made by U.S.-flagged, international, and recreational vessels. 

U.S.-Flagged vessels. Nearly 40,000 vessels flew U.S. flags as of 1995.18 About three-fourths of these 

were non-self-propelled barges. (Most of these barges do not carry ballast water.) Some of these U.S.-

Flagged vessels travel beyond the U.S. EEZ. 

International vessels. In addition to U.S.-flagged vessels, DOT has estimated that 7520 internationally 

flagged commercial cargo vessels visited U.S. ports in 1997. These vessels made about 78,000 calls at 

* The Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) is an area of the ocean under national jurisdiction beyond the territorial 

seas. In the National Invasive Species Act of 1996 (see section 3.a.ii), the EEZ is defined as “the Exclusive Economic 

Zone of the United States established by Proclamation Number 5030, dated March 10, 1983, and the equivalent zone of 

Canada.” 

7 
AQUATIC NUISANCE SPECIES IN BALLAST WATER DISCHARGES: Issues and Options 

DRAFT FOR PUBLIC COMMENT – September 10, 2001 

U.S. ports in 1997, and passenger vessels made about another 6,000 port calls.19 (Note: During a single 

voyage into the U.S., international vessels may call into multiple ports.) 

Recreational vessels. About 78 million Americans participated in recreational boating in 1997, using 16 

million boats of all types, with the number of recreational users expected to grow by over 65 percent to 

more than 130 million annually in the next 20 years.20 Some of these U.S.-Flagged vessels travel beyond 

the U.S. EEZ. 

ii. Economics of Vessel Commerce 

The following excerpt from a recent Department of Transportation report to Congress provides a picture of 

the significant place in the U.S. economy held by vessel commerce: 

The U.S. Marine Transportation System (MTS) consists of waterways, ports and their intermodal connections, 

vessels, vehicles, and system users. Each component is a complex system within itself and is closely linked with 

the other components. It is primarily an aggregation of State, local, or privately owned facilities and private 

companies. As with the U.S. economy as a whole, decision making and investment are primarily driven by the 

marketplace. In addition, national, State, and local governments participate in the management, financing, and 

operation of the MTS. 

More than 1,000 harbor channels and 25,000 miles of inland, intracoastal, and coastal waterways in the United 

States serve over 300 ports, with more than 3,700 terminals that handle passenger and cargo movements. The 

waterways and ports link to 152,000 miles of rail, 460,000 miles of pipelines, and 45,000 miles of interstate 

highways. Vessels and vehicles transport goods and people through the system. The MTS also contains 

shipyards and repair facilities crucial to maritime activity. 

As the world’s leading maritime and trading nation, the United States relies on an efficient and effective MTS to 

maintain its role as a global power. The MTS provides American businesses with competitive access to suppliers 

and markets in an increasingly global economy. The MTS transports people to work; provides them with 

recreation and vacation opportunities; puts food on their tables; and delivers many of the items they need in their 

professional and personal lives. Within the United States, the MTS provides a cost-effective means for moving 

major bulk commodities, such as grain, coal, and petroleum. It is a key element of State and local government 

economic development and job-creation efforts and the source of profits for private companies. With its vast 

resources and access, the MTS is an essential element in maintaining economic competitiveness and national 

security. 

Annually, the U.S. marine transportation system: 

• Moves more than 2 billion tons of domestic and international freight; 

• Imports 3.3 billion barrels of oil to meet U.S. energy demands; 

• Transports 134 million passengers by ferry; 

• Serves 78 million Americans engaged in recreational boating; 

• Hosts more than 5 million cruise ship passengers; and 

• Supports 110,000 commercial fishing vessels and recreational fishing that contribute $111 billion to State 

economies. 

The MTS provides economic value by affording efficient, effective, and dependable all-weather transportation for 

the movement of people and goods. Waterborne cargo alone contributes more than $742 billion to U.S. gross 

domestic product and creates employment for more than 13 million citizens.21 

iii. Potential Costs of Controlling Ballast Water ANS 

Published estimates of the cost of employing ballast water treatment methods vary depending on the source 

of the estimate, and on the assumptions made, but in general they range from thousands to hundreds of 

thousands of dollars per vessel.22 (Section 2.e.iii details some cost estimates for specific control 

technologies.) If a rough estimated initial cost of $30,000 per vessel is combined with an equally rough 

8
27 

AQUATIC NUISANCE SPECIES IN BALLAST WATER DISCHARGES: Issues and Options 

DRAFT FOR PUBLIC COMMENT – September 10, 2001 

estimate of 17,500 vessels regulated (about 10,000 domestic and about 7520 foreign-flagged vessels), the 

initial cost of regulation may be over $500 million. If a cost analysis shows costs closer to $100,000 or 

more per vessel, or if the number of regulated vessels is much larger than 17,500, the costs could exceed a 

billion dollars. These estimates are in no sense a cost analysis–they are based on reasonable but 

unsupported assumptions about the number of vessels regulated and on inadequately validated cost 

estimates. The estimations are included in this report to demonstrate that the possibility of significant costs 

indicates the need for a thorough cost analysis accompanying any regulatory effort. EPA will explore the 

full range of options, including any lower cost regulatory approaches that can significantly reduce ANS 

introductions. 

iv. Potential Costs of Not Controlling Ballast Water ANS 

Invasive species have caused extensive economic damage to the United States. A recent report estimated 

that over $5 billion per year in economic damage are caused by ANS.23 The same report estimated that the 

costs from non-aquatic invasive species are even greater, due primarily to impacts on U.S. agriculture. 

Those costs are estimated at over $100 billion per year. 

The ecological damage caused by invasive species can also be enormous. Fully half of all threatened or 

endangered species are imperiled by invasive species, making it the second greatest cause of endangered 

species imperilment (second only to habitat loss).24 In the well-studied San Francisco estuary, the 

environmental damage attributable to invasive species includes: reduction or local extinction of native 

species to the extent that some Bay waters now contain virtually no native species; disruption of the aquatic 

food chain by elimination of phytoplankton by highly efficient invasive filter feeders; erosion of shorelines 

by invasive burrowers; and other ecosystem alterations which extend to bird and wildlife populations.25 

Coral reef ecosystems in the Florida Keys, Gulf of Mexico and wider Caribbean have been identified as 

vulnerable to ANS, as a result of heavy ship traffic in the region.26 

Indigenous or domestic species of economic importance can be driven out, resulting in both ecological and 

economic loss. The accidental introduction of the Atlantic Coast comb jelly to the Azov and Black Seas 

shut down the Azov fisheries and nearly eliminated the Black Sea fisheries, at a loss of $250 million per 

year.

e. Ballast Water Management Methods 

A technical challenge facing any effort to set policy regarding ballast water is the fact that there are 

currently no ballast water management methods that are both universally applicable and proven effective at 

preventing ANS introductions. While mid-ocean ballast water exchange has been used and is still being 

used, it presents some safety risks and other limitations which prevent it from being the sole technical 

solution to the problem of ballast water ANS. Indeed, no single technique can fill this role. The 

Department of Transportation noted that “It is not appropriate to single out one alternative as ‘the most’ 

likely or viable–rather, a synthetic approach, choosing a number of alternative simultaneously from a broad 

menu of possibilities will eventually maximize the strength of ballast management.”28 

i. Mid-ocean Exchange 

The most widely accepted method of ballast water management, indeed the only method that can be 

characterized as currently in common practice, is mid-ocean exchange of ballast water, typically at 

distances greater than 200 nautical miles from shore, and in water greater than 500 meters deep. Other 

methods such as ballast water treatment or dockside treatment are used only in special cases, or are 

currently in the research, development, or demonstration stages. The National Invasive Species Act of 

1996 (NISA) (16 USC 4701 et seq.), and the U.S. Coast Guard implementing regulations at 33 CFR 151, 

require ships entering the Great Lakes from beyond the EEZ to conduct ballast water exchange or an 

alternative method determined by the U.S. Coast Guard to be “as effective as ballast water exchange.” 

9
AQUATIC NUISANCE SPECIES IN BALLAST WATER DISCHARGES: Issues and Options 

DRAFT FOR PUBLIC COMMENT – September 10, 2001 

However, as a ballast water control strategy, mid-ocean exchange has been only moderately effective in 

reducing the risk of invasions by nonindigenous species. The success of this management method relies on 

the physical flushing of organisms entrained in exchanged ballast water with mid-ocean organisms (which 

presumably are less suited to establishing populations in coastal environments), and with the immersion of 

any organisms not flushed out during the exchange to saline ocean water (which is presumably less 

hospitable to most organisms that could establish and flourish in the freshwater Great Lakes). Yet, this 

method is not completely successful, as demonstrated by the establishment of the tubenose and round 

gobies, and more recently the water flea Cercopagis pengoi, in the Great Lakes during the period where 

mid-ocean ballast water exchange was mandatory.29,30 Various studies of ballast water tanks in actual field 

conditions have found that a 95 percent exchange of the original water resulted in flushing of only 25 to 90 

percent of the organisms studied. 

Where ballast water is taken up and discharged in saltwater ports, it can be expected that mid-ocean ballast 

water exchange will be even less successful, because the success of the method will depend on the 

efficiency of flushing of organisms, and the effect of changes in salinity in the ballast tank will be much less 

significant. Drawbacks to the mid-ocean exchange method of ballast water management include: 

• Many ships are not structurally designed to safely allow ballast water exchange at sea; 

• Exchange is sometimes impossible in rough weather due to safety concerns; 

• Some organisms can survive under a very wide range of salinity conditions; 

• Some ports have salinities very similar to mid-ocean salinities; 

• Despite flushing of the ballast tanks with open ocean water, “pockets” of unexchanged water (and 

entrained organisms) may still remain in nooks and crannies of the ballast tanks; 

• Ballast water tanks often contain a layer of sediment, in which organisms can escape being flushed 

out in a ballast water exchange, to reinocculate the exchanged ballast water; 

• The method is unusable by the many ships that travel coastal or inland waterways and never reach 

the high seas; and 

• If mid-ocean exchange does not lead to significant shifts in salinity of ballast water, verification 

that exchange occurred can be problematic.31 

ii. Special-Case Ballast Water Management Methods 

In addition to mid-ocean exchange, other ballast water management methods have been employed on a 

limited basis. 

(1) Shore reception facilities 

Tankers which pick up oil from the Alaska pipeline and deliver it to ports along the west coast typically do 

not travel routes that take them across mid-ocean, so they cannot engage in mid-ocean ballast water 

exchange. They normally travel north to Alaska with their cargo tanks full of ballast water, which they 

discharge to take on their cargo of oil. Tankers picking up crude oil at the Valdez Marine Terminal in 

Alaska discharge their ballast water to the Alyeska Ballast Water Treatment Facility, which was 

specifically built to accommodate this water. The entire treatment facility cost $1.4 billion to build and 

covers 1,000 acres of land space. The ballast water treatment facility processes about 16 million gallons of 

ballast water daily. Although the purpose of the facility is to prevent any oil contaminating the ballast 

water from entering Prince William Sound, it may be that the shoreside treatment has the effect of 

10
AQUATIC NUISANCE SPECIES IN BALLAST WATER DISCHARGES: Issues and Options 

DRAFT FOR PUBLIC COMMENT – September 10, 2001 

removing some hitchhiking organisms as well.32,33 

A similar situation takes place at some Canadian ports. A survey of Canadian reception facilities for 

marine wastes in the Great Lakes system listed nine facilities that have the capacity to receive ballast water. 

In all instances, the fixed reception facilities are petrochemical industries that maintain docking for the 

transport of their products. The facilities currently handle ballast water from vessels trading with that 

industry.34 

It has been suggested that the risk of species invasion may be reduced by greatly expanding this practice of 

discharging ballast water to shore-based treatment facilities. This approach presents some significant 

technical and logistical challenges, including the large volume of water this practice would introduce to the 

treatment facility, the risk of poisoning the treatment facility treatment system with saline water, and the 

need to develop an extensive infrastructure on ships and at port terminals to direct the ballast water to the 

treatment facility. The feasibility of shore-based ballast water treatment options has been discussed in 

reviews of ballast water management technologies,35,36 and is the subject of ongoing studies funded by the 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Seagrant program and EPA’s Green Ports 

program. 

(2) Chlorine treatment on some passenger vessels 

Some passenger vessels are equipped with systems that generate chlorine in-situ and introduce it into the 

sea chest, from which engine cooling water is drawn. The purpose of the system is to reduce or eliminate 

fouling organisms in the seawater used for cooling. On some vessels, ballast water is drawn from this same 

seachest, and there is some indication that the chlorine treatment has the serendipitous effect of minimizing 

living organisms in the ballast tank as well. Congress afforded this ballast water treatment technology the 

presumption of effectiveness when they exempted from ballast water exchange requirements in NISA, any 

“passenger vessel equipped with a functioning treatment system designed to kill aquatic organisms in the 

ballast water,” unless it was determined that the system was not as effective as ballast water exchange.37 

However, one potentially significant adverse environmental impact from this treatment technology is the 

discharge of large amounts of chlorine. 

Treatment of ballast water with chlorine for the specific purpose of controlling ANS is one of the 

developing technologies discussed in section 2.e.iii. 

iii. Alternative Methods in Research, Development or Demonstration Stages38,39 

Research and development projects funded by the U.S. Coast Guard, National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, EPA and other Federal, State and non-governmental 

organizations are studying other methods of reducing the risk of species invasion in ballast water. EPAfunded projects on treatment technology research and development include: 

• Support from EPA’s Great Lakes National Program Office (GLNPO) to the Northeast/Midwest 

Institute for development and demonstration of UV light as an effective secondary treatment tool to 

be used with filtration to remove the smallest microorganisms as part of the Institute’s work on the 

Great Lakes Ballast Technology Demonstration Project (see section 3.a.ii.(4)); 

• Cooperation between GLNPO and NOAA’s Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory on a 

project examining the risk of invasions associated with so-called “no ballast on board” (NOBOB) 

vessels, and to guide the development of treatments to better manage NOBOB vessels; 

• Small Business Innovative Research grant funding in 2001 for two proposals to develop ballast 

water treatment technologies;40 

11
AQUATIC NUISANCE SPECIES IN BALLAST WATER DISCHARGES: Issues and Options 

DRAFT FOR PUBLIC COMMENT – September 10, 2001 

• A Green Ports program grant to the California Association of Port Authorities to study the 

feasibility of shore-based ballast water treatment methods;41 and 

• A Memorandum of Agreement between EPA Office of Research and Development’s 

Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) program and the U.S. Coast Guard, to jointly verify 

the performance of private sector, commercially available ballast water control technologies.42 

A 1996 National Research Council report suggested that the ballast water management methods with the 

most promise were based on filtration, biocides, and thermal treatment.43 A 1992 Canadian report found 

the most promising methods to be filtration, UV treatment, and discharge to a shore facility.44 

The most advanced of these studies deal with installation and operation of a pilot treatment system on a 

ship. Systems which use waste heat from ship engines to treat ballast water have also been studied on 

board ships. Australian research on the bulk carrier Iron Whyalla demonstrated a kill rate of organisms 

comparable to the removal rate of ballast water exchange.45,46 Similar results were observed on trials on the 

ore carrier Onde Maru.47 

Filtration of ballast water has been the subject of several shipboard studies. Actual ballast water was 

filtered on board the Great Lakes carrier Algol North with a pilot filtration system. The study estimated 

the cost to implement a fully operational onboard backwash filtration system capable of filtering 4000 

cubic meters of ballast water (about 18,000 gallons) an hour at about a million dollars per ship.48,49 

Removal of most aquatic organisms was shown to be effective, and practical problems with the system 

seem surmountable. Extremely small organisms were not removed, as expected. The possibility that no 

single treatment technology could remove or inactivate all types of organisms in ballast water has lead to 

predictions in several studies that an effective treatment system would involve a physical separation step 

supplemented with a second technology targeted towards the organisms missed by the first.50,51 

In May 2000, a prototype ballast water treatment system which combines a cyclonic separation unit with 

treatment by UV light, was installed on the cruise ship Regal Princess.

