may 13, 2015...gsi/lb/qaqc/tr/jfe date issued: may 13, 2015 page 7 of 146 (~ 20 mg/l). discharge...

GSI/LB/QAQC/TR/JFE

Date Issued: May 13, 2015

of 146

TECHNICAL REPORT

LAND-BASED STATUS TEST OF THE JFE

BALLASTACE® BALLAST WATER

MANAGEMENT SYSTEM AND COMPONENTS AT

THE GSI TESTING FACILITY

May 13, 2015

Research Team:

Allegra Cangelosi, NEMWI, Principal Investigator Meagan Aliff, NRRI, UMD

Lisa Allinger, NRRI, UMD

Mary Balcer, PhD, LSRI, UWS

Kimberly Beesley, LSRI, UWS

Allegra Cangelosi, NEMWI

Lana Fanberg, LSRI, UWS

Steve Hagedorn, LSRI, UWS

Lindsey Krumrie, NEMWI

Travis Mangan, NEMWI

Nicole Mays, NEMWI

Christine Polkinghorne, LSRI, UWS

Kelsey Prihoda, LSRI, UWS

Joe Radniecki, AMI Engineering

Euan Reavie, PhD, NRRI, UMD

Deanna Regan, LSRI, UWS

Elaine Ruzycki, NRRI, UMD

Heidi Saillard, LSRI, UWS

Heidi Schaefer, LSRI, UWS

Tyler Schwerdt, AMI Engineering

Michael Stoolmiller, PhD, University of Oregon

Matthew TenEyck, LSRI, UWS

GSI/LB/QAQC/TR/JFE


of 146

Technical Report:

Land-Based Status Test of the JFE BallastAce®

Ballast Water Management System and

Components at the GSI Testing Facility

Date of issue of draft GSI findings: December 19, 2014

Date of issue of final report: May 13, 2015

Approved for Release by:

X

Ms. Allegra Cangelosi GSI Principal Investigator and Director

Great Ships Initiative Northeast-Midwest Institute

50 F St. NW, Suite 950 Washington, DC 20001

202-464-4014 [email protected]

Approved for Release by:

X

Mr. Shigeki Fujiwara Senior Researcher

Water Treatment & Fluid Dynamics Research Group Research Center of Engineering Innovation

JFE Engineering Corporation 2-1,Suehiro-cho, Tsurumi-ku, Yokohama, 230-8611 Japan

+81-45-505-7852 mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

GSI/LB/QAQC/TR/JFE


of 146

LIST OF ACRONYMS %D: Percent Difference

%T: Percent Transmittance

µM: Micrometer

BMDS: Ballast Management Discharge Standard

BWMS: Ballast Water Management System

CFU: Colony Forming Unit

CV: Coefficient of Variation

DBP: Disinfection Byproduct

DI: Deionized

DOC: Dissolved Organic Carbon

DOM: Dissolved Organic Matter

DSH: Duluth Superior Harbor

ETV: Environmental Technology Verification

FS: Filter System

GLRI: Great Lakes Restoration Initiative

GSI: Great Ships Initiative

HMI: Human Machine Interface

ID: Internal Diameter

LAN: Local Area Network

LSRI: Lake Superior Research Institute

MARAD: United State Maritime Administration

MM: Mineral Matter

ND: No Data

NEMWI: Northeast Midwest Institute

NM: Not Measured

NPOC: Non-Purgeable Organic Carbon

NRRI: Natural Resources Research Institute

PI: Principal Investigator

PLC: Programmable Logic Controller

POC: Particulate Organic Carbon

POM: Particulate Organic Matter

PSC: Percent Similarity

QA: Quality Assurance

QA/QC: Quality Assurance/Quality Control

QAPP: Quality Assurance Project Plan

QC: Quality Control

RDTE: Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation

RPD: Relative Percent Difference

SD: Secure Digital

SEM: Standard Error of the Mean

SOP: Standard Operating Procedure

SP: Sample Port

TOC: Total Organic Carbon

TQAP: Test/Quality Assurance Plan

TRC: Total Residual Chlorine

TRO: Total Residual Oxidants

TSS: Total Suspended Solids

UMD: University of Minnesota-Duluth

GSI/LB/QAQC/TR/JFE


of 146

USCG: United States Coast Guard

USEPA: United States Environmental Protection Agency

UV: Ultraviolet

UWS: University of Wisconsin-Superior

WET: Whole Effluent Toxicity

YSI: Yellow Springs Instruments

GSI/LB/QAQC/TR/JFE


of 146

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This Great Ships Initiative (GSI) technical report describes outcomes from freshwater, land-

based, empirical “status” tests to support developer driven improvement of the JFE BallastAce®

Ballast Water Management System (BWMS). Tests took place at the GSI Land-Based Research,

Development, Testing and Evaluation (RDTE) Facility (hereafter GSI Facility) located in the

Duluth-Superior Harbor (DSH) of Lake Superior (Superior, Wisconsin, USA) during September

and October 2014 and comprised three stages:

1. Operational and biological performance evaluation of three alternate filter systems (FSs)

(hereafter JFE FS Intercomparison Test);

2. Evaluation of the operational, water chemistry/water quality and biological efficacy of

three versions of the prototype JFE BallastAce® BWMS; and

3. Durability testing of the F Panel FS (hereafter JFE F Panel Durability Test).

All three sets of tests took place under controlled conditions. The JFE FS Intercomparison and

BallastAce® BWMS Status Test occurred in the context of challenge conditions stipulated in the

United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Environmental Technology

Verification (ETV) Program’s Generic Protocol for the Verification of Ballast Water Treatment

Technology, version 5.1 (USEPA, 2010), hereafter ETV Land-Based Protocol. The JFE F Panel

Durability Test took place under ambient conditions.

In the JFE FS Intercomparison Test, three alternative FS were evaluated: two candle-type FSs

(referred to as the K Candle and F Candle, respectively), and the F Panel FS. Four test cycles

comparing performance of the three FS were conducted at a rate of one comparative test cycle

per day. In each test cycle, each FS was operated for the period of time necessary to process its

nominal hourly capacity. Augmented DSH water was drawn through the GSI Facility at the

developer-specified flow rate (varied by FS) with a target inlet pressure of 2 bar (29 psi) for a

period of approximately one hour. Operational measurements included pre- and post-FS flow

rate, backflush volume and rate, and differential pressure. Pre- and post-FS water quality and

biological samples were also collected and analyzed. Results from this test indicate that the K

Candle FS had higher differential pressure and more water lost to backflush than the F Candle

and F Panel FSs, which performed similarly with respect to these parameters. However, the K

Candle FS also removed solids most effectively (the F Candle and F Panel FSs performed

similarly with respect to solids removal). With respect to organisms, in the ≥ 50 µm size class the

three FSs performed similarly. The F Candle FS discharge had total densities ranging from

141,000/m3 to 259,000/m

3, the K Candle FS discharge contained total densities of 8,860/m

3 –

314,152/m3, and the F Panel FS discharge had total densities ranging from 41,700/m

3 to

238,000/m3. Likewise, post-FS densities of organisms in the > 10 µm and < 50 µm size class

ranged from 1,406 to 2,989 total cells/mL across test cycles and FSs.

The JFE BallastAce® BWMS Status Test evaluated the biological and chemical performance of

three versions of the prototype JFE BallastAce® BWMS against the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG)

Ballast Water Discharge Standard (BWDS):

GSI/LB/QAQC/TR/JFE


of 146

The F Panel FS and injection of NEO-CHLOR® DICD Granules at a target total residual

oxidant (TRO) level of ~ 5 mg/L (3 test cycles);

The F Panel FS and injection of TG BallastCleaner® at a target TRO of ~ 5 mg/L (3 test

cycles); and

The F Panel FS and injection of TG BallastCleaner® at a target TRO of ~ 20 mg/L (2 test

cycles).

For each test cycle, a single flow of DSH intake water, amended as needed to meet ETV

requirements, was split with one half of the flow directed through the BWMS component

combination (at a flow rate of 330 m3/hour for Test Cycles 1 – 6 and 200 m

3/hour for Test

Cycles 7 – 8) and into a treatment retention tank. The remaining flow was directed into a control

retention tank. Following a two day retention period, the treated and untreated water was

sequentially discharged. Pre-treatment intake, control discharge and treatment discharge flows

were operationally tracked, and continuously sampled for later analysis of chemical and

biological characteristics.

Test cycles of the JFE BallastAce BWMS Status Test in which the BWMS was operated using

NEO-CHLOR® DICD Granules at a target TRO of ~ 5 mg/L (Test Cycles 1, 3, and 5) showed

substantial reduction (99.8 – 99.9 % relative to control) in discharge densities of live organisms

in the ≥ 50 µm size class. Densities were still 37 to 50 times greater than the USCG BWDS,

however. Live organism densities in the ≥ 10 µm and < 50 µm size class met the BWDS in two

of the three test cycles. During Test Cycle 1, there were 197 live protist cells/mL, a difference

likely related to a large colony of blue-green algae in one sample transect. On average, there was

a 97 % reduction in total culturable heterotrophic bacteria in comparison to the control discharge.

The concentrations of all classes of disinfection byproducts (DBPs) were elevated in the

treatment discharge compared to the control discharge. The trihalomethanes had the highest

concentration in treatment discharge, with an average of 214 µg/L in Test Cycle 1 and 155 µg/L

in Test Cycle 5. In the two test cycles selected for whole effluent toxicity (WET) testing; Test

Cycles 1 and 5, the only statistically significant (p<0.05) toxic effect was associated with

reproduction in the 50 % and 100 % treatment groups of Test Cycle 1.

Test cycles of the JFE BallastAce BWMS Status Test in which the BWMS was operated using

TG BallastCleaner® at a target TRO of ~ 5 mg/L, i.e., Test Cycles 2, 4, and 6, also showed

substantial reduction (99.9 % compared to control) in densities of live organisms in the ≥ 50 µm

size class. Live organism densities in treatment discharge for the ≥ 10 µm and < 50 µm size class

met the BWDS for all three test cycles. On average, there was a 96 % reduction in total

culturable heterotrophic bacteria in comparison to the control discharge. Again, there were

elevated concentrations of all classes of DBPs measured in treatment discharge as compared to

control discharge. The chlorate ion had the highest measured concentration in treatment

discharge, with an average of 238 µg/L. The total trihalomethanes was the second highest class

of DBPs, in terms of concentration in treatment discharge, with an average concentration of 147

µg/L. Test Cycle 4 was selected for WET testing; there was no statistically significant (p<0.05)

toxic effect seen for any of the organisms tested.

In Test Cycles 7 and 8 of the JFE BallastAce BWMS Status Test, the JFE BallastAce BWMS was

operated using TG BallastCleaner® as the active substance formulation at a higher target TRO

GSI/LB/QAQC/TR/JFE


of 146

(~ 20 mg/L). Discharge from both test cycles met the USCG BWDS for live organism densities

in treatment discharge for the ≥ 50 µm, and ≥ 10 µm < 50 µm size classes. On average, there was

a 99 % reduction in total culturable heterotrophic bacteria compared to the control discharge.

There were substantially elevated concentrations of all classes of DBPs measured in the

treatment discharge as compared to the control discharge, with the exception of the bromate ion.

The chlorate ion had the highest measured concentration in treatment discharge, with an average

of 1410 µg/L. The total trihalomethanes was the second highest class of DBPs, in terms of

concentration in treatment discharge, with an average concentration of 459 µg/L. Test Cycle 7

was selected for WET testing; there was no statistically significant (p<0.05) effect seen for any

of the organisms tested.

The JFE F Panel Durability Test evaluated the operational performance of the F Panel FS over a

single test cycle of 16 hours in duration (conducted over two, eight hour days) during a “sea-to-

sea” operation in which the BWMS programming was edited to run a backflush slightly more

frequent than twice a minute. The number of backflushes during the test was the equivalent of

two years of hypothetical normal BWMS operation on board a ship, according to developer

estimates. After the test cycle was complete, the differential pressure between the inside and

outside of the FS panel at the start and end of the cycle was compared. In addition, GSI

personnel cleaned, dried, photographed and weighed the filter arm brush in order to quantify

wear over time. The overall duration of the JFE F Panel Durability Test was 13.33 hours over a

two day period. During the test 2,705 m3 of DSH water was filtered. The average differential

pressure between the pre- and post-FS lines was 0.22 bar. The average post-treatment flow rate

was 203 m3/hour, which was within 10 % of the target flow rate (i.e., 200 m

3/hour). On average,

the FS brushes weighed 4 mg less after completion of the JFE F Panel Durability Test,

indicating that brush wear (as measured by weight loss) was minimal. Magnified images of

randomly-selected FS brushes from each of the eight filter brush arms indicate that brush wear

was not uniform over the entire length of the brush. However, even the areas of visible wear

seemed relatively minimal and were limited to discoloration of the brush and fraying/bending of

the brush hairs.

Collectively, findings from the three sets of land-based tests GSI conducted of the various FS

units and biocidal treatments proposed for use as part of the prototype BallastAce® BWMS

provide ample evidence to support developer driven improvement and development of the

subject BWMS and its components.

GSI/LB/QAQC/TR/JFE


of 146

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This series of tests was supported by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (USEPA’s)

Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (GLRI) and the U.S. Maritime Administration. In addition, we

thank the City of Superior, Wisconsin, for leasing us the land on which the GSI Facility is built.

We also wish to acknowledge the administrative support of several academic and professional

organizations at which GSI personnel are based. These include the Northeast-Midwest Institute,

the University of Wisconsin Superior, the University of Minnesota Duluth, and AMI Consulting

Engineers.

GSI/LB/QAQC/TR/JFE


of 146

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF ACRONYMS ....................................................................................................................................... 3

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................................. 5

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................................................................................................................... 8

TABLE OF CONTENTS ..................................................................................................................................... 9

LIST OF FIGURES .......................................................................................................................................... 12

LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................................................ 13

1 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND .................................................................................................. 20

1.1 The Testing Organization ............................................................................................................ 20

1.2 The Ballast Water Management System (BWMS) and Components .......................................... 20

1.2.1 JFE Intercomparison Test .................................................................................................... 20

1.2.2 JFE BallastAce® BWMS Status Test ..................................................................................... 21

1.2.3 JFE F Panel Durability Test .................................................................................................. 22

1.3 Roles and Responsibilities of Organizations Involved ................................................................. 22

1.3.1 The Great Ships Initiative (GSI) ........................................................................................... 22

1.3.2 Ballast Water Management System (BWMS) Developer .................................................... 22

1.3.3 Test Funders ........................................................................................................................ 23

2 THE TESTING FACILITY ......................................................................................................................... 23

3 METHODS ............................................................................................................................................ 28

3.1 Experimental Design ................................................................................................................... 28

3.1.1 Overview ............................................................................................................................. 28

3.1.2 Challenge Conditions and Augmentation Methods ............................................................ 29

3.1.3 Test Components and Measured Endpoints ....................................................................... 30

3.2 Data and Sample Collection and Analysis Methods .................................................................... 35

3.2.1 Collection and Analysis of Operational Data ...................................................................... 35

3.2.2 Collection and Analysis of Water Chemistry/Water Quality Samples ................................ 35

3.2.3 Collection and Analysis of Biological Samples .................................................................... 37

3.2.4 Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET) and Disinfection Byproducts (DBPs) .................................. 38

3.3 Data Processing, Storage, Verification and Validation ............................................................... 45

4 RESULTS: JFE FILTER SYSTEM INTERCOMPARISON TEST ..................................................................... 45

4.1 Operational Performance ........................................................................................................... 45

GSI/LB/QAQC/TR/JFE


of 146

4.1.1 Fuji Candle Filter (F Candle) ................................................................................................ 45

4.1.2 Kanagawa Candle Filter (K Candle) ..................................................................................... 47

4.1.3 Fuji Panel Filter (F Panel) ..................................................................................................... 49

4.2 Operational Filter Performance Comparison .............................................................................. 51

4.3 Solids Removal Performance and Water Quality Data ............................................................... 53

4.3.1 Fuji Candle Filter (F Candle) ................................................................................................ 53

4.3.2 Kanagawa Candle Filter (K Candle) ..................................................................................... 54

4.3.3 Fuji Panel Filter (F Panel) ..................................................................................................... 55

4.4 Biological Performance ............................................................................................................... 56

4.4.1 Protists (Organisms ≥ 10 µm and < 50 µm) ......................................................................... 56

4.4.2 Zooplankton (Organisms ≥ 50 µm) ...................................................................................... 58

4.5 Test Validity and Data Quality Objectives ................................................................................... 61

4.5.1 Test Validity ......................................................................................................................... 61

4.5.2 Data Quality Indicators: Water Quality .............................................................................. 62

5 RESULTS: JFE BallastAce® BALLAST WATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM STATUS TEST ........................... 65

5.1 Test Cycles 1, 3 and 5: F Panel Filter and NEO-CHLOR® DICD BWMS ......................................... 65

5.1.1 Intake Measurements ......................................................................................................... 65

5.1.2 Retention Period Measurements ........................................................................................ 71

5.1.3 Discharge Measurements ................................................................................................... 73

5.2 Test Cycles 2, 4, and 6: F Panel and TG BallastCleaner® (Low Dose) BWMS Combination ........ 95

5.2.1 Intake Measurements ......................................................................................................... 95

5.2.2 Retention Period Conditions ............................................................................................. 101

5.2.3 Discharge Measurements ................................................................................................. 103

5.3 Test Cycles 7 and 8: F Panel and TG BallastCleaner® (High-Dose) BWMS Combination .......... 116

5.3.1 Intake Measurements ....................................................................................................... 116

5.3.2 Retention Period Conditions ............................................................................................. 121

5.3.3 Discharge Measurements ................................................................................................. 123

5.4 Test Validity ............................................................................................................................... 138

6 RESULTS: JFE FUJI PANEL FILTER DURABILITY TEST .......................................................................... 139

6.1 Operational Data ....................................................................................................................... 139

6.2 Filter Brush Arm Data ................................................................................................................ 140

GSI/LB/QAQC/TR/JFE


of 146

7 DISCUSSION ....................................................................................................................................... 144

8 CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................................... 145

9 REFERENCES ...................................................................................................................................... 146

GSI/LB/QAQC/TR/JFE


of 146

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Location of GSI's Land-Based RDTE Facility in Superior, Wisconsin, USA. .................................. 24

Figure 2. Aerial Photo of the GSI Land-Based RDTE Facility (Source: Google Earth). ................................ 24

Figure 3. Photo of the GSI Land-Based RDTE Facility. ................................................................................ 25

Figure 4. Simplified Schematic of the GSI Land-Based RDTE Facility Showing Location of Sample Points,

Sample Collection Tubs, Injection Points, Retention Tanks, and Treatment and Control Tracks. ............. 27

Figure 5. Time-Dependent Operational Data from Test Cycle 3 of the JFE FS Intercomparison Test using

the Candle Filter by Fuji Manufacturing Company, Ltd. (F Candle). ........................................................... 46


the Candle Filter by Kanagawa Kiki Kogyo Company, Ltd. (K Candle). ....................................................... 48


the Fuji Filter Manufacturing Company, Ltd. (F Panel). .............................................................................. 50

Figure 8. Comparison of the Average (± Standard Deviation) Differential Pressure Across Filter Types

Measured During the Four Test Cycles of the JFE FS Intercomparison Test. .............................................. 52

Figure 9. Comparison of the Average Ratio (%, ± Standard Deviation) of Backflush Flow Rate and Post-

Treatment Flow Rate Measured Across Filter Types During the Four Test Cycles of the JFE FS

Intercomparison Test. ................................................................................................................................. 53

Figure 10. Graph Depicting Average (± Standard Deviation) Pre- and Post-Filter Total Density of Protist

Cells During Four Test Cycles of the JFE FS Intercomparison Test. Companion table shows average

densities (pre- and post-filter). ................................................................................................................... 57

Figure 11. Graph Depicting Average (± Standard Error of the Mean, SEM) Pre- and Post-Filter Total

Density of Macrozooplankton During Four Test Cycles of the JFE FS Intercomparison Test. Companion

table shows average densities (pre- and post-filter). ................................................................................. 59


Density of Microzooplankton During Four Test Cycles of the JFE FS Intercomparison Test. Companion

table shows average densities (pre- and post-filter). ................................................................................. 60


Density of Zooplankton (i.e., Microzooplankton plus Macrozooplankton) During Four Test Cycles of the

JFE FS Intercomparison Test. Companion table shows average densities (pre- and post-filter). .............. 61

Figure 14. Real Time Pre- and Post-Filter Flow Rate and Pressure Data Recorded during Test Cycle 3 of

the JFE BallastAce BWMS Status Test. ........................................................................................................ 67

Figure 15. Real-Time Flow Rate and Pressure Data Measured Pre- and Post-Filter during Test Cycle 2

Intake of the JFE BallastAce® BWMS Status Test........................................................................................ 97

Figure 16. Real-Time Pre- and Post-Filter Flow Rate and Pressure Data Measured During Test Cycle 8

Intake of the JFE BallastAce® BWMS Status Test...................................................................................... 118

Figure 17. Magnified (10x) Photos of Filter Brush #1-4 Before (Left) and After (Right) the JFE F Panel

Durability Test. Photos were taken in 11 sections in order to capture the entire brush. ....................... 143

GSI/LB/QAQC/TR/JFE


of 146

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Calendar for JFE FS Intercomparison Test (Four Test Cycles), BallastAce® BWMS Status Test

(Eight Test Cycles), and F Panel Durability Test (One Test Cycle). Note: Calendar does not incorporate

the timing of analyses associated with each test cycle, which extended the test activities. ..................... 28

Table 2. Physical/Chemical and Biological Target Values for GSI Challenge Water Specific to the JFE FS

Intercomparison and BallastAce® BWMS Status Test Compared to Values in Ambient Duluth-Superior

Harbor Water and Minimum Values Required by the ETV Protocol. ......................................................... 30

Table 3. The Order of Filter System Testing and Summary of Organism and Solids Injection Targets

During Test Cycles 1-4 of the JFE FS Intercomparison Test. ........................................................................ 32

Table 4. JFE BallastAce® Ballast Water Management System (BWMS) Combinations Evaluated Over Eight

Test Cycles during the BallastAce® BWMS Status Test and Corresponding Target Flow Rates. ................ 33

Table 5. Summary of Organism and Solids Injection Target Values Applicable to Test Cycles 1 – 8 of the

JFE BallastAce® BWMS Status Test. ............................................................................................................ 34

Table 6. Operational, Water Chemistry/Quality, and Biological Data/Samples Collected per Filter System

(FS) during each Test Cycle of the JFE FS Intercomparison Test. ................................................................ 39

Table 7. Operational, Water Chemistry/Quality, and Biological Data/Samples Collected during each Test

Cycle of the JFE BallastAce® Ballast Water Management System (BWMS) Status Test............................. 40

Table 8. Operational Data/Samples Collected during each Test Cycle of the JFE F Panel Durability Test. 44

Table 9. Test Cycles Selected for Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET) Testing and Associated Experimental

Methods as Part of the JFE BallastAce® Ballast Water Management System (BWMS) Status Test. ......... 44

Table 10. Summary of Operational Measurements and Data Collected during the Four Test Cycles of the

JFE FS Intercomparison Test using the Candle Filter by Fuji Manufacturing Company, Ltd. (F Candle). .... 47


JFE FS Intercomparison Test using the Candle Filter by Kanagawa Kiki Kogyo Company, Ltd. (K Candle). 49


JFE FS Intercomparison Test using the Panel Filter by Fuji Filter Manufacturing Company, Ltd. (F Panel).

NM = Not Measured. .................................................................................................................................. 51

Table 13. Summary of Water Quality Data and Solids Removal Performance of the Candle Filter by Fuji

Manufacturing Company, Ltd. (F Candle) During the Four Test Cycles of the JFE FS Intercomparison Test.

.................................................................................................................................................................... 54

Table 14. Summary of Water Quality Data and Solids Removal Performance of the Candle Filter by

Kanagawa Kiki Kogyo Company, Ltd. (K Candle) During Four Test Cycles of the JFE FS Intercomparison

Test. ............................................................................................................................................................. 55

Table 15. Summary of Water Quality Data and Solids Removal Performance of the Panel Filter by Fuji

Filter Manufacturing Company, Ltd. (F Panel) During the Four Test Cycles of the JFE FS Intercomparison

Test. ............................................................................................................................................................. 56

Table 16. Target Values and Results for GSI Challenge Water (Pre-Filter System) During JFE FS


Table 17. Data Quality Objectives, Criteria, and Results from Water Quality Analyses during the JFE FS


GSI/LB/QAQC/TR/JFE


of 146

Table 18. Summary of Operational Measurements and Data Collected during Three Test Cycles (i.e., Test

Cycles 1, 3, and 5) of the JFE BallastAce® BWMS Status Test using NEO-CHLOR® DICD Granules as the

Active Substance. NM = Not Measured. ..................................................................................................... 66

Table 19. Concentration of Total Residual Oxidants (TRO) in Grab Samples Collected Simultaneously

from the Pre- and Post-Treatment Lines During Test Cycles 1, 3, and 5 Intake of the JFE BallastAce BWMS

Status Test. N/A = Not Applicable. ND = Measured value was below the method detection limit.......... 68

Table 20. Average (± Standard Deviation, n=3) Concentration of Total Suspended Solids (TSS), Percent

Transmittance (%T, in Filtered and Unfiltered Samples), Non-Purgeable Organic Carbon (NPOC),

Dissolved Organic Carbon (DOC), Particulate Organic Carbon (POC), and Mineral Matter (MM) in Grab

Samples Collected Simultaneously from the Pre- and Post-Treatment Line on Intake during Test Cycles 1,

3, and 5 of the of the JFE BallastAce® BWMS Status Test. ......................................................................... 69

Table 21. Average Value (±Standard Deviation, n=2) of Water Quality Parameters Measured from Pre-

Treatment Sample Collection Tubs During Test Cycles 1, 3, and 5 Intake of the JFE BallastAce® BWMS

Status Test. .................................................................................................................................................. 70

Table 22. Live Plankton Density (n=1 each) and Average (± Standard Deviation, n=3) Microbial

Concentration in Challenge Water Samples Collected during Test Cycles 1, 3, and 5 of the JFE BallastAce®

BWMS Status Test. ...................................................................................................................................... 71

Table 23. Concentration of Total Residual Oxidants (TRO) in the Control and Treatment Retention Tanks

24 and 48 Hours after Intake during Test Cycles 1, 3, and 5 of the JFE BallastAce® BWMS Status Test. ... 71

Table 24. In-Situ Water Quality Parameters Measured in the Control and Treatment Retention Tanks

during the 48 Hour Holding Time for Test Cycles 1, 3, and 5 of the JFE BallastAce® BWMS Status Test. .. 73

Table 25. Summary of Operational Measurements and Data Collected during Control Retention Tank

Discharge for Test Cycles 1, 3, and 5 of the BallastAce® BWMS Status Test using NEO-CHLOR® DICD

Granules as the Active Substance. .............................................................................................................. 74

Table 26. Summary of Operational Measurements and Data Collected during Treatment Retention Tank

Discharge for Test Cycles 1, 3, and 5 of the BallastAce® BWMS Status Test using NEO-CHLOR® DICD

Granules as the Active Substance. .............................................................................................................. 75

Table 27. Concentration of Total Residual Oxidants (TRO) in Grab Samples Collected During Test Cycles

1, 3, and 5 Control and Treatment Tank Discharge Operations of the JFE BallastAce® BWMS Status Test.

ND = Measured value was below the method detection limit. .................................................................. 76




Samples Collected Sequentially from the Treatment and Control Line on Discharge during the JFE

BallastAce® BWMS Status Test. .................................................................................................................. 77

Table 29. Water Quality Parameters Measured in Control (Sample Collection Tub #s 1 and 2) and

Treatment (Sample Collection Tub #s 4-6) Sample Collection Tubs Immediately Following Discharge

Operations during Test Cycles 1, 3, and 5 of the JFE BallastAce® BWMS Status Test. ............................... 78

Table 30. Live Plankton Density (Average ± Standard Deviation, Where Applicable) and Average (±

Standard Deviation, n=3) Microbial Concentrations in Samples Collected During Control and Treatment

Retention Tank Discharge for Test Cycles 1, 3, and 5 of the JFE BallastAce® BWMS Status Test. ............. 79

GSI/LB/QAQC/TR/JFE


of 146

Table 31. Results from Analysis of Selected Disinfection Byproducts in Samples Collected during

Discharge of the Control and Treatment Retention Tanks in Test Cycles 1 and 5 of the JFE BallastAce®

BWMS Status Test. Samples were collected for analysis of disinfection byproducts only for those test

cycles with Whole Effluent Toxicity testing. ............................................................................................... 80

Table 32. Average Values (Minimum, Maximum) of Water Quality Parameters Measured in Stock

Solutions during Ceriodaphnia dubia and Pimephales promelas Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET) Test

Associated with Test Cycle 1 of the JFE BallastAce® BWMS Status Test. ................................................... 82

Table 33. Average Values (Minimum, Maximum) of Water Quality Parameters Measured in Exposure

Solutions during the Seven Day Ceriodaphnia dubia Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET) Test Associated with

Test Cycle 1 of the JFE BallastAce® BWMS Status Test. .............................................................................. 83

Table 34. Average (n=10) Percent Survival and Total Number of Offspring Produced in a Three-Brood

Ceriodaphnia dubia Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET) Test Associated with Treatment Discharge from



Solutions during the Pimephales promelas Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET) Test Associated with Test Cycle

1 of the JFE BallastAce® BWMS Status Test. ............................................................................................... 85

Table 36. Pimephales promelas Average (n=4) Percent Survival and Weight per Fish after Exposure to

Treatment Discharge from Test Cycle 1 of the JFE BallastAce® BWMS Status Test. .................................. 86


Solutions during the Selenastrum capricornutum Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET) Test Associated with Test

Cycle 1 of the JFE BallastAce® BWMS Status Test. ..................................................................................... 87

Table 38. Average (n=4) Cell Density of Selenastrum capricornutum after 96 Hours Exposure to Whole

Effluent from Test Cycle 1 Treatment Discharge of the JFE BallastAce® BWMS Status Test. .................... 88


Solutions during the Ceriodaphnia dubia and Pimephales promelas Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET) Tests

Associated with Test Cycle 5 of the JFE BallastAce® BWMS Status Test. ................................................... 89


Solutions during the Six Day Ceriodaphnia dubia Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET) Test Associated with Test


Table 41. Average (n=10) Percent Survival and Total Number of Offspring Produced in a Three-Brood





5 of the JFE BallastAce® BWMS Status Test. ............................................................................................... 92


Treatment Discharge from Test Cycle 5 of the JFE BallastAce® BWMS Status Test. .................................. 93




GSI/LB/QAQC/TR/JFE


of 146


Effluent from Test Cycle 5 Treatment Discharge of the JFE BallastAce® BWMS Status Test. .................... 95

Table 46. Summary of Operational Measurements and Data Collected during Test Cycles 2, 4, and 6 of

the JFE BallastAce® BWMS Status Test using TG BallastCleaner® as the Active Substance (Low Dose/High

Flow)............................................................................................................................................................ 96

Table 47. Concentration of Total Residual Oxidants (TRO) in Measured Grab Samples Collected

Simultaneously from the Pre- and Post-Treatment Lines During Test Cycles 2, 4, and 6 Intake of the JFE

BallastAce® BWMS Status Test. N/A = Not Applicable. ND = Measured value was below the method

detection limit. ............................................................................................................................................ 98



Dissolved Organic Carbon (DOC), Particulate Organic Carbon (POC), and Mineral Matter (MM) Measured

in Grab Samples Collected Simultaneously from the Pre- and Post-Treatment Line on Intake During Test

Cycles 2, 4, and 6 Intake of the JFE BallastAce® BWMS Status Test. .......................................................... 99

Table 49. Average Value (±Standard Deviation, n=2) of Water Quality Parameters Measured in Pre-

Treatment Sample Collection Tubs During Test Cycles 2, 4, and 6 Intake of the JFE BallastAce® BWMS

Status Test. ................................................................................................................................................ 100

Table 50. Live Plankton Densities (n=1 each) and Average (± Standard Deviation, n=3) Microbial

Concentration in Challenge Water Samples Collected During Test Cycles 2, 4, and 6 of the JFE

BallastAce® BWMS Status Test. ................................................................................................................ 100


24 and 48 Hours Post-Treatment during Test Cycles 2, 4, and 6 of the JFE BallastAce® BWMS Status Test.

ND = Measured value was below the method detection limit. ................................................................ 101

Table 52. Water Quality Parameters Measured In-Situ in the Control and Treatment Retention Tanks

during the 48 Hour Holding Period for Test Cycles 2, 4, and 6 of the JFE BallastAce® BWMS Status Test.

.................................................................................................................................................................. 102


Discharge for Test Cycles 2, 4, and 6 of the JFE BallastAce® BWMS Status Test using TG BallastCleaner®

as the Active Substance. ........................................................................................................................... 103


Discharge for Test Cycles 7 and 8 of the JFE BallastAce® BWMS Status Test using TG BallastCleaner® as

the Active Substance. ................................................................................................................................ 104

Table 55. Concentration of Total Residual Oxidants (TRO) Measured in Grab Samples Collected During

Test Cycles 2, 4, and 6 Control and Treatment Tank Discharge Operations Associated with the JFE

BallastAce® BWMS Status Test. ND = Measured value was below the method detection limit. ............ 105




Samples Collected Sequentially from the Treatment and Control Line on Discharge Associated with Test

Cycles 2, 4 and 6 of the JFE BallastAce® BWMS Status Test. .................................................................... 106

GSI/LB/QAQC/TR/JFE


of 146

Table 57. Average (± Standard Deviation) Water Quality Parameters Measured in Sample Collection

Tubs Immediately Following Control and Treatment Discharge Operations for Test Cycles 2, 4, and 6 of

the JFE BallastAce® BWMS Status Test. .................................................................................................... 107

Table 58. Live Plankton Density (Average ± Standard Deviation, Where Applicable) and Average

(± Standard Deviation, n=3) Microbial Concentrations in Samples Collected During Control and

Treatment Retention Tank Discharge for Test Cycles 2, 4, and 6 of the JFE BallastAce® BWMS Status Test.

.................................................................................................................................................................. 108


Discharge of the Control and Treatment Retention Tanks in Test Cycle 4 of the JFE BallastAce® Status

Test. ........................................................................................................................................................... 109



Associated with Test Cycle 4 of the JFE BallastAce® BWMS Status Test. ................................................. 110



Cycle 4 of the JFE BallastAce® BWMS Status Test. ................................................................................... 111

Table 62. Average (n=10) Percent Survival and Total Number of Offspring Produced in the Three-Brood


Test Cycle 4 of the JFE BallastAce® BWMS Status Test. ............................................................................ 112



4 of the JFE BallastAce® BWMS Status Test. ............................................................................................. 113


Treatment Discharge from Test Cycle 4 of the JFE BallastAce® BWMS Status Test. ................................ 114





Effluent from Test Cycle 4 Treatment Discharge of the JFE BallastAce® BWMS Status Test. .................. 116

Table 67. Summary of Operational Measurements and Data Collected during Test Cycles 7 and 8 of

the JFE BallastAce® BWMS Status Test using TG BallastCleaner® as the Active Substance

(High Dose/Low Flow). .............................................................................................................................. 117

Table 68. Concentration of Total Residual Oxidants (TRO) and Total Residual Chlorine (TRC) Measured in

Grab Samples Collected Simultaneously from the Pre- and Post-Treatment Lines During Test Cycles 7 and

8 Intake of the JFE BallastAce® BWMS Status Test. N/A = Not Applicable. ND = Measured value was

below the method detection limit. ........................................................................................................... 119



Dissolved Organic Carbon (DOC), Particulate Organic Carbon (POC), and Mineral Matter (MM) Measured

in Grab Samples Collected Simultaneously from the Pre- and Post-Treatment Line on Intake During Test

Cycles 7 and 8 Intake of the JFE BallastAce® BWMS Status Test. ............................................................. 120

GSI/LB/QAQC/TR/JFE


of 146

Table 70. Average Value (± Standard Deviation, n=2)of Various Water Quality Parameters Measured in

the Pre-Treatment Sample Collection Tubs During Test Cycles 7 and 8 Intake of the JFE BallastAce®

BWMS Status Test. .................................................................................................................................... 120

Table 71. Live Plankton Density (n=1 each) and Average (± Standard Deviation, n=3) Microbial

Concentration in Challenge Water Samples Collected During Test Cycles 7 and 8 8 of the JFE BallastAce®

BWMS Status Test. Values marked with an asterisk (*) did not meet TQAP requirements. ................... 121

Table 72. Concentration of Total Residual Oxidants (TRO) and Total Residual Chlorine (TRC) in the

Control and Treatment Retention Tanks 24 and 48 Hours Post-Treatment During Test Cycles 7 and 8 of

the JFE BallastAce® BWMS Status Test. ND = Measured value was below the method detection limit. 122

Table 73. Average (± Standard Deviation) Water Quality Parameters Measured in the Control and

Treatment Retention Tanks during the 48 Hour Retention Period for Test Cycles 7 and 8 of the JFE

BallastAce® BWMS Status Test. ................................................................................................................ 123



the Active Substance (High Dose/Low Flow). ........................................................................................... 124



the Active Substance (High Dose/Low Flow). ........................................................................................... 125

Table 76. Concentration of Total Residual Oxidants (TRO) and Total Residual Chlorine (TRC) Measured in

Grab Samples Collected During Test Cycles 7 and 8 Control and Treatment Tank Discharge Operations

Associated with the JFE BallastAce® BWMS Status Test. ND = Measured value was below the method

detection limit. .......................................................................................................................................... 126




Samples Collected during Discharge of the Control and Treatment Retention Tanks for Status Test Cycles

7 and 8 Associated with Test Cycles 7 and 8 of the JFE BallastAce® BWMS Status Test. ......................... 127

Table 78. Average (± Standard Deviation) Water Quality Parameters Measured in the Control and

Treatment Sample Collection Tubs Immediately Following Control and Treatment Discharge Operations

for Test Cycles 7 and 8 of the JFE BallastAce® BWMS Status Test. .......................................................... 128


(± Standard Deviation, n=3) Microbial Concentrations in Samples Collected During Control and

Treatment Retention Tank Discharge for Test Cycles 7 and 8 of the JFE BallastAce® BWMS Status Test.

