## 2010 ASSESSMENT OF THE EF FICACY, AVAILABILITY

AND ENVIRONMENTAL IM PACTS OF BALLAST WAT ER TREATMENT SYSTEMS FO R U SE IN CALIFORNIA WAT ERS

PRODUCED FOR THE CALIFORNIA STATE LEG ISLATURE

By California State Lands Commission

Augu st 2010ii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Coastal Ecosystems Protection Act (Act) of 2006 expanded the Marine Invasive Species Act of 2003 to more effectively address the threat of nonindigenous species introduction through ballast water discharge. The Act charged t he California State Lands Commission (Commission) to implement performance standards for the discharge of ballast water and to prepare a report assessing the efficacy, availability and environmental impacts, including water quality, of currently available ballast water treatment technologies. The performance standards regulations were adopted in October 2007, and subsequent ballast water treatment technology assessment report s was approved by the Commission in December 2007 (see Dobroski et al. 2007) and
De cember 2008 (see Dobroski et al. 2009a) . This report summarizes the Commission‟s conclusions on the advancement of ballast water treatment technology development and evaluation during 200 9 and the first half of 2010 and discusses ongoing activities of
the Commission‟s Marine Invasive Species Program regarding the implementation of California‟s performance standards for the discharge of ballast water.

Vessels have several options for complying with the performance standards regulations.
Over 80% of vessel v oyages to California waters do not involve the discharge of ballast water. In these cases, the standards are met because all ballast water is retained on board the vessel. Retention is the most protective management strategy available because no organisms are released from the vessel via ballast water. Alternatively
, vessels may discharge to a shoreside or barge

- based ballast water reception facility. Although no such facilities currently exist in California, there has been recent interest by
several compan ies in developing this option for vessels in California and along the West Coast. Finally, for vessels that cannot retain all ballast on board or discharge to a reception facility, shipboard ballast water treatment will likely be necessary to meet
Californ ia‟s performance standards.

P rogress continues to be made in the development and assessment of treatment systems (see Dobroski et al. 2007 , Dobroski et al. 2009a ). Both the quantity and the quality of the recently received data on system performance attes t to this fact. T he fieldsiii

of treatment technology assessment and compliance verification , however, are still evolving. Scientific methods to assess the concentration of certain types of viable organisms present in ballast water discharge still must be dev eloped or refined so that Commission staff may rapidly assess vessel compliance with the ballast water performance standards. The Commission is currently funding research to address some of these knowledge gaps, however additional work is necessary to deve lop compliance verification protocols for use in California.

California‟s standards for bacteria and viruses pose a significant challenge . While

m ethods exist to quantify total counts of bacteria and viruses (or virus

- like particles) in a sample of balla st water, no techniques are available to assess the viability of all bacteria and viruses, as is required by the California performance standards. The best available technique for bacterial assessment involves the use of a subset or proxy group of organism s 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 Dobroski et al. 2009a, Appendix A). The viruses pose a greater c hallenge. Without strong evidence for the selection of proxy organisms in this size class, Commission staff believes that there are no acceptable methods for verification of compliance with the total viral standard at this time, and that the
Commission sho uld proceed with assessment of technologies for the remaining organism size classes in the standards.

Commission staff reviewed 46 ballast water treatment systems for this report. Based on currently available information and using best assessment techniq ues, at least eight treatment systems have demonstrated the potential to comply with the Commission‟s performance standards ( see Table s VI

- 1 and VII

- 1). Efficacy data for these systems indicate that at least one test met or exceeded California‟s performan ce standard for every testable organism/size category during either land

- based or shipboard testing. Three of the eight systems show the potential to meet California‟s performance standards under more rigorous evaluation criteria. These three passed more than 50% of the time over multiple tests (3 or more) at either the land or shipboard scale (Table siv

VI

- 3 and VII

- 1). Additional systems are close to demonstrating the potential for meeting California‟s standards, and Commission staff are awaiting data from these tests of system performance. Commission staff have consulted with the vendors of systems that have demonstrated the potential to comply with California‟s standards, and at this time, two vendors (Ecochlor and Qingdao Headway Tech.), are willing to s elf

- certify that their systems will meet California‟s standards. Evaluations in this report do not constitute endorsement, approval, or guarantee that a ballast water treatment system will meet
California‟s standards for all vessels and all scenarios.

It is important to note that , as a whole, treatment systems have undergone a relatively small number of tests, under a limited range of environmental conditions. This leads to inherent uncertainty regarding treatment system performance across the spectrum of potential variables, including ship type and source water properties (e.g. temperature, turbidity, salinity). This uncertainty is likely to persist over the next several years. In the absence of a significant worldwide effort to install and test treatment systems on multiple vessels and under all possible environmental scenarios, it is unreasonable to expect that sample sizes and available data will increase adequately in the near future to demonstrate, with a high level of confidence, that treatment syste ms will consistently meet California‟s performance standards under every potential situation and under all circumstances. However, continuing to wait for such information will only serve to delay progress. Due to the inherent uncertainty regarding treatmen t system performance and evaluation, the utilization of an adaptive management approach will be essential at all stages of implementation in order to move forward and protect California‟s aquatic resources from the impacts of species introductions.

Commis sion staff believe that, given the data currently available, multiple treatment systems have demonstrated the potential to meet California‟s performance standards
for vessels with construction initiated on or after January 1, 2012 , and a ballast water
capa city greater than 5000MT . Practically speaking, vessels with this construction date
will not be expected to meet the standards until construction is complete and they are operational, sometime in 2014 at the earliest. The lead time available for furtherv

technology development and refinement is sufficient to indicate that technologies will be
available by the time these vessels are operational. At least three to four years will pass before any vessels in this size class will need to install treatment syst ems to meet California‟s standards.

All eight of the systems that have demonstrated the potential to meet California‟s
standards are currently commercially available. Seven of these systems are marketed

as having the capability to treat ballast water at pump rates over 2000 m 3 /hr, which would accommodate over 80% of the vessels that operate in California with ballast water capacity over 5000 MT. The manufacturers of six systems attest that their products will operate at much higher pump rates. The three systems that show potential for meeting the standards under more rig orous consistency criteria can accommodate much higher pump rates of 4500 m 3 /hr or more.

Treatment vendors and vessel operators will also need to assess the potential water quality impac ts from treatment system s prior to operation in California waters. All ballast water discharges from vessels must comply with t he U.S. Environmental Protection Agency‟s (EPA) National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Vessel
General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels, and the
California

- specific provisions added to the Vessel General Permit through the Clean Water Act Section 401 certification process. Commission staff recommends that
treatment vendors also cons ult the Marine Invasive Species Program‟s “Ballast Water Treatment Technology Testing Guidelines,” which were developed in conjunction with the State Water Resources Control Board (Water Board) and provide additional guidance on relevant California water q uality control plans and objectives for vessels intending to discharge treated effluent in State waters. Based on the available data it is clear that not all treatment systems will meet the EPA water quality objectives, particularly for chlorine residuals

. Currently, California defers to the EPA Vessel General
Permit for regulation of chlorine residuals in discharged ballast water

. The eight systems that show the potential to meet California‟s standards have undergone some toxicity testing, and have receive d environmental approvals from the International Maritimevi

Organization and/or the State of Washington. Vessel owners and operators will need to
consult with the EPA and the Water Board to better assess the potential for water quality impacts from treatment system usage in California waters.

The Commission will continue to gather information on treatment system efficacy, availability and environmental impacts as California‟s standards are implemented and additional vessels install treatment systems for both experimental purposes and to meet state, federal and international ballast water management requirements. Commission staff is working closely with the shipping industry and treatment vendors to ensure a
smooth transition to the new standards. Commission s taff believe that sufficient evidence exists to demonstrate that systems will be available to implement the performance standards for new vessels with a ballast water capacity greater than 5000
MT in 2012. However, in recognition of the rapidly changing fields of technology development and performance assessment
, Commission staff will prepare an update of
this report by September 1, 2011

. In preparation of the update, Commission staff will

convene a sc ientific advisory panel to review the latest data on treatment systems and testing protocols and provide input regarding the availability of treatment systems in an effort to ameliorate concerns regarding the implementation of California‟s performance
stan dards. While not required by statute, this update will verify that technology development is progressing on schedule to allow for the implementation of the standards beginning January 1, 2012.

At this time, Commissi on staff recommends that the Legislature allow the implementation of standards for new vessels with a ballast water capacity over 5000 MT to proceed on January 1, 2012. In addition, and in order to ensure full implementation and compliance verification as performance standards move forward, Commission staff also recommend that the Legislature: 1) Support staff involvement with the development of performance standards and evaluation of treatment technologies at the federal and international levels; and 2) Maintain the accessibility and funding levels of the Marine Invasive Species Control Fund, so research can be supported and methodsvii

developed for compliance verification as vessels with treatment systems begin to arrive
to California.viii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

................................ ................................ ................................ .. ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

................................ ................................ ................................ viii

ABBREVIATIONS AND TERMS

................................ ................................ ..................... ix

DISCLAIMER

................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 1

I. PURPOSE

................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 1

II. INTRODUCTION

................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 2

III. REGULATORY AND PROGRAMMATIC OVERVIEW

................................ ............... 6

IV. TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT PROCESS

................................ ..... 24

V. TREATMENT TEC HNOLOGIES

................................ ................................ ............... 26

VI. ASSESSMENT OF TREATMENT SYSTEMS

................................ ......................... 40

VII. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

................................ ................................ ...... 73

VIII. RECOMMENDATIONS

................................ ................................ .......................... 80

IX. LOOKING FORWARD

................................ ................................ ............................. 83

X. LITERATURE CITED

................................ ................................ ................................ 85

XI. APPENDICES

................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 104

APPENDIX A : BALLAST WATER TRE ATMENT SYSTEM EFFICACY MATRIX

............................................................ .... 10 5

APPENDIX B: ADVISORY PANEL MEMBERS AND ME ETING NOTES.............................................

................................... 1 30ix

ABBREVIATI ONS AND TERMS

Act Coastal Ecosystems Protection Act CCR California Code of Regulations CFR Code of Federal Regulations CFU Colony

- Forming Unit CSLC/ Commission California State Lands Commission Convention International Convention for the Con trol and Management of Ships‟ Ballast Water and Sediments CWA Clean Water Act EEZ Exclusive Economic Zone EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency ETV Environmental Technology Verification Program FIFRA Federal Insecticide, Fun gicide, 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 Michi gan DEQ Michigan Department of Environmental Quality ml M illiliter MPCA Minnesota Pollution Control Agency MT Metric Ton NIS Nonindigenous Species
nm Nautical Mile NPDES National Pollution Discharge Elimination System NRL Naval Researc h Laboratory PRC Public Resources Code Staff Commission staff STEP Shipboard Technology Evaluation Program TRC Total Residual Chlorine μ m Micrometer (one millionth of a meter) USCG United States Coast Guard UV Ultraviolet Irradiation V GP Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Commercial Vessels and Large Recreational Vessels Water Board California State Water Resources Control Board WDFW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife WDN R Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources1

DISCLAIMER This report 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 report d oes not constitute an endorsement or approval by the California State Lands Commission (Commission) of any treatment system or system manufacturer. It is the responsibility of the vessel owner/operator to select treatment systems that will ensure that ball ast water discharges are in compliance with California‟s performance standards for preventing species introductions and all other applicable laws, regulations and permits.

I. PURPOSE This report was prepared for the California Legislature pursuant to Pub lic Resources Code (PRC) Section 71205.3. Among its provisions, PRC Section 71205.3 requires the Commission to adopt performance standards for the discharge of ballast water and to prepare and submit to the Legislature, “a review of the efficacy, availabil ity, and environmental impacts, including the effect on water quality, of currently available technologies for ballast water treatment systems.” California‟s performance standards for the discharge of ballast water were approved in 2007 (see California Cod e of Regulations (CCR) , Title 2, Division 3, Chapter 1, Article 4.7). The Commission completed an initial ballast water treatment technology assessment report in 2007 (see Dobroski et al. 2007) and a revised report in 2009 (see Dobroski et al. 2009 a ).
Addi tional reports are due to the California Legislature 18 months prior to each of the implementation dates for California‟s performance standards (see Tables III

- 1 and III

- 2 ). This report fulfills the legislative mandate to assess the availability of ballast water treatment technologies prior to the January 1, 2012 implementation of performance standards for newly built vessels with a ballast water capacity greater than 5000 metric tons (MT). The report summarizes Commission conclusions on the advancement of ballast water treatment technology development and discusses progress by Commission staff in implementing California‟s performance standards for the discharge
of ballast water.2

II. INTRODUCTION Nonindigenous Species and their Impacts
Also known as “introd uced
, ” “invasive
, ” “exotic
, ” “alien
, ” or “aquatic nuisance species
, ” nonindigenous species (NIS) are organisms that have been transported by human activities to a region where they did not occur historically, and have established reproducing populations in the wild (Carlton 2001). Once established, NIS can have serious human health, economic and environmental impacts in their new environment. One of the most infamous examples is the zebra mussel ( Dreissena polymorpha ), which
was introduced from the Black Sea to the Great Lakes in the mid

- 1980s (Carlton 2008) and was discovered in California in 2008 (California Department of Fish and Game 2008). This tiny striped mussel attaches to hard surfaces in dense populations that clog municipal water systems and e lectric generating plants, costing approximately $1 billion a year in damage and control for the Great Lakes alone (Pimentel et al. 2005). In San Francisco Bay, the overbite clam ( Corbula amurensis ) is believed to be a major
contributor to the decline of several pelagic fish species in the Sacramento

- San Joaquin River Delta by reducing the plankton food base of the ecosystem (Feyrer et al. 2003, Sommer et al. 2007). In addition, many human pathogens and contaminant indicator microorganisms have been found in ballast tanks. These include human cholera ( Vibrio
cholerae O1 and O139) (Ruiz et al. 2000), the microorganisms that cause paralytic shellfish poisoning (Hallegraeff 1998), human intestinal parasites ( Giardia lamblia, Cryptosporidium parvum, Enterocyt ozoon bieneusi

) and microbial indicators for fecal contamination ( E

scherichia coli and intestinal enterococci ) (Reid et al. 2007 )

.

In marine, estuarine and freshwater environments, NIS may be transported to new regions through various human activities in cluding aquaculture, the aquarium and pet trade, and bait shipments (Cohen and Carlton 1995, Weigle et al. 2005). In coastal habitats commercial shipping is an important transport mechanism, or “vector,” for invasion. In one study, shipping was responsibl e for
, or contributed to
, approximately 80% of invertebrate and algae introductions to North America (Fofonoff et al. 2003, see also Cohen and Carlton 1995 for San Francisco Bay). Ballast water was a possible3

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

- based introduction vector (Fofonoff et al. 2003).

Ballast water is necessary for many functions related to the trim, stability, maneuverability, and propulsion of large oceangoing vessels (National Research Council 1996). Ve ssels take on, discharge, or redistribute water during cargo loading and unloading, as they take on and burn fuel, encounter rough seas, or transit through shallow coastal waterways. Typically, a vessel takes on ballast water after its cargo is
unloaded i n one port to compensate for the weight imbalance, and will later discharge that water when cargo is loaded in another port. This transfer of ballast water from “source” to “destination” ports results in the movement of many organisms from one region to t he 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 unsucces sful (Carlton 2001). Between 2000 and 2006, over $7 million was spent to eradicate the Mediterranean green seaweed ( Caulerpa taxifolia ) from two small embayments in southern California (Woodfield 2006). Unsuccessful eradication attempts for nuisance NIS generally evolve into control efforts that typically represent an expensive and continual economic commitment. A pproximately $10 million is spent annually to control the sea lamprey ( Petromyzon marinus ) in the Great Lakes (Lovell and Stone 2005). Over $1 0 million has been spent to control the zebra mussel and quagga mussel in California waters since the species were first found in 2007 (Ellis, S., pers. comm. 2010). By the end of 2010, over $12 million will have been spent in San Francisco Bay to control the Atlantic cordgrass ( Spartina alterniflora ) (Spellman, M., pers. comm. 200 8 ). These costs reflect only a fraction of the cumulative expense over time, as species control is an unending process. Prevention is therefore considered the most desirable way to address the NIS issue.4

For the vast majo rity of commercial vessels, ballast water exchange is the primary management technique to prevent or minimize the transfer of coastal (including bay/estuarine) organisms

. During exchange, the biologically rich w ater that is loaded while a vessel is in port or near the coast is exchanged with the comparatively species

and nutrient

- poor waters of the mid

- ocean (Zhang and Dickman 1999). Coastal organisms adapted to the conditions of bays, estuaries and shallow coa sts are not expected to survive and/or be able to reproduce in the mid

- ocean due to the differences in biology (competition, predation, food availability) and oceanography (temperature, salinity, turbidity, nutrient levels) between the two regions (Cohen 1 998). Mid

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

Performance Standards for the Discharge of Ballast Water Ballast water exchange is generally considered an interim tool because of its variable efficacy and op erational limitations. Studies indicate that the effectiveness of ballast water exchange at eliminating organisms in tanks ranges widely from 50

- 99% (Cohen 1998, Parsons 1998, Zhang and Dickman 1999, USCG 2001, Wonham et al. 2001, MacIsaac et al. 2002). W hen performed properly, exchange has been considered an effective tool to reduce the risk of coastal species invasions (Ruiz and Reid 2007). However, n ew research demonstrates that the percentage of ballast water exchanged does not necessarily correlate wi th a proportional decrease in organism abundance (Choi et al. 2005 , Ruiz and Reid 2007 ). S ome vessels are re gularly routed on short
voyages or voyages that remain within 50 nautical miles ( nm ) of shore , and i n such cases, the exchange process may create a delay or require a vessel to deviate from the
most direct route. Such deviations can extend travel distances, increasing vessel costs for personnel time and fuel consumption.

In some circumstances, ballast water exchange may not be possible without
comp romising vessel or crew safety. For example, vessels that encounter adverse weather or experience equipment failure may be unable to conduct ballast water exchange safely. Unmanned barges are incapable of conducting exchange without transferring personne l onboard, a procedure that can present unacceptable danger if5

attempted in the exposed conditions of the open ocean. In recognition of these challenges , state and federal ballast water regulations allow vessels to forego exchange should the master or per son in charge determine s that it would place the vessel, its crew, or its passengers at risk

. Though the provision is rarely invoked in California, the handful of vessels that use it may subsequently discharge unexchanged ballast into

s tate waters , present ing a risk of NIS introduction

.

Regulatory agencies and the commercial shipping industry have therefore looked toward the development of effective ballast water treatment technologies as a promising management option. For regulators, such systems would p rovide 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 NI S. For the shipping industry, the use of effective ballast water treatment systems might allow voyages to proceed along the shortest routes, in all operational scenarios, thereby saving time and money.

Until very recently, financial investment in the re search and development of ballast water treatment systems had been limited
, and the advancement of ballast water treatment technologies had been slow. Many barriers have hindered the development of technologies, including equipment design limitations, the cost of technology development, and the lack of guidelines for testing and evaluating performance. Perhaps most importantly, some shipping industry representatives, technology developers and investors considered the absence of a specific set of ballast w ater performance standards as a primary deterrent to progress. Performance standards would set benchmark levels for organism discharge that a technology would be required to achieve for it to be deemed acceptable for use in eliminating the threat of speci es introductions. Such targets were needed so developers could design technologies to meet the standards (MEPC 2003). Without standards, investors were reluctant to devote financial resources towards conceptual or prototype systems because they had
no in dication that their investments might ultimately meet future regulations. For the6

same reason, vessel owners were hesitant to allow installation and testing of prototype systems onboard operational vessels. It was argued that the adoption of performance standards would address these fears, and accelerate the advancement of ballast treatment technologies. Thus in response to the slow progress of ballast water treatment technology development and the need for effective ballast water treatment options, many state, federal and international regulatory agencies have adopted or are in the process of developing performance standards for ballast water discharges.

III. REGULATORY AND PROGRAMMATIC OVERVIEW A thorough evaluation of the availability of ballast wa ter treatment technologies requires

an understanding of the regulatory framework associated with the development and implementation of performance standards for the discharge of ballast water, including knowledge of mechanisms for the testing and evaluatio n of treatment systems to meet those standards. Currently, there are no formally adopted international, federal or state
program s that include performance standards, guidelines or protocols to verify the performance of treatment technologies, and methods t o sample and analyze discharged ballast water for compliance purposes. California, other U.S. states, the federal government, and the international community have recently made great strides towards the development of a standardized approach for the manage ment of discharged ballast water. However, existing legislation, standards and guidelines still vary by jurisdiction. The following is a summary of current performance standards

- related laws, regulations and permits, and a review of current and proposed pr ocesses for treatment system evaluation and compliance verification.

International Maritime Organization In February 2004, after several years of development and negotiation, International Maritime Organization (IMO) Member States adopted the Internatio nal Convention for the Control and Management of Ships‟ Ballast Water and Sediments (Convention) (see IMO 2005). Among its provisions, the Convention imposes performance standards for the discharge of ballast water (Regulation D

- 2) with an associated imple mentation7

schedule based on vessel ballast water capacity and date of construction (Tables III

- 1
and III

- 2).

The Convention will enter into force 12 months after ratification by 30 countries representing 35% of the world‟s commercial shipping tonnage (IM O 2005). As of May
31 , 2010, twenty

- five countries representing 24.28 % of the world‟s shipping tonnage have signed the convention (IMO 2010). The Convention cannot be enforced upon any ship until it is ratified and enters into force (IMO 2007). Because th e Convention was not ratified in time to enter into force before the first performance standards implementation date in 2009, the IMO General Assembly adopted Resolution A.1005(25) (IMO 2007). The resolution delays the date by which new vessels built in 20 09 with a ballast water capacity of less than 5000 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). The
resolution also calls for the IMO M arine E nvironment P rotection C om mittee (MEPC) to address the impending implementation date for vessels constructed in 2010 (IMO 2007). In September 2009, another draft resolution was put forth to encourage the installation of ballast water treatment systems on new build ships based on th e existing implementation dates even though the Convention has not yet been ratified ( MEPC 2009j ). That resolution was adopted at the 60 th meeting of the MEPC in March, 2010. However, s ince the conditions of the resolution are not mandatory, the implement ation
dates for all other vessel size classes and construction dates remain the same as originally proposed (Table III

- 2).8

Table III

- 1. Ballast Water Treatment Performance Standards Organism Size Class IMO Regulation D

- 2 [1] California [1,2] Organisms greater than 50 μm [3] in minimum dimension < 10 viable organisms per cubic meter No detectable living organisms
Organisms 10

– 50 μm in minimum dimension < 10 viable organisms per ml [4] < 0.01 living organisms per ml
Living organisms less than 10 μm in minimum dimension

Escherichia coli

Intestinal enterococci
Toxicogenic Vibrio cholerae (O1 & O139) < 250 cfu [5] /100 ml

< 100 cfu/100 ml

< 1 cfu/100 ml or < 1 cfu/gram wet weight zooplankton samples < 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 and IMO Ballast Water Performance Standards. [2 ] Final discharge standard fo r 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 number s

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 me tric tons 2009 (IMO) 2 /2010 (CA) 2016 1500

– 5000 metric tons 2009 (IMO) 2 /2010 (CA) 2014 > 5000 metric tons 2012 2016
1 In California, the standards apply to vessels in this size class as of January 1 of the year of compliance. The IMO Convention appli es 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 th e 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)

.9

In order to ensure globally uniform application of the requirements of the Convention, t he IMO MEPC has adopted 14 implementation guidelines (Everett, R., pers. comm. 2010). Most relevant to this report, Guideline G8, “Guidelines for Approval
of B allast Water Management Systems ” ( MEPC 2008i ), and Guideline G9, “Procedure for Approval of Balla st Water Management Systems Tha t Make Use of Active
Substances ” ( MEPC 2008f ), work together to create a framework for the evaluation of
treatment systems by the MEPC and Flag State Administration (the country or flag under which a vessel operates) (Figure III

- 1). Flag States (not the IMO) may grant approval (also known as “Type Approval”) to treatment systems that are in compliance with the Convention‟s Regulation D

- 2 performance standards based upon recommended procedures detailed in Guideline G8 for full

- scale land

- based and shipboard testing. A treatment system may not be used by a vessel party to the
Convention to meet the D

- 2 standards unless that system is Type Approved.

