2009 ASSESSMENT OF THE EFFICACY, AVAILABILITY 

AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF BALLAST WATER 

TREATMENT SYSTEMS FOR USE IN CALIFORNIA WATERS 

PRODUCED FOR THE 

CALIFORNIA STATE LEGISLATURE 

By 

N. Dobroski, C. Scianni, D. Gehringer and M. Falkner 

California State Lands Commission 

Marine Facilities Division 

January 2009 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

The Coastal Ecosystems Protection Act (Act) of 2006 expanded the Marine Invasive 

Species Act of 2003 to more effectively address the threat of nonindigenous species 

introduction through ballast water discharge. The Act charged the California State 

Lands Commission (Commission) to implement performance standards for the 

discharge of ballast water and to prepare a report assessing the efficacy, availability, 

and environmental impacts, including water quality, of currently available ballast water 

treatment technologies. The performance standards regulations were adopted in 

October 2007, and the first technology assessment report was approved by the 

Commission in December 2007 (see Dobroski et al. 2007). In response to the 

recommendations in the 2007 report, the California Legislature passed Senate Bill (SB) 

1781 (Chapter 696, Statutes of 2008) which delayed the initial implementation of the 

performance standards from January 1, 2009 to January 1, 2010. Additionally, SB 1781 

required an update of the technology assessment report by January 1, 2009. This report 

summarizes the Commission’s conclusions on the advancement of ballast water 

treatment technology development and evaluation during 2008, discusses future plans 

of the Commission’s Marine Invasive Species Program regarding the implementation of 

California’s performance standards for the discharge of ballast water, and makes 

recommendations to the Legislature. 

Significant progress has been made in the development of treatment systems since the 

previous technology assessment report (see Dobroski et al. 2007). Both the quantity 

and the quality of the recently received data on system performance attest to this fact. 

The field of treatment technology performance evaluation, however, has not kept pace 

with the rapidly evolving ballast water treatment industry. Scientific methods to assess 

the concentration of viable organisms present in ballast water discharge still must be 

developed so that Commission staff may rapidly assess vessel compliance with the 

ballast water performance standards. 

California’s standards for bacteria and viruses pose a significant challenge, as no widely 

accepted methods exist to both quantify and assess the viability of all bacteria and 

ii
viruses in a sample of ballast water discharge. The best available technique for bacterial 

assessment involves the use of a subset or proxy group of organisms to represent 

treatment of bacteria as a whole. While this technique is not without some debate, it is 

scientifically supported by many experts in microbiology and technology assessment 

(see Appendix A). The viruses pose a greater challenge. Without strong evidence for 

the selection of proxy organisms in this size class, Commission staff believes that there 

are no acceptable methods for verification of compliance with the total viral standard at 

this time, and that the Commission should proceed with assessment of technologies for 

the remaining organism size classes in the standards. 

Based on the available information and using best assessment techniques, Commission 

staff reviewed 30 ballast water treatment systems for this report. Staff believes that at 

least two treatment systems have demonstrated the potential to comply with California’s 

performance standards. Many additional systems are close to completing system 

performance verification testing and will soon have data available for review. 

Commission staff expects that before 2010 several systems will be ready to meet 

California standards. 

Over 20 systems are anticipated to be commercially available by the end of 2009 

(Lloyd’s Register 2008). Systems cannot clearly be deemed “available” for use, 

however, unless they have demonstrated the ability to meet California’s performance 

standards. The treatment systems that met California’s standards under the review for 

this report are commercially available at this time, and the several additional systems 

that are close to meeting all of California’s standards are also commercially available. 

Treatment vendors and vessel operators will also need to assess potential water quality 

impacts from treatment system usage in California waters. Commission staff, in 

consultation with the State Water Resources Control Board, has recently distributed to 

technology vendors a set of “Ballast Water Treatment Technology Testing Guidelines” 

that provides guidance on relevant water quality control plans and objectives for vessels 

intending to discharge treated effluent in State waters. Further guidance will be provided 

iii
by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s National Pollution Discharge Elimination 

System (NPDES) Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal 

Operation of Vessels, and the California-specific provisions added to the Vessel 

General Permit through the Clean Water Act Section 401 certification process. As of the 

writing of this report, however, those provisions were not available. Based on the 

available data it is clear that not all treatment systems will meet California’s water 

quality objectives, particularly for chlorine residuals. Vessel owners and operators will 

need to consult with the Water Board to better assess the potential for water quality 

impacts from treatment system usage in California waters. 

The Commission is preparing to implement the performance standards for new vessels 

with a ballast water capacity of less than 5000 MT in 2010. This review indicates that 

systems are or will soon be available to meet California’s performance standards, 

particularly in light of the small number of new vessels that will likely need to meet the 

standards beginning in 2010. Commission staff is working closely with the shipping 

industry and treatment vendors to ensure a smooth transition to the new standards. 

Commission staff is currently undertaking several projects to develop a comprehensive 

program for the implementation of California’s performance standards including: 1) 

Developing protocols to verify vessel compliance with the performance standards; 2) 

Amending the performance standards regulations to bring the regulations in-line with 

recent changes in statute and to specify requirements for ballast water sample 

collection and analysis; 3) Revising the Ballast Water Treatment Technology Testing 

Guidelines, as necessary; and 4) Supporting the development of performance 

standards and a technology assessment program at the federal level. 

Staff will conduct another assessment of available treatment technologies by July 1, 

2010 in anticipation of the 2012 implementation date for new vessels with a ballast 

water capacity greater than 5000 MT. 

iv
At this time, the Commission recommends that legislation be adopted to: 

1. Authorize the Commission to amend the ballast water reporting requirements 

via regulations. 

In 2007, the Commission recommended that the Legislature provide the Commission 

with the authority to change the ballast water reporting requirements to include 

information on the timing of, and requirements for, treatment system use, deviations 

from suggested system operation, and certifications for operation from vessel 

classification societies and other organizations/agencies. The statute currently limits the 

Commission’s ability to amend the existing ballast water reporting form or develop a 

new form to collect necessary information about treatment system usage. To address 

this challenge, the Legislature proposed and passed Assembly Bill 169 in 2008, which 

was later vetoed by the Governor along with hundreds of other bills, due to the late 

passage of the budget. Nonetheless, the need for more information about treatment 

system installation and usage remains. The Commission should be authorized to 

amend the ballast water reporting requirements to meet these needs. 

2. Support continued research promoting technology development and 

performance evaluation. 

Ballast water treatment is an emerging industry that will continue to develop as 

California’s Performance Standards are progressively implemented and as new vessel 

types are built. The scientific evaluation of treatment technology performance is also in 

its infancy, and new methods and techniques will be necessary to assess discharge 

compliance. The research and development needed to meet and assess compliance 

with these standards will require substantial financial resources. Funds necessary to 

support these research needs could be obtained through three mechanisms: general 

funds, grants, or through the existing fees assessed on ships. The Commission and the 

Legislature should support future budget change proposals or other fiscal actions to 

ensure that the development of evaluation methods may keep pace with the 

advancement of treatment technologies and with the performance standards 

implementation. 

v
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY..................................................................................................ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS ..................................................................................................vi

ABBREVIATIONS AND TERMS ....................................................................................vii

I. PURPOSE.................................................................................................................... 1

II. INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................... 1

III. REGULATORY AND PROGRAMMATIC OVERVIEW ............................................... 5

IV. TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT PROCESS..................................... 21

V. TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES............................................................................... 22

VI. ASSESSMENT OF TREATMENT SYSTEMS ......................................................... 33

VII. CONCLUSIONS...................................................................................................... 57

VIII. LOOKING FORWARD........................................................................................... 59

IX. RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE LEGISLATURE.................................................... 62

X. LITERATURE CITED................................................................................................ 64

XI. APPENDICES.......................................................................................................... 77

APPENDIX A: BALLAST WATER TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY.... 

TESTING GUIDELINES 

78

APPENDIX B: BALLAST WATER TREATMENT SYSTEM............ 

EFFICACY MATRIX 

151

APPENDIX C: ADVISORY PANEL MEMBERS AND MEETING...... 

NOTES 

166

 

vi
vii

ABBREVIATIONS AND TERMS 

AB Assembly Bill 

Act Coastal Ecosystems Protection Act 

CCR California Code of Regulations 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

CSLC/Commission California State Lands Commission 

CTR California Toxics Rule 

Convention International Convention for the Control and Management of 

 Ships’ Ballast Water and Sediments 

CWA Clean Water Act 

EEZ Exclusive Economic Zone 

EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency 

ETV Environmental Technology Verification Program 

FIFRA Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act 

GESAMP-BWWG Joint Group of Experts on the Scientific Aspects of Marine 

 Environmental Protection – Ballast Water Working Group 

IMO International Maritime Organization 

MEPC Marine Environment Protection Committee 

Michigan DEQ Michigan Department of Environmental Quality 

MPCA Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 

MT Metric Ton 

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act 

NIS Nonindigenous Species 

nm Nautical Mile 

NPDES National Pollution Discharge Elimination System 

NRL Naval Research Laboratory 

PRC Public Resources Code 

SB Senate Bill 

Staff Commission staff 

STEP Shipboard Technology Evaluation Program 

TRC Total Residual Chlorine 

TRO Total Residual Oxidant 

USCG United States Coast Guard 

UV Ultraviolet Irradiation 

Vessel General Permit Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the 

 Normal Operation of Commercial Vessels and Large 

 Recreational Vessels 

Water Board California State Water Resources Control Board 

WDFW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife 

WET Whole Effluent Toxicity 
I. PURPOSE 

This report was prepared for the California Legislature pursuant to the Coastal 

Ecosystems Protection Act of 2006 (Act). Among its provisions, the Act added Section 

71205.3 to the Public Resources Code (PRC) which required the California State Lands 

Commission (Commission) to prepare and submit to the Legislature, “a review of the 

efficacy, availability, and environmental impacts, including the effect on water quality, of 

currently available technologies for ballast water treatment systems.” The initial 

technology assessment report, “Assessment of the Efficacy, Availability and 

Environmental Impacts of Ballast Water Treatment Systems for Use in California 

Waters,” was approved by the Commission in December 2007 and submitted to the 

California Legislature (see Dobroski et al. 2007). In response to the recommendations in 

that report, the Legislature passed Senate Bill (SB) 1781 in 2008 (Chapter 696, Statutes 

of 2008) which amended PRC Section 71205.3 to delay the initial implementation of 

California’s performance standards for the discharge of ballast water from January 1, 

2009 to January 1, 2010. Additionally, the bill required an update of the initial 

technology assessment report by January 1, 2009 in anticipation of the implementation 

of the performance standards in 2010. This report summarizes Commission 

conclusions on the advancement of ballast water treatment technology development 

and assessment during 2008, discusses plans developed by Commission staff to 

implement California’s performance standards for the discharge of ballast water, and 

makes recommendations to the Legislature. 

II. INTRODUCTION 

Nonindigenous Species and their Impacts 

Also known as “introduced”, “invasive”, “exotic”, “alien”, or “aquatic nuisance species”, 

nonindigenous species (NIS) are organisms that have been transported by human 

activities to a region where they did not occur historically, and have established 

reproducing populations in the wild (Carlton 2001). Once established, NIS can have 

serious human health, economic and environmental impacts in their new environment. 

1
One of the most infamous examples is the zebra mussel (Dreissena polymorpha), which 

was introduced from the Black Sea to the Great Lakes in the mid-1980s (Carlton 2008) 

and was discovered in California in 2008 (California Department of Fish and Game 

2008). This tiny striped mussel attaches to hard surfaces in dense populations that clog 

municipal water systems and electric generating plants, costing approximately $1 billion 

a year in damage and control for the Great Lakes alone (Pimentel et al. 2005). In San 

Francisco Bay, the overbite clam (Corbula amurensis) is thought to have contributed to 

declines of fish populations in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta by reducing the 

availability of the plankton food base of the ecosystem (Feyrer et al. 2003). The 

Chinese mitten crab (Eriocheir sinensis), first sighted in San Francisco Bay in 1992, 

clogged water pumping stations and riddled levies with burrows costing approximately 

$1 million in 2000-2001 for control and research (Carlton 2001). In addition, the 

microorganisms that cause human cholera (Ruiz et al. 2000) and paralytic shellfish 

poisoning (Hallegraeff 1998) have been found in the ballast tanks of ships. 

In marine, estuarine and freshwater environments, NIS may be transported to new 

regions through various human activities including aquaculture, the aquarium and pet 

trade, and bait shipments (Cohen and Carlton 1995, Weigle et al. 2005). In coastal 

habitats commercial shipping is an important transport mechanism, or “vector,” for 

invasion. In one study, shipping was responsible for or contributed to approximately 

80% of invertebrate and algae introductions to North America (Fofonoff et al. 2003, see 

also Cohen and Carlton 1995 for San Francisco Bay). Ballast water was a possible 

vector for 69% of those shipping introductions, making it a significant ship-based 

introduction vector (Fofonoff et al. 2003). 

Ballast water is necessary for many functions related to the trim, stability, 

maneuverability, and propulsion of large oceangoing vessels (National Research 

Council 1996). Vessels take on, discharge, or redistribute water during cargo loading 

and unloading, as they take on and burn fuel, as they encounter rough seas, or as they 

transit through shallow coastal waterways. Typically, a vessel takes on ballast water 

after its cargo is unloaded in one port to compensate for the weight imbalance, and will 

2
later discharge that water when cargo is loaded in another port. This transfer of ballast 

water from “source” to “destination” ports results in the movement of many organisms 

from one region to the next. In this fashion, it is estimated that more than 7000 species 

are moved around the world on a daily basis (Carlton 1999). 

Ballast Water Management 

Attempts to eradicate NIS after they have become widely distributed are often costly 

and unsuccessful (Carlton 2001). Between 2000 and 2006, over $7 million was spent to 

eradicate the Mediterranean green seaweed (Caulerpa taxifolia) from two embayments 

in southern California (Woodfield 2006). Approximately $10 million is spent annually to 

control the sea lamprey (Petromyzon marinus) in the Great Lakes (Lovell and Stone 

2005). By 2010, over $12 million will have been spent in San Francisco Bay to control 

the Atlantic cordgrass (Spartina alterniflora) (Spellman, M., pers. comm. 2008). These 

costs reflect only a fraction of the cumulative expense over time as species control is an 

unending process. Prevention is therefore considered the most desirable way to 

address the NIS issue. 

For the vast majority of commercial vessels, ballast water exchange is the primary 

management technique to prevent or minimize the transfer of coastal (including 

bay/estuarine) organisms. During exchange, the biologically rich water that is loaded 

while a vessel is in port or near the coast is exchanged with the comparatively speciesand nutrient-poor waters of the mid-ocean (Zhang and Dickman 1999). Coastal 

organisms adapted to the conditions of bays, estuaries and shallow coasts are not 

expected to survive and/or be able to reproduce in the mid-ocean due to the differences 

in biology (competition, predation, food availability) and oceanography (temperature, 

salinity, turbidity, nutrient levels) between the two regions (Cohen 1998). Mid-ocean 

organisms are likewise not expected to survive in coastal waters (Cohen 1998). 

Performance Standards for the Discharge of Ballast Water 

Ballast water exchange is generally considered an interim tool because of its variable 

efficacy and operational limitations. Studies indicate that the effectiveness of ballast 

3
water exchange at eliminating organisms in tanks ranges widely from 50-99% (Cohen 

1998, Parsons 1998, Zhang and Dickman 1999, U.S. Coast Guard 2001, Wonham et al. 

2001, MacIsaac et al. 2002). When performed properly, exchange is considered an 

effective tool to reduce the risk of coastal species invasions (Ruiz and Reid 2007). 

However, new research demonstrates that the percentage of ballast water exchanged 

does not necessarily correlate with a proportional decrease in organism abundance 

(Choi et al. 2005, Ruiz and Reid 2007). Some vessels are regularly routed on short 

voyages or voyages that remain within 50 nautical miles (nm) of shore, and in such 

cases, the exchange process may create a delay or require a vessel to deviate from the 

most direct route. Such deviations can extend travel distances, increasing vessel costs 

for personnel time and fuel consumption. 

In some circumstances, ballast water exchange may not be possible without 

compromising vessel or crew safety. For example, vessels that encounter adverse 

weather or experience equipment failure may be unable to conduct ballast water 

exchange safely. Unmanned barges are incapable of conducting exchange without 

transferring personnel onboard, a procedure that can present unacceptable danger if 

attempted in the exposed conditions of the open ocean. In recognition of these 

challenges, state and federal ballast water regulations allow vessels to forego exchange 

should the master or person in charge determine that it would place the vessel, its crew, 

or its passengers at risk. Though the provision is rarely invoked in California, the 

handful of vessels that use it may subsequently discharge un-exchanged ballast into 

State waters, presenting a risk of NIS introduction. 

Regulatory agencies and the commercial shipping industry have therefore looked 

toward the development of effective ballast water treatment technologies as a promising 

management option. For regulators, such systems would provide NIS prevention 

including in situations where exchange may be unsafe or impossible. Technologies that 

eliminate organisms more effectively than mid-ocean exchange could provide a 

consistently higher level of protection to coastal ecosystems from NIS. For the 

shipping industry, the use of effective ballast water treatment systems might allow 

4
voyages to proceed along the shortest routes, in all operational scenarios, thereby 

saving time and money. 

Despite these incentives, until recently, financial investment in the research and 

development of ballast water treatment systems has been limited and the advancement 

of ballast water treatment technologies slow. Many barriers have hindered the 

development of technologies, including equipment design limitations, the cost of 

technology development, and the lack of guidelines for testing and evaluating 

performance. However, some shipping industry representatives, technology developers 

and investors considered the absence of a specific set of ballast water performance 

standards as a primary deterrent to progress. Performance standards would set 

benchmark levels for organism discharge that a technology would be required to 

achieve for it to be deemed acceptable for use in eliminating the threat of species 

introductions. Developers requested these targets so they could design technologies to 

meet the standards (MEPC 2003). Without standards, investors were reluctant to 

devote financial resources towards conceptual or prototype systems because they had 

no indication that their investments might ultimately meet future regulations. For the 

same reason, vessel owners were hesitant to allow installation and testing of prototype 

systems onboard operational vessels. It was argued that the adoption of performance 

standards would address these fears, and accelerate the advancement of ballast 

treatment technologies. Thus in response to the slow progress of ballast water 

treatment technology development and the need for effective ballast water treatment 

options, state, federal and international regulatory agencies have adopted or are in the 

process of developing performance standards for ballast water discharges. 

III. REGULATORY AND PROGRAMMATIC OVERVIEW 

A thorough evaluation of the status of ballast water treatment technologies requires not 

only an understanding of the regulatory framework associated with the development 

and implementation of performance standards for the discharge of ballast water, but 

also knowledge of mechanisms for the testing and evaluation of treatment systems to 

meet those standards. Currently, no comprehensive international, federal or state 

5
program exists that includes performance standards, guidelines and/or protocols to 

verify the performance of treatment technologies, and methods to sample and analyze 

discharged ballast water for compliance purposes. California, other U.S. states, the 

federal government, and the international community are working toward the 

development of a standardized approach to the management of discharged ballast 

water, however, at this time existing legislation, standards and guidelines vary by 

jurisdiction. The following is a summary of the status of performance standards 

regulations, treatment system evaluation, and discharge compliance verification as of 

the writing of this report. 

International Maritime Organization 

In February 2004, after several years of development and negotiation, International 

Maritime Organization (IMO) member countries adopted the International Convention 

for the Control and Management of Ships’ Ballast Water and Sediments (Convention) 

(see IMO 2005). Among its requirements, the Convention imposes performance 

standards for the discharge of ballast water (Regulation D-2) with an associated 

implementation schedule based on vessel ballast water capacity and status as a new or 

existing vessel (Tables III-1 and III-2). 

The Convention will enter into force 12 months after ratification by 30 countries 

representing 35% of the world’s commercial shipping tonnage (IMO 2005). As of 

September 30, 2008, 16 countries representing 14.24% of the world’s shipping tonnage 

have signed the convention (IMO 2008). The Convention cannot be enforced upon any 

ship until it is ratified (IMO 2007). Because insufficient time remains to ratify the 

Convention and have it enter into force before the first performance standards 

implementation date in 2009, the IMO General Assembly adopted Resolution 

A.1005(25) on November 29, 2007. The resolution delays the date by which new 

vessels built in 2009 with a ballast water capacity of less than 5000 metric tons (MT) 

must comply with Regulation D-2 from 2009 until the vessel’s second annual survey, but 

no later than December 31, 2011 (IMO 2007). For now, the implementation dates for all 

other vessel size classes remain the same as originally proposed (Table III-2). 

6
Table III-1. Ballast Water Treatment Performance Standards 

Organism Size Class IMO Regulation D-2[1] California[1,2]

Organisms greater 

than 50 μm[3] in 

minimum dimension 

< 10 viable organisms 

per cubic meter 

No detectable living 

organisms 

Organisms 10 – 50 μm 

in minimum 

dimension 

< 10 viable organisms 

per ml[4]

< 0.01 living organisms 

per ml 

Living organisms less 

than 10 μm in 

minimum dimension 

Escherichia coli 

Intestinal enterococci 

Toxicogenic Vibrio 

cholerae 

(O1 & O139) 

< 250 cfu[5]/100 ml 

< 100 cfu/100 ml 

< 1 cfu/100 ml or 

< 1 cfu/gram wet weight 

zooplankton samples 

< 103

 bacteria/100 ml 

< 104 viruses/100 ml 

< 126 cfu/100 ml 

< 33 cfu/100 ml 

< 1 cfu/100 ml or 

< 1 cfu/gram wet weight 

zoological samples 

[1] See Table III-2 below for dates by which vessels must meet California Interim Performance Standards 

and IMO Ballast Water Performance Standards. 

[2] Final discharge standard for California, beginning January 1, 2020, is zero detectable living organisms 

for all organism size classes. 

[3] Micrometer – one-millionth of a meter 

[4] Milliliter – one-thousandth of a liter 

[5] Colony-forming unit – a measure of viable bacterial numbers 

Table III-2. Implementation Schedule for Performance Standards

Ballast Water Capacity 

of Vessel 

Standards apply to new 

vessels in this size class 

constructed on or after 

Standards apply to all 

other vessels in this size 

class beginning in1

< 1500 metric tons 2009 (IMO)2 /2010 (CA)3 2016 

1500 – 5000 metric tons 2009 (IMO)2 /2010 (CA) 3 2014 

> 5000 metric tons 2012 2016 

1 In California the standard applies to vessels in this size class as of January 1 of the year of compliance. 

The IMO Convention applies to vessels in this size class no later than the first intermediate or renewal 

survey, whichever occurs first, after the anniversary date of delivery of the ship in the year of compliance 

(IMO 2005). 

2 IMO has pushed back the initial implementation of the performance standards for vessels constructed in 

2009 in this size class until the vessel’s second annual survey, but no later than December 31, 2011 (IMO 

2007). 

3

 California Senate Bill 1781 (Chapter 696, Statutes of 2008) delayed the initial implementation of 

performance standards for vessels in this size class from January 1, 2009 to January 1, 2010.

7
In order to ensure global and uniform application of the relevant requirements of the 

Convention, the IMO Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) has adopted 

12 implementation guidelines (one additional guideline remains in draft form, see below 

for details) (Everett, R., pers. comm. 2008). Relevant to this report, the guidelines for 

the evaluation and approval of ballast water treatment systems were adopted at the 53rd

session of the MEPC in July, 2005. Guideline G8, “Guidelines for Approval of Ballast 

Water Management Systems” (MEPC 2005a), and Guideline G9, “Procedure for 

Approval of Ballast Water Management Systems That Make Use of Active Substances” 

(MEPC 2005b), work together to create a framework for the evaluation of treatment 

systems by the MEPC and Flag State Administrations (i.e. the country or flag under 

which a vessel operates) (Figure III-3). Flag States (not the IMO) may grant approval 

(also known as “Type Approval”) to systems that are in compliance with the 

Convention’s Regulation D-2 performance standards based upon recommended 

procedures (as detailed in Guideline G8) for full-scale land-based and shipboard testing 

of the treatment system. A treatment system may not be used by a vessel party to the 

Convention to meet the D-2 standards in the Convention unless that system is Type 

Approved.

In addition to receiving Type Approval from the Flag State Administration, ballast water 

treatment systems using “active substances” must be approved by the IMO MEPC 

based upon procedures developed by the organization (IMO 2005). An active substance 

is defined by IMO as, “...a substance or organism, including a virus or a fungus, that 

has a general or specific action on or against Harmful Aquatic Organisms and 

Pathogens” (IMO 2005). For all intents and purposes, an active substance is a chemical 

or reagent (e.g. chlorine, ozone) that kills or inactivates organisms in ballast water. The 

IMO approval pathway for treatment systems that use active substances is more 

rigorous than the evaluation process for technologies that do not. As required by 

Guideline G9, technologies utilizing active substances must go through a two-step 

“Basic” and “Final” approval process. Active substance systems that apply for Basic and 

Final Approval are reviewed for environmental, ship, and personnel safety by the IMO 

Joint Group of Experts on the Scientific Aspects of Marine Environmental Protection 

8
(GESAMP) – Ballast Water Working Group (BWWG) in accordance with the procedures 

detailed in Guideline G9. The MEPC may grant Basic or Final Approval based upon the 

GESAMP-BWWG recommendation. Systems that do not use active substances (i.e. a 

system only using filtration) do not need Basic or Final Approval, and need only acquire 

Type Approval (Figure III-3). 

Figure III-3. Summary of IMO approval pathway for ballast water treatment systems. 

(Modified from Lloyd’s Register (2007)) 

The entire IMO evaluation process (including approval for systems using active 

substances) has been estimated to take between six months and two years to complete 

(Everett, R., pers. comm. 2007, Lloyd’s Register 2007). Once a ballast water treatment 

system has acquired Type Approval (and the Convention is ratified and in force), the 

system is deemed acceptable by parties to the Convention for use in international 

waters in compliance with Regulation D-2. 

The U.S. has neither reviewed nor submitted applications to IMO on behalf of any U.S. 

treatment technology vendors thus far. Until the Convention is both signed by the U.S. 

and enters into force through international ratification, no U.S. federal agency has the 

authority (unless authorized by Congress) to manage a program to review treatment 

9
technologies and submit applications on their behalf to IMO. United States treatment 

vendors may approach IMO through association with other IMO Member States, and 

several have or are in the process of doing so. However, because the Convention has 

not yet been ratified, it does not have the force of international law, which draws into 

question the legality of MEPC approvals of treatment systems. While the U.S. is actively 

involved in developing and negotiating the various requirements of the Convention, until 

the U.S. signs on to the Convention, and it is ratified by enough member states to go 

into force, the U.S. is not party to the Convention requirements. Hence, vessels calling 

on U.S. ports have no authority to use systems approved through the IMO Type 

Approval process to meet U.S. ballast water management requirements. 

One additional guideline related to the implementation of the IMO Convention bears 

mention here for its relevance to California’s ballast water management program. 

Guideline G2, the “Guidelines for Ballast Water Sampling,” provides valuable 

information, in the absence of U.S. federal guidance, on the location and equipment 

necessary to collect ballast water samples to assess compliance with the performance 

standards. Guideline G2 defines the preferred sampling point (i.e. the place in the 

ballast water piping where the sample is taken) and sampling facilities (i.e. the 

equipment installed to take the sample) for sample collection (BLG 2008). As California 

gets closer to the implementation of its own performance standards for the discharge of 

ballast water, these sampling guidelines will help direct the development of new 

California regulations and compliance verification procedures (see Section on California 

Legislation and Implementation of Performance Standards for details).

U.S. Federal Legislation and Programs 

The authority to regulate ballast water discharges in the United States has recently 

shifted to include the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in addition to the 

U.S. Coast Guard (USCG). Beginning December 19, 2008, the EPA must regulate 

ballast water, and other discharges incidental to normal vessel operations, under the 

Clean Water Act (CWA). This requirement stems from the 2003 lawsuit filed by 

Northwest Environmental Advocates et al. against the EPA in U.S. District Court, 

10
Northern District of California, challenging a regulation originally promulgated under the 

CWA (Nw. Envtl. Advocates v. U.S. EPA, No. C 03-05760 SI, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 

69476 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 18, 2006)). The regulation at issue, Title 40 of the Code of 

Federal Regulations (CFR) Section 122.3(a), exempted effluent discharges “incidental 

to the normal operations of a vessel,” including ballast water, from regulation under the 

National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). The plaintiffs sought to 

have the regulation declared ultra vires, or beyond the authority of the EPA under the 

CWA. On March 31, 2005, the District Court granted judgment in favor of Northwest 

Environmental Advocates et al., and on September 18, 2006 the Court issued an order 

revoking the exemptive regulation (40 CFR. Section 122.3(a)) as of September 30, 

2008. EPA filed an appeal with the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals but was denied 

in July 2008 (Nw. Envtl. Advocates v. U.S. EPA, No. 03-74795, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 

15576 (9th Cir. Cal. July 23, 2008)). In June 2008, EPA released for public comment the 

draft NPDES “Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation 

of Commercial Vessels and Large Recreation Vessels” (Vessel General Permit). All 

vessels greater than 300 gross registered tons, or with a ballast water capacity greater 

than 8 cubic meters, must submit a Notice of Intent with EPA in order to receive 

coverage under the permit. Vessels greater than 79 feet but less than 300 tons receive 

automatic permit coverage. In September 2008, the District Court granted a motion to 

delay the vacature of the 122.3(a) regulation from September 30 to December 19, 2008. 

In large part, the draft NPDES Vessel General Permit maintains the regulation of ballast 

water discharges by the USCG through regulations found in 33 CFR Part 151. The 

USCG regulations, developed under authority of the Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance 

Prevention and Control Act of 1990, which was revised and reauthorized as the National 

Invasive Species Act of 1996, require ballast water management (i.e. ballast water 

exchange) for vessels entering U.S. waters from outside of the 200 nautical mile (nm) 

Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) of the U.S. Vessels may use onboard treatment 

systems to meet the current ballast water management requirements if that system is 

approved by the Commandant of the USCG, however, as of October 2008 no approval 

process was in place. 

11
The draft NPDES Vessel General Permit does not include performance standards for 

the discharge of ballast water. Performance standards may be included in the next 

iteration of the permit (in 2013) based on the outcome of an anticipated USCG 

rulemaking on ballast water treatment standards, and if treatment technologies are 

determined to be commercially available and economically achievable to meet those 

standards. The lack of a federal discharge standard precludes the approval of any 

treatment system at the national level. 

The EPA’s draft NPDES Vessel General Permit and the USCG regulations do not 

relieve vessel owners/operators (permittees) of the responsibility of complying with 

applicable state laws or regulations. Additionally, states with authority to implement the 

CWA may add specific provisions, including performance standards, for vessel 

discharges in state waters to the EPA’s general permit through the CWA Section 401 

certification process. Thus we do not expect to see any impact from the implementation 

of the NPDES permit on individual states’ ability to implement performance standards 

for the discharge of ballast water in state waters, including California. Vessels will, 

however, have to comply with both state and federal regulations for ballast water 

management under the NPDES permit and the USCG regulations. This may result in 

vessels having to exchange ballast water to comply with federal management 

requirements under the CWA and the USCG regulations and treat ballast water to 

comply with state regulations. Legislation may be required to clarify this potentially 

confusing situation. 

Several bills have been introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate in 

recent years to legislatively establish a national discharge standard. In 2007 the 

following bills were introduced: 

• The Ballast Water Management Act of 2007 (H.R. 2423, S. 1578) 

• Prevention of Aquatic Invasive Species Act of 2007 (H.R. 889) 

• National Aquatic Invasive Species Act of 2007 (S. 725) 

• Great Lakes Invasive Species Control Act (H.R. 801) 

• Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2007 (H.R. 2830) 

12
• Great Lakes Collaboration Implementation Act (S. 791, H.R. 1350) 

• Aquatic Invasive Species Research Act (H.R. 260). 

These bills seek to clarify the goals and role of the federal government in ballast water 

management. Several of the bills introduce performance standards that would be less 

stringent than California’s standards. More importantly, however, many of these bills 

also introduce language that would preempt state laws and set back California’s efforts 

to better manage ballast water discharges and other ship-mediated vectors of NIS 

introductions. 

As of October 2008, only H.R. 2830 (the Coast Guard Authorization Act) has cleared its 

house of origin. Recently, the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and 

Technology has been working with the House and states to draft ballast water 

legislation that would establish a federal discharge standard while allowing states, such 

as California, to retain authority over their ballast water management programs. This 

new language could either be inserted into the Senate USCG authorization bill (S. 

1892), the House USCG bill currently in the Senate (H.R. 2830), a separate bill, or could 

be addressed in conference committee. Commission staff (staff) will continue to follow 

and assess the potential impacts of any new federal legislation on ballast water 

management and California’s program. 

While the federal implementation of performance standards for the discharge of ballast 

water remains uncertain in the near future, two promising federal programs are currently 

working proactively to support the development of treatment technologies and facilitate 

the testing and evaluation of those systems: 1) The USCG Shipboard Technology 

Evaluation Program (STEP), and 2) The EPA’s Environmental Technology Verification 

(ETV) program. 

The USCG STEP is intended to facilitate the development of ballast water treatment 

technologies. Vessel owners and operators accepted into STEP may install and 

operate specific experimental ballast water treatment systems on their vessels for use in 

13
U.S. waters. In order to be accepted, treatment technology developers must assess the 

efficacy of systems for removing biological organisms, residual concentrations of 

treatment chemicals, and water quality parameters of the discharged ballast water 

(USCG 2004). STEP provides incentives for vessel operators and treatment developers 

to test promising new technologies. Vessels accepted into the program may operate the 

system to meet the USCG ballast water management requirements and will be 

grandfathered for operation under future ballast water discharge standards for the life of 

the vessel or the treatment system. During the summer of 2008, the draft environmental 

assessments for three vessels that applied to the program were released for comment. 

Those three vessels were accepted into STEP in the fall of 2008. One more vessel has 

applied to the program and is currently undergoing review. The USCG has plans to 

streamline the review process for future applicants (USCG 2008). 

The EPA ETV program is an effort to accelerate the development and marketing of 

environmental technologies, including ballast water treatment technologies. The USCG 

and the EPA established a formal agreement to implement an ETV program focused on 

ballast water management. Under this agreement, the ETV program developed a draft 

protocol in 2004 for verification of the performance of ballast water treatment 

technologies. Subsequently, the USCG established an agreement with the Naval 

Research Laboratory (NRL) to evaluate, refine, and validate this protocol and the test 

facility design required for its use. This validation project resulted in the construction of a 

model ETV Ballast Water Treatment System Test Facility at the NRL Corrosion Science 

and Engineering facility in Key West, Florida. The innovative research conducted at the 

NRL facility is intended by the USCG to result in technical procedures for testing ballast 

water treatment systems for the purpose of approval and certification. Based on the 

information collected during the evaluation of the 2004 draft protocol, the ETV program, 

in consultation with an advisory panel (of which CSLC staff is a member), is currently 

developing a revised final treatment technology verification protocol which is expected 

to be released in late-2009 or early 2010 (Stevens, T., pers. comm. 2008). 

14
U.S. State Legislation and Programs 

Washington

The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), in consultation with a Ballast 

Water Work Group, is working on a comprehensive rewrite of the state’s ballast water 

management regulations in response to Washington state legislation passed in 2007 

(see E2SSB 5923, the Aquatic Invasive Species Enforcement and Control Act). The 

new regulations are anticipated to replace the interim percent reduction-based 

performance standards with permanent concentration-based standards that are in-line 

with California regulations. These changes would help bring the U.S. Pacific coast 

states into greater management consistency. Additional revisions are also being made 

to Washington’s treatment technology approval process. The WDFW will no longer 

independently approve treatment systems for use in state waters and will instead rely 

on regional, national or international approvals. Systems previously approved under the 

interim regulations will remain approved for their original period of use. WDFW staff 

expects the new regulations to be adopted in early 2009 (Pleus, A., pers. comm. 2008). 

Michigan 

Michigan passed legislation in June 2005 (Act 33, Public Acts of 2005) requiring a 

permit for the discharge of any ballast water from oceangoing vessels into the waters of 

the state beginning January 2007. Through the general permit (Permit No. MIG140000) 

developed by Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), any ballast water 

discharged must first be treated by one of four methods (hypochlorite, chlorine dioxide, 

ultraviolet radiation preceded by suspended solids removal, or deoxygenation) that have 

been deemed environmentally sound and effective in preventing the discharge of NIS. 

Vessels must use treatment technologies in compliance with applicable requirements 

and conditions of use as specified by Michigan DEQ for use in state waters. Vessels 

using technologies not listed under the Michigan general permit may apply for individual 

permits if the treatment technology used is, “environmentally sound and its treatment 

effectiveness is equal to or better at preventing the discharge of aquatic nuisance 

species as the ballast water treatment methods contained in [the general] permit,” 

(Michigan DEQ 2006). 

15
Minnesota 

Effective July 1, 2008, Minnesota state law (S.F. 3056) requires vessels operating in 

state waters to have both a ballast water record book and a ballast water management 

plan onboard that has been approved by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 

(MPCA) (MPCA 2008). Additionally, based on the authority in Minn. Stat. 115.07, Minn. 

R. 7001.0020, subp. D, and Minn. R. 7001.0210, and to implement the recently enacted 

legislation, the MPCA approved a State Disposal System general permit for ballast 

water discharges into Lake Superior and associated waterways in September 2008 

(MPCA 2008). Under the permit, vessels that wish to discharge into Minnesota waters 

must comply immediately with approved best management practices. No later than 

January 1, 2012, new vessels will be required to comply with the IMO D-2 performance 

standards for the discharge of ballast water (see Table III-1), and existing vessels will 

be required to comply with those standards no later than January 1, 2016 (MPCA 2008). 

California Legislation and the Implementation of Performance Standards 

Review of Legislation 

California’s Marine Invasive Species Act of 2003 directed the Commission to 

recommend performance standards for the discharge of ballast water to the State 

Legislature in consultation with the State Water Resources Control Board (Water 

Board), the USCG and a technical advisory panel (see PRC Section 71204.9). The 

legislation directed that standards should be selected based on the best available 

technology economically achievable, and should be designed to protect the beneficial 

uses of the waters of the State. 

In 2005, Commission staff convened a cross-interest, multi-disciplinary panel consisting 

of regulators, research scientists, industry representatives and environmental 

organizations and facilitated discussions over the selection of performance standards. 

Many sources of information were used to guide the performance standards selection 

including: biological data on organism concentrations in exchanged and un-exchanged 

ballast water, theories on coastal invasion rates, standards considered or adopted by 

other regulatory bodies, and available information on the efficacy and costs of 

16
experimental treatment technologies. Though all sources and panel members provided 

some level of insight, none could provide solid guidance for the selection of a specific 

set of standards that would reduce or eliminate the introduction and establishment of 

NIS. At a minimum, it was determined that reductions achieved by the selected 

performance standards should improve upon the status quo and decrease the 

discharge of viable ballast organisms to a level below quantities observed following 

legal ballast water exchange. Additionally, the technologies used to achieve these 

standards should function without introducing chemical or physical constituents to the 

treated ballast water that may result in adverse impacts to receiving waters. Beyond 

these general criteria, however, there was no concrete support for the selection of a 

specific set of standards. This stems from the key knowledge gap that invasion risk 

cannot be predicted for a particular quantity of organisms discharged in ballast water 

(MEPC 2003), with the exception that zero organism discharge equates to zero risk. 

The Commission ultimately put forward performance standards recommended by the 

majority of the Panel because they encompassed several desirable characteristics: 1) 

A significant improvement upon ballast water exchange; 2) In-line with the best 

professional judgment of scientific experts that participated in the development of the 

IMO Convention; and 3) Approached a protective zero discharge standard. The 

proposed interim standards were based on organism size classes (Table III-1). The 

standards for the two largest size classes of organisms (>50 micrometers (μm; onemillionth of a meter) in minimum dimension and 10 – 50 μm in minimum dimension) 

were significantly more protective than those proposed by the IMO Convention. The 

majority of the Panel also recommended standards for organisms less than 10 μm 

including human health indicator species and total counts of living bacteria and viruses. 

The recommended bacterial standards for human health indicator species, Escherichia 

coli and intestinal enterococci, are identical to those adopted by the EPA in 1986 for 

recreational use and human health safety (EPA 1986). The standards for total living 

bacteria and viruses have not been adopted by any other state, federal or international 

administration or agency. The implementation schedule proposed for the interim 

standards was similar to the IMO Convention (Table III-2). A final discharge standard of 

17
zero detectable organisms was recommended by the majority of the Panel. The 

Commission included an implementation deadline of 2020 for this final discharge 

standard. 

The Commission submitted the recommended standards and information on the 

rationale behind its selection in a report to the State Legislature in January of 2006 (see 

Falkner et al. 2006). By the fall of that same year, the Legislature passed the Coastal 

Ecosystems Protection Act (Chapter 292, Statutes of 2006) directing the Commission to 

adopt the recommended standards and implementation schedule through the California 

rulemaking process by January 1, 2008. The Commission completed that rulemaking in 

October, 2007 (see 2 CCR § 2291 et seq.). 

In anticipation of the implementation of the interim performance standards, the Coastal 

Ecosystems Protection Act also directed the Commission to review the efficacy, 

availability and environmental impacts of currently available ballast water treatment 

systems by January 1, 2008. The review and resultant report was approved by the 

Commission in December, 2007 (see Dobroski et al. 2007). Additional reviews must be 

completed 18 months prior to the implementation dates for all other vessel classes and 

18 months before the implementation of the final discharge standard on January 1, 

2020 (see Table III-2 for full implementation schedule). During any of these reviews, if it 

is determined that existing technologies are unable to meet the discharge standards, 

the report must describe why they are not available. 

In response to the recommendations in the initial technology assessment report 

(Dobroski et al. 2007), the Legislature passed SB 1781 in 2008 (Chapter 696, Statutes 

of 2008). SB 1781 amends PRC Section 71205.3(a)(2), delaying the implementation of 

the interim performance standards for new vessels with a ballast water capacity of less 

than 5000 MT from January 1, 2009 to January 1, 2010. Commission staff is currently 

preparing a rulemaking package to bring the performance standards regulations (2 CCR 

§ 2291 et seq.) in-line with statute. SB 1781 also requires an additional assessment of 

18
available ballast water treatment technologies by January 1, 2009 (this report) in 

anticipation of the standards implementation in 2010. 

