N. Dobroski, L. Takata, C. Scianni, and M. Falkner California State Lands Commission

1. 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

2. 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)

3. 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

4. Information Sharing Development of Key Considerations Recommendation Development Meeting #1 March 7, 2005 Introductions Orientation to Panel requirements as per P.R.C. Discussion: Panel information needs 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 #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 #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 Meeting #5 August 8, 2005 Discussion: Standards and implementation schedule for CA Panel recommendations Technical Advisory Panel

5. 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

6. Performance Standards (as recommended by Panel Majority) FINAL DISCHARGE STANDARD: Zero detectable living organisms by January 2020

7. 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 USCG-approved experimental technologies • Consider incentives to promote continued technology development

8. 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 treatmenttechnologies

9. 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

10. 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

11. 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

12. 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)

13. 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)

14. 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

15. Summary of Efficacy Assessment

16. Efficacy • 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

17. 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?

18. 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

19. 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

20. Assessment of Environmental Impacts

21. 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

22. 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 requirementsvia regulations • Support continued research promoting technology development

23. 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

24. 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 late-2008

25. 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

26. 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

27. Questions? More information: dobrosn@slc.ca.gov falknem@slc.ca.gov Photo courtesy of the Smithsonian Environmental Research Center