Invasive Species: Progress and Challenges in Preventing Introduction into U.S. Waters Via the Ballast Water in Ships
Published: 2005-09-09T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: Numerous invasive species have been introduced into U.S. waters via ballast water discharged from ships and have caused serious economic and ecologic damage. GAO reported in 2002 that at least 160 nonnative aquatic species had become established in the Great Lakes since the 1800s--one-third of which were introduced in the past 30 years by ballast water and other sources. The effects of such species are not trivial; the zebra mussel alone is estimated to have caused $750 million to $1 billion in costs between 1989 and 2000. Species introductions via ballast water are not confined to the Great Lakes, however. The environment and economy of the Chesapeake Bay, San Francisco Bay, Puget Sound, and other U.S. waters have also been adversely affected. The federal government has been taking steps since 1990 to implement programs to prevent the introduction of invasive species from ships' ballast water discharges. However, species introductions are continuing. This testimony discusses the legislative and regulatory history of ballast water management and identifies some of the issues that pose challenges for the federal government's program for preventing the introduction of invasive species via ships' ballast water.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: Congress recognized ballast water as a serious problem in 1990 with passage of the Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act, legislation intended to help reduce the number of species introductions in the Great Lakes. A reauthorization of this law in 1996, the National Invasive Species Act, elevated ballast water management to a national level. As directed by the legislation, the federal government has promulgated several regulations requiring certain ships to take steps, such as exchanging their ballast water in the open ocean to flush it of potentially harmful organisms, to reduce the likelihood of species invasions via ballast water. Initially these regulations applied only to certain ships entering the Great Lakes; now they apply to certain ships entering all U.S. ports. In addition to these domestic developments, the United Nation's International Maritime Organization has recently adopted a convention on ballast water management that could affect the global fleet. Since 1998, Coast Guard data show that compliance with existing ballast water exchange requirements has generally been high. However, key agencies and stakeholders recognize that the current ballast water exchange program is not a viable long-term approach to minimizing the risks posed by ballast water discharges. The primary reasons for this are that: (1) many ships are exempt from current ballast water exchange requirements, (2) the Coast Guard has not established alternate discharge zones that could be used by ships unable to conduct ballast water exchange for various reasons, and (3) ballast water exchange is not always effective at removing or killing potentially invasive species. Developers are pursuing technologies to provide more reliable alternatives to ballast water exchange, some of which show promise. However, development of such technologies and their eventual use to meet ballast water regulatory requirements face many challenges including the daunting technological task of developing large scale water treatment systems that ships can accommodate, and the lack of a federal discharge standard that would provide a target for developers to aim for in terms of treatment efficiency. As a result, ballast water exchange is still the only approved method for treating ballast water despite the concerns with this method's effectiveness. Consequently, U.S. waters remain vulnerable to the introduction of invasive species via ships' ballast water. State governments and others have expressed frustration over the seemingly slow progress the federal government has made on more effectively protecting U.S. waters from future species invasions via ballast water. As a result, several states have passed legislation that authorizes procedures for managing ballast water that are stricter than federal regulations.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: I am pleased to be here today to discuss actions to address the  introduction of harmful invasive species via the ballast water in ships.  Numerous harmful species have been introduced into U.S. waters via  ballast water and have caused serious economic and ecologic damage. As  you know, many of these species are now permanent residents in U.S.  ecosystems and have significantly altered the structure of these systems,  or promise to do so in the future. We reported in 2002 that at least 160  nonnative aquatic species had become established in the Great Lakes since  the 1800s, more than one-third of which had been introduced in the prior  30 years. Ballast water is considered a major, although not the only, source  of those introductions.  This problem is not confined to the Great Lakes,  however. The environment and economy of the Chesapeake Bay, San  Francisco Bay, Puget Sound, and other coastal areas have also been  affected by species transported in ballast water. The effects are not trivial;  the zebra mussel alone is estimated to have caused $750 million to $1  billion in costs between 1989 and 2000.
Today, I am going to provide some information on the legislative and  regulatory history of ballast water management and discuss some issues  that pose challenges for the federal government’s program for preventing  the introduction of invasive species into U.S. waters from ships’ ballast  water discharges, including an update on concerns that we identified in  our 2002 report.
To update our work from 2002, we examined relevant statutes,  regulations, and agency policies and documents. We also gathered recent  data on compliance with current regulations. In addition, we interviewed  agency officials and representatives of the shipping industry, technology  developers, state agencies, environmental organizations, and academic  researchers. We conducted our work from March through August 2005 in  accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: Species of plants, animals, and microscopic organisms are transported  from their native environments around the world to new locations in many  different ways, both intentionally and unintentionally. When they arrive in  a new location, most of these species do not survive because  environmental conditions are not favorable. However, some of the newly  arrived species do survive and, unfortunately, a portion of these flourish to  the point that they begin to dominate native species and are thus labeled  as “invasive.” These invasive, nonnative species can seriously damage  ecosystems, businesses, and recreation.
Ballast water is one of many pathways by which nonnative and invasive  species have arrived in the United States. Ships are designed to sail safely  with their hulls submerged to a certain depth in the water. If a ship is not  filled to capacity with cargo, it needs to fill its ballast tanks with water to  maintain proper depth and balance during its travels. As a ship takes on  cargo at ports of call, it must then discharge some of its ballast water to  compensate for the weight of the cargo. When ships are fully loaded with  cargo, their ballast tanks may be pumped down to the point where only  residual water (also referred to as non-pumpable ballast water) is left.  Ship masters may also manipulate the amount of water in their ballast  tanks to account for different sea conditions. Different classes of ships  have different ballast capacities, ranging from tens of thousands to  millions of gallons of water.
