1

Wisconsin Ballast Water Treatment Feasibility Determination 

Prepared by 

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources 

INTRODUCTION 

In 2008, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) issued a Vessel 

General Permit (VGP) to regulate the incidental discharges from the normal operation of 

vessels, including ballast water, into waters of the United States (US), under the Federal 

Clean Water Act (CWA). However, there are no numeric discharge standards or 

compliance dates in the VGP. Some state governments, including Wisconsin, believe that 

the VGP does not require action that is necessary to protect the Great Lakes from the threat 

of aquatic invasive species. As a result, these states have created their own ballast water 

discharge permits or have issued conditional CWA Section 401 Water Quality 

Certification based on the responsibility to protect the waters of the Great Lakes states and 

fulfill the intent of the CWA. 

In conjunction with its Wisconsin Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (WPDES) 

General Permit No. WI-0063835-01-0 for Ballast Water Discharge (General Permit), the 

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) reviewed documentation and expert 

opinions on ballast water treatment technologies to determine the commercial availability 

of these technologies and feasibility of achieving the Wisconsin standard, as defined in 

Table A of the General Permit. (See Table A below.) WDNR’s review and determination is 

based upon whether the following criteria are met: 

A. Treatment technologies are able to meet the Wisconsin standards in Table A of the 

General Permit. 

B. Treatment technologies are commercially available. 

C. It is feasible to install the technologies onboard both new and existing vessels. 

D. Sufficient time exists to comply with the discharge standard’s effective dates. 

Table A 

Wisconsin Standard 

Parameter Limit Type Limit and Units Sample 

Frequency 

Sample Type 

Organisms > 50 μm in 

minimum dimension 

Daily Average < 1 Viable organism 

per 10 m3 

To be determined Composite 

Organisms 10 - 50 μm 

in minimum dimension 

Daily Average < 1 Viable organism 

per 10 ml 

To be determined Composite 

Escherichia coli Daily Average < 126 cfu per 100 ml To be determined Composite 

Intestinal enterococci Daily Average < 33 cfu per 100 ml To be determined Composite 
2

If WDNR makes a finding that technology is not commercially available to comply with 

the Wisconsin standards in Table A, then the requirements in Section 4.1 will be modified 

pursuant to the permit modification process in s. 283.53, Wis. Stats., and the less stringent 

International Maritime Organization (IMO) standard, as portrayed in Table B of the 

General Permit, will apply. (See Table B below.) Treatment system manufacturers, 

researchers and companies that have vessels covered under the permit were encouraged to 

submit information to WDNR to assist in the treatment feasibility determination for 

complying with Wisconsin’s proposed discharge standard in Table A of the General 

Permit. 

Table B

IMO Standard 

Parameter Limit Type Limit and Units Sample 

Frequency 

Sample Type 

Organisms > 50 μm in 

minimum dimension 

Daily Average < 10 Viable organisms 

per m3 

To be determined Composite 

Organisms 10 - 50 μm 

in minimum dimension 

Daily Average < 10 Viable organisms 

per ml 

To be determined Composite 

Escherichia coli Daily Average < 250 cfu per 100 ml To be determined Composite 

Intestinal enterococci Daily Average < 100 cfu per 100 ml To be determined Composite 

On January 13, 2010, WDNR presented a scope of work and requested that 

the Great Lakes Ballast Water Collaborative (Collaborative) act as the technical advisory 

committee to discuss the issues, research the feasibility of the criteria, and make 

recommendations based on the combined effort of experts in the field of ballast water 

treatment technology. The Collaborative consists of scientists, researchers, nongovernmental organizations, vendors, naval architects, ship engineers, shipping industry 

representatives and federal, state and province regulators. In response to WDNR’s request, 

the Collaborative met twice, in May (Montreal, Quebec) and in July (Duluth, Minnesota), 

and held a number of conference call discussions, addressing the listed criteria. Three 

workgroups were formed to try to answer specific questions within the criteria. WDNR’s 

determination is based in part upon its review of currently available technical information 

and in part on the conclusions of the Collaborative’s general discussions and workgroup 

efforts, detailed in two separate reports, which are incorporated by reference into this 

feasibility determination (Appendices A and B). 
3

CRITERIA AND FINDINGS 

Criterion A: Treatment technologies are able to meet the Wisconsin standards in 

Table A of the General Permit. 

Key terms associated with this criterion: 

 “Efficacy” means the ability of a system to treat ballast water to a level compliant 

with Wisconsin’s performance standards. 

