--- -----;r'l'"'c--­**~~**



# FEASIBILITY OF ONSHORE BALLAST WATER TREATMENT AT CALIFORNIA PORTS

A Study Conducted By The California Association of Port Authorities (CAPA) Pursuantto a Small Grant Assistant AgreementWith the 

# u.s. EnvironmentalProtection AgencyDRAFT REPORT FEASmILITY OF ONSHORE BALLAST WATER TREATMENT AT CALIFORNIA PORTS PREPARED FOR CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OFPORT AUTHORITIES Job No. 25835-004-043 July 10,2000TABLE OFCONTENTS 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 

### VesselModification 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 WHARF I

### RETROFITTING 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 ofHueneme 35 5.2.2 Humboldt Bay 36 5.2.3 Port of Long Beach 37 5.2.4 Port ofLos Angeles 38 5.2.5 por ofOakland 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 ofRedwood City Port ofRichmond Port ofSacramento Port ofSan Diego Port ofSan Francisco Port ofStockton 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 ofBallast 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 ofBallast 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 ofExisting 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 ofexotic species have been initiated in the United States to date. In recognition ofthis data gap, the California Association ofPort 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.DOCWithin 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 ofMARPOL 73/78. A review ofonshore 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 ofballast water, there is little potential for use ofdrydock ballast water treatment systems. Generally, the potential for use ofpublicly-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 watertreatment system flow rates; 4. Construction ofballast watertreatment 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 ofthis 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. WharfRetrofitting 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 ifnecessary. Costs could be significantly higher if right-of-ways cannot be obtained or ifenvironmental issues are encountered. Ballast Water StorageTanks 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 ofthe 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 ofthe U.S. EEZ and therefore do not include discharges ofballast water from coastal traffic which may be significant.

URSIDAMES & MOORE 

### ES-3 \\DM_SF01\VOL_1\WPWz\OOSEZ002.DOCAll 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 ofLos Angeles to a single 28-foot diametertank for the Port ofHueneme. Estimated port-specific tank costs range from $20.4 million for the Port ofLos Angeles down to $55,000 for the Port ofHueneme (see Table E-1). 

### Onshore TreatmentFacilities 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 ofthe 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 ofa 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 ofHueneme 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 ofHueneme due to the very small volumes ofballast water involved.

URSIDAMES & MOORE ES-4 \\DM_SF01\VOL_1\WP\Yz\OOSEZ002.DOCAnnual 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 eachport is located. Itwas 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 ofhigh 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 ofsolids resulting from filtration could be disposed ofat a Class III landfill for approximately $20 perton. 

### 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 ofballast 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 offiltration 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.DOCcould be discharged back to port or nearshore waters through an NPDES permitted outfall and the resulting solids disposed ofat 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 ofwharf-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 ofballast water during rough weather would not be feasible. Discharge ofballast water to a wharf-side collection system would be operationally feasible as would operation and maintenance ofballast 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 ofsalt 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 ofvessel 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 oftreatment 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 ofopen-ocean exchange, there is a paucity ofcost 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 ofthe 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 ofcosteffectiveness 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 ofthe onshore treatment option for control ofinvasive 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 ofconcern for at-sea transfers ofballast 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 ofballast 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 ofbulk 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 ofballast 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 ofdevelopment ofballast 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.DOCTable 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 MooreTable E.2 Calculated Treatment Cost per Metric Ton of Ballast Water

Port Calculated Annual Discharge

(MT)I Storage Facility Annualized CapitalCosts 2 Treatment Facility Annualized CapitalCosts 2 Treatment Facility Annual OperatingCosts 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 ofthe ballast water issues and potential management tools including the voluntary atsea exchange ofballast 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 ofexotic species have been initiated to date'. In recognition ofthis knowledge gap, the California Association ofPort Authorities (CAPA) obtained a grant from the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to study the conceptual feasibility ofonshore treatment ofballast water. The purpose of this study is to assess at a conceptual level the technical and operational feasibility ofonshore ballast water treatment at public port facilities in California and to estimate the associated costs, with the objective ofevaluating 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 ofvessel 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 ofballast 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 ofcost? OperationalFeasibility: 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 ofonshore ballast water treatment, the development ofboth 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 ofthe costs oftreatment 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 ifmore 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?

