## 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 2009EXECUTIVE 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 impl ement performance standards for the

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

and environmental impacts, including water qualit y, of currently available ballast water

treatment technologies. The performance standards regulations were adopted in

October 2007, and the first technology a ssessment report was approved by the

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

recommendations in the 2007 repor t, the California Legislatur e passed Senate Bill (SB)

1781 (Chapter 696, Statutes of 2008) which delayed the init ial 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 eval uation 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 dev elopment 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 atte st to this fact.

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

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

the concentration of viable organisms presen t 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 viruse s pose a significant challenge, as no widely

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

iiviruses in a sample of ballast water dischar ge. The best available technique for bacterial

assessment involves the use of a subset or proxy group of or ganisms 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 Co mmission should proceed with asse ssment of technologies for

the remaining organism size classes in the standards.

Based on the available information and usi ng 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 anticipat ed to be commercially ava ilable by the end of 2009

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

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

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

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

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

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

impacts from treatment system usage in Ca lifornia 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 qua lity control plans and objectives for vessels

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

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

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

Operation of Vessels, and t he California-specific prov isions added to the Vessel

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

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

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

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

need to consult with the Water Board to bet ter 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 t hat 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 se veral projects to develop a comprehensive

program for the implementati on of California’s performanc e 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 Tr eatment Technology Testing

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

standards and a technology assessment program at the federal level.

Staff will conduct another assessment of availa ble 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.

ivAt this time, the Commission recomm ends that legislation be adopted to:

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

via regulations.

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

with the authority to change the ballast wa ter reporting requirements to include

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

from suggested system operation, and cert ifications for operation from vessel

classification societies and other organization s/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 wit h hundreds of other bills, due to the late

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

system installation and usage remains. T he Commission should be authorized to

amend the ballast water reporting r equirements 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 pr ogressively implemented and as new vessel

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

its infancy, and new methods and techni ques 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 obt ained through three mechanisms: general

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

Legislature should support future budget cha nge proposals or other fiscal actions to

ensure that the development of eval uation methods may keep pace with the

advancement of treatment technologi es and with the performance standards

implementation.

vTABLE 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 WATE R TREATMENT SYSTEM............

EFFICACY MATRIX 151

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

NOTES 166

vivii 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 Tech nology 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 Po llution Control Agency

MT Metric Ton NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NIS Nonindigenous Species

nm Nautical Mile

NPDES National Pollution Dis charge Elimination System NRL Naval Research Laboratory

PRC Public Resources Code

SB Senate Bill

Staff Commission staff STEP Shipboard Tec hnology Evaluat ion Program

TRC Total Residual Chlorine

TRO Total Residual Oxidant

USCG United States Coast Guard

UV Ultraviolet Irradiation

Vessel General Permit Vessel General Permi t for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Co mmercial Vessels and Large

Recreational Vessels

Water Board California Stat e Water Resources Control Board WDFW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife WET Whole Effluent ToxicityI. 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 impac ts, including the effect on water quality, of

currently available technologies for balla st 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 Legisl ature passed Senate Bill (SB) 1781 in 2008 (Chapter 696, Statutes

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

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

2009 to January 1, 2010. Additionally, t he bill required an updat e of the initial

technology assessment report by January 1, 2009 in anticipat ion 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 pl ans 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”, “exo tic”, “alien”, or “aquatic nuisance species”,

nonindigenous species (NIS) are organi sms 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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

declines of fish populations in the Sacrament o-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 le vies with burrows costing approximately

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

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

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

In marine, estuarine and fr eshwater 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 import ant transport mechanism, or “vector,” for

invasion. In one study, shipping was responsi ble 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 Franci sco 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 f unctions related to the trim, stability,

maneuverability, and propulsion of lar ge 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 com pensate for the weight imbalance, and will

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

water from “source” to “desti nation” 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 (Woodfie ld 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 milli on 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 th e 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. Duri ng exchange, the biologically ri ch water that is loaded

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

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

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

in biology (competition, predation, food availability) and oceanogr aphy (temperature,

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

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

Performance Standards for the Discharge of Ballast Water

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

efficacy and operational limitations. Studies i ndicate that the effectiveness of ballast

3water 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 perform ed properly, exchange is considered an

effective tool to reduce the risk of coas tal 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). So me vessels are regularly routed on short

voyages or voyages that remain within 50 n autical 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 dev iations can extend travel dist ances, increasing vessel costs

for personnel time and fuel consumption.

In some circumstances, ballast wate r exchange may not be possible without

compromising vessel or crew safety. For exampl e, 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 t hat can present unacceptable danger if

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

challenges, state and federal ballast water regul ations 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 provisio n is rarely invoked in California, the

handful of vessels that use it may subs equently discharge un-ex changed ballast into

State waters, presenting a risk of NIS introduction.

Regulatory agencies and the commercial sh ipping 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

4voyages to proceed along the s hortest routes, in all ope rational scenarios, thereby

saving time and money.

Despite these incentives, until recently, fi nancial 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 technologie s, including equipment design limitations, the cost of

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

performance. However, some shipping industr y representatives, te chnology developers

and investors considered the absence of a spec ific set of ballast water performance

standards as a primary dete rrent to progress. Perf ormance 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 tar gets so they could design technologies to

meet the standards (MEPC 200 3). Without standards, inve stors were reluctant to

devote financial resources towards conceptual or prototype systems because they had

no indication that their invest ments 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 adopt ion 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 develop ment and the need for effectiv e ballast water treatment

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

process of developing performance standar ds for ballast water discharges.

III. REGULATORY AND PROGRAMMATIC OVERVIEW

A thorough evaluation of t he status of ballast water treatment technologies requires not

only an understanding of the regulatory framework associ ated with the development

and implementation of performance standards fo r the discharge of ballast water, but

also knowledge of mechanisms for the testi ng and evaluation of treatment systems to

meet those standards. Current ly, no comprehensive internat ional, federal or state

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

verify the performance of treatment technologies, and me thods to sample and analyze

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

federal government, and the internationa l community are working toward the

development of a standardi zed approach to the managem ent of discharged ballast

water, however, at this time existing le gislation, 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 negotiati on, International

Maritime Organization (IMO) member countries adopted t he 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 wa ter (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 m onths after ratification by 30 countries

representing 35% of the world’s commerc ial 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). T he Convention cannot be enforced upon any

ship until it is ratified (IMO 2007). Because insufficient time rema ins 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 reso lution 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). Fo r now, the implementation dates for all

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

6Table 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 < 10 3 bacteria/100 ml

< 10 4 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 Ja nuary 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 measur e 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 in 1

< 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 t he 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.

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

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

12 implementation guidelines (o ne additional guideline remain s 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 wate r treatment systems were adopted at the 53 rd

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 System s That Make Use of Active Substances”

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

systems by the MEPC and Flag State Administ rations (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 syst ems that are in compliance with the

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

procedures (as detailed in Guideline G8) fo r full-scale land-based a nd shipboard testing

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

Convention to meet the D-2 standards in t he Convention unless t hat system is Type

Approved.

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

treatment systems using “active substanc es” 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 or ganism, 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 purpos es, an active substance is a chemical

or reagent (e.g. chlorine, ozone) that kills or inactivates organi sms 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 acti ve 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 environment al, ship, and personnel safety by the IMO

Joint Group of Experts on the Scientific As pects of Marine Environmental Protection

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

detailed in Guideline G9. The MEPC may gr ant 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 fo r ballast water treatment systems. (Modified from Lloyd’s Register (2007))

The entire IMO evaluation process (incl uding approval for systems using active

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

(Everett, R., pers. comm. 2007, Lloyd’s Regi ster 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. Unt il 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

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

vendors may approach IMO through associati on 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 forc e of international law, which draws into

question the legality of MEPC approvals of treat ment systems. While t he U.S. is actively

involved in developing and negotiating the vari ous 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 require ments. Hence, vessels calling

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

Approval process to meet U.S. ba llast water management requirements.

One additional guideline relat ed to the implementation of the IMO Convention bears

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

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

information, in the absence of U.S. feder al 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 t he sample) for sample collecti on (BLG 2008). As California

gets closer to the implementat ion of its own performance st andards for the discharge of

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

California regulations and compliance verifica tion procedures (see Section on California

Legislation and Implementat ion of Performance Standards for details).

U.S. Federal Legislation and Programs

The authority to regulate ballast water disc harges 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 Dece mber 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,

10Northern District of California, challenging a regulation orig inally 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 regulat ion at issue, Title 40 of the Code of

Federal Regulations (CFR) Se ction 122.3(a), exempted effl uent discharges “incidental

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

National Pollution Discharge Elimination Syst em (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, t he District Court granted judgment in favor of Northwest

Environmental Advocates et al., and on Se ptember 18, 2006 the C ourt issued an order

revoking the exemptive regulat ion (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 J une 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 ba llast 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) regulati on from September 30 to December 19, 2008.

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

water discharges by the USCG through r egulations 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 bal last 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 require ments if that system is

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

process was in place.

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

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

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

rulemaking on ballast water treatment st andards, and if treatm ent technologies are

determined to be commercially available an d 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 Pe rmit and the USCG regulations do not

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

applicable state laws or regulat ions. Additionally, states wit h 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 expec t 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 Ac t 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 Authorizati on Act of 2007 (H.R. 2830)

12• Great Lakes Collaboration Implement ation 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 governm ent in ballast water

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

stringent than California’s standards. More im portantly, 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 Ac t) has cleared its

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

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

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

as California, to retain aut hority 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 curr ently in the Senate (H.R. 2830) , a separate bill, or could

be addressed in conference committee. Commissi on 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 implementat ion of performance standards fo r the discharge of ballast

water remains uncertain in t he near future, two promising f ederal programs are currently

working proactively to support the development of treatment technologies and facilitate

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

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

(ETV) program.

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

technologies. Vessel owner s and operators accepted into STEP may install and

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

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

efficacy of systems for removing biologica l organisms, residual concentrations of

treatment chemicals, and water quality par ameters of the discharged ballast water

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

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

system to meet the USCG ballast wa ter management requir ements and will be

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

the vessel or the treatment system. During t he 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 ST EP 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 acce lerate 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 agree ment, 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, refi ne, and validate this protocol and the test

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

model ETV Ballast Water Treatment System Te st 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 resu lt in technical procedures for testing ballast

water treatment systems for t he purpose of approval and cert ification. Based on the

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

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

developing a revised final treat ment technology verification protocol which is expected

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

14U.S. State Legislat ion and Programs

Washington

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

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

management regulations in response to Wash ington state legislation passed in 2007

(see E2SSB 5923, the Aquatic Invasive Sp ecies 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 w ould 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 inter national 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 Envir onmental Quality (DEQ), any ballast water

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

ultraviolet radiation preceded by suspended so lids removal, or deoxyg enation) that have

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

Vessels must use treatment technologies in compliance with applic able requirements

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

using technologies not listed under the Mi chigan general permit ma y apply for individual

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

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

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

(Michigan DEQ 2006).

15Minnesota

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 t he Minnesota Polluti on 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 appr oved 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 bes t management practices. No later than

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

standards for the discharge of ballast wate r (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 a nd 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 disc harge of ballast wa ter to the State

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

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

legislation directed that standards shoul d be selected based on the best available

technology economically achievable, and s hould be designed to pr otect the beneficial

uses of the waters of the State.

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

of regulators, research scientists, i ndustry 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

16experimental 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 intr oduction and establishment of

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

performance standards should improve upon the status quo and decrease the

discharge of viable ballast or ganisms to a level below quantities observed following

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

standards should function without introducing chem ical or physical constituents to the

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

these general criteria, however , there was no concrete suppor t 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 per formance standards recommended by the

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

A significant improvement upon ballast wate r 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 prot ective zero discharge standard. The

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

standards for the two largest size classe s of organisms (>50 mi crometers (μm; onemillionth of a meter) in mi nimum 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 implement ation schedule proposed for the interim

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

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

Commission included an implementation deadl ine of 2020 for this final discharge

standard.

The Commission submitted the reco mmended standards and information on the

rationale behind its selection in a report to the State Legisl ature 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, Stat utes of 2006) directing the Commission to

adopt the recommended standards and implementation schedule through the California

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

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

In anticipation of the impl ementation of the interim per formance standards, the Coastal

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

availability and environmental impacts of cu rrently 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 implem entation schedule). During any of these reviews, if it

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

the report must describe why t hey are not available.

In response to the recommendations in t he initial technology assessment report

(Dobroski et al. 2007), the Legislature pa ssed SB 1781 in 2008 (Chapt er 696, Statutes

of 2008). SB 1781 amends PRC Se ction 71205.3(a)(2), delayi ng the implementation of

the interim performance standards for new vesse ls 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 t he performance standards regulations (2 CCR

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

18available ballast water treatment technol ogies 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 perfo rmance 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 Ca lifornia’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 vesse l 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 veri fication of compliance with the performance

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

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

of the State and concerned stakehol ders that systems undergo a thorough

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

has developed ballast water treatment techno logy testing guidelines to bridge the gap

between treatment system development and operation in California waters.

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

technology vendors with a standardized appr oach to evaluating treatment system

performance relative to California’s disc harge 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 scienti sts (Appendix A1). System

verification testing according to these gui delines is not requir ed by the Commission,

however staff strongly encourages technolog y vendors to conduct verification testing

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

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

generated from system evaluation accordin g to these guidelin es will provide

Commission staff and potential treatment technol ogy 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 det ermine whether or not these guidelines have

influenced the testing methods and verificati on protocols used by vendors and testing

organizations.

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

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

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

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

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

compliance verification procedures, to be dev eloped in consultation with technical

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

concentration for each of the standards.

It is expected that the best available tec hniques 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 simp ly because the sensitivity of assessment

techniques improves. This may be accompli shed 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 facilitie s (i.e. equipment) on vessels for compliance

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

to “take samples of ballast water and sediment from at least 25 perc ent 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-i nduced organism morta lity (that may skew

compliance assessment) associated with passage through the sampling apparatus.

Commission staff expects to comple te this rulemaking in 2009.

Finally, the effective implem entation of California’s perfo rmance standards will require

regular monitoring of the treatment te chnologies 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 tr eatment technology industry.

IV. TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT PROCESS

Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 7120 5.3 directs the Commission to prepare, "a

review of the efficacy, avai lability, and environmental im pacts, including the effect on

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

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

Resources Control Board, t he 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 standa rds 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

21assess the current availability of treatment systems, the effica cy 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, nav al architecture and engineering, and

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

summary). The conclusions drawn during t he 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 repor ts from independent testing

organizations. Staff also cont acted 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 va luable opportunities to inform vendors

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

performance verification testing and the Co mmission’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 developm ent of this final report.

V. TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES

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

ballast water. Given societ al experience with wastewater treatment technologies, the

22design and production of ballast water treat ment 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 env ironmental conditions including variable

temperature, salinity, nutrients and sus pended 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 bacte ria, to free-swimmi ng plankton, and must

operate so as to minimize or prevent impairm ent of the water qualit y conditions of the

receiving waters. The development of effect ive 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 wate r treatment occurs at a facility following

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

technologies that are integrated into t he ballasting system. Sh ipboard treatment

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

normal operations, while shoreside treatm ent 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 bec ause of the potential

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

poses several challenges. Current shores ide wastewater treat ment plants are not

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

existing municipal facilities are to be used fo r 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 wate r from vessels at ber th 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 fo r vessels that must take on or discharge

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

23through 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 onbo ard vessels due to space and/or energy

constraints, such as reverse osmosis. Addi tionally, shoreside treatment facilities could

be staffed by trained wastew ater engineers instead of ship s’ crew who may not be

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

date, however, only limited f easibility 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 te rminals 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 nec essary to determine feasibility of and

demand for shoreside treatment for other vesse l 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 perform ance standards. Because

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

technologies during recent y ears has been focused on shipboar d treatment systems, we

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

Shipboard systems allow for greater flexibi lity 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 confo rm to a vessel’s structure, ensure crew

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

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

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

compliance with water quality require ments of recipient regions.

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

the needs of the treatment syst em 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 separati on (such as filtration) generally occurs

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

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

voyage. Some treatment system s treat ballast water at mu ltiple 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 m eet the objective of k illing 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 treat ment 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 effect ive, 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 industr y. 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 treatme nt methods currently under development for

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

mechanical, chemical, physical, biological and combination.

25Mechanical Treatment

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

water. Mechanical treatment typically takes pl ace 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 treatm ent include filtration and hydrocyclonic

separation.

Filtration works by capturing organisms and par ticles 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 medi a. In ballast water treatment, screen and disk

filtration is more commonly used over f ilter 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 f iltration-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 befor e 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 cent rifugation, relies on d ensity 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 c an be discharged before ent ering 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 aquat ic organisms have a

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

26Chemical Treatment

A variety of chemicals (i.e. active subst ances) 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 ma y 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 tr eatment 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. sa lt, oxygen) to produce killing agents. For

example, electrochemical oxi dation can produce reactants su ch 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. Envir onmental concerns surrounding chemical

use in ballast water focus on t he impacts of residuals or by products in treated discharge

on receiving waters. The effective use of chem ical 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 a nd residuals to degrade or be

treated to environmentally acceptable levels. Bo th 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 other s based on ballast volume, voyage length,

and water quality conditions. Additional conc erns about chemical use specific to

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

27design limitations that impact the availability of space onboar d 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 wa ter. Like chemical treatment, physical

treatment may occur on balla st uptake, during vessel tr ansit 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 wa ste 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 difficu lt to heat ballast water to a sufficient

temperature to kill all species of bacteria du e 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. Cu rrently such a treatment technology would

be prohibitively expen sive (up to $2.55/m 3 ), but additional res earch and development

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

Ultrasound (ultrasonic treatment) kills thr ough high frequency vibration that creates

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

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

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

treatment. UV damages genetic material and pr oteins which disrupts reproductive and

physiological processes. UV irradiati on 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 di oxide may trigger a chemical response and result in a

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

28Biological Treatment

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

biological organisms to directly kill or pr oduce conditions that will kill or inactivate

organisms present in ballast water. Thes e treatment organisms are considered an

“active substance” according to the IM O 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 (Bilk ovski, R., pers. comm. 2008). The resultant

hypoxic environment is toxic to the remain ing organisms in the bal last tank. Vendors of

biological treatment syst ems will likely need to addre ss how systems will meet the

performance standards, as the organisms respons ible for producing the desired killing

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

Combination Treatment

Several treatment technologies inactiva te organisms by combining mechanical,

chemical, physical and/or biological treat ment 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 re sult. For example, while filtration is

rarely sufficient to remove organisms of a ll 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 ba llast water treatment. The most common

combined treatment methods pair mechanica l removal with a physical or chemical

process.

