MEMORANDUM

TO: Ron Jordan, EPA

FROM: Joy Abel, ERG 

DATE: September 10, 2004 

SUBJECT: Analysis of UNDS Bilgewater Data 

1.0 BACKGROUND

 The purpose of this memorandum is to describe the analyses that were performed 

using the available UNDS bilgewater data provided by EPA. EPA requested that ERG perform 

the following technical analyses: 

(1) Conduct an assessment of the available data to determine whether there is 

sufficient information on whether the operation of the OCM achieves effluent 

values below 15 ppm SGT-HEM and can be relied upon as the technology basis 

for the performance standard; 

(2) Identify any instances where the oil content monitor (OCM) caused the 

effluent to be recirculated and provide the SGT-HEM concentration of the 

effluent that was recirculated; 

(3) Review the UNDS sampling data and other relevant reports to determine 

whether instances have occurred where bilgewater has been discharged with 

effluent levels exceeding 15 parts per million (ppm) SGT-HEM; and 

 

(4) Review sampling data to compare the effluent characteristics of Navy oilwater separators (OWS) and OWS/ultrafiltration (UF) membrane systems. 

 This memorandum presents a description of the available sampling data, 

discussion of the data used in the analyses, analysis of the available bilgewater data to determine 

the performance of the OCM, and analysis of the available bilgewater to compare the 

performance of the OWS and OWS/UF systems. 

1.1 Overview of Available UNDS Sampling Data
 Data were available from two sources: (1) Navy shipboard sampling collected in 

1999 and 2000, and (2) Navy supplied comparison of OCM readings and SGT-HEM 

concentrations. Table 1 presents the ship names, episode numbers, and number of sampling days 

for the Navy shipboard sampling data collected in 1999 through 2000. 

Table 1. Ship Name, Episode, and Number of Sampling Days for

 Navy Shipboard Sampling 

Ship Name Episode Sampling Dates Number of Sampling Days

USS Carney Episode 6225 5/18/99; 5/20/99; 

6/1/99; 6/3/99 

4

USS Carney Episode 6290 9/18/00; 9/22/00; 

9/26/00; 10/23/00 

4

USS Mahan Episode 6232 6/15/99; 6/17/99; 

6/29/99; 6/30/99 

4

USS Rushmore Episode 6283 9/26/00; 10/17/00; 

11/17/00; 12/13/00 

4

USS Oak Hill Episode 6241B 11/16/99; 11/17/99 2

USCGC Morganthau Episode 6244 8/31/99; 9/7/99; 

11/13/99; 11/17/99 

4

USS Bonhomme Richard Episode 6260 12/8/99; 12/11/99a; 

12/14/99a; 12/16/99 

4

USS David R. Ray Episode 6266 1/11/00; 1/12/00; 

1/15/00; 2/8/00 

4

a

 On the sampling date 12/11/99, one sample was collected on 12/10/99, and on the sampling date 12/14/99, one 

sample was collected on 12/13/99.

 According to the Sampling Episode Reports (SERs) for these vessels, the USS 

Oak Hill, USCGC Morganthau, USS Bonhomme Richard, and USS David R. Ray are equipped 

with OWS systems, and the USS Carney, USS Mahan, and USS Rushmore are equipped with 

OWS/UF systems. Samples were collected at both the influent and effluent from the OWS and 

UF (where applicable). The effluent from these systems was either discharged overboard, or 

recirculated to the OWS for further treatment. Multiple grab samples (typically three grab 

samples) were collected over a 24-hour period at each sampling point. 

 In addition, the Navy supplied a comparison of OCM data and SGT-HEM 

effluent concentrations. This comparison is comprised of data from the Navy First Article 

Testing of the OCM and five non-UNDS vessel tests: 

· Navy First Article Testing of the OCM Data: The Navy supplied 

laboratory test data collected in April 1990 to determine compliance of the 

OCM with the Procurement Contract Specifications. 
· USS Gonzalez (DDG 66) and USS Ross (DDG 71): These data were 

collected from March - September 2000 to demonstrate an upgraded Oil 

Pollution Abatement (OPA) system. 

