ETV Stakeholder Meeting Summary Baltimore, MD August 16, 2007

ETV Stakeholder Meeting Summary
Baltimore, MD
August 16, 2007

I. Opening

Tom Stevens opened the meeting and thanked everyone for coming and contributing their expertise. The
participants gave self-introductions. A list of meeting participants is attached.

Mr. Stevens stated that the objective of the meeting is to update the stakeholders on the progress of the protocol,
including testing and pertinent legislation. He reminded the group that the last such meeting was four years ago,
and there is much to update. He stated that another objective is to get input and feedback from the stakeholders,
also encouraged questions from participants. He then outlined the day's agenda and read the NSF Anti-trust
Statement.

Mr. Stevens provided a brief overview of the protocol. He stated that its goal is to include sufficient challenge
water characteristics (challenge/test conditions); identification of ballast water conditions (due to their highly
variable nature); use of the most challenging natural conditions at two salinities; and compilation of a matrix of
core challenge conditions and supplemental parameters.

The verification factors included in the protocol are: biological performance, power requirements, predictability,
temperature and energy efficiency, operation and maintenance requirements, byproduct and residual levels, and
environmental acceptance. Mr. Stevens outlined the differences between verification and certification, which
include differences in pass/fail criteria, audit requirements, retest frequency, review of technology changes, and
use of a certification mark.

Ray Frederick described the ETV Program. He said that the program began in 1995 to verify performance of new
environmental technology in a variety of areas. There are six active centers and they are run through co-operative
agreements with independent agencies (NSF International in this case). He stated that the current agreement with
NSF International is for five years, and while the agreement is currently near its end, an extension has been
activated. He pointed out that a new RFP would be issued in the future. Questions about ETV or the RFP can be
directed to Evelyn Hartzell of the ETV Program office.

KWNRL Beta Test Results - Ted Lemieux

Ted Lemieux provided a brief background on the beta test of the protocol at the Naval Research Laboratory - Key
West (NRLKW). He stated that the intent was to test the Ballast Water Treatment protocol, not the particular
technology. Testing began in 2004.

Mr. Lemieux acknowledged the sponsors (USCG; USCG R&D), Severn Trent (who provided the technology and
time), and the staff at NRLKW for their efforts. He provided background information, including a description of
the facility, and the test set-up. There were several steps leading up to the beta test, for which Mr. Lemieux also
described the details (they began in January 2005). The results of these initial experiments were used in
determining the final test set-up. Mr. Lemieux described some of the thought processes that went into designing
the experiment, including details such as injecting the surrogate species into the challenge water. Answering the
fundamental test set-up questions and finalizing the details of the testing took approximately two years. He
reviewed the actual beta test schedule as it was performed and stated that a comprehensive report will be
published in September 2007.

Mr. Lemieux provided a description of the equipment, including the function of the electrolytic chlorination
process. To ensure that appropriate biological challenge conditions were met, a sufficient number of organisms in

ETV Ballast Water Stakeholder Meeting Summary Page 1 of 14
Rev. 1/16/08

-------
the control output were required. The control that was used was dictated by the IMO G8 standard. Mr. Lemieux
confirmed that all minimum levels for biological challenges were met during the testing. To achieve proper levels
of organic content, decaffeinated iced tea was used for dissolved organic, and humic material was used for
particulate. For inorganic content, ISO test dust was injected.

Mr. Lemieux explained the results of the test:

• Chlorination:
14-19 ppm of Chlorine were injected;
4-8 ppm total residual Chlorine was found;
After neutralization, dechlorination was found to be complete.

• Disinfection Byproducts:
The levels found in the discharge were below toxic levels by drinking water standards (used as a
reference only).

• Biological Efficacy:
- Zooplankton reduction was 99.1 % for C3, 100% for C4-C6
Artemia reduction was 99.5%
Rotifer reduction was 100%
Ambient culturable bacteria - no reduction found (with exception of C3). [These results are being
examined for potential sources of error.]

Mr. Lemieux explained that the total organic carbon challenge level was reduced to 12 mg/L from what was
previously dictated by the protocol. He stated that the system reached the set point of 18 ppm chlorine and had a
sufficient residual after the hold time. What was found was that the chlorine demand is highly dependent on
organic content. Therefore, the group is looking for a recommendation on how to adjust the calibration curve
appropriately.

Mr. Lemieux provided a description of the personnel requirements for the testing (10 people were involved in
carrying out the testing). He described a typical day of testing as well as the additional O&M testing that was
performed, and explained that overall, without automated data acquisition during the testing, 28 runs would have
been very difficult.

A question was posed with regard to the potential bacterial contamination of samples. It was asked what
contamination's impact on the protocol would be, especially with regard to ability to replicate the results. Mr.
Lemieux explained that the lack of reduction seen was probably a lab error and that it is being investigated. As
far as phytoplankton, he explained that a realistic enumeration method for viable organisms was needed and this
is also being pursued.

