Document ID: EPA-HQ-OW-2004-0002-0048
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2004-11-23T05:00Z

Draft
October
29,
2004
­
Page
1
of
14
Seafood
Processing
Vessels
Seawater
Intake
Structure
Modification
Cost
Estimate
280ft
Catcher
­
Processor
I.
Introduction
This
EPA
has
identified
a
280­
foot
catcher­
processor
as
an
indicative
vessel
to
assemble
a
cost
estimate
for
retro
fitting
fine
mesh
screens
(
5mm
hole
size)
to
the
sea
water
intake
structures.
Information
gathered
during
interviews
with
industry
representatives
will
be
used
to
characterise
the
intake
structure
os
a
typical
280­
foot
vessel.

One
of
the
key
assumptions
of
this
work
is
that
the
vessel
is
assumed
to
be
in
dry
dock
for
routine
maintenance.
Furthermore,
it
is
assumed
that
this
work
does
not
prolong
the
dry
dock
time
for
the
vessel.
No
allowances
have
been
made
for
docking
fees.

Four
primary
fine
mesh
configurations
have
been
costed:
1.
Replace
the
existing
grill
with
a
fine
mesh
(
no
other
modifications),
2.
Enlarge
the
intake
structure
(
internally)
to
achieve
0.5ft/
sec
through
screen
velocity
and
a
screen
that
is
flush
with
the
hull,
3.
Install
a
fine
mesh
screen
intake
structure
(
externally)
to
achieve
0.5ft/
sec
through
screen
velocity
(
the
screen
protrudes
past
the
hull).
4.
Install
a
horizontal
flow
modifier
addition
to
the
intake
structure
(
externally)
to
achieve
0.5ft/
sec
through
velocity
(
protrudes
past
the
hull).

The
capital
and
expense
costs
estimated
in
this
report
are
incremental
costs
for
the
facility.
10%
engineering
and
10%
contingency
has
been
included
in
the
cost
estimates.
An
allowance
of
6%
of
the
capital
cost
has
been
allowed
for
annual
parts
replacement
costs.
The
estimates
for
inspection
and
cleaning
periods
have
been
based
on
vendor
data
and
data
from
operators
of
similar
equipment
in
high
marine
growth
areas.

II.
Technology
The
technology
for
fine
mesh
(
5mm
openings)
barriers
is
widely
accepted
and
used
as
a
method
for
preventing
fish
entrainment
in
seawater
intake
structures.
The
through
screen
velocity
(
impingement)
is
less
well
understood
for
vessels
that
may
be
in
motion
and
a
cross
screen
velocity
component
is
present.
These
vessels
have
a
large
range
of
operating
conditions
and
the
cross
screen
velocity
may
vary
from
nil
to
several
times
the
through
screen
velocity.
This
report
does
not
attempt
to
answer
this
question
but
takes
the
two
extremes
into
consideration.
These
are:
1.
Simply
replace
the
existing
grill
with
a
fine
screen
and
allow
the
high
through
screen
velocity,
2.
Assume
that
the
through
screen
velocity
for
peak
operating
intake
flows
should
be
limited
to
0.5ft/
sec.

Due
to
the
fine
openings
in
the
external
mesh,
bio
fouling
of
the
screen
may
be
a
serious
issue.
Since
the
intakes
are
often
located
on
the
bottom
of
the
Draft
October
29,
2004
­
Page
2
of
14
vessel,
air
purging
is
not
likely
to
be
very
effective.
Furthermore,
air
in
the
downstream
cooling
water
system
may
cause
some
serious
damage.
As
such,
air
sparging
has
not
been
pursued
during
this
cost
estimate.
However,
there
may
be
an
air
sparge
configuration
(
not
identified
at
this
stage)
that
proves
very
effective
for
this
application.
90/
10
CuNi
alloys
have
proven
to
be
an
effective
static
anti
bio­
fouling
solution.
The
use
of
a
CuNi
mesh
construction
has
been
included
in
this
estimate.

