Basic HTML Version
156
D. M. King and M. N. Tamburri
Table 1
Alternatives for verifying that ballast water discharges meet regulatory standards
1. Reporting—Mandatory
reporting
by shipowner, master, or chief engineer with
occasional equipment
inspections
(e.g., by USCG).
a. Certified system aboard and was in operating condition.
b. Certified system in operating condition was used properly.
c. Certified system in operating condition was used and was effective.
2. Monitoring–
Indirect
measures of compliance using reports from shipboard sensors to
validate treatment operations and BW conditions that establish whether BW meets
standards.
a. Certified system was in operating condition and was used.
b. Certified system in operating condition was used effectively.
c. BW was exposed to conditions that are known to kill or remove organisms to levels
of discharge standards.
∗
3. Measurement–Biological sampling for the
direct
quantification of live organism
abundances in BW at discharge.
a. Small (low sample frequency, small sample sizes and volume, and low precision).
b. Medium (more frequent and more precise).
c. Large (high sample frequency, large sample sizes and volume, and high precision).
Note:
Options shown within each alternative are increasingly demanding. Abbreviations
=
USCG,
U.S. Coast Guard; BW, ballast water; BWTS, ballast water treatment system.
∗
Because of large variability in physical and biological characteristics of BW and the mechanical
limitations of various treatment systems, a BWTS may be installed and operated properly, but still
not meet equipment performance specifications. Therefore, inspecting or monitoring BWTSs may
not provide a high level of confidence that BW discharge will or will not meet standards.
Alternative Verification Approaches
Ship and route profiling tools noted earlier can be used to identify ship visits that pose the
most and least threatening ballast water discharge risks, and similar tools can be used to
identify shipowners or ship operators that are suspected of being likely violators of ballast
water regulations. However, the three basic alternatives for validating that ballast water
aboard a ship entering a U.S. port meets discharge standards are: reporting, monitoring,
and measurement.
Table 1 describes and lists increasingly demanding versions of each of these three basic
alternatives. The alternatives have different costs and are expected to result in different
levels of confidence that ballast water discharge violations will be detected, as reflected
in different expected values of the parameter (
a
) in Equation 1. It is not possible at this
time to estimate an absolute measure of (
a
) or a precise dollar cost associated with each
of these alternatives. However, based on recent experience with various types of direct
and indirect measurement systems; general information regarding the time, manpower,
materials, and equipment required to use each alternative; and how likely it is that each
will detect illegal ballast water discharge, it is possible to make some preliminary cost-
effectiveness comparisons.
25
Table 2 provides a preliminary assessment and comparison of
the cost and effectiveness of the ballast water discharge verification alternatives listed in
Table 1.
Downloaded By: [Cantrell, Joyce] At: 17:14 26 July 2010