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, 2011 
2 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

The Coastal Ecosystems Protection Act of 2006 (Act) expanded the Marine Invasive 

Species Program to more effectively address the threat of nonindigenous species 

introduction through ballast water discharge. The Act charged the California State 

Lands Commission (Commission) to implement performance standards for the 

discharge of ballast water and to prepare reports assessing the 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 standards 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 Dobroski 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 the 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 construction begins on or after 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 performance data to determine whether or not 

systems have demonstrated the potential to comply with California’s standards. Based 

on currently available information and using 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 systems indicate that at least one test 

(averaged across replicates) met California’s standards for every testable organism size 

class during either land-based or shipboard testing. Five of the 10 systems show the 

potential to meet California standards more than 50% of the time over multiple tests (3 

or more) during either land-based or shipboard testing. One system demonstrated 

potential compliance with California’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 vendor by the Commission or its staff. 

Since the August 2010 technology assessment report, there has been significant activity 

concerning performance standards implementation and ballast water technology 

assessment at the state, federal and international levels. Recent reports from the Great 

Lakes Ballast Water Collaborative (GLBWC 2010), Wisconsin Department of Natural 

Resources (WDNR 2010), and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

Science Advisory Board (SAB 2011) have concluded that the current limits of testing 

methods prevent evaluating, with a high level of statistical sensitivity, whether or not 

treatment systems can meet standards more stringent than the International Maritime 

Organization (IMO) (see Table 1). California’s standards were not specifically reviewed 

in these reports. California’s discharge standard for organisms greater than 50 

micrometers (one millionth of a meter, μm) is “no detectable living organisms,” and is 

not defined by a specific volumetric concentration. Thus, California’s standard for this 

organism size class is not directly comparable to the IMO or standards proposed by 

other entities evaluated by these reports. 

It is important to note that, as a whole, treatment systems have undergone a relatively 

small number of tests, under a limited range of environmental conditions. This leads to 

inherent uncertainty regarding treatment system performance across the spectrum of 

potential variables, including ship type and source water properties (e.g. temperature, 

turbidity, salinity). This uncertainty is likely to persist over the next several years. In the 

absence of a significant worldwide effort to install and test treatment systems on 

multiple vessels and under all possible environmental scenarios, it is unreasonable to 

expect that sample sizes and available data will increase adequately in the near future 

to demonstrate, with a high level of confidence, that treatment systems will consistently 

meet California’s performance standards under every potential situation and under all 

circumstances. However, continuing to wait for such information will only serve to delay 

progress. Due to the inherent uncertainty regarding treatment system performance and 
4 

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 treatment technologies to meet California’s 

standards with a high level of statistical confidence, staff convened the ballast water 

treatment technology technical advisory panel (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 the Legislature amend 

the standards, 2) recommending that the Legislature implement the use of Best 

Available Technologies until such time that staff can statistically verify 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 protocols will allow system manufacturers and 

vessel owners/operators to verify that their treatment technologies are meeting 

California standards using the same methods, and with the same statistical 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 there are some challenges verifying that 

treatment systems meet California’s standards, Commission staff have worked with a 

technical advisory panel of regulators, industry members, scientists and environmental 

organizations to discuss options for proceeding with the implementation of California’s 

standards. Based on those discussions, Commission staff is in the process of 

developing verification protocols to ensure that all vessels discharges are compliant with 

California law. Staff recommends that the Commission continue to support staff’s effort 

to implement California’s performance standards for the discharge 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 CONTENTS .................................................................................................. 6

ABBREVIATIONS AND TERMS ..................................................................................... 7

I. PURPOSE AND DISCLAIMER ............................................................................. 8

II. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................... 8

III. RECENT STATE, FEDERAL AND INTERNATIONAL ACTIVITIES RELATED TO 

BALLAST WATER PERFORMANCE STANDARDS, AND THEIR IMPLICATIONS 

FOR CALIFORNIA ............................................................................................... 12

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

V. SYSTEM EFFICACY ........................................................................................... 29

VI. IMPLEMENTING CALIFORNIA’S PERFORMANCE STANDARDS FOR THE 

DISCHARGE OF BALLAST WATER ................................................................... 34

VII. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ...................................................................... 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 TECHNICAL ADVISORY PANEL MEETING (MARCH 

2011) ..................................................................................................56
7 

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 and 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 Sciences’ 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 Technology Evaluation Program 

μm Micrometer 

USCG United States Coast Guard 

UV Ultraviolet Irradiation 

Vessel General Permit Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the 

 Normal Operation of Vessels 

WDNR Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources 
8 

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 follow-up to the recent legislatively mandated report, “2010 

Assessment of the Efficacy, Availability and Environmental Impacts of Ballast Water 

Treatment Systems for Use in California Waters” (see California State Lands 

Commission 2010). Because this update is a companion document, not all components 

included in the legislatively mandated treatment technology 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 capacity 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 treatment 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, Statutes of 2006) expanded 

the Marine Invasive Species Act (Chapter 491, Statutes of 2003, Public Resources 

Code (PRC) Sections 71200 et seq.) to more effectively address the threat of 

nonindigenous species introductions through ballast water discharge. The Act 

mandated that the Commission implement performance 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 implementation 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 ballast water treatment technology 

assessment report was approved by the Commission in December 2007 (see Dobroski 

et al. 2007). 

In response to the recommendations in the 2007 report, the California Legislature 

passed Senate Bill (SB) 1781 (Chapter 696, Statutes of 2008) which, among its 

provisions amended PRC Section 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 January 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 report (see Dobroski et al. 

2009) presented data indicating that at least two ballast water treatment technologies 

had demonstrated the potential to comply with California’s performance standards for 

the discharge of ballast water. As such, the report recommended that the Commission 

proceed with the initial implementation of California’s performance standards beginning 

January 1, 2010 for newly built vessels with a ballast water capacity of less than 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 

< 103 bacteria/100 ml 

< 104 viruses/100 ml 

< 126 cfu/100 ml 

< 33 cfu/100 ml 

< 1 cfu/100 ml or 

< 1 cfu/gram wet weight 

zoological samples 

[1] See Table III-2 below for dates by which vessels must meet California and IMO Ballast Water 

Performance Standards. 

[2] Final discharge standard for California, beginning January 1, 2020, is zero detectable living organisms 

for all organism size classes. 

[3] Micrometer – one-millionth of a meter 

[4] Milliliter – one-thousandth of a liter 

[5] Colony-forming unit – a measure of viable bacterial numbers 

Table 2. Implementation Schedule for 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 in1

< 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 the 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 must update the ballast water treatment 

technology assessment report to the Legislature 18 months prior to each of the 

implementation dates for the performance standards (see Table 2). In August 2010, the 

Commission presented its third treatment technology 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 the 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 surpassed the standards more than 50% of the time over 

multiple tests. Furthermore, vessels for which construction begins on or after January 1, 

2012 will not be expected to meet California’s standards until construction is complete 

and the vessel is operational in California waters, likely sometime in 2014. Thus the 

Commission concluded that the lead time available for further technology development 

and refinement is sufficient to indicate that technologies are developing on schedule 

and will be available by the time these vessels must meet California’s discharge 

standards. 

However, in recognition of the fact that the field of ballast water treatment technology is 

developing rapidly and that there remains some uncertainty about the availability of 

treatment systems to meet California’s standards, the Commission requested that staff 

prepare an updated report by September 1, 2011 to ensure that treatment technologies 

will be available to meet California’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 well 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 STANDARDS, AND THEIR IMPLICATIONS 

FOR CALIFORNIA 

Though the focus of this update is the availability 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 result, several meetings, public discussions, 

hearings and regulatory actions outside of California have been underway during the 

last 12 months. Reports produced from these activities have included reviews of 

treatment technology development and performance assessment that 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 representing 25.43% of the world’s shipping tonnage 

have signed the International Convention for 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 representing 35% of the world’s shipping 

tonnage. The Convention enters into force 12 months after ratification. Some experts 

predict that the Convention will be ratified by January 1, 2012 with entry into force by 

January 1, 2013. As of August 2011, the U.S. has not signed on to the Convention. 