Implementing California’s Performance Standards 

Commission staff is in the process of instituting a comprehensive plan for the 

implementation of California’s performance standards. The delay of initial 

implementation of the standards from January 1, 2009 to January 1, 2010 has provided 

technology developers with the necessary time to prepare systems for sale and 

installation on vessels in order to meet California’s performance standards. The delay 

also provided Commission staff with additional time to compile information about 

treatment system operation and safety, develop procedures for treatment system 

evaluation, and begin development of vessel compliance verification protocols. 

As discussed in Dobroski et al. (2007), the Commission will not be approving ballast 

water treatment systems for use in California waters. Instead, the Commission will focus 

on dockside inspection of vessels for verification of compliance with the performance 

standards (in accordance with PRC Section 71206). Nonetheless, Commission staff 

believes that before systems enter the commercial marketplace, it is in the best interest 

of the State and concerned stakeholders that systems undergo a thorough 

performance, safety and environmental impact evaluation. Therefore, Commission staff 

has developed ballast water treatment technology testing guidelines to bridge the gap 

between treatment system development and operation in California waters. 

The “Ballast Water Treatment Technology Testing Guidelines” (Appendix A) provide 

technology vendors with a standardized approach to evaluating treatment system 

performance relative to California’s discharge standards and water quality objectives. 

Commission staff developed these protocols in consultation with the Water Board, 

USCG, ETV program staff and an expert panel of scientists (Appendix A1). System 

verification testing according to these guidelines is not required by the Commission, 

however staff strongly encourages technology vendors to conduct verification testing 

according to these guidelines to ensure a uniform, cost-effective, scientifically-rigorous, 

19
independent assessment of system performance and environmental safety. The results 

generated from system evaluation according to these guidelines will provide 

Commission staff and potential treatment technology customers with a valuable upfront 

assessment of the ability of systems to meet California’s performance standards and 

water quality objectives. The guidelines and an associated information sheet were 

completed and distributed in October, 2008. Initial response from industry has been 

positive, although it is still too early to determine whether or not these guidelines have 

influenced the testing methods and verification protocols used by vendors and testing 

organizations. 

While the testing guidelines will provide useful information about the potential of 

treatment system to meet California’s performance standards, they are not a substitute 

for in-the-field sampling and discharge compliance verification. Commission staff is 

currently in the process of developing procedures for use by the Commission’s Marine 

Safety Personnel to verify vessel compliance with the performance standards. The 

compliance verification procedures, to be developed in consultation with technical 

experts, will make use of the best available techniques to assess organism 

concentration for each of the standards. 

It is expected that the best available techniques to assess vessel compliance with the 

performance standards will change over time as technology advances. The Commission 

will need to clarify the manner by which it holds vessels accountable for meeting the 

standards to ensure that vessels compliant under the current set of verification protocols 

will not fail compliance in the future simply because the sensitivity of assessment 

techniques improves. This may be accomplished by grandfathering installed treatment 

systems under a specific set of compliance verification techniques. Further discussion 

will be necessary to determine how such a grandfathering system might work while 

remaining protective of California’s waters and consistent with the law. 

Commission staff is also developing regulations regarding the selection of sampling 

points (i.e. location) and sampling facilities (i.e. equipment) on vessels for compliance 

20
verification purposes. According to PRC Section 71206 Commission staff is mandated 

to “take samples of ballast water and sediment from at least 25 percent of the arriving 

vessels...and make other appropriate inquiries to assess the compliance of any vessel 

subject to this division.” The new regulations will specify that ballast water samples must 

be taken during ballast water discharge (per 2 CCR § 2291 et seq.). Additionally, the 

regulations will offer guidance on the selection of sampling facilities so as to reduce or 

eliminate the possibility of artificially-induced organism mortality (that may skew 

compliance assessment) associated with passage through the sampling apparatus. 

Commission staff expects to complete this rulemaking in 2009. 

Finally, the effective implementation of California’s performance standards will require 

regular monitoring of the treatment technologies as performance standards are 

implemented. Commission staff will continue to gather information about treatment 

system development, installation, and use on board vessels. This information will guide 

the development of new regulations which take into account development within the 

rapidly advancing ballast water treatment technology industry. 

IV. TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT PROCESS 

Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 71205.3 directs the Commission to prepare, "a 

review of the efficacy, availability, and environmental impacts, including the effect on 

water quality, of currently available technologies for ballast water treatment systems." In 

accordance with the law, the Commission has consulted with, “the State Water 

Resources Control Board, the United States Coast Guard, and the stakeholder advisory 

panel described in subdivision (b) of [PRC] Section 71204.9.” This stakeholder panel 

also provided guidance in the development of the performance standards report to the 

California Legislature (Falkner et al. 2006). 

During the preparation of the initial technology assessment report (Dobroski et al. 

2007), Commission staff received input from a small technical workgroup prior to 

consulting with the stakeholder advisory panel. The workgroup met in May 2007 to 

21
assess the current availability of treatment systems, the efficacy of those systems, and 

any potential environmental and water quality impacts. This group included individuals 

with expertise in ballast water treatment technology development, water quality and 

biological monitoring and evaluation, naval architecture and engineering, and 

technology efficacy analysis (see Dobroski et al. 2007 for workshop participants and 

summary). The conclusions drawn during the workshop in 2007 continued to provide 

valuable guidance and direction in the preparation of the current report. 

As with the initial technology assessment report, Commission staff conducted an 

exhaustive literature search to prepare this report. Staff focused its review on recently 

available scientific papers and performance verification reports from independent testing 

organizations. Staff also contacted treatment technology vendors in order to gather the 

most up-to-date information about system development, testing and approvals. On 

several occasions, staff held meetings in person with technology vendors. These faceto-face gatherings proved to be extremely valuable opportunities to inform vendors 

about California’s performance standards requirements and engage in dialogue about 

performance verification testing and the Commission’s technology assessment report. 

Commission staff compiled the available data to develop a treatment system matrix (see 

Tables V-1, VI-1, VI-3, VI-4, and Appendix B). Upon completion of the data analysis, 

Commission staff drafted a preliminary report for review by the Commission’s 

stakeholder advisory panel (see Appendix C for list of panel members), the Water Board 

and USCG. The advisory panel met in October, 2007 to review the initial technology 

assessment report (see Dobroski et al. 2007), and met in October, 2008 to review the 

current updated report (Appendix C). Advisory panel discussions were considered by 

staff to help guide the development of this final report. 

V. TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES 

The goal of ballast water treatment is to remove or inactivate organisms entrained in 

ballast water. Given societal experience with wastewater treatment technologies, the 

22
design and production of ballast water treatment systems may seem simple in concept, 

but has instead proved to be difficult and complex in practice. A system must be 

effective under a wide range of challenging environmental conditions including variable 

temperature, salinity, nutrients and suspended solids. It must also function under 

difficult operational constraints including high flow-rates of ballast water pumps, large 

water volumes, and variable retention times (time ballast water is held in tanks). 

Treatment systems must be capable of eradicating a wide variety of different organisms 

ranging from viruses and microscopic bacteria, to free-swimming plankton, and must 

operate so as to minimize or prevent impairment of the water quality conditions of the 

receiving waters. The development of effective treatment systems is further complicated 

by the variability of vessel types, shipping routes and port geography. 

Two general platform types have been explored for the development of ballast water 

treatment technologies. Shoreside ballast water treatment occurs at a facility following 

transfer from a vessel. Shipboard treatment occurs onboard vessels through the use of 

technologies that are integrated into the ballasting system. Shipboard treatment 

systems are attractive because they allow flexibility to manage ballast water during 

normal operations, while shoreside treatment may be a good option for vessels with 

small ballast water capacity and/or dedicated port calls. 

The shoreside treatment of ballast water is an appealing option because of the potential 

similarity in design to waste water treatment systems, however, shoreside treatment 

poses several challenges. Current shoreside wastewater treatment plants are not 

equipped to treat saline water (Water Board 2002, Moore, S., pers. comm. 2005). If 

existing municipal facilities are to be used for the purposes of ballast water treatment, 

they will need to be modified, and a new extensive network of piping and associated 

pumps will be required to distribute ballast water from vessels at berth to the treatment 

plants. The establishment of new piping and facilities dedicated to ballast water 

treatment, while technically feasible, would be complex and costly in California port 

areas. Shoreside treatment is not feasible for vessels that must take on or discharge 

ballast water while underway, for example, if the vessel must adjust its draft to navigate 

23
through a shallow channel or under a bridge. The cost of retrofitting of vessels to 

discharge ballast to shoreside facilities at a rate that prevents vessel delays in port 

might also be prohibitive (CAPA 2000). 

On the other hand, shoreside treatment does provide options for treatment technologies 

and/or methods that are not feasible onboard vessels due to space and/or energy 

constraints, such as reverse osmosis. Additionally, shoreside treatment facilities could 

be staffed by trained wastewater engineers instead of ships’ crew who may not be 

specifically trained in the operation and maintenance of water treatment facilities. To 

date, however, only limited feasibility studies have been conducted on shoreside 

treatment (see references in Falkner et al. 2006). Shoreside treatment has been 

generally considered a good option for unique terminals such as those with limited but 

dedicated vessel calls (e.g. cruise ships). Nonetheless, one study specific to cruise 

ships indicated that due to the operational practices of cruise ships and the current 

regulatory requirements in California and the Port of San Francisco there is little 

demand at this time for shoreside treatment except in emergency situations (Bluewater 

Network 2006). Additional studies will be necessary to determine feasibility of and 

demand for shoreside treatment for other vessel types and across the State as a whole. 

This may include assessments by those involved in the wastewater treatment sector on 

whether existing technologies could meet California's performance standards. Because 

the majority of time, money, and effort in the development of ballast water treatment 

technologies during recent years has been focused on shipboard treatment systems, we 

will focus on shipboard systems for the remainder of this report. 

Shipboard systems allow for greater flexibility during vessel operations. Vessels may 

treat and discharge ballast while in transit, and thus will not need to coordinate vessel 

port arrival time with available space and time at shoreside treatment facilities. As with 

shoreside treatment, however, shipboard treatment systems face their own set of 

challenges. They must be engineered to conform to a vessel’s structure, ensure crew 

safety, and withstand the vibrations and movements induced by the vessel’s engine and 

rough seas. Additionally, shipboard systems must be effective under transit times that 

24
range from less than 24 hours to several weeks, and must treat ballast water in 

compliance with water quality requirements of recipient regions. 

The timing and location of shipboard ballast water treatment can be varied according to 

the needs of the treatment system and the length of vessel transit. Ballast water may be 

treated in the pipe during uptake or discharge (in-line) or in the ballast tanks during the 

voyage (in tank). While mechanical separation (such as filtration) generally occurs 

during ballast uptake in order to remove large organisms and sediment particles before 

they enter the ballast tanks, other forms of treatment may occur at any point during the 

voyage. Some treatment systems treat ballast water at multiple points during the 

voyage, such as during uptake and discharge. 

Because of the wide range of variables associated with shipboard ballast water 

treatment, the identification of a single treatment technology for all NIS, ships, and port 

conditions is unlikely. Each technology may meet the objective of killing or inactivating 

NIS in a slightly different manner, and each could potentially impact the water quality of 

the receiving environment through the release of chemical residuals or alterations to 

water temperature, salinity, and/or turbidity. Thus a suite of treatment technologies will 

undoubtedly need to be developed to treat ballast water industry-wide and across all 

ports and environments. 

Treatment Methods 

The development of ballast water treatment systems that are effective, environmentally 

friendly and safe has been a complex, costly and time consuming process. At the root 

of many treatment systems are methods that are already in use to some degree by the 

wastewater treatment industry. A preliminary understanding of these treatment methods 

forms the basis for more detailed analysis and discussion of ballast water treatment 

systems. The diverse array of water treatment methods currently under development for 

use in ballast water treatment can be broken down into five major categories: 

mechanical, chemical, physical, biological and combination. 

25
Mechanical Treatment 

Mechanical treatment traps and removes mid-size and large particles from ballast 

water. Mechanical treatment typically takes place upon ballast water uptake in order to 

limit the number of organisms and amount of sediment that may enter ballast tanks. 

Common options for mechanical treatment include filtration and hydrocyclonic 

separation. 

Filtration works by capturing organisms and particles as water passes through a porous 

screen or filtration medium, such as sand or gravel. The size of organisms trapped by 

the filter depends on the mesh size in the case of screen or disk filters, and on the size 

of the interstitial space for filtration media. In ballast water treatment, screen and disk 

filtration is more commonly used over filter media, however, there has been some 

interest in the use of crumb rubber as a filtration medium in recent studies (Tang et al. 

2006). Typical mesh size for ballast water filters ranges from 25 to 100 μm (Parsons 

and Harkins 2002, Parsons 2003). Most filtration-based technologies also use a 

backwash process that removes organisms and sediment that become trapped on the 

filter, and can discharge them at the port of origin before the vessel gets underway. 

Filter efficacy is a function not only of initial mesh size, but also of water flow rate and 

backwashing frequency. 

Hydrocyclonic separation, also known as centrifugation, relies on density differences to 

separate organisms and sediment from ballast water. Hydrocyclones create a vortex 

that cause heavier particles to move toward the outer edges of the cyclonic flow where 

they are trapped in a weir-like device and can be discharged before entering the ballast 

tanks (Parsons and Harkins 2002). Hydrocyclones in use in ballast water treatment trap 

particles in the 50 to 100 μm size range (Parsons and Harkins 2002). One challenge 

associated with hydrocylone use, however, is that many small aquatic organisms have a 

density similar to sea water and are thus difficult to separate using centrifugation. 

26
Chemical Treatment 

A variety of chemicals (i.e. active substances) are available to kill or inactivate 

organisms in ballast water. While the vast majority of chemicals are biocides, some 

chemicals may be used to clump or coagulate organisms in order to assist with their 

mechanical removal. Chemical treatment may take place during ballast uptake, vessel 

transit, or discharge. Chemicals may be stored onboard in liquid or gas form, or they 

may be generated on demand through electrolytic or electrochemical processes. 

Chemical biocides can be classified into two major categories: oxidizing and nonoxidizing. Oxidizing agents (e.g. chlorine, chlorine dioxide, bromine, hydrogen peroxide, 

peroxyacetic acid, ozone) are commonly used in the wastewater treatment sector and 

work by destroying cell membranes and other organic structures (NRC 1996, Faimali et 

al. 2006). Electrochemical oxidation combines electrical currents with naturally occurring 

reactants in seawater and/or air (e.g. salt, oxygen) to produce killing agents. For 

example, electrochemical oxidation can produce reactants such as hydroxyl radicals, 

ozone or sodium hypochlorite (chlorine) that are capable of damaging cell membranes. 

Non-oxidizing biocides, including Acrolein®, gluteraldehyde, and menadione (Vitamin 

K3), are reported to work like pesticides by interfering with an organism’s neural, 

reproductive or metabolic processes (NRC 1996, Faimali et al. 2006). 

The ultimate goal of chemical biocides is to maximize organism inactivation or mortality 

while minimizing environmental impact. Environmental concerns surrounding chemical 

use in ballast water focus on the impacts of residuals or byproducts in treated discharge 

on receiving waters. The effective use of chemical biocides in ballast water treatment 

requires a balance between the amount of time required to achieve inactivation of 

organisms, with the time needed for those chemicals and residuals to degrade or be 

treated to environmentally acceptable levels. Both of these times vary as a function of 

ballast water temperature, organic content and sediment load. As a result, certain 

chemicals may be more effective than others based on ballast volume, voyage length, 

and water quality conditions. Additional concerns about chemical use specific to 

shipboard operation include corrosion, safety (personnel and ship safety), and vessel 

27
design limitations that impact the availability of space onboard for both chemical storage 

and equipment for dosing. 

Physical Treatment 

Physical treatment methods include a wide range of non-chemical means to kill or 

inactivate organisms present in ballast water. Like chemical treatment, physical 

treatment may occur on ballast uptake, during vessel transit or during discharge. 

Examples of physical treatment of ballast water include heat treatment, ultraviolet 

irradiation, ultrasonic energy and some forms of deoxygenation. 

Rigby et al. (1999, 2004) discuss the use of waste heat from the ship’s main engine as 

a mechanism to heat ballast water and kill or inactivate unwanted organisms during 

vessel transit. However, it would be difficult to heat ballast water to a sufficient 

temperature to kill all species of bacteria due to lack of sufficient surplus energy/heat on 

a vessel (Rigby et al. 1999, Rigby et al. 2004). An alternative approach to heat 

treatment involves the use of microwaves. Currently such a treatment technology would 

be prohibitively expensive (up to $2.55/m3

), but additional research and development 

may reduce costs to acceptable levels (Boldor et al. 2008). 

Ultrasound (ultrasonic treatment) kills through high frequency vibration that creates 

microscopic bubbles that rupture cell membranes (Viitasalo et al. 2005). The efficacy of 

ultrasound varies based on the intensity of vibration and length of exposure. Ultraviolet 

(UV) irradiation is another method of sterilization that is commonly used in waste water 

treatment. UV damages genetic material and proteins which disrupts reproductive and 

physiological processes. UV irradiation can be highly effective against pathogens 

(Wright et al. 2006). 

Deoxygenation involves the displacement or stripping of oxygen with another inert gas 

such as nitrogen or carbon dioxide. This process is primarily physical in nature, 

although the addition of carbon dioxide may trigger a chemical response and result in a 

reduction in ballast water pH (Tamburri et al. 2006). 

28
Biological Treatment 

By far, the least common method of ballast water treatment involves the use of 

biological organisms to directly kill or produce conditions that will kill or inactivate 

organisms present in ballast water. These treatment organisms are considered an 

“active substance” according to the IMO definition (IMO 2005). One example of 

biological treatment is the use of yeast to produce low-oxygen (hypoxic) conditions in 

ballast tanks. In this instance, yeast cells extract the available oxygen in the ballast 

water tank during cell replication (Bilkovski, R., pers. comm. 2008). The resultant 

hypoxic environment is toxic to the remaining organisms in the ballast tank. Vendors of 

biological treatment systems will likely need to address how systems will meet the 

performance standards, as the organisms responsible for producing the desired killing 

effect on NIS may trigger non-compliance if detected in the discharged ballast. 

Combination Treatment 

Several treatment technologies inactivate organisms by combining mechanical, 

chemical, physical and/or biological treatment processes, and are categorized as 

“combination treatment” in this report. In combination treatment, any single treatment 

method may not be sufficient to treat the ballast water to required standards, but in 

combination the methods produce the desired result. For example, while filtration is 

rarely sufficient to remove organisms of all size classes from ballast water, and UV 

irradiation may be insufficient to deactivate dense clusters of organisms, paired together 

they may be an effective method of ballast water treatment. The most common 

combined treatment methods pair mechanical removal with a physical or chemical 

process. 

Treatment Systems 

Twenty-eight treatment technologies were reviewed in the first technology assessment 

report for the California Legislature (see Dobroski et al. 2007). As of the writing of this 

report, one treatment vendor (L. Meyer Gmbh) appears to no longer be active in the 

international market, and was therefore removed from the list of reviewed systems 

29
30

(Table V-1). Two manufacturers - Hamann and Evonik Degussa - were condensed into 

one listing because their treatment system is a combined effort. The Japan Association 

of Marine Safety was renamed as Mitsui Engineering, and four vendors - ATG Willand, 

EcologiQ, Panasia, and the Toagosei Group - were added to the list based on new 

information (Table V-1). Thus for this report, Commission staff compiled and reviewed 

information on 30 shipboard ballast water treatment systems developed in 10 countries 

(Table V-1). 

Twenty-one of the treatment systems reviewed here utilize combination treatment 

methods, 18 of which pair mechanical treatment with another treatment method(s). 

Aside from mechanical separation, the most common method used in ballast water 

treatment systems is chemical. Of the 30 systems reviewed, 18 use a chemical in the 

treatment process (Table V-1). Specifically, six systems use chlorine or the electrolytic 

generation of sodium hypochlorite, one uses chlorine dioxide to treat ballast water, four 

systems use ozone, one uses ozone and electrolytic chlorination, one uses ferrate, one 

uses a proprietary mixture of peracetic acid, hydrogen peroxide and acetic acid 

(Peraclean Ocean), and three use advanced oxidation or electrolytic processes that can 

generate an array of oxidants including bromine, chlorine, and/or hydroxyl radicals 

(Table V-1). 

The next most commonly used method of ballast water treatment amongst the 30 

systems reviewed is UV irradiation. Six treatment systems use UV as the primary 

means to kill or deactivate organisms found in ballast water. All of these systems pair 

UV treatment with either filtration or hydrocyclonic mechanical separation methods. 

Only three systems used deoxygenation as the major form of treatment. Technology 

treatment categorized as “other” include systems that used various methods including a 

non-oxidizing biocide (menadione), a heat treatment technology, and one technology 

using a combination of coagulation and magnetic separation (Table V-1). 
Table V-1. Ballast Water Treatment Systems Reviewed by Commission Staff 

Manufacturer Country System Name Technology Type Technology Description 

Alfa Laval Sweden PureBallast combination filtration + advanced oxidation technology (hydroxyl radicals) IM

ATG Willand United Kingdom combination hydrocyclone + UV 

Ecochlor USA 

EcochlorTM BW 

Treatment 

System 

combination filtration + biocide (chlorine dioxide) 

EcologiQ USA/Canada BallaClean biological deoxygenation 

Electrichlor USA Model EL 1-3 B chemical biocide (electrolytic generation of sodium hypochlorite) 

Environmental 

Technologies Inc. USA BWDTS combination ozone + sonic energy 

Ferrate Treatment Technologies LLC USA Ferrator chemical biocide (ferrate) 

Greenship Ltd Netherlands Sedinox combination hydrocyclone + electrolytic chlorination 

Hamann Evonik Degussa Germany SEDNA System combination hydrocyclone + filtration + biocide (Peraclean Ocean) IM

Ty

Hi Tech Marine Australia SeaSafe-3 physical heat treatment 

Hitachi Japan ClearBallast combination coagulation + magnetic separation + filtration 

Hyde Marine USA Hyde Guardian combination filtration + UV 

JFE Engineering Corp. Japan JFE BWMS combination filtration + biocide (sodium chlorine) + cavitation 

MARENCO USA combination filtration + UV 

Maritime Solutions Inc. USA combination filtration + UV 
Table V-1 (Continued). Ballast Water Treatment Systems Reviewed by Commission Staff 

Manufacturer Country System Name Technology Type Technology Description 

MH Systems USA BW treatment system combination deoxygenation + carbonation 

Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Japan Hybrid System combination filtration + electrolytic chlorination 

Mitsui Engineering Japan Special Pipe combination mechanical treatment + ozone 

NEI USA Venturi Oxygen Stripping (VOS) combination deoxygenation + cavitation 

NK-O3 Korea BlueBallast chemical ozone 

Nutech 03 Inc. USA SCX 2000, Mark III chemical ozone 

OceanSaver Norway OceanSaver BWMS combination filtration + cavitation + nitrogen supersaturation + electrodialysis IM

OptiMarin Norway OptiMarin Ballast System combination filtration + UV 

Panasia Co. Ltd Korea GloEn-Patrol combination filtration + UV 

Resource Ballast 

Technologies 

South 

Africa RBT Reactor combination cavitation + ozone + sodium hypochlorite + filtration 

RWO Marine Water 

Technology Germany CleanBallast combination filtration + advanced electrolysis 

SeaKleen (Hyde) USA SeaKleen chemical biocide (menadione) 

Severn Trent DeNora USA BalPure chemical 

electrolytic generation of sodium 

hypochlorite + neutralizing agent 

(sodium bisulfite) 

Techcross Inc. Korea Electro-Cleen chemical 

electrochemical oxidation + 

neutralizing agent (sodium 

thiosulfate) 

IM

Toagosei Group Japan 

TG BallastCleaner 

TG 

Environmentalguard

combination 

filtration + biocides (sodium 

hypochlorite) and neutralizing 

agent (sodium sulfite) 
VI. ASSESSMENT OF TREATMENT SYSTEMS 

The Coastal Ecosystems Protection Act required the adoption of regulations to 

implement performance standards for the discharge of ballast water. Over 80% of 

voyages to California ports report that they do not discharge ballast into California 

waters (Falkner et al. 2007). These vessels will comply with the performance standards 

simply by retaining all ballast onboard. Vessels that do discharge but use nontraditional 

sources for ballast water (such as freshwater from a municipal source or treated grey 

water) will likely meet the discharge standards without the need for onboard ballast 

water treatment systems. Vessels that utilize coastal or ocean water as ballast, 

however, will require ballast treatment prior to discharge. For these vessels, the 

assessment of treatment system efficacy, availability, and environmental impacts (as 

required by PRC Section 71205.3(b)) is an important step towards understanding if 

systems will be available prior to the implementation of the interim performance 

standards for newly built vessels with a ballast water capacity of less than 5000 MT 

beginning in 2010. 

Efficacy 

During the preparation of the initial technology assessment report, the evaluation of 

ballast water treatment system performance (i.e. efficacy) was a challenge for a number 

of reasons. First and foremost, the lack of available data precluded any form of 

assessment for many systems. For those systems with data for review, the 

inconsistency in testing methodologies among systems and occasionally between tests 

of a single system made comparison of data impossible. Results often varied in scale 

(pilot vs. full-scale) and location (laboratory vs. dockside vs. shipboard), and were 

frequently presented in metrics incompatible with California’s standards (i.e. as percent 

reduction instead of concentration of organisms). Perhaps most importantly, the majority 

of the available information was not subject to rigorous evaluation by independent, thirdparty scientific testing organizations. 

33
While some of these challenges remain, most notably the lack of information for some 

systems, Commission staff has seen a significant improvement in the quantity and 

particularly the quality of available data. Many treatment vendors and developers are in 

the midst of full-scale land-based and shipboard evaluations of treatment system 

performance in order to receive Type Approval before the ratification and 

implementation of the IMO Convention. As a result, there is more data available for 

Commission staff to review than for the previous report. Much of this new research is 

being conducted by independent, third-party testing organizations and is presented 

using methods and in metrics directly comparable to California’s standards. Therefore 

the quality of the new information is substantially higher than seen previously, and the 

data directly lends itself to comparison against California’s performance standards. 

Commission staff compiled and reviewed all available literature and performance data in 

order to assess system potential to meet California’s performance standards (see Table 

III-1 for performance standards). While all of the new data was presented according to 

organism size class, some of the data that has not been updated since the previous 

report is presented by organism type (i.e. zooplankton, phytoplankton). In an effort to 

standardize results, staff evaluated any data on zooplankton abundance as 

representative of the largest size class of organisms (greater than 50 μm in size), and 

phytoplankton abundance was evaluated on par with organisms in the 10 – 50 μm size 

class. These substitutions were solely for the purpose of this report and will not be 

applicable to future compliance verifications. Ultimately, Commission staff gathered 

efficacy data on 20 of the 30 technologies reviewed in this report (Table VI-1, Appendix 

B). 

Staff evaluated the data in light of the best available methods and techniques for 

assessing organism concentration and viability for each of the size classes in 

California’s performance standards. The technical advisory panel that guided the 

development of the “Ballast Water Treatment Technology Testing Guidelines” assisted 

Commission staff with the production of a table (see Table 5-1 in Appendix A) listing 

commonly accepted methods of organism enumeration and viability determination for 

34
each of the organism size classes. While this list is not all-inclusive, it provides a 

framework that guided staff’s critical evaluation of data on treatment system efficacy. 

As a whole, the field of treatment performance assessment, like that of treatment 

technology development, is still emerging. Scientists are striving to find rapid, innovative 

techniques that can be used by both scientists and regulatory agencies to assess 

vessel discharge compliance with the relevant performance standards. Because 

California’s performance standards for organisms less than 10 micrometers in size 

(bacteria and viruses, but not including protists) have not been adopted by any other 

regulatory entity in the world, there is not a worldwide push to develop assessment 

techniques for these organisms. Currently, there are no available techniques to both 

quantify and assess the viability of all bacteria and viruses in a sample of ballast water 

(see Appendix A1 for discussions on this topic). 

To assess compliance with the bacterial standard, Commission staff used a proxy group 

of organisms (culturable, aerobic, heterotrophic bacteria – hereafter culturable 

heterotrophic bacteria) to represent the larger group of all bacteria. Culturable 

heterotrophic bacteria were selected as a proxy for total bacteria because, unlike total 

bacteria, there are reliable, well-accepted standard methods to both enumerate and 

assess viability of these organisms. Culturable heterotrophic bacteria are a well-studied 

group of bacteria, and research is being conducted to examine the relationship between 

their populations and the larger pool of bacterial species (see Appendix A1, Dobbs, F., 

pers. comm. 2008). Staff examined the data on treatment system performance at 

reducing culturable heterotrophic bacteria to levels within the California standard of 

1000 bacteria (in this case expressed as colony-forming units) per 100 ml of ballast 

water. At a subsequent advisory panel meeting, members debated whether such a 

proxy group of organisms should be held to a different standard than that written in the 

law (see Appendix C for discussion). For instance, because heterotrophic bacteria are a 

subset of all bacteria they should be held to a standard in proportion to their relative 

abundance in nature (for example if heterotrophic bacteria represent 10% of the total 

population of bacteria, the standard for assessment using this proxy group might be 

35
36

more appropriate if set at 10% of 1000/100 ml or 100 CFU/100 ml). However, until such 

a debate is settled, Commission staff will continue to analyze all data using best 

available techniques and the numerical standard found in the law. 

Analysis of viral species is challenging at this time. While several representative 

organisms exists for viruses (see discussions in Appendix A1), their relationship to the 

greater population of all viral species is more tenuous than for bacteria (confer Culley 

and Suttle 2007). One option for future analyses involves the use of a subset of viruses 

known as bacteriophages (viruses that infect bacteria) (see Appendix A), but further 

discussion will be necessary to determine how this proxy organism could be analyzed to 

broadly represent treatment of viral species. For the purposes of this analysis, 

Commission staff believes that no widely accepted technique or proxy is available, and 

thus systems were not evaluated for compliance with the viral standard. Staff will 

continue to monitor the development of new assessment techniques for all organism 

size classes and incorporate them into future technology assessment reports. 

Staff summarized the potential for all reviewed treatment systems to meet both the IMO 

and California performance standards (as assessed using best available methods) in 

Table VI-1. A positive compliance assessment for the purpose of this report, however, 

does not relieve the vessel owner/operator of the responsibility of complying with 

California’s performance standards for the discharge of ballast water. Potential 

treatment system customers should consult extensively with vendors to ensure that 

thorough system verification work has been conducted and that the system is 

appropriate for the type of vessel under normal ballasting conditions. 
Table VI-1. Summary of systems with available results for assessment of efficacy 

Systems with at least one replicate in compliance with the performance standards are denoted by a “Y” in the appropriate column i

denoted by an “N,” and those systems with data in metrics not directly comparable to the performance standards were designated hashing indicates that no data was available. 

IMO CA IMO CA IMO CA1,2 IMO CA IMO CA IMO CA

Alfa Laval Y Y Y Y N/A N Y Y Y Y Y4 Y4 

ATG Willand N/A

Ecochlor Y Y Y Y N/A Y Y Y Y Y 

EcologiQ N/A

Electrichlor N/AETI Y N N/A N 

Ferrate Treatment Tech. N/A Y N Y N Y Y 

Greenship Y Y Y Y N/A Y Y Y Y Y 

Hamann Evonik Degussa Y Y Y Y N/A Y Y Y Y Y 

Hi Tech Marine N/A 

Hitachi Y Y Y Y N/A Y Y Hyde Marine Y Y N/A N Y Y Y4 Y4 

JFE Engineering Corp. N/A

MARENCO Y Y Y N N/A Y 

Maritime Solutions Inc. N/A

MH Systems N/A 

Mitsubishi Heavy Ind. N/A

Mitsui Engineering Y N Y Unknown N/A Unknown 

NEI Y Y Y Unknown N/A N Y Y Y Y Y Y 

NK-03 N/A

Nutech 03 Inc. Y Y Y N N/A Y Y4 Y4 Y4 Y4 Y4 Y4 

OceanSaver Y Y Y Y N/A Y Y Y Y Y Y4 Y4 

OptiMarin Y Y Y Y N/A Y Y Y Y Y Y4 Y4 

Panasia Co. N/A

Resource Ballast Tech. N/ARWO Marine Water Tech. Y5 Y5 Y6 Y6 N/A Y Y Y Y 

SeaKleen (Hyde) Y Y Y Y N/A Unknown Y Y Y4 Y4 

Severn Trent DeNora Y Y Y Y N/A Y 

Techcross Inc. Y Y Y Y N/A Y Y Y Y Y4 Y4 

Toagosei Group N/A

1 Bacteria were assessed through examination of culturable heterotrophic bacteria (expressed as colony forming units). 2 No methods exist to quantify and assess the viability of viruses at this time.3 Numbered references can be found in Literature Cited section4 Concentration at intake was zero or non-detectable5 Artemia cysts only6 Tetraselmis suecica only

Unknown Unknown

Unknown UnknownUnknown

Unknown

UnknownUnknown

Manufacturer > 50 μm 10 - 50 μm < 10 μm (bacteria) E. coli

Unknown

Enterococci V. cholerae 

Unknown
In the largest organism size class (organisms greater than 50 μm in size), 19 systems 

provided data and 15 demonstrated potential, in at least one testing replicate, to meet 

the required standard of no detectable living organisms per cubic meter of discharged 

ballast water (Table VI-2, Appendix B1). Similar results were seen in the 2007 report 

(Dobroski et al. 2007) when 14 systems were designated as compliant for this largest 

size class of organisms. In the 10 – 50 μm size class, 18 systems were reviewed and 11 

systems had at least one test replicate that indicated compliance with the requirement 

of less than 0.01 living organisms per milliliter (ml) (Table VI-2, Appendix B2). This is an 

increase of 3 systems since 2007. 

The results of analyses for human health indicator species (Escherichia coli, intestinal 

enterococci and Vibrio cholerae) and organisms less than 10 μm (bacteria and viruses) 

are varied. Several more vendors have completed assessment of system performance 

at eliminating human health indicator species since the 2007 report. Fifteen systems 

provided results of E. coli concentration in treated ballast water (Appendix B3). Fourteen 

of those were comparable to the California standard, and 13 demonstrated compliance 

– up from 10 in the 2007 report. Fourteen systems tested for the presence of intestinal 

enterococci, and eleven systems demonstrated potential compliance compared to three 

in 2007 (Appendix B4). Finally, ten systems examined treated ballast water for 

toxicogenic Vibrio cholerae and eight systems demonstrated potential compliance with 

the California performance standard (Appendix B5). Although this is an increase in both 

the number of systems testing for the presence of Vibrio cholerae and the number in 

compliance since the 2007 report, the low, and sometimes non-detectable, 

concentration of Vibrio cholerae in coastal waters makes it difficult to adequately assess 

system performance at eliminating the species. 

As previously mentioned, the assessment bacteria and viruses relative to California’s 

standards in treated ballast water has been problematic due to a lack of techniques to 

both enumerate and evaluate the viability of all bacterial and viruses in ballast water. A 

technical panel of experts that has assisted Commission staff with the development of 

the treatment technology testing guidelines (see Appendix A) recommend that the 

38
bacterial standard be assessed using culturable heterotrophic bacteria as a proxy group 

of bacterial organisms. Available data was analyzed for compliance with the bacterial 

standard of 1000 bacteria or CFU per 100 ml (Table VI-1). Fourteen systems analyzed 

system performance at treating culturable heterotrophic bacteria and twelve presented 

results in a metric comparable to the standard (CFU/100 ml) (Appendix B6). Eight 

demonstrated compliance with the standard. Many additional treatment vendors have 

conducted analyses of treated ballast water for culturable heterotrophic bacteria, but 

have not yet provided those data to Commission staff. 

Results for the number (counts) of viruses or virus-like particles in ballast water samples 

either pre- or post-treatment were only available for two systems and only using 

bacteriophages (Appendix B7). Further discussion is required before staff can assess 

how phage concentrations relate to the total pool of viral species in ballast water and 

compliance with California’s standards. These numbers are simply recorded for now. 

On a theoretical note, experts variously refer to “viruses” as “virus-like particles”, and 

“virus-sized particles,” but no term is fully agreed upon within the scientific community 

(Dobbs, F., pers. comm. 2008). None of the systems that have provided information on 

virus assessment have defined what they referred to as a virus. Furthermore, some 

scientists contend that infectivity must be proved before calling an object a virus—and 

we cannot know simply by looking at one in a ballast water sample that it is infective. 

Staff will continue to follow advances in the field of viral science and will assess how 

future technology developments will impact our ability to assess compliance with the 

viral standard. 

39
Table VI-2. Summary of Potential Treatment System Performance with Respect to 

California Performance Standards 

Organisms 

Greater 

than 50 

Organisms 

10 – 50 

Organisms 

less than 10 

(bacteria)1

Escherichia 

coli 

Intestinal 

enterococci 

Vibrio 

cholerae 

Total 

Systems 

that 

provided 

Results2

19 18 14 15 14 10 

Number 

Systems 

that Meet 

Standard3 

15 11 8 13 11 8 

1 Bacteria examined using culturable heterotrophic bacteria (1000 CFU/100 ml)

2 Of out of the 30 total systems assessed in this report, only 20 had testing results available for review. 

Not all 20 covered testing under each of the organism size classes. The total number of systems with 

results in a given size class is indicated in this category. 

3 This category reflects the number of systems with at least one replicate of system testing in compliance 

with the California performance standards (see Table III-1 for standards). 

As seen in Table VI-1, 20 treatment systems have results available for analysis of 

system efficacy; the potential for the remaining ten systems to meet the California 

standards is not clear at this time. For those systems with results, sixteen systems 

demonstrated the potential to meet at least 1 out of seven performance standards 

organism size classes, fifteen systems met at least 2 size classes, fourteen systems 

met at least 3 size classes, eleven systems met at least 4 size classes, eight systems 

met at least 5 size classes, and two systems met 6 size classes (Table VI-1, Appendix 

B). Systems cannot be assessed for compliance with the viral standard at this time. 

Thus at least two systems, OceanSaver and OptiMarin, are capable of meeting all 

standards that can be assessed using the best available techniques and methods at this 

time. Overall, this is a marked improvement since 2007. 

Commission staff expects several additional systems will meet California’s standards in 

the near future. Many systems utilize similar treatment methods (i.e. chlorination/dechlorination) and may likely produce similar types of results. Therefore a specific 

treatment method which has been shown to be effective for one system may likely be 

effective for a similar system for which data is lacking but which uses the same 

treatment method. While Commission staff did not assess system compliance in Table 

40
VI-1 based on this assumption (i.e. in the absence of specific data from a particular 

system), the number of systems potentially capable of meeting California’s performance 

standards is likely greater than directly evident based on currently available data. 

Availability 

An assessment of the availability of ballast water treatment systems requires an 

understanding of the relationship among many elements including the number of 

vessels that will be impacted by the performance standards (i.e. industry demand), 

commercial availability, and the relationship between government approval of systems 

and overall market demand for treatment technologies. Commercial availability is not 

simply a function of whether or not a system is available for purchase; it is also 

dependent on sufficient production of systems to meet demand and the availability of 

customer support. System availability is also influenced by the presence of an available 

market (i.e. demand) to purchase treatment systems. This market, in turn, will depend 

upon the development of mechanisms for systems approval, particularly at the federal 

and international levels, as vessel operators may be hesitant to purchase systems 

without government assurance that such systems will meet applicable standards. For 

the purposes of this report, however, treatment system availability is ultimately linked to 

system performance - the ability of a system to treat ballast water to a level in 

compliance with California’s performance standards. 

Industry Demand 

The California performance standards have a phased implementation schedule similar 

to that of the IMO Convention (see Table III-2). The phased implementation provides 

greater time for large and/or existing vessels to execute plans for system installation 

including possible retrofits of vessel structures and machinery. The first implementation 

date for California will affect only new vessels built on or after January 1, 2010 with a 

ballast water capacity of less than 5000 MT. The number of new vessels that must meet 

the performance standards beginning in 2010 will greatly influence how quickly 

treatment vendors must have their systems available for sale. Lloyd’s Register (2008) 

estimates that in 2009, worldwide construction will commence on 540 new vessels with 

41
a ballast capacity of less than 5000 MT. Presumably, a similar number of vessels will be 

constructed (i.e. as defined by keel laid date or commencement of major conversion) 

beginning in 2010, although no specific estimates are currently available. Exactly how 

many vessels will ultimately operate and discharge ballast in California waters is difficult 

to determine, however the numbers are expected to be relatively small. 

Examination of the number of vessels that have previously arrived in California provides 

some insight into, and a very conservative estimate of, the number that must be 

prepared to meet the performance standards in 2010. Between January 2000 and 

August 2008, 908 unique vessels with a ballast water capacity less than 5000 MT 

arrived at California ports (Figure VI-1). Presuming a 20-year vessel replacement cycle, 

approximately 5% (45) of these 908 vessels may be replaced by new vessels and be 

required to meet the performance standards in 2010 (Reynolds, K., pers. comm. 2007). 

As only 20% of vessels, on average, discharge ballast in California waters (Falkner et 

al. 2007), an even smaller number of vessels (~ 9) will likely discharge in California 

waters and require treatment system usage. In the class of vessels with a ballast water 

capacity greater than 5000 MT, 5682 unique vessels arrived at California ports between 

January, 2000 and August, 2008 (Figure VI-1). Again, assuming a 5% yearly 

replacement rate, 284 vessels will likely be replaced with new vessels and be required 

to meet the performance standards beginning in 2012. Clearly, a much smaller number 

of new vessels will be required to meet the standards beginning in 2010 than in 2012, 

however, the precise number is less clear. 

42
298

610

5682

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

<1500 1500-5000 >5000

Ballast Water Capacity (MT)

Number of Unique Vessel Arrivals to CA Ports 

(January 2000 - August 2008)

Figure VI-1. Number of unique vessels that arrived to California ports between January, 

2000 and August, 2008 as a function of ballast water capacity (MT). 

Assessing industry demand at any given time is further complicated by factors such as 

the timing of when a vessel owner chooses to purchase a treatment system. Vessel 

owners, particularly of existing vessels with later implementation dates, may choose to 

purchase a system earlier than required by the standards implementation date so that 

installation dovetails with drydock and repair schedules. In this case, estimates of 

demand based solely on the standards implementation dates are likely inaccurate. 

