Shore-Based Ballast Water Treatment in California...
Transcript of Shore-Based Ballast Water Treatment in California...
Shore-Based Ballast Water Treatment in California 6 April 2017 Scale-up of Land-based and Barge-based Alternatives 1 Job 15086.01, Rev -
Shore-Based Ballast Water Treatment in California Memorandum on Scale-up of Land-based and Barge-based Alternatives
PREPARED FOR:
Delta Stewardship Council
California
BY:
Isabel Goñi-McAteer PROJECT ENGINEER
CHECKED:
Peter S. Soles PROJECT MANAGER
APPROVED:
Kevin J. Reynolds, PE PRINCIPAL-IN-CHARGE
DOC:
15086-SC
REV:
-
FILE:
15086.01
DATE:
6 April 2017
References
1. Shore-Based Ballast Water Treatment in California, Task 1: Literature Review, Rev. P2,
9 September 2015
2. Shore-Based Ballast Water Treatment in California, Task 2: Retrofitting and Outfitting of
Vessels, Rev. P2, 11 August 2016.
3. Shore-Based Ballast Water Treatment in California, Task 3: Retrofitting of Ports and
Wharves, Rev. P2, 11 August 2016.
4. Shore-Based Ballast Water Treatment in California, Task 4: Shore-Based BWT
Facilities, Rev. P2, 11 August 2016.
5. Shore-Based Ballast Water Treatment in California, Task 5: Assessment of Treatment
Technologies, Rev. P2, 11 August 2016.
Summary
Background and Methods
This memorandum is part of an overall study that evaluates the feasibility of shore-based mobile
and permanent ballast water (BW) treatment facilities to meet California’s Interim Ballast Water
Treatment Performance Standard. It builds on the previously completed efforts, and scales-up
and compares the cost of land-based and barge-based alternatives in the state’s largest port
complex of Los Angeles/Long Beach (LA/LB) and one of state’s smaller ports, Humboldt Bay.
Previously completed study efforts include Task 1, Literature Review, which identified key areas
for consideration and study, and Task 5, Assessment of Treatment Technologies, which
identified technologies that promise to meet California’s standard. Tasks 2 through 4 explored
the practical implementation of shore-based BW treatment in California using a case study
approach. Table 1, below, correlates shore-based conveyance, storage, and treatment alternatives
to each case study location. These case studies provided key inputs to the scale-up analysis
documented in this memorandum.
Table 1 Case Study Locations and Elements (References 2, 3, and 4)
Case Study
Port/Terminal Vessel Type Conveyance Approach
Storage Approach
Treatment Approach
1 Port of Stockton/East
Complex
Bulk Carriers Rail &
Pipeline
New onsite
tank
Existing
WWTP
2 Port of Oakland/TraPac
Terminal
Containerships New pipeline New onsite
tank
New onsite
WWTP
Shore-Based Ballast Water Treatment in California 6 April 2017 Scale-up of Land-based and Barge-based Alternatives 2 Job 15086.01, Rev -
Case Study
Port/Terminal Vessel Type Conveyance Approach
Storage Approach
Treatment Approach
3 Port of Hueneme/South
Terminal Wharf 1
Automobile
Carriers
Onsite storage New onsite
tank
Mobile shore-
based treatment
4 El Segundo Marine
Terminal
Tank Ships;
ATBs
Offload to
mobile marine
vessel
Mobile
marine vessel
Mobile, marine
vessel-based
treatment
5 Port of Long
Beach/Cruise Terminal,
Los Angeles/SA
Recycling
Bulk Carriers
& Passenger
Cruise Ships
Offload to
mobile marine
vessel
New offsite
tank
New offsite
WWTP
The case studies analyzed specific marine terminals, each with one to three berths, to focus on
technical feasibility. Key findings from the case studies, relevant to scaling-up to port-wide and
statewide application, included:
Table 2, Case Study Findings Applicable to Scale-up Analysis
Applicability Finding Reference
Marine Vessels Modifications are necessary for both land-based and barge-based
reception alternatives.
Task 2,
Section 2.2
Ports and
Wharves
Retrofitting for land-based reception presents varied and complex
interface challenges.
Task 3,
Section 3.3.3
Ports and
Wharves
Land-based reception costs range between $650,000 and
$1,065,000 per berth, with no apparent economies of scale, as per
unit costs do not reduce with each berth installation.
Task 3,
Section 2.2
Conveyance Land-based conveyance requires new pipelines, as conveyance via
trucks and/or rail is impractical given the volumes of most BW
discharges.
Task 4,
Section 3.1.2
Conveyance Barge-based (or ship-based) solutions alone can practically serve
offshore de-ballasting locations such as El Segundo Marine
Terminal and Pacific Area Lightering. Barge-based solutions can
also practically serve port berth locations, such as the LA bulk and
cruise ship terminals.
Task 4,
Sections 3.4.2
and 3.5.2
Treatment
Approach
New wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) will be required, as
existing plants cannot handle the total dissolved solids (TDS) in
ballast water, even if blended with existing wastewater streams.
Task 5,
Section 5.4
The scale-up analysis in this memorandum builds on the above case study findings. In
consideration of the overall project schedule and budget, the Project Team did not attempt to
estimate treatment costs for all 35 California seaports. Instead, LA/LB and Humboldt Bay were
selected for evaluation, as these two port districts are considered representative of the range of
ports across the state in terms of geography, scale, shipping activity, land availability, and BW
discharge volumes and frequency.
Shore-Based Ballast Water Treatment in California 6 April 2017 Scale-up of Land-based and Barge-based Alternatives 3 Job 15086.01, Rev -
In 2015, California saw 1,479 ballast water discharge events across 25 ports with an additional 6
ports indicating no ballast water discharges. The distribution of these discharges events is
provided below in Figure 1 with the locations analyzed in this assessment highlighted.