Among its provisions, the Convention imposes performance standards for the discharge 

of ballast water (Regulation D-2, see Table 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 guidelines for flag state 

administrations to Type Approve systems as compliant with the Convention’s 

performance standards (see Guideline G8, MEPC 2008b). 
13 

While the Convention does not directly impact California’s ability to implement 

performance standards, implementation of the Convention will spark an international 

surge in the sale and installation of ballast water treatment systems. Already, 

anticipation that the Convention 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 advancement of treatment systems has been a lack of 

installation and testing on active vessels. Implementation of the Convention should lead 

to more systems being installed on actively 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 States are regulated by both the United States 

Coast Guard (USCG) and the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 

Prior to February 6, 2009, ballast water was regulated solely by the USCG through 

regulations developed under authority of the National Invasive 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 the responsibility of complying with applicable state laws 

and/or regulations. Thus vessels face a challenging 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 organisms in ships’ ballast water discharged in 
14 

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 vessels to meet the IMO 

Regulation D-2 standards (see Table 1) by 2012. Phase two would require that 

discharged ballast comply with a standard roughly 1000 times more stringent than IMO 

(similar to California’s standards) by 2016, contingent 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. The 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. Commission staff has been asked by USCG to participate 

and provide input. 

The USCG continues to support the development of novel ballast water treatment 

technologies through the Shipboard Technology Evaluation Program (STEP). STEP 

provides an avenue for vessels to install 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, the USCG has not finalized the shipboard 

testing protocols to verify system performance, and STEP vessels are therefore unable 

to proceed with shipboard testing for treatment system biological efficacy. 

Commission staff continues to work with the USCG and encourage the operation of 

STEP vessels in California waters. In 2011, the California Senate Environmental Quality 

Committee introduced Senate Bill 935. Among its provisions, SB 935 would extend the 

date by which vessels engaged in the experimental 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 Section 71204.7 currently sets 

January 1, 2008 as the deadline by which vessels must apply to the Commission to 

receive approval to operate experimental systems in California. Following Commission 
15 

approval, experimental STEP vessels are grandfathered 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 treatment 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 “Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental 

to the Normal Operation of Vessels” (Vessel General Permit). The Vessel General 

Permit regulates 26 discharges, including ballast water, incidental to normal vessel 

operation. In 2009, the State of Michigan and environmental groups filed suit against 

EPA charging that the Vessel General 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 requires EPA to release a draft revised Vessel 

General Permit by November 30, 2011. Among the provisions in the settlement, the 

revised Vessel General Permit must include numeric effluent limits for the concentration 

of living organisms in discharged ballast 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 certification 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 the 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 National 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 regulatory landscape is becoming increasingly 
16 

complicated and confusing for vessels transiting between various jurisdictions. 

Commission staff is working closely with stakeholders to ensure that vessels clearly 

understand California’s ballast water management requirements. 

EPA/USCG Collaborative Activities 

To better inform EPA’s understanding of ballast water discharges and treatment 

technologies, EPA in conjunction with the USCG, commissioned two scientific studies in 

2010 to examine: 1) the risk of species introduction given certain living organism 

concentrations in ballast water discharges, and 2) the efficacy and availability of ballast 

water treatment technologies. The National Academy of Sciences’ National Research 

Council (NRC) was charged with evaluating the organism concentration question, and 

the EPA Office of Water requested the Science 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 report “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 helping EPA and the USCG 

better understand the relationship between the concentration of living organisms in 

ballast water discharges and the probability of nonindigenous organisms successfully 

establishing populations in U.S. waters.” The report concluded that there is currently 

insufficient information to determine the probability of invasion associated with any 

particular discharge standard. The report recommends establishing a benchmark 

discharge standard (such as the IMO D-2 standard) followed by the selection of a riskbased model to guide the collection of experimental and field-based data for further 

analysis to inform the selection of science-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 technologies, however, only nine systems were 

deemed to have reliable data (defined by the SAB as including, at a minimum, methods 
17 

and results from land-based or shipboard testing) that allowed for scientifically credible 

assessment of performance. The SAB evaluated the ability of those 9 systems, 

condensed into five operational types (e.g. filtration + electrochlorination), to meet 

various existing and proposed performance standards, ranging from 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 standards (see Table 1), only one (the 10-50 

micrometer size class) is specifically 1000 times more stringent than IMO; the California 

standard for organisms greater than 50 micrometers in minimum dimension is “no 

detectable living organisms” which cannot be directly 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 comparison to the IMO standards (e.g. total 

bacteria and viruses) or are 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 IMO D-2 standard, but 

that the current limits of testing methods precluded a statistically valid analysis of 

whether or not the systems could meet more stringent standards (including standards 

100 and 1000 times more stringent than the IMO 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 concluded that reasonable changes to existing 

systems could result in the achievement of standards roughly 10 times more stringent 

than IMO, but that novel treatment techniques would likely be required to meet more 

stringent standards. In addition to the review of available treatment technologies, the 

panel advocated for the use of risk management systems approaches to reduce species 

introductions from vessels, including, for example, 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 verify 
18 

ballast water treatment technology performance. The EPA Environmental Technology 

Verification (ETV) Program “verifies the performance of innovative technologies that 

have the potential to improve protection of human health and the environment” (EPA 

2011). In 2001, the USCG and EPA established 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 “Generic Protocol for the Verification of 

Ballast Water Treatment Technology” in September 2010 (see EPA 2010). The protocol 

established specific methods and procedures for verifying ballast water treatment 

system performance at land-based testing facilities. The USCG has indicated that the 

ETV protocols may be incorporated into future procedures for the Type Approval of 

ballast water treatment systems for use in the United States. 

Commission staff has yet to receive any reports on treatment technology performance 

evaluation based on the testing model presented in the ETV protocols. However, 

Commission staff is using the protocols as a valuable resource to gauge the reliability of 

existing data for evaluating system performance. 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 for more information). 

The ETV program is also currently pursuing the development of shipboard protocols to 

verify treatment system performance. Commission staff has been invited to participate 

and provide expertise during the development of both the land-based and shipboard 

protocols. 

U.S. States 

The Great Lakes Ballast Water Collaborative (GLBWC) is a workgroup of Great Lakes 

states, U.S. federal and Canadian regulators, and associated stakeholders. The 

GLBWC met in Duluth, Minnesota in July 2010 to discuss various aspects of ballast 

water treatment technologies, verification strategies and policies. Commission staff was 
19 

invited to participate in this meeting to offer expertise and experience in ballast water 

management and technology assessment. 

A focus of the GLBWC meeting in Duluth was to provide information to the Wisconsin 

Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) on the availability of treatment technologies 

to meet Wisconsin’s performance standards for the discharge of ballast water. 

Wisconsin established ballast water performance standards in 2010 through a General 

Permit to Discharge under the Wisconsin Pollutant Discharge Elimination 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 Wisconsin standards would be revised to the 

IMO standards (see Table 1). 

Based on the information discussed at the Duluth meeting and in the report produced by 

the GLBWC (see GLBWC 2010), WDNR released the “Wisconsin Ballast Water 

Treatment Feasibility Determination” in December 2010 (see WDNR 2010). The 

WDNR’s report concluded that there were several barriers to the 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 protocols ; 2) Because there are no protocols 

to determine if technologies meet the Wisconsin 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 that 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 assessment of treatment technologies, the 
20 

situation in California is not analogous. Wisconsin’s ports are located in the freshwater 

environment of the Great Lakes. Very few ballast water treatment manufacturers have 

tested the performance of their 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 California. Therefore the challenges of installing 

treatment systems on Great Lakes 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 performance standards. Among them, New York and 

Pennsylvania included provisions for the establishment 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 performance standards. In their 

Section 401 certification, New York provided 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 that extended the date by which existing 

vessel must comply with the New York standards from January 1, 2012 to August 1, 

2013. Like New York, Pennsylvania also adopted standards through the Section 401 

certification process. However, in December 2010, EPA provided notice in the Federal 

Register that Pennsylvania deleted the Section 401 certification 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 treatment technology assessment is 

whether or not enough ballast water has been sampled for statistical rigor. Most of the 

gray literature (non-peer reviewed) reports reviewing treatment technologies and 
21 

available data on system efficacy do not specifically quantify the statistical reliability of 

results as they relate to sample collection methods and volumes of water sampled. This 

issue of the statistics of ballast water sampling came to the forefront of federal 

(USCG/EPA) and state (GLBWC, WDNR) discussions 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 volumes, 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 these 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 societies (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, Lloyd’s Register (U.K.) released the report, 

“Ballast Water Treatment Systems: Guidance for Ship Operators on Procurement, 

Installation and Operation” (see Lloyd’s Register 2010), and in June, 2011 published the 

fourth edition of their “Ballast Water Treatment Technology” guide (see Lloyd’s Register 

2011). The American Bureau of Shipping (U.S.) published their “Ballast Water 

Treatment Advisory” in mid-2010, which was later updated in April 2011 (see ABS 

2011). Germanischer Lloyd (Germany) distributed 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 installation, discuss safety considerations, and 

serve as a resource as vessels owners/operators develop and revise ballast water 

management plans for new treatment technologies. Classification societies have also 

begun offering approval and certification of ballast water treatment systems. These 

approvals specifically relate to the engineering, safety and operational concerns 
22 

associated with the integration of treatment systems into vessels. System performance 

(i.e. biological efficacy) is addressed by the Type Approval granted by the flag state 

administration, and not by classification societies. 