In addition to receiving Type Approval from the Flag State Administration, ballas t water treatment systems using “active substances” must first be approved by the IMO MEPC based upon procedures developed by the organization (IMO 2005). An active substance
is defined by IMO as , “...a substance or organism, including a virus or a fungus
, t hat has a general or specific action on or against Harmful Aquatic Organisms and Pathogens ” (IMO 2005). For all intents and purposes, an active substance is a chemical or reagent (e.g. chlorine, ozone) that kills organisms in ballast water. The IMO approv al pathway for treatment systems that use active substances is more rigorous than the evaluation process for technologies that do not. As required by Guideline G9, technologies utilizing active substances must go through a two

- step “Basic” and “Final”
app roval process. Active substance systems that apply for Basic and Final Approval are reviewed for environmental, ship, and personnel safety by the IMO Joint Group of Experts on the Scientific Aspects of Marine Environmental Protection (GESAMP)

– Ballast Wat er Working Group (BWWG) in accordance with the procedures detailed in Guideline G9. The MEPC may grant Basic or Final Approval based upon the
recommendation of the GESAMP

- BWWG.10

Figure III

- 1

. Summary of IMO approval pathway for ballast water treatment systems. (Modified from Lloyd‟s Register (2007))

The entire IMO evaluation process, including approval for systems using active substances has been estimated to take between six months and two years to complete (Everett, R., pers. comm. 2007, Lloyd‟s 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.

Bec ause the U.S. has not signed on to the Convention, the U.S. has neither reviewed nor submitted applications to IMO on behalf of any U.S. treatment technology vendors. Until the Convention is both signed by the U.S. and enters into force through
internation al ratification, no U.S. federal agency has the authority (unless authorized by Congress) to manage a program to review treatment technologies and submit applications on their behalf to IMO. United States treatment vendors may approach IMO through associat ion with other IMO Member States, and several have or are in the process of doing so. However, until the U.S. signs on to the Convention, and the Convention is ratified and enters into force, the U.S. is not party to the Convention requirements. Hence, ves sels calling on U.S. ports have no authority to use systems11

approved through the IMO Type Approval process to meet U.S. ballast water management requirements.

One additional guideline related to the implementation of the IMO Convention is
relevant to Cal ifornia‟s ballast water management program. Guideline G2, the “Guidelines for Ballast Water Sampling,” provides valuable information, in the absence of U.S. federal guidance, on the location of shipboard sampling points and equipment necessary to collect b allast water samples to assess compliance with the IMO Regulation D

- 2 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 equipmen t installed to take the sample) for sample collection (BLG 2008). In order to maintain international uniformity, Commission staff based California‟s regulations governing the collection of ballast water samples on IMO Guideline G2 (see
pg. 18
, California L egislation and Implementation of Performance Standards
, for details).

U.S. Federal Legislation and Programs Ballast water discharges in the United States are regulated by both the United States Coast Guard (USCG) and the United States Environmental Prote ction Agency (EPA). Prior to February 6, 2009, ballast water was regulated solely by the USCG through regulations found in Title 33 of the Code of Federal Regulation (CFR) Part 151. The USCG regulations, developed under authority of the Nonindigenous Aquat ic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of 1990, which was revised and reauthorized as the National Invasive Species Act of 1996, require ballast water management (i.e. ballast water exchange) for vessels entering U.S. waters from outside of the 200 nm Excl usive Economic Zone (EEZ) of the U.S. Vessels may use onboard treatment systems to meet the current ballast water management requirements if that system is at least as effective as exchange and is approved by the Commandant of the USCG. However, a target has not been developed to define the efficiency of exchange, preventing any evaluation of treatment systems against the efficacy of ballast water exchange. Without a specific12

target (or performance standard), the USCG has been unable to move forward on the approval of any treatment systems.

On August 28, 2009, the USCG proposed regulations that would establish federal performance standards for living organisms in ships‟ ballast water discharged in U.S. waters. The proposed regulations would amend 33 CFR P art 151 to include a two

phase ballast water discharge standard and associated implementation schedule. Phase one would require vessels to meet the IMO D

- 2 standard

– a standard roughly
1000 times weaker than California ‟s standards

- by 2012, and phase two would require that discharged ballast comply with a standard 100 0 times more stringent than IMO

– roughly equivalent to California‟s standards

- by 2016. The implementation of the phase two standard is contingent upon a review of the availability of techn ologies to meet that standard. The proposed regulations would also establish a program to approve ballast water management systems for use in U

. S

. waters. The public comment period closed on December 4, 2009. The USCG received thousands of comments on the contents of the proposed regulations, and it is possible that the proposed regulation could undergo substantial change before the final rule is issued. At this time, no date has been set for the release of the final regulation.

On February 6, 2009, the E PA joined USCG in the regulation of ballast water in U

. S

. waters. The EPA regulates ballast water, and other discharges incidental to normal vessel operations, through the Clean Water Act (CWA). This requirement stems from a
2003 lawsuit filed by Northwest Environmental Advocates et al. against the EPA in U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, challenging a regulation originally promulgated under the CWA (Nw. Envtl. Advocates v. U.S. EPA, No. C 03

- 05760 SI, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 69476 (N.D. C al. Sept. 18, 2006) )

. The regulation at issue, 40
CFR Se ction 122.3(a), exempted effluent discharges “inc idental to the normal operations of a vessel ,” including ballast water, from regulation under the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDE S). The plaintiffs sought to have the regulation declared ultra vires, or beyond the authority of the EPA
, under the CWA. On March 31, 2005, the District Court granted judgment in favor of Northwest13

Environmental Advocates et al., and o n September 18, 20 06 the Court issued an order revoking the exemptive regulation ( 40 CFR Section 122.3(a) ) as of September 30, 2008. EPA filed an appeal with the Nint h Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals but was denied in July 2008 (Nw. Envtl. Advocates v. U.S. EPA, No. 03

- 74795, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 15576 (9th Cir. Cal. July 23, 2008) )

.

In June 2008, EPA released for public comment the draft NPDES “Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Commercial Vessels and Large Recreation Vessels” ( VGP ). In September 2008, the District Court granted a motion to delay the vacature of the 122.3(a) regulation from September 30 to December 19, 2008. The implementation of the permit was later delayed to February 6, 2009 to provide the regulated community with a dditional time to comply.

Under the VGP , all vessels greater than 300 gross registered tons, or with a ballast water capacity greater than 8 cubic meters, must submit a Notice of Intent with EPA in order to receive permit coverage. Vessels greater than 7 9 feet but less than 300 tons receive automatic permit coverage. In large part, the VGP maintains the current regulation of ballast water discharges by the USCG through 33 CFR Part 151. The VGP does not currently include performance standards for the disch arge of ballast water. Performance standards may be included in the next iteration of the permit in 2013 based on the outcome of the USCG rulemaking on ballast water performance standards, or if they are proposed independently by EPA. In either case, EPA would
have to determine if treatment technologies are commercially available and economically achievable to meet standards in order to include them in the 2013 VGP.

The EPA VGP and the USCG regulations do not relieve vessel owners/operators (permittees) of the responsibility of complying with applicable state laws and/ or regulations. M any states with authority to implement the CWA have added specific provisions, including performance standards, for vessel discharges in state waters to the EPA‟s general pe rmit through the CWA Section 401 certification process. Thus we do not expect to see any impact from the implementation of the NPDES permit on14

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 VGP and the USCG regulations. This may result in vessels having to exchange ballast water to comply with federal man agement requirements under the VGP and USCG regulations and also treat ballast water to comply with state regulations. Federal l egislation may be required to clarify this potentially confusing situation.

While the federal implementation of performance st andards for the discharge of ballast water remains uncertain, two federal programs have been working to support the development of treatment technologies and facilitate the testing and evaluation of those systems: 1) The USCG Shipboard Technology Evaluatio n Program (STEP), and 2) The EPA‟s Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) program.

The USCG STEP is intended to facilitate the development of ballast water treatment technologies. Vessel owners and operators accepted into STEP may install and operat e specific experimental ballast water treatment systems on their vessels for use in U.S. waters. In order to be accepted, treatment technology developers must assess the efficacy of systems for removing biological organisms, residual concentrations of
tre atment chemicals, and water quality parameters of the discharged ballast water (USCG 2004). STEP provides incentives for vessel operators and treatment developers to test promising new technologies. Vessels accepted into the program are authorized
to opera te the system to comply with existing USCG ballast water management requirements and will be grandfathered for operation under future ballast water discharge standards for the life of the vessel or the treatment system, whichever is
shorter. As of June 201 0, six vessels have been accepted into STEP (USCG 2010). The lengthy STEP review process and recent uncertainties regarding testing protocols have delayed significant testing on STEP vessels thus far, however, the USCG has plans to streamline the review pr ocess for future applicants (USCG 2008) . USCG plans to continue STEP even after the implementation of performance standards , as the STEP will serve to facilitate system shipboard testing for USCG approval, and will continue to15

promote vessel access for the research and development of promising experimental technologies (Moore, B., pers. comm. 2010 ; Everett, R., pers. comm. 2010).

The EPA ETV program is an effort to accelerate the development and marketing of environmental technologies. The USCG and the EP A established a formal agreement to implement an ETV program focused on ballast water management. Under this agreement, the ETV program developed a draft protocol in 2004 for verification of the performance of ballast water treatment technologies. Subseque ntly, the USCG established an agreement with the Naval Research Laboratory (NRL) to evaluate, refine, and validate this protocol and the test facility design required for its use. This validation project resulted in the construction of a model ETV Ballast Water Treatment System Test Facility at the NRL Corrosion Science and Engineering facility in Key West, Florida. The innovative research conducted at the NRL facility is intended to result in technical procedures for testing ballast water treatment system s for the purpose of approval and certification. Based on the information collected during the evaluation of the 2004 draft protocol, ETV staff, in consultation with an advisory panel (of which
Commission staff is a member), is currently developing a revis ed final treatment technology verification protocol
, which was released in draft form for public comment in
March 2010.

U.S. State Legislation and Programs States have taken two approaches to the implementation of ballast water management and specifical ly performance standards for the discharge of ballast water. Some states have specific authority granted by state legislation to establish performance standards either by regulation or permit. Other states have added specific provisions establishing perfor mance standards to the VGP through the Section 401 certification process. The following is a summary of ballast water performance standards by state and how each has approached implementation.16

CWA Section 401 Certifications Under the Vessel General Per mit (VGP) Section 401 of the Clean Water Act requires states to approve federal permits and allows states to add requirements, if necessary, above and beyond those present in the federal permit. A number of states established ballast water management progr ams in 2009 through the VGP. States that specifically included the establishment of performance standards in their 401 certification include: Illinois, Indiana, New York, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. Illinois, Indiana and Ohio require vessels to comply with the
IMO D

- 2 standard (see Table III

- 1) by 2012 for newly built vessels or 2016 for existing vessels. Pennsylvania established a two

- phase standard that requires vessels built prior to 2012 to install treatment systems that meet the IMO D

- 2 standard by 2012, a nd vessels built on or after 2012 to meet California‟s performance standards (roughly equivalent to1000 times the IMO D

- 2 standard) . Finally, New York will require all vessels to install treatment systems that meet a standard roughly equivalent to 10 0
time s the IMO D

- 2 standard by 2012. Vessels constructed on or after 2013 must install systems that meet California‟s performance standards.

Non

- VGP State Ballast Water Programs that Include Performance Standards Michigan Michigan passed legislation in June 2 005 (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 E nvironmental Quality (DEQ), any ballast water discharged must first be treated by one of four methods (hypochlorite, chlorine dioxide, ultraviolet radiation preceded by suspended solids removal, or deoxygenation) that have been deemed environmentally sound and effective in preventing the discharge of NIS. In state waters, v essels must use treatment technologies in compliance with applicable requirements and conditions of use as specified by Michigan DEQ. Vessels using technologies not listed under the Michi gan general permit may apply for individual permits if the treatment technology used is deemed, “environmentally sound and its treatment effectiveness is equal to or better at preventing the discharge of aquatic17

nuisance species as the ballast water treatm ent methods contained in [the general] permit,” (Michigan DEQ 2006 ).

Minnesota Effective July 1, 2008, Minnesota state law (S.F. 3056) requires vessels operating in state waters to have both a ballast water record book and a ballast water management plan onboard that has been approved by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) (MPCA 2008). Additionally, based on the authority in Minn. Stat. 115.07, Minn. R. 7001.0020, subp. D, and Minn. R. 7001.0210, and to implement the recently enacted legislation , the MPCA approved a State Disposal System general permit for ballast water discharges into Lake Superior and associated waterways in September 2008 (MPCA 2008). Under the permit, all vessels (oceangoing and lakes

- only) transiting
Minnesota waters must co mply immediately with approved best management practices. No later than January 1, 2012, new vessels will be required to comply with the IMO D

- 2 performance standards for the discharge of ballast water (see Table III

- 1), and existing vessels will be requir ed to comply with those standards no later than January 1, 2016 (MPCA 2008).

Washington The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), in consultation with their stakeholder Ballast Water Work Group, completed a comprehensive rewrite of the
state ‟s ballast water management regulations, which became effective on July 26, 2009. The new rules and information on the state program can be found at: http://wdfw.wa.gov/fish/ballast/ballast.htm . WDF W has initiated new rulemaking to adopt permanent concentration

- based standards. A priority for WDFW is to adopt standards that help bring the national and/or U.S. Pacific coast states into greater management consistency. The WDFW no longer independently a pproves treatment systems for use in state waters and now relies on regional, national or international approvals. Systems previously approved under the interim regulations will remain approved for their original period of use. WDFW staff expects the new s tandards to be adopted in early 2011 (Pleus, A., pers. comm. 2010).18

Wisconsin As of February 1, 2010, vessels that discharge ballast in Wisconsin waters must comply with the General Permit to Discharge under the Wisconsin Pollutant Discharge Elimination Sy stem. The permit was established by the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) under authority provided by Chapter 283, Wisconsin Statutes. Among its provisions, the permit sets ballast water performance standards roughly equivalent to 10 0 times the IMO D

- 2 standard. All vessels constructed on or after 2012 must meet the Wisconsin Standard set forth in the permit. Existing vessels have until 2014 to comply. Prior to the implementation of the standards, WDNR will
conduct an assessment of the availa bility of treatment systems to meet the Wisconsin
standards. If the WDNR determines that treatment technologies are commercially unavailable, the permit requires vessels to comply with the IMO D

- 2 standard in place of the Wisconsin Standard. The existing i mplementation schedule remains the same.

California Legislation and the Implementation of Performance Standards Review of Legislation California‟s Marine Invasive Species Act of 2003 directed the Commission to recommend performance standards for the dis charge of ballast water to the State Legislature in consultation with the State Water Resources Control Board (Water Board), the USCG and a technical advisory panel (see PRC Section 71204.9). The legislation directed that standards should be selected base d on the best available technology economically achievable, and should be designed to protect the beneficial
uses of the waters of the State.

In 2005, Commission staff convened a cross

- interest, multi

- disciplinary panel consisting of regulators, researc h scientists, industry representatives and environmental organizations and facilitated discussions over the selection of performance standards. Many sources of information were used to guide the performance standards selection including: b iological 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 of19

experimental treatment technologies . Though all sources and panel members provided some level of insight, none could provide solid guidance for the selection of a specific
set of standards that would reduce or eliminate the introduction and establishment of NIS. At a minimum, it was determ ined that reductions achieved by the selected performance standards should improve upon the status quo and decrease the discharge of viable ballast organisms to a level below quantities observed following legal ballast water exchange. Additionally, the te chnologies used to achieve these standards should function without introducing chemical or physical constituents to the treated ballast water that may result in adverse impacts to receiving waters. Beyond these general criteria, however, there was no conc rete support for the selection of a specific set of standards. This stems from the key knowledge gap that invasion risk cannot be predicted for a particular quantity of organisms discharged in ballast water (MEPC 2003), with the exception that zero organis m discharge equates to zero risk.

The Commission ultimately put forward performance standards recommended by the majority of the Panel because they encompassed several desirable characteristics: 1) A significant improvement upon ballast water exchange; 2 ) In

- line with the best professional judgment of scientific experts that participated in the development of the IMO Convention; and 3) Approached a protective zero discharge standard. The proposed interim standards were based on organism size classes (Tab le III

- 1). The standards for the two larg est size classes of organisms (greater than 50 micrometers (μm = one
- millionth of a meter) in minimum dimension and 10

– 50 μm in minimum dimension) were significantly more protective than those proposed by the IMO
Convention. The majority of the Panel also recommended standards for organisms less
than 10 μm including human health indicator species and total counts of living bacteria
and viruses. The recommended bacterial standards for human health indicator species,
Escherichia coli and intestinal enterococci
, are identical to those adopted by the EPA in 1986 for recreational use and human health safety (EPA 1986). The implementation schedule proposed for the interim standards was similar to the IMO Convention (Table
III

- 2). A final discharge standard of zero detectable organisms was recommended by20

the majority of the Panel. The Commission included an implementation deadline of 2020 for this final discharge standard

.

The Commission submitted the recommended stand ards and information on the rationale behind its selection in a report to the State Legislature in January of 2006 (see Falkner et al. 2006). By the fall of that same year, the Legislature passed the Coastal Ecosystems Protection Act (Chapter 292, Statute s of 2006) directing the Commission to adopt the recommended standards and implementation schedule through the California rulemaking process by January 1, 2008. The Commission completed that rulemaking in October, 2007 (see 2 CCR § 2291 et seq .).

In an ticipation of the implementation of the interim performance standards, the Coastal Ecosystems Protection Act also directed the Commission to review the efficacy, availability and environmental impacts of currently available ballast water treatment systems by January 1, 2008. The review and resultant report was approved by the Commission in December, 2007 (see Dobroski et al. 2007). Additional reviews must be completed 18 months prior to the implementation dates for all other vessel classes and
18 months be fore the implementation of the final discharge standard on January 1, 2020 (see Table III

- 2 for full implementation schedule). During any of these reviews, if it is determined that existing technologies are unable to meet the discharge standards, the repo rt must describe why they are not available.

The first technology assessment report (Dobroski et al. 2007) determined that technologies would not be available to meet California‟s discharge standards for new vessels with a ballast water capacity under 5 000 MT by the original 2009 implementation date. In response, the Legislature passed Senate Bill 1781 in 2008 (Chapter 696, Statutes of 2008). Senate Bill 1781 amended PRC Section 71205.3(a)(2) and delayed the implementation of the interim performance stan dards for new vessels with a ballast water capacity of less than 5000 MT from January 1, 2009 to January 1, 2010. Senate Bill 1781 also required an additional assessment of available ballast water treatment technologies by January 1, 2009 (see Dobroski et al. 2009 a ) prior to the new21

2010 implementation date. Dobroski et al. (2009 a ) determined that technologies that demonstrated the potential to meet California‟s performance standards were available. The report recommended that the Commission proceed with th e initial implementation of the performance standards in 2010.

Implementing California’s Performance Standards As of January 1, 2010, newly built vessels (vessels for which construction began on or after January 1, 2010) with a ballast water capacity of less than 5000 MT that discharge ballast in California waters must comply with California‟s performance standards. Vessel construction often takes a year or more, and it is anticipated that the first vessels that must meet the performance standards will no t begin to arrive in California until sometime during 2011. Commission staff have consulted with vendors to determine if treatment systems have been or will be purchased in order to meet this first implementation date

. A t this time
, staff are not aware of any specific purchases . Many
vessels in the midst of construction are leaving dedicated space for a ballast water treatment system so it may be installed at the last possible moment to ensure that the system purchased is the most up

- to

- date available. Com mission staff are in the process of preparing protocols to assess compliance with the performance standards and will be ready to begin inspection of vessels once new build vessels that fall under the 2010 implementation date arrive in California waters.

Commission staff do not have the practical ability to test and approve ballast water treatment systems for use in California waters. Staff encourages the shipping industry to collaborate with treatment vendors and third party testing organizations to condu ct performance verification testing and determine the best treatment solution for each
vessel. Commission staff will focus on dockside inspection of vessels for verification of compliance with the performance standards (in accordance with PRC Section 71206 ). Vessel inspections will consist of both an administrative review of applicable ballast water management plans and reporting documents as well as the collection of ballast water samples for analysis. Vessels must currently keep an up

- to

- date ballast wate r management plan on board as well as copies of all ballast water reporting forms22

submitted to the Commission within the past two years. Dobroski et al. (2009 a ) recommended that additional authority be granted to the Commission in order to allow
for the co llection of specific information about the installation and use of ballast water treatment systems on vessels operating in California waters. This information is necessary to monitor the effective implementation of California‟s performance
standards. In re sponse to the recommendation in Dobroski et al. (2009 a ), Assembly Bill 248 (Chapter 317, Statutes of 2009) was passed in the fall of 2009
, which provides the Commission with the authority to request the aforementioned information on forms to be developed b y the Commission. Commission staff is currently in the process of adopting those forms through the rulemaking process.

During an inspection, o nce Commission staff has reviewed applicable vessel paperwork, a ballast water sample will be drawn from vessels intending to discharge in California waters. California‟s performance standards are a discharge standard, and thus samples must be drawn from the vessel‟s ballast water discharge piping. Most vessels do not have the equipment to take samples of ballast wat er from the discharge line. Therefore, the Commission developed regulations in the fall of 2009 that require vessels to install sampling ports (i.e. sampling facilities) as near to the point of discharge as practicable ( 2 CCR § 2297). In order to maintain international uniformity, the regulations are based on the IMO Guideline G2 for ballast water sampling with additional input provided by the USCG. The regulations establish design specifications
for in

- line sampling facilities and set requirements for wher e the sampling facilities should be installed on the discharge line (i.e. the sampling point). Vessels must install the sampling facilities by the same year that they must comply with California‟s performance standards.

Commission staff is currently in t he process of refining procedures for analysis of the samples collected from the discharge line. Commission staff is working in consultation with technical experts and will make use of the best available scientific techniques to

assess viable organism conc entration for each of the standards. One issue of concern
has been the development of sampling methods and procedures that will verify vessel23

compliance with an acceptable level of legal and scientific confidence (see King and Tamburri 2009)

. The bulk of t hese arguments are aimed at performance standards for the greater than 50 μm organism size class, specifically for standards that are defined as a given number of live organisms per cubic meter (e.g. IMO and proposed USCG standards). While sampling large v olumes of ballast water (i.e. many cubic meters) are necessary to attain adequate statistical confidence to verify a given number of viable organisms are indeed present in each cubic meter, this argument is not necessarily appropriate for California‟s (as well as New York and Pennsylvania‟s) performance
standards. California‟ s performance standard for the greater than 50 μm organism size class is defined as “no detectable living organisms” and is technically not bound by any
volumetric units or the confide nce limits associated with those units. Therefore Commission staff believes it is appropriate to sample as large a volume as is feasible (whether that is 50 liters, 500 liters, 5000 liters, or any volume in

- between) in order to verify compliance with Cali fornia‟s unit

- less performance standard. Although it is important to ensure that a reasonable volume of water is sampled during compliance verification, s ampling methods must balance the desire for statistical confidence with practical, rapid, and relative ly easy techniques for shipboard inspection. As the precision of sampling equipment and analytical techniques improve, Commission staff will regularly discuss sampling methodologies with other states, the federal government and the international community to stay up

- to

- date on advances in the technology to conduct compliance verification.

