Cold-Ironing Cost Effectiveness Study Volume I

Transcription

Cold Ironing
Cost Effectiveness Study
Volume I - Report
Emulsified
Diesel
Emulsified
Diesel
FuelFuel
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
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
1.0
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
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
4.0
1
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
SHIP CHARACTERIZATION AND HOTELLING EMISSIONANALYSIS
33
4.1
General Port Call Characterization
33
4.2
Port Activities
4.2.1 Port Calls by Specific Container Vessels
4.2.2 Port Calls by Specific Refrigerated Vessels
4.2.3 Port Calls by Specific Cruise Vessels
4.2.4 Port Calls by Specific Tankers
4.2.5 Port Calls by Specific Dry Bulk Vessels
4.2.6 Port Calls by Specific Vehicle Carriers and Roll-on/Roll-off Vessels
4.2.7 Port Calls by Specific Break Bulk (i.e. General Cargo) Vessels
37
37
38
38
38
38
38
38
4.3
Vessel Characteristics for Selected Vessels
4.3.1 Container Vessels
4.3.2 Tankers
4.3.3 Other Selected Vessels
39
40
41
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
- ii -
E N V I R O N
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
4.6.1
4.6.2
4.6.3
4.7
5.0
6.0
Container Vessels
Tankers
Other Vessels
45
46
47
Emissions Associated with Shore Power Generation
48
ELECTRICAL POWER INFRASTRUCTURE CONCEPTUAL DESIGN
49
5.1
Overview of Power Transmission/Distribution to the Vessels
5.1.1 Power Supply for Container, Reefer, and Dry Bulk Vessels
5.1.2 Power Supply for Tankers and RO-RO Vessels
5.1.3 Power Supply for Cruise Vessel
49
50
53
53
5.2
Method of Ana lysis of Energy and Transmission Distribution to Terminals
5.2.1 Hinson Substation
5.2.2 Transmission Line, 66 kV, Hinson Substation to Pico Substation
5.2.3 Pico Substation
5.2.4 12.5 kV Feeders
5.2.5 Cost Estimate of SCE Infrastructure Improvements
54
54
54
54
55
55
5.3
Power Delivery within the Terminals
5.3.1 Terminals Using a Work-barge
5.3.2 Work-barge Sizing
5.3.3 Work-barge Cost Summary
5.3.4 Summary of Work-barge Annual Costs
5.3.5 Cost Associated with Loss of Operational Area
5.3.6 Shore Side Power Delivery for RO-RO, Breakbulk Vessels and
Tankers
5.3.7 Shore Side Power Delivery for Cruise Vessel
5.3.8 Summary of Terminal Infrastructure Costs for Work-barges and Cable
Reel Towers
5.3.9 Summary of Reel Tower Annual Labor Costs
56
56
65
65
65
65
5.4
Vessel Conversion Analysis
5.4.1 Method of Analysis
5.4.2 Vessel Analysis Cost Summary
74
74
75
5.5
Conclusions and Overall Cost Summary
76
68
69
69
74
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
- iii -
E N V I R O N
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
7.0
8.0
9.0
6.6
Candidate Vessels and Berths for Cold Ironing
85
6.7
Discussion on Cold Ironing Cost Effectiveness
89
ALTERNATIVE CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES
91
7.1
Characteristics and Emissions of Selected Marine Vessels
92
7.2
Alternative Emission Control Technologies
7.2.1 Repowering with NG/Dual-FuelT M Engines
7.2.2 Low-Sulfur Marine Gas Oil (MGO) Diesel Fuel
7.2.3 Emulsified Diesel Fuel
7.2.4 Repowering with US EPA Tier 2 Engines
7.2.5 Injection Timing Delay
7.2.6 California On-Road Diesel (Diesel #2)
7.2.7 Fischer-Tropsch Diesel Fuel
7.2.8 Bio-Diesel Fuel
7.2.9 Direct Water Injection
7.2.10 Humid Air Motor (HAM)
7.2.11 Exhaust Gas Recirculation (EGR)
7.2.12 Diesel Oxidation Catalyst (DOC) with California On-road #2 Diesel
Fuel
7.2.13 Catalyzed Diesel Particulate Filter with California On-road #2 Diesel
Fuel
7.2.14 Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR)
7.2.15 Cryogenic Refrigerated Container (CRC)
7.2.16 Summary
93
96
98
100
102
102
103
104
105
105
106
106
106
107
108
109
111
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
CONCLUSIONS
127
- iv -
E N V I R O N
TABLES
Page
Table 1-1.
Table 1-2.
Table 1-3.
Table 1-4.
Table 1-5.
Table 1-6.
Table 2-1.
Table 2-2.
Table 4-1.
Table 4-2.
Table 4-3.
Table 4-4.
Table 4-5.
Table 4-6.
Table 4-7.
Table 4-8.
Table 4-9.
Table 4-10.
Table 4-11.
Table 4-12.
Table 4-13.
Table 4-14.
Table 5-1.
Table 5-2.
Table 5-3.
Table 5-4.
Table 5-5.
Table 5-6.
Table 5-7.
Table 5-8.
Table 6-1.
Table 6-3.
Table 6-4.
Table 6-5.
Table 6-6.
Frequency of Vessel Calls
Selected Vessels and Berths in the Study
Annual Hotelling Emissions
Vessel Calls, Power Consumption, and Cost Effectiveness
Not Practical Near-term Alternatives for POLB
Potential Alternatives to POLB
Inventory Results for Oceangoing Vessels Calling at San Pedro Bay Ports:
2000, NOx tons per day
Candidate Vessel Types, Codes, and Port Calls By Vessel Type
Most Frequently Calling Vessels
Berths with Highest Number of Calls Where Data Was Available
Selected Vessels for Shore Power Study
Estimated Average On-board Power Requirements for the Selected Vessels
Available Berthing Time Summaries
Simultaneous Calls for the 12 Selected Vessels
Container Vessels Hotelling Emissions Per Call (tons per call)
Container Vessels Annual Hotelling Emissions (tons per year)
Tanker Hotelling Emissions Per Call (tons per call)
Tanker Annual Hotelling emissions (tons per year)
Other Vessels Berthing Emissions per Call (tons per call)
Other Vessels Annual Berthing Emissions (tons per year)
Selected Berths Load
SCE Cost Distribution to Individual Berths
Summary of Work-barge Annual Costs
Fenced Footprint Around Substation
Summary of Terminal Infrastructure Costs for Work-barges and Cable Reel
Towers
Summary of Reel Tower Annual Labor Costs
Vessel Analysis Cost Summary
Overall Cost Summary
Emission Factors for Natural Gas Steam Power Generation
Potential Net Emission Reduction from Cold Ironing
Power Infrastructure Cost By Individual Berth
Work-barge Capital Cost
-v -
2
7
8
11
13
13
19
22
34
35
36
37
39
40
43
44
46
46
46
47
47
47
55
56
66
67
73
74
75
76
77
79
80
81
81
E N V I R O N
T A B L E S (Continued)
Page
Table 6-7.
Table 6-8.
Table 6-9.
Table 6-10.
Table 6-11.
Table 6-12.
Table 7-1.
Table 7-2.
Table 7-3.
Table 7-4.
Table 7-5.
Table 7-6.
Table 7-7.
Table 7-8.
Table 7-9.
Table 7-10.
Table 7-12.
Table 7-13.
Table 7-14.
Cost for Retrofitting Replacement Vessels at the Retirement of Current
Selected Vessels
Annual Purchased Power Cost
Annual Fuel Savings
Landside Facility O&M Costs
Cost Effectiveness Data and Results
MARPOL's ANNEX VI NOx Emission Standards.
USEPA Marine Emission Standards
Key Parameters of the Selected Marine Vessels
Annual Hotelling Emissions and Fuel Consumption for Selected Marine
Vessels
Selected Cost Effectiveness Values ($/ton Reduced)
Potential Emission Reductions for Repowering with NG/Dual FuelT M
Engines
Cost Effectiveness of Repowering with NG/Dual FuelT M Engines
Emission Reductions from the Use of MGO Diesel Fuel
Cost Effectiveness of MGO Diesel Fuel
Potential Emission Reductions from the Use of Emulsified Diesel Fuel and
MGO Substitution
Emission Reductions from Alternative Technologies
82
83
84
84
86
89
91
92
92
93
96
97
97
99
99
101
111
111
112
FIGURES
Figure 1-1:
Figure 1-2:
Figure 1-3:
Figure 4-1:
Figure 5-1:
Figure 5-2:
Figure 5-3:
Figure 5-4:
Figure 5-5:
Figure 6-1:
Figure 6-2:
Vessel Calls at the Port of Long Beach
Cost Effectiveness vs. Annual Power Consumption
Vessel Calls at the Port of Long Beach
Transmission and Distribution Routing
Work-Barge Plan
Stern Elevation
Starboard Elevation
Starboard Elevation 2
Cost Effectiveness vs. Annual Power Consumption
- vi -
E N V I R O N
APPENDICES
Appendix A:
Appendix B:
Appendix C:
Appendix D:
Appendix E:
Appendix F:
Appendix G:
Appendix H:
Appendix I:
Appendix J:
Appendix K:
Append ix L:
Information Gathering Meeting Report
Collected Vessels and Berths Information
General Port Activity and Fleet Characteristics
Engine Emission Factors Summary
Vessel Hotelling Emission Calculations
Vessel Conversation Analysis
Feeder Routes to Terminals
SCE Infrastructure Costs Estimate
Work-Barge Sizing and Costs Estimate
Purchased Power Costs Estimate
Cost Effectiveness of Alternative Control Technologies
- vii -
E N V I R O N
ACRONYMS
A
ACFM
AP-42
AWMA
Actual Cubic Feet per Minute
USEPA Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors
Air & Waste Management Association
B
BAAQMD
BACT
BTU
Bay Area Air Quality Management District
Best Available Control Technology
British Thermo Unit
C
CAAA
CARB
CEMS
CEQA
CERCLA
CFR
CO
CRC
Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990
California Air Resources Board
Continuous Emission Monitoring System
California Environmental Quality Act
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
Code of Federal Regulations
Carbon Monoxide
Cryogenic Refrigerated Container
D
DCF
DOT
DWI
DWP
Discounted Cash Flow
Department of Transportation
Direct Water Injection
Department of Water & Power
E
EF
EGR
EIA
EI
EIS
ERC
Emission Factor
Exhaust Gas Recirculation
Environmental Impact Assessment
Emission Inventory
Environmental Impact Statement
Emission Reduction Credit
- viii -
E N V I R O N
A C R O N Y M S (Continued)
F
FIP
FR
FY
Federal Implementation Plan
Federal Register
Fiscal year
G
GE
General Electric
H
HAM
HAPs
HC
HFO
Hz
Humid Air Motor
Hazardous Air Pollutants
Hydrocarbon
Heavy Fuel Oil
Hertz
I
IC
IFO
ILWU
IMO
ISO
Internal Combustion
Intermediate Fuel Oil
International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union
International Maritime Organization
International Standard Organization
J
K
KV
KVA
KW
KW-hr
Kilovolt
Kilovolt-amps
Kilowatt
Kilowatts hour
L
LNG
LPG
Liquefied Natural Gas
Liquefied Petroleum Gas
- ix -
E N V I R O N
M
MARAD
MARPOL
MATES
MDO
MGO
MSDS
MW
MW-hr
Maritime Administration
The International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution of Ships
Multiple Air Toxics Exposure Study
Marine Distillated Oil
Marine Gas Oil
Material Safety Data Sheet
Megawatts
Megawatts hour
N
NAAQSs
NEPA
NOx
NPV
NSR
National Ambient Air Quality Standards
National Environmental Protection Act
Nitrogen Oxides
Net Present Value
New Source Review
O
O&M
OSHA
Operating and Maintenance
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
P
PAHs
PM10
PMA
PMSA
POLA
POLB
PPB
PPM
PTE
Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons
Particulate Matter of 10 Mic rons in diameter or smaller
Pacific Maritime Association
Pacific Merchants Shipping Association
Port of Los Angeles
Port of Long Beach
Parts per Billion
Parts Per Million
Potential to Emit
Q
- x-
E N V I R O N
R
ROG
RORO
RPM
Reactive Organic Gases
Rolling-On and Rolling-Off
Revolutions per Minute
S
SCAQMD
AQMP
SCE
SCR
SDCFM
SECA
SIP
SO2
SOCAB
SOLAS
SOPs
South Coast Air Quality Management District
Air Quality Management Plan
Southern California Edison
Selective Catalytic Reduction
Standard Dry Cubic Feet per Minute
Sulfur Oxides Emission Control Area
State Implementation Plan
Sulfur Dioxide
South Coast Air Basin
Safety of Life at Sea
Standard Operation Procedures
T
TEU
TPD
TPY
Twenty- foot Equivalent Unit
Tons per Day
Tons per Year
U
UL
USCG
USEPA
Underwriter’s Laboratory
United States Coast Guard
United States Environmental Protection Agency
V
VOC
Volatile Organic Compounds
W
X
Y
Z
- xi -
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.
-1 -
ENVIRON
Table 1-1.
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
Dry Bulk
12%
RO-RO
6%
Break Bulk Reefer
2%
5%
Container
42%
Tug & Barge
10%
Cruise
1%
Tanker
22%
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.
-2 -
ENVIRON
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.
-3 -
ENVIRON
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 Bo ard of Harbor Commissioners with a summary of the technical feasibility, orderof- 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
-4 -
ENVIRON
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 12) 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 inport 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
-5 -
ENVIRON
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.
-6 -
ENVIRON
Table 1-2.
Average
Berth Time
(hrs/call)
Calls per
Year
44
10
63
10
50
16
121
8
68
25
Carnival
12
52
T121
ARCO
Terminal
Services Corp
33
15
Chevron
Texaco
B84
Shell
32
16
1982
BP
B78
56
24
9181508
1998
Transmarine
G212
60
1
Pyxis
8514083
1986
Toyofuji
B83
Toyota
17
9
Thorseggen
8116063
1983
Seaspan
Shipping
D54
Forest
Terminals
48
21
Vessel Type
Vessel Name
Vessel ID
Year Built
Vessel
Operator
Usual Terminal
& Berth
Container
Victoria
Bridge
9184926
1998
K-Line
J232
Container
Hanjin Paris
9128128
1997
Hanjin
T136
Container
Lihue
7105471
1971
Matson
C62
Container/
Reefer
OOCL
California
9102289
1996
OOCL
F8
Reefer
Chiquita Joy
9038945
1994
Inchcape/WD
E24
Cruise
Ecstasy
8711344
1991
Carnival
H4
Tanker
Alaskan
Frontier
NA
2004
Alaska
Tanker
Tanker
Chevron
Washington
7391226
1976
Tanker
Groton
7901928
Dry Bulk
Ansac
Harmony
RO-RO
Break Bulk
-7 -
Terminal
Operator
International
Transportation
Services
Total
Terminals
SSA
Terminals
Long Beach
Container
Termina l
California
United
Terminals
ARCO
Terminal
Services Corp.
Metropolitan
Stevedore
ENVIRON
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.
Vessel Name
VOC
0.0
0.6
0.1
0.7
0.9
0.8
0.1
0.1
0.4
0.0
0.0
0.1
3.9
Victoria Bridge
Hanjin Paris
Lihue
OOCL California
Chiquita Joy
Ecstasy
Chevron Washington
Groton
Alaskan Frontier
Ansac Harmony
Pyxis
Thorseggen
Total
Emission (tons/yr)
NOx
PM10
3.8
0.43
53.9
4.93
4.1
3.64
73.5
8.36
85.5
9.72
69.3
6.34
7.4
0.29
4.3
0.10
25.3
2.98
0.5
0.06
3.2
0.36
8.6
0.15
340
37.4
CO
0.7
2.3
0.4
13.7
15.9
2.9
0.1
0.6
1.4
0.1
0.6
1.6
40.3
SO X
3.5
40.4
22.8
68.4
79.5
51.9
1.5
0.4
24.4
0.5
3.0
0.6
297
Combined
8.4
102
31.1
165
191
131
9.4
5.5
54.5
1.2
7.1
11.0
718
Figure 1-2. Annual Hotelling Emissions
tons/year
(all pollutants)
191
165
131
102
55
31
-8 -
7
6
1
Gr
An
oto
sa
n
cH
arm
on
y
8
Py
xis
9
Th
Ch
ors
ev
eg
ro
ge
nW
n
as
hin
gto
n
Vi
cto
ria
Br
idg
e
Lih
ue
Ha
nji
nP
Al
ar
as
is
ka
nF
ro
nti
er
Ec
sta
sy
Ch
iqu
ita
OO
Jo
y
CL
Ca
lifo
rn
ia
11
ENVIRON
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.
Cost Effectiveness =
Total Net Present Value ($)
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 costeffective 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
-9 -
ENVIRON
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
$100
$90
Cost Effectiveness ($1,000/ton)
Ansac Harmony at $426,000
$80
Cost Effectiveness Threshold
(1,800,000 kW-hr Annual Power Consumption)
Thorseggen
$70
($15,000/Ton of Emissions) OOCL California
$60
Chervon Washington
$50
Hanjin Paris
$40
Ecstasy
Chiquita Joy
$30
Alaskan Frontier
$20
$10
$0
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
Power Consumption (Million kW-hr/year)
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
- 10 -
ENVIRON
Table 1-4.
Vessel Calls, Power Consumption, and Cost Effectiveness
Victoria Hanjin
OOCL Chiquita
Chevron
Lihue
Ecstasy
Groton
Bridge Paris
California
Joy
Washington
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
600
4,800
1,700
5,200
3,500
7,000
2,300
300
3,780
600
1,510
600
0.3
3.0
1.3
5.0
5.8
3.8
1.1
0.4
1.8
0.0
0.2
0.6
$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
Average Power
Demand at
Berth (kW)
Total Annual
Power Use
(Million kW-hr)