Humboldt Bay saw 2 ballast water discharges, similar in number to 9 other ports that had
between 1 and 4 ballast water discharges. Los Angeless 167 discharges was relatively high and
Long Beach at 555 discharges was the highest for a port in California.
Figure 1, Ballast water discharge events per port, 2015 (NBIC Online Database, searched 5 April 2016).
LA/LB is the largest port complex in the state with numerous berths located in a relatively small
location, where such a density of berths might favor a land-based solution. Humboldt Bay is the
second complete port complex analyzed. It was selected because it sees comparatively few
ballast water discharges and has significantly less berth density per area as compared to LA/LB,
providing a different extreme for consideration.
These two port complexes were analyzed for both land-based and barge-based solutions.
“Land-based” is used here to refer to pumping ballast water ashore to land-based
infrastructure, including: modified dock aprons/wharves, new pipelines and pumps for
conveyance, and land-based storage tanks and treatment plants.
“Barge-based” refers to solutions where conveyance, storage, and treatment all take
place onboard a moveable barge (not permanently moored). In the context of this study,
barge-based solutions are ‘shore-based’ approaches, as the barges are operated out of a
port complex. The barge hose and hose handling equipment will connect to the marine
vessel and capture discharged ballast water. The barge tanks provide temporary storage.
The same treatment technologies are used as in land-based treatment plants, recognizing that
some changes will be required to suit different arrangements and hydraulics.
This scale-up assessment was designed to represent the extreme high-end and low-end of ballast
water frequency. Further, the analyzed ports present significant diversity of geography, scale,
shipping activity, and land availability. While the costs will scale higher or lower depending on
a number of factors, the relationship between the barge and land-based solution costs are
expected stay within the identified factors. The comparative costs between barge and land-
based solutions presented herein are representative for all California ports.
Shore-Based Ballast Water Treatment in California 6 April 2017 Scale-up of Land-based and Barge-based Alternatives 4 Job 15086.01, Rev -
Summary of Findings
Described and provided in this memorandum are rough order of magnitude (ROM) cost
estimates. The methods and assumptions used to develop the cost estimates are described in the
sections that follow, and are based on actual berth locations, estimated piping distances, specific
water transfer rates and volumes, and other tangible aspects. Table 3, below, provides a
summary of the capital, operating, and life-cycle costs.
Table 3 Capital, Operating, and Life-cycle Costs for LA/LB and Humboldt Bay
Port Alternative CAPEX Cost
($) one-time
OPEX Cost
($) annual
Life-cycle Cost
($) 30 years
LA/LB Port-based $1,547.7M $25.2M $1,783.2M
Barge-based $139.3M $13.2M $326.2M
Humboldt Bay Port-based $156.0M $1.7M $166.3M
Barge-based $29.4M $0.3M $27.3M
The barge-based alternative is significantly more economical than the land-based alternative in
terms of capital, operating, and life-cycle cost. In LA/LB, the barge-based solution capital cost
is $139.3 million, as compared to $1.55 billion for the land-based alternative, making the barge-
based solution 11.1 times less costly. In Humboldt Bay, the barge-based solution capital cost is
$29.4 million, as compared to $156.0 million for the land-based alternative, resulting in 5.2 times
less cost. In addition, barge-based operating costs are less expensive, with a reduced life-cycle
cost of $1.46 billion in LA/LB and $139 million in Humboldt Bay, both expressed in current
dollars. These estimates ignore land costs and rights of way for the land-based alternatives,
which if included would only increase capital and life-cycle costs of the land-based alternatives.
The barge-based cost estimates presented above have an assumed level of accuracy of ±25%, as
barge cost estimates are fairly predictable based on typical per weight costs for fabricated steel
barges and using the same cost for the treatment plant as the land-based alternative. In addition,
a single barge design can be manufactured repeatedly, resulting in a shipyard learning curve that
reduces cost and uncertainty as number of units is increased. By comparison, the land-based
alternative has an assumed level of accuracy of ±40%. Factors reducing cost certainty include
the number and scope of permits, variability of berth interface designs, and challenges in
obtaining rights of way for pipelines, storage tanks, and the treatment plants. Land costs and
outfalls, an additional source of uncertainty, are not included in the estimates.
The barge-based alternative presents fewer technical uncertainties, given that all tankage, piping,
processing equipment, and effluent discharge is located on the barge itself. Technical challenges
are limited to ballasting connection to the ship and shifting land-based treatment technology to
the barge. The land-based alternative requires a unique assessment of each berth location
considering space limitations for pier-side handling of BW hoses, ability to run pipelines across
shipping channels, and available routes for running pipelines throughout working terminals.
Based on these findings, it is recommended that the barge-based alternative become the sole
focus of the remainder of the study. The barge-based alternative, in both the large LA/LB
complex and small Humboldt Bay complex, shows significantly less cost, more economic
certainty, and more technical certainty. A sole focus on the barge-based alternative will reduce
the time to complete the remaining analysis, provide a more in-depth review of the relevant
issues, and result in a more relevant and concise report.
Shore-Based Ballast Water Treatment in California 6 April 2017 Scale-up of Land-based and Barge-based Alternatives 5 Job 15086.01, Rev -
Land-based Assessment
Overview
A system sizing and cost model was developed in order to estimate the capital and operational
costs of a land-based treatment approach for LA/LB and Humboldt Bay. The model is based on
particulars of the ballast water discharge volumes and frequency, sizing of piping and pumping
systems, sizing of storage tank and treatment plants, and cost assumptions that are identified in
this section.
The treatment of discharged BW to land-based infrastructure from marine vessels follows a
sequence:
1. Ship to berth lift station – BW is pumped off the ship through flexible hose connections
by the individual ship’s ballast system (i.e. pump) to a berth-based lift station.
2. Berth lift station to cluster storaget– The berth lift station consists of redundant booster
pumps that lift the ballast water to a storage tank located near a “cluster” of berths.