Ships generally fill and discharge their ballast tanks when they are in port,  and the water and associated sediment they take in is likely to contain  living organisms or their eggs. Because the ballast water may be fresh,  brackish, or salty depending on where it is obtained, the organisms in the  water will also vary accordingly. Worldwide, ships discharge an estimated  3 billion to 5 billion metric tons of ballast water each year, and it is  estimated that several thousand different species may be transported  globally in ballast tanks on any given day. Well-known examples of  invasive species brought to the United States in ballast tanks include the  zebra mussel, round goby, Japanese shore crab, Asian clam, and Black Sea  jellyfish. Collectively, these and other aquatic species transported in  ballast water have caused billions of dollars in damage to our economy  and unmeasured damage to the environment. For example, we reported in  2002 that the Great Lakes commercial and recreational fishing industry— which is worth about $4.5 billion annually—was being damaged or  threatened by the sea lamprey, round goby, Eurasian ruffe, and two  invertebrates from eastern Europe, just to name a few.
While the Great Lakes feature prominently in today’s hearing, many other  waters around the United States have also been invaded by harmful  species. Notably, invasive species are found in virtually all of our coastal  bays and estuaries—resources that are typically enormously productive  and support multibillion dollar commercial fisheries and recreation  industries. Given the pace and expansion of global trade, the movement of  additional invasive species to these and other ecosystems can only be  expected to continue.
section_title: History of Ballast Water Management
paragraphs: The federal government has been taking steps to address the introduction  of potentially invasive species via the ballast water in ships for well over a  decade. Congress recognized ballast water as a serious problem in 1990  with the passage of the Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and  Control Act, legislation intended to help reduce the number of species  introduced into U.S. waters, focusing on the Great Lakes. Congress  reauthorized appropriations for and amended that law in 1996, making it  more national in scope. In 1999, the President issued an executive order to  better address invasive species in general, including those transported in  ballast water. In addition to these domestic developments, members of the  United Nation’s International Maritime Organization have adopted a  convention on ballast water management that, if ratified by a sufficient  number of countries, could affect the global fleet.
subsections: section_title: Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of 1990
paragraphs: Ballast water as a conduit for invasive species was first legislatively  recognized in 1990 with the passage of the Nonindigenous Aquatic  Nuisance Prevention and Control Act (NANPCA). This law was a  response to the introduction of the zebra mussel in the Great Lakes and  findings that the discharge of ballast water results in unintentional  introductions of nonindigenous species. The zebra mussel reproduces  rapidly, and soon after its introduction clogged municipal and industrial  water pipes, out-competed native mussels for food and habitat, and cost  millions of dollars in economic losses and remedial actions.
Specifically, NANPCA called for regulations to prevent the introduction  and spread of aquatic invasive species into the Great Lakes through the  ballast water of ships. Among other things, it specifically called for the  regulations to require ships carrying ballast water and entering a Great  Lakes port after operating beyond the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ)—a  zone generally extending 200 nautical miles from a country’s shores—to  take one of the following actions:    Carry out what is known as ballast water exchange beyond the EEZ before  entering a Great Lakes port;   Exchange ballast water in other waters where the exchange does not  threaten introduction of aquatic invasive species to the Great Lakes or  other U.S. waters; or   Use an environmentally sound alternative method of removing potentially  invasive organisms if the Secretary determines that such method is as  effective as ballast water exchange in preventing and controlling aquatic  invasive species infestations.
Exchanging ballast water in the ocean serves two purposes—to physically  flush aquatic organisms from ships’ tanks and to kill remaining organisms  that require fresh or brackish water with highly saline ocean water.
After first issuing guidelines that became effective in March 1991, the  Coast Guard replaced them with ballast water management regulations in  April 1993 for ships carrying ballast water and entering the Great Lakes  from outside of the EEZ. In 1992, Congress amended NANPCA and called  for the promulgation of regulations for ships entering the Hudson River  north of the George Washington Bridge; in December 1994, the Coast  Guard extended its regulations to these ships. The regulations required  ships with pumpable ballast water to:    exchange ballast water beyond the EEZ at a minimum depth of 2,000  meters before entering the Great Lakes or Hudson River;   utilize another environmentally sound ballast water management method  approved by the Coast Guard; or retain the ballast water on board.
The Coast Guard did not approve any alternative method and, therefore,  ships that did not exchange their ballast water beyond the EEZ were  required to retain it on board. The Coast Guard also required these ships  to submit reports attesting to, among other things, their ballast water  management actions.
NANPCA also established the Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force  (ANSTF), consisting of representatives from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife  Service, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),  the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Coast Guard, the Army  Corps of Engineers, and other agencies deemed appropriate, as well as ex- officio members from the Great Lakes Commission and other nonfederal  groups or agencies. NANPCA required the task force and the Secretary to  cooperate in conducting a number of studies within 18 months of  enactment of the act on such issues as:    The environmental effects of ballast water exchange on native species in    Alternate areas, if any, where ballast water exchange does not pose a  threat of infestation or spread of aquatic invasive species in the Great  Lakes and other U.S. waters;    The need for controls on ships entering U.S. waters other than the Great  Lakes to minimize the risk of unintentional introduction and dispersal of  aquatic invasive species in those waters; and,    Whether aquatic invasive species threaten the ecological characteristics  and economic uses of U.S. waters other than the Great Lakes.
section_title: National Invasive Species Act of 1996
paragraphs: Recognizing that many water bodies around the country in addition to the  Great Lakes had been invaded by harmful, nonindigenous aquatic species,  Congress reauthorized appropriations for and amended NANPCA with the  passage of the National Invasive Species Act of 1996 (NISA). NISA  expanded upon NANCPA and called for voluntary national guidelines for  ships equipped with ballast water tanks that operate in waters of the  United States. NISA required the voluntary guidelines to direct ships to  manage ballast water in a manner similar to the mandatory requirements  for ships sailing to the Great Lakes by conducting ballast water exchange  beyond the EEZ, exchanging their ballast water in an alternative discharge  zone recommended by the ANSTF, or using an alternative treatment  method approved by the Secretary. The law also required that the  guidelines direct ships to carry out other management practices that were  deemed necessary to reduce the probability of transferring species from  ship operations other than ballast discharge and from ballasting practices  of ships that enter U.S. waters with no ballast water on board. In addition,  the law required that the guidelines provide that ships keep records and  submit them to the Secretary to enable the Secretary to determine  compliance with the guidelines.
