-----;r

lc--­ ---

~~

FEASIBILITY OF ONSHORE BALLAST WATER
 

TREATMENT AT CALIFORNIA PORTS
 

A Study Conducted By
 

The California Association of Port Authorities (CAPA)
 

Pursuant to a Small Grant Assistant Agreement With the
 

u.s. Environmental Protection Agency
 
DRAFT REPORT
 

FEASmILITY
 

OF ONSHORE BALLAST WATER
 

TREATMENT AT CALIFORNIA
 

PORTS
 

PREPARED FOR CALIFORNIA
 

ASSOCIATION OF PORT
 

AUTHORITIES
 

Job No. 25835-004-043
 

July 10,2000
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS
 

Page 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES-l 

E-l INTRODUCTION ES-1
 

E-2 BACKGROUND ES-l 

E-3 SYSTEM COMPONENTS ES-2
 

E-4 DISCUSSION ES-5
 

E-5 KEY FINDINGS ES-7
 

1.0 INTRODUCTION 1
 

2.0 BACKGROUNP 3
 

2.1 EXIST~G ONSHORE BALLAST WATER TREATMENT SYSTEMS 5
 

2.2 PREVIOUS ONSHORE BALLAST WATER RESEARCH 7
 

3.0 STUDY APPRqACH 8
 

4.0 SYSTEM COMfONENTS 10
 

4.1 VESSEy RETROFITTING 10
 

4.1.1 Vessel Modification Costs 12
 

4.1.2 System Operations Costs 14
 

4.1.3 Nlew Construction Costs 14
 

4.1.4 Ill/creased Costs Due to Vessel Delays 14
 

4.1.5 O~er Vessel Operation Considerations 15
 

4.2 WHARFIRETROFITTING 16
 

4.2.1 . Requirements for California Ports 17
 

4.3 BALLAS:T WATER STORAGE TANKS .20
 

4.3.1 Discharge Data for California Ports 21
 

4.3.2 Rtquirements for California Ports 24
 

4.4 ONSHOl}E TREATMENT FACILITY CONCEPTUAL DESIGN .25
 

4.4.1 System Elements 26
 

4.4.2 R¢quirements for California Ports 28
 

4.4.3 C*pital Costs 30
 

4.4.4 Operations & Maintenance Costs 30
 

4.5 OUTFALL AND SOLIDS DISPOSAL 30
 

5.0 DISCUSSION , 31
 

5.1 CONCEPrruAL FEASIBILITY OF ONSHORE TREATMENT .31
 

5.1.1 TechnicalFeasibility 31
 

5.1.2 O~erational Feasibility .32
 

5.1.3 OnshoreTreatment Costs 33
 

5.2 FEASIBILITY FOR INDIVIDUAL CALIFORNIA PUBLIC PORTS 35
 

5.2.1 Port of Hueneme 35
 

5.2.2 Humboldt Bay 36
 

5.2.3 Port of Long Beach 37
 

5.2.4 Port of Los Angeles 38
 

5.2.5 por of Oakland 39
 

URSIDAMES & MOORE I 11 \\DM_SF01\VOL_1\WP\Yz\OOSEZ002.DOC 
, 

5.2.6 

5.2.7 

5.2.8 

5.2.9 

5.2.10 

5.2.11 

Port of Redwood City 

Port of Richmond 

Port of Sacramento 

Port of San Diego 

Port of San Francisco 

Port of Stockton 

40 

41 

42 

43 

44 

45 

6.0 CONCLUSIONS 46 

7.0 REFERENCES 47 

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS 51 

LIST OF TABLES 

Table E.l 

Table E.2 

Port Data and Cost Summary 

Calculated Treatment Cost per Metric Ton of Ballast Water 

Table 4.1 

Table 4.2 

Table 4.3 

Table 4.4 

Table 4.5 

Table 4.6 

Table 4.7 

Table 4.8 

ContainerlBulk Vessel Modification Cost Estimates 

Port Piping Summary 

Ballast Water Discharge Volume Data for California Ports 

Storage Capacity Calculations for California Ports 

Treatment Facility Capacity Calculations for California Ports 

Treatment Facility Design Specifications 

Estimated Capital Costs for Onshore Treatment Facility Construction 

Estimated Annual Operating Costs for Onshore Treatment Facilities 

Table 5.1 

Table 5.2 

Port Data and Cost Summary 

Calculated Treatment Cost per Metric ton of Ballast Water 

LIST OF FIGURES 

Figure 4.1 

Figure 4.2 

Figure 4.3 

Figure 4.4 

Figure 4.5 

Figure 4.6 

Generalized Ballast & Bilge Water System 

Schematic of Existing Shipboard Ballast Water System 

Plan View Conceptual Ballast Water System With Shore Connection 

Cross-Sectional View Ballast Water System With Shore Connection 

Ballast Water Treatment Schematic 

Storage and Treatment Site Plan 

LIST OF APPENDICES 

Appendix A Ballast Water Discharge Data by Port 

URSIDAMES & MOORE 111 \\DM_SF01\VOL_1\WP\YZ\OOSEZ002.DOC 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
 

E-l INTRODUCTION 

The introduction of nonindigenous aquatic species into bays and estuaries is of worldwide 

ecological and economic concern. Invasive species have become established through a variety of 

transportation vectors including ballast water discharge. Potential management tools to control 

the ballast water transport vector include voluntary at-sea exchange of ballast water and both 

shipboard and onshore ballast water treatment technologies. 

The effectiveness of shipboard ballast water treatment is being investigated at present through 

pilot studies. However, no onshore treatment studies focussing on the control of exotic species 

have been initiated in the United States to date. In recognition of this data gap, the California 

Association of Port Authorities (CAPA) obtained a grant from the United States Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) to study the conceptual feasibility ofonshore ballast water treatment. 

The purpose of this study is to assess, at a conceptual level, the technical and operational 

feasibility of onshore ballast water treatment at public port facilities in California and estimate 

associated costs, with the objective of evaluating whether further detailed analysis and pilot 

programs are warranted. To achieve this objective, the following approach was adopted: 

•	 Calculate the ballast water treatment requirements for 11 California public ports 

based on best-available ballast water discharge estimates; 

•	 Develop conceptual designs for onshore ballast water treatment systems to 

process the ballast water discharged at each port; and 

•	 Estimate order-of-magnitude costs for the onshore treatment system, including 

cost to retrofit vessels, retrofit wharves, construct ballast water storage tanks, 

construct the treatment facilities and outfalls, and operation and maintenance 

costs. 

E-2 BACKGROUND 

Vessel operations require ballast water to maintain stability, increase or decrease draft, and avoid 

unacceptable structural loads for the purpose of ensuring the safety of crew, ship, and cargo. 

Ballast water adjustments are made at sea to control draft and stresses, while approaching 

shallow water, and in port to control trim and list during cargo loading and unloading operations. 

URSIDAMES & MOORE	 ES-l \\DM_SF01\VOL_1 \WP\YZ\OOSEZ002.DOC 
Within North America, pilot studies into the effectiveness of ballast water treatment methods 

have focussed on shipboard systems. The Great Lake Ballast Water Treatment Demonstration 

Project has been testing a filtration system on a barge in Minnesota. A two-phase cycloniclUV 

system was installed in the cruise ship P/V Regal Princess in April 2000, and Fisheries and 

Oceans Canada, Vancouver, B.C., is testing the effectiveness of a modular two-phase 

hydrocyclonelUV system. 

Oil terminals off-loading oily ballast water from tankers are required to treat the ballast water to 

remove oil under Annex I of MARPOL 73/78. A review of onshore oily ballast water treatment 

facilities in Valdez Alaska, and drydock facilities in Oregon and San Francisco Bay found that, 

while it may be possible to convert tanker terminal facilities to handle larger volumes of ballast 

water, there is little potential for use of drydock ballast water treatment systems. Generally, the 

potential for use of publicly-owned treatment works (POTWs) is limited because large volumes 

of salt water would be incompatible with fresh water bacteria used in POTWs and because of 

water conservation water quality objectives. 

E-3 SYSTEM COMPONENTS 

The major infrastructure and operational modifications required for an onshore system were 

identified as: 

1.	 Retrofitting of vessels to allow discharge of ballast water through standardized 

wharf-side connections; 

2.	 Retrofitting of wharves with piping connections, pumps and force mains to 

convey ballast water from vessels to onshore storage and treatment facilities; 

3.	 Construction of storage tanks to handle peak discharge flows from multiple 

vessels that exceed ballast water treatment system flow rates; 

4.	 Construction of ballast water treatment plant(s); and 

5.	 Construction of outfalls to discharge treated water and disposal of solids at a 

landfill. 

Vessel Retrofits 

Although bulk carriers, tankers and containerships carry different ballast water volumes, for the 

purposes of this study it was assumed they all have essentially the same ballast water handling 

requirements. Existing vessels do not have the capability to pump ballast water to the main or 

weather deck at volumes required to prevent vessel delays. Vessels would require the ability to 

transfer ballast water from both sides ofthe vessel to a shore side facility. The conceptual vessel 

URSIDAMES & MOORE	 ES-2 \\DM_SF01\VOL_1\WP\Yz\OOSEZ002.DOC 
retrofit design assumed all three classes of vessels would need to lift ballast water vertically 100 

feet from the ballast tanks at a rate of at least 1,000 metric tons/hour. 

Total vessel retrofitting costs were estimated to be approximately $400,000. This figure includes 

engineering costs for modifying a container or bulk carrier, materials (pumps, piping, valves, 

etc.) and labor and services. Tankers would generally require more piping and higher discharge 

rates and would therefore have higher retrofitting costs. 

Vessel delays caused by discharging ballast water to an onshore treatment system could lead to 

increased costs to vessel operators and/or agents. These costs include demurrage, dockage, hire 

or charter rates, pilotage, and shore-side labor costs, estimated to total $70,000 per day at major 

California ports. 

Wharf Retrofitting 

All wharves would need piping and pumps installed to transfer ballast water received at shore to 

storage tanks. A mobile collection system would also be required to capture ballast water 

discharged from vessels approaching port or at anchor. Such a mobile system is not addressed in 

this study. 

Based on the assumed vessel discharge rate, all ports would require 24-inch diameter piping to 

carry ballast water from the vessels to storage tanks. Costs for materials and basic pipeline 

installation are currently approximately $100 per foot. Permitting, pumps and valves, etc., would 

approximately double the cost to $200/ft ($1.06 million per mile). It has been assumed that 

right-of-ways for pipelines can be obtained if necessary. Costs could be significantly higher if 

right-of-ways cannot be obtained or if environmental issues are encountered. 

Ballast Water Storage Tanks 

Each port would require ballast water storage capacity equal to the volume of two days of 

maximum discharge. Available port-specific data on vessel calls and ballast water discharge 

were analyzed to estimate the required storage capacity and the capacity of the treatment facility 

required by each port. Individual port records, data collected by the California State Lands 

Commission and U.S. Coast Guard Data (through the Smithsonian Environmental Research 

Center) were used. The reported discharge volumes may significantly under-represent the actual 

discharge in some ports. Most databases include only vessels arriving from outside of the U.S. 

EEZ and therefore do not include discharges of ballast water from coastal traffic which may be 

significant. 

URSIDAMES & MOORE ES-3 \\DM_SF01\VOL_1\WPWz\OOSEZ002.DOC 
All storage tanks were assumed to be. constructed of epoxy-coated welded-steel built on slab 

foundations. The calculated tank dimensions range from eight 190-foot diameter tanks required 

for the Port of Los Angeles to a single 28-foot diameter tank for the Port of Hueneme. Estimated 

port-specific tank costs range from $20.4 million for the Port of Los Angeles down to $55,000 

for the Port of Hueneme (see Table E-1). 

Onshore Treatment Facilities 

It was assumed that the onshore ballast water treatment facility would utilize existing 

technologies of filtration followed by ultra-violet irradiation (UV). This combination of 

technologies was chosen based on proven wastewater treatment performance and on worldwide 

availability. For onshore treatment to be feasible, it must be possible to install systems at all port 

locations. 

Filtration technology would remove particles and organisms down to the 50-micron size. The 

filtered water would then pass through a bank of UV lamps that emit a UV irradiation dose 

sufficient to kill or inactivate remaining organisms. The solids/sludge filtered out of the water 

prior to UV treatment would be thickened either by dissolved air flotation or inclined plate 

thickening and then dewatered via a plate and frame press. 

At the present time, a UV dose standard for the treatment of ballast water has not been 

established. In lieu of a ballast water standard, the California Wastewater Reclamation criteria, 

which specifies stringent controls for wastewater reuse, was applied. The standard specifies a 

minimum UV dose of 140 milliWatt seconds per square cm (mWs/ cm2

) . 

Conceptual onshore ballast water treatment facilities were designed for four different treatment 

capacities. The capacities considered were 1.0 million gallons per day (mgd) each for the Ports 

of Los Angeles and Long Beach, 0.2 mgd for the Ports of Humboldt Bay, Oakland, and San 

Francisco, 0.1 mgd for the Ports of Redwood City, Richmond, Sacramento, San Diego, and 

Stockton, and 0.001 mgd for the Port of Hueneme 

Estimated capital costs for onshore treatment facilities (excluding costs for port piping and 

storage tanks) at specific California ports would range from approximately $1.6 million for the 

0.1 mgd facilities for the Ports of Redwood City, Richmond, Sacramento, San Diego, and 

Stockton, to over $2.2 million for the 1.0 mgd facilities at the Ports of Los Angeles and Long 

Beach (see Table E-1). A treatment facility was not designed for the Port of Hueneme due to the 

very small volumes of ballast water involved. 

URSIDAMES & MOORE ES-4 \\DM_SF01\VOL_1 \WP\Yz\OOSEZ002.DOC 
Annual operating and maintenance. costs including chemicals, electricity, labor (facility 

operators), laboratory costs, and landfill disposal costs were calculated for each port. The annual 

costs would range from $142,000 to $223,000 (see Table E-I). 

Outfall And Solids Disposal 

The study assumed treated ballast water could be discharged back to the water body in which 

each port is located. It was assumed that the treated water would be considered benign and that a 

NPDES permit could be obtained from the appropriate Regional Water Quality Control Board 

(RWQCB). This assumption implies that a ballast water standard would be established so that 

the RWQCBs could make a determination that the treated water meets accepted standards. The 

RWQCBs would also need to find that the discharges are consistent with the Regional Water 

Quality Control Plan (Basin Plans) and Ocean Plans. 

It is unlikely that fresh water ports such as Sacramento and Stockton would be able to discharge 

treated ballast water directly to the Sacramento or San Joaquin Rivers because of high salinity in 

the treated water. Alternative disposal techniques such as transporting the water back to the 

ocean would need to be considered. 

A simple channel outfall or pinch-valve pipe outfall could be designed, permitted, and 

constructed for approximately $100,000 assuming no environmental impact or mitigation actions 

would be required. The small volume of solids resulting from filtration could be disposed of at a 

Class III landfill for approximately $20 per ton. 

E-4 DISCUSSION 

Technical Feasibility 

Onshore treatment of ballast water is technically feasible, provided the technology to achieve 

current wastewater treatment standards is equivalent to the technology required to treat ballast 

water for invasive species. It is technically possible to retrofit most vessels to allow for 

discharge to a shore-side facility. It is also possible to retrofit most wharves with connections 

and piping to transport ballast water to a treatment facility. Storage tanks could be built to 

accommodate the maximum discharge of ballast water from vessels which would allow for the 

treatment facility to be designed for an averaged treatment rate. Ballast water could be treated at 

onshore facilities using a combination of filtration and UV irradiation to remove or kill invasive 

species, provided that the dosage of UV necessary to kill or inactivate ballast water biota is 

equivalent to that used in existing wastewater treatment facilities. With the possible exception of 

fresh water ports and ports in water bodies with water quality constraints, treated ballast water 

URSIDAMES & MOORE ES-5 \\DM_SF01\VOL_1 \WP\yz\OOSEZ002.DOC 
could be discharged back to port or nearshore waters through an NPDES permitted outfall and 

the resulting solids disposed of at a landfill facility. 

Operational Feasibility 

After vessel retrofitting, it would be possible for containerships to discharge the ballast water 

associated with cargo loading at the wharf. The operational feasibility of wharf-side discharge 

for bulk carriers and tankers is less likely because the discharge volumes and discharge rates 

required during cargo loading operations for these types of vessels are much higher than 

containerships. In addition, many bulk carriers discharge ballast water on approach to port to 

enable faster cargo loading. Constraining these vessels to onshore discharge could significantly 

impact vessel schedules. 

