Invasive Species: Progress and Challenges in Preventing 	 
Introduction into U.S. Waters Via the Ballast Water in Ships	 
(09-SEP-05, GAO-05-1026T).					 
                                                                 
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.				 
-------------------------Indexing Terms------------------------- 
REPORTNUM:   GAO-05-1026T					        
    ACCNO:   A36257						        
  TITLE:     Invasive Species: Progress and Challenges in Preventing  
Introduction into U.S. Waters Via the Ballast Water in Ships	 
     DATE:   09/09/2005 
  SUBJECT:   Environmental monitoring				 
	     Pest control					 
	     Ships						 
	     Water resources conservation			 
	     Water transportation				 
	     Water treatment					 
	     Environmental law					 
	     Environmental legislation				 
	     Invasive species					 

******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO Product.                                                 **
**                                                              **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
**                                                              **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
** document's contents.                                         **
**                                                              **
******************************************************************
GAO-05-1026T

United States Government Accountability Office

GAO Testimony

Before the Subcommittee on Regulatory Affairs, Committee on Government
Reform, United States House of Representatives

For Release on Delivery

Expected at 2 p.m. EDT INVASIVE SPECIES

September 9, 2005

  Progress and Challenges in Preventing Introduction into U.S. Waters Via the
                             Ballast Water in Ships

Statement of Robin M. Nazzaro, Director Natural Resources and Environment

GAO-05-1026T

[IMG]

September 9, 2005

INVASIVE SPECIES

Progress and Challenges in Preventing Introduction into U.S. Waters Via the
Ballast Water in Ships

  What GAO Found

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:

o  	many ships are exempt from current ballast water exchange
requirements,

o  	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

o  	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.

                 United States Government Accountability Office

Madam Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:

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. 1 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 2000.2

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.

1GAO, Invasive Species: Clearer Focus and Greater Commitment Needed to
Effectively Manage the Problem, GAO-03-1 (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 22,
2002), 12.

2Carlton, J.T., Introduced Species in U.S. Coastal Waters: Environmental
Impacts and Management Priorities, (Arlington, VA: Pew Oceans Commission,
2001).

  Summary

In summary, ballast water as a potential source of invasive species has
been a legislative concern since 1990, first with passage of the
Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act, and again with
an amendment in 1996 that expanded management of the problem. The Coast
Guard has promulgated several guidelines and regulations since 1991
concerning certain ballast water management activities. Initially these
activities were only required of certain ships traveling into the Great
Lakes and the Hudson River. Now, such activities are required of certain
ships entering all U.S. ports. Also during this period, the international
shipping community-via the International Maritime Organization-has been
working on reaching agreement on ballast water management standards to
apply to all shipping worldwide. The organization recently adopted a
convention on this issue, although the convention has not been ratified by
enough countries for it to enter into force.

We reported in 2002 that despite such steps-and generally high compliance
rates with existing ballast water management regulations- U.S. waters were
still vulnerable to species invasions. In particular, we reported that
some ships were not required to conduct ballast water exchange and that
exchange was not necessarily effective at removing potentially invasive
species from ships' ballast water. At the time, key agencies and
stakeholders recognized that ballast water exchange was not a viable
long-term approach to minimizing the risks posed by ballast water
discharges. This sentiment continues today.

A key element of an improved management program for preventing species
invasions is the development of a discharge standard for ballast water.
When we reported in 2002, the Coast Guard was working on a discharge
standard that would set a limit on the amount of potentially harmful
organisms that could be discharged by ships into U.S. waters. In addition,
developers were researching technologies that could be used to more
effectively "clean" ballast water discharges than ballast water exchange.
However, at the time, it was not clear what type of technological approach
would prove successful at treating ballast water. While progress has been
made on both of these issues since our report, the bottom line remains the
same. Specifically, the Coast Guard has yet to issue a discharge standard
and there are no technologies that have been approved for treating ballast
water. Without such a standard or technology, ballast water exchange is
still the only available treatment method for reducing the amount of
potentially invasive species in ships' ballast water. Thus, U.S. waters
remain vulnerable to invasive species carried in ballast water. In the
absence of a stronger federal program for protecting U.S. waters against
species invasions, several states including

Background

Michigan, have passed legislation addressing various aspects of the
problem.

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

  History of Ballast Water Management

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.

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.

Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of 1990

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).3 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.

3Pub. L. 101-646, 104 Stat. 4761 (1990), codified at 16 U.S.C.
S:S:4701-4751.

