cold ironing cost effectiveness study · 6.6 candidate vessels and berths for cold ironing 85 6.7...
TRANSCRIPT
Emulsified Diesel FuelEmulsified Diesel FuelEmulsified Diesel Fuel
Cold Ironing Cost Effectiveness Study
Volume I - Report
Cold Ironing Cost Effectiveness Study
Volume I - Report
VOLUME I - REPORT
COLD IRONING COST EFFECTIVENESS PORT OF LONG BEACH
925 HARBOR DRIVE LONG BEACH, CALIFORNIA
Prepared for
Port of Long Beach Long Beach, California
Prepared by
ENVIRON International Corporation Los Angeles, California
March 30, 2004
- ii - E N V I R O N
T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S
Page
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1
2.0 INTRODUCTION 17
2.1 Background 17
2.2 Previous Studies 19
2.3 Objectives of the Present Study 21
2.4 General Approach 21
3.0 CURRENT STATE OF COLD IRONING 27
3.1 Princess Cruise Vessels in Juneau, Alaska 27
3.2 POSCO Dry Bulk Vessels in Pittsburg, California 28
3.3 Ferry Vessels at Port of Gothenburg, Sweden 29
3.4 China Shipping Terminal at the Port of Los Angeles 30
3.5 U.S. Navy 30
3.6 Muscat Cement Terminal at the Port of Los Angeles 30
3.7 Plan Baltic 21 31
3.8 Sea-Launch Assessment 31
4.0 SHIP CHARACTERIZATION AND HOTELLING EMISSIONANALYSIS 33
4.1 General Port Call Characterization 33
4.2 Port Activities 37 4.2.1 Port Calls by Specific Container Vessels 37 4.2.2 Port Calls by Specific Refrigerated Vessels 38 4.2.3 Port Calls by Specific Cruise Vessels 38 4.2.4 Port Calls by Specific Tankers 38 4.2.5 Port Calls by Specific Dry Bulk Vessels 38 4.2.6 Port Calls by Specific Vehicle Carriers and Roll-on/Roll-off Vessels 38 4.2.7 Port Calls by Specific Break Bulk (i.e. General Cargo) Vessels 38
4.3 Vessel Characteristics for Selected Vessels 39 4.3.1 Container Vessels 40 4.3.2 Tankers 41 4.3.3 Other Selected Vessels 41
4.4 Berthing Times for Selected Vessels 42
4.5 Simultaneous Calls of Selected Vessels 43
4.6 Emission Estimates for Selected Vessels 44
T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S Page
- iii - E N V I R O N
4.6.1 Container Vessels 45 4.6.2 Tankers 46 4.6.3 Other Vessels 47
4.7 Emissions Associated with Shore Power Generation 48
5.0 ELECTRICAL POWER INFRASTRUCTURE CONCEPTUAL DESIGN 49
5.1 Overview of Power Transmission/Distribution to the Vessels 49 5.1.1 Power Supply for Container, Reefer, and Dry Bulk Vessels 50 5.1.2 Power Supply for Tankers and RO-RO Vessels 53 5.1.3 Power Supply for Cruise Vessel 53
5.2 Method of Analysis of Energy and Transmission Distribution to Terminals 54 5.2.1 Hinson Substation 54 5.2.2 Transmission Line, 66 kV, Hinson Substation to Pico Substation 54 5.2.3 Pico Substation 54 5.2.4 12.5 kV Feeders 55 5.2.5 Cost Estimate of SCE Infrastructure Improvements 55
5.3 Power Delivery within the Terminals 56 5.3.1 Terminals Using a Work-barge 56 5.3.2 Work-barge Sizing 65 5.3.3 Work-barge Cost Summary 65 5.3.4 Summary of Work-barge Annual Costs 65 5.3.5 Cost Associated with Loss of Operational Area 65 5.3.6 Shore Side Power Delivery for RO-RO, Breakbulk Vessels and
Tankers 68 5.3.7 Shore Side Power Delivery for Cruise Vessel 69 5.3.8 Summary of Terminal Infrastructure Costs for Work-barges and Cable
Reel Towers 69 5.3.9 Summary of Reel Tower Annual Labor Costs 74
5.4 Vessel Conversion Analysis 74 5.4.1 Method of Analysis 74 5.4.2 Vessel Analysis Cost Summary 75
5.5 Conclusions and Overall Cost Summary 76
6.0 COLD IRONING COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS 77
6.1 Methodology and Assumptions 77
6.2 Potential Emission Reductions from Cold Ironing 79
6.3 Initial Capital Investment for Cold Ironing 80
6.4 Operating and Maintenance Costs 83
6.5 Cost Effectiveness of Cold Ironing 85
T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S Page
- iv - E N V I R O N
6.6 Candidate Vessels and Berths for Cold Ironing 85
6.7 Discussion on Cold Ironing Cost Effectiveness 89
7.0 ALTERNATIVE CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES 91
7.1 Characteristics and Emissions of Selected Marine Vessels 92
7.2 Alternative Emission Control Technologies 93 7.2.1 Repowering with NG/Dual-FuelTM Engines 96 7.2.2 Low-Sulfur Marine Gas Oil (MGO) Diesel Fuel 98 7.2.3 Emulsified Diesel Fuel 100 7.2.4 Repowering with US EPA Tier 2 Engines 102 7.2.5 Injection Timing Delay 102 7.2.6 California On-Road Diesel (Diesel #2) 103 7.2.7 Fischer-Tropsch Diesel Fuel 104 7.2.8 Bio-Diesel Fuel 105 7.2.9 Direct Water Injection 105 7.2.10 Humid Air Motor (HAM) 106 7.2.11 Exhaust Gas Recirculation (EGR) 106 7.2.12 Diesel Oxidation Catalyst (DOC) with California On-road #2 Diesel
Fuel 106 7.2.13 Catalyzed Diesel Particulate Filter with California On-road #2 Diesel
Fuel 107 7.2.14 Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) 108 7.2.15 Cryogenic Refrigerated Container (CRC) 109 7.2.16 Summary 111
8.0 POLITICAL AND TECHNICAL ISSUES 115
8.1 Legal Authority/Current and Future Regulatory Requirements 115
8.2 International Level 115
8.3 Federal Level 116
8.4 State Level 118
8.5 Local Level 120
8.6 Operational Flexibility 122
8.7 Safety and Other Liabilities 123
8.8 International Cooperation and Interstate Coordination 124
8.9 Labor Issues 125
9.0 CONCLUSIONS 127
- v - E N V I R O N
T A B L E S
Page
Table 1-1. Frequency of Vessel Calls 2 Table 1-2. Selected Vessels and Berths in the Study 7 Table 1-3. Annual Hotelling Emissions 8 Table 1-4. Vessel Calls, Power Consumption, and Cost Effectiveness 11 Table 1-5. Not Practical Near-term Alternatives for POLB 13 Table 1-6. Potential Alternatives to POLB 13 Table 2-1. Inventory Results for Oceangoing Vessels Calling at San Pedro Bay Ports:
2000, NOx tons per day 19 Table 2-2. Selected Vessels and Berths in the Study 22 Table 4-1. Frequency of Vessel Calls 34 Table 4-2. Candidate Vessel Types, Codes, and Port Calls By Vessel Type 35 Table 4-3. Most Frequently Calling Vessels 36 Table 4-4. Berths with Highest Number of Calls Where Data Was Available 37 Table 4-5. Selected Vessels for Shore Power Study 39 Table 4-6. Estimated Average On-board Power Requirements for the Selected Vessels 40 Table 4-7. Available Berthing Time Summaries 43 Table 4-8. Simultaneous Calls for the 12 Selected Vessels 44 Table 4-9. Container Vessels Hotelling Emissions Per Call (tons per call) 46 Table 4-10. Container Vessels Annual Hotelling Emissions (tons per year) 46 Table 4-11. Tanker Hotelling Emissions Per Call (tons per call) 46 Table 4-12. Tanker Annual Hotelling emissions (tons per year) 47 Table 4-13. Other Vessels Berthing Emissions per Call (tons per call) 47 Table 4-14. Other Vessels Annual Berthing Emissions (tons per year) 47 Table 5-1. Selected Berths Load 55 Table 5-2. SCE Cost Distribution to Individual Berths 56 Table 5-3. Summary of Work-barge Annual Costs 66 Table 5-4. Fenced Footprint Around Substation 67 Table 5-5. Summary of Terminal Infrastructure Costs for Work-barges and Cable Reel
Towers 73 Table 5-6. Summary of Reel Tower Annual Labor Costs 74 Table 5-7. Vessel Analysis Cost Summary 75 Table 5-8. Overall Cost Summary 76 Table 6-1. Selected Vessels and Berths in the Study 77 Table 6-3. Emission Factors for Natural Gas Steam Power Generation 79 Table 6-4. Potential Net Emission Reduction from Cold Ironing 80 Table 6-5. Power Infrastructure Cost By Individual Berth 81 Table 6-6. Work-barge Capital Cost 81
T A B L E S (Continued)
Page
- vi - E N V I R O N
Table 6-7. Cost for Retrofitting Replacement Vessels at the Retirement of Current Selected Vessels 82
Table 6-8. Annual Purchased Power Cost 83 Table 6-9. Annual Fuel Savings 84 Table 6-10. Landside Facility O&M Costs 84 Table 6-11. Cost Effectiveness Data and Results 86 Table 6-12. Candidate Vessels and Berths for Cold Ironing 89 Table 7-1. MARPOL's ANNEX VI NOx Emission Standards. 91 Table 7-2. USEPA Marine Emission Standards 92 Table 7-3. Key Parameters of the Selected Marine Vessels 92 Table 7-4. Annual Hotelling Emissions and Fuel Consumption for Selected Marine
Vessels 93 Table 7-5. Selected Cost Effectiveness Values ($/ton Reduced) 96 Table 7-6. Potential Emission Reductions for Repowering with NG/Dual FuelTM
Engines 97 Table 7-7. Cost Effectiveness of Repowering with NG/Dual FuelTM Engines 97 Table 7-8. Emission Reductions from the Use of MGO Diesel Fuel 99 Table 7-9. Cost Effectiveness of MGO Diesel Fuel 99 Table 7-10. Potential Emission Reductions from the Use of Emulsified Diesel Fuel and
MGO Substitution 101 Table 7-12. Emission Reductions from Alternative Technologies 111 Table 7-13. Not Practical Near-term Alternatives for POLB 111 Table 7-14. Potential Alternatives to POLB 112
F I G U R E S
Figure 1-1: Vessel Calls at the Port of Long Beach Figure 1-2: Annual Hotelling Emissions Figure 1-3: Cost Effectiveness vs. Annual Power Consumption Figure 4-1: Vessel Calls at the Port of Long Beach Figure 5-1: Transmission and Distribution Routing Figure 5-2: Work-Barge Plan Figure 5-3: Stern Elevation Figure 5-4: Starboard Elevation Figure 5-5: Starboard Elevation 2 Figure 6-1: Cost Effectiveness of Cold Ironing Figure 6-2: Cost Effectiveness vs. Annual Power Consumption
- vii - E N V I R O N
A P P E N D I C E S
Appendix A: Information Gathering Meeting Report Appendix B: Collected Vessels and Berths Information Appendix C: General Port Activity and Fleet Characteristics Appendix D: Engine Emission Factors Summary Appendix E: Vessel Hotelling Emission Calculations Appendix F: Vessel Conversation Analysis Appendix G: Feeder Routes to Terminals Appendix H: SCE Infrastructure Costs Estimate Appendix I: Work-Barge Sizing and Costs Estimate Appendix J: Cost Effectiveness of Cold Ironing Appendix K: Purchased Power Costs Estimate Appendix L: Cost Effectiveness of Alternative Control Technologies
- viii - E N V I R O N
A C R O N Y M S
A ACFM Actual Cubic Feet per Minute AP-42 USEPA Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors AWMA Air & Waste Management Association
B BAAQMD Bay Area Air Quality Management District BACT Best Available Control Technology BTU British Thermo Unit
C CAAA Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 CARB California Air Resources Board CEMS Continuous Emission Monitoring System CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act CFR Code of Federal Regulations CO Carbon Monoxide CRC Cryogenic Refrigerated Container
D DCF Discounted Cash Flow DOT Department of Transportation DWI Direct Water Injection DWP Department of Water & Power
E EF Emission Factor EGR Exhaust Gas Recirculation EIA Environmental Impact Assessment EI Emission Inventory EIS Environmental Impact Statement ERC Emission Reduction Credit
A C R O N Y M S (Continued)
- ix - E N V I R O N
F FIP Federal Implementation Plan FR Federal Register FY Fiscal year
G GE General Electric
H HAM Humid Air Motor HAPs Hazardous Air Pollutants HC Hydrocarbon HFO Heavy Fuel Oil Hz Hertz
I IC Internal Combustion IFO Intermediate Fuel Oil ILWU International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union IMO International Maritime Organization ISO International Standard Organization
J
K KV Kilovolt KVA Kilovolt-amps KW Kilowatt KW-hr Kilowatts hour
L LNG Liquefied Natural Gas LPG Liquefied Petroleum Gas
A C R O N Y M S (Continued)
- x - E N V I R O N
M MARAD Maritime Administration MARPOL The International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution of Ships MATES Multiple Air Toxics Exposure Study MDO Marine Distillated Oil MGO Marine Gas Oil MSDS Material Safety Data Sheet MW Megawatts MW-hr Megawatts hour
N NAAQSs National Ambient Air Quality Standards NEPA National Environmental Protection Act NOx Nitrogen Oxides NPV Net Present Value NSR New Source Review
O O&M Operating and Maintenance OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration
P PAHs Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons PM10 Particulate Matter of 10 Microns in diameter or smaller PMA Pacific Maritime Association PMSA Pacific Merchants Shipping Association POLA Port of Los Angeles POLB Port of Long Beach PPB Parts per Billion PPM Parts Per Million PTE Potential to Emit
Q
A C R O N Y M S (Continued)
- xi - E N V I R O N
R ROG Reactive Organic Gases RORO Rolling-On and Rolling-Off RPM Revolutions per Minute
S SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District AQMP Air Quality Management Plan SCE Southern California Edison SCR Selective Catalytic Reduction SDCFM Standard Dry Cubic Feet per Minute SECA Sulfur Oxides Emission Control Area SIP State Implementation Plan SO2 Sulfur Dioxide SOCAB South Coast Air Basin SOLAS Safety of Life at Sea SOPs Standard Operation Procedures
T TEU Twenty-foot Equivalent Unit TPD Tons per Day TPY Tons per Year
U UL Underwriter’s Laboratory USCG United States Coast Guard USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
V VOC Volatile Organic Compounds
W
X
Y
Z
- 1 - E N V I R O N
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report presents an analysis of the feasibility of various types of emissions control technologies that may be available to the Port of Long Beach (POLB) to reduce air emissions from ocean going vessels while they are docked at the POLB. The study focuses on the feasibility of provision of shore side electricity to power the various activities performed on these vessels while they are at berth. This technique is often referred to as “cold ironing”, hence the title of this report. The report also considers the feasibility of using alternative approaches (e.g. cleaner diesel fuel, exhaust controls, and engine replacement), and a comparison is made of the cost effectiveness of the various approaches.
This report concludes that cold ironing is generally cost effective with vessels that spend a lot of time at the port, and therefore have high annual power consumption. Use of cold ironing for vessels that currently have high annual power consumption in the Port could cause a significant reduction in the overall annual emissions generated by docked vessels in the Port each year. The report also concludes that the availability of the various other types of emissions control technologies, while also potentially beneficial, is limited by a variety of implementation constraints that would slow their widespread application right away. Finally, the report concludes that the various technologies that are analyzed, including cold ironing, could have significant regulatory, legal, and logistical hurdles to overcome, particularly if the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) or other local agency wishes to mandate their use.
Between June 2002 and June 2003, 1,143 vessels made 2,913 calls at the Port of Long Beach, as shown on Table 1-1. As Figure 1-1 shows, container ships were the dominant vessel type in terms of vessel calls (1,231 calls) followed by tankers (635 calls), and dry bulk vessels (364 calls). These data (shown in Table 1-1 and Figure 1-1) do not include full operation by the cruise terminal on Pier G, which is projected to see more than 150 vessel calls per year or approximately 5% of calls.
- 2 - E N V I R O N
Table 1-1. Frequency of Vessel Calls
Numbers of Calls per year Number of Vessels
Percent of Total Vessels
Number of Calls
Percent of Total Calls
1 or more 1,143 100% 2,913 100%
2 or more 516 45% 2,286 78%
3 or more 302 26% 1,858 64%
4 or more 206 18% 1,570 54%
5 or more 158 14% 1,378 47%
6 or more 121 11% 1,193 41%
7 or more 97 8% 1,049 36%
8 or more 82 7% 944 32%
9 or more 60 5% 768 26%
10 or more 40 4% 588 20%
Figure 1-1. Vessel Calls at the Port of Long Beach
Container42%
Cruise1%
Tanker22%
Tug & Barge10%
RO-RO6%
Dry Bulk12%
Break Bulk5%
Reefer2%
The frequency at which a given ship calls is particularly informative. As Table 1-1 shows, half of those vessels called only once, and less than 10 percent of the vessels called more than six times in a one-year period. These “frequent flyers”, however, accounted for more than 40 percent of all vessel calls.
- 3 - E N V I R O N
While docked at the Port, the ocean-going cargo vessels shut off their propulsion engines, but they use auxiliary diesel generators to power refrigeration, lights, pumps, and other functions (activities commonly called “hotelling”). At present, the resultant air emissions -- nitrogen oxides (NOx), sulfur oxides (SOx), carbon monoxide (CO), volatile organic compounds (VOC), and diesel particulate matter (PM) -- are largely not subject to emission controls. However, the SCAQMD Governing Board has identified port emissions as a major source of air pollution that warrants controls. Of particular interest are the diesel PM emissions, which have been declared by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to be a toxic air contaminant that causes cancer. The latest available ocean-going vessel emission inventory for the San Pedro Bay ports (Port of Los Angeles and the Port of Long Beach combined) indicated that of the reported 33.0 tons per day (tpd) of NOx in 2000 from vessel activity in ports, 11.0 tpd of NOx were derived from vessel auxiliary engines operating in hotelling mode. The situation with respect to diesel particulates is similar.
One approach to reduce hotelling emissions is called cold ironing. Cold ironing is a process where shore power is provided to the vessel, allowing it to shut down its auxiliary generators. This technology has been used by the military at naval bases for many decades when ships are docked for long periods.
At present, there are currently no international requirements that would mandate or facilitate cold ironing of marine vessels, and very few that attempt to regulate vessel emissions in ports at all. Note that a recently proposed worldwide emission control mechanism, Annex VI of 1997 to MARPOL -- The International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution of Ships -- under the auspices of the International Maritime Organization (IMO) does seek to address emission controls for hotelling vessels, but it does not mention cold ironing. Annex VI would reduce NOx, SOx, and particulate matter emissions from international cargo vessels by imposing emission controls on diesel engines rated at more than 130 kW (~175 hp) manufactured after January 2000. This requirement covers main propulsion engines and most auxiliary generators, and is based on the quality of the fuel they burn, most notably on the sulfur content. This international agreement has yet to be ratified.
At the United States federal level, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) has promulgated NOx and PM emission standards based on the proposed Annex VI controls for new marine diesel engines, but those standards only apply to U.S.- flagged vessels, which only comprise a small fraction of the world’s fleet. The USEPA has stated its intent to work with IMO to tighten the Annex VI standards, because most ocean-going vessels calling on U.S. ports are foreign flagged.
- 4 - E N V I R O N
At the state level, CARB believes it has the legal authority to regulate marine vessels. The SCAQMD considered a cold ironing regulation for vessels in the South Coast Basin in the late 1980’s, but eventually terminated the rule-making process. SCAQMD now states, in the Final Program Environmental Impact Report for the 2003 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP), “the SCAQMD does not have authority to directly regulate marine vessel emissions and the SCAQMD cannot require retrofitting, repowering or controlling emissions from marine vessels. However, CARB and the USEPA have authority to regulate these sources …” Due to the high costs of cold ironing and the uncertainties in the legal framework, any regulation from environmental agencies that requires cold ironing is likely to meet with significant resistance and litigation.
Given the magnitude of vessel hotelling emissions and the uncertainty with regard to effective controls, the POLB commissioned this study of potential approaches available to the Port to reduce or eliminate hotelling emissions. The overall objective of the study is to provide the Long Beach Board of Harbor Commissioners with a summary of the technical feasibility, order-of-magnitude costs, potential emissions reductions, legal and institutional constraints and opportunities associated with each control strategy. The specific objectives of the study are:
• Assess opportunities and constraints associated with cold ironing and alternative emissions control measures;
• Identify vessel-side and land-side infrastructure requirements for cold ironing and other measures;
• Provide a conceptual cold ironing system design to estimate the cost of cold ironing;
• Evaluate the cost effectiveness of cold ironing and other emission control options; and
• Address potential labor, safety, legal and regulatory issues associated with the implementation of cold ironing and other control measures at the Port of Long Beach.
As of this writing, there is only one commercial cold ironing application of an appreciable size in actual operation (Section 3 of this report provides a more detailed analysis), and none of the other control technologies considered in this study are known to have been put into commercial operation. Accordingly, this study relies heavily upon reasonable assumptions and best professional judgments.
The first large-scale cruise vessel cold ironing installation in the world was in Juneau, Alaska, and, by the 2002 cruise season, five Princess Cruise vessels were using shore power when they docked in Juneau. This application serves the five Princess passenger vessels only; no cargo vessels use the facility. Princess spent approximately $5.5 million to construct the shore side
- 5 - E N V I R O N
facilities and to retrofit the vessels (about $500,000 each). Princess estimates the cost of the shore power (which is about a third the cost of power in Southern California) to be approximately $1,000 per vessel per day more than the cost of running the on-board diesel generators. No oceangoing commercial vessel cold ironing operations currently exist, although it is likely that in 2004 vessels operated by China Shipping will begin calling at Berth 100 in the Port of Los Angeles, where they will be required to use shore side electrical power.
The information gathered during this study including the recent vessel activity data from the Marine Exchange of Southern California, led to the selection of 12 vessels and associated berths at the Port of Long Beach for a detailed cost effectiveness study. The selected vessels (Table 1-2) represent a cross section of various vessel types, vessel ages, service routes, and Port call frequency, and provide useful surrogates for possible candidate vessels for cold ironing or other emission control strategies; their selection does not mean that those specific vessels should or should not be retrofitted.
Hotelling emissions were calculated based on the time at dock per call (hours), number of calls per year, generator load (kilowatts, denoted by the symbol kW), and the pollutant emissions factors of their auxiliaries (pounds per kilowatt-hour [lbs/kW-hr]). As Section 4 of this report shows, time at dock for the 12 study vessels ranged from 12 hours (Carnival’s Ecstasy) to 121 hours (a large container vessel), calls per year ranged from 1 (a tramp bulk vessel) to 52 (Ecstasy for a partial year), and generator load from 300 kilowatts (a small coastal tanker) to 7,000 kilowatts (Ecstasy). This wide range of characteristics indicates the technical complexity of the hotelling emissions issue. Table 1-3 and Figure 1-2 show the results of the emissions calculations. These figures are the target of the various emissions control strategies and represent the theoretical maximum reduction that could be gained by eliminating all hotelling emissions from the study vessels.
Cost effectiveness estimates were calculated by developing conceptual designs for cold ironing installations at the various berths where the study vessels docked and for retrofitting the vessels to receive the shore side power, and by evaluating the application of the other emission control technologies considered to the study vessels. Conceptual designs for providing shore-side electrical power to the 12 study vessels (Section 5) included the needs and costs of upgrading Southern California Edison’s (SCE) transmission and distribution infrastructure, constructing in-port and in-terminal facilities, retrofitting the vessels, and operating and maintaining the facilities. These figures were used to calculate the cost effectiveness of cold ironing (cost per ton of emissions reduction) for each study vessel. A similar approach was used to calculate the cost effectiveness of the other control technologies considered in this study. The cost effectiveness
- 6 - E N V I R O N
calculations utilized standard SCAQMD methodologies and were based on a number of assumptions (Section 6 of this report), the most important of which were:
• Existing vessels and berths are retrofitted for shore side power or exhaust control/clean diesel technologies; the analysis did not consider the case of new terminals or new vessels, both of which cases would be more cost-effective and would avoid some of the operational, safety, and engineering challenges of retrofitting;
• Electricity would be purchased from SCE at its current TOU-8 tariff, which makes no allowance for any alternative pricing structure that SCE might develop for cold ironing;
• The life of the project over which costs are accumulated and amortized is assumed to be 10 years and the service life of all vessels is assumed to be 15 years; and
• The costs associated with the loss of service of a berth or vessel while it is being retrofitted were not included because no reliable figures are available. In the case of a berth, those costs could be several million dollars per retrofit.
It should be noted that all costs used in this study were estimated based upon the information available at the time of this report, were not reviewed by the stakeholders (i.e., vessel and terminal operators and SCE), and reflect technical assumptions that may not be valid for specific applications. However, SCE did provide the estimates of purchased power cost.
- 7 - E N V I R O N
Table 1-2. Selected Vessels and Berths in the Study
Vessel Type Vessel Name Vessel ID Year Built Vessel Operator
Usual Terminal & Berth
Terminal Operator
Average Berth Time
(hrs/call)
Calls per Year
Container Victoria Bridge 9184926 1998 K-Line J232
International Transportation
Services 44 10
Container Hanjin Paris 9128128 1997 Hanjin T136 Total Terminals 63 10
Container Lihue 7105471 1971 Matson C62 SSA Terminals 50 16
Container/ Reefer
OOCL California 9102289 1996 OOCL F8
Long Beach Container Terminal
121 8
Reefer Chiquita Joy 9038945 1994 Inchcape/WD E24 California
United Terminals
68 25
Cruise Ecstasy 8711344 1991 Carnival H4 Carnival 12 52
Tanker Alaskan Frontier NA 2004 Alaska
Tanker T121 ARCO
Terminal Services Corp
33 15
Tanker Chevron Washington 7391226 1976 Chevron
Texaco B84 Shell 32 16
Tanker Groton 7901928 1982 BP B78 ARCO
Terminal Services Corp.
56 24
Dry Bulk Ansac Harmony 9181508 1998 Transmarine G212 Metropolitan
Stevedore 60 1
RO-RO Pyxis 8514083 1986 Toyofuji B83 Toyota 17 9
Break Bulk Thorseggen 8116063 1983 Seaspan Shipping D54 Forest
Terminals 48 21
- 8 - E N V I R O N
To estimate the net hotelling emission shown in Table 1-3, this study accounted for air emissions associated with shore-based power generation (Section 6) using USEPA standard emission factors, associated with berthing time and engine load derived from survey data.
Table 1-3. Annual Hotelling Emissions
Emission (tons/yr) Vessel Name VOC CO NOx PM10 SOX Combined
Victoria Bridge 0.0 0.7 3.8 0.43 3.5 8.4 Hanjin Paris 0.6 2.3 53.9 4.93 40.4 102
Lihue 0.1 0.4 4.1 3.64 22.8 31.1 OOCL California 0.7 13.7 73.5 8.36 68.4 165
Chiquita Joy 0.9 15.9 85.5 9.72 79.5 191 Ecstasy 0.8 2.9 69.3 6.34 51.9 131
Chevron Washington 0.1 0.1 7.4 0.29 1.5 9.4 Groton 0.1 0.6 4.3 0.10 0.4 5.5
Alaskan Frontier 0.4 1.4 25.3 2.98 24.4 54.5 Ansac Harmony 0.0 0.1 0.5 0.06 0.5 1.2
Pyxis 0.0 0.6 3.2 0.36 3.0 7.1 Thorseggen 0.1 1.6 8.6 0.15 0.6 11.0
Total 3.9 40.3 340 37.4 297 718
Figure 1-2. Annual Hotelling Emissions
191
165
131
102
5531
11 9 8 7 6 1
Chiquit
a Joy
OOCL Calif
ornia
Ecsta
sy
Hanjin
Paris
Alaska
n Fron
tier Lihue
Thors
egge
n
Chevro
n Was
hingto
n
Victor
ia Bridg
e Pyxis
Groton
Ansa
c Harm
ony
tons
/yea
r(a
ll po
lluta
nts)
- 9 - E N V I R O N
Many emission control measures reduce only a single pollutant, such as nitrogen oxides (NOx) or PM10, but some reduce multiple combustion-generated pollutants. The cost effectiveness calculations considered the total quantity of criteria pollutant emission reductions, treating each pollutant as equally important. While there are varying health effects for each pollutant, there is no standard method for taking those differences into account in cost effectiveness evaluations. After estimating the cost of potential emission reductions, the total Net Present Value (NPV) of each control technology for each vessel was developed. Cost effectiveness was then calculated using the following formula. This formula has been used by SCAQMD in a multiple-pollutant rule development process.
Total Net Present Value ($) Cost Effectiveness =
Total Emission Reduction of All Pollutants over the Project Life (tons)
This method provides cost effectiveness values in dollar per ton of reduction and a ranking among the 12 vessels. There is no broadly accepted method for calculating a cost effectiveness threshold for control measures for multiple pollutants. The cost effectiveness values for the 12 vessels evaluated in this study have a significant break as shown on Figure 1-3, where the most cost-effective vessels have values less than $15,000/ton, and the other vessels are far higher. This value is important because, for example, the SCAQMD Governing Board Policy for VOCs is not to adopt retrofit rules that cost more than $13,500/ton unless special analyses are done. Moreover, the Carl Moyer program has a threshold for NOx emissions of $13,600/ton of NOx for projects that use that funding mechanism. Based on the natural break that appears in the cold ironing values and the comparison with other cost effectiveness values and thresholds, the study selected $15,000/ton of total pollutant removed as the threshold for cost effectiveness.
Based on this cost effectiveness criterion, this study found that five of the 12 study vessels – the cruise ship Ecstasy, the refrigerator vessels Chiquita Joy and OOCL California, the container ship Hanjin Paris, and the tanker Alaskan Frontier – would be cost-effective candidates for shore-side electrification, or cold ironing (Figure 1-3). These vessels share the characteristics of high hotelling power demand, frequent port calls, and, except in the case of the cruise ship, significant time at berth per call. These factors combine to result in significant annual energy consumption (kW-hr) and, therefore, greater potential for emissions reductions. As Table 1-3 shows, cold ironing those five vessels would eliminate about 90 percent of the emissions generated by the twelve study vessels. The remaining seven vessels do not meet the cost effectiveness criterion of approximately $15,000 per ton of emissions reductions, primarily because of the combination of low power demand and fewer vessel calls.
Further, and upon close review of Figure 1-3, it becomes apparent that annual power consumption by a vessel at berth is the best single indicator of cost effectiveness. This analysis shows that cold
- 10 - E N V I R O N
ironing is generally cost effective as a retrofit when the annual power consumption is 1,800,000 kW-hr or more (Figure 1-3). Table 1-4 shows the vessel calls, power consumption, and cost effectiveness for the 12 study vessels. For a new vessel with cold ironing equipment installed calling at a terminal with cold ironing capability installed during the construction of the terminal, cold ironing would generally be cost–effective if the vessel’s annual power consumption exceeds 1,500,000 kW-hrs.
Figure 1-3. Cost Effectiveness vs. Annual Power Consumption
$0
$10
$20
$30
$40
$50
$60
$70
$80
$90
$100
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0
Power Consumption (Million kW-hr/year)
Co
st E
ffec
tive
nes
s ($
1,00
0/to
n)
Chiquita Joy
OOCL California
Ecstasy
Hanjin Paris
Cost Effectiveness Threshold ($15,000/Ton of Emissions)
Ansac Harmony at $426,000
Alaskan Frontier
Thorseggen
Chervon Washington
Cost Effectiveness Threshold (1,800,000 kW-hr Annual Power Consumption)
Section 7 evaluates the feasibility and costs of other emission control technologies as alternatives to cold ironing in vessel auxiliary generators with for reducing vessel ho telling emissions. Some more advanced concepts for emission control were not investigated in this study such as fuel-cell technology, non-thermal plasma technology, NOx adsorbers, lean NOx catalyst, battery-electric technology, and flywheel technology. At this time, there is not enough information about these technologies to assess their feasibility for marine vessel hotelling applications.
Further, based on low emission reductions, the questionable state of currently available equipment, inadequate fuel availability, and other specific constraints to implementation, the technologies in Table 1-5 were not considered feasible near-term (i.e., within the next ten years) alternatives for the POLB. Of particular concern is the fact that several technologies only address NOx emissions and several of those actually increase diesel particulate emissions, whereas the reduction of diesel particulates is a key goal of any POLB emissions reduction strategy. Another concern with
- 11 - E N V I R O N
Table 1-4. Vessel Calls, Power Consumption, and Cost Effectiveness
Victoria Bridge
Hanjin Paris Lihue OOCL
California Chiquita
Joy Ecstasy Chevron Washington Groton Alaskan
Frontier Ansac
Harmony Pyxis Thorseggen
Total calls per year 10 10 16 8 25 52 16 24 15 1 9 21
Average Berth Time (hrs/call) 44 63 50 121 68 12 32 56 33 60 17 48
Average Power Demand at Berth (kW)
600 4,800 1,700 5,200 3,500 7,000 2,300 300 3,780 600 1,510 600
Total Annual Power Use
(Million kW-hr) 0.3 3.0 1.3 5.0 5.8 3.8 1.1 0.4 1.8 0.0 0.2 0.6
Cost Effectiveness ($1,000/ton)
$87 $15 $37 $11 $11 $9 $44 $42 $15 $426 $38 $90
Ranking 10 5 6 3 2 1 9 8 4 12 7 11
Cost-Effective (Yes/No) No Yes No Yes Yes Yes No No Yes No No No
- 12 - E N V I R O N
technologies outlined in Table 1-5 (on the following page) is the potential that most of the cleanest diesel fuels cannot be used safely (per the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea [SOLAS] regulations) in marine vessels because their flash points and viscosities are much lower than those of the heavy fuel oil for which modern auxiliary marine diesel engines and fuel systems are designed and calibrated. Accordingly, none of these technologies were considered cost-effective and practical for application at the Port of Long Beach at this time.
Finally, several technologies for reducing hotelling emissions as alternatives to cold ironing were identified for examination in this report. These technologies fell into five basic categories:
• Engine Repowering (replacing auxiliaries with cleaner diesel engines [EPA Tier 2 standards] or natural gas engines);
• Clean Diesel Fuel (marine gas oil, CARB #2 diesel, emulsified diesel, Fischer-Tropsch diesel, bio-diesel);
• Combustion Management (injection timing delay, direct water injection, humid air motor technology, exhaust gas recirculation);
• Exhaust Gas Treatment (diesel oxidation catalysts with CARB #2 diesel, diesel particulate filters with CARB #2 diesel, selective catalytic reduction); and
• Cryogenic Refrigerated Containers (to reduce the electrical demand of refrigerated containers).
Note that most of these technologies are ship-based: little or no landside infrastructure would be required, although some provision might need to be made for additional fueling facilities.
- 13 - E N V I R O N
Table 1-5. Not Practical Near-term Alternatives for POLB
Technology Facts Considered
Injection Timing Delay Increases PM, CO and VOC emissions
Exhaust Gas Recirculation May increases PM, VOC and CO emissions
Direct Water Injection Only reduces NOx emissions
Humid Air Motor Only reduces NOx emissions
Selective Catalytic Reduction Only reduces NOx emissions
Repowering with EPA Tier 2 Engine Only reduces NOx emissions
Fischer-Tropsch Diesel No adequate fuel supply available; Difficulty to distribute to vessels
Bio-Diesel (B100) Increases NOx emissions; Difficulty to distribute to vessels
CARB No. 2 Diesel Fuel Flash point too low to be allowable under the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS) regulations.
Diesel PM Trap with CA On-road #2 Diesel
Flash point too low to be allowable under SOLAS regulations; Fuel distribution to vessels; no marine application yet.
Diesel Oxidation Catalyst with CA On-road #2 Diesel
Flash point too low to be allowable under SOLAS regulations; Fuel distribution to vessels; no marine application yet.
Cryogenic Refrigerated Container Has not reached large scale application yet
Table 1-6 lists those technologies that have demonstrated potential benefits for overall emission reductions and potential applicability to marine vessels.
Table 1-6. Potential Alternatives to POLB
Technology Potential Implementation Constraints
Average Cost Effectiveness Cost-Effective Vessels
MGO Diesel Design and operation of engine;
Separate fuel system and delivery infrastructure
$4,000/ton (No NOx reduction)
All Vessels except for Groton, Thorseggen, and
Chevron Washington)
Repowering with NG/Dual Fuel Engine
Safety concerns; fuel distribution system, separate on-board fuel
system; in-use compliance if dual fueled engine
$9,000/ton All Vessels except for Ansac Harmony
Emulsified Diesel Fuel
Includes effectiveness of MGO use; Fuel distribution to vessels; design
and operation of engine; separate fuel system; in-use compliance; loss of
power; fuel phase separation.
$42,000/ton
Seven Vessels (except Groton, Ansac Harmony, Pyxis, Thorseggen, and Chevron Washington)
- 14 - E N V I R O N
However, they should not be considered readily available alternatives at this time until the identified implementation constraints are adequately addressed. A number of implementation issues would need to be investigated more thoroughly than the scope of this study permitted including safety, on-board fuel system and engine capabilities, and proven demonstrations on large vessels.
Several of the technologies have been demonstrated to reduce emissions and have potential feasible application to marine vessels (Table 1-6 above) although, as mentioned above, none (with the exception of low sulfur marine gas oil (MGO)) has actually been widely, if ever, applied to international cargo vessels. The use of other fuel types (natural gas, on-road diesel, and emulsified diesel) could have unforeseen issues with safety (most especially volatility and flammability), operation (such as fuel filter plugging, fuel pump or injector leakage, or compatibility with other marine fuels), and practical considerations including the construction cost and space limitations of maintaining separate fueling systems. After treatment devices, such as oxidation catalysts or especially particulate (PM) traps, have taken years of development to produce viable retrofits for use with on-road diesel engines, so application onto marine engines is likely to reveal additional implementation considerations.
There are many additional issues generally outside of the scope of this study that require more investigation, including safety of fuels and hardware, practical considerations of the size and cost of new and/or additional engines and fuel systems, compatibility of fuels and engines, and other issues that may be discovered only during the implementation of these alternative methods. In most cases, the measures reviewed below have not been widely, if at all, employed on large commercial vessels. Some of the more important of the issues are discussed below:
According to the ISO standards 8217 and 2719, marine fuel must have a flashpoint of a minimum of 60o C. According to SOLAS Chapter 11-2, part B, Regulation 4, no fuel oil with a flashpoint of less than 60oC shall be used. The flashpoint of MGO fuel is between 57oC and 69oC. This fuel should only be used if the flash point of the specific fuel is above 60oC. California on-road diesel No. 2 has a flash point less than 60oC, and so this measure along with other exhaust treatment devices such as diesel oxidation catalysts and diesel particulate filters that rely on this fuel were eliminated for safety reasons.
Other fuel switching alternatives have significant costs and uncertainties related to the availability of the fuel, the distribution systems for the fuel, on-board storage of the fuel, and the modifications required to burn the fuel in engines designed for other fuels. Another concern is related to the fact that some fuels are not broadly available, so that the vessels would have to incur additional costs to switch back and forth from the conventional fuels to the alternatives. The study did not evaluate the cost of making that switch.
- 15 - E N V I R O N
Many regulatory, logistical, and labor relations issues could affect implementation of cold ironing. These are discussed in Section 8. There is no regulatory agency with the clear authority to require cold ironing or any of the alternative control measures discussed in this report.
All these possible control techniques have significant regulatory, legal, and logistical hurdles to
overcome, particularly if the SCAQMD or other local agency wishes to mandate their use. Given
such constraints, a voluntary program, or an incentive program may be the most productive means
of reducing emissions from hotelling in the Port of Long Beach.
- 16 - E N V I R O N
-INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK-
- 17 - E N V I R O N
2.0 INTRODUCTION
2.1 Background
International trade and commerce at the Port of Long Beach (the Port or POLB), which is currently ranked the second busiest container port in the United States, directly and indirectly supports approximately 30,000 jobs in the City of Long Beach1. In the fiscal year 2002, 65.5 million metric tons of cargo with a total value of approximately $100 billion was moved through the Port. As outlined in the Port’s Facilities Master Plan, the Port is expecting to handle in excess of 16,638,500 twenty-foot-long cargo container units (TEUs) by the year 2020 at its container terminals, over three times its present activity. Significant increases of cargo movements are also predicted at non-container terminals in the Port.
While docked at the Port, cargo vessels shut down their propulsion engines but typically use auxiliary diesel engines to provide electrical power for refrigeration, lights, pumps, cargo handling gear, and other functions, a practice called “hotelling.” The major emissions from those engines are nitrogen oxides (NOx), sulfur oxides (SOx), and diesel particulate matter (PM). These emissions are currently uncontrolled for most vessels. While the South Coast Air Basin currently meets the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for both NO2 and SO2, NOx emissions combine with volatile organic compounds in the presence of sunlight to produce ozone, which has a number of adverse health effects. NOx and SOx emissions also contribute to particulate matter levels through the secondary formation of nitrates and sulfates. Diesel particulate matter contributes directly to particulate matter levels, which the California Air Resources Board (CARB) listed in 1998 as a cancer-causing toxic air contaminant.
The health effects of particulate matter include:
• Aggravated asthma;
• Increased respiratory symptoms, specifically coughing and difficult or painful breathing;
• Chronic bronchitis;
• Decreased lung function; and
1 http://www.polb.com/html/2_community/economicImpacts.html
- 18 - E N V I R O N
• Premature death
The toxic health risks of diesel particles have become better understood in the last ten to fifteen years. Hundreds of compounds have been identified as constituents of diesel particles. These compounds include polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), formaldehyde, and 1,3-butadiene which have been associated with tumor formation and cancer. Diesel particles are microscopic; more than 90 percent of them are less than 1 micron in diameter; which allows them to penetrate deeply into the lung, where they may cause long term damage.
The South Coast Air Quality Management District’s (SCAQMD) recent research project, the Multiple Air Toxics Exposure Study II (MATES II), concluded that diesel particulate matter is responsible for about 70 percent of the total cancer risk from all toxic air pollution in the South Coast Basin. Risk levels were higher in certain parts of the Basin, including areas around the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach.
Studies indicate that diesel emissions may also be a problem for asthmatics. Some studies suggest that children with asthma who live near roadways with high amounts of diesel truck traffic have more asthma attacks and use more asthma medication. Because of the quantity of emissions and the potential health impacts, the SCAQMD Governing Board has identified them as a source of air pollution warranting regulation.
Vessel call data, provided by Marine Exchange of Southern California, indicates that during the period of June 1, 2002 to May 31, 2003, a total 1,148 vessels made 2,913 calls at POLB. The primary types of vessels entering the POLB were container vessels with 1,231 calls, tankers with 634 calls, and dry bulk cargo vessels, with 364 calls. Table 2-1, a summary of NOx emissions by mode for oceangoing vessels, is extracted from the latest emission inventory [Arcadis, 1999] for the San Pedro Bay ports (Port of Los Angeles and the Port of Long Beach combined). The report indicated that 33.0 tons per day (tpd) of NOx from vessel approaching and within the ports used port, 11.0 tpd of NOx were derived from vessel auxiliary engines operating in hotelling mode. The situation with respect to diesel particulates is similar.
- 19 - E N V I R O N
Table 2-1. Inventory Results for Oceangoing Vessels Calling at
San Pedro Bay Ports: 2000, NOx tons per day
In-Port NOx emissions (tons/day) Mode Main Propulsion
Engine Auxiliary Engine Auxiliary Boiler Totals
Cruising 16.2 1.4 -- 17.6
Maneuvering 2.0 0.7 0.1 2.8
Hotelling 0.7 11.0 1.0 12.7
Total 18.9 13.1 1.1 33.0
ENVIRON International Corporation (ENVIRON) was retained by the Port to conduct this cost effectiveness study of reducing air emissions from vessel hotelling. The study evaluated cold ironing (using shore generated electric power rather than running the vessel’s auxiliary internal combustion engines) and other emissions reduction measures such as exhaust controls on auxiliary engines and/or using cleaner-burning fuels in the auxiliary engines. It should be noted that the scope of this report does not include evaluating alternative heating sources to replace the steam boilers that many vessels must operate while at berth. The report assumes that vessels’ auxiliary boiler(s) would still provide steam for fuel heating, galleys, and comfort heating.
As an estimated one-third of in-port vessel emissions occur while the vessels are at berth, cleaning up the exhaust of auxiliary engines or replacing the engines with on-shore electric power could significantly reduce emissions. This study analyzed a range of factors such as vessel retrofit requirements, power demands, shore-side infrastructure needs, estimated costs, and potential emission reductions.
2.2 Previous Studies
Over the years, several studies, examples of which are described below, have been conducted to evaluate the cost-benefit of implementing cold ironing technology to reduce vessel hotelling emissions.
Feasibility Study. SCAQMD, 1987
The only pollutant considered in this study was NOx. Total NOx emissions from all vessels at berth were estimated at 9.0 tons per day. Total expected NOx emission reductions from cold ironing were 4.7 tons per day. The SCAQMD estimated the cost effectiveness of reducing 4.7 tons NOx per day for non-tanker motor vessels to be $28,115/ton. The report cited advantages of cold ironing, which included reducing emissions of NOx, SO2 and PM; freeing vessel personnel assigned to operate power equipment for other work; providing time for inspection and small repairs; and reducing
- 20 - E N V I R O N
noise levels on and near the vessel. Disadvantages were also identified. The United States Coast Guard and the Los Angeles Fire Department expressed concern over the safety of operations while vessels are being connected or disconnected from shore power, and the high cost and long lead times to engineer and retrofit power lines, substations and vessels. This study made several assumptions that compromised its accuracy, such as the assumption that the purchased power would have the same cost as running the vessel’s engines. Purchased power in fact is likely to be over six times more expensive.
This study was part of the rule-making process for the proposed Rule 1165, Emissions of Oxides of Nitrogen from Ships at Berth. However, after a lengthy evaluation by both the District and the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, the SCAQMD terminated the rule making process and did not adopt a cold ironing rule.
Port of Long Beach Electrification and Ship Emission Control Study, Southern California Edison, 1990
Under contract to SCE, the team of Bechtel Power Corporation, Moffatt & Nichol, Engineers, and Applied Utility Systems, Inc. examined the feasibility and cost of providing the shore-to-vessel power and infrastructure required for the Port of Long Beach. This study evaluated thirty vessels and twelve piers in the Port of Long Beach. The design electrical load associated with electrification was estimated to be approximately 40 MW, with an estimated average load of 15 MW. The maximum electric load by vessel type was 2.5 MW for a tanker. The study found that the present Edison Company electrical distribution facilities were not adequate to accommodate the added loads imposed by vessels at berth. The existing service system for most terminals was designed only for buildings, transit sheds, silos, cranes and lighting, and could not be utilized to supply vessel electrification requirements. New and separate electrical substations and vessel service connections would be needed. The total capital costs to the vessel operators associated with cold ironing were estimated at $170.2 million, excluding land acquisition costs and interest during the construction, etc. Annual operating and maintenance (O&M) costs would be $14.5 million, including the cost of electricity.
Control of Ship Emissions in the South Coast Air Basin, Port of Los Angeles and Port of Long Beach, 1994.
This report was generated in response to the proposed Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) released by the USEPA on February 15, 1994. The report evaluated cold ironing along with other NOx control alternatives such as emission fees; retrofit technologies, and vessel speed reductions. The study concluded that shore-to-vessel electrification was feasible for small marine vessels, such as tugboats and workboats, because they have a home base where they always moor and their power demands are substantially lower than those of cargo vessels.
- 21 - E N V I R O N
2.3 Objectives of the Present Study
The objectives of this cost effectiveness study is to:
• Assess and update opportunities and constraints associated with cold ironing and other potential emissions control measures;
• Identify vessel-side and land-side infrastructure requirements for cold ironing and other measures;
• Provide a conceptual cold ironing system design;
• Evaluate the cost effectiveness of cold ironing and other emission control options; and
• Address potential labor, legal and regulatory issues associated with the implementation of cold ironing and other control measures at the Port of Long Beach.
2.4 General Approach
Several information gathering meetings with various stakeholders were held as the initial step of performing this cost effectiveness study. The project team met with vessel operators, terminal operators, Southern California Edison, the United States Coast Guard, and regulatory agencies to obtain their views, concerns, and positions on cold ironing, barge-based clean fueling and other alternative control options. A report of findings from the information gathering meetings was submitted to the Port separately, and is included as Appendix A. Section 8 of this report presents an analysis of the legal and regulatory issues related to cold ironing.
This study is based on vessel call data obtained from the Marine Exchange of Southern California for the 12-month period of June 1, 2002 to May 31, 2003. The study then selected 12 vessels and associated berths for a detailed study. Vessels selected represent various vessel types, vessel ages, service routes, and port call frequencies. The vessels were selected based on the number of calls they make, the time at berth, and the size of auxiliary engine loads, with the goal of evaluating a range of candidates, from those that are most likely to be good candidates for cold ironing to those that are not. Table 2-2 lists the selected vessels and berths in this study.
The project team attempted to contact each selected vessel via telephone, fax, electronic mail, or personal visit. A survey questionnaire requesting information about the vessel’s specific operating profile, fueling practices, and electrical system was provided to each vessel. In addition, the project team supplemented the survey data with information provided by Port staff, Lloyds Register, MarineData.com and the Clarkson Register. This data is included in Appendix B.
- 22 - E N V I R O N
Table 2-2. Selected Vessels and Berths in the Study
Vessel Type Vessel Name Vessel ID Year Built Vessel Operator Usual
Berth Terminal Operator
Average Time at Berth
(hrs/call)
Calls per Year
Container Victoria Bridge 9184926 1998 K-Line J232 International Transportation Services 44 10
Container Hanjin Paris 9128128 1997 Hanjin T136 Total Terminals (TTI) 63 10
Container Lihue 7105471 1971 Matson C62 SSA Terminals 50 16
Container/ Reefer OOCL California 9102289 1996 OOCL F8 Long Beach Container
Terminal 121 8
Reefer Chiquita Joy 9038945 1994 Inchcape/WD E24 California United Terminals 68 25
Cruise Ecstasy 8711344 1991 Carnival H4 Carnival 12 52
Tanker Alaskan Frontier NA 2004 Alaska Tanker T121 ARCO Terminal Services Corp 33 15
Tanker Chevron Washington 7391226 1976 Chevron Texaco B84 Shell 32 16
Tanker Groton 7901928 1982 BP B78 ARCO Terminal Services Corp. 56 24
Dry Bulk Ansac Harmony 9181508 1998 Transmarine G212 Metropolitan Stevedore 60 1
RO-RO Pyxis 8514083 1986 Toyofuji B83 Toyota 17 9
Break Bulk Thorseggen 8116063 1983 Seaspan Shipping D54 Forest Terminals 48 21
- 23 - E N V I R O N
This study estimated power demand for the selected vessels based on survey responses. For the several vessels not responding to the survey, the installed generator capacity and number of engines were obtained from the Lloyd’s Register; and the power demand was estimated based upon the requirements of similar vessels.
Vessel hotelling emissions from 12 study vessels were estimated as a function of time at dock (hours), average power demand (kilowatts or kW) (Section 4), and the pollutant specific emission factor (lbs/kW-hr). The emission factors for different types of engines and motors are described in Appendix D. Annual emissions are for all port calls throughout the year, therefore the number of calls per year is multiplied by the average emissions per call. Vessels with a large number of calls, long times at dock, and large electrical loads are more likely to produce higher emissions while at a dock. To account for air emissions associated with shore power generation, this study utilized emission factors derived from AP-42, assuming in-basin power generators are conventional natural gas fired steam plants with selective catalytic reduction (SCR) for NOx control and no CO catalyst.
