STATE OF CALIFORNIA ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, *Governor*

**CALIFORNIA STATE LANDS COMMISSION PAUL D. THAYER,** *Executive
Officer*![](media/image1.png){width="1.1659722222222222in"
height="1.1381944444444445in"}

100 Howe Avenue, Suite 100-South (916) 574-1800 FAX (916) 574-1810

Sacramento, CA 95825-8202 *California Relay Service From TDD Phone*
**1-800-735-2929**

*from Voice Phone* **1-800-735-2922**

> ***Contact Phone:*** **(****916-574-2568)**
>
> ***Contact FAX:*** **(****916-574-1950)**
>
> June 3, 2008
>
> File Ref: W 9777.234

Docket Management Facility

U.S. Department of Transportation

West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.

Washington, DC 20590

# VIA Electronic Submittal (http://www.regulations.gov)

Re: **Docket No. USCG-2007-0042**: Comments on the Application for the
Containerized Cargo Ship ATLANTIC COMPASS, review for Inclusion in the
Shipboard Technology Evaluation Program; Draft Environmental Assessment.

To Whom It May Concern:

The Marine Facilities Division (MFD) of the California State Lands
Commission has long supported the United States Coast Guard (USCG)
efforts with regards to their Shipboard Technology Evaluation Program
(STEP) and we welcome the opportunity to provide comments to the USCG on
the DEA, which describes the application of the *Atlantic Compass* for
the STEP.

As stated in the Draft Environmental Assessment for the *Atlantic
Compass*, acceptance into the STEP has negligible potential for negative
environmental effects, while providing regulators with real world data
on controlling invasive species in commercial vessels. MFD believes that
acceptance of the *Atlantic Compass* into STEP should be granted.

Several minor issues in the DEA that require attention are identified
below. However, these issues do not impact our support for this
application.

**Overall Comments**

1)  Scientific nomenclature -- Genus and species should always be
    italicized, higher taxonomic levels (order, family...) are not. The
    sp. or spp. epithet should not be italicized.

2)  References -- The document as a whole and section 3, Affected
    Environment, in particular, are largely devoid of necessary
    references. What sources were used to create the lists of common
    species in each habitat etc...?

3)  It is unclear whether, when referring to organic matter throughout
    the text, you mean dissolved organic matter, particulate organic
    matter or total organic matter. Please clarify.

**Docket No. USCG-2007-0042**

**June 3, 2008**

**Page 2**

4)  There is a lack of consistency in the units used for displaying the
    concentration of chlorine dioxide. Sometimes it's ppm, others it's
    ug/L (which is ppb). There is also a lack on consistency in relation
    to the significant figures (5 ppm vs. 5.0 ppm) throughout.

5)  The term "consumed" is misleading when used to describe the
    degradation of ClO~2~. "Degraded" is more appropriate.

**\
Specific Comments**

[1.3 Purpose and Need]{.underline}

Para 2 - clarify that USCG is the lead **federal** agency to
prevent....ballast water discharges **in the US**

[1.4 Pea for STEP]{.underline}

Bullet 2 -- Briefly list or describe the frequent circumstances under
which ballast is discharged without any treatment.

[1.5 Scope]{.underline}

Para 4, lines 4-5 - "...treatment system is expected to have no impact
on water quality, biological resources..." How can there be
[no]{.underline} impacts when longer-lived residuals (biocides) will be
released. Change "no" impacts to "minimal" or "negligible" impacts.
Additionally, this paragraph states that "The technology examined
involves one ship making occasional port arrivals. . ." Please clarify
"occasional".

[2.1 Alternative 1]{.underline}

Please explain why the vessel has been granted a safety waiver.

[2.2 Alternative 2]{.underline}

Para 2 -- The discharge is shown as averaging around 4000 metric tons,
but it is described as being 4500 metric tons on pg 1-1. Please
reconcile.

[2.2.2 Description of Technology]{.underline}

*Chemical Residuals*

Para1 - Are there any available examples of accuracy and precision
related to the target final concentration of the automated system (i.e.
does it produce a 5.0 ppm concentration every time or is there some
[+]{.underline} involved?)

Para 2 -- States that chlorite reacts with metals. Which metals? Have
processes been developed to assess any damage to vessels? Please explain
the difference in the reported chlorite half-life in Newark vs.
Baltimore (at the same temperature); it would be nice to see some
hypotheses as to why.

Para 4 - What is the time for the decomposition of chlorate? How to
chlorate and chlorite impact organisms?

Para 4 Last sentence - Because dilution will be the primary determinant
considered in reducing concentrations, an estimate of the water
residency times in these harbors would be helpful.