IV. TREATMENT SYSTEMS 

Coinciding with the recent flurry of state, federal and international activities related to 

ballast water discharge performance standards, staff has seen an almost linear increase 

in the number of treatment systems under development and the number of treatment 

systems that have received IMO G8 Type Approval since the Commission’s first 

technology assessment report in 2007 (see Figure 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 systems have conducted or are in the process 

of conducting evaluations to assess compliance 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 California or U.S. waters, the IMO process 

does provide vessel owners/operators, interested stakeholders and regulators with 

important data on system operation and performance. IMO Marine Environment 

Protection Committee (MEPC) approvals of systems using active substances (Basic 

and Final Approval) and Type Approvals from flag 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

70

Number of Ballast Water Treatment Systems

Number of Systems 

Reviewed by CSLC

Number of Systems with 

Type Approval

Figure 1. The number of treatment system reviewed by Commission staff during each 

of the Commission’s treatment technology assessment reports. The number of 

systems with Type Approval is shown. 
Table 3. Ballast Water Treatment Systems Reviewed by Commission Staff 

Manufacturer Country System Name Technology Type Technology Description A

21st Century Shipbuilding 

Co. Ltd. Korea 

ARA Ballast 

(formerly Blue 

Ocean Guardian) 

combination filtration + plasma + UV IM

Alfa Laval Sweden PureBallast 2.0/2.0 Ex combination filtration + advanced oxidation technology (UV + TiO2) IM

App

AQUA Eng. Co. Ltd. Korea AquaStarTM BWMS combination filtration + electrolysis + neutralization (sodium thiosulfate) 

Aquaworx ATC GmbH Germany AquaTriCombTM combination filtration + ultrasound + UV 

ATLAS-DANMARK Denmark ABWS combination filtration + electrolysis (ANOLYTE + CATHOLYTE) 

Auramarine Ltd. Finland CrystalBallast combination filtration + UV 

Brillyant USA BrillyantSea physical electric pulse 

Coldharbour Marine Ltd. United Kingdom Coldharbour BWTS physical deoxygenation 

China Ocean Shipping 

Company (COSCO) China Blue Ocean Shield combination hydrocyclone + filtration + UV IMO 

Ap

DESMI Ocean Guard 

A/S Denmark DESMI Ocean Guard BWTS combination filtration + ozone + UV 

Ecochlor USA Ecochlor® BWTS combination filtration + biocide (chlorine dioxide) IM

F

EcologiQ USA/Canada BallaClean biological deoxygenation 

Electrichlor USA Model EL 1-3 B chemical electrolytic generation of sodium hypochlorite 

Environmental 

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

1 STEP is a USCG experimental use approval that applies to the combination of one vessel and one treatment system. While STEP 

technical and environmental screening it is not a type approval process. 2 Based on MEPC 59/24 – administrations may determine if BWMS that make use of UV light produce Active Substances. China do

Active Substances, so Final Approval is not necessary. 
Table 3 (continued). Ballast Water Treatment Systems Reviewed by Commission Staff 

Manufacturer Country System Name Technology Type Technology Description A

Envirotech and 

Consultancy Pte. Ltd. Singapore BlueSeas BWMS combination 

filtration + electrolysis + 

neutralization (sodium 

thiosulfate) 

Envirotech and 

Consultancy Pte. Ltd. Singapore BlueWorld BWMS combination 

filtration + electrolysis + 

neutralization (sodium 

thiosulfate) 

ERMA FIRST ESK 

Engineering Solutions 

S.A. 

Greece ERMA FIRST BWTS combination filtration + hydrocyclone + electrolysis + neutralization (sodium bisulfite) 

Ferrate Treatment Technologies LLC USA Ferrator chemical biocide (ferrate) 

GEA Westfalia 

Separator Group GmbH Germany BallastMaster BWMS combination filtration + electrolysis + neutralization (sodium thiosulphate) 

Hamworthy Greenship 

Ltd. U.K./Netherlands AQUARIUS2 combination hydrocyclone + electrolysis IM

Hanovia U.K. combination filtration + UV 

Hi Tech Marine Australia SeaSafe-3 physical heat treatment New 

Hitachi Japan ClearBallast combination coagulation + magnetic separation + filtration IM

App

Hyde Marine USA Hyde Guardian combination filtration + UV Ty

(U

Hyundai Heavy 

Industries Co. Ltd. Korea EcoBallast combination filtration + UV IM

Hyundai Heavy 

Industries Co. Ltd. Korea HiBallast combination 

filtration + electrolysis + 

neutralizing agent (sodium 

thiosulfate) 

IM

1 STEP is a USCG experimental use approval that applies to the combination of one vessel and one treatment system. While STEP 

technical and environmental screening it is not a type approval process. 2 Hamworthy has replaced the SEDINOX system with AQUARIUS. The system is undergoing testing and is not yet ready for full rev
Table 3 (continued). Ballast Water Treatment Systems Reviewed by Commission Staff 

Manufacturer Country System Name Technology Type Technology Description A

JFE Engineering Corp. Japan JFE BallastAce combination 

filtration + biocide (sodium 

hypochlorite)2 + cavitation + 

neutralizing agent (sodium 

sulfite) 

IM

F

App

Katayama Chemical Inc. Japan SKY-SYSTEM chemical biocide (Peraclean

® Ocean) + 

neutralization (sodium sulfite) 

Kuraray Co. Ltd. Japan Kuraray BWMS combination 

filtration + biocide (calcium 

hypochlorite) + neutralizing 

agent (sodium sulfite) 

Kwang San Co. Ltd. Korea En-Ballast combination 

filtration + electrolysis + 

neutralizing agent (sodium 

thiosulfate) 

MAHLE Industriefiltration 

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

(

MARENCO Technology 

Group USA MARENCO BWTS combination filtration + UV 

Maritime Solutions Inc. 

(MSI) USA MSI BWTS combination filtration + UV 

Mexel Industries France Mexel

® chemical non-oxidizing biocide 

MH Systems USA MH BWT System combination deoxygenation (inert gas + CO2) 

Mitsui Engineering and 

Shipbuilding Japan SP-Hybrid BWMS Ozone combination filtration + mechanical treatment + ozone + neutralization IM

Mitsui Engineering and 

Shipbuilding Japan SPO-SYSTEM combination 

filtration + mechanical 

treatment + biocide (Peraclean 

Ocean) 

IMO 

Pera

Mitsui Engineering and 

Shipbuilding Japan FineBallast MF physical pre-filtration + microfiltration (membrane) 

NEI USA Venturi Oxygen Stripping (VOS) combination deoxygenation + cavitation 

Ty

(Li

Mar

Pan

1 STEP is a USCG experimental use approval that applies to the combination of one vessel and one treatment system. While STEP 

technical and environmental screening it is not a type approval process. 

