OCTOBER 2010 UPDATE: BALLAST WATER TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR

USE IN CALIFORNIA WATERS

PREPARED BY THE CALI FORNIA STATE LANDS C OMMISSION,

MARINE INVASIVE SPEC IES PROGRAM

N. Dobroski, C. Scianni, L. Takata and M. Falkner

October 15 , 20092

Purpose and Disclaimer

This update provides information regarding the ability and availability of ballast water
treatment systems to meet California‟s performance standards for the discharge of

ballast water. This update is produced by Californi a State Lands Commission
(Commission) staff as a follow

- up to the legislatively mandated 2009 technology
assessment report (see Dobroski et al. 2009). This update is not a mandated report and
does not provide Commission

- approved recommendations, nor does t his update
constitute an endorsement or approval of any treatment system or system manufacturer
by t he Commission . The Commission does not approve ballast water treatment
systems. It is the responsibility of the vessel owner/operator to select treatment sy stems

that will ensure that ballast water is discharged in compliance with all applicable laws,
regulations and permits. The update is solely intended as a resource for stakeholders

interested in ballast water treatment systems for use in California waters.

Introduction
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 ballas t water discharge. The Act charged the Commission to
implement performance standards for the discharge of ballast water and to prepare a
report assessing the efficacy, availability, and environmental impacts, including water
quality, of currently available ballast water treatment technologies. The performance
standards regulations were adopted in October 2007 (see Table 1) , and the first
technology assessment report was approved by the Commission in December 2007
(see Dobroski et al. 2007).

In response to the recommendations in the 2007 report, the California Legislature
passed Senate Bill (SB) 1781 (Chapter 696, Statutes of 2008) which delayed the initial
implementation of the performance standards from January 1, 2009 to January 1, 2010
(see Table 2) . Ad ditionally, SB 1781 required an update of the technology assessment
report by January 1, 2009 (see Dobroski et al. 2009)

. The 2009 report presented data
indicating that at least two ballast water treatment technologies had demonstrated the3

capability of co mplying with California‟s performance standards for the discharge of
ballast water. As such, the report recommended that the Commission proceed with the
initial implementation of California‟s performance standards beginning January 1, 2010
for newly built vessels with a ballast water capacity of less than 5000 metric tons (MT).

Table 1. California‟s Ballast Water Treatment Performance Standards Organism Size Class Performance Standard [1,2] Organisms greater than 50
μm [3] in minimum dimension No detectable living organisms

Organisms 10

– 50 μm in minimum dimension < 0.01 living organisms per ml [4]

Living o rganisms less than 10 μm in minimum dimension

Escherichia coli

Intestinal enterococci

Toxicogenic Vibrio cholerae (O1 & O 139) < 10 3 bacteria/100 ml < 10 4 viruses/100 ml

< 126 cfu [5] /100 ml

< 33 cfu/100 ml

< 1 cfu/100 ml or < 1 cfu/gram wet weight zoological samples

[1 ] See Table 2 for dates by which vessels must meet California Interim Performance Standards. [2 ] Final discharge standard for California, beginning January 1, 2020, is zero detectable living organisms for all organism size classes. [3] Micrometer

– one

- millionth of a meter [4] Milliliter

– one

- thousandth of a liter [5 ] Colony

- forming unit

– a measure of viable bacterial numbers

Table 2. Implementation Schedule for California‟s Performance Standards Ballast Water Capacity of Vessel Standards apply to new vessels in this size class constructed on or after [ 1 ] Standards apply to all other vessels in this size class beginning in [ 1 ]

< 1500 metric tons 2010 2016
1500

– 5000 metric tons 2010 2014 > 5000 metric tons 2012 2016

[ 1 ] T he standard applies to vessels in this size class as of January 1 of the year of compliance.4

As p er Public Resources Code Section 71205.3, the Commission must update the
ballast water treatment technology assessment report for the Legislature 18 months
prior to each of the implementation dates for the performance standards. The next

report is due to t he Legislature on July 1, 2010 in advance of the implementation date
for newly built vessels with a ballast water capacity of greater than 5000 MT on January

1, 2012.

