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 Treatment\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............................................................................................................... 32
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 Treatment\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 Treatment\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 Resources (WDNR). This project 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 review 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 the Port of Milwaukee that take part in 

international trade, with the intent of preventing the next potential invasive species from 

entering the Great Lakes via ballast water. The feasibility study included 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 water discharges and potential treatment 

locations. In addition, Brown and Caldwell conducted a review of current literature on 

ballast water treatment, and considered a potential design basis for collection, storage and 

treatment requirements. Information about shipping movements and operations was 

gathered from published studies and information 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 using 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. Significant engineering will be required as part of 

future work to confirm the actual design basis suitable for this site. 

Capture

Pumping

Conveyance Storage Treatment PumpingConveyance Transport Storage Screening Discharge Capture

Pumping

Conveyance Storage Treatment PumpingConveyance Transport Storage Screening Discharge

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

A variety of options were considered for capturing the water, including 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 connection. A direct on-board connection between an oceangoing 

vessel’s existing pipes and pumps and an onshore 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 international standards would be adopted to 

standardize these modifications. 

The options considered for transporting water 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 the amount of ballast water in the design basis made those 
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 Treatment\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 underutilized 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 alternative was determined to be a barge that would pull up 

alongside a ship and collect the ballast water. It is likely that a combination of transport 

options would be the best overall option, depending on the volume and location of the 

ballast water discharge. 

A wide range of on-site filtration and disinfection treatment technologies were also 

evaluated; some were eliminated from consideration based on their lack of feasibility 

relative to construction, cost and/or reliability considerations. The remaining technologies 

were further evaluated with regard to capital and operational costs and design and 

operational considerations. These remaining alternatives were ultraviolet light (UV) 

disinfection (preceded by fine screening to improve the disinfection efficiency), 

ozonation, membrane filtration (preceded by fine screening to protect the membrane), 

and hydrodynamic cavitation. Each of these alternatives also contained some preliminary 

screening to remove large solids. Overall, the main distinguisher between onshore 

treatment technologies was cost, although UV disinfection and hydrodynamic cavitation 

were also considered to be the most promising technologies for treating viruses. In 

addition to on-site treatment alternatives, the project team also considered the diversion 

of pre-screened ballast water to a publicly-owned wastewater treatment 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 Milwaukee. Detailed design drawings were not 

developed, and the costs included in the report 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 treatment consisted of collecting and storing the ballast water on a 

barge and then treating it with fine screening and UV disinfection, whereas the highest 

cost alternative consisted of collecting the ballast water with piping, storing the ballast 

water in an above ground storage tank, and then treating the ballast water with an on-site 

hydrodynamic cavitation system. An additional alternative that was considered was to 

filter and send the ballast water to the publicly-owned WWTP; this alternative would 

have lower capital costs than the on-site treatment 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 recommendations 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 Treatment\Task 400_Report\Final_Report.doc Page ES-3 

 

• Determining methods and detailed engineering for installing a connection to an 

oceangoing vessel’s piping and pumping system to allow for a direct on-board 

connection and developing a preliminary design, 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 collection and treatment systems to 

demonstrate performance capabilities and to provide a better understanding of 

design limitations and costs; 

• Developing procedures and costs for residuals handling; and 

• Investigating pretreatment requirements for discharge to the publicly-owned 

WWTP. 

Other recommended actions include monitoring the progress of proposed regulations; 

performing a detailed evaluation of the applicability of the findings herein to other 

Great Lakes ports; and determining the financial and political feasibility of further 

actions toward onshore collection and treatment in the Port of Milwaukee, other 

Wisconsin ports, and other Great Lakes ports outside of Wisconsin’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 Treatment\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 Treatment\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 through transport via ships from 

foreign ports. As a result, various states and countries have been researching methods for 

treating the ballast water from ships in an effort to eliminate the potentially invasive 

species and prevent their introduction to the Great 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 perform an evaluation on the feasibility of 

onshore ballast water collection and treatment. Representatives from Brown and 

Caldwell, WDNR, and the Port of Milwaukee formed a project team and worked together 

to evaluate different collection and onshore treatment alternatives. Appendix A includes 

the list of the members of this project team. Other states and countries are performing 

similar evaluations, but the majority of those 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 study for onshore ballast water collection 

and treatment. 

• Any onshore collection and treatment alternative should address the potential for 

expansion elsewhere. 

• Treatment is to be onshore only, meaning that 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 treatment will be technology-based. 

• The overall goal for treatment is to improve current conditions, but the desired 

goal is to remove or destroy 90% or more of organisms. 

• The treatment cannot result in any adverse 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 for this project, one must first understand 

how the Port of Milwaukee and ships that arrive at the Port of Milwaukee are designed 

and operated. These designs and operation practices must then be compared to the 

potential treatment targets for an onshore treatment system, and any current and proposed 

regulations that may impact the practicality of an onshore system. 

In addition, any onshore ballast water collection and treatment 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 flows 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 Treatment\Task 400_Report\Final_Report.doc Page 2 

 

2.1 Potential Treatment Targets 

The primary treatment target for this project was nonindigenous 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 identified. These categories include: 

• Fish 

• Mollusks 

• Crustaceans 

• Plants 

• Algae 

• Bacteria 

• Viruses 

• Other living things 

One important note is that the onshore ballast water handling, treatment, and residuals 

disposal must be designed to prevent future introductions of nonindigenous organisms 

into the Great Lakes. 