2 JFE is currently applying for Basic Approval for use of NEO CHLOR MARINE, a dry version of the same chemical used in BallastA
Table 3 (continued). Ballast Water Treatment Systems Reviewed by Commission Staff 

Manufacturer Country System Name Technology Type Technology Description A

NK-03 Korea BlueBallast chemical ozone 

IM

F

App

ntorreiro Spain Ballastmar combination 

filtration + electrochlorination + 

neutralization (sodium 

metabisulphite) 

Nutech 03 Inc. USA Mark III chemical ozone 

OceanSaver Norway Mark II combination filtration + electrolysis 

IM

F

App

OptiMarin Norway OptiMarin Ballast System combination filtration + UV Ty

Panasia Co. Ltd Korea GloEn-PatrolTM combination filtration + UV 

IM

F

App

Pinnacle Ozone 

Solutions USA 

Aquatic 

enhancement 

system 

combination filtration + ozone + UV 

Qingdao Headway 

Technology Co. Ltd. China OceanGuardTM BWMS combination filtration + electrolysis + ultrasound IM

F

App

RWO Marine Water 

Technology Germany CleanBallast combination 

filtration + electrolysis + 

neutralization (sodium 

thiosulfate) 

IM

F

Ap

Samsung Heavy 

Industries Co. Ltd. Korea Neo-PurimarTM BWMS combination filtration + electrolysis + neutralization (sodium thiosulfate) 

Sea Knight USA INSITU BWMS combination deoxygenation + biological augmentation 

1 STEP is a USCG experimental use approval that applies to the combination of one vessel and one treatment system. While STEP 

technical and environmental screening it is not a type approval process. 2 The Norwegian Administration is reviewing biological efficacy of the updated treatment system and may considering issuing a new 

system is not reviewed here until that determination can be made and data from the updated system is made available to Commiss
Table 3 (continued). Ballast Water Treatment Systems Reviewed by Commission Staff 

Manufacturer Country System Name Technology Type Technology Description A

Severn Trent De Nora USA BALPURE® chemical 

filtration + electrochlorination + 

neutralizing agent (sodium 

bisulfite) 

IM

Fina

Ap

Siemens Germany SiCureTM combination filtration + electrochlorination 

STX Metal Co. Ltd. Korea Smart Ballast chemical electrolysis + neutralization (sodium thiosulfate) 

Sumitomo Electric 

Industries, Ltd. Japan SEI-Ballast System combination filtration + UV 

Sunrui Marine 

Environment Eng. Co. China BalClorTM BWMS combination 

filtration + electrochlorination + 

neutralizing agent (sodium 

thiosulfate) 

IM

F

App

Techcross Co. Ltd. Korea Electro-CleenTM System chemical electrolysis + neutralizing agent (sodium thiosulfate) IM

F

App

Techwin Eco Co. Ltd. Korea PurimarTM BWMS combination 

filtration + electrolysis + 

neutralization (sodium 

thiosulfate) 

IM

Wärtsilä Corporation Finland Wartsila BWTS combination filtration + UV 

Wilhelmsen/Resource 

Ballast Technologies 

Norway/ 

South Africa Unitor BWTS combination cavitation + ozone + sodium hypochlorite + filtration 

IM

F

App

Wuxi Brightsky Electronic 

Co. Ltd. China BSKYTM BWMS combination filtration + UV Ty

1 STEP is a USCG experimental use approval that applies to the combination of one vessel and one treatment system. While STEP 

technical 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 available treatment systems to meet California’s 

performance standards for the discharge 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 implementation schedule). 

Recent reports at the state and federal level (see GLBWC 2010, WDNR 2010, SAB 

2011) have concluded that testing protocols are not available to determine if treatment 

systems can meet any standard more stringent that IMO D-2 with a high degree of 

statistical certainty. Specific concerns have 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 volumetric concentration. Many outside 

parties have reasoned that compliance with this standard is not verifiable because the 

volumes of ballast water required to determine 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 set forth a volume requirement. 

Therefore compliance and performance testing for this size class could occur with any 

volume of water, especially volumes that are more realistic to sample under shipboard 

operation. For the other organism classes, volumes specified in California’s standards 

do not appear to pose statistical, logistical 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 treatment system performance data to determine 

whether or not systems have demonstrated the potential to comply with California’s 
30

performance standards. Commission staff does not have the practical ability to test and 

approve treatment systems for operation in California waters. Positive assessment for 

the purpose of this update does not guarantee system compliance when operated in 

California waters, nor does the update suggest or imply system approval. Vessel 

owners and operators should consult extensively with treatment system vendors to 

ensure that thorough system verification work has been conducted, and that the system 

is appropriate for the type and behavior of the vessel in question under normal 

ballasting conditions. Vessel owners/operators, 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 all available scientific literature and 

performance data in order to assess system potential to meet California’s performance 

standards. Staff was able to collect efficacy data on 38 of the 60 treatment systems 

reviewed in this update. With the exception of the evaluation of system performance for 

inactivating the bacterium Vibrio cholerae, laboratory (benchtop scale) data was not 

used for evaluation purposes because of the large discrepancy in scale between the 

laboratory and land-based and shipboard investigations. Of the 38 systems with 

available data, three had only laboratory data 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-based 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 versus data obtained as part of the formal 

Type Approval testing process. Systems tested for R&D purposes may still be 

undergoing modification and may not represent the final version 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. Furthermore, the SAB noted that not all data can be 

considered “reliable.” The SAB (2011) defined reliable data as including, “...at a 

minimum, methods and results from land-based or shipboard testing.” Commission staff 
31

agrees with this designation and its criteria, and used it to further refine the list of 

systems with available data. For this analysis, 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). Ultimately, staff examined the efficacy data for 18 ballast water 

treatment systems for this update (see Table 4). 

Commission staff proceeded with system data analysis using the best available 

methods and techniques for assessing organism concentration and viability for each of 

the size classes in California’s performance standards. As with previous reports, 

Commission staff assessed compliance with the bacterial standard by using a proxy 

group of organisms (culturable, aerobic, heterotrophic bacteria – hereafter culturable 

heterotrophic bacteria) to represent the larger group of all bacteria (see discussion in 

Dobroski et al. 2009). Analysis of viral species remains challenging. Commission staff 

believes that at this time no widely accepted technique or proxy is available, and thus 

systems were not evaluated for compliance with the viral standard. 

Staff assessed the performance rates of those systems with available, reliable landbased and shipboard data from Type Approval testing (Table 4). The assessed data is 

presented in fraction form, with the number of tests (averaged across replicates) that 

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

the total number of tests in the denominator. Systems that presented data for a given 

size class with insufficient detail to compare 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.” This detailed review provides the opportunity to identify 

systems that have undergone more tests, and have demonstrated higher rates of 

potential compliance. The source(s) of the data for each system can be found in the 

Literature Cited section. 
Table 4. Summary of systems with data available for assessment of efficacy Systems with reliable land-based or shipboard test results from Type Approval testing are assessed in Table 4. The numbeacross replicates) that demonstrated potential compliance with California’s standards is presented in the numerator, and t

in the denominator. Systems in bold conducted at least 3 tests and demonstrated the potential to meet California’s standar

time at either land-based or shipboard scale. 

Land Ship Land Ship Land Ship Land Ship Land Ship Land Ship

Al fa Laval1 4/10 1/4 3/10 1/4 0/10 2/2 10*/10 4*/4 10*/10 4*/4 10*/10 4*/4 5Auramarine 3/11 5/11 0/11 11*/11 11*/11 11*/11 6Ecochlor 8/15 3/3 9/11 3/3 8/11 10/10 3/3 11/11 3/3 1/1 (lab) 3*/3 1

ERMA First 5/12 0/2 9/12 2/2 0/Unk3 10*/10 2*/2 10/10 2/2 2*/2 1

Hyde 1/10 3/3 0/10 1/3 5/10 3/3 10*/10 3*/3 10*/10 3*/3 3*/3 5JFE 6/11 3/6 11/11 5/6 3/11 11*/11 6/6 11/11 6/6 11*/11 6*/6 2MSI 0/5 0/5 3/5 5/5 5/5 5*/5 5NEI 1/5 1/2 0/1 Unk 0/2 0/2 0/1 2*/2 0/1 Unk 2*/2 7NK‐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 2Nutech 0/3 2/3 0/2 0/3 3/3 2/2 3*/3 3*/3 3*/3 1OptiMarin 8/12 0/8 6/12 2/8 2/12 12*/12 8*/8 12*/12 8*/8 12*/12 8*/8 5Panasia 1/1 1/1 2Qingdao 4/13 3/3 8/13 3/3 9/13 3/3 13*/13 3*/3 13*/13 3*/3 13*/13 3*/3 6RWO 0/13 4/5 6/13 3/3 7/13 13*/13 5*/5 13*/13 5/5 13*/13 5*/5 1Severn Trent 7/11 2/4 8/11 1/3 10/11 2/4 10*/10 4/4 10/10 4/4 4*/4 1Siemens 0/10 5/10 0/10 10/10 7/10 10*/10 1Techcross 8/11 3/3 9/11 3/3 5/5 1/1 10/10 3/3 11/11 3/3 11*/11 3*/3 2Wilhelmsen 2/2 2/3 1/2 0/3 2/2 3*/3 2/2 3/3 2/2 3*/3 2* Concentration at intake was zero, non‐detectable or unknown.

