# Port of Milwaukee Onshore Ballast Water Treatment Feasibility Study Report

Prepared for:

Prepared by:

October 12, 2007

### ( This page has been intentionally left blank)

### ( This page has been intentionally left blank)

# Port of Milwaukee Onshore Ballast Water Treatment Feasibility Study Report

Prepared for:

Prepared by:

October 12, 2007

### ( This page has been intentionally left blank)WDNR Onshore Ballast Water Treatment Study
10/12/2007

B R O W N A N D C A L D W E L L

P:\Wisconsin DNR\Ballast Water Treat ment\Task 400_Report\Final_Report.doc Page 

### i TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Objectives .................................................................................................................. 1 2. Background information.......................................................................................... 1 2.1 Potential Treatment Targets................................................................................ 2 2.2 Port of Milwaukee Description........................................................................... 2 2.3 Current and Proposed Regulations...................................................................... 5 2.4 Typical Ship Characteristics ............................................................................... 6 2.5 Design Criteria.................................................................................................... 7 3. Alternatives development....................................................................................... 10 3.1 Capture.............................................................................................................. 10 3.1.1 Diver ......................................................................................................... 10 3.1.2 Machine..................................................................................................... 11 3.1.3 Bladder...................................................................................................... 11 3.1.4 Containment Booms.................................................................................. 11 3.1.5 Lock .......................................................................................................... 11 3.1.6 Direct On-board Connection..................................................................... 12 3.1.7 Comparison of Capture Alternatives ........................................................ 12 3.2 Collection Pumping .......................................................................................... 12 3.3 Transport........................................................................................................... 12 3.3.1 Transport by Pipe...................................................................................... 12 3.3.2 Transport by Truck ................................................................................... 14 3.3.3 Transport by Rail Car................................................................................ 15 3.3.4 Transport by Barge ................................................................................... 15 3.3.5 Comparison of Transport Alternatives...................................................... 15 3.4 Storage .............................................................................................................. 16 3.5 Treatment .......................................................................................................... 18 3.5.1 Screening................................................................................................... 18 3.5.2 Jones Island WWTP.................................................................................. 18 3.5.3 On-Site Treatment..................................................................................... 19 3.5.4 Discharge of Treated Ballast Water.......................................................... 26 4. Conclusions and Recommendations...................................................................... 27 5. Limitations............................................................................................................... 32WDNR Onshore Ballast Water Treatment Study
10/12/2007

B R O W N A N D C A L D W E L L

P:\Wisconsin DNR\Ballast Water Treat ment\Task 400_Report\Final_Report.doc Page 

### ii ( This page has been intentionally left blank)WDNR Onshore Ballast Water Treatment Study
10/12/2007

B R O W N A N D C A L D W E L L

P:\Wisconsin DNR\Ballast Water Treat ment\Task 400_Report\Final_Report.doc Page ES-1 

### EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report was completed as part of the Port of Milwaukee Onshore Ballast Water Treatment Feasibility Study, which was conducted by Brown and Caldwell for the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resour ces (WDNR). This pr oject had a budget of $28,900 and was completed within the contracted 90 days. Interim meetings were held with the project team, which consisted of staff members of the WDNR, the Port of Milwaukee, and Brown and Caldwell, to re view initial findings and determine the direction of further study.

The objective of the study was to evaluate the feasibility of using an onshore facility for treating the ballast water from ships at th e Port of Milwaukee that take part in international trade, with the intent of prev enting the next potential invasive species from entering the Great Lakes via ballast water. The feasibility study include d a review of site maps, an overview of utility and dock operations , and discussions with staff from the Port of Milwaukee on opportunities for ballast wa ter discharges and potential treatment locations. In addition, Brown and Caldwell condu cted a review of cu rrent literature on ballast water treatment, and considered a pot ential design basis for collection, storage and treatment requirements. Information about shipping movements and operations was gathered from published studies and inform ation provided by the Port of Milwaukee staff. This information was the basis for the feasibility study; no independent investigations were completed.

Figure ES-1 shows the overall process for collecting and treating ballast water. The project team considered the processes by usi ng a capture flow rate of 3,000 gallons per minute (gpm), a storage volume of 0.5 million gallons (MG), and a treatment rate of 350 gpm, as a conceptualized design basis. Signifi cant engineering will be required as part of future work to confirm the actual design basis suitable for this site.

Capture Pumping Conveyance Storage Treatment Pumping Conveyance Transport Storage Screening Discharge Capture Pumping Conveyance Storage Treatment Pumping Conveyance Transport Storage Screening Discharge



### Figure ES-1. Process for Collecting and Treating Ballast Water

A variety of options were considered for captu ring the water, includ ing a diver or robotic arm to make a connection to the side of the ship, a bladder, containment boom, or lock, and a direct on-board connec tion. A direct on-board conne ction between an oceangoing vessel’s existing pipes and pumps and an onshor e pump was determined to be the most feasible option; however this option would require consistent modification of the vessel’s pumping and piping systems and ideally inte rnational standards would be adopted to standardize these modifications.

The options considered for transporting wa ter from the dock to treatment included transport by piping, tanker truck, rail car, or barge. The large number of truck and rail car loads necessary to transport th e amount of ballast water in the design basis made thoseWDNR Onshore Ballast Water Treatment Study
10/12/2007

B R O W N A N D C A L D W E L L

P:\Wisconsin DNR\Ballast Water Treat ment\Task 400_Report\Final_Report.doc Page ES-2 

### methods infeasible. Cost estimates showed that piping would require a large capital investment, much of the piping would be unde rutilized most of the time, and the piping size would be limited to the design flow rate making this a less attractive option. The most promising individual alte rnative was determined to be a barge that would pull up alongside a ship and coll ect the ballast water. It is likel y that a combination of transport options would be the best overall option, de pending on the volume and location of the ballast water discharge.

A wide range of on-site filtration and disi nfection treatment tec hnologies were also evaluated; some were eliminated from consid eration based on their lack of feasibility relative to construction, cost an d/or reliability consideratio ns. The remaining technologies were further evaluated with regard to capital and operational costs and design and operational considerations. Thes e remaining alternatives were ultraviolet light (UV) disinfection (preceded by fi ne screening to improve the disinfection efficiency), ozonation, membrane filtration (preceded by fi ne screening to protect the membrane), and hydrodynamic cavitation. Each of these altern atives also contained some preliminary screening to remove large solids. Overal l, the main distinguisher between onshore treatment technologies was cost, alt hough UV disinfection and hydrodynamic cavitation were also considered to be the most prom ising technologies for treating viruses. In addition to on-site treatment alternatives, the project team also cons idered the diversion of pre-screened ballast water to a publicly -owned wastewater tr eatment plant (WWTP) adjacent to the Port of Milwaukee.

This report is meant to be illustrative and all equipment cut sheets and costs are conceptual and specific to the Port of Milw aukee. Detailed design drawings were not developed, and the costs included in the re port are conceptual costs for comparison purposes only. In addition, costs presented in the report should not be used in subsequent work as a guaranteed estimate. Overall, the capital costs of the feasible collection and treatment alternatives ranged from $ 1.3 million to $6.6 million. The lowest cost alternative with on-site treatm ent consisted of collecting and storing the ballast water on a barge and then treating it w ith fine screening and UV disi nfection, whereas the highest cost alternative consis ted of collecting the ballast wate r with piping, storing the ballast water in an above ground storag e tank, and then treating the ba llast water with an on-site hydrodynamic cavitation system. An additional al ternative that was considered was to filter and send the ballast water to the pub licly-owned WWTP; this alternative would have lower capital costs than the on-site tr eatment options, but would involve a fee to discharge the ballast water and regular expenses to sample the water to determine its characteristics prior to entering the WWTP.

Additional research is needed before on-site collection and treatment can be implemented. Nevertheless, this study illustrates that onshore treatment appears to be feasible, provided that the ship-to-shore collection approach identified can be implemented. The most notable recomme ndations for future action include:WDNR Onshore Ballast Water Treatment Study
10/12/2007

B R O W N A N D C A L D W E L L

P:\Wisconsin DNR\Ballast Water Treat ment\Task 400_Report\Final_Report.doc Page ES-3 

### • Determining methods and detailed engin eering for installing a connection to an oceangoing vessel’s piping and pumping syst em to allow for a direct on-board connection and developing a preliminary de sign, cost estimate, and anticipated installation time of a typical connection;

• Performing a waste characterization study of the ballast water to better understand the quantity and quality of the water to be treated;

• Conducting a pilot study of one or more of the collecti on and treatment systems to demonstrate performance capabilities a nd to provide a better understanding of design limitations and costs;

• Developing procedures and cost s for residuals handling; and

• Investigating pretreatment requirements for discharge to the publicly-owned WWTP.

Other recommended actions include monito ring the progress of proposed regulations; performing a detailed evaluation of the applicability of the findings herein to other Great Lakes ports; and determining the financ ial and political feasibility of further actions toward onshore collection and treatm ent in the Port of Milwaukee, other Wisconsin ports, and other Great Lakes por ts outside of Wisc onsin’s boundaries.WDNR Onshore Ballast Water Treatment Study
10/12/2007

B R O W N A N D C A L D W E L L

P:\Wisconsin DNR\Ballast Water Treat ment\Task 400_Report\Final_Report.doc Page ES-4 

### ( This page has been intentionally left blank)WDNR Onshore Ballast Water Treatment Study
10/12/2007

B R O W N A N D C A L D W E L L

P:\Wisconsin DNR\Ballast Water Treat ment\Task 400_Report\Final_Report.doc Page 1 

### 1. OBJECTIVES Each year, the State of Wisconsin spends millions of dollars on the mitigation of invasive species. Many of these species enter the Great Lakes thr ough transport via ships from foreign ports. As a result, various states and countries have been re searching methods for treating the ballast water from ships in an e ffort to eliminate the potentially invasive species and prevent their introduction to the Gr eat Lakes. As a result of the threats and associated cost of invasive species, the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) retained Brown and Caldwell to pe rform an evaluation on the feasibility of onshore ballast water collection and treat ment. Representatives from Brown and Caldwell, WDNR, and the Port of Milwaukee fo rmed a project team and worked together to evaluate different collecti on and onshore treatment altern atives. Appendix A includes the list of the members of this project t eam. Other states and c ountries are performing similar evaluations, but the majority of thos e evaluations have focused on ballast water treatment that is on the ship itself (on-ship).

The overall objectives of the project were:



### • The Port of Milwaukee will be a case st udy for onshore ballast water collection and treatment.



### • Any onshore collection and treatment alte rnative should address the potential for expansion elsewhere.



### • Treatment is to be onshore only, meaning th at there will be one treatment system for the Port of Milwaukee as opposed to each ship that enters the Port of Milwaukee having its own on-ship treatment system.



### • The discharge standards for tr eatment will be technology-based.



### • The overall goal for treatment is to imp rove current conditions, but the desired goal is to remove or destroy 90% or more of organisms.



### • The treatment cannot result in any ad verse impacts to the environment.



### • The treatment must be affordable, feasible , effective, and able to be implemented.

2. BACKGROUND INFORMATION To understand how to achieve the objectives fo r this project, one must first understand how the Port of Milwaukee and ships that ar rive at the Port of Milwaukee are designed and operated. These designs and operation prac tices must then be compared to the potential treatment targets for an onshore tr eatment system, and any current and proposed regulations that may impact the pr acticality of an onshore system.

In addition, any onshore ballast water collection and treatm ent system would need to satisfy certain design criteria while avoiding any design constraints. These design criteria and constraints are categorized into those related to the Port of Milwaukee, those related to ship design, and those related to flow s and volumes for collection and treatment.WDNR Onshore Ballast Water Treatment Study
10/12/2007

B R O W N A N D C A L D W E L L

P:\Wisconsin DNR\Ballast Water Treat ment\Task 400_Report\Final_Report.doc Page 2 

### 2.1 Potential Treatment Targets The primary treatment target for this project was nonindi genous organisms. These organisms, which can ultimately become invasive species, come in a variety of sizes. It is difficult to identify specific species as treatment targets; however, several categories of potential treatment targets were id entified. These categories include:



### • Fish



### • Mollusks



### • Crustaceans



### • Plants



### • Algae



### • Bacteria



### • Viruses



### • Other living things

One important note is that the onshore ballas t water handling, trea tment, and residuals disposal must be designed to prevent future introductions of noni ndigenous organisms into the Great Lakes.

2.2 Port of Milwaukee Description
The Port of Milwaukee is lo cated along the shores of La ke Michigan, just south of downtown Milwaukee. The Port is conveniently located so that there is easy access to railroads, canals, and roads, including Inte rstate Highway 794 (I-794) which runs directly above the Port of Milwaukee. Figure 1 provi des an overview of the Port of Milwaukee and Figure 2 shows the available land and rive r shipping routes to and from the Port, as well as the St. Lawrence Seaway System.WDNR Onshore Ballast Water Treatment Study
10/12/2007

B R O W N A N D C A L D W E L L

P:\Wisconsin DNR\Ballast Water Treat ment\Task 400_Report\Final_Report.doc Page 3 

### Figure 1. Overview of the Port of Milwaukee

Figure 2. Typical Shipping Routes of the Port of MilwaukeeWDNR Onshore Ballast Water Treatment Study
10/12/2007

B R O W N A N D C A L D W E L L

P:\Wisconsin DNR\Ballast Water Treat ment\Task 400_Report\Final_Report.doc Page 4 

### Foreign ships arrive at the Great Lakes and ultimately the Port of Milwaukee via the St. Lawrence Seaway. Up to two foreign ships may visit the Port of Milwaukee at the same time, but on average only 85 trips are made by foreign oceangoing ships to the Port during the eight months that it is open (f rom approximately early April through late December). Frequently these ships are unloa ding cargo, so they take on ballast water rather than discharge it. An exception to this is when ships load grain at the grain elevator in the Port.

Most of the available space at the Port of Milwaukee is already well-utilized, leaving only a few areas available for onshore storage or treatment. Figure 3 shows the locations of docks that could potentially accept ballast water from fore ign ships as well as possible locations for onshore storage and treatment. The figure also shows the locations of key Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District (M MSD) facilities, such as the Jones Island Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP), Inline Storage System (commonly known as the Deep Tunnel), and the In-Plant Diversion.

In addition to accommodating storage and tr eatment within the limited amount of space that is available, the Port of Milwaukee is a business that must keep operations running smoothly and successfully. As a result, a ny ballast water collection and treatment operations at the Port of Milwaukee must have little or no impact to the ships and operations of the Port of Milwaukee.WDNR Onshore Ballast Water Treatment Study
10/12/2007

B R O W N A N D C A L D W E L L

P:\Wisconsin DNR\Ballast Water Treat ment\Task 400_Report\Final_Report.doc Page 5 

### Figure 3. Key Port of Milwaukee and MMSD Features

2.3 Current and Proposed Regulations There are currently no federal regulations for the treatment of ballast water, but some states and countries have proposed or enact ed regulations. The State of Michigan has passed legislation that requires that all ships vi siting its ports either prove that they will not discharge any ballast water while at the port or “utilize environmentally sound technology and methods, as determined by th e department (Michigan Department of Environmental Quality) that can be used to prevent the discharge of aquatic nuisance species” (Michigan State Bill No. 332). The Michigan Department of Environmental Quality is currently recommending on-ship treatment of ballast water.

Existing Canadian and United St ates regulations require that foreign ships perform open sea exchange of ballast water. Upon entering the St. Lawrence Seaway, these ships must prove that any ballast water on board has at least 30 parts per thousand of salinity as a means of verifying this open ocean ballast wa ter exchange. Ships that do not satisfy this requirement must either return to an approve d area and perform a ba llast water exchange or agree to not release any ballast water. The experimental evidence is that few fresh water organisms can withstand this high salini ty and as a result, will die off prior toWDNR Onshore Ballast Water Treatment Study
10/12/2007

B R O W N A N D C A L D W E L L

P:\Wisconsin DNR\Ballast Water Treat ment\Task 400_Report\Final_Report.doc Page 6 

### entering the Great Lakes. The National O ceanic and Atmospheric Association (NOAA) recently completed a study that found that incr easing the salinity of the ballast water to this level can be very effective at elimina ting fresh water organisms in ballast water.

In 2004, the International Marine Organization (IMO), a specialized agency of the United Nations, adopted a convention that sets stan dards for ballast water management based on the number of viable organisms present in th e ballast water. The enforcement of these requirements varies relative to ship size a nd year of construction. Enforcement of the convention will begin 12 months after it has be en ratified by 30 countries that represent a minimum of 35% of the world merchant shipping tonnage. As of August 2007, the convention had only been ratified by 10 c ountries that represent 3.4% of the world shipping tonnage. Disagreements on the acceptable performance standards for ballast water treatment have stalled the passage of this treaty in some countries; the United States has not yet ratified the convention. It is likely that the Un ited States and other major shipping countries will adopt stricter standards than those proposed by the IMO.

In general, ship owners are concerned that the discharge and treatment standards will not be consistent throughout the world and that they will need to provide a variety of treatment methods to accommodate the different regulations.

2.4 Typical Ship Characteristics The ballast tanks on most ships have a co mmon design that includes double bottom and side or top-side tanks, mostly w ith a transverse framing construction.

A ship typically has one fore peak tank, one after peak tank, one set (port and starboard side) of double bottom tanks and one set of side or top-side tanks ad jacent to each cargo hold. In addition, some ships have a cargo hol d that can contain ballast water when necessary, such as when more weight is need ed on-board to reduce a ship’s draft. As a result, a ship with six cargo holds (a co mmon number) would have a total of 26 tanks. The average bulk carrier in trade ha s between 20 and 30 ballast tanks.

Ballast water is used to balance the ship when it loads and unloads cargo and during transit; the ship takes in ballast water wh en cargo is unloaded and discharges it when cargo is loaded. The volume of ballast water carried on a ship varies depending on the load that it is transporting. Table 1 summar izes typical volumes of ballast water on ships that operate in the Great Lakes. Lakers, whic h carry the largest amount of ballast water, are domestic ships that only operate on the Great Lakes and are not included in this evaluation of ballast water treatment.

In general, the ballast water discharged from a ship typically is free of oils but does include some salinity because of the open ocean ballast water exchange mandate. In addition, the ballast tanks will contain settle d materials that may contain organisms.WDNR Onshore Ballast Water Treatment Study
10/12/2007

B R O W N A N D C A L D W E L L

P:\Wisconsin DNR\Ballast Water Treat ment\Task 400_Report\Final_Report.doc Page 7 

### Typically, cargo ships have two to three pumps that pump the ballast water to one of the various discharge locations on the ship. Thes e discharge locations are usually located along the sides of the ship, just below or at the water line, a nd vary in location from ship to ship. In general, each of the pumps within the ballast water tanks has a capacity that ranges from 1,000 gallons per minute (gpm) to 3,000 gpm, and often several of the pumps operate simultaneously. These pumps are of low head (lift) design and therefore cannot pump from the ship to a dock elevation.