· USS Princeton (CG 59): These data were collected (dates unknown) to 

demonstrate an upgraded OPA system. 

· USS Arleigh Burke (DDG 51): These data were collected from August 

2003 - January 2004 to demonstrate an upgraded OPA system. 

· USS Wasp (LHD 1): These data were collected from March - September 

2000 to demonstrate an upgraded OPA system. 

 According to the demonstration plans for upgraded OPA systems for the vessels 

listed above, all of these vessels were equipped with OWS systems. 

 Attachment 1 presents the available UNDS bilgewater data from the Navy 

shipboard sampling and Navy supplied comparison of OCM readings and SGT-HEM 

concentrations. Some of the data in Attachment 1 were excluded from the analyses presented in 

Sections 2.0 and 3.0 because the data were collected when the OCM setpoint was 70 ppm. These 

data were excluded because EPA is interested in the performance of the OCM when the vessels 

were in port and the OCM setpoint was 15 ppm. In addition, the data from USS Carney, Episode 

6225 were not used in any analyses because the OWS effluent bypassed the UF system. 

1.2 Overview of Analytical Methods

 It is important to note that different analytical methods were used to determine the 

oil and grease concentrations presented in Attachment 1. For the Navy shipboard sampling data, 

samples were analyzed for n-Hexane Extractable Material (HEM) using EPA Method 1664 and 

Silica Gel Treated n-Hexane Extractable Material (SGT-HEM) via Method 1664. HEM and 

SGT-HEM are indicator pollutants for oil and grease and non-polar oil and grease, respectively. 

For the Navy supplied comparison of OCM readings and SGT-HEM concentrations, the samples 

collected for the Navy First Article Testing of the OCM Data, USS Gonzalez, and USS Ross 

were analyzed for total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) using EPA Method 418.1 and the 

samples for USS Princeton, USS Arleigh Burke, and USS Wasp were analyzed for SGT-HEM 

using EPA Method 1664. The SGT-HEM (Method 1664) and TPH (Method 418.1) 

concentrations were used in the analyses described in Sections 2.0 and 3.0 because these are the 

analytes that the Navy used to validate the OCM readings. However, it is important to note that 

there can be differences in the results produced using Methods 418.1 and 1664, as discussed 

below: 

· The results from Method 1664 for SGT-HEM should be similar to the 

418.1 results for heavier hydrocarbons, but not for the lighter/volatile 

constituents in the gasoline range because Method 1664 requires that the 

solvent be evaporated prior to analysis 
(www.phaseonline.com/tech_updates/phasefact_06.html). According to 

the EEAR, diesel fuel marine (DFM) and JP-5 fuel are typical oily 

constituents in bilgewater. JP-5 fuel is a very light fuel with volatile 

components, which is expected to be affected by Method 1664. DFM is a 

heavy hydrocarbon and should not be effected by evaporation.

· According to contacts at EPA’s Office of Water, the results from EPA 

Methods 1664 and 418.1 are not comparable because of the different ways 

these methods extract the compounds. 

· EPA Method 1664 has an average recovery of 93 percent for HEM and 89 

percent for SGT-HEM and precision of 8.7 percent for HEM and 13 

percent for SGT-HEM 

(http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/methods/1664f051.html). 

· Total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH), which is measured using Method 

418.1, may or may not be equivalent to SGT-HEM. Method 418.1 does 

not use the same extraction method and it quantifies TPH using infrared 

analysis (1664 results are determined gravimetricly). The materials 

captured by Method 418.1 may include or exclude organic compounds 

that are part of SGT-HEM using Method 1664, and vice versa. Therefore, 

it is not accurate to say conclusively that TPH is equivalent to SGT-HEM 

(Analytical Method Guidance for EPA Method 1664A Implementation and 

Use (40 CFR Part 136)). 

· Based on results from EPA’s Freon Replacement Studies, on average, nhexane extracted approximately 96% of the oil and grease extracted using 

Freon 113. This 4% difference is not statistically significant based on the 

± 20% variability of the test methods (e.g., 15 ppm ± 3 ppm). However, 

these test methods may not generate comparable results. “Oil content” is a 

method-defined analyte, meaning that the definition of oil content is 

dependent on the procedure used (Consideration of Oil and Grease Test 

Methods for CDNSWC). 