 “IMO” or “IMO Standard” means the International Maritime Organization’s 

proposed performance standards for the discharge of ballast water (Regulation 

D-2 of the Ballast Water Convention). 

 “Type Approval” means certification that a ballast water treatment system has been 

thoroughly tested and verified to the point that the system passes and is approved 

by a regulatory entity [i.e., United States Coast Guard (USCG) and IMO]. 

 “Verification” means certification to a specific standard. 

A workgroup of experts (Group 3 of the Ballast Water Collaborative Duluth Working 

Groups, which is incorporated by reference into this feasibility determination as Appendix 

C) reviewed and assessed the current verification capability for treatment systems in order 

to comply with a discharge standard of 100 times the IMO standard (Wisconsin standard 

from Table A). 

Currently, the major obstacles to testing ballast water treatment systems (BWTSs) are: 

 The large volumes of water necessary for a sample – At a 100 x IMO standard, a 

testing protocol would require a minimum of 30 cubic meters of water. 

 Proper analysis of the volumes of water – Test methodologies are evolving, but 

there is still no standardized testing protocol. 

It is currently not possible to verify that any available ballast water treatment system can 

meet the Wisconsin 100 x IMO standard. Enforcement actions would be limited to large, 

obvious violations such as discharging without any treatment, and they would be difficult 

for violations associated with meeting the limits such as a discharge which is treated but 

does not meet the treatment standard. 

Recommendation for Department Determination (Criterion A) 

The workgroup’s assessment is that no formal protocols are currently in place for verifying 

treatment efficacy necessary for type approval to 100 x IMO on a consistent basis. 

Therefore, the conclusion is that treatment technologies are not able to demonstrate 

compliance with the Wisconsin standards in Table A of the General Permit.
4

Criterion B: Treatment technologies are commercially available. 

Key terms associated with this criterion: 

 “Commercially Available” means the system has been adequately tested, vetted and 

certified (i.e., Type-Approval to the IMO D-2 standard); is available for purchase, 

delivery and installation; is sold by multiple vendors and is in sufficient supply to 

meet demands. 

 “Rated” means the system has received type approval certification based on IMO 

standards. 

A workgroup of experts (Group 1 of the Ballast Water Collaborative Duluth Working 

Groups) reviewed and identified “commercially available” BWTSs that have been “rated” 

to meet or exceed 100 x IMO. 

The factors considered in determining whether a treatment technology is commercially 

available were: 

 Safety 

 Affordability 

 Cost effectiveness 

 Fresh water compatibility 

 Water temperature variability 

 Product availability 

 Vendor availability 

 Insurability 

 Maintenance 

 Technology and vessel compatibility 

On August 27, 2009, the United States Coast Guard (USCG) proposed discharge standards 

and BWTS verification methods, to be implemented in two phases. The proposed rule has 

not yet been adopted. The USCG is not confident that any of the current systems can meet 

IMO and USCG Phase 1 standards. The following concerns have been raised during the 

USCG studies and tests of BWTSs: 

 The systems could not consistently meet the given criteria. 

 Quality Assurance/Quality Control is not in place. 

 Test methodologies are not repeatable. 

 Data could not be validated. 

None of the systems tested by USCG could meet the 100 x IMO Wisconsin standard. 

These results were confirmed by a subgroup of the USEPA Science Advisory Board 

Ecological Processes and Effects Committee (EPA SAB EPEC) that studied over 30 types 

of BWTSs. Initial results of the study, which are incorporated by reference into this 

feasibility determination (Appendix D), will show that, when testing out to 10 x IMO, 

100 x IMO and 1000 x IMO, all BWTSs tested either: 1) may have the potential to meet 

the standard (but it can not be verified), or 2) are unlikely to or will not meet the standard. 
5

(The final report is to be published Summer, 2011.) The USCG does not believe any 

BWTS can currently meet 100 x IMO. Since there are currently no testing protocols for 

evaluating whether or not a BWTS can achieve 100 x IMO, the claims by some BWTS 

manufacturers that their products are capable of reaching the 100 x IMO standard can not 

be scientifically proven. 

Testing protocols [i.e., USEPA’s Environmental Technology Verification (ETV), 

incorporated by reference into this feasibility determination (Appendix E)] were recently 

finalized and published by USEPA. BWTS vendors would need to rigorously test their 

systems prior to WDNR relying on the claims that the BWTS complies with 100 x IMO. 

However, protocols to test to this standard are still in development. 