Table 1. Typical Volumes of Ballast Water on Ships
Volume (cubic meters) Volume (MG) Weight (tonnes) What it represents Source

18,000 4.8 18,000 Top range of estimate for largest ocean-going ship (35,000 mt capacity) on Great Lakes; includes a cargo hold used for ballast Paul Gourdeau, FedNav, personal communication

12,000 3.2 12,000 Bottom range of estimate for largest ocean-going ship (35,000 mt capacity) on Great Lakes Paul Gourdeau, FedNav, personal communication

10,000 2.6 10,000 Average ballast capacity Allegra Cangelosi, NEMW, Scoping Report for GSI

8,000 2.1 8,000 Size of cargo hold that could be used for ballast Paul Gourdeau, FedNav, personal communication

1,000 0.26 1,000 Approximate size of fore peak (usually larger than other ballast tanks) Paul Gourdeau, FedNav, personal communication

500 0.13 500 Top of size range for individual ballast tank (usually 26 total) Paul Gourdeau, FedNav, personal communication

150 0.04 150 Bottom of size range for individual ballast tank (usually 26 total) Paul Gourdeau, FedNav, personal communication



### 2.5 Design Criteria Figure 4 shows how long it would take to em pty different-sized ballast tanks given a pumping rate of 1,000 gpm, 3,000 gpm, and 6,000 gp m. The discharge and capture of the ballast water must be completed within the time that a ship is loadi ng cargo so that it does not interfere with shipping operations. Ships typically will be loading at the Port an average of four to eight hours, but can be at the Port as few as two hours and as long as four days or more. The ships that carry grain from the Port are loaded at the fastest rate, typically loading about 600 tons of cargo per hour for two hours. At the other extreme, as far as time is concerned, are ships that lo ad 10,000 tons of cargo over a period of four days.

Since the ships that carry grain are most likel y to discharge ballast water and the four day cargo loadings happen at a slower rate; the lim iting constraint for design is the 600 ton/hr loading rate. This loading rate translates to approximatel y 3,000 gpm. As shown in TableWDNR Onshore Ballast Water Treatment Study
10/12/2007

B R O W N A N D C A L D W E L L

P:\Wisconsin DNR\Ballast Water Treat ment\Task 400_Report\Final_Report.doc Page 8 

### 2, in two hours, a discharge of 3,000 gpm w ould result in a volume of 0.36 MG. The maximum size for an individual ballast ta nk is reportedly 0.13 million gallons (MG). Assuming that two tanks would contain ball ast water, this would put the volume discharged at 0.26 MG, which is suitably close to the 0.36 MG calculated from the loading rate. As shown in Table 2, with a two hour time constraint and an anticipated volume of 0.36 MG, this results in a flow rate of approximately 3,000 gpm, which is consistent with the average pumping rate of the pumps in the ballast water tanks. In general, a reasonable limiting assumption is th at two foreign ships will arrive and load concurrently at the Port, suggesting that an additional storage volume is needed beyond 0.36 MG. A conceptual design volume of 0.5 MG was assumed to accommodate a higher volume.

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 Volume of Ballast Tanks (MG)Time (hrs) Flow Rate = 1000 gpm Flow Rate = 3000 gpm Flow Rate = 6000 gpm



### Figure 4. Comparison of the Volume of Ba llast Water versus the Time to Empty the Ballast Water TanksWDNR Onshore Ballast Water Treatment Study
10/12/2007

B R O W N A N D C A L D W E L L

P:\Wisconsin DNR\Ballast Water Treat ment\Task 400_Report\Final_Report.doc Page 9 

### Table 2. Comparison of the Flow Rate Needed to Empty Different Volumes of Ballast Water Volume of Ballast Water Tanks (MG) Time to Empty Ballast Water Tanks (hours) Flow (gpm)

0.004 2.00 33 0.012 2.00 100 0.10 2.00 833 0.12 2.00 1,000 0.36 2.00 3,000 0.50 2.00 4,167 0.72 2.00 6,000 1.0 2.00 8,333 2.0 2.00 16,667 3.0 2.00 25,000 4.0 2.00 33,333 5.0 2.00 41,667



### Based on this information, the project team decided to use a pump ing rate of 3,000 gpm for pumping the ballast water off the ship s, a discharge time of two hours, and a maximum storage volume of 0.5 MG as the conc eptual design criteria for the further development of collection and treatment alte rnatives. Table 3 shows how the times vary to pump different volumes of balla st water at a rate of 3,000 gpm.

Table 3. Comparison of the Time to Empt y Different Volumes of Ballast Water at the Design Flow

Volume of Ballast Water Tanks (MG) Design Flow (gpm) Time to Empty Ballast Water Tanks (hours) 0.004 3,000 0.022 0.012 3,000 0.067 0.10 3,000 0.56 0.12 3,000 0.67 0.36 3,000 2.0 0.50 3,000 2.8 0.72 3,000 4.0 1.0 3,000 5.6 2.0 3,000 11 3.0 3,000 17 4.0 3,000 22 5.0 3,000 28WDNR Onshore Ballast Water Treatment Study
10/12/2007

B R O W N A N D C A L D W E L L

P:\Wisconsin DNR\Ballast Water Treat ment\Task 400_Report\Final_Report.doc Page 10 

### 3. ALTERNATIVES DEVELOPMENT Figure 5 shows the process flow chart for colle cting and treating ballast water. The final selected alternative(s) will in clude each of these components.

Capture Pumping Conveyance Storage Treatment Pumping Conveyance Transport Storage Screening Discharge Capture Pumping Conveyance Storage Treatment Pumping Conveyance Transport Storage Screening Discharge



### Figure 5. Process for Collecting and Treating Ballast Water

3.1 Capture Before the ballast water can be treated, it mu st first be captured, or collected from the ship. Considered methods for capture included:

• Using a diver to manually establish a connection between the ship ballast discharge points and the collection system;

• Having a machine establish the connec tion between the sh ip and collection system;

• Surrounding the ship with a bladder or containment boom that would collect the water;

• Using containment booms to surround the ship and collect the water;

• Securing the ship in a lock; or

• Creating a direct on-board connection be tween the ship’s existing pipes and pumps and onshore or on-barge pumps.

None of the capture options would be able to collect the residuals that have settled at the bottom of the ship’s ballast tanks. To collect the residuals, each ballast tank would need to be pressure washed and the wash water co llected and treated with the ballast water, which would be time-consuming and impractical.

3.1.1 Diver One capture option is to have a diver go underwater and manually hook up the ballast water discharge points to a vacuum tube that would suction the ballas t water up to a pipe or transport vehicle. The discharge points are typically ports in the side of the ship so magnets could be used to attempt a seal betw een the tube and the sh ip. Typically, a ship has many different discharge points for the ba llast water and the lo cation of these points varies from ship to ship. As a result, it woul d be difficult for a diver to connect to each of the discharge points in a timely manner. In addition, the hazards of the propellers from the ship, the proximity of the ship to the dock structure, and other mechanical hazards would make this option too unsafe to the diver for it to be a feasible option.WDNR Onshore Ballast Water Treatment Study
10/12/2007

B R O W N A N D C A L D W E L L

P:\Wisconsin DNR\Ballast Water Treat ment\Task 400_Report\Final_Report.doc Page 11 

### 3.1.2 Machine This option would essentially be the same as the diver option, but a robotic arm or other machine would perform the manual connecti on. The machine could be stationed on a boat, barge, or dock. Using a machine would eliminate the safety hazard to a human diver, however such a machine would likely be prohibitively expensive, difficult to attain consistent reliability, and woul d still be at risk of damage from the ship propellers and other mechanical hazards around the dock.

3.1.3 Bladder A more passive option would be to surround the ship with a bladder to collect the ballast water. Considering that the t ypical foreign ship is nearly 800 feet long, the bladder would need to be nominally large to completely surround a ship. In addi tion, the bladder would likely be easily damaged, particularly in such close proximity to the ship and dock, and it would be difficult to keep the water containe d while the ship is leaving the dock. This option is expensive and impractical and ther efore was eliminated from consideration.

3.1.4 Containment Booms Containment booms could be used at each dock to surround the ship instead of a bladder. A drain at the bottom of the dock area coul d capture the water and collect it in an underground/underwater storag e facility, for later pump ing to treatment. The booms would need to extend around the entire perimete r of the ship and th e entire depth of the lake at each of the docks. Although it would be relatively easy to contain the water around the ship, it would be difficult for the ship to maintain its bala nce as the water is drained from the contained ar ea, creating a “dry dock” condi tion. Additional structural supports would be needed to prevent the ship from tipping and the amount of structural support needed would make this option prohib itively expensive, especially since every dock would require these supports . In addition, all of the drai ned water would need to be treated and the drained water would likely include large qua ntities of uncontaminated lake water.

3.1.5 Lock A similar option to the containment booms woul d be to have the ship enter a lock and capture the discharged ballast water as the ship sits in the lock. For this alternative, the ship would need to be lifted completely fr om the water and all ballast water discharged from it at this point. This would again cr eate a dry dock, and w ithout the ballast and surrounding lake water, the ship would need sign ificant structural support to keep it from tipping and/or losing any of its load or breaking apart due to structural stress imbalance. In addition to being prohibitiv ely expensive to construct, th e Port of Milwaukee would be at risk for liability should a ship lose any of its load or tip while docked at the lock. Leaving a ship in a dry dock for several hours also poses a security risk as it may become a target for terrorism. Also, the ship would be unable to load or unload its cargo while in the lock and this would dramatically impact the amount of time that a ship would spendWDNR Onshore Ballast Water Treatment Study
10/12/2007

B R O W N A N D C A L D W E L L

P:\Wisconsin DNR\Ballast Water Treat ment\Task 400_Report\Final_Report.doc Page 12 

### at the Port, possibly resulting in fines to the Port. As a result , this option is too risky and expensive to pursue.

3.1.6 Direct On-board Connection This option would involve tapping into the ships’ on-board ballast water distribution piping with a quick-disconnect coupling. A connection would be established to serve as the suction line for onshore pumps (dockside) that would be sized to remove the design volume of ballast water during ship load ing operations. To accommodate the onshore collection and treatment options discussed in this feasibil ity study, this option requires that each oceangoing vessel’s ballast pipi ng and pumping systems be consistently modified (e.g. tee connection/ valving); ideally in ternational design standards would be adopted to standardize these modifications.

3.1.7 Comparison of Capture Alternatives For the reasons described above, the most f easible option for removing the water from a ship appears to be creating a direct on-board connection between the onshore or on-barge pumps and the ship’s existing pipes and pumps.

3.2 Collection Pumping A collection pumping system would be needed to pump the water from the ballast tanks to a transport system, such as a barge or pi pe. This system would include two trash-type portable pumps, serving the ships from the docks or a barge. One pump would be used to collect the ballast water so that it can be tran sported to a storage or treatment facility, and the other pump would provide redundancy. The conceptual desi gn flow rate of this pump is 3,000 gpm, which is the same or similar to a typical pump in a ballast water tank. It is assumed that no screening will be needed prio r to entering this collection pump because the ballast water tank pumps on the ship will prevent any large objects from entering the collection pump. The capital cost for two portable trash pumps is approximately $100,000, plus operations and maintenance co sts. Replacement costs are also not included in this estimate because the design life of a pump is 20 years, which is also the design life of the collection and treatment system.

3.3 Transport The primary alternatives that were considered for transporting the ballast water included piping the ballast water to its destination, or colle cting and transferri ng the ballast water in a truck, rail car, or barge.

3.3.1 Transport by Pipe Figure 6 shows the potential locations of ballast water collection pipes, as well as local sanitary sewers that could potentially be used for piping. Table 4 compares the capital costs for piping for different flow rates a nd volumes. The costs are for PVC pipe for diameters less than 48 inches and HDPE for pipe with 48 inch diameters or greater, and assumes that the pipe infrastructure is to be in place at all docks, and that the pipes willWDNR Onshore Ballast Water Treatment Study
10/12/2007

B R O W N A N D C A L D W E L L

P:\Wisconsin DNR\Ballast Water Treat ment\Task 400_Report\Final_Report.doc Page 13 

### be above-ground, either along the docks or susp ended by pipe racks or piers. The costs include pipe racks, pier connections and provi sions for protection from the elements, such as sunlight, freezing, and other damage. Appr oximately 10,000 feet of 16-inch diameter pipe would be needed to convey 0.36 MG of ballast water at a fl ow rate of 3,000 gpm; the estimated capital cost for this piping is about $2,600,000.

The advantage of using pipes for a means of conveyance is that the pipes would always be available for collection. The biggest disadvantage is that a sizable capital investment would be required for this opti on and likely the use of the pi pes, particularly at docks where there is little foreign ship activity, would be minimal. In addition, the pipes would be sized to convey the ballast water at a particular flow rate; dual piping or another transport method would be required for flows that are larger than the design flow rate.

Figure 6. Potential Locations for Ballast Water PipesWDNR Onshore Ballast Water Treatment Study
10/12/2007

B R O W N A N D C A L D W E L L

P:\Wisconsin DNR\Ballast Water Treat ment\Task 400_Report\Final_Report.doc Page 14 

### Table 4. Comparison of Pipe Sizes and Capital Costs for Various Volumes and Flow Rates

Volume of

Ballast Water (MG) Flow Rate (gpm) Length (ft) Calculated Pipe Diameter (in) A Unit Construction Cost for Piping ($ per lineal foot) B Construction Cost for Piping Total Capital Costs C

0.004 33 10,000 4 $110 $1,100,000 $1,800,000 0.012 100 10,000 4 $110 $1,100,000 $1,800,000 0.10 833 10,000 10 $140 $1,400,000 $2,300,000 0.12 1,000 10,000 10 $140 $1,400,000 $2,300,000
0.36 3,000 10,000 16 $160 $1,600,000 $2,600,000 0.50 4,167 10,000 24 $200 $2,000,000 $3,300,000 0.72 6,000 10,000 24 $200 $2,000,000 $3,300,000 1.0 8,333 10,000 30 $260 $2,600,000 $4,200,000 2.0 16,667 10,000 36 $320 $3,200,000 $5,200,000 3.0 25,000 10,000 42 $440 $4,400,000 $7,200,000
4.0 B 33,333 10,000 60 $1,200 $12,000,000 $20,000,000

5.0 B 41,667 10,000 66 $1,500 $15,000,000 $24,000,000

A Assumes above-ground forcemain PVC pipe s for pipes with diameters of 48 in ches or less, HDPE for pipes with diameters greater than 48 inches
B Includes the cost for pipe racks, which are $1,300 per rack an d are needed for 7,000 feet of pipe, and the cost for pier connections, which are $370 each and are needed for 3,000 fe et of pipe; one rack/pier connection is needed for every 10 feet of pipe
C Includes 25% contingency on construction costs and 30% of those costs for technical services



### 3.3.2 Transport by Truck The individual capacity of a typical waste hauling truck is 5,000 gallons. Therefore, 72 truckloads would be needed to collect 0.36 MG of ballast water. It takes approximately one hour for a single truck to collect the ballas t water, transport it to a nearby location for treatment, and then return for an additional load of ballast. In a ddition, the trucks would need to receive the ballast water at a sl ower rate than 3,000 gpm. This means that it would take over 72 hours for a single truck to capture 0.36 MG of ballast water, whereas the design time constraint is only two hours. If this were a feasible transport alternative, the cost for hiring a truck to perform this service would be about $200 per hour, or at least $15,000 per tran sport event.

There are advantages to transporting the ball ast water by truck in that there is no capital cost for implementing this transport option and trucking can accommodate any amount of ballast water, provided there is an unlimited supply of trucks and the trucks can collect the ballast water in a reasonabl e amount of time. Trucking is not a feasible alternative as the sole mode for transporting the ballast water: the loading an d unloading time is too long. More trucks could be used to capture the ballast water, but traffic logistics would be highly problematic.WDNR Onshore Ballast Water Treatment Study
10/12/2007

B R O W N A N D C A L D W E L L

P:\Wisconsin DNR\Ballast Water Treat ment\Task 400_Report\Final_Report.doc Page 15 

### 3.3.3 Transport by Rail Car The individual capacity of a tanker rail car is 18,000 gallons; therefore, 20 rail car trips would be needed to collect 0.36 MG of balla st water. It takes approximately two hours for a single rail car to collect the ballast water, transport it to a nearby location for treatment, and then return for an additional lo ad of ballast. This means that it would take 40 hours for a single rail car to collect the 0.36 MG of ballast wa ter. It is rare to find a tanker rail car for rental, so the Port woul d need to purchase its own at a cost of approximately $200,000, plus costs for operati on and maintenance. The rail car cannot operate without a locomotive, so there would be an additional cost to lease a locomotive. MMSD does own a donkey engine that th e Port could rent for a fee.

The advantage of using rail cars for transporti ng ballast water is that many of the docks already have the track infrastructure nece ssary for this option. However, the grain elevator, which is the most likely location for ballast water discharge, does not have train tracks. In addition, rail cars are slow and the train track s are in the middle of Port operations so this option would be very disr uptive to the Port, the shipping operations, and Jones Island WWTP. Traffic logis tics would also be an issue.

3.3.4 Transport by Barge The individual capacity of a common size barge is about 1.7 MG. Therefore, only one barge would be needed to collect 0.36 MG of ballast water. This would allow the ballast water to be collected within the de sign time constraint of two hours.

The advantage of using a barge for transporting the ballast water is that it is efficient to travel around the Port via the waterways ar ound it, and the barge can serve as a mobile storage or treatment facility if desired. Only one barge would be needed to transport the design volume of ballast water but additional barges could be purchased if a larger volume of water needed treatment or stor age. In addition, the barge has sufficient capacity to store the ballast water once it is collected, and the barge could be designed to include the ballast water treatment processes on-board. The biggest di sadvantage is that the Port would need to purchase a barge solely for this purpose, which requires an initial investment of $200,000 to $500,000 depending on the features and age of the barge, plus an additional $10,000 per tugboat movement.

3.3.5 Comparison of Transport Alternatives Table 5 provides a comparison of the pi pe, truck, rail car, and barge transport alternatives. As seen in this table, the numb er of truck and rail car loads necessary to transport 3,000 gpm makes thes e alternatives infeasible . At a cost of $2,600,000, piping requires a substantial capital i nvestment, especially consider ing that most of the pipes will be empty most of the time and the pipes wi ll only be able to handle flows at or below the design parameters. There may also be issu es with sediment accumulation in the pipes because the flows will be intermittent. The barge is the most promising individual alternative, given that one barge can handle ne arly 2 MG. It is likely that the best overallWDNR Onshore Ballast Water Treatment Study
10/12/2007

B R O W N A N D C A L D W E L L

P:\Wisconsin DNR\Ballast Water Treat ment\Task 400_Report\Final_Report.doc Page 16 

### alternative would be some combination of each of these transport options, depending on which option is most feasible for the doc k location and quantity of discharge.

Table 5. Comparison of Transport Alternatives
Volume

(MG) Flow Rate (gpm) Pipe Diameter (in) Pipe Length

(ft) Number of Truck Loads

to Empty

Ballast Number of Rail Car Loads to

Empty Ballast Number of Barge Loads

to Empty

Ballast

0.004 33 4 10,000 1 0.2 0.0024 0.012 100 4 10,000 2 0.7 0.0071 0.10 833 10 10,000 20 5.6 0.060 0.12 1,000 10 10,000 24 6.7 0.071 0.36 3,000 15 10,000 72 20 0.21 0.50 4,167 21 10,000 100 28 0.30 0.72 6,000 24 10,000 144 40 0.43 1.00 8,333 30 10,000 200 56 0.60 2.00 16,667 36 10,000 400 111 1.2 3.00 25,000 42 10,000 600 167 1.8 4.00 33,333 60 10,000 800 222 2.4 5.00 41,667 66 10,000 1,000 278 3.0



### 3.4 Storage
Table 6 summarizes the costs of different storage volumes. A stor age volume of 0.5 MG would cost approximately $1.2 million. Figure 7 shows the locations and estimated sizes of potential locations for storage. These areas include a small site that is adjacent to Jones Island WWTP, the area under I-794 (under the Hoan Bridge), and the dredge fill facility that is across from the Port of Milwaukee headquarters bui lding, at the southern end of the property. In addition, the Po rt currently has an empty 0.5 MG tank that could be used for ballast water storage. Freezing should be addressed for any above ground storage tanks. In addition, any storage must be comple tely enclosed to prevent organisms from escaping into the environment or entering th e storage facility. Also, although the Port owns the land under the Hoan Bridge, the De partment of Transportation (DOT) requires a minimum 25-foot clearance unde r the bridge. As mentioned previously, a barge could also be used for storage.