2.2 Port of Milwaukee Description 

The Port of Milwaukee is located along the shores of Lake Michigan, just south of 

downtown Milwaukee. The Port is conveniently located so that there is easy access to 

railroads, canals, and roads, including Interstate Highway 794 (I-794) which runs directly 

above the Port of Milwaukee. Figure 1 provides an overview of the Port of Milwaukee 

and Figure 2 shows the available land and river 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 Treatment\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 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 Treatment\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 (from approximately early April through late 

December). Frequently these ships are unloading 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 foreign ships as well as possible 

locations for onshore storage and treatment. The figure also shows the locations of key 

Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District (MMSD) 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 treatment 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, any 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 Treatment\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 enacted regulations. The State of Michigan has 

passed legislation that requires that all ships visiting 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 the 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 States 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 water exchange. Ships that do not satisfy this 

requirement must either return to an approved area and perform a ballast water exchange 

or agree to not release any ballast water. The experimental evidence is that few fresh 

water organisms can withstand this high salinity and as a result, will die off prior to 
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 Treatment\Task 400_Report\Final_Report.doc Page 6 

 

entering the Great Lakes. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association (NOAA) 

recently completed a study that found that increasing the salinity of the ballast water to 

this level can be very effective at eliminating 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 standards for ballast water management based on 

the number of viable organisms present in the ballast water. The enforcement of these 

requirements varies relative to ship size and year of construction. Enforcement of the 

convention will begin 12 months after it has been 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 countries 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 United 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 common design that includes double bottom and 

side or top-side tanks, mostly with 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 adjacent to each cargo 

hold. In addition, some ships have a cargo hold that can contain ballast water when 

necessary, such as when more weight is needed on-board to reduce a ship’s draft. As a 

result, a ship with six cargo holds (a common number) would have a total of 26 tanks. 

The average bulk carrier in trade has 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 when 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 summarizes typical volumes of ballast water on ships 

that operate in the Great Lakes. Lakers, which 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 settled 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 Treatment\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. These discharge locations are usually located 

along the sides of the ship, just below or at the water line, and 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 empty different-sized ballast tanks given a 

pumping rate of 1,000 gpm, 3,000 gpm, and 6,000 gpm. The discharge and capture of the 

ballast water must be completed within the time that a ship is loading 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 load 10,000 tons of cargo over a period of four 

days. 

Since the ships that carry grain are most likely to discharge ballast water and the four day 

cargo loadings happen at a slower rate; the limiting constraint for design is the 600 ton/hr 

loading rate. This loading rate translates to approximately 3,000 gpm. As shown in Table 
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 Treatment\Task 400_Report\Final_Report.doc Page 8 

 

2, in two hours, a discharge of 3,000 gpm would result in a volume of 0.36 MG. The 

maximum size for an individual ballast tank is reportedly 0.13 million gallons (MG). 

Assuming that two tanks would contain ballast 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 that 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 Ballast Water versus the Time to Empty the 

Ballast Water Tanks 
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 Treatment\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 pumping rate of 3,000 gpm 

for pumping the ballast water off the ships, a discharge time of two hours, and a 

maximum storage volume of 0.5 MG as the conceptual design criteria for the further 

development of collection and treatment alternatives. Table 3 shows how the times vary 

to pump different volumes of ballast water at a rate of 3,000 gpm. 

Table 3. Comparison of the Time to Empty 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 28 
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 Treatment\Task 400_Report\Final_Report.doc Page 10 

 

3. ALTERNATIVES DEVELOPMENT 

Figure 5 shows the process flow chart for collecting and treating ballast water. The final 

selected alternative(s) will include each of these components. 

Capture

Pumping

Conveyance Storage Treatment PumpingConveyance Transport Storage Screening Discharge Capture

Pumping

Conveyance Storage Treatment PumpingConveyance Transport Storage Screening Discharge

Figure 5. Process for Collecting and Treating Ballast Water

3.1 Capture 

Before the ballast water can be treated, it must 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 connection between the ship 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 between 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 collected 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 ballast 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 between the tube and the ship. Typically, a ship 

has many different discharge points for the ballast water and the location of these points 

varies from ship to ship. As a result, it would 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 Treatment\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 connection. 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 would 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 typical foreign ship is nearly 800 feet long, the bladder would 

need to be nominally large to completely surround a ship. In addition, 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 contained while the ship is leaving the dock. This 

option is expensive and impractical and therefore 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 could capture the water and collect it in an 

underground/underwater storage facility, for later pumping to treatment. The booms 

would need to extend around the entire perimeter of the ship and the 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 balance as the water is 

drained from the contained area, creating a “dry dock” condition. Additional structural 

supports would be needed to prevent the ship from tipping and the amount of structural 

support needed would make this option prohibitively expensive, especially since every 

dock would require these supports. In addition, all of the drained water would need to be 

treated and the drained water would likely include large quantities of uncontaminated 

lake water. 

3.1.5 Lock 

A similar option to the containment booms would 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 from the water and all ballast water discharged 

from it at this point. This would again create a dry dock, and without the ballast and 

surrounding lake water, the ship would need significant 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 prohibitively expensive to construct, the 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 spend 
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 Treatment\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 loading operations. To accommodate the onshore 

collection and treatment options discussed in this feasibility study, this option requires 

that each oceangoing vessel’s ballast piping and pumping systems be consistently 

modified (e.g. tee connection/valving); ideally international design standards would be 

adopted to standardize these modifications. 

3.1.7 Comparison of Capture Alternatives 

For the reasons described above, the most feasible 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 pipe. 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 transported to a storage or treatment facility, and 

the other pump would provide redundancy. The conceptual design 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 prior 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 costs. 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 collecting and transferring 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 and 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 will 
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 Treatment\Task 400_Report\Final_Report.doc Page 13 

 

be above-ground, either along the docks or suspended by pipe racks or piers. The costs 

include pipe racks, pier connections and provisions for protection from the elements, such 

as sunlight, freezing, and other damage. Approximately 10,000 feet of 16-inch diameter 

pipe would be needed to convey 0.36 MG of ballast water at a flow 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 option and likely the use of the pipes, 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 Pipes 
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 Treatment\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 

CostsC

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 

4.0B 33,333 10,000 60 $1,200 $12,000,000 $20,000,000 

5.0B 41,667 10,000 66 $1,500 $15,000,000 $24,000,000 AAssumes above-ground forcemain PVC pipes for pipes with diameters of 48 inches or less, HDPE for pipes with 

diameters greater than 48 inches 

B

Includes the cost for pipe racks, which are $1,300 per rack and are needed for 7,000 feet of pipe, and the cost for pier 

connections, which are $370 each and are needed for 3,000 feet of pipe; one rack/pier connection is needed for every 

10 feet of pipe 

CIncludes 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 ballast water, transport it to a nearby location for 

treatment, and then return for an additional load of ballast. In addition, the trucks would 

need to receive the ballast water at a slower 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 transport event. 