1 This da ta includes land‐based tes ting of sys tem v. 2.0 and s hi pboa rd tes ting of sys tem v. 1.0. DNV did not requi re s hi pboa rd tes ting 2 Numbe red re fe rences can be found in the Li te ra ture Ci ted secti on.3 Unknown, minimum and maximum values provided but not the total number of tes ts.Manufacturer L

>50 10 

 ‐ 50 <10 (bacteria) E. coli Enterococci Vibrio
33

The data presented in Table 4 are highly variable. Several systems performed very well 

during shipboard testing, but did 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 were not able to demonstrate potential to 

meet California standards during shipboard testing, although this situation occurred 

infrequently. Some systems have only been tested over a few test cycles while others 

have undergone 10 or more test cycles. Furthermore, much of the performance data for 

human health indicator species was collected when the initial pre-treatment 

concentration of microbes, particularly Vibrio cholerae, was zero, non-detectable or 

unknown. The IMO G8 Guidelines do not require testing organizations to “spike” testing 

water with microbes due to safety concerns. Testing can proceed in the absence of 

natural populations of these species. However, the conclusions drawn from these tests 

may be of questionable value because they do not demonstrate how effectively a 

system may eliminate such microbes under high concentration conditions. 

Of the 18 systems with reliable land-based or shipboard data from Type Approval 

testing in Table 4, 10 systems demonstrated 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 California standards on a more consistent basis, Commission staff 

reviewed the data (summarized in Table 4) for systems that have conducted three or 

more tests per organism size class (either land-based or shipboard) and have 

demonstrated the potential to meet each of the 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 Table 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 Table 4). Four of the five 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 five systems are commercially 

available. 
34

 Vessel owners/operators should closely scrutinize the available data, however, to 

ensure that systems will meet California’s standards on a regular basis given the 

configuration of the vessel and piping/water flow requirements. This review does not 

constitute an endorsement or approval of any ballast water treatment system, 

manufacturer or vendor. 

VI. IMPLEMENTING CALIFORNIA’S PERFORMANCE STANDARDS FOR THE 

DISCHARGE OF BALLAST WATER 

Commission staff is in the process of implementing California’s performance standards 

for the discharge of ballast water. As of January 1, 2010, newly built vessels (vessels for 

which construction began on or after January 1, 2010) with a ballast water capacity of 

less than or equal to 5000 MT must comply with California’s performance standards. 

Vessel construction often takes a year or more, and it is anticipated that the first vessels 

that must meet the performance standards will 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 California’s performance standards, and staff is 

aware of several vessels that have purchased systems to comply with the standards. 

Many other vessels are in the midst of construction 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 implementation of California’s standards have recently 

been countered by reports (see GLBWC 2010, WDNR 2010, and SAB 2011) indicating 

there are no protocols available to verify, with adequate statistical certainty, that 

treatment systems can meet California’s standards. While the Commission has a legal 

mandate to implement California’s standards, Commission staff is also required to 

assess the availability of treatment technologies to meet those standards. If treatment 

systems are not available, the Commission must inform the Legislature and make 

appropriate recommendations for action. 
35

Commission staff places great importance on working collaboratively with stakeholders 

to ensure that management strategies are developed based on the best available 

science and with consideration to the concerns of the regulated industry. Because of 

the recent uncertainty about the availability of treatment technologies, staff convened 

the ballast water treatment technology technical advisory panel (established by PRC 

Section 71204.9) in December 2010 and March 2011 to discuss options for effectively 

implementing California’s performance standards for the discharge of ballast water. 

In December 2010, the Commission convened a subset of panel members with 

expertise in science and engineering (hereafter, scientific panel) to focus on the science 

of standards implementation and technology assessment (see meeting notes, Appendix 

B). Commission staff discussed three potential options with the scientific panel for 

moving forward with California’s performance 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 methods (via regulation) to verify vessel 

compliance with the standards. 

The scientific panel agreed that 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 the most productive approach to 

implementing California’s standards would be to establish a specific set of compliance 

verification protocols. Scientific panel members argued that setting the performance 

standards is only half of the equation. It is equally important that California define and 

implement protocols to verify vessel compliance with those standards. Furthermore, by 

establishing the protocols in regulation, those protocols will be available as a resource 

for system manufacturers and vessel owners/operators so they can verify that their 
36

treatment technologies are meeting California standards using the same methods that 

will be used by Commission personnel to determine compliance. 

Commission staff provided the notes from the December scientific panel meeting to the 

entire advisory panel and convened 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 concerned about how a gradual improvement of 

compliance methods would impact vessels that demonstrated compliance under 

previous verification protocols (i.e. would vessels 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 compliance protocols are not able to detect 

compliance with California’s standards with a high level of statistical certainty. While 

these specific issues remain to be addressed, there was no objection from the panel to 

moving forward with the development of compliance verification protocols as the best 

possible mechanism to implement California’s performance standards. 

Therefore, Commission staff has begun the process of developing protocols to verify 

vessel compliance with California’s performance standards. Staff convened a new 

technical advisory panel of experts for a meeting to discuss compliance assessment in 

June 2011 and held a second meeting 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 process 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 design 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 Annual Reporting Form and the Ballast Water 

Treatment Supplemental Reporting Form, see Title 2, CCR Section 2297.1) to guide 
37

information collection and enable the fair and effective implementation 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 refined in search of the most effective 

methods to reduce the spread of nonindigenous species. This update provides a brief 

summary of state, federal and international discussions 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 available 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 statistical certainty, and therefore treatment systems cannot be 

deemed available for use to meet California standards. The conclusions are largely 

based on the fact that extremely large volumes of water would need to be sampled in 

order to determine compliance with a standard 100 or 1000 times as stringent as the 

IMO D-2 standard, particularly for 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 class, 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 performance indicates that progress continues to be 

made in the development of treatment systems to meet California’s performance 

standards for the discharge of ballast water. Ten treatment systems have demonstrated 
38

the potential (in at least one land-based or shipboard 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 California’s standards greater than 50% of the 

time over multiple tests. One system met California’s standards 100% of the time in 

shipboard testing, although no system has yet met California’s standards 100% of the 

time in land-based testing. All five systems are commercially available and four are 

Type Approved according to the IMO G8 Guidelines. 

Commission staff has met with technical advisory panel members including 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 believes that while we cannot verify that 

treatment systems meet all of California’s standards with high statistical certainty at this 

time, the development of specific compliance 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 meeting California’s standards based on the 

specific protocols that the Commission’s marine safety personnel will use to conduct 

vessel compliance inspections. The compliance protocols are expected to be adopted 

via the rulemaking process by early 2012. Therefore Staff recommends that the 

Commission continue to support staff’s effort to implement 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. Efficacy 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 Management 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 Treatment Systems for 

Use in California Waters. Produced for the California State 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. Gehringer, and M. Falkner. 2009. 2009 Assessment 

of the Efficacy, Availability and Environmental Impacts of Ballast Water 

Treatment Systems for Use in California Waters. Produced for the California 

State Legislature. 

7. Ecowise Environmental. 2003. Technical Report: HTM-AquaTherm® Disinfection 

Unit Study – Revised February 2003. Prepared by Danielle Baker. Reviewed by 

Dr. Therese Flapper. For Aerocycle Wastewater Solutions. 

8. EPA. 2010. Generic protocol for the verification of ballast water treatment 

technology. Produced by NSF International. 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 Booklet for Ballast Water Management Plan 

(incl. BW treatment). Version 4.0. 2011-03-28. 

11. GLBWC (Great Lakes Ballast Water Collaborative). 2010. Report from the Great 

Lakes Ballast Water Collaborative Meeting: 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 Shipboard 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 CleanBallast for Type Approval according to Regulation D-2 

and the relevant IMO Guideline (G8). 

14. Gollasch, S. 2010b. Final report shipboard tests of the Resource Ballast Water 

Treatment System for Type 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 Approval 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 Freshwater Testing of the 

Siemens SiCURETM Ballast Water Management System. March 15, 2010. 

GSI/LB/F/A/1. 

18. Herwig, R.P., J.R. Cordell, J.C. Perrins, P.A. Dinnel, R.W. Gensemer, W.A. 

Stubblefield, G.M. Ruiz, J.A. Kopp, M.L. House, and W.J. Cooper. 2006b. Ozone 

treatment of ballast water on the oil tanker S/T Tonsina: chemistry, biology, and 

toxicity. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 324: 37-55. 