It was then asked how phytoplankton viability was being measured and whether size was considered. Mr.
Lemieux explained that the method suggested by ETV and/or the tech panel (from the method workshop in
January 2004) was that the effluent would be filtered through plankton nets and sub-samples would be taken from
the large draw to be analyzed. Overall, what was found was that samples must be concentrated to get the numbers
into a range where the technique was valid. The MPN method was not providing believable numbers, so a direct
count using SYTOX green as a viability indicator was undertaken. There was no grow-out period. Mr. Lemieux
indicated that this is an area that needs more research, and recommended that automated methods should be a
main area of research going forward to make better use of the biologists' expertise.

When asked to describe the O&M portion of the testing and its outcomes, Mr. Lemieux stated that the system was
operated for this part of the testing at reduced chlorine level without organisms or surrogate species. This was
done to test for mechanical failures. The overall impression from that testing was that the system was easy to
operate, alarms/faults were easy to see (clear to operator), and manuals were sufficient. There were some issues

ETV Ballast Water Stakeholder Meeting Summary Page 2 of 14
Rev. 1/16/08

-------
for dechlorination initially, but the components used operated well (as demonstrated by the total neutralization),
and maintenance required was low. He explained that the test report details the man-hour requirements, details of
safety, etc.

It was asked whether, if on-board (retrofit) sampling points differ from what was done at the test lab, that the
difference was anticipated to change test results. Mr. Lemieux explained that the details of on-board testing have
not been worked out. At this time, those are issues for which there are not answers. However, it is understood
that on-board testing presents less than ideal conditions; therefore, the answer must be determined by what will
work best considering the impact of the less than ideal conditions. Rich Everett added that the ETV effort has
focused on land-based test procedures and facilities. And while shipboard testing of some sort is likely to be
necessary, it is not known whether this will also be through ETV. An agreement has been established with
NRLKW to take land-based testing and apply it shipboard, and to develop guidelines and protocols for
standardized testing. The issues for sampling on-board have been recognized and the NRLKW is working on the
next phase to tackle this.

Mr. Lemieux answered a question that asked whether testing could be done without surrogates. He explained that
Key West had sufficient ambient organisms for the purpose of this testing, so it could have been done without
adding the surrogates. That was not how it was performed because the protocol does require use of surrogate
species. However, ambient species were also used in the analyses, and there are no known issues with doing so.
What is apparent is that using both ambient species and surrogate species will probably be the best approach. Mr.
Lemieux stressed that both have an important role in the testing. There is still an ongoing conversation regarding
the meaning of the surrogate data. However, ambient species are needed to address efficacy questions.

Mr. Lemieux was asked to address the structure of the test tanks. He explained that the mock tanks used in testing
had a similar construction to actual tanks. The difference is that there is a drain in the bottom of the mock tanks,
which is flat and does not have the same structural elements. It was not clear how this affected testing. In terms
of the size, there is some unresolved debate over what is appropriate. In between tests, the tanks were pressure
washed. When asked how to sample for compliance testing, Mr. Lemieux explained that work is being done
using computational methods to look at the effects of sampling location, geometries, etc. They are now
concentrating on pipe sampling since the desire is to know what is being discharged.

When asked about future R&D plans for the Key West facility, Mr. Lemieux stated that there is still more to do;
technical gaps that have been identified by the beta testing are still being addressed. Further, the NRLKW plans
to continue working on other Coast Guard issues, integrating surrogate species results, and supporting more R&D
efforts in the facility development. No vendor testing has been undertaken because of the follow-up issues that
remain.

Mr. Stevens acknowledged the people involved in protocol development: Carlton Hunt and Deborah Tanis
(Batelle), who were the primary contractors for NSF to develop the draft protocol. He also asked the tech panel to
stand up for recognition.

Surrogate Species Study Outcome - Fred Dobbs

Fred Dobbs stated that a surrogate species is one meant to be representative of others. In the context of
technology testing, they can also be thought of as a "challenge" organism, since the terms are functionally the
same. By extension, in a public-health context, fecal-coliform bacteria are used to indicate whether pathogens
might be present in water.

Dr. Dobbs explained the rationale for using surrogates. He stated that it helps to standardize technology testing.
The inherent variation in natural populations led to a proposal that there be surrogate species to allow
standardization. This would also allow for inter-site comparability. He shared the definition (a few species that
would, if removed or killed by a treatment, provide assurance that a broad range of other organisms also would be
removed or killed) and characteristics (inexpensive to culture at high densities; easily delivered into a testing

ETV Ballast Water Stakeholder Meeting Summary Page 3 of 14
Rev. 1/16/08

-------
facility's plumbing; and readily detected, counted, and tested for viability after treatment) of an ideal surrogate
species.

Dr. Dobbs outlined the timeline of project. He stated that the final report on the findings is near publication and
recognized the team that worked on the project.

Dr. Dobbs presented an example list of surrogate species and explained that they are divided into functional
groups: bacteria, protists, phytoplankton, and zooplankton. He listed the treatments/stressors used in the
experiment, which included thermal, chlorine disinfection, chlorine dioxide, glutaraldehyde, UV, ozone, hydrogen
peroxide, deoxygenation, SeaKleen®, and PeraCean Ocean™. Dr. Dobbs noted that it was not the objective of
these experiments to test fully the efficacy of treatment stressors, but rather to guide selection of the most
appropriate organism(s) for ETV testing.