The Coast Guard issued an interim rule in May 1999 and promulgated a  final rule in November 2001 setting forth national voluntary guidelines  under NISA. The guidelines encouraged ships carrying ballast water  taken on in areas less than 200 nautical miles from any shore or in waters  less than 2,000 meters deep to employ at least one of the following ballast  water management practices: exchange their ballast water outside of the  EEZ in waters at least 2,000 meters deep before entering U.S. waters,  retain it on board, use an approved alternative ballast water management  method, discharge the ballast water to an approved reception facility, or  under extraordinary conditions conduct an exchange in an area agreed to  by the Captain of the Port. The voluntary guidelines also encouraged all  ships equipped with ballast water tanks and operating in U.S. waters to  take various precautions to minimize the uptake and release of harmful  aquatic organisms, pathogens and sediments. Such precautions may  include regularly cleaning ballast tanks to remove sediment and  minimizing or avoiding the uptake of ballast water in areas known to have  infestations of harmful organisms and pathogens such as toxic algal  blooms. In issuing the voluntary guidelines, the Coast Guard said that it  was considering the results of a study on alternate discharge exchange  zones but had not decided whether to allow ballast water exchanges in  any of the possible locations the task force identified.
NISA also required a report to Congress on, among other things,  compliance with the voluntary ballast water exchange and reporting  guidelines no later than 3 years after their issuance. In addition, NISA  required that the guidelines be revised, or additional regulations  promulgated, no later than 3 years after the issuance of the guidelines and  at least every 3 years thereafter, as necessary. Importantly, NISA required  the promulgation of regulations making the guidelines mandatory if the  Secretary determined that reporting or the rate of ship compliance was not  adequate. As required by NISA, the Coast Guard issued its report to  Congress in June 2002, but was not able to evaluate compliance with the  voluntary guidelines because the rate of reporting was so poor. (From July  1, 1999, to June 30, 2001, less than one-third of all vessels required to  report ballast water management information met the requirement.)  Accordingly, as authorized by NISA, the Coast Guard published a  proposed rule for a national mandatory program for ballast water  management for all ships operating in U.S. waters in July 2003 and a final  rule in July 2004. In addition, the Coast Guard promulgated another rule,  effective August 13, 2004, establishing penalties for, among other things,  ship owners who do not file the required reports on their ballast water  operations.
Finally, a key provision in NISA recognized the need to stimulate  development of ballast water treatment technologies. Specifically, NISA  called for the establishment of a grant program to provide funds to  nonfederal entities to develop, test, and demonstrate ballast water  treatment technologies. The Secretary of the Interior was authorized to  enter into cooperative agreements with other federal agencies and  nonfederal entities to conduct the program. NOAA and the U.S. Fish and  Wildlife Service created the Ballast Water Technology Demonstration  Program that provides grants to entities pursuing technologies that could  be used to treat ballast water.
section_title: National Invasive Species Council
paragraphs: Addressing concerns with the introduction of potentially harmful  organisms via ballast water also falls under the purview of the National  Invasive Species Council. The council was created in 1999 under  Executive Order 13112, which broadly addressed all types of invasive  species. The council consists of the heads of the principal departments  and agencies with invasive species responsibilities. The order directed the  council to develop a plan for managing invasive species across agencies  and to do so through a public process in consultation with federal  agencies and stakeholders.
The council issued a national invasive species management plan in  January 2001 containing 57 primary action items calling for about 168  separate actions to be taken by a variety of federal agencies. Two actions  in the plan relate to ballast water. First, because ballast water exchange  was recognized as only an interim measure to address nonnative species  introductions via ballast water, the plan called for NOAA, the Coast Guard,  Interior, and EPA to sponsor research to develop new technologies for  ballast water management by July 2001. Second, the plan called for the  Coast Guard to issue standards for approving the use of ballast water  management technologies as alternative ballast water management  methods by January 2002. NANPCA and NISA require that, in order for an  alternative ballast water management method to be used, the Secretary  must first approve the method as being “at least as effective as ballast  water exchange in preventing and controlling infestations of aquatic  nuisance species,” however, standards for approving alternative measures  had yet to be developed.
The effect of the National Invasive Species Council and the national  management plan on efforts to address species introductions via ballast  water appears to be minimal. While research on technologies has been  supported by the Ballast Water Technology Demonstration Program,  which is managed by NOAA and the Fish and Wildlife Service, this  program began in 1998 in response to NISA—before the management plan  was written or before the council was even created. Little action has been  taken on developing standards for approving ballast water treatment  technologies even though its completion date was January 2002.