19. Hi Tech Marine. 1997. Ballast water trial on M.V. Sandra Marie. 9th May 1997 

Sydney to Hobart. 

20. IMO (International Maritime Organization). 2005. Ballast Water Management 

Convention International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships' 

Ballast Water and Sediments. International Maritime Organization, London, p 

138. 

21. IMO (International Maritime Organization). 2011. Summary of Status of 

Conventions as of 31 May 2011. Accessed: August 16, 2011. Website: 

http://www.imo.org/About/Conventions/StatusOfConventions/Pages/Default.aspx 

22. Japan Association of Marine Safety. 2007. Special Pipe Ballast Water 

Management System. Report of 1st 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 Tourism (MLIT). September 10, 2009. 
41

24. Kikuchi, T. and Y. Fukuto. Development of the Special 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 mechanical 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 Research Institute). 2009. Test Report. 

Report No: KOMERI-A-07T193-2. 

27. KOMERI (Korea Marine Equipment Research Institute). 2010. Test Report. 

Report No: 0906-KOMERI-10T963. 

28. KOMERI (Korea Marine Equipment Research 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. Project No. PI49300. 3 March 2008. 

30. KORDI (Korean Ocean Research and Development Institution). 2009. 

Heterotrophic bacteria test results performed by KORDI during the land-based 

tests for the IMO final approval. 

31. Lawrence, D.J., J.C. Perrins, N.C. Ferm, J.R. Cordell, and R.P. Herwig. 2006a. 

Phase 1 Test: Preliminary Report. Efficacy testing of the MARENCO ballast 

water treatment system. 

32. Lawrence, D.J., J.C. Perrins, N.C. Ferm, J.R. Cordell, and R.P. Herwig. 2006b. 

Phase 2 Test: Preliminary Report. Efficacy testing of the MARENCO ballast 

water treatment system. 

33. Lloyd’s Register. 2010. Ballast water treatment systems – Guidance for ship 

operators on procurement, installation and operation. September 2010. 

34. Lloyd’s Register. 2011. Ballast water treatment 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 Report. Field test demonstration of improved 

methods of ballast water treatment and monitoring utilizing filtration, ozone, and 

sonics. National Sea Grant NA04OAR4170150. 

37. Maddox, T.L. 2005. Phase IV Final Report. Full scale, land based field test 

demonstration of improved methods of ballast water treatment and monitoring 

utilizing ozone and sonic energy. National Sea Grant NA05OAR4171070. 

 

38. MEPC (Marine Environment Protection Committee). 2008a. Procedure for 

approval of ballast water management systems that make use of active 

substances (G9). MEPC 57/21. Annex 1. Resolution MEPC.169(57). Adopted on 

4 April 2008. 

39. MEPC (Marine Environment Protection Committee). 2008b. Guidelines for 

approval of ballast water management systems (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 Management 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 Korea. 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 Water 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. (TWECO) 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. Ballast Water Management System (Smart 

Ballast). Submitted by the Republic of Korea. 62/2/8. 14 December 2010. 

48. MEPC (Marine Environment Protection Committee). 2011a. Information on the 

Type Approval of the Blue Ocean Shield Ballast Water Management System. 

Submitted by China. MEPC 62/INF.28. 6 May 2011. 

49. MEPC (Marine Environment Protection 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 Protection Committee). 2011c. Information on the 

Type Approval of the BalClorTM Ballast 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 Report 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 ships’ 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®-System, 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 Ballast 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 OptiMarin AS. Report SNO 5828-2009. 

61. NIVA (Norwegian Institute for Water Research). 2009b. Additional shipboard 

testing of the PureBallast treatment System 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 Corporation – Final 

Report. Report SNO 5819-2009. 

63. NIVA (Norwegian Institute for Water Research). 2010a. Land based testing of the 

OceanGuardTM Ballast Water Management System of Qingdao Headway. Report 

SNO 5938-2010. 

64. NIVA (Norwegian Institute 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 Institute 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 Institute 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. Monitoring (Inspection Report). Shipboard 

Testing of the OceanGuardTM Ballast Water Management Systems. OUC 

(Testing) No. HDJC2010-002. 

69. Oviatt, C., P. Hargraves, R. Kelly, M. Kirs, L. Maranda, B. Moran, D. Outram, D. 

Smith, B. Sullivan, and K. Whitman. 2002. Toxicity of chlorine dioxide to ballast 
45

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 Board. 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 StrippingTM 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. GloBallast Monograph Series No. 15. 

IMO London. 

72. Tamburri, M.N. and G.M. Ruiz. 2005. Evaluations of a ballast water treatment to 

stop invasive species and tank corrosion. 2005 SNAME Maritime Technology 

Conference & Expo and Ship Production Symposium, Houston, TX. 

73. Tamburri, M., G.E. Smith, and T.L. Mullady. 2006. Quantitative shipboard 

evaluations of Venturi Oxygen Stripping as a ballast water treatment. 3rd

International Conference on Ballast Water Management. Singapore, 25-26 

September, 2006. 

 

74. WDNR (Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources). 2010. Wisconsin Ballast 

Water Treatment Feasibility Determination. Prepared by Wisconsin Department 

of Natural Resources. 

75. Welschmeyer, N., C. Scianni, and S. Smith. 2007. Ballast water management: 

Evaluation of the MARENCO ballast water treatment system. Moss Landing 

Marine Laboratories. 

76. Wright, D.A. 2009. Shipboard trials of Hyde ‘Guardian’ system in Caribbean Sea 

and Western Pacific Ocean, April 5th – October 7th, 2008. Final report to Hyde 

Marine and Lamor Corp. April 2009. 

77. Wright, D.A., C. Mitchelmore, J. Bearr, R. Dawson, C.E. Orano-Dawson, and M. 

Olson. 2008. Shipboard Testing of Nutech-O3 ozonation system as a method for 

Ballast Water Treatment. A Final Report to Nutech-O3. June, 2008. 
46

APPENDIX A: RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT DATA 

Sixty ballast water treatment systems were reviewed by Commission staff for 

compliance with the California performance standards. Thirty-eight systems had data on 

system efficacy available for review. Systems with reliable data (including methods and 

results) collected during land-based or shipboard 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 which: 1) staff did not have access to full 

test reports (including methods of analysis); 2) the data was collected as part of 

research and development and not the Type Approval process; or 3) testing was only 

conducted at the laboratory scale. 

Systems with at least one test (averaged across replicates) demonstrating potential 

compliance with the performance 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 are classified as “Unknown.” For example, a 

system that presented results of system efficacy as percent reduction of zooplankton 

abundance could not be compared against the 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. Compliance with the bacteria standard was 

assessed using the concentration of culturable heterotrophic bacteria in discharged 

ballast water. Due to the lack of available methods to both quantify and assess the 

viability of all viruses, systems cannot be assessed for compliance with the viral 

standard at this time. The source(s) of the data for each system can be found in the 

Literature Cited section of the main report. 
Table A. Summary of systems with available results for assessment of efficacy Systems with at least one test (averaged across replicates) in compliance with the California performance standards are de

compliance is denoted by an “N,” and those systems with data in metrics not directly comparable to the performance stand

as “Unknown.” A cell with hashing indicates that no data was available. 

21st Century Shipbuilding YN Y4 Y4 Y4 43

AQUA Eng. Co. Ltd. NY Y4 Y4 Y4 45COSCO Unknow n Unknow n Unknow n Y Y Y4 48ETI N N 35,36,3

Ferrate Treatment Tech. Lab data Hi Tech Marine Y Y 7,19

Hyundai Hvy Ind. EcoBall. YY Y4 Y4 Y4 40

Hyundai Hvy Ind. Hi Ball. Lab data Katayama Chemical Y Unknow n Y Y Unknow n 44Kwang San Co. Ltd. NNY Y YY4 41MAHLE Y Y NY Y 3

MARENCO Y NY 31,32,7

MH Systems Lab data Mitsui Eng. SP Hybrid N Unknow n Unknow n 22,24,2Mitsui Eng. FineBallast Y Unknow n Y Unknow n 42

STX Metal YY Y4 Y4 Y4 47Sunrui YY YYY 50TWECO Y Y Y Y YY4 46Wuxi Brightsky Elect. YYYYYY 49

1 Bacteria were assessed through examination of aerobic culturable heterotrophic bacteria (expressed as colony-forming units2 No methods exist to quantify and assess the viability of viruses at this time.3 Numbered references can be found in Literature Cited section4 Concentration at intake was zero, non-detectable or unknown.