There are advantages to transporting the ballast 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 reasonable amount of time. Trucking is not a feasible alternative as 

the sole mode for transporting the ballast water: the loading and 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 Treatment\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 ballast 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 load of ballast. This means that it would take 

40 hours for a single rail car to collect the 0.36 MG of ballast water. It is rare to find a 

tanker rail car for rental, so the Port would need to purchase its own at a cost of 

approximately $200,000, plus costs for operation 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 the Port could rent for a fee. 

The advantage of using rail cars for transporting ballast water is that many of the docks 

already have the track infrastructure necessary 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 tracks are in the middle of Port 

operations so this option would be very disruptive to the Port, the shipping operations, 

and Jones Island WWTP. Traffic logistics 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 design 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 around 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 storage. 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 disadvantage 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 pipe, truck, rail car, and barge transport 

alternatives. As seen in this table, the number of truck and rail car loads necessary to 

transport 3,000 gpm makes these alternatives infeasible. At a cost of $2,600,000, piping 

requires a substantial capital investment, especially considering that most of the pipes 

will be empty most of the time and the pipes will only be able to handle flows at or below 

the design parameters. There may also be issues 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 nearly 2 MG. It is likely that the best overall 
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 Treatment\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 dock 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 storage 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 building, at the southern end of 

the property. In addition, the Port 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 completely enclosed to prevent organisms from 

escaping into the environment or entering the storage facility. Also, although the Port 

owns the land under the Hoan Bridge, the Department of Transportation (DOT) requires a 

minimum 25-foot clearance under 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 alternative 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. Sending 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 result, diverting ballast water to the ISS is only 
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 Treatment\Task 400_Report\Final_Report.doc Page 17 

 

feasible if all nonindigenous organisms are completely 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 

CostsA

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 

3.0B $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 AIncludes 25% contingency on construction costs and 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 Areas 
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 Treatment\Task 400_Report\Final_Report.doc Page 18 

 

3.5 Treatment 

The primary methods for treatment include either 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 facility. Unlike typical treatment facilities, the goal 

is to provide an improvement over the current 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 the removal of organisms 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 viruses. All the technologies presented in this 

report are capable of inactivating or removing some or most viruses, although UV 

disinfection and hydrodynamic cavitation appear to be the most promising. Also, the bulk 

of past research on the treatment and removal of viruses is on human viruses. There is 

much concern with the recent outbreak of viral hemorrhagic septicemia (VHS) in fish and 

as a result more research should be conducted 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 the organisms from the ballast water. A waste characterization 

study and pilot testing will be required to confirm 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 screening can be placed either upstream or 

downstream of the storage facility 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 storage but prior to treatment would create the most robust 

option. The complete lift station would cost approximately $150,000 to construct. 

3.5.2 Jones Island WWTP 

If the water were to be sent to Jones Island WWTP for disinfection, pilot studies would 

need to be completed to make sure the treatment would meet ballast water treatment 

goals, particularly to determine whether chlorination, which is used for disinfection at the 

plant, would effectively kill non-human viruses. In addition, the Port would need to 

provide sufficient pretreatment, which would likely be screening, prior to discharge of the 

ballast water to Jones Island WWTP for disinfection. The Port could use one of Jones 

Island WWTP’s primary treatment tanks for the pretreatment 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 Treatment\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 would be handled off-site with this option, there are few 

design considerations. The water can be screened to remove particles larger than 500 

microns using a curved static screen that has no moving parts and will last for the entire 

20 year design life of this project. A thorough cleaning of the screen may be required 

three to four times a year. This screen is not impacted by sitting idle during the winter 

months. 

Flow could only be accepted during dry weather, so storage would be needed during wet 

weather events. The biggest concern about directing the ballast water to Jones Island 

WWTP is that the organisms in the ballast water could potentially negatively affect the 

secondary treatment processes at the Plant. As a result, the ballast water would be 

introduced at the In-Plant Diversion 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 considered for ballast water treatment in the past. 

Appendix B includes a table with the possible treatment technologies that were initially 

considered. Each treatment technology is summarized in this table by the type of 

treatment it offers (e.g. physical separation, disinfection), its positives and negatives, and 

the source in which this treatment technology was mentioned. Most of the treatment 

options included are typically considered for on-ship treatment but are technically 

feasible for onshore treatment. Based on discussions with the project team, the following 

treatment techniques were eliminated 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 intensive to be a viable treatment 

option. 

• Magnetic Separation - This technology has not been 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 Treatment\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 primary 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 survive 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 birds and insects, a constructed wetland 

would likely encourage the spread of invasive organisms rather than achieve the 

goal of eliminating them. 

Next, the project team selected four alternatives for detailed evaluation. All of the 

alternatives consist of some type of screening or solids removal. Two of the methods 

include traditional methods for disinfection in addition to the screening, one method 

consists entirely of screening and membrane filtration, and one method includes a 

relatively new method for destroying small organisms. All of the systems are capable of 

being idle over the winter months while the Seaway is closed, since the systems would be 

contained in enclosures for weather protection. Detailed costs and cut sheets for major 

equipment are located in Appendices 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 alternatives 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 and 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 outside would be inappropriate because birds and 

other animals could transport organisms away from the site. Proper residuals handling 

will have to involve the residuals being in a covered container and/or bagged and then 

placed in a storage container. Incineration is also a potential alternative to ensure that 
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 Treatment\Task 400_Report\Final_Report.doc Page 21 

 

screened organisms do not accidentally enter Lake Michigan. The development of 

detailed procedures and costs for residuals handling is outside of the scope of this project. 