52 Test results are expected to be 

published shortly, but were encouraging enough that Princess Cruise Lines has contracted to install units, 

with design improvements indicated by prototype results, on two more of its ships which call on California 

ports.53 

In May 2001, a pilot project was initiated on the U.S. Maritime Administration cargo vessel Cape May 

which will test a ballast water filtration unit, followed by secondary treatment of ballast water by either UV 

light or a peroxyacid-based biocide. Test results are expected in the summer or fall of 2001.54 

A recent report commissioned by the Port of Oakland included a table attributed to the Pacific Merchant 

Shipping Association, which estimated the costs of installation and use of some ballast water treatment 

options, once the technology to implement the option is complete.55 The report estimated that a shipboard 

filtration system would cost about $200,000 to install, and $250,000 annually to operate. The following 

table is reproduced from that report. Estimated costs are in line with a rough order of magnitude estimate 

of “$1000s to $100,000s per vessel” in the 1992 DOT shipping study mandated by the Nonindigenous 

Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of 1990.56 

In response to its charge to determine the best way to stop introductions of ballast water ANS in twelve 

months, Michigan’s Ballast Water Technical Work Group (discussed in section 3.c.i.(1)) has been studying 

treatment technologies that are currently available, that may be quickly applied to ballast water. The Work 

Group concluded that the only currently available methods of improving the control of ballast water ANS 

were improved management practices and treatment of ballast water with biocides. 

The Work Group recognized the additional complications involved with using chemical biocides for ANS 

control, over nonchemical ANS management methods. These complications include the need to consider 

12
AQUATIC NUISANCE SPECIES IN BALLAST WATER DISCHARGES: Issues and Options 

DRAFT FOR PUBLIC COMMENT – September 10, 2001 

safety issues associated with the chemicals’ use, the environmental effect that discharge of residual biocide 

or biocide byproducts may cause on receiving waters, and the possibility of corrosion or other damage to 

the ballast water tank from the use of the biocide. The Work Group designed a shipboard testing program 

of the three currently available biocides they found most promising: glutaraldehyde, hypochlorite, and 

copper ion.57 The testing is planned for the summer 2001 shipping season, and results are expected to be 

reported to the Council of Great Lakes Governors Task Force (discussed in section 3.c.i.(1)) the following 

shipping season. 

13
AQUATIC NUISANCE SPECIES IN BALLAST WATER DISCHARGES: Issues and Options 

DRAFT FOR PUBLIC COMMENT – September 10, 2001 

Estimated Costs to Vessel operators for Ballast Water Invasive Species Control58 

The following table presents the stage of development of some ballast water treatment technologies.59,60,61 

No technology is undergoing large-scale implementation yet as an alternative to ballast water exchange. 

14
AQUATIC NUISANCE SPECIES IN BALLAST WATER DISCHARGES: Issues and Options 

DRAFT FOR PUBLIC COMMENT – September 10, 2001 

PROJECT TECHNOLOGY LEVEL 

Ballast exchange–ship efficacy studies Pilot (shipboard) 

Ballast exchange–ship design studies Requirements for effective exchange 

Chlorination Equipment testing 

Electrical discharge + filter Concept study 

Filtration + UV or biocide Pilot (shipboard) 

Filtration + disinfection Pilot (dockside) 

Filtration Pilot (shipboard) 

Glutyraldehyde Concept study 

Heat Pilot (shipboard) 

Hydrocyclone + UV Pilot (dockside) 

Hydrogen Peroxide Concept study 

Magnetic, acoustic Concept study 

Vacuum deaeration Pilot (dockside) 

Oxygen deprivation chemicals Concept screen 

Ozone Concept study 

Risk assessment/ decision support In practice (limited cases); theoretical 

development & empirical testing 

Shore-side reception and treatment In practice (limited cases); concept study 

Tank coatings Concept screen 

Ultrasound Concept study 

Uptake of ‘organism-free’ water Concept study 

UV, ozone, bromine Laboratory study 

Various biocides + heat Laboratory study 

15
AQUATIC NUISANCE SPECIES IN BALLAST WATER DISCHARGES: Issues and Options 

DRAFT FOR PUBLIC COMMENT – September 10, 2001 

3.. CURRENT ACTIONS TO ADDRESS ANS 

a. Federal Actions 

i. Executive Order 13112 

On February 3, 1999, President Clinton signed an Executive Order which instructed Federal agencies to: 

• Identify their actions which may affect the status of invasive species; 

• Use existing programs and authorities to prevent the introduction of invasive species; and 

• Refrain from carrying out actions which promote the introduction or spread of invasive species. 

The order also established an Invasive Species Council, co-chaired by the Secretaries of Interior, 

Agriculture and Commerce, with membership including the Administrator of EPA and Secretaries of 

Defense and Transportation. The Council is charged with: 

• overseeing the implementation of the order by Federal agencies; 

• developing guidance for Federal agencies and making recommendations for international 

cooperation; and 

• preparing, within 18 months, a national Invasive Species Management Plan. 

The Invasive Species Management Plan was finalized on January 18, 2001. While dealing with all aspects 

of terrestrial and aquatic invasive species prevention and control, it included a discussion of ballast water. 

The Plan contained a national action plan, in which the following specific actions for the prevention of 

unintentional introductions were included: 

16. Federal agencies will take the following steps to interdict pathways that are recognized as

significant sources for the unintentional introduction of invasive species:

a. By July 2001, NOAA, the Coast Guard, Interior, and EPA will sponsor research to

develop new technologies for ballast water management, because the current method of

ballast water management--ballast water exchange--is recognized as only an interim

measure to address non-native species introductions.

b. By January 2002, the U.S. Coast Guard will issue standards for approval of ballast

water management technologies, because actual deployment of new ballast water

technologies on ships is contingent on a standard by which to judge their efficacy.62

The Plan is available online at “http://www.invasivesspecies.gov”. Section 2.e.iii discusses some of the 

Federally sponsored research into ballast water technologies. 

ii. National Invasive Species Act of 1996 (NISA)63 

In 1996, Congress reauthorized and expanded the Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control 

Act of 1990 (NANPCA). The new legislation, titled the National Invasive Species Act of 1996 (PL 

104-332) (NISA), established a national ballast management program targeted at all U.S. coastal regions, 

continues the mandatory Great Lakes ballast water management requirements, and expanded invasive 

species management programs within the Department of Interior and NOAA. The legislation also called 

for mandatory detailed ballast exchange reporting by all vessels, and authorized a Ballast Technology 

Demonstration Program, bringing more resources to the search for technological and management practice 

tools to replace ballast exchange.64 

16
AQUATIC NUISANCE SPECIES IN BALLAST WATER DISCHARGES: Issues and Options 

DRAFT FOR PUBLIC COMMENT – September 10, 2001 

NANPCA and NISA are included in Appendix B. 

(1) NISA’s Ballast Water Regulations (33 CFR 151) 

NISA authorized the U.S. Coast Guard to establish regulations and guidelines to control the invasion of 

aquatic nuisance species in ballast water. The U.S. Coast Guard’s interim final rule was issued on May 

17, 1999. The rule provides for: 

• Mandatory ballast water exchange (or use of an equally effective technology) for ships entering the 

Great Lakes from beyond U.S. waters; 

• Mandatory ballast water reporting and sampling procedures for most vessels; and 

• Voluntary ballast water management guidelines for most vessels, to ensure to the maximum extent 

practicable that ANS are not discharged into waters of the United States. 

At the direction of NISA, the U.S. Coast Guard regulation exempts two classes of vessels from parts of its 

requirements: oil tankers engaged in coastwise trade, and certain passenger vessels possessing ballast water 

treatment systems.65 

NISA gave the U.S. Coast Guard the responsibility to decide whether any proposed ballast water treatment 

technology is as effective as ballast water exchange in preventing ANS. The U.S. Coast Guard recently 

published a Federal Register notice asking for comments on a proposed outline for approval of alternative 

ballast water technologies. The notice also asked for comments on how the U.S. Coast Guard could best 

provide incentives for developing new ballast water technologies.66 

NISA also required the Secretary of Transportation to report to Congress in this year on the effectiveness of 

voluntary ballast water exchange management guidelines, and to amend the regulations and guidelines if 

they are not effective.67 If the reason they are not effective is inadequate compliance, or if the level of 

reporting is inadequate to assess the level of compliance, NISA provided the U.S. Coast Guard the authority 

to make the voluntary guidelines mandatory.68 

NISA gave the U.S. Coast Guard broad authority to establish procedures that “all vessels equipped with 

ballast water tanks that operate in waters of the United States”69 should follow to prevent ANS introductions 

in ballast water, and the authority to make the procedures mandatory and enforceable, with civil and 

criminal penalties for noncompliance ($25,000 per violation per day civil penalties are set; knowing 

violation is a Class C felony).70 Despite this broad grant of authority, NISA did limit U.S. Coast Guard 

action. Except for vessels entering the Great Lakes from beyond the U.S. EEZ, NISA does not authorize the 

Coast Guard to make its ballast water management guidelines mandatory until it has reported to Congress 

on the effectiveness of its program. 

The U.S. Coast Guard has long had a program in place to disseminate information on ANS, and on methods 

to reduce or prevent their spread in ballast water, and to encourage compliance with the previous ballast 

water management requirements and guidelines under 33 CFR 151. With the modification of 33 CFR 151 

to implement NISA, the U.S. Coast Guard is adapting its program to the new regulations. 

The Commandant of the U.S. Coast Guard recently affirmed the Coast Guard’s commitment to control of 

ballast water ANS by writing that “establishing a regime that effectively and efficiently addresses the 

introduction and transfers of potentially harmful aquatic organisms via ballast water is my highest marine 

environmental protection priority.”71 

(2) National Ballast Water Clearinghouse 

17 
AQUATIC NUISANCE SPECIES IN BALLAST WATER DISCHARGES: Issues and Options 

DRAFT FOR PUBLIC COMMENT – September 10, 2001 

The U.S. Coast Guard was directed by NISA to develop a National Ballast Water Information 

Clearinghouse in conjunction with the Smithsonian Environmental Research Center 

(SERC). This national database, located at SERC, plays a central role in the management and analysis of 

data on the transfer and invasion of nonindigenous species associated with ballast water, including 

compilation of the ballast water management reporting forms required of ships by 33 CFR 151. 

The first annual report of the Clearinghouse included a description of the Clearinghouse’s function of 

collecting data on national ballast water management practices, in the form a “National Ballast Survey”: 

A key element of NISA involves tracking the effectiveness of voluntary guidelines, as

measured by (a) the level of compliance with voluntary guidelines, (b) changes in the rate

and patterns of ballast water delivery, and (c) reduction in the rate of ballast-mediated

invasions. The Clearinghouse was created to provide these analyses on a national scale.

The Clearinghouse and the USCG have implemented a nationwide program, the National

Ballast Survey (NABS), to measure ballast water management and delivery patterns for

commercial vessels that arrive to U.S. ports from outside the nation’s EEZ.

The NABS was designed explicitly to create a national database on ballast water to be

used to measure: (1) Rates of compliance with the ballast water reporting requirement;

(2) Rates of compliance with the voluntary management guidelines for holding or

exchanging ballast water; (3) Patterns of ballast water delivery and management

(including exchange) according to vessel class for geographic region and season of

arrival; (4) Among-year changes in ballast water management by vessel class and

geographic region; and (5) Accuracy of data through use of multiple, independent data

sources.

The NABS currently relies on three primary sources of data. These include: 

1. Ballast water information reported directly to the Clearinghouse by arriving vessels; 

2. Foreign waterborne Transportation statistics collected by the U.S. Customs Service

and the U.S. Army Corps. of Engineers. These data on vessel arrivals to U.S. ports

are compiled by the Department of Transportation’s Maritime Administration

(MARAD);

3. Verification surveys of vessels, arriving from outside the EEZ, that are conducted

nationwide by the USCG.72

The report found a low level of compliance with mandatory reporting of ballast water management 

practices: Only 20.8% of arrivals subject to the reporting requirement submitted reports in the first 12 

months of the regulatory program. 

With such a low reporting rate, it was difficult to estimate the overall level of compliance with ballast water 

management guidelines. The report found that, of all ships that submitted reports: 

• 70.7% indicated no intention to discharge ballast water within U.S. territory; 

• 14.1% declared no exchange of ballast water prior to discharge; 

• 8.9% declared partial exchange of ballast water prior to discharge; and 

• 6.3% declared complete exchange of ballast water prior to discharge. 

The report concluded, “Vast improvements in both reporting compliance by ships and implementation of the 

U.S. Coast Guard Verification Surveys are required to characterize compliance with the voluntary

guidelines as requested under NISA. Without improved reporting, we cannot estimate nationwide 

compliance from submitted information and must rely on U.S. Coast Guard Verification Surveys, which 

remain inadequate for this purpose.”73 As discussed in section 3.a.ii.(1), NISA provided the U.S. Coast 

18
AQUATIC NUISANCE SPECIES IN BALLAST WATER DISCHARGES: Issues and Options 

DRAFT FOR PUBLIC COMMENT – September 10, 2001 

Guard the authority to make voluntary requirements mandatory if the level of reporting was inadequate to 

allow compliance to be assessed. 