Unknow n

V. cholerae

Unknow n Unknow n

Referen

Enterococci

Unknow n

> 50 μm 10 - 50 μm E. coli < 10 μm (bacteria)1,2

N Unknow n

Manufacturer
48

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

Implementing California’s Performance 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 Environmental Research Center 

Nick Welschmeyer, Moss Landing Marine Laboratories 

Kevin Reynolds, Glosten Associates 

Andrew Cohen, Center for Research 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 discussion about implementing California’s 

performance standards for ballast water discharge. This will be the first of multiple 

discussions. A larger panel will be brought together in January or February. 

Background 

(Dobroski) In 2005, as per the Marine Invasive Species Act, performance standards 

were recommended to the state legislature, and later passed in 2006 in the Coastal 

Ecosystems Protection Act. In 2007 regulations were developed to implement the 

standards. Since then, the California State Lands Commission (CSLC) has developed 

several reports evaluating the ability for treatment 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 with implementing the standards for new 

vessels with a ballast water capacity of less than or equal to 5000 MT as of January 1, 

2010. Since these are for vessels with keels 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 order to meet CA regulations. 

(Dobroski) The next implementation date is for 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 industry has become very concerned about system 
49

availability. It is becoming clear, through scientific panels convened by other groups, 

that protocols are not available to test to standards as stringent as California’s, and 

there are also questions whether systems are even available. California would like to 

push the development and utilization of technologies forward, but cannot force industry 

to meet a standard for which it is not clear if technologies are available. The goal today 

is to explore options on how to move forward. On the handout sent before this meeting 

are three proposed options to begin our discussion. However, we are certainly open to 

other ideas, as we are seeking your professional opinion. 

Review of Options Handout

(Dobroski) Option 1 is to change the standard. This 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 protective 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 technologies and or testing methods show 

standards can be confidently met. This option would require deciding what would be 

BATs, with an advisory panel, possibly using STEP 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 regulatory (rulemaking) action as well, but could be a good 

interim step to move forward. 

(Dobroski) Option 3: Instead of legislation, codify in regulations 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 implementation. Options we 

consider/discuss here need to account for the abilities of today’s technologies. 

(Welschmeyer) Does BAT apply to treatment technologies or for measurement 

methods? 

(Dobroski) Treatment. 

General Discussion

(Reynolds) A huge issue is how to do compliance monitoring and enforcement. The 

standards are only 1⁄2 of the equation (having worked with equipment on ships that often 

don’t work all the time). The standard could 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 officials 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 with, you then make an assumption that 

the system is working. If there’s a red flag, a sample may be taken for a rough 

idea if the vessel is way out of compliance (lots of big things swimming around), 

then go from there with a more in-depth review. I can’t see pursuing civil or 

criminal penalties based only on a sample. A sample would be a 3rd 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 relevant consideration here for compliance and 

enforcement is to have: 1) A certificate with the equipment showing its testing and 

approval records, 2) Operational 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 how 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 confidence. 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 identification 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 standard 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 systems have been tested, the 

quality of the data, and the level of confidence in that data. Right now there isn’t an 

independent body to assess quality of testing data. There are many places data can 

come from, and they there not equal. If quality of data is deemed very good, system 
51

data indicators of use (e.g. log use) are more believable, in comparison with those with 

data/experiments that are not well outlined or understood. 

(Reynolds) There is also a need to understand 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 discharged could exceed CA standard for entire 

90,000 m3

. As we get to stricter standards, it’s more difficult to get them [vessels] to 

comply. So, in this way too, detection of gross exceedence is appropriate. 

(Welschmeyer) The essential part of the compliance/enforcement issue is not unique to 

CA. We have the burden of setting precedence here. We will likely be copied or 

scrutinized by others (IMO, other 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 checking their own water to remain in compliance. The 

more we can do to facilitate this, the more attention/ability will be given by operators to 

ensure compliance, rather than only relying only on logs. I agree with Kevin. We can’t 

turn our back on compliance procedures. You [systems] can pass IMO through initial 

Type Approvals, but testing later/again would require a treatment testing facility to carry 

out the assay required. Jo-Schmo can’t test their own ship this way. We’ve [IMO, U.S.] 

created an impossible test situation, as there are only a couple 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 testing 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 operators 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 ballast/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 shipboard systems. 

(Dobroski) What would you recommend 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-ETV 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 information I’ve seen, it’s doubtable whether 

shore facilities can do better than a 5 log. 

(Cohen) The EPA drinking water guidelines require 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 technical question. It’s clear land based 

systems can do better than a ship based system by several orders of magnitude. 

The Pacific Merchant Shipping Association has even said it’s not our 

responsibility to help vessels comply. 

(Reynolds) I’m interested in seeing evidence that land-based facilities can get a 7 

log reduction in the over 50 micron size class. 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 internationally 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. The IMO standards numbers are phenomenal. You 

can’t even achieve that dilution in the laboratory. We need a philosophical change to a 

more analytical, more usable, less 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 uncountable 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 acceptably 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 rather than counting live 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 less 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, even if it’s just for 

smaller organisms. It would be a powerful statement, and practical for ships/ 

owners/agents to use as well. 

(Ruiz) Share Nick’s opinion that the D2 standards 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 equal. Are there any recommendations for 

comparing data quality? Are there certain tests/reports for which the data source is not 

clear, but they’ve gotten Type Approval through IMO? 

(Reynolds) (IMO) Type Approval 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 gets 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 standards 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, followed by compliance 

monitoring during operation. There are two separate sets of requirements. Could do a 

similar thing for ballast water – demonstrate 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 organisms, 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 meet the regulations. 

(Cohen) Yes, we can’t test them perfectly or perhaps even closely. But what do you 

start with is the question. You can draw on bench top data and prototype data. 

California should set up standards for what kind of data it needs or will accept. There 

are some systems for which initial test data show that they meet IMO D2 in the largest 

organism size class class, and perhaps in 2nd 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 rigorous standard. If we 

use a BAT approach for testing, we could recognize 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 would set the bar low first, then 

ratchet it up as testing gets better. Shoreside 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 the Golden Bear. 

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

(Welschmeyer) On verification tests, I think there is going to be a burden to prove that 

there are some simple tests for folks. Maybe have a trial period, and trial tests side-byside with certification testing. This will be well worth the effort, but will require a break-in 

period to gain acceptance. Another component could be to form a subgroup with a 

focused task to identify one or more areas to discuss/develop compliance 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 Landing 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 counting. It will be paid for by Marcel’s group 

(NIOZ) with E.U. funding. That might be a good opportunity to have a breakout 

discussion on the issue of how to deal with 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 the same test and get the same answers. 
55

The MLML meeting maybe a good place to start 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 test 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 checking 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 start building up, and getting the word out about 

selecting tests that can be used. 

(Reynolds) We would also need to use a statistical 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 may 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 exceedences, and see if we can go lower. It 

would be pretty easy to show that certain tests don’t have the sensitivity to test to low, 

low levels. There will be problems. Sometimes 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 really good discussion with great ideas. We’d like to look 

more into joining the MLML meeting, and getting input from the group that will be there. 

We’ll contact Marcel for more information. Thank you. 
56

APPENDIX C: NOTES FROM TECHNICAL ADVISORY PANEL MEETING (MARCH 

2011) 

California State Lands Commission 

Marine Invasive Species Program 

Treatment Technology Technical 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 - California 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 Francisco 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 Environmental Research Center 

Jon Stewart – International Maritime Technology Consultants 

Lisa Swanson – Matson Navigation 

(Dobroski) Introduction and Update (powerpoint) 

International updates

As of 31 Jan 2011, there have been 27 countries 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 shipping 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 international entities, 

including the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service (AQIS), Biosecurity New 

Zealand, Transport Canada and Fisheries and Oceans Canada, and the North Sea 

Ballast Water Opportunity Group. We’ve also 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 was 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 Technology 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 biological testing protocols and 

this has essentially stalled the program. They 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 five 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 Vessel General Permit (VGP). 

This listening session provided an opportunity for the public to recommend changes or 

additions to the permit. The EPA is tentatively scheduled to deliver a draft of the new 

permit to the state water quality agencies by late 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 sunset 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 were multiple components, but basically it allows for 

the cooperative implementation 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 these has been the Science Advisory Board 

(SAB). The focus of the SAB is to discuss the status of existing and future treatment 

technologies, looking at available data, determining the reliability of those data, and 
58

determining why certain data may not be reliable. They’ve held several public meetings 

over the past 8 months and they 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 focused 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 report to come out to see what they have 

been discussing. This final report is also due by June 2011. 