Dr. Dobbs shared the experimental design and a brief synopsis of what the viability testing included. He then
noted the logistical impossibility of conducting all of the testing at same location and at the same time. So a
defined treatment scheme was used to maximize concordance between labs. Different labs also shared materials
and lab equipment (i.e., colimmated beam) as well as use instructions. Dr. Dobbs presented some graphical data
showing the outcome of the study. He explained that this information was used to create a database, which will
be included in the final report (along with a user's manual). The hope is that the database will be a helpful tool in
the future. There has been some discussion on how to expand the use of the database internationally.

Dr. Dobbs explained the rating system that was used to analyze the results and to answer the fundamental
question of whether a list of 3-5 species surrogates could be produced and used to test ballast water treatment
technology in a large-scale facility.

Dr. Dobbs stated that before final conclusions can be made, there are some pressing needs, which include the need
for refinement of existing technologies to determine the viability of organisms and the need for calibration of
surrogate species, (i.e., a process to determine how well they represent the effects of the treatment method on
ambient organisms). He also stressed that ambient populations should be used side by side with surrogate species
in testing. Then he outlined the questions that had been presented the previous day to the tech panel:

First Tier:

• Could we use a single surrogate species, or is there additional value in using multiple surrogates
representative of major taxa?
• What are the appropriate uses of surrogate species in the context of testing ballast-water treatment
technology? When and at what scale should they be used?
• Do we need to test treatment systems using both marine and freshwater surrogate species? Can marine
surrogates accurately represent freshwater results?
• Are we finished with the search for surrogate species?

Second Tier:

• Will it be necessary to increase the incorporation of organisms' dormant or resting stages (e.g., spores,
cysts, ephippia) into technology testing?
• How can the database be used to best advantage?
• What are the impediments to using surrogate species?
• Is there a role for caged surrogate species in ballast-water technology testing?

In response to a question from the stakeholders about phytoplankton counting, Dr. Dobbs stated that the sample
was diluted to microtiter plates, then growth was evaluated as positive/negative. The results were obtained by
counting test results at different dilutions; however, individual cells were not counted. Dr. Dobbs explained that
since these were pure cultures, there were no additional complications from background contamination.

ETV Ballast Water Stakeholder Meeting Summary Page 4 of 14
Rev. 1/16/08

-------
A stakeholder made an argument against using dinoflagellates. It was stated that there are 50-60 different taxa in
that category, some with a wide range of size. One of the problems is that several organisms are well above 50
um. It was counter-argued that the idea of using non-harmful dinoflagellates is better than using surrogate species
for them.

Mr. Stevens stated that the benefit from use of surrogate species is that they provide a means of assuring a
consistent evaluation from one location to another, and that the efficacy of the treatment technology will be
challenged comparably from one location to another. In Mr. Stevens's opinion, when formalized and appropriate
quality control measures are in place, this protocol will be a good tool in the evaluation of testing locations.

Tech Panel Meeting Outcome/Protocol Next Steps - Ted Lemieux

Mr. Lemieux provided an overview of the discussions that took place during the previous day's tech panel
meeting. The overview's goal was to give the group a sense of what was discussed, where the tech panel thinks
the protocol is in terms of progress, and a direction forward. He stated that he would follow his presentation with
a brief conversation about what is going on in ETV versus IMO (international) and some additional updates on
the test facilities.

Mr. Lemieux began by giving a description of the tech panel, stating that it is a conglomerate of researchers,
government agencies (both regulatory and research/development), test facility developers, and system
manufacturers. At the time of the meeting, the protocol had been successfully tested at the Naval Research Lab
on a treatment system, which demonstrated that the protocol as written is achievable, but pointed out some
necessary revisions. It also provided a rigorous, informative data set from the biological efficiency, O&M, and
design installation points of view. The testing also helped the group to identify technical gaps in the protocol and
showed where there are opportunities to streamline testing. Mr. Lemieux also explained that the research on
surrogate species provided a suite of potential surrogates that could be used. That study, however, uncovered
more questions, and the group will have to go back and determine appropriate concentrations and ways to
integrate that aspect in the test facilities. Mr. Lemieux pointed out that, as Dr. Dobbs mentioned, the study did
bring to light some additional questions.

The following is an outline of the remaining technological challenges that Mr. Lemieux pointed out to the
stakeholders:

• The identification of methods for accurate and robust enumeration of live phytoplankton
• Land-based testing scale optimization
- Time and Scale are significant technical and financial obstacles for future facilities.
• Facility standardization
- Current protocol details requirements of facilities, but not how to achieve these requirements.

Mr. Lemieux explained that the tech panel voted to prioritize the list of questions generated by the surrogate
study. This list was presented:

• Surrogate Issues:
- Do we need surrogate species in ballast water technology?
- What does treatment efficacy on surrogates mean for treatment efficacy on natural applications?
- Is one surrogate enough?
• Can tank size be reduced?
• Can tank hold times be reduced?
• What are the panel's recommendations for standardized phytoplankton enumeration?
• What can be done to address facility validation and for inter-site comparability?
• Are there justifiable changes to be made to the ETV challenge water conditions?