Given the rapid evolution and advancement of ballast water treatment technologies,

Commission staff believed it would be useful to complete a brief update of available
treatment technologies to meet California‟s performance standards prior to the
completion of the July 1, 2010 report

. This update is intended to provide vessel

owners /operators and other interested parties with the most up

- to

- date information

available on system development, with a focus on performance (i.e. efficacy)

. For more
information on the efficacy, availability a nd environmental impacts of ballast water
treatment systems for use in California waters, as of January 2009, see Dobroski et al.
(2009). This update presents data gathered as of October 1 , 2009.

Treatment Systems

Forty

- one ballast water treatment system s were rev iewed for this update (Table 3)

. In
January 2009, Dobroski et al. (2009) reviewed 30 systems

. The field of ballast water
treatment is rapidly evolving and expanding as existing systems are modified and new

parties enter the market. Many of these systems have conducted or are in the process
of conducting system evaluation to assess compliance with California‟s performance

standards and to receive approvals under the International Maritime Organization

International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships‟ Ballast Water and
Sediments (Convention) (see IMO 2005)

. While system a pproval s granted under the
IMO testing regime do not provide legal authority for system operation in U

. S

. or

California waters

, the IMO process does pro vide vessel owners/operators and

interested stakeholders with important data on system operation and performance. IMO

Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) approvals of systems using active5

substances and Type Approvals from flag state administra tions as of October 1, 2009,

are included in Table 3.6

Table 3

. Ballast Water Treatment Systems Reviewed by Commission Staff

Manufacturer Country System Name Technology

Type Technology Description Approvals

21 st Century Shipbuilding Co. Ltd. Korea Blue Ocean Guardian combination filtration + plasma + UV

Alfa Laval Sweden PureBallast combination filtration + advanced oxidation technology ( hydroxyl radicals) IMO Basic and Final Type Approval (Norway)

Aquaworx ATC GmbH Germany AquaTriCom b combination f iltration + ultrasound + UV IMO Basic

ATLAS

- DANMARK Denmark ABTS Combination filtration + biocide (ANOLYTE + CATHOLYTE)

ATG Willand United Kingdom combination hydrocyclone + UV

Auramarine Ltd. Finland Crystal Ballast phy s ical UV

- C irradiation

COSCO/Tsinghua University China Blue Ocean Shield c ombination hydrocyclone + filtration + UV IMO Basic

Ecochlor USA Ecochlor TM

BW TS combination filtration + biocide (chlorine dioxide) IMO Basic

EcologiQ USA/Canada BallaClean biological deoxygenation

Electrichlor USA Model EL 1

- 3 B chemical biocide ( electrolytic generation of sodium hypochlorite)

Environmental Technologies Inc. (ETI) USA BWDTS combination ozone + sonic energy

Ferrate Treatment Technologies LLC USA Ferrator chemical biocide ( ferrate )

Greenship Ltd Netherlands Sedinox combination hydrocyclone + electrolytic chlorination IMO Basic and Final

Hamann Evonik Degussa Germany SEDNA System combination hydrocyclone + filtration + biocide (Peraclean Ocean) IMO Basic and Final, Type Approval (Ger.)

Hi Tech Marine Australia SeaSafe

- 3 physical heat treatment Queensland EPA7

Manufacturer Country System Name Technology

Type Technology Description Approvals

Hitachi Japan ClearBallast combination coagulation + magnetic separation + filtration IMO Basic and Final

Hyde Marine USA Hyde Guardian combination filtration + UV WA Conditional

, Type Approval (U.K.) Hyundai Heavy Industries Co. Ltd. (1) Korea EcoBallast combination filtration + UV IMO Basic Approval

Hyundai Heavy Industries Co. Ltd. (2) Korea HiBallast combination filtration + electrochlorination + neutralizing agent

JFE Engineering Corp. / Toagosei Group Japan JFE

- BWMS combination filtration + biocides (sodium hypochlorite) and neutralizing agent (sodium sulfite) IMO Basic

Kwang San Co. Ltd. Korea En

- Ballast combination filtration + electrochlorination + neutralizing agent (sodium thiosulfate)

