1 

### Wisconsin Ballast Water Treatm ent Feasibility Determination

Prepared by Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources

INTRODUCTION

In 2008, the United States Environmental Pr otection Agency (USEPA) issued a Vessel General Permit (VGP) to regulate the incident al 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 gove rnments, 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, thes e states have created their own ballast water discharge permits or have issued conditional CWA Section 401 Water Quality Certification based on the responsibility to prot ect 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 treatm ent technologies to determine the commercial availability of these technologies and feasibility of achie ving the Wisconsin standard, as defined in Table A of the General Permit. (See Table A be low.) WDNR’s review and determination is based upon whether the fo llowing criteria are met:

A. Treatment technologies are able to meet th e 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 th e 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 m 3 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 cf u per 100 ml To be determined Composite2 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) st andard, as portrayed in Table B of the General Permit, will apply. (See Table B be low.) 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 discha rge 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 m 3 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 cf u per 100 ml To be determined Composite

On January 13, 2010, WDNR presented a sc ope of work and requested that the Great Lakes Ballast Water Collaborative (Co llaborative) act as th e technical advisory committee to discuss the issues, research th e feasibility of the criteria, and make

recommendations based on the combined effort of experts in the fi eld of ballast water treatment technology. The Collaborative cons ists of scientists, researchers, nongovernmental organizations, vendors, naval arch itects, ship engineers, shipping industry representatives and federal, state and provin ce regulators. In respons e to WDNR’s request, the Collaborative met twice, in May (Montreal , Quebec) and in July (Duluth, Minnesota),

and held a number of conference call discus sions, addressing the listed criteria. Three workgroups were formed to try to answer sp ecific questions within the criteria. WDNR’s determination is based in part upon its review of currently av ailable technical information and in part on the conclusions of the Co llaborative’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 ab le to meet the Wisc onsin 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 In ternational Maritime Organization’s proposed performance standards for the di scharge 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 sy stem passes and is approved by a regulatory entity [i.e., United St ates Coast Guard (USCG) and IMO].

 “Verification” means certifica tion to a specific standard.

A workgroup of experts (Group 3 of the Ba llast Water Collaborative Duluth Working Groups, which is incorporated by reference into this feasibil ity 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 min imum of 30 cubic meters of water.

 Proper analysis of the volumes of water

– Test methodologies are evolving, but

there is still no standard ized testing protocol.

It is currently not possible to verify that a ny available ballast wate r treatment system can
meet the Wisconsin 100 x IMO standard. Enforc ement actions would be limited to large,

obvious violations such as disc harging without any treatment, and they would be difficult for violations associated with meeting the lim its 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 appr oval to 100 x IMO on a consistent basis. Therefore, the conclusion is that treatmen t 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 t ype approval certification based on IMO

standards.

A workgroup of experts (Group 1 of the Ba llast 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 wh ether 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 Gu ard (USCG) proposed discharge standards and BWTS verification methods, to be implem ented 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 followi ng 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 coul d 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 (E PA SAB EPEC) that studied over 30 types of BWTSs. Initial results of the study, whic h 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 eith er: 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 Su mmer, 2011.) The USCG does not believe any BWTS can currently meet 100 x IMO. Since th ere are currently no te sting protocols for evaluating whether or not a BWTS can achie ve 100 x IMO, the claims by some BWTS manufacturers that their produc ts are capable of reaching th e 100 x IMO standard can not be scientifically proven.

Testing protocols [i.e., US EPA’s Environmental Technology Verification (ETV), incorporated by reference into this feasibil ity determination (Appendix E)] were recently finalized and published by USEPA. BWTS vendor s 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 insu re US vessels without USCG type approval of a BWTS. Without insurance, the vessels cannot operate. T hus, 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 (B MP) 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 ve ssels 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. Howe ver, 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 th reat of aquatic non-i ndigenous species. The idea of utilizing BWE combined with BWTSs for effective control of ballast water and better protection against the in troduction of harmful aquatic organisms and pathogens is supported by the recent research of Dr. Sarah Bailey (Great Lakes Institute of Environmental Research), which is incorpor ated by reference into this feasibility

determination under Additional Resources.