ETV Ballast Water Stakeholder Meeting Summary Page 5 of 14
Rev. 1/16/08

-------
The resulting discussion of these questions brought forth some conclusions. Mr. Lemieux explained that the tech
panel did feel that species surrogates were necessary both for inter-facility comparability and to provide a
minimum biological challenge from an organism resistance perspective; they also felt that only one species
surrogate was not sufficient, but rather that more than likely three would be needed to represent different taxa
and/or size classes. After considerable discussion, Mr. Lemieux stated that there was most agreed to reduce the
minimum tank size to 200 m3. Generally, the tech panel categorized the lessons learned into two categories: 1)
Necessary revisions to finalize the protocol, and 2) Justifiable improvements (those not necessary, but helpful for
ease of performance and facility requirements). Mr. Lemieux stated that the tech panel is generally well
positioned to address the technological obstacles, which he listed as answering the question of identifying
resources; phytoplankton enumeration; remaining surrogate species issues identified; and the question of tank
hold times.

Mr. Stevens added that the ETV protocol is not a one-time document, but that rather, this work will lead to further
revisions. In other words, the document will be constantly under revision and re-evaluation. Mr. Lemieux then
began to explain the IMO G8 protocol. He described the protocol requirements, and noted the differences
between ETV and IMO G8. He also noted that the IMO has no forum where issues with the guideline can be
resolved. He stated that ETV is a verification of a vendor's claims related to the application of the technology,
not an approval process. IMO G8 is a set of approval guidelines for governments to use to approve equipment.
IMO G8 primarily looks at only one feature of the system: its biological efficacy. ETV, on the other hand, has a
number of secondary verification factors in addition to biological efficacy. Mr. Lemieux confirmed that there are
four active test facilities that test to ETV, and eight in the process of coming online.

During the following question and answer period, Mr. Lemieux responded to a statement about the need for
someone to step up and start coordinating. While Mr. Lemieux concurred, he stated that coordination would be
within the purview of an independent or federal agency. He stated that other countries are aware of ETV to
varying degrees. In response to a question about the international presence of ETV, Mr. Lemieux responded that
IMO G8 has been more internationally focused, and that ETV has not put its efforts there at this point. An opinion
was stated that internationally, government involvement would be seen to a higher degree soon. It was pointed
out that there is a federated body that meets annually to discuss these types of issues. It was also offered that the
Globallast program is partnering with the Global Shipping Alliance, and that ship owners have an interest in
quality control at test facilities because they are subject to penalties for failure. It was suggested that the ETV
program could work with ship owners to empower them so that many facilities are pulled together to be able to do
the needed testing. However, the facilities will need much technical assistance to test to that standard if it comes
online internationally.

Mr. Lemieux responded to some questions regarding quality and consistency of testing facilities. He stated that
the ETV program would be an avenue to normalize facilities, but this may take a while since there are significant
differences in QA/QC issues between facilities. It is possible that this project (ETV) might be used as starting
point to get to ballast water test facilities in different countries, and added that EPA has good QA/QC program
components and that ANSI E4 is quality management system plan that is used in addition to EPA's procedures.
EPA also has recognized the need to figure out how to standardize QA/QC issues globally.

Great Ships Initiative Test Site - Allegra Cangelosi

Allegra Cangelosi provided a brief introduction to the Great Ships Initiative (GSI) testing. She stated that the
industry members from the Great Lakes region are interested and committed to testing having
national/international value. As a result, the GSI, a collective industry-led response to the problem of ship-
mediated introductions of aquatic invasive species in the Great Lakes, was created. She stated that a Scoping
Report for the GSI has been published; the report incorporates business, science, and policy aspects of
implementation. The report is accessible on the web at www.nemw.org/scopingreport.pdf.

Ms. Cangelosi stated that the objective of the GSI is to end ship-mediated introduction of aquatic invasive species
into the Great Lakes, and that the GSI plans to do so by implementing elements of technology incubation, harbor

ETV Ballast Water Stakeholder Meeting Summary Page 6 of 14
Rev. 1/16/08

-------
monitoring, installation assistance/financing, and post-installation monitoring/ assistance. She explained the
incubation step (application of interested vendors, review of applications), which resulted in GSI offering their
services. The testing available is at three scales - bench, pilot (shore based), and shipboard testing - and is
currently active. The GSI also hopes to provide engineering and financial advice for companies in the future.
The specific objectives of each scale are:

• Bench scale: evaluate eco-toxicity, dose effectiveness, and mechanism of action.
• Pilot (freshwater only): evaluate scale effects, ambient assemblages, and operational issues.
• Shipboard: evaluate performance for Canadian Lakers on dedicated freshwater-seawater loops including
effects of multiple salinities, ship effects, and STEP applications.

Ms. Cangelosi stated that the goal of the GSI is to be completely transparent. She stated that international and
domestic contributors are to look at first set of protocols, and trials began this summer. She explained the
facilities involved in each level of testing, and the details of the test set-up and how the tests were run. The results
of the initial testing were shared. Ms. Cangelosi stated that several rounds of testing had been completed. Also,
since there are triplicate sample ports at the sample stations, the GSI was able to put one of each of the three kinds
of pilots in. The results of the GSI study will be made publicly available.