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.4 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:

o  	Carry out what is known as ballast water exchange beyond the EEZ
before entering a Great Lakes port;

o  	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

o  	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.5 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.6 The regulations required ships
with pumpable ballast water to:

4The law called for regulations to be issued by the Secretary of the
department in which the Coast Guard was operating. At the time, the Coast
Guard was within the Department of Transportation; it is now within the
Department of Homeland Security. Throughout this report, unless otherwise
indicated, we use the term "Secretary" to refer to the Secretary of the
department in which the Coast Guard is operating.

558 Fed. Reg. 18,330 (Apr. 8, 1993).

659 Fed. Reg. 67,632 (Dec. 30, 1994).

o  	exchange ballast water beyond the EEZ at a minimum depth of 2,000
meters before entering the Great Lakes or Hudson River;7

o  	utilize another environmentally sound ballast water management method
approved by the Coast Guard; or

o  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 exofficio members from the
Great Lakes Commission and other nonfederal groups or agencies.8 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:

o  	The environmental effects of ballast water exchange on native species
in U.S. waters;

o  	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;

o  	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,

7The Coast Guard later removed the depth requirement. See 64 Fed. Reg.
26,672 (July 28, 2004).

8The general mission of the task force is to develop and implement a
program for the waters of the United States to prevent introduction and
dispersal of aquatic invasive species; to monitor, control, and study such
species; and to disseminate related information. This mission is not
confined to species transported in ballast water.

o  	Whether aquatic invasive species threaten the ecological
characteristics and economic uses of U.S. waters other than the Great
Lakes.

National Invasive Species Act of 1996

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).9 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.10 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

9Pub. L. No. 104-332, 110 Stat. 4073 (1996).

1064 Fed. Reg. 26,672 (May 17, 1999); 66 Fed. Reg. 58,381 (Nov. 21, 2001).
The voluntary guidelines also encourage ships with ballast tanks operating
in U.S. waters to take other actions including: avoiding discharge or
uptake of ballast water in areas within or affecting marine sanctuaries,
preserves, parks, or coral reefs; minimizing or avoiding uptake in areas
near sewage outfalls, near dredging operations, in darkness, where
sediment may be stirred up by propellers, or where tidal flushing is known
to be poor or times when a tidal stream is known to be more turbid;
rinsing anchors and chains; and regularly removing fouling organisms from
hulls, piping, and tanks.

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.11 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
2004.12 In addition, the Coast Guard promulgated another rule, effective
August 13, 2004, establishing penalties for, among other things,

11The Captain of the Port, in American waters, is a U.S. Coast Guard
officer who is responsible for Coast Guard law enforcement activities in
his area of responsibility. A Captain of the Port enforces regulations for
the protection and security of vessels, harbors, and waterfront
facilities; anchorages; bridges; safety and security zones; and ports and
waterways.

1268 Fed. Reg. 44,691 (July 30, 2002) and 69 Fed. Reg. 44,952 (July 28,
2004). The final rule removed the provision contained in the voluntary
guidelines that suggested ballast water exchange be conducted in waters at
least 2,000 meters deep.

ship owners who do not file the required reports on their ballast water
operations.13

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.

National Invasive Species Council

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

1369 Fed. Reg. 32,864 (June 14, 2004).

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.

International Maritime Organization Convention on Ballast Water

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.14 In February 2004,
IMO member countries adopted the International Convention for the Control
and Management of Ships' Ballast Water and Sediments.15 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.16

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.17 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

14The IMO is an organization of 160 member countries with observers from
governmental, industry, environmental, public interest, and labor
organizations that is concerned with the safety of shipping and cleaner
oceans. To achieve its objectives, the IMO has promoted the adoption of
some 30 conventions and protocols, and has adopted well over 700 codes and
recommendations concerning maritime safety, the prevention of pollution,
and related matters.

15The adoption of a convention marks the conclusion of only the first
stage of a long process. Before the convention comes into force, that is
before it becomes binding upon governments that have ratified it, it has
to be accepted formally by individual governments.

16The seven are Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Finland, the Netherlands,
Spain, and the Syrian Arabic Republic.

17A micron is one millionth of a meter in length. A milliliter is one
thousandth of a liter. To provide some context on the number of organisms
this would allow, large ships may carry over 60,000 cubic meters of
ballast water. This means that under the IMO standard, a ship discharging
that amount of ballast water could legally discharge up to 600,000
organisms measuring more than 50 microns and 600 billion organisms
measuring less than 50 microns.

  Major Issues with Current Ballast Water Management Program

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.

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.

Compliance with Existing Ballast Water Exchange Is Generally High

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.

Many Ships with Potentially Harmful Organisms in Their Ballast Water Are
Not Required to Conduct Ballast Water Exchange or Retain Their Ballast
Water

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.18 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

18Since 2004, NOBOBs have been required to comply with other ballast water
management practices listed at 33 CFR S:151.2035(a), which includes
practices such as rinsing anchors and chains and avoiding ballast water
uptake near sewage outfalls.