MARENCO USA combination filtration + UV WA General Approval

Maritime Solutions Inc. USA combination filtration + UV

MH Systems USA BW treatment system combination deoxygenation + carbonation

Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Japan Hybrid System combination filtration + electrolytic chlorination

Mitsui Engineering Japan Special Pipe combination mechanical treatment + ozone IMO Basic

NEI USA Venturi Oxygen Stripping (VOS) combination d eoxygenation + cavitation Type Approval (Liberia)

NK

- O3 Korea BlueBallast chemical ozone IMO Basic and Final

ntorreiro Spain Ballastmar combination filtration + electrochlorination + neutralization (sodium metabisulphite)

Nutech 03 Inc. USA SCX 2000, Mark III chemical ozone8

Manufacturer Country System Name Technology

Type Technology Description Approvals

OceanSaver Norway OceanSaver BWMS combination filtration + cavitation + nitrogen
super saturation + electrodialysis IMO Basic and Final, Type Approval (Nor.)

OptiMarin Norway OptiMar in Ballast System combination filtration + UV

Panasia Co. Ltd Korea GloEn

- Patrol combination filtration + UV IMO Basic

Qingdao Headway Tech Co. Ltd. Norway OceanGuard BMWS combination filtration + ultrasound + electrocatalysis

Resource Ballast Technologies South Africa Unitor BWTS combination cavitation + ozone + sodium hypochlorite + filtration IMO Basic

RWO Marine Water Technology Germany CleanBallast combination filtration + advanced electrolysis IMO Basic and Final

SeaKleen (Hyde) USA SeaKleen chemical biocide (menadione)

Severn Trent DeNora USA BalPure chemical electrolytic generation of sodium hypochlorite + neutralizing agent (sodium bisulfite) WA Conditional

Siemens UK/USA/Ger. SiCure combination physical separation + electrochlorination

Sunrui CFCC China Sunrui BWMS combination filtration + biocide (sodium hypochlorite) + neutralizing agent (sodium thiosulfate)

Techcross Inc. Korea Electro

- Cle e n chemical electrochemical oxidation + neutralizing agent (sodium thiosulfate) IMO Basic and Final, Type Approval (Korea)9

System Efficacy
Commission staff compiled and reviewed all available literature and performance data in
order to assess system potential to meet California‟s performance standards (see Table
1 for performance standards). Methods of evaluation did not differ from previous reports
(Dobroski et al. 2007, Dobroski et al. 2009). N ew ly obtained data were generally
presented according to organism size class (e. g. greater than 50 μm, 10

– 50 μm).

However, some of the older data included in this updat e were presented by organism
type (i.e. zooplankton, phytoplankton). For th ese older data, staff evaluated zooplankton
abundance as representative of the largest size class of organisms (greater than 50 μm
in size), and phytoplankton abundance was evaluate d on par with organisms in the 10

– 50 μm size class. These substitutions were solely for the purpose of previous reports
and this update, and will not be applicable for compliance verifications that take place

after the performance standards go into effec t . Ultimately, Commission staff gather ed
efficacy data on 20 of the 41 technologies reviewed in this update (Table 4 ). Staff
evaluated the data in light of the best available methods and techniques for assessing
organism concentration and viability for each of the size classes in California‟s
performance standards.

Same as the 2009 technology assessment report (Dobrosk i et al. 2009), Commission

staff assess ed compliance with the bacterial standard by using a proxy group of
organisms (culturable, aerobic, heterotrophic bacteria

– hereafter culturable
heterotrophic bacteria) to represent the larger group of all bacteria. Culturable
heterotrophic bacteria were selected as a proxy for total bacteria because, unlike total

bacteria, there are reliable, well

- accepted standard methods to both enumerate and
assess viability of these organisms. Culturable heterotrophic bacteria ar e a well

- studied
group of bacteria, and research is being conducted to examine the relationship between
their populations and the larger pool of bacterial species (see Dobroski et al. 2009

, Dobbs, F., pers. comm. 2008). For this update

, Staff examined the data on treatment
system performance at reducing culturable heterotrophic bacteria to levels within the
California standard of 1000 bacteria (in this case expressed as colony

- forming units) per

100 ml of ballast water.10

As with previous reports, a nalysis of viral species remains challenging. While several
representative organisms exists for viruses (see Dobroski et al. 2009) , their relationship
to the greater population of all viral species is more tenuous than for bacteria (confer
Culley and Suttl e 2007). For the purposes of this analysis, Commission staff believes
that no widely accepted technique or proxy is available, and thus systems were not
evaluated for compliance with the viral standard.