A conceptual engineering design was prepared based upon the requirements for cold ironing the 12 study vessels (Section 5). Engineering needs were identified as well as the financial requirements for improving Southern California Edison (SCE) power transmission, distribution infrastructure, constructing terminal facilities, and for vessel retrofitting.
This study provides a cost effectiveness analysis for cold ironing 12 study vessels (Section 6). Cost effectiveness is defined as the total cost of the control measure required to achieve a given emission reduction, and is presented as the net present value (NPV) in dollars per ton of emissions reduced. One time capital costs and the ongoing operating costs are combined to generate the NPV using the Discounted Cash Flow (DCF) method.
The following costs were applied to the cost effectiveness analysis for cold ironing and near-term control technologies:
(1) One-time capital costs, including costs for improving the Southern California Edison (SCE) infrastructure, costs for constructing in-terminal facilities (e.g. substations, cable and hose handling gear, work-barges, fuel handling facilities, etc.) and costs for retrofitting vessels for cold ironing;
(2) Operating and Maintenance (O&M) costs, including annual energy costs for purchasing electrical power from SCE, increased maintenance of emissions control equipment, and fuel cost savings generated by purchasing shore generated power instead of running auxiliary diesel engines.
This study also evaluated the feasibility and cost of the following near-term emission control technologies for reducing vessel hotelling emissions (Section 7):
- 24 - E N V I R O N
(1) Engine Repowering or Replacement including
• Using USEPA Tier 2 Engines and
• Using natural gas (NG)/Dual-FuelTM Engines
(2) Clean Fuel Strategy including
• Using marine gas oil (MGO);
• Using California #2 on-road diesel;
• Using emulsified diesel;
• Using Fischer-Tropsch diesel; and
• Using bio-diesel (B100)
(3) Combustion Management including
• Injection timing delay;
• Direct water injection (DWI);
• Humid air motor (HAM); and
• Exhaust gas recirculation (EGR)
(4) Exhaust Gas Treatment including
• Diesel oxidation catalyst with California #2 diesel fuel;
• Catalyzed diesel particulate filter with California #2 diesel fuel; and
• Selective catalytic reduction (SCR)
(5) Cryogenic Refrigerated Containers
The following key issues are among many factors considered in the evaluation of the proposed alternative technologies:
• Identification of technologies that reduce diesel particulate matter, a CARB listed air toxic;
• Availability of equipment and fuel associated with the technology;
• Extent of infrastructure impact on vessels and/or on land during implementation;
• Operational practicability, including operating safety issues
- 25 - E N V I R O N
REFERENCES
ARCADIS, 1999. “Marine Vessels Emissions Inventory, UPDATE to 1996 Report: Marine Vessel Emissions Inventory and Control Strategies, Final Report” ARCADIS, 23 September 1999.
- 26 - E N V I R O N
-INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK-
- 27 - E N V I R O N
3.0 CURRENT STATE OF COLD IRONING
The current applications of cold ironing around the world are summarized below.
3.1 Princess Cruise Vessels in Juneau, Alaska
The first cruise vessel cold ironing installation anywhere in the world was in Juneau, Alaska (R. Maddison, 2002). On July 24, 2001, the Princess Cruises vessel Dawn Princess operated completely on shore power for about 10 hours. By the 2002 cruise season, all five Princess Cruise vessels were converted to use shore power when they moored in Juneau. The Juneau project was initiated in order to comply with the local opacity standard. The application serves Princess passenger vessels only, no cargo vessel use the facility. Shore power is supplied by Alaska Electric Light & Power (AEL&P) from its local surplus hydroelectric power. The Juneau cold ironing system provides both electric power and steam, which is produced by an electric boiler. It should be noted that even at dock the vessel’s boilers are run in a low-fire mode to prevent excessive smoking on start up.
Capital Costs
Princess Cruises provided $5.5 million for the Juneau project to supply both electricity and steam. The $5.5 million, $4.7 million was spent to install the shore-side facilities (an onshore power distribution facility) and an average of about $500,000 was spent per vessel for retrofitting. Significant cost (approximately $150,000 each vessel) was incurred to modify the on-board power management software to synchronize the onboard power with the onshore supplied power. Each vessel was outfitted with a new door, an electrical connection cabinet, and the necessary equipment to automatically connect the vessel’s electrical network to the local onshore electrical network. Each vessel’s technical office area on deck 4 was used as the point of entry for the power connection. A 4- by 2.5-meter steel bulkhead was installed between adjacent steel decks to provide the A-0 fire class condition required to connect to a high voltage (6.6 KV) power source. The Sun Class vessels have four Sulzer 16ZAV40S engines driving four GEC generators delivering 6.6 KV, 3-phase, 60 Hz power. Each Sun Class vessel was originally constructed with one spare 6.6 KV breaker on its switchboard. The cable connection on the vessel is a traditional male/female plug and socket that was adapted from the American mining industry.
- 28 - E N V I R O N
Operating Costs
Princess Cruises Sun Class vessels require about 7 MW of power at 6.6 KV, but the Grand Class will require 11 MW at berth. Princess Cruises estimated a cost of $4,000 - $5,000 per day for a Sun Class vessel to purchase power from AEL&P, compared to a cost of $3,500 per day to run the diesel engines while in port at Juneau.
Operation
Electrical power is transmitted from a three-stage transformer onshore via four 3- inch diameter flexible cables that connect to the vessel. A special 135-foot long, 25-foot high gantry system was built into the dock to support the connecting equipment, connection cables, and plugs. This transmission equipment was designed to accommodate a 20-foot change in the tide level and to withstand 100 mile per hour winds. The cable connection and disconnection is performed by Princess Cruise crew, but the shore-side substation is operated by AEL&P personnel. Pulling the cables aboard, connecting them to the vessel controls and beginning to run the vessel on onshore power varies from 20 minutes up to two hours. The same amount of time is needed for disconnecting shore power. Process safety is addressed though personnel training and implementing process checklists.
The onboard power management system (PMS) software was modified to recognize the onshore power supply as an additional (the 5th) onboard power-generating unit. The software synchronizes the onboard power with the onshore supplied power, adjusts the onboard voltage until it matches the onshore supply and then regulates the onboard frequency and phase until they match the onshore supply characteristics.
Princess Cruise Line is near completion of cold ironing its newest vessel – Diamond Princess -- at the Port of Seattle. The newly built Diamond Princess will be delivered to Princess Cruise Line in April 2004. It has all of the equipment required for cold ironing installed during construction. Power demand at berth is expected between 8 to 9 MW.
3.2 POSCO Dry Bulk Vessels in Pittsburg, California
Pohang Iron & Steel Company (POSCO) charters four dry bulk vessels, from Pittsburg, California, for ocean shipments between South Korea and the San Francisco Bay Area (David Allen, 2003). The vessels are cold ironed at the POSCO Pittsburg docking facility. The four vessels were built in South Korea between 1991 and 1997, all with cold ironing capabilities. POSCO does not own these vessels but has long-term chartering contracts with the vessels’ owners, HANJIN, Korean Shipping, and HYUNDAI. These ships are not dedicated to POSCO; however, the POSCO Pittsburg is the only place where they receive shore power. The first vessel connected to shore power at the POSCO Pittsburg berth was in 1991.
- 29 - E N V I R O N
Cold ironing to supply shore generated electricity and steam was required by a local air permit. The permit condition was based upon the need to mitigate the cumulative impact of emission increases in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
The vessels typically have a capacity of 38,000 metric tons, and are about 180 meters long. Shore power is transmitted by two 440-volt cables. The total circuit is limited by an 800-amp breaker, which limits the load to about 0.5 MW. The vessels have an average of 48 hours in berth per visit. After a vessel docks, two vessel crewmembers pull the power cables on board, attach them to the vessel’s circuits, and test the polarity. The POSCO terminal operator activates the circuit upon request by the vessel operator. It takes three people up to 20 minutes to complete the process. According to the operator, the power is synchronized without a blackout occurring.
3.3 Ferry Vessels at Port of Gothenburg, Sweden
The Port of Gothenburg has two passenger and Roll-on/Roll-off (RO-RO) ferry terminals equipped with electric connections for cold ironing (Port GOT, 2003). Vessels at the terminals have assigned locations and run on regular scheduled routes. Vessels are operated by DFDS Tor Line AB, which currently offers eight voyages per week between Gothenburg and Immingham, England, and six voyages per week between Gothenburg and Ghent, Belgium. The project was initiated in cooperation with Stora Enso, a Swedish paper manufacturer, who was interested in reducing its transport emissions in order to achieve ISO 14001 Environmental Management System goals.
The system has operated since the year 2000 without problems. It utilizes a 10 kV cable and transforms the electricity on-board to 400 volts DC. Shore-power is supplied by local surplus wind generated power. Terminal operators make the power connections and disconnections. It takes less than 10 minutes to complete the process. Vessels’ hotelling power demand ranges from 1 to 1.5 MW. According to the Port of Gothenburg, cold ironing of the six weekly vessels led to reductions of 80 metric tons NOx, 60 metric tons SOx and 2 metric tons PM per year. Moreover, at current electricity price levels, the on-shore electricity is reportedly less expensive than the electricity generation on-board.
The Port of Gothenburg believes that more vessels would retrofit their vessels if more ports would offer a standardized on-shore electrical connection. Different electrical voltage, frequency, and safety issues pose challenges to the cold ironing concept.
It should be noted that ferry vessels have a low hotelling power demand: the vessels receive shore power only for lighting and ventilation purposes. In addition, ferry vessels have no cargo moving machinery and have little dockside activities. Therefore, the Gothenburg electrification process is much simpler than oceangoing cargo vessels that are the subject of this study.
- 30 - E N V I R O N
3.4 China Shipping Terminal at the Port of Los Angeles
The Port of Los Angeles (POLA) is undertaking an alternative maritime power (AMP) project at the China Shipping terminal, at Berths 97 - 109. The terminal has been retrofitted with conduit, wiring, and a transformer. Ship calls are expected to begin in 2004. The Los Angles Department of Water and Power (DWP) and POLA have standardized the shore-side part of the system. DWP input is at 14.5 KV, which will be stepped down to 6.6 KV and provided to cargo vessels. For vessels using 440V, another step-down transformer could be placed on shore, on a barge or on the receiving vessel. DWP has stated that there is sufficient system capacity for providing the power for shore-side electrification without the need for developing new supplies.
At this time, POLA and potential shippers examining shore-side electrification are considering only new vessel applications. China Shipping has agreed to install cold ironing capabilities on its new vessels as long as the POLA pays for the capital costs of engineering and construction. The comparative operating costs of producing power for hotelling are $0.089 per kilowatt-hour (kW-hr) at DWP’s industrial rate, $0.045/kW-hr using Marine Diesel Oil (MDO) or Marine Gas Oil (MGO) in vessel auxiliary engines, and $0.0333/kW-hr using residual fuel oil in vessel auxiliary engines. China Shipping has not yet used the new terminal facilities as of this report.
3.5 U.S. Navy
The U.S. Navy generally cold irons its vessels at its stations (Dames & Moore, 1994). It was reported that most of U.S. Navy vessels are built with cold ironing connectors, breakers, and controls and most of U.S. Naval stations have the electrified infrastructure to provide the power. However, it should be noted that naval vessels, have very low electrical power demand while hotelling. In contrast, an off loading tanker requires much more power while at berth than while underway. It should also the noted that the time at berth of commercial cargo vessels (ranging from 24 to 48 hours) is much shorter than the extended port stay of a Navy vessel (weeks or even months). Having such a long time in port makes cold ironing cost effective for the U. S. Navy.
3.6 Muscat Cement Terminal at the Port of Los Angeles
Only limited information is available on cold ironing at Muscat Cement Terminal. However, the Muscat Cement Terminal was designed for a specific vessel with standard electrical connections, and the vessel is permanently moored in port. Therefore using Muscat Cement terminal as example of successful cold ironing vastly oversimplifies the various technical, economical, and regulatory issues addressed in this study.
- 31 - E N V I R O N
3.7 Plan Baltic 21
The Port of Lübeck, Germany, is currently seeking to establish standard technical requirements for cold ironing in Baltic ports and to implement cold ironing at the Port of Lübeck (Stefan Seum, 2003). The port plans a 10 kV on-shore connection for its ferry and passenger terminals. The city is adjacent to a town known for its health spa but SO2 thresholds are exceeded in the winter, thereby risking the town’s reputation. Surplus wind-powered energy in Lübeck would make on-shore electricity cost only one-fourth the price of on-board generation. The City of Lübeck is working on a more extensive cold ironing plan, called Plan Baltic 21, with all Baltic port cities.
3.8 Sea-Launch Assessment
Long Beach-based Sea-Launch LLP has recently completed a preliminary assessment on the cost effectiveness of cold ironing (Charles Bajza, 2003). Sea Launch has two foreign-registered, uniquely designed, and operated vessels: one launch platform and one assembly and command vessel. While at berth at Pier T in the POLB, the vessel’s power-generating units provide hotelling power including support of operations unique to rocket and spacecraft assembly, test and preparation for launch. Assuming a basic cost of self-generation at $0.07/kW-hr and an average SCE commercial rate at $0.15/kW-hr, the added operating cost with shore power would be an average of $930,631 per year for the assembly and commander vessel, and $1,107,972 per year for the launch platform. The cost to upgrade and/or replace the power supplies and install the necessary distribution substation would be in addition to those operating costs.
REFERENCES R. Maddison, 2002. “Going Cold Ironing in Alaska.” 2003
Port GOT, 2003. “Shore-Connected Electricity Supply to Vessels in the Port of Göteborg”, 2003
David Allen, 2003. Personal Communications between David Allen and ENVIRON.
Dames & Moore, 1994. “Control of Ship Emission in the South Coast Air Basin” Dames & Moore and Morrison and Foerster, August 1994.
Stefan Seum, 2003. “Summary Report on EU Stakeholder Workshop on Low-Emission Shipping, September 4-5, 2003”. September 2003
Charles Bajza, 2003. Personal Communications between Mr. Charles Bajza and ENVIRON.
- 32 - E N V I R O N
-INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK-
- 33 - E N V I R O N
4.0 SHIP CHARACTERIZATION AND HOTELLING EMISSIONANALYSIS
The first step in assessing the opportunity to reduce vessels hotelling emissions from deep draft (oceangoing) vessels was to review and characterize the vessel calls to the Port of Long Beach for a 12-month period to provide an understanding of the operations at the Port. Based upon these data and discussions with the Port and vessel agents/owners, a cross section of representative candidate vessels was selected to evaluate the use of the various emission control strategies listed in Section 7.
To identify candidate vessels, the study obtained data on vessels calling on the Port of Long Beach from the Marine Exchange of Southern California for the period June 1, 2002 to May 31, 2003. The data include arrival date and time, vessel number (unique to the vessel), vessel name (which can change), the shipping agent, the operator at the time of the call, vessel type code (described below), gross tonnage, and draft. The Marine Exchange collects data on all deep draft vessels entering San Pedro Bay ports, but there are two potential points of entry, one serving the Port of Los Angeles (Angel’s Gate), the other the Port of Long Beach (Queen’s Gate). In a few cases, vessels headed for Long Beach pass through Angel’s Gate, so those port calls do not appear in this database and were not included in the analysis.
4.1 General Port Call Characterization
The study sorted the Marine Exchange data according to the vessel type codes shown in Table C-1 in Appendix C. Vessel types not considered in this work include tugs, fishing vessels, dredgers, cable layers, supply vessels, and various other smaller vessel types.
The port activity data provided by the Marine Exchange of Southern California indicated that there were 2,913 vessel calls by 1,143 vessels at the Port of Long Beach during the 12-month period ending May 31, 2003. As shown in Table 4-1, most vessels did not call more than two times – in fact, 55% of the vessels called Long Beach only once during the study period. However, 54% of port calls were by the 206 vessels that called four or more times during the study period.
- 34 - E N V I R O N
Table 4-1. Frequency of Vessel Calls
Numbers of Calls per year Number of Vessels
Percent of Total Vessels
Number of Calls
Percent of Total Calls
1 or more 1,143 100% 2,913 100%
2 or more 516 45% 2,286 78%
3 or more 302 26% 1,858 64%
4 or more 206 18% 1,570 54%
5 or more 158 14% 1,378 47%
6 or more 121 11% 1,193 41%
7 or more 97 8% 1,049 36%
8 or more 82 7% 944 32%
9 or more 60 5% 768 26%
10 or more 40 4% 588 20%
The study sorted the vessel data according to the vessel types considered to represent the most likely candidates for reducing hotelling emissions, (Table 4-2, and Figure 4-1). These candidate vessel types represented 2,630 of the vessel calls during the study period. The remaining 283 calls (10% of total vessel calls) were dominated by tug and barge craft that are generally significantly smaller than the deep draft oceangoing vessels described in Table 4-2. Of the candidate vessels, container vessels have the highest number of port calls. The lowest number of vessel calls was for cruise vessels, but that figure greatly underestimates the prospective cruise vessel traffic because the cruise vessel terminal only began operation during March 2003, two to three months before the end of the study period. Cruise vessels are expected to call at least 80 to 120 times in the coming 12 months.
The best candidate vessels for reduced hotelling emission projects are likely to be those that call most often. The 21 vessels calling more than 12 times within the 12-month period ending May 31, 2003 are shown in Table 4-3. Of these, barges (either integrated or not) and tankers call most frequently. The two refrigerated vessels that predominately call at Long Beach do so quite often and are two of the top six vessels in terms of calls. Cruise vessels had only just begun calling at Long Beach during the study period, but the expectation is that in coming years cruise vessels will be the most frequently calling vessels, calling 80 or more times per year.
- 35 - E N V I R O N
Table 4-2. Candidate Vessel Types, Codes, and Port Calls By Vessel Type
Vessel Type Marine Exchange Code Calls/yr % of
Calls Avg. GWT
(Call weighted) Avg. GWT (Straight)
Container vessels UCC 1,231 42% 43,400 43,338
Refrigerated vessels
(Reefers) GRF, UCR 59 2% 8,576 8,226
Cruise Vessels MPR 20* 0.7% 70,375 70,379
Tankers Any code starting with T 635 22% 54,281 49,599
Dry bulk BBU, BCB, BOR, BWC 364 12% 28,029 28,560
Auto carrier or roll-on roll-off
URC, URR, MVE (vehicle
carrier)
171 (100 MVE) 6% 44,691 42,347
Break bulk (General Cargo)
GGC 152 5% 21,025 20,871
* Port calls just began in March through the 12-month study period ending May 31, 2003.
Figure 4-1. Vessel Calls at the Port of Long Beach
Container42%
Cruise1%
Tanker22%
Tug & Barge10%
RO-RO6%
Dry Bulk12%
Break Bulk5%
Reefer2%
Container vessels in general are the largest component of the vessel traffic, as seen in Table 4-3, but individual container vessels rarely call more than 12 times a year, most likely because of the transit times their routes entail.
- 36 - E N V I R O N
Table 4-3. Most Frequently Calling Vessels
Vessel ID Calls per
Year Vessel Name Gross
Tonnage Type Code Type Description
7611800 31 Nehalem (To: Navajo) 2,975 OBA Tug and Barge
7702170 28 Nestucca (To: Natoma) 5,339 OBA Tug and Barge
9189110 25 Four Schooner 40,037 TPD Tanker
9038945 25 Chiquita Joy 8,665 GRF Refrigerated
7901928 24 Groton 23,914 ITB Integrated Tug and Barge
8917596 24 Chiquita Brenda 8,665 GRF Refrigerated
8116063 21 Thorseggen 15,136 GGC General Cargo (Break Bulk)
9035060 19 Cygnus Voyager 88,886 TCR Tanker
9231626 19 Ambermar 23,843 TPD Tanker
9051612 18 Sirius Voyager 88,886 TCR Tanker
9533227 16 NO NAME 4,542 OBA Tug and Barge
7391226 16 Chevron Washington 22,761 TPD Tanker
24* 16 Haleiwa (To: Navajo) 4,586 OBA Tug and Barge
8001189 16 Baltimore 23,913 ITB Integrated Tug and Barge
7506039 15 Denali 94,647 TCR Tanker
9633463 15 NO NAME 4,542 OBA Tug and Barge
8414532 14 S/R Long Beach 94,999 TCR Tanker
7708857 13 CSL Trailblazer 18,241 BOR Dry Bulk
8711344 13 Ecstasy 70,367 MPR Cruise vessel
7321087 12 Lurline 24,901 URC Roll-on/Roll-off
9203904 12 Tausala Samoa 12,004 UCC Container
* Not a Lloyd’s Register number
Limited berth information was available in the Marine Exchange data because about 50% of the time (1,457 of the 2,913 calls to Long Beach) vessels were diverted to an anchorage point rather than proceeding to a specific berth upon entry to the port. In those cases, the Marine Exchange did not record the berth at which the vessel eventually docked. Accordingly, the berth information described below undercounts the number of calls to specific berths.
For the available berth information, Table 4-4 lists the berths with the highest number of calls. It is apparent that while the berth is commonly associated with the type of vessel (for example, Berth T121 services only tankers and Berth J245 services only container vessels), there are exceptions.
- 37 - E N V I R O N
For instance, at Berth ‘B83’, 72 of the 84 calls were by roll on/roll off type vessels, but other types also call at that berth.
Table 4-4. Berths with Highest Number of Calls Where Data Was Available
Primary Vessel Secondary Vessel Pier and Berth Calls/yr Code Vessel Codes Vessel
B83 84 MVE/URR RO-RO TCO/TPD/ITB Tankers and Barges
T121 79 TCR/TPD Tanker --- ---
J245 71 UCC Container --- ---
A94 69 UCC Container --- ---
J247 68 UCC Container --- ---
A96 59 UCC Container GGC General Cargo
J232 56 UCC Container --- ---
E26 53 UCC Container GRF/GGC Reefer/General Cargo
C62 50 UCC Container URC RO-RO-Cargo
T122 47 OBA Barge OTB/TPD/GGC Barge/Tanker/General Cargo
B77 40 ITB Tug-Barge TCO Various Tankers
C60 38 UCC Container --- ---
T140 37 UCC Container --- ---
T138 35 UCC Container --- ---
F8 34 UCC Container --- ---
G229 33 UCC Container --- ---
J270 32 UCC Container OBA Barge
D44 32 OBA Barge --- ---
T136 32 UCC Container BBU Dry Bulk
G227 29 UCC Container --- ---
J234 28 UCC Container BBU Dry Bulk
4.2 Port Activities
4.2.1 Port Calls by Specific Container Vessels
Table C-2 of Appendix C lists the container vessels that called most frequently at the Port of Long Beach. Since these vessels currently dock at a number of different berths, implementation of an emissions control technology could involve any of the following considerations: scheduling vessels to particular berths with appropriate facilities, providing facilities at many berths, or applying the technology only to those vessels that primarily dock at a given berth.
- 38 - E N V I R O N
4.2.2 Port Calls by Specific Refrigerated Vessels
Only two refrigerated vessels, Chiquita Joy and Chiquita Brenda, called at the Port of Long Beach more than once in the 12-month period studied. Table C-3 of Appendix C shows that berths E12, E24, and E26 handled most of the calls for these two vessels. As an anchorage area was listed as the destination for the remaining calls, these berths may have been the eventual berths for all of these calls. Although the OOCL California can handle refrigerated containers, it was classified as a containership.
4.2.3 Port Calls by Specific Cruise Vessels
Only two cruise vessels, Ecstasy and Elation, operated by Carnival Cruise Line, called at the Port of Long Beach in the 12-month period studied (Table C-4 of Appendix C). All calls docked at berth H4. These calls occurred during the last two to three months of the study period.
4.2.4 Port Calls by Specific Tankers
Tankers represented the most diverse vessel type in terms of product (crude oil, distilled petroleum oils, chemical products, food products, and others) and berth location (Table C-5 of Appendix C). Several berths handle tankers. Berth T121, in particular, handled much of the traffic. As with container vessels, many calls were listed as calls to anchorages instead of to the specific berth where they eventually docked.
4.2.5 Port Calls by Specific Dry Bulk Vessels
The only dry bulk vessel that called at Long Beach more than four times (CSL Trailblazer) always docked at berth B82 (Table C-6 of Appendix C).
4.2.6 Port Calls by Specific Vehicle Carriers and Roll-on/Roll-off Vessels
This group of vessels includes standard roll-on/roll-off (RO-RO) vessels and those dedicated to carrying finished vehicles. Table C-7 of Appendix C shows that the most frequently calling RO-RO vessels, primarily vehicle carriers, called at Berth B83.
4.2.7 Port Calls by Specific Break Bulk (i.e. General Cargo) Vessels
General cargo vessels, also called break bulk vessels, made many port calls during the study period. However, only one break bulk vessel, the Thorseggen (subject of the TRC 1989 emissions study), made more than four port calls (Table C-8 of Appendix C).
- 39 - E N V I R O N
4.3 Vessel Characteristics for Selected Vessels
Twelve vessels that called at Long Beach relatively frequently and one vessel that called only once were selected for further evaluation. This selection was made to cover a range of vessel types and on-board electrical requirements. Table 4-5 presents a summary of these vessels and their berthing information.
Table 4-5. Selected Vessels for Shore Power Study
Vessel Type Vessel Name Vessel
Type Vessel ID Gross
Registered Tonnage
Calls per
Year
Pier & Berth1
Terminal Operator
Victoria Bridge UCC 9184926 47,541 10 J232 ITS
Hanjin Paris UCC 9128128 65,453 10 T136 TTI
Lihue UCC 7105471 26,746 8 (16)2 C62 SSA Container
vessels
OOCL California UCC 9198109 66,046 8 F8 LBCT
Reefers Chiquita Joy GRF 9038945 8,665 25 E24 CUT
Cruise vessels Ecstasy MPR 8711344 70,367 (52)3 H4 Carnival
Alaskan Frontier TCR NA 185,000 152 T121 ARCO
Chevron Washington TPD 7391226 22,761 16 B84 Shell Tankers
Groton TPD 7901928 23,914 24 B78 ARCO
Dry bulk Ansac Harmony BBU 9181508 28,527 1 G212 Metropolitan Stevedore
Auto carrier Pyxis MVE 8514083 43,425 9 B83 Toyota
Break bulk Thorseggen GGC 8116063 15,136 21 D54 Forest Terminal
1- Vessels are assumed to call at the designated pier/berth at all times in this study. 2- Expected annual number of calls for future scenarios based on recent activity. 3- Expected annual number of calls for this new vessel. The information about each vessel (especially installed generators and generator capacity) was collected from; 1) survey responses by the owner/operator, 2) Lloyd’s 2002 Registry of Vessels (hard copy edition), and 3) MarineData.com (http://www.marinedata.com/). The number of calls per vessel was taken from the Marine Exchange data as described above, and Captain John Z. Strong of Jacobsen Pilots provided the berthing time information. The detailed information for the selected vessels is given in Appendix B.
- 40 - E N V I R O N
The most important data element for this study was the typical power requirements on board each vessel while docked. The estimates of power demand for the selected vessels (Table 4-6) were determined from survey responses.
The installed generator capacity and number of engines are also provided in Table 4-6 for reference. The generator load estimates for each vessel are described in more detail below.
Table 4-6. Estimated Average On-board Power Requirements for the Selected Vessels
Vessel Type Vessel Name Gross
Registered Tonnage
Number of Generator Engines
Installed Generator Capacity
(kW)
Average Load (kW)
Load Factor (% of capacity)
Victoria Bridge 47,541 4 5,440 600 11%
Hanjin Paris 65,453 4 7,600 4,800 63%
Lihue 26,746 2 2,700 1,700 63%1
Container vessels
OOCL California 2 66,046 4 8,400 950 62%
Reefers Chiquita Joy 8,665 5 5,620 3,500 62%1
Cruise vessels Ecstasy 70,367 2 10,560 7,000 66%1
Alaskan Frontier 185,000 4 25,200 3,780 15%
Chevron Washington 22,761 2 2,600 2,300 89% Tankers
Groton 23,914 2 1,300 300 23%
Dry bulk Ansac Harmony 28,527 2 1,250 625 50%1
Auto carrier Pyxis 43,425 3 2,160 1,510 70%
Break bulk Thorseggen 15,136 3 2,100 600 29%
1- Estimated fro m a survey response for a similar vessel. 2- OOCL California reported load was lower than had been measured, and was likely the result of very few refrigerated containers, so a 62% load factor was assumed, similar to other reefers.
4.3.1 Container Vessels
Container vessels are the most frequent vessel type calling at the Port of Long Beach, but individual vessels do not call very often. The four vessels chosen cover a range of small, large, new, and old. Appendix B provides the information collected for each of 12 selected vessels. The activity (calls and berths) information for OOCL California was derived from data for OOCL New York, the vessel expected to be replaced by OOCL California. Because the OOCL California was designed as a container and refrigerated container vessel as well, an average load factor of 62% (of it total installed power generation capacity) was assumed in this study.
- 41 - E N V I R O N
Because survey data were not available for the Lihue’s type of auxiliary engines, fuel, and typical port loads, assumptions were necessary to estimate the emissions and shore power requirements. The average in-use load at berth was assumed to be typically 63% (same as the Hanjin Paris), although it could be much higher because the generator capacity for this vessel is lower as a fraction of the vessel tonnage and propulsion power compared with other container vessels. The fuel type was considered to be heavy fuel oil (HFO), because all other container vessels use HFO in port. (IFO, intermediate fuel oil, is considered here to be equivalent of HFO because IFO fuels are a mix of HFO with a small amount, typically 10%, of middle distillate oil (MDO) which, like HDQ also contains high sulfur levels)
4.3.2 Tankers
The tankers in this study included 1) an old and relatively small (Chevron Washington) deep-draft tanker, 2) a tug and barge (Groton) of special integrated design, but likely typical of tug and barge traffic in general, and 3) a brand new, large, deep-draft tanker (Alaskan Frontier) to be launched in 2004. These tankers each have unique design features. The Chevron Washington uses gas turbines with very light diesel fuel, also referred to as Marine Gas Oil (MGO), for both propulsion and auxiliary power. The Groton may need separate auxiliary power on the barge and the associated tug for loading/unloading, but the survey response indicated load on a small diesel generator running a lower-sulfur diesel fuel. The Alaskan Frontier has a new and increasingly common design feature in which the propulsion transmission is diesel-electric. In this case, diesel engines power electrical generators rather than being directly geared to the propeller shaft, so propulsion and auxiliary power are generated from the same very large engines. Detailed vessel specifications are included in Appendix B.
4.3.3 Other Selected Vessels
The study selected one each of refrigerated (reefer), cruise, dry bulk, RO-RO, and general cargo vessel types for more detailed analysis. Information about the Pyxis (a RO-RO vessel) and the Thorseggen are in Appendix B. For the other three vessels, survey data was unavailable. Therefore, it was necessary to make the estimates described here to complete the analysis.
The two primary refrigerated vessels (Chiquita Joy and Chiquita Brenda) calling at the Port of Long Beach are nearly identical vessels, so the data provided in Appendix B are applicable to both. Survey data on the loads and engine type used for auxiliary power were not available for either vessel. The installed auxiliary generator capacity, available from the 2002 Lloyd’s Registry of Vessels, did not describe the engine make or model. Because the Hanjin Paris was designed as a refrigerated vessel, the maximum load (63%) it reported, rounded to the nearest 100 kW, was used because this high loading occurs when refrigerated cargo is carried.
- 42 - E N V I R O N
Cruise vessels had only just begun calling at the Port Long Beach, but the Ecstasy is expected to continue the activity that occurred in March - May 2003.
Loading information also was unavailable, but previous studies of similar sized cruise vessels in Alaska indicated that berthing loads of 7 MW are typical. The installed generator capacity was taken from the 2002 Lloyd’s Registry of Vessels information. It should be noted that engines of this power (5,280 kW each) are likely of a different design than auxiliary generators found on most cargo vessels.
Accurate generator information was also unavailable for the dry bulk vessel Ansac Harmony, although the 2002 Lloyd’s Registry of Vessels lists Akasaka as the make of the generator engines without indicating which model. An estimate of the auxiliary’s capacity of 1,250 kW was derived from the auxiliary generator capacity for another dry bulk vessel, the Zella Oldendorff, prorated to estimate the Ansac Harmony’s installed generator capacity based on the tonnages and propulsion power of the two vessels. (Two Akasaka model T26R engines, with 23.4 l/cylinder displacements, would supply 1250 kW capacity, for example.) With such a low installed power level, an assumption of 50% load in port was used to estimate operation loads while berthed. This load factor could be too low if the vessel uses on board gear for loading or unloading or if the installed generator capacity was under estimated.
4.4 Berthing Times for Selected Vessels
Times at berth were determined from electronic data files that Jacobsen Pilots (John Z. Strong, October 9, 2003) provided. Time at berth was not available for those calls when the Marine Exchange information listed an anchorage point instead of an actual berth. Therefore, as shown in Table 4-7, berth times were determined from averages of the available data. The average time at berth for OOCL New York, (OOCL California was later substituted for this vessel in the analysis) was significantly longer than for other container vessels, but all 5 port calls reported by the pilots were greater than 115 hours. In addition, the time at berth for the new tanker Alaskan Frontier was assumed to be comparable to the other tankers in this study, although the Alaskan Frontier will be much larger than the other tankers reviewed here. Data were collected on a few other vessels besides the specific ones included in this study to allow a comparison to be made with other vessels of similar design. The times at berth shown in Table 4-7 are for non-bunkering calls, whereas the Arcadis (1999) report presented average hotelling (also called berthing) times by vessel type for 1997 for both bunkering and non-bunkering calls. Container vessels in this study had average berthing times similar (within the uncertainty of this limited sample) to the San Pedro ports average for container vessels derived by Arcadis (1999), except for the OOCL New York. Arcadis (1999) noted that approximately 15% of container vessels stayed at berth longer than 100 hours. The average time at berth for tanker calls presented by Arcadis (1999) was somewhat longer than for the tankers selected for this study.
- 43 - E N V I R O N
Table 4-7. Available Berthing Time Summaries
Vessel Vessel Type GRT N Avg. Time
+/- at 90% Confidence
Avg. Time Arcadis (1999)
Lihue Container 26,745 6 50.1 11.3
Hanjin Paris Container 65,643 8 63.0 14.4
Victoria Bridge Container 47,541 7 44.3 11.7
OOCL New York Container 66,289 5 121.6 1.8
51.1
Chevron Washington Tanker 22,761 2 32.0 ---
Groton Tanker/Barge 23,914 13 55.7 9.1
Alaskan Frontier Tanker 185,000 --- 33.0 est. ---
62.2
Thorseggen General Cargo 15,136 20 47.9 5.1 47.4
Pyxis Car Carrier 43,425 6 17.4 6.5 26.4
Ecstasy Cruise 70,367 13 12.0 0 9.5
Chiquita Joy Reefer 8,665 16 67.9 7.6 38.5
Ansac Harmony Dry Bulk 28,527 1 60 --- 102.8 1 – OOCL New York was substituted by OOCL California per OOCL’s suggestion. It was assumed that OOCL
California has the same berthing time as OOCL New York .
4.5 Simultaneous Calls of Selected Vessels
Using the average berthing times and the number of calls over a 12-month period, an estimate was prepared of the number of times that two or more of the 12 selected study vessels are at berth simultaneously. The purpose of this exercise was to estimate the maximum electrical loads imposed by shore powering vessels at dock to allow designers to estimate the added capacity required to service these vessels.
There are a number of limitations to the analysis of the candidate vessels for the 12-month period, specifically because the 12-month period reviewed was not representative of the expected future activity rates. For the cruise vessels, the Ecstasy just began making calls at the Port of Long Beach in April, and the analysis period ended May 31, so the analysis includes less than two months of cruise activity. The data were not sufficient to determine if the cruise activity was or will be seasonally dependent. Also, the Matson vessel Lihue began calling at Long Beach in greater frequency beginning in January, so the number of calls for this vessel was less than that expected for the next 12-month period.
The number of simultaneous calls for the 12 selected vessels is shown in Table 4-8. This is important as it affects the maximum power demand for cold ironing. Because of a recent increase in the frequency of some vessels’ calls, the 12-month totals are likely less representative than the most recent two months. For these 12 vessels, generally two vessels, and sometimes up to four
- 44 - E N V I R O N
vessels, were docked simultaneously. Because the number of calls by the candidate vessels was lower than expected for a group of vessels that might actually be converted to cold ironing, the number of incidences of simultaneous calls by the candidate vessels is likely underestimated.
Table 4-8. Simultaneous Calls for the 12 Selected Vessels
Incidences by the Number of Vessels Berthed at Once Period Total Calls
2 or more 3 or more 4 or more 5 or more
12 months 160 87 27 7 0
Last 2 months 37 23 8 2 0
4.6 Emission Estimates for Selected Vessels
This section describes emission estimates to reduce emissions through the use of shore power rather than running on-board vessel service diesel generators while vessels are berthed. The emissions calculated here are for the typical diesel engine generators currently used by vessels while at berth.
Emissions per port call were estimated as a function of time at dock (hours), generator load (kilowatts or kW), and the pollutant-specific emission factor per kW-hr. The emission factors for different types of engines and motors are described in Appendix D. The average berthing time and engine load were described above and in the sections outlining the vessel characteristics and survey results. Annual emissions are for all port calls throughout the year, calculated as the number of calls per year multiplied by the average emissions per call. Vessels with large number of calls, long times at dock, and large electrical loads are more likely to produce higher emissions while at a dock.
Emissions per port call = (Avg. Berthing Time) x (Avg. Load, kW) x (Emission Factor, g/kW-hr)
Annual Emissions = (Emissions per port call) x (Annual Calls)
The primary difference among engine types is in the NOx emission rate. The primary auxiliary engine type for most merchant vessels is a Category 2 (with engine displacements of between 5 and 30 liters per cylinder) engine. Category 1 engines are smaller, with less than 5 liters per cylinder, and Category 3 engines are larger, with more than 30 liters per cylinder. Unless specific information was available for the auxiliary engine on each vessel, the Category 2 type was assumed.
Unusual vessels requiring exceptions be made include the following:
(1) Chevron Washington has a gas turbine engine (less than half the NOx emission rate of most diesel engines) supplying the auxiliary power.
(2) Groton has Category 1 auxiliary engines of less than 1,000 kW.
- 45 - E N V I R O N
(3) Alaskan Frontier has diesel-electric drive system that uses the Category 3 engine useful for both propulsion and auxiliary power. This new vessel, due to be launched in 2004, is expected to meet the NOx emissions limits in the MARPOL emission standard outlined in Appendix D. The MAN L48/60 engines on the Alaskan Frontier have rated speeds of 514 rpm, so NOx emission rates of 12.9 g/kW-hr were used instead of 16.6 g/kW-hr for an uncontrolled Category 3 engine.
(4) Ecstasy has two auxiliary engines rated at 5,280 kW, a high power rating more typical of a Category 3 engine.
(5) Hanjin Paris has a Wartsila engine with a displacement of 28.1 liters per cylinder (under the Category 3 limit), but available emissions data for this specific engine model indicated NOx emission rates were more typical of a Category 3 engine.
(6) Data for the Lihue was unavailable, so the type of on-board auxiliary generators was not known. Because the vessel was known from Lloyd’s data to be a steam vessel for propulsion power, the study assumed that the generator was driven by a steam turbine.
Emissions of PM and SOx depend primarily on the sulfur content of the fuel used in the auxiliary engines. Three vessels in this study (Chevron Washington, Groton, and Thorseggen) operate their auxiliary engines on a light diesel fuel referred to here as marine gas oil (MGO). All other vessels either reported, or, if no information was provided, the study assumed, the use of heavy fuel oil (HFO) (including IFO-380, a mix of 90% heavy fuel oil and 10% middle distillate oil, both high in sulfur content).
Applying the emission factors to the vessel call activity levels provides an estimate of the emissions per port call. Annual emissions are then calculated based upon the number of calls expected over a 12-month period. One adjustment made to facilitate an accurate assessment of potential emissions benefits was that 1.5 hours (45 minutes on each end of each port call) was subtracted from the average berthing time to account for the time to transition to and from shore power. The emission results are provided here both as per port call and as an annual average to allow an understanding of the potential emissions for other vessels not subject to this analysis.
4.6.1 Container Vessels
The emissions for container vessels are shown by port call in Table 4-9 and for annual activity in Table 4-10. Of the container vessels, the Hanjin Paris and the OOCL California had the most potential for emission reductions through the use of shore power primarily because the auxiliary loads were estimated to be high because of the demands of refrigerated containers. The Victoria Bridge was not reported to carry refrigerated containers, so- in port loads were 20% or less than that of the Hanjin Paris, even though the installed auxiliary power for all three vessels is similar. To the
- 46 - E N V I R O N
extent those vessels actually do carry refrigerated containers, their loads, and therefore emissions, will more closely resemble those of the Hanjin Paris. For Lihue, it was assumed that steam turbines are used for generating the electric power.
Table 4-9. Container Vessels Hotelling Emissions Per Call (tons per call)
Vessel VOC CO NOx PM10 SOx
Victoria Bridge 0.004 0.070 0.378 0.043 0.351
Hanjin Paris 0.065 0.227 5.393 0.493 4.036
Lihue 0.006 0.027 0.255 0.228 1.743
OOCL California 0.092 1.706 9.192 1.045 8.554
Table 4-10. Container Vessels Annual Hotelling Emissions (tons per year)
Vessel Calls/yr VOC CO NOx PM10 SOx
Victoria Bridge 10 0.0 0.7 3.8 0.43 3.5
Hanjin Paris 10 0.6 2.3 53.9 4.93 40.4
Lihue 16 0.1 0.4 4.1 3.64 22.8
OOCL California 8 0.7 13.7 73.5 8.36 68.4
4.6.2 Tankers
The Alaskan Frontier was the highest emitting and largest tanker of those studied, as shown by the emissions per port call in Table 4-11 and by annual emissions in Table 4-12. However, no tanker in this study is entirely typical of tankers calling at the Port of Long Beach. The Alaskan Frontier, a new vessel, will be four times larger than the average tanker, and the same large engines will supply power for propulsion and auxiliary loads. The Chevron Washington is half the size of the average tanker and uses a gas turbine (with much lower NOx emission rates) for auxiliary power. The Groton is an integrated tug and barge vessel more typical of other tugs and barges, where the auxiliary power demands are lower than for deep draft tanker vessels.
Table 4-11. Tanker Hotelling Emissions Per Call (tons per call)
Vessel VOC CO NOx PM10 SOx
Chevron Washington 0.005 0.007 0.463 0.018 0.091
Groton 0.005 0.027 0.179 0.004 0.016
Alaskan Frontier 0.026 0.092 1.690 0.199 1.628
- 47 - E N V I R O N
Table 4-12. Tanker Annual Hotelling emissions (tons per year)
Vessel Calls/yr VOC CO NOx PM10 SOx
Chevron Washington 16 0.1 0.1 7.4 0.29 1.5
Groton 24 0.1 0.6 4.3 0.10 0.4
Alaskan Frontier 15 0.4 1.4 25.3 2.98 24.4
4.6.3 Other Vessels
For other types of vessels, emission estimates are shown in Table 4-13 by port call and in Table 4-14 for the year. The refrigerated (Chiquita Joy) and cruise (Ecstasy) vessels produced higher annual and per-call emissions. The high annual emissions rates are only partly explained by the high number of port calls per year. Survey data on activity rates were limited for these two vessels, so the loads in port were derived from data available for similar vessel types, and may thus not be totally accurate. Thorseggen was the only vessel in this group that used MGO, a lower sulfur fuel, which explains its lower PM and SOx emissions.
Table 4-13. Other Vessels Berthing Emissions per Call (tons per call)
Vessel Type VOC CO NOx PM10 SOx
Chiquita Joy Reefer 0.034 0.635 3.419 0.389 3.181
Ecstasy Cruise 0.016 0.056 1.333 0.122 0.998
Ansac Harmony Dry Bulk 0.005 0.100 0.537 0.061 0.500
Pyxis RO-RO 0.004 0.066 0.354 0.040 0.329
Thorseggen General Cargo 0.004 0.076 0.410 0.007 0.027
Table 4-14. Other Vessels Annual Berthing Emissions (tons per year)
Vessel Calls/yr VOC CO NOx PM10 SOx
Chiquita Joy 25 0.9 15.9 85.5 9.72 79.5
Ecstasy 52 0.8 2.9 69.3 6.34 51.9
Ansac Harmony 1 0.0 0.1 0.5 0.06 0.5
Pyxis 9 0.0 0.6 3.2 0.36 3.0
Thorseggen 21 0.1 1.6 8.6 0.15 0.6
- 48 - E N V I R O N
4.7 Emissions Associated with Shore Power Generation
To compare the emissions generated on-board, the study used an estimate of 0.11 lbs-NOx/MW-hr as the average emission rate for electrical power generation to the grid. (0.11 lbs-NOx/MW-hr equates to 0.045 g/kW-hr, which can be compared with a typical on-board auxiliary diesel engine emission rate of 13 g/kW-hr.)
Applying this factor to the electrical loads on board vessels indicates that, in most cases, the NOx emission rate for shore power are typically at 0.3% of those uncontrolled on-board diesel generators. For lower emitting turbine and Category 1 diesel engines, the shore power could be as high as 0.8% of the emissions of on-board power emission rates. In any case, shore power should provide a NOx emission reduction in excess of 99%. PM emission rates from shore-based generation are also estimated to be in a range between 3 to 17% of the on-board emission rates. The on-shore PM emissions are mostly from natural gas combustion, which have fewer toxic compounds than those from diesel combustion.
More analysis of on shore power generating emissions is provided in Section 6, Cost Effectiveness Analysis.
- 49 - E N V I R O N
5.0 ELECTRICAL POWER INFRASTRUCTURE CONCEPTUAL DESIGN
This section discusses the infrastructure needs and conceptual design for providing shore-based electrical power (cold ironing) to the 12 vessels evaluated in this study. In this report, the cost for transmission and distribution infrastructure is shared among the 12 vessels; therefore, a reduction in the number of vessels would increase the overall cost per vessel.
To properly account for the cost of cold ironing, the study assumed that all new power supply facilities would be constructed to and within the marine terminals, incurring a major capital cost. This assumption was made because, in most cases, the existing power for the terminals is inadequate to support both existing terminal operations and cold ironing. In any case, it is appropriate to assume that the entire cost of cold ironing would be borne by the project(s) rather than assuming that existing facilities and capacity would be available. This is a conservative assumption, as Southern California Edison (SCE) power rates do include a portion of the transmission facilities capital cost amortization. The exact breakdown of what is already included in the rates and what would increase the rates would be determined by negotiation with SCE, and is beyond the scope of this study.
Costs associated with the improvement of SCE power transmission and distribution infrastructure were estimated based on the engineering assumptions as described in Appendix H. The costs have not been reviewed by SCE.
5.1 Overview of Power Transmission/Distribution to the Vessels
This study assumes that power supplied by SCE would be transmitted by new overhead lines and poles from the Hinson Substation (located south of Interstate 405 and west of Santa Fe Avenue) to the SCE Pico Substation, which is south of Ocean Boulevard and east of Harbor Scenic Drive (transmission system). The voltage would then be stepped-down to 12.5 kV and run underground through street rights-of-way to the terminals (distribution system), where it would be metered. Figure 5-1 shows the location of the substations, the overhead transmission lines, the underground distribution routes to the subject terminals in the Port, and the points of connection to the meters.
The 12.5 kV high-voltage power brought underground into the terminals would again be reduced to 6.6 kV at an on-terminal substation and then run to the wharf.
- 50 - E N V I R O N
Two different methods for transferring the power from wharf-side to the vessel were evaluated, a work-barge and cable reel towers. These methods were selected because they would not adversely affect the berthing practices and/or cargo transfer operations. It should be noted that the work-barge method is used in this study to identify relative cost effectiveness for 12 selected vessels. The actual implementation of cold ironing at the POLB may use a different method, which would have somewhat different costs, but should not materially change the cost effectiveness. It is worth noting that the cost to provide the shore side infrastructure would be significantly lower if the facilities were installed when a terminal is being built or reconstructed as opposed do the retrofit situation that is the focus of this study.
5.1.1 Power Supply for Container, Reefer, and Dry Bulk Vessels
Gantry cranes that run the full length of the wharf unload all the container vessels, reefers, and dry bulk vessels in this study. The cranes operate on fixed rails and must have the full range of the wharf, although they typically operate at one station for an extended period before moving to the next station. Thus, no fixed electrical transfer structures could be constructed in their way, although a moveable, wheel-mounted system is theoretically possible. In addition, any given vessel may tie up at different positions along the same berth, so that the use of a fixed point for power transfer would reduce the terminal’s operational flexibility.
The concept of outfitting the vessels with cable reels on the deck and feeding low voltage (440 to 480V) cables to the side of the wharf to be plugged into a newly constructed vault was found to have the following drawbacks.
(1) Room would need to be made on the deck of the vessels for as many as 20 reels, each of which could be up to 10-feet in diameter. The reels might also displace cargo storage area. The cost per reel would be expected to be as much as $65,000.
(2) A berthed vessel can vary its orientation, which means cable reels would need to be installed on both the port and starboard sides of the deck. This would substantially increase the cost.
(3) The reels could be installed on the stern of the vessel. However, some vessels are configured such that an extension of the cables directly to the wharf could interfere with the stern lines.
(4) The outfitting of each vessel that might potentially call the berth with the cable reels is much more expensive than another concept in which cables are fed from shore and are plugged into the vessel.
(5) Exposure to severe weather conditions in open sea could damage or affect the reliability of the cable reels. There is also a risk that cargo could be dropped on them.
- 52 - E N V I R O N
-INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK-
- 53 - E N V I R O N
(6) The wharf could require retrofitting or the installation of new fendering to provide adequate clearance between the vessel and wharf for the cables.
(7) The number of conduits running underground to the new wharf vault from the new terminal substation would increase substantially, along with the cost.
(8) The size of the new terminal substation would need to be increased to handle the electrical equipment for multiple conduits.
Outfitting the vessels with just one or two cable reels on the deck and feeding high voltage 6.6 kV cables to the side of the wharf to be plugged into a newly constructed vault was considered.
In addition to some of the drawbacks listed above, the primary difficulty is that there is no room on the vessels in this study with 440/460/480V for a new substation.
Because of the potential difficulties associated with using cable reels on the vessel, a work-barge concept to transfer the power from the wharf face to the stern of the vessel at centerline was selected for further evaluation. The work-barge supports the final substation by providing a location to step down the 6.6 kV to the typical 440-480V that the majority of the vessels currently use. The work-barge also houses cable reels, davits, and all necessary equipment to make the temporary connections to the vessels. In the event that a large container vessel with a 6.6 kV system arrives, the barge can still be used to connect the vessel directly to the wharf power, bypassing the on-board 6.6 kV/440V substation.
5.1.2 Power Supply for Tankers and RO-RO Vessels
The tankers and the roll-on/roll-off (RO-RO) vessel in the study do not utilize gantry cranes and they typically dock in the same position at every port call. Therefore, properly located, wharf-mounted facilities that have a minimal impact on operations can be utilized. A system consisting of a short tower to support electrical cable reel(s) and cables connecting to the vessel at the stern centerline was selected. The electrical cables would be positioned above the stern lines. A final substation may still be required to match the voltage(s) for the various vessels that call.
5.1.3 Power Supply for the Cruise Vessel
A large gangway mates up to the cruise vessel at its mid-section when at berth. The concept of having electrical cables carried underneath this gangway and connected into the side of the vessel was considered. Because the total amperage to be transferred is high, safety dictates not doing this. Therefore, the concept of an elevated platform on the pier deck supporting cable reels that would be either forward or aft of the gangway was considered for this study.