The council has focused on ballast water in its “cross-cut budget” for  invasive species that it began in 2002 (for the fiscal year 2004 budget),  although its influence on ballast water management also appears limited.  The cross-cut budget effort is intended to encourage agencies to, among  other things, develop shared goals and strategies, and to promote  cooperation and coordination on invasive species issues. As a part of the  cross-cut budget, agencies have developed three performance measures  for ballast water management. For fiscal year 2005, agencies were to (1)  sponsor eight ballast water technology projects, (2) develop and  implement a standardized program to test and certify the performance  capabilities of ballast water treatment systems, and (3) conduct a pilot  scale verification trial of a full-scale treatment system to validate the  standardized program. However, these measures call for agencies to take  certain actions as opposed to achieving some desired outcome. This is  similar to what we observed in our 2002 report about the actions in the  national management plan. In addition, we note that the Coast Guard is  not included in the cross-cut budget for ballast water despite being the  primary regulatory agency for managing this issue.
section_title: International Maritime Organization Convention on Ballast Water
paragraphs: While Congress, the Coast Guard, and other federal agencies have sought  to reduce the threats posed by ballast water through domestic regulation,  the United Nation’s International Maritime Organization (IMO) has worked  for over 10 years toward a global solution to the problem. In February  2004, IMO member countries adopted the International Convention for the  Control and Management of Ships’ Ballast Water and Sediments. The  convention calls for ballast water exchange as an interim measure. This  would be followed by the imposition of a treatment standard that would  place limits on the number of organisms that ships could discharge in their  ballast. To enter into force, the convention must be ratified by at least 30  countries constituting at least 35 percent of the gross tonnage of the  world’s merchant shipping. As of August 2005, eight countries had signed  the convention but only one—the Maldives—had ratified it.
The convention’s ballast water performance standard would require ships  conducting ballast water management to discharge less than 10 viable  organisms greater than or equal to 50 microns in size per cubic meter of  water and less than 10 viable organisms less than 50 but greater than 10  microns in size per milliliter of water. In addition, the ballast water  performance standard would set limits on the discharge of several disease  causing pathogens including cholera and E. coli. The dates by which ships  would need to meet the ballast water performance standard, if the  convention enters into force, would depend upon when the ship was built  and what its ballast water capacity is. For example, the ships first required  to meet the standard would be those built in 2009 or later with a ballast  capacity of less than 5,000 cubic meters. Ships built before 2009 with a  ballast capacity between 1,500 cubic meters and 5,000 cubic meters would  have to meet the standard by 2014. Regardless of age or size, all ships  subject to the convention would need to meet the standard by 2016.
section_title: Major Issues with Current Ballast Water Management Program
paragraphs: The federal government has continued to take steps to strengthen controls  over ballast water as a conduit for potentially harmful organisms. Since  1998, Coast Guard data show that compliance with conducting ballast  water exchange, when required, has generally been high. However, key  agencies and stakeholders recognize that the recently adopted mandatory  national program for ballast water exchange is not a viable long-term  approach to minimizing the risks posed by ballast water discharges. Major  limitations with this approach include the fact that despite relatively high  compliance rates with the regulations, U.S. waters remain vulnerable to  species invasions because many ships are still not required to conduct  ballast water exchange. In addition, the ANSTF has not recommended  alternate areas for ballast water exchange and thus, the Coast Guard has  not established alternate discharge zones that could be used by ships. And  lastly, ballast water exchange is not always effective at removing or killing  potentially harmful species.
subsections: section_title: Compliance with Existing Ballast Water Exchange Is Generally High
paragraphs: With the Coast Guard’s mandatory ballast water management regulation  for ships traveling into U.S. waters after operating beyond the EEZ and  carrying ballast water taken on less than 200 nautical miles from shore— effective September 2004—more ships are generally required to conduct  ballast water exchange or retain their ballast water than before. We noted  in 2002 that compliance with ballast water exchange requirements for  ships entering the Great Lakes was high, and the Coast Guard maintains  that it remains high. According to the Coast Guard, from 1998 through  2004, 93 percent of the ships entering the Great Lakes with pumpable  ballast water were in compliance with the exchange requirement. More  recently, data show that about 70 percent of those arriving from outside  the EEZ to ports other than the Great Lakes conducted an exchange. Most  notably, reporting on ballast water management activities has increased  dramatically. According to the Coast Guard, reporting increased from  approximately 800 reports per month in January 2004 to over 8,000 per  month since September 2004; this reflects reporting from about 75 percent  of ships arriving from outside the EEZ. The Coast Guard attributes the  increase in reporting to an effort beginning in 2004 to encourage ship  masters to file reports electronically and to the new regulations that allow  the Coast Guard to levy penalties for non-reporting. According to data  provided by the Coast Guard, nearly five percent of ships arriving at U.S.  ports between January 2005 and July 2005 were inspected for compliance  with ballast water regulations. On the basis of its inspections, the Coast  Guard reports a 96.5 percent compliance rate with the mandatory ballast  water management regulations. During the first two quarters of 2005,  inspections revealed 124 deficiencies that range from problems with  ballast water management reporting to illegal discharge of ballast water in  U.S. waters. As a result of these findings, Coast Guard took nine  enforcement actions.
section_title: Many Ships with Potentially Harmful Organisms in Their Ballast Water Are Not Required to Conduct Ballast Water Exchange or Retain Their Ballast Water
paragraphs: Although the Coast Guard believes that compliance with ballast water  management regulations is high, U.S. waters may still not be adequately  protected because many ships are not required to conduct ballast water  exchange even though they may discharge ballast water in U.S. waters.
NOBOBs. Ships with no ballast water in their tanks (referred to as “no  ballast on board” ships or NOBOBs) are not required to conduct ballast  water exchange or retain their ballast water. While the term “NOBOB”  indicates that a ship has no ballast on board, these ships may, in fact, still  be carrying thousands of gallons of residual ballast water and tons of  sediment that cannot be easily pumped out because of the design of their  tanks and pumps. This water and sediment could harbor potentially  invasive organisms from previous ports of call that could be discharged to  U.S. waters during subsequent ballast discharges. NOBOBs are a particular  concern in the Great Lakes, where greater than 80 percent of ships  entering from outside the EEZ fall into this category. While still a concern  for other U.S. ports, it appears that a significantly smaller portion (about  20 percent) of ships arriving at U.S. ports other than the Great Lakes from  beyond the EEZ claimed NOBOB status. Officials responsible for gathering  and managing data on ship arrivals estimate that about 5 percent of those  NOBOB ships take on ballast water and discharge it in U.S. waters.