Staff summarized the potential for all reviewed tre atment systems to meet both the IMO
and California performance standards (as assessed using best available methods) in

Table 4 . A positive assessment for the purpose of this report, however, does not
constitute Commission approval or endorsement, nor does it relieve the vessel
owner/operator of the responsibility for 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 of

interest, under normal ballasting conditions.11

Table 4. Summary of systems with available results for assessment of efficacy
S ystems with at least on e replicate in compliance with the performance standards are denoted by a “Y” in the appropriate column in Table VI

- 1. Non

- compliance is denoted by an “N,” and those systems with data in metrics not directly comparable to the performance standards were des ignated as “unknown.” B lank cell s represent systems with incomplete data. Shading indicates systems had no data available.12

Table 4 (continued). Summary of systems with available results for assessment of efficacy
S ystems with at least one replic ate in compliance with the performance standards are denoted by a “Y” in the appropriate column in Table VI

- 1. Non

- compliance is denoted by an “N,” and those systems with data in metrics not directly comparable to the performance standards were designated as “unknown.” Blank cells represent systems with incomplete data. Shading indicates systems had no data available.13

Conclusions

Based on the available data, at least seven b allast water treatment systems : AlfaLaval,

Ecochlor, Hamann Evonik Degussa, H yde Marine , OceanSaver, OptiM arin

, and

Techcross have demonstrated the capability to comply with California‟ s performance
standards for the discharge of ballast water. AlfaLaval (Norway) , Hyde Marine (United
Kingdom) , Hamann Evonik Degussa (Germany), OceanSaver (Norway) , and Techcross
(Korea) have received Type approval from flag state administrations . All seven systems
are commercially available at this time. We expect several more systems to meet

California‟s standards in the near future.

The seven systems that have demonstrated the capability of complying with California‟s
performance standards have at least one testing replicate

, at either full

- scale land

based or shipboard scale that demonstrates compliance with the standards. Vessel
owners/operators should closely scrutinize the available data, however, to ensure that
systems will meet California‟s standards on a regular basis given the configuration of
the vessel and piping/water flow requirements.

The field of ballast water treatment technology appears to be evolving rapidly. Within

ten months of the release of our most recent report (Dobroski et al

. 2009), the number
of systems which have presented data demonstrating the potential to meet California‟s
performance standards has more than tripled

- from two to seven . We expect to see a
great increase in the available data on system performance in the near future,
particularly as systems are installed on operational vessels beginning January 1, 2010
for the initial implementation of California‟s performance standards for vessels with a
ballast water capacity of less than 5000 MT.14

Literature C ited

1. Alfa Laval. 2006. Annex

– PureBallast Review Information.

2. Botnen, H. 2005. Preliminary test results of OceanSaver ballast water treatment system on MV Hoegh Trooper . Section of Applied Environmental Research, Universitetsforskning Bergen. Letter to Gunnar Baerheim, OceanSaver AS. September 19, 2005.

3. 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 Seab ulk Mariner in Pacific waters. A Final Report to Vitamar LLC and Garnett Inc. January 2007.

4. Cangelosi, A.A., I.T. Knight, M. Balcer, D. Wright, R. Dawson, C. Blatchley, D. Reid, N. Mays, and J. Taverna. 2001. Great Lakes ballast technology demonstration p roject biological effectiveness test program (includes MV Regal Princess trials). Final. GloBallast Symposium and Workshop Submission March
26

- 30, 2001.

5. Culley, A.I., and C.A. Suttle. 2007. Viral community structure. Chapter 36 (pp. 445

- 453) In Hurst, C.J. (ed.), Manual of Environmental Microbiology, Third Edition. ASM Press, Washington, D.C.

