## 2011 UPDATE: BALLAST WATER TREATMENT SYSTEMS FOR USE IN CALIFORNIA WATERS

PREPARED FOR THE CALIFORNIA STATE LANDS COMMISSION BY THE MARINE INVASIVE SPECIES PROGRAM

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

September 1, 20112 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Coastal Ecosystems Protection Act of 2006 (Act) expanded the Marine Invasive Species Program to more effectively addr ess the threat of nonindigenous species
introduction through ballast water discharge. The Act charged the California State Lands Commission (Commission) to impl ement performance standards for the discharge of ballast water and to prepare reports assessing t he efficacy, availability and
environmental impacts, including water quality, of currently available ballast water
treatment technologies eighteen months in advance of each of the individual
implementation dates. The performance standar ds regulations were adopted in October
2007, and subsequent legislatively-mandated ballast water treatment technology
assessment reports were approved by the Commission in December 2007 (see
Dobroski et al. 2007), December 2008 (see Dobr oski et al. 2009), and August 2010 (see California State Lands Commission 2010). This current update was requested by the Commission and serves as a follow-up to th e August 2010 legislatively-mandated report
to ensure that technologies are developing on schedule to allow for the implementation of California’s performance standards for vessels with a ballast water capacity of greater
than 5000 metric tons (MT) for which construc tion begins on or afte r January 1, 2012.

Commission staff reviewed 60 ballast water treatment systems for this update. Because of the limitations of testing data and the variable conditions present in the “real world,”
this update examines treatment system per formance data to determine whether or not
systems have demonstrated the potential to comply with Calif ornia’s standards. Based on currently available information and usi ng best assessment techniques, 10 treatment
systems have demonstrated the potential to comply with the Commission’s performance
standards (see Table 4) – an increase of two since the 2010 report and an increase of eight since 2009. Efficacy data for these syst ems indicate that at least one test (averaged across replicates) met California’s standards for every test able organism size
class during either land-based or shipboard testing. Five of the 10 systems show the potential to meet California stand ards more than 50% of the ti me over multiple tests (3 or more) during either land-based or shi pboard testing. One system demonstrated potential compliance with Calif ornia’s standards 100% of the time in shipboard testing,3 although no system has yet met California’s standards 100% of the time in land-based
testing. This review does not constitute an endorsement or approval of any treatment
system, system manufacturer or v endor by the Commission or its staff.

Since the August 2010 technology assessment r eport, there has been significant activity concerning performance standards implemen tation and ballast water technology
assessment at the state, feder al and international levels. Re cent reports from the Great Lakes Ballast Water Collaborative (GLBWC 2010), Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR 2010), and the U.S. Envi ronmental Protection Agency (EPA) Science Advisory Board (SAB 2011) have conc luded that the current limits of testing methods prevent evaluating, with a high level of statistical sensitiv ity, whether or not
treatment systems can meet standards more stringent than t he International Maritime Organization (IMO) (see Table 1). California ’s standards were not specifically reviewed in these reports. California’s dischar ge standard for organisms greater than 50
micrometers (one millionth of a meter, μm) is “no detect able living organisms,” and is not defined by a specific volumetric conc entration. Thus, California’s standard for this
organism size class is not directly com parable to the IMO or standards proposed by

other entities evaluated by these reports.

It is important to note tha t, 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 regardi ng treatment system performance across the spectrum of
potential variables, including ship type and sour ce 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 envir onmental scenarios, it is unreasonable to
expect that sample sizes and available dat a will increase adequately in the near future
to demonstrate, with a high leve l of confidence, that trea tment systems will consistently meet California’s performance standards under every potent ial situation and under all
circumstances. However, continuing to wait for such information wil l only serve to delay
progress. Due to the inherent uncertainty regarding treatment system performance and4 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.

Because of the difficulties of testing treat ment technologies to meet California’s
standards with a high level of statistical confidence, staff convened the ballast water
treatment technology technical advisory pane l (established by Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 71204.9) in December 2010 and March 2011 to discuss options for implementing California’s performance standards for the discharge of ballast water. The panel discussed three options including: 1) recommending that t he Legislature amend the standards, 2) recommending that the Legislature impl ement the use of Best
Available Technologies until such time that st aff can statistically ve rify that treatment system meet the standards, or 3) develop and adopt regulations defining specific
protocols to verify vessel compliance with California’s performance standards. The
panel agreed that the best option for moving forward was to develop and adopt
compliance verification protocols. These pr otocols will allow system manufacturers and vessel owners/operators to verify that their treatment tec hnologies are meeting California standards using the same methods, and with the same statis tical sensitivities, that will be used by Commission personnel to determine compliance. Commission staff
has convened a panel of experts to develop the compliance protocols and intends to
begin the rulemaking process in late-2011.

In conclusion, Staff continues to see great progress in the development and testing of
ballast water treatment technologies. While t here are some challenges verifying that treatment systems meet Ca lifornia’s standards, Commission staff have worked with a technical advisory panel of regulators, i ndustry members, scientists and environmental organizations to discuss options for proceeding with the implementation of California’s
standards. Based on those discussions, Commi ssion staff is in the process of developing verification protocols to ensure t hat all vessels discharges are compliant with

California law. Sta ff recommends that the Commission c ontinue to support staff’s effort to implement California’s per formance standards for the di scharge of ballast water.5 These efforts will continue to move the state towards the elimination of the discharge of nonindigenous species into California waters.6 TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................. 2

TABLE OF CO NTENTS .................................................................................................. 6

ABBREVIATIONS A ND TERMS ..................................................................................... 7

I. PURPOSE AND DI SCLAIMER ............................................................................. 8

II. INTRODUCT ION ................................................................................................... 8

III. RECENT STATE, FEDERAL AND INTE RNATIONAL ACTIVI TIES RELATED TO

BALLAST WATER PERFORMANCE STAN DARDS, AND THEIR IMPLICATIONS

FOR CALIFO RNIA ............................................................................................... 12

IV. TREATMENT SYSTEMS .................................................................................... 22

V. SYSTEM EFFI CACY ........................................................................................... 29

VI. IMPLEMENTING CALIFO RNIA’S PERFORMANCE STANDARDS FOR THE

DISCHARGE OF BA LLAST WA TER ................................................................... 34

VII. SUMMARY AND CO NCLUSION S ...................................................................... 37

VIII. LITERATURE CITED ......................................................................................... 39

APPENDIX A: RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT DATA ............................................ 46

APPENDIX B: NOTES FROM SCIENTIFIC PANEL MEETING (DECEMBER 2010) .... 48

APPENDIX C: NOTES FROM TECHNICA L ADVISORY PANEL MEETING (MARCH
2011) ..................................................................................................567 ABBREVIATIONS AND TERMS

Act Coastal Ecosystems Protection Act CCR California Code of Regulations CFR Code of Federal Regulations CFU Colony-Forming Unit Commission California State Lands Commission Convention International Convention for the Control an d Management of Ships’ Ballast Water and Sediments EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency ETV Environmental Technology Verification Program GLBWC Great Lakes Ballast Water Collaborative IMO International Maritime Organization MEPC Marine Environment Protection Committee ml Milliliter MT Metric Ton NRC National Academies of Sci ences’ National Research Council PRC Public Resources Code R&D Research and Development SAB EPA Science Advisory Board SB Senate Bill Staff Commission staff STEP Shipboard Tec hnology Evaluat ion Program μm Micrometer USCG United States Coast Guard UV Ultraviolet Irradiation Vessel General Permit Vessel General Permi t for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels WDNR Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources8 I. PURPOSE AND DISCLAIMER This update provides information regarding the ability and availability of ballast water
treatment systems to meet California’s performance standards for the discharge of ballast water. This update is produced by California State Lands Commission (Commission) staff as a follo w-up to the recent legisl atively mandated report, “2010 Assessment of the Efficacy, Availability and Environmental Impacts of Ballast Water Treatment Systems for Us e in California Waters” (see California State Lands Commission 2010). Because this update is a companion document, not all components
included in the legislativ ely mandated treatment tec hnology assessment report are
discussed. The purpose of this update is to review the latest system efficacy (i.e.
performance) data and information to ensure that technologies are developing on
schedule to allow for the implementation of California’s performance standards for
newly built vessels with a ballast water capac ity of greater than 5000 metric tons (MT)
on January 1, 2012.

This update does not constitute an endorsement or approval of any treatment system, system manufacturer or vendor by the Commission or its staff. It is the responsibility of the vessel owner/operator to select treatme nt systems that will ensure that all ballast water discharged in California waters is in compliance with applicable laws, regulations
and permits.

II. INTRODUCTION The Coastal Ecosystems Protection Act (Act ) (Chapter 292, Statut es of 2006) expanded the Marine Invasive Species Act (Chapter 491, Statutes of 2003, Public Resources Code (PRC) Sections 71200 et seq .) to more effectivel y address the threat of
nonindigenous species introductions through ballast water discharge. The Act mandated that the Commission implement perfo rmance standards for the discharge of
ballast water and prepare reports assessing the efficacy, availability, and environmental impacts, including the effect on water quality, of currently available ballast water
treatment technologies prior to each impl ementation date. The performance standards regulations were adopted in October 2007 (Title 2 California Code of Regulations (CCR)9 Section 2291 et seq ., see Table 1), and the first balla st water treatment technology assessment report was approved by the Co mmission in December 2007 (see Dobroski
et al. 2007).

In response to the recommendations in the 2007 report, the California Legislature passed Senate Bill (SB) 1781 (Chapter 696, Statutes of 2008) which, among its provisions amended PRC Sect ion 71205.3 and delayed the initial implementation of California’s performance standards for newly built vessels with a ballast water capacity
of less than or equal to 5000 MT from J anuary 1, 2009 to January 1, 2010 (see Table 2 for implementation schedule). Additionally, SB 1781 required an update of the treatment
technology assessment report by January 1, 2009. The 2009 repor t (see Dobroski et al. 2009) presented data indicating that at least two ballast water treatment technologies
had demonstrated the pot ential to comply with Californi a’s performance standards for the discharge of ballast water. As such , the report recommended that the Commission
proceed with the initial implem entation of California’s pe rformance standards beginning
January 1, 2010 for newly built vessels with a ballast water capacity of less than or
equal to 5000 MT.10 Table 1. Ballast Water Treatment Performance Standards Organism Size Class IMO Convention 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 vessel s must meet California and IMO Ballast Water Performance Standards. [2] Final discharge standard for California, beginning Ja nuary 1, 2020, is zero detectable living organisms for all organism size classes. [3] Micrometer – one-millionth of a meter [4] Milliliter – one-thousandth of a liter [5] Colony-forming unit – a measur e of viable bacterial numbers

Table 2. Implementation Schedule for Performance Standards Ballast Water Capacity of Vessel Standards apply to new vessels in this size class constructed on or after Standards apply to all other vessels in this size class beginning in 1 < 1500 metric tons 2009 (IMO) 2 /2010 (CA) 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 applies to vessels in this size class no later than the first intermediate or renewal survey, whichever occurs first, after the anniversary date of delivery of the ship in the year of compliance (IMO 2005).
2 IMO has pushed back the initial implementation of t he performance standards for vessels constructed in 2009 in this size class until the vessel’s second annual survey, but no later than December 31, 2011 (IMO 2007).11 Per PRC Section 71205.3, the Commission mu st update the ballast water treatment
technology assessment report to the Legisl ature 18 months prio r to each of the
implementation dates for the performance standards (see Table 2). In August 2010, the Commission presented its third treatment te chnology assessment report (California State Lands Commission 2010) to the Legislature evaluating the availability of ballast
water treatment systems for newly built vessels with a ballast water capacity of greater

than 5000 MT. These vessels must meet th e standards beginning January 1, 2012. The
August 2010 report concluded that eight ballast water treatment systems have
demonstrated the potential to comply with California’s performance standards, and
three of the eight systems su rpassed the standards more t han 50% of the time over
multiple tests. Furthermore, vessels for wh ich construction begins on or after January 1,
2012 will not be expected to meet California’s standards until co nstruction is complete and the vessel is operational in California wa ters, likely sometime in 2014. Thus the

Commission concluded that the lead time av ailable for further technology development

and refinement is sufficient to indicate that technologies are developing on schedule
and will be available by the time these ve ssels must meet California’s discharge

standards.

However, in recognition of the fa ct that the field of ballast water treatment technology is
developing rapidly and that t here remains some uncertainty about the availability of
treatment systems to meet California’s standards, the Co mmission requested that staff prepare an updated report by September 1, 2011 to ensure that treatment technologies

will be available to meet Ca lifornia’s performance standards for newly built vessels with a ballast water capacity of greater than 5000 MT on January 1, 2012. This update is intended to provide the Commission, as we ll as vessel owners/ operators and other
interested stakeholders, with the most current information available on system
development and availability, with a focus on system efficacy. This update presents data and information gathered as of August 1, 2011.12 III. RECENT STATE, FEDERAL AND INTERNATIONAL ACTIVITIES RELATED TO

BALLAST WATER PERFORMANCE STAN DARDS, AND THEIR IMPLICATIONS FOR CALIFORNIA

Though the focus of this update is the availabi lity and efficacy of ballast water treatment systems to meet California’ s performance standards, there has recently been much activity surrounding the potential adoption of performance standards at other state,
federal, and international levels. As a resu lt, several meetings, public discussions, hearings and regulatory actions outside of California have been underway during the
last 12 months. Reports produced from t hese activities have included reviews of treatment technology development and perfo rmance assessment t hat bear mention here, as they may impact efforts to implement California’s performance standards.

Selected issues are discussed below.

International Maritime Organization (IMO)
As of July 31, 2011, 28 countries represent ing 25.43% of the world’s shipping tonnage have signed the International Convention fo r the Control and Management of Ships’ Ballast Water and Sediments (Convention) (see IMO 2005, IMO 2011). The Convention
will be ratified when signed by 30 countries r epresenting 35% of the world’s shipping tonnage. The Convention enters into force 12 months after ratifica tion. Some experts predict that the Convention will be ratified by January 1, 2012 with entry into force by January 1, 2013. As of Augus t 2011, the U.S. has not signed on to the Convention.

Among its provisions, the Convention impos es performance standards for the discharge of ballast water (Regulation D-2, see T able 1) with an associated implementation schedule (see Table 2). Additionally, the Convention requires the development of
guidelines for the approval of ballast water management systems using active substances (i.e. biocides; see Guideline G9 , MEPC 2008a) and guidel ines for flag state
administrations to Type Approve system s as compliant with the Convention’s performance standards (see Gui deline G8, MEPC 2008b).13 While the Convention does not directly impact California’s ability to implement
performance standards, implement ation of the Convention will spark an international
surge in the sale and installation of ballast water treatment systems. Already, anticipation that the Conventi on will be ratified has led to an increase in the number of
systems under development and the number of systems conducting Type Approval testing according to the IMO Guidelines (G8) (see Section IV, Treatment Systems).
Thus far, a critical barrier to the advanc ement of treatment syst ems has been a lack of
installation and testing on active vessels. Im plementation of the Co nvention should lead
to more systems being installed on active ly trading vessels and the opportunity for
scientists, regulators and stakeholders to gather valuable information about treatment system usage and efficacy under real-world conditions to ensure better worldwide
protection against species introductions.