Finally, Commission staff will continue to gather information about treatment system development, installation, and use on board vessels, particularly as the standards a re implemented for existing vessels and vessels with larger ballast water capacities. This information will guide the development of new regulations which take into account development within the rapidly advancing ballast water treatment technology indust ry.24

IV. TREATMENT TECHNO LOGY ASSESSMENT PROC ESS Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 71205.3 directs the Commission to prepare, "a review of the efficacy, availability, and environmental impacts, including the effect on water quality, of currently avail able technologies for ballast water treatment systems." In accordance with the law, the Commission has consulted with, “the State Water Resources Control Board, the United States Coast Guard, and the stakeholder advisory panel described in subdivision (b) of [PRC] Section 71204.9 .” This stakeholder panel
also provided guidance in the development of the performance standards report to the California Legislature (Falkner et al. 2006).

During the preparation of the initial technology assessment report (Dobro ski 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 assess the current availability of treatment systems, the efficacy of those systems , and any potential environmental and water quality impacts. This group included individuals with expertise in ballast water treatment techno logy development, water quality and biological monitoring and evaluation , naval architecture and engineering, and
t echnology efficacy analysis (see Dobroski et al. 2007 for workshop participants and summary)

. The conclusions drawn during the workshop in 2007 have continued to provide valuable guidance and direction in the preparation of subsequent reports.

As with pre vious reports (Dobroski et al. 2007, 2009 a ), Commission staff conducted an exhaustive literature search to prepare this report. Staff focused its review on recently available scientific articles, performance verification reports, and water quality impact

a nalyses from independent testing organizations. Staff also contacted treatment technology vendors in order to gather the most up

- to

- date information about system development, testing and approvals. On several occasions, staff held meetings in

person with t echnology vendors. These face

- to

- face gatherings have proved to be extremely valuable opportunities to inform vendors about California‟s performance standards requirements and to engage in dialogue about system performance verification testing and the Comm ission‟s technology assessment report s

.25

Due to a rapid increase in the availability of new data on treatment system performance
in mid

- 2009, and a desire by industry to receive updates on the latest technology developments, Commission staff conducted an interim assessment of available treatment technologies in October 2009 (see Dobroski et al. 2009b). The technology update was not legislatively mandated, and was not reviewed by the technical advisory panel. The update was intended as a resource for stakeh olders interested in ballast water treatment systems for use in California waters. It also provided Commission staff with an opportunity to begin identifying and focusing on issues of concern for this 2010 legislatively mandated report.

For the preparati on of this report, Commission staff compiled available data to develop a treatment system matrix ( see Tables V

- 1, VI

- 1, VI

- 3, VI

- 4, VI

- 5, VI

- 6, VII

- 1 and Appendix A ) . The 2010 report addresses the availability of treatment systems for
vessels with a balla st water capacity greater than 5000 MT. Industry has expressed concern about whether or not treatment systems will be able to effectively treat ballast water on these high volume/high flow rate vessels. Therefore, Commission s taff
included relevant data on treatment systems‟ maximum capacities and flow rates for this report. The data was summarized relative to the ballast water capacities and pump flow rates of the vessel fleet operating in California waters in order to determine if systems
both meet Califo rnia‟s performance standards and are available for this largest size class of vessels. As with previous reports, Commission staff also gathered the latest
data on environmental impacts, including effects on water quality, and the economics of treatment sys tem installation and operation. Upon completion of the data analysis, Commission staff drafted a preliminary report for review by the Commission‟s stakeholder advisory panel (see Appendix B for list of panel members), the Water Board
and USCG. The advisor y panel met in April 2010 to discuss the current report (see Appendix B for meeting notes). Advisory panel discussions were considered by staff to help guide the development of this final report.26

V. TREATMENT TECHNOLOGI ES The goal of ballast water treat ment is to remove or kill organisms entrained in ballast water. Given the long history and use of wastewater treatment technologies, the design and production of ballast water treatment systems may seem simple. However, transferring such technological con cepts to mobile, space

- and energy

- limited vessels has proven complex in practice. A system must be effective under a wide range of challenging environmental conditions including variable temperature, salinity, nutrients and suspended solids. It must also function under difficult operational constraints including high flow

- rates of ballast water pumps, large water volumes, and variable retention times (time ballast water is held in tanks). Treatment systems must be capable of eradicating a wide variety of o rganisms ranging from viruses and microscopic bacteria, to free

- swimming plankton, and must operate so as to minimize or prevent impairment of the water quality conditions of the receiving waters. The development of effective treatment systems is further c omplicated by the variability of vessel types, shipping routes and port geography.

Two general platform types have been explored for the development of ballast water treatment technologies. Shoreside ballast water treatment occurs at a barge

- or land

ba sed facility following transfer from a vessel. Shipboard treatment occurs onboard vessels through the use of technologies that are integrated into the ballasting system. Shipboard treatment systems are attractive because they allow flexibility to manage
ba llast water during normal operations, while shoreside treatment may be a good option
for vessels with small ballast water capacities and/or dedicated port calls.

Shoreside treatment of ballast water is an appealing option, particularly from a regulatory perspective. Permitting and inspection of a fixed shoreside facility is significantly easier than the regulation of discharges from mobile sources such as vessels. Shoreside treatment also provides an option for treatment technologies and
methods that are not feasible onboard vessels due to space and/or energy constraints, such as reverse osmosis. Shoreside treatment facilities could be staffed by trained wastewater engineers instead of ships‟ crew
, who may not be specifically trained in the27

operation and m aintenance of water treatment facilities. Additionally, in the event that a shipboard treatment system fails or sea conditions prevent ballast water exchange, shoreside or barge

- mounted treatment facilities could provide an important facility where unmanag ed ballast water could be held or treated.

Shoreside treatment does pose several challenges, however. Vessels must have the appropriate piping or attachment mechanism to establish a connection with a shoreside facility. An international standard would be necessary to standardize the design of these
connections in order to ensure that ships could connect to shoreside facilities throughout the world. Additionally, vessels must be able to discharge ballast at a rate that prevents vessel delays. The cost of t hese retrofits may be prohibitive (CAPA 2000). Additionally, current wastewater treatment plants are not equipped to treat saline water (Water Board 2002, Moore, S., pers. comm. 2005). If existing municipal facilities are to be used for the purposes of ba llast water treatment, they will need to be modified, and a new extensive network of piping and associated pumps will be required to distribute ballast water from vessels at berth to the treatment plants. The establishment of new piping and facilities ded icated to ballast water treatment, while technically feasible,
would require the acquisition of land for facility construction, and this would be complex and costly in California‟s densely populated coastal and port areas. Furthermore,
shoreside treatment is not feasible for vessels that must take on or discharge ballast water while underway, for example, if the vessel must adjust its draft to navigate through a shallow channel or under a bridge.

To date only limited feasibility studies have been conduct ed on shoreside treatment (see references in Falkner et al. 2006). A recent study by McMullin et al. (2008) assessed the feasibility of shoreside treatment at the Port of Milwaukee. The authors
concluded that shoreside treatment is a feasible alternative t o shipboard treatment, but only under certain conditions. Since vessels must be retrofitted to allow the connection of shoreside pumps to the vessel‟s ballasting piping, an international standard would likely need to be created. Additionally, procedures wo uld need to be developed for each vessel to maintain its stability and ensure safe deballasting rates during cargo loading.28

Finally, due to space constraints, the authors determined that the most cost

- effective and practical approach to shoreside treatment at the Port of M ilwaukee would likely require vessels to discharge ballast to a barge to store or treat the ballast before disposal to land

- based facilities. The authors caution against the extrapolation of the report‟s conclusions to port areas outside o f Milwaukee, as each unique region presents its own set of challenges.

In California, shoreside treatment may be a good option for unique terminals such as those with limited but regular vessel calls (e.g. cruise ships). Nonetheless, one study specific t o cruise ships indicated that due to the operational practices of cruise ships

– many do not deballast in California

- and with the current ballast water management and environmental regulatory requirements in California and the Port of San Francisco,
ther e is little demand for shoreside treatment except in emergency situations (Bluewater Network 2006). Additional studies are necessary to determine the feasibility of and demand for shoreside treatment for other vessel types and across the State as a whole. These may include assessments by those involved in the wastewater treatment sector on whether existing technologies could meet California's performance standards.

Within the last six months , Commission staff have been contacted by companies
interested in developing barge

- based and/or shore

- based reception facilities for use in California and along the West Coast. Commission staff will continue to work with these companies to ensure that as many options as possible are available to vessels in order to comp ly with California‟s performance standards. As of the writing of this report though, no barge

- or land

- based facilities are yet available for vessels operating in
California waters. Because the vast majority of time, money, and effort in the development of ballast water treatment technologies during recent years has been focused on shipboard treatment systems, we will focus on shipboard systems for the remainder of this report.

Shipboard systems allow for greater flexibility during vessel operations. Vess els may treat and discharge ballast while in transit, and thus will not need to coordinate vessel29

port arrival time with available space and time at shoreside treatment facilities. As with shoreside treatment, however, shipboard treatment systems face thei r own set of challenges. They must be engineered to conform to a vessel‟s structure, ensure crew safety, and withstand the vibrations and movements induced by the vessel‟s engine and rough seas. Additionally, shipboard systems must be effective under trans it times that range from less than 24 hours to several weeks, and must treat ballast water in compliance with the water quality requirements of recipient regions.

The timing and location of shipboard ballast water treatment can be varied according to
the needs of the treatment system and the length of vessel transit. Ballast water may be treated in the pipe (in

- line) during uptake or discharge or in the ballast tanks during the voyage (in tank). While mechanical separation (such as filtration) generally o ccurs during ballast uptake in order to remove large organisms and sediment particles before they enter the ballast tanks, other forms of treatment may occur at any point. Some treatment systems treat ballast water at multiple points during the voyage, suc h 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 water conditions is unlikely. Each technology may meet the objective of killing or inactivating NIS in a slightly different manner and each could potentially impact the water quality of the receiving environment through the release of chemical residuals or alterations to temperature, salinity, and/or turbidit y. Thus a suite of treatment technologies will undoubtedly need to be developed to treat ballast water industry

- wide and across all ports and environments.

Treatment Methods The development of ballast water treatment systems that are effective, environme ntally friendly and safe for vessels and crew has been a complex, costly and time consuming process. At the root of many treatment systems are methods that are already in use to some degree by the wastewater treatment industry. A preliminary understanding of30

these treatment methods forms the basis for more detailed analysis and discussion of ballast water treatment systems. The diverse array of water treatment methods currently under development for use in ballast water treatment can be broken down into fi ve major categories: mechanical, chemical, physical, biological and combination.

Mechanical Treatment Mechanical treatment traps and removes mid

- and large

- sized particles from ballast water. Mechanical treatment typically takes place upon ballast water uptake in order to limit the number of organisms and amount of sediment that may enter ballast tanks. Common options for mechanical treatment include filtration and hydrocyclonic separation.

Filtration works by capturing organisms and particles as water passes through a porous screen or filtration medium, such as sand or gravel. The size of organisms trapped by the filter depends on the mesh size in the case of screen or disk filters, or on the size of the interstitial space for filtration media. In balla st water treatment, screen and disk filtration is more commonly used over filter media, however, there has been some interest in the use of crumb rubber as a filtration medium in recent studies (Tang et al. 2006, 2009). Typical mesh size for ballast water filters ranges from 25 to 100 μm (Parsons and Harkins 2002, Parsons 2003). Most filtration

- based technologies also use a backwash process that removes organisms and sediment that become trapped on the filter and clog it. Backwash systems can discharge p articles and organisms at the port of origin before the vessel gets underway. Filter efficacy is a function not only of initial mesh size, but also of water flow rate and backwashing frequency.

Hydrocyclonic separation, also known as centrifugation, rel ies on density differences to separate organisms and sediment from ballast water. Hydrocyclones create a vortex that cause heavier particles to move toward the outer edges of the cyclonic flow where they are trapped in a weir

- like device and can be dischar ged before entering the ballast tanks (Parsons and Harkins 2002). Hydrocyclones used in ballast water treatment generally trap particles in the 50 to 100 μm size range (Parsons and Harkins 2002). One31

challenge associated with hydrocylone use, however, is t hat many small aquatic organisms have a density similar to sea water and are thus difficult to separate.

Chemical Treatment A variety of chemicals (i.e. active substances) are available to kill organisms in ballast water. While the vast majority of chemic als are biocides, some chemicals function to clump or coagulate organisms in order to assist with their mechanical removal. Chemical treatment may take place during ballast uptake, vessel transit, or discharge. Chemicals may be stored onboard in liquid or gas form, or they may be generated on demand through electrochemical processes.

Chemicals used in ballast water treatment can generally be classified into two major categories: oxidizing and non

- oxidizing. Oxidizing agents (e.g. chlorine, chlorine dioxid e, bromine, hydrogen peroxide, peroxyacetic acid, ozone) are commonly used in the wastewater treatment sector and work by destroying cell membranes and other organic structures ( National Research Council 1996, Faimali et al. 2006). Electrochemical
oxidatio n combines electrical currents with naturally occurring reactants in seawater and/or air (e.g. salt, oxygen) to produce killing agents. For example, electrochemical oxidation can produce products such as hydroxyl radicals, ozone or sodium hypochlorite
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 ( National R esearch Council 1996, Faimali et al. 2006).

The ultimate goal of chemicals is to maximize organism mortality while minimizing environmental impact. Environmental concerns surrounding chemical use in ballast water focus on the impacts of residuals or bypro ducts in treated discharge on receiving waters. The effective use of chemicals in ballast water treatment requires a balance between the amount of time required to achieve inactivation of organisms, with the time
needed for those chemicals and residuals to degrade or be neutralized to environmentally acceptable levels. Both of these times vary as a function of ballast32

water temperature, salinity, organic content and sediment load. As a result, certain chemicals may be more effective than others depending on ballast volume, voyage length, and water quality conditions. Additional concerns about chemical use specific to shipboard operation include corrosion of metals, personnel and ship safety, and vessel design limitations that impact the availability of spa ce onboard for both chemical storage and equipment for dosing.

Physical Treatment Physical treatment methods include a wide range of non

- chemical means to kill organisms present in ballast water. Like chemical treatment, physical treatment may
occur on b allast uptake, during vessel transit or during discharge.

Rigby et al. (1999, 2004) discuss the use of waste heat from the ship‟s main engine as a mechanism to heat ballast water and kill unwanted organisms during vessel transit. However, it would be dif ficult to heat ballast water to a sufficient temperature to kill all species of bacteria due to lack of sufficient energy/heat available on a vessel (Rigby et al. 1999, Rigby et al. 2004). An alternative approach to heat treatment involves the use
of micro waves (Balasubramanian et al. 2008). Currently such a treatment technology would be prohibitively expensive (up to $2.55/m 3 ), but additional research and development may reduce costs to acceptable levels (Boldor et al. 2008).

Ultraviolet (UV) irradiation is another physical method of sterilization that is commonly used in waste water treatment. UV damages genetic material and proteins, disrupting reproductive and physiological processes and can be highly effective against pathogens (Wright et al. 2006). B oth low

- pressure and medium

- pressure UV systems have been used to treat ballast water on vessels. The pairing of UV light and a catalyst (e.g. titanium dioxide) results in an advanced oxidative process that generates hydroxyl
radicals

- an effective killin g agent.

Additional methods of physical treatment include ultrasound, cavitation and deoxygenation. Ultrasound (ultrasonic treatment) kills through high frequency vibration33

that creates microscopic bubbles that rupture cell membranes (Viitasalo et al. 20 05). The efficacy of ultrasound varies based on the intensity of vibration and length of exposure. Cavitation is another physical treatment method that uses mechanical forces
to generate and collapse microsc opic bubbles that crush or implode organisms in
b allast water. Deoxygenation involves the displacement or “stripping” of oxygen with another inert gas such as nitrogen or carbon dioxide. This process is primarily physical in nature, although the addition of carbon dioxide may trigger a chemical response and result in a reduction in ballast water pH (Tamburri et al. 2006).

Biological Treatment By far, the least common method of ballast water treatment involves the use of biological organisms to directly kill or produce conditions that will kill organisms present
in ballast water. These treatment organisms are considered an “active substance” according to the IMO definition (IMO 2005). One example of biological treatment is the use of yeast to produce low

- oxygen (hypoxic) conditions in ballast tanks. In th is instance, yeast cells extract the available oxygen in the ballast water tank during cell replication (Bilkovski, R., pers. comm. 2008). The resultant hypoxic environment is toxic to the remaining organisms in the ballast tank. Vendors of biological trea tment systems will likely need to address how systems will meet the performance standards, as the organisms responsible for producing the desired killing effect on NIS may trigger non

compliance if detected at sufficient levels in the discharged ballast.

Combination Treatment The vast majority of ballast water treatment technologies kill organisms by combining mechanical, chemical, physical and/or biological treatment processes, and are categorized as “combination treatment” in this report. In combination treatment, any single treatment method may not be sufficient to treat the ballast water to required standards, but in combination the methods produce the desired result. For example, while filtration is rarely sufficient to remove organisms of all size cl asses from ballast water, and UV irradiation may be insufficient to deactivate dense clusters of organisms, paired together they may be an effective method of ballast water treatment. The most34

common combined treatment methods pair mechanical removal with physical or chemical process(es).

Treatment Systems Twenty

- eight treatment technologies were reviewed in the first technology assessment report to the California Legislature (see Dobroski et al. 2007), and 30 treatment systems were reviewed in 2009 (see Dobroski et al. 2009a). For this report, Commission staff compiled and reviewed information on 46 shipboard ballast water treatment systems from developers and vendors located in 16 countries (Table V

- 1).

Thirty

- four of the treatment systems reviewed he re utilize a combination of treatment methods, and 32 of those combine mechanical treatment with another treatment method(s). Aside from mechanical separation, the most common method used in ballast water treatment systems is chemical. Of the 46 systems re viewed, 28 use an active substance in the treatment process (Table V

- 1). Specifically:

13 systems use chlorine or the electro chemical generation of sodium hypochlorite
7 systems use ozone
3 use advanced oxidation or electro chemical processes that genera te an array of oxidants including bromine, chlorine, and/or hydroxyl radicals 1 system uses chlorine dioxide
1 uses ferrate
3 systems use other chemicals including a coagulant or biocides not identified at
this time

All of the systems that use active substances require IMO Basic and Final Approval prior to operating in compliance with the IMO Convention. These systems will also require additional scrutiny to ensure compliance with all applicable requirements of the
EPA Vessel General Permit.35

The next most commonly used method of ballast water treatment amongst the 48 systems reviewed is UV irradiation. Fifteen treatment systems use UV as a means to kill or deactivate organisms found in ballast water. All of these systems combine UV
treatment with filt ration and/or hydrocyclonic mechanical separation methods. Four of these systems have an additional treatment step involving another physical or chemical
process.

Only five systems use deoxygenation as a treatment method. Other approaches to
ballast water treatment include a heat treatment technology and one that uses electrical pulses to kill organisms (Table V

- 1).36

Table V

- 1. Ballast Water Treatment Systems Reviewed by Commission Staff

Manufacturer Country System Name Technology

Type Technology Descrip tion Approvals

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

Alfa Laval Sweden PureBallast combination filtration + advanced oxidation technology ( hydroxyl radicals) IMO Basic and Final
, Type Approval (Norway) Aquaworx ATC GmbH Germany AquaTriComb combination filtration + ultrasound + UV IMO Basic

atg UV Technology United Kingdom combination hydrocyclone + UV

ATLAS

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

Auramarine Ltd. Finland Crystal Ballast physical UV

- C irradiation

Brillyant Marine LLC USA physical electric pulse

Coldharbour Marine United Kingdom physical deoxygenation COSCO/Tsinghua University China Blue Ocean Shield combination hydrocyclon e + filtration + UV IMO Basic

DESMI Ocean Guard A/S Denmark DESMI Ocean Guard BWMS combination filtration + ozone + UV ( advanced oxidation process) IMO Basic

Ecochlor USA Ecochlor TM BWTS combination filtration + biocide (chlorine dioxide) IMO Basic, STEP 1

EcologiQ USA/Canada BallaClean biological deoxygenation

Electrichlor USA Model EL 1

- 3 B chemical electrolytic generation of sodium hypochlorite Environmental Technologies Inc

. (ETI) USA BWDTS combination ozone + sonic energy

Ferrate Treatment Technologies LLC USA Ferrator chemical biocide ( ferrate )

1 STEP Approval is an experimental use approval that applies to the combination of one vessel and one treatment system. While STEP enrollment includes a rigorous technical and environmental screening it is not a type approval process.37

Table V

- 1 (Continued)

. Ballast Water Treatment Systems Reviewed by Commission Staff

Manufacturer Country System Name Technology Type Technology

De scription Approvals

Hamann Evonik Degussa 2 Germany SEDNA combination hydrocyclone + filtration + biocide (Peraclean Ocean) IMO Basic and Final, Type Approval (Ger.) Hamworthy Greenship

Ltd. U

. K

. / Netherlands SEDINOX combination hydrocyclone + electrolytic chlorination IMO Basic and Final

Hi Tech Marine Australia SeaSafe

- 3 physical heat treatment New South Wales EPA Hitachi /Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Japan ClearBallast combination coagulation + magnetic separation + filtration IMO Basic and Final

Hyde M arine USA Hyde Guardian combination filtration + UV WA Conditional
, Type Approval (U.K.), STEP 1 Hyundai Heavy Industries Co. Ltd. (1) Korea EcoBallast combination filtration + UV IMO Basic and Final Hyundai Heavy Industries Co. Ltd. (2) Korea HiBallast combination filtration + electrochlorination + neutralizing agent IMO Basic
JFE Engineering Corp. / Toagosei Group Japan JFE

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

Kwang S an Co. Ltd. Korea En

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

MAHLE Industriefiltration

GmbH Germany Ocean Protection System (OPS) combination filtration + UV

MARENCO USA combination filtr ation + UV WA General Approval

Maritime Solutions Inc. USA combination filtration + UV

Mexel Industries France Mexel® chemical biocide

1 STEP Approval is an experimental use approval that applies to the combination of one vessel and one treatment sys tem. While STEP enrollment includes a rigorous technical and environmental screening it is not a type approval process. 2 The Hamann system wa s temporarily removed from the market due to toxicity concerns (effective 1/31/10)

.38

T able V

- 1 (Continued)

. Balla st Water Treatment Systems Reviewed by Commission Staff

Manufacturer Country System Name Technology Type Technology Description Approvals

MH Systems USA BW treatment system combination deoxygenation + carbonation

Mitsui Engineering Japan SP

- Hybrid BWMS Ozone combination filtration + mechanical treatment + ozone + neutralization IMO Basic

NEI USA Venturi Oxygen Stripping (VOS) combination d eoxygenation + cavitation Type Approval (Liberia) , STEP 1

NK Co. Ltd. Korea NK

- 03 BlueBallast System chemical ozon e + neutralization (thiosulfate) IMO Basic and Final, Type Approval (Korea)

ntorreiro Spain Ballastmar combination filtration + electrochlorination + neutralization (sodium metabisulphite)
Nutech 03 Inc. USA SCX 2000, Mark III chemical ozone

OceanSave r 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 Type Approval (Norway)

Panasia Co. L td Korea GloEn

- Patrol combination filtration + UV IMO Basic and Final, Type Approval (Korea)
Pinnacle Ozone Solutions USA Aquatic enhancement system combination filtration + ozone + UV
Qingdao Headway Tech Co. Ltd. China OceanGuard BWMS combination filt ration + electrocatalysis + ultrasound IMO Basic

Resource Ballast Technologies South Africa Unitor BWTS combination cavitation + ozone + sodium hypochlorite + filtration IMO Basic and Final RWO Marine Water Technology Germany CleanBallast combination fil tration + advanced electrolysis IMO Basic and Final
1 STEP Approval is an experimental use approval that applies to the combination of one vessel and one treatment system. While STEP enrollment includes a rigorous technical and environmental screening it is not a type approval process.39

T able V

- 1 (Continued)

. Ballast Water Treatment Systems Reviewed by Commission Staff

Manufacturer Country System Name Technology Type Technology Description Approvals

Severn Trent DeNora USA BalPure chemical filtration + e lectrolytic generation of sodium hypochlorite + neutralizing agent (sodium bisulfite) WA Conditional, IMO Basic, STEP 1

Siemens UK/USA/Ger. SiCure combination filtration + electrochlorination IMO Basic

Sunrui CFCC China BalClor combination filtration + el ectrochlorination + neutralizing agent (sodium thiosulfate) IMO Basic

Techcross Inc. Korea Electro

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

Wartsila Finland combinatio n filtration + UV

1 STEP Approval is an experimental use approval that applies to the combination of one vessel and one treatment system. While STEP enrollment includes a rigorous technical and environmental screening it is not a type approval process.40

V I. ASSESSMENT OF TREATM ENT SYSTEMS The Coastal Ecosystems Protection Act required the adoption of regulations to implement performance standards for the discharge of ballast water. Over 80% of voyages to California ports report that they do not discharge b allast into California waters (Falkner et al. 2007). These vessels can comply with the performance standards simply by retaining all ballast onboard while in California waters . Vessels that do discharge but use nontraditional sources for ballast water (suc h as freshwater from a municipal source) will likely meet the discharge standards without needing to use ballast water treatment systems. Alternatively, vessels may discharge to barge

- or land

- based reception and treatment facilities. Vessels that utilize riverine, estuarine, coastal or ocean water as ballast, however, will require ballast treatment prior to discharge. For these vessels, this assessment of treatment system efficacy, availability, and environmental impacts (as required by PRC Section 71205.3 (b)) is necessary to understand if systems will be available prior to the implementation of performance standards for newly built vessels with a ballast water capacity greater than 5000 MT in
2012.