- 54 - E N V I R O N
5.2 Method of Analysis of Energy and Transmission Distribution to Terminals
Since, the purpose of this analysis is to determine the approximate capital cost for providing cold ironing power to the terminals, typical facilities are assumed. For example, a 12.5 kV distribution system from the Pico substation to all terminals is assumed, even though actual distribution voltage may be different (e.g., the Pier T Terminal currently is served by 25 kV power).
5.2.1 Hinson Substation
A spare 66 kV feeder bay in the existing 66 kV ring bus structure would be used to extend another 66 kV transmission line from the Hinson Substation to the Pico Substation. This would require the addition of a 66 kV SF6 circuit breaker, insulators and bus extension.
5.2.2 Transmission Line, 66 kV, Hinson Substation to Pico Substation
A 66 kV, overhead wood pole line with 336 ACSR conductors would be constructed from the Hinson Substation to the Pico Substation. This line would share the right-of-way with existing wood pole transmission lines. Wood poles would be guyed where required. As the existing transmission lines approach Pico Substation, the right-of-way crosses freeways and egress-ramps, where very tall wood poles, approximately 80 feet above finished grade, are used. The new line would do likewise. After crossing the freeways and egress ramps, the transmission line would terminate on a steel pole at the substation, as do the existing lines.
5.2.3 Pico Substation
Within the Pico Substation, a new low profile steel A-Frame structure would be built as the terminus of the 66 kV line from the Hinson Substation. This would include insulators, disconnect switches, and appurtenances to match the existing 66 kV line terminal structures. The 66 kV busing would be extended from the existing main and transfer buses to the vicinity of the new 66 kV, low profile structure. The new 66 kV line would connect to each of the 66 kV main and transfer buses after going through disconnects and SF6 circuit breakers.
From the 66 kV main and transfer buses, 66 kV bus extensions would extend to a new 28 million volt-ampere (MVA), 66 kV to 12.47 (12.5) kV substation pad-mounted transformer. There appears to be adequate space at the north end of the substation yard to accommodate another substation transformer. One 12.5 kV bus extension with insulators and appurtenances would extend from the transformer’s secondary side to a small 12.5 kV bus structure. 15 kV cable connected to the 15 kV bus via 15 kV cable terminations would extend underground in an existing utility trench to a new main and transfer bus scheme over near the existing 12.5 kV feeder take-off structures. There appears to be adequate room to install the new 12.5 kV feeder structure.
- 55 - E N V I R O N
A new main and transfer bus open switchgear type structure would be built near the existing 12.5 kV feeder take-off structures. This would be an open-architecture steel structure with busing, insulators, a circuit breaker for each feeder and appurtenances.
5.2.4 12.5 kV Feeders
Although unconfirmed, SCE is thought to have a ut ility tunnel under the freeways adjacent to the Pico Substation. The study assumed that the utility tunnel would be extended from the Pico Substation to accommodate the following new cold iron loads. Appendix G describes the underground feeder routes to the terminals. Table 5-1 lists selected berths and their load values in kVA.
Table 5-1. Selected Berths Load
Vessel Name Berth Terminal Operator Load (kVA)
Victoria Bridge J232 ITS 0.9 Hanjin Paris T136 TTI 6.0
Lihue C62 SSA 2.1
OOCL California F8 LBCT 6.5
Chiquita Joy E24 CUT 4.4
Ecstasy H4 CARNIVAL 8.8 Alaskan Frontier T121 BP/ARCO 9.8
Chevron Washington B84 SHELL 2.9
Groton B78 BP/ARCO 0.4
Ansac Harmony G212 MS 0.8 Pyxis B83 TOYOTA 1.9
Thorseggen D54 FT 0.8
5.2.5 Cost Estimate of SCE Infrastructure Improvements
Table 5-2 expresses cost estimates for the SCE infrastructure improvements by apportioning them to the various berths. Estimated costs include cutting asphalt or concrete, trenching, backfilling, and repairing pavement. The cable cost assumes using tri-plex cable. Table H-1 in Appendix H provides the cost by type of work.
- 56 - E N V I R O N
Table 5-2. SCE Cost Distribution to Individual Berths
Vessel Name Berth Terminal Operator Cost
Victoria Bridge J232 ITS $944,000 Hanjin Paris T136 TTI $3,039,000
Lihue C62 SSA $941,000
OOCL California F8 LBCT $761,000
Chiquita Joy E24 CUT $977,000
Ecstasy H4 CARNIVAL $2,323,000 Alaskan Frontier T121 BP/ARCO $2,413,000
Chevron Washington B84 SHELL $796,000
Groton B78 BP/ARCO $495,000
Ansac Harmony G212 MS $717,000 Pyxis B83 TOYOTA $707,000
Thorseggen D54 FT $567,000
Total Cost: $14,681,000
5.3 Power Delivery within the Terminals
This section explains the assumptions made for locating the substations within the terminals, the underground electrical feeders, and the distribution runs to the berths. A limited description of the terminal cargo operations explains how decisions were made for locating the electrical equipment. Figures G-1 through G-4 in Appendix G show the assumed best locations of the SCE meters, new terminal substations, underground conduits runs, cable towers, and wharf vaults.
In each terminal, incoming 12.5 kV power would be stepped down in voltage at a new on-dock substation. The substation should be as close to the berth face as possible in order to reduce the need to carry high electrical loads far distances at lower voltages. However, 12.5 kV is not needed at the berth face. A small portion of the fleet could use 6.6 kV. The majority of the vessels considered in this study would use 440-480 kV. Thus, bringing 6.6 kV to the berth face is a suitable compromise.
5.3.1 Terminals Using a Work-barge
It should be noted that the work-barge method is used in this study to identify relative cost effectiveness for 12 selected vessels. The actual implementation of cold ironing at the POLB may use a different method, which would have somewhat different costs, but should not materially change the cost effectiveness values.
- 57 - E N V I R O N
The routing of the underground conduit from the meter to the new substation is shown as one or possibly two straight segments, which assumes that there are no subsurface interferences requiring alternate routes. In practice, the route would probably be parallel to the existing high voltage feed to the substation. For reasons discussed below the new substation would be built nearby the existing one.
In a container terminal layout, the substation should be about 200 feet from the wharf face to be close to the gantry cranes, which are the primary power loads. 200 feet is also far enough away that there is no interference with the cranes and cargo movement on the wharf. To centralize operations, the terminal operations building is usually situated near the middle berth on the wharf, with the substation nearby. Vehicles and equipment also park around these structures. This arrangement leaves most of the remaining area of the terminal available for stacking containers in long rows, separated by lanes and high mast lights.
The secondary side power (6.6 kV) from the new substation would be delivered in a radial fashion to new electrical vaults constructed along the wharf face. Conduits would be constructed under the pavement until they could emerge under the concrete wharf deck. Supported by hangers, they would then run down the wharf face and feed into vaults, typically placed at 200-foot centers.
This spacing of vaults was chosen to allow for the various positions the vessel may berth along the wharf. There are a variety of factors affecting the berthing position including the number and size of vessels moored at the adjacent berth, other dockside work, crane repairs being performed, etc. The study assumed that five vaults spaced over 1,000 feet of wharf would provide sufficient flexibility for any berthing position.
Reinforced concrete vaults, approximately 4 feet wide, 3 feet deep, and 8 feet long, would be constructed under the wharf. They would have stainless steel junction boxes set into them with sockets to connect 6.6 kV cables to the work-barge. The highest amperage rating on a commercially available socket is 400A. Therefore, if the power demand from the vessel were greater than 2.64 kilovolt-amps (kVA), two sockets and two 6.6 kV cables would be needed. A 6.6 kV cable(s) from a cable reel(s) on the work-barge would be plugged into the socket(s) to feed the primary side of the transformer mounted on the work-barge. In the event that a 6.6 kV container vessel is at berth, the cables could be connected directly to the vessel.
After plugging in the vessel, the substation on the work-barge would be energized through the 6.6 kV cable(s) by closing the circuit breaker at the new terminal substation. Because energizing high voltage equipment can be dangerous, it is important that only someone who is qualified to switch high voltage open or close the breakers.
- 58 - E N V I R O N
If two 6.6 kV cables were required, then two mono-spiral reels would be used. Tension on the cable(s) would be automatically adjusted to prevent sagging during tidal changes in the harbor. Any tension above a preset level would release more cable. The 10 to 11-foot diameter reel(s) would be elevated above the deck near the stern on a platform to provide deck clearance. The cable reel(s) would be mounted to a turntable allowing it to swivel as much as 60 degrees either side centerline of the work-barge. The work-barge and its layout in relation to the wharf and vessel during cold ironing are shown in Figures 5-2 through 5-4.
The lower voltage cables from the secondary side of the work-barge transformer would be extended by a hydraulic boom to the deck at the centerline of the cold- ironed vessel. The number of cables would vary with the amount of power required by the vessels. The vessel’s crew would then connect the cables to the receptacles on the vessel to power the vessel.
The hydraulic boom would contain three or more telescoping tube steel sections. The boom would be capable of swiveling 360 degrees on its base. The cables on the telescopic boom would hang over saddles attached to arms connected to the outboard end of each boom section. With the boom retracted, the cables would loop below and between the saddles, much like a festoon system along an overhead crane runway. With the boom extended, the loops would straighten. At the end of the last boom section, the cables would dangle freely with enough length for the crew to reach them and plug them in the vessel’s sockets. Because the change in the vessel’s draft can be as much as 33 ft during container cargo operations, the boom would need to be frequently adjusted, probably on an hourly basis, to keep the cables in the correct position. Manual operation is possible, or an automatic system that would include a position sensor and controller could be installed.
Keeping the work-barge in a fixed position, centered with the stern of the vessel could best be done using two stern and two bow anchors. The work-barge would be moved away from the container vessel during its docking and departure. Conceivably, hauling the work-barge aside with the anchor lines could accomplish this. However, the work-barge might need to retrieve some or all of the anchors, depending on the specific situation. Other options for positioning the barge are possible.
A two-man crew would operate the work-barge to tend the conductor cables as the tide and vessel draft changes, to monitor the electrical equipment, and to reposition the work-barge as needed. Staggered 8-hour crew shifts could be arranged. The deckhouse would need to be large enough to comfortably accommodate the crew for extended periods during inclement weather and to support steering, reel(s), and boom operations. When not in service, the work-barge would be brought alongside the wharf and tied-off to fender piles.
- 60 - E N V I R O N
-INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK-
- 62 - E N V I R O N
-INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK-
- 64 - E N V I R O N
-INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK-
- 65 - E N V I R O N
5.3.2 Work-barge Sizing
A new work-barge was conceptually sized at 76 ft x 30 ft by establishing a deck footprint to accommodate the substation equipment, an elevated rectangular platform to support the cable reel(s), a deckhouse, other equipment and working space. Detailed characteristics of the work-barge and cost estimates for barges to accommodate three different transformer sizes are provided in Appendix I.
5.3.3 Work-barge Cost Summary
Costs for three different sizes of work-barges to accommodate each size of substation are provided in Table I-2 in Appendix I. Data show there is only about a 3% cost difference in the construction of the work-barges when the cost of the substations is factored out.
The cost of converting existing barges was not considered feasible due to the shorter remaining life of used equipment compared to the expected service life of a new hull and the impracticality of if seven barges of the same size and in similar condition would be available.
5.3.4 Summary of Work-barge Annual Costs
Annualized recurring work-barge costs calculated for operations and maintenance are provided in Appendix I and are summarized in the Table 5-3 below.
5.3.5 Cost Associated with Loss of Operational Area
Revenue losses resulting from constructing a new substation in the facility would vary with the type of cargo operation. Removing cargo storage or parking areas to provide space for the substation could impact revenues. If there is no available land area for a substation, it may be necessary to construct the substation in an underground vault or on a platform over the water near the berth. These options are very expensive. The fenced area around the substations (having an oil filled transformer with a primary section and outdoor type secondary switchgear with a main breaker) would be sized as shown in Table 5-4.
- 66 - E N V I R O N
Table 5-3. Summary of Work-barge Annual Costs
Vessel Name Victoria
Bridge Hanjin Paris Lihue OOCL California. Chiquita Joy Ansac
Harmony Thorseggen
Workboat Substation Power (kVA) 2,000 7,500 5,000 2,000 5,000 2,000 2,000
Workboat Cost $1,805,000 $2,216,000 $2,048,000 $1,805,000 $2,048,000 $1,805,000 $1,805,000
Berth Calls/Year 10 10 16 8 25 1 21
Average Time at Berth (hrs) 44 63 50 121 68 60 48
Crew Time per Berth Call (hrs) 48 68 52 124 72 64 52
Fuel $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000
Parts $6,000 $6,000 $6,000 $6,000 $6,000 $6,000 $6,000
Insurance $54,000 $66,000 $61,000 $54,000 $61,000 $54,000 $54,000
Drydocking $18,000 $22,000 $20,000 $18,000 $20,000 $18,000 $18,000
Small Craft $4,000 $4,000 $4,000 $4,000 $4,000 $4,000 $4,000
Marine Mechanic $9.000 $9.000 $9.000 $9.000 $9.000 $9.000 $9.000
Electrician $11,000 $11,000 $17,000 $8,000 $26,000 $1,000 $22,000
Crew $167,000 $236,000 $289,000 $344,000 $625,000 $22,000 $379,000
Total w/ 30% Contingency
$350,000 $462,000 $530,000 $578,000 $979,000 $150,000 $641,000
- 67 - E N V I R O N
Table 5-4. Fenced Footprint Around Substation
Fenced Footprint Around Substation Power (kVA) 12.5 kV Primary &
6.6 kV Secondary 12.5 kV Primary &
440V Secondary 2,000 27’ x 30’ 27’ x 36’
5,000 25’ x 32’ 25’ x 38’
7,500 26’ x 33’ 26’ x 43’
10,000 26’ x 34’ 26’ x 52’
Power (kVA)
66 kV Primary & 6.6 kV Secondary
66 kV Primary & 440V Secondary
7,500 26’ x 33’ 26’ x 43’
10,000 26’ x 34’ 26’ x 52’
Container Operations
The lost operator revenue for a container facility due to the displacement of their yard space by a new substation is calculated as follows. The substation would be approximately 200 feet from the wharf. The estimated dwell time for a container near the wharf for a wheeled slot would be 2 to 3 days per week, average 2.5. During one year, a container would occupy this space 2.5 x 52 = 130 days. The gross revenue for a 40-foot container per day would be about $5,000. Therefore, assuming a 7.5% net profit the net revenue lost would be 130 days x $5,000 x .075 = $48,750/yr.
Tanker Operations
Tanker operations studied in this report have a roadway along the wharf area for equipment and vehicle access. An operations building, pumping equipment, and a substation dedicated to the cargo handling operations are set back from this frontage. The remaining available open area is limited, but it has been assumed for this study that there is sufficient room to construct a new substation. Therefore, it is assumed that there would be no net revenue loss to the tenant from handling their cargo. However, a new substation might intrude into fire clearance setbacks that may be required for the petroleum products handing.
In addition, the construction of a new substation may reduce the available area available for future expansion of the facility if additional pumping or product storage equipment is needed.
Vehicle Unloading Operations
The Toyota wharf, which is about 100 feet wide, appears to have enough room for a substation in its northwest corner, which would be near the bow of the vessel. Unloading cars occurs only through the stern. The unloaded cars are driven immediately to a nearby lot for storage and are
- 68 - E N V I R O N
not parked on the wharf. However, the remaining wharf area, which does not handle the traffic from the unloading of cars, from about amidships eastward, may be used to temporarily store equipment or supplies for the vessel. This study assumed that this was a practical location for a substation, out of the way of operations. Thus, no foreseeable net revenue loss would be attributable to its construction.
Break Bulk Operations
The terminal substations would be shoe-horned into the Metropolitan Stevedore operations area, which is already congested with conveyor systems and heavy equipment. It is not known at this time what financial impact it would have on their operations.
The Forest Terminals substation would need to be located in the parking lot southeast of the warehouse. This would eliminate parking and cargo space. The extent of the potential financial impact is not known at this time.
Cruise Vessel Terminal
This area has practically no open space for a substation. It was assumed that the area near the fire station would be available. If no space is available, then the substation could be put either underground, or on a new pile platform over the water. Either option would be very expensive, with the platform costing the most.
5.3.6 Shore Side Power Delivery for RO-RO, Breakbulk Vessels and Tankers
The RO-RO, breakbulk vessel, and tankers would be supplied power from a cable reel tower that would be located close to the face of the wharf or pier. The 6.6 kV cable reel(s) would be the same type used for a work-barge. Since a tanker may discharge from either port or starboard, the cable(s) would need to plug into sockets located at the center of the stern. The RO-RO unloads vehicles from the stern with its starboard side always against the wharf. Therefore, the cable reel tower would be located near the bow of the vessel and the sockets would be built into the starboard side. Three tankers berth in the same position each time in order to discharge through pipe connections and manifolds that are located in the middle third of the pipe rack on the pier. The cable reel tower would be located at the stern of the vessel.
For all three types of vessels, the 6.6 kV cable reel would be the same as used for the work-barge. The number of cable reels needed would depend on the potential amperage. The tanker Alaskan Frontier would require one reel; but the Chevron Washington, and the Groton, 2 reels. Toyota’s RO-RO, Pyxis, and the breakbulk vessel Thorseggen, would require one reel.
- 69 - E N V I R O N
The 6.6 kV feed to the cable reel tower would run underneath the wharf or dock in the same manner as in the work-barge scenario. The tower would be a 30- inch diameter steel pipe with the cable reel attached on one side, or one on each side if two reels were needed. Near the base of the cable reel tower would be an electrical pull box for both the high voltage feed and the low voltage feed for the tower’s electrical motors. The reel tower would be supported on a new foundation built into the wharf or pier deck. The bottom of the reel would be about 7 feet above the deck to provide clearance, and the tower would be set far enough back to clear the hull of the vessel. Atop the tower would be a steel davit with an electric winch and steel cable to control a sling to move the 6.6 kV cable(s) vertically. The davit would also be on an electrically powered, geared turntable to enable it to rotate away from the vessel. This concept is illustrated in Figure 5-5.
After the vessel berths, an operator would use a pendant control, either from the dock or on the vessel, to lower the 6.6 kV cable(s) to the deck of the vessel to be plugged in. Then the electrician at the substation would energize the power. The reverse procedure would be used when the vessel departs.
5.3.7 Shore Side Power Delivery for Cruise Vessel
The existing Carnival Ecstasy electrical system would require three 6.6 kV lines. The vessel berths in relatively the same position during each call to connect to the passenger gangway system on the pier. A large steel frame supports the gangway allowing it vertical and horizontal movement along the pier. There is room on the north side of the gangway to install two cable reel towers. One tower would support a single reel and the other tower, a double reel. The towers would support a davit and frame, which would be used to raise and lower the cables to the vessel. Cable reels and the frame would be electro-mechanically powered and controlled. Cable movement would be pendant controlled from either the pier or the vessel. An electrician at the substation would energize and de-energize the power.
5.3.8 Summary of Terminal Infrastructure Costs for Work-barges and Cable Reel Towers
Table 5-5 summarizes annual labor costs for the work-barge and cable reel towers concepts. Cost breakdowns for individual items are provided in Appendix I.
- 70 - E N V I R O N
-INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK-
- 72 - E N V I R O N
-INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK-
- 73 - E N V I R O N
Table 5-5. Summary of Terminal Infrastructure Costs for Work-barges and Cable Reel Towers
Vessel Name Terminal
Meter to Terminal
Substation Run
Substation
Terminal Substation to Wharf
Run
Run Under
the Wharf
Wharf Vaults
Fender Piles
Wharf Ladder
Single Cable Reel
Towers (6.6kV)
Double Cable Reel
Towers (2x6.6kV)
Combo Single
and Double
Reel (3x6.6kV)
Total
Victoria Bridge
ITS $15,471 $57,973 $13,326 $103,318 $163,367 $23,725 $25,188 $0 $0 $0 $402,000
Hanjin Paris
TTI $15,471 $112,390 $13,326 $6,078 $163,367 $23,725 $25,188 $0 $0 $0 $360,000
Lihue SSA $134,085 $107,344 $115,495 $6,078 $163,367 $23,725 $25,188 $0 $0 $0 $575,000
OOCL California
LBCT $15,471 $57,973 $13,326 $6,078 $163,367 $23,725 $25,188 $0 $0 $0 $305,000
Chiquita Joy
CUT $39,194 $107,344 $33,760 $103,318 $163,367 $23,725 $25,188 $0 $0 $0 $496,000
Ecstasy Carnival $59,822 $143,636 $51,528 $32,211 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $468,455 $756,000
Alaskan Frontier
BP $49,508 $143,636 $42,644 $27,957 $0 $0 $0 $0 $378,690 $0 $1,642,000(1)
Chevron Washington
Shell $11,346 $107,344 $9,773 $6,078 $0 $0 $0 $0 $378,690 $0 $513,000
Groton BP $150,587 $57,973 $129,709 $6,078 $0 $0 $0 $247,845 $0 $0 $592,000
Ansac Harmony
MS $20,938 $57,973 $18,035 $103,318 $163,367 $23,725 $25,188 $0 $0 $0 $413,000
Pyxis Toyota $2,063 $57,973 $1,777 $6,078 $0 $0 $0 $247,845 $0 $0 $316,000
Thorseggen FT $36,925 $57,973 $31,805 $97,240 $163,367 $23,725 $25,188 $0 $0 $0 $436,000
Note: (1) One million dollars were added for a dolphin system at the Terminal T121.
- 74 - E N V I R O N
5.3.9 Summary of Reel Tower Annual Labor Costs
Table 5-6 summarizes annual labor costs associated with energizing and de-energizing the high voltage from the terminal substation to the vessel. The hourly rate for the electrician to perform this is the same used for the work-barge scenario.
Table 5-6. Summary of Reel Tower Annual Labor Costs
Vessel Name
Ecstasy Alaskan
Frontier Chevron
Washington Groton Pyxis
Berth Calls 52 15 16 24 9
Electrician $55,000 $16,000 $17,000 $25,000 $10,000
Contingency 30% $16,000 $5,000 $5,000 $8,000 $3,000
Total $71,000 $21,000 $22,000 $33,000 $13,000
5.4 Vessel Conversion Analysis
5.4.1 Method of Analysis
This analysis evaluates the cost impacts associated with conve rsion of vessel-board power distribution systems to permit a complete shutdown of the vessel’s electrical power generating plant while using shore facility power to supply all in-port electrical needs. Most vessels currently in service are designed with a shore power capability that is only intended to support an extended berthing period. During such a time, only hotel loads and support services deemed necessary to ensure personnel safety and equipment protection are considered to be in operation. This limited capability cannot accommodate operating propulsion equipment and auxiliaries or equipment associated with cargo handling operations.
The study examined several types and sizes of vessels, and considered the pier-side operations conducted, and the configuration of the platform. Typical vessels of each type were selected based on reported power requirements received from the vessel owners. In cases where no owner input was received, power loads were estimated based on comparison with similar vessels, judgment, and experience. Conceptual designs for supplying shore power to the existing vessel service switchboard were developed. Costs to supply and install such a shore power feed system were then estimated. It must be noted that the cost estimates are a rough order of magnitude budgetary figures, not prepared with the benefit of vessel arrangement drawings or site surveys. This study made assumptions that may not reflect the most appropriate solution or may not be possible in any actual individual situation.
- 75 - E N V I R O N
Each specific vessel must ultimately be evaluated based on an on-vessel survey to determine the validity of the assumptions made and to establish the most effective and efficient method for implementing the intended result. This evaluation must include confirmation of:
(1) electric power requirements;
(2) location of shore power connection boxes;
(3) establishment of cable routing between the shore power connection box and the switchboard;
(4) evaluation of the existing switchboard design and the feasibility of modifying the switchboard in order to accept a large capacity shore power feed;
(5) identification of specific structural modifications associated with installation of the shore power receptacles, cables and switchboard modifications; and
(6) requirements of the specific Classification Society for the vessel.
The general standards and requirements of the United States Coast Guard (US Coast Guard) and American Bureau of Shipping (ABS) applied to all 12 vessels in the analysis. The evaluation of individual vessels is presented in Appendix F.
5.4.2 Vessel Analysis Cost Summary
Table 5-7 is a summary of the vessels, shore power requirements, and costs. Appendix F provides a detailed cost breakdown for each of the evaluated vessels.
Table 5-7. Vessel Analysis Cost Summary
Vessel KW Volts Amperes Cost Victoria Bridge 700 450 1120 $296,000
Hanjin Paris 4800 450 7700 $1,106,000 Lihue 1700 450 2800 $452,000
OOCL California 5200 450 8300 $977,000 Chiquita Joy 3500 450 5600 $751,000
Ecstasy 7000 6600 765 $574,000 Alaskan Frontier 7800 6600 850 $457,000
Chevron Washington 2300 4160 400 $380,000 Groton 300 450 480 $202,000
Ansac Harmony 600 450 960 $296,000 Pyxis 1500 450 2420 $414,000
Thorseggen 600 450 960 $236,000
- 76 - E N V I R O N
5.5 Conclusions and Overall Cost Summary
The analysis of electrical power infrastructure design provided in this study was predicated on bringing a total of 40 kVA of new electrical power to 12 terminals to cold iron vessels that would call to selected berths. This included new overhead SCE transmission lines and poles from an existing substation about four miles from the Port, associated equipment, underground distribution lines to the limits of each terminal, metering, underground distribution lines in the terminal, terminal substations, wharf vaults, a wharf side method to deliver power to the vessel, and vessel electrical retrofitting. The wharf side methods to deliver vessel power included work-barges and cable reel towers, mounted either on the existing wharf structure or on a dolphin.
The breakdown costs for these improvements are summarized in Table 5-8.
Table 5-8. Overall Cost Summary
Vessel Name Vessel side ($)
SCE ($)
Terminal ($)
Work-barge ($)
Terminal O&M ($/yr)
Workboat O&M ($/yr)
Victoria Bridge $296,000 $944,000 $402,000 $1,805,000 $49,000 $350,000
Hanjin Paris $1,106,000 $3,039,000 $360,000 $2,216,000 $49,000 $462,000
Lihue $452,000 $941,000 $575,000 $2,048,000 $49,000 $530,000
OOCL California $977,000 $761,000 $305,000 $2,216,000 $49,000 $6,000,000
Chiquita Joy $751,000 $977,000 $496,000 $2,048,000 $49,000 $979,000
Ecstasy $574,000 $2,323,000 $756,000 $0 $71,000 $0
Alaskan Frontier $457,000 $2,413,000 $1,642,000 $0 $21,000 $0
Chevron Washington $380,000 $796,000 $513,000 $0 $22,000 $0
Groton $202,000 $495,000 $592,000 $0 $33,000 $0
Ansac Harmony $296,000 $717,000 $413,000 $1,805,000 $49,000 $150,000
Pyxis $414,000 $707,000 $316,000 $0 $12,000 $0
Thorseggen $236,000 $567,000 $436,000 $1,805,000 $49,000 $641,000
- 77 - E N V I R O N
6.0 COLD IRONING COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS
6.1 Methodology and Assumptions
This section provides a cost effectiveness analysis for providing shore based electrical power (cold ironing) to 12 selected vessels calling at the Port of Long Beach (Table 6-1). Cold ironing would greatly reduce emissions from vessels while they are hotelling (i.e., operating diesel- fired generators while at berth). Cost effectiveness of a proposed control measure is the cost of the control measure required to achieve a given emission reduction. Costs, expressed as Net Present Value (NPV), consist of the one-time capital costs of construction and the present value of ongoing operating and maintenance costs. This study applied the Discounted Cash Flow (DCF) method, as recommended by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) in its Best Available Control Technology (BACT) Guidance (SCAQMD, 2000).
Table 6-1. Selected Vessels and Berths in the Study
Vessel Type Vessel Name Vessel
ID Year Built
Pier & Berth
Average Power
Demand at Berth
(kW)
Average Berth Time
(hrs/call)
Calls per
Year
Container Victoria Bridge 9184926 1998 J232 600 44 10
Container Hanjin Paris 9128128 1997 T136 4,800 63 10
Container Lihue 7105471 1971 C62 1,700 50 16 Container/
Reefer OOCL California 9102289 1996 F8 5,200 121 8
Reefer Chiquita Joy 9038945 1994 E24 3,500 68 25
Cruise Ecstasy 8711344 1991 H4 7,000 12 52
Tanker Alaskan Frontier NA 2004 T121 3,780 33 15
Tanker Chevron Washington 7391226 1976 B84 2,300 32 16
Tanker Groton 7901928 1982 B78 300 56 24
Dry Bulk Ansac Harmony 9181508 1998 G212 1,250 60 1
RO-RO Pyxis 8514083 1986 B83 1,510 17 9
Break Bulk Thorseggen 8116063 1983 D54 600 48 21
- 78 - E N V I R O N
The following assumptions were applied in order to complete cost effectiveness calculations for cold ironing:
(1) All vessels are able to dock at the designated pier and berth listed in Table 6-1 every time they call at the Port2;
(2) Electrical power is purchased from SCE at its current TOU-8 Tariff;
(3) Air emissions from work-barge during vessels berth time are negligible and therefore are not counted in the calculation of net emission reductions;
(4) A real interest rate is four percent (4%). The real interest rate is the difference between market interest and inflation, which typically remains constant at 4% (SCAQMD, 2000);
(5) Cold ironing has 10 years project life as the standard used in SCAQMD cost effectiveness evaluation;
(6) All vessels have 15 years of service life. If a vessel was over 15 years old already in 2003, it is assumed that it has additional 5 years in service. It is also assumed that at the retirement of the current vessels that would occur before the end of the 10 year project life, the shipping line would retrofit another identical vessel for cold ironing and this vessel would call at same pier and berth for the rest of the project life;
(7) All particulate matter emissions from vessel auxiliary generators are smaller than or equal to 10 microns or micrometers (PM10); and all hydrocarbons (HC) emitted from vessel auxiliary generators are Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs); and
(8) Costs for terminal business interruption due to terminal facility construction are not considered but were discussed.
Many emission control measures reduce only a single pollutant, such as nitrogen oxides (NOx) or PM10, but some reduce multiple combustion-generated pollutants. The cost effectiveness calculations considered the total amount of criteria pollutant emission reductions, treating each pollutant as equally important. While there are varying health effects for each pollutant, there is no standard method for taking those differences into account in cost effectiveness evaluations.
After emission reductions and the total NPV of cold ironing for each vessel at the designated berth were estimated, cost effectiveness was first calculated via the formula used by SCAQMD in a multiple pollutant rule development process:
- 79 - E N V I R O N
Total Net Present Value ($) Cost Effectiveness ($/ton)=
Total Emission Reduction of All Pollutants over the Project Life (tons)
6.2 Potential Emission Reductions from Cold Ironing
Cold ironing a vessel by shutting down its auxiliary diesel generators at berth would achieve significant emission reductions 3 (see Section 4 of this report).
The use of shore generated electrical power for cold ironing would increase air emissions from power plants in the region. To account air emissions associated with shore power generation, this study utilized emission factors derived from AP-42 by assuming in-basin power generation are conventional natural gas fired steam plants with selective catalytic reduction (SCR) for NOx control and with no CO catalyst. Table 6-3 provides emission factors for criteria pollutants from natural gas fired steam power plants. The study assumed that all power used for cold ironing was generated from steam power plants within the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB), but to the extent that the power would be generated by other means and/or at plants outside the SCAB, these estimates may be conservative.
Table 6-3. Emission Factors for Natural Gas Steam Power Generation
Emission Factor Air Pollutant
lbs/MMcf lbs/MMBtu1 lb/MW-hr2
NOx 10 0.0095 0.11
CO 84 0.0800 0.96
PM (assumed PM10) 7.6 0.0072 0.087
SO2 0.6 0.0006 0.0069
VOC 5.5 0.0052 0.063 1- heating value of natural gas = 1,050 Btu/scf 2- power generation heat rate = 12,000 Btu/kW-hr
Comparing these factors to the vessels’ electrical generation emissions indicates that shore power would reduce NOx emissions by 99% and PM emission rates by 83% to 97%. Based on emissions data from the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), PM emissions from diesel engines are more detrimental to human health than PM emissions from natural gas combustion. Table 6-4 presents emission reductions from cold 2 Some vessels currently call at multiple berths. If the assumption used cannot be accommodated, the cost effectiveness value will increase due to the need to provide shore-side electrical facilities at multiple berths. 3 One and one half hours (45 minutes on each end of each port call) was subtracted from the average time at berth time to account for the time to transition to and from shore power, when the ships’ generators would still be operating. The actual transition time will vary.
- 80 - E N V I R O N
ironing, after subtracting associated shore power generating emissions; note that using shore generated power could increase CO emissions for Chevron Washington (gas turbine powered) and Lihue (steam turbine powered). Also as stated, work-barge emissions are not considered in the calculation of net emission reduction.
Table 6-4. Potential Net Emission Reduction from Cold Ironing
Potential Net Emission Reductions (tons/yr) Vessel Name
VOC CO NOx PM10 SOx Combined
Victoria Bridge 0.0 0.6 3.8 0.4 3.5 8.3
Hanjin Paris 0.6 0.9 53.8 4.8 40.4 100.3
Lihue 0.1 -0.2(1) 4.0 3.6 22.8 30.2
OOCL California 0.6 11.3 73.3 8.1 68.4 161.6
Chiquita Joy 0.7 13.1 85.1 9.4 79.5 187.9
Ecstasy 0.7 1.1 69.1 6.2 51.9 129.0
Chevron Washington 0.1 -0.4(1) 7.4 0.2 1.5 8.7
Groton 0.1 0.5 4.3 0.1 0.1 5.3
Alaskan Frontier 0.3 0.5 25.3 2.9 24.4 53.4
Ansac Harmony 0.0 0.1 0.5 0.1 0.5 1.2
Pyxis 0.0 0.5 3.2 0.4 3.0 7.0
Thorseggen 0.1 1.3 8.6 0.1 0.6 10.7
Total 3.2 29.1 338.2 36.4 296.7 703.6
As described earlier, cost effectiveness is function of total NPV and potential emission reduction of all pollutants over the 10 years project life. Combined emission reduction in tons per year, calculated by adding the 5 individual pollutants, and multiplied by the project life, gives the potential emission reduction of all pollutants over the 10 year project life.
6.3 Initial Capital Investment for Cold Ironing
The one-time initial capital investment for cold ironing consists of the following costs:
Table 6-5 summarizes costs for improving Southern California Edison (SCE) infrastructure and to provide terminal substations as described in Section 5 of this report.
- 81 - E N V I R O N
Table 6-5. Power Infrastructure Cost By Individual Berth
Pier Berth Vessel Selected Terminal
Operator SCE System Terminal Substation Total
J232 Victoria Bridge ITS $944,000 $402,000 $1,346,000
T136 Hanjin Paris TTI $3,039,000 $400,000 $3,498,000
C62 Lihue SSA $941,000 $575,000 $1,516,000
F8 OOCL California LBCT $761,000 $305,000 $1,066,000
E24 Chiquita Joy CUT $977,000 $496,000 $1,473,000
H4 Ecstasy CARNIVAL $2,323,000 $1,531,000 $3,855,000
T121 Alaskan Frontier ARCO $2,413,000 $1,642,000 $4,055,000
B84 Chevron Washington SHELL $796,000 $513,000 $1,309,000
B78 Groton ARCO $495,000 $592,000 $1,087,000
G212 Ansac Harmony MS $717,000 $413,000 $1,129,000
B83 Pyxis TOYOTA $707,000 $316,000 $1,023,000
D54 Thorseggen FT $567,000 $436,000 $1,003,000
-- -- Total $14,681,000 $7,582,000 $22,263,000
(1) The study assumed (Section 5) that work-barges would be required for container vessels, due to the difficulty of using land-based electrical supplies. Costs to fabricate work-barges were estimated for all vessels except Ecstasy, Chevron Washington, Groton, Alaskan Frontier, and Pyxis. It should be noted that new fabricated work-barges would not have to be dedicated to a specific vessel; making them available to serve other vessels would make cold ironing more cost effective. The estimated work-barge costs are listed in Table 6-6.
Table 6-6. Work-barge Capital Cost
Pier and Berth Vessel Selected Terminal Operator Cost
J232 Victoria Bridge ITS $1,805,000
T136 Hanjin Paris TTI $2,216,000
C62 Lihue SSA $2,048,000 F8 OOCL California LBCT $2,216,000
E24 Chiquita Joy CUT $2,048,000
H4 Ecstasy CARNIVAL Work-barge is not required T121 Alaskan Frontier ARCO Work-barge is not required
B84 Chevron Washington SHELL Work-barge is not required
B78 Groton ARCO Work-barge is not required
- 82 - E N V I R O N
Table 6-6. Work-barge Capital Cost
Pier and Berth Vessel Selected Terminal Operator Cost
G212 Ansac Harmony MS $1,805,000
B83 Pyxis TOYOTA Work-barge is not required
D54 Thorseggen FT $1,805,000
(2) Some cold- ironed vessels would incur costs for retrofitting replacement vessels when they retire or are removed from POLB service. The study assumed that shipping lines would spend the same amount of money to retrofit a vessel for replacement at the time the retirement or removal from POLB service of the current vessel. This assumption may be conservative because retrofitting a future vessel for cold ironing would cost more comparing to order future vessels with cold ironing capability already installed. To calculate the net present value of costs for retrofitting replacement vessels, the study applied a future-to-present value factor, at 4% interest rate and current vessel remaining service life. The replacement vessel for Lihue, which is a steamship, would more likely be a diesel motor ship than a steamship. However, due to a lack of new vessel specifications, this study assumed an identical vessel would be retrofitted for cold ironing. Table 6-7 presents the initial capital cost, converted as net present value, for retrofitting the replacement vessels.
Table 6-7. Cost for Retrofitting Replacement Vessels at the Retirement of Current Selected Vessels
Vessel Name Service Years Left
Initial Retrofit Cost ($)
Future-to-Present Factor
Retrofit NPV for Replacement Vessel
($) Victoria Bridge 10 $296,000 01 0
Hanjin Paris 9 $1,106,000 0.7026 $777,000
Lihue 5 $452,000 0.8219 $372,000
OOCL California 8 $977,000 0.7307 $714,000
Chiquita Joy 6 $751,000 0.7903 $594,000
Ecstasy 3 $574,000 0.8890 $510,000
Chevron Washington 5 $380,000 0.8219 $312,000
Groton 5 $202,000 0.8219 $166,000
Alaskan Frontier 15 $457,000 01 0
Ansac Harmony 10 $296,000 01 0
Pyxis 5 $414,000 0.8219 $340,000
Thorseggen 5 $236,000 0.8219 $194,000 1 – If a vessel’s remaining service life is greater than 10-year project life, there will be no replacement vessel
- 83 - E N V I R O N
For the Hanjin Paris, the retrofit cost was based on a load of 4,800 kW as reported by the vessel (which includes 3,015 kW for refrigerated containers). This load is higher than the other three container vessels (700 kW for Victoria Bridge, 1,700 kW for Lihue, and 5,200 kW for OOCL California). In order to satisfy this load the number of cables and circuit breakers required on Hanjin Paris are proportionately higher than on the other three vessels and the estimated cost for installation accordingly higher. A comparison was made on cost per kW capacity. It shows that Hanjin Paris at $230/kW would be lower than the Lihue at $266/kW, the OOCL California at $190/kW, and the Victoria Bridge at $423/kW.
6.4 Operating and Maintenance Costs
Ongoing operating and maintenance (O&M) costs for cold ironing consist of the following:
(1) Purchased Power Costs.
SCE estimated annual purchased power cost for the 12 selected vessels based on the vessels’ port call activities and assumed time-of-use profiles. Current SCE TOU-8 primary rate schedule was applied for calculating the power cost for all vessels except for Hanjin Paris. Because of the existence of 66KV substation at Terminal T, TOU-8 Sub-transmission Voltage Service rate schedule was applied for that terminal. Appendix K of this report shows the details of the estimates. Table 6-8 summarizes the annual energy cost for the 12 selected vessels.
Table 6-8. Annual Purchased Power Cost
Vessel Name Vessel Operator Annual Purchased
Power Cost ($)
Effective Power Price ($/kW-hr)
Victoria Bridge K-line $79,000 $0.3073 Hanjin Paris HANJIN $485,000 $0.1644
Lihue Matson $329,000 $0.2490 OOCL California OOCL $1,203000 $0.2404
Chiquita Joy Great White $1,069,000 $0.1837 Ecstasy Carnival $1,052,000 $0.2752
Chevron Washington Chevron Texaco $302,000 $0.2872 Groton BP $85,000 $0.2162
Alaskan Frontier Alaska Tanker $504,000 $0.2823 Ansac Harmony Transmarine $24,000 $0.6856
Pyxis Toyofuji $109,000 $0.5060 Thorseggen Seaspan $132,000 $0.2257
- 84 - E N V I R O N
(2) Fuel Cost Savings
Vessels would receive a fuel cost benefit by purchasing shore generated power instead of running auxiliary diesel engines. Table 6-9 gives the estimated fuel savings for each vessel based on the fuel consumption rates while hotelling (Table 7-4 of Section 7) and recent snapshot prices for MGO and HFO diesel fuels of $303 and $163 per metric ton, respectively.
Table 6-9. Annual Fuel Savings
Fuel Savings Vessel Name Fuel Type (metric tons/yr) ($/yr)
Victoria Bridge HFO 57 $9,000 Hanjin Paris HFO 655 $106,000
Lihue HFO 371 $60,000 OOCL California HFO 1,111 $181,000
Chiquita Joy HFO 1,291 $210,000 Ecstasy HFO 842 $137,000
Chevron Washington MGO 330 $100,000 Groton MGO 87 $26,000
Alaskan Frontier HFO 397 $64,000 Ansac Harmony HFO 8 $1,000
Pyxis HFO 48 $8,000 Thorseggen HFO 130 $39,000
(3) Landside Facility Operating and Maintenance Costs
Landside facility O&M costs, including work-barge costs, were estimated in Section 5.5 of this report, and summarized in Table 6-10.
Table 6-10. Landside Facility O&M Costs
Pier and Berth Terminal Operator Cost ($/year)
J232 ITS $399,000 T136 TTI $511,000 C62 SSA $579,000 F8 LBCT $649,000
E24 CUT $1,028,000 H4 CARNIVAL $71,000
T121 ARCO $21,000 B84 SHELL $22,000
- 85 - E N V I R O N
Table 6-10. Landside Facility O&M Costs
Pier and Berth Terminal Operator Cost ($/year)
B78 ARCO $33,000 G212 MS $199,000 B83 TOYOTA $12,000 D54 FT $690,000
6.5 Cost Effectiveness of Cold Ironing
Tables 6-11 and Figure 6-1 present the cost effectiveness of shore-side power using techniques described above; detailed calculations are included in Appendix J.
In Table 6-11, cost effectiveness equals the total Net Present Value ($) divided by the combined emission reduction of all pollutants over the 10-year project life. The most cost-effective vessels were Ecstasy, Chiquita Joy, OOCL California, Alaskan Frontier, And Hanjin Paris. The least cost-effective vessel was the Ansac Harmony. The Table 6-11 also gives the average cost effectiveness of the 12 selected vessels at $69,000 per ton, and the weighted average (total cost for all 12 vessels divided by the total emission reduction) at $16,000/ton. These two figures could be used to represent cold ironing technology in comparing with other control measures.
6.6 Candidate Vessels and Berths for Cold Ironing
Five vessels, based on the cost effectiveness values presented in Table 6-11, are considered cost-effective for cold ironing at the Port. Of the 12 vessels studied, these five vessels represent the best candidates for cold ironing. Table 6-12 lists these candidate vessels and associated piers and berths.
Comparing with other vessels, these five vessels have significantly higher hotelling power demand, longer berth time, and relatively frequent port calls. These factors contribute to significant energy consumption (kW-hr) and therefore offer a greater potential for achievable emission reductions. The emission data in Table 6-4 indicates that cold ironing these five of 12 vessels would achieve 90% of the emission reduction for all pollutants that emitted from all 12 vessels. These vessels have been evaluated as representative of the classes of vessels, and this result does not necessarily mean that these particular vessels should be retrofitted for cold ironing.
- 86 - E N V I R O N
Table 6-11. Cost Effectiveness Data and Results
Vessel Name Vessel Operator Vessel Type
Pier and Berth
Combined Emission
Reduction (tons/yr)
Total NPV ($)
Cost Effectiveness
($/ton) Rank
Victoria Bridge K-line Container J232 8.3 $7,251,000 $87,000 10
Hanjin Paris HANJIN Container T136 100.3 $14,717,000 $15,000 5
Lihue Matson Container C62 30.2 $11,266,000 $37,000 6
OOCL California OOCL Container F8 165 $18,527,000 $11,000 3
Chiquita Joy Great White Reefer E24 187.9 $20,155,000 $11,000 2
Ecstasy Carniva l Cruise H4 129.0 $12,160,000 $9,000 1
Chevron Washington Chevron Texaco Tanker B84 8.7 $3,817,000 $44,000 9
Groton BP Tanker B78 5.3 $2,202,000 $42,000 8
Alaskan Frontier Alaska Tanker Tanker T121 53.4 $8,251,000 $15,000 4
Ansac Harmony Transmarine Dry Bulk G212 1.2 $5,032,000 $426,000 12
Pyxis Toyofuji RO-RO B83 7.0 $2,693,000 $38,000 7
Thorseggen Seaspan Break Bulk D54 10.7 $9,589,000 $90,000 11
Average of All Vessels 59.0 $9,638,000 $69,000
Total of All Vessels 698.3 $108,409,000 $16,000
- 88 - E N V I R O N
-INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK-
- 89 - E N V I R O N
Table 6-12. Candidate Vessels and Berths for Cold Ironing
Vessels Name Vessel Type
Vessel Operator
Pier and Berth
Terminal Operator
Cost Effectiveness
($/ton) Ecstasy Cruise Carnival H4 Carnival $9,000
Chiquita Joy Reefer Great White E24 CUT $11,000
OOCL California Container/ Reefer OOCL F8 LBCT $11,000
Alaskan Frontier Tanker Alaska Tanker T121 BP/ARCO $15,000
Hanjin Paris Container HANJIN T136 TTI $15,000
6.7 Discussion on Cold Ironing Cost Effectiveness
This study evaluates the cost effectiveness of cold ironing on 12 vessels currently in service and their associated berths. Building new vessels and new terminals with cold ironing capabilities will improve cold ironing cost effectiveness and will avoid some of operational, engineering, and safety problems associated with the process of retrofitting in use vessels.
The cost effectiveness of cold ironing is based on the assumption that all construction of landside facilities at a specific berth, including SCE transmission and distribution infrastructure improvement, to serve a single selected vessel. If more vessels were to use the cold ironing facility, the cost effectiveness would be improved.
It is desirable to use a well-accepted cost effectiveness standard and to compare cold ironing technology to other off- road multi-pollutant control measures. California’s Carl Moyer program targets NOx emission reductions, and often is used to retrofit in use diesel engines. It has a limit of $13,600 per ton of NOx reduction. After consulting with the SCAQMD, this study evaluates cold ironing cost effectiveness by adding all pollutants together to form an over all emission reduction. It gives each pollutant an equal weight in the cost effectiveness value. This method has been used by the SCAQMD in a multiple pollutant rule development process.
The study evaluated the parameters that affect cost effectiveness. The evaluation shows that annual power consumption by the ship while hotelling shows the best correlation with cost effectiveness (Figure 6-2). This analysis shows that cold ironing is cost effective as a retrofit when the annual power consumption is one point eight million (1,800,000) kW-hr or more. For a new constructed vessel with cold ironing equipment installed calling at a new terminal with the needed power facilities, it would be cost–effective if the annual power consumption is greater than one point two million (1,500,000) kW-hrs.
- 90 - E N V I R O N
Figure 6-2. Cost Effectiveness vs. Annual Power Consumption
$0
$10
$20
$30
$40
$50
$60
$70
$80
$90
$100
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0
Power Consumption (Million kW-hr/year)
Cos
t Eff
ectiv
enes
s ($
1,00
0/to
n)
Chiquita Joy
OOCL California
Ecstasy
Hanjin Paris
Cost Effectiveness Threshold ($15,000/Ton of Emissions)
Ansac Harmony at $426,000
Alaskan Frontier
Thorseggen
Chervon Washington
Cost Effectiveness Threshold (1,800,000 kW-hr Annual Power Consumption)
REFERENCES
SCAQMD, 2000. “Best Available Control Technology Guidelines” South Coast Air Quality Management District. August 17, 2000
- 91 - E N V I R O N
7.0 ALTERNATIVE CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES
In recent years, concerns about air pollution in and around the ports of the U.S. have focused on controlling emissions from marine vessels. Since most marine vessels are equipped with uncontrolled diesel auxiliary engines that often burn high-sulfur heavy fuel oil, the exhaust emissions from these diesel engines are substantial, especially for nitrogen oxides (NOx), particulate matter (PM), and sulfur oxides (SOx).
This section presents the potential emission reductions benefits and associated capital and operating costs, as well as cost effectiveness values, of several alternative emission control technologies (i.e. other than “cold ironing”) for reducing emissions from on-board diesel generators of the twelve representative marine vessels while hotelling in the Port of Long Beach. These vessels were selected to represent a broad cross section of the ocean going vessels that call at the POLB, and their selection does not mean that those specific vessels should or should not be retrofitted.
In an early effort to control emissions from marine vessels, the International Maritime Organization (IMO), as part of the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL), adopted in 1997 the international protocol of Annex VI entitled “Regulations for the Prevention of Air Pollution from Ships” (IMO, 1997). The MARPOL’s Annex VI regulates main engine NOx levels, shipboard incinerators, fuel sulfur content and fuel quality, tanker vapor emission controls, and ozone depleting substances. The MARPOL Annex VI NOx standards for new engines, which were to have gone into effect in the year 2000, are shown in Table 7-1.
Table 7-1. MARPOL's ANNEX VI NOx Emission Standards.
Engine Speed (n) NOx (g/kW-hr)
n ≥ 2000 rpm 9.8
130 rpm ≤ n < 2000 rpm 4.5 x n-0.2
n < 130 rpm 17.0
In December 1999, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) adopted a set of federal marine diesel engine emission standards (the so-called Tier 2 standards) for Category 1 and Category 2 marine engines (USEPA, 1999-1). These standards apply to new commercial engines, both propulsion and auxiliary, rated at or above 37 kilowatts but displacing less than 30 liters per cylinder that are installed on U.S.-flagged vessels. In February 2003, the USEPA adopted a federal
- 92 - E N V I R O N
marine diesel emission standard for engines displacing 30 liters or greater per cylinder, the so-called Category 3 marine engines, which is similar to the MARPOL’s Annex VI. NOx limit for marine vessel engines (USEPA, 2003-1)4. Table 7-2 summarizes the USEPA federal marine diesel standards.
Table 7-2. USEPA Marine Emission Standards
NOx + HC PM CO
Category Displacement
(liters per cylinder) Starting Date (g/kW-hr)
1 Disp. < 5.0 2004 - 2007 7.2 – 7.5 0.20 - 0.40 5.0
2 5.0 ≤ Disp. < 30 2007 7.8 - 11.0 0.27 - 0.50 5.0
3 Disp. ≥ 30 2004 MARPOL NOx Standards
7.1 Characteristics and Emissions of Selected Marine Vessels
Emissions and fuel consumption estimates for the selected marine vessels are required to develop the cost effectiveness values for potential emission control technologies. Section 4 discusses the characteristics of these selected marine vessels in detail. Table 7-3 presents the key parameters used in the cost effectiveness analyses.
Table 7-3. Key Parameters of the Selected Marine Vessels
Vessel Name Calls per year
Service Years
Left (yr)
Time at Berth (hrs)
Load Factor
Generator (kW)
Fuel Type
Fuel Sulfur
%
Engine Category
Victoria Bridge 10 10 44 11% 5,440 HFO 2.8 2
Hanjin Paris 10 9 63 63% 7,600 HFO 2.8 3
Lihue 16 5 50 63% 2,700 HFO 2.8 Steam
OOCL California 8 8 121 62% 8,400 HFO 2.8 2
Chiquita Joy 25 6 68 62% 5,620 HFO 2.8 2
Ecstasy 52 3 12 66% 10,560 HFO 2.8 3
Chevron Washington 16 5 32 89% 2,600 MGO 0.2 Gas turbine
Groton 24 5 56 23% 1,300 MGO 0.2 1
Alaskan Frontier 15 15 33 15% 25,200 HFO 2.8 3
Ansac Harmony 1 10 60 50% 1,250 HFO 2.8 2
Pyxis 9 5 17 70% 2,160 HFO 2.8 2
Thorseggen 21 5 48 29% 2,100 MGO 0.2 2
4 Note that these standards apply only to U.S. flagged vessels which represent a small fraction of the vessels that call at Long Beach; foreign-flagged vessels are governed by the MARPOL standards.
- 93 - E N V I R O N
Table 7-4 presents estimated annual emissions, electric power usage, and fuel consumption while hotelling for these selected marine vessels. The study calculated the power consumption in MW-hr per year from the average load shown in Table 4-6 in Section 4.
Table 7-4. Annual Hotelling Emissions and Fuel Consumption for Selected Marine Vessels
VOC CO NOx PM SOx Vessel Name
(Short Tons/yr) Fuel Usage
(Metric Tons/yr) Power Usage (MW-hr/yr)
Victoria Bridge 0.04 0.7 3.8 0.4 3.5 57 257
Hanjin Paris 0.65 2.3 53.9 4.9 40.4 655 2,952
Lihue 0.10 0.40 4.10 3.64 22.8 371 1,324
OOCL California 0.70 13.7 73.5 8.36 68.4 1,111 5,003
Chiquita Joy 0.86 15.9 85.5 9.7 79.5 1,291 5,815
Ecstasy 0.83 2.9 69.3 6.3 51.9 842 3,795
Chevron Washington 0.09 0.1 7.4 0.3 1.5 330 1,123
Groton 0.12 0.6 4.3 0.1 0.4 87 391
Alaskan Frontier 0.39 1.4 25.3 3.0 24.4 397 1,786
Ansac Harmony 0.01 0.1 0.5 0.1 0.5 8 37
Pyxis 0.03 0.6 3.2 0.4 3.0 48 217
Thorseggen 0.09 1.6 8.6 0.1 0.6 130 585
7.2 Alternative Emission Control Technologies
This study evaluated the following emission control technologies for reducing hotelling emissions from the marine vessel diesel generators:
(1) Engine repowering or replacement, including
• Repowering with US EPA Tier 2 Engines and
• Repowering with LNG/Dual-FuelTM Engines.
(2) Clean fuel strategy, including
• Marine Gas Oil (MGO) Fuel;
• California on-road #2 diesel fuel;
• Emulsified diesel fuel;
• Fischer-Tropsch diesel fuel; and
- 94 - E N V I R O N
• Bio-diesel fuel (B100).
(3) Combustion management, including
• Injection timing delay;
• Direct water injection (DWI);
• Humid air motor (HAM); and
• Exhaust gas recirculation (EGR).
(4) Exhaust gas treatment, including
• Diesel oxidation catalyst with California on-road #2 diesel;
• Catalyzed diesel particulate filter with California on-road #2 diesel; and
• Selective catalytic reduction (SCR).
(5) Cryogenic refrigerated containers (CRC).
Some more advanced concepts for emission control were not investigated in this study such as fuel-cell technology, non-thermal plasma technology, NOx adsorbers, lean NOx catalyst, battery-electric technology, and flywheel technology. At this time, there is not enough information about these technologies available to assess their feasibility for marine vessel hotelling applications.
The feasibility of many near-term (i.e., within the next ten years) technologies for marine applications or stationary diesel generators has been investigated and discussed elsewhere (BAE 2000, CALSTART 2002, CEC 2001, ENVIRON 2003, US EPA 1999-2, US EPA 2003-2, JJMA-BAH 2002, MAN-B&W 2002, NESCAUM 2003, SIEMENS 2002, Ricardo 2002, Seaworthy 2002, Starcrest 2002). This section discusses the general operating principles, costs and practical application of each of the near-term control technologies, and presents the cost effectiveness values of these technologies for reducing hotelling emissions for the selected marine vessels. There are many additional issues outside of the scope of this study that require more investigation including safety of fuels and hardware, practical considerations of the size and cost of new and/or additional engines and fuel systems, compatibility of fuels and engines, and other issues that may be discovered only during the implementation of these alternative methods. In most cases, the measures reviewed below have not been employed on large commercial vessels.
- 95 - E N V I R O N
The following key issues are among many factors considered in the evaluation of the proposed alternative technologies:
• Identification of technologies that reduce diesel particulate matter, which is a California Air Resources Board (CARB) listed toxic air contaminant;
• Availability of equipment and fuel(s) associated with the technology;
• Extent of infrastructure impact on vessels and/or on land during implementation; and
• Operational practicability, including safety issues.
The following assumptions were made in order to complete cost effectiveness analyses for the alternative technologies:
(1) The real interest rate is 4% and the project life is 10 years. The real interest rate is the difference between market interest and inflation, which typically remains constant at 4% (SCAQMD, 2000);
(2) All vessels have 15 years of service life. If a vessel is already more than 15 years old, it is assumed to have an additional 5 years in service.
(3) All particulate matter emissions from vessel auxiliary generators are smaller than 10 microns or micrometers (PM10) and all hydrocarbons (HC) emitted from vessel auxiliary generators are Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs); and
(4) The cost for the time out of service due to vessel retrofitting was not included in this study.
Many emission control measures reduce only a single pollutant, such as nitrogen oxides (NOx) or PM10, but some reduce multiple combustion-generated pollutants. The cost effectiveness calculations considered the total quantity of criteria pollutant emission reductions, treating each pollutant as equally important. While there are varying health effects for each pollutant, there is no standard method for taking those differences into account in cost effectiveness evaluations. After estimating potential emission reductions and the total NPV of each control technology for each vessel, cost effectiveness was calculated using the following formula, which has been used by SCAQMD in a multiple pollutant rule development process.
Total Net Present Value ($) Cost Effectiveness =
Total Emission Reduction of All Pollutants over the Project Life (tons)
This method provides cost effectiveness values in dollar per ton of reduction and a ranking among the 12 vessels. There is no broadly accepted method for calculating a cost effectiveness threshold
- 96 - E N V I R O N
for control measures for multiple pollutants. The cost effectiveness values for cold ironing the 12 study vessels have a significant break as shown on Figure 1-3, where the most cost-effective vessels have values less than $15,000/ton, and the other vessels are far higher than that value. For comparison, the SCAQMD Governing Board Policy for VOC is not to adopt retrofit rules that cost more than $13,500/ton unless special analyses are done. The Carl Moyer program has a threshold for NOx emissions of $13,600/ton of NOx for projects that use that funding mechanism. Table 7-5 shows selected cost effectiveness values. Based on the break in the cold ironing values and the comparison with other cost effectiveness thresholds, $15,000 /ton of total pollutant removed was selected as the cost effectiveness threshold for other alternative control measures as well.
Table 7-5. Selected Cost Effectiveness Values ($/ton Reduced)
Pollutant Carl Moyer Threshold
SCAQMD AQMP Values
for School Buses
SCAQMD Board VOC
Retrofit Threshold
SCAQMD BACT
Threshold
NOx $13,600 $18,300
PM10 $15,000 – $110,000 $4,300
SO2 $9,700
CO $380
ROG (equal to VOC) $13,500 $19,400
7.2.1 Repowering with NG/Dual-FuelTM Engines
This strategy repowers or replaces older, uncontrolled diesel generator engines in the marine vessels with natural gas (NG) or Dual-Fuel engines. This strategy would require a natural gas refueling infrastructure in sufficient locations to supply the fuel demands globally, and on-board storage for natural gas fuel; therefore, it would require a substantial capital cost.
Emissions data for NG marine engines provided in the CALSTART 2002 study indicate that NG marine engines would reduce NOx emissions by 90%, PM emissions by 94%, and SOx emissions by 99% (CALSTART, 2002). The CALSTART study estimated the capital cost for an NG engine and its refueling infrastructure to be about $165 to $202 per kilowatt. The same study also estimated the fuel cost penalty to be 30% based on the differential in fuel consumption and fuel costs per British Thermal Unit (BTU)5. While NG/Dual Fuel engines have been used in many applications, including automotive, transit and stationary generators, there have been few uses of these engines in marine applications as either propulsion, auxiliary or generator engines. This is mainly due to fuel storage and safety issues, as natural gas would have to be stored in high-pressure cylinders as 5 The CALSTART study estimated that the MGO fuel cost was $1.08/gallon and the CNG fuel cost was $1.40/gge.
- 97 - E N V I R O N
compressed natural gas or in cryogenic tanks as liquid natural gas. The application constraints associated with this technology are primarily the absence of fueling facilities, the current limited availability of natural gas at the POLB, the lack of on-board fuel storage, and operating safety. As the POLB is currently evaluating a major liquefied natural gas (LNG) receiving terminal, the availability condition may change. Also, as with any marine engine replacement, there could be significant problems installing and fitting the engine and fuel system in the available engine compartment.
Tables 7-6 and Table 7-7 present the potential emissions reductions and cost effectiveness values for the selected marine vessels using this (NG) or Dual-Fuel engine strategy, respectively. As shown in Table 7-7, repowering with NG/Dual Fuel engines is cost effective in reducing hotelling emissions from these vessels except for the Ansac Harmony. Detail cost effectiveness calculations are included in Appendix L.
Table 7-6. Potential Emission Reductions for Repowering with NG/Dual FuelTM Engines
NOx PM SOx Vessel Name Short Tons/yr
Victoria Bridge 3.40 0.40 3.48 Hanjin Paris 48.54 4.64 39.96
Lihue 3.69 3.42 22.57 OOCL California 66.90 7.86 67.75
Chiquita Joy 76.92 9.13 78.73 Ecstasy 62.40 5.96 51.37
Chevron Washington 6.67 0.27 1.44 Groton 3.87 0.09 0.38
Alaskan Frontier 22.81 2.81 24.18 Ansac Harmony 0.48 0.06 0.49
Pyxis 2.86 0.34 2.93 Thorseggen 7.74 0.14 0.57
Table 7-7. Cost Effectiveness of Repowering with NG/Dual FuelTM Engines
Vessel Name Capital Cost ($)
Fuel Cost Increase ($/year)
Total NPV Cost ($)
Cost Effectiveness
($/ton)
Cost-Effective? (Yes/No)
Victoria Bridge 998,240 2,778 1,021,000 14,000 Yes Hanjin Paris 1,394,600 31,944 1,682,000 2,000 Yes
Lihue 495,450 18,086 576,000 4,000 Yes OCCL California 1,541,400 54,161 1,906,000 2,000 Yes
Chiquita Joy 1,031,270 62,937 1,361,000 1,000 Yes
- 98 - E N V I R O N
Table 7-7. Cost Effectiveness of Repowering with NG/Dual FuelTM Engines
Vessel Name Capital Cost ($)
Fuel Cost Increase ($/year)
Total NPV Cost ($)
Cost Effectiveness
($/ton)
Cost-Effective? (Yes/No)
Ecstasy 1,937,760 41,068 2,052,000 6,000 Yes Chevron Washington 477,100 29,959 610,000 15,000 Yes
Groton 238,550 7,869 274,000 13,000 Yes Alaskan Frontier 4,624,200 19,330 4,849,000 10,000 Yes Ansac Harmony 229,375 396 233,000 22,000 No
Pyxis 396,360 2,344 407,000 13,000 Yes Thorseggen 385,350 11,790 438,000 10,000 Yes
7.2.2 Low-Sulfur Marine Gas Oil (MGO) Diesel Fuel
The MGO Diesel Fuel strategy assumes the use of MGO diesel fuel, which has a sulfur content of 0.2%, in those marine vessels that use Heavy Fuel Oil (HFO) diesel fuel, which has a sulfur content of 2.8%. Using MGO diesel fuel instead of HFO diesel fuel will reduce PM and SO2 emissions by about 85% and 90%, respectively (see Appendix D), but would not reduce emissions of NOx, CO or VOC. This study assumed that there would be a one-time capital cost of about $50,000 to clean the main fuel tank, service tank, and fuel supplying system, to replace fuel filters etc. in order to switch from HFO to MGO diesel fuel. The only other cost associated with this strategy is the incremental fuel cost6.
The potential emission reductions and cost effectiveness values for the use of MGO diesel fuel for the selected marine vessels are presented in Table 7-8 and Table 7-9, respectively. Except for three vessels already using the MGO fuel, use of MGO is considered cost effective and provides significant PM and SOx emission reductions.
One challenge of this control strategy would be to develop an in-use compliance mechanism to ensure that MGO fuel is actually used in the generators while these vessels are hotelling at the berths.
According to the ISO standards 8217 and 2719, marine fuel must have a flashpoint of a minimum of 60oC. According to SOLAS Chapter 11-2, part B, Regulation 4, no fuel oil with a flashpoint of less than 60oC shall be used. The flashpoint of MGO fuel is between 57oC and 69oC. A specific MGO should be used only if its flash point is greater than 60oC.
6 Snap-shot prices of the recent MGO and HFO diesel fuels of $303 and $163 per metric ton, respectively, were used in the cost effectiveness analyses (see footnotes 2 and 3).
- 99 - E N V I R O N
Table 7-8. Emission Reductions from the Use of MGO Diesel Fuel
PM SOx Vessel Name Short Tons/yr
Victoria Bridge 0.36 3.16 Hanjin Paris 4.19 36.3
Lihue 3.09 20.5 OOCL California 7.11 61.59
Chiquita Joy 8.26 71.6 Ecstasy 5.39 46.7
Chevron Washington NA NA Groton NA NA
Alaskan Frontier 2.54 22.0 Ansac Harmony 0.05 0.45
Pyxis 0.31 2.67 Thorseggen NA NA
Table 7-9. Cost Effectiveness of MGO Diesel Fuel
Vessel Name Capital Cost ($)
Fuel Cost Increase ($/year)
Total NPV Cost ($)
Cost Effectiveness
($/ton)
Cost-Effective? (Yes/No)
Victoria Bridge 50,000 8,000 115,000 3,000 Yes
Hanjin Paris 50,000 92,000 732,000 2,000 Yes
Lihue 50,000 52,000 281,000 2,000 Yes
OOCL California 50,000 156,000 1,097,000 2,000 Yes
Chiquita Joy 50,000 181,000 997,000 2,000 Yes
Ecstasy 50,000 118,000 377,000 2,000 Yes
Chevron Washington NA NA NA NA NA
Groton NA NA NA NA NA
Alaskan Frontier 50,000 56,000 500,000 2,000 Yes
Ansac Harmony 50,000 1,000 59,000 12,000 Yes
Pyxis 50,000 7,000 80,000 5,000 Yes
Thorseggen NA NA NA NA NA
- 100 - E N V I R O N
7.2.3 Emulsified Diesel Fuel
This control strategy assumes that MGO or HFO would be replaced by emulsified diesel fuel in the auxiliary generators. Emulsified diesel fuel consists of regular diesel fuel to which water and stabilizing surfactants have been added. A similar measure that is likely more cost effective is to mix the fuel and water in the fuel line just prior to injection into the engine. This avoids the need to store and agitate emulsified fuel on the vessel. Emulsified fuels have been used in stationary, low-speed, diesel engine since the 1980’s. The NOx emission reductions are achieved by the lower peak combustion temperature provided by the cooling effect of the water in the fuel, and it is theorized that the PM reductions are achieved through fuel drop shattering when the water in the fuel drop spontaneously boils during combustion. Similar measures such as direct water injection or humidification of the inlet air would likely reduce NOx emissions without affecting PM emission rates.
Typically, 15% of the volume of emulsified diesel fuels is water, which lowers the energy content of the fuel. Two emulsified fuel suppliers, Lubrizol and Aquazole, are currently supplying emulsified diesel fuels in the California market. CARB has verified that Lubrizol’s PuriNOx emulsified diesel fuel can produce emission reductions of about 14% NOx, 63% PM, and 25% VOC.
The study assumed that switching HFO/MGO diesel fuel to emulsified diesel fuel would incur a one-time cost of about $50,000 per vessel to replace seals, pumps, lines, and filters, and to modify the fuel supply system to provide the fuel switching capability (i.e. installing a switching valve in the fuel line and other associated connections). In addition, supplying emulsified diesel fuel would require the use of either a service barge or an off-shore refueling station. An average capital cost of $450,000 is used in the cost effectiveness analysis to account either a service barge or an off-shore refuel station. Thus, the total capital cost for this strategy would be $500,000. This is conservative, as the cost of on-board emulsification would be much lower, assuming adequate water making capacity.
The other costs associated with this strategy are the incremental cost of the fuel and the fuel energy content penalty. Emulsified diesel fuel costs about $0.20 to $0.30 more per gallon relative to MGO. Combining the incremental fuel cost and cost associated with the fuel efficiency penalty, it is estimated that emulsified diesel fuel would cost about 35 to 50% more than regular fuel (Starcrest, 2002). For vessels currently operating on HFO, the cost and benefits of switching to MGO were also included.
The potential emission reductions and cost effectiveness values for the use of emulsified MGO diesel fuel instead of MGO or HFO fuel for the selected marine vessels are presented in Table 7-10 and Table 7-11, respectively.
- 101 - E N V I R O N
There are issues related to this strategy:
• The need for an in-use compliance mechanism to ensure the use of the emulsified diesel fuel in the generators while these vessels are at the berths;
• The uncertainty for supply of emulsified diesel fuel due to current limited production volume and supply infrastructure;
• Possible problems with long-term storage of the emulsified diesel fuel due to the separation of water and diesel fuel; and
• Effects on the engine including durability and lube oil changes.
If Lubrizol and Aquazole were to supply emulsified diesel fuels in California for the 6 vessels for which this strategy is cost-effective, it would require over 6,000 tons per year of emulsified diesel delivered to POLB. Fuel availability is considered a major constraint to this alternative. Because the Lihue is a steamship, it is not a suitable candidate for use of emulsified diesel fuel, as the study found no instances where it has been used in a boiler.
Table 7-10. Potential Emission Reductions from the Use of Emulsified Diesel Fuel and MGO Substitution
HC NOx PM SOX Vessel Name Short Tons/yr
Victoria Bridge 0.01 0.53 0.41 3.16 Hanjin Paris 0.16 7.55 4.66 36.33
OOCL California 0.19 10.30 7.90 61.59 Chiquita Joy 0.21 11.96 9.18 71.57
Ecstasy 0.21 9.71 5.99 46.70 Chevron Washington 0.02 1.04 0.18 -
Groton 0.03 0.60 0.06 - Alaskan Frontier 0.10 3.55 2.82 21.98 Ansac Harmony 0.00 0.08 0.06 0.45
Pyxis 0.01 0.45 0.34 2.67 Thorseggen 0.02 1.20 0.09 -
- 102 - E N V I R O N
Table 7-11. Cost and Cost Effectiveness Values of the use of
Emulsified Diesel and MGO Substitution
Vessel Name Capital Cost
($)
Fuel Cost Increase
($/yr)
Total NPV Cost ($)
Cost Effectiveness
($/ton)
Cost-Effective? (Yes/No)
Victoria Bridge 500,000 7,000 559,000 14,000 Yes
Hanjin Paris 500,000 84,000 1,257,000 3,000 Yes
OOCL California 500,000 142,000 1,462,000 2,000 Yes
Chiquita Joy 500,000 166,000 1,370,000 2,000 Yes
Ecstasy 500,000 108,000 801,000 4,000 Yes
Chevron Washington 500,000 42,000 689,000 111,000 No
Groton 500,000 11,000 550,000 159,000 No
Alaskan Frontier 500,000 51,000 913,000 3,000 Yes
Ansac Harmony 500,000 1,000 508,000 87,000 No
Pyxis 500,000 6,000 528,000 31,000 No
Thorseggen 500,000 17,000 574,000 87,000 No
7.2.4 Repowering with US EPA Tier 2 Engines
Repowering (i.e., replacing older, uncontrolled diesel with lower-emitting USEPA Tier 2 marine engines) is a widely employed strategy to reduce emissions from marine vessels. The California Carl Moyer program has funded several projects over the past 3 years to repower more than 190 marine engines at a total cost of about 14 million dollars. Unit costs ranged from $7,500 to $310,000 with the average cost of - $75,0007. Since the Tier 2 marine engine regulation is a NOx
control regulation, the Tier 2 engines would reduce NOx emissions without significantly affecting other criteria emissions, including diesel particulates.
This technology is more appropriate for small marine vessels such as tugboats, barges, or ferryboats rather than for oceangoing cargo vessels. It is therefore not effective for the POLB or shipping lines to implement.
7.2.5 Injection Timing Delay
The injection timing delay strategy is used to control NOx emissions from diesel engines by retarding the injection of the fuel into the combustion chamber, which results in a lower peak combustion temperature, and reduced emissions. However, retarding the injection timing generally 7 http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/moyer/appa.pdf
- 103 - E N V I R O N
increases PM and HC emissions, smoke production, and fuel consumption. The CALSTART study reported that the NOx reduction range for the injection timing delay strategy was 10 to 30%, with an average reduction of 19%, and the fuel penalty was about 4% (CALSTART, 2002). In addition, CALSTART estimated that the HC, CO, and PM emissions would increase by about 11% (CALSTART, 2002).
Because injection-timing delay unacceptably increases HC, CO and PM emissions, this strategy was eliminated for further consideration.
7.2.6 California On-Road Diesel (Diesel #2)
The California On-Road Diesel #2 fuel strategy assumes the use of this fuel instead of HFO or MGO diesel in selected vessels’ auxiliary engines. The California On-Road Diesel #2 fuel has much lower sulfur content (about 0.3% or 300 ppm) and aromatic content compared to HFO or MGO fuels. Using California On-Road Diesel #2 fuel instead of MGO or HFO fuel would reduce NOx emissions by about 6%8, PM by about 87%, and SO2 emissions by about 90% (see Appendix D). Some short haul marine applications, such as ferries and tug boats in California and Texas, and stationary diesel generators in California that are similar to the diesel generators in the studied vessels, are running on on-road diesel fuels, including California On-Road Diesel #2 and ultra low sulfur diesel fuel.
Past California experience has shown that switching between fuel types with significantly different fuel properties, such as cetane number, sulfur, and aromatic contents, could cause major fuel leakage due to oil-seal-related problems in diesel engines in use.
As with the MGO diesel fuel strategy, an issue with the use of California On-Road Diesel #2 Fuel would be to develop an in-use compliance mechanism to ensure the use of the correct fuel in the generators while these vessels are hotelling at the berths. There are several additional considerations with this lighter fuel including, availability, timely delivery of the fuel, and compatibility of the fuel and engine such as injector tolerances.
According to the ISO standards 8217 and 2719, marine fuel must have a flashpoint of a minimum of 60oC. According to SOLAS Chapter 11-2, part B, Regulation 4, no fuel oil with a flashpoint of less than 60oC shall be used. The flashpoint of California On-Road Diesel #2 Fuel is between 52oC and 60oC. Therefore this fuel should not be used with current formulations for hotelling operations in the Port of Long Beach.
8 “Input Factors For Large CI Engine Emission Inventory,” ARB Mail Out MO99_32.3, California Air Resources Board, Sacramento, California, 1999.
- 104 - E N V I R O N
7.2.7 Fische r-Tropsch Diesel Fuel
The Fischer-Tropsch Diesel Fuel strategy assumes the use of Fischer-Tropsch diesel fuel instead of MGO or HFO diesel fuel in the selected marine vessels’ auxiliary engines. Fischer-Tropsch diesel fuel, also referred to as gas-to- liquid or GTL diesel fuel, is a synthetic liquid fuel made from natural gas, coal, or biomass. This synthetic liquid fuel has no aromatics or sulfur, a low specific gravity, and an extremely high cetane level. Because of these properties, Fischer-Tropsch diesel fuel provides considerable reductions in PM, SOx, and VOC emissions, and a minor NOx emission reduction, compared to conventional diesel fuels. For example, compared to California on-road diesel #2 fuel, the Fischer-Tropsch diesel fuel provides reductions of about 23% in HC emissions, 39% in CO emissions, 5% in NOx emissions, and 30% in PM emissions (JMA&BAH, 2002). Compared to MGO and HFO diesel fuels, the PM emission reductions can be about 13% and 87%, respectively (see Appendix D). Since its sulfur content is extremely low (0 to 5 ppm), using Fischer-Tropsch diesel fuel essentially eliminates SOx emissions.
As with the other fuel strategies, it was assumed that switching HFO/MGO diesel fuel to Fischer-Tropsch diesel fuel would incur an one-time fuel switching cost of about $50,000 per vessel to replace seals, pumps, lines, filters, and to modify the fuel supply system to provide the fuel switching capability (i.e. installing a switching valve in the fuel line and other associated connections). In addition, supplying Fischer-Tropsch diesel fuel would require the use of either a service barge or an off-shore refueling station at the port. The California Energy Commission indicated that the although the nearest current GTL supplier is the 2,400 barrels per day Shell-Malaysia, Bintulu MSD plant in Malaysia, discussions are underway to develop a GTL production facility in Alaska capable of initially producing 40,000 barrels per day and with a goal of 300,000 barrels per day19.
There are issues related to this strategy:
• The need for an in-use compliance mechanism to ensure the use of the emulsified diesel fuel in the generators while these vessels are at the berths;
• The need for careful logistical planning due to the uncertainty of supply of Fischer-Tropsch diesel fuel as a result of current limited production volume and supply infrastructure; and
• The lack of known applications for marine propulsion, auxiliary or generators even though Fischer-Tropsch diesel fuel has been used as automotive diesel fuel and used in some stationary diesel generators.
- 105 - E N V I R O N
• There are several additional considerations with this lighter fuel including the flammability and volatility, availability or timely delivery of the fuel, and compatibility of the fuel and engine such as injector tolerances.
Thus, the Fischer-Tropsch diesel fuel technology is not a near term alternative for POLB.
7.2.8 Bio-Diesel Fuel
The Bio-Diesel Fuel strategy assumes the use of bio-diesel fuel instead of MGO or HFO diesel fuel in the marine vessels. Bio-diesel, chemically known as methyl or ethyl esters, is produced from vegetable oils or animal fats through a process known as "transesterification" with alcohol (methanol or ethanol) and catalysts. It yields a lower viscosity compound (methyl or ethyl esters) than the parent fats and oils by converting triglyceride compounds to glycerol (a by-product of the process) and removing the glycerol and the fatty acids. Methyl ester is produced when methanol is used in the transesterification process, and ethyl ester is produced when ethanol is used.
A USEPA report indicated that the use of 100% bio-diesel (B100) reduced PM emissions by about 50%, but increased NOx emissions by about 10%, compared with standard diesel fuels (US EPA, 2002). Since there is no sulfur in the fuel, using B100 fuel essentially eliminates SOx emissions.
A study for the San Francisco Bay Area Water Transit Authority reported that using bio-diesel reduced PM emissions by 30% and eliminated the SOx emissions, but increased NOx emissions 13%, compared to on-road diesel fuel (JJMA-BAH, 2002). The PM emission reductions are about 87% and 13%, respectively, compared to HFO and MGO diesel fuels (see Appendix D). This technology is eliminated from further evaluation because it unacceptably increases NOx emissions. Besides increasing NOx emissions, Bio-diesel is not available to meet substantial demand that would be posed by marine vessels.
7.2.9 Direct Water Injection
Direct water injection (DWI) technology involves introducing water into the combustion chamber of a diesel engine during the combustion process either directly or indirectly through the air intake manifold. Similar to emulsified diesel fuel, adding water into the combustion chamber during the combustion process reduces the peak combustion temperature, thus reducing the NOx emissions. Since the injection is controlled electronically, the DWI system provides greater flexibility in term of optimizing emission reductions while minimizing fuel penalty compared to emulsified diesel fuel. A major technical issue with the DWI system is the need to supply water, and thus water storage or increased load on the vessel water making capacity.
A study for the Port of New York & New Jersey reported that using the DWI system reduced NOx emissions by 40 to 50% (Starcrest, 2002). The capital cost of a DWI system was estimated to be
- 106 - E N V I R O N
$15 to $40 per kilowatt, which equates to $75,000-$200,000 for a large vessel with 5,000 kW of installed generator power, and the operational cost was estimated to be $1.30 to $3.40 per 1000 kilowatt-hours (Starcrest, 2002). DWI is clearly a cost-effective approach to controlling NOx emissions, but since it has no benefits in terms of PM or SOx, it is a less attractive approach. Therefore no further evaluation was performed.
7.2.10 Humid Air Motor (HAM)
The humid air motor (HAM) is another NOx emission reduction technology involving introducing humidified air into the combustion chamber to reduce the peak combustion temperature and the NOx emissions. The humid air motor requires the evaporation of water to humidify the intake air so that extra water can be introduced into the combustion chamber. The HAM technology has the similar effect on reducing NOx emissions as the emulsified diesel fuel or DWI system, but to a lesser extent as the amount of water that can be added is limited by the water vapor saturation point.
Similar to the direct water injection (DWI) technology, the humid air motor only reduces NOx emissions. As there is no reduction of other pollutants, including diesel particulate, this technology is not a candidate for the POLB or shipping lines.
7.2.11 Exhaust Gas Recirculation (EGR)
Exhaust gas recirculation (EGR) is an effective NOx emission reduction technology. Many heavy-duty diesel engine manufacturers in the U.S. have adopted EGR technology to meet the on-road 2007 emission standards. Similar to the effect of adding water into the combustion chamber, introducing a portion of the exhaust gas into the combustion chamber reduces the peak combustion temperature through heat absorption (i.e. due to the higher specific heat capacities of the exhaust gases mostly nitrogen, CO2 and vapor water). Displacing some intake air with exhaust gases reduces the oxygen concentration of the combustion air, thus also reducing the peak combustion temperature. The drawbacks with the EGR technology include some fuel penalty and increases in the PM, VOC, and CO emissions. Studies have showed that reducing NOx emissions by 20 to 30% may be achieved with a slight increase in the PM emissions. However, there is a substantial PM emission increase with NOx emission reduction of more than 30% via EGR (Starcrest, 2002). The estimated capital cost for an EGR system was about $20,000 per engine (Starcrest, 2002). The increasing PM, HC and CO emissions make this technology unfeasible for the POLB.
7.2.12 Diesel Oxidation Catalyst (DOC) with California On-road #2 Diesel Fuel
The diesel oxidation catalyst (DOC) promotes oxidation of CO, HC, toxic air compounds that are HCs, and the soluble organic fraction (SOF) of the PM in the diesel exhaust. In general, DOCs could effectively reduce 90% of the CO and HC emissions, and about 20% of PM emissions for diesel engines that use on-road diesel fuel. The use of DOC with non-road diesel fuel or marine
- 107 - E N V I R O N
diesel fuels, which have much higher sulfur contents, might actually increase the PM emissions due to the formation of sulfates from the oxidation of SO2 emissions.
For that reason, this strategy combines the use of DOCs with the use of low sulfur content California Diesel #2 fuel. By so doing, the PM emissions could be reduced by more than 85% and HC, CO and SO2 emissions could be reduced by about 90% (see Appendix D). The use of California on-road #2 diesel may have insignificant reduction of NOx emissions (~6%). The cost for a DOC system is estimated to be about $6 per kilowatt (Starcrest, 2002).
Although a DOC system is a mature technology widely used in stationary diesel engines, and on-road and off-road applications, including marine applications, it is essential to investigate the feasibility of retrofitting a DOC system in a specific vessel due to differences in engine operating and exhaust temperature conditions, and space constraints in engine and exhaust compartments. Not only must the device fit in the exhaust ducting, but it must be accessible for servicing by the engineering staff. Often insulation must be added for safety and to maintain catalyst temperatures. Because the Lihue is a steamship and the Chevron Washington is powered by a gas turbine, they are not suitable candidates for DOCs. In addition, according to the ISO standards 8217 and ISO 2719 marine fuel must have a flashpoint of a minimum of 60oC. According to SOLAS Chapter 11-2, part B, Regulation 4, no fuel oil with a flashpoint of less than 60oC shall be used. The flashpoint of California On-Road Diesel #2 Fuel is between 52oC and 60oC. Therefore, this fuel combination with DOC should not be used with current formulations and would not be feasible for hotelling operations in the Port of Long Beach.
7.2.13 Catalyzed Diesel Particulate Filter with California On-road #2 Diesel Fuel
Many engine and/or vehicle manufacturers are using or will be using exhaust after-treatment devices, such as diesel particulate filters (DPFs), to reduce PM emissions from on-road diesel vehicles. In addition, with the implementation of the statewide CARB Diesel Risk Reduction Program20, many existing on-road vehicles and off- road vehicles or engines will be required to retrofit DPFs to reduce PM emissions.
While some DPFs use filter media such as fiber wound, woven fiber and sintered metallic materials, most DPFs in the market use ceramic monolithic cells or honeycomb structures. A ceramic monolithic DPF has a honeycomb structure with canals that are alternatively closed at each end in a checkerboard pattern. With this arrangement, the DPF forces diesel exhaust gas to flow through the ceramic monolithic cells, and thus, traps the solid PM and other particles as the exhaust leaves the DPF. Most ceramic monolithic DPFs have PM control efficiencies of 90% or more.
As the PM starts to build up in the DPF, the filter must be cleaned by burning or otherwise removing the PM, which is commonly known as regeneration. If it is not regenerated, the DPF will
- 108 - E N V I R O N
eventually plug with PM and create unacceptable backpressure levels for the engine. The regeneration process can occur continuously within the DPF (such as passive-catalyzed DPFs and active DPFs that require external induced heat) or by physically removing the DPF for cleaning or purging. While self- regenerating DPFs are capable of burning off trapped PM while in operation, inorganic ash will plug the filter and most, if not all, of these DPFs will eventually plug due to accumulation of high ash PM loading and/or insufficient exhaust temperature to promote the catalytic reaction that provides heat for regeneration. Therefore, even self-regenerating DPFs ultimately need to be physically removed and cleaned in order to be usable again.
With high sulfur diesel fuels, such as the non-road diesel fuel or marine diesel fuels, the use of the catalyzed DPFs might actually increase the PM emissions due to the formation of sulfates resulting from the oxidation of SO2 emissions. For that reason, this strategy combined the use of catalyzed DPF and low sulfur California #2 diesel fuel. With the use of both technologies, the PM, VOC, CO and SO2 emissions could be reduced by about 90%, and the NOx emissions could be slightly reduced by about 3% (CALSTART, 2002). The capital cost for a catalyzed DPF is reported to be about $20 per kilowatt, and the operating cost is reported to be about $18 per kilowatt-hour (CALSTART).
While DPFs have been widely used in stationary diesel engines, and on-road and off-road applications, it is essential to investigate the feasibility of retrofitting a DPF system in a oceangoing cargo vessel due to differences in engine operating and exhaust temperature conditions, and space constraints (similar to those described with DOC) in engine and exhaust compartments. Those uncertainties may prevent this technology from being a readily practicable alternative for POLB. Because the Lihue is a steamship and the Chevron Washington is powered by a gas turbine, they are not suitable candidates for DPFs. In addition, according to the ISO standards 8217 and ISO 2719 marine fuel must have a flashpoint of a minimum of 60oC. According to SOLAS Chapter 11-2, part B, Regulation 4, no fuel oil with a flashpoint of less than 60oC shall be used. The flashpoint of California On-Road Diesel #2 Fuel is between 52oC and 60oC. Therefore this fuel combination with DOC should not be used with current formulations and would not be feasible for hotelling operations in the Port of Long Beach.
7.2.14 Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR)
Selective catalytic reduction (SCR) is another technology for reducing NOx emissions from diesel engines by catalytic means. In the SCR process, a reducing agent, ammonia or urea, is injected directly into the exhaust gas stream before the SCR catalyst to reduce the NOx emissions to N2 and H2O.
SCR technology has been used for many years in stationary and marine diesel applications, with a NOx emission reduction potential of 90% to 99%, with an average value of 95%.
- 109 - E N V I R O N
In its Regulatory Support Document for the Category 3 Marine Engine Regulation, EPA provided lists of the marine applications that were equipped with SCR systems. The marine applications ranged from ferries, “RO-ROs”, RoPaxs, and vessel propulsion, main, and auxiliary engines with capacity ranging from 900 to 7,000 kW (EPA, 2003).
The capital cost for a SCR system was reported to be about $71 per kilowatt, the operating cost was reported to be about $21 per kilowatt-hour, and the urea cost was estimated to be equivalent to about a 2% increment of the fuel cost (CALSTART, 2002).
SCR does not reduce PM or SO2 emissions. Therefore, SCR is not an appropriate candidate for hotelling emissions reductions in the POLB.
7.2.15 Cryogenic Refrigerated Container (CRC)
During the past decade, a new type of refrigerated container – a cryogenic refrigerated container or CRC - has been introduced to ocean shipment. Cryogenic refrigerated containers utilize food grade dry ice (CO2) as the refrigerant to maintain sub-zero (°C) temperatures in the containers. As CRCs do not require any kind of mechanical device or electrical power to keep the cargo refrigerated, they could be shipped on many modes of transportation without the concern for an outside power source or a mechanical breakdown. The use of dry ice in CRCs does not generate any air emissions. However, it should be noted that making dry ice takes a significant amount of energy, which could have significant emissions impacts, depending on the technology.
Container Service Company (CSC), a Portland, Oregon based cryogenic refrigerated container manufacturer and operating company, currently operates 30 CRCs for moving frozen foods between Portland/Seattle and Japan (CSC, 2003). CSC placed its first CRC unit in commercial cargo operation 5 years ago. CSC is negotiating a sales contract with a European client to sell them 260 CRCs. CSC also sells its CRC units to trucking companies for inland transportation. Other issues associated with CRCs include:
(1) Temperature Management
At the present time, cryogenic refrigerated containers are only good for cargo shipments in a sub-zero environment. A temperature management technology for a “mid- low” temperature (~15-20 °C) condition is under development but is not yet commercially available.
(2) O2 and CO2 levels in the container
During shipment the O2 level inside the container is near zero. When the doors of a CRC are opened, a sublimated CO2 cloud that is heaver than air will flow out of the container. It takes only a few minutes to vent all the CO2, but the process must be carried out in a safe manner to
- 110 - E N V I R O N
avoid asphyxiating nearby people. The CRC operator must pass safety certification tests established by the US Department of Transportation (DOT). The European Union has a similar program to manage the safe operation of CRCs.
(3) Long Shipping Hours
Single charged CRCs could maintain the temperature at the desired level for up to 30 days. It is long enough to accommodate virtually all ocean shipment (20 days) and inland transportation times (10 days).
(4) Operating Costs
According to CSC, 250 pounds of dry ice (CO2) is needed for a 40-foot ISO container each day. The total CO2 usage for a 30 days charge is about 7,500 pounds. Liquid CO2 is commercially available at $50 to $120 per ton depending on purchase quantity, and market conditions. The CO2 cost for a 30 day charge would be $190 to $450 per 40-foot ISO container.
(5) CO2 Charge Station
It would be financially feasible for CSC to set up a CO2 charge station anywhere the demand is greater than charging 6 cryogenic refrigerated containers per day.
(6) Space Requirements
Dry ice compartments in cryogenic refrigerated container take out space normally used for freight. 7,500 pounds of dry ice would take 80 cubic feet of space, which is about 3% of the volume of a 40-foot ISO container. This would increase the cost of freight shipment by at least 3%.
While the CRC strategy is included in this section, the cost effectiveness of this strategy was not assessed. At the present, the CRC technology has not yet reached a scale needed for significant emission reduction in marine vessels calling at the POLB. Furthermore, as CRC technology is only relevant to refrigerated containers it would not address other hotelling demands, which, in the case of tankers and passenger vessels, are substantial.
- 111 - E N V I R O N
7.2.16 Summary
A summary of emission reductions reported by other studies is summarized in Table 7-12.
Table 7-12. Emission Reductions from Alternative Technologies
Reported Emission Reduction (%) Technology Evaluated
PM10 NOx SO2 CO VOC
Repowering with NG/Dual Fuel Engine ~94% ~90% ~99%
Diesel PM Trap & CA On-road #2 Diesel ~90% ~3% ~90% ~85% ~92%
California On-road #2 Diesel 13-87% ~6% ~90%
Fischer-Tropsch Diesel 13-87% ~5% ~99% ~39% ~23% Diesel Oxidation Catalyst & CA On-road
#2 Diesel ~87% ~6% ~90% ~90% ~90%
MGO Diesel(1) 0-85% 0-90%
Emulsified Diesel Fuel ~63% ~14% 15-20% ~25%
Bio-Diesel (B100) 13-87% Increase 100% ~50% ~93%
Selective Catalytic Reduction ~95%
Direct Water Injection 40-50%
Humid Air Motor ~28%
Repowering with EPA Tier 2 Engine 18-46%
Injection Timing Delay Increase 10-30% Increase Increase
Exhaust Gas Recirculation Increase 20-30% Increase Increase
Cryogenic Refrigerated Container 100%, except for air emissions from making dry ice
Note: (1) 0% associated with vessels already using MGO (marine) diesel in on-board generators.
Based on emission reduction benefits, current equipment and/or fuel availability, and other uncertainties associated with implementation of some technologies, the technologies listed in Table 7-13 are not practical near-term alternatives for POLB.
Table 7-13. Not Practical Near-term Alternatives for POLB
Technology Facts Considered
Injection Timing Delay Increases PM, CO and VOC emissions
Exhaust Gas Recirculation May increases PM, VOC and CO emissions
Direct Water Injection Only reduces NOx emissions
Humid Air Motor Only reduces NOx emissions
Selective Catalytic Reduction Only reduces NOx emissions
Repowering with EPA Tier 2 Engine Only reduces NOx emissions
- 112 - E N V I R O N
Table 7-13. Not Practical Near-term Alternatives for POLB
Technology Facts Considered
Fischer-Tropsch Diesel No adequate fuel supply available; Difficulty to distribute to vessels
Bio-Diesel (B100) Increases NOx emissions; Difficulty to distribute to vessels
CARB No. 2 Diesel Fuel Flash point too low to be allowable under SOLAS regulations.
Diesel PM Trap with CA On-road #2 Diesel
Flash point too low to be allowable under SOLAS regulations; Fuel distribution to vessels; no marine
application yet.
Diesel Oxidation Catalyst with CA On-road #2 Diesel
Flash point too low to be allowable under SOLAS regulations; Fuel distribution to vessels; no marine
application yet. Cryogenic Refrigerated Container Has not reached the large scale application yet
Table 7-14 lists those technologies that have demonstrated potential benefits for overall emission reductions and potential applicability to marine vessels. However, they should not be considered readily available alternatives to POLB until the identified implementation constraints could be adequately addressed.
Table 7-14. Potential Alternatives to POLB
Technology Potential Implementation Constraints
Average Cost Effectiveness
over 12 Vessels ($/ton)
Cost-Effective Vessels
MGO Diesel Design and operation of engine;
Separate fuel system and delivery infrastructure
$4,000 (No NOx reduction)
All Vessels except for Groton,
Thorseggen, and Chevron
Washington)
Repowering with NG/Dual Fuel Engine
Safety concerns; fuel distribution system, separate on-board fuel
system; in-use compliance if dual fueled engine
$9,000 All Vessels
except for Ansac Harmony
Emulsified Diesel Fuel
Includes effectiveness of MGO use; Fuel distribution to vessels design and
operation of engine; separate fuel system; in-use compliance; loss of
power; fuel phase separation.
$42,000
Seven Vessels (except Groton, Ansac Harmony,
Pyxis, Thorseggen, and
Chevron Washington)
- 113 - E N V I R O N
REFERENCES
IMO, 1997. “Regulations for the Prevention of Air Pollution from Ship: Annex VI – the Protocol of 1997,” International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL 73/78), International Maritime Organization, London, United Kingdom, 1997.
USEPA, 1999-1. “Control of Emissions of Air Pollution from New Marine Compression-Ignition Engines at or Above 37 kW,” Final Rule, Federal Register: December 29, 1999 (Volume 64, Number 249), pages 73299-73373, Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, December 29, 1999.
USEPA, 1999-2. “Final Regulatory Impact Analysis: Control of Emissions from Marine Diesel Engine,” EPA 420-R99-026, Environmental Protection Agency, Ann Arbor, MI, November 1999.
USEPA, 2003-1. “Control of Emissions from New Marine Compression-Ignition Engines at or Above 30 Liters per Cylinder,” Final Rule, Federal Register: February 28, 2003 (Volume 68, Number 40), pages 9745-9789, Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, February 28, 2003.
USEPA, 2003-2. “Final Regulatory Support Document: Control of Emissions from New Marine Compression-Ignition Engines at or Above 30 Liters per Cylinder,” EPA 420-R-03-004, Environmental Protection Agency, Ann Arbor, MI, January 2003.
ENVIRON, 2003. “Air Quality Technology Development Needs: Diesel NOx Emission Reduction Technologies,” Final Report to the Texas Council on Environmental Technology, Austin, TX, ENVIRON International Corporation, Novato, CA, and Southwest Research Institute, Austin, TX, May 2003.
CEC, 2001. “Emission Reduction Technology Assessment for Diesel Backup Generators in California,” Consultant Report P500-01-028, California Energy Commission, Sacramento, CA, December 2001.
CSC, 2003. Personal communications between Mr. Steve Fulton of CSC and ENVIRON.
BAE, 2000. “Guide to Exhaust Emission Control Options,” BAE Systems, Land & Sea Systems, Bristol, United Kingdom, March 2000.
CALSTART, 2002. “Passenger Ferries, Air Quality, and Greenhouse Gases: Can System Expansion Result in Fewer Emissions in the San Francisco Bay Area?” Report to Gas Technology Institute and Brookhaven National Laboratory, Department of Energy, CALSTART, California, July 23, 2002.
- 114 - E N V I R O N
JJMA-BAH, 2002. “New Technologies and Alternative Fuels: Working Paper on Alternative Propulsion and Fuel Technology Review,” Report to San Francisco Bay Area Water Transit Authority, John J. McMullen Associates, Inc, and Booz Allen Hamilton, May 2, 2002.
JJMA, 2004. Phone conversation with Allen Bozzuffi, a marine engineer of John McMullen Associates, Inc., January 2004.
Starcrest, 2002. “Emission Reduction Strategies Findings Report for New York/New Jersey Harbor Navigation Project,” Report to the Port Authority of New York & New Jersey, Starcrest Consulting Group, LLC and Allen King Rosen & Fleming, Inc., November 15, 2002.
SIEMENS, 2002. “NOx Reduction for Marine Diesel and Heavy Fuel Oil Engine,” Presentation to the Maritime Working Group Meeting, Oakland, CA, by SIEMENS, July 26, 2002.
MAN-B&W, 2002. “Emission Reduction Methods, Theory, Practice and Consequences,” Presentation to the Maritime Working Group Meeting, Oakland, CA, by MAN B&W, July 26, 2002.
NESCAUM, 2003. “Stationary Diesel Engines in the Northeast: An Initial Assessment of the Regional Population, Control Technology Options, and Air Quality Policy Issues” Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management, Boston, MA, June 2003.
Ricardo, 2002. “Engine Manufacturers meet New Energy and Air Quality Challenges,” Presentation to the Maritime Working Group Meeting, Oakland, CA, by Ricardo, July 26, 2002.
Seaworthy, 2002. “The Future of Practical Exhaust Emissions Control for Marine Diesel Engines,” Presentation to the Maritime Working Group Meeting, Oakland, CA, by Seaworthy Systems, Inc., July 26, 2002.
USEPA, 2002. “A Comprehensive Analysis of Biodiesel Impacts on Exhaust Emissions,” EPA420-P-02-001, Environmental Protection Agency, Ann Arbor, MI, October 2002.
CARB, 2000. “Diesel Risk Reduction Plan, Appendix 9,” California Air Resources Board, Sacramento, CA, 2000.
- 115 - E N V I R O N
8.0 POLITICAL AND TECHNICAL ISSUES
8.1 Legal Authority/Current and Future Regulatory Requirements
Cold ironing and/or other air pollution controls for marine vessels while they are hotelling at the Port of Long Beach could potentially be required by four different levels of government: international (by international treaty), Federal (United States Environmental Protection Agency), state (California Air Resources Board) and local (South Coast Air Quality Management District).
8.2 International Level
Background
The United States is a signatory to the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Vessels, the global agreement to control accidental and operational discharges of pollution from vessels. The original 1973 treaty, together with an important protocol added in 1978, are referred to as "MARPOL.”
Under the auspices of the International Maritime Organization (IMO), an agency of the United Nations, the signatory countries adopted Annex VI to MARPOL in 1997 to reduce worldwide NOx emissions from vessels by about 20 to 30 percent. These limits apply to diesel engines with a power output of more than 130 kW manufactured after January 1, 2000 and require the use of readily available emission control technology. The regulation covers propulsion engines and most auxiliary engines. (As described more fully below, Annex VI does not address shore side electrification as a means to reduce vessel emissions – it is focused solely on engine and fuel technology.) Although the Annex has not yet entered into force and is not yet legally binding, it is widely recognized that the vast majority of marine diesel engines manufactured and installed after January 1, 2000 meet the requirements of the Annex.
Annex VI also controls emissions of sulfur oxides by imposing a global cap of 4.5% sulfur (45,000 ppm) on the sulfur content of fuel oil used on ships for combustion. The annex also contains a provision for the establishment of special “SOX Emission Control Areas (SECAs)”. The sulfur content of fuel used by ships operating in these areas must not exceed 1.5% (15,000 ppm). Alternatively, a ship can use an exhaust gas cleaning system to limit the SOX emissions. To date, only the Baltic Sea has been designated as a SECA.
- 116 - E N V I R O N
Annex VI will be legally binding at the point when at least 15 nations with at least 50 % of the gross tonnage of the world’s merchant shipping have ratified the annex. It is expected that this threshold should be met in 2004. The President of the United States has submitted Annex VI to the U. S. Senate for its advice and consent to ratification.
Current Regulatory Requirements and Future Directions
Presently, there are no international requirements that would mandate or facilitate cold ironing of marine vessels. With regard to other alternative control technologies evaluated in this report, establishment of a SECA would be one mechanism for implementing low sulfur diesel fueling. Current international requirements would not likely affect the other alternatives. However, negotiations will begin soon under the IMO umbrella to tighten the NOx emission limits that could result in engine modifications and/or control technology to reduce NOx emissions from ship hotelling in future years.
While not an international requirement, it should be noted that the European Union has introduced a 0.2% (2,000 ppm) sulfur limit for fuel used by seagoing vessels at berth in EU ports and by inland vessels, with the limit dropping to 0.1% in 2008. Should the proposal become a final rule, such an EU requirement could have a practical effect on low sulfur fueling strategies in the United States by setting a precedent. It would also facilitate the availability of such fuels in U.S. ports because a vessel traveling to European ports would likely need to bunker and start using low sulfur residual fuel upon leaving a port in the U.S. in order to be in compliance upon arrival in EU waters.
8.3 Federal Level
Background
At the federal level, USEPA regulates emissions from new marine diesel engines, on vessels that are flagged or registered in the United States, under Section 213 of the Clean Air Act. This provision required USEPA to determine whether non-road engines and vehicles, including marine vessel engines, contribute significantly to ozone and CO concentrations in more than one nonattainment area and/or significantly contribute to air pollution that may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare. EPA made such a finding in 1994 and subsequently promulgated NOx and PM emission standards for new marine diesel engines with in-cylinder displacement of less than 30 liters (Category 1 and 2) and NOx emission standards for new engines with displacement greater than 30 liters (Category 3). Generally, auxiliary engines on large marine vessels fall into Category 1 and 2, while main propulsion engines are Category 3. The Category 1 and 2 standards become effective between 2004 and 2007, depending on exact engine size, while the Category 3 standards are effective in 2004. USEPA intends to adopt a further tightening of the standards by 2007. These standards are at least as stringent as the current Annex
- 117 - E N V I R O N
VI international standards, so that engines complying with the Federal standards will comply with Annex VI.
Most ocean-going vessels calling on U.S. ports are foreign flagged. USEPA specifically considered but ultimately deferred application of these standards to such vessels. The agency has stated its intent to work with IMO to tighten the Annex VI standards as the preferred method to regulate emissions from foreign flagged vessels.
USEPA has also proposed that starting in 2007, fuel sulfur levels in non-road diesel fuel would be limited to a maximum of 500 ppm, the same as for current highway diesel fuel. This limit also covers fuels used in many marine applications (though not to the marine residual fuel typically used by propulsion engines and many auxiliary engines on ocean-going vessels). The agency has also requested comment regarding further reducing the sulfur limit to 15 ppm in 2010 for marine vessels.
Current Regulatory Requirements and Future Directions
Presently, there are no Federal requirements that would mandate or facilitate cold ironing of marine vessels. During the public comment period for setting Category 3 standards, many commenters insisted that the Federal government should establish a national policy or regulation addressing hotelling emissions from marine vessels. However, USEPA has determined that the Clean Air Act only gives the agency authority to set emission standards for new marine engines, leaving the regulation of the use and operation of marine engines to state and local government.
With regard to the other alternative control technologies evaluated in this report, establishment of a SECA under Annex VI would be one mechanism for implementing low sulfur diesel fueling (1.5% S). USEPA is currently preparing a strategy to develop a proposal to IMO to establish SECA’s for the East, West and Gulf Coasts. Likewise, to the extent that non-residual diesel fuels used by marine vessels are refined or imported into the United States, a low-sulfur diesel fueling strategy could be enhanced by the proposed Federal 500 ppm and 15 ppm future sulfur- in-fuel limits.
The Category 1, 2 and 3 engine emission standards for NOx and PM could result in the application of the other alternative control techniques such as engine modifications and/or exhaust treatment. Such controls could reduce NOx emissions from ship hotelling in future years, at least for vessels constructed after the effective date of the regulations. The contemplated further tightening of these standards by USEPA in 2007 could further require these control technologies in the 2010 - 2020 timeframe.
- 118 - E N V I R O N
8.4 State Level
Background
At the state level, the California Air Resources Board believes it has the legal authority to regulate marine vessels. On October 23, 2003, CARB adopted the State and Federal Strategy for the California State Implementation Plan, including revisions to State commitments to adopt and implement additional statewide measures to achieve emission reductions. The legal authority discussion in the Strategy states: “California has concurrent authority to regulate some non-road engines or vehicles including marine vessels. However, as a practical matter adoption of separate, California-only standards for national transportation sources (e.g. heavy duty trucks or marine vessels) is not a fully effective means of controlling emissions from these sources.” The state’s position is more fully explained in the June 1984 Report to the California Legislature on Air Pollutant Emissions from Marine Vessels. This report includes a detailed legal analysis prepared by CARB staff.
As part of the State and Federal Strategy, CARB has included the following elements that it recommends USEPA include in evaluating Long-Term Advanced Technologies for marine vessels:
• Further tightening of the both the Annex VI and USEPA Category 1,2 and 3 standards;
• Operational controls;
• Cleaner fuels in California waters;
• Incentive programs to encourage cleaner vessels;
• Opacity limits within California coastal waters; and
• Cold ironing.
The Board adopted the so-called Burke amendment to the State and Federal Strategy during the October 23, 2003 hearing. Among other commitments, the amendment included an increase to the near-term State commitment by an additional 97 tons per day, ROG and NOx combined, in the South Coast Air Basin in 2010. This commitment includes a possible measure for “cold ironing for ships calling on the Ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles”.
The State and Federal Strategy and the 2003 South Coast Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) will be submitted to the USEPA as a formal revision to the California State Implementation Plan. USEPA would then review, propose action (approval or disapproval), receive public comment and then take final action on the submittal. Upon approval, the revision would become enforceable by both the USEPA and citizens under the Clean Air Act. The Burke Amendment, in particular, may raise approvability issues for EPA because, in contrast to long-term measures, near-term measures for extreme ozone nonattainment areas have traditionally been required to be individually described
- 119 - E N V I R O N
with scheduled adoption dates and emission reductions. Because the Burke amendment gives a broad commitment to tons with an as-yet not firmly defined set of measures, full approval may be problematic.
Current Regulatory Requirements and Future Directions
While cold ironing had been identified as a long-term measure for the State and Federal Strategy, as noted above, the Burke amendment specifically listed “cold ironing for ships calling on the Ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles” as one of the possible items that may be included by CARB in achieving the 97 tons per day near-term State commitment. However, since the amendment specifies that “CARB commits to achieve, at minimum, the ROG and NOx reduction target in this control measure through adoption and implementation of any combination of feasible control strategies affecting on-road and off- road mobile sources and consumer products”, it is not certain that cold ironing will be one of the measures ultimately adopted to meet the 97 ton commitment.
At the December 3, 2003 Maritime Air Quality Technical Working Group meeting, CARB staff presented a more detailed schedule regarding their intended evaluation of cold ironing for ships that frequently visit South Coast ports. Specifically, they intend to complete an evaluation in by 2004 and adopt a measure (if feasible) by 2005.
With regard to the other alternative control technologies evaluated in this report, low-sulfur fueling strategies are receiving increasing attention from CARB. At the December 3, 2003 Maritime Air Quality Technical Working Group meeting, CARB presented a detailed schedule for reducing emissions from auxiliary engines on ships while hotelling: They anticipate a completed evaluation in 2004 and adoption of a measure(s) by 2006. They also presented the following regulatory concepts:
• On-board generators burning cleaner fuel at dockside or in California Coastal Waters;
• Marine gas oil (MGO) with sulfur cap or EPA/CARB on-road diesel in main propulsion engines;
• Allow cold ironing or add-on controls as an alternative to burning cleaner diesel;
• Special provisions for vessels calling on California ports several times per year; and
• Encourage western states/Canada to adopt similar program.
CARB staff also identified the following key issues that they will examine as part of their evaluation:
• Cost impacts;
• Fuel switching procedures;
- 120 - E N V I R O N
• Addit ional tanks and piping needed;
• Engine compatibility;
• Availability of cleaner fuels;
• Safety issues/flash point;
• Cost benefits of cold ironing for frequent flyers; and
• Port impacts.
In addition to actively considering mandating the use of low sulfur distillate fuels while marine vessels are hotelling, CARB is also actively working with other West Coast states in supporting EPA in the establishment of a SECA under Annex VI of MARPOL (discussed above). In the event that a distillate strategy is not adopted, the 1.5% sulfur limit in a SECA would establish lower sulfur fueling for ships that are currently burning high sulfur residual in their auxiliary and propulsion engines. In addition, the add-on control technology alternatives evaluated elsewhere in this report could be encouraged if CARB adopts a provision as part of a clean fuel strategy to allow ships to install add-ons in lieu of burning lower sulfur fuel.
During information meetings with the Pacific Merchant Shipping Association (PMSA) and the Pacific Maritime Association (PMA), they expressed the view that the legal authority of the SCAQMD, CARB and even the Federal Government to require cold ironing of ships is questionable. In particular, they pointed to a court decision "Intertanko v. Locke" that restricted the ability of a state to regulate marine vessels. In this March 2000 decision, the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari and addressed the question of whether the State of Washington regulations, which placed restrictions on oil tankers that entered state waters, were preempted by congressional acts that had the same or similar regulations. The Court held that federal law preempted four of the Washington regulations. The Court also remanded the case in order for the lower court to determine if any of the other provisions of the Washington regulation were preempted. It should be noted that at the appeal stage, the United States intervened on Intertanko's behalf, contending that the District Court's ruling failed to give sufficient weight to the substantial foreign affairs interests of the Federal Government. It would appear that the effect of this court decision would need to be evaluated by the regulatory agencies as they evaluate cold ironing and other hotelling strategies.
8.5 Local Level
Background
The South Coast Air Quality Management District previously considered a cold ironing regulation for ships in the South Coast Basin in the late 1980’s. However, after a lengthy evaluation by both the District and the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, the SCAQMD terminated the rule
- 121 - E N V I R O N
making process and did not adopt a cold ironing rule. Apparently, a primary deciding factor not to proceed with a regulation was the position of the U.S. Coast Guard that such a rule would conflict with USCG safety requirements that vessels be able to be underway within thirty minutes in case of a safety or security emergency. The USCG was especially concerned about steamships, which take longer than diesel engine marine vessels to power up from a cold state. At that time, the percentage of steamships compared to diesel engine vessels was much higher than today.
Although it was never consummated, the historical development of a cold ironing rule would indicate that the SCAQMD believed at the time that they had the legal authority for regulating marine vessels at the South Coast ports. That view now appears to have changed: in the Final Program Environmental Impact Report for the 2003 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP), Chapter 4 states that “the SCAQMD does not have authority to directly regulate marine vessel emissions and the SCAQMD cannot require retrofitting, repowering or controlling emissions from marine vessels. However, CARB and the U.S. EPA have authority to regulate these sources …”
The SCAQMD Governing Board adopted the 2003AQMP on August 1, 2003. CARB staff reviewed that plan, which the CARB board then approved by on October 23, 2003. As discussed above, the AQMP will be submitted with the State and Federal Strategy as a formal revision to the California SIP for review and approval by the USEPA. The AQMP contains several provisions that could affect the implementation of cold ironing and other alternative control technologies for marine vessels.
On May 11, 2001, the South Coast District adopted Rule 1632, Pilot Credit Generation Program for Hotelling Operations. Under this rule, NOx credits can be generated when vessels near ports use electrical power supplied by fuel cells. The Rule envisions that fuel cells would be located on a mobile barge that could move to individual vessels. To date, credits have not been generated under Rule 1632. Even if they were, minimal emission reductions would be generated from Rule 1632 because any emission reductions achieved would be used to generate credits to allow inland sources such as power plants to increase their emissions (less a 10 percent “discount” retired for the benefit of the environment).
Current Regulatory Requirements and Future Directions
SCAQMD’s Board also adopted the environmental community’s suggested Attachment 2C, “SCAQMD's Action Plan to Expedite Implementation of Long Term Measures”. This attachment included several proposed strategies for ships in ports, including cold ironing and low-sulfur diesel fueling. Feasibility studies are to be completed for these two strategies in 2004 and if found to be feasible and within the SCAQMD's legal authority for implementation, rules would then be proposed for the Governing Board's adoption in 2005. Presumably, the feasibility studies will be coordinated with CARB’s evaluation and adoption schedule for cold ironing and emission reduction
- 122 - E N V I R O N
strategy for auxiliary engines on ships while hotelling, as described above. At this writing, it is unclear which agency would actually be adopting a rule if the strategies are found to be feasible.
Finally, the 2003 AQMP includes Attachment 2B, “Suggested Control Concepts for the State and Federal Element,” prepared by SCAQMD staff. One of the suggested measures is to require retrofits of auxiliary engines on ships with existing technology such as diesel oxidation catalysts and diesel particulate filters. While not a binding commitment, CARB will likely consider this suggested measure as part of its evaluation of hotelling strategies, specifically a provision for allowing add-on controls in lieu of burning low-sulfur diesel fuel.
8.6 Operational Flexibility
Vessel operators, PMSA, and PMA were surveyed to determine the possible impacts of cold ironing on their operational flexibility. They expressed the following major concerns:
• Retrofitting ships for cold ironing would constrain company planning because it would limit the ships that come into the Port of Long Beach. If cold ironing is required at all terminals in the Port, only ships retrofitted for cold ironing would be able to call, and if only certain berths have cold ironing capabilities, retrofitted ships would have to dock only at those berths. With the exception of container lines, which do not shift their berths very often, ships may go to different berths on different runs and may go to more than one berth during a single port call. An example of in-port movement is transferring tankers and bulk loaders from a deepwater berth to a shallow-water berth to maximize use of the deepwater berths.
• Many shipping lines operate with chartered ships rather than with their own ships. Charter ship contracts are based on market condition and ship availabilities, and many are negotiated on a short-term basis. In addition, shipping alliance members share berths at terminals and are assigned space on an as-needed basis. It would be difficult for shipping lines to charter exclusively cold ironing-ready ships and to send them only to cold ironing-ready berths.
• Fleet turnover and ship deployment are driven by market conditions. In the case of container ships, a common practice is apparently to place newer, larger ships in the Asian and European routes. The older vessels are then transferred to trans-Pacific service, which brings them to the Port of Long Beach. Finally, as they age and are supplanted by even larger vessels, they will be placed on different routes that will not call at Long Beach. Oceangoing vessels typically have approximately 15 years of useful life because many customers do not allow use of older ships in order to limit their liabilities. The average geographic placement cycle is about two to three years. It is very unlikely that a ship would call at the same port for its entire service life.
- 123 - E N V I R O N
A requirement to burn low sulfur diesel fuel in California coastal waters or ports may also affect operational flexibility. Not all vessels may be able to burn low sulfur fuel. In addition, ships that can burn low sulfur fuel may need to be retrofitted with dual tank fuel storage systems. Such retrofitting may be problematic on certain vessel designs because of space limitations or safety issues. In addition, unavailability of low sulfur fuel in certain foreign ports may constrain routing, if vessels entering California waters have not been able to refuel their auxiliary tanks with low sulfur fuel at their last port of call.
A requirement for application of other alternative control techniques such as engine modifications and/or exhaust treatment could also affect operational flexibility. Many engines cannot be modified because of fundamental design considerations. Likewise, space limitations and technical problems will likely prohibit the use of add-on treatment systems on many marine vessels.
8.7 Safety and Other Liabilities
Vessel operators, PMSA, and PMA were also surveyed to determine possible safety issues regarding implementation of cold ironing: They expressed the following major concerns:
• Currently, ship operators lack personnel with the special training or possible certification to perform power connection and disconnection. Personnel working on a vessel with cold ironing capability would require new training to perform such tasks.
• Jurisdictional issues were also raised regarding worker safety. CAL-OSHA has regulatory responsibility for safety for landside operations that affect the ILWU, while vessel crews are covered by the regulations of the country in which the vessel is flagged. Federal OSHA may also have some jurisdiction for some activities not covered by CAL-OSHA.
• Process safety is definitely a critical issue for shore-side electrification. If electrical service was interrupted and the ship’s generators did not start up quickly, the navigation systems on some ships could take 4 to 6 hours to come back online once power is restored. However, many ships can tolerate short blackouts during the switch to and from shore power.
The U.S. Coast Guard was also contacted regarding USCG safety and security requirements that might affect the feasibility of cold ironing. The Eleventh District representatives expressed the following concerns:
• The USCG does not believe the 30-minutes notice requirement described earlier is applicable to all types of ships.
• The USCG Eleventh District is developing an Area Maritime Security Plan (AMSP) and a Port Safety Plan (PSP). These plans may establish a series of emergency scenarios in which ships could be asked to leave their docks in intervals ranging from immediate to up to 12
- 124 - E N V I R O N
hours depending on level of security, degree of emergency and weather conditions. When these plans are established, they will act as guidance, not rules. The USCG is interested in information on how long a marine vessel would take to prepare to get underway when cold ironed, particularly if it would be longer than at present.
• The USCG does not require the exclusion of specific cargoes from cold ironing. Safety issues and personnel training should be addressed according to California or Federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regulations and associated industrial standards. For example, chemical tankers must maintain the minimum inert gas concentration.
• Besides keeping the waterway clear for ship traffic and meeting the safety requirements imposed by other regulations, the USCG has no objections to utilizing a clean fuel barge as an alternative to control hotelling emissions.
• The USCG does not require a review of system design and the USCG is not responsible for approving or disapproving any engineering design. However, the USCG would expect any shore-side electric distribution facility to meet the location, distance and security requirements set forth in the associated classification society standards.
8.8 International Cooperation and Interstate Coordination
Port competitiveness is an important issue to be considered in designing strategies for reducing hotelling emissions. Were cold ironing to be required at South Coast Basin ports and not others on the West Coast, many shipping lines, especially auto movers, could send their ships to other ports where cold ironing is not required. However, shippers that might leave the Port for a while due to cost impacts may eventually return because other West Coast ports could likely not provide the intermodal infrastructure found in the San Pedro Bay ports for shipping goods eastward. In addition, approximately half of the goods arriving at the Ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles are destined for delivery in the Basin itself. The regulatory agencies have recognized the importance of this issue. As noted at the December 3 Maritime Air Quality Working Group meeting, CARB and USEPA are actively working with other western states and Canada to harmonize and coordinate hotelling emission reduction strategies. Ideally, IMO would address such strategies in order to facilitate compatible worldwide requirements.
PMA and PMSA representatives believe there is strong need for standardization of any cold ironing equipment requirements. They believe it would be best for IMO or some other national or international body or government to establish design standards so that ships calling at multiple ports would have the ability to have one set of plug ins (analogous to the plug ins that aircraft have when converted to local power at airports). They are concerned that if POLB or POLA independently
- 125 - E N V I R O N
establish cold ironing requirements, the equipment installed on vessels for POLB may not work in other ports.
8.9 Labor Issues
Many labor issues would need to be addressed if cold ironing were implemented. Ship owners may want to retain the responsibility for "plugging in" to be reserved for the ship crews and not be considered an activity under the purview of the ILWU. However, the ILWU may believe that the connection is a landside activity covered by union contracts. Vessel operators may be concerned about the additional costs for dedicated crews, safety training and technical training if the ILWU were responsible for the connection and disconnection. Existing responsibilities for bunker fueling and fresh water hookups could also provide useful precedents in resolving labor and union issues regarding cold ironing hookups.
- 126 - E N V I R O N
-INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK-
- 127 - E N V I R O N
9.0 CONCLUSIONS
Cold ironing is a process to reduce emissions by using shore generated electrical power instead of operating a vessel’s on-board diesel- fired generators. The cost of cold ironing the 12 studied vessels on a Net Present Value (NPV) basis is a composite of many expenditures, including:
• Power purchased from Southern California Edison (SCE) (25% after the small fuel savings);
• Landside operating costs (30%);
• Landside capital costs, primarily SCE and terminal electrical distribution infrastructure (20%);
• Vessel retrofit costs (5%); and
• Work-barges needed for some vessels (20%).
None of these costs is dominant, but all are important. The cost of purchased power is estimated to be 6.2 times the value of the fuel savings. If new vessels had cold ironing capability installed at the time of construction, some costs would be saved, but the overall cost effectiveness would not change significantly. However, if more vessels use the berths that are capable of cold ironing, the cost effectiveness would improve significantly. This is because the amount of emissions reduced would increase without significant additional capital costs. The unit cost of the purchased power would also decrease if the berths were used more often.
The study evaluated the parameters that affect cost effectiveness. Of those parameters, annual power consumption by the vessel while hotelling shows the best correlation. This analysis shows that cold ironing is cost effective as a retrofit when the annual power consumption is one point eight million (1.800,000) kW-hr or more. For a new vessel with cold ironing equipment installed calling at a new terminal with the needed power facilities, it would be cost–effective if the annual power consumption is greater than one point two million (1,500,000) kW-hrs.
Among the 12 selected study vessels, the study shows that five vessels are cost-effective candidates for cold ironing, although some other emission control techniques are even more cost-effective. Some ships, particularly those that do not call often, are very poor, non-cost-effective candidates for cold ironing or most other control technologies.
- 128 - E N V I R O N
There are many alternatives to cold ironing for reducing hotelling emissions. They include alternative fuels, alternative engines, tailpipe controls such as diesel oxidation catalysts, and fuel additives or mixtures. Some of the feasible alternatives are more cost-effective than cold ironing, although in some cases they have lower emissions reductions or achieved single pollutant reduction, and many have unresolved technical obstacles.
All of the possible control techniques have significant regulatory, legal, and logistical hurdles to overcome, particularly if the SCAQMD or other agency wishes to mandate their use. These hurdles are at the local, State, Federal, and international levels. Given those constraints, a voluntary program or an incentive program may be the most productive means of reducing emissions from hotelling in the Port of Long Beach.
Emulsified Diesel FuelEmulsified Diesel FuelEmulsified Diesel Fuel
Cold Ironing Cost Effectiveness Study
Volume II - Appendices
Cold Ironing Cost Effectiveness Study
Volume II - Appendices
VOLUME II - APPENDICES
COLD IRONING COST EFFECTIVENESS PORT OF LONG BEACH
925 HARBOR DRIVE LONG BEACH, CALIFORNIA
Prepared for
Port of Long Beach Long Beach, California
Prepared by
ENVIRON International Corporation Los Angeles, California
March 30, 2004
A P P E N D I C E S
Appendix A: Information Gathering Meeting Report
Appendix B: Collected Vessels and Berths Information
Appendix C: General Port Activity and Fleet Characteristics
Appendix D: Engine Emission Factors Summary
Appendix E: Vessel Hotelling Emission Calculations
Appendix F: Vessel Conversation Analysis
Appendix G: Feeder Routes to Terminals
Appendix H: SCE Infrastructure Costs Estimate
Appendix I: Work-Barge Sizing and Costs Estimate
Appendix J: Cost Effectiveness of Cold Ironing
Appendix K: Purchased Power Costs Estimate
Appendix L: Cost Effectiveness of Alternative Control Technologies
A P P E N D I X A
Information Gathering Meeting Report
STUDY REPORT INFORMATION GATHERING MEETINGS
CONTRACT HD-6712, JOB TASK 0301
Prepared for
The Port of Long Beach Long Beach, California
Prepared by
ENVIRON International Corporation
Irvine, California Los Angeles, California
November 26, 2003
ii E N V I R O N
Prepared by: ENVIRON International Corporation 2010 Main Street, Suite 900 Irvine, California 92614 Tel. (949) 261-5151 Fax (949) 261-6202 _______________________________ Hao Jiang, P.E. Senior Associate ________________________________ Joseph W. Hower, P.E., DEE Principal
iii E N V I R O N
C O N T E N T S
Page
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1
2.0 MEETINGS WITH VESSEL AND TERMINAL OPERATORS 2
2.1 Operational Flexibility 2 2.2 Operation Costs 2 2.3 Capital Cost 3 2.4 Safety and Other Potential Liabilities 3 2.5 Vessel Diversion to Other Ports 3 2.6 Vessel Service Life and Routes 4 2.7 Other Control Options 4 2.8 Other Comments 4 2.9 Follow-up Actions to Vessel and Terminal Operator Meetings 5 2.10 Meeting with BP America, Inc. 5 3.0 COMMUNICATIONS WITH THE PORT OF LOS ANGELES 6
3.1 Electrical System 6 3.2 Synchronization 6 3.3 Retrofitting Costs 6 3.4 Call Frequency 7 3.5 Relationship to Other Ports 7 3.6 Low-Sulfur Fuel 7 3.7 Labor 7
4.0 MEETINGS WITH SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 8 4.1 California Electricity Market Update 8 5.0 MEETING WITH USEPA REGION IX 9 5.1 MARPOL Annex VI 9 5.2 Recent US EPA Rulemaking 9 5.3 SCAQMD Plans 9
iv E N V I R O N
C O N T E N T S (Continued)
Page
6.0 MEETING WITH CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD 11 6.1 State Implementation Plan (SIP) and SCAQMD 11 6.2 Legal Authority 12 6.3 Regulatory Approaches and Incentive Programs 12 6.4 Other Discussions 13 7.0 MEETING WITH THE SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 14 7.1 Cost Effectiveness 14 7.2 SCAQMD Feasibility Study on Cold Ironing 14 7.3 Impact of Cold Ironing on Port Competitiveness 15 7.4 Risk Assessment 15 7.5 Safety 15 7.6 Legal Authority 15 8.0 MEETING WITH THE UNITED STATES COAST GUARD 16 8.1 USCG Responsibilities 16 8.2 30-Minutes Rule 16 8.3 Shore Power Electrification 16 8.4 Vessels and Terminals Handling Dangerous and Hazardous Cargo 17 8.5 Clean Fuel Barge 17 8.6 System Design Review and Approval 17 9.0 MEETING WITH MARITIME ASSOCIATIONS 18 9.1 Legal Authority and Jurisdiction 18 9.2 Labor 18 9.3 Worker Safety 19
v E N V I R O N
C O N T E N T S (Continued)
Page
9.4 Operational Flexibility 19 9.5 Retrofitting Existing Vessels versus Outfitting New Vessels 19 9.6 Standardizations 19 9.7 Alternative Strategies 20 10.0 CONCLUSIONS 21 ATTACHMENT A: QUESTIONNAIRES P:\P\POLB\Information Gathering Meeting Report3.doc [04-6395K]
1 E N V I R O N
1.0 INTRODUCTION
As the initial step in performing the feasibility study, the Port of Long Beach (POLB) and ENVIRON International Corporation (ENVIRON) convened a series of information gathering meetings with the various stakeholders. Note that in this report the term “cold ironing” means providing electrical power from shore to cargo vessels at berth. It does not imply that all vessel systems could be powered by electricity, as most vessels have small steam boilers that need to keep operating and would not be replaced by shore-side utilities. The separate meetings held with vessel operators and with terminal operators were intended to solicit technical input from the POLB stakeholders and to address their concerns about cold ironing, alternative fuels, exhaust control technologies and the study itself. Two meetings with Southern California Edison (SCE) were also held to receive and review updates on regional electricity market conditions, power supply issues, and related matters. The POLB and ENVIRON met with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Region IX, the California Air Resources Board (CARB), and the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) to obtain their input and to understand the plans that these environmental agencies have for managing air emissions from ship hotelling operations. Meetings were also held with the United States Coast Guard, the Pacific Merchant Shipping Association (PMSA) and the Pacific Maritime Association (PMA) to identify their positions on cold ironing, barge-based clean fueling, and other alternative control options.
2 E N V I R O N
2.0 MEETINGS WITH VESSEL AND TERMINAL OPERATORS
On July 28, 2003, two meetings were conduc ted with selected vessel operators, selected marine terminal operators, and shipping agents. Representatives from Matson International, Toyofuji Shipping, Orient Overseas Container Line (OOCL), and Pacific Merchant Shipping Association (PMSA) attended the morning meeting. Representatives from HANJIN Shipping, Pacific Coast Recycling, and Total Terminal International attended the afternoon meeting. ENVIRON made a presentation about the cold ironing study and distributed two articles regarding cold ironing applications at the Port of Juneau, Alaska and the Port of Gothenburg, Sweden. A preliminary list of candidate vessels and berths for cold ironing study was provided. Ensuing discussions among the meeting participants identified a wide variety of issues related to cold ironing and the study, as summarized below. 2.1 Operational Flexibility Vessel operators expressed a major concern about the impact on shipping lines’ operational flexibility if cold ironing is required at the POLB. Retrofitting ships for cold ironing would constrain company planning because it would limit the ships that could come into the POLB. If cold ironing is required at all terminals in the POLB, only ships retrofitted for cold ironing would be able to call, and if only certain berths have cold ironing capabilities, retrofitted ships would have to dock only at those berths. With the exception of container lines, which do not shift their berths very often, ships may go to different berths on different runs and may go to more than one berth during a single port call. An example of in-port movement is transferring tankers and bulk loaders from a deepwater berth to a shallow-water berth to maximize the use of the deepwater berths. Many shipping lines operate with chartered ships rather than with their own ships. Charter ship contracts are based on market conditions and ship availabilities, and many are negotiated on a short-term basis. In addition, shipping alliance members share berths at terminals and are assigned space on an as-needed basis. It would be difficult for shipping lines to charter exclusively cold- ironing-ready ships and to send them only to cold- ironing-ready berths. 2.2 Operational Costs Increased operational costs are another constraint. Shipping lines would consider a $2,000 per day cost increase significant. Most ships calling at Long Beach Container Terminal, for example,
3 E N V I R O N
average less than eight hours at berth per call, and shippers consider the extra expense to cold iron for such short stays to be too high. Increasing berth time to connect or disconnect shore power would also affect other dockage fees such as customs and security. There was a question about who would lead the negotiations with the electric power supplier, SCE, to receive a favorable tariff for cold- ironing-related power. Existing dockage fee structures could possibly be revised to include the cost of power. However, developing a fee allocation mechanism is beyond the scope of this study and will not be addressed at this time. 2.3 Capital Cost Questions were raised about the justification for spending up to one half million dollars to retrofit a ship that may not make more than a few calls at the POLB , and who would be responsible for investing in and managing dockside facilities. 2.4 Safety and Other Potential Liabilities Currently, ship operators lack personnel with the special training or possible certification to perform power connection and disconnection. Personnel working on a vessel with cold ironing capability would require new training to perform such tasks. Process safety is definitely a critical issue for shore-side electrification. If electrical service was interrupted and the ship’s generators did not start up quickly, the navigation systems on some ships could take 4 to 6 hours to come back online once power was restored. However, many ships can tolerate short blackouts during the switch to and from shore power. 2.5 Vessel Diversion to Other Ports Because there are no federal or state mandates for the implementation of shore-side electrification, it is not currently a part of most shipping lines’ environmental policy. Many shipping lines, especially auto carriers, could send their ships to other ports where cold ironing is not required. However, one shipping line representative stated that shippers might leave the POLB for a while due to cost impacts, but they would return eventually because no other west coast ports could provide the infrastructure found in the San Pedro Bay ports. It was suggested that if a number of west coast ports were to collectively adopt cold ironing, the shipping lines would be induced to retrofit their ships.
4 E N V I R O N
2.6 Vessel Service Life and Routes How long an individual ship will remain in service and will continue calling at the Port of Long Beach are critical factors in the evaluation of the cost effectiveness of shore-side electrification. Fleet turnover and ship deployment are driven by market conditions. In the case of container ships, a common practice is apparently to place newer, larger ships in the Asia and Europe routes. The older vessels are then transferred to trans-Pacific service, which brings them to the Port of Long Beach. Finally, as they age and are supplanted by even larger vessels, they will be placed on different routes that will not call at Long Beach. Oceangoing vessels typically have approximately 15 years of useful life because many customers do not allow use of older ships in order to limit their liabilities. The average geographic placement cycle is two to three years. It is very unlikely that a container ship would call at the same port for its entire service life. Retrofitting a ten-year-old ship for cold ironing, therefore, would be much less cost-effective than building a new ship with cold-ironing provisions. 2.7 Other Control Options Use of clean fuels, such as ultra low-sulfur diesel or liquefied natural gas (LNG), during ship hotelling was discussed. In both cases, supplying clean fuel is not a constraint. Ultra low-sulfur diesel is available at local refineries. The fuel can be picked up by a fuel distributor and delivered to ships by barges. LNG is less readily available, but that condition could change: the Port of Long Beach is currently evaluating a major LNG receiving terminal. The key concerns mentioned about clean-fuel delivered by barges were high fuel costs, safety issues, and fuel handling practicality. Many ships already have separate tanks that could be used for clean fuel, but for a number of ships, adding clean-fuel tanks would take up space normally used for freight. 2.8 Other Comments Compared to cruise ships, cargo ships, especially container ships and break-bulk ships, have much more intensive dockside activities. The electrical connection could interfere with cargo handling operations and the power connection/disconnection process could cause delays. In addition, cargo ships may move vertically up to 20 feet due to cargo loading/unloading and tidal fluctuations. The location of landside facilities should be selected carefully, and the power transferring system should be well engineered. It will be necessary to address labor’s concerns regarding safety and jobs. However, these issues are beyond the scope of this study.
5 E N V I R O N
2.9 Follow-up Actions to Vessel and Terminal Operator Meetings Because the turnout at the stakeholders meetings was small, the POLB and ENVIRON sent out questionnaires (Appendix A) to 16 ship operators and 17 terminal operators to elicit more input for the study. The questionnaires were based upon the key issues discussed during the informational exchange meetings. Six terminal operators and two vessel operators responded to the questionnaire. Terminal operators believe that cruise ships and container ships are the best candidates for cold ironing. Increasing operational costs and reducing operational flexibility are major concerns. Terminal operators also indicated that there would be a major impact on their dockside activities from the power connection and disconnection process. 2.10 Meeting with BP America, Inc. On September 16, 2003, representatives from the POLB and ENVIRON met with David Smith, Steve Comley and other representatives of BP America, Inc. (BP), which operates two liquid bulk terminals in the POLB. ENVIRON received a draft table listing marine vessel air emission control options. BP provided ENVIRON with operational data such as engine fuel consumption, berth time, and diesel fuel sulfur content. At BP’s request, ENVIRON added one BP product tanker and Pier B Berth 78 into the study.
6 E N V I R O N
3.0 COMMUNICATIONS WITH THE PORT OF LOS ANGELES
On October 7, 2003, POLB and ENVIRON conducted a telephone conference with the Port of Los Angeles (POLA) to receive an update on the POLA's experience to date with its Alternative Maritime Power (AMP) project. POLA has retrofitted one terminal, China Shipping, with conduit and wiring and is currently awaiting installation of the transformer that is on order. The following issues were discussed: 3.1 Electrical System Although voltage requirements do vary by ship, POLA’s analysis shows there are only two electrical systems. Ten percent of the ships calling at POLA are at 6.6KV and 90% are at 440V. The average hotelling power demand is about 4MW. The Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (DWP) and POLA have standardized the shore side part of the system. DWP input is 14.5 KV, which will be stepped down to 6.6 KV and provided directly to cargo ships. For ships using 440V, another step-down transformer could be placed on shore, on a barge, or on the receiving vessel. DWP has determined there is sufficient system capacity for providing the power for shore-side electrification without the need for developing new supplies. 3.2 Synchronization POLA confirmed that the need for synchronization varies from vessel to vessel. Some vessels go completely dark before switching to shore power, as already happens in certain circumstances, but others, such as the Princess Cruise Line, require phased-in synchronization to protect the ir equipment. 3.3 Retrofitting Costs At this time, POLA and potential shippers examining shore-side electrification are only considering new vessel applications. China Shipping has agreed to install cold- ironing capabilities on one of its new ships as long as the POLA pays for the capital costs of engineering and construction. The comparative operating costs of producing power for hotelling are $0.089 per kilowatt-hour (kWh) at DWP’s industrial rate, $0.045/kWh using Marine Diesel Oil (MDO) or Marine Gas Oil (MGO) in ship auxiliary engines, and $0.0333/kWh using residual fuel oil in ship auxiliary engines.
7 E N V I R O N
3.4 Call Frequency POLA’s analysis indicated that during 2002 to 2003 fiscal year, 1,702 vessels made 5,716 calls to the POLA. Of those, only 750 vessels (44%) called more than once, 300 vessels (18%) made port calls six times or more, and only 46 vessels (2.7%) called more than 12 times per year. 3.5 Relationship to Other Ports POLA has not interacted with any other ports regarding implementation of shore-side electrification. 3.6 Low-Sulfur Fuel POLA’s side letter with China Shipping that requires the use of CARB low-sulfur diesel in near-shore waters was discussed. POLA is concerned that CARB low-sulfur diesel may not meet international requirements for flashpoint and may have too low a viscosity for practical use. If its use proves possible, ships will have to install separate tanks for the CARB fuel. Given the large amounts ships could use, having sufficient fuel available is an issue. 3.7 Labor China Shipping would be responsible for resolving any labor issues if shore-side electrification is implemented.
8 E N V I R O N
4.0 MEETINGS WITH SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON
In two meetings held on May 29 and July 15, 2003, SCE expressed great interest in participating in the cold ironing study and strong support for implementing cold ironing at the POLB. SCE indicated that even if the entire POLB were converted to cold ironing, SCE would have no problem meeting the power demand and that the impact on the regional grid would be negligible. 4.1 California Electricity Market Update Based upon California Energy Commission data and SCE’s January 2003 forecast, SCE’s power supply comes from 35 – 40 % SCE-owned power, 25 – 30% California Department of Water Resources (CDWR) power, and 30 – 35% from other contracts. The remainder (up to 5%) is made up of spot market purchases. SCE representatives stated that about 45% of the cost of electricity depends on natural gas prices. The CDWR sells electricity to SCE at $0.11/kWh, while the cost of SCE-generated power (nuclear, coal, and hydro) is approximately $0.04/kWh. After other adjustments, SCE estimates the 2004 system-wide average rate would be around $0.125/kWh. This is a significant decrease from recent prices, which were dramatically impacted by contracts signed during and shortly after the California power crisis in 2001. It should be noted that SCE’s estimates were based on projected market conditions and may change depending on regulatory outcomes. During the meeting, ENVIRON requested an overview of the port-specific electric grid from SCE, including typical customer-delivery-metered points at 66 kV, 12 kV and 480 volts. SCE requires that detailed transmission and distribution circuit information be treated as “Confidential and Proprietary.”
9 E N V I R O N
5.0 MEETING WITH USEPA REGION IX On August 27, 2003, ENVIRON met with USEPA Region IX staff Dave Jesson, Roxanne Johnson and David Albright to solicit their views regarding regulatory, legal and policy issues surrounding cold ironing. The following issues were discussed: 5.1 MARPOL Annex VI Regarding the Annex VI - Regulations for the Prevention of Air Pollution from Ships to the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL), a ratification package for the U.S. Government has been transmitted to the U. S. Senate for ratification. USEPA staff will provide ENVIRON with a copy of the support documents, which discuss the impact of ratification, including the possibility of creating a SOX emission control area (SECA) for the gulf, west, and east coasts. A country must have ratified Annex VI in order to be able to create a SECA. 5.2 Recent USEPA Rulemaking The recent USEPA rulemaking for marine vessels discusses the issue of hotelling emissions in the "response to comments"1. This document gives a good indication of the position of several stakeholders on the issue, including the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). USEPA's position appears to be that hotelling emissions must be addressed by State and local authorities as the Clean Air Act leaves "the regulation of the use and operation of non-road engines to state and local governments.” 5.3 SCAQMD Plans The SCAQMD adopted their 2003 South Coast Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) on August 1, 20032. CARB subsequently approved the AQMP as part of the State Implementation Plan (SIP) on October 23, 2003, and will now submit the plan USEPA. A summary of the adopted portions of the SIP that could affect the ports is provided in Section 6.1 of this report. The assignment of responsibility to USEPA by CARB and the AQMD is apparently unacceptable to USEPA, so the adopted plan contains two attainment demonstrations: with and without Federal assignments. It is unclear how the Air Resources Board will deal with this issue in their adoption hearing. It is also
1 http://www.epa.gov/otaq/regs/nonroad/marine/ci/r03003.pdf 2 http://www.aqmd.gov/hb/030835a.html
10 E N V I R O N
unclear how USEPA will act on such an approach and, likewise, how potential litigants, such as environmental groups, will react. The South Coast adoption document also requested that CARB change their Cold Ironing measure from a long-term measure to a short-term measure with an adoption date of 2005 and implementation in 2007 to 2009. The SCAQMD adoption document also formally submitted an additional control "concept" for hotelling to CARB for "CARB's consideration" in reducing the reliance on long-term measures. The concept would require retrofits of auxiliary engines on ships during hotelling (diesel oxidation catalysts and diesel particulate filters). The SCAQMD adoption document also commits the District to complete a feasibility study for cold ironing by 2004 with an anticipated adoption date of a regulation in 2005. The feasibility analysis would entail the assessment of legal authority, emissions inventory, cost-effectiveness, and control approaches. Several other ports related feasibility studies that might affect hotelling emissions are also anticipated.
11 E N V I R O N
6.0 MEETING WITH CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD
On September 12, 2003, ENVIRON met with California Air Resources Board (CARB) staff Dan Donohoue, Peggy Terrico and Paul Milkey to solicit their views regarding regulatory, legal and policy issues surrounding cold ironing. Discussions included both possible technical alternatives, and regulatory approaches. Possible technical alternatives besides cold ironing are alternative fueling (lower sulfur diesel, LNG, etc) and retrofits for onboard engines. Possible regulatory approaches include establishing regulations in the State Implementation Plan (SIP) or in a federal rule establishing opacity limits (as in Juneau, Alaska), establishing a SOX Emission Control Area (SECA) under MARPOL Annex VI, and/or creating economic incentives (differential fees, ERCs, etc). Issues discussed included: 6.1 California State Implementation Plan (SIP) and SCAQMD CARB held a Public Hearing on the SCAQMD’s 2003 AQMP on October 23, 2003. The technical issue heavily debated was the amount of emission reductions that the CARB should commit to in the near term measures in comparison to the amount of potential emission reductions that should remain the long term category. CARB staff believed feasible, implementable and quantifiable control measures could yield only 23 tons per day (TPD) of reactive organic gas (ROG) and nitrogen oxide (NOX) by 2010, whereas SCAQMD staff believed there were sufficient mobile source and consumer product controls to provide 120 TPD of ROG and NOX in the same time period. As one of the elements of the SCAQMD proposed strategy (the Burke amendment) suggested cold ironing for ships calling at the ports, representatives from the Port of Long Beach, the Port of Los Angeles, and the Pacific Merchant Shipping Association testified in opposition to advancing long term measures into the short term plan. Particular points they made were:
1. It is premature to turn cold ironing into a short term measures; 2. There are significant differences between how cruise ships and cargo ships operate; 3. The provision in AB471 requiring electrification of cruise ships by 2008 has been removed
due to its impracticability;
12 E N V I R O N
4. Estimated reductions are too great; and 5. Ports are actively working with agencies on other control alternatives.
SCAQMD staff insisted that they understand the technical issues and that cold ironing is still a long-term project, and that it is only one measure that should be evaluated over the next few years. Representatives from consumer product industry testified that the additional reductions expected from reformulating their products were unachievable. Most comments by this group also included statements about previous reformulations, the potential decline in the quality or efficacy of products, and the economic impact on small businesses and their employees. The majority of the approximately 100 speakers were local officials, community representatives and environmental activists. Almost all asked either for adoption of the AQMP with the Burke amendment or a 90 day delay, during which time the two staffs could rework the mobile source and consumer product strategies to strengthen the plan and increase the expected short term emissions reductions. Wilmington, Santa Clarita and East Los Angeles were the most vocal communities. The “hot buttons” were asthma, diesel emissions, air toxics risk, environmental justice, and the ports. The CARB Governing Board unanimously adopted the AQMP with slight modifications to the Burke amendment in order to send the message that they are serious about reducing emissions enough to meet the 2010 compliance deadline and they intend to “keep the pressure on.” 6.2 Legal Authority CARB staff believes a strong case can be made that the State has the authority to regulate marine vessels when it can be shown that their emissions have an adverse impact on onshore air quality. They feel their case is even stronger for ships that operate wholly in the defined coastal waters of the state. The staff provided ENVIRON with a detailed CARB legal analysis that was prepared as part of a June 1984 report to the California legislature on air pollutant emissions from marine vessels. 6.3 Regulatory Approaches and Incentive Programs CARB staff indicated that establishing and enforcing opacity limitations would be at the bottom of their list of regulatory approaches. Although CARB and SCAQMD thus far have no incentive program, CAR suggested one additional possible economic incentive - an environmental award, like the Energy Star program, that would recognize shipping companies or vessels that were green
13 E N V I R O N
in some fashion (fuels, controls, etc). It is still unclear, however, whether such a program would be approvable in the future. The CARB staff reminded ENVIRON of an additional measure in the 2003 AQMP- a mitigation fee program to be adopted by USEPA. The mitigation fee would be paid by federal sources to the District through USEPA. The District would then use the monies collected to implement strategies for both federal and non-federal sources to achieve equivalent reductions for SIP purposes. As with the other so-called federal measures, this will likely be objectionable to USEPA. 6.4 Other Discussions The staff had two suggestions for ENVIRON’s examination of cost effectiveness: (1) that new (not yet constructed) ships be compared to existing ships and (2) that the overall cost effectiveness of cold ironing in one port be compared to the cost effectiveness of some form of multi-ports approach. The competitive disadvantage possible if one port requires cold ironing (or like measures) while other west coast ports do not was also discussed. CARB is well aware of this problem, and is meeting bimonthly with counterparts in Oregon, Washington, and British Columbia, Canada to discuss this and other common problems. CARB staff discussed the special marine vessel technology study coordinated by Department of Transportation Maritime Administration (MARA) and funded by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), the Port of Los Angeles (POLA), Ventura County Air Pollution Control District, (VCAPCD), USEPA and perhaps others. Projects under consideration now include a demonstration project on a Matson ship (apparently looking at emulsified fuel) and a project on a MAERSK ship to test exhaust control technology. Both of these projects are expected to occur in 2004.
14 E N V I R O N
7.0 MEETING WITH THE SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT
On September 12, 2003, representatives from the POLB and ENVIRON met with Chung Liu, Deputy Executive Officer, and Jill Whynot, Dipankar Sarkar, and Ed Eckerle of the SCAQMD. ENVIRON first described the scope of the POLB feasibility study and the POLB representative described the history and background of the study. SCAQMD is also planning to conduct a feasibility study on reducing ship hotelling emission starting in early 2004. The study will primarily focus on cold ironing, although SCAQMD stated that its intention would be to include all control technologies. The SCAQMD study will evaluate the cost-effectiveness of alternative control measures as well. The POLB emphasized the need for cooperation with other west coast ports in implementing such technology. Mr. Liu agreed that it would to be very problematic if a single port implements cold ironing. ENVIRON and the SCAQMD cold ironing study team, led by Jill Whynot, will exchange study-related information. Issues discussed included: 7.1 Cost Effectiveness Participants discussed the different methods of allocating cost effectiveness when controlling more than one pollutant (e.g. NOX and PM). SCAQMD staff agreed to send ENVIRON documents that explain the methodology they use to address this issue. ENVIRON received that document on September 25, 2003. 7.2 SCAQMD Feasibility Study on Cold Ironing This project has been assigned to Jill Whynot. She explained that during the course of adoption of the AQMP by the Board in August, the environmental community suggested adding Attachment 2C, SCAQMD's Action Plan to Expedite Implementation of Long Term Measures. Included in this attachment are several proposed strategies for ports, including cold ironing. A feasibility study will be prepared for cold ironing in 2004. If cold ironing is found to be feasible and within the SCAQMD's legal authority to implement, it would be proposed for the Governing Board to adopt as a rule in 2005. It was agreed at the meeting that the District should work with both ports on their analysis, since both have cold ironing work underway. The District was very interested in being kept abreast of the POLB project to aid their work, which will begin in the next few months.
15 E N V I R O N
7.3 Impact of Cold ironing on Port Competitiveness This issue arose several times during the meeting. Dr. Liu mentioned that coordination between the Pacific Rim ports would seem to be a key. He thought if cold ironing is required in several ports (e.g., Oakland and Seattle), it would be much more acceptable, but he wondered if only certain ships come to POLB or POLA. There was also a brief discussion of the possibility that it might not be that easy for ships to divert to Oakland or the Northwest, because of the large market share of POLB/POLA and the in-basin destination of much of the cargo. 7.4 Risk Assessment Dr. Liu asked if a risk assessment could be added to the scope of the project. POLB replied that, at this point, evaluating and presenting environmental issues was beyond the intended scope of the project, which aims to evaluate the feasibility of cold ironing and other alternatives. 7.5 Safety It was recalled that during the SCAQMD's rulemaking process in the late 1980's a regulation requiring cold ironing was ultimately dropped in large part because of the strong concerns raised by the Coast Guard, especially regarding the ability of ships to get away from berth in short periods. Steam ships require several hours of “ gathering steam up” to be able to leave berth if they start with unfired boilers. Participants speculated that the Coast Guard might be less concerned now because the relative number of steamships compared to diesel-engine-powered vessels has dropped significantly in the past 13 years. 7.6 Legal Authority As part of their feasibility analysis, the District will evaluate their legal authority to adopt and implement a cold ironing regulation. ENVIRON agreed to provide SCAQMD with a copy of the legal analysis performed by CARB legal staff in a 1984 report to the legislature. Obviously, there is a great deal of uncertainty regarding the relative roles and positions of the three levels of government (USEPA, CARB, and SCAQMD) as they address hotelling emissions.
16 E N V I R O N
8.0 MEETING WITH THE UNITED STATES COAST GUARD On October 28, 2003, representatives from the Port of Long beach and ENVIRON met with the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) Eleventh District led by Lieutenant Commander Eva Kummerfeld, Chief of Port Operations. The meeting was to solicit the USCG’s view and position on implementing cold ironing technology in general and at the Port of Long Beach in particular. The meeting started with introduction given by Port of Long Beach on goals and elements of current cold ironing study. The USCG offered its general support for using cold ironing technology in seaports. The following topics were discussed in the meeting. 8.1 USCG Responsibilities The USCG is responsible for safety and security of ship movement in U.S. coastal water and harbor waterways. USCG also enforces a chemical spill prevention program under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA, a.k.a. Superfund). 8.2 30-Minutes Rule In response to the team’s question, the Coast Guard stated that it is unaware of a so-called “30-minutes rule” which says the USCG requires vessels to be ready to pull away from the dock with 30-minutes notice. The USCG does not believe 30-minutes notice is applicable to all types of ships. The USCG Eleventh District is developing an Area Maritime Security Plan (AMSP) and a Port Safety Plan (PSP). These plans may establish a series of emergency scenarios in which ships could be asked to leave their docks in intervals ranging from immediate to up to 12 hours depending on level of security, degree of emergency and weather conditions. When these plans are established, t will act as guidance, not rules. The USCG is interested in information on how long a marine vessel would take to prepare to set underway when cold ironed, particularly if it would be longer than at present. 8.3 Shore Power Electrification The USCG will require ships connected to shore power to maintain fully functional fire detection and firefighting equipment, internal and external communication, safety equipment, and spill clean-up equipment.
17 E N V I R O N
8.4 Vessels and Terminals Handling Dangerous and Hazardous Cargo The USCG does not require the exclusion of specific cargoes from cold ironing. Safety issues and personnel training should be addressed according to California or Federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regulations and associated industrial standards. For example, chemical tankers must maintain the minimum inert gas concentration. 8.5 Clean Fuel Barge Other than keeping the waterway clear for ship traffic and meeting safety requirements imposed by other regulations, the USCG has no objections to utilizing a clean fuel barge as an alternative to control hotelling emissions. 8.6 System Design Review and Approval The USCG does not require a review of system design, and the USCG is not responsible for approving or disapproving any engineering design. However, the USCG would expect any shore-side electric distribution facility to meet the location, distance, and security requirements set forth in the associated classification society standards.
18 E N V I R O N
9.0 MEETING WITH MARITIME ASSOCIATIONS On October 8, 2003, ENVIRON’s team met with John McLaurin, President, and John Berge, Vice President, of the Pacific Merchant Shipping Association (PMSA) and Marc MacDonald, Vice-President, of the Pacific Maritime Association (PMA). The two associations have many common members from both the vessel operators and the terminals. The PMA focuses on negotiating and implementing labor agreements with the International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union
(ILWU), while the PMSA is more of a lobbying organization focused on the key issues facing the shipping industry. Their input regarding the key issues surrounding cold ironing was solicited. 9.1 Legal Authority and Jurisdiction It is PMSA’s and PMA’s view that the legal authority of the SCAQMD, CARB, and even the federal government to require cold ironing of ships is questionable. In particular, they pointed to a court decision "Intertanko v. Locke" that restricted the ability of a state to regulate marine vessels. In this March 2000 decision, the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari and addressed the question of whether the State of Washington regulations, which placed restrictions on oil tankers that entered state waters, were preempted by congressional acts that had the same or similar regulations. The Court held that federal law preempted four of the Washington regulations. The Court also remanded the case in order for the lower court to determine if any of the other provisions of the Washington regulation were preempted. It should be noted that at the appeal stage, the United States intervened on Intertanko's behalf, contending that the District Court's ruling failed to give sufficient weight to the substantial foreign affairs interests of the Federal Government. 9.2 Labor Many labor jurisdictional issues would need to be addressed if cold ironing were implemented. PMSA and PMA believe that ship owners would want the responsibility for "plugging in" to be reserved for the ship crews and not be considered an activity under the purview of the ILWU. However, they envisioned that the ILWU would likely argue that connection and disconnection are landside activities covered by union contracts. The industry’s concern would be the additional costs for dedicated crews, safety training, and technical training if the ILWU were responsible for the connection and disconnection. Existing responsibilities for bunker fueling and fresh water hookups could also provide useful precedents in resolving labor and union issues regarding cold ironing hookups.
