Officials are afraid to admit a mistake, so they are resorting to fiction
California's dogged determination, which some would term idiotic, to lead the world in cracking the whip against the maritime industry can best be described as "boldly going nowhere."
The latest folly is the continuing saga over ballast water. The rules apply to vessels being built from January 2012 and carrying at least 5,000 tonnes of ballast. Shoving aside International Maritime Organization suggestions for the maximum volume of organisms in ballast water (less than 10 organisms per cubic meter for particles greater than 50 microns), California wants to dictate that there must be NO DETECTABLE LIVING (emphasis added) organisms. For organisms of 10-50 microns, California limits them to 0.01 per milliliter, while the IMO allows 10 per milliliter.
In other words, California is 1,000 times greater.
No technology exists to treat ballast water to this level of purity, nor does it exist to test the water to this level.
On September 1 the State Lands Commission (which is, bizarrely, responsible for ballast water regulation) is due to make up its mind on the proposals. Here's the real catch – the commission knows about the technology gap but doesn't want to admit that it's wrong. So, the fictitious conclusion will be made that the equipment now used by ships meets the fictitious new standards of compliance, and that the testing technology is equally accurate.
Hardly satisfactory, n'est pas.
Seven industry agencies have voiced their alarm to the commission, which is headed by the state's deputy governor, Gavin Newsom. They say, "Proposals to establish a compliance sampling program that would mask the unavailability of
compliant treatment technology and create the illusion that industry is complying with California’s unachievable standards are legally, commercially, and environmentally unacceptable.
"The State Lands Commission should deliver an accurate and specific report to the legislature [the state senate and assembly] about the realities and capabilities of commercially available ballast water treatment technology, and should recommend to the legislature that the law be changed to conform with the best achievable and protective ballast water treatment standards that the federal government will finalize this year.
"The industry cannot comply with the impossible, and California should not pretend that it can."
National ballast treatment rules are expected to be announced by the Coast Guard later this year and will probably be endorsed by the federal Environmental Protection Agency. California is likely to take little notice.