Capital costs for each alternative include an additional contingency and allowance for 

technical services. The costs also include future replacements within the 20-year design 

life, where applicable, and annual costs, which have been converted to present worth 

using a 20-year amortization period and 5% interest. 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 alternative 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 the process diagram for this alternative. At 

the design flow rate of 350 gpm, the present 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 inactivating 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 drinking 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 different viruses, but the 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 greatly reduced by the presence of suspended 

solids in the water. For this reason, fine screening 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 separator. The bottom deck 

removes particles larger than approximately 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 operational 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 monitored 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 Treatment\Task 400_Report\Final_Report.doc Page 22 

 

3.5.3.2 Screening Plus Ozonation 

The Screening Plus Ozonation alternative consists of coarse screening followed by 

ozonation. This alternative was developed to determine the differences between 

ozonation and UV for disinfection. One key difference between the two methods is that 

ozonation is not as sensitive to solids as UV is and as a result, fine screening is not 

necessary. Ozonation, however, is generally 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 controlled. 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 component, ozonation is not particularly 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 generator 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 successful 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 removes particles larger than 0.1 microns. This 

alternative explores the concept of complete removal instead of disinfection or 

inactivation of the organisms. Figure 11 shows the process diagram for this alternative. 

At the design flow rate of 350 gpm, the present 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 Treatment\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 discharged. The system does not use any other 

chemicals and has no negative environmental impacts because it involves physical 

removal of the organisms. With disinfection treatments there is a concern of 

microorganisms not being inactivated or destroyed 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 assumption will need to be verified 

with further study. 

This system can remain idle during the months 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 approximately every seven years, although it may be 

possible to use the membranes for a longer period 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 filtration 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 required to ensure proper functioning 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 cavitation. 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 channeled into pairs of conical nozzles that are 

positioned opposite one another. The water flow through the nozzles is guided in a spiral 

path, and this rotation creates 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 the 
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 Treatment\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 diagram for this alternative. At the design flow rate of 350 

gpm, the present worth cost of this alternative is approximately $1.1 million dollars, if an 

existing storage tank is retrofitted for the additional 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 applied. One of the main advantages of this 

technology is that it does not involve chemicals or harmful byproducts since the organism 

destruction is achieved by physical means. Another advantage of hydrodynamic 

cavitation is that it is a simple system that is relatively easy to operate. Since the 

destruction of organisms is achieved with nozzles there 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 alternative 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 criteria. 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 rating criteria nearly equally so the main 

distinguisher between treatment 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 Treatment\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 

WorthA

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 

ATotal 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 for different levels of treatment and flow 

rates, respectively. 

$0

$200,000

$400,000

$600,000

$800,000

$1,000,000

$1,200,000

$1,400,000

Present Worth

Example Organisms Removed: Fish Crustaceans Bacteria, Viruses

Likely Removal Efficiency: Very high High Moderate to High

Example Technology: Coarse Screening (1/2") Fine Screening (few 

hundred microns) UV, Membranes, etc.

Estimated Range 

of Costs

Figure 13. Estimated Present Worth for Various Removal Efficiencies 
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 Treatment\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 treatment 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 very likely that coarse screening would prevent 

the introduction of nonindigenous fish species found in ballast water. As Figure 13 

shows, coarse screening could be implemented at a lower cost than a disinfection 

treatment system; however, it would be ineffective 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 these costs. This type 

of analysis is beneficial when considering a revised design 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, gpm

Present Worth of UV Treatment

Estimated 

Range of Costs

Figure 14. Estimated Present Worth for Various Flow Rates 

3.5.4 Discharge of Treated Ballast Water 

Once the ballast water is treated, it would either be discharged directly to Lake Michigan, 

as in the case of on-site treatment, or directed to Jones Island WWTP. The treated ballast 

water could also be discharged to constructed wetlands, provided provisions are taken 

into account to ensure that all nonindigenous organisms are removed prior to discharge 
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 Treatment\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. However, 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 directly 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 ballast 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 ships at the Port of Milwaukee 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 estimates prepared are at a conceptual level for 

planning purposes only. Additional significant engineering assessments and pilot testing 

is required to develop construction-level (Engineer’s Opinion of Cost) estimates. 

The combinations shown in Table 8 represent the most feasible alternatives. As seen in 

the table, costs vary significantly depending on the selected method of transport and 

treatment, and additional storage needs; capital 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 Treatment\Task 400_Report\Final_Report.doc Page 28 

 

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

Ballast Water 

Alternative CaptureA

Pumping to 

Transport 

Vessel

Transport Storage

Screening 

and 

Pumping 

to 

Treatment

Treatment TOTAL

Transport and 

Storage by Barge, OnSite 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, OnSite 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, OnSite 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, OnSite Treatment with 

Hydrodynamic 

Cavitation with 

Additional Storage

$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 Storage

$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 owners
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 Treatment\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 that will allow a portsupplied portable pump to connect to the ballast tank system and extract the ballast water. 

Considerations for onshore extraction of ballast water include: 

• An international standard should be developed to allow consistent interchange 

between port facilities and minimal investment to ship owners. 

• Policies and procedures and personnel training for extraction should be 

developed and would include safety, coordination between cargo loading and 

ballast water extraction with port facilities management, identification of 

personnel responsibilities, and advance notice of anticipated amount of ballast 

water to discharge. 

• An assessment of particular collection and handling approaches 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 proper 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 provisions to prevent spillage. 

• A minimum of two shore-based portable “trash pumps”, each capable of handling 

the full design load from the ships, will be required to provide the needed 

flexibility to serve multiple docks. 

Based on cost and access considerations, the 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 discharge. 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 retrofitted to include the treatment system. 

A number of treatment technologies were considered for onshore ballast water discharge. 

The treatment goals included adaptability to intermittent operation, potential for complete 

removal and/or destruction of viable organisms, and cost (capital 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 threat 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 Treatment\Task 400_Report\Final_Report.doc Page 30 

 

Considerations for onshore treatment of ballast water include: 

• Treatment capacity at Jones Island appears sufficient, but field testing is required 

to confirm that disinfection by the existing chlorination process is effective; in 

addition, some level of pretreatment is required. 

• The technologies screening process narrowed the analysis to four viable 

treatment system approaches. Planning-level costs were developed for each 

system and demonstrate the potential for practical 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 the 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 treatment 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 from an annual budget perspective, and 

are reasonable for the intended purposes. 

• Since the selected treatment 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 basis for a full-scale treatment system. 

• The ballast water storage conceptual design basis is tied directly to attenuating 

the high flows generated from the ships 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 two concurrent loading situations. 

