Browsing by Author "Cangelosi, Allegra"

Now showing 1 - 5 of 5
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Final Report of the Land-Based, Freshwater Testing of the AlfaWall AB PureBallast(R) Ballast Water Treatment System
    (University of Minnesota Duluth, 2011) Cangelosi, Allegra
    The Great Ships Initiative (GSI) provides independent, no-cost performance verification testing services to developers of ballast treatment systems and processes at a purpose-built, land-based ballast treatment test facility located in the Duluth-Superior Harbor of Lake Superior (Superior, WI). GSI test protocols are consistent with the requirements of the International Maritime Organization’s International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships Ballast Water and Sediments (IMO, 2004) and the United States Environmental Protection Agency’s (USEPA’s), Environmental Technology Verification Program (ETV; NSF, 2010). GSI procedures, methods, materials and findings are also publicly accessible on the GSI website (www.greatshipsinitiative.org). In August through October 2010, GSI conducted freshwater, land-based tests on three versions of the AlfaWall PureBallast® ballast water treatment system (BWTS). One version (hereafter referred to as v.1) of the PureBallast® BWTS received Type Approval by Det Norske Veritas (DNV) on behalf of the Norwegian Administration in June of 2008, following successful land-based testing at the Norwegian Institute of Water Research (NIVA). The second version (v.2), designed to conserve power relative to the first, was still undergoing IMO certification testing, and had completed successful land-based tests at NIVA immediately prior to testing at GSI during early summer 2010. The third version was a hybrid of versions 1 and 2, hereafter referred to as version 3 (v.3). The BWTS v.3 combined the 40 μm filtration of PureBallast® BWTS v.2 with the advanced oxidation system of PureBallast® BWTS v.1. The GSI Test Plan for the AlfaWall PureBallast® BWTS, hereafter referred to as the GSI Test Plan, called for evaluation the PureBallast® BWTS v.2 consistent with IMO G8 and G9 guidelines for its ability to: (a) successfully treat ballast water without interruption, (b) meet IMO D-2 discharge standards after a five day holding time, and (c) discharge water after the five day retention period that is environmentally benign (i.e., no residual toxicity). Additional research and development testing of v.1 was also planned. However, the PureBallast® BWTS (both v.1 and v.2) encountered mechanical filter failures such that no valid trials (i.e. meeting IMO and ETV threshold conditions) were completed. Instead, GSI tested the hybrid version of the AlfaWall BWTS (v.3) under a set of GSI source water conditions less challenging than those required by IMO and ETV, strictly for research and development purposes. As an addition to the research and development trials of the PureBallast® BWTS v.3 at the GSI Land-Based RDTE Facility, a set of observations on living organisms in sample water 24 hours post discharge from treatment and control retention tanks was incorporated into the revised test protocol to detect any delayed effects of the BWTS.The PureBallast® BWTS v.3 performed without interruption during the first two trials under less challenging conditions than required by IMO and ETV. During the third and final trial, the PureBallast® BWTS v.3 encountered a filter failure, and the trial was stopped and restarted under ambient Duluth-Superior Harbor conditions. No residual toxicity was detected in the discharge waters of the PureBallast® BWTS v.3. The BWTS did not effectively reduce live organism densities in the two regulated size classes despite the fact that ambient densities were well below IMO and ETV testing intake thresholds. Part of the problem likely resided with filter ineffectiveness given filamentous algal forms in Duluth-Superior Harbor water. At the same time, very low ambient UV transmittance of Duluth-Superior Harbor water (naturally caused by tannins) during these tests likely impeded effectiveness of the advanced oxidation system. These two conditions also likely account for discrepancies between performance outcomes at GSI versus NIVA. Globally, the risk of very low UV transmittance conditions is not unique to Duluth-Superior Harbor, but it is relatively rare and can be anticipated in advance. Thus, this problem could be mitigated with management practices such as open ocean BWE in combination with treatment. Conditions present in Duluth-Superior Harbor likely leading to filter malfunction, on the other hand, may be relatively common to many fresh water and brackish water harbors.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Final Report of the Land-Based, Freshwater Testing of the Lye (NaOH) Ballast Water Treatment System
    (University of Minnesota Duluth, 2011) Cangelosi, Allegra