Commission staff will continue to follow trends in vessel visits to California and 

treatment system purchase and installation, particularly as the performance standards 

are implemented for newly built vessels, and will assess system availability for existing 

vessels in future reports. 

Commercial Availability 

System vendors will need to have systems commercially available by the time the initial 

interim performance standards take effect in 2010. The definition of commercial 

43
availability differs depending on who you talk to. Many treatment vendors consider 

commercial availability to be the time when systems are available for sale and 

purchase. Vessel owners, however, may not consider systems to be commercially 

available until all required approvals (IMO or otherwise) are in place (see Market 

Availability below for further explanation). In 2008, 23 treatment technology vendors 

provided Lloyd’s Register with an actual or anticipated date of commercial availability. 

Ten companies reported that their systems were commercial availability by 2007, four 

expected to be commercial availability in 2008, seven anticipated availability in 2009 

and two in 2010 (Lloyd’s Register 2008). Similar data collected by Commission staff 

indicate that as of October 2008 at least 12 technology vendors consider their systems 

to be commercially available. On the other hand, only three systems have currently 

received Type Approval as required by IMO (Table V-1). 

In addition to having systems ready for purchase, treatment vendors will also need to 

produce sufficient quantities of those systems to meet market demand. Several of the 

large, multinational technology vendors already produce many other products for the 

maritime industry and have a pre-existing infrastructure in place that may be modified to 

globally produce and support ballast water treatment systems (Reynolds, K., pers. 

comm. 2007). However, it is more difficult to gauge the ability of small technology 

vendors to meet projected production and support needs of the shipping fleet. 

Treatment vendors may be able to space out delivery of systems for new vessels with a 

ballast capacity less than 5000 MT over a couple of years while infrastructure and 

production are brought up to speed, as even the largest marine corporations require 

significant lead time for existing marine product lines (Reynolds, K., pers. comm. 2007). 

While vessels in this size class are subject to the standards as of 2010, the construction 

of large commercial vessels can take several years, and many of those vessels may not 

actually be ready for treatment system installation and operation until 2011 or later. 

System support is equally important as commercial availability. Following installation, 

system developers will need to have personnel and infrastructure in place to 

troubleshoot and fix problems that arise during system operation. Maritime trade is a 

44
global industry, and vessel operators will need to have global support for onboard 

machinery. The Lloyd’s Register (2008) report does not address the issue of afterpurchase support of systems. The initial influx of systems into the marketplace will no 

doubt challenge developers to provide adequate service. Larger companies entrenched 

in the maritime logistics or equipment industries may already be prepared to respond to 

technological challenges and emergencies as they arise, but smaller ballast water 

treatment vendors may face an initial period to ramp up service and access to 

replacement parts. It is currently unclear if system support service will be adequate as 

the first of California’s performance standards is implemented in 2010, and if a lack of 

service could impact commercial availability. 

Market Availability 

The availability of ballast water treatment systems is not only a function of commercial 

availability but also of market demand to purchase those technologies. Previous 

discussions addressed one aspect of demand - the number of vessels that will be 

required to meet the performance standards beginning in 2010. However, demand may 

also be influenced by the availability of systems that have received government 

approval to operate in a given water body. 

In the U.S., the lack of a regulatory framework for the approval of ballast water 

treatment systems at the federal level is a major hindrance to the demand for systems. 

While California law requires initial compliance with the interim performance standards 

beginning in 2010, shipping companies may be hesitant to purchase treatment systems 

with little or no assurance that the system will be permitted to operate in federal waters. 

As of October 2008, neither the EPA nor the USCG has a ballast water treatment 

approval program in place. Vessels cannot use treatment systems to comply with the 

federal ballast water management requirements unless they are approved. Therefore, 

unless these federal agencies begin to approve systems before 2010, a vessel intent on 

discharging ballast in California after arriving from outside of the 200 nm Exclusive 

Economic Zone will need to conduct a mid-ocean exchange to comply with federal 

ballast water management requirements and will additionally be required to treat that 

45
water to meet California requirements. This conflict in ballast management regulation 

between federal and state governments will no doubt cause confusion and may even 

temper demand to install treatment systems onboard vessels. While it is extremely 

unlikely that all vessels that visit California can refrain from discharging all ballast, the 

implementation of the performance standards regulations in California may spur 

renewed interest in developing ballast water management plans that will limit ballast 

water discharges in the state. 

Availability for Use in California 

Commercial availability should not, however, at any time be confused with a system’s 

capability to meet California’s performance standards. Systems that may be deemed 

commercially available and ready for sale by technology vendors must demonstrate 

system efficacy to vessel owners/operators who will purchase those systems and to 

regulatory agencies. Systems that have received IMO approval for active substances 

and Type Approval may be available for purchase in compliance with the IMO D-2 

standards, but for the purposes of this report, those systems are not deemed “available” 

for use in California until they demonstrate system efficacy and environmental safety in 

compliance with California’s performance and water quality standards. Based on the 

information reviewed for this report, at least two systems, OceanSaver and OptiMarin, 

are both commercially available and have demonstrated the potential to comply with 

California’s performance standards that can be currently quantified using best available 

assessment techniques (see previous discussion in Efficacy section). Several additional 

systems are close to completing performance verification testing and/or receiving Type 

Approval, and Commission staff believes that these systems will be available for use in 

California prior to the initial implementation of the performance standards in 2010. 

Environmental Regulation and Impact Assessment 

An effective ballast water treatment system must comply with both performance 

standards for the discharge of ballast water and applicable environmental safety and 

water quality laws and regulations. The discharge of treated ballast should not impair 

water quality so as to impact the designated beneficial uses of the State’s receiving 

46
waters (e.g. recreation, fisheries, fish/wildlife habitat). The IMO, federal government and 

individual states have developed specific limits for discharge constituents and/or whole 

effluent toxicity evaluation procedures in order to protect the beneficial uses of 

waterways from harmful contaminants. Commission staff has drawn on the 

environmental review of ballast water treatment systems and active substance 

constituents from all levels of government (international, federal, state) in the 

assessment of environmental risk from the 30 treatment systems reviewed here. 

International Maritime Organization Regulation 

As discussed in Section III (Regulatory Overview), the IMO has established an approval 

process through Guideline G9 for treatment technologies using active substances (i.e. 

chemicals) to ensure systems are safe for the environment, ship, and personnel. The 

two-step process is comprised of an initial “Basic Approval” utilizing laboratory test 

results to demonstrate basic environmental safety, followed by “Final Approval” upon 

evaluation of the environmental integrity of the full-scale system. 

Guideline G9 of the Convention requires applicants to provide information identifying: 1) 

Chemical structure and description of the active substance and relevant chemicals 

(byproducts); 2) Results of testing for persistence (environmental half-life), 

bioaccumulation, and acute and chronic aquatic toxicity effects of the active substance 

on aquatic plants, invertebrates, fish, and mammals; and 3) An assessment report that 

addresses the quality of the tests results and a characterization of risk (MEPC 2005b). 

Systems that apply for Basic and Final Approval are reviewed by the IMO Joint Group of 

Experts on the Scientific Aspects of Marine Environmental Protection (GESAMP) – 

Ballast Water Working Group (BWWG) in accordance with the procedures detailed in 

Guideline G9. The Guideline does not address system efficacy, only environmental 

safety (MEPC 2005b). 

Federal Regulation 

Outside of USCG’s Shipboard Technology Evaluation Program (STEP), ballast water 

treatment systems are not currently approved for use in compliance with federal ballast 

47
water management requirements. Consequently, there is no formal environmental 

assessment approval program (like that of IMO) for ballast water treatment systems at 

the federal level. EPA, however, recognizes that ballast water treatment systems will be 

used both experimentally at the federal level and in compliance with state ballast water 

management requirements, and has therefore included provisions in the draft NPDES 

Vessel General Permit for discharges from vessels employing ballast water treatment 

systems. 

The effluent limits and best management practices described in the draft NPDES Vessel 

General Permit are specific to those treatment systems that make use of biocides. 

Under the permit, all biocides that meet the definition of a “pesticide” under the Federal 

Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA; 7 U.S.C. § 136 et seq.) must be 

registered for use with the EPA. Biocides generated onboard a vessel solely through the 

use of a “device” (as defined under FIFRA) do not require registration. Additionally, the 

permit sets a limit for Total Residual Chlorine (100 μg/l) in ballast water discharge, and 

states that discharges of other biocides or residuals must not “exceed acute water 

quality criteria as listed in EPA’s 1986 Quality Criteria for Water [the Gold Book], or any 

subsequent revisions” (EPA 2008). Furthermore, EPA requested public comment on 

whether it was appropriate to include Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET) standards in the 

permit to complement or to serve in lieu of complying with chemical monitoring. Though 

the permit had not been released at the time of this report, it is possible that EPA will 

include WET monitoring options. In lieu of complying with the aforementioned 

conditions, vessels that discharge ballast containing biocides or chemical residuals may 

apply for an individual NPDES permit. 

Vessels participating in the STEP must comply with the NPDES Vessel General Permit 

and additionally conform to the environmental compliance requirements associated with 

STEP participation including: 1) Compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) process; 2) Due diligence by the applicant in providing requested biological and 

ecological information and obtaining necessary permits from regulatory agencies; and 

3) A provision that systems found to have an adverse impact on the environment or 

48
present a risk to the vessel or human health will be withdrawn from the program (USCG 

2006). 

State of Washington Regulation 

The Washington State Department of Ecology developed a framework for “Establishing 

the Environmental Safety of Ballast Water Biocides” in 2003 and revised it in 2005 to be 

included as Appendix H in the Laboratory Guidance and Whole Effluent Toxicity Test 

Review Criteria manual (Washington State Department of Ecology 2005). Thus far, 

three systems have completed toxicity testing in accordance with Washington 

requirements (Table VI-3). 

The tests used in the Washington State framework for evaluating ballast water biocides 

include EPA-approved acute, chronic and sensitive life stage toxicity tests on 

invertebrate, fish and algal species. If treated ballast water might be discharged more 

than once in the same location during a week or in sensitive marine areas in the state, 

then additional tests are also required to determine the biocide environmental safety. 

The results of the toxicity testing are used to set system discharge conditions such as 

maximum concentration or minimum degradation time (Marshall, R., pers. comm. 2007). 

California Regulation 

California does not have a formal environmental evaluation process for ballast water 

treatment systems. Vessels that discharge in California waters will need to comply with 

the applicable provisions of the EPA’s NPDES Vessel General Permit including all 

California-specific conditions added by the State Water Resources Control Board 

through the Section 401 certification process. As of the writing of this report, the permit 

conditions included in the 401 certification were not available. 

All vessels using treatment technologies that make use of biocides should also ensure 

that any residuals or reaction by-products in treated ballast water discharges meet 

applicable water quality objectives as outlined in the California Ocean Plan (Water 

Board 2005), Regional Water Quality Control Board Basin Plans, the EPA’s California 

49
Toxics Rule (CTR) and the associated State Implementation Policy for the CTR. Vessel 

owners/operators will need to consult with Water Board staff regarding the development 

and implementation of monitoring programs for all relevant discharge constituents. The 

“Ballast Water Treatment Technology Testing Guidelines” that were distributed to 

treatment vendors in October 2008 were developed in consultation with the Water 

Board, and summarize the water quality objectives and acute and chronic water toxicity 

criteria that systems will need to comply with when discharging in California waters (see 

Appendix A). 

Environmental Assessment of Treatment Systems

Staff has compiled environmental assessment reports and water quality data reported to 

the IMO and the State of Washington, as well as information made available to 

Commission staff, to assess the treatment systems for potential environmental impacts 

to California waters. The IMO active substance approval documents, in particular, have 

proved to be a valuable resource to assess a treatment system’s broad-scale 

environmental safety prior to comparison of specific system effluent constituents with 

California’s water quality objectives. 

Of the 30 treatment systems reviewed for this report, 19 use a biocide or chemical 

additive in the treatment process (Table VI-3), and will therefore require monitoring of 

discharges for chemical residuals under the EPA’s NPDES Vessel General Permit and 

the State’s Ocean Plan. As discussed in Section V (Treatment Technologies), eighteen 

of the 19 systems that use chemicals employ a chemical oxidant or oxidative technology 

as the active substance to kill or inactivate organisms in ballast water (Table VI-3). An 

assessment of the potential impacts from the wide variety of chemical residuals 

associated with the use of oxidants by each technology cannot be adequately 

addressed in this report and is the purview of the Water Board and EPA. Instead, 

Commission staff has focused this environmental assessment on Total Residual 

Chlorine (TRC) concentrations in discharged ballast water because both EPA (through 

the draft NPDES Vessel General Permit) and the Water Board (through the California 

Ocean Plan) have identified TRC as a particular concern due to its widespread toxicity 

50
51

to all organisms. Vendors and vessel owners/operators will need to consult with the 

Water Board and EPA to ensure that vessel discharges comply with all other applicable 

effluent requirements. 

Table VI-3 lists the active substances and summarizes the status of environmental 

approvals/assessments for each of the technologies reviewed in this report. Where 

applicable, the available data has been analyzed to determine whether or not treated 

ballast would comply with California’s water quality objective for chlorine in ocean 

waters (= instantaneous maximum of 60 μg/l in discharged waters). 

Many systems have initiated toxicity testing of treated discharges and have applied to 

IMO for Basic and Final Approval. The IMO Basic Approval application, however, may 

include data from general literature review or laboratory analysis of system toxicity. Until 

such time that a system submits a full dossier of whole effluent toxicity data as required 

for IMO Final Approval, it will be difficult to anticipate the potential environmental 

impacts to California waters from the discharge of treated ballast from a fully functioning 

treatment system. Currently only four treatment systems have received Final Approval 

from IMO (Table VI-3). 

The “pesticide” registration requirement under FIFRA is one mechanism to regulate and 

assess the impacts to U.S. federal waters from biocide use in treatment systems. The 

thorough chemical safety analysis and registration process required under FIFRA has 

been completed by one system (Hamann Evonik Degussa), and a few others are in the 

process of completing the process. FIFRA has a loophole, however, for chemicals that 

are generated onsite and used in place (e.g. generated and used by a vessel). Most 

treatment systems using biocides generate that chemical through onboard 

electrochemical processes, and thus will not be subject to FIFRA registration. This 

FIFRA loophole provides significant room for systems to operate in U.S. waters without 

any kind of biocide regulation except as provided by the NPDES Vessel General Permit, 

and at this time, it is uncertain how EPA will enforce the permit’s provisions. 
Table VI-3. Summary of environmental assessment and approval of treatment systems

Note: Table does not address whether or not toxicity testing was performed in accordance with the California Ocean Plan

Alfa Laval free radicals X IMO Basic and Final Y ATG Willand n/a (UV)Ecochlor chlorine dioxide X IMO Basic, Rec WA Cond.2 Y 

EcologiQ yeast X 

Electrichlor sodium hypochloriteETI ozone X 

Ferrate Treatment Tech. ferrateGreenship free active chlorine, total residual chlorine X IMO Basic Hi Tech Marine n/a (heat) Queensland EPA 

Hyde Marine n/a (UV)JFE Engineering Corp. sodium chlorineMARENCO n/a (UV)Maritime Solutions Inc. n/a (UV)MH Systems n/a (deoxygenation)Mitsubishi Heavy Ind. free active chlorine Mitsui Engineering ozone X IMO Basic NEI n/a (deoxygenation) X 

NK-03 ozone, total residual oxidant X IMO Basic Y 

Nutech 03 Inc. ozone X N OceanSaver free and total residual oxidant X IMO Basic and Final Y 

OptiMarin n/a (UV) X Y 

Panasia Co. photon IMO Basic Resource Ballast Tech. ozone, hydroxyl radicals X IMO Basic N RWO Marine Water Tech. hydroxyl radicals, free active chlorine X IMO Basic N 

SeaKleen menadione (Vitamin K3) X 

Severn Trent DeNora sodium hypochlorite, sodium bisulfite X Rec. WA Conditional2 Y 

Toagosei Group sodium hypochlorite, sodium sulfite X IMO Basic 

Blank cells indicate that data was not available

1 CA Ocean Plan instantaneous maximum for Total Residual Chlorine = 60 micrograms/liter (μg/l)2 WA Dept. of Ecology Water Quality Program has recommended Conditional Approval of the system to WA Dept. Fish and Wildlif

As of the writing of this report, approval has not been granted.

triiron tetraoxide, poly aluminum chloride, poly acrylamide sodium acrylate Hitachi X IMO Basic

X Y 

Manufacturer Active Substance Toxicity Testing Environmental Related Approvals CA TRC Complian

IMO Basic and Final

X IMO Basic & Final, EPA Reg., Rec. WA Conditional Hamann Evonik Degussa 2 Peraclean Ocean (peracetic acid, hydrogen peroxide, acetic acid)

Techcross Inc. hypochlorite, hypobromite, ozone, hydroxyl radicals, hydrogen peroxide
A system’s feasibility for operation in California is inherently based on its ability to meet 

all of California’s requirements regarding discharges, not simply the performance 

standards. While it is the purview of the Water Board to review and regulate the effluent 

from treatment systems, Commission staff is working to educate technology vendors, 

particularly those from foreign countries, about California’s water quality objectives. The 

“Ballast Water Treatment Technology Testing Guidelines” were recently distributed and 

summarize the pertinent information for vendors. Staff will also work closely with the 

Water Board to ensure that vendors are made aware of California’s Section 401 

provisions in the NPDES Vessel General Permit, once released. In the meantime, staff 

has attempted to compile data on Total Residual Chlorine (TRC) in treated effluent 

because of its broad-scale toxicity, and because so many systems use chlorine and 

related byproducts in the treatment process. Of the 30 systems reviewed, thirteen use 

chlorine in the treatment process or may have chlorinated residuals in treated effluent. 

Based on the available data, seven appear to meet California’s objective of 60 μg/L of 

residual chlorine (Table VI-3). Clearly, not all treatment systems will meet California’s 

stringent water quality standards. However, it is difficult to assess at this time whether 

systems are simply not able to meet the standards or whether additional water quality 

data must be gathered from operation of full-scale systems under real world scenarios. 

Commission staff will continue to work with the Water Board, vessel owners/operators 

and technology vendors to ensure that systems are tested with California’s water quality 

objectives in mind and that the information is made available to interested parties. 

Economic Impacts 

An assessment of the economic impacts associated with the implementation of 

performance standards and the use of treatment technologies requires consideration 

not only of costs connected with the purchase, installation and operation of treatment 

systems, but also the impacts related to the control and/or eradication of NIS if 

performance standards are not met. As discussed in the Introduction (Section II), the 

U.S. has suffered major economic losses as a result of attempts to control and 

eradicate NIS (aquatic and terrestrial; Carlton 2001, Lovell and Stone 2005, Pimentel et 

53
al. 2005). The rate of new introductions is increasing (Cohen & Carlton 1998, Ruiz & 

Carlton 2003) which suggests that economic impacts will likely increase as well. 

California had the largest ocean-based economy in the U.S. in 2004, ranking number 

one for employment, wages and gross state product (NOEP 2007). California’s natural 

resources contribute significantly to the coastal economy. For example, in 2007 total 

landings of fish were over 380 million pounds, bringing in more than $120 million (NOEP 

2008). Squid, the top revenue-generating species in 2007, brought in almost $30 

million (NOEP 2008). The health of coastal natural resources is also closely tied to the 

tourism and recreation industries which accounted for almost $12 billion of California’s 

gross state product in 2004 (NOEP 2007). NIS pose a threat to these and other 

components of California’s ocean economy including commercial fisheries, aquaculture, 

sport and recreational fisheries, tourism and recreation, and education. 

The use of ballast water treatment technologies to combat NIS introductions will involve 

economic investment on the part of ship owners. This investment in treatment systems 

reflects not only initial capital costs for the equipment and installation, but also the 

continuing operating costs for replacement parts, equipment service and shipboard 

energy usage. Cost estimates are strongly linked to vessel-specific characteristics 

including ballast water capacity, ballast pump rates and available space. Additionally, 

the retrofit of vessels already in operation (existing vessels) with ballast water treatment 

technologies may cost significantly more than installation costs for newly built vessels 

due to: 1) The necessity to rework existing installations (plumbing, electric circuitry); 2) 

Non-optimal arrangement of equipment that may require equipment be broken into 

pieces and mounted individually; 3) Relocation of displaced equipment; and 4) The time 

associated with lay-up (Reynolds, K., pers. comm. 2007). Nonetheless, the use of these 

treatment technologies will help minimize or prevent future introductions of NIS and 

relieve some of the future economic impacts associated with new introductions. 

Many treatment technology vendors are hesitant to release costs at this point because 

system prices represent research and development costs and do not reflect the 

54
presumably lower costs that would apply once systems are mass produced. In the 2008 

Lloyd’s Register report, only 16 of 29 technologies profiled provided estimates of system 

capital expenditures (equipment and installation) and half (14) provided estimates of 

system operating expenditures (parts, service, and energy usage; Table VI-4). 

Commission staff has also acquired some data on capital and operating costs. Capital 

expenditure costs are dependent on system size. A 200 cubic meters per hour (m3/h) 

capacity system may require an initial capital expenditure between $145,000 and 

$780,000 with an average cost of $387,500 (Lloyd’s Register 2007, Lloyd’s Register 

2008, Commission data from technology vendors 2007-2008). A 2000 m3

/h capacity 

system ranges from $175,000 to $2,300,000 with an average cost of $894,600 per 

system (Lloyd’s Register 2007, Lloyd’s Register 2008, Commission data from 

technology vendors 2007-2008). Operating costs range from negligible, assuming waste 

heat is utilized, to $1.50 per m3 with an average of $0.13 per m3 (Lloyd’s Register 2007, 

Lloyd’s Register 2008, Commission data from technology vendors 2007-2008). 

Treatment systems will likely increase the cost of a new vessel by 1-2%. For example, a 

new 8500 TEU (twenty-foot equivalent unit) container ship built by Seaspan Corporation 

costs approximately $132.5 million per vessel (Seaspan Corporation 2007). Installation 

of the most expensive treatment system currently available at $2.3 million (as indicated 

in Table VI-4) would increase the cost of that vessel by 1.7%. Many treatment 

technology developers claim that their systems will last the life of the vessel, so the 

capital costs for treatment systems should be a one-time investment per vessel. 

While the economic investment by the shipping industry in ballast water treatment 

technologies will be significant, when compared to the major costs to control and/or 

eradicate NIS, the costs to treat ballast water may be negligible. Treating ballast water 

with treatment technologies will help to prevent further introductions and lower future 

costs for control and eradication. Additional studies will be necessary to obtain actual 

economic impacts associated with treating ballast water. 

55
Table VI-4. Summary of capital and operating cost data for select treatment systems. 

Unless otherwise noted, source of data was Lloyd’s Register (2008). 

Capital Expenditure 

(Equipment & Installation) 

Operating 

Expenditure Manufacturer 200 m3/h 

($ in 

thousands)

2000 m3/h 

($ in 

thousands)

Other 

($ in thousands)

($ per m3, 

unless otherwise noted) 

Alfa Laval 0.0151 

ATG Willand 

Ecochlor 500 800 0.08 

EcologiQ <501 1-1.501

Electrichlor 350 0.019 

ETI 500 0.005 

Ferrate Treatment 

Tech. 

Greenship 300 2300 

Hamann Evonik 

Degussa 0.2 

Hi Tech Marine 780 1600 

16.5 – 3001

(equipment only) nil2

Hitachi 400 

Hyde 174 – 5031 0.01 

JFE Engineering 0.04 

MARENCO 145 175 0.0006-0.001 

Maritime Solutions 

Inc. 

MH Systems 650 950 0.06 

Mitsubishi 

Mitsui 1001

(installation only) 0.153 

NEI 360 690 0.15 

Nutech 03 288 150 0.32 

OceanSaver 1600 0.063 

OptiMarin 430 1800 

Panasia 

Resource Ballast 

Technologies 200 500 

RWO Marine 

SeaKleen (Hyde) 

Severn Trent 350 500 0.013 

Techcross 297 559 0.003 

Toagosei Group 

1

 Source: Communications with technology vendors (2007-2008). 

2 Assumes waste heat utilized 

3 Source: Lloyd’s Register (2007)

56
VII. CONCLUSIONS 

Ballast water treatment remains an emerging industry. New technologies continue to be 

developed and existing ones refined in search of the most effective methods to reduce 

and/or eliminate the spread of nonindigenous species via ballast water release. While 

some hurdles remain to the full implementation of all of California’s performance 

standards, significant progress has been made in the development of treatment 

systems since the previous technology assessment report (see Dobroski et al. 2007). 

Both the quantity and the quality of the recently received data on system performance 

attest to this fact. 

Like the ballast water treatment industry, the fields of treatment technology assessment 

and compliance verification are still evolving. Commission staff has been working 

closely with a panel of technical experts in order to develop a set of ballast water 

treatment technology testing guidelines. The guidelines provide vendors with a 

summary of California’s performance standards, relevant water quality objectives and 

toxicity criteria. Moreover, they provide some initial guidance on the selection of 

methods and techniques to assess system compliance with California’s discharge 

standards. 

The selection of best available assessment techniques for the guidelines has also 

informed staff’s evaluation of system efficacy data for the purposes of this report. 

Challenges remain in assessing system compliance with the standards for organisms 

that are less than 10 micrometers in size – the bacteria and viruses. The best available 

technique for bacterial viability assessment involves the use of a subset or proxy group 

of organisms to represent treatment of bacteria as a whole. While this technique isn’t 

without some debate, it is scientifically supported by many experts in microbiology and 

technology assessment (see Appendix A). Viruses pose a greater challenge. Without 

strong evidence for the selection of proxy or representative organisms in this size class, 

Commission staff believes that there are no acceptable methods for verification of 

compliance with the standard and that the Commission should proceed with 

assessment of technologies for the remaining six standards. 

57
Based on the available information and using best assessment techniques, Commission 

staff believes that at least two treatment systems have demonstrated the potential to 

comply with the Commission’s performance standards. Many additional systems are 

close to completing system performance verification testing and will soon have data 

available for review. Commission staff expects that before 2010 several systems will be 

ready to meet California standards. 

The treatment systems that meet California’s standards under the review for this report 

are commercially available at this time. The additional systems that are close to meeting 

California’s standards are also commercially available. Many of these systems also 

expect to receive IMO Type Approval in 2009, and thus these systems will be 

considered available for use both in California waters and in compliance with the IMO 

Convention, upon ratification. 

The IMO approval pathway for systems utilizing active substances has been a resource 

for information about the potential environmental impacts from the discharge of treated 

ballast water. The number of systems that have received IMO Final approval remains 

small at this time, however, and thus environmental impact analysis of whole effluent 

toxicity remains hampered by a lack of data. The data available on Total Residual 

Chlorine concentration in treated ballast effluent makes it clear that not all systems will 

comply with California’s water quality standards but also that additional information is 

necessary. The recently distributed treatment technology testing guidelines will inform 

vendors about California’s water quality objectives and toxicity criteria and should 

influence environmental assessment of system discharges in the near future. 

Commission staff is also working closely with the Water Board to track the 

implementation of the NPDES Vessel General Permit in California and assess the 

acceptability of discharges under this new regulatory program. Ultimately, treatment 

vendors and vessel operators will need to consult with the Water Board to better assess 

the potential for water quality impacts from treatment system usage in California waters. 

58
In conclusion, the Commission is preparing to implement the performance standards for 

new vessels with a ballast water capacity of less than 5000 MT in 2010. This review 

indicates that systems are or will soon be available to meet California’s performance 

standards, particularly in light of the small number of new vessels that will likely need to 

meet the standards beginning in 2010. Commission staff is developing verification 

procedures to assess vessel compliance with the performance standards, and is 

working closely with the shipping industry and treatment vendors to ensure a smooth 

transition to the new standards. Staff will conduct another assessment of available 

treatment technologies by July 1, 2010 in anticipation of the 2012 implementation date 

for new vessels with a ballast water capacity greater than 5000 MT. 

VIII. LOOKING FORWARD 

Staff is currently engaged in the following activities to establish a comprehensive 

program for the implementation and enforcement of California’s performance standards 

for the discharge of ballast water. 

1. Develop protocols to assess vessel compliance with the performance 

standards 

Staff must develop protocols for use by the Commission’s marine safety personnel to 

verify vessel compliance with the performance standards. Commission staff will consult 

with a technical advisory panel in order to select the best available methods for 

organism enumeration and viability assessment taking into account ease of use, cost 

effectiveness, accuracy, precision and acceptance by the scientific community. The 

compliance verification protocols will describe on-site sampling, the handling of samples 

between vessel and testing laboratory (chain of custody), mechanisms for the 

identification and approval of independent laboratories to conduct the sample analysis, 

and requirements for reporting of compliance by laboratories to the Commission. The 

protocols are expected to be complete in mid-2009. 

59
2. Amend performance standards regulations 

Staff must make several amendments to the performance standards regulations during 

the next year. The passage of SB 1781 delayed the initial implementation of the 

standards from 2009 to 2010. The regulations must now be amended to maintain 

consistency with the statute. The proposed rulemaking will be presented to the 

Commission for approval in December, 2008. 

Additionally, the advisory panel has brought to light potential issues with the use of best 

available assessment techniques to determine vessel compliance with the performance 

standards. It is possible that vessels may install systems compliant with the standards 

using today’s assessment techniques, only to discover that the system is out of 

compliance at a future date when new and potentially more accurate assessment 

techniques are developed. The cost and burden to the industry is too great to risk 

having systems, operating at the same level as when they were installed, become out of 

compliance shortly after installation. The Commission must address how to account for 

changing compliance verification techniques without requiring vessels to frequently 

update costly ballast water treatment systems. One option would be to grandfather 

treatment systems under the compliance verification protocols in use during system 

installation. The specifics of this process have yet to be determined, but will likely need 

to be clarified via regulation in 2009 prior to the implementation of the performance 

standards in 2010. 

Finally, Commission staff must amend the regulations to guide the selection of specific 

locations and sampling devices needed for onboard sample collection to verify 

compliance with California’s performance standards. According to PRC Section 71206, 

Commission staff is mandated to inspect and take samples of ballast water and 

sediment from at least 25% of the arriving vessels to California ports in order to assess 

compliance with the law. The proposed changes are necessary because not all vessels 

are currently designed to include sampling “ports” for in-line collection of ballast water 

discharge. Staff has made efforts in the development of the proposed regulations to 

maintain consistency with proposed language for ballast water sampling in the IMO 

60
Convention. Preliminary response from industry has been positive. Commission staff 

expects to complete the rulemaking process in 2009. 

3. Revise ballast water treatment technology testing guidelines, as necessary 

Commission staff developed the “Ballast Water Treatment Technology Testing 

Guidelines” in 2008 to promote a uniform, cost-effective, scientifically-rigorous, 

independent assessment of treatment system performance and environmental safety. In 

an effort to standardize ballast water treatment evaluation, the testing guidelines draw 

on the EPA’s draft ETV protocols for ballast water performance verification. EPA is 

currently in the process of revising the draft ETV protocols and expects to release the 

next version in late-2009 or 2010. As the ETV protocols are updated, Commission staff 

will revise the testing guidelines in order to eliminate variability between the proposed 

federal technology evaluation program and California’s recommended guidelines. Staff 

is also working with the Water Board staff to stay informed about the proposed 

provisions in the State’s 401 certification of the NPDES Vessel General Permit and any 

changes to the California Ocean Plan or relevant monitoring programs associated with 

vessel discharges. Commission staff will update the testing guidelines as new 

information becomes available. 

4. Support the development of performance standards and ballast water 

treatment technology performance verification protocols at the federal level 

Commercial shipping is an international industry; any single ship may operate 

throughout several regions of the world. Ideally, performance standards should align 

both at the federal and international level and is preferable to a patchwork of standards 

adopted by individual states. Commission staff continues to work with the federal 

government, including the U.S. Congress, USCG and EPA, on the development of 

federal performance standards and treatment technology performance verification 

protocols. Commission staff has consulted with congressional staffers about proposing 

California’s performance standards as the national standards. Additionally, staff 

participates on both the EPA ETV program Ballast Water Technical Panel and 

Stakeholder Advisory Panel. These panels are working with ETV program staff and the 

61
USCG to finalize the technology verification protocols for ballast water treatment 

systems. 

IX. RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE LEGISLATURE 

The Commission recommends that the Legislature take the following actions to 

enhance the Commission’s ability to effectively implement California’s performance 

standards and to continue to prevent or minimize the introduction of NIS in California 

waters. 

1. Authorize the Commission to amend the ballast water reporting requirements 

via regulations 

In the previous treatment technology assessment report (see Dobroski et al. 2007), 

Commission staff recommended that the Legislature provide the Commission with the 

authority to develop a form via regulations to acquire information about ballast water 

treatment system installation and use onboard vessels. Currently, PRC Section 71205 

specifies that voyage information must be submitted to the Commission on a form 

developed by the United States Coast Guard. However, PRC Section 71205 does not 

accommodate the Commission’s need to develop a form to collect additional information 

about the use of ballast water treatment systems on board vessels, specifically: the 

timing of and requirements for treatment system use, deviations from suggested system 

operation, certifications for operation from vessel classification societies and other 

organizations/agencies, or additional information as deemed necessary by Commission 

staff in consultation with an advisory panel. Assembly Bill 169 was introduced in 2008 

and passed by lawmakers to address the recommendation that the Commission be 

granted the authority to develop a form on ballast water treatment system use via the 

rulemaking process. The bill was not opposed by any organization, but was vetoed by 

the Governor, along with hundreds of other bills due to the delay in passage of the 

budget. Nonetheless, as the performance standards are implemented, the need for 

more information about treatment system installation and usage remains. The 

Commission should be authorized to amend ballast water reporting requirements to 

gather additional information about treatment system operation. 

62
2. Continue to support research promoting technology development and 

performance evaluation. 

Ballast water treatment remains a burgeoning industry that will undergo significant 

development as the IMO and California’s performance standards are progressively 

implemented and as new vessel types are built. In 2012, the standards will go into 

effect for new vessels with the largest ballast water capacity (over 5000 MT), and 

technologies will need to be able to effectively inactivate organisms under high volume 

and pump rate conditions. Existing vessels built before 2010 will need to be retrofitted 

for approved treatment systems by 2014 or 2016 (depending on ballast water capacity). 

Those technologies must be installable under limited space conditions, and must be 

able to integrate with the existing engineering of ships (piping, electrical, computer, 

etc.). While several of the systems evaluated in this report meet or come close to 

meeting California’s Standards, many must still be evaluated on vessels. Additionally, 

research is needed to develop new scientific methods and refine existing methods to 

assess treatment system performance and verify vessel compliance with California’s 

performance standards. Funds necessary to support these research needs could be 

obtained through three mechanisms: general funds, grants, or through the existing fees 

assessed on ships. The Commission and the Legislature should support future budget 

change proposals or other fiscal actions as necessary to fund this important research. 

63
X. LITERATURE CITED 

1. Alfa Laval. 2006. Annex – PureBallast Review Information. 

2. Andersen, A.B. (personal communication, 12 November 2008) 

3. Bilkovski, R. (personal communication, 22 August 2008) 

4. Bluewater Network. 2006. Treating ballast water from cruise ships at the Port of 

San Francisco: Options and Feasibility. 62 pp. 

5. Boldor, D., S. Balasubramanian, S Purohit, and K.A. Rusch. 2008. Design and 

implementation of a continuous microwave heating system for ballast water 

treatment. Environmental Science and Technology, 42(11): 4121-4127. 

6. Botnen, H. 2005. Preliminary test results of OceanSaver ballast water treatment 

system on MV Hoegh Trooper. Section of Applied Environmental Research, 

Universitetsforskning Bergen. Letter to Gunnar Baerheim, OceanSaver AS. 

September 19, 2005. 

7. BLG (IMO Sub-Committee on Bulk Liquids and Gases). 2008. Report to the 

Maritime Safety Committee and the Marine Environment Protection Committee. 

Annex 1 Draft MEPC Resolution – Guidelines for Ballast Water Sampling. BLG 

12/17. 20 February 2008. 

8. Caceres, V., C.E. Orano-Dawson, and G. Kananen. 2007. Shipboard testing of 

the efficacy of SeaKleen® (Vitamar Inc.) as a ballast water treatment to eliminate 

non-indigenous species aboard the tanker Seabulk Mariner in Pacific waters. A 

Final Report to Vitamar LLC and Garnett Inc. January 2007. 

9. California Department of Fish and Game. 2008. Quagga and Zebra Mussels. 

Website: http://www.dfg.ca.gov/invasives/quaggamussel/. Accessed: 11 

September 2008. 

10. Candy, G. (personal communication, 14 August 2008) 

11. Cangelosi, A.A., I.T. Knight, M. Balcer, D. Wright, R. Dawson, C. Blatchley, D. 

Reid, N. Mays, and J. Taverna. 2001. Great Lakes ballast technology 

demonstration project biological effectiveness test program (includes MV Regal 

Princess trials). Final. GloBallast Symposium and Workshop Submission March 

26-30, 2001. 

12. CAPA (California Association of Port Authorities). 2000. Feasibility of onshore 

ballast water treatment at California ports. A study conducted on behalf of the 

California Association of Port Authorities (CAPA) pursuant to a Small Grant 

64
Assistance Agreement with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 

September 2000. Prepared by URS Corporation/Dame and Moore. 

13. Carlton, J.T. 1999. The scale and ecological consequences of biological 

invasions in the world’s oceans. In Invasive Species and Biodiversity 

Management. O. Sandulund, P. Schei, and A. Viken (Eds.) Kluwer Academic 

Publishers. Dordrecht, Netherlands. 195-212 pp. 

14. Carlton, J.T. 2001. Introduced Species in US Coastal Waters, Pew Ocean 

Commission. 

15. Carlton, J.T. 2008. The zebra mussel Dreissena polymorpha found in North 

America in 1986 and 1987. Journal of Great Lakes Research, 34:770-773. 

16. Choi, K-H, W. Kimmerer, G. Smith, G.M. Ruiz, and K. Lion. 2005. Post-exchange 

zooplankton in ballast water of ships entering the San Francisco Estuary Journal 

of Plankton Research, 27:707-714. 

17. Cohen, A.N. 1998. Ships' ballast water and the introduction of exotic organisms 

into the San Francisco Estuary: Current status of the problem and options for 

management, San Francisco Estuary Institute. 

18. Cohen, A.N. and J.T. Carlton. 1995. Nonindigenous aquatic species in a United 

States estuary: A case study of the biological invasions of the San Francisco 

Bay and Delta, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

19. Cohen, A.N. and J.T. Carlton. 1998. Accelerating invasion rate in a highly 

invaded estuary. Science, 279:555-558. 

20. Culley, A.I., and C.A. Suttle. 2007. Viral community structure. Chapter 36 (pp. 

445-453) In Hurst, C.J. (ed.), Manual of Environmental Microbiology, Third 

Edition. ASM Press, Washington, D.C. 

21. Cutler, S.J., H.G. Cutler, J. Glinski, D. Wright, R. Dawson, and D. Lauren. 2004. 

SeaKleen ®, a potential product for controlling aquatic pests in ships’ ballast 

water. In: Matheickal, J.T. and S. Raaymakers (eds.) 2004. 2nd International 

Ballast Water Treatment R&D Symposium, IMO London, 21-23 July 2003: 

Proceedings. GloBallast Monograph Series No. 15. IMO London. 

22. Daly, L.J., D. Reinhart, V. Sharma, L. Walters, A. Randall, and B. Hardman. 

2005. Final Report. Laboratory-scale investigation of ballast water treatment 

using Ferrate. NOAA Award # NA04OAR4170147 

23. Dobbs, F. (personal communication, 5 November 2008) 

65
24. Dobroski, N. L. Takata, C. Scianni, and M. Falkner. 2007. Assessment of the 

Efficacy, Availability, and Environmental Impacts of Ballast Water Treatment 

Systems for Use in California Waters. Produced for the California State 

Legislature. 

25. Dogterom, J., G.J. Jansen, and H.J. Wopereis. 2005. Study report. Greenship’s 

Ballast Water Management System. Technologische werkplaats. Noordelijke 

Hogeschool Leeuwarden. 

26. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1986. Ambient water quality 

criteria for bacteria – 1986. EPA440/5-84-002. January 1986. 

27. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2008. National Pollutant Discharge 

Elimination System (NPDES) Proposed Vessel General Permit for Discharges 

Incidental to the Normal Operation of Commercial Vessels and Large 

Recreational Vessels (VGP). 

28. Everett, R. (personal communication, 13 August 2007) 

29. Everett, R. (personal communication, 21 August 2008) 

30. Faimali, M., F. Garaventa, E. Chelossi, V. Piazza, O.D. Saracino, F. Rubino, G.L. 

Mariottini, and L. Pane. 2006. A new photodegradable molecule as a low impact 

ballast water biocide: efficacy screening on marine organisms from different 

trophic levels. Marine Biology, 149:7-16. 

31. Falkner, M., L. Takata, and S. Gilmore. 2006. California State Lands Commission 

Report on Performance Standards for Ballast Water Discharges in California. 

Produced for the California State Legislature. 

32. Falkner, M., L. Takata, S. Gilmore, and N. Dobroski. 2007. 2007 Biennial Report 

on the California Marine Invasive Species Program. Produced for the California 

State Legislature. 

33. Feyrer, F., H.B. Matern, and P.B. Moyle. 2003. Dietary shifts in a stressed fish 

assemblage: Consequences of a bivalve invasion in the San Francisco estuary. 

Environmental Biology of Fishes, 67 (277-288). 

34. Fofonoff, P.W., G.M. Ruiz, B. Steves, and J.T. Carlton. 2003. In ships or on 

ships? Mechanisms of transfer and invasion for nonnative species to the coasts 

of North America. In: Ruiz, G.M. and J.T. Carlton (eds.) Invasive Species: 

Vectors and Management Strategies. Island Press, Washington D.C. p 152-182 

35. Fuchs, R. and I. de Wilde. 2004. Peraclean Ocean® - A potentially 

environmentally friendly and effective treatment option for ballast water. In: 

Matheickal, J.T. and S. Raaymakers (eds.) 2004. 2nd International Ballast Water 

66
Treatment R&D Symposium, IMO London, 21-23 July 2003: Proceedings. 

GloBallast Monograph Series No. 15. IMO London. 

36. Gregg, M.D. and G.M. Hallegraeff. 2007. Efficacy of three commercially available 

ballast water biocides against vegetative microalgae, dinoflagellate cysts and 

bacteria. Harmful Algae, 6:567-584. 

37. Hallegraeff, G.M. 1998. Transport of toxic dinoflagellates via ships' ballast water: 

bioeconomic risk assessment and efficacy of possible ballast water management 

strategies Marine Ecology Progress Series, 168:297-309. 

38. Hamann AG. Solutions for a better environment. Ballast water treatment SEDNA 

(brochure). 

39. Herwig, R.P., J.R. Cordell, B.C. Nielsen, N.C. Ferm, D.J. Lawrence, J.C. Perrins, 

and A.C.E. Rhodes. 2006a. Final Report. Efficacy Testing of the Severn Trent De 

Nora Balpure® System. School of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences, University of 

Washington, Seattle, Washington. March 13, 2006. 

40. Herwig, R.P., J.R. Cordell, J.C. Perrins, P.A. Dinnel, R.W. Gensemer, W.A. 

Stubblefield, G.M. Ruiz, J.A. Kopp, M.L. House, and W.J. Cooper. 2006b. Ozone 

treatment of ballast water on the oil tanker S/T Tonsina: chemistry, biology, and 

toxicity. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 324: 37-55. 

41. Hi Tech Marine. 1997. Ballast water trial on M.V. Sandra Marie. 9th May 1997 

Sydney to Hobart. 

42. Husain, M., H. Felbeck, D. Altshuller, and C. Quirmbach. 2004. Ballast water 

treatment by de-oxygenation with elevated CO2 for a shipboard installation – a 

potentially affordable solution. In: Matheickal, J.T. and S. Raaymakers (eds.) 

2004. 2nd International Ballast Water Treatment R&D Symposium, IMO London, 

21-23 July 2003: Proceedings. GloBallast Monograph Series No. 15. IMO 

London.

43. IMO (International Maritime Organization). 2005. Ballast Water Management 

Convention International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships' 

Ballast Water and Sediments. International Maritime Organization, London, p 138 

44. IMO (International Maritime Organization). 2007. Resolution A. 1005(25). 

Application of the international convention for the control and management of 

ships’ ballast water and sediments, 2004. Adopted on 29 November 2007 

(Agenda item 11). 

45. IMO (International Maritime Organization). 2008. Summary of Status of 

Conventions as at 30 September 2008. Accessed: November 6, 2008. Website: 

http://www.imo.org

67
46. Japan Association of Marine Safety. 2007. Special Pipe Ballast Water 

Management System. Report of 1st on-board test (revised). 

47. Jelmert, A. 1999. Testing the effectiveness of an integrated Hydro cyclone/UV 

treatment system for ballast water treatment. Accessed: 11/9/07, Website: 

www.optimarin.com/test1999Austevoll.htm 

48. Kikuchi, T. and Y. Fukuto. Development of the Special Pipe Hybrid System, one 

of the most promising ballast water management systems. 

49. Kikuchi, T., K. Yoshida, S. Kino, and Y. Fukuyo. 2004. Progress report on the 

‘Special Pipe System’ as a potential mechanical treatment for ballast water. In: 

Matheickal, J.T. and S. Raaymakers (eds.) 2004. 2nd International Ballast Water 

Treatment R&D Symposium, IMO London, 21-23 July 2003: Proceedings. 

GloBallast Monograph Series No. 15. IMO London. 

50. KORDI (Korean Ocean Research and Development Institution). 2008. 

Preliminary Report for the Type Approval Test Used by Electro-Clean Ballast 

Water Management System. Project No. PI49300. 3 March 2008. 

51. Lawrence, D.J., J.C. Perrins, N.C. Ferm, J.R. Cordell, and R.P. Herwig. 2006a. 

Phase 1 Test: Preliminary Report. Efficacy testing of the MARENCO ballast 

water treatment system. 

52. Lawrence, D.J., J.C. Perrins, N.C. Ferm, J.R. Cordell, and R.P. Herwig. 2006b. 

Phase 2 Test: Preliminary Report. Efficacy testing of the MARENCO ballast 

water treatment system.

53. Lloyd’s Register. 2007. Ballast water treatment technology. Current status. June 

2007. 

54. Lloyd’s Register. 2008. Ballast water treatment technology. Current status. 

September 2008. 

55. Lovell, S.J. and S.F. Stone. 2005. The Economic Impacts of Aquatic Invasive 

Species. Report No. Working Paper #05-02, US Environmental Protection 

Agency 

56. Mackey, T.P. and D.A. Wright. 2002. A filtration and UV based ballast water 

treatment technology: Including a review of initial testing and lessons learned 

aboard three cruise ships and two floating test platforms. Paper presented at 

ENSUS 2002. Marine Science and Technology for Environmental Sustainability. 

University of Newcastle-upon-Tyne, School of Marine Science and Technology. 

Dec. 16-18, 2002. 

68
57. Mackey, T.P., D.A. Wright, and R. Dawson. 2003. Ongoing development of two 

ballast water treatment technologies based on full-scale testing in Baltimore 

Harbor. Presented at the annual Marine Environmental Engineering Technology 

Symposium. In pursuit of Cleaner Seas. Arlington, VA. January 2003. 

58. MacIsaac, H.J., T.C. Robbins, and M.A. Lewis. 2002. Modeling ships' ballast 

water as invasion threats to the Great Lakes. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and 

Aquatic Sciences, 59:1245-1256. 

59. Maddox, T.L. 2000. Final Report. Ballast water treatment and management with 

ozone and sonics. National Sea Grant NA96RG0478. 

60. Maddox, T.L. 2004a. Phase II Final Report. Ballast water treatment and 

management with filtration, ozone, and sonics. National Sea Grant 

NA03OAR4170008. 

61. Maddox, T.L. 2004b. Phase III Final Report. Field test demonstration of improved 

methods of ballast water treatment and monitoring utilizing filtration, ozone, and 

sonics. National Sea Grant NA04OAR4170150. 

62. Maddox, T.L. 2005. Phase IV Final Report. Full scale, land based field test 

demonstration of improved methods of ballast water treatment and monitoring 

utilizing ozone and sonic energy. National Sea Grant NA05OAR4171070. 

 

63. Maranda, L., R.G. Campbell, D.C. Smith, and C.A. Oviatt. 2005. Final Report. 

Summer field test of the Ecopod aboard the M/V Atlantic Compass. Graduate 

School of Oceanography. University of Rhode Island. Submitted October 31, 

2005. 

64. Marshall, R. (personal communication, 8 August 2007 and 15 August 2007) 

65. MEPC (Marine Environment Protection Committee). 2003. Comments on draft 

regulation E-2. Concentrations of organisms delivered in ships’ ballast water in 

the absence of any treatment: Establishing a baseline for consideration of 

treatment efficacy. MEPC 49/2/1. 23 May, 2003. 

66. MEPC (Marine Environment Protection Committee). 2005a. Guidelines for 

approval of ballast water management systems (G8). MEPC 53/24/Add.1. Annex 

3 – Resolution.125(53). Adopted on July 22, 2005. 

67. MEPC (Marine Environment Protection Committee). 2005b. Procedure for 

approval of ballast water management systems that make use of active 

substances (G9). MEPC 53/24/Add.1. Annex 4 – Resolution.126(53). Adopted on 

July 22, 2005. 

69
68. MEPC (Marine Environment Protection Committee). 2005c. Harmful aquatic 

organisms in ballast water: Information to be considered by the Review Group. 

Submitted by Sweden. MEPC 53/2/6. 15 April 2005. 

69. MEPC (Marine Environment Protection Committee). 2005d. Application for basic 

approval of active substances used by Electro-Clean (electrolytic disinfection) 

ballast water management system. Submitted by Republic of Korea. MEPC 

54/2/3. 16 December 2005. 

70. MEPC (Marine Environment Protection Committee). 2006. Basic Approval of 

Active Substances used by Special Pipe Ballast Water Management System 

(combined with Ozone treatment). Submitted by Japan. 55/2. 12 April 2006. 

71. MEPC (Marine Environment Protection Committee). 2006. Information (Update of 

MEPC 53/2/11 Annex 1) provided by Elga Berkefeld GMBH, Lückenweg, 5, 

29227 Celle, Germany and its subsidiary RWO Marine Water Technology, 

Leerkämpe 3, 29259, Bremen, Germany. MEPC 55/2/17, Annex 1. 7 July, 2006. 

72. MEPC (Marine Environment Protection Committee). 2006. Basic Approval of 

Active Substance used by the Hybrid Ballast Water Treatment System using 

Seawater Electrolytic Process. Submitted by Japan. 56/2. 14 December 2006. 

73. MEPC (Marine Environment Protection Committee). 2006. Application for Final 

Approval of Ballast Water Management System Using Active Substances. 

Submitted by Norway. 56/2/1. 15 December 2006. 

74. MEPC (Marine Environment Protection Committee). 2007. Basic Approval of 

Active Substances used by Resource Ballast Technologies Systems (Cavitation 

combined with Ozone and Sodium Hypochlorite treatment). Submitted by South 

Africa. 56/2/3. 6 April 2007. 

75. MEPC (Marine Environment Protection Committee). 2007. Application for Basic 

Approval of Active Substances used by Hitachi Ballast Water Purification System 

(ClearBallast). Submitted by Japan. 57/2/2. 7 September 2007. 

76. MEPC (Marine Environment Protection Committee). 2007. Application for Final 

Approval of a ballast water management system using Active Substances. 

Submitted by Germany. 57/2/3. 7 September 2007. 

77. MEPC (Marine Environment Protection Committee). 2007. Application for Final 

Approval of a ballast water management system using Active Substances. 

Submitted by Germany. 57/2/5. 7 September 2007. 

78. MEPC (Marine Environment Protection Committee). 2007. Basic Approval of 

Active Substance used by GloEn-PatrolTM Ballast Water Management System. 

Submitted by the Republic of Korea. 57/2/4. 7 September 2007. 

70
79. MEPC (Marine Environment Protection Committee). 2007. Report of the fourth 

meeting of the GESAMP-Ballast Water Working Group (GESAMP-BWWG). Note 

by the Secretariat. 57/2. 19 December 2007. 

80. MEPC (Marine Environment Protection Committee). 2007. Application for Basic 

Approval of a combined ballast water management system consisting of 

sediment removal and an electrolytic process using seawater to produce Active 

Substances (Greenship Ltd). Submitted by the Netherlands. 57/2/7. 20 

December 2007. 

81. MEPC (Marine Environment Protection Committee). 2008. Report of the fifth 

meeting of the GESAMP-Ballast Water Working Group (GESMP-BWWG). Note 

by the Secretariat. 57/2/10. 25 January 2008. 

82. MEPC (Marine Environment Protection Committee). 2008. Application for Final 

Approval of the OceanSaver® Ballast Water Management System (OS BWMS). 

Submitted by Norway. 58/2/1. 19 March 2008. 

83. MEPC (Marine Environment Protection Committee). 2008. Application for Final 

Approval of the Electro-Clean System (ECS). Submitted by the Republic of 

Korea. 58/2. 20 March 2008. 

84. MEPC (Marine Environment Protection Committee). 2008. Application for Basic 

Approval of the Ecochlor® Ballast Water Treatment System. Submitted by 

Germany. 58/2/2. 20 March 2008. 

85. MEPC (Marine Environment Protection Committee). 2008. Application for Final 

Approval of the NK-O3 BlueBallast System (Ozone). Submitted by the Republic 

of Korea. 58/2/3. 21 March 2008. 

86. MEPC (Marine Environment Protection Committee). 2008. Report of the sixth 

meeting of the GESAMP-Ballast Water Working Group. Note by the Secretariat. 

MEPC 58/2/7. 14 July 2008. 

87. MEPC (Marine Environment Protection Committee). 2008. Report of the seventh 

meeting of the GESAMP-Ballast Water Working Group. Note by the Secretariat. 

58/2/8. 28 July 2008. 

88. Michigan Department of Environmental Quality. 2006. Ballast water control 

general permit. Port operations and ballast water discharge. Permit No. 

MIG140000. Issued 11 October 11 2006. 

89. Moore, S. (personal communication, 12 September 2005) 

71
90. MPCA (Minnesota Pollution Control Agency). 2008. Ballast Water Discharge 

General Permit: FAQs for Vessel Owners and Operators. Water Quality/Surface 

Water #8.03. October 2008. 

91. NIOZ (Royal Netherlands Institute for Sea Research). 2008. Final report of the 

land-based testing of the SEDNA®-System, for Type Approval according to 

Regulation-D2 and the relevant IMO Guidelines (April – July 2007). Final report 

of the shipboard testing of the SEDNA®-System, for Type Approval according to 

Regulation-D2 and the relevant IMO Guidelines (June - December 2007). 

BSH/M5101. 

92. NIVA (Norwegian Institute for Water Research). 2008. Land based testing of the 

OptiMarin ballast water management system of OptiMarin AS – Treatment effect 

studies. Final Report. Report SNO 5659-2008. 

93. NIVA (Norwegian Institute for Water Research). 2008. Land based testing of the 

PureBallast Treatment System of AlfaWall AB – approved test cycles. Report 

SNO 5667-2008. 

94. NIVA (Norwegian Institute for Water Research). 2008. Shipboard testing of the 

PureBallast Treatment System of AlfaWall AB. Report SNO 5617-2008. 

95. NIVA (Norwegian Institute for Water Research). 2008. Land based testing of the 

OceanSaver ballast water management system of MetaFil AS – Final Report 

(report no: -272249). 28 January 2008. 

96. NOEP (National Ocean Economics Program). 2007. Ocean economy data. 

Accessed: 9 November 2007. Website: 

http://noep.mbari.org/Market/ocean/oceanEcon.asp

97. NOEP (National Ocean Economics Program). 2008. Natural Resources - 

Commercial fish species search. Accessed: 6 November 2008. Website: 

http://noep.mbari.org/LMR/fishSearch.asp 

98. NRC (National Research Council). 1996. Stemming the Tide: Controlling 

Introductions of Nonindigenous Species by Ships' Ballast Water, Vol. National 

Academy Press, Washington D.C. 

99. OceanSaver. 2008. FRO and TRO – Neutralisation Study. November 2008. 

Project Team: J.J. Dale and E. Fraas, Mentum AS. 

100. Oviatt, C., P. Hargraves, R. Kelly, M. Kirs, L. Maranda, B. Moran, D. Outram, D. 

Smith, B. Sullivan, and K. Whitman. 2002. Toxicity of chlorine dioxide to ballast 

water flora and fauna in bench scale assays. Final Report to Ecochlor Inc. 

(Charles Goodsill, VP). 

72
101. Pacific State Marine Fisheries Commission. 2006. Workshop Report on Testing 

of Ballast Water Treatment Systems: General Guidelines and Step-wise Strategy 

Toward Shipboard Testing (June 14-16 2005, Portland, Oregon). Prepared by 

Ruiz, G.M., G.E. Smith, and M. Sytsma. 

102. Parsons, M.G. 1998. Flow-through ballast water exchange. SNAME 

Transactions, 106:485-493. 

103. Parsons, M.G. 2003. Considerations in the design of the primary treatment for 

ballast systems. Marine Technology, 40:49-60. 

104. Parsons, M.G. and R.W. Harkins. 2002. Full-Scale Particle Removal 

Performance of Three Types of Mechanical Separation Devices for the Primary 

Treatment of Ballast Water. Marine Technology, 39:211-222. 

105. Perrins, J.C., J.R. Cordell, N.C. Ferm, J.L. Grocock, and R.P. Herwig. 2006. 

Mesocosm experiments for evaluating the biological efficacy of ozone treatment 

of marine ballast water. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 52: 1756-1767. 

106. Pimentel, D., R. Zuniga, and D. Morrison. 2005. Update on the environmental 

and economic costs associated with alien-invasive species in the United States. 

Ecological Economics, 52:273-288. 

107. Pleus, A. (personal communication, 6 October 2008) 

108. Reynolds, K. (personal communication, 2 August 2007) 

109. Rigby, G.R., G.M. Hallegraeff, and C. Sutton. 1999. Novel ballast water heating 

technique offers cost-effective treatment to reduce the risk of global transport of 

harmful marine organisms. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 191:289-293. 

110. Rigby, G., G.M. Hallegraeff, and A. Taylor. 2004. Ballast water heating offers a 

superior treatment option. Journal of Marine Environmental Engineering, 7:217-

230. 

111. Ruiz, G.M. and J.T. Carlton. 2003. Invasion vectors: A conceptual framework for 

management. In: Ruiz, G.M and J.T. Carlton (eds.) Invasive Species: Vectors 

and management strategies. Island Press, Washington D.C., p 459-504. 

112. Ruiz, G.M., T.K. Rawlings, F.C. Dobbs, L.A. Drake, T. Mullady, A. Huq, and R.R. 

Colwell. 2000. Global spread of microorganisms by ships. Nature, 408:49-50. 

113. Ruiz, G.M. and D.F. Reid. 2007. Current State of Understanding about the 

Effectiveness of Ballast Water Exchange (BWE) in Reducing Aquatic 

Nonindigenous Species (ANS) Introductions to the Great Lakes Basin and 

73
114. Seaspan Corporation. 2007. Seaspan Corporation signs contracts to build eight 

new 8500 TEU vessels. Press release 5/14/07. Accessed 11/9/07. Website: 

http://www.seaspancorp.com/investors/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=243038 

115. Siefert, E. and K. Siers. 2007. Landbased test report – Test cycle summary. 

Institut fur Umwelttechnik. 

116. Spellman, M. (personal communication, 14 August 2008) 

117. State Water Resources Control Board. 2002. Evaluation of Ballast Water 

Treatment Technology for Control of Nonindigenous Aquatic Organisms, p 70. 

118. Stevens, T. (personal communication 26 September 2008). 

119. Tamburri, M.N., B.J. Little, G.M. Ruiz, J.S. Lee, and P.D. McNulty. 2004. 

Evaluations of Venturi Oxygen StrippingTM as a ballast water treatment to 

prevent aquatic invasions and ship corrosion. In: Matheickal, J.T. and S. 

Raaymakers (eds.) 2004. 2nd International Ballast Water Treatment R&D 

Symposium, IMO London, 21-23 July 2003: Proceedings. GloBallast Monograph 

Series No. 15. IMO London.

120. Tamburri, M.N. and G.M. Ruiz. 2005. Evaluations of a ballast water treatment to 

stop invasive species and tank corrosion. 2005 SNAME Maritime Technology 

Conference & Expo and Ship Production Symposium, Houston, TX. 

121. Tamburri, M., G.E. Smith, and T.L. Mullady. 2006. Quantitative shipboard 

evaluations of Venturi Oxygen Stripping as a ballast water treatment. 3rd

International Conference on Ballast Water Management. Singapore, 25-26 

September, 2006. 

122. Tang, Z., M. Butkus, and Y.F. Xie. 2006. Crumb rubber filtration: a potential 

technology for ballast water treatment. Marine Environmental Research, 61:410-

423. 

123. Thornton, G. (personal communication, 3 July 2008) 

124. UNIFOB AS. 2008. Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) for shipboard tests of 

ballast water management systems. 

125. USCG (United States Coast Guard). 2001. Report to Congress on the voluntary 

national guidelines for ballast water management. Washington D.C. 

74
126. USCG (United States Coast Guard). 2004. Navigation and Inspection Circular 

No. 01-04. Shipboard Technology Evaluation Program (STEP): Experimental 

Ballast Water Treatment Systems. January 2004. 

127. USCG (United States Coast Guard). 2006. 2006 Shipboard Technology 

Evaluation Program. General Guidance for the Applicant. March 2006. 

128. USCG (United States Coast Guard). 2007. Status of the ballast water discharge 

standard rulemaking. 

129. USCG (United States Coast Guard). 2008. Environmental Standards Update. 

Fall 2008. 

130. Veldhuis, M.J.W., F. Fuhr, J.P. Boon, and C.C. Ten Hallers-Tjabbers. 2006. 

Treatment of ballast water: how to test a system with a modular concept? 

Environmental Technology, 27:909-921. 

131. Viitasalo, S., J. Sassi, J. Rytkonen, and E. Leppakoski. 2005. Ozone, ultraviolet 

light, ultrasound and hydrogen peroxide as ballast water treatments - 

experiments with mesozooplankton in low-saline brackish water. Journal of 

Marine Environmental Engineering, 8:33-55. 

132. Washington Department of Ecology. 2005. Laboratory guidance and whole 

effluent toxicity test review criteria. Publication No. WQ-R-95-80. June 2005, 

Prepared by Randall Marshall. 

133. Water Board (State Water Resources Control Board). 2005. California Ocean 

Plan. Water Quality Control Plan. Ocean Waters of California. 

134. Weigle, S.M., L.D. Smith, J.T. Carlton, and J. Pederson. 2005. Assessing the risk 

of introducing exotic species via the live marine species trade. Conservation 

Biology, 19(1): 213-223. 

135. Welschmeyer, N., S. Bollens, S. Avent, E. Landrau, T. Voss, and R. Fairey. 

2004. Onboard Testing of Ballast Treatment Efficiency: Summary Report, Moss 

Landing Marine Laboratories, Romberg Tiburon Center for Environmental 

Studies, San Francisco State University. Prepared for the California State Water 

Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and California State Lands Commission 

(CSLC). July 2004. 

136. Welschmeyer, N., C. Scianni, and S. Smith. 2007. Ballast water management: 

Evaluation of the MARENCO ballast water treatment system. Moss Landing 

Marine Laboratories. 

75
137. Wonham, M.J., W.C. Walton, G.M. Ruiz, A.M. Frese, and B.S. Galil. 2001. Going 

to the source: Role of the invasion pathway in determining potential invaders. 

Marine Ecology Progress Series, 215:1-12. 

138. Woodfield, R. 2006. Invasive seaweed threatens California’s coastline – an 

update. Ballast Exchange: Newsletter of the West Coast Ballast Outreach 

Project, 6(10-11). 

139. Wright, D.A., R. Dawson, C.E. Orano-Dawson, and S.M. Moesel. 2007. A test of 

the efficacy of a ballast water treatment system aboard the vessel Coral 

Princess. Marine Technology, 44(1): 57-67. 

140. Wright, D.A., R. Dawson, C.E.F. Orano-Dawnson, G.R. Morgan, and J. Coogan. 

2006. The development of ultraviolet irradiation as a method for the treatment of 

ballast water in ships. Journal of Marine Science and Environment, C4:3-12. 

141. Wright, D.A., C. Mitchelmore, J. Bearr, R. Dawson, C.E. Orano-Dawson, and M. 

Olson. 2008. Shipboard Testing of Nutech-O3 ozonation system as a method for 

Ballast Water Treatment. A Final Report to Nutech-O3. June, 2008. 

142. Zhang, F. and M. Dickman. 1999. Mid-ocean exchange of container vessel 

ballast water. 1: Seasonal factors affecting the transport of harmful diatoms and 

dinoflagellates. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 176:243-251. 

76
XI. APPENDICES 

77
 APPENDIX A 

BALLAST WATER TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY TESTING GUIDELINES 

FOREWORD/DISCLAIMER 

The staff of the California State Lands Commission (Commission) Marine Invasive 

Species Program (MISP) has developed the “Ballast Water Treatment Technology 

Testing Guidelines” to provide treatment technology vendors with a standardized 

protocol to verify treatment system compliance with California’s ballast water 

performance standards and water quality objectives. Verification testing according to 

these guidelines is not required by Commission staff, nor will the Commission be 

approving ballast water treatment systems for use in California waters. Commission 

staff strongly recommends, however, that vendors utilize these protocols to ensure a 

uniform, cost-effective, scientifically-rigorous, independent assessment of system 

performance and environmental safety. The guidelines provide a mechanism for 

vendors to declare that their systems are compliant with California's ballast water 

discharge regulations. These testing guidelines also contain useful information for 

determining the likelihood of compliance with relevant aspects of California’s water 

quality control plans and policies under the federal Clean Water Act and the California 

Water Code. The guidelines will be updated as new information becomes available and 

relevant regulations and programs are implemented. 

78
TABLE OF CONTENTS FOR APPENDIX A

FOREWORD/DISCLAIMER........................................................................ 78

TABLE OF CONTENTS............................................................................. 79

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS........................................................... 80

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION................................................................... 81

CHAPTER 2. RESPONSIBLE CALIFORNIA AGENCIES.................................. 83

CHAPTER 3. TESTING GUIDELINES.......................................................... 84

CHAPTER 4. TEST PLAN DEVELOPMENT................................................... 87

CHAPTER 5. EXPERIMENTAL METHODS................................................... 87

CHAPTER 6. VERIFICATION REPORTING................................................... 99

CHAPTER 7. CONTACT INFORMATION...................................................... 100

CHAPTER 8. REFERENCES...................................................................... 101

APPENDIX A1. ADVISORY PANEL MEMBERS AND MEETING NOTES............ 103

APPENDIX A2. GENERAL SAMPLING CONSIDERATIONS............................. 148

APPENDIX A3. SELECTED TERMS FROM THE CALIFORNIA OCEAN PLAN..... 149

79
80

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS 

CCR California Code of Regulations 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

CFU Colony-Forming Unit 

Commission California State Lands Commission 

CTR California Toxics Rule 

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

ETV Environmental Technology Verification Program 

IMO International Maritime Organization 

LC50 Lethal Concentration 50% 

MEPC Marine Environment Protection Committee 

MISP Marine Invasive Species Program 

NIS Nonindigenous Species 

NOEL No Observed Effects Level 

NPDES National Pollution Discharge Elimination System 

NTU Nephelometric Turbidity Unit 

PRC Public Resources Code 

State Water Board State Water Resources Control Board 

STEP Shipboard Technology Evaluation Program 

TUa Acute Toxicity Units 

TUc Chronic Toxicity Units 

USCG U.S. Coast Guard 
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 

The California Coastal Ecosystems Protection Act of 2006 required the California State 

Lands Commission (Commission) to adopt performance standards for the discharge of 

ballast water (Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 71205.3(a)(1)). The “Performance 

Standards for the Discharge of Ballast Water for Vessels Operating in California 

Waters” (Title 2 California Code of Regulations (CCR) §2291 et seq.) were approved in 

October 2007, and set both interim and final performance standards that will be 

implemented on a graduated time schedule (Tables 1-1, 1-2). The interim performance 

standards set limits for organism concentration as a function of organism size class. 

The final performance standard of zero detectable living organisms for all organism size 

classes in ballast water discharge will be implemented on January 1, 2020. 

Table 1-1. California’s Interim Performance Standards 

Organism Size Class Performance Standards[1,2] 

Organisms greater than 50 

μm[3] in minimum dimension 

No detectable living organisms 

Organisms 10 – 50 μm[3] in 

minimum dimension 

< 0.01 living organisms per ml[4]

Living Organisms less than 

10 μm[3] in minimum 

dimension: 

Escherichia coli 

Intestinal enterococci 

Toxicogenic Vibrio cholerae 

(O1 & O139) 

< 103 bacteria/100 ml[4]

< 104 viruses/100 ml[4] 

< 126 CFU[5]/100 ml[4]

< 33 CFU[5]/100 ml[4]

< 1 CFU[5]/100 ml[4] or 

< 1 CFU[5]/gram wet weight 

zoological samples 

[1] See Implementation Schedule (Table 1-2) for dates by which vessels must meet California Interim 

Performance Standards 

[2] The Final Discharge Standard for California, beginning January 1, 2020, is zero detectable living 

organisms for all organism size classes. 

[3] Micrometer 

[4] Milliliter 

[5] Colony-forming unit 

81
Table 1-2. Performance Standards Implementation Schedule 

Ballast Water Capacity 

of Vessel 

Standards apply to new 

vessels in this size class 

constructed on or after 

Standards apply to all 

other vessels in this size 

class beginning in 

< 1500 metric tons 2010* 2016 

1500 – 5000 metric tons 2010* 2014 

> 5000 metric tons 2012 2016 

* California Senate Bill 1781 (Chapter 696, Statutes of 2008) delayed the initial implementation of the 

interim performance standards from January 1, 2009 to January 1, 2010 

Compliance with California’s performance standards regulations can be achieved 

through the use of at least one of the following ballast water management practices: 1) 

Retain all ballast on board the vessel; 2) Discharge ballast to an approved reception 

facility (although currently no such facilities exist in California); or 3) Discharge ballast 

that meets or exceeds the performance standards. The majority of those vessels intent 

on discharging into California waters will need to treat their ballast with a ballast water 

treatment system in order to comply with the performance standards. 

To better ascertain the availability of treatment systems to meet the performance 

standards, the California State Legislature required the Commission to prepare a report 

assessing the efficacy, availability and environmental impacts of ballast water treatment 

systems (PRC Section 71205.3(b)). The review and resultant report, “Assessment of the 

Efficacy, Availability and Environmental Impacts of Ballast Water Treatment Systems for 

Use in California Waters” was completed in 2007 (see Dobroski et al. 2007). Among the 

major findings of the report, Commission staff found that the methods used by vendors 

and testing organizations for the verification of system performance were inconsistent 

across treatment systems, and many of the methods used to evaluate treatment 

systems produced results in metrics incompatible with California’s performance 

standards (e.g. results were presented as percent reduction instead of concentration of 

organisms). The lack of standardized methods for evaluating system efficacy and 

environmental impacts hindered staff’s ability to determine if those systems were 

capable of meeting or exceeding California’s performance standards and water quality 

objectives. 

82
In response to the lack of consistency among testing methods and metrics as outlined in 

Dobroski et al. (2007), staff has developed these “Ballast Water Treatment Technology 

Testing Guidelines.” The testing guidelines will provide treatment vendors with a 

standardized protocol to assess treatment system compliance with California’s 

performance standards and water quality objectives. Verification reports produced as a 

result of testing according to the guidelines will not only provide potential customers with 

the information necessary to make informed purchases to suit the needs of their specific 

vessels, but will also provide managers with much needed detail about system 

operation, performance and environmental safety. 

CHAPTER 2. RESPONSIBLE CALIFORNIA AGENCIES 

California State Lands Commission 

The California State Lands Commission’s Marine Invasive Species Program (MISP) is 

charged with moving the state, “expeditiously towards elimination of the discharge of 

nonindigenous species into the waters of the state” (PRC Section 71201(d)). To that 

end, Commission staff is responsible for monitoring and developing management 

strategies for vessel vectors of nonindigenous species (NIS), including ballast water and 

vessel fouling. Since the passage of the Coastal Ecosystems Protection Act in 2006 

(Chapter 292, Statutes of 2006), Commission staff has focused its attention on the 

implementation and enforcement of California’s performance standards for the 

discharge of ballast water. These testing guidelines are part of a proactive, multipronged approach to provide information to industry and enable vendors to assess 

system compliance with California’s performance standards. The “Ballast Water 

Treatment Technology Testing Guidelines” were developed by Commission staff in 

consultation with a panel of technical experts in marine engineering, oceanography, 

microbiology and treatment system evaluation (see Appendix A for a list of panel 

members and notes from panel meetings). For more information about the 

Commission’s Marine Invasive Species Program go to http://www.slc.ca.gov. 

83
State Water Resources Control Board 

The California State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board) and the 

Regional Water Quality Control Boards are responsible for regulating water quality to 

protect the beneficial uses of California’s waters. The Commission consults with the 

State Water Board to ensure that the Commission’s Marine Invasive Species Program 

develops vessel vector management strategies that are consistent with state water 

quality standards including, but not limited to, acute and chronic toxicity criteria. 

Pertinent to California’s performance standards, all treatment technologies that make 

use of active substances (i.e. chemicals) should ensure that any residuals or reaction 

by-products in treated ballast water discharges meet applicable water quality objectives 

as outlined in the California Ocean Plan (State Water Board 2005), Regional Water 

Quality Control Board Basin Plans, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) 

California Toxics Rule (CTR) and associated State Implementation Policy for the CTR, 

and the California-specific provisions in Section 401 certification of the U.S. federal 

National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Vessel General Permit for 

Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Commercial Vessels and Large 

Recreational Vessels. For more information go to http://www.waterboards.ca.gov. 

CHAPTER 3. TESTING GUIDELINES 

The Commission will not be approving ballast water treatment systems for use in 

California waters. Instead, Commission staff will focus on dockside inspection of vessels 

(as specified in PRC Section 71206) for verification of compliance with the performance 

standards. The “Ballast Water Treatment Technology Testing Guidelines” are intended 

to bridge the gap between treatment system development and operation in California 

waters. Commission staff believes that before systems enter the commercial 

marketplace, it is in the best interest of the State and concerned stakeholders for 

vendors to ensure that systems undergo a thorough performance, safety and 

environmental impact evaluation. The results generated from system evaluation 

according to these guidelines will provide Commission staff and potential treatment 

technology customers with a valuable upfront assessment of the ability of systems to 

meet California’s performance standards and water quality objectives. 

84
Treatment system verification protocols are under development or have been developed 

by both the International Maritime Organization (IMO) and the U.S. federal government. 

The IMO “Guidelines for approval of ballast water management systems (G8)” (Marine 

Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) 2005) offer test and performance 

specifications for evaluating ballast water management systems relative to the IMO 

Regulation D-2 performance standards (see IMO (2005) for more details). The U.S. 

federal government has encouraged the development of ballast water treatment 

technologies through the U.S. Coast Guard’s (USCG) Shipboard Technology Evaluation 

Program (STEP), and the development of ballast water treatment technology verification 

protocols through a partnership between the U.S. EPA’s Environmental Technology 

Verification (ETV) Program and the USCG. 

The Commission recognizes the importance of establishing a standardized system for 

verifying system performance, and therefore does not intend to develop a new 

California-specific verification protocol. Instead, Commission staff offers these “Ballast 

Water Treatment Technology Testing Guidelines” to augment the federal ETV protocols 

with specific issues relevant to California’s performance standards. Specifically, the 

testing guidelines merges: 1) The ETV Program’s “Draft generic protocol for verification 

of ballast water treatment technologies” (NSF International 2004); with 2) Specific 

guidance on verifying system compliance with California standards and objectives. 

Commission staff highly recommends that vendors adhere to both parts of the system 

verification process and consult with and submit verification reports to Commission staff, 

ETV and other relevant agencies and organizations. 

Generic Protocol for System Verification – The ETV Program 

The ETV Program, “verifies the performance of innovative technologies that have the 

potential to improve protection of human health and the environment” (EPA 2008). The 

objective of the ETV ballast water treatment technology protocol is to “verify the 

performance characteristics of commercial-ready treatment technologies with regard to 

specific verification factors, including biological treatment performance, system 

85
reliability, cost, environmental acceptability, and safety” (NSF International 2004). When 

finalized, the ETV protocol will offer a federally-approved, standardized approach to 

evaluating ballast water treatment system performance. The ETV protocol is being 

developed in concert with a wide array of experts and through a formal Memorandum of 

Agreement between the EPA and the USCG. Commission staff highly recommends that 

all ballast water treatment systems to be used in California participate in this program. 

For more information on the ETV program for ballast water treatment technologies go to 

http://www.epa.gov/etv/center-wqp.html. 

The final ETV protocol is expected to be finalized in late-2009 or early 2010. Until the 

ETV program for ballast water treatment technologies is accepting applications for 

system verification, Commission staff recommends that vendors contract with an 

independent testing organization to conduct system verification according to the most 

recently available draft ETV protocol (see NSF International 2004). Copies of the most 

recent draft protocol may be found on the Commission website http://www.slc.ca.gov. 

As updated information about the ETV protocol is released, Commission staff will 

update California’s “Ballast Water Treatment Technology Testing Guidelines”, as 

necessary, to reflect changes in the ETV protocol. 

Regardless of whether verification testing proceeds through the ETV program or in 

conjunction with an independent testing organization using the draft ETV protocol, 

vendors should consult with Commission staff and ETV representatives throughout the 

verification process in order to address both the state and federal needs and minimize 

duplicative testing at a later date. 

Treatment System Evaluation for California Compliance 

In addition to conducting generic system verification through the ETV program, vendors 

should evaluate system performance relative to California’s performance standards and 

water quality objectives. For this purpose, vendors and testing organizations should 

proceed with all components of the ETV protocols, but additional samples should be 

collected to be analyzed according to Commission staff recommended methods (see 

86
Chapter 5 for sampling and analysis methods). Use of these methods will help ensure 

that test results are presented in metrics consistent with California’s standards. Vendors 

whose systems meet all of California’s performance standards may choose to declare 

that their systems are California compliant. This vendor-certified compliance with 

California’s performance standards does not relieve the vessel owner or operator of the 

responsibility of complying with California discharge standards, but this declaration and 

associated verification reporting may be a resource to potential customers seeking 

treatment systems that have been evaluated with California’s standards in mind. 

CHAPTER 4. TEST PLAN DEVELOPMENT 

All ballast water treatment verification tests should be completed following a written Test 

Plan. The Test Plan should be developed by an independent testing organization in 

conjunction with the vendor. Elements of the test plan are described in Chapter 4 of the 

draft ETV protocol (see NSF International 2004). The California component of the 

verification process should be included in the Test Plan development. Vendors are 

advised to consult with Commission staff and ETV representatives during the 

development of the Test Plan. 

In developing the test plan, Commission staff also advises vendors to be familiar with 

the guidance provided by the USCG for preparation of applications for acceptance to 

the STEP (for more information go to http://www.uscg.mil/hq/g-m/mso/step.htm). While 

vendors are not required to work through the USCG program, Commission staff 

considers the approach used in this program to be appropriate for the development of 

the types of test plans and performance verification procedures necessary to verify 

compliance with California’s performance standards. 

CHAPTER 5. EXPERIMENTAL METHODS 

California’s specific ballast water performance standards and water quality objectives 

necessitate additional verification testing above and beyond that described in the ETV 

protocols. The following protocols discuss relevant California parameters including 

87
biological performance, water quality and environmental toxicity that should be 

evaluated during system verification testing. 

Biological Performance 

Parameters

California’s performance standards (Table 1-1) will be implemented on a graduated time 

schedule beginning January 1, 2010 (Table 1-2). The final discharge standard of zero 

detectable living organisms in all organism size classes will be implemented on January 

1, 2020. Commission staff intends to enforce California’s performance standards using 

similar logic to that found in MEPC (2005), which states that compliance with the IMO 

performance standards for the discharge of ballast water “should be interpreted to be an 

instantaneous standard rather than an average over whole discharge. If any of the 

discharge samples exceed any of the discharge standards, this is grounds for finding 

non-compliance with the standards. It is unnecessary to show non-compliance in 

multiple samples or in mean values.” 

Sampling

California’s performance standards set allowable levels of organism concentration in 

discharged ballast water. Upon implementation of the performance standards, all 

vessels will be required to provide the Commission’s Marine Safety Inspectors access 

to sample ballast water discharge. The location and method of sample collection for 

system verification analysis should closely approximate the method of sampling that will 

be used by Commission staff for compliance purposes. 

Until the specific regulations governing ballast water sampling are implemented in 

California, Commission staff recommends that vendors follow the draft IMO “G2” 

Guidelines for Ballast Water Sampling (BLG 2008) to establish the location of sampling 

(i.e. sampling point) and the equipment necessary to take the sample (i.e. sampling 

facility). Whether the sampling point is integrated into a ballast water treatment system 

or into the vessel’s ballast water system is at the discretion of the vessel owner/operator 

in consultation with the treatment vendor, so long as the access point is located 

88
downstream from the ballast tanks and allows for sampling immediately prior to or 

during discharge. Commission staff highly recommends that vendors include sampling 

facilities in the design of ballast water treatment systems because port state authorities 

will require ballast water samples from vessels in order to assess compliance with 

relevant performance standards. 

California’s performance standards are set as the number of living organisms (or 

analogues/proxies for living organisms [i.e. colony-forming units; CFU]) per unit volume 

of discharged ballast water. Samples collected for purposes of compliance verification 

should be analyzed or appropriately processed immediately to accurately assess the 

concentration of living organisms at the time of discharge, ensuring that results are 

attained and presented in appropriate metrics. 

The volume of water collected and equipment for sample collection and transport should 

be appropriate for the method of analysis and specific performance standard being 

examined. Sample collection methods should be scientifically defensible upon review. 

Commission staff should be consulted about the selection of appropriate methods and 

equipment for sample collection (see Appendix B, General Sampling Considerations). 

Analytical Methods

The analytical methods described in the 2004 draft ETV protocol do not sufficiently 

address sample analysis for purposes of determining compliance with California’s 

performance standards (see Table 5-8 “Core Parameter Methods” in NSF International 

(2004)). Table 5-1 provides a list of recommended methods to assess viability and 

organism concentration in each of the organism size classes in California’s performance 

standards. California has marine, brackish and freshwater ports, so vendors and testing 

organizations should consider methods appropriate for assessing organism viability and 

concentration under each of these salinity regimes. The list of recommended methods 

in Table 5-1 is not all-inclusive. Those methods listed are commonly accepted for 

widespread use by U.S. laboratories. However, any scientifically defensible method 

that produces results in metrics consistent with California’s standards would be 

89
90

appropriate for the purpose of performance verification. Methods outside of those listed 

should be suggested and/or approved by the independent testing organization. 
Table 5-1. Recommended Methods for Organism Enumeration and Viability Determination Organism Size Class Units Method or Reference1,2Greater than 50 μm in minimum dimension 

No Detectable 

Note: At this time, there is no universally accepted method for enumerating live organis

50 μm in minimum dimension. The following methods may be useful, but will require msufficiently sensitive to determine compliance with California’s performance standards: 

• Microscopic evaluation – Observe and probe, MEPC 53/2/7 Annex (2005) • Freshwater (may be adapted for marine conditions): GSI/SOP/RDTE/SA/Z/1(GSI 

10 – 50 μm in minimum dimension 

individuals/ml 

Note : At this time, there is no universally accepted method for enumerating live organi

– 50 μm in minimum dimension. The following methods may be useful, but will require be sufficiently sensitive to determine compliance with California’s performance standar

• Freshwater : GSI/SOP/RDTE/SC/P/1 and GSI/SOP/RDTE/SA/P/1 (GSI 2008) • Nelson et al. (In Review) • Tamburri et al. (2006) – see method for assessment of viable organisms 

Less than 10 μm in minimum dimension: 

Bacteria 

Viruses 

CFU/100 ml Viruses/100 ml 

Note: There are no universal methods for enumerating all viable bacteria and viruses in sample because of the inability to culture many microorganisms in a lab setting, yet madiverse taxa are routinely present in virtually all environmental water samples. In additio

found in aquatic systems infect species other than humans. Some viruses may survive better than in freshwater (especially true of bacteriophages, viruses that infect bacteriathere are some methods that you may consider: 

• Heterotrophic Bacteria: Standard Method 9215 (Clesceri et al. 1998) 

o For freshwater bacteria, recommend R2A Agar or NWRI Agar o For marine bacteria, recommend Difco Marine Agar 2216 

• Viruses: Many viruses are naturally present in freshwater and seawater. Staining 

available to detect and enumerate the total number of viruses, but results are repolike particles”. No methods are available to measure the viability of all viruses in aSpecific types of viruses can be quantified, but these represent only a small fractionot always correlate with, the total number of viruses present. As potential surrogpathogenic to humans the following could be used to evaluate the efficacy of a treSomatic and Male-specific Phage use Modified EPA Method 16012; Adenovirus 40 

Norwalk-like Virus use qPCR. For information on sample size and concentration oPCR see Standard Method 9510 (Clesceri et al. 1998). 