Efficacy Treatment system performance (i.e. efficacy) c an be defined as the extent to which a system removes or kills organisms in ballast water. For this report, Commission staff‟s specific focus is on ability of available treatment systems to meet or exceed California‟s performance standards for the discharg e of ballast water (see Table III

- 1 for performance standards) for newly built vessels with a ballast water capacity greater
than 5000 MT.

Previous reviews of treatment system efficacy (Dobroski et al. 2007, 2009a) faced several challenges. First and for emost, for many systems the lack of available data precluded any form of efficacy assessment. For systems with data available, inconsistent testing methodologies among systems, and occasionally between tests of a single system, made comparison of data near ly impossible. Results varied in scale41

( bench

- top (i.e. laboratory) vs. pilot vs. full

- scale) and location (dockside vs. shipboard), and until recently, were often presented in metrics incompa rable with California‟s standards (e.g. as percent reduction ins tead of concentration of organisms).

An additional challenge when evaluating the available data has been the wide range of
data sources

. For some systems , data ha ve been provided by vendor s in brochures, on the web, or in vendor

- authored reports
, that h ave not been evaluated by independent
third

- parties. Recently, staff has seen a surge in the availability of performance verification data gathered by independent, scientific testing organizations. These independent reports generally provide the most robus t, comprehensive review of system performance and environmental acceptability. However, variability remains
among scientific testing organizations in terms of the types of analytical and statistical
tests in use and methods of data presentation. Commission staff are working with vendors and testing organizations to encourage the standardization of data analysis and presentation.

For this assessment, Commission staff are providing the California Legislature and
interested stakeholders with all available sou rces of information on treatment technology development and operation, including both vendor

- supplied and third

- party data from all testing scales and locations (lab

- based, land

- based and shipboard). In all instances, citations are provided for the origina l source of the data (Table VI

- 1 and Appendix A). This information is presented so that interested parties can review and
evaluate all of the available data and data sources in order to make an informed decision about whether a treatment system may or may not be sufficient for their needs

.

Commission staff were able to collect efficacy data on 27 of the 46 treatment systems reviewed in this report (Table s VI

- 1 and VI

- 3 , Appendix A). As a reference for stakeholders, laboratory dat a on system performance is summarized in Appendix A

. With the exception of the evaluation of system performance for inactivating Vibrio
cholerae
, laboratory data is not used for evaluation purposes in this report because of the large difference in scale between the lab oratory and land

- based and shipboard42

investigations. Six systems have only laboratory data available for review. The remaining twenty

- on e systems have been assessed for potential compliance with
California‟s standards using large scale land

- based and /or shipboard data

.

N o available dataset on treatment system performance can represent the efficacy of that system on all vessel types or under all possible voyage conditions. Many systems have not yet undergone full

- scale shipboard testing (see Appendix A for breakdown of data by type of testing facility) , the number of tests performed varies from system to system, and those that have been tested on vessels may have only been assessed on one ship or one type of ship under limited testing scenarios. Water condition variabl es, such as salinity level, turbidity, and temperature can affect the ability of a system to kill organisms. Some systems require minimum ballast water “holding times” for optimal performance, while others appear to perform poorly on extended voyages. Th e density or diversity (types) of organisms found at the ballast uptake location can also affect system performance. In essence, a system that fails to meet California‟s standards under one scenario (e.g. short voyage duration) may meet the standards per fectly well under a different one (e.g. longer voyage duration). The reverse situation may also be
true

.

Because of the limitations of testing data and the variable conditions present in the “real world,” t his report examines treatment system performance data to determine whether or not systems have demonstrated the potential to comply with California‟s performance standards. Commission staff do not have the practical ability to test and approve treatment systems for operation in California waters. Positi ve assessment for the purpose of this report does not guarantee system compliance when operated in
California waters , nor does the report suggest or imply system approval . Vessel owners and operators should consult extensively with treatment system vendors to ensure that thorough system verification work has been conducted, and that the system is appropriate for the type and behavior of the vessel in question under normal ballasting conditions. Ultimately vessel owners/operators are responsible for complyin g with California‟s performance standards for the discharge of ballast water.43

Staff considered the best available data and methods for assessing organism concentration and viability for each of the organism size classes in California‟s
standards (see Tabl e III

- 1)

. The latest data have generally been presented according to organism size class, however, some older data
, not updated since previous report s , have been presented by organism type (i.e. zooplankton, phytoplankton). In an effort to
standardize res ults among reports , staff evaluated data on zooplankton abundance as representative of the largest size class of organisms (greater than 50 μm in size), and phytoplankton abundance was evaluated on par with organisms in the 10

– 50 μm size
class. While the se substitutions are not accurate in all instances (e.g. zooplankton species may be less than 50 μm in size), they were used solely for the purpose of this report and are not applicable to vessel compliance verifications.

R ecent discussion s over the impl ementation of the IMO and proposed federal standards
have focused on whether or not methods and/or protocols exist to assess compliance
with more stringent standards

– such as California‟s standards. Specific concerns have
focused on the volume of water ne cessary to assess compliance with the standards for organisms greater than 50 μm in size. California‟s standards for organisms greater 50
μm is defined as “nondetectable
, ” and does not define a specific volumetric
concentration

. Many outside parties have r easoned that the volumes of ballast water required to determine compliance with this standard are not verifiabl e and too large to be practical for shipboard compliance verification

. However, it is important to note that
, unlike the IMO standard for the sam e size class, the standard for California is unitless.
Where as IMO defines its standard for organisms greater than 50 microns as less than
10 per cubic meter

, California‟s standard does not set forth a volume requirement.
Therefore compliance and performan ce testing for this size class could occur with any
volume of water , especially volumes that are realistic under shipboard operation

. For the other organism classes, volumes specified in California‟s standards are not at issue.
Commission staff are current ly developing protocols to assess vessel compliance with California‟s standards (see Section IX Looking Forward). These protocols will address
ballast water sample volumes and take into account both scientific rigor and practicality for shipboard inspectio n.44

One challenge associated with the assessment of the bacteria and virus standards is
that m ethods exist to quantify bacteria and viruses (or virus

- like particles) in a sample of ballast water, however, no techniques are available to assess the viability of all bacteria and viruses, as is required by the California performance standards (see Dobroski et al.
2009 a , Appendix A1 for discussions on this topic). To assess compliance with the bacterial standard, Commission staff used a representative group of or ganisms (culturable, aerobic, heterotrophic bacteria

– hereafter culturable heterotrophic bacteria)
to quantify potential compliance with the bacterial standard . Culturable heterotrophic bacteria were selected as a representative for the total bacterial co ncentration because, unlike total bacteria, there are reliable, widely

- accepted standard methods to both enumerate and assess viability of these organisms.

Culturable heterotrophic bacteria are a well

- studied group of bacteria, and research is being cond ucted to examine the relationship between their populations and the larger pool of bacterial species (Dobbs, F., pers. comm. 2008). Staff examined the ability of treatment system to reduce culturable heterotrophic bacteria to levels within the
California s tandard of 1000 bacteria (in this case expressed as colony

- forming units (CFU)) per 100 ml of ballast water. At an advisory panel meeting in 2008, panel members debated whether the culturable heterotrophic bacteria

– a subset of all bacteria species

- shou ld be held to a different standard than that written in the law (see
Dobroski et al. 2009 a, Appendix C for discussion). Because culturable heterotrophic bacteria represent only a portion of the total population of bacteria (Giovannoni et al. 2007) , it was argued that they should be held to a standard in proportion to their relative
abundance in nature (for example if heterotrophic bacteria represent 10% of the total population of bacteria, the standard for assessment using this proxy group might be
more app ropriate if set at 10% of 1000/100 ml or 100 CFU/100 ml). However, this approach to setting a standard requires the selection of a uniform method to culture and quantify bacteria in order to assess the percent of culturable bacteria relative to the total
p opulation of all bacteria . Based on techniques available in 1990, culturable bacteria represented 1/10,000 th of the total bacterial community present in seawater (Giovannoni et al. 2007). Newer techniques have allowed scientist to culture anywhere from two to45

sixty percent of bacterial cells in a given water body (Giovannoni et al. 2007). U ntil such time that a scientific authority clearly establishes the percent composition of culturable heterotrophic bacteria in marine or freshwater , Commission staff will continue to analyze all data using best available techniques and the numerical standard found in the law.

Analysis of viruses remains challenging at this time. While several representative organisms exists for viruses, their relationship to the greater population of all viral species is more tenuous than for bacteria (confer Culley and Suttle 2007). For the purposes of this analysis, Commission staff believes that no widely accepted technique is available to quantify or reliably estimate virus concentrat ions, and thus systems were not evaluated for compliance with the viral standard. Staff will continue to monitor the development of new assessment techniques for all organism size classes and incorporate them into future technology assessment reports.

Ta king into account the limitations of the available data , staff determined the potential for treatment systems to comply with California‟s performance standards using two approaches . The first assessment approach , presented in Table VI

- 1, provides a broad

r eview of the data on system performance from both land

- based and shipboard testing.
The second assessment approach , presented in Table VI

- 3, takes a closer look at the performance, specifically the success rate of those systems at demonstrating potential
t o meet California‟s standards

.

In the first broad

- scale assessment (presented in Table VI

- 1 )
, staff accepted one test (averaged across replicates) with data less than the standard as indicative of a system‟s potential to comply with that standard. While this criteri on is optimistic, it does highlight the rapid and encouraging development of treatment technologies. This approach is slightly more stringent than that taken in previous reports (Dobroski et al. 2007, 2009a) when systems were only required to m eet the standard in one test replicate in order to demonstrate potential compliance. Because of this change in approach, and because laboratory data is no longer included in this analysis , readers should be cautioned46

against comparing the results in Table VI

- 1 in this report with table(s) in previous reports.

S ystems with at least one test (averaged across replicates) at either land

- based or shipboard scale in compliance with the performance standard are scored with a “Y” for having demonstrated the poten tial to comply with California‟s standards (Table VI

- 1)

. Efficacy data with no tests demonstrating potential compliance with the standards are scored with a “N.” Systems that presented data for a given size class in metrics not comparable to the standards (e.g. as percent reduction instead of organism concentration) are classified as “Unknown.” Cells with hashing indicate lack of available
data . The source(s) of the data for each system can be found in the Literature Cited section. See Appendix A for all la boratory data and for specifics about land

- based and shipboard testing including number of tests and replicates for each system.47 Table VI

- 1. Summary of systems with available results for assessment of efficacy S ystems with at least one land

- based or shi pboard test (averaged across replicates) in compliance with the performance standards are denoted by a “Y

. ”Non

compliance is denoted by a “N,” and those systems with data in metrics not directly comparable to the performance standards were designated as “ U nknown.” A cell with hashing indicates that no data was available. Information about systems having only lab

- scale data is provided in Appendix A.48 Table VI

- 1 (contined)

. Summary of systems with available results for assessment of efficacy S ystems with at least one land

- based or shipboard test (averaged across replicates) in compliance with the performance standards are denoted by a “Y

. ”Non

compliance is denoted by a “N,” and those systems with data in metrics not directly comparable to the performance s tandards were designated as “ U nknown.” A cell with hashing indicates that no data was available. Information about systems having only lab

- scale data is provided in Appendix A.49

Twenty

- one treatment system s were reviewed for potential compliance with Ca lifornia‟s performance standards (Table VI

- 1). One system , produced by Hamann Evonick Degussa, was pulled from the market in January of 2010 due to toxicity concerns (see de Lafontaine et al. 2008, 2009 for toxicity data)

. The system‟s performance data a nd
references are included in T ables VI

- 1 , VI

- 3, VI

- 5 and VI

- 6 of this report for readers to examine. However, because it is currently not a practical option for installation on
vessels
, it is excluded from narratives and other tables that summarize the p otential (efficacy) and availability of systems to meet California‟s standards.

In the largest organism size class (organisms greater than 50 μm in size)
, land

- based or shipboard data was available for 20 systems, and 15 demonstrated the potential, in at
least one test (averaged across replicates) , to meet the required standard of no detectable living organisms in discharged ballast water (Table VI

- 2 , Appendix A1). In
the 10

– 50 μm size class, 21 systems were reviewed and 10 systems had at least one
test that indicated compliance with the standard of less than 0.01 living organisms per
ml (Appendix A2)

.

Table VI

- 2

. Summary of p otential t reatment s ystem p erformance ( l and

- based and/or
s hipboard) with r espect to C alifornia p erformance s tandards

Organism s Greater than 50 Organisms

10

– 50 Organisms

less than 10 (bacteria) 1 Escherichia

coli Intestinal

enterococci Vibrio

cholerae

Total # Systems with Data Available 2 20 21 19 18 17 17

Number Systems with Potential to Meet Standard 3 15 10 13 16 14 15

1 Bacteria examined using culturable heterotrophic bacteria

. 2 Of out of the 46 total systems assessed in this report, only 27 had testing results available for review, and 21 of those provided results of land

- based and/or shipboard testing. Not all 21 cov ered 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 test (averaged across replicates) demonstra ting the potential to comply with the California performance standard (see Table III

- 1 for standards).50

The results of analyses for human health indicator species ( Escherichia coli , intestinal
enterococci and Vibrio cholerae ) and organisms less than 10 μm (bacteria) are encouraging (see Table VI

- 2 , Appendi ces A 3

- A6 ) . Most treatment systems are succeeding in killing human health indicator species. Eighteen systems provided results
of E. coli concentration in treated ballast water (Appendix A3), and 16 demon strated potential compliance. Seventeen systems tested for the presence of intestinal enterococci, and fourteen systems demonstrated potential compliance. (Appendix A4 ).

T he low, and sometimes non

- detectable, natural concentration of Vibrio cholerae in

c oastal waters makes it difficult to adequately assess system performance at eliminating this species. In land

- based and shipboard data examined for this evaluation, the ambient pre

- treatment concentrations of Vibrio cholerae were frequently so low they

co uld not be detected, or were not reported (see foot note 4 in Table VI

- 1) . In such cases, post

- treatment data did not necessarily demonstrate a system‟s ability or inability
to kill the microbe. Those systems that conducted laboratory analysis for Vibrio c holerae
examined the efficacy of system s at treating live cultures (spiked concentrations) of
Vibrio that would otherwise not be naturally present in waters used for land

- based or shipboard testing

. S uch laboratory data provide s as much , if not more insig ht in to systems‟ ability to kill Vibrio as does data from land

- based or shipboard tests

. Thus, the
evaluation of Vibrio data here included results from two laboratory studies (as noted in
Table VI

- 1 and Appendix A5 ). Seventeen systems examined treated bal last water for toxicogenic Vibrio cholera e , and fifteen systems demonstrated potential compliance with the California performance standard (Appendix A5).

Lastly, available data was analyzed for compliance with the bacterial standard of 1000
bacteria or C FU per 100 ml (Table VI

- 1 , Appendix A6 ). Nineteen systems analyzed system performance at treating culturable heterotrophic bacteria, and 13 demonstrated potential compliance with the standard. As described earlier in this section, m ethods are
not available to assess compliance with the viral standard at this time.51

Based on this first assessment approach
, eight ballast water treatment systems have
demonstrated the potential to comply with California‟s performance standards. These systems are Alfa Laval, Eco chlor, Hamworthy Greenship, Hyde Marine, OceanSaver, OptiMarin, Quingdao Headway Tech. , and Techcross Inc. These eight systems have at least one test (averaged across replicates) that can meet each of California‟s performance standards, excluding the vira l standard. Though data for the Hamann Evonik Degussa system also demonstrate the potential to meet California‟s performance standards using this first assessment approach, the system was pulled from the market in early 2010 and is currently not a viable o ption for use on ships.

Passage of a single land

- based or ship board test may not be sufficient as a sole
indicat or for which systems will or will not comply with California‟s standards when operated under the variable conditions present on vessels

. This analysis does, however, provide a good summary of the development status of treatment systems, and this information should be used by stakeholders to further investigate treatment systems that may comply with California‟s performance standards. 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 Californi a‟s performance standards for the discharge of ball ast 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 cond itions.

A second , more rigorous assessment approach takes a closer look at the performance
rates of those systems with available land

- based and shipboard data (Table VI

- 3)

. The assessment presents the available data in fraction form, with the number of t ests that demonstrated potential compliance with California‟s standards in the numerator, and the
total number of tests in the denominator. This more detailed presentation provides the opportunity to discriminate between systems that have demonstrated high er rates of potential compliance versus those that may need to undergo additional testing or development to consistently meet California‟s performance standards.52 Table VI

- 3. Detailed a nalysis of s ystem p erformance at l and

- b ased (Land) and s hipboard (Ship) t esting s cales. Data presented as number of tests that have demonstrated potential to meet standard/total number tests conducted. References for each system are listed in Tabl e VI

- 1.

>50 10

- 50 <10 (bacteria) E. coli Enterococci Vibrio Land Ship Lan d Ship Land Ship Land Ship Land Ship Land Ship Alfa Laval 8 / 1 0 1/4 3/ 1 0 1/ 4 0/8 2/2 1 0 / 1 0 4*/4 1 0 / 1 0 4*/4 10*/10 4*/4
Auramarine 4/6

-- 0/ 7

-- 0/ 2

-- 1 * /1

-- 1/1

-- 1*/1
Ecochlor 8/15 1/1 1 9/11 1/1 1 8/11 1/1 1 10/ 1 0 1/1 1 11/11

-- ( 1/1 lab ) Unk
ETI 0/ 3

-- 0/3

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- Hamann

2 16/19 4/5 17/18 0/5 1/13 3/4 12/12 4*/4 12/12 4*/4 1*/1

-- Hamworthy 5/5

-- 3/5

-- 2/5

-- 5 * /5

-- 5 * /5

-- (2/3 lab )
Hi Tech

-- 0/2

-- Unk 5/6

-- 6/6

-- -- -- -- -- Hyde 1/10 3/3 0/10 1/3 5/10 3/3 10*/10 3*/3 10*/1 0 3 */3

-- 3*/3
MARENCO 3/4

-- 0/1

-- 2/3

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- MSI 0/5

-- 0/5

-- 3/5

-- 5/5

-- 5/5

-- 5*/5

-- Mitsui 0/4 0/1 Unk Unk Unk Unk Unk

-- Unk

-- Unk

-- NEI 1/5 1/ 2 0/1 Unk 0/ 2 0/ 2 0/1 2*/2 0/ 1 Unk

-- 2* / 2
Nutech 0 /3 2/3 0/2 0/3 3/3 2/2

-- 3*/ 3

-- 3*/3

-- 3*/3
OceanSaver 2/14 1/3 5 /14 0/2,Unk 5 /5

-- 14 * /14 3*/3 9 * /14 3*/3 14*/14 3*/3 OptiMarin 8/ 1 2 0/ 8 6/ 1 2 2/8 2 /1 2

-- 12 * /12 8 * /8 12 * /12 8 * /8 12 * /12 8 * /8 Qingdao 4/ 1 3 3/3 8/ 1 3 3/3 9 / 1 3 3/3 1 3* / 1 3 3 * /3 1 3* /1 3 3 * /3 1 3* /1 3 3 * /3
RBT 3 /3 0 /2 0/3 0 /2

-- -- 3/3 2*/2

-- 2/2 3*/3 2*/2
RWO 2/2

-- 1/2

-- -- -- 2/2

-- 2/2

-- 2/2

-- Severn Trent 3/ 5 1

-- 2/ 5 1

-- 4/ 4 1

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- Siemens 0/3

-- 0/3

-- 0/3

-- 3/3

-- 3/3

-- 3*/3

-- Techcross 8/11 3/3 9/11 3/3 4/4 Unk 10 * /10 3*/3 11*/11 2*/2 11*/1 1 3*/3
* Concentration at intake was zero, non

- detectable or unknown. 1 Vendor has added a filter since system testing was conducted. 2 The Hamann system was removed from the market (effective 1/31/10)

.53

The data presented in Table VI

- 3 are highly variabl e . Some systems reliably meet the standards during land

- based testing, but fail to do so during shipboard testing. The
reverse is also true. Others have demonstrated the potential to meet the standards in 100% of tests, but have only undergone one or two t ests. As described earlier, m uch of the performance data for human health indicator species was collected when the initial
pre
- treatment concentration of microbes , particularly Vibrio cholerae
, was zero, non
detectable or unknown. The IMO G8 Guidelines do not require testing organization s to “spike” testing water with microbes due to safety concerns. Testing can proceed in the absence of natural populations of these species. However, the conclusions drawn from
these tests may be of questionable value becaus e they do not demonstrate how effectively a system may eliminate such microbes under detectable concentration
conditions. Conversely, data from laboratory tests that spike water with microbes before treatment provide valuable insight to the efficacy of sy stems to kill bacteria, E.
coli
, intestinal e nterococci, and/or Vibrio cholerae

.

In order to determine if systems are available to meet California standards on a consistent basis, Commission staff reviewed the data (Table VI

- 3) for systems that have

con ducted three or more tests per standard (land

- based or shipboard) and have demonstrated the potential to meet each of the CA standards at least 50% of the time.
Two treatment systems

– Qingdao Headway Tech. and Techcross

- meet these more rigorous criteria

. Qingdao demonstrated the potential to meet California‟s standards in all shipboard tests (see Table VI

- 3) , and Techcross demonstrated the potential to meet California‟s standards more than 70% of the time for all land

- based tests. One additional system

– Ecochlor

– met the standard over 50% of the time for all organism classes during land

- based testing , but was only tested once for Vibrio cholerae in the laboratory

. Though this does not meet the more rigorous criteria of three tests or more, the
laborato ry test did involve evaluating system efficacy under spiked concentrations of
Vibrio above levels present in the pre

- treatment tests of other systems. As noted earlier, such laboratory testing provides as much, if not more insight in to a system‟s ability to kill Vibrio as does data from land

- based or shipboard tests. Thus, the54

Commission believes Ecochlor system also shows potential to meet California‟s
standard s under this more rigorous assessment

.

Overall, this review of system performance indicates that progress is being made in the development of treatment systems to meet California‟s performance standards for the discharge of ballast water. Eight systems have demonstrated the potential (in at least one test) to meet California‟s performance standa rds (Table VI

- 1)

. A more stringent review indicates that two systems have demonstrated the potential to meet California‟s standards greater than 70% of the time over multiple tests . A third system meets all but
the Vibrio standard greater than 50% of the time over multiple tests

. However, t hat system did met the Vibrio standard in a single laboratory test using spiked
concentrations of the bacteria above the pre
- treatment levels present in land

- based or shipboard tests of nearly all other systems. Thus, this third system also shows potential
to meet California‟s standard using the more stringent assessment approach

. No system has yet met California‟s standards 100% of the time for both land

- based and shipboard testing. As noted repeatedly throughout this document, evaluations in this report do not constitute endorsement, approval, or guarantee that a ballast water treatment system will meet California‟s standards for all vessels and all scenarios

.