Treatment Systems

Twenty-eight treatment technologies were re viewed in the first technology assessment

report for the California Legislature (see Dobro ski 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 re moved from the list of reviewed systems

2930 (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 E ngineering, 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 repor t, Commission staff compiled and reviewed

information on 30 shipboard ballast water tr eatment systems developed in 10 countries

(Table V-1).

Twenty-one of the treatment systems reviewed here utiliz e combination treatment

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

Aside from mechanical separat ion, the most common met hod used in ballast water

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

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

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

systems use ozone, one uses ozone and electrol ytic chlorination, one uses ferrate, one

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

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

generate an array of oxidants including bromi ne, 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. Si x 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 f iltration or hydrocyclonic mec hanical separation methods.

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

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

non-oxidizing biocide (menadion e), a heat treatment tec hnology, and one technology

using a combination of coagulation and magnetic separation (Table V-1).Table V-1.Ballast Water Treatment Systems Reviewed by Commission StaffManufacturerCountrySystemNameTechnologyTypeTechnology DescriptionApprovalsAlfa LavalSwedenPureBallastcombinationfiltration + advanced oxidationtechnology (hydroxyl radicals)IMO Basic and FinalType Approval(Norway)ATG WillandUnitedKingdomcombinationhydrocyclone + UVEcochlorUSAEcochlorTMBWTreatmentSystemcombinationfiltration + biocide (chlorine dioxide)IMO BasicEcologiQUSA/CanadaBallaCleanbiologicaldeoxygenationElectrichlorUSAModel EL 1-3 Bchemicalbiocide (electrolytic generation ofsodium hypochlorite)EnvironmentalTechnologies Inc.USABWDTScombinationozone + sonic energyFerrate TreatmentTechnologies LLCUSAFerratorchemicalbiocide (ferrate)Greenship LtdNetherlandsSedinoxcombinationhydrocyclone + electrolyticchlorinationIMO BasicHamann Evonik DegussaGermanySEDNA Systemcombinationhydrocyclone + filtration + biocide(Peraclean Ocean)IMO Basic and Final,Type Approval (Ger.)Hi Tech MarineAustraliaSeaSafe-3physicalheattreatmentQueenslandEPAHitachiJapanClearBallastcombinationcoagulation + magnetic separation+ filtrationIMO BasicHyde MarineUSAHyde Guardiancombinationfiltration + UVWA ConditionalJFE Engineering Corp.JapanJFE BWMScombinationfiltration + biocide (sodium chlorine)+ cavitationMARENCOUSAcombinationfiltration+UVWA GeneralApprovalMaritime Solutions Inc.USAcombinationfiltration + UV3132Table V-1 (Continued).Ballast Water Treatment Systems Reviewed by Commission StaffManufacturerCountrySystem NameTechnologyTypeTechnology DescriptionApprovalsMH SystemsUSABW treatmentsystemcombinationdeoxygenation + carbonationMitsubishi Heavy IndustriesJapanHybrid Systemcombinationfiltration + electrolytic chlorinationMitsui EngineeringJapanSpecial Pipecombinationmechanical treatment + ozoneIMO BasicNEIUSAVenturi OxygenStripping (VOS)combinationdeoxygenation + cavitationType Approval(Liberia)NK-O3KoreaBlueBallastchemicalozoneIMO BasicNutech 03 Inc.USASCX 2000, Mark IIIchemicalozoneOceanSaverNorwayOceanSaver BWMScombinationfiltration + cavitation + nitrogensupersaturation + electrodialysisIMO Basic and FinalOptiMarinNorwayOptiMarin BallastSystemcombinationfiltration + UVPanasia Co. LtdKoreaGloEn-Patrolcombinationfiltration + UVIMO BasicResource BallastTechnologiesSouthAfricaRBT Reactorcombinationcavitation + ozone + sodiumhypochlorite + filtrationIMO BasicRWO Marine WaterTechnologyGermanyCleanBallastcombinationfiltration + advanced electrolysisIMO BasicSeaKleen (Hyde)USASeaKleenchemicalbiocide(menadione)Severn Trent DeNoraUSABalPurechemicalelectrolytic generation of sodiumhypochlorite + neutralizing agent(sodium bisulfite)WA ConditionalTechcross Inc.KoreaElectro-Cleenchemicalelectrochemical oxidation +neutralizing agent (sodiumthiosulfate)IMO Basic and FinalToagosei GroupJapanTG BallastCleanerTGEnvironmentalguardcombinationfiltration + biocides (sodiumhypochlorite) and neutralizingagent (sodium sulfite)IMO BasicVI. ASSESSMENT OF TREATMENT SYSTEMS

The Coastal Ecosystems Protection Act r equired the adoption of regulations to

implement performance standards for the discharge of balla st water. Over 80% of

voyages to California ports report that t hey 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. Vesse ls 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 st andards 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 dischar ge. 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 impl ementation 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 thos e systems with data for review, the

inconsistency in testing methodologies among systems and occasi onally between tests

of a single system made comparison of data im possible. Results often varied in scale

(pilot vs. full-scale) and location (labor atory vs. dockside vs. shipboard), and were

frequently presented in metrics in compatible 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.

33While some of these challenges remain, mo st notably the lack of information for some

systems, Commission staff has seen a signi ficant 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 ship board 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 t han 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 com parable to California’s standards. Therefore

the quality of the new information is subst antially higher than seen previously, and the

data directly lends itself to comparis on against California’s performance standards.

Commission staff compiled and reviewed all available literature and performance data in

order to assess system potential to meet Ca lifornia’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. zo oplankton, phytoplankton). In an effort to

standardize results, staff evaluat ed any data on zooplankton abundance as

representative of the largest size class of organisms (greater than 50 μm in size), and

phytoplankton abundance was eval uated 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 review ed 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 viabili ty for each of the size classes in

California’s performance standards. The te chnical advisory panel that guided the

development of the “Ballast Water Treatment Technology Testing Guidelines” assisted

Commission staff with the production of a t able (see Table 5-1 in Appendix A) listing

commonly accepted methods of organism enum eration and viability determination for

34each 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 assessmen t, like that of treatment

technology development, is still emerging. Scient ists are striving to find rapid, innovative

techniques that can be used by both scient ists and regulatory agencies to assess

vessel discharge compliance with the re levant 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, th ere 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 st andard, Commission staff used a proxy group

of organisms (culturable, aerobic, heter otrophic bacteria – hereafter culturable

heterotrophic bacteria) to represent the larger group of all bacteria. Culturable

heterotrophic bacteria were selected as a prox y for total bacteria because, unlike total

bacteria, there are reliable, well-acc epted standard methods to both enumerate and

assess viability of these organisms. Culturab le heterotrophic bacteri a are a well-studied

group of bacteria, and research is being con ducted to examine the relationship between

their populations and the larger pool of bacterial species (see Appendix A1, Dobbs, F.,

pers. comm. 2008). Staff ex amined the data on treatment system performance at

reducing culturable heterotrophic bacteria to le vels within the California standard of

1000 bacteria (in this case expressed as co lony-forming units) per 100 ml of ballast

water. At a subsequent advisory panel m eeting, members debated whether such a

proxy group of organisms should be held to a different standard than th at written in the

law (see Appendix C for discussion). For inst ance, because heterotro phic 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 heterotr ophic bacteria represent 10% of the total

population of bacteria, the standard for assessment using this proxy group might be

3536 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 standar d 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 in volves the use of a subset of viruses

known as bacteriophages (viruses that infe ct 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 specie s. 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 compli ance 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 review ed treatment systems to meet both the IMO

and California performance standards (as asse ssed using best available methods) in

Table VI-1. A positive compliance assessment for the purpose of this report, however,

does not relieve the vessel ow ner/operator of the responsi bility 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 withavailable results for assessment of efficacySystems with at least one replicate in compliance with the performance standards are denoted bya “Y” in the appropriate columnin Table VI-1. Non-compliance isdenoted by an “N,” and those systems with data in metrics not directly comparable to the performance standards were designatedas “unknown.” A blank cell orhashing indicates that no data was available.IMO CA IMO CA IMOCA1,2IMO CA IMO CA IMO CAAlfa LavalY Y Y Y N/A N Y Y Y YY4Y41,68,93,94ATG WillandN/AEcochlorY Y Y Y N/A Y Y YY Y63,100EcologiQN/AElectrichlorN/AETIY N N/A N59,60,61,62Ferrate Treatment Tech.N/AY N Y N Y Y22GreenshipY Y Y Y N/A Y Y Y Y Y25,115Hamann Evonik DegussaY Y Y Y N/A Y Y Y Y Y38,91,130Hi Tech MarineN/A41HitachiY Y Y Y N/A Y Y75Hyde MarineY YN/A N Y YY4Y456,57,139JFE Engineering Corp.N/AMARENCOY Y Y N N/A Y51,52,136Maritime Solutions Inc.N/AMH SystemsN/A42Mitsubishi Heavy Ind.N/AMitsui EngineeringY N Y Unknown N/A Unknown46,48,49NEIY Y Y Unknown N/A N Y Y Y Y Y Y119,120,121NK-03N/ANutech 03 Inc.Y Y Y N N/A YY4Y4Y4Y4Y4Y440,105,141OceanSaverY Y Y Y N/A Y Y Y Y YY4Y46,95,124OptiMarinY Y Y Y N/A Y Y Y Y YY4Y411,47,92,135Panasia Co.N/AResource Ballast Tech.N/ARWO Marine Water Tech.Y5Y5Y6Y6N/A Y Y Y Y71SeaKleen (Hyde)Y Y Y Y N/A Unknown Y YY4Y48,21,36,57Severn Trent DeNoraY Y Y Y N/A Y39Techcross Inc.Y Y Y Y N/A Y Y Y YY4Y450,69Toagosei GroupN/A1Bacteria were assessed through examination of culturable heterotrophic bacteria (expressed as colony forming units).2No methods exist to quantify and assess the viability ofviruses at this time.3Numbered references can be found in Literature Cited section4Concentration at intake was zero or non-detectable5Artemiacysts only6Tetraselmis suecicaonlyUnknownUnknownUnknownUnknownUnknownUnknownUnknownUnknownManufacturer> 50 μm 10 - 50 μmE. coli< 10 μm (bacteria)UnknownReference3V. choleraeEnterococciUnknown37In the largest organism size class (organi sms 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 det ectable living organisms per cubic meter of discharged

ballast water (Table VI-2, Appendix B1). Si milar 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 comp leted assessment of system performance

at eliminating human health indicator s pecies 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 Calif ornia standard, and 13 demonstrated compliance

– up from 10 in the 2007 report. Fourteen systems tested for t he presence of intestinal

enterococci, and eleven system s demonstrated potential comp liance compared to three

in 2007 (Appendix B4). Finally, ten system s examined treated bal last 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 test ing 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 elim inating the species.

As previously mentioned, the assessment bacte ria and viruses relative to California’s

standards in treated ballast water has been pr oblematic due to a lack of techniques to

both enumerate and evaluate the viabi lity of all bacterial and viruses in ballast water. A

technical panel of experts that has assist ed Commission staff with the development of

the treatment technology testing guidelines (see Appendix A) recommend that the

38bacterial standard be assessed using culturable heterotrophic bacteria as a proxy group

of bacterial organisms. Available data wa s 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 he terotrophic 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 fo r culturable heterotrophic bacteria, but

have not yet provided those data to Commission staff.

Results for the number (counts) of viruses or virus-like partic les in ballast water samples

either pre- or post-treatm ent were only available fo r two systems and only using

bacteriophages (Appendix B7). Further discu ssion 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. T hese numbers are simply recorded for now.

On a theoretical note, experts variously refe r to “viruses” as “virus-like particles”, and

“virus-sized particles,” but no term is fu lly 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 refe rred 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.

39Table 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

Results 2 19 18 14 15 14 10

Number Systems

that Meet

Standard 3 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 re port, 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 stan dards (see Table III-1 for standards).

As seen in Table VI-1, 20 treatment system s have results available for analysis of

system efficacy; the potential for the rema ining ten systems to meet the California

standards is not clear at this time. For those systems with resu lts, sixteen systems

demonstrated the potential to meet at leas t 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 system s met 6 size classes (Table VI-1, Appendix

B). Systems cannot be assessed for complianc e 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 Califor nia’s standards in

the near future. Many systems utilize similar treatment me thods (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 syst em for which data is lacking but which uses the same

treatment method. While Commission staff did not assess system compliance in Table

40VI-1 based on this assumption (i.e. in the abs ence of specific data from a particular

system), the number of systems potentially c apable of meeting Calif ornia’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 relations hip among many elements in cluding the number of

vessels that will be impacted by the per formance standards (i.e. industry demand),

commercial availability, and the relations hip between government approval of systems

and overall market demand for treatment technol ogies. 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 system s approval, particularly at the federal

and international levels, as vessel operat ors 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 Tabl e 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 struct ures and machinery. The first implementation

date for California will affect only new vesse ls 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 2 010 will greatly influence how quickly

treatment vendors must have their systems ava ilable for sale. Lloyd’s Register (2008)

estimates that in 2009, worldwide constr uction will commence on 540 new vessels with

41a ballast capacity of less than 5000 MT. Presum ably, 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 estimate s 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 a rrived in California provides

some insight into, and a very conservative estimate of, the num ber that must be

prepared to meet the perfo rmance standards in 2010. Be tween January 2000 and

August 2008, 908 unique vessels with a bal last water capacity less than 5000 MT

arrived at California ports (F igure VI-1). Presuming a 20-year vessel replacement cycle,

approximately 5% (45) of t hese 908 vessels may be replaced by new vessels and be

required to meet the perf ormance standards in 2010 (Rey nolds, 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 standar ds 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.

42298 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 arriv ed 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 wit h later implementation dates, may choose to

purchase a system earlier than required by the standards implementation date so that

installation dovetails with drydock and repai r schedules. In this case, estimates of

demand based solely on the st andards 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 commercia lly available by the time the initial

interim performance standards take effect in 2010. The definition of commercial

43availability 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 ava ilability in 2008, seven ant icipated availability in 2009

and two in 2010 (Lloyd’s Register 2008). Similar data collected by Commission staff

indicate that as of October 2008 at leas t 12 technology vendors consider their systems

to be commercially available. On the other hand, only three systems have currently

received Type Approval as r equired 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 al ready 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 abi lity of small technology

vendors to meet project ed production and support needs of the shipping fleet.

Treatment vendors may be able to space out delivery of syst ems for new vessels with a

ballast capacity less than 5000 MT over a c ouple of years while infrastructure and

production are brought up to speed, as even t he largest marine corporations require

significant lead time for exis ting marine product lines (Rey nolds, 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 inst allation and operation un til 2011 or later.

System support is equally important as commer cial availability. Following installation,

system developers will need to have personn el and infrastructure in place to

troubleshoot and fix problems t hat arise during system operat ion. Maritime trade is a

44global 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. Th e initial influx of systems into the marketplace will no

doubt challenge developers to provide adequat e service. Larger companies entrenched

in the maritime logistics or equipment indus tries may already be prepared to respond to

technological challenges and emergencies as they arise, but smaller ballast water

treatment vendors may face an initial per iod to ramp up service and access to

replacement parts. It is currently unclear if system support serv ice will be adequate as

the first of California’s performance standar ds 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 ma rket demand to purchase those technologies. Previous

discussions addressed one aspect of demand - the number of ve ssels that will be

required to meet the perf ormance 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 compli ance 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 w ill be permitted to operate in federal waters.

As of October 2008, neither the EPA nor t he 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 appr ove systems before 2010, a vessel intent on

discharging ballast in California after a rriving 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 wil l additionally be required to treat that

45water 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 system s 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 wa ter 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 performanc e standards. Systems that may be deemed

commercially available and ready for sale by technology vendors must demonstrate

system efficacy to vessel owners/operator s who will purchase those systems and to

regulatory agencies. Systems that have rece ived IMO approval for active substances

and Type Approval may be available for pur chase 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 t hey 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 l east two systems, OceanSaver and OptiMarin,

are both commercially available and have de monstrated 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 implementat ion 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 wate r and applicable environmental safety and

water quality laws and regulations. The disc harge of treated ballast should not impair

water quality so as to impact the designate d beneficial uses of th e State’s receiving

46waters (e.g. recreation, fisheries, fish/wildlife habitat). T he IMO, federal government and

individual states have develo ped specific limits for dischar ge 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 Overvi ew), the IMO has established an approval

process through Guideline G9 fo r treatment technolog ies using active substances (i.e.

chemicals) to ensure systems are safe fo r 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 int egrity of the full-scale system.

Guideline G9 of the Conventi on requires applicants to prov ide information identifying: 1)

Chemical structure and description of t he active substance and relevant chemicals

(byproducts); 2) Results of testing for persistence (environmental half-life),

bioaccumulation, and acute and chronic aquatic to xicity effects of the active substance

on aquatic plants, invertebrates, fish, and ma mmals; and 3) An a ssessment report that

addresses the quality of the te sts 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 Ma rine Environmental Protection (GESAMP) –

Ballast Water Working Group (BWWG) in a ccordance with the procedures detailed in

Guideline G9. The Guideline does not addr ess system efficacy, only environmental

safety (MEPC 2005b).

Federal Regulation

Outside of USCG’s Shipboard Technology Ev aluation Program (STEP), ballast water

treatment systems are not curr ently approved for use in compliance with federal ballast

47water management requirements. Consequent ly, there is no formal environmental

assessment approval program (lik e that of IMO) for ballast water treatment systems at

the federal level. EPA, however, recognize s that ballast water treatment systems will be

used both experimentally at the federal leve l and in compliance with state ballast water

management requirements, and has therefore in cluded provisions in the draft NPDES

Vessel General Permit for discharges from ve ssels employing balla st water treatment

systems.

The effluent limits and best m anagement practices described in the draft NPDES Vessel

General Permit are specific to those treat ment systems that make use of biocides.

Under the permit, all biocides that meet the definition of a “pesticide” under the Federal

Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodent icide 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 r egistration. Additionally, the

permit sets a limit for Total Re sidual Chlorine (100 μg/l) in ballast water discharge, and

states that discharges of ot her 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). Further more, 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 cont aining 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 t he environmental compliance r equirements associated with

STEP participation including: 1) Compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act

(NEPA) process; 2) Due diligenc e by the applicant in provid ing requested biological and

ecological information and obtaining necessary permits from regulatory agencies; and

3) A provision that systems found to hav e an adverse impact on the environment or

48present a risk to the vessel or human health will be withdrawn from the program (USCG

2006).