Vessels also discharge ballast water when approaching ports to obtain adequate hull clearance in 

channels or above shallow water hazards. It is not operationally possible to discharge this water 

directly to an onshore facility. A mechanism to transfer such ballast water to an intermediary 

vessel would be required. Such required transfer could cause operational delays and could be 

subject to safety constraints. At-sea transfer of ballast water during rough weather would not be 

feasible. 

Discharge of ballast water to a wharf-side collection system would be operationally feasible as 

would operation and maintenance of ballast water storage tanks and treatment facilities. 

Operation of a seawater outfall would be limited to locations where such outfalls could be 

permitted and constructed. In locations where outfalls of salt water cannot be permitted because 

ofNPDES constraints (such as fresh water ports or water bodies which do not meet water quality 

objectives), other means to dispose oftreated ballast water would need to be considered. 

Onshore Treatment Costs 

Cost estimates for the five system components of vessel retrofitting, wharf retrofitting, storage 

tanks, treatment system and waste disposal/discharge were developed for each of the 11 

California public ports as described above and summarized in Table E-I. The costs for the four 

onshore components were added and converted to a cost estimate of treatment cost per metric ton 

(MT) of discharged ballast water (vessel retrofitting costs do not convert well to this metric). 

For the 11 California public ports considered, these costs range from $1.40 per MT to $8.30 per 

MT (see Table E-2). Vessels delay costs and land acquisition costs are not included in these 

figures. 

URSIDAMES & MOORE ES-6 \\DM_SF01 \VOL_1\WP\YZ\OOSEZ002.DOC 
Other than the cost of open-ocean exchange, there is a paucity of cost data for other ballast water 

management options - such as shipboard treatment - against which the onshore treatment costs 

can be compared. The cost of the flow-through dilution method of open-ocean exchange is 

$0.10 to $0.15 per MT and the cost of the empty and fill exchange method is $0.03 to $0.05 per 

MT. 

Cost estimates for shipboard filtrationIUV and biocide treatment are being developed elsewhere 

as part of ongoing research and pilot studies. However, at present, a common standard of 

treatment effectiveness against which ballast water management options can be evaluated does 

not exist. A ballast water treatment standard is needed before meaningful comparisons of costeffectiveness can be made. 

Worldwide Application 

A key consideration in the feasibility of any ballast water treatment option is the viability of 

applying the system on a worldwide basis. Implementation of unilateral policies on a port or 

statewide basis would create, in the International Maritime Organization's words, unfair 

competition between port states. Ballast water treatment requirements must be the same 

worldwide in order to keep a "level playing field." 

E-5 KEY FINDINGS 

This study investigated the technical, operational and economic aspects of the onshore treatment 

option for control of invasive aquatic species. Key findings are: 

1.	 Technically, it would be feasible to retrofit vessels and wharves, construct 

onshore storage tanks and onshore treatment systems and discharge treated water 

back to the ocean, provided cost is not a consideration and the treatment standards 

for existing wastewater treatment systems can be assumed to be representative of 

the standards required for organisms in ballast water. 

2.	 It would be feasible to treat ballast water discharged from retrofitted container 

vessels, but operational delays are likely for bulk carriers and tankers that 

discharge significant volumes of water while loading cargo. Operationally, it 

would not be possible to treat all ballast water discharged within the U.S. EEZ at 

onshore facilities without intermediary vessels or some other transportation 

system to collect ballast water which, at present, is discharged outside of ports. 

Safety would be of concern for at-sea transfers of ballast water. 

URSIDAMES & MOORE	 ES-7 \\DM_SF01\VOL_1 \WP\YZ\OOSEZ002.DOC 
3.	 Economically, capital infrastructure costs would range from $7.6 million to $49.7 

million. Operation and maintenance costs would range from $142,000 to $223,00 

per year. Therefore, onshore treatment of ballast water is likely to cost at least 

$1.40 per metric ton of ballast water treated and as much as $8.30 per metric ton 

for California public ports, depending on port configuration and discharge 

volume. For other ports that handle a proportionally larger volume of bulk carrier 

and tanker traffic, the costs are expected to be higher. Based on these costs, the 

onshore treatment option would not be economically feasible. 

The development of ballast water treatment technologies is at an early stage. A wide variety of 

shipboard options using physical and chemical treatment technologies are under consideration at 

this time. Given the stage of development of ballast water treatment options, it is too early to 

consider significant investment in the onshore treatment option. 

URSIDAMES & MOORE	 ES-8 \\DM_SF01\VOL_1 \WP\yz\OOSEZ002.DOC 
Table E.! Port Data and Cost Summary 

Port 

Specifications Capital Costs 

Annual 

O&M 

Costs I 

Wharf 

Piping 

Length 

(Mi) 

2-Day 

Storage 

Tank 

(Million 

Gallons) 

Treatment 

System 

Capacity 

(mgd) Piping Cost 

Storage 

Tank Costs 

Treatment 

System 

Capital 

Costs 

Outfall 

Cost Total 

Hueneme 1.0 0.1 0.001 $1,056,000 $55,000 NA $100,000 NA NA 

Humboldt 12.0 7.9 0.2 $12,672,000 $4,000,000 $1,781,000 $100,000 $18,553,000 $149,800 

Long Beach 27.1 10.2 1.0 $28,617,600 $5,100,000 $2,220,400 $100,000 $36,038,000 $223,454 

Los Angeles 25.6 40.6 1.0 $27,033,600 $20,400,000 $2,220,400 $100,000 $49,754,000 $223,454 

Oakland 15.0 7.3 0.2 $15,840,000 $3,800,000 $1,781,000 $100,000 $21,521,000 $149,800 

Redwood City 1.5 8.4 0.1 $1,584,000 $4,300,000 $1,631,500 $100,000 $7,615,500 $142,400 

Richmond 5.5 6.6 0.1 $5,808,000 $3,400,000 $1,631,500 $100,000 $10,939,500 $142,400 

Sacramento 1.3 9.4 0.1 $1,372,800 $4,800,000 $1,631,500 $100,000 $7,904,300 $142,400 

San Diego 8.8 6.0 0.1 $9,292,800 $3,100,000 $1,631,500 $100,000 $14,124,300 $142,400 

San Francisco 8.0 12.4 0.2 $8,448,000 $6,300,000 $1,781,000 $100,000 $16,629,000 $149,800 

Stockton 5.1 10.9 0.1 $5,385,600 $5,500,000 $1,631,500 $100,000 $12,617,100 $142,400 

Notes:
 

I) Including solids disposal
 

URS/Dames Moore 
Table E.2 Calculated Treatment Cost per Metric Ton of Ballast Water 

Port 

Calculated 

Annual 

Discharge 

(MT)I 

Storage 

Facility 

Annualized 

Capital Costs 2 

Treatment 

Facility 

Annualized 

Capital Costs 2 

Treatment 

Facility Annual 

Operating Costs 

3 

Annualized 

Berth Piping 

Costs 2 

Annualized 

Outfall Costs 

Total 

Annualized 

Costs 

Treatment Cost 

per MT Ballast 

Water 

Hueneme 687 $1,833 NA NA $35,200 $3,333 NA NA 

Humboldt Bay 193,552 $133,333 $59,367 149,800 $422,400 $3,333 $768,233 $3.97 

LongBeach 939,151 $170,000 $74,013 223,454 $953,920 $3,333 $1,424,721 $1.52 

Los Angeles 1,372,758 $680,000 $74,013 223,454 $901,120 $3,333 $1,881,921 $1.37 

Oakland 220,647 $126,667 $59,367 149,800 $528,000 $3,333 $867,167 $3.93 

Redwood City 78,056 $143,333 $54,383 142,400 $52,800 $3,333 $396,250 $5.08 

Richmond 61,166 $113,333 $54,383 142,400 $193,600 $3,333 $507,050 $8.29 

Sacramento 137,210 $160,000 $54,383 142,400 $45,760 $3,333 $405,877 $2.96 

San Diego 78,737 $103,333 $54,383 142,400 $309,760 $3,333 $613,210 $7.79 

San Francisco 150,775 $210,000 $59,367 149,800 $281,600 $3,333 $704,100 $4.67 

Stockton 70,249 S183,333 $54,383 142,400 S179,520 $3,333 $562,970 $8.01 

Notes: 

I) Annual discharge calculated from average daily discharge times 365 days 

2) A 30-year life was assumed for the storage and treatment facility, berth piping, and outfall structure. Annualized 

capital costs are the capital construction costs divided by 30 years. 

3) Including solids disposal 

URS/Dames Moore 
1.0 INTRODUCTION
 

The introduction of nonindigenous aquatic species into bays and estuaries is of worldwide 

ecological and economic concern. Invasive species have become established through a variety of 

transportation vectors including ballast water discharge. Previous studies have provided an 

overview of the ballast water issues and potential management tools including the voluntary atsea exchange of ballast water recommended by U.S. Coast Guard, California, and International 

Maritime Organization (IMO) guidelines (Carlton et aI, 1995; Oemcke, 1999; Dames & Moore, 

1999). 

Shipboard and onshore treatment of ballast water have been proposed as means to control the 

introduction of non-indigenous species. Pilot programs investigating shipboard treatment are 

underway in the Great Lakes and in Vancouver, Canada. However, no onshore treatment pilot 

programs focussing on the control of exotic species have been initiated to date'. In recognition 

of this knowledge gap, the California Association of Port Authorities (CAPA) obtained a grant 

from the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to study the conceptual 

feasibility of onshore treatment of ballast water. 

The purpose of this study is to assess at a conceptual level the technical and operational 

feasibility of onshore ballast water treatment at public port facilities in California and to estimate 

the associated costs, with the objective of evaluating whether further detailed analysis and pilot 

programs are warranted. To achieve this objective, the following approach has been adopted: 

•	 Calculate the ballast water treatment requirements of various California ports 

based on best available ballast water discharge data; 

•	 Develop conceptual designs for onshore ballast water treatment systems and 

associated retrofitting needed to handle the discharge volumes and rates for each 

port; and 

•	 Estimate order-of-magnitude costs for the onshore treatment system, including; 

Costs of vessel retrofitting to allow pumping ballast water ashore; 

Costs to construct ballast water storage tanks; 

Costs to retrofit wharves with piping to transfer ballast water from vessels 

to the treatment facility (reticulation costs); 

I Onshore treatment of ballast water for conventionalpollutantsdoes occur, (see Section 2.1).
 

URSIDAMES & MOORE 1 K:\WPWZ\OOSEZ002.DOC
 
Capital costs to construct the treatment facilities;
 

Operation and maintenance costs;
 

Costs to construct outfalls; and
 

Potential additional costs to shipping lines due to vessel delays.
 

In order to evaluate the technical and operational feasibility of onshore treatment, evaluation 

criteria are needed. The criteria used in this study are as follows: 

Technical Feasibility: 

Is it technically possible, with the use of existing technology, to process ballast water at an 

onshore treatment facility at volumes and rates currently discharged at California ports, 

irrespective of cost? 

Operational Feasibility: 

Can all ballast water presently discharged within the 200 mile U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone 

(EEZ) and/or 2000-foot water depth criteria be discharged to onshore treatment facilities without 

causing significant delays to vessel operations while maintaining vessel safety? 

Associated Costs: 

While shipping and port interests are concerned about the economic feasibility of onshore ballast 

water treatment, the development of both shipboard and onshore treatment alternatives is at an 

early stage. A treatment standard has not been established which means it is not possible to 

make meaningful comparisons of the costs of treatment options. Hence, economic feasibility is 

not analyzed in this study. Specific issues that will need to be addressed in future studies are: 

1.	 Is it cost effective to treat ballast water onshore compared with alternative 

treatment methods and management tools, including those under development? 

2.	 Is it reasonable to expect vessel operators would continue to utilize such a system 

if more cost effective technological or management tools were developed? 

3.	 Is it realistic to expect such a system could and would be installed on a 

nationwide or worldwide basis in order that ballast water treatment does not 

become an economic deterrent against countries/ states/ ports implementing such 

treatment? 

URSIDAMES & MOORE	 2 \\OM_SF01\VOL_1\WP\Yz\OOSEZ002.DOC
Issue #2 addresses the stage of development of new technologies and the problem of when to 

invest in anyone of the options. Is it possible that a new technology such as a "magic bullet" 

biocide or operational changes would render the capital investment in an onshore system 

worthless? If a treatment system involves significant capital expense, what is the probability that 

the investment would be lost? 

Issue #3 is based on the "level playing field" concept of competition between various ports and 

countries. Ideally, environmental protection controls should apply equally worldwide, as is 

recognized in the IMO guidelines. 

Report Outline 

Section 2 of this report presents a brief overview of the current state of onshore ballast water 

treatment and research. Section 3 presents the study approach. Section 4 presents data, 

calculations, and findings for the five components ofonshore treatment; vessel retrofitting, wharf 

retrofitting, construction of ballast water storage tanks, construction and operation of ballast 

water treatment facilities, and construction of outfalls. A discussion of the general feasibility of 

onshore treatment and the specific feasibility for California's public ports is presented in Section 

5. Section 6 presents conclusions. 

2.0 BACKGROUND 

Vessel operations require ballast water to maintain stability, increase or decrease draft, and avoid 

unacceptable structural loads to ensure the safety of crew, ship, and cargo. Ballast water 

adjustments are made at sea to control draft and stresses, in entrance channels to reduce draft to 

enter into shallower water, and in port to control trim and list during cargo loading and unloading 

operations. 

Ballast water capacities and discharge rates vary widely between vessel types. Large tankers can 

carry up to 200,000 metric tons (MT) of ballast water (approximately 40% of their deadweight 

tonnage (DWT) or cargo carrying capacity). Tankers usually operate a one-way trade pattern, 

carrying cargo in one direction and returning in ballast. Tankers discharge ballast water at rates 

of up to 20,000 MT per hour (NRC, 1996). Containerships typically carry lower percentages of 

ballast water rated to DWT (30%) (AQIS, 1994). They generally embark in two-way trade; 

carrier vessels discharge ballast water at lower rates of 1,000 to 2,000 MT per hour (NRC, 1996). 

Bulk carriers are in between, carrying approximately 30% to 40% of their DWT in ballast water 

(up to 90,000 MT of ballast water) and discharging at rates of 5,000 to 10,000 MT per hour. 

URSIDAMES & MOORE 3 \\DM_SF01\VOL_1 \WPWZ\OOSEZ002.00C 
Unmanaged ballasting and deballasting operations have contributed to the introduction of exotic 

nonindigenous species into coastal waters and estuaries worldwide (Carlton et al., 1990, 1995; 

Cohen & Carlton, 1995, Nichols et al., 1990; MacDonald & Davidson, 1998). Past and potential 

economic and ecological impacts of such introductions have lead to international, national, 

regional, and state regulations and guidelines, which attempt to control nonindigenous species 

introductions resulting from ballast water discharge. 

At present, most regulations and guidelines focus on offshore ballast water exchange to prevent 

the discharge of potentially invasive species in nearshore waters. However, exchange is only 

partially effective due to safety concerns which may override exchange at times, as well as 

effectiveness of the actual exchange (Dames & Moore, 1999). Other potential ballast water 

management and treatment options include various shipboard chemical and physical treatment 

methods, ballast water micro-management, retaining ballast onboard, risk-based management, 

and treatment onshore (Dames & Moore, 1999; Oemcke, 1999; Oemcke & van Leeuwen, 1998). 

Within North America, pilot studies into the effectiveness of ballast water treatment methods 

have focussed on shipboard systems. The invasion of the Great Lakes by the zebra mussel native 

to the Baltic Sea was a key factor in the development of the current U.S. invasive species 

legislation. To investigate possible shipboard control of introductions, the Great Lake Ballast 

Water Treatment Demonstration Project, managed by the Northeast-Midwest Institute has been 

testing a filtration system on a barge in Minnesota. The system uses self cleaning filters and has 

been tested down to pore sizes of 50 microns and flow rates of up to 350 m3

/hr (1,500 gpm). 

There are plans to add an UV irradiation phase to the system this summer (T. Marley, pers. 

comm.). 

Hyde Marine, Inc. of Cleveland, Ohio installed a two-phase cyclonic/UV system on the cruise 

ship PN Regal Princess in April 2000. The system can treat up to 200 m3

/hr (880 gpm). The 

filters remove material larger than 40 microns that has a specific gravity greater than that of 

water. The UV system then irradiates the filtered water with a dose of 130 mill'Wattsec/cnr'. 