Escherichia coli CFU/100 ml 

• Standard Method 9222.G (Clesceri et al. 1998) • Noble et al. (2004) • EPA Method 16032 or EPA Method 1103.12• Freshwater: GSI/SOP/RDTE/SA/M/3 (GSI 2008) 

Intestinal enterococci CFU/100 ml 

• Standard Method 9230.C (Clesceri et al. 1998) • Noble et al. (2004) • EPA Method 16002 or EPA Method 1106.12• Freshwater : GSI/SOP/RDTE/SA/M/1 (2008) 

Toxicogenic Vibrio cholerae

(O1 & O139) 

CFU/100 ml 

• Standard Method 9260.H (Clesceri et al. 1998) • Choopun et al. (2002) • Chun et al. (1999) 

1 Methods specific to freshwater or marine water will be indicated as such. All other techniques listed should be considered appropriate for all sali2 EPA methods in this table can be found at U.S. EPA Microbiology Home Page. Website: http://www.epa.gov/nerlcwww/index.html. Accessed O
Water Quality Considerations and Analysis 

Parameters 

A detailed listing of water quality objectives for California’s ocean waters can be found 

in the California Ocean Plan (State Water Board 2005). The water quality objectives are 

set forth to protect the beneficial uses of the ocean waters of the State, including 

“industrial water supply; water contact and non-contact recreation, including aesthetic 

enjoyment; navigation; commercial and sport fishing; mariculture; preservation and 

enhancement of designated Areas of Special Biological Significant; rare and 

endangered species; marine habitat; fish migration; fish spawning and shellfish 

harvesting.” (State Water Board 2005). The State Water Board is currently in the 

process of developing amendments to the California Ocean Plan. Read about the 

proposed amendments in the “California Ocean Plan Triennial Review and Workplan” 

and in associated documents at: 

http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/ocean/. 

The California Ocean Plan includes both narrative and numerical water quality 

objectives. Those objectives pertinent to discharges from ballast water treatment 

systems are listed below. However, this list is not all-inclusive, and thus vendors and 

independent testing organizations should consult with Commission and State Water 

Board staff during the verification process to gain an understanding of the applicable 

water quality laws and regulations that vessels must comply with when discharging 

treated ballast water. 

Discharges of ballast from treatment systems should meet the following criteria, 

generally based on the California Ocean Plan’s narrative objectives and implementation 

provisions (See Appendix C for definition of “*” select terms): 

1. The discharge should be essentially free of floating materials that would be 

visible in the receiving water. 

2. The discharge must not cause grease and oil to be visible in the receiving water. 

3. The discharge must not cause aesthetically undesirable discoloration of the 

surface of the receiving water. 

92
4. Natural light shall not be significantly* reduced in the receiving water as the result 

of the discharge. 

5. The discharge must not contain settleable materials or organic substances that 

will degrade benthic communities. 

6. The discharge must not contain toxic substances in toxic concentrations, and 

substances that could accumulate to toxic levels in the receiving water or 

sediments. 

7. The discharge must not contain substances that bioaccumulate, in fish, shellfish, 

or other marine life used for human consumption, to levels that are harmful to 

human health. 

8. The discharge must not contain substances that alter the taste, odor or color of 

fish, shellfish, or other marine life used for human consumption. 

9. The discharge must not contain radioactive wastes or byproducts. 

10. The discharge must not contain nutrient concentrations that would cause 

objectionable aquatic growths or degrade* indigenous biota in the receiving 

water. 

11. The discharge must not cause dissolved oxygen concentrations in the receiving 

water to be depressed more than 10 percent from that which occurs naturally, as 

the result of the discharge of oxygen demanding wastes. 

12. The discharge must not cause pH in the receiving water to be changed more 

than 0.2 units from that which occurs naturally. 

13. The discharge must not cause dissolved sulfide concentrations in the receiving 

water to be increased above that present under natural conditions. 

Furthermore, discharges from vessels utilizing treatment systems into State ocean 

waters should comply with the numerical water quality objectives and effluent limits in 

the California Ocean Plan (State Water Board 2005). Discharges from treatment 

systems into inland surface waters, enclosed bays, and estuaries should comply with 

the numerical water quality objectives in the California Toxics Rule 

(http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/standards/rules/ctr/index.html) and Regional Water 

Quality Control Board Basin Plans (http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/plans_policies/ ). 

93
Based on the aforementioned water quality objectives, Table 5-2 contains some 

selected relevant numeric limits that should be met when testing treatment system 

discharges. Because of the episodic nature of ballast discharges many of the limits 

presented in Table 5-2 are based on California Ocean Plan instantaneous maximums, 

daily maximums or 30-day averages relevant to specific constituents. The ammonia 

nitrogen limit is based on the San Francisco Bay Regional Board’s Basin Plan maximum 

level (http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/sanfranciscobay/basin_planning.shtml ). For pH, 

the range is based on impacts to freshwater, which has less buffering capacity than 

seawater, using the Central Valley Regional Board’s Basin Plan 

(http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/water_issues/basin_plans/). 

All vendors of systems using active substances are encouraged to consult with 

Commission and State Water Board staff about specific system residuals and treatment 

by-products to ensure that discharges will comply with California’s water quality 

objectives. 

As discussed in the 2004 draft ETV protocol, vendors of treatment systems employing 

biocides (i.e. active substances) should conduct toxicity testing during the start-up 

phase of verification testing. “If the post treatment effluent passes the toxicity tests, then 

verification testing can proceed. If, however, the effluent fails the toxicity test, 

verification testing shall not be initiated and further toxicity tests shall be required (NSF 

International 2004). Vendors should comply with all methods of toxicological analysis as 

described in the ETV protocols. 

In addition to the ETV protocol requirements, California has specific objectives for acute 

and chronic toxicity (see Table 5-2) as described in California’s Ocean Plan (State 

Water Board 2005). Toxicity is measured in acute and chronic toxicity units (see 

Appendix B for specific definition according to the California Ocean Plan). Acute toxicity 

units (TUa) are the inverse of the laboratory endpoint “Lethal Concentration 50%” 

(LC50) - the percent of the effluent giving 50% survival of test organisms. Chronic 

toxicity units (TUc) are the inverse of the laboratory endpoint “No Observed Effects 

94
Level” (NOEL) - the maximum percent of the effluent that causes no observed effect on 

test organisms.

Table 5-2. Selected Water Quality Constituent Limits Relevant to Treatment 

Technologies (adapted from State Water Board 2005)

Constituent Units Limit Method 

Arsenic1 μg/l 80 EPA 200.82, for 

freshwater and EPA 

16403 for seawater 

Cadmium1 μg/l 10 ” 

Chromium1 μg/l 20 ” 

Copper1 μg/l 30 ” 

Lead1 μg/l 20 ” 

Nickel1 μg/l 50 ” 

Zinc1 μg/l 200 ” 

Ammonia N mg/l 0.16 Standard Method 4500-

NH3-D4 or EPA 350.1 

(Rev 2.0)2 

Tributyltin μg/l 0.0014 Standard Method 67104 

Total Chlorine 

Residual5

μg/l 60 Standard Method 4500-

Cl-E4 

Halomethanes μg/l 130 EPA 6012 or 6242 

Grease and Oil mg/l 75 EPA 16642 

Turbidity NTU 225 EPA 180.12 or Standard 

Method 2130 B4 

pH pH units Between 6.5 and 

8.5 

EPA 150.22 or Standard 

Method 4500-H+-B4 

Suspended 

solids 

mg/l 60 Standard Method 2540-

D4

 

Settleable 

Solids 

ml/l 3 Standard Method 2540-

F4 

Acute toxcity TUa 0.3 See Table 5-3 below 

Chronic toxicity TUc 1.0 See Tables 5-4, 5-5 

below 

1. A single metals analysis will result in all of the listed inorganic metals. 

2. EPA methods can be found at 40 CFR Part 136 or at EPA website (Approved General-Purpose 

Methods): http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/methods/method/ . Accessed October 10, 2008. 

3. Go to http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/methods/method/files/1640.pdf . Accessed October 10, 2008. 

4. Clesceri et al. 1998 

5. Both total residual chlorine and chlorine produced oxidants refer to the sum of free and combined 

chlorine and bromine as measured by the methods for total residual chlorine. The term “chlorine 

produced oxidants” is sometimes used in seawater samples because of the many oxidative reactions that 

chlorine can undergo in salt water. 

95
Sampling and Analysis

Ballast water should be sampled immediately prior to or during discharge, as discussed 

in Chapter 5, Biological Performance, Sampling. Some general sampling 

considerations including appropriate equipment and maximum holding times for 

analysis of water quality samples can be found in Appendix B. 

Samples for chemical analysis should be collected, preserved, handled and transported 

in accordance with Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater 

(Clesceri et al. 1998) and the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) in 40 CFR Part 136. 

The CFR can be found at www.gpoaccess.gov/ECFR/. Analysis for chemical 

constituents should be performed in accordance with the methods and minimum levels 

(to the lowest detectable concentration) described in Appendix II, of the California 

Ocean Plan (State Water Board 2005), and according to 40 CFR Part 136 or Standard 

Methods (Clesceri et al. 1998) where appropriate (see Table 5-2). 

Acute toxicity should be assessed in accordance with EPA approved protocols as 

provided in 40 CFR PART 136 (http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/methods/wet/ ). At 

least one marine species and one freshwater species should be tested. Table 5-3 

provides species and test methods that may be used for marine acute toxicity tests. 

Monitoring for chronic toxicity for seawater under the California Ocean Plan (State 

Water Board 2005) and the State Implementation Policy for the Toxics Standards in the 

CTR(http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/state_implementation_poli

cy/docs/final.pdf ) requires the use of critical life stage toxicity tests as specified in Table 

5-4 (modified from Table III-1 in the California Ocean Plan). “A minimum of three marine 

test species with approved test protocols shall be used to measure compliance with the 

toxicity objective. If possible, the test species shall include a fish, an invertebrate, and 

an aquatic plant” (State Water Board 2005). Out of state vendors/testing organizations 

that do not have access to the California species listed in Table 5-4 should contract with 

a laboratory approved under the California Department of Public Health, Environmental 

96
Laboratory Accreditation Program. Go to 

http://www.cdph.ca.gov/certlic/labs/Pages/ELAP.aspx for a list of certified labs. 

Table 5-3. Methods for Assessing Marine Acute Toxicity 

EPA Method Common and Species Names Water Type 

2007.0 Mysid, Mysidopsis bahia marine 

2004.0 Sheepshead Minnow, Cyprinodon 

variegatus

marine 

2006.0 Silverside, Menidia beryllina, Menidia 

menidia, and Menidia peninsulae

marine 

2002.0 Water flea, Ceriodaphnia dubia fresh 

2021.0 Water flea, Daphnia puplex and Daphnia 

magna

fresh 

2000.0 Fathead Minnow, Pimephales promelas, 

and Bannerfin shiner, Cyprinella leedsi

fresh 

2019.0 Rainbow Trout, Oncorhynchus mykiss, and 

brook trout, Salvelinus fontinalis

fresh 

Source: EPA. 2002. 

Vendors are encouraged to consult with both Commission staff and staff from the State 

Water Board prior to initiating toxicological evaluation to ensure that testing will fulfill all 

applicable state requirements.

97
Table 5-4. State Water Board Approved Tests for Chronic Toxicity (TUc) 

(Adapted from State Water Board 2005) 

Common and Species 

Names 

Effect Tier Reference 

Giant kelp, Macrocystis 

pyrifera 

Percent germination; 

germ tube length 

1 Chapman et al. 1995 

State Water Board 1996

Red abalone, 

Haliotis rufescens 

 

Abnormal shell 

development 

1 Chapman et al. 1995 

State Water Board 1996

Oyster, 

Crassostrea gigas; 

mussels, 

Mytilus spp.

Abnormal shell 

development; percent 

survival 

1 Chapman et al. 1995 

State Water Board 1996

Urchin, 

Strongylocentrotus 

purpuratus; 

sand dollar, 

Dendraster excentricus 

Percent normal 

development 

1 Chapman et al. 1995 

State Water Board 1996

Urchin, 

Strongylocentrotus 

purpuratus; 

sand dollar, 

Dendraster excentricus 

Percent fertilization 1 Chapman et al. 1995 

State Water Board 1996

mysid, 

Holmesimysis costata 

Percent survival; 

growth 

1 Chapman et al. 1995 

State Water Board 1996

mysid, 

Mysidopsis bahia 

Percent survival; 

growth; fecundity 

2 Klemm et al. 1994 

Weber et al. 1988 

topsmelt, 

Atherinops affinis 

Larval growth rate; 

percent survival 

1 Chapman et al. 1995 

State Water Board 1996

Silversides, 

Menidia beryllina

Larval growth rate; 

percent survival 

2 Klemm et al. 1994 

Weber et al. 1988 

Table Note - The first tier test methods are the preferred toxicity tests for compliance monitoring. A 

second tier test method may be used if after contacting California certified laboratories first tier organisms 

are not available.

98
Testing for chronic toxicity in freshwater species should also be performed, since there 

are inland ports in California. According to the State Implementation Policy for the 

Toxics Standards at least one of the tests in Table 5-5 should be conducted. 

Table 5-5. Short-term Methods for Estimating Chronic Toxicity--Fresh Water 

EPA Method Species Effect Test duration 

1000.0 fathead minnow, 

Pimephales promelas

larval survival and 

growth 

7 days 

1002.0 water flea, 

Ceriodaphnia dubia

survival and 

reproduction 

6 to 8 days 

1003.0 Alga, Selenastrum 

capricornutum

growth 4 days 

Source: EPA. 1994. 

CHAPTER 6. VERIFICATION REPORTING 

All results of system evaluation should be presented in the verification report. A copy of 

the report should be submitted to EPA as outlined in the ETV protocol once applications 

are accepted for that program. A copy of the report and associated data should also be 

submitted to the Commission for review by Marine Invasive Species Program staff. 

99
CHAPTER 7. CONTACT INFORMATION 

For more information or to submit documents for review and comment, please contact: 

California State Lands Commission

Maurya Falkner Nicole Dobroski 

Marine Invasive Species Program Manager Staff Environmental Scientist 

falknem@slc.ca.gov dobrosn@slc.ca.gov

(916) 574-2658 (916) 574-0742 

Mailing Address: Web: 

California State Lands Commission http://www.slc.ca.gov

100 Howe Avenue – Suite 100 South 

Sacramento, CA 95825 

 

State Water Resources Control Board

Dominic Gregorio 

DGregorio@waterboards.ca.gov

http://www.waterboards.ca.gov

ETV Program

Ray Frederick 

frederick.ray@epa.gov

http://www.epa.gov/nrmrl/std/etv/center-wqp.html

U.S. Coast Guard

environmentalstandards@comdt.uscg.mil

http://www.uscg.mil/hq/g-m/mso/bwm.htm

100
CHAPTER 8. REFERENCES 

Sub-Committee on Bulk Liquids and Gases (BLG). 2008. Report to the Maritime Safety 

Committee and the Marine Environment Protection Committee. Annex 1, Draft MEPC 

Resolution. Guidelines for Ballast Water Sampling (G2). BLG 12/17, Annex 1. 20 

February 2008. 

Chapman, G.A., D.L. Denton, and J.M. Lazorchak. 1995. Short-term methods for 

estimating the chronic toxicity of effluents and receiving waters to west coast marine 

and estuarine organisms. U.S. EPA Report No. EPA/600/R-95/136. 

Choopun, N., V. Louis, A. Huq, and R.R. Colwell. 2002. Simple procedure for the rapid 

identification of Vibrio cholerae from the aquatic environment. Applied and 

Environmental Microbiology, 68(2): 995-998. 

Chun, J., A. Huq, and R. R. Colwell. 1999. Analysis of 16S-23S rRNA intergenic spacer 

regions of Vibrio cholerae and Vibrio mimicus. Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 

65(5): 2202-2208. 

Clesceri, L.S., A.E. Greenberg, and A.D. Eaton (eds.). 1998. Standard Methods for the 

Examination of Water and Wastewater. 20th Edition. American Water Works 

Association, Washington DC. 

Dobroski, N., L. Takata, C. Scianni and M. Falkner. 2007. Assessment of the efficacy, 

availability, and environmental impacts of ballast water treatment systems for use in 

California waters. Produced for the California State Legislature. 

EPA. 1994. Short-term methods for estimating the chronic toxicity of effluents and 

receiving waters to freshwater organisms. Third edition. U.S. EPA Environmental 

Monitoring Systems Laboratory, Cincinnati, Ohio. EPA/600/4-91-002. 

EPA. 2002. Methods for measuring the acute toxicity of effluents and receiving waters 

to freshwater and marine organisms. Fifth edition. U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency Office of Water (4303T), Washington, DC. EPA-821-R-02-012. 

EPA. 2008. Environmental Technology Verification Program. Accessed on 16 May 

2008. Website http://www.epa.gov/etv/. 

Great Ships Initiative (GSI). 2008. GSI Research Protocols. Accessed on 25 July 2008. 

Website: http://www.nemw.org/GSI/protocols.htm. NOTE: Protocols are still in draft 

form. 

• Procedure for Zooplankton Sample Analysis GSI/SOP/RDTE/SA/Z/1 

• Procedure for Algae/Small Protozoan Sample Collection GSI/SOP/RDTE/SC/P/1 

and Sample Analysis GSI/SOP/RDTE/SA/P/1 

• Procedure for the Detection and Enumeration of Enterococci by Membrane 

Filtration GSI/SOP/RDTE/SA/M/1 (

101
• Procedure for the Detection and Enumeration of E. coli by Membrane Filtration 

GSI/SOP/RDTE/SA/M/3 

(GSI/SOP/RDTE/SA/M/3

International Maritime Organization (IMO). 2005. International Convention for the 

Control and Management of Ships’ Ballast Water and Sediments. International Maritime 

Organization, London, p 138. 

Klemm, D.J., G.E. Morrison, T.J. Norberg-King, W.J. Peltier, and M.A. Heber. 1994. 

Short-term methods for estimating the chronic toxicity of effluents and receiving water to 

marine and estuarine organisms. U.S. EPA Report No. EPA-600-4-91-003. 

Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC). 2005. Draft Guidelines for Ballast 

Water Sampling for Port State Control (G2). MEPC 53/2/7. 15 April 2005. 

Nelson, B.N., E.J. Lemieux, L. Drake, D. Anderson, D. Kulis, N. Welshmeyer, S. Smith, 

C. Scianni, B. Thompson, T. Weir, S. Riley, and K. Burns. Phytoplankton Enumeration 

Workshop Final Report. Report No. CG-XX-XXXX. US Coast Guard Research and 

Development Center, Groton, CT (In Review). 

Noble, R.T., M. K. Leecaster, C.D. McGee, S.B. Weisberg, and K. Ritter. 2004. 

Comparison of bacterial indicator analysis methods in sotrmwater-affected coastal 

waters. Water Research, 38: 1183-1188. 

NSF International. 2004. Draft generic protocol for the verification of ballast water 

treatment technologies. July 2004. Prepared by Batelle. 

State Water Board 1996. Procedures Manual for Conducting Toxicity Tests Developed 

by the Marine Bioassay Project. 96-1WQ. 

State Water Board. 2005. California Ocean Plan. Water Quality Control Plan. Ocean 

Waters of California. 

Tamburri, M.N., G.E. Smith, and T.L. Mullady. 2006. Quantitative Shipboard Evaluations 

of Venturi Oxygen Stripping as a Ballast Water Treatment. 3rd International Conference 

on Ballast Water Management. Singapore, 25-26 September 2006. 

Weber, C.I., W.B. Horning, I.I., D.J. Klemm, T.W. Nieheisel, P.A. Lewis, E.L. Robinson, 

J. Menkedick and F. Kessler (eds). 1988. Short-term Methods for Estimating the 

Chronic Toxicity of Effluents and Receiving Waters to Marine and Estuarine Organisms. 

EPA/600/4-87/028. National Information Service, Springfield, VA. 

102
APPENDIX A1. ADVISORY PANEL MEMBERS AND MEETING NOTES 

Advisory Panel 

Ryan Albert 

U.S. EPA 

Rian Hooff 

Oregon Department of Environmental 

Quality 

John Berge 

Pacific Merchant Shipping Association 

Dave Lawrence 

University of Washington 

Andrea Copping 

Pacific Northwest National Laboratory 

Henry Lee 

U.S. EPA 

Annie Cox 

University of Rhode Island 

Edward Lemieux 

Naval Research Laboratory 

Fred Dobbs 

Old Dominion University 

Lucie Maranda 

University of Rhode Island 

Nicole Dobroski 

California State Lands Commission 

Allen Pleus 

Washington Department of Fish and 

Wildlife 

Richard Everett 

U.S. Coast Guard 

Kevin Reynolds 

The Glosten Associates 

Maurya Falkner 

California State Lands Commission 

Andrew Rogerson 

Fresno State University 

Ray Frederick 

ETV Program 

Chris Scianni 

California State Lands Commission 

Steve Foss 

CDFG/OSPR 

Andrea Solow, 

Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution 

Daphne Gehringer 

California State Lands Commission 

Tom Stevens 

NSF International 

Dominic Gregorio 

State Water Resources Control Board 

Mario Tamburri 

University of Maryland 

Russ Herwig 

University of Washington 

Nick Welschmeyer 

Moss Landing Marine Laboratories 

103
California State Lands Commission 

Technical Advisory Panel: 

Testing Guidelines and Verification Protocols 

February 6, 2008 

Meeting Notes 

Participants 

John Berge 

Pacific Merchant Shipping Association 

Henry Lee** 

U.S. EPA 

Andrea Copping** 

Pacific Northwest Laboratories 

Lucie Maranda** 

University of Rhode Island 

Fred Dobbs** 

Old Dominion University 

Allen Pleus** 

WA Department of Fish and Wildlife 

Nicole Dobroski 

CSLC 

Kevin Reynolds** 

The Glosten Associates 

Maurya Falkner 

CSLC 

Chris Scianni 

CSLC 

Steve Foss, 

CA Dept. Fish and Game, Office of Spill 

Prevention and Response 

Tom Stevens** 

NSF International 

Dominic Gregorio 

State Water Resources Control Board 

Mario Tamburri** 

University of Maryland 

Rian Hooff** 

Oregon Department of Environmental 

Quality 

Nick Welschmeyer 

Moss Landing Marine Lab 

** Indicates participation by phone 

Notes 

Nicole - Introduction/Background 

• Marine Invasive Species Act (MISA) required Commission to recommend 

performance standards to the Legislature 

• In 2005 a technical advisory panel met 5 five times, and a majority of the panel 

recommended standards that were included in the Commission’s performance 

standards report to the Legislature. 

• Legislature took the recommendations from the report and incorporated them into 

the Coastal Ecosystems Protection Act of 2006 (CEPA). 

• Major provisions of CEPA include: 1) Removed sunset date from MISA, 2) 

Required implementation of performance standards in accordance with 

104
performance standards report, and 3) Required a review of the efficacy, 

availability and environmental impacts of ballast water treatment systems by 

January 1, 2008 and 18 months prior to each subsequent compliance date. 

• Performance regulations – Standards were prescribed by statute and 

implemented via regulations. 

• We received input from industry. Comments focused on the standards 

themselves (desire for CA to have standard in-line with IMO or Feds) and not on 

other aspects of the regulations. 

• Regulations were approved in October 2007. The initial implementation deadline 

is January 1, 2009. 

• A copy of the regulations was emailed to you and is available on the CSLC 

website. 

• Treatment technology report assessed systems relative to California’s standards. 

• Key components of the report: efficacy, availability, environmental impacts. 

• If technologies are unavailable to meet the standards, why not. 

• Approved by the Commission in December, 2007, and then provided to the 

Legislature. 

• Compiled available scientific literature, grey papers, white papers, and 

promotional brochures. Held a workshop in Boston, and received input from a 

technical advisory panel in Sacramento. Ultimately reviewed 28 systems from 9 

countries. 

• Efficacy – only had system results for 20 of 28 systems. Lenient review of results 

by CSLC staff. Looked for demonstration of “potential for compliance” – at least 

one testing replicate in compliance with the standards. Evaluation was difficult 

due to variable testing methods and results in metrics inconsistent with CA 

standards. 

John – Any additional technologies that we missed? 

Nicole – No, we received some additional information on existing technologies, but no 

new systems. 

Nicole – Continuing with Introduction/Background 

• 11 systems had results of shipboard testing, but no technology has yet met more 

than 4 (of 7) of California’s standards. 

• Availability – function of system production, market demand, government 

approval, and efficacy. Many systems will be commercially ready by 2009. The 

lack of federal standards and approval mechanisms may be a hindrance to 

market demand. Ultimately, no systems meet California standards, thus none 

really available. 

• Environmental impacts – 21 of 28 systems use biocides. Several systems are 

approved by IMO and have received positive recommendations from WA, but 

there are no evaluation procedures in CA yet. We will be working with the State 

Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) to identify applicable water quality 

control plans and regulations. 

105
Dominic – 21 that use biocide, how many use chlorine? 

Nicole – Most use some kind of chemical oxidant – chlorine, ozone, peroxyacetic acid... 

Nicole – Intro/Background continued 

• Conclusions – systems require further development and testing, particularly at 

shipboard scale. The lack of standardized testing procedures makes evaluation 

difficult. Commission staff will continue to gather info on and support research 

addressing technology development and system evaluation, and we believe 

systems will meet CA standards in future. 

John – Industry prefers to do any system testing in consort with state and federal 

agencies in order to provide sufficient credibility to any test results. Is there potential for 

additional partnerships between state or federal agencies and the shipping community 

beyond those already taken advantage of? 

Dominic - There are protocols in order but that these were specific to discharges of 

chemicals, not ballast discharges. 

Maurya - There is no big overriding program, other than STEP, but there are smaller 

programs like the funding available under California’s Marine Invasive Species Control 

Fund. 

Mario - There are plans for development of a testing facility in Baltimore Harbor, 

Maryland that may include shipboard platforms. 

Andrea – For the facility in Washington, the conceptual drawings are complete but we 

are still a long way away from being ready to start testing technologies. The Great 

Ships Initiative facility is currently up and running but they are limited to freshwater tests 

only. The Naval Research Lab in Key West, Florida is also up and running but they will 

not be conducting commercial testing at that facility. The facility in Washington, which 

will be equipped to handle saltwater and freshwater tests, is next in line and then the 

facility in Maryland, but they are both far away. We hope for testing by mid-2009, both 

salt and freshwater. Allegra’s group will be ready sooner but limited to freshwater. Port 

of Baltimore later still, mobile platform. 

Kevin – IMO test guidelines already done by NEI. Federal are yet to get published, for 

CA the question is how to test and verify. 

Nicole – Testing guidelines relevant to CA. IMO protocols not necessarily relevant, not a 

lot of focus on # critters/volume. Must also develop verification protocols. Testing 

guidelines will lead to verification protocols. 

Dominic – How feasible to assess BW prior to discharge? 

Kevin – Dip a tank. The question is how to accurately sample a tank. 

106
Mario – Testing for efficacy of a system involves both: 1) Rigorous assessment, and 2) 

Compliance monitoring using indirect measures of treatment. 

Nick – Some kind of applied test 

Nicole - continued 

• Recommendation to Legislature in technology assessment report – 1) Change 

initial implementation date for new vessels with ballast water capacity less than 

5000 metric tons from 2009 to 2010 [Note: the Bill number was incorrect as 

provided during the meeting, will let you know when we know the correct bill 

number], 2) Authorize Commission to amend reporting requirements via 

regulations, 3) Support continued research promoting technology development 

 Next Steps - 

• Change initial implementation date from 2009 to 2010 and change reporting 

requirements, will be introduced in omnibus bill 

• Work with SWRCB to identify applicable water quality requirements 

• Treatment system testing and evaluation guidelines – guidelines not system 

approval. CSLC won’t approve systems but we don’t want to take a complete 

hands off approach. Want to provide treatment developers with testing guidelines 

(hopefully for 3rd party/independent labs), so they can self-certify their systems as 

compliant with CA’s standards. Guidelines will help inform us about results of 

system efficacy testing and will also provide valuable info to vessel 

owners/operators prior to system purchase. 

• Protocols for verification of compliance with performance standards. A set of 

protocols that inspectors can take to a vessel to sample and bring to lab for 

analysis. Everything from how to get a sample to how to handle it to what labs 

can do it. 

• Want to get guidelines out first because will provide developers with suggested 

methods for testing systems. Have more time to develop protocols. Even if 

implementation date remains 2009, most 2009 new builds won’t hit the water 

until 2010 at the earliest. Verification protocols will follow from testing guidelines 

for sampling and sample analysis. 

Chris – Panel will provide advice and expertise to fill in gaps. Guidelines will benefit all. 

Hope to get guidelines out by end of summer. Plan to hold 4 meetings: 1) Discuss 

overall framework, 2) Land based testing, 3) Ship based testing, and 4) 

Sampling/viability assessment. Approximately 4 meetings, one every 4 to 6 weeks. For 

today, discuss framework 

Andrea – Don’t move too far away from ETV protocols. 

Tom – ETV protocols and issues of ambient vs. surrogate species. The updated ETV 

protocols may be available towards the end of the year, possibly sooner. Fred Dobbs is 

working on report on BW surrogates. Also Ted Lemieux’s work in Key West will be 

useful. 

107
Kevin – Three issues for discussion: 1) Reassure that our guidelines will be related to 

ETV/IMO protocols, 2) Self-certification, and 3) Verification. 

Tom- Specific testing guidelines will need to change from system to system. The 

manufacturer and the testing lab should be compelled to “dream up” a plan. Build in 

flexibility to adapt to how a system functions. 

Kevin - The focus of this TAP should be to start with the end of pipe testing methods 

and work backwards from there. These will be the methods that will be used to verify 

compliance so the suggested protocols should stem from them, not the other way 

around. Should also think about sticking to shipboard testing for the time being and how 

to enforce end of pipe discharge. 

Dominic – SWRCB focus on end of pipe. 

John – Concerned about ship operations. 

Dominic – Bacteria testing procedures – simple. 

John - How will vessels know these systems are working? 

Mario – Once they understand how a system works they can develop indicators. Indirect 

measurement. Sensor testing – can make measurement ozone, chlorine, etc... Can be 

adapted to in-tank or upon-discharge. Engineering very do-able. 

Kevin – Self-certification ties into end of pipe, self-certification needs to be linked to end 

of pipe. 

Nicole - Moving on to testing guidelines and system documentation (operations, 

environmental assessment) 

Nick – Where on ship to test for compliance? Will manufactures add specific ports for 

end of pipe testing for CA? How does a biologist measure and verify that CA standards 

are being met? Testing for WA, IMO and CA – appropriate test for each class. Test 

used needs to be specific for each size class. Not much quibbling over live/dead greater 

than 50 microns. 

Mario – Work to quantify organisms. Zooplankton standard live/dead (no brainer), 

indicator pathogens utilize standard off the shelf MPN (no brainer) – 10-24 hours to get 

results etc...What to do about phytoplankton? Take whole water samples and 1) 

measure chlorophyll, then subsample and grow out and measure chlorophyll 

Vs. 2) total cell counts. Conservative approach. 

Mario - 10 – 50 microns, quantitative no. No assay that gives number. 

108
Andrea – Need quick techniques. Ted’s work will be key part of protocols, get 

agreement with our protocols and his work. 

Nicole – For the sampling procedures and analysis, what are the basic components? 

Mario – Recommend build framework but recognize that there are several way to treat, 

build in flexibility. 

Kevin – Add end of pipe testing. ID measureable variables from end of pipe work. ID 

and measure. Vessel/treatment system needs automation, red light, green light to 

demonstrate that it’s working. Self-certification involves lots of testing to ensure some 

real tracers to ease of end of pipe testing in certified lab. 

John – Cost? E.coli/Enterococcus? 

Dominic - $200 roughly 

Nick – Message to industry, manufacturer must know that a self-test be developed. 

Machine – red light/green light control needs to be incorporated. 

Nicole – Should we flip it around? Start with verification protocols. 

Rian – Less emphasis on land based, this document should focus on application. 

Kevin – Focus on items unique to CA. How to enforce end of pipe standard? Thrown 

around end of pipe test regimes. We need to discuss regimes. 

1) Rapid assay – allow CSLC inspectors to quickly assess compliance 

2) Routine inspections to test whether system is operating (e.g. are chemicals 

present in correct concentrations). Red light/green light controls with periodic 

biological testing. 

3) Treatment developers – secondary indicators that based on past tests, meet 

standards, system being used accordingly. 

Nicole – Can address items 2 and 3. We need to find answers to #1. 

John – What happens when ship owner fined for non-compliance? 

Maurya – Don’t know yet. 

Dominic – Rapid indicators works in 4 plus hours 

Mario – Problem is diversity of organisms. Numbers generally small, very dilute. 

Dominic – For bacteria, tests already available. Methods out there, but perhaps more 

expensive. Total bacteria/virus counts 

109
Nick – Organism groups where are we? E.coli 

Fred – Live bacteria? CFU, not applicable to marine systems. 

Mario – Concerned 

Nicole- Mario did you test to G8 guidelines for NEI? 

Mario – Yes, sort of. Originally no then adapted as we went along. Independent 3rd party 

facilities – GSI, Batelle, Port of Baltimore. 

Nicole - We can use the IMO guidelines and modify as appropriate. We need to 

standardize as much as possible while IDing unique CA component. 

Dominic – Need to let everyone know about water quality requirements involved. Toxic 

assessment chlorine residuals requirements. 

Nicole – Yes, we need to focus on this. 

Nick - Want to hear from sewage treatment experts. Exactly what tests do they use? 

Freshwater/sewage background should have lists of appropriate tests, including 

precision estimates, for testing human pathogenic bacteria. 

Dominic to put together a powerpoint presentation. 3 tests done: 1) Multiple tube 

fermentation, 2) membrane filtration, 3) IDEXX 

Kevin – Really hard to do sophisticated testing on a vessel. No personnel dedicated to 

monitoring. 

Mario – Sampling design side needs work. Need to understand appropriate sampling 

methodology. Need for a statistician to become involved. Given the volumes involved, 

there are many statistical considerations that may warrant the need for a statistician, 

Dominic – Composite sampling may help ease concern over when to sample during 

ballast cycle. Sample container over time while discharging to achieve statistical rigor. 

Tom – Meeting in Providence looked at stats about designs. But this document was 

general not specific to standards. Will send a copy to Nicole of report and participant 

list. 

Mario – Will also look at document. 

Kevin – Environmental assessment, 21 of 28 utilize biocide. GESAMP rejected 

TechCross electrochlorination system because they were uncomfortable with the 

robustness of the dechlorination system. 

110
Nicole – IMO originally rejected NKO3 

Dominic – Chlorine instantaneous max (from Ocean Plan) 60 ppb, but right now 

excludes vessel discharges. Plan to fix this in future. 

Kevin – Treatment vendors submit to WA DEQ, follows WET test. DEQ would assess 

and DEQ can say they accept discharges. 

Dominic – Broaden Ocean Plan, but performance standards responsibility of CSLC to 

include vessels standards. 

Kevin – Need to include toxicity information 

Allen – Federal legislation discusses reception facilities 

Dominic - Sewage treatment facilities are unable to accept saltwater into their plants. 

Also, land-based ballast water reception facilities are unlikely because the land is too 

valuable/expensive to build shore side facilities. However, if that does happen, they 

could use the protocols that we develop. 

Lucie- All the guidelines on sampling discharge are not that easy to do. May use more 

than one area from tanks for discharges. Retention of ballast water = compliance. Move 

ballast water from one tank to another, need to consider this. Not simple. Some vessels 

don’t discharge their ballast and may store it for years. 

Nicole – Our next steps will be to compile the notes. We’ll work on a new framework 

and get that out to you. We’d like to hold another meeting somewhere around the 2nd or 

3rd week of March. Will send email with proposed dates. Questions? 

Adjourn 

 

111
California State Lands Commission 

Technical Advisory Panel: 

Testing Guidelines and Verification Protocols 

March 10, 2008 

Meeting Notes 

Participants: 

Nicole Dobroski, CSLC Dave Lawrence, University of Washington 

Rich Everett, U.S. Coast Guard Ted Lemieux, Key West Naval Research Lab 

Maurya Falkner, CSLC Lucie Maranda, University of Rhode Island 

Daphne Gehringer, CSLC Chris Scianni, CSLC 

Dominic Gregorio, State Water 

Resources Control Board 

Andrew Solow, Woods Hole Oceanographic 

Institute 

Russ Herwig, University of Washington Mario Tamburri, University of Maryland 

Rian Hooff, Oregon Department of 

Environmental Quality 

Nick Welschmeyer, Moss Landing Marine Lab 

Meeting Summary: 

Nicole welcomed everyone to the meeting. Participants introduced themselves, and 

Nicole discussed the purpose of the meeting - to consider methods of quantifying and 

assessing the viability of organisms greater than 10 micrometers (microns) in size 

(predominantly zooplankton and phytoplankton) for compliance with California’s 

performance standards. 

Nicole gave a brief overview of some considerations (cost, time, scientific 

acceptability...) the CSLC must keep in mind with respect to what assays may be 

appropriate in determining abundance and viability of zooplankton and phytoplankton. 

From there, the participants began a discussion of methods for organisms greater than 

50 microns in size. Ted discussed his development of a video mobility tool that will 

examine a sample and then quantify the abundance of live organisms in the sample 

based on movement. He projects that the device will be ready for others by the end of 

the year. The device has not been used with vital stains yet. It will be automated, quick 

to operate (5-10 minutes per sample) and could be used by an untrained individual. 

Russ pointed out that for filtration/concentration purposes the net mesh must be 50 

microns on the diagonal (i.e. essentially a 33 micron mesh net) in order to capture the 

right size class of organisms. 

112
The discussion then moved to the use of neutral red as a vital stain to assist with 

counting organisms in a sample. One method of determining the number of live 

organisms was to stain and then count all of the non-moving ones before preserving the 

entire sample and making a total count. The number of live organisms in the sample 

would be the difference. Ultimately the most common method of determining viability 

remains the “poke test.” 

Rich argued for changing the focus of the discussion from specific techniques to a 

broader discussion of the hierarchical progression of determining whether or not a 

system is in compliance with the standard. He suggested that California will need a firstcut approach to verification testing that could be used by inspectors to broadly 

determine whether or not a system has been operational and meets the standard within 

an order of magnitude. This broad testing could then be followed by specific, intense 

testing if the vessel does not appear to have treated its ballast water in compliance with 

the standards. 

Dominic mentioned that DHS has a relatively easy to use field microscope that is used 

in HAB determinations. A similar type field microscope could be used to determine the 

abundance of live/moving zooplankton and some phytoplankton species in a sample. 

Mario stated that chlorophyll fluorescence may serve as a similar first cut proxy for the 

relative abundance of phytoplankton cells in a sample. Although chlorophyll use may 

have more pitfalls because samples that include recently lysed cells may still have 

chlorophyll present in solution. This would lead to a false positive result. 

For CSLC, this type of semi-quantitative first-cut assessment could then be used in 

conjunction with onboard paperwork demonstrating system operation over the 

appropriate time period. If any flags are raised during this process, the vessel could be 

identified for further inspection. 

The group discussed the need for each treatment system to have some indicator or 

recording device that will demonstrate system operation over the appropriate time 

period. An inspector should be able to board the vessel and check this system or 

printout and determine that the system was operational. Russ and Mario stated that 

some systems already have such systems. Everyone agreed that the maritime industry 

should put pressure on technology developers to include these operational 

sensors/recording devices on their systems. 

Nicole moved the discussion to the development of testing guidelines for technology 

developers. Rich urged CSLC to look at the ETV public draft [Version 2.6] because it is 

information-rich and will be standardized at the federal level. Maurya countered that the 

draft was out of date, but Rich commented that at least it is better than a set of 

unconnected test procedures, and the next ETV protocol draft should be available later 

this year. 

113
The discussion moved back to verification protocols and most agree that for 

zooplankton, the poke test and neutral red staining (although not perfect) was the way 

to go for now. 

 

Nicole then introduced Andrew to provide statistical advice on how much water to 

sample to determine compliance with the greater than 50 micron size class. Andrew 

wanted to know whether or not the sample could be assumed to be randomly 

distributed. Nick and Russ said patchy, but later Nick suggested that we ignore the 

patchiness prediction because it is impossible to know zooplankton behavior in a ballast 

tank or in the discharge stream. Nick then commented that the natural coastal 

environmental has 1-100 copepods per L, 100,000’s animals per m3. Andy suggested 

that CSLC must determine what the null vs. alternative hypothesis should be and then 

what level of confidence do we find appropriate for verification purposes. CSLC must 

also determine if the hypothesis involves wanting to know the mean density in the tank 

or the presence or absence of zooplankton in one sample. These are different questions 

and will require different methods. 

As the meeting wrapped up, Nicole brought the discussion back to the 10 – 50 micron 

size class. Nick suggested MPN analysis is the most appropriate for this size class. 

Russ and Lucie both use a similar technique. Nick pointed out that the serial dilutions 

would have to be carried out to “nothingness” to be done correctly. The process also 

takes several weeks to grow out, and Lucie commented that the duration required for 

the culture based methods will depend on what species/concentration you are looking 

for. 

Nicole said the notes would be compiled and distributed and that the next meeting 

would take place on March 17. 

Detailed Meeting Notes: 

Nicole began with an overview of considerations including cost, time, complexity, 

chemicals/equipments, applicability of techniques, scientific acceptability etc... 

Question: What extent will we see phytoplankton in greater than 50 micron size class? 

Lucie – Some species can create chains/colonies. 