• The treatment system, which may be installed onto the barge or on land, must be 

protected from the weather and be designed 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 preventing 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 Treatment\Task 400_Report\Final_Report.doc Page 31 

 

Additional conclusions and recommendations include: 

• Applicable agencies and other stakeholders can use the content and conclusions 

of this report as a basis for applicability of onshore collection and treatment of 

ballast water for other Great Lakes ports. However, caution is advised in 

extrapolating to other ports as engineering rigor must 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 standard and implemented State of 

Michigan standard is on-ship treatment, onshore treatment is also a feasible 

option. Onshore treatment is generally thought of as an impractical treatment 

method because of the large volumes of ballast water that typically need to be 

treated at different ports and the large capital investment for a treatment system; 

however the benefits of an onshore treatment system are easier permitting and 

regulation of discharges, and better control in ensuring that the desired level of 

ballast water treatment occurs. In addition, the investment to implement an 

onshore treatment system may be offset 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 onshore treatment for ships with smaller 

volumes of ballast water for which the capital investment of an on-ship treatment 

system is not as practical. 

Future actions that should be considered include: 

• Review the findings of this report and 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 feasibility for a ship to shore draw-off (e.g. 

connections to on-ship ballast water system) 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 feasibility of using a barge for collection, storage, and/or 

treatment and confirm implementation details. 

• Perform a detailed evaluation of the applicability of the findings contained herein 

to other Great Lakes ports. 

• Perform a Waste Characterization Study to better identify ballast 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 Treatment\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 operating 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, including 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 performed and in accordance with the contract 

between the WDNR and Brown and Caldwell 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 regulatory authorities contemplated by the 

scope of work. We have relied on information or instructions provided by the WDNR and 

other parties and, unless otherwise expressly indicated, have made no independent 

investigation as to the validity, completeness, 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 Treatment\Task 400_Report\Final_Report.doc Page 33 

 

REFERENCES 

Borchardt, Mark A. (Research Scientist and 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 Ships Initiative. Washington DC: 

Northeast Midwest Institute. 

Chase, C., Reilly, C., & Pederson, J. “Marine Bioinvasions Fact Sheet: Ballast water 

treatment options.” MIT Sea Grant Center for Coastal Resources. Retrieved July 

18, 2007 from http://massbay.mit.edu/resources/pdf/ballast-treat.pdf. 

Chester, S. “Final Determination and Notice Regarding Ballast Water Treatment for 

Oceangoing Vessels on the Great Lakes.” Michigan Department of 

Environmental Quality, April 13, 2005. Accessed October 12, 2007 from 

http://www.michigan.gov/deq/0,1607,7-135-3313_3677_8278---,00.html. 

Christensen, Erik R. (Professor, UW-Milwaukee Civil Engineering Department). 

 Personal Interview. August 14, 2007. 

City of Milwaukee (2007). “Aquatic Invasive Species and Ships’ Ballast Water.” 

Retrieved July 24, 2007, from 

http://www.city.milwaukee.gov/AquaticInvasiveSpeci20116.htm. 

Donkers, E. (2003) “Solution to Ballast Water Pollution: Ship shape and the ports 

escape?” Proceedings of the 2st International Ballast Water Treatment R & D 

Symposium (pp. 201-209). London, 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 Treatment\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). “Information 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., MacIsaac, 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 2st International Ballast Water Treatment R & D 

Symposium (pp. 111-124). London, UK: International Maritime Organization. 

Mesbahi, E. (2003). “Latest Results from Testing Seven Different Technologies Under 

the EU MARTOB Project – Where do we stand now?” Proceedings of the 2st

International Ballast Water Treatment 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 No. 332. Accessed October 12, 2007 from 

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

Prince William Sound Regional Citizens Advisory Council (2005). “Ballast Water 

Treament Methods -- Fact Sheet 2: Shore-based Treatment.” Retrieved July 18, 

2007 from http://www.pwsrcac.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 1st International Ballast Water Treatment R & D Symposium 
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 Treatment\Task 400_Report\Final_Report.doc Page 35 

 

(pp. 3-7). London, UK: International Maritime Organization. 

Rigby, G, & Taylor, A. (2001b). “Ballast Water Research Series Report No. 13: Ballast 

 Water treatment to minimize the risks of introducing nonindigenous marine 

 organisms to australian ports.” Department of Agriculture, Fisheries, & 

Forestry—Australia. Canberra Australia: Commonwealth of Australia. 

Saho, N., Isogami, H., Mizumori, T., and Nishijima, N. (2003). “Superconducting 

Magnetic Separator for Ballast Water Treatment.” Proceedings of the 2st

International Ballast Water Treatment R & D Symposium (pp. 125-134). London, 

UK: International Maritime Organization.

Sansalone, J., Voon, E., & Srinivasan, V. (2001). “Management of Invasive Species 

Transported in Ballast Water by Dissolved Air Flotation Technology.”

Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference 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 introductions that should make everyone 

happy.” Monterey Bay, CA: Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary. 

Retrieved July 18, 2007 from 

http://montereybay.noaa.gov/reports/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 Members 

Name Title Entity E-mail Address Julie McMullin Project Manager Brown and Caldwell jmcmullin@brwncald.com David Drew Technical Advisor, QA/QC Brown and Caldwell ddrew@brwncald.com Veronica Loete Project Engineer Brown and Caldwell vloete@brwncald.com Roger Larson 

Technical Project Manager; Deputy Director of the Bureau of Watershed Management 

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources RogerL.Larson@Wisconsin.

Susan Sylvester Chief of the Wastewater Permit Section of the Bureau of Watershed Management Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Susan.Sylvester@WisconsinChuck Ledin Bureau Director, Office of the Great Lakes Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Charles.Ledin@Wisconsin.gChuck Burney NR Program Manager (Retired) Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources charles.burney@Wisconsin.gChris Rehlinger Contracts Project Manager; Construction Representative Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources chris.rehlinger@wisconsin.goEric Reinelt Port Director Port of Milwaukee ereine@port.mil.wi.us Larry Sullivan Chief Engineer Port of Milwaukee lsulli@port.mil.wi.us 
(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 Technologies

WDNR Milwaukee Ballast Water Treatment StudyOption Reference Description Advantages DisadvantaBallast Water Exchange Bioinvasion Fact Sheet

Ballast water from coastal area is discharged in the ocean and then the ballasts are re-filled

Requires no additional equipment, does reduce risk of introducing non-native species, little time is lost

100% remois not possiwater in rounsafe to d

Physical Separation or Removal of OrganismDissolved Air Flotation Sansalone et al.

