Performance Standards, Technology
Assessment and the Next Steps for
California’s Marine Invasive Species
Program
N. Dobroski, L. Takata,
C. Scianni, and M. Falkner
California State Lands Commission
Pacific Ballast Water Group Meeting
December 2007
MISP Recent/Future Activities

Development of performance standards and
associated report (2005/2006)
 Coastal Ecosystems Protection Act (2006)
 Performance standards regulation and
technology assessment report (2007)
 System testing guidelines and vessel
compliance verification protocols (2008)
Performance Standards:
Marine Invasive Species Act
Why?
• Variable efficacy of exchange
• Safety
• Deviation & delay
• Slow advancement of
technologies
Mandates
• Protect beneficial uses
• Consult with USCG, Water Board,
Technical Advisory Group
• Best available technology
• Economically achievable
• Deadline: January 31, 2006
Technical Advisory Panel
Information
Sharing
Meeting #1
March 7, 2005
Development of
Key Considerations
Meeting #2
April 27, 2005
Meeting #3
June 22, 2005
Recommendation
Development
Meeting #4
July 13, 2005
Meeting #5
August 8, 2005
Introductions
Presentations:
Discussion:
Discussion:
Discussion:
Orientation to Panel
requirements as per
P.R.C.
Ballast water data
Prototype ballast
treatment
technologies
Standards and
implementation
schedule for CA
Discussion:
Invasion rate
theories
Performance
standards &
implementation
schedules of other
programs: Suitability
for CA
Panel information
needs
R&D treatment
technologies
Water quality
regulatory
frameworks
Discussion:
Preliminary key
considerations
Economic
considerations
Data on exchanged
and unexchanged
ballast water
Performance
standards of other
programs: Rationale
Economic
considerations
Invasion rate
theories
Framework for CA
performance
standards
Panel
recommendations
Agreement and Disagreement


Agreement
 Concentration-based
standards over percent
reduction
 Much better than BW
exchange
 Standards should drive
technologies, not the reverse
 Need a finite implementation
schedule
Disagreement
 Numeric values for standards
Performance Standards (as recommended by Panel Majority)
Organism Size Class
California1,2
IMO Regulation D-21
Washington
Organisms greater than 50 µm
in minimum dimension
No detectable living
organisms
< 10 viable organisms
per cubic meter
Technology to
inactivate or
remove:
Organisms 10 – 50 µm in
minimum dimension
< 0.01 living organisms
per ml
< 10 viable organisms
per ml
95% zooplankton
99% bacteria and
phytoplankton
Organisms less than 10 µm in
minimum dimension
< 103 bacteria/100 ml
< 104 viruses/100 ml
Escherichia coli
< 126 cfu3/100 ml
< 250 cfu/100 ml
Intestinal enterococci
< 33 cfu/100 ml
< 100 cfu/100 ml
Toxicogenic Vibrio cholerae
(01 & 0139)
< 1cfu/100 ml or
< 1cfu/gram wet weight
zoological
samples
< 1 cfu/100 ml or
< 1 cfu/gram wet weight
zooplankton
samples
Ballast Water Capacity of Vessel
Standards apply to new vessels in this
size class constructed on or after
Standards apply to all other vessels
in this size class beginning in
< 1500 metric tons
2009
2016
1500 – 5000 metric tons
2009
2014
> 5000 metric tons
2012
2016
FINAL DISCHARGE STANDARD: Zero detectable living organisms by January 2020
Performance Standards Report


Presented to Legislature January 2006
Recommendations included:
 Adopt Interim Performance Standards and
Implementation Schedule (as presented by Panel
Majority in report)
 Adopt Final Performance Standard (zero detectable)
 Require initial and periodic review of treatment
technologies
 Grandfather vessels with existing CSLC or USCGapproved experimental technologies
 Consider incentives to promote continued technology
development
Coastal Ecosystems
Protection Act Requirements
 Implementation
of performance standards
for the discharge of ballast water (as
specified in the Performance Standards
Report)
 Report assessing efficacy, availability and
environmental impacts, including water
quality, of currently available
ballast water treatment
technologies
Performance Standards Regulation





Standards prescribed by
statute
Comments/objections
from industry focused on
standards themselves
Approved October 2007
Effective January 1, 2008
Text of regulation
available on CSLC
website
Technology Assessment Report

Key components:




Efficacy
Availability
Environmental impacts, including water quality
If technologies to meet the standards are
unavailable – why not?
 Approved by Commission on December 3
 Due to Legislature by January 1
 Similar reports due 18 months prior to each
implementation date
Information Gathering for Technology
Assessment Report
search – scientific
literature, white papers,
gray papers, promotional
materials
 Discussions with technology developers
 Technical workshop – May, 2007 in Boston
 Advisory panel meeting – October, 2007 in
Sacramento
 Literature
Treatment Technologies/Methods


Shipboard vs. Shoreside
Mechanical – filtration, hydrocyclonic separation,
filtration medium
 Chemical (biocide)




oxidizing (Cl, ClO2, ozone, bromine,
hydrogen peroxide, peroxyacetic acid)
non-oxidizing (Acrolein™, glutaraldehyde,
menadione/SeaKleen)
Physical – UV, heat, ultrasound
Combination – deoxygenation, electrolytic
oxidation (physical + chemical)
Treatment Systems



Information collected on 28 systems
9 countries
17 systems use two or more treatment methods
(often mechanical separation + secondary
method)
 Four main types systems:

Oxidants/oxidative technologies (18)
• Electrochemical oxidation (7),
Cl/ClO2 (6), Ozone (4), Ferrate (1)



