I:\MEPC\57\2-13.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

57th session Agenda item 2 MEPC 57/2/13 4 February 2008 Original: ENGLISH

HARMFUL AQUATIC ORGANI SMS IN BALLAST WATER

Comments on the report of the fourth meeting of the GESAMP-BWWG

Submitted by Germany

SUMMARY

Executive summary: This document provides comments of Germany on the report of the fourth meeting of the GESAMP -BWWG (MEPC 57/2) and may be

considered to avoid misunderstandi ngs and to provide clarifications concerning the recommenda tion of GESAMP-BWWG that Final Approval should not be gran ted to the CleanBallast! system

Strategic Direction: 7.1

High-level Action: 7.1.2

Planned output: 7.1.2.3

Action to be taken: Paragraph 19

Related documents: MEPC 57/2, MEPC 57/2/3; MEPC 55/2/4 and MEPC 55/2/16

1 This document is submitted in accordance w ith the provisions of paragraph 4.10.5 of the Guidelines on the organization and method of work of the MSC and the MEPC and their subsidiary bodies (MSC-MEPC.1/ Circ.1) and comments on ANNEX 6 of the report of the fourth meeting of the GESAMP-BWWG (MEPC 57/2). Afte r carefully considering the report, it seems to Germany that there might be misunders tandings which need to be addressed.

Total Residual Oxidants (TRO) concentration

2 Paragraph 9.4.3 of annex 6 of the GESAMP -BWWG report (MEPC 57/2) states that

“ The required concentrations of Active Substances in seawater , measured as Total Residual Oxidants, are given by the submission as maxi mum 2 mg/L. The Group noted that no such levels were given for fresh water ... ”.

3 Germany emphasizes that it is stated in paragraph 3.2 of the non-confidential dossier (MEPC 57/2/3) “... in fresh water, e.g., rive r water harbours, hydroxyl radicals are the only Active Substance formed in the CleanBallast! process ”. TRO were analysed also in fresh water during the land-based type approva l tests (LBTA). TRO was measured as 0 mg/l in each of theMEPC 57/2/13 - 2 -

I:\MEPC\57\2-13.doc freshwater LBTA cycles 6 – 10 an d reported as part of the whole effluent characterization in the confidential part of the dossier. This was s upported by the simultaneously reported, very low

concentrations of disinfection by-products, e.g., THM close to de tections limits of 0.1 μg/L.

4 It is common knowledge that hydroxyl radicals give no response in accepted TRO analysis methods. Likewise, due to their sh ort lifetime (half-life of nanoseconds) hydroxyl radicals react only within the EctoSys ® cell. Consequently, the TRO concentrations are undetectable when operating the Clea nBallast! system in freshwater . For these reasons, Germany has some concerns regarding the conclu sions drawn by the GESAMP-BWWG based on paragraph 9.4.3 (MEPC 57/2, annex 6).

Disinfection by-products (DBP)

5 In annex 6 of the GESAMP-BWWG report (M EPC 57/2), it is stated in paragraph 9.4.4

that “ The Group noted that the Applicant had explain ed that high levels of disinfection byproducts such as THM were due to the fact that the EctoSys® system was run differently in the

land-based tests than it will be in normal operation on board ships. The Group further considered that a full chemical characterization of water treated by the CleanBallast! system run in normal mode should be provided together with toxicity tests with the same water ”.

6 Polarity reversal is a very common met hod to prevent mineral hydroxide deposits in seawater electrolysis. During normal operation of the CleanBalla st! system, the polarity of the electrodes in the EctoSys ® cell is changed constantly betw een normal and reversed polarity, as described in paragraph 3.5.2.1.1 of document MEPC 57/2/3: “ Due to relatively frequent polarity reversal, the treated wa ter originates from both norma l and reversed operation mode of the EctoSys ® resulting in a mean THM concentr ation during common operation of the CleanBallast! System .” In the whole effluent characterizat ion in seawater, the applicant provided data: (1) of the normal operation of the CleanBall ast! system, i.e., 50 % of the time the reversed polarity (worst case concerning DBP-formation) and 50 % of the time the normal polarity (best case concerning DBP-formation) of the EctoSys ® electrodes was run (con fidential dossier, whole effluent characterization for LBTA, cycle 4); and (2) for a worst-case appr oach, as agreed with the German Administration, where the CleanBalla st! system was operated while the EctoSys ®
cell was intentionally pre-set to reversed polarity all the time (e.g., LBTA cycle 3, see table 1 in MEPC 57/2/3).