Ms. Cangelosi stated that the results were relevant for conducting incubation studies with output as applicable as
possible to regulatory processes (IMO/domestic), and for communicating the output to national/international
agencies to help inform decisions. This testing will also help provide insight/input to other efforts and will allow
for collaboration with other efforts globally.

Ms. Cangelosi shared a start-up timeline. She stated that the IMO-consistent facility construction, the preliminary
scientific protocols, and the solicitation of the first treatment to be tested had all been completed. The goals for
the summer included completion of standard operating procedures, ongoing facility calibration and vetting, and
facility modifications. In the fall, the preliminary testing at the bench and pilot scale is expected to begin, along
with the first full RFP issuance.

During the question and answer period following this presentation, Ms. Cangelosi explained that the GSI is trying
to benefit from work done by ETV. She stated that the GSI has made a commitment to be consistent with ETV.
The GSI is also planning a firewalled portion of the program, which is strictly for conducting testing consistent
with ETV and/or compliance testing, a role that Ms. Cangelosi stated that the GSI is ready and willing to fill. In
the future, the GSI is planning to run at capacity, which varies depending on the hold time; for a five-day hold,
two technologies can be tested, while for a one-day hold, about 4-5 technologies can be tested. Right now, Ms.
Cangelosi confirmed that the GSI is doing testing consistent with IMO and the ETV draft. However, since both
are not prescriptive, additional operating details are needed. Therefore, to the greatest extent possible, the GSI is
using standardized methods and relying on the best working method.

In response to a question, Ms. Cangelosi explained that the water of Lake Superior has well-characterized ambient
communities, including phytoplankton, zooplankton, protists, and macro zooplankton. There is increasing
evidence of the existence of zebra mussels. She stated that the GSI has also given consideration to seasonal
variation as well.

A question was posed addressing the concerns about UV technology, which inactivates organisms through effects
on the DNA (in essence, affecting the organism's ability to reproduce). Stain, therefore, does not show whether
UV has been effective because organisms may still be alive; therefore, the only way it can be accurately tested is
to see if subsequent generations occur. Ms. Cangelosi stated that it is important to realize that one size does not
fit all, and stated that the GSI would like to use a grow-out method in conjunction with the staining that is being
used.
ETV Ballast Water Stakeholder Meeting Summary Page 7 of 14
Rev. 1/16/08

-------
Ms. Cangelosi addressed a question on how the site plans to address issues with multiple salinities since the set-up
is appropriate for lake-specific issues, stating that there are plans to coordinate with a marine test facility.
However, the GSI is freshwater specific, so that is the focus.

USCG Program Updates/International Developments - Bivan Patnaik & Richard Everett

Bivan Patnaik gave some background information on the current regulations. He stated that the Nonindigenous
Aquatic Nuisance Prevention Control Act (NANPCA) of 1990 gave three management options to all vessels
inbound from outside the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) carrying ballast water:

• Exchange the ballast water 200 miles off-shore;
• Retain ballast water for the duration of the voyage; or
• Treat the ballast water with a Coast Guard-approved method.

He stated that this was revised as the National Invasive Species Act (NISA) in 1996. Following that, the National
Ballast Water Information Clearinghouse was established in 1997. Regulations for National Voluntary
Guidelines came out in 1999 and were finalized in 2001. In a report to Congress in 2002, participation in this
voluntary program was too low to determine the program's effectiveness. Therefore, the voluntary program was
converted to a required program.

The regulations in 2004 incorporated penalties for non-submission of ballast water reports (a felony offense). It
made reporting and record-keeping mandatory. These regulations include the Great Lakes Ballast Water
Management program, a national ballast water management program. The National Ballast Water Management
program also added requirements that all vessels conduct best management practices and have a ballast water
management (BWM) plan. As a result, between July 2004 and June 2005, there were 6000 BWM plan
examinations.

Mr. Patnaik explained that a Ballast Water Discharge (BWD) standard is necessary because of the options
available to shippers. The most predominant method is to conduct an exchange. However, because of safety and
voyage constraints, the Coast Guard estimates that 60% of vessels coming into U. S. waters are not able to
conduct exchange. For the Great Lakes, a large number of vessels cannot conduct exchange because they declare
no ballast on board. The effectiveness of exchange is variable depending on the ship and the voyage. Therefore,
since a way to approve ballast water treatment methods is clearly needed, Mr. Patnaik stated that the Coast
Guard's position is that the best way to do so is to establish a BWD standard.

Mr. Patnaik stated that the NISA of 1996 established Coast Guard authority to approve ballast water treatment
systems and the ability to implement a standard. He explained that the current rulemaking project for a new
BWD standard would be a concentration-based standard (number of organisms per volume of ballast water). It
would be used to approve ballast water treatment systems, and it would be enforceable (i.e., it would outline
specific measurements of compliance). It's also important that it address a full range of organisms at all life
stages and include those that are asexual, and those that do not require oxygen. In order for a BW treatment
technology to be approved, it must meet BWD standards and engineering and operating requirements.