U.S. Federal Programs Ballast water discharges in the United Stat es are regulated by bot h the United States Coast Guard (USCG) and the United States Environmenta l Protection Agency (EPA).
Prior to February 6, 2009, ballast water was regulated solely by the USCG through
regulations developed under author ity of the National Invasi ve Species Act of 1996.
EPA also began regulating ballast water in 2009 after a court decision required ballast
water and other discharges incidental to the normal operation of vessels to be regulated

under the Clean Water Act. The USCG and EPA regulations and permits do not relieve vessel owners/operators of t he responsibility of complyi ng with applicable state laws and/or regulations. Thus vessels face a c hallenging environment for the management of
ballast water discharges marked by the need to navigate regulation by two federal
agencies as well as the states. Recent efforts by both USCG and EPA, described
below, have included working collaboratively to reduce confusion amongst the regulated industry while developing a strong federal program for ballast water management.

USCG In August 2009, the United States Coast Guard proposed regulations to establish
federal performance standards for living organi sms in ships’ ballast water discharged in14 U.S. waters. The proposed regulations would amend Title 33 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 151 to include a two-phase ballast water discharge standard
and implementation schedule. Phase one would require ve ssels to meet the IMO Regulation D-2 standards (see Table 1) by 2012. Phase two would require that
discharged ballast comply with a standard r oughly 1000 times more stringent than IMO (similar to California’s standards) by 2016, cont ingent upon a review of the availability of
treatment technologies to meet that standard. The public comment period on the
proposed rule closed in December, 2009. Th e USCG received thousands of comments,
and as of August 2011 the final rule had not yet been released. The USCG has
indicated that it hopes to publish the final rule sometime in late-2011. In the meantime, the USCG has begun developing protocols to verify vessel compliance with the proposed federal standards. Co mmission staff has been asked by USCG to participate
and provide input.

The USCG continues to support the developm ent of novel ballast water treatment technologies through the Shipboard Tec hnology Evaluation Program (STEP). STEP
provides an avenue for vessels to insta ll and operate experimental ballast water treatment systems in U.S. waters. Vessels accepted into the program receive an equivalency for future federal performance standards. As of August 2011, six vessels have been accepted into STEP. Currently, th e USCG has not finalized the shipboard
testing protocols to verify system performanc e, and STEP vessels are therefore unable
to proceed with shipboard testing for treat ment system biologic al efficacy.

Commission staff continues to work wit h the USCG and encourage the operation of
STEP vessels in California waters. In 2011, the California Senate En vironmental Quality

Committee introduced Senate Bi ll 935. Among its provisions, SB 935 would extend the
date by which vessels engaged in the experiment al evaluation of ballast water treatment systems (mainly STEP vessels) may apply to the Commission for approval to operate
those experimental systems in California waters. PRC Sect ion 71204.7 currently sets
January 1, 2008 as the deadline by which ve ssels must apply to the Commission to
receive approval to operate experimental systems in California. Following Commission15 approval, experimental STEP vessels are grandf athered for five years as compliant with California’s standards. The January 2008 deadline has passed, and only five STEP
vessels currently have permission to use their experimental systems in California waters. SB 935 would extend the application date to January 1, 2016. Extending the
application deadline would provide incentives for vessels to continue to install and
evaluate experimental treatm ent systems and would provide an avenue for future STEP
vessels to operate their treatment systems in California waters.

EPA

In December 2008 the EPA issued the “Vesse l General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels” (V essel General Permit). The Vessel General
Permit regulates 26 discharges, including balla st water, incidental to normal vessel operation. In 2009, the State of Michigan and environmental groups filed suit against EPA charging that the Vessel Ge neral Permit violates the Clean Water Act because it does not adequately protect U.S. waters from invasive species and could lead to
violation of water quality standards. In March 2011, plaintiffs and the EPA reached a
settlement in the case. The settlement requi res EPA to release a draft revised Vessel General Permit by November 30, 2011. Among the provisi ons in the settlement, the

revised Vessel General Permit must include num eric effluent limits for the concentration of living organisms in discharged balla st water (i.e. performance standards).
Additionally, EPA must provide additional time to states to review the draft permit and
add state-specific provisions under the Section 401 certific ation process. Lastly, the permit must be finalized by November 30, 2012, a full year before it goes into effect on
December 19, 2013, in order to provide time for the regulated industry to comply.

Commission staff is closely following both t he USCG rulemaking and the EPA revisions

to the Vessel General Permit. It is not known at this time how the two may intersect and
impact the regulated community. The Nation al Invasive Species Act and the Clean
Water Act allow states to implement more stringent standards, therefore federal actions should not directly impact the Commission’ s efforts to implement California’s
performance standards. However, the regulat ory landscape is becoming increasingly16 complicated and confusing for vessels tr ansiting between various jurisdictions. Commission staff is working closely with st akeholders to ensure that vessels clearly

understand California’s ballast wa ter management requirements.

EPA/USCG Collaborative Activities To better inform EPA’s understanding of bal last water discharges and treatment technologies, EPA in conjunction with the US CG, commissioned two scientific studies in
2010 to examine: 1) the risk of species in troduction given certain living organism
concentrations in ballast water discharges, and 2) the efficacy and availability of ballast
water treatment technologies. The Nationa l Academy of Sciences’ National Research Council (NRC) was charged with evaluating t he organism concentration question, and the EPA Office of Water requested the Scie nce Advisory Board’s (SAB) Ecological Processes and Effects Committee, augmented with experts in ballast water issues, to address the efficacy/availability question.

On June 2, 2011, the NRC released the repor t “Assessing the Relationship Between
Propagule Pressure and Invasion Risk in Ballast Water” (see NRC 2011). The goal of
the report is to “inform the regulation of ballast water by hel ping EPA and the USCG
better understand the relationship between t he concentration of living organisms in
ballast water discharges and the probability of nonindigenous organisms successfully establishing populations in U.S. waters.” Th e report concluded that there is currently
insufficient information to determine the pr obability of invasion associated with any
particular discharge standard. The report recommends establishing a benchmark discharge standard (such as the IMO D-2 standar d) followed by the selection of a riskbased model to guide the collection of exper imental and field-bas ed data for further
analysis to inform the selection of sci ence-based standards in the future.

The SAB report, “Efficacy of Ballast Water Treatment Systems: a Report by the EPA Science Advisory Board,” was finalized in July 2011 (see SAB 2011). The panel

examined 51 ballast water treatment techno logies, however, only nine systems were deemed to have reliable data (defined by the SAB as including, at a minimum, methods17 and results from land-based or shipboard testi ng) that allowed for scientifically credible assessment of performance. The SAB eval uated the ability of those 9 systems, condensed into five operational types (e.g. f iltration + electrochlorination), to meet various existing and proposed performanc e standards, ranging fr om the IMO D-2
standard to a standard 1000 times more stringent than IMO. California’s standards were not explicitly included in the analysis. Some argue that California’s standard should be
considered roughly 1000 times more stringent than IMO. However, out of California’s
seven different organism size class st andards (see Table 1), only one (the 10-50 micrometer size class) is specifically 100 0 times more stringent th an IMO; the California
standard for organisms greater than 50 micrometers in minimum dimension is “no
detectable living organisms” which cannot be di rectly compared to the IMO standard of 10 organisms per cubic meter. California’s remaining standards for organisms less than

10 micrometers in size either have no com parison to the IMO standards (e.g. total
bacteria and viruses) or ar e only 2-3 times more stringent than IMO (e.g. human health
indicator species).

The SAB report concluded that the nine systems could meet the IM O D-2 standard, but

that the current limits of te sting methods precluded a stat istically valid analysis of
whether or not the systems could meet more stringent standards (including standards
100 and 1000 times more stringent than the IM O D-2 standard). However, based on the
available data, the panel does not believe that systems can currently meet standards more stringent than IMO D-2. The panel conc luded that reasonable changes to existing systems could result in the achievement of standards roughly 10 times more stringent
than IMO, but that novel tr eatment techniques would likel y be required to meet more
stringent standards. In addition to the review of available treatment technologies, the panel advocated for the use of risk managem ent systems approaches to reduce species introductions from vessels, including, for ex ample, modifications to vessel operations and ship design and options for shore or barge- based ballast water reception facilities.

In addition to efforts to manage and revise the Vessel General Permit, the EPA has been engaged with the USCG in the development of standardized protocols to verify18 ballast water treatment technology performa nce. The EPA Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Program “verifies the per formance of innovative technologies that
have the potential to improve protection of human health and the environment” (EPA 2011). In 2001, the USCG and EPA establis hed a formal agreement to implement an ETV program for ballast water treatment technologies. After many years of development and testing, the ETV Program released the “G eneric Protocol for the Verification of Ballast Water Treatment Technology” in Se ptember 2010 (see EPA 2010). The protocol
established specific methods and procedures for verifying ballast water treatment system performance at land-based testing fac ilities. The USCG has indicated that the
ETV protocols may be incorporated into fu ture procedures for the Type Approval of
ballast water treatment systems fo r use in the United States.

Commission staff has yet to receive any reports on treatment technology performance
evaluation based on the testing model pres ented in the ETV protocols. However, Commission staff is using the protocols as a va luable resource to gauge the reliability of existing data for evaluating system performan ce. Additionally, Commission staff is using
the ETV protocols to inform the development of methods to verify vessel compliance with California’s performance standards (see Section VI. Implementing California’s

Performance Standards fo r more information).

The ETV program is also currently pursuing the development of sh ipboard protocols to verify treatment system performance. Commi ssion staff has been invited to participate
and provide expertise during the developm ent of both the land- based and shipboard
protocols.

U.S. States

The Great Lakes Ballast Water Collaborativ e (GLBWC) is a workgroup of Great Lakes states, U.S. federal and Canadian regulat ors, and associated stakeholders. The GLBWC met in Duluth, Minnesota in July 20 10 to discuss various aspects of ballast water treatment technologies, verification st rategies and policies. Commission staff was19 invited to participate in this meeting to of fer expertise and experie nce in ballast water
management and technology assessment.

A focus of the GLBWC meeting in Duluth wa s to provide information to the Wisconsin
Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) on t he availability of treatment technologies
to meet Wisconsin’s perfo rmance standards for the disc harge of ballast water.
Wisconsin established ballast water perfo rmance standards in 2010 through a General
Permit to Discharge under the Wisconsin Po llutant Discharge Elim ination System. The
standards were originally 100 times more stringent than IMO, to be implemented on
January 1, 2012 and January 1, 2014 for new and existing vessels, respectively. Prior to
the implementation of the standards, WDNR was required to conduct an assessment of
the availability of treatment systems to meet the Wisconsin standards. If technologies
were determined to be unavailable, the Wisc onsin standards would be revised to the IMO standards (see Table 1).

Based on the information discussed at the Du luth meeting and in the report produced by the GLBWC (see GLBWC 2010), WDNR releas ed the “Wisconsin Ballast Water
Treatment Feasibility De termination” in December 2010 (see WDNR 2010). The
WDNR’s report concluded that there were se veral barriers to t he implementation of Wisconsin standards, including: 1) It is not possible to verify at this time that any
treatment system can meet the Wisconsin standards (100 times more stringent than IMO) due to a lack of formal verification prot ocols ; 2) Because there are no protocols to determine if technologies meet the Wi sconsin standards, technologies cannot be
considered commercially available to meet them ; and 3) It is not feasible to install the
technologies onboard new and existing vessels operating in Wisconsin waters.
Therefore, WDNR determined t hat ballast water treatment technologies are not
available to meet the proposed Wisconsin standard, and instead the IMO standards will
be implemented.

Commission staff believes that while the WDNR and GLBWC reports offer a great deal
of information about the development and a ssessment of treatment technologies, the20 situation in California is not analogous. Wiscons in’s ports are located in the freshwater environment of the Great Lakes. Very few ba llast water treatment manufacturers have
tested the performance of t heir systems in freshwater . Furthermore, the age and configuration of many of the bulk carriers on the Great Lakes are unlike the types and configuration of vessels that arrive in Califo rnia. Therefore the cha llenges of installing treatment systems on Great Lak es vessel are not equivalent to challenges experienced by vessels trading in California.

Several Great Lakes states, other than Wisconsin, have also had recent activity
regarding the implementation of perform ance standards. Among them, New York and Pennsylvania included provisions for the es tablishment of ballast water performance

standards in their Section 401 certification of the EPA Vessel General Permit. The State
of New York included provisions requiring vessels to meet a standard equivalent to 100
times more stringent than the IMO D-2 standard by 2012, and vessels constructed on or
after 2013 must install systems that meet California’s perf ormance standards. In their Section 401 certification, New York pr ovided vessel owners with an opportunity to request a delay in the implementation of the performance standards if the vessel could
provide sufficient justification. Based on the requests for delay from many vessels
owners, New York released a letter in 2011 t hat extended the date by which existing
vessel must comply with the New York standar ds from January 1, 2012 to August 1,
2013. Like New York, Pennsylvania also adopted standards through the Section 401
certification process. However, in Decem ber 2010, EPA provided notice in the Federal
Register that Pennsylvania deleted the Section 401 certif ication conditions from the Vessel General Permit that require vessels to meet ballast water performance

standards.

New Information from Non-Regulatory Sources

Statistical Research

One of the central questions associated with treatm ent technology assessment is
whether or not enough ballast water has been samp led for statistical rigor. Most of the gray literature (non-peer re viewed) reports reviewing treatment technologies and21 available data on system efficacy do not specific ally quantify the statis tical reliability of
results as they relate to sample collection methods and volumes of water sampled. This

issue of the statistics of ballast water sa mpling came to the forefront of federal (USCG/EPA) and state (GLBWC, WDNR) discu ssions and reports during 2010-11. One
paper in particular, Miller et al. (2010) has been widely cited for its in-depth analysis and statistical modeling of sample volume s, organism concentrations and regulatory
scenarios. The paper discusses the statistics of Type I and Type II error (i.e. the chance of false positives vs. false negatives) and how t hese errors relate to the ability to detect
non-compliant discharge concentrations. The paper has served as a valuable reference for Commission staff during the preparation of compliance verification protocols (see Section VI, Implementing California ’s Performance Standards).