19 E N V I R O N
9.3 Worker Safety The discussion regarding worker safety primarily entailed jurisdictional issues. PMSA and PMA pointed out that CAL-OSHA has regulatory responsibility for safety for landside operations that affect the ILWU, while vessel crews are covered by the regulations of the country in which the vessel is flagged. Federal OSHA may also have some jurisdiction for some activities not covered by CAL-OSHA. PMSA and PMA envisioned that there would be safety requirements and training needed regarding the use of high voltage lines for cold ironing. 9.4 Operational Flexibility The association representatives reiterated many of the same concerns voiced by the individual vessel operators at the earlier information gathering meetings. The impact of cold ironing on the current practice of chartering would be a big issue for many operators. Likewise, cold ironing could represent a significant operational constraint for those operators that ship large quantities of discretionary cargo, and have ships call at a port only once or twice a year. 9.5 Retrofitting Existing Vessels versus Outfitting New Vessels The PMA and PMSA representatives expressed concern about the costs of retrofitting ships to accommodate equipment needed for cold ironing. They believe that some ships would have to be taken out of service to complete the retrofit and that in some cases valuable container slots would be lost to accommodate the equipment. It is their belief that it may make more sense to limit cold ironing to future new ships so that cold ironing could be fully integrated into their design, and the difficulties and expense of retrofitting could be avoided. However, they did agree that the air quality benefits of such a long term, gradual implementation would be greatly delayed. This is particularly true because of the probability that relatively few new vessels would be constructed in the next few years because of the tremendous building boom of the past few years. 9.6 Standardization The PMA and PMSA representatives emphasized the need for standardization of any cold ironing requirements. They believe it would be best for the International Maritime Organization (IMO) or some other national or international body or government to establish design standards so that ships calling at multiple ports would have the ability to have one set of plug- ins (analogous to the plug- ins that aircraft have when converting to local power at airports). They are concerned that if POLB or POLA independently establish cold ironing requirements, the equipment may not work in other ports.
20 E N V I R O N
9.7 Alternative Strategies The PMA and PMSA representatives advocated personal views that alternative strategies may be a better approach than cold ironing in the short term. In particular, lower sulfur; cleaner fuels and/or differential port fees for cleaner vessels would appear to be attractive. They reiterated the need for a standardized approach mandated by an international or national body to insure a level playing field. The PMA and PMSA representatives noted that in past years vessels routinely burned MDO or other non-bunker fuel when maneuvering or hotelling because of the operational difficulties in using bunker for these operations. However, in recent years, vessels are routinely burning bunker fuel for all activities including cruising, maneuvering and hotelling, because new engines are able to use the fuel. New construction often has a single fuel tank from which all on-board engines draw. Consequently, a strategy based on burning cleaner fuel, such as EPA/CARB diesel, while in or near ports would likely require some degree of retrofitting to install separate fuel tanks on vessels. They also pointed out that the current law that removes the tax exemption of bunker fue l, was having a negative effect on air quality, because vessels are no longer bunkering in California. Vessels apparently have the tank capacity to fuel in the Far East, where fuel has a much higher sulfur content, for a round trip to the west coast and back.
21 E N V I R O N
10.0 CONCLUSIONS At the direction of the POLB, ENVIRON has completed the process of collecting cold ironing policy-related information from vessel and terminal operators, regulatory agencies and other stakeholders parties. As the study progresses, ENVIRON will maintain communications with the stakeholders and will re-visit some issues at a later stage of the study. Additional findings will be addressed and reported in the final report.
A T T A C H M E N T A
Appendix A-1 E N V I R O N
Ship Operators Questionnaire
Please return your responses to Mr. Joseph Hower by email at [email protected] or fax (213) 943-6301 by August 20, 2003
Responder’s name
Business name
Phone number
Fax number
E-mail address
(1) What is your biggest concern for your vessels if cold ironing is required at the POLB?
� Operational costs � Capital costs � Operational flexibility � Safety and other liabilities � Other, please specify
(2) Is there a benefit to your business for vessels to be cold ironed at the POLB? � Improve public relations � Reduce engine maintenance cost � Improve engine maintenance environment/opportunity � Other, please specify
(3) What other air emission control options are you willing to consider? � Switch to cleaner fuels while in port � Replace generator engines to lower emitting engines � Install add-on control devices � Use a barge mounted fuel cell to supply power � Use barge supplied clean fuels while hotelling � Options to reduce onboard energy consumptions � Other, please specify
Appendix A-2 E N V I R O N
(4) How many of your vessels made calls to the POLB during 2001 and 2002?
(5) Who owns the vessels operated by your company? � Number of Vessels owned by Company: _____________ � Number of Vessels owned by others: _______________
(6) For the next 3-4 years, do you foresee any following fleet changes?
� Number of vessels owned by you changing to: _________________ � Among your owned vessels, number of vessels that will continue call at the POLB
_____________ � Among your owned vessels, number of vessels will be replaced by newer vessels
_____________ � Other changes in fleet character
(7) What is the average vessel age of your fleet?
� Average vessel age is ____________ years � Oldest vessel age is ______________ years � Newest vessel age is _____________ years
(8) What is the average vessel service life (years) of your fleet?
(9) What is the average dollar amount that you are paying for each vessel docked at the POLB?
(10) What is the average dollar amount that you are spending for running the onboard power generators during hotelling at the port (diesel fuel cost)?
(11) At what circumstances are you willing to retrofit your vessel(s) for cold ironing?
� If required by international regulations � If required by the U.S. government � If required by all west coast ports � Only if it provides economic benefit to my business � Other, please specify
Appendix A-3 E N V I R O N
(12) Are any air quality requirements such as cold ironing or fuel restrictions that you currently encountered or might encounter in the future at other ports around the world?
(13) As the connection/disconnection process is likely to involve 3 –4 persons, do you see
this as being undertaken by
� Ships Crew � Terminal Employees � Others
(14) Where do you usually get diesel fuel supply for onboard engines? What is the average
sulfur content of diesel fuel you purchased?
(15) After an onboard diesel generator has been shut down, what is the average time needed
for bringing it back to service?
(16) Any other concerns that you may have about the cold ironing study?
Appendix A-4 E N V I R O N
Terminal Operators Questionnaire Please return your responses to Mr. Joseph Hower by email at [email protected] or fax (213) 943-6301 by August 20, 2003
Responder’s name
Business name
Phone number
Fax number
E-mail address
(1) What is your biggest concern for the implementation of cold ironing at the POLB?
� Ships might go to other ports � Increase operational costs � Reduce operational flexibility � Safety and other liabilities � Other, please specify
(2) What types of vessels do you think are the best candidates for cold ironing? � Container ships � Cruise ships � RORO � Dry bulk � Reefers � Other type, please specify
(3) During the past 12 months, what type of vessel made the most calls to your
terminal/berth? � Container ships � Cruise ships � RORO � Dry bulk � Reefers � Other type, please specify
Appendix A-5 E N V I R O N
(4) Can a vessel be always routed to the same terminal/berth when it calls at the POLB?
(5) During the past 12 months, what is the average vessel hotelling time at your terminal/berth? � < 12 hours � 10 – 24 hours � 24 – 48 hours � > 48 hours
(6) During cargo loading or unloading, what is the maximum vertical movement of the ship? � < 10 feet � 10 – 15 feet � 15 – 20 feet � > 20 feet
(7) Will the power connection/disconnection process affect your dockside activities?
� No � Yes, It will have a major impact on the dockside work � Yes, It will have a minor impact on the dockside work
(8) Who do you feel should undertake the power connection/disconnection work?
� Terminal employees � Ship staff � Others, please specify
(9) Do you have any other concerns about the cold ironing study?
A P P E N D I X B
Collected Vessels and Berths Information
Appendix B. Collected Vessels and Berths Information
Quest. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
A.1 VICTORIA BRIDGE
HANJIN PARIS LIHUEOOCL
CALIFORNIACHIQUITA JOY ECSTASY
CHEVRON WASHINGTON
GROTON ALASKAN FRONTIER
ANSAC HARMONY
PYXIS THORSEGGEN
A.2 Vessel IMO Number 9184926 9128128 7105471 9102289 9038945 8711344 7391226 7901928 NA 9181508 8514083 8116063A.3 Vessel Type UCC UCC UCC UCC GRF MPR TPD ITB TCR BBU MVE GGCA.4 Flag Panama Panama USA Hong Kong Bermuda Panama USA USA USA Panama Panama Bahamas
A.5 Owner Cypress Maritime KSB MatsonNew Container No.
1 ShippingNCV Ltd. Carnival Chevron USA
First Tug Barge Corp.
Alaska Tanker Company
Taki Shipping Feng Li MaritimeNorsk Pacific
Steamship
A.6 Agent K-LINE HANJIN MATSON OOCL Great White Fleet CARNIVALGAC
INCHCAPE/CHEVRON
BPAlaska Tanker
CompanyANSAC Fujitrans
FOREST TERMINAL
A.7 Operator K-LINE HANJIN MATSON OOCL INCHCAPE /WD CARNIVALChevron Texaco
ShippingBP
Alaska Tanker Company
TRANSMARINE NAV.
Toyofuji Shipping Seaspan
A.8 Cargo Type Containers Containers Containers Containers Reefer CruiseLiquid Petroleum
ProductsLiquid Petroleum
ProductsTanker Dry Bulk Roll-on Roll-off Break Bulk
A.9 GRTonnage 47,541 65,643 26,746 66,046 8,665 70,367 22,761 24,000 185000 28,527 43,425 15,136A.10 Vessel Model Year 1998 1997 1971 1996 1994 1991 1976 1982 2004 1998 1986 1983
A.11 Year and Place Vessel Built 1998/Imabari S.B. Hanjin H.I. Avondale S.Y. Mitsubishi H.I. Kvaerner Kleven unknownFmc Corp. Portland
ORunknown 2004 San Diego Kanda Zosensho Shin Kurushima
1982 Swan Hunters Shipbuilders
Newcastle upon Tyne
A.12 Main Propulsion System
A.12.1 Propulsion Engine B&W B&WDe Laval Steam
TurbineSulzer M.A.N. Sulzer
Synchronous Propulsion Motor /
CPPEnterprise Diesel Electric Mitsuibishi Mitsuibishi Kobe
Slow speed 2-stroke diesel
A.12.2Rated Capacity Engine (Break
HP)48,750 at 94 RPM 74520 3,200 B 6,612 B 1,700 12,500 at 80 deg C
20MW propulsive power
7,99915,050 PS x
107RPM6,400
A.12.3 Manufacturer Mitsui Korea Heavy
IndustriesMHI GE/Bird Johnson Man B&W/Altson Kobe Steel Co B&W
A.12.4 Model Number 8K90MC-6 12K90MC-C Turbine 12RTA84C 9L58/64 12ZAV40S 264X744 (motor) DMRV 16-4 Various 5UEC52LA 8SUEC 60 LA 4L67GBA.12.5 Year Built 1998 1997 19095 not answered 2003 1986 1983
Number of Engines 2 2 1 2 1 4 unknown unknown 1 1 1A.13 Navigation System
A.13.1 Type
Radar with ARPA JMA-952-6CA & Chart Plotter SPL-
2000
9600TM/ ARPAIntegrated
Navigation SystemGPS IBS Electro-Hydraulic not available
A.13.2 ManufacturerJapan Radio Co &
Yokogawa Denshikiki Co.
STN Atlas JRC not answered Seacost Mitsubishi not available
A.13.3 Model No. LS54467 & 0607 9600 TM/ARPA SNA-200 not answered Various DF-170 not availableA.13.4 Model Year Built 1998 1997 1995 not answered 2003/2004 1985 not availableA.14 Main Boilers
A.14.1 Number of Main Boilers not answered not answered not applicable 1 gas trubine none not applicableOne waste heat
economiser
A.14.2 Rating per Boiler (MMBtu/hr) not answered not answered not applicable12,500 hp
(generating capacity)not applicable not applicable not answered
A.14.3 Manufacturer not answered not answered not applicable GE not applicable not applicable not answeredA.14.4 Model not answered not answered not applicable MG3112R not applicable not applicable not answeredA.14.5 Year Built not answered not answered not applicable 1976 not applicable not applicable not answered
A.15Type of Fuel Burned in Main
BoilersA.15.1 Start Up not answered not answered not applicable diesel #2 not applicable not applicable not answeredA.15.2 At Sea not answered not answered not applicable diesel #2 not applicable not applicable Engine waste heatA.15.3 In Port not answered not answered not applicable diesel #2 not applicable not applicable not in useA.16 Auxiliary Boilers
March 30, 2004 Page 1 of 6 E N V I R O N
Appendix B. Collected Vessels and Berths Information
Quest. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
A.1 VICTORIA BRIDGE
HANJIN PARIS LIHUEOOCL
CALIFORNIACHIQUITA JOY ECSTASY
CHEVRON WASHINGTON
GROTON ALASKAN FRONTIER
ANSAC HARMONY
PYXIS THORSEGGEN
A16.1 No. of Auxiliary Boiler (1st Set) 1 1 11 (unfired steam
boiler)2 ?? 1
A16.2 Rating per Boiler (MMBtu/hr) 3,000 kg/hr9,500kg/hr at 7.0kg/Cm2G
3,800kg/hr20,000lbs/hr at
200psi4,000kg/hr exhaust
2,000kg/hrRated evaporation
1,500kg/hrnot answered
A16.3 Manufacturer MHI Kanglim Ind. MHICombustion Engineering
AalborgSasebo Heavy
Industriesnot answered
A16.4 Model Vertical, MC-30D KVW MC-38A not answeredcombination
oilfired/exhaust gas MISSION OC
SCB-016 not answered
A16.5 Year Built 1998 1997 1995 not answered 2003 1985 not answered
A.17Type of Fuel Burned in Auxiliary
BoilersA.17.1 Start Up MDO MDO MDO Not available not answered Diesel oil not answeredA.17.2 At Sea No Use HFO HFO Not available not answered HFO-380 CST not in use
A.17.3 In Port IFO 380 HFO(RMG35) HFO Not availableBoiler runs on HFO
& MDOHFO-380 CST HFO380est.
A.18Auxiliary Engines (Ship Service
Engine)A18.1A
Number of Auxiliary Engines (1st set)
2 2 1 1 1 2 1 2 none Assume 3 3 3
A18.2A Generating Capacity (BHP or kW) 2,000PS, 1,360kW 2,300 2,500 2,100 1,860 5,280 2,950 bhp 650 not applicable Assume 360kW 720 650
A18.1BNumber of Auxiliary Engines
(2nd set)2 2 1 3 4 1 not applicable none none
A18.2B Generating Capacity (BHP or kW) 2,000PS, 1,360kW 1,500 2003100PS,
(2100kW??)940 400 not applicable none none
A18.3 Liters/cylinder 140.40 28.15 24.00 Not available not applicable Unknown 14.70
A18.4 ManufacturerYanmer Diesel
EngineSsangyong Heavy
Ind. (Wartsila)Daihatsu Ruston not applicable Daihatsu Diesel Bergen
A18.5 Model 6N 280l-SN4R32e x 2, 6R32e x
2DK-280 TB3000 not applicable 6DL-24 KRG.6
A18.6 Year Built 1998 1997 1995 1976 not applicable 1985 1983
A18.7 Type Fuel for Auxiliary Engine IFO 380 CST HFO380 HFO diesel #2 not applicableHFO 380 CST
*Diesel OilMGO
Total Generator kW 5,440 7,600 2,700 8,400 5,620 10,560 2,600 1,300 unknown assume 1080kW 2160 2100Auxillary Generator kW none none none none none none 2,200 none none none none none
Emergency Generator kW none none none none none none 400 none 715 none none none% of GRT unknown 11.6% 10.1% 12.7% 64.9% 15.0% 11.4% N/A unknown unknown 5.0% 13.9%
% of Propulsion unknown 13.8% N/A N/A 45.0% 33.3% 5.2% N/A unknown unknown 23.0% 42.4%A.19 For Tankers
A.19.1 Number of Cargo Tanks not applicable not applicable not applicable not applicable 16 20 not applicable not applicable
A.19.2Total Cargo Tank Capacity (m
tons)not applicable not applicable not applicable not applicable 268,979 bbls 185,000 not applicable not applicable
A.19.3 Number of Electric Pump not applicable not applicable not applicable not applicable 8 3 not applicable not applicable
A.19.4Rating of Each Electric Pump
(kW)not applicable not applicable not applicable not applicable
223 kW at 4160V (300hp)
2x4,000m3/hr,1x2,300m3/hr
not applicable not applicable
A.20 For Reefers
A.20.1No Refrigerated Cargo
Compartmentsnot applicable 500 not applicable not applicable not applicable not applicable not applicable
A.20.2Total Volume of Refrigerated
Cargonot applicable not applicable not applicable not applicable not applicable not applicable not applicable
A.21 Number of Fuel Tanks 10 8 10 26 storage tanks plus service and settling
tanks9
5 for HFO and 4 for MGO
March 30, 2004 Page 2 of 6 E N V I R O N
Appendix B. Collected Vessels and Berths Information
Quest. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
A.1 VICTORIA BRIDGE
HANJIN PARIS LIHUEOOCL
CALIFORNIACHIQUITA JOY ECSTASY
CHEVRON WASHINGTON
GROTON ALASKAN FRONTIER
ANSAC HARMONY
PYXIS THORSEGGEN
A.21.1 Total Fuel Tank Capicity (m tons) 5800 6.2 8,579 11,450 bblHFO incl LSFO = 5,360m3, MDO =
500m3
2,699.58mt, 2,754.68m3
1506mt of HFO and 86mt of MGO
B.1No of Calls to POLB in Past 24
Months20 21 8 50 0 9 48
B.2 Normal RouteB.2.1 From … China HKG not answered Richmond, CA Valdez, AK Toyahashi Japan Vancouver Isl.B.2.2 To … Japan KHH not answered El Segundo, CA Long Beach Portland, OR Long BeachB.2.3 To … USA PUS not answered Long Beach Valdez, AK Long Beach San DiegoB.2.4 To … Japan LGB not answered Richmond, CA Toyahashi Japan Vancouver Isl.
B.3 Pier/Berth for Tyipcal Port Call 9 ports Pier T F8Varioous tanker
berthsLB#121 B83 50/54
B.3.1Call More Than 1 Berth in Single
Port CallNo No not answered Yes No No Yes
B.4 Carry Dangerous Cargo Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No NoB.4.1 Explosive Yes No Yes No Yes No NoB.4.2 Combustible Yes Yes Yes No No No NoB.4.3 Corrosive Yes Yes Yes No No No NoB.4.4 Poisons and Hazardous Yes Yes Yes No No No NoB.4.5 Flammable Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No NoB.4.6 Oxidizing Yes Yes Yes No No No NoB.4.7 Compressed Gas Yes Yes Yes No No No No
B.5 Fuel Oil SupplierFAMM (Fuel &
Marine Marketing) Long Beach
ELF, BP, MOBIL, FAMM, LG,
SK,…in Rotterdam, Pusan, Long Beach
ExxonMobil Chevron USA from Long BeachPetro Diamond -
Long Beach
Jankovitch in Long Beach and Nanaimo
B.C.
B.6Auxiliary Engine Fuel Oil Sulfer
Content
B.6.1 Average (wt%) 2.0% 3.0% 3.5% <.05% m/m <5% 4.0%never revealed by
supplier
B.6.2 Max (wt%) 5.0% 3.5% 5.0% not answered not answered not answerednever revealed by
supplierAverage Time at Berth (hrs)
calculated by ENVIRON from Vessel Traffic Records
43.3 63 50.1 121.6 67.9 11.9 32 55.7 33 60 17.4 47.9
B.8 Provide Fuel Log for Each Aux
EngineProvided unanswered
did not understand question
unknown if provided None available not available not available
B.9Test Frequency of Emergency
Equip.Every Port Weekly Weekly before US
Main breakers tested each S/Y
Once a month Weekly Weekly & monthly
B.9.1 Time Needed for Test 30 min unanswered 2-3 hrs not answered not answered 1 hr 3 hrsB.10 Does Electrician Speak English Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
C.1 Location of Switchboard from APStarb'd 54m, Height
4.0m
From AFT 66m, from keel 14m,
Portside
Inside ER 83.6m from AP, 18.8m
from side shell port. 5.5m from side shell starboard, 14.383m
above base
80ft fwd of AP, over centerline, 50ft
above base
2 main 6.6kV switchboards &2
480V switchboards
MSB shore protection breaker
42m from AP, 34.6m above keel
From AP 15 m, port 5m, starboard
20m,above keel 13 m
C.1.1Range of Draft During
Un/Loading 10m 10 to13m 9 to 12m 15ft
draft loaded 18.75m, light ballast 8.4m
not answered 5 - 9m
C.2.1Distance of Enginer Room Aft
Bulkheads from AP36m 38m 16m 10ft not answered 28m 10m
March 30, 2004 Page 3 of 6 E N V I R O N
Appendix B. Collected Vessels and Berths Information
Quest. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
A.1 VICTORIA BRIDGE
HANJIN PARIS LIHUEOOCL
CALIFORNIACHIQUITA JOY ECSTASY
CHEVRON WASHINGTON
GROTON ALASKAN FRONTIER
ANSAC HARMONY
PYXIS THORSEGGEN
C.2.2Distance of Enginer Room Fwd
Bulkheads from AP60m 38m 85.6m 85ft not answered 44m 40m
C.2.3 Can a GA Be Provided not answered not answered under studyNo general access can be provided
Yes not answered Yes
C.3Point of Entry to Bring Cables on
Board from APStarb'd 42m, Height
13mabout 30m from shore to onboard
under study No No N/A None
C.4 Preferred Position to Create
Connection from APnot answered not answered under study
65ft fwd of the AP, centerline
To be determined N/A
There is no point at which a hatchway
type entry could be considered as "SAFE" with
C.5.1 Spare Breaker on the Dist Panel NoYes, a shore
connection terminal board
under study No not answered
No spare breaker. MSB is ACB type
AH-16B, rated current 1,155A
No
C.5.2 If So, What Is the Rating No 400 amps ACB under study No not answeredTrip at 115% (i.e.
1,328A)No
C.5.3Sufficient Space for a Spare
BreakerNo not answered under study No not answered
Shore connection breaqker Type TD 400 BA, breaking
capaicty 460V=30KA
No
C.6 Main SwitchboardC.6.1 Operating Voltage 450 440 450 440 440 6600 4160 450 6600 450 440C.6.2 Frequency 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60
C.6.3 Fault Level <10% not answered not answered 1200 amp breakers31.5kA rms 78kA
peakSee above 1500A-10sec
C.6a Type of Distribution System100V in a 440V
System440VAC for power, 220VAC for lighting
230V in a 440V system
6600V4160V 3-phase to 450V 3-phase to
120V 3-phase
6,600V, 480V (via tx) both w/ neutral
system
110V and 220V in 400V system
115V in a 208V system
C.6b How Many Generators1,700kVA x 4 sets,
150kVA x 1 set4 sets, 7,600kW
totally
4 sets, 3 diesel by Daihatsu and one shaft generator by
Taiyo, 2,100kW per set.
4: Main generator 8.8MW at 4160V, Auxiliary generator 2.2MW at 4160V Standby Emerg.
Generator 400kW at 450V, Foc'scle
generator 75kW at 450V
4 main set 6.3MW ea, plus emergency
715kW
3 sets, capacity = 900KVA x 450V x
60HZ x 3
3 Bergen KRG 6 700kW
C.6c.1 Make of Main Switch Board Uzushio Electric HEECO JRCS GE Alstrom Uzishio Electric Co. A.Watson & Dundas
C.6c.2 Make of Breakers Terasaki Electric HEECO JRCS GE Alstrom Terasaki ElectricMerlin-Gerrin &
TerasakiC.6c.3 Make of Governors Zecel Woodward JRCS GE Alstrom not answered Woodward
C.6d Generator Mode When Paralleled Isochronous Isochronous IsochronousGenerators do not operate paralleled
Droop Droop Synchronous
C.6e Type of Grounded System Negative unknowndid not understand
questionNegative None Negative Insulated neutral
C.7Power Management System
(PMS) InfoFull Automatic
System, NK ClassPMS is manned - No
PMSdid not understand
questionFully automatic Fully Automatic
PMS - manual, only generator control is
automatic
PMS is manned - no PMS
C.8 Does PMS Control Whole Ship PMS Control not applicabledid not understand
questionYes
No - all essential systems for
propulsion are controlled
Electrical distribution -
Manualnot applicable
March 30, 2004 Page 4 of 6 E N V I R O N
Appendix B. Collected Vessels and Berths Information
Quest. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
A.1 VICTORIA BRIDGE
HANJIN PARIS LIHUEOOCL
CALIFORNIACHIQUITA JOY ECSTASY
CHEVRON WASHINGTON
GROTON ALASKAN FRONTIER
ANSAC HARMONY
PYXIS THORSEGGEN
C.9Normal Load on Switchboard in
Port600kW
4,800kW which includes 3,015kW for 450 reefer units
1760kW (based on load analysis for
sister ships)900 to 1,000kW
500kW, sitting at dock (no cargo ops) 2.3MW discharging
cargo
1510kW300-350kW if no
cargo worked
C.10 Load Fluctuation in Port 50-100kW 250kW 500kW
Will spike due to machinery strating and stopping (deck macniery, cargo and
ballast pumps)
Unknown 250kW
C.11 Reason for Fluctuations
When auto, set the main air
compressors in operation
Cargo cranesBallast pump,
heeling pump, reefer boxes
Starting and stopping of cargo
pumps. Also, starting and stopping of inert gas system
During switching on/off of cargo hold
fanCargo cranes
C.12Main Power Consumers on Ship
When in Port
2,966kW = Reefer Containers
(Assumed 300 Units) -2,430k and
Auxiliaries & Lighting - 536kW.
Cargo cranes
Main engine aux pumps, purifiers, all
essential aux machinery such as compressors and
reefer boxes, total around 900 to
1,000kW
Hotel load approx 300Kw, Inert gas system approx. 300kW, Cargo pumps approx. 1.9MW, Ballast pumps approx.
300kW
Cargo hold fan -579kW
Cargo cranes
C.13No of Gen Sets Providing Power
in Port
One set (if reefer containers was load:
2 sets)Two sets One set Yes 2 2 2
C.14How Many Gen Sets Needed in
PortOne set Three Three sets 2
Cannot be met by one set during cargo
discharge3 3
C.15No of Crew Available for
Connecting2 people One One 2 to 4 missing answer 3 1
C.16Can Ship Tolerate a Short Black-
OutYes
Yes -but not during cargo operations
No
Response said "over" indicating
that something was written on the back on the sheet, which
was not available for spreadsheet
missing answer
Yes, but short period of time only,
because if longer interuption, we
cannot have cargo operation
Yes -but not during cargo operations
C.17Has the Fault Current Been
CalculatedYes
None that can be found on record
No Yes missing answer noneNone that can be found on record
Classification Society Nippon Kaiji Kyokei Korean Register ABS ABS ABS ABS Nippon Kaiji Kvokei Nippon Kaiji Kvokei
TEU Capacity (max) 3,484 5,302 2,128 4,960 110 (208?) not applicable not applicable not applicable not applicable 120
Reefer TEU Capacity300 per Lloyds
Register500
300 (180 per Lloyds Register)
300 56 (208?) not applicable not applicable not applicable not applicable 0
Vehicle Capacity not applicable not applicable not applicable not applicable not applicable not applicable not applicable not applicable not applicable not applicable 4751Grain Capacity not applicable not applicable not applicable not applicable not applicable not applicable not applicable not applicable not applicable 411122 0
Terminal Operator ITS HANJIN SSA LBCT CUT CARNIVAL SHELL BP unknownMetropolitan
StevedoreTOYOTA
FOREST TERMINAL
Berth Called J232 T136 C62 F8 E24 H4 B84 B78 T121 G212 B83 D54Calls to berth/year 10 10 16 8 25 52 16 24 15 projected 1 9 21
Maximum time at berth (hrs) 60 100 62 123 77 12 41 91 46 60 26 51
March 30, 2004 Page 5 of 6 E N V I R O N
Appendix B. Collected Vessels and Berths Information
Quest. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
A.1 VICTORIA BRIDGE
HANJIN PARIS LIHUEOOCL
CALIFORNIACHIQUITA JOY ECSTASY
CHEVRON WASHINGTON
GROTON ALASKAN FRONTIER
ANSAC HARMONY
PYXIS THORSEGGEN
Minimum time at berth (hrs) 19 38 27 119 29 11 23 26 22 60 9 31
Estimated time required for Cold Ironing (hrs)
41.8 61.5 48.6 120.1 66.4 10.4 30.5 54.2 31.5 58.5 15.9 46.4
Total Length of Berths (ft) 2,300 3,694 1,804 2,700 1,950 1,980 2,192 1,250 2,100 1,300 2,220Water depth (ft) 36-42 50 45 50 48 52 46 76 50 38 36
Wharf elevation (ft) 16.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 11.3 16.5 16.8 17.6 22.2 18.7 14.6 11.7Length Overall (ft) 855 915 787 905 495 260.6 651 557 653
Length Between Perpendiculars (ft)
850 869 724 859 461 625 531 623
Beam (ft) 105 132 100 131 66.6 36 96 88.6 105Draught (ft) 41.1 46 35.1 46 31.3 7.75 37.1 31.8 31.8
Moulded Depth (ft) 70.53 79.07 60 79.72 42.65 40.4 50 45.28 39.5TPC N/A N/A N/A N/A 24.8 51.6
Range of Draft (ft) 32.8 to 42.7 33.95 not provided 14.12Deadweight 51,805 68,500 38,656 67,765 11,793 39,796 28,527 19,108
kW (Environ info) 35,859 54,882 12,500 31,680 49,981 5,884 9,411 4,949Speed (knots) 24 25.5 22 24.6 21 14.5 14 18.5
Fuel Consumption (tonnes/day) unknown unknown 138 188 46.7 unknown 55 unknown
Bow Thruster assume none assume none assume none 2,000 kW assume none assume none assume none assume none assume none assume none assume none assume noneGear unknown unknown 4 - 30 ton cranes
Generator Model unknownWartsila 4R32e &
6R32eBergen KRG 6
Power Management System (PMS)
Ternet GAC-5 fully automatic
Fully automaticManual only,
generator control is automatic
none
Normal load at berth Assume 3000kW4800kW includes 3,015kW for 450
reefers
assume 1750kW based on load
analysis of sister ships
900-1000kW500kW w/o cargo
operation, 2.3 MW for cargo discharge
300kW
7782kW Unloading 1057kW with no operations (From Load Analysis)
1,510kW w/ cargo operations
350 kW w/o cargo to a peak of 500kw
Power Required in Port - High (kw)
Assume 3000kW1300 (should be 4800 minimum)
assume 1750 Assume 1500kW Assume 2400kW Assume 4500kW 2300 assume 300 7782 Assume 6001510 (based on
above)
350 (w/o cargo ops assume 1200kW
w/cargo ops)Power Required in Port - Low
(kw)Assume 600kW 840 assume 800 Assume 900kW Assume 500kW 500 1057 Assume 300 930 300
Power as % of installed generators - High
unknown 17.1% 16.7%
Power as % of installed generators - Low
unknown 11.1% 14.3%
Power as % of installed generators - Average
unknown 14.1% 15.5%
Fuel HFO MGONo. of operating generators 1 2
Landside High voltage distribution
12.47kV 4.16kV
Size of termnal main substation66kV/12.7kV
5.6MVA66kV/4.6kV 11.2MVA
Size ot terminal distribution cables
15 kV 500 KcMill 500 KcMill
Size of terminal unit substion2500 kVA to 500
kVA2501 kVA to 500
kVASpare terminal capacity 3 MVA 2.8 MVA
March 30, 2004 Page 6 of 6 E N V I R O N
A P P E N D I X C
General Port Activity and Fleet Characteristics
- 1 - E N V I R O N
Appendix C
General Ship Characteristics C.1 Ship Type Categorization
This appendix reviews the ship types that call at the Port of Long Beach. The ship calls were provided to ENVIRON by the Southern California Marine Exchange for a 12-month period ending May 31, 2003. The Marine Exchange identified each call by a unique vessel number, vessel name (though some vessel names changed over the period), ship type, and other identification information. The ship types were identified by the alphabetic codes listed in Table C-1.
Table C-1. Ship Types Available In The Marine Exchange Database
Type Name Type Name BBU Bulk PRR Passenger RO/RO BCB Bulk/C.C. RHR Hydrographic Research Vessel BCE Cement Carrier RMR Meteorological Research VesselBOR Ore Carrier ROR Oceanographic Research Vessel BWC Wood-Chip Carrier RRE Research Ship CBO Oil/Bulk/Ore RSR Seismographic Research Vessel COO Ore/Oil TCH Tanker Chemical DDR Dredger TTA Tanker DHD Hopper Dredger TWN Wine Tanker DSD Suction Dredger TAC Acid Tanker FFC Fish Carrier TAS Asphalt Tanker FFF Fish Factory TBK Bunkering Tanker FFS Fishing TCH Chemical Tanker FTR Trawler TCO Chemical Oil Carrier FWF Whale Factory TCR Crude Oil Tanker FWH Whaler TEO Edible Oil Tanker GCT Cargo/Training TFJ Fruit Juice Tanker GGC General Cargo TFO Fish Oil Tanker GPC Part C.C. TFP Floating Production GRF Reefer TFS Floating Storage INP Liquid Natural Gas/Liquid Petroleum GasTMO Molasses Tanker LNG Liquid Natural Gas TNA Naval Auxiliary LPG Liquid Petroleum Gas TPD Product Tanker MLV Livestock Carrier TTA Non Specific Tanker MPR Passenger TWN Wine Tanker MVE Vehicle Carrier TWT Water Tanker OBA Barge UBC Barge Carrier/C.C. OCL Cable Ship UBG Barge Carrier OCS Crane Ship UCC Container Carrier OCX Crane Barge UCR Container/Reefer
- 2 - E N V I R O N
Table C-1. Ship Types Available In The Marine Exchange Database
Type Name Type Name OES Exhibition Ship URC Ro/Ro/C.C. OFL Floating Crane OSP Semi-Submersible Pontoon OFY Ferry OSS Storage Ship OHL Semi-Submersible Heavy Lift Vessel OSV Salvage Ship OHS Hospital Ship OSY Supply Ship OHT Semi-Submersible Heavy Lift Tank OTB Tank Barge OIB Icebreaker OTR Training Ship OIS Icebreaker Supply OWAWaste Ship OIT Icebreaker Tender OYT Yacht OLT Lighthouse/Tender URR Ro/Ro OMN Minning Ship XAH Anchor Handling Tug/Supply OMS Mission Ship XCT Catamaran Tug/Integrated OPA Patrol Ship XFF Firefighting Tug OPI Pilot Ship XPT Pusher Tug OPL Pipe Layer XST Salvage Tug OPO Pontoon XTG Tug OPP Pipe Carrier XTI Tug/Icebreaker ORP Repair Ship YDP Drill Platform OSB Storage Barge YDS Drill Ship OSC Sludge Carrier
For each type of vessel selected for this study, summaries of the frequent vessels calling at the Port of Long Beach are described in the following tables. The primary berth available and the number of times each vessel visited that berth are also described in the tables below. It should be noted that berth information was available for only about half of the calls.
The most frequently calling container vessels are shown in Table C-2, and indicate that no container vessel called more often than 12 times over the period. So while container vessels are the most common type of vessel call to the Port of Long Beach, individual vessels are not.
- 3 - E N V I R O N
Table C-2. Most Frequently Calling Container Ships
Calls Per
Year
Vessel ID
Vessel Name Operator Vessel Type
Gross Tonnage
Berths Calls per
Berth
12 9203904 TAUSALA SAMOA HSAC Logistics UCC 12,004
J247 J245 J268 J266
2 3 3 1
11 9127019 POLYNESIA Polynesia Line UCC 12,029 J245 J270 J247
5 2 1
11 9120786 JINHE COSCO UCC 65,140 J247 J245
7 2
11 9215828 HYUNDAI KINGDOM HMM UCC 74,373 E26 9
10 9120750 YUEHE COSCO UCC 65,140 J247 5 10 9120774 WANHE COSCO UCC 65,140 J247 5
10 9184926 VICTORIA BRIDGE K Line UCC 47,541 J232 6
10 8912766 MERKUR BRIDGE Hanjin Shpg. Co. UCC 9,597 T138 5
10 9215866 HYUNDAI PATRIOT HMM UCC 74,373 E26 7
10 9215842 HYUNDAI NATIONAL HMM UCC 74,373 E26 9
10 9128128 HANJIN PARIS Hanjin Shpg. Co. UCC 65,643 A94 3
10 9172569 CONCORD BRIDGE K Line UCC 47,541 J232 6
10 9153408 CIELO DI SAN FRANCISCO Italia Line UCC 25,359 C60 3
10 9236664 CIELO
D'EUROPA Italia UCC 25,550 C60 4 10 9120798 CHUANHE COSCO UCC 65,140 J247 7 9 9139048 XIBOHE COSCO UCC 36,772 J247 6
9 9158525 TRADE FOISON Sinotrans UCC 25,634 Various 1 or 2
9 9179816 TRADE
BRAVERY Sinotrans UCC 25,705 T140 4
9 9153410 TRADE BLOOM Sinotrans UCC 25,637 T140 3
9 9115717 SAN PEDRO
BRIDGE K Line UCC 37,549 J232 7 9 9178290 OCELOT MAX Maruba UCC 25,900 J247 9
9 9043756 NEWPORT
BRIDGE K Line UCC 48,220 J232 8 9 9139062 LUO BA HE COSCO UCC 36,772 J247 4 9 9120748 LUHE COSCO UCC 65,140 J247 4
- 4 - E N V I R O N
Table C-2. Most Frequently Calling Container Ships
Calls Per
Year
Vessel ID
Vessel Name Operator Vessel Type
Gross Tonnage
Berths Calls per
Berth
9 9215830 HYUNDAI REPUBLIC Hyundai UCC 74,373 E26 7
9 9215854 HYUNDAI
DOMINION HMM UCC 74,373 E26 8
9 8808226 HUMBER BRIDGE K Line UCC 48,305 J232 4
9 9231755 HANJIN TAIPEI Hanjin Shpg Co UCC 65,131 T136 4
9 9015541 HANJIN
MARSEILLES Hanjin Shpg Co UCC 51,299 Various 1 or 2 9 7125316 EWA Matson Nav. UCC 26,746 C62 8
9 9231494 DONATA SCHULTE Kien Hung / CCNI UCC 26,582 Various 1 or 2
9 9178290 COMANCHE Maruba Line UCC 25,900 Various 1 or 2
9 9138290 CIELO DEL CANADA Italia / CP Ships UCC 25,361 C60 3
8 9179828 TRADE ZALE Sinotrans UCC 25,705 T138 3
8 9220328 TRADE
RAINBOW Sinotrans UCC 2,631 Various 1 or 2
8 9198109 OOCL NEW
YORK OOCL (USA) Inc. UCC 66,289 F8 5
8 9143075
OOCL NETHERLAND
S OOCL (USA) Inc. UCC 66,086 F8 7
8 9102289 OOCL
CALIFORNIA OOCL UCC 66,046 F8 6
8 9102291 OOCL
AMERICA OOCL (USA) Inc. UCC 6,6047 F8 4 8 7105471 LIHUE Matson Nav. UCC 26,746 C62 7
8 9231743 HANJIN CAIRO Hanjin Shpg Co UCC 65,131 Various 1 or 2
8 9139012 HANIHE COSCO UCC 36,772 Various 1 or 2
8 7116315 CSX
NAVIGATOR CSX UCC 47,667 G227 3
8 7224306 CSX
CONSUMER CSX UCC 23,760 G227 4
8 9149328 COLUMBUS CHILE HSAC Logistics UCC 25,608 J247
J245 4 3
8 9232383 CCNI ARICA CCNI UCC 25,630 Various 1 or 2 In the period reviewed, very few refrigerated and cruise ships called at the Port of Long Beach. The two most frequent of each type are described in Tables C-3 and C-4.
- 5 - E N V I R O N
Table C-3. Most Frequently Calling Refrigerated Ships
Calls/yr Vessel ID
Vessel Name
Operator Vessel Type
Gross Tonnage
Berths No. Of Calls
25 9038945 CHIQUITA JOY Great White Fleet GRF 8,665 E12 E24 E26
2 8 5
24 8917596 CHIQUITA BRENDAGreat White Fleet GRF 8,665 E12 E24 E26
8 9 3
Table C-4. Only Cruise Vessels In Port Of Long Beach Database
Calls/yr Vessel ID
Vessel Name Operator Vessel
Type Gross Tonnage
13 8711344 ECSTASY Carnival Cruise Line MPR 70,367 7 9118721 ELATION Carnival Cruise Line MPR 70,390
Tankers are another important category of vessel calling at the Port of Long Beach and range widely in size from the smaller product (TPD and TCO) to the larger crude oil tankers, TCR. The most frequent tankers calling at the Port of Long Beach are described in Table C-5.
Table C-5. Tankers Most Frequently Calling at The Port of Long Beach
Calls per year
Vessel ID
Vessel Name Operator Vessel
Type Gross
Tonnage Berths No.
of Calls
25 9189110 FOUR SCHOONER
Premuda Spa / Valero Energy Corp. TPD 40,037 T121
B78 6 4
19 9035060
CYGNUS VOYAGER (SAMUEL
GINN)
Chevron Transport TCR 88,919 T121 4
19 9231626 AMBERMAR
Gulf Agency Co. Limited / Chevron
Texaco Shipping / Stelmar
TPD / TCO 23,843 F209 2
18 9051612 SIRIUS VOYAGER Chevron Texaco TCR 88,886 T121 2
16 7391226 CHEVRON
WASHINGTON
Chevron Texaco USA TPD 22,761 B84 3
15 7506039 DENALI ATC TCR 94,647 T121 10
14 8414532 S/R LONG BEACH
SeaRiver Maritime / BP Shipping TCR 94,999 T121 10
11 7374096 MARINE COLUMBIA ATC TCR 67,856 T121 4
- 6 - E N V I R O N
Table C-5. Tankers Most Frequently Calling at The Port of Long Beach
Calls per year
Vessel ID
Vessel Name Operator Vessel
Type Gross
Tonnage Berths No.
of Calls
10 9131137 BRITISH HARRIER
BP Shpg / Crowley Maritime TCR 80,187 Various 1
10 9117234 IVER PRIDE Chevron Transport / Iver
Ships / Gulf Agency Company
TCO 21,254 B77 4
9 7408093 KENAI ATC TCR 64,329 T121 5
8 9185504 ASOPOS BP Shipping / Heidenreich Marine, Inc. TCR 37,033 Various 1 or 2
8 7908172 BLUE RIDGE INTREPID SHIP MGNT. TPD 24,348 B84 6
8 7408081 TONSINA ATC TCR 64,329 T121 3
7 9232606 JADEMAR BP Shipping / Adam
Maritime Corp / Jademar LTD
TCR 38,960 Various 1 or 2
7 9051600 ORION VOYAGER ChevronTexaco TCR 88,919 Various 1 or 2
7 7506027 B.T. ALASKA ATC TCR 94,547 T121 4 As shown in Table C-6, the dry bulk vessels (except for the CSL Trailblazer) call infrequently to the Port of Long Beach. These types probably do not make regularly schedule calls.
Table C-6. Dry Bulk Vessel Most Frequently Calling at The Port of Long Beach
Calls per year
Vessel ID
Vessel Name Operator Vessel Type
Gross Tonnage
13 7708857 CSL TRAILBLAZER National Gypsum / CSL BOR 18,241
4 9205627 OAKLAND Toko BBU 14,527
4 9244996 COL CABALLERO Toko Line BBU 14,446
3 9236078 UBC SYDNEY United Bulk Carriers USA BBU 19,746 3 8812629 SWEET BRIER K Line BWC 36,727 3 9188623 ROYAL CHANCE K Line BBU 28,073 3 8313336 MIDWAY II Norden / Korea Line Corp. BBU 26,087 3 9205639 LONG BEACH Toko Line BBU 14,527 3 7035951 KURE Baja Bulk Carriers BBU 89,623 3 7117278 CSL CABO CSL BBU 19,623 2 8601604 LEDA K Line BOR 36,417 2 8508709 SHEARWATER Mitsui O.S.K. BWC 36,318
- 7 - E N V I R O N
Roll on and roll off (RORO) vessels were primarily carrying motor vehicles (MVE). The most frequently calling vessels of this type are shown in Table C-7.
Table C-7. Roll On/Roll Off Including Vehicle Carriers Most Frequently Calling At The Port of Long Beach.
Calls per year
Vessel ID Vessel Name Operator Vessel
Type Gross
Tonnage Berths Berth Calls
12 7321087 LURLINE Matson Nav. URC 24,901 C62 9 9 8514083 PYXIS Toyofuji Shpg. MVE 43,425 B83 6
8 8605739 WASHINGTON HIGHWAY K Line MVE 50,334 B83 6
8 8319718 CENTURY HIGHWAY NO.2 K Line MVE 44,616 B83 6
7 9158288 GREEN LAKE NYK Bulk Ship MVE 57,623 B83 5
7 8502468 CENTURY LEADER NO.3 NYK Bulk Ship MVE 44,830 B83 5
6 9157442 BRIGHT STATE ECL URR 9,991 F207 5
6 8117184 GLOBAL HIGHWAY K Line MVE 51,087 B83 5
As shown in Table C-8, the break bulk carriers (called “general cargo” by the Marine Exchange) typically (except for the Thorseggen) did not call on a regular and frequent basis at the Port of Long Beach.
Table C-8. Break Bulk Carriers Most Frequently Calling at The Port of Long Beach.
Calls per year
Vessel ID
Vessel Name
Operator Vessel Type
Gross Tonnage
Berths Berth Calls
21 8116063 THORSEGGEN Norsk Pacific GGC 15,136 D50 D54
6 14
4 8420787 STAR GRIP Star Shipping GGC 27,192 Various 1
3 9228617 INDUSTRIAL COMET General Electric GGC 7,252 Various 1
3 9201712 PARAGON PESCADORES ECL GGC 8,438 F207 2
3 9149665 SIGRUN BOLTEN
Anglo Canadian / Medbulk GGC 19,354 Various 1
3 9121297 SAGA HORIZON
Saga Forest Carriers GGC 29,381 Various 1
3 9074078 SAGA WIND Saga Forest Carriers GGC 29,381 T122 2
3 8512968 NORSUL VANCOUVER Norsul / Ansac GGC 28,805 Various 1
- 8 - E N V I R O N
Table C-8. Break Bulk Carriers Most Frequently Calling at The Port of Long Beach.
Calls per year
Vessel ID
Vessel Name Operator Vessel
Type Gross
Tonnage Berths Berth Calls
3 7516632 HOEGH MERCHANT
Saga Forest Carriers GGC 30,987 Various 1
A P P E N D I X D
Engine Emission Factors Summary
- 1 - E N V I R O N
Appendix D
Engine Emission Factor Summary D.1 Emission Factors for Diesel Ships This appendix reviews the emission factor estimates for marine engines used in estimating emissions in this report. The United State Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) has defined three categories of marine engines as described in Table D-1 (USEPA, 1999a and 1999b). These categories are not necessarily precise in terms of the engine types, and might be best considered as approximate definitions of engine designs. Category 1 engines are intended to be more typical of engine designs used in off- road equipment. Category 2 engines are similar to engines used in locomotives, and in marine applications for auxiliary power and propulsion for smaller (ferries, large tugs, etc.) vessels. Category 3 engines are used primarily for propulsion, and occasional as auxiliary engines, on large merchant vessels and for stationary applications. Category 1 and 2 engines most often use lighter distillate oils, while Category 3, engines are designed to use heavy fuel oils.
Table D-1. USEPA definition of engine categories
Category Displacement (Liters/cylinder)
Category 1 <5.0 Category 2 5.0 < displacement <30 Category 3 >30
Historic USEPA emission rate estimates include the official guidance for emission inventory preparation (USEPA, 1992), which is found in BAH (1991), but support documents for recent rulemakings (1999a, 1999b, and 2003) used different emission factors. Much of the data on which the USEPA (1992) emission factors were derived was not referenced, and a number of studies determining emissions rates have been completed since the time of the guidance. Some of the more recent data has been incorporated into new emission inventories for other ports, which are currently used for ozone modeling and planning for attainment demonstration (Acurex, 1996 or Arcadis, 1999). USEPA provided emission factor estimates in the Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) and published a rulemaking for commercial marine vessels (USEPA, 1999a, 1999b, and 2003). In the absence of a revised official USEPA guidance for determining emissions from commercial marine vessels, the emission factors used in the USEPA’s RIA have been used as the best available information. In the RIA (USEPA, 1999b), USEPA estimated the emission factors in accordance with the defined engine categories. In Table D-2 and D-3 are the USEPA estimated base emission factors for marine engines for each category of engine. These emission factors were derived for both propulsion and auxiliary engines operating near their maximum continual output, approximately 50-80% of rated power.
- 2 - E N V I R O N
Table D-2. Baseline emission factors for category 1 marine engines (Taken from Table IV- 5-3, USEPA 1999b)
Power Range [kW]
HC [g/kW-hr]
NOX [g/kW-hr]
CO [g/kW-hr]
PM [g/kW-hr]
37-75 0.27 11 2.0 0.90 75-130 0.27 10 1.7 0.40
130-225 0.27 10 1.5 0.40 225-450 0.27 10 1.5 0.30 450-560 0.27 10 1.5 0.30 560-1000 0.27 10 1.5 0.30
1000+ 0.27 13 2.5 0.30
For Category 2 and 3 engines, USEPA (1999b, 2003) estimated that the emission factors are as shown in Table D-3. For the Category 2 engines, the average values shown in Table C-3 were those average values used to estimate the emissions reductions from the new emission standards (Samulski, 1999), and are quite similar to the emission factors for the highest power Category 1 engines in Table D-2. For Category 3 engines, USEPA (2003) relied on a review of the base emission factors by ENVIRON (2002) based on the available data to that date. The term “medium speed” refers to Category 3 engines with rated speeds typically of 300 to 750 (or higher) rpm that are typically 4-stroke engines either geared or diesel-electric driving the propeller or powering the generators for electrical power fo r the ship. Category 2 engines have been either 2-stroke (GM-EMD or Fairbanks-Morse engines) or 4-stroke engine designs with rated speeds typically, but not always, above 750 rpm used either for propulsion or auxiliary power.
Table D-3. USEPA (1999b, 2003) baseline emission factors (For category 2 and 3 engines)
Engine Category HC [g/kW-hr]
NOX [g/kW-hr]
CO [g/kW-hr]
PM [g/kW-hr]
Category 2 (5-30 l/cylinder) 0.134 13.36 2.48 0.32
low sulfur Category 3 Medium Speed (> 300 rpm) (> 30 l/cylinder)
0.5* 16.6 0.7 Fuel sulfur dependence
* Converted from kg/tonne units in Lloyds (1995) using 210 (g/kW-hr) for “medium speed” engines. The survey results for the Port of Long Beach study indicated that the overall load factor for the auxiliary engine power could be as low as 15% of the overall auxiliary power. If the engines were indeed run at such low power, then the emission factors would need to be adjusted according to Table D-4, because engines are less efficient as power is reduced on each engine. However, this was found to rarely be the case, because the load on any given engine was typically kept at close to 50% or higher by operating only the appropriate number of engines at any given time for the load.