6. Cutler, S.J., H.G. Cutler, J. Glinski, D. Wright, R. Dawson, and D. Lauren. 2004. SeaKleen ® , a potential product for controlling aquatic pests in ships‟ ballast
water. In : Matheickal, J.T. and S. Raaymakers (eds.) 2004. 2nd International Ballast Water Treatment R&D Symposium , IMO London, 21

- 23 July 2003: Proceedings. GloBallast Monograph Series No. 15. IMO London.

7. Daly, L.J., D. Reinhart, V. Sharma, L. Walters, A. Randall, and B. Hardman. 2005. Final Report. Laboratory

- scale investigation of ballast water treatment using Ferrate. NOAA Award # NA04OAR4170147

8. Dobbs, F. (personal communication, 5 November 2008)

9. 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.

10. Dobroski, N., C. Scianni, D. Gehringer, and M. Falkner. 2009. 2009 A ssessment of the Efficacy, Availability and Environmental Impacts of Ballast Water Treatment Systems for Use in California Waters. Produced for the California State Legislature.15

11. Dogterom, J., G.J. Jansen, and H.J. Wopereis. 2005. Study report. Greenship‟s Ballast Water Management System. Technologische werkplaats. Noordelijke Hogeschool Leeuwarden.

12. Echardt, J. and A. Kornmüller. 2009. The advanced EctoSys electrolysis as an integral part of a ballast water treatment system. Proceedings of the IWA 5 th Conference on Oxidation Technologies for Water and Wastewater Treatment, March 30

– April 1, 2009, Berlin.

13. Felb e ck, H. 2009. Tests of the effects of “TriMix” on bacteria and invertebrates were run using E. coli , Enterococcus sp., sea urchin larvae, brine shrimp.

14. Gregg, M.D. and G.M. Hallegraeff. 2007. Efficacy of three commercially available ballast water biocides against vegetative microalgae, dinoflagellate cysts and bacteria. Harmful Algae, 6:567

- 584.

15. Hamann AG. Solutions for a better environment. B allast water treatment SEDNA (brochure).

16. Herwig, R.P., J.R. Cordell, B.C. Nielsen, N.C. Ferm, D.J. Lawrence, J.C. Perrins, and A.C.E. Rhodes. 2006a. Final Report. Efficacy Testing of the Severn Trent De Nora Balpure® System. School of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington. March 13, 2006.

17. Herwig, R.P., J.R. Cordell, J.C. Perrins, P.A. Dinnel, R.W. Gensemer, W.A. Stubblefield, G.M. Ruiz, J.A. Kopp, M.L. House, and W.J. Cooper. 2006b. Ozone treatment of ballast water on the oil tanker S/T Tonsina : chemistry, biology, and toxicity. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 324: 37

- 55.

18. Hi Tech Marine. 1997. Ballast water trial on M.V. Sandr a Marie. 9 th May 1997 Sydney to Hobart.

19. Husain, M., H. Felbeck, D. Altshuller, and C. Quirmbach. 2004. Ballast water treatment by de

- oxygenation with elevated CO 2 for a shipboard installation

– a potentially affordable solution. In : Matheickal, J.T. and S. Raaymakers (eds.)
2004. 2nd International Ballast Water Treatment R&D Symposium , IMO London,
21

- 23 July 2003: Proceedings. GloBallast Monograph Series No. 15. IMO London.

20. IMO (International Maritime Organization). 2005. Ballast Water Management Convent ion International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships' Ballast Water and Sediments. International Maritime Organization, London, p 138

21. Japan Association of Marine Safety. 2007. Special Pipe Ballast Water Management System. Report of 1 st on

- board test (revised).16

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

23. Kikuchi, T. and Y. Fukuto. Development o f the Special Pipe Hybrid System, one of the most promising ballast water management systems.

24. Kikuchi, T., K. Yoshida, S. Kino, and Y. Fukuyo. 2004. Progress report on the „Special Pipe System‟ as a potential mechanical treatment for ballast water. In : Ma theickal, J.T. and S. Raaymakers (eds.) 2004. 2nd International Ballast Water Treatment R&D Symposium , IMO London, 21

- 23 July 2003: Proceedings. GloBallast Monograph Series No. 15. IMO London.