Ted - Chain formers are not a single organism. Address them by non-chain size. IMO 

says “in minimum dimension”. Greater than 50 micron phytoplankton treat with 

“standard zooplankton technique.” Take 1 ml aliquot, count non-moving (dissecting 

scope), hit with tonic water (?), count again, examine using video mobility tool (confident 

in technique), record for 10-30 seconds, note how many have moved, and how many 

haven’t. It has been used for phytoplankton. Within this calendar year, we will develop 

method that can be used by an untrained person with repeatability. 

Lucie - Similar method as Ted’s. Look at control. Lots of live organisms, remove nonmoving/look dead, treat with neutral red, then poke test. Treatment tank - remove dead, 

114
look at moving, poke them. Separate the critters by dead and alive, and pick out 

whichever group has less organisms using a stereomicroscope. 

Nicole - Time consuming? 

Lucie - Dominant species removed quickly. Nauplii take a lot of time. 

Russ - Poke and prod test. Need to use a net less 50 μm to fractionate and keep 50um 

size (diagonal size of 50 μm). Concerned with sensitivity towards CA standards (need to 

collect 1m3 to look for the “rare” organism that may be still alive) because they are not 

collecting that much water. May collect many liters, then take 1 liter total from samples 

and examine under stereo microscope. Not a rapid throughput method. Could stain with 

neutral red. Try to target a few species, and not focus on all species. 

Nicole - We use the live counts as more of a flag than a consequence. We’re looking at 

it with other regulators and statisticians: high volume or not. High level of precision is 

being discussed, but in reality is not going to be used for compliance in the field. 

Russ- The smaller you go, the harder it becomes to assess live/dead and and it 

becomes nearly impossible to ID species. 

 

Mario - For shipboard testing, if the system is working, it’s easy to tell. Use 1 m3

/tank, 

don’t count every single organism. It’s not hard to count 0-low individuals. Is there a 

problem or not- should be quick and easy to do. But won’t hold up in court. 

Maurya- This is relative. Great than 50 rule is zero, that’s an easy criterion. If not met, 

we’ll allow more time to solve problems to allow developers to update technology. 

 

Ted - The video allows us to have an automated stage, and first analysis takes 5-10 

minutes. Goes fast. When deliberately testing for certain populations...need to look at 

surrogates with high sediment amounts. Employable by an untrained person. 

Rian - Question to Ted: Do you use 1 ml aliquots (A: I don’t know)? Examine 1 field of 

view (A: Yes). 

Ted - We can zoom in on the image digitally to look for smaller motion (flagella). 

Rian - But the heat from lamp can cause convection. 

Ted - We’re trying to make sure that alive is alive. It is not commercially available, and 

uses a MATLAB code. 

Nicole - Have you used stains? 

Ted - No, not now. We’re toying with that idea. 

115
Nicole - What about Neutral red? 

Ted - We’re thinking about it. 

Lucie - Neutral red and evan’s blue, success varies between species and is quite 

variable. Most of the problems with the zooplankton is the abundance of sediment. It’s 

difficult to filter and process sample. Could be a problem with the video camera method. 

Samples with 1” of sediment and 1⁄4” of animals from discharge clog the nets, very 

difficult to see if alive. 

Rian - Previous experience with poke test shipboard sampling had the same problems: 

time constraints, resource limitations. Are there advances in stains? Doesn’t sound like 

it has changed much. 

Nicole - Any other stains? 

Rich - In looking for compliance methods, like ETV, consider hierarchical progression: 

look for things that can be done onboard that has simple-moderate technique and 

equipment. Second level, the sample can be taken back to a lab, to be examined with 

higher technology. Still semi-quantitative. Can be expanded to look at species 

composition. No preconceived ideas about what inspectors can use other than 

microscopes. You don’t want to always have a microscope to do the test, because they 

won’t always have time. Depends on what your lawyers say you can do. The result of 

the determination isn’t a fine, but will advance to the next step. If your treatment is 

working, then it is pretty evident, determining concentration is easy. But if you can 

visually, with a minimum of microscopy, assess >10, 10-100 organisms or more, should 

be good enough. There is value there. Don’t need to quantify further. Consider a 

probabilistic approach: probability table that tells you chance that the ballast water 

exceeds the discharge standard. Take more than one sample over a reasonable time 

(minutes), if there is anything swimming around, it would give you an idea if it is 

successful treatment. You could then investigate to take a more substantial sample, and 

maintain it until you can look at it more rigorously, and determine concentrations. 

Dominic - For CSLC, do you examine before or while discharging. 

Maurya - Upon discharge. What about a first crude estimate? Look at a glass of water in 

the light, do you see anything? 

Rich - Yes, refraction of light off organisms, can maybe determine order of magnitude, 

not concentration. 

Dominic - DPH’s first cut for HAB: field microscope, sample in capillary tube. Any one 

can do it. Can distribute methods, should be online. I’ll try to get that out. 

Maurya - DPH has the same as us: simple microscope for quick analysis. 

116
Dominic- Maybe need a bigger capillary, probably easy to make. 

 

Rian - Gallon container with a flashlight. Garbage can of known volume run through 

sieve to condense. 

Rich - Does it have to be a 1m^3? Or if it’s a concentration, maybe you don’t necessarily 

need that much. Maybe 3-5 1L samples? 

Maurya - For the first phase, we want to evaluate the situation and find a solution. If 

things aren’t working we need to work with developers. Is that what you do at 

Waterboard? 

Dominic - Storm water is a new program, it’s kind of like that. 

Maurya - We’re going to have to take an iterative approach, too, like storm water 

(Dominic) 

Dominic - Give a little bit of slack. 

Maurya - Try to keep the concentration within an order of magnitude. 

Dominic - Maybe have a grace period. 

Nicole - If there are larger guys (>50) are there always smaller guys (<50)? 

Rich - Not necessarily. There could be differences in susceptibility. The HAB technique 

sounds like it’s working, so you could switch back and forth between the two size 

groups and techniques. That covers 95% of the potential problem and is a huge 

improvement. 

Nick - Does the State do any viability or proxy test: stain, oxygen detection test. What 

would be an okay first cut of is the system working, do you need a concentration? 

 

Rich - For enforcement, yes. For first cut, the concentration gives you an idea about 

how to get to the next step. 

Nicole - Do you flag that vessel, and look at them again later, then penalize if they fail 

again? 

 

Rich - We agree with ramp approach for enforcement. If the ballast is teaming with 

animals, then stop the discharge. Are the ballast inspectors also examining water 

quality? 

Maurya - Vendors need to provide documentation on their system that they have a 

working system (ETV, GSI or something about how the system works) so the inspectors 

117
have a reference sheet. If there is a chemical residual, we pull in Dominic for this 

conversation. 

Dominic - Can you have enforcement without a number, yes. If there is oil floating in the 

water, you’ve violated the law. You can quantify it later, but if it is visible right there, that 

is a violation. There is a first cut, a notice, not a fine at the Waterboard. The inspector 

can do that on the spot. If you come back and do it again, then you are in trouble. 

Maurya - Same here. Notice first and then target for top priority inspection. 

Russ - Aliquot of discharge can be semi-quantitative: Collect 1 L and anything moving is 

an obvious violation. Increase volume on 10 fold scale (concentrate sample) and that 

should work. 

Dominic - You could have a flat flask with a certain amount of water, and look at with 

magnifying glass to see zooplankton. 

Russ - Would be nice to standardize with poke test. 

Mario - Another simple approach for the next size class [10 – 50 microns] is chlorophyll 

fluorescence. 

Dominic - Does that determine live/dead? 

 

Russ - If chlorophyll is too low for detection, no cell is alive. But dead can have some 

chlorophyll. 

Dave - Chlorophyll is pretty good indicator. However, If you use UV treatment (which 

does not lyse cells), they may still contain chlorophyll for some time after treatment. So 

chlorophyll would not be a good indicator of organism viability after UV treatment. 

Mario - If they are treating upon uptake, then those cells should be pretty dead after a 

couple of days. 

Dave - Yes. 

Nicole - What about coastal voyages? 

(???) - Depends on technology. 

Lucie - After the first day, chlorophyll is gone. 

Mario - Same idea that if you see chlorophyll you should test further. If no chlorophyll, 

then it could be okay. 

118
Maurya - We do need to have some kind of red light green light, rapid assessment. We 

do need to come up with guidelines for how does a technology developer do testing to 

meet our standards because developers need more stringent test than what we will do 

in the field. 

Nick - Agree with Mario, put it on the shoulder of the manufacturer. But things can get 

misinterpreted quickly. Does chlorophyll determines viability? Maybe too much of a 

blanket statement. Some people might not like it for one reason or another. 

Rich - How does the regulator tell if the system is working correctly? How does the 

inspector tell if the system is working correctly? Look at some kind of law of operation. 

This kind of a treatment should have done X... 

Nicole - Developers should give that out to each boat. 

Maurya - Need an idiot proof system. Matson indicates need for integrated system: 

system recording, warning which requires a response from crew. A no effort, 

automated system. 

Ted - Will the owner of the ship want to use a piece of equipment that they don’t know if 

it works until examined by an inspector. Build in a testing capability. 

Nicole - Are they building these in? 

Nick - No. They wish they had it. 

Mario - They [NEI] have a built-in indicator. Measured pretty straight forward, tests for 

oxygen concentration. For the biocides, they’ve worked out proper concentrations. They 

know when it will work and when it won’t , and they know how to test for that. 

Nick - Is there an oxygen sensor that gives you a number? 

Mario – Measures temp, salinity, and oxygen. Then they know what the water is like 

(using a formula). Can measure indirectly. 

Dominic - As sewage plants are discharging, the sensors continuously check the record. 

Russ - Severn Trent putting inline sensors in their systems. [The inline systems can 

measure oxidant concentrations (called TRO, for total residual oxidant). A different 

sensor could measure Eh (oxidation reduction potential). In presence of oxidant, Eh is 

a large positive number.] 

Nick - Counting on developers to have a perfectly running system that will tell you when 

it doesn’t work is a big expectation for not wanting to prod anybody. Only test for CA is a 

proxy measurement. 

119
Nicole - Vessels will want this because they will go after treatment developers if they fail 

inspection. 

 

Nick - It is conceivable that their own monitoring device doesn’t work, and there is no 

calibration. Maybe there needs to be prodding to match sensors with probability testing. 

Maurya - There will be prodding. But tell maritime industry to go after technology 

developers. We are not going to approve systems. It has to meet this standard. 

Dominic - SWRCB and EPA do not approve systems. There are unique situations. 

Generally, we set up limits, and they have to meet them. 

Maurya - The ultimate goal is to provide guidance. Go to ETV, go to whoever, but you 

have to take this into consideration how to record specs on your system. 

Rich - Question for Dominic: Maybe Nick’s question has relevance for Waterboard. 

Water treatment plant uses chlorine, and has a probe, do you specify which probe to 

use? 

Dominic - We do not approve certain products. Just standards, and manufacturers will 

have to meet them. 

Rich - Right, probe vs. analytic measurements should be guided. 

Maurya - Same with human health indicators. We can identify labs with in-house 

capabilities. 

 

BREAK 

Nicole - We have a good idea of what the inspectors could do (gross violations). When 

giving the developers guidelines, what techniques do we want to tell them about (ETV 

not ready) for testing the 50 μm size class? 

Rich - ETV has a public draft. There are no ETV certified test facilities. Is there a 

problem if we tell developers to check out draft ETV? The general direction is clear. The 

updated draft will be available around summer, but do you need test facilities? 

Nicole - We don’t want to give them a test facility, we do need to give them direction. 

Rich - That will open up a can of worms. They’ll want guidance on how to go about 

testing. And we’ll have to write something as information rich. Like, here are 1-2 tests 

you can do, but they’ll all do them differently. Is there a sense that developers need the 

ETV, or are they moving just on the standards? 

Nicole - They are starting to move on our standards (i.e. consistent units). If there are 

gross violations, we will need to get concentrations of critters. 

120
Rich - You’ll want to give something for the technology developers in a standardized 

fashion so that they verify the system is performing correctly. You are just 

recommending them the tests, so the guidelines are standardized. Results will be still 

be hodgepodge without being inconsistent with the guidelines. You will have to specify 

your tests, because that’s what the developers will test their systems with. And they’ll 

use that to sell their product. You have to direct them to develop a complete protocol. 

Maurya - Which protocol? 

Rich - Get the draft ETV protocol, get from Tom at NSF 

Maurya - It hasn’t changed since 2004. 

Rich - Then recommend to them a set of unconnected test procedures (e.g. Nick, phyto; 

UW, zoop; X, bacteria). Every aspect of the tests will be so different, that the numbers 

will be irrelevant. So it doesn’t help anyone. 

Nicole - Maybe we should focus on what we are doing for compliance, and let them 

figure out how they are going to do it. 

Dominic - Yep, send that out, and get comments. 

Nicole - Vessel comes in and violates the “beaker and the flashlight” test. If we want to 

know what those numbers are, how much water do we need? 

Nick - Is it time to say what our favorite methods are? My vision: things will change over 

time, scientists are still developing methods ourselves. Our group can only try to work 

on getting a protocol, it’s not straightforward. 

Nicole - Poke test isn’t the ultimate test. We will have to update our protocols regularly. 

But we have to use what is around now for today’s guidelines. Are there techniques are 

available? 

Nick - Russ does the poke test, Mario isn’t here. Will provide names of new tests. 

Lucie - Zooplankton, poke and neutral red, sizeable volume that has been concentrated. 

There are problems with sediment. Poke method is something that is simple and seems 

to work. 

Russ - I agree 

Nick - I agree 

(???) - NRL with video motion detection is a good direction, and sounds like a faster 

method. Sample size (1 M^3) sounds good. Split sample and look at representatives. 

121
Nicole - To Andrew Solow. Intro to Andy. 

Dominic - How many gallons of ballast water is going to be released? 

Nicole - Andy says not relevant. It is about a concentration and if it’s detectable per 1m3. 

Andy - The question is: How powerful is the test? Given low density, what is the 

probability of finding none? If there are living organisms, then it failed the test. 

Dominic: If you sample at the very beginning, then you should sample later on the 

discharge. 

Andrew: That’s the randomness assumption. If they are distributed patchy or nonrandom, then you have to do something differently. 

Nick/Russ - Patchy 

Russ - 1,2,3, 3rd of ballast discharge. 3x 1m3

 samples. (per IMO). 

Andy - If you can characterize the heterogeneity...if not, it is an ad hoc thing. 

Lucie - IMO did this to get an idea of what is in the tank. The samples are combined 

statistically. 

Rich - Is important to look at the IMO recommendation with caution...There is 

recommendation to sample the beginning, middle, end. The amount of water to be 

examined represents a periphery compromised solution and self interest of flag states 

and shipping industry, and makes sure that a port’s ability to test those conditions is 

low. If you have a discharge standard that you have to have a concentration, and look at 

that in a hierarchical fashion: how are you going to do that ...how extensive was the 

violation. You could take one sample and make your determination from that. If you 

want to repeat that, then it is an independent observation. 

Nicole - If we take one sample, and know that it is a patchy distribution...? 

Rich - You want to figure out when to sample to most likely get an animal. What’s the 

likelihood that it is a minor or major violation. 

Nick - Given a choice for the assumption of sampling, I’d go with Andrew and ignore the 

patchiness because it involves predicting zooplankton behavior, because we don’t know 

how they act in a ballast tank. CA regulation is good because there is a set 

concentration, and you need to know the natural abundance level to determine the 

volume of water you need to analyze. Natural coastal environment has 1-100 copepods 

per L, or 100,000’s animals per m^3. To show that we have zero copepods, how much 

water? 

122
Andy - CA sets the standard, and to determine whether or not they meet the standard, 

do you test null hypothesis (there are no critters) or alternate hypothesis (there are 

critters), and that’s up to you. How do you do this test? Assume non-zero standard and 

random distribution. Using the formula, you can get how much water you need. If the 

standard is zero, then if you find any then they failed. You can calculate the volume of 

water. In the case of the patchy distribution, there are standard statistical tests to make 

the same kind of calculations. All that matters is the total volume of the water. There is 

information in the variability between the samples. Need to sample separate quantities 

but same kind of test. You might be able just to take your separate sample and 

consolidate in the end if it is a depth patchiness. 

Nick – This is about volume, not poke test, the more complicated you assume the 

vessel is, the more water you will have to sample? Andy? 

Andy - The null is that standard is met, and the alternate that it is not...all a function of 

the true density in the tank. If the concentration is just above the standard, you will have 

to take a little water. The higher the concentration from than the standard, the less water 

you need. If you want to be 95% confident that the null is met, then you can ... 

If it’s patchy, then you need separate samples. If patchy you need to know how patchy 

to develop the test (variability between samples). For the power, need to do more 

looking into. 

Dominic - How long do they discharge? 

Lucie - 45 minutes for the barge type vessels, or can take hours if they are loading. 

Maurya - Do not discharge based on maximum ability. We are talking about inline 

sampling, it’s pretty good (Ted), is better than dip net where the collection of animals is 

more patchy. Tanks are drained from bottom. How does the patchiness relate to inline 

sampling (we know that for dip nets, patchy). If the tank is draining from the bottom, is 

the patchiness still a problem? 

(???): I have seen changes in turbidity/suspended material over a discharge. Brazil at 

IMO brought in data that you should not sample during the first 10% and the final 10% 

because they found greatly elevated sediments and would make it impossible to 

quantify plankton. BUT if plankton are just particles, that is the exact time that the 

plankton would be there. The temporal patchiness is hugely dependent on where 

plankton are in there. Can have affinity for water air interface....someone would have to 

do lots of work to determine when the most obvious point of the discharge. Focus on 

what is being discharged. What is the level of effort. Each moment is a violation of 

discharge. 

Andy - I interpreted the mean density of animals in the tanks is X. It would be difficult if 

all zooplankton aggregate and you take that one sample, you have misconceived notion 

of the concentration in the tank. Strange. 

123
Andy - Same thought: if that is your sampling rule, this is how well you will be able to 

detect things. There is a confusion of the goal and the sampling. Are you going to take 

10 samples, and if you fail any one, then you fail. That’s different from mean density. 

You need to work with the hypothesis, then develop method. 

Nick - Better to filter 5m^3 per time, and get concentrations. You should get numbers of 

well above 100’s, and there is no customization of rules. No matter how elegant the 

stats, the zooplankton counts have not been this regimented. 

Nicole - We want to think about what volume of water 

Nick - Need to know natural concentration, and base your stats on that to determine 

when you are confident. 

Andy - You might need different volume based on origin, that is a different story 

Nick - That is different and a moving target, but needed to know how well to study. 

Andy - Natural density is not related to density needed to invade. 

Nick - You don’t want to be so conservative as to mention the entire tank. But need to 

be certainty in your zero. Too low of a volume would guarantee zero. 

10 individuals/L is typical for coastal phyto. Chose the volume to get high power. 

Andy - We can work on volume when Null =0 

Nicole – Back to 10 -50 micron size class. Any techniques we should look up? 

Nick - Not my favorite technique: Most probable number (MPN). Is it appropriate for this 

size class? 

Russ - We use that [MPN] technique. It works. While we have not fractionated samples 

for MPN in the past, we plan to do so for future shipboard tests. We have a manifold 

system so you pour sample water through the top, it goes through the 35 μm mesh 

screen and then that water passes through the 10 μm filter. Done in triplicate. It works 

well. Capture 3 volumes (3 replicates) 100, 10, 1 mL. Set up with 3 funnel systems and 

for the first set, run the sample through each funnel. 25um filter goes onto a multiwall 

plate with media and F2 phytoplankton medium, and incubate 12 hours light /12 hours 

dark under ambient temperature. It’s cultural technique, therefore you can only 

enumerate those who grow, so we use in conjunction of chlorophyll analysis of the 

same sample. 

Lucie - MPN as well. We don’t have manifold, do in tubes. Similar set up. Seems to 

work. There are limitations, so we use other methods at the same time (three dilutions, 

124
6 replicates). There is growth in control or limited growth in treatment, in conjunction 

with our other measurements. Fairly conclusive. 

Nick - There is a long history of MPN, but not common in terms of phytoplankton 

problems. When the treatment works, of course MPN works. Zero is the only good 

number from an MPN. You can dilute the original sample to “nothingness”, did it grow 

when there is only one cell? To do it properly...Diluting 1 order of magnitude is too 

much. If you had 0.1 animal/ml and used 1ml you will not get growth. MPN is not 

applicable to everything. You can test yourself by putting lots of cells in the MPN. It 

produces the result of ...What contrives sample volume....Or as Russ is doing, take 

100ml, concentrated it, then dilute it. Excellent chance that the one cell will not make it. 

Russ - MPN has a stats table with 95% confidence intervals. The 100 ml subsample 

would not be diluted, but placed into a growth medium. 

Nick - True, but the confidence is +/- an order of magnitude. 

Russ - You only get presence/absence for a particular subsample, not direct 

enumeration. To reduce the confidence intervals, greater numbers of replicates are 

required for each sample volume. 

Nick - Takes 3.5 weeks because you have one cell to get a detectable population. 

Inconvenient 

Lucie - Culture based methods depend on what are you satisfied with. If it takes too 

long, look earlier. 

Nick - If there is only one cell, you need all of that time. 

Lucie - For compliance you could wait 6 months.... 

Nicole – Next meeting March 17, organisms less than 10 microns in size. 

Adjourn 

125
California State Lands Commission 

Technical Advisory Panel: 

Testing Guidelines and Verification Protocols 

March 17, 2008 

Meeting Notes 

Participants: 

Annie Cox , University of Rhode Island Russ Herwig, University of Washington 

Fred Dobbs, Old Dominion University Lucie Maranda, University of Rhode Island 

Nicole Dobroski, CSLC Allen Pleus, WA Dept. Fish and Wildlife 

Maurya Falkner, CSLC Andrew Rogerson, soon to be Fresno State 

Ray Frederick, ETV Program Chris Scianni, CSLC 

Daphne Gehringer, CSLC Tom Stevens, NSF International 

Dominic Gregorio, State Water 

Resources Control Board 

Nick Welschmeyer, Moss Landing Marine Lab 

Meeting Summary: 

Nicole welcomed everyone to the meeting. Participants introduced themselves, and 

Nicole discussed the purpose of the meeting - to consider methods of quantifying and 

assessing the viability of organisms less than 10 microns in size (human health indicator 

species and total bacteria and virus counts) for compliance with California’s 

performance standards. 

Dominic presented an overview of California’s water quality objectives for human health 

indicator species (coliform, fecal coliform, enterococci...) for coastal and ocean waters. 

He provided some specific examples for San Francisco Bay and the LA region. This 

information can be found in California’s Ocean Plan or in specific regional Basin Plans. 

Dominic then proceeded to discuss the need for indicator/surrogate species in water 

quality analysis. He then focused on three common methods of determining indicator 

species presence and viability including: multiple tube fermentation, membrane filtration 

and enzyme substrate (IDEXX, Colilert, Enterolert) 

There was some discussion about the need to dilute samples for the aforementioned 

tests and whether this could impact test sensitivity. Additionally, participants discussed 

how salt water or biocides could interfere with test processes and lead to false results. 

Dominic went on to discuss Vibrio cholerae. Vibrio is not an indicator species. You can 

get interference from local waters when running the tests unless you know what 

126
serogroup you are looking for. Fred commented that serotypes O1 and O139 are 

associated with toxicogenicity, but these serotypes are not always toxicogenic. It would 

be incorrect to think that O1 and O139 = always toxic. 

The discussion moved to rapid tests. Andrew discussed ATP test kits and that they 

might be promising, but these tests might experience interference from biocides if the 

enzymes are damaged. The test provides results as a range of numbers within an MPN 

type framework and not CFU, as in the California standards. Tests cost about $1.50/run. 

The luminometer costs approximately $2000 

Nick was concerned that not all species under 10 microns in size are heterotrophic 

bacteria or viruses and that the discussion wasn’t including smaller phytoplankton 

species. Methods such as FRR and PAM could pick up chlorophyll fluorescence and 

provide quick information on the presence of photosynthetic species in the sample. 

Nicole pointed out that the standards only consider bacteria and viruses in the under 10 

micron size category. Regarding the cost of PAM, Nick said it costs roughly $10-15K 

right now. 

Another rapid test using IDEXX trays was also discussed. This test creates a MPN 

result. They are widely used by the European community. This test may also lead to 

false positives, but was supported as probably the best approach for E. coli and 

intestinal enterococci by the meeting participants. 

Fred provided some additional insight about Vibrio issues. He noted that the Germans 

are leaning towards assuming toxicogenicity if O1 or O139 are present, regardless of 

whether or not genes for toxicity are present. Using that assumption, then the methods 

are relatively quick using fluorescent antibodies. Each strain requires specific 

antibodies. Another rapid test, Cholera Smart, could give quick results to determine 

presence, but not abundance, of Vibrio in a sample. Methods to determine the presence 

of toxic Vibrio include infecting mice with a strain and see if they die or using PCR. 

Fred mentioned that while the two Vibrio serotypes may be found together in the 

environment, he understands it is very unusual to find both during an epidemic. Maurya 

commented that if Vibrio cholerae was identified in any ballast water, DPH would be 

notified immediately. 

The discussion moved on to living bacteria and viruses. The CA standard was 

determined to be inappropriate if expressed as individual bacteria and not colony 

forming units. We won’t be able to tell dead from live bacteria without some kind of 

culture process. Also the performance standard as 103

/100 ml is reasonable given that 

without treatment densities of colony forming bacteria should be 103/ml, so the 

treatment standard would be 1% of the normal population. State Lands will investigate 

changing the standard to read 103

 culturable bacteria (same as CFU). This will have to 

be done in Legislation. It should be noted, that there are standard EPA plating methods 

to count culturable bacteria. 

127
As for viruses, Fred noted that really the only way to count viruses is to look for viruslike particles that are stained and counted under an epifluorescent microscope, although 

there is no guarantee that each bit would then be an independent virus, could be a 

piece of fragmented DNA. The particles counted are referred to as virus like particles 

(VLP). While the procedure provides a number, it does not provide information about 

VLP viability. Another approach would be to look at a bacterial phage such as the 

coliphage MS2. If the phage is present on a plate with E.coli, the phage will kill the 

bacteria and leave a plaque where the colony was. This may be one way to use a 

surrogate virus to see if any viruses were killed. Of course, Russ pointed out that even if 

there are no coliphage, there may be many viruses left in the sample. Additionally, this 

technique would not work well for routine compliance monitoring, but could be useful for 

research and development. 

Nicole wrapped up the meeting by asking for any other items. Fred suggested that 

CSLC further define several terms in the standards. Maurya will look into adding this 

language. CSLC will produce a rough draft protocol for distribution and comment by the 

panel members. Another meeting will likely also be required to finish up discussion of 

the 10 – 50 micron size class methods. 

Detailed Meeting Notes:

Nicole: There are standards for 3 human health indicator species and two additional 

categories for under 10 um in size (bacteria and viruses). We need to develop 2 things: 

Technology guidance document (how to do the testing to meet CA standards) and 

verification protocols to determine vessel compliance. Last week we discussed the need 

for rapid techniques to quantify phytoplankton and zooplankton for the verification 

protocols. We also need more thorough/complete techniques for use in the testing 

guidelines. This was in the context of giving something [a protocol] to our inspectors, but 

we also need to take into consideration what developers need from us for testing 

purposes. 

List of concerns for micro tests include cost, time, complexity, chemicals/equipments, 

applicability of techniques, scientific acceptability etc... But first I’ll hand off to Dominic 

to tell us about CA methods for assessing microbes. 

Dominic: Address issues about what methods are used to test microbes in CA water. 

In terms of water quality standards for indicator bacteria, in general, Ocean Plan lists 

water quality standards for the open ocean, and also Basin Plans list standards for each 

watershed and bays/estuaries associated with the basin. 

The Ocean Plan is standard under Clean Water Act, where limits are determined by 

beneficial uses and objectives/criteria [EPA criteria = CA objective]. The endpoints 

include the average concentration for multiple samples (30 day geometric means based 

on 5 samples collected within 30 days; units: CFU or most probable number), or can be 

a concentration for single sample. Geometric mean is 1000/100ml for total coliform, 

200/100ml for fecal coliform, and 35/100ml for enterococci....single sample is allowed to 

128
have a higher result, as long as it doesn’t get too high; there are limits on single sample 

that contributes to the mean. For example, Coliform can be up to 10,000/100ml. An 

epidemiological study in Santa Monica ~1995 resulted in state law and came up with 

new measure that incorporated the concern for human fecal matter from runoff. If the 

fecal: total coliform ratio is 0.1...If most of the total coliform is fecal, then 1000/100 ml is 

acceptable for a single sample standard. There are also standards for contact 

recreation (e.g. swimming), which has the same limits as Department of Public Health. 

Advisories are posted if beaches do not meet the standards. 

The basin plan applies to beaches in bays/estuary, and there are different standards for 

shellfish. Median limits for total coliform is 70 cfu (or mpn)/100ml in water (not per 

grams shellfish tissue) and 10% of sample can’t exceed 230/100ml. Terms are a little 

different than for recreation. We plan to amend the Ocean Plan to hopefully 14/100 ml 

concentration for a median. 

Basin plan is very similar to Ocean Plan. Same kind of epidemiological background 

information. LA harbor- fecal coliform log mean, still has 30 day sample period but only 

4 samples. Standards/criteria for contact recreation is a 200/100ml mean, and 10% 

can’t exceed 400/100ml. They have the same limits but different sample number as 

Ocean Plan. For non-contact recreation (i.e. sailing): fecal coliform 2000/100ml mean, 

4000/100ml single sample. 3 tubes are in multiple fermentation, so limit changes to 

330/100ml, since there is less precision than in a 5 tube multiple fermentation (where 

limit is 400/100ml). Central Valley and San Francisco Bay are similar to other plans. In 

San Francisco Bay, contact recreation has a limit of 240/100ml on average, and 

10,000/100ml for a single sample. I just wanted to point out the different regulatory 

levels. 

Dominic Powerpoint presentation: 

Why use indicator bacteria? They are surrogates for harmful species and it is easier to 

measure something abundant. Also, the tests are inexpensive and easy to perform, 

while pathogens are innumerable and expensive to test. There are drawbacks and 

pluses to using surrogates. There are known EPA-standardized methods, therefore it is 

easy to measure the surrogates. Ultimately, we do want to move away from only 

examining indicator bacteria. These surrogate bacteria include total and fecal coliforms, 

which are found in lots of different matrices: soil, wetlands, on algae, etc. A subgroup of 

the total coliforms are the fecal coliforms which originate from warm blooded animals 

(e.g. people) and birds. E. coli is a single species and is the largest subset of the fecal 

coliforms. A subgroup of fecal streptococcus is enterococcus. 

Russ: There is a lot of history with these groups that were defined by the ability to 

behave or how they appear, operationally. They aren’t really known to be different 

species. 

Dominic: Methods for Coliform quantification: 

129
1. Multiple tube fermentation - EPA approved. Units are most probable number, 

and the positive test is indicated by formation of acid (color change) or gases. 

It has 3 parts to the test and takes 96 hrs to get a result. It is a cumbersome 

test. 

2. Membrane filtration: filter through membrane and use media to grow and 

incubate bacteria. Place filter onto surface of medium. Results are quicker 

than with multiple tube fermentation. Get CFU as a unit. The idea is to have a 

petri dish with a grid, and count the number of colonies (“blobs”). What if there 

is a hair or fiber, is there one blob or more? Use a dissecting scope to see 

them better. Bacteria like to cling to themselves so there could be multiple 

blobs, which is another source of error. It is hard to count how many colonies 

there are when the initial concentration of bacteria is high. But, you get a 

direct result. Each blob is assumed to come from about 1 bacterium and is 

referred to as a colony forming unit (CFU). 

3. Enzyme substrate (IDEXX/Colilert). Enzyme substrate, pour sample in a 

multiple well tray. It is an 18 or 24 hr test. No one uses the 24 hr test. Sea 

water samples have to be diluted (1:10). Chromogenic/fluorometric test = 

color change. Testing for total coliform has a yellow product, and testing for E. 

coli appear blue under UV light. A survey in LA did a comparison between the 

multiple tube fermentation and the enzyme substrate tests, and the results 

came out the same. (examples: Colilert and Enterolert) 

Nick: Do both multiple tube and enzyme substrate use sample dilution? Multiple 

separate sample into 5 tubes, IDEXX uses 96 wells, and must be diluted before going 

into the cells. 

Fred: Need dilution 

Andrew: EPA did lots of comparisons and found no correlation between the two tests. 

There were lots of false positives. 

Dominic: Statistically the LA work showed that they performed the same. There were 

many false positives, mostly in freshwater and estuarine waters. 

Andrew: This [false positives] could be an advantage for ballast water. 

Russ: With membrane filtration, you can filter it down. It sounds like if you need to dilute 

it [for other tests], then you lose your sensitivity. 

Nick: Add in replicates. 

Dominic: Dilute sample in media and dilution distilled water (100ml) mix with dilution 

sample (1:10). Then pour into tray. 

Nick: There is no serial dilution. 

130
Andrew: You just want to lose some cells. Russ is right, you lose a lot of sensitivity. 

Dominic: Just one step dilution. 

Maurya: Is multiple tube a dilution? 

Russ: Yes, you need 3 serial ten-fold dilutions. Dilute the sample to extinction so that 

you know where the cut off is. (There would be 9 tubes for a 3-tube MPN). 

Dominic: So for enterococcus, you use the same 3 methods. You get a different color 

on the IDEXX method, The method is just tweaked for the different organisms. For 

enterococcus, the species you find is more of indication of whether or not you have 

sewage water, i.e., fecal contamination from humans. On 3rd slide of the powerpoint, 

there are four enterococcus species listed: to confirm sewage water, either S. faecilium 

or S. faecalis will be present...by knowing which of these species you have, you know if 

you have sewage. Others more common in storm water/non-point source pollution. 

However, sewage bacteria can grow on algae, and give you false idea of what is going 

on in the water. 

Vibrio is a real pathogen, less of an indicator species. O1 serogroup [as is O139] is 

associated with cholera and it’s hard to interpret results of a vibrio test unless you know 

what serotype you are testing for, can get interference from local waters. Standards for 

Vibrio are low because not very abundant. 

Fred: Just to add, serotypes O1 and O139 are associated with cholera (epidemic 

serotypes). The confusing thing is these serotypes are not necessarily always 

toxicogenic. Looking at Vibrio in ballast water, O1 and O139 were present, but not all of 

the O1 and O139 individuals contained the genes to have toxic ability (tested using 

PCR). Incorrect to think serotype = toxicity, have to see if genes are present for toxicity. 

Dominic: There is evidence that ballast contains Vibrio. We are paying SCCWRP 

[Southern California Coastal Water Research Project] to develop rapid methods, and 

they are making progress. One method is qPCR [Quantitative PCR], which takes about 

3-4 hrs to complete. DNA technology. There are issues with false positives. 

Transcription Mediated Amplification (TMA): 2-3 hrs. and looks like it works well. This 

measures RNA, and there is no proof that Vibrio is alive. Must be calibrated with other 

methods for viability. Trying to work that out. Big advantage is the DPH can post beach 

safety notification pretty quickly, so it is a good system to protect human health. 

Nicole: Let’s focus on human health indicator species. Our standards are: E. coli 126 

cfu/100 ml, intestinal enterococci 33 cfu/100 ml, and Vibrio 1 cfu/100 ml. Thinking about 

verification protocols, can we work with these methods that we just talked about? 

Dominic: There is an immunological dipstick that did not work out very well, although 

they are very easy to use. Another is a variation of the Colilert test, using a colorimeter 

to identify bacteria. That idea kind of fell off. The last methods were the best. 

131
Andrew: Live/dead is a problem with the highly technical tests. ATP rapid test kits might 

be promising. Can send details. 

Fred: Is this a quick tool to see if you should take additional samples? 

Andrew: Yes. Pretty idiot proof. The trouble is whether there is interference with 

biocides. Do different biocides inactivate the enzyme of the test. There needs to be 

more work. But you can’t get faster than the color test. Tells you if something is living or 

not. 

Fred: Very sensitive. Difficult to relate qPCR to CFU. 

Nick: Agree with Andrew, ATP worth taking a look at – had good and bad results, very 

sensitive. You need to filter 10-100’s of ml. It is very sensitive and might pick up dead 

organisms. Sometimes it is convincing, but if it works at ul level, that would be fabulous. 

Did you do that with natural seawater sample, unfiltered? 

Andrew: Yes. We always did the rapid ATP test in unfiltered water. We tried to correlate 

to plate data. It was a reasonable relationship that was worth going forward with. Tells 

you if there is a need to examine the sample further. 

Nick: Agree wholeheartedly. The other technique is FRR and PAM. Problem is we are 

only talking about bacteria. <10 um also include phytoplankton. There is an optical 

method of optical fluorescent. The FRR (fast repetition rate), PAM (variation in Canada, 

and England), the idea that you expose the sample to a fluorometer, and gives you a 

reading of low or high chlorophyll in a second or two. The disadvantage is that no one 

relates whether cells are alive or dead. However, the sample volume can be >1ml to 

100ml and is pocket size. The answer is instant. If the tester has something to compare 

to (untreated water from elsewhere on the ship), you can see if there is a difference 

from the treatment. Huge practical appeal. Wishful, but will it pass mustard? 

Nicole: We know there are phytoplankton in this size range, but we have no standard for 

phytoplankton in this size class. 

Nick: PAM fluorometer tells you information based on chlorophyll. Okay for 

photosynthetic bacteria (cyanobacteria), not heterotrophic bacteria. 

Dominic: How much does it cost? Could it measure larger organisms? 

Nick: ~$10-15k and coming down in price. It measures everything with chlorophyll. You 

could filter the size class you want. Semiquantitatively, we have seen differences 

between treated and untreated water in 99.99% of the tests we’ve done. Doesn’t 

necessarily mean the phytoplankton is dead, but there is a numerical difference. 

Dominic: ATP dipstick sounds promising to me. 

132
Andrew: It does need some work. If the biocide damages the enzyme it won’t work, but 

it seems to work with chlorine. 

Maurya: If the biocide does affect the ATP, could give you false negative? 

Andrew: Yes. 

Russ: If you could do a filtration and a wash, you could reduce the impact of the biocide. 

Maurya: If the biocide does affect the test, then maybe there is too much residual 

biocide for disposal. 

Andrew: You get a result within 18 hrs. It may not be absolutely related to organisms, 

but if you have zero count, you’re looking good. 

Dominic: Doesn’t give you the units you want. You get MPN, not CFU. 

Fred: But it gives you a range on numbers, are you at the low or high end of a range. It’s 

okay along an order of magnitude. 

Andrew: It shows that there was a treatment. 

Dominic: For legislation, why was CFU used and not MPN? 

Maurya: Because the majority of the advisory panel said so in the report. We could fix 

the bill to be MPN if we want to. 

Andrew: Because everyone else is doing membrane filtration which uses CFU. 

Dominic: Not really for CA regulation, use IDEXX. 

Andrew: MEI agar is almost faultless. 

Russ: How much do you need to dilute it? 

Andrew: Not at all. 

Dominic: You are talking about different species, media, and therefore units (?) 

Andrew: False positives are okay, better than false negatives. 

Fred: Detecting public health might be fundamentally different than detecting ballast 

treatment. We want a conservative approach, especially with regards to public health. 

But for treatment technology, there could be two aims. The vendor would be upset 

133
about false positive. But CSLC could be less concerned, trying to protect public from 

invasive species, so maybe false positives ok. 

Maurya: Yep. 

Fred: I just attended a meeting in Denmark that discussed these issues in an 

international crowd. These problems could end up in court, because what if vendor said 

we had 125 not 127 cfu? 

Andrew: We need to confirm that the system will be working. 

Nicole: That’s what we’re looking for. 

Andrew: The only thing that works is plate counting, but it takes time. Perhaps 

combined with rapid method it’d be okay. 

Dominic: We use both MPN and CFU in CA, and we issue fines based on both units. 

Nick: Back to phytoplankton part, do the dynamic/pulse fluorometer which measures 

concentration and activity. My impression from the scientists that have tested other 

methods that I haven’t tested...when chlorination is used, the testing ability goes down, 

you can test for biomass indicator if there is a track record ...there is a chlorophyll 

number ... 

Russ: IDEXX- Quanti-Tray creates MPN, 1-200 MPN / 100 ml, another model (QuantiTray/2000lets you test 1-2419 MPN/100 ml, has range for E. coli and coliforms. might 

be hard to penalize if still in development. Stuck with EPA approved samples. If you 

dilute sample, it should be okay with 2419 sample tray. 

Fred: Recently been approved for wastewater treatment, and widely used by European 

colleagues. 

Nicole: What about Vibrio? 

Andrew: I like IDEXX, but if you want a yardstick...there are problems with using it as 

first step because you never know if they had those bacteria in the first place. 

Dominic: If you had a record of treatment system operation, then you can tell if it 

worked. But Colilert will tell you if the system worked. 

Nicole: Ultimately we’re interested in what is coming out the pipe. Whatever we do there 

should be an indication of paper work and how the system worked. 

BREAK 

Nick: Was the ATP test called Luminultra? 

134
Andrew: I don’t know. I’ll send some info to Maurya. It’s about ~$2000, or ~$1.50/run, 

and you do 5 replicates per test which can really tell you if it’s an effective treatment. 

Also need the luminometer, ~$2k. The live/dead staining kits are pretty good, and can 

be related to photo counts 

Fred: Live-dead tests work well on lab bacteria, but not as well with natural conditions. 

For technology testing, take some natural water, throw in glucose to amp up production 

and re-run the test, and see if there is an indication of the technology. Not a pure batch 

colony, but gives more ability to test. . 

Nicole: Vibrio test seems sketchy, what is toxicogenic or not. 

Fred: For toxicogenicity, the Germans are leaning toward O1 or O139 are present, 

assume toxicogenic. Might be easiest to say if you don’t have those, then you have no 

toxicogenic problems. Methods are relatively quick: use fluorescent antibody. New 

Horizon Diagnostics (Rita Colwell) has one, but it is pretty expensive, $350 (with 

academic discount), about 100 tests. Each strain needs its own antibody. Take bacteria 

on slide, quick stain procedure (35 min) and epifluorescent microscope ($12-30k). 

Maurya: Could you expect to find this in an EPA certified lab with human health? 

Dominic: I don’t know if it’s EPA. It’s in standard methods, which are usually one in the 

same but not always. Waterboard doesn’t do it. It’s an expensive test and it is not an 

indicator because it tells you less about the overall bacteria population. 