In addition, insurance companies will not insure US vessels without USCG type approval 

of a BWTS. Without insurance, the vessels cannot operate. Thus, USCG type approval of a 

BWTS is necessary before it can be installed onboard. 

Currently the best and most effective way to remove non-indigenous species from ballast 

water is the Best Management Practice (BMP) of mid-ocean Ballast Water Exchange 

(BWE) or saltwater flushing (for vessels with No Ballast On Board, or NOBOBs), required 

by the USCG [33 CFR §151.1510(a)(1)] for all ocean-going vessels entering US waters, 

until ships are required by IMO to have onboard BWTSs in 2016. (WDNR’s General 

Permit requires BWTSs be installed on board all ocean-going vessels by 2012 for new 

vessels and by 2014 for existing vessels.) In BWE, ballast water (presumably coastal 

water) is exchanged with open-ocean water during a voyage. This reduces the number of 

coastal organisms, which are potential invasive threats. This has been an effective practice 

to help reduce the threat of aquatic non-indigenous species to US waters. The USCG plans 

to sunset the BWE requirement when the final rule is adopted because the requirement was 

intended to be only an interim solution. However, WDNR believes this is a BMP that 

should be sustained long-term, in addition to other requirements, in an effort to better 

protect the waters of Wisconsin from the threat of aquatic non-indigenous species. The 

idea of utilizing BWE combined with BWTSs for effective control of ballast water and 

better protection against the introduction of harmful aquatic organisms and pathogens is 

supported by the recent research of Dr. Sarah Bailey (Great Lakes Institute of 

Environmental Research), which is incorporated by reference into this feasibility 

determination under Additional Resources. 

Recommendation for Department Determination (Criterion B) 

The workgroup’s assessment is that there are many factors to consider in determining 

whether treatment technologies are commercially available. The conclusion is that they are 

not commercially available at 100 x IMO treatment levels at this time. 
6

Criterion C: It is feasible to install the technologies onboard both new and existing 

vessels. 

Key terms associated with this criterion: 

 “Feasibility” means the extent to which it is technically, economically and legally 

possible or reasonable. 

 “Practicable” means safely and economically possible, with an appropriate 

timeline. 

A workgroup of experts (Group 2 of the Ballast Water Collaborative Duluth Working 

Groups) examined the key components of the installation process from the vessel owner’s 

perspective. It also reviewed the factors affecting timing and how the lifespan of the vessel 

compares with the lifespan of the system. It would not be cost-effective to install a new 

system on a vessel that will be retired within a few years. EPA SAB EPEC has come to 

similar conclusions. 

Regulatory uncertainty was identified as being the largest obstacle for installation 

feasibility. When a national standard is adopted and an approved technology is available, 

the timeline for the installation of a BWTS will still be 3 to 5 years after that, due to the 

following steps in the installation process: 

 Vessel-specific evaluations 

 BWTS selection 

 Design and installation plans and specifications 

 System purchase 

 Installation contractor selection 

 BWTS delivery and installation 

BWTS suitability depends on a number of factors which vary from vessel to vessel, 

including ballast pumping rates and volumes, trade routes and ballast water retention time 

associated with the trade routes, and vessel life cycle and economic considerations that 

would help determine the ideal time to install a BWTS. 

Primarily because of insurance issues, it is unlikely that a BWTS would be installed 

onboard before it has been type approved by the USCG. For a product to be USCG type 

approved, it must have demonstrated that it complies with all relevant regulations and 

requirements, has successfully completed the required tests, and is enrolled in a follow-up 

program that monitors for quality control. This program monitors product uniformity in 

order to ensure that there is no deviation from the approved design. In addition, the USCG 

will only type approve to a federal standard, not to a state standard, such as the 100 X IMO 

Wisconsin standard. 

There is only one freshwater testing facility (Great Ships Initiative in Superior, WI), and 

vessels entering the Great Lakes will need to install BWTSs that have been approved 

through freshwater testing. There are no testing facilities in the world that have the ability 

to test to standards more stringent than IMO. In addition, until the USCG rules establishing 

US testing standards are promulgated, there are no approved US testing methods that are 
7

even available. To date, no one BWTS has passed Type Approval to the IMO D-2 standard 

for saltwater, brackish and freshwater systems. 