.................................................................................................................................................................. 129

Table 80. Results from Analysis of Selected Disinfection Byproducts (DBPs) in Samples Collected during

Discharge of the Control and Treatment Retention Tanks in Test Cycle 7 of the JFE BallastAce® BWMS

Status Test. ................................................................................................................................................ 131



Associated with Test Cycle 7 of the JFE BallastAce® BWMS Status Test. ................................................. 132

GSI/LB/QAQC/TR/JFE


of 146





Ceriodaphnia dubia Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET) Test Associated with Treatment Discharge from Test




7 of the JFE BallastAce® BWMS Status Test. ............................................................................................. 135


Treatment Discharge from Test Cycle 7 of the JFE BallastAce® BWMS Status Test. ................................ 136





Effluent from Test Cycle 7 Treatment Discharge of the JFE BallastAce® BWMS Status Test. .................. 138

Table 88. Target Values and Results for GSI Challenge Water During JFE BallastAce® Ballast Water

Management Status Test. ......................................................................................................................... 139

Table 89. Summary of Operational Data Collected during the Two Day JFE Fuji Panel Filter Durability

Test. ........................................................................................................................................................... 140

Table 90. Weights of Filter Brushes Installed in Filter Brush Arms of the Fuji Panel Filter Before and After

the JFE F Panel Durability Test. ................................................................................................................. 141

GSI/LB/QAQC/TR/JFE


of 146

1 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

This Great Ships Initiative (GSI) technical report presents findings from empirical land-based

“status” tests in freshwater to support developer driven improvement of the JFE BallastAce®

Ballast Water Management System (BWMS). Three sets of tests were undertaken in September

and October of 2014 at the GSI Land-Based Research, Development, Testing and Evaluation

(RDTE) Facility, hereafter GSI Facility, located in the Duluth-Superior Harbor (DSH) of Lake

Superior (Superior, Wisconsin, USA). The first set of tests (hereafter JFE FS Intercomparison

Test) evaluated operational and biological performance of three filter system (FS) alternatives.

The second set of tests evaluated operational, water chemistry/water quality, and biological

performance of the prototype JFE BallastAce® BWMS comprising a Fuji Panel (F Panel) FS

combined with two formulations (liquid or granular) of a biocidal treatment (hereafter JFE

BallastAce® BWMS Status Test). The third and final set of tests involved a durability test of the

F Panel FS in which operational performance was evaluated (hereafter JFE F Panel Durability

Test).

1.1 The Testing Organization

The testing organization, GSI, is a regional research initiative managed by the Northeast-

Midwest Institute (NEMWI) devoted to ending the problem of ship-mediated invasive species in

the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Seaway System and globally. Since its establishment in 2006, GSI

has provided independent performance/verification testing services to developers of BWMSs at

the bench, land-based and shipboard scales. GSI performs informal “status” tests for systems that

are in the research and development stage and formal certification/verification tests appropriate

to market-ready BWMSs.

NEMWI, GSI’s managing entity, is a Washington, D.C-based private, non-profit, and non-

partisan research organization dedicated to the economic vitality, environmental quality, and

regional equity of Northeast and Midwest states. The NEMWI directly collaborates with

contracting entities, including the University of Wisconsin-Superior’s (UWS’s) Lake Superior

Research Institute (LSRI), the University of Minnesota-Duluth (UMD’s) Natural Resources

Research Institute (NRRI), the University of Oregon, and AMI Consulting Engineers, to achieve

GSI testing and research objectives.

1.2 The Ballast Water Management System (BWMS) and Components 1.2.1 JFE Intercomparison Test

The JFE FS Intercomparison Test involved generation of operational and biological performance

information on three alternate FSs for subsequent developer evaluation. All three FSs have

received type approval from the Japanese government. Specifics of the FSs are as follows:

GSI/LB/QAQC/TR/JFE


of 146

1. Candle-Type Filter (K Candle) manufactured by Kanagawa Kiki Kogyo Co., Ltd.

Hereafter referred to as the K Candle, this FS utilizes a notch-wire element which is

manufactured by wrapping specially treated thin stainless steel wire with notches around the

cylindrical FS frame. The nominal width of opening between notch wires is 50 µm. Inlet water is

directed into the cylindrical FS frame and filtered water exits the outside of the frame. A

backwash arm set in the bottom of the FS operates continuously and washes the filter elements

using 7 % of the filtered water. When the differential pressure between the inside and outside of

filter element increases to 50 kPa, intermittent backwash mode operates with 15 % of the filtered

water.

2. Candle-Type Filter (F Candle) manufactured by Fuji Filter Manufacturing Co., Ltd.

Hereafter referred to as the F Candle, this FS utilizes cylindrical sintered mesh with no internal

frame. The nominal length of opening is 50 µm. Inlet water enters from inside of a cylinder and

filtered water is discharged from the outside of the cylinder. When the differential pressure

increases to 25 kPa, a backwash arm moves and the intermittent washing operation starts using

15 % of the filtered water.

3. Panel-Type Filter (F Panel) manufactured by Fuji Filter Manufacturing Co., Ltd.

Hereafter referred to as the F Panel, this FS utilizes a square shaped panel made from the same

sintered mesh as the two candle type FSs noted above. The nominal length of the opening is 50

µm. Two panels are set parallel and inlet water flows between the two panels and filtered water

is discharged out of the panels. A backwash arm moved by an air cylinder is set between the two

panels and it moves when the differential pressure increases to 25 kPa and washes all surface

area of the panels with 15 % of filtered water.

1.2.2 JFE BallastAce® BWMS Status Test

The JFE BallastAce® BWMS Status Test involved evaluation of the performance (i.e.,

operational, water chemistry/water quality, and biological efficacy) of the prototype JFE

BallastAce® BWMS comprising the F Panel FS, detailed above, combined with two

formulations (liquid or granular) of a biocidal treatment, and one biocidal treatment (liquid) at

two injection doses.

The JFE BallastAce® BWMS is a proprietary BWMS. During the JFE BallastAce® BWMS

Status Test, GSI tested an early prototype of the BWMS that was still under development and did

not include all of the features of the planned commercially-available BWMS (e.g., the version

that was tested included manual calculation of active substance/neutralizer dosing and was not

automated). According to JFE Engineering, the commercially-available unit will consist of a FS,

two chemical agents (i.e., a chlorine agent and a reducing agent), and Venturi tubes or a mixing

plate. The market-ready JFE BallastAce® BWMS is intended to operate as follows:

1. During a ballast uptake operation, the water passes through the FS, after a strainer. This

operation is designed to remove most of the plankton and particulate substances larger

GSI/LB/QAQC/TR/JFE


of 146

than about 50 µm. These organisms and particles are then be discharged back into the

original source water together with the backwash water. Because a chlorine agent is

injected after the filtration process, the FS backwash water target is no chlorine, and no

impact on the receiving environment.

2. The chlorine agent is injected into the water after filtration to react primarily with

dissolved organic and inorganic matter, and act on the plankton and bacteria which have

passed through the FS. This water then passesthrough the Venturi tubes or mixing plate

for integration to maximize exposure of the plankton and bacteria to the chlorine agent.

JFE plans to offer customers the option of using either a liquid type chlorine agent (i.e.,

TG BallastCleaner® with the main ingredient of sodium hypochlorite) or a granular type

chlorine agent (i.e., NEO-CHLOR DICD Granules, EPA Reg. No. 72139-4 with the main

ingredient of sodium dichloroisocyanurate dihydrate, DICD).

3. When the ballast water is discharged, an aqueous solution of sodium sulfite is injected

into the treated ballast water to completely neutralize the chlorine in the ballast water.

The neutralized/detoxified water is then discharged from the ship into the ambient water.

1.2.3 JFE F Panel Durability Test

The JFE F Panel Durability Test involved evaluation of the F Panel FS component (described

above in section 1.2.1) of the JFE BallastAce® BWMS.

1.3 Roles and Responsibilities of Organizations Involved

Roles and responsibilities for these GSI freshwater, land-based, empirical “status” tests were

shared among GSI, the BWMS developer, and GSI funders.

1.3.1 The Great Ships Initiative (GSI)

GSI was responsible for developing the Test/Quality Assurance Plan (TQAP; GSI, 2014) and

subjecting the document to review by the BWMS developer prior to testing. GSI prepared and

maintained the testing facility, organized the testing schedule, monitored source water

conditions, supervised BWMS and component installations, supported BWMS developer

commissioning exercises, and monitored the BWMS developer while they operated specific

components of the BWMS. GSI was responsible for all sample collection, and sample analysis.

In addition, GSI was responsible for assuring data quality, and evaluating and reporting on the

performance data, maintaining security for testing activities, and assuring site safety for all

personnel. Finally, GSI was responsible for subjecting the data and data analysis to BWMS

developer review, and meeting as many requests as possible within the bounds of scientific and

process constraints prior to publication.

1.3.2 Ballast Water Management System (BWMS) Developer

The BWMS developer, JFE Engineering, was responsible for the delivery of the subject BWMS

and components to the GSI Facility, for providing instructions to the GSI Engineers for proper

installation of the units at the facility, for designating the installation requirements and operating

conditions for the BWMS and components during the evaluations (including line pressure, flow

GSI/LB/QAQC/TR/JFE


of 146

rate, startup and shutdown procedures), and for signing off on successful commissioning

outcomes. Representatives of the BWMS developer were onsite during the entire test period and

operated the BWMS and components during the status test, including active substance and

neutralizer dosing.

1.3.3 Test Funders

This project was supported by funds from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s

(USEPA’s) Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (GLRI), and the U.S. Maritime Administration.

Tests took place on land owned by the City of Superior, Wisconsin.

2 THE TESTING FACILITY

Tests of the JFE BallastAce® BWMS and components took place at the GSI Land-Based RDTE

Facility located in the DSH of Lake Superior (Figures 1-3). Relevant features of the GSI Facility

include:

Control and treatment intake flows up to 340 m3/hour each;

Highly automated flow and pressure control, monitoring and data logging;

A freshwater estuary with diverse and plentiful aquatic life as a challenge water

intake source (during normal testing season May to October);

Capacity to amend intake challenge water to intensify challenge conditions;

Validated facility sanitation before and between test cycles;

High quality in-line sampling systems associated with identical 3.8 m3 sample

collection tubs;

On-site laboratory space for most live analyses, additional space minutes away; and

Easy plug-in connections for BWMSs.

GSI/LB/QAQC/TR/JFE


of 146

Figure 1. Location of GSI's Land-Based RDTE Facility in Superior, Wisconsin, USA.

(Source: Google Earth).

Figure 2. Aerial Photo of the GSI Land-Based RDTE Facility (Source: Google Earth).

Facility Location

GSI/LB/QAQC/TR/JFE


of 146

Figure 3. Photo of the GSI Land-Based RDTE Facility.

The GSI Facility draws challenge water from the DSH, generally at a flow rate between 400 -

680 m3/hr. This main intake flow can be augmented with solids (i.e., total suspended solids, TSS)

and/or organisms (i.e., protists) at injection points A and B (Figure 4). A Y-split in the facility

intake piping, just after a static mixer, simultaneously channels one half of the well-mixed flow

to a treatment track and the other half to a matched control track. Thus, the facility delivers a

specified flow rate in the treatment and control tracks in the range of 200 – 340 m3/hour each.

The treatment track directs water through a subject BWMS prior to discharging water to a 200

m3 cylindrical retention tank, or to the harbor (Figure 4). The flow can be toggled between two

installed BWMSs.

Flow control valves and control system logic assure that sample flow rates are equivalent and

proportional to intake and discharge flow rates throughout each operation. Flow rates are

recorded by magnetic flux flow meters. Pressure readings are also recorded using pressure

transducers located at multiple points throughout the facility. GSI measures and records these

data, and other operational and maintenance parameters, using the facility’s Programmable Logic

Controller (PLC). This information is accessible by a Human Machine Interface (HMI). The

HMI has a 38.1 cm color touch display and is capable of detailing valve positions, pressure from

the pressure meters, and flow rates. The PLC reads, and a separate data logging computer records

and saves data from all the limit switches, positioners, pressure sensors, flow meters and level

indicators every five seconds for the entire duration of the operational cycle. Challenge water

quality/chemistry is also monitored and recorded in the same manner using in-line

temperature/pH, dissolved oxygen, turbidity and chlorophyll a sensors installed in the main

piping system just prior to the BWMS.

GSI/LB/QAQC/TR/JFE


of 146

Sample water for biological analysis is generally collected continuously throughout each intake

and discharge operation via several of the facility’s in-line sample points (SPs). Samples for

water quality/chemistry analysis are also collected from designated SPs during intake, tank

retention and discharge. All SPs, with the exception of SP#15, consist of three identical sample

ports spaced at regular intervals in a length of straight pipe (SP#15 consists of one sample port).

Each port is fitted with a center-located elbow-shaped tube (90 o) which samples the water. This

design is based on a design developed and validated analytically by the U.S. Naval Research

Laboratory in Key West, Florida (Richard et al., 2008). The design and lay-out of these replicate

sample ports has also been validated empirically at GSI and shown to produce equivalent,

representative and unbiased samples of water flow.

On-site laboratories (Figure 4) support time sensitive analyses associated with GSI land-based

tests, including live analysis of organisms ≥ 50 µm (i.e., zooplankton) and organisms ≥ 10 and

< 50 µm (i.e., protists). The laboratories are climate-controlled, and have enough bench space to

allow for simultaneous analysis of samples by multiple personnel. All other analyses are

conducted in laboratories of LSRI on the UWS campus; approximately 5 km from the facility.

GSI/LB/QAQC/TR/JFE


of 146

Figure 4. Simplified Schematic of the GSI Land-Based RDTE Facility Showing Location of Sample Points, Sample Collection Tubs, Injection Points, Retention

Tanks, and Treatment and Control Tracks.

GSI/LB/QAQC/TR/JFE


of 146

3 METHODS

3.1 Experimental Design 3.1.1 Overview

In total, the JFE FS Intercomparison Test, the BallastAce® BWMS Status Test, and the F Panel

Durability Test consisted of eight weeks of test operations, including FS and BWMS installation

and commissioning (Table 1). The JFE FS Intercomparison Test took place 18-25 September

2014 and comprised four test cycles (Table 1). The BallastAce® BWMS Status Tests took place

15 September to 29 October 2014 and comprised eight test cycles (Table 1). The F Panel

Durability Test took place 16-17 October 2014 and comprised a single test cycle (Table 1). All

three sets of tests took place at the GSI Facility in Superior, Wisconsin, under semi-controlled

conditions and, for the JFE FS Intercomparison and BallastAce® BWMS Status Test, in the

context of challenge conditions stipulated in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

(USEPA) Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Program’s Generic Protocol for the

Verification of Ballast Water Treatment Technology, version 5.1 (USEPA, 2010).

Table 1. Calendar for JFE FS Intercomparison Test (Four Test Cycles), BallastAce® BWMS Status Test

(Eight Test Cycles), and F Panel Durability Test (One Test Cycle). Note: Calendar does not incorporate the timing of analyses associated with each test cycle, which extended the test activities.

Week #

(Start Date) Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday

1 (08 SEPT 2014)

Ballast Water Management System and Components

Installation and Commissioning

2 (15 SEPT 2014)

BallastAce® BWMS Status Test: Test Cycle 1 FS Intercomparison Test: Test Cycle 1

3 (22 SEPT 2014)

FS Intercomparison Test: Test Cycle 2

FS Intercomparison Test: Test Cycle

3

FS Intercomparison Test: Test Cycle 4

4 (29 SEPT 2014)

BallastAce® BWMS Status Test: Test Cycle 2 BallastAce® BWMS Status Test: Test Cycle 3

5 (06 OCT 2014)

BallastAce® BWMS Status Test: Test Cycle 4 BallastAce® BWMS Status Test: Test Cycle 5

6 (13 OCT 2014)

BallastAce® BWMS Status Test: Test Cycle 6 F Panel Durability

Test: Test Cycle 1

7 (20 OCT 2014)

BallastAce® BWMS Status Test: Test Cycle 7

8 (27 OCT 2014)

BallastAce® BWMS Status Test: Test Cycle 8

GSI/LB/QAQC/TR/JFE


of 146

3.1.2 Challenge Conditions and Augmentation Methods

All three sets of tests took place under semi-controlled conditions using source water obtained

from the DSH and, for the JFE FS Intercomparison and BallastAce® BWMS Status Test, in the

context of challenge conditions stipulated in the ETV Program’s Generic Protocol for the

Verification of Ballast Water Treatment Technology, version 5.1 (USEPA, 2010). Table 2

presents target values for GSI challenge water specific to the JFE FS Intercomparison and

BallastAce® BWMS Status Test. Though GSI’s ambient water source naturally meets many of

the requirements of the ETV Protocol, to assure challenge water met the requirements listed in

Table 2, GSI augmented intake water, as needed, to meet TSS minimum requirements using ISO

12103-1, A2 Arizona Fine Test Dust (Powder Technology, Inc.; Burnsville, Minnesota). GSI

also augmented intake water, as needed, to meet particulate organic carbon (POC) requirements

using Micromate (i.e., micronized humate product for liquid suspension; Mesa Verde Resources;

Placitas, New Mexico). Micromate also contributed to the total TSS concentration, while mineral

matter (MM), defined as the difference between TSS and POC, was augmented indirectly

through the TSS and POC augmentation.

Depending on the concentration of ambient organisms ≥ 10 µm and < 50 µm, i.e., protists, in the

DSH, GSI augmented intake water relative to this size class in order to meet the minimum target

value detailed in Table 2. The specific injection procedure for TSS, Micromate and protists is

detailed in GSI/SOP/LB/G/O/5 – Procedure for Injecting Organisms and Solids into the GSI

Land-Based RDTE Facility. For the JFE FS Intercomparison Test, this GSI Standard Operating

Procedure (SOP) was followed for TSS and POC augmentation, though for protist augmentation

the amount of concentrated protists collected from the DSH was evenly divided in proportion to

expected flow through volume between the three FSs operated during each test cycle.

GSI/LB/QAQC/TR/JFE


of 146 Table 2. Physical/Chemical and Biological Target Values for GSI Challenge Water Specific to the

JFE FS Intercomparison and BallastAce® BWMS Status Test Compared to Values in Ambient Duluth-Superior Harbor Water and Minimum Values Required by the ETV Protocol.

* The inability to meet the target values did not invalidate a test cycle. 1 Concentrations were augmented, as needed, to achieve target values.

3.1.3 Test Components and Measured Endpoints

3.1.3.1 JFE FS Intercomparison Test

The JFE FS Intercomparison Test involved operation of the three alternate FSs proposed for use

as part of the prototype BallastAce® BWMS, i.e., the K Candle, F Candle, and F Panel FSs.

Following successful installation and commissioning, the three FSs were evaluated for

differential pressure (based on the difference between pre- and post-FS line pressure) and

backflush water loss (based on the difference between pre- and post-FS flow rate), two

parameters which help define the operational cost of running a FS as part of a BWMS and affect

the ship compatibility. The three FSs were also evaluated for solids removal performance, based

on the difference between pre- and post-FS TSS and POC concentrations.

The FSs were assessed one at a time over the course of four test cycles (a test cycle was defined

as one day of testing). The three FSs were operated once per day for a total of four runs each. A

Parameter Target Values for JFE FS

Intercomparison Test and BallastAce® BWMS Status Test*

Ambient Duluth-Superior Harbor

(June – September)

ETV Generic Protocol (v. 5.1; USEPA, 2010)

Temperature (°C) 4 – 30 0 – 30 4 – 35

Salinity (ppt) < 1 < 1 < 1 for fresh water

Percent (%) Transmittance Not applicable 2.1 – 50.9 None specified

Total Suspended Solids (TSS) (mg/L)

> 241 < 1 – 40 Min. 24

Particulate Organic Matter (POM) as Particulate Organic

Carbon (POC) (mg/L) > 4

1 < 0.1 – 3 Min. 4

Dissolved Organic Matter (DOM) as Dissolved Organic

Carbon (DOC) (mg/L) > 6 3 – 30 Min. 6

Mineral Matter (MM) (mg/L) > 20 1 < 1- 40 Min. 20

Organisms ≥ 50 µm > 100,000/m3 100,000 - 3,000,000

> 100,000/m3 (at least 5

species present across 3 phyla)

Organisms ≥ 10 µm and < 50 µm

> 1,000/mL 1 25 – 8,000

> 1,000/mL (at least 5 species present across 3 phyla)

Organisms < 10 µm > 1,000 MPN/mL > 500 MPN/mL > 1,000/mL (as culturable

aerobic heterotrophic bacteria)

GSI/LB/QAQC/TR/JFE


of 146

run was defined as the time each FS took to process its own nominal hourly capacity. JFE

Engineering proposed that the target volume be based on the maximum flow capacity of each FS.

The nominal maximum flow rate of each FS was as follows:

K Candle = 360 m3/hour

F Candle = 346 m3/hour

F Panel = 360 m3/hour

JFE Engineering requested that all FS testing be conducted with a target inlet pressure of 2 bar

(29 psi). Due to this pressure restriction the nominal flow through rates of the FSs could not be

reached with enough downstream pressure to sample reliably. The planned target flow rates were

amended in order to accommodate the pressure restriction, yet still produce consistent flow

control and sampling. Correspondingly, the amended target flow rates used during the JFE FS

Intercomparison Test were as follows:

K Candle = 308 m3/hour

F Candle = 311 m3/hour

F Panel = 311 m3/hour

Table 3 summarizes the randomly-selected order of testing for each FS within a test cycle,

whether organism injection was conducted, and the target concentration of Fine Test Dust and

Micromate injected during each of the four test cycles. During Test Cycles 1 and 2, a single

experimental mass of augmented DSH water (amended as needed to meet ETV threshold

requirements) was drawn through the GSI Facility via a “sea-to-sea” operation, at the above

specified flow rates with a target inlet pressure of 2 bar, for a period of approximately one hour.

Due to a failure of the organism diaphragm injection pump at the GSI Facility, the DSH water

was augmented with solids only during Test Cycles 3 and 4 (Table 3). For all four test cycles,

Micromate was used to increase the POC concentration, which also increased the TSS

concentration of the DSH water (Table 3). For Test Cycles 1 and 2 no addition of Fine Test Dust

was needed because the TSS was increased above ETV threshold requirements using Micromate

alone (Table 3). For Test Cycles 3 and 4, Fine Test Dust was needed (Table 3).

GSI/LB/QAQC/TR/JFE


of 146

Table 3. The Order of Filter System Testing and Summary of Organism and Solids Injection Targets During Test Cycles 1-4 of the JFE FS Intercomparison Test.

Parameter Filter

System Test Cycle 1 Test Cycle 2 Test Cycle 3 Test Cycle 4

Randomly-Selected Order of Testing

F Candle 1 2 1 3

K Candle 2 1 3 2

F Panel 3 3 2 1

Organism Injection? (YES/NO)

ALL YES YES NO NO

Solids Injection: Target Additional Fine Test Dust

(mg/L)

F Candle 0 0 5.9 7.7

K Candle 0 0 6.0 8.0

F Panel 0 0 5.5 8.3

Solids Injection: Target Additional Micromate

(mg/L)

F Candle 15.7 15.8 14.9 14.2

K Candle 14.1 14.7 14.7 13.6

F Panel 15.7 14.7 14.3 13.7

During the course of the FS runs, GSI personnel monitored the following operational parameters

through the use of automated systems: differential pressure, flow rate, inlet and outlet pressure,

and FS backflush volume and frequency. Maintenance or operational issues observed by GSI

personnel relative to the three FSs were also documented. In addition, samples for analysis of

pre- and post-FS water chemistry and biological parameters were collected and analyzed. Water

chemistry endpoints comprised pre- and post-FS concentrations of TSS, percent transmittance

(%T), dissolved organic carbon (DOC), and POC. Biological endpoints comprised: pre- and

post-FS densities of total organisms ≥ 50 µm in preserved samples, and total organisms ≥ 10 µm

and < 50 µm in preserved samples.

3.1.3.2 JFE BallastAce® BWMS Status Test

The JFE BallastAce® BWMS Status Test involved evaluation of two combinations of the

prototype JFE BallastAce® BWMS (comprising one FS and two formulations of a secondary

biocidal treatment) over eight test cycles (Table 4). All test cycles utilized the F Panel FS (Table

4). Test Cycles 1, 3, and 5 utilized NEO-CHLOR® DICD granules at a target concentration of

~5 mg/L total residual oxidants (TRO) and a flow rate of 311 m3/hour (Table 4). Test Cycles 2,

4, and 6 utilized liquid TG BallastCleaner® at a target concentration of ~5 mg/L TRO and a flow

rate of 311 m3/hour (i.e., low dose/high flow; Table 4). Test Cycles 7 and 8 utilized TG

BallastCleaner® at a target TRO concentration of ~20 mg/L and a flow rate of 200 m3/hour (i.e.,

high dose/low flow; Table 4).

GSI/LB/QAQC/TR/JFE


of 146

Table 4. JFE BallastAce® Ballast Water Management System (BWMS) Combinations Evaluated Over Eight Test Cycles during the BallastAce® BWMS Status Test and Corresponding Target Flow Rates. * Indicates Disinfection Byproduct (DBP) and Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET) Analysis took place.

Week # (Start Date)

Test Cycle # Target Flow Rate

(m3/hour)

BallastAce® BWMS Combination

2 (15 SEPT 2014)

Test Cycle 1* 311 F Panel Filter System NEO-CHLOR® DICD (granules): Target Concentration ~5 mg/L

4 (29 SEPT 2014)

Test Cycle 2 311 F Panel Filter System TG BallastCleaner® (liquid):

Target Concentration ~5 mg/L

4 (29 SEPT 2014)

Test Cycle 3 311 F Panel Filter System NEO-CHLOR® DICD (granules): Target Concentration ~5 mg/L

5 (06 OCT 2014)

Test Cycle 4* 311 F Panel Filter System TG BallastCleaner® (liquid):


5 (06 OCT 2014)

Test Cycle 5* 311 F Panel Filter System NEO-CHLOR® DICD (granules): Target Concentration ~5 mg/L

6 (13 OCT 2014)



7 (20 OCT 2014)

Test Cycle 7* 200 F Panel Filter System TG BallastCleaner® (liquid):


8 (27 OCT 2014)



All eight test cycles involved intake water, sourced from the DSH at a flow rate of up to 720

m3/hour and a pressure of 2 bar, amended as needed to meet ETV threshold requirements (Table

5), and split into two halves. One half of the flow was directed through the specific BWMS

combination and into a treatment retention tank at a flow rate of 311 m3/hour for Test Cycles 1 –

6, and 200 m3/hour for Test Cycles 7 – 8, to achieve the higher target dose of active substance

injection (Table 4). The other half of the flow was directed into a control retention tank.

Following a two day retention period, the treated and untreated water was sequentially

discharged. The treated water was discharged, following in-line neutralization, to the GSI

Facility’s wastewater tank1. The untreated control water was discharged to the DSH. The

duration of each intake and discharge operation was dependent upon the frequency of the FS

backflush, but was approximately 33 minutes during Test Cycles 1 - 6 and approximately 60

minutes during Test Cycles 7 and 8. Pre-treatment intake, as well as control discharge and

treatment discharge water was sampled and characterized for operational, water chemistry/water

quality, and biological characteristics. GSI personnel monitored the same operational parameters,

through the use of automated systems, as per the JFE FS Intercomparison Test, as well as

operational parameters associated with the GSI Facility, including retention tank and sample

collection tub volumes.

1

Treated discharge was held in the GSI Facility wastewater retention tank and tested for complete neutralization prior to discharge to the city sewer or back to the DSH, depending upon the active substance formulation utilized.

GSI/LB/QAQC/TR/JFE


of 146

Table 5. Summary of Organism and Solids Injection Target Values Applicable to Test Cycles 1 – 8 of the JFE BallastAce® BWMS Status Test.

Parameter Test Cycle

1* Test

Cycle 2 Test

Cycle 3 Test

Cycle 4 Test

Cycle 5 Test

Cycle 6 Test

Cycle 7 Test

Cycle 8 Organism Injection?

(YES/NO) YES, Target = 1,500 cells/mL

Solids Injection: Target Additional Fine

Test Dust (mg/L) 11.6 0 0 2.0 0 6.4 5.7 5.0

Solids Injection: Target Additional Micromate (mg/L)

Recording Error**

14.8 15.1 15.2 14.9 14.7 14.6 15.4

*Due to operator error, the ambient DSH TSS concentration was not factored into the solids injection calculations and solids (Fine Test Dust) were overdosed. **Due to a recording error, the concentration of micromate added is not known.

As part of the JFE BallastAce® BWMS Status Test, four sets of whole effluent toxicity (WET)

tests were conducted to determine the potential for residual toxicity of the treated discharge

water. Specifically WET tests were conducted during Test Cycles 1 and 5 (i.e., when the BWMS

combination utilized the granular active substance NEO-CHLOR® DICD; Table 4), one WET

test was conducted during Test Cycle 4 (i.e., when the BWMS combination utilized the liquid

active substance TG BallastCleaner® at a low dose; Table 4), and one WET test was conducted

during Test Cycle 7 (i.e., when the BWMS utilized the liquid active substance TG

BallastCleaner® at a higher dose; Table 4). Samples for analysis of disinfection byproducts

(DBPs) were also collected in association with the four test cycles in which WET was assessed.

Overall, operational endpoints relative to the JFE BallastAce® BWMS Status Test comprised

differential pressure, flow rate, inlet and outlet pressure, FS backflush volume and frequency,

sample collection tub flow rate and volume, and retention tank volume. Water chemistry

endpoints measured from pre-treatment intake, and control and treatment discharge comprised

concentrations of TRO, total residual chlorine (TRC), TSS, DOC, POC, and calculation of MM.

Biological endpoints, measured from pre-treatment intake, and control and treatment discharge,

comprised live densities of organisms ≥ 50 µm; total densities of organisms ≥ 50 µm (treatment

discharge samples only); live densities of organisms ≥ 10 µm and < 50 µm; and densities of

organisms < 10 µm, i.e., total culturable heterotrophic bacteria per colony forming units (CFUs).

3.1.2.3. JFE F Panel Durability Test

The JFE F Panel Durability Test evaluated the operational performance of an F Panel FS over a

single test cycle of 16 hours duration (conducted over two, eight hour days; Table 1). During this

test the flow rate was set to 200 m3/hour and the pressure to 2 bar. Non-amended DSH water was

directed through the GSI Facility via a “sea-to-sea” operation and the FS’s backflush mechanism

was triggered every 30 seconds. The number of backflushes was the equivalent of two years of

hypothetical BWMS operation on board a ship. After the test cycle was complete, the differential

pressure between the inside and outside of the FS panel at the start and end of each 8 hour

session was compared. Operational endpoints comprised differential pressure, flow rate, inlet and

outlet pressure, FS backflush volume and frequency. Following the test, debris was rinsed from

GSI/LB/QAQC/TR/JFE


of 146

the filter brush bristles by gently hand washing each brush individually with filtered municipal

water and then allowing the brushes to air dry. The cleaned and dried filter brushes were

weighed on two consecutive days, and GSI compared the weight of the FS backflush brushes

before and after the 16 hour test in order to quantify wear over time. Photographs of the filter

brushes before and after the test were also taken. In addition, one filter brush from each of the

eight filter brush arms was randomly selected for magnified photography before and after the

test.

3.2 Data and Sample Collection and Analysis Methods

Tables 6-8 summarize operational data, and water chemistry/water quality and biological

samples collected and analyzed during the JFE FS Intercomparison Test, BallastAce® BWMS

Status Test, and F Panel Durability Test, respectively.

3.2.1 Collection and Analysis of Operational Data

Operational data was collected continuously throughout each test cycle associated with the JFE

FS Intercomparison Test, BallastAce® BWMS Status Test, and F Panel Durability Test (Tables

6-8, respectively). Data was recorded by the GSI Facility’s data logging computer, including data

from the limit switches, positioners, pressure sensors, flow meters and level indicators. Magnetic

flux flow meters (accurate to ± 2 % of reading, according to GSI’s operational best practices)

located on the facility’s control track, treatment track, and on the discharge line measured intake

and discharge flow rates. Pressure transducers located at multiple points throughout the facility

measured line pressure. Following completion of each test cycle, the data was transferred to a

Microsoft Excel file for subsequent analysis by GSI personnel.

3.2.2 Collection and Analysis of Water Chemistry/Water Quality Samples

3.2.2.1 Water Chemistry

Samples for analysis of water chemistry were collected relative to the JFE FS Intercomparison

Test and BallastAce® BWMS Status Test as detailed in Tables 6-7, respectively. Samples for

analysis of TSS and %T were collected following the procedure outlined in

GSI/SOP/LB/RA/SC/2 – Procedure for Collecting Water Chemistry Samples and Data. TSS

analysis was conducted according to GSI/SOP/BS/RA/C/8– Procedure for Analyzing Total

Suspended Solids (TSS), Particulate Organic Matter (POM), and Mineral Matter (MM). %T

analysis was conducted according to GSI/SOP/BS/RA/C/4 – Procedure for Determining Percent

Transmittance (%T) of Light in Water at 254 nm.

Samples for analysis of DOC, used as a surrogate measure for dissolved organic matter (DOM),

and POC, used as a surrogate measure for particulate organic matter (POM) and calculated as the

difference between Non-Purgeable Organic Carbon (NPOC) and DOC values for a given sample,

were collected consistent with the procedure outlined in GSI/SOP/LB/RA/SC/2 – Procedure for

Collecting Water Chemistry Samples and Data. In these tests, NPOC was used as a proxy for

total organic carbon (TOC), though it may be a slight underestimate of TOC as the analytical

instrument used to measure NPOC purges the sample with air to remove inorganic carbon before

GSI/LB/QAQC/TR/JFE


of 146

measuring organic carbon levels in the sample. Thus, NPOC analysis may not incorporate

volatile organic carbon which may be present in the sample. Sample analysis for DOC and

NPOC was conducted according to GSI/SOP/BS/RA/C/3– Procedures for Measuring Organic

Carbon in Aqueous Samples except that samples were sonicated for at least 15 minutes then

placed on a stir plate for manual injection into the Shimadzu Total Organic Carbon Analyzer.

This modification to the analytical procedure was deemed necessary to accurately measure all of

the NPOC in the samples that had been augmented. MM, defined as the difference between TSS

and POM (measured as POC), was calculated for a given sample following analysis of TSS and

the determination of POC based on the NPOC and DOC concentrations as described above.

For analysis of TRO and TRC, applicable to the JFE BallastAce® BWMS Test (Table 7), discrete

grab samples were collected consistent with the procedure outlined in GSI/SOP/LB/RA/SC/2 –

Procedure for Collecting Water Chemistry Samples and Data. TRO and TRC analysis took place

on samples as soon as possible after collection (i.e., analysis was conducted on site at the GSI

Facility within five minutes of collection) to avoid sample degradation and minimize loss of

chlorine due to reaction with oxidizable species in the sample. Measurements accounted for all

forms of chlorine, i.e., free chlorine, hypochlorites, and chlorine bound to nitrogenous

compounds.

TRO analysis was conducted during Test Cycles 1 - 8 of the BallastAce® BWMS Status Test

according to GSI/SOP/BS/RA/C/2 – Procedure for Determining Total Residual Oxidants (TRO)

in Water. Briefly, a TRO calibration curve was prepared using standards prepared in deionized

water utilizing a 65.7 mg/L chlorine stock solution. The standards, ranging in concentration from

0.50 to 4.0 mg/L, were analyzed in the same manner as described for the samples. For analysis of

post-treatment intake samples from Test Cycles 7 and 8, samples were diluted, as needed, so that

the calibration curve bracketed the measured sample concentration. For all samples, 10 mL

aliquots of sample water (diluted as needed in Test Cycles 7 and 8) were transferred from the

sample containers into 30 mL beakers. The contents of a Hach DPD Total Chlorine Reagent

packet were added to each sample. The absorbance of the sample was determined using a

Spectronic 20D set at a wavelength of 515 nm. The absorbance of an aliquot of each sample with

no reagent added was also measured and the absorbance value subtracted from that of the sample

containing the reagent in order to correct for the background absorbance of each sample.