Para 5 - "The **reaction** of chlorite appears to accelerate in
sunlight. While studies have shown that ClO~2~ is very rapidly
**consumed** by sunlight..." Is degradation the word you are looking
for? Is the reaction of ClO~2~ to chlorite the "reaction" of sentence
one? If chlorite is the reacting form,

**Docket No. USCG-2007-0042**

**June 3, 2008**

**Page 3**

is chlorate the product of the reaction? For sentence two, I'm not sure
that sunlight is technically consuming ClO~2~. I think that ClO~2~ is
being degraded.

Para 6 - "However, any remaining ClO~2~ discharged in US waters is
reported to be at levels low enough to be below EPA discharge standards
for chlorite, chlorate, and chlorine dioxide." By "any remaining
ClO~2~", do you mean any remaining ClO~2~ and associated by-products
(e.g. chlorite, chlorate)?

Para 6 - "...US waters is reported to be at levels low enough..." What
are these discharge standards and what concentrations (ranges) are
likely to be discharged at each of the ports? Some of this information
is available throughout the document but putting this in one section
would make it easier to compare. Suggest including a table showing the
average discharge concentrations and the EPA standards so the reader can
make that determination for themselves.

Pg 2-6

*Condition of Treated Water Prior to Discharge, and Assessment of
Discharge* - "Residual chemical levels are thought to be below
applicable EPA and state discharge standards." Are there data and or
references to support this statement? What are the concentrations from
preliminary testing and what are the standards?

*Management of Treatment Waste Streams*

Mentions for the first time sodium sulfate, which is a product of the
reaction. What concentrations are produced? Is it toxic? Is there any
information available regarding sodium sulfate and its effects that
could be discussed here? Concentrations produced?

[3.1 Biological Resources]{.underline}

A map of the ports would be useful here. Additionally, since they are
likely to be the most affected group of organisms, include a description
of the planktonic communities and potential indirect effects on
fisheries. Finally, sources should be cited throughout this section.

[3.1.1 Newark Bay]{.underline}

CERCLA and USACE should be placed in acronym list. Additionally, CERCLA
should be spelled out at first usage.

Para 3 - States "...the USFWS indicated (appendix E) that Newark Harbor
lies within the distributional ranges for the piping plover...However,
the proposed activities of the Atlantic Compass in the Newark Harbor if
accepted into STEP is not expected to result in any impacts to these
species known to occur in the Harbor area."

![](media/image2.wmf){width="6.499305555555556in"
height="1.2409722222222221in"}

**Docket No. USCG-2007-0042**

**June 3, 2008**

**Page 4**

Note the clause, "the Service's NJFO has not received sufficient
information to determine whether STEP may adversely affect the
aforementioned federally listed species, if treated ballast waters were
to be released in the general vicinity of nest sites or individual
occurrences."

The second sentence in from above STEP quote is a qualitative sentence
regarding the impact of the Ecochlor system and does not necessarily
agree with the intention of the USFWS letter. Although it appears that
the Ecochlor system will not directly impact vertebrates (see comments
on 4.1.2), it is possible that the chlorite residues from the Ecochlor
system could impact small marine invertebrates, which account for the
food source for endangered species such as the piping plover.

Finally, the USFWS letter is in Appendix D, not E.

[3.1.2 Chesapeake Bay]{.underline}

Pg 3-5, Para 2 - There is an introduction to Baltimore Harbor but not
Portsmouth Harbor.

Pg 3-5

*Benthos, Baltimore Harbor* -- The biological surveys are likely
out-dated (conducted in 1975 and 1983). Please provide more recent data.

Pg 3-6

*Benthos, Portsmouth Harbor* -- The benthic index of biological
integrity information seems out of place here. This information is not
provided elsewhere and the values are poorly explained. Suggest either
remove this information or describe it in more detail. Also, is there
any information about dominant species?

Pg 3-6

*Plants and Wetlands, Portsmouth Harbor* -- So are there any wetlands in
the harbor, if so what kind of area are we talking about? Not clear.

Pg 3-6

*Fisheries* - Are there any planktivorous fish that may be indirectly
affected by potential impacts on planktonic communities?

[3.2.1 Newark Bay]{.underline}

Para 1 - What are the average salinity and turbidity values for the bay?

[3.2.2 Chesapeake Bay Area]{.underline}

Para 1 -- What are the low DO levels? Please provide data. Also provide
salinity range and average turbidity values.

Para 2 -- Please list the toxic pollutants mentioned here.

[4.1.2 Proposed Action Alternative (Biological Resources)]{.underline}

The potential impact of chlorite appears underestimated. The toxicity of
chlorite was not mentioned in the document. According to
[www.pesticideinfo.org](http://www.pesticideinfo.org/) chlorite causes
serious sublethal effects including carcinogenicity, and reproductive,
developmental, and neurological toxicity. Therefore, it is inadequate to
only examine the LC~50~ of chlorite. LC~50~ is too extreme of an
endpoint to determine whether or not the biological resources will be
impacted. Secondly, the

**Docket No. USCG-2007-0042**

**June 3, 2008**

**Page 5**

EPA compiled toxicity data does not adequately represent the target
taxa. As indicated in paragraph 5 of this section, "the potential
impacts from this action will primarily be to the planktonic community."
Out of 13 studies that were listed in Addendum F, only 3 were performed
on plankton, and had LC~50~ well below the value for "compiled toxicity
levels" reported in the text ("The compiled toxicity levels are mostly
greater than ... 75,000 ug/L for chlorite..."). As mentioned in the
text, "two aquatic \[species\], *Daphnia* and *Americanmysis* had LC~50~
concentrations less than 500 ug/L." This is potentially problematic, as
it is estimated that 2000 ug chlorite/L will be discharged by the *Moku
Pahu*. In fact, the LC~50~'s reported for the three EPA studies on
zooplankton were 21, 250, and 440 ug chlorite/L.

Also, the link for U.S. EPA Aquire (Addendum F) is broken, and these
previous studies need to be properly referenced. Furthermore, the table
is not reader friendly, and it is unclear whether the algae species
tested were not affected by chlorite exposure because chlorite is not
toxic to algae, or because the concentrations administered were low. It
would be helpful to amend the table to include the administered
concentrations so that we can see if the concentrations were comparable
to the other listed studies.

Para 5 -- How do chlorite, chlorate and chlorine dioxide impact
biological resources. Do they act the same? Do organisms respond
differently? Based on the numbers presented it appears that discharged
chlorite levels are high enough to be locally toxic to planktonic
organisms. This needs more discussion. Lines 7-8 - The largest potential
impact from this action will affect organisms that were not even
discussed in section 3.1. There should be a discussion of the local
planktonic communities, especially since the bulk of the effects will
land on them, especially since two of the planktonic species tested in
Appendix F had LC50's below potential discharge concentrations.

[4.2.2 Proposed Action Alternative (Water Quality)]{.underline}

Para 2 - What are the typical pH values (ranges?) for each of the ports
involved? What causes this drop in pH (by \<0.6 units) and under what
conditions does this occur?

Para 2 Line 3 - "...the discharge pH will still generally be near
neutrality...not likely pose a significant negative impact." This
sentence is misleading; the fact that the discharged water will still be
generally neutral does [not]{.underline} mean that it will not likely
pose a negative impact. The neutrality of the water has nothing to do
with whether a particular organism adapted to a specific pH range will
be affected; the relative change of the pH is what's important.
Additionally, it should be noted that a decrease in pH by 0.6 units is
large (pH is on a log scale), especially considering the sensitivity of
corals to decreases in pH, and the increase in ocean acidification due
to climate change.

[Section 4.3]{.underline}

Para 2 - Chlorine dioxide breaks down into chlorine gas. What are the
emission limits for Cl~2~? How harmful is it? Will testing for Cl~2~ be
conducted?

[5.0 Cumulative Impacts]{.underline}

Proposed Action Impacts -- What are the long term impacts of chlorite?
From pg 2-6, chlorite decomposition appears to take between 70-200 days.
This amount of time and the continuous discharges from the vessel
(described as every 35 days for a round trip voyage) may result in a

**Docket No. USCG-2007-0042**

**June 3, 2008**

**Page 6**

build up of chlorite levels in the harbor depending on circulation
patterns. This should be addressed.

[Appendix C]{.underline}

Pg 10-5 - What are the potential impacts of ClO~2~ and Cl~2~ on the
crew, especially in enclosed areas? Will the air be monitored for these
gases?

[Appendix E]{.underline}

Pg 10-11 Last paragraph - All of this information should be discussed in
the body of the document rather than in an appendix. There was a hint
about the possibility of residual ClO~2~ in the discharge in the
document but the potential amounts of these discharges (discussed in
App. E) should be discussed earlier.

In summary, the MFD-CSLC supports the USCG's Shipboard Technology
Evaluation Program and we look forward to a continued collaboration with
the USCG on the evaluation of ballast water treatment technologies.

Thank you for your consideration of these comments. If you have any
questions, please do not hesitate to call.

Sincerely,

![](media/image3.jpeg){width="1.93125in" height="0.5923611111111111in"}

Maurya B Falkner

California Marine Invasive Species Program

Marine Facilities Division

Cc: Gary Gregory, Chief, Marine Facilities Division