The Discovery that the Main Conclusions of the 2011 SAB Ballast Water Report were Incorrect, and the Discussion, Allegations and Review that Followed

 

Cohen-Meyer emails – Oct 2014

Letter to Panel – Feb 2, 2015

Supporting Information for Letter to Panel

Excerpts from the SAB Report drafts regarding the Conclusion

Excerpts from the SAB Reports drafts regarding the 10x, 100x, 1000x Definitions

Excerpts from the IMO G8 Guidelines & ETV protocols

Letter to EPA Administrator – Mar 2, 2015

EPA Response – Mar 17, 2015

Meyer to Nagle – Apr 26, 2015

Cohen to Nagle – May 11, 2015

Burke – Thorne correspondence – May 28–Oct 8, 2015

Burke letter to EPA Administrator – Jan 26, 2016

EPA to SAB – Feb 2, 2016

EPA Response to Burke – Feb 16, 2016

Cohen to SAB Staff Office – Mar 2-29, 2016

Meyer to Thorne – Mar 7, 2016

Cohen to Thorne – Mar 30, 2016

Public Notice of 8/12/16 Teleconference – Jul 18, 2016

Cohen Presentation – Aug 12, 2016

Data for Cohen Presentation – Aug 12, 2016

SAB Work Group Memorandum – Oct 28, 2016

Public Notice of 11/30/16 SAB Meeting – Nov 1, 2016

SAB letter to EPA Administrator – Dec 20, 2016

SAB Report Drafts

1st Draft-Background & Glossary

1st Draft-Subgroup 1 Charge Q1+Q2

2nd Draft

3rd Draft

4th Draft (Concurrence Draft)-Cover Letter & Text

4th Draft (Concurrence Draft)-References & Appendices

Email transmitting 4th Draft (Concurrence Draft)

Final Draft submitted to EPA (after SAB quality review and revision)

Ballast Water Treatment System Test Reports

The Panel determined that there were reliable test data for nine treatment systems. One of these (MSI) was scored by the Panel as not meeting the IMO D-2 limits (email, Mario Tamburri to Andrew Cohen, 1/30/2011; also see MSI test report, >50 µm organisms, trials 2, 4 & 5, and 10-50µm organisms, trials 4 & 5). Another system (PeraClean) officially met the IMO D-2 limits and was type approved, but was subsequently withdrawn from the market by the manufacturer; this system, and the treatment type it represented, was not scored by the Panel (see SAB Report, Table 4-1, Hydrocyclone + filtration + peracetic acid treatment type; and table footnote). The remaining seven treatment systems with reliable test data, representing five treatment types, were scored by the Panel as meeting the IMO D-2 limits.

Treatment systems with reliable test data scored by the Panel as meeting IMO D-2 limits

Ecochlor – full test report

Ecochlor – relevant excerpts from test report

BalPure-NIOZ – full test report

BalPure-NIOZ – relevant excerpts from test report

BalPure-MERC:CBL – full test report

PureBallast – full land-based test report

PureBallast – full shipboard test report

Optimarin – full test report

Hyde Guardian – full land-based test report

Hyde Guardian – full shipboard test report

Siemens SiCURE-MERC:CBL-full test report

Siemens SiCURE-GSI – full test report

NEI VOS – application

NEI VOS – application appendices A-F

NEI VOS – application appendices G-K

Treatment systems with reliable test data scored by the Panel as not meeting IMO D-2 limits

MSI – full test report

Treatment systems with reliable test data but not scored by the Panel

PeraClean – full test report

PeraClean – relevant excerpts from test report

Statistics Question Regarding Level of Confidence

Statistics Analysis