- 3 - E N V I R O N
Table D-4. Adjustment for low load conditions . (USEPA, 2003) Engine BSFC HC CO NOX PM Slow Speed 1.57 5.28 8.52 1.36 1.69 Medium Speed 1.55 5.50 7.41 1.36 1.68
The emission factors above have been derived from many previous reviews and emission studies [USEPA (2000), Env. Canada (1997), Lloyds (1995), ETC (1997), BAH (1991), Env. Canada (1999), and TRC (1989)]. Two additional studies have been published since the time of the USEPA (2003) compilation (Cooper, 2001 and 2003), but the inclusion of these results would not have greatly affected the average emission factor calculated for these engines. Reviewing the emission factor data for Category 3 medium speed engines, the average estimates demonstrate that the USEPA estimates are by and large appropriate, except for Category 3 medium speed engines where NOX emissions have been found to be significantly higher. The emissions data used to form the USEPA estimates are shown and compared with more recent data in Table D-5.
Table D-5. Summary data for category 3 medium speed engines at high load.
Study Vessel Engine Speed (rpm)
BSFC (kg/kW-
hr)
NOX (kg/ton)
CO (kg/ton)
PM (kg/ton)
Lloyds B5 NA 595 0.219 70.71 Lloyds D1 NA 600 0.200 65.32 Lloyds R2port NA 510 0.269 80.44 Lloyds R3port NA 512 0.224 71.97 Lloyds R3stbd NA 520 0.224 70.54 Lloyds R4 NA 570 0.233 55.11 Lloyds R7port NA 510 0.220 81.69 Lloyds TK3 NA 450 0.235 50.52 Lloyds R2cent NA 510 0.220 75.69 Env. C. MaK 12M551AK 500 82.79 6.64 Env. C. Sulzer V12 510 86.22 4.07 0.65 Env. C. Sulzer V12 510 76.28 3.04 5.53 Env. C. Wartsila 9R32D 750 0.212 78.9 2.5 2.8 Env. C. MaK 12M551AK 500 0.212 69.9 1.8 1.1 Env. C. MaK9MU551AK 500 0.244 104.3 4.2 0.9 Env. C. Mirlees VSSM 600 0.220 72.6 3.0 3.0 Env. C. MAN 6C40/54 550 0.176 79.6 3.6 4.4 Average Kg/tonne 540 --- 74.9 3.2 3.1 Average EPA G/kW-hr 222 16.6 0.7 0.7
Cooper (2001)
~1000 0.210 14.6 0.72 0.29
Cooper (2001)
~1000 0.205 11.2 0.44 NA
Cooper (2003)
Sulzer 6ASL 750 0.214 17.1 0.77 0.33
Cooper (2003)
Sulzer 8ASL 750 0.243 16.8 1.39 0.48
- 4 - E N V I R O N
Study Vessel Engine Speed (rpm)
BSFC (kg/kW-
hr)
NOX (kg/ton)
CO (kg/ton)
PM (kg/ton)
Cooper (2003)*
Wartsila 824 TS 720 0.220 16.4 0.45 0.37
Cooper (2003)*
Wartsila 4R32D 720 0.214 9.8 0.95 0.18
Cooper (2003)*
Wartsila 8R32D 720 0.216 15.2 0.90 0.67
Cooper (2003)*
Wartsila 6R32D 720 0.217 12.9 0.77 0.54
Average of new studies (g/kW-hr) 217 14.3 0.8 0.4 The available data for smaller engines, likely Category 2, were available for comparison with the Category 3 results. The Category 2 data shown in Table C-6 were taken on medium and high speed engines and the average computed indicates that the Category 2 NOX emissions were found to be significantly lower than the Category 3 NOX emission rates in equivalent units, but not significantly different than the USEPA estimates for Category 1 and 2 engines as shown in Table D-2 and D-3. Therefore the USEPA estimates were used for this work.
Table D-6. Summary data for category 1 and 2 medium speed engines at maximum operating point tested.
Study Engine Speed (rpm)
BSFC (kg/kW-hr)
HC (kg/ton)
NOX (kg/ton)
CO (kg/ton)
PM (kg/ton)
Env. C. (1999)* Wartsila 9R32D 750 0.212 78.9 2.5 2.8 Env. C. (1999) Bergen KRGB9 900 40.9 1.8 1.8 Env. C. (1999) Caterpillar 3412 1600 54.4 12.6 0.7 Env. C. (1999) Waukesha F2896 1020 47.7 5.4 2.5 Env. C. (1999) Mitsubishi 1210 98.7 3.4 2.4 Env. C. (1997) MAN B&W
7L23/30 H 720 24.4 7.6 10.0
Env. C. (1997) Bergen KRG-6 720 43.7 2.8 8.9 Env. C. (1997) Waukesha F2896 1200 36.7 5.2 NA ETC (1997) Alco 16V-251-B 1200 0.232 2.2 72.0 3.6 2.2 ETC (1997) Faibanks-Morse
3800 TD 8 1/8, 900 0.219 0.3 43.6 4.1 NA
ETC (1997) Paxman Type 16 RP 200M Valenta V-16
1500 0.233 NA 38.5 22.3 1.3
ETC (1997) Alco 16V-251-C 1200 0.247 NA 48.0 5.3 0.5 Llyods (1995) R7gen 0.231 52.9 Llyods (1995) TK5 0.225 60.2 Llyods (1995) TG1push 0.200 57.0 Llyods (1995) TG6push 0.220 61.2
- 5 - E N V I R O N
Study Engine Speed (rpm)
BSFC (kg/kW-hr)
HC (kg/ton)
NOX (kg/ton)
CO (kg/ton)
PM (kg/ton)
Llyods (1995) R7cent 0.231 52.9 Llyods (1995) TK1 0.225 58.8 Llyods (1995) TG3frun 0.230 51.8 Average of existing studies 0.228 51.8 7.5 2.3 Average specific emissions rate g/kW-hr 228 11.8 1.7 0.5 Cooper (2001) Ship A 455 kW ~1000 0.216 67.6 3.3 1.3 Cooper (2001) Ship B 550 kW ~1000 0.205 54.6 2.1 NA Cooper (2003)* Wartsila 824 TS 720 0.220 74.5 2.0 1.7 Cooper (2003)* Wartsila 4R32D 720 0.214 45.8 4.5 0.8 Cooper (2003)* Wartsila 8R32D 720 0.216 70.4 4.2 3.1 Cooper (2003)* Wartsila 6R32D 720 0.217 59.4 3.5 2.5 Average of new studies 0.216 62.1 3.3 1.9 Average specific emissions rate g/kW-hr 216 13.4 0.7 0.4
* These engines are technically Category 2 but they emit at rates more typical of Category 3 engines. There was considerably more data available for NOX emissions from category 2 engines combining a number of historic and more recent studies as shown in Table D-7. The overall NOX emission factor however is not significantly different that the one USEPA has used in their emission assessment.
Table D-7. Summary NOX data for category 1 and 2 medium speed engines.
Study Vessel Engine Use NOX (kg/ton)
Env. Canada (1999)
N/A Bergen KRGB9 Propulsion 40.60
Env. Canada (1999)
N/A Engine 1: Caterpillar 3412 Propulsion 54.40
Env. Canada (1999)
N/A Engine 2: Caterpillar 3412 Propulsion 44.90
Env. Canada (1999)
N/A Waukesha F2896 Auxiliary 47.70
Env. Canada (1999)
N/A Mitsubishi Auxiliary 98.70
Env. Canada (1999)
Wartsilla 9R32D (750 rpm) (more like a Category 3)
Propulsion 78.90
Env. Canada (1997)
N/A 3 x MAN B&W 7L23/30 H Auxiliary 24.44
Env. Canada (1997)
N/A 3 x Bergen KRG-6 Auxiliary 43.69
Env. Canada (1997)
N/A 3 x Waukesha F2896 DSIM Auxiliary 36.74
ETC (1997) Steadfast Alco 16V-251-B (Starboard) Propulsion 81.51 ETC (1997) Steadfast Alco 16V-251-B (Port) Propulsion 62.56
- 6 - E N V I R O N
Study Vessel Engine Use NOX (kg/ton)
ETC (1997) Sherman Faibanks-Morse 3800 TD 8 1/8, 12Cy (starboard)
Propulsion 42.50
ETC (1997) Sherman Faibanks-Morse 3800 TD 8 1/8, 12Cy (Port)
Propulsion 44.90
ETC (1997) Tybee Paxman Type 16 RP 200M Valenta V-16 (starboard)
Propulsion 39.01
ETC (1997) Tybee Paxman Type 16 RP 200M Valenta V-16 (port)
Propulsion 38.27
ETC (1997) Thetis Alco V-18 251-C (starboard) Propulsion 48.58 ETC (1997) Thetis Alco V-18 251-C (port) Propulsion 47.29 TRC (1989) President Adams N/A Auxiliary 59.94 TRC (1989) President Adams N/A Auxiliary 56.09 TRC (1989) Madame
Butterfly N/A Auxiliary 74.91
TRC (1989) Spring Bride N/A Auxiliary 92.68 TRC (1989) Beltimber N/A Auxiliary 44.97 TRC (1989) President
Washington N/A Auxiliary 35.54
TRC (1989) Hyundai Challenger
N/A Auxiliary 50.53
TRC (1989) California Jupiter N/A Auxiliary 51.34 TRC (1989) Manhattan
Bridge N/A Auxiliary 72.27
TRC (1989) National Dignity N/A Auxiliary 18.14 TRC (1989) Evergroup N/A Auxiliary 36.05 TRC (1989) Sealand Explorer N/A Auxiliary 79.25 TRC (1989) Aurora Ace N/A Auxiliary 52.94 TRC (1989) Thorseggen N/A Auxiliary 100.58 TRC (1989) Walter Jacob N/A Auxiliary 64.37 TRC (1989) Star Esperanza N/A Auxiliary 47.28 TRC (1989) Dynachem N/A Auxiliary 42.17 Lloyds (1995) R7gen N/A Auxiliary 52.88 Lloyds (1995) TK5 N/A Propulsion 60.21 Lloyds (1995) TG1push N/A Propulsion 56.96 Lloyds (1995) TG6push N/A Propulsion 61.22 Lloyds (1995) R7cent N/A Propulsion 52.88 Lloyds (1995) TK1 N/A Propulsion 58.79 Lloyds (1995) TG3frun N/A Propulsion 51.76 Average Comparable to 12.2 g/kW-hr 54.8
The particulate matter (PM) emission rates in the data available show considerable variability, which can be explained by the fuel sulfur level during the test. Lloyds (1995) compared the PM emission rates for different fuel sulfur levels and are shown in Figure D-1. For comparison, the calculated sulfate related PM using equations found in USEPA (1998) is shown to demonstrate that the direct conversion of fuel sulfur explains much of the increased PM with higher fuel sulfur level
- 7 - E N V I R O N
fuels. The fuel sulfur level needs to be specified in order to estimate the emission factor from commercial marine engines according to the best-fit estimate in the figure below. A historic study of fuel sulfur levels for the Port of Long Beach (TRC, 1989) indicated that heavy fuel oil (HFO), including most intermediate fuel oils (IFO-380, a 90%/10% mixture of HFO and middle distillate oil (MDO)), ranged from 1.0 to 2.9% in sulfur levels with an overall average of 1.9%. The fuel sulfur level for Canadian HFO was reported to be typically 1.4% (but is found as high as 2.5%). Fuel with sulfur content less than 0.2% is commonly referred as marine gas oil (MGO)(Ertel, 2002). USEPA (1999) described that the fuel specifications allow sulfur levels to reach 5%, and Lloyds (1995) work described in-use HFO sulfur levels at an average of 2.8%. More recent analyses of the fuel sulfur content (Arcadis, 1999), used to prepare the emissions inventory for the San Pedro Bay ports, concluded that the average sulfur level for HFO should be 2.8% sulfur and could be higher. PM emissions could be as low as 0.41 g/kW-hr or as high as 1.63 g/kW-hr for HFO, and could be 0.23 g/kW-hr for MGO, using a fuel consumption average of 0.222 kg-fuel/kW-hr and the correlation in Figure D-1. An average value of 1.52 g/kW-hr was used in this work for engines using HFO with an average sulfur level of 2.8%.
Figure D-1. Effect of fuel sulfur on particulate emissions rates.
Another engine type found is the gas turbine, of the kind usually manufactured by General Electric, Pratt and Whitney, or Rolls Royce. It is often found on tactical military ships and occasionally on other diesel-electric drive vessels such as cruise ships. The emissions data available for these types of engines is shown in Table D-8. While the ETC (1997) emission data was similar to Cooper (2001), the fuel consumption rates measured were extraordinarily high.
y = 0.9016 * e(0.7238x)R2 = 0.9306
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
Fuel Sulfur (wt.%)
PM E
mis
sion
s (k
g/to
nne)
Llyods (1995) Data
Calculated Sulfate PM
Best Fit to Data
- 8 - E N V I R O N
Table D-8. Gas turbine engines
Engine/Boiler Type BSFC kg/kW-hr
NOX
(g/kW-hr) HC
(g/kW-hr) CO
(g/kW-hr) PM
(g/kW-hr) Cooper (2001) 0.294 6.0 0.07 0.09 0.007 ETC (1997) 0.446 6.5 0.06 0.59 NA
D.2. Steamship Emissions Data for steamship emissions were available only during hotelling operations. As shown in the Table D-9 below, the data and USEPA guidance were similar, so the official USEPA guidance in Table D-9 is recommended for steamship emission rates. On-board boilers were not the subject of the current study but are included here for completeness.
Table D-9. Hotelling emission factors for steamships. Engine/Boiler Type BSFC
(kg/kW-hr) NOx
(kg/ton) HC
(kg/ton) CO
(kg/ton) PM
(kg/ton)
Main Boilers TRC (1989) 9.8 - 0.4 -
Smaller Boilers TRC (1989) 12.3 N/A 4.6 N/A
USEPA Guidance (BAH, 1991) 0.342
8.1 (2.8 g/kW-
hr)
0.2 (0.07 g/kW-
hr)
0.9 (0.3 g/kW-
hr)
7.2 (2.5 g/kW-
hr) * For emissions rates labeled N/A, USEPA guidance was used. To use the emission rates, the emission factor needs to be converted to units of g/kW-hr through a fuel efficiency estimate. BAH (1991) provides estimates of daily fuel consumption at full power and average power for steamships of dead weight tonnage (DWT) of 50 – 75 kton and 75 – 100 kton. Using the BAH (1991) estimate that full power constitutes 80% of installed power, the calculated fuel efficiency for steamships was 0.350 and 0.334 (kg/kW-hr) for the two DWT ranges. Using the average fuel efficiency of 0.342 (kg/kW-hr), the recommended emission rates are shown in Table D-9 for steamships. Typically steamships still use diesel auxiliary engines while at berth, so these emission factors may not be necessary for estimating berthing emissions. D.3 Emission Regulations USEPA has promulgated emission standards for domestic ships with engines smaller than 30 liters per cylinder that incorporate the international standards and have lower emission standards starting with new engines in 2004; these are shown in Table 4-6. The international standards, if implemented, are considered ‘Tier 1’ emission controls and are described below. The proposed MARPOL regulations (called Annex VI of the International Convention For The Prevention Of Pollution From Ships, MARPOL, 1997) were developed under aegis of the International Maritime Organization (IMO) apply to all commercial marine engines above 130 kW. These regulations test the engine under three different loads and averaged to compare with an
- 9 - E N V I R O N
overall emission standard. The emission standard is related to the rated engine speed through the relationship shown below for new vessels constructed after January 1, 2000.
Engine Speed <130 rpm; 17.0 g/kW-hr 130 rpm < Engine Speed < 2,000 rpm; 45 * n-0.2 g/kW-hr
Engine Speed > 2,000 rpm; 9.8 g/kW-hr Where n is engine speed (rpm)
However, these emission regulations have not been ratified, and at this time it is difficult to predict if the regulations will be in practice for new ships built after 2000. Regardless of international implementation, USEPA is assuming that all vessels and particularly US flagged vessels will comply with the international regulations as proposed. USEPA (2003) has finalized regulations that mandate US flagged vessels built after January 1, 2004 comply with the international protocol described above (regardless of ratification of the Annex) for all marine engines, and additional regulated emissions from smaller marine engines in Table D-10 as follows from the USEPA (1999) regulations.
Table D-10. USEPA primary exhaust emission standards
for US flagged vessels (g/kW-hr). Subcategory
Liters/cylinder
Tier Model Year*
THC + NOx [g/kW-hr]
CO [g/kW-hr]
PM [g/kW-hr]
Power < 37 kW and disp. <0.9
Tier 2 2005 7.5 5.0 0.40
0.9 < disp. < 1.2 Tier 2 2004 7.2 5.0 0.30 1.2 < disp. < 2.5 Tier 2 2004 7.2 5.0 0.20 2.5 < disp. < 5.0 Tier 2 2007 7.2 5.0 0.20 5.0 < disp. < 15 Tier 2 2007 7.8 5.0 0.27 15 < disp. < 20
Power <3300 kW Tier 2 2007 8.7 5.0 0.50
15 < disp. < 20 Power >3300 kW Tier 2 2007 9.8 5.0 0.50
20 < disp. < 25 Tier 2 2007 9.8 5.0 0.50 25 < disp. < 30 Tier 2 2007 11.0 5.0 0.50
- 10 - E N V I R O N
References Arcadis (1999), “Marine Vessels Emissions Inventory, UPDATE to 1996 Report: Marine Vessel Emissions Inventory and Control Strategies,” Prepared for the South Coast Air Quality Management District, by Arcadis, Geraghty & Miller, September 23, 1999. Acurex (1996), ‘Marine Vessel Emissions Inventory and Control Strategies,’ Prepared for the South
Coast Air Quality Management District, December, 1996. BAH (1991), ‘Commercial Marine Vessel Contributions to Emission Inventories,’ Final Report
prepared for EPA, Booz-Allen & Hamilton, October 7, 1991. Environment Canada (1997), ‘Port of Vancouver Marine Vessel Emissions Test Report, Final
Report,” ERMD Report #97-04, presumably 1997. Environment Canada (1999), Ferry Engine Emissions, personal communication with Greg Rideout. ENVIRON (2002), “Commercial Marine Emission Inventory Development,” E.H. Pechan and
Associates, Inc. and ENVIRON International Corporation, April, 2002. Air Docket A-2001-11, item II-A-67.
USEPA (2003), “Final Regulatory Support Document: Control of Emissions from New Marine
Compression-Ignition Engines at or Above 30 Liters per Cylinder,” Environmental Protection Agency USEPA420-R-03-004, January 2003.
USEPA (1999a), ‘Control Of Air Pollution From Marine Compression-Ignition Engines’ Part 94,
Code of Federal Regulations, December, 1999. Published in the Federal Register December 29, 1999.
USEPA (1999b), ‘Final Regulatory Impact Analysis: Control of Emissions from Compression-
Ignition Marine Engines,’ USEPA420-R-99-026, November, 1999. USEPA (1999c), “In-Use Marine Diesel Fuel,” Environmental Protection Agency, USEPA420-R-
99-027, August 1999. USEPA (1998), ‘Exhaust Emission Factors for Nonroad Engine Modeling--Compression-Ignition,’
NONROAD Model Report No. NR-009A, June 15, 1998. USEPA (1992), ‘Procedures for Emission Inventory Preparation, Volume IV: Mobile Sources,’
USEPA-450/4-81-026d (Revised). Ertel, Gerry (2002), “Fuels for Marine Use on Canada’s West Coast,” Health, Environmental, and
Economic Impacts of Liquid and Atmospheric Emissions from Ships, Air and Waste Management Association Meeting, Vancouver, B.C., April 24-26, 2002.
ETC (1997), ‘Shipboard Marine Engines Emission Testing for the United States Coast Guard,’
Prepared for the Volpe National Transportation Systems Center and the United States Coast
- 11 - E N V I R O N
Guard by Environmental Transportation Consultants under Delivery Order No. 31, presumably 1997.
Lloyds (1995), ‘Marine Exhaust Emissions Research Programme,’; ‘Steady-state Operation,’ 1990;
‘Slow Speed Addendum,’ 1991; ‘Marine Exhaust Emissions Research Programme,’ 1995; Lloyds Register Engineering Services, Croyden, Lloyds Register of Shipping, London.
Llyods (1997), ‘Vancouver Marine Emissions Quantification, BCFC Ferries in Greater Vancouver
Airshed,’ Report #97/EE/7002, September 1997. MARPOL (1997), “Consideration and Adoption of the Protocol of 1997 to Amend the International
Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973, as Modified by the Protocol of 1978 Relating Thereto: Text of the Protocol of 1997 and Annex VI to the International Convention for the prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973, as modified by the Protocol of 1978 relating thereto (MARPOL 73/78),” October 1997.
Samulski (2000), USEPA Staff, personal communication, April 5, 1999. TRC (1989), ‘Ship Emissions Control Study for the Ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles, Volume
I Marine Vessel Emissions While Hotelling in Port,’ Prepared for the Ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles, South Coast Air Quality Management District, and Western States Petroleum Association, December, 1989.
P:\P\POLB Cold Ironing\Internal Reports\White Paper\Appendices\Appendix D Engine Emission Factor Summary.doc
A P P E N D I X E
Vessel Hotelling Emission Calculations
Appendix E. Ship Hotelling Emissions
g/kW-hr g/kW-hr g/kW-hr Btu/kW-hrEngine Type Code VOC CO NOx Heat Rate
Category 3 3 0.2 0.70 16.61 9,768 Category 2 2 0.134 2.48 13.36 9,768 Category 1 1 0.27 1.5 10 9,768
Gas Turbine 0 0.07 0.09 6 12,936 Steam Turbine -1 0.07 0.3 2.8 12,320
1.5
Vessel Vessel ID GRT Calls/yearBerthing Time
(hrs)
Connection Time(hrs)
Average Load Factor
Installed Generators
(kW)
Average at Berth Load
(kW)Fuel Type Fuel Sulfur % Engine Type
Annual Power
(kW-hr)
Annual Fuel(M tons/yr)
Victoria Bridge 9184926 47541 10 44.3 1.5 11% 5440 600 HFO 2.8 2 256,728 57Hanjin Paris 9128128 65643 10 63.0 1.5 63% 7600 4799 HFO 2.8 3 2,951,631 655
Lihue 7105471 26746 16 50.1 1.5 63% 2700 1701 HFO 2.8 -1 1,323,864 371OOCL California 9102289 66046 8 121.6 1.5 62% 8400 5208 HFO 2.8 2 5,003,846 1,111
Chiquita Joy 9038945 8665 25 67.9 1.5 62% 5620 3501 HFO 2.8 2 5,815,374 1,291Ecstasy 8711344 70367 52 11.9 1.5 66% 10560 7001 HFO 2.8 3 3,794,694 842
Chevron Washington 7391226 22761 16 32.0 1.5 89% 2600 2301 MGO 0.2 0 1,122,888 330Groton 7901928 23914 24 55.7 1.5 23% 1300 300 MGO 0.2 1 390,575 87
Alaskan Frontier NA 185000 15 33.0 1.5 15% 25200 3780 HFO 2.8 3 1,786,050 397Ansac Harmony 9181508 28527 1 60.0 1.5 50% 1250 625 HFO 2.8 2 36,563 8
Pyxis 8514083 43425 9 17.4 1.5 70% 2160 1512 HFO 2.8 2 216,594 48Thorseggen 8116063 15136 21 47.9 1.5 29% 2100 601 MGO 0.2 2 585,225 130
Vessel HC CO NOx PM SOx HC CO NOx PM SOxVictoria Bridge 0.0 0.7 3.8 0.43 3.5 0.004 0.070 0.377 0.043 0.351
Hanjin Paris 0.6 2.3 53.9 4.93 40.4 0.065 0.227 5.393 0.493 4.036Lihue 0.1 0.4 4.1 3.64 22.8 0.006 0.027 0.255 0.228 1.427
OOCL California 0.7 13.7 73.5 8.36 68.4 0.092 1.706 9.192 1.045 8.554Chiquita Joy 0.9 15.9 85.5 9.72 79.5 0.034 0.635 3.419 0.389 3.181
Ecstasy 0.8 2.9 69.3 6.34 51.9 0.016 0.056 1.333 0.122 0.998Chevron Washington 0.1 0.1 7.4 0.29 1.5 0.005 0.007 0.463 0.018 0.091
Groton 0.1 0.6 4.3 0.10 0.4 0.005 0.027 0.179 0.004 0.016Alaskan Frontier 0.4 1.4 25.3 2.98 24.4 0.026 0.092 1.690 0.199 1.628Ansac Harmony 0.0 0.1 0.5 0.06 0.5 0.005 0.100 0.537 0.061 0.500
Pyxis 0.0 0.6 3.2 0.36 3.0 0.004 0.066 0.354 0.040 0.329Thorseggen 0.1 1.6 8.6 0.15 0.6 0.004 0.076 0.410 0.007 0.027
Total 3.9 40.3 339.5 37.4 296.8
Emission Factors
Ship Hotelling Emissions at Average Load (short tons/yr) Ship Hotelling Emissions at Average Load (short tons/call)
March 30, 2004E N V I R O N
A P P E N D I X F
Vessel Conversation Analysis
F - E N V I R O N 1
APPENDIX F – VESSEL CONVERSION ANALYSIS General Assumptions The following assumptions were made regarding conversion of all 12 vessels to cold ironing readiness:
1. The installation would be in accordance with American Bureau of Shipping (ABS) Rules for Building and Classing Steel Vessels. It is understood that not all vessels are classed by ABS, and modifications may be required to suit the individual vessels respective Classification Society, but in general, the installation would be similar.
2. The installation would be in accordance with the United States Code of Federal
Regulations Title 46 Shipping, Chapter I -- Coast Guard, Department of Transportation (US Coast Guard), Subchapter J – Electrical Engineering. This requires that a circuit breaker or fused switch be installed in the switchboard.
It should be noted that these US Coast Guard regulations do not apply to non-US flagged vessels. As such, the specific requirements contained therein may not be necessary on non-US flagged vessels. At this point, it is prudent to include these design requirements for all vessels.
3. It is assumed that space is available either in the switchboard, adjacent to the switchboard, or close enough to the switchboard that a free standing enclosure with the shore power breaker may be installed and connected in a manner that it can be considered a switchboard extension. The study also assumed that movement of structural bulkheads to obtain this space would not be required.
4. The new shore power connection box would be located on the aft side of the house
near centerline for all vessels unless otherwise noted. Such a location would permit the vessel to moor with either side to the dock without a need for separate port and starboard shore power receptacles. Location of the shore connection box can be changed to separate port and starboard connection boxes or to only have a shore power connection on one side of the vessel. For the purpose of this estimate one location was assumed on centerline.
5. The switchboard, where the new shore power would connect, is located at the
forward end, mid-level of the Engine Room. This location has been selected
F - E N V I R O N 2
estimated based on experience and judgment in order to establish a baseline for estimating cable lengths.
6. The new shore power would be supplied from a barge or from the pier, through
cables that are routed to the shore power connection box over the side of the vessel. It is assumed that a dockside or barge mounted crane would be available to lift and support the shore power while connected to the vessel.
7. No consideration has been given to the potential requirement to provide additional
electrical power to compensate for the loss of steam due to shut -down of exhaust gas economizers or oil- fired boilers.
8. No consideration has been given to providing additional electrical power to supply
loads that are currently diesel driven such as pumps or hydraulic power units. 9. Cabling and connectors from the shore (barge) facility are assumed to be included in
the cost of the shore facility and are not considered to be a shipboard related expense. These cables and connectors are, therefore, not part of this cost estimate.
10. Modifications to the vessel service switchboard as described in this report would
almost certainly not be performed with the vessel in service. It has been assumed that the installation of the shore power feed system would be mainly completed during a normal shipyard service that generally occurs twice every five years. Cost estimates have been developed based on the assumption that the work would be carried out in a shipyard. No costs associated with out of service time have been assumed, as the vessel would have to be out of service regardless of whether or not the electrical system modifications were completed.
11. Shipboard modification costs have been estimated based on work being carried out
in a US shipyard. It is expected that there would be a reduction in the overall cost of the shipboard work if carried out in a Far Eastern repair yard.
12. All vessels, exception for ECSTASY, will not have the capability of operating vessel
service generators in parallel with the shore facility. Any changes from vessel’s power to (or from) shore power will require a short black out period on the vessel during any power transfer. The ECSTASY will be provided with the capability of synchronizing the vessel service generators with shore power, and operating in parallel, until the appropriate circuit breakers can be opened. This capability allows
F - E N V I R O N 3
uninterrupted power on the vessel while transferring either from vessels power to shore power or from shore power to vessels power.
13.
US Coast Guard and ABS Requirements The following are excerpts from codes and regulations having jurisdiction over the vessel electrical conversions. These are provided for reference only. Other requirements may be applicable on a vessel-by-vessel basis. [2003]46CFR111.30-25(f): For each shore power connection each switchboard must have:
(1) A circuit breaker or fused switch; (2) A pilot light connected to the shore side of the circuit breaker or fused switch:
and; (3) One of the voltmeters under paragraph (b)(5) of this section connected to show
the voltage of each phase of the shore power connection. ABS Rules for Building and Classing Steel Vessels 2003, Part 4, Chapter 8, Section 2:
11.1 Shore Connection Where arrangements are made for the supply of electricity from a source on shore or other external source the following requirements apply. 11.1.1 Connection Box and Cable
A shore connection box is to be provided on the vessel for the reception of the flexible cable from an external source. Fixed cables of adequate rating are to be provided between the shore connection box and the main or emergency switchboard. The cable is to be protected by fuses or a circuit breaker located at the connection box. Where fuses are used, a disconnecting means is also to be provided. Trailing cable is to be appropriately fixed to avoid its imposing excessive stress on cable terminal.
11.1.2 Interlock Arrangements An interlocking arrangement is to be provided between all generators, including the emergency generator, and shore power supply to prevent the shore power from being inadvertently paralleled with the shipboard power.
11.1.3 Instrumentation
F - E N V I R O N 4
An indicator light is to be provided at main or emergency switchboard to which shore power is connected to show energized status of the cable. Means are to be provided for checking the polarity (for DC) or the phase sequence (for three-phase AC) of the incoming supply in relation to the vessel’s system.
11.1.4 Earth Connection An earth terminal is to be provided for connecting the hull to an external earth.
11.1.5 Information Plate An information plate is to be provided at or near the connection box giving full information on the system of supply and the nominal voltage (and frequency if AC) of the vessel’s system and the recommended procedure for carrying out the connection.
Evaluation of Individual Vessels The VICTORIA BRIDGE is an 855-foot long container vessel with a cold iron shore power requirement of 1,120 Amperes at 450 Volts based on an assumed maximum load of 700 kW. The cost estimate assumes that this power supply would be accomplished using a shore power connection box that consists of three 400 Amp receptacles and mechanically interlocked 400 Amp circuit breakers. Three 400MCM, three conductor, cables would be run to a 1,200 Amp, continuous rated, molded case circuit breaker that would be provided with either a shunt trip or an undervoltage trip at the main switchboard, as required to suit the existing breaker interlock system. The switchboard wiring would be modified to interlock the generator breaker with the new shore power breakers, and to provide required indicator light and phase sequence indicators. One of the existing bus voltage selector switches would be replaced and connected to add the monitoring capability of the line side of each phase of the shore power breaker as required. The mounted plate of the power distribution system and any associated mimic panels would be modified to add the new shore power distribution breaker. The Power Management System would also be modified to reflect the addition of the shore power connections. The HANJIN PARIS is a 915-foot long container vessel with a cold iron shore requirement of 7,700 Amperes at 450 Volts based on a reported maximum electrical load of 4,800 kW. The cost estimate assumes that this power supply would be accomplished using a shore power connection box that consists of twenty 400 Amp receptacles and mechanically interlocked 400 Amp circuit breakers. Twenty 400 MCM, three conductor, cables would be run to four (5 cables to each) 2,000 Amp, continuous rated, molded case circuit breakers (5 cables to each) that would be provided with either a shunt trip or an undervoltage trip at the main switchboard, as required to suit the existing breaker
F - E N V I R O N 5
interlock system. The switchboard wiring would be modified to interlock the generator breakers with the new shore power breakers and to provide required indicator lights and phase sequence indicators. Four of the existing bus voltage selector switches would be replaced and connected to add the monitoring capability of the line side of each phase of each shore power breaker as required. The mounted plate of the power distribution system and any associated mimic panels would be modified to add the new shore power distribution breakers. It is reported that a Power Management System is not installed on this vessel; therefore, associated modifications do not need to be considered. The LIHUE is a 787-foot long container vessel with a cold iron shore requirement of 2,800 Amperes at 450 Volts based on an assumed maximum electrical load of 1,700 kW. It is noted that this in port electrical load was estimated based on a load analysis from a similar vessel, adjusted to suit an increased quantity of reefer containers. The cost estimate assumes that this power supply would be accomplished using a shore power connection box that consists of seven 400 Amp receptacles and mechanically interlocked 400 Amp circuit breakers. Seven 400 MCM, three conductor, cables would be run to a single 3,200 Amp, continuous rated, molded case circuit breaker that would be provided with either a shunt trip or an undervoltage trip at the main switchboard, as required to suit the existing breaker interlock system. The switchboard wiring would be modified to interlock the generator breakers with this new shore power breaker and to provide the required indicator light and phase sequence indicators. One of the existing bus voltage selector switches would be replaced and connected to add the monitoring capability of the line side of each phase of each shore power breaker as required. The mounted plate of the power distribution system and any associated mimic panels would be modified to add the new shore power distribution breaker. The Power Management System would also be modified to reflect the addition of the shore power connections. The OOCL CALIFORNIA is a 905-foot long container vessel with a cold iron shore requirement of 1,600 Amperes at 450 Volts based on an assumed maximum electrical load of 1,000 kW. The cost estimate assumes that this power supply would be accomplished using a shore power connection box that consists of four 400 Amp receptacles and mechanically interlocked 400 Amp circuit breakers. Four 400 MCM, three conductor, cables would be run to a 1,600 Amp, continuous rated, molded case circuit breaker that would be provided with either a shunt trip or an undervoltage trip at the main switchboard, as required to suit the existing breaker interlock system. The switchboard wiring would be modified to interlock the generator breakers with the new shore power breaker and to provide required indicator light and phase sequence indicators. One of the existing bus voltage selector switches would be replaced and connected to add the monitoring capability of the line side of each phase of the shore power breaker as required. The mounted plate of the power distribution system and any associated mimic panels would be modified to add the new shore power distribution
F - E N V I R O N 6
breaker. The Power Management System would also be modified to reflect the addition of the shore power connections. The CHIQUITA JOY is a 495 foot long refrigerated cargo vessel with a cold iron shore requirement of 5,600 Amperes at 450 Volts based on an assumed maximum electrical load of 3,500 kW. The cost estimate assumes that this power supply would be accomplished using a shore power connection box that consists of sixteen 400 Amp receptacles and mechanically interlocked 400 Amp circuit breakers. Sixteen 400 MCM, three conductor, cables would be run to two 3,200 Amp, continuous rated, molded case circuit breakers that would be provided with either a shunt trip or an undervoltage trip at the main switchboard, as required to suit the existing breaker interlock system. The switchboard wiring would be modified to interlock the generator breakers with the new shore power breakers and to provide required indicator lights and phase sequence indicators. Two of the existing bus voltage selector switches would be replaced and connected to add the monitoring capability of the line side of each phase of each shore power breaker as required. The mounted plate of the power distribution system and any associated mimic panels would be modified to add the new shore power distribution breakers. The Power Management System would also be modified to reflect the addition of the shore power connections. The ECSTASY is an 857 foot long cruise vessel with a cold iron shore requirement of 765 Amperes at 6,600 Volts based on an assumed maximum electrical load of 7,000 kW. It is noted that this in port electrical load was estimated as approximately 70% load on both of the two 5,280 kW generator units. The cost estimate assumes that this power supply would be accomplished using a shore power connection box that consists of three 320 Amp receptacles and mechanically interlocked 320 Amp circuit breakers. It is assumed that the shore power connection box would be located within the vessel near a service access door in the side shell that is open to the pier when in port. Three 212 MCM (AWG – 4/0), 8 KV rated, three conductor, cables would be run to one 800 Amp, continuous rated, circuit breaker that would be provided with either a shunt trip or an undervoltage trip at the main switchboard, as required to suit the existing breaker interlock system.. The switchboard wiring would be modified to interlock the generator breakers with the new shore power breakers and to provide required indicator light and phase sequence indicators. One of the existing bus voltage selector switches would be replaced and connected to add the monitoring capability of the line side of each phase of each shore power breaker as required. The mounted plate of the power distribution system and any associated mimic panels would be modified to add the new shore power distribution breaker. The Power Management System would also be modified to provide for an uninterrupted power transfer between the vessels generating plant and shore power. This includes synchronization of the vessels generating plant with shore power, closing of the shore power breaker (or generator breaker) and the opening of the generator breaker (or shore power breaker) after the load has been assumed by the oncoming power source.
F - E N V I R O N 7
The CHEVRON WASHINGTON is a 651-foot long tanker vessel with a cold iron shore requirement of 400 Amperes at 4,160 Volts based on an assumed maximum electrical load of 2,300 kW. The cost estimate assumes that this power supply would be accomplished using a shore power connection box that consists of two 200 Amp receptacles and mechanically interlocked 200 Amp circuit breakers. Two 168 MCM (AWG – 3/0), 5 KV rated, three conductor, cables would be run to one 400 Amp, continuous rated, circuit breaker that would be provided with either a shunt trip or an undervoltage trip at the main switchboard, as required to suit the existing breaker interlock system. The switchboard wiring would be modified to interlock the generator breakers with the new shore power breaker and to provide required indicator light and phase sequence indicators. One of the existing bus voltage selector switches would be replaced and connected to add the monitoring capability of the line side of each phase of each shore power breaker as required. The mounted plate of the power distribution system and any associated mimic panels would be modified to add the new shore power distribution breakers. The Power Management System would also be modified to reflect the addition of the shore power connections. The GROTON is an integrated tug barge oil carrier with a cold iron shore requirement of 480 Amperes at 450 Volts based on a reported “in port” electrical load of 300 kW. It is possible that the as built shore power supply circuit is capable of supporting this load, in which case no modifications would be required. For the purposes of this study, however, it is assumed that this capability does not exist and that a new shore power supply is required. The cost estimate assumes that this power supply would be accomplished using a shore power connection box that consists of two 400 Amp receptacles and mechanically interlocked 400 Amp circuit breakers. Two 400 MCM, three conductor, cables would be run to one 500 Amp, continuous rated, molded case circuit breaker that would be provided with either a shunt trip or an undervoltage trip at the main switchboard, as required to suit the existing breaker interlock system. The switchboard wiring would be modified to interlock the generator breakers with this new shore power breaker and to provide the required indicator light and phase sequence indicators. One of the existing bus voltage selector switches would be replaced and connected to add the monitoring capability of the line side of each phase of the shore power breaker as required. The mounted plate of the power distribution system and any associated mimic panels would be modified to add the new shore power distribution breakers. It is assumed that a power management system is not installed on this vessel therefore associated modifications do not need to be considered. The ALASKAN FRONTIER is a 939 foot long tanker vessel with a cold iron shore requirement of 850 Amperes at 6600 Volts based on a maximum electrical load of 7,782 kW as indicated in the vessels load analysis. The cost estimate assumes that this would be accomplished using a shore power connection box that consists of three 320 Amp receptacles and mechanically interlocked 320
F - E N V I R O N 8
Amp circuit breakers. Three 212 MCM (AWG – 4/0), 8 KV rated, three conductor, cables would be run to one 900 Amp, continuous rated, circuit breaker that would be provided with either a shunt trip or an undervoltage trip at the main switchboard, as required to suit the existing breaker interlock system. The switchboard wiring would be modified to interlock the generator breakers with the new shore power breaker and to provide required indicator light and phase sequence indicators. One of the existing bus voltage selector switches would be replaced and connected to add the monitoring capability of the line side of each phase of each shore power breaker as required. The mounted plate of the power distribution system and any associated mimic panels would be modified to add the new shore power distribution breakers. The Power Management System would also be modified to reflect the addition of the shore power connections. The ANSAC HARMONY is a 557-foot long bulk cargo vessel with a cold iron shore requirement of 960 Amperes at 450 Volts based on an assumed maximum electrical load of 600 kW. The cost estimate assumes that this power supply would be accomplished using a shore power connection box that consists of three 400 Amp receptacles and mechanically interlocked 400 Amp circuit breakers. Three 400 MCM, three conductor, cables would be run to one 1,000 Amp, continuous rated, molded case circuit breaker that would be provided with either a shunt trip or an undervoltage trip at the main switchboard, as required to suit the existing breaker interlock system. The switchboard wiring would be modified to interlock the generator breakers with the new shore power breaker and to provide the required indicator light and phase sequence indicators. One of the existing bus voltage selector switches would be replaced and connected to add the monitoring capability of the line side of each phase of the shore power breaker, as required. The mounted plate of the power distribution system and any associated mimic panels would be modified to add the new shore power distribution breaker. The Power Management System would also be modified to reflect the addition of the shore power connections. The PYXIS is a 653 foot long vehicle carrier vessel with a cold iron shore requirement of 2,420 Amperes at 450 Volts based on an assumed maximum electrical load of 1,500 kW. The cost estimate assumes that this power supply would be accomplished using a shore power connection box that consists of six 400 Amp receptacles and mechanically interlocked 400 Amp circuit breakers. Six 400 MCM, three conductor, cables would be run to a 2,500 Amp, continuous rated, molded case circuit breaker that would be provided with either a shunt trip or an undervoltage trip at the main switchboard, as required to suit the existing breaker interlock system. The switchboard wiring would be modified to interlock the generator breakers with the new shore power breaker and to provide required indicator lights and phase sequence indicators. One of the existing bus voltage selector switches would be replaced and connected to add the monitoring capability of the line side of each phase of the shore power breaker as required. The mounted plate of the power distribution system and any associated mimic panels would be modified to add the new shore power distribution
F - E N V I R O N 9
breakers. It is reported that a Power Management System is not installed on this vessel therefore associated modifications do not need to be considered. The THORSEGGEN is a 543-foot long general cargo carrier vessel with a cold iron shore requirement of 960 Amperes at 450 Volts based on an assumed load of 600 kW. The cost estimate assumes that this power supply would be accomplished using a shore power connection box that consists of three 400 Amp receptacles and mechanically interlocked 400 Amp circuit breakers. Three 400 MCM, three conductor, cables would be run to one 1,000 Amp, continuous rated, molded case circuit breaker that would be provided with either a shunt trip or an undervoltage trip at the main switchboard, as required to suit the existing breaker interlock system. The switchboard wiring would be modified to interlock the generator breakers with this new shore power breaker and to provide the required indicator light and phase sequence indicators. One of the existing bus voltage selector switches would be replaced and connected to add the monitoring capability of the line side of each phase of the shore power breaker as required. The mounted plate of the power distribution system and any associated mimic panels would be modified to add the new shore power distribution breakers. It is reported that a Power Management System is not installed on this vessel therefore associated modifications do not need to be considered. The following is a detailed cost analysis for the 12 vessels.