State of Washi ngton Regulation

The Washington State Departm ent of Ecology developed a framework for “Establishing

the Environmental Safety of Ballast Water Bi ocides” 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 Stat e 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 fram ework for evaluating ballast water biocides

include EPA-approved acute, chronic and s ensitive life stage toxicity tests on

invertebrate, fish and algal s pecies. If treated ballast wa ter 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 dete rmine the biocide environmental safety.

The results of the toxicity testing are us ed to set system dischar ge conditions such as

maximum concentration or minimum degradation time (Marshall, R., pers. comm. 2007).

California Regulation

California does not have a formal environment al evaluation process for ballast water

treatment systems. Vessels t hat discharge in California waters will need to comply with

the applicable provisions of the EPA’s NP DES Vessel General Permit including all

California-specific conditions added by the State Water Res ources Control Board

through the Section 401 certificat ion process. As of the writi ng of this report, the permit

conditions included in the 401 certif ication 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 Contro l Board Basin Plans, the EPA’s California

49Toxics Rule (CTR) and the associated State Im plementation 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 Test ing Guidelines” that were distributed to

treatment vendors in October 2008 were de veloped in consultation with the Water

Board, and summarize the water quality objecti ves 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 sy stems for potential environmental impacts

to California waters. The IMO active subst ance 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 t he EPA’s NPDES Vessel General Permit and

the State’s Ocean Plan. As discussed in Sect ion 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 im pacts from the wide variet y 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 envir onmental assessment on Total Residual

Chlorine (TRC) concentrations in dischar ged ballast water because both EPA (through

the draft NPDES Vessel Gener al Permit) and the Water B oard (through the California

Ocean Plan) have identified TRC as a particular concern due to its widespread toxicity

5051 to all organisms. Vendors and vessel owner s/operators will need to consult with the

Water Board and EPA to ensure that vessel di scharges 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 technol ogies reviewed in this report. Where

applicable, the available dat a has been analyzed to determi ne whether or not treated

ballast would comply with California’s wa ter quality objective for chlorine in ocean

waters (= instantaneous maximum of 60 μg/l in discharged waters).

Many systems have initiated toxicity testi ng of treated discharges and have applied to

IMO for Basic and Final Approval. The IMO Basic Approval application, however, may

include data from general literat ure review or laboratory analysi s 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 dischar ge of treated ballast from a fully functioning

treatment system. Currently only four treatment systems have receiv ed 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 regist ration process required under FIFRA has

been completed by one system (Hamann Evonik Degussa), and a few others are in the

process of completing the proc ess. 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 signifi cant room for systems to operat e 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 assessmentand approval of treatment systemsNote: Table does not address whether or not toxicity testingwas performed in accordance with the California Ocean Plan52Alfa Lavalfree radicalsX IMO Basic and FinalY73,93ATG Willandn/a (UV)Ecochlorchlorine dioxideXIMO Basic, Rec WA Cond.2Y 84EcologiQyeastX3Electrichlorsodium hypochloriteETIozoneX62Ferrate Treatment Tech. ferrateGreenshipfree active chlorine, total residual chlorine X IMO Basic80,86Hi Tech Marinen/a (heat)Queensland EPA123Hyde Marinen/a (UV)JFE Engineering Corp. sodium chlorineMARENCOn/a (UV)Maritime Solutions Inc. n/a (UV)MH Systemsn/a (deoxygenation)Mitsubishi Heavy Ind. free active chlorine72Mitsui Engineering ozoneX IMO Basic69NEIn/a (deoxygenation)X10NK-03ozone, total residual oxidantX IMO BasicY85Nutech 03 Inc.ozoneXN141OceanSaverfree and total residual oxidantX IMO Basic and FinalY 82,87,99OptiMarinn/a (UV)XY92Panasia Co.photonIMO Basic78,81Resource Ballast Tech. ozone, hydroxyl radicalsX IMO BasicN74RWO Marine Water Tech. hydroxyl radicals, free active chlorineX IMO BasicN76,79SeaKleenmenadione (Vitamin K3)X8Severn Trent DeNora sodium hypochlorite, sodium bisulfiteXRec. WA Conditional2Y 39Toagosei Groupsodium hypochlorite, sodium sulfiteX IMO Basic86Blank cells indicate thatdata was not available1CA Ocean Plan instantaneous maximum for TotalResidual Chlorine = 60 micrograms/liter (μg/l)2WA Dept. of Ecology Water Quality Program has recommended Conditional Approval of the system to WA Dept. Fish and Wildlife.As of the writing of this report, approval has not been granted.75triiron tetraoxide, poly aluminum chloride, polyacrylamide sodium acrylateHitachiX IMO BasicY83,86XManufacturerActive SubstanceToxicityTestingEnvironmental RelatedApprovalsCA TRCCompliant1Source77,91IMO Basic and FinalXIMO Basic & Final, EPAReg., Rec. WA Conditional2Hamann Evonik DegussaPeraclean Ocean (peracetic acid, hydrogenperoxide, acetic acid)Techcross Inc.hypochlorite, hypobromite, ozone, hydroxylradicals, hydrogen peroxideA system’s feasibility fo r operation in California is inherently based on its ability to meet

all of California’s requirements regardi ng discharges, not simply the performance

standards. While it is the purview of the Water Board to revi ew and regulate the effluent

from treatment systems, Commi ssion staff is working to educate technology vendors,

particularly those from forei gn countries, about California’s water quality objectives. The

“Ballast Water Treatment Technology Testin g 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 m ade aware of California’s Section 401

provisions in the NPDES Vesse l General Permit, once released . In the meantime, staff

has attempted to compile data on Total Re sidual Chlorine (TRC) in treated effluent

because of its broad-scale toxicity, and because so many systems use chlorine and

related byproducts in the treatment proce ss. 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 st andards or whether ad ditional water quality

data must be gathered from oper ation 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 us e of treatment technologi es requires consideration

not only of costs connected wit h the purchase, installation and operation of treatment

systems, but also the impacts related to the control and/or er adication of NIS if

performance standards are not met. As discuss ed 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; Carlt on 2001, Lovell and Stone 2005, Pimentel et

53al. 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 eco nomy 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 s pecies 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 account ed for almost $12 billion of California’s

gross state product in 2004 (NOEP 2007). NIS pose a thr eat to these and other

components of California’s ocean economy incl uding commercial fisheries, aquaculture,

sport and recreational fisheries, t ourism 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 inve stment in treatment systems

reflects not only initial capital costs for the equipment and insta llation, but also the

continuing operating costs for replacem ent parts, equipment service and shipboard

energy usage. Cost estimates are strongly linked to vessel-specific characteristics

including ballast water capacity, ballast pum p rates and available space. Additionally,

the retrofit of vessels already in operation (existing vessels ) with ballast water treatment

technologies may cost signific antly more than installation costs for newly built vessels

due to: 1) The necessity to rework existing installations (plumb ing, electric circuitry); 2)

Non-optimal arrangement of equipment that may require equipment be broken into

pieces and mounted indivi dually; 3) Relocation of disp laced 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 im pacts associated with new introductions.

Many treatment technology v endors are hesitant to release costs at this point because

system prices represent research and development costs and do not reflect the

54presumably lower costs that would apply onc e systems are mass produced. In the 2008

Lloyd’s Register report, only 16 of 29 technologi es profiled provided estimates of system

capital expenditures (equipment and installation) and half (1 4) provided estimates of

system operating expenditures (parts, se rvice, 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 (m 3 /h)

capacity system may require an initial capital expenditur e 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 m 3 /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). O perating costs range from negligible, assuming waste

heat is utilized, to $1.50 per m 3 with an average of $0.13 per m 3 (Lloyd’s Register 2007,

Lloyd’s Register 2008, Commission data from technology vendors 2007-2008).

Treatment systems will likely incr ease the cost of a new vessel by 1-2%. For example, a

new 8500 TEU (twenty-foot equiva lent 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 system s 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 neg ligible. Treating ballast water

with treatment technologies will help to pr event 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.

55Table VI-4. Summary of capital and operating cost data for select trea tment 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 0.015 1

ATG Willand

Ecochlor 500 800 0.08 EcologiQ <50 1 1-1.50 1

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 – 300 1

(equipment only) nil 2

Hitachi 400
Hyde 174 – 503 1 0.01
JFE Engineering 0.04

MARENCO 145 175 0.0006-0.001

Maritime Solutions

Inc.
MH Systems 650 950 0.06

Mitsubishi

Mitsui 100 1

(installation only) 0.15 3

NEI 360 690 0.15

Nutech 03 288 150 0.32

OceanSaver 1600 0.06 3

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)

56VII. CONCLUSIONS

Ballast water treatment remains an emerging industry. New technologies continue to be

developed and existing ones refined in search of the most effectiv e methods to reduce

and/or eliminate the spread of nonindigenous species via ballast water release. While

some hurdles remain to the full implement ation of all of California’s performance

standards, significant progress has been m ade in the development of treatment

systems since the previous technology asse ssment 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 treatm ent 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 avail able assessment techniques fo r the guidelines has also

informed staff’s evaluation of system effica cy data for the purposes of this report.

Challenges remain in assessing system comp liance with the standards for organisms

that are less than 10 micromet ers in size – the bacteria and viruses. The best available

technique for bacterial viability assessment in volves the use of a subset or proxy group

of organisms to represent treat ment of bacteria as a whole. While this technique isn’t

without some debate, it is scientifically supp orted by many experts in microbiology and

technology assessment (see Appendix A). Viru ses pose a greater challenge. Without

strong evidence for the selection of proxy or repres entative organisms in this size class,

Commission staff believes that there are no acceptable me thods for verification of

compliance with the standard and that the Commission should proceed with

assessment of technologies for the remaining six standards.

57Based on the available information and usi ng best assessment techniques, Commission

staff believes that at least two treatment systems have demonstrated the potential to

comply with the Commission’s performanc e standards. Many additional systems are

close to completing system performance ve rification testing and will soon have data

available for review. Commission staff ex pects that before 2010 several systems will be

ready to meet California standards.

The treatment systems t hat 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 Califor nia waters and in compliance with the IMO

Convention, upon ratification.

The IMO approval pathway for systems utilizi ng 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 environ mental impact analysis of whole effluent

toxicity remains hampered by a lack of dat a. The data available on Total Residual

Chlorine concentration in treat ed ballast effluent makes it clear that not all systems will

comply with California’s water quality standard s but also that additional information is

necessary. The recently distributed treatment technology testing guidelines will inform

vendors about California’s water quality objec tives and toxicity criteria and should

influence environmental assessment of sys tem discharges in the near future.

Commission staff is also working closel y with the Water Board to track the

implementation of the NPDES Vessel Gene ral Permit in California and assess the

acceptability of discharges under this new re gulatory program. Ultimately, treatment

vendors and vessel operators will need to consul t with the Water Board to better assess

the potential for water quality impac ts from treatment system us age in California waters.

58In 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 m eet 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 complianc e 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 implementati on and enforcement of California’s performance standards

for the discharge of ballast water.

1. Develop protocols to assess vessel co mpliance 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 ta king into account ease of use, cost

effectiveness, accuracy, precision and acc eptance by the scientific community. The

compliance verification protocols will describ e on-site sampling, the handling of samples

between vessel and testing laboratory (chai n of custody), me chanisms 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.

592. Amend performance standards regulations

Staff must make several amendments to th e performance standards regulations during

the next year. The passage of SB 1781 delay ed the initial implementation of the

standards from 2009 to 2010. The regulatio ns 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 i ssues with the use of best

available assessment techniques to determine vessel compli ance with the performance

standards. It is possible that vessels may in stall 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. T he 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 system s. One option would be to grandfather

treatment systems under the compliance verification prot ocols in use during system

installation. The specifics of this proce ss have yet to be determined, but will likely need

to be clarified via regulation in 2009 prio r to the implementation of the performance

standards in 2010.

Finally, Commission staff must amend the regulat ions to guide the selection of specific

locations and sampling devices needed fo r 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 dev elopment of the proposed regulations to

maintain consistency with proposed language for ballast water sampling in the IMO

60Convention. Preliminary response from i ndustry has been positive. Commission staff

expects to complete the rulemaking process in 2009.

3. Revise ballast water tr eatment technology testing gui delines, 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 dr aft 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 variabilit y between the proposed

federal technology evaluation program and Ca lifornia’s recommended guidelines. Staff

is also working with the Water Board st aff to stay inform ed 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 rele vant monitoring programs associated with

vessel discharges. Commission staff will upd ate the testing guidelines as new

information becomes available.

4. Support the development of perfo rmance standards and ballast water

treatment technology performance verificat ion protocols at th e 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 prefer able to a patchwork of standards

adopted by individual states. Commission staf f 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 consult ed with congressional st affers about proposing

California’s performance standards as t he national standards. Additionally, staff

participates on both the EPA ETV program Ballast Water Technical Panel and

Stakeholder Advisory Panel. These panels ar e working with ETV program staff and the

61USCG to finalize the technology verificati on protocols for ballast water treatment

systems.

IX. RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE LEGISLATURE

The Commission recommends that the Legisl ature take the following actions to

enhance the Commission’s ability to effectively implement California’s performance

standards and to continue to prevent or mini mize the introduction of NIS in California

waters.

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

via regulations

In the previous treatment technology a ssessment report (see Dobroski et al. 2007),

Commission staff recommended that the Legislature provide t he Commission with the

authority to develop a form via regulations to acquire information about ballast water

treatment system installation and use onboar d vessels. Currently, PRC Section 71205

specifies that voyage information must be submitted to the Commission on a form

developed by the United Stat es 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, devia tions from suggested system

operation, certifications for operation from vessel classification societies and other

organizations/agencies, or additional informa tion 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 t he 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 b ills due to the delay in passage of the

budget. Nonetheless, as the performance standar ds 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 abo ut treatment system operation.

622. 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 ba llast 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 exis ting engineering of ships (pip ing, electrical, computer,

etc.). While several of t he systems evaluated in this r eport 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 ve rify 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 th e Legislature should support future budget

change proposals or other fiscal actions as nec essary to fund this important research.

63X. LITERATURE CITED

1. Alfa Laval. 2006. Annex – PureBallast Review Information.

2. Andersen, A.B. (personal co mmunication, 12 November 2008)

3. Bilkovski, R. (personal communication, 22 August 2008)

4. Bluewater Network. 2006. Treating ballast water from cruise sh ips at the Port of San Francisco: Options and Feasibility. 62 pp.

5. Boldor, D., S. Balasu bramanian, S Purohit, and K.A. Rusch. 2008. Design and implementation of a cont inuous microwave heating sys tem for ballast water

treatment. Environmental Science and Technology, 42(11): 4121-4127.

6. Botnen, H. 2005. Preliminary test result s 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 Li quids and Gases). 2008. Report to the Maritime Safety Committee and the Ma rine Environment Pr otection Committee.

Annex 1 Draft MEPC Resolution – Guidel ines 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. Kni ght, M. Balcer, D. Wright, R. Dawson, C. Blatchley, D. Reid, N. Mays, and J. Taverna. 2001. Great Lakes ballast technology demonstration project bi ological effectiveness test program (includes MV Regal

Princess trials). Final. GloBallast Sym posium and Workshop Submission March
26-30, 2001.

12. CAPA (California Association of Port Authorities). 2000. F easibility of onshore

ballast water treatment at California ports. A study conducted on behalf of the

California Association of Port Author ities (CAPA) pursuant to a Small Grant

64Assistance Agreement wit h 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 Spec ies 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 ent ering 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 Est uary: Current stat us 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. Vira l 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 Monogr aph Series No. 15. IMO London.

22. Daly, L.J., D. Reinhart, V. Sharma, L. Walters, A. Randa ll, and B. Hardman. 2005. Final Report. Laboratory-scale invest igation of ballast water treatment using Ferrate. NOAA Award # NA04OAR4170147

23. Dobbs, F. (personal comm unication, 5 November 2008)

6524. 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. Tec hnologische 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 Ve ssel General Permi t for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operati on of Commercial Vessels and Large Recreational Vessels (VGP).

28. Everett, R. (personal communication, 13 August 2007)

29. Everett, R. (personal co mmunication, 21 August 2008)

30. Faimali, M., F. Garavent a, E. Chelossi, V. Piazza, O.D. Saracino, F. Rubino, G.L. Mariottini, and L. Pane. 2006. A new photo degradable molecule as a low impact ballast water biocide: efficacy screeni ng on marine organisms from different trophic levels. Marine Biology, 149:7-16.

31. Falkner, M., L. Takata, and S. Gilm ore. 2006. California State Lands Commission Report on Performance Standards for Ballast Water Discharges in California.

Produced for the Californi a State Legislature.

32. Falkner, M., L. Takata, S. Gilmore, and N. Dobroski. 2007. 2007 Biennial Report on the California Marine Invasive Specie s 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 in vasion 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 inva sion 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

66Treatment 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. Ef ficacy of three commercially available ballast water biocides against vegetati ve 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 envir onment. 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. Effi cacy Testing of the Severn Trent De Nora Balpure® System. School of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, Wa shington. March 13, 2006.

40. Herwig, R.P., J.R. Cor dell, J.C. Perrins, P.A. Di nnel, 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 Pr ogress Series, 324: 37-55.

41. Hi Tech Marine. 1997. Ballast wa ter trial on M.V. Sandra Marie. 9 th May 1997 Sydney to Hobart.

42. Husain, M., H. Felbeck, D. Altshulle r, and C. Quirmbach. 2004. Ballast water treatment by de-oxyge nation with elevated CO 2 for a shipboard installation – a potentially affordable solution. In : Matheickal, J.T. and S. Raaymakers (eds.)

2004. 2nd International Ballast Wate r Treatment R&D Symposium , IMO London, 21-23 July 2003: Proceedings. GloBal last Monograph Series No. 15. IMO

London.

43. IMO (International Maritime Organi zation). 2005. Ballast Water Management

Convention International Convention for the Control and Manage ment of Ships'

Ballast Water and Sediments. International Maritime Organization, London, p 138

44. IMO (International Maritime Orga nization). 2007. Resolution A. 1005(25). Application of the inter national convention for the control and management of ships’ ballast water and sediment s, 2004. Adopted on 29 November 2007 (Agenda item 11).