TRC analysis was conducted during Test Cycles 1 – 8 of the BallastAce® BWMS Status Test

according to GSI/SOP/BS/RA/C/6 – Procedure for Analyzing Total Residual Chlorine (TRC)

Concentrations in Water. Briefly, a 1,000 mg/L iodate stock solution (1,000 mg/L as chlorine)

was used to prepare analytical standards, ranging in concentration from 0.100 to 10.0 mg/L daily.

For Test Cycles 7 and 8, a 20.0 mg/L TRC standard was added to the calibration curve in order

to bracket the expected post-treatment intake concentrations. The standards were prepared in

deionized water by making dilutions of the 1,000 mg/L iodate stock. Potassium iodide reagent

and acetate buffer were added to the iodate containing analytical standards. For Test Cycles 7

and 8, the standards were analyzed at the same temperature as the samples (± 3 °C) by storing

the deionized water, iodate stock, potassium iodide reagent, and acetate buffer in a refrigerator

prior to preparation. Iodate or chlorine present in the standards or samples oxidizes iodide to

iodine in an acidic solution. The iodine concentration after the reaction will be equal to the iodate

or chlorine concentration present before the reaction. A calibration curve plotting log of the

GSI/LB/QAQC/TR/JFE


of 146

chlorine concentration (x-axis) versus the mV response from the Residual Chlorine Electrode (y-

axis) was used to determine TRC concentrations in the samples. For all sample analysis, 100 mL

of sample water was transferred from the sample collection container into a 150 mL beaker, and

1.0 mL of potassium iodide reagent and 1.0 mL of acetate buffer reagent added. Analysis was

conducted with a Thermo Scientific Orion Model 9770BNWP Residual Chlorine Electrode

connected to an Orion Star A211 pH/ ISE/mV/ Temperature meter. In addition, a dilution of the

samples was made as necessary to ensure that all samples were within the range of the

calibration curve. Note: TRC results from Test Cycles 1 – 6 of the BallastAce® BWMS Status

Test will not be reported, as the temperature of the standards during analysis most likely caused

the TRC concentration of the samples to be artificially high (i.e., approximately twice the

expected concentration).

3.2.2.2 Water Quality

Specific to the BallastAce® BWMS Status Test only (Table 7), water quality parameters,

including temperature, dissolved oxygen, pH, turbidity, salinity, specific conductivity, and total

chlorophyll, were measured using Multiparameter Sondes (YSI 6600 V2-4 Multiparameter

Sondes; YSI Incorporated; Yellow Springs, Ohio) consistent with the procedure outlined in

GSI/SOP/LB/RA/SC/2 – Procedure for Collecting Water Chemistry Samples and Data.

Measurement data were recorded on GSI/FORM/LB/C/4 - Sample Collection Tub Water

Chemistry Data Collection Form, as well as internally by the Sonde. The data from the

continuous measurements were exported to Microsoft Excel for subsequent analysis following

completion of each test cycle. The Sondes’ probes were rinsed with deionized water prior to

sampling, as well as calibrated prior to each test cycle according to GSI/SOP/MS/G/C/1 -

Procedure for Calibration, Deployment, and Storage of YSI Multiparameter Water Quality

Sondes.

3.2.3 Collection and Analysis of Biological Samples

Samples for analysis of organisms were collected relative to the JFE FS Intercomparison Test

and BallastAce® BWMS Status Test as detailed in Tables 6-7, respectively. Specifically, samples

for analysis of organisms ≥ 50 µm were collected and handled as described in

GSI/SOP/LB/RA/SC/6 - Procedure for Zooplankton Sample Collection. Briefly, sample water

was drawn through the relevant sample ports installed at the GSI Facility and directed into

replicate 3.8 m3

sample collection tubs via clean 3.8 cm internal diameter (ID) flexible hoses and

automated flow-controlled pneumatic diaphragm valves. The water was then filtered through

35 m plankton nets and the retained organisms collected and transferred to a 1 L sample bottle.

For samples collected in association with the JFE FS Intercomparison Test, the organisms were

then preserved and analyzed using a modification of GSI/SOP/MS/RA/SA/2 – Procedure for

Zooplankton Sample Analysis. For these preserved samples, the sample volume was adjusted to

ensure that there were 100 – 200 organisms present in a single 1 mL subsample (i.e.,

macrozooplankton and microzooplankton were analyzed on the same slide), the entire slide was

examined counting all the zooplankton present, and this procedure was repeated three times for a

total of three replicate slides per sample. For samples collected in association with the

BallastAce® BWMS Status Test, analysis took place in accordance with GSI/SOP/MS/RA/SA/2 -

Procedure for Zooplankton Sample Analysis.

GSI/LB/QAQC/TR/JFE


of 146

Samples for analysis of organisms ≥ 10 and < 50 µm were collected according to

GSI/SOP/LB/RA/SC/7 - Procedure for Protist and Microbial Sample Collection Using Seep

Samplers. Briefly, sample water was directed into replicate, 19 L plastic carboys via a tube

branching off the main line of each sample port. A 1 L sample was then collected from each

carboy and the sample, in the case of the JFE FS Intercomparison Test, preserved within 1.5

hours of sample collection by adding 10 mL Lugol’s solution to the sample and mixing well by

inverting several times. Preserved samples were analyzed as soon as possible following receipt

of the samples by the protist taxonomists. Only those cells with intact cellular contents were

counted and presumed to have been alive at the time of sample collection. In the case of samples

collected in association with the BallastAce® BWMS Status Test, samples were not preserved.

Analysis took place according to GSI/SOP/MS/RA/SA/1 - Procedure for Protist Sample Analysis.

Samples for analysis of organisms < 10 µm were collected according to GSI/SOP/LB/RA/SC/7 -

Procedure for Protist and Microbial Sample Collection Using Seep Samplers. To quantify

culturable, aerobic, heterotrophic bacteria, GSI analysts followed procedures detailed in

GSI/SOP/BS/RA/MA/7 – Procedure for Quantifying Heterotrophic Plate Counts (HPC) Using

the Spread Plate Method.

3.2.4 Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET) and Disinfection Byproducts (DBPs)

GSI analyzed treatment discharge samples for WET relative to Test Cycles 1, 4, 5, and 7 of the

BallastAce® BWMS Status Test following standard USEPA freshwater WET test methods

(USEPA, 2002; Table 7). Three freshwater species were used as test organisms: the cladoceran

Ceriodaphnia dubia, the fathead minnow Pimephales promelas and the green alga Selenastrum

capricornutum. Samples were collected and analyzed according to the following SOPs:

GSI/SOP/BS/RA/WET/1 - Procedure for Assessing Chronic Residual Toxicity of a Ballast

Treatment System to Ceriodaphnia dubia; GSI/SOP/BS/RA/WET/2 - Procedure for Assessing

Chronic Residual Toxicity of a Ballast Treatment System to the Fathead Minnow (Pimephales

promelas), and GSI/SOP/BS/RA/WET/3 - Procedure for Assessing Chronic Residual Toxicity of a

Ballast Treatment System to the Green Alga (Selenastrum capricornutum. A standard dilution

series was utilized for treated and neutralized whole effluent (i.e., 0 %, 6.25 %, 12.5 %, 25 %,

50 %, and 100 %). For Test Cycles 4, 5, and 7 a “Facility Control” was also utilized. The Facility

Control was whole effluent collected following discharge of the control retention tank, and was

used to determine if the GSI Facility was a contributing factor to any toxicity resulting from the

treated and neutralized discharge. In addition, commercially-purchased C. dubia were used for

WET tests conducted during Test Cycles 4, 5, and 7 (Table 9). C. dubia cultured in-house were

used during Test Cycle 1 (Table 9). Table 9 summarizes the experimental methods associated

with each of the four sets of WET tests.

Samples for analysis of DBPs were collected during the test cycles of the BallastAce® BWMS

Status Test that also involved analysis of WET (i.e., Test Cycles 1, 4, 5, and 7; Table 7).

Samples for analysis of DBPs were stored in coolers on ice as soon as possible after collection,

and subsequently transferred to the appropriate sample containers by a GSI Chemist. The

samples were then preserved, based on the appropriate method, and shipped cold to ALS

Environmental (Middletown, Pennsylvania) for analysis of the following DBPs: trihalomethanes,

haloacetic acids, haloacetonitriles (sub-contracted; analysis conducted by Weck Laboratories,

Inc.; City of Industry, California), sodium chlorate, sodium bromate, and total sodium.

GSI/LB/QAQC/TR/JFE


of 146

Table 6. Operational, Water Chemistry/Quality, and Biological Data/Samples Collected per Filter System (FS) during each Test Cycle of the JFE FS Intercomparison Test.

Treatment Analysis Category

Parameter Sample Type Number of

Samples Sample Volume GSI Facility: Sample Location

Harbor Water (Pre-Test)

Water Chemistry

Total Suspended Solids (TSS) Discrete Grab 1

0.9 L - 1 L SP#2c

Particulate Organic Carbon (POC) 110 – 125 mL

Pre-Filter System

Operational Flow Rate

In-Line, Continuous ---- ---- Various Locations

Throughout Facility Pressure

Water Chemistry

Total Suspended Solids (TSS) and Percent Transmittance (%T)

Discrete Grab 3

(Beginning, Middle, End*)

0.9 L - 1 L SP#3c

Dissolved Organic Carbon (DOC) and Particulate Organic Carbon (POC)

Discrete Grab 3

(Beginning, Middle, End*)

100 mL -125 mL SP#3c

Biology

Organisms ≥ 50 µm1 Time-Integrated 1 3 m

3 ± 5 %

Sample Collection Tub #4 via SP#3a and Tub #5 via SP#3b (as backup)

Organisms ≥ 10 µm to < 50 µm1

Time-Integrated; 19 L Carboy

1 0.9 L - 1 L Carboy via SP#3a and SP#3b (as

backup)

Filter Systems Operational Backflush Volume

In-Line, Continuous ---- ---- Filter System Backflush Frequency

Post-Filter System

Water Chemistry


Discrete Grab

3 (Beginning,

Middle, End*) 0.9 L – 1 L

SP#10c

Dissolved Organic Carbon (DOC) and Particulate Organic Carbon (POC)

3 (Beginning,

Middle, End*) 100 mL -125 mL

Biology

Organisms ≥ 50 µm1 Time-Integrated 1 3 m

3 ± 5 %

Sample Collection Tub #3 via SP#10a and Tub #2 via SP#10b (as

backup)

Organisms ≥ 10 µm to < 50 µm1


2 0.9 L – 1 L Carboy via SP#10a and via SP#10b

1 Samples were preserved for analysis at a later date.

*During Test Cycle 4 using the K Candle Filter, only the beginning and middle samples were collected; the duration of the test was reduced because of a very high backflush rate that caused backflush water to flood the GSI Facility during the test.

GSI/LB/QAQC/TR/JFE


of 146

Table 7. Operational, Water Chemistry/Quality, and Biological Data/Samples Collected during each Test Cycle of the JFE BallastAce® Ballast Water Management System (BWMS) Status Test.

Operation Treatment Analysis Category


Samples Sample Volume

GSI Facility: Sample Location

Intake

Harbor Water (Pre-Test)

Water Chemistry

Total Suspended Solids (TSS) Discrete Grab 1

0.9 L - 1 L SP#2c

Particulate Organic Carbon (POC) 115 – 125 mL

Biology Organisms ≥ 10 µm to < 50 µm Discrete Grab 1 0.9 L – 1 L SP#2c

2 (1 per pond) ~50 mL Algae Pond #1 and #2

Pre-BWMS

Operational

Flow Rate In-Line, Continuous

---- ---- Various Locations Throughout

Facility Inlet /outlet Pressure

Retention Tank Volume Calculated Based on Flow Rate

---- ---- ---- Sample Collection Tub Volume

Water Quality

Temperature, Dissolved Oxygen, pH, Turbidity, Salinity, Specific Conductivity, Total Chlorophyll

Discrete (Sample Collection Tub)

---- 0.5 L – 0.6 L Sample Collection Tub #4 and #5

Water Chemistry

Total Residual Oxidants (TRO) and Total Residual Chlorine (TRC)

Discrete Grab

4 (1, 3, 10, and 30 min.) for

Test Cycle (TC) 1-6; 5 (1, 3, 10,

30, and 55 min.) for TC7

and 8

0.9 L – 1 L SP#3c


Discrete Grab 3 (Beginning, Middle, End)

0.9 L - 1 L

SP#3c Dissolved Organic Carbon (DOC) and Particulate Organic Carbon

(POC) Discrete Grab

3 (Beginning, Middle, End)

100 mL -125 mL

Biology

Organisms ≥ 50 µm Time-Integrated 1 3 m3

± 5 %

Sample Collection Tub #4 via SP#3a

(Tub #5 via SP#3b used as backup)

Organisms ≥ 10 µm to < 50 µm Time-Integrated;

19 L Carboy 1 0.9 L -1 L

Carboy via SP#3a (Carboy via SP#3b used as backup)

GSI/LB/QAQC/TR/JFE


of 146





Organisms < 10 µm (Total Culturable Heterotrophic

Bacteria)


3

BWMS Operational/

Water Chemistry

TRO Concentration

In-Line, Continuous

---- ---- BWMS Chemical Injection Flow Rate

Ballast Water Flow Rate

Differential Pressure

Post-BWMS Water

Chemistry


Discrete Grab

4 (1, 3, 10, and 30 min.) for

TC1-6; 5 (1, 3, 10, 30, and 55 min.) for TC7

and 8

0.9 L – 1 L SP#15

Total Suspended Solids (TSS), and Percent Transmittance (%T)

3 (beginning, middle and

end) 0.9 L – 1 L SP#15

Dissolved Organic Carbon (DOC) and Particulate Organic Carbon

(POC)

3 (beginning, middle and

end)

100 mL – 125 mL

SP#15

Retention

Water Quality


Continuous Measurement

Data logged every 15 minutes

N/A – Measurement

Control and Treatment Tanks Water

Chemistry Total Residual Oxidants (TRO) and

Total Residual Chlorine (TRC) Discrete Grab

2 (24 and 48 hours)

0.9 L – 1 L

Discharge

BWMS Operational/

Water Chemistry

TRO Concentration In-Line,

Continuous ---- ---- BWMS

Ballast Water Flow Rate

GSI Facility Operational

Flow Rate In-Line, Continuous

---- ---- Various Locations Throughout

Facility Pressure

Retention Tank Volume Calculated Based on Flow Rate

---- ---- ---- Sample Collection Tub Volume

Treatment Discharge

Water Chemistry/

Water Quality


Discrete Measurement

(Sample Collection Tub)

1 0.6 L – 1 L Sample Collection Tubs #4, #5,

and #6

GSI/LB/QAQC/TR/JFE


of 146






Discrete Grab

4 (1, 3, 10, and 25 min.) for

TC1-6; 5 (1, 3, 10, 30, and 50 min.) for TC7

and 8

0.9 L – 1 L

SP#15 Total Suspended Solids (TSS) and Percent Transmittance (%T)


0.9 L – 1 L


(POC) Discrete Grab


100 mL -125 mL

Disinfection Byproducts3: Test

Cycles 1, 4, 5, and 7 Discrete Grab


1.9 – 2.0 L

Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET): Test Cycles 1, 4, 5, and 7

Time-Integrated 2 2, 19 L Carboys

(38 L total) Sample Collection Tub #6 via SP

#10a

Biology

Organisms ≥ 50 µm Time-Integrated 1 ≥ 6 m

3 ± 5 % (2

tubs with ≥ 3 m

3/tub)

Sample Collection Tub #4 & #5 via SP#10c/b

(Sample Collection Tub #6 via SP#10a used as a backup)


19 L Carboy 3

0.9 L -1 L; Composite 3

Reps Carboys via SP#10c/b/a

Organisms < 10 µm (Total Culturable Heterotrophic

Bacteria)


3 0.9 L - 1 L

Control Discharge

Water Chemistry/

Water Quality


Discrete Measurement

(Sample Collection Tub)

1 0.6 L – 1 L Sample Collection Tub #1 and #2



0.9 L – 1 L SP#9a


(POC) Discrete Grab


100 mL -125 mL

SP#9a

Total Residual Oxidants (TRO) and Discrete Grab 4 (1, 3, 10, and 0.9 L – 1 L SP#9a

GSI/LB/QAQC/TR/JFE


of 146





Total Residual Chlorine (TRC) 30 min.) for TC1-6; 5 (1, 3, 10, 30, and 55 min.) for TC7

and 8

Whole Effluent Toxicity (Facility Control): Test Cycles 4, 5, and 7

Time-Integrated 1 19 L Sample Collection Tub #2 via

SP9b

Disinfection Byproducts3: Test

Cycles 1, 4, 5, and 7 Discrete Grab


1.9 – 2.0 L SP#9a

Biology

Organisms ≥ 50 µm Time-Integrated 1 3 m3

± 5 %

Sample Collection Tub #1 via SP#9c

(Sample Collection Tub #2 via SP#9b used as a backup)


19 L Carboy 1

0.9 L - 1 L Carboy via SP#9c (Carboy via

SP#9b used as a backup) Organisms < 10 µm

(Total Culturable Heterotrophic Bacteria)


3

After Treatment Discharge:

Wastewater Tank (Test

Cycle 1)

Water Quality/ Water

Chemistry

Evaluation of BWMS Impact on City of Superior Wastewater

Treatment Facility*1

Discrete Grab

1 0.9 L – 1 L Wastewater Tank

Biochemical Oxygen Demand, Total Suspended Solids, Phosphorous, and pH*

2

1 0.9 L – 1 L “Discharge Monitoring Sample

Point” from Wastewater Storage Tank Discharge

After Treatment Discharge:

Wastewater Tank (Test

Cycles 1 - 8)

Water Quality/ Water

Chemistry

pH*

Discrete Grab

1

N/A - pH will be measured in

the TSS sample.

Wastewater Tank Prior to Discharge

Total Residual Chlorine (TRC)* 1 0.9 L – 1 L

Total Suspended Solids (TSS)* 1 0.9 L – 1 L

*Samples collected to meet state and/or city permitting requirements. 1Analyzed by staff at the City of Superior Wastewater Treatment Facility.

2Analyzed by Era Laboratories (Duluth, MN).

3Analyzed by ALS Environmental (Middletown, PA).

GSI/LB/QAQC/TR/JFE


of 146

Table 8. Operational Data/Samples Collected during each Test Cycle of the JFE F Panel Durability Test.

Treatment Analysis Category



Sample Location

During Sea-to-Sea Operation

GSI Facility Flow Rate

In-Line, Continuous ---- ---- Various Locations Throughout Facility Pressure

Pre- and Post-Test

Filter Condition

Filter Element Surface Damage

Photograph 1 Photograph per

Test Session N/A

Filter element removed and photographed using a camera connected to a dissecting

microscope

Filter Brush Arm Weight

Dry Weight (to nearest 1g)

4 (2 before and 2 after test)

N/A N/A

Table 9. Test Cycles Selected for Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET) Testing and Associated Experimental Methods as Part of the JFE BallastAce®

Ballast Water Management System (BWMS) Status Test.

Test Cycle Performance Control Facility

Control?

Test Species: Cultured or Purchased?

Comments Ceriodaphnia dubia Pimephales promelas

Selenastrum capricornutum

1 (Granular #1)

YES, per GSI SOPs NO CULTURED PURCHASED (Environmental

Consulting & Testing, Inc.; Superior, WI)

CULTURED

High suspended solids concentration in effluent due to

operator error prior to intake operation.

4 (Liquid; Low

Dose/High Flow) YES, per GSI SOPs YES

PURCHASED (Environmental Consulting & Testing, Inc.;

Superior, WI)


Superior, WI) CULTURED

Purchased C. dubia were cultured in moderately-hard reconstituted

water; PCW was hard reconstituted water.

5 (Granular #2)

YES, per GSI SOPs YES PURCHASED (Environmental



Superior, WI) CULTURED

Purchased C. dubia were cultured in moderately-hard reconstituted

water; PCW was hard reconstituted water.

7 (Liquid; High

Dose/Low Flow

YES, changed C. dubia performance control

water (PCW) to Moderately-Hard Water

YES PURCHASED (Environmental



Superior, WI) CULUTRED No comments.

GSI/LB/QAQC/TR/JFE


of 146

3.3 Data Processing, Storage, Verification and Validation

GSI personnel recorded sample collection and analysis data by hand (using indelible ink) on pre-

printed data collection forms and/or in bound laboratory notebooks that were uniquely-identified

and specific to the JFE BallastAce® BWMS and components tests. The GSI Engineer recorded

relevant information and data generated from operation of the JFE BallastAce® BWMS and

components in a bound laboratory notebook that was uniquely-identified (i.e., coded) and specific

to the series of three tests.

Completed data collection forms were secured in uniquely-identified three ring binders, specific to

the JFE BallastAce® BWMS and components tests. Biological and water chemistry data that were

recorded by hand were manually entered into either a Microsoft Access Database that was designed,

developed, and is maintained by the GSI Database Manager, or the data were entered into a

Microsoft Excel spreadsheet.

A percentage of biological, chemical, and operational data that was recorded by hand and entered

into Microsoft Access or Excel was verified against the original raw data by the GSI Senior Quality

Assurance/Quality Control (QAQC) Officer. This procedure also included verification of the

accuracy of computer-generated data through hand-calculation. The percentage of verified raw data

depended upon the amount of raw data that was generated, and ranged from 10 % to 100 % of the

original raw data.

All electronic data files are stored on the LSRI’s secured Local Area Network (LAN) that can be

accessed only by relevant GSI personnel. The GSI Database Manager is the single point of control

for access to the LSRI LAN. The LSRI LAN is automatically backed up every 24 hours. The

electronic data files are also stored on the GSI’s internal SharePoint website

(greatshipsinitiative.net), which acts as a secondary data backup/storage mechanism. The GSI

Senior QAQC Officer is responsible for archiving and storing all original raw data applicable to the

JFE BallastAce® BWMS and components tests in a climate-controlled, secure archive room at the

LSRI for a period seven years.

4 RESULTS: JFE FILTER SYSTEM INTERCOMPARISON TEST

4.1 Operational Performance

4.1.1 Fuji Candle Filter (F Candle)

GSI personnel did not observe any maintenance or operational issues during the four test cycles

conducted using the F Candle FS. Figure 5 shows a graphical example of the flow rate and pressure

(pre- and post-FS) over the entire duration of Test Cycle 3 of the JFE FS Intercomparison Test

(graphs from Test Cycles 1, 2, and 4 are available on request. During Test Cycle 3 there were five

backflush cycles, occurring approximately every 10 – 15 minutes during the operation. After each

backflush cycle the F Candle FS returned back to a steady state with relatively low variability in

operating conditions.

http://www.greatshipsinitiative.info/

GSI/LB/QAQC/TR/JFE


of 146

Figure 5. Time-Dependent Operational Data from Test Cycle 3 of the JFE FS Intercomparison Test using the Candle Filter by Fuji Manufacturing Company, Ltd. (F Candle).

Table 10 summarizes the operational measurements that were made during each of the four test

cycles involving the F Candle FS, and the overall average for the JFE FS Intercomparison Test.

The four test cycles ranged in duration from 67 to 74 minutes. Test Cycle 3 was slightly longer than

the other three test cycles because GSI paused the operation for 7 minutes to troubleshoot the GSI

Facility’s Organism Diaphragm Injection System. The average pre-treatment pressure met GSI’s

target of 2 bar (Table 10). The differential pressure did not vary between test cycles and averaged

0.68 bar (Table 10). The post-treatment flow rate for all four test cycles was within 10 % of the GSI

target of 311 m3/hour (Table 10). The backflush flow rate, based on the volume of backflush water

collected in the backflush water tank, ranged from 1.6 m3/hour to 5.2 m

3/hour, for an average of 3.1

m3/hour (Table 10).

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

0.00

50.00

100.00

150.00

200.00

250.00

300.00

350.00

400.00

0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0

Pre

ss

ure

(B

ar)

Flo

w (

M^

3)

Time (min)

Flow and Pressure

Pre Filter Flow (m^3/hr) Post Filter Flow (m^3/hr) Post Filter Pressure (bar) Pre Filter Pressure (bar)

GSI/LB/QAQC/TR/JFE


of 146

Table 10. Summary of Operational Measurements and Data Collected during the Four Test Cycles of the JFE FS Intercomparison Test using the Candle Filter by Fuji Manufacturing Company, Ltd. (F Candle).

Parameter Units Test Cycle 1 Test Cycle 2 Test Cycle 3 Test Cycle 4 Average

Date and Start Time --- 18-Sep-14 09:22:20

22-Sep-14 12:17:30

24-Sep-14 09:00:40

25-Sep-14 14:38:30

---

Duration min 67.50 66.83 73.67 67.00 68.75

Pre-Treatment Line Pressure (Average ± Std. Deviation)

bar 1.98 ± 0.05 2.00 ± 0.04 1.99 ± 0.05 1.98 ± 0.08 1.99 ± 0.05

Post-Treatment Line Pressure (Average ± Std. Deviation)

bar 1.31 ± 0.07 1.32 ± 0.05 1.31 ± 0.06 1.30 ± 0.08 1.31 ± 0.07

Differential Pressure (Average ± Std. Deviation)

bar 0.67 ± 0.06 0.68 ± 0.05 0.68 ± 0.06 0.68 ± 0.06 0.68 ± 0.06

Pre-Treatment Flow Rate (Average ± Std. Deviation)

m3/hour 316 ± 10 319 ± 8 317 ± 10 322 ± 12 319 ± 10

Post-Treatment Flow Rate (Average ± Std. Deviation)

m3/hour 307 ± 5 312 ± 4 309 ± 5 311 ± 6 310 ± 5

Backflush Flow Rate (Volumetric Calculation)

m3/hour 2.6 1.6 2.9 5.2 3.1

Volume Treated (Filtered) m3 346 348 348 348 348

4.1.2 Kanagawa Candle Filter (K Candle)

GSI personnel did not observe any maintenance or operational issues during the four test cycles of

the JFE FS Intercomparison Test conducted using the K Candle FS. Figure 6 shows a graphical

example of the flow rate and pressure (pre- and post-FS) over the entire duration of Test Cycle 3

(graphs from Test Cycles 1, 2, and 4 are available on request). During Test Cycle 3 there were

numerous backflush cycles, starting approximately every five minutes during the first part of the

operation and ending with nearly continuous backflushing. Due to the frequency of backflush

cycles during this particular test cycle, the FS did not have the opportunity to return to steady-state

conditions in between each backflush cycle.

GSI/LB/QAQC/TR/JFE


of 146

Figure 6. Time-Dependent Operational Data from Test Cycle 3 of the JFE FS Intercomparison Test using the Candle Filter by Kanagawa Kiki Kogyo Company, Ltd. (K Candle).


cycles involving the K Candle FS, and the overall average for the JFE FS Intercomparison Test.

The test cycles ranged in duration from 69 to 35 minutes (Table 11). Test Cycle 4 was

approximately half the length of the other three test cycles (Table 11). During Test Cycle 4, the K

Candle FS was backflushing more water than the GSI backflush volume containment tub could

accommodate. As a result, GSI truncated the test duration to one-half of the planned duration. The

average pre-treatment pressure was 1.97 bar, which was acceptably close to GSI’s target of 2 bar

(Table 11). The differential pressure did not vary substantially between Test Cycles 1-3, but jumped

to 1.03 bar during Test Cycle 4 (Table 11). The post-treatment flow rate for the first three test

cycles were within 10 % of the GSI target flow rate of 309 m3/hour (Table 11). During Test Cycle

4, flow rates fell below the target due to the constant backflushing (Table 11). The backflush flow

rate, based on the volume of backflush water collected in the backflush water tank, ranged from

31.7 m3/hour to as high as 63.4 m

3/hour over the four test cycles, for an average of 40.4 m

3/hour

(Table 11).

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

0.00

50.00

100.00

150.00

200.00

250.00

300.00

350.00

400.00

450.00

0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0

Pre

ss

ure

(B

ar)

Flo

w (

M^

3)

Time (min)

Flow and Pressure


GSI/LB/QAQC/TR/JFE


of 146

Table 11. Summary of Operational Measurements and Data Collected during the Four Test Cycles of the JFE FS Intercomparison Test using the Candle Filter by Kanagawa Kiki Kogyo Company, Ltd. (K Candle).



22-Sep-14 09:14:40

24-Sep-14 14:50:10

25-Sep-14 12:14:30

---

Duration min 69.17 71.50 71.50 36.50 62.17


bar 1.99 ± 0.02 1.99 ± 0.08 1.94 ± 0.10 1.96 ± 0.22 1.97 ± 0.10


bar 1.34 ± 0.04 1.26 ± 0.09 1.20 ± 0.10 0.93 ± 0.31 1.18 ± 0.14


bar 0.64 ± 0.05 0.73 ± 0.11 0.74 ± 0.11 1.03 ± 0.49 0.78 ± 0.19


m3/hour 355 ± 1 339 ± 16 354 ± 23 336 ± 48 346 ± 22


m3/hour 313 ± 1 303 ± 11 296 ± 11 246 ± 64 290 ± 22


m3/hour 31.7 32.1 34.5 63.4 40.4


4.1.3 Fuji Panel Filter (F Panel)

On 18 September 2014 (i.e., after Test Cycle 1 of the JFE FS Intercomparison Test), JFE

Engineering disassembled and inspected the F Panel FS. Other than this inspection event, GSI

personnel did not observe any maintenance or operational issues during the remaining three test

cycles conducted using the F Panel FS. Figure 7 shows a graphical example of the flow rate and

pressure (pre- and post-FS) over the entire duration of Test Cycle 3 of the JFE FS Intercomparison

Test (graphs from Test Cycles 1, 2, and 4 are available on request). During Test Cycle 3 there were

21 backflush cycles, occurring approximately every five minutes during the first part of the

operation and ending with backflush cycles approximately every two minutes. After each backflush

cycle the F Panel FS returned back to a relatively steady state with low variability in operating

conditions.

GSI/LB/QAQC/TR/JFE


of 146

Figure 7. Time-Dependent Operational Data from Test Cycle 3 of the JFE FS Intercomparison Test using the Fuji Filter Manufacturing Company, Ltd. (F Panel).


cycles of the JFE FS Intercomparison Test involving the F Panel FS, and the overall average. The

test cycles ranged in duration from 63 to 70 minutes (Table 12). The average pre-treatment pressure

was 1.98 bar, which met GSI’s target of 2 bar (Table 12). The differential pressure did not vary

substantially between test cycles and averaged 0.68 bar (Table 12). The post-treatment flow rate for

all four test cycles was within 10 % of the GSI target flow rate of 311 m3/hour (Table 12). The

backflush flow rate, which was only measured for two of the four test cycles, averaged 11 m3/hour

(Table 12).

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

0.00

50.00

100.00

150.00

200.00

250.00

300.00

350.00

400.00

0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0

Pre

ss

ure

(B

ar)

Flo

w (

M^

3)

Time (min)

Flow and Pressure

Pre Filter Flow (m^3/hr) Post Filter Flow (m^3/hr)

GSI/LB/QAQC/TR/JFE


of 146

Table 12. Summary of Operational Measurements and Data Collected during the Four Test Cycles of the JFE FS Intercomparison Test using the Panel Filter by Fuji Filter Manufacturing Company, Ltd. (F Panel).

NM = Not Measured.



22-Sep-14 15:16:50

24-Sep-14 12:00:10

25-Sep-14 09:03:10

---

Duration min 63.33 69.17 70.00 69.67 68.04


bar 1.99 ± 0.03 1.98 ± 0.04 1.97 ± 0.04 1.98 ± 0.05 1.98 ± 0.04


bar 1.32 ± 0.06 1.31 ± 0.05 1.29 ± 0.06 1.28 ± 0.05 1.30 ± 0.06


bar 0.67 ± 0.06 0.67 ± 0.06 0.68 ± 0.06 0.70 ± 0.05 0.68 ± 0.06


m3/hour 320 ± 5 320 ± 6 317 ± 7 318 ± 7 319 ± 6


m3/hour 313 ± 4 313 ± 4 309 ± 4 309 ± 4 311 ± 4


m3/hour NM 8.0 14.0 NM 11.0


4.2 Operational Filter Performance Comparison

Figure 8 presents the comparison of the F Candle, K Candle, and F Panel FS’ average differential

pressures as measured during all four test cycles of the JFE FS Intercomparison Test. The F Candle

and F Panel FSs had very similar differential pressure averages of approximately 0.65 bar (Figure

8). The K Candle FS had the highest differential pressure average of nearly 0.8 bar (Figure 8).

GSI/LB/QAQC/TR/JFE


of 146

Figure 8. Comparison of the Average (± Standard Deviation) Differential Pressure Across Filter Types Measured During the Four Test Cycles of the JFE FS Intercomparison Test.

Figure 9 shows the comparison of the ratio (expressed as a percentage) of the backflush and post-

treatment flow rates for the F Candle, K Candle, and F Panel FSs during all four test cycles of the

JFE FS Intercomparison Test. The F Candle FS had the least amount of water lost to backflush with

1 % on average. The F Candle FS performed very consistently with respect to water lost to

backflush, with values ranging from 0.5 % to 1.7 %. The F Panel FS performed less consistently

with respect to this parameter, with approximately 3.5 % of the flow lost to backflush on average

(Figure 9). The backflush volume was not measured during two of the test cycles due to operator

error, therefore, the average water lost to backflush was based on n=2 rather than n=4. During Test

Cycle 2, 2.6 % of the post-treatment water was lost to backflush and during Test Cycle 3, 4.5 % of

the water was lost to backflush. The K Candle FS had the highest amount of water lost to backflush

with 14.5 % on average (Figure 9) and a range of 10.1 % to 25.7 %.

GSI/LB/QAQC/TR/JFE


of 146

Figure 9. Comparison of the Average Ratio (%, ± Standard Deviation) of Backflush Flow Rate and Post-Treatment Flow Rate Measured Across Filter Types During the Four Test Cycles of the JFE FS

Intercomparison Test.

4.3 Solids Removal Performance and Water Quality Data 4.3.1 Fuji Candle Filter (F Candle)

Table 13 summarizes the water quality data, including solids removal performance, from the four

test cycles of the JFE FS Intercomparison Test utilizing the F Candle FS. Overall, the pre-treatment

(i.e., pre-filter) water quality conditions were very similar during the entire test. Post-treatment

water quality was very similar to pre-treatment water quality, with little to no removal of TSS,

POC, or MM (Table 13). The measured concentrations of NPOC and POC concentrations in the

post-treatment water were not different from the pre-treatment water (Table 13) across test cycles.

GSI/LB/QAQC/TR/JFE


of 146

Table 13. Summary of Water Quality Data and Solids Removal Performance of the Candle Filter by Fuji Manufacturing Company, Ltd. (F Candle) During the Four Test Cycles of the JFE FS Intercomparison Test.

Parameter Units Test Cycle 1 Test Cycle 2 Test Cycle 3 Test Cycle 4

Pre-Treatment TSS mg/L

31.5 ± 0.8 27.7 ± 1.1 29.9 ± 0.8 35.5 ± 1.1

Post-Treatment TSS 31.7 ± 1.2 27.7 ± 1.2 30.1 ± 1.1 35.1 ± 0.9

TSS Removal % -1 0 -1 1

Pre-Treatment POC mg/L

4.8 ± 1.6 5.9 ± 0.6 4.4 ± 0.9 5.6 ± 0.7

Post-Treatment POC 6.3 ± 0.2 6.3 ± 0.8 5.0 ± 1.0 5.5 ± 0.6

POC Removal % -31 -7 -14 2

Pre-Treatment MM mg/L

26.7 ± 1.8 21.8 ± 1.0 25.5 ± 0.7 29.9 ± 1.2

Post-Treatment MM 25.5 ± 1.1 21.3 ± 1.2 25.1 ± 0.2 29.7 ± 0.6

MM Removal % 4 2 2 1

Pre-Treatment %T, Filtered/Unfiltered

%

46.9 ± 0.2/ 39.0 ± 0.3

47.8 ± 0.2/ 39.9 ± 0.7

48.6 ± 0.2/ 40.9 ± 0.5

48.9 ± 0.2/ 39.8 ± 0.5

Post-Treatment %T, Filtered/Unfiltered

47.1 ± 0.1/ 39.2 ± 0.2

48.1 ± 0.2/ 39.9 ± 0.7

48.9 ± 0.2/ 41.1 ± 0.7

49.0 ± 0.1/ 40.2 ± 0.2

Pre-Treatment NPOC mg/L

12.0 ± 1.6 12.9 ± 0.7 11.7 ± 0.8 12.9 ± 0.7

Post-Treatment NPOC 13.5 ± 0.2 13.3 ± 0.7 12.2 ± 1.1 12.7 ± 0.7

Pre-Treatment DOC mg/L

7.2 ± 0.0 7.0 ± 0.1 7.2 ± 0.1 7.3 ± 0.0

Post-Treatment DOC 7.2 ± 0.1 7.0 ± 0.1 7.2 ± 0.1 7.2 ± 0.2

4.3.2 Kanagawa Candle Filter (K Candle)

Table 14 summarizes the water quality data and the solids removal performance from the four test

cycles of the JFE FS Intercomparison Test utilizing the K Candle FS. Due to continuous

backflushing during Test Cycle 3, the last set of grab samples that were collected from the pre- and

post-treatment line were collected during a backflush. Test Cycle 4 was terminated after the second

set of grab samples was collected; averages represent n=2. For all parameters except TSS and MM,

the pre-treatment water quality conditions were very similar during all four test cycles. Pre-

treatment TSS ranged from 27 to 43 mg/L (Table 14). Pre-treatment MM ranged from 23 to 37

mg/L (Table 14). The K Candle FS removed up to 23 % of the TSS and 28 % of the MM in the pre-

treatment water over the course of four test cycles (Table 14). Similar to the F Candle FS, there was

a greater concentration of NPOC and POC in the post-treatment water than in the pre-treatment

water (Table 14).