Air is bubbled through the water and the bubbles adhere to or are trapped in the particle structure; this results in an increased buoyancy and floatation of the bubbleparticle complex No chemical addition, can treat oils and other residuals Need to ski

Filtration

Bioinvasion Fact Sheet, PWSRCAC Water is passed through a filter

Established and commonly used in other water treatment applications, the process is capable of removing microorgansims

Increased mclogging, lilarge pressubackwash ctreatment ti

Hydrocyclone (centrifugal separation) PWSRCAC

Operates by pushing sediments and other organisms to the outer portion of an intake pipe or tank. Sediment and heavier particles are then collected and removed

Technology already established and commonly used in other water treatment applications, can operate at high flow rates and there is little water pressure decrease in the system

Less effecticompared t

Destruction or Inactivation of OrganismAdvanced Oxidation Technology (AOT) MARTOB Project

Combination of ozone, UV and catalysts that generates large amounts of radicals, mainly hydroxyl radicals, that destroy or eliminate microorganisms No chemical addition

Larger orgabeforehand

Chemical Biocides

Bioinvasion Fact Sheet, EPA Meeting Biocide is mixed in with ballast water

Easily stored (concentrated solid or liquid), widely used in industry, machines for application are reliable and low maintenance

Lack of stubyproducts water, large about releaenvironmen

 Chlorine (oxidizing agent) Bioinvasion Fact Sheet Chemical that destroys cell membranes

Works quickly on small or microscopic organisms, relatively inexpensive

Concern abbyproduct fpost-treatm

 Gluteraldehyde (non-oxidizing agent) Bioinvasion Fact Sheet

Non-oxidizing biocides interfere with necessary life functions (i.e. metabolism, reproduction) in organisms

 Fewer concerns about environmental effects (metabolizes quickly to CO2 in 

environment) Works slow

Ozonation Bioinvasion Fact Sheet Chemical that destroys cell membranes

Very effective at killing microscopic organisms

Not very efozone geneis quite com

P:\Wisconsin DNR\Ballast Water Treatment\Task 400_Report\Appendices\PossibleTreatmentTechnologies_081707.xls
Option Reference Description Advantages Disadvanta

De-oxygenation with nitrogen gas MBNMS

Oxygen is removed from the water by purging it with nitrogen gas which dissolves more readily in the water. Organisms are effectively asphixiated

Potential to reduce or impede corrosion of storage tanks, many organisms only surive hours or days in low oxygen conditions, no chemical addition

Facultative may be resi

 with bacteria

13th Int'l Conference on Aquatic Invasive Species, Husain et al.

Growth of microorganisms is stimulated, the organisms utilize the oxygen in the water reducing the oxygen levels No chemicals involved

Facultative may be resi

Electro-ionization Magnetic Separation (EIMS)

EPA Meeting, PWSRCAC 2

A continuous flow of ionized gas is introduced into the water, then air is passed through strong ultraviolet and magnetic fields to create oxygen and nitrogen ions; these ions function as coagulating agents when injected into the water; the clusters of solids are separated by magnetic separation filtration

Self-contained technology with no known environmental effects, 95% kill of all culturable bacteria, protozoa and algae was observed in studies

Systems ocnot yet beeapplicationorganisms h

Heat Exchange Bioinvasion Fact Sheet Ballast water is heated 

No chemical byproducts, effective at killing large and medium organisms (fish, shellfish) and some plankton

Requires incontact witmicroorganpotential fo

Oxicide Treatment MARTOB Project

Electrochemical method that generates hydrogen peroxide from the oxygen in the water; the decline in oxygen concentration and presence of hydrogen peroxide significantly reduce the number of organisms present

Hydrogen peroxide naturally decomposes in water and therefore will not cause problems when released to environment

Some organhydrogden corrode pip

Ultrasonic Treatment/Cavitation MARTOB Project

Ultrasound is generated by a transducer that converts mechanical or electrical energy into high frequency vibration; this generates cavitation in the water which can lead to cells rupturing

Shown to be effective with bacteria, plankton, and other organisms

May have astructure; cwastewater 

Ultraviolet (UV) light

Bioinvasion Fact Sheet, EPA Meeting Water is exposed to ultraviolet light

Effective on microorganisms (i.e. bacteria and phytoplankton), no known toxic byproducts

Not very effound the mineffective maintenanc

Bioinvasion Fact Sheet = Chase, et al., "Marine Bioinvasions Fact Sheet: Ballast Water Treatment Options," retrieved July 18, 2007, from http://massbay.mit.edu/resources/pdf/baEPA Meeting = Stakeholder Advisory Group on Ship Ballast Water Treatment Systems, "Meeting Summary," ETV Water Quality Protection Center, 2002, retrieved July 18, 2007MARTOB Project = E. Mesbahi, "Latest results from testing seven different technologies under the EU MARTOB project: Where do we stand now?," presented at 2nd Int'l BallaMBNMS = Tamburri, et al., "Ballast Water Deoxygenation," Ecosystem Observations 2001: Exotic Species, Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary, 2001, retrieved July 18, 2

PWSRCAC = Prince William Sound Regional Advisory Council, "Fact Sheet 12: Physical Separation," 2005, retrieved July 18, 2007 from http://www.pwsrcac.org/docs/d001800PWSRCAC 2 = Prince William Sound Regional Advisory Council, "Fact Sheet 15: Electo-Ionization Treatment," 2005, retrieved August 6, 2007 from http://www.pwsrcac.org/doSansalone 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 Bioinvas 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 = $1,100,000
SCREENING 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) 







OZONIA NORTH AMERICA, INC.