45. IMO (International Maritime Organi zation). 2008. Summary of Status of Conventions as at 30 September 2008. A ccessed: November 6, 2008. Website: http://www.imo.org

6746. Japan Association of Marine Safety . 2007. Special Pipe Ballast Water Management System. Report of 1 st on-board test (revised).

47. Jelmert, A. 1999. Testing the effect iveness of an integrated Hydro cyclone/UV treatment system for ballast water tr eatment. Accessed: 11/9/07, Website: www.optimarin.com/test1999Austevoll.htm

48. Kikuchi, T. and Y. Fuku to. Development of the Spec ial Pipe Hybrid System, one of the most promising balla st water management systems.

49. Kikuchi, T., K. Yoshida, S. Kino, and Y. Fukuyo. 2004. Progress report on the ‘Special Pipe System’ as a potential mec hanical 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 Se ries 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. Proj ect 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. Effi cacy 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. Effi cacy testing of the MARENCO ballast
water treatment system.

53. Lloyd’s Register. 2007. Ballast water tr eatment 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 floati ng test platforms. Paper presented at

ENSUS 2002. Marine Science and Technol ogy for Environmental Sustainability. University of Newcastle-upon-Tyne, School of Marine Science and Technology. Dec. 16-18, 2002.

6857. Mackey, T.P., D.A. Wright, and R. Dawson. 2003. Ongoing development of two ballast water treatment technologies bas ed on full-scale testing in Baltimore

Harbor. Presented at the annual Marine Environmental Engineering Technology Symposium. In pursuit of Cleaner Seas. Arli ngton, VA. January 2003.

58. MacIsaac, H.J., T.C. R obbins, 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. Balla st 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 Repor t. Field test demonstration of improved

methods of ballast water treatment and m onitoring utilizing filtration, ozone, and

sonics. National Sea Grant NA04OAR4170150.

62. Maddox, T.L. 2005. Phase IV Final R eport. Full scale, land based field test demonstration of improved methods of ba llast water treatment and monitoring utilizing ozone and sonic energy. National Sea Grant NA05OAR4171070.

63. Maranda, L., R.G. Campbell, D.C. Sm ith, 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 communica tion, 8 August 2007 and 15 August 2007)

65. MEPC (Marine Environment Protecti on Committee). 2003. Comments on draft regulation E-2. Concentrations of organism s delivered in ships’ ballast water in the absence of any treatment: Establis hing a baseline for consideration of treatment efficacy. MEPC 49/2/1. 23 May, 2003.

66. MEPC (Marine Environment Protecti on Committee). 2005a. Guidelines for approval of ballast water management syst ems (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 – Reso lution.126(53). Adopted on July 22, 2005.

6968. MEPC (Marine Environment Protecti on Committee). 2005c. Harmful aquatic organisms in ballast water: Information to be considered by the Review Group. Submitted by Sweden. M EPC 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. Submitt ed by Republic of Korea. MEPC

54/2/3. 16 December 2005.

70. MEPC (Marine Environment Protecti on Committee). 2006. Basic Approval of Active Substances used by Special Pipe Ballast Water Management System (combined with Ozone treatment). Submi tted by Japan. 55/2. 12 April 2006.

71. MEPC (Marine Environment Protection Co mmittee). 2006. Information (Update of MEPC 53/2/11 Annex 1) provided by Elga Berkefeld GMBH, Lückenweg, 5, 29227 Celle, Germany and its subsidia ry RWO Marine Water Technology, Leerkämpe 3, 29259, Bremen, Germany. M EPC 55/2/17, Annex 1. 7 July, 2006.

72. MEPC (Marine Environment Protecti on Committee). 2006. Basic Approval of Active Substance used by the Hybrid Ballast Water Treatment System using Seawater Electrolytic Process. Submi tted 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 Protecti on Committee). 2007. Basic Approval of Active Substances used by Resource Ballast Technologies Systems (Cavitation combined with Ozone and Sodium Hypochlorit e 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 Protecti on Committee). 2007. Basic Approval of Active Substance used by GloEn-PatrolTM Ballast Water Management System. Submitted by the Republic of Ko rea. 57/2/4. 7 September 2007.

7079. MEPC (Marine Environment Protection Committee). 2007. Report of the fourth meeting of the G ESAMP-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 pr ocess using seawater to produce Active Substances (Greenship Ltd). Submitt ed by the Netherlands. 57/2/7. 20

December 2007.

81. MEPC (Marine Environment Protection Committee). 2008. Report of the fifth meeting of the G ESAMP-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 (E CS). 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 Syst em (Ozone). Submitted by the Republic

of Korea. 58/2/3. 21 March 2008.

86. MEPC (Marine Environment Protection Committee). 2008. Repo rt of the sixth meeting of the GESAM P-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 GESAM P-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 ba llast water discharge. Permit No.

MIG140000. Issued 11 October 11 2006.

89. Moore, S. (personal co mmunication, 12 September 2005)

7190. MPCA (Minnesota Pollution Control A gency). 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 Guidel ines (April – July 2007). Final report of the shipboard testing of the SEDNA®-S ystem, 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 S ystem 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 syst em of MetaFil AS – Final Report (report no: -272249). 28 January 2008.

96. NOEP (National Ocean Economics Pr ogram). 2007. Ocean economy data.

Accessed: 9 November 2007. Website: http://noep.mbari.org/Ma rket/ocean/oceanEcon.asp

97. NOEP (National Ocean Economics Pr ogram). 2008. Natural Resources - Commercial fish species search. A ccessed: 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 – Neut ralisation 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. Mo ran, 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).

72101. Pacific State Marine Fisheries Commi ssion. 2006. Workshop Report on Testing of Ballast Water Treatment Systems: G eneral 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-throug h ballast water exchange. SNAME Transactions, 106:485-493.

103. Parsons, M.G. 2003. Considerations in the design of the pr imary 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 Mechani cal Separation Devices for the Primary

Treatment of Ballast Water. Marine Technology, 39:211-222.

105. Perrins, J.C., J.R. Cordell, N.C. Fe rm, J.L. Grocock, a nd 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. Mo rrison. 2005. Update on the environmental

and economic costs associated with alien-in vasive species in the United States. Ecological Economics, 52:273-288.

107. Pleus, A. (personal co mmunication, 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 Ec ology 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 Ma rine Environmental Engineering, 7:217-

230.

111. Ruiz, G.M. and J.T. Carlton. 2003. Invasi on vectors: A conc eptual framework for management. In : Ruiz, G.M and J.T. Carlton (eds.) Invasive Species: Vectors and management strategies. Island Pr ess, 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 microor ganisms by ships. Nature, 408:49-50.

113. Ruiz, G.M. and D.F. Reid. 2007. Current State of U nderstanding about the Effectiveness of Ballast Water Exchange (BWE) in Reducing Aquatic Nonindigenous Species (ANS) Introduc tions to the Great Lakes Basin and

73114. Seaspan Corporation. 2007. Seaspan Cor poration 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. Sier s. 2007. Landbased test report – Test cycle summary.

Institut fur Umwelttechnik.

116. Spellman, M. (personal communication, 14 August 2008)

117. State Water Resources Control Boar d. 2002. Evaluation of Ballast Water Treatment Technology for C ontrol of Nonindigenous A quatic Organisms, p 70.

118. Stevens, T. (personal co mmunication 26 September 2008).

119. Tamburri, M.N., B.J. Li ttle, G.M. Ruiz, J.S. Lee, and P.D. McNulty. 2004. Evaluations of Venturi Oxygen Stripping TM as a ballast water treatment to prevent aquatic invasions and ship corrosion. In : Matheickal, J.T. and S. Raaymakers (eds.) 2004. 2nd International Ballas t Water Treatment R&D Symposium , IMO London, 21-23 July 2003: Proc eedings. GloBallast Monograph

Series No. 15. IMO London.

120. Tamburri, M.N. and G.M. Ruiz. 2005. Eval uations of a ballast water treatment to stop invasive species and tank corro sion. 2005 SNAME Maritime Technology Conference & Expo and Ship Produc tion Symposium, Houston, TX.

121. Tamburri, M., G.E. Sm ith, and T.L. Mullady. 2006. Quantitative shipboard

evaluations of Venturi Oxygen Stripping as a ballast water treatment. 3 rd

International Conference on Balla st 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 Pr oject 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.

74126. USCG (United States Coast Guard). 2004. Navigation and Inspection Circular No. 01-04. Shipboard Tec hnology Evaluation Program (STEP): Experimental

Ballast Water Treatment Systems. January 2004.

127. USCG (United States Coast Guard). 2006. 2006 Shipboard Technology Evaluation Program. General Guidanc e for the Applicant. March 2006.

128. USCG (United States C oast 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. F uhr, J.P. Boon, and C.C. T en 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 Ecol ogy. 2005. Laboratory gui dance 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. Carl ton, 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. Aven t, E. Landrau, T. Voss, and R. Fairey. 2004. Onboard Testing of Ballast Treatm ent Efficiency: Su mmary Report, Moss Landing Marine Laboratories, Romberg Ti buron 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 wa ter treatment syst em. Moss Landing

Marine Laboratories.

75137. 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-Da wson, 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. Or ano-Dawnson, G.R. Morgan, and J. Coogan. 2006. The development of ultraviolet irradi ation 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. B earr, 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 R eport to Nutech-O3. June, 2008.

142. Zhang, F. and M. Dickman. 1999. Mi d-ocean exchange of container vessel

ballast water. 1: Seasonal factors affe cting the transport of harmful diatoms and dinoflagellates. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 176:243-251.

76

## XI. APPENDICES

77APPENDIX A

BALLAST WATER TREATMENT TECH NOLOGY 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 treatm ent technology vendors with a standardized

protocol to verify treatment system co mpliance with California’s ballast water

performance standards and water quality objective s. Verification testing according to

these guidelines is not required by Commission staff, nor will the Commission be

approving ballast water treatment systems fo r use in California waters. Commission

staff strongly recommends, however, that ve ndors utilize these protocols to ensure a

uniform, cost-effective, scientifically-ri gorous, 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 contai n useful information for

determining the likelihood of compliance with relevant aspects of California’s water

quality control plans and polic ies 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.

78TABLE 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 ME MBERS AND MEETING NOTES............ 103

APPENDIX A2. GENERAL SAMPLIN G CONSIDERATIONS............................. 148

APPENDIX A3. SELECTED TERMS FROM THE CALIFORNIA OCEAN PLAN..... 149

7980 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. Environm ental Protection Agency

ETV Environmental Tech nology 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 Dis charge Elimination System

NTU Nephelometric Turbidity Unit

PRC Public Resources Code

State Water Board State Wa ter Resources Control Board

STEP Shipboard Tec hnology Evaluat ion Program

TUa Acute Toxicity Units

TUc Chronic Toxicity Units

USCG U.S. Coast GuardCHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION

The California Coastal Ecosystems Protecti on Act of 2006 required the California State

Lands Commission (Commission) to adopt perf ormance standards fo r the discharge of

ballast water (Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 71205.3(a)(1)). The “Performance

Standards for the Discharge of Ballast Wate r for Vessels Operating in California

Waters” (Title 2 California Code of Regul ations (CCR) §2291 et seq.) were approved in

October 2007, and set both interim and fi nal 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 detect able living organisms for all organism size

classes in ballast water discharge will be implemented on January 1, 2020.

Table 1-1. California’s Inte rim 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) < 10 3 bacteria/100 ml [4]

< 10 4 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, begi nning January 1, 2020, is zero detectable living organisms for all organism size classes.

[3] Micrometer

[4] Milliliter

[5] Colony-forming unit

81Table 1-2. Performance Sta ndards 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 performanc e standards regulations can be achieved

through the use of at least one of the follo wing 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 exis t in California); or 3) Discharge ballast

that meets or exceeds the performance standards. The majo rity of those vessels intent

on discharging into California waters will need to treat their ballast with a ballast water

treatment system in order to co mply 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 environ mental impacts of ballast water treatment

systems (PRC Section 71205.3(b)). The review and resultant report, “Assessment of the

Efficacy, Availability and Environmental Impa cts 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 sta ff found that the methods used by vendors

and testing organizations for the verification of system performance were inconsistent

across treatment systems, and many of t he methods used to evaluate treatment

systems produced results in metrics incom patible with California’s performance

standards (e.g. results were presented as per cent reduction instead of concentration of

organisms). The lack of standardized met hods for evaluating system efficacy and

environmental impacts hindered staff’s abilit y to determine if those systems were

capable of meeting or exceeding California’s perfo rmance standards and water quality

objectives.

82In 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 guidelin es will provide treat ment vendors with a

standardized protocol to a ssess treatment system co mpliance 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 Mari ne Invasive Species Program (MISP) is

charged with moving the state, “e xpeditiously towards elimination of the discharge of

nonindigenous species into the waters of the state” (PRC Secti on 71201(d)). To that

end, Commission staff is responsible fo r monitoring and developing management

strategies for vessel vectors of nonindigenou s 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 fo cused its attention on the

implementation and enforcement of Calif ornia’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 dev eloped by Commission staff in

consultation with a panel of technical experts in marine engineering, oceanography,

microbiology and treatment system evaluat ion (see Appendix A for a list of panel

members and notes from panel meetings ). For more info rmation about the

Commission’s Marine Invasive Species Program go to http://www.slc.ca.gov

.

83State Water Resources Control Board

The California State Water Resources Cont rol Board (State Water Board) and the

Regional Water Quality Control Boards are re sponsible 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 consist ent 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 re siduals or reaction

by-products in treated ballast water discharges meet applicable water quality objectives

as outlined in the California Ocean Plan (S tate Water Board 2005), Regional Water

Quality Control Board Basin Plans, the U.S. Environmental Protec tion Agency’s (EPA)

California Toxics Rule (CTR) and associated State Implementation Policy for the CTR,

and the California-specific provisions in Se ction 401 certification of the U.S. federal

National Pollution Discharge Elimination Syst em (NPDES) Vessel General Permit for

Discharges Incidental to the Normal Oper ation 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 ve rification of compliance with the performance

standards. The “Ballast Water Treatment Tec hnology 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 conc erned stakeholders for

vendors to ensure that systems undergo a thorough per formance, safety and

environmental impact evaluation. The re sults generated from system evaluation

according to these guidelines will prov ide Commission staff and potential treatment

technology customers with a va luable upfront assessment of the ability of systems to

meet California’s performance standar ds and water quality objectives.

84Treatment system verificati on protocols are under developm ent or have been developed

by both the International Maritime Organiza tion (IMO) and the U.S. federal government.

The IMO “Guidelines for approval of balla st water management systems (G8)” (Marine

Environment Protection Committee (M EPC) 2005) offer test and performance

specifications for evaluati ng ballast water management syst ems relative to the IMO

Regulation D-2 performance st andards (see IMO (2005) for more details). The U.S.

federal government has enc ouraged 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 t he 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 theref ore does not intend to develop a new

California-specific verification protocol. In stead, Commission staff offers these “Ballast

Water Treatment Technology Te sting Guidelines” to augment the federal ETV protocols

with specific issues relevant to Californi a’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 ve ndors 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 Ve rification – The ETV Program

The ETV Program, “verifies t he performance of innovative technologies that have the

potential to improve protec tion of human health and the env ironment” (EPA 2008). The

objective of the ETV ballast water treatment technology protocol is to “verify the

performance characteristics of commercial-r eady treatment technologies with regard to

specific verification factors, including biological treatment performance, system

85reliability, cost, environmental acceptability , and safety” (NSF International 2004). When

finalized, the ETV protocol will offer a f ederally-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. Co mmission 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 fi nalized in late-2009 or early 2010. Until the

ETV program for ballast wate r treatment technologies is accepting applications for

system verification, Commission staff reco mmends that vendors contract with an

independent testing organization to conduct syst em verification according to the most

recently available draft ETV protocol (see NS F 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 protoc ol 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 testi ng proceeds through the ETV program or in

conjunction with an independent testing organization usi ng 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 feder al needs and minimize

duplicative testing at a later date.

Treatment System Evaluation for California Compliance

In addition to conducting generic system veri fication 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 prot ocols, but additional samples should be

collected to be analyzed according to Commission staff recommended methods (see

86Chapter 5 for sampling and analysis methods). Use of these methods will help ensure

that test results are presented in metrics consistent with Califor nia’s standards. Vendors

whose systems meet all of California’s per formance standards may choose to declare

that their systems are Ca lifornia compliant. This v endor-certified compliance with

California’s performance standards does not re lieve the vessel owner or operator of the

responsibility of complying with California discharge standards, but this declaration and

associated verification reporting may be a re source to potential customers seeking

treatment systems that hav e been evaluated with California’s standards in mind.

CHAPTER 4. TEST PLAN DEVELOPMENT

All ballast water treatment verification test s should be completed fo llowing a written Test

Plan. The Test Plan should be developed by an independent testing organization in

conjunction with the vendor. Elem ents of the test plan are descr ibed in Chapter 4 of the

draft ETV protocol (see NSF International 2004). The Californi a 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 pr eparation 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 thr ough 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 veri fication procedures necessary to verify

compliance with California’s performance standards.

CHAPTER 5. EXPERIMENTAL METHODS

California’s specific ballast water per formance standards and water quality objectives

necessitate additional verification testi ng above and beyond that described in the ETV

protocols. The following protocols discuss relevant California parameters including

87biological 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 disc harge 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 di scharge of ballast water “should be interpreted to be an

instantaneous standard rather than an average over whole di scharge. If any of the

discharge samples exceed any of the dischar ge 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 allow able levels of organism concentration in

discharged ballast water. Upon implementati on of the performance standards, all

vessels will be required to provide the Co mmission’s Marine Safety Inspectors access

to sample ballast water discharge. The lo cation and method of sample collection for

system verification analysis should closely a pproximate the method of sampling that will

be used by Commission staff for compliance purposes.

Until the specific regulati ons governing ballast water sampling are implemented in

California, Commission staf f recommends that vendors fo llow 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 inte grated into a ballast water treatment system

or into the vessel’s ballast water system is at the discretion of t he vessel owner/operator

in consultation with the treatment vendor, so long as the access point is located

88downstream from the ballast tanks and allows for sampling immediately prior to or

during discharge. Commission staff highly re commends that vendors include sampling

facilities in the design of ballast water treatment systems because port state authorities

will require ballast water samples from ve ssels 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 organ isms [i.e. colony-forming units; CFU]) per unit volume

of discharged ballast water. Samples collec ted for purposes of compliance verification

should be analyzed or appropriate ly processed immediately to accurately assess the

concentration of living organisms at the time of discharge, ensurin g 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 perfo rmance standard being

examined. Sample collection methods shoul d be scientifically defensible upon review.