GSI/LB/QAQC/TR/JFE


of 146

Table 14. Summary of Water Quality Data and Solids Removal Performance of the Candle Filter by Kanagawa Kiki Kogyo Company, Ltd. (K Candle) During Four Test Cycles of the JFE FS Intercomparison

Test.

Parameter Units Test Cycle 1 Test Cycle 2 Test Cycle 3** Test Cycle 4^


27.3 ± 0.3 32.8 ± 1.0 38.5 ± 6.0 42.8 ± 17.4


TSS Removal % 3 2 4 23


4.5 ± 0.8 4.5 ± 0.8 4.8 ± 1.5*** 5.4 ± 0.6


POC Removal % -33 -67 -29 -7


22.8 ± 0.7 28.3 ± 1.4 31.7 ± 8.1*** 37.4 ± 16.8


MM Removal % 11 12 3 28


%

47.9 ± 0.8/ 39.8 ± 0.1

47.9 ± 0.3/ 38.1 ± 0.5

48.3 ± 0.3/ 37.6 ± 1.6

48.4 ± 0.0/ 40.3 ± 1.3


48.1 ± 0.5/ 40.0 ± 0.2

47.9 ± 0.3/ 38.2 ± 0.3

48.5 ± 0.3/ 37.7 ± 1.5

49.0 ± 0.0/ 41.3 ± 0.4


11.4 ± 0.9 11.6 ± 0.8 11.9 ± 1.5*** 12.7 ± 0.6



6.9 ± 0.2* 7.1 ± 0.1 7.1 ± 0.0 7.2 ± 0.0


*Two of the three replicate samples were refiltered and then reanalyzed. **The last set of grab samples that were collected (~60 min after the start of the operation) were collected during a backflush cycle. The filter was continuously backflushing plus backflushing due to differential pressure requirements; we were unable to collect a sample in between the differential backflush cycles as they were continuous near the end of the operation. This seems to have resulted in TSS values that were lower than the previous two samples by ~10 mg/L. ***The pre-filter sample that was collected ~30 min after the start of the operation had very high NPOC, POC, and MM values; these values were excluded as outliers potentially due to an analysis error. ^The operation was ended immediately after the second set of grab samples were collected. Due to a high backflush rate, the amount of water being pumped out of the backflush tank began to flood the GSI Facility and the operation was ended about halfway into the planned duration.

4.3.3 Fuji Panel Filter (F Panel)

Table 15 summarizes the water quality data and the solids removal performance from the four test

cycles of the JFE FS Intercomparison Test utilizing the F Panel FS. The pre-treatment water quality

conditions were very similar during all four test cycles for all parameters measured (Table 15). The

F Panel FS removed up to 1 % of the TSS and 5 % of the MM in the pre-treatment water over the

course of four test cycles (Table 15). As was the case with the other two FSs tested, there was a

greater concentration of NPOC and POC in the post-treatment water than in the pre-treatment water

(Table 15).

GSI/LB/QAQC/TR/JFE


of 146

Table 15. Summary of Water Quality Data and Solids Removal Performance of the Panel Filter by Fuji Filter Manufacturing Company, Ltd. (F Panel) During the Four Test Cycles of the JFE FS Intercomparison

Test.

Parameter Units Test Cycle 1 Test Cycle 2 Test Cycle 3 Test Cycle 4


33.2 ± 0.1 31.1 ± 1.6 33.0 ± 3.2 32.7 ± 0.4


TSS Removal % 0.3 1 -1 -1


5.8 ± 0.9 6.6 ± 2.6 4.3 ± 0.7 4.1 ± 1.4


POC Removal % -21 5 -44 -29


27.4 ± 1.0 24.5 ± 4.1 28.6 ± 3.1 28.6 ± 1.6


MM Removal % 5 0 5 3


%

48.5 ± 0.4/ 40.5 ± 0.1

48.1 ± 0.4/ 38.5 ± 0.5

48.2 ± 0.2/ 39.9 ± 1.2

48.2 ± 0.2/ 40.1 ± 0.2


48.8 ± 0.0/ 40.4 ± 0.1

47.9 ± 0.1/ 38.9 ± 0.6

48.3 ± 0.3/ 39.9 ± 1.3

48.3 ± 0.2/ 40.0 ± 0.2


12.5 ± 0.9 13.6 ± 2.7 11.4 ± 0.8 11.2 ± 1.3



6.7 ± 0.1 7.0 ± 0.1 7.1 ± 0.1 7.2 ± 0.1


4.4 Biological Performance

4.4.1 Protists (Organisms ≥ 10 µm and < 50 µm)

Across the four test cycles of the JFE FS Intercomparison Test, the total protist pre-FS density

ranged from 1,547 cells/mL to 2,826 cells/mL (Figure 10). Although there was no organism

injection during Test Cycles 3 and 4, intake densities far exceeded that of ETV requirements. Over

the course of four test cycles, the F Candle FS resulted in a range of 1,761 – 2,805 cells/mL in post-

FS samples (Figure 10). Similarly, the F Panel FS resulted in a range of 1,930 – 2,989 cells/mL in

post-FS samples and the K Candle FS resulted in a range of 1,406 – 2,430 cells/mL in post-FS

samples (Figure 10).

GSI/LB/QAQC/TR/JFE


of 146

Filter System

Test Cycle Average Pre-Filter Density,

Total Cells/mL (± Standard Deviation, n=2)

Average Post-Filter Density, Total Cells/mL

(± Standard Deviation, n=2)

F Candle

1 2,608 (64) 2,805 (17)

2 1,856 (347) 1,998 (254)

3 1,991 (56) 1,761 (111)

4 1,806 (399) 2,070 (429)

K Candle

1 2,806 (507) 2,214 (257)

2 2,305 (7) 2,430 (350)

3 1,547 (28) 1,992 (215)

4 1,601 (9) 1,406 (81)

F Panel

1 2,826 (573) 2,989 (670)

2 1,843 (256) 2,473 (188)

3 2,003 (176) 1,930 (16)

4 1,764 (259) 1,954 (288)

Figure 10. Graph Depicting Average (± Standard Deviation) Pre- and Post-Filter Total Density of Protist

Cells During Four Test Cycles of the JFE FS Intercomparison Test. Companion table shows average densities (pre- and post-filter).

GSI/LB/QAQC/TR/JFE


of 146

4.4.2 Zooplankton (Organisms ≥ 50 µm)

Zooplankton present in the freshwater DSH fall into two distinct size subcategories:

macrozooplankton, in which all individuals are substantially ≥ 50 µm in minimum dimension; and

microzooplankton, in which most individuals are ≥ 50 µm in minimum dimension and a relatively

small proportion of the population, approximately 5 % in this study (data not presented), may be <

50 µm in minimum dimension. These smaller organisms (< 50 µm in minimum dimension) were

not excluded from this analysis. As such, results from the JFE FS Intercomparison Test are

presented as follows: macrozooplankton, microzooplankton, and total zooplankton (i.e.,

macrozooplankton plus microzooplankton).

4.4.2.1 Macrozooplankton Only

Across the four test cycles of the JFE FS Intercomparison Test, the total macrozooplankton pre-FS

density ranged from 19,600 m3 to 70,100/m

3 (Figure 11). There was a clear reduction in total

macrozooplankton density in post-FS samples, total density ranged from 707/m3 to 16,400/m

3

(Figure 11).

4.4.2.2 Microzooplankton Only

Across the four test cycles of the JFE FS Intercomparison Test, the total microzooplankton pre-

filter density ranged from 14,900/m3 to 309,000/m

3 (Figure 12). There were two FSs during Test

Cycle 3 that had pre-FS densities of microzooplankton that were quite low, i.e., 14,900/m3 (K

Candle, Figure 12) and 32,000/m3 (F Panel, Figure 12), due to a shift in current flow in the harbor.

The total microzooplankton density in post-FS samples ranged from 8,160/m3 to as high as

313,000/m3 (Figure 12).

4.4.2.3 Total Zooplankton

The total pre-FS zooplankton density ranged from 40,300/m3 to 376,000/m

3 during the four test

cycles (Figure 13). There were two FSs during Test Cycle 3 that had total zooplankton densities as

low as 40,300/m3 (i.e., K Candle, Figure 13) and 52,400/m

3 (i.e., F Panel, Figure 13) due to the low

density of microzooplankton. With the exception of these two FSs during Test Cycle 3, all other test

cycles had intake densities that exceeded the ETV requirements. The total zooplankton density in

post-FS samples ranged from 8,860/m3 to 314,000/m

3 (Figure 13).

GSI/LB/QAQC/TR/JFE


of 146

Filter

System Test Cycle

Average Pre-Filter Density, Total #/m

3 (± SEM, n=3)

Average Post-Filter Density, Total #/m

3 (± SEM, n=3)

F Candle

1 48,100 (5,300) 14,200 (1,240)

2 29,600 (2,580) 8,070 (2,170)

3 19,600 (2,390) 4,080 (741)

4 31,700 (4,970) 10,800 (1,860)

K Candle

1 66,600 (4,390) 709 (709)

2 37,900 (3,320) 2,960 (924)

3 25,400 (1,560) 707 (237)

4 23,000 (1,770) 1,470 (658)

F Panel

1 70,100 (8,580) 16,400 (2,510)

2 37,400 (7,820) 13,000 (1,620)

3 20,400 (1,280) 5,180 (1,010)

4 23,800 (1,720) 4,580 (1,030)


Density of Macrozooplankton During Four Test Cycles of the JFE FS Intercomparison Test. Companion table shows average densities (pre- and post-filter).

GSI/LB/QAQC/TR/JFE


of 146

Filter

System Test Cycle


3 (± SEM, n=3)


3 (± SEM, n=3)

F Candle

1 257,000 (5,470) 245,000 (15,900)

2 145,000 (10,300) 133,000 (9,140)

3 144,000 (6,920) 168,000 (23,900)

4 165,000 (6,430) 202,000 (20,500)

K Candle

1 309,000 (16,400) 313,000 (30,100)

2 193,000 (6,350) 103,000 (7,940)

3 14,900 (1,880) 8,160 (660)

4 115,000 (6,090) 109,000 (2,970)

F Panel

1 270,000 (15,000) 222,000 (14,700)

2 104,000 (11,400) 87,900 (4,160)

3 32,000 (2,170) 36,500 (1,570)

4 115,000 (13,800) 54,500 (4,100)


Density of Microzooplankton During Four Test Cycles of the JFE FS Intercomparison Test. Companion table shows average densities (pre- and post-filter).

GSI/LB/QAQC/TR/JFE


of 146

Filter

System Test Cycle


3 (± SEM, n=3)


3 (± SEM, n=3)

F Candle

1 305,000 (10,700) 259,000 (16,400)

2 175,000 (10,100) 141,000 (9,750)

3 164,000 (8,560) 172,000 (23,500)

4 197,000 (10,500) 212,000 (19,000)

K Candle

1 376,000 (17,000) 314,000 (30,200)

2 231,000 (3,210) 106,000 (7,490)

3 40,300 (1,940) 8,860 (800)

4 138,000 (5,770) 110,000 (3,020)

F Panel

1 340,000 (21,700) 238,000 (17,100)

2 142,000 (8,140) 101,000 (3,720)

3 52,400 (2,290) 41,700 (1,380)

4 139,000 (15,200) 59,100 (3,750)


Density of Zooplankton (i.e., Microzooplankton plus Macrozooplankton) During Four Test Cycles of the JFE FS Intercomparison Test. Companion table shows average densities (pre- and post-filter).

4.5 Test Validity and Data Quality Objectives

4.5.1 Test Validity

Table 16 shows the water quality and biology target values and results for pre-FS water measured

during the JFE FS Intercomparison Test. The target values were met for all water quality

parameters (i.e., TSS, POC, DOC, and MM) measured during the entire evaluation of the three FS

GSI/LB/QAQC/TR/JFE


of 146

tests. The minimum target value for the ≥ 10 µm and < 50 µm size class, i.e., protists, was met for

all FS test cycles based on total density determined in preserved samples. For the ≥ 50 µm size

class, i.e., zooplankton, the minimum target was met for all FSs except Test Cycle 3 involving the

K Candle FS where total intake density was 40,300/m3 and Test Cycle 3 involving the F Panel FS

where total intake density was 53,400/m3.

Table 16. Target Values and Results for GSI Challenge Water (Pre-Filter System) During JFE FS

Intercomparison Test.

Parameter Target Values for

GSI Challenge Water

Was Target Met for All Test Cycles?

Comments

Total Suspended Solids (mg/L)

> 24 YES Average pre-filter values ranged

from 27.3 – 42.8 mg/L during the entire evaluation.

Particulate Organic Matter as Particulate

Organic Carbon (mg/L) > 4 YES

Average pre-filter values ranged from 4.1 – 6.6 mg/L during the

entire evaluation.

Dissolved Organic Matter as Dissolved


Average pre-filter values ranged from 6.9 – 7.3 mg/L during the

entire evaluation.

Mineral Matter (mg/L) > 20 YES Average pre-filter values ranged

from 21.8 – 37.4 mg/L during the entire evaluation.

Organisms ≥10 µm and < 50 µm

> 1,000/mL total cells

YES Average pre-filter values ranged

from 1,547 – 2,826 cells/mL during the entire evaluation.

Organisms ≥ 50 µm > 100,000/m

3 total

organisms

NO; Not met for K Candle TC3

or F Panel TC3

Average pre-filter values ranged from 40,300 – 376,000/m

3

during the entire evaluation.

4.5.2 Data Quality Indicators: Water Quality

During the JFE FS Intercomparison Test, quality control (QC) samples were collected for water

quality analyses only. Therefore, GSI used the following USEPA data quality indicators (applicable

to water quality analyses only) to determine compliance with the following data quality objectives:

precision, bias, accuracy, comparability, sensitivity and completeness. Data quality objectives and

acceptance criteria for each of these indicators are described in GSI/QAQC/QAPP/LB/1 - Quality

Assurance Project Plan for Great Ships Initiative (GSI) Land-Based Tests (GSI, 2013). Results of

the data quality analysis for QC samples analyzed during the JFE FS Intercomparison Test are

summarized in Table 17. In regards to TSS, NPOC, DOC, POC, and %T analyses, all data quality

objectives were met.

GSI/LB/QAQC/TR/JFE


of 146

Table 17. Data Quality Objectives, Criteria, and Results from Water Quality Analyses during the JFE FS Intercomparison Test.

Data Quality Indicator

Evaluation Process/Performance Measurement Data Quality

Objective Performance Measurement Result

Precision Samples (10 %) were collected and analyzed in

duplicate with performance measured by average relative percent difference (RPD).

< 20 % average RPD

Percentage of Samples Collected and Analyzed

in Duplicate: TSS: 11%

NPOC: 11% DOC: 11%

%T, Filtered: 11% %T, Unfiltered: 11%

TSS: 1.0%

NPOC: 6.1%

DOC: 2.6%

%T, Filtered: 0.2%

%T, Unfiltered: 0.4%

Bias, Filter Blanks

%T filter blanks were prepared by filtering deionized water samples (one per analysis date) using the

procedure outlined in GSI/SOP/BS/RA/C/8, v.3 “Sample Filtration”, and analyzed using the procedure outlined

in GSI/SOP/BS/RA/C/4, v.2 “Sample Analysis”.

> 98 % average % T

Number of %T Filter Blanks Analyzed: 5

Filter blank (%T): 99.6%

TSS filter blanks were prepared by filtering deionized water samples (one per analysis date) and then drying

and weighing the filter following the procedure outlined in GSI/SOP/BS/RA/C/8, v.3.

< 0.32 mg/L average TSS

Number of TSS Filter Blanks Analyzed: 5

Filter blank (TSS): Non-Detect

NPOC blanks were prepared by acidifying a volume of deionized water to 0.2 % with concentrated

hydrochloric acid and analyzed following the procedure outlined in GSI/SOP/BS/RA/C/3, v.4.

< 0.44 mg/L average NPOC

Number of NPOC Blanks Analyzed: 28

Blank (NPOC): 0.16 mg/L

DOC filter blanks were prepared by filtering deionized water samples (one per analysis date) and analyzed

following the procedure outlined in GSI/SOP/BS/RA/C/3, v.4.

< 0.44 mg/L average DOC

Number of DOC Filter Blanks Analyzed: 4

Filter blank (DOC): 0.20 mg/L

Accuracy

Samples (10 %) were spiked with a total organic carbon spiking solution with performance measured by

average spike-recovery (SPR).

75 %-125 % average SPR.

Percentage of NPOC/DOC Samples

Spiked: 21% NPOC/DOC: 103%

Performance was measured by average percent < 20 % average D. Percentage of Analysis TSS: 7.9%

GSI/LB/QAQC/TR/JFE


of 146

Data Quality Indicator

Evaluation Process/Performance Measurement Data Quality

Objective Performance Measurement Result

difference (%D) between all measured and nominal reference standard values.

Days Containing a Reference Standard:

TSS:100% NPOC: 100%

NPOC Reference Standard: 3.4% NPOC 10 mg/L

Standard: 1.5%

Representativeness All samples were collected, handled, and analyzed in

the same manner. Not Applicable –

Qualitative.

All water chemistry/quality samples were collected, handled, transported and analyzed in

the same manner (using the appropriate GSI SOPs).

Comparability Routine procedures were conducted according to

appropriate SOPs to ensure consistency between tests. Not Applicable –

Qualitative. The GSI SOPs listed in Table 13 were used for all

water chemistry and water quality analyses.

Completeness

Percentage of valid (i.e., collected, handled, analyzed correctly and meeting DQOs) water chemistry samples measured out of the total number of water chemistry

samples collected. Performance is measured by percent completeness (%C).

> 90 % C.

TSS: 98%

%T, Filtered: 98%

%T, Unfiltered: 98%

NPOC: 99%

DOC: 98%

POC: 97%

MM: 97%

Sensitivity The method detection limit (MDL) and limit of

quantification (LOQ) for each analyte and analytical method utilized was determined annually.

Not Applicable

TSS MDL: 0.64 mg/L; TSS LOQ: 2.12 mg/L

Determined 19 May 2014

NPOC/DOC MDL: 0.13 mg/L; NPOC/DOC LOQ: 0.44 mg/L

Determined 30 May 2014

GSI/LB/QAQC/TR/JFE


of 146

5 RESULTS: JFE BallastAce® BALLAST WATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM STATUS TEST

5.1 Test Cycles 1, 3 and 5: F Panel Filter and NEO-CHLOR® DICD BWMS 5.1.1 Intake Measurements 5.1.1.1 Operational Conditions

During intake of Test Cycles 1, 3, and 5 of the JFE BallastAce® BWMS Status Test, which

occurred on 15 September 2014, 02 October 2014, and 09 October 2014, respectively, the JFE

BallastAce® BWMS utilized the F Panel FS and NEO-CHLOR® DICD Granules as the active

substance formulation. The operational data measured during intake of these three test cycles are

summarized in Table 18. Figure 14 shows the pre- and post-FS flow rate and pressure data in real

time for Test Cycle 3 intake (real-time data from Test Cycles 1 and 5 are available on request). The

average duration of the intake operation was 35.39 minutes (Table 18). The pre-FS line pressure

was 1.93 bar on average, which was within 3.5 % of the target value of 2 bar (Table 18). The

differential pressure between the pre- and post-FS lines was 0.70 bar on average (Table 18). The

pre-FS flow rate ranged from 322 to 332 m3/hour (Table 18). The post-FS flow rate ranged from

308 to 320 m3/hour, all within 10 % of the target flow rate (i.e., 311 m

3/hour; Table 18). The

backflush flow rate ranged from 9 to 15 m3/hour, resulting in an average of 4 % of the post-FS

water lost to backflush (Table 18). The total volume of water treated was 188 m3 on average, while

the total volume of water in the control retention tank averaged 191 m3 (Table 18). For zooplankton

analysis, Sample Collection Tub #4 was used for all three test cycles and an average of 2.80 m3 of

sample water concentrated for analysis.

GSI/LB/QAQC/TR/JFE


of 146

Table 18. Summary of Operational Measurements and Data Collected during Three Test Cycles (i.e., Test Cycles 1, 3, and 5) of the JFE BallastAce® BWMS Status Test using NEO-CHLOR® DICD Granules as the

Active Substance. NM = Not Measured.

Parameter Units Test Cycle 1 Test Cycle 3 Test Cycle 5 Average


02-Oct-14 10:49:10

09-Oct-14 13:02:10

---

Duration min 34.50 34.83 36.83 35.39


bar 1.95 ± 0.28 1.95 ± 0.28 1.88 ± 0.40 1.93 ± 0.04

Post-Treatment Line Pressure (Average ± Std.

Deviation) bar 1.25 ± 0.21 1.27 ± 0.19 1.17 ± 0.29 1.23 ± 0.05


bar 0.70 ± 0.10 0.68 ± 0.11 0.71 ± 0.13 0.70 ± 0.02


m3/hour 332 ± 16 331 ± 19 322 ± 16 328 ± 6


m3/hour 320 ± 37 322 ± 33 308 ± 72 317 ± 8


m3/hour NM NM 3

Cannot be Calculated

Treatment Retention Tank Volume

m3 185 189 191 188 ± 3

Control Retention Tank Volume

m3 189 191 192 191 ± 2

Sample Collection Tub #4 Volume

m3 2.61 2.86 2.93 2.80 ± 0.17

The real-time data in Figure 14 shows that once the set flow rate and pressure was achieved there

was very low variability in pre- and post-FS flow rate and pressure during the ~ 35 minute

operation. There were two backflush cycles, after which, the operational data quickly returned to a

steady state condition (Figure 14).

GSI/LB/QAQC/TR/JFE


of 146

Figure 14. Real Time Pre- and Post-Filter Flow Rate and Pressure Data Recorded during Test Cycle 3 of the JFE BallastAce BWMS Status Test.

5.1.1.2 BWMS Active Substance Concentrations

The TRO concentration measured in pre- and post-treatment grab samples collected simultaneously

during Test Cycles 1, 3, and 5 intake of the JFE BallastAce® BWMS Status Test are presented in

Table 19. During all three test cycles, there were measurable TRO concentrations in the pre-

treatment intake samples with a maximum measured value of 0.051 mg/L TRO, which is within the

range of TRO concentrations measured in similar samples collected during previous tests at the GSI

Facility. Table 19 also shows the target TRO concentration three minutes after active substance

dosing, as determined manually by JFE Engineering. The target TRO concentration was based on

the DOC concentration of the DSH water (data not presented), therefore, the target value varied

between each test cycle. During Test Cycle 1, the BWMS active substance injection control

program stopped working during the intake operation. JFE Engineering injected the active

substance manually after the malfunction. As a result, the overall TRO concentration was lower

than expected in post-treatment intake samples (ranging from 0.034 to 5.10 mg/L TRO), however,

JFE Engineering deemed the test cycle to be valid because the treatment retention tank TRO

concentration 24 hours post-treatment was still sufficiently high (i.e., greater than 1.0 mg/L TRO).

After Test Cycle 1, JFE Engineering repaired the active substance injection control and active

substance was automatically injected for all subsequent test cycles. During Test Cycle 3, the TRO

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0

Pre

ss

ure

(B

ar)

Flo

w (

M^

3)

Time (min)

Flow and Pressure


GSI/LB/QAQC/TR/JFE


of 146

concentration in post-treatment intake samples ranged from 2.24 to 5.26 mg/L (Table 19). The TRO

concentration was slightly higher overall in Test Cycle 5, ranging from 2.89 to 6.91 mg/L (Table

19).

Table 19. Concentration of Total Residual Oxidants (TRO) in Grab Samples Collected Simultaneously from

the Pre- and Post-Treatment Lines During Test Cycles 1, 3, and 5 Intake of the JFE BallastAce BWMS Status Test. N/A = Not Applicable. ND = Measured value was below the method detection limit.

Sample Location

(Pitot) Collection Time

(min) JFE Target

TRO (mg/L) Test Cycle 1 (TRO (mg/L)

Test Cycle 3 (TRO (mg/L)


Pre-Treatment (SP3c)

1

N/A

0.044 0.024 0.020

3 0.051 ND 0.020

10 0.041 0.021 0.016

30 0.051 0.014 0.010

Post-Treatment (SP15)

1 Test Cycle 1 = 5.07

Test Cycle 3 = 4.97

Test Cycle 5 = 5.53

0.294 5.02* 5.45*

3 3.86 5.26* 6.91*

10 0.034 5.14* 6.35*

30 5.10* 2.24 2.89

AVERAGE 2.32 4.42 5.40

*Reported value is above the range of the TRO calibration curve (i.e., 4 mg/L is the highest standard).

5.1.1.3 Water Quality Conditions

5.1.1.3.1 Grab Samples

Intake water quality results from pre- and post-treatment intake samples collected simultaneously

during Test Cycles 1, 3, and 5 of the JFE BallastAce® BWMS Status Test are presented in Table 20.

All three test cycles met the minimum challenge water quality characteristics outlined in the ETV

Protocol (Table 2). The pre-treatment TSS concentration ranged from 28.0 to 58.6 mg/L (target

value was 24.0 mg/L TSS; Table 20). The DOC concentration in pre-treatment intake samples

ranged from 6.8 to 8.3 mg/L (target value was 6 mg/L; Table 20); this parameter was not

augmented as the DSH naturally meets the challenge water DOC criterion. The pre-treatment POC

concentration ranged from 4.0 to 11.1 mg/L, which met or exceeded the target value of 4 mg/L

(Table 20). Finally, the MM concentration in pre-treatment intake samples ranged from 24.0 to 47.5

mg/L (minimum target value was 20 mg/L; Table 20). During Test Cycle 1, the challenge water far

exceeded the minimum concentrations for TSS, POC, and MM (Table 20); the ambient DSH TSS

concentration was not taken into account when the solids injection was set up. Therefore, too much

Micromate and Fine Arizona Test Dust was added to the Solids Injection System at the GSI

Facility. GSI received written approval from JFE Engineering that this discrepancy did not

invalidate Test Cycle 1.

There was very little change in TSS concentration between the pre- and post-treatment samples.

For MM, there was a slight reduction in post-treatment sample concentration compared to the pre-

treatment samples in Test Cycles 1 and 3, and a slight increase in Test Cycle 1. As to be expected,

there was a higher %T (filtered and unfiltered) in post-treatment samples as compared to pre-

treatment samples. For organic carbon, however, there was an increase in NPOC, DOC, and POC

GSI/LB/QAQC/TR/JFE


of 146

concentrations in post-treatment intake samples compared to pre-treatment intake samples for all

three test cycles with the exception of POC during Test Cycle 5, which remained unchanged. This

increase may be due to the lack of isokinetic sampling methods for grab sample collection, which

may have been exacerbated by the high rate of flow during these tests.

Table 20. Average (± Standard Deviation, n=3) Concentration of Total Suspended Solids (TSS), Percent Transmittance (%T, in Filtered and Unfiltered Samples), Non-Purgeable Organic Carbon (NPOC), Dissolved

Organic Carbon (DOC), Particulate Organic Carbon (POC), and Mineral Matter (MM) in Grab Samples Collected Simultaneously from the Pre- and Post-Treatment Line on Intake during Test Cycles 1, 3, and 5

of the of the JFE BallastAce® BWMS Status Test.

Test Cycle Sample

Location (Pitot)

TSS (mg/L) %T,

Filtered/ Unfiltered

NPOC (mg/L)

DOC (mg/L)

POC (mg/L) MM (mg/L)

1

Pre-Treatment

(SP3c) 58.6 (1.2)

48.3 (0.1)/ 35.5 (0.3)

17.9 (0.2) 6.8 (0.1) 11.1 (0.1) 47.5 (1.2)

Post-Treatment

(SP15) 57.8 (0.7)

53.6 (0.1)/ 39.5 (0.1)

21.0 (0.2) 8.7 (0.4) 12.3 (0.5) 45.5 (1.0)

3

Pre-Treatment

(SP3c) 28.0 (1.0)

50.0 (0.1)/ 41.7 (0.5)

10.8 (0.7) 6.8 (0.1) 4.0 (0.7) 24.0 (0.7)

Post-Treatment

(SP15) 28.3 (1.1)

55.9 (0.3)/ 46.0 (0.4)

13.6 (0.8) 8.1 (0.4) 5.5 (1.0) 22.8 (1.2)

5

Pre-Treatment

(SP3c) 30.3 (0.3)

40.8 (0.2)/ 32.3 (0.1)

13.6 (2.1) 8.3 (0.1) 5.3 (2.0) 25.0 (1.8)

Post-Treatment

(SP15) 31.3 (0.8)

46.9 (0.4)/ 36.8 (0.6)

15.2 (0.5) 9.9 (0.6) 5.4 (0.8) 26.0 (0.6)

5.1.1.3.2 Sample Collection Tub Measurements

The water quality data from measurements taken in the pre-treatment sample collection tubs during

Test Cycles 1, 3, and 5 of the of the JFE BallastAce® BWMS Status Test give a time-integrated

picture of the challenge water characteristics and are presented in Table 21. The temperature ranged

from 10.48 to 14.56 °C during the three test cycles, declining over the course of the test period,

which was within the range specified by the ETV Protocol (i.e., 4 to 35 °C; Table 21). The turbidity

measured during Test Cycle 3 (17.7 NTU) was slightly lower than Test Cycle 1 and 5 at 29.2 and

23.9 NTU, respectively (Table 21). The total chlorophyll and dissolved oxygen concentrations were

also slightly lower in Test Cycle 3 compared to Test Cycle 1 and 5, but still well within the normal

range for challenge water measured during similar types of tests conducted at the GSI Facility. All

other parameters were very similar between all three test cycles.

GSI/LB/QAQC/TR/JFE


of 146

Table 21. Average Value (±Standard Deviation, n=2) of Water Quality Parameters Measured from Pre-Treatment Sample Collection Tubs During Test Cycles 1, 3, and 5 Intake of the JFE BallastAce® BWMS

Status Test.

Parameter Test Cycle 1 Test Cycle 3 Test Cycle 5

Temperature (°C) 14.56 ± 0.00 14.16 ± 0.01 10.48 ± 0.01

Specific Conductivity (mS/cm)

0.181 ± 0.000 0.208 ± 0.001 0.219 ± 0.000

Salinity (ppt) 0.09 ± 0.00 0.10 ± 0.00 0.10 ± 0.00

pH 7.40 8.15 7.72

Turbidity (NTU) 29.2 ± 0.1 17.7 ± 0.4 23.9 ± 2.3

Total Chlorophyll (µg/L) 9.3 ± 0.0 8.3 ± 0.1 9.4 ± 0.2

Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L) 8.52 ± 0.08 7.81 ± 0.03 9.81 ± 0.04

Dissolved Oxygen (% Saturation)

83.7 ± 0.8 76.0 ± 0.3 87.9 ± 0.4

5.1.1.4 Biological Conditions

As shown in Table 22, Test Cycles 1, 3, and 5 of the JFE BallastAce® BWMS Status Test had live

organism densities in the challenge water that exceeded the minimum criteria for challenge water

total living populations specified by the ETV Land-Based Protocol (Table 2). For the largest

regulated size class, nominally zooplankton, challenge water densities ranged from 136,000 to

346,000 live organisms per m3, with Test Cycle 3 having the greatest density (Table 22). The ≥ 10

µm and < 50 µm size class, nominally protists, ranged from 1,267 to 3,899 live cells/mL in the

challenge water, with Test Cycle 1 having the highest density (Table 22). The smallest regulated

size class was represented by only culturable, aerobic, heterotrophic bacteria during this test. Live

densities, as measured by the spread plate method, well exceeded the minimum density of

1,000/mL and ranged from 14,200 to 43,900 live bacteria per mL with Test Cycle 5 having the

highest density (Table 22).

GSI/LB/QAQC/TR/JFE


of 146

Table 22. Live Plankton Density (n=1 each) and Average (± Standard Deviation, n=3) Microbial Concentration in Challenge Water Samples Collected during Test Cycles 1, 3, and 5 of the JFE BallastAce®

BWMS Status Test.

Regulated Size Class Parameter TQAP

Requirements Test Cycle 1 Test Cycle 3 Test Cycle 5

≥ 50 µm Concentration (#/m3)

100,000 organisms/m

3

136,000 346,000 298,000

≥ 10 µm and < 50 µm Concentration

(cells/mL) 1,000

organisms/mL 3,899 1,267 1,685

< 10 µm Concentration (CFU/mL

as culturable aerobic heterotrophic bacteria)

1,000/mL 14,200 (2,880)

26,800 (1,540)

43,900 (9,860)

5.1.2 Retention Period Measurements

During the 48 hour retention period associated with the JFE BallastAce® BWMS Status Test, the

TRO concentration in the control and treatment retention tanks was measured twice (once at 24 and

once at 48 hours). Various water quality parameters were also measured every 15 minutes in both

tanks and logged during retention.


As shown in Table 23, there were measurable TRO concentrations in the control retention tank

during the 48 hour holding time ranging from 0.007 to 0.044 mg/L. Overall, these values were

slightly lower than the pre-treatment intake TRO concentrations (Table 23). There was a substantial

decrease in TRO concentration in the treated water during the 48 hour retention time, which

indicates that there was marked chlorine demand still present in the intake water after treatment.

All three test cycles had very similar TRO concentrations in the treatment retention tank at 24 and

48 hours post-treatment (Table 23). At 24 hours, the TRO concentration ranged from 0.343 to 0.557

mg/L (Table 23), on average this was a decrease of 89 % compared to post-treatment intake. At 48

hours, the TRO concentration ranged from 0.228 to 0.379 mg/L (Table 23), a 93 % decrease on

average from post-treatment intake samples.


24 and 48 Hours after Intake during Test Cycles 1, 3, and 5 of the JFE BallastAce® BWMS Status Test.

Sample Location Collection Time

(hour) Test Cycle 1 TRO (mg/L)

Test Cycle 3 TRO (mg/L)


Control Retention Tank 24 0.044 0.007 0.027

48 0.040 0.010 0.024

Treatment Retention Tank

24 0.557 0.343 0.423

48 0.379 0.228 0.261

GSI/LB/QAQC/TR/JFE


of 146


Table 24 shows the average water quality parameters measured using calibrated Sondes in the

control and treatment retention tanks during the 48 hour holding time utilized during Test Cycles 1,

3, and 5 of the JFE BallastAce® BWMS Status Test. In most cases, each parameter was measured

every 15 minutes during the holding period. However, during Test Cycle 3 the Sonde in the

treatment retention tank was accidently set to log data every five seconds. As a result, the Sonde

ran out of batteries and only logged data for approximately 31 hours of the 48 hour retention time.

There were no unexpected differences in water quality measured from test cycle to test cycle.

Overall, the water temperature during retention decreased from Test Cycle 1 to Test Cycle 5 (Table

24), which occurred approximately one month apart from each other during the end of the testing

season. The specific conductivity, salinity, and pH increased slightly from Test Cycle 1 to Test

Cycle 5 (Table 24). There were some notable, although expected, differences between the control

and treatment retention tanks. The specific conductivity was slightly higher in the treatment

retention tank as compared to the control retention tank, with the exception of Test Cycle 5 (Table

24). This is due to the addition of the NEO-CHLOR DICD Granules® to the treated water and the

subsequent increase in ions. There was also a slight decrease in pH in the treatment retention tank

water as compared to the control retention tank, which is due to the formation of hypochloric and

cyanuric acid upon dissolution of the NEO-CHLOR DICD Granules® (Table 24). Total chlorophyll

was markedly decreased in the treatment retention tank, which is due to the decrease in live protist

density as a result of treatment (Table 24).

GSI/LB/QAQC/TR/JFE


of 146

Table 24. In-Situ Water Quality Parameters Measured in the Control and Treatment Retention Tanks during the 48 Hour Holding Time for Test Cycles 1, 3, and 5 of the JFE BallastAce® BWMS Status Test.