III.
Details
of
280­
Foot
Seafood
Processing
Vessel
In
order
to
assemble
this
cost
estimate,
several
assumptions
have
been
made
regarding
the
configuration
of
the
vessel:
1.
The
vessel
has
no
more
than
two
main
engines
plus
two
auxiliary
engines
and
a
number
of
power
generators.
­
A
greater
number
of
smaller
engines
for
main
propulsion
is
not
common
on
large
vessels
(
over
150­
200ft)
and
may
make
for
a
complicated
cooling
water
system,

2.
The
catcher­
processor
vessel
total
installed
main
engine
power
is
approximately
4700HP.
­
Scaled
down
from
the
375ft
Alaska
Ocean.
Information
from
Conference
Interview
dated
9
May
2003.

3.
The
Typical
Flow
Rates
of:
1500m3/
hr
(
9.5MGAL/
Day)
­
Max
Possible
(
all
engines
running
inc
aux
plus
all
ancillaries
running),
1000m3/
hr
(
6.3MGAL/
Day)
 
Typical
Operational
 
Main
Engines
running
plus
most
ancillaries
650m3/
hr
(
3.2MGAL/
Day)
 
Typical
Stationary
 
Main
engines
off
or
idling,
power
generators
and
auxiliaries
on.
­
Scaled
down
from
the
375ft
Alaska
Ocean.
Information
from
Conference
Interview
dated
9
May
2003.
 
Also
supported
by
interview
with
Roger
Malchevik
(
American
Seafood
Company
­
Operational
Manager)
dated
6/
24/
2002
4.
The
enlarged
mesh
opening
will
be
sized
to
achieve
0.5ft/
sec
through
screen
velocity
for
the
typical
Operational
flow
of
1000m3/
hr
(
6.3MGAL/
Day).
The
mesh
opening
size
will
be
(
5mm)
and
have
a
60%
open
area
ratio.

5.
The
vessel
has
two
primary
sea
chests
with
a
"
crossover"
header
in
between.
One
sea
chest
is
operated
at
any
one
time
and
the
other
is
on
stand­
by.
The
sea
chest
openings
are
located
on
either
side
of
the
vessel
approximately
20'
below
the
water
line
 
Typical
design
for
large
vessel
sea
chest
intakes.
 
Supported
by
interview
with
Roger
Malchevik
(
American
Seafood
Company
­
Operational
Manager)
dated
6/
24/
2002
6.
The
existing
sea
chest
opening
into
the
ocean
will
be
assumed
to
have
a
through
screen
velocity
of
approximately
3ft/
sec
(
60%
open
area
ratio)
at
1000m3/
hr
(
equivalent
to
a
32"
diameter
opening).
 
3ft/
sec
is
consistent
with
flow
velocities
quoted
during
operator/
designer
interviews.
Draft
October
29,
2004
­
Page
3
of
14
7.
The
vessel
is
designed
for
cargo
capacity
rather
than
speed.
As
such,
the
hull
will
be
primarily
transversely
rather
than
longitudinally
stiffened.
This
is
typical
for
most
fishing
vessels
and
will
reduce
the
number
of
structural
members
that
are
altered
during
intake
enlargement.
 
Advice
given
by
local
Naval
Architect
Company
(
who
do
not
wish
to
be
named).

Typical
Sea
Chest
Installation
Section
Trough
Intake
Pipe
IV.
Summary
of
Cost
Estimates
Notes:
1.
The
vessel
is
in
dry
dock
for
other
work
such
as
routine
maintenance
overhaul.
2.
No
production
losses
or
dry
dock
fees
have
been
included
in
this
estimate.
3.
Inspection
intervals
for
fine
mesh
screens
and
horizontal
flow
modifiers
are
assumed
to
be
one
per
year.
This
has
been
based
on
typical
inspection
frequencies
for
onshore
and
coastal
facilities.
4.
It
is
assumed
that
the
existing
sea
chests
are
inspected
annually
with
the
use
of
divers.
The
inspection
and
maintenance
of
the
new
large
structures
(
not
option
1)
will
take
significantly
longer
than
current
practices.
An
allowance
of
an
additional
day
per
intake
for
options
2,
3
and
4
has
been
included
for
divers
to
inspect
and
clean
the
new
intake
structures.
No
Draft
October
29,
2004
­
Page
4
of
14
mobilisation
or
demobilisation
costs
are
included
as
this
estimate
is
for
the
incremental
facility
cost.
5.
6%
of
the
capital
cost
has
been
allowed
for
annual
parts
replacement
cost.

Table
1
summarises
the
results
of
this
cost
estimate
for
a
seafood­
processing
vessel
with
two
sea
chest
intake
structures.

Table
1.
Summary
of
Cost
Estimates
for
Seafood
Processing
Vessels
Capital
Costs
Annual
O&
M
Costs
Option
1a:
Replace
Grill
with
Stainless
Steel
Fine
Mesh
Screen
$
1,528
$
20
Option
1b:
Replace
Grill
with
CuNi
Fine
Mesh
Screen
$
1,930
$
30
Option
2a:
Enlarge
Intake
Structure
Internally
and
add
a
Stainless
Steel
Fine
Mesh
Screen
$
101,846
$
6,862
Option
2b:
Enlarge
Intake
Structure
Internally
and
add
CuNi
Fine
Mesh
Screen
$
104,436
$
6,992
Option
3a:
Protruding
Stainless
Steel
Fine
Mesh
Screen
$
57,724
$
5,504
Option
3b:
Protruding
CuNi
Fine
Mesh
Screen
$
60,314
$
5,634
Option
4a:
Bottom
Sea
Chest
Horizontal
Flow
Modifier
$
32,266
$
4,894
Option
4b:
Side
Sea
Chest
Horizontal
Flow
Modifier
$
43,986
$
5,620
Draft
October
29,
2004
­
Page
5
of
14
V.
Details
of
Cost
Estimate
(
Per
Intake)

Following
is
the
detailed
information
that
was
used
to
assemble
this
cost
estimate.
The
diagrams
indicate
what
was
physically
estimated
and
the
spreadsheets
were
used
for
summing
up
materials
and
calculation.
The
schedules
of
rates
are
found
in
the
spreadsheets.
The
estimates
calculate
the
cost
for
the
replacement
of
a
single
inlet.
Doubling
these
values
derives
the
total
vessel
costs.

Option
1:
Replace
the
Existing
Grill
with
a
Fine
Mesh1
Typical
Coarse
Grill
over
Intake
Opening
Replace
the
grill
like
the
one
shown
above
(
but
a
lot
larger
 
32")
with
a
fine
mesh
screen.

Option
2:
Internal
Enlargement
of
Intake
Structure2
Replace
the
existing
32"
intake
with
a
new
intake
structure
that
has
a
large
enough
surface
area
to
reduce
the
through
screen
velocity
to
0.5ft/
sec.

The
primary
problem
with
this
type
of
intake
modification
is
that
there
is
typically
very
little
room
at
the
intake.
A
low
profile
design
has
been
developed
to
minimise
the
impacts
on
surrounding
equipment
and
services.
The
intake
pipe
suction
is
dispersed
across
the
face
of
a
large
mesh
using
a
diffuser
arrangement.
This
type
of
flow
modifier
is
often
used
to
limit
vortexing
problems
on
suction
lines.
It
will
only
marginally
increase
the
head
loss
through
the
system,
as
the
available
flow
area
is
still
large
(
but
at
right
angles
to
the
pipe
flow).
The
similarity
with
a
velocity
cap
is
easily
noted.

This
design
also
accounts
for
the
structural
members
of
the
Vessel's
hull.
The
insertion
of
a
large
intake
will
typically
require
the
cutting
of
several
hull
stiffeners.
This
design
is
intended
to
transfer
the
loads
directly
through
the
main
frame.
A
Naval
Architect's
review
of
this
design
confirmed
that
it
was
reasonable.

1
Costs
were
estimated
for
stainless
steel
and
Cu­
NI
and
are
presented
as
Options
1a
and
1b
in
Table
1,
respectively.
2
Costs
were
estimated
for
stainless
steel
and
Cu­
NI
and
are
presented
as
Options
2a
and
2b
in
Table
1,
respectively.
Draft
October
29,
2004
­
Page
6
of
14
Enlarged
Fine
Mesh
Sea
Water
Intake
Detail
Item
1:
Outer
Bar
Screen
Draft
October
29,
2004
­
Page
7
of
14
Detail
Item
2:
Fine
Mesh
Inner
Screen
Detail
Item
3:
Fine
Mesh
Frame
and
Inner
Diffuser
Draft
October
29,
2004
­
Page
8
of
14
Detail
Item
4:
Main
Frame
Option
3:
Protruding
Intake
Structure3
Cover
the
existing
32"
intake
with
a
new
intake
structure
that
has
a
large
enough
surface
area
to
reduce
the
through
screen
velocity
to
0.5ft/
sec.
A
protruding
intake
does
not
effect
the
structure
of
the
vessel
and
is
far
easier
(
and
cheaper)
to
retro
fit
to
an
existing
vessel.

The
primary
problem
with
this
type
of
intake
modification
is
that
additional
drag
would
be
induced
by
its
inclusion
on
the
hull.
Consequently,
the
low
profile
approach
used
on
the
internal
enlargement
is
very
useful
for
this
configuration
also.
Advice
from
a
Naval
Architect's
indicated
that
this
would
be
negligible
and
the
cost
benefits
and
ease
of
installation
would
likely
outweigh
any
detrimental
effects.
Furthermore,
he
confirmed
that
this
design
was
reasonable
for
it's
purpose.

3
Costs
were
estimated
for
stainless
steel
and
Cu­
NI
and
are
presented
as
Options
3a
and
3b
in
Table
1,
respectively.
Draft
October
29,
2004
­
Page
9
of
14
Protruding
Fine
Mesh
Sea
Water
Intake
Please
refer
to
Option
2
above
for
Items
1,
2
and
3.

Detail
Item
5:
Protruding
Main
Frame
Draft
October
29,
2004
­
Page
10
of
14
Option
4:
Horizontal
Flow
Modifier4
The
horizontal
flow
modifier
is
a
panel
that
ensures
horizontal
flow
into
the
intake
structure
at
a
velocity
of
0.5ft/
sec
or
less.
This
is
a
derivative
of
the
velocity
cap
technology.

The
horizontal
flow
modifier
option
is
divided
up
into
two
basic
configurations:
one
for
sea
chests
located
on
the
bottom
of
the
vessel
and
the
other
for
sea
chests
located
on
the
sidewalls
of
the
vessel.
The
arrangement
on
the
bottom
sea
chests
closely
resembles
a
standard
velocity
cap
arrangement.
A
plate
is
located
over
the
intake
opening
to
direct
the
flow
to
horizontal
between
the
plate
and
the
hull.
This
arrangement
will
be
suitable
for
hull
angles
up
to
30
°
off
horizontal
(
87%
of
velocity
will
still
be
horizontal).
For
hull
angles
greater
than
this
up
to
completely
vertical
the
side
sea
chest
arrangement
will
be
required.
This
design
includes
a
flow
diffuser
to
spread
the
flow
over
a
large
area
and
louvres
to
direct
the
flow
to
the
horizontal.
Both
of
these
designs
are
low
profile
to
reduce
any
fluid
dynamic
effects
on
the
hull.
The
existing
coarse
grill
over
the
sea
chest
will
be
retained.
It
is
intended
that
the
assembly
horizontal
flow
diverter
be
attached
using
hinges
to
the
hull
to
allow
easy
access
to
the
existing
intake
structure.