    The Great Ships Initiative (GSI) provides independent, no-cost performance verification testing services to developers of ballast water treatment systems (BWTSs) and processes at a purposebuilt, land-based ballast treatment test facility located in the Duluth-Superior Harbor of Lake Superior (Superior, WI). The GSI is capable of performing testing fully consistent with the requirements of the International Maritime Organization’s (IMO’s) International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships Ballast Water and Sediments (IMO, 2004) and the United States Environmental Protection Agency’s (USEPA’s) Environmental Technology Verification Program (ETV; NSF International, 2010). GSI procedures, methods, materials and findings are also publicly accessible on the GSI website (www.greatshipsinitiative.org). In July 2010, GSI conducted a land-based performance evaluation test of a proposed BWTS developed by researchers from the U.S. Geological Survey’s Leetown Science Center in Kearneysville, West Virginia. The proposed system involved application of sodium hydroxide (NaOH, in the same formulation used for lye or caustic soda) to ballast water to raise pH, followed by application of carbon dioxide (CO2) as a neutralization step prior to discharge of the ballast water to the receiving system. The purpose of the land-based test of this system, consisting of four trials, was status testing for research and development. As such, the testing was based on, though not strictly consistent with, the IMO’s G8 Guidelines for Approval of Ballast Water Management Systems (IMO, 2008a), the IMO’s G9 Guidelines for Approval of Ballast Water Management Systems that make use of Active Substances (IMO, 2008b), and the USEPA’s ETV Program Generic Protocol for the Verification of Ballast Water Treatment Technology, v.5.1 (NSF International, 2010). During the test, the NaOH BWTS was evaluated for its ability to: (a) successfully treat ballast water without interruption, (b) successfully neutralize treated ballast water to achieve Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WIDNR) permitting levels for harbor discharge (i.e., pH 6-9), (c) meet discharge target values for water chemistry/quality and biology that are approximately consistent with the IMO Convention’s Annex D-2 discharge standards, and (d) discharge water after two- or three-day retention periods that is environmentally benign (i.e., no residual toxicity) pursuant to USEPA water quality criteria. The NaOH BWTS performed very well operationally and well enough biologically to warrant additional testing at the bench, land and ship-based scales. The system successfully treated ballast water without interruption, and successfully neutralized treated ballast water to achieve WIDNR permitting levels for harbor discharge (i.e., pH 6-9). The BWTS also significantly reduced live organism densities in treated discharge relative to control discharge in all size classes of organisms. Finally, in these tests, the BWTS performance met discharge target values that were approximately consistent with the IMO Convention’s Annex D-2 discharge standards, though precision in this estimate was not possible given the research and development testing parameters. The only possible problem that this testing revealed was that the water discharged after two- or three-day retention periods was not entirely environmentally benign (i.e., with no residual toxicity at the 100 % effluent dilution), though the level of residual toxicity in 100 % effluent evident from these tests may not be of regulatory concern.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Final Report of the Shipboard Testing of the Sodium Hydroxide (NaOH) Ballast Water Treatment System Onboard the MV Indiana Harbor
    (University of Minnesota Duluth, 2013) Cangelosi, Allegra
    In the summer of 2010, the National Parks of Lake Superior Foundation and researchers from the U.S. Geological Survey’s Leetown Science Center (USGS), received support from the USEPA’s Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (GLRI) to develop and trial a full-scale BWTS involving NaOH with applicability to U.S. flag vessels in Great Lakes trade. As part of this project, the research team enlisted GSI to undertake a status test on BWTS’ biological effectiveness and residual toxicity in the context of a single shipboard trial (one ballast uptake operation, one retention period, and one ballast discharge operation). The installation to be tested was a temporary and partial (two tank) prototype installed in two tanks on board the motor vessel (MV) Indiana Harbor, with alternate dosing approaches in each of the two tanks. The subject BWTS involved elevating pH by adding sodium hydroxide (NaOH, in the same formulation used for lye or caustic soda), retaining treated ballast water for a minimum period, and then neutralizing the ballast water prior to discharge. GSI’s status test involved collecting preliminary data on the biological treatment efficacy and residual toxicity (i.e., via whole effluent toxicity, WET, testing) from a single demonstration voyage based on measurement of ballast uptake into and discharge from two treatment tanks and two control tanks. GSI developed a detailed test plan that described the design of the single biological efficacy trial (including sample collection, analysis endpoints, sample handling and custody, WET, and data collection and recording), which was subject to review and comment by the NaOH BWTS development team prior to finalization (GSI, 2011). The GSI status test began on August 18, 2011, during normal vessel ballast intake operations in the port of Gary, Indiana, and concluded three days later on August 22 during normal vessel ballast discharge operations in the port of Superior, Wisconsin. On intake, GSI sampled harbor water that was loaded into four of the ship’s port side tanks (2P, 3P, 4P and 5P). There were adequate numbers of live zooplankton in the intake water (i.e., 43,000/m3 to 235,000/m3 of live organisms ≥ 50 μm) to warrant continuation of the trial. The water in two of these tanks (3P and 4P) was concurrently dosed with enough 50 % (w/v) NaOH solution to achieve a pH of about 12. Approximately 18 hours prior to the MV Indiana Harbor’s arrival in Superior an in-tank carbonation system was activated in both treatment tanks to