Based on this information, the results of samples analyzed with Method 418.1 and Method 1664 

may not be comparable. However, both of these EPA methods provide an indication of whether 

oil and grease is present in the bilgewater effluent. EPA Method 418.1 was used only for some 

of the data sets provided in the Navy supplied comparison of OCM readings and SGT-HEM 

concentrations. For the evaluation of OCM performance (Section 2.0), EPA assumed that both 

EPA methods would be reasonable measurements of oil and grease to compare to the OCM 

readings. 

2.0 EVALUATION OF OCM PERFORMANCE
 The purpose of the OCM is to ensure that the effluent water meets the discharge 

requirements. For use by the Navy, the OCM is designed to alarm and activate a diverter valve 

when the oil concentrations are equal to or greater than 15 ± 5 ppm in port or 70 ± 30 ppm at sea. 

According to the Navy, these design specifications allow the OCM to be off by ± 5 ppm in port 

or ± 30 ppm at sea and still meet the established discharge requirements (i.e., 33 CFR 

151.10(b)(3) states that discharge of oil or oily mixtures is prohibited within 12 nautical miles of 

the nearest land, unless the oil content of the effluent without dilution does not exceed 15 ppm). 

The OCM measures the oil content in the effluent by increasing the turbidity of the sample by 

means of ultrasonic emulsification. The turbidity increase of the sample is proportional to the oil 

concentration, which is electronically converted to ppm (Navy First Article Testing of the Oil 

Content Monitor Model ET-35N). 

2.1 Description of OCM Data (Technical Analyses (2) and (3))

 OCM data were available from the Navy shipboard sampling and the Navy 

supplied comparison of OCM readings and SGT-HEM concentrations. The Navy shipboard 

sampling includes Navy collected samples of bilgewater on seven vessels during eight sampling 

episodes (i.e., USS Carney was sampled twice). The data from the first sampling episode (6225) 

for the USS Carney was not used in any analyses because the OWS effluent bypassed the UF 

system. As described in Section 1.1, data collected when the OCM setpoint equaled 70 ppm was 

excluded for the purposes of this memorandum. Therefore, OCM information was used from 

four sampling episodes (described later in this section): USS Carney, Episode 6290; USS Oak 

Hill, Episode 6241B; USS David R. Ray, Episode 6266, and USS Morganthau, Episode 6244. 

OCM information was not available for USS Rushmore, Episode 6283. These data are presented 

in Table A1-1 in Attachment A. 

 The Navy supplied comparison of OCM readings and SGT-HEM concentrations 

did not include descriptions of the sampling methodology for the five vessels. Therefore, detail 

on these data are not provided in this memorandum. However, a report was provided describing 

the Navy First Article Testing of the OCM, and a description of these data is provided later in 

this section. 

 It is important to note that in the Navy-supplied comparison of OCM data, the 

Navy provided “OCM corrected values.” The tables in Attachment 2 provide the OCM 

corrected values. In instances when the OCM warning light was illuminated, the Navy 

“adjusted” the OCM reading in the data tables and only used the adjusted OCM readings in the 

graphs. These adjusted values were set to equal the chemical analysis results or the alarm 

setpoint, whichever was larger. OCM warning lights illuminate due to interferences which may 

affect the OCM ppm reading or due to OCM malfunction. The Navy provided the actual OCM 

readings recorded and the associated OCM corrected values in the data tables. In ERG’s 

analyses described in Sections 2.2 and 2.3 of this memorandum, the OCM corrected values were 

never used. Attachment 3 presents the Navy graphs using the OCM corrected values as 

compared to the same graphs ERG prepared excluding the OCM corrected values and the 

associated data. 
USS Carney, Episode 6290

 This vessel treated the bilgewater with OWS and membrane filtration systems. 

Two OCMs were used onboard this vessel: one placed after the OWS and one after the 

membrane filtration system. Samples were collected while this vessel was at sea, but the OCM 

setpoint was 15 ppm (typically, the OCM setpoint would be 70 ppm at sea). 