Parameter Retention Tank Test Cycle 1 Test Cycle 3 Test Cycle 5

Temperature (°C) Control 14.20 ± 0.23, n=167 13.49 ± 0.62, n=179 9.83 ± 0.38, n=167

Treatment 14.31 ± 0.23, n=168 13.88 ± 0.29, n=17,387* 9.83 ± 0.38, n=165


Control 0.177 ± 0.000, n=167 0.206 ± 0.000, n=179 0.218 ± 0.000, n=167

Treatment 0.184 ± 0.001, n=168 0.208 ± 0.000, n=17,387* 0.218 ± 0.000, n=165

Salinity (ppt) Control 0.08 ± 0.00, n=167 0.10 ± 0.00, n=179 0.10 ± 0.00, n=167

Treatment 0.09 ± 0.00, n=168 0.10 ± 0.00, n=17,387* 0.10 ± 0.00, n=165

pH Control 7.38, n=167 7.41, n=179 7.66, n=167

Treatment 7.10, n=167 7.37, n=17,387* 7.42, n=165

Turbidity (NTU) Control 24.3 ± 1.7, n=167 14.7 ± 1.3, n=179 20.4 ± 1.2, n=167

Treatment 23.5 ± 1.7, n=168 16.8 ± 1.2, n=17,387* 20.9 ± 1.2, n=165

Total Chlorophyll (µg/L) Control 10.1 ± 0.6, n=167 8.0 ± 0.6, n=179 9.8 ± 0.6, n=167

Treatment 4.4 ± 0.5, n=168 3.1 ± 0.2, n=17,387* 4.1 ± 0.2, n=165

Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)

Control 8.15 ± 0.09, n=167 7.52 ± 0.09, n=167 9.66 ± 0.04, n=167

Treatment 8.54 ± 0.01, n=168 8.37 ± 0.07, n=17,387* 9.65 ± 0.01, n=165


Control 79.5 ± 1.1, n=167 72.2 ± 1.4, n=167 85.3 ± 1.1, n=167

Treatment 83.4 ± 0.4, n=168 81.1 ± 0.4, n=17,387* 85.2 ± 0.7, n=165

*The Sonde was set to log data every five seconds, rather than every 15 minutes as per the TQAP. Due to frequent datalogging, the Sonde ran out of batteries ~31 hours into the retention period.

5.1.3 Discharge Measurements

5.1.3.1 Operational Conditions

5.1.3.1.1 Control Discharge

The operational data measured during discharge of the control retention tank for Test Cycles 1, 3,

and 5 of the JFE BallastAce® BWMS Status Test are presented in Table 25. Data from all three test

cycles are very similar. Control discharge occurred over an average duration of 32.78 minutes; at a

pressure of 1.77 bar and flow rate of 321 m3/hour, on average (Table 25). A total of 175 m

3 of water

was discharged Zooplankton samples, all of which were collected from Sample Collection Tub #1,

represented an average of 3.10 m3

concentrated to 1 L (Table 25).

GSI/LB/QAQC/TR/JFE


of 146

Table 25. Summary of Operational Measurements and Data Collected during Control Retention Tank Discharge for Test Cycles 1, 3, and 5 of the BallastAce® BWMS Status Test using NEO-CHLOR® DICD

Granules as the Active Substance.



04-Oct-14 12:27:10

11-Oct-14 11:29:10

---

Duration min 32.33 33.67 32.33 32.78

Discharge Line Pressure (Average ± Std. Deviation)

bar 1.83 ± 0.37 1.76 ± 0.43 1.71 ± 0.42 1.77 ± 0.06

Discharge Flow Rate (Average ± Std. Deviation)

m3/hour 325 ± 39 320 ± 34 319 ± 39 321 ± 3

Volume Discharged from Retention Tank

m3 176 177 172 175 ± 3


m3 3.08 3.16 3.05 3.10 ± 0.06

5.1.3.1.2 Treatment Discharge

Table 26 shows operational data measured during discharge of the treatment retention tanks for Test

Cycles 1, 3, and 5 of the JFE BallastAce® BWMS Status Test. As with the control discharge data,

the average values from each test cycle are very similar. The treatment discharge operation was an

average of 34.22 minutes in duration (Table 26). There was a slight difference in pressure, 0.49 bar

on average, between the pre-neutralization line and the post-neutralization line. This difference was

not as great as during intake because the FS of the BWMS was not active during discharge. The

average treatment discharge flow rate was 316 m3/hour, and an average 182 m

3 of water from the

treatment retention tank was discharged (Table 26). Zooplankton samples were collected from

Sample Collection Tub #s 4 and 5, which had an average sample volume of 3.14 m3 and 3.13 m

3,

respectively (Table 26).

GSI/LB/QAQC/TR/JFE


of 146

Table 26. Summary of Operational Measurements and Data Collected during Treatment Retention Tank Discharge for Test Cycles 1, 3, and 5 of the BallastAce® BWMS Status Test using NEO-CHLOR® DICD

Granules as the Active Substance.



04-Oct-14 09:30:10

11-Oct-14 09:37:00

---

Duration min 33.00 34.50 35.17 34.22

Pre-Neutralization Line Pressure (Average ± Std.

Deviation) bar 2.06 ± 0.31 1.96 ± 0.40 2.01 ± 0.36 2.01 ± 0.05

Post-Neutralization Line Pressure (Average ± Std.

Deviation) bar 1.55 ± 0.25 1.48 ± 0.29 1.52 ± 0.27 1.52 ± 0.04

Differential Pressure* (Average ± Std. Deviation)

bar 0.51 ± 0.11 0.48 ± 0.12 0.48 ± 0.11 0.49 ± 0.02

Flow Rate (Average ± Std. Deviation)

m3/hour 318 ± 37 316 ± 46 315 ± 48 316 ± 2


m3 177 182 186 182 ± 5


m3 3.04 3.15 3.24 3.14 ± 0.10


m3 3.03 3.13 3.23 3.13 ± 0.10


m3 3.01 3.05 3.14 3.07 ± 0.07

*BWMS filter was not active during discharge.


The TRO concentration in grab samples collected throughout control and treatment tank discharge

operations of the JFE BallastAce® BWMS Status Test is presented in Table 27. The TRO in control

discharge water ranged from below the method detection limit to 0.050 mg/L (Table 27), which was

in keeping with the range of TRO concentrations measured in pre-treatment water during these

three test cycles. The range of TRO concentrations measured in the treatment discharge samples

was only slightly higher, ranging from below the method detection limit to 0.112 mg/L (Table 27).

The treatment discharge water was sent to the GSI Facility’s wastewater holding tank where the

TRC concentration was measured; in all cases the TRC concentration was below the permitted level

of 0.038 mg/L (data not presented) and the water was discharged to the City of Superior

Wastewater Treatment Plant (during Test Cycle 1) or the DSH (Test Cycles 3 and 5).

GSI/LB/QAQC/TR/JFE


of 146

Table 27. Concentration of Total Residual Oxidants (TRO) in Grab Samples Collected During Test Cycles 1, 3, and 5 Control and Treatment Tank Discharge Operations of the JFE BallastAce® BWMS Status Test. ND

= Measured value was below the method detection limit.

Sample Location (Pitot)

Collection Time (min)




Control (SP9c)

1 0.047 ND 0.017

3 0.040 ND 0.027

10 0.050 ND 0.017

25 0.043 ND 0.010

Treatment (SP15)

1 0.050* 0.112 0.051

3 0.057* 0.098 0.089

10 0.060* 0.017 0.024

25 0.063* ND 0.044

* During Test Cycle 1, all treatment discharge grab samples were collected from SP16 rather than SP15.


5.1.3.3.1 Grab Samples Table 28 shows the measured water quality data from grab samples collected throughout discharge

of the control and treatment retention tanks of the JFE BallastAce® BWMS Status Test. As

expected, %T (both filtered and unfiltered) was higher in the treatment discharge samples than in

the control discharge samples. The chlorine in the treated water continued to oxidize and break

down (i.e., “bleach”) the organic matter (e.g., tannic and humic acid) during retention, resulting in

treatment discharge water that was more transparent than the control water.

GSI/LB/QAQC/TR/JFE


of 146


Organic Carbon (DOC), Particulate Organic Carbon (POC), and Mineral Matter (MM) in Grab Samples Collected Sequentially from the Treatment and Control Line on Discharge during the JFE BallastAce®

BWMS Status Test.

Test Cycle Sample

Location (Pitot)

TSS (mg/L) %T,


NPOC (mg/L)

DOC (mg/L)


1

Control (SP9a)

29.8 (5.9) 48.0 (0.2)/ 36.7 (0.5)

13.4 (3.0) 6.8 (0.1) 6.6 (2.9) 23.2 (6.2)

Treatment (SP16)

40.2 (15.0) 52.6 (0.3)/ 42.0 (0.1)

16.7 (3.8) 9.0 (0.1) 7.7 (3.8) 32.5 (11.2)

3

Control (SP9a)

9.5 (0.5) 49.9 (0.0)/ 42.4 (0.2)

8.7 (0.3) 6.9 (0.1) 1.8 (0.2) 7.7 (0.7)

Treatment (SP15)

11.9 (1.2) 55.5 (0.1)/ 46.5 (0.4)

10.5 (0.4) 8.3 (0.0) 2.2 (0.4) 9.6 (0.9)

5

Control (SP9a)

14.5 (2.1) 41.2 (0.4)/ 33.2 (0.1)

11.6 (1.2) 8.2 (0.1) 3.4 (1.1) 11.1 (1.1)

Treatment (SP15)

15.5 (1.0) 46.4 (0.3)/ 37.6 (0.1)

12.3 (0.5) 10.0 (0.1) 2.3 (0.5) 13.2 (0.7)


Table 29 shows water quality parameters measured in the sample collection tubs associated with the

JFE BallastAce® BWMS Status Test using calibrated Sondes immediately following discharge of

the control and treatment retention tanks. Test Cycles 1 and 5 were conducted nearly one month

apart, therefore, the temperature declined ~5 °C between those two test cycles (Table 29). The

specific conductivity and salinity increased slightly from Test Cycle 1 to Test Cycle 5 (Table 29).

Overall, the specific conductivity was higher in the treatment discharge water than the control

discharge water due to the added ions from treatment with NEO-CHLOR® DICD Granules and

neutralization with sodium sulfite (Table 29). The total chlorophyll concentration in the control

discharge was higher than in the treatment discharge due to the decreased protist density as a result

of treatment (Table 29). For all other parameters, there was no discernible trend between test cycles

or within a test cycle (control versus treatment; Table 29).

GSI/LB/QAQC/TR/JFE


of 146

Table 29. Water Quality Parameters Measured in Control (Sample Collection Tub #s 1 and 2) and Treatment (Sample Collection Tub #s 4-6) Sample Collection Tubs Immediately Following Discharge

Operations during Test Cycles 1, 3, and 5 of the JFE BallastAce® BWMS Status Test.

Parameter Sample Type Test Cycle 1 Test Cycle 3 Test Cycle 5

Temperature (°C) CONT, n=2 14.22 ± 0.01 11.90 ± 0.01 9.26 ± 0.02

TRT, n=3 14.22 ± 0.04 11.90 ± 0.01 8.95 ± 0.09


CONT, n=2 0.177 ± 0.000 0.205 ± 0.001 0.222 ± 0.000

TRT, n=3 0.188 ± 0.000 0.213 ± 0.001 0.231 ± 0.000

Salinity (ppt) CONT, n=2 0.08 ± 0.00 0.10 ± 0.00 0.11 ± 0.00

TRT, n=3 0.09 ± 0.00 0.10 ± 0.00 0.11 ± 0.00

pH CONT, n=2 7.53 6.40 7.60

TRT, n=3 7.26 6.88 7.19

Turbidity (NTU) CONT, n=2 22.7 ± 0.8 13.6 ± 0.3 18.9 ± 0.1

TRT, n=3 23.8 ± 0.6 14.9 ± 0.6 18.5 ± 0.4

Total Chlorophyll (µg/L) CONT, n=2 9.1 ± 0.1 7.3 ± 0.4 9.3 ± 0.0

TRT, n=3 5.2 ± 0.2 4.5 ± 0.1 5.0 ± 0.3


CONT, n=2 8.27 ± 0.02 7.69 ± 0.01 9.75 ± 0.02

TRT, n=3 8.65 ± 0.04 8.01 ± 0.13 10.06 ± 0.07


CONT, n=2 80.6 ± 0.2 71.2 ± 0.1 84.9 ± 0.2

TRT, n=3 84.3 ± 0.3 74.0 ± 1.0 86.8 ± 0.8


The control and treatment discharge densities of the three regulated size classes associated with JFE

BallastAce® BWMS Status Test are presented in Table 30; more detailed taxonomic data are

available on request. The control discharge density of the ≥ 50 µm size class greatly exceeded the

minimum concentration of 100 live organisms/m3 specified in the ETV Protocol, ranging from

290,000/m3 to 494,000/m

3 (Table 30). There was a marked decrease in treatment discharge density

as compared to control discharge density for all three test cycles. Test Cycle 1 had the highest

treatment discharge density, with 597 live organism/m3 (i.e., 99.8 % reduction compared to control

discharge; Table 30). Test Cycle 3 had 368 live organisms/m3 (i.e., 99.9 % reduction compared to

control discharge; Table 30) and Test Cycle 5 had 382 live organisms/m3 (i.e., 99.9 % reduction

compared to control discharge; Table 30). All three test cycles had treatment discharge densities

that were well above the USCG BWDS of 10 live organisms/m3.

The control discharge density of the ≥ 10 µm and < 50 µm size class also greatly exceeded the ETV

Protocol minimum required density of 100 organisms/mL; live density ranged from 637 cells/mL to

2,451 cells/mL (Table 30). There was a substantial decrease in live organism density in the

treatment discharge as compared to the control discharge, with densities ranging from 0.16 cell/mL

to 197 cells/mL (Table 30). Test Cycle 1 had a much higher live cell density in treatment discharge

samples than Test Cycles 3 or 5 (Table 30). Of the 197 live cells/mL, 191 cells were from one

colony of blue-green algae (Microcystis-like coccoid algae). The individual cells within this colony

were less than 10 µm in minimum dimension but the colony itself was within the size class, which

is in keeping with GSI’s sizing and reporting practices for this size class of organisms. The

remaining 6 live cells/mL were small flagellates (Cryptomonas/Chroomonaas-type; 5 cells/mL) and

GSI/LB/QAQC/TR/JFE


of 146

centric solitary diatom (1 cell/mL). Test Cycles 3 and 5 met the USCG BWDS for this size class of

organisms.

The live density of culturable, aerobic heterotrophic bacteria (i.e., < 10 µm size class) in control

discharge was far greater than the minimum concentration of 500/mL specified in the ETV

Protocol. The control discharge density ranged from an average of 40,600 CFU/mL to 62,300

CFU/mL (Table 30). There was a substantial decrease in heterotrophic bacteria density in the

treatment discharge as compared to the control, ranging from an average of 461 CFU/mL to 2,850

CFU/mL (Table 30). There was a 97.4 % reduction in density compared to the control during Test

Cycle 1. During Test Cycles 3 and 5, there was a 98.9 % and 95.4 % reduction, respectively, in

comparison to control discharge densities. There is no discharge standard for heterotrophic bacteria;

these densities cannot be compared to any regulation.

Table 30. Live Plankton Density (Average ± Standard Deviation, Where Applicable) and Average (±

Standard Deviation, n=3) Microbial Concentrations in Samples Collected During Control and Treatment Retention Tank Discharge for Test Cycles 1, 3, and 5 of the JFE BallastAce® BWMS Status Test.

Regulated Size Class Maximum

Concentration in Treated Discharge

Test Cycle 1 Test Cycle 3 Test Cycle 5

Control Treatment Control Treatment Control Treatment

≥ 50 µm < 10 organisms per

m3

290,000

597 494,000

368 345,000 382

≥ 10 µm and < 50 µm < 10 organisms per

mL 2,451 197 637 0.44 1,180 0.16

< 10 µm (CFU/mL as culturable aerobic

heterotrophic bacteria)

No discharge standard for

heterotrophic bacteria.

50,500 (4,380)

1,300 (111)

40,600 (4,230)

461 (235)

62,300 (6,740)

2,850 (2,600)

5.1.3.5 Disinfection Byproducts (DBPs) Concentrations

The results from analysis of selected DBPs in samples collected during Test Cycles 1 and 5 control

and treatment discharge of the JFE BallastAce® BWMS Status Test are presented in Table 31.

Samples were collected for DBP analysis only during those test cycles that were selected for WET

testing. There were elevated concentrations of all classes of DBPs in the treatment discharge as

compared to the control discharge. In the control discharge samples, all of the selected DBPs were

below the limit of detection with the exception of dichloroacetic acid, which was slightly elevated

during Test Cycle 1, and total sodium during Test Cycle 1 and 5 (Table 31). Of all DBPs measured,

the trihalomethanes had the highest concentration in treatment discharge, with an average of 214

µg/L in Test Cycle 1 and 155 µg/L in Test Cycle 5 (Table 31). Chloroform was the primary

contributor and bromodichloromethane was a secondary contributor in the treatment discharge

samples. Test Cycle 1 had an average of 114 µg/L total haloacetic acids in treatment discharge,

while Test Cycle 5 had an average of 95 µg/L (Table 31). Dichloroacetic acid and trichloroacetic

acid were the primary contributors to the total concentration of haloacetic acids in treatment

discharge. The average concentration of total haloacetonitriles in treatment discharge was 41 µg/L

and 37 µg/L in Test Cycle 1 and 5, respectively (Table 31); the majority of the total was from

GSI/LB/QAQC/TR/JFE


of 146

chloral hydrate. Test Cycles 1 and 5 had similar DBP results for treatment discharge samples, with

the exception of the chlorate ion. During Test Cycle 1 only one of three replicates had a chlorate

concentration above the limit of detection, however, during Test Cycle 5 all three replicates had a

chlorate concentration above the limit of detection with an average of 51 µg/L (Table 31). Total

sodium was only slightly higher in treatment discharge as compared to control discharge (Table

31).


Discharge of the Control and Treatment Retention Tanks in Test Cycles 1 and 5 of the JFE BallastAce® BWMS Status Test. Samples were collected for analysis of disinfection byproducts only for those test

cycles with Whole Effluent Toxicity testing.

Analyte Formula

Test Cycle 1 Test Cycle 5

Control Average (µg/L)

Treatment Average (µg/L)



Bromodichloromethane CHBrCl2 < 0.5 16.5 < 0.5 14.1

Bromoform CHBr3 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5

Chlorodibromomethane CHBr2Cl < 0.5 0.6 < 0.5 0.5

Chloroform CHCl3 < 0.5 197 < 0.5 140

Total Trihalomethanes < 0.5 214 < 0.5 155

Bromochloroacetic acid* BrClCHCOOH < 1.0 4.7 < 1.0 5.9

Dibromoacetic acid CHBr2COOH < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0

Dichloroacetic acid CHCl2COOH 0.7 54.4 < 1.0 46.0

Monobromoacetic acid CH2BrCOOH < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0

Monochloroacetic acid CH2ClCOOH < 2.0 5.3 < 2.0 3.0

Trichloroacetic acid CCl3COOH < 1.0 54.6 < 1.0 46.1

Total Haloacetic Acids 0.7 114.0 < 1.0 95.1

1,1,1-trichloro-2-Propanone CCl3COCH3 < 0.5 10.3 < 0.5 7.8

1,1-dichloro-2-Propanone CH3COCHCl2 < 0.5 3.8 < 0.5 3.1

Bromochloroacetonitrile C2HBrClN < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 0.6

Bromoacetonitrile BrCH2CN < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5

Chloral hydrate Cl3CCH(OH)2 < 0.5 22.3 < 0.5 17.3

Chloroacetonitrile ClCH2CN < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5

Chloropicrin Cl3CNO2 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5

Dibromoacetonitrile Br2CHCN < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5

Dichloroacetonitrile Cl2CHCN < 0.5 4.1 < 0.5 7.9

Trichloroacetonitrile Cl3CCN < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5

Total Haloacetonitriles < 0.5 40.5 < 0.5 36.7

Bromate BrO3- < 5.0 < 5.0 < 5.0 < 5.0

Chlorate ClO3- < 20.0 15.1 < 20.0 51.0

Sodium, Total Na 9.4 11.4 12.2 13.4

*Not included in total haloacetic acids.

GSI/LB/QAQC/TR/JFE


of 146

5.1.3.6 Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET)

Treatment discharge water was collected during Test Cycles 1 and 5 of the JFE BallastAce®

BWMS Status Test for analysis of WET. The results are described in separate sections below.

5.1.3.6.1 Test Cycle 1

The water quality parameters measured in stock solutions prepared prior the start of Test Cycle 1

WET testing and prior to daily renewal of test water during the C. dubia and P. promelas WET tests

are presented in Table 32. The temperature of the prepared stock solutions was within the

acceptance range of 25 °C ± 3 °C in all cases (Table 32). In addition, the dissolved oxygen

concentration was above the minimum value specified for P. promelas (i.e., 4.0 mg/L) in all cases

(Table 32). All other water quality parameters measured (i.e., pH, conductivity, hardness, and

alkalinity) were within the expected ranges for the water types measured (Table 32). There was no

detectable TRO in the C. dubia or P. promelas performance control stock solutions (Table 32). The

TRO concentration in the experimental control (i.e., 0 % Whole Effluent) ranged from below the

limit of detection to 0.010 mg/L (Table 32), which is within the range of TRO values measured

historically in samples collected from the DSH. There was measurable TRO in the 100 % Whole

Effluent treatment stock solutions for the entire duration of both tests; the average TRO

concentration was 0.040 mg/L (Table 32).

GSI/LB/QAQC/TR/JFE


of 146

Table 32. Average Values (Minimum, Maximum) of Water Quality Parameters Measured in Stock Solutions during Ceriodaphnia dubia and Pimephales promelas Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET) Test

Associated with Test Cycle 1 of the JFE BallastAce® BWMS Status Test.

Treatment Group

Temperature (°C)


pH Conductivity

(µS/cm)

Hardness4

(mg/L CaCO3)

Alkalinity4

(mg/L CaCO3)

TRO (mg/L)

C. dubia Performance

Control1

24.3 (23.3, 25.2)

8.3 (8.0, 8.5)

8.42 (8.37, 8.47)

576 (530, 585)

177.2 125.2

<DL

P. promelas Performance

Control2

24.6 (24.3, 24.9)

6.0 (5.6, 6.6)

7.21 (6.87, 7.61)

154.4 (142.5, 163.4)

50.4 55.2 <DL

0 % Whole Effluent

3

25.4 (24.6, 27.2)

9.6 (8.8, 11.0)

7.89 (7.86, 7.94)

185.1 (181.7, 186.5)

73.6 66.8 0.010*

Q

(<DL, 0.010Q)

6.25 % Whole Effluent

25.8 (25.0, 26.7)

9.0 (8.5, 9.5)

7.89 (7.66, 7.97)

185.7 (184.7, 188.0)

- - 0.010*

Q

(<DL, 0.013 Q

)


25.9 (25.1, 27.7)

8.9 (8.5, 9.5)

7.87 (7.68, 7.95)

186.2 (185.2, 187.2)

- - 0.011*

Q

(<DL, 0.013 Q

)

25 % Whole Effluent

25.5 (25.0, 27.3)

8.9 (8.4, 9.3)

7.76 (7.41, 7.93)

187.5 (186.7, 189.0)

- - 0.013*

Q

(<DL, 0.016 Q

)

50 % Whole Effluent

25.3 (24.7, 26.6)

8.9 (8.4, 9.4)

7.51 (7.24, 7.86)

189.4 (188.0, 190.6)

- - 0.020*

(DL, 0.033)

100 % Whole Effluent

25.3 (24.1, 26.4)

9.1 (8.3, 10.2)

7.32 (7.01, 7.71)

193.6 (189.6, 194.8)

76.0 60.4 0.040

(0.019, 0.056) 1Hard Reconstituted Water;

2Dechlorinated Laboratory Water;

3Filtered Duluth-Superior Harbor Water;

4Hardness and

alkalinity were only measured on Day 0 and do not have minimum and maximum values. * Values less than the detection limit (DL) which equals 0.0058 mg/L were not used to calculate the average TRO

value. Q

Sample concentration was below the LOQ (0.0194 mg/L TRO).

The water quality parameters measured in the C. dubia exposure solutions following each 24 hour

renewal period are presented in Table 33. The temperature of the exposure solutions was within the

acceptance range of 25 °C ± 3 °C during the entire seven day test. All other water quality

parameters measured (i.e., pH, hardness, and alkalinity) were within the expected ranges for the

water types measured (Table 33).

GSI/LB/QAQC/TR/JFE


of 146

Table 33. Average Values (Minimum, Maximum) of Water Quality Parameters Measured in Exposure Solutions during the Seven Day Ceriodaphnia dubia Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET) Test Associated with

Test Cycle 1 of the JFE BallastAce® BWMS Status Test.

Treatment Group Temperature

(°C) pH

Hardness3

(mg/L CaCO3) Alkalinity

3

(mg/L CaCO3)

C. dubia Performance Control1

24.2 (23.6, 24.7)

8.36 (8.33, 8.40)

178.8 119.2

0 % Whole Effluent2

24.3 (24.1, 24.4)

8.24 (8.19, 8.28)

74.4 70.8

6.25 % Whole Effluent 24.4

(24.2, 24.6) 8.17

(8.12, 8.21) - -


(23.8, 24.7) 8.14

(8.11, 8.19) - -

25 % Whole Effluent 24.3

(23.5, 24.8) 8.17

(8.14, 8.22) - -


(23.9, 24.7) 8.15

(8.11, 8.21) - -


(23.7, 24.5) 8.13

(8.07, 8.19) 74.8 68.4

1Hard Reconstituted Water;


3Hardness and alkalinity are only measured on

Day 6 (test termination) and do not have minimum and maximum values.

Table 34 shows the survival and reproduction data from the seven day, three-brood C. dubia WET

test conducted during Test Cycle 1. In order for the test results to be acceptable there must have

been at least 80 % survival and an average total number of at least 15 young per female in the

experimental control (0 % Whole Effluent). The WET test met these criteria with 100 % survival

and 25.4 average young per female. The Performance Control is used to determine overall health of

the test organisms and not test result acceptance, however, the Performance Control also met the

WET test QC criteria indicating that the organisms used in this WET test were of good health.

There was no effect of whole effluent on survival, with all of the treatment groups having either 90

% or 100 % adult survival (Table 34). There was no statistically significant (p<0.05) effect of whole

effluent on reproduction in the 6.25 %, 12.5 %, and 25 % dilutions when compared to the

experimental control. The 50 % Whole Effluent treatment had an average of 18.0 young per female,

while the 100 % Whole Effluent treatment had an average of 13.9 young per female (Table 34);

each of these results represents a statistically significant (p<0.05) effect of whole effluent on

reproduction when compared to the experimental control.

There was no Facility Control used during Test Cycle 1, which had a high concentration of

suspended solids relative to all other test cycles in the JFE BallastAce® BWMS Status Test.

Therefore, GSI can only conclude that the reproductive effect resulting in the 50 % and 100 %

Whole Effluent treatment groups is the product of treatment/neutralization and high suspended

solids in the whole effluent; these effects cannot be separated out.

GSI/LB/QAQC/TR/JFE


of 146

Table 34. Average (n=10) Percent Survival and Total Number of Offspring Produced in a Three-Brood Ceriodaphnia dubia Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET) Test Associated with Treatment Discharge from


Treatment Group Percent Survival ± Std.

Deviation Average Total Number of Young

per Female ± Std. Deviation

C. dubia Performance Control1 90 ± 32 20.1 ± 9.8

0 % Whole Effluent2 100 ± 0 25.4 ± 5.9

6.25 % Whole Effluent 100 ± 0 26.6 ± 4.6

12.5 % Whole Effluent 90 ± 32 23.3 ± 6.5

25 % Whole Effluent 90 ± 32 24.0 ± 6.1

50 % Whole Effluent 100 ± 0 18.0 ± 6.2a

100 % Whole Effluent 100 ± 0 13.9 ± 5.2a


2Filtered Duluth-Superior Harbor Water

a The differences in the mean values of survival and average number of young per adult are statistically different

compared to the Filtered Duluth-Superior Harbor Water Control (p<0.05).

The water quality parameters measured in the P. promelas exposure solutions following each 24

hour renewal period are presented in Table 35. The temperature of the exposure solutions was

within the acceptance range of 25 °C ± 3 °C during the entire seven day test. In addition, the

dissolved oxygen concentration was greater than 4.0 mg/L in all cases (Table 35). All other water

quality parameters measured (i.e., pH, hardness, and alkalinity) were within the expected ranges for

the water types measured (Table 35).

GSI/LB/QAQC/TR/JFE


of 146

Table 35. Average Values (Minimum, Maximum) of Water Quality Parameters Measured in Exposure Solutions during the Pimephales promelas Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET) Test Associated with Test Cycle

1 of the JFE BallastAce® BWMS Status Test.

Sample ID Temperature

(°C) Dissolved Oxygen

(mg/L) pH

Hardness3


3

(mg/L CaCO3)

P. promelas Performance Control

1

24.9 (24.5, 25.6)

6.2 (5.5, 7.1)

7.60 (7.50, 7.82)

53.2 55.6

0 % Whole Effluent2

24.8 (24.5, 25.4)

5.9 (4.9, 6.7)

7.66 (7.53, 7.90)

No Data4- 68.8


(24.2, 25.0) 6.4

(5.8, 7.1) 7.71

(7.63, 8.00) - -


(23.9, 25.2) 6.0

(5.5, 6.8) 7.69

(7.61, 7.87) - -


(23.9, 25.1) 6.0

(5.5, 6.6) 7.71

(7.62, 7.85) - -


(23.8, 24.9) 6.1

(5.5, 6.9) 7.72

(7.61, 7.91) - -


(24.1, 25.1) 5.8

(5.0, 6.8) 7.64

(7.55, 7.70) 69.6 67.2



3Hardness and alkalinity are only measured

on Day 7 (test termination) and do not have minimum and maximum values; 4An air bubble appeared in the burette

during titration and an endpoint could not be determined for the only sample that could be collected from this test.

Table 36 shows the survival and growth data from the seven day P. promelas WET test conducted

during Test Cycle 1 of the JFE BallastAce® BWMS Status Test. In order for the test results to be

acceptable there must have been at least 80 % survival and an average dry weight per surviving

organism of at least 0.25 mg in the experimental control (0 % Whole Effluent). The WET test met

these criteria with 100 % survival and 0.442 mg per fish (Table 36). The Performance Control also

met the WET test QC criteria indicating that the organisms used in this WET test were of good

health. There was no effect of whole effluent on survival, with all of the treatment groups having 97

% to 100 % adult survival (Table 36). There was no statistically significant (p<0.05) effect of whole

effluent on growth in any of the treatment groups tested.

GSI/LB/QAQC/TR/JFE


of 146

Table 36. Pimephales promelas Average (n=4) Percent Survival and Weight per Fish after Exposure to Treatment Discharge from Test Cycle 1 of the JFE BallastAce® BWMS Status Test.


Deviation Mean Average Weight/Fish (mg) ±

Std. Deviation

P. promelas Performance Control1 98 ± 3 0.442 ± 0.032

0 % Whole Effluent2 100 ± 0 0.447 ± 0.014

6.25 % Whole Effluent 100 ± 0 0.408 ± 0.018

12.5 % Whole Effluent 97 ± 7 0.451 ± 0.037

25 % Whole Effluent 97 ± 4 0.453 ± 0.051

50 % Whole Effluent 100 ± 0 0.452 ± 0.035

100 % Whole Effluent 97 ± 4 0.486 ± 0.022 1Dechlorinated Laboratory Water;


The water quality parameters measured in the S. capricornutum exposure solutions on Day 0 and in

the chemistry replicate flask every 24 hours during the 96 hour WET test are presented in Table 37.

The temperature of the exposure solutions was within the acceptance range of 25 °C ± 3 °C during

the entire seven day test (Table 37). All other water quality parameters measured (i.e., dissolved

oxygen, pH, conductivity, hardness, and alkalinity) were within the expected ranges for the water

types measured.

GSI/LB/QAQC/TR/JFE


of 146

Table 37. Average Values (Minimum, Maximum) of Water Quality Parameters Measured in Exposure Solutions during the Selenastrum capricornutum Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET) Test Associated with Test

Cycle 1 of the JFE BallastAce® BWMS Status Test.

Treatment Group Temperatur

e (°C)

Dissolved Oxygen

3

(mg/L) pH

Conductivity3

(µS/cm) Hardness

3


3

(mg/L CaCO3) TRO

(mg/L)

S. capricornutum Performance

Control1

24.9 (24.3, 25.3)

8.1 7.85

(7.42, 10.03)

92.3 14.4 13.2 <DL

0 % Whole Effluent

2

24.8 (24.3, 25.1)

8.1 8.34

(7.95, 9.79)

272 93.2 75.6 0.007


24.7 (24.1, 25.2)

8.7 8.40

(8.00, 9.77)

273 - - <DL


24.6 (23.9, 25.1)

8.7 8.41

(8.02, 9.74)

279 - - 0.010

25 % Whole Effluent

24.6 (24.0, 25.1)

8.6 8.43

(8.04, 9.74)

273 - - 0.016

50 % Whole Effluent

24.5 (23.8, 25.0)

8.6 8.41

(7.99, 9.66)

276 - - 0.023


24.5 (23.8, 25.1)

8.6 8.31

(7.82, 9.63)

280 86.8 76.8 0.036

1USEPA Nutrient Media;


3Conductivity, dissolved oxygen, hardness, and

alkalinity were measured only on Day 0 and do not have minimum and maximum values.

Table 38 shows the growth data from the 96 hour S. capricornutum WET test conducted during

Test Cycle 1 of the JFE BallastAce® BWMS Status Test. In order for the test results to be

acceptable there must have been at least 1 x 106 cells/mL at test termination and the cell density

must not have varied by more than 20 % CV among replicate flasks in the experimental control (0

% Whole Effluent). The WET test met these criteria with a cell density of 2,393,750 cells/mL and

a CV of 12 % among experimental control replicates (Table 38). The Performance Control also met

the WET test QC criteria indicating that the organisms were of good health. Although the highest

cell density was in the 100 % Whole Effluent, there was no statistically significant effect (p<0.05)

of whole effluent on growth, with average cell density ranging from 2,703,125 cells/mL to

3,856,250 cells/mL (Table 38).

GSI/LB/QAQC/TR/JFE


of 146

Table 38. Average (n=4) Cell Density of Selenastrum capricornutum after 96 Hours Exposure to Whole Effluent from Test Cycle 1 Treatment Discharge of the JFE BallastAce® BWMS Status Test.

Treatment Group Average Cells/mL ± Std. Deviation

S. capricornutum Performance Control1 3,309,375 ± 478,319

0% Whole Effluent2 2,393,750 ± 296,068

6.25% Whole Effluent 2,762,500 ± 222,439

12.5% Whole Effluent 2,703,125 ± 566,547

25% Whole Effluent 2,771,875 ± 178,645

50% Whole Effluent 2,956,250 ± 560,180

100% Whole Effluent 3,856,250 ± 383,038 1USEPA Nutrient Media;


5.1.3.6.2 Test Cycle 5

The TRO concentration in the C. dubia Performance Control stock solution ranged from below the

method detection limit to 0.006 mg/L to the start of Test Cycle 5 WET testing and prior to daily

renewal of test water during the C. dubia and P. promelas WET tests are presented in Table 39.

The temperature of the prepared stock solutions was within the acceptance range of 25 °C ± 3 °C in

all cases (Table 39). In addition, the dissolved oxygen concentration was above the minimum value

specified for P. promelas (i.e., 4.0 mg/L) in all cases (Table 39). All other water quality parameters

measured (i.e., pH, conductivity, hardness, and alkalinity) were within the expected ranges for the

water types measured (Table 39). There was no detectable TRO in the P. promelas Performance

Control stock solutions (Table 39). Interestingly, the TRO values in the Facility Control (i.e.,

control discharge water) were higher than those measured in any of the whole effluent treatment

groups (i.e., treatment discharge water). However, the range of TRO concentrations measured in the

Facility Control were still within the range of TRO values measured historically in samples

collected from the DSH. There was measurable TRO in all of the whole effluent treatment groups

for the entire duration of the C. dubia and P. promelas WET tests, ranging from as low as 0.006

mg/L to 0.048 mg/L overall (Table 39).

GSI/LB/QAQC/TR/JFE


of 146

Table 39. Average Values (Minimum, Maximum) of Water Quality Parameters Measured in Stock Solutions during the Ceriodaphnia dubia and Pimephales promelas Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET) Tests

Associated with Test Cycle 5 of the JFE BallastAce® BWMS Status Test.