When the Coast Guard conducted an environmental assessment of its new  national mandatory ballast water exchange regulations in 2003, it did not  review the potential threat that NOBOB ships pose to future species  invasions, although it received comments raising concerns about this  omission. In response to comments on its 2004 rule, the agency noted that  NOBOBs were required to submit ballast water reporting forms, that it  would continue to explore the issue of NOBOBs, and that these vessels  may be included in a future rulemaking. In May 2005, the Coast Guard  convened a public workshop in Cleveland to discuss and obtain comments  on NOBOBs, particularly as they affect the Great Lakes. Following the  public meeting, the Coast Guard held a closed meeting for an invited group  of government officials and technology experts. The overall purpose of the  closed meeting was to discuss technological approaches that are now  available or soon to be available to address the potentially invasive  organisms in NOBOB ships. The agency has not published any record of  the closed meeting.
The Coast Guard just issued a notice, published in the Federal Register on  August 31, 2005, containing a voluntary management practice for NOBOBs  that enter the Great Lakes and have not conducted ballast water  exchange. This practice indicates that such ships should conduct salt  water flushing of their empty ballast tanks in an area 200 nautical miles  from any shore, whenever possible. Salt water flushing is defined as “the  addition of mid-ocean water to empty ballast water tanks; the mixing of  the flush water with residual water and sediment through the motion of  the vessel; and the discharge of the mixed water, such that the resultant  residual water remaining in the tank has as high a salinity as possible, and  preferably is greater than 30 parts per thousand.” Scientists believe that  this process will either flush out residual organisms from the ballast tanks  or kill remaining organisms with highly saline ocean water. The  effectiveness of this process, however, has not been demonstrated. A  Coast Guard official in the ballast water program explained that issuance  of voluntary best management practices were favored over regulations  because of the relative speed with which they can be issued.
Coastal Traffic. Ships traveling along U.S. coasts that do not travel farther  than 200 nautical miles from any shore are also not required to conduct  ballast water exchange or to retain their ballast water. One such group of  ships includes those that travel within the EEZ from one U.S. port to  another, such as from the Gulf of Mexico to the Chesapeake Bay.  However, these ships may act as a vector for unwanted organisms  between ports. The second group of ships falling in this category includes  those that come from foreign ports but do not travel more than 200  nautical miles from any shore. These can include ships arriving from the  Caribbean, Central America, South America, Panama Canal, and Canada.  The Coast Guard regulations explicitly exempt ships traveling within 200  nautical miles of any shore from conducting ballast water exchange.  However, these ships also represent a possible conduit for invasive  species. Approximately 65 percent of ships arriving at U.S. ports from  outside the EEZ—over 28,000 in 2003—do not travel more than 200  nautical miles from shore.
Key stakeholders have raised concerns about this gap in regulatory  coverage over coastal traffic. For example, in commenting on the Coast  Guard’s proposed regulations for national mandatory ballast water  exchange, NOAA, the Fish and Wildlife Service, the states of Washington  and Pennsylvania, the Northeast Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force, a  state port association, and environmental advocacy organizations  expressed concern that coastal traffic was not addressed by the  rulemaking. The Coast Guard has also acknowledged this gap. Specifically,  the agency noted in its July 2003 assessment of the potential impacts of its  new regulations on mandatory ballast water exchange and in its  environmental assessment of the final regulations, that discharges from  coastal shipping could result in the introduction or spread of invasive  species within regions of the United States. However, the agency did not  quantify the additional risks posed by coastal traffic nor did it discuss  what should be done to mitigate those risks.
section_title: No Alternate Exchange Zones Have Been Designated
paragraphs: Several of the issues described above revolve around the requirement that  ballast water exchange be done at least 200 nautical miles from shore.  However, Congress recognized that there might be areas within the 200- nautical mile limit of the EEZ in which ballast water exchange might not  be harmful. Congress required the Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force  to conduct a study to identify any possible areas within the waters of the  United States and the EEZ where ballast water exchange would not pose a  threat of infestation or spread of aquatic invasive species. NANPCA, as  amended by NISA, called upon the Coast Guard regulations and guidelines  to allow or encourage ships to exchange ballast water in alternate  locations, based on the Task Force’s recommendations. The required  study on alternate exchange areas was delivered to NOAA and EPA— members of the task force—in November 1998. According to the study, it  was impossible to guarantee that organisms in ballast water would not be  transported by winds or currents toward suitable shoreside habitats when  discharged within 200 nautical miles of shore. The study also noted that  suitable discharge areas varied depending upon winds and currents at a  particular time. However, in looking at conditions around the United  States, the study identified many locations where it appeared that ballast  water exchange could safely occur less than 200 nautical miles from shore.
Ultimately, the Task Force did not recommend alternate discharge areas  and the Coast Guard has not authorized ballast water exchange in any  such areas under its regulations. In its 2004 final rule for the mandatory  national ballast management program, the Coast Guard stated that it was  examining the possibility of establishing alternate ballast water exchange  zones and that information obtained at an October 2003 workshop, and  future workshops, could provide a sound, scientific basis for establishing  ballast water exchange zones within the EEZ. In 2004, the Massachusetts  Institute of Technology published the proceedings from the October 2003  workshop. The workshop attendees—which included stakeholders from  the marine industry, scientific community, policy makers, regulators, and  nongovernmental organizations—developed a consensus statement  regarding proposed alternate exchange zones along the northeastern  coastline of the United States and Canada. The group proposed that  alternate ballast water exchange areas, where there is consensus, be  adopted as a working policy statement by both the United States and  Canada for coastal vessel traffic until other treatment methods are  available. In their statement, the attendees focused more on the depth of  waters than on the distance from shore, noting that the continental shelf  marks a location that helps determine whether organisms are likely to  float toward shore or away from shore.