4
Two
basic
configurations,
one
for
sea
chests
located
on
the
bottom
of
the
vessel
and
the
other
for
sea
chests
located
on
the
sidewalls
of
the
vessel
were
costed
and
presented
as
Options
4a
and
4b
in
Table
1,
respectively.
Draft
October
29,
2004
­
Page
11
of
14
Plan
View
of
Bottom
Sea
Chest
Horizontal
Flow
Modifier
Note:
This
modification
is
for
use
on
sea
chests
that
are
located
on
the
bottom
of
the
vessel
and
no
more
than
30
°
of
the
horizontal.
Flow
Modifier
Plate
Draft
October
29,
2004
­
Page
12
of
14
Section
YY
through
Horizontal
Flow
Modifier
Notes:
1.
The
basic
assembly
consists
of
a
flow
modifier
plate
that
is
stiffened
using
4"
flat
bar
welded
to
the
under
side.
These
flat
bar
stiffeners
also
assists
in
funnelling
the
flow
into
the
existing
intake
structure.
2.
A
coarse
mesh
has
been
included
around
the
perimeter
of
the
new
intake
structure.
This
is
to
prevent
larger
animals
(
like
turtles)
getting
trapped
in
the
gap
between
the
hull
and
the
flow
modifier
plate
(
looks
similar
to
a
reef
ledge
to
some
animals).
3.
8
brackets
(
4"
PFC)
are
permanently
welded
to
the
hull
as
the
primary
attachment
points.
4.
8
legs
off
the
flow
modifier
plate
(
1/
2"
plate)
attach
to
the
brackets
on
the
hull.
3
of
the
bracket
to
leg
connections
use
hinge
pins,
the
other
5
legs
use
bolts.
Releasing
the
bolts
allows
the
flow
modifier
to
swing
down
for
maintenance
or
cleaning
of
the
sea
chest
intake.
A
lifting
lug
should
be
added
to
the
hull
to
allow
lifting
equipment
can
be
used
to
safely
open
and
close
this
new
structure.
A
lifting
lug
has
been
incorporated
in
the
costs
for
this
item.
5.
All
materials
used
for
the
construction
of
this
item
will
be
mild
steel
coated
in
anti­
fouling
paint.
Flow
Modifier
Plate
Draft
October
29,
2004
­
Page
13
of
14
Plan
View
of
Side
Sea
Chest
Horizontal
Flow
Modifier
Note:
This
modification
is
for
use
on
sea
chests
that
are
located
on
the
side
of
the
vessel
at
angles
greater
than
30
°
of
the
horizontal.
The
direction
of
the
flow
louvres
should
be
adjusted
during
the
design
and
construction
of
this
equipment
such
that
they
are
horizontal
Flow
Louvres
Draft
October
29,
2004
­
Page
14
of
14
Notes:
1
The
basic
assembly
consists
of
a
diffuser
plate
nested
in
a
number
of
flow
louvres.
The
diffuser
ensures
that
the
flow
is
evenly
distributed
across
the
louvres
and
the
louvres
ensure
that
the
flow
is
horizontal
at
a
velocity
of
0.5
ft/
sec
or
less.
2
2
brackets
(
2"
equal
angles)
are
permanently
welded
to
the
hull
as
the
primary
attachment
points.
These
run
the
entire
width
and
at
each
end
of
the
sea
chest
modification.
3
The
horizontal
flow
modifier
is
attached
to
the
brackets
on
the
hull
by
way
of
a
hinge
on
one
side
and
bolts
on
the
other.
By
releasing
the
bolts,
the
horizontal
flow
modifier
may
be
swung
out
away
from
the
hull
for
access
to
the
existing
sea
chest.
4
All
materials
used
for
the
construction
of
this
item
will
be
mild
steel
coated
in
anti­
fouling
paint.
Flow
Louvres