Treatment Group

Temperature (°C)


pH Conductivity

(µS/cm)

Hardness4

(mg/L CaCO3)

Alkalinity4

(mg/L CaCO3)

TRO (mg/L)


Control1

24.4 (22.8, 25.0)

8.1 (7.5, 8.7)

8.43 (8.42, 8.46)

586 (580, 594)

172.8 121.2 <DL

(<DL, 0.006Q)


Control2

24.4 (24.0, 24.8)

6.8 (6.5, 7.3)

7.49 (7.39, 7.64)

162.9 (149.8, 181.8)

51.2 53.2 <DL

Facility Control 25.0

(23.8, 26.4) 10.2

(9.5, 11.2) 7.67

(7.55, 7.79) 221

(220, 222) 84.8 77.2

0.044 (0.039, 0.050)

0% Whole Effluent

3

24.3 (23.9, 24.9)

10.6 (8.5, 11.8)

7.90 (7.79, 7.96)

209 (207, 213)

84.8 74.0 0.012*

(0.006 Q

, 0.022)

6.25% Whole Effluent

24.4 (23.6, 25.3)

9.5 (8.4, 10.4)

7.92 (7.84, 7.97)

210 (207, 211)

- - 0.013

Q

(0.006 Q

, 0.022)

12.5% Whole Effluent

24.5 (23.7, 25.7)

9.5 (8.4, 10.3)

7.88 (7.74, 7.96)

211 (208, 213)

- - 0.017

Q

(0.006 Q

, 0.029)

25% Whole Effluent

24.5 (23.7, 25.7)

9.4 (8.3, 10.2)

7.88 (7.73, 7.97)

214 (210, 215)

- - 0.024

(0.015 Q

, 0.035)

50% Whole Effluent

24.7 (23.9, 25.6)

9.4 (8.3, 10.1)

7.72 (7.44, 7.88)

221 (219, 222)

- - 0.026

(0.021, 0.038)

100% Whole Effluent

25.3 (24.2, 27.5)

10.4 (9.6, 11.2)

7.60 (7.47, 7.67)

233 (231, 234)

86.4 73.6 0.037

(0.021, 0.048) 1Hard Reconstituted Water;



4Hardness and


value. Q




acceptance range of 25 °C ± 3 °C during the entire six day test (Table 40). All other water quality


water types measured.

GSI/LB/QAQC/TR/JFE


of 146

Table 40. Average Values (Minimum, Maximum) of Water Quality Parameters Measured in Exposure Solutions during the Six Day Ceriodaphnia dubia Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET) Test Associated with Test



(°C) pH

Hardness3


3

(mg/L CaCO3)


24.1 (23.7, 24.4)

8.15 (7.83, 8.43)

168.0 117.2


(23.8, 24.4) 8.29

(8.24, 8.34) 82.8 70.8

0 % Whole Effluent2

24.1 (23.8, 24.6)

8.24 (8.21, 8.27)

76.8 64.4


(23.2, 24.6) 8.22

(8.20, 8.25) - -


(23.8, 24.6) 8.22

(8.17, 8.26) - -


(24.0, 24.7) 8.21

(8.16, 8.27) - -


(23.5, 24.6) 8.22

(8.18, 8.28) - -


(24.0, 24.8) 8.21

(8.16, 8.27) 77.6 66.8



3Hardness and alkalinity were only measured on

Day 6 (i.e., at test termination) and do not have minimum and maximum values.

Table 41 shows the survival and reproduction data from the six day, three-brood C. dubia WET test

conducted during Test Cycle 5 of the JFE BallastAce® BWMS Status Test. In order for the test

results to be acceptable there must have been at least 80 % survival and an average total number of

at least 15 young per female in the experimental control (0 % Whole Effluent). The WET test met

these criteria with 100 % survival and 22.0 average young per female (Table 41). The Performance

Control, which is used to determine overall health of the test organisms and not test result

acceptance, did not meet the test QC criteria. This result may be attributed to the fact that the C.

dubia (purchased from Environmental Consulting and Testing, Inc.) were cultured in Moderately-

Hard Reconstituted Water (specific conductivity range = 355 – 440 µS/cm) and the Performance

Control was Hard Reconstituted Water (specific conductivity range = 500 – 615 µS/cm).

Therefore, osmotic shock may have caused the low survival and reproduction in this case. Results

from the Facility Control indicate that there was no statistically significant (p<0.05) effect of

control discharge water on adult survival or reproduction (Table 41). In addition, there was no

statistically significant (p<0.05) effect of whole effluent from treatment discharge on adult survival

or reproduction when compared to the experimental control (Table 41).

GSI/LB/QAQC/TR/JFE


of 146

Table 41. Average (n=10) Percent Survival and Total Number of Offspring Produced in a Three-Brood Ceriodaphnia dubia Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET) Test Associated with Treatment Discharge from






Facility Control 100 ± 0 22.0 ± 3.4

0 % Whole Effluent2 90 ± 32 16.2 ± 4.8

6.25 % Whole Effluent 90 ± 32 17.7 ± 7.5

12.5 % Whole Effluent 100 ± 0 18.9 ± 3.1

25 % Whole Effluent 100 ± 0 18.1 ± 2.9

50 % Whole Effluent 100 ± 0 17.7 ± 2.9

100 % Whole Effluent 100 ± 0 14.5 ± 3.3 1Hard Reconstituted Water;


The water quality parameters measured in the P. promelas exposure solutions following each

24 hour renewal period are presented in Table 42. The temperature of the exposure solutions was

within the acceptance range of 25 °C ± 3 °C during the entire seven day test (Table 42). The

dissolved oxygen concentration was greater than 4.0 mg/L in all treatment groups with the

exception of the 100 % Whole Effluent, which had a minimum dissolved oxygen concentration of

3.6 mg/L (Table 42). All other water quality parameters measured (i.e., pH, hardness, and

alkalinity) were within the expected ranges for the water types measured (Table 42).

GSI/LB/QAQC/TR/JFE


of 146





(mg/L) pH

Hardness3


3

(mg/L CaCO3)


1

24.2 (23.5, 24.9)

6.5 (5.9, 7.2)

7.62 (7.50, 7.72)

42.8 46.4


(23.1, 24.8) 6.1

(4.7, 6.8) 7.75

(7.54, 7.83) 71.2 65.2

0 % Whole Effluent2

24.1 (23.6, 24.6)

6.0 (4.7, 6.7)

7.75 (7.57, 7.86)

90.0 62.8


(23.9, 25.3) 6.0

(5.4, 6.5) 7.79

(7.67, 7.86) - -


(23.7, 26.1) 5.9

(5.2, 6.5) 7.74

(7.63, 7.80) - -


(23.4, 25.9) 5.7

(4.4, 6.4) 7.73

(7.55, 7.82) - -


(23.4, 25.3) 5.6

(5.2, 6.3) 7.72

(7.65, 7.78) - -


(23.6, 25.5) 5.3

(3.6, 6.2) 7.69

(7.49, 7.78) 76.4 67.2



3Hardness and alkalinity were only

measured on Day 7 (i.e., test termination) and do not have minimum and maximum values.





these criteria with 95 % survival and 0.519 mg per fish (Table 43). The Performance Control also

met the WET test QC criteria indicating that the organisms used in this WET test were of good

health. There was no statistically significant (p<0.05) effect of control discharge water (i.e., Facility

Control) on P. promelas survival and growth (Table 43). In addition, there was no statistically

significant (p<0.05) effect of treatment discharge whole effluent on survival, with all of the

treatment groups having 96.7 % to 100 % adult survival (Table 43). Finally, there was no

statistically significant (p<0.05) effect of treatment discharge whole effluent on growth in any of

the treatment groups tested.

GSI/LB/QAQC/TR/JFE


of 146




Std. Deviation



0 % Whole Effluent2 95.0 ± 6.4 0.519 ± 0.024

6.25 % Whole Effluent 96.7 ± 3.8 0.467 ± 0.027

12.5 % Whole Effluent 100 ± 0 0.478 ± 0.020

25 % Whole Effluent 100 ± 0 0.460 ± 0.044

50 % Whole Effluent 100 ± 0 0.525 ± 0.035

100 % Whole Effluent 98.3 ± 3.3 0.492 ± 0.012 1Dechlorinated Laboratory Water;





the entire 96 hour test (Table 44). All other water quality parameters measured (i.e., dissolved


types measured. There was detectable concentrations of TRO in all treatment groups, with the

Facility Control having the highest TRO concentration of 0.045 mg/L, followed by the 50 % Whole

Effluent (0.035 mg/L), and the 100 % Whole Effluent (0.029 mg/L) treatment groups (Table 44).

GSI/LB/QAQC/TR/JFE


of 146



Treatment Group

Temperature (°C)

Dissolved Oxygen

3

(mg/L) pH

Conductivity3

(µS/cm) Hardness

3


3

(mg/L CaCO3) TRO

(mg/L)


Control1

24.4 (22.2, 25.3)

8.1 7.94

(7.54, 9.98) 86.4 14.0 12.4 0.006

Q


(24.6, 25.0) 9.0

8.41 (8.05, 8.92)

306 97.2 86.0 0.045

0 % Whole Effluent

2

24.7 (23.6, 25.2)

8.6 8.44

(8.16, 9.18) 292 94.8 82.4 0.010

Q


24.7 (23.5, 25.3)

8.4 8.44

(8.17, 9.37) 292 - - 0.019

Q


24.7 (23.4, 25.0)

8.3 8.43

(8.16, 9.04) 298 - - 0.010

Q

25 % Whole Effluent

24.7 (23.5, 25.2)

8.2 8.45

(8.16, 9.47) 295 - - 0.019

Q

50 % Whole Effluent

24.8 (24.0, 25.2)

8.3 8.44

(8.12, 9.53) 298 - - 0.035


24.9 (24.6, 25.1)

8.5 8.35

(7.93, 9.71) 307 97.2 86.4 0.029



3Conductivity, dissolved oxygen, hardness, alkalinity,

and TRO were measured only on Day 0 and do not have minimum and maximum values. Q





must not vary by more than 20 % CV among replicate flasks in the experimental control (0 %

Whole Effluent). The WET test met the criteria for cell density but did not meet the variability

criteria with 25 % CV among experimental control replicates. The Performance Control met the

WET test QC criteria indicating that the organisms used in this WET test were of good health.

There was a reduction in cell density in the Facility Control as compared to the experimental

control (0 % Whole Effluent), however, this result was not statistically significant (p<0.05).

Although the highest cell density was seen in the 100 % Whole Effluent, there was no statistically

significant effect (p<0.05) effect of treatment discharge whole effluent on growth, with average cell

density ranging from 2,265,625 cells/mL to 3,896,875 cells/mL (Table 45).

GSI/LB/QAQC/TR/JFE


of 146




Facility Control 1,386,000 ± 187,300

0 % Whole Effluent2 2,187,500 ± 543,427*

6.25 % Whole Effluent 2,415,625 ± 439,386

12.5 % Whole Effluent 2,265,625 ± 373,242

25 % Whole Effluent 2,368,750 ± 488,461

50 % Whole Effluent 2,481,250 ± 221,853

100 % Whole Effluent 3,896,875 ± 332,505 1USEPA Nutrient Media;


*CV=25 %, this test did not meet the criteria for variability among experimental control replicates.

5.2 Test Cycles 2, 4, and 6: F Panel and TG BallastCleaner® (Low Dose) BWMS Combination

5.2.1 Intake Measurements


Test Cycles 2, 4, and 6 intake of the JFE BallastAce® BWMS Status Test took place 29 September

2014, 06 October 2014, and 13 October 2014, respectively. During these three test cycles, the JFE

BallastAce® BWMS utilized TG BallastCleaner® as the active substance formulation; these test

cycles were conducted at a lower dose and higher flow rate than Test Cycles 7 and 8 (reported

separately). The operational data measured during intake of all three test cycles are summarized in

Table 46. Figure 15 shows the pre- and post-FS flow rate and pressure data in real time for Test

Cycle 2 intake (real-time data from Test Cycles 4 and 6 are available on request). The average

duration of the intake operation was 35.72 minutes (Table 46). The pre-treatment line pressure was

1.92 bar on average, which was within 4 % of the target value of 2 bar (Table 46). The differential

pressure between the pre- and post-FS lines was 0.73 bar on average (Table 46). The pre-treatment

flow rate ranged from 325 to 338 m3/hour (Table 46). The post-treatment flow rate ranged from 312

to 321 m3/hour, all within 10 % of the target flow rate (i.e., 311 m

3/hour; Table 46). The backflush

flow rate ranged from 13 to 22 m3/hour, for an average of 5 % of the post-treatment water lost to

backflush (Table 46). The total volume of water treated was 190 m3 on average, while the total

volume of water in the control retention tank was 193 m3 on average (Table 46). For zooplankton

analysis, Sample Collection Tub #4 was used for all three test cycles and an average of 2.94 m3 was

concentrated for analysis (Table 46).

GSI/LB/QAQC/TR/JFE


of 146

Table 46. Summary of Operational Measurements and Data Collected during Test Cycles 2, 4, and 6 of the JFE BallastAce® BWMS Status Test using TG BallastCleaner® as the Active Substance (Low Dose/High

Flow).



06-Oct-14 10:32:50

13-Oct-14 10:40:40

---

Duration min 35.00 36.67 35.50 35.72


bar 1.92 ± 0.23 1.90 ± 0.38 1.95 ± 0.29 1.92 ± 0.03


bar 1.14 ± 0.16 1.22 ± 0.28 1.22 ± 0.20 1.19 ± 0.05


bar 0.77 ± 0.10 0.69 ± 0.12 0.73 ± 0.12 0.73 ± 0.04


m3/hour 338 ± 12 325 ± 23 335 ± 10 333 ± 7


m3/hour 316 ± 31 312 ± 64 321 ± 42 316 ± 5


m3/hour 22 13 14 16 ± 5

Treatment Retention Tank Volume

m3 186 192 191 190 ± 3

Control Retention Tank Volume

m3 194 192 194 193 ± 1


m3 2.96 2.92 2.94 2.94 ± 0.02


m3 2.96 2.92 2.94 2.94 ± 0.02

The real-time data in Figure 15 show that the FS was backflushing continuously. The FS did

maintain flow rates and pressures in this state for the duration of the test.

GSI/LB/QAQC/TR/JFE


of 146

Figure 15. Real-Time Flow Rate and Pressure Data Measured Pre- and Post-Filter during Test Cycle 2 Intake of the JFE BallastAce® BWMS Status Test.


The TRO concentration measured in pre- and post-treatment grab samples collected simultaneously

during Test Cycles 2, 4, and 6 intake are presented in Table 47. During all three test cycles, there

were measurable TRO concentrations in the pre-treatment intake samples with a maximum

measured value of 0.053 mg/L TRO, which is within the range of TRO concentrations measured in

similar samples collected during previous tests at the GSI Facility. Table 47 also shows the target

TRO concentration three minutes after active substance dosing, as determined manually by JFE

Engineering Corporation. The target TRO concentration was based on the DSH water DOC

concentration (data not presented), therefore, the target value varied between each test cycle.

During Test Cycle 2, the TRO concentration in post-treatment intake samples ranged from 1.58 to

5.23 mg/L (Table 47), while the TRO concentration in post-treatment intake samples collected

during Test Cycle 4 ranged from 2.00 mg/L to 5.41 mg/L (Table 47). The TRO concentration was

higher overall in Test Cycle 6, ranging from 3.53 to 6.80 mg/L (Table 47).

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

0.00

50.00

100.00

150.00

200.00

250.00

300.00

350.00

400.00

450.00

500.00

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0

Pre

ss

ure

(B

ar)

Flo

w (

M^

3)

Time (min)

Flow and Pressure


GSI/LB/QAQC/TR/JFE


of 146

Table 47. Concentration of Total Residual Oxidants (TRO) in Measured Grab Samples Collected Simultaneously from the Pre- and Post-Treatment Lines During Test Cycles 2, 4, and 6 Intake of the JFE BallastAce® BWMS Status Test. N/A = Not Applicable. ND = Measured value was below the method

detection limit. Sample Location

(Pitot) Collection Time

(min) JFE Target

TRO (mg/L) Test Cycle 2 (TRO (mg/L)




1

N/A

0.033 0.013 0.010

3 0.033 ND 0.010

10 0.007 0.029 ND

30 0.053 ND 0.006


1 Test Cycle 2 = 5.07

Test Cycle 4 = 5.48

Test Cycle 6 = 5.79

4.15* 3.53 6.80*

3 4.41* 4.43* 4.51*

10 5.23* 5.41* 3.53

30 1.58 2.00 4.70*

AVERAGE 3.84 3.84 4.89

*Reported value is above the range of the TRO calibration curve (i.e., 4 mg/L is the highest standard).



Intake water quality results from pre- and post-treatment samples collected simultaneously during

Test Cycles 2, 4, and 6 of the JFE BallastAce® BWMS Status Test are presented in Table 48. All

three test cycles met the minimum challenge water quality characteristics outlined in the ETV

Protocol (USEPA, 2010). The pre-treatment TSS concentration ranged from 30.2 to 33.8 mg/L

(target value was 24.0 mg/L TSS; Table 48). The DOC concentration in pre-treatment intake

samples ranged from 7.1 to 8.0 mg/L (target value was 6 mg/L; Table 48); this parameter was not

augmented as the DSH naturally meets the challenge water DOC criterion. The pre-treatment POC

concentration ranged from 5.1 to 5.2 mg/L, which exceeded the minimum target value of 4 mg/L

(Table 48). Finally, the MM concentration in pre-treatment intake samples ranged from 25.0 to 28.8

mg/L (minimum target value was 20 mg/L; Table 48).

There was very little change in TSS, MM, NPOC, DOC, or POC concentrations between the pre-

and post-treatment intake samples, with the exception of Test Cycle 4 where NPOC and POC

concentrations in post-treatment samples were slightly elevated compared to pre-treatment samples

(Table 48). This increase may be due to the lack of isokinetic sampling methods for grab sample

collection, which may have been exacerbated by the high rate of flow during these tests. As

expected, there was a higher %T (filtered and unfiltered) in post-treatment samples as compared to

pre-treatment samples.

GSI/LB/QAQC/TR/JFE


of 146


Organic Carbon (DOC), Particulate Organic Carbon (POC), and Mineral Matter (MM) Measured in Grab Samples Collected Simultaneously from the Pre- and Post-Treatment Line on Intake During Test Cycles 2,

4, and 6 Intake of the JFE BallastAce® BWMS Status Test.

Test Cycle Sample Location

(Pitot) TSS (mg/L)

%T, Filtered/

Unfiltered

NPOC (mg/L)

DOC (mg/L)


2


30.2 (0.2) 50.6 (0.1)/ 41.9 (0.1)

12.2 (1.3) 7.1 (0.1) 5.1 (1.4) 25.0 (1.5)


29.2 (1.1) 56.2 (0.9)/ 46.8 (1.2)

12.4 (0.7) 7.1 (0.1) 5.3 (0.8) 24.0 (0.7)

4


30.5 (0.5) 42.5 (0.5)/ 33.8 (0.1)

13.0 (0.6) 7.8 (0.1) 5.2 (0.7) 25.3 (0.2)


31.1 (0.4) 48.9 (0.4)/ 38.6 (0.5)

13.8 (0.7) 7.6 (0.1) 6.2 (0.6) 24.9 (0.4)

6


33.8 (0.8) 42.9 (0.4)/ 35.4 (0.5)

13.1 (0.2) 8.0 (0.1) 5.1 (0.3) 28.8 (1.0)


34.8 (0.9) 49.8 (0.4)/ 40.8 (0.7)

13.7 (1.7) 8.0 (0.1) 5.7 (1.6) 29.1 (1.9)


The water quality in the pre-treatment sample collection tubs measured during Test Cycles 2, 4, and

6 of the JFE BallastAce® BWMS Status Test provide a time-integrated picture of the challenge

water characteristics and are presented in Table 49. The water temperature declined over the course

of the test period, ranging from 9.83 °C to 15.60 °C, which was within the range specified by the

ETV Protocol (i.e., 4 °C to 35 °C; USEPA, 2010). All other parameters were very similar between

all three test cycles (Table 49).

GSI/LB/QAQC/TR/JFE


of 146

Table 49. Average Value (±Standard Deviation, n=2) of Water Quality Parameters Measured in Pre-Treatment Sample Collection Tubs During Test Cycles 2, 4, and 6 Intake of the JFE BallastAce® BWMS

Status Test.

Parameter Test Cycle 2 Test Cycle 4 Test Cycle 6

Temperature (°C) 15.60 ± 0.01 11.10 ± 0.04 9.83 ± 0.01


0.206 ± 0.000 0.205 ± 0.000 0.228 ± 0.000

Salinity (ppt) 0.10 ± 0.00 0.10 ± 0.00 0.11 ± 0.00

pH 7.44 7.20 7.40

Turbidity (NTU) 18.7 ± 0.6 24.4 ± 1.8 20.6 ± 0.1

Total Chlorophyll (µg/L) 9.3 ± 0.2 8.3 ± 0.8 8.3 ± 0.1

Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L) 8.69 ± 0.04 9.14 ± 0.17 9.68 ± 0.13


87.2 ± 0.1 83.2 ± 1.3 85.5 ± 1.0


As shown in Table 50, Test Cycles 2, 4, and 6 had live organism densities in the challenge water

that exceeded the minimum criteria for challenge water total living populations specified by the

ETV Protocol (USEPA, 2010). For the largest regulated size class, nominally zooplankton,

challenge water densities ranged from 177,000 to 242,000 live organisms per m3, with Test Cycle 6

having the greatest density (Table 50). The ≥ 10 µm and < 50 µm size class, nominally protists,

ranged from 1,085 to 4,027 live cells/mL in the challenge water, with Test Cycle 2 having the

highest density (Table 50). The smallest regulated size class was represented by culturable, aerobic,

heterotrophic bacteria. Live densities, as measured by the spread plate method, well exceeded the

minimum density of 1,000/mL and ranged from 13,200 to 57,200 live bacteria per mL, with Test

Cycle 4 having the highest density (Table 50).

Table 50. Live Plankton Densities (n=1 each) and Average (± Standard Deviation, n=3) Microbial

Concentration in Challenge Water Samples Collected During Test Cycles 2, 4, and 6 of the JFE BallastAce® BWMS Status Test.


Requirements Test Cycle 2 Test Cycle 4 Test Cycle 6


100,000 organisms/m

3

177,000 207,000 242,000

≥ 10 µm and < 50 µm Concentration (cells/mL) 1,000

organisms/mL 4,027 1,085 1,158



1,000/mL 13,200 (1,990)

57,200 (6,330) 49,900 (7,680)

GSI/LB/QAQC/TR/JFE


of 146

5.2.2 Retention Period Conditions

During the 48 hour retention period associated with Test Cycles 2, 4, and 6 of the JFE BallastAce®

BWMS Status Test, the TRO concentration in the control and treatment retention tanks was

measured twice (once at 24 and once at 48 hours). Various water quality parameters were also

measured every 15 minutes in both tanks and logged during retention.

5.2.2.1 BWMS Active Substance Concentration


during the 48 hour holding time ranging from below the method detection limit to 0.026 mg/L.

Overall, these values were slightly lower than pre-treatment intake TRO concentrations. There was

a substantial decrease in TRO concentration of the treated water during the 48 hour retention time

(Table 51), which indicates that there was marked chlorine demand still present in the intake water

after treatment. All three test cycles had similar TRO concentrations in the treatment retention tank

at 24 and 48 hours post-treatment, with Test Cycle 2 having the lowest concentration and Test

Cycle 6 having the highest concentration overall (Table 51). At 24 hours, the TRO concentration

ranged from 0.191 to 0.267 mg/L (Table 51), on average this was a decrease of 94 % compared to

post-treatment intake (Table 51). At 48 hours, the TRO concentration ranged from 0.152 to 0.229

mg/L, a 96 % decrease on average from post-treatment intake samples (Table 51). Table 51. Concentration of Total Residual Oxidants (TRO) in the Control and Treatment Retention Tanks 24 and 48 Hours Post-Treatment during Test Cycles 2, 4, and 6 of the JFE BallastAce® BWMS Status Test.

ND = Measured value was below the method detection limit.

Sample Location Collection Time

(hour) Test Cycle 2 TRO (mg/L)



Control Retention Tank 24 ND 0.023 0.025

48 ND 0.016 0.026


24 0.191 0.246 0.267

48 0.152 0.172 0.229



control and treatment retention tanks during the 48 hour holding time utilized in Test Cycles 2, 4,

and 6 of the JFE BallastAce® BWMS Status Test. Each parameter was measured every 15 minutes

during the holding period, however, during Test Cycle 2 the Sonde in the control retention tank ran

out of batteries ~31 hours into the retention period.

There were no unexpected differences in water quality between the test cycles (Table 52). Overall,

the water temperature during retention decreased from Test Cycle 2 to Test Cycle 6, which occurred

approximately three weeks apart from each other during the end of the GSI Facility testing season.

There were some notable, although expected, differences between the control and treatment

retention tanks. The specific conductivity was slightly higher in the treatment retention tank as

compared to the control retention tank (Table 52). This was due to the addition of TG

GSI/LB/QAQC/TR/JFE


of 146

BallastCleaner® to the treated water and the subsequent increase in ions. Total chlorophyll was

markedly decreased in the treatment retention tank, which was due to the decrease in live protist

density as a result of treatment (Table 52).

Table 52. Water Quality Parameters Measured In-Situ in the Control and Treatment Retention Tanks during the 48 Hour Holding Period for Test Cycles 2, 4, and 6 of the JFE BallastAce® BWMS Status Test.

Parameter Retention Tank Test Cycle 2 Test Cycle 4 Test Cycle 6

Temperature (°C)

Control 14.96 ± 0.44,

n=113* 10.88 ± 0.29,

n=179 9.83 ± 0.17,

n=177

Treatment 14.56 ± 0.57, n=175 10.70 ± 0.31,

n=178 9.89 ± 0.13,

n=177


Control 0.206 ± 0.001,

n=113* 0.204 ± 0.000,

n=179 0.228 ± 0.000,

n=177

Treatment 0.225 ± 0.000,

n=175 0.226 ± 0.000,

n=178 0.255 ± 0.000,

n=177

Salinity (ppt)

Control 0.10 ± 0.00, n=113* 0.10 ± 0.00, n=179 0.11 ± 0.00,

n=177

Treatment 0.11 ± 0.00, n=175 0.11 ± 0.00, n=178 0.12 ± 0.00,

n=177

pH Control 7.56, n=113* 7.54, n=179 7.56, n=177

Treatment 7.70, n=175 7.67, n=178 7.66, n=177

Turbidity (NTU)

Control 14.9 ± 1.3, n=113* 20.6 ± 1.3, n=179 17.0 ± 1.2,

n=177

Treatment 14.7 ± 1.0, n=175 20.5 ± 1.1, n=178 16.5 ± 1.3,

n=177

Total Chlorophyll (µg/L) Control 8.9 ± 0.7, n=113* 8.5 ± 0.5, n=179

8.3 ± 0.6, n=177

Treatment 4.4 ± 0.4, n=175 4.7 ± 0.5, n=178 4.4 ±0.6,

n=177


Control 8.44 ± 0.07, n=113* 8.97 ± 0.04, n=179 9.41 ± 0.02,

n=177

Treatment 9.00 ± 0.02, n=175 9.23 ± 0.02, n=178 9.71 ± 0.01,

n=177


Control 83.6 ± 1.5, n=113* 81.2 ± 0.9, n=179 83.1 ± 0.4,

n=177

Treatment 88.5 ± 1.1, n=175 83.1 ± 0.5, n=178 85.9 ± 0.3,

n=177

*The Sonde ran out of batteries during the retention period and only 65 % of the retention period was logged in comparison to the treatment tank.

GSI/LB/QAQC/TR/JFE


of 146




The operational data measured during discharge of the control retention tank for Test Cycles 2, 4,

and 6 of the JFE BallastAce® BWMS Status Test are presented in Table 53. The control discharge

data from all three test cycles were very similar. Control discharge occurred over an average

duration of 33.11 minutes; at a pressure of 1.86 bar and flow rate of 319 m3/hour, on average (Table

53). A total of 174 m3 was discharged from the control retention tank, on average (Table 53).

Zooplankton samples, all of which were collected from Sample Collection Tub #1, represented an

average of 3.10 m3


Table 53. Summary of Operational Measurements and Data Collected during Control Retention Tank Discharge for Test Cycles 2, 4, and 6 of the JFE BallastAce® BWMS Status Test using TG BallastCleaner® as

the Active Substance.


Date and Start Time --- 01-Oct-14 13:59:00

08-Oct-14 12:33:00

15-Oct-14 12:02:40

---

Duration min 34.17 32.33 32.83 33.11


bar 1.87 ± 0.44 1.78 ± 0.41 1.92 ± 0.39 1.86 ± 0.07


m3/hour 315 ± 49 322 ± 16 320 ± 32 319 ± 4


m3 175 173 174 174 ± 1


m3 3.13 3.08 3.10 3.10 ± 0.03


m3 3.12 3.06 3.09 3.09 ± 0.03



Cycles 2, 4, and 6 of the JFE BallastAce® BWMS Status Test. As with the control discharge data,

the average values from each test cycle are very similar. The treatment discharge operation was an

average of 35.11 minutes in duration (Table 54). There was a slight difference in pressure, 0.50 bar

on average, between the pre-neutralization line and the post-neutralization line (Table 54). This

difference was not as great as during intake because the BWMS FS was not active during discharge.

The average treatment discharge flow rate was 312 m3/hour, and an average 185 m

3 of water from

the treatment retention tank was discharged (Table 54). Zooplankton samples were collected from

Sample Collection Tubs #4 and #5, which had an average sample volume of 3.21 m3 and 3.19 m

3,

respectively (Table 54).

GSI/LB/QAQC/TR/JFE


of 146

Table 54. Summary of Operational Measurements and Data Collected during Treatment Retention Tank Discharge for Test Cycles 7 and 8 of the JFE BallastAce® BWMS Status Test using TG BallastCleaner® as

the Active Substance.



08-Oct-14 09:31:30

15-Oct-14 09:34:00

---

Duration min 34.00 36.00 35.33 35.11


Deviation) bar 1.96 ± 0.32 1.93 ± 0.41 1.98 ± 0.34 1.96 ± 0.03


Deviation) bar 1.45 ± 0.29 1.46 ± 0.32 1.48 ± 0.25 1.46 ± 0.02


bar 0.51 ± 0.09 0.48 ± 0.11 0.50 ± 0.11 0.50 ± 0.02


m3/hour 314 ± 61 309 ± 59 314 ± 48 312 ± 3


m3 180 187 187 185 ± 4


m3 3.14 3.18 3.30 3.21 ± 0.08


m3 3.13 3.16 3.29 3.19 ± 0.09


m3 2.90 2.80 3.06 2.92 ± 0.13



The concentration of TRO measured in grab samples collected throughout control and treatment

tank discharge operations associated with Test Cycles 2, 4 and 6 of the JFE BallastAce® Status

Test are presented in Table 55. The concentration of TRO in control discharge water ranged from

below the method detection limit to 0.019 mg/L, which was in keeping with the range of TRO

concentrations measured in pre-treatment water during these three test cycles (Table 55). The range

of TRO concentrations measured in the treatment discharge samples was only slightly higher,

ranging from below the method detection limit to 0.082 mg/L (Table 55). The treatment discharge

water was sent to the GSI Facility’s wastewater holding tank where the TRC concentration was

measured; in all cases the TRC concentration was below the permitted level of 0.038 mg/L (data

not presented) and the water was discharged to the DSH.

GSI/LB/QAQC/TR/JFE


of 146

Table 55. Concentration of Total Residual Oxidants (TRO) Measured in Grab Samples Collected During Test Cycles 2, 4, and 6 Control and Treatment Tank Discharge Operations Associated with the JFE

BallastAce® BWMS Status Test. ND = Measured value was below the method detection limit.






Control (SP9c)

1 ND 0.016 0.010

3 0.007 0.013 0.016

10 0.007 0.013 0.013

25 ND 0.013 0.019

Treatment (SP15)

1 0.077 0.082 0.026

3 0.064 0.079 0.016

10 0.027 0.059 0.036

25 0.017 0.030 0.026



Table 56 shows the measured water quality data from grab samples collected throughout discharge

of the control and treatment retention tanks associated with Test Cycles 2, 4, and 6 of the JFE

BallastAce® BWMS Status Test. As expected, %T (both filtered and unfiltered) was higher in the

treatment discharge samples than in the control discharge samples (Table 56). The chlorine in the

treated water continued to oxidize and break down the organic matter during retention, resulting in

treatment discharge water that was more transparent than the control water.

GSI/LB/QAQC/TR/JFE


of 146


Organic Carbon (DOC), Particulate Organic Carbon (POC), and Mineral Matter (MM) in Grab Samples Collected Sequentially from the Treatment and Control Line on Discharge Associated with Test Cycles 2, 4

and 6 of the JFE BallastAce® BWMS Status Test.

Test Cycle Sample

Location (Pitot)

TSS (mg/L) %T,


NPOC (mg/L)

DOC (mg/L)


2

Control (SP9a)

9.3 (0.7) 50.9 (0.1)/ 43.8 (0.2)

8.2 (0.1) 6.9 (0.1) 1.3 (0.1) 8.0 (0.8)

Treatment (SP15)

13.9 (1.8) 55.0 (0.3)/ 46.0 (0.2)

9.0 (0.1) 7.0 (0.1) 2.0 (0.1) 11.9 (1.7)

4

Control (SP9a)

10.7 (0.5) 42.4 (0.1)/ 34.3 (0.1)

9.4 (0.2) 7.7 (0.1) 1.6 (0.2) 9.1 (0.4)

Treatment (SP15)

12.8 (1.2) 47.2 (0.4)/ 38.7 (0.1)

10.1 (0.4) 8.0 (0.1) 2.1 (0.5) 10.7 (0.7)

6

Control (SP9a)

11.8 (0.4) 42.7 (0.3)/ 36.1 (0.1)

11.2 (0.6) 8.0 (0.1) 3.2 (0.6) 8.6 (0.2)

Treatment (SP15)

12.8 (1.6) 48.4 (0.3)/ 41.8 (0.3)

10.8 (0.2) 8.2 (0.2) 2.5 (0.3) 10.3 (1.9)


Table 57 shows water quality parameters measured in the sample collection tubs using calibrated

Sondes immediately following discharge of the control and treatment retention tanks associated

with Test Cycles 2, 4, and 6 of the JFE BallastAce® BWMS Status Test. Test Cycles 2 and 6 were

conducted approximately three weeks apart; therefore, the temperature declined ~3 °C between

those two test cycles (Table 57). Overall, the specific conductivity and salinity were higher in the

treatment discharge water than in the control discharge water due to the added ions from treatment

with TG BallastCleaner® and neutralization with sodium sulfite (Table 57). The total chlorophyll

concentration in the control discharge was higher than in the treatment discharge due to the

decreased protist density as a result of treatment (Table 57). For all other parameters, there was no

discernible trend between test cycles or within a test cycle (control versus treatment; Table 57).

GSI/LB/QAQC/TR/JFE


of 146

Table 57. Average (± Standard Deviation) Water Quality Parameters Measured in Sample Collection Tubs Immediately Following Control and Treatment Discharge Operations for Test Cycles 2, 4, and 6 of the JFE

BallastAce® BWMS Status Test.

Parameter Sample Type Test Cycle 2 Test Cycle 4 Test Cycle 6

Temperature (°C) CONT, n=2 13.60 ± 0.03 10.35 ± 0.01 10.13 ± 0.01

TRT, n=3 13.63 ± 0.01 9.97 ± 0.02; n=2* 9.64 ± 0.01


CONT, n=2 0.205 ± 0.000 0.204 ± 0.000 0.228 ± 0.001

TRT, n=3 0.226 ± 0.000 0.227 ± 0.000; n=2* 0.256 ± 0.000

Salinity (ppt) CONT, n=2 0.10 ± 0.00 0.10 ± 0.00 0.11 ± 0.00

TRT, n=3 0.11 ± 0.00 0.11 ± 0.00, n=2* 0.12 ± 0.00

pH CONT, n=2 6.88 7.42 6.99

TRT, n=3 7.44 7.16, n=2* 7.45

Turbidity (NTU) CONT, n=2 11.7 ± 0.1 18.9 ± 0.3 15.8 ± 0.4

TRT, n=3 14.6 ± 0.7 19.0 ± 0.1, n=2* 15.5 ± 1.2

Total Chlorophyll (µg/L)

CONT, n=2 8.5 ± 0.2 7.3 ± 0.1 7.8 ± 0.1

TRT, n=3 4.9 ± 0.1 5.3 ± 0.2, n=2* 5.1 ± 0.2


CONT, n=2 8.40 ± 0.03 9.18 ± 0.02 9.70 ± 0.01

TRT, n=3 8.78 ± 0.06 9.55 ± 0.06, n=2* 9.87 ± 0.02


CONT, n=2 80.8 ± 0.2 82.1 ± 0.0 86.2 ± 0.1

TRT, n=3 84.5 ± 0.6 84.5 ± 0.6, n=2* 86.8 ± 0.2

*Water quality was not measured in Sample Collection Tub #6 because for the first four minutes of the discharge operation (~ 12 % of the operation) water was not flowing into the tub.


The control and treatment discharge densities of the three regulated size classes associated with

Test Cycles 2, 4, and 6 of the JFE BallastAce® BWMS Status Test are presented in Table 58; more

detailed taxonomic data are available on request. The control discharge density of the ≥ 50 µm size

class greatly exceeded the minimum concentration of 100 live organisms/m3 specified in the ETV

Protocol, ranging from 312,000/m3 to 486,000/m

3 (Table 58). There was a marked decrease in

treatment discharge density as compared to control discharge density for all three test cycles. Test

Cycle 2 had an average treatment discharge density of 311 live organism/m3 (i.e., 99.9 % reduction

compared to control discharge; Table 58). Test Cycle 4 had 416 live organisms/m3 (i.e., 99.9 %

reduction compared to control discharge; Table 58) and Test Cycle 6 had 190 live organisms/m3

(i.e., 99.9 % reduction compared to control discharge; Table 58). All three test cycles had treatment

discharge densities that were well above the USCG BWDS of 10 live organisms/m3.