Classification Society Reports and Advisories
Recently, several maritime classification so cieties (organizations that establish and apply technical standards for ship design, construction and survey) have provided guidance documents for ship owners and operators regarding the selection and

installation of ballast water treatment systems to meet various ballast water performance standards. In September 2010, Lloy d’s Register (U.K.) released the report, “Ballast Water Treatment Systems: Gui dance for Ship Operators on Procurement, Installation and Operation” (see Lloyd’s Re gister 2010), and in June, 2011 published the

fourth edition of their “Ballast Water Treat ment Technology” guide (see Lloyd’s Register 2011). The American Bureau of Shipping (U .S.) published their “Ballast Water
Treatment Advisory” in mid-2010, whic h was later updated in April 2011 (see ABS 2011). Germanischer Lloyd (Germany) distribut ed the “Model Booklet for Ballast Water Management,” in May 2011 (see Germanischer Lloyd 2011). These documents review
current regulations and standards, provide information on available treatment systems
and guidance on system selection and installa tion, discuss safety considerations, and

serve as a resource as vessels owners/ operators develop and revise ballast water management plans for new treatment technologi es. Classification societies have also
begun offering approval and certification of ballast water treatment systems. These approvals specifically relate to the engi neering, safety and operational concerns22 associated with the integrati on of treatment systems into vessels. System performance (i.e. biological efficacy) is addressed by t he Type Approval granted by the flag state
administration, and not by classification societies.

IV. TREATMENT SYSTEMS Coinciding with the recent flurry of state, f ederal and international activities related to ballast water discharge performance standards, staff has seen an almost linear increase
in the number of treatment systems under de velopment and the num ber of treatment systems that have received IMO G8 Type Approval since the Commission’s first technology assessment report in 2007 (see Fi gure 1). The ballast water treatment
market is rapidly evolving and expanding as existing systems are modified and as new
systems enter the market. Many of these sy stems have conducted or are in the process of conducting evaluations to assess complia nce with California’s performance standards and to receive approvals according to the IMO Convention and Guidelines. While
system approvals granted under the IMO testing regime do not provide legal authority or guarantee of compliance when operating in Calif ornia or U.S. waters, the IMO process does provide vessel owners/operators, in terested stakeholders and regulators with
important data on system operation and per formance. IMO Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) approvals of syst ems using active substances (Basic and Final Approval) and Type Approvals from fl ag state administrations as of July 18,
2011, are included in Table 3. For this update, Commission staff reviewed sixty ballast water treatment systems (Table 3).23 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70Number of Ballast Water Treatment Systems Number of Systems Reviewed by CSLC
Number of Systems with Type Approval

Figure 1. The number of treatm ent system reviewed by Commission staff during each of the Commission’s treatment technol ogy assessment reports. The number of systems with Type Approval is shown.24Table 3.Ballast Water Treatment Systems Reviewed by Commission StaffManufacturer Country System NameTechnologyTypeTechnology Description Approvals21stCentury ShipbuildingCo. Ltd.KoreaARA Ballast(formerly BlueOcean Guardian)combinationfiltration + plasma + UVIMO Basic andFinalAlfa Laval SwedenPureBallast2.0/2.0 Excombinationfiltration + advanced oxidationtechnology (UV + TiO2)IMO Basic andFinal, TypeApproval (Norway)AQUA Eng. Co. Ltd.KoreaAquaStarTMBWMScombinationfiltration + electrolysis +neutralization (sodiumthiosulfate)IMO BasicAquaworx ATC GmbH Germany AquaTriCombTM combination filtration + ultrasound + UV IMO BasicATLAS-DANMARKDenmarkABWScombinationfiltration + electrolysis(ANOLYTE + CATHOLYTE)Auramarine Ltd. Finland CrystalBallast combination filtration + UVBrillyantUSABrillyantSeaphysicalelectric pulseColdharbour Marine Ltd.United KingdomColdharbourBWTSphysicaldeoxygenationChina Ocean ShippingCompany (COSCO)ChinaBlue Ocean Shieldcombinationhydrocyclone + filtration + UVIMO Basic2, TypeApproval (China)DESMI Ocean GuardA/SDenmarkDESMI OceanGuard BWTScombination filtration + ozone + UV IMO BasicEcochlorUSAEcochlor®BWTScombinationfiltration + biocide (chlorinedioxide)IMO Basic andFinal, STEP1EcologiQUSA/CanadaBallaCleanbiologicaldeoxygenationElectrichlorUSAModel EL 1-3 Bchemicalelectrolytic generation ofsodium hypochloriteEnvironmentalTechnologies Inc. (ETI)USABWDTScombinationozone + sonic energy1STEP is a USCG experimental use approval that applies to thecombination of one vessel and one treatment system. While STEP enrollment includes a rigoroustechnical and environmental screening it is not a type approval process.2Based on MEPC 59/24 – administrations may determine if BWMS thatmake use of UV light produce Active Substances. China does not believe this system usesActive Substances, so Final Approval is not necessary.25Table 3 (continued).Ballast Water Treatment Systems Reviewed by Commission StaffManufacturer Country System NameTechnologyTypeTechnologyDescriptionApprovalsEnvirotech andConsultancy Pte. Ltd.SingaporeBlueSeas BWMScombinationfiltration + electrolysis +neutralization (sodiumthiosulfate)IMO BasicEnvirotech andConsultancy Pte. Ltd.SingaporeBlueWorld BWMScombinationfiltration + electrolysis +neutralization (sodiumthiosulfate)IMO BasicERMA FIRST ESKEngineering SolutionsS.A.GreeceERMA FIRSTBWTScombinationfiltration + hydrocyclone +electrolysis + neutralization(sodium bisulfite)IMO BasicFerrate TreatmentTechnologies LLCUSAFerratorchemicalbiocide (ferrate)GEA WestfaliaSeparator Group GmbHGermanyBallastMasterBWMScombinationfiltration + electrolysis +neutralization (sodiumthiosulphate)IMO BasicHamworthy GreenshipLtd.U.K./NetherlandsAQUARIUS2combinationhydrocyclone + electrolysisIMO Basic andFinalHanoviaU.K.combinationfiltration + UVHi Tech MarineAustraliaSeaSafe-3physicalheat treatmentNew South WalesEPAHitachiJapanClearBallastcombinationcoagulation + magneticseparation + filtrationIMO Basic andFinal, TypeApproval (Japan)Hyde MarineUSAHyde Guardiancombinationfiltration + UVType Approval(U.K.), STEP1Hyundai HeavyIndustries Co. Ltd.KoreaEcoBallastcombinationfiltration + UVIMO Basic andFinalHyundai HeavyIndustries Co. Ltd.KoreaHiBallastcombinationfiltration + electrolysis +neutralizing agent (sodiumthiosulfate)IMO Basic andFinal1STEP is a USCG experimental use approval that applies to thecombination of one vessel and one treatment system. While STEP enrollment includes a rigoroustechnical and environmental screening it is not a type approval process.2Hamworthy has replaced the SEDINOX system with AQUARIUS. Thesystem is undergoing testing and is not yet ready for full review.26Table 3 (continued).Ballast Water Treatment Systems Reviewed by Commission StaffManufacturer Country System NameTechnologyTypeTechnology Description ApprovalsJFE Engineering Corp.JapanJFE BallastAcecombinationfiltration + biocide (sodiumhypochlorite)2+ cavitation +neutralizing agent (sodiumsulfite)IMO Basic andFinal, TypeApproval (Japan)Katayama Chemical Inc.JapanSKY-SYSTEMchemicalbiocide (Peraclean®Ocean) +neutralization (sodium sulfite)IMO BasicKuraray Co. Ltd.JapanKuraray BWMScombinationfiltration + biocide (calciumhypochlorite) + neutralizingagent (sodium sulfite)IMO BasicKwang San Co. Ltd.KoreaEn-Ballastcombinationfiltration + electrolysis +neutralizing agent (sodiumthiosulfate)IMO BasicMAHLE IndustriefiltrationGmbHGermanyOcean ProtectionSystem (OPS)combinationfiltration + UVType Approval(Germany)MARENCO TechnologyGroupUSAMARENCO BWTScombinationfiltration + UVMaritime Solutions Inc.(MSI)USAMSI BWTScombinationfiltration + UVMexel IndustriesFranceMexel®chemicalnon-oxidizing biocideMH SystemsUSAMH BWT Systemcombinationdeoxygenation (inert gas +CO2)Mitsui Engineering andShipbuildingJapanSP-Hybrid BWMSOzonecombinationfiltration + mechanicaltreatment + ozone +neutralizationIMO Basic andFinalMitsui Engineering andShipbuildingJapanSPO-SYSTEMcombinationfiltration + mechanicaltreatment + biocide (PeracleanOcean)IMO Basic (fromPeraclean MEPC54)Mitsui Engineering andShipbuildingJapanFineBallast MFphysicalpre-filtration + microfiltration(membrane)NEIUSAVenturi OxygenStripping (VOS)combinationdeoxygenation + cavitationType Approval(Liberia, Malta,Marshall Islands,Panama), STEP11STEP is a USCG experimental use approval that applies to thecombination of one vessel and one treatment system. While STEP enrollment includes a rigoroustechnical and environmental screening it is not a type approval process.2JFE is currently applying for Basic Approval for use of NEO CHLOR MARINE, a dry version of the same chemical used in BallastAce.27Table 3 (continued).Ballast Water Treatment Systems Reviewed by Commission StaffManufacturer Country System NameTechnologyTypeTechnology Description ApprovalsNK-03KoreaBlueBallastchemicalozoneIMO Basic andFinal, TypeApproval (Korea)ntorreiroSpainBallastmarcombinationfiltration + electrochlorination +neutralization (sodiummetabisulphite)Nutech 03 Inc.USAMark IIIchemicalozoneOceanSaverNorwayMark IIcombinationfiltration + electrolysisIMO Basic andFinal, TypeApproval (Nor.)2OptiMarinNorwayOptiMarin BallastSystemcombinationfiltration + UVType Approval(Norway)Panasia Co. LtdKoreaGloEn-PatrolTMcombinationfiltration + UVIMO Basic andFinal, TypeApproval (Korea)Pinnacle OzoneSolutionsUSAAquaticenhancementsystemcombinationfiltration + ozone + UVQingdao HeadwayTechnology Co. Ltd.ChinaOceanGuardTMBWMScombinationfiltration + electrolysis +ultrasoundIMO Basic andFinal, TypeApproval (China)RWO Marine WaterTechnologyGermanyCleanBallastcombinationfiltration + electrolysis +neutralization (sodiumthiosulfate)IMO Basic andFinal, TypeApproval (Ger.)Samsung HeavyIndustries Co. Ltd.KoreaNeo-PurimarTMBWMScombinationfiltration + electrolysis +neutralization (sodiumthiosulfate)IMO BasicSea KnightUSAINSITU BWMScombinationdeoxygenation + biologicalaugmentation1STEP is a USCG experimental use approval that applies to thecombination of one vessel and one treatment system. While STEP enrollment includes a rigoroustechnical and environmental screening it is not a type approval process.2The Norwegian Administration is reviewing biological efficacyof the updated treatment systemand may considering issuing a new Type Approval Certificate. Thesystem is not reviewed here until that determination can be made and data from the updated system is made available to Commission Staff.28Table 3 (continued).Ballast Water Treatment Systems Reviewed by Commission StaffManufacturer Country System NameTechnologyTypeTechnology Description ApprovalsSevern Trent De NoraUSABALPURE®chemicalfiltration + electrochlorination +neutralizing agent (sodiumbisulfite)IMO Basic andFinal, STEP1, TypeApproval (Ger.)SiemensGermanySiCureTMcombinationfiltration + electrochlorinationIMO BasicSTX Metal Co. Ltd.KoreaSmart Ballastchemicalelectrolysis + neutralization(sodium thiosulfate)Sumitomo ElectricIndustries, Ltd.JapanSEI-Ballast Systemcombinationfiltration + UVSunrui MarineEnvironment Eng. Co.ChinaBalClorTM BWMScombinationfiltration + electrochlorination +neutralizing agent (sodiumthiosulfate)IMO Basic andFinal, TypeApproval (China)Techcross Co. Ltd.KoreaElectro-CleenTMSystemchemicalelectrolysis + neutralizing agent(sodium thiosulfate)IMO Basic andFinal, TypeApproval (Korea)Techwin Eco Co. Ltd.KoreaPurimarTM BWMScombinationfiltration + electrolysis +neutralization (sodiumthiosulfate)IMO Basic andFinalWärtsilä CorporationFinlandWartsila BWTScombinationfiltration + UVWilhelmsen/ResourceBallast TechnologiesNorway/South AfricaUnitor BWTScombinationcavitation + ozone + sodiumhypochlorite + filtrationIMO Basic andFinal, TypeApproval (SouthAfrica)Wuxi Brightsky ElectronicCo. Ltd.ChinaBSKYTM BWMScombinationfiltration + UVType Approval(China)1STEP is a USCG experimental use approval that applies to thecombination of one vessel and one treatment system. While STEP enrollment includes a rigoroustechnical and environmental screening it is not a type approval process.29 V. SYSTEM EFFICACY Treatment system performance (i.e. efficacy) can be defined as the extent to which a
system removes or kills organisms in ballast water. For this update, Commission staff’s
specific focus is on the ability of availa ble treatment systems to meet California’s
performance standards for the di scharge of ballast water for newly built vessels with a ballast water capacity greater than 5000 MT (see Tables 1 and 2 for performance
standards and implement ation schedule).

Recent reports at the state and feder al level (see GLBWC 2010, WDNR 2010, SAB 2011) have concluded that testing protocols ar e not available to determine if treatment
systems can meet any standard more stri ngent that IMO D-2 with a high degree of statistical certainty. Specific concerns hav e focused on the extremely large volumes of water (thousands of cubic meters) necessary to assess compliance with a standard 100 or 1000 times more stringent than IMO for organisms greater than 50 μm in size. California’s standards for organisms greater 50 μm is defined as “no detectable living organisms,” and does not define a specific vo lumetric concentration. Many outside
parties have reasoned that compliance with th is standard is not verifiable because the
volumes of ballast water required to determi ne compliance are too large to be practical
for shipboard compliance verification. However, it is important to note that, unlike the IMO standard for the same size class (see Table 1), the standard for California is

unitless. Whereas IMO defines its standard for organisms greater than 50 μm as less

than 10 per cubic meter , California’s standard does not se t forth a volume requirement. Therefore compliance and performance testing fo r this size class could occur with any volume of water, especially volumes that ar e more realistic to sample under shipboard
operation. For the other organism classes, volumes specifi ed in California’s standards
do not appear to pose statistical, l ogistical or analysis problems.

Because of the aforementioned limitations of available testing protocols, as well as limited data demonstrating system performance under the variable conditions present in
the “real world,” this update examines treat ment system performance data to determine
whether or not systems have demonstrated the potential to comply with California’s30 performance standards. Commission staff does not have the practical ability to test and approve treatment systems for operation in Ca lifornia waters. Positive assessment for the purpose of this update does not guarant ee system compliance when operated in California waters, nor does the update s uggest or imply system approval. Vessel
owners and operators should consult extensiv ely 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. Vessel owners/operator s, not the treatment system vendor, are responsible for complying with California’s performance standards for the discharge of

ballast water.

