12th Inter national Conference on Aquatic Invasive Species
June 9-12, 2003
By Chris Swanson, CQD Journal, Inc.Navigation aides:
Aquatic Invasive Species - why experts are worried Shipping as a Vector for New Species Introductions Summaries of selected presentations:
Cdr. Patrick Gerrity, - Preventing Aquatic Nonindigenous Species in the U.S.
Tom Morris – The Development of the International Convention for the control and management of ships' ballast water and sediment
Anjuna Langevin – Ballast Water Management Practices of Foreign Flag Vessels
Phil Jenkins – Ballast Management and the Control of Sediment Accumulation in Water Ballast Tanks
Jack Brabban – The Natural Ballast Water Exchange Method
Windsor, Canada;
Aquatic Invasive Species - why experts are worried... Why should we care about aquatic invasive species? In an era focused upon military and defense
spending, there is very little political will to look at environmental spending. Should marine environmental issues be delegated to a future time when we have a more favorable public forum to address them?
International experts meeting in Windsor, Canada last week, felt the world should be very worried about aquatic invasive species. They expressed deep concerns over the lack of political
and public focus on this pressing environmental problem. Scientists and policy makers said that the time to address the problems over nuisance critters getting into our waterways is "now."
The meetings were part of a conference, the 12th International Conference on Aquatic Invasive Species held through the week of June 9th to the 12th
, 2003. Scientists from over a dozen countries representing the Philippines, New Zealand, China, Bangladesh, the Netherlands,
Ukraine, U.K., U.S. and Canada were in attendance. The international character of the participants reflected the global nature of the invasive species problem.  Peter Wallace, Asst. Deputy Minister with the Ontario Ministry of
Natural Resources, said the severity of the problem was not just the establishment of a single invader. The heightened fear is that one successful incursion of a non-indigenous species will change
the ecosystem and will allow more non-native species to invade. Each successful establishment of a new species will be a stepping-stone to further harmful invasions to further ecosystems.
Experts speaking in Ontario expressed a list of reasons to be very concerned about the growing problem of invasive species. Among the top worries were damage to the ecosystem and potential
dangers to human health, such as the spread of pathogenic diseases. Equally vexing are the costs associated from invasive species. The zebra mussel invasion into Canada and the U.S. has estimated costs
in the hundreds of millions of dollars, so far. Paul Steckle a Canadian Member of Parliament noted that millions spent in prevention will save billions in damages. 
Dennis Schornack, Chair of the United States International Joint Commission, USA, asserted that invasive species are the number one threat to the Great Lakes ecosystem. He equated
the problem with the past crisis of chemical contamination to the Great Lakes from phosphate and other pollutants. He said 25 yrs ago it was reported that Lake Erie was dead. All groups
worked together and a successful clean-up campaign was enacted and accomplished. Schornack urged groups from industry, government and the public to join in a cooperative
effort to address the new crisis of biological pollution in the same way they joined to combat chemical pollution in the 70s.The biological pollution Schornack talked about was aquatic
invasive species or AIS. He identified the "front door" or primary invasive pathway of AIS is the discharge of ballast water from ships. He feels the concern is so imminent that the
people of the Great Lakes area should forge ahead with legislation to stop the input of nuisance species from ballast water into the watershed.
The ballast water threat was indeed one of the most discussed issues at the conference. An entire day was devoted to shipping as a vector for invasive species. Presenters talked about global
ballast water management initiatives, legislative efforts for ballast water discharge, ballast water treatment technologies and current ballast water treatment practices. The many types of AIS
believed to be from ballast water were also discussed along with descriptions and pictures of the harm they have inflicted.
All the talk of invasions from shipping did bring out some anti-shipping sentiment. Jennifer Nalbone of Great Lakes United, an environmental non-governmental organization, asked policy
makers whether they would support a critical examination of foreign flag shipping to justify their access to the Great Lakes. Nalbone suggested that foreign flagged ships should be banned from Great Lakes waters.