Protocol minimum required density of 100 organisms/mL; live density ranged from 773 cells/mL to

1,213 cells/mL (Table 58). There was also a substantial decrease in live organism density in the

treatment discharge as compared to the control discharge, with densities ranging from 0.75 cell/mL

to 1.35 cells/mL (Table 58). All three test cycles met the USCG BWDS for this size class of

organisms (Table 58).

GSI/LB/QAQC/TR/JFE


of 146



Protocol. The control discharge density ranged from an average of 17,500 CFU/mL to 80,300

CFU/mL (Table 58). There was a substantial decrease in heterotrophic bacteria density in the

treatment discharge as compared to the control, ranging from an average of 838 CFU/mL to 3,960

CFU/mL (Table 58). There was a 95.2 % reduction in density compared to the control during Test

Cycle 2. During Test Cycles 4 and 6, there was a 98.7 % and 93.6 % reduction, respectively, in

comparison to control discharge densities. There is no discharge standard for heterotrophic bacteria;

these densities cannot be compared to any regulation.

Table 58. Live Plankton Density (Average ± Standard Deviation, Where Applicable) and Average (± Standard Deviation, n=3) Microbial Concentrations in Samples Collected During Control and Treatment

Retention Tank Discharge for Test Cycles 2, 4, and 6 of the JFE BallastAce® BWMS Status Test.



Test Cycle 2 Test Cycle 4 Test Cycle 6

Control Treatment Control Treatment Control Treatment

≥ 50 µm < 10 organisms per

m3

486,000

311 320,000

416 312,000 190

≥ 10 µm and < 50 µm < 10 organisms per

mL 1,213 1.00 773 1.35 1,051 0.75

< 10 µm (CFU/mL as culturable aerobic

heterotrophic bacteria)

No discharge standard for

heterotrophic bacteria.

17,500 (1,340)

838 (459) 80,300 (4,510)

1,080 (1,260)

61,900 (1,350)

3,960 (2,700)

5.2.3.5 Disinfection Byproduct s(DBPs) Concentrations

The results from analysis of selected DBPs in samples collected during Test Cycle 4 control and

treatment discharge of the JFE BallastAce® BWMS Status Test are presented in Table 59. Samples

were collected for DBP analysis only during test cycles that were also selected for WET testing.

There were elevated concentrations of all classes of DBPs in the treatment discharge as compared to

the control discharge, with the exception of the bromate ion (Table 59). In the control discharge

samples, all of the selected DBPs were below the limit of detection with the exception of total

sodium (i.e., average concentration of 10.3 µg/L; Table 59). Of all DBPs measured, the chlorate ion

had the highest measured concentration in treatment discharge, with an average of 238 µg/L (Table

59). It is interesting to note that the chlorate ion concentration measured in treatment discharge

samples from Test Cycle 4 was over seven times higher than that of Test Cycles 1 and 5. The total

trihalomethanes was the second highest class of DBPs, in terms of concentration in treatment

discharge, with an average concentration of 147 µg/L (Table 59). Chloroform was the primary

contributor and bromodichloromethane was a secondary contributor in the treatment discharge

samples. There was an average of 117 µg/L total haloacetic acids in treatment discharge;

dichloroacetic acid and trichloroacetic acid were the primary contributors to the total concentration

of haloacetic acids in treatment discharge (Table 59). The average concentration of total

haloacetonitriles in treatment discharge was 20 µg/L; the majority of the total was from chloral

hydrate (Table 59). Total sodium was only slightly higher in treatment discharge as compared to

GSI/LB/QAQC/TR/JFE


of 146

control discharge (i.e., 14.9 µg/L in treatment discharge compared to 10.3 µg/L in control

discharge; Table 59).


Discharge of the Control and Treatment Retention Tanks in Test Cycle 4 of the JFE BallastAce® Status Test.

Analyte Formula

TEST CYCLE 4



Bromodichloromethane CHBrCl2 < 0.5 10.1

Bromoform CHBr3 < 0.5 < 0.5

Chlorodibromomethane CHBr2Cl < 0.5 < 0.5

Chloroform CHCl3 < 0.5 137

Total Trihalomethanes < 0.5 147

Bromochloroacetic acid* BrClCHCOOH < 1.0 4.5

Dibromoacetic acid CHBr2COOH < 1.0 < 1.0

Dichloroacetic acid CHCl2COOH < 1.0 46.4

Monobromoacetic acid CH2BrCOOH < 1.0 < 1.0

Monochloroacetic acid CH2ClCOOH < 2.0 4.0

Trichloroacetic acid CCl3COOH < 1.0 66.4

Total Haloacetic Acids < 1.0 117

1,1,1-trichloro-2-Propanone CCl3COCH3 < 0.5 5.2

1,1-dichloro-2-Propanone CH3COCHCl2 < 0.5 2.2

Bromochloroacetonitrile C2HBrClN < 0.5 < 0.5

Bromoacetonitrile BrCH2CN < 0.5 < 0.5

Chloral hydrate Cl3CCH(OH)2 < 0.5 10

Chloroacetonitrile ClCH2CN < 0.5 < 0.5

Chloropicrin Cl3CNO2 < 0.5 < 0.5

Dibromoacetonitrile Br2CHCN < 0.5 < 0.5

Dichloroacetonitrile Cl2CHCN < 0.5 2.7

Trichloroacetonitrile Cl3CCN < 0.5 < 0.5

Total Haloacetonitriles < 0.5 20

Bromate BrO3- < 5.0 < 5.0

Chlorate ClO3- < 20.0 238

Sodium, Total Na 10.3 14.9


GSI/LB/QAQC/TR/JFE


of 146


The water quality parameters measured in stock solutions prepared prior to the start of Test Cycle 4




concentration was above the minimum value specified for P. promelas (i.e., 4.0 mg/L) in all cases

(Table 60). All other water quality parameters measured (i.e., pH, conductivity, hardness, and

alkalinity) were within the expected ranges for the water types measured. There was no detectable

TRO in the C. dubia and P. promelas Performance Control stock solutions (Table 60). The TRO

values in the Facility Control (i.e., control discharge water) ranged from 0.023 to 0.048 mg/L

(Table 60). There was measurable TRO in the 12.5 %, 25 %, 50 %, and 100 % Whole Effluent

treatment groups for the entire duration of the C. dubia and P. promelas WET tests, ranging from as

low as 0.010 mg/L to 0.054 mg/L overall (Table 60). The TRO concentration in the 0 % and 6.25 %

Whole Effluent treatment groups ranged from below the method detection limit to 0.019 mg/L

(Table 60).


Solutions during the Ceriodaphnia dubia and Pimephales promelas Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET) Tests Associated with Test Cycle 4 of the JFE BallastAce® BWMS Status Test.


(°C)


pH Conductivity

(µS/cm)

Hardness4

(mg/L CaCO3)

Alkalinity4

(mg/L CaCO3)

TRO (mg/L)

C. dubia Performance Control

1

23.3 (22.0, 24.6)

8.4 (7.8, 8.8)

8.49 (8.41, 8.53)

582 (576, 590)

173.2 112.4 <DL


2

24.3 (23.6, 24.9)

6.8 (6.6, 7.0)

7.59 (7.52, 7.65)

167.2 (154.5, 173.7)

54.8 62.0 <DL


(23.8, 26.9) 9.8

(9.4, 10.4) 7.81

(7.74, 7.85) 212

(207, 222) 82.0 73.6

0.032 (0.023, 0.048)

0 % Whole Effluent3

25.6 (24.3, 27.0)

10.1 (8.8, 10.9)

7.94 (7.91, 7.98)

210 (207, 211)

81.6 70.0 0.009

Q

(<DL, 0.016 Q

)


(24.1, 26.8) 9.2

(8.5, 9.9) 7.97

(7.95, 8.01) 211

(210, 211) - -

0.016 Q

(<DL, 0.019)


(24.2, 26.3) 9.1

(8.4, 9.9) 7.96

(7.87, 8.00) 212

(210, 214) - -

0.015 Q

(0.010

Q, 0.022)


(24.4, 26.6) 9.1

(8.4, 9.7) 7.98

(7.95, 8.00) 216

(215, 216) - -

0.022 (0.017

Q, 0.032)


(24.5, 26.4) 9.1

(8.6, 9.8) 7.97

(7.94, 8.00) 222

(221, 223) - -

0.031 (0.023, 0.038)


(23.3, 26.9) 10.0

(9.6, 10.9) 7.88

(7.78, 7.93) 234

(232, 235) 88.4 75.6

0.047 (0.039, 0.054)




4Hardness and


value. Q


GSI/LB/QAQC/TR/JFE


of 146









(°C) pH

Hardness3


3

(mg/L CaCO3)


24.1 (23.6, 24.7)

8.40 (8.36, 8.43)

155.6 108.4


(23.5, 24.5) 8.23

(7.99, 8.36) 79.2 68.0

0 % Whole Effluent2

24.1 (23.1, 24.5)

8.18 (8.00, 8.28)

72.4 67.6


(23.6, 24.2) 8.23

(8.17, 8.27) - -


(23.8, 24.2) 8.23

(8.17, 8.27) - -


(23.6, 24.3) 8.17

(8.02, 8.24) - -


(23.9, 24.3) 8.24

(8.19, 8.29) - -


(23.6, 24.0) 8.23

(8.17, 8.26) 78.4 75.6



3Hardness and alkalinity were only measured on

Day 6 (test termination) and do not have minimum and maximum values.







acceptance, did not meet the test QC criteria. This result may be attributed to the fact that the C.

dubia (purchased from Environmental Consulting and Testing, Inc.) were cultured in Moderately-

Hard Reconstituted Water (specific conductivity range = 355 – 440 µS/cm) and the Performance

Control was Hard Reconstituted Water (specific conductivity range = 500 – 615 µS/cm).

Therefore, osmotic shock may have caused the low survival and reproduction in this case. Results

from the Facility Control indicate that there was no statistically significant (p<0.05) effect of

control discharge water on adult survival or reproduction. In addition, there was no statistically

significant (p<0.05) effect of whole effluent from treatment discharge on adult survival or

reproduction when compared to the experimental control, although, the average number of young

GSI/LB/QAQC/TR/JFE


of 146

per female was reduced in the 100 % Whole Effluent treatment group as compared to the

experimental control (Table 62).


Ceriodaphnia dubia Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET) Test Associated with Treatment Discharge from Test Cycle 4 of the JFE BallastAce® BWMS Status Test.






0 % Whole Effluent2 100 ± 0 17.7 ± 6.1

6.25 % Whole Effluent 100 ± 0 15.9 ± 4.6

12.5 % Whole Effluent 100 ± 0 17.8 ± 6.5

25 % Whole Effluent 100 ± 0 15.2 ± 3.9

50 % Whole Effluent 100 ± 0 17.7 ± 4.2

100 % Whole Effluent 100 ± 0 12.1±4.1 1Hard Reconstituted Water;





dissolved oxygen concentration was greater than 4.0 mg/L in all treatment groups with the

exception of the 50 % and 100 % Whole Effluent, which had a minimum dissolved oxygen

concentration of 3.8 mg/L (Table 63). All other water quality parameters measured (i.e., pH,

hardness, and alkalinity) were within the expected ranges for the water types measured (Table 63).

GSI/LB/QAQC/TR/JFE


of 146





(mg/L) pH

Hardness3


3

(mg/L CaCO3)


1

24.6 (23.9, 25.5)

6.0 (5.2, 7.1)

7.63 (7.47, 7.89)

50.4 49.6


(24.2, 26.1) 5.4

(4.2, 6.4) 7.70

(7.53, 7.85) 76.4 70.8

0 % Whole Effluent2

24.9 (23.9, 25.8)

5.6 (4.6, 6.9)

7.70 (7.56, 7.96)

86.4 72.8


(23.6, 25.8) 5.7

(5.0, 6.7) 7.70

(7.59, 8.00) - -


(24.0, 25.9) 5.5

(4.5, 6.7) 7.73

(7.55, 8.02) - -


(24.2, 26.0) 5.7

(4.4, 6.9) 7.75

(7.56, 8.03) - -


(23.9, 25.5) 5.5

(3.8, 6.7) 7.73

(7.53, 8.03) - -


(23.5, 25.7) 5.4

(3.8, 6.5) 7.73

(7.51, 7.99) 88.0 73.2




measured on Day 7 (test termination) and do not have minimum and maximum values.





these criteria with 98.3 % survival and 0.449 mg per fish (Table 64). The Performance Control is

used to determine overall health of the test organisms and not test result acceptance, however, the

Performance Control also met the WET test QC criteria indicating that the organisms used in this

WET test were of good health. There was no statistically significant (p<0.05) effect of control

discharge water (i.e., Facility Control) on P. promelas survival and growth. In addition, there was

no statistically significant (p<0.05) effect of treatment discharge whole effluent on survival, with all

of the treatment groups having 98.3 % to 100 % adult survival (Table 64). Finally, there was no

statistically significant (p<0.05) effect of treatment discharge whole effluent on growth in any of

the treatment groups tested.

GSI/LB/QAQC/TR/JFE


of 146




Std. Deviation

P. promelas Performance Control1 98.3 ± 3.3 0.442 ± 0.027

Facility Control 85.0 ± 8.4 0.427 ± 0.019

0 % Whole Effluent2 98.3 ± 3.3 0.449 ± 0.019

6.25 % Whole Effluent 100 ± 0 0.425 ± 0.013

12.5 % Whole Effluent 98.3 ± 3.3 0.424 ± 0.038

25 % Whole Effluent 100 ± 0 0.437 ± 0.041

50 % Whole Effluent 100 ± 0 0.438 ± 0.043

100 % Whole Effluent 98.3 ± 3.3 0.455 ± 0.041 1Dechlorinated Laboratory Water;

2Filtered Duluth-Superior Harbor Water.






types measured (Table 65). There were detectable concentrations of TRO in all treatment groups,

with the exception of the Performance Control (Table 65). The 100 % Whole Effluent treatment

group had the highest TRO concentration with 0.043 mg/L (Table 65).

GSI/LB/QAQC/TR/JFE


of 146




(°C)

Dissolved Oxygen

3

(mg/L) pH

Conductivity3

(µS/cm) Hardness

3


3

(mg/L CaCO3) TRO

3

(mg/L)


Control1

24.5 (23.4, 25.1)

8.7 7.90

(7.49, 9.73) 92.1 18.0 13.6 <0.0058


(23.6, 24.9) 8.5

8.43 (8.05, 9.05)

299 96.0 84.0 0.026

0 % Whole Effluent

2

24.5 (23.6, 24.9)

8.9 8.48

(8.21, 9.23) 291 93.6 80.0 0.010


24.6 (23.9, 24.9)

8.4 8.49

(8.24, 9.25) 294 - - 0.010


24.6 (23.8, 24.8)

8.2 8.50

(8.26, 9.35) 298 - - 0.013

25 % Whole Effluent

24.6 (23.7, 24.9)

8.2 8.52

(8.25, 9.56) 302 - - 0.017

50 % Whole Effluent

24.6 (23.9, 24.8)

8.6 8.51

(8.24, 9.41) 308 - - 0.026


24.6 (23.6, 24.9)

8.6 8.51

(8.15, 9.49) 313 103.2 84.4 0.043










% Whole Effluent). The WET test met these criteria with 2,525,000 cells/mL and 6 % CV among

experimental control replicates (Table 66). The Performance Control also met the WET test QC

criteria indicating that the organisms used in this WET test were of good health. There was a

reduction in cell density in the Facility Control as compared to the experimental control (0 %

Whole Effluent; Table 66), however, this result was not statistically significant (p<0.05). Although

the highest cell density was seen in the 100 % Whole Effluent, there was no statistically significant

effect (p<0.05) effect of treatment discharge whole effluent on growth, with average cell density

ranging from 2,778,125 cells/mL to 3,092,708 cells/mL (Table 66).

GSI/LB/QAQC/TR/JFE


of 146





0 % Whole Effluent2 2,525,000 ± 158,443

6.25 % Whole Effluent 2,778,125 ± 631,415

12.5 % Whole Effluent 2,628,125 ± 262,674

25 % Whole Effluent 2,690,625 ± 558,026

50 % Whole Effluent 2,975,000 ± 527,474

100 % Whole Effluent 3,092,708 ± 1,447,365 1USEPA Nutrient Media;

2Filtered Duluth-Superior Harbor Water.

5.3 Test Cycles 7 and 8: F Panel and TG BallastCleaner® (High-Dose) BWMS Combination

5.3.1 Intake Measurements


Test Cycles 7 and 8 intake operations associated with the JFE BallastAce® BWMS Status Test took

place 22 and 27 October 2014, respectively. During these two test cycles, the JFE BallastAce®

BWMS utilized TG BallastCleaner® as the active substance formulation; these test cycles were

conducted at a higher dose and lower flow rate than Test Cycles 2, 4, and 6. The operational data

measured during intake of Test Cycles 7 and 8 are summarized in Table 67. Figure 16 shows the

pre- and post-FS flow rate and pressure data in real time for Test Cycle 8 intake (real-time data

from Test Cycle 7 are available on request). The average duration of the intake operation was 57.33

minutes (Table 67). The pre-treatment line pressure was 1.95 bar on average, which was within 3 %

of the target value of 2 bar (Table 67). The differential pressure between the pre- and post-FS lines

was 0.27 bar on average (Table 67). The pre-treatment flow rate was 198 m3/hour and 197 m

3/hour

for Test Cycles 7 and 8, respectively (Table 67). The post-treatment flow rate was 198 m3/hour and

199 m3/hour for Test Cycles 7 and 8, respectively, all within 10 % of the target flow rate (i.e., 200

m3/hour; Table 67). The backflush flow rate was 2 m

3/hour and 1 m

3/hour for Test Cycles 7 and 8,

respectively (Table 67). The total volume of water treated was 191 m3 on average, while the total

volume of water in the control retention tank was 190 m3 on average (Table 67). For zooplankton

analysis, Sample Collection Tub #4 was used for both test cycles and an average of 2.77 m3 was


GSI/LB/QAQC/TR/JFE


of 146

Table 67. Summary of Operational Measurements and Data Collected during Test Cycles 7 and 8 of the JFE BallastAce® BWMS Status Test using TG BallastCleaner® as the Active Substance

(High Dose/Low Flow).

Parameter Units Test Cycle 7 Test Cycle 8 Average


27-Oct-14 10:24:10

---

Duration min 56.83 57.83 57.33


bar 1.96 ± 0.20 1.94 ± 0.24 1.95 ± 0.01


bar 1.69 ± 0.19 1.67 ± 0.24 1.68 ± 0.01


bar 0.27 ± 0.07 0.27 ± 0.08 0.27 ± 0.00


m3/hour 198 ± 9 197 ± 13 198 ± 1


m3/hour 198 ± 15 199 ± 30 199 ± 1


m3/hour 2 1 2 ± 1

Treatment Retention Tank Volume m3 189 192 191 ± 2

Control Retention Tank Volume m3 189 190 190 ± 1

Sample Collection Tub #4 Volume m3 2.78 2.76 2.77 ± 0.01

Sample Collection Tub #5 Volume m3 2.78 2.75 2.77 ± 0.02

The real-time data in Figure 16 shows that once the set flow rate and pressure was achieved there

was very low variability in pre- and post-FS flow rate and pressure during the ~ 60 minute

operation. There were eight backflush cycles, after which, the operational data quickly returned to a

steady state condition (Figure 16).

GSI/LB/QAQC/TR/JFE


of 146

Figure 16. Real-Time Pre- and Post-Filter Flow Rate and Pressure Data Measured During Test Cycle 8 Intake of the JFE BallastAce® BWMS Status Test.


The TRO and TRC concentrations measured in pre- and post-treatment grab samples collected

simultaneously during Test Cycles 7 and 8 intake are presented in Table 68. During Test Cycle 7

there were no measurable TRO or TRC concentrations in the pre-treatment water (Table 68).

During Test Cycle 8, the TRO concentration of the pre-treatment water ranged from 0.009 mg/L to

0.025 mg/L (Table 68). This range is within the range of TRO concentrations historically measured

in DSH. The oxidant being measured is unknown, however, it is not chlorine as there was no

measurable TRC in Test Cycle 8 pre-treatment (Table 68). Table 68 also shows the target TRO

concentration three minutes after active substance dosing, which was 20 mg/L for both test cycles,

taking into account the DSH DOC concentration. During Test Cycle 7, the TRO (TRC)

concentration in post-treatment intake samples ranged from 10.50 mg/L (10.14 mg/L) to 15.39

mg/L (13.82 mg/L), which was substantially lower than the JFE target TRO concentration (Table

68). According to JFE Engineering Corporation, the flow meter that was installed on the BWMS

during Test Cycles 1 – 7 had very high variability and low accuracy. During Test Cycle 7, the flow

rate as measured by the BWMS flow meter ranged from 160 m3/hour to 260 m3/hour. Since the

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

0.00

50.00

100.00

150.00

200.00

250.00

0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0

Pre

ss

ure

(B

ar)

Flo

w (

M^

3)

Time (min)

Flow and Pressure


GSI/LB/QAQC/TR/JFE


of 146

active substance injection rate was determined by the flow rate of the BWMS (when in automatic

mode), this led to an inability to meet the target TRO concentration. Therefore, during Test Cycle 8

JFE conducted a manual active substance injection, which was done at a constant rate. As a result,

during Test Cycle 8, the TRO (TRC) concentration in post-treatment intake samples ranged from

18.54 mg/L (17.92 mg/L) to 20.45 mg/L (18.85 mg/L; Table 68).

Table 68. Concentration of Total Residual Oxidants (TRO) and Total Residual Chlorine (TRC) Measured in Grab Samples Collected Simultaneously from the Pre- and Post-Treatment Lines During Test Cycles 7 and

8 Intake of the JFE BallastAce® BWMS Status Test. N/A = Not Applicable. ND = Measured value was below the method detection limit.



JFE TRO Target (mg/L)


TRO (mg/L) TRC (mg/L) TRO (mg/L) TRC (mg/L)


1

N/A

ND ND 0.009 ND

3 ND ND 0.025 ND

10 ND ND 0.009 ND

30 ND ND 0.009 ND

55 ND ND 0.016 ND


1

20

13.60 12.81 18.54 17.92

3 10.50 10.14 19.78 18.85

10 13.64 13.03 19.31 18.38

30 12.97 12.29 20.45 17.18

55 15.39 13.82 19.55 17.77

AVERAGE 13.22 12.42 19.53 18.02



Intake water quality results from pre- and post-treatment intake samples collected simultaneously

during Test Cycles 7 and 8 of the JFE BallastAce® BWMS Status Test are presented in Table 69.

Both test cycles met the minimum challenge water quality characteristics outlined in the ETV

Protocol (USEPA, 2010). The pre-treatment TSS concentration was 31.3 mg/L and 32.1 mg/L in

Test Cycles 7 and 8, respectively (minimum target value was 24.0 mg/L; Table 69). The pre-

treatment intake DOC concentration was 7.7 mg/L (Test Cycle 7) and 7.9 mg/L (Test Cycle 8;

minimum target value was 6 mg/L; Table 69); this parameter was not augmented as the DSH

naturally meets the challenge water DOC criterion. The pre-treatment POC concentration was 4.9

mg/L in both Test Cycles 7 and 8, which exceeded the minimum target value of 4 mg/L (Table 69).

Finally, the MM concentration in pre-treatment intake samples 26.3 mg/L (Test Cycle 7) and 27.2

mg/L (Test Cycle 8; minimum target value was 20 mg/L; Table 69).

There was very little change in TSS, MM, NPOC, DOC, or POC concentration between the pre-

and post-treatment samples (Table 69). As expected, there was a higher %T (filtered and unfiltered)

in post-treatment samples as compared to pre-treatment samples (Table 69).

GSI/LB/QAQC/TR/JFE


of 146


Organic Carbon (DOC), Particulate Organic Carbon (POC), and Mineral Matter (MM) Measured in Grab Samples Collected Simultaneously from the Pre- and Post-Treatment Line on Intake During Test Cycles 7

and 8 Intake of the JFE BallastAce® BWMS Status Test.


(Pitot) TSS (mg/L)

%T, Filtered/ Unfiltered

NPOC (mg/L) DOC (mg/L) POC (mg/L) MM (mg/L)

7


31.3 (0.4) 49.2 (5.1)/ 38.3 (0.4)

12.7 (0.9) 7.7 (0.1) 4.9 (0.8) 26.3 (0.4)


30.0 (0.1) 51.4 (0.5)/ 43.0 (0.4)

11.9 (0.6) 7.7 (0.1) 4.2 (0.4) 25.8 (0.5)

8


32.1 (0.5) 46.0 (0.2)/ 38.5 (0.1)

12.8 (0.3) 7.9 (0.2) 4.9 (0.2) 27.2 (0.3)


30.7 (0.8) 52.4 (0.2)/ 43.7 (0.3)

12.9 (0.2) 7.7 (0.1) 5.2 (0.1) 5.6 (0.8)


The water quality data from measurements taken in the pre-treatment sample collection tubs during

Test Cycles 7 and 8 of the JFE BallastAce® BWMS Status Test provide a time-integrated picture of

the challenge water characteristics and are presented in Table 70. The water temperature for these

two test cycles, which were conducted towards the end of the GSI land-based testing season, were

9.72 °C (Test Cycle 7; Table 70) and 9.96 °C (Test Cycle 8; Table 70), and within the range

specified by the ETV Protocol (i.e., 4 to 35 °C; USEPA, 2010). All other parameters were very

similar between the two test cycles, although the total chlorophyll concentration was slightly higher

in pre-treatment intake during Test Cycle 8 (Table 70).

Table 70. Average Value (± Standard Deviation, n=2)of Various Water Quality Parameters Measured in

the Pre-Treatment Sample Collection Tubs During Test Cycles 7 and 8 Intake of the JFE BallastAce® BWMS Status Test.

Parameter Test Cycle 7 Test Cycle 8

Temperature (°C) 9.72 ± 0.04 9.96 ± 0.04

Specific Conductivity (mS/cm) 0.231 ± 0.000 0.246 ± 0.000

Salinity (ppt) 0.11 ± 0.00 0.12 ± 0.000

pH 7.49 8.11

Turbidity (NTU) 18.3 ± 0.3 19.1 ± 1.3

Total Chlorophyll (µg/L) 7.7 ± 0.1 9.2 ± 0.0

Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L) 10.25 ± 0.08 10.47 ± 0.03


90.3 ± 0.6 92.8 ± 0.1

GSI/LB/QAQC/TR/JFE


of 146


As shown in Table 71, Test Cycles 7 and 8 had live organism densities in the challenge water that

exceeded the minimum criteria for challenge water total living populations specified by the ETV

Protocol, with the exception of organisms ≥ 10 µm and < 50 µm in Test Cycle 7. The challenge

water density was 955 live cells/mL in this case, which was slightly lower than the minimum value

of 1,000 live cells/mL (Table 71). For the largest regulated size class, nominally zooplankton,

challenge water densities were 218,000 and 176,000 live organisms per m3 in Test Cycles 7 and 8,

respectively (Table 71). The ≥ 10 µm and < 50 µm size class, nominally protists, had 955 live

cells/mL (Test Cycle 7; Table 71) and 1,240 cells/mL (Test Cycle 8; Table 71). The smallest

regulated size class was represented by culturable, aerobic, heterotrophic bacteria during this test.

Live densities, as measured by the spread plate method, well exceeded the minimum density of

1,000/mL and were 20,000 and 34,600 live bacteria per mL in Test Cycles 7 and 8, respectively

(Table 71).

Table 71. Live Plankton Density (n=1 each) and Average (± Standard Deviation, n=3) Microbial Concentration in Challenge Water Samples Collected During Test Cycles 7 and 8 8 of the JFE BallastAce®

BWMS Status Test. Values marked with an asterisk (*) did not meet TQAP requirements.


Requirements Test Cycle 7 Test Cycle 8


100,000 organisms/m

3

218,000 176,000

≥ 10 µm and < 50 µm Concentration

(cells/mL) 1,000 organisms/mL 955* 1,240



1,000/mL 20,000 (3,560) 34,600 (9,720)

5.3.2 Retention Period Conditions

During the 48 hour retention period associated with Test Cycles 7 and 8 of the JFE BallastAce®

BWMS Status Test, the TRO concentration in the control and treatment retention tanks was

measured twice (once at 24 and once at 48 hours). Various water quality parameters were also

measured every 15 minutes in both tanks and logged during retention.



during the 48 hour holding time ranging from 0.020 mg/L to 0.046 mg/L. There were no detectable

TRC concentrations in the control retention tank (Table 72). There was a notable decrease in TRO

and TRC concentrations of the treated water during the 48 hour retention time, although this

decrease was not as great as the > 90 % TRO degradation seen during the previous six test cycles.

GSI/LB/QAQC/TR/JFE


of 146

This result indicates that there was still chlorine demand present in the intake water after treatment,

despite the high active substance dose. Concentrations in Test Cycle 7 were lower overall than Test

Cycle 8 due to the lower initial dose in this test (Table 72). At 24 hours, the TRO (TRC)

concentration was 6.19 mg/L (5.74 mg/L) in Test Cycle 7 and 8.76 mg/L (8.50 mg/L) in Test Cycle

8 (Table 72). In terms of TRO, this represented an average decrease of 53 % for Test Cycle 7 and

55 % for Test Cycle 8 compared to post-treatment intake. At 48 hours, the TRO (TRC)

concentration was 4.24 mg/L (3.84 mg/L) in Test Cycle 7 and 6.70 mg/L (6.36 mg/L) in Test Cycle

8, which was an average decrease in TRO concentration of 68 % and 66 % compared to post-

treatment intake samples, respectively (Table 72).

Table 72. Concentration of Total Residual Oxidants (TRO) and Total Residual Chlorine (TRC) in the Control and Treatment Retention Tanks 24 and 48 Hours Post-Treatment During Test Cycles 7 and 8 of the JFE BallastAce® BWMS Status Test. ND = Measured value was below the method detection limit.

Sample Location Collection

Time (hour)



Control Retention Tank

24 0.023 ND 0.023 ND

48 0.020 ND 0.046 ND


24 6.19 5.74 8.76 8.50

48 4.24 3.84 6.70 6.36



control and treatment retention tanks during the 48 hour holding time utilized in Test Cycles 7 and

8 of the JFE BallastAce® BWMS Status Test. Each parameter was measured every 15 minutes

during the holding period. There were no unexpected differences in water quality measured

between the two test cycles (Table 73). There were some notable, although expected, differences

between the control and treatment retention tanks during both test cycles. The specific conductivity

and salinity was elevated in the treatment retention tank as compared to the control retention tank

(Table 73). This is due to the addition of TG BallastCleaner® to the treated water and the

subsequent increase in ions. Total chlorophyll was markedly decreased in the treatment retention

tank, which is due to the decrease in live protist density as a result of treatment (Table 73).

GSI/LB/QAQC/TR/JFE


of 146

Table 73. Average (± Standard Deviation) Water Quality Parameters Measured in the Control and Treatment Retention Tanks during the 48 Hour Retention Period for Test Cycles 7 and 8 of the JFE

BallastAce® BWMS Status Test.

Parameter Retention

Tank Test Cycle 7 Test Cycle 8

Temperature (°C) Control 9.79 ± 0.08, n=174 9.67 ± 0.28, n=175

Treatment 9.85 ± 0.07, n=174 9.69 ± 0.29, n=175


Control 0.231 ± 0.000, n=174 0.244 ± 0.000, n=175

Treatment 0.304 ± 0.001, n=174 0.308 ± 0.001, n=175

Salinity (ppt) Control 0.11 ± 0.00, n=174 0.12 ± 0.00, n=175

Treatment 0.15 ± 0.00, n=174 0.15 ± 0.00, n=175

pH Control 7.50, n=174 7.96, n=175

Treatment 7.72, n=174 7.76, n=175

Turbidity (NTU) Control 15.3 ± 1.1, n=174 16.4 ± 1.4, n=175

Treatment 14.9 ± 1.0, n=174 15.4 ± 1.3, n=175

Total Chlorophyll (µg/L) Control 7.6 ± 0.6, n=174 9.4 ± 0.7, n=175

Treatment 4.3 ± 0.8, n=174 4.1 ± 0.5, n=175

Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L) Control 10.07 ± 0.03, n=174 10.12 ± 0.06, n=175

Treatment 10.21 ± 0.02, n=174 10.15 ± 0.01, n=175


Control 88.8 ± 0.3, n=174 89.0 ± 1.1, n=175

Treatment 90.2 ± 0.1, n=174 89.4 ± 0.6, n=175




The operational data measured during discharge of the control retention tank for Test Cycles 7 and

8 of the JFE BallastAce® BWMS Status Test are presented in Table 74. The control discharge

operational data from both test cycles are very similar. Control discharge occurred over an average

duration of 53.42 minutes; at a pressure of 1.89 bar and flow rate of 199 m3/hour, on average (Table

74). A total of 177 m3 was discharged from the control retention tank, on average (Table 74).

Zooplankton samples, all of which were collected from Sample Tub 1, represented an average of

2.59 m3


GSI/LB/QAQC/TR/JFE


of 146

Table 74. Summary of Operational Measurements and Data Collected during Control Retention Tank Discharge for Test Cycles 7 and 8 of the JFE BallastAce® BWMS Status Test using TG BallastCleaner® as

the Active Substance (High Dose/Low Flow).



29-Oct-14 11:28:40

---

Duration min 53.50 53.33 53.42


bar 1.88 ± 0.22 1.90 ± 0.32 1.89 ± 0.01


m3/hour 199 ± 13 199 ± 16 199 ± 0


m3 178 176 177 ± 1


m3 2.62 2.56 2.59 ± 0.04


m3 2.61 2.56 2.59 ± 0.04



Cycles 7 and 8 of the JFE BallastAce® BWMS Status Test. As with the control discharge data, the

average values from both test cycles are very similar to one another. The treatment discharge

operation was an average of 56.84 minutes in duration (Table 75). There was a slight difference in

pressure, 0.19 bar on average, between the pre-neutralization line and the post-neutralization line

(Table 75). This difference was not as great as during intake because the BWMS FS was not active

during discharge. The average treatment discharge flow rate was 198 m3/hour, and an average 188

m3 of water from the treatment retention tank was discharged (Table 75). Zooplankton samples

were collected from Sample Collection Tub #s 4 and 5, which both had an average sample volume

of 2.73 m3

(Table 75).

GSI/LB/QAQC/TR/JFE


of 146

Table 75. Summary of Operational Measurements and Data Collected during Treatment Retention Tank Discharge for Test Cycles 7 and 8 of the JFE BallastAce® BWMS Status Test using TG BallastCleaner® as

the Active Substance (High Dose/Low Flow).



29-Oct-14 09:00:10

---

Duration min 57.17 56.50 56.84


Deviation) bar 1.92 ± 0.25 1.94 ± 0.26 1.93 ± 0.01


Deviation) bar 1.77 ± 0.24 1.80 ± 0.24 1.79 ± 0.02


bar 0.24 ± 0.14 0.14 ± 0.03 0.19 ± 0.07


m3/hour 198 ± 22 198 ± 22 198 ± 0


m3 189 187 188 ± 1


m3 2.75 2.71 2.73 ± 0.03


m3 2.74 2.71 2.73 ± 0.02


m3 2.75 2.70 2.73 ± 0.04



The TRO and TRC concentrations measured in grab samples collected throughout control and

treatment tank discharge operations associated with Test Cycles 7 and 8 of the JFE BallastAce®

Status Test are presented in Table 76. The TRO concentration in control discharge water ranged

from 0.013 mg/L to 0.049 mg/L, which was in keeping with the range of TRO concentrations

measured in pre-treatment water during these two test cycles (Table 76). There was no detectable

TRO or TRC in either the control or treatment discharge water during either of these two test

cycles; for treatment discharge in all cases the TRC concentration was below the permitted level of

0.038 mg/L and the water was discharged from the wastewater holding tank to the DSH (Table 76).

The range of TRO concentrations measured in the treatment discharge samples was overall lower

than that of the control discharge samples, ranging from below the method detection limit to 0.036

mg/L (Table 76).

GSI/LB/QAQC/TR/JFE


of 146

Table 76. Concentration of Total Residual Oxidants (TRO) and Total Residual Chlorine (TRC) Measured in Grab Samples Collected During Test Cycles 7 and 8 Control and Treatment Tank Discharge Operations Associated with the JFE BallastAce® BWMS Status Test. ND = Measured value was below the method

detection limit.





Control (SP9a)

1 0.023 ND 0.033 ND

3 0.017 ND 0.049 ND

10 0.013 ND 0.016 ND

30 0.020 ND 0.020 ND

50 0.013 ND 0.023 ND

Treatment (SP15)

1 0.007 ND 0.013 ND

3 ND ND 0.036 ND

10 ND ND 0.036 ND

30 ND ND ND ND

50 ND ND ND ND

5.3.3.3 Water Quality Measurements


Table 77 shows the measured water quality data from grab samples collected throughout discharge

of the control and treatment retention tanks associated with Test Cycles 7 and 8 of the JFE

BallastAce® Status Test. As expected, %T (both filtered and unfiltered) was slightly higher in the

treatment discharge samples than in the control discharge samples (Table 76). The chlorine in the

treated water continued to oxidize and break down the organic matter during retention, resulting in

treatment discharge water that was more transparent than the control water. For all other water

quality parameters measured, the results are indicative of solids settling out over the 48 hour

retention time (i.e., substantially lower values than on intake), and are similar between the control

and treatment discharge samples (Table 77).

