I:\MEPC\55\2-27.DOC For reasons of economy, this document is pr inted in a limited number. Delegates are kindly asked to bring their copies to mee tings and not to request additional copies. INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANIZATION

IMO 

# E

MARINE ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION

COMMITTEE

55th session Agenda item 2 MEPC 55/2/27 18 August 2006 Original: ENGLISH

HARMFUL AQUATIC ORGANI SMS IN BALLAST WATER

Request for re-evaluation of the proposal for the approval of Active Substances

Submitted by the Republic of Korea

SUMMARY

Executive summary: This document contains supplemental data to provide explanations against comments raised by the GESAMP-BWWG in its evaluation report on the proposal for the approval of Active Substances submitted by the Republic of Korea and a request to reconsider the proposal.

Action to be taken: Paragraph 7

Related documents: BWM.2/Circ.2, MEPC 54/2/12, MEPC 55/2/3 and MEPC 55/2/16

Introduction

1 This document is submitted in accordance with paragraph 4.10. 5 of the Guidelines on the organization and method of work of the Maritime Safety Committee and

Marine Environment Protection Comm ittee and their subsidiary bodies (MSC/Circ.1099 - MEPC/Circ.405) and comments on document MEPC 55/2/16 “The report of the second meeting of th e GESAMP-Ballast Water Wo rking Group (GESAMP-BWWG)”. It contains supplemental data to provide explan ations against comments raised by the Group in its evaluation report on the proposal for the approval of Active Substances submitted by the Republic of Korea.

2 The Republic of Korea appreciates the ha rd work of GESAMP-BWWG for the review of proposals submitted and fully respects the result of the Group’s evaluation on its proposal.

3 The GESAMP-BWWG did not recommend Basic Approval of the system provided by the Republic of Korea on the basis of “lack of required data”. The Group noted that, in particular, the application took the form of a general concept for a system to be developed and did not include a complete description of the sy stem nor a firm proposal for the actual Ballast Water Management System (BWMS) to be instal led. While recognizing the validity of all the comments raised by the Group as described in annex 6 of its report, the Republic of Korea would like to point out following aspects in an effort to explain its positions:MEPC 55/2/27 - 2 -

I:\MEPC\55\2-27.DOC .1 The Procedure for approval of ballast water management systems that make use of Active Substances (G9) adopted by reso lution MEPC.126(53) is very general in nature and thus, its descriptions are not clear enough with regard to the information to be submitted for Basic Approval. In this regard, the Methodology for Information Gathering and the Conduc t of Work of the GESAMP-BWWG as

contained in document MEPC 54/2/12 is under development. Consequently, there may be some misunderstanding on the a pproval procedure between the Group and the applicant. For exampl e, in the Procedure (G9) and the draft Methodology, there is no specific requirement for the submission of detailed descriptions of the system, in case of use of the Active Subs tances, with the application nor a clear description of the scope of detailed descriptions of the system to be provided at Basic Approval stage. Section 4 of th e draft Methodology requires submission of detailed descriptions of the system in case of use of the preparation only and not

of Active Substances and it was noted th at the section was later changed by the Group during its second mee ting to include both cases. Also, since the detailed descriptions are to be given at the Final Approval stage, the applicant provided the descriptions, albeit partly, in the appendix to the application (as submitted as Exhibits).

.2 Both Procedure (G9) and draft Methodology indicate that the Group, in the course of the review, may request additional da ta if necessary. However, an opportunity for submitting additional information (except those on the planned dosage of Ozone to be injected into the ballast water) was not given to the applicant even though the Group was informed of th e applicant’s availa bility in London during its second meeting to respond to such request. Furthermore, it was not possible to identify the comments of the Group on the proposal since the report of the second meeting of GESAMP-BWWG was not posted on the IMO website until 21 July 2006.

4 Taking this opportunity, supplementary data to clarify some of the comments raised by the Group is briefly provided hereunder:

4.1 Comment: the application is a general concept and does not include firm proposals for actual BWMS (paragraphs 0.1 and 2.1, annex 6, MEPC 55/2/16).

4.1.1 The proposed system is an actual BWMS, not a generic concept. This Ozone injection ballast water treatment system has been develo ped and extensively tested by Nutech O3, Inc. through four years of laboratory testing a nd also on board two 125,000 DWT oil tankers during their regular operation in the P acific Ocean. The system, as installed and tested on board the

M/T Prince William Sound

, will be ready for commercial us e by the shipping industry as soon as this fully tested technology is certified by the United States government as meeting the ballast water treatment requirements. Both the United St ates Coast Guard and the American Bureau of Shipping (ABS) have certified it as a safe system for use at sea (Exhi bit I attached to the dossier).

4.1.2 Outlined technical specifications are briefl y described hereunder as stated in Exhibits

attached to this submission.

- Ozone system produces a low concentr ation of Ozone treatment by injecting Ozone into the ship's ballast water. The Ozone gas mixture is injected in the main ballast water pipe via one si de-stream injection systems.- 3 - MEPC 55/2/27

I:\MEPC\55\2-27.DOC - Ozone system is composed of two inte grated modules which consist of Ozone producing part and injection part. So th at the system as modularized can be installed in the manner of plug and play.

4.1.3 Independent teams of scientists and research engineers designed the on board ship test protocols and conducted all of the laboratory test s for the operational effectiveness of Ozone on

board the M/T Tonsina (2000) and the M/T Prince William Sound (2006), in addition to extensive on-shore laboratory testing. Copies of both reports, the former of which is peer reviewed as a published articl e and the National Oceanic Atmo spheric Administration (NOAA) of the United States approved test protocol were attached as Exhibits IV and V to the dossier.