(3) Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force (ANSTF) 

Established under NISA, the ANSTF is an interagency group responsible for coordinating governmental 

efforts related to ANS in the United States with those of the private sector and other North American 

interests.74 The ANSTF is chartered under the Federal Advisory Committee Act.75 Recently the ANSTF 

drafted a resolution which committed the body to “eliminate, as soon as possible, ships’ ballast water as a 

significant pathway for the introduction of invasive species into American waters.”76 

The role of the ANSTF in approving State ANS Management Plans is discussed in section 3.c.i. 

EPA has been represented on the ANSTF since its inception. EPA also has representatives on the Ballast 

Water and Shipping Committee of the ANSTF, which works closely with the U.S. Coast Guard to help 

identify alternative ballast water management technologies and gauge their effectiveness. EPA is also a 

member of the Ballast Water Program Effectiveness and Adequacy Criteria Committee, which provides to 

the ANSTF, to be forwarded to the U.S. Coast Guard, recommended criteria for assessing whether the 

requirements and guidelines implemented by the U.S. Coast Guard program are effective at reducing the risk 

of species invasion. 

(4) Ballast Technology Demonstration Program 

Section 1104 of NISA instructed the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Commerce, with the 

concurrence of, and in cooperation with, the Secretary of Transportation, to undertake a demonstration of 

technologies and practices which may prevent introduction and spread of nonindigenous species through 

ballast discharge. The demonstration program was authorized at $2.5 million over 3 years. NISA directed 

that technologies and practices identified as promising in the 1996 National Research Council study 

(discussed in section 2.e.iii) be given priority.77 

(5) Environmental Protection Agency’s Role under NISA 

The primary agents of the Executive Branch charged with implementing NISA were the U.S. Coast Guard, 

the Secretary of the Department in which the Coast Guard is operating (the Secretary of Transportation, in 

peacetime), and the Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force. EPA also has some explicit responsibilities 

under NISA. They include: 

• Participating on the Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force,78 and 

• Providing, in cooperation with the National Science Foundation and the Task Force, competitive 

research grants for projects that identify environmentally sound methods for controlling the 

dispersal of aquatic nuisance species.79 

iii. Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships (APPS)80 

This statute is the U.S. implementation of several Annexes to the MARPOL (also known as “the 

International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973, as modified by the Protocol of 

1978" or “MARPOL 73/78"). Regulations implementing APPS are promulgated and enforced by the U.S. 

Coast Guard. APPS applies to all U.S. flag ships anywhere in the world, and to all foreign flag vessels 

operating in the navigable waters of the United States or while at a port or terminal under the jurisdiction of 

the United States. APPS’s regulations limit discharges of substances covered by MARPOL, establish report 

requirements for discharges, and establish specific requirements for monitoring equipment and recordkeeping aboard vessels. Ballast water is currently not covered by MARPOL (unless it is contaminated with 

19
AQUATIC NUISANCE SPECIES IN BALLAST WATER DISCHARGES: Issues and Options 

DRAFT FOR PUBLIC COMMENT – September 10, 2001 

oil or other substances covered by MARPOL), or by APPS. 

iv. Current Activities Under the Clean Water Act (CWA)81 

(1) Section 303 

Section 303(c) of the Clean Water Act requires States to consider the use and value of State waters for 

public water supplies, propagation of fish and wildlife, recreational purposes, and agricultural, industrial 

and other purpose, when adopting or revising water quality standards.82 Under §303(d), States must list 

waters “for which the effluent limitations ... are not stringent enough to implement any water quality 

standard applicable to such waters.”83 and list the sources of impairment of those waters. State waters 

extend three miles. In the current State list, 26 water bodies in five States (California, Iowa, North Dakota, 

Idaho, Oklahoma) are listed as impaired from “exotic species,” “exotic plant species,” “exotic vegetation,” 

or specific nonindigenous plants such as Eurasian Watermilfoil. Over 800 waters are listed as impaired 

from “noxious aquatic plants.” Whether these noxious plants are alien or native was not specified. 

The California State Water Resources Control Board and the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality 

Control Board have listed waters of San Francisco Bay as impaired by exotic species as a high priority for 

TMDL development. 

EPA has not previously issued any national regulation or guidance of general applicability that would 

require an NPDES permit for discharges associated with ballast water. Furthermore, EPA has not made 

any determination under 33 USC 1342(a)(2) about the suitability of TMDLs for exotic species in ballast 

water.84 However, in its response to the Water Quality Control board, EPA stated its strong support for the 

State’s emphasis on protecting the Bay ecosystem from the effects of exotic species, including its 

development of TMDLs for exotic species.85 

(2) Section 311 

Section 311 of the Clean Water Act prohibits the discharge of oil or hazardous substances, in such 

quantities as may be harmful, into or upon: U.S. navigable waters, adjoining shorelines, waters of the 

contiguous zone, and in certain other waters in connection with activities that may affect natural resources. 

The discharge of ballast water into these waters is prohibited if it contains a harmful quantity of oil or a 

CWA section 311 hazardous substance. Oil discharges are generally considered to be harmful if they 

violate a water quality standard or cause a film, sheen, discoloration, sludge or emulsion. However, the 

discharge of oil is not considered harmful in some circumstances, such as when it is permitted under 

MARPOL 73/78, Annex I, as provided in 33 CFR 151, Subpart A. 

(3) Section 312 

EPA and the Department of Defense recently promulgated regulations under CWA 312(n) which identify 

ballast water and other discharges specifically from Armed Forces vessels as subject to enforceable 

discharge standards.86 Note that the CWA definition of “pollutant” was amended in 1996 to exclude Armed 

Forces vessel discharges covered under Section 312(n).87 This means that rather than being subject to 

NPDES permit requirements, the 312(n) standards are directly applicable to Armed Forces vessels. 

v. Other Federal Laws 

Appendix B discusses other laws with possible application to ballast water, including the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the Endangered Species Act (ESA). 

20
AQUATIC NUISANCE SPECIES IN BALLAST WATER DISCHARGES: Issues and Options 

DRAFT FOR PUBLIC COMMENT – September 10, 2001 

b. International Actions 

i. Foreign Laws 

Several countries that have had particular problems with ballast water ANS have taken action to minimize 

or prevent the introduction of other species in the future. The following table briefly summarizes several 

other countries’ programs to control ballast waters discharges.88 

Country Ballast Water Rules 

Australia As of July 2001, Australia requires mandatory ballast water management 

arrangements for all international vessels arriving in Australian ports or 

waters. The arrangements incorporate a decision support system which 

provides vessels with a risk assessment of the ballast water for 

introductions of ANS, establishes a ballast water reporting system, and 

verification inspections.89 

Bonaire Prohibits dumping of ballast water in its coastal waters90 

Canada The Canada Shipping Act was revised on Oct 31, 1998 to authorize regulations 

respecting the control and management of ballast water. These regulations have 

not yet been written.91 

Israel All ships destined for Israeli ports must exchange any ballast water in open seas, 

beyond any continental shelf or fresh water current effect. Ships visiting Eilat 

must exchange outside the Red Sea and ships visiting the Mediterranean ports 

must exchange in the Atlantic. 

Chile Mandatory requirements on ballast water were introduced in 1995. Any ship 

coming from zones affected by cholera or similar contagious epidemic should 

renew ballast water at least 12 nautical miles from coast. Where no proof of 

ballast water exchange is available, chemicals (powdered sodium hypochlorite or 

powdered calcium hypochlorite) must be added to ballast water prior to 

deballasting in port. 

Panama Canal Discharges of any kind are prohibited in the Panama Canal. 

Argentina Since the early 1990s, Buenos Aires port authorities require chlorination of 

ballast water for ships calling at the port. Chlorine is added to ballast water via 

the ventilation tubes of ballast tanks. 

New Zealand Voluntary guidelines have been in place since 1992. Vessels should provide (1) 

evidence of origin of ballast water, and certification that it is free from toxic 

dinoflagellates, (2) evidence of ballast water exchange at sea, or (3) evidence that 

ballast water has been disinfected. 

ii. International Agreements 

(1) International Maritime Organization (IMO) 

In 1997, the IMO adopted voluntary ballast water management guidelines to minimize the transfer of 

harmful aquatic organisms and pathogens. Members of the Ballast Water Working Group of the Marine 

21 
AQUATIC NUISANCE SPECIES IN BALLAST WATER DISCHARGES: Issues and Options 

DRAFT FOR PUBLIC COMMENT – September 10, 2001 

Environmental Protection Committee (MEPC) of the IMO are now attempting to draft an international 

agreement that would make mandatory the management of ballast water discharges. EPA actively 

participates as a member of the U.S. delegation in the preparations for, and the negotiations during, the 

meetings of the Ballast Water Working Group of the Marine Environmental Protection Committee of the 

IMO. In April 2001 the MEPC considered a draft text of an international ballast water instrument drafted 

by the United States. The U.S. draft was accepted by the MEPC as the base document for further 

development of the treaty. In addition, over the next year, the U.S. is coordinating an international 

correspondence group to help develop an effective international standard. The U.S. has taken on this role to 

chair an intercessional standards drafting group, because the U.S. believes that development of an effective 

international standard is necessary for, and should be the basis of, this agreement. The United States will 

need to address to what extent, if any, the international agreement would limit what it and individual States 

can do to regulate ballast water discharges in their jurisdictions. U.S. domestic implementation of this 

instrument is expected to be accomplished through existing domestic legislation. 

(2) International Joint Commission (IJC) 

The 1909 Boundary Waters Treaty established the IJC to assist the governments of the United States and 

Canada in finding solutions to problems in the rivers and lakes that lie along, or flow across, their common 

border. The problem of ANS has been recognized by the IJC since at least 1988, when they called upon the 

Canadian and United States to respond to the discovery of the ruffe and the zebra mussel in the Great 

Lakes.92 

In May 2000, the Water Quality Board of the IJC released a report which singled out ballast water 

discharges as the most important source for ANS entering the Great Lakes basin. The report recommends 

the following to the Canadian and United States governments: 

• Development of binational ballast water discharge standards, to be enforced on all ships in the Great 

Lakes basin; 

• Investment in resources directed to ballast water treatment technology development; 

• Adoption of short-term emergency ballast water treatment measures, such as use of chemical 

biocides, until long-term treatment technologies are developed; 

• Implementation of a program to publicly recognize the efforts of shippers entering the Great Lakes 

basin that engage in best management practices for ballast tank sediment control; 

• Encouragement of vessel design modifications as appropriate for existing and new vessels, as a 

means of facilitating ballast water exchange on the open seas, and the effectiveness of other 

measures being considered; and 

• Development and implementation of effective contingency plans for responding to (i) the accidental 

discharge of untreated ballast water resulting from a collision or grounding of a vessel in the Great 

Lakes basin; (ii) the initial discovery of a new ANS in the Great Lakes basin ecosystem; and (iii) the 

discovery of an ANS in a region previously thought to be free of such organisms.93 

(3) Other Treaties and Agreements 94 

• The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) in which Article XX(b) acknowledged the 

need for parties to protect themselves from harmful ANS. This article legitimized trade restraints, 

such as quarantine regulations, that are necessary to protect the life or health of humans, animals, or 

plants. 

22
AQUATIC NUISANCE SPECIES IN BALLAST WATER DISCHARGES: Issues and Options 

DRAFT FOR PUBLIC COMMENT – September 10, 2001 

• The International Plant Protection Convention (1972), covered agricultural pests. 

• The International Convention on Biological Diversity (signed in 1993, but not yet ratified by the 

U.S. Senate) contains a provision to control, eradicate, or prevent the introduction of those alien

species that threaten ecosystems, habitats, or species. 

• The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) is the sole multinational 

convention with provisions specific to marine introductions. (In 1994, UNCLOS came into force 

provisionally; the U.S. has signed, but not ratified, this agreement.) In particular, Article 196, 

paragraph 1 states: 

“States shall take all measures necessary to prevent, reduce and control pollution of the 

marine environment resulting from the use of technologies under their jurisdiction or 

control, or the intentional or accidental introduction of species, alien or new, to a particular 

part of the marine environment, which may cause significant and harmful changes thereto.” 

(Emphasis added) 

• The United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED 1992) (a.k.a. “Agenda 

21”) is entitled “Protection of the Oceans, All Kinds of Seas, Including Enclosed and Semi–enclosed 

Seas, and Coastal Areas and The Protection, Rational Use and Development of Their Living 

Resources.” Section 17.30(a)(vi) of this agreement considers “the adoption of appropriate rules on 

ballast water discharge to prevent the spread of non-indigenous organisms.” 

• Section 11.64 of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna & 

Flora (CITES) primarily addresses trade in alien species; however, it recognizes the threat alien 

species pose to biodiversity, and the need for a synergistic association between this agreement and 

the International Convention on Biological Diversity. 

c. State And Regional Programs 

i. State ANS Management Plans 

NISA directed States to develop ANS Management Plans. NISA provides the opportunity for Federal 

cost–share support for a Plan’s implementation once it is approved by the ANS Task Force. NISA requires 

that each Plan: 

• Identify and describe State and local programs to prevent and control ANS; 

• Identify Federal activities that may be needed to prevent and control ANS, and describe the manner 

in which those activities should be coordinated with State and local government activities; 

• Identify any authority that the State does not have at the time of the development of the plan that 

may be necessary for the State to protect public health, property, and the environment from harm by 

ANS; and 

• Have a schedule of implementing the plan, including a schedule of annual objectives, and enabling 

legislation.95 

The following States and regions have approved ANS Management Plans: • Iowa • Ohio 

• Illinois • Washington 

• Michigan • St. Croix National Scenic Riverway (MN/WI) 

• New York • Lake Champlain Basin (VT/NY). 

23 
AQUATIC NUISANCE SPECIES IN BALLAST WATER DISCHARGES: Issues and Options 

DRAFT FOR PUBLIC COMMENT – September 10, 2001 

States and regions in various stages of preparing ANS Management Plans include: 

• Alaska • Missouri 

• California • Oregon • Florida • South Carolina, 

• Hawaii • Wisconsin, 

• Massachusetts • Chesapeake Bay (MD/VA/PA/WV/NY) 

• Minnesota • Colorado River Basin (AZ/CO/NM/WY/NV). 

The Plans of a few active States are discussed briefly below. 

(1) Michigan 

Michigan was one of the first States to complete an ANS Management Plan. Michigan’s Plan calls for 

information and education, impact assessment, monitoring, research, regulation and policy development. 

The Plan details these objectives and specifies activities for achieving them. The Plan also provides the 

framework for a long-term commitment by the State to combat ANS. The Plan does not advocate the 

development or adoption of specific new laws or regulations, nor does it specify modifications to existing 

controls. 