neutralize the pH of the treated water to below 8.8, i.e., a level considered safe for release into the receiving harbor. Following the vessel’s arrival in port, the ballast water from the treatment tanks and the untreated water from the control tanks was discharged in sequence and sampled. As a single replicate, this GSI status test of the prototype BWTS is in no way conclusive or determinative. The results reported here provide only an indication of the system’s potential effectiveness relative to no treatment. In this single trial, BWTS-treated discharge contained live organisms ≥ 50 μm (i.e., zooplankton) in concentrations ranging 178/m3 to 441/m3. These concentrations are lower than control discharge densities which ranged from 100,000/m3 to 167,000/m3. Densities of live organisms ≥ 10 and < 50 μm in the treatment discharge ranged from 2 cell/mL to 8 cells/mL, while control discharge concentrations were higher, ranging from 53 cells/mL to 92 cells/mL. In terms of organisms < 10 μm, the trial produced inconclusive results with concentrations of both total coliforms and heterotrophic bacteria highest in discharge samples from one of the treatment tanks (4P). The results from a WET test indicate that the treated and neutralized discharge water produced no residual toxicity to green algae (Selenastrum capricornutum) or the fathead minnow (Pimephales promelas). However, in these tests, the treated ballast water significantly affected both survival and reproduction of the cladoceran Ceriodaphnia dubia, indicating possible residual toxicity. The BWTS developer asserts that this toxicity could derive from artifactual pHdrift during the WET test; pH increased by a maximum of about one unit over the 24 hour period following each daily renewal (Appendix 1). The GSI team did not control pH drift in daily exposures during the WET tests to avoid altering the inherent properties (including conductivity) of the discharge water subject to toxicity testing. Overall, the BWTS warrants further development and evaluation at the land- and ship-based levels.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Great Ships Initiative: Final Report of Land-Based Freshwater Testing of a Ballast Water Treatment Involving Sodium Hypochlorite (NaOCl)
    (University of Minnesota Duluth, 2012) Cangelosi, Allegra
    The Great Ships Initiative (GSI) provides independent, no-cost performance/verification testing services to developers of ballast water treatment systems (BWTSs) at the bench, land-based and shipboard scales. GSI has the expertise and resources to perform tests consistent with the requirements of the International Maritime Organization’s (IMO’s) International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships’ Ballast Water and Sediments (IMO, 2004) and the United States Environmental Protection Agency’s (USEPA’s) Environmental Technology Verification Program’s Generic Protocol (ETV; USEPA, 2010). GSI performs formal verification tests appropriate to market-ready prototype BWTSs, and informal status testing for BWTSs that are still in the research and development stages. GSI procedures, methods, materials and findings are publicly accessible on the GSI website (www.greatshipsinitiative.org). In early 2011, researchers from the National Parks of Lake Superior Foundation (NPLSF) in Marquette, Michigan, and the Michigan Technological University (MTU) in Houghton, Michigan, applied to GSI for land-based tests of a BWTS involving sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl), in the same formulation used for household bleach. The BWTS was proposed for emergency treatment of ballast water in tanks of Great Lakes vessels passing through the Welland Canal system of the St. Lawrence Seaway into the upstream lakes. The method involves multiple steps: • Determination of the natural chlorine demand of the ballast water one day ahead of treatment application, i.e., prior to the vessel’s entry into the Canal, for example, in Montreal, Quebec, Canada; • Determination of the necessary volume of 6.15 % NaOCl solution to be added to the ballast water to overcome the natural chlorine demand and deliver a predetermined chlorine concentration; • Mixing using a method designed by the researchers; • Retention of the treated ballast water in tank for a predetermined length of time (i.e., exposure period); • Determination of residual chlorine concentration, and determination and application of the amount of a neutralizer necessary to fully neutralize the treated water for safe discharge; and • Verification of complete neutralization prior to the vessel’s departure from the Canal system. Tests took place at GSI’s Land-Based Research, Development, Testing and Evaluation (RDTE) Facility in Superior, Wisconsin, in October 2011, with the goal of status testing for research and development purposes. As such, the testing was based on, though not strictly consistent with, the IMO’s G8 Guidelines for Approval of Ballast Water Management Systems (IMO, 2008a), the IMO’s G9 Guidelines for Approval of Ballast Water Management Systems that make use of Active Substances (IMO, 2008b) and the USEPA ETV Program’s Generic Protocol for the Verification of Ballast Water Treatment Technology, v.5.1 (USEPA, 2010). During the test, GSI implemented the entire proposed NaOCl BWTS method with the exception of the automated mixing system; trialing the mixing apparatus at a land-based facility would offer little insight into its capability on board a ship in any case. GSI evaluated the BWTS for its ability to: • Deliver the target concentration of chlorine (above natural chlorine demand) using