However, the Coast Guard reports that it has no plans to consider the use  of alternate discharge zones. The ballast water program manager told us  that designating alternate zones would take a significant amount of  environmental analysis and a lengthy rulemaking process. She also said  that alternate discharge zones will not be needed once other treatment  technologies are installed on ships.
While the United States has not identified alternate locations for  conducting ballast water exchange, the IMO and other countries have  proposed allowing, or already allow, ballast exchange to occur in locations  closer than 200 nautical miles from shore. The IMO convention, should it  take effect as adopted, states that all ships conducting ballast water  exchange should, whenever possible, do so at least 200 nautical miles from  the nearest land and in water at least 200 meters deep. However, the  convention recognizes that exchange at that distance may not be possible;  if not, exchange should be conducted as far from the nearest land as  possible, and in all cases at least 50 nautical miles from the nearest land  and in water at least 200 meters deep. Australia requires that exchange be  done outside 12 nautical miles in water exceeding 200 meters in depth.
The Canadian government proposed regulations in June 2005 that would  allow transoceanic ships, unable to exchange ballast water more than 200  nautical miles from shore where the water is at least 2,000 meters deep  because it would compromise the stability of the ship or the safety of the  ship or of persons on board, to make the exchange in one of five alternate  discharge zones that Canada’s Department of Fisheries and Oceans  determined could receive ballast water with little risk. For non- transoceanic ships that do not travel at least 200 nautical miles from shore  and in waters at least 2,000 meters deep (for example, ships arriving from  U.S. ports that travel near the coast), the proposed regulations would  require ships to exchange ballast water at least 50 nautical miles from  shore where the water is at least 500 meters deep. If that were not  practical or possible, the ships would be allowed to use an alternate  discharge zone. The minimum allowable depth in the alternative areas  would be from 300 to 1,000 meters.
section_title: Concerns Persist Over the Effectiveness of Ballast Water Exchange
paragraphs: In 2002, we reported on numerous concerns about the effectiveness of  ballast water exchange in removing potentially harmful organisms. There  are two presumptions behind ballast water exchange as a method for  ballast water treatment. First, it is presumed that the exchange will  physically remove the water and organisms from ballast tanks. Second,  ballast water exchange presumes that there are significant differences in  the salinity of the original ballast water, mid-ocean water, and the  ecosystem into which the water is ultimately discharged, such as the Great  Lakes. If the original ballast water were fresh, organisms in that water  would, in theory, not survive in the salt water taken on in mid-ocean.  Similarly, any mid-ocean organisms taken on during the exchange would  not survive in the fresh water of a destination port. Evidence has shown,  however, that these presumptions are not always borne out. For one thing,  ballast pumps are not always able to remove all of the original water,  sediment, and associated organisms. In addition, elevated levels of salinity  do not necessarily kill all forms of potentially invasive organisms.  Therefore, scientists believe that viable organisms can survive ballast  water exchange and possibly become invasive when discharged to a new  environment. The National Research Council highlighted the need for  alternatives to ballast water exchange by stating in its 1996 report on  ballast water management, “while changing ballast may be an acceptable  and effective control method under certain circumstances, it is neither  universally applicable nor totally effective, and alternative strategies are  needed.” We noted in our 2002 report that despite the high compliance  rate with mandatory ballast water exchange in the Great Lakes, invasive  organisms, such as the fish-hook water flea discovered in 1998, were still  entering the ecosystem.
section_title: Technologies Are Being Developed to Treat Ballast Water, but Challenges Remain Before They Can Be Used
paragraphs: Developers are pursuing technologies for use in treating ballast water,  some of which show promise that a technical solution can be used to  provide more reliable removal of potentially invasive species. However,  the development of such technologies and their eventual use to meet  regulatory requirements face many challenges, including the daunting  technological challenges posed by the need for shipboard treatment  systems and the lack of a discharge standard that would provide a target  for developers to aim for in terms of treatment efficiency.
subsections: section_title: Some Promising Ballast Water Treatment Technologies Exist
paragraphs: Researchers and technology companies have been investigating the  potential capabilities of many different ballast water treatment options,  such as subjecting the water to filtration, cyclonic separation, ultraviolet  radiation, chlorine, heat, ozone, or some combination of these methods.  NOAA’s Ballast Water Technology Demonstration Program has assisted in  this regard by providing over $12 million in grants to 54 research projects  since 1998. Related to this issue, the International Maritime Organization  convention on ballast water required an assessment of the state of  treatment technology to determine whether appropriate technologies are  available to achieve the standard proposed in the convention. Toward this  end, the United States and five other member countries submitted  assessments of the state of treatment technology development. The United  States’ assessment was based on a study conducted by the Department of  Transportation’s Volpe National Transportation Systems Center. The  center assessed about a dozen potential ballast water technologies and  identified four basic approaches that it believed are sufficiently well  developed to indicate that effective and practicable systems will be  available to treat ballast water to some measurable performance standard.  These technologies are (1) heat, (2) chlorine dioxide, (3) separation  followed by ultraviolet radiation, and (4) separation followed by advanced  oxidation treatment.