Although essentially a plan for State action, Michigan’s Plan recognizes the importance of a global 

approach to ballast water control: 

Long-term strategies for effectively eliminating the risk of intercontinental transfers of harmful organisms by 

shipping will require a coordinated regional approach, possibly a global one. Examination of ships and their 

discharges, new and continued research and development, and implementation of existing and anticipated 

measures will necessitate coordination worldwide if programs are to be as effective as they could be at preventing 

introductions of harmful organisms.96 

The plan also notes the value of cooperation with shippers, and of a balanced approach employing both 

regulatory and voluntary elements: 

Similarly the cooperation of shippers and ships' crews should be actively recruited wherever possible in order to 

maximize the effectiveness of preventive programs. Keys to shipping industry cooperation are an understanding of 

the problem, reasonable-cost preventive procedures, and positive feedback to cooperators. Preventive programs 

should be as effective and environmentally safe as possible. Although regulations may or may not be necessary or 

desirable in the short term or in certain circumstances, resource managers should seek legislative authority which 

would permit rapid action as necessary. Comprehensive regulations will almost certainly be needed eventually in 

order to implement long-term solutions and to help ensure responses that are consistent with the magnitude of the 

problem. 

An excellent example of cooperative efforts was the adoption of voluntary ballast water management guidelines by 

the maritime industry to control the range expansion of the ruffe from Duluth Harbor, Minnesota. Support of the 

guidelines came from the Lake Carriers' Association, U.S. Great Lakes Shipping Association, Seaway Port 

Authority of Duluth, Thunder Bay Harbor Commission, Canadian Shipowners Association, and the Shipping 

Federation of Canada. The guidelines demonstrate that owners and operators of vessels in the domestic and 

international trade on the Great Lakes recognize their role in assisting the governments of United States and 

Canada in controlling the introduction and spread of nonindigenous species.97 

As part of Michigan’s plan implementation, the Governor of Michigan recently requested that a task force 

be established under the Council of Great Lakes Governors. The purpose of the task force is to explore, 

outline and advise the Great Lakes Governors on a range of options to inhibit the further introduction of 

ANS from ballast water. The Governor also expressed his wish to enhance protection efforts by addressing 

ships reporting "no ballast on board" (NOBOBs) under the current federal regulatory regime. These vessels 

are not subject to the high-seas ballast water exchange program pursuant to federal law yet contain a large 

amount of residual sediment that may harbor ANS. 

In response to the Governor's request, the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality convened in April 

24
AQUATIC NUISANCE SPECIES IN BALLAST WATER DISCHARGES: Issues and Options 

DRAFT FOR PUBLIC COMMENT – September 10, 2001 

2001 a Work Group of technical experts from international and lake carriers and the U.S. Coast Guard to 

examine potential ballast water treatment options. The goal statement of the workgroup is to prevent future 

introductions via ballast water within twelve months. The Ballast Water Technical Work Group will advise 

the Council of Great Lakes Governor's task force.98 

(2) Washington 

Washington’s ANS Management Plan has the goal to fully implement a coordinated strategy that will: 

• Minimize the risk of further ANS introductions into Washington waters through all known 

pathways; 

• Where practical, stop the spread of ANS already present; and 

• Eradicate or control ANS to a minimal level of impact, by the year 2002. 

The Plan is focused on the identification of feasible, cost-effective management practices to be implemented 

in partnership with tribes, private, and public interests for the environmentally sound prevention and control 

of ANS.99 

ii. Historical State Laws and Regulations 

Many States have long had laws or regulations governing management of ballast water. Historically, most 

of these laws and regulations were designed to prevent discharge of oil from tanks that hold both fuel or 

cargo oil and ballast water. Some, such as California and Illinois, explicitly excluded segregated ballast 

tanks (tanks which are dedicated to ballast water and never hold oil) from their regulations. Some, such as 

Virginia, excluded all ballast water discharges from certain regulations that prevent the discharge of 

chemicals. Appendix A contains excerpts from some of these laws and regulations. 

iii. Recent State Laws to Address Ballast Water ANS 

(1) California 

On October 8, 1999, the Governor of California signed Assembly Bill 703, which deals specifically with the 

problem of ballast water ANS. The bill references the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, under 

which the State Water Resources Control Board and the California Regional Water Quality Control Boards 

are the principal State agencies with regulatory authority for water quality. 

The bill does not specify ballast water treatment technologies, discharge standards, or specific ballast water 

permitting requirements, but instead charges the Regional Water Quality Control Boards to develop these 

requirements and permitting procedures. The Bill, however, does require in the short-term mandatory 

ballast exchange or equivalent treatment, and in the long-term, updated treatment technologies phased in as 

they become economically and technologically achievable. The bill also requires ships to prepare ballast 

water management plans, and to report ballast water discharges using the U.S. Coast Guard reporting form. 

The bill took effect on January 1, 2000. Assembly Bill 703 is included in Appendix A. 

(2) Washington 

On February 14, 2000, the Washington Senate unanimously passed Substitute Bill 6293, “An act relating to 

ballast water management; adding a new chapter to Title 75 RCW; and prescribing penalties.” The bill, 

which drew upon the California Bill, NISA, and NISA’s regulations, calls upon the Washington Department 

of Natural Resources to establish discharge standards for ballast water, which “where practical and 

25
AQUATIC NUISANCE SPECIES IN BALLAST WATER DISCHARGES: Issues and Options 

DRAFT FOR PUBLIC COMMENT – September 10, 2001 

appropriate, ... shall be compatible with standards set by the United States Coast Guard and shall be 

developed in consultation with Federal and State agencies to ensure consistency with the Federal Clean 

Water Act.” 

After July 1, 2002, ballast water discharges from a vessel are only authorized if the water has been 

exchanged, or if the ballast water meets State standards. The bill also requires reporting of ballast water 

discharges using U.S. Coast Guard-acceptable forms, and directs the Department to work with the private 

sector and Federal and State agencies on a project to establish a ballast water treatment operation that is 

capable of servicing vessels at all Washington ports. Substitute Bill 6293 is included in Appendix A. 

(3) Maryland 

On May 11, 2000, the Governor of Maryland signed into law (Chapter 473) House Bill 1305, “Ballast 

Water Management - Reporting and Prohibition.” The law took effect October 1, 2000, and requires the 

reporting of ballast water management activities by all vessels entering Maryland waters. In contrast, the 

U.S. Coast Guard requires reporting by ships arriving from beyond the EEZ, and only at the first port of

call, in their regulations implementing NISA (discussed in section 3.a.ii.(1)). The bill also calls for the 

adoption of Federal ballast water management guidelines, and establishment of consistent State guidelines 

for vessels not covered by the Federal guidelines. The bill also calls for cooperation between Maryland and 

the U.S. Coast Guard and the States of Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Delaware in the development and 

implementation of uniform standards for ballast water management, but places no time limits on this 

development or implementation. House Bill 1305 is included in Appendix A. 

(4) Virginia 

The General Assembly of Virginia approved on March 19, 2001, an act to amend the Code of Virginia by 

adding into Chapter 1 of Title 28.2 language relating to ballast water management. The language, included 

in Appendix A, establishes the same ballast water treatment and reporting requirements on ships entering 

Virginia waters from beyond the EEZ that are required for ships entering the Great Lakes from beyond the 

EEZ by U.S. Coast Guard regulations (discussed in section 3.a.ii.(1)). 

(5) State Bills Introduced 

Bills on the regulation of ballast water have been recently introduced in several other State legislatures, 

including Hawaii (HB 1164), Illinois (SB 25), Michigan (SB 955), New York (AO 2334), and Oregon (SB 

895). A common feature of bills introduced in Great Lakes States is language requiring stricter controls on 

ballast water management than the U.S. Coast Guard regulations require. This language, from Michigan 

Senate Bill 955, is typical of the Great Lakes States’ bills: 

“SEC. 3109C. (1) A Person shall not operate a vessel on the waters of the State that contains ballast water 

that was acquired outside of the waters of the State unless the ballast water and any sediments have been 

sterilized as required by the Department.”100 

d. Local programs101 

i. Humboldt Bay Harbor, Recreation and Conservation District, California 

The Humboldt Bay Harbor, Recreation and Conservation District adopted a resolution in 1996 that 

established ballast water management requirements for all vessels entering the Bay. The resolution states: 

All vessels entering Humboldt Bay with ballast originating from a foreign port shall perform a mid-ocean exchange 

of ballast with due regard for the safety of the vessel. This shall be accomplished by voiding each ballast tank and 

refilling each ballast tank with mid-ocean water. 

26
AQUATIC NUISANCE SPECIES IN BALLAST WATER DISCHARGES: Issues and Options 

DRAFT FOR PUBLIC COMMENT – September 10, 2001 

A “foreign port” as defined here shall include any port except those located on the west coast of North America. 

If the Master deems the situation not safe for voiding tanks due to weather conditions or hull stress parameters, he 

may partially empty tanks, fill with mid-ocean water, and continue pumping through the overflow or vent until full 

exchange is reasonably assured. 

The Master shall keep a record of all ballasting activities and file a statement of such activities with the Humboldt 

Bay Harbor, Recreation and Conservation District of its designee upon arrival in Humboldt Bay. 

ii. Port of Oakland, California 

In Oakland, port expansion necessitated a study of the environmental impact of increasing vessel calls and 

the resultant increase in the volume of ballast water discharged into the waters of the San Francisco Bay. 

The Board of Port Commissioners established Tariff No. 2-a to address the need to find mitigation for the 

impact of their expanded facilities. The tariff provisions, summarized below, were adopted in June of 1999, 

with an effective date of August 1, 1999. 

General requirements: No vessel using Port terminal facilities shall discharge water ballast from the vessel into 

San Francisco Bay or the Gulf of the Farallones National Marine Sanctuary offshore of San Francisco Bay, 

including open waters within the Port Area of the City of Oakland, unless the vessel immediately before arrival in 

the San Francisco Bay has carried out an ocean ballast water exchange to limit the possibility of transferring nonindigenous species into San Francisco Bay. Exchange shall occur in the oceans westerly of the western boundaries 

of established marine sanctuaries adjacent to the West Coast of California. 

Exceptions to the general requirements: 

• Vessels arriving from ports located between the southern boundary of Baja California and the northern 

boundary of Alaska, if the ballast water to be discharged originated from those waters. 

• Vessels providing proof of compliance with International Maritime Organization (IMO) Resolution A774(18) 

(Guidelines for Preventing the Introduction of Unwanted Aquatic Organisms and Pathogens form Ships’ Ballast 

Water and Sediment Discharges); 

• Vessels on which ocean exchange was not made because of stress of weather or stability or hull stress concerns.102 

iii. Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, California 

The Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach do not currently have an established program to control the 

introduction of ballast water ANS. These ports do, however, have a policy of encouraging their customers 

to comply with the U.S. Coast Guard’s (voluntary) exchange guidelines. 

27
AQUATIC NUISANCE SPECIES IN BALLAST WATER DISCHARGES: Issues and Options 

DRAFT FOR PUBLIC COMMENT – September 10, 2001 

NONREGULATORY APPROACHES TO BALLAST WATER CONTROL 

e. Support the U.S. Coast Guard’s Ballast Water Regulation Program 

As discussed in section 3.a.ii.(1), the U.S. Coast Guard has had a program in place to encourage compliance 

with the previous ballast water management requirements and guidelines under 33 CFR 151. With the 

modification of 33 CFR 151 to implement NISA, the U.S. Coast Guard is adapting its program to the new 

regulations. If an international agreement on ballast water is implemented domestically by APPS, the U.S. 

Coast Guard will presumably adapt its program to encourage compliance with APPS as well. 

The U.S. Coast Guard has recognized that the success of its ballast water regulations depends not just on 

the efficiency and completeness of enforcement efforts, but on the regulated community’s awareness of the 

problem posed by ballast water ANS, and acceptance of the measures in place to combat this problem. For 

this reason, the foremost effort of the U.S. Coast Guard’s ballast water program is educating the maritime 

community of the impacts of ANS and the need for control.103 

Other elements of the U.S. Coast Guard’s program include collection of information gathered on ballast 

water management practices, research and development of new ballast water management technologies, and 

coordination with the International Maritime Organization and other organizations working toward control 

of species invasion in ballast water. 

EPA has the experience and infrastructure to contribute substantially to U.S. Coast Guard’s education and 

outreach, research and development, and coordination efforts (e.g., working with States and Tribes). 

f. Establish a National Voluntary Partnership that Emphasizes Environmental 

Management Systems (EMS) Approaches to Controlling Ballast Water ANS 

Building on existing programs and other partnerships with Ports, shippers, and key States like Michigan and 

California, EPA could work with the U.S. Coast Guard and other agencies to form a broad-based 

partnership to address all significant causes of ANS from ships. 

This partnership could include representation from leading Federal agencies, States, industry 

representatives, and non-governmental organizations. Its primary objective would be to foster the adoption 

of best management practices, through EMSs, that would address a broad range of possible pathways for 

the introduction of ANS from ships and other sources. The Partnership would concentrate its efforts on 

developing tools that could be used by organizations that voluntary chose to participate. Each organization 

would adopt Best Management Practices (BMPs) through an EMS designed to address the most significant 

threat to waters from the introduction of ANS, and share information on the performance of the BMPs and 

other aspects of its EMS with the public. (BMPs are discussed further in section 3.i.) Initial funding and 

support for the Partnership could be provided by participating agencies and/or leading industry 

associations. 

This approach would be generally modeled on the National Biosolids Partnership (NBP). The NBP was 

formed to complement the existing biosolids regulations and to address the very serious public acceptance 

problems many POTWs were facing when trying to land dispose of their biosolids. A primary goal of the 

NBP was the development of methodologies and other tools to assist POTWs in complying with regulatory 

requirements and performing beyond those requirements. To help facilities adopt EMSs for their particular 

biosolids programs, the NBP has developed or is developing: 

• A Code of Good Practice which lays out aspirational goals for facilities to aim for; 

• A National Manual of Good Practice which compiles a number of existing biosolids management 

practices and gives facilities guidance on which practices are most appropriate for a given biosolids 

28
AQUATIC NUISANCE SPECIES IN BALLAST WATER DISCHARGES: Issues and Options 

DRAFT FOR PUBLIC COMMENT – September 10, 2001 

disposal method (i.e., land application, incineration, etc.); 

• A set of Common Procedures for facilities to use when establishing their EMSs and accompanying 

EMS guidance. These are quite similar to the elements of the ISO 14001 Voluntary International 

Standard for EMSs; and 

• A system for qualified third parties (i.e., auditors) to certify that the EMS is operating effectively as 

a way to increase public confidence. 