25. KORDI (Korean Ocean Research and Development Institution). 200 8. Preliminary Report for the Type Approval Test Used by Electro

- Clean Ballast Water Management System. Project No. PI49300. 3 March 2008.

26. KORDI (Korean Ocean Research and Development Institution). 2009. Heterotrophic bacteria test results performed by KO RDI during the land

- based tests for the IMO final approval.

27. Lawrence, D.J., J.C. Perrins, N.C. Ferm, J.R. Cordell, and R.P. Herwig. 2006a. Phase 1 Test: Preliminary Report. Efficacy testing of the MARENCO ballast water treatment system.

28. Lawrence, D.J., J.C. Perrins, N.C. Ferm, J.R. Cordell, and R.P. Herwig. 2006b. Phase 2 Test: Preliminary Report. Efficacy testing of the MARENCO ballast water treatment system.

29. Mackey, T.P. and D.A. Wright. 2002. A filtration and UV based ballast water
tr eatment technology: Including a review of initial testing and lessons learned aboard three cruise ships and two floating test platforms. Paper presented at ENSUS 2002. Marine Science and Technology for Environmental Sustainability. University of Newcastl e

- upon

- Tyne, School of Marine Science and Technology. Dec. 16

- 18, 2002.

30. Mackey, T.P., D.A. Wright, and R. Dawson. 2003. Ongoing development of two ballast water treatment technologies based on full

- scale testing in Baltimore Harbor. Presented at the an nual Marine Environmental Engineering Technology Symposium. In pursuit of Cleaner Seas. Arlington, VA. January 2003.

31. Maddox, T.L. 2000. Final Report. Ballast water treatment and management with ozone and sonics. National Sea Grant NA96RG0478.17

32. Maddox, T.L . 2004a. Phase II Final Report. Ballast water treatment and management with filtration, ozone, and sonics. National Sea Grant NA03OAR4170008.

33. Maddox, T.L. 2004b. Phase III Final Report. Field test demonstration of improved methods of ballast water treatme nt and monitoring utilizing filtration, ozone, and sonics. National Sea Grant NA04OAR4170150.

34. Maddox, T.L. 2005. Phase IV Final Report. Full scale, land based field test demonstration of improved methods of ballast water treatment and monitoring utilizin g ozone and sonic energy. National Sea Grant NA05OAR4171070.

35. Maranda, L., R.G. Campbell, D.C. Smith, and C.A. Oviatt. 2005. Final Report. Summer field test of the Ecopod aboard the M/V Atlantic Compass. Graduate School of Oceanography. University of Rhod e Island. Submitted October 31, 2005.

36. MEPC (Marine Environment Protection Committee). 2005 a . Harmful aquatic organisms in ballast water: Information to be considered by the Review Group. Submitted by Sweden. MEPC 53/2/6. 15 April 2005.

37. MEPC (Marine Envi ronment Protection Committee). 2005 b . Application for basic approval of active substances used by Electro

- Clean (electrolytic disinfection) ballast water management system. Submitted by Republic of Korea. MEPC 54/2/3. 16 December 2005.

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

39. 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.

40. NIO Z (Royal Netherlands Institute for Sea Research). 2008. Final report of the land

- based testing of the SEDNA®

- System, for Type Approval according to Regulation

- D2 and the relevant IMO Guidelines (April

– July 2007). Final report of the shipboard testing of the SEDNA®

- System, for Type Approval according to Regulation

- D2 and the relevant IMO Guidelines (June

- December 2007). BSH/M5101.

41. NIOZ (Royal Netherlands Institute for Sea Research). 2009. Final report of the land

- based testing of the Ecochlor®

- System, f or type app roval according to regulation

- D 2 and the relevant IMO Guidelines (April

– July 2008).18

42. NIVA (Norwegian Institute for Water Research). 2008 a . Land based testing of the OptiMarin ballast water management system of OptiMarin AS

– Treatment effect studies. Final Report. Report SNO 5659

- 2008.