3. Cluster storage tank to treatment facility – The cluster storage tank is serviced by a pump
and piping network that transfer the ballast water to the treatment facility.
4. Treatment facility to outfall – The treatment facility consists of tanks and treatment
equipment. The tanks contain surges of ballast water while the treatment equipment
processes the ballast water, which is returned to the harbor or bay through an outfall.
The performance of this sequence in a land-based arrangement requires a network of piping and
pumping stations that connects the berths, clusters, storage tanks, and treatment plant. The
LA/LB network includes 15 clusters of berths and one treatment plant location, as shown below
in Figure 2. Humboldt Bay is a single cluster with a dedicated treatment plant location, as shown
below in Figure 3. These figures were generated using Google Earth, which supports mapping
pipe run layouts and calculating distances.
Shore-Based Ballast Water Treatment in California 6 April 2017 Scale-up of Land-based and Barge-based Alternatives 6 Job 15086.01, Rev -
Figure 2 LA/LB BW pipe network; colors represent the extent of piping for specific ‘clusters,’ while black represents
mainline pipe runs from local lift stations to the central treatment facility
Figure 3 Humboldt Bay pipe network
Shore-Based Ballast Water Treatment in California 6 April 2017 Scale-up of Land-based and Barge-based Alternatives 7 Job 15086.01, Rev -
Infrastructure Cost Analysis
Berths
For a land-based treatment approach, each berth must be fitted with hose connections, hose
handling facilities, and a connection to berth lift station. The lift station consists of redundant
pumps and typically services two berths. Lift station pumps are sized for the full anticipated de-
ballasting rate of the ship at the berth, shown in Table 4, below.
Table 4 Discharge Rates by Berth Type
Berth Type Discharge Rate
(GPM)
Minimum
NPD (in)
ATB Tanker 3,200 18
Tanker 12,700 34
Bulk Carrier 8,300 28
Containership 7,200 26
Cruiseship 1,000 10
Auto Carrier 7,200 26
The cost of the hose connections and handling equipment is based on previously completed case
studies. Storage tank pump costs are estimated and scaled to suit the actual flow rate
requirements of each berth. Table 5, below, summarizes the range of berth particulars and
provides rough order of magnitude (ROM) cost estimates for each network.
Table 5 Berth infrastructure sizing and cost estimate
Port Name Number
of Berths
Pump Capacity
(GPM)
ROM Cost
($)
LA/LB 85 1,000 to 13,000 $72,250,000
Humboldt Bay 7 8,000 to 13,000 $5,950,000
Pipes
All pipe size and routing calculations are based on a maximum allowable flow rate of 5 feet per
second during BW discharge (standard flow rate for in-ground wastewater pipe). The specific
berths are matched to the specific vessel type that calls at that berth, using the flow rates
identified in Table 4, above. All six vessel types considered in this study have different BW
discharge flow rates, and thus require different sizes of pipe to limit the flow velocity.
Pipes from multiple berths are combined at the various piers, pipe sizes are increased, and a duty
factor is applied to reflect the possibility of simultaneous BW discharge operations. The
following calculation ensures that the pipe is large enough for the largest expected flow and any
probable additional flow.
𝐶𝑜𝑟𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝐹𝑙𝑜𝑤 𝑅𝑎𝑡𝑒 = 𝑀𝑎𝑥𝑖𝑚𝑢𝑚 𝐹𝑙𝑜𝑤 𝑅𝑎𝑡𝑒 + ∑[𝑅𝑒𝑚𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝐹𝑙𝑜𝑤 𝑅𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑠 × 𝐷𝐹]
𝑀𝑎𝑥𝑖𝑚𝑢𝑚 𝐹𝑙𝑜𝑤 𝑅𝑎𝑡𝑒 = largest connected berth′s flow rate
𝑅𝑒𝑚𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝐹𝑙𝑜𝑤 𝑅𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑠 = other connected berth′s flow rates
𝐷𝐹 = duty factor of [𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 #𝐵𝑒𝑟𝑡ℎ𝑠 − 1]
Shore-Based Ballast Water Treatment in California 6 April 2017 Scale-up of Land-based and Barge-based Alternatives 8 Job 15086.01, Rev -
Table 6 Duty factors for different number of berths
Number of Berths Duty Factor (DF)
1 to 2 1.0
3 0.67
4 0.5
5 to 6 0.4
7 to 9 0.3
10 to 19 0.2
20 and above 0.1
Due to the infrequency of BW discharge events in Humboldt Bay, it was assumed that only one
berth would receive discharged BW at a given time. No duty factors were used. Instead, all pipe
was sized for the connected berth with the largest discharge flowrate.
The cost of this piping is relative to pipe diameter, taking material and installation costs into
consideration. The following assumptions were used for estimating purposes:
Cost of Steel Pipe = $1/lb (dollars/pound)
Labor Cost = $75/hour (dollars/hour)
Pipe Installation Labor Rate = 1 (hr/dia-ft)
Pipe Wall Thickness = 1 (inch)
Table 7 presents an overview of the sizing and cost estimates for pipe networks in both LA/LB
and Humboldt Bay.
Table 7 Piping network sizing and cost estimate
Port Name Piping Length
(miles)
Pipe Diameters
(inches)
ROM Cost
($)
LA/LB 50 10 to 66 $992,200,000
Humboldt Bay 5 28 to 34 $63,200,000
Lift Stations
Lift stations are comprised of two pumps and a tank. Two pumps sized for the factored
discharge flowrate (using the duty factors described above) provide 100% redundancy in the
system. Each storage tank was sized to hold four hours of factored discharge volume. This
methodology provides some surge capacity in the system should duty factors underestimate the
actual de-ballasting rates.
It should be noted that due to Humboldt Bay’s comparatively small area, intermediate lift
stations were eliminated. Instead, BW flows directly from each berth to the storage tank at the
treatment facility.