On the basis of this assessment, the United States took the position that  developers of treatment technologies have made enough progress to  suggest that the first proposed deadline in the convention could be met;  namely, that ships built on or after 2009 and with a ballast water capacity  of under 5,000 cubic meters could have treatment systems that could meet  the discharge standards. However, the United States also stated that it was  too early to tell whether treatment systems would be available for other  categories of ships that will need them at a later date. After reviewing and  discussing the evidence on the status of technology development provided  by the United States and other member countries, the IMO’s Marine  Environment Protection Committee’s technology review group  recommended that there was no need to consider amending the schedule  for implementing the convention due to a lack of progress on technology,  although it recommended that the committee reexamine the status of  technology in October 2006.
section_title: Development and Use of Ballast Water Treatment Technologies Face Many Challenges
paragraphs: Several challenges hamper development and use of ballast water  treatment technologies. First, development of such technologies is a  daunting task given the many operational constraints under which the  technologies must operate. Beyond this hurdle, there is no discharge  standard for how clean ballast water must be to help developers determine  how effective their technologies need to be. Related to this, there is also  no process for testing and approving technologies to determine how  effective they are in removing potentially harmful organisms from ballast  water. Coast Guard and other agencies have some actions underway on  these issues, but they have not committed to firm schedules for  completion.
subsections: section_title: Difficult Treatment Environment
paragraphs: The challenges of developing technologies to “treat” or remove potentially  invasive species from ballast water are numerous. On the one hand,  treating ballast water is not unlike treating household and industrial  wastewater—now a rather routine treatment process. Like wastewater  treatment facilities, ballast water treatment technology will need to be safe  for the environment and crew, and achieve a specific level of pollutant  removal (in the case of ballast water—removal of potentially invasive  species). On the other hand, shipboard ballast water treatment systems  will have to meet additional challenges that land-based wastewater  treatment facilities do not, such as: (1) treating large volumes of water at  very high flow rates and (2) removing or killing a much broader range of  biological organisms—including unknown organisms. Importantly, the  treatment systems must be able to operate in a manner that does not  compromise ship safety. In addition, to make any treatment option  palatable to the shipping industry, the systems must not displace an  unacceptable amount of valuable cargo space. Consequently, the  technologies must be dramatically smaller in scale than those currently  used in the wastewater industry while still achieving a high level of  removal or “kill” rates. Further complicating matters, because ships differ  in their structural designs, it is unlikely that one type of treatment  technology will be appropriate for all types of ships. And, depending on  how regulations are written, ships may need to be retrofitted to  incorporate treatment technology—a potentially complex and expensive  proposition.
section_title: No Discharge Standard for How “Clean” Ballast Water Must Be
paragraphs: When we reported in 2002, a key part of the Coast Guard’s effort to move  forward on dealing more effectively with the ballast water problem was its  work to develop a discharge standard for ballast water—that is, a standard  for determining how “clean” ballast water should be before it could be  discharged into U.S. waters. According to many stakeholders we have  spoken with, one reason for the apparent slow progress on developing  treatment technology is the lack of a discharge standard. Identifying a  standard is necessary to provide a target for companies that develop  treatment technologies. The lack of a discharge standard makes it  uncertain what level of “cleanliness” treatment technologies will have to  achieve. Companies may be hesitant to pursue research and development  of a potential treatment technology not knowing what the standard may  ultimately be—they stand to lose significant amounts of money if a  standard turns in an unanticipated direction that they are unable to  accommodate with their technology. In addition, until the shipping  industry is required to meet some discharge standard, there is no incentive  for ship owners to purchase ballast water treatment technology.
In 2002, the Secretary of Transportation reported to Congress that he  expected to have a final rule on a ballast water management standard in  the fall of 2004. The Coast Guard has been working with the EPA and  other agencies to prepare a proposed regulation that will contain a  discharge standard as well as an assessment of the environmental impacts  of five possible discharge standards. The five alternatives being analyzed  are: (1) taking “no action,” which would mean continuing with ballast  water exchange, (2) requiring that ballast water be sterilized before  discharge, (3) matching the proposed IMO discharge standard, (4)  allowing one-tenth the number of organisms allowed by the proposed IMO  standard, and (5) allowing one-hundredth the number of organisms in the  proposed IMO standard. In December 2004, the Coast Guard announced  that it expected to propose a discharge standard by December 2005,  however, the agency has since retracted that plan and was not able to give  us a new date.
section_title: No Process for Approving Treatment Technologies
paragraphs: Complicating the development of technology is the lack of a process to  approve ballast water treatment systems for use on ships. In August 2004,  the Coast Guard published a Federal Register notice requesting comments  by December 3, 2004, on how to establish a program to approve alternative  ballast water management methods. The agency stated in the notice its  intention to promulgate the new program in the near future, but it has yet  to do so. In the meantime, the Coast Guard, EPA, and the Navy have  collaborated on preparing laboratory facilities in Key West, Florida that  will be used to verify the performance of ballast water treatment  technologies. According to the Coast Guard, the agencies will begin to test  the new facilities in a few weeks. On a parallel track, NOAA’s Ballast  Water Technology Demonstration Program hopes to help address this gap  as well by establishing a Research, Development, Test and Evaluation  facility. This facility would be directed to establish standardization and  quality control in experiments on ballast water technology. Current plans  are to devote nearly $1 million to this facility over a 4-year period  beginning in fiscal year 2006; depending on funding availability, operation  of the facility could be continued. In addition, EPA’s Environmental  Technology Verification program is working to develop testing protocols  in order to verify treatment technologies for eventual approval.
section_title: New Incentive Program
paragraphs: In 2004, the Coast Guard implemented a new program intended to  encourage ship owners to test potential treatment technologies on their  ships. With the Shipboard Technology Evaluation Program (STEP), the  agency hopes to encourage ship owners to install experimental treatment  technologies by agreeing that vessels accepted into the program may be  granted an exemption from future ballast water discharge standards for up  to the life of the vessel of the system. Notably, the program approves the  use of a system on a single ship; it does not approve the use of that system  for other ships. To be accepted into the program, the experimental  technology needs to be capable of removing or killing at least 98 percent  of organisms larger than 50 microns. To date, only two ship owners have  applied to this program, but the Coast Guard has not yet accepted their  applications. The Coast Guard has recognized that the application process  is complex and plans to clarify it in hope of attracting more applicants.