Commission staff have consulted with the vendors of system s that have demonstrated the potential to comply with California‟s standards , and at this time, two vendors (Ecochlor and Qingdao Headway Tech. ) , are willing to self

- certify that their systems will
meet California‟s standards. California does not require t his certification for operation in California waters, but this certification may help assuage some concerns by vessel owners/operators about the availability of systems for use. Ultimately, however, v essel owners/operators must closely scrutinize the avail able data to ensure that systems will meet California‟s standards on a regular basis given the configuration of the vessel, piping/water flow requirements, normal transit routes and water quality conditions.55

Availability Many factors play into system a vailability including industry demand (i.e. how many ships need to buy systems) and commercial availability (i.e. are there enough systems being sold to meet industry demand). Of the eight systems that demonstrated the potential to meet California‟s standa rds, all eight are commercially available at this time (see Lloyd‟s Register 2010 )

. As noted in the efficacy section, the Hamann Evonik Degussa system was pulled from the market in 2010 due to toxicity concerns . It is more difficult to gauge how many vesse ls with a ballast water capacity greater than 5000 metric tons will be built that will need to purchase systems for the implementation of the standards in 2012. As shown in Figure VI

- 1, the majority the vessels calling on California ports have a total ball ast water capacity of greater than 5000 MT.

Figure VI

- 1

. Number of unique vessels that arrived to California ports between January, 2000 and March, 2010 as a function of ballast water capacity (MT).

Between January 2000 and March 2010, 6353 unique ves sels with a ballast water capacity greater than 5000 MT arrived at California ports (Figure VI

- 1). Presuming a56

20

- year vessel replacement cycle (Reynolds, K., pers. comm. 20 10 ) , approximately 5% (=318) of these 6353 vessels may be replaced by new vessels and be required to meet the performance standards in 2012. As only 20% of vessels, on average, discharge ballast in California waters (Falkner et al. 2007), an even smaller number of vessels (~ 64) will likely require treatment system usage. Distributed am ong the eight treatment systems that have demonstrated the potential to comply with California‟s performance standards and are commercially available, that equates to about eight systems per treatment vendor. That number would certainly fall within treatme nt system manufacturing capabilities. For example, Alfa Laval sold over thirty treatment systems in the last year (Marinelink 2010). However, caution should be made in interpreting these
statistics
, as the number of vessels in production and visiting Calif ornia waters may vary based on economic conditions, and not all treatment systems are equally appropriate
for all vessels.

System support is as importa nt as commercial availability. Following installation, system developers will need to have personnel an d infrastructure in place to troubleshoot and fix problems that arise during system operation. Maritime trade is a global industry, and vessel operators will need to have global support for onboard machinery. The Lloyd‟s Register (2010) report does not add ress the issue of after

- purchase support of systems. The initial influx of systems into the marketplace will no doubt challenge developers to provide adequate service. Larger companies entrenched in the maritime logistics or equipment industries may alread y be prepared to respond to technological challenges and emergencies as they arise, but smaller ballast water treatment vendors may face an initial period to ramp

- up service and access to replacement parts. Vendors claim that
service will be available worl dwide. Only time will tell, however, how well existing support networks can deal with this influx of new machinery, and if system support
service s will be adequate as California‟s performance standards are implemented for vessels with a ballast water capac ity greater than 5000 MT in 201 2

.

While commercial availability and industry demand are two important components of this assessment of availability, the specific purpose of this report is to assess the57

availability of ballast water treatment systems for newly built vessels with a ballast water capacity greater than 5000 metric tons. The 2009 technology assessment report (see
Dobroski et al. 2009 a ) did not specifically address the capacity of systems to treat large
volumes of water

– as will be necessary f or this upcoming largest size class of vessels.

Systems must be able to treat all ballast on a vessel prior to discharge. For systems that treat on uptake and/or discharge

- which includes all of the systems that have demonstrated the potential to meet C alifornia‟s standards (Table VI

- 4 )

– the total volumetric capacity of the vessel is not the determining factor . Instead, the treatment system must be able to keep pace with the flow rate of the vessel‟s ballast water pumps. Commission staff analyzed data o n the number of ballast water pumps and the maximum pump rates for the fleet of vessels that call on California ports. It is difficult to pinpoint an average system treatment rate necessary for these vessels because, depending on a vessel‟s piping configur ation, a vessel may need one system per pump or one system to treat water coming in or out from all pumps. Figures VI

- 2 and VI

- 3 illustrate the range of ballast water pump rates on vessels with a ballast water capacity of greater than 5000 MT that operate in California waters. The figures include both vessels that have discharged and have not discharged ballast in California waters, because all vessels have the potential to discharge ballast at some point either due to cargo operations or safety concerns. F igure VI

- 2 shows the maximum single pump rate per vessel, and Figure VI

- 3 shows the maximum combined pump rate per vessel.58

Table VI

- 4. System Capacity and Timing of Treatment for Systems that Have Demonstrated Potential to Meet California‟s Per formance Standards
System Manufacturer Timing of Treatment Maximum System Capacity
Alfa Laval Uptake and Discharge 2500 m 3 /h Ecochlor ** Uptake Unlimited (>13000 m 3 /h) Hamworthy Greenship Uptake 1 000 m 3 /h per pump Hyde Marine Uptake and Discharge 6000 m 3 /h OceanSaver Uptake Unlimited (>6000 m 3 /h) OptiMarin Uptake and Discharge 3000 m 3 /h Qingdao Headway Tech

. ** Uptake and Discharge 4500 m 3 /h

Techcross ** Uptake and Discharge Unlimited (>5000 m3/h ) **Demonstrated potential to meet California‟s standar ds under more rigorous evaluation criteria: Showed potential m ore than 50% of the time in 3 or more tests

.

Figure VI

- 2. Histogram of number of vessels with a total ballast water capacity greater than 5000 MT that have visited California ports and thei r maximum ballast water pump rate for any single pump (m 3 /h)

.59

Figure VI

- 3. Histogram of number of vessels with a total ballast water capacity greater than 5000 MT that have visited California ports and their maximum combined ballast water pump rates (m 3 /h)

.
Taking into account both single and combined pump rates, the majority of vessels operating in California waters will need treatment systems that operate at rates between
250 and 3 000 m 3 /h. A closer look at vessel pump rates reveals that treatment s ystems
with a maximum rate of 2000 m 3 /h will accommodate over 80 % of those vessels with a ballast water capacity of greater than 5000 MT that operate in C alifornia waters. Based on vendor supplied data ( Table VI

- 4 ), seven of the treatment systems that hav e demonstrated the potential to meet California‟s performance standards are commercially available and are able to treat ballast water at a rate of 2 000 m 3 /h. All three of the systems that show potential for meeting the standards under the more rigorous co nsistency criteria can accommodate much higher pump rates of 4500 m 3 /h

or more. Many systems are modular
, and vendors note that systems can be combined
to accommodate a wide variety of flow rates. Therefore vessel owners and operators60

should consult with t reatment vendors to determine if system s are available to treat the appropriate flow rates given the piping and tank configurations of each vessel.

For systems that do not treat on uptake and/or discharge, total ballast water capacity, and not ballast pu mp flow rate, is the determining factor for system size. Of the 46 systems reviewed in this report, only six treat ballast in

- tank during the voyage (see Lloyd‟s Register ( 2010 ) for additional information on timing of treatment) , and none of these systems have demonstrated the potential to meet California standards. At this
time there is insufficient information available to evaluate whether or not these systems will be able to accommodate the range of ballast water capacities of vessels operating
in Califo rnia waters. As these systems undergo additional testing, Commission staff will gather information in order to assess the ability of these systems to treat the largest size class of vessels operating in California waters.

Environmental Regulation and Impa ct Assessment An effective ballast water treatment system must consistently comply with both performance standards for the discharge of ballast water and applicable environmental safety and water quality laws
, regulations and permits . The discharge of tre ated ballast should not impair water quality so it impacts the beneficial uses of the State‟s receiving waters (e.g. recreation, fisheries, fish/wildlife habitat). The IMO, federal government and individual states have developed 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 substa nce constituents from all levels of government (international, federal, state) in the assessment of environmental risk from the 46 treatment systems reviewed here.

International As discussed in Section III (Regulatory Overview), the IMO has established a n approval process through Guideline G9 for treatment technologies using active substances (i.e. chemicals) to ensure systems are safe for the environment, ship, and personnel. The61

two

- step process is comprised of an initial “Basic Approval” utilizing labo ratory test results to demonstrate basic environmental safety, followed by “Final Approval” based upon evaluation of the environmental integrity of the full

- scale system. Guideline G9 of the Convention requires applicants to provide information identifyin g: 1) Chemical structure and description of the active substance and relevant chemical byproducts; 2) Results of testing for persistence (environmental half

- life), bioaccumulation, and acute and chronic aquatic toxicity effects of the active substance

on a quatic plants, invertebrates, fish, and mammals; and 3) An assessment report that addresses the quality of the tests results and a characterization of risk ( MEPC 2008f ). Systems that apply for Basic and Final Approval are reviewed by the IMO Joint Group of Experts on the Scientific Aspects of Marine Environmental Protection (GESAMP)

– Ballast Water Working Group (BWWG) in accordance with the procedures detailed in Guideline G9. The Guideline does not address system efficacy, only environmental safety ( MEPC 2008f ).

Federal
Outside of the USCG‟s Shipboard Technology Evaluation Program (STEP), ballast water treatment systems are not currently approved for use in compliance with federal ballast water management requirements. Consequently, there is no formal

e nvironmental impacts assessment process (like that of IMO) for ballast water treatment systems at the federal level. EPA, however, recognizes that ballast water treatment systems will be used both experimentally at the federal level and in compliance with state ballast water management requirements, and has therefore included provisions in the VGP for discharges from vessels employing ballast water treatment systems.

The effluent limits and best management practices described in the VGP are specific to
th ose treatment systems that make use of biocides. Under the permit, all biocides that meet the definition of a “pesticide” under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA; 7 U.S. Code § 136 et seq .) must be registered for use with the
E PA. Biocides generated onboard a vessel solely through the use of a “device” (as defined under FIFRA) do not require registration. Additionally, the permit sets a limit for62

Total Residual Chlorine ( TRC; instantaneous maximum = 100 μg/l) in ballast water
di scharge, and states that discharges of other biocides or residuals must not “exceed acute water quality criteria as listed in EPA‟s 1986 Quality Criteria for Water [the Gold Book], or any subsequent revisions” (EPA 2008). Systems that use biocides or produ ce derivatives which lack applicable EPA Water Quality Criteria must conduct Whole Effluent Toxicity testing to determine chronic toxicity levels. Systems that do not meet the Water Quality Criteria or chronic toxicity limits may be required to cease disch arging and must apply for coverage under an individual NPDES permit.

Vessels participating in the STEP must comply with the VGP and additionally conform to the environmental compliance requirements associated with STEP participation including: 1) Complian ce with the National Environmental Policy Act process; 2) Due diligence by the applicant in providing requested biological and ecological information and obtaining necessary permits from regulatory agencies; and 3) A provision that systems found to have an adverse impact on the environment or present a risk to the vessel or human health will be withdrawn from the program (USCG 2006).

States As discussed in Section III, several states established ballast water management programs and performance standards requirements through the Section 401 certification of the Vessel General Permit. This certification also provided states a mechanism to set water quality criteria for ballast water discharges. Chlorine was a toxicant of concern for many states, particularl y those located on the Great Lakes. Several states chose to establish limits for Total Residual Chlorine (TRC) in ballast discharges that were substantially more stringent than the limit established by the VGP (= 100 μg/l). Massachusetts, for example, set a TRC limit of 10 μg/l in discharges from experimental treatment systems. Several states also established conditions requiring evaluation of acute and chronic impacts from treated discharges.63

State of Washington The State of Washington‟s evaluation of e nvironmental impacts from the discharge of treated ballast water has proved an invaluable resource to Commission staff. The Washington State Department of Ecology developed a framework for “ Establishing the Environmental Safety of Ballast Water Biocides” i n 2003
, and revised it in 2008 to be included as Appendix H in the Laboratory Guidance and Whole Effluent Toxicity Test
Review Criteria manual (Washington State Department of Ecology 2008, available at http://www.ecy.wa.gov/pubs/9580.pdf ). Thus far, three systems have completed toxicity testing in accordance with Washington requirements (Table VI

- 5 ).

The tests used in the Washington State framework for evaluating ballast water biocides
include EPA

- approved acute and sensitive life stage toxicity tests on i nvertebrate, fish and algal species. One ISO test on growth inhibition of a marine diatom is also required in order to be consistent with international testing requirements. If treated ballast water might be discharged more than once in the same location d uring a week or in sensitive marine areas in the state, then EPA chronic tests or Washington State tests using Pacific herring may also be required to determine the biocide environmental safety. The results of the toxicity testing are used to set system discharge conditions such as maximum concentration or minimum degradation time (Washington State Department of Ecology 2008).

California California does not have a formal environmental impact evaluation process for the discharge of ballast water that has undergone treatment. Vessels that discharge in California waters must comply with the applicable provisions of the EPA‟s VGP including any California

- specific conditions added by the State Water Resources Control Board through the Section 401 c ertificatio n process. California‟s Section 401

c ertification requires that vessel discharge s contain no hazardous wastes as defined in California law or hazardous substances as listed in the certification letter ( see Water
Board 2009 ). Discharges may not contain an oily sheen, noxious liquid substance residues, and detergents may not be used to disperse hydrocarbon sheens. For more64

information go to http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/in dex.shtml and review the section on vessel discharges under the clean beaches/ocean programs

.

Environmental Assessment of Treatment Systems Staff has compiled environmental assessment reports and water quality data reported to the IMO, as well as inform ation made available to the State of Washington and Commission staff, to assess available treatment systems for potential environmental impacts to California waters. The IMO active substance approval documents, in particular, have proved to be a valuable r esource to assess a treatment system‟s broad

scale environmental safety prior to comparison of specific system effluent constituents to the VGP and California water quality objectives.

Of the 46 treatment systems reviewed for this report, 28 use a biocid e or chemical additive in the treatment process (Table VI

- 5 ), and will therefore require monitoring of discharges for chemical residuals. An assessment of the potential impacts from all possible chemicals and residuals associated with the use of these trea tment technologies cannot be adequately addressed in this report and is the purview of the
California Water Board and the EPA. Instead, Commission staff has focused this
environmental assessment on total residual chlorine ( TRC ) concentrations in discharged ballast water because both the VGP and the Water Board (through the
California Ocean Plan ; see Water Board (2005) ) have identified TRC as a particular concern due to its widespread toxicity to all organisms. Currently, California defers regulation of TRC in discharged ballast water to the EPA through the VGP . All vessels that discharge ballast in California waters must comply with the EPA VGP limit for TRC (= instantaneous maximum of 100 μg/l in discharged waters). Vendors and vessel owners/operators must consult with the Water Board and EPA to ensure that vessel discharges comply with all other applicable effluent requirements.

Table VI

- 5 lists the active substances and summarizes the status of environmental approvals/assessments for each of the technolo gies reviewed in this report. Where applicable, the available data has been analyzed to determine whether or not treated65

ballast would comply with the EPA water quality objective for TRC in ballast water discharge (= instantaneous maximum of 100 μg/l in di scharged waters). Many systems have initiated toxicity testing of treated discharges and have applied to IMO for Basic and Final Approval. The IMO Basic Approval application, however, may include data from general literature review or laboratory analysis of system toxicity. Until such time that a system submits a full dossier of whole effluent toxicity data as required for IMO Final Approval, it will be difficult to anticipate the potential environmental impacts to California waters from the discharge of t reated ballast from a fully functioning treatment system. Currently only twelve treatment systems have received Final Approval from IMO (Table V

- 1, VI

- 5 ).

The “pesticide” registration requirement under FIFRA is one mechanism to regulate and assess the imp acts to U.S. federal waters from biocide use in treatment systems. The thorough chemical safety analysis and registration process required under FIFRA has been completed by two systems

- Hamann Evonik Degussa (removed from the market in 2010) and E cochlor (Albert, R., pers. comm. 2010). FIFRA, however, does not apply to 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 proc esses, and thus will not be subject to FIFRA registration. This exception provides significant room for systems to operate in U.S. waters without any kind of federal biocide regulation except as provided by the VGP, and at this time, it is
uncertain how EP A will enforce the permit‟s provisions.66 Table VI

- 5

. Summary of environmental assessment and approval of treatment systems Note: Table does not address whether or not toxicity testing was performed in accordance with the EPA Vessel General Permit

.67 Tabl e VI

- 5 ( C ontinued)

. Summary of environmental assessment and approval of treatment systems Note: Table does not address whether or not toxicity testing was performed in accordance with the Vessel General Permit68

A system‟s availability for use in Califo rnia waters is dependent on its ability to meet all of the EPA‟s and California‟s environmental laws, regulations and permits for vessel discharges

- not simply the performance standards. While it is the purview of the EPA
and the Water Board to review and regulate the effluent from treatment systems used on vessels, Commission staff is working to educate technology vendors, particularly those from foreign countries, about the EPA ‟s water quality objectives. Staff also encourages vendors to consult with the Water Board to ensure that systems meet California‟s Section 401 provisions in the VGP.

As a first step towards assessing system environmental impacts, staff has attempted to compile data on TRC in treated effluent because of its broad

- scale toxicity, and because so many systems use chlorine and related byproducts in the treatment process. Of the 46 systems reviewed, 21 have data available for TRC in the treated effluent. Based on the available data, 14 appear to meet the EPA VGP o bjective (California d efers to the EPA VGP for regulation of TRC in vessel discharges) of 100 μg/L or less of TRC (Table
VI

- 5 ). Of the eight systems that demonstrated the potential to meet California‟s performance standards for the discharge of ballast water and that are commer cially available, seven have data demonstrating TRC compliance with the EPA VGP objective. The only system without TRC data, Hyde, uses a filtration/UV system that should not generate any chlorine residuals. Clearly, not all treatment systems will meet
Cal ifornia‟s and EPA‟s stringent water quality standards. However, it is difficult to assess at this time whether systems are simply un able to meet the standards or whether additional water quality data must be gathered from operation of full

- scale systems un der 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 and federal water quality objectives in mind and that the
information is made available to interested parties.

Economic Impacts An assessment of the economic impacts associated with the implementation of performance standards and the use of treatment technologies requires consideration69

not only of costs connected with the pu rchase, installation and operation of treatment systems, but also the costs of NIS introductions if performance standards are not met. As discussed in the Introduction (Section II), the U.S. has suffered major economic losses as a result of attempts to con trol and eradicate NIS (aquatic and terrestrial; Carlton 2001, Lovell and Stone 2005, Pimentel et al. 2005). NIS can also cause direct economic losses by reducing yield (i.e. aquaculture), reducing the value of commodities, increasing health care costs, or by reducing tourism

- based revenues. For example, evidence strongly indicates that a toxogenic strain of V ibrio c holera was transported via ships from South America to the U.S. Gulf coast in 1991, resulting in the closure of Mobile Bay (Alabama) shellfish beds. Economic damages for the short

- term localized closure are estimated at over $700,000 (Lovell and Drake 2009). Prince Edward Island oyster operations in Canada lose approximately $1.5 million annually due to mortality caused by the nonindigenous seaw eed Codium fragile (Colautti et al. 2006). The rate of new introductions is increasing (Cohen and Carlton 1998, Ruiz and Carlton 2003) which suggests that economic impacts will likely increase as well.

California had the largest ocean

- based economy in th e U.S. in 2004, ranking number one for employment, wages and gross state product (NOEP 2010 a). California‟s natural resources contribute significantly to the coastal economy. For example, in 2007 total landings of fish were over 380 million pounds, valued at mo re than $120 million (NOEP
2010 b). Squid, the top revenue

- generating species in 2007, brought i n almost $30 million (NOEP 2010 b). Millions of people visit California‟s coasts and estuaries each year, spending money on recreational activities that ar e directly related to the health of the ecosystem. Annually, over 150 million visits are made to California‟s beaches: approximately 20 million for recreational fishing, over 65 million for wildlife viewing, and over 5 million for snorkeling or scuba divin g (Pendleton 2009). Direct expenditures for recreational beach activities alone likely exceed $3 billion each year (Kildow and Pendleton 2006). In total, the tourism and recreation industries accounted for almost $12 billion of California‟s gross state pro duct in 2004 (NOEP 2007). NIS pose a threat to these and other components of California‟s ocean economy including fish hatcheries and aquaculture, recreational boating, and marine transportation

.70

The use of ballast water treatment technologies to combat N IS introductions will involve economic investment on the part of ship owners. This investment reflects not only initial capital costs for the equipment and installation, but also the continuing operating costs for replacement parts, equipment service and s hipboard energy usage. Cost estimates are strongly linked to vessel

- specific characteristics including ballast water capacity, ballast pump rates and available space. Additionally, the retrofit of vessels already in operation (existing vessels) with ballas t water treatment technologies may cost significantly more than installation costs for newly built vessels due to: 1) The necessity to rework existing installations (plumbing, electric circuitry); 2) Non

- optimal arrangement of equipment that may require eq uipment be broken into pieces and mounted individually; 3) Relocation of displaced equipment; and 4) T ime associated with lay

- up (Reynolds, K., pers. comm. 2007). Nonetheless, the use of these treatment technologies will help minimize or prevent future int roductions of NIS and relieve some of the future economic impacts associated with new introductions.

Many treatment technology vendors are hesitant to release costs because system prices still represent research and development costs and do not reflect th e presumably lower costs that would apply once systems are in mass production

. In the 2010 Lloyd‟s Register report, only 22 of 41 technologies profiled provided estimates of system capital expenditures (equipment and installation) and half (20) provided es timates of system operating expenditures (parts, service, and energy usage; Table VI

- 6 ). 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 expenditure between $20,000 and $630,000 with an average cost of $291,000 (Lloyd‟s Register 2007, Lloyd‟s Register 2010, Commission data from technology vendors 2007

- 2008 )

– down $96,500 from 2009 (see
Dobros ki et al. 2009a ). A 2000 m 3 /h capacity system ranges from $50,000 to $2,000,000 with an average cost of $892,500 per system (Lloyd‟s Register 2007, Lloyd‟s Register 2010, Commission data from technology vendors 2007

- 2008). The average cost of the large cap acity systems has not changed since Dobroski et al.71

(2009a). Operating costs range from negligible, assuming waste heat is utilized, to $1.50 per m 3 with an average of $0.07 per m 3 (Lloyd‟s Register 2007, Lloyd‟s Register 2010, Commission data from technol ogy vendors 2007

- 2008)

– down $0.06 per m 3 since 2009 (see Dobroski et al. 2009a).

Treatment systems will likely increase the cost of a new vessel by 1

- 2%. For example, a new 8200 TEU (twenty

- foot equivalent unit) container ship built by Hyundai Samho
Hea vy Industries costs approximately $120 million per vessel (Pacific Maritime 2010). Installation of the most expensive treatment system currently available at $2.0 million (as indicated in Table VI

- 6 ) would increase the cost of that vessel by 1.7%. Many
tre atment technology developers claim that their systems will last the life of the vessel, so the capital costs for treatment systems should be a one

- time investment per vessel.

While the economic investment by the shipping industry in ballast water treatme nt technologies will be significant, when compared to the major costs to control and/or eradicate NIS, the costs to treat ballast water may be negligible. Treating ballast water with treatment technologies will help to prevent further introductions and low er future costs for control and eradication. Additional studies will be necessary to obtain actual economic impacts associated with treating ballast water.72

Table VI

- 6

. Summary of capital and operating cost data for select treatment syste ms. Unless otherwise noted, source of data is Lloyd‟s Register (2010).