Cost
Effectiveness
($1,000/ton)
- 11 -
ENVIRON
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 costeffective 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.
- 12 -
ENVIRON
Table 1-5.
Techno logy
Facts Considered
Injection Timing Delay
Increases PM, CO and VOC emissions
May increases PM, VOC and CO emissions
Only reduces NOx emissions
Humid Air Motor
Repowering with EPA Tier 2 Engine
Fischer-Tropsch Diesel
Bio-Diesel (B100)
CARB No. 2 Diesel Fuel
Diesel PM Trap with
CA On-road #2 Diesel
Diesel Oxidation Catalyst with CA
On-road #2 Diesel
No adequate fuel supply available;
Difficulty to distribute to vessels
Increases NO x emissions;
Flash point too low to be allowable under the Safety of Life at
Sea (SOLAS) regulations.
Flash point too low to be allowable under SOLAS regulations;
Fuel distrib ution to vessels; no marine application yet.
Flash point too low to be allowable under SOLAS regulations;
Fuel distribution to vessels; no marine application yet.
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.
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)
- 13 -
ENVIRON
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, onboard 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 60o C shall be used. The flashpoint of MGO fuel is between 57o C and 69o C. This fuel should
only be used if the flash point of the specific fuel is above 60o C. California on-road diesel No. 2
has a flash point less than 60o C, 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.
- 14 -
ENVIRON
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.
- 15 -
ENVIRON
-INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK-
- 16 -
ENVIRON
2.0
2.1
INTRODUCTION
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 noncontainer 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 , NO x 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:
1
•
Aggravated asthma;
•
Increased respiratory symptoms, specifically coughing and difficult or painful breathing;
•
Chronic bronchitis;
•
Decreased lung function; and
http://www.polb.com/html/2_community/economicImpacts.html
- 17 -
ENVIRON
•
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 comb ined). 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.
- 18 -
ENVIRON
Table 2-1.
Inventory Results for Oceangoing Vessels Calling at
San Pedro Bay Ports: 2000, NOx tons per day
In-Port NO x 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
- 19 -
ENVIRON
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 rulemaking 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.
- 20 -
ENVIRON
2.3
Objectives of the Present Study
The objectives of this cost effectiveness study is to:
2.4
•
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.
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.
- 21 -
ENVIRON
Table 2-2.
Vessel
Type
Vessel Name
Container
Victoria Bridge
9184926
Container
Hanjin Paris
Container
Average
Time at
Calls
Berth per Year
(hrs/call)
Vessel Operator
Usual
Berth
Terminal Operator
1998
K-Line
J232
International
Transportation Services
44
10
9128128
1997
Hanjin
T136
Total Terminals (TTI)
63
10
Lihue
7105471
1971
Matson
C62
SSA Terminals
50
16
Container/
Reefer
OOCL Ca lifornia
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
Vessel ID Year Built
- 22 -
ENVIRON
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):
- 23 -
ENVIRON
(1) Engine Repowering or Replacement including
•
Using USEPA Tier 2 Engines and
•
Using natural gas (NG)/Dual-FuelT M 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
- 24 -
ENVIRON
REFERENCES
ARCADIS, 1999. “Marine Vessels Emissions Inventory, UPDATE to 1996 Report: Marine Vessel
Emissions Inventory and Control Strategies, Final Report” ARCADIS, 23 September 1999.
- 25 -
ENVIRON
- 26 -
ENVIRON
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.
- 27 -
ENVIRON
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.
- 28 -
ENVIRON
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.
- 29 -
ENVIRON
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 shoreside 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.
- 30 -
ENVIRON
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.
- 31 -
ENVIRON
- 32 -
ENVIRON
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.
- 33 -
ENVIRON
Table 4-1.
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.
- 34 -
ENVIRON
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)
UCC
1,231
42%
43,400
43,338
GRF, UCR
59
2%
8,576
8,226
MPR
20*
0.7%
70,375
70,379
635
22%
54,281
49,599
364
12%
28,029
28,560
171
(100 MVE)
6%
44,691
42,347
152
5%
21,025
20,871
Container
vessels
Refrigerated
vessels
(Reefers)
Cruise
Vessels
Tankers
Dry bulk
Auto carrier or
roll-on roll-off
Any code starting
with T
BBU, BCB, BOR,
BWC
URC, URR,
MVE (vehicle
carrier)
Break bulk
(General
Cargo)
GGC
* 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
Dry Bulk
12%
Break Bulk
5%
Reefer
2%
Container
42%
RO-RO
6%
Tug & Barge
10%
Cruise
1%
Tanker
22%
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.
- 35 -
ENVIRON
Table 4-3.
Vessel ID
Calls
per
Year
7611800
31
7702170
28
9189110
Most Frequently Calling Vessels
Vessel Name
Gross
Tonnage
Type Code
Type Description
2,975
OBA
Tug and Barge
5,339
OBA
Tug and Barge
25
Nehalem
(To: Navajo)
Nestucca
(To: Natoma)
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.
- 36 -
ENVIRON
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
Pier and Berth
Calls/yr
B83
84
Primary Vessel
Code
Vessel
MVE/URR RO-RO
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
T122
47
OBA
Barge
OTB/TPD/GGC
B77
40
ITB
Tug-Barge
TCO
RO-RO-Cargo
Barge/Tanker/General
Cargo
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
4.2.1
Secondary Vessel
Codes
Vessel
TCO/TPD/ITB
Tankers and Barges
Port Activities
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.
- 37 -
ENVIRON
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).
- 38 -
ENVIRON
4.3
Vessel Characteristics for Selected Vessels
Twelve vessels that called at Long Beach relatively freque ntly 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.
Vessel
Type
Container
vessels
Reefers
Cruise
vessels
Tankers
Selected Vessels for Shore Power Study
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
UCC
9198109
66,046
8
F8
LBCT
GRF
9038945
8,665
25
E24
CUT
Ecstasy
MPR
8711344
70,367
(52) 3
H4
Carnival
Alaskan Frontier
TCR
NA
185,000
152
T121
ARCO
TPD
7391226
22,761
16
B84
Shell
TPD
7901928
23,914
24
B78
ARCO
OOCL
California
Chiquita Joy
Chevron
Washington
Groton
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.
- 39 -
ENVIRON
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 Name
Gross
Registered
Tonnage
Number of
Generator
Engines
Installed
Generator
Capacity
(kW)
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
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%
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%
Vessel Type
Container
vessels
Tankers
Average
Load Factor
Load
(% of capacity)
(kW)
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.
- 40 -
ENVIRON
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.
- 41 -
ENVIRON
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.
- 42 -
ENVIRON
Table 4-7.
Available Berthing Time Summaries
Avg. Time
Arcadis
(1999)
Vessel
Vessel Type
GRT
N
Avg.
Time
+/- at 90%
Confidence
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
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.
---
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
51.1
62.2
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
- 43 -
ENVIRON
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
4.6
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
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.
- 44 -
ENVIRON
(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
- 45 -
ENVIRON
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.
Vessel
VOC
CO
NOx
PM10
SO x
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.
4.6.2
Container Vessels Hotelling Emissions Per Call (tons per call)
Container Vessels Annual Hotelling Emissions (tons per year)
Vessel
Calls/yr
VOC
CO
NOx
PM10
SO x
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
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
SO x
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
- 46 -
ENVIRON
Table 4-12.
4.6.3
Tanker Annual Hotelling emissions (tons per year)
Vessel
Calls/yr
VOC
CO
NOx
PM10
SO x
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
Other Vessels
For other types of vessels, emission estimates are shown in Table 4-13 by port call and in Table 414 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 exp lains its lower PM and SOx emissions.
Table 4-13.
Other Vessels Berthing Emissions per Call (tons per call)
Vessel
Type
VOC
CO
NOx
PM10
SO x
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
SO x
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
- 47 -
ENVIRON
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.
- 48 -
ENVIRON
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.
- 49 -
ENVIRON
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.
- 50 -
ENVIRON
- 52 -
ENVIRON
(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, wharfmounted 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.
- 53 -
ENVIRON
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.
- 54 -
ENVIRON
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.
5.2.5
Selected Berths Load
Vessel Name
Berth
Terminal Operator
Load (kVA)
Victoria Bridge
Hanjin Paris
Lihue
J232
T136
C62
ITS
TTI
SSA
0.9
6.0
2.1
OOCL California
F8
LBCT
6.5
Chiquita Joy
E24
CUT
4.4
Ecstasy
Alaskan Frontier
H4
T121
CARNIVAL
BP/ARCO
8.8
9.8
Chevron Washington
B84
SHELL
2.9
Groton
B78
BP/ARCO
0.4
Ansac Harmony
Pyxis
G212
B83
MS
TOYOTA
0.8
1.9
Thorseggen
D54
FT
0.8
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.
- 55 -
ENVIRON
Table 5-2.
SCE Cost Distribution to Individual Berths
Vessel Name
Berth
Terminal Operator
Victoria Bridge
Hanjin Paris
Lihue
J232
T136
C62
ITS
TTI
SSA
OOCL California
F8
LBCT
$761,000
Chiquita Joy
E24
CUT
$977,000
Ecstasy
Alaskan Frontier
H4
T121
CARNIVAL
BP/ARCO
Chevron Washington
B84
SHELL
$796,000
Groton
B78
BP/ARCO
$495,000
Ansac Harmony
Pyxis
G212
B83
MS
TOYOTA
$717,000
$707,000
Thorseggen
D54
FT
$567,000
Total Cost:
5.3
Cost
$944,000
$3,039,000
$941,000
$2,323,000
$2,413,000
$14,681,000
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.
- 56 -
ENVIRON
The routing of the underground conduit from the meter to the new substation is sho wn 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.
- 57 -
ENVIRON
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.
- 58 -
ENVIRON
- 60 -
ENVIRON
- 62 -
ENVIRON
- 64 -
ENVIRON
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 workbarge 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
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.
- 65 -
ENVIRON
Table 5-3.
Victoria
Bridge
Hanjin Paris
Lihue
Vessel Name
OOCL
California.
Chiquita Joy
Ansac
Harmony
Thorseggen
Workboat Substation
Power (kVA)
Workboat Cost
2,000
7,500
5,000
2,000
5,000
2,000
2,000
$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
44
63
50
121
68
60
48
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
Average Time at
Berth (hrs)
Crew Time per Berth
Call (hrs)
- 66 -
ENVIRON
Table 5-4.
Power
(kVA)
2,000
12.5 kV Primary &
6.6 kV Secondary
27’ x 30’
12.5 kV Primary &
440V Secondary
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)
7,500
66 kV Primary &
6.6 kV Secondary
26’ x 33’
66 kV Primary &
440V Secondary
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
- 67 -
ENVIRON
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 workbarge. 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.
- 68 -
ENVIRON
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.
- 69 -
ENVIRON
- 70 -
ENVIRON
- 72 -
ENVIRON
Table 5-5.
Vessel
Name
Victoria
Bridge
Hanjin
Paris
Summary of Terminal Infrastructure Costs for Work -barges and Cable Reel Towers
Meter to
Terminal
Terminal
Substation
Terminal
Substation
Substation
to Wharf
Run
Run
Run
Under
the
Wharf
Wharf
Vaults
Single
Cable
Fender Wharf
Reel
Piles Ladder
Towers
(6.6kV)
Double
Cable
Reel
Towers
(2x6.6kV)
Combo
Single
and
Double
Reel
(3x6.6kV)
Total
ITS
$15,471
$57,973
$13,326
$103,318
$163,367
$23,725
$25,188
$0
$0
$0
$402,000
TTI
$15,471
$112,390
$13,326
$6,078
$163,367
$23,725
$25,188
$0
$0
$0
$360,000
SSA
$134,085
$107,344
$115,495
$6,078
$163,367
$23,725
$25,188
$0
$0
$0
$575,000
LBCT
$15,471
$57,973
$13,326
$6,078
$163,367
$23,725
$25,188
$0
$0
$0
$305,000
CUT
$39,194
$107,344
$33,760
$103,318
$163,367
$23,725
$25,188
$0
$0
$0
$496,000
Carnival
$59,822
$143,636
$51,528
$32,211
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$468,455
$756,000
BP
$49,508
$143,636
$42,644
$27,957
$0
$0
$0
$0
$378,690
$0
$1,642,000(1)
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
Lihue
OOCL
California
Chiquita
Joy
Ecstasy
Alaskan
Frontier
Chevron
Washington
Note: (1) One million dollars were added for a dolphin system at the Terminal T121.
- 73 -
ENVIRON
5.3.9
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.
Ecstasy
Vessel Name
Chevron
Washington
16
Berth Calls
52
Alaskan
Frontier
15
Electrician
$55,000
$16,000
$17,000
$25,000
$10,000
$16,000
$5,000
$5,000
$8,000
$3,000
$71,000
$21,000
$22,000
$33,000
$13,000
Contingency
Total
5.4
5.4.1
30%
Groton
Pyxis
24
9
Vessel Conversion Analysis
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.
- 74 -
ENVIRON
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
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
Victoria Bridge
Hanjin Paris
Lihue
OOCL California
Chiquita Joy
Ecstasy
Alaskan Frontier
Chevron Washington
Groton
Ansac Harmony
Pyxis
Thorseggen
KW
700
4800
1700
5200
3500
7000
7800
2300
300
600
1500
600
Volts
450
450
450
450
450
6600
6600
4160
450
450
450
450
- 75 -
Amperes
1120
7700
2800
8300
5600
765
850
400
480
960
2420
960
Cost
$296,000
$1,106,000
$452,000
$977,000
$751,000
$574,000
$457,000
$380,000
$202,000
$296,000
$414,000
$236,000
ENVIRON
5.5
Conclusions and Overall Cost Summary
The analysis of electrical power infrastructure design provided in this study was predicated on
bringing a total of 40 kVA of new electrical power to 12 terminals to cold iron vessels that would
call to selected berths. This included new overhead SCE transmission lines and poles from an
existing substation about four miles from the Port, associated equipment, underground
distribution lines to the limits of each terminal, metering, underground distribution lines in the
terminal, terminal substations, wharf vaults, a wharf side method to deliver power to the vessel,
and vessel electrical retrofitting. The wharf side methods to deliver vessel power included workbarges and cable reel towers, mounted either on the existing wharf structure or on a dolphin.
The breakdown costs for these improvements are summarized in Table 5-8.
Table 5-8.
Overall Cost Summary
Vessel Name
Vessel side
($)
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
$457,000
$2,413,000
$1,642,000
$0
$21,000
$0
$380,000
$796,000
$513,000
$0
$22,000
$0