491 EDWARD H. ROSS DRIVE, ELMWOOD PARK NJ 07407 USA

P.O. BOX 455, ELMWOOD PARK, NJ 07407

201 794-3100 (TEL) • 201 794-3358 (FAX) WWW.OZONIA.COM

MODEL DIMENSIONS (inches)

REFERENCE A B C D E F G H J K L

SLP200-2 7.9 49.2 5.9 6.9 10.8 9.1 7.3 39.4 6.7 7.9 5.9

SLP200-3 7.9 49.2 5.9 6.9 10.8 9.1 7.3 39.4 6.7 7.9 5.9

SLP250-4 9.8 53.1 5.9 7.9 12.8 13.0 7.3 39.4 8.7 9.8 6.9

SLP250-6 9.8 53.1 5.9 7.9 12.8 13.0 7.3 39.4 8.7 9.8 6.9

SLP300-8 11.8 52.4 6.7 9.8 14.8 13.0 7.3 39.4 10.6 11.8 7.9

SLP350-10 13.8 51.2 7.9 11.8 16.7 13.0 7.3 39.4 12.6 13.8 9.8

SLP350-12 13.8 51.2 7.9 11.8 16.7 13.0 7.3 39.4 12.6 13.8 9.8

SLP400-14 15.7 51.2 7.9 11.8 18.7 13.0 7.3 39.4 14.6 15.7 9.8

MODEL PANEL FLOWRATE LAMP POWER

REFERENCE REFERENCE GPM WATTS

SLP200-2 SLPC2 99

410

SLP200-3 SLPC3 148 615

SLP250-4 SLPC4 187 820

SLP250-6 SLPC6 297 1230

SLP300-8 SLPC8 400 1640

SLP350-10 SLPC10 477

2050

SLP350-12 SLPC12 590 2460

SLP400-14 SLPC14 7162870

FLOWRATES BASED ON UV DOSE OF 30mJ/cm

2 AND UV TRANSMISSION OF 65%

15.7 7.9

23.6

31.5

31.5

7.9

 	


 



23.6 7.9

23.6

 


 

   
   

  
   

    
    

    
    

   
  !  " !

  
  

#   
 



$ % %
 

INLET AND OUTLET FLANGE SIZES TO SUIT FLOWRATE REQUIRMENTS AND TO BE SPECIFIED AT TIME OF QUOTATION.
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 Advanced Technology 

dielectric segments together 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® CFS 
Copyright © 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 Nm3/h scfm m3/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 Nm3/h scfm m3/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: Nm3/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, 2007
BUDGET QUOTE

MILWAUKEE BALLAST WATER TREATMENT 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 process 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 experienced 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

Today, 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

membrane 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 lasting 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

execution 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 Technologies 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.com
BUDGET QUOTE

MILWAUKEE BALLAST WATER TREATMENT 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 resistant 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

presence of oil and grease or fibrous material is suspected, consult Memcor. The feed water must be prescreened (500 microns, included with this proposal) to protect the membrane fibers. The pre-screening

will prevent solids from building up in the fiber bundles 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

Temperature1 Deg C * *

Total Organic Carbon1 mg/L * *

Turbidity1 NTU * *

Alkalinity mg/L as CaCO3 * *

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

The equipment offered will provide the following filtrate quality:

Table 1.2

Filtrate Quality Specifications

PARAMETER UNITS QUALITY

(95%ile)

Turbidity NTU < 0.1

Suspended Solids mg/L < 1.0

Silt Density Index (SDI) < 3.0

Particle Removal2 Log Removal > 4.0

2 As measured by Siemens Water Technologies’ standard Air Hold

Test for removal of particles 3.0+ microns in size.
BUDGET QUOTE

MILWAUKEE BALLAST WATER TREATMENT 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 minutes

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, MEMCOR XS® 48 > 95%
BUDGET QUOTE

MILWAUKEE BALLAST WATER TREATMENT Page 4

1.4 Footprint

The MEMCOR XS has been pre-engineered 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” OR 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 module racks.
BUDGET QUOTE

MILWAUKEE BALLAST WATER TREATMENT 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 achieve 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 features 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 requirements. 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 plant.

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 manifold 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 assembly 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 WATER TREATMENT 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 pump. 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 through 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 layer 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 maintain 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 duration 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 distributed 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 water 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 particles from the exterior

surface of the membrane fibers.
BUDGET QUOTE

MILWAUKEE BALLAST WATER TREATMENT 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 application 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 short 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) procedures (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 followed 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 WATER TREATMENT Page 8

3.4 Clean-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 solution 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 (chemicals 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

for 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 WATER TREATMENT Page 9

3.5 Membrane Integrity Test

To ensure quality of filtered water, 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 Hold 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 that 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 operator 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 air 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 pin.

The red line shows how a leak in the fiber is reflected by a

pressure loss over time.
BUDGET QUOTE

MILWAUKEE BALLAST WATER TREATMENT 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 an Allen Bradley Compact Logix PLC and Siemens SIMATIC MP 277 10”

Color Touch Screen Human Machine Interface (HMI).

The PLC and HMI are located in a central Process Control 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 Skid. 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 control starters, circuit breakers, and variable frequency

drive. Ethernet communications are provided for connection to optional Supervisory Control and Data

Acquisition (SCADA) 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® MultiAccessTM 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 instrumentation

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 changing conditions or requirements. Included in the control

design are diagnostic capabilities and automated membrane maintenance sequences.
BUDGET QUOTE

MILWAUKEE BALLAST WATER TREATMENT 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 supplied as part of Siemens Water Technologies’ Standard Scope

of Supply for one (1) MEMCOR XS 48 units.

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) modules. 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 and 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 units. 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 immersion heater for CIP solution temperature control.

QTY. DESCRIPTION
BUDGET QUOTE

MILWAUKEE BALLAST WATER TREATMENT Page 12

1 10 hp Gould’s pump with TEFC motor for filtrate suction and liquid backwash supply.

1 FPZ M-series regenerative blower with integral silencer to provide air flow for backwash

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 position 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

membrane and filtrate storage 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 membrane 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

mechanical 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 WATER TREATMENT Page 13

5.1.2 Controls

The control system consists of an 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 information to/from the Process Control Panel

and the individual MEMCOR XS units.