The layout of LA/LB is such that it will be necessary for the BW piping to cross the shipping
channels in at least two places to get to the proposed central treatment facility location. Each of
these channel crossings consist of two pumps, each sized for the factored discharge flowrate
(using duty factors above), in order to provide 100% redundancy. Channel pump costs have
been included in the lift station analysis.
Table 8 presents an overview of the sizing and cost estimates for lift stations.
Shore-Based Ballast Water Treatment in California 6 April 2017 Scale-up of Land-based and Barge-based Alternatives 9 Job 15086.01, Rev -
Table 8 Lift station overview
Port Name Pump Capacity
(GPM)
Tank Capacity
(gallons)
ROM Cost
($)
LA/LB 13,000 to 34,000 for lift stations
Up to 39,000 for channel pump
3,000,000 to
8,000,000
$270,300,000
Humboldt Bay N/A N/A N/A
Central Treatment Facility
Treatment requirements for the two investigated ports are quite different, and the methodology
behind the treatment design reflects these differences. Glosten subcontractor Kennedy Jenks
performed the central treatment facility analysis. A summary of their study can be found in
Appendix A.
In 2015, LA/LB saw 4.1 million MT of reported BW discharge. Not accounting for peak load,
and assuming a constant rate of discharge, this equates to an average annual discharge rate of
2,000 GPM (2.9 million gallons/day). Peak throughput for the treatment plant may be as high as
21,000 GPM (the expected capacity to treat BW from one bulk carrier and one tanker
simultaneously). A storage tank capacity of the peak throughput for 48 hours (60M gallons)
adds additional conservatism and surge capacity to the design. With these design factors taken
into consideration, LA/LB will require two redundant systems (not including the storage tanks)
capable of treating an annual average flow for 2,000 GPM, with a peaking factor of twice that
(4,000 GPM).
In 2015, Humboldt Bay saw 32,000 MT (8.4M gallons) of reported BW discharge in just two
port calls, resulting in an average annual discharge rate of only 16 GPM. It was determined that
designing a treatment plant at the discharge rate of the ship was not necessary. A more efficient
approach would be to capture the ballast water discharge in storage tanks, and treat the ballast
water at a reduced rate. A moderate flow-rate treatment plant was selected, such that it would
operate 8 hours per day over a thirty-day period following the ballast water discharge.
Therefore, the two redundant systems are required to hold and treat the ballast from one
discharge event over a 30-day period, assuming eight operating hours a day. Two tanks, each
sized for 4.2M gallons, are required to hold the BW onshore.
Kennedy Jenks developed the cost estimates for construction/commissioning of the treatment
plant shown in Table 9. These estimates do not account for maintenance and operational costs.
Table 9 Land-based central treatment plant summary
Port Name Treatment Plant Summary Storage Capacity
Summary
ROM Cost
($)
LA/LB Two (2) treatment facilities
capable of 2,000 GPM each
Four (4) 15,000,000 gallon
tanks
$183,000,000
Humboldt
Bay
Two (2) treatment facilities
capable of 290 GPM each
Two (2) 4,200,000 gallon
tanks
$40,400,000
Operational Cost Analysis
The land-based BW treatment option requires machinery operation and maintenance/operating
crews to function. This analysis was completed with the following factors taken into
consideration:
Field crews – required to hook up hoses, start pumps, maintain lift stations
Field annual power costs – berth and lift stations
Shore-Based Ballast Water Treatment in California 6 April 2017 Scale-up of Land-based and Barge-based Alternatives 10 Job 15086.01, Rev -
BW treatment crews – operate and maintain the central BW treatment plant
BW treatments operation – information provided by Kennedy Jenks
o Chemical costs
o Annual energy cost
Table 10 below summarizes the operational profile and OPEX cost estimates for both LA/LB
and Humboldt Bay. Where a crew is constantly working, it is assumed that this requires four
shifts to cover 24/7 service. Due to Humboldt Bay’s low level of operation, only one crew
working one shift is required.
Chemical and energy costs are provided in Appendix A, and included in the life-cycle cost
analysis. Maintenance and repair are based on capital investment cost, and are included in the
life-cycle cost analysis.
Table 10 Land-based treatment option operational summary
Port Name Field Crew Operational Profile BW Treatment Crew Operation Profile
ROM Cost
($/year)
LA/LB Constantly working,
4 crews of 3 members, 4 shifts
Constantly working
1 crew of 4 members, 4 shifts
$9,600,000
Humboldt Bay 1 crew of 4 members, 1 shift, 60 days a year $100,000
Barge-based Assessment
Overview
A system sizing and cost model was developed in order to estimate the total capital and
operational costs of a barge-based treatment approach for LA/LB and Humboldt Bay. The
model uses a handful of key inputs and assumptions to calculate sizes/capacity for the treatment
barge and tugs.
Barge-based BW treatment is the second option explored in this memorandum. In order to treat
discharged BW with barge-based infrastructure, BW must be discharged from marine vessels
and pumped to a treatment barge, which is moved from ship to ship with a tugboat. The general
steps for BW discharge include:
1. Barge to ship – A tug moves the treatment barge so that it is located ship-side.
2. BW transfer – The BW onboard the ship is pumped off and into the treatment barge.
3. Treatment and discharge – The barge treats the BW with onboard equipment, after which
it is discharged into the harbor/bay.
4. Barge departure – A tug moves the treatment barge away to either a lay-berth or another
ship.
Infrastructure Cost Analysis
The barge-based BW treatment option requires the construction of treatment barges, capable of
holding and treating BW from a variety of ship types. The number of barges needed for each
port reflects the port’s size and operation as follows:
LA/LB – There are an average of two de-ballasting events a day. A 200% surge factor
and a 150% maintenance factor are applied.
Humboldt Bay – There are an average of two de-ballasting events a year. Surge and
maintenance factors are not applied.