Instead of using on-site storage, the Port could send the ballast water to MMSD’s Inline Storage System. Because of capacity limitations during wet weather events, the ISS could only accept flow during dry weather so altern ative storage would be needed during wet weather. Any water that would be diverted to the ISS would ultimately need to be pumped out at an expense to the Port. Se nding water to the ISS is risky because in addition to the costs of pumping the water out of the ISS, there is the possibility that organisms in the ballast water will not be completely removed from the ISS during pumping, which could potentially expose the entire MMSD service area and receiving waters to these residual organisms. As a resu lt, diverting ballast water to the ISS is onlyWDNR Onshore Ballast Water Treatment Study
10/12/2007

B R O W N A N D C A L D W E L L

P:\Wisconsin DNR\Ballast Water Treat ment\Task 400_Report\Final_Report.doc Page 17 

### feasible if all nonindigenous organisms are co mpletely removed prior to its discharge to the ISS.

Table 6. Costs of Different Storage Volumes Volume of Ballast Water Tanks (MG) Unit Construction Cost for Storage

($ per gallon) B Construction Cost for Storage Total Capital Costs A

0.004 $0.40 $1,600 $2,600 0.012 $0.50 $6,000 $9,800 0.10 $0.70 $70,000 $100,000 0.12 $0.80 $96,000 $160,000 0.36 $1.20 $432,000 $700,000 0.50 $1.50 $750,000 $1,200,000 0.72 $1.90 $1,368,000 $2,200,000 1.0 $2.00 $2,000,000 $3,300,000 2.0 $2.00 $4,000,000 $6,500,000 3.0 B $0.70 $2,100,000 $3,400,000 4.0 $0.70 $2,800,000 $4,600,000 5.0 $0.70 $3,500,000 $5,700,000

A Includes 25% contingency on construction costs a nd 30% of those costs for technical services
B Tanks up to 2.5 MG are assumed to be constructed of steel; tanks 2.5 MG or larger are assumed to be constructed of pre-stressed, at a unit cost of $0.70 per gallon



## 13.5

acres

55.1

acres 1.3

acres

13.5

acres

55.1

acres 1.3

acres

Figure 7. Possible Locations and Sizes of Storage AreasWDNR Onshore Ballast Water Treatment Study
10/12/2007

B R O W N A N D C A L D W E L L

P:\Wisconsin DNR\Ballast Water Treat ment\Task 400_Report\Final_Report.doc Page 18 

### 3.5 Treatment The primary methods for treatment include e ither sending the ballast water discharge to Jones Island WWTP, the MMSD treatment plant that is adjacent to the Port of Milwaukee, or to an on-site treatment facilit y. Unlike typical treatment facilities, the goal is to provide an improvement over the curren t quality of ballast water and to prevent invasive organisms, including viruses, from entering the Great Lakes in the future. Ideally, the treatment goal is to maximize th e removal of organism s from the ballast water, achieving at least a 90% removal of organisms. Viruses are difficult to remove because although generally thought of as a cohesive group, there are many types of viruses and all have different structures and behaviors. As such, no one technology can be said to be 100% effective at inactivating vi ruses. All the technologies presented in this report are capable of inactiv ating or removing some or most viruses, although UV disinfection and hydrodynamic cavita tion appear to be the most promising. Also, the bulk of past research on the treatment and remova l of viruses is on human viruses. There is much concern with the recent outbreak of vira l hemorrhagic septicemia (VHS) in fish and as a result more research should be co nducted on non-human viruses in the future. Therefore, although the treatment goal is a 90% removal of organisms, all of the treatment options considered in this study have the potential to remove viruses and will likely remove nearly all of th e organisms from the ballast wa ter. A waste characterization study and pilot testing will be required to conf irm the levels and consistency of treatment.

3.5.1 Screening In addition to a collection pump to capture the water from the ballast tank, additional pumping may be needed to pump the ballast water from a storage unit to an on-site treatment facility. For this purpose, an above-ground lift station would need to be constructed that would contain a coarse screen filter and two 350 gpm pumps. The coarse screen filter would protect the pumps from large solids, and two pumps would provide redundancy to the system. The coarse scre ening can be placed either upstream or downstream of the storage facili ty to protect the pumps just upstream of treatment. This screening can be as simple or elaborate as desired, and will generate a low volume of residuals. Screening after stor age but prior to treatment w ould create the most robust option. The complete lift station would co st approximately $150,000 to construct.

3.5.2 Jones Island WWTP
If the water were to be sent to Jones Is land WWTP for disinfecti on, pilot studies would need to be completed to make sure the treatment would meet ballast water treatment goals, particularly to determine whether chlori nation, which is used for disinfection at the plant, would effectively kill non-human viru ses. In addition, the Port would need to provide sufficient pretreatment, which would lik ely be screening, prior to discharge of the ballast water to Jones Island WWTP for disi nfection. The Port could use one of Jones Island WWTP’s primary treatment tanks for the pr etreatment of the ballast water. Figure 8 shows the process diagram for this alternative.WDNR Onshore Ballast Water Treatment Study
10/12/2007

B R O W N A N D C A L D W E L L

P:\Wisconsin DNR\Ballast Water Treat ment\Task 400_Report\Final_Report.doc Page 19 

### Coarse Screen Fine Screen Chlorination

Fine Screen Chlorination



### Figure 8. Screening Plus Chlorination

Because the actual disinfection w ould be handled off-site with this option, there are few design considerations. The water can be scre ened to remove part icles larger than 500 microns using a curved static screen that ha s no moving parts and will last for the entire 20 year design life of this project. A thor ough cleaning of the screen may be required three to four times a year. This screen is not impacted by s itting idle during the winter months.

Flow could only be accepted during dry weathe r, so storage would be needed during wet weather events. The biggest concern about di recting the ballast wa ter to Jones Island WWTP is that the organisms in the ballast wa ter could potentially ne gatively affect the secondary treatment processes at the Plant. As a result, the ballast water would be introduced at the In-Plant Dive rsion and routed directly to the disinfection portion of the plant. In addition, if the Port discharges to Jones Island WWTP, then it may only need to obtain a pretreatment permit from MMSD versus a separate Wisconsin Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (WPDES) permit, which would be required if the Port has a separate treatment facility with a separate discharge location.

3.5.3 On-Site Treatment Initially, Brown and Caldwell performed a review of historical documentation to determine what technologies have been consider ed for ballast water treatment in the past. Appendix B includes a table with the possible treatment technol ogies that were initially considered. Each treatment te chnology is summarized in this table by the type of treatment it offers (e.g. physical separation, di sinfection), its positives and negatives, and the source in which this treatment tec hnology was mentioned. Most of the treatment options included are typically considered for on-ship treatment but are technically feasible for onshore treatment. Based on disc ussions with the project team, the following treatment techniques were elim inated from consideration:

• Dissolved Air Flotation (DAF) - The primary objective for treatment is to remove biological pollutants, whereas DAF units are primarily used to remove oily substances.

• Gluteraldehyde Disinfection - Chemical residuals may negatively impact the quality of the water that is discharged following treatment.

• Heat Exchange - This treatment is too energy in tensive to be a viable treatment option.

• Magnetic Separation - This technology has not b een studied much and some applications require the addition of chemicals.WDNR Onshore Ballast Water Treatment Study
10/12/2007

B R O W N A N D C A L D W E L L

P:\Wisconsin DNR\Ballast Water Treat ment\Task 400_Report\Final_Report.doc Page 20 

### • Electro-Ionization - This technology has not been studied much and requires complex instrumentation.

• Bacterial De-oxygenation - This treatment grows bacteria that consume the oxygen present in the ballast water. Because the prim ary treatment goal is to remove biological organisms, this option is counterproductive as well as too slow to meet our needs.

• De-oxygenation with Nitrogen Gas - Cysts and some bacteria will be resistant to this treatment. Some organisms can surv ive for a period of days in low oxygen conditions.

• Advanced Oxidation Technology - This technology was developed for on-ship treatment and requires titanium dioxide which makes it very expensive. In addition, this is a relatively new technique.

• Hydrocyclone – Hydrocyclones can be used to provide coarse screening, but traditional coarse screens would be more efficient and cost-effective in this application.

• Constructed Wetlands – Constructed wetlands are the creation of wetlands for nutrient treatment and solids settling. Because these systems are naturalistic and open to the environment and migratory bi rds and insects, a constructed wetland would likely encourage the spread of inva sive organisms rather than achieve the goal of eliminating them.

Next, the project team select ed four alternatives for de tailed evaluation. All of the alternatives consist of some type of screening or solids removal. Two of the methods include traditional methods for disinfecti on in addition to the screening, one method consists entirely of screening and memb rane filtration, and one method includes a relatively new method for destr oying small organisms. All of the systems are capable of being idle over the winter months while the Seaway is closed, sin ce the systems would be contained in enclosures for weather protecti on. Detailed costs and cut sheets for major equipment are located in Appe ndices C and D, respectively.

Based on a storage volume of 0.5 MG, the rate of treatment for each of these options was estimated to be 350 gpm. Each of the altern atives was developed based on an assumed removal efficiency of 90% or higher. The quantity and composition of residuals from treatment is unknown because the quantity a nd composition of the incoming ballast water is unknown; however the quantity of residuals will be nominal. The critical factor for the proper disposal of residuals is to ensure that there is no possibility for vector transport. Storing the residuals in a dumpster outsid e would be inappropriate because birds and other animals could transport organisms away from the site. Proper residuals handling will have to involve the residua ls being in a covered container and/or bagged and then placed in a storage container. Incineration is also a potential altern ative to ensure thatWDNR Onshore Ballast Water Treatment Study
10/12/2007

B R O W N A N D C A L D W E L L

P:\Wisconsin DNR\Ballast Water Treat ment\Task 400_Report\Final_Report.doc Page 21 

### screened organisms do not accidentally en ter Lake Michigan. The development of detailed procedures and costs fo r residuals handling is outside of the scope of this project.

Capital costs for each alterna tive include an additional contingency and allowance for technical services. The costs also include fu ture replacements within the 20-year design life, where applicable, and annual costs, wh ich have been converted to present worth using a 20-year amortization period and 5% in terest. Annual costs include estimates of energy usage, chemicals, labor, and equipment maintenance.

3.5.3.1 Screening Plus UV Disinfection As shown in Figure 9, this al ternative consists of coarse screening, followed by fine screening, followed by disinfection using ultraviolet (UV) light. In this alternative, fine screening will be used as a pretreatment so that suspended solids do not reduce the efficiency of the UV process. Figure 9 shows th e process diagram for this alternative. At the design flow rate of 350 gpm, the pres ent worth cost of this alternative is approximately $730,000.

Coarse Screen Fine Screen UV Disinfection Coarse Screen Fine Screen UV Disinfection



### Figure 9. Screening Plus UV

UV disinfection has been proven capable of in activating almost all viruses; however, the level of irradiation required to do so is generally significantly higher than the typical level used in common UV applications, such as dr inking water treatment. The UV disinfection system quoted for this report does not include the costs of operating at those elevated levels of irradiation. There is at least one lab in Wisconsin with the capability to study the effectiveness of treatment technologies on di fferent viruses, but th e lab does not have previous experience with ballast water and has worked primarily with human viruses. Depending on funding available and the level of concern about viruses, future study of treatment of viruses is prudent.

The effectiveness of UV disinfection is gr eatly reduced by the presence of suspended solids in the water. For this reason, fine scr eening was included in this alternative. In addition to the coarse screening required to protect the pumps feeding the treatment system, the water will also pass through a two- deck vibrating separa tor. The bottom deck removes particles larger than approximat ely 100 microns and the top deck removes particles larger than approximately 3 ,400 microns to protect the lower deck.

UV requires a rather large amount of opera tional oversight. The transmittance of the radiation is the key component to successful disinfection and it is impacted by the quality of the water, so the system needs to be monito red and adjusted to ensure that it is meeting the treatment requirements.WDNR Onshore Ballast Water Treatment Study
10/12/2007

B R O W N A N D C A L D W E L L

P:\Wisconsin DNR\Ballast Water Treat ment\Task 400_Report\Final_Report.doc Page 22 

### 3.5.3.2 Screening Plus Ozonation The Screening Plus Ozonation alternative consists of co arse screening followed by ozonation. This alternative was developed to determine the differences between ozonation and UV for disinfecti on. One key difference between the two methods is that ozonation is not as sensitive to solids as UV is and as a re sult, fine screening is not necessary. Ozonation, however, is genera lly a more complex technology than UV disinfection because it is difficult to achieve and maintain a lethal dose. Figure 10 shows the process diagram for this alternative. At the design flow rate of 350 gpm, the present worth cost of this alternative is approximately $920,000.

Coarse Screen Ozonation



### Figure 10. Screening Plus Ozonation

Water treated by ozonation is not considered to have negative environmental impacts, assuming loss of stray (leakage) ozone is cont rolled. Ozone decomposes rapidly and does not form harmful residuals. The costs included in the report are for the level of ozonation treatment typically used in treating effluent in wastewater treatment plants. The dose of ozone required for ballast water treatment may vary slightly, but more characterization of the ballast water, such as through pilot testing, is needed to determine this.

Other than the organic compone nt, ozonation is not particular ly sensitive to solids. For this reason, no screening other than the very coarse screening required to protect the pumps to the treatment system was included in this alternative. The ozone system quoted for this study consists of an ozone genera tor that uses air and produces 3% ozone by weight. The ozone is injected into the pipe with the water and a Venturi is present for mixing. Effective mixing is crucial to successf ul disinfection with ozone. If higher ozone doses are needed the generator can run on oxygen and will produce 10% ozone by weight. This will result in an increase in cost because the oxygen for the generator has to be supplied.

3.5.3.3 Screening Plus Membrane Filtration As shown in Figure 11, this alternative would consist entirely of screening, first with coarse screening, then fine screening (down to 500 microns), and then with a microfiltration membrane filter that remove s particles larger than 0.1 microns. This alternative explores the c oncept of complete removal instead of disinfection or inactivation of the organisms. Figure 11 shows the process di agram for this alternative. At the design flow rate of 350 gpm, the pr esent worth cost of this alternative is approximately $1.2 million.WDNR Onshore Ballast Water Treatment Study
10/12/2007

B R O W N A N D C A L D W E L L

P:\Wisconsin DNR\Ballast Water Treat ment\Task 400_Report\Final_Report.doc Page 23 Coarse Screen Fine Screen Membrane Filter Coarse Screen Fine Screen Membrane Filter



### Figure 11. Screening Plus Membrane Filtration

Chemicals are used periodically for cleaning the membranes, but the chemicals used do not preclude the water from being discha rged. The system does not use any other chemicals and has no negative environmen tal impacts because it involves physical removal of the organisms. With disinf ection treatments there is a concern of microorganisms not being inactivated or dest royed and remaining viable in the treated effluent; filtration does not have this concern because it physically removes the organisms.

For this study, it is assumed that the chemicals used in membrane cleaning will be sufficient to inactivate any viable organisms and as such the water from the cleaning will not have the potential to spread invasive species. This assump tion will need to be verified with further study.

This system can remain idle during the mont hs that the Seaway is closed and ballast water treatment is not needed. During this time , the membranes will need to be stored in a dilute chlorinated solution and kept warm enough to not freeze. The membranes are arranged in tubes and several tubes make up a module. The modules of membranes are expected to need to be replaced approxima tely every seven years, although it may be possible to use the membranes for a longer peri od of time since they will not be used year-round because of the winter closure of the St. Lawrence Seaway. The other components of the membrane filtration system are expected to be useful throughout the 20-year design life; however the membranes must be maintained to ensure that they do not foul.

As previously mentioned, the membrane filt ration unit considered for this alternative requires removal of particles larger than 500 microns (fine screening) prior to the membrane filtration unit. Even if a different vendor or unit were used, a similar level of pretreatment would be requi red to ensure proper functio ning of the membrane unit.

3.5.3.4 Screening Plus Hydrodynamic Cavitation The alternative, Screening Plus Hydrodynamic Cavitation, consists of coarse and fine screening, followed by hydrodynamic cavitatio n. Hydrodynamic cavitation is when fluctuations in fluid pressure are created that cause the formation, growth and implosion of vapor bubbles in a liquid. The water is channe led into pairs of coni cal nozzles that are positioned opposite one another. The water flow through the nozzles is guided in a spiral path, and this rotation creat es a vacuum which causes the formation of micro-sized bubbles. Upon exiting the opposing nozzles, the two streams rotating in opposite directions collide causing a dramatic pressure increase that leads to the collapse of theWDNR Onshore Ballast Water Treatment Study
10/12/2007

B R O W N A N D C A L D W E L L

P:\Wisconsin DNR\Ballast Water Treat ment\Task 400_Report\Final_Report.doc Page 24 

### bubbles. When a bubble collapses, a large pressure pulse is produced in the vicinity of the bubble. This process disrupts and inactivates the cell walls of nearby organisms. The system is arranged as a loop and it takes approximately 8 to10 cycles to achieve a desirable level of disinfection.

Figure 12 shows the process diag ram for this alternative. At the design flow rate of 350 gpm, the present worth cost of this alterna tive is approximately $1.1 million dollars, if an existing storage tank is retrofitted for the a dditional 0.5 MG of storage required for this treatment alternative. The system would have a present worth of approximately $2.8 million if a new 0.5 MG storage tank is constructed with the system.

Coarse Screen Fine Screen Hydrodynamic Cavitation 

### Coarse Screen Fine Screen Hydrodynamic Cavitation


### Figure 12. Screening Plus Hydrodynamic Cavitation

This technology has not been widely applie d. One of the main advantages of this technology is that it does not i nvolve chemicals or harmful byproducts since the organism destruction is achieved by physical m eans. Another advantage of hydrodynamic cavitation is that it is a simple system th at is relatively easy to operate. Since the destruction of organisms is achieved with nozzles ther e are not many components or moving parts that would wear out and need to be replaced. An additional 0.5 MG of storage would be required for this alternativ e because the treatment needs to operate in batches with the volume of wastewater stored during each batch cycle.