 The OCM readings from the OWS do not appear to correlate to the OWS effluent 

SGT-HEM concentrations. In a many cases, the OCM reading was zero, while the SGT-HEM 

effluent concentration was in the 15 to 50 ppm range. Similarly, the UF OCM readings do not 

appear to consistently correlate to the UF effluent SGT-HEM concentrations. All of the effluent 

SGT-HEM concentrations were non-detect, but two of the OCM readings were above the 

detection limit (43 and 24 ppm). When the OCM readings were above 15 ppm, the diverter 

valve did recirculate the wastewater. Because the SGT-HEM sampling data from the UF system 

never exceeded 15 ppm, it is unknown whether the OCM would discharge effluent with SGTHEM greater than 15 ppm. 

USS Oak Hill, Episode 6241B

 This vessel treated the bilgewater with two OWS systems (AUX1 and AUX2). 

OCMs were used onboard this vessel after the OWS systems. OCM readings were taken during 

sampling on-board this vessel, but the diverter valve position was not recorded at the time the 

OCM readings were taken. Samples were collected while this vessel was in port, and the OCM 

setpoint was 15 ppm. 

 The OWS OCM readings were within 0% to 175% of the OWS SGT-HEM 

effluent concentration. Three of the 12 samples had OCM readings less than the effluent SGTHEM concentration (8 vs 12, 13 vs 21, and 11 vs 15). The SER notes that AUX1 was run in 

recirculation mode while AUX2 was allowed to discharge overboard on both sampling days. The 

recorded OCM results for AUX2 never exceeded 15 ppm, so presumably the AUX 2 effluent 

was discharged overboard throughout the sampling episode (presumed because diverter valve 

position was not recorded). However, since effluent SGT-HEM concentrations exceeded 15 ppm 

at least once during the sampling episode, presumably some bilgewater was discharged with 

effluent concentrations exceeding 15 ppm SGT-HEM. 

USS David R. Ray, Episode 6266

 This vessel treated the bilgewater with an OWS system. One OCM was used 

onboard this vessel after the OWS. OCM readings were not recorded during sampling on-board 

this vessel, but the diverter valve position was recorded. Samples were collected while this 

vessel was at sea, but the OCM setpoint was 15 ppm (typically, the OCM setpoint would be 70 

ppm at sea). 

 The SGT-HEM effluent concentrations ranged from <5 to 13 ppm, but never 
exceeded 15 ppm. No data were available to determine if the diverter valve position was in 

recirculation mode above 15 ppm effluent SGT-HEM because the effluent SGT-HEM 

concentrations were all less than 15 ppm. The diverter valve position was recirculating during 

10 of the 12 sample collections. For four of these samples, it was noted in the SER that the 

“OCM consistently switched between the recirculation mode and overboard discharge mode 

during the collection of samples.” 

USS Morganthau, Episode 6244

 This vessel treated the bilgewater with an OWS system. One OCM was used 

onboard this vessel after the OWS system. OCM readings were recorded during sampling onboard this vessel, but the diverter valve position was not recorded. Bilgewater samples were 

collected while this vessel was at sea, but the OCM setpoint was 15 ppm (typically, the OCM 

setpoint would be 70 ppm at sea). 

 The SER noted that there was high oil content in the OWS effluent on the first 

two days of sampling (SGT-HEM effluent concentrations ranged from 166 to 302 ppm), which 

may have been due to a dirty OWS, a poor OWS design, and/or the presence of synthetic oils in 

the system. Therefore, before sampling occurred on days 3 and 4, the OWS was flushed with 

seawater and the inlet strainer was cleaned. The SGT-HEM effluent concentrations ranged from 

17 to 66 ppm on days 3 and 4. The SER also noted that the OCM caused the discharge to 

alternate between overboard and recirculating during each sampling day. The warning light on 

the OCM was illuminated, indicating the OCM was dirty or the sample was cloudy. The OCM 

could not obtain accurate readings. Because all of the SGT-HEM effluent concentrations were 

greater than 15 ppm and the OCM caused the discharge to alternate between overboard and 

recirculating, it is possible that bilgewater was discharged overboard that had a SGT-HEM 

concentration greater than 15 ppm. 