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.19 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

1970 Fed. Reg. 51,831 (Aug. 31, 2005).

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

20

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.21 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.

No Alternate Exchange Zones Have Been Designated

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
200nautical mile limit of the EEZ in which ballast water exchange might
not

20Shipping Traffic Analysis and Cost Assessment for Ballast Water Exchange
En Route to the United States-an analysis revisited, U.S. Department of
Homeland Security, September 2004.

21Regulatory Evaluation: Mandatory Ballast Water Management Program for
U.S. Waters, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking USCG-2003-14273, prepared by
Standards Evaluation and Analysis Division, U.S. Coast Guard, Washington,
DC, July 15, 2003; Programmatic Environmental Assessment for Ballast Water
Management Program for U.S. Waters, prepared for Commandant, United States
Coast Guard, Washington, DC, submitted by Battelle, Duxbury, MA, February
2004.

be harmful.22 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.23 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.24 The workshop attendees-which included stakeholders from the
marine industry, scientific community, policy makers, regulators, and

22In addition, under NISA, ships are allowed to claim a safety exemption
from conducting an exchange and these ships, other than those entering the
Great Lakes after operating beyond the EEZ, are not prevented from
subsequently discharging ballast water in U.S. waters.

23Ballast Exchange Study: Consideration of Back-up Exchange Zones and
Environmental Effects of Ballast Exchange and Ballast Release, Alfred M.
Beeton, James T. Carlton, Bridget A. Holohan, Glen H. Wheless, Arnoldo
Valle-Levinson, Lisa A. Drake, Gregory Ruiz, Linda McCann, William Walton,
Annette Frese, Paul Fofonoff, Scott Godwin, Jason Toft, Lisa Hartman, and
Elizabeth von Holle, a project of the Cooperative Institute for Limnology
and Ecosystems Research, Ann Arbor, Michigan, a report to the National Sea
Grant Program, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the
Environmental Protection Agency, November 1998.

24The area of focus was from Cape Hatteras in North Carolina through the
northern ports of the Canadian Maritime Provinces.

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
nontransoceanic 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.

Concerns Persist Over the Effectiveness of Ballast Water Exchange

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."25 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.

25Stemming the Tide: Controlling Introductions of Nonindigenous Species by
Ships' Ballast Water, (Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1996), 2.

  Technologies Are Being Developed to Treat Ballast Water, but Challenges Remain
  Before They Can Be Used

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.

Some Promising Ballast Water Treatment Technologies Exist

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.

Development and Use of Ballast Water Treatment Technologies Face Many
Challenges

Difficult Treatment Environment

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.

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.

No Discharge Standard for How "Clean" Ballast Water Must Be

No Process for Approving Treatment Technologies

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.26 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.

Complicating the development of technology is the lack of a process to
approve ballast water treatment systems for use on ships. In August 2004,

26The United States District Court for the Northern District of California
has held that EPA exceeded its authority under the Clean Water Act by
excluding discharges incidental to the normal operation of a vessel from
Clean Water Act permit requirements. See Northwest Environmental Advocates
v. EPA, 2005 WL 756614. Court proceedings are still ongoing as to the
appropriate remedies.

                             New Incentive Program

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.27 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.

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

2769 Fed. Reg. 47,453 (Aug. 5, 2004).

Lack of Resources

  States Are Moving Forward With Programs Because of Frustration with Lack of
  Federal Progress

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.

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.

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.

o  	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.

o  	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.28

o  	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.

28The southern border of Oregon is at latitude 42 degrees north, while the
northern border is at 46 degrees north.

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.

  GAO's Mission

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony

The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its
constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and
accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO
examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies;
and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help
Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's
commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of
accountability, integrity, and reliability.

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost
is through GAO's Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday, GAO posts newly
released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site. To have
GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon, go to
www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to Updates."

Order by Mail or Phone 	The first copy of each printed report is free.
Additional copies are $2 each. A check or money order should be made out
to the Superintendent of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard.
Orders for 100 or more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25
percent. Orders should be sent to:

U.S. Government Accountability Office 441 G Street NW, Room LM Washington,
D.C. 20548

To order by Phone: 	Voice: (202) 512-6000 TDD: (202) 512-2537 Fax: (202)
512-6061

  To Report Fraud, Contact:

Waste, and Abuse in Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: [email protected] Programs Automated answering system: (800)
424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, [email protected] (202)
512-4400Congressional U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street
NW, Room 7125 Relations Washington, D.C. 20548

Public Affairs 	Paul Anderson, Managing Director, [email protected] (202)
512-4800 U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D.C. 20548

                           PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
*** End of document. ***