UV (4)
Deoxygenation (3)
Other (3)
Efficacy





Results of system efficacy only available for 20
(of 28) systems
Lenient review of results by Staff –
demonstration of “potential” for compliance
Evaluation difficult due to variable testing
methods and results in metrics inconsistent with
standards
Only 11 systems tested onboard vessels
No single technology has yet demonstrated
capability to meet more than four (out of 7) of
California’s performance standards
Summary of Efficacy Assessment
Manufacturer
Alfa Laval
Degussa AG
Ecochlor
Electrichlor
ETI
Ferrate Treatment Tech.
Greenship
Hamann AG
Hi Tech Marine
Hitachi
Hyde Marine
JAMS
JFE Engineering Corp.
L. Meyer GMBH
MARENCO
Maritime Solutions Inc.
MH Systems
Mitsubishi Heavy Ind.
NEI
NK0
Nutech 03 Inc.
OceanSaver
OptiMarin
Resource Ballast Tech.
RWO Marine Water Tech.
SeaKleen
Severn Trent DeNora
Techcross Inc.
> 50 µm
IMO
CA
10 - 50 µm
IMO
CA
< 10 µm1
IMO
CA
E. coli
IMO
CA
Y
Y2
Y
Y2
Y
N
N/A
Unknown
Y
Y
Y
Y
N/A
Unknown
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
N/A
Y
Y
Y
N
N/A
Unknown
Y
Y
Y
N/A
Unknown
Y
Y
Y
Y
N/A
N
Unknown
N/A
Unknown
N/A
Unknown
Y
Y
Y
N
Y
Unknown
N/A
Unknown
Y
Y
Y
N
N/A
Unknown
Unknown
Y
V. cholerae
IMO
CA
Y
Unknown
Y
Y
N
N
N
Y
Unknown
Enterococci
IMO
CA
N
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
N/A
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
N/A
Unknown
N/A
Unknown
Y
Y
Y
N
Y4
Y4
Y5
Y5
N/A
Y
Y
Y
Y
N/A
Unknown
Y
Y
Y
Y
N/A
Unknown
Y
Y
Y
Y
N/A
Unknown
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
N/A
Unknown
N/A
Unknown3
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Efficacy
Organisms
greater than
50 µm
Number of
systems
with results
to review
Number of
systems
that meet
Standard
18
14
Organisms
10 – 50 µm
Organisms
less than 10
µm
E. coli
Intestinal
enterococci
Vibrio
cholerae
17
Bacteria:
15
Viruses: 2
10
9
6
8
Bacteria:
0
Viruses: 0
7
3
2
• 4 systems meet standards for 4 size classes
• 2 systems meet standards for 3 size classes
• 5 systems meet standards for 2 size classes
• 3 systems meet standards for 1 size class
• 4 systems do not meet any (0) size classes
Availability

Function of market demand, system production,
government approval, and efficacy
considerations
 How many vessels will be subject to regulation
(BW capacity <5000 MT) in 2009?
3000
Number of Vessels Discharging in CA
(2000 - June, 2007)
2711
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
79
183
0
<1500
1500 - 5000
Ballast Water Capacity (MT)
>5000
Availability



Many systems will be
commercially available by
2009
Lack of federal standards
& system approval
mechanisms may be
hindrance to market
demand
Because no single
system meets CA
standards, none truly
available at this time
Environmental Impacts

21 of 28 systems use biocide/active substance
and will require toxicological testing and analysis
 Several systems have been evaluated and
approved for use by International Maritime
Organization (IMO) and State of Washington


Preliminary guidance as to system acceptability
No evaluation procedure in CA yet
 Commission Staff working with SWRCB and
RWQCB to identify applicable water quality
controls plans and regulations
Assessment of Environmental Impacts
Manufacturer
Approvals
Alfa Laval
IMO Basic, IMO Final
Degussa AG
IMO Basic, WA Conditional
Ecochlor
WA Conditional
Hamann AG
IMO Basic (Peraclean)
Japan Assoc. Marine Safety
NK03
IMO Basic
RWO Marine Water Technology
SeaKleen
WA Single Test
Severn Trent DeNora
WA Conditional
Techcross Inc.
IMO Basic
Conclusions
 Current
lack of efficacy and environmental
testing and evaluation procedures makes
it unlikely systems will be available by
2009
 Commission staff will continue to gather
information on and support research
addressing technology development and
system evaluation
 Systems will meet CA standards in future
Recommendations to the Legislature
 Change
initial implementation date for new
vessels with a ballast water capacity less
than 5000 metric tons from 2009 to 2010
 Authorize the Commission to
amend reporting requirements
via regulations
 Support continued research
promoting technology
development
Looking Forward

Treatment system testing and evaluation
guidelines
 Protocols and criteria for verification of
compliance with performance standards
 Work with SWRCB to identify applicable
water quality requirements
 Support alignment of testing and evaluation
guidelines along the West Coast
Testing Guidelines
 Recommended
testing guidelines instead
of CSLC-approval of systems
 Self-certification procedure for use by
technology developers and 3rd party
independent testing labs
 Should reduce use of tests inconsistent
with California standards
 Will be made available to industry in late2008
Compliance Verification Protocols
 Procedures
to verify vessel compliance
with discharge standards
 Detailed protocols – how to sample, where
to sample, chain of custody, labs to
conduct analysis, fees for testing,
timeframe
 Plans to complete regulatory process by
late-2008
The Process

Technical advisory panel meeting beginning in
January 2008
 Two main components: administration and
technical aspects
 Work with USCG to standardize assessment
methods as much as possible with future federal
program
Questions?
More information:
dobrosn@slc.ca.gov
falknem@slc.ca.gov
Photo courtesy of the Smithsonian Environmental Research Center