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 Protect beneficial uses Consult with USCG, Water Board, Technical Advisory Group Consult with USCG, Water Board, Technical Advisory Group Best available technology Best available technology Economically achievable Economically achievable Deadline: January 31, 2006 Deadline: January 31, 2006

Technical Advisory Panel Meeting #1 March 7, 2005 Introductions Orientation to Panel requirements as per P.R.C. Discussion: Panel information needs Meeting #3 June 22, 2005 Discussion: Prototype ballast treatment technologies Economic considerations Data on exchanged and unexchanged ballast water Performance standards of other programs: Rationale Meeting #5 August 8, 2005 Discussion: Standards and implementation schedule for CA Panel recommendations Information Sharing Development of Key Considerations Recommendation Development Meeting #2 April 27, 2005 Presentations: Ballast water data R&D treatment technologies Invasion rate theories Water quality regulatory frameworks Discussion: Preliminary key considerations Meeting #4 July 13, 2005 Discussion: Performance standards & implementation schedules of other programs: Suitability for CA Economic considerations Invasion rate theories Framework for CA performance standards

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 ClassCalifornia 1,2 IMO Regulation D-2 1 Washington Organisms greater than 50 µm in minimum dimension No detectable living organisms < 10 viable organisms per cubic meter Technology to inactivate or remove: 95% zooplankton 99% bacteria and phytoplankton Organisms 10 – 50 µm in minimum dimension < 0.01 living organisms per ml < 10 viable organisms per ml Organisms less than 10 µm in minimum dimension Escherichia coli Intestinal enterococci Toxicogenic Vibrio cholerae (01 & 0139) < 10 3 bacteria/100 ml < 10 4 viruses/100 ml < 126 cfu 3 /100 ml < 33 cfu/100 ml < 1cfu/100 ml or < 1cfu/gram wet weight zoological samples < 250 cfu/100 ml < 100 cfu/100 ml < 1 cfu/100 ml or < 1 cfu/gram wet weight zooplankton samples Ballast Water Capacity of VesselStandards 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 – 5000 metric tons > 5000 metric tons 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 Interim Performance Standards and Implementation Schedule (as presented by Panel Majority in report) Adopt Final Performance Standard (zero detectable) Adopt Final Performance Standard (zero detectable) Require initial and periodic review of treatment technologies Require initial and periodic review of treatment technologies Grandfather vessels with existing CSLC or USCG- approved experimental technologies Grandfather vessels with existing CSLC or USCG- approved experimental technologies Consider incentives to promote continued technology development 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 Efficacy Availability Availability Environmental impacts, including water quality 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  Literature 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

Treatment Technologies/Methods  Shipboard vs. Shoreside  Mechanical – filtration, hydrocyclonic separation, filtration medium  Chemical (biocide) oxidizing (Cl, ClO 2, ozone, bromine, hydrogen peroxide, peroxyacetic acid) oxidizing (Cl, ClO 2, ozone, bromine, hydrogen peroxide, peroxyacetic acid) non-oxidizing (Acrolein™, glutaraldehyde, menadione/SeaKleen) 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) Oxidants/oxidative technologies (18) Electrochemical oxidation (7), Cl/ClO 2 (6), Ozone (4), Ferrate (1)Electrochemical oxidation (7), Cl/ClO 2 (6), Ozone (4), Ferrate (1) UV (4) UV (4) Deoxygenation (3) Deoxygenation (3) Other (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

Efficacy Organisms greater than 50 µm Organisms 10 – 50 µm Organisms less than 10 µm E. coli Intestinal enterococci Vibrio cholerae Number of systems with results to review 1817 Bacteria: 15 Viruses: Number of systems that meet Standard 148 Bacteria: 0 Viruses: 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?

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 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 ManufacturerApprovals 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 3 rd party independent testing labs  Should reduce use of tests inconsistent with California standards  Will be made available to industry in late- 2008

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? Photo courtesy of the Smithsonian Environmental Research Center More information: