Transcript Workshop on Testing of Ballast Water Treatment Systems: General Guidelines and Stepwise Strategy Toward Shipboard Testing Invasion Vectors June 14-15, 2005 Portland, OR.

Workshop on Testing of Ballast Water Treatment Systems:
General Guidelines and Stepwise Strategy Toward Shipboard Testing
Invasion Vectors
June 14-15, 2005 Portland, OR
Why Hold a Workshop?
 Audit of the four large-scale shipboard tests of ballast
water treatments in the US found that “the experimental
designs and analyses had fundamental problems whose
extent and gravity undermined any conclusions that
could be drawn about the treatment performance of any
of the BWT systems” (US Coast Guard, 2004)
 Problems with:





Experimental design
Use of controls
Replication
Type and methods of measurement of dependent variables
Quality control
Participants














Kate Murphy, SERC and Univ. New South Wales
Jeff Cordell, UW
Russ Herwig, UW
Fred Dobbs, Old Dominion University
Nick Welschmeyer, Moss Landing Marine Lab
Edward Lemieux, Naval Research Lab, Key West
Brian Howes, Univ. Massachusetts
Jose Matheikal, IMO
Whitman Miller, SERC
Michael Holmes, National Univ. Singapore
Bill Stubblefield, Parametrix
Bob Gensemer, Parametrix
Greg Ruiz, SERC
Mark Sytsma, PSU
Consideration of Scale in BW
Treatment Testing
Shipboard Testing:
Merits & Tradeoffs
Lab  Mesocosm  Ship
Control of Environmental Conditions
Control of Biotic Content
Ease of Replication
Time to Results
Cost / Effort
Logistical Constraints
Control of Treatment (dose-response)
Scale Appropriate Results
Real-World Variation
(ship x voyage x source envt. x biota)
Scale-independent Experimental
Design

Control Treatments
 Allows evaluation under temporal and spatial changes that occur in BW
tanks
 Controls need to be identical to treatment tanks except for application of
treatment
 Control and treatment should be concurrently or use appropriate
experimental designs (blocking)

Measure initial and final state of dependent and independent
(treatment characteristics during experiment) variables
 Treatment dose may change over time
 Concentration x exposure time may influence treatment efficacy

Measure environmental conditions that may influence efficacy
 Temperature, DOC, , salinity, pH, turbidity, biomass, etc.

Replicate treatments and controls
The Problem with Factorial Designs
and Replication
Salinity
High ------ Low
2
Temperature
High ------ Low
2
Turbidity
High ------ Low
2
Biomass
High ------ Low
2
Tank Size/Complexity
Large ---- Small
2
Bioregion Type
Temperate – Tropical
2
Organic Carbon
High -------Low
2
___________________________________________________
Number of Treatment Combinations = 27
=
128
(Reps) x 3
=
384!
The Way Things Should Happen
According to Russ Herwig
IDEA
Perform Search of Literature
Perform Benchtop Experiments
(milliliters to liter)
Microcosm Experiments
(liters)
Mescocosm Experiments
(100's of liters)
Shipboard or Testbed Experiments
(100's of cubic meters)
The Way Things Have Been Done
According to Russ Herwig
IDEA
Shipboard Experiments
Perform Benchtop Experiments
Microcosm Experiments
Mescocosm Experiments
Recommended Approach
Laboratory-scale experiments
– Rigorously and quantitatively define
the response of organisms to
treatment
– < ~ 5 L experimental units
– Purpose is to define the “dose”
required for desired result under a
range of environmental conditions
– Use appropriate replication and
controls
Recommended Approach
Microcosm-scale
experiments
– Test for conformity with results
in more complex and realistic,
“tank-like” conditions
– ~10 – ~500 L experimental
units
– Purpose is to confirm
performance at larger sace
and engineering design to
allow refinement of system
– Test at limits to performance
(fewer replicates possible)
Recommended Approach
Full-scale test-bed experiments
– Test for meeting performance standards
– BW tank volumes and complexity (100s of
tons and realistic flow rates)
– Purpose is to demonstrate consistent and
predictable performance at full scale under
realistic tank conditions
– Tests consider spatial and structural variation
in tanks and sampling issues
NRL Test-bed Facility – Key West
Seawater
Intakes
Pump Room
ETV Ballast
Water Treatment Facility
Microscopy
Biochemistry Lab
NRL Test-bed Facility – Key West
L
From Seawater
Source
V
I
T
L
pH
Dechlor
Tank
F
DC
Cl
ECG-1
Frequency
Drive
F
P
Cl
F
RPM
kWh
V-6
P
F
TB
T
pH
V-39
V-7
V-38
V-36
TB
P
V-1
V-2
V-5
V-37
S-1
V-3
V-4
V
DC
ECG-2
I
V-8
DP
Discharge Tank
104,000 gals
V-35
V-9
V-34
Seawater (SW)
Manifold
Feed
P
F
P
F
P
F
P
V-10
P
S-9
V-11
V-52
E
To Ambient
P
V-12
Transfer
Pump
Skid
Ballast Water
Supply Manifold
RPM
kWh
P
Ballast Water
(BW) Feed
Manifold
Frequency
Drive
V-29
*See
Notes*
V-19
P
V-17
T
V-13
P
TB
Cond
T
L
pH
Cl
DO
pH
E
P-8
6"x4"
P
F
S-5x
P
S-6x
Tx
V-30
V-21
V-32
V-33
V-14
S-4
P
RPM
P
kWh
V-15
V-31
Frequency
Drive
P
T
L
pH
V-20
V-16
V-18
Large
P-9
6"x4"
Test Ballast Tank
101,400 gals
Abbreviations
T
V-40
V-42
V-44
V-46
V-48
Control Test Tank
40,000 gals
-
V-41
V-43
V-45
V-47
Sensors
Temperature
Biospecies
Culturing
Tanks
Temperature
-
Pressure
out)
Flow
Rate
Flow,
-
Tank
Level
Conductivity
Cond
-
Turbidity
-
Conductivity
Dissolved
-
V
-
I
-
RPM
Salinity
Oxygen
Chlorine
kWh
P-11
-
P
TB
E
(2"
diameter)
Technology
(in/out),
pH
Evaluation
Pressure
(in/
(in/out)
(in/out)
(in/out)
(in/out)
Transmissivity
Elapsed
Volume
Time
Per
Redox
(in/out)
Free
Kilowatt-hours
of
Operation
Used/Left
Injection
Revolutions
Rate
Potential
&
Filter
Total
Oxidant
Load/Changeout
Particle
S-7
F
diameter)
(1"
Man-hours
Voltage
Amperage
-
Power,
Turbidity
Minute
L
P
for
-
Concentration
F
Parameters
L
TB
(6"
Piping
P
Cl
V-49
for
Piping
Diameter Piping
diameter)
Diameter
F
DO
V-22
Diameter
Medium
Small
Counting
V-50
S-8
pH
To Ambient
V-51
E
V-P
21
3-P4
TOM / MM
Slurry
V-24
To Ambient
V-25
S-2
T
L
DO
Cond
pH
S-3
F
P
TB
pH
TITLE
Aquatic
V-26
Biospecies
V-27
V-28
P-10
DRAWN
Nusiance Species (ANS) Facility - Key
Piping & Instrumentation Diagram
Pre-Ballast Treatment Plan
BY
NRL
West,
DATE
Code
6136
08/25/2003
Scale:
N/A
FL
NRL Described “Observer
Effect” in BW Testing
 Sampling causes mortality
Avoid Sampling Problems:
Collect everything
Sampling Mortality
Method I: 50% mortality
Method I: 45% mortality
Method III:
3% mortality
Recommended Approach
Shipboard Evaluation
– Test for performance when integrated on a ship
– Purpose is to demonstrate acceptable
performance under real operating conditions
– Tests include robustness and performance over
time, maintenance, etc.
Challenges
 Test organisms
 Surrogate species
 Culturable
 Within species variation in tolerance
 Multiple geographic regions for source populations
 Life stage
Cysts
 Habitat occupied