$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
Alaskan
Frontier
Chevron
Washington
Groton
- 76 -
ENVIRON
6.0
6.1
COLD IRONING COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS
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.
Pier &
Berth
Average
Average
Power
Berth
Demand
Time
at Berth
(hrs/call)
(kW)
Calls
per
Year
Vessel
Type
Vessel Name
Vessel
ID
Year
Built
Container
Victoria Bridge
9184926
1998
J232
600
44
10
Container
Hanjin Paris
9128128
1997
T136
4,800
63
10
Container
Container/
Reefer
Reefer
Lihue
7105471
1971
C62
1,700
50
16
OOCL California
9102289
1996
F8
5,200
121
8
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
- 77 -
ENVIRON
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.
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:
- 78 -
ENVIRON
Cost Effectiveness ($/ton)=
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.
- 79 -
ENVIRON
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.
Vessel Name
Potential Net Emission Reduction from Cold Ironing
Potential Net Emission Reductions (tons/yr)
VOC
CO
NOx
PM10
SO x
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
(1)
Chevron Washington
0.1
-0.4
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.
- 80 -
ENVIRON
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 workbarges 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.
Victoria Bridge
Terminal
Operator
ITS
$1,805,000
T136
Hanjin Paris
TTI
$2,216,000
C62
F8
Lihue
OOCL California
SSA
LBCT
$2,048,000
$2,216,000
E24
Chiquita Joy
CUT
$2,048,000
H4
T121
Ecstasy
Alaskan Frontier
CARNIVAL
ARCO
Work-barge is not required
B84
Chevron Washington
SHELL
B78
Groton
ARCO
Pier and Berth
Vessel Selected
J232
- 81 -
Cost
ENVIRON
Table 6-6.
Ansac Harmony
Terminal
Operator
MS
$1,805,000
B83
Pyxis
TOYOTA
D54
Thorseggen
FT
$1,805,000
Pier and Berth
Vessel Selected
G212
Cost
(2) Some cold- ironed vessels would incur costs for retrofitting replacement vessels when
they retire or are removed from POLB service. The study assumed that shipping lines
would spend the same amount of money to retrofit a vessel for replacement at the time
the retirement or removal from POLB service of the current vessel. This assumption may
be conservative because retrofitting a future vessel for cold ironing would cost more
comparing to order future vessels with cold ironing capability already installed. To
calculate the net present value of costs for retrofitting replacement vessels, the study
applied a future-to-present value factor, at 4% interest rate and current vessel remaining
service life. The replacement vessel for Lihue, which is a steamship, would more likely
be a diesel motor ship than a steamship. However, due to a lack of new vessel
specifications, this study assumed an identical vessel would be retrofitted for cold
ironing. Table 6-7 presents the initial capital cost, converted as net present value, for
retrofitting the replacement vessels.
Table 6-7.
Cost for Retrofitting Replacement Vessels at the Retirement
of Current Selected Vessels
10
Initial Retrofit
Cost
($)
$296,000
Future -toPresent
Factor
01
Retrofit NPV for
Replacement Vessel
($)
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
1
Vessel Name
Service
Years Left
Victoria Bridge
Ansac Harmony
10
$296,000
0
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
- 82 -
ENVIRON
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 $423/kW.
6.4
Operating and Maintenance Costs
Ongoing operating and maintenance (O&M) costs for cold ironing consist of the following:
(1) Purchased Power Costs.
SCE estimated annual purchased power cost for the 12 selected vessels based on the vessels’
port call activities and assumed time-of-use profiles. Current SCE TOU-8 primary rate
schedule was applied for calculating the power cost for all vessels except for Hanjin Paris.
Because of the existence of 66KV substation at Terminal T, TOU-8 Sub-transmission
Voltage Service rate schedule was applied for that terminal. Appendix K of this report shows
the details of the estimates. Table 6-8 summarizes the annual energy cost for the 12 selected
vessels.
Table 6-8.
Annual Purchased Power Cost
Vessel Name
Vessel Operator
Victoria Bridge
Hanjin Paris
Lihue
OOCL California
Chiquita Joy
Ecstasy
Chevron Washington
Groton
Alaskan Frontier
Ansac Harmony
Pyxis
Thorseggen
K-line
HANJIN
Matson
OOCL
Great White
Carnival
Chevron Texaco
BP
Alaska Tanker
Transmarine
Toyofuji
Seaspan
- 83 -
Annual Purchased
Power Cost
($)
$79,000
$485,000
$329,000
$1,203000
$1,069,000
$1,052,000
$302,000
$85,000
$504,000
$24,000
$109,000
$132,000
Effective
Power Price
($/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
ENVIRON
(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 $163 per metric ton,
respectively.
Table 6-9.
Vessel Name
Victoria Bridge
Hanjin Paris
Lihue
OOCL California
Chiquita Joy
Ecstasy
Chevron Washington
Groton
Alaskan Frontier
Ansac Harmony
Pyxis
Thorseggen
Annual Fuel Savings
Fuel Savings
Fuel Type
(metric tons/yr)
($/yr)
57
655
371
1,111
1,291
842
330
87
397
8
48
130
$9,000
$106,000
$60,000
$181,000
$210,000
$137,000
$100,000
$26,000
$64,000
$1,000
$8,000
$39,000
HFO
HFO
HFO
HFO
HFO
HFO
MGO
MGO
HFO
HFO
HFO
HFO
(3) Landside Facility Operating and Maintenance Costs
Landside facility O&M costs, including wo rk-barge costs, were estimated in Section 5.5 of
this report, and summarized in Table 6-10.
Table 6-10.
Pier and Berth
Terminal Operator
Cost ($/year)
J232
T136
C62
F8
E24
H4
T121
B84
ITS
TTI
SSA
LBCT
CUT
CARNIVAL
ARCO
SHELL
$399,000
$511,000
$579,000
$649,000
$1,028,000
$71,000
$21,000
$22,000
- 84 -
ENVIRON
Table 6-10.
6.5
Pier and Berth
Terminal Operator
Cost ($/year)
B78
G212
B83
D54
ARCO
MS
TOYOTA
FT
$33,000
$199,000
$12,000
$690,000
Tables 6-11 and Figure 6-1 present the cost effectiveness of shore-side power using techniques
described above; detailed calculations are included in Appendix J.
In Table 6-11, cost effectiveness equals the total Net Present Value ($) 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 $16,000/ton. These two figures
could be used to represent cold ironing technology in comparing with other control measures.
6.6
Five vessels, based on the cost effectiveness values presented in Table 6-11, are considered costeffective for cold ironing at the Port. Of the 12 vessels studied, these five vessels represent the
best candidates for cold ironing. Table 6-12 lists these candidate vessels and associated piers and
berths.
Comparing with other vessels, these five vessels have significantly higher hotelling power
demand, longer berth time, and relatively frequent port calls. These factors contribute to
significant energy consumption (kW- hr) and therefore offer a greater potential for achievable
emission reductions. The emission data in Table 6-4 indicates that cold ironing these five of 12
vessels would achieve 90% of the emission reduction for all pollutants that emitted from all 12
vessels. These vessels have been evaluated as representative of the classes of vessels, and this
result does not necessarily mean that these particular vessels should be retrofitted for cold
ironing.
- 85 -
ENVIRON
Table 6-11.
Cost Effectiveness Data and Results
Pier and
Berth
Combined
Emission
Reduction
(tons/yr)
Total NPV
($)
Cost
Effectiveness
($/ton)
Rank
Vessel Name
Vessel Operator
Vessel
Type
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
$16,000
- 86 -
ENVIRON
- 88 -
ENVIRON
Table 6-12.
6.7
Cost
Effectiveness
($/ton)
$9,000
Vessels Name
Vessel
Type
Vessel
Operator
Pier and
Berth
Terminal
Operator
Ecstasy
Cruise
H4
Carnival
Chiquita Joy
Reefer
Carnival
Great
White
E24
CUT
$11,000
OOCL California
Container/
Reefer
F8
LBCT
$11,000
Alaskan Frontier
Tanker
T121
BP/ARCO
$15,000
Hanjin Paris
Container
T136
TTI
$15,000
OOCL
Alaska
Tanker
HANJIN
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 transmissio n 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.
- 89 -
ENVIRON
Figure 6-2. Cost Effectiveness vs. Annual Power Consumption
$100
$90
Ansac Harmony at $426,000
Cost Effectiveness ($1,000/ton)
$80
(1,800,000 kW-hr Annual Power Consumption)
Thorseggen
$70
($15,000/Ton of Emissions)
$60
Chervon Washington
OOCL California
$50
Hanjin Paris
$40
Ecstasy
Chiquita Joy
$30
Alaskan Frontier
$20
$10
$0
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
Power Consumption (Million kW-hr/year)
REFERENCES
SCAQMD, 2000. “Best Available Control Technology Guidelines” South Coast Air Quality
Management District. August 17, 2000
- 90 -
ENVIRON
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
- 91 -
ENVIRON
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.
7.1
USEPA Marine Emission Standards
NOx + HC
PM
CO
Category
Displacement
(liters per cylinder)
Starting Date
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
(g/kW-hr)
MARPOL NOx Standards
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.
Vessel Name
Victoria Bridge
Key Parameters of the Selected Marine Vessels
Calls Service Time at
Fuel
Load Generator Fuel
Engine
per
Years
Berth
Sulfur
Factor (kW)
Type
Category
year Left (yr) (hrs)
%
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.
- 92 -
ENVIRON
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
Vessel Name
7.2
VOC CO
NOx
PM
SO x
(Short Tons/yr)
Fuel Usage
Power Usage
(Metric Tons/yr) (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
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-FuelT M 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
- 93 -
ENVIRON
•
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 fuelcell 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, JJMABAH 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.
- 94 -
ENVIRON
The following key issues are among many factors considered in the evaluation of the proposed
•
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
(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.
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.
Cost Effectiveness =
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
- 95 -
ENVIRON
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
NOx
$13,600
PM10
SCAQMD
AQMP Values
for School
Buses
SCAQMD
BACT
Threshold
$18,300
$15,000 –
$110,000
$4,300
SO2
$9,700
CO
$380
ROG (equal to VOC)
7.2.1
SCAQMD
Board VOC
Retrofit
Threshold
$13,500
$19,400
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 $1.40/gge.
- 96 -
ENVIRON
compressed natural gas or in cryogenic tanks as liquid natural gas. The application constraints
associated with this technology are primarily the absence of fueling facilities, the current limited
availability of natural gas at the POLB, the lack of on-board fuel storage, and operating safety. As
the POLB is currently evaluating a major liquefied natural gas (LNG) receiving terminal, the
availability condition may change. Also, as with any marine engine replacement, there could be
significant problems installing and fitting the engine and fuel system in the available engine
compartment.
Tables 7-6 and Table 7-7 present the potential emissions reductions and cost effectiveness values
for the selected marine vessels using this (NG) or Dual-Fuel engine strategy, respectively. As
shown in Table 7-7, repowering with NG/Dual Fuel engines is cost effective in reducing hotelling
emissions from these vessels except for the Ansac Harmony. Detail cost effectiveness calculations
are included in Appendix L.
Table 7-6.
Potential Emission Reductions for Repowering
with NG/Dual FuelTM Engines
Vessel Name
NOx
Victoria Bridge
Hanjin Paris
Lihue
OOCL California
Chiquita Joy
Ecstasy
Chevron Washington
Groton
Alaskan Frontier
Ansac Harmony
Pyxis
Thorseggen
3.40
48.54
3.69
66.90
76.92
62.40
6.67
3.87
22.81
0.48
2.86
7.74
Table 7-7.
PM
Short Tons/yr
0.40
4.64
3.42
7.86
9.13
5.96
0.27
0.09
2.81
0.06
0.34
0.14
SO x
3.48
39.96
22.57
67.75
78.73
51.37
1.44
0.38
24.18
0.49
2.93
0.57
Cost Effectiveness of Repowering with NG/Dual FuelTM Engines
Vessel Name
Capital Cost
($)
Victoria Bridge
Hanjin Paris
Lihue
OCCL California
Chiquita Joy
998,240
1,394,600
495,450
1,541,400
1,031,270
Fuel Cost
Increase
($/year)
2,778
31,944
18,086
54,161
62,937
- 97 -
Total NPV
Cost
($)
1,021,000
1,682,000
576,000
1,906,000
1,361,000
Cost
CostEffectiveness Effective?
($/ton)
(Yes/No)
14,000
Yes
2,000
Yes
4,000
Yes
2,000
Yes
1,000
Yes
ENVIRON
Table 7-7.
Cost Effectiveness of Repowering with NG/Dual FuelTM Engines
Vessel Name
Capital Cost
($)
Ecstasy
Chevron Washington
Groton
Alaskan Frontier
Ansac Harmony
Pyxis
Thorseggen
1,937,760
477,100
238,550
4,624,200
229,375
396,360
385,350
7.2.2
Fuel Cost
Increase
($/year)
41,068
29,959
7,869
19,330
396
2,344
11,790
Total NPV
Cost
($)
2,052,000
610,000
274,000
4,849,000
233,000
407,000
438,000
Cost
CostEffectiveness Effective?
($/ton)
(Yes/No)
6,000
Yes
15,000
Yes
13,000
Yes
10,000
Yes
22,000
No
13,000
Yes
10,000
Yes
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.
than 60o C shall be used. The flashpoint of MGO fuel is between 57o C and 69o C. A specific MGO
should be used only if its flash point is greater than 60o C.
6
Snap-shot prices of the recent MGO and HFO diesel fuels of $303 and $163 per metric ton, respectively, were used in
the cost effectiveness analyses (see footnotes 2 and 3).
- 98 -
ENVIRON
Table 7-8.
Emission Reductions from the Use of MGO Diesel Fuel
Vessel Name
PM
Victoria Bridge
Hanjin Paris
Lihue
OOCL California
Chiquita Joy
Ecstasy
Chevron Washington
Groton
Alaskan Frontier
Ansac Harmony
Pyxis
Thorseggen
0.36
4.19
3.09
7.11
8.26
5.39
NA
NA
2.54
0.05
0.31
NA
SO x
Short Tons/yr
Table 7-9.
3.16
36.3
20.5
61.59
71.6
46.7
NA
NA
22.0
0.45
2.67
NA
Cost Effectiveness of MGO Diesel Fuel
Vessel Name
Capital Cost
($)
Fuel Cost
Increase
($/year)
Total NPV
Cost
($)
Cost
Effectiveness
($/ton)
CostEffective?
(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
- 99 -
ENVIRON
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, lowspeed, 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
capacit y.
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.
- 100 -
ENVIRON
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
Vessel Name
Victoria Bridge
Hanjin Paris
OOCL California
Chiquita Joy
Ecstasy
Chevron Washington
Groton
Alaskan Frontier
Ansac Harmony
Pyxis
Thorseggen
HC
NOx
PM
Short Tons/yr
0.53
0.41
7.55
4.66
10.30
7.90
11.96
9.18
9.71
5.99
1.04
0.18
0.60
0.06
3.55
2.82
0.08
0.06
0.45
0.34
1.20
0.09
0.01
0.16
0.19
0.21
0.21
0.02
0.03
0.10
0.00
0.01
0.02
- 101 -
SO X
3.16
36.33
61.59
71.57
46.70
21.98
0.45
2.67
-
ENVIRON
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)
CostEffective?
(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
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
- 102 -
ENVIRON
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.
than 60o C shall be used. The flashpoint of California On-Road Diesel #2 Fuel is between 52o C and
60o C. 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.
- 103 -
ENVIRON
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 FischerTropsch 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 ShellMalaysia, 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.