Manufacturer Capital Expenditure (Equipment & Installation) Operating Expenditure

200 m 3 /h ($ in thousands) 2000 m 3 /h ($ in thousands) Other

($ in thousands) ($ per m3, unles s otherwise noted) 21 st Century Shipbuilding Alfa Laval 0.015 1 Aquaworx ATC atg UV Technology ATLAS

- DANMARK 180 850 Auramarine Ltd. 0.040 Brillyant Marine LLC 300 2000 Coldharbour Marine COSCO /Tsinghua Univ. DESMI Ocean Guard Ecochlor 500 800 0.080 EcologiQ <50 1 1

- 1.50 1 Electrichlor 350 .019 ETI 500 cost of power Ferrate Treatment Tech. Hamann Evonik Degussa 0.2 Hamworthy Greenship

Hi Tech Marine 150 1600 16.5

– 300 1 (equipment only) nil 2 Hitachi /Mitsubishi 400 Hyde Marine 250 1200 174

– 503 1 <.020 Hyundai Heavy Industries (1)

– Ecoballast Hyundai Heavy Industries (2)

– HiBallast JFE Eng. Corp./TG Corp. 0.0 53 Kwang San Co. Ltd. MAHLE MARENCO 145 175 0.0 006

- 0.001 Maritime Solutions Inc. Mexel Industries 20 50 MH Systems 500 1500 0.06
Mitsui Engineering 100 1 (installation only) 0.15 3 NEI 249 670 0.13 NK Co. Ltd. 250 1000 0.007 ntorreiro Nutech 03 Inc. 250 450 0.32 Ocean S aver 288 1600 0.06 3
1 Source: Communications with technology vendors (2007

- 2008). 2 Assumes waste heat utilized 3 Source: Lloyd‟s Register (2007)73

Table VI

- 6 ( C ontinued)

. Summary of capital and operating cost data for select treatment systems. Unless otherwi se noted, source of data is Lloyd‟s Register (2010).

Manufacturer Capital Expenditure (Equipment & Installation) Operating Expenditure 200 m 3 /h ($ in thousands) 2000 m 3 /h ($ in thousands) Other

($ in thousands) ($ per m3, unless otherwise noted) Opt iMarin 290 1280 Panasia Co. Ltd. Pinnacle Ozone Solutions 200 500 0.013 Qingdao Headway Tech

. 0.0018 Resource Ballast Tech. 275 700 RWO Marine Water Tech. Severn Trent DeNora 630 975 0.020 Siemens 500 1000 0.0085

- 0.010 Sunrui C FCC Techcross Inc. 200 600 0.003 Wartsila 1 Source: Communications with technology vendors (2007

- 2008). 2 Assumes waste heat utilized 3 Source: Lloyd‟s Register (2007)

VII

. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS Recognizing the threat to California‟s wat ers from nonindigenous species, California‟s legislature enacted legislation in 2006 requiring the Commission to implement performance standards for the discharge of ballast water. Those standards, set forth in statute and adopted via regulation, set limit s for the concentration of viable organisms in discharged ballast water. The standards will be implemented on a graduated time
schedule based on a vessel ‟s ballast water capacity and year of construction. Vessels have several options for complying with th e performance standards regulations. Over
80% of vessel voyages to California waters do not involve the discharge of ballast water. In these cases, compliance with the regulations is achieved because all ballast
water i s retained on board the vessel. Alter natively vessels may discharge to a shoreside or barge

- based ballast water reception facility. Although no such facilities currently exist in California, there has been recent interest by several entities in develop ing this option for vessels operating in California and along the West Coast. Finally, for vessels that cannot retain all ballast on board or discharge to a reception facility, shipboard ballast water treatment will likely be necessary to meet California‟s74

performance standards. Per PRC Section 7 1205.3, t he purpose of this report is to
assess the efficacy, availability and environmental impacts of ballast water treatment systems prior to the implementation of California‟s performance standards for newly built vessels with a ballast water capacity greater than 5000 MT beginning on January 1, 2012.

Ballast water treatment is an emerging and quickly expanding industry. New technologies continue to be developed and existing ones refined in search of the most
effective methods to reduce and/or elimina te the spread of nonindigenous species via ballast water release. While hurdles remain for the full implementation of all of California‟s performance standards, significant progress has been made in the development of treatment systems since previous techn ology assessment reports (see Dobroski et al. 2007, 2009a). Both the quantity and the quality of the recently received data on system performance attest to this fact.

T reatment system performance data has improved in recent years, however it is important to note that systems have undergone a relatively small number of tests, under a limited range of environmental conditions. This leads to inherent uncertainty regarding treatment system performance across the spectrum of potential variables, including ship type and source water properties (e.g. temperature, turbidity, salinity)

. T his uncertainty is likely to persist over the next several years. In the absence of a significant worldwide effort to install and test treatment systems on multiple vessels and
und er all possible environmental scenarios, i t is unreasonable to expect that sample
sizes and available data will increase adequately in the near future to demonstrate
, with

a high level of confidence, that treatment systems will consistently meet California ‟s performance standards under every potential situation and under all circumstances

. However, c ontinuing to wait for such information will only serve to delay progress. Due to the inherent uncertainty regarding treatment system performance and evaluation, the
utilization of an adaptive management approach will be essential at all stages of implementation in order to move forward and protect California‟s aquatic resources from the impacts of species introductions

.75

Similar to the ballast water treatment ind ustry, the fields of treatment technology assessment and compliance verification are still evolving , and recent discussion s have centered on whether or not methods and/or protocols exist to assess compliance with
California‟s standards

. California‟s standa rds for organisms greater than 50 μm in size is
set as “nondetectable.” In discussions related to the International Maritime Organization standard, external parties have reasoned that the volumes of ballast water required to determine compliance with any s tandard more stringent than 10 organisms per cubic
meter are not testable

. H owever, it is important to note that California‟s standard for organisms greater than 50 μm is unitless. There are no volume requirements set forth in
the standard. Therefore , comp liance and performance testing can occur with any
volume of water. The volumes of water sampled for the remaining size classes are small enough s o that they do not pose an issue

.

The bacteria and virus standards do pose a challenge. While there are curre ntly widely

accepted methods for assessing viability for a subgroup of total bacteria, Commission staff believes that there are no acceptable methods for verification of compliance with
the virus standard and that the Commission should proceed with assessm ent of technologies for the remaining six standards. Commission staff have consider ed all of these issues while evaluating treatment systems for compliance with California‟s
standards.

Based on currently available information and using best assessment te chniques, at least eight treatment systems have demonstrated the potential to comply with the Commission‟s performance standards (Table VII

- 1). Efficacy data for these systems indicate that at least one test met or exceeded California‟s performance standa rd for
every testable organism/size category during either land

- based or ship board testing

. Systems that met California‟s Vibrio s tandard in laboratory tests that involved spiked
concentrations of the microbe above levels generally found in land

- or ship

- based testing were considered indicative of a system‟s performance at the land or ship board
scales. T hree of the eight systems show the potential to meet California‟s p erformance76

s tandards under more rigorous evaluation criteria. These three passed more th an 50% of the time over multiple tests (3 or more) at either the land or ship board scale (Table
VII

- 1). A dditional systems are close to demonstrating the potential for meeting California‟s standards, and Commission staff are awaiting data from these tests of system performance

.

Commission staff believe that, given the data currently available, multiple treatment systems have demonstrated the potential to meet California‟s performance standards for vessels with construction initiated on or after January 1 , 2012, and a ballast water capacity greater than 5000MT. Practically speaking, vessels with this construction date will not be expected to meet the standards until construction is complete and they are operational, sometime in 2014 at the earliest. The lead time available for further technology development and refinement is sufficient to indicate that technologies will be available by the time these vessels are operational. At least three to four years will pass before any vessels in this size class wi ll need to install treatment systems to meet
California‟s standards.

Current federal law will continue to require ballast water exchange as the primary management method. Thus, in order to comply with both California and federal law, many vessels that mu st discharge in California will need to first exchange ballast water according to federal requirements for distance from shore and depth, and utilize a ballast water treatment system to reduce organisms to levels at or below California‟s standards. Though seemingly duplicative, the execution of exchange along with or before treatment will likely serve to im prove the efficacy of systems. The concentrations of organisms in the open ocean (where exchange will occur) will be lower than

conc entrations in nearsho re areas. Since the shipboard and land

- based data utilized for this report tested treatment systems with comparatively organism

- rich water from nearshore areas, it is expected that system performance will be improved if open ocean exchange is conducted bef ore treatment

. Open ocean waters also generally exhibit lower levels of turbidity, organic matter, and human pathogens/pathogen indicators,77

which should also serve to improve system performance and reduce organism levels at discharge.

All eight of the systems that have demonstrated the potential to comply with California‟ standards (see Table VII

- 1 ) are currently commercially available. Seven should be able to treat at ballast water pump rates over 2000 m 3 /hr, which would accommodate over
80% of the ve ssels that operate in California with ballast water capacity over 5000 MT. The manufacturers of six systems attest that their products will operate at much higher pump rates. Of the three systems that show potential for meeting the standards under

more r igorous consistency criteria , all can accommodate much higher pump rates of
4500 m 3 /hr or more.78

Table VII

- 1

. Summary of a ssessment for b allast w ater t reatment s ystems with p otential to m eet California‟s p erformance
s tandards. **Denotes systems which de monstrated potential to meet standards more than 50% of the time over 3 or more tests. See tables V

- 1, VI

- 1, VI

- 3, VI

- 4, VI

- 5, VI

- 6, and Section VI text for more information.

System Manufacturer Max System

Capacity (Pump Rate) General

Approvals (Non

- Cal ifornia) Environmental

Approvals VGP Total

Residual Chlorine Compliant Costs
Initial ($ in Thousands) Operating ($ per m 3 ) 200 m 3 /hr 2000 m 3

/hr

Alfa Laval 2500 m 3 /hr Type Approval (Norway) IMO Basic & Final Yes 0.015

Ecochlor** >13,000 m 3 / hr USCG STEP 1 , WA Conditional 1 IMO Basic, USCG

STEP 1 , WA Conditional 1 Yes 500 800 0.080

Hamworthy Greenship 1000 m 3 /hr

(per pump) IMO Basic & Final Yes

Hyde Marine 6000 m 3 /hr WA Conditional 1

, Type Approval (UK), USCG STEP 1 (UV System)

USCG STEP 1 , WA Conditional 1 N/A 250 2 1200 2 <0.020

OceanSaver >6000 m 3 /hr Type Approval (Norway) IMO Basic & Final Yes 288 1600 0.06

OptiMarin 3000 m 3 /hr Type Approval (Norway) (UV System) Yes 290 1280
Quingdao Headway Tech** 4500 m 3 /hr IMO Basic Yes 0.0018

Tech cross** >5000 m 3 /hr Type Approval (Korea) IMO Basic & Final Yes 200 600 0.003

1 USCG STEP and WA Conditional approvals require that systems demonstrate levels of efficacy and environmental acceptability. Acceptance into STEP constitutes an experimental u se approval that applies to the combination of one vessel and one treatment system. STEP requires compliance with the EPA Vessel General Permit, the National Environmental Policy Act, and requires vessels to obtain other applicable permits . STEP is not a T ype Approval process. Washington State Conditional Approval requires data from specific laboratory and effluent toxicity tests. See text for more detail. 2 Additional initial costs for the Hyde Marine system not noted in table are $174

- 503 thousand.
NOTE: These systems demonstrate the potential to meet California‟s p erformance s tandards, however, this does not constitute an approval or endorsement of any system.79

The IMO approval pathway for systems utilizing active substances has been a resource
for info rmation about the potential environmental impacts from the discharge of treated ballast water. Overall, the number of systems that have received IMO Final Approval remains small at this time, however, and thus environmental impact analysis of whole
effluen t toxicity remains hampered by a lack of data. The data available on t otal r esidual
chlorine concentration in treated ballast effluent makes it clear that not all systems will meet water quality standards set forth in the EPA Vessel General Permit

. However
, information gaps related to system impacts to receiving waters still exist. Commission staff continues to work with the Water Board to track the implementation of the Vessel General Permit in California and assess the acceptability of discharges under th is new regulatory program. Ultimately, treatment vendors and vessel operators will need to
consult with the EPA and the Water Board to assess the potential for water quality impacts and treatment system compliance with water quality requirements in federal
and California waters.

Most of the eight treatment systems that demonstrate the potential to meet California‟s
standards have received one or more approvals from other regulatory entities, which involve the demonstration of specific levels of efficacy an d /or minimization of environmental impact. F our have received both IMO Basic and Final approval for the use of active substances. Two additional systems have received USCG STEP and Washington State Conditional approvals, which require certain levels of per formance efficacy, and/or environmental toxicity testing. Available data indicate that all eight systems either meet the EPA VGP total residual chlorine limit or do not produce chlorine in the treatment process. Though systems must ultimately meet all req uirements of the
U

. S

. EPA and the California Water Board , in addition to California‟s performance standards, in order to operate in California waters, the available environmental data reviewed for this report is promising. While STEP, IMO and/or Washingto n Conditional approvals do not cons t itute authorization for use in California (California does not require these approvals nor will California provide approvals), approvals from other regulatory entities may allow operation of such systems on routes outsid e of California.80

The Commission will continue to gather information on treatment system efficacy, availability and environmental impacts as California‟s standards are implemented and
additional vessels install treatment systems for both experimental purp oses and to meet state, federal and international ballast water management requirements. The ballast water treatment industry is evolving rapidly. In December 2007, the Commission report (see Dobroski et al. 2007) indicated that no technologies had demonst rated the potential to meet California‟s standards. Less than four years later, this report indicates that eight system s have demonstrated the potential to meet the standards. Given that several years remain before the next class of vessels must be prepare d to meet California‟s standards, Commission staff believe that sufficient evidence exists to demonstrate that systems will be available

. However, in recognition of the rapidly changing fields of technology development and performance assessment
, Commission staff will prepare an update of this report by September 1, 2011

. In preparation of the update, Commission staff will convene a sc ientific advisory panel to review the latest data on treatment systems and testing protocols and provide input regarding the availability of treatment systems in an effort to ameliorate concerns regarding the implementation of California‟s performance stan dards. While not required by statute, this update will verify that technology development is progressing on schedule to allow for the implementation of the standards beginning January 1, 2012.

VIII . RECOMMENDATIONS

1. Move forward with January 1, 201 2 implementation date of California’s performance standards for new vessels with a ballast water capacity greater than 5000 MT. Based on the available information, the Commission recommends that the implementation of performance standards for new vessels with a ballast water capacity greater than 5000 M T proceed on January 1, 2012. This review indicates that systems will be available to meet California‟s performance standards, and those systems are available for use on vessels with a ballast water capacity greater than 5000 MT . Commission staff is develo ping verification81

procedures to assess vessel compliance with the performance standards, and is working closely with the shipping industry and treatment vendors to ensure a smooth transition to the new standards. The Commission intends to proceed with
the implementation of the standards as set forth in statute and in regulation. While not required by statute, Commission s taff will conduct an update of this technology assessment by September 1, 2011 to ensure that progress in technology development is sufficient to allow for the implementation of the standards beginning January 1, 2012. The next legislatively mandated report is due July 1, 2012 in anticipation of the 2014 implementation date for existing vessels (those built before 2010) with a ballast water capac ity of between 1500
MT and 5000 MT.

2 . Support Commission s taff involvement with the development and implementation of performance standards at the federal and international
levels

. Commercial shipping is an international industry; any single ship may operate throughout several regions of the world. Ideally, performance standards that align
both at the federal and international level s are preferable to a patchwork of standards adopted by individual states. Commission staff have been working with
the fed eral government, including the U.S. Congress, USCG and EPA, on the development of federal performance standards and treatment technology performance verification protocols. Staff participates on both the EPA ETV program Ballast Water Technical Panel and St akeholder Advisory Panel. These panels are working with ETV program staff and the USCG to finalize the technology verification protocols for ballast water treatment systems. Additionally, due to California‟s role as a world leader in the implementation of ballast water management regulations, Staff has recently been invited to participate in meetings hosted by the European Union to discuss the future implementation of the IMO Convention and rules for ballast water management in European waters. Staff expect s to be asked to provide information and guidance about the82

Commission‟s Marine Invasive Species Program during conferences and outreach events held throughout California, the U.S. and internationally.

The development of U.S. Federal and i nternational po licies and regulations related to performance standards frequently take place in locations outside of
California (esp. Washington D

. C

. ) and occasionally, at international venues

. With ongoing prohibitions on out

- of

- state and out

- of

- country travel, Commiss ion
staff can often only participate in such discussions when it is possible to do so via teleconference. Often teleconferencing is not an option, and the development of federal or international policies simply move forward without input from California. When presentations over the telephone are possible, sound quality is poor, presentation via power point is problematic, and audience question and answer sessions are difficult. Engagement in discussion or dialogue in

- person at meetings and conference is extremely effective. The Legislature is encouraged to support Commission Staff participation in such important meetings and conferences, particularly in instances where travel expenses are covered by third parties.

3. Maintain accessibility to Marine Inv asive Species Program funds to address immediate research needs related to the development of methods
to assess compliance with California’s performance standards. Additional research is needed to develop new techniques and refine existing
methods to asses s treatment system performance and verify vessel compliance with California‟s performance standards. Scientific methods do not currently exist to assess the viability and quantity of all living bacteria and viruses in ballast water samples. The development of these techniques is necessary for the full implementation and verification of California‟s performance standards. Sampling methods must balance the need for statistical confidence with practical, rapid, and relatively easy techniques for shipboard insp ection. Research must be conducted to determine the most effective way of achieving adequate sampling83

confidence that are practicable for regulators and do not unduly burden vessel operators.

As performance standards are implemented, the need for practic al and rapid onboard methods to assess compliance will quickly become critical. It is anticipated that vessels with operating treatment systems will begin arriving to the state as early as next year (2011). Though the Marine Invasive Species Program is f unded through a programmatic fee and does not draw from the general fund, it has been subject to the same cuts that have applied to many California agencies. The legislature should ensure that MISP funds dedicated to priority research needs are not comprom ised, particularly given the current budget climate.

IX

. LOOKING FORWARD Ballast water treatment remains a burgeoning industry that will undergo significant development as the IMO , proposed federal, and California‟s performance standards are progressive ly implemented and as new vessel types are built. Staff is currently engaged with numerous activities to ensure the comprehensive implementation and enforcement of California‟s performance standards for the discharge of ballast water:

Staff is developin g draft protocols for use by the Commission‟s marine safety personnel to verify vessel compliance with the performance standards. Commission staff is consulting with scientists and industry experts in order to determine the volumes of
ballast water that mu st be sampled and to select the best available methods for organism enumeration and viability assessment taking into account practicality , cost effectiveness, accuracy and precision, acceptance by the scientific community, and ability to withstand legal sc rutiny. The draft compliance verification protocols describe administrative inspection procedures, including review of relevant reporting forms and ballast water logs, and methods for on

- site sampling of ballast water discharges. The performance standards compliance protocols will be tested on vessels over the next several months in conjunction with regular vessel inspections conducted by the84

Commission‟s marine safety personnel. This process will be challenging, as few vessels that operate in California wa ters have installed ballast water treatment systems or sampling ports for collection of treated discharge samples. Commission staff will seek out every possible sampling opportunity in order to refine the draft protocols in preparation for the arrival of t he first vessels that must meet California‟s performance standards. These vessels will likely arrive in California waters in 2011.

To augment the administrative component of the ballast water inspections, Commission staff has developed two ballast water treatment technology reporting forms. These forms will require information on ballast water treatment system installation and use in California waters. This information will be valuable to the Commission‟s marine safety personnel as they inspect ballast wa ter treatment systems onboard vessels. The data will also be used by Commission staff to evaluate the implementation of the performance standards in California waters. Assembly Bill 248 (Chapter 317, Statutes of 2009) provided Commission staff with the aut hority to develop these forms. Staff met with an advisory panel to discuss the contents of the forms before implementing the forms via the California rulemaking process. The 45

- day public comment period for the rulemaking closed in March, 2010. Based on co mments, staff revised the forms . The
15

- day comment period on the revisions closed in July, 2010. Staff expects the final forms to be approved and adopted by the fall of 2010.

Research Needs In addition to the aforementioned activities being conducted by Commission staff to implement California‟s performance standards, staff is also working with scientists and industry experts to identify and address gaps in our understanding of ballast water treatment methods and system evaluation, particularly at the sh ipboard level. Eight systems evaluated in this report have demonstrated the potential to meet California‟s performance standards, but many systems still require further development and evaluation, and many have not yet been tested on vessels. The proposed USCG ballast water treatment system approval process will involve shipboard evaluation of treatment systems, and therefore vessel owners and operators must continue to make their85

vessels available for the shipboard testing of experimental treatment systems . A greater understanding of how treatment systems function on vessels will be particularly important as existing vessels, those built before 2010, will be retrofitted with treatment systems beginning in 2014 to comply with California‟s performance standar ds. Those technologies must be installable under limited space conditions, and must be able to integrate with the existing engineering of ships (piping, electrical, computer, etc.). Funding from state, federal and international organizations will be neces sary to advance this important shipboard work.86

X. LITERATURE CITED

1. Albert, R. (personal communication, 30 March 2010 and 31 March 2010)

2. Anchor Environmental. 2009. Ship based test RBT reactor phytoplankton results. CK 96/0407094/23. 10 Decem ber 2009.

3. Anchor Environmental . 2010. Efficacy testing of the RBT reactor. CK 96/0407094/23.15 April 201 0.

4. AuraMarine. 2010. California Performance Information Crystal BallastTM.

5. Balasubramanian, S., J. Ortego, K.A. Rusch, and D. Boldor. 2008. Efficiency of Artemia cysts removal as a model invasive spore using a continuous microwave system with heat recovery. Environmental Science and Technology, 42: 9363

- 9369.

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

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

8. Boldor, D., S. Balasubramanian, S Purohit, and K.A. Rusch. 2008. Design and implementation of a continuous microwave heating system for ballast water treatment. Environmental Science and Technology, 42(11): 4121

- 4127.

9. BLG (IMO Sub

- Committee on Bulk Liquids and Gases) . 2008. Report to the Maritime Safety Committe e and the Marine Environment Protection Committee. Annex 1 Draft MEPC Resolution

– Guidelines for Ballast Water Sampling. BLG 12/17. 20 February 2008.

10. California Department of Fish and Game. 2008. Quagga and Zebra Mussels. Website: http://www.dfg.ca.gov/invasives/quaggamussel/ . Accessed: 11 September 2008.

11. Candy, G. (personal communication, 14 August 2008)

12. CAPA (California Association of Port Authorities). 2000. Feasibility of onshore ball ast water treatment at California ports. A study conducted on behalf of the California Association of Port Authorities (CAPA) pursuant to a Small Grant Assistance Agreement with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. September 2000. Prepared by URS Corp oration/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 Biodiversity87

Management. O. Sandulund, P. Schei, and A. Viken (E ds

. ) Kl u wer Academic Publishers. Dord recht, Netherlands. 195

- 212 pp.

14. Carlton, J.T. 2001. Introduced s pecies in U

. S

. c oastal w aters : environmental impacts and management priorities. Pew Ocean s Commission , Arlington, Virginia , 28 pp.

15. Carlton, J.T. 2008 . The zebra mussel Dreissena polymorpha f ound in North America in 1986 and 1987. Journ al of Great Lakes Research , 34 :770

- 773

.
16. Choi
, K

- H, W. Kimmerer, G. Smith, G.M. Ruiz, and K. Lion. 2005. Post

- exchange zooplankton in ballast water of ships entering the San Francisco Estuary Journal of Plankton Research
, 27:707

- 714

.
17. Cohen
, A.N. 1998. Ships' ballast water and the introduction of exotic organisms into the San Francisco Estuary: Current status of the problem and options for management

. San Francisco Estuary Institute.

18. Cohen, A.N. and J.T. Carlto n. 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 inv aded estuary. Science
, 279:555

- 558

.
20. Colautti, R.I., Bailey, S.A., van Overdijk, C.D.A., Amundsen, K., and MacIsaac, H.J. 2006. Characterized and projected costs of nonindigenous species in Canada. Biological Invasions, 8 :25

- 59.