This system is designed to disinfect ballast water during ballasting so that the separated solids 

can be discharged back to the source waters. Approximately 10% of ballast water is returned to 

the source with the solids (T. Marley,pers. comm.). 

The Canadian Fisheries and Oceans Agency, Vancouver, B.C., is testing the effectiveness of a 

modular, ship-based, two-phase hydrocyclonelUV system developed by Velox Technologies 

Inc., of Calgary, Alberta. As with the Hyde Marine system, the hydrocyclone separates material 

with a specific gravity greater than that of water. UV radiation is used to kill or inactivate 

organisms remaining after filtration. A range of dosages and frequencies are required to 

inactivate various taxa. Fisheries and Oceans is studying the effectiveness of the system as 

URSIDAMES & MOORE 4 \\OM_SF01\VOL_1 \WPWz\OOSEZ002.00C 
measured by organism mortality rather than removal. They are testing a 300 m3

/hr Velox system 

on a variety of organisms including mussels, clams and dinoflagellates (T. Sutherland, pers. 

comm.). 

Velox Technology estimates that the equipment capital cost for a hydrocyclonetUV system 10 

times the size of the Vancouver system - one with a capacity of 3,000 m

3

/hr to 4,000 m

3

/hr ­

would be less than $500,000 (W. Hesse, pers. comm.). Such a system would also have the 

primary objective of mortality rather than removal. The reject phase is run through the system 

again to achieve the highest possible mortality rate. Although UV acts by damaging an 

organism's DNA, some organisms such as algae undergo photo-repair of damaged DNA in the 

presence of light (Levine & Thiel, 1987). Because the system would be operated during 

ballasting, any irradiated organisms passing the UV lamps would remain in ballast tanks, thereby 

reducing the possibility of photo-repair. 

2.1 EXISTING ONSHORE BALLAST WATER TREATMENT SYSTEMS 

Some tanker terminals and drydocks have water treatment systems which process ballast water 

for chemical or physical pollutants before discharge to nearby surface water. Oil terminals 

receiving oily ballast water from tankers are required to have treatment facilities for the removal 

of oil from the ballast water under Annex I of MARPOL 73/78. Once the oil has been removed, 

the treated water can be discharged. It has been suggested that such facilities could also be used 

to treat ballast water for invasive species from other types of ships. This section reviews three 

existing onshore treatment facilities - none of which were specifically designed to remove 

invasive species from ballast water. 

Alyeska Pipeline, Valdez, Alaska 

The Alyeska ballast water treatment system receives ballast water from tankers emptying nonsegregated ballast water tanks (ballast water carried in cargo tanks) prior to loading crude oil in 

the same tanks. The Alyeska ballast water treatment plant was not designed to kill or remove 

non-indigenous species. The three-step treatment process to remove oil includes gravity 

separation, dissolved air floatation, and biological treatment designed to remove soluble 

aromatics remaining in the water after the first two steps. 

While the treatment system was not designed to remove or kill non-indigenous species, live 

organisms have not been found in the discharge from the plant. Mortality of organisms is 

attributed to the natural toxicity of the soluble oil compounds in combination with low dissolved 

oxygen resulting from high chemical oxygen demand in the non-segregated tanks (J. Kling, 

pers. comm.). The facility has made initial investigations into the possibility that it could be used 

URSIDAMES & MOORE 5 \\OM_SF01\VOL_1 \WP\yz\OOSEZ002.DOC 
to treat both segregated and non-segregated ballast water through the addition of a biological 

treatment unit. The outstanding questions are whether the system has the capacity to handle 

significantly larger water volumes and the form and effectiveness ofthe biological unit. 

Cascade General Drydock, Portland Oregon 

Cascade General is a large drydock facility on the Columbia River in Oregon. The facility has 

two ballast water treatment plants. The first treats non-segregated ballast water. Tanker ballast 

water is pumped to an oil-processing facility where it undergoes steam and gravity separation. 

The resulting water is discharged under a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

(NPDES) permit. The system has a storage capacity of 8 million gallons. The second system 

treats segregated ballast water discharged from a vessel's tanks into the drydock during repairs. 

The water undergoes clarification and flocculation to treat for metals and turbidity. The water is 

then neutralized to control pH and the resulting water is discharged under the NPDES permit. 

Neither system is designed for or could be used to treat ballast water for invasive species (A. 

Sprott, pers. comm.). 

San Francisco Dry Dock, San Francisco, California 

San Francisco Dry Dock Inc. (SFDD), located in the Port of San Francisco, performs services 

including ship repair (painting, abrasive blasting, hydroblasting, fabrication of parts, and 

cleaning of tanks onboard vessels). Discharges from the facility to central San Francisco Bay 

include ballast water from the floating dry docks, ballast water from vessel ballast tanks, noncontact cooling water, and stormwater associated with industrial activity at the facility. 

Ballast water waste from SFDD includes ballast water from the vessels being serviced. Because 

this water is potentially contaminated with chemical additives, oil and grease, particulates, and 

invasive species, discharge into San Francisco Bay is prohibited. Additional ballast water waste 

of approximately 30 million gallons is discharged from Dry Dock #1 for every dry dock 

evolution. This water is used to submerge the dry dock in order to bring in vessels. Because 

these ballast tanks are enclosed and no chemical additive is used, the floating dock ballast water 

is a discharge of Bay water and is permitted. 

The California Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) for the San Francisco Bay 

Region issued a Waste Discharge Requirements Order for a NPDES Permit for SFDD in May 

1999. The Order allowed SFDD until January 1,2000 to apply for a Pre-Treatment Permit with 

the City of San Francisco for the discharge of vessel ballast water to the San Francisco sewage 

treatment system. SFFD appealed the prohibition on the discharge of ballast water and 

sediments to the Bay, as their publicly-owned treatment works (POTW) treatment permit 

URSIDAMES & MOORE 6 \\OM_SF01\VOL_1 \WPWz\OOSEZ002.DOC 
prohibits them from discharging saline water except in small quantities to the POTW and the 

prohibition was stayed (S. Moore, San Francisco RWQCB,pers. comm.). 

As discussed in Section 3, discharge of ballast water to POTWs is unlikely to be a viable 

treatment option for most ports. 

2.2 PREVIOUS ONSHORE BALLAST WATER RESEARCH 

AQIS Research 

The Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service (AQIS) is the lead agency for the management 

of ballast water issues in Australia, including policy development, implementation of a strategic 

research plan, and quarantine operations. AQIS investigated the feasibility of onshore treatment 

using UV disinfection (AQIS, 1993a). A conceptual facility was designed to treat the ballast 

water from three 140,000 metric ton (MT) bulk carriers per week, assuming 45,000 m3 (11.9 

million gallons) per carrier. The design assumed that the ballast pump capacity was 4,000 m31h 

(1.06 million gallons per hour or 17,600 gallons per minute). With a storage facility of 

50,000 m3 (132,000 gallons) a treatment plant capacity of approximately 800 m31h (210,000 

gallonslh) would be required. This is approximately one fifth of the required capacity for the 

treatment plant if only nominal storage were provided. 

The study included treatment costs (construction, operation and maintenance costs), but did not 

include the cost of land for the facility, costs for vessel retrofitting to allow pumping ballast 

water ashore, or costs to install pipes from the wharves to the facility. The study concluded that 

further research was necessary including research on disinfection options, costs, effectiveness, 

and impacts to shipping lines. When the AQIS study was originally published, it was generally 

thought that a cost effective onshore treatment facility could be developed. However, 

subsequent research by AQIS has indicated that onshore treatment is probably too expensive a 

treatment option for Australian ports (P. Lockwood, AQIS,pers. comm.). 

Canadian Coast Guard 

In 1992, Pollutech prepared a report for the Canadian Coast Guard, evaluating various ballast 

water treatment and management options. The analysis included onshore treatment as an option 

and concluded that it may be feasible. Costs for portions of this option were developed by the 

Victorian Parliamentary Commission into Ballast Water (ENRC, 1997). They concluded that, 

for some ports where wharves were not widely spread and where available land is inexpensive, 

onshore treatment could be economically feasible. However, the study estimated extremely low 

URSIDAMES & MOORE 7 \\DM_SF01\VOL_1\WP\YZ\OOSEZ002.00C 
costs for retrofitting vessels and did not consider all costs associated with onshore facilities (for 

example, wharf piping) which compromises the validity of the conclusions. 

3.0 STUDY APPROACH 

To investigate the feasibility of onshore treatment of ballast water at California ports, current 

ballast water practices were compared with a scenario in which vessels discharge all ballast 

water to wharf-side connections during cargo loading or unloading. Rather than discharging 

ballast water overboard as is the present practice, vessels would pump ballast water to the 

wharves where it would be piped to storage and treatment facilities. The treated water would be 

discharged back to the port waters and the solids would be disposed of at a landfill. 

The major infrastructure and operational modification components required for such an onshore 

system include: 

6.	 Retrofitting of vessels to allow discharge of ballast water through standardized 

wharf-side connections; 

7.	 Retrofitting of wharves with piping connections, pumps and force mains to 

convey ballast water from vessels to onshore storage and treatment facilities; 

8.	 Construction of storage tanks to handle peak discharge flows from multiple 

vessels; 

9.	 Construction of ballast water treatment plant(s); and 

10.	 Construction of outfalls to discharge treated water and disposal of solids at a 

landfill. 

Several key assumptions are built into the onshore treatment scenario analyzed in this study. 

They include the assumption that the onshore system would only treat ballast water discharged at 

the wharves. A separate system would be required to capture and transport ballast water 

discharged during the approach to coastal waters or to reduce draft in shallow channels or ports. 

Such an off-loading system has not been included in this analysis. 

It has been assumed that use of existing wastewater treatment systems such as POTWs to treat 

ballast water is not generally possible and construction of new ballast water treatment plant 

would be required. There are two reasons for this assumption, 1) POTWs typically treat 

wastewater from fresh water sources and the salts in sea water (30,000 to 35,000 ppm) would kill 

fresh-water bacteria used in most POTWs, and 2) due to water conservation goals, POTWs seek 

to reuse processed wastewater for industrial uses or irrigation. Water quality objectives for 

wastewater reuse depend on the intended use but are generally less that 200 ppm chloride (R. 

Nuzum, pers. comm.). 

URSIDAMES & MOORE	 8 \\DM_SF01 \VOL_1 \WP\Yz\OOSEZ002.DOC 
There are exceptional circumstances where use of POTWs may be viable, such as for POTW 

treatment of small volumes of ballast water, or a POTW which already experiences high salinity 

loading due to salt water leakage into sewer lines. However, these circumstances are unusual, 

. and in general, the use of existing POTWs is not considered feasible. It may be feasible to 

modify existing non-segregated oily-water ballast water treatment systems to handle segregated 

ballast water (see Section 2.1). However, most public ports do not have such systems in place 

and construction of new ballast water treatment facilities would be required. 

The key assumptions for each component of the onshore system are as follows: 

1. Vessel Retrofitting 

a) Vessels would pump ballast water from tanks to wharf-side connections; 

b) All vessels would have standardized connections; and 

c) The rate of ballast water discharge would closely approximate cargo loading rates 

to avoid delays. 

2. Wharf Retrofitting 

a) All or most of a port's wharves would be connected to the treatment system; 

b) The piping system would have capacity to accommodate peak vessel discharge 

rates; and 

c) Right-of-ways could be obtained for pipelines. 

3. Storage Tanks 

a) Tanks would have the capacity for two days' peak volume; 

b) Standard above-ground epoxy-coated steel tanks would be used; and 

c) Foundation engineering for seismic issues in soft soil conditions would not be 

required. 

4. Ballast Water Treatment System 

a) The system would have a capacity equal to the average discharge volume per day 

(see Section 4.3); 

b) Currently available filtration and UV irradiation technology would be used; 

c) In lieu of a specific ballast water treatment standard, the treatment standards for 

wastewater can be assumed to apply; and 

URSIDAMES & MOORE 9 \\DM_SF01\VOL_1 \WP\VZ\OOSEZ002.DOC 
d)	 Solids would comprise. 10-50 mg/L of the ballast water (roughly equivalent to 

solids density in secondary treated water). 

s. Discharges: Outfall and Solids Disposal 

a)	 Disinfected ballast water would be discharge back to the ocean or port waters 

though an NPDES permitted outfall; and 

b)	 Solids would be disposed of at a Class III landfill. 

Specific assumptions for each system component and details of each system component are 

presented in the following sections. 

4.0 SYSTEM COMPONENTS 

4.1 VESSEL RETROFITTING 

At present, most vessels take on ballast water through sea chests; open boxes generally located 

near the bottom of the ship and connected to valves and ballast water intake/discharge pipes. 

The sea chests are usually fitted with grates to prevent the uptake of debris. The intake/discharge 

pipe leads to the ballast water pump. Most ships have one or two large dedicated pumps 

(generally 500 to 3,000 m3/hour) (Herbert, 1999). Ballast water is pumped through the ballast 

water main, either one large trunk pipe branching to each ballast tank, or individual pipes to 

individual tanks, with remotely operated valves for each tank. 

During deballasting, water is usually discharged through valves located in the hull or back 

through the sea chests. Presently most vessels do not have the ability to discharge ballast water 

to onshore facilities and would require modifications to pumps and piping to allow such 

operations. 

Differences in vessel design and construction, even within a single type of vessel, make simple 

characterization of vessel ballast water systems difficult. For the purposes of this study, a 

generalized conceptual ballast water system was developed based on a figure from Marine 

Engineering (Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers, 1992). The original ballast and 

bilge water piping diagram is presented as Figure 4.1. The schematic ballast water diagram of an 

existing system developed from Figure 4.1 is shown as Figure 4.2. A conceptual system for 

retrofitted vessels is presented in Figures 4.3 and 4.4. Figures 4.2, 4.3 and 4.4 are very general 

and do not show the metering, controls, ancillary valves, filters, regulators, safety devices or 

other equipment that would be required in actual shipboard installations. 

URSIDAMES & MOORE	 10 \\DM_SF01\VOL_1\WPWZ\OOSEZ002.DOC 
The vessel retrofitting analysis is basedon the following assumptions: 

•	 Although bulk carriers, tankers and containerships carry different ballast water 

volumes, they all have essentially the same ballast water handling requirements. 

•	 The conceptual existing system presented in Figure 4.2 is representative of ballast 

water systems aboard containerships, bulk carriers, and tankers, (even though, as 

stated above, such a characterization is extremely difficult.) 2 

•	 The differences between the three classes of vessels are primarily those of size 

with the capacity of container vessels roughly half that of bulk carriers and 

tankers (See Footnote 1). 

•	 Vessels have two parallel ballast water systems that can be cross connected. 

(Figures 4.2 and 4.3 show only one, essentially half the system.) 

•	 Vessels do not have the capability to pump ballast water to the main or weather 

deck at volumes required to prevent vessel delay with the currently installed 

existing pumps and piping systems. As shown in Figure 4.3, a hose would have 

to be run from the hose connection up to the main or weather deck and over the 

side. 

•	 Vessels require the ability to berth on the port or starboard side and, hence must 

be able to transfer ballast water to a shore side facility both sides. 

•	 All three classes of vessels will have to lift ballast water from the ballast tanks 

vertically 100 feet (30 meters, or the height from the bottom of ballast tanks to the 

main or weather deck) to discharge to a shore facility. 

To enable existing vessels to pump ballast water to shore-based facilities, existing ballast water 

pumps would need to be replaced with higher capacity pumps, new piping would be installed to 

2 The location of the on-board shore connections will be different for bulk carriers and containerships than for 

tankers and tankers will general1y require more piping to complete the modification. As indicated on Figure 4.3, the 

new 'off-ship bal1ast water line' will originate at the existing below deck Port-Starboard bal1ast crossover line and 

run up to the main deck, where it will then tee and run to both the port and starboard shore discharge connections. 

On a tanker, the ballast water discharge shore connection will most likely need to be located at the mid-ships cargo 

loading/discharge manifold; where as, for containerships and bulk carriers the most appropriate location would be 

the bunkering (fueling) station, which is located in the aft quarter of the ship. Making the general assumption that 

the ballast pump crossover is located near the engine room, the pipe length required to run to the shore connection 

for containerships and bulk carriers should be significantly less than that for tankers. 

URSIDAMES & MOORE	 11 \\DM_SF01\VOL_1 \WP\yz\OOSEZ002.DOC 
the main or weather deck, and a manifold would be installed at that deck to allow connection to 

the shore facility. This new system is shown in Figure 4.3, Conceptual System. This system is 

designed to prevent vessel delays due to ballast water transfer operations and utilize as much of 

the existing system as possible. 