Mr. Patnaik explained that Executive Order 12866 requires a cost-benefit analysis for any new mandate. If a
treatment is deemed significant (costs $100 million to the public), then a regulatory assessment is also required to
be completed by the Coast Guard. This assessment would include the anticipated benefits, costs, and impacts on
the economy, health, safety, and the environment, as well as the costs and benefits of possible regulatory
alternatives. This analysis is not a part of the Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (DPEIS),
which is required under the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA). That analysis consists of purpose
and need, range of alternatives, affected environment, and environmental consequences. Mr. Patnaik stated that
there has been a series of poorly attended public meetings. The Department of Transportation's Volpe Center, in
partnership of several other federal agencies, prepared a partially complete draft PEIS, but the work was ended
prematurely by administrative difficulties. The Final Draft PEIS is not yet available for public review. As a

ETV Ballast Water Stakeholder Meeting Summary Page 8 of 14
Rev. 1/16/08

-------
result, an expert panel workshop was assembled (consisting of NEPA experts and biologists from five cooperative
agencies) to complete the DPEIS. It is expected to be published in fall 2007 in the Federal Register. B. Patnaik
explained that a final comment period would be opened, and after that period, the document would be published.
He stated that further information is available at http://www.uscg.mil/hq/g-m/mso/estandards.htm.

During the question and answer period, Mr. Patnaik explained that all of the evaluations of environmental and
economic compliance requirements were not complete at this time. However, it is hoped that by the time the
whole process is finished, this will also be complete. Mr. Patnaik answered a question regarding interim approval
of designs if a standard exists before the legislation, stating that there is not currently an interim program, but it is
being looked into. However, he stated that even that must go through various stages of approval. Dr. Everett
reminded the stakeholders that the regulation is a federal action and requires following of policy. He stated that
when it comes down the line to approve individual ballast systems, those are also federal actions and will require
reviews at various stages.

Dr. Everett explained that IMO has created an international convention to address ballast water treatment. He
provided an update on what had occurred at the IMO meeting in July, and stated that a summary of the meeting is
available. The convention has regulations that direct what vessels must do to manage BW. He stated that D2 is a
discharge standard. It expresses an allowable concentration (threshold) for organisms in BW discharge. The G8
guidelines, on the other hand, are procedures recommended to contracting countries for approving BW treatment
in vessels that fly the flag of that country. Therefore, Dr. Everett explained that if vessels comply with G8, much
testing activity could take place outside the U.S. At this point in time, very few other countries that have flagged
vessels are doing anything. However, starting in 2009, new vessels will be required to come into compliance
during the phase-in time based on size, etc. Existing vessels will be required to come into compliance, and all
vessels under IMO G8 will be compliant by 2016. Regulation D5 directed the MEPC to hold a review of the
available technology at least three years prior to 2009 to determine how many technologies will be available by
the time the requirement comes into being. When the convention was adopted in 2004, no technology existed that
could meet the regulation.

Dr. Everett explained that the last meeting of MEPC took place in July 2007. He also stated that the Ballast
Water Convention was open for accession by states since May 2005. This convention would become effective
after the accession of thirty states representing 35% of world merchant tonnage. Currently, Dr. Everett explained,
only 11 states have acceded (3.42% of world tonnage).

Dr. Everett provided an update from the third meeting of GESAMP-BWWG. He stated that four proposals
concerning BWM systems were submitted. The G9 guidelines were employed by GESAMP to run though
approval procedures when applications were submitted. G9 is a two-step approval system for active substances
that are acceptable from an environmental/public health/ship safety point of view. Following that, the BWM
system goes through G8 guidelines. These guidelines include toxicity tests run on the treated effluent.

Dr. Everett explained that an application was under review for the PureBallast system. It is currently being tested
against the G8 protocol. Concerns raised will be addressed by Norwegian administration before approval.
PureBallast has undergone land-based testing and is now undergoing shipboard testing. The committee also
agreed to approve the NK Ballast Water Treatment system (Korea), but did not approve the Mitsubishi Hybrid
System (Japan), which was deemed to have too many unknowns.

The fourth meeting will take place in November 2007. Members are invited to submit proposals for approval.
However, Dr. Everett explained that the technology developer cannot submit a proposal. Rather, the proposal
must go through their state administration after the administration has evaluated it. He explained also that if an
active substance is used or generated in a treatment, this must also be assessed by IMO. Only the results of land-
based testing and residual toxicity are needed for final approval. It has been requested that BLG12 develop
criteria to evaluate systems using the same active substances or preparations to determine when it is appropriate to
apply the basic approval granted to one applicant to another applicant. This request is intended to address
concerns about insufficiency and competition.

ETV Ballast Water Stakeholder Meeting Summary Page 9 of 14
Rev. 1/16/08

-------
Dr. Everett explained that recent consideration has been given to human exposure scenarios as part of the risk
assessment procedure for BWM systems. This will be further considered at the next meeting. The committee has
also endorsed the need for an emission scenario document as part of the risk assessment. In the interim,
manufacturers developing ballast water treatment systems that use physical processes that may produce chemical
byproducts should use the relevant guidance and testing provisions included in G9 and G8 as part of the approval
process.