Shore-Based Ballast Water Treatment in California 6 April 2017 Scale-up of Land-based and Barge-based Alternatives 11 Job 15086.01, Rev -
Table 11 below summarizes the operational profile and infrastructure cost estimates for both
LA/LB and Humboldt Bay. A single treatment barge design is used. This enables the barges to
be exchanged within a statewide network, increasing flexibility of service. A barge capacity of
85,000 barrels (13,500 MT) is paired with a 2,000 gpm (450 MT/hr) treatment system. This
combination will handle the largest ballast water discharges in LA/LB and Humboldt Bay
without interruption.
The barge cost is based on $220 per barrel of barge capacity, which includes all costs in the
design, construction, and outfitting of the vessel, including pumping systems and hose handling
gear. The barge tanks serve the purpose of surge capacity. A $4.2 million allowance is provided
for each barge treatment system based on the land-based treatment plant considered for LA/LB
in Appendix A. The barge available footprint exceeds the required footprint for the land-based
treatment plant. Design and approval costs are spread over the vessel series.
Table 11 Barge-based treatment infrastructure summary
Port Name Barge Capacity Number of Barges Required
ROM Cost
($)
LA/LB 85,000 bbl 6 (4 in service) $137,400,000
Humboldt Bay 85,000 bbl 1 $22,900,000
Operational Cost Analysis
The barge-based BW treatment option requires both barge and tug operation. This analysis was
completed with the following factors taken into consideration:
Barge operation, with each barge manned by two operators
o Manning costs
o Fuel costs
Annual maintenance cost
Tug chartering
Table 12 below summarizes the operational profile and OPEX cost estimates for both LA/LB
and Humboldt Bay. Where a crew is constantly working, it is assumed that this requires four
shifts to cover 24/7 service. In the case of Humboldt Bay, crewing is based on four days for the
barge-based treatment plant to process the ballast water, plus two days of waiting time for each
ballast water discharge.
Chemical costs are based on the land-based analysis, under the assumption that the same
processes will process the same amount of ballast water. Energy costs are based on the land-
based energy costs, plus a ‘ship service load’ of 30 kW for each barge in service. Maintenance
and repair costs are based as a percentage of capital cost, and are included in the life-cycle cost
analysis.
Table 12 Barge-based treatment operational summary
Port Name Barge Operation Profile Tug Operation Profile
ROM Cost
($/year)
LA/LB 4 out of 6 barges continually operating
4 ops crews of 2 members each, 4 shifts
1 service crew of 2 members, 1 shift
720 barge moves
per year ($5,000
per move)
$8,700,00
Humboldt Bay 1 barge operating 12 days/year
1 ops crew of 2 members, 4 shifts
1 service crew of 2 members, 1 shift
2 barge moves
per year ($5,000
per move)
$60,000
Shore-Based Ballast Water Treatment in California 6 April 2017 Scale-up of Land-based and Barge-based Alternatives 12 Job 15086.01, Rev -
Results
CAPEX Cost Analysis
In addition to the costs discussed in the Methodology sections above, engineering and permitting
costs were also investigated. For the land-based option, engineering costs were estimated with a
base price of $1M, with a $100,000 increase per berth. Engineering costs for the barge-based
option are estimated to $1M for the barge design. Permitting Costs for both LA/LB and
Humboldt Bay were estimated by Odic. Land acquisition costs were not included in this
investigation due to the variable cost of land.
The following CAPEX cost tables (Table 13 and Table 14) outline the CAPEX cost differences
between land-based and barge-based BW treatment for both LA/LB and Humboldt Bay.
Table 13 Land-based ballast treatment CAPEX costs
Cost
Factor
LA/LB Humboldt Bay
Berths $72.3M $6.0M
Piping $992.2M $63.2M
Lift stations $269.9M -
Treatment
facility
$183.0M $83.1M
Engineering $9.5M $1.7M
Land
acquisition
Not reported Not reported
Permitting $20.8M $2.0M
Total Cost $1,547.7M $156.0M
Table 14 Barge-based ballast treatment CAPEX costs
Cost
Factor
LA/LB Humboldt Bay
Berths - -
Piping - -
Outfitted
Barge
$18.7M/barge
$112.2M total
$18.7M
Treatment
facility
$4.2M/plant
$25.1M total
$4.2M
Engineering $2.0M $2.0M
Land
acquisition
- -
Permitting - -
Total Cost $139.3M $24.9M
OPEX Cost Analysis
Table 15 shows the OPEX costs of both land-based and barge-based treatment options for
LA/LB and Humboldt Bay. These costs estimates provide a current ‘snapshot’ of annual
operating expenses for the various options. This includes labor for operations, energy and
chemical consumption, tugboats for the barge-based option, and maintenance and repair of the
new infrastructure.
Table 15 Land-based and barge-based ballast treatment OPEX costs
Port Name LA/LB Humboldt Bay
Land-based $25,239,000 $2,144,000
Barge-based $13,151,00 $311,000
Shore-Based Ballast Water Treatment in California 6 April 2017 Scale-up of Land-based and Barge-based Alternatives 13 Job 15086.01, Rev -
Life-cycle Cost Analysis
A life-cycle cost analysis was developed for the land-based and barge-based alternatives,
including both LA/LB and Humboldt Bay locations. The analysis is based on the NIST
Handbook 135, which provides methods for calculating capital and operating expenses of
infrastructure projects in present dollars – in other words, the current value of money that will be
spent in the future. Some key considerations:
The “net cost, life-cycle” includes all capital and operating expenditures over a six-year
design and construction period and 30 year operating period, and corrects these values to
current dollars.
The “operating costs, annual” is simply the sum of estimated annual operating costs. It is
shown in current dollars, although the actual costs in future years will be subject to
inflation. These costs are considered in the “net cost, life-cycle.”