\\OM_SF01\VOL_1\WP\Yz\OOSEZ002.DOC URSIDAMES & MOORE 

### 2

### Issue #2 addresses the stage of development of new technologies and the problem of when to invest in anyone ofthe 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? Ifa 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 ofcompetition between various ports and countries. Ideally, environmental protection controls should apply equally worldwide, as is recognized in the IMO guidelines. 

### Report Outline Section 2 ofthis report presents a brief overview ofthe 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 ofoutfalls. A discussion ofthe 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) ofballast water (approximately 40% oftheir 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 ofup 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% oftheir DWT in ballast water (up to 90,000 MT ofballast water) and discharging at rates of5,000 to 10,000 MT per hour.

URSIDAMES & MOORE 

### 3 \\DM_SF01\VOL_1\WPWZ\OOSEZ002.00CUnmanaged ballasting and deballasting operations have contributed to the introduction ofexotic 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 ofthe 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 selfcleaning 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% ofballast 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 ofa modular, ship-based, two-phase hydrocyclonelUV system developed by Velox Technologies Inc., ofCalgary, 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\OOSEZ002.00Cmeasured 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 m3

### /hr to 4,000 m3

### /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 ofdamaged 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 ofphoto-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 ofoil from the ballast water under Annex I ofMARPOL 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 ballastwater. 

### 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 afterthe 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 ofthe 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 oftanks onboard vessels). Discharges from the facility to central San Francisco Bayinclude 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 ofBay 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 ofSan Francisco for the discharge ofvessel 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 WATERRESEARCH AQIS Research The Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service (AQIS) is the lead agency for the management ofballast water issues in Australia, including policy development, implementation ofa strategic research plan, and quarantine operations. AQIS investigated the feasibility ofonshore 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 ofthis 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\OOSEZ002.00Ccosts for retrofitting vessels and did not consider all costs associated with onshore facilities (for example, wharfpiping) which compromises the validity ofthe 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 ofat 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 ofballast 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.DOCThere are exceptional circumstances where use of POTWs may be viable, such as for POTW treatment ofsmall volumes ofballast 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 ofnewballast watertreatment facilities would be required. The key assumptions for each component ofthe onshore system are as follows: 

### 1. VesselRetrofitting a) Vessels would pump ballast water from tanks to wharf-side connections; b) All vessels would have standardized connections; and c) The rate ofballast water discharge would closely approximate cargo loading rates to avoid delays. 

### 2. WharfRetrofitting a) All or most ofa 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. BallastWaterTreatment 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 ofa 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 ofdebris. 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 ofNaval Architects and Marine Engineers, 1992). The original ballast and bilge water piping diagram is presented as Figure 4.1. The schematic ballast water diagram ofan 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 ofballast 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 halfthe 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 ofballast 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 bal1astcrossover 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 ofthe 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.DOCthe 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 waterpump must be operating. Operation ofthe 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 ofnew 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 ofapproximately $400,000. Tankers would generally require more piping and would therefore have higher associated costs.

3 Although the volume ofdischarge 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 ofseawater 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 ofthe 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 ofthe 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 andbulk: carriers it ranges to over 20,000cubicmetersper hour.) K:\WP\yz\OOSEZ002.DOC URSIDAMES & MOORE 13

### 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. 

### Itcan 

### be assumed that before the modifications were performed, the vessels were moving the same volume ofballast 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 ofcountries 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 ofthe above by an order ofmagnitude. 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 of35 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 ofthe magnitude ofpotential 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 orCharterRates Hire or Charter rates are essentially the "rent" paid by a charterer for the use ofthe 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.). 

### OtherFees 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 OtherVessel 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.DOCShips often discharge ballast water while transiting to the wharf or while at anchor. These discharges may be for a variety ofreasons, 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 ofwing 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 ofvessel 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 ofvessels discharging ballast water may only require a few wharves to be connected. This determination would require a detailed port-specific analysis ofpresent and future shipping and ballast water discharge patterns and is beyond the scope ofthis 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 ofoperation, 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 regulationsregarding International Shore Connection for fire water, and standard discharge connection size for shoreside discharge ofoily waste per IMO MARPOL 1/19. For the purposes ofthis 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 ofpipeline (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 ofthe channel crossing. Most ofthe 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 ofHueneme The Port of Hueneme includes two terminals. The South Terminal is a continuous 1,800-foot wharfwith three 600-foot berths. North Terminal is a 1,450-foot wharfwith two 700-foot deep draft berths. To pipe the terminals to a centralized facility would require approximately one mile ofpipeline. The Port includes 95 acres, but there is no space available for a storage or treatment facility (P. Wallace, Director ofOperations,pers. comm.).