With existing systems, transferring ballast water from the ballast tanks to a shore facility requires 

that a hose must be connected and run to the main or weather deck and over the side to a shoreside reception facility and the ballast water pump must be operating. Operation of the conceptual 

system is identical except that rather than being pumped through a hose, the ballast water would 

be pumped through installed piping to an installed manifold to which the shore-side facility 

would be connected (Figure 4.3). Ifnecessary, both ballast water pumps could be run in parallel, 

doubling the vessel's ballast water flow rate. 

4.1.1	 Vessel Modification Costs 

Required vessel modifications would include the following: 

1.	 Removal of existing ballast water pumps, motors, foundations, control valves, 

strainers, controllers, wiring and associated instrumentation 3; 

2.	 Fabrication and installation of new ballast water pump foundations and main or 

weather deck overboard manifolds (port and starboard); 

3.	 Installation of new ballast water pumps, motors, controllers, associated 

instrumentation and control valves; 

4.	 Installation of new ballast water piping and associated valves from pumps to main 

or weather deck overboard manifolds; 

5.	 Installation of any required new electrical connections for power, control and 

instrumentation; and 

6.	 System testing. 

As shown in Table 4.1, engineering costs for modifying a containership or bulk carrier would be 

approximately $30,000, materials (pumps, piping, valves, etc.) would be approximately 

$190,000 and labor and services would be approximately $180,000, for a total modification cost 

of approximately $400,000. Tankers would generally require more piping and would therefore 

have higher associated costs. 

3 Although the volume of discharge should remain the same for retrofitted vessels. it will be at a higher pressure due 

to the change in head. It is therefore likely that the existing ballast water pumps and motors will require 

replacement. Existing control valves, strainers, controllers, and wiring will likely be reused. 

URSIDAMES & MOORE	 12 \\DM_SF01 \vOL_1\WPWz\OOSEZ002.DOC 
Due to variability between vessels, these cost estimates are only approximate. These estimates 

were determined based on discussions with various marine engineers and naval architects, 

including R. Harkins, Lakes Carriers Association; R. McCahon, Marco Shipyard; Cascade 

Machinery; Pump Industries and various references (e.g., Herbert, 1999; Tagg, 1999; Mackey et 

al., 2000, Parson, 1998; and Oemcke, 1999). 

The cost estimates are presented in Table 4.1 and are based on the following assumptions: 

•	 Piping size, pump and pump power requirements are based on overcoming a 30­

meter head at rates of 1,000 cubic meters of seawater per hour for all three vessel 

types", The power requirements used to size pumps was assumed to be 0.066 

KW/cubic meter/hour. 

•	 For most ships new shore connection handling gear would not be necessary. On 

tankers the shore connection would be located at the mid-ships loading/discharge 

manifold where it would be able to be serviced by the existing hose handling 

equipment (crane or boom); and on other vessels it would be located at the 

bunkering (fueling) station, where it could be serviced by the existing bunker hose 

handling gear. 

•	 As a result of the head increase, for all three vessel types, existing ballast water 

pumps would need to be replaced with more powerful pumps. The tankers and 

bulk carriers would have the same pumping requirements. 

•	 Containerships and bulk carriers would require approximately 55 meters of new 

40-cm diameter piping and associated valves and manifolds running from the 

discharge of the ballast water pump to the main or weather deck. Tankers could 

require considerably more piping, although many already have to ability to pump 

oily ballast water ashore for treatment. 

•	 Labor costs would be approximately equal to material costs and engineering costs 

and were assumed to be approximately 7% to 10% ofthe total modification costs. 

4 (Notethat containervesselpumpingcapacityrangesfrom 1,000 to 2,000cubic metersper hour, while for tankers 

and bulk: carriers it ranges to over 20,000cubicmetersper hour.) 

URSIDAMES& MOORE	 13 K:\WP\yz\OOSEZ002.DOC
4.1.2 System Operations Costs 

The primary operational cost of the modified system would be the additional fuel required to 

produce the additional required electrical power. It can be assumed that before the modifications 

were performed, the vessels were moving the same volume of ballast water as after installation. 

The difference in operating costs for the vessel would be the incremental increase in fuel usage 

for the larger pumps and motors required to overcome the 30-meter vertical distance. In light of 

other expenses and costs, these differences in cost are likely to be minimal. 

In addition to the increased cost of the fuel, the other large operational cost would be the 

increased labor time (crew costs). It would likely take at least two crew members one hour to 

remove the shore connection blank, rig up the shore hose, bring it on board, bolt-up to the shore 

connection, and begin transferring ballast. The system would also have to be monitored during 

ballast discharging operations. Although more labor has been identified, the actual crew cost in 

dollars is difficult to quantify given the variety of countries from which vessel crews originate. 

4.1.3 New Construction Costs 

Providing the equivalent off-ship transfer capability to the design and construction of a new 

vessel would likely reduce the costs of the above by an order of magnitude. However, it should 

be noted that vessels are long-lived capital equipment. The vessel being delivered today can be 

expected to be in operation for at least twenty years and active vessel lives in excess of 35 years 

are not uncommon. 

Similarly, some types of vessels may be designed to minimize or, even eliminate the need for 

ballast water discharge. 

4.1.4 Increased Costs Due to Vessel Delays 

Vessel delays could lead to increased costs to vessel operators and/or agents, including 

demurrage, dockage, hire or charter rates, pilotage, and shore-side labor costs. The following 

costs are indicative of those typical in large California public ports. However, the cost vary 

widely between ports both nationally and internationally. They are given here only to provide an 

indication of the magnitude of potential vessel delay costs. These costs are not included in the 

economic assessment ofthe onshore treatment option. 

URSIDAMES & MOORE 14 \\DM_SF01WOL_1\WPWz\OOSEZ002.DOC 
Demurrage 

Demurrage is a charge levied by the vessel owner for the period a vessel is retained beyond the 

allocated time for unloading or loading. Typical demurrage charges in large California ports are 

presented below (R. Lindsay, General Steamship Corp. and John Berge, Star Shipping, pers. 

comm.). 

• Panamax Container Vessel: $20,000 per day 

• Afromax Tanker: $12,000 per day 

• Panamax Bulker: $11,000 per day 

Dockage 

Average dockage rates at California Ports for all vessel types are approximately $4,400 for the 

first 24 hours and $850 per subsequent six-hour period or fraction thereof (G. Hallin, Port of 

Oakland, pers. comm.). 

Hire or Charter Rates 

Hire or Charter rates are essentially the "rent" paid by a charterer for the use of the vessel. These 

rates vary widely based on the vessel and contract type but figures between $8,500 to over 

$20,000 per day are common (R. Lindsay, General Steamship Corp., pers. comm.). 

Other Fees 

If, due to a delay, a vessel is forced to go to anchorage or shift berths, a pilot and tug fee of 

approximately a $1,000 could be expected (R. Lindsay, General Steamship Corp., pers. comm.). 

A cargo gang costs approximately $12,000 per eight-hour shift. 

In total, a large container vessel delayed in a major California port for an extra day could 

generate over $70,000 in delay related costs. The cost impact on the vessel's schedule cannot be 

easily estimated. 

4.1.5 Other Vessel Operation Considerations 

It may not be possible for all vessels to discharge all ballast water to a shoreside facility without 

seriously impacting cargo loading. Shipboard ballasting operations vary widely from ship to 

ship and voyage to voyage, based on the particular vessel, cargo, current weather, anticipated 

future weather conditions; tides, and other conditions. 

URSIDAMES & MOORE 15 \\DM_SF01\VOL_1 \WP\YZ\OOSEZ002.DOC 
Ships often discharge ballast water while transiting to the wharf or while at anchor. These 

discharges may be for a variety of reasons, including: stability, under-keel clearance, taking on 

fuel or cargo while at anchor, and to reduce the time necessary at dock as cargo can sometimes 

be loaded faster than ballast can be discharged. The ballast water that is discharged before 

berthing would not be directly accessible to onshore treatment. 

Vessels do not always have the ability to transfer ballast water internally while loading or 

unloading cargo to compensate for structural bending, trim, and list. For example, many 

containerships have the capability to transfer ballast water between a pair of wing tanks for heel 

control, but few have the capability to transfer water fore and aft to keep the ship in level trim 

(Herbert, 1999). As a result, vessels often must deballast some tanks while ballasting others. 

4.2 WHARF RETROFITTING 

The second component of the conceptual onshore ballast water treatment system is wharf 

retrofitting. To avoid delays during cargo handling, every wharf would have to have the 

capability to handle ballast water transferred ashore. To capture ballast water discharged from a 

vessel underway or at anchor, a mobile collection system would also be required. Such a mobile 

system is not addressed in this analysis. 

It is possible that all active wharves within a port might not need retrofitting. Ports with high 

volumes of vessel traffic with most or all vessels discharging ballast water would likely require 

reticulation to all wharves to avoid delays. However, ports with either very few vessel calls, or 

with only a small number of vessels discharging ballast water may only require a few wharves to 

be connected. This determination would require a detailed port-specific analysis of present and 

future shipping and ballast water discharge patterns and is beyond the scope of this report. 

The California Coastal Act sets aside area of Ports and therefore limits land use to "water 

dependent uses" (California Public Resources Code, Division 20, §§30250-30255). A treatment 

facility may not be water dependent and would likely not be sited inside a Harbor district. In San 

Francisco Bay, the Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) is the federallydesignated coastal management agency. Near-shore development of water treatment facilities 

would need to be consistent with the McAteer-Petris Act (the BCDC enabling legislation). 

Vessel types can require wide ranges of ballast discharge flow rates for cargo handling 

operations. One vessel may only require an 8-inch overboard line, whereas another vessel may 

require a 16-inch overboard line. To accommodate this variability, the new shore discharge line 

will have to be sized to accommodate the greatest potential flow from a vessel. Also to maintain 

simplicity and ease of operation, the shore connection should be a standard size on all vessels. 

URSIDAMES & MOORE 16 \\DM_SF01\VOL_1\WPWZ\OOSEZ002.DOC 
This is similar to existing regulations regarding International Shore Connection for fire water, 

and standard discharge connection size for shoreside discharge of oily waste per IMO MARPOL 

1/19. 

For the purposes of this study it has been assumed that all ports will have 24-inch piping to carry 

for such piping ballast water from the vessels to the storage tanks. Costs for materials and basic 

pipeline installation are approximately $100 per foot. Experience indicates that including 

required permitting, pumps and valves, etc., approximately doubles the cost to $200/ft ($1.06 

million per mile). This cost is consistent with the (Australian) $1.4 million figure for 1.4 km of 

pipeline (approximately $1.1 million US per mile) estimated by ENRC (1997) to reticulate a 

small Australian port. It has been assumed that right-of-ways for pipelines can be obtained if 

necessary. Costs could be significantly higher if right-of-ways cannot be obtained or if 

environmental issues are involved. 

As an example of actual costs to install lines at port facilities, the Port of Oakland is in the 

process of constructing 8,350 feet of 20-inch force main, 1,300 feet of 30-inch gravity line to 

cross a channel and upgrading a pump station. The total cost for the project is $9.2 million of 

which $2.2 million is for the pump station upgrade. The remaining $7.2 million is the cost to 

install 3.8 miles of pipeline (T. Mankowski, pers. comm.). The costs include design, planning 

and construction in addition to environmental documentation, and permitting. Access to the 

pipeline alignment is not difficult with the exception of the channel crossing. Most of the rightof-way was obtained at no cost, which may not always be the case. 

4.2.1 Requirements for California Ports 

Information on the piping lengths required to retrofit the wharves at each CAPA port is discussed 

below and summarized in Table 4.2. Costs associated with the piping are presented in 

Section 5.2. The discussion includes specific issues related to each port. 

Port of Hueneme 

The Port of Hueneme includes two terminals. The South Terminal is a continuous 1,800-foot 

wharf with three 600-foot berths. North Terminal is a 1,450-foot wharf with two 700-foot deep 

draft berths. To pipe the terminals to a centralized facility would require approximately one mile 

of pipeline. The Port includes 95 acres, but there is no space available for a storage or treatment 

facility (P. Wallace, Director of Operations, pers. comm.). 

URSIDAMES & MOORE 17 \\DM_SF01\VOL_1 \WP\yz\OOSEZ002.DOC 
Port of Humboldt Bay 

The Port of Humboldt Bay consists of eight terminals (10 berths), located in three different areas 

of the bay; Eureka, ocean-side, and south bay. Connecting all of the terminals would involve 

over 12 miles of piping (D. Hull, pers. comm.) and would require a pipeline beneath the bay. 

Constructing a pipeline beneath the bay would be complicated by a myriad of environmental 

issues and may not be feasible. The alternative would be to build three separate treatment 

facilities for the three terminal areas. Land is available at the Port. 

Port of Long Beach 

The Port of Long Beach includes approximately 64 operational berths and would require 27.1 

miles of pipeline to connect the wharves to a treatment facility (R. Riffenburg, Deputy Chief 

Harbor Engineer, pers. comm.). There is some land available at the Port. 

Port of Los Angeles 

The Port of Los Angeles has a total of7l operational berths (D. Rice, Director of Environmental 

Management, pers. comm.). The wharves are spread along several branching channels. 

Assuming a centrally-located treatment facility, connecting all of the wharves to the facility 

would require a minimum of 16.8 miles of pipelines and 7 channel crossings. Channel crossings 

are possible but very expensive. Avoiding placing pipelines under channels would require 

approximately 25.6 miles of pipelines for a single centrally-located treatment facility and 

approximately 22.5 miles for two facilities located on different sides of the Port. Land for a 

treatment/storage facility could likely be made available. 

Port of Oakland 

The Port of Oakland has 28 deepwater berths at nine container terminals and two breakbulk 

cargo terminals. Over 15 miles of piping would be required to connect the wharves to a 

centralized facility. All vacant Port land is planned for future Port development. An onshore 

facility would displace other proposed uses (R. Boyle, pers. comm.) 

Port of Redwood City 

The Port of Redwood City has five wharves. Two wharves are 900-feet long, two are 750-feet 

long, and one is 500-feet long. Connecting the wharves to a central facility would require 

approximately 1.5 miles of piping (S. Khoo, Port Operations Manager, pers. comm.). Due to the 

URSIDAMES & MOORE 18 \\DM_SF01\VOL_1\WP\Yz\OOSEZ002.DOC 
proximity of Silicon Valley, land costs are at a premium, which may limit economic feasibility 

of storage. 

Port of Richmond 

The Port of Richmond has four wharves, several miles apart (1. Matzorkis, pers. comm.). The 

distance for piping between the terminals is approximately 5.5 miles. There is no land available 

at the Port for a treatment facility. 

Port of Sacramento 

The Port of Sacramento includes five 600-foot berths. The wharves are on both sides of the 

Sacramento River. There is land available for the treatment system and/or storage tanks about 

1,800 feet from two of the berths and 2,000 feet from the other three berths (T. Scheller, Port 

Engineer, pers. comm.). The total piping required would be approximately 1.3 miles. Port 

pipelines to a central facility would require piping under the river. Otherwise, two treatment 

systems would be required. It is unclear whether discharge of treated saline ballast water would 

be permitted under NPDES to the fresh water port. 

Port ofSan Diego 

The Port of San Diego consists of three terminal areas. Cargo is handled at the 1Oth Avenue 

Marine terminal (8 berths) and the National City Marine Terminal (6 berths). Cruise ship and 

passenger services are at the B Street Pier and Broadway Pier (5 berths each). It would require 

about 8.8 miles of pipeline to connect the three areas to a central facility (D. Winchip, Chief 

Wharfinger,pers. comm.). Land is available at the Port. 

Port of San Francisco 

The Port of San Francisco includes two terminal areas approximately six miles apart. There are 

two deep-draft container terminals with six berths, two berths for cruise ships, two lay berths for 

Navy vessels, two dry docks with three lay berths, and six berths for MARAD vessels (J. Davey, 

Marine Operations Manager, pers. comm.). The container terminals are 2,450 and 2,700 feet 

long. Connecting the terminals to a central facility would require approximately 8 miles of 

piping. To connect the terminal areas to a treatment facility would involve laying a pipeline 

beneath the Embarcadero, for which obtaining a right-of-way is likely not an option. The area 

around the Port is all private property with a price of approximately $700 per square foot. 

URSIDAMES & MOORE 19 \\DM_SF01\VOL_1 \WP\YZ\OOSEZ002.DOC 
Port of Stockton 

The Port of Stockton will have 23 600-foot berths when 10 berths at the Naval Base become 

operational. Connecting the wharves would require approximately 5.1 miles of total piping. The 

system would require either a pipeline under the river, or two treatment and storage systems (L. 