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 control air distribution.
BUDGET QUOTE

MILWAUKEE BALLAST WATER TREATMENT 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 experienced 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 assist 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 Project 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 WATER TREATMENT Page 15

5.2 Items Supplied By Others

While Siemens Water Technologies 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. DESCRIPTION

1 lot Concrete works to support the MEMCOR XS units 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 including 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® units.

1 lot Filtrate piping from the MEMCOR XS units to storage or other treatment system.

1 lot Interconnecting piping between the MEMCOR XS units 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 board 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. DESCRIPTION
BUDGET QUOTE

MILWAUKEE BALLAST WATER TREATMENT 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 specifically listed in this proposal.

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

MILWAUKEE BALLAST WATER TREATMENT Page 17

5.3 Optional Siemens Water Technologies Supplied Items

In addition to the standard equipment supplied with your MEMCOR XS® units, 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 electrical 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 chemical drums (drums by others) one (1) tank (850 gallons for MEMCOR XS 24, 1,500 gallons

for MEMCOR XS 48) for chemical waste storage and mixing, one (1) recirculation pump, one (1) inline

pH analyzer, one (1) inline chlorine analyzer and one (1) lot of valves 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 Acquisition (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

Intouch interface software with one (1) runtime license, Norton Antivirus, Microsoft Office, and

PCAnywhere.
BUDGET QUOTE

MILWAUKEE BALLAST WATER TREATMENT 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 will 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 plant 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 based on quarterly service visits while the Silver & Platinum 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 WATER TREATMENT Page 19

Inspect & Record

As part of the service program your system 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 problems 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 downtime, 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 operational performance data that can be

compared to the start up data or serve as benchmark for future operation check up. This service will

uncover potential risks before real problems occur.

Scheduled Maintenance & Parts Replacement

Your membrane filtration system 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.

Calibration Services

Our service technicians are factory-trained to calibrate the instrumentation supplied with the system onsite. 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 water 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

customized 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 data. This process usually includes conducting a complete chemical cleaning (CIP),

maintenance wash and backwash to verify the effectiveness of the basic operation sequences. Upon
BUDGET QUOTE

MILWAUKEE BALLAST WATER TREATMENT Page 20

completion of the review, our Process Engineer will be able to make recommendations to optimize the

plant operation, including mechanical and/or process changes to improve efficiency and costeffectiveness. These recommendations will be documented in a Process Audit report submitted to the

plant supervisor.

Training Seminar

Plant 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 management 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

seminar uses audio/visual support material that can be referred to later and serve as an additional source

of knowledge and information. In many cases, this material is complemented with a printed script of the

slide presentations.
BUDGET QUOTE

MILWAUKEE BALLAST WATER TREATMENT Page 21

7 PROPOSAL AND ORDER FORM

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 Number 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 commission 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 proposal

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 jobsite.

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 approval 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

acceptance 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 WATER TREATMENT Page 22

NOTES:

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 acceptance, 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 nonpayment,

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, grating, 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 fabricated, 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

primers 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 design
BUDGET QUOTE

MILWAUKEE BALLAST WATER TREATMENT 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

the 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 this 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

allow 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

restocked. 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 membrane 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 buyer 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 final invoice as agreed between the buyer and

Siemens Water Technologies.
BUDGET QUOTE

MILWAUKEE BALLAST WATER TREATMENT Page 24

STANDARD TERMS OF SALE

SIEMENS WATER TECHNOLOGIES CORP

Applicable Terms

These terms govern the purchase and sale of the equipment and related services, if any

(collectively, "Equipment"), 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 otherwise, 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

amounts 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. Seller’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 nonexclusive, 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

written 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 modifications. 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 conform 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 under
BUDGET QUOTE

MILWAUKEE BALLAST WATER TREATMENT Page 25

warranty, tort or any other legal theory. If Buyer gives Seller prompt written notice 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, EXPRESS 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 party 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 payment

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 Seller 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 LIABILITY 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 or signed by
BUDGET QUOTE

MILWAUKEE BALLAST WATER TREATMENT 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 changed 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 limited 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 governed by the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

without regard to its conflict of laws provisions.
BUDGET QUOTE

MILWAUKEE BALLAST WATER TREATMENT Page 27

GENERAL WARRANTY CONDITIONS

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 Equipment 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’ operation

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 Equipment 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 than recommended pressure during the process or during the wash

cycle.
BUDGET QUOTE

MILWAUKEE BALLAST WATER TREATMENT 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 Siemens 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 after 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 membrane 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 employee 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 operating 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 guarantee 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 replacement 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 WATER TREATMENT Page 29

b. Next 72 Months: If a membrane submodule shall require replacement under the 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$800.00 per module adjusted by the change

in North American Consumer Price Index (CPI), and reducing this price by 1/84th for

each month remaining in the 84-month period.

Limitation of Liability

1. Notwithstanding 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 suffered 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 RatingA 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 

AA = Most Important, B = Moderately Important, C = Least Important
RATING OF INITIAL TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES 

Criteria WeightingA Screening 

Plus UV 

Disinfection 

Screening Plus 

Ozonation 

Screening Plus 

Membrane 

Filtration 

Screening Plus 

Hydrodynamic 

Cavitation 

Organism 30 3 3 3 3 

Removal/Destruction All alternatives are designed to remove at least 90% of organisms; individual 

components of the alternatives will have smaller removal rates 

Chemical Usage 30 3 2 3 3 

 

Energy Usage 30 1 1 2 3 

 Uses the least amount of 

energy of the 

alternatives 

Disruption 30 3 3 3 3 

 

Reliability 30 2 2 3 2 

 

Environment 30 3 3 3 3 

Constructability 20 3 3 3 2 

 Not used as commonly 

as the other methods and 

therefore may be more 

difficult to construct 

Flexibility 20 3 3 3 3 

 

Expandability 20 3 3 3 3 

Compliance with 30 3 3 3 3 

Federal, State, and 

International (IMO) 

Regulations 

Public Acceptance 20 3 3 3 2 

TOTAL 

WEIGHTED 

RATING 

--- 780 750 840 800 

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