- 104 -
ENVIRON
•
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 (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
- 105 -
ENVIRON
$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 heavyduty 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 combustio n
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
- 106 -
ENVIRON
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 onroad 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 60o C. According to SOLAS Chapter 11-2, part
B, Regulation 4, no fuel oil with a flashpoint of less than 60o C shall be used. The flashpoint of
California On-Road Diesel #2 Fuel is between 52o C and 60o C. 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
- 107 -
ENVIRON
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 60o C. According to SOLAS Chapter 11-2, part
B, Regulation 4, no fuel oil with a flashpoint of less than 60o C shall be used. The flashpoint of
California On-Road Diesel #2 Fuel is between 52o C and 60o C. 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
H2 O.
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%.
- 108 -
ENVIRON
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
- 109 -
ENVIRON
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.
- 110 -
ENVIRON
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
SO 2
Repowering with NG/Dual Fuel Engine
~94%
~90%
~99%
Diesel PM Trap & CA On-road #2 Diesel
~90%
~3%
~90%
California On-road #2 Diesel
13-87%
~6%
~90%
Diesel Oxidation Catalyst & CA On-road
#2 Diesel
MGO Diesel(1)
13-87%
~5%
~87%
~6%
~63%
~14%
15-20%
Bio-Diesel (B100)
13-87%
Increase
100%
0-85%
CO
VOC
~85%
~92%
~99%
~39%
~23%
~90%
~90%
~90%
0-90%
~95%
40-50%
Humid Air Motor
~28%
18-46%
~25%
~50%
~93%
Increase
10-30%
Increase
Increase
Increase
20-30%
Increase
Increase
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.
Technology
Facts Considered
Increases PM, CO and VOC emissions
May increases PM, VOC and CO emissions
Humid Air Motor
- 111 -
ENVIRON
Table 7-13.
Technology
Bio-Diesel (B100)
CARB No. 2 Diesel Fuel
Diesel PM Trap with
CA On-road #2 Diesel
Diesel Oxidation Catalyst with CA
On-road #2 Diesel
Facts Considered
No adequate fuel supply available;
Increases NO x emissions;
Flash point too low to be allowable under SOLAS
regulations.
regulations; Fuel distribution to vessels; no marine
application yet.
regulations; Fuel distribution to vessels; no marine
application yet.
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.
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
$42,000
Seven Vessels
(except Groton,
Ansac Harmony,
Pyxis,
Thorseggen, and
Chevron
Washington)
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.
- 112 -
ENVIRON
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.
- 113 -
ENVIRON
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,” EPA420P-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.
- 114 -
ENVIRON
8.0
8.1
POLITICAL AND TECHNICAL ISSUES
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.
- 115 -
ENVIRON
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 incylinder 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
- 116 -
ENVIRON
VI international standards, so that engines complying with the Federal standards will comply with
Annex VI.
Most oceangoing 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 oceangoing vessels). The agency has also
requested comment regarding further reducing the sulfur limit to 15 ppm in 2010 for marine vessels.
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.
- 117 -
ENVIRON
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
- 118 -
ENVIRON
with scheduled adoption dates and emission reductions. Because the Burke amendment give s a
broad commitment to tons with an as- yet not firmly defined set of measures, full approval may be
problematic.
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;
- 119 -
ENVIRON
•
Additional 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 Lo ng Beach, the SCAQMD terminated the rule
- 120 -
ENVIRON
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).
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
- 121 -
ENVIRON
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
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.
- 122 -
ENVIRON
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 land side 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
- 123 -
ENVIRON
hours depending on level of security, degree of emergency and weather conditions. Whe n
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.
8.8
•
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.
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
- 124 -
ENVIRON
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.
- 125 -
ENVIRON
- 126 -
ENVIRON
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.
- 127 -
ENVIRON
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.
- 128 -
ENVIRON
Cold Ironing
Cost Effectiveness Study
Volume II - Appendices
Emulsified
Diesel
Emulsified
Diesel
FuelFuel
VOLUME II - APPENDICES
COLD IRONING COST EFFECTIVENESS
PORT OF LONG BEACH
925 HARBOR DRIVE
LONG BEACH, CALIFORNIA
Prepared for
Port of Long Beach
Prepared by
March 30, 2004
APPENDICES
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:
Appendix J:
Appendix K: Purchased Power Costs Estimate
Appendix L: Cost Effectiveness of Alternative Control Technologies
APPENDIX A
Information Gathering Meeting Report
STUDY REPORT
INFORMATION GATHERING MEETINGS
CONTRACT HD-6712, JOB TASK 0301
Prepared for
The Port of Long Beach
Prepared by
Irvine, California
November 26, 2003
Prepared by:
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
ii
ENVIRON
CONTENTS
Page
1.0
INTRODUCTION
1
2.0
MEETINGS WITH VESSEL AND TERMINAL OPERATORS
2
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.6
2.7
2.8
2.9
2.10
2
2
3
3
3
4
4
4
5
5
3.0
4.0
5.0
Operation Costs
Capital Cost
Safety and Other Potential Liabilities
Vessel Diversion to Other Ports
Vessel Service Life and Routes
Other Control Options
Other Comments
Follow- up Actions to Vessel and Terminal Operator Meetings
Meeting with BP America, Inc.
COMMUNICATIONS WITH THE PORT OF LOS ANGELES
6
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
3.6
3.7
6
6
6
7
7
7
7
Electrical System
Synchronization
Retrofitting Costs
Call Frequency
Relationship to Other Ports
Low-Sulfur Fuel
Labor
MEETINGS WITH SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON
8
4.1
8
California Electricity Market Update
MEETING WITH USEPA REGION IX
9
5.1
5.2
5.3
9
9
9
MARPOL Annex VI
Recent US EPA Rulemaking
SCAQMD Plans
iii
ENVIRON
C O N T E N T S (Continued)
Page
6.0
7.0
8.0
9.0
MEETING WITH CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD
11
6.1
6.2
6.3
6.4
11
12
12
13
State Implementation Plan (SIP) and SCAQMD
Legal Authority
Regulatory Approaches and Incentive Programs
Other Discussions
MEETING WITH THE SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY
MANAGEMENT DISTRICT
14
7.1
7.2
7.3
7.4
7.5
7.6
Cost Effectiveness
SCAQMD Feasibility Study on Cold Ironing
Impact of Cold Ironing on Port Competitiveness
Risk Assessment
Safety
Legal Authority
14
14
15
15
15
15
MEETING WITH THE UNITED STATES COAST GUARD
16
8.1
8.2
8.3
8.4
8.5
8.6
16
16
16
17
17
17
USCG Responsibilities
30-Minutes Rule
Shore Power Electrification
Vessels and Terminals Handling Dangerous and Hazardous Cargo
Clean Fuel Barge
System Design Review and Approval
MEETING WITH MARITIME ASSOCIATIONS
18
9.1
9.2
9.3
18
18
19
Legal Authority and Jurisdiction
Labor
Worker Safety
iv
ENVIRON
C O N T E N T S (Continued)
Page
9.4
9.5
9.6
9.7
10.0
Retrofitting Existing Vessels versus Outfitting New Vessels
Standardizations
Alternative Strategies
CONCLUSIONS
ATTACHMENT A:
19
19
19
20
21
QUESTIONNAIRES
P:\P\POLB\Information Gathering Meeting Report3.doc [04-6395K]
v
ENVIRON
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.
1
ENVIRON
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
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 shortterm 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- ironingready ships and to send them only to coldironing-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,
2
ENVIRON
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 coldironing-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.
3
ENVIRON
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 coldironing 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.
4
ENVIRON
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.
5
ENVIRON
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 shoreside 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 coldironing 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.
6
ENVIRON
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 nearshore 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.
7
ENVIRON
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.”
8
ENVIRON
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
2
http://www.epa.gov/otaq/regs/nonroad/marine/ci/r03003.pdf
http://www.aqmd.gov/hb/030835a.html
9
ENVIRON
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 cha nge 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.
10
ENVIRON
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;
11
ENVIRON
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
12
ENVIRON
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.
13
ENVIRON
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 environme ntal 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.
14
ENVIRON
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.
15
ENVIRON
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 “30minutes 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 cleanup equipment.
16
ENVIRON
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 shoreside electric distribution facility to meet the location, distance, and security requirements set forth in
the associated classification society standards.
17
ENVIRON
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, VicePresident, 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 ve ssels.
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.
18
ENVIRON
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
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.
19
ENVIRON
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.
20
ENVIRON
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.
21
ENVIRON
AT TACHMENT A
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
(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
Appendix A-1
ENVIRON
(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
Appendix A-2
ENVIRON
(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-3
ENVIRON
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
(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-4
ENVIRON
(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?
Appendix A-5
ENVIRON
APPENDIX 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
LIHUE
OOCL
CALIFORNIA
CHIQUITA JOY
ECSTASY
CHEVRON
WASHINGTON
GROTON
ALASKAN
FRONTIER
ANSAC
HARMONY
PYXIS
THORSEGGEN
9038945
GRF
Bermuda
8711344
MPR
Panama
7391226
TPD
USA
8514083
MVE
Panama
Carnival
Chevron USA
NA
TCR
USA
Alaska Tanker
Company
9181508
BBU
Panama
NCV Ltd.
7901928
ITB
USA
First Tug Barge
Corp.
Taki Shipping
Feng Li Maritime
8116063
GGC
Bahamas
Norsk Pacific
Steamship
BP
Alaska Tanker
Company
ANSAC
Fujitrans
FOREST
TERMINAL
BP
Alaska Tanker
Company
TRANSMARINE
NAV.
Toyofuji Shipping
Seaspan
A.2
A.3
A.4
Vessel IMO Number
Vessel Type
Flag
9184926
UCC
Panama
9128128
UCC
Panama
7105471
UCC
USA
A.5
Owner
Cypress Maritime
KSB
Matson
A.6
Agent
K-LINE
HANJIN
MATSON
OOCL
Great White Fleet
CARNIVAL
A.7
Operator
K-LINE
HANJIN
MATSON
OOCL
INCHCAPE /WD
CARNIVAL
A.8
Cargo Type
Containers
Containers
Containers
Containers
Reefer
Cruise
A.9
A.10
GRTonnage
Vessel Model Year
47,541
1998
65,643
1997
26,746
1971
66,046
1996
8,665
1994
70,367
1991
A.11
Year and Place Vessel Built
1998/Imabari S.B.
Hanjin H.I.
Avondale S.Y.
Mitsubishi H.I.
Kvaerner Kleven
unknown
A.12
Main Propulsion System
A.12.1
Propulsion Engine
B&W
B&W
De Laval Steam
Turbine
Sulzer
M.A.N.
Sulzer
A.12.2
Rated Capacity Engine (Break
HP)
48,750 at 94 RPM
74520
3,200 B
6,612 B
1,700
A.12.3
Manufacturer
Mitsui
A.12.4
A.12.5
Model Number
Year Built
Number of Engines
Navigation System
8K90MC-6
1998
2
A.13
Turbine
1
12RTA84C
19095
2
9L58/64
12ZAV40S
1
4
Liquid Petroleum
Products
24,000
1982
Tanker
Dry Bulk
Roll-on Roll-off
Break Bulk
185000
2004
28,527
1998
43,425
1986
Fmc Corp. Portland
OR
unknown
2004 San Diego
Kanda Zosensho
Shin Kurushima
15,136
1983
1982 Swan Hunters
Shipbuilders
Newcastle upon
Tyne
Synchronous
Propulsion Motor /
CPP
Enterprise
Diesel Electric
Mitsuibishi
Mitsuibishi Kobe
Slow speed 2-stroke
diesel
12,500 at 80 deg C
20MW propulsive
power
7,999
15,050 PS x
107RPM
6,400
GE/Bird Johnson
Man B&W/Altson
Kobe Steel Co
B&W
8SUEC 60 LA
1986
1
4L67GB
1983
1
264X744 (motor)
not answered
unknown
DMRV 16-4
Various
2003
unknown
5UEC52LA
1
Integrated
Navigation System
GPS
IBS
Electro-Hydraulic
not available
STN Atlas
JRC
not answered
Seacost
Mitsubishi
not available
9600 TM/ARPA
1997
SNA-200
1995
not answered
not answered
Various
2003/2004
DF-170
1985
not available
not available
not answered
not answered
not applicable
1 gas trubine
none
not applicable
One waste heat
economiser
Rating per Boiler (MMBtu/hr)
not answered
not answered
not applicable
12,500 hp
(generating capacity)
not applicable
not applicable
not answered
Manufacturer
Model
Year Built
Type of Fuel Burned in Main
Boilers
Start Up
At Sea
In Port
Auxiliary Boilers
not answered
not answered
not answered
not answered
not answered
not answered
not applicable
not applicable
not applicable
GE
MG3112R
1976
not applicable
not applicable
not applicable
not applicable
not applicable
not applicable
not answered
not answered
not answered
not answered
not answered
not answered
not answered
not answered
not answered
not applicable
not applicable
not applicable
diesel #2
diesel #2
diesel #2
not applicable
not applicable
not applicable
not applicable
not applicable
not applicable
not answered
Engine waste heat
not in use
Type
A.13.2
Manufacturer
A.13.3
A.13.4
A.14
Model No.
Model Year Built
Main Boilers
A.14.1
Number of Main Boilers
A.14.2
A.14.3
A.14.4
A.14.5
A.15.1
A.15.2
A.15.3
A.16
MHI
GAC
INCHCAPE/CHEV
RON
Chevron Texaco
Shipping
Liquid Petroleum
Products
22,761
1976
9600TM/ ARPA
A.13.1
A.15
Radar with ARPA
JMA-952-6CA &
Chart Plotter SPL2000
Japan Radio Co &
Yokogawa
Denshikiki Co.
LS54467 & 0607
1998
Korea Heavy
Industries
12K90MC-C
1997
2
9102289
UCC
Hong Kong
New Container No.
1 Shipping
March 30, 2004
Page 1 of 6
ENVIRON
Quest.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
A.1
VICTORIA
BRIDGE
HANJIN PARIS
LIHUE
OOCL
CALIFORNIA
CHIQUITA JOY
ECSTASY
CHEVRON
WASHINGTON
GROTON
ALASKAN
FRONTIER
ANSAC
HARMONY
PYXIS
THORSEGGEN
2
??
1
4,000kg/hr exhaust
2,000kg/hr
Rated evaporation
1,500kg/hr
Sasebo Heavy
Industries
1 (unfired steam
boiler)
20,000lbs/hr at
200psi
Combustion