Appendix F. Vessel Conversion Analysis
Material Quantity
Labor Man Hours Each
Total Labor Man Hours Labor Rate Labor Cost
Material Cost/Unit
Material Cost
Material & Expenses
Engineering & Technical
Site Survey (Ship Check ) 1 232 232 $65 $15,080 $7,140 $7,140 $22,220Engineering Drawings 1 680 680 $50 $34,000 $200 $200 $34,200Procurement Specifications 1 200 200 $65 $13,000 $20 $20 $13,020Plan Approval & Installation Inspection by Classification Society 1 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000Test Procedures 1 60 60 $65 $3,900 $20 $20 $3,920Commissioning 1 80 80 $65 $5,200 $4,099 $4,099 $9,299
Subtotal Engineering $71,180 $36,479 $36,479 $107,659
Installation
Shore Power Connection Box/Recpt 3 2 6 $45 $90 $5,000 $15,000 $15,090Shore Power Conn Box Foundation 1 16 16 $45 $720 $500 $500 $1,220Shore Power Breaker Foundation 1 16 16 $45 $720 $500 $500 $1,220Shore Power Brkr 1 16 16 $45 $720 $17,683 $17,683 $18,403Switchboard Mods 1 250 250 $45 $11,250 $1,100 $1,100 $12,350Cable & cableway installation /foot 600 0.5 300 $45 $13,500 $15 $9,108 $22,608Painting/gallon 3 16 48 $45 $2,160 $40 $120 $2,280Power Management System Mods 1 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000Testing 1 80 80 $45 $3,600 $10 $500 $4,100
Subtotal Direct Installation Costs $32,760 $39,848 $59,511 $92,271
Shipyard support @20% of material cost $11,902Shipyard profit @15% of inst cost incl support $15,626
Subtotal Installation $119,799
Subtotal Engineering and Installation $227,458Margin/Contingency @30% 68,237
Total Engineering and Installation 296,000
CONTAINER SHIP "VICTORIA BRIDGE"
March 30, 2004 E N V I R O N
Appendix F. Vessel Conversion Analysis
Material Quantity
Labor Man Hours Each
Total Labor Man Hours Labor Rate Labor Cost
Material Cost/Unit
Material Cost
Material & Expenses
Engineering & Technical
Site Survey (Ship Check ) 1 646 646 $65 $41,990 $19,560 $19,560 $61,550Engineering Drawings 1 1180 1180 $50 $59,000 $200 $200 $59,200Procurement Specifications 1 200 200 $65 $13,000 $20 $20 $13,020Plan Approval & Installation Inspection by Classification Society 1 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000Test Procedures 1 80 80 $65 $5,200 $20 $20 $5,220Commissioning 1 96 96 $65 $6,240 $5,256 $5,256 $11,496
Subtotal Engineering $125,430 $50,056 $50,056 $175,486
Installation
Shore Power Connection Box/Recpt 20 2 40 $45 $90 $5,000 $100,000 $100,090Shore Power Conn Box Foundation 1 24 24 $45 $1,080 $500 $500 $1,580Shore Power Breaker Foundation 4 16 64 $45 $720 $500 $2,000 $2,720Shore Power Brkr 4 16 64 $45 $720 $35,705 $142,820 $143,540Switchboard Mods 4 250 1000 $45 $45,000 $1,100 $4,400 $49,400Cable & cableway installation /foot 5700 0.5 2850 $45 $128,250 $15 $86,526 $214,776Painting/gallon 5 16 80 $45 $3,600 $40 $200 $3,800Testing 1 80 80 $45 $3,600 $500 $500 $4,100
Subtotal Direct Installation Costs $183,060 $43,360 $336,946 $520,006
Shipyard support @20% of material cost $67,389Shipyard profit @15% of inst cost incl support $88,109
Subtotal Installation $675,504
Subtotal Engineering and Installation $850,990Margin/Contingency @30% 255,297
Total Engineering and Installation 1,106,000
CONTAINER SHIP "HANJIN PARIS"
March 30, 2004 E N V I R O N
Appendix F. Vessel Conversion Analysis
Material Quantity
Labor Man Hours Each
Total Labor Man Hours Labor Rate Labor Cost
Material Cost/Unit
Material Cost
Material & Expenses
Engineering & Technical
Site Survey (Ship Check ) 1 410 410 $65 $26,650 $13,478 $13,478 $40,128Engineering Drawings 1 680 680 $50 $34,000 $200 $200 $34,200Procurement Specifications 1 200 200 $65 $13,000 $20 $20 $13,020Plan Approval & Installation Inspection by Classification Society 1 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000Test Procedures 1 40 40 $65 $2,600 $20 $20 $2,620Commissioning 1 80 80 $65 $5,200 $4,099 $4,099 $9,299
Subtotal Engineering $81,450 $42,817 $42,817 $124,267
Installation
Shore Power Connection Box/Recpt 7 2 14 $45 $90 $5,000 $35,000 $35,090Shore Power Conn Box Foundation 1 16 16 $45 $720 $500 $500 $1,220Shore Power Breaker Foundation 1 16 16 $45 $720 $500 $500 $1,220Shore Power Brkr 1 16 16 $45 $720 $45,372 $45,372 $46,092Switchboard Mods 1 250 250 $45 $11,250 $1,100 $1,100 $12,350Cable & cableway installation /foot 1400 0.5 700 $45 $31,500 $15 $21,252 $52,752Painting/gallon 3 16 48 $45 $2,160 $40 $120 $2,280Power Management System Mods 1 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000Testing 1 80 80 $45 $3,600 $10 $500 $4,100
Subtotal Direct Installation Costs $50,760 $67,537 $119,344 $170,104
Shipyard support @20% of material cost $23,869Shipyard profit @15% of inst cost incl support $29,096
Subtotal Installation $223,069
Subtotal Engineering and Installation $347,336Margin/Contingency @30% 104,201
Total Engineering and Installation 452,000
CONTAINER SHIP "LIHUE"
March 30, 2004 E N V I R O N
Appendix F. Vessel Conversion Analysis
Material Quantity
Labor Man Hours Each
Total Labor Man Hours Labor Rate Labor Cost
Material Cost/Unit
Material Cost
Material & Expenses
Engineering & Technical
Site Survey (Ship Check ) 1 410 410 $65 $26,650 $13,478 $13,478 $40,128Engineering Drawings 1 680 680 $50 $34,000 $200 $200 $34,200Procurement Specifications 1 200 200 $65 $13,000 $20 $20 $13,020Plan Approval & Installation Inspection by Classification Society 1 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000Test Procedures 1 60 60 $65 $3,900 $20 $20 $3,920Commissioning 1 80 80 $65 $5,200 $4,099 $4,099 $9,299
Subtotal Engineering $82,750 $42,817 $42,817 $125,567
Installation
Shore Power Connection Box/Recpt 22 2 43.333333 $45 $90 $5,000 $108,333 $108,423Shore Power Conn Box Foundation 1 16 16 $45 $720 $500 $500 $1,220Shore Power Breaker Foundation 4 16 64 $45 $720 $500 $2,000 $2,720Shore Power Brkr 4 16 64 $45 $720 $21,020 $84,080 $84,800Switchboard Mods 4 250 1000 $45 $45,000 $1,100 $4,400 $49,400Cable & cableway installation /foot 5700 0.5 2850 $45 $128,250 $15 $86,526 $214,776Painting/gallon 5 16 80 $45 $3,600 $40 $200 $3,800Power Management System Mods 1 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000Testing 1 80 80 $45 $3,600 $10 $500 $4,100
Subtotal Direct Installation Costs $182,700 $43,185 $301,539 $484,239
Shipyard support @20% of material cost $60,308Shipyard profit @15% of inst cost incl support $81,682
Subtotal Installation $626,229
Subtotal Engineering and Installation $751,796Margin/Contingency @30% 225,539
Total Engineering and Installation 977,000
CONTAINER /REEFER SHIP "OOCL CALIFORNIA"
March 30, 2004 E N V I R O N
Appendix F. Vessel Conversion Analysis
Material Quantity
Labor Man Hours Each
Total Labor Man Hours Labor Rate Labor Cost
Material Cost/Unit
Material Cost
Material & Expenses
Engineering & Technical
Site Survey (Ship Check ) 1 410 410 $65 $26,650 $13,478 $13,478 $40,128Engineering Drawings 1 780 780 $50 $39,000 $200 $200 $39,200Procurement Specifications 1 200 200 $65 $13,000 $20 $20 $13,020Plan Approval & Installation Inspection by Classification Society 1 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000Test Procedures 1 60 60 $65 $3,900 $20 $20 $3,920Commissioning 1 80 80 $65 $5,200 $4,099 $4,099 $9,299
Subtotal Engineering $87,750 $42,817 $42,817 $130,567
Installation
Shore Power Connection Box/Recpt 16 2 32 $45 $90 $5,000 $80,000 $80,090Shore Power Conn Box Foundation 1 16 16 $45 $720 $500 $500 $1,220Shore Power Breaker Foundation 2 16 32 $45 $720 $500 $1,000 $1,720Shore Power Brkr 2 16 32 $45 $720 $45,372 $90,744 $91,464Switchboard Mods 2 250 500 $45 $22,500 $1,100 $2,200 $24,700Cable & cableway installation /foot 3200 0.5 1600 $45 $72,000 $15 $48,576 $120,576Painting/gallon 3 16 48 $45 $2,160 $40 $120 $2,280Power Management System Mods 1 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000Testing 1 80 80 $45 $3,600 $10 $500 $4,100
Subtotal Direct Installation Costs $102,510 $67,537 $238,640 $341,150
Shipyard support @20% of material cost $47,728Shipyard profit @15% of inst cost incl support $58,332
Subtotal Installation $447,210
Subtotal Engineering and Installation $577,777Margin/Contingency @30% 173,333
Total Engineering and Installation 751,000
REFRIGERATED CARGO SHIP "CHIQUITA JOY"
March 30, 2004 E N V I R O N
Appendix F. Vessel Conversion Analysis
Material Quantity
Labor Man Hours Each
Total Labor Man Hours Labor Rate Labor Cost
Material Cost/Unit
Material Cost
Material & Expenses
Engineering & Technical
Site Survey (Ship Check ) 1 410 410 $65 $26,650 $13,478 $13,478 $40,128Engineering Drawings 1 980 980 $50 $49,000 $200 $200 $49,200Procurement Specifications 1 250 250 $65 $16,250 $20 $20 $16,270Plan Approval & Installation Inspection by Classification Society 1 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000Test Procedures 1 100 100 $65 $6,500 $50 $50 $6,550Commissioning 1 144 144 $65 $9,360 $7,041 $7,041 $16,401
Subtotal Engineering $107,760 $45,789 $45,789 $153,549
Installation
Shore Power Connection Box/Recpt 3 24 72 $45 $1,080 $9,000 $27,000 $28,080Shore Power Conn Box Foundation 1 16 16 $45 $720 $500 $500 $1,220Shore Power Breaker Foundation 1 16 16 $45 $720 $500 $500 $1,220Shore Power Brkr 1 24 24 $45 $1,080 $68,058 $68,058 $69,138Switchboard Mods 1 250 250 $45 $11,250 $6,600 $6,600 $17,850Cable & cableway installation /foot 900 0.5 450 $45 $20,250 $35 $31,104 $51,354Painting/gallon 3 16 48 $45 $2,160 $40 $120 $2,280Power Management System Mods 1 $40,000 $40,000 $40,000Testing 1 80 80 $45 $3,600 $1,000 $1,000 $4,600
Subtotal Direct Installation Costs $40,860 $125,733 $174,882 $215,742
Shipyard support @20% of material cost $34,976Shipyard profit @15% of inst cost incl support $37,608
Subtotal Installation $288,326
Subtotal Engineering and Installation $441,875Margin/Contingency @30% 132,563
Total Engineering and Installation 574,000
CRUISE SHIP "ECSTASY"
March 30, 2004 E N V I R O N
Appendix F. Vessel Conversion Analysis
Material Quantity
Labor Man Hours Each
Total Labor Man Hours Labor Rate Labor Cost
Material Cost/Unit
Material Cost
Material & Expenses
Engineering & Technical
Site Survey (Ship Check ) 1 410 410 $65 $26,650 $13,478 $13,478 $40,128Engineering Drawings 1 680 680 $50 $34,000 $200 $200 $34,200Procurement Specifications 1 200 200 $65 $13,000 $20 $20 $13,020Plan Approval & Installation Inspection by Classification Society 1 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000Test Procedures 1 60 60 $65 $3,900 $20 $20 $3,920Commissioning 1 80 80 $65 $5,200 $4,099 $4,099 $9,299
Subtotal Engineering $82,750 $42,817 $42,817 $125,567
Installation
Shore Power Connection Box/Recpt 2 24 48 $45 $1,080 $9,000 $18,000 $19,080Shore Power Conn Box Foundation 1 16 16 $45 $720 $500 $500 $1,220Shore Power Breaker Foundation 1 16 16 $45 $720 $500 $500 $1,220Shore Power Brkr 1 24 24 $45 $1,080 $53,558 $53,558 $54,638Switchboard Mods 1 250 250 $45 $11,250 $3,100 $3,100 $14,350Cable & cableway installation /foot 250 0.5 125 $45 $5,625 $30 $7,440 $13,065Painting/gallon 3 16 48 $45 $2,160 $40 $120 $2,280Power Management System Mods 1 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000Testing 1 80 80 $45 $3,600 $10 $500 $4,100
Subtotal Direct Installation Costs $26,235 $81,738 $98,718 $124,953
Shipyard support @20% of material cost $19,744Shipyard profit @15% of inst cost incl support $21,704
Subtotal Installation $166,401
Subtotal Engineering and Installation $291,968Margin/Contingency @30% 87,590
Total Engineering and Installation 380,000
TANKER VESSEL "CHEVRON WASHINGTON"
March 30, 2004 E N V I R O N
Appendix F. Vessel Conversion Analysis
Material Quantity
Labor Man Hours Each
Total Labor Man Hours Labor Rate Labor Cost
Material Cost/Unit
Material Cost
Material & Expenses
Engineering & Technical
Site Survey (Ship Check ) 1 232 232 $65 $15,080 $7,140 $7,140 $22,220Engineering Drawings 1 630 630 $50 $31,500 $200 $200 $31,700Procurement Specifications 1 140 140 $65 $9,100 $20 $20 $9,120Plan Approval & Installation Inspection by Classification Society 1 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000Test Procedures 1 40 40 $65 $2,600 $20 $20 $2,620Commissioning 1 80 80 $65 $5,200 $2,628 $2,628 $7,828
Subtotal Engineering $63,480 $30,008 $30,008 $93,488
Installation
Shore Power Connection Box/Recpt 2 2 4 $45 $90 $5,000 $10,000 $10,090Shore Power Conn Box Foundation 1 16 16 $45 $720 $500 $500 $1,220Shore Power Breaker Foundation 1 16 16 $45 $720 $500 $500 $1,220Shore Power Brkr 1 16 16 $45 $720 $9,798 $9,798 $10,518Switchboard Mods 1 250 250 $45 $11,250 $1,100 $1,100 $12,350Cable & cableway installation /foot 200 0.5 100 $45 $4,500 $15 $3,036 $7,536Painting/gallon 2 16 32 $45 $1,440 $40 $80 $1,520Testing 1 80 80 $45 $3,600 $10 $500 $4,100
Subtotal Direct Installation Costs $23,040 $16,963 $25,514 $48,554
Shipyard support @20% of material cost $5,103Shipyard profit @15% of inst cost incl support $8,049
Subtotal Installation $61,705
Subtotal Engineering and Installation $155,193Margin/Contingency @30% 46,558
Total Engineering and Installation 202,000
INTEGRATED TUG BARGE "GROTON"
March 30, 2004 E N V I R O N
Appendix F. Vessel Conversion Analysis
Material Quantity
Labor Man Hours Each
Total Labor Man Hours Labor Rate Labor Cost
Material Cost/Unit
Material Cost
Material & Expenses
Engineering & Technical
Site Survey (Ship Check ) 1 410 410 $65 $26,650 $13,478 $13,478 $40,128Engineering Drawings 1 680 680 $50 $34,000 $200 $200 $34,200Procurement Specifications 1 200 200 $65 $13,000 $20 $20 $13,020Plan Approval & Installation Inspection by Classification Society 1 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000Test Procedures 1 60 60 $65 $3,900 $20 $20 $3,920Commissioning 1 80 80 $65 $5,200 $4,099 $4,099 $9,299
Subtotal Engineering $82,750 $42,817 $42,817 $125,567
Installation
Shore Power Connection Box/Recpt 3 24 72 $45 $1,080 $9,000 $27,000 $28,080Shore Power Conn Box Foundation 1 16 16 $45 $720 $500 $500 $1,220Shore Power Breaker Foundation 1 16 16 $45 $720 $500 $500 $1,220Shore Power Brkr 1 24 24 $45 $1,080 $68,058 $68,058 $69,138Switchboard Mods 1 250 250 $45 $11,250 $3,100 $3,100 $14,350Cable & cableway installation /foot 600 0.5 300 $45 $13,500 $35 $20,736 $34,236Painting/gallon 3 16 48 $45 $2,160 $40 $120 $2,280Power Management System Mods 1 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000Testing 1 80 80 $45 $3,600 $10 $500 $4,100
Subtotal Direct Installation Costs $34,110 $96,243 $135,514 $169,624
Shipyard support @20% of material cost $27,103Shipyard profit @15% of inst cost incl support $29,509
Subtotal Installation $226,236
Subtotal Engineering and Installation $351,803Margin/Contingency @30% 105,541
Total Engineering and Installation 457,000
TANKER VESSEL "ALASKAN FRONTIER"
March 30, 2004 E N V I R O N
Appendix F. Vessel Conversion Analysis
Material Quantity
Labor Man Hours Each
Total Labor Man Hours Labor Rate Labor Cost
Material Cost/Unit
Material Cost
Material & Expenses
Engineering & Technical
Site Survey (Ship Check ) 1 232 232 $65 $15,080 $7,140 $7,140 $22,220Engineering Drawings 1 680 680 $50 $34,000 $200 $200 $34,200Procurement Specifications 1 200 200 $65 $13,000 $20 $20 $13,020Plan Approval & Installation Inspection by Classification Society 1 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000Test Procedures 1 60 60 $65 $3,900 $20 $20 $3,920Commissioning 1 80 80 $65 $5,200 $4,099 $4,099 $9,299
Subtotal Engineering $71,180 $36,479 $36,479 $107,659
Installation
Shore Power Connection Box/Recpt 3 2 6 $45 $90 $5,000 $15,000 $15,090Shore Power Conn Box Foundation 1 16 16 $45 $720 $500 $500 $1,220Shore Power Breaker Foundation 1 16 16 $45 $720 $500 $500 $1,220Shore Power Brkr 1 16 16 $45 $720 $17,683 $17,683 $18,403Switchboard Mods 1 250 250 $45 $11,250 $1,100 $1,100 $12,350Cable & cableway installation /foot 600 0.5 300 $45 $13,500 $15 $9,108 $22,608Painting/gallon 3 16 48 $45 $2,160 $40 $120 $2,280Power Management System Mods 1 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000Testing 1 80 80 $45 $3,600 $10 $500 $4,100
Subtotal Direct Installation Costs $32,760 $39,848 $59,511 $92,271
Shipyard support @20% of material cost $11,902Shipyard profit @15% of inst cost incl support $15,626
Subtotal Installation $119,799
Subtotal Engineering and Installation $227,458Margin/Contingency @30% 68,237
Total Engineering and Installation 296,000
BULK CARRIER VESSEL "ANSAC HARMONY"
March 30, 2004 E N V I R O N
Appendix F. Vessel Conversion Analysis
Material Quantity
Labor Man Hours Each
Total Labor Man Hours Labor Rate Labor Cost
Material Cost/Unit
Material Cost
Material & Expenses
Engineering & Technical
Site Survey (Ship Check ) 1 410 410 $65 $26,650 $13,478 $13,478 $40,128Engineering Drawings 1 680 680 $50 $34,000 $200 $200 $34,200Procurement Specifications 1 160 160 $65 $10,400 $20 $20 $10,420Plan Approval & Installation Inspection by Classification Society 1 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000Test Procedures 1 60 60 $65 $3,900 $20 $20 $3,920Commissioning 1 80 80 $65 $5,200 $4,099 $4,099 $9,299
Subtotal Engineering $80,150 $42,817 $42,817 $122,967
Installation
Shore Power Connection Box/Recpt 6 2 12 $45 $90 $5,000 $30,000 $30,090Shore Power Conn Box Foundation 1 16 16 $45 $720 $500 $500 $1,220Shore Power Breaker Foundation 1 16 16 $45 $720 $500 $500 $1,220Shore Power Brkr 1 16 16 $45 $720 $42,050 $42,050 $42,770Switchboard Mods 1 250 250 $45 $11,250 $1,100 $1,100 $12,350Cable & cableway installation /foot 1500 0.5 750 $45 $33,750 $15 $22,770 $56,520Painting/gallon 3 16 48 $45 $2,160 $40 $120 $2,280Testing 1 80 80 $45 $3,600 $10 $500 $4,100
Subtotal Direct Installation Costs $53,010 $49,215 $97,540 $150,550
Shipyard support @20% of material cost $19,508Shipyard profit @15% of inst cost incl support $25,509
Subtotal Installation $195,567
Subtotal Engineering and Installation $318,534Margin/Contingency @30% 95,560
Total Engineering and Installation 414,000
VEHICLE CARRIER VESSEL "PYXIS"
March 30, 2004 E N V I R O N
Appendix F. Vessel Conversion Analysis
Material Quantity
Labor Man Hours Each
Total Labor Man Hours Labor Rate Labor Cost
Material Cost/Unit
Material Cost
Material & Expenses
Engineering & Technical
Site Survey (Ship Check ) 1 232 232 $65 $15,080 $7,140 $7,140 $22,220Engineering Drawings 1 630 630 $50 $31,500 $200 $200 $31,700Procurement Specifications 1 140 140 $65 $9,100 $20 $20 $9,120Plan Approval & Installation Inspection by Classification Society 1 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000Test Procedures 1 40 40 $65 $2,600 $20 $20 $2,620Commissioning 1 80 80 $65 $5,200 $2,628 $2,628 $7,828
Subtotal Engineering $63,480 $30,008 $30,008 $93,488
Installation
Shore Power Connection Box/Recpt 3 2 6 $45 $90 $5,000 $15,000 $15,090Shore Power Conn Box Foundation 1 16 16 $45 $720 $500 $500 $1,220Shore Power Breaker Foundation 1 16 16 $45 $720 $500 $500 $1,220Shore Power Brkr 1 16 16 $45 $720 $17,683 $17,683 $18,403Switchboard Mods 1 250 250 $45 $11,250 $1,100 $1,100 $12,350Cable & cableway installation /foot 390 0.5 195 $45 $8,775 $15 $5,920 $14,695Painting/gallon 2 16 32 $45 $1,440 $40 $80 $1,520Testing 1 80 80 $45 $3,600 $10 $500 $4,100
Subtotal Direct Installation Costs $27,315 $24,848 $41,283 $68,598
Shipyard support @20% of material cost $8,257Shipyard profit @15% of inst cost incl support $11,528
Subtotal Installation $88,383
Subtotal Engineering and Installation $181,871Margin/Contingency @30% 54,561
Total Engineering and Installation 236,000
GENERAL CARGO CARRIER VESSEL "THORSEGGEN"
March 30, 2004 E N V I R O N
A P P E N D I X G
Feeder Routes to Terminals
G - E N V I R O N 1
APPENDIX G – FEEDER ROUTES TO TERMINALS The feeder routes from the Pico Substation to the twelve terminals in the study are described below and are shown on Figures G-1 through G-4. All 12.5-kV feeders would be underground and extend along streets or railroad tracks in existing rights-of-way. For the 12 added loads, seven new 12.5-kV feeders from the Pico Substation would be needed. Each of the feeders would be installed in new concrete-encased duct banks, the tops of which would be located three feet below finished grade. Duct banks would use schedule 40 PVC and have manholes approximately 400 feet apart. Feeder: J232, F8, G212 – 133 amps at 12.5 kV. This 12.5 kV, 400 amp, feeder would extend south from the substation to serve Berth J232 (Terminal Operator ITS), Berth F8 (Terminal Operator LBCT), and Berth G212 (Terminal Operator MS). It would parallel another 12.5 kV feeder for Berth H4 for much of the route. It would extend south along the railroad track near the Pico Substation and then along Pie r F Avenue to approximately Harbor where, at an electrical manhole, a 12.5 kV tap would be extended to a 12.5 kV metered switch at the property line, south of Berth F8. From that switch, the tap would extend to the 12.5 kV switchgear near Berth F8. The main 12.5 kV feeder would continue south along Pier F Avenue a short distance to the Berth G212 entrance where it would terminate at a 12.5 kV metered switch at the property line. From there, it would continue a short distance to the 12.5 kV switchgear. At Harbor Drive, another tap would extend east along Harbor Drive to the egress ramps for the freeways. There, at a manhole, the 12.5 kV tap would continue southeast along Plaza and then along the railroad tracks to a location due east of Berth J232. At that point, it would terminate at a 12.5 kV switch to be installed with 12.5 kV metering at the edge of the property line. From the 12.5 kV switch, the 12.5 kV tap would extend west to the 12.5 kV switchgear slightly to the east of Berth J232. Feeder: H4 – 405 amps at 12.5 kV. This 12.5 kV, 400 amp, feeder would extend south from the substation to serve Berth H4 (Terminal Operator CARNIVAL). It would parallel the 12.5 kV feeder for Berths J232, F8, and G212 for much of the route. The route would extend south along the railroad track near the Pico Substation and then along Pier F Avenue to approximately Harbor, where it would extend east along Harbor Drive to the egress ramps for the freeways. There it would continue southeast along Plaza and then along the railroad tracks to a location south and west of Berth H4 near the property line. At that point, it would terminate at a 12.5 kV switch to be installed with 12.5 kV metering. From the 12.5 kV switch, the 12.5 kV line would extend a short distance north and east to the 12.5 kV switchgear located inside the property. Feeder: E24 – 203 amps at 12.5 kV. This 12.5 kV, 400 amp, feeder would extend west from the Pico substation to serve Berth E24 (Terminal Operator CUT). A short distance from the substation, it would terminate at a 12.5 kV switch to be installed with 12.5 kV metering near the entrance to the
G - E N V I R O N 2
property. From the 12.5 kV switch, the 12.5 kV line would extend south and west to the 12.5 kV switchgear located inside the property and near Berth E24. Feeder: B78, B83, B84 – 238 amps at 12.5 kV. This 12.5 kV, 400 amp, feeder would extend north from the substation along Pico Avenue to serve Berth B78 (Terminal Operator BP), Berth B83 (Terminal Operator TOYOTA), and Berth B84 (Terminal Operator SHELL). It would parallel another 12.5 kV feeder for Berths D54 and C62 during the initial route. It would extend north along Pico Avenue to the BP property entrance near the freeway egress ramps and railroad tracks. There it would terminate at a 12.5 kV metered-switch at the property line. From that switch, it would extend a short distance into the property and terminate at 12.5 kV switchgear. The 12.5 kV feeder would continue from the 12.5 kV switch west along Pier B Street and then south along Edison Avenue to another 12.5 kV metered switch at the property line of the Toyota Berth B83. From there, a short tap would continue to the 12.5 kV switchgear. From the 12.5 kV switch, the 12.5 kV feeder would extend to the Shell property line near Berth B84 where it would terminate at a 12.5 kV metered-switch. From that 12.5 kV switch, the 12.5 kV feeder would extend west and slightly south to the switchgear within the property. Feeder: D54, C62 – 133 amps at 12.5 kV. This 12.5 kV, 400 amp, feeder would extend north from the substation along Pico Avenue to serve Berth D54 (Terminal Operator FT) and Berth C62 (Terminal Operator SSA). It would parallel another 12.5 kV feeder for Berths B78, B83 and B84 during the initial route. It would extend north along Pico Avenue to the Forest Terminals property line south of Berth D54 and west of Pico Avenue. There it would terminate at a 12.5 kV metered-switch at the property line. From that switch, it would extend into the property and terminate at 12.5 kV switchgear. The 12.5 kV feeder would continue from the 12.5 kV switch north along Pico Avenue to Pier C Street where it would turn west and extend to a 12.5 kV metered switch to be installed near the entrance to SSA Terminals. From there, the 12.5 kV feeder would continue west into the SSA property and terminate at 12.5 kV switchgear east of Berth C62. Feeder: T121 – 451 amps at 12.5 kV. This 12.5 kV, 500 amp, feeder would extend north from the substation a short distance to Ocean Blvd where it would turn west and continue along Ocean Blvd. and cross over Back Channel to Pier T Avenue. At that point, the 12.5 kV feeder would turn south, paralleling T Avenue to near the BP property housing Berth T121. There it would serve Berth T121 (Terminal Operator BP). It would parallel another 12.5 kV feeder for Berth T136 for most of the route. At the BP property line near the entrance to the BP Berth T121, it would terminate at a 12.5 kV metered-switch. From that switch, it would extend a short distance into the property and terminate at 12.5 kV switchgear.
G - E N V I R O N 3
Feeder: T136 – 278 amps at 12.5 kV. This 12.5 kV, 400 amp, feeder would extend north from the substation a short distance to Ocean Blvd where it would turn west and continue along Ocean Blvd. and cross over Back Channel to a location west of Freeway 47. There it would serve Berth T136 (Terminal Operator TTI). This 12.5 kV feeder would parallel another 12.5 kV feeder for Berth T121 for much of the route. At the Hanjin property line west of Freeway 47 and south of Ocean Blvd., the 12.5 kV feeder would terminate at a 12.5 kV metered-switch. From that switch, it would extend a south and slightly east into the property where it would terminate at 12.5 kV switchgear west and north of Berth T136.
M
M
M
M
A P P E N D I X H
SCE Infrastructure Costs Estimate
H - E N V I R O N 1
APPENDIX H – SCE INFRASTRUCTURE COSTS Cost estimates for the SCE infrastructure improvements are provided by type of work in Table H-1. Estimated costs include cutting asphalt or concrete, trenching, backfilling, and repairing pavement. The cable cost assumes using tri-plex cable.
Costs associated with the improvement of SCE power transmission and distribution infrastructure were estimated based the engineering assumptions as described below, and the cost has not been reviewed by SCE.
Table H-1. SCE Cost Descriptions Location Description Quantity Cost
Hinson Sub Misc 66 kV buss work and circuit breaker 1 LS $100,000 Hinson Sub- Pico Sub
66 kV Transmission Line, wood pole construction - $250,000 per mile
4 Miles
$1,000,000
Steel Pole 66 kV Transmission Line at Pico Sub 1 EA $190,000 Pico Sub 66 kV Termination Structure – Grade A
construction, safety factor 4 1 LS $100,000
Pico Sub Transformer - Pad mounted 66 kV – 12.5 kV – 28 MVA
1 EA $450,000
Pico Sub Misc. buss work – 66 kV 1 LS $200,000 Pico Sub Misc. buss work – 12.5 kV 1 LS $200,000 Pico Sub 12.5 kV switchgear - open construction 1 LS $500,000 12.5 kV Distribution
12.5 kV Feeder – Berths J232, G12, and F8 $150/Ft Trench/Conduit + $35/Ft Cable
9,000 Ft $1,665,000
12.5 kV Distribution
12.5 kV Feeder – Berth H4 $150/Ft Trench/Conduit + $35/Ft Cable
6,400 Ft $1,184,000
12.5 kV Distribution
12.5 kV Feeder – Berth E24 $150/Ft Trench/Conduit + $35/Ft Cable
2,400 Ft $450,000
12.5 kV Distribution
12.5 kV Feeder – Berths B78, B83, B84 $150/Ft Trench/Conduit + $35/Ft Cable
6,400 Ft $1,184,000
12.5 kV Distribution
12.5 kV Feeder – Berths D54, C62 $150/Ft Trench/Conduit + $35/Ft Cable
5,200 Ft $962,000
12.5 kV Distribution
12.5 kV Feeder – Berth T121 $150/Ft Trench/Conduit + $35/Ft Cable
6,400 Ft $1,184,000
12.5 kV Distribution
12.5 kV Feeder – Berth T136 $150/Ft Trench/Conduit + $35/Ft Cable
10,400 Ft $1,924,000
Sub-Total: $11,293,000 Contingency: 30% $3,388,000 Total Cost: $14,681,000
A P P E N D I X I
Work-Barge Sizing and Costs Estimate
I - E N V I R O N 1
APPENDIX I – WORKBARGE SIZING AND COSTS Workbarge Sizing To size the workbarge, the dimensions for a 7,500 kVA substation were used. The length of the workbarge could be reduced by 5 feet for a 5,000 kVA substation and 8 feet for a 2,000 kVA substation. A 1.5-foot draft was assumed and a 3-ft freeboard was deemed adequate. An engine capable of moving the barge with hydraulic bow and stern thrusters at 4 to 5 knots was assumed. The total displacement in metric tons (MT) was estimated as follows in Table I-1.
Table I-1. Estimated Workbarge Tonnage
Characteristics Size Weight (lbs) Metric Tons Light hull displacement LOA = 76 ft
Beam= 30 ft, D=1.5 ft
90.0(1)
Oil Filled Transformer with Primary Section
21’ x 5’ 56,400 26.0
Secondary Switchgear and Main Breaker
16’ x 12’ Included with Transformer Above
--
Deckhouse w/ store room and WC beneath
8’ x 12’ x 16’ 8,000 4.0
Fresh Water 200 gallons 1,500 1.0 Parts and Rigging 2,000 1.0 Deck Gear 6,000 3.0 Boom Platform 12’ x 16’ x 8’ 6,000 3.0 Hydraulic Boom and Turn Table 13,000 6.0 Cable Reel Platform 8’ x 8’ x 8’ 3,500 2.0 Cable Reel and Turn Table 5,000 2.5 400 BHP Diesel Eng. 2,090 1.0 (2) 15kW Generator 4,500 2.0 Hydraulic Power Pack and System 10,000 4.5 Diesel Fuel 400 gallons 2,500 1.0 (4) Hydraulic Thrusters 8,500 4.0 (4) Anchors w/ Chain 2,000 lb nom. 12,000 5.0 Miscellaneous 5,000 2.0 Total Tonnage 158.0 Notes: (1) from ChLBD/34.4, where Ch (blocking coefficient) assumed as 0.90
Based on the above estimate of total displacement tonnage, the workbarge for a 7,500 kVA substation requires about 2.6 feet of draft per the formula in note 1 above. The assumed molded depth of 6 to 7 feet would be needed for head clearance to maintain the diesel engine and hydraulic system below deck.
I - E N V I R O N 2
Since this overall concept for the workbarge configuration has adequate draft for the 7,500 kVA substation, a 71-foot length for a workbarge having a 5,000 kVA substation would be feasible as would a 69-foot length for a 2,000 kVA substation. The rest of the vesselboard equipment needed would remain the same. These workbarges may need increased beam based on the outcome of stability calculations performed during preliminary design. Estimated Workbarge Costs Estimated workbarge costs are provided in Table I-2 below. Costs were estimated based on the [how many?] cold ironing operational hours for one year. Recurring costs are adjusted for future inflation depending on the life expectancy of the project. All labor rates include an overhead rate of 1.65 and 10 percent profit. The Crew Time was calculated by adding two hours for maneuvering, connecting, and disconnecting the cold ironing to the Average Time at Berth. The subtotal of time was then rounded up to the next increment of four hours to account for hourly minimum requirements and then multiplied by the number of Berth Calls per Year.
Table I-2. Estimated Workbarge Costs Length x Beam x Molded Depth (ft)
Equipment & Structure 69x30x6 71x30x6 76x30x6 Steel Hull(1) $239,400 $250,800 $269,800 Deck House w/ WC and Storage Below (2) $66,250 $66,250 $66,250 Furnishings & Plumbing $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 Navigation and Communications $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 2,000 kVA Substation $97,000 5,000 kVA Substation $158,000 7,500 kVA Substation $215,000 Navigation and Deck Lighting $9,000 $9,000 $9,000 Spare Parts and High Voltage Cables $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 Deck Gear $28,000 $28,000 $28,000 Boom Platform $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 50' Hydraulic Boom w/ Electro Hydraulic Unit $115,300 $115,300 $115,300 Cable Festoon System $6,000 $6,000 $6,000 Cable Reel Platform $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 Double Mono Spiral Cable Reel w/ cable $110,000 $110,000 Mono Spiral Cable Reel w/ 6.6kV Cable $65,000 Cable Reel Turn Table $7,500 $7,500 $7,500 400 BHP Diesel Engine $32,500 $32,500 $32,500 21.5 kW Hydraulic Powered Genset $23,900 $23,900 $23,900 17kW Stand-alone Genset (for back-up) $16,800 $16,800 $16,800 Hydraulics (Gearbox, Pump, Controller, etc) $19,450 $19,450 $19,450 (4) Hydraulic Thrusters 16"dia 60 HP $26,500 $26,500 $26,500 (4) Anchors and Chains $12,000 $12,000 $12,000 440V to 460V Cables for Hydraulic Boom $15,000 $21,000 $30,000 Sea Tria ls and Certification $15,000 $15,000 $15,000
I - E N V I R O N 3
Length x Beam x Molded Depth (ft) Equipment & Structure 69x30x6 71x30x6 76x30x6
Sub Total $914,600 $1,038,000 $1,123,000 Shipyard Support per Material Cost 20% $182,920 $207,600 $224,600 Sub Total $1,097,520 $1,245,600 $1,347,600 Shipyard Profit 15% $164,630 $186,840 $202,140 Sub Total $1,262,150 $1,432,440 $1,549,740 Contingency 30% $378,644 $429,732 $464,922 Sub Total $1,640,792 $1,862,172 $2,014,622 Naval Architecture & Fabrication Oversight 10% $164,079 $186,217 $201,466 Total Fabrication Costs $1,805,000 $2,048,000 $2,216,000
Notes: 1) Based on a fabrication cost of $3,800 per ft of length. 2) Based on a fabrication cost of $250 per sq ft.
Insurance Insurance premiums are based on replacement cost with a 4% deductible. The required deductible for property/indemnity (PI) insurance would be about $15,000 to $16,600 for the workbarges. Yearly insurance premiums would be about 3% of the replacement cost.
Marine Mechanic Workbarge maintenance by a marine mechanic would be on an as-needed basis at time and a half. Also, there would be scheduled bi-monthly inspections of each workbarge for two hours. Table I-3 provides marine mechanic labor cost estimates. Scheduled inspections should cover the seven workbarges considered in this study, thus no daily minimum should apply.
Table I-3. Marine Mechanic Labor
Type of Work Hourly Rate Total Hours Labor Cost/Year As-need $184.72 40 $7,388 Bi-monthly inspections $122.75 12 $1,473 Total Cost $9,000
Electrician Because of the highly corrosive marine environment and the working conditions on a workbarge, where moving equipment may damage substation components, scheduled periodic electrical inspections would be needed. Substations are not expected to fail during service, thus no estimate was provided for emergency repair.
I - E N V I R O N 4
An electrician to energize and de-energize the workboat substation would most likely require a four-hour minimum shift. This would amount to 8 hours of labor per vessel call. Periodic inspection of the substation equipment on the workbarge could be worked into available time in this four-hour minimum. Electrician labor is summarized in Table I-4 below.
Table I-4. Electrician Labor
Type of Work Hourly Rate Total Hours Labor Cost/ Vessel Call
Energize/De-energize Substation
$132.00 8 $1,000
Crew A licensed pilot would be essential for the workbarge, instead of having two deckhands during the cold ironing power transfer. This is because the workbarge might need to get underway quickly should an emergency arise. In addition, in order to meet insurance liability coverage requirements, a e pilot would probably need to be on-board during the cold ironing. The rates for the captain would be $138.36/hr and $108.83/hr for the deckhand, or $347.19/hr combined.
Fuel and Consumables The fuel consumption for the 400 hp diesel engine would be about 20 gal/hr. Assuming that for each vessel call the diesel would run two hours, the cost would be approximately $80 per vessel call. Considering that the workbarge may also need to be moved around to different locations in the Port, fuel consumption costs of $1,000/year are reasonable. $3,000/year should cover replacement costs for minor equipment repair and maintenance. These are items normally fixed by the crew and not by the marine mechanic. An additional $3,000/year should be included for parts for the electrician or marine mechanic.
Drydocking Drydocking is normally performed every five years and would be assumed to be 5% of the construction cost of the workbarge. This would include painting, overhaul and repair of equipment, except on the substation. Thus, the annualized cost would be roughly 1%.
Small Craft A small boat to shuttle crew back and forth to the workbarge would need to be replaced every 5 years and would have an initial purchase cost of $15,000. Assuming no salvage value and no
I - E N V I R O N 5
repairs, a simplified annualized cost, which would include fuel, licensing, and insurance would be about $4,000/year.
A P P E N D I X J
Cost Effectiveness of Cold Ironing
Appendix J. Cost Effectiveness of Cold Ironing
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Average Totals
VICTORIA BRIDGE
HANJIN PARIS LIHUE(1) OOCL
CALIFORNIACHIQUITA
JOYECSTASY
CHEVRON WASHINGTON
GROTON ALASKAN FRONTIER
ANSAC HARMONY
PYXIS THORSEGGEN All Ships All Ships
Container Container Container Container Reefer Cruise TankerIntegrated Tug
BargeTanker Dry Bulk Roll-on Roll-off Break Bulk NA NA
9184926 9128128 7105471 9102289 9038945 8711344 7391226 7901928 N/A 9181508 8514083 8116063 NA NA
1998 1997 1971 1996 1994 1991 1976 1982 2004 1998 1986 1983 NA NA
10 9 5 8 6 3 5 5 15 10 5 5 7.2 86
10 10 16 8 25 52 16 24 15 1 9 21 16.2 207
J232 T136 C62 F8 E24 H4 B84 B78 T121 G212 B83 D54 NA NA
NOX 3.8 53.8 4.0 73.3 85.1 69.1 7.3 4.3 25.2 0.5 3.2 8.6 28.2 338
PM10 0.4 4.8 3.6 8.1 9.5 6.2 0.2 0.1 2.9 0.1 0.4 0.1 3.0 36
SO2 3.5 40.4 22.8 68.4 79.5 51.9 1.4 0.4 24.4 0.5 3.0 0.6 24.7 297
CO 0.58 0.86 -0.2 11.2 13.1 1.1 -0.4 0.5 0.5 0.1 0.5 1.3 2.4 29
VOC 0.03 0.56 0.1 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.3 3
All Pollutants 8 100 30 162 188 129 9 5 53 1 7 11 59 704
Emission Reduction over the Project Life (tons)
83 1,003 303 1,616 1,879 1,290 87 53 534 12 70 106 586 7036
Shipside $296,000 $1,106,000 $452,000 $977,000 $751,000 $574,000 $380,000 $202,000 $457,000 $296,000 $414,000 $236,000 $511,750 $6,141,000
Landside $3,151,000 $5,615,000 $3,564,000 $3,282,000 $3,521,000 $3,079,000 $1,309,000 $1,087,000 $4,055,000 $2,935,000 $1,023,000 $2,808,000 $2,952,417 $35,429,000
(1) SCE System $944,000 $3,039,000 $941,000 $761,000 $977,000 $2,323,000 $796,000 $495,000 $2,413,000 $717,000 $707,000 $567,000 $1,223,333 $14,680,000
(2) Terminal Substation $402,000 $360,000 $575,000 $305,000 $496,000 $756,000 $513,000 $592,000 $1,642,000 $413,000 $316,000 $436,000 $567,167 $6,806,000
(3) Work-barge $1,805,000 $2,216,000 $2,048,000 $2,216,000 $2,048,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,805,000 $0 $1,805,000 $1,991,857 $13,943,000
Shipside Net Operating Cost $70,000 $379,000 $269,000 $1,022,021 $857,000 $915,000 $202,000 $59,000 $440,000 $23,000 $101,000 $93,000 $369,168 $4,430,021
(1) Purchased Power Cost $79,000 $485,000 $329,000 $1,203,021 $1,067,000 $1,052,000 $302,000 $85,000 $504,000 $24,000 $109,000 $132,000 $447,585 $5,371,021
(2) Fuel Savings $9,000 $106,000 $60,000 $181,000 $210,000 $137,000 $100,000 $26,000 $64,000 $1,000 $8,000 $39,000 $78,000 $941,000
Landside Net Operating Cost $399,000 $511,000 $579,000 $649,000 $1,028,000 $71,000 $22,000 $33,000 $21,000 $199,000 $12,000 $690,000 $351,000 $4,214,000
(1) Terminal O&M $49,000 $49,000 $49,000 $49,000 $49,000 $71,000 $22,000 $33,000 $21,000 $49,000 $12,000 $49,000 $42,000 $502,000
(2) Workboat O&M $350,000 $462,000 $530,000 $600,000 $979,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $150,000 $0 $641,000 $309,000 $3,712,000
4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4%
Shipside (current ship) 10 9 5 8 6 3 5 5 15 10 5 5 7 7
Shipside (replacement ship) 0 1 5 2 4 7 5 5 0 0 5 5 3 3
Project Life 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
0.0000 0.7026 0.8219 0.7307 0.7903 0.8890 0.8219 0.8219 0.0000 0.0000 0.8219 0.8219 0.6019 0.6019
$0 $777,000 $372,000 $714,000 $594,000 $510,000 $312,000 $166,000 $0 $0 $340,000 $194,000 $332,000 $3,979,000
Shipside (current ship and replacement ship))
$568,000 $3,074,000 $2,182,000 $8,290,000 $6,951,000 $7,421,000 $1,638,000 $479,000 $3,569,000 $187,000 $819,000 $754,000 $2,994,000 $35,932,000
Landside $3,236,000 $4,145,000 $4,696,000 $5,264,000 $8,338,000 $576,000 $178,000 $268,000 $170,000 $1,614,000 $97,000 $5,597,000 $2,848,000 $34,179,000
$7,251,000 $14,717,000 $11,266,000 $18,527,000 $20,155,000 $12,160,000 $3,817,000 $2,202,000 $8,251,000 $5,032,000 $2,693,000 $9,589,000 $9,638,000 $115,660,000
$87,000 $15,000 $37,000 $11,000 $11,000 $9,000 $44,000 $42,000 $15,000 $426,000 $38,000 $90,000 $69,000 $16,000
256,800 2,952,000 1,319,200 5,003,846 5,818,750 3,822,000 1,052,250 392,400 1,786,050 35,100 216,081 585,900 1,937,000 1,937,000
10 4 7 5 2 1 9 8 3 12 6 11 -- --
Notes:(1) It is assumed that LIHUE is using a steam turbine for generating electrical power.(2) Ship service life is assumed 15 years. If a ship is older than 15 years now, then it is assumed it has additional 5 years in service.(3) LIHUE annual calls were doubled as suggested by Matson to reflect its recent move from POLA to POLB.(4) Costs for terminal business interruptions were estimated by the POLB based 12-week long project, average of 3,000 container moved per week and cost for shift to other terminal is about $50 per container.
Vessel Name
Year Built
Service Years Remaining(2)
Annual Port Calls
Category
Vessel IMO Number
Annual Emission Reduction(tons/year)
Berth Number
Combined Net Present Value($)
Interest rate (%)
Operating Cost($/yr)
Replacement Ship Future-to-Present factor ( 4%, current ship life)
Initial Capital Cost ($)
Cost Effectiveness($/ton)
Ranking
Period (year)
Net Present Value of Operating Cost($/yr)
Net Present Value of Initial Shipside Cost for replacement Ship ($)
Annual Power Consumption (MW-hrs)
March 30, 2004 E N V I R O N
A P P E N D I X K
Purchased Power Costs Estimate
Appendix K. Purchased Power Costs(Estimated By SCE)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12VICTORIA
BRIDGE HANJIN PARIS LIHUE
OOCL CALIFORNIA
CHIQUITA JOY ECSTASYCHEVRON
WASHINGTONGROTON
ALASKAN FRONTIER
ANSAC HARMONY
PYXIS THORSEGGEN
Vessel IMO Number 9184926 9128128 7105471 9102289 9038945 8711344 7391226 7901928 Not Available 9181508 8514083 8116063Berth J232 T136 C62 F8 E24 H4 B84 B78 T121 G212 B83 D54Average Berth Time (hrs) 44 63 50 121 68 12 32 56 33 60 17 48Transferring Time (hrs/call) 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5Total calls per year 10 10 16 8 25 52 16 24 15 1 9 21Average Power Demand at Berth (kW) 600 4,800 1,700 5,208 3,500 7,000 2,300 300 3,780 600 1,510 600Max. Power Demand at Berth (kW) 700 4,800 1,700 5,208 3,500 7,000 2,300 300 7,800 600 1,510 600Total Annual kW-hr 256,800 2,952,000 1,319,200 5,003,846 5,818,750 3,822,000 1,052,250 392,400 1,786,050 35,100 216,081 585,900Annual Purchased Power Cost ($/yr) $79,000 $485,000 $329,000 $1,203,021 $1,067,000 $1,052,000 $302,000 $85,000 $504,000 $24,000 $109,000 $132,000Power Price ($/Kw-hr) $0.3073 $0.1644 $0.2490 $0.2404 $0.1837 $0.2752 $0.2872 $0.2162 $0.2823 $0.6856 $0.5060 $0.2257
Vessel Name
March 30, 2004 E N V I R O N
A P P E N D I X L
Cost Effectiveness of Alternative Control Technologies
Appendix L. Cost Effectiveness of Alternative Control Technologies
Retrofitting with LNG/Dual Fuel Engine
VOC CO NOx PM SOx Fuel Cons. Power Generators (kW)Metric Ton/yr kW-hr/yr
Victoria Bridge 0.04 0.70 3.78 0.43 3.51 57 256,728 5440Hanjin Paris 0.65 2.27 53.93 4.93 40.36 655 2,951,631 7600
Lihue 0.10 0.40 4.10 3.64 22.80 371 1,323,864 2700OOCL California 0.74 13.65 73.54 8.36 68.43 1,111 5,003,864 8400
Chiquita Joy 0.86 15.86 85.46 9.72 79.53 1,291 5,815,374 5620Ecstasy 0.83 2.92 69.33 6.34 51.89 842 3,794,694 10560
Chevron Washington 0.09 0.11 7.41 0.29 1.45 330 1,122,888 2600Groton 0.12 0.64 4.30 0.10 0.38 87 390,575 1300
Alaskan Frontier 0.39 1.38 25.34 2.98 24.42 397 1,786,050 25200Ansac Harmony 0.01 0.10 0.54 0.06 0.50 8 36,563 1250
Pyxis 0.03 0.59 3.18 0.36 2.96 48 216,594 2160Thorseggen 0.09 1.60 8.60 0.15 0.57 130 585,225 2100
Potential Emission Impacts NA NA 90% 94% 99%VOC CO NOx PM10 SOx
Victoria Bridge 3.40 0.40 3.48 SCAQMD BACT Cost CriteriaHanjin Paris 48.54 4.64 39.96 Pollutant $/ton reduced
Lihue 3.69 3.42 22.57 NOX $18,300OOCL California 66.19 7.86 67.75 PM10 $4,300
Chiquita Joy 76.92 9.13 78.73 SO2 $9,700Ecstasy 62.40 5.96 51.37 CO $380
Chevron Washington 6.67 0.27 1.44 VOC $19,400Groton 3.87 0.09 0.38
Alaskan Frontier 22.81 2.81 24.18 Ansac Harmony 0.48 0.06 0.49
Pyxis 2.86 0.34 2.93 Thorseggen 7.74 0.14 0.57
Technology Costs 184$ per kwFuel Penalty 30%
Fuel Cost (MGO) - $/metric ton 303 Fuel Cost (HFO) - $/metric ton 163
Capital Cost Fuel Type Fuel Cons Incr. Fuel Cost Total NPV Cost Cost-EffectivenessCost Effectiness
ThresholdCost-effective ?
($) (Metric Tons/yr) ($ per year) ($) ($/ton of all) ($/ton) (Yes/No)Victoria Bridge 998,240 HFO 17 2,778 1,021,000 14,000 15,000 Yes
Hanjin Paris 1,394,600 HFO 197 31,944 1,682,000 2,000 15,000 YesLihue 495,450 HFO 111 18,086 576,000 4,000 15,000 Yes
OOCL California 1,541,400 HFO 333 54,161 1,906,000 2,000 15,000 YesChiquita Joy 1,031,270 HFO 387 62,937 1,361,000 1,000 15,000 Yes
Ecstasy 1,937,760 HFO 253 41,068 2,052,000 6,000 15,000 YesChevron Washington 477,100 MGO 99 29,959 610,000 15,000 15,000 No
Groton 238,550 MGO 26 7,869 274,000 13,000 15,000 YesAlaskan Frontier 4,624,200 HFO 119 19,330 4,849,000 10,000 15,000 YesAnsac Harmony 229,375 HFO 2.4 396 233,000 22,000 15,000 No
Pyxis 396,360 HFO 14 2,344 407,000 13,000 15,000 YesThorseggen 385,350 MGO 39 11,790 438,000 10,000 15,000 Yes
Average 9,000
Vessel Name
Vessel Name Short Tons/yr
Vessel Name Short Tons/yr
March 30, 2004 E N V I R O N
Appendix L. Cost Effectiveness of Alternative Control Technologies
Use of MGO Diesel Fuel
HC CO NOx PM SOx Fuel Cons. PowerMetric Tons/yr kW-hr
Victoria Bridge 0.04 0.70 3.78 0.43 3.51 57 256728Hanjin Paris 0.65 2.27 53.93 4.93 40.36 655 2951631
Lihue 0.10 0.40 4.10 3.64 22.80 371 1323864OOCL California 0.74 13.65 73.54 8.36 68.43 1,111.00 5,003,864.00
Chiquita Joy 0.86 15.86 85.46 9.72 79.53 1,291 5815374Ecstasy 0.83 2.92 69.33 6.34 51.89 842 3794694
Chevron Washington 0.09 0.11 7.41 0.29 1.45 330 1122888Groton 0.12 0.64 4.30 0.10 0.38 87 390575
Alaskan Frontier 0.39 1.38 25.34 2.98 24.42 397 1786050Ansac Harmony 0.01 0.10 0.54 0.06 0.50 8 36563
Pyxis 0.03 0.59 3.18 0.36 2.96 48 216594Thorseggen 0.09 1.60 8.60 0.15 0.57 130 585225
Potential Emission Impacts NA NA NA 85% 90%HC CO NOx PM SOx
Victoria Bridge 0.36 3.16 Hanjin Paris 4.19 36.33 SCAQMD BACT Cost Criteria
Lihue 3.09 20.52 PollutantOOCL California 7.11 61.59 NOX
Chiquita Joy 8.26 71.57 PM10
Ecstasy 5.39 46.70 SO2
Chevron Washington NA NA COGroton NA NA VOC
Alaskan Frontier 2.54 21.98 Ansac Harmony 0.05 0.45
Pyxis 0.31 2.67 Thorseggen NA NA
One-Time Fuel Switching Cost 50,000Fuel Cost (MGO) - $/metric ton 303 Fuel Cost (HFO) - $/metric ton 163
Capital Cost Fuel Type Fuel Cost Incr Total NPV Cost Cost-EffectivenessCost Effectiness
ThresholdCost-effective ?
($) ($ per year) ($) ($/ton of all) ($/ton) (Yes/No)Victoria Bridge 50,000 HFO 7,979 115,000 3,000 15,000 Yes
Hanjin Paris 50,000 HFO 91,737 732,000 2,000 15,000 YesLihue 50,000 HFO 51,940 281,000 2,000 15,000 Yes
OOCL California 50,000 HFO 155,540 1,097,000 2,000 15,000 YesChiquita Joy 50,000 HFO 180,742 997,000 2,000 15,000 Yes
Ecstasy 50,000 HFO 117,939 377,000 2,000 15,000 YesChevron Washington NA MGO NA NA NA NA NA
Groton NA MGO NA NA NA NA NAAlaskan Frontier 50,000 HFO 55,510 500,000 2,000 15,000 YesAnsac Harmony 50,000 HFO 1,136 59,000 12,000 15,000 Yes
Pyxis 50,000 HFO 6,732 80,000 5,000 15,000 YesThorseggen NA MGO NA NA NA NA NA
Average 4,000
Vessel Name
Vessel Name Short Tons/yr
Vessel Name Short Tons/yr
March 30, 2004 E N V I R O N
Appendix L. Cost Effectiveness of Alternative Control Technologies
Use of Emulsified Diesel FuelHC CO NOx PM SOx Fuel Cons. Power
Metric Tons/yr kW-hr/yrVictoria Bridge 0.04 0.70 3.78 0.43 3.51 57 256,728
Hanjin Paris 0.65 2.27 53.93 4.93 40.36 655 2,951,631OOCL California 0.74 13.65 73.54 8.36 68.43 1,111 5,003,864
Chiquita Joy 0.86 15.86 85.46 9.72 79.53 1,291 5,815,374Ecstasy 0.83 2.92 69.33 6.34 51.89 842 3,794,694
Chevron Washington 0.09 0.11 7.41 0.29 1.45 330 1,122,888Groton 0.12 0.64 4.30 0.10 0.38 87 390,575
Alaskan Frontier 0.39 1.38 25.34 2.98 24.42 397 1,786,050Ansac Harmony 0.01 0.10 0.54 0.06 0.50 8 36,563
Pyxis 0.03 0.59 3.18 0.36 2.96 48 216,594Thorseggen 0.09 1.60 8.60 0.15 0.57 130 585,225
Potential Emission Impacts 25% NA 14% 63% 18%VOC CO NOx PM10 SOx SCAQMD BACT Cost Criteria
Pollutant $/ton reducedVictoria Bridge 0.01 0.53 0.41 3.16 NOX $18,300
Hanjin Paris 0.16 7.55 4.66 36.33 PM10 $4,300OOCL California 0.19 10.30 7.90 61.59 CO $380
Chiquita Joy 0.21 11.96 9.18 71.57 VOC $19,400Ecstasy 0.21 9.71 5.99 46.70
Chevron Washington 0.02 1.04 0.18 -Groton 0.03 0.60 0.06 -
Alaskan Frontier 0.10 3.55 2.82 21.98 Ansac Harmony 0.00 0.08 0.06 0.45
Pyxis 0.01 0.45 0.34 2.67 Thorseggen 0.02 1.20 0.09 -
One-Time Fuel Switching Cost 50,000$ Off Shore Refueling Station/Service Barge 450,000$
Fuel Penalty 43%Fuel Cost (MGO) - $/metric ton 303 Fuel Cost (HFO) - $/metric ton 163
Capital Cost Fuel Type Fuel Cons Incr. Fuel Cost Total NPV CostCost-
Effectiveness
Cost Effectiness Threshold
Cost-effective ?
($) (Metric Tons/yr) ($ per year) ($) ($/ton of all) ($/ton) (Yes/No)Victoria Bridge 500,000 HFO 24 7,327 559,000 14,000 15,000 Yes
Hanjin Paris 500,000 HFO 278 84,242 1,257,000 3,000 15,000 YesOOCL California 500,000 HFO 472 142,833 1,462,000 2,000 15,000 Yes
Chiquita Joy 500,000 HFO 549 165,976 1,370,000 2,000 15,000 YesEcstasy 500,000 HFO 358 108,304 801,000 4,000 15,000 Yes
Chevron Washington 500,000 MGO 140 42,442 689,000 111,000 15,000 NoGroton 500,000 MGO 37 11,147 550,000 159,000 15,000 No
Alaskan Frontier 500,000 HFO 169 50,975 913,000 3,000 15,000 YesAnsac Harmony 500,000 HFO 3.4 1,044 508,000 87,000 15,000 No
Pyxis 500,000 HFO 20 6,182 528,000 31,000 15,000 NoThorseggen 500,000 MGO 55 16,703 574,000 87,000 15,000 No
Average 42,000
Vessel Name
Vessel Name Short Tons/yr
Vessel Name Short Tons/yr
March 30, 2004 E N V I R O N