3.5.3.5 Comparison of On-Site Treatment Alternatives Table 7 compares the present worth for each on the on-site treatment alternatives. In addition to evaluating the alternatives based on present worth, each of the alternatives was also rated on a variety of non-monetary cr iteria. This rating table and a table that defines each of the rating criteria are included in Appendix E. As seen in these tables, the on-site treatment alternatives satisfy the ra ting criteria nearly equally so the main distinguisher between treatme nt alternatives is cost.WDNR Onshore Ballast Water Treatment Study
10/12/2007

B R O W N A N D C A L D W E L L

P:\Wisconsin DNR\Ballast Water Treat ment\Task 400_Report\Final_Report.doc Page 25 

### Table 7. Comparison of Present Worth for On-Site Treatment Options

Alternative Capital Cost Annual Operations and Maintenance Cost Operations and Maintenance Present Worth Cost Present Worth of

Future Replacement Costs Total Present Worth A

Screening Plus UV $560,000 $11,000 $140,000 $30,000 $730,000 Screening Plus Ozonation $800,000 $9,400 $120,000 $0 $920,000 Screening Plus Membrane Filtration $1,000,000 $15,000 $190,000 $51,000 $1,200,000
Screening Plus Hydrodynamic Cavitation using Existing Storage Tank $800,000 $20,000 $250,000 $0 $1,100,000

Screening Plus Hydrodynamic Cavitation and Additional Storage $2,500,000 $20,000 $250,000 $0 $2,800,000

A Total Present Worth is the sum of the Capital Cost, the Operations and Maintenance Present Worth Cost, and the Present Worth of Future Replacement Costs


### Figures 13 and 14 show how the costs vary fo r different levels of treatment and flow rates, respectively.

$0 $200,000 $400,000 $600,000 $800,000 $1,000,000 $1,200,000 $1,400,000Present Worth

Fish Crustaceans Bacteria , Viruses Example Organisms Removed:

Likel y Removal Efficienc y : V er y hi g h Hi g h Moderate to Hi g h

Example Technology: Coarse Screening (1/2") Fine Screening (few hundred microns) UV, Membranes, etc. Estimated Range of Costs



### Figure 13. Estimated Present Worth fo r Various Removal EfficienciesWDNR Onshore Ballast Water Treatment Study
10/12/2007

B R O W N A N D C A L D W E L L

P:\Wisconsin DNR\Ballast Water Treat ment\Task 400_Report\Final_Report.doc Page 26 

### Figure 13 shows how the estimated present worth varies for different treatment levels. If funding is not available for a full-scale treatme nt system, action could still be taken to prevent the introduction of at least some nonindigenous organisms into the Great Lakes with partial treatment. For example, it is ve ry likely that coarse screening would prevent the introduction of nonindigenous fish species found in ballast water. As Figure 13 shows, coarse screening could be implemen ted at a lower cost than a disinfection treatment system; however, it would be in effective at removing small crustaceans, plankton, bacteria, and viruses from ballast water.

Figure 14 is an example of how different flow rates affect the cost of a treatment system, in this case UV disinfection, as well as the range of uncertainty in th ese costs. This type of analysis is beneficial when considering a revised de sign basis for the Port of Milwaukee.

$0 $500,000 $1,000,000 $1,500,000 $2,000,000 $2,500,000 $3,000,000

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 Flow, gpmPresent Worth of UV Treatment

Estimated Range of Costs



### Figure 14. Estimated Present Wo rth for Various Flow Rates

3.5.4 Discharge of Treated Ballast Water Once the ballast water is treated, it would either be discharged direc tly to Lake Michigan, as in the case of on-site treat ment, or directed to Jones Is land WWTP. The treated ballast water could also be discharged to constr ucted wetlands, provided provisions are taken into account to ensure that all nonindigenous organisms are removed prior to dischargeWDNR Onshore Ballast Water Treatment Study
10/12/2007

B R O W N A N D C A L D W E L L

P:\Wisconsin DNR\Ballast Water Treat ment\Task 400_Report\Final_Report.doc Page 27 

### into the constructed wetlands . The Port of Milwaukee does not have a practical location where wetlands could be constructed so this option is not feasible for the Port.

The specific permitting requirements for ballast water are unknown because these requirements have not yet been developed. Howe ver, if the Port discharges the ballast water to Jones Island WWTP, then it may require a pretreatment permit from MMSD. If the Port discharges the ballast water direc tly to Lake Michigan, then the WDNR would require a separate WPDES permit. The Port would need to work with the WDNR to develop a discharge standard specific to the ballast water for this permit since the traditional discharge standards of total suspended solids and nutrient levels do not apply. In addition, discharge standards for treated ba llast water would need to be based on the treatment technology that is readily available.

4. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Table 8 provides a comparison of different combinations of collection and treatment components. The costs are for the foreign ship s at the Port of M ilwaukee and are based on an assumed capture flow rate of 3,000 gpm, a capture time of two hours, and a resultant storage of 0.5 MG. The cost estimate s prepared are at a conceptual level for planning purposes only. Additi onal significant engineering as sessments and pilot testing is required to develop cons truction-level (Engineer’s Opinion of Cost) estimates.

The combinations shown in Table 8 represent th e most feasible alternatives. As seen in the table, costs vary significantly dependi ng on the selected method of transport and treatment, and additional storage needs; capita l costs for the alternatives range from $1.3 million to $6.6 million.WDNR Onshore Ballast Water Treatment Study
10/12/2007

B R O W N A N D C A L D W E L L

P:\Wisconsin DNR\Ballast Water Treat ment\Task 400_Report\Final_Report.doc Page 28 

### Table 8. Comparison of Capital Costs of Alternatives for Collecting and Treating Ballast Water

Alternative Capture A Pumping to Transport

Vessel Transport Storage Screening and Pumping
to Treatment Treatment TOTAL

Transport and Storage by Barge, On

Site Treatment with UV disinfection $0 $100,000 $500,000 $0 $150,000 $560,000 $1,300,000

Transport by Pipe, On-Site Treatment with UV disinfection $0 $100,000 $2,600,000 $1,200, 000 $150,000 $560,000 $4,600,000

Transport and Storage by Barge, On

Site Treatment with Ozonation $0 $100,000 $500,000 $0 $150,000 $800,000 $1,600,000

Transport by Pipe, On-Site Treatment with Ozonation $0 $100,000 $2,600,000 $1,200, 000 $150,000 $800,000 $4,900,000

Transport by Barge, On-Site Treatment with Membrane Filtration $0 $100,000 $500,000 $0 $150,000 $1,000,000 $1,800,000

Transport by Pipe, On-Site Treatment with Membrane Filtration $0 $100,000 $2,600,000 $1,200,000 $150,000 $1,000,000 $5,100,000

Transport and Storage by Barge, On

Site Treatment with Hydrodynamic Cavitation $0 $100,000 $500,000 $0 $150,000 $800,000 $1,600,000

Transport by Pipe, On-Site Treatment with Hydrodynamic Cavitation $0 $100,000 $2,600,000 $1,200, 000 $150,000 $800,000 $4,900,000

Transport and Storage by Barge, On

Site Treatment with Hydrodynamic Cavitation with Additional Stora g e $0 $100,000 $500,000 $0 $150,000 $2,500,000 $3,300,000

Transport by Pipe, On-Site Treatment with Hydrodynamic Cavitation with Additional Stora g e $0 $100,000 $2,600,000 $1,200,000 $150,000 $2,500,000 $6,600,000

A Capture costs are the costs to retrofit the ship for a direct on-board connection; this cost would be covered by ship ownersWDNR Onshore Ballast Water Treatment Study
10/12/2007

B R O W N A N D C A L D W E L L

P:\Wisconsin DNR\Ballast Water Treat ment\Task 400_Report\Final_Report.doc Page 29 

### The only potentially feasible approach identified for collecting ballast water from ships to an onshore facility is to have the foreign ships retrofit the existing piping and pumping system associated with the ballast water tanks with a T-connection th at will allow a portsupplied portable pump to connect to the ballas t tank system and extract the ballast water. Considerations for onshore extrac tion of ballast water include:

• An international standard should be deve loped to allow consistent interchange between port facilities and minimal investment to ship owners.

• Policies and procedures and personne l training for extraction should be developed and would include safety, c oordination between cargo loading and ballast water extraction with port facilities management, identification of personnel responsibilities, and advance notice of antic ipated amount of ballast water to discharge.

• An assessment of particular collection and handling appr oaches at a particular dock (e.g. trucking for small quantities versus barging for larger quantities) must occur to allow optimal management of facilities.

• Ballast water extraction must mimic normal ballast water discharge to accommodate cargo loading including prope r rate withdrawal, load balancing, and necessary discharge locations.

• Ballast water tanks residuals must either be retained on-ship or discharged to
treatment.

• Ballast water transfer and handling must include provisi ons to prevent spillage.

• A minimum of two shore-based portable “t rash pumps”, each capable of handling the full design load from the ships, w ill be required to provide the needed flexibility to serve multiple docks.
Based on cost and access considerations, th e most likely option for transporting the captured ballast water is by barge. Some combination of other transport options, including piping and transport by truck, may also be feasible depending on the volume and location of the ballast water discharg e. Regardless of the transport approach, transport operations must not interfere with normal shipping activities or Port operations. In addition to providing the most feasible transport option, a barge may also provide storage for the ballast water and could be re trofitted to include the treatment system.

A number of treatment technol ogies were considered for ons hore ballast water discharge. The treatment goals included ad aptability to intermittent ope ration, potential for complete removal and/or destruction of viable organisms, and cost (c apital and annual) feasibility. By considering technology-based limits and allowing incremental treatment improvements over time based on cost and performance, the WDNR and communities around the Great Lakes will strive to establish a practical, cost-effective, and systematic program for eliminating the thre at of invasive organisms.WDNR Onshore Ballast Water Treatment Study
10/12/2007

B R O W N A N D C A L D W E L L

P:\Wisconsin DNR\Ballast Water Treat ment\Task 400_Report\Final_Report.doc Page 30 

### Considerations for onshore treatme nt of ballast water include:

• Treatment capacity at Jones Island appears sufficient, but field testing is required to confirm that disinfection by the existi ng chlorination process is effective; in addition, some level of pr etreatment is required.

• The technologies screening process narrowed the anal ysis to four viable treatment system approaches. Planning- level costs were developed for each system and demonstrate the potential for pr actical implementation of any of these systems for onshore treatment as an alternative to on-ship treatment.

• The selected treatment system flow rate , based on the design basis for collection and storage, is 350 gpm; optimization of th e conceptual design basis should be performed during a subsequent pre-design phase.

• The Present Worth analysis of on-site treatment alternatives suggests that;

o Screening with UV disinfection and Screening with Ozonation are the most cost-effective systems to implement for the selected design basis.

o Capital costs for the on-site treatm ent alternatives range from $560,000 to $2.5 million.

o Annual Operations and Maintenance and Future replacement costs for each on-site treatment alternative are detailed in Table 7 and Appendix C; these costs should be considered fr om an annual budget perspective, and are reasonable for the intended purposes.

• Since the selected treatmen t technology has rarely or never been used for onshore ballast water treatment, a pilot-scale testing program should be implemented for the selected alternative. This will allow demonstration of performance, operating costs, and refinement of a design ba sis for a full-scale treatment system.

• The ballast water storage conceptual design basis is tied directly to attenuating the high flows generated from the ship s to allow for a significantly smaller treatment system, which will operate during and after the discharge ceases. Additional storage allowance is provided to accommodate a larger range of flows as well as the possibility for tw o concurrent loading situations.

• The treatment system, which may be insta lled onto the barge or on land, must be protected from the weather and be desi gned for significant periods of non-use with the ability to be quickly brought back into service.

• Residuals from the treatment systems are expected to be nominal; nevertheless, extreme care must be made in preventi ng contact (e.g. bagged residuals, sealed containers) with the environment to prevent vector transport.WDNR Onshore Ballast Water Treatment Study
10/12/2007

B R O W N A N D C A L D W E L L

P:\Wisconsin DNR\Ballast Water Treat ment\Task 400_Report\Final_Report.doc Page 31 

### Additional conclusions and recommendations include:

• Applicable agencies and other stakeholde rs can use the content and conclusions of this report as a basis for applicabil ity of onshore collecti on and treatment of ballast water for other Great Lakes po rts. However, caution is advised in extrapolating to other port s as engineering rigor mu st be used to develop approaches and solutions for each local situation. Figures 13 (Estimated Present Worth for Various Removal Efficiencies ) and 14 (Estimated Present Worth for Various Flow Rates) can be used as a guide to other ports, but specific local circumstances can significantly modify these values.

• Although the currently proposed IMO st andard and implemented State of Michigan standard is on-s hip treatment, onshore treatment is also a feasible option. Onshore treatment is generally t hought of as an impractical treatment method because of the large volumes of ba llast water that typically need to be treated at different ports and the large cap ital investment for a treatment system; however the benefits of an onshore treatment system are easier permitting and regulation of discharges, and better contro l in ensuring that the desired level of ballast water treatment o ccurs. In addition, the inve stment to implement an onshore treatment system may be of fset by the amount of money saved mitigating damage and control from nonindigenous organisms in the Great Lakes.

• One approach may be to require on-ship treatment for ships that carry large volumes of ballast water and offer ons hore treatment for ships with smaller volumes of ballast water for which the capit al investment of an on-ship treatment system is not as practical.

Future actions that should be considered include:

• Review the findings of this report an d determine the financial and political feasibility of further actions toward developing onshore collection and treatment for the Port of Milwaukee and other Great Lakes Ports.

• Further investigate and determine the feas ibility for a ship to shore draw-off (e.g. connections to on-ship ballast water sy stem) using portable pumping systems.

• Estimate the typical cost and amount of time required to modify a ship’s piping and pumping systems for ship to shore draw-off.

• Further evaluate f easibility of using a barge fo r collection, storage, and/or treatment and confirm implementation details.

• Perform a detailed evaluation of the applic ability of the findings contained herein to other Great Lakes ports.

• Perform a Waste Characterization Study to better identify balla st water quantity and contents.WDNR Onshore Ballast Water Treatment Study
10/12/2007

B R O W N A N D C A L D W E L L

P:\Wisconsin DNR\Ballast Water Treat ment\Task 400_Report\Final_Report.doc Page 32 

### • Implement a detailed pilot test program for one or more treatment systems to demonstrate performance and full scale ope rating costs, and further develop the design basis of full scale system(s).

• Perform a detailed engineering design of a selected system based on the findings of the actions listed above.

• Monitor the progress of proposed regulations.

• Determine the procedures and costs for residuals handling.

• Investigate pretreatment requirements, in cluding sampling, for discharge to Jones Island WWTP.

• Develop a cost estimate for completing these future actions.

5. LIMITATIONS This document was prepared solely for the WDNR in accordance with professional standards at the time the services were pe rformed and in accordance with the contract between the WDNR and Brown and Caldwe ll dated July 16, 2007. This document is governed by the specific scope of work authorized by the WDNR; it is not intended to be relied upon by any other party except for re gulatory authorities contemplated by the scope of work. We have relied on informati on or instructions pr ovided by the WDNR and other parties and, unless othe rwise expressly indicated, have made no independent investigation as to the validity, complete ness, or accuracy of such information.WDNR Onshore Ballast Water Treatment Study
10/12/2007

B R O W N A N D C A L D W E L L

P:\Wisconsin DNR\Ballast Water Treat ment\Task 400_Report\Final_Report.doc Page 33 

### REFERENCES

Borchardt, Mark A. (Research Scientist a nd Director of Environmental Microbiology Laboratory, Marshfield Clinic Research Foundation). Phone Interview. September 19, 2007.

California Environmental Protection Agency (2002). “Evaluation of Ballast Water Treatment Technology for Control of Nonindigenous Aquatic Organisms.” Sacramento, CA: State Water Resources Control Board.

Cangelosi, A., & Mays, N. (2006). “Great Ships for the Great Lakes? Commercial Vessels Free of Invasive Species in the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Seaway System.” A Scoping Report for the Great Sh ips Initiative. Washington DC: Northeast Midwest Institute.

Chase, C., Reilly, C., & Pederson, J. “Marin e Bioinvasions Fact Sheet: Ballast water treatment options

. ” MIT Sea Grant Center for Coastal Resources. Retrieved July 18, 2007 from http://massbay.mit.e du/resources/pdf/ballast-treat.pdf.

Chester, S. “Final Determination and Notice Regarding Ballast Water Treatment for Oceangoing Vessels on the Great Lake s.” Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, April 13, 20 05. Accessed October 12, 2007 from http://www.michigan.gov/deq/0,1607,7-135-3313_3677_8278---,00.html

.
Christensen, Erik R. (Professor, UW-Milw aukee Civil Engineering Department). Personal Interview. August 14, 2007.

City of Milwaukee (2007). “Aquatic Invasi ve Species and Ships’ Ballast Water.” Retrieved July 24, 2007, from http://www.city.milwaukee.gov/AquaticInvasiveSpeci20116.htm.

Donkers, E. (2003) “Solution to Ballast Wa ter Pollution: Ship shape and the ports escape?” Proceedings of the 2 st 

### International Ballast Water Treatment R & D Symposium (pp. 201-209). L ondon, UK: International Maritime Organization.

ETV Water Quality Protection Center ( 2002). “Ship Ballast Water Treatment Systems Stakeholder Advisory Group Meeting Summary.” Alexandria, VA: Environmental Protection Agency. Retrieved July 24, 2007 from http://www.epa.gov/etv/sitedocs/meetings/wqp/sum-061802.pdf

Gaines, W. A., Kim, B.R., Drews, A.R., Bailey, C., Loch, T., & Frenette, S. (2006).WDNR Onshore Ballast Water Treatment Study
10/12/2007

B R O W N A N D C A L D W E L L

P:\Wisconsin DNR\Ballast Water Treat ment\Task 400_Report\Final_Report.doc Page 34 

### “Hydrodynamic Cavitation Pilot Study for Controlling Cooling Water Quality.” Retrieved September 20, 2007, from www.saligroup.com/pdfs/WEFTEC_Paper.pdf.

Gourdeau, Paul. (Fednav International). “I nformation about ships for ballast water study.” E-mail to Veronica Loete of Brown and Caldwell. August 28, 2007.

International Maritime Organization (2007) . Global Ballast Water Management Programme website. http://globallast.imo.org/

Johengen, T., Reid, D., Fahnenstiel, G., MacIsa ac, H., Dobbs, F., Doblin, M., Ruiz, G., & Jenkins, P. (2005). “Assessment of Transoceanic NOBOB Vessels and Lowsalinity Ballast Water as Vectors for Non- indigenous Species Introductions to the Great Lakes.” Ann Arbor, MI: NOAA—Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory.

Klump, J. Val. (Director, UW-Milwaukee Great Lakes WATER Institute). Personal Interview. August 14, 2007.

Leffler, C. E., Rogerson, A., Paul , W., Germaine, G., Elliot, M., Antonelli, V., Grubs, S., Campbell, C., Beall, G., & Salamone, A. (2003). “Electro-sanitization of Ballast Water.” Proceedings of the 2 st 

### International Ballast Water Treatment R & D Symposium (pp. 111-124). London, UK: International Maritime Organization.

Mesbahi, E. (2003). “Latest Results from Tes ting Seven Different Technologies Under the EU MARTOB Project – Where do we stand now?” Proceedings of the 2 st 

### International Ballast Water Treatm ent R & D Symposium (pp 210-230). London, UK: International Maritime Organization.

Michigan Department of Environmental Quality website. http://www.michigan.gov/deq

State of Michigan State Bill N o. 332. Accessed October 12, 2007 from http://www.uscg.mil/hq/gm/m so/docs/Michigan_SB_332_2005.pdf

Prince William Sound Regional Citizens Advi sory Council (2005). “Ballast Water Treament Methods -- Fact Sheet 2: Shor e-based Treatment.” Retrieved July 18, 2007 from http://www.pwsr cac.org/nis/tech0076.pdf.

Reid, David F. (Senior Physical Scientist, NOAA’s Great Lake Environmental Research Laboratory). Phone Interview. September 18, 2007.