Dr. Everett also noted that there is one remaining guideline to finalize, on ballast water sampling: G2. G2 was not
considered because of time constraints. The target was extended to 2008, and this will be a key topic at BLG 12.
The significant issue is that guidance is needed on how to take samples and/or how to analyze and interpret
results.

The availability of ballast water treatment technologies, Dr. Everett noted, is under review by the D-5 group.
There was no consensus that technology will be available in time. The concern is that if the convention does not
enter into force, ships constructed after 2009 with ballast water capacities less than 5000 m3 will not meet the
standard when/if the convention comes online later. In that case, the convention will need amending, but as Dr.
Everett pointed out, it cannot be amended until it is enforced. There was a discussion of the options concerning
this problem; one option was agreement not to enforce the convention until a certain date.

In response to a question on why the U.S. has not ratified the convention, Dr. Everett explained that the President
has not proposed to the Senate that it ratify the convention. However, he stated that the President would not make
this proposal until he receives recommendation to do so. One reason this has not happened is that many are
waiting to see how these guidelines, which determine how to comply with the convention, will look when they are
finalized. Dr. Everett also explained that the U.S. has not brought any technologies forth for approval for active
substances because the U.S. is not party to the convention. So while parts of the U.S. government can participate,
no one has the authority to review applications and shepherd them through the IMO process.

USEPA Ballast Water Update - Juhi Driscoll

Juhi Driscoll provided an update on the Clean Water Act permitting for operational discharges from vessels. She
stated that the CWA permitting previously excluded ballast water from requiring a permit; however, starting on
September 30, 2008 EPA may have to issue permits for operational discharges.

Ms. Driscoll explained the history of the basics of CWA permits and referred the group to the website
(www.epa.gov/owow/invasive_species/ballas_water.html) for additional information. The effluent limits are
based on best available technology (BAT) and best professional judgment (BPJ), which allows some flexibility.
There are also water quality-based limits, which are what is required by the state to meet its own water quality
standard. The processing requires an application from the permittee, issuance of a proposed draft permit, a public
comment period, and finally issuance of a final permit. Ms. Driscoll explained that statutory exclusions will be
unaffected by the lawsuit that brought about this issue. This applies to vessels that operate as a means of
transportation beyond the three-mile limit, and to vessels of the armed forces. As a result of the lawsuit, the
regulatory exclusion applies to discharge deemed incidental to the normal operation of vessels from the obligation
to obtain aNPDES permit (issued in 1973).

The court's decision was that the EPA exceeded statutory authority under the CWA. Therefore, in September
2006, the final order revoked the regulatory exclusions, effective on September 20, 2008. This revocation
potentially affects all incidental discharges of vessels. The suit is currently under appeal, but the EPA must
continue to take preparatory actions. The EPA formed a Vessel Vacatur task force to deliberate on the options for
a revised permitting framework. They have also issued a notice in the Federal Register explaining and seeking
public input (the period for public input closed on 8/6/2006). It is anticipated that there will be a stakeholder
meeting in 2008. EPA is also coordinating with the USCG to assist in the development of water discharge
rulemaking.

ETV Ballast Water Stakeholder Meeting Summary Page 10 of 14
Rev. 1/16/08

-------
The implications of this change are not limited to larger vessels equipped with ballast tanks, but rather apply to all
vessels that potentially discharge pollutants, and are not limited to ballast water. Some of the considerations that
the EPA is currently looking at are:

• How to issue final permits by the implementation date
• How to define/categorize the universe of vessels
• How to inform affected vessel owners that a permit is needed
• How to define/categorize operational discharges and control technologies and best management practices
• How to determine technology requirements using BPJ factors

NOAA Activities - Melissa Pearson

Melissa Pearson explained the BWTDP (Ballast Water Technology Demonstration Program) is a partnership
among NOAA, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the U.S. Maritime Administration (MARAD). She
provided some background information regarding the legislation that gave way to the program and the way the
partnership operates, including its participation in competition for grants. She stated that the mission of the
BWTDP is the development, demonstration, and ultimate use of treatment technologies to prevent ballast water
introductions of aquatic invasive species to U.S. waters. The program involves the development of treatment
technologies and the ability to test, evaluate, regulate, and use these technologies.

Ms. Pearson provided some additional information regarding NOAA's participation in grant competitions. She
stated that there are two different categories: treatment technology demonstration projects and Research
Development Testing and Evaluation (RDTE) facilities. There has been a competition for treatment technology
demonstration projects each year from 1998 through 2007 (with two exceptions). Projects awarded funds ranged
from basic research to commercial field tests. Under the RDTE facilities competition (held in 2006 and 2007),
funding was provided to facilities including those doing research development testing and evaluation.