Commission staff compiled and reviewed al l available scientific literature and
performance data in order to assess system potential to meet California’s performance

standards. Staff was able to collect effi cacy data on 38 of the 60 treatment systems
reviewed in this update. With the exception of the evaluat ion of system performance for
inactivating the bacterium Vibrio cholerae , laboratory (benchtop scale) data was not
used for evaluation purposes because of t he large discrepancy in scale between the
laboratory and land-based and shipboard in vestigations. Of the 38 systems with
available data, three had only laboratory dat a available, and therefore were not included
in this assessment (see Appendix A for a list of systems with only laboratory data available).

For those systems with available land-bas ed and shipboard testing data, the EPA SAB report (see SAB 2011) highlighted the need to differentiate between data collected for
research and development (R&D) purposes vers us data obtained as part of the formal Type Approval testing process. Syst ems tested for R&D purposes may still be undergoing modification and may not represent the final versi on of the system available
for sale; therefore, it is not appropriate to consider R&D data to determine if a system

can meet California’s standards. Furthermo re, the SAB noted that not all data can be considered “reliable.” The SAB (2011) defin ed reliable data as including, “...at a
minimum, methods and results from land-bas ed or shipboard testing.” Commission staff31 agrees with this designation and its criteria, and used it to further refine the list of
systems with available data. For this analys is, only systems with reliable data (reports including both methods and results) gathered as part of the Type Approval testing
process were considered (see Appendix A for list of systems with R&D and/or
incomplete data files). Ultimat ely, staff examined the effi cacy data for 18 ballast water
treatment systems for th is update (see Table 4).

Commission staff proceeded with system data analysis using the best available methods and techniques for assessing organi sm concentration and viability for each of the size classes in California’s perform ance standards. As with previous reports, Commission staff assessed compliance with the bacterial standard by using a proxy group of organisms (culturable, aerobic, het erotrophic bacteria – hereafter culturable
heterotrophic bacteria) to represent the lar ger group of all bacteria (see discussion in Dobroski et al. 2009). Analysis of viral s pecies remains challenging. Commission staff
believes that at this time no widely accepted technique or proxy is available, and thus systems were not evaluated for comp liance with the viral standard.

Staff assessed the performance rates of t hose systems with available, reliable landbased and shipboard data from Type Approval testing (Table 4). The assessed data is
presented in fraction form, wit h the number of tests (aver aged across replicates) that

demonstrated potential compliance with California’s st andards in the numerator, and

the total number of tests in the denominator. Systems th at presented data for a given
size class with insufficient detail to compar e to California’s standards (e.g. data was
presented as non-detectable, but the lower limit of detection was not stated) are

classified as “Unknown.” Th is detailed review provides the opportunity to identify
systems that have undergone more tests, a nd have demonstrated higher rates of
potential compliance. The source(s) of t he data for each system can be found in the

Literature Cited section.32Table 4.Summary of systems with data available for assessment of efficacySystems with reliable land-based or shipboard test results from Type Approval testingare assessed in Table 4. The number of tests (averagedacross replicates) that demonstratedpotentialcompliance with California’s standards is presented in the numerator, and the total number of testsin the denominator. Systems in bold conducted at least 3 tests anddemonstrated the potential tomeet California’s standards atleast 50% of thetime at either land-based or shipboard scale.Land Ship Land Ship Land Ship Land Ship Land Ship Land ShipAl faLaval14/10 1/4 3/10 1/4 0/10 2/2 10*/10 4*/4 10*/10 4*/4 10*/10 4*/4 59,61,65Auramarine 3/11 5/11 0/11 11*/11 11*/11 11*/11 66Ecochlor 8/15 3/3 9/11 3/3 8/11 10/10 3/3 11/11 3/3 1/1(lab) 3*/3 15,54,69ERMAFirst 5/12 0/2 9/12 2/20/Unk310*/10 2*/2 10/10 2/2 2*/2 16,57Hyde 1/10 3/3 0/10 1/3 5/10 3/3 10*/10 3*/3 10*/10 3*/3 3*/3 55,76JFE 6/11 3/6 11/11 5/6 3/11 11*/11 6/6 11/11 6/6 11*/11 6*/6 23,62MSI 0/5 0/5 3/5 5/5 5/5 5*/5 51NEI 1/5 1/2 0/1 Unk 0/2 0/2 0/1 2*/2 0/1 Unk 2*/2 71,72,73NK‐03 5/14 1/5 9/14 4/5 0/14 1/1 10*/10 5*/5 10*/10 5*/5 10*/10 5*/5 26,28Nutech 0/3 2/3 0/2 0/3 3/3 2/2 3*/3 3*/3 3*/3 18,77OptiMarin 8/12 0/8 6/12 2/8 2/12 12*/12 8*/8 12*/12 8*/8 12*/12 8*/8 58,60Panasia 1/1 1/127Qingdao 4/13 3/3 8/13 3/3 9/13 3/3 13*/13 3*/3 13*/13 3*/3 13*/13 3*/3 63,68RWO 0/13 4/5 6/13 3/3 7/13 13*/13 5*/5 13*/13 5/5 13*/13 5*/5 13,64SevernTrent 7/11 2/4 8/11 1/3 10/11 2/4 10*/10 4/4 10/10 4/4 4*/4 12,56Siemens 0/10 5/10 0/10 10/10 7/10 10*/10 17,52Techcross 8/11 3/3 9/11 3/3 5/5 1/1 10/10 3/3 11/11 3/3 11*/11 3*/3 29,30Wilhelmsen 2/2 2/3 1/2 0/3 2/2 3*/3 2/2 3/3 2/2 3*/3 2,14*Concentrationatintakewaszero,non‐detectableorunknown.1Thisda taincludesland‐basedtes tingofsys temv.2.0ands hi pboa rdtes tingofsys temv.1.0.DNVdidnotrequi res hi pboa rdtes tingofv.2.0.2Numbe redre fe rencescanbefoundintheLi te ra tureCi tedsecti on.3Unknown,minimumandmaximumvaluesprovidedbutnotthetotalnumberoftes ts.ManufacturerLiteratureCited2>50 10‐50 <10(bacteria)E.coliEnterococciVibrio33 The data presented in Table 4 are highly va riable. Several system s performed very well
during shipboard testing, but di d not reach the same level of potential compliance during
more rigorous and tightly controlled land- based testing. Conversely, a few systems
performed better at land-based testing but we re not able to demonstrate potential to

meet California standards duri ng shipboard testing, alt hough this situation occurred infrequently. Some systems have only been tested over a few test cycles while others
have undergone 10 or more test cycles. Furt hermore, much of the performance data for
human health indicator species was colle cted 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 organizations to “spike” testing water with microbes due to safety concerns. Testing can proceed in the absence of
natural populations of these species. Howeve r, the conclusions drawn from these tests
may be of questionable value because they do not demonstrate how effectively a
system may eliminate such microbes under high concentration conditions.

Of the 18 systems with reli able land-based or shipboard data from Type Approval
testing in Table 4, 10 systems demonstrat ed the potential to meet California’s
performance standards for all organism size classes in at least one land-based or shipboard test (averaged across replicates ). In order to determine if systems are

available to meet Californi a standards on a more consis tent basis, Commission staff
reviewed the data (summarized in Table 4) for systems that hav e conducted three or
more tests per organism size class (either land-based or shipboard) and have
demonstrated the potential to meet each of t he California standards (for all organism
size classes) at least 50% of the time. Five treatment systems meet these more rigorous criteria (see systems in bold in Ta ble 4). One of these five systems, developed by Qingdao Headway Tech, demonstrated the potential to meet California’s standards
100% of the time in shipboard tests (see Tabl e 4). Four of the fi ve systems that have

met California’s standards more than 50% of the time are Type Approved according to

the IMO G8 Guidelines. The other one has completed Type Approval testing and is awaiting response from its flag state administration. All fi ve systems are commercially

available.34 Vessel owners/operators should closely scrut inize the available data, however, to ensure that systems will meet California’s standards on a regular basis given the configuration of the vessel and piping/water flow requirement s. This review does not
constitute an endorsement or approval of any ballast water treatment system,

manufacturer or vendor.

VI. IMPLEMENTING CA LIFORNIA’S PERFORMANCE STANDARDS FOR THE DISCHARGE OF BALLAST WATER

Commission staff is in the process of im plementing California’s performance standards
for the discharge of ballast water. As of J anuary 1, 2010, newly built vessels (vessels for which construction began on or after January 1, 2010) with a ballast water capacity of
less than or equal to 5000 MT must comply with California’s performance standards.
Vessel construction often takes a year or more, and it is anticipated t hat the first vessels
that must meet the perform ance standards will begin arriving in California in late-2011
or early 2012. Vessel owners and operators have been contacting Commission staff to receive guidance on complying with Califor nia’s performance standards, and staff is
aware of several vessels that have purchas ed systems to comply with the standards. Many other vessels are in the midst of cons truction and are leaving dedicated space for
a ballast water treatment system so that it may be installed at the last possible moment
to ensure that the system purchased is the most up-to-date available.

These positive steps towards the implementati on of California’s standards have recently been countered by reports (see GLBWC 201 0, WDNR 2010, and SAB 2011) indicating
there are no protocols available to veri fy, with adequate statistical certainty, that
treatment systems can meet California’s standards. While the Commission has a legal mandate to implement Califor nia’s standards, Commission staff is also required to
assess the availability of treat ment technologies to meet those standards. If treatment systems are not available, the Commission must inform the Legislature and make
appropriate recommendat ions for action.35 Commission staff places great importance on working collaboratively with stakeholders
to ensure that management strategies ar e developed based on the best available

science and with consideration to the concerns of the regul ated industry. Because of
the recent uncertainty about the availability of treatment technologies, staff convened
the ballast water treatment technology te chnical advisory panel (established by PRC Section 71204.9) in December 2010 and Marc h 2011 to discuss options for effectively implementing California’s performance standards for the discharge of ballast water.

In December 2010, the Commission conv ened a subset of panel members with
expertise in science and engine ering (hereafter, scientific panel) to focus on the science of standards implementation and technology assessment (see meeting notes, Appendix B). Commission staff discussed three potentia l options with the sci entific panel for moving forward with California’s performa nce standards, including: 1) recommending
that the Legislature change the performance standards; 2) recommending that the Legislature adopt the use of Best Available Technologies (BAT ) until such time that the
standards could be met; or 3) establish met hods (via regulation) to verify vessel
compliance with the standards.

The scientific panel agreed t hat changing the standards was not a feasible solution
because there would be little political will to weaken California’s standards and because
it would be extremely difficult to make the standards stricter in the future when
technologies improve. Likewise the panel felt that option two, the use of BAT, would
also not be ideal because of the requirement for legislative action in addition to the need
for staff to approve BATs. The scientific panel felt that t he most productive approach to implementing California’s standards would be to establish a specific set of compliance verification protocols. Scientific panel members argued that se tting the performance
standards is only half of the equation. It is equally important that California define and
implement protocols to verify vessel co mpliance with those standards. Furthermore, by
establishing the protocols in regulation, t hose protocols will be available as a resource for system manufacturers and vessel owners/oper ators so they can verify that their36 treatment technologies are meeting Californ ia standards using the same methods that will be used by Commission personnel to determine compliance.

Commission staff provided the no tes from the December scient ific panel meeting to the
entire advisory panel and conven ed a meeting in March 2011 to discuss staff’s plans for moving forward and to receive comments from panel members (see meeting notes, Appendix C). Generally, the advisory panel was supportive of staff’s efforts to move forward. Some panel members were conc erned about how a gradual improvement of
compliance methods would impact vessels that demonstrated compliance under previous verification protocols (i.e. would ve ssels be penalized if they were compliant
under one set of protocols but not compliant under a new, more sensitive, set of protocols?) Additionally, there was some concern from industry about whether the Commission could be sued if the complianc e protocols are not able to detect compliance with California’s standards with a hi gh level of statistical certainty. While
these specific issues remain to be addresse d, there was no objecti on from the panel to moving forward with the development of comp liance verification protocols as the best
possible mechanism to implement California’s performance standards.

Therefore, Commission staff has begun the process of develo ping protocols to verify vessel compliance with California’s per formance standards. Staff convened a new
technical advisory panel of experts for a meeting to discuss compliance assessment in

June 2011 and held a second meet ing in August 2011. Staff intends to submit the
proposed protocols for compliance verification to the California Office of Administrative
Law to begin the public rulemaking proce ss in late 2011, with hopes to finalize the
compliance protocols by mid-2012. Additionally , staff is in the process of contracting with a marine engineering firm, The Glosten Associates, to conduct a thorough
feasibility study, prototype des ign and testing of a monitoring tool to assist with ballast
water sample collection and analysis. The compliance protocols will be used in conjunction with new information reporting forms that were adopted in the fall of 2010 (the Ballast Water Treatment Technology An nual Reporting Form and the Ballast Water Treatment Supplemental Reporting Form, see Title 2, CCR Section 2297.1) to guide37 information collection and enable the fair and effective impl ementation of California’s
ballast water discharge standards.

VII. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Ballast water treatment continues to be a rapidly expanding industry as new technologies are developed and existing ones refi ned in search of the most effective
methods to reduce the spread of nonindigenous species. Th is update provides a brief
summary of state, federal and international discussion s and reports on performance
standards and ballast water treatment systems since the last Commission report was
approved in August 2010. Additionally, this report reviews the latest data on system performance to ensure that systems will be av ailable for vessels with a ballast water capacity of greater than 5000 MT, for which construction begins on or after January 1,

2012.

Recent state and federal reports (GLBWC 2010, WDNR 2010, SAB 2011) have
concluded that methods do not yet exist to determine if systems can meet California
standards with high statistica l certainty, and therefore treatment systems cannot be

deemed available for use to meet Californi a standards. The conclu sions are largely

based on the fact that extremel y large volumes of water would need to be sampled in
order to determine compliance with a st andard 100 or 1000 times as stringent as the IMO D-2 standard, particularly fo r the largest organism size class (i.e. greater than 50 μm). However, unlike the IMO standard for organisms greater than 50 μm, California’s
standard is “no detectable living organisms” for this size cla ss, and is also unitless.
There is no volume requirement set forth in that particular standard. Therefore, compliance and performance testing can occur with any volume of water, as will be set
forth in the proposed compliance verification protocols. The volumes of water sampled for the remaining size classes are small enough so that they do not pose an issue.

Overall, this review of system performanc e indicates that progress continues to be
made in the development of treatment systems to meet California’s performance
standards for the discharge of ballast wate r. Ten treatment syst ems have demonstrated38 the potential (in at least one land-based or shi pboard test) to meet all of California’s performance standards (Table 4). A more stringent review indicates that five systems have demonstrated the potential to meet Calif ornia’s standards great er than 50% of the
time over multiple tests. One system met California’s st andards 100% of the time in
shipboard testing, although no system has yet met California’s stan dards 100% of the time in land-based testing. All five syst ems are commercially available and four are Type Approved according to the IMO G8 Guidelines.