Commission staff should be consulted about the selection of appropriate methods and

equipment for sample collecti on (see Appendix B, General Sa mpling 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 Pa rameter 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 po rts, so vendors and testing

organizations should consider methods appropria te 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. Thos e methods listed are commonly accepted for

widespread use by U.S. laboratories. Ho wever, any scientifically defensible method

that produces results in metrics consis tent with California’s standards would be

8990 appropriate for the purpose of performance verification. Meth ods outside of those listed

should be suggested and/or approved by t he independent testing organization.91Table 5-1. Recommended Methods for OrganismEnumeration and Viability DeterminationOrganism Size ClassUnitsMethodorReference1,2Greater than 50 μm inminimum dimensionNo DetectableNote: At this time, there is no universally accepted method for enumerating live organisms greater than50 μm in minimum dimension. The following methods may be useful, but will require modification to besufficiently 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 2008)10 – 50 μm in minimumdimensionindividuals/mlNote : At this time, there is no universally accepted method for enumerating live organisms between 10– 50 μm in minimum dimension. The following methods may be useful, but will require modification tobe sufficiently sensitive to determine compliance with California’s performance standards:•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 organismsLess than 10 μm in minimumdimension:BacteriaVirusesCFU/100 mlViruses/100 mlNote: There are no universal methods for enumerating all viable bacteria and viruses in any givensample because of the inability to culture many microorganisms in a lab setting, yet many of these verydiverse taxa are routinely present in virtually allenvironmental water samples. In addition, most virusesfound in aquatic systems infect species other thanhumans. Some viruses may survive in seawaterbetter than in freshwater (especially true of bacteriophages, viruses that infect bacteria). Howeverthere are some methodsthat you may consider:•Heterotrophic Bacteria: Standard Method 9215 (Clesceri et al. 1998)oFor freshwater bacteria, recommend R2A Agar or NWRI AgaroFor marine bacteria, recommend Difco Marine Agar 2216•Viruses: Many viruses are naturally present in freshwater and seawater. Staining methods areavailable to detect and enumerate the total numberof viruses, but results are reported as “viruslike particles”. No methods are available to measurethe viability of all viruses in aquatic samples.Specific types of viruses can bequantified, but these representonly a small fraction of, and maynot always correlate with, the total number of viruses present. As potential surrogates for virusespathogenic to humans the following could be used toevaluate the efficacy of a treatment system:Somatic and Male-specific Phage use Modified EPA Method 16012; Adenovirus 40 and 41 andNorwalk-like Virus use qPCR. For information on sample size and concentration of samples usingPCR see Standard Method 9510 (Clesceri et al. 1998).Escherichia coliCFU/100 ml•Standard Method 9222.G (Clesceri et al. 1998)•Noble et al. (2004)•EPA Method 16032or EPA Method 1103.12•Freshwater: GSI/SOP/RDTE/SA/M/3 (GSI 2008)Intestinal enterococciCFU/100 ml•Standard Method 9230.C (Clesceri et al. 1998)•Noble et al. (2004)•EPA Method 16002or EPA Method 1106.12•Freshwater : GSI/SOP/RDTE/SA/M/1 (2008)ToxicogenicVibrio cholerae(O1 & O139)CFU/100 ml•Standard Method 9260.H (Clesceri et al. 1998)•Choopun et al. (2002)•Chun et al. (1999)1Methods specific to freshwater or marine water will be indicated as such. All other techniques listed should be considered appropriate for all salinities.2EPA methods in this table can be found atU.S. EPA Microbiology Home Page. Website:http://www.epa.gov/nerlcwww/index.html. Accessed October 10, 2008.Water Quality Considerations and Analysis

Parameters

A detailed listing of water quality objective s for California’s ocean waters can be found

in the California Ocean Plan (State Water B oard 2005). The water quality objectives are

set forth to protect the benef icial uses of the ocean wate rs 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 Specia l Biological Significant; rare and

endangered species; marine habitat; fish migr ation; fish spawning and shellfish

harvesting.” (State Wa ter Board 2005). The State Water Board is currently in the

process of developing amendments to t he California Ocean Plan. Read about the

proposed amendments in the “California Oc ean 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 organiza tions 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 ve ssels must comply with when discharging

treated ballast water.

Discharges of ballast from treatment syst ems should meet the following criteria,

generally based on the California Ocean Plan’s narrative objectives and implementation

provisions (See Appendix C for def inition 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 o il to be visible in the receiving water.

3. The discharge must not cause aesthet ically undesirable discoloration of the

surface of the receiving water.

924. Natural light shall not be significantly* r educed in the receiving water as the result

of the discharge.

5. The discharge must not contain settleabl e 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 to xic 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 consum ption, to levels that are harmful to

human health.

8. The discharge must not contain substances that alter the tast e, 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 su lfide concentrations in the receiving

water to be increased above that pr esent under natural conditions.

Furthermore, discharges from vessels ut ilizing treatment system s into State ocean

waters should comply with the numerical wa ter quality objectives and effluent limits in

the California Ocean Plan (State Water Board 2005). Discharges from treatment

systems into inland surface waters, enclo sed bays, and estuaries should comply with

the numerical water quality objectives in the California Toxics Rule

( http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/st andards/rules/ctr/index.html ) and Regional Water

Quality Control Board Basin Plans ( http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/plans_policies/ ).

93Based on the aforementioned water quality obj ectives, Table 5-2 contains some

selected relevant numeric limits that s hould 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/sanfr anciscobay/basin_planning.shtml ). For pH,

the range is based on impacts to freshwater , which has less buffering capacity than

seawater, using the Central Vall ey 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 treatm ent 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 fu rther 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 descr ibed 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 l aboratory 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

94Level” (NOEL) - the maximum per cent of the effluent that causes no observed effect on

test organisms.

Table 5-2. Selected Water Quality Cons tituent Limits Relevant to Treatment Technologies (adapted from State Water Board 2005)
Constituent Units Limit Method

Arsenic 1 μg/l 80 EPA 200.8 2 , for

freshwater and EPA

1640 3 for seawater

Cadmium 1 μg/l 10 

## ”

Chromium 1 μg/l 20 

## ”

Copper 1 μg/l 30 

## ”

Lead 1 μg/l 20 

## ”

Nickel 1 μg/l 50 

## ”

Zinc 1 μg/l 200 

## ”

Ammonia N mg/l 0.16 Standard Method 4500-

NH3-D 4 or EPA 350.1 (Rev 2.0) 2

Tributyltin μg/l 0.0014 Standard Method 6710 4

Total Chlorine

Residual 5 μg/l 60 Standard Method 4500-

Cl-E 4

Halomethanes μg/l 130 EPA 601 2 or 624 2

Grease and Oil mg/l 75 EPA 1664 2

Turbidity NTU 225 EPA 180.1 2 or Standard

Method 2130 B 4

pH pH units Between 6.5 and

8.5 EPA 150.2 2 or Standard

Method 4500-H + -B 4
Suspended

solids mg/l 60 Standard Method 2540-

D 4

Settleable

Solids ml/l 3 Standard Method 2540-

F 4

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 (Appr oved 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 samp les because of the many oxidative reactions that chlorine can undergo in salt water.

95Sampling and Analysis

Ballast water should be sampled immediately prior to or during discharge, as discussed

in Chapter 5, Biological Performanc e, Sampling. Some general sampling

considerations including appropriate equipment and maximum holding times for

analysis of water quality sample s can be found in Appendix B.

Samples for chemical analysis should be co llected, preserved, handled and transported

in accordance with Standard Methods for th e 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 accordan ce with the methods and minimum levels

(to the lowest detectable concentration) de scribed in Appendix II, of the California

Ocean Plan (State Water Board 2005), and acco rding to 40 CFR Part 136 or Standard

Methods (Clesceri et al. 1998) w here appropriate (see Table 5-2).

Acute toxicity should be assessed in a ccordance with EPA appr oved 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 met hods that may be used for mari ne acute toxicity tests.

Monitoring for chronic toxici ty 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 st age toxicity tests as specified in Table

5-4 (modified from Table III-1 in the Californ ia Ocean Plan). “A mini mum of three marine

test species with approved test protocols s hall be used to measure compliance with the

toxicity objective. If possible, the test spec ies shall include a fish, an invertebrate, and

an aquatic plant” (State Water Board 2005). Ou t of state vendors/testing organizations

that do not have access to the California spec ies listed in Table 5-4 should contract with

a laboratory approved under the California Department of P ublic Health, Environmental

96Laboratory 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 A ssessing 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 ev aluation to ensure that testing will fulfill all

applicable state requirements

.

97Table 5-4. State Water Board Appro ved 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 preferr ed toxicity tests for compliance monitoring. A second tier test method may be used if after contac ting California certified laboratories first tier organisms

are not available.

98Testing for chronic toxicity in freshwater species should also be performed, since there

are inland ports in California. According to the State Implement ation Policy for the

Toxics Standards at least one of the te sts in Table 5-5 should be conducted.

Table 5-5. Short-term Methods for Es timating 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 pres ented 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 asso ciated data should also be

submitted to the Commission for review by Marine Invasive Species Program staff.

99CHAPTER 7. CONTACT INFORMATION

For more information or to submit docum ents 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

100CHAPTER 8. REFERENCES

Sub-Committee on Bulk Liquids and Gases (BLG ). 2008. Report to t he Maritime Safety

Committee and the Marine Enviro nment 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. 200 2. 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. Greenbe rg, and A.D. Eaton (eds.) . 1998. Standard Methods for the

Examination of Wate r and Wastewater. 20 th 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 tr eatment 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 organism s. Third edition. U.S. EPA Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory, Cincinnati, Ohio. EPA/600/4-91-002.

EPA. 2002. Methods for measuring the acute to xicity of effluents and receiving waters to freshwater and marine organisms. Fifth edition. U.S. Envi ronmental 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 Res earch 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 Enumer ation of Enterococci by Membrane

Filtration GSI/SOP/RDTE/SA/M/1 (

101• Procedure for the Detect ion 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 Wa ter and Sediments. International Maritime Organization, London, p 138.

Klemm, D.J., G.E. Morri son, T.J. Norberg-Ki ng, 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 Contro l (G2). MEPC 53/2/ 7. 15 April 2005.

Nelson, B.N., E.J. Lemieux, L. Drake, D. An derson, D. Kulis, N. We lshmeyer, S. Smith, C. Scianni, B. Thompson, T. Weir, S. Rile y, and K. Burns. Phytoplankton Enumeration Workshop Final Report. Report No. CG- XX-XXXX. US Coast Guard Research and Development Center, Grot on, CT (In Review).

Noble, R.T., M. K. Leecaster, C.D. Mc Gee, 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 protoc ol 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. 3 rd International Conference on Ballast Water Management. Si ngapore, 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 Wa ters to Marine and Estuarine Organisms. EPA/600/4-87/028. National Information Service, Springfield, VA.

102APPENDIX 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

103California 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 fi ve times, and a ma jority of the panel

recommended standards that were included in the Commission’s performance standards report to the Legislature.

• Legislature took the recommendat ions 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 perform ance standards in accordance with

104performance standards report, and 3) R equired 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 system s 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 Dece mber, 2007, and then provided to the Legislature.

• Compiled available scientif ic 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 resu lts in metrics inconsistent with CA

standards.

John – Any additional technologies that we missed?

Nicole – No, we received some additional in formation 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 pr oduction, market demand, government approval, and efficacy. Many systems will be commercially ready by 2009. The lack of federal standards and approva l mechanisms may be a hindrance to

market demand. Ultimatel y, no systems meet Califor nia standards, thus none really available.

• Environmental impacts – 21 of 28 syst ems use biocides. Several systems are approved by IMO and have received posit ive 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.

105Dominic – 21 that use biocide, how many use chlorine?

Nicole – Most use some kind of chemical oxi dant – chlorine, ozone, peroxyacetic acid...

Nicole – Intro/Background continued

• Conclusions – systems require further dev elopment and testing, particularly at shipboard scale. The lack of standardiz ed testing procedures makes evaluation difficult. Commission staff will continue to gather info on and support research addressing technology development and syst em evaluation, and we believe systems will meet CA standards in future.

John – Industry prefers to do any system te sting in consort with state and federal agencies in order to provide suffi cient credibility to any test results. Is there potential for additional partnerships between state or f ederal agencies and the shipping community beyond those already taken advantage of?

Dominic - There are protocols in order but t hat 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 availa ble 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 sh ipboard 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 r unning 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 fa cility. 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 st ill, 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. IM O protocols not necessarily relevant, not a

lot of focus on # critters/volume. Must al so 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.

106Mario – Testing for efficacy of a system in volves both: 1) Rigorous assessment, and 2) Compliance monitoring using indi rect measures of treatment.

Nick – Some kind of applied test

Nicole - continued

• Recommendation to Legislature in tec hnology 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 implement ation date from 2009 to 2010 and change reporting requirements, will be introduced in omnibus bill

• Work with SWRCB to identify applic able 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 treatme nt developers with testing guidelines (hopefully for 3 rd 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 complianc e 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 samp le to how to handle it to what labs

can do it.

• Want to get guidelines out first becaus e will provide develo pers 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 protoc ols 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 summ er. 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 aw ay 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.

107Kevin – Three issues for discussion: 1) Rea ssure that our guidelines will be related to ETV/IMO protocols, 2) Self-certi fication, and 3) Verification.

Tom- Specific testing guidelines will ne ed to change from system to system. The manufacturer and the testing lab should be com pelled 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 shou ld stem from them, not the other way around. Should also think about sticking to sh ipboard 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 wor ks they can develop indicators. Indirect measurement. Sensor testing – can make measurement ozone, chlorine, etc... Can be adapted to in-tank or upon-dischar ge. 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 complianc e? Will manufactures add specific ports for end of pipe testing for CA? How does a biol ogist 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 ov er live/dead greater

than 50 microns.

Mario – Work to quantify organisms. Z ooplankton standard live/ dead (no brainer), indicator pathogens utilize standard off the s helf MPN (no brainer) – 10-24 hours to get results etc...What to do about phytoplankto n? 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.

108Andrea – 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 recogni ze that there are se veral way to treat, build in flexibility.

Kevin – Add end of pipe testi ng. 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-certificati on involves lots of testing to ensure some real tracers to ease of end of pi pe testing in certified lab.

John – Cost? E.coli/Enterococcus?

Dominic - $200 roughly

Nick – Message to industry, manufacturer mu st know that a self-test be developed. Machine – red light/green light control needs to be incorporated.

Nicole – Should we flip it around? St art 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 insp ectors 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 develo pers – 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 ow ner 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 availa ble. Methods out there, but perhaps more expensive. Total bacteria/virus counts

109Nick – 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 t hen adapted as we went along. Independent 3 rd 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 wa ter quality requirements involved. Toxic assessment chlorine residuals requirements.

Nicole – Yes, we need to focus on this.

Nick - Want to hear from sewage treatment ex perts. Exactly what te sts do they use? Freshwater/sewage background should have lists of appropriate tests, including precision estimates, for test ing human pathogenic bacteria.

Dominic to put together a powerpoint presen tation. 3 tests done: 1) Multiple tube fermentation, 2) membr ane 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 becom e 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 st ats about designs. But this document was general not specific to standar ds. Will send a copy to Nicol e of report and participant

list.

Mario – Will also look at document.

Kevin – Environmental assessment, 21 of 28 utilize biocide. GESAMP rejected TechCross electrochlorination system bec ause they were uncomfortable with the

robustness of the dec hlorination system.

110Nicole – IMO originally rejected NKO3

Dominic – Chlorine instant aneous 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 faci lities are unlikely because the land is too valuable/expensive to build shore side facilitie s. However, if that does happen, they could use the protocols that we develop.

Lucie- All the guidelines on sa mpling discharge are not that easy to do. May use more

than one area from tanks for di scharges. 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 2 nd or 3 rd week of March. Will send emai l with proposed dates. Questions?

Adjourn

111California 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 or ganisms greater than 10 microm eters (microns) in size (predominantly zooplankton and phytoplankt on) for compliance with California’s performance standards.

Nicole gave a brief overview of some c onsiderations (cost, time, scientific acceptability...) the CSLC must keep in mi nd with respect to what assays may be appropriate in determining abu ndance and viability of zoopl ankton and phytoplankton. From there, the participants began a discussion of methods for organisms greater than

50 microns in size. Ted discussed his devel opment 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 vi tal 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 filt ration/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.

112The discussion then moved to the use of neut ral red as a vital stain to assist with counting organisms in a sample. One meth od 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 mo st common method of determining viability remains the “poke test.”

Rich argued for changing the focus of the di scussion from specific techniques to a broader discussion of the hierarchical pr ogression 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 follo wed by specific, intense testing if the vessel does not appear to have treated its ballast wate r 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 ma y 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 wo uld 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 syst em operation over the appropriate time period. If any flags are rais ed 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. Ev eryone agreed that the maritime industry should put pressure on technology dev elopers to include these operational sensors/recording devices on their systems.

Nicole moved the discussion to the developm ent 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 t hat at least it is better than a set of unconnected test procedures, and the next ETV protocol draft should be available later this year.

113The discussion moved back to verificati on 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 gr eater than 50 micron size class. Andrew

wanted to know whether or not the sa mple 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 m 3 . Andy suggested

that CSLC must determine what the null vs. alternative hypothesis should be and then what level of confidence do we find appropria te for verification purposes. CSLC must also determine if the hypothesis involves w anting 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 t he most appropriate fo r this size class. Russ and Lucie both use a similar technique. Ni ck 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 wi ll depend on what species/conc entration you are looking

for.

Nicole said the notes would be compiled an d distributed and that the next meeting would take place on March 17.

Detailed Meeting Notes: Nicole began with an overview of considerat ions including cost, time, complexity, chemicals/equipments, applicability of techniques, scientific acceptability etc... Question: What extent will we see phytoplankt on in greater than 50 micron size class?

Lucie – Some species can create chains/colonies.

Ted - Chain formers are not a single organi sm. 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. With in this calendar year, we will develop method that can be used by an unt rained person with repeatability.