Representatives of technology developers, shipping interests, and other  stakeholders have offered several reasons for the low participation in the  program. According to the stakeholders we spoke with, the primary  reason is the lack of a defined discharge standard, rather than any  particular aspect of the STEP program itself. The lack of a discharge  standard, as well as the fact that use of ballast water treatment technology  is not currently required, has made it difficult for technology developers to  gather the venture capital needed to proceed aggressively on technology  development since use of such technology is not required. Consequently,  few technologies are ready to be installed and tested on board ships. One  representative of a technology firm believes the Coast Guard should  expand the size of the STEP program to provide more incentive to  shipping companies and technology developers that want to test variations  of technologies or test their technology on different types of ships.  Currently, the agency is limiting the number of applicants to about 5 or 6  per year and expects each application to cover just one ship. Another  stakeholder echoed this point, saying that the program requires ship  owners to go to great lengths for the benefit of getting one ship approved.  One representative of a shipping association speculated that, although the  STEP program is open to foreign companies, another possible reason for  low participation is that foreign ships may spend little time in the United  States.
section_title: Lack of Resources
paragraphs: Stakeholders to the technology development issue told us that technology  development has also been hampered by a lack of resources. I have  already noted that without a discharge standard or requirements for use of  treatment technologies, it is difficult for companies to expend significant  resources on development. In addition, as technology development  progresses, the scale of testing required will increase and move beyond  what can be done in a laboratory. At this point, developers will need to  conduct “operational” testing on-board ships. However, estimates for  shipboard studies exceed $1 million. Given the disincentives to pursuing  technology development in this time of uncertainty, technology  development will likely remain a problem.
section_title: States Are Moving Forward With Programs Because of Frustration with Lack of Federal Progress
paragraphs: As we reported in 2002, some states have expressed frustration with the  federal government’s progress on establishing a more protective federal  program for managing the risks associated with ballast water discharges.  Since then, several coastal and Great Lakes states have enacted legislation  that is more stringent than current federal regulations. As you know, in  June 2005, the governor of Michigan signed a bill into law that will require  all oceangoing vessels to obtain a state permit before discharging ballast  water into state waters. The state will issue the permit only if the applicant  can demonstrate that the vessel will not discharge aquatic nuisance  species or, if it will, that the operator of the vessel will use  environmentally sound technology and methods as determined by the  state department that can be used to prevent the discharge of aquatic  invasive species. This requirement takes effect January 1, 2007.
Similarly, owing to concerns with possible species introductions via  currently unregulated coastal shipping, California, Oregon, and  Washington have enacted laws to regulate coastal traffic. The states’ laws  provide for additional measures that ships must currently take or will have  to take in the future before entering state waters. All three states provide  for safety exemptions.
California. California law required the State Lands Commission to adopt  new regulations governing ballast water management practices for ships  of 300 gross tons or more arriving at a California port or place from  outside of the Pacific Coast Region by January 1, 2005. The California  State Lands Commission has proposed, but not yet finalized, these  regulations. Upon implementation of the regulations, California law will  require the ships to employ at least one of the following ballast water  management practices: (1) exchange its ballast water more than 200 miles  from land and at least 2,000 meters deep before entering the state’s coastal  waters; (2) retain its ballast water; (3) discharge water at the same  location where the ballast water originated; (4) use an alternative,  environmentally sound method; (5) discharge the ballast water to a  reception facility approved by the commission; or (6) under extraordinary  circumstances, exchange ballast water within an area agreed upon by the  commission and the Coast Guard. The proposed California regulation  would require ships carrying ballast water from within the Pacific Coast  Region to conduct any ballast water exchange in waters that are more  than 50 miles from land and at least 200 meters deep.
Oregon. Oregon law prohibits certain ships from discharging ballast water  in Oregon waters unless the ship has conducted a ballast water exchange  more than 200 miles from any shore, or at least 50 miles from land and at a  depth of at least 200 meters if its ballast water was taken onboard at a  North American coastal port. Oregon exempts ships that: (1) discharge  ballast water only at the location where the ballast water originated; (2)  retain their ballast water; (3) traverse only internal state waters; (4)  traverse only the territorial sea of the U.S. and do not enter or depart an  Oregon port or navigate state waters; (5) discharge ballast water that has  been treated to remove organisms in a manner that is approved by the  Coast Guard; or (6) discharge ballast water that originated solely from  waters located between 40 degrees latitude north and 50 degrees latitude  north on the west coast.
Washington. Washington’s ballast water law applies to self-propelled ships  in commerce of 300 gross tons or more and prohibits discharging ballast  water into state waters unless a ship has conducted an exchange of ballast  water 50 miles or more offshore, or further offshore if required by the  Coast Guard. Some ships are exempt from this requirement, including  ships that retain their ballast water or that discharge ballast water or  sediments only at the location where ballast water was taken on. The  coordinator of Washington’s aquatic nuisance species program told us that  during the legislative process, shipping industry representatives and  oceanographic experts concurred that the 50-mile boundary for exchange  was both feasible for the ships and protective against invasive species.  After July 1, 2007, discharge of ballast water in state waters will be  authorized only if there has been an exchange at least 50 miles offshore or  if the vessel has treated its ballast water to meet standards set by the  Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife.
Madam Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. I would be  happy to respond to any questions you or other Members of the  Subcommittee may have.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the  United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further  permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or  other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to  reproduce this material separately.