Commission staff has met with technical adv isory panel members in cluding regulators, industry representatives, and scientific and engineering experts familiar with ballast
water treatment technology assessment to discuss a plan to implement California’s performance standards. Commission staff believe s that while we cannot verify that
treatment systems meet all of California’s standards with high st atistical certainty at this
time, the development of specific compli ance verification protocols provides a path
forward. These compliance protocols, to be developed in consultation with scientific and industry experts, will provide a mechanism for both technology vendors and vessel
operators to verify that systems are meet ing California’s standards based on the specific protocols that the Commission’s marine safety personnel will use to conduct
vessel compliance inspections. The complia nce protocols are expected to be adopted
via the rulemaking process by early 2012. Therefore Staff re commends that the Commission continue to support staff’s effort to implem ent California’s performance
standards for the discharge of ballast water. These efforts will continue to move the state towards the elimination of the discharge of nonindigenous species into California

waters.39 VIII. LITERATURE CITED

1. ABS (American Bureau of Shipping). 2011. Ballast water treatment advisory.

2. Anchor Environmental. 2010. Effica cy testing of the RBT reactor. CK 96/0407094/23. 15 April 2010.

3. BSH (Bundesamt für Seeschifffahrt und Hydrographie). 2011. Type Approval Certificate of Ballast Water Managem ent System. Ocean Protection System ® OPS-250. 29/04/2011.

4. California State Lands Commission. 2010. 2010 Assessment of the Efficacy, Availability and Environmental Impacts of Ballast Water Treat ment Systems for Use in California Waters. Produced fo r the California St ate Legislature.

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

6. Dobroski, N., C. Scianni, D. Gehr inger, and M. Falkner. 2009. 2009 Assessment of the Efficacy, Availability and Envi ronmental Impacts of Ballast Water Treatment Systems for Use in California Waters. Produced for the California State Legislature.

7. Ecowise Environmental. 2003. Techni cal Report: HTM-AquaTherm® Disinfection Unit Study – Revised Febr uary 2003. Prepared by Danie lle Baker. Reviewed by Dr. Therese Flapper. For Aerocycle Wastewater Solutions.

8. EPA. 2010. Generic protocol for the ve rification of ballast water treatment technology. Produced by NSF Internat ional. EPA/600/R-10/145. September, 2010.

9. EPA. 2011. Environmental Technology Verification Program. Accessed: August 16, 2011. Website: http://www.epa.gov/etv/

10. Germanischer Lloyd. 2011. Model Book let for Ballast Water Management Plan (incl. BW treatment). Version 4.0. 2011-03-28.

11. GLBWC (Great Lakes Ballast Water Co llaborative). 2010. Report from the Great Lakes Ballast Water Collaborative Meet ing: Duluth. July 20-21, 2010. Prepared for Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR), Bureau of Watershed Management. Prepared by Sharon Moen.40 12. Golden Bear Facility. 2011. Final Shipbo ard Testing Report for the Severn Trent De Nora BalPure ® BP-500 Ballast Water Treatment System, T/S Golden Bear

. CMA Dept. ID 76404. 20 March 2011, Rev. 1.

13. Gollasch, S. 2010a. Final report of the shipboard tests of the RWO Ballast Water Treatment System Cl eanBallast for Type Approval according to Regulation D-2 and the relevant IM O Guideline (G8).

14. Gollasch, S. 2010b. Final report shipboar d tests of the Resource Ballast Water Treatment System for Ty pe Approval according to Regulation D-2 and the relevant IMO Guideline (G8).

15. Gollasch, S. 2011a. Final report of the shipboard tests of the Ecochlor ®

Ballast Water Treatment System for Type Approv al according to Regulation D-2 and the relevant IMO Guideline (G8).

16. Gollasch, S. 2011b. Test Cycle Reports. ERMA First ESK Engineering Solutions, S.A., Perama, Greece. Signed 03.03.2011 and 28.04.2011.

17. Great Ships Initiative. 2010. Report of the Land-Based Freshwat er Testing of the Siemens SiCURETM Ballast Water Management System. March 15, 2010. GSI/LB/F/A/1.

18. Herwig, R.P., J.R. Cor dell, J.C. Perrins, P.A. Di nnel, R.W. Gensemer, W.A. Stubblefield, G.M. Ruiz, J.A. Kopp, M.L. House, and W.J. C ooper. 2006b. Ozone treatment of ballast water on the oil tanker S/T Tonsina : chemistry, biology, and toxicity. Marine Ecology Pr ogress Series, 324: 37-55.

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

20. IMO (International Maritime Organi zation). 2005. Ballast Water Management Convention International Convention for the Control and Manage ment of Ships' Ballast Water and Sediments. Internat ional Maritime Organization, London, p 138.

21. IMO (International Maritime Organi zation). 2011. Summary of Status of Conventions as of 31 May 2011. A ccessed: August 16, 2011. Website: http://www.imo.org/About/Conventions/S tatusOfConventions/Pages/Default.aspx

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

23. JFE. 2009. Ballast water management system – report of onboard test. Messrs. Inspection and Measurement Division, Maritime Bureau Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tour ism (MLIT). September 10, 2009.41 24. Kikuchi, T. and Y. Fuku to. Development of the Spec ial Pipe Hybrid System, one of the most promising ballast water management systems.

25. Kikuchi, T., K. Yoshida, S. Kino, and Y. Fukuyo. 2004. Progress report on the ‘Special Pipe System’ as a potential mec hanical treatment for ballast water. In : Matheickal, J.T. and S. Raaymakers (eds.) 2004. 2nd International Ballast Water Treatment R&D Symposium

, IMO London, 21-23 July 2003: Proceedings. GloBallast Monograph Series No. 15. IMO London.

26. KOMERI (Korea Marine Equipment Re search Institute). 2009. Test Report. Report No: KOMERI-A-07T193-2.

27. KOMERI (Korea Marine Equipment Re search Institute). 2010. Test Report. Report No: 0906-KOMERI-10T963.

28. KOMERI (Korea Marine Equipment Re search Institute). 2011. Test Report. Report No: KOMERI-0906-10T470-1.

29. KORDI (Korean Ocean Research and Development Institution). 2008. Preliminary Report for the Type Approval Test Used by Electro-CleenTM Ballast Water Management System. Proj ect No. PI49300. 3 March 2008.

30. KORDI (Korean Ocean Research and Development Institution). 2009. Heterotrophic bacteria test results per formed by KORDI during the land-based tests for the IMO final approval.

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

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

33. Lloyd’s Register. 2010. Ballast wate r treatment systems – Guidance for ship operators on procurement, installation and operation. September 2010.

34. Lloyd’s Register. 2011. Ballast water tr eatment technology. Current status. June 2011.

35. Maddox, T.L. 2004a. Phase II Final Report. Ballast water treatment and management with filtration, ozone, and sonics. National Sea Grant NA03OAR4170008.42 36. Maddox, T.L. 2004b. Phase III Final Repor t. Field test demonstration of improved methods of ballast water treatment and m onitoring utilizing filtration, ozone, and sonics. National Sea Grant NA04OAR4170150.

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

38. MEPC (Marine Environment Prot ection Committee). 2008a. Procedure for approval of ballast water management systems that make use of active substances (G9). MEPC 57/ 21. Annex 1. Resolution M EPC.169(57). Adopted on 4 April 2008.

39. MEPC (Marine Environment Protec tion Committee). 2008b. Guidelines for approval of ballast water management syst ems (G8). MEPC 58/23. Annex 4. Resolution MEPC.174(58). Adopted on 10 October 2008.

40. MEPC (Marine Environment Protection Committee). 2008c. Application for Basic Approval of the HHI Ballast Water M anagement System (EcoBallast). Submitted by the Republic of Korea. 59/2/4. 9 December 2008.

41. MEPC (Marine Environment Protection Committee). 2009. Application for Basic Approval of Kwang San Co., Ltd. (KS) Ballast Water Management System “EnBallast.” Submitted by Kor ea. 60/2/7. 25 August 2009.

42. MEPC (Marine Environment Protection Committee). 2010a. Application for Basic Approval of the MES Ballast Water Management System (FineBallast MF). Submitted by Japan. 61/ 2/3. 17 March 2010.

43. MEPC (Marine Environment Protection Committee). 2010b. Application for Final Approval of “ARA Ballast” Ballast Wa ter Management System. Submitted by the Republic of Korea. 61/2/5. 23 March 2010.

44. MEPC (Marine Environment Protection Committee). 2010c. Application for Basic Approval of Ballast Water Management System with Peraclean ®Ocean (SKYSYSTEM ® ). Submitted by Japan. 62/2. 18 November 2010.

45. MEPC (Marine Environment Protection Committee). 2010d. Application for Final Approval of the AquaStarTM Ballast Water Management System. Submitted by the Republic of Korea. 62/ 2/4. 14 December 2010.

46. MEPC (Marine Environment Protection Committee). 2010e. Application for Final Approval of Techwin Eco Co., Ltd. (T WECO) Ballast Water Management System (PurimarTM). Submitted by the Republic of Korea. 62/2/6. 14 December 2010.43 47. MEPC (Marine Environment Protection Committee). 2010f. Application for Basic Approval of STX Metal Co., Ltd. Ba llast Water Management System (Smart Ballast). Submitted by the Republic of Korea. 62/2/8. 14 December 2010.

48. MEPC (Marine Environment Protecti on Committee). 2011a. Information on the Type Approval of the Blue Ocean Shie ld Ballast Water Management System. Submitted by China. MEPC 62/INF.28. 6 May 2011.

49. MEPC (Marine Environment Protecti on Committee). 2011b. Information on the Type Approval of the BSKYTM Ballast Water Management System. Submitted by China. MEPC 62/INF.30. 6 May 2011.

50. MEPC (Marine Environment Protecti on Committee). 2011c. Information on the Type Approval of the BalClorTM Ball ast Water Management System. Submitted by China. MEPC 62/INF.29. 6 May 2011.

51. MERC (Maritime Environmental Resource Center). 2009. Land-Based Evaluations of the Maritime Solutions, Inc. Ballast Water Treatment System. 20 November 2009. UMCES Technical Repor t Series: Ref. No. [UMCES] CBL 09- 138.

52. MERC (Maritime Environmental Resource Center). 2010. Land-based evaluations of the Siemens Water Technologies SiCURETM Ballast Water Management System. September 2010. Ref. No. [UMCES]CBL 10-038.

53. Miller, A.W., M. Frazier, G.E. Smith, E.S. Perry, G.M. Ruiz, and M.N. Tamburri. 2011. Enumerating sparse organisms in ship s’ ballast water: why counting to 10 is not so easy. Environmental Science and Technology, 45(8): 3539-3546.

54. NIOZ (Royal Netherlands Institute for Sea Research). 2009a. Final report of the land-based testing of the Ecochlor®-S ystem, for type approval according to regulation-D2 and the relevant IMO Guideline (April – July 2008).

55. NIOZ (Royal Netherlands Institute for Sea Research). 2009b. Final report of the land-based testing of the Hyde-GuardianTM -System, for Type Approval according to the Regulation D-2 and the relevant IMO Guideline (April – July 2008).

56. NIOZ (Royal Netherlands Institute for Sea Research). 2010. Final report of the land-based testing of the BalPure ® -Ballast Water Treatment System, for Type Approval according to Regulation D-2 and the relevant IMO Guideline (April – July 2009).

57. NIOZ (Royal Netherland Institute for Sea Research). 2011. Part of final report of the land-based testing of ERMA First Ba llast Water Treatment System, for Type Approval according to Regulation –D2 and the relevant IMO guideline (April – July 2010).44 58. NIVA (Norwegian Institute for Water Research). 2008a. Land based testing of the OptiMarin ballast water management system of OptiMarin AS – Treatment effect studies. Final Report. Report SNO 5659-2008.

59. NIVA (Norwegian Institute for Water Research). 2008b. Shipboard testing of the PureBallast Treatment System of AlfaWall AB. Report SNO 5617-2008.

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

61. NIVA (Norwegian Institut e for Water Research). 20 09b. Additional shipboard testing of the PureBallast treatment S ystem of AlfaLaval/Wallenius Water AB. Report SNO 5850-2009.

62. NIVA (Norwegian Institute for Water Research). 2009c. Land based testing of the JFE ballast water management system of JFE Engineering Co rporation – Final Report. Report SNO 5819-2009.

63. NIVA (Norwegian Institut e for Water Research). 2010a. Land based testing of the OceanGuardTM Ballast Water Management S ystem of Qingdao Headway. Report SNO 5938-2010.

64. NIVA (Norwegian Institut e for Water Research). 2010b. Land based testing of the CleanBallast ballast water management system of RWO – Short version of final report on G8 testing. Report SNO 5910-2010.

65. NIVA (Norwegian Institut e for Water Research). 2010c. Land based testing of the PureBallast 2.0 Ballast water management system of AlfaWall AB – Final Report. Report SNO 6034-2010.

66. NIVA, (Norwegian Instit ute for Water Research). 2010d. Land based testing of the Auramarine Crystal Ballast water management systems – Final Report Draft. Report SNO 5945-2010.

67. NRC (National Research Council). 2011. Assessing the relationship between propagule pressure and invasion risk in ballast water. National Academies Press, Washington, D.C.

68. Ocean University of China. 2010. M onitoring (Inspection Report). Shipboard Testing of the OceanGuardTM Ballas t Water Management Systems. OUC (Testing) No. HDJC2010-002.

69. Oviatt, C., P. Hargraves, R. Kelly, M. Kirs, L. Maranda, B. Mo ran, D. Outram, D. Smith, B. Sullivan, and K. Whitman. 2002. Toxicity of chlorine dioxide to ballast45 water flora and fauna in bench scale assays. Final Report to Ecochlor Inc. (Charles Goodsill, VP).

70. SAB (Science Advisory Board). 2011. Efficacy of ballast water treatment systems: a report by the EPA Science Advisory B oard. EPA-SAB-11-009.

71. Tamburri, M.N., B.J. Little, G.M. Ruiz, J.S. Lee, and P.D. McNulty. 2004. Evaluations of Venturi Oxygen Stripping TM as a ballast water treatment to prevent aquatic invasions and ship corrosion. In : Matheickal, J.T. and S. Raaymakers (eds.) 2004. 2nd International Ballast Water Treatment R& D Symposium, IMO London, 21-23 July 2003: Proceedings. Gl oBallast Monograph Series No. 15. IMO London.

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

73. Tamburri, M., G.E. Sm ith, and T.L. Mullady. 2006. Quantitative shipboard evaluations of Venturi Oxygen Stripping as a ballast water treatment. 3 rd International Conference on Balla st Water Management. Singapore, 25-26 September, 2006.