The ETV protocols, which resulted through a collaboration between the USCG and 

EPA, are land-based generic protocols for verification of ballast water treatment 

technologies. The protocols were finalized 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 the same as Type Approval. Labs would need to 

be certified through this process, 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 forward with the development of those. 

State updates

We have been involved with the Great Lakes Collaborative, even though we’re 

obviously not a Great Lakes state. This group 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 report. The reports and meeting presentations 

are all available online. This group is focused on the freshwater environment, but info 

coming out from this group is applicable 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 deleted their standards from the Section 401 

Certification of the VGP in December 2010. Keep in mind that 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 presentations are available online afterwards. This meeting 

provides a forum to present overviews of the different programs at state levels as well 

as federal updates. 
59

(Hooff) The Oregon Legislature (2009) provided the Department of Environmental 

Quality with the authority to establish standards through rulemaking. Our agency, in 

consultation with our stakeholder 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 Oregon waters. The new rulemaking did, 

however, establish a new rule describing when 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 involving high-risk emergency discharge. 

(Dobroski) The State of Washington no longer 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 ballast water treatment technology assessment 

report was approved by the Commission in August 2010. Eight of the systems we 

evaluated showed the potential to comply with our performance standards, and all eight 

of these systems are commercially available. 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 chlorine (TRC) or don’t produce TRC. The plan 

is for CSLC to proceed with the implementation of our standards on January 1, 2012 for 

new build vessels with a ballast water capacity of greater than 5000 metric tons. The 

January 1, 2012 date is the cutoff for the keel laid date. Even 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 legislatively 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 Collaborative, we (CSLC) are 

discussing possible changes to our plans for implementing our performance standards. 

This does not mean that we are changing the actual standards themselves or the 

implementation schedule, despite recent reports suggesting that this is the case. Both 

the standards and implementation 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 regulatory 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 performance standards. By providing these 

protocols, there would be a benchmark 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 other important part. The best option 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 verification regimes using the original methods/protocols. 

(Holmes) Can you clarify that the mini-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 stating 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 would 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 testing and monitoring requirements, there’s 

certainly an option for the state to come out and verify. 

(Gregorio) What we (State Water 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. Most 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. The 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 for most microbiological tests. 

(Dobroski) When tests fail, our goal is to find out why they failed. Determine what we 

can do to get the vessel back on track. Our efforts will be to develop protocols for all 

size classes that our inspectors can do. Level 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 valuable 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 dirty test for bulk viability analyses that 

CSLC can conduct onboard themselves. The 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 protocols. We’ve been comparing the dipstick 

protocol to regular measurements and it has been quite successful, especially for 

determining gross exceedance. The system takes advantage of old technology, 

fluorescein diacetate (FDA), converted to seawater tests to get rid of false positives. It 

operates with a one-hour incubation, and the samples can be filtered down to specific 

size classes using traditional size fractionation. The readings are taken using a 

handheld battery-operated fluorometer. It has been encouraging, and we want to make 

it as portable as possible. 

(Gregorio) Does this only tell you if there are critters there, with no indication of whether 

they are indigenous to California? 

(Welschmeyer) Exactly, it’s a bulk viability indicator. There is no indication of whether 

the organisms are indigenous or not. 

(Gregorio) For testing level two, where would you do the testing at? Would you set up a 

lab at each harbor? 

(Dobroski) Not sure. We’re still trying to work out some of those details. We’re 

participating at a meeting at Moss Landing Marine 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 questions about protocols from vendors who 

want to test their systems for CA standards. The tests we’re 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 remember that no one else has done this yet, worldwide. 

The compliance side of the equation has been largely ignored. There is a lot of info to 

draw from, but no one has brought it all together yet. 

(Gregorio) Minor suggestion, it might be a good idea to contact the Southern California 

Water Coastal Water Research Project (SCCWRP). They’ve made great 

advancements in barcoding organisms, working with benthic sampling near outfalls. 

(Dobroski) Thanks, you’re right. The best way to do this is not by looking under a 

microscope, that would be too laborious, too much manpower. We do need bulk assaytype tests. 

(Welschmeyer) I’ve been a member of SAB. The discussion was supposed to be on 

technologies but a tremendous amount of time spent on statistics and testing. The 

statistics involved are logistically troublesome. Why haven’t we been working on 

compliance? The perfect test is so onerous 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 tests 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 size classes. The take home message is that 

the large size class is the rarest in seawater, 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. There is no volume attached to that standard. 

We’ll have to use practical, pragmatic tests in the field. 

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

(Welschmeyer) Yes, but we’d have to repeat the experiment a lot to gain confidence in 

it. It would have to be pretty specific towards the implementation of the test. The odd 

irony in this is that the smaller size classes are the hardest test to conduct. Generally 
63

everyone agrees that tests for the largest organisms are easiest since it’s easy to 

determine live and dead organisms under a microscope. Ironically, the 10-50 category 

might be the hardest measuring category to use for compliance tests but the easiest in 

terms of the volume of water to sample. 

(Dobroski) We might focus on some size classes more than others, but we’re lucky that 

our large standard has no volume associated with 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 the greater than 50 microns size class? 

(Dobroski) Correct. The CA standard is “non-detectable.” 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 going to a doctor and knowing which tests are 

going to be conducted. 

(Dobroski) For our standards, there is no volume specified for greater than 50 microns. 

We would probably need to move to smaller organisms for statistical confidence. 

(Shiba) One issue of concern is if users can inadvertently contaminate the sample for 

FDA tests. 

(Dobroski) Nick has gotten pretty good results on the test, but definitely handling error 

would need to be minimized. 

(Falkner) On inspections, we’re going to ask 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, certain engineering metrics would be included. Vessel owners 

can look at metrics to verify that system is working and then validate with dipstick. But 

contamination is an issue that will have to be addressed. 

(Morin) For item 2, who do you envision collecting 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 some 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 protocols, who would be doing it, statistical certainty, etc. 
64

(Dobroski) [Back to the powerpoint presentation - treatment tech form slide] There 

were two reporting forms approved in November 2010. One of these is an annual form 

and the other is a ballast water treatment supplemental reporting 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 information 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 – chlorine 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. They’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, rather than installing it into the bowels of the vessel. It 

can even handle two systems at the same time. 

(Falkner) Initially, there was some concern about pressures and the representativeness 

of having the system on the back rather than in bowels of the vessel, but these were 

tested and concerns have been overcome. This setup is great for the cadets, great for 

the west coast, and hopefully they will help us in testing our protocols. 

(Dobroski) Nick Welschmeyer is lead scientist and Bill Davidson is the Chief Engineer. 

This is great for the cadets, to introduce them to the idea of treating ballast water. 

For our next steps, quite a few treatment systems have come onto the market since our 

2010 report. We will continue to gather information about them and update our report in 

September 2011. We will start field testing our protocols once they are developed and 

we will continue to conduct outreach 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 1st, but we’ll let you know soon. 

(Stewart) It’s really encouraging to see someone 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 approval can be done however an administration 
65

wants, and this leads to disparity in testing and creating an imbalance in the playing 

field when it comes to promotion 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 digging our heels in and doing this. 

(Morin) Looking at option one, I’m concerned that if standards are 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 time comes. But other 

regulatory agencies have dealt with standards for which the limit of sampling detection 

can’t meet the standard. 

(Gregorio) Chlorine is a good example 

(Falkner) Do you (Water Board) get 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 win, 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 they were in compliance but they really 

weren’t. 

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

(Gregorio) This is just an example, but it was a blatant violation. It wasn’t devious, but it 

happens (e.g. runoff). 

(Falkner) If we had defined methods and protocols, and the system meets that, I don’t 

know why anyone would sue anybody. 

(Morin) What about environmental groups suing you like they did the EPA in order to 

regulate wastewater discharges 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 around (SAB group, NAS, ETV) have discussed the 

fact that testing procedures don’t test with the 95% statistic rugosity that’s ideal. Testing 
66

methods are onerous; I can’t imagine an environmental 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 system 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 email. 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 standards, 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 phenomenal. 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 possibility 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 shore-based systems would be great, it would be 

less expensive for industry, but not everyone 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 major 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 technologies because that’s where 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 slides and meeting minutes out to you soon 

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

ADJOURN