URSIDAMES & MOORE 

### 17 \\DM_SF01\VOL_1\WP\yz\OOSEZ002.DOC

### Port ofHumboldt Bay The Port ofHumboldt Bay consists ofeight terminals (10 berths), located in three different areas ofthe bay; Eureka, ocean-side, and south bay. Connecting all ofthe terminals would involve over 12 miles ofpiping (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 ofLong 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 ofLos Angeles The Port ofLos Angeles has a total of7l operational berths (D. Rice, Director ofEnvironmental 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 ofpipelines 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 ofthe 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 ofRedwood City The Port ofRedwood 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 ofpiping (S. 

### Khoo, Port Operations Manager,pers. comm.). 

### Due to the

URSIDAMES & MOORE 

### 18 \\DM_SF01\VOL_1\WP\Yz\OOSEZ002.DOC

### proximity ofSilicon Valley, land costs are at a premium, which may limit economic feasibility ofstorage. Port ofRichmond 

### The Port ofRichmond 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 ofSacramento 

### 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 ofthe 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 oftreated saline ballast water would be permitted under NPDES to the fresh water port.
Port ofSan Diego 

### The Port of San Diego consists ofthree 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 ofSan Francisco 

### The Port ofSan 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 ofapproximately $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 oftotal 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 WATERSTORAGE TANKS The third component ofthe 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 ofmaximum 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 ofthe treatment system; 4) allow for times when ports receive greater than the average number ofvessel 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 ofthe 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 ofthe 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.DOCrange 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, ofwhich, 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 ofLos Angeles to 2 MT at the Port of Hueneme. It is assumed for these calculations that the discharge volumes in this data are representative ofnormal 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 of76,789 MT. Required storage would be approximately 41 million gallons, but the treatment system would only need a capacity ofabout 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 ofthe 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 ofballast 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 ofballast water.
Port ofHumboldt 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 ofLong Beach The Port ofLong 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 halfof 1999 indicate the total volume ofballast 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 ofLos Angeles The Port ofLos 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 dischargedjust under 1,000 MT.

URSIDAMES & MOORE 

### 22 \\DM_SF01\VOL_1\WPWz\OOSEZ002.DOCPort ofOakland 

### 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 of2000. These databases generally include only discharge data from vessels arriving from outside the EEZ. The Port ofOakland 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 ofOakland 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 ofRedwood 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 halfof 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 ofRichmond 

### 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 ofRichmond is available for July 1999 through March 2000. A total volume ofapproximately 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 ofSacramento 

### The Port ofSacramento 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 ofapproximately 103,000 MT ofballast 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 ofballast 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 ofSan 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 of314 MT was discharged per day and a maximum recorded volume discharged in a single day was 23,477 MT.


### Port of Stockton The Port ofStockton 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 ofapproximately 53,000 MT ofballast 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 ofnormal 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 ofmaximum 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 ofthe 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 ofHueneme (requiring 0.01 acres). The largest tanks required, for the Port ofLos 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 ofthe 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 ofwater and that ofthe 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 ofongoing studies (Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Hyde Marine/PrV Regal Princess) are needed to demonstrate the effectiveness ofhydrocyclones. Filtration technology removes particles and organisms down to 50 microns. The filtered water then passes through a bank ofUV lamps, which provide a dose of UV irradiation sufficient to kill or inactivate the remaining organisms. The solids/sludge filtered out ofthe 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 ofthe 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 ofthe specific gravity ofthe 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 offresh 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 ofdisinfection is dependent on the type oforganism and the dose (light intensity and exposure time). UV dose is expressed in milliwatts per square centimeter per second ofexposure 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 ofUV required to treat the wide range ofmarine 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 of25 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). 27 \\OM_SF01\VOL_1\WP\YZ\OOSEZ002.DOC URSIDAMES & MOOREPrevious marine and ongoing studies tend to indicate that the UV dosages required to inactivate the full range ofbiota sizes and life stages found in ballast water will be higher than those used for fresh water. Hence the 140 mWs/cm2treatment 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 ofthe 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 ofwater, much ofwhich must be removed prior to disposal at a landfill facility. This sludge would be thickened and then dewatered. Two types ofthickening would be utilized for the various facilities. Dissolved air flotation (DAF) would be applied at the larger facilities based on the large volume ofreject 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 ofthe clarifier and could be removed. This process results in solids concentrations of approximately 1%. During both ofthese 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 ofa 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 ofplates a "void" lined with filter fabric would allow waterto 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 CaliforniaPorts 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 ofLos Angeles and Long