All of this is being done through a consensus approach involving POTWs, contractors, regulators (State and 

Federal), and others. It is not intended to supplant existing biosolids regulations. 

Compliance with applicable regulations is a must for an effective EMS, but the EMS is intended to go 

further. Its real goal is to identify and, over time, reduce impacts from a full range of environmental insults 

to all media. 

This last point is relevant to the ballast water issue. There are undoubtedly a number of ways for ANS to 

get into waterways, not just through ballast water. The ANS problem should be addressed comprehensively; 

just focusing on ballast water may be short-sighted. 

EPA believes this approach is preferable as a first step because it facilitates the development of a 

technologies. It is very important to note that while this approach has been listed as a “non-regulatory 

approach” it could also be used to supplement a regulation change to bring ballast water discharges into the 

NPDES program. In fact, the Voluntary Partnership may lay the ground work for the regulation change and 

it is likely to enhance the effectiveness of those regulations. 

g. Support Other ANS Programs 

i. Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force (ANSTF) 

As discussed in section 3.a.ii.(3), EPA sits on the Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force, and on the 

ANSTF’s regional panels, the Ballast Water and Shipping Committee, and the Ballast Water Treatment 

Effectiveness and Criteria Committee. The Task Force works closely with States, regional bodies, and the 

U.S. Coast Guard, and active participation on the Task Force and its panels and committees continues to be

an effective way to maximize EPA’s contribution to resolving the ANS problem. 

ii. Invasive Species Council 

EPA also sits on the Invasive Species Council, and was active in the preparation of the National Invasive 

Species Management Plan described in section 3.a.i. EPA supports the Council in the implementation of the 

National Invasive Species Management Plan’s recommendations. 

iii. Interagency Committee on the Marine Transportation System 

An interagency workgroup led by DOT and including EPA was established to address the problems that 

threaten the ability of U.S. ports, waterways, and intermodal connectors to remain safe, environmentally 

sound, and competitive into the next century. A National Marine Transportation System Conference 

brought together high-level government and nongovernment representatives in November, who identified 

issues and recommended actions. Ballast water ANS was identified as a major environmental issue. The 

conference supported ballast water regulations under U.S. Coast Guard lead and recommended further 

research.104 

iv. National Estuary Program (NEP) 

29 
AQUATIC NUISANCE SPECIES IN BALLAST WATER DISCHARGES: Issues and Options 

DRAFT FOR PUBLIC COMMENT – September 10, 2001 

Nonindigenous species invasion has been recognized by the National Estuary Program as a serious concern. 

In Congressional testimony on July 13, 1999, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Water Dana Minerva 

listed introduction of invasive species as one of the seven most common problems affecting the 28 estuaries 

in the NEP. Nine of the 28 National Estuary Programs have identified introduced species as a high or 

medium priority, and many NEP Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plans include measures to 

prevent or mitigate damage from invasive species. 

v. Coral Reef Task Force 

The interagency Water and Air Quality Working Group of the Coral Reef Task Force has recognized that 

the discharge of ballast water at coral reef sites may be harmful to reef ecosystems, and that the introduction 

of ANS may be one aspect of this harm. They have recommended that the U.S. Coast Guard consider the 

impacts of ballast water management on coral reefs when preparing their regulations to implement NISA. 

vi. Voluntary Partnership with Ports 

As part of the “Green Ports” program, EPA has worked with the American Association of Port Authorities, 

the Urban Harbors Institute, and the California Association of Port Authorities to support port-initiated 

efforts that address environmental issues, including ballast water management. Recently this program was 

expanded to include a “Green Ships” program, in which EPA, working with the Chamber of Shipping of 

America and perhaps other partners, will address environmental issues (including ballast water) of 

particular interest to ships. 

h. Support State Ballast Water Programs 

State ANS Management Plans often emphasize nonregulatory over regulatory approaches at the State level. 

Michigan’s plan, for example states that: 

This Management Plan does not advocate the development or adoption of specific new laws or regulations, nor 

does it specify modifications to existing controls. Additional research, public comment and a review of nonregulatory alternatives will be needed to determine whether new or modified laws, rules or policies are feasible and 

appropriate. In particular, the regulatory approach should be employed only where it will be more effective than 

alternative methods of control.105 

At the same time, State plans often depend on a coordinated Federal plan. Michigan’s plan continues, “In 

addition, the plan sends the message that the Federal government has not met its responsibility to control 

further introductions of ANS.” 

30
AQUATIC NUISANCE SPECIES IN BALLAST WATER DISCHARGES: Issues and Options 

DRAFT FOR PUBLIC COMMENT – September 10, 2001 

REGULATORY APPROACHES TO BALLAST WATER 

i. Overview of the NPDES Program 

The NPDES program regulates the discharge of pollutants from point sources to waters of the United 

States. The terms which trigger NPDES requirements: "point sources", “waters of the United States” and 

"discharges of pollutant" are defined broadly, thus extending the reach of the NPDES program to a large 

number of facilities. At this time, there are approximately 60,000 State and Federal NPDES permits 

covering some 250,000 facilities. NPDES coverage can be provided by individual or general NPDES 

permits. General NPDES permits cover a number of similar dischargers usually within a specified 

geographic area, whereas an individual permit will cover a single discharger. 

NPDES permits typically impose numeric effluent limits based on technology-based treatment or control 

standards including: 

• Limits based on Best Available Technology Economically Achievable (BAT) for the direct 

discharge of toxic and nonconventional pollutants; 

• Limits based on Best Conventional Pollutant Control Technology (BCT) for conventional pollutants 

(total suspended solids (TSS), biological oxygen demand (BOD), fecal coliform, bacteria, oil and 

grease, and pH) from industrial sources; 

• Limits based on Secondary Treatment requirements for direct discharges from municipal sewage 

treatment facilities; and 

• Limits based on Best Available Demonstrated Control Technology for new sources. 

When technology-based limits alone are insufficient to meet water quality standards in receiving waters, 

NPDES permits also impose water quality-based effluent limits. 

Permits may also impose non-numeric permit conditions known as best management practices (BMPs) on 

dischargers in place of, or in conjunction with, numeric effluent limits to prevent or control the discharge of 

pollutants. The focus of most BMPs is pollution prevention. They often consist of procedures or practices 

to control plant site runoff, spillage, leaks, sludge or waste disposal, and treatment of drainage from raw 

materials storage. Finally, NPDES permits impose a number of standard conditions, including reporting 

and monitoring requirements. 

Violation of any of these conditions is subject to a wide range of enforcement actions, including 

administrative, civil, and criminal penalties as well as third-party citizen suits. All NPDES-permitted 

facilities are subject to inspection by EPA and/or States. 

The NPDES program is largely implemented by States authorized by EPA to operate their own NPDES 

programs (known as “authorized State programs”) under State law. Tribes and U.S. Territories may also 

receive EPA approval to operate their own NPDES programs. States are not required to have NPDES 

requirements that are identical to those of the Federal government, provided that minimum Federal 

requirements are met. State regulations frequently differ from those of the Federal government and from 

other States. When EPA revises an NPDES regulation that is applicable to States, States must adopt 

comparable provisions within one year (or within two years if a State has to amend its authorizing 

statute).106 

Once a State receives authorization, EPA stops issuing permits in that jurisdiction. However, EPA can 

continue to conduct enforcement in authorized States. This includes enforcing against State NPDES permit 

violations. EPA retains permitting authority in Indian Country, and for Federal facilities if a State has not 

31
AQUATIC NUISANCE SPECIES IN BALLAST WATER DISCHARGES: Issues and Options 

DRAFT FOR PUBLIC COMMENT – September 10, 2001 

received authorization to regulate Federal facilities. At present, forty-four States and one U.S. territory 

(U.S. Virgin Islands) have approved NPDES permitting programs. EPA still issues permits for Alaska, 

Idaho, Arizona, New Mexico, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, U.S. Territories (other than the U.S. Virgin 

Islands), discharges in Indian Country, and Federal facilities in Colorado, Vermont, Delaware, Florida, and 

Washington. 

State permitting authority is considered to extend to the territorial seas. For point sources that operate 

beyond the territorial seas, EPA is the permitting authority. 

j. Ballast Water ANS as Pollutants

 The NPDES program regulates discharges of pollutants. A pollutant is defined in CWA section 502(6) 

broadly to include "dredged spoil, solid waste, incinerator residue, sewage, garbage, sewage sludge, 

munitions, chemical wastes, biological materials, radioactive materials, heat wrecked or discarded 

equipment, rock, sand, cellar dirt and industrial, municipal and agricultural waste discharged into water." 

Several types of materials are expressly excluded from this definition, including sewage from vessels, 

discharges incidental to normal operation of a vessel of the Armed Forces, and certain materials related to 

oil or gas production. Different biological organisms, such as bacteria (e.g., fecal coliform), algae, dead fish, 

live fish, fish remains, and plant materials have been considered pollutants under this definition by various 

courts. Although some ballast water ANS may be pollutants, EPA has not determined whether all ANS 

meet this definition. 

k. The Current Vessel Exemption from NPDES Permit Requirements 

The NPDES regulations at 40 CFR 122.3(a) exclude from NPDES requirements: 

Any discharge of sewage from vessels, effluent from properly functioning marine engines, laundry, shower, and 

galley sink wastes, or any other discharge incidental to the normal operation of a vessel. This exclusion does not 

apply to rubbish, trash, garbage, or other such materials discharged overboard; nor to other discharges when the 

vessel is operating in a capacity other than as a means of transportation such as when used as an energy or mining 

facility, a storage facility or a seafood processing facility, or when secured to a storage facility or a seafood 

processing facility, or when secured to the bed of the ocean, contiguous zone or waters of the United States for the 

purpose of mineral or oil exploration or development. 

This exclusion was first promulgated in May 22, 1973 and its basis is found in the Clean Water Act.107 

Section 402 of CWA establishes the NPDES permit program to regulate the discharge of pollutants from 

point sources to waters of the United States. While CWA defines the term “point source” to include a 

“vessel or other floating craft,”108 it distinguishes vessels from other point sources in several respects. 

First, the discharge of sewage from vessels is regulated under a separate, non-NPDES program. The 

CWA’s definition of “pollutant” expressly excludes “sewage from vessels” within the meaning of 

Section 312.109 Section 312 in turn, defined “sewage” to mean “human body wastes and the waste from 

toilets and other receptacles intended to receive or retain body wastes except that, with respect to 

commercial vessels on the Great Lakes, such term shall include gray water”.110 As discussed in section 

3.a.iv.(3), the CWA definition of “pollutant” excludes discharges incidental to the normal operation of a 

vessel of the Armed Forces, as part of the Uniform National Discharge Standard (UNDS) requirements of 

Section 312(n). 

Second, the CWA defined “discharge of a pollutant” to include: “(A) any addition of any pollutant to 

navigable waters from any point source, (B) any addition of any pollutant to the waters of the contiguous 

zone or the ocean from any point source other than a vessel or other floating craft”111 (emphasis added). 

This distinction is significant, because the Clean Water Act treats navigable waters, the contiguous zone, 

and the ocean as distinct entities. “Navigable waters” are defined in Section 502(7) to mean the waters of 

the U.S., including the territorial seas. The “territorial seas” are defined in Section 502(8) as “the belt of the 

32
AQUATIC NUISANCE SPECIES IN BALLAST WATER DISCHARGES: Issues and Options 

DRAFT FOR PUBLIC COMMENT – September 10, 2001 

seas measured from the line of ordinary low water along that portion of the coast which is in direct contact 

with the open sea and the line marking the seaward limit of inland waters, and extending seaward a distance 

of three miles.” The “contiguous zone” is defined in Section 502(9) to mean the entire zone established or to 

be established by the U.S. under article 24 of the Convention of the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous 

Zone. The Convention provides that “the contiguous zone may not extend beyond twelve miles from the 

baseline from which the breadth of the territorial sea is measured.112 The “ocean” is defined in Section 

502(10) as any portion of the high seas beyond the contiguous zone.* 

The initial exclusion extended to “discharges of sewage from vessels, effluent from properly functioning 

marine engines, laundry, shower, and galley sink wastes, or any other discharge incidental to the normal 

operation of a vessel.”113 It did not apply to “rubbish, trash, garbage, or other such materials discharged 

overboard, nor to discharges when the vessel is operating in a capacity other than a vessel, such as when a 

vessel is being used as a storage facility or cannery.”114 When promulgating the exclusion, EPA explained 

in the preamble that “[m]ost discharges from vessels to inland waters are now clearly excluded from the 

[NPDES] permit requirements. This type of discharge generally causes little pollution and exclusion of 

vessel wastes from the permit requirements will reduce administrative costs drastically.”115 

In 1979, EPA modified the vessel exclusion to clarify that it does not extend to discharges when the vessel is 

operating in a capacity other than as a means of transportation, such as when being used as an energy or 

mining facility, a storage facility, or a seafood processing facility, or when secured to the bed of the ocean, 

contiguous zone, or waters of the United States for the purpose of mineral or oil exploration or 

development.116 In proposing this language, EPA concluded that Congress did not intend to exclude 

discharges from vessels that are not used for the primary purpose of transportation from NPDES 

requirements.117 

The regulatory history of Section 122.3(a) does not describe what types of discharges are incidental to the 

normal operation of a vessel, other than those specifically enumerated in the exclusion. However, it does 

give examples of discharges which would not qualify for the exclusion (e.g., discharges of rubbish, trash, 

garbage, or other such materials discharged overboard; and discharges when the vessel is operating in a 

capacity other than a means of transportation). 

It is important to note that vessel exclusion is not a required element for State NPDES programs.118 Thus, 

the NPDES national regulations do not prohibit States from using NPDES permits to regulate ballast water. 

This could result in a lack of uniformity as the ballast water discharges could be subject to multiple State 

and Federal regulatory regimes. Given the nature of vessel commerce, a coordinated national approach is 

preferred to a patchwork of regulations. 

l. Approaches for Regulating Ballast Water Discharges with NPDES Permits 

The use of NPDES permits to regulate ballast water discharges would present significant challenges to EPA 

and authorized States. NPDES permits can be a regulatory tool with enforceable requirements for 

controlling pollutant discharges. However, NPDES permits may have significant shortcomings with respect 

to the regulation of vessels. 

First, the fact that States have primary responsibility for the NPDES program hampers its utility in 

providing uniform regulation of point sources, such as vessels that routinely move between States. EPA 

believes that as a general matter, it is better that mobile point sources such as vessels be subject to uniform 

* On September 3, 1999, it was announced that President Clinton had signed a proclamation giving U.S. authorities the right 

to enforce environmental and other laws at sea within 24 nautical miles from shore, doubling the current 12 mile area. The Executive 

Order will not have the effect of amending any statutory definitions found in Section 502(9). It might, however, result in a movement 

to amend such definitions legislatively. 