Recommendation for Department Determination (Criterion B)

The workgroup’s assessment is that there ar e many factors to consider in determining whether treatment technologies ar e commercially available. The conclusion is that they are not commercially available at 100 x IM O 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 Ba llast Water Collaborative Duluth Working Groups) examined the key components of the installation process from the vessel owner’s perspective. It also reviewed the factors a ffecting 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 iden tified as being the larges t obstacle for installation feasibility. When a national standard is adopt ed 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 f actors which vary from vessel to vessel, including ballast pumping rates and volumes, tr ade routes and ballast water retention time associated with the trade routes, and vessel life cycle and economic considerations that would help determine the id eal 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 demons trated 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 te sting facility (Great Ships Initiative in Superior, WI), and vessels entering the Great Lake s will need to install BWTS s that have been approved through freshwater testing. There are no testing facilitie s in the world that have the ability

to test to standards more st ringent than IMO. In addition, until the USCG rules establishing US testing standards are promulgated, there ar e no approved US testing methods that are7 even available. To date, no one BWTS has pa ssed Type Approval to the IMO D-2 standard for saltwater, brackish an d freshwater systems.

To facilitate BWTS testing and approval, the USCG Shipboard Technology Evaluation Program (STEP), which is incorporated by refe rence 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 pr acticable to install the BWTS technologies onboard existing or new vessels. Thus, the conclusi on is that it is not f easible to install the technologies onboard both new and existing vessels.

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

dates.

On July 17, 2009, IMO’s Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC59) concluded sufficient technologies were availabl e for installation on vessels constructed in 2010. The MEPC59 report is incorporated by refere nce 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 A pproval to the IMO D-2 standard as an equivalent to receiving USCG Type Approva l, 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 syst ems 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 Californi a, 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 sta ndard’s effective dates.9 Incorporated by reference to this feasibility determinati on, the following appendices are

submitted:

APPENDICES

Appendix A Report from the Great Lake s Ballast Water Collaborative Meeting: Montreal (including attachments)

http://www.greatlakesseaway.com/en/pdf/Ballast_Water_Co llaborative_Meeting_Report_05-18-10.pdf

Appendix B Report from the Great Lake s Ballast Water Collaborative Meeting:

Duluth

http://www.greatlakesseaway.com/en/pdf/Ballast_Collaborativ e_Report_and_WGRepor ts_Duluth(Final).pdf

Appendix C Ballast Water Collabora tive Duluth Working Groups

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

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

http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.ns f/PeopleSearch/4C81DE70BB5ABD04852576D 90054E925?OpenDocument

http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct .nsf/PeopleSearch/412EAA9F2963E095852577AD 00520D31?OpenDocument

Appendix E Generic Protocol for the V erification 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 Environm ent Protection Committee on its FiftyNinth Session

http://www.shippingandco2.org/SEEMP-28July09.pdf10 ADDITIONAL RESOURCES

American Bureau of Shipping. 2010. Gu ide for Ballast Water Exchange.

Bailey, Sarah. 2010, publication pending. Development of Guidelines and Other Documents for Uniform Implementa tion 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/envi ronment/ballast_collaborative.html

International Maritime Organizat ion. 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., a nd Ruiz, G. 2010. Density Matters: Review of Approaches to Setting Organism-Based Ba llast Water Discharge Standards. U.S. EPA, Office of Research and Developmen t, National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory, West ern Ecology Divisi on. EPA/600/R-10/031.

Lloyd’s Register. 2010. Ballast Water T reatment Technology: Current Status.

National Park Service. 2010. Bridging Ballast Water Treatment Technology Gaps: Moving from Proof of Concept to Full Impl ementation of Great Lakes Ballast Water Skid Mounted Treatment Syst ems Within 24 to 36 Months!