21. Culley, A.I., and C.A. Suttle. 2007. Viral community struct ure. Chapter 36 (pp. 445

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

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

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

23. de Lafontaine, Y., S

- P Despatie, and C. Wiley. 2008. Effectiveness and potential toxicological impact of the PERACLEAN® Ocean ballast water treatment technology. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety, 71(2):355

- 369.

24. de Lafontaine, Y., S

- P Despatie, É. Veilleux, and C. Wiley. 2009. Onboard ship evaluation of the effectiveness and the potential environmental effects of PERACLEAN® Ocean for ba llast water treatment in very cold conditions. Environmental Toxicology, 24(1):49

- 65.88

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

26. Dobroski, N.
, L. Takata, C. Scianni, and M. Falkner. 2007. Assessment of the Efficacy, Availability, and Environment al Impacts of Ballast Water Treatment Systems for Use in California Waters. Produced for the California State Legislature.

27. Dobroski, N.
, C. Scianni, D. Gehringer, and M. Falkner. 2009a. 2009 Assessment of the Efficacy, Availability, and Environmental Imp acts of Ballast Water Treatment Systems for Use in California Waters. Produced for the California State Legislature.

28. Dobroski, N., C. Scianni, L. Takata, and M. Falkner. 2009b. October 2009 Update: Ballast Water Treatment Technologies for Use in Californ ia Waters. Prepared by the Californai State Lands Commission, Marine Invasive Species Program.

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

30. Echardt, J. and A. Kornmueller. 2009 a . The advanced EctoSys elecvtrolysis as an integral part of a ballast water treatment system. Water Science and Technology, 60(9): 2227

- 2234.

31. Echardt, J. and A. Kornmueller. 2009 b . The advanced EctoSys el ectrolysis 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, Mar 30

– Apr 1, 2009, Berlin.

32. Ecowise Environmental. 2003. Technical Report: HTM

- AquaT herm® Disinfection Unit Study

– Revised February 2003. Prepared by Danielle Baker. Reviewed by Dr. Therese Flapper. For Aerocycle Wastewater Solutions.

33. Ellis, S. (p ersonal c ommunication, 14 January 2010)

34. E PA (U.S. E nvironmental P rotection A gency ) . 1986. Ambient water quality criteria for bacteria

– 1986. EPA440/5

- 84

- 002. January 1986.

35. EPA (U.S. Envi ronmental Protection Agency ). 2008. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Proposed Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Commercial Vessels and Large Recreational Vessels (VGP).

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

.89

37. Everett, R. (personal communication, 11 March 2010).

38. Faimali, M., F. Garaventa, E. Chelossi, V. Piazza, O.D. Saracino, F. Rubino, G.L. Mariottini, and L. Pane. 2006. A new photodegradable molecule as a low impact ballast water biocide: efficacy screening on marine organisms from different trophic levels. Marine Biology, 149:7

- 16.

39. Falkner, M., L. Takata, and S. Gilmore. 2006 . California State Lands Commission Report on Performance Standards for Ballast Water Discharges in California. Produced for the California State Legislature.

40. Falkner, M., L. Takata, S. Gilmore, and N. Dobroski. 2007. 2007 Biennial Report on the Californ ia Marine Invasive Species Program. Produced for the California State Legislature.

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

42. Feyrer, F., H. B. Matern, and P.B. Moyle. 2003. Dietary shifts in a stressed fish assemblage: Consequences of a bivalve invasion in the San Francisco estuary. Environmental Biology of Fishes
, 67 : 277

- 288.

43. Fofonoff
, P.W., G.M. Ruiz, B. Steves, and J.T. Carlton. 2003. In s hips or on ships? Mechanisms of transfer and invasion for nonnative species to the coasts of North America. In : Ruiz
, G

. M . and J.T. Carlton (eds.) Invasive Species: Vectors and Management Strategies. Island Press, Washington D.C. p 152

- 182

.
44. Fuchs, R. an d I

. de Wilde. 2004. Peraclean Ocean®

- A potentially environmentally friendly and effective treatment option for ballast water. In : Matheickal, J.T. and S. Raaymakers ( e ds

. ) 2004. 2 nd International Ballast Water Treatment R&D Symposium , IMO London, 21

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

45. Giovannoni , S.J., R.A. Foster, M.S. Rappé, and S. Epstein. 2007. New cultivation strategies bring more microbial plankton species into the laboratory. Oceanography , 20(2):62

- 69.

46. 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

.
47. 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

.90

48. Heida, M.R. and G.J. Jansen. Undated. Ballast Water Treatment: Killing studies of IMO monitoring micro

- organisms. Research Institutes: Technologische werkplaats and Moordelijke Hogeschool Leeuwarden. 25 pp.

49. 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.

50. Herwig, R.P., J.R. Cor dell, 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.

51. Hi Tech Marine. 1997. Ballast water trial on M.V. Sandra Marie. 9 th May 1997 Sydney to Hobart.

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

- oxygenation with elevated CO 2 for a shipboard installa tion

– a potentially affordable solution. In : Matheickal, J.T. and S. Raaymakers ( e ds

. ) 2004. 2nd International Ballast Water Treatment R&D Symposium , IMO London, 2 1

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

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

.
54. IMO ( Internat ional Maritime Organization ). 2007. Resolution A. 1005(25). Application of the international convention for the control and management of ships‟ ballast water and sediments, 2004. Adopted on 29 November 2007 (Agenda item 11).

55. IMO ( International Maritime Organization )

. 2010

. Summary of Status of Conventions as at 31 May 2010 . Accessed: June 14 , 2010 . Website: http://www.imo.org

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

57. Jelmert, A. 1999. Testing the effectiveness of an integrated Hydro cyclone/UV treatment system for ballast water treatment. Accessed: 11/9/07, Website:
www.o ptimarin.com/test1999Austevoll.htm91

58. Kikuchi, T. and Y. Fukuto. Development of the Spec ial Pipe Hybrid System, one of the most promising ballast water management systems.

59. Kikuchi, T., K. Yoshida, S. Kino
, and Y. Fukuyo. 2004. Progress report on the „Specia l Pipe System‟ as a potential mechanical treatment for ballast water. In : Matheickal, J.T. and S. Raaymakers ( e ds

. ) 2004. 2nd International Ballast Water Treatment R& D Symposium , IMO London, 21

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

60. Kildow, J. and Pendleton, L. 2006. The non

- market value of beach recreation in California. Shore and Beach, 74 : 34

- 37.

61. King, D.M. and M.N. Tamburri . 2009. Verifying compliance with U.S. ballast water discharge regulations. Submitted to Ocean Development and International Law.

62. KORDI ( Korean Ocean Research and Development Institution ) . 2008. Preliminary Report for the Type Approval Test Used by Elect ro
- Clean Ballast Water Management System. Project No. PI49300. 3 March 2008.

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

- based tests for the IMO final approval.

64. 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.

65. 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.

66. Lloyd‟s Register. 2007. Ballast water treatment technology. Current status. June 2007.

67. Lloyd‟s Register. 2010. Ballast water treatment technology. Current status. February 2010.

68. 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

.
69. Lovell, S.J., and Drake, L.A. 2009. Tiny stowaways: Analyzing the economi c benefits of a U.S. Envrionmental Protection Agency permit regulating ballast water discharges. Environmental Management, v. 42, p. 546

- 555.92

70. Mackey, T.P. and D.A. Wright. 2002. A filtration and UV based ballast water treatment technology: Including a re view of initial testing and lessons learned aboard three cruise ships and two floating test platforms. Paper presented at ENSUS 2002. Marine Science and Technology for Environmental Sustainability. University of Newcastle

- upon
- Tyne, School of Marine Scie nce and Technology. Dec. 16

- 18, 2002.

71. MacIsaac
, H.J., T.C. Robbins, and M.A. Lewis. 2002. Modeling ships' ballast water as invasion threats to the Great Lakes. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences
, 59:1245

- 1256

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

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

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

75. Maddox, T.L. 2005. Phase IV Final Report. Full s cale, land based field test demonstration of improved methods of ballast water treatment and monitoring utilizing ozone and sonic energy. National Sea Grant NA05OAR4171070.

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

77. Marinelink

. 2010. Alfa Laval‟s PureBallast for Australian Navy. Accessed: 6 May 2010. Website: http://marinelink.com/News/Article/Alfa

- Laval

- s
- PureBallast

- for

Australian

- Navy/333787.aspx . Originally published: 29 March 2010.

78. Maritime Environmental Resou rce Center. 2009a. Land

- based Evaluations of the Siemens Water Technologies SiCURETM Ballast Water Management System. 6 November 2009. UMCES Technical Report Series: Ref. No. [UCMES] CBL 09

- 13

.
79. Maritime Environmental Resource Center. 2009b. Land

- Based Eval uations of the Maritime Solutions, Inc. Ballast Water Treatment System. 20 November 2009. UMCES Technical Report Series: Ref. No. [UMCES] CBL 09

- 138.

80. McMullin, J., V. Loete, R. Larson, S. Sylvester, and D. Drew. 2008. Port of Milwaukee Onshore Ballast Wat er Treatment. 17 pp.93

81. MEPC ( Marine Environment Protection Committee). 2003. Comments on draft regulation E

- 2. Concentrations of organisms delivered in ships‟ ballast water in the absence of any treatment: Establishing a baseline for consideration of treatm ent efficacy. MEPC 49/2/1. 23 May, 2003.

82. 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.

83. MEPC ( Marine E nvironment 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.

84. MEPC (Marine Env ironment Protection Committee). 2006 a . Basic Approval of Active Substances used by Special Pipe Ballast Water Management System (combined with Ozone treatment). Submitted by Japan. 55/2. 12 April 2006.

85. MEPC ( Marine Environment Protection Committee )

. 2006 b

. 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.

86. MEPC (Marine Envir onment Protection Committee). 2006 c . Application for Final Approval of Ballast Water Management System Using Active Substances. Submitted by Norway. 56/2/1. 15 December 2006.

87. MEPC (Marine Environment Protection Committee). 2007 a . Basic Approval of Active Substances used by Resource Ballast Technologies Systems (Cavitation combined with Ozone and Sodium Hypochlorite treatment). Submitted by South Africa. 56/2/3. 6 April 2007.

88. MEPC ( Marine Enviro nment Protection Committee ). 2007 b . Application for Basic Appr oval of Active Substances used by Hitachi Ballast Water Purification System (ClearBallast). Submitted by Japan. 57/2/2. 7 September 2007.

89. MEPC (Marine Environment Protection Committee). 2007 c . Application for Final Approval of a ballast water management s ystem using Active Substances. Submitted by Germany. 57/2/3. 7 September 2007.

90. MEPC (Marine Environment Protection Committee). 2007 d . Application for Final Approval of a ballast water management system using Active Substances. Submitted by Germany. 57/2/5 . 7 September 2007.94

91. MEPC (Marine Environment Protection Committee). 2007 e . Basic Approval of Active Substance used by GloEn

- PatrolTM Ballast Water Management System. Submitted by the Republic of Korea. 57/2/4. 7 September 2007.

92. MEPC (Marine Environment Pr otection Committee). 2007 f . Report of the fourth meeting of the GESAMP

- Ballast Water Working Group (GESAMP

- BWWG). Note by the Secretariat. 57/2. 19 December 2007.

93. MEPC (Marine Environment Protection Committee). 2007 g . Application for Basic Approval of a c ombined ballast water management system consisting of sediment removal and an electrolytic process using seawater to produce Active Substances (Greenship Ltd). Submitted by the Netherlands. 57/2/7. 20 December 2007.

94. MEPC (Marine Environment Protection Com mittee). 2008 a . Report of the fifth meeting of the GESAMP

- Ballast Water Working Group (GESMP

- BWWG). Note by the Secretariat. 57/2/10. 25 January 2008.

95. MEPC (Marine Environment Protection Committee). 2008 b . Application for Final Approval of the OceanSaver ® Ballast Water Management System (OS BWMS). Submitted by Norway. 58/2/1. 19 March 2008.

96. MEPC (Marine Environment Protection Committee). 2008 c . Application for Final Approval of the Electro

- Clean System (ECS). Submitted by the Republic of Korea. 58/2. 20 M arch 2008.

97. MEPC (Marine Environment Protection Committee). 2008 d . Application for Basic Approval of the Ecochlor ® Ballast Water Treatment System. Submitted by Germany. 58/2/2. 20 March 2008.

98. MEPC (Marine Environment Protection Committee). 2008 e . Applicat ion for Final Approval of the NK

- O3 BlueBallast System (Ozone). Submitted by the Republic of Korea. 58/2/3. 21 March 2008.

99. MEPC (Marine Environment Protection Committee). 2008f. Procedure for approval of ballast water management systems that make use of a ctive substances (G9). MEPC 57/21. Annex 1. Resolution MEPC.169(57). Adopted on 4 April 2008.

100. MEPC (Marine Environment Protection Committee). 2008 g . Report of the sixth meeting of the GESAMP

- Ballast Water Working Group. Note by the Secretariat. MEPC 58/2/ 7. 14 July 2008.

101. MEPC (Marine Environment Protection Committee). 2008 h . Report of the seventh meeting of the GESAMP

- Ballast Water Working Group. Note by the Secretariat. 58/2/8. 28 July 2008.95

102. MEPC (Marine Environment Protection Committee). 2008i. Guideli nes for approval of ballast water management systems (G8). MEPC 58/23. Annex 4. Resolution MEPC.174(58). Adopted on 10 October 2008.

103. MEPC (Marine Environment Protection Committee). 2008j. Application for Final Approval of the RWO Ballast Water Management System (CleanBallast). Submitted by Germany. 59/2. 28 November 2008.

104. MEPC (Marine Environment Protection Committee). 2008 k . Application for Final Approval of the Special Pipe Hybrid Ballast Water Management System (combined with Ozone treatment). Submitte d by Japan. 59/2/1. 4 December 2008.

105. MEPC (Marine Environment Protection Committee). 2008 l . Application for Basic Approval of the Blue Ocean Shield Ballast Water Management System. Submitted by China. 59/2/2. 5 December 2008.

106. MEPC (Marine Environment Pr otection Committee). 2008 m . Application for Final Approval of the NK

- O3 BlueBallast System (Ozone). Submitted by the Republic of Korea. 59/2/3. 8 December 2008.

107. MEPC (Marine Environment Protection Committee). 2008 n . Application for Basic Approval of the H HI Ballast Water Management System (EcoBallast). Submitted by the Republic of Korea. 59/2/4. 9 December 2008.

108. MEPC (Marine Environment Protection Committee). 2008 o . Application for Final Approval of the Hitachi Ballast Water Purification System (ClearBal last). Submitted by Japan. 59/2/5. 11 December 2008.

109. MEPC (Marine Environment Protection Committee). 2008 p . Application for Final Approval of the Greenship Sedinox Ballast Water Management System. Submitted by the Netherlands. 59/2/6. 12 December 2008.

110. M EPC (Marine Environment Protection Committee). 2008 q . Application for Final Approval of the GloEn

- PatrolTM Ballast Water Treatment System. Submitted by the Republic of Korea. 59/2/7. 16 December 2008.

111. MEPC (Marine Environment Protection Committee). 2008 r

. Application for Basic Approval of the AquaTriCombTM Ballast Water Treatment System. Submitted by Germany. 59/2/8. 16 December 2008.

112. MEPC (Marine Environment Protection Committee). 2008 s . Application for Final Approval of the Resource Ballast Technologies S ystem (Cavitation combined with Ozone and Sodium Hypochlorite treatment). Submitted by South Africa. 59/2/10. 19 December 2008.96

113. MEPC (Marine Environment Protection Committee). 2008 t . Application for Basic Approval of the Siemens SiCURETM Ballast Water Mana gement System. Submitted by Germany. 59/2/11. 19 December 2008.

114. MEPC (Marine Environment Protection Committee). 2009 a . Report of the eighth meeting of the GESAMP

- Ballast Water Working Group. Note by the Secretariat. 59/2/16, Annex 4. 8 April 2009.

115. MEPC (Marine Environment Protection Committee). 2009 b . Application for Basic Approval of the DESMI Ocean Guard Ballast Water Management System. Submitted by Denmark. 60/2/4. 19 August 2009.

116. MEPC (Marine Environment Protection Committee). 2009 c . Application for Final Approval of the JFE Ballast Water Management System (JFE

- BWMS) that makes use of “TG Ballastcleaner® and TG Environmentalguar d®.” Submitted by Japan. 60/2/2 . 20 August 2009.

117. MEPC (Marine Environment Protection Committee). 2009 d . Application for Ba sic Approval of Blue Ocean Guardian (BOG) Ballast Water Management System. Submitted by the Republic of Korea. 60/2/5. 24 August 2009.

118. MEPC (Marine Environment Protection Committee). 2009e. Application for Basic Approval of the Sunrui ballast water manag ement system. Submitted by China. 60/2/3. 24 August 2009.

119. MEPC (Marine Environment Protection Committee). 2009f. Application for Basic Approval of the Hyundai Heavy Industries Co., Ltd. (HHI) Ballast Water Management System (HiBallast). Submitted by the R epublic of Korea. 60/2/6. 24 August 2009.

120. MEPC (Marine Environment Protection Committee). 2009g . Application for Basic Approval of Kwang San Co., Ltd. (KS) Ballast Water Management System “En

Ballast.” Submitted by Korea. 60/2/7. 25 August 2009.

121. MEPC (Ma rine Environment Protection Committee). 2009 h . Application for Basic Approval of the OceanGuardTM Ballast Water Management System. Submitted by Norway. 60/2/8. 26 August 2009.

122. MEPC (Marine Environment Protection Committee). 2009 i . Application for Basic App roval of the Severn Trent DeNora BalPure® Ballast Water Management System. Submitted by Germany. 60/2/9. 28 August 2009.

123. MEPC (Marine Environment Protection Committee). 2009 j . Draft MEPC resolution on the installation of ballast water management systems o n new ships97

in accordance with the application dates contained in the BWM Convention. Note by the Secretariat. 60/2/10. 23 September 2009.

124. MEPC (Marine Environment Protection Committee). 2009 k . Report of the tenth meeting of the GESMP

- Ballast Water Worki ng Group. Note by the Secretariat. 60/2/11. 30 October 2009.

125. MEPC (Marine Environment Protection Committee). 2009 l . Report of the eleventh meeting of the GESMP

- Ballast Water Working Group. Note by the Secretariat. 60/2/12, Annex 4. 1 December 2009.

126. MEPC (Marine Environment Protection Committee). 2010. Report of the twelfth meeting of the GESAMP

– Ballast Water Working Group. Note by the Secretariat. 60/2/16. 8 February 2010.

127. M ichigan DEQ ( Department of Environmental Quality ) . 2006. Ballast water control general permit. Port operations and ballast water discharge. Permit No. MIG140000. Issued 11 October 2006.

128. Moore, B. (persona l communication, 11 March 2010)

129. Moore, S. (personal communication, 12 September 2005 )

130. MPCA ( Minnesota Pollution Contro l Agency ). 2008. Ballast Water Discharge General Permit: FAQs for Vessel Owners and Operators. Water Quality/Surface Water #8.03. October 2008.

131. National Research Council. 1996. Stemming the Tide: Controlling Introductions of Nonindigenous Species by Ships' Ballas t Water, Vol. National Academy Press, Washington
, D.C.

132. NIOZ (Royal Netherlands Institute for Sea Research). 2008. Final report of the land

- based testing of the SEDNA®

- System, for Type Approval according to Regulation

- D2 and the relevant IMO Guidelines (Ap ril

– 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.

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

- based testing of the Ecochlor®

- System, for type approval according to regulation

- D2 and the relevant IMO Guideline (April

– July 2008).

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

- based testin g of the Hyde

- GuardianTM

- System, for Type Approval according to the Regulation D

- 2 and the relevant IMO Guideline (April

– July 2008).98

135. NIVA (Norwegian Institute for Water Research). 2006. Full scale toxicity testing of the PureBallast System

– preliminary Report.

136. 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.

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

– approved test cycles. Report SNO 5667

- 2008.

138. NIVA (Norwegian Institute for Water Research). 2008 c . Shipboard testing of the PureBallast Treatment System of AlfaWall AB. Rep ort SNO 5617

- 2008.

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

– Final Report (report no:

- 272249). 28 January 2008.

140. NIVA (Norwegian Institute for Water Research ). 2009 a . Shipboard testing of the OptiMarin Ballast System of OptiMarin AS. Report SNO 5828

- 2009.

141. NIVA (Norwegian Institute for Water Research). 2009b. Additional shipboard testing of the PureBallast treatment System of AlfaLaval/Wallenius Water AB. Repo rt SNO 5850

- 2009.

142. NIVA (Norwegian Institute for Water Research). 2010. Land based testing of the OceanGuardTM Ballast Water Management System of Qingdao Headway. Report SNO 5938

- 2010.

143. NOEP (National Ocean Economic Program). 2007. Ocean economy data. Acces sed 9 November 2007. Website: http://noep.mbari.org/Market/ocean/oceanEcon.asp

144. NOEP (National Ocean Economics Program). 2010 a. Ocean economy data. Accessed: 24 March 2010. Website: http://noep.mbari.org/Market/ocean/oceanEcon.asp

145. NOEP (National Ocean Ec onomics Program). 2010 b. Natural Resources

- Commercial fish species search. Accessed: 24 March 2010. Website: http://noep.mbari.org/LMR/fishSearch.asp

146. OceanSaver. 2008. FRO and TRO

– Neutralisation Study. November 2008. Project Team: J.J. Dale and E. Fraas, Mentum AS.99

147. Ocean University of China. 2010. Monitoring (Inspection Report). Shipboard Testing of OceanGuardTM Ballast Water Management System. OUC (Testing) No. HDJC2010

- 002.

148. Oviatt, C., P. Harg raves, 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 E cochlor Inc. (Charles Goodsill, VP).

149. Pacific Mar itime. 2010. ZIM takes new vessels. Volume 28, Number 2, pg 10.

150. Parsons, M.G. 1998. Flow

- through ballast water exchange. SNAME Transactions
, 106:485

- 493

.
151. Parsons, M.G. 2003. Considerations in the design of the primary treatment for ballast systems. Mari ne Technology
, 40:49

- 60

.
152. Parsons, M.G. and R.W. Harkins. 2002. Full

- Scale Particle Removal Performance of Three Types of Mechanical Separation Devices for the Primary Treatment of Ballast Water. Marine Technology
, 39:211

- 222

.
153. Pendleton, L. 2009. The eco nomic value of coastal and estuary recreation. In The Economic and Market Value of Coasts and Estuaries : What’s at Stake? pp. 140

- 175.

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

- 1767.

155. Pimentel, D., R. Zuniga, and D. Morrison. 2005. Update on the environmental and economic costs associated with alien

- invasive species in the United St ates. Ecological Economics
, 52:273

- 288

.
156. Pleus, A. (personal communication, 7 April 2010 )

157. Reid, D.F., T.H. Johengen, H. MacIssac, F. Dobbs, M. Doblin, L. Drake, G. Ruiz, and P. Jenkins. 2007. Identifying, verifying and establishing options for best
mana gement practices for NOBOB vessels. Prepared for: The Great Lakes Protection Fund, the U.S. Coast Guard, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 173 p p

.
158. Reynolds, K. (personal communication, 2 August 2007)

159. Reynolds, K. (p ersonal commu nication, 7 May 2010 )100

160. Rigby, G.R., G.M. Hallegraeff, and C. Sutton. 1999. Novel ballast water heating technique offers cost

- effective treatment to reduce the risk of global transport of harmful marine organisms. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 191:289

- 293

.
161. Rigby, G., G. M. Hallegraeff, and A. Taylor. 2004. Ballast water heating offers a superior treatment option. Journal of Marine Environmental Engineering
, 7:217

- 230

.
162. Ruiz, G.M. and J.T. Carlton. 2003. Invasion vectors: A conceptual framework for managem ent. In : Ruiz
, G

. M and J.T. Carlton ( e ds

. ) Invasive Species: Vectors and management strategies. Island Press, Washington D.C., p 459

- 504

.
163. Ruiz, G.M., T.K. Rawlings, F.C. Dobbs, L.A. Drake, T. Mullady, A. Huq, and R.R. Colwell. 2000. Global spread of micr oorganisms by ships. Nature
, 408:49

- 50.