Rigby, G, & Taylor, A. (2001a). “Ballast Water Treatment – An Overview of Options.” Proceedings of the 1 st 

### International Ballast Water Treatment R & D SymposiumWDNR Onshore Ballast Water Treatment Study
10/12/2007

B R O W N A N D C A L D W E L L

P:\Wisconsin DNR\Ballast Water Treat ment\Task 400_Report\Final_Report.doc Page 35 

### (pp. 3-7). London, UK: Interna tional Maritime Organization.

Rigby, G, & Taylor, A. (2001b). “Ballast Water Research Series Report No. 13: Ballast Water treatment to minimize the risk s of introducing nonindigenous marine organisms to australian ports.” Department of Agricu lture, Fisheries, & Forestry—Australia. Canberra Austra lia: Commonwealth of Australia.

Saho, N., Isogami, H., Mizumori, T., and Ni shijima, N. (2003). “Superconducting Magnetic Separator for Ballast Water Treatment.” Proceedings of the 2 st 

### International Ballast Water Treatm ent R & D Symposium (pp. 125-134). London, UK: International Maritime Organization.

Sansalone, J., Voon, E., & Srin ivasan, V. (2001). “Management of Invasive Species Transported in Ballast Water by Dissolved Air Flotation Technology

. ” Proceedings of the 2 nd 

### International C onference on Marine Bioinvasions (pp. 119- 120). Cambridge, MA: MIT Sea Grant College Program

Tamburri, M. N., Wasson, K. & Matsuda, M. (2001). “Ballast Water Deoxygenation: A new technique for preventing species intr oductions that shou ld make everyone happy.” Monterey Bay, CA: Monter ey Bay National Marine Sanctuary. Retrieved July 18, 2007 from http://montereybay.noaa.gov/re ports/2001/eco/exotic.html.

http://www.uscg.mil/hq/gm/mso /docs/Michigan_SB_332_2005.pdf

### ( This page has been intentionally left blank)

# APPENDIX A

Project Team Members

### ( This page has been intentionally left blank)Project Team MembersName Title Entity E-mail Address Phone NumberJulie McMullinProject ManagerBrown and Caldwelljmcmullin@brwncald.com414-203-2904David DrewTechnical Advisor, QA/QCBrown and Caldwellddrew@brwncald.com414-203-2928Veronica LoeteProject EngineerBrown and Caldwellvloete@brwncald.com414-203-2921Roger LarsonTechnical Project Manager; DeputyDirector of the Bureau of WatershedManagementWisconsin Departmentof Natural ResourcesRogerL.Larson@Wisconsin.gov608-266-2666Susan SylvesterChief of the Wastewater Permit Section ofthe Bureau of Watershed ManagementWisconsin Departmentof Natural ResourcesSusan.Sylvester@Wisconsin.gov608-266-1099Chuck Ledin Bureau Director, Office of the Great LakesWisconsin Departmentof Natural ResourcesCharles.Ledin@Wisconsin.gov608-266-1956Chuck Burney NR Program Manager (Retired)Wisconsin Departmentof Natural Resourcescharles.burney@Wisconsin.govChris RehlingerContracts Project Manager; ConstructionRepresentativeWisconsin Departmentof Natural Resourceschris.rehlinger@wisconsin.gov608-264-9215Eric Reinelt Port Director Port of Milwaukeeereine@port.mil.wi.us414-286-8130Larry Sullivan Chief Engineer Port of Milwaukeelsulli@port.mil.wi.us414-286-8139

### ( This page has been intentionally left blank)

# APPENDIX B

Initial List of Possible Ballast Water Treatment Technologies

### ( This page has been intentionally left blank)Summary of Possible Treatment TechnologiesWDNR Milwaukee Ballast Water Treatment StudyOption Reference Description Advantages Disadvantages CommentsBallast Water Exchange Bioinvasion Fact SheetBallast water from coastal area isdischarged in the ocean and then theballasts are re-filledRequires no additional equipment, doesreduce risk of introducing non-nativespecies, little time is lost100% removal of sediments, water, and organismsis not possible, and ships do not exchange ballastwater in rough seas or stormy weather because it isunsafe to do soOne of the current methods for dealingwith the issue, no actual treatment involvedPhysical Separation or Removal of OrganismDissolved Air FlotationSansalone et al.Air is bubbled through the water and thebubbles adhere to or are trapped in theparticle structure; this results in an increasedbuoyancy and floatation of the bubbleparticle complexNo chemical addition, can treat oils andother residuals Need to skim off or collect what floatsOnly found one reference to DAF asmethod for treating ballast water; DAF haspotential to serve as pretreatment optionFiltrationBioinvasion Fact Sheet,PWSRCAC Water is passed through a filterEstablished and commonly used in otherwater treatment applications, the process iscapable of removing microorgansimsIncreased maintanence because of potential forclogging, likely to have large footprint, may havelarge pressure drop across the filter, length ofbackwash cycle may lead to unacceptable length oftreatment timeVarious sizes available; can install series offilters that get progressively smaller in poresizeHydrocyclone (centrifugal separation) PWSRCACOperates by pushing sediments and otherorganisms to the outer portion of an intakepipe or tank. Sediment and heavier particlesare then collected and removedTechnology already established andcommonly used in other water treatmentapplications, can operate at high flow ratesand there is little water pressure decrease inthe systemLess effective on very small organisms whencompared to filtersCan be combined with UV, ozone orchemical secondary treatment for increasedremoval of target organismsDestruction or Inactivation of OrganismAdvanced Oxidation Technology (AOT) MARTOB ProjectCombination of ozone, UV and catalysts thatgenerates large amounts of radicals, mainlyhydroxyl radicals, that destroy or eliminatemicroorganisms No chemical additionLarger organisms need to be separated outbeforehandChemical BiocidesBioinvasion Fact Sheet,EPA Meeting Biocide is mixed in with ballast waterEasily stored (concentrated solid or liquid),widely used in industry, machines forapplication are reliable and low maintenanceLack of study of potential for production of harmfulbyproducts in reactions between biocides and lakewater, large machines for application, concernsabout releasing water treated with biocides into theenvironment, sediments can hinder effectivenessChlorine (oxidizing agent) Bioinvasion Fact Sheet Chemical that destroys cell membranesWorks quickly on small or microscopicorganisms, relatively inexpensiveConcern about release to the environment andbyproduct formation (trihalomethanes), may requirepost-treatmentGluteraldehyde (non-oxidizing agent) Bioinvasion Fact SheetNon-oxidizing biocides interfere withnecessary life functions (i.e. metabolism,reproduction) in organismsFewer concerns about environmentaleffects (metabolizes quickly to CO2inenvironment) Works slowlyOzonation Bioinvasion Fact Sheet Chemical that destroys cell membranesVery effective at killing microscopicorganismsNot very effective at eliminating larger organisms,ozone generators tend to be large and the equipmentis quite complicated and expensiveP:\Wisconsin DNR\Ballast Water Treatment\Task 400_Report\Appendices\PossibleTreatmentTechnologies_081707.xlsOption Reference Description Advantages Disadvantages CommentsDe-oxygenation with nitrogen gas MBNMSOxygen is removed from the water bypurging it with nitrogen gas which dissolvesmore readily in the water. Organisms areeffectively asphixiatedPotential to reduce or impede corrosion ofstorage tanks, many organisms only surivehours or days in low oxygen conditions, nochemical additionFacultative anaerobic bacteria or cysts of organismsmay be resistant to hypoxic conditionsHypoxic water may have to be reoxygenated before release to avoid harmingnative organismswith bacteria13th Int'l Conference onAquatic Invasive Species,Husain et al.Growth of microorganisms is stimulated, theorganisms utilize the oxygen in the waterreducing the oxygen levels No chemicals involvedFacultative anaerobic bacteria or cysts of organismsmay be resistant to hypoxic conditionsElectro-ionization Magnetic Separation (EIMS)EPA Meeting,PWSRCAC 2A continuous flow of ionized gas isintroduced into the water, then air is passedthrough strong ultraviolet and magneticfields to create oxygen and nitrogen ions;these ions function as coagulating agentswhen injected into the water; the clusters ofsolids are separated by magnetic separationfiltrationSelf-contained technology with no knownenvironmental effects, 95% kill of allculturable bacteria, protozoa and algae wasobserved in studiesSystems occupy a large footprint and technology hasnot yet been tested in full scale ballast waterapplication, dramatic regrowth of remainingorganisms has been observed in studiesHeat Exchange Bioinvasion Fact Sheet Ballast water is heatedNo chemical byproducts, effective at killinglarge and medium organisms (fish, shellfish)and some planktonRequires installation of pipes to bring water incontact with heat, not effective at killingmicroorganisms, not as useful in colder waters,potential for tank corrosionWater must be able to reach specifiedtemperatures for the necessary amount oftime, effectiveness depends on type ofballast water containmentOxicide Treatment MARTOB ProjectElectrochemical method that generateshydrogen peroxide from the oxygen in thewater; the decline in oxygen concentrationand presence of hydrogen peroxidesignificantly reduce the number of organismspresentHydrogen peroxide naturally decomposes inwater and therefore will not cause problemswhen released to environmentSome organisms are resistant to hydrogen peroxide,hydrogden peroxide is an irritant, has the potential tocorrode pipes and tanksUltrasonic Treatment/Cavitation MARTOB ProjectUltrasound is generated by a transducer thatconverts mechanical or electrical energy intohigh frequency vibration; this generatescavitation in the water which can lead tocells rupturingShown to be effective with bacteria,plankton, and other organismsMay have an adverse effect on tank coatings andstructure; cavitation is not widely used in water andwastewater treatment.Ultraviolet (UV) lightBioinvasion Fact Sheet,EPA Meeting Water is exposed to ultraviolet lightEffective on microorganisms (i.e. bacteriaand phytoplankton), no known toxicbyproductsNot very effective on larger organisms (one studyfound the method to be ineffective on zooplankton),ineffective in water containing suspended matter,maintenance of light bulbs requiredTitanium dioxide can be used to intensifythe UV irradiationBioinvasion Fact Sheet = Chase, et al., "Marine Bioinvasions Fact Sheet: Ballast Water Treatment Options," retrieved July 18, 2007, from http://massbay.mit.edu/resources/pdf/ballast-treat.pdf.EPA Meeting = Stakeholder Advisory Group on Ship Ballast Water Treatment Systems, "Meeting Summary," ETV Water Quality Protection Center, 2002, retrieved July 18, 2007, from http://www.epa.gov/etv.MARTOB Project = E. Mesbahi, "Latest results from testing seven different technologies under the EU MARTOB project: Where do westand now?," presented at 2nd Int'l Ballast Water Treatment R & D Symposium, 2003.MBNMS = Tamburri, et al., "Ballast Water Deoxygenation,"Ecosystem Observations 2001: Exotic Species, Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary, 2001, retrieved July 18, 2007, from http://montereybay.noaa.gov/reports/2001/eco/exotic.html.PWSRCAC = Prince William Sound Regional Advisory Council, "Fact Sheet 12: Physical Separation," 2005, retrieved July 18, 2007 from http://www.pwsrcac.org/docs/d0018000.pdf.PWSRCAC 2 = Prince William Sound Regional Advisory Council, "Fact Sheet 15: Electo-Ionization Treatment," 2005, retrieved August 6, 2007 from http://www.pwsrcac.org/docs/d0018300.pdf.Sansalone et al. = J. Sansalone, et al., "Management of Invasive Species Transported in Ballast Water by DAF Technology", presented at 2nd Int'l Conference on Marine Bioinvasions, 2001.retrieved July 18, 2007,from http://www.sgnis.org/publicat/sansalon.htm.P:\Wisconsin DNR\Ballast Water Treatment\Task 400_Report\Appendices\PossibleTreatmentTechnologies_081707.xls

# APPENDIX C

Detailed Cost Estimates for On-Site Treatment Options

### ( This page has been intentionally left blank)SCREENING PLUS UV DISINFECTION

Capital Investment Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Cost Fine Screening Equipment ( 2 stage - 6 mesh, 165 mesh) 1 ea $22,000 $22,000 UV Disinfection Equipment 1 ea $70,000 $70,000 Civil/Site work 1 ea $10,000 $10,000 Power Supply 1 ea $8,000 $8,000 Flow meters/sampling 1 ea $15,000 $15,000 Residuals Bags and Storage Container 1 ea $2,000 $2,000 Instrumentation/controls 1 ea $30,000 $30,000 Electrical 1 ea $30,000 $30,000 Mechanical 1 ea $20,000 $20,000 Treatment Building (20' x 25') 1 ea $40,000 $40,000 Safety/Maintenance equip. 1 ea $3,000 $3,000 Construction Permits/fees 1 ea $2,000 $2,000 $250,000 Management/administrative 35% $88,000 $340,000 Contingencies 25% $85,000 $430,000 Technical Services 30% $130,000 $560,000

Annual Annual O & M Quantity Unit Unit Cost Cost Energy Usage Charge 11,000 kWhr $0.07 $770 Chemicals (Cleaners) 1 bulk $500 $500 Labor 300 hr $30 $9,000 Equipment Maintenance 1 --- $1,000 $1,000 O & M Total Annual Cost = $11,000 O & M Present Worth = $140,000

Future Equipment Replacement Replacement Cost per Event Cost with Technical Services (add'l 10%) Present Worth of Future Replacement Costs

Fine Screening Equipment $1,000 $1,100 $14,000 Assume replacement of both screens once
per year

Fine Screening Equipment (cont'd.) $2,300 $2,530 $4,000 Assume replacement of motors every 6
years

UV Disinfection Equipment $3,000 $3,300 $12,000 Assume bulb replacement every 3 years (since operation not 24/7 ) $30,000

TOTAL PRESENT WORTH = $730,000 Total Equipment Replacement Cost = Subtotal 1

Subtotal 2

Total Construction Cost

Total Capital Cost =OZONATION

Capital Investment Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Cost Ozonation Equipment 1 ea $250,000 $250,000 Civil/Site work 1 ea $10,000 $10,000 Power Supply 1 ea $8,000 $8,000 Flow meters/sampling 1 ea $15,000 $15,000 Residuals Storage 1 ea $2,000 $2,000 Instrumentation/controls 1 ea $20,000 $20,000 Electrical 1 ea $20,000 $20,000 Mechanical 1 ea $15,000 $15,000 Treatment Building (20' x 25') 1 ea $40,000 $40,000 Safety/Maintenance equip. 1 ea $3,000 $3,000 Construction Permits/fees 1 ea $2,000 $2,000 Subtotal 1 $390,000 Management/administrative 30% $120,000 Subtotal 2 $510,000 Contingencies 25% $130,000 Total Construction Cost $640,000 Technical Services 25% $160,000 Total Capital Cost = $800,000

Annual Annual O & M Quantity Unit Unit Cost Cost Energy Usage Charge 35,000 kWhr $0.07 $2,500 Chemicals (Cleaners) 1 --- 500 $500 Labor 200 hr $30 $6,000 Equipment Maintenance 1 --- $400 $400 O & M Total Annual Cost = $9,400 O & M Present Worth = $120,000

Future Equipment Replacement Replacement Cost per Event Cost with Technical Services (add'l 10%) Present Worth of Future Replacement Costs Ozonation Equipment $0 $0 $0 $0

TOTAL PRESENT WORTH = $920,000 Total Equipment Replacement Cost =SCREENING PLUS MEMBRANE FILTRATION

Capital Investment Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Cost Fine Screening Equipment (500 microns) 1 ea $11,000 $11,000 Membrane Filtration Unit 1 ea $340,000 $340,000 Civil/Site work 1 ea $20,000 $20,000 Power Supply 1 ea $8,000 $8,000 Flow meters/sampling 1 ea $15,000 $15,000 Residuals storage 1 ea $2,000 $2,000 Instrumentation/controls 1 ea $20,000 $20,000 Electrical 1 ea $20,000 $20,000 Mechanical 1 ea $15,000 $15,000 Treatment Building (20' x 35') 1 ea $56,000 $56,000 Safety/Maintenance equip. 1 ea $3,000 $3,000 Construction Permits/fees 1 ea $1,500 $1,500 Subtotal 1 $510,000 Management/administrative 30% $150,000 Subtotal 2 $660,000 Contingencies 25% $170,000 Total Construction Cost $830,000 Technical Services 25% $210,000 Total Capital Cost = $1,000,000

Annual Annual O & M Quantity Unit Unit Cost Cost Energy Usage Charge 25,000 kWhr $0.07 $1,800 Chemicals (Cleaners) 1 --- 600 $600 Labor 400 hr $30 $12,000 Equipment Maintenance 1 --- $700 $700 O & M Total Annual Cost = $15,000 O & M Present Worth = $190,000

Future Equipment Replacement Replacement Cost per Event Cost with Technical Services (add'l 10%) Present Worth of Future Replacement Costs

Membrane Filtration Unit $38,000 $42,000 $51,000 Membrane replaced every 7 years (in years 7 and 14) $51,000

TOTAL PRESENT WORTH = $1,200,000 Total Equipment Replacement Cost =SCREENING PLUS HYDRODYNAMIC CAVITATION (Existing Storage)

Capital Investment Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Cost 0.5 MG of Add'l Storage (uses existing tank) 1 ea $0 $0 Retrofit of existing tank 1 ea $120,000 $120,000 Fine Screening Equipment (500 microns) 1 ea $11,000 $11,000 Hydrodynamic Cavitation (750 gpm) 1 ea $80,000 $80,000 Civil/Site work 1 ea $10,000 $10,000 Power Supply 1 ea $8,000 $8,000 Flow meters/sampling 1 ea $18,000 $18,000 Residuals Storage 1 ea $2,000 $2,000 Instrumentation/controls 1 ea $20,000 $20,000 Electrical 1 ea $20,000 $20,000 Mechanical 1 ea $50,000 $50,000 Treatment Building (20' x 25') 1 ea $40,000 $40,000 Safety/Maintenance equip. 1 ea $1,000 $1,000 Construction Permits/fees 1 ea $5,000 $5,000 Subtotal 1 $400,000 Management/administrative 35% $140,000 Subtotal 2 $500,000 Contingencies 25% $130,000 Total Construction Cost $600,000 Technical Services 30% $180,000 Total Capital Cost = $800,000

Annual Annual O & M Quantity Unit Unit Cost Cost Energy Usage Charge 170,000 kWhr $0.07 $12,000 Chemicals (Surfactant) 50 doses $50 $2,500 Labor 100 hr $30 $3,000 Equipment Maintenance 1 --- $2,000 $2,000 O & M Total Annual Cost = $20,000 O & M Present Worth = $250,000

Future Equipment Replacement Replacement Cost per Event Cost with Technical Services (add'l 10%) Present Worth of Future Replacement Costs Hydrodynamic Cavitation (750 gpm) $0 $0 $0 Total Equipment Replacement Cost = $0

TOTAL PRESENT WORTH = $1,100,000SCREENING PLUS HYDRODYNAMIC CAVITATION (Construction of Storage)

Capital Investment Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Cost 0.5 MG of Additional Storage 1 ea $800,000 $800,000 Fine Screening 1 ea $20,000 $20,000 Hydrodynamic Cavitation (750 gpm) 1 ea $80,000 $80,000 Civil/Site work 1 ea $10,000 $10,000 Power Supply 1 ea $8,000 $8,000 Flow meters/sampling 1 ea $18,000 $18,000 Residuals Storage 1 ea $2,000 $2,000 Instrumentation/controls 1 ea $20,000 $20,000 Electrical 1 ea $20,000 $20,000 Mechanical 1 ea $50,000 $50,000 Structural/foundations 1 ea $10,000 $10,000 Treatment Building (20' x 25') 1 ea $40,000 $40,000 Safety/Maintenance equip. 1 ea $1,000 $1,000 Construction Permits/fees 1 ea $5,000 $5,000 Subtotal 1 $1,100,000 Management/administrative 35% $390,000 Subtotal 2 $1,500,000 Contingencies 25% $380,000 Total Construction Cost $1,900,000 Technical Services 30% $570,000 Total Capital Cost = $2,500,000