Navy First Article Testing Data

 The data from the Navy First Article Testing of the OCM were used in the 

analysis of the OCM performance. However, these data alone do not necessarily provide an 

accurate representation of the OCM performance. This study tested the OCM using ideal 

conditions. Specifically, test oil (25% lube oil, 25% 9250 lube oil, and 50% diesel fuel marine) 

was injected into a disperser installed in the OWS effluent piping. The OWS was bypassed and 

the representative droplet size distributions were generated by the disperser, which was in the 

pipeline that flows into the OCM. In addition, this test does not demonstrate whether or not the 

OCM operates as designed when it nears the OCM setpoint. 

 There were four days of sampling, where 14 samples were collected on the first 

day and 13 samples were collected on each of the last three days. The first two days of sampling 

occurred with an OCM setpoint of 15 ppm, and the last two days of sampling occurred with an 

OCM setpoint of 70 ppm. Attachment 2, Table A2-1 presents the Navy First Article Testing data 

when the OCM setpoint was 15 ppm. These data show that the OCM operated as designed with 

effluent concentrations ≤12 ppm and ≥25 ppm with an OCM setpoint of 15 ppm. In addition, it 
operated properly with effluent concentrations ≤37 ppm and ≥103 ppm with an OCM setpoint of 

70 ppm. However, it appears that when the OCM is set to 15 ppm, the OCM reading 

underestimates the actual oil content concentration (using Method 418.1). OCM readings were 

within 0% to 39% of the effluent concentration (setpoint of 15 ppm). 

 These test data are insufficient to conclude whether or not the OCM performs as 

designed for the following reasons: 

· This test used artificial bilgewater; 

· This test was performed in the Oil Pollution Abatement test facility, not on 

board a vessel; and 

· This test does not demonstrate the performance of the OCM at oil 

concentrations between 12 and 25 ppm. 

2.2 Comparison of OCM Readings to Oil and Grease Effluent Concentrations

 All of the available OCM data from the Navy shipboard sampling and the Navysupplied comparison of OCM data and oil and grease effluent concentrations were combined to 

determine how the OCM readings correlate with the effluent oil and grease concentrations 

(measured as either TPH or SGT-HEM). The available OCM data and oil and grease effluent 

concentrations were obtained from the sampling episode reports, the Navy First Article Testing 

of the OCM Data, and the five vessel demonstration plans. In total, there were 125 samples 

collected with associated OCM readings at a setpoint of 15 ppm. 

 The following figures present the OCM readings compared to the effluent oil and 

grease concentrations when the OCM setpoint was 15 ppm. Each figure shows a line that 

represents a 1:1 correlation, a line that represents the linear regression, and two dashed lines that 

represent 15 ppm. Figure 1 presents all the data collected, including the actual OCM readings 

and oil and grease concentrations when an OCM corrected value was provided. Figure 2 

presents all the data, excluding data from 31 samples associated with OCM corrected values. 

For example, if an OCM corrected value was provided, the actual OCM reading and the oil and 

grease concentration were not included in Figure 2. For the SER data, there are instances where 

the OCM reading equaled zero (but chemical analysis results did not equal zero). Insufficient 

information was available regarding the OCM warning light status and the diverter valve 

position. To account for possible OCM malfunction/interference, EPA also analyzed the results 

with these data removed (18 samples), shown in Figure 3. 
Memorandum 

September 10, 2004 

Page 9 

Figure 1. Comparison of OCM Readings to Chemical Analysis 

Results (Setpoint = 15)

R

2

 = 0.0012

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

Chemical Analysis Results (ppm)

OCM Readings (ppm)

(Note: Data Associated with OCM Corrected Values Were Excluded)

R

2

 = 0.0084

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

Chemical Analysis Results (ppm)

OCM Read ni gs (ppm)
Memorandum 

September 10, 2004 

Page 10 

 As shown in these figures, the data show that there is no correlation between the 

OCM readings and the effluent oil and grease concentrations. Data are generally considered to 

be highly correlated when R2 approaches 1. A linear regression was performed for each graph 

and the R-squared values are as follows: 

· Figure 1 - R2 = 0.0012; 

· Figure 2 - R2 = 0.0084; and 

· Figure 3 - R2 = 0.21. 