GSI/LB/QAQC/TR/JFE


of 146


Organic Carbon (DOC), Particulate Organic Carbon (POC), and Mineral Matter (MM) in Grab Samples Collected during Discharge of the Control and Treatment Retention Tanks for Status Test Cycles 7 and 8

Associated with Test Cycles 7 and 8 of the JFE BallastAce® BWMS Status Test.


(Pitot) TSS (mg/L)

%T, Filtered/ Unfiltered

NPOC (mg/L)

DOC (mg/L)

POC (mg/L)

MM (mg/L)

7

Control (SP9a) 10.8 (0.1) 45.8 (0.1)/ 39.3 (0.0)

9.4 (0.7) 7.6 (0.1) 1.9 (0.6) 8.9 (0.7)

Treatment (SP15) 10.1 (0.6) 49.8 (0.1)/ 43.5 (0.1)

10.0 (0.2) 8.4 (0.1) 1.6 (0.2) 8.5 (0.8)

8

Control (SP9a) 11.1 (0.4) 46.2 (0.1)/ 39.2 (0.1)

9.6 (0.1) 7.9 (0.2) 1.7 (0.3) 9.4 (0.6)

Treatment (SP15) 10.5 (0.8) 50.1 (0.4)/ 43.3 (0.1)

10.7 (0.3) 8.7 (0.2) 2.0 (0.1) 8.5 (0.7)


Table 78 shows water quality parameters measured in the sample collection tubs using calibrated

Sondes immediately following discharge of the control and treatment retention tanks associated

with Test Cycles 7 and 8 of the JFE BallastAce® BWMS Status Test. There were slight differences

in sample collection tub water quality between the two test cycles; water temperature was overall

higher in Test Cycle 7 than Test Cycle 8, in general, specific conductivity, salinity, pH, and

turbidity was lower in Test Cycle 7 than Test Cycle 8 (Table 78). All other parameters were similar

between the two test cycles (Table 78). The specific conductivity and salinity was higher in the

treatment discharge water than the control discharge water due to the added ions from treatment

with TG BallastCleaner® and neutralization with sodium sulfite. The total chlorophyll

concentration in the control discharge was higher than in the treatment discharge due to the

decreased protist density as a result of treatment. For all other parameters, there was no discernible

trend between control and treatment discharge water (Table 78).

GSI/LB/QAQC/TR/JFE


of 146

Table 78. Average (± Standard Deviation) Water Quality Parameters Measured in the Control and Treatment Sample Collection Tubs Immediately Following Control and Treatment Discharge Operations

for Test Cycles 7 and 8 of the JFE BallastAce® BWMS Status Test.

Parameter Sample Type Test Cycle 7 Test Cycle 8

Temperature (°C) CONT, n=2 10.28 ± 0.06 8.83 ± 0.00

TRT, n=3 9.78 ± 0.02 8.82 ± 0.01

Specific Conductivity (mS/cm) CONT, n=2 0.232 ± 0.001 0.244 ± 0.00

TRT, n=3 0.343 ± 0.001 0.360 ± 0.00

Salinity (ppt) CONT, n=2 0.11 ± 0.00 0.12 ± 0.000

TRT, n=3 0.17 ± 0.00 0.17 ± 0.000

pH CONT, n=2 6.95 7.92

TRT, n=3 7.30 7.38

Turbidity (NTU) CONT, n=2 13.6 ± 0.5 15.0 ± 0.6

TRT, n=3 13.9 ± 0.1 14.6 ± 0.3

Total Chlorophyll (µg/L) CONT, n=2 6.5 ± 0.3 8.4 ± 0.1

TRT, n=3 5.7 ± 0.1 4.7 ± 0.2

Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L) CONT, n=2 10.17 ± 0.01 10.35 ±0.18

TRT, n=3 9.75 ± 0.06 9.74 ± 0.10


CONT, n=2 90.8 ± 0.1 88.3 ± 0.2

TRT, n=3 85.9 ± 0.5 83.7 ± 0.5


The control and treatment discharge densities of the three regulated size classes associated with

Test Cycles 7 and 8 of the JFE BallastAce® BWMS Status Test are presented in Table 79; more

detailed taxonomic data are available on request. The control discharge density of the ≥ 50 µm size

class greatly exceeded the minimum concentration of 100 live organisms/m3 specified in the ETV

Protocol, with 424,000/m3 (Test Cycle 7; Table 79) and 353,000/m

3 (Test Cycle 8; Table 79). The

results from treatment discharge indicate a near-to-complete elimination of organisms in this size

class; both test cycles met the USCG BWDS of less than 10 live organisms/m3. During test Cycle 7,

0.21 m3 of treated discharge water was analyzed revealing an average density of 0 live organism/m

3

(Table 79). A total of 0.25 m3 of water was examined during Test Cycle 8 with an average

treatment discharge density of 4 live organisms/m3

(Table 79). The calculated live density in Test

Cycle 8 treatment discharge is due to one live rotifer, in the genus Keratella that was found

swimming in the concentrated sample from Sample Collection Tub #4. Given that all other

Keratella observed in treatment discharge from Test Cycle 8 were dead (albeit freshly killed with

internal organs intact), it is possible that this Keratella was a GSI Facility contaminant that was

sampled after neutralization of the discharge. It is important to note that GSI did validate the

cleanliness of the Facility prior to conducting the discharge operation for Test Cycle 8, as with all

previous test cycles.


Protocol minimum required density of 100 organisms/mL; live density was 713 cells/mL in Test

Cycle 7 and 886 cells/mL in Test Cycle 8 (Table 79). There was also a substantial decrease in live

organism density in the treatment discharge as compared to the control discharge, with 0.76 cell/mL

GSI/LB/QAQC/TR/JFE


of 146

and 0.23 cell/mL in Test Cycles 7 and 8, respectively (Table 79). Both test cycles met the USCG

BWDS for this size class of organisms, which is less than 10 live cells/mL.



Protocol. The control discharge density was 43,400 CFU/mL in Test Cycle 7 and 46,800 CFU/mL

in Test Cycle 8 (Table 79). There was a substantial decrease in heterotrophic bacteria density in the

treatment discharge as compared to the control discharge. In Test Cycle 7, the treatment discharge

density was < 10 CFU/mL (i.e., a 99.9 % reduction from control discharge; Table 79). In Test Cycle

8, the density in treatment discharge was 730 CFU/mL, which was a reduction of 98.4 % compared

to the control discharge (Table 79). There is no discharge standard for heterotrophic bacteria; these

densities cannot be compared to any regulation.


(± Standard Deviation, n=3) Microbial Concentrations in Samples Collected During Control and Treatment Retention Tank Discharge for Test Cycles 7 and 8 of the JFE BallastAce® BWMS Status Test.




Control Discharge

Treatment Discharge

Control Discharge

Treatment Discharge

≥ 50 µm < 10 organisms per m3

424,000

(n=1) 0 (n=2)

353,000

(n=1) 4 (n=2)

≥ 10 µm and < 50 µm < 10 organisms per mL 713 (n=1)

0.76 (n=1, composite)

886 (n=1)

0.23 (n=1,

composite)

< 10 µm (CFU/mL as culturable aerobic heterotrophic

bacteria)

No discharge standard for heterotrophic

bacteria.

43,400 (13,900), n=3

<10, n=3 46,800

(11,900), n=3 730 (704), n=3

GSI/LB/QAQC/TR/JFE


of 146

5.3.3.5 Disinfection Byproducts (DBPs) Concentrations

The results from analysis of selected DBPs in samples collected during Test Cycle 7 control and

treatment discharge of the JFE BallastAce® BWMS Status Test are presented in Table 80. Samples

were collected for DBP analysis during Test Cycle 7, as this was the test cycle selected for WET

testing. There were elevated concentrations of all classes of DBPs in the treatment discharge as

compared to the control discharge, with the exception of the bromate ion (Table 80). In the control

discharge samples, all of the selected DBPs were below the limit of detection with the exception of

total sodium (i.e., average concentration of 12.9 µg/L; Table 80). Of all DBPs measured, the

chlorate ion had the highest measured concentration in treatment discharge, with an average of

1410 µg/L (i.e., six times higher than in Test Cycle 4; Table 80). The total trihalomethanes was the

second highest class of DBPs, in terms of concentration in treatment discharge, with an average

concentration of 459 µg/L (Table 80). Chloroform was the primary contributor and

bromodichloromethane was a secondary contributor in the treatment discharge samples. There was

an average of 390 µg/L total haloacetic acids in treatment discharge; trichloroacetic acid and

dichloroacetic acid were the primary contributors to the total concentration of haloacetic acids in

treatment discharge (Table 80). The average concentration of total haloacetonitriles in treatment

discharge was 66 µg/L; the majority of the total was from chloral hydrate (Table 80). Total sodium

was three times higher in treatment discharge as compared to control discharge (i.e., 37.0 µg/L in

treatment discharge compared to 12.9 µg/L in control discharge; Table 80). Overall, average

concentrations of each class of DBPs was two to three times higher in Test Cycle 7 treatment

discharge than Test Cycle 4 treatment discharge (i.e., TG BallastCleaner® with low dose/high

flow).

GSI/LB/QAQC/TR/JFE


of 146

Table 80. Results from Analysis of Selected Disinfection Byproducts (DBPs) in Samples Collected during Discharge of the Control and Treatment Retention Tanks in Test Cycle 7 of the JFE BallastAce® BWMS

Status Test.

Analyte Formula

Test Cycle 7



Bromodichloromethane CHBrCl2 < 0.5 21.1

Bromoform CHBr3 < 0.5 < 0.5

Chlorodibromomethane CHBr2Cl < 0.5 0.5

Chloroform CHCl3 < 0.5 438

Total Trihalomethanes < 0.5 459

Bromochloroacetic acid* BrClCHCOOH < 1.0 5.4

Dibromoacetic acid CHBr2COOH < 1.0 < 1.0

Dichloroacetic acid CHCl2COOH < 1.0 155

Monobromoacetic acid CH2BrCOOH < 1.0 < 1.0

Monochloroacetic acid CH2ClCOOH < 2.0 2.8

Trichloroacetic acid CCl3COOH < 1.0 233

Total Haloacetic Acids < 1.0 390

1,1,1-trichloro-2-Propanone CCl3COCH3 < 0.5 16

1,1-dichloro-2-Propanone CH3COCHCl2 < 0.5 3.7

Bromochloroacetonitrile C2HBrClN < 0.5 < 0.5

Bromoacetonitrile BrCH2CN < 0.5 < 0.5

Chloral hydrate Cl3CCH(OH)2 < 0.5 39

Chloroacetonitrile ClCH2CN < 0.5 0.42

Chloropicrin Cl3CNO2 < 0.5 < 0.5

Dibromoacetonitrile Br2CHCN < 0.5 < 0.5

Dichloroacetonitrile Cl2CHCN < 0.5 7.5

Trichloroacetonitrile Cl3CCN < 0.5 < 0.5

Total Haloacetonitriles < 0.5 66.2

Bromate BrO3- < 5.0 < 5.0

Chlorate ClO3- < 20.0 1,410

Sodium, Total Na 12.9 37.0


GSI/LB/QAQC/TR/JFE


of 146


The water quality parameters measured in stock solutions prepared prior to the start of Test Cycle 7




concentration was well above the minimum value specified for P. promelas (i.e., 4.0 mg/L) in all

cases (Table 81). All other water quality parameters measured (i.e., pH, conductivity, hardness, and

alkalinity) were within the expected ranges for the water types measured (Table 81). The TRO

concentration in the C. dubia and P. promelas Performance Control stock solutions ranged from

below the method detection limit to 0.009 mg/L (Table 81). The TRO values in the Facility Control

(i.e., control discharge water) were the highest of all the treatment groups and ranged from 0.012 to

0.038 mg/L (Table 81). There was measurable TRO in the all dilutions of the whole effluent during

the entire duration of the C. dubia and P. promelas WET tests, ranging from as low as 0.006 mg/L

to 0.034 mg/L overall (Table 81).


Solutions during the Ceriodaphnia dubia and Pimephales promelas Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET) Tests Associated with Test Cycle 7 of the JFE BallastAce® BWMS Status Test.

Treatment Group

Temperature (°C)


pH Conductivity

(µS/cm)

Hardness4

(mg/L CaCO3)

Alkalinity4

(mg/L CaCO3)

TRO (mg/L)


Control1

24.8 (24.1, 25.7)

8.1 (8.1, 8.1)

8.05 (7.95, 8.15)

398 (396, 400)

133.2 52.8 <DL

(<DL, 0.009Q)


Control2

24.5 (24.1, 25.3)

6.9 (6.4, 7.1)

7.58 (7.44, 7.66)

168.6 (151.3, 177.4)

60.4 56.8 <DL

(<DL, 0.006 Q

)


(24.0, 26.7) 10.2

(9.4, 11.0) 7.72

(7.67, 7.79) 235

(233, 238) 92.8 79.2

0.032 (0.012

Q, 0.038)

0 % Whole Effluent

3

24.9 (24.1, 25.9)

10.1 (8.9, 11.2)

7.92 (7.85,7.95)

234 (201, 240)

104.0 80.4 0.014

Q

(0.006 Q

, 0.025)


24.6 (23.9, 25.7)

9.3 (8.8, 10.0)

7.89 (7.66, 8.03)

244 (241, 249)

- - 0.013

Q

(0.009 Q

, 0.019)


24.6 (23.9, 25.5)

9.2 (8.6, 10.1)

7.80 (7.55, 8.01)

253 (251, 255)

- - 0.014

Q

(0.010 Q

, 0.022)

25 % Whole Effluent

24.7 (24.2, 25.4)

9.1 (8.5, 9.8)

7.76 (7.56, 8.01)

267 (266, 270)

- - 0.012

Q

(0.006 Q

, 0.015 Q

)

50 % Whole Effluent

24.8 (24.4, 25.7)

9.2 (8.7, 9.8)

7.74 (7.52, 7.98)

295 (293, 297)

- - 0.019

(0.006 Q

, 0.034)


24.9 (24.2, 26.0)

9.8 (9.4, 10.6)

7.73 (7.50, 7.86)

353 (351, 355)

91.6 86.4 0.015

Q

(0.006 Q

, 0.031) 1Moderately-Hard Reconstituted Water;



4Hardness and alkalinity were only measured on Day 0 and do not have minimum and maximum values.

* Values less than the detection limit (DL) which equals 0.0058 mg/L were not used to calculate the average TRO value.

Q Sample concentration was below the LOQ (0.0194 mg/L TRO).

GSI/LB/QAQC/TR/JFE


of 146









(°C) pH

Hardness3


3

(mg/L CaCO3)


23.9 (23.1, 24.2)

7.90 (7.68, 8.07)

114.4 53.2


(23.2, 24.1) 8.26

(8.21, 8.35) 86.0 76.2

0 % Whole Effluent2

23.9 (23.5, 24.5)

8.27 (8.22, 8.31)

83.6 77.6


(23.7, 24.2) 8.26

(8.19, 8.33) - -


(23.3, 24.1) 8.26

(8.23, 8.31) - -


(23.8, 24.3) 8.24

(8.20, 8.31) - -


(23.9, 24.2) 8.26

(8.20, 8.30) - -


(23.2, 24.4) 8.24

(8.21, 8.26) 84.8 79.2

1Moderately-Hard Reconstituted Water;










acceptance, met the survival criteria but fell just short of the reproduction criteria with an average of

14.8 young per female (Table 83). Results from the Facility Control indicate that there was no

statistically significant (p<0.05) effect of control discharge water on adult survival or reproduction.

In addition, there was no statistically significant (p<0.05) effect of whole effluent from treatment

discharge on adult survival or reproduction when compared to the experimental control, although,

the average number of young per female was reduced in the 100 % Whole Effluent treatment group

as compared to the experimental control.

GSI/LB/QAQC/TR/JFE


of 146

Table 83. Average (n=10) Percent Survival and Total Number of Offspring Produced in the Three-Brood Ceriodaphnia dubia Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET) Test Associated with Treatment Discharge from Test





C. dubia Performance Control1 90 ± 31.6 14.8 ± 5.5


0 % Whole Effluent2 100 ± 0 17.0 ± 2.7

6.25 % Whole Effluent 100 ± 0 14.5 ± 6.2

12.5 % Whole Effluent 100 ± 0 16.8 ± 6.7

25 % Whole Effluent 90 ± 31.6 18.2 ± 6.7

50 % Whole Effluent 100 ± 0 19.0 ± 5.2

100 % Whole Effluent 100 ± 0 14.2 ± 4.5 1Moderately-Hard Reconstituted Water;





dissolved oxygen concentration was greater than 4.0 mg/L in all treatment groups (Table 84). All

other water quality parameters measured (i.e., pH, hardness, and alkalinity) were within the

expected ranges for the water types measured (Table 84).

GSI/LB/QAQC/TR/JFE


of 146





(mg/L) pH

Hardness3


3

(mg/L CaCO3)


1

24.3 (23.4, 25.2)

6.4 (4.8, 7.3)

7.61 (7.45, 7.80)

50.4 47.6


(24.0, 24.9) 6.2

(5.2, 6.8) 7.83

(7.60, 7.93) 81.6 72.4

0 % Whole Effluent2

24.5 (23.8, 25.0)

6.0 (4.7, 6.6)

7.83 (7.59, 7.97)

86.0 73.2


(23.5, 24.5) 6.5

(5.9, 7.3) 7.91

(7.79, 8.12) - -


(23.3, 24.5) 6.1

(5.1, 7.1) 7.89

(7.72, 8.11) - -


(23.3, 24.7) 6.3

(5.4, 7.1) 7.89

(7.77, 8.09) - -


(23.6, 24.5) 6.4

(5.7, 7.1) 7.91

(7.79, 8.11) - -


(23.8, 24.8) 6.3

(5.5, 7.0) 7.88

(7.71, 8.08) 85.6 71.6






during Test Cycle 7 of the JFE BallastAce® Status Test. In order for the test results to be acceptable

there must have been at least 80 % survival and an average dry weight per surviving organism of at

least 0.25 mg in the experimental control (0 % Whole Effluent). The WET test met these criteria

with 100 % survival and 0.312 mg per fish (Table 85). The Performance Control is used to

determine overall health of the test organisms and not test result acceptance, however, the

Performance Control also met the WET test QC criteria indicating that the organisms used in this

WET test were of good health. There was no statistically significant (p<0.05) effect of control

discharge water (i.e., Facility Control) on P. promelas survival and growth. In addition, there was

no statistically significant (p<0.05) effect of treatment discharge whole effluent on survival, with all

of the treatment groups having 100 % adult survival (Table 85). Finally, there was no statistically

significant (p<0.05) effect of treatment discharge whole effluent on growth in any of the treatment

groups tested.

GSI/LB/QAQC/TR/JFE


of 146




Std. Deviation


Facility Control 95 ± 6.4 0.302 ± 0.007

0 % Whole Effluent2 100 ± 0 0.312 ± 0.033

6.25 % Whole Effluent 100 ± 0 0.295 ± 0.003

12.5 % Whole Effluent 100 ± 0 0.301 ± 0.019

25 % Whole Effluent 100 ± 0 0.293 ± 0.027

50 % Whole Effluent 100 ± 0 0.303 ± 0.009

100 % Whole Effluent 100 ± 0 0.283 ± 0.021 1Dechlorinated Laboratory Water;







types measured (Table 86). There were detectable concentrations of TRO in all treatment groups,

with the exception of the Performance Control (Table 86). The Facility Control had the highest

TRO concentration with 0.038 mg/L (Table 86). The treatment discharge whole effluent groups had

a TRO range of 0.009 to 0.016 mg/L (Table 86).

GSI/LB/QAQC/TR/JFE


of 146



Treatment Group

Temperature (°C)

Dissolved Oxygen

3

(mg/L) pH

Conductivity3

(µS/cm) Hardness

3


3

(mg/L CaCO3) TRO

3

(mg/L)


Control1

24.8 (24.1, 25.1)

8.3 7.90

(7.45, 10.37) 94.4 19.6 12.8 <DL


(23.9, 25.2) 9.2

8.46 (8.01, 9.10)

323 112.0 87.6 0.038

0 % Whole Effluent

2

24.8 (23.8, 25.3)

8.2 8.53

(8.19, 9.70) 318 105.6 91.6 0.016

Q


24.8 (23.8, 25.3)

8.3 8.53

(8.21, 9.56) 327 - - 0.016

Q


24.7 (23.8, 25.3)

8.3 8.51

(8.19, 9.22) 329 - - 0.019

25 % Whole Effluent

24.8 (23.8, 25.2)

8.4 8.50

(8.17, 9.48) 345 - - 0.009

Q

50 % Whole Effluent

24.7 (23.9, 25.1)

8.3 8.51

(8.15, 9.65) 373 - - 0.013

Q


24.7 (23.7, 25.0)

8.3 8.50

(8.09, 9.55) 430 106.4 93.2 0.009

Q

1EPA Nutrient Media;









% Whole Effluent). The WET test met the criteria for cell density with 2,334,375 cells/mL, but did

not meet the variability criteria with 29 % CV among experimental control replicates (Table 87).

The Performance Control is used to determine overall health of the test organisms and not test result

acceptance, however, the Performance Control met the WET test QC criteria indicating that the

organisms used in this WET test were of good health. There was a reduction in cell density in the

Facility Control as compared to the experimental control (0 % Whole Effluent), however, this result

was not statistically significant (p<0.05). Although the highest cell density was seen in the 100 %

Whole Effluent, there was no statistically significant effect (p<0.05) effect of treatment discharge

whole effluent on growth, with average cell density ranging from 2,434,375 cells/mL to 3,771,875

cells/mL (Table 87).

GSI/LB/QAQC/TR/JFE


of 146





0 % Whole Effluent2 2,334,375 ± 666,175*

6.25 % Whole Effluent 2,434,375 ± 501,910

12.5 % Whole Effluent 2,543,750 ± 427,017

25 % Whole Effluent 2,675,000 ± 130,304

50 % Whole Effluent 3,484,375 ± 432,095

100 % Whole Effluent 3,771,875 ± 479,841 1USEPA Nutrient Media;


*Test did not meet QC criteria for variability with 29 % CV.

5.4 Test Validity

Table 88 shows the water quality and biology target values and results for challenge water

measured during the JFE BallastAce® BWMS Status Test. The target values were met for all water

quality parameters (i.e., temperature, salinity, TSS, POC, DOC, and MM) measured during the

entire evaluation of the three FS tests (Table 88). For the < 10 µm size class, i.e., total culturable

heterotrophic bacteria, the target value was greatly exceeded and densities ranged from 13,200 to

57,200 MPN/mL (Table 88). The minimum target value for the ≥ 10 µm and < 50 µm size class,

i.e., protists, was met for all test cycles with the exception of Test Cycle 7, which feel just short of

the minimum target value (i.e., 955 live cells/mL; Table 88). For the ≥ 50 µm size class, i.e.,

zooplankton, the minimum target was met for all eight test cycles with values ranging from 136,000

to 346,000 live organisms/m3

(Table 88).

GSI/LB/QAQC/TR/JFE


of 146

Table 88. Target Values and Results for GSI Challenge Water During JFE BallastAce® Ballast Water Management Status Test.

Parameter Target Values for

GSI Challenge Water

Was Target Met for All Test Cycles?

Comments

Temperature (oC) 4 – 30 YES

Average values ranged from 9.72 – 15.60 during all eight test

cycles.

Salinity (PSU) 0 – 1 YES Average values ranged from

0.09 – 0.12 during all eight test cycles.

Total Suspended Solids (mg/L)

> 24 YES Average values ranged from


Particulate Organic Matter as Particulate


Average values ranged from 4.0 – 11.1 during all eight test

cycles.

Dissolved Organic Matter as Dissolved


Average values ranged from 6.8 – 8.3 during all eight test cycles.

Mineral Matter (mg/L) > 20 YES Average values ranged from


Organisms < 10 µm

> 1,000 MPN/mL as culturable

heterotrophic bacteria

YES

Average values ranged from 13,200 – 57,200 MPN/mL during

all eight test cycles using the spread plate method.

Organisms ≥10 µm and < 50 µm

> 1,000 cells/mL NO;

Did not meet target for Test Cycle 7.

Values ranged from 955 – 4,027 live cells/mL during all eight test

cycles.

Organisms ≥ 50 µm > 100,000/m3

YES Values ranged from 136,000 –

346,000 live organisms/m3

during all eight test cycles.

6 RESULTS: JFE FUJI PANEL FILTER DURABILITY TEST

6.1 Operational Data

Days 1 and 2 of the JFE Fuji Panel Filter Durability Test took place 16 – 17 October 2014. The

operational data measured during the two day test cycle are summarized in Table 89. The overall

duration of the test was 13.33 hours, which was 2.67 hours less than the target duration of 16 hours

(Table 89). The pre-treatment line pressure was 2.02 bar on average, which was within 1 % of the

target value of 2 bar (Table 89). The differential pressure between the pre- and post-FS lines was

0.22 bar on average (Table 89). The average post-treatment flow rate was 203 m3/hour, which was

within 10 % of the target flow rate (i.e., 200 m3/hour; Table 89). The backflush flow rate was not

collected during this test. The total volume of water filtered over the two day test cycle was 2705

m3

(Table 89).

GSI/LB/QAQC/TR/JFE


of 146

Table 89. Summary of Operational Data Collected during the Two Day JFE Fuji Panel Filter Durability

Test.

Parameter Units Day 1 Day 2 Average/Total


17-Oct-14 07:44:00

---

Duration min 442.83 356.83 799.66

(13.33 hr.)


bar 2.02 ± 0.01 2.01 ± 0.02 2.02 ± 0.01

Post-Treatment Line Pressure (Average ± Std.

Deviation) bar 1.80 ± 0.02 1.79 ± 0.03 1.80 ± 0.01


bar 0.22 ± 0.02 0.22 ± 0.02 0.22 ± 0.00


m3/hour 203 ± 1 203 ± 1 203 ± 0

Volume Filtered m3 1498 1207 2705

6.2 Filter Brush Arm Data

The weights of each filter brush used during the JFE F Panel Durability Test are presented in Table

90. Each filter brush was weighed prior to the start of the test, the average brush weight was 6.298 g

(Table 90). There was very little variability in pre-test brush weights, data ranged from 6.154 g to

6.462 g (Table 90). The weights from both post-test weighing days were very similar to each other,

so only the data from the second post-test weighing is presented. The average post-test brush weight

was 6.294 g, with a range of 6.145 g to 6.461 g (Table 90). On average, the filter brushes weighed 4

mg less after the completion of test, indicating that brush wear was minimal (Table 90).

GSI/LB/QAQC/TR/JFE


of 146

Table 90. Weights of Filter Brushes Installed in Filter Brush Arms of the Fuji Panel Filter Before and After the JFE F Panel Durability Test.

Filter Brush Arm ID

Filter Brush ID

Pre-Test Filter Brush Weight (g)

Post Test Filter Brush Weight (g)

Difference Between Pre-Test and Post-Test Weight (mg)

1

1-1 6.241 6.239 2

1-2 6.394 6.387 7

1-3 6.325 6.322 3

1-4 6.196 6.204 -8

2

2-1 6.342 6.346 -4

2-2 6.298 6.286 12

2-3 6.347 6.340 7

2-4 6.201 6.196 5

3

3-1 6.304 6.305 -1

3-2 6.432 6.432 0

3-3 6.446 6.446 0

3-4 6.257 6.257 0

4

4-1 6.169 6.167 2

4-2 6.355 6.350 5

4-3 6.271 6.265 6

4-4 6.327 6.328 -1

5

5-1 6.154 6.149 5

5-2 6.194 6.189 5

5-3 6.336 6.327 9

5-4 6.315 6.307 8

6

6-1 6.218 6.212 6

6-2 6.256 6.252 4

6-3 6.378 6.374 4

6-4 6.273 6.269 4

7

7-1 6.278 6.271 7

7-2 6.401 6.389 12

7-3 6.163 6.155 8

7-4 6.462 6.461 1

8

8-1 6.336 6.330 6

8-2 6.372 6.364 8

8-3 6.351 6.340 11

8-4 6.154 6.145 9

GSI/LB/QAQC/TR/JFE


of 146

Figure 17 shows images of Filter Brush #1-4 taken at 10x using a camera attached to a dissecting

microscope. Note that randomly-selected images of brushes from the remaining seven arms are

available on request. The brush was photographed in 11 sections in order to capture the entire

brush. The before (left; Figure 17) and after (right; Figure 17) photos indicate that the wear was not

even over the entire length of the brush. In this case, the wear appears to be greatest at one end of

the brush (see sections 1.4.10 and 1.4.11; Figure 17), while the rest of the brush appears to have

very little wear.

GSI/LB/QAQC/TR/JFE


of 146

Figure 17. Magnified (10x) Photos of Filter Brush #1-4 Before (Left) and After (Right) the JFE F Panel Durability Test. Photos were taken in 11 sections in order to capture the entire brush.

GSI/LB/QAQC/TR/JFE


of 146

7 DISCUSSION

Results from the JFE FS Intercomparison Test indicate that the F Candle and F Panel FSs

performed better operationally than the K Candle FS. The F Candle and F Panel FSs had similar

differential pressure outcomes (~0.65 bar on average) over the course of four test cycles. The K

Candle FS had a higher differential pressure overall of nearly 0.8 bar. The F Candle and F Panel

FSs had 2 % and 3 % water loss to backflush on average, respectively, while the K Candle FS had

nearly 12 % water loss to backflush. In contrast, the K Candle FS performed better than the other

FSs in terms of removal of TSS and MM. The K Candle FS removed up to 23 % of the TSS and 28

% of MM. Meanwhile, the F Panel FS removed only up to 1 % of the TSS and 5 % of the MM in

the pre-treatment water over the course of four test cycles, and F Candle FS solids removal was

negligible overall. With respect to organisms, in the ≥ 50 µm size class the three FSs performed

similarly. In the > 50 µm size class, total densities in the F Candle FS discharge ranged from

141,000/m3 to 259,000/m

3 across test cycles. The K Candle FS discharge densities ranged widely,

from 8,860/m3 – 314,152/m

3 across test cycles. The F Panel FSs discharge densities ranged from

41,700/m3 to 238,000/m

3 on average across test cycles. Over the course of four test cycles, post-FS

densities for organisms in the > 10 µm and < 50 µm size class ranged from 1,406 to 2,989 total

cells/mL across the three FSs.

During all six test cycles of the JFE BallastAce® BWMS Status Test, the BWMS met the target

ranges for pre-treatment line pressure and post-treatment flow rate on intake. In addition there were

no statistically significant (p<0.05) effects of exposure to treatment discharge whole effluent on

survival or growth of P. promelas during the any test cycles subjected to WET tests. There was a

significant (p<0.05) effect on reproduction in the Test Cycle 1 50 % and 100 % Whole Effluent

treatment groups. However, this effect may be due to the addition of a larger concentration of

Micromate to the intake water than is normally targeted (due to operator error); there was no

Facility Control utilized during Test Cycle 1 and the effect of this additive cannot be separated from

the effect of treatment and neutralization. No effect was seen during Test Cycle 5.

In Test Cycles 1, 3, and 5, the BWMS was operated using NEO-CHLOR® DICD Granules as the

active substance formulation. The overall TRO concentration in Test Cycle 1 post-treatment intake

indicated the actual active substance injection rate was lower than the target value determined by

JFE Engineering due to a malfunction of the BWMS active substance injection control program.

The average post-treatment intake TRO concentrations for Test Cycles 3 and 5 were closer to the

JFE TRO target values. The BWMS successfully neutralized the treatment discharge water during

all three test cycles. While there was a substantial reduction in densities of live organisms in the ≥

50 µm size class in the treatment discharge from these test cycles, the densities were 37 to 50 times

greater than the USCG BWDS. In comparison, for two of the three test cycles, live organism

densities in the ≥ 10 µm and < 50 µm size class in the treatment discharge met the BWDS. The

exceedance in Test Cycle 1 (197 live protist cells/mL) was largely due to one large blue-green algae

colony in the analyzed portion of the sample. Across the three test cycles, on average, there was a

97 % reduction in total culturable heterotrophic bacteria in treatment discharge compared to the

control discharge. There were elevated concentrations of all classes of DBPs in the treatment

discharge compared to the control discharge.

GSI/LB/QAQC/TR/JFE


of 146

During Test Cycles 2, 4, and 6 of the JFE BallastAce® BWMS Status Test, the BWMS was

operated using TG BallastCleaner® as the active substance formulation at a target TRO of ~5 mg/L.

The average TRO concentration measured in post-treatment intake samples in all three test cycles

was slightly below the target value determined by JFE Engineering. The BWMS successfully

neutralized the treatment discharge water during all three test cycles. While there was a substantial

reduction in densities of live organisms in the ≥ 50 µm size class in treatment discharge across the

three test cycles, the densities were 19 to 42 times greater than the BWDS. The live organism

densities in treatment discharge for the ≥ 10 µm and < 50 µm size class met the BWDS for all three

test cycles. On average, there was a 96 % reduction in total culturable heterotrophic bacteria in

treatment discharge compared to the control discharge. There were elevated concentrations of all

classes of DBPs measured in treatment discharge compared to the control discharge.

During Test Cycles 7 and 8 of the JFE BallastAce® BWMS Status Test, the BWMS was operated

using TG BallastCleaner® as the active substance formulation at a target TRO of ~20 mg/L.

During Test Cycle 7, the average TRO concentration measured in post-treatment intake samples

was below the target value determined by JFE Engineering due to BWMS flow meter inaccuracies.

During Test Cycle 8, the post-treatment intake average TRO concentration met the JFE target value

of ~20 mg/L on average. Both test cycles had live organism densities in the challenge water that

exceeded the minimum criteria specified in the ETV Land-Based Protocol with the exception of

organisms ≥ 10 µm and < 50 µm in Test Cycle 7. The control discharge density of organisms in all

three regulated size classes far exceeded the minimum control discharge density specified in the

ETV Land-Based Protocol (USEPA, 2010). The densities of live organisms in treatment discharge

in the ≥ 50 µm size class met the BWDS for both test cycles. The live organism densities in

treatment discharge for the ≥ 10 µm and < 50 µm size class also met the BWDS for both test cycles.

On average, there was a 99 % reduction in total culturable heterotrophic bacteria in treatment

discharged compared to control discharge. There were substantially elevated concentrations of all

classes of DBPs measured in the treatment discharge as compared to the control discharge.

The overall duration of the two day JFE F Panel Durability Test was 13.33 hours. During that time

2,705 m3 of DSH water was filtered. The differential pressure between the pre- and post-FS lines

was 0.22 bar on average. The average post-treatment flow rate was 203 m3/hour, which was within

10 % of the target flow rate (i.e., 200 m3/hour). On average, the filter brushes weighed 4 mg less

after the completion of the JFE F Panel Durability Test, indicating that brush wear (as measured by

weight loss) was minimal. Magnified images of randomly-selected filter brushes from each of the

eight filter brush arms indicate that brush wear was not even over the entire length of the brush.

However, even the areas of obvious wear seem relatively minimal and are limited to discoloration

of the brush and fraying/bending of the brush hairs.

8 CONCLUSION

Collectively, findings from the three sets of land-based tests GSI conducted of the prototype

BallastAce® BWMS and its components provide ample evidence to support developer driven

improvement and development of the subject BWMS. Results from the JFE BallastAce® BWMS

Status Test using the F Panel FS and TG BallastCleaner® as the active substance formulation at a

target TRO of ~20 mg/L showed that the treatment discharge fully met the USCG BWDS.

GSI/LB/QAQC/TR/JFE


of 146

9 REFERENCES

GSI (2013). Great Ships Initiative (GSI) GSI/QAQC/QAPP/LB/1 - Quality Assurance Project Plan

for Great Ships Initiative (GSI) Land-Based Tests. Northeast-Midwest Institute, Washington, DC,

USA.

GSI (2014). Great Ships Initiative (GSI) Test/Quality Assurance Plan: Status Test of JFE

BallastAce® Ballast Water Management System and Components at the GSI Land-Based Testing

Facility. Northeast-Midwest Institute, Washington, DC, USA.

Richard RV, Grant JF & Lemieux EJ (2008). Analysis of Ballast Water Sampling Port Designs

Using Computational Fluid Dynamics. United States Coast Guard Report No. CG-D-01-08. United

States Coast Guard Research and Development Center, Groton, CT, USA.

United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) (2010). Environmental Technology

Verification Program (ETV) Generic Protocol for the Verification of Ballast Water Treatment

Technology, Version 5.1. Report number EPA/600/R-10/146. U.S. EPA ETV in cooperation with

the U.S. Coast Guard Environmental Standards Division (CG-5224) and the U.S. Naval Research

Laboratory. National Sanitation Foundation International, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA.

may 13, 2015...gsi/lb/qaqc/tr/jfe date issued: may 13, 2015 page 7 of 146 (~ 20 mg/l). discharge...

Documents