33 
AQUATIC NUISANCE SPECIES IN BALLAST WATER DISCHARGES: Issues and Options 

DRAFT FOR PUBLIC COMMENT – September 10, 2001 

controls. While EPA has used the NPDES permits to regulate vessels and other floating craft, most of that 

regulation was directed towards vessels engaged in non-transportation related activities (such as oil and gas 

exploration, seafood processing, and seabed mining) in Federal waters (outside the three mile limit). Those 

sources could be regulated through a small number of EPA-issued general permits.119 

However, most U.S. ports or other loading or off-loading facilities are in State waters where EPA does not 

issue NPDES permits. Cargo vessels bringing goods to U.S. ports or transporting goods between those 

ports could encounter multiple State permits, if ballast water were to be regulated under the NPDES 

program. Under such circumstances, it would be difficult for vessels to obtain coverage from, and comply 

with, those State permits, if they impose different or even conflicting requirements. This is especially true 

for riverine traffic, such as that in the Mississippi basin, or when foreign-flagged vessels travel to U.S. 

ports. Also, because ports may be engaged in stiff competition for vessel commerce, uniform requirements 

would prevent ports from seeking economic advantage over their competitors by having less stringent ballast 

water treatment requirements. In this report, EPA has attempted to consider some permitting approaches 

that may promote the use of uniform treatment standards. 

Second, using the NPDES program to regulate ballast water discharges could subject ballast water 

discharges to overlapping regulatory regimes. NISA already imposes ballast water management 

requirements and there appear to be a number of existing and emerging State laws to control the introduction 

of ballast water ANS. The imposition of NPDES requirements on top of NISA and State laws may detract 

from those other efforts. 

Third, using NPDES permits to cover ballast water discharges may impose permit requirements which 

cannot be met with current technology. For example, it is likely that a permit would have to prohibit the 

discharge of ballast water ANS to prevent violations of applicable water quality standards. However, the 

only known practical technology for ballast water treatment is mid-ocean exchange and that is ineffective in 

removing 100% of ballast water ANS 100% of the time. Also, if mid-ocean ballast water exchange is the 

primary treatment requirement imposed by NPDES permits, it will difficult to determine compliance with 

permit conditions. For example, it would be difficult for permitting authorities and citizens to determine 

whether a ballast water exchange had taken place. 

If EPA concludes that regulating ballast water through the NPDES program is the best response to the issue 

of ballast water ANS, then EPA must determine how best to implement that conclusion. Three approaches 

for revising the NPDES program regulations to better control ANS introductions from vessel ballast water 

are discussed below: 

• Revising the NPDES regulations to regulate ballast water discharges, using individual and or 

general permits, containing conditions based upon based on best professional judgement of the 

permit writer; 

• Developing effluent limitation guidelines for discharges from vessels; and 

• Working with U.S. Coast Guard on developing Section 402(g) provisions to regulate ANS. 

i. Revising the NPDES Regulations 

Under this approach, EPA would revise the vessel exclusion at 40 CFR 123.3(a) so that it would not extend 

to the discharge of ballast water. This scope of this revision could range from a relatively simple revision to 

the exclusion language to the establishment of a separate subpart in the regulations for regulating ballast 

water. The advantage of the latter approach is that it would provide clearer direction to States, stakeholders, 

and EPA permit writers on how ANS introductions can best be prevented through NPDES permits. This is 

similar to existing regulatory provisions for specific categories of point sources such as concentrated animal 

34
AQUATIC NUISANCE SPECIES IN BALLAST WATER DISCHARGES: Issues and Options 

DRAFT FOR PUBLIC COMMENT – September 10, 2001 

feeding operations,120 concentrated aquatic animal production facilities,121 aquaculture projects,122 municipal 

and industrial storm water discharges,123 and silvicultural activities.124 Regardless of scope, this rulemaking 

would be a complex undertaking with enormous implications for the NPDES program. It would extend 

NPDES permitting requirements to thousands of previously unregulated sources. Difficulties in 

promulgating the rule would be exacerbated if there are still no widely applicable treatment technologies to 

rid ballast water of ANS. 

EPA believes it would probably couple any such rulemaking with the development of a general permit for 

ballast water discharges. This permit would provide coverage to EPA permitting jurisdictions and serve as 

a model for authorized States. A general permit would provide the benefits of increased uniformity and 

predictability over individual permits, and would reduce the administrative burden associated with this 

approach. 

Time Required 

This would be a complex undertaking due to the jurisdictional issues involved in regulating vessels under the 

Clean Water Act, the possibility of adding thousands of new dischargers to the NPDES program, and the 

potential economic impacts of such regulation. EPA would expect to receive and respond to a large number 

of comments and would have to prepare a detailed economic analysis for this rulemaking. EPA believes it 

could revise the vessel exclusion in two to three years. 

Advantages 

• A national regulation would allow the full force of the Clean Water Act, including its enforcement 

provisions, to be employed to prevent ANS introductions from ballast water discharges. 

• A regulation could be probably drafted in a manner to allow States and permittees flexibility in 

meeting Federal requirements. 

• EPA could involve the U.S. Coast Guard in developing and implementing the rule. With careful 

coordination between EPA and U.S. Coast Guard, it may be possible to harmonize NPDES and 

NISA requirements. 

Disadvantages 

• Failure to harmonize NPDES and NISA requirements would impose different regulatory regimes on 

the same activity. 

• Regulation of ANS through NPDES permits may impinge on other State efforts to control ANS, 

because NPDES permit coverage would have to be obtained for ballast water discharges, even if 

they are covered by other ANS control programs. 

• It will take time for any revisions to the NPDES regulations to be implemented through NPDES 

permits. It would take between two and three years for EPA to revise its NPDES requirements for 

ballast water. EPA’s regulations provide that authorized States would then have between one and 

two years to revise their programs to reflect those changes to the NPDES national regulations. 

Issuing permits would likely take even more time. (The lag in issuing permits could be substantially 

shortened if EPA and the States were to develop permits at the same time they revised their 

programs.) 

• As discussed previously, there is currently a lack of effective technologies to control or prevent 

ANS introductions. Further, NPDES permits can impose treatment levels but generally do not 

mandate specific treatment technologies. This limitation might cause problems depending on the 

35
AQUATIC NUISANCE SPECIES IN BALLAST WATER DISCHARGES: Issues and Options 

DRAFT FOR PUBLIC COMMENT – September 10, 2001 

type of solution sought to control ballast water ANS. However, treatment practices can sometimes 

be imposed as best management practices (BMPs). 

• The approach may lead to a lack of uniform requirements among authorized States, including the 

possibility of States exercising their right under CWA Section 510 to set more stringent 

standards.125 

• The approach would significantly increase the number of permitted point sources and could entail 

high administrative costs and pose special challenges for EPA and the States. 

ii. Development of a National Effluent Guideline under 304(b) 

Once the NPDES regulations have been revised to regulate ballast water discharges, one way to promote 

more uniform requirements would be to establish an effluent guideline, applicable to all NPDES permits 

regulating ballast water. Effluent guidelines impose technology-based treatment or control standards on an 

industry-by-industry basis. An effluent guideline imposes a national level of treatment that must be met by 

all permittees subject to it, regardless of whether the permit is issued by EPA or an authorized State. While 

States can develop equivalent or more stringent effluent guidelines, in practice, most States rely on the 

Federal guidelines. 

The development of an effluent guideline is a complex undertaking. To determine the best available 

technology economically achievable, EPA generally considers the affordability to the industry in question of 

the control technology upon which limitations are based. (Traditionally, EPA has looked at facility closures 

and firm failures, i.e., bankruptcies, to assess this statutory factor.) Because so many different industries 

use vessels and have vessel discharges, it would be a challenge for EPA to develop a methodology that will 

make sense for all vessel discharges. Also, because of the diversity of vessels at issue, it may be difficult to 

develop requirements that could technically be achieved by all vessels; it would be more likely that EPA 

would have to undertake separate analyses for different subcategories of vessels, thereby increasing the 

resources necessary to develop a rule. 

Time Required 

EPA believes that such a regulation would take between four to six years to develop. 

Advantages 

• Effluent guidelines promote uniform levels of treatment by imposing a national standard for State 

and Federal NPDES permits. While States can impose more stringent technology-based 

requirements, most States tend to rely on the national effluent guidelines. 

• An effluent guideline provides clearer direction to EPA and authorized States on how to write 

permits to control ANS introductions in ballast water discharges. 

Disadvantages 

• Effluent guidelines take a great deal of time and resources to develop. EPA is required to collect a 

large amount of information for any industry it plans to regulate, so that the appropriate minimum 

level of treatment can be determined. This includes the consideration of economic impacts and the 

availability of treatment technologies. The costs and length of time for this guideline could be 

higher than normal because of EPA’s lack of experience in regulating vessels, and the paucity of 

information on treatment technologies, which are mostly new and emerging. 

iii. Ballast Water Treatment Requirements Based on CWA §402(g) 

36 
AQUATIC NUISANCE SPECIES IN BALLAST WATER DISCHARGES: Issues and Options 

DRAFT FOR PUBLIC COMMENT – September 10, 2001 

Another approach to promote uniform requirements once the NPDES regulations have been revised to 

regulate ballast water discharges may be for EPA to utilize Section 402(g) of the CWA, which provides 

that: 

Any permit issued under this section for the discharge of pollutants into the navigable waters from a vessel or other 

floating craft shall be subject to any applicable regulations promulgated by the Secretary of the Department in 

which the Coast Guard is operating, establishing specifications for safe transportation, handling, carriage, storage, 

and stowage of pollutants.126 

This requirement is incorporated into EPA‘s NPDES regulations at 40 CFR 122.44(p) which provide that: 

When a permit is issued to a facility that may operate at certain times as a means of transportation over water, a 

condition that the discharge shall comply with any applicable regulations promulgated by the Secretary of the 

department in which the Coast Guard is operating, that establish specifications for safe transportation, handling, 

carriage, and storage of pollutants. 

Section 402(g) applies to EPA and State NPDES programs. If the vessel exclusion is lifted as described in 

this report, then Section 402(g) may allow for the imposition of uniform standards, provided that the U.S. 

Coast Guard can establish those standards for ANS. If it is possible for the U.S. Coast Guard to establish 

these standards under NISA, then Section 402(g) may be a way to harmonize NPDES and NISA 

requirements. Moreover, if there are any jurisdictional gaps in NISA’s coverage with respect to vessel 

commerce in internal waters, then coverage through an NPDES permit might fill those potential gaps. 

37
AQUATIC NUISANCE SPECIES IN BALLAST WATER DISCHARGES: Issues and Options 

DRAFT FOR PUBLIC COMMENT – September 10, 2001 

4.. OTHER POSSIBLE APPROACHES FOR ADDRESSING BALLAST WATER DISCHARGES 

m. Other Clean Water Act authorities 

i. Ballast Water Treatment by Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTWs) 

One approach that has been suggested to manage ballast water to reduce the risk of species invasion is to 

discharge ballast water to POTWs, rather than directly to receiving waters. Although this is already being 

done in some limited cases (see section 2.e.ii.(1)), there are serious technical questions about the ability of 

most POTWs to handle ballast water. The vast majority of POTWs are designed to provide primary 

(separation and settling) and secondary treatment (biological treatment) for municipal waste consisting 

primarily of sewage. They are not designed to remove or kill ballast water ANS. Large volumes of saline 

ballast water may poison some POTWs systems. Moreover, few docks will have conveyances to POTWs 

that can handle the large volume of liquid necessary for ballasting and deballasting. Although some States 

or localities may elect to take this approach, EPA believes it is unlikely to provide a widespread solution for 

preventing ANS introductions from ballast water. 

ii. Section 504 

CWA provides in Section 504(a), “Emergency Powers,” that: 

... the Administrator upon receipt of evidence that a pollution source or combination of sources is presenting an 

imminent and substantial endangerment to the health of persons or to the welfare of persons where such 

endangerment is to the livelihood of such persons, such as inability to market shellfish, may bring suit on behalf of 

the United States in the appropriate district court to immediately restrain any person causing or contributing to the 

alleged pollution to stop the discharge of pollutants causing or contributing to such pollution or to take such other 

action as may be necessary.127 

This Section could be invoked if there were evidence that ballast water discharges were presenting an 

imminent and substantial endangerment to the health or welfare of persons (as qualified above). 

n. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 

NEPA requires that Federal agencies proposing major actions significantly affecting the environment 

prepare detailed environmental impact statements of the environmental effects of those actions. While there 

is no explicit mention of ANS in the language of NEPA, the Act gives broad latitude to the interpretation of 

what issues should be considered in NEPA documents. EPA believes, as do most Federal agencies, that 

ANS issues should be considered when germane to the action being considered in the NEPA document. 

NEPA regulations issued by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) define environmental “effects” to 

include “ecological” effects, “such as the effects on natural resources and on the components, structures, 

and functioning of affected ecosystems.” Several agencies have established categorical exclusions in their 

NEPA regulations for activities relating to ANS, such as the reintroduction (stocking) of native or 

established species into suitable habitat within their historic or established range. 

EPA has the authority to review certain Federal actions that may deal with the control or inadvertent 

introduction of ANS. Section 309 of the Clean Air Act requires that EPA review and comment on the 

environmental impact of any matter relating to the duties and responsibilities of the EPA Administrator 

contained in legislation proposed by a Federal agency, newly authorized Federal projects for construction, 

actions subject to NEPA’s environmental impact statement requirement, and proposed regulations published 

by any agency of the Federal government. Such comments must be made public at the conclusion of any 

review. If the EPA Administrator determines such legislation, action, or regulation to be unsatisfactory 

from the standpoint of public health, welfare, or environmental quality, the Administrator must publish the 

determination and refer the matter to the CEQ. 

38
AQUATIC NUISANCE SPECIES IN BALLAST WATER DISCHARGES: Issues and Options 

DRAFT FOR PUBLIC COMMENT – September 10, 2001 

DRAFT CONCLUSIONS 

At this time, the greatest impediment to preventing ANS introductions to U.S. waters is the lack of effective 

and affordable ballast water treatment technologies. While mid-ocean ballast water exchange has been used 

to remove ANS from ballast water, it is only partially effective in achieving that goal. Furthermore, it 

cannot be applied to most vessel traffic between U.S. ports, and cannot be required of ocean-going vessels in 

situations where the safety of the vessel might be compromised. However, the Federal government, States, 

local governments, ports, the shipping community, and environmental groups are in agreement that ANS 

introductions from ballast water are a serious problem, and substantial resources are being spent developing 

ballast water treatment technologies. The U.S. Coast Guard has been working with several technology 

developers and expects to approve some alternative technologies for shipboard trial use within several 

months. EPA believes that these technologies will be widely available for commercial use within several 

years. 

