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


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.


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.


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.


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.


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


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]


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.


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


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.


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


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


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%


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.


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


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


[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.


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


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.

Shore-Based Ballast Water Treatment in California...

Documents

Transcript of Shore-Based Ballast Water Treatment in California...