Hieber, Deputy Port Director, pers. comm.). It is unclear whether discharge of treated saline 

ballast water would be permitted under NPDES to the fresh water port. 

4.3 BALLAST WATER STORAGE TANKS 

The third component of the conceptual onshore system are the ballast water storage tanks. This 

treatment scenario assumes that each port would require ballast water storage capacity equal to 

two days' volume of maximum discharge. This capacity would be needed to: 1) minimize the 

required capacity ofthe treatment system; 2) equalize peak surge flows from deballasting vessels 

to allow the treatment facilities to operate at constant average rates; 3) allow vessels to discharge 

ballast water at rates higher than those of the treatment system; 4) allow for times when ports 

receive greater than the average number of vessel calls per day; 5) allow for vessels discharging 

greater than average volumes; and 6) allow for maintenance on the treatment system and for 

storage in the event that the treatment system breaks down. 

To determine the required storage capacity and the capacity of the treatment facility that would 

be required by each port, available port-specific data on vessel calls and ballast water discharge 

were gathered and analyzed. Data sources included individual port records, data collected by the 

California State Lands Commission (SLC), and U.S. Coast Guard Data. It is important to note 

that the reported volumes discharged may significantly under-represent the actual volume of 

discharge in some ports. Most databases include only vessels arriving from outside of the U.S. 

EEZ and therefore do not include discharges of ballast water from coastal traffic. These 

discharges may be significant. 

In addition, many vessels are not currently submitting ballast water report forms and therefore, 

their discharge is not included. Of the total numbers of vessels calling on various California 

ports, between 42% and 93% submitted ballast water reporting forms (Appendix A). The 

reporting levels are expected to improve as more operators become familiar with the reporting 

requirements. Despite these omissions, the data are currently the best information available. 

Designing and sizing an actual facility would require a much more extensive investigation of 

port usage and actual ballast water discharge. 

Available information on vessel arrivals and ballast water discharge for California ports is 

presented in Appendix A and summarized in Table 4.3. Between California Ports there is a large 

URSIDAMES & MOORE 20 \\DM_SF01\VOL_1\WP\VZ\OOSEZ002.DOC 
range in the frequency of vessel calls and volumes discharged. In addition, not all vessels 

discharge ballast water in port. Some ports, such as Los Angeles, regularly receive several 

vessel calls per day, of which, several calls per week discharge ballast water. Other ports, such 

as Hueneme, may only receive one vessel call or less per month. Average daily discharge 

volumes (total volume reported divided by the number of days covered) range from over 

3,700 MT at the Port of Los Angeles to 2 MT at the Port of Hueneme. It is assumed for these 

calculations that the discharge volumes in this data are representative of normal port operations. 

Although average discharge volumes per day were calculated for each port to determine required 

capacity for treatment (Table 45), the dockside reticulation and storage system must be able to 

accommodate the maximum volume per day for each port. The average and maximum volumes 

are often significantly different. For example, the Port of Los Angeles has an average daily 

discharge volume of 3,761 MT and a maximum daily volume of 76,789 MT. Required storage 

would be approximately 41 million gallons, but the treatment system would only need a capacity 

of about one million gallons per day (mgd). 

All storage tanks are assumed to be epoxy-coated welded-steel built on slab foundations. The 

costs to design and construct tanks under potentially severe seismic or difficult soil conditions 

has not been included in the analysis. 

4.3.1 Discharge Data for California Ports 

The following section presents the port-specific ballast water discharge information used to size 

the storage and treatment facilities. Information on ballast water discharge in most California 

ports is available from the Smithsonian Environmental Research Center (SERC) for July through 

December 1999 and from the State Lands Commission (SLC) for January through March 2000. 

The available data for each port are summarized in Table 4.3. As noted above, the volumes 

reported in Table 4.3 likely under-represent the actual volumes of ballast water discharged in 

port as some of the available databases include only vessels arriving from outside the U.S. EEZ 

and only those vessels that correctly completed ballast water survey forms. Some ports receive 

significant amounts of ballast water that was taken on from within the EEZ, but most reporting 

forms do not record this information. 

Port of Hueneme 

Port of Hueneme receives approximately 365 deep draft vessel calls per year, mostly from 

overseas. The vessel types include reefers, bulk carriers, car carriers, and roll-on roll-off (ro-ro) 

vessels. Most vessels calling at the Port do not discharge ballast water in port. Available data 

URSIDAMES & MOORE 21 \\DM_SF01\VOL_1\WPWZ\OOSEZ002.DOC 
for July 1999 through March 2000 indicate only five vessels discharged a total volume of 517 

MT of ballast water. 

Port of Humboldt Bay 

Humboldt Bay receives approximately 60 deep draft vessel calls per year (D. Hull, pers. comm.). 

These include 40,000 DWT woodchip carriers that arrive in ballast, and discharge an average of 

12,000 MT of ballast water. Ballast water discharge data for July through December 1999 

indicate a total volume of approximately 98,000 MT was discharged during this period. The 

average volume discharged per day was 530 MT and the maximum discharge volume recorded 

for a single day was 14,930 MT. 

Port of Long Beach 

The Port of Long Beach is the largest container port in the United States. The Ports of Long 

Beach and Los Angeles constitute the third largest container port complex in the world. The Port 

of Long Beach primarily receives container vessels but also receives bulk carriers, tankers, 

reefers, ro-ros, car carriers, and general cargo vessels 

Available data for the second half of 1999 indicate the total volume of ballast water discharged 

in the Port was approximately 480,000 MT. The average volume discharged per day was 2,573 

MT and the maximum volume recorded for a single day was 19,324 MT. 

Port of Los Angeles 

The Port of Los Angeles is the second largest container port in the United States. The Port of 

Los Angeles receives primarily container vessels, but also receives reefers, bulk carriers, tankers, 

ro-ros, and general cargo vessels 

Based on available data for July through December 1999, the total volume of ballast water 

discharged in the Port of Los Angeles was approximately 700,00 MT. The average volume 

discharged per day was 3,761 MT and the maximum recorded volume discharged in a single day 

was 76,789 MT. The maximum one-day discharge volume was the result of two coal carriers 

and one container vessel discharging ballast water. Each of the coal carriers discharged 

37,900 MT whereas the container vessel discharged just under 1,000 MT. 

URSIDAMES & MOORE 22 \\DM_SF01\VOL_1\WPWz\OOSEZ002.DOC 
Port of Oakland 

The Port receives primarily container vessels, but bulk carriers and general cargo vessels also 

call on the Port. Information on ballast water discharged in the Port is available from the SERC 

database for the second half of 1999 and from the State Lands data for the first quarter of 2000. 

These databases generally include only discharge data from vessels arriving from outside the 

EEZ. The Port of Oakland collected data for vessels arriving from October through December 

1999 that discharged ballast water in port originating from within the EEZ. These volumes were 

added to the SERC data for the same period. 

Based on the available data, the Port of Oakland received approximately 166,000 MT from July 

1999 through March 2000. The average volume discharged per day was 605 MT and the 

maximum recorded discharge for a single day was 13,883 MT. 

Port of Redwood City 

The Port of Redwood City receives primarily bulk carriers transporting construction materials 

such as bulk cement, sand and aggregates. Available data for the second half of 1999 show that 

during this period a total volume of approximately 39,000 MT of ballast water was discharged in 

the Port. The average volume discharged per day was 214 MT and the maximum recorded for a 

single day was 15,829 MT. 

Port of Richmond 

The Port of Richmond primarily receives vessel calls from bulk carriers and oil and chemical 

tankers. Most vessels calling at Richmond take on ballast water at the Port. Information on 

ballast water discharge in the Port of Richmond is available for July 1999 through March 2000. 

A total volume of approximately 46,000 MT of ballast water was discharged in the Port during 

this period. The average volume discharged per day was 168 MT and the maximum recorded 

volume discharged in a single day was 12,540 MT. 

For the first quarter 2000 data, 72% of all vessels calling on the port submitted ballast water 

reporting forms. Therefore, actual ballast water discharges may be higher than those reported. 

Port of Sacramento 

The Port of Sacramento primarily receives bulk carriers and wood-chip carriers. Information on 

ballast water discharge in the Port is available for July 1999 through March 2000. During this 

period, a volume of approximately 103,000 MT of ballast water was discharged in the Port. The 

URSIDAMES & MOORE 23 \\OM_SF01\VOL_1\WP\Yz\OOSEZ002.DOC 
average volume discharged per day was 376 MT and the maximum recorded volume for a single 

day was 17,836MT. 

Port of San Diego 

The Port of San Diego receives calls from bulk carriers, car carriers, general cargo vessels, 

reefers, tankers, and ro-ros. Based on the available data, from July 1999 to March 2000, 

approximately 59,000 MT of ballast water was discharged in the Port of San Diego during this 

period. The average daily discharge volume was 216 MT and the maximum recorded discharge 

volume for one day was 11,419 MT. 

Port of San Francisco 

The Port of San Francisco receives primarily oil and chemical tankers and containerships, but 

also receives general cargo vessels, bulk carriers, and ro-ros. The maximum recorded discharge 

volume for a single day was from two oil tankers. 

Data on ballast water discharge are available for the Port of San Francisco from July 1999 

through March 2000. During this period, a volume of approximately 114,000 MT of ballast 

water was discharged in the Port. An average volume of 314 MT was discharged per day and a 

maximum recorded volume discharged in a single day was 23,477 MT. 

Port of Stockton 

The Port of Stockton receives primarily bulk earners. Information on ballast water discharge in 

the Port is available for the second half of 1999 and for the first quarter of 2000. During this 

period, a total reported volume of approximately 53,000 MT of ballast water was discharged in 

port. The average volume discharged per day was 192 MT and the maximum recorded volume 

for a single day was 20,705 MT. 

4.3.2 Requirements for California Ports 

Based on the recorded discharged ballast water volumes presented above, the required storage 

capacity that would be required for each port was calculated using the following assumptions: 

• The available discharge volumes are representative of normal port operations; 

• All vessels accurately report discharge. (See Section 4.3); 

• All ports would utilize 24-foot tall above-ground epoxy-coated steel storage 

tanks; 

URSIDAMES & MOORE 24 \\DM_SF01\VOL_1 \WP\YZ\OOSEZ002.DOC 
• Each port would require storage capacity equal to two-days' worth of maximum 

discharge; 

• This storage would adequately provide for above-average discharge and periods 

when maintenance and/or repair of the treatment system would be required; and 

Table 4.4 presents the calculated storage facility capacities, tank dimensions and cost estimates 

for California ports. Land costs were not included. No growth factor for future capacity 

requirements was applied. Section 4.4 presents the conceptual design of the treatment facility 

module. 

As shown in Table 4.4, calculated tank dimensions range from eight 190-foot diameter tanks 

required for the Port of Los Angeles (requiring approximately 5.2 acres) to a single 28-foot 

diameter tank for the Port of Hueneme (requiring 0.01 acres). The largest tanks required, for the 

Port of Los Angeles are estimated to cost approximately $20.4 million, while the smallest tank, 

for the Port ofHueneme would cost approximately $55,000. 

The construction costs estimated in Table 4.4 do not include costs for permitting or seismic 

calculations that may be required for the foundations. If seismic evaluation is required, costs 

could be significantly higher. 

4.4 ONSHORE TREATMENT FACILITY CONCEPTUAL DESIGN 

This section describes the conceptual onshore ballast water treatment facilities that comprise the 

fourth component of the conceptual onshore. Design criteria are presented in Table 4.6 for each 

ofthe California ports. A schematic ofthe treatment process is presented as Figure 4.5 and a site 

schematic is presented as Figure 4.6. 

The conceptual design of the onshore ballast water treatment facility includes treatment by 

filtration followed by ultra-violet irradiation (UV). This combination of existing technologies 

was chosen based on their proven performance in potable and wastewater treatment, and their 

worldwide availability. For onshore treatment to be a feasible option, it must be effective and it 

must be possible to implement treatment at all port locations and in countries with differing 

levels of economic development. Proven and robust technology is needed to meet this 

requirement. Alternative technologies including the hydrocyclone technology being 

implemented for shipboard applications or advanced membrane filtration may be applicable for 

removal of invasive species. However, questions regarding the effectiveness, reliability, cost, 

and worldwide availability of such technologies have not yet been answered. For example, 

hydrocyclone technology relies on the difference between the specific gravity of water and that 

of the organism to cause separation and hence filtration. Yet many coastal species are neutrally 

URSIDAMES & MOORE 25 \\DM_SF01\VOL_1 \WP\YZ\OOSEZOO2.DOC 
buoyant and may not be removable by hydrocyclone. The results of ongoing studies (Fisheries 

and Oceans Canada, Hyde Marine/PrV Regal Princess) are needed to demonstrate the 

effectiveness of hydrocyclones. 

Filtration technology removes particles and organisms down to 50 microns. The filtered water 

then passes through a bank of UV lamps, which provide a dose of UV irradiation sufficient to 

kill or inactivate the remaining organisms. The solids/sludge filtered out of the water prior to 

UV treatment would be thickened either by dissolved air flotation (DAF) or inclined plate 

thickening and then dewatered via a plate and frame press. 

The treatment facility design is based on the assumptions that the facility would be required to 

treat the average discharge volume per day for each port. Because the storage facility would be 

the capacity to handle the maximum discharge of ballast water per day, ballast water could be 

discharged from vessels at significantly faster rates than it is treated. 

4.4.1	 System Elements 

The following sections describe the various elements of the treatment system. 

Filtration System 

Solids must be removed prior to UV treatment since UV is much less effective when particles 

shelter or mask organisms. Ballast water would be pumped from the storage tanks to the 

treatment system at a constant rate through the filtration system. The filters remove solids 

greater than 50 microns. A continuous backwash filtration process is proposed for two reasons: 

1.	 The continuous backwash filtration process is based on existing technology 

widely used for secondary effluent prior to disinfection at many wastewater 

treatment facilities. It was assumed that ballast water at these facilities would be 

disinfected to the same standard. 

2.	 The continuous backwash process results in a steady flow of filtered water and 

reject (backwash) water to downstream processes. As a result, the need for 

filtered-water and backwash storage tanks is eliminated. 

It should be noted that backwash and membrane filtration systems remove particles and 

organisms independent of the specific gravity of the organisms. As mentioned above, cyclone 

and hydro-cyclone filtration systems use the difference in specific gravity between an organism 

and seawater to achieve separation. In theory, a neutrally buoyant organism could pass through a 

URSIDAMES & MOORE	 26 \\oM_SF01\VOL 1\WP\Yz\OOSEZ002.DOC 
cyclone. However, protection against such organisms surviving is provided by the UV 

disinfection phase. 

Various chemicals would be added to the treatment stream at the filters. These include chlorine 

for control of algae and slimes, a coagulant such as alum or ferric chloride, and a polymer 

flocculent to aid in filtration. As with existing wastewater treatment systems, these chemicals 

would be either neutralized or removed before discharge Experience with filtration of 

wastewater secondary effluent has indicated that flocculation basins have a minimal effect prior 

to filtration, and as such, are not proposed for this system. 

Ultraviolet Disinfection 

After filtration, the effluent would flow through a UV disinfection channel. UV irradiation is 

effective for treatment of fresh water and has the potential to treat saline water for a wide range 

of organisms (Oemcke, 1999). Disinfection or inactivation of organisms occurs as organisms 

flow by the UV lamps mounted in a channel. The UV light damages the cells of organisms so 

that they die or are unable to replicate. 

The degree of disinfection is dependent on the type of organism and the dose (light intensity and 

exposure time). UV dose is expressed in milliwatts per square centimeter per second of exposure 

time (mws/cm/). In fresh water, the effective dosage for most organisms is on the order of 10 to 

25 mWs/cnr' (to achieve 99.99% inactivity) although higher doses on the order of 100 mWs/cnr' 

are necessary to inactivate some cyanobacteria and protozoa (Levine & Thiel, 1987; Campbell et 

al. 1995). Fewer studies have been performed on the dosages of UV required to treat the wide 

range of marine biota found in ballast water. Ongoing research by Fisheries and Oceans Canada 

is investigating the dose response behavior for a number marine organisms found in ballast water 

including shrimp, mussel and clam larvae, diatoms and dinoflagellates (T. Sutherland, pers. 

comm.) Sugita et al, (1992) found dosages less than 25 mWs/cm2 were effective for treatment of 

bacteria in salt water. Higher dosages (greater than 200 mws/crrr') may be required to inactivate 

some organisms such as viruses (Chang et al, 1998). 