7 Chronic toxicity tests were carried out with EctoSys ® cell effluents continuously reversing the electrodes between normal and revers ed polarity in seawater as described above. Since the applicant submitted data on the whole-e ffluent characterization and aquatic toxicity from the normal operation, Germany is of the opinion that the require ment of GESAMP-BWWG (MEPC 57/2, annex 6, paragraph 9.4.4) was fulfilled.

Control system

8 Paragraph 9.4.5 of annex 6 of the GESAMP -BWWG report (MEPC 57/2) states that “ The Group noted that no detailed information about the control system which could ensure that the maximum designed TRO-concentration is maintain ed was included in the CleanBallast! system. However, the dossier indicated that an algae monitor sensor is to be included in the industrialized version of the sy stem installed onboard ships. Th is sensor was still under development and the Group therefore concludes that the control system was not fully developed and therefore not an integrated part of the system under evaluation by the Group .”- 3 - MEPC 57/2/13

I:\MEPC\57\2-13.doc 9 After careful considerat ion and to enable a co nservative worst-case approach for the Final Approval, the Germ an Administration decided th at the algae monitor should not control the EctoSys ®
disinfection in the CleanBallast! system. The EctoSys ® disinfection is cont rolled by the maximum current density applied to the electrodes and as st ated in document MEPC 57/2/3, paragraph 3.1, the maximum TRO concentration pr oducible by the EctoSys ® cell is 2 mg/L. Due to this fact the algae monitor does not have the ability to incr ease the TRO concentr ation above 2.0 mg/L.

Chronic aquatic toxicity studies

10 Paragraph 9.4.8 of annex 6 of the GESAMP -BWWG report (MEPC 57/2) states that “ The Group noted that chronic aquatic toxicity studies were not carried out in a land-based installation as required by the G9 guideline, but in a lab-bas ed installation. The Applicant emphasizes that it is the TRO conc entration which is relevant in relation to the to xicity of the

treated water and not the sc ale of the installation ...”

11 The Active Substances produced by the EctoSys ® disinfection in seaw ater are unstable TRO and in freshwater extremely reactive hydroxyl radicals. Therefore, an advanced approach for chronic aquatic toxicity in whole-effluent st udies was chosen to evaluate the CleanBallast! system. The highest possible TRO level of 2 mg/L was produced in a permanent system operation during the test duration and directly tested on three tr ophic levels (algae, crustacean, fish) by continuous feeding of the effluent to the test tanks. This clearly represents a worst-case scenario as if a ballasting ship directly discharges the freshly disinfected ballast water to aquatic organisms over a longer time span.

12 Since the land-based type approval procedure, defined by Guidelines (G8), is a discontinuous operation with 5 da ys tank storage, it is not possible to run any flow-through chronic toxicity test. Previousl y, it was shown that the TRO con centration is decisive for both acute and chronic aquatic toxicity. For these re asons the German Environment Agency (UBA) as the Competent Authority accepted the chronic toxici ty test in the 10 m3/h scale according to Procedure (G9). In summary, the German Competen t Authority is of the opinion from a chemical risk assessment point of view that the aquatic toxicity tests for CleanBallast! were undertaken in a worst-case scenario which fulfils the requirements for the Final Approval process after Procedure (G9).

13 In general, Germany notes the need for an agreed upon approach for chronic toxicity tests in the specific case of unstable Active Subs tances and/or Relevant Chemicals.

13.1 As described, a continuously flow-through appr oach with constant high concentration of

Active Substances and Relevant Chemi cals was used in document MEPC 57/2/3.

13.2 For a parallel applicati on, it is described in doc ument MEPC 57/2, annex 4, paragraph 7.1.1.2 that “... chronic toxicity tests reported by the applicant were carried out as static non-replacement tests ”. Here the GESAMP-BWWG concluded for the chronic toxicity tests in paragraph 7.1.1.8 that “ The Group considers that only tes ting for ecotoxicit y with treated ballast water after 3 and 5 days of storage is insu fficient to cover all of the possible storage and discharge conditions. Should treated ballast water need to be discharged on a shorter time scale, then higher TRC values can be expected ”.