Engineering
A16.1
No. of Auxiliary Boiler (1st Set)
1
1
1
A16.2
Rating per Boiler (MMBtu/hr)
3,000 kg/hr
9,500kg/hr at
7.0kg/Cm2G
3,800kg/hr
A16.3
Manufacturer
MHI
Kanglim Ind.
MHI
A16.4
Model
Vertical, MC-30D
KVW
MC-38A
not answered
A16.5
Aalborg
combination
oilfired/exhaust gas
MISSION OC
2003
not answered
not answered
SCB-016
not answered
1985
not answered
Diesel oil
HFO-380 CST
not answered
not in use
HFO-380 CST
HFO380est.
Year Built
Type of Fuel Burned in Auxiliary
A.17
Boilers
A.17.1
Start Up
A.17.2
At Sea
1998
1997
1995
not answered
MDO
No Use
MDO
HFO
MDO
HFO
Not available
Not available
A.17.3
IFO 380
HFO(RMG35)
HFO
Not available
2
2
1
1
1
2
1
2
none
Assume 3
3
3
2,300
2,500
2,100
1,860
5,280
2,950 bhp
650
not applicable
Assume 360kW
720
650
2
1
3
4
1
not applicable
none
none
1,500
200
940
400
not applicable
none
none
Not available
not applicable
Unknown
14.70
Daihatsu
Ruston
not applicable
Daihatsu Diesel
Bergen
DK-280
TB3000
not applicable
6DL-24
KRG.6
1995
1976
not applicable
1985
1983
not applicable
HFO 380 CST
*Diesel Oil
MGO
2160
none
none
5.0%
23.0%
2100
none
none
13.9%
42.4%
In Port
Auxiliary Engines (Ship Service
Engine)
Number of Auxiliary Engines (1st
A18.1A
set)
not answered
not answered
Boiler runs on HFO
& MDO
A.18
A18.2A Generating Capacity (BHP or kW) 2,000PS, 1,360kW
A18.1B
Number of Auxiliary Engines
(2nd set)
2
A18.2B Generating Capacity (BHP or kW) 2,000PS, 1,360kW
A18.3
Liters/cylinder
A18.4
Manufacturer
A18.5
Model
6N 280l-SN
A18.6
Year Built
1998
A18.7
A.19
A.19.1
A.19.2
A.19.3
A.19.4
A.20
A.20.1
A.20.2
140.40
Yanmer Diesel
Engine
28.15
Ssangyong Heavy
Ind. (Wartsila)
4R32e x 2, 6R32e x
2
1997
3100PS,
(2100kW??)
24.00
Type Fuel for Auxiliary Engine
IFO 380 CST
HFO380
Total Generator kW
Auxillary Generator kW
Emergency Generator kW
% of GRT
% of Propulsion
For Tankers
Number of Cargo Tanks
Total Cargo Tank Capacity (m
tons)
Number of Electric Pump
Rating of Each Electric Pump
(kW)
For Reefers
No Refrigerated Cargo
Compartments
Total Volume of Refrigerated
Cargo
5,440
none
none
unknown
unknown
7,600
none
none
11.6%
13.8%
2,700
none
none
10.1%
N/A
8,400
none
none
12.7%
N/A
not applicable
not applicable
not applicable
not applicable
16
20
not applicable
not applicable
not applicable
not applicable
not applicable
not applicable
268,979 bbls
185,000
not applicable
not applicable
not applicable
not applicable
not applicable
not applicable
not applicable
not applicable
not applicable
not applicable
3
2x4,000m3/hr,1x2,3
00m3/hr
not applicable
not applicable
8
223 kW at 4160V
(300hp)
not applicable
not applicable
not applicable
500
not applicable
not applicable
not applicable
not applicable
not applicable
not applicable
not applicable
not applicable
not applicable
not applicable
not applicable
not applicable
10
8
10
2
6 storage tanks plus
service and settling
tanks
9
5 for HFO and 4 for
MGO
A.21
March 30, 2004
Number of Fuel Tanks
HFO
diesel #2
5,620
none
none
64.9%
45.0%
10,560
none
none
15.0%
33.3%
Page 2 of 6
2,600
2,200
400
11.4%
5.2%
1,300
none
none
N/A
N/A
unknown
none
715
unknown
unknown
assume 1080kW
none
none
unknown
unknown
ENVIRON
Quest.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
A.1
VICTORIA
BRIDGE
HANJIN PARIS
LIHUE
OOCL
CALIFORNIA
CHIQUITA JOY
ECSTASY
CHEVRON
WASHINGTON
GROTON
ALASKAN
FRONTIER
ANSAC
HARMONY
PYXIS
THORSEGGEN
5800
6.2
8,579
11,450 bbl
HFO incl LSFO =
5,360m3, MDO =
500m3
2,699.58mt,
2,754.68m3
1506mt of HFO and
86mt of MGO
A.21.1 Total Fuel Tank Capicity (m tons)
20
21
8
50
0
9
48
B.2
B.2.1
B.2.2
B.2.3
B.2.4
No of Calls to POLB in Past 24
Months
Normal Route
From …
To …
To …
To …
China
Japan
USA
Japan
HKG
KHH
PUS
LGB
not answered
not answered
not answered
not answered
Valdez, AK
Long Beach
Valdez, AK
Toyahashi Japan
Portland, OR
Long Beach
Toyahashi Japan
Vancouver Isl.
Long Beach
San Diego
Vancouver Isl.
B.3
Pier/Berth for Tyipcal Port Call
9 ports
Pier T
F8
Richmond, CA
El Segundo, CA
Long Beach
Richmond, CA
Varioous tanker
berths
LB#121
B83
50/54
No
No
not answered
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
ExxonMobil
Chevron USA
from Long Beach
Petro Diamond Long Beach
Jankovitch in Long
Beach and Nanaimo
B.C.
B.1
B.3.1
B.4
B.4.1
B.4.2
B.4.3
B.4.4
B.4.5
B.4.6
B.4.7
Call More Than 1 Berth in Single
Port Call
Carry Dangerous Cargo
Explosive
Combustible
Corrosive
Poisons and Hazardous
Flammable
Oxidizing
Compressed Gas
ELF, BP, MOBIL,
FAMM (Fuel &
FAMM, LG,
Marine Marketing)
SK,…in Rotterdam,
Long Beach
Pusan, Long Beach
B.5
Fuel Oil Supplier
B.6
Auxiliary Engine Fuel Oil Sulfer
Content
B.6.1
Average (wt%)
2.0%
3.0%
3.5%
<.05% m/m
<5%
4.0%
B.6.2
Max (wt%)
5.0%
3.5%
5.0%
not answered
not answered
not answered
43.3
63
Provided
unanswered
did not understand
question
Every Port
Weekly
Weekly before US
30 min
Yes
unanswered
Yes
2-3 hrs
Yes
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
B.8
B.9
B.9.1
B.10
C.1
Average Time at Berth (hrs)
calculated by ENVIRON from
Vessel Traffic Records
Provide Fuel Log for Each Aux
Engine
Test Frequency of Emergency
Equip.
Time Needed for Test
Does Electrician Speak English
Starb'd 54m, Height
Location of Switchboard from AP
4.0m
50.1
121.6
67.9
11.9
32
unknown if provided
Main breakers tested
each S/Y
not answered
Yes
55.7
33
60
never revealed by
supplier
never revealed by
supplier
17.4
47.9
None available
not available
not available
Once a month
Weekly
Weekly & monthly
not answered
Yes
1 hr
Yes
3 hrs
Yes
MSB shore
From AP 15 m, port
protection breaker
5m, starboard
42m from AP, 34.6m 20m,above keel 13
above keel
m
C.1.1
Range 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.2.1
Distance of Enginer Room Aft
Bulkheads from AP
36m
38m
16m
10ft
not answered
28m
10m
March 30, 2004
Page 3 of 6
ENVIRON
Quest.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
A.1
VICTORIA
BRIDGE
HANJIN PARIS
LIHUE
OOCL
CALIFORNIA
CHIQUITA JOY
ECSTASY
CHEVRON
WASHINGTON
GROTON
ALASKAN
FRONTIER
ANSAC
HARMONY
PYXIS
THORSEGGEN
C.2.2
Distance of Enginer Room Fwd
Bulkheads from AP
60m
38m
85.6m
85ft
not answered
44m
40m
C.2.3
Can a GA Be Provided
not answered
not answered
under study
No general access
can be provided
Yes
not answered
Yes
about 30m from
shore to onboard
under study
No
No
N/A
not answered
not answered
under study
65ft fwd of the AP,
centerline
To be determined
N/A
None
There is no point at
which a hatchway
type entry could be
considered as
"SAFE" with
under study
No
not answered
C.3
C.4
Point of Entry to Bring Cables on Starb'd 42m, Height
Board from AP
13m
Preferred Position to Create
Connection from AP
C.5.1
Spare Breaker on the Dist Panel
No
Yes, a shore
connection terminal
board
C.5.2
If So, What Is the Rating
No
400 amps ACB
under study
No
not answered
C.5.3
Sufficient Space for a Spare
Breaker
No
not answered
under study
No
not answered
C.6
C.6.1
C.6.2
Main Switchboard
Operating Voltage
Frequency
450
60
440
60
C.6.3
Fault Level
<10%
not answered
not answered
C.6a
Type of Distribution System
100V in a 440V
System
440VAC for power,
220VAC for lighting
230V in a 440V
system
450
60
440
60
440
60
6600
4160
60
1200 amp breakers
6600V
4160V 3-phase to
450V 3-phase to
120V 3-phase
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
450
60
6600
60
31.5kA rms 78kA
peak
6,600V, 480V (via
tx) both w/ neutral
system
No spare breaker.
MSB is ACB type
AH-16B, rated
current 1,155A
Trip at 115% (i.e.
1,328A)
Shore connection
breaqker Type TD
400 BA, breaking
capaicty
460V=30KA
No
No
No
450
60
440
60
See above
1500A-10sec
110V and 220V in
400V system
115V in a 208V
system
3 sets, capacity =
900KVA x 450V x
60HZ x 3
3 Bergen KRG 6
700kW
C.6b
How Many Generators
1,700kVA x 4 sets,
150kVA x 1 set
4 sets, 7,600kW
totally
4 sets, 3 diesel by
Daihatsu and one
shaft generator by
Taiyo, 2,100kW per
set.
C.6c.1
Make of Main Switch Board
Uzushio Electric
HEECO
JRCS
GE
Alstrom
C.6c.2
Make of Breakers
Terasaki Electric
HEECO
JRCS
GE
Alstrom
Terasaki Electric
C.6c.3
Make of Governors
Zecel
Woodward
JRCS
Alstrom
not answered
C.6d
Generator Mode When Paralleled
Isochronous
Isochronous
Isochronous
GE
Generators do not
operate paralleled
Merlin-Gerrin &
Terasaki
Woodward
Droop
Droop
Synchronous
C.6e
Type of Grounded System
Negative
unknown
did not understand
question
Negative
None
Negative
Insulated neutral
C.7
Power Management System
(PMS) Info
did not understand
question
Fully automatic
Fully Automatic
Yes
No - all essential
systems for
propulsion are
controlled
C.8
Does PMS Control Whole Ship
March 30, 2004
Full Automatic
PMS is manned - No
System, NK Class
PMS
PMS Control
not applicable
did not understand
question
Page 4 of 6
4 main set 6.3MW
ea, plus emergency
715kW
Uzishio Electric Co. A.Watson & Dundas
PMS - manual, only
PMS is manned - no
generator control is
PMS
automatic
Electrical
distribution Manual
not applicable
ENVIRON
Quest.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
A.1
VICTORIA
BRIDGE
HANJIN PARIS
LIHUE
OOCL
CALIFORNIA
CHIQUITA JOY
ECSTASY
CHEVRON
WASHINGTON
GROTON
ALASKAN
FRONTIER
ANSAC
HARMONY
PYXIS
THORSEGGEN
600kW
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
1510kW
300-350kW if no
cargo worked
250kW
500kW
Will spike due to
machinery strating
and stopping (deck
macniery, cargo and
ballast pumps)
Unknown
250kW
Cargo cranes
Ballast 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
fan
Cargo cranes
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
Two sets
One set
Yes
2
2
2
C.9
C.10
Normal Load on Switchboard in
Port
Load Fluctuation in Port
50-100kW
Reason for Fluctuations
When auto, set the
main air
compressors in
operation
C.12
Main Power Consumers on Ship
When in Port
2,966kW = Reefer
Containers
(Assumed 300
Units) -2,430k and
Auxiliaries &
Lighting - 536kW.
C.13
One set (if reefer
No of Gen Sets Providing Power
containers was load:
in Port
2 sets)
C.14
How Many Gen Sets Needed in
Port
One set
Three
Three sets
2
Cannot be met by
one set during cargo
discharge
3
3
C.15
No of Crew Available for
Connecting
2 people
One
One
2 to 4
missing answer
3
1
missing answer
missing answer
C.11
C.16
Can Ship Tolerate a Short BlackOut
Yes
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
C.17
Has the Fault Current Been
Calculated
Yes
None that can be
found on record
No
Yes
Classification Society
Nippon Kaiji Kyokei
Korean Register
ABS
ABS
ABS
TEU Capacity (max)
5,302
110 (208?)
not applicable
not applicable
not applicable
not applicable
120
300
56 (208?)
not applicable
not applicable
not applicable
not applicable
0
not applicable
not applicable
2,128
300 (180 per Lloyds
Register)
not applicable
not applicable
4,960
Vehicle Capacity
Grain Capacity
3,484
300 per Lloyds
Register
not applicable
not applicable
not applicable
not applicable
not applicable
not applicable
not applicable
not applicable
not applicable
not applicable
not applicable
not applicable
not applicable
not applicable
Terminal Operator
ITS
HANJIN
SSA
LBCT
CUT
CARNIVAL
SHELL
BP
unknown
Berth Called
Calls to berth/year
Maximum time at berth (hrs)
J232
10
60
T136
10
100
C62
16
62
F8
8
123
E24
25
77
H4
52
12
B84
16
41
B78
24
91
T121
15 projected
46
Reefer TEU Capacity
March 30, 2004
500
ABS
Page 5 of 6
Yes, but short period
of time only,
because if longer Yes -but not during
interuption, we
cargo operations
cannot have cargo
operation
none
None that can be
found on record
Nippon Kaiji Kvokei Nippon Kaiji Kvokei
not applicable
411122
Metropolitan
Stevedore
G212
1
60
4751
0
TOYOTA
B83
9
26
FOREST
TERMINAL
D54
21
51
ENVIRON
Quest.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
A.1
VICTORIA
BRIDGE
HANJIN PARIS
LIHUE
OOCL
CALIFORNIA
CHIQUITA 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
2,300
36-42
16.0
855
3,694
50
15.0
915
1,804
45
15.0
787
2,700
50
15.0
905
1,950
48
11.3
495
16.5
260.6
1,980
52
16.8
651
2,192
46
17.6
1,250
76
22.2
2,100
50
18.7
557
1,300
38
14.6
653
2,220
36
11.7
850
869
724
859
461
625
531
623
105
41.1
70.53
N/A
100
35.1
60
N/A
131
46
79.72
N/A
66.6
31.3
42.65
24.8
96
37.1
50
51.6
88.6
31.8
45.28
105
31.8
39.5
67,765
31,680
22
24.6
11,793
12,500
21
39,796
49,981
14.5
28,527
5,884
14
not provided
19,108
9,411
18.5
14.12
38,656
assume none
assume none
Total Length of Berths (ft)
Water depth (ft)
Wharf elevation (ft)
Length Overall (ft)
Length Between Perpendiculars
(ft)
Beam (ft)
Draught (ft)
Moulded Depth (ft)
TPC
Range of Draft (ft)
Deadweight
kW (Environ info)
Speed (knots)
51,805
35,859
24
132
46
79.07
N/A
32.8 to 42.7
68,500
54,882
25.5
Fuel Consumption (tonnes/day)
unknown
unknown
138
188
46.7
unknown
55
unknown
Bow Thruster
Gear
assume none
unknown
assume none
2,000 kW
assume none
assume none
assume none
assume none
Generator Model
unknown
assume none
unknown
Wartsila 4R32e &
6R32e
36
7.75
40.4
33.95
assume none
assume none
4 - 30 ton cranes
4,949
Bergen KRG 6
Manual only,
generator control is
automatic
Power Management System
(PMS)
Ternet GAC-5 fully
automatic
Normal load at berth
Assume 3000kW
4800kW includes
3,015kW for 450
reefers
assume 1750kW
based on load
analysis of sister
ships
900-1000kW
Power Required in Port - High
(kw)
Assume 3000kW
1300 (should be
4800 minimum)
assume 1750
Assume 1500kW
Assume 2400kW
Assume 600kW
840
assume 800
Assume 900kW
Assume 500kW
unknown
17.1%
16.7%
unknown
11.1%
14.3%
unknown
14.1%
15.5%
HFO
1
MGO
2
Power Required in Port - Low
(kw)
Power as % of installed generators
- High
- Low
- Average
Fuel
No. of operating generators
Landside High voltage
distribution
Fully automatic
Assume 4500kW
500kW w/o cargo
operation, 2.3 MW
for cargo discharge
300kW
7782kW Unloading
1057kW with no
operations (From
Load Analysis)
2300
assume 300
7782
Assume 600
1510 (based on
above)
350 (w/o cargo ops
assume 1200kW
w/cargo ops)
1057
Assume 300
930
300
500
12.47kV
4.16kV
Size of termnal main substation
66kV/12.7kV
5.6MVA
66kV/4.6kV
11.2MVA
Size ot terminal distribution
cables
15 kV 500 KcMill
500 KcMill
2500 kVA to 500
kVA
3 MVA
2501 kVA to 500
kVA
2.8 MVA
Size of terminal unit substion
Spare terminal capacity
March 30, 2004
Page 6 of 6
none
1,510kW w/ cargo 350 kW w/o cargo to
operations
a peak of 500kw
ENVIRON
APPENDIX C
General Port Activity and Fleet Characteristics
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.
Type
Ship Types Available In The Marine Exchange Database
Name
Type
Name
BBU Bulk
PRR Passenger RO/RO
BCB Bulk/C.C.
RHR Hydrographic Research Vessel
BCE Cement Carrier
RMR Meteorological Research Vessel
BOR 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
-1 -
ENVIRO N
Table C-1.
Type
Ship Types Available In The Marine Exchange Database
Name
Type
OES Exhibition Ship
OFL Floating Crane
OFY Ferry
OHL Semi-Submersible Heavy Lift Vessel
OHS Hospital Ship
OHT Semi-Submersible Heavy Lift Tank
OIB Icebreaker
OIS Icebreaker Supply
OIT Icebreaker Tender
OLT Lighthouse/Tender
OMN Minning Ship
OMS Mission Ship
OPA Patrol Ship
OPI Pilot Ship
OPL Pipe Layer
OPO Pontoon
OPP Pipe Carrier
ORP Repair Ship
OSB Storage Barge
OSC Sludge Carrier
Name
URC Ro/Ro/C.C.
OSP Semi-Submersible Pontoon
OSS Storage Ship
OSV Salvage Ship
OSY Supply Ship
OTB Tank Barge
OTR Training Ship
OWAWaste Ship
OYT Yacht
URR Ro/Ro