Schornack countered, "we should not be banning commerce, we should be banning invasive species." He said, "we are lucky to have the cooperation of the Lake Carriers Industry in the
Great Lakes and we should not be calling for a ban on foreign ships." Herb Gray, ex-Deputy Prime Minister of Canada said, "we have to live in today's world and everyone should recognize the
economic value of ships to the entire region surrounding the Great Lakes." Other than the public outcry that might result from the stopping of ships and their cargo,
delegates spoke about what they would do to advance the concerns of AIS to the public. Some legislation has been introduced such as the National Aquatic Invasive Species Act in the U.S. and
the Biosecurity Act in New Zealand. Although these authorize financial support towards treatment technologies, many speakers felt the need for more funding far outweighs the amounts authorized.
Schornack said that motivating big money concerns is a key facet in the battle for increased attention to the AIS crisis. He identified big marine insurers such as Lloyds of London and others
as the big money concerns when it comes to the shipping industry. "It will not be long before we can trace biological pollution back to identify the ship and place of
origin from whence it came," he said. When that happens the potential huge lawsuits and immense civil awards will wake up insurers. They will in-turn refuse to insure ships unless
owners can prove that they are doing something about invasive species and biological pollution from their vessels.
Shipping as a Vector for New Species Introductions A panel of experts from the USCG, industry and research discussed how shipping has progressed
in the fight against invasive species. These experts were asked about new technologies available for ballast water treatment and what type of impediments are there towards full-scale implementation on-board ships.
Jack Brabban of TeeKay Shipping felt that one of the major barriers to acceptance of new ballast water technologies was confusion on the part of ships and its' operators. Many technologies
seemed too complex to be accepted quickly by the shipping industry. Mario Tamburri of the Univ. of Maryland Center for Environmental Science, felt that new
technologies need more of a commitment from government agencies to help support their development. Such a commitment needs to come in terms of available financial support as well as technology verification.  Richard Everett of the USCG is working
closely on the technology verification process. Everett felt that he has not seen very many technologies that have proven themselves ready to be adapted for use on ships. He felt the vendors must know the
dose relationships, i.e. exactly how much treatment will be required to make the ballast water clean. Before a technology gets on a ship the technology must validate that it can deliver a critical dose.
Most experts agreed on one thing. There is currently a serious lack of available funding for the entire problem of nonindigenous species and in particular those invasive species that are
entering via the ballast water of ships. A brief summary of selected presentations is below:
 Cdr. Patrick Gerrity, - Preventing Aquatic Nonindigenous Species in the U.S. Gerrity, from the USCG 9th
District discussed the current status of U.S. regulations regarding ballast water management for nonindigenous species. As of June 2002, the USCG reports only 30% of ships have voluntarily reported their ballast water
management (BWM) practices. The USCG is now formalizing mandatory ballast water management requirements for vessels calling U.S. waters. Future regulations may include:
- Penalties for failing to report BWM.
- Requirement that ALL vessels conduct active BWM.
- Award approvals of shipboard technologies.
- Establish quantitative ballast water (BW) discharge standards.
The USCG is working on ways to verify whether or not vessels have conducted BW exchange or
some other form of BW treatment. The current use of salinity measurements has limitations such as distinguishing between open ocean and coastal waters.
Gerrity also noted that the USCG and US EPA are working on technology testing protocols to verify new BW treatment technologies. The USCG is promoting incentive programs to get ship
owners to install new treatment technologies on their vessels. The proposed regulations are expected to be introduced by July or August 2003. Tom Morris
– The Development of the International Convention for the control and management of ships' ballast water and sediment
Email –
morrist@tc.gc.ca Tom Morris is the Co-chairman of the Canadian national working group for ballast water
manament. Morris discussed the status of the International Maritime Organization's (IMO) Convention to regulate ballast water management. The IMO has been debating this convention
for close to a decade and Morris believes it may be coming to fulfillment by early 2004.According to Morris some key issues still under debate at IMO include:
- How and when the Convention will enter into force. – Three years after approval or a set date such as Jan. 1, 2010.