Annual Annual O & M Quantity Unit Unit Cost Cost Energy Usage Charge 170,000 kWhr $0.07 $12,000 Chemicals (Surfactant) 50 doses $50 $2,500 Labor 100 hr $30 $3,000 Equipment Maintenance 1 --- $2,000 $2,000 O & M Total Annual Cost = $20,000 O & M Present Worth = $250,000

Future Equipment Replacement Replacement Cost per Event Cost with Technical Services (add'l 10%) Present Worth of Future Replacement Costs Hydrodynamic Cavitation (750 gpm) $0 $0 $0 Total Equipment Replacement Cost = $0

TOTAL PRESENT WORTH = $2,800,000

### ( This page has been intentionally left blank)

# APPENDIX D

Major On-Site Treatment Equipment Cut Sheets

### ( This page has been intentionally left blank)O Z O N I A N O R T H A M E R I C A , I N C

. 4 9 1 E D W A R D H

. R O S S D R I V E

, E L M W O O D P A R K N J 0 7 4 0 7 U S A P

. O

. B O X 4 5 5

, E L M W O O D P A R K

, N J 0 7 4 0 7 2 0 1 7 9 4

- 3 1 0 0 ( T E L ) • 2 0 1 7 9 4

- 3 3 5 8 ( F A X ) W W W

. O Z O N I A

. C O M M O D E L D I M E N S I O N S ( i n c h e s ) R E F E R E N C E A B C D E F G H J K L S L P 2 0 0

- 2 7

. 9 4 9

. 2 5

. 9 6

. 9 1 0

. 8 9

. 1 7

. 3 3 9

. 4 6

. 7 7

. 9 5

. 9 S L P 2 0 0

- 3 7

. 9 4 9

. 2 5

. 9 6

. 9 1 0

. 8 9

. 1 7

. 3 3 9

. 4 6

. 7 7

. 9 5

. 9 S L P 2 5 0

- 4 9

. 8 5 3

. 1 5

. 9 7

. 9 1 2

. 8 1 3

. 0 7

. 3 3 9

. 4 8

. 7 9

. 8 6

. 9 S L P 2 5 0

- 6 9

. 8 5 3

. 1 5

. 9 7

. 9 1 2

. 8 1 3

. 0 7

. 3 3 9

. 4 8

. 7 9

. 8 6

. 9 S L P 3 0 0

- 8 1 1

. 8 5 2

. 4 6

. 7 9

. 8 1 4

. 8 1 3

. 0 7

. 3 3 9

. 4 1 0

. 6 1 1

. 8 7

. 9 S L P 3 5 0

- 1 0 1 3

. 8 5 1

. 2 7

. 9 1 1

. 8 1 6

. 7 1 3

. 0 7

. 3 3 9

. 4 1 2

. 6 1 3

. 8 9

. 8 S L P 3 5 0

- 1 2 1 3

. 8 5 1

. 2 7

. 9 1 1

. 8 1 6

. 7 1 3

. 0 7

. 3 3 9

. 4 1 2

. 6 1 3

. 8 9

. 8 S L P 4 0 0

- 1 4 1 5

. 7 5 1

. 2 7

. 9 1 1

. 8 1 8

. 7 1 3

. 0 7

. 3 3 9

. 4 1 4

. 6 1 5

. 7 9

. 8

M O D E L P A N E L F L O W R A T E L A M P P O W E R
R E F E R E N C E R E F E R E N C E G P M W A T T S S L P 2 0 0

- 2 S L P C 2 9 9 4 1 0
S L P 2 0 0

- 3 S L P C 3 1 4 8 6 1 5 S L P 2 5 0

- 4 S L P C 4 1 8 7 8 2 0 S L P 2 5 0

- 6 S L P C 6 2 9 7 1 2 3 0 S L P 3 0 0

- 8 S L P C 8 4 0 0 1 6 4 0 S L P 3 5 0

- 1 0 S L P C 1 0 4 7 7 2 0 5 0
S L P 3 5 0

- 1 2 S L P C 1 2 5 9 0 2 4 6 0 S L P 4 0 0

- 1 4 S L P C 1 4 7 1 6 2 8 7 0

F L O W R A T E S B A S E D O N U V D O S E O F 3 0 m J / c m 2 A N D U V T R A N S M I S S I O N O F 6 5 % 1 5

. 7 7

. 9

2 3

. 6

3 1

. 5

3 1

. 5 7

. 9

               

2 3

. 6 7

. 9

2 3

. 6

         



###                    

                                                                                                                     !         "       !     

                   #           $ %   %      I N L E T A N D O U T L E T F L A N G E S I Z E S T O S U I T F L O W R A T E R E Q U I R M E N T S A N D T O B E S P E C I F I E D A T T I M E O F Q U O T A T I O N

.

# The best solution to produce ozone at high concentration in air or oxygen for small ozone applications 

# OZAT ® 

# CFS-2G
Compact Ozone Generators

The OZAT ® 

## CFS second generation ozone generators incorporate Ozonia ’ s patented A dvanced Technology dielectric segments togeth er with a state-of-the-art IGBT power supply and all necessary components for the safe and continuous operation at full-load in an industrial environment.
The OZAT ® 

## CFS-2G units have been designed based on feedback and experience from hundreds of plant operators around the world. Comprehensive control features are incorporated for extremely easy and flexible operation. OXYGEN FEEDGAS 55 to 730 g per hour

AIR FEEDGAS 37 to 470 g per hour

OZONE PRODUCTION

MAIN FEATURES

- Advanced technology - High ozone concentration - Compact dimensions - User friendly interface - Robust industrial quality

- Low maintenance - Low harmonic current rejection

APPLICATIONS
- Drinking water treatment

- Waste water treatment - Oxidation applications - Bottle filling plants - Cooling towers

- Process water

- Pure water - Aquaculture



# ... our way for a better world OZAT ® CFSCopyright © Ozonia Ltd, Switzerland 2006, all rights reserved Printed in Switzerland (version 04.05.06) All possible care and attention has been given to ensure that the given data is correct, Ozonia shall not be held responsible for any inaccuracies or misprints Model Ozone Production Outlet Pressure Oxygen Requirement Cooling Water Mains Power

Units g/h lb/d barg psig Nm 3 /h scfm m 3 /h USgpm kW

CFS-1 55 2.9 0.7 10.1 0.39 0.25 0.09 0.40 0.76

CFS-3 165 8.8 0.7 10.1 1.17 0.75 0.27 1.19 2.14

CFS-7 370 19.7 1.0 14.5 2.61 1.66 0.56 2.47 4.46 

### OXYGEN FEEDGAS

10% by weight Ozone Concentration

CFS-14 730 38.5 1.0 14.5 5.11 3.25 1.09 4.80 8.55

Model Ozone Production Outlet Pressure Dry air Requirement Cooling Water Mains Power

Units g/h lb/d barg psig Nm 3 /h scfm m 3 /h USgpm kW

CFS-1 37 2.0 2.0 29.0 0.95 0.60 0.09 0.40 0.76

CFS-3 115 6.0 2.0 29.0 2.93 1.86 0.27 1.19 2.14

CFS-7 240 12.7 2.0 29.0 6.19 3.93 0.56 2.47 4.46 

### AIR FEEDGAS

3% by weight Ozone Concentration

CFS-14 470 25.8 2.0 29.0 12.1 7.65 1.09 4.80 8.55



### DIMENSIONS

Model Length Width Height Weight

Units mm inch mm inch mm inch kg lb

CFS-1 720 28.4 370 14.6 800 31.5 ~50 ~110

CFS-3 720 28.4 370 14.6 800 31.5 ~70 ~155

CFS-7 1000 39.4 450 17.7 800 31.5 ~200 ~440

CFS-14 1300 51.2 670 26.4 1450 57.1 ~420 ~926



### Contact your local representative
or visit our website: www.ozonia.com

Ozonia Ltd Dubendorf, Switzerland Tel.: +41 (0)44 801 85 11 Ozonia North America Elmwood Park, NJ, USA Tel.: +1 (0)201 794 31 00

Ozonia France Rueil-Malmaison, France Tel.: +33 (0)1 46 25 39 50 Triogen Ltd Glasgow, Scotland Tel.: +44 (0)141 810 48 61 Ozonia Korea Co., Ltd Seoul, Korea Tel.: +82 (0)2 3453 9182 Ozonia OOO Nizhny Novgorod, Russia Tel .: +7 (8312) 166 256
Ozonia China Shanghai, China Tel.: +86 (0)2 162478020 Ozonia Japan Tokyo, Japan Tel.: +81 (0)3 34375452 • Performance based on a cooling water inlet temperature of 20°C / 68°F

• Feedgas inlet pressure: 3 to 8 barg / 45 to 115

psig for air and 2.5 to 8 barg / 35 to 115 psig for oxygen

• Feedgas dew-point: -65°C / -85°F or drier at

atmospheric pressure

• Gas volumes: Nm 3 /h at 0°C, atmospheric

pressure; scfm at 70°F, atmospheric pressure

• Design altitude: 1000 m.a.s.l. (10000 ft.a.s.l.) Reduced performance above

• Ambient temp.: 5 to 40 °C / 41 to 104°F

• Humidity: <65% (yearly average)

• Protection class: IP 42

• Colour: RAL 1013 (pearl white)

• Standards: SN-EN / IEC / ISO

• Conformity: CE 

# OZAT ® 

# CFS-2G Compact Ozone Generators

TECHNICAL DATA

# MEMCOR XS® 48

PROPOSAL FOR MILWAUKEE BALLAST WATER TREATMENT

Budget Quotation September 11, 2007BUDGET QUOTE

MILWAUKEE BALLAST WA TER TR EATMENT Page 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Siemens Water Technologies is pleased to offer a proposal for the MEMCOR XS® packaged water treatment plant, a pre

- engineered, skid

- mounted, low

- pressure membrane filtration system. As the world leader in water and wastewater p

rocess equipment, Siemens Water Technologies has the unique qualifications and experience necessary to provide you with advanced, state

- of

- the

- art process equipment solutions to meet the specific requirements of your water treatment facility. Our experien ced process engineers have designed the MEMCOR XS to deliver the following operational and design criteria:

 High quality filtered water with turbidity less than 0.1 NTU and proven rejection of pathogens

 Fully automatic membrane integrity test

 High solids capacity and long module life

 Control system complete with all necessary functions for fully automated operation

 Skid mounted, pre

- assembled system

 Factory tested and configured for easier start

- up

 Mechanism for simple side removal of membrane modules

Tod ay, MEMCOR membrane plants treat more than 1,000,000,000 gallons per day globally in applications ranging from wastewater reclamation to drinking water to high

- purity industrial water, proving the depth of experience of Siemens Water Technologies in the

me mbrane filtration market. Siemens Water Technologies’ leadership in engineering, research and development, together with the greatest experience in the global membrane water market, ensures the minimum risk across all facets of project execution. Our las ting partnerships with utilities, engineers and construction groups demonstrate this. Additionally, as a Siemens business, Siemens Water Technologies is backed by a world

- leader in control and instrumentation engineering with unmatched experience in the

e xecution of successful projects.

Thank you for your interest in Siemens Water Technologies’ line of MEMCOR Products. We hope that in your review of our proposal, you will find the information to be complete and that you will conclude that Siemens Water Te chnologies offers the best overall value for your project. Should you require any additional information please contact us.

Sincerely,

Russ Davis Technical Sales Manager Telephone: 630

- 248

- 9096 Facsimile: 630

- 839

- 0854 E

- mail: Calvin.R.Davis@Siemens.c omBUDGET QUOTE

MILWAUKEE BALLAST WA TER TR EATMENT Page 2 

## 1 DESIGN BASIS

This section details the design basis of the equipment offered.



### 1.1 Feed and Filtrate Quality

The feed to the system must be chemically compatible with the CMF unit, the membrane and other module components. In general, PVdF membranes are resi stant to oxidizing feeds but sensitive to alkalinity. The feed water shall not contain (i) any polar organic solvents (such as Acetone); (ii) have a pH greater than 10; or (iii) contain any water treatment polymers (anionic, cationic or else). If the
pres ence of oil and grease or fibrous material is suspected, consult Memcor. The feed water must be pre

screened (500 microns, included with this proposal) to protect the membrane fibers. The pre

- screening will prevent solids from building up in the fiber bu ndles causing fiber damage. The feed must comply with the levels of chemicals set forth in the following table for performance and life warranties to be valid :

Table 1.1 Feed Water Quality Specifications

PARAMETER UNITS AVERAGE MAX OR RANGE Temperature 1 Deg C * * Total Organic Carbon 1 mg/L * * Turbidity 1 NTU * * Alkalinity mg/L as CaCO 3 * *

1 Customer must confirm for filtrate quality guarantee and membrane warranty.

The equipment offered will provide the following filtrate quality:

Table 1.2 Filt rate Quality Specifications

PARAMETER UNITS QUALITY (95%ile) Turbidity NTU < 0.1 Suspended Solids mg/L < 1.0 Silt Density Index (SDI) < 3.0
Particle Removal 2 Log Removal > 4.0

2 As measured by Siemens Water Technologies’ standard Air Hold Test for r emoval of particles 3.0+ microns in size.BUDGET QUOTE

MILWAUKEE BALLAST WA TER TR EATMENT Page 3 

### 1.2 Process Design

The proposed system has been designed based on the following process parameters:

 1, MEMCOR XS® 48

o Filtrate Flow: 500 ,000 GPD maximum

o Instantaneous Flux Rate: 39 GFD

o Backwash Interval: 30 mi nutes

o Maintenance Wash Interval: Daily (24 hours)

o Clean

- In

- Place (CIP) Interval: Monthly (30 days)



### 1.3 Recovery

The system proposed will operate at the following daily average recovery:

 1, MEMCO

R XS® 48 > 95 %BUDGET QUOTE

MILWAUKEE BALLAST WA TER TR EATMENT Page 4 

### 1.4 Footprint

The MEMCOR XS has been pre

- engine ered to minimize system footprint. Each of the units in the proposed system has the following dimensions:

 1, MEMCOR XS 48

o Length = 171.5 inches

 Additional 84 inches required for service area

o Width = 94 inches

o Height = 100 inches

o Footprint = 171.5” x 94” O R 112 square feet

 255.5” x 94” OR 190.3 square feet including service area

The 2, MEMCOR XS 48 system at Oak Creek, CO shows the need for additional service area to access the membrane mod ule racks.BUDGET QUOTE

MILWAUKEE BALLAST WA TER TR EATMENT Page 5 

## 2 SYSTEM DESCRIPTION

2.1 General Overview

The MEMCOR XS® is a pre

- engineered membrane filtration system that utilizes advanced, low

- pressure membrane technology to achiev e a compact and robust advanced treatment package. It is an integral factory

- preassembled treatment plant that contains many of the operational features of the most advanced municipal facilities. The highly automated design provides many important featur es to meet the demands of the most stringent environmental requirements.

The compact design of MEMCOR XS systems minimizes footprint requirements while the unique ability to remove the membrane racks from the side of the tanks reduces overhead requiremen ts. These features allow the MEMCOR XS to meet the most difficult installation requirements. All MEMCOR XS units are preassembled, skid

-

mounted and factory tested to minimize onsite labor and expedite the installation and commissioning of the treatment p lant.



### 2.2 Hollow Fiber Membrane Modules

The main component of the MEMCOR XS is the polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF) membrane module. A module forms a serviceable filter element that can be removed for repair or replacement. Each module is cylindrical in shape and weighs about 14 pounds, making it very easy to handle.
Each module contains thousands of hollow fibers surrounded by a protective plastic screen and sealed with polyurethane pots at both ends. The top pot allows filtered water to pass from the hollow inner core or lumen of the membrane fibers to the filtrate manifold. The bottom pot seals the ends of the fibers but allows low

- pressure process air to pass through a series of holes into the fiber bundle and around the fibers during backwash.

A small ma

nifold assembly connects four modules into a grouping, or clover, with top and bottom connections. Each top clover collects the filtered water from its four modules while the bottom connections distribute scour air evenly to the modules. A manifold assem bly connects the top clovers via a header for filtrate collection. A double o

- ring design provides a robust mechanical seal between the feed and filtered water side of the process. A lower manifold assembly also provides for the distribution of scour air to the bottom clovers.BUDGET QUOTE

MILWAUKEE BALLAST WA TER TR EATMENT Page 6 

## 3 PROCESS DESCRIPTION

3.1 Normal Filtration

The outside to inside filtration mechanism of hollow fiber membranes is quite simple. A low

- pressure suction is applied to the filtrate side, or inside, of the hollow fibers by the filtrate p ump. This suction effect causes feed water to pass through the porous membrane walls and into the fiber lumens, or inner core. While the feed water passes through the membrane walls the particles in the water are left behind, on the exterior of the fiber wall. During this process, all solids and particulates greater than 0.04 microns in size are rejected at the surface of the fibers while clean water, or filtrate, continues on, through the hollow fiber lumens, into the filtrate collection headers and out of the system.

A variable speed filtrate pump maintains the filtrate flow through each MEMCOR XS ® unit. The filtrate flow is a setpoint value that can be adjusted via the user interface. As suspended materials accumulate on the membrane walls the flow t hrough the membrane fibers can degrade unless the suction pressure is increased. To maintain a constant filtrate flow rate through the system additional suction pressure is required to overcome the resistance created by a continuously increasing fouling l ayer on the exterior of the membrane walls. As the fouling layer on the membrane surfaces increases the driving force for filtration, known as trans

- membrane pressure (TMP), increases. As the TMP rises, the filtrate pump will increase its speed to mainta in the filtrate flow setpoint.



### 3.2 Backwash

The process of physically reducing the fouling layer, known as backwash, commences automatically after a set interval (usually 15

- 60 minutes) for a set duration of 2 to 3 minutes. The backwash cycle interval and du

ration are dependent upon feed water conditions and are operator adjustable.
There are two physical processes used during backwash: air scour and reverse filtration. The air scour process utilizes low pressure air introduced into the bottom clovers and d istributed throughout the modules. The air bubbles quickly rise along the outside of the fibers and “scour” the fiber surfaces, removing the solids accumulated there. Reverse filtration, or liquid backwash, occurs when the filtrate pump pushes clean wate r backwards through the lumens and walls of the membrane fibers, removing more of the fouling layer on the membrane exterior surfaces.