XAH Anchor Handling Tug/Supply
XCT Catamaran Tug/Integrated
XFF Firefighting Tug
XPT Pusher Tug
XST Salvage Tug
XTG Tug
XTI Tug/Icebreaker
YDP Drill Platform
YDS Drill Ship
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.
-2 -
ENVIRO N
Table C-2.
Calls
Vessel
Per
ID
Year
Vessel Name
Most Frequently Calling Container Ships
Operator
Vessel
Type
Gross
Tonnage
Berths
Calls
per
Berth
J247
J245
J268
J266
J245
J270
J247
J247
J245
2
3
3
1
5
2
1
7
2
12
9203904
TAUSALA
SAMOA
11
9127019
POLYNESIA
Polynesia Line
UCC
12,029
11
9120786
JINHE
COSCO
UCC
65,140
11
9215828
UCC
74,373
E26
9
10
10
9120750
9120774
UCC
UCC
65,140
65,140
J247
J247
5
5
10
9184926
UCC
47,541
J232
6
10
8912766
UCC
9,597
T138
5
10
9215866
UCC
74,373
E26
7
10
9215842
UCC
74,373
E26
9
10
9128128
UCC
65,643
A94
3
10
9172569
UCC
47,541
J232
6
10
9153408
UCC
25,359
C60
3
10
10
9
9236664
9120798
9139048
UCC
UCC
UCC
25,550
65,140
36,772
C60
J247
J247
4
7
6
9
9158525
UCC
25,634
Various
1 or 2
9
9179816
UCC
25,705
T140
4
9
9153410
UCC
25,637
T140
3
9
9
9115717
9178290
UCC
UCC
37,549
25,900
J232
J247
7
9
9
9
9
9043756
9139062
9120748
UCC
UCC
UCC
48,220
36,772
65,140
J232
J247
J247
8
4
4
HSAC Logistics
UCC
12,004
HYUNDAI
HMM
KINGDOM
YUEHE
COSCO
WANHE
COSCO
VICTORIA
K Line
BRIDGE
MERKUR
Hanjin Shpg. Co.
BRIDGE
HYUNDAI
HMM
PATRIOT
HYUNDAI
HMM
NATIONAL
HANJIN PARIS Hanjin Shpg. Co.
CONCORD
BRIDGE
K Line
CIELO DI SAN
FRANCISCO
Italia Line
CIELO
D'EUROPA
Italia
CHUANHE
COSCO
XIBOHE
COSCO
TRADE
FOISON
Sinotrans
TRADE
BRAVERY
Sinotrans
TRADE
BLOOM
Sinotrans
SAN PEDRO
BRIDGE
K Line
OCELOT MAX
Maruba
NEWPORT
BRIDGE
K Line
LUO BA HE
COSCO
LUHE
COSCO
-3 -
ENVIRO N
Table C-2.
Calls
Vessel
Per
ID
Year
9
9215830
9
9215854
9
8808226
9
9231755
9
9
9015541
7125316
9
9
9231494
9178290
9
8
9138290
9179828
8
9220328
8
9198109
8
9143075
8
9102289
8
8
9102291
7105471
8
8
9231743
9139012
8
7116315
8
7224306
8
9149328
8
9232383
Vessel Name
Most Frequently Calling Container Ships
Operator
HYUNDAI
REPUBLIC
Hyundai
HYUNDAI
DOMINION
HMM
HUMBER
BRIDGE
K Line
HANJIN
TAIPEI
Hanjin Shpg Co
HANJIN
MARSEILLES Hanjin Shpg Co
EWA
Matson Nav.
DONATA
SCHULTE Kien Hung / CCNI
COMANCHE
Maruba Line
CIELO DEL
CANADA
Italia / CP Ships
TRADE ZALE
Sinotrans
TRADE
RAINBOW
Sinotrans
OOCL NEW
YORK
OOCL (USA) Inc.
OOCL
NETHERLAND
S
OOCL (USA) Inc.
OOCL
CALIFORNIA
OOCL
OOCL
AMERICA OOCL (USA) Inc.
LIHUE
Matson Nav.
HANJIN
CAIRO
Hanjin Shpg Co
HANIHE
COSCO
CSX
NAVIGATOR
CSX
CSX
CONSUMER
CSX
COLUMBUS
HSAC Logistics
CHILE
CCNI ARICA
CCNI
Vessel
Type
Gross
Tonnage
Berths
Calls
per
Berth
UCC
74,373
E26
7
UCC
74,373
E26
8
UCC
48,305
J232
4
UCC
65,131
T136
4
UCC
UCC
51,299
26,746
Various
C62
1 or 2
8
UCC
UCC
26,582
25,900
Various
Various
1 or 2
1 or 2
UCC
UCC
25,361
25,705
C60
T138
3
3
UCC
2,631
Various
1 or 2
UCC
66,289
F8
5
UCC
66,086
F8
7
UCC
66,046
F8
6
UCC
UCC
6,6047
26,746
F8
C62
4
7
UCC
UCC
65,131
36,772
Various
Various
1 or 2
1 or 2
UCC
47,667
G227
3
UCC
23,760
UCC
25,608
UCC
25,630
G227
J247
J245
Various
4
4
3
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.
-4 -
ENVIRO N
Table C-3.
Calls/yr
Vessel
ID
Most Frequently Calling Refrigerated Ships
Vessel
Name
Vessel Gross
Berths
Type Tonnage
Operator
25
9038945 CHIQUITA JOY
Great White Fleet
GRF
8,665
24
8917596 CHIQUITA BRENDAGreat White Fleet
GRF
8,665
Table C-4.
No.
Of Calls
E12
E24
E26
E12
E24
E26
2
8
5
8
9
3
Only Cruise Vessels In Port Of Long Beach Database
Calls/yr
Vessel
ID
Vessel
Name
13
7
8711344
9118721
ECSTASY
ELATION
Vessel
Gross Tonnage
Type
Operator
Carnival Cruise Line
Carnival Cruise Line
MPR
MPR
70,367
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.
Calls
Vessel
per
ID
year
25
19
Tankers Most Frequently Calling at The Port of Long Beach
Vessel
Name
FOUR
SCHOONER
CYGNUS
VOYAGER
9035060
(SAMUEL
GINN)
9189110
19
9231626
18
9051612
16
7391226
15
7506039
14
8414532
11
7374096
Operator
Vessel
Type
Premuda Spa / Valero
Energy Corp.
TPD
40,037
T121
B78
6
4
Chevron
Transport
TCR
88,919
T121
4
23,843
F209
2
88,886
T121
2
22,761
B84
3
94,647
T121
10
94,999
T121
10
67,856
T121
4
Gulf Agency Co. Limited
/ Chevron
AMBERMAR
TPD / TCO
Texaco Shipping /
Stelmar
SIRIUS
Chevron Texaco
TCR
VOYAGER
CHEVRON
Chevron
TPD
WASHINGTO
Texaco USA
N
DENALI
ATC
TCR
S/R LONG SeaRiver Maritime / BP
TCR
BEACH
Shipping
MARINE
ATC
TCR
COLUMBIA
-5 -
Gross
Berths
Tonnage
No.
of Calls
ENVIRO N
Table C-5.
Calls
Vessel
per
ID
year
Tankers Most Frequently Calling at The Port of Long Beach
Vessel
Name
Operator
Vessel
Type
BP Shpg / Crowley
Maritime
Chevron Transport / Iver
9117234 IVER PRIDE
Ships / Gulf Agency
Company
7408093
KENAI
ATC
BP Shipping /
9185504
ASOPOS
Heidenreich Marine, Inc.
INTREPID SHIP
7908172 BLUE RIDGE
MGNT.
7408081 TONSINA
ATC
BP Shipping / Adam
9232606 JADEMAR Maritime Corp / Jademar
LTD
ORION
9051600
ChevronTexaco
VOYAGER
7506027 B.T. ALASKA
ATC
10
9131137
10
9
8
8
8
7
7
7
BRITISH
HARRIER
Gross
Berths
Tonnage
No.
of Calls
TCR
80,187
Various
1
TCO
21,254
B77
4
TCR
64,329
T121
5
TCR
37,033
Various
1 or 2
TPD
24,348
B84
6
TCR
64,329
T121
3
TCR
38,960
Various
1 or 2
TCR
88,919
Various
1 or 2
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.
Calls
per
year
Vessel
ID
13
7708857
4
9205627
4
9244996
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
9236078
8812629
9188623
8313336
9205639
7035951
7117278
8601604
2
8508709
Dry Bulk Vessel Most Frequently Calling at
The Port of Long Beach
Vessel Name
Operator
CSL
National Gypsum / CSL
TRAILBLAZER
OAKLAND
Toko
COL
Toko Line
CABALLERO
UBC SYDNEY United Bulk Carriers USA
SWEET BRIER
K Line
ROYAL CHANCE
K Line
MIDWAY II
Norden / Korea Line Corp.
LONG BEACH
Toko Line
KURE
Baja Bulk Carriers
CSL CABO
CSL
LEDA
K Line
SHEARWATER
Mitsui O.S.K.
-6 -
Vessel
Type
Gross Tonnage
BOR
18,241
BBU
14,527
BBU
14,446
BBU
BWC
BBU
BBU
BBU
BBU
BBU
BOR
19,746
36,727
28,073
26,087
14,527
89,623
19,623
36,417
BWC
36,318
ENVIRO 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
Vessel
per
ID
year
12
9
7321087
8514083
8
8605739
8
8319718
7
9158288
7
8502468
6
9157442
6
8117184
Vessel Name
Operator
LURLINE
Matson Nav.
PYXIS
Toyofuji Shpg.
WASHINGTON
K Line
HIGHWAY
CENTURY
K Line
HIGHWAY NO.2
GREEN LAKE NYK Bulk Ship
CENTURY
NYK Bulk Ship
LEADER NO.3
BRIGHT STATE
ECL
GLOBAL
K Line
HIGHWAY
Vessel
Type
Gross
Tonnage
Berths
Berth
Calls
URC
MVE
24,901
43,425
C62
B83
9
6
MVE
50,334
B83
6
MVE
44,616
B83
6
MVE
57,623
B83
5
MVE
44,830
B83
5
URR
9,991
F207
5
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.
Calls
Vessel
per
ID
year
Vessel
Name
21
8116063 THORSEGGEN
4
8420787
3
9228617
3
9201712
3
9149665
3
9121297
3
9074078
3
8512968
Break Bulk Carriers Most Frequently Calling at
The Port of Long Beach.
Operator
Vessel
Type
Gross
Tonnage
Norsk Pacific
GGC
15,136
GGC
STAR GRIP
Star Shipping
INDUSTRIAL
General Electric
COMET
PARAGON
ECL
PESCADORES
SIGRUN
Anglo Canadian /
BOLTEN
Medbulk
SAGA
Saga Forest
HORIZON
Carriers
Saga Forest
SAGA WIND
Carriers
NORSUL
Norsul / Ansac
VANCOUVER
-7 -
Berths
Berth
Calls
27,192
D50
D54
Various
6
14
1
GGC
7,252
Various
1
GGC
8,438
F207
2
GGC
19,354
Various
1
GGC
29,381
Various
1
GGC
29,381
T122
2
GGC
28,805
Various
1
ENVIRO N
Table C-8.
Calls
Vessel
per
ID
year
3
7516632
Break Bulk Carriers Most Frequently Calling at
The Port of Long Beach.
Vessel
Name
Operator
Vessel
Type
Gross
Tonnage
Berths
Berth
Calls
HOEGH
MERCHANT
Saga Forest
Carriers
GGC
30,987
Various
1
-8 -
ENVIRO N
APPENDIX D
Engine Emission Factors Summary
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
Displacement
Category
(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.
-1 -
ENVIRON
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
75-130
130-225
225-450
450-560
560-1000
1000+
0.27
0.27
0.27
0.27
0.27
0.27
0.27
11
10
10
10
10
10
13
2.0
1.7
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
2.5
0.90
0.40
0.40
0.30
0.30
0.30
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 (GMEMD 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
NOX
CO
[g/kW-hr]
[g/kW-hr]
[g/kW-hr]
Category 2
0.134
13.36
2.48
(5-30 l/cylinder)
Category 3
Medium Speed
0.5*
16.6
0.7
(> 300 rpm)
(> 30 l/cylinder)
PM
[g/kW-hr]
0.32
low sulfur
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.
-2 -
ENVIRON
Table D-4. Adjustment for low load conditions . (USEPA, 2003)
Engine
BSFC
HC
CO
NOX
Slow Speed
1.57
5.28
8.52
1.36
Medium Speed
1.55
5.50
7.41
1.36
PM
1.69
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.
BSFC
Speed
NOX
CO
PM
(kg/kWStudy
Vessel
Engine
(rpm)
(kg/ton) (kg/ton) (kg/ton)
hr)
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)
Cooper
(2001)
Cooper
(2003)
Cooper
(2003)
~1000
0.210
14.6
0.72
0.29
~1000
0.205
11.2
0.44
NA
Sulzer 6ASL
750
0.214
17.1
0.77
0.33
Sulzer 8ASL
750
0.243
16.8
1.39
0.48
-3 -
ENVIRON
Study
Vessel
Engine
Cooper
Wartsila 824 TS
(2003)*
Cooper
Wartsila 4R32D
(2003)*
Cooper
Wartsila 8R32D
(2003)*
Cooper
Wartsila 6R32D
(2003)*
Average of new studies (g/kW-hr)
BSFC
Speed
NOX
(kg/kW(rpm)
(kg/ton)
hr)
720
0.220
16.4
CO
(kg/ton)
PM
(kg/ton)
0.45
0.37
720
0.214
9.8
0.95
0.18
720
0.216
15.2
0.90
0.67
720
0.217
12.9
0.77
0.54
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
Env. C. (1999)*
Env. C. (1999)
Env. C. (1999)
Env. C. (1999)
Env. C. (1999)
Env. C. (1997)
Engine
Wartsila 9R32D
Bergen KRGB9
Caterpillar 3412
Waukesha F2896
Mitsubishi
MAN B&W
7L23/30 H
Env. C. (1997) Bergen KRG-6
Env. C. (1997) Waukesha F2896
ETC (1997)
Alco 16V-251-B
ETC (1997)
Faibanks-Morse
3800 TD 8 1/8,
ETC (1997)
Paxman Type 16
RP 200M Valenta
V-16
ETC (1997)
Alco 16V-251-C
Llyods (1995) R7gen
Llyods (1995) TK5
Llyods (1995) TG1push
Llyods (1995) TG6push
Speed
BSFC
HC
NOX
CO
PM
(rpm) (kg/kW-hr) (kg/ton) (kg/ton) (kg/ton) (kg/ton)
750
900
1600
1020
1210
720
0.212
78.9
40.9
54.4
47.7
98.7
24.4
2.5
1.8
12.6
5.4
3.4
7.6
2.8
1.8
0.7
2.5
2.4
10.0
2.8
5.2
3.6
4.1
8.9
NA
2.2
NA
720
1200
1200
900
0.232
0.219
2.2
0.3
43.7
36.7
72.0
43.6
1500
0.233
NA
38.5
22.3
1.3
1200
0.247
0.231
0.225
0.200
0.220
NA
48.0
52.9
60.2
57.0
61.2
5.3
0.5
-4 -
ENVIRON
Study
Engine
Speed
BSFC
HC
NOX
CO
PM
(rpm) (kg/kW-hr) (kg/ton) (kg/ton) (kg/ton) (kg/ton)
Llyods (1995) R7cent
Llyods (1995) TK1
Llyods (1995) TG3frun
Average of existing studies
Average specific emissions rate g/kW-hr
Cooper (2001) Ship A 455 kW ~1000
Cooper (2001) Ship B 550 kW ~1000
Cooper (2003)* Wartsila 824 TS 720
Cooper (2003)* Wartsila 4R32D 720
Average of new studies
Average specific emissions rate g/kW-hr
0.231
0.225
0.230
0.228
228
0.216
0.205
0.220
0.214
0.216
0.217
0.216
216
52.9
58.8
51.8
51.8
11.8
67.6
54.6
74.5
45.8
70.4
59.4
62.1
13.4
7.5
1.7
3.3
2.1
2.0
4.5
4.2
3.5
3.3
0.7
2.3
0.5
1.3
NA
1.7
0.8
3.1
2.5
1.9
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.
NOX
Study
Vessel
Engine
Use
(kg/ton)
Env. Canada N/A
Bergen KRGB9
Propulsion
40.60
(1999)
Env. Canada N/A
Engine 1: Caterpillar 3412
Propulsion
54.40
(1999)
Env. Canada N/A
Engine 2: Caterpillar 3412
Propulsion
44.90
(1999)
Env. Canada N/A
Waukesha F2896
Auxiliary
47.70
(1999)
Env. Canada N/A
Mitsubishi
Auxiliary
98.70
(1999)
Env. Canada
Wartsilla 9R32D (750 rpm)
Propulsion
78.90
(1999)
(more like a Category 3)
Env. Canada N/A
3 x MAN B&W 7L23/30 H
Auxiliary
24.44
(1997)
Env. Canada N/A
3 x Bergen KRG-6
Auxiliary
43.69
(1997)
Env. Canada N/A
3 x Waukesha F2896 DSIM
Auxiliary
36.74
(1997)
ETC (1997)
Steadfast
Alco 16V-251-B (Starboard) Propulsion
81.51
ETC (1997)
Steadfast
Alco 16V-251-B (Port)
Propulsion
62.56
-5 -
ENVIRON
Study
ETC (1997)
ETC (1997)
ETC (1997)
ETC (1997)
ETC (1997)
ETC (1997)
TRC (1989)
TRC (1989)
TRC (1989)
TRC (1989)
TRC (1989)
TRC (1989)
TRC (1989)
TRC (1989)
TRC (1989)
TRC (1989)
TRC (1989)
TRC (1989)
TRC (1989)
TRC (1989)
TRC (1989)
TRC (1989)
TRC (1989)
Lloyds (1995)
Lloyds (1995)
Lloyds (1995)
Lloyds (1995)
Lloyds (1995)
Lloyds (1995)
Lloyds (1995)
Average
Vessel
Engine
Sherman
Faibanks-Morse 3800 TD 8
1/8, 12Cy (starboard)
Sherman
Faibanks-Morse 3800 TD 8
1/8, 12Cy (Port)
Tybee
Paxman Type 16 RP 200M
Valenta V-16 (starboard)
Tybee
Paxman Type 16 RP 200M
Valenta V-16 (port)
Thetis
Alco V-18 251-C (starboard)
Thetis
Alco V-18 251-C (port)
President Adams N/A
President Adams N/A
Madame
N/A
Butterfly
Spring Bride
N/A
Beltimber
N/A
President
N/A
Washington
Hyundai
N/A
Challenger
California Jupiter N/A
Manhattan
N/A
Bridge
National Dignity N/A
Evergroup
N/A
Sealand Explorer N/A
Aurora Ace
N/A
Thorseggen
N/A
Walter Jacob
N/A
Star Esperanza N/A
Dynachem
N/A
R7gen
N/A
TK5
N/A
TG1push
N/A
TG6push
N/A
R7cent
N/A
TK1
N/A
TG3frun
N/A
Comparable to 12.2 g/kW- hr
Propulsion
NOX
(kg/ton)
42.50
Propulsion
44.90
Propulsion
39.01
Propulsion
38.27
Propulsion
Propulsion
Auxiliary
Auxiliary
Auxiliary
48.58
47.29
59.94
56.09
74.91
Auxiliary
Auxiliary
Auxiliary
92.68
44.97
35.54
Auxiliary
50.53
Auxiliary
Auxiliary
51.34
72.27
Auxiliary
Auxiliary
Auxiliary
Auxiliary
Auxiliary
Auxiliary
Auxiliary
Auxiliary
Auxiliary
Propulsion
Propulsion
Propulsion
Propulsion
Propulsion
Propulsion
18.14
36.05
79.25
52.94
100.58
64.37
47.28
42.17
52.88
60.21
56.96
61.22
52.88
58.79
51.76
54.8
Use
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
-6 -
ENVIRON
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%.
12
Llyods (1995) Data
10
PM Emissions (kg/tonne)
Calculated Sulfate PM
8
Best Fit to Data
6
y = 0.9016 * e(0.7238x)
R2 = 0.9306
4
2
0
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
Fuel Sulfur (wt.%)
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.
-7 -
ENVIRON
Engine/Boiler Type
Cooper (2001)
ETC (1997)
D.2.
Table D-8. Gas turbine engines
BSFC
NOX
HC
kg/kW-hr (g/kW-hr) (g/kW-hr)
0.294
6.0
0.07
0.446
6.5
0.06
CO
(g/kW-hr)
0.09
0.59
PM
(g/kW-hr)
0.007
NA
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)
Main Boilers TRC
(1989)
Smaller Boilers TRC
(1989)
USEPA Guidance
(BAH, 1991)
0.342
NOx
(kg/ton)
HC
(kg/ton)
CO
(kg/ton)
PM
(kg/ton)
9.8
-
0.4
-
12.3
N/A
4.6
N/A
8.1
(2.8 g/kWhr)
0.2
(0.07 g/kWhr)
0.9
(0.3 g/kWhr)
7.2
(2.5 g/kWhr)
* 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
-8 -
ENVIRON
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
Model
THC + NOx
CO
Liters/cylinder
Tier
Year*
[g/kW-hr]
[g/kW-hr]
Power < 37 kW
Tier 2
2005
7.5
5.0
and disp. <0.9
0.9 < disp. < 1.2
Tier 2
2004
7.2
5.0
1.2 < disp. < 2.5
Tier 2
2004
7.2
5.0
2.5 < disp. < 5.0
Tier 2
2007
7.2
5.0
5.0 < disp. < 15
Tier 2
2007
7.8
5.0
15 < disp. < 20
Tier 2
2007
8.7
5.0
Power <3300 kW
15 < disp. < 20
Tier 2
2007
9.8
5.0
Power >3300 kW
20 < disp. < 25
Tier 2
2007
9.8
5.0
25 < disp. < 30
Tier 2
2007
11.0
5.0
-9 -
PM
[g/kW-hr]
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.20
0.27
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
ENVIRON
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-200111, 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 CompressionIgnition Marine Engines,’ USEPA420-R-99-026, November, 1999.
USEPA (1999c), “In-Use Marine Diesel Fuel,” Environmental Protection Agency, USEPA420-R99-027, 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
- 10 -
ENVIRON
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
- 11 -
ENVIRON
APPENDIX E
Vessel Hotelling Emission Calculations
Appendix E. Ship Hotelling Emissions
Emission Factors
g/kW-hr