Lucie - Similar method as Ted’s. Look at c ontrol. Lots of live or ganisms, remove nonmoving/look dead, treat with neutral red, then poke test. Treatment tank - remove dead,

114look 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 quickl y. 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 wit h sensitivity towards CA standards (need to

collect 1m 3 to look for the “rare” organism that may be still alive) bec ause they are not collecting that much water. Ma y collect many liters, then ta ke 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 spec ies, 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 regulator s 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 m 3 /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 problem s to allow developers to update technology.

Ted - The video allows us to have an aut omated stage, and first analysis takes 5-10 minutes. Goes fast. When deliberately testi ng for certain populations...need to look at surrogates with high sedim ent amounts. Employable by an untrained person.

Rian - Question to Ted: Do you use 1 ml ali quots (A: I don’t know)? Examine 1 field of view (A: Yes).

Ted - We can zoom in on the image digitall y 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.

115Nicole - What about Neutral red?

Ted - We’re thinking about it.

Lucie - Neutral red and evan’s blue, succe ss varies between species and is quite variable. Most of the probl ems with the zooplankton is t he abundance of sediment. It’s difficult to filter and process sample. Coul d be a problem with t he video camera method. Samples with 1” of sediment and 1⁄4” of ani mals 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 t hat has simple-moderate technique and equipment. Second level, the sample can be ta ken back to a lab, to be examined with higher technology. Still semi-quantitative. Can be expanded to look at species composition. No preconcei ved 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 st ep. If your treatment is working, then it is pretty evident, determi ning concentration is easy. But if you can visually, with a minimum of microscopy, a ssess >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 ar ound, 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 mo re rigorously, and determine concentrations.

Dominic - For CSLC, do you exami ne before or while discharging.

Maurya - Upon discharge. What about a first cr ude 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.

116Dominic- Maybe need a bigger capi llary, 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 ev aluate the situation and find a solution. If things aren’t working we need to work wit h developers. Is that what you do at

Waterboard?

Dominic - Storm water is a new pr ogram, it’s kind of like that.

Maurya - We’re going to have to take an iterative approach, t oo, like storm water (Dominic)

Dominic - Give a little bit of slack.

Maurya - Try to keep the concentra tion 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 differenc es 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 pro xy test: stain, oxygen detection test. What would be an okay first cut of is the syst em 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 enforce ment. If the ballast is teaming with animals, then stop the discharge. Are the ba llast inspectors also examining water quality?

Maurya - Vendors need to provide documen tation on their system that they have a working system (ETV, GSI or something about how the system works) so the inspectors

117have a reference sheet. If there is a chemic al residual, we pull in Dominic for this

conversation.

Dominic - Can you have enforcement without a num ber, 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 fi rst 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-quantit ative: Collect 1 L and anything moving is

an obvious violation. Increas e 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 approac h for the next size class [10 – 50 microns] is chlorophyll

fluorescence.

Dominic - Does that determine live/dead?

Russ - If chlorophyll is too low for detecti on, 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 ch lorophyll for some time after treatment. So chlorophyll would not be a good indicator of organism viability after UV treatment.

Mario - If they are treati ng 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 chlorophy ll you should test further. If no chlorophyll, then it could be okay.

118Maurya - We do need to have some kind of r ed light green light, rapid assessment. We do need to come up with guidelines for how d oes 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 shoulde r 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 correct ly? 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. Ma tson indicates need for integrated system: system recording, warning which require s 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 inspecto r. 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 ar e discharging, the sensors cont inuously check the record.

Russ - Severn Trent putting inline sensor s in their systems. [The inline systems can measure oxidant concentrations (called TRO, for total residual oxid ant). A different sensor could measure Eh (oxi dation 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 want ing to prod anybody. Only test for CA is a
proxy measurement.

119Nicole - Vessels will want this because they wil l go after treatment dev elopers if they fail inspection.

Nick - It is conceivable t hat their own monitoring devic e 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 system s. 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 gui dance. 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 produc ts. 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 ins pectors could do (gross violations). When giving the developers guidelines, what techni ques 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 ET V certified test facilities. Is there a problem if we tell developers to check out dr aft 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 fa cility, we do need to give them direction.

Rich - That will open up a can of worms. Th ey’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 t hem differently. Is there a s ense that developers need the ETV, or are they movi ng just on the standards?

Nicole - They are starting to move on our standar ds (i.e. consistent units). If there are gross violations, we will need to get concentrations of critters.

120Rich - You’ll want to give something fo r the technology develo pers in a standardized fashion so that they verify the syste m is performing correct ly. You are just recommending them the tests, so the guideli nes 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 dire ct them to develop a complete protocol.

Maurya - Which protocol?

Rich - Get the draft ETV prot ocol, get from Tom at NSF

Maurya - It hasn’t changed since 2004.

Rich - Then recommend to them a set of unconnec ted 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, siz eable 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. Sp lit sample and look at representatives.

121Nicole - To Andrew Solo w. 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 1m 3

.

Andy - The question is: How powerful is t he 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 distri buted patchy or nonrandom, then you have to do something differently.

Nick/Russ - Patchy

Russ - 1,2,3, 3 rd of ballast discharge. 3x 1m 3 samples. (per IMO).

Andy - If you can characterize the het erogeneity...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, mi ddle, end. The amount of water to be examined represents a periphery compromised so lution 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 st andard that you have to have a concentration, and look at that in a hierarchical fashion: how are y ou going to do that ...how extensive was the violation. You could take one sample and ma ke 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 mi nor 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 zoop lankton 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 nat ural 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?

122Andy - CA sets the standard, and to determine whether or not they meet the standard, do you test null hypothesis (there are no crit ters) 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 pat chy distribution, there are stan dard statistical tests to make

the same kind of calculations. A ll 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 te st, 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 t he alternate that it is not...all a function of the true density in the tank. If the concentration is just a bove the standard, you will have to take a little water. The higher the conc entration from than the standard, the less water you need. If you want to be 95% confident t hat the null is met, then you can ... If it’s patchy, then you need separate sample s. 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 t hey are loading.

Maurya - Do not discharge based on maximu m 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 samp le during the first 10% and the final 10% because they found greatly elevated sedime nts and would make it impossible to quantify plankton. BUT if plankton are just par ticles, 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 fo r 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.

123Andy - Same thought: if that is your sampli ng 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 fa il. 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 concentrati ons. 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 bas ed on origin, that is a different story

Nick - That is different and a moving targe t, 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 phy to. 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 techni que: Most probable number (MPN). Is it appropriate for this

size class?

Russ - We use that [MPN] technique. It wor ks. While we have not fractionated samples for MPN in the past, we plan to do so for fu ture 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 phyt oplankton medium, and incubate 12 hours light /12 hours dark under ambient temperatur e. 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 ti me (three dilutions,

1246 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 orig inal sample to “nothingness”, did it grow when there is only one cell? To do it pr operly...Diluting 1 order of magnitude is too much. If you had 0.1 animal/ml and used 1m l 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 sa mple volume....Or as Russ is doing, take 100ml, concentrated it, then dilute it. Excellen t chance that the one cell will not make it.

Russ - MPN has a stats table with 95% conf idence intervals. The 100 ml subsample would not be diluted, but pl aced 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 reduc e the confidence intervals, great er 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 ar e 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

125California 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 c ounts) 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 Pl an or in specific r egional Basin Plans. Dominic then proceeded to discuss the need fo r indicator/surrogate species in water quality analysis. He then focused on three common methods of determining indicator species presence and viability including: multip le 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 im pact test sensitivity. Addi tionally, 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

126serogroup you are looking for. Fred co mmented that serotypes O1 and O139 are associated with toxicogenicity, but these sero types are not always toxicogenic. It would

be incorrect to think that O1 and O139 = always toxic.

The discussion moved to rapid tests. Andr ew discussed ATP test kits and that they might be promising, but these tests might experience interfer ence from biocides if the enzymes are damaged. The test provides re sults 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 und er 10 microns in size are heterotrophic

bacteria or viruses and t hat 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 cons ider bacteria and viruses in the under 10 micron size category. Regardi ng the cost of PAM, Nick sa id it costs roughly $10-15K right now.

Another rapid test using IDEXX trays was al so 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 presen t. Using that assumpti on, then the methods are relatively quick using fluorescent anti bodies. Each strain requires specific antibodies. Another rapid test, Cholera Sm art, 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 bacte ria and viruses. The CA standard was determined to be inappropriate if expresse d as individual bacteria and not colony forming units. We won’t be able to tell dead fr om live bacteria without some kind of culture process. Also t he performance standard as 10 3 /100 ml is reasonable given that

without treatment densities of co lony forming bacteria should be 10 3 /ml, so the

treatment standard would be 1% of the normal population. St ate Lands will investigate changing the standard to read 10 3 culturable bacteria (same as CFU). This will have to be done in Legislation. It should be noted, th at there are standard EPA plating methods

to count culturable bacteria.

127As for viruses, Fred noted that really the only way to count vi ruses is to look for viruslike particles that are stai ned and counted under an epifluore scent microscope, although there is no guarantee that eac h bit would then be an independent virus, could be a piece of fragmented DNA. The particles count ed are referred to as virus like particles (VLP). While the procedure provides a number, it does not provide information about VLP viability. Anot her 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 kille d. 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 comp liance 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 dist ribution 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 hea lth indicator species and two additional categories for under 10 um in size (bacteri a 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 co mpliance. Last week we discussed the need for rapid techniques to quantify phytoplank ton and zooplankton for the verification protocols. We also need more thorough/comple te techniques for use in the testing guidelines. This was in the context of giving so mething [a protocol] to our inspectors, but

we also need to take into considerati on what developers need from us for testing

purposes.

List of concerns for micro tests include co st, time, complexity, chemicals/equipments, applicability of techniques, scient ific 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 indi cator bacteria, in general, Ocean Plan lists water quality standards for the open ocean, and al so 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 concentrati on for multiple samples ( 30 day geometric means based on 5 samples collected within 30 days; units: CFU or most probabl e number), or can be a concentration for single sample. Geomet ric mean is 1000/100ml for total coliform, 200/100ml for fecal coliform, and 35/100ml for ent erococci....single sample is allowed to

128have a higher result, as long as it doesn’t get too high; there are limits on single sample

that contributes to the m ean. For example, Coliform c an be up to 10,000/100ml. An epidemiological study in Santa Monica ~199 5 resulted in state law and came up with new measure that incorporat ed 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/est uary, and there are di fferent standards for

shellfish. Median limits for total coliform is 70 cfu (or mp n)/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 me an, still has 30 day sample period but only 4 samples. Standards/criteria for contac t 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 mult iple fermentation, so limit changes to 330/100ml, since there is less precision than in a 5 tube mu ltiple fermentation (where limit is 400/100ml). Central Valley and San Franc isco 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 want ed to point out the different regulatory

levels.

Dominic Powerpoint presentation: Why use indicator bacteria? They are surrogate s for harmful species and it is easier to measure something abundant. Also, the test s are inexpensive and easy to perform, while pathogens are innumer able 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 surrogat e 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 spec ies and is the largest subset of the fecal coliforms. A subgroup of fecal st reptococcus is enterococcus.

Russ: There is a lot of hist ory with these groups that we re 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:

1291. Multiple tube fermentation - EPA a pproved. Units are most probable number, and the positive test is indicated by forma tion 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 thr ough membrane and use media to grow and

incubate bacteria. Place filter onto su rface 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 en zyme substrate tests, and the results came out the same. (examples: Colilert and Enterolert)

Nick: Do both multiple tube and enzyme subs trate 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] coul d 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 y ou lose your sensitivity.

Nick: Add in replicates.

Dominic: Dilute sample in media and diluti on distilled water (100ml) mix with dilution sample (1:10). Then pour into tray.

Nick: There is no serial dilution.

130Andrew: You just want to lose some cells. Ru ss 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 dilution s. Dilute the sample to extinction so that you know where the cut off is. (Ther e 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 whet her or not you have sewage water, i.e., fecal cont amination from humans. On 3 rd 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 st orm 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, le ss of an indicator species. O1 serogroup [as is O139] is associated with cholera and it’s hard to interpre t results of a vibrio test unless you know what serotype you are testing for, can get in terference from local waters. Standards for Vibrio are low because not very abundant.

Fred: Just to add, serotypes O1 and O 139 are associated with cholera (epidemic serotypes). The confusing thing is thes e serotypes are not necessarily always toxicogenic. Looking at Vibrio in ballast wate r, O1 and O139 were present, but not all of the O1 and O139 individuals contained the g enes to have toxic ability (tested using PCR). Incorrect to think seroty pe = 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 Resear ch 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 pr oof that Vibrio is alive. Must be calibrated with other methods for viability. Trying to work that out. Big advantage is t he 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 indicato r 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 t hese 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 variat ion of the Colilert test, using a colorimeter to identify bacteria. That idea kind of fell off. The last methods were the best.

131Andrew: 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 inactiva te the enzyme of the test. There needs to be more work. But you can’t get faster than the co lor test. Tells you if something is living or

not.

Fred: Very sensitive. Difficu lt 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 s ensitive 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 relationshi p that was worth going forward with. Tells you if there is a need to ex amine 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 r epetition rate), PAM (v ariation in Canada, and England), the idea that you expose the sa mple 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. Howe ver, 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 sh ip), 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 phy toplankton in this size r ange, but we have no standard for phytoplankton in this size class.

Nick: PAM fluorometer tells you information based on chlorophyll. Okay for photosynthetic bacteria (cyanobacter ia), 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.

132Andrew: It does need some work. If the bioc ide damages the enzyme it won’t work, but

it seems to work with chlorine.

Maurya: If the biocide does affect t he 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 tes t, then maybe there is too much residual biocide for disposal.

Andrew: You get a result withi n 18 hrs. It may not be absol utely 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 y ou 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 advisor y panel said so in t he 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 ok ay, better than false negatives.

Fred: Detecting public health might be fundam entally 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

133about 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 Denm ark 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 wil l be working.

Nicole: That’s what we’re looking for.

Andrew: The only thing that works is plat e 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 dynam ic/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 ya rdstick...there are problem s 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?

134Andrew: 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 rea lly tell you if it’s an effective treatment. Also need the luminometer, ~$2k. The liv e/dead staining kits are pretty good, and can be related to photo counts

Fred: Live-dead tests work well on lab bacteri a, but not as well wi th natural conditions. For technology testing, take some natural wa ter, throw in glucose to amp up production and re-run the test, and see if there is an indi cation 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, t he 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 stra in 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 l ab 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 i t. 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 fluoresc ence doesn’t really need cultures, although if you wanted to, you could. It is very specific.

Maurya: Are there any association betw een O1 and O139? Are they always together?

Fred: If there is an outbreak it’s one or the other, if an en vironmental sample, one or the

other or both. Our results show that the strains are overwhel ming 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. Alte rnatively, you could grow up a culture and infect mice, see if they die. That mi ght be a bit much. There are PCR methods, therefore, there coul d be qPCR methods for each strain, but it gets really tricky because

135the 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 inter nationally there is lots of work on creating quicker methods. Watch international public health agencies worldwide for techniques.

Maurya: If we did a rapid a ssessment for Vibrio and identif y 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 th is. If we had a rapid test, we could pass

it off to someone who has the bette r 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 unski lled 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 1 st 4 epidemics. Then O139 (Bengal) has shown up in the last 25 yrs. It is t hought 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 compan y with a lot of these kinds of tests.

Dominic: Can the strains later mu tate 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 eit her 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 t hat if you use bioci de A, and it can get activated upon discharge (UV- intake and di scharge), you might get a false positive because the cell membrane has not deteriorated yet.

Russ: There is a huge amount of wo rk into creating the tests.

136Maurya: 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 tota l bacterial and viral counts.

Fred: “Total” is wrought with per il. I think you mean total cult urable bacteria. We need to think about what kind of agar to use, bec ause 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 representat ive 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 diff icult; 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 ai m 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 ty pical plate grow out. So we are talking about the same number. This is extr emely 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 technolog y to achieve that. For flow cytometry, very difficult to measure the number.

Nick: Yes, prone to technical mistake. T he 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.

137Nicole: If it is CFU, shoul d 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 (ca lled 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, t he amount of bacteria that is in the sample

influences the distance from the c enter that the bacteria will grow.

Nicole: We’ll investigate change the wording fr om 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 forma tion of colony formi ng 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 te st or it will be abused. These kinds of tests are always being taking for granted: the size of the squirt, the lengt h of the incubation, the agar media, and there are big contam ination 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? C an define virus like particles with an epifluorescent microscope. Add stain, you c an see them, but there is no guarantee that

it is a virus.

138Dominic: Could be a fragem ented 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 t he 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 contaminat ion. Looking for viruse s 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 becaus e 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 la sting question. We shou ld 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 pas s 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.

139Andrew: 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 ther e. [Coliphages can be used as indicators of fecal contamination since they are vi ruses that infect coliform bacte ria. 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 effi cacy of the treatment system.]

Andrew: Make sure the test ers 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 y our 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 hav e thoughts of litigation are th e 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 glos sary in the beginning.

Maurya: Legislation will ex tend 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 discu ssion 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.

140California 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 draf t “Ballast Water Treatment Technology Testing Guidelines.” After a brief introduc tion, Nicole began the discussion by asking for comments on the testing guide lines as a whole. Rich voiced concern about the selfcertification process and it s 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 sta ndards. 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 lis t of contact people available to review the test plans because USCG can only di scuss items relevant to established regulations. Nicole agreed to remove USCG from that section.

The conversation moved on to discuss the me thodologies in Table 5-1. Lucie, Russ and

Nick commented that the freshwat er methodologies from the Gr eat Ships Initiative (GSI) were confusing because they were mixed in with tests for marine systems. Nicole

141agreed 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 clar ify 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 bacte ria. Nicole said yes, although Maurya commented that it will be at least next y ear before the perform ance standards can be changed to reflect that. The discussion also co vered 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, ther e 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 testi ng guidelines and distribut e it to the advisory panel and the technology vendors for thei r 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. Nic ole reiterated that CSLC will not approve treatment technologies for use in Calif ornia waters. Instead, CSLC will conduct inspections and enforce the ballast water performance standards. The Testing Guidelines should work in conjunction wit h the IMO Convention and pending federal treatment technology evaluati on guidelines, while incorpor ating 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 Californi a’s standards can be vendor certified as compliant with California’s requirements. This certificati on 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 wit h California’s performance

standards.

Andrea pointed out that the Test ing Guidelines are important as they refer to the IMO and proposed federal evaluation gui delines, and are written in a way that is comparable

to those other documents.