A substantial opportunity exists with NISA to control ANS introductions. With NISA, Congress gave the 

U.S. Coast Guard a mandate to develop a program with significant voluntary components, to prevent ANS

introduction by the discharge of ballast water from vessels. NISA required the U.S. Coast Guard to monitor 

the effectiveness of its program, report back to Congress in several years, and if necessary, revise its 

program. If the compliance rate with the voluntary parts of the program is determined to be inadequate, 

NISA authorizes the U.S. Coast Guard to make the program mandatory. NISA also delegates to the U.S. 

Coast Guard the responsibility for deciding whether any proposed ballast water treatment procedure is as 

effective as ballast water exchange in preventing ANS, which in turn could then be included in U.S. Coast 

Guard regulations. Under NISA, the ANSTF and U.S. Coast Guard are involved in a number of research 

activities, some in partnership with States and industry, to develop effective and affordable ballast water 

treatment technologies. Moreover, State development and implementation of ANS Management Plans is 

expected to play a role in reducing ANS introductions. 

A key element in control of ANS is the research into control technologies, and a key step toward 

development and implementation of ANS control technologies is the development of environmentally-based 

criteria that could be used to guide the development of such technologies. The Invasive Species 

Management Plan, discussed in section 3.a.i, includes specific actions for NOAA, the U.S. Coast Guard, the 

Department of the Interior, and EPA to sponsor research to develop new technologies for ballast water 

management, and for the U.S. Coast Guard to issue standards for approval of ballast water management 

technologies. The U.S. Coast Guard recently published in the Federal Register a request for comments on 

approaches they are considering for developing ballast water standards.128 

Thus, the opportunity under NISA is one of ANS control technology development and implementation 

though U.S. Coast Guard regulations under NISA, with ANS standards development in a partnership 

approach, lead by U.S. Coast Guard, under the ANSTF. 

In contrast, control of ANS introductions by CWA authorities, while possible, appears more problematic. 

While EPA could conceivably amend the vessel exclusion so that NPDES permits could be used to regulate 

ballast water discharges, NPDES permits alone have significant shortcomings with respect to imposing 

uniform requirements on vessels which routinely move across national and State boundaries. While there 

are Clean Water Act mechanisms to promote uniform permit conditions in NPDES permits (model permits, 

effluent guidelines, or Section 402(g)), those mechanisms will require a great deal of Federal and State 

agency resources, and may not necessarily provide protections from ANS introductions that are greater than 

those found under NISA. 

Also, using NPDES permits for ballast water discharges is likely to subject ballast water discharges to 

multiple State and Federal regulatory regimes in light of other ongoing Federal and State efforts to regulate 

ballast water. As discussed in section 3.k, the vessel exclusion is 40 CFR 122.3(a) is not a required element 

of State programs. Thus, it would not prohibit States from regulating ballast water discharges with NPDES 

permits should they choose to do so. 

39
AQUATIC NUISANCE SPECIES IN BALLAST WATER DISCHARGES: Issues and Options 

DRAFT FOR PUBLIC COMMENT – September 10, 2001 

Given the nature of vessel commerce, a coordinated national approach is preferable to a series of 

uncoordinated local responses. However, any national approach must have sufficient flexibility to address 

local or regional needs. The problem of ANS should be coordinated with State and local interests including 

a broad range of stakeholders, other Federal agencies, the Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force, and the 

Invasive Species Council, as discussed in section 3.a.ii.(3). 

Environmental Management System techniques should be considered for any solution for preventing ANS 

introductions from ballast water discharges, as discussed in section 3.f. 

40
AQUATIC NUISANCE SPECIES IN BALLAST WATER DISCHARGES: Issues and Options 

DRAFT FOR PUBLIC COMMENT – September 10, 2001 

DRAFT RECOMMENDATIONS 

One: EPA should promote the development of effective ballast water treatment technologies by: 

• Actively promoting research, outreach, and technology development through its 

participation in the ANS Task Force, the Invasive Species Council, and their appropriate 

committees and working groups on ballast water; 

• Promoting technology development, for example through its Environmental Technology 

Verification (ETV), Small Business Innovative Research, and Green Ships and Green Ports 

programs; 

• Establishing the prevention of ANS introductions as an EPA research priority; 

• Providing technical assistance to ANS research projects initiated or funded by the National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

(USFWS), the U.S. Coast Guard, or other government, academic, or non-governmental 

organizations; 

• Supporting the U.S. Coast Guard’s efforts to evaluate the effectiveness of its regulations 

and to revise them, if necessary to enhance their effectiveness in preventing ANS 

introductions, including the development of domestic ballast water standards and 

encouraging the development and adoption of new technologies; and 

• Continuing EPA’s participation on the U.S. delegation to the Ballast Water Working group 

of the Marine Environmental Protection Committee of the International Maritime 

Organization, which is working toward an international ballast water agreement, including 

developing standards. 

Two: EPA should work to prevent species introductions by: 

• Encouraging public participation and education/outreach (e.g., through the National 

Estuary Programs, Great Waters programs, Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force, 

National Invasive Species Council, Interagency Committee on the Marine Transportation 

System, and web sites); 

• Working with the U.S. Coast Guard to maximize compliance with the NISA regulations at 

33 CFR 151 by: 

- Providing technical assistance, coordination, and advocacy support to U.S. Coast 

Guard outreach, education, and research projects; and 

- Participating actively on the ANS Task Force, its regional Panels, and its Ballast 

Water Committees. 

• In cooperation with other Federal agencies, engaging the regulated community in a governmentshipper partnership emphasizing the use of EMS to address all aspects of ship-borne transfers of 

ANS, by: 

- Formally recognizing the efforts of shipping interests which commit to real, 

significant actions that reduce the risk of ANS transfer; 

- Providing technical assistance, coordination, and where appropriate, financial 

support to shippers’ projects designed to address ANS; and 

41 
AQUATIC NUISANCE SPECIES IN BALLAST WATER DISCHARGES: Issues and Options 

DRAFT FOR PUBLIC COMMENT – September 10, 2001 

- Where appropriate, providing regulatory flexibility for ANS prevention projects 

using EPA’s Project XL program;129 

• Providing encouragement for national consistency and coordination to State and local 

governments’ efforts to control ANS invasion from ballast water; 

• Developing EPA’s Invasive Species Management Plan to identify appropriate EPA-specific 

activities to implement the Invasive Species Council’s National Invasive Species 

Management Plan; 

• Using EPA’s authority to review NEPA documents and other documentation, to promote 

the adequate consideration of the effects of ANS in Federal actions which involve ballast 

water; and 

• Deferring consideration of the application of National Pollutant Discharge Elimination 

System (NPDES) permits to ballast water discharges pending these actions. The 

effectiveness of other programs, including the level of compliance with the U.S. Coast 

Guard’s program under NISA, will be a factor in EPA’s future consideration of this issue. 

42
AQUATIC NUISANCE SPECIES IN BALLAST WATER DISCHARGES: Issues and Options 

DRAFT FOR PUBLIC COMMENT – September 10, 2001 

4.. LIST OF ACRONYMS

ANS - Aquatic Nuisance Species.

ANSTF - Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force.

APPS - Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships.

BMP - best management practice.

CFR - Code of Federal Regulations.

CITES - The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna & Flora

CWA - Clean Water Act. Also known as the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended.

DOT - Department of Transportation; normally referring to the U.S. DOT.

EEZ - Exclusive Economic Zone.

EMS - Environmental Management Systems.

EPA - U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 

ESA - Endangered Species Act.

ETV - Environmental Technology Verification.

GATT - General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade.

GLNPO - U.S. EPA’s Great Lakes National Program Office.

IJC - International Joint Commission of the Boundary Waters Treaty.

IMO - International Maritime Organization.

MARPOL - International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973, as modified by the

Protocol of 1978.

MTS - Marine Transportation System.

NABS - National Ballast Survey.

NANPCA - Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of 1990.

NEP - National Estuary Program.

NEPA - National Environmental Policy Act.

NISA - National Invasive Species Act of 1996.

NOBOB - No Ballast Onboard.

NPDES - National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System;(CWA §402)

43
AQUATIC NUISANCE SPECIES IN BALLAST WATER DISCHARGES: Issues and Options 

DRAFT FOR PUBLIC COMMENT – September 10, 2001 

ORD - U.S. EPA’s Office of Research and Development.

POTWs - Publicly Owned Treatment Works.

SERC - Smithsonian Environmental Research Center

UNCED - United Nations Conference on Environment and Development.

UNCLOS - United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.

USCG - United States Coast Guard.

UV - Ultra Violet Radiation.

44
AQUATIC NUISANCE SPECIES IN BALLAST WATER DISCHARGES: Issues and Options 

DRAFT FOR PUBLIC COMMENT – September 10, 2001 

REFERENCES 

1. see http://www.epa.gov/projectxl

2.Marine Board, National Research Council, Stemming the Tide: Controlling the Introduction 

of Nonindigenous Species by Ships’ Ballast Water (Washington, DC, National Academy Press, 

1996). 

3.James T. Carlton, Donald M. Reid, Henry van Leeuwen, “Shipping Study–The role of shipping 

in the introduction of nonindigenous aquatic organisms to the coastal waters of the United States 

(other than the Great Lakes) and an analysis of control options,” U.S. Coast Guard Report no. 

CG-D-XX-92, 1992. 

4. G. J. Ryan, “The shipping industry’s role in slowing ruffe expansion throughout the Great

Lakes,” Fisheries, 21(5) 22-23 (1996). 

5.James T. Carlton, Donald M. Reid, Henry van Leeuwen, “Shipping Study–The role of shipping 

in the introduction of nonindigenous aquatic organisms to the coastal waters of the United States 

(other than the Great Lakes) and an analysis of control options,” U.S. Coast Guard Report no. 

CG-D-XX-92, 1992. 

6.Dr. Jim Carlton, “Invasive species in ballast water,” presented at MEPC 43, June 27, 1999, 

London, England. 

7.Cohen, Andrew and Jim Carlton, “Accelerating invasion rate in a highly invaded estuary, 

Science, 279 555-558 (1998). 

8.J. T. Carlton and J. B. Geller, “Ecological roulette: the global transport of nonindigenous

marine organisms,” Science, 261 78-82 (1993). 

9.Marine Board, National Research Council, Stemming the Tide: Controlling the Introduction 

of Nonindigenous Species by Ships’ Ballast Water (Washington, DC, National Academy Press, 

1996). 

10.Ruiz, Gregory M., et al., “Ballast water discharged from vessels harbors a cocktail of potential 

pathogens,” Nature 406, 49-50 (2000). 

11.James T. Carlton, Donald M. Reid, Henry van Leeuwen, “Shipping Study–The role of shipping 

in the introduction of nonindigenous aquatic organisms to the coastal waters of the United States 

(other than the Great Lakes) and an analysis of control options,” U.S. Coast Guard Report no. 

CG-D-XX-92, 1992. 

12.Marine Board, National Research Council, Stemming the Tide: Controlling the 

Introduction of Nonindigenous Species by Ships’ Ballast Water (Washington, DC, National 

Academy Press, 1996). 

13.International Maritime Organization, “Guidelines for the control and management of ships’ 

ballast water to minimize the transfer of harmful aquatic organisms and pathogens,” Resolution 

A.868(20), adopted Nov 27, 1997. 

45
AQUATIC NUISANCE SPECIES IN BALLAST WATER DISCHARGES: Issues and Options 

DRAFT FOR PUBLIC COMMENT – September 10, 2001 

14.Pollutech Environmental Ltd., "A Review and Evaluation of Ballast Water Management and 

Treatment Options to Reduce the Potential for the Introduction of Non-native Species to the 

Great Lakes," prepared for the Canadian Coast Guard, March 31, 1992. 

15.Michael Parsons, et al., “Great Lakes ballast water demonstration project–phase I,” University 

of Michigan, May, 1997. 

16. Marine Board, National Research Council, Stemming the Tide: Controlling the 

Introduction of Nonindigenous Species by Ships’ Ballast Water (Washington, DC, National 

Academy Press, 1996). 

17.“Implementation of the National Invasive Species Act of 1996 (NISA), interim final rule 

(preamble)” U.S. Coast Guard, DOT, 64 Federal Register 26672, May 17, 1999. 

18.Profile of the Water Transportation Industry, EPA Office of Compliance Sector Notebook 

Project, EPA/310-R-97-003, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, September 1997. 

19.“An Assessment of the U.S. Marine Transportation System: A Report to Congress,” U.S. 

DOT, September 1999. 

20.“An Assessment of the U.S. Marine Transportation System: A Report to Congress,” U.S. 

DOT, September 1999. 

21.“An Assessment of the U.S. Marine Transportation System: A Report to Congress,” U.S. 

DOT, September 1999. 

22. James T. Carlton, Donald M. Reid, Henry van Leeuwen, “Shipping Study–The role of

shipping in the introduction of nonindigenous aquatic organisms to the coastal waters of the 

United States (other than the Great Lakes) and an analysis of control options,” U.S. Coast Guard 

Report no. CG-D-XX-92, 1992. 

23.David Pimentel, Lori Lach, Rodolfo Zuniga, and Doug Morrison, “Environmental and 

economic costs associated with non-indigenous species in the United States,” presented at AAAS 

Conference in Anaheim, CA, Jan 24, 1999. 

24.David S. Wilcove, et al., “Quantifying threats to imperiled species in the United States,” 

Bioscience 48(8), 607-615, August 1998. 

25. Andrew N. Cohen and James T. Carlton, “Nonindigenous aquatic species in a United States

estuary: a case study of the biological invasions of the San Francisco Bay and delta,” A Report for 

the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington DC and the National Sea Grant College 

Program Connecticut Sea Grant, December 1995. 

26.Ms. C. Renee Cooper, Executive Director, Caribbean Marine Research Center, testimony 

before the Senate Commerce, Science And Transportation Subcommittee Hearing on Coral Reefs 

and Marine Sanctuaries, June 30, 1999. 

27.Janet N. Abramovitz, “Inland waters - rich and imperiled,” Biodiversity Bulletin #3 

(Biodiversity Action Network, Washington, DC), August 1997. 