URSIDAMES & MOORE 

### 28 \\OM_SF01\VOL_1\WP\YZ\OOSEZ002.DOCBeach, 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 ofHueneme. Facility design specifications for each port are included in Table 4.6.
Each ofthese 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 ofballast 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 ofHumboldt Bay, Oakland, and San Francisco (0.2 mgd) and the Ports ofRedwood 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 ofHueneme would require treatment ofapproximately 0.001 mgd ofballast water. The facility could be the same design as the 0.01 mgd facility. However, treatment of such a small volume ofballast water is not economically feasible and the volume could likely be discharged

URSIDAMES & MOORE 29 \\DM_SF01\VOL_1\WP\yz\OOSEZ002.DOCto 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 ofRedwood City, Richmond, Sacramento, San Diego, and Stockton, to over $2.2 million each for the 1.0 mgd facilities for each ofthe Ports ofLos 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 & 

### MaintenanceCosts
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 Californiaports 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.DOCIt 

### 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 ofthe issues related to general conceptual feasibility ofonshore ballast water treatment from technical, operational, and economic perspectives. The feasibility ofinstalling onshore systems at specific California ports is then evaluated. 

### 5.1 CONCEPTUAL FEASIBILITY OF ONSHORE TREATMENT The concept ofonshore treatment ofballast 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 ofwhether onshore treatment ofthe ballast water currently discharged at California ports is technically possible using existing technology, irrespective ofoperational 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 offresh 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 ofat a landfill facility. The scenario presented assumes that existing wastewater treatment technology is sufficient to meet the requirements of future ballast water standards. Ifballast 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 ofpotent 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 ofwharf-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 ofballast water during rough weather would not be feasible.

URSIDAMES & MOORE 

### 32 \\DM_SF01\VOL_1\WPWz\OOSEZ002.COC

### WharfRetrofitting Any onshore treatment option must be capable ofhandling high flow rates such that offloading ofballast 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 & TreatmentFacilities 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 oftreated 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 TreatmentCosts
The cost estimates for the onshore treatment systems are comprised offive 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 oftreatment cost per metric ton ofdischarged 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.DOCthese 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 ofopen 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 wharfpiping 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 ofUV radiation on the diversity oftaxa 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 ofballast 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 ofunilateral 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 FORINDIVIDUAL CALIFORNIAPUBLIC PORTS The technical and operational feasibility, and costs of onshore treatment were evaluated for 11 California public ports. Unless specified otherwise, the onshore treatment ofballast water at the individual ports is technically feasible. As noted in Section 5.1.1 the technology exists for all of the required components ofonshore 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 ofHueneme 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 ofapproximately $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 OperationalFeasibility Operationally, onshore ballast water treatment would be feasible for the Port ofHumboldt 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 wharfto 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 ofHumboldt 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 ofpiping 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 ofonshore treatment at Humboldt Bay is estimated to be $3.97/MT as shown in Table 5.2. 

### 5.2.3 Port ofLong Beach Operational Feasibility Onshore ballast water treatment would be operationally feasible for the Port of Long Beach ifall vessels were retrofitted to allow for discharge to an onshore facility. Long Beach receives a large number ofcontainer vessels. Ballast water from these vessels likely could be discharged to a wharfwithout 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 ofland 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 ifdischarge is not allowed directly into harbor waters. The cost ofonshore treatment at the Port ofLong 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 ofLos Angeles if all vessels were retrofitted to allow for discharge to an onshore facility. The Port receives a large number ofcontainer vessels. Ballast water from these vessels likely could be discharged to a wharfwithout 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 ofonshore 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 ofLos Angeles would require 25.6 miles ofpipeline 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 ofonshore pipeline.
The Port would require a total storage capacity of40.6 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 ofLos 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 ofLos 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 ofonshore treatment at Port ofLos Angeles is estimated to be $1.37/MT as shown in Table 5.2. 