142Nicole 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 str eamline 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 t he 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 fr om the verification process (i.e. the independent certification coul d reduce the amount of time CSLC staff would have to spend reviewing methodologies for applicabilit y to California’s standards). Rich noted that any system, even thos e that conduct limited evaluati on, could self-certify as California compliant.

Nicole argued that competit ion between systems will require technology developers to conduct valid verification testing in conjuncti on with independent testin g organizations.

Greg commented that if third party testing centers will be used, they could provide information regarding their reput ation/experience and the quality of their data, and that this may help CSLC assess the qualit y 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 Ma tsons 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 i ndependent 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 s ystem was certified as Cali fornia compliant, the vessel owner/operator will look to t he 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 vi olation 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.

143Nicole 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 nece ssary to require that the certification come from an independent source, CSLC can still strongly recommends that testing take place with an independent testing organizati on. We can request that those independent testing organization provide credentials, as Greg mentioned, to ease comparison

between them.

Rich suggested CSLC remove US CG from the list of contact people available to review test plans because USCG can only discuss it ems relevant to regulations that are already established. USCG is not in a posit ion to “consult extensively” on test plans, even when an approval program is in place. The consultation should be between the independent lab and the technol ogy 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 t hat 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 st andards. Lucie commented that the table was confusing because it included freshwat er methodologies, and since most of CA ports are marine, you had to hunt through the t able to find which tests were appropriate for marine systems. Andrea stated that in th e past freshwater tests were ignored to some degree, but we now recognize that we wil l have to take these tests seriously given that many ports worldwide ar e freshwater or brackish. Russ suggested modifying the table to separate out freshwat er and saltwater methodologies.

Nick agreed with Russ. He was also concerned that it is not clear t hat this table will be updated frequently, and that test ers will do what the guidelines suggested. Nick commented that if he were new to testing tec hnologies, he would not find this table very

clear because there are no titles to t he 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 int ended as a guide and is not all inclusive.

Rich pointed out that t hat the title of the table is not clear because it suggests that following the methods in the table will ensure co mpliance. 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 cont ents of the table, Ric h 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 c ongruence for testing for compliance, but that IMO has not been able to agree on which specific tests are appropriate for a

144comprehensive 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 technolog y developers will be interested in knowing how CSLC will enforce the performance standar ds, and that they

will want to use those methods to test their systems. Nicole mentio ned that we are still working through how CSLC will determine co mpliance 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 le ss than 10 μm size class in the CA regulation as specific in Table 1-1. Are the bacterial c ounts specifically meant to be live or total

counts? It looks like there should be the word “ live” written in the t able. Table 5-1 lists standard methods involving gr owing out and plating. There are methods for live

determination. Nicole answer ed 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 a bout the phytoplankton in that size class, but it has not been written into regulation t hus 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 def ine “live” bacteria in this document because of the issues about so many marine bacteria being unculturable. Fred also suggested to use the word culturable. Fr ed agreed with Russ’s suggestions that Table

5-1 should reference standar d method 92-15 and should incl ude the names of standard

media for culture of het erotrophic 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 hav e 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 ar e used in culturing marine pathogens. Nicole agreed to add the marine agar to the table in addi tion 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 mi nd that they are draft prot ocols and will change. Lucie

commented that there is no i ndication of quantifying live phytoplankton in this method.

Because there are no absolute methods for quantifying and determining viability

145available yet, Nicole stated that vendors and te sting organizations will just have to use

the best methods available that are scientifically defensible.

Fred made reference to the co mments 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. Theref ore, 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 app ropriate to suggest that there is not a good test for the 10-50 size class becau se the test is not sensitive enough for CSLC performance standards, and suggesti ng the GSI test would send the researchers/developers down t he 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 secti on, but expressed concern about the virus section, in particular, using th e words “live” and “virus-like particles,” as even experts can’t decide whether to use the te rm viruses or virus-like particles or virussized particles. He stated that these word s should be explicitly defined, and Nicole agreed.

Regarding enterococci methods, Dominic pointed out that t he 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 f iltration has better sensitivity than the plating method listed in Table 5.1, and is a good method. Fred did not hav e 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 guidelin es and IMO G2 Guidelines. Andrea commented that GSI is doing a lot of work investigating samp le 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 qualit y were raised. Dominic stated that for dissolved oxygen, a ship cannot impact the port wa ters 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 importa nt 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, develope rs can keep it in mind and be cognizant of

downstream issues.

146Rich commented that back fl ushing 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 am ount is not harmful to comm unities. Of course, what is harmful is open to interpretation because it will vary between communities. Dominic pointed out that it is impor tant to think about cumulative effects over time.

Dominic stated that Table 5-2 lists measurabl e/numeric (vs. narrative) effluent limits. Kevin wondered if Table 5-2 takes backg round levels into consideration.

Dominic said that the Ocean Plan doesn’t c onsider 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. Th is is a concern for ships.

Dominic discussed that the standards ar en’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 thes e levels at 200 μg/l and is definitely toxic to marine life.

Kevin discussed that the best piping for vess els is Cu/Ni because it inhibits fouling.

Dominic wants to know what the concentrati ons of some of these metals are under

current conditions. What does come out of ba llast? 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 te sting guidelines, Nicole will se nd 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 ven dors 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.

147APPENDIX 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

148APPENDIX 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 bioassa y 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 env ironment, 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 t he 96-hour LC 50 due to greater than 50 percent survival of the test specie s in 100 percent waste, the toxicity

concentration shall be calcul ated 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 per cent effluent or receiving water that

causes no observable effect on a test or ganism, 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 characteri stic species diversity, populat ion density, contamination,

149growth anomalies, debility, or supplanting of normal species by undesirable plant and animal species. Degradation occu rs 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 s pecies 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 to tal irradiance, or both, according to the monitoring needs of t he Regional Board.

OCEAN WATERS: Territorial marine waters of the St ate as defined by California law to

the extent these waters are outside of enc losed 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 incl udes a discharger’s total discharge, of whatever origin, i.e., gross, not net, discharge.

150151 APPENDIX B

Ballast Water Treatment System Efficacy Matrix

Thirty ballast water treatment systems were reviewed by Commission staff for compliance with the California perform ance standards. Twnety systems had data on system efficacy available for review. Commissi on staff was lenient in their assessment of system efficacy. Staff included data from shipboard, dockside an d laboratory studies of system performance. In an effort to standar dize results, staff evaluated any data on zooplankton abundance as representative of the largest size class of organisms (greater than 50 μm in size), and phyt oplankton abundance was evaluated on par with organisms in the 10 – 50 μm size class. Re sults presented as percent reduction in organism abundance or as concentration of pigments or biological compounds associated with organism presenc e were noted, but these metr ics 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 standar ds. 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 compar able to the standards are classified as “Unknown.” For example, a system that pres ented results of system efficacy as percent reduction of zooplankton abundance could no t be compared against the California standards, and thus ability of the system to comply wit h the standards is unknown. Open cells indicate lack of data for a giv en organism size class. Compliance with the bacteria standard was assessed using the conc entration of culturable heterotrophic bacteria in discharged ballast water. Availabl e 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, complianc e 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 meterMethodsReferenceLaboratory 10-- Unknown (% Reduction)Visual Assesment68Land-Based 1296Y0 - 26Microscope/mobility1,93Shipboard 5212Y0 - 3Microscope/mobility68,94Laboratory -------Land-Based -------Shipboard ------Laboratory 222Y0 - 3.5x105Visual, Neutral Red Stain100Land-Based -------Shipboard 113Y0-5Visual Assessment63Laboratory -------Land-Based -------Shipboard ------Laboratory -------Land-Based -------Shipboard ------Laboratory -------Land-Based -------Shipboard -------Laboratory -------Land-Based -------Shipboard -------Laboratory -------Land-Based 55YY0Visual Assessment115Shipboard -------Laboratory 22YY0Visual Assesment35,130Land-Based 1916YY0-0.7Visual Asses., Neutral Red35,38,91,130Shipboard 543Y0-1.1-91Laboratory -------Land-Based -------Shipboard 20--Unknown (% mortality)-41Laboratory -------Land-Based -------Shipboard -------Laboratory 10YY-Visual Assessment56Land-Based 42YY0 (100% Mortality)Visual Assessment57Shipboard 403Y3 - 161Visual, Neutral Red Stain139Laboratory -------Land-Based -------Shipboard -------Laboratory -------Land-Based 32YY0 - 1.57Visual Assessment51,52,136Shipboard -------Laboratory -------Land-Based -------Shipboard -------MARENCOJFE Engineering CorpMaritime Solutions Inc.Hamann AG EvonikDegussaHi Tech MarineHitachiHyde MarineAppendix B1 Organisms > 50 μmETIFerrate TreatmentTech.GreenshipAlfa LavalEcologiQElectrichlorATG WillandEcochlor152Manufacturer Location # Tests # Tests Met Std Replicates Controls # Organisms/cubic meterMethodsReferenceLaboratory 103NUnk (No Units)Visual Assessment42Land-Based -------Shipboard -------Laboratory -------Land-Based -------Shipboard -------Laboratory -------Land-Based 403-5YBD, 2 x105- 1.4x106Visual Assessment48,49Shipboard 10-Y8Visual Assessment46Laboratory -------Land-Based 51YY0, Unk (% Survival)Visual Assessment119,120Shipboard 41YY0 - 7Visual Assessment121Laboratory -------Land-Based -------Shipboard -------Laboratory 304Y1.2x102- 1.2x104Visual Assessment105Land-Based 31YYUnk (% Live)Visual Assessment40Shipboard 3212Y0 - 150Visual Assessment141Laboratory -------Land-Based 142*3Y0*-135Visual Assessment2,95Shipboard 1243Y0 - 9720Visual Assessment6,124Laboratory 10-Y> 0Visual Assessment47Land-Based 1383Y0-144Microscope/Mobility11,92Shipboard 70YY 1.4 - ~5500, Unk (% Reduction)Visual Assessment11,135Laboratory -------Land-Based -------Shipboard -------Laboratory -------Land-Based -------Shipboard -------Laboratory 11--0Visual Assessment71Land-Based -------Shipboard -------Laboratory 11YY0Visual Assessment21,36Land-Based 223Y0Visual Assessment57Shipboard 113Y0Visual Assessment8Laboratory -------Land-Based 533-4Y0 - ~4x105Visual Assessment39Shipboard -------Laboratory -------Land-Based 1183Y0-6Visual Assessment50Shipboard 333Y0Visual Assessment50Laboratory -------Land-Based -------Shipboard -------Unk = Unknown, BD = Below Detection LimitsMitsubishi Heavy Ind.Appendix B1 Organisms > 50 μmResource Ballast TechRWO Marine WaterTechMH SystemsNEINK-O3Toagosei GroupMitsui EngineeringTechcross Inc.Severn TrentSeaKleen (Hyde)Nutech O3 Inc.OceanSaverOptiMarinPanasia Co.153Manufacturer Location # Tests # Tests Met Std Replicates Controls # Organisms/mlMethodsReferenceLaboratory 10--Unk (% Reduction)Visual Assesment68Land-Based 1236Y0-92.5Microscope/stain (CDFA_AM), MPN1,93Shipboard 5112Y0-1.7Microscope/stain (CDFA_AM), MPN68,94Laboratory -------Land-Based -------Shipboard -------Laboratory 202Y <0.1 - >60, Unk ([Chl a])Visual Assessment, MPN, [Chl a]100Land-Based -------Shipboard 113Y0-81Visual Assessment, [Chl a]63Laboratory -------Land-Based -------Shipboard ------Laboratory -------Land-Based -------Shipboard -------Laboratory -------Land-Based 302-3Y1 - 1.5Growout (+, -), Flowcam60,61,62Shipboard -------Laboratory -------Land-Based -------Shipboard -------Laboratory -------Land-Based 53YY0 - 7Total Counts115Shipboard -------Laboratory 33YY0 (100% Mortality)Visual Assessment, Sytox Green35,36,130Land-Based 18173Y0 - <0.01Flow Cytometer, Sytox stain38,91,130Shipboard 503Y<0.1Flow Cytometer, Sytox stain, PAM fluorometry 91Laboratory -------Land-Based -------Shipboard 20--Unk (% Mortality)-41Laboratory -------Land-Based -------Shipboard -------Laboratory 10YY26 - 210Visual Assessment, Coulter, MPN56Land-Based 40YYUnk ([Chl a])[Chl a]57Shipboard 503Y Unk (% of controls, [Chl a])Visual Assessment, [Chl a]139Laboratory -------Land-Based -------Shipboard -------Laboratory -------Land-Based 30YY0.05 - 0.186MPN, [Chl a],14C, PAM51,52,136Shipboard -------Laboratory -------Land-Based -------Shipboard -------Unk = Unkown, MPN = Most Probable NumberFerrate Treatment Tech.GreenshipHamann Evonik DegussaJFE Engineering CorpAppendix B2 Organisms 10 - 50 μmETIATG WillandEcologiQAlfa LavalEcochlorElectrichlorMaritime Solutions Inc.Hi Tech MarineHitachiHyde MarineMARENCO154Manufacturer Location # Tests # Tests Met Std Replicates Controls # Organisms/mlMethodsReferenceLaboratory -------Land-Based -------Shipboard -------Laboratory -------Land-Based -------Shipboard -------Laboratory -------Land-Based 403-5Y BD, 206.6 - 387.4, UnkVisual Assessment (20 - 50um)48,49Shipboard 10-YBDVisual Assessment46Laboratory -------Land-Based 50YYUnk[Chl a]119,120Shipboard 40YY443 - 593Total Counts (Preserved), [Chl a], Regrowth 121Laboratory -------Land-Based -------Shipboard -------Laboratory 304YUnk[Chl a]105Land-Based 20YY22 - 190Total Counts (Preserved)40Shipboard 305Y0.016 - 4[Chl a], Grow Out, Counts141Laboratory -------Land-Based 14113Y0-8.7dilution, microscopy (CFDA stain), plate counts 95Shipboard 333Y0-2.8Microscope (CFDA stain), Photosynethic rates 124Laboratory 10-Y26 - 210MPN, Coulter47Land-Based 1363Y0-92Microscope/stain, MPN, agar plates11,92Shipboard 100YY Unk ([Chl a], % Reduction) [Chl a], HPLC, PAM,Counts, Growout11,135Laboratory -------Land-Based -------Shipboard -------Laboratory -------Land-Based -------Shipboard -------Laboratory 11--0Visual Assessment71Land-Based -------Shipboard -------Laboratory 21YY0, Unk (Unitless) Epifluorescence, Hemacytometer, Sytox Green 21,36Land-Based 203YUnk ([Chl a])[Chl a]57Shipboard 113Y0Visual Assessment, [Chl a], Growout8Laboratory -------Land-Based 523-4Y 0.002 - 10, BD ([Chl a])MPN, [Chl a]39Shipboard -------Laboratory -------Land-Based 1193Y0-4Light micro., epifluor. and fluorometer (FDA stain) 50Shipboard 333Y0Light micro., epifluor. and fluorometer (FDA stain) 50Laboratory -------Land-Based -------Shipboard -------Unk = Unknown, BD = Below Detection Limits, MPN = Most Probably NumberOptiMarinTechcross Inc.Resource Ballast TechRWO Marine Water TechSeaKleen (Hyde)Severn TrentMitsui EngineeringPanasia Co.Toagosei GroupAppendix B2 Organisms 10 - 50 μmMH SystemsMitsubishi Heavy Ind.NEINK-O3Nutech O3 Inc.OceanSaver155Manufacturer Location # Tests # Tests Met Std Replicates Controls used # CFU/100 mlMethodsReferenceLaboratory 10--Unk (% Reduction)-68Land-Based 12126Y0 - 800Membrane filtration1,93Shipboard 44*9Y0*Membrane filtration94Laboratory -------Land-Based -------Shipboard ------Laboratory -------Land-Based -------Shipboard 113Y0 - ~21Idexx Labs Colilert63Laboratory -------Land-Based -------Shipboard ------Laboratory -------Land-Based -------Shipboard -------Laboratory -------Land-Based -------Shipboard -------Laboratory 10--300Idexx Labs QuantiTray MPN 22Land-Based -------Shipboard -------Laboratory 11-Y>1000 - 3000Plate Counts25Land-Based 55YY0 - 1Unk115Shipboard -------Laboratory 11Y-0Plate Counts36Land-Based 12123Y<0.1/mlMembrane filtration91Shipboard 44*3Y<0.1/mlMembrane filtration91Laboratory -------Land-Based -------Shipboard -------Laboratory -------Land-Based -------Shipboard -------Laboratory -------Land-Based -------Shipboard 443Y0Idexx Labs Colisure139Laboratory -------Land-Based -------Shipboard -------Laboratory -------Land-Based -------Shipboard -------Laboratory -------Land-Based -------Shipboard -------Unk = Unknown, * = Initial concentration at intake was zero or non-detectableJFE Engineering CorpMaritime Solutions Inc.MARENCOHamann Evonik DegussaHi Tech MarineHitachiHyde MarineAppendix B3E. coliAlfa LavalEcochlorATG WillandGreenshipEcologiQElectrichlorETIFerrate Treatment Tech.156Manufacturer Location # Tests # Tests Met Std Replicates Controls used # CFU/100 mlMethodsReferenceLaboratory -------Land-Based -------Shipboard -------Laboratory -------Land-Based -------Shipboard -------Laboratory -------Land-Based 203YBD, UnkPlate Counts48Shipboard -------Laboratory -------Land-Based 51YY10 - 160Idexx Labs MPN Kit 119,120Shipboard 41YY<100Idexx Labs MPN Kit121Laboratory -------Land-Based -------Shipboard -------Laboratory -------Land-Based -------Shipboard 33*11-12Y0*IDEXX Labs MPN Kit-Laboratory -------Land-Based 14143Y0-123Membrane Filtration95Shipboard 33*3Y0*Membrane Filtration124Laboratory -------Land-Based 12123Y0-2Membrane Filtration92Shipboard -------Laboratory -------Land-Based -------Shipboard -------Laboratory -------Land-Based -------Shipboard -------Laboratory -------Land-Based -------Shipboard -------Laboratory 11YY0Culture Growth36Land-Based -------Shipboard 22*3Y0*Idexx Labs Colisure8Laboratory -------Land-Based -------Shipboard -------Laboratory -------Land-Based 10103Y0Plate counts50Shipboard 333Y0Plate Counts50Laboratory -------Land-Based -------Shipboard -------Unk = Unknown, BD = Below DetectionLimits, * = Initial concentration at intake was zero or non-detectablePanasia Co.Toagosei GroupOptiMarinTechcross Inc.Resource Ballast TechRWO Marine Water TechSeaKleen (Hyde)Severn TrentNK-O3Nutech O3 Inc.OceanSaverAppendix B3E. coliMH SystemsMitsubishi Heavy Ind.Mitsui EngineeringNEI157Manufacturer Location # Tests # Tests Met Std Replicates Controls # CFU/100 mlMethodsReferenceLaboratory -------Land-Based 12126Y0 - 4Membrane filtration 1,93Shipboard 44*10Y0Membrane filtration94Laboratory -------Land-Based -------Shipboard ------Laboratory -------Land-Based -------Shipboard 103YUnkIdexx Labs Enterolert 63Laboratory -------Land-Based -------Shipboard ------Laboratory -------Land-Based -------Shipboard -------Laboratory -------Land-Based -------Shipboard -------Laboratory 10--80Idexx Labs QuantiTray MPN 22Land-Based -------Shipboard -------Laboratory -------Land-Based 55YY0Unk115Shipboard -------Laboratory -------Land-Based 12123Y<0.1/mlMembrane filtration91Shipboard 44*3Y<0.1/mlMembrane filtration91Laboratory -------Land-Based -------Shipboard -------Laboratory -------Land-Based -------Shipboard -------Laboratory -------Land-Based -------Shipboard 44*3Y0Idexx Labs Enterolert 139Laboratory -------Land-Based -------Shipboard -------Laboratory -------Land-Based -------Shipboard -------Laboratory -------Land-Based -------Shipboard -------Unk = Unknown, * = Initial concentrationat intake was zero or non-detectable.GreenshipHamann EvonikDegussaJFE Engineering CorpMaritime Solutions Inc.Hi Tech MarineHitachiHyde MarineMARENCOAppendix B4 Intestinal EnterococciETIFerrate Treatment Tech.ATG WillandEcologiQAlfa LavalEcochlorElectrichlor158Manufacturer Location # Tests # Tests Met Std Replicates Controls # CFU/100 mlMethodsReferenceLaboratory -------Land-Based -------Shipboard -------Laboratory -------Land-Based -------Shipboard -------Laboratory -------Land-Based 203YBD, UnkPlate counts48Shipboard -------Laboratory -------Land-Based 50YY36Idexx Labs MPN Kit 119,120Shipboard 42YY<10Idexx Labs MPN Kit121Laboratory -------Land-Based -------Shipboard -------Laboratory -------Land-Based -------Shipboard 33*11-12 Y0*Idexx Labs Enterolert 141Laboratory -------Land-Based 1493Y0-133Membrane Filtration95Shipboard 33*3Y0*-9Membrane Filtration 124Laboratory -------Land-Based -------Shipboard -------Laboratory -------Land-Based -------Shipboard -------Laboratory -------Land-Based -------Shipboard -------Laboratory -------Land-Based -------Shipboard -------Laboratory -------Land-Based -------Shipboard 22*3Y0*Idexx Labs Enterolert8Laboratory -------Land-Based -------Shipboard -------Laboratory -------Land-Based 11113Y0-5Plate counts50Shipboard 223Y0Plate counts50Laboratory -------Land-Based -------Shipboard -------Unk = Unknown, BD = Below Detection Limits, * = Initial concentration at intake was zero or non-detectablePanasia Co.Toagosei GroupOptiMarinTechcross Inc.Resource Ballast TechRWO Marine Water TechSeaKleen (Hyde)Severn TrentNK-O3Nutech O3 Inc.OceanSaverAppendix B4 Intestinal EnterococciMH SystemsMitsubishi Heavy Ind.Mitsui EngineeringNEI159Manufacturer Location # Tests # Tests Met Std Replicates Controls # Organisms/100 mlMethodsReferenceLaboratory -------Land-Based 1010*3Y<1*Supplemented Agar Plates 93Shipboard 44*9Y<1*Supplemented Agar Plates 94Laboratory -------Land-Based -------Shipboard ------Laboratory 222Y0 (% cover)Plate Counts100Land-Based -------Shipboard 103YBD - ~1000Unk63Laboratory -------Land-Based -------Shipboard ------Laboratory -------Land-Based -------Shipboard -------Laboratory -------Land-Based -------Shipboard -------Laboratory 10--108Indexx Labs QuantiTray MPN 22Land-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 B5Vibrio choleraeETIEcologiQAlfa LavalATG WillandEcochlorElectrichlorFerrate Treatment Tech.Maritime Solutions Inc.Hi Tech MarineHitachiHyde MarineMARENCOGreenshipHamann Evonik DegussaJFE Engineering Corp160Manufacturer Location # Tests # Tests Met Std Replicates Controls # Organisms/100 mlMethodsReferenceLaboratory 103N Unk (% Reduction)Plate Counts42Land-Based -------Shipboard -------Laboratory -------Land-Based -------Shipboard -------Laboratory -------Land-Based 203YBD, UnkPlate Counts48Shipboard -------Laboratory -------Land-Based -------Shipboard 41YY0DFA 121Laboratory -------Land-Based -------Shipboard -------Laboratory -------Land-Based -------Shipboard 33*11-12 Y0*Unknown141Laboratory -------Land-Based 1414*3Y<1*Plate counts (TCBS agar) 95Shipboard 33*3Y0*Plate counts (TCBS agar) 124Laboratory -------Land-Based 1212*3Y<1Supplemented Agar Plates 92Shipboard -------Laboratory -------Land-Based -------Shipboard -------Laboratory -------Land-Based -------Shipboard -------Laboratory -------Land-Based -------Shipboard -------Laboratory -------Land-Based -------Shipboard -------Laboratory -------Land-Based -------Shipboard -------Laboratory -------Land-Based 1111*3Y0*Plate counts (TCBS agar) 50Shipboard 33*3Y0*Plate counts (TCBS agar) 50Laboratory -------Land-Based -------Shipboard -------Unk = Unknown, BD = Below Detection Limits, DFA = Direction Fluorescent Antibody, * = Initial concentration at intake was zeroor non-detectableToagosei GroupOptiMarinTechcross Inc.NEINK-O3Nutech O3 Inc.OceanSaverAppendix B5Vibrio choleraeMH SystemsMitsubishi Heavy Ind.Resource Ballast TechRWO Marine Water TechSeaKleen (Hyde)Severn TrentMitsui EngineeringPanasia Co.161Manufacturer Location # Tests # Tests Met Std Replicates Controls # Organisms/100 mlMethodsReferenceLaboratory 10--Unk (% Reduction)Visual Assesment68Land-Based 1006Y820/ml - 4x108/mlAgar Plate Counts1,93Shipboard -------Laboratory -------Land-Based -------Shipboard ------Laboratory 222Y 0,Unk (% of control, % Plate cover)Plate Counts,3H-leucine100Land-Based -------Shipboard 113YBDPlate Counts,3H-leucine63Laboratory -------Land-Based -------Shipboard ------Laboratory -------Land-Based -------Shipboard -------Laboratory 103Y-Plate Counts, BacLight59Land-Based 302-3 Y5x107- 1x109Growout (+, -), FCM/PicoGreen 60,61,62Shipboard -------Laboratory -------Land-Based -------Shipboard -------Laboratory -------Land-Based 52YY0 - 6000Unk115Shipboard -------Laboratory 20YY3.8x107- 4.6x107Plate Counts, PicoGreen130Land-Based 1313Y<10/ml - 4.6 x 107PicoGreen, Agar Plate91,130Shipboard 433Y5-15/mlheterotrophic bacteria, plate 91Laboratory -------Land-Based -------Shipboard -------Laboratory -------Land-Based -------Shipboard -------Laboratory 10YY~5000 - 7000Plate Counts56Land-Based 20YYUnkPlate Counts, AODC57Shipboard 403YUnkPlate Counts139Laboratory -------Land-Based -------Shipboard -------Laboratory------Land-Based 32YY0 - ~5x108Plate Counts, Membrane Filtration 51,52,136Shipboard -------Laboratory -------Land-Based -------Shipboard -------Unk = Unknown, BD = Below Detection Limits, FCM = Flow CytometerGreenshipHamann Evonik DegussaJFE Engineering CorpMaritime Solutions Inc.Hi Tech MarineHitachiHyde MarineMARENCOAppendix B6 Organims < 10 μm (Bacteria)ETIFerrate Treatment Tech.ATG WillandEcologiQAlfa LavalEcochlorElectrichlor162Manufacturer Location # Tests # Tests Met Std Replicates Controls # Organisms/100 mlMethodsReferenceLaboratory -------Land-Based -------Shipboard -------Laboratory -------Land-Based -------Shipboard -------Laboratory -------Land-Based 203YBD, UnkPlate Counts48Shipboard 10-YBDPlate Counts46Laboratory -------Land-Based 50YY> 1x108FCM119,120Shipboard 40YY7.3x107- 7.9x107FCM121Laboratory -------Land-Based -------Shipboard -------Laboratory 334Y<101- 108Plate Counts, Membrane Filtration 105Land-Based 33YY3x10-1- 3x102Plate Counts, Membrane Filtration 40Shipboard 229-12 Y0Plate Counts, Filtration141Laboratory -------Land-Based 533Y0 - 8.2x105/mlPlate Counts95Shipboard -------Laboratory 20-Y~ 5x103- ~7x103Plate Counts47Land-Based 1313Y9-220/mlAgar Plate Counts11, 92Shipboard 100YY<103- 104, Unk (% Reduction)Plate Counts, SYBR Gold 11,135Laboratory -------Land-Based -------Shipboard -------Laboratory -------Land-Based -------Shipboard -------Laboratory -------Land-Based -------Shipboard -------Laboratory -------Land-Based -------Shipboard 103YUnk (Unitless)Plate Counts8Laboratory -------Land-Based 443-4 Y<1 - 1010Plate Counts, Membrane Filtration 39Shipboard -------Laboratory -------Land-Based 11 Unknown3YUnknownFluorescent microscopy (DAFI) 50Shipboard 3 Unknown3YUnknownFluorescent microscopy (DAFI) 50Laboratory -------Land-Based -------Shipboard -------Unk = Unknown, AODC = Acridine Orange Direct Counts, FCM = Flow Cytometer, BD = Below Detection LimitsOptiMarinTechcross Inc.Resource Ballast TechRWO Marine Water TechSeaKleen (Hyde)Severn TrentMitsui EngineeringPanasia Co.Toagosei GroupAppendix B6 Organims < 10 μm (Bacteria)MH SystemsMitsubishi Heavy Ind.NEINK-O3Nutech O3 Inc.OceanSaver163Manufacturer Location # Tests # Tests Met Std Replicates Controls # Organisms/100 mlMethodsReferenceLaboratory -------Land-Based -------Shipboard -------Laboratory -------Land-Based -------Shipboard ------Laboratory 2 Unknown2Y 0,Unk ( % ofControl) Plaque Forming Units100Land-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 = UnknownMaritime Solutions Inc.MARENCOAlfa LavalEcochlorElectrichlorGreenshipHamann Evonik DegussaJFE Engineering CorpEcologiQHi Tech MarineHitachiHyde MarineAppendix B7 < 10 μm (Viruses)ETIFerrate Treatment Tech.ATG Willand164Manufacturer Location # Tests # Tests Met Std Replicates Controls # Organisms/100 mlMethodsReferenceLaboratory -------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. 11Shipboard 5 Unknown-Y Unk (% Reduction) Spiked Coliphage, SYBR Gold 11,135Laboratory -------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 = UnknownPanasia Co.Toagosei GroupOptiMarinTechcross Inc.Resource Ballast TechRWO Marine Water TechSeaKleen (Hyde)Severn TrentNK-O3Nutech O3 Inc.OceanSaverAppendix B7 < 10 μm (Viruses)MH SystemsMitsubishi Heavy Ind.Mitsui EngineeringNEI165APPENDIX C