To facilitate BWTS testing and approval, the USCG Shipboard Technology Evaluation 

Program (STEP), which is incorporated by reference into this feasibility determination 

(Appendix F), promotes the development and testing of treatment technology until the 

USCG rule is adopted for type approval. STEP allows owners of vessels the opportunity to 

install, operate and evaluate experimental BWTSs for use in US waters. STEP offers 

access to vessels for further research and development of experimental technology and 

serves as an interim step to type approval. 

Recommendation for Department Determination (Criterion C) 

The workgroup determined that it is not yet practicable to install the BWTS technologies 

onboard existing or new vessels. Thus, the conclusion is that it is not feasible to install the 

technologies onboard both new and existing vessels. 

Criterion D: Sufficient time exists to comply with the discharge standard’s effective 

dates.

On July 17, 2009, IMO’s Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC59) 

concluded sufficient technologies were available for installation on vessels constructed in 

2010. The MEPC59 report is incorporated by reference into this feasibility determination 

(Appendix G). Research conducted by Dr. Bailey supports the MEPC59 findings. 

Additionally, there are BWTSs which have received Type Approval to the IMO D-2 

standard. WDNR proposes to accept Type Approval to the IMO D-2 standard as an 

equivalent to receiving USCG Type Approval, for the purposes of meeting compliance 

with the General Permit. The compliance dates in the General Permit will remain. The 

IMO discharge standard for treatment systems becomes effective in 2012 for new oceangoing vessels and in 2014 for existing ocean-going vessels. 

Recommendation for Department Determination (Criterion D) 

Based on the above information as well as evaluation of other states’ research and 

requirements (including California, New York, Minnesota and the National Park Service, 

which is hereby incorporated by reference into this feasibility determination under 

Additional Resources), WDNR’s conclusion is that sufficient time does exist to comply 

with the IMO discharge standard’s effective dates. 

9

Incorporated by reference to this feasibility determination, the following appendices are 

submitted: 

APPENDICES 

Appendix A Report from the Great Lakes Ballast Water Collaborative Meeting: 

Montreal (including attachments) 

http://www.greatlakesseaway.com/en/pdf/Ballast_Water_Collaborative_Meeting_Report_05-18-10.pdf

Appendix B Report from the Great Lakes Ballast Water Collaborative Meeting: 

Duluth 

http://www.greatlakesseaway.com/en/pdf/Ballast_Collaborative_Report_and_WGReports_Duluth(Final).pdf

Appendix C Ballast Water Collaborative Duluth Working Groups 

http://dnr.wi.gov/org/water/wm/ww/gpindex/BallastWaterDuluthGroups.pdf

Appendix D EPA SAB EPEC Ballast Water Advisory Documents (Drafts) 

http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/PeopleSearch/4C81DE70BB5ABD04852576D

90054E925?OpenDocument

http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/PeopleSearch/412EAA9F2963E095852577AD

00520D31?OpenDocument

Appendix E Generic Protocol for the Verification of Ballast Water Treatment 

Technology 

http://www.epa.gov/nrmrl/pubs/600r10146/600r10146.pdf

Appendix F Shipboard Technology Evaluation Program 

http://www.uscg.mil/hq/cg5/cg522/cg5224/step.asp

Appendix G Report of the Marine Environment Protection Committee on its FiftyNinth Session 

http://www.shippingandco2.org/SEEMP-28July09.pdf
10

ADDITIONAL RESOURCES 

American Bureau of Shipping. 2010. Guide for Ballast Water Exchange. 

Bailey, Sarah. 2010, publication pending. Development of Guidelines and Other 

Documents for Uniform Implementation of the 2004 BWM Convention. 

Code of Federal Regulations. 2010. 33 CFR §151.1510. 

Great Lakes Ballast Water Collaborative Home Page: 

http://www.greatlakes-seaway.com/en/environment/ballast_collaborative.html 

International Maritime Organization. 2004. Convention BWM/CONF/36 

International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships’ Ballast Water 

and Sediments, 2004. 

Lee II, H., Reusser D.A., Frazier, M., and Ruiz, G. 2010. Density Matters: Review of 

Approaches to Setting Organism-Based Ballast Water Discharge Standards. U.S. 

EPA, Office of Research and Development, National Health and Environmental 

Effects Research Laboratory, Western Ecology Division. EPA/600/R-10/031.

Lloyd’s Register. 2010. Ballast Water Treatment Technology: Current Status. 

National Park Service. 2010. Bridging Ballast Water Treatment Technology Gaps: 

Moving from Proof of Concept to Full Implementation of Great Lakes Ballast Water 

Skid Mounted Treatment Systems Within 24 to 36 Months!