46
AQUATIC NUISANCE SPECIES IN BALLAST WATER DISCHARGES: Issues and Options 

DRAFT FOR PUBLIC COMMENT – September 10, 2001 

28.James T. Carlton, Donald M. Reid, Henry van Leeuwen, “Shipping Study–The role of shipping 

in the introduction of nonindigenous aquatic organisms to the coastal waters of the United States 

(other than the Great Lakes) and an analysis of control options,” U.S. Coast Guard Report no. 

CG-D-XX-92, 1992. 

29.Michael Parsons, et al, “Great Lakes ballast water demonstration project,” University of 

Michigan, 1998. 

30.J. Raloff, “New flea imperils fish, fouls gear,” Science News, 156(20), 308, Nov 13, 1999. 

31.Michael Parsons, et al, “Great Lakes ballast water demonstration project,” University of 

Michigan, 1998. 

32.Hameedi, M. J., “Ballast water treatment plant,” in Environmental Studies in Port Valdez, 

Alaska. Lecture Notes on Coastal and Estuarine Studies, vol 24, Springer-Verlag, New York, 

1988. 

33.Greenman, Debra, Kevin Mullen, Shardool Parmar, Worcester Polytechnic Institute, and ENS 

Chris Friese, United States Coast Guard Office of Response, “Ballast Water Treatment Systems: a 

Feasibility Study,” December 17, 1997. 

34.Pollutech Environmental Ltd., "A Review and Evaluation of Ballast Water Management and 

Treatment Options to Reduce the Potential for the Introduction of Non-native Species to the 

Great Lakes," prepared for the Canadian Coast Guard, March 31, 1992. 

35.Pollutech Environmental Ltd., "A Review and Evaluation of Ballast Water Management and 

Treatment Options to Reduce the Potential for the Introduction of Non-native Species to the 

Great Lakes," prepared for the Canadian Coast Guard, March 31, 1992. 

36.Marine Board, National Research Council, Stemming the Tide: Controlling the 

Introduction of Nonindigenous Species by Ships’ Ballast Water (Washington, DC, National 

Academy Press, 1996). 

37.16 USC 4711(c)(2)(K)

38.“Ballast Water Exchange and Treatment,” Dames & Moore report for the California 

Association of Port Authorities, Pacific Merchant Shipping Association, Steamship Association of 

Southern California & Western States Petroleum Association, June, 1999. 

39.Pollutech Environmental Ltd., "A Review and Evaluation of Ballast Water Management and 

Treatment Options to Reduce the Potential for the Introduction of Non-native Species to the 

Great Lakes," prepared for the Canadian Coast Guard, March 31, 1992. 

40.see http://www.epa.gov/ncerqa/sbir 

41.see http://www.epa.gov/owow/oceans/greenports 

42.see http://www.epa.gov/etv 

47 
AQUATIC NUISANCE SPECIES IN BALLAST WATER DISCHARGES: Issues and Options 

DRAFT FOR PUBLIC COMMENT – September 10, 2001 

43.Marine Board, National Research Council, Stemming the Tide: Controlling the 

Introduction of Nonindigenous Species by Ships’ Ballast Water (Washington, DC, National 

Academy Press, 1996). 

44.Pollutech Environmental Ltd., 1992. "A Review and Evaluation of Ballast Water Management 

and Treatment Options to Reduce the Potential for the Introduction of Non-native Species to the 

Great Lakes," prepared for the Canadian Coast Guard, March 31, 1992. 

45.G.R. Rigby, G.M. Hallegraeff, and C. Sutton, “Novel ballast water heating technique offers

cost-effective treatment to reduce the risk of global transport of harmful marine organisms,” 

Marine Ecology Progress Series 191, 289-293, Dec 30, 1999. 

46.Australian Minerals & Energy Foundation, “Treatment of ballast water: the issue heats up,” 

Groundwork 4(1), June 1998. 

47.Japanese Shipowners’ Association, “Unwanted aquatic organisms in ballast tank: report of the 

ballast water management by heat treatment using main engine water cooling circuit and findings 

of the on-board research,” 1995 (from http://globallast.imo.org research database). 

48.“Great Lakes ballast water demonstration project,” Michael Parsons, et al, University of 

Michigan, 1998. 

49.Parsons, M. G. and R. W. Harkins, “Filtration mechanical test results from the Great Lakes 

Ballast demonstration project,” presented at the National Conference on Marine Bioinvasions 

Abstracts of Presentations, Jan 26, 1999. 

50.James T. Carlton, Donald M. Reid, Henry van Leeuwen, “Shipping Study–The role of shipping 

in the introduction of nonindigenous aquatic organisms to the coastal waters of the United States 

(other than the Great Lakes) and an analysis of control options,” U.S. Coast Guard Report no. 

CG-D-XX-92, 1992. 

51.Marine Board, National Research Council, Stemming the Tide: Controlling the 

Introduction of Nonindigenous Species by Ships’ Ballast Water (Washington, DC, National 

Academy Press, 1996). 

52.P&O Princess Cruises plc, 2000 Annual Report. 

53.George Wright, Princess Cruises, personal communication, May 22, 2001. 

54.Richard E. Fredricks, Jeffrey G. Miner, Ph.D., and Christopher P. Constantine, “Maritime 

Solutions ballast water treatment system: a shipboard trial,” to be presented at the Society of 

Naval Architects and Marine Engineers Marine Technology meeting, June 2001. 

55. Dames and Moore, “Ballast water management technical memorandum for Port of Oakland,”

Job No. 02801-028-086, November 6, 1998. 

56.James T. Carlton, Donald M. Reid, Henry van Leeuwen, “Shipping Study–The role of shipping 

in the introduction of nonindigenous aquatic organisms to the coastal waters of the United States 

(other than the Great Lakes) and an analysis of control options,” U.S. Coast Guard Report no. 

48
AQUATIC NUISANCE SPECIES IN BALLAST WATER DISCHARGES: Issues and Options 

DRAFT FOR PUBLIC COMMENT – September 10, 2001 

CG-D-XX-92, 1992. 

57.William McCracken, “Michigan Project: Ballast Water Treatment With Currently Available 

Biocides,” International Ballast Water R&D Symposium, International Maritime Organization 

Headquarters, London, United Kingdom, March 26-27, 2001. 

58.Dames and Moore, “Ballast water management technical memorandum for Port of Oakland,” 

Job No. 02801-028-086, November 6, 1998. 

59.Marine Board, National Research Council, Stemming the Tide: Controlling the 

Introduction of Nonindigenous Species by Ships’ Ballast Water (Washington, DC, National 

Academy Press, 1996). 

60.Pollutech Environmental Ltd., "A Review and Evaluation of Ballast Water Management and 

Treatment Options to Reduce the Potential for the Introduction of Non-native Species to the 

Great Lakes," prepared for the Canadian Coast Guard, March 31, 1992. 

61.Wilson Browning, W. J. Browning, Co., Inc, Norfolk, VA, personal communication, June 22, 

2001. 

62.National Invasive Species Council, Meeting the Invasive Species Challenge, January 18, 

2001. 

63.16 USC chapter 67.

64.Allegra Cangelosi, "NISA Passes!" ANS Digest, March 1997.

65.16 USC 4711(c)(2)(K)-(L).

66.66 FR 28213.

67.16 USC 4711(d).

68.16 USC 4711(f)(1).

69.16 USC 4711(c)(2)(B).

70.16 USC 4711(g).

71.letter from the Commandant of the U.S. Coast Guard to the American Maritime Congress 

dated May 1, 2001. 

72.G. M. Ruiz, A. W. Miller, R. A. Everett, B. Steves, K. Lion, C. Whitcraft, A. Arnwine, E.

Colinetti, M. Sigala, and D. Lipski, “National Ballast Information Clearinghouse Interim Report. 

Results of the First Year of Data Management and Analysis: Shipping Industry Compliance with 

Mandatory Ballast Water Reporting Requirements Shipping Industry Compliance with Voluntary 

Ballast Water Management Guidelines,” (October 2000). 

49
AQUATIC NUISANCE SPECIES IN BALLAST WATER DISCHARGES: Issues and Options 

DRAFT FOR PUBLIC COMMENT – September 10, 2001 

73.G. M. Ruiz, A. W. Miller, R. A. Everett, B. Steves, K. Lion, C. Whitcraft, A. Arnwine, E.

Colinetti, M. Sigala, and D. Lipski, “National Ballast Information Clearinghouse Interim Report. 

Results of the First Year of Data Management and Analysis: Shipping Industry Compliance with 

Mandatory Ballast Water Reporting Requirements Shipping Industry Compliance with Voluntary 

Ballast Water Management Guidelines,” (October 2000). 

74.16 USC 4721.

75.5 USC Appendix.

76.“Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force Resolution on the Elimination of the Transfer of 

Invasive Species Through Ships’ Ballast Water,” Duluth, Minnesota, April 30, 1999. 

77.16 USC 4714(b).

78.16 USC 4721(b).

79.16 USC 4722(i)(2)(A).

80.33 USC chapter 33.

81.33 USC chapter 26.

82.33 USC 1313(c).

83.33 USC 1313(d)(1)(A).

84.see 33 USC 1313(d)(3).

85.Letter from U.S. EPA notifying California State Water Resources Control Board of decisions

relating to TMDL submission for the San Francisco Bay area, May 12, 1999.

86. 40 CFR 1700.

87.33 USC 1362(6).

88.“Alien invaders–putting a stop to the ballast water hitchhikers,” in Focus on IMO, 

International Maritime Organization, 4 Albert Embankment, London SE1 7SR, United Kingdom, 

October 1998. 

89. “Tough New Rules to Keep Marine Invaders Out” Australian Minister for Agriculture,

Fisheries and Forestry media release AFFA99/37WT, September 15, 1999. 

90.Kieran Mulvaney, “A Sea of Troubles: In the International Year of the Ocean, Are We 

Reaching the Limits?” E/The Environmental Magazine, Jan-Feb 1998 

91.Eric Reeves, “Analysis of laws & policies concerning exotic invasions of the Great Lakes,” 

report to the Office of the Great Lakes, Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (Lansing, 

MI: MDEQ OGL, Mar 15, 1999). 

50
AQUATIC NUISANCE SPECIES IN BALLAST WATER DISCHARGES: Issues and Options 

DRAFT FOR PUBLIC COMMENT – September 10, 2001 

92.Eric Reeves, “An IJC White Paper On Policies for the Prevention of The Invasion of the Great 

Lakes by Exotic Organisms,” presented at the International Joint Commission Workshop on 

Exotic Policy in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, September 23, 1999. 

93.Report of the Water Quality Board to the International Joint Commission, “Alien Invasive 

Species and Biological Pollution of the Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem,” May 1, 2000. 

94.Washington Aquatic Nuisance Species Planning Committee, Scott S. Smith, Washington 

Department of Fish and Wildlife, chair, “Washington State Aquatic Nuisance Species 

Management Plan”, June 1998. 

95. 16 USC 4724(a)

96.“Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Species State Management Plan: A Strategy to Confront 

Their Spread in Michigan,” 1995. 

97.“Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Species State Management Plan: A Strategy to Confront 

Their Spread in Michigan,” 1995. 

98.“ANS State Management Plan Progress Report - 2000” Michigan Department of 

Environmental Quality, January 16, 2001 (from http://www.deq.state.mi.us/ogl/). 

99.Washington Aquatic Nuisance Species Planning Committee, Scott S. Smith, Washington 

Department of Fish and Wildlife, chair, “Washington State Aquatic Nuisance Species 

Management Plan”, June 1998. 

100.Michigan Senate bill No. 955, A bill to amend 1994 PA 451, entitled "Natural resources and 

environmental protection act," introduced February 1, 2000, Introduced by Senators Sikkema, 

Young, Goschka, Hammerstrom, Stille, North, Gougeon, Van Regenmorter, Gast, Bennett, 

Rogers, Dunaskiss, Steil, Mc Cotter, Emmons, Bullard, Schwarz, Shugars, Schuette, Johnson, 

Peters and De Beaussaert. 

101.Pacific Ballast Water Group, “Report and Recommendations,” July 28, 1999 (DRAFT). 

102.Board of Port Commissioners of the City of Oakland, “An Ordinance Amending Port 

Ordinance No. 2833 Relating to Ballast Water.” effective date August 1, 1999. 

103.Scott Newsham, Commander, USCG, “Ballast Water Management,” presentation to the 

Chemical Transportation Advisory Committee, March, 1999. 

104.Department of Transportation, Proceedings of the National Conference on the Marine 

Transportation System: Waterways, Ports and their Intermodal Connections, Airlie Center, 

Warrenton, Va, November 17-19, 1998. 

105.“Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Species State Management Plan: A Strategy to Confront 

Their Spread in Michigan,” 1995. 

106. 40 CFR 123.63(e). 

51 
AQUATIC NUISANCE SPECIES IN BALLAST WATER DISCHARGES: Issues and Options 

DRAFT FOR PUBLIC COMMENT – September 10, 2001 

107. 38 FR 13530.

108. 33 USC 1362(14).

109. 33 USC 1362(6)(A). 

110. 33 USC 1322(a)(6).

111. 33 USC 1362(12). 

112.15 USC 1606 (Article 24(2)). 

113. 38 FR 13530. 

114. 38 FR 13530.

115. 38 FR 13528.

116. 44 FR 32902. 

117. See 43 FR 37079.

118. See 40 CFR 123.25. 

119. See, Issuance of Final General NPDES Permits for Oil and Gas Operations on the Outer

Continental Shelf (OCS) of Alaska, Norton Sound and Beaufort Sea, 48 FR 54881 (Dec. 7, 

1983); Issuance of Final General NPDES Permits for Portions of Deep Seabed Mining Activities 

in the Pacific Ocean, 49 FR 39442 (Oct. 5, 1984); Final NPDES General Permit for Offshore Oil 

and Gas Operations on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) and State Waters of Alaska: Arctic 

NPDES General Permit (No. AKG284200), 60 FR 27508 (May 24, 1995); Authorization to 

Discharge Under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System for Seafood Processors in 

Alaska, 60 FR 34992 (Jul. 5, 1995); Final NPDES General Permit for New and Existing Sources 

in the Offshore Category for the Western Portion of the Outer Continental Shelf of the Gulf of 

Mexico (GMG290000), 61 FR 41609 (Aug. 9, 1996). 

120. 40 CFR 122.23. 

121. 40 CFR 122.24. 

122. 40 CFR 122.25. 

123. 40 CFR 122.26. 

124. 40 CFR 122.27. 

125. 33 USC 1370. 

126. 33 USC 1342(g). 

52
AQUATIC NUISANCE SPECIES IN BALLAST WATER DISCHARGES: Issues and Options 

DRAFT FOR PUBLIC COMMENT – September 10, 2001 

127. 33 USC 1364(a).

128.66 FR 21807.

129. see http://www.epa.gov/projectxl

53