California State Lands Commission Advisory Panel Members

Ryan Albert U.S. Envir onmental 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 Franci sco 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 Depar tment of Fish & Wildlife

Kevin Reynolds The Glosten Associates

Greg Ruiz Smithsonian Envir onmental Research Center

Spencer Schilling Herbert Engineering Corp.

Jon Stewart International Mariti me Technology Consultants Inc.

Lisa Swanson Matson Navigation

Mark Sytsma Portland State University

Drew Talley San Francisco Ba y National Estuarine Research

Reserve

Kim Ward State Water Resources Control Board

Nick Welschmeyer Moss Landing Marine Laboratory

166California 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 meeti ng and participants introduced themselves. Nicole mentioned that legislation passed [S B 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 feedba ck by Friday October 3 rd . 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 3 rd

.

Nicole went through the report, and indi cated where the report had gone through substantial changes. This incl uded the legislative section and the treatment assessment sections. More system developers are perform ing 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...

167Nicole pointed out the new information in Ta ble VI.1 regarding system efficacy. In previous TAG meetings, it became clear th at the bacterial standard was an issue because of the lack of methods to both quant ify numbers and assess viability. Nicole recommended that the standard should be changed fr om “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 woul d be preventative since ther e 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 me thods 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 st aff 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 measurem ent and replacement of viru s 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 al l 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 arriva ls to CA. However, he also thought that these operators may be more se lective about what vessels they would send to CA. Realistically, operators would send their ol d vessels to CA until more systems were

available for installation on vessels. Kevin thought that perhaps oper ators 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 t hat the infrastructure does not yet exist for onshore

treatment. John said that deballa sting while underway is critical for vessels trying to get to ports such as Sacramento and Stockton, and that if onshore tr eatment was required for those vessels it would push the transpor t of those goods from ships to rail.

168John then went on to discuss the problem re sulting from the dat e change from 2009 to 2010. Since only the initial date of per formance 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 st ating 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 nonc ompliant 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 treat ment 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 t he 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 la ter. 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 st andards 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 clar ify 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 technol ogy type would also meet that standard, even if they haven’t sent in the data yet to MISP. Nic ole agreed with the concept, but noted that operators need to make that type of decis ion and request the appropriate information. CSLC isn’t going to indicate in the report that a technology meet s the standard without data from that system avail able for review. Marc wondered if it would be helpful, nonetheless, to make some gene ral statement in the report about the treatment types in terms of meeting performance standards. Ni cole agreed to add a general statement about the possibility of a treatment type bei ng 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 meas urements for chlorine residue s (Total Residual Chlorine (TRC) vs. Total Residual Oxidant) are pr etty 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 complianc e for OptiMarin should be changed from “yes” to “NA.”

169Nicole wrapped up introductory discussion of the report by co mmenting that AB 169 was vetoed, so the report will be changed acco rdingly 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 rele vant info from the completion of this document will be added to the report.

The conversation moved to discuss larger iss ues that meeting part icipants 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 bacter ia terminology weakens the standard because with the change in units comes wit h a change in the number of bacteria

that can be screened for. Theref ore, 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 t he existing viral standards.

o Marc’s concern was in terms of the or ganization 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 t hat 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 executiv e 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 concer ned 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 meet ing the standards). Nicole mentioned

that these items were not explicitly discussed in t he 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 tr eatment development looks promising and

170on track, but the systems are not commerc ially 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 r egulation 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 t he 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 r eport states that t here are methods to quantify bacteria, but they are not necessarily appropriate. Domini c agreed with Andy’s point about changing

the concentration of bacteria. The concentrati on in the law might be more stringent than the existing assessment methodology, but th at’s not unusual. Chlorine measurements

have a similar limitation. CS LC should keep the strict standard, but use assessment methods to the best of technology’s limitatio ns. Dominic suggested that if the bacteria units are going to change to colony formi ng units (CFU), then the units should be changed to CFU or MPN because then it woul d allow for the use of the IDEXX system,

which is the most effective method availabl e. Nicole stated that the number that they

chose was based on what Fred Dobbs and Ru ss Herwig suggested was found in a

natural environment.

Also, John was concerned about how to comp ly with CA standards, and if there is a dispute, will the enforcement be brought into administrativ e court? Maurya expressed concern for that as well, and wants to push these treatment systems forward. Kevin was

concerned that if the me thods of measuring organisms advance beyond today’s technology, and these systems (that should pa ss 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 fait h for the systems that CSLC is reviewing, and industry won’t be penal ized for systems that fail under future enforcement programs? Wit hout system approval, and with unc ertain but progressive sampling techniques, there isn’t much security that the vessels will pass inspections in the future. Maurya replied t hat 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, ra ther 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 techniq ue would provide vesse l operators some certainty. Under best available techniqu es 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 curr ent 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 installa tions of these systems to be sped up since operators would have some se curity that the syst ems wouldn’t have be removed. Also, this would allow for the syste ms to be tested by te chniques 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 st andards, 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 t he terminology used for bacteria on viruses

because the methods for bacteria are much mo re 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 discu ssion, Maurya and Nicole agr eed that the recommendations in the draft report to change the bacte ria and virus standar d would be dropped and

instead information would be added to the l ooking forward section to clarify how

Commission staff would use the best availabl e techniques/methods in order to assess vessel compliance with the standards. The iss ue of possible grandfathering of vessels under an existing set of compliance veri fication methods would be brought up.

In terms of the tone of t he 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 ar e 30 systems, so there is a lo t going on, and it shows that technology isn’t being developed from scratch. Brad thought t hat it would be important to discuss how out of sync the standards are between IMO, feder al 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 al ternatives added to the permit so that vessels wouldn’t have to meet both regulations. Dominic st ated 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, Do minic pointed out that it shoul d 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

172173 exposing water to UV creates chemical s, such as H2O2, which is bad for the environment. Toxicity testing should be applicabl e for all systems. Kevi n pointed out that there are guidelines for toxicity testi ng of substances in the G9 guidelines.

Dominic also suggested changing the question marks in the table (indicating total residual oxidants) to the appropr iate yes or no, with an asteri sk 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 showi ng that these two methods are comparable.

Dominic was also concerned about all of th e other chemicals that he had discussed with Nicole, and suggested adding the Testing Guidelines document be added as an appendix to this report. Nicole stat ed 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 “looki ng 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 co uld send the new text out to the TAG. Andy wanted to see language regarding best available measurement techniques and also regarding the grandfathering of syste ms. John would like a legal opinion, and would like information on the scope of the vesse ls 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 comment s will not be too significant. Nicole requested any written comments by Friday, or Monday if need be. Because the repor t is available for public comment before the Commission meeting, th e group decided that they did not need to immediately review the new text for the report.

Nicole thanked everyone for their comm ents, and the meeting was adjourned.