For treatment technology demonstration projects, Ms. Pearson outlined the programmatic priorities:
• Project necessity and chance for success
• Geographical distribution
• Commercialization potential
• Regulatory approval
Ms. Pearson showed a list of the funded technologies and the number of projects for each treatment category that
were funded. She stated that meeting the BWTDP mission requires the development of treatment technologies as
well as the ability to test, evaluate, regulate, and ultimately use the technology. She explained that the traditional
competition addresses the development aspect, and the RDTE facility competition was formed to address the
latter part of the mission. She also explained that RDTE facilities support ballast water technology development
efforts through continuity of projects, standardization and quality control of experiments, independence,
engagement of local and regional interests, ease of access to infrastructure, and the development and use of
standardized methods for testing. The RDTE programmatic priorities are:

• National integration
• Local involvement
• Geographical considerations
• Freedom of apparent conflict of interest

The 2006 RDTE award went to the Northeast-Midwest Institute for the GSI facility located in Superior, WI.
Additionally, two start-up grants were awarded. As an update on the 2007 award, the grant process is in progress,
ETV Ballast Water Stakeholder Meeting Summary Page 11 of 14
Rev. 1/16/08

-------
but no official awards have been offered.  (Note:  Since the August meeting, an award in the 2007 competition
was made to Battelle Memorial Institute for an RDTE facility to be located in Sequim, WA.)

Ms. Pearson stated that the goal is to provide viable technologies by the time they are required.  She stated that
when the goal is achieved, the program would end.  Currently, the NOAA is undergoing a program assessment to
determine their path forward.

Closing

Mr. Stevens thanked everyone again for coming.  He stated that a  meeting summary would be provided to
participants who signed in. The meeting was adjourned.
ETV Ballast Water Stakeholder Meeting Summary                                                        Page 12 of 14
Rev. 1/16/08

-------
                                        ATTENDEES

                      ETV Ballast Water Technology Stakeholder Meeting
                                       August 16, 2007
Participant
Ray Frederick
Evelyn Hartzell
Jessica Barkas
Richard Everett
Bivan Patnaik
Gail Roderick
Penny Herring
Edward Lemieux
Tim Wier
Jonathan Grant
Dorn Carlson
Melissa Pearson
Michelle Harmon
Suj it Ghosh
Carolyn Junemann
Terri Sutherland
Chris Wiley
Gordon Smith
Stephan Verosto
Frank Hamons
John Vasina
Allegra Cangelosi
Fred Dobbs
Russ Herwig
Brian Howes
Enrique J. LaMotta
Andrew Rogerson
Lucie Maranda
Tom Waite
Nick Welschmeyer
Mario Tamburi
Dave Wright
Victoria Lord
Christopher Grim
Nur A. Hasan
Organization
US EPA - Office of Research and Development
US EPA - ETV Program
US EPA - Office of Wastewater Management
US Coast Guard
US Coast Guard
US Coast Guard R&D Center
US Coast Guard R&D Center
Naval Research Lab - Key West
Naval Research Lab - Key West
NRL/Battenkill Technologies
NOAA
NOAA
NOAA - Invasive Species Program
MARAD
MARAD
Fisheries and Oceans Canada
Transport Canada/Fisheries & Oceans Canada
Naval Sea Systems Command
Naval Surface Warfare Center - Carderock Division
Maryland Port Administration
Maryland Port Authority
Northeast Midwest Institute
Old Dominion University
University of Washington
University of Massachusetts, Dartmouth
University of New Orleans
Nova Southeastern University
University of Rhode Island
Florida Institute of Technology
Moss Landing Marine Labs
Aliance for Coastal Technologies
University of Maryland
University of Maryland - Center of Marine
Biotechnology
University of Maryland - Center of Marine
Biotechnology
University of Maryland - Center of Marine
Biotechnology
ETV Ballast Water Stakeholder Meeting Summary
Rev. 1/16/08
Page 13 of 14

-------
Anwar Huq
Marty Pagliughi
Eyal Yavin
Ismail Gobulukoglu
Carlton Hunt
Michael Blanton
Andrea Copping
Bob Gee
Tina Hansbro
Fred Singleton
Greg Loraine
Larry Russell
Kent Peterson
Ivan Caplan
Jon Stewart
Josh Ziembiec
Howard Davis
Dick Fredericks
Chris Constantine
Paul Jackson
Marcus Allhands
Reuven Schwartz
Steve Carpenter
Rudy Matousek
Robert Weddle
Jennifer Gerardi
Linda Sealey
University of Maryland - Center of Marine
Biotechnology
ABB Inc.
Amiad Filtration
Aquafme Corporation
Battelle
Battelle - PNNL
Battelle - PNNL
Degussa Corporation
Dow
Dow
Dynaflow Inc.
Exostop
Fluid Imaging Technologies
G.I.A. Associates, Inc.
International Maritime Technology Consultant
ITT - WWW (Wedeco Division)
ITT -WWW
Maritime Solutions, Inc.
Maritime Solutions, Inc.
NSF International
Orival, Inc.
Orival, Inc.
Scienco/FAST
Severn Trent DeNora
Siemens Water Technologies
Trojan Technologies
Trojan Technologies
ETV Ballast Water Stakeholder Meeting Summary
Rev. 1/16/08
Page 14 of 14

-------