Fred: CA picked it up [Vibrio standard] because of Brazil, who was concerned about an 

outbreak since an outbreak occurred in Peru. I understand that in some cases, Brazil 

just pours chlorox down in the tanks. 

Maurya: No indication of how much [chlorine] went in. 

Fred: No quick way to do this. The fluorescence doesn’t really need cultures, although if 

you wanted to, you could. It is very specific. 

Maurya: Are there any association between O1 and O139? Are they always together? 

Fred: If there is an outbreak it’s one or the other, if an environmental sample, one or the 

other or both. Our results show that the strains are overwhelming not toxicogenic. But if 

there is an outbreak from untreated sewage, there will likely be toxicogenic products. 

 

Maurya: If you see the strain, we could just assume it’s toxic to be safe 

Fred: That is the mainstream approach. Alternatively, you could grow up a culture and 

infect mice, see if they die. That might be a bit much. There are PCR methods, 

therefore, there could be qPCR methods for each strain, but it gets really tricky because 

135
the region of the genome that you work with is co-regulated by a gene from a virus that 

has been inserted into the genome of the Vibrio. 

Russ: Because Vibrio is a major killer internationally there is lots of work on creating 

quicker methods. Watch international public health agencies worldwide for techniques. 

Maurya: If we did a rapid assessment for Vibrio and identify the two strains, the first 

response would to contact DPH, and get more minds involved. Since it is such a big 

issue, I would hope that people could address this. If we had a rapid test, we could pass 

it off to someone who has the better technology readily available. 

Fred: CholeraSmart, is a rapid test, and is based on the same technology used for 

pregnancy testing and could be used by an unskilled person. Take same water, maybe 

concentrate it, and a blue line/pink line will give you an idea if it’s in the water. It doesn’t 

tell you the concentration, but tells you if it is there (presence/absence). Together with 

the ATP, now you have some good rapid methods. 

Maurya: Is O1 more common than O139? 

Fred: O1 (El Tor) was responsible for the 1st 4 epidemics. Then O139 (Bengal) has 

shown up in the last 25 yrs. It is thought to be more prevalent world wide. 

Russ: [Looking up test info online] O1 is 20 min assay, geared toward stool analysis. 

Maurya: Do they work on O139? 

Russ: New Horizon is an interesting company with a lot of these kinds of tests. 

Dominic: Can the strains later mutate into a toxicogenic form? 

Fred: They can be promiscuous with their genes. One individual that is toxicogenic can 

transfer genes to another individual. 

Nicole: So the presence of either strain is not acceptable? 

Fred: Yes, if you want to say that. Just think about the balance between legal 

pragmaticism and public health concerns...I don’t know how the antigen changes the 

cell membrane. If the surface antigens have not deteriorated, the test could get a false 

positive. 

Maurya: This would be an interesting note to point out in our document: if we want to 

look at rapid assessment, you can know that if you use biocide A, and it can get 

activated upon discharge (UV- intake and discharge), you might get a false positive 

because the cell membrane has not deteriorated yet. 

Russ: There is a huge amount of work into creating the tests. 

136
Maurya: That’s why we need assessments attached to the methods. The new tools, 

enzymes, PAM, we just have to jump through more hoops. 

Nicole: Let’s move on to total bacterial and viral counts. 

Fred: “Total” is wrought with peril. I think you mean total culturable bacteria. We need to 

think about what kind of agar to use, because you get different counts depending on 

what you use. 

Nick: Was it in the conversation that it is a CFU from plate streaking method? 

Andrew: Total number is not possible because you have to culture it, and you’ll go way 

over your standard with that. So your number is representative of total count. But you 

can’t tell dead from alive. After culturing bacteria, expect densities around 10^3/ ml 

Maurya: Greg said this would be the most difficult; but it’s pretty important. While we 

would like to find some methods to make these measurements, we are not going to hold 

back about changing the standards. Total count doesn’t give live/dead, so do you just 

want to see a change from before/after? 

Andrew: If you can culture 10^3/ ml, then aim for 95% reduction from that. That would 

be very reproducible, and is more or less the desired standard (10^3/100 ml). 

Nick: 10 bacteria/ml would be CA standard, which is 1% of typical plate grow out. So we 

are talking about the same number. This is extremely difficult. Sea water is usually 10^6 

bacterial/ml 

Andrew: 10 cultural bacteria/ml, I think 

Nick: What kind of reduction would we look for? This is 5x 10 fold reduction. Bacteria/ml 

vs CFU/ml. 

Maurya: Culturable bacterial, I think. 

Nick: That would be achievable. 

Fred: Based on direct counts it would be difficult for technology to achieve that. For flow 

cytometry, very difficult to measure the number. 

Nick: Yes, prone to technical mistake. The method should be everyone’s tried and true 

bacterial streak. Too many log orders below what could be done 

Maurya: Should be 10 cfu/ml? 

Nick: Yes. 

137
Nicole: If it is CFU, should be easy: plate and count? 

Nick: Yes, and is achievable in less than 4 hrs sometimes. 

Andrew: You could do some serial dilutions, with replicates, grow the bacteria on agar 

plates, incubate them, and count colonies. 

Russ: If treated ballast water, add 100-200 ul of ballast water to the plate, if you get 

colonies, that’s a problem. 

Fred: There is a 20 yr old technology (called the Spiral Plater and manufactured by 

Advanced Instruments company; see an image of the device at 

http://www.topac.com/spiralplater.html) that can plate bacteria quickly for you. It costs 

about $13k. [See another brand of spiral plater at 

http://www.neutecgroup.com/eddyjet.htm] 

Russ: It plates the bacteria down the center, the amount of bacteria that is in the sample 

influences the distance from the center that the bacteria will grow. 

Nicole: We’ll investigate change the wording from total bacteria to total culturable 

bacteria. 

Maurya: Is total culturable bacteria the same as CFU? 

Russ: Yes. [The term culturable refers to the ability of an organism to grow on 

microbiological media. If it is culturable, then the organism must be alive. Samples can 

be placed onto agar medium resulting in the formation of colony forming units (CFU). If 

inoculated in broth medium then can count using the MPN (Most Probable Number) 

method.] 

Fred and Andrew: and the bacteria have to be alive [to show up on plates] 

Nick: You’ll need to specifically state the test or it will be abused. These kinds of tests 

are always being taking for granted: the size of the squirt, the length of the incubation, 

the agar media, and there are big contamination problems to consider. Standard 

methods in EPA 

Andrew: There are standard methods. It can be done. It must be written down. 

Nicole: What do we want to say about viruses 

Fred: How does CSLC define virus? Can define virus like particles with an 

epifluorescent microscope. Add stain, you can see them, but there is no guarantee that 

it is a virus. 

138
Dominic: Could be a fragemented DNA from anything? 

Fred: Using standard electron microscopy....there are specific bacteria, archaea, 

cyanobacteria for the viruses. 

Andrew: Count total live and dead using Fred’s methods. Will have to grow to see if a 

live, will have to rely on ?.if you kill the bacteria do you kill the viruses?? The only thing 

you can go for is coliphage. Take sample water + cultured E. coli. Viral infection occurs 

within 15 minutes. There will be a clear spot in the agar if there is a virus that killed the 

cells. Lets you know if it is a viable virus. Assume a clear spot represents a dead 

bacterial cell. You can go after older contamination. Looking for viruses is so difficult, we 

don’t know that if you killed coliphage you kill other viruses 

Lucie: Chlorine dioxide, MS2. Looking at different concentrations, the results were clear 

that above 1 ppm chlorine dioxide there is an efficiency of the treatment. 

Russ: Difficult to culture many viruses. People are looking for surrogates [MS2 

coliphage is used as a surrogate for viruses in disinfection tests and is widely accepted]. 

And it’s hard to work with pathogenic human viruses. 

Lucie: MS2 coliphage was used. 

Russ: Fred’s method totally accepted. If you have a treatment that looks the same as 

before ... Too bad you put viruses in the regulation. 

Nicole: We should look into modification? 

Maurya: As Andy Cohen said, just because we can’t measure it doesn’t mean we 

shouldn’t have it in the regulation. It’s like BWE, we still moved forward. It’s something 

we are working on and towards and is a long lasting question. We should still have it as 

a standard. 

Dominic: There are many similar instances in water quality. You need to have it there 

anyway. 

Nick: The regulation reads 10^4/100ml viruses, not viable viruses. Just put that in 

perspective. In a VLP assay will be 10^7-10^8 Viral Like Particles. We’ve made those 

measurements. To get that low is absurd for viruses. This is the one test case that if you 

lost it from regulation, you’d have a shotgun approach (?), and I don’t believe that any 

treatment would pass that test. 

Maurya: I recognize this is problem. But why didn’t anyone argue earlier? 

Nick: I remember this discussion. You couldn’t dilute them that efficiently in the lab to 

meet these standards. 

139
Andrew: I thought we were going to leave it at removing the bacteria.... 

Russ: About coliphage: as compliance, what if you don’t find it, there still could be huge 

numbers of other viruses there. [Coliphages can be used as indicators of fecal 

contamination since they are viruses that infect coliform bacteria. If coliform or fecal 

coliform bacteria are absent, then would be unlikely you would find coliphage. Using 

coliphage in testing and efficacy testing is another story. Here you could add coliphage 

to the system and examine the efficacy of the treatment system.] 

Andrew: Make sure the testers check for coliphage. 

Nick: It is out in the open that it is more of a disservice than an aid. 

Maurya: I just want people to get some numbers. What does your system do?? You 

can’t enforce something you can’t measure. I would like the technology developers to at 

least keep the viruses in mind, and know how to get the numbers. 

Andrew: No one tests for viruses. Keep it in mind. 

Maurya: The only people that have thoughts of litigation are the people who can’t test it. 

It is an area that should be looked at. 

Russ: Some test will kill MS2 and coliphage, maybe some biocides will oxidize some 

VLP. Looking for pinpoints of light is pretty hard. Makes you wonder if you are imagining 

them. 

Maurya: Next we need to work on our straw man document ...Anything else? 

Fred: Define terms. Have a glossary in the beginning. 

Maurya: Legislation will extend the first standards. If we can change bacteria to CFU, 

and insert some definitions, I’d like some of your input so that it is logical. 

Nick: Just to recap: the 10-50um discussion went quickly. We talked about the 

pros/cons of MPN, and the conclusion was that we didn’t get anywhere...did you get 

anywhere? 

Nicole: No. We need to talk again about that. 

Maurya: Might do straw dog, and reconvene after that. 

Nick: Counting viruses were the least cost effective technique out of all... 

Nicole: Thanks to all for participating. Will send out notes for review and information on 

next meeting. Adjourn. 

140
California State Lands Commission 

Technical Advisory Panel: 

Ballast Water Treatment Technology Testing Guidelines 

July 16, 2008 

Meeting Notes 

Participants 

Andrea Copping, Pacific Northwest 

National Laboratory 

Rian Hooff, Oregon Department of 

Environmental Quality 

Fred Dobbs, Old Dominion University Dave Lawrence, University of Washington 

Nicole Dobroski, CSLC Lucie Maranda, University of Rhode Island 

Rich Everett, U.S. Coast Guard Kevin Reynolds, The Glosten Associates 

Maurya Falkner, CSLC Greg Ruiz, Smithsonian Environmental 

Research Center 

Daphne Gehringer, CSLC Chris Scianni, CSLC 

Dominic Gregorio, State Water 

Resources Control Board 

Mario Tamburri, University of Maryland 

Russ Herwig, University of Washington Nick Welschmeyer, Moss Landing Marine Lab 

Summary 

The advisory panel met to discuss the draft “Ballast Water Treatment Technology 

Testing Guidelines.” After a brief introduction, Nicole began the discussion by asking for 

comments on the testing guidelines as a whole. Rich voiced concern about the selfcertification process and its validity. While Nicole understood Rich’s concerns, she 

pointed out that the guidelines are voluntary, and it will be up to vessel owners and 

operators to determine whether or not they have sufficient evidence that a system will 

be able to meet California’s performance standards. The vendor self-certification does 

not relieve the vessel owner/operator of the responsibility of complying with the 

performance standards. 

Rich also suggested removing USCG from the list of contact people available to review 

the test plans because USCG can only discuss items relevant to established 

regulations. Nicole agreed to remove USCG from that section. 

The conversation moved on to discuss the methodologies in Table 5-1. Lucie, Russ and 

Nick commented that the freshwater methodologies from the Great Ships Initiative (GSI) 

were confusing because they were mixed in with tests for marine systems. Nicole 

141
agreed to separate out the freshwater and marine methods. Rich noted that based on 

the title of the table it appears that the methods are required. Nicole will clarify that the 

methods are recommended and that they may change with time as new methods are 

developed. 

Nick brought up the topic of the less than 10 μm size class and whether or not the 

standard applied to living/culturable bacteria. Nicole said yes, although Maurya 

commented that it will be at least next year before the performance standards can be 

changed to reflect that. The discussion also covered the use of specific marine media 

for culturing the bacteria. Dominic pointed out that the IDEXX methods, which give a 

MPN endpoint, are comparable to the CFU methods. 

As for the 10 – 50 μm size class, there are no standardized methods for assessing 

compliance. Fred commented that the GSI protocol is not sensitive enough to determine 

compliance with California’s standards. 

The discussion touched on water quality issues and the ability to apply the Ocean Plan 

limits to vessel discharges. Dominic discussed the need to think of the cumulative 

environmental impacts of these discharges. For the moment though, we have a poor 

idea of the metal concentrations in ballast discharges. Greg is undertaking work on this 

topic. 

Nicole will work on a new draft of the testing guidelines and distribute it to the advisory 

panel and the technology vendors for their input. She thanked everyone for their 

participation. 

Detailed Meeting Notes 

Nicole welcomed everyone to the meeting. Participants introduced themselves, and 

Nicole discussed the purpose of the meeting - to discuss the draft ballast water 

treatment technology testing guidelines. Nicole reiterated that CSLC will not approve 

treatment technologies for use in California waters. Instead, CSLC will conduct 

inspections and enforce the ballast water performance standards. The Testing 

Guidelines should work in conjunction with the IMO Convention and pending federal 

treatment technology evaluation guidelines, while incorporating California’s standards. 

The purpose of the Testing Guidelines is to provide technology developers with a 

mechanism to assess system compliance with California’s performance standards. 

Systems that meet California’s standards can be vendor certified as compliant with 

California’s requirements. This certification may serve as a marketing tool to provide 

information to potential customers. The certification does nothing to relieve the 

responsibility of the vessel owner/operator to comply with California’s performance 

standards. 

Andrea pointed out that the Testing Guidelines are important as they refer to the IMO 

and proposed federal evaluation guidelines, and are written in a way that is comparable 

to those other documents. 

142
Nicole and Maurya discussed that this document will continue to evolve, and, as stated 

on page 7 of the Testing Guidelines, that CSLC will update the guidelines as necessary. 

The Testing Guidelines, updates, and the CSLC contact information will be available on 

the CSLC website. 

Greg suggested that if CSLC receives a high volume of questions and concerns from 

technology developers and vessel owners, we could consider creating a Frequently 

Asked Questions page on our website to streamline our work efforts. Nicole agreed that 

a FAQ page would be useful. 

Rich brought up concerns about the self-certification process, and suggested 

incorporating text notifying the technology developers that certification from a third 

party, or independent testing center, could be another useful marketing tool and may be 

more credible than the self-certification alone. This could also help to streamline CSLC’s 

review of verification reports generated from the verification process (i.e. the 

independent certification could reduce the amount of time CSLC staff would have to 

spend reviewing methodologies for applicability to California’s standards). Rich noted 

that any system, even those that conduct limited evaluation, could self-certify as 

California compliant. 

Nicole argued that competition between systems will require technology developers to 

conduct valid verification testing in conjunction with independent testing organizations. 

Greg commented that if third party testing centers will be used, they could provide 

information regarding their reputation/experience and the quality of their data, and that 

this may help CSLC assess the quality of the system verification report. 

Nicole commented that CSLC will not require the certification come from independent or 

third party labs. The guidelines are voluntary, and it is up to the system developer to 

accurately and honestly provide results about system performance. The market will 

demand such reporting. 

Maurya stated that when it comes down to a treatment developer wanting to sell a 

system to the Maersks or the Matsons of the world, and if that shipping company plans 

to call on California, the developer will need to decide if they want to use these 

guidelines and/or go to an independent testing organization to conduct the evaluation. 

The treatment developer can then choose to self-certify compliance with California’s 

standards. Vessels owners/operators will look to this self-certification. If vessels aren’t 

meeting the standards and the system was certified as California compliant, the vessel 

owner/operator will look to the treatment developer as the responsible party. Most 

companies won’t be willing to put a system on their vessel that they haven’t heard much 

about, particularly since each compliance violation will cost $27,500/day. CSLC is 

working under a mandate to have strong performance standards without the ability to 

approve treatment systems to meet those standards. All we can do is require a 

sampling point/facility with which to draw a sample and determine compliance with the 

standards. 

143
Nicole commented that it is ultimately up to the vessel owner to decide whether or not 

they have sufficient information about a system to warrant purchasing and installing that 

system on their vessel. So, while it is not necessary to require that the certification come 

from an independent source, CSLC can still strongly recommends that testing take 

place with an independent testing organization. We can request that those independent 

testing organization provide credentials, as Greg mentioned, to ease comparison 

between them. 

Rich suggested CSLC remove USCG from the list of contact people available to review 

test plans because USCG can only discuss items relevant to regulations that are 

already established. USCG is not in a position to “consult extensively” on test plans, 

even when an approval program is in place. The consultation should be between the 

independent lab and the technology developers. USCG does not have staff to deal with 

that many people, and has to be careful with what they say to avoid “approving” a 

system test plan. Andrea commented that she can understand that USCG and NOAA 

could provide information regarding “gray areas”, but only once regulations are in place. 

Maurya and Nicole agreed to remove USCG from the recommendation for consultation 

on the test plans. 

Nicole moved the discussion to Table 5.1 - the methodologies for testing ballast water to 

determine compliance with the performance standards. Lucie commented that the table 

was confusing because it included freshwater methodologies, and since most of CA 

ports are marine, you had to hunt through the table to find which tests were appropriate 

for marine systems. Andrea stated that in the past freshwater tests were ignored to 

some degree, but we now recognize that we will have to take these tests seriously given 

that many ports worldwide are freshwater or brackish. Russ suggested modifying the 

table to separate out freshwater and saltwater methodologies. 

Nick agreed with Russ. He was also concerned that it is not clear that this table will be 

updated frequently, and that testers will do what the guidelines suggested. Nick 

commented that if he were new to testing technologies, he would not find this table very 

clear because there are no titles to the methods, and it appears that the resources 

required for the specific methodologies are set in stone without room for compromise. 

Nicole pointed out that the table is intended as a guide and is not all inclusive. 

Rich pointed out that that the title of the table is not clear because it suggests that 

following the methods in the table will ensure compliance. Perhaps if it said something 

along the lines of “recommended methodology” it would be more in line with CSLC’s 

intentions. As far as specifics of the contents of the table, Rich was concerned about the 

links for zooplankton, because they does not include information on how to quantify 

zooplankton, only how to sample them. 

Rich and Russ discussed the importance of congruence for testing for compliance, but 

that IMO has not been able to agree on which specific tests are appropriate for a 

144
comprehensive evaluation. Nicole mentioned that CSLC will have to suggest methods 

that are currently being used, and that it cannot be all inclusive because new methods 

will continue to be developed. Russ thought that the technology developers will be 

interested in knowing how CSLC will enforce the performance standards, and that they 

will want to use those methods to test their systems. Nicole mentioned that we are still 

working through how CSLC will determine compliance with the performance standards, 

but if there are other methods we should know about, that this is the time to comment. 

Nick had a question about the less than 10 μm size class in the CA regulation as 

specific in Table 1-1. Are the bacterial counts specifically meant to be live or total 

counts? It looks like there should be the word “live” written in the table. Table 5-1 lists 

standard methods involving growing out and plating. There are methods for live 

determination. Nicole answered that the 10^3 bacterial numbers do refer to live 

culturable bacteria. 

Rich mentioned that Marcel Veldhuis (NIOZ) has pointed out that there are abundant 

phytoplankton in less than 10 μm size class, but they are not included in this table. 

Nicole clarified that California is concerned about the phytoplankton in that size class, 

but it has not been written into regulation thus far, and this could possibly change down 

the road. 

Greg wanted to clarify the differences between live bacteria and those generated from 

MPN approaches, and that maybe we should define “live” bacteria in this document 

because of the issues about so many marine bacteria being unculturable. Fred also 

suggested to use the word culturable. Fred agreed with Russ’s suggestions that Table 

5-1 should reference standard method 92-15 and should include the names of standard 

media for culture of heterotrophic bacteria. 

Nick reiterated his concern about the table being vague about “live” or “culturable.” 

Maurya clarified that this would have to go through legislation to be corrected. We can 

make this comment in our Biennial Report, but it cannot be changed until next year - 

perhaps when we update the performance standards to have the earliest compliance 

date changed from 2009 to 2010. In the meantime, we can add “culturable” to the text. 

In terms of bacteria media, Russ pointed out that marine media are not discussed in 

Method 9215, and of the four heterotrophic media, some are more preferable than 

others. Russ and Nick like the Difco Marine Agar 2216. Dominic commented that CSLC 

might want to investigate media that are used in culturing marine pathogens. Nicole 

agreed to add the marine agar to the table in addition to the media used in the standard 

method. 

Regarding the 10-50 μm size class, Fred commented that the GSI protocols are 

appropriate, but to keep in mind that they are draft protocols and will change. Lucie 

commented that there is no indication of quantifying live phytoplankton in this method.

Because there are no absolute methods for quantifying and determining viability 

145
available yet, Nicole stated that vendors and testing organizations will just have to use 

the best methods available that are scientifically defensible. 

Fred made reference to the comments that he submitted to Nicole prior to the meeting 

regarding the detection limit of the GSI method for phytoplankton assessment. Fred 

discussed that the GSI method for quantifying phytoplankton has a higher detection limit 

than the CSLC performance standards. Therefore, technology developers might avoid 

that test because it would be too easy to fail because finding one organism would lead 

to non-compliance. Nick suggested that it might be appropriate to suggest that there is 

not a good test for the 10-50 size class because the test is not sensitive enough for 

CSLC performance standards, and suggesting the GSI test would send the 

researchers/developers down the wrong path. Nicole stated that we will think about this 

issue. 

Nick and Fred pointed out a problem with the link to the GSI protocol page for the 10-50 

μm methodology, and that GSI has since changed the link with regards to the direction 

of the slash marks. 

Regarding Table 5-1, Fred can live with the bacteria section, but expressed concern 

about the virus section, in particular, using the words “live” and “virus-like particles,” as 

even experts can’t decide whether to use the term viruses or virus-like particles or virussized particles. He stated that these words should be explicitly defined, and Nicole 

agreed. 

Regarding enterococci methods, Dominic pointed out that the IDEXX test results in an 

MPN endpoint, which is comparable to CFU, and he sent a report about this to CSLC. 

Russ mentioned that membrane filtration has better sensitivity than the plating method 

listed in Table 5.1, and is a good method. Fred did not have comments about the Vibrio 

standard method testing, but is looking into Chun’s method (using PCR) and thinks that 

it might be the best to use. As for the Vibrio methods, Fred speculated that everyone is 

going to go bust on Vibrio. 

In a brief discussion, Nicole clarified that requirements for sampling points are going to 

be similar to the ETV guidelines and IMO G2 Guidelines. Andrea commented that GSI 

is doing a lot of work investigating sample port design and whether or not it kills 

organisms in the process of sampling. This information will be available soon. 

Questions regarding testing for water quality were raised. Dominic stated that for 

dissolved oxygen, a ship cannot impact the port waters at any point, including directly at 

the outflow. He then clarified that settleable material only includes settleable material 

that degrades the port waters. This is important in thinking about cumulative effects, 

since ports can have lots of vessel arrivals, all with the same discharge practices. By 

including a statement such as this, developers can keep it in mind and be cognizant of 

downstream issues. 

146
Rich commented that back flushing systems have filtrate that is much more 

concentrated than when it went in and has a lot of settleable material. The standard 

puts the onus on the developer or vessel owner to be aware of what they are 

discharging so that the amount is not harmful to communities. Of course, what is 

harmful is open to interpretation because it will vary between communities. Dominic 

pointed out that it is important to think about cumulative effects over time. 

Dominic stated that Table 5-2 lists measurable/numeric (vs. narrative) effluent limits. 

Kevin wondered if Table 5-2 takes background levels into consideration. 

Dominic said that the Ocean Plan doesn’t consider background, but other programs do. 

These levels are very high levels compared to what would be in port and ocean 

environments. If we had used the median levels, that would have been a problem. 

Kevin mentioned that Ukraine has a similar table as 5-2, and fines vessels for poor 

water quality. $20-60k per fine. This is a concern for ships. 

Dominic discussed that the standards aren’t capricious and are fair based on 

environmental impacts. As an example, he picked Zn. The median limit is 20 μg/l and 

the background ocean conditions are significantly less than that. The discharge limits in 

the Ocean Plan is an order of magnitude greater than these levels at 200 μg/l and is 

definitely toxic to marine life. 

Kevin discussed that the best piping for vessels is Cu/Ni because it inhibits fouling. 

Dominic wants to know what the concentrations of some of these metals are under 

current conditions. What does come out of ballast? Greg states that he is getting some 

data on that. His intention is to sample a couple of locations and vessels to determine 

metal concentrations. 

As far as risk assessment, Nicole stated that CSLC inspections will target all vessels 

eventually, but initially we might have to focus on vessels that have treatment 

technologies that are unknown to CSLC. 

As far as sending out the testing guidelines, Nicole will send notes to the technology 

developers to let them know what we are working on, and some of them might provide 

comments. When the document is complete, it will be available on CSLC’s website. 

Greg pointed out the value of a public release, so if vendors have questions first, they 

can have time to read it and ask. 

Russ suggested also sending the draft document to Randy Marshall at Washington 

Dept. of Ecology. Nicole agreed, and thanked the panel for participating in the meeting 

and their contributions. A revised draft document will be sent out in a couple of weeks. 

147
APPENDIX A2. GENERAL SAMPLING CONSIDERATIONS 

Parameter Sampling Equipment Preferred/Maximum Holding Times 

Conventional Parameters 

Temperature Plastic or glass container or sample 

directly 

immediately 

Dissolved oxygen 

(D.O.) 

Glass D.O bottle Immediately/fix per protocol instructions, 

continue analysis within 8 hrs. 

pH Plastic or glass container immediately 

Conductivity Plastic or glass container Immediately/refrigerate up to 28 days 

Turbidity Plastic or glass container Immediately/store in dark for up to 24 

hrs. 

Nutrients 

Ammonia Van Dorn, LaMotte or plastic 

sampling bottle 

immediately 

Nitrates Van Dorn, LaMotte or plastic 

sampling bottle 

Immediately, refrigerate in dark for up to 

48 hrs. 

Phosphate Van Dorn, LaMotte or plastic 

sampling bottle 

immediately 

Urban Pollutants – Field measurements 

Total Residual 

Chlorine 

Van Dorn, LaMotte or plastic 

sampling bottle 

immediately 

Phenols Van Dorn, LaMotte or plastic 

sampling bottle 

immediately 

Total Copper Van Dorn, LaMotte or plastic 

sampling bottle 

immediately 

Detergents Van Dorn, LaMotte or plastic 

sampling bottle 

immediately 

Laboratory Analysis of Chemical Parameters 

Total Organic Carbon Acid and deionized water rinsed 

glass sampling bottle, Teflon liner in 

lid 

Refrigerate to 4 degrees C, send to lab 

immediately 

Metals Plastic sampling bottle Fix with Ultrapure (or comparable) nitric 

acid, send to lab immediately 

Oil and Grease Acid and deionized water rinsed 

glass sampling bottle, Teflon liner in 

lid 

Refrigerate to 4 degrees C, send to lab 

immediately 

PAH’s Acid and deionized water rinsed 

glass sampling bottle, Teflon liner in 

lid 

Refrigerate to 4 degrees C, send to lab 

immediately 

Pesticides and other 

synthetic organic 

compounds 

Acid and deionized water rinsed 

glass sampling bottle, Teflon liner in 

lid 

Refrigerate to 4 degrees C, send to lab 

immediately 

Toxicity Acid and deionized water rinsed 

glass sampling bottle, Teflon liner in 

lid 

Refrigerate to 4 degrees C, send to lab 

immediately 

Biological Parameters 

Organisms >50 μm Flask, no preservation Immediately 

Organisms 10 -50 μm Dark HDPE bottle, no preservation Immediately 

Bacteria Sterile plastic, no preservation Immediately 

148
APPENDIX A3. SELECTED TERMS FROM THE CALIFORNIA OCEAN PLAN 

(State Water Board 2005) Appendix 1, Definition of Terms 

ACUTE TOXICITY

a. Acute Toxicity (TUa) 

Expressed in Toxic Units Acute (TUa) 

TUa = 100 

 96-hr LC 50% 

b. Lethal Concentration 50% (LC 50) 

LC 50 (percent waste giving 50% survival of test organisms) shall be determined 

by static or continuous flow bioassay techniques using standard marine test 

species as specified in Appendix III, Chapter II. If specific identifiable substances 

in wastewater can be demonstrated by the discharger as being rapidly rendered 

harmless upon discharge to the marine environment, but not as a result of 

dilution, the LC 50 may be determined after the test samples are adjusted to 

remove the influence of those substances. 

When it is not possible to measure the 96-hour LC 50 due to greater than 50 

percent survival of the test species in 100 percent waste, the toxicity 

concentration shall be calculated by the expression: 

TUa = (log (100 - S))/1.7 

where: 

S = percentage survival in 100% waste. If S > 99, TUa shall be reported as zero. 

CHRONIC TOXICITY: This parameter shall be used to measure the acceptability of 

waters for supporting a healthy marine biota until improved methods are developed to 

evaluate biological response. 

a. Chronic Toxicity (TUc) 

Expressed as Toxic Units Chronic (TUc) 

TUc = 100/NOEL 

b. No Observed Effect Level (NOEL) 

The NOEL is expressed as the maximum percent effluent or receiving water that 

causes no observable effect on a test organism, as determined by the result of a 

critical life stage toxicity test listed in Table 5-3. 

DEGRADE: Degradation shall be determined by comparison of the waste field and 

reference site(s) for characteristic species diversity, population density, contamination, 

149
growth anomalies, debility, or supplanting of normal species by undesirable plant and 

animal species. Degradation occurs if there are significant differences in any of three 

major biotic groups, namely, demersal fish, benthic invertebrates, or attached algae. 

Other groups may be evaluated where benthic species are not affected, or are not the 

only ones affected. 

NATURAL LIGHT: Reduction of natural light may be determined by the Regional Board 

by measurement of light transmissivity or total irradiance, or both, according to the 

monitoring needs of the Regional Board. 

OCEAN WATERS: Territorial marine waters of the State as defined by California law to 

the extent these waters are outside of enclosed bays, estuaries, and coastal lagoons. If 

a discharge outside the territorial waters of the State could affect the quality of the 

waters of the State, the discharge may be regulated to assure no violation of the Ocean 

Plan will occur in ocean waters. 

SHELLFISH: Organisms identified by the California Department of Health Services as 

shellfish for public health purposes (i.e., mussels, clams and oysters). 

WASTE: As used in this [Ocean] Plan, waste includes a discharger’s total discharge, of 

whatever origin, i.e., gross, not net, discharge. 

150
151

APPENDIX B 

Ballast Water Treatment System 

Efficacy Matrix 

Thirty ballast water treatment systems were reviewed by Commission staff for 

compliance with the California performance standards. Twnety systems had data on 

system efficacy available for review. Commission staff was lenient in their assessment 

of system efficacy. Staff included data from shipboard, dockside and laboratory studies 

of system performance. In an effort to standardize results, staff evaluated any data on 

zooplankton abundance as representative of the largest size class of organisms 

(greater than 50 μm in size), and phytoplankton abundance was evaluated on par with 

organisms in the 10 – 50 μm size class. Results presented as percent reduction in 

organism abundance or as concentration of pigments or biological compounds 

associated with organism presence were noted, but these metrics were not comparable 

to the performance standards. 

In the following tables, systems with at least one testing replicate in compliance with the 

performance standard are scored as meeting California standards. Testing results that 

had no testing replicates in compliance with the standard are scored as not meeting 

California standards. Systems that presented data for a given organism size class but 

presented the results in metrics not comparable to the standards are classified as 

“Unknown.” For example, a system that presented results of system efficacy as percent 

reduction of zooplankton abundance could not be compared against the California 

standards, and thus ability of the system to comply with the standards is unknown. 

Open cells indicate lack of data for a given organism size class. Compliance with the 

bacteria standard was assessed using the concentration of culturable heterotrophic 

bacteria in discharged ballast water. Available data on ballast water treatment of viruses 

is included in this analysis, but due to the lack of available methods to both quantify and 

assess the viability of all viruses, compliance could not be assess for these samples at 

this time. The source(s) of the data for each system can be found in the Literature Cited 

section of the main report. 
Manufacturer Location # Tests # Tests Met Std Replicates Controls # Organisms/cubic meter Methods 

Laboratory 1 0 - - Unknown (% Reduction) Visual Assesment 

Land-Based 12 9 6 Y 0 - 26 Microscope/mobility 

Shipboard 5 2 12 Y 0 - 3 Microscope/mobility 

Laboratory - - - - - - 

Land-Based - - - - - - 

Shipboard - - - - - 

Laboratory 2 2 2 Y 0 - 3.5x105 Visual, Neutral Red Stain 

Land-Based - - - - - - 

Shipboard 1 1 3 Y 0-5 Visual Assessment 

Laboratory - - - - - - 

Land-Based - - - - - - 

Shipboard - - - - - 

Laboratory - - - - - - 

Land-Based - - - - - - 

Shipboard - - - - - 

Laboratory - - - - - - 

Land-Based - - - - - - 

Shipboard - - - - - - 

Laboratory - - - - - - 

Land-Based - - - - - - 

Shipboard - - - - - - 

Laboratory - - - - - - 

Land-Based 5 5 Y Y 0 Visual Assessment 

Shipboard - - - - - - 

Laboratory 2 2 Y Y 0 Visual Assesment 

Land-Based 19 16 Y Y 0-0.7 Visual Asses., Neutral Red 

Shipboard 5 4 3 Y 0-1.1 - 

Laboratory - - - - - - 

Land-Based - - - - - - 

Shipboard 2 0 - - Unknown (% mortality) - 

Laboratory - - - - - - 

Land-Based - - - - - - 

Shipboard - - - - - - 

Laboratory 1 0 Y Y - Visual Assessment 

Land-Based 4 2 Y Y 0 (100% Mortality) Visual Assessment 

Shipboard 4 0 3 Y 3 - 161 Visual, Neutral Red Stain 

Laboratory - - - - - - 

Land-Based - - - - - - 

Shipboard - - - - - - 

Laboratory - - - - - - 

Land-Based 3 2 Y Y 0 - 1.57 Visual Assessment 

Shipboard - - - - - - 

Laboratory - - - - - - 

Land-Based - - - - - - 

Shipboard - - - - - - 

MARENCO

JFE Engineering Corp

Maritime Solutions Inc.

Hamann AG Evonik 

Degussa

Hi Tech Marine

Hitachi

Hyde Marine

Appendix B1 Organisms > 50 μm

ETI

Ferrate Treatment 

Tech.

Greenship

Alfa Laval

EcologiQ

Electrichlor

ATG Willand

Ecochlor
Manufacturer Location # Tests # Tests Met Std Replicates Controls # Organisms/cubic meter Methods Reference

Laboratory 1 0 3 N Unk (No Units) Visual Assessment 42

Land-Based - - - - - - -

Shipboard - - - - - - -

Laboratory - - - - - - -

Land-Based - - - - - - -

Shipboard - - - - - - -

Laboratory - - - - - - -

Land-Based 4 0 3-5 Y BD, 2 x105 - 1.4x106 Visual Assessment 48,49

Shipboard 1 0 - Y 8 Visual Assessment 46

Laboratory - - - - - - -

Land-Based 5 1 Y Y 0, Unk (% Survival) Visual Assessment 119,120

Shipboard 4 1 Y Y 0 - 7 Visual Assessment 121

Laboratory - - - - - - -

Land-Based - - - - - - -

Shipboard - - - - - - -

Laboratory 3 0 4 Y 1.2x102 - 1.2x104 Visual Assessment 105

Land-Based 3 1 Y Y Unk (% Live) Visual Assessment 40

Shipboard 3 2 12 Y 0 - 150 Visual Assessment 141

Laboratory - - - - - - -

Land-Based 14 2* 3 Y 0*-135 Visual Assessment 2,95

Shipboard 12 4 3 Y 0 - 9720 Visual Assessment 6,124

Laboratory 1 0 - Y > 0 Visual Assessment 47

Land-Based 13 8 3 Y 0-144 Microscope/Mobility 11,92

Shipboard 7 0 Y Y 1.4 - ~5500, Unk (% Reduction) Visual Assessment 11,135

Laboratory - - - - - - -

Land-Based - - - - - - -

Shipboard - - - - - - -

Laboratory - - - - - - -

Land-Based - - - - - - -

Shipboard - - - - - - -

Laboratory 1 1 - - 0 Visual Assessment 71

Land-Based - - - - - - -

Shipboard - - - - - - -

Laboratory 1 1 Y Y 0 Visual Assessment 21,36

Land-Based 2 2 3 Y 0 Visual Assessment 57

Shipboard 1 1 3 Y 0 Visual Assessment 8

Laboratory - - - - - - -

Land-Based 5 3 3-4 Y 0 - ~4x105 Visual Assessment 39

Shipboard - - - - - - -

Laboratory - - - - - - -

Land-Based 11 8 3 Y 0-6 Visual Assessment 50

Shipboard 3 3 3 Y 0 Visual Assessment 50

Laboratory - - - - - - -

Land-Based - - - - - - -

Shipboard - - - - - - -

Unk = Unknown, BD = Below Detection Limits

Mitsubishi Heavy Ind.

Appendix B1 Organisms > 50 μm

Resource Ballast Tech

RWO Marine Water 

Tech

MH Systems

NEI

NK-O3

Toagosei Group

Mitsui Engineering

Techcross Inc.

Severn Trent 

SeaKleen (Hyde)

Nutech O3 Inc.

OceanSaver

OptiMarin

Panasia Co. 
Manufacturer Location # Tests # Tests Met Std Replicates Controls # Organisms/ml Methods 

Laboratory 1 0 - - Unk (% Reduction) Visual Assesment 

Land-Based 12 3 6 Y 0-92.5 Microscope/stain (CDFA_AM), M

Shipboard 5 1 12 Y 0-1.7 Microscope/stain (CDFA_AM), M

Laboratory - - - - - - 

Land-Based - - - - - - 

Shipboard - - - - - - 

Laboratory 2 0 2 Y <0.1 - >60, Unk ([Chl a]) Visual Assessment, MPN, [Ch

Land-Based - - - - - - 

Shipboard 1 1 3 Y 0-81 Visual Assessment, [Chl a] 

Laboratory - - - - - - 

Land-Based - - - - - - 

Shipboard - - - - - 

Laboratory - - - - - - 

Land-Based - - - - - - 

Shipboard - - - - - - 

Laboratory - - - - - - 

Land-Based 3 0 2-3 Y 1 - 1.5 Growout (+, -), Flowcam 

Shipboard - - - - - - 

Laboratory - - - - - - 

Land-Based - - - - - - 

Shipboard - - - - - - 

Laboratory - - - - - - 

Land-Based 5 3 Y Y 0 - 7 Total Counts 

Shipboard - - - - - - 

Laboratory 3 3 Y Y 0 (100% Mortality) Visual Assessment, Sytox Gre

Land-Based 18 17 3 Y 0 - <0.01 Flow Cytometer, Sytox stain 

Shipboard 5 0 3 Y <0.1 Flow Cytometer, Sytox stain, PAM flu

Laboratory - - - - - - 

Land-Based - - - - - - 

Shipboard 2 0 - - Unk (% Mortality) - 

Laboratory - - - - - - 

Land-Based - - - - - - 

Shipboard - - - - - - 

Laboratory 1 0 Y Y 26 - 210 Visual Assessment, Coulter, M

Land-Based 4 0 Y Y Unk ([Chl a]) [Chl a] 

Shipboard 5 0 3 Y Unk (% of controls, [Chl a]) Visual Assessment, [Chl a] 

Laboratory - - - - - - 

Land-Based - - - - - - 

Shipboard - - - - - - 

Laboratory - - - - - - 

Land-Based 3 0 Y Y 0.05 - 0.186 MPN, [Chl a], 14C, PAM 

Shipboard - - - - - - 

Laboratory - - - - - - 

Land-Based - - - - - - 

Shipboard - - - - - - 

Unk = Unkown, MPN = Most Probable Number

Ferrate Treatment Tech.

Greenship

Hamann Evonik Degussa

JFE Engineering Corp

Appendix B2 Organisms 10 - 50 μm

ETI

ATG Willand

EcologiQ

Alfa Laval

Ecochlor

Electrichlor

Maritime Solutions Inc.

