Basic HTML Version
22
determine whether technology can in fact meet the Phase Two standard, which is potentially
1,000 times more strict than Phase One standards. The USCG proposed rules suggest that an
initial review be completed by 2013.
The USCG proposed rules also suggest that a five-year grandfather clause be instituted for those
vessels adopting Phase One treatment technologies on schedule. Our initial analysis of the
global merchant fleet suggests that this will have little impact (either positively or negatively) on
adoption of Phase One technologies.
A key challenge for enforcement of ballast water treatment regulations will be the cost and
technical problems that may be associated with verifying compliance. King and Tamburri
(2009) assessed the challenges involved with verifying compliance with proposed U.S. ballast
water regulations, and applied an economic deterrence model to BW regulations.
9
Noncompliance with U.S ballast water regulations involves discharging ballast water into U.S.
waters that does not meet U.S. discharge standards. Assessing enforcement deterrence in this
case involves comparing the expected benefits and expected costs of noncompliance under
various enforcement regimes, where
Expected Cost
=
C
=
a
x
b
x
c
x
d
x
e
where:
a
= Probability that a discharge violation will be detected
b
= Probability of a detection resulting in a citation
c
= Probability of a cited violation being prosecuted and resulting in a penalty
d
= Average assessed or schedule-based penalty for a violation
e
= Average “final settlement” amount expressed as the % of the average “assessed or
schedule-based penalty” the ship owner/operator expects to pay.
Expected Benefits
=
B
=
cost savings of not properly installing, operating, and maintaining a
certified BWTS.
So, for example, if someone had a…
50% probability that a discharge violation would be detected
and a 50% probability of an enforcement action, if in fact the violation is detected
and a 50% probability of prosecution, if there is an enforcement action for a detected
violation
and a 50% probability of conviction, if the detected violation is prosecuted…
…then the probability of conviction, if there is a violation, would be .0625 (.50 x .50 x .50 x
.50). If the expected penalty is $10,000, then the cost of not complying would be $10,000 x
.0625, or $625. If the individual can expect a delay between initial detection and payment of
penalty, the $625 cost of not complying could be discounted further.
There is a big gap between proving that ballast water treatment technologies work in the
laboratory and in field trials and are "certified," and having full-blown markets emerge that will