74. WDNR (Wisconsin Department of Natura l Resources). 2010. Wisconsin Ballast Water Treatment Feasibility Determinati on. Prepared by Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources.

75. Welschmeyer, N., C. Scianni, and S. Smith. 2007. Ballast water management: Evaluation of the MARENCO ballast wa ter treatment syst em. Moss Landing Marine Laboratories.

76. Wright, D.A. 2009. Shipboard trials of Hyde ‘Guardian’ system in Caribbean Sea and Western Pacific Ocean, April 5 th – October 7 th , 2008. Final report to Hyde Marine and Lamor Corp. April 2009.

77. Wright, D.A., C. Mitchelmore, J. B earr, R. Dawson, C.E. Orano-Dawson, and M. Olson. 2008. Shipboard Testing of Nutech -O3 ozonation system as a method for Ballast Water Treatment. A Final R eport to Nutech-O3. June, 2008.46 APPENDIX A: RESEARCH A ND DEVELOPMENT DATA

Sixty ballast water treatment systems we re reviewed by Commission staff for compliance with the California performanc e standards. Thirty-ei ght systems had data on system efficacy available for review. System s with reliable data (including methods and results) collected during land-based or shipb oard testing as part of the Type Approval process are reviewed in the main body of the report (see Table 4). The systems reviewed here (Table A) include systems for whic h: 1) staff did not have access to full test reports (including me thods of analysis); 2) the dat a was collected as part of research and development and not the Type Appr oval process; or 3) testing was only conducted at the laboratory scale.

Systems with at least one test (averaged ac ross replicates) demonstrating potential compliance with the performanc e standard are scored with a “Y.” Efficacy data with no tests demonstrating potential compliance with the standards are scored with a “N.” Systems that presented data for a given organism size class but presented the results in metrics not comparable to the standards ar e classified as “Unknown.” For example, a system that presented results of system ef ficacy as percent reduction of zooplankton abundance could not be compared against the California standards, and thus ability of the system to comply with the standards is unknown. Cells with hashing indicate lack of data for a given organism size class. Co mpliance with the bacteria standard was assessed using the concentration of cultur able heterotrophic bacteria in discharged ballast water. Due to the lack of availa ble 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 t he data for each system can be found in the Literature Cited section of the main report.47Table A.Summary of systems with available results for assessment of efficacySystems with at least one test (averaged across replicates)in compliance with the California performance standards are denotedby a “Y.” Noncompliance is denoted by an “N,” and those systems with data inmetrics not directly comparableto the performance standards were designatedas “Unknown.” A cell with hashing indicates that no data was available.21st Century ShipbuildingYN Y4Y4Y443AQUA Eng. Co. Ltd.NY Y4Y4Y445COSCOUnknow n Unknow n Unknow n Y Y Y448ETIN N35,36,37Ferrate Treatment Tech.Lab data onlyHi Tech MarineY Y7,19Hyundai Hvy Ind. EcoBall.YY Y4Y4Y440Hyundai Hvy Ind. Hi Ball.Lab data onlyKatayama ChemicalY Unknow n Y Y Unknow n44Kwang San Co. Ltd.NNY Y YY441MAHLEY Y NY Y3MARENCOY NY31,32,75MH SystemsLab data onlyMitsui Eng. SP HybridN Unknow n Unknow n22,24,25Mitsui Eng. FineBallastY Unknow n Y Unknow n42STX MetalYY Y4Y4Y447SunruiYY YYY50TWECOY Y Y Y YY446Wuxi Brightsky Elect.YYYYYY491Bacteria were assessed through examination of aerobic culturable heterotrophic bacteria (expressed as colony-forming units).2No methods exist to quantify and assess the viability of viruses at this time.3Numbered references can be found in Literature Cited section4Concentration at intake was zero, non-detectable or unknown.Unknow nV. choleraeUnknow nUnknow nReferences3EnterococciUnknow nE. coli> 50 μm 10 - 50 μm< 10 μm(bacteria)1,2N Unknow nManufacturer48 APPENDIX B: NOTES FROM SCIENTIFIC PANEL MEETING (DECEMBER 2010)

Implementing California’s Perf ormance Standards for the Discharge of Ballast Water California State Lands Commission

Marine Invasive Species Program December 20, 2010, 10 am – 12:30 pm

Advisory Panel Teleconference Meeting Notes

Attendees: Greg Ruiz, Smithsonian Envir onmental Research Center Nick Welschmeyer, Moss Landing Marine Laboratories Kevin Reynolds, Glosten Associates Andrew Cohen, Center for Res earch on Aquatic Bioinvasions Nicole Dobroski, California State Lands Commission Maurya Falkner, California State Lands Commission Chris Scianni, California State Lands Commission Lynn Takata, California State Lands Commission

Introduction (Dobroski) Goal of meeting: Begin di scussion about implementing California’s performance standards for ballast water dischar ge. This will be the first of multiple discussions. A larger panel will be br ought together in J anuary or February.

Background (Dobroski) In 2005, as per the Marine In vasive Species Act, performance standards were recommended to the state legislature, and later passed in 2006 in the Coastal Ecosystems Protection Act. In 2007 regulat ions were developed to implement the standards. Since then, the California State Lands Commission (CSLC) has developed several reports evaluating the ability for tr eatment systems to meet standards. Though systems have demonstrated the potential to meet California’s standards, it is not clear they can meet them 100% of the time.

(Dobroski) The CSLC has gone forward wit h implementing the standards for new vessels with a ballast water capacity of le ss than or equal to 5000 MT as of January 1, 2010. Since these are for vessels with k eels laid on or after January 1, 2010, none have arrived to the state yet.

(Reynolds) Side note, we have been involved with installing the Hyde system on board an Alaskan research vessel in or der to meet CA regulations.

(Dobroski) The next implementation date is fo r vessels constructed on or after January 1, 2012 with over 5000 MT ballast water capacity. This category will cover the majority of vessels that visit California, and i ndustry has become very concerned about system49 availability. It is becomi ng clear, through scientific panel s convened by other groups, that protocols are not available to test to standards as stringent as California’s, and there are also questions whet her systems are even available. California would like to push the development and utilization of technol ogies forward, but cannot force industry to meet a standard for which it is not clear if technologies ar e available. The goal today is to explore options on how to move forwar d. On the handout sent before this meeting are three proposed options to begin our discu ssion. However, we are certainly open to other ideas, as we are seeki ng your professional opinion.

Review of Options Handout (Dobroski) Option 1 is to change the standard. Th is would require legislative action, for which the outcome wouldn’t be guaranteed. If this option is desirable, what would the standard be changed to? Is IMO pr otective enough, or would it need to be 10X or 100X IMO (for the 2 largest size classes, not bacteria).

(Falkner) Any decision we make about changing standards will need substantial scientific justification for any possibility of it happening. This is a reason why we’ve asked for this smaller group meeting to get your professional opinion.

(Dobroski) Option 2 is to keep the current standards, and move forward with a best available technology (BAT) approach until te chnologies and or testing methods show standards can be confidently met. This opti on would require deciding what would be BATs, with an advisory panel, possibly using ST EP and/or IMO approvals and such to come up with a list that would be updated as necessary. This option would require legislative action and likely r egulatory (rulemaking) action as well, but could be a good interim step to move forward.

(Dobroski) Option 3: Instead of legislation, codify in r egulations specific compliance verification procedures so technologies can be tested for California’s standards specifically. When testing techniques get better, new vessels would need to meet CA standards using these new techniques, and vessels already tested could be grandfathered under the older techniques.

(Dobroski) The overall goal is to keep moving forward with implement ation. Options we consider/discuss here need to account for t he abilities of today’s technologies.

(Welschmeyer) Does BAT apply to treatm ent technologies or for measurement methods?

(Dobroski) Treatment.

General Discussion (Reynolds) A huge issue is how to do comp liance monitoring and enforcement. The standards are only 1⁄2 of the equation (having worked with equi pment on ships that often don’t work all the time). The standard coul d be anything. The rub is how you measure it. Once this is clearly defined for folks, systems can be tested to them.50 (Falkner) It is unlikely that port state o fficials will be taking many water samples.

(Reynolds) For vessel sewage systems, most (USCG) inspectors simply ask to see the device, see that it’s operating, write down the name plate, and away they go.

(Falkner) We would like a California inspection to be more thorough, perhaps checking a system data logger to see that the system is operating per spec. Assuming it hasn’t been off or tampered wit h, you then make an assumption that the system is working. If there’s a r ed flag, a sample may be taken for a rough idea if the vessel is way out of complianc e (lots of big things swimming around), then go from there with a more in-depth re view. I can’t see pursuing civil or criminal penalties based only on a sample. A sample would be a 3 rd step, probably after paperwork and data metrics.

(Reynolds) I like IMO D2 because it’s generally verifiable, which is nice. But CA has a higher standard on books, so a more releva nt consideration here for compliance and enforcement is to have: 1) A certificat e with the equipment showing its testing and approval records, 2) Oper ational logs (each supplier should be measuring key operational parameters), and 3) If things don’t look right, a test CA can do that is widely publicized so everyone knows ho w you will test. Something practical, simple that ships/owners can do themselves to self-check for compliance. As testing methods get better, requirements can evolve so there is a phase-in period, and maybe grandfathering for those tested using older methods.

(Ruiz) For option 3, a standard is de facto defined by the testing method utilized, as it would limit what level of standard you can detect with conf idence. Whether or not options 2 or 1 are in play, you would need to have 3 in play as well. A key question is whether you ratchet up your standard as the sensitivity of testing methods improve. The current challenge is that we cannot tell if there are systems that exceed IMO at the present time. Option 1 is not advisable, since you would lose flexibility to ratchet up as technologies and testing improves. Not sure how BAT identificati on for option 2 would work. Option 3 effectively defines a standard. For enforcement, the goal of a sample would be to detect gross exceedence of a standar d you can test for. If a vessel shows multiple gross exceedences, the chances of erroneous detection of a violation decrease dramatically over multiple incidents.

(Reynolds) Testing for gross exceedence is the practical reality, when it comes to field compliance.

(Ruiz) Another crucial issue is how extensively onboard system s have been tested, the quality of the data, and the leve l of confidence in that data. Right now there isn’t an independent body to assess qualit y of testing data. There are many places data can come from, and they there not equal. If quality of data is deemed very good, system51 data indicators of use (e.g. log use) are mo re believable, in co mparison with those with data/experiments that are not well outli ned or understood.

(Reynolds) There is also a need to under stand how systems are operated, and there can be a lot of sloppiness with this. For example, if a very large crude carrier has lots of ballast water - say 90,000 cubic meters, and 1 second of water is discharged before system is turned on, that volume dischar ged could exceed CA standard for entire 90,000 m 3 . As we get to stricter standards, it’s more difficult to get them [vessels] to comply. So, in this way too, detecti on of gross exceedence is appropriate.

(Welschmeyer) The essential part of the comp liance/enforcement issue is not unique to CA. We have the burden of setting preceden ce here. We will likely be copied or scrutinized by others (IMO, ot her states). I like the idea of being able to encourage ports, techs, ship crew etc. to perform gross exceedence sampling – to give ship operators the advantage of che cking their own water to remain in compliance. The more we can do to facilitate th is, the more attention/ability will be given by operators to ensure compliance, rather than only relying onl y on logs. I agree with Kevin. We can’t turn our back on compliance procedures. Y ou [systems] can pass IMO through initial Type Approvals, but testing later/again would r equire a treatment testi ng facility to carry out the assay required. Jo-Schmo can’t test their own ship this wa y. We’ve [IMO, U.S.] created an impossible test situat ion, as there are only a coupl e of centers that can test or re-test compliance with IMO in the U.S. , and these centers can’t accommodate the thousands of vessels in the fleet.

(Reynolds) This is an important point – IMO has made the manpower needs so high and Type Approval testing is so important that compliance te sting is forgotten. As a model example, oily water separators have a meter that tells operators when it’s not meeting a specific standard. If vessel oper ators have a metric to work against and enforce themselves, they can be very creative to keep machines running or operating to standards, say, by avoiding a bloom, or operating the vessel a certain way.

(Cohen) There is an assumption here that there is no system that can meet CA standards. That may be true if we restrict to shipboard systems, but not so for onshore treatment.

(Falkner) Onshore isn’t usable, especially for vessels that need to deballast on the way in before coming to port.

(Cohen) There is no data indicating vessels must deballast on the way to port for operational purposes.

(Reynolds) There is a need for ships to deballast/ballast to get under bridges and such, though it’s true that much deballasting on the way in is a money matter, especially for large volume vessels that deballast on the way in to save time. However, containers often have to balla st/deballast to get under cranes.52 (Dobroski) We’re certainly interested in shore-based facilities, but the challenge is to move forward by 2012. Right now there just aren’t land based facilities available. The question here is how to move forward.

(Cohen) There’s no evidence it would take more time to implement shore based treatment systems than it will to implement shipbo ard systems.

(Dobroski) What would you reco mmend for moving forward by 2012?

(Reynolds) In working with the Golden Bear , I have recently tuned in to how good a land based facility can be. The EPA-ET V challenge is reliability engineering, and the IMO D2 standard requires a 4 log reduction on challenge water. We go to 7 log reduction for ETV, and from informa tion I’ve seen, it’s doubtable whether shore facilities can do be tter than a 5 log.

(Cohen) The EPA drinking water guidelines r equire land-based facilities to go to a 6-log reduction for viruses and 5-log for Giardia, depending on the source water.

(Ruiz) For Nicole’s question, though, how does that work in time for 2012?

(Cohen) That’s not an appropriate techni cal question. It’s clear land based systems can do better than a ship based system by several orders of magnitude. The Pacific Merchant Shipping Associ ation has even said it’s not our responsibility to help vessels comply.

(Reynolds) I’m interested in seeing evi dence that land-based fa cilities can get a 7 log reduction in the over 50 micron size cla ss. Pretty sure they would be unable to make it.

(Welschmeyer): I do love the philosophical/ scientific nature of this conversation, however, the reality is that California needs something more concrete. Some things are clear from our conversation – there is the need for a change in philosophy on what test criteria are. The one that is currently in ternationally used – testing counts for live organisms – isn’t really practical. If we continue to focus on counting living organisms, we’re never going to meet any standards, because they are so rare after treatment, and the world’s oceans are too diverse. T he IMO standards numbers are phenomenal. You can’t even achieve that dilution in the labor atory. We need a philo sophical change to a more analytical, more usable, le ss logistically difficult (vs. counting large live organisms, large volumes) and go to something that is more sensible and more numerous (e.g. bacteria/phytoplankton). Zooplankton are uncount able at the fantastic level required by IMO. Instead, maybe a single taxa of bacteria or singe cell eukaryotes as an indicator? We should use a testing method that has some scientific background to it, to indicate that we can meet practical zero (an accept ably low number) for the larger size class. Biomass level measures may allow for these, and may allow a ship or laboratory to do the test to indicate how a system is functioning on the ship.53 (Cohen) Agree with moving towards looking at smaller organisms for compliance, and using other measurements rat her than counting liv e organisms is more useful, more manageable.

(Reynolds) CA has recognized correctly that they’re in an impossible spot with standards and no way of testing for them. I think it’s le ss important to change the standard. Though a D2 equivalent standard is pretty fantastic, folks aren’t just meeting them, they’re trying to kill everything in there to exceed it . It would be nice to do what Nick is saying - find a simple test to measure for gross exceedence, ev en if it’s just for smaller organisms. It w ould be a powerful statement, and practical for ships/ owners/agents to use as well.

(Ruiz) Share Nick’s opinion that the D2 st andards are pretty good, though they could go further. I like the idea of defining a finer grain assay that could be done by a broad range of people.

(Dobroski) This discussion has a lot of very good points. The quality of data is important, as not all testing has been equa l. Are there any recommendations for comparing data quality? Are t here certain tests/r eports for which the data source is not clear, but they’ve gotten Type Approval through IMO?

(Reynolds) (IMO) Type Approv al type testing does serve a purpose. It’s onerous, but it puts a system through its paces at least once. States have gotten themselves into a pickle by requiring equipment on ships. My understanding is that you (CA) can have standards but you can’t prescribe equipment.

(Dobroski) But we can prescribe testing methods.

(Reynolds) In an ideal world, a ship get s Type Approval, then as systems come online you prescribe testing protocols for CA so manufacturers can guarantee to ship owners that their system will meet them. Phase in new tests as better testing come online. Have grandfathering for ships that met standards via older methods.

(Cohen) EPA drinking water systems require an initial demonstration that has to be done when a system is installed to show that it has the ability to meet the standards. Demonstrations of meeting the standar ds are based on bench top testing and performance of existing systems. Then there is also continuous testing that has to be done at least annually, with certain limits that have to be met (daily and other). So there’s a combination of evaluation based on available data, fo llowed by compliance monitoring during operation. There are two s eparate sets of require ments. Could do a similar thing for ballast water – demonstrat e marks can be met using data out there at least initially. Then test as best you can at the compliance level. Will probably need to use indicators, rather than counting live organi sms, to show you’re meeting targets as much as possible.54 (Welschmeyer) In some ways, the ability to test is related to ability to comply. One uses the best methods of the day as earmarks of success, then tweak methods so it becomes more sensitive into the future. But the answer you get is the bottom line, which may not exactly m eet the regulations.

(Cohen) Yes, we can’t test t hem perfectly or perhaps even closely. But what do you start with is the question. You can dr aw on bench top data and prototype data. California should set up standards for what ki nd of data it needs or will accept. There are some systems for which init ial test data show that they meet IMO D2 in the largest organism size class class, and perhaps in 2 nd size class [10-50], but not for bacteria, and there is little data for viruses. With drinking water, data must be brought to EPA or state agency to prove compliance.

(Reynolds) I really think the west coast states missed the boat to use the IMO D2 standard, but with a more aggressive timeline, as it really is a rigor ous standard. If we use a BAT approach for testing, we could re cognize a method that tests to the D2 standard level, noting that the CA standard is the objective, and come up with usable test for compliance so vessels can self-monitor. This woul d set the bar low first, then ratchet it up as testing gets better. Shores ide treatment would be fantastic, but having worked with permits for other land facilities, it would be a 10-20 year program to get it going. That said, we should not lose sight of it. Right now, we should race ahead with what we’ve got. Even with a new pipeline at an existing berth, permitting/funding etc. would be a 5-10 year timeline at a minimum. I mean, it took me 5 years just to get piping installed on t he Golden Bear.

(Cohen) Disagrees – a land based treatment opt ion would have a shorter timeline.

(Welschmeyer) On verification te sts, I think there is going to be a burden to prove that there are some simple tests for folks. Mayb e have a trial period, an d trial tests side-byside with certification testing. This will be well worth the effort, but wil l require a break-in period to gain acceptance. Another co mponent could be to fo rm a subgroup with a focused task to identify one or more areas to discuss/develop compli ance tests that are doable in a one year timeframe.

(Falkner) A subgroup is a great idea. Maybe we can have an extended discussion on who would be appropriate to have.

(Welschmeyer) Also, in April, Moss Landi ng Marine Laboratories (MLML) will host a workshop related to how to count the 10-50 micron size class. There will probably be a discussion about alternatives to direct counti ng. It will be paid for by Marcel’s group (NIOZ) with E.U. funding. That might be a good opportuni ty to have a breakout discussion on the issue of how to deal wit h compliance testing. Some ad hoc discussion has been had in the past, but we need a focused, serious discussion. Kevin’s point is important, you can validate an alternative testing procedure, but it won’t be acceptable until the world can do/agree to t he same test and get the same answers.55 The MLML meeting maybe a good place to star t this process. The best test is the one that takes the smallest volume, and measures the smallest amount of living tissue since it can be replicated. Then you ask if that organism group can represent compliance of the other size classes.

(Cohen) Believes it is unlikely that a single te st would tell you about all size classes. When you look across the range of organisms, they have different resistances to various treatments. But we do want to look for as few tests as possible, and those that are easiest to do.

(Reynolds) That’s why you look first at Type Approval type testing. Then later check to see if a system is working right by che cking the mechanics and logs, and then check one indicator size class to have some confidence that the killing mechanism is still working.

(Welschmeyer) Agrees, but we need to star t building up, and getting the word out about selecting tests that can be used.

(Reynolds) We would also need to use a statis tical collection of data. As you collect data on ships coming in with installed systems, that information will help inform which systems might have more exceedences, and ma y require more in depth scrutiny.

(Welschmeyer) When we go down that path, the group has to understand a new idea of compromise. Start with detecting gross exce edences, and see if we can go lower. It would be pretty easy to show that certain test s don’t have the sensitivity to test to low, low levels. There will be problems. Some times zero, by nondetectable standards, are still much, much higher than you want them to be, but you have to acknowledge that in advance.

(Dobroski/Falkner) (After asking if anyone had any more input) Thank you all for participating today. It was a r eally good discussion with great ideas. We’d like to look more into joining the MLML meeting, and getti ng input from the group t hat will be there. We’ll contact Marcel for more information. Thank you.56 APPENDIX C: NOTES FROM TECHNICA L ADVISORY PANEL MEETING (MARCH 2011)

California State Lands Commission Marine Invasive Species Program Treatment Technology Technica l Advisory Panel Meeting March 1, 2011

Attendees (in-person) Sharon Shiba – CDFG/OSPR Steve Morin – Chevron Shipping Marc Holmes – The Bay Institute John McLaurin – Pacific Merchant Shipping Association Dominic Gregorio – CA State Water Resources Control Board Tom Burke – California State Lands Commission Jackie Mackay - California State Lands Commission Maurya Falkner - Californi a State Lands Commission Nicole Dobroski - California State Lands Commission Chris Scianni - California State Lands Commission Lynn Takata – California State Lands Commission

Teleconference Rian Hooff – Oregon Department of Environmental Quality Spencer Schilling – Herbert Engineering Shirley Fan – US Environmental Protection Agency Karen McDowell – San Franc isco Estuary Partnership Bill Davidson – Cal Maritime Academy/Golden Bear Facility Nick Welschmeyer – Moss Landing Marine Laboratories/Golden Bear Facility Andrea Fox – California Farm Bureau Federation Greg Ruiz – Smithsonian Envir onmental Research Center Jon Stewart – International Ma ritime Technology Consultants Lisa Swanson – Matson Navigation

(Dobroski) Introduction and Update (powerpoint)

International updates As of 31 Jan 2011, there have been 27 countrie s representing 25.32% of world shipping tonnage that have signed on to IMO Ballast Water Convention. Full ratification requires 30 countries representing 35% of world shippi ng tonnage, so IMO is getting close, and it appears that the threshold will be met sometime this year. Thus far, there have been 11 treatment systems that have received Type Approval.57 We (SLC) have been working in collaboration with a number of internat ional entities, including the Australian Quarantine and Ins pection Service (AQIS), Biosecurity New Zealand, Transport Canada and Fisheries and Oceans Canada, and the North Sea Ballast Water Opportunity Group. We’ve al so been continuing to work worldwide with scientists and vendors in addition to these international regulators.

Federal updates The US Coast Guard (USCG) is expected to release their final performance standards rule soon. We’ve been told to expect it in April of this year, but we’ve heard at a meeting last week that it wa s expected to be released this spring, so we’re not sure if the April release date still holds. In either case, we expect it within the next few months.

The USCG Shipboard Technolog y Evaluation Program (STEP) currently has 6 vessels enrolled. There has been a recent change in personnel; our new contact for this program is John Meehan. The USCG is still developing biol ogical testing protocols and this has essentially stalled the program. Th ey are continuing to accept new applications for entry into the program, and they are now targeting Great Lakes vessels. Five vessels that are enrolled in this program also have permission from CSLC to use their treatment systems in California with a fi ve year grandfathering period before they’d need to meet CA performance standards. New proposed legislation introduced in CA would allow grandfathering for future STEP vessels (or vessel engaged in experimental treatment technology testing), we will keep you posted on how that progresses.

The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) held a listening session last fall to discuss the development of the second iteration of the Vesse l General Permit (VGP). This listening session provided an opportunity for the public to recommend changes or additions to the permit. The EPA is tentativel y scheduled to deliver a draft of the new permit to the state water quality agencies by la te 2011, in time for them to develop their state-specific 401 certifications, so that the final draft can be released to the public in advance of December 19, 2013.

(Stewart) I’ve had a discussion with USCG regarding STEP. They have indicated that they are considering certain allowances because of the s unset of the grandfathering period. They’re trying to address this by using placeholder applications, these would be incomplete applications but they would be in place and this may have implications for the CSLC program.

(Dobroski continued) A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was signed last month between USCG and EPA. There we re multiple components, but basically it allows for the cooperative implementat ion and enforcement of the VGP. The MOU and associated details are available online.

There have been a number of recent discussions at the federal level involving groups of scientists and marine engineers. One of t hese has been the Science Advisory Board (SAB). The focus of the SAB is to discuss t he status of existing and future treatment technologies, looking at available data, determining the reliability of those data, and58 determining why certain data may not be reliable. They’ve held several public meetings over the past 8 months and t hey released a draft report in January 2011. They have an upcoming conference call scheduled for March 15 and 17 to discuss the draft final report. The final report is due by June 2011. The other group is the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) group, which is focus ed on evaluating numeric limits for living organisms in ballast water. The SAB has been much more open in terms of public information than the NAS group. None of the NAS meetings have been open to the public, so we will need to wait for the final repor t to come out to see what they have been discussing. This final report is also due by June 2011.

The ETV protocols, which resulted th rough a collaboration bet ween the USCG and EPA, are land-based generic protocols for ve rification of ballast water treatment technologies. The protocols were finaliz ed and released in September 2010 and are available online. They include information on biological performance, water quality, operation and maintenance. The goal is to provide a mechanism to verify performance of innovative technologies, but it is not t he same as Type Approval. Labs would need to be certified through this proce ss, but there are none so far that have gone through this completely. Another component of this would be shipboard protocols, and they [EPA/USCG] are starting to move forwar d with the development of those.

State updates We have been involved with the Great Lak es Collaborative, even though we’re obviously not a Great Lakes state. This gr oup includes the Great Lakes states, US St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corp., Canada, industry representatives, researchers and vendors. During recent meetings, the Collaborative has assisted Wisconsin with their ballast water treatment assessment repo rt. The reports and meeting presentations are all available online. This group is fo cused on the freshwater environment, but info coming out from this group is app licable to many systems.

As for individual states, Wisconsin recently completed a report assessing the availability of treatment systems. They decided to change their standards from what’s referred to as 100XIMO to the IMO standards. This report is available online. New York recently extended the date to comply with implementation of their standards to August 1, 2013, for vessels that requested the extension. The NY standards are similar to ours in California. Iowa and Pennsylvania delet ed their standards from the Section 401 Certification of the VGP in December 2010. Keep in mind t hat all of these states have established their standards through the Clean Water Act (VGP), unlike California (ours was put in place through legislative action).

As for the Pacific Coast, we have a meeting of the Pacific Ballast Water Group (PBWG) next week on March 8-9 in Portland, OR. The draft agenda is available online and usually most/all of the present ations are available online afterwards. This meeting provides a forum to present overviews of t he different programs at state levels as well as federal updates.59 (Hooff) The Oregon Legislature (2009) prov ided the Department of Environmental Quality with the authority to establish standards through ru lemaking. Our agency, in consultation with our stakehol der group, opted to withhold the adoption of state-specific standards and implementation dates during our most recent rulemaking activities. Instead, waiting on release of USCG final rulemaking and/or EPA VGP re-issuance to assess adequacy for protecting state of Or egon waters. The new rulemaking did, however, establish a new rule describing w hen ballast water treatment systems may be used for discharge to state waters. At this time, the new rule allows for use of systems approved by USCG or EPA, and also allows the department to authorize the use of promising technologies in cases invo lving high-risk emergency discharge.

(Dobroski) The State of Washington no long er approves treatment systems, but they have the authority to develop standards. They may start the rulemaking process in May or June, depending on issues with their budget and the discussions held at the PBWG meeting next week.

For us in California, our most recent ba llast water treatment technology assessment report was approved by the Commission in August 2010. Eight of the systems we evaluated showed the potential to comply wit h our performance standards, and all eight of these systems are commercially avail able. Three of these systems showed the potential to meet our standards more than 50% of the time. Seven of the eight systems have the ability to handle pump rates of 2000 cubic meters per hour, and therefore would accommodate 80% of the vessels in California. All eight of these systems comply with VGP limits on total residual chlo rine (TRC) or don’t produce TRC. The plan is for CSLC to proceed with the implementati on of our standards on January 1, 2012 for new build vessels with a ballast water capac ity of greater than 5000 metric tons. The January 1, 2012 date is the cutoff for the keel laid date. Ev en though it’s not something that was legislatively mandated, we will produce an update of this report by September 1, 2011 at the request of our Commission.

We also recently prepared the legislativ ely mandated 2011 biennial report that was approved by the Commission in December 2010. This report includes vessel arrival statistics and compliance, data on hull husbandry practices, program activities, and an update of funded and cooperative research. In light of some of the discussions occurring at the federal level and within the Great Lakes Co llaborative, we (CSLC) are discussing possible changes to our plans for implementing our performance standards. This does not mean that we are changing t he actual standards themselves or the implementation schedule, despite recent reports suggesting that this is the case. Both the standards and implementatio n schedule are set in statute and cannot be changed by the Commission.