4.2 C omment: The bromate ion has a high potentia l for mutagenicity and carcinogenicity. This is particularly important if the crew has to enter a ballast water tank after treatment. (paragraphs 0.3 and 0.6, annex 6, MEPC 55/2/16).

4.2.1 Ozone is safe to use on board a ship – testing for proof of compliance.

- When Ozone interacts with bromide i ons that naturally occur in seawater, hypobromous acid/hypobromite ion (HOBr/OBr - ), small quantities of bromoform and bromate ions may be created. In studi es, no bromate ions were ever detected. The two chemicals that resulted were bromoform and a residual oxidant composed

of HOBr/OBr - . Bromoform is a volatile chemi cal, the presence of which is regulated in drinking water. However, br omoform has no adverse ecological effects

that are known.

- The Total Residual Oxidant (TRO) remains in the ballast water and it is the active chemical agent responsible for killing the organisms. This TRO has a half-life of between 1 and 2 days. In studies, it appear s that the TRO is reduced to oxygen and

bromide ions in the ballast tank, in the dark, over time.

- A ship's crew would not be permitted to enter a ballast tank unless the ballast water is completely removed and the tank properly aired out so as to remove any harmful gases that might have accumulated. This is done in accordance with any ship's standard operating procedures and procedures mandated by various bodies.

4.2.2 Ozone and bromine compounds are not dangerous to human health as used in the Ozone injection system.

- In theory, bromates and bromoform are chem icals that are created as a result of the interaction between Ozone and bromine. However, no detectable amount of these chemicals was found after extensive testing of treated ballast water. This is due to Ozone’s very short half-life and an exce ss amount of bromide in relation to the quantity of available Ozone in seawater.

- Bromoform is created by the interaction of HOBr/OBr - (TRO) if there is natural organic matter in the ballast water. The presence of humic and fulvic acids are mandatory precursors to the production of bromoform. Many marine waters do not contain natural organic matter in sufficient quantity to cause the formation of

bromoform.

4.2.3 Bromate ion does not create any reasonable risk of causing cancer or mutations as used in the Ozone injection system.MEPC 55/2/27 - 4 -

I:\MEPC\55\2-27.DOC - Bromate ions pose absolutely no threat to human health unless it is ingested. The bromate ion is part of salt. As it occurs only in the ionic form in seawater, it is absolutely non-volatile and thus, impossible to inhale. Also, there is no scientific

evidence that the bromate ion and com pounds are absorbed through the skin. In addition, when a ship's crew works in th e ballast tanks, the tanks are drained and fully ventilated with fans before the crew is allowed to enter and during the entire

time he/she works in the tanks.

4.3 Comment: The potential risks to a ship’s hul l when it is exposed to ozonated water for a significant time period (paragraph 0.4, annex 6, MEPC 55/2/16).

4.3.1 Ozone does not damage the hull or ballast tanks of a ship

The Licensor contracted with the La Que Institute for Corrosion Research, in Wrightsville Beach, North Carolina, in 1999, to conduct extensive tests to determine if the injection of Ozone into a ship's ballast water would increase corrosion ra tes and damage ship's hull. Extensive on-shore laboratory testing proved conclusively that the additional of substantial quantities of Ozone to

seawater does not increase the rate of corrosion . In fact, Ozone decreases it since bacteria and other microorganisms secrete acids which corrode a ship's hull. Thus Ozone removes the source

of the acid and diminishes the rate of corrosi on. See Exhibit IV attach ed to this submission.

4.4 Comment: As no information had been prov ided on the dose of Ozone to be used in application, the group could not give an estimat ion of the conc entration levels of Ozone and relevant chemical expect ed to be found in the environment (p aragraph 0.5, annex 6, MEPC 55/2/16 ).

4.4.1 Amount of Ozone required to treat a ship’s ballast water

The quantity of Ozone required to treat a ship's ba llast water is determined by the flow rate at

which the ballast water is taken on board the sh ip. The System is designed to require between 1mg/L and 2 mg/L of Ozone to effectively treat the ballast water. Stoichiometric (fixed) ratios

are such that the concentration of HOBr/OBr - is a maximum of 4 mg/L. Bromate concentration will not exceed 5 parts. Br omoform levels will be less than 1 part per billion.

5 Based on the information above, the Repub lic of Korea believes that the proposed system is a technically sound system which is re ady for actual use and that all of the comments raised by the Group could be reso lved without any difficulty if the opportunity for providing relevant supplemental data is given. The Republic of Korea was and is ready to provide such data. Therefore, considering the fact that re levant procedures and methodologies have yet to be clearly defined and set-up and the possibility of consequential mis understanding and error on the proceedings as a result, th e Committee is requested to consider the re-evaluation of the proposal submitted by the Republic of Korea.

6 In this regard, paragraph 2.7.2 of Draft Me thodology contains right of appeal against any decision made by the Organization. However, in the absence of deta il procedure for appeal by the Administration and reconsideration by th e Organization or the Group, it is requested that the supplementary data be allowed to be submitted to the Group by the scheduled deadline of 15 December 2006 for re-evaluation during the third meeting of GESAMP-BWWG in February 2007 regardless of the number of the new applications made and without any further payment of fee.

Action requested of the Committee

7 The Committee is requested to consider the above and take action as appropriate.

_______________