It is often confusing to see the “initial investment, one time” as lower than the
“equipment, design, approvals” estimate. This is because the initial investment is not
required for three years, and as long as the discount rate is higher than the rate of
inflation, then the current value of that future investment will be less.
Maintenance and repair (M&R) estimates are difficult to predict, often using a percentage
of capital investment as the metric as is done here. A significantly higher percentage is
used for barge-based at 3%, as compared to 1% for land-based, in consideration of the
potentially rougher duty of a marine application. The Humboldt Bay barge M&R is
estimated at 1%, as the barge will likely service other ports that will share this expenses.
Table 16 Life-cycle Cost Analysis
Analysis: Shore-based Ballast Water Land-facing Barge-basedTreatment Solutions Los Humboldt Los HumboldtSummary Figures in Present Value. Angeles/ Bay Angeles/ BayTotals and sub-totals rounded to 100,000. Long Beach Long Beach
NET COST, LIFE CYCLE (1,000 USD) 1,783,200 166,300 326,200 27,300
Operating Costs, Annual (1,000 USD/yr) 25,239 1,660 13,151 311
Initial Investment, One Time (1,000 USD) 1,399,396 141,052 125,952 22,514
Equip, Design, Build, Approval (1,000 USD) 1,547,700 156,000 139,300 24,900
Chem, Energy Expenses, Life Cycle (1,000 USD) 2,700 24 4,500 39
Chemical expenses, annual (1,000 USD/yr) 43 0.35 43 0.35
Energy expenses, annual (1,000 USD/yr) 119 1.1 229 2.0
OM&R Expenses, Life Cycle (1,000 USD) 381,100 25,200 195,700 4,700
OM&R expenses, annual (1,000 USD/yr) 25,077 1,659 12,879 309
Tug Boat (moves/yr) 0 0 720 2
Operators (positions) 64.0 0.66 34.0 0.33
M&R of system (% equip cost) 1.0% 1.0% 3.0% 1.0%
Investment Terms Analysis based on NIST Handbook 135, published 1995
Base (Analysis) Date 1-Apr-17 Tug drop/rtn (1,000 USD) 5
Construction Date 1-Apr-20
Service Date 1-Apr-23 Rate of Inflation 2.5%
Service Period (years) 30 Discount Rate 6.0%
Operational Staff (1,000 USD/yr) 150 Enrgy & Chem. Escalation 3.0%
Shore-Based Ballast Water Treatment in California 6 April 2017 Scale-up of Land-based and Barge-based Alternatives 14 Job 15086.01, Rev -
Sensitivity Analysis
The life-cycle and operating cost estimates were analyzed for sensitivity to five key estimating
variables: equipment costs, investment terms, maintenance and repair costs, life-cycle period,
and operational staffing. The analysis varied each of these drivers one at a time, within
reasonable high and low ranges in order to gage sensitivity to the variable and determine the high
and low sensitivity values. The maximum and minimum range of life-cycle and operating costs
are provided in Table 17, below. The sensitivity of each variable is tabulated below in Table 18.
Table 17 - Sensitivity Analysis, Range of Estimate Variations
Life-cycle (1,000 USD) Operating Cost (1,000 USD/Year)
Alternative Maximum Baseline Minimum Maximum Baseline Minimum
LA/LB Land-based 2,437,100 1,783,200 1,129,300 56,193 25,239 19,048
Barge-based 425,100 326,200 216,400 18,251 13,151 10,365
Humboldt Land-based 232,200 166,300 100,400 4,780 1,660 1,036
Barge-based 33,800 27,300 20,600 373 311 144
The land-based alternatives were more sensitive to the cost estimate variables than the barge-
based estimates. This was due in significant part to the accuracy of the engineering estimates
being at +/-40% for the land-based alternative due to higher uncertainty, as compared to +/-25%
for the barge-based alternative.
The high land-based capital costs resulted in a high level of sensitivity to the method of
estimating maintenance and repair (M&R) costs, estimated based on a percentage of the initial
investment. As a result, M&R costs are a significantly higher percentage of operating expense
labor for operations.
Discount rate is the value that an organization places on money if it was being used for other
purposes. These life-cycle costs are very sensitive to the selected discount rate. For purposes of
investing, the discount rate is used to calculate the present value of money that is due at a later
date. For example, the present value of a $100 payment due in five years at a discount rate of
5% would be $78.35 [100/(1+.05)^5]. Present value is used to understand the cost of an
investment over many years in today’s dollars. The present values calculated here considered:
Discounted the initial investment, assuming that planning, design, and approvals will take
three years. This means that the larger the discount rate and the further into the future the
project is, the lower the present cost of the investment.
Discounted the start of operating expenses by six years, assuming that construction takes
an additional three years. These expenses are then further discounted over the life of the
project, set for thirty years.
Calculated the real discount rate and real energy & chemical price escalation rates in
consideration of inflation.
Shore-Based Ballast Water Treatment in California 6 April 2017 Scale-up of Land-based and Barge-based Alternatives 15 Job 15086.01, Rev -
Variations is service life was not a significant life-cycle cost driver. This is primarily the result
of discounting, which reduces the present value of future operations. Following the same
example of $100 at a 5% discount rate, the present value of this expense due in 15 years is
$48.10, at 30 years is $23.14, and at 50 years is $8.72.
Operational staff variations, even when doubling the crewing estimates, were also not a primary
driver of life-cycle costs. This was a driver for barge operational costs, as operational staff is
significant in comparison to M&R costs that are estimated based on the asset cost. This was a
much lower driver of land-based operational costs, for the same reason, as the relatively high
asset cost drives the M&R costs to be much higher than the operational costs.