### 5.2.5 Port ofOakland 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 ofOakland 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 ofavoiding existing underground utilities. The Port would require a total storage capacity of7.3 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.DOCapproximately $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 ofRedwood City Operational Feasibility
Onshore ballast water treatment would be operationally feasible for the Port ofRedwood 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 ofonshore 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 ofpiping at an estimated cost of$1.6 million.
The Port ofRedwood City would require a total storage capacity of8.4 million gallons. Two 24­ foot tall, 174-foot diameter, steel tanks would cost an estimated $4.3 million. Approximately 1.1 acres ofland 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.

\\DM_SF01\VOL_1\WP\Yz\OOSEZ002.DOC URSIDAMES & MOORE 40

### The cost of onshore treatment at Port ofRedwood City is estimated to be $5.08/MT as shown in Table 5.2. 

### 5.2.7 Port ofRichmond Operational Feasibility Onshore ballast water treatment would be operationally feasible for the Port ofRichmond 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 ofRichmond 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 ofSacramento Technical Feasibility Onshore ballast water treatment at the Port ofSacramento 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 of9.4 million gallons. Two 24­ foot tall steel tanks 84 feet in diameter would cost approximately $4.8 million. Approximately 1.2 acres ofland 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 oftreated saline ballast water would be allowed in the fresh water port. The cost ofonshore treatment per metric ton at Port ofSacramento is estimated to be $3.93/MT as shown in Table 5.2. For two treatment systems, the cost oftreatment per metric ton ofballast 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 offacilities. 

### 5.2.9 Port ofSan Diego Operational Feasibility Onshore ballast water treatment would be operationally feasible for the Port of San Diego ifall 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 ofpipeline would be required to connect the three terminal 

### areas at the Port ofSan Diego to a central facility at a cost ofapproximately $9.3 million. The Port ofSan Diego would require a total storage capacity of6.0 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 ofSan 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 ofpiping. Disregarding the right-of-way issue, eight miles ofpiping alone would cost approximately $6.4 million.
The Port ofSan 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 ofland 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 ofonshore treatment at Port ofSan Francisco is estimated to be $4.67/MT as shown in Table 5.2. 

### 5.2.11 Port ofStockton Technical Feasibility Onshore ballast water treatment at the Port of Stockton would be technically feasible with the constraint that it unlikely that discharge ofsaline 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 ifall 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 ofStockton would require approximately 5.1 miles oftotal 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 ofStockton 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 ofonshore treatment at Port ofStockton is estimated to be 

### $8.01IMTas shown in Table 5.2. For two treatment systems, the cost oftreatment per metric ton ofballast 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 ofaquatic 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 ofthe 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 ofreducing hull draft or avoiding delays in port. Safety would be a concern for at-sea transfers ofballast 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 ofballast 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. \\OM_SF01\VOL_1\WP\Yz\OOSEZ002.DOC URSIDAMES & MOORE 

### 46

### 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 ofshipboard 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 ifonshore 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 ofMarine 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 ofCoastal Marine Organisms: The Biology ofBallast Water. Oceanogr. Mar. BioI. Ann. 

### Rev. 23:313-371. Carlton, J.T., Reid, D.M., and H. van Leeuwen, 1995. The Role ofShipping in the Introduction ofNonindigeneous Aquatic Organisms to the Coastal Waters ofthe 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 ofUltraviolet 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 ofthe Biological Invasions ofthe 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 ofOakland. For The Port ofOakland. September 7. Levine, E and T. Thiel, 1987. Inducible RNA Repair in the Cyanbacteria Anabaena spp. Journal ofBacteriology 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 ofUNESCO. 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 ofCalifornia Department ofHealth 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 ofaFormer 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 ofQueensland 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 ofthe Great Lakes Ballast Technology Demonstration Project. Annual Meeting ofthe 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 ofInvasive 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 AstoriaMetals Corp. Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service CaliforniaAssociation 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 SmithsonianEnvironmental Research Center San Francisco Dry DockInc. 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

\\DM_SF01\VOL_1\WPWZ\OOSEZ002.DOC URSIDAMES & MOORE 51