43. NIVA (Norwegian Institute for Water Research). 2008 b . Land based testing of the PureBallast Treatment System of AlfaWall AB

– approved test cycles. Report SNO 5667

- 2008.

44. NIVA (Norwegian Institute for Water Re search). 2008 c . Shipboard testing of the PureBallast Treatment System of AlfaWall AB. Report SNO 5617

- 2008.

45. NIVA (Norwegian Institute for Water Research). 2008 d . Land based testing of the OceanSaver ballast water management system of MetaFil AS

– Final Re port (report no:

- 272249). 28 January 2008.

46. NIVA (Norwegian Institute for Water Research) . 2009. Additional shipboard testing of the PureBallast treatment System of Alfa Laval/Wallenius Water AB. Report SNO 5850

- 2009.

47. Oviatt, C., P. Hargraves, R. Kelly, M. Kirs, L. Maranda, B. Moran, D. Outram, D. Smith, B. Sullivan, and K. Whitman. 2002. Toxicity of chlorine dioxide to ballast water flora and fauna in bench scale assays. Final Report to Ecochlor Inc. (Charles Goodsill, VP).

48. Perrins, J.C., J.R. Cordell , N.C. Ferm, J.L. Grocock, and R.P. Herwig. 2006. Mesocosm experiments for evaluating the biological efficacy of ozone treatment of marine ballast water. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 52: 1756

- 1767.

49. SGS Institut Fresenius. 2009. Report on the sample received on 1 st April 2009. Test Report 1367519_V 1.0. Prepared for Evonik Degussa GmbH.

50. Siefert, E. and K. Siers. 2007. Landbased test report

– Test cycle summary. Institut fur Umwelttechnik.

51. Tamburri, M.N., B.J. Little, 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 Ballast Water Treatment R&D Symposium , IMO London, 21

- 23 J uly 2003: Proceedings. GloBallast Monograph Series No. 15. IMO London.

52. Tamburri, M.N. and G.M. Ruiz. 2005. Evaluations of a ballast water treatment to stop invasive species and tank corrosion. 2005 SNAME Maritime Technology Conference & Expo and Ship Prod uction Symposium, Houston, TX.19

53. Tamburri, M., 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. Singapore, 25

- 26 Septem ber, 2006.

54. UNIFOB AS. 2008. Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) for shipboard tests of ballast water management systems.

55. Veldhuis, M.J.W., F. Fuhr, J.P. Boon, and C.C. Ten Hallers

- Tjabbers. 2006. Treatment of ballast water: how to test a system with a modular concept? Environmental Technology, 27:909

- 921.

56. Welschmeyer, N., S. Bollens, S. Avent, E. Landrau, T. Voss, and R. Fairey. 2004. Onboard Testing of Ballast Treatment Efficiency: Summary Report, Moss Landing Marine Laboratories, Romberg Tiburon C enter 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.

57. Welschmeyer, N., C. Scianni, and S. Smith. 2007. Ballast water management: Evaluation of the MARENCO ballast water treatment system. Moss Landing Marine Laboratories.

58. Wright, D.A. 2009. Shipboard trials of Hyde „Guardian‟ system in Caribbean Sea and Western Pacific Ocean, April 5 th

– October 7 th , 2008. Final re port to Hyde Marine and Lamor Corp. April 2009.

59. Wright, D.A., R. Dawson, C.E. Orano

- Dawson, and S.M. Moesel. 2007. A test of the efficacy of a ballast water treatment system aboard the vessel Coral Princess . Marine Technology, 44(1): 57

- 67.

60. Wright, D.A., C. Mitchelmore, J. Bearr, R. Dawson, C.E. Orano

- Dawson, and M. Olson. 2008. Shipboard Testing of Nutech

- O3 ozonation system as a method for Ballast Water Treatment. A Final Report to Nutech

- O3. June, 2008.

61. Wright, D.A., R. Dawson, V. Caceres, C.E. Orano

- Dawson, G.E. Kananen, S.J. Cutler, and H.G. Cutler. 2009. Shipboard testing of the efficacy of SeaKleen ® as a ballast water treatment to eliminate non

- indigenous species aboard a working tanker in Pacific waters. Environmental Technology, 30(9): 893

- 910.