At the present time, a UV dosage standard for the treatment of ballast water has not been 

established. However, a treatment standard must be assumed in order to design and cost the 

treatment facility. In lieu of ballast water standards, wastewater quality standards were 

evaluated. Standard secondary wastewater treatment systems are designed to deliver doses of 25 

mWs/cm2

. The California Wastewater Reclamation criteria (Title 22, California Code of 

Regulations) specify more stringent standards for the most restrictive reuse of wastewater. In 

situations where skin contact with wastewater may occur, a minimum UV design dose of 140 

mWs/ cm2 is specified (National Water Research Institute, 1993). 

URSIDAMES & MOORE 27 \\OM_SF01 \VOL_1 \WP\YZ\OOSEZ002.DOC
Previous marine and ongoing studies tend to indicate that the UV dosages required to inactivate 

the full range of biota sizes and life stages found in ballast water will be higher than those used 

for fresh water. Hence the 140 mWs/cm2 treatment standard was assumed for design purposes in 

this study. This standards is in the same range as the 130 mWs/cm2 dosage applied in the design 

of the onboard ballast water treatment system installed in the PN Regal Princess (T. Mackey, 

pers. comm.). 

Residual Thickening 

Backwash sludge (solids and colloids removed from the ballast water during filtration) contains a 

high percentage of water, much of which must be removed prior to disposal at a landfill facility. 

This sludge would be thickened and then dewatered. Two types of thickening would be utilized 

for the various facilities. Dissolved air flotation (DAF) would be applied at the larger facilities 

based on the large volume of reject flow. In the DAF process, the reject flow is pressurized and 

compressed air is dissolved into solution. When the pressure is lessened, fine bubbles form in 

the liquid and attach to sludge particles, causing the particles to float to the surface. These 

particles could then be removed. DAF thickens the material to 3% solids or greater. 

For facilities with lower capacities, inclined plate clarifiers would be used. These provide 

gravity settling for the sludge in a zone without currents or turbulence. The solids accumulate at 

the bottom of the clarifier and could be removed. This process results in solids concentrations of 

approximately 1%. During both of these processes, polymers would be added to enhance settling 

and thickening. 

Residual Dewatering 

After the sludge has been thickened by one of the processes above, the residual would be 

dewatered though the use of a plate and frame filter press. The sludge would first be conditioned 

in a batch conditioning tank with polymers, causing the sludge to further coagulate and release 

unbound water. The conditioned solids would be pumped under high pressure in between 

multiple plates in the press. Between each set of plates a "void" lined with filter fabric would 

allow water to flow out, but retain the solids. After pumping, the plates would be taken apart and 

the remaining solids taken to a landfill facility. 

4.4.2 Requirements for California Ports 

Conceptual onshore ballast water treatment facilities were designed for four different treatment 

capacities based on the ballast water discharge data presented in Table 4.5. The capacities 

considered were 1.0 million gallons per day (mgd) each for the Ports of Los Angeles and Long 

URSIDAMES & MOORE 28 \\OM_SF01 \VOL_1\WP\YZ\OOSEZ002.DOC 
Beach, 0.2 mgd for the Ports of Humboldt Bay, Oakland, and San Francisco, 0.1 mgd for the 

Ports ofRedwood City, Richmond, Sacramento, San Diego, and Stockton, and 0.001 mgd for the 

Port of Hueneme. Facility design specifications for each port are included in Table 4.6. 

Each of these facilities would have similar processes, with a few differences. The facilities are 

described below. 

1.0 Million GaJlons per Day (MGD) Facility (Los Angeles & Long Beach) 

Ballast water treatment facilities with capacities of 1.0 mgd would be adequate for the Ports of 

Los Angeles and Long Beach. The 1.0 mgd facilities would include initial filtration of ballast 

water to 50 microns, followed by UV treatment, DAF thickening, and dewatering. The filters, 

such as Parkson Dynasand or equivalent, are continuous backwash filters, which maintain a 

constant flow through the facility. A backwash surge tank should not be necessary. 

A DAF thickener as described above would be used due to the quantity of sludge and to 

minimize the required pumping and handling capacity during dewatering of the filter residue. 

Dewatering would be performed with a plate and frame press. 

0.2 MGD (Humboldt Bay, Oakland, and San Francisco) & 0.1 MGD (Redwood City, 

Richmond, Sacramento, San Diego, and Stockton) Facilities 

The 0.2 and 0.1 mgd ballast water treatment facilities would provide adequate capacity for the 

Ports of Humboldt Bay, Oakland, and San Francisco (0.2 mgd) and the Ports of Redwood City, 

Richmond, Sacramento, San Diego, and Stockton (0.1 mgd). These facilities would include 

initial filtration, followed by UV treatment, inclined plate thickening, and dewatering. 

The filters are continuous backwash filters as for the 1.0 mgd facility. The thickeners, however, 

could be inclined plate thickeners, such as Parkson Lamella or the equivalent. These would 

thicken to 1%, while DAF could be expected to be 3% or better. This difference is acceptable 

for the smaller quantities of sludge produced at the smaller capacity plants. Dewatering would 

be accomplished with a plate and frame press as in the 1.0 mgd facility. 

0.001 MGD Facility (Port of Hueneme) 

The Port of Hueneme would require treatment of approximately 0.001 mgd of ballast water. The 

facility could be the same design as the 0.01 mgd facility. However, treatment of such a small 

volume of ballast water is not economically feasible and the volume could likely be discharged 

URSIDAMES & MOORE 29 \\DM_SF01\VOL_1 \WP\yz\OOSEZ002.DOC 
to the city sewer system, reballasted to an outgoing ship, transported by a separate vessel for 

discharge at sea, or transported to Los Angeles or Long Beach for treatment. 

If treatment were required, a 1,200 gallon storage tank, a cartridge or bag filter, and a 1,000 

gallon batch tank for chlorine disinfection followed by sodium bisulfite could be used. 

4.4.3 Capital Costs 

Capital costs associated with construction of the onshore treatment facilities include those for 

paving and grading the sites, construction of the facility buildings, treatment tanks, filters and 

pumps, thickeners, and electrical and instrumentation equipment. The cost of land for the 

treatment facilities and storage tanks costs of environmental studies and permitting are not 

included in this analysis. Estimated capital costs for the treatment facilities for each port are 

presented in Table 4.7. 

Estimated capital costs for onshore treatment facilities (excluding costs for port piping and 

storage tanks) at specific California ports range from approximately $1.6 million each for the 0.1 

mgd facilities for the Ports of Redwood City, Richmond, Sacramento, San Diego, and Stockton, 

to over $2.2 million each for the 1.0 mgd facilities for each of the Ports of Los Angeles and Long 

Beach. As described in Section 4.4.2, a treatment facility was not designed for the Port of 

Hueneme due to the very small volumes of ballast water involved. Capital costs for the 

remaining ports are in the range of $1.8 million. 

4.4.4 Operations & Maintenance Costs 

Annual operating and maintenance costs are estimated in Table 4.8 for each port. The costs 

include chemicals, electricity, labor (facility operators), laboratory costs, and landfill disposal 

costs (minimal). Estimated annual costs for California ports range from $142,000 to $223,000. 

4.5 OUTFALL AND SOLIDS DISPOSAL 

The final component of the conceptual onshore system is the outfall, through which treated 

ballast water would be discharged back to port waters. It is assumed that the treated water would 

be considered benign and an NPDES permit for discharge could be obtained from the appropriate 

Regional Water Quality Control Board. Development of disinfected ballast water standards 

defining mortality or removal percentage would be necessary to demonstrate to a Regional Board 

that the treated water is benign. The Regional Boards would also need to find that the discharges 

are consistent with the Regional Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plans) and Ocean Plans. 

URSIDAMES & MOORE 30 \\DM_SFO1\VOL_1 \WP\YZ\OOSEZ002.DOC 
It is unlikely that fresh water ports such as Sacramento and Stockton would be able to discharge 

treated ballast water directly to the Sacramento or San Joaquin Rivers because of the high 

salinity of the water. Alternative, and likely more costly, disposal techniques such as 

transporting the water back to the ocean would need to be considered. 

Based on POTW experience, a simple channel outfall or pinch-valve pipe outfall could be 

designed, permitted, and constructed for approximately $100,000. This estimate assumes no 

additional environmental permitting or mitigation are required. 

As described in Section 4.4, it is assumed that the small volume of solids resulting from filtration 

at the onshore treatment plant would not be hazardous and could be disposed of at a Class III 

landfill. Disposal costs for benign waste at such facilities are approximately $20/ton. 

5.0 DISCUSSION 

The following section presents a discussion of the issues related to general conceptual feasibility 

of onshore ballast water treatment from technical, operational, and economic perspectives. The 

feasibility of installing onshore systems at specific California ports is then evaluated. 

5.1 CONCEPTUAL FEASIBILITY OF ONSHORE TREATMENT 

The concept of onshore treatment of ballast water is evaluated based on three aspects; technical 

feasibility, operational feasibility, and the cost of onshore treatment. 

5.1.1 Technical Feasibility 

The technical feasibility assessment is based on the criterion of whether onshore treatment of the 

ballast water currently discharged at California ports is technically possible using existing 

technology, irrespective of operational and cost considerations. 

Onshore treatment of ballast water is technically feasible, provided the technology to achieve 

current wastewater treatment standards is equivalent to the technology required to treat ballast 

water for invasive species. It is technically possible to retrofit most vessels to allow for 

discharge to an onshore facility. It is possible to retrofit most wharves with connections and 

piping to transport ballast water to a treatment facility. Storage tanks could be built to 

accommodate the maximum discharges of ballast water from vessels and would allow for a 

reduced treatment capacity. Ballast water could be treated at onshore facilities using a 

combination of filtration and UV irradiation to remove or kill invasive species. With the 

possible exception of fresh water ports with water quality constraints, treated ballast water could 

URSIDAMES & MOORE 31 \\OM_SF01\VOL_1 \WPWZ\OOSEZ002.00C 
be discharged back to port or nearshore waters through an NPDES permitted outfall and the 

resulting solids disposed of at a landfill facility. 

The scenario presented assumes that existing wastewater treatment technology is sufficient to 

meet the requirements of future ballast water standards. If ballast water standards follow the 

typical pattern of gradual tightening of standards as knowledge and technology improve, this 

assumption seems reasonable. 

Other ballast water management technologies under investigation include shipboard treatment 

using filtration and UV, ozone treatment, development of potent biocides with short half-lives 

and improved design of ballast water tanks. With many technologies under development and 

consideration at this time, it is not yet possible to determine which will technology be the 

preferred management tool. 

5.1.2 Operational Feasibility 

The operational feasibility assessment is based on the criterion of whether all ballast water 

presently discharged within the U.S. EEZ could be discharged to onshore treatment facilities 

without causing significant delays to vessel operations or compromising vessel safety. 

Vessel Retrofitting 

After vessel retrofitting, it would be possible for containerships to discharge the ballast water 

associated with cargo loading at the wharf. The operational feasibility of wharf-side discharge 

for bulk carriers and tankers is less certain because the discharge volumes and rates required 

during cargo loading operations are much higher for these types of vessels. In addition, many 

bulk carriers discharge ballast water on approach to the wharf to enable faster cargo loading. 

Constraining these vessels to onshore discharge could potentially significantly impact vessel 

schedules. 

Vessels also often discharge ballast water when approaching ports to reduce draft for adequate 

hull clearance. A mechanism to transfer such ballast water to an intermediate vessel would be 

needed to prevent discharge to nearshore waters. Such required transfer could cause operational 

delays and could be subject to safety constraints. At-sea transfer of ballast water during rough 

weather would not be feasible. 

URSIDAMES & MOORE 32 \\DM_SF01\VOL_1\WPWz\OOSEZ002.COC 
Wharf Retrofitting 

Any onshore treatment option must be capable of handling high flow rates such that offloading 

of ballast water does not unduly interfere with normal shipping operations. In addition, all ports 

must have standardized connections sized to handle the highest potential flows. Based on the 

experience of discharge of non-segregated ballast water from oil tankers, the wharf-related 

component would be operationally feasible once a common shore connection standard was 

established, wharf-side collection system was in place and crews were trained. 

Storage & Treatment Facilities 

Operation and maintenance of ballast water storage tanks and treatment facilities would be 

operationally feasible assuming the necessary facility operators could be hired. 

Outfall/Solid Disposal 

Operation of a seawater outfall would be limited to locations where such outfalls could be 

permitted and constructed. In locations where outfalls of salt water could not be permitted 

because of NPDES constraints (such as fresh water ports or water bodies with specific water 

quality limitations), other means to dispose of treated ballast water would need to be considered. 

Discharge of treated ballast water back to the sea would be the operationally most straightforward option. 

5.1.3 Onshore Treatment Costs 

The cost estimates for the onshore treatment systems are comprised of five components: vessel 

retrofitting, wharf retrofitting, storage tanks, treatment system (construction plus annual 

operation and maintenance), and waste disposal/discharge. The component costs other than 

those for vessel retrofitting can be added and converted to a cost estimate of treatment cost per 

metric ton of discharged ballast water. 

Costs to retrofit containerships are estimated to be approximately $400,000 per vessel. Costs to 

retrofit bulk carriers and tankers are expected to be higher, and due to the extreme variability in 

ship design, the retrofitting costs are expected to range widely. Existing vessels are likely to 

need some retrofitting irrespective of which ballast water management tool or treatment 

technology is eventually adopted. 

The costs of for the four onshore treatment system components were grouped together and 

converted to an estimated dollar value per metric ton (MT) oftreated water. For California ports, 

URSIDAMES & MOORE 33 \\OM_SF01 \VOL_1 \WP\Yz\OOSEZ002.DOC 
these costs range from approximately $1.40 per MT to $8.30 per MT. Vessel retrofit costs and 

vessels delay costs are not included in these figures. Land costs are also not included in the 

analysis due to the large variability in land value. 

How does the $1.40 per MT to $8.30 per MT cost range compare to other potential treatment 

options? While there is a paucity of actual data for other treatment options, the treatment cost 

per ton can be compared against the costs for open-ocean exchange. The cost of the flowthrough dilution method of open water exchange is $0.10 to $0.15 per MT and the empty and fill 

method is $0.03 to $0.05 per MT (Oemcke, 1999). 

Whether wharf retrofitting is economically feasible is a challenging question. Installation of 

piping and other infrastructure have other attendant challenges. For example, 24-inch diameter 

piping for wharf piping has been assumed in this study. Larger diameter pipe would be required 

for bulk carriers and tankers if significant delays are to be avoided. There are likely to be 

considerable environmental issues associated with channel crossings where dredging is required 

or where environmentally sensitive habitat, such as wetlands, must be protected. For several 

ports, multiple treatment facilities may be necessary to avoid such channel crossings which 

would result in higher facility and operation and maintenance costs. 

The required storage volumes calculated in the study may under-represent the actual volumes 

required as most of the available discharge records include only vessels arriving immediately 

from outside the U.S. EEZ and only those vessels that correctly completed ballast water survey 

forms. The costs estimated for storage tanks are therefore likely to be the minimum potential 

costs. There will be seismic and foundation constraints on storage tanks for some ports that 

could significantly increase tank costs. 

One of the outstanding issues in the ballast water arena is the absence of treatment standards. 

Standards, in effect, create the technology to meet those standards. At this time, the 

effectiveness of UV radiation on the diversity of taxa found in ballast tanks is uncertain. Further 

testing such as that being performed in the Great Lakes and Canada is needed to determine the 

UV dose required for effective ballast water disinfection. The cost estimates in this study 

developed are based on a dose of 140 mws/crrr'. Disinfection of ballast water using much higher 

dosages would result in significantly increased capital, operation and maintenance costs. 

Worldwide Application 

A key consideration in the feasibility of any ballast water treatment option is the viability of 

applying the system on a worldwide basis. Implementation of unilateral policies on a port or 

statewide basis would create, in the IMO's words, unfair competition between port states. For 

URSIDAMES & MOORE 34 \\DM_SF01\VOL_1\WP\Yz\OOSEZ002.DOC 
example, if only California ports required onshore treatment, there might be an economic 

incentive for some shipping lines to move operations to other ports or countries. Ballast water 

treatment requirements must be the same worldwide in order to keep a "level playing field." 