- Regulations for BWM plan.
- Regulation for BWM recording.
- A ballast water performance standard based on quantity, size and number of viable cells. 25 viable zooplankton/ML, 200 viable phytoplankton/ML are some of the numbers being debated.
- An efficiency standard of 95% has been proposed but IMO must determine if the standard will be for a set period of time or for the life of the vessel.
- Additional measures for management of the sediment in ballast water tanks are also being discussed.
Most importantly, Morris points out that IMO agrees that coastal governments may ask for additional requirements beyond those suggested in the convention. However, IMO has said it is
unacceptable for such measures to require ship owners to conduct extra surveys purely for the purpose of ballast water legislation.  Anjuna Langevin – Ballast Water Management Practices of Foreign Flag Vessels.
Email – alangevin@shipfed.ca
The Director of Navigation and Environment for the Shipping Federation of Canada (CSF), Langevin discussed how ships are coping with ballast water management (BWM) and the desire of
ship owners to keep ballast water movement to a minimum. Langevin reminded everyone that ship owners do NOT desire ballast or sediment at the bottom of ballast water tanks. Ballast is
a necessary safety practice but is very costly to the owners.The CSF has promoted a code of BWM practices for all their members to comply with. The code tells owners to exchange
ballast water at sea whenever practical, whether required or not. This will help to keep tank sediments to a minimum. The code also advises owners to keep ballast tanks clean of sediment, even if
they have to shovel out the excess. Langevin was concerned about ballast water exchange practices for coastal vessels, i.e. those
that cannot deviate to 200 nautical miles offshore. She said coastal authorities need to determine if short voyages present legitimate risks and if so, they need to set-up ballast water exchange zones.
Regarding enforcement, Langevin stressed the need for a quick and 100% reliable tool to prove that a ship has complied with ballast water regulations. The enforcement of future ballast water
regulations requires a compliance verification tool so that owners who are not complying do not undercut those who are following regulations.
Phil Jenkins
– Ballast Management and the Control of Sediment Accumulation in Water Ballast Tanks
P. Jenkins and Associates - Email: seafarer1@sprint.ca Jenkins is a specialist on ship's operations with P. Jenkins and Associates. His work has been in
helping ships find ways to control and minimize sediment in ballast water tanks.He outline five ways to limit sediment accumulation:
- Try to limit the amount of ballast intakes by limiting the number of tanks that a ship takes ballast water. If possible, re-use the same tanks in similar instances.
- Exchange bad ballast water with clean ballast water as soon as possible. The key is to get the poorer water out before sediment accumulates, even if that means exchanging before 200 nautical miles offshore.
- Flush the tanks often using clean deep water.
- Manually hose the tanks wherever possible and manually shovel if residuals remain.
- Regular tank inspection.
Jenkins feels the bulk of sediment residuals are due to poor design of the flow-through systems on ballast tanks. The less sediment left on a ship means more cargo weight that can be carried and
hence more income to the owner.
Jack Brabban
– The Natural Ballast Water Exchange Method
Email – jack.brabban@teekay.com
Teekay Shipping is a large shipping firm working primarily with big tankers over 100,000 DWT.
Brabban described a ships modification that TeeKay designed in order to facilitate ballast water exchange at sea.TeeKay's system uses the forward motion of the vessel to power the exchange process. By adding
piping from the forward bow to the forward ballast tank and two tank outlets in the hull, they were able to create a pressure differential. This pressure differential pulls fresh seawater into the
tanks while pushing out the old seawater. A ship can therefore exchange ballast while moving and without fully utilizing the ballast pumps.
The simplicity of the system appealed to many experts in Windsor. Brabban said the installation costs were expected at about US$ 100,000 to $150,000 for a 100,000 DWT tanker. Benefits to
the process were a minimization of fuel consumption and reduction of the workload to the ship staff. He expects the design is applicable to any type or size of vessel as long as the form of the
hull will cause a pressure differential. TeeKay expects to install a fully functional model in the near future. |
