Ballast Bill Set Adrift?

The Muskegon Chronicle is reporting that legislation that would have made ballast water treatment mandatory for ships entering the Great Lakes will not see a vote before the end of the year. That means any efforts to regulate ballast at the national level will have to start fresh in 2009.

A Seaway Of Controversy

There's an editorial in last Tuesday's Milwaukee Journal Sentinel calling for the closure of the St. Lawrence Seaway in order to prevent ocean-bound ships from transporting new invasive species into the Great Lakes. The reasoning behind the idea is that freighters should be banned from the Seaway until the shipping industry can prove that appropriate measures are being taken to avoid introducing ballast invaders to the region. The Journal Sentinel also published an in-depth two part article on the subject last week.

Got an opinion on this? The MJS is looking for letters to the editor on the subject - details are at the end of the editorial.

(Thanks to Tracy C. for psychically pointing me towards this story ;-))

But Does It Have A Popcorn Button?

An article in New Scientist details an interesting technique for dealing with ballast invaders: zap them with microwaves. Researchers at Louisiana State University have developed industrial-strength microwave generators that can heat ballast water to 55'C (131'F), killing potentially invasive aquatic organisms (and everything else as well!). Now they're working to find a way to integrate the technology into ships, providing a relatively cheap and effective method of treating ballast water. If you want to learn more, check out the original research, published in last month's issue of Environmental Science & Technology (bonus points to them for providing the entire article free of charge!).

Thanks to Michael K. for sending in a link to this story.

What Can Brown Do For You?

Stuff.co.nz is reporting that the New Zealand government is using strong measures to deal with the potential introduction of the brown mussel (Perna perna) into Tasman Bay. The response stems from a incident in late 2007 where an oil rig relocated to the bay in order to "defoul" (cleanse itself of unwanted organisms). The rig got clearance from the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry Biosecurity New Zealand (MAFBNZ) after initial inspections failed to reveal any species that New Zealand considered to be a problem. However, bad weather kept the rig closer to shore than expected, and further testing revealed the hull may have been contaminated with the invasive mussels. When the government sent robotic cameras under water to investigate, they detected what appeared to be brown mussels living at the site where the rig was located. While the exact species of mussel still needs to be confirmed, MAFBNZ is moving forward this week with a dredging of the area of Tasman Bay thought to be impacted, and the rig's owners are footing most of the bill.

Thanks to Andrew B. for sending in a link to the story.

Fair Is Foul, And Fouling Is Unfair

ABC News Australia has a report about an interesting new innovation in the world of anti-fouling mechanisms (you didn't think there was an entire world devoted to such things, did you!). "Fouling" refers to the process of organisms attaching to and accumulating on a surface, such as the hull of a ship, and can be a major vector for introducing marine and freshwater aquatic organisms into new environments.

An Australian scientist from the Defence Science and Technology Organisation of Australia has been studying the way that mollusks keep other organisms from settling on the outside of their shells to get inspiration for new anti-fouling technologies. He found that the surfaces of mollusk shells can be defined by a variety of fine microstructures that appear to have evolved to make it harder for organisms like algae and barnacles to grab hold. Some mollusks also release an antibacterial agent to keep bacteria from filling in the gaps in their textured surfaces, further preventing other organisms from settling there. He hopes to use his research to develop more effective (and less toxic) anti-fouling surfaces for the hulls of ships. The current norm in anti-fouling technology is to paint the hull of the ship with a compound that releases copper or other chemicals toxic to marine invertebrates, though less toxic alternatives are also available.

Like A Boat Out Of Water

An environmental group is calling for drastic measures to prevent the further introduction of invasive species into the Great Lakes. According to this article at mlive.com, the Healing Our Waters-Great Lakes Coalition is suggesting that no international ships be allowed to enter the Great Lakes until the U.S. sets federal regulations for how ballast water is dealt with. They've even gone so far as to commission a study showing what the cost would be of diverting the ships and using alternate transportation for goods (more than $50 million, but far less than the estimated $5 billion/year for invasive species management in the Great Lakes region). It has been five years since the U.S. government first considered the idea of ballast water regulations, and some states have become so frustrated with the lack of activity that they're passing their own laws to deal with the issue.

Thanks to John R. from Don Watcher for sending in a link to the story. Interested readers may also want to check out this related press release from the Great Lakes Coalition.

Sue Do grep -l 'ballast' Michigan/*.law | xargs rm

Canada.com recently posted this report about a lawsuit brought by a group of shipping industry stakeholders from Canada, Barbados and the USA against the state of Michigan. The coalition, made up of shipping companies, shipping associations and a dock company, are claiming that the recently enacted Michigan Ballast Water Act is unconstitutional. They also say that the law places an undue burden on the industry and provides little benefit to the Great Lakes.

I did not read all of the background material from the lawsuit, but it looks like this stems from a state law that went into effect on January 1, 2007, stating that all ships entering a port in Michigan that wish to discharge ballast water must apply for a permit (and pay a fee), treat the ballast water in an approved manner, and report on such treatment. The coalition is upset that a state is trying to do the regulating, saying that it would be more appropriately done at the federal level (How long should Michigan be willing to wait for that to happen? Better yet, why not do it at an international level?).

Interested readers may want to check out this page from the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, which provides links to several relevant documents. Also, this article from the Muskegon Chronicle names some names from the coalition.