g/kW-hr
CO
NOx
0.70
16.61
2.48
13.36
1.5
10
0.09
6
0.3
2.8
1.5
Btu/kW-hr
Heat Rate
9,768
9,768
9,768
12,936
12,320
Engine Type
Category 3
Category 2
Category 1
Gas Turbine
Steam Turbine
Code
3
2
1
0
-1
g/kW-hr
VOC
0.2
0.134
0.27
0.07
0.07
Vessel
Vessel ID
GRT
Calls/year
Berthing Time
(hrs)
Connection
Time
(hrs)
Average Load
Factor
Installed
Generators
(kW)
Average at
Berth Load
(kW)
Fuel Type
Fuel Sulfur %
Engine Type
Victoria Bridge
Hanjin Paris
Lihue
OOCL California
Chiquita Joy
Ecstasy
Chevron Washington
Groton
Alaskan Frontier
Ansac Harmony
Pyxis
Thorseggen
9184926
9128128
7105471
9102289
9038945
8711344
7391226
7901928
NA
9181508
8514083
8116063
47541
65643
26746
66046
8665
70367
22761
23914
185000
28527
43425
15136
10
10
16
8
25
52
16
24
15
1
9
21
44.3
63.0
50.1
121.6
67.9
11.9
32.0
55.7
33.0
60.0
17.4
47.9
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
11%
63%
63%
62%
62%
66%
89%
23%
15%
50%
70%
29%
5440
7600
2700
8400
5620
10560
2600
1300
25200
1250
2160
2100
600
4799
1701
5208
3501
7001
2301
300
3780
625
1512
601
HFO
HFO
HFO
HFO
HFO
HFO
MGO
MGO
HFO
HFO
HFO
MGO
2.8
2.8
2.8
2.8
2.8
2.8
0.2
0.2
2.8
2.8
2.8
0.2
2
3
-1
2
2
3
0
1
3
2
2
2
Vessel
Victoria Bridge
Hanjin Paris
Lihue
OOCL California
Chiquita Joy
Ecstasy
Chevron Washington
Groton
Alaskan Frontier
Ansac Harmony
Pyxis
Thorseggen
Total
Ship Hotelling Emissions at Average Load (short tons/yr)
HC
CO
NOx
PM
SOx
0.0
0.7
3.8
0.43
3.5
0.6
2.3
53.9
4.93
40.4
0.1
0.4
4.1
3.64
22.8
0.7
13.7
73.5
8.36
68.4
0.9
15.9
85.5
9.72
79.5
0.8
2.9
69.3
6.34
51.9
0.1
0.1
7.4
0.29
1.5
0.1
0.6
4.3
0.10
0.4
0.4
1.4
25.3
2.98
24.4
0.0
0.1
0.5
0.06
0.5
0.0
0.6
3.2
0.36
3.0
0.1
1.6
8.6
0.15
0.6
3.9
40.3
339.5
37.4
296.8
Annual
Power
(kW-hr)
256,728
2,951,631
1,323,864
5,003,846
5,815,374
3,794,694
1,122,888
390,575
1,786,050
36,563
216,594
585,225
Annual Fuel
(M tons/yr)
57
655
371
1,111
1,291
842
330
87
397
8
48
130
Ship Hotelling Emissions at Average Load (short tons/call)
HC
CO
NOx
PM
SOx
0.004
0.070
0.377
0.043
0.351
0.065
0.227
5.393
0.493
4.036
0.006
0.027
0.255
0.228
1.427
0.092
1.706
9.192
1.045
8.554
0.034
0.635
3.419
0.389
3.181
0.016
0.056
1.333
0.122
0.998
0.005
0.007
0.463
0.018
0.091
0.005
0.027
0.179
0.004
0.016
0.026
0.092
1.690
0.199
1.628
0.005
0.100
0.537
0.061
0.500
0.004
0.066
0.354
0.040
0.329
0.004
0.076
0.410
0.007
0.027
ENVIRON
March 30, 2004
A P P ENDIX F
Vessel Conversation Analysis
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- 1
E N VI R O N
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 oilfired boilers.
8.
No consideration has been given to providing additional electrical power to supply
loads that are currently diesel drive n 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- 2
E N VI R O N
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- 3
E N VI R O N
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- 4
E N VI R O N
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
of each phase of the shore power breaker as required. The mounted plate of the power distribution
F- 5
E N VI R O N
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..
power breakers and to provide required indicator light and phase sequence indicators. One of the
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- 6
E N VI R O N
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 ma in switchboard, as required to suit the existing breaker interlock system.
power breaker and to provide required indicator light and phase sequence indicators. One of the
the new shore power distribution breakers. The Power Management System would also be
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- 7
E N VI R O N
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
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
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
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
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
F- 8
E N VI R O N
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
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.
F- 9
E N VI R O N
Appendix F. Vessel Conversion Analysis
CONTAINER SHIP "VICTORIA BRIDGE"
Material
Quantity
Labor Man
Hours Total Labor
Each Man Hours Labor Rate Labor Cost
Material
Cost/Unit
Material
Cost
Material &
Expenses
Engineering & Technical
Site Survey (Ship Check )
Engineering Drawings
Procurement Specifications
Plan Approval & Installation Inspection by
Test Procedures
Commissioning
Subtotal Engineering
1
1
1
232
680
200
232
680
200
$65
$50
$65
$15,080
$34,000
$13,000
$7,140
$200
$20
$7,140
$200
$20
$22,220
$34,200
$13,020
1
1
1
60
80
60
80
$65
$65
$3,900
$5,200
$71,180
$25,000
$20
$4,099
$36,479
$25,000
$20
$4,099
$36,479
$25,000
$3,920
$9,299
$107,659
2
16
16
16
250
0.5
16
6
16
16
16
250
300
48
$45
$45
$45
$45
$45
$45
$45
$90
$720
$720
$720
$11,250
$13,500
$2,160
80
80
$45
$3,600
$32,760
$5,000
$500
$500
$17,683
$1,100
$15
$40
$15,000
$10
$39,848
$15,000
$500
$500
$17,683
$1,100
$9,108
$120
$15,000
$500
$59,511
$15,090
$1,220
$1,220
$18,403
$12,350
$22,608
$2,280
$15,000
$4,100
$92,271
Installation
Shore Power Connection Box/Recpt
Shore Power Conn Box Foundation
Shore Power Breaker Foundation
Shore Power Brkr
Switchboard Mods
Cable & cableway installation /foot
Painting/gallon
Power Management System Mods
Testing
Subtotal Direct Installation Costs
Shipyard support @20% of material cost
Shipyard profit @15% of inst cost incl support
3
1
1
1
1
600
3
1
1
$11,902
$15,626
Subtotal Installation
$119,799
Subtotal Engineering and Installation
Margin/Contingency @30%
Total Engineering and Installation
$227,458
68,237
296,000
March 30, 2004
ENVIRON
CONTAINER SHIP "HANJIN PARIS"
Material
Quantity
Labor Man
Hours Total Labor
Material
Cost/Unit
Material
Cost
Material &
Expenses
Test Procedures
Commissioning
1
1
1
646
1180
200
646
1180
200
$65
$50
$65
$41,990
$59,000
$13,000
$19,560
$200
$20
$19,560
$200
$20
$61,550
$59,200
$13,020
1
1
1
80
96
80
96
$65
$65
$5,200
$6,240
$125,430
$25,000
$20
$5,256
$50,056
$25,000
$20
$5,256
$50,056
$25,000
$5,220
$11,496
$175,486
20
1
4
4
4
5700
5
1
2
24
16
16
250
0.5
16
80
40
24
64
64
1000
2850
80
80
$45
$45
$45
$45
$45
$45
$45
$45
$90
$1,080
$720
$720
$45,000
$128,250
$3,600
$3,600
$183,060
$5,000
$500
$500
$35,705
$1,100
$15
$40
$500
$43,360
$100,000
$500
$2,000
$142,820
$4,400
$86,526
$200
$500
$336,946
$100,090
$1,580
$2,720
$143,540
$49,400
$214,776
$3,800
$4,100
$520,006
Installation
Shore Power Brkr
Switchboard Mods
Painting/gallon
Testing
$67,389
$88,109
$675,504
$850,990
255,297
1,106,000
March 30, 2004
ENVIRON
CONTAINER SHIP "LIHUE"
Material
Quantity
Labor Man
Hours Total Labor
Material
Cost/Unit
Material
Cost
Material &
Expenses
Test Procedures
Commissioning
1
1
1
410
680
200
410
680
200
$65
$50
$65
$26,650
$34,000
$13,000
$13,478
$200
$20
$13,478
$200
$20
$40,128
$34,200
$13,020
1
1
1
40
80
40
80
$65
$65
$2,600
$5,200
$81,450
$25,000
$20
$4,099
$42,817
$25,000
$20
$4,099
$42,817
$25,000
$2,620
$9,299
$124,267
2
16
16
16
250
0.5
16
14
16
16
16
250
700
48
$45
$45
$45
$45
$45
$45
$45
$90
$720
$720
$720
$11,250
$31,500
$2,160
80
80
$45
$3,600
$50,760
$5,000
$500
$500
$45,372
$1,100
$15
$40
$15,000
$10
$67,537
$35,000
$500
$500
$45,372
$1,100
$21,252
$120
$15,000
$500
$119,344
$35,090
$1,220
$1,220
$46,092
$12,350
$52,752
$2,280
$15,000
$4,100
$170,104
Installation
Shore Power Brkr
Switchboard Mods
Painting/gallon
Testing
7
1
1
1
1
1400
3
1
1
$23,869
$29,096
$223,069
$347,336
104,201
452,000
March 30, 2004
ENV IRON
CONTAINER /REEFER SHIP "OOCL CALIFORNIA"
Material
Quantity
Labor Man
Hours Total Labor
Material
Cost/Unit
Material
Cost
Material &
Expenses
Test Procedures
Commissioning
1
1
1
410
680
200
410
680
200
$65
$50
$65
$26,650
$34,000
$13,000
$13,478
$200
$20
$13,478
$200
$20
$40,128
$34,200
$13,020
1
1
1
60
80
60
80
$65
$65
$3,900
$5,200
$82,750
$25,000
$20
$4,099
$42,817
$25,000
$20
$4,099
$42,817
$25,000
$3,920
$9,299
$125,567
2 43.333333
16
16
16
64
16
64
250
1000
0.5
2850
16
80
$45
$45
$45
$45
$45
$45
$45
$90
$720
$720
$720
$45,000
$128,250
$3,600
$45
$3,600
$182,700
$5,000
$500
$500
$21,020
$1,100
$15
$40
$15,000
$10
$43,185
$108,333
$500
$2,000
$84,080
$4,400
$86,526
$200
$15,000
$500
$301,539
$108,423
$1,220
$2,720
$84,800
$49,400
$214,776
$3,800
$15,000
$4,100
$484,239
Installation
Shore Power Brkr
Switchboard Mods
Painting/gallon
Testing
22
1
4
4
4
5700
5
1
1
80
80
$60,308
$81,682
$626,229
$751,796
225,539
977,000
March 30, 2004
ENVIRON
REFRIGERATED CARGO SHIP "CHIQUITA JOY"
Material
Quantity
Labor Man
Hours Total Labor
Material
Cost/Unit
Material
Cost
Material &
Expenses
Test Procedures
Commissioning
1
1
1
410
780
200
410
780
200
$65
$50
$65
$26,650
$39,000
$13,000
$13,478
$200
$20
$13,478
$200
$20
$40,128
$39,200
$13,020
1
1
1
60
80
60
80
$65
$65
$3,900
$5,200
$87,750
$25,000
$20
$4,099
$42,817
$25,000
$20
$4,099
$42,817
$25,000
$3,920
$9,299
$130,567
2
16
16
16
250
0.5
16
32
16
32
32
500
1600
48
$45
$45
$45
$45
$45
$45
$45
$90
$720
$720
$720
$22,500
$72,000
$2,160
80
80
$45
$3,600
$102,510
$5,000
$500
$500
$45,372
$1,100
$15
$40
$15,000
$10
$67,537
$80,000
$500
$1,000
$90,744
$2,200
$48,576
$120
$15,000
$500
$238,640
$80,090
$1,220
$1,720
$91,464
$24,700
$120,576
$2,280
$15,000
$4,100
$341,150
Installation
Shore Power Brkr
Switchboard Mods
Painting/gallon
Testing
16
1
2
2
2
3200
3
1
1
$47,728
$58,332
$447,210
$577,777
173,333
751,000
March 30, 2004
ENVIRO N
CRUISE SHIP "ECSTASY"
Material
Quantity
Labor Man
Hours Total Labor
Material
Cost/Unit
Material
Cost
Material &
Expenses
Test Procedures
Commissioning
1
1
1
410
980
250
410
980
250
$65
$50
$65
$26,650
$49,000
$16,250
$13,478
$200
$20
$13,478
$200
$20
$40,128
$49,200
$16,270
1
1
1
100
144
100
144
$65
$65
$6,500
$9,360
$107,760
$25,000
$50
$7,041
$45,789
$25,000
$50
$7,041
$45,789
$25,000
$6,550
$16,401
$153,549
24
16
16
24
250
0.5
16
72
16
16
24
250
450
48
$45
$45
$45
$45
$45
$45
$45
$1,080
$720
$720
$1,080
$11,250
$20,250
$2,160
80
80
$45
$3,600
$40,860
$9,000
$500
$500
$68,058
$6,600
$35
$40
$40,000
$1,000
$125,733
$27,000
$500
$500
$68,058
$6,600
$31,104
$120
$40,000
$1,000
$174,882
$28,080
$1,220
$1,220
$69,138
$17,850
$51,354
$2,280
$40,000
$4,600
$215,742
Installation
Shore Power Brkr
Switchboard Mods
Painting/gallon
Testing
3
1
1
1
1
900
3
1
1
$34,976
$37,608
$288,326
$441,875
132,563
574,000
March 30, 2004
ENVIRON
TANKER VESSEL "CHEVRON WASHINGTON"
Material
Quantity
Labor Man
Hours Total Labor
Material
Cost/Unit
Material
Cost
Material &
Expenses
Test Procedures
Commissioning
1
1
1
410
680
200
410
680
200
$65
$50
$65
$26,650
$34,000
$13,000
$13,478
$200
$20
$13,478
$200
$20
$40,128
$34,200
$13,020
1
1
1
60
80
60
80
$65
$65
$3,900
$5,200
$82,750
$25,000
$20
$4,099
$42,817
$25,000
$20
$4,099
$42,817
$25,000
$3,920
$9,299
$125,567
24
16
16
24
250
0.5
16
48
16
16
24
250
125
48
$45
$45
$45
$45
$45
$45
$45
$1,080
$720
$720
$1,080
$11,250
$5,625
$2,160
80
80
$45
$3,600
$26,235
$9,000
$500
$500
$53,558
$3,100
$30
$40
$15,000
$10
$81,738
$18,000
$500
$500
$53,558
$3,100
$7,440
$120
$15,000
$500
$98,718
$19,080
$1,220
$1,220
$54,638
$14,350
$13,065
$2,280
$15,000
$4,100
$124,953
Installation
Shore Power Brkr
Switchboard Mods
Painting/gallon
Testing
2
1
1
1
1
250
3
1
1
$19,744
$21,704
$166,401
$291,968
87,590
380,000
March 30, 2004
ENVIRON
INTEGRATED TUG BARGE "GROTON"
Material
Quantity
Labor Man
Hours Total Labor
Material
Cost/Unit
Material
Cost
Material &
Expenses
Test Procedures
Commissioning
1
1
1
232
630
140
232
630
140
$65
$50
$65
$15,080
$31,500
$9,100
$7,140
$200
$20
$7,140
$200
$20
$22,220
$31,700
$9,120
1
1
1
40
80
40
80
$65
$65
$2,600
$5,200
$63,480
$20,000
$20
$2,628
$30,008
$20,000
$20
$2,628
$30,008
$20,000
$2,620
$7,828
$93,488
2
1
1
1
1
200
2
1
2
16
16
16
250
0.5
16
80
4
16
16
16
250
100
32
80
$45
$45
$45
$45
$45
$45
$45
$45
$90
$720
$720
$720
$11,250
$4,500
$1,440
$3,600
$23,040
$5,000
$500
$500
$9,798
$1,100
$15
$40
$10
$16,963
$10,000
$500
$500
$9,798
$1,100
$3,036
$80
$500
$25,514
$10,090
$1,220
$1,220
$10,518
$12,350
$7,536
$1,520
$4,100
$48,554
Installation
Shore Power Brkr
Switchboard Mods
Painting/gallon
Testing
$5,103
$8,049
$61,705
$155,193
46,558
202,000
March 30, 2004
ENVIRON
TANKER VESSEL "ALASKAN FRONTIER"
Material
Quantity
Labor Man
Hours Total Labor
Material
Cost/Unit
Material
Cost
Material &
Expenses
Test Procedures
Commissioning
1
1
1
410
680
200
410
680
200
$65
$50
$65
$26,650
$34,000
$13,000
$13,478
$200
$20
$13,478
$200
$20
$40,128
$34,200
$13,020
1
1
1
60
80
60
80
$65
$65
$3,900
$5,200
$82,750
$25,000
$20
$4,099
$42,817
$25,000
$20
$4,099
$42,817
$25,000
$3,920
$9,299
$125,567
24
16
16
24
250
0.5
16
72
16
16
24
250
300
48
$45
$45
$45
$45
$45
$45
$45
$1,080
$720
$720
$1,080
$11,250
$13,500
$2,160
80
80
$45
$3,600
$34,110
$9,000
$500
$500
$68,058
$3,100
$35
$40
$15,000
$10
$96,243
$27,000
$500
$500
$68,058
$3,100
$20,736
$120
$15,000
$500
$135,514
$28,080
$1,220
$1,220
$69,138
$14,350
$34,236
$2,280
$15,000
$4,100
$169,624
Installation
Shore Power Brkr
Switchboard Mods
Painting/gallon
Testing
3
1
1
1
1
600
3
1
1
$27,103
$29,509
$226,236
$351,803
105,541
457,000
March 30, 2004
EN VIRON
BULK CARRIER VESSEL "ANSAC HARMONY"
Material
Quantity
Labor Man
Hours Total Labor
Material
Cost/Unit
Material
Cost
Material &
Expenses
Test Procedures
Commissioning
1
1
1
232
680
200
232
680
200
$65
$50
$65
$15,080
$34,000
$13,000
$7,140
$200
$20
$7,140
$200
$20
$22,220
$34,200
$13,020
1
1
1
60
80
60
80
$65
$65
$3,900
$5,200
$71,180
$25,000
$20
$4,099
$36,479
$25,000
$20
$4,099
$36,479
$25,000
$3,920
$9,299
$107,659
2
16
16
16
250
0.5
16
6
16
16
16
250
300
48
$45
$45
$45
$45
$45
$45
$45
$90
$720
$720
$720
$11,250
$13,500
$2,160
80
80
$45
$3,600
$32,760
$5,000
$500
$500
$17,683
$1,100
$15
$40
$15,000
$10
$39,848
$15,000
$500
$500
$17,683
$1,100
$9,108
$120
$15,000
$500
$59,511
$15,090
$1,220
$1,220
$18,403
$12,350
$22,608
$2,280
$15,000
$4,100
$92,271
Installation
Shore Power Brkr
Switchboard Mods
Painting/gallon
Testing
3
1
1
1
1
600
3
1
1
$11,902
$15,626
$119,799
$227,458
68,237
296,000
March 30, 2004
ENVIRON
VEHICLE CARRIER VESSEL "PYXIS"
Material
Quantity
Labor Man
Hours Total Labor
Material
Cost/Unit
Material
Cost
Material &
Expenses
Test Procedures
Commissioning
1
1
1
410
680
160
410
680
160
$65
$50
$65
$26,650
$34,000
$10,400
$13,478
$200
$20
$13,478
$200
$20
$40,128
$34,200
$10,420
1
1
1
60
80
60
80
$65
$65
$3,900
$5,200
$80,150
$25,000
$20
$4,099
$42,817
$25,000
$20
$4,099
$42,817
$25,000
$3,920
$9,299
$122,967
6
1
1
1
1
1500
3
1
2
16
16
16
250
0.5
16
80
12
16
16
16
250
750
48
80
$45
$45
$45
$45
$45
$45
$45
$45
$90
$720
$720
$720
$11,250
$33,750
$2,160
$3,600
$53,010
$5,000
$500
$500
$42,050
$1,100
$15
$40
$10
$49,215
$30,000
$500
$500
$42,050
$1,100
$22,770
$120
$500
$97,540
$30,090
$1,220
$1,220
$42,770
$12,350
$56,520
$2,280
$4,100
$150,550
Installation
Shore Power Brkr
Switchboard Mods
Painting/gallon
Testing
$19,508
$25,509
$195,567
$318,534
95,560
414,000
March 30, 2004
ENVIRON
GENERAL CARGO CARRIER VESSEL "THORSEGGEN"
Material
Quantity
Labor Man
Hours Total Labor
Material
Cost/Unit
Material
Cost
Material &
Expenses
Test Procedures
Commissioning