Hi Tech Marine

Hitachi

Hyde Marine

MARENCO
Manufacturer Location # Tests # Tests Met Std Replicates Controls # Organisms/ml Methods 

Laboratory - - - - - - 

Land-Based - - - - - - 

Shipboard - - - - - - 

Laboratory - - - - - - 

Land-Based - - - - - - 

Shipboard - - - - - - 

Laboratory - - - - - - 

Land-Based 4 0 3-5 Y BD, 206.6 - 387.4, Unk Visual Assessment (20 - 50um

Shipboard 1 0 - Y BD Visual Assessment 

Laboratory - - - - - - 

Land-Based 5 0 Y Y Unk [Chl a] 

Shipboard 4 0 Y Y 443 - 593 Total Counts (Preserved), [Chl a], R

Laboratory - - - - - - 

Land-Based - - - - - - 

Shipboard - - - - - - 

Laboratory 3 0 4 Y Unk [Chl a] 

Land-Based 2 0 Y Y 22 - 190 Total Counts (Preserved) 

Shipboard 3 0 5 Y 0.016 - 4 [Chl a], Grow Out, Counts 

Laboratory - - - - - - 

Land-Based 14 11 3 Y 0-8.7 dilution, microscopy (CFDA stain), pla

Shipboard 3 3 3 Y 0-2.8 Microscope (CFDA stain), Photosyne

Laboratory 1 0 - Y 26 - 210 MPN, Coulter 

Land-Based 13 6 3 Y 0-92 Microscope/stain, MPN, agar pl

Shipboard 10 0 Y Y Unk ([Chl a], % Reduction) [Chl a], HPLC, PAM, Counts, Gro

Laboratory - - - - - - 

Land-Based - - - - - - 

Shipboard - - - - - - 

Laboratory - - - - - - 

Land-Based - - - - - - 

Shipboard - - - - - - 

Laboratory 1 1 - - 0 Visual Assessment 

Land-Based - - - - - - 

Shipboard - - - - - - 

Laboratory 2 1 Y Y 0, Unk (Unitless) Epifluorescence, Hemacytometer, Sy

Land-Based 2 0 3 Y Unk ([Chl a]) [Chl a] 

Shipboard 1 1 3 Y 0 Visual Assessment, [Chl a], Gro

Laboratory - - - - - - 

Land-Based 5 2 3-4 Y 0.002 - 10, BD ([Chl a]) MPN, [Chl a] 

Shipboard - - - - - - 

Laboratory - - - - - - 

Land-Based 11 9 3 Y 0-4 Light micro., epifluor. and fluorometer 

Shipboard 3 3 3 Y 0 Light micro., epifluor. and fluorometer 

Laboratory - - - - - - 

Land-Based - - - - - - 

Shipboard - - - - - - 

Unk = Unknown, BD = Below Detection Limits, MPN = Most Probably Number

OptiMarin

Techcross Inc.

Resource Ballast Tech

RWO Marine Water Tech

SeaKleen (Hyde)

Severn Trent 

Mitsui Engineering

Panasia Co. 

Toagosei Group

Appendix B2 Organisms 10 - 50 μm

MH Systems

Mitsubishi Heavy Ind.

NEI

NK-O3

Nutech O3 Inc.

OceanSaver
Manufacturer Location # Tests # Tests Met Std Replicates Controls used # CFU/100 ml Methods 

Laboratory 1 0 - - Unk (% Reduction) - 

Land-Based 12 12 6 Y 0 - 800 Membrane filtration 

Shipboard 4 4* 9 Y 0* Membrane filtration 

Laboratory - - - - - - 

Land-Based - - - - - - 

Shipboard - - - - - 

Laboratory - - - - - - 

Land-Based - - - - - - 

Shipboard 1 1 3 Y 0 - ~21 Idexx Labs Colilert 

Laboratory - - - - - - 

Land-Based - - - - - - 

Shipboard - - - - - 

Laboratory - - - - - - 

Land-Based - - - - - - 

Shipboard - - - - - - 

Laboratory - - - - - - 

Land-Based - - - - - - 

Shipboard - - - - - - 

Laboratory 1 0 - - 300 Idexx Labs QuantiTray MPN 

Land-Based - - - - - - 

Shipboard - - - - - - 

Laboratory 1 1 - Y >1000 - 3000 Plate Counts 

Land-Based 5 5 Y Y 0 - 1 Unk 

Shipboard - - - - - - 

Laboratory 1 1 Y - 0 Plate Counts 

Land-Based 12 12 3 Y <0.1/ml Membrane filtration 

Shipboard 4 4* 3 Y <0.1/ml Membrane filtration 

Laboratory - - - - - - 

Land-Based - - - - - - 

Shipboard - - - - - - 

Laboratory - - - - - - 

Land-Based - - - - - - 

Shipboard - - - - - - 

Laboratory - - - - - - 

Land-Based - - - - - - 

Shipboard 4 4 3 Y 0 Idexx Labs Colisure 

Laboratory - - - - - - 

Land-Based - - - - - - 

Shipboard - - - - - - 

Laboratory - - - - - - 

Land-Based - - - - - - 

Shipboard - - - - - - 

Laboratory - - - - - - 

Land-Based - - - - - - 

Shipboard - - - - - - 

Unk = Unknown, * = Initial concentration at intake was zero or non-detectable

JFE Engineering Corp

Maritime Solutions Inc.

MARENCO

Hamann Evonik Degussa

Hi Tech Marine

Hitachi

Hyde Marine

Appendix B3 E. coli

Alfa Laval

Ecochlor

ATG Willand

Greenship

EcologiQ

Electrichlor

ETI

Ferrate Treatment Tech.
Manufacturer Location # Tests # Tests Met Std Replicates Controls used # CFU/100 ml Methods 

Laboratory - - - - - - 

Land-Based - - - - - - 

Shipboard - - - - - - 

Laboratory - - - - - - 

Land-Based - - - - - - 

Shipboard - - - - - - 

Laboratory - - - - - - 

Land-Based 2 0 3 Y BD, Unk Plate Counts 

Shipboard - - - - - - 

Laboratory - - - - - - 

Land-Based 5 1 Y Y 10 - 160 Idexx Labs MPN Kit 

Shipboard 4 1 Y Y <100 Idexx Labs MPN Kit 

Laboratory - - - - - - 

Land-Based - - - - - - 

Shipboard - - - - - - 

Laboratory - - - - - - 

Land-Based - - - - - - 

Shipboard 3 3* 11-12 Y 0* IDEXX Labs MPN Kit 

Laboratory - - - - - - 

Land-Based 14 14 3 Y 0-123 Membrane Filtration 

Shipboard 3 3* 3 Y 0* Membrane Filtration 

Laboratory - - - - - - 

Land-Based 12 12 3 Y 0-2 Membrane Filtration 

Shipboard - - - - - - 

Laboratory - - - - - - 

Land-Based - - - - - - 

Shipboard - - - - - - 

Laboratory - - - - - - 

Land-Based - - - - - - 

Shipboard - - - - - - 

Laboratory - - - - - - 

Land-Based - - - - - - 

Shipboard - - - - - - 

Laboratory 1 1 Y Y 0 Culture Growth 

Land-Based - - - - - - 

Shipboard 2 2* 3 Y 0* Idexx Labs Colisure 

Laboratory - - - - - - 

Land-Based - - - - - - 

Shipboard - - - - - - 

Laboratory - - - - - - 

Land-Based 10 10 3 Y 0 Plate counts 

Shipboard 3 3 3 Y 0 Plate Counts 

Laboratory - - - - - - 

Land-Based - - - - - - 

Shipboard - - - - - - 

Unk = Unknown, BD = Below Detection Limits, * = Initial concentration at intake was zero or non-detectable

Panasia Co. 

Toagosei Group

OptiMarin

Techcross Inc.

Resource Ballast Tech

RWO Marine Water Tech

SeaKleen (Hyde)

Severn Trent 

NK-O3

Nutech O3 Inc.

OceanSaver

Appendix B3 E. coli

MH Systems

Mitsubishi Heavy Ind.

Mitsui Engineering

NEI
Manufacturer Location # Tests # Tests Met Std Replicates Controls # CFU/100 ml Methods Reference

Laboratory - - - - - - -

Land-Based 12 12 6 Y 0 - 4 Membrane filtration 1,93

Shipboard 4 4* 10 Y 0 Membrane filtration 94

Laboratory - - - - - - -

Land-Based - - - - - - -

Shipboard - - - - - -

Laboratory - - - - - - -

Land-Based - - - - - - -

Shipboard 1 0 3 Y Unk Idexx Labs Enterolert 63

Laboratory - - - - - - -

Land-Based - - - - - - -

Shipboard - - - - - -

Laboratory - - - - - - -

Land-Based - - - - - - -

Shipboard - - - - - - -

Laboratory - - - - - - -

Land-Based - - - - - - -

Shipboard - - - - - - -

Laboratory 1 0 - - 80 Idexx Labs QuantiTray MPN 22

Land-Based - - - - - - -

Shipboard - - - - - - -

Laboratory - - - - - - -

Land-Based 5 5 Y Y 0 Unk 115

Shipboard - - - - - - -

Laboratory - - - - - - -

Land-Based 12 12 3 Y <0.1/ml Membrane filtration 91

Shipboard 4 4* 3 Y <0.1/ml Membrane filtration 91

Laboratory - - - - - - -

Land-Based - - - - - - -

Shipboard - - - - - - -

Laboratory - - - - - - -

Land-Based - - - - - - -

Shipboard - - - - - - -

Laboratory - - - - - - -

Land-Based - - - - - - -

Shipboard 4 4* 3 Y 0 Idexx Labs Enterolert 139

Laboratory - - - - - - -

Land-Based - - - - - - -

Shipboard - - - - - - -

Laboratory - - - - - - -

Land-Based - - - - - - -

Shipboard - - - - - - -

Laboratory - - - - - - -

Land-Based - - - - - - -

Shipboard - - - - - - -

Unk = Unknown, * = Initial concentration at intake was zero or non-detectable.

Greenship

Hamann Evonik 

Degussa

JFE Engineering Corp

Maritime Solutions Inc.

Hi Tech Marine

Hitachi

Hyde Marine

MARENCO

Appendix B4 Intestinal Enterococci

ETI

Ferrate Treatment Tech.

ATG Willand

EcologiQ

Alfa Laval

Ecochlor

Electrichlor
Manufacturer Location # Tests # Tests Met Std Replicates Controls # CFU/100 ml Methods Reference

Laboratory - - - - - - -

Land-Based - - - - - - -

Shipboard - - - - - - -

Laboratory - - - - - - -

Land-Based - - - - - - -

Shipboard - - - - - - -

Laboratory - - - - - - -

Land-Based 2 0 3 Y BD, Unk Plate counts 48

Shipboard - - - - - - -

Laboratory - - - - - - -

Land-Based 5 0 Y Y 36 Idexx Labs MPN Kit 119,120

Shipboard 4 2 Y Y <10 Idexx Labs MPN Kit 121

Laboratory - - - - - - -

Land-Based - - - - - - -

Shipboard - - - - - - -

Laboratory - - - - - - -

Land-Based - - - - - - -

Shipboard 3 3* 11-12 Y 0* Idexx Labs Enterolert 141

Laboratory - - - - - - -

Land-Based 14 9 3 Y 0-133 Membrane Filtration 95

Shipboard 3 3* 3 Y 0*-9 Membrane Filtration 124

Laboratory - - - - - - -

Land-Based - - - - - - -

Shipboard - - - - - - -

Laboratory - - - - - - -

Land-Based - - - - - - -

Shipboard - - - - - - -

Laboratory - - - - - - -

Land-Based - - - - - - -

Shipboard - - - - - - -

Laboratory - - - - - - -

Land-Based - - - - - - -

Shipboard - - - - - - -

Laboratory - - - - - - -

Land-Based - - - - - - -

Shipboard 2 2* 3 Y 0* Idexx Labs Enterolert 8

Laboratory - - - - - - -

Land-Based - - - - - - -

Shipboard - - - - - - -

Laboratory - - - - - - -

Land-Based 11 11 3 Y 0-5 Plate counts 50

Shipboard 2 2 3 Y 0 Plate counts 50

Laboratory - - - - - - -

Land-Based - - - - - - -

Shipboard - - - - - - -

Unk = Unknown, BD = Below Detection Limits, * = Initial concentration at intake was zero or non-detectable

Panasia Co. 

Toagosei Group

OptiMarin

Techcross Inc.

Resource Ballast Tech

RWO Marine Water Tech

SeaKleen (Hyde)

Severn Trent 

NK-O3

Nutech O3 Inc.

OceanSaver

Appendix B4 Intestinal Enterococci

MH Systems

Mitsubishi Heavy Ind.

Mitsui Engineering

NEI
Manufacturer Location # Tests # Tests Met Std Replicates Controls # Organisms/100 ml Methods Reference

Laboratory - - - - - - -

Land-Based 10 10* 3 Y <1* Supplemented Agar Plates 93

Shipboard 4 4* 9 Y <1* Supplemented Agar Plates 94

Laboratory - - - - - - -

Land-Based - - - - - - -

Shipboard - - - - - -

Laboratory 2 2 2 Y 0 (% cover) Plate Counts 100

Land-Based - - - - - - -

Shipboard 1 0 3 Y BD - ~1000 Unk 63

Laboratory - - - - - - -

Land-Based - - - - - - -

Shipboard - - - - - -

Laboratory - - - - - - -

Land-Based - - - - - - -

Shipboard - - - - - - -

Laboratory - - - - - - -

Land-Based - - - - - - -

Shipboard - - - - - - -

Laboratory 1 0 - - 108 Indexx Labs QuantiTray MPN 22

Land-Based - - - - - - -

Shipboard - - - - - - -

Laboratory - - - - - - -

Land-Based - - - - - - -

Shipboard - - - - - - -

Laboratory - - - - - - -

Land-Based - - - - - - -

Shipboard - - - - - - -

Laboratory - - - - - - -

Land-Based - - - - - - -

Shipboard - - - - - - -

Laboratory - - - - - - -

Land-Based - - - - - - -

Shipboard - - - - - - -

Laboratory - - - - - - -

Land-Based - - - - - - -

Shipboard - - - - - - -

Laboratory - - - - - - -

Land-Based - - - - - - -

Shipboard - - - - - - -

Laboratory - - - - - - -

Land-Based - - - - - - -

Shipboard - - - - - - -

Laboratory - - - - - - -

Land-Based - - - - - - -

Shipboard - - - - - - -

Unk = Unknown, * = Initial concentration at intake was zero or non-detectableAppendix B5 Vibrio cholerae

ETI

EcologiQ

Alfa Laval

ATG Willand

Ecochlor

Electrichlor

Ferrate Treatment Tech.

Maritime Solutions Inc.

Hi Tech Marine

Hitachi

Hyde Marine

MARENCO

Greenship

Hamann Evonik Degussa

JFE Engineering Corp
Manufacturer Location # Tests # Tests Met Std Replicates Controls # Organisms/100 ml Methods Reference

Laboratory 1 0 3 N Unk (% Reduction) Plate Counts 42

Land-Based - - - - - - -

Shipboard - - - - - - -

Laboratory - - - - - - -

Land-Based - - - - - - -

Shipboard - - - - - - -

Laboratory - - - - - - -

Land-Based 2 0 3 Y BD, Unk Plate Counts 48

Shipboard - - - - - - -

Laboratory - - - - - - -

Land-Based - - - - - - -

Shipboard 4 1 Y Y 0 DFA 121

Laboratory - - - - - - -

Land-Based - - - - - - -

Shipboard - - - - - - -

Laboratory - - - - - - -

Land-Based - - - - - - -

Shipboard 3 3* 11-12 Y 0* Unknown 141

Laboratory - - - - - - -

Land-Based 14 14* 3 Y <1* Plate counts (TCBS agar) 95

Shipboard 3 3* 3 Y 0* Plate counts (TCBS agar) 124

Laboratory - - - - - - -

Land-Based 12 12* 3 Y <1 Supplemented Agar Plates 92

Shipboard - - - - - - -

Laboratory - - - - - - -

Land-Based - - - - - - -

Shipboard - - - - - - -

Laboratory - - - - - - -

Land-Based - - - - - - -

Shipboard - - - - - - -

Laboratory - - - - - - -

Land-Based - - - - - - -

Shipboard - - - - - - -

Laboratory - - - - - - -

Land-Based - - - - - - -

Shipboard - - - - - - -

Laboratory - - - - - - -

Land-Based - - - - - - -

Shipboard - - - - - - -

Laboratory - - - - - - -

Land-Based 11 11* 3 Y 0* Plate counts (TCBS agar) 50

Shipboard 3 3* 3 Y 0* Plate counts (TCBS agar) 50

Laboratory - - - - - - -

Land-Based - - - - - - -

Shipboard - - - - - - -

Unk = Unknown, BD = Below Detection Limits, DFA = Direction Fluorescent Antibody, * = Initial concentration at intake was zero or non-detectable

Toagosei Group

OptiMarin

Techcross Inc.

NEI

NK-O3

Nutech O3 Inc.

OceanSaver

Appendix B5 Vibrio cholerae

MH Systems

Mitsubishi Heavy Ind.

Resource Ballast Tech

RWO Marine Water Tech

SeaKleen (Hyde)

Severn Trent 

Mitsui Engineering

Panasia Co. 
Manufacturer Location # Tests # Tests Met Std Replicates Controls # Organisms/100 ml Methods Ref

Laboratory 1 0 - - Unk (% Reduction) Visual Assesment 

Land-Based 10 0 6 Y 820/ml - 4x108/ml Agar Plate Counts 1

Shipboard - - - - - - 

Laboratory - - - - - - 

Land-Based - - - - - - 

Shipboard - - - - - 

Laboratory 2 2 2 Y 0,Unk (% of control, % Plate cover) Plate Counts, 3H-leucine 

Land-Based - - - - - - 

Shipboard 1 1 3 Y BD Plate Counts, 3H-leucine 

Laboratory - - - - - - 

Land-Based - - - - - - 

Shipboard - - - - - 

Laboratory - - - - - - 

Land-Based - - - - - - 

Shipboard - - - - - - 

Laboratory 1 0 3 Y - Plate Counts, BacLight 

Land-Based 3 0 2-3 Y 5x107 - 1x109 Growout (+, -), FCM/PicoGreen 60

Shipboard - - - - - - 

Laboratory - - - - - - 

Land-Based - - - - - - 

Shipboard - - - - - - 

Laboratory - - - - - - 

Land-Based 5 2 Y Y 0 - 6000 Unk 

Shipboard - - - - - - 

Laboratory 2 0 Y Y 3.8x107 - 4.6x107 Plate Counts, PicoGreen 

Land-Based 13 1 3 Y <10/ml - 4.6 x 107 PicoGreen, Agar Plate 91

Shipboard 4 3 3 Y 5-15/ml heterotrophic bacteria, plate 

Laboratory - - - - - - 

Land-Based - - - - - - 

Shipboard - - - - - - 

Laboratory - - - - - - 

Land-Based - - - - - - 

Shipboard - - - - - - 

Laboratory 1 0 Y Y ~5000 - 7000 Plate Counts 

Land-Based 2 0 Y Y Unk Plate Counts, AODC 

Shipboard 4 0 3 Y Unk Plate Counts 

Laboratory - - - - - - 

Land-Based - - - - - - 

Shipboard - - - - - - 

Laboratory - - - - - 

Land-Based 3 2 Y Y 0 - ~5x108 Plate Counts, Membrane Filtration 51,

Shipboard - - - - - - 

Laboratory - - - - - - 

Land-Based - - - - - - 

Shipboard - - - - - - 

Unk = Unknown, BD = Below Detection Limits, FCM = Flow Cytometer

Greenship

Hamann Evonik Degussa

JFE Engineering Corp

Maritime Solutions Inc.

Hi Tech Marine

Hitachi

Hyde Marine

MARENCO

Appendix B6 Organims < 10 μm (Bacteria)

ETI

Ferrate Treatment Tech.

ATG Willand

EcologiQ

Alfa Laval

Ecochlor

Electrichlor
Manufacturer Location # Tests # Tests Met Std Replicates Controls # Organisms/100 ml Methods Ref

Laboratory - - - - - - 

Land-Based - - - - - - 

Shipboard - - - - - - 

Laboratory - - - - - - 

Land-Based - - - - - - 

Shipboard - - - - - - 

Laboratory - - - - - - 

Land-Based 2 0 3 Y BD, Unk Plate Counts 

Shipboard 1 0 - Y BD Plate Counts 

Laboratory - - - - - - 

Land-Based 5 0 Y Y > 1x108 FCM 11

Shipboard 4 0 Y Y 7.3x107 - 7.9x107 FCM 

Laboratory - - - - - - 

Land-Based - - - - - - 

Shipboard - - - - - - 

Laboratory 3 3 4 Y < 101 - 108 Plate Counts, Membrane Filtration 

Land-Based 3 3 Y Y 3x10-1 - 3x102 Plate Counts, Membrane Filtration 

Shipboard 2 2 9-12 Y 0 Plate Counts, Filtration 

Laboratory - - - - - - 

Land-Based 5 3 3 Y 0 - 8.2x105/ml Plate Counts 

Shipboard - - - - - - 

Laboratory 2 0 - Y ~ 5x103 - ~7x103 Plate Counts 

Land-Based 13 1 3 Y 9-220/ml Agar Plate Counts 1

Shipboard 10 0 Y Y <103 - 104, Unk (% Reduction) Plate Counts, SYBR Gold 11

Laboratory - - - - - - 

Land-Based - - - - - - 

Shipboard - - - - - - 

Laboratory - - - - - - 

Land-Based - - - - - - 

Shipboard - - - - - - 

Laboratory - - - - - - 

Land-Based - - - - - - 

Shipboard - - - - - - 

Laboratory - - - - - - 

Land-Based - - - - - - 

Shipboard 1 0 3 Y Unk (Unitless) Plate Counts 

Laboratory - - - - - - 

Land-Based 4 4 3-4 Y <1 - 1010 Plate Counts, Membrane Filtration 

Shipboard - - - - - - 

Laboratory - - - - - - 

Land-Based 11 Unknown 3 Y Unknown Fluorescent microscopy (DAFI) 

Shipboard 3 Unknown 3 Y Unknown Fluorescent microscopy (DAFI) 

Laboratory - - - - - - 

Land-Based - - - - - - 

Shipboard - - - - - - 

Unk = Unknown, AODC = Acridine Orange Direct Counts, FCM = Flow Cytometer, BD = Below Detection Limits

OptiMarin

Techcross Inc.

Resource Ballast Tech

RWO Marine Water Tech

SeaKleen (Hyde)

Severn Trent 

Mitsui Engineering

Panasia Co. 

Toagosei Group

Appendix B6 Organims < 10 μm (Bacteria)

MH Systems

Mitsubishi Heavy Ind.

NEI

NK-O3

Nutech O3 Inc.

OceanSaver
Manufacturer Location # Tests # Tests Met Std Replicates Controls # Organisms/100 ml Methods Referenc

Laboratory - - - - - - -

Land-Based - - - - - - -

Shipboard - - - - - - -

Laboratory - - - - - - -

Land-Based - - - - - - -

Shipboard - - - - - -

Laboratory 2 Unknown 2 Y 0,Unk ( % of Control) Plaque Forming Units 100

Land-Based - - - - - - -

Shipboard - - - - - - -

Laboratory - - - - - - -

Land-Based - - - - - - -

Shipboard - - - - - -

Laboratory - - - - - - -

Land-Based - - - - - - -

Shipboard - - - - - - -

Laboratory - - - - - - -

Land-Based - - - - - - -

Shipboard - - - - - - -

Laboratory - - - - - - -

Land-Based - - - - - - -

Shipboard - - - - - - -

Laboratory - - - - - - -

Land-Based - - - - - - -

Shipboard - - - - - - -

Laboratory - - - - - - -

Land-Based - - - - - - -

Shipboard - - - - - - -

Laboratory - - - - - - -

Land-Based - - - - - - -

Shipboard - - - - - - -

Laboratory - - - - - - -

Land-Based - - - - - - -

Shipboard - - - - - - -

Laboratory - - - - - - -

Land-Based - - - - - - -

Shipboard - - - - - - -

Laboratory - - - - - - -

Land-Based - - - - - - -

Shipboard - - - - - - -

Laboratory - - - - - - -

Land-Based - - - - - - -

Shipboard - - - - - - -

Laboratory - - - - - - -

Land-Based - - - - - - -

Shipboard - - - - - - -

Unk = Unknown

Maritime Solutions Inc.

MARENCO

Alfa Laval

Ecochlor

Electrichlor

Greenship

Hamann Evonik Degussa

JFE Engineering Corp

EcologiQ

Hi Tech Marine

Hitachi

Hyde Marine

Appendix B7 < 10 μm (Viruses)

ETI

Ferrate Treatment Tech.

ATG Willand
Manufacturer Location # Tests # Tests Met Std Replicates Controls # Organisms/100 ml Methods Referenc

Laboratory - - - - - - -

Land-Based - - - - - - -

Shipboard - - - - - - -

Laboratory - - - - - - -

Land-Based - - - - - - -

Shipboard - - - - - - -

Laboratory - - - - - - -

Land-Based - - - - - - -

Shipboard - - - - - - -

Laboratory - - - - - - -

Land-Based - - - - - - -

Shipboard - - - - - - -

Laboratory - - - - - - -

Land-Based - - - - - - -

Shipboard - - - - - - -

Laboratory - - - - - - -

Land-Based - - - - - - -

Shipboard - - - - - - -

Laboratory - - - - - - -

Land-Based - - - - - - -

Shipboard - - - - - - -

Laboratory - - - - - - -

Land-Based 1 Unknown - Y Unk (% Reduction) Spiked Coliphage MS2 Exp. 11

Shipboard 5 Unknown - Y Unk (% Reduction) Spiked Coliphage, SYBR Gold 11,135

Laboratory - - - - - - -

Land-Based - - - - - - -

Shipboard - - - - - - -

Laboratory - - - - - - -

Land-Based - - - - - - -

Shipboard - - - - - - -

Laboratory - - - - - - -

Land-Based - - - - - - -

Shipboard - - - - - - -

Laboratory - - - - - - -

Land-Based - - - - - - -

Shipboard - - - - - - -

Laboratory - - - - - - -

Land-Based - - - - - - -

Shipboard - - - - - - -

Laboratory - - - - - - -

Land-Based - - - - - - -

Shipboard - - - - - - -

Laboratory - - - - - - -

Land-Based - - - - - - -

Shipboard - - - - - - -

Unk = Unknown

Panasia Co. 

Toagosei Group

OptiMarin

Techcross Inc.

Resource Ballast Tech

RWO Marine Water Tech

SeaKleen (Hyde)

Severn Trent 

NK-O3

Nutech O3 Inc.

OceanSaver

Appendix B7 < 10 μm (Viruses)

MH Systems

Mitsubishi Heavy Ind.

Mitsui Engineering

NEI
APPENDIX C 

California State Lands Commission 

Advisory Panel Members

Ryan Albert U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Marian Ashe (2007 only) California Department of Fish and Game 

John Berge Pacific Merchant Shipping Association 

Dave Bolland Association of California Water Agencies 

Brad Chapman Chevron Shipping Company 

Andrew Cohen San Francisco Estuary Institute 

Tim Eichenberg (2007 only) The Ocean Conservancy 

Richard Everett United States Coast Guard 

Naomi Feger San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control 

Board 

Andrea Fox California Farm Bureau Federation 

Marc Holmes The Bay Institute 

Dominic Gregorio State Water Resources Control Board 

Bill Jennings The DeltaKeeper 

Edward Lemieux Naval Research Laboratory 

Karen McDowell San Francisco Estuary Project 

Steve Morin Chevron Shipping Company LLC 

Allen Pleus Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife 

Kevin Reynolds The Glosten Associates 

Greg Ruiz Smithsonian Environmental Research Center 

Spencer Schilling Herbert Engineering Corp. 

Jon Stewart International Maritime Technology Consultants Inc. 

Lisa Swanson Matson Navigation 

Mark Sytsma Portland State University 

Drew Talley San Francisco Bay National Estuarine Research 

Reserve 

Kim Ward State Water Resources Control Board 

Nick Welschmeyer Moss Landing Marine Laboratory 

166
California State Lands Commission 

2009 Treatment Technology Assessment Report 

Technical Advisory Panel 

October 1, 2008 

Meeting Notes 

Participants: 

John Berge 

Pacific Merchant Shipping Association 

Marc Holmes 

The Bay Institute 

Brad Chapman 

Chevron Shipping Co. 

Karen McDowell* 

San Francisco Estuary Project 

Andy Cohen 

San Francisco Estuary Institute 

Allen Pleus* 

WA Department of Fish and Wildlife 

Nicole Dobroski 

California State Lands Commission 

Kevin Reynolds* 

The Glosten Associates 

Maurya Falkner 

California State Lands Commission 

Chris Scianni 

California State Lands Commission 

Daphne Gehringer 

California State Lands Commission 

Lisa Swanson* 

Matson Navigation 

Dominic Gregorio 

State Water Resources Control Board 

* = Participated by phone 

Meeting Notes: 

Nicole welcomed everyone to the meeting and participants introduced themselves. 

Nicole mentioned that legislation passed [SB 1781] to extend the initial performance 

standards implementation date for newly built vessels with a ballast water capacity of 

less than 5000 MT from January 1, 2009 to 2010. The purpose of the meeting was to go 

over any major concerns with the report, not to wordsmith the document. She needed 

any written comments and feedback by Friday October 3rd. Marc asked when the public 

comment period takes place on this report. Maurya replied that the document will be 

available on the Commission website for public comment 10 days prior to the 

Commission meeting to be held on December 3rd. 

Nicole went through the report, and indicated where the report had gone through 

substantial changes. This included the legislative section and the treatment assessment 

sections. More system developers are performing land-based and ship-based testing to 

comply with IMO system approval that for the last report. While more data has been 

submitted to MISP staff, it is still difficult to obtain all the necessary reports etc... 

167
Nicole pointed out the new information in Table VI.1 regarding system efficacy. In 

previous TAG meetings, it became clear that the bacterial standard was an issue 

because of the lack of methods to both quantify numbers and assess viability. Nicole 

recommended that the standard should be changed from “bacteria per ml” to “culturable 

heterotrophic bacteria (colony forming units).” Viability needs to be determined using 

culturing techniques, and thus the change in standard would reflect that fact. The 

proposed bacteria standard would be preventative since there are estimated to be 10^3 

bacteria/ml in the natural environment, and the performance standard is 10^3/100ml. 

Nicole clarified that in the Table VI.1, the <10 micron size category with cells indicating 

“unknown” was described as such because the bacteria were tested for a particular 

system but was done so using methods that didn’t allow for both counts and bacterial 

viability. In the viral category, Nicole discussed that it is difficult to test for viral 

viability/infectivity. CSLC staff suggested a change of wording to “concentrations of such 

additional indicator microbes and viruses as may be specified in regulations.” This 

change would provide CSLC staff with room to specify organisms of concern in the 

future. Thus there are two recommended changes for the performance standards - 

bacteria units of measurement and replacement of virus standard with clause about 

indicator microbes. 

CSLC staff believes there will be technology available for the 2010 deadline since only a 

few vessels will need to comply (should be less than 50 total vessels arriving to CA with 

ballast water capacity <5000 MT). There could be less than 50 vessels needing 

treatment systems because not all of those vessels are necessarily discharging in CA 

waters. Maurya pointed out that a lot of these vessels are likely passenger vessels, 

since they carry small volumes of ballast and have a variety of options of managing their 

ballast. 

Kevin pointed out that there will be some risk from bulk ships that are involved in the 

“tramp trade.” These vessels do not come to CA predictably, so it is unclear whether or 

not they will comply with CA standards. Maurya said that vessels such as these will be 

targeted for ballast water inspections. Brad thought that these tramp trade vessels might 

increase the number of estimated vessel arrivals to CA. However, he also thought that 

these operators may be more selective about what vessels they would send to CA. 

Realistically, operators would send their old vessels to CA until more systems were 

available for installation on vessels. Kevin thought that perhaps operators could actually 

benefit from having treatment systems on board because they could charge a significant 

fee for using vessels that will be compliant with CA standards. 

Andy mentioned that onshore treatment would be a big solution for all of these 

discharge problems, especially in terms of the vessels involved in the tramp trade. 

Maurya agreed, but pointed out that the infrastructure does not yet exist for onshore 

treatment. John said that deballasting while underway is critical for vessels trying to get 

to ports such as Sacramento and Stockton, and that if onshore treatment was required 

for those vessels it would push the transport of those goods from ships to rail. 

168
John then went on to discuss the problem resulting from the date change from 2009 to 

2010. Since only the initial date of performance standards implementation was 

changed, the staggering of the implementation schedule is no longer in line with a 5 

year dry dock cycle (i.e. by the Commission stating that no systems were available for 

2009 that means that a vessel that goes into dry dock then won’t have any systems 

installed and will thus be noncompliant with CA standards if that vessel doesn’t go back 

into dry dock until after January 1, 2014). This will make it hard for some vessels to get 

dry dock times in order to install treatment systems before the 2014 date in the 

implementation schedule. John argued that even though the operators have known 

about the scheduled deadlines, they haven’t had the legislation to enforce these dates 

until now. Maurya clarified that previous discussions did not involve changing the other 

implementation dates, and solely focused on the first deadline, with knowledge that 

additional decisions would need to be made later. The next technology report is due in 

2010 and can discuss these matters. Also, not all vessels will have to go into dry dock 

to install the treatment systems. 

Kevin wanted to clarify that the implementation schedule for IMO isn’t as inline with CA 

as may seem. IMO has a clause that applies to existing ships that requires them to 

meet the performance standards at the point of the first vessel survey after the date of 

implementation of standards for that vessel size class. The table in the technology 

assessment report should clarify that the IMO and CA implementation dates are not 

identical. 

Regarding the efficacy table, Andy wondered if a vessel had multiple treatment systems 

onboard, if CSLC would consider that as meeting the performance standard, for the 

purposes of this report. Maurya pointed out that it is not a CSLC mandate to assess 

how multiple systems would enable vessels to meet the performance standards. Kevin 

discussed the efficacy table as a function of treatment type, and wondered if he could 

assume that if one technology treatment (e.g. UV) met a standard that other 

manufacturers of that technology type would also meet that standard, even if they 

haven’t sent in the data yet to MISP. Nicole agreed with the concept, but noted that 

operators need to make that type of decision and request the appropriate information. 

CSLC isn’t going to indicate in the report that a technology meets the standard without 

data from that system available for review. Marc wondered if it would be helpful, 

nonetheless, to make some general statement in the report about the treatment types in 

terms of meeting performance standards. Nicole agreed to add a general statement 

about the possibility of a treatment type being effective, even if data had not been sent 

to MISP. 

In a discussion about environmental assessment and toxicity testing, Dominic pointed 

out that the different measurements for chlorine residues (Total Residual Chlorine 

(TRC) vs. Total Residual Oxidant) are pretty comparable, and suggested not getting 

caught up in the type of measurement, but just to indicate what measurement was used 

with an asterisk. John pointed out that for the TRC compliance for OptiMarin should be 

changed from “yes” to “NA.” 

169
Nicole wrapped up introductory discussion of the report by commenting that AB 169 

was vetoed, so the report will be changed accordingly to add the recommendation that 

the Commission requires the authority to revise the reporting requirements to include 

information about treatment system usage. Also, the testing guidelines will be given to 

technology developers for testing their systems for possible compliance with CA 

standards in next couple of weeks and any relevant info from the completion of this 

document will be added to the report. 

The conversation moved to discuss larger issues that meeting participants had with the 

report. Participants first listed their main concerns with the report and then discussion 

later retuned to each item of concern: 

o Andy stated that changing the bacteria terminology weakens the standard 

because with the change in units comes with a change in the number of bacteria 

that can be screened for. Therefore, if the units are to change then the number of 

bacteria used in the count (colony forming units) should be changed 

appropriately. Also, he pointed out that adding the indicator microbes wording 

does not substitute for the existing viral standards. 

o Marc’s concern was in terms of the organization and tone of the report. He would 

like for an executive summary to be included to make the objectives of the report 

more clear. He also felt that there was a disconnect between the efficacy section 

and the conclusions because the report states on page 34 that there is not 

enough information to make a conclusions, but then the conclusion states that 

several systems will be available and ready to go. The connection between these 

two points can be addressed in an executive summary. Also, the conclusions that 

were addressed are buried. 

o Brad agreed about the continuity and, in reading the report, thought that CSLC 

was going to extend the first deadline back another year, until he got to the very 

end of the report. Brad was also concerned that if the changes to the bacteria 

and viral standards get rejected, then how would the conclusions of the report 

change? 

o Dominic had technical comments on the toxicity table and a general comment 

about a statement on page 15 about the State Water Board’s authority. 

o John was curious if there was any reference to actual physical parameters when 

discussing system performance and availability (e.g. what type of water flow 

rates can these systems handle while meeting the standards). Nicole mentioned 

that these items were not explicitly discussed in the report, but that developers 

are well aware of necessary flow rates. 

o Kevin made a point about the tone of the report in terms of the availability of 

these treatment systems. He felt like treatment development looks promising and 

170
on track, but the systems are not commercially available. Kevin said he would 

send specific comments via email. 

o Allen, Karen, and Lisa had no comments. 

BREAK 

After the break, Nicole started a discussion about the concerns regarding changing the 

units to bacteria in the performance standards. Andy stated that changing the units for 

the bacteria substantially weakens the regulation because approximately 1% (or so, 

although no specific numbers were available) of bacteria are culturable, so CSLC would 

need to change the number of bacteria in the performance standard from 1000 to 10 to 

make the two regulations comparable. Also, the reasoning for changing the units in the 

regulation is not clear. The report states that there are methods to quantify bacteria, but 

they are not necessarily appropriate. Dominic agreed with Andy’s point about changing 

the concentration of bacteria. The concentration in the law might be more stringent than 

the existing assessment methodology, but that’s not unusual. Chlorine measurements 

have a similar limitation. CSLC should keep the strict standard, but use assessment 

methods to the best of technology’s limitations. Dominic suggested that if the bacteria 

units are going to change to colony forming units (CFU), then the units should be 

changed to CFU or MPN because then it would allow for the use of the IDEXX system, 

which is the most effective method available. Nicole stated that the number that they 

chose was based on what Fred Dobbs and Russ Herwig suggested was found in a 

natural environment. 

Also, John was concerned about how to comply with CA standards, and if there is a 

dispute, will the enforcement be brought into administrative court? Maurya expressed 

concern for that as well, and wants to push these treatment systems forward. Kevin was 

concerned that if the methods of measuring organisms advance beyond today’s 

technology, and these systems (that should pass the regulations) end up failing, is 

CSLC going to have strong enforcement against those systems, requiring those 

systems to be removed? Or is there an element of good faith for the systems that CSLC 

is reviewing, and industry won’t be penalized for systems that fail under future 

enforcement programs? Without system approval, and with uncertain but progressive 

sampling techniques, there isn’t much security that the vessels will pass inspections in 

the future. Maurya replied that CSLC would have to go back to the legislature since we 

don’t have the authority to address that. Marc reiterated a comment by Dominic that 

these standards are intended to be about reducing an effect in nature, rather that how to 

quantify the organisms. Changing the standards opens a can of legislative worms. 

Maurya and Nicole agreed that clarifying the regulations to include a statement about 

the best available measurement technique would provide vessel operators some 

certainty. Under best available techniques OptiMarin still meets the performance 

standards. Kevin suggested that having language about grandfathering these systems 

so that the vessels do not have to go through major retrofits would be helpful. Maurya 

will talk to Legal about this and see if it can be put into a rule. Marc suggested that if 

171
“effects in nature” is left in place, then CSLC wouldn’t need changes in statute. Also, 

there are provisions in current regulations to include what Kevin is concerned about, 

and statements can be made so that the treatment systems are “good” until a deadline 

(e.g. 2020, the life of the system). This would allow installations of these systems to be 

sped up since operators would have some security that the systems wouldn’t have be 

removed. Also, this would allow for the systems to be tested by techniques that were 

available when the system was installed. Maurya concluded that the idea of 

grandfathering treatment systems can be dealt with later, and isn’t as pressing as the 

microbial concerns. 

Moving on to the concerns about the virus standards, Nicole pointed out that there are 

ways to count viruses, but part of the definition of viruses are whether or not they are 

viable and able to infect cells. She is not aware of methods that test this for viruses in 

general. It would not be feasible to use the terminology used for bacteria on viruses 

because the methods for bacteria are much more advanced that that of viruses. Karen 

suggested that if the standard isn’t practical because it cannot be measured, then it 

would be better to remove it and not hold back this process. 

After some additional discussion, Maurya and Nicole agreed that the recommendations 

in the draft report to change the bacteria and virus standard would be dropped and 

instead information would be added to the looking forward section to clarify how 

Commission staff would use the best available techniques/methods in order to assess 

vessel compliance with the standards. The issue of possible grandfathering of vessels 

under an existing set of compliance verification methods would be brought up. 

In terms of the tone of the report, Marc suggested that it would be helpful to 

characterize treatment system technology as emerging, rather than apologizing for not 

having all of the data. There are 30 systems, so there is a lot going on, and it shows that 

technology isn’t being developed from scratch. Brad thought that it would be important 

to discuss how out of sync the standards are between IMO, federal government, and 

California because if federal laws don’t change, vessels will have to exchange their 

ballast water and treat to meet the CA performance standards. Those big conflicts 

should be up front. There was discussion about the role of the EPA NPDES. Andy 

suggested that there could be alternatives added to the permit so that vessels wouldn’t 

have to meet both regulations. Dominic stated that those comments could be provided 

to the EPA. 

 

John turned the discussion to the impact if a vessel doesn’t have a sample port? Are 

there alternative ways of sampling? Maurya and Nicole clarified that while there is some 

room for variability, sampling in the tank will not work for systems that treat ballast water 

downstream. 

Regarding the toxicity table, Dominic pointed out that it should be clear in the report that 

the developers did not test for CA species. This is important because not all species 

respond the same to toxins and that there are strong regional components as well. Also, 

he suggested removing the N/A under toxicity testing for systems that use UV because 

172
173

exposing water to UV creates chemicals, such as H2O2, which is bad for the 

environment. Toxicity testing should be applicable for all systems. Kevin pointed out that 

there are guidelines for toxicity testing of substances in the G9 guidelines. 

Dominic also suggested changing the question marks in the table (indicating total 

residual oxidants) to the appropriate yes or no, with an asterisk to show that technically 

the systems were tested for total residual oxidants. The difference between total 

residual chlorine and total residual oxidants is just semantics. Andy suggested that 

Dominic provide a reference to CSLC showing that these two methods are comparable. 

Dominic was also concerned about all of the other chemicals that he had discussed with 

Nicole, and suggested adding the Testing Guidelines document be added as an 

appendix to this report. Nicole stated that it could be added. 

Overall, Andy and Marc said they were impressed with the report and the new 

information. 

In conclusion Nicole said that she would move the recommendations to remove the 

bacterial and virus standards into the “looking forward” section and reword to discuss 

how Commission staff will make use of the best available methods to assess vessel 

compliance the standards. Nicole said she could send the new text out to the TAG. 

Andy wanted to see language regarding best available measurement techniques and 

also regarding the grandfathering of systems. John would like a legal opinion, and 

would like information on the scope of the vessels that this report would be impacting, 

as per Kevin’s comments. Marc stated that he’ll have to comment during the public 

hearing, and that the comments will not be too significant. Nicole requested any written 

comments by Friday, or Monday if need be. Because the report is available for public 

comment before the Commission meeting, the group decided that they did not need to 

immediately review the new text for the report. 

Nicole thanked everyone for their comments, and the meeting was adjourned.