The air scour and reverse filtration processes work together during backwash to remove a significant portion of deposited solids on the membrane outer surfaces. These solids are removed from the system when the backwash water is drained from the membrane tank. The membrane tank is then refilled with raw water and the system returns to normal filtration. The reverse filtration, or liquid backwash, process uses clean water to

remove particle s from the exterior surface of the membrane fibers.BUDGET QUOTE

MILWAUKEE BALLAST WA TER TR EATMENT Page 7 

### 3.3 Maintenance Wash

A chemical maintenance wash can be performed on a daily to weekly basis for MEMCOR XS ® systems, extending the time between CIP procedures. The maintenance wash interval is dependent upon raw water conditions and is adjustable.
Depending upon the applicatio n and feed water characteristics, the maintenance wash will use either sodium hypochlorite or an acid (citric acid or a mineral acid) to make up the chemical solution. During the maintenance wash the modules are exposed to the chemical solution for a shor t period of time. The chemical solution causes a portion of the fouling layer on the membrane surfaces to be removed and thereby decreases the resistance to filtrate flow and operating TMP and extends the time between chemical clean

- in

- place (CIP) procedu res (described below).
After a normal backwash, the membrane tank is filled with raw water. The water is recirculated using the filtrate pump and the decided

- upon chemical is introduced in

- line to achieve the desired concentration. Recirculation is follo wed by a soak, tank drain down, liquid backwash (without air), rinse and filter to waste steps. The membrane tank is then filled with raw water and returned to filtration. The maintenance wash sequence takes approximately 30 minutes for completion.BUDGET QUOTE

MILWAUKEE BALLAST WA TER TR EATMENT Page 8 

### 3.4 Clea

n - In

- Place (CIP)

A more intense chemical cleaning of the membrane is required when the TMP at the design flow rate reaches a maximum setpoint (caused by fouling of the membrane). The CIP procedure is designed to dissolve, degrade or detach the accumulated foulants on the membrane wall by the use of chemical solutions.

Up to two chemical solutions are used for chemical cleaning:

 An acid solution made up from either a mineral acid or citric acid to remove inorganic fouling, and/or

 A sodium hypochlorite solu tion to remove organic fouling.

Following a normal backwash the membrane tank is filled with raw water. The water is then heated by recirculating the water through the in

- line immersion heater.
While the membrane tank is refilled the relevant chemical (ch emicals and chemical storage supplied by Others) is introduced in

- line either manually through the standard eductor or automatically by an optional metering pump. The chemical solution is recirculated through the unit, after which it is allowed to soak fo r a period of time before the membrane tank is drained. The operator has the option to perform repeatable aeration/soak cycles during an acid CIP. Another backwash sequence follows the soak step and is discharged to appropriate waste facilities (supplied by others) via gravity. Finally, there is a period of filtration to waste during which the quality of the filtrate is checked to ensure that no residual chemical is discharged with product water.BUDGET QUOTE

MILWAUKEE BALLAST WA TER TR EATMENT Page 9 

### 3.5 Membrane Integrity Test

To ensure quality of filtered wat er, MEMCOR XS ® systems incorporate a membrane integrity testing system. The integrity test utilizes the properties of the membrane to determine the integrity of the membrane fiber and of the system as a whole. Siemens Water Technologies’ automated Air Ho ld Test can detect a single broken fiber in a module element while indirect methods like particle counters may not detect any problem at all. The Air Hold Test can validate greater than 5

- log removal of particles greater than 3 microns and also assures th at the mechanical seal between the feed and filtrate sides is not compromised.

The main advantages of the MEMCOR Integrity Management System are:

 Proven and independently validated.

 Trended information on the integrity of each membrane cell.

 Minimal opera tor attendance.

The automatic Air Hold Test allows membrane integrity with Log Reduction Values (LRV) of up to 5.3 LRV to be validated. The Air Hold Test is standard on all MEMCOR XS units, has a duration of five minutes, and is performed by:

 Applying a

ir at a pressure below the bubble point (15 psi) to one side of the membrane

 Isolating the membrane

 Measuring the decline in pressure over time.

One significant advantage of the Air Hold Test is that it requires no additional equipment. The air supply , valves and pressure monitors are already integral parts of the MEMCOR XS unit. This enables the test to be conducted automatically by the control system, including logging of the test result, calculating the LRV and generating of an alarm if the result is outside of pre

- determined limits.



### 3.6 Membrane Fiber Repair

Membrane modules can be pin repaired in order to prolong their life. A module is repaired by placing the module inside a test housing and providing an outer seal at the top of the module. Air is applied to the outside of the fiber bundle and water poured onto the open fibers on the filtrate side. If a fiber is compromised, bubbles escaping from the end of the fiber can be easily identified. The fiber is then permanently sealed using a plastic p in. The red line shows how a leak in the fiber is reflected by a pressure loss over time.BUDGET QUOTE

MILWAUKEE BALLAST WA TER TR EATMENT Page 10 

## 4 CONTROLS DESCRIPTION

Each MEMCOR XS® system is equipped with a complete control system including a pre

- programmed Programmable Logic Controller (PLC), required inputs / outputs (I/O), and Human Machine Interface (HMI). The PLC is capable of directing operation of all equipment functions. The control system configuration is based on a n Allen Bradley Compact Logix PLC and Siemens SIMATIC MP 277 10” Colo r Touch Screen Human Machine Interface (HMI).

The PLC and HMI are located in a central Process Contro l Panel. This panel connects to each MEMCOR XS Unit Panel via Profibus DP communications network. The Profibus communications network is easily expanded to encompass additional skid

- mounted equipment such as the optional Chemical Waste Neutralization Ski d. This building block approach provides for easier installation by limiting interconnect wiring requirements. The complete control design meets NEC, and UL 508A requirements. The control panels are NEMA 4X stainless steel for a long

- lasting, attractive design. Each MEMCOR XS Unit Panel is supplied complete with the required motor c ontrol starters, circuit breakers, and variable frequency drive. Ethernet communications are provided for connection to optional Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SC ADA) systems.

The Process Control Panel utilizes the following main components:

 Allen Bradley Compact Logix PLC

 Siemens SIMATIC MP 277 10” HMI

 Digital and Analog I/O Modules

 24 VDC Power Supply

 MultiTech® MultiAccess TM RAS Modem

Each MEMCOR XS Unit Panel includes the following components:

 Digital and Analog I/O Modules

 24 VDC Power Supply

 Blower and Heater Starters

 Filtrate Pump Variable Frequency Drive (VFD)

All of the process functions are controlled by the PLC, which receives information from instrumen tation located throughout the system. This information, along with specific algorithms, determines process control for the system. The control system operates the equipment according to a preset treatment strategy that is field adjustable to meet changin g conditions or requirements. Included in the control design are diagnostic capabilities and automated membrane maintenance sequences.BUDGET QUOTE

MILWAUKEE BALLAST WA TER TR EATMENT Page 11 

## 5 SCOPE OF SUPPLY

5.1 Siemens Water Technologies Supplied Items

5.1.1 MEMCOR XS® System

The list below details the components supp lied as part of Siemens Water Technologies’ Standard Scope of Supply for one (1) MEMCOR XS 48 unit s

. At the heart of Siemens Water Technologies’ MEMCOR low

- pressure membrane filtration technology are the membrane modules. The submerged membrane module is made of up thousands of hollow fiber membranes fabricated of oxidant

- resistant polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF) membrane material. Modules are installed onto 316 stainless steel module support rack assemblies that can accommodate up to twenty

- four (24) mod ules. Each module support rack has six (6) groupings of four (4) membrane modules, termed clovers, consisting of top and bottom clover pieces used for filtrate collection and air distribution for the modules. The quantities of modules, rack assemblies an d membrane tanks depend on the system size, as shown below:

XS 48 DESCRIPTION

48 MEMCOR PVDF hollow fiber membrane modules.

2 316 stainless steel module support racks.

2 316 stainless steel membrane tanks.

In addition to the membrane modules, support racks and membrane tanks, there are other components included with your MEMCOR XS unit s . These additional items include:

QTY. DESCRIPTION

1 Painted carbon steel skid with support frames.

1 320 gallon filtrate storage tank for liquid backwash supply.

1 12 kW i mmersion heater for CIP solution temperature control.

QTY. DESCRIPTIONBUDGET QUOTE

MILWAUKEE BALLAST WA TER TR EATMENT Page 12 1 10 hp Gould’s p ump with TEFC motor for filtrate suction and liquid backwash supply.

1 FPZ M

- series regenerative b lower with integral silencer to provide air flow for backwas h air scour.

1 Compressor package with GX

- 2 FFT compressor and 60 gallon ASME horizontal receiver.

1 Control air regulator assembly with isolation valve, coalescing filter and housing, regulator, and pressure relief valve.

1 Butterfly valve with positio n feedback for feed flow regulating.

1 lot Butterfly valves with manual or pneumatic actuators and stainless steel discs for process control.

1 lot Instrumentation integral to the MEMCOR XS unit including level control for the membr ane and filtrate stora ge tanks , blower discharge flow transmitter, Siemens temperature sensor, Ashcroft pressure gauges, Siemens pressure transmitter and Rosemount pH analyzer.

1 Siemens sitrans magnetic flow meter for the filtrate line.

1 Custom tools package including a mem brane pin repair kit (submerged module test fixture), manual module removal tool kit and associated hand tools.

1 Automatic chemical feed system with two (2) metering pumps for sodium hypochlorite and acid addition. The dosing pumps are shipped loose for placement on top of 55

- gallon chemical storage drums with flexible tubing carrying the chemical to the MEMCOR XS unit.

1 6” Fluid Engineering automatic backwashing strainer

.

1 Spare parts package including recommended MEMCOR XS spare parts for select

me chanical and electrical equipment and components.

2 Turbidimeter package including one (1) Hach 1720E turbidimeter, one (1) Hach SC100 controller, one (1) PVC bubble trap, and one (1) lot of mounting hardware.BUDGET QUOTE

MILWAUKEE BALLAST WA TER TR EATMENT Page 13 5.1.2 Controls
The control system consists of a n Allen Bradley Compact Logix PLC mounted in a NEMA 4X stainless steel enclosure with adequate remote I/O and software to provide complete automated control of the MEMCOR XS system. The following items form the backbone of the controls system provided:

QTY

. DESCRIPTION

1 Process Control Panel to coordinate operation of all Siemens Water Technologies

- supplied equipment.

1 Allen Bradley Compact Logix PLC.

1 Siemens SIMATIC MP 277 Human Machine Interface (HMI).

1 MEMCOR XS Unit Control Panel to relay infor mation to/from the Process Control Panel and the individual MEMCOR XS unit s

.

1 Variable frequency drive (VFD) for control of the filtrate pump.

1 lot Digital and analog I/O (Input/Output) modules.

1 24 VDC power supply.

1 lot Solenoid valves for contro l air distribution.BUDGET QUOTE

MILWAUKEE BALLAST WA TER TR EATMENT Page 14 5.1.3 Engineering Support In addition to the mechanical components, instruments, electrical components and control system supplied, each MEMCOR XS® project is supported by Siemens Water Technologies’ award

- winning field service group and e

xperienced engineering team. From the moment the purchase order is approved the engineering team will begin on the submittal drawings and from the moment your MEMCOR XS system arrives at site a field service representative will be there to supervise and a ssist with the unloading, installation and commissioning of the unit. The next table details the personal support your MEMCOR XS project will receive.

QTY. DESCRIPTION

N/A Standard MEMCOR XS system drawings (not project specific).

3 sets Standard MEMCOR XS O&M manuals in English language (not project specific).

1 Siemens Water Technologies Project Engineer assigned to the project to ensure that the supplied system is engineered to perfectly fit the needs of the customer.

1 Siemens Water Technologies Pr oject Manager assigned to the project to successfully execute the project.

1 Siemens Water Technologies Field Service Engineer on site to commission and start up the MEMCOR XS unit and train the operators.BUDGET QUOTE

MILWAUKEE BALLAST WA TER TR EATMENT Page 15 

### 5.2 Items Supplied By Others

While Siemens Water T echnologies will supply a completely functional MEMCOR XS system with superior engineering support, not everything required for proper operation of the proposed unit is included. Items to be supplied by others are detailed in the following table.

QTY. DES CRIPTION

1 lot Concrete works to support the MEMCOR XS unit s and any other equipment supplied by Siemens Water Technologies.

N/A Unloading of equipment from delivery carrier.

N/A Engineering and supervision of all equipment and labor for civil works inc luding building, anchor bolts and/or expansion anchors, if required.

N/A Positioning and installation of equipment, including membrane rack assembly.

N/A Protected storage of equipment at jobsite.

1 lot Raw water piping to the MEMCOR XS® unit s

.
1 lot F iltrate piping from the MEMCOR XS unit s to storage or other treatment system.

1 lot Interconnecting piping between the MEMCOR XS unit s and any ancillary equipment.

1 lot Pipe supports and hangers for all piping not supplied by Siemens Water Technologies.

1 lot Plumbing associated with floor drains and/or emergency and safety wash stations.

N/A Assembly and testing of all piping outside of the MEMCOR XS system.

1 Disposal system for backwash and maintenance clean waste.

1 Switchboard or distribution bo ard housing incoming connections, fused isolator, metering equipment and fused circuit breakers.

1 lot Power to the MEMCOR XS system and all other equipment supplied by Siemens Water Technologies. This power shall be 460/3/60 for motors and 120/1/60 for controls. This includes any and all cabling trays, fittings and supports, if required.

N/A Supply and installation of building power, lighting, main service disconnects and control panels, if required.

QTY. DESCRIPTIONBUDGET QUOTE

MILWAUKEE BALLAST WA TER TR EATMENT Page 16 1 lot Interconnect instrument and /or power cabling and supports (all of Siemens Water Technologies’ electrical terminations are at terminal strips in control panel we supply).

1 lot Interconnect Profibus communication cabling between Process Control Panel and each MEMCOR XS Unit Panel.

1 lot Safety showers and other personal protection equipment.

N/A Compliance permitting and approval (Federal, State and/or local).

1 lot All chemicals required for MEMCOR XS system cleaning, maintenance, and/or operation

N/A Taxes, bonds, etc. not spec ifically listed in this proposal.

1 lot Any other items not specifically detailed in Siemens Water Technologies’ Scope of Supply.BUDGET QUOTE

MILWAUKEE BALLAST WA TER TR EATMENT Page 17 

### 5.3 Optional Siemens Water Technologies Supplied Items

In addition to the standard equipment supplied with your MEMCOR XS® uni t s , Siemens Water Technologies can supply optional equipment and services upon request. Pricing for these items is available upon request and may impact the delivery time. These optional items are detailed in the table below.

DESCRIPTION

Alternate elect

rical package (208/204V or 575V

– 3 Ph only).

Chemical waste neutralization system including one (1) skid , two (2) metering pumps (one for sodium hydroxide and one for sodium bisulfite addition), two EZ shelves to mount the chemical pumps to 55 gallon che mical drums (drums by others) one (1) tank ( 8 50 gallons for MEMCOR XS 24, 1,500 gallons for MEMCOR XS 48 ) for chemical waste storage and mixin g , one (1) recirculation pump, one (1) inline pH analyzer, one (1) inline chlorine analyzer and one (1) lot of val ves for flow control.

Particle counter package including one (1) Hach PCX 2200 particle counter, one (1) water weir flow controller, one (1) PVC bubble trap, and one (1) copy of Hach’s Vista data collection software.

Supervisory Control and Data Acquisit ion (SCADA) system including a computer for local operator interface (a Dell PC with 2.4 GHz Pentium IV processor (or better), CD

- RW, 17” LCD Monitor, 512 MB RAM, 40 GB HD, and color ink jet printer) with the following software installed: Wonderware Intouc h interface software with one (1) runtime license, Norton Antivirus, Microsoft Office, and PCAnywhere.BUDGET QUOTE

MILWAUKEE BALLAST WA TER TR EATMENT Page 18 

## 6 SERVICE AGREEMENT

As an option, Siemens Water Technologies can offer a Service Agreement to assist with the maintenance of the system. The services w ill be provided from one the 80 local service branches that Siemens Water Technologies has implemented throughout North America. In most cases, a well qualified service technician can respond to your request for service in less than two hours depending on service workload and subject to other conditions.

Location of the Service Branches

Our service program is designed as a preventive maintenance program designed to limit mechanical breakdown, ensure optimal performance of the equipment and maximize pl ant life. The program covers the equipment supplied by Memcor including the filtration unit and ancillary equipment.

The program is available in four basic levels that can be customized to you’re your specific needs. The Bronze & Gold programs are base d on quarterly service visits wh ile the Silver & Pl atinum programs are based on monthly service visits. During these visits, our service technician may perform any or all of the following tasks.BUDGET QUOTE

MILWAUKEE BALLAST WA TER TR EATMENT Page 19 Inspect & Record As part of the service program your syst em will receive a custom configured data collection tool with all the parameters of your system clearly defined. You will be notified immediately if the current data is outside the engineered limits of your system. Corrective action and potential problem s will be clearly outlined in a follow up letter to your designated personnel. Our technicians have been trained to analyze the data and take the proper corrective measures for your equipment. This will enable you to predict maintenance, schedule downtim e, and minimize your operating costs.

Mechanical & Electrical Function Checks This service is the equivalent to a start up function check for the system acceptance (not validation). Our technician will check the equipment thoroughly and record operationa l performance data that can be compared to the start up data or serve as benchmark for future operation check up. Th is service will uncover potential risks before real problems occur.

Scheduled Maintenance & Parts Replacement

Your membrane fi ltration sys tem will produce high quality water for many years during which parts will wear and require replacement. By scheduling the replacement of these parts through you Service Agreement, the system downtime due to mechanical break down will be minimized.

Calib ration Services Our service technicians are factory

- trained to calibrate the instrumentation supplied with the system on

site. When the calibration must be performed at the factory, we can provide a rental instrument in the meantime. Regular calibration and calibration check will ensure optimal operation of the system and accurate reporting to Regulatory Agencies.

Analytical Support Your system will be double checked in the field by Siemens technicians as scheduled. Siemens also supplies comprehensive w ater analysis to meet your specific requirements.

The basic four

- level Service Agreement can be tailored to meet your specific service and maintenance needs. Siemens Water Technologies can also offer the following additional services as part of a customi zed package:

Process Audits Our Process Audit is designed to monitor and check system performance of the CMF units. During the Process Audit, one of our Process Engineer will be sent to site to review the entire operation of the system and all operation d

ata. This process usually includes conducting a complete chemical cleaning (CIP), maintenance wash and backwash to verify the effectiveness of the basic operation sequences. UponBUDGET QUOTE

MILWAUKEE BALLAST WA TER TR EATMENT Page 20 completion of the review, our Process Engineer will be able to make recomme ndations to optimize the plant operation , including mechanical and/or process changes to improve efficiency and cost

effective ness

. These recommendations will be documented in a Process Audit report submitted to the plant supervisor.

Training Seminar
Pla nt operators are key in the successful operation of the system and Siemens Water Technologies takes recurring training of existing staff or new hires very seriously. A Training Seminar is designed as a yearly refresher course for plant operators and manag ement in the operation and maintenance techniques specific to the Memcor membrane system. This seminar is a unique opportunity for plant operators and management to interact with Memcor staff and get detailed answers on specific issues. The training semi nar uses audio/visual support material that can be referred to later and serve as an additional source of knowledge and information. I n many cases, this material is complemented with a printed scr ipt of the slide presentations.BUDGET QUOTE

MILWAUKEE BALLAST WA TER TR EATMENT Page 21 

## 7 PROPOSAL AND ORDER F ORM

To (Purchaser): Ballast Water Treatment Reference: 1, MEMCOR® XS 48 WTP

Milwaukee, WI

Proposal Date: September 11, 2007 Siemens Water Technologies proposes to furnish materials, equipment and/or technical service in accordance with Proposal Numb er 07PC5352CMM. Materials, equipment and/or technical service not shown below or on attachments to this proposal are EXCLUDED:
Equipment Description: 1, XS 48 System

The Total Price shown includes field service time sufficient to start

- up and com mission the units and train the operator at the jobsite. Additional technical service will be billed at the rate described in this document, plus travel and living expenses with 5% mark up.