Table 18 - Sensitivity Analysis, Variable Details
The cost estimates presented herein are reasonable for screening level purposes, with the
sensitives identified and appropriate limits. When progressing to the next level of cost
estimating, potentially for budgeting purposes, the following is recommended:
Analysis: Shore-based Ballast Water Line 1 - Life Cycle Cost, 30 Years (1,000 USD)Treatment Solutions Line 2 - Operating Costs, Annual (1,000 USD/yr)
Summary Figures in Present Value. Land-based Barge-basedTotals and sub-totals rounded to 100,000. LA/LB Humboldt LA/LB Humboldt
(1) Baseline 1,783,200 166,300 326,200 27,300
25,239 1,660 13,151 311
Variations in Equip, Design, Build, Approval
(2) 25% more expensive than estimate 2,191,800 207,400 373,500 33,800
29,108 2,050 14,196 373
(3) 25% less expensive than estimate 1,374,500 125,100 278,900 20,600
21,370 1,270 12,106 249
Variations in Discount Rate
(4) 4% discount rate 2,040,500 186,100 425,100 30,700
25,239 1,660 18,251 311
(5) 10% discount rate 1,451,000 139,300 216,400 22,600
25,239 1,660 13,151 311
Variations in M&R of System
(6) 1% of initial investement 1,783,200 166,300 283,900 24,800
for barge and land-based 25,239 1,660 10,365 144
(7) 3% of initial investment 2,253,700 213,700 326,200 27,300
for barge and land-based 56,193 4,780 13,151 311
Variations in Service Periods
(8) 15 year service period 1,638,600 156,800 250,800 25,400
25,239 1,660 13,151 311
(9) 50 year service period 1,891,400 173,400 382,800 28,600
25,239 1,660 13,151 311
Variations in Operational Staff
(10) Double only barge-based staffing 1,783,200 166,300 403,800 28,000
25,239 1,660 18,251 360
(11) Double only land-based staffing 1,929,100 167,800 326,200 27,300
34,839 1,759 13,151 311
Shore-Based Ballast Water Treatment in California 6 April 2017 Scale-up of Land-based and Barge-based Alternatives 16 Job 15086.01, Rev -
The barge-based equipment estimates currently provide an adequate level of accuracy at
+/-25%. However, if the land-based alternative is to be pursued further, then additional
work is needed to reduce this uncertainty.
Maintenance and repair estimates in all cases require refinement. Estimates should be
obtained from operators of similar facilities rather than scaled from investment costs.
Once the investment vehicle for the infrastructure is identified, an appropriate discount
rate should be selected.
A more detailed operating profile should be developed in order to update the operating
cost profile.
The barge-based alternative presents fewer technical uncertainties, given that all tankage,
piping, processing equipment, and effluent discharge is located on the barge itself.
Technical challenges are limited to ballasting connection to the ship and shifting land-
based treatment technology to the barge. The land-based alternative requires a unique
assessment of each berth location considering space limitations for pier-side handling of
BW hoses, ability to run pipelines across shipping channels, and available routes for
running pipelines throughout working terminals.
Summary
This scale-up assessment was designed to represent the extreme high-end and low-end of ballast
water frequency. Further, the analyzed ports present significant diversity of geography, scale,
shipping activity, and land availability. While the costs will scale higher or lower depending on
a number of factors at each port, the relationship between the barge and land-based solution costs
are expected stay within the identified factors. The comparative costs between barge and land-
based solutions presented herein are representative for all California ports.
In LA/LB, the barge-based solution capital cost is $139.3 million, as compared to $1.55 billion
for the land-based alternative, making the barge-based solution 11.1 times less costly. In
Humboldt Bay, the barge-based solution capital cost is $29.4 million, as compared to $156.0
million for the land-based alternative, resulting in 5.2 times less cost. In addition, barge-based
operating costs are less expensive. Over a thirty year life-cycle, the barge-based alternative
requires $1.46 billion in LA/LB and $139 million in Humboldt Bay less cost than the land-based
alternative, both expressed in current dollars.
The barge-based cost estimate is less sensitive to current assumptions, as compared to the land-
based alternative. This is driven in part by higher confidence in barge cost estimating, which is
primarily a function of cost per pound of fabricated steel. Factors reducing cost certainty of the
land-based alterative include the number and scope of permits, variability of berth interface
designs, and challenges in obtaining rights of way for pipelines, storage tanks, and the treatment
plants. In addition, land costs and outfalls, an additional source of uncertainty, are not included
in the estimates.
The barge-based alternative is significantly more economical than the land-based alternative in
terms of capital, operating, and life-cycle cost. In addition, the barge-based alternative has more
economic and technical certainty.
Shore-Based Ballast Water Treatment in California 6 April 2017 Scale-up of Land-based and Barge-based Alternatives A-1 Job 15086.01, Rev -
Appendix A: Sizing and Cost of Shore-based Treatment Plants
LB/LA Shore-Based Treatment Costs and Footprint
The shore-based treatment train selected for the ports of LB/LA and Humboldt is composed of
equalization, coagulation, flocculation, sedimentation (plate settlers), ultrafiltration, and UV
disinfection. Solids generated in the plate settlers will be trucked off sight for land disposal.
Sludge dewatering would be a beneficial addition to this treatment scheme to reduce the volume
of material trucked of site for disposal. Dewatering was not included in the current evaluation but
could be accomplished using a variety of engineered dewatering technologies or drying beds.
Backwash water produced from cleaning the UF membranes can be returned to the front of the
treatment plant to remove suspended solids for disposal. The equations used to size and cost the
unit processes are provided in in Technical Memorandum 5. In general, cost and footprint are
calculated as a function of the treatment flow.
Figure 1 Schematic drawing of the proposed shore-based ballast water treatment system
Design Criteria:
Instantaneous Peak Flow = 21,000 gpm
Annual Average Flow = 2,000 gpm
Storage Requirement = 60 million gallons
General Assumptions:
Two redundant systems are required (not including the equalization tanks) capable of
treating an annual average flow of 2,000 gpm, each.
Peaking factor = 2 times the annual average flow.
Backwash water from membrane filtration can be returned to the front of the process for
treatment.