5.2 FEASIBILITY FOR INDIVIDUAL CALIFORNIA PUBLIC PORTS 

The technical and operational feasibility, and costs of onshore treatment were evaluated for 11 

California public ports. Unless specified otherwise, the onshore treatment of ballast water at the 

individual ports is technically feasible. As noted in Section 5.1.1 the technology exists for all of 

the required components of onshore treatment. 

A limitation on operational feasibility applies to those ports that receive bulk carriers. Many 

bulk vessels begin deballasting before coming to the wharf to allow for faster cargo loading. 

This ballast water would not be directly available for onshore treatment 

5.2.1 Port of Hueneme 

Operational Feasibility 

Operationally, onshore ballast water treatment would be feasible at the Port of Hueneme for 

vessels retrofitted to allow for discharge to an onshore facility. At present, most vessels calling 

on the port reportedly do not discharge ballast water. All components of onshore treatment 

would be operationally feasible for the port. Wharves could be retrofitted and storage tanks, a 

treatment facility, and an outfall could be constructed, although there is no land available at the 

port for a facility. 

Estimated Costs 

Retrofitting the wharves at the Port of Hueneme would require approximately one mile of 

pipeline at an estimated cost of $1.06 million. Required storage could be held in a 24-foot tall 

storage tank, 28 feet in diameter, at a cost of approximately $55,000. 

As discussed in Section 4.4.2, onshore filtration and UV treatment for such a small volume of 

ballast water would not be economically feasible. The approximately 1,000 gpd could 

potentially be discharged to the sewer, reballasted to an outgoing ship, taken to another port for 

treatment, or transported by a separate vessel for discharge at sea. If treatment were required in 

port, - a system using a storage tank, a cartridge or bag filter, and a 1,000 gallon batch tank for 

chlorine disinfection followed by sodium bisulfite would be sufficient. 

URSIDAMES & MOORE 35 \\OM_SF01\VOL_1 \WP\yz\oOSEZ002.DOC 
5.2.2 Humboldt Bay 

Operational Feasibility 

Operationally, onshore ballast water treatment would be feasible for the Port of Humboldt Bay if 

vessels were retrofitted to allow for discharge to an onshore facility. However, the Port of 

Humboldt Bay receives mostly woodchip carriers and other bulk carriers arriving in ballast. It 

may not be possible for these vessels to transfer ballast water ashore at rates required for cargo 

loading without causing delays. In addition, many such vessels begin deballasting before 

coming to the wharf to allow for faster cargo loading. This ballast water would not be directly 

available for onshore treatment. 

The other components of onshore treatment would be operationally feasible for the port. 

Wharves could be retrofitted and storage tanks, a treatment facility, and outfall could be 

constructed. As indicated in the following, however, the Port would require multiple treatment 

facilities to avoid a pipeline under the bay. 

Estimated Costs 

The total capital costs for onshore treatment at the Port of Humboldt Bay are estimated at $18.6 

million as shown in Table 5.1. Total annual operation and maintenance costs are estimated at 

$150,000/year. The estimated capital costs for the onshore treatment components are discussed 

below and summarized in Table 5.1. 

Connecting the three terminal areas at the Port would involve over 12 miles of piping at a cost of 

approximately $12.7 million. Port reticulation would require three separate treatment facilities 

or a pipeline beneath the bay. Constructing a pipeline beneath the bay would be complicated by 

environmental issues and would not be economically or operationally feasible. 

The Port of Humboldt Bay would require a total storage capacity of 7.9 million gallons that 

could be held in two 24-foot tall, 168-foot diameter, steel tanks. The tanks would cost 

approximately $4 million. The total land area required for the two tanks would be 1.2 acres. 

The required treatment capacity for the port is 0.2 million gallons per day. Capital costs for such 

a facility are estimated at approximately $1.8 million and annual operating costs would be 

approximately $150,000. A basic outfall structure would cost approximately $100,000 assuming 

there are no permitting or environmental issues. 

URSIDAMES & MOORE 36 \\OM_SF01 \VOL_1 \WP\Yz\OOSEZ002.DOC 
The cost of onshore treatment at Humboldt Bay is estimated to be $3.97/MT as shown in Table 

5.2. 

5.2.3 Port of Long Beach 

Operational Feasibility 

Onshore ballast water treatment would be operationally feasible for the Port of Long Beach if all 

vessels were retrofitted to allow for discharge to an onshore facility. Long Beach receives a 

large number of container vessels. Ballast water from these vessels likely could be discharged to 

a wharf without causing vessel delays. 

The Port also receives bulk carriers and tankers, and it may not be possible for these vessels to 

transfer ballast water ashore at rates required for vessel loading without causing delays. The 

other components of onshore treatment would be operationally feasible for the Port. Wharves 

could be retrofitted and storage tanks, a treatment facility, and outfall could be constructed. 

Estimated Costs 

The total capital costs for onshore treatment at the Port are estimated at $36 million as shown in 

Table 5.1. Total annual operation and maintenance costs are estimated at $223,000/year. The 

estimated capital costs for the onshore treatment components are discussed below and 

summarized in Table 5.1. 

The Port of Long Beach would require 27.1 miles of pipeline to connect its wharves to a 

treatment facility at an estimated cost of $28.6 million. The Port would require a total storage 

capacity of 10.2 million gallons. Two 24-foot tall, 192-foot diameter, steel tanks would cost 

approximately $5.1 million. Approximately 1.3 acres of land would be required for the tanks. 

The required treatment capacity for the Port of Long Beach is 1.0 million gallons per day. 

Capital costs for the facility are estimated at approximately $2.2 million. A basic outfall 

structure would cost about $100,000 assuming there are no permitting or environmental issues. 

The outfall could cost significantly more if discharge is not allowed directly into harbor waters. 

The cost of onshore treatment at the Port of Long Beach is estimated to be $1.52/MT as shown in 

Table 5.2. 

URSIDAMES & MOORE 37 \\DM_SF01 \VOL_1 \WP\Yz\OOSEZ002.DOC 
5.2.4 Port of Los Angeles 

Operational Feasibility 

Onshore ballast water treatment would be operationally feasible for the Port of Los Angeles if all 

vessels were retrofitted to allow for discharge to an onshore facility. The Port receives a large 

number of container vessels. Ballast water from these vessels likely could be discharged to a 

wharf without causing vessel delays. 

The Port also receives bulk carriers, reefers and tankers, however, and it may not be possible for 

these vessels to transfer ballast water ashore at rates required for vessel loading without causing 

delays. The other components of onshore treatment would be operationally feasible for the Port. 

Wharves could be retrofitted and storage tanks, a treatment facility, and outfall could be 

constructed. 

Estimated Costs 

The total capital costs for onshore treatment at the Port of Los Angeles are estimated at $49.8 

million as shown in Table 5.1. Total annual operation and maintenance costs are estimated at 

$223,000/year. The estimated capital costs for the onshore treatment components are discussed 

below and summarized in Table 5.1. 

The Port of Los Angeles would require 25.6 miles of pipeline to connect the wharves to a single 

treatment facility at an estimated cost of $27 million. This analysis assumes pipelines would not 

cross channels, as such crossings are expensive. However, a more detailed economic analysis 

would be required to evaluate the cost effectiveness of constructing channel crossings verses 

using greater lengths of onshore pipeline. 

The Port would require a total storage capacity of 40.6 million gallons. Eight 24-foot tall, 190­

foot diameter, steel tanks would cost approximately $20.4 million. Approximately 5.2 acres of 

land would be needed for the tanks. 

As discussed in Section 4.3.1, the required storage tank capacity is based on the maximum 

reported discharge in a single day. The maximum volume reported for one day at the Port of Los 

Angeles was 76,789 MT from two coal carriers and a container vessel. The next highest volume 

reported for one day was 40,151 MT discharged from two bulk carriers. The required treatment 

capacity for the Port of Los Angeles is 1.0 million gallons per day. Capital costs for the facility 

are estimated at approximately $2.2 million. A basic outfall structure would cost about $100,000 

URSIDAMES & MOORE 38 \\DM_SF01 \VOL_1\WP\YZ\OOSEZ002.00C 
assuming there are no permitting or environmental issues. The outfall could cost significantly 

more ifdischarge is not allowed directly into harbor waters. 

The cost of onshore treatment at Port of Los Angeles is estimated to be $1.37/MT as shown in 

Table 5.2. 

5.2.5 Port of Oakland 

Operational Feasibility 

Onshore ballast water treatment would be operationally feasible for the Port of Oakland if all 

vessels were retrofitted to allow for discharge to an onshore. The Port receives primarily 

container vessels. Ballast water from these vessels could likely be discharged to a wharf-side 

system without causing vessel delays. 

However, the Port also receives some bulk carriers, general cargo vessels, etc. and it may not be 

possible for some of these vessels to transfer ballast water ashore at rates required for cargo 

loading without causing delays. 

The other components of onshore treatment would be operationally feasible for the Port. 

Wharves could be retrofitted and storage tanks, a treatment facility, and outfall could be 

constructed. 

Estimated Costs 

The total capital costs for onshore treatment at the Port of Oakland are estimated at $21.5 million 

as shown in Table 5.1. Total annual operation and maintenance costs are estimated at 

$150,000/year. The estimated capital costs for the onshore treatment components are discussed 

below and summarized in Table 5.1. 

The Port of Oakland would require over 15 miles of piping to connect the wharves to a 

centralized facility. This would cost approximately $15.8 million and does not consider the cost 

of avoiding existing underground utilities. 

The Port would require a total storage capacity of 7.3 million gallons. Two 24-foot tall, 164-foot 

diameter steel tanks would cost approximately $3.8 million. Approximately one acre of land 

would be required for the two tanks. 

The required treatment capacity for the Port is 0.2 million gallons per day. Capital costs for such 

a facility are estimated at approximately $1.8 million and annual operating costs would be 

URSIDAMES & MOORE 39 \\DM_SF01\vOL_1\WP\Yz\OOSEZ002.DOC 
approximately $150,000. All vacant Port land is allocated for future development so land is not 

available at the Port for a storage/treatment facility. A basic outfall structure would cost about 

$100,000 assuming there are no permitting or environmental issues. 

The cost of onshore treatment at Port of Oakland is estimated to be $3.93/MT as shown in 

Table 5.2. 

5.2.6 Port of Redwood City 

Operational Feasibility 

Onshore ballast water treatment would be operationally feasible for the Port of Redwood City if 

all vessels were retrofitted to allow for discharge to an onshore facility and vessel safety and 

schedules were not compromised by such operations. The Port receives primarily bulk carriers 

and it may not be possible for such vessels to transfer ballast water ashore at rates required for 

cargo loading without causing significant delays. The other components of onshore treatment 

would be operationally feasible for the Port. Wharves could be retrofitted and storage tanks, a 

treatment facility, and outfall could be constructed. 

EstimatedCosts 

The total capital costs for onshore treatment at the Port of Redwood City are estimated at $7.6 

million as shown in Table 5.1. Total annual operation and maintenance costs are estimated at 

$142,000/year. The estimated capital costs for the onshore treatment components are discussed 

below and summarized in Table 5.1. 

Connecting the Port of Redwood City's wharves to a central facility would require 

approximately 1.5 miles of piping at an estimated cost of $1.6 million. 

The Port of Redwood City would require a total storage capacity of 8.4 million gallons. Two 24­

foot tall, 174-foot diameter, steel tanks would cost an estimated $4.3 million. Approximately 1.1 

acres of land would be required for the tanks. However, land is not available at the Port. 

The required treatment capacity for the Port is 0.1 million gallons per day. Capital costs for such 

a facility are estimated at approximately $1.6 million and annual operating costs would be 

approximately $140,000. A basic outfall structure would cost approximately $100,000 assuming 

that there are no permitting or environmental issues involved. 

URSIDAMES & MOORE 40 \\DM_SF01\VOL_1\WP\Yz\OOSEZ002.DOC 
The cost of onshore treatment at Port of Redwood City is estimated to be $5.08/MT as shown in 

Table 5.2. 

5.2.7 Port of Richmond 

Operational Feasibility 

Onshore ballast water treatment would be operationally feasible for the Port of Richmond if all 

vessels were retrofitted to allow for discharge to an onshore facility. The Port receives mostly 

bulk carriers and tankers. 

The other components of onshore treatment would be operationally feasible for the port. 

Wharves could be retrofitted and storage tanks, a treatment facility, and outfall could be 

constructed. However, there is no land available at the port for a treatment facility. 

Estimated Costs 

The total capital costs for onshore treatment at the Port of Richmond are estimated at $10.9 

million as shown in Table 5.1. Total annual operation and maintenance costs are estimated at 

$142,000/year. The estimated capital costs for the onshore treatment components are discussed 

below and summarized in Table 5.I. 

The distance for piping between the wharves at the Port of Richmond is approximately 5.5 miles. 

Piping would cost approximately $5.8 million. 

The Port would require a total storage capacity of approximately 6.6 million gallons. Two 24­

foot tall steel tanks 154 feet in diameter would cost approximately $3,400,000. The land area 

required for the tanks would be approximately 0.9 acres. 

The required treatment capacity for the Port is 0.01 million gallons per day. Capital costs for 

such a facility are estimated at approximately $1.6 million and annual operating costs would be 

approximately $140,000. A basic outfall structure would cost about $100,000 assuming there are 

no permitting or environmental issues. 

The cost of onshore treatment at Port of Richmond is estimated to be $8.29/MT as shown in 

Table 5.2. 

URSIDAMES & MOORE 41 \\DM_SF01\VOL_1\WP\Yz\OOSEZ002.DOC 
5.2.8 Port of Sacramento 

Technical Feasibility 

Onshore ballast water treatment at the Port of Sacramento would be technically feasible with the 

constraint that it unlikely that discharge of treated saline ballast water to the fresh water port 

would be permitted under NPDES. An alternative disposal method for the treated ballast water 

would be needed. 

Operational Feasibility 

Onshore ballast water treatment would be operationally feasible for the Port if all vessels were 

retrofitted to allow for discharge to an onshore facility and vessel safety and schedules were not 

compromised by such operations. The Port receives primarily bulk carriers and woodchip 

carriers. 

The other components of onshore treatment, with the exception of the outfall, would be 

operationally feasible for the port. Wharves could be retrofitted and storage tanks and treatment 

facilities. As indicated below, the Port would require multiple treatment facilities. 

Estimated Costs 

The total capital costs for onshore treatment at the Port of Sacramento are estimated at $7.9 

million as shown in Table 5.1. Total annual operation and maintenance costs are estimated at 

$142,000/year. The estimated capital costs for the onshore treatment components are discussed 

below and summarized in Table 5.1. 

The wharves at the Port are on both sides of the Sacramento River. Total piping of 

approximately 1.3 miles would require laying a pipeline under the river, which is not feasible. 

Therefore, two treatment systems would be required. The 1.3 miles of pipeline would cost 

approximately $1.4 million. 

The Port of Sacramento would require a total storage capacity of 9.4 million gallons. Two 24­

foot tall steel tanks 84 feet in diameter would cost approximately $4.8 million. Approximately 

1.2 acres of land would be required for the two tanks. There is land available for the treatment 

system and/or storage tanks at the Port. 

The required treatment capacity for the port is 0.1 million gallons per day. Capital costs for such 

a facility are estimated at approximately $1.6 million and annual operating costs would be 

URSIDAMES & MOORE 42 \\DM_SFO1\VOL_1 \WP\yz\OOSEZ002.DOC 
approximately $140,000. A basic outfall structure would cost about $100,000 assuming there are 

no permitting or environmental issues. It is unlikely, however, that discharge of treated saline 

ballast water would be allowed in the fresh water port. 

The cost of onshore treatment per metric ton at Port of Sacramento is estimated to be $3.93/MT 

as shown in Table 5.2. For two treatment systems, the cost of treatment per metric ton of ballast 

water would likely be increased by approximately 75%. The increase in cost for multiple 

treatment facilities is not linear as most of the pipeline would be required regardless of the 

number of facilities. 

5.2.9 Port of San Diego 

Operational Feasibility 

Onshore ballast water treatment would be operationally feasible for the Port of San Diego if all 

vessels were retrofitted to allow for discharge to an onshore facility and vessel safety and 

schedules were not compromised by such operations. The Port receives bulk carriers, car 

carriers, general cargo vessels, reefers, tankers, etc. 

The other components of onshore treatment would be operationally feasible for the Port. 

Wharves could be retrofitted and storage tanks, a treatment facility, and outfall could be 

constructed. 

Estimated Costs 

The total capital costs for onshore treatment at the Port of San Diego are estimated at $14.1 

million as shown in Table 5.1. Total annual operation and maintenance costs are estimated at 

$142,000/year. The estimated capital costs for the onshore treatment components are discussed 

below and summarized in Table 5.1. 