a 6.15% NaOCl solution, and deliver the target concentration of neutralizer; • Reduce densities of live organisms in intake water from prescribed threshold densities to below densities allowed by the Ballast Water Performance Standard of the IMO Convention (IMO, 2004); and • Result in treatment water safe to discharge in terms of residual chlorine concentration and whole effluent toxicity (WET). Disinfection by products (DBPs) were also measured and reported. The GSI test of the NaOCl BWTS yielded mixed results. In terms of operational performance, GSI was able to accurately dose a sampled volume of water with 6.15 % NaOCl solution to a predetermined chlorine concentration by factoring in the natural chlorine demand. The neutralization process recommended by the BWTS developer did require additional neutralizer additions, which could be problematic in an actual shipboard situation. More research is needed on the effect of temperature and water quality on the ability of sodium bisulfite (NaHSO3) or a neutralization substitute to successfully neutralize NaOCl-treated water for BWTS application in the real-world. Second, the BWTS reduced live densities of organisms ≥ 50 μm which were adequately plentiful in the intake to meet IMO testing guidelines, relative to control discharge. But BWTS live discharge densities were well above the IMO benchmark (IMO, 2004). The BWTS did reduce live densities of organisms > 10 and <50 μm minimum dimension to below benchmark levels within the IMO Convention, but intake densities of these organisms also were below IMO testing guidelines due to the late season timing of the tests (IMO, 2004). Finally, the treated and neutralized discharge water was found to be safe to discharge (though, in some cases only after multiple neutralization steps) and free from toxicity in Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET) tests conducted by GSI. Measurable concentrations of DBP were found in the treatment discharge, specifically trihalomethanes (THM) and haloacetic acids (HAA). Overall, the GSI results show that the NaOCl BWTS both warrants and would benefit from further research and development on its potential as an emergency BWTS with relevancy in the Great Lakes.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Report of the Land-Based Freshwater Testing by the Great Ships Initiative of the Siemens SiCURE(TM) Ballast Water Management System for Type Approval According to Regulation D-2 and the Relevant IMO Guidelines
    (University of Minnesota Duluth, 2010) Cangelosi, Allegra
    The Great Ships Initiative (GSI) provides independent no-cost performance verification testing services to developers of ballast treatment systems and processes at a purpose-built, land-based ballast treatment test facility located in the Duluth-Superior Harbor of Lake Superior. GSI test protocols are consistent with the requirements of the International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships Ballast Water and Sediments (International Maritime Organization, 2004). GSI procedures, methods materials and findings are publicly accessible on the GSI website (www.greatshipsinitiave.org). In August through October 2009, the GSI conducted land-based tests on the SiCURETM Ballast Water Management System in cooperation with German Bundesamt für Seeschifffahrt und Hydrographie (BSH), i.e., the German Federal Maritime and Hydrographic Agency. During the series of five consecutive valid trials, the SiCURETM Ballast Water Management System was evaluated for its ability to: (a) successfully treat ballast water without interruption, (b) meet IMO D-2 discharge standards after a five-day holding time, and (c) discharge water after the five day retention period that is environmentally benign (i.e., no residual toxicity) pursuant to United States Environmental Protection Agency water quality criteria. It should be noted that because freshwater zooplankton are in general smaller than their salt and brackish water counterparts, the larger regulated size category (greater than 50 μm in minimum dimension) did not incorporate all live zooplankton that were present in the source water assemblage. The Siemens SiCURETM Ballast Water Management System functioned properly during the five consecutive trials, and was highly effective at reducing live organism densities in the fresh water ambient conditions of Duluth-Superior Harbor, as amended in these tests to achieve IMOconsistent challenge conditions. Live organisms in the regulated size classes were discharged in densities below the IMO D-2 standard. Microbial analyses showed system performance in keeping with IMO requirements for bacteria. Chemistry data generated across trials indicated the post-retention discharge to have well less than 0.1 mg/L total residual chlorine (TRC) under ambient conditions. Ambient water collected immediately after treatment and held in a cold environment had TRC and total residual oxidant (TRO) levels which slightly exceeded this level. However, in a real world application, the intake water would also be cold, and developers claim that the test system is designed to respond to this circumstance (reflected in oxidation-reduction potential, or ORP) with a reduction in chlorine generated and injected into the intake stream. There were no acute toxic effects of treated discharge on any test species across assays and trials. Chronic toxicity effects in 100 % effluent were detected in one out of two trials for test species of zooplankton and phytoplankton. There were no chronic toxicity effects across organisms and trials in 50 % or lower effluent dilutions.