Results:
Table 1 Estimated capital costs for a shore-based ballast water treatment system (LB/LA)
Equalization Tanks Coag./Floc./Sed. Membrane Filtration UV Disinfection
Capital Cost [4] $99,200,000 [1] $1,280,000 [2] $4,590,000 [3] $1,120,000 [2]
Division 1 Cost (10%) $9,920,000 $128,000 $459,000 $112,000
Taxes Material (7.5%) $7,440.000 $96,000 $344,000 $84,000
Taxes Labor (5%) $4,962,000 $64,000 $229,000 $56,000
Contractor OH&P (25%) $24,800,000 $320,000 $1,150,000 $280,000
Contingency (25%) $24,800,000 $320,000 $1,150,000 $280,000 System Cost
Total $171,000,000 $2,210,000 $7,920,000 $1,930,000 $183,000,000
Coag./Floc./Sed. UF
UV
Backwash Waste
Equalization
Tank To Discharge From Tanker
Solids to Landfill
Shore-Based Ballast Water Treatment in California 6 April 2017 Scale-up of Land-based and Barge-based Alternatives A-2 Job 15086.01, Rev -
[1] The equalization tanks cost was calculated assuming four 15 million gallon tanks would be used. Tank costs also
include site preparation cost.
[2] Process cost calculated assuming a peaking factor = 2Q.
[3] Peaking factor was not included because water production through membrane filtration systems can be increased
(doubled or tripled) to meet peak flows.
[4] All costs are in 2015 dollars.
Table 2 Estimated footprints for a shore-based ballast water treatment system located (LB/LA)
Footprint [1], ft2
Equalization Tanks 45,000 [2]
Flocculation Basin 4,800
Plate Settler 2,400
Membrane Filtration 8,600
UV Disinfection 1,200
Subtotal 62,000
Footprint Multiplier [3] 1.5
Total 93,000
[1] Footprint of unit treatment process calculated for two redundant systems.
[2] Footprint calculated as the sum of the area of four 15 million gallon storage tanks with a diameter of 120’.
[3] Footprint multiplier was included to account for office and lab space, electrical components, and other necessary
infrastructure.
Table 3 Estimated shore-based ballast water treatment system energy costs, chemical costs, solids generation, and
backwash volumes (LB/LA)
Coagulation/Flocculation/Settler
Annual Chemical Cost, $ 43,000
Annual Solids Generation, tons/year 230
Membrane Filtration
Annual Energy Cost, $ [1] 24,000
Daily Backwash Volume, gallons 230,400
UV Disinfection
Annual Energy Cost, $ [1] 95,000
[1] Energy cost calculated assuming a unit energy cost of $0.12/kWh
Humboldt Treatment Costs and Footprint
Design Criteria:
Ballast Water Volume per Vessel = 4.2 million gallons
Daily Flow = 140,000 gpd
Hourly Flow = 17,500 gph (assuming 8-hours of operation per day)
Storage Requirement = two 4.2 million gallon tanks
General Assumptions:
Two vessels holding 4.2 million gallons of ballast water come to port each year.
Shore-Based Ballast Water Treatment in California 6 April 2017 Scale-up of Land-based and Barge-based Alternatives A-3 Job 15086.01, Rev -
Ballast water is stored in one of two 4.2 MG equalization tanks.
Equalized ballast water is treated over one month (30 days).
Ballast water is only treated for 8-hours per day
No peaking factor necessary.
Backwash water from membrane filtration can be returned to the front of the process for
treatment.
Two redundant systems are required.
Results:
Table 4 Estimated capital costs for a shore-based ballast water treatment system (Humboldt)
Equalization Tanks Coag./Floc./Sed. Membrane Filtration UV Disinfection
Capital Cost [2] $20,700,000 [1] $188,000 $2,260,000 $304,000
Division 1 Cost (10%) $2,070,000 $18,800 $226,000 $30,000
Taxes Material (7.5%) $1,550,000 $14,100 $169,000 $23,000
Taxes Labor (5%) $1,040,000 $9,400 $113,000 $15,000
Contractor OH&P (25%) $5,180,000 $46,900 $564,000 $76,000
Contingency (25%) $5,180,000 $46,900 $564,000 $76,000 System Cost
Total $35,700,000 $324,000 $3,890,000 $525,000 $40,400,000
[1] The equalization tanks cost was calculated assuming two 4.2 million gallon tanks would be used. Tank costs also
include site preparation cost.
[2] All costs are in 2015 dollars.
Table 5 Estimated footprints for a shore-based ballast water treatment system located (Humboldt)
Footprint [1], ft2
Equalization Tanks 12,800 [2]
Flocculation Basin 360
Plate Settler 360
Membrane Filtration 420
UV Disinfection 720
Subtotal 15,000
Footprint Multiplier [3] 1.5
Total 22,500
[1] Footprint of unit treatment process calculated for two redundant systems.
[2] Footprint calculated as the sum of the area of two 4.2 million gallon storage tanks with a diameter of 90’.
[3] Footprint multiplier was included to account for office and lab space, electrical components, and other necessary
infrastructure.
Table 6 Estimated shore-based ballast water treatment system energy costs, chemical costs, solids
generation, and backwash volumes (LB/LA)
Coagulation/Flocculation/Settler
Annual Chemical Cost, $ 350
Annual Solids Generation, tons/year 1.9
Membrane Filtration
Annual Energy Cost, $ [2] 200
Daily Backwash Volume, gallons 33,600
UV Disinfection
Shore-Based Ballast Water Treatment in California 6 April 2017 Scale-up of Land-based and Barge-based Alternatives A-4 Job 15086.01, Rev -
Annual Energy Cost, $ [2] 775
[1] Energy and chemical cost calculated assuming the treatment plant will only be operating two months out of the
year when ballast water is delivered.
[2] Energy cost calculated assuming a unit energy cost of $0.12/kWh.