Basic HTML Version
154
D. M. King and M. N. Tamburri
Research related to the first two factors—biology and technology—have already
yielded results that have been used as the basis for the IMO Ballast Water Convention,
13
and the recent USCG proposed ballast water rule making,
14
and will provide the basis for
planned USCG “practicability” reviews where assessments of costs, risks, and engineer-
ing and market constraints will be used to determine feasible standards for ballast water
discharge.
15
However, the third factor–achieving acceptable compliance rates–will be at
least as important to the success of ballast water regulations as the other two factors, but it
has been the focus of little research.
Even small rates of noncompliance can prevent some environmental regulations from
ever achieving their goals.
16
This is an important consideration in the case of ballast water
regulations where risk factors are difficult to measure accurately and risk reductions from
widespread compliance may not be adequate to offset the high risks posed by just a few
ships that discharge ballast water that does not meet standards.
Overview of Ballast Water Discharge Standards
The USCG has proposed to implement regulation of ballast water discharges in two phases,
with the Phase One a set of standards similar to standards in the IMO Ballast Water
Convention
17
and Phase Two standards potentially 1,000 times stricter than the Phase One
standards.
18
The USCG Phase One standards require ballast water discharged by ships to
contain:
1. less than 10 viable organisms per 1 m
3
greater than or equal to 50
µ
m in minimum
dimension;
2. less than 10 viable organisms that are less than 50
µ
m in minimum dimension and
greater than or equal to 10
µ
m in minimum dimension; and
3. less than the following concentrations of indicator microbes, as a human health
standard: (a) toxicogenic
Vibrio cholerae
(serotypes O1 and O139) with less than 1
colony-forming unit per 100 ml, (b)
Escherichia coli
less than 250 cfu per 100 ml,
and (c) intestinal
Enterococci
less than 100 cfu per 100 ml.
Factors Influencing Compliance
Compliance rates related to environmental regulations are influenced by normative factors
such as moral convictions and peer and community pressure, and economic factors related
to the costs of complying and the expected cost of not complying.
19
However, economic
theories of deterrence and practical experience have indicated that, in situations where envi-
ronmental regulations are imposed on large industries, compliance rates depend primarily
on economic factors, in particular, how regulated businesses (potential violators) compare
the economic benefit of not complying (e.g., cost savings) with the potential costs of not
complying and getting caught (e.g., expected penalties or sanctions).
20
Benefits of Noncompliance
In the case of ballast water regulations, the potential benefits of not complying are associated
with cost savings fromnot installing, operating, or properlymaintaining a certified BWTS.
21
Because it will be relatively easy to identify vessels that do not have a certified BWTS, it is
reasonable to assume that most, if not all, shipowners and ship operators planning to visit
U.S. ports will install one. The benefits of noncompliance, therefore, are likely associated
Downloaded By: [Cantrell, Joyce] At: 17:14 26 July 2010