164. Ruiz, G.M. and D.F. Reid. 2007. Current State of Understanding abo ut the Effectiveness of Ballast Water Exchange (BWE) in Reducing Aquatic Nonindigenous Species (ANS) Introductions to the Great Lakes Basin and Chesa peake Bay, USA: Synthesis and Analysis of Existing Information . NOAA Technical Memorandum GLERL

- 142.

165. Saaros, H. (personal communication, 14 March 2010 and 11 May 2010 )

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

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

– Test cycle summary. Institut fur Umwelttechnik.

168. Sommer
, T., C. Armor, R. Baxter, R. Breuer, L. Brown, M. Chotkowski, S. Culberson, F. Feyrer, M. Gingras, B. Herbold, W. Kimmerer, A. Mueller

- Solger, M. Nobriga, and K. Souza. 2007. The collapse of pelagic fishes in the upper San Francisco estuary. Fisheries, 32 (6): 270

- 277.

169. Spellman, M. (p ersonal communication, 14 August 2008 )

170. 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 ( e ds

. ) 2004. 2nd International Ballast Water Treatment R&D Symposium , IMO London, 21

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

171. Tamburri
, M.N. and G.M. Ruiz. 2005. Eval uations of a ballast water treatment to stop invasive species and tank corrosion. 2005 SNAME Maritime Technology Conference & Expo and Ship Production Symposium, Houston, TX.101

172. Tamburri, M., G.E. Smith, and T.L. Mullady. 2006. Quantitative shipboard evaluat ions of Venturi Oxygen Stripping as a ballast water treatment. 3 rd International Conference on Ballast Water Management. Singapore, 25

- 26 September, 2006.

173. Tang
, Z., M. Butkus, and Y.F. Xie. 2006. Crumb rubber filtration: a potential technology for ballas t water treatment. Marine Environmental Research
, 61:410

- 423

.
174. Tang, Z., M. Butkus, and Y.F. Xie. 2009. Enhanced performance of crumb rubber filtration for ballast wa ter treatment. Chemosphere, 74: 1396

- 1399.

175. Thornton, G. (personal communication, 26 Januar y 2010 )

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

177. USCG ( United States Coast Guard ) . 2001. Report to Congress on the voluntary national guidelines for ballast water management. Washing ton D.C.

178. USCG ( United States Coast Guard). 2004. Navigation and Inspection Circular No. 01

- 04. Shipboard Technology Evaluation Program (STEP): Experimental Ballast Water Treatment Systems. January 2004.

179. USCG ( United States Coast Guard). 2006. 2006 Shipb oard Technology Evaluation Program. General Guidance for the Applicant. March 2006.

180. USCG (United States Coast Guard ). 2008. Environmental Standards Update. Fall 2008.

181. USCG (United States Coast Guard). 2010. Shipboard Technology Evaluation Program. Acces sed: 9 June 2010 . Website: http://www.uscg.mil/hq/cg5/cg522/cg5224/step.asp

.
182. 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, 27:9 09

- 921

.
183. 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

.102

184. Washington State Department of Ecology. 2008 . Laboratory guidance and whole effluent toxicity test review criteria. Publication No. WQ

- R

- 95

- 80. Revised December 2008. P repared by Randall Marshall

.
185. Water Board (State Water Resources Control Board). 2002. Evaluation of Ballast Water Treatment Technology for Control of Nonindigenous Aquatic Organisms, p 70.

186. Water Board (State Water Resources Control Board). 2005. California Ocean Plan . Water Quality Con trol Plan. Ocean Waters of Calif or nia.

187. Water Board (State Water Resources Control Board). 2009. Modification to California‟s Water Quality Certification for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency‟s Vessel General Permit. Website: http://www.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/401_california.pdf

188. Weigl e, S.M., L.D. Smith, J.T. Carlton, and J. Pederson. 2005. Assessing the risk of introducing exotic species via the live marine species trade. Conservation Biology, 19(1): 213

- 223.

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

190. 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. Marin e Ecology Progress Series
, 215:1

- 12

.
191. Woodfield, R. 2006. Invasive seaweed threatens California‟s coastline

– an update. Ballast Exchange: Newsletter of the West Coast Ballast Outreach Project
, 6;10

- 11

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

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

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

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

- 67.

194. Wright, D.A., R. Dawson, C.E.F. Orano

- Dawnson, G.R. Morgan, and J. Coogan. 2006. The development of ultraviolet irradiation as a method for the treatment of ballast water in ships. Journal of Marine Science and Environment
, C4:3

- 12

.103

195. 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.

196. Zhang, F. and M. Dickman. 1999. Mid

- ocean exchange of container vessel ballast water. 1: Seasonal factors affecting the transport of harmful diatoms and dinoflagellates. Marine Ecology Progress Series
, 176:243

- 251

.104 

## X I . APPENDICE S105 APPENDIX A
Ballast Water Treatment System

Efficacy Matrix

Forty

- six ballast water treatment systems were reviewed by Commission staff for compliance with the California performance stan dards. Twenty

- seven systems had data on system efficacy available for review. Staff included data from shipboard, dockside and laboratory studies of system performance. In an effort to standardize results, staff evaluated any data on zooplankton abundance as representative of the largest size class of organisms (greater than 50 μm in size), and phytoplankton abundance was evaluated on par with organisms in the 10

– 50 μm size class. Results presented as percent reduction in organism abundance or as concentr ation of pigments or biological compounds associated with organism presence were noted, but these metrics were not comparable to the performance standards.
In the following tables, systems with at least one test (averaged across replicates) in compliance with the performance standard are scored as meeting California standards. Efficacy data with no tests demonstrating potential compliance with the standards are scored as not meeting California standards. Systems that presented data for a given organism si ze class but presented the results in metrics not comparable to the standards are classified as “Unknown.” For example, a system that presented results of system efficacy as percent reduction of zooplankton abundance could not be compared against the Calif ornia standards, and thus ability of the system to comply with the standards is unknown. Open cells indicate lack of data for a given organism size class. Compliance with the bacteria standard was assessed using the concentration of culturable heterotrophi c bacteria in discharged ballast water. Due to the lack of available methods to both quantify and assess the viability of all viruses, systems cannot be assessed for compliance with the viral standard at this time. The source(s) of the data for each system can be found in the Literature Cited section of the main report.106107108109110111112113114115116117118119120121122123124125126127128129130 A PPENDIX B

California State Lands Commission Advisory Panel Members

Ryan Albert U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Marian As he (2007 only) California Department of Fish and Game John Berge Pacific Merchant Shipping Association
Dave Bolland Association of California Water Agencies Brad Chapman (2007,2009) Chevron Shipping Company Sejal Choksi San Francisco Baykeeper
Andrew Cohen San Francisco Estuary Institute Tim Eichenberg (2007 only) The Ocean Conservancy
Richard Everett United States Coast Guard Naomi Feger San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board
Andrea Fox California Farm Bureau Federation
Dominic Gr egorio State Water Resources Control Board
Marc Holmes The Bay Institute
Rian Hooff Oregon Department of Environmental Quality Bill Jennings The DeltaKeeper
Edward Lemieux Naval Research Laboratory
Karen McDowell San Francisco Estuary Project
Steve M orin Chevron Shipping Company LLC
Allen Pleus Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife
Darrin Polhemus State Water Resources Control Board Kevin Reynolds The Glosten Associates Greg Ruiz Smithsonian Environmental Research Center Spencer Schilling Herb ert Engineering Corp.
Sharon Shiba California Department of Fish and Game, OSPR
Jon Stewart International Maritime Technology Consultants Inc.
Lisa Swanson Matson Navigation Mark Sytsma Portland State University Drew Talley (2007, 2009) San Francisco Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve Kim Ward (2007, 2009) State Water Resources Control Board Nick Welschmeyer Moss Landing Marine Laboratory131 California State Lands Commission 2010 Treatment Technology Assessment Report

Technical Advisory Panel Apr il 15, 2010 Meeting Notes

Attendees
Sharon Shiba , California Department of Fish and Game
Steve Mo rin , Chevron Shipping Maurya Falkner , California State Lands Commission Jackie Mackay , California State Lands Commission
Nicole Dobroski , California State La nds Commission Lynn Takata , California State Lands Commission Gary Gregory , California State Lands Commission
Kevin Merc i er , California State Lands Commission Cameron Baker, Herbert Engineering
Tom Burke , California State Lands Commission
Rian Hooff, Oreg on Department of Environmental Quality
Lisa Swanson , Matson Navigation
Nick Wel s chmeyer , Moss Landing Marine Laboratories John Berge , Pacific Merchant Shipping Association Ryan Albert, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Purpose of Meeting
California P ublic Resources Code requires that the California State Lands Commission produce a report for the state legislature reviewing the efficacy, availability and environmental impacts of ballast water treatment systems 18 months before the implementation dates for California‟s performance standards for ballast water discharge. The purpose of this meeting is to review and discuss a draft report evaluating treatment systems for new build vessels with a ballast water capacity over 5000 metric tons (MT)
, before the implementation date on January 1
, 2012.132

Report Timeline This draft report was provided to this Technical Advisory Panel (Panel) during the week of April 5th

. Today‟s meeting will focus on discussion of major content issues for that
draft. To maximize d iscussion time, the TAG is requested to submit editorial type comments via email by April 23, rather than discuss them at this meeting. Following this meeting, the goal will be to complete a revised draft in early May that will be provided to Commission e xecutive staff for review. A draft final version will be posted for public comment on the Commission website two weeks before the Commission meeting (currently scheduled for June 28 th ). Public comments may be submitted in writing before the Commission me eting or comments may be submitted in person during the public comment portion at the meeting. The final, Commission

- approved report is due to the California State Legislature by July 1, 2010.

Highlights of the Draft Report The format of this report is b ased on the previous 2009 assessment report that evaluated treatment systems for new build vessels with ballast water capacity less than 5000 MT. Revisions/updates for the 2010 draft include: New information on related State and Federal programs This rep ort covers 46 systems

– ranging from chemical to UV filtration systems (majority). Efficacy: The quality and quantity of testing data from treatment vendors has improved, including b etter 3 rd party testing data and more large scale land

- based facility te sting . Though most testing has been done to meet International Maritime Organization ( IMO ) standards and requirements
, the data also
addresses California‟s standards. Robust and widely accepted test procedures still do not exist for viral standards,
so t he systems were not evaluated against California‟s viral standard. Nine systems appear to have the potential to comply with California‟s s tandards, though California will not be approving systems. Commission s taff reviewed the
available d ata, and if at le ast one replicate met CA standards, the system was
considered to have the “potential” to comply. Ultimately, it is up to vessel133

owners /operators working with vendors to select systems that are appropriate for
their vessels‟ routes and water conditions.
O f the 9 systems , 8 are commercially available. The one that is not is the
Ha man n system, which was pulled from production due to potential toxicity problems

. It is not clear if they will continue to pursue the system. Availability: The ability of systems to handle large ballast water capacities was considered a potentially new issue with the current class of vessels, and was investigated by staff. However, since most systems treat on uptake and/ or discharge , the ballast water uptake/discharge rates of bal last pumps were found to be a more important factor than total ballast water capacity in determining the availability of systems. S ystem s must be able to keep pace with ballast ing rates

. Data on pump rates of vessels visiting California was reviewed, an d i n general
, most systems are designed to keep up with observed pump rates. Environmental Impacts: C urrent requirements are the purview of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency‟s ( EPA ) Vessel General Permit and California additions through the Clean W ater Act Section 401 Certification process

. These issues are the purview of the California State Water Resources Control B oard (Water Board) rather than the Commission, but staff did evaluate systems against the chlorine discharge standard , since several systems use it as an active substance

. M ost systems that use chlorine can comply with chlorine
standard
, but not all. Currently the systems that may not comply did not provide adequate or appropriate data . For example, the detection limits of the tests

m easuring chlorine residuals was not sensitive enough to determine compliance
with EPA standards. Commission staff is encouraging vendors to consult with Water Board to make sure they meet these and other water quality requirements

. Economics: Costs have not changed significantly from the 2009 report. There has been a slight drop in price for smaller capacity systems (200 cubic meters per hour), and it is likely that research and development costs will decrease as vessels begin purchasing and installing them. The average cost of l arger capacity systems has not changed since the last report

.134

The MISP plans on taking an adaptive management approach for implementing performance standards No specific recommendations to the State Legislature are included i n this report.

Update on Related Marine Invasive Species Program (MISP) Activities
In 2010 the performance standards went into effect for new build vessels with a ballast water capacity less than 5000 MT

. Since these are new vessels, they probably won ‟ t call to California ports until 2011

. Commission staff is currently completing a rulema king for reporting forms that will be required of vessels using treatment systems in California waters. These are expected to be approved by the Office of Administrativ e Law in early
A ugust. These f orms will be required as systems are used and standards are implemented in California.

MISP staff p rovided comments on U

. S

. C oast G uard (USCG) proposed rule for performance standards, and are working with the EPA on Environm ental Technology Verification (ETV) protocols for land

- based ballast water treatment system testing

. Staff are also consulting with federal, state , and international entities on the implementation of performance standards, and compliance verification

.

Ma jor Panel Comments & Discussion (Paraphrased and Edited) Berge: Since much of the data provided by vendors is based on the IMO G8 testing protocols, how can it be used to ga u ge a system‟s potential to meet California‟s much more stringent standard?

o Dobro ski: Vend ors are providing data, rather than saying simply “yes” or “no” to meeting the IMO standard. Commission staff used this data to see if it
also meets California‟s standards. While t here are issues around volumes necessary to test at certain leve ls of statistical significance, those volumes

are unwieldy and impractical . No one is providing data on that level, nor is testing occurring at that level.135

Berge: The industry is concerned about this, because it isn‟t clear if these systems can
meet Cal ifornia‟s standards if testing protocols required are ultimately different from
IMO‟s.

o Falkner: In discussions with folks from land

- based testing facilities , it appears

that results from systems they have tested are very accurate, you are probably getting good numbers with their data. The bigger issue is how to
translate shore

- based testing to the efficacy of a system on a ship, and how compliance verification will be completed. Though that problem applies to IMO, the USCG , as well as California

.

o Dobros ki: The m ajority of systems that appear to meet CA standards are going through the robust, go

- to land

- based facilities/testing organizations
such as NIOZ ( Royal Netherlands Institute for Sea Research) or N I VA ( Norwegian Institute for Water Research).

o Wel s c hmeyer : The IMO G8 testing protocols are proba bly not appropriate to
evaluate California‟s standards.

o Dobroski : S ome systems have met standards in only one replicate, but some have made it for many replicates . Our goal is to demonstrate potential compl iance

– really it depends on the vessel type, its route, etc. to select a truly appropriate system.

Berge: Comments to the USCG proposed rule by University of Maryland scientists (Tamburri, Wright) attest that no system has been proven to meet standards better than IMO. When the industry approaches vendors, they now say they are not confident they can meet anything more stringent than IMO. This report is providing the information that systems can meet California‟s performance standards. There appears to be a
disconnect there.

o Falkner : Perhaps we need to chat again with vendors and see if they still believe they can meet CA standards (they have claimed in the past that they
could )

.136

o Dobroski : Oceansaver has told us that they can meet California‟s sta ndards. It is possible that vendors may not being totally honest, as they want governments to go ahead with implementing standards laws.

o Falkner : Depending on what kind of feedback we get from vendors , perhaps we need to reevaluate our report. We don‟t w ant to impose a law that no one can
meet.

Berge: Is it possible to give CSLC more flexibility /control without going through the legislature which is too slow? As it stands we have to gues s two years in advance on what will happen with advancing techno logies. It would be better if it can be dealt with more nimbly by the C ommission

.

o Gregory: There is probably not support for that amongst the Commission. The report does need to address the current and real situation, and we‟ll have to
decide what a rec ommendation from this report might say.

o Berge: The intention would not be to change the standard in statute , but to have

more flexibility with implementation extensions. This issue has only recently
come about

– vendors are now realizing they must be mo re honest to shipping companies about the capabilities of their systems, or they eventually have no one buying their systems.

o Baker: T here doesn‟t appear to be a system that can meet the standards 100%
of the time . Ven dors will probably say this too. The y probably won‟t say that their system will meet a standard unless it passe s tests 99% of the time. If t he data
from the 2009 CSLC report indicates that two systems passed one test (replicate) out of five, are w e saying that this will meet CA „s standard? Most people will not agree.

o Falkner: At this point we say such systems have the “potential”. A huge problem in the past has been limited data. Since then data has gotten much better, so perhaps we should verify from vendors how confident they are that they can
meet CA standards
, and how often and under what circumstances they think their systems can do it

.137

o Gregory: From a legal perspective, 75% compliance isn‟t good enough. If I was a ship owner, I wouldn‟t like that either. S hort of a legislative ch ange, we (CSLC)
don‟t have the authority to say at 75% compliance you‟re okay . You‟re either in compliance or not. From a practical perspective, if no one can comply, we may have to look into changing the standards.

o Falkner: F rom the perspective of this report, it is important to know at what level systems can comply, a nd what situations are better or worse.

o Berge: The fact is that shipping lines will install systems that meet IMO standards and show promise to meet CA standards too. I don‟t think loo king into
this i ssue will stop progress.

Welschmeyer : I s the topic of concern that the CSLC report is too optimistic? I s there something wrong with being too optimistic? I agree that testing to non
- detect is not possible to do well at the moment, but is there something misleading or detrimental about the report‟s claim s? Are n‟t we doing a disservice to the currently rapid and wonderful progress of treatment technologies if we are not optimistic ?

o Berge: In discussions with Washington, DC folks on th e debat e surrounding what‟s achievable consistently , it has come up that you as a ship owner/operator can be held legally accountable, even if you‟re hearing different stories about a system‟s capabilities from vendors, the USCG and CSLC (and others) . Fro m a public policy perspective, if you are to be held legally liable, you need a higher
level of assur ance than “probably .”

o Gregory: We should call it as straight as possible, and not be overly optimistic

. If ship owners can‟t find a vendor that will s ay they can meet CA‟s standard, and we say they can, it‟s a problem.

o Hooff: T he crux of the issue is what measuring stick is used to evaluate systems. The report started during a time when there was a lack of data available. So, the measure of at least one replicate may have been appropriate back then, but it may be that that stick needs to be revised now that more data is available. Perhaps as data gets better, the reports need to step up evaluation criteria. This report isn‟t being misleading, becaus e it ‟ s using the same138

measuring stick as in the past, but perhaps it ‟ s time to use a different one. Regardless, these reports provide an excellent service to managers like me and ship owners as well, with all the information included.

o Berge: Agre es that the information is great, b ut the conclusion is very optimistic,
and conclusions are what policymakers /legislators focus on, not all the details.

o Swanson: Matson engi neers are not putting systems on ships unless they have better assurances ( certificatio ns or vendor assurance). It is a big problem that
California is not approving systems. I f you look only at the conclusions or tables in this report (as policy makers do) there will be misunderstandings.

o Welschmeyer: I appreciate that honesty is needed b ut at same time it ‟ s heartening to see now that vendors are having a chance to meet someone‟s standards somewhere. There‟s an optimism also amongst labs testing for
standards. It ‟ s going to get more difficult that California has standards that are imposs ible to measure with statistical certainty, b ut does that mean that the state and the vendors should throw up their arms and give up efforts to protect the environment at the levels that we want to? We‟re on our way to doing something
that is environment ally wise and constructive.

o Berge: To be fair, though, someone will be found liable, and the o n ly party bearing that burden is the shipping industry.

o Berge: Aren‟t systems that are meeting the IMO standards really designed to
meet zero?

o Falkner: Yes , and in discussions with folks at NIOZ, systems are either going way beyond IMO or completely crashing and burning. There‟s very few that are barely meeting IMO.

Baker: Optimis m is good, but I am having difficulty with the conclusion that we are there [ready to meet the CA standard]. In my opinion, we are not

.

o Falkner: A big d ifficulty is that we have to put a report out 18 months in advance of an implementation date, so we have to pontificate a bit
, which is hard.

o Berge: C ould we state something in the conclusions like there are indications for compliance potential , however it ‟ s questionable that systems can meet the139

standards consist ently under a regulatory regime? It ‟s on e thing to say that promising systems are out ther e, but consistency is d ifficult.

o Falkner: B ut no system is going to work 100% of the time, that‟s not realistic.
E ven when a system doesn‟t work, the CSLC policy has always been to try to work with industry to meet the intent/letter of the law.

o Berge: H owever, there‟s a co ncern for the industry over citizen lawsuits

Swanson : H ow does the viral standard play out? It‟s not testable, but the standard
remain s as is

. That will be a problem if we have to install systems now that may have to meet a viral system later. Again, l ack of certification by California is a problem.

o Gregory: There are lots of things on s hips that
, if operated according to established rules, are accepted by regulatory entities

.

o Swanson: I t doesn‟t seem like this program is going that way. You‟re not certifying. It ‟ s up to ships to self

- certify, yet we‟ve got a standard we can‟t test
for. It ‟ s all on the shipping industry, there „s nothing that puts responsibility on the
vendor.

o Gregory: Disagrees. I t ‟ s dependent on the contract established by the vendor and ships. MSDs are like that, oily water separators are that way, etc...

o Berge: Perhaps it should be written into the report that a contract must be established between vendor and ship owner.

o Shiba: If something is not testable, then is it considered non

- detectable, and so
meets the standard? A t the time that viruses become testable , perhaps then you change the law and allow the Commission to make a determination about grandfathering.

o Gregory: Rec all that performance standards were meant to be technology pushing, if it can‟t be developed it must be go to the legislature for addressing.

o Berge: Those caveats should be added to the conclusion.

o Morin: I u nderstand the concept of contracts like MS Ds, but the issue is that those have been around for decades. If I ask for an indemnity clause from a
vendor , and they say no, then what do we do?

o Gregory: T hen there‟s no system that can be considered available.140

o Falkner: This isn‟t the first “new tec hnology” issue for ships. H ow was this done in the past?

o Gregory: W hat about air emissions? The manufacturer is certifying that the engine will meet standards if operated properly , and vessels get fined if they
don‟t meet the m

. It‟s the same thing

– e ngines are not certified by a regulatory
agency. A ship owner would be crazy to buy a system that the manufacturer won‟t certify for meet ing a requirement. T he reg ulatory scheme here is the
same. Th e inde mnification issue is up to shipping companies.

o Berge: I f we get to the point that vendors will certify and provide indemnification,
we‟d be comfortable.

Berge: O n availability, did you look at service and repair worldwide?

o Dobroski: That section (included in the last report) was removed from t his report. The 9 systems mentioned here claim that they will be available worldwide
for service. We can put that information back in the report.

Hooff : Are the max pump rates in F igure 6.2

- 6.3 for all vessels? What if you just
break out the only the 20% that discharge?

o Dobroski: P ump r ates were analyzed for all vessels visiting California with a
ballast water capacity over 5000 MT, but not broken down by dischargers vs. nondischargers.

o Falkner: A bout 75% of vessels operating in CA don‟t discharge , but vessels are not consistent on when they do or don‟t. They can go years without discharging, then suddenly do. That‟s why we used all ships

.

o Hooff: Suggest adding that clarifying language.

o Falkner: Given time constraints, we might be able to l ook at vessel activi ty history, and refine the data

.

Berge : Are there a ny vessels under 5000 MT that have installed systems?141

o Dobroski : Not that we‟re aware of , but vendors have said they‟ve gotten inquiries. But vessels that visit California are only a small percentage of all

v essels out there.

Welschmeyer : The r eport contained all elements of the issue very nicely. Is a v ery complex problem

– I‟ve come to appreciate all the c ontent included, and have found many ideas I would have never thought of o n my own. It is very spot on, including the optimism. I generally feel that all vendors/developers are doing such a much better job
than before.