Approximately 8.8 miles of pipeline would be required to connect the three terminal areas at the 

Port of San Diego to a central facility at a cost of approximately $9.3 million. 

The Port of San Diego would require a total storage capacity of 6.0 million gallons. Two 24-foot 

tall, 148-foot diameter, steel tanks would cost approximately $3.1 million. Approximately 0.79 

acres would be required for the two tanks and land is available at the Port. 

The required treatment capacity for the port is 0.1 million gallons per day. Capital costs for such 

a facility are estimated at approximately $1.6 million and annual operating costs would be 

URSIDAMES & MOORE 43 \\DM_SF01\VOL_1\WPWZ\OOSEZ002.DOC 
approximately $140,000. A basic outfall structure would cost about $100,000 assuming there are 

no permitting or environmental issues. 

The cost of onshore treatment at Port of San Diego is estimated to be $7.79/MT as shown in 

Table 5.2. 

5.2.10 Port of San Francisco 

Operational Feasibility 

Onshore ballast water treatment would be operationally feasible for the Port of San Francisco if 

all vessels were retrofitted to allow for discharge to an onshore facility and vessel safety and 

schedules were not compromised by such operations. The Port receives mostly oil and chemical 

tankers and containerships. 

Although some wharves could be retrofitted, it may not be possible to construct pipelines along 

the shoreline due to right-of-way issues. In addition, there is no land available for storage tanks 

or a treatment facility. 

Estimated Costs 

The total capital costs for onshore treatment at the Port of San Francisco are estimated at $16.6 

million as shown in Table 5.1. Total annual operation and maintenance costs are estimated at 

$150,000/year. The estimated capital costs for the onshore treatment components are discussed 

below and summarized in Table 5.1. 

Connecting the terminal areas at the Port of San Francisco to a central facility would require 

approximately 8.0 miles of piping. Disregarding the right-of-way issue, eight miles of piping 

alone would cost approximately $6.4 million. 

The Port of San Francisco would require a total storage capacity of 12.4 million gallons. Three 

24-foot tall, 172-foot diameters, steel tanks would cost approximately $6.3 million. 

Approximately 1.6 acres of land would be required for the tanks. There is no land available at 

the port for a treatment facility. The area around the port is private property with a price of 

approximately $700 per square foot. 

The required treatment capacity for the port is 0.2 million gallons per day. Capital costs for such 

a facility are estimated at approximately $1.8 million and annual operating costs would be 

URSfDAMES & MOORE 44 \\DM_SF01\VOL_1\WP\yz\OOSEZ002.DOC 
approximately $150,000. A basic outfall structure would cost about $100,000 assuming there are 

no permitting or environmental issues. 

The cost of onshore treatment at Port of San Francisco is estimated to be $4.67/MT as shown in 

Table 5.2. 

5.2.11 Port of Stockton 

Technical Feasibility 

Onshore ballast water treatment at the Port of Stockton would be technically feasible with the 

constraint that it unlikely that discharge of saline treated ballast water would be permitted under 

. NPDES to the fresh water port. Alternative disposal methods may be possible. 

Operational Feasibility 

Onshore ballast water treatment would be operationally feasible for the Port if all vessels were 

retrofitted to allow for discharge to an onshore facility and vessel safety and schedules were not 

compromised by such operations. The Port receives mostly bulk carriers. 

The other components of onshore treatment, with the exception of the outfall, would be 

operationally feasible for the Port. Wharves could be retrofitted and storage tanks and a 

treatment facility could be constructed. 

Estimated Costs 

The total capital costs for onshore treatment at the Port of Stockton are estimated at $12.6 

million as shown in Table 5.1. Total annual operation and maintenance costs are estimated at 

$142,000/year. The estimated capital costs for the onshore treatment components are discussed 

below and summarized in Table 5.1. 

Piping at the Port of Stockton would require approximately 5.1 miles of total piping at a cost of 

$5.4 million. The system would require either a pipeline under the river, or two treatment and 

storage systems. A river crossing could increase the piping cost by a factor of ten. 

The Port of Stockton would require a total storage capacity of 10.9 million gallons. Two 24-foot 

tall steel tanks, 198 feet in diameter would cost of approximately $5.5 million. The land area 

required for the two tanks would be approximately 1.4 acres. 

URSIDAMES & MOORE 45 \\DM_SF01\VOL_1 \WP\YZ\OOSEZ002.DOC 
The required treatment capacity for the Port would be 0.1 million gallons per day. Capital costs 

for such a facility are estimated at approximately $1.6 million and annual operating costs would 

be approximately $140,000. A basic outfall structure would cost about $100,000 assuming there 

are no permitting or environmental issues. It is unlikely, however, that discharge of treated 

saline ballast water would be allowed in the fresh water port. 

The cost of onshore treatment at Port of Stockton is estimated to be $8.01IMT as shown in Table 

5.2. For two treatment systems, the cost of treatment per metric ton of ballast water would be 

increased by approximately 40%. The increase in cost for multiple treatment facilities is not 

linear as most ofthe pipeline would be required regardless ofthe number offacilities. 

6.0 CONCLUSIONS 

This study has investigated the technical, operational and economic aspects of the onshore 

treatment option for control of aquatic invasive species introductions. Key findings are: 

1.	 Technically, it would be feasible to retrofit vessels and wharves, construct 

onshore storage tanks and treatment systems and discharge treated water back to 

the ocean, provided cost is not a consideration and the treatment standards for 

existing wastewater treatment systems can be assumed to be representative of the 

standards required for organisms in ballast water. 

2.	 It would be feasible to treat ballast water discharged from retrofitted container 

vessels, but operational delays are likely for bulk carriers and tankers that 

discharge significant volumes of water while loading cargo. Operationally, it 

would not be possible to treat all ballast water discharged within the U.S. EEZ at 

onshore facilities without intermediary vessels or some other transportation 

system to collect ballast water which, at present, is discharged outside of ports 

with the purpose of reducing hull draft or avoiding delays in port. Safety would 

be a concern for at-sea transfers of ballast water. 

3.	 Economically, capital infrastructure costs would range from $7.6 million to $49.7 

million. Operation and maintenance costs would range from $142,000 to 

$223,000 per year. Therefore, onshore treatment of ballast water is likely to cost 

at least $1.40 per metric ton of ballast water treated and as much as $8.30 per 

metric ton for California ports, depending on port configuration and discharge 

volume. For ports in other states that handle a proportionally larger volume of 

bulk carrier and tanker traffic, the costs are expected to be higher. Based on these 

costs, the onshore treatment option would not be economically feasible. 

URSIDAMES & MOORE	 46 \\OM_SF01 \VOL_1 \WP\Yz\OOSEZ002.DOC
For a detailed evaluation of the effectiveness of ballast water treatment options, a common 

technical standard against which the options can be measured is needed. The development of 

ballast water treatment technologies is at an early stage. At this time, a wide variety of shipboard 

options using physical and chemical treatment technologies are under consideration. While 

many are still in the conceptual stage, some pilot programs are being initiated. Given the stage 

of the development of ballast water treatment options, it is too early to consider significant 

investment in the onshore treatment option. 

It is important to note that the calculations used in this study are order-or-magnitude calculations 

designed to determine if onshore treatment is potentially economically and operationally feasible 

and if additional in-depth investigation is warranted. If a port were to design an onshore 

treatment system, a detailed analysis of shipping and discharge patterns would be required. An 

in-depth, port-specific, analysis would include a detailed analysis of shipping and discharge 

patterns as well as a survey of vessel operators to accurately assess. the required treatment 

capacity. 

In summary, further research into ballast water treatment alternatives and the development of 

ballast water standards are needed before the onshore treatment option, or any other option, can 

be evaluated as the preferred, environmentally sound method for protecting the coastal 

environment from the threat of invasive species. 

7.0 REFERENCES 

AQIS, 1994. Ballast Water Ports and Shipping Study. Ballast Water Research Series Report 

No.5, February. 

AQIS, 1993a. Ballast Water Treatment for the Removal of Marine Organisms. Ballast Water 

Research Series Report No.1, June. 

AQIS, 1993b. Ballast Water Management. Ballast Water Research Series Report No.4, 

September. 

Brazil, 1998. Ballast Water Full-Scale Trial on Board MlV Lavras, A Brazilian Product Carrier 

to Evaluate the Performance of the Dilution Method Developed in Brazil. Brazilian 

submission to the IMO Marine Environment Protection Committee 42nd Session. 

Brazil, 1997. Results of Ballast Water Exchange Tests Using the Dilution Method. Brazilian 

submission to the IMO Marine Environment Protection Committee 40th Session. 

URSIDAMES & MOORE 47 \\DM_SF01 \VOL_1 \WPWZ\OOSEZ002.DOC 
Carlton, J.T., 1985. Transoceanic and Interoceanic Dispersal of Coastal Marine Organisms: The 

Biology of Ballast Water. Oceanogr. Mar. BioI. Ann. Rev. 23:313-371. 

Carlton, J.T., Reid, D.M., and H. van Leeuwen, 1995. The Role of Shipping in the Introduction 

of Nonindigeneous Aquatic Organisms to the Coastal Waters of the United States (other 

than the Great Lakes). National Sea Grant College Program/Connecticut Sea Grant 

Project RlES-6, U.S. Coast Guard Research and Development Center, Groton, CT. 

Carlton, J.T., Thompson, J.K., Schemel, L.E., and F.H. Nichols, 1990. Remarkable Invasion of 

San Francisco Bay (California, USA) by the Asian clam Potamocorbula amurensis. I. 

Introduction and dispersal. Marine Ecology Progress Series 66:81-94. 

Chang, r-s., L-J. Chen, and Y-C Wang, 1998. The Effect of Ultraviolet Irradiation, Heat, pH, 

Ozone, Salinity and Chemical Disinfectants on the Infectivity of Whit Spot Syndrome 

Baculovirus. Aquaculture 166:1-17. 

Cohen, A.N. and J.T. Carlton, 1995. Nonindigenous Aquatic Species in a United States Estuary: 

A Case Study of the Biological Invasions of the San Francisco Bay and Delta. For the 

United States Fish and Wildlife Service and The National Sea Grant College Program. 

Dames & Moore, 1999. Phase I Final Report Ballast Water Exchange and Treatment. For 

California Association of Port Authorities (CAPA), Pacific Merchant Shipping 

Association (PMSA), Steamship Association of Southern California (SASC), and 

Western States Petroleum Association (WSPA). July 1. 

Dames & Moore, 1998. Technical Memorandum Ballast Water Management. For Port of 

Oakland. November 6. 

ENRC, 1997. Report on Ballast Water and Hull Fouling in Victoria. Parliament of Victoria, 

October. 

Glassner-Shwayder K., 1996. Biological Invasions. Great Lakes Panel on Aquatic Nuisance 

Species and Great Lakes Commission. 

Herbert Engineering Corp., 1999. Ballast Water Management for Containerships Implications 

for the Port of Oakland. For The Port of Oakland. September 7. 

Levine, E and T. Thiel, 1987. Inducible RNA Repair in the Cyanbacteria Anabaena spp. 

Journal of Bacteriology 169(9):3988-3993. 

URSIDAMES & MOORE 48 \\DM_SF01\VOL_1\WP\Yz\OOSEZ002.DOC 
Mackey, T.P. et. al., 2000. Technologies for Ballast Water Management (draft). To be 

presented to SNAME New York Metropolitan Symposium in May 2000. 

MacDonald, E.M. and R.D. Davidson, 1998. The Occurrence of Harmful Algae in Ballast 

Discharges to Scottish Ports and the Effects of Mid-Water Exchange in Regional Seas. 

In: "Harmful Algae." B. Reguera, 1. Blanco, M.L. Fernandez and T. Wyatt (eds.) Xunta 

de Galicia and Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission of UNESCO. pp. 220-223 

Marine Exchange, 1997. Golden Gate Ship Traffic 1996. Marine Exchange of the San 

Francisco Bay Region. 

National Research Council (NRC), 1996. Stemming the Tide: Controlling Introductions of 

Nonindigenous Species by Ships' Ballast Water. National Academy Press, Washington, 

D.C., p. 141. 

National Water Research Institute, 1993. UV Disinfection Guidelines for Wastewater 

Reclamation in California and UV Disinfection Research Needs Identification. Prepared 

for the State of California Department of Health Services, Sacramento, California. 

Nichols, F.H., Thompson, J.K., and L.E. Schemel, 1990. Remarkable Invasion of San Francisco 

Bay (California, USA) by the Asian Clam Potamocorbula amurensis. II. Displacement 

ofa Former Community. Marine Ecology Progress Series 66: 95-101. 

Oemcke, DJ., 1999. Review of Options for the Management and Treatment of Ships' Ballast 

Water. Ports Corporation of Queensland EcoPorts Monograph Series No. 18. March. 

Oemcke, DJ. and 1. van Leeuwen, 1998. Chemical and Physical Characteristics of Ballast 

Water: Implications for Treatment Processes and Sampling Methods. CRC Reef 

Research Technical Report No. 23. 

Parliament of Victoria, 1997. Ballast Water and Hull Fouling in Victoria. Parliament of 

Victoria, Environment and Natural Resources Committee. 

Parsons, M.G., 1998. Flow Through Ballast Water Exchange. Transactions, Vol. 106 

Parsons, M.G., Cangelosi, A., Harkins, R.W., Mackey, T.P., & D.J. Munro, 1997. Design of the 

Great Lakes Ballast Technology Demonstration Project. Annual Meeting of the Society 

of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers, October 16-18, Ottawa Conference Centre, 

Ottawa, pp. 12-1 to 12-24. 

URSIDAMES & MOORE 49 \\DM_SF01 \VOL_1 \WPWz\OOSEZ002.DOC 
Pollutech, 1992. A Review and Evaluation of Ballast Water Management and Treatment 

Options to Reduce the Potential for the Introduction on Non-Native Species to the Great 

Lakes. Summary Report. For the Canadian Coast Guard, March 31. 

Port of Oakland, 2000. Summary of Coastal Ballast Water Discharge Data. Fourth Quarter, 

1999. 

Sugita, H., T Mitsaya, K. Amanuma, K. Hayashi, T. Asai, C. Maruyama, and Y. Degechi, 1992. 

Ulraviolet Susceptibility of Three Marine Fish Pathogens. Bulletin of the College of 

Agriculture and Veterinary Medicine 49: 117-121. 

Tagg, R.L., 1999. Ballast Water Management - Mitigating the Introduction of Invasive Marine 

Organisms from Ship's Ballast Water. SNAME Joint California Sections Meeting, 

March 

Water Education Foundation, 1999. Water Recycling. Sacramento, CA, 20 p. 

URSIDAMES & MOORE 50 \\DM_SF01\VOL_1\WPWZ\OOSEZ002.DOC 
LIST QF ABBREVIATIONS
 

AMC 

AQIS 

CAPA 

CWA 

DFG 

DWT 

EEZ 

EPA 

IFR 

IMO 

MARAD 

MEPC 

MT 

NBWIC 

NABS 

NANPCA 

NISA 

NOBOB 

NPDES 

NRC 

PMSA 

PSSO 

RORO 

RWQCB 

SERC 

SFDD 

SLC 

SNAME 

SWRCB 

TMDL 

USCG 

UV 

VLCC 

Astoria Metals Corp. 

Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service 

California Association ofPort Authorities 

Clean Water Act 

Department ofFish and Game 

Dead Weight Ton 

Exclusive Economic Zone 

Environmental Protection Agency 

Interim Final Rule (U.S. Coast Guard) 

International Maritime Organization 

Maritime Administration 

Marine Environment Protection Committee 

Metric Ton (rrr' = 264.2 gallons) 

National Ballast Water Information Clearinghouse 

National Ballast Water Survey 

Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of 1990 

National Invasive Species Act of 1996 

No Ballast On Board 

National Pollution Discharge Elimination System 

National Research Council 

Pacific Merchant Shipping Association 

Puget Sound Steamship Operators 

Roll-OnIRoll-Off 

Regional Water Quality Control Board 

Smithsonian Environmental Research Center 

San Francisco Dry Dock Inc. 

State Lands Commission 

Society ofNaval Architects and Marine Engineers 

State Water Resources Control Board 

Total Maximum Daily Load 

United States Coast Guard 

Ultra-Violet 

Very Large Crude Carrier 

URSIDAMES & MOORE 51 \\DM_SF01\VOL_1\WPWZ\OOSEZ002.DOC