1
1
1
232
630
140
232
630
140
$65
$50
$65
$15,080
$31,500
$9,100
$7,140
$200
$20
$7,140
$200
$20
$22,220
$31,700
$9,120
1
1
1
40
80
40
80
$65
$65
$2,600
$5,200
$63,480
$20,000
$20
$2,628
$30,008
$20,000
$20
$2,628
$30,008
$20,000
$2,620
$7,828
$93,488
3
1
1
1
1
390
2
1
2
16
16
16
250
0.5
16
80
6
16
16
16
250
195
32
80
$45
$45
$45
$45
$45
$45
$45
$45
$90
$720
$720
$720
$11,250
$8,775
$1,440
$3,600
$27,315
$5,000
$500
$500
$17,683
$1,100
$15
$40
$10
$24,848
$15,000
$500
$500
$17,683
$1,100
$5,920
$80
$500
$41,283
$15,090
$1,220
$1,220
$18,403
$12,350
$14,695
$1,520
$4,100
$68,598
Installation
Shore Power Brkr
Switchboard Mods
Painting/gallon
Testing
$8,257
$11,528
$88,383
$181,871
54,561
236,000
March 30, 2004
ENVIRON
APPENDIX G
Feeder Routes to Terminals
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 12.5kV 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 -1
E N VI R O N
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 ext end 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 meteredswitch 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 -2
E N VI R O N
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.
G -3
E N VI R O N
M
M
M
M
APPENDIX H
SCE Infrastructure Costs Estimate
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.
Location
Hinson Sub
Hinson SubPico Sub
Steel Pole
Pico Sub
Pico Sub
Table H-1. SCE Cost Descriptions
Description
Misc 66 kV buss work and circuit breaker
66 kV Transmission Line, wood pole
construction - $250,000 per mile
66 kV Transmission Line at Pico Sub
66 kV Termination Structure – Grade A
construction, safety factor 4
Transformer - Pad mounted 66 kV – 12.5 kV
– 28 MVA
Misc. buss work – 66 kV
Misc. buss work – 12.5 kV
12.5 kV switchgear - open construction
12.5 kV Feeder – Berths J232, G12, and F8
$150/Ft Trench/Conduit + $35/Ft Cable
12.5 kV Feeder – Berth H4
12.5 kV Feeder – Berth E24
12.5 kV Feeder – Berths B78, B83, B84
12.5 kV Feeder – Berths D54, C62
12.5 kV Feeder – Berth T121
12.5 kV Feeder – Berth T136
Pico Sub
Pico Sub
Pico Sub
12.5 kV
Distribution
12.5 kV
Distribution
12.5 kV
Distribution
12.5 kV
Distribution
12.5 kV
Distribution
12.5 kV
Distribution
12.5 kV
Distribution
Sub-Total:
Contingency: 30%
Total Cost:
Quantity
1 LS
4 Miles
Cost
$100,000
$1,000,000
1 EA
1 LS
$190,000
$100,000
1 EA
$450,000
1 LS
1 LS
1 LS
9,000 Ft
$200,000
$200,000
$500,000
$1,665,000
6,400 Ft
$1,184,000
2,400 Ft
$450,000
6,400 Ft
$1,184,000
5,200 Ft
$962,000
6,400 Ft
$1,184,000
10,400 Ft
$1,924,000
$11,293,000
$3,388,000
$14,681,000
H -1
E N VI R O N
APPENDIX I
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
Light hull displacement
Size
LOA = 76 ft
Beam= 30 ft,
D=1.5 ft
21’ x 5’
Weight (lbs)
Oil Filled Transformer with
56,400
Primary Section
Secondary Switchgear and Main
16’ x 12’
Included with
Breaker
Transformer Above
Deckhouse w/ store room and WC
8’ x 12’ x 16’
8,000
beneath
Fresh Water
200 gallons
1,500
Parts and Rigging
2,000
Deck Gear
6,000
Boom Platform
12’ x 16’ x 8’
6,000
Hydraulic Boom and Turn Table
13,000
Cable Reel Platform
8’ x 8’ x 8’
3,500
Cable Reel and Turn Table
5,000
400 BHP Diesel Eng.
2,090
(2) 15kW Generator
4,500
Hydraulic Power Pack and System
10,000
Diesel Fuel
400 gallons
2,500
(4) Hydraulic Thrusters
8,500
(4) Anchors w/ Chain
2,000 lb nom.
12,000
Miscellaneous
5,000
Total Tonnage
Notes: (1) from Ch LBD/34.4, where Ch (blocking coefficient) assumed as 0.90
Metric Tons
90.0(1)
26.0
-4.0
1.0
1.0
3.0
3.0
6.0
2.0
2.5
1.0
2.0
4.5
1.0
4.0
5.0
2.0
158.0
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- 1
E N VI R O N
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
$158,000
$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
$115,300
$115,300
$115,300
Unit
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- 2
E N VI R O N
Equipment & Structure
Sub Total
Shipyard Support per Material Cost
Sub Total
Shipyard Profit
Sub Total
Contingency
Sub Total
Naval Architecture & Fabrication Oversight
Total Fabrication Costs
20%
15%
30%
10%
Length x Beam x Molded Depth (ft)
69x30x6
71x30x6
76x30x6
$914,600
$1,038,000
$1,123,000
$182,920
$207,600
$224,600
$1,097,520
$1,245,600
$1,347,600
$164,630
$186,840
$202,140
$1,262,150
$1,432,440
$1,549,740
$378,644
$429,732
$464,922
$1,640,792
$1,862,172
$2,014,622
$164,079
$186,217
$201,466
$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 bimonthly 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
As-need
Bi- monthly inspections
Total Cost
Hourly Rate
$184.72
$122.75
Total Hours
40
12
Labor Cost/Year
$7,388
$1,473
$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- 3
E N VI R O N
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
Energize/De-energize
Substation
Hourly Rate
Total Hours
$132.00
8
Labor Cost/
Vessel Call
$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- 4
E N VI R O N
repairs, a simplified annualized cost, which would include fuel, licensing, and insurance would be
about $4,000/year.
I- 5
E N VI R O N
APPENDIX J
Appendix J. Cost Effectiveness of Cold Ironing
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Average
Totals
VICTORIA
BRIDGE
HANJIN
PARIS
LIHUE
OOCL
CALIFORNIA
CHIQUITA
JOY
ECSTASY
CHEVRON
WASHINGTON
GROTON
ALASKAN
FRONTIER
ANSAC
HARMONY
PYXIS
THORSEGGEN
All Ships
All Ships
Category
Container
Container
Container
Container
Reefer
Cruise
Tanker
Integrated Tug
Barge
Tanker
Dry Bulk
Roll-on Roll-off
Break Bulk
NA
NA
Vessel IMO Number
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
Service Years Remaining
10
9
5
8
6
3
5
5
15
10
5
5
7.2
86
Annual Port Calls
10
10
16
8
25
52
16
24
15
1
9
21
16.2
207
Vessel Name
Year Built
(2)
Berth Number
J232
T136
C62
F8
E24
H4
B84
B78
T121
G212
B83
D54
NA
NA
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
$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
$13,943,000
Initial Capital Cost
($)
(3) Work-barge
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
$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
Landside Net Operating Cost
Interest rate (%)
Period
(year)
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
$3,979,000
Replacement Ship Future-to-Present factor ( 4%, current ship
life)
Net Present Value of Initial Shipside Cost for replacement Ship
($)
Shipside (current ship and
Net Present Value of
replacement ship))
Operating Cost
($/yr)
Landside
Combined Net Present Value
($)
Cost Effectiveness
($/ton)
Annual Power Consumption (MW-hrs)
Ranking
(1)
NOX
Annual Emission
Reduction
(tons/year)
Operating Cost
($/yr)
3
$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
$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 $50 per container.
March 30, 2004
ENVIRON
APPENDIX K
Purchased Power Costs Estimate
Appendix K. Purchased Power Costs
(Estimated By SCE)
Vessel Name
Vessel IMO Number
Berth
Average Berth Time (hrs)
Transferring Time (hrs/call)
Total calls per year
Average Power Demand at Berth (kW)
Max. Power Demand at Berth (kW)
Total Annual kW-hr
Annual Purchased Power Cost ($/yr)
Power Price ($/Kw-hr)
March 30, 2004
1
VICTORIA
BRIDGE
9184926
J232
44
1.5
10
600
700
256,800
$79,000
$0.3073
2
3
HANJIN PARIS
LIHUE
9128128
T136
63
1.5
10
4,800
4,800
2,952,000
$485,000
$0.1644
7105471
C62
50
1.5
16
1,700
1,700
1,319,200
$329,000
$0.2490
4
OOCL
CALIFORNIA
9102289
F8
121
1.5
8
5,208
5,208
5,003,846
$1,203,021
$0.2404
5
6
CHIQUITA JOY
ECSTASY
9038945
E24
68
1.5
25
3,500
3,500
5,818,750
$1,067,000
$0.1837
8711344
H4
12
1.5
52
7,000
7,000
3,822,000
$1,052,000
$0.2752
7
CHEVRON
WASHINGTON
7391226
B84
32
1.5
16
2,300
2,300
1,052,250
$302,000
$0.2872
8
GROTON
7901928
B78
56
1.5
24
300
300
392,400
$85,000
$0.2162
9
ALASKAN
FRONTIER
Not Available
T121
33
1.5
15
3,780
7,800
1,786,050
$504,000
$0.2823
10
ANSAC
HARMONY
9181508
G212
60
1.5
1
600
600
35,100
$24,000
$0.6856
11
12
PYXIS
THORSEGGEN
8514083
B83
17
1.5
9
1,510
1,510
216,081
$109,000
$0.5060
8116063
D54
48
1.5
21
600
600
585,900
$132,000
$0.2257
ENVIRON
APPENDIX L
Cost Effectiveness of Alternative Control Technologies
Appendix L. Cost Effectiveness of Alternative Control Technologies
Retrofitting with LNG/Dual Fuel Engine
VOC
Vessel Name
Victoria Bridge
Hanjin Paris
Lihue
OOCL California
Chiquita Joy
Ecstasy
Chevron Washington
Groton
Alaskan Frontier
Ansac Harmony
Pyxis
Thorseggen
Potential Emission Impacts
CO
NOx
Short Tons/yr
3.78
53.93
4.10
73.54
85.46
69.33
7.41
4.30
25.34
0.54
3.18
8.60
PM
90%
NOx
Short Tons/yr
3.40
48.54
3.69
66.19
76.92
62.40
6.67
3.87
22.81
0.48
2.86
7.74
94%
PM10
Fuel Type
Fuel Cons Incr.
Fuel Cost
HFO
HFO
HFO
HFO
HFO
HFO
MGO
MGO
HFO
HFO
HFO
MGO
(Metric Tons/yr)
17
197
111
333
387
253
99
26
119
2.4
14
39
0.04
0.65
0.10
0.74
0.86
0.83
0.09
0.12
0.39
0.01
0.03
0.09
NA
VOC
0.70
2.27
0.40
13.65
15.86
2.92
0.11
0.64
1.38
0.10
0.59
1.60
NA
CO
Vessel Name
Victoria Bridge
Hanjin Paris
Lihue
OOCL California
Chiquita Joy
Ecstasy
Chevron Washington
Groton
Alaskan Frontier
Ansac Harmony
Pyxis
Thorseggen
Technology Costs $
Fuel Penalty
Fuel Cost (MGO) - $/metric ton
Fuel Cost (HFO) - $/metric ton
184
30%
303
163
Capital Cost
Vessel Name
Victoria Bridge
Hanjin Paris
Lihue
OOCL California
Chiquita Joy
Ecstasy
Chevron Washington
Groton
Alaskan Frontier
Ansac Harmony
Pyxis
Thorseggen
March 30, 2004
($)
998,240
1,394,600
495,450
1,541,400
1,031,270
1,937,760
477,100
238,550
4,624,200
229,375
396,360
385,350
SOx
0.43
4.93
3.64
8.36
9.72
6.34
0.29
0.10
2.98
0.06
0.36
0.15
3.51
40.36
22.80
68.43
79.53
51.89
1.45
0.38
24.42
0.50
2.96
0.57
Fuel Cons.
Metric Ton/yr
57
655
371
1,111
1,291
842
330
87
397
8
48
130
Power
kW-hr/yr
256,728
2,951,631
1,323,864
5,003,864
5,815,374
3,794,694
1,122,888
390,575
1,786,050
36,563
216,594
585,225
Generators (kW)
5440
7600
2700
8400
5620
10560
2600
1300
25200
1250
2160
2100
99%
SOx
0.40
4.64
3.42
7.86
9.13
5.96
0.27
0.09
2.81
0.06
0.34
0.14
3.48
39.96
22.57
67.75
78.73
51.37
1.44
0.38
24.18
0.49
2.93
0.57
SCAQMD BACT Cost Criteria
Pollutant
$/ton reduced
NOX
$18,300
PM10
$4,300
SO2
$9,700
CO
$380
VOC
$19,400
per kw
($ per year)
2,778
31,944
18,086
54,161
62,937
41,068
29,959
7,869
19,330
396
2,344
11,790
Total NPV Cost Cost-Effectiveness
($)
1,021,000
1,682,000
576,000
1,906,000
1,361,000
2,052,000
610,000
274,000
4,849,000
233,000
407,000
438,000
Average
($/ton of all)
14,000
2,000
4,000
2,000
1,000
6,000
15,000
13,000
10,000
22,000
13,000
10,000
9,000
Cost Effectiness
Threshold
Cost-effective ?
($/ton)
15,000
15,000
15,000
15,000
15,000
15,000
15,000
15,000
15,000
15,000
15,000
15,000
(Yes/No)
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
ENVIRON
Use of MGO Diesel Fuel
HC
Vessel Name
Victoria Bridge
Hanjin Paris
Lihue
OOCL California
Chiquita Joy
Ecstasy
Chevron Washington
Groton
Alaskan Frontier
Ansac Harmony
Pyxis
Thorseggen
CO
0.04
0.65
0.10
0.74
0.86
0.83
0.09
0.12
0.39
0.01
0.03
0.09
NA
HC
0.70
2.27
0.40
13.65
15.86
2.92
0.11
0.64
1.38
0.10
0.59
1.60
NA
CO
Vessel Name
Victoria Bridge
Hanjin Paris
Lihue
OOCL California
Chiquita Joy
Ecstasy
Chevron Washington
Groton
Alaskan Frontier
Ansac Harmony
Pyxis
Thorseggen
One-Time Fuel Switching Cost
March 30, 2004
PM
NA
NOx
Short Tons/yr
85%
PM
SOx
0.43
4.93
3.64
8.36
9.72
6.34
0.29
0.10
2.98
0.06
0.36
0.15
3.51
40.36
22.80
68.43
79.53
51.89
1.45
0.38
24.42
0.50
2.96
0.57
Fuel Cons.
Metric Tons/yr
57
655
371
1,111.00
1,291
842
330
87
397
8
48
130
Power
kW-hr
256728
2951631
1323864
5,003,864.00
5815374
3794694
1122888
390575
1786050
36563
216594
585225
90%
SOx
0.36
4.19
3.09
7.11
8.26
5.39
NA
NA
3.16
36.33
20.52
61.59
71.57
46.70
Pollutant
NOX
PM10
SO2
CO
VOC
NA
NA
2.54
0.05
0.31
NA
21.98
0.45
2.67
NA
50,000
303
163
Capital Cost
Vessel Name
Victoria Bridge
Hanjin Paris
Lihue
OOCL California
Chiquita Joy
Ecstasy
Chevron Washington
Groton
Alaskan Frontier
Ansac Harmony
Pyxis
Thorseggen
NOx
Short Tons/yr
3.78
53.93
4.10
73.54
85.46
69.33
7.41
4.30
25.34
0.54
3.18
8.60
($)
50,000
50,000
50,000
50,000
50,000
50,000
NA
NA
50,000
50,000
50,000
NA
Fuel Type
HFO
HFO
HFO
HFO
HFO
HFO
MGO
MGO
HFO
HFO
HFO
MGO
Fuel Cost Incr
($ per year)
7,979
91,737
51,940
155,540
180,742
117,939
NA
NA
55,510
1,136
6,732
NA
Total NPV Cost Cost-Effectiveness
($)
115,000
732,000
281,000
1,097,000
997,000
377,000
NA
NA
500,000
59,000
80,000
NA
Average
($/ton of all)
3,000
2,000
2,000
2,000
2,000
2,000
NA
NA
2,000
12,000
5,000
NA
4,000
Cost Effectiness
Threshold
Cost-effective ?
($/ton)
15,000
15,000
15,000
15,000
15,000
15,000
NA
NA
15,000
15,000
15,000
NA
(Yes/No)
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
NA
NA
Yes
Yes
Yes
NA
ENVIRON
Use of Emulsified Diesel Fuel
HC
Vessel Name
Victoria Bridge
Hanjin Paris
OOCL California
Chiquita Joy
Ecstasy
Chevron Washington
Groton
Alaskan Frontier
Ansac Harmony
Pyxis
Thorseggen
Vessel Name
Victoria Bridge
Hanjin Paris
OOCL California
Chiquita Joy
Ecstasy
Chevron Washington
Groton
Alaskan Frontier
Ansac Harmony
Pyxis
Thorseggen
One-Time Fuel Switching Cost $
Off Shore Refueling Station/Service Barge $
Fuel Penalty
Vessel Name
Victoria Bridge
Hanjin Paris
OOCL California
Chiquita Joy
Ecstasy
Chevron Washington
Groton
Alaskan Frontier
Ansac Harmony
Pyxis
Thorseggen
March 30, 2004
CO
0.04
0.65
0.74
0.86
0.83
0.09
0.12
0.39
0.01
0.03
0.09
25%
VOC
0.70
2.27
13.65
15.86
2.92
0.11
0.64
1.38
0.10
0.59
1.60
NA
CO
0.01
0.16
0.19
0.21
0.21
0.02
0.03
0.10
0.00
0.01
0.02
NOx
Short Tons/yr
3.78
53.93
73.54
85.46
69.33
7.41
4.30
25.34
0.54
3.18
8.60
PM
14%
NOx
Short Tons/yr
0.53
7.55
10.30
11.96
9.71
1.04
0.60
3.55
0.08
0.45
1.20
63%
PM10
SOx
0.43
4.93
8.36
9.72
6.34
0.29
0.10
2.98
0.06
0.36
0.15
3.51
40.36
68.43
79.53
51.89
1.45
0.38
24.42
0.50
2.96
0.57
Fuel Cons.
Metric Tons/yr
57
655
1,111
1,291
842
330
87
397
8
48
130
18%
SOx
0.41
4.66
7.90
9.18
5.99
0.18
0.06
2.82
0.06
0.34
0.09
Power
kW-hr/yr
256,728
2,951,631
5,003,864
5,815,374
3,794,694
1,122,888
390,575
1,786,050
36,563
216,594
585,225
Pollutant
$/ton reduced
NOX
$18,300
PM10
$4,300
CO
$380
VOC
$19,400
3.16
36.33
61.59
71.57
46.70
21.98
0.45
2.67
-
50,000
450,000
43%
303
163
Capital Cost
($)
500,000
500,000
500,000
500,000
500,000
500,000
500,000
500,000
500,000
500,000
500,000
Fuel Type
HFO
HFO
HFO
HFO
HFO
MGO
MGO
HFO
HFO
HFO
MGO
Fuel Cons Incr.
(Metric Tons/yr)
24
278
472
549
358
140
37
169
3.4
20
55
Fuel Cost
($ per year)
7,327
84,242
142,833
165,976
108,304
42,442
11,147
50,975
1,044
6,182
16,703
Total NPV Cost
($)
559,000
1,257,000
1,462,000
1,370,000
801,000
689,000
550,000
913,000
508,000
528,000
574,000
Average
CostEffectiveness
($/ton of all)
14,000
3,000
2,000
2,000
4,000
111,000
159,000
3,000
87,000
31,000
87,000
42,000
Cost Effectiness
Threshold
Cost-effective ?
($/ton)
15,000
15,000
15,000
15,000
15,000
15,000
15,000
15,000
15,000
15,000
15,000
(Yes/No)
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
ENVIRON

Cold-Ironing Cost Effectiveness Study Volume I

Transcription

Similar documents

“Gardian 1″ – 20m Catamaran

The Heart

50` 3” Cheoy Lee 1984 - Chapman School of Seamanship

19` 4” AMF/Crestliner 1980 $2200

VESSEL MOVEMENTS- FOR MARITIME SECURITY AND

Grandweld | Waves - Stanford Marine Group

No.15 | May 2012

PNWA 2013 USCG MSU Portland

Web Brochure Jun15 - Orams Marine Sales

Catalogue