In December, we had a discussion with a mini-technical advisory group (TAG) consisting of scientists and a marine engineer about options for moving forward with the implementation of our performance standards. We discussed three possible options for moving forward:60 1) Change the standards. This option would require legislative action, and there is no political will in the state to do this. Therefore, this isn’t a very viable option. 2) Use of best available technologies (BAT). This would also require legislative action as well as regul atory implementation. 3) Codify compliance verification protocols via regulations. We would specifically lay out protocols to make it clear which processes CSLC inspectors would use to verify vessel compliance with CA’s perfo rmance standards. By providing these protocols, there would be a benchmar k for determining compliance with our standards.

The consensus from that group was to not change the standards, especially because of the lack of political will. The standards themselves are only half of the equation, how they will be measured is the ot her important part. The best opt ion is to develop a set of protocols that will be used to verify compliance. As methods improve, regulations could evolve, and we could develop a process to grandfather the systems/vessels that were installed under certain verifi cation regimes using the origi nal methods/protocols.

(Holmes) Can you clarify that the mi ni-TAG meeting was on December 20?

(Dobroski) Yes

(Stewart) Have you considered what the grandfathering might look like? Also when developing verification protocols, you’d need to provide a concise statement for validation onboard stat ing that you would be deemed in compliance if you use certain protocols. What is exactly allowable under your mandate and what about your ability to defend this in court?

(Dobroski) For the question relating to the timing of grandfathering, maybe 5 to 10 years. We haven’t made that decision yet, we’re just entering those discussions.

(Falkner) Regarding your other question, it w ould be similar to the Water Board. Just because compliance testing is conducted by the user doesn’t mean that the regulator wouldn’t still come on board and verify compliance.

(Stewart) If it was equivalent to the Water Board and other discharge regulations, that would be much more workable. Even with te sting and monitoring r equirements, there’s certainly an option for the st ate to come out and verify.

(Gregorio) What we (State Wa ter Resources Control Board) do is to require certified labs to carry out those analyses, the regulated party has to use certified labs. There are always problems with certain measurements (e.g . pH). Is CSLC going to use certified labs/testers?

(Falkner) This is still in the discussion phase. I envision three layers of testing. This is up on the screen.61 (Dobroski) Our plan is for us to do the testing. We are required to inspect at least 25% of the arriving vessels. Mo st of the focus worldwide has been on land-based testing, this would be the first layer of testing. We ’re not talking about that when we talk about compliance verification. T he methods and volumes of water used for land-based Type Approval testing aren’t practical on board a ship. We’re thinking about something more practical, for ship-based testing. This would be level 2. Tests that vessels can do or that we can do, like standard tests for E. coli etc.

(Morin) How quickly do those tests work?

(Gregorio) It takes 18-24 hours fo r most microbiological tests.

(Dobroski) When tests fail, our goal is to fi nd out why they failed. Determine what we can do to get the vessel back on track. Ou r efforts will be to develop protocols for all size classes that our inspectors can do. Lev el three would be a dipstick type of test that would quickly tell you whether vessels have grossly exceeded the standard. A red/green light sort of test, this would be highly valuabl e to ship owners so they can conduct self-checks. A good example of this is the test that Nick Welschmeyer is developing.

(Welschmeyer) We’re working on a quick and di rty test for bulk viability analyses that CSLC can conduct onboard themselves. T he method has been tested during several IMO sea trials at the Golden Bear Facility and while the facility was being scrutinized for calibration and testing of the ETV protoc ols. We’ve been comparing the dipstick protocol to regular meas urements and it has been quite successful, especially for determining gross exceedance. The system takes advantage of old technology, fluorescein diacetate (FDA), conv erted to seawater tests to get rid of false positives. It operates with a one-hour incubat ion, and the samples can be filtered down to specific size classes using traditional size fracti onation. The readings are taken using a handheld battery-operated fluorom eter. It has been encouragi ng, and we want to make it as portable as possible.

(Gregorio) Does this only tell y ou if there are critters there, with no indication of whether they are indigenous to California?

(Welschmeyer) Exactly, it’s a bulk viability in dicator. There is no indication of whether the organisms are indigenous or not.

(Gregorio) For testing level tw o, where would you do the testing at? Would you set up a lab at each harbor?

(Dobroski) Not sure. We’re still trying to wo rk out some of those details. We’re participating at a meeting at Moss Landing Mari ne Labs late this month focusing on the 10-50 micron size class. We need to talk to some of the technical folks about this. We’ll work through it, and our goal is to have a draft framework in place by the end of the year.62 (Falkner) We’ve been getting emails with ques tions about protocols from vendors who want to test their systems fo r CA standards. The tests we’r e talking about (level 2) are things we’d do for an enforcement action, if the dipstick test fails or shows gross exceedance.

(Dobroski) It’s important to re member that no one else has done this yet, worldwide. The compliance side of the equation has been lar gely ignored. There is a lot of info to draw from, but no one has br ought it all together yet.

(Gregorio) Minor suggestion, it might be a good idea to contact the Southern California Water Coastal Water Research Projec t (SCCWRP). They’ve made great advancements in barcoding organisms, work ing with benthic sampling near outfalls.

(Dobroski) Thanks, you’re right. The best wa y to do this is not by looking under a microscope, that would be too laborious, t oo much manpower. We do need bulk assaytype tests.

(Welschmeyer) I’ve been a me mber of SAB. The discussion was supposed to be on technologies but a tremendous am ount of time spent on st atistics and testing. The statistics involved are logist ically troublesome. Why haven’t we been working on compliance? The perfect test is so oner ous and lab-specific that it can only be done once on a vessel. The appropriate buzzword is “compliance,” and the issue is that we haven’t been acting on compliance.

(Gregorio) Would the dipstick te sts be conducted by the vessels?

(Falker) Anyone can conduct tests, including our inspectors. Data suggest that when systems fail, it’s a gross failure.

(Welschmeyer) We can test for all of the si ze classes. The take home message is that the large size class is the rarest in seaw ater, and the problem with large water volumes is focused on that group. The statistics are in a sorry state of affairs. It’s highly probable that we need a mindset change and acceptance of tests for small microbes, because of the small volumes involved and because they are more abundant than larger size classes.

(Falkner) We have a suite of organism size classes with volumes attached, but that’s not the case for the larger size class. T here is no volume attached to that standard. We’ll have to use practical, pr agmatic tests in the field.

(Ruiz) Is the rationale to look at smaller microbes as in dicators for all size classes?

(Welschmeyer) Yes, but we’d have to repeat t he experiment a lot to gain confidence in it. It would have to be pretty specific towa rds the implementation of the test. The odd irony in this is that the smaller size classe s are the hardest test to conduct. Generally63 everyone agrees that tests for the largest organisms are easiest since it’s easy to determine live and dead organisms under a micro scope. Ironically, the 10-50 category might be the hardest measuring category to use for complianc e tests but the easiest in terms of the volume of water to sample.

(Dobroski) We might focus on some size cla sses more than others, but we’re lucky that our large standard has no volume associated wit h it. If one organism is found, then it fails. If no organisms are found, then we can move on to the 10-50 micron size class.

(Shiba) There is no volume required for t he greater than 50 microns size class?

(Dobroski) Correct. The CA standard is “non-det ectable.” There is not concentration or volume associated with that standard.

(Takata) The idea is to make it clear that these are the protocols that we would use for compliance monitoring. Look at it like goi ng to a doctor and knowing which tests are going to be conducted.

(Dobroski) For our standards, there is no vo lume specified for greater than 50 microns. We would probably need to move to smalle r organisms for statistical confidence.

(Shiba) One issue of concern is if users c an inadvertently contaminate the sample for FDA tests.

(Dobroski) Nick has gotten pretty good result s on the test, but definitely handling error would need to be minimized.

(Falkner) On inspections, we’re going to a sk questions like did you turn the system on, did you clean the sampling port? Red flags will lead to questions about why it failed. If the engineers are smart, cert ain engineering metrics woul d be included. Vessel owners can look at metrics to verify that system is working and then validate with dipstick. But contamination is an issue t hat will have to be addressed.

(Morin) For item 2, who do you envision coll ecting the samples and bringing it to lab?

(Falkner) We’d pull samples per protocol, but it could be that we could set up lab facilities in our field offices; we’d have to assess that. There is definitely a concern about having samples sit around for too long.

(Dobroski) We would encourage vessels to do so me testing themselves to ensure they are in compliance.

(Takata) When we develop these protocols, we’ll keep the end-user in mind. That will be part of how we define protoc ols, who would be doing it, statistical certainty, etc.64 (Dobroski) [Back to the powerpoint presentat ion - treatment tech form slide] There were two reporting forms approved in Novem ber 2010. One of these is an annual form and the other is a ballast wate r treatment supplemental repor ting form, similar to ballast water reporting form. Both of these are out there right now, and submission is required for vessels that have treatment systems installed and that discharged treated ballast in CA waters. This will help us gather informa tion as well as help with our implementation of the standards over time. This will be very valuable once these systems are put on vessels.

In terms of other research and projects we’re involved in, we’re working with Matson Navigation on a system (Ecochlor – ch lorine dioxide) installed on the Moku Pahu

. We’re also working with the APL England to install the NEI system (deoxygenation) onboard. Both of these vessels are enrolled in STEP. There’s also the Golden Bear Facility, a plug and play setup that is the only testing facility on the west coast. It can conduct land-based and shipboard testing. T hey’ve tested the Severn Trent De Nora system and are working on testing ETV protocols.

(Gregorio) What do you mean by plug and play?

(Dobroski) A container with the system inside is loaded onto the back of the vessel, and plugged into the ballast system, ra ther than installing it into t he bowels of the vessel. It can even handle two systems at the same time.

(Falkner) Initially, there was some conc ern about pressures and the representativeness of having the system on the ba ck rather than in bowels of the vessel, but these were tested and concerns have been overcome. This setup is great for t he cadets, great for the west coast, and hopefully they will he lp us in testing our protocols.

(Dobroski) Nick Welschmeyer is lead scientis t and Bill Davidson is the Chief Engineer. This is great for the cadets, to introduce t hem to the idea of treat ing ballast water.

For our next steps, quite a few treatment syst ems have come onto the market since our 2010 report. We will continue to gather informa tion about them and update our report in September 2011. We will star t field testing our protocol s once they are developed and we will continue to conduct outreac h with treatment system vendors.

(Stewart) I have a question about the September 1 report to the Commission. If vendors are interested in being included in this , is there a cutoff date for them to get data to you?

(Dobroski) We will probably send a request out in next week or so . We may set our deadline for May 1 st , but we’ll let you know soon.

(Stewart) It’s really encouraging to see so meone taking the enforcement issue at hand in a pragmatic, doable manner. It hasn’t been addressed yet, mainly because everyone is focused on type approval. The type approv al can be done however an administration65 wants, and this leads to disparity in test ing and creating an imbalance in the playing field when it comes to promot ion and marketing. It’s really an unfair advantage. In CA, we’re looking at limited data. Now there are more constructive ways of looking at systems, and I’m glad to see us digg ing our heels in and doing this.

(Morin) Looking at option one, I’m concerned that if standards ar e kept as is, then environmental groups would sue you to enforce the standards. And then we’d still be forced to meet the standards.

(Falkner) That’s something that we’ll deal with if and when the ti me comes. But other regulatory agencies have dealt with standards fo r which the limit of sampling detection can’t meet the standard.

(Gregorio) Chlorine is a good example

(Falkner) Do you (Water Board) ge t sued by environmental organizations?

(Gregorio) Yes, but usually only for bigger issues. They usually sue us for our implementation of standards.

(Falker) If you utilize protocols and they pass, then they pass.

(Morin) But if someone sues you and they wi n, we’d have to comply with standards to the letter of the original law, regardless of whatever protocols you had in place.

(Gregorio) We’ve recently seen lawsuits where an NPDES discharger turns in reports and certifies it. The successful lawsuits were from groups suing because they weren’t actually in compliance because of a nebulous portion of report. A recent suit by NRDC related to LA county signing forms saying t hey were in compliance but they really weren’t.

(Falkner) Is that because they misrepresented data or what?

(Gregorio) This is just an exampl e, but it was a blatant violati on. It wasn’t devious, but it happens (e.g. runoff).

(Falkner) If we had defined methods and prot ocols, and the system meets that, I don’t know why anyone would sue anybody.

(Morin) What about environmental groups sui ng you like they did the EPA in order to regulate wastewater di scharges under NPDES?

(Falkner) That was a different issue, nobody was doing it. We’re doing the best we can.

(Takata) A lot of the best scientists ar ound (SAB group, NAS, ETV) have discussed the fact that testing procedures don’ t test with the 95% statistic r ugosity that’s ideal. Testing66 methods are onerous; I can’t imagine an envir onmental group going against a group of scientists.

(Morin) Under option 3, if we install a system in 2012 and protocols improve, then we still only have to meet 2012 rules. If sys tem is installed in February 2016, and new protocols are put in place in November 2016, would I have to meet the 2016 protocols?

(Dobroski) This example is just for overview purposes.

(Falkner) We will have a phase-in period, but we haven’t yet worked out the details.

(Takata) Keep in mind that none of this has been codified, these are just notes.

(Falkner) There will be a grace period.

(Holmes) I want to ask about Andy Cohen’s em ail. He’s basically suggesting we take a look at land-based technology. It seems to be an idea to get around this lack of uncertainty. Are you still taking a look at it?

(Dobroski) We’re still in support of land-based technologies and barge-based technologies as well. The challenge is that no one has developed a land-based system, and the Water Board would be regulator. It might be a very feasible option for certain ships or areas, but no one has been building them and there is no available land-based facility. We’d encourage use of it, but there’s not much to work with right

now.

(Falkner) We have supported it for certain vessels cruise lines in Long Beach. If vessels want absolute certainty that they would meet our standar ds, then they should start pushing for it. We can’t tell the Port of LA to do this. If a barge-based system were to be implemented, that would be phenomen al. We’ve talked to Pacific Merchant Shipping Association about a co-op system for those vessels that don’t discharge 90% of the time. There’s the po ssibility that they may need to discharge every once in a while, and they can buy into the treatment co-op. It doesn’t solve the worldwide problem though; we’re trying to do this as an international community. We have heavily-invaded SF Bay water. I think s hore-based systems would be great, it would be less expensive for industry, but not every one can do this. If dedicated shipping lines (Maersk for example) wanted to do this that would be ideal.

(Gregorio) The infrastructure needed to service this require the entire port authority to get onboard, it would be a majo r infrastructure project.

(Falkner) But it would be technically feasible . We are totally supportive of barge-based or terminal-based systems.

(Dobroski) So yes, we’re looking at it, and maybe it’s a long-term option, but for now we’re looking at ship-based te chnologies because that’s w here the industry’s at now.67 (Falker) They’d need to figure out how to do this in a practical sense.

(Dobroski) Andy’s report is on the SAB website if anyone wants to take a look at it.

(Falkner) It’s good that Andy has kept that option on the table, and it is an option to be considered by a variety of folks.

(Dobroski) So that’s it, we’ll send the sli des and meeting minutes out to you soon

(Swanson) I just wanted to check in, I called in after the meeting started.

ADJOURN