2.3 OCM Performance (Technical Analysis (1))

Figure 2. Comparison of OCM Readings to Chemical Analysis 

Results (Setpoint =15)

Figure 3. Comparison of OCM Readings to Chemical Analysis 

Results (Setpoint = 15)

(Note: Data Associated with Corrected OCM Readings and OCM Readings = 0 from the SER Data Were Removed)

R

2

 = 0.21

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

0 50 100 150 200 250

Chemical Analysis Results (ppm)

OCM Readings (ppm)
Memorandum 

September 10, 2004 

Page 11 

 The data presented in Figures 1, 2, and 3 show that there are instances when the 

OCM would have discharged effluent at levels exceeding 15 ppm SGT-HEM. These instances 

may have occurred when the OCM readings are below the 15 ppm setpoint while the 

corresponding effluent oil and grease concentrations exceeded 15 ppm. When using all the actual 

OCM readings (Figure 1), 39 out of 125 samples of the OCM readings meet these conditions 

(i.e., OCM < 15 ppm and oil and grease concentration > 15 ppm). When removing the 

“corrected” data and the OCM readings that equal zero from the SER data, 4 out of 76 samples 

of the OCM readings meet these criteria. For all 4 of these samples, the effluent was either 

discharged overboard or the discharge status was unknown: 

· USS Princeton (CG 59): OCM warning light - off; Diverter valve position 

- overboard; Date - unknown; SGT-HEM = 17 ppm; and OCM = 7. 

· USS Princeton (CG 59): OCM warning light - off; Diverter valve position 

- overboard; Date - unknown; SGT-HEM = 17 ppm; and OCM = 0. 

· USS Oak Hill (LSD 51): OCM warning light - unknown; Diverter valve 

position - unknown (the SER stated that the system was allowed to 

discharge overboard during sampling, but the discharge status when this 

sample was collected is unknown); Date - 11/16/99; SGT-HEM = 21 ppm; 

and OCM = 13. 

· USCGC Morganthau (WHEC 722): OCM warning light - On; Diverter 

valve position - unknown; Date - 11/13/99; SGT-HEM = 17 ppm; and 

OCM = 12. 

 Based on this information, there are two confirmed instances (CG59) when the 

OCM would have discharged effluent at levels exceeding 15 ppm SGT-HEM. There are 

numerous other potential occurrences that cannot be confirmed because the OCM warning light 

status and diverter valve position were not recorded. 

3.0 COMPARISON OF OWS AND OWS/UF SYSTEMS (TECHNICAL ANALYSIS (4))

 The OWS systems used onboard most Navy vessels are parallel-plate coalescing 

gravity separators. These systems separate oil from water by using the different specific 

gravities of oil and water and their immiscibility with each other. The OWS contains a 

coalescing material, which is typically polypropylene, and oleophilic polymer that may be in the 

form of parallel plates or loose packed media. Oil droplets in the bilgewater adhere to the 

coalescing material as it passes through the OWS. These droplets will continue to coalesce and 

then they will break free from the plates or media and rise to the surface of the OWS tank. The 

OWS contains sensors that detect the presence of oil and trigger the OWS to automatically pump 

the collected oil to a waste oil tank. The treated effluent is scanned for oil content by an oil 

content monitor (Discharge Assessment Report, July 2003). 

 UF units are sometimes used with OWS systems on Navy vessels to provide 
Memorandum 

September 10, 2004 

Page 12 

better removal of oil from bilgewater. UF is comprised of semi-permeable membranes that 

allow the passage of water, ions, or small molecules, but prohibit the passage of larger 

molecules. UF devices separate high molecular weight constituents from fluids by forcing the 

fluid through very small pores of a polymeric or inorganic membrane. 

 The following sections provide a assessment of the performance of OWS and 

OWS/UF systems. Section 3.