Planktonic
Epibenthic
Infaunal
Sessile
Challenges
 How to measure viability
 Poke test
Vegetative or resting stages
 Vital stains
 Metabolic activity
 Habitat occupied




Planktonic
Epibenthic
Infaunal
Sessile
Challenges
 Residual toxicity
 FIFRA
 CWA
 NPDES requirment
Challenges
 Selecting Vessels and Routes
 Many different types of ships with differing
ballasting requirements
1,132
Mean TBOB
Mean Discharge
1,170
1,386
508
553
se
n
ge
r
bo
Pa
s
om
th
e
r
C
lC
er
a
en
G
O
ar
go
o
oR
R
d
ec
ifi
e
ai
ne
r
ns
p
U
C
on
t
r
40
144
er
307
ee
f
151
R
9
Bu
lk
e
nk
er
45,000
40,000
35,000
30,000
25,000
20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000
0
Ta
Volume (MT)
Mean Capacity
Challenges
Ship’s Objectives
Scientific Objectives
Safety of crew, passengers and cargo
Scientifically rigorous experiments
Compliance with regulations
Risk analysis / scenario testing
Non-interference with commercial objectives
Representative sampling
Easy implementation
Replication
Economical
Interpretability & clarity of diagnosis
Limited scope and timeframe
Efficiency and economy
Unequivocal & timely outcomes
Transferable protocols
Feasibility
Cooperation
Communication
Expense
A Phased Approach to Shipboard
Testing Recommended

Experimental Phase (1-2 yrs)

Sampling in control and treatment tanks to determine if the treatment system:
Is robust in a ship environment
Provides expected efficacy

Two tests/season (FWSS=8 tests per yr)) under a range of



Monitoring Phase (5 yrs)



All tanks experience treatment
Quarterly monitoring of biological efficacy in a “core” tank and a rotating series of other tanks
upon ballasting and prior to discharge
Compliance Phase (< 5 yrs)



Environmental conditions
Organism density and community composition
Engineering performance monitoring on all voyages using parameters developed in smaller
scale studies and during Experimental Phase
Biological monitoring 2x/yr to establish longevity of treatment efficacy as in Monitoring Phase
Approach similar to USCG STEP Program but with a more explicit description of
testing protocols and challenges to the system to assure adequate system
performance
Status
Draft report sent to workshop participants
Comments requested by 8 April 2006
Revised draft by May 1
The End