Navigating The Uncertainties in Ballast Water Programs and Policies. Gary Croot President, IMESA USCG Commander (ret)

Transcription

1 Navigating The Uncertainties in Ballast Water Programs and Policies Gary Croot President, IMESA USCG Commander (ret)

2 What are the different International, National and Local Requirements? How are they the same? How are they different? The Type Approval Conundrum International Maritime Organization (IMO) G8 Process U.S. Type Approval The Ultra-Violet Treatment Issue Legal Challenges and Status NRDC vs. EPA Vessel Incidental Discharge Act

3 International Ballast Water Management Convention U.S. Coast Guard Ballast Water Regulations U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Vessel General Permit Canada Shipping Act State Laws and Permits State 401 Certifications under the Vessel General Permit

4 IMO Coast Guard EPA Vehicle Convention Regulations Permit Required Standard Adopted Standard Requires TA BWMS? None D-2 Viable vs. Non-viable At least as effective as BWE and practicable Living vs. Dead Technology Based or Water Quality Based whichever is more stringent Living vs. Dead YES YES NO TA Process G8 Guidelines Regulations + ETV None Schedule Variable based on EIF Based on Ballast Water Capacity (2014 or 2016) Based on Ballast Water Capacity (2014 or 2016) Extensions? NO YES NO

5 Large Organisms (Zooplankton) Greater than or equal to 50 µm Small Organisms (Phytoplankton) Greater than or equal to 10 µm, but less than 50 µm < 10 organisms per m 3 < 10 organisms per ml One part per trillion One Drop of Water in twenty Olympic size swimming pools One second in 31,700 years One part per billion One Drop of Water in gallon drums One second in 31.7 years

6 Requires compliance with the Ballast Water Discharge Standard (D2) Will Enter Into Force one year after 30 Administrations comprising 35% of the world s tonnage ratify. Presently 47 Administrations comprising 34.35% Under no less favorable treatment clause all ships trading in waters of signatory Administration must comply. Implementation schedule based on vessel s ballast water capacity Establishes procedure for Type Approval (G8 Guidelines)

7 1. Establishes a Ballast Water Discharge Standard Adopted BWM Convention D2 Standard Standard is live / dead vs. viable / non-viable 2. Establishes an implementation schedule Adopted BWM Convention Implementation Schedule Used drydocking dates vs. survey dates Allowance for extensions if no U.S. Type Approved BWMS are available. Exempts non-seagoing vessels including Lakers 3. Establishes a U.S. Type Approval process Consistent with G8, but with greater emphasis on QA/QC, statistical certainty and independence of testing

8 PROBLEM: Conflict between timeframe for U.S. type approval and initial implementation dates U.S. Type Approved BWMSs will not likely be available until mid-2016, but first implementation dates are in SOLUTIONS: Extension of compliance date iaw 33 CFR Vessel owner must demonstrate that no BWMSs are available suitable for the vessel Installation of Alternate Management System

9 Concept Allows vessels with foreign approved BWMS to continue operating (Hopefully) encourages vessel owners to install BWMS in advance of Convention or regulatory requirements Requirements BWMS must have foreign administration type approval BWMS manufacturer must apply to USCG and demonstrate that system is at least as effective as BWE Vessel owner may use AMS for 5 years after date on which vessel is required to comply with BWDS

10 Answers the following questions: Is the system effective Is the system safe Is the effluent safe for the environment Four elements of testing Land-based biological efficacy testing ETV Protocol approved September Shipboard biological and engineering testing STEP and ETV Environmental testing (shake, rattle & roll) Electrical, mechanical, engineering review

11 NSF International Maryland Environmental Resource Center Great Ships Initiative Retliff Testing American Bureau of Shipping Lloyd s Register EMEA DHI-Denmark Delta Control Union Certifications BV IMARES NIOZ GoConsult Matej David Consult TNO DNV GL AS DHI-Denmark DHI-Singapore GOLDEN BEAR NIVA Applica DELTA Phoenix Test Lab Retlif Testing TUV SUD Korean Register of Shipping KOMERI KTL SGS Giheung Lab

12 32 Letters of Intent submitted to USCG 13 UV radiation 11 Electrolytic Chlorination 2 Inert Gas 2 Chemical Dosing 1 Ozone 1 Deoxygenation 1 UV + Ultrasound

13 Took longer than expected for IL s to stand up Initial land-based testing glitches Throughput of ILs Shipboard Testing delays Complexity of Ballast Water Management Systems Biocide effect known Controlling dose via PLC Minimizing neutralization, DBPs, residuals

14 Water Treatment Process Differences Mechanical Separation Filter or Hydrocyclone Removes Zooplankton Organism Mortality / Non-viability Biocide, Ultra-sound, Deoxygenation, etc. Kills remaining zooplankton + phytoplankton Residual biocide in tank prevents re-growth UV radiation Damages DNA resulting in disruption of reproductive ability Treatment required on uptake and discharge

15 ETV adopts vital staining Technique used for wide variety of organisms to determine cellular activity FDA and CMFDA technique developed specifically for phytoplankton quantification MPN favored by UV industry Developed to quantify microbes (bacteria, viruses) Serial dilution technique commonly used in wastewater & drinking water industries Used for single organism enumeration

16 Most Probable Number Requirements Organisms distributed randomly throughout sample Organisms neither repel nor attract one another Every viable organism will reproduce (at a known rate) Final dilution has one organism

17 Two Fundamental Issues Is Viable / Non-viable determination equivalent to Living / Dead Standard? Viability achieves goal of reducing risk of invasion?? Is dead more protective Is MPN statistically and scientifically as rigorous as vital staining?

18 U.S. Coast Guard Final Rule The Coast Guard has decided to use live/dead rather than viable/unviable, because the latter designations would require culturing potentially large numbers of different kinds of organisms to determine whether they were capable of reproduction. This would be made even more problematic by the fact that scientists are not able to culture many of the organisms in question. Finally, it is more conservative, and thus more protective, to base efficacy decision on the basis of live/dead, rather than viable/unviable. 77 FR 17306, Mar. 23, 2012

19 Since MPN is a test method that determines viability/non-viability and not live/dead, it is not an acceptable alternative organism enumeration method. USCG did not issue judgement on whether MPN is an acceptable test method for proving viable vs. non-viable.

20 NRDC Claimed: EPA failed to adequately explain the adoption of D-2 Standard EPA failed to explain why it did not require onshore treatment EPA failed to establish a Water Quality Based Effluent Limit (WQBEL) EPA failed to explain why it exempted Lakers

21 Second Circuit Court Ruled: In favor of all NRDC claims EPA must re-evaluate their decision-making process when developing VGP 2018 Process likely to start in late Present Vessel General Permit remains in effect.

22 Resolves the inconsistencies between EPA Permitting process under Clean Water Act and U.S. Coast Guard regulatory process under National Invasive Species Act. Establishes USCG as lead agency with consultation from EPA Adopts existing USCG regulations Establishes process for adopting a more stringent standard Allows states to submit proposals for more stringent state standard to USCG.

23 First U.S. Type Approved BWMS in first half of 2016 Multiple BWMSs will receive U.S. Type Approval by end of 2016 UV Controversy is not over Appeal of decision Change in regulation to allow viable/non-viable standard Improvements in MPN methods Ratification of BWM Convention will result in overhaul of G8 process

24 Gary Croot President International Maritime Environmental and Safety Associates, Inc.