13.3 In a previous application of a system producing hydroxyl radical s an intermediate approach was used, as was stated in document MEPC 56/2/1 in appendix 4, page 21: “ The fish was exposed continuously for 28 days with water exchange 3 times per week .”MEPC 57/2/13 - 4 -

I:\MEPC\57\2-13.doc 13.4 Therefore, Germany would appreciate further guidance by the GESAMP-BWWG on chronic toxicity test with unstable Active Substances and/or Relevant Chemicals.

Risk assessment

14 In paragraph 9.4.12, annex 6 of document MEPC 57/2 it is stated that “... Based on this ratio the Group concludes that under the conditions of the test there would be low risk for the environment. For a final risk assessment to the environment the Group needs, however, a better explanation of the presence and performance of the algae monitor and information on the validity and applicability of the model used. For reference reasons also calculations with the MAMPEC-model are recommended using as many as possible the same parameter values ”.

15 As already described in para graph 10 above, using the algae monitor as a control system could only result in lower effluent concentrat ions of Active Substances and/or Relevant Chemicals and effluent toxicity. Therefore for a conservative worst-case approach, the operation of any controlling device was considered of lo wer relevance for the risk assessment. MAMPEC was not used directly because it concerns paints on ship hulls. The box model used for the Rotterdam case study was described in detail in the confidential part of the dossiers (MEPC 55/2/4 and MEPC 57/2/3), which uses th e same basic principles and assumptions (e.g., same harbour dimensions) as MAMPEC. Thus, it can be evaluated as an equivalent version of MAMPEC giving a similar outco me for the risk assessment.

Risk to the crew and the public

16 Paragraph 9.4.9 of annex 6 of the GESA MP-BWWG report (MEPC 57/2) states

that “... As the applicant couldn’t pr ovide information concerning the Human Exposure Scenario (3.9. MEPC 57/2/3), the Group noted that an ade quate conclusion as to the outcome of the

Human Risk Assessment could not be achieved. Therefore, the Group recommended that human exposure when handling ballast water treatment operations s hould be restricted and RMM [Risk Mitigation Measures] put in place ”.

17 Germany notes that the Human Emission Scen ario was addressed by the applicant in document MEPC 57/2/3, paragraph 3.9, “ The Active Substances pro duced and used by the CleanBallast! system are produced directly in the water without any external adding of chemicals. Therefore, no handling of the Active Substances, Re levant Chemicals or Preparations will be performed by humans during any pr ocesses or individual operations on board . ...”. The EctoSys ® cell produces the Active Substa nces and Relevant Chemicals in situ within the closed cell housing in the ballast water piping system. During normal operation of the CleanBallast! no release pathway of Active Substa nces and Relevant Chemicals exists and consequently no oral, respiratory or any other risks of exposure to the crew occurs.

18 The GESAMP-BWWG noted for the Ba sic Approval (MEPC 55/2/16, annex 7, paragraph 10.2.4) that “ ... the Group agreed that the only potenti al exposure of the crew to the Active Substances might be via leaking pipe work in the pump room but the levels of Free Active Chlorine should not present a safety hazard to the crew ”. Furthermore, the GESAMP-BWWG

clarified that “ Maintenance, equipment failure and accide nt situations should be considered separately from conditions of normal operation ” (MEPC 57/2, paragraph 7.1.6). Pipe leakage is a very rare event and cannot affect any long term exposures. Possible mitigation to address such an exposure was described by the applicant in document MEPC 57/2/3 in paragraph 3.9

“... Furthermore, the CleanBallast! system is auto matically shut down in case of a leakage and the bypass around the system is opened .” Because Active Substances and Relevant Chemicals- 5 - MEPC 57/2/13

I:\MEPC\57\2-13.doc are not handled and no pathway for human e xposure exists during normal operation of the CleanBallast! system, Germany is of the opinion that no further requirements such as Risk Mitigation Measures are necessary.

Action requested of the Committee

19 The Committee is invited to take note of the information provided and decide as appropriate.

_______________