Total Price $340,000

(Not including duty taxes or use taxes) This price is firm for 30 days after proposa l date. Prices are subject to 1.5% per month escalation if shipments are delayed by purchaser.

Payment Terms: 10% on order, net 30 15% on Engineering Submittals, staged submittals allowed, net 30 25% on order of major rotating equipment, net 30 45% on delivery, partial deliveries accepted, net 30 5% on startup Full payment not to exceed 120 days after shipment

Freight: F.O.B. shipping point, with freight prepaid to the jobsit e.

Shipments Via: Truck Shipments: Estimated 12

- 14 weeks after receipt of full information and approved drawings when required. Drawings: Three (3) sets of submittal drawings, if required, will be issued approximately 6

- 8 weeks after receipt

and ap proval of purchase order.

Manuals: Three (3) copies of English language owner’s manuals are included. Additional manuals will cost $150

each.

NOTE: Any order resulting from this proposal is subject to the terms and conditions attached. Purchaser’s

accep tance of this offer is expressly limited to such terms and conditions without change or addition.

PURCHASER PRESENTED BY: Name: Signature: Address: Approved by Siemens Water Technologies Signature: By: Title: Signature: Date: Date:BUDGET QUOTE

MILWAUKEE BALLAST WA TER TR EATMENT Page 22 NO TES:

These Notes are an integral part of the Terms and Conditions

1. On award to Siemens , the Terms and Conditions attached shall be included as a basic part of the purchase order and this order is subject to acceptance and acknowledgment by Siemens

.

2. For ac

ceptance, your order must state, "This order is in accordance with Siemens Proposal Number 07PC5352CMM including the stated terms and conditions".

3. We call your attention to the "ACCEPTANCE" statement on the Proposal and Order Form limiting acceptance to 30 days from date of proposal.

4. If Purchaser is a prime contractor on a municipal project, a copy of the payment bond to the Owner must be furnished to Siemens

. 5. If Purchaser is a subcontractor on a municipal project and Siemens does not have payment assurance from the prime contractor's payment bond to Owner, we must receive payment assurance by one of the following as you select:

a. a payment bond to Siemens
, b. a standby letter of credit from your bank conditioned to acceptance of a sight draft in case of nonpayme

nt,

c. payment assurance in the form of an agreement with your prime contractor, guaranteeing to underwrite your payment to Siemens

. 6. The Purchaser shall provide indoor or covered storage to properly protect the equipment to prevent deterioration of equipment during storage at site. For membrane modules stored at the job site prior to installation, the Contractor or Owner shall provide storage conditions in strict accordance with Siemens Water technologies requirements.

7. SHOP PAINTING. Motors, gearmotors, grat ing, and center drives will be supplied with the manufacturer's standard paint system.

8. Fabricated steel will be cleaned by sandblast and painted as outlined in the equipment descriptions.
9. It is our intention to ship major steel components as soon as fabric ated, often before drive motors and other manufactured components. Unless you can insure that shop primed steel will be field painted within sixty (60) days after primer has been applied, we encourage you to purchase these components bare.

10. Siemens cannot accept responsibility for rusting or deterioration of shop applied prime coatings on delivered equipment if the surfaces thus primed have not been field painted within sixty (60) days after the manufacturer's standard primers have been applied. Other prim ers may have less durability.

11. Engineer's complete plans and specifications were not available to Siemens for review prior to this proposal issue. Our firm price is based on supplying Siemens standard designBUDGET QUOTE

MILWAUKEE BALLAST WA TER TR EATMENT Page 23 details. Price adjustments may be necessary if there are plans and specifications which require alternate design details.

12. Recent market conditions have resulted in exceptionally volatile prices for both stainless and carbon steels. The prices quoted are subject to adjustment that reflects changes in t he CRU Steel Price Index Forecast published by CRU International at www.cruspifutures.com . If the index published at the time of each shipment exceeds the estimated index, our price may be increased to cover t his discrepancy. It is understood and agreed that it shall by Siemens’ option whether or not escalation is invoked, should the estimated index be exceeded.

13. If this proposal includes spare parts or replacement parts, it is strict Siemens policy to not allo w returns of such items without prior written approval. It is the purchaser's responsibility to determine and confirm the need for such items prior to placement of an order. Most items supplied by Siemens are of a custom manufacture and cannot be restock ed. Our Customer Service group is available to offer advice and per diem service calls, to help you evaluate the exact parts required.

14. Customer causing delays: when Siemens Water Technologies has purchased or fabricated the equipment (including the membra ne modules) and the buyer of the equipment is not ready to receive shipment of said equipment or the buyer is unable to provide appropriate storage conditions for the equipment (including membrane modules) as specified by Siemens Water Technologies, the bu yer shall:

a. Provide written notification to Siemens Water technologies, at least 15 calendar days prior to the scheduled shipment date, advising to hold the goods for later delivery.

b. At the scheduled shipping date, the buyer shall pay any monies that would have been normally paid to Siemens Water Technologies upon receipt of the equipment at site. If pre

- agreed, the buyer can inspect the goods at Siemens Water Technologies storage site after the scheduled shipping date at his or her own cost.

c. For any month the project is delayed after the shipping date, the buyer shall pay Siemens Water technologies a monthly storing fee equal to 1.5% (0.049 % per calendar day) of the equipment price (net 30). This fee will be invoiced monthly to the buyer or added to the fi nal invoice as agreed between the buyer and Siemens Water Technologies.BUDGET QUOTE

MILWAUKEE BALLAST WA TER TR EATMENT Page 24 

### STANDARD TERMS OF SA LE SIEMENS WATER TECHNO LOGIES CORP

Applicable Terms These terms govern the purchase and sale of the equipment and related services, if any (collectively, "Equipm ent"), referred to in Seller’s purchase order, quotation, proposal or acknowledgment, as the case may be ("Seller’s Documentation"). Whether these terms are included in an offer or an acceptance by Seller, such offer or acceptance is conditioned on Buyer’ s assent to these terms. Seller rejects all additional or different terms in any of Buyer’s forms or documents.

Payment Buyer shall pay Seller the full purchase price as set forth in Seller’s Documentation. Unless Seller’s Documentation provides otherwi se, freight, storage, insurance and all taxes, duties or other governmental charges relating to the Equipment shall be paid by Buyer. If Seller is required to pay any such charges, Buyer shall immediately reimburse Seller. All payments are due within 30 days after receipt of invoice. Buyer shall be charged the lower of 1 1⁄2% interest per month or the maximum legal rate on all amounts not received by the due date and shall pay all of Seller’s reasonable costs (including attorneys’ fees) of collecting

amoun ts due but unpaid. All orders are subject to credit approval.

Delivery Delivery of the Equipment shall be in material compliance with the schedule in Seller’s Documentation. Unless Seller’s Documentation provides otherwise, Delivery terms are F.O.B. Sel ler’s facility.

Ownership of Materials All devices, designs (including drawings, plans and specifications), estimates, prices, notes, electronic data and other documents or information prepared or disclosed by Seller, and all related intellectual property rights, shall remain Seller’s property. Seller grants Buyer a non

exclusive, non

- transferable license to use any such material solely for Buyer’s use of the Equipment. Buyer shall not disclose any such material to third parties without Seller’s prior

wr itten consent.

Changes Seller shall not implement any changes in the scope of work described in Seller’s Documentation unless Buyer and Seller agree in writing to the details of the change and any resulting price, schedule or other contractual modificatio ns. This includes any changes necessitated by a change in applicable law occurring after the effective date of any contract including these terms.

Warranty Subject to the following sentence, Seller warrants to Buyer that the Equipment shall materially co nform to the description in Seller’s Documentation and shall be free from defects in material and workmanship. The foregoing warranty shall not apply to any Equipment that is specified or otherwise demanded by Buyer and is not manufactured or selected by Seller, as to which (i) Seller hereby assigns to Buyer, to the extent assignable, any warranties made to Seller and (ii) Seller shall have no other liability to Buyer underBUDGET QUOTE

MILWAUKEE BALLAST WA TER TR EATMENT Page 25 warranty, tort or any other legal theory. If Buyer gives Seller prompt written not ice of breach of this warranty within 18 months from delivery or 1 year from acceptance, whichever occurs first (the "Warranty Period"), Seller shall, at its sole option and as Buyer’s sole remedy, repair or replace the subject parts or refund the purchase price. If Seller determines that any claimed breach is not, in fact, covered by this warranty, Buyer shall pay Seller its then customary charges for any repair or replacement made by Seller. Seller’s warranty is conditioned on Buyer’s (a) operating and maintaining the Equipment in accordance with Seller’s instructions, (b) not making any unauthorized repairs or alterations, and (c) not being in default of any payment obligation to Seller. Seller’s warranty does not cover damage caused by chemical action or abrasive material, misuse or improper installation (unless installed by Seller). THE WARRANTIES SET FORTH IN THIS SECTION ARE SELLER’S SOLE AND EXCLUSIVE WARRANTIES AND ARE SUBJECT TO SECTION 10 BELOW. SELLER MAKES NO OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EX PRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR PURPOSE.

Indemnity Seller shall indemnify, defend and hold Buyer harmless from any claim, cause of action or liability incurred by Buyer as a result of third pa rty claims for personal injury, death or damage to tangible property, to the extent caused by Seller's negligence. Seller shall have the sole authority to direct the defense of and settle any indemnified claim. Seller’s indemnification is conditioned on Buyer (a) promptly, within the Warranty Period, notifying Seller of any claim, and (b) providing reasonable cooperation in the defense of any claim.

Force Majeure Neither Seller nor Buyer shall have any liability for any breach (except for breach of payme nt obligations) caused by extreme weather or other act of God, strike or other labor shortage or disturbance, fire, accident, war or civil disturbance, delay of carriers, failure of normal sources of supply, act of government or any other cause beyond such party's reasonable control.

Cancellation If Buyer cancels or suspends its order for any reason other than Seller’s breach, Buyer shall promptly pay Seller for work performed prior to cancellation or suspension and any other direct costs incurred by Selle r as a result of such cancellation or suspension.

Limitation of Liability NOTWITHSTANDING ANYTHING ELSE TO THE CONTRARY, SELLER SHALL NOT BE LIABLE FOR ANY CONSEQUENTIAL, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, PUNITIVE OR OTHER INDIRECT DAMAGES, AND SELLER’S TOTAL LIABILIT Y ARISING AT ANY TIME FROM THE SALE OR USE OF THE EQUIPMENT SHALL NOT EXCEED THE PURCHASE PRICE PAID FOR THE EQUIPMENT. THESE LIMITATIONS APPLY WHETHER THE LIABILITY IS BASED ON CONTRACT, TORT, STRICT LIABILITY OR ANY OTHER THEORY.

Miscellaneous If these terms are issued in connection with a government contract, they shall be deemed to include those federal acquisition regulations that are required by law to be included. These terms, together with any quotation, purchase order or acknowledgement issued o r signed byBUDGET QUOTE

MILWAUKEE BALLAST WA TER TR EATMENT Page 26 the Seller, comprise the complete and exclusive statement of the agreement between the parties (the “Agreement”) and supersede any terms contained in Buyer’s documents, unless separately signed by Seller. No part of the Agreement may be change d or cancelled except by a written document signed by Seller and Buyer. No course of dealing or performance, usage of trade or failure to enforce any term shall be used to modify the Agreement. If any of these terms is unenforceable, such term shall be l imited only to the extent necessary to make it enforceable, and all other terms shall remain in full force and effect. Buyer may not assign or permit any other transfer of the Agreement without Seller’s prior written consent. The Agreement shall be gover ned by the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania without regard to its conflict of laws provisions.BUDGET QUOTE

MILWAUKEE BALLAST WA TER TR EATMENT Page 27 

## GENERAL WARRANTY CON DITIONS

Mechanical Warranty

1. Term of Mechanical Warranty

a. This Warranty shall commence (“Commencement Date”) on the earlier of i) initial Beneficial Use of the Goods, or ii) 6 months after the delivery of the final membrane unit to the Owner. b. This Warranty shall continue for a period of 1 year from the Commencement Date (the “Term”).

2. Repair and Replacement Conditions

a. Siemens warrants that the E quipment will be free from faulty materials, workmanship, or defect at the time of delivery. b. Siemens warrants that the Equipment will conform to Siemens’ specification, provided it is used and maintained in accordance with the recommendations of Siemens’ o peration manual.

3. Remedy

a. Siemens’ sole liability and OWNER'S exclusive remedy under this warranty shall be as follows: At Siemens’ sole discretion, the replacement or repair at the point of manufacture, or on site, by Siemens or payment by Siemens of the cost of replacement or repair of the Equipment or part thereof shown to be defective under this Warranty, where written notice of such defect is given by the OWNER to Siemens before the expiration of the Warranty Period. b. Siemens shall not be liable under this Warranty unless written notice thereof is received within the Warranty Period.

4. Mechanical Warranty Exclusions

a. Siemens shall not be required to incorporate any changes to the design or specification of the Equipment that are made after the approval of the shop drawings. b. Siemens shall not be liable for any damage or defect caused by fair wear and tear, impact, improper use or mishandling or replacement of consumable items used in the operation of the Equipment.

c. Siemens shall not be liable for any Equipme nt which has been repaired, altered, or used beyond its specification or modified in any way by any person other than an employee or representative of Siemens. d. Without prejudice to the preceding provision of this clause, Siemens shall not be liable for any damage caused by the OWNER causing or permitting any cartridges to dry or to have a moisture content below that specified in the operating instructions.

e. Siemens shall not be liable for any damage or defect caused by the Equipment being run at a higher tha n recommended pressure during the process or during the wash cycle.BUDGET QUOTE

MILWAUKEE BALLAST WA TER TR EATMENT Page 28 f. Siemens shall not be liable for any damage/defect caused by operation of the Equipment outside the parameters specified in the appropriate section of the Operating Manual even where Siemen s is aware of the existence of these conditions.



### Extended Performance and Membrane Submodule Warranty

1. Term of the Membrane Submodule Warranty

a. This Warranty shall commence (“Commencement Date”) on the earlier of i) wet start up of the equipment, or ii) 6 months a

fter the delivery of the final membrane unit to the Owner. b. This Warranty shall continue for a period of 7 years from the Commencement Date (the “Term”).

2. Repair and Replacement Conditions

a. The sole remedy of this warranty shall be to provide replacement memb rane modules per the repair or replacement schedule listed below on an as needed basis for the system purchased under this contract under the following conditions: i) If the membrane module fails Siemens’ standard integrity test and can not be repaired. ii) If a module requires pin repair on more than three occasions in any three month period or more than six occasions in any twelve month period after beneficial use of membrane equipment, it may be replaced under the terms of membrane module warranty, at the Owner 's discretion. b. Owner will return to Siemens the end of each membrane module with the serial number to qualify for a replacement module.

3. Membrane Submodule Warranty Exclusions

a. Siemens shall not be liable for the membranes if any person other than an emplo yee of Siemens or representative of Siemens has altered the membrane system. b. Without prejudice to the preceding provisions of this clause, Siemens shall not be liable for any damage caused by the Owner causing or permitting any cartridges to dry or to have a moisture content below that specified in the operating instructions.

c. Siemens shall not be liable for any damage/defect caused by chemical or physical conditions such as (but not limited to) pH, temperature or climatic factors outside recommended operati ng parameters in the appropriate section of the Operating Manual even where Siemens is aware of the existence of these conditions. d. The membrane module warranty is contingent on influent parameters consistent with the parameters determined or specified at the time of bid and/or pilot testing. Deviance from any process guarante e influent parameters may diminish or, in certain cases, void this warranty.

4. Warranty Repair and Replacement Schedule

a. First 12 Months: If a membrane submodule shall require replacemen t under the repair and replacement conditions described in section 2.b above during the first twelve (12) months of the Term, a replacement will be supplied by Siemens at no charge.BUDGET QUOTE

MILWAUKEE BALLAST WA TER TR EATMENT Page 29 b. Next 72 Months: If a membrane submodule shall require replacement under t he repair and replacement conditions described in section 2.b above during the next seventy

- two (72) months of the Term, a replacement will be supplied by Siemens and invoiced based upon a pro

- rata value of a total of eighty

- four (84) months. The pro

- rata value shall be determined using a replacement price of US$ 8 00.00 per module adjusted by the change in North American Consumer Price Index (CPI), and reducing this price by 1/84 th for each month remaining in the 84

- month period.


### Limitation of Liability

1. Not withstanding anything elsewhere herein contained, Siemens shall not be liable for any loss or damage in excess of the purchase price of the Equipment, nor any consequential loss or damage however arising. 2. The Owner acknowledges that any damage or loss suff ered by it, including any loss directly and naturally resulting in the ordinary course of events from any breach by Siemens of the Agreement for Sale shall not exceed the purchase price.

### ( This page has been intentionally left blank)

# APPENDIX E

Non-Monetary Comparison of On-Site Treatment Alternatives

### ( This page has been intentionally left blank)RATING CRITERIA DEFINITIONS FOR TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES

Criteria Rating A Definition Rating Definitions Organism Removal/Destruction A Ability to removal biological pollutants (ranging from fish to viruses) 99% removal or greater 90% to 99% removal Less than 90% removal

Chemical Usage A Level of chemical use Does not use chemicals Periodically requires chemicals Chemicals are a critical component of the alternative Energy Usage A Level of energy use Low energy
usage Moderate
energy usage Energy intensive Disruption A Potential disruption to Port of Milwaukee, shipping operations, or MMSD Minimal disruption Moderate disruption Significant disruption

Reliability A Overall reliability of the alternative relative to proven technologies High reliability Moderate reliability Low reliability

Environment A Impact of the alternative on surrounding environment Minimal impact Moderate impact Significant impact

Constructability B Technical feasibility of the alternative using standard construction techniques High feasibility Moderate feasibility Low feasibility

Flexibility B Ability of the alternative to perform effectively over a wide range of flow rates and loading conditions High ability Moderate ability Low ability

Expandability B Ability of the alternative to be expanded to accommodate phased implementation or upgraded to meet future regulations and conditions High ability Moderate ability Low ability

Compliance with Federal, State, and International (IMO) Regulations A Ability of the alternative to comply with current and future regulations High ability Moderate ability Low ability

Public Acceptance B Overall acceptance of the alternative to the general public, affected parties and stakeholders High acceptance Moderate acceptance Low acceptance

A A = Most Important, B = Moderate ly Important, C = Least ImportantRATING OF INITIAL TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES Criteria Weighting A Screening Plus UV Disinfection Screening Plus Ozonation Screening Plus Membrane Filtration Screening Plus Hydrodynamic Cavitation

30 3 3 3 3 Organism Removal/Destruction All alternatives are designed to remove at least 90% of organisms; individual components of the alternatives will have smaller removal rates
30 3 2 3 3 Chemical Usage

30 1 1 2 3 Energy Usage
Uses the least amount of energy of the alternatives
30 3 3 3 3 Disruption

30 2 2 3 2 Reliability

30 3 3 3 3 Environment

20 3 3 3 2 Constructability Not used as commonly as the other methods and therefore may be more difficult to construct

20 3 3 3 3 Flexibility

20 3 3 3 3 Expandability

30 3 3 3 3 Compliance with Federal, State, and International (IMO) Regulations
20 3 3 3 2 Public Acceptance

TOTAL WEIGHTED RATING --- 780 750 840 800

A Weighting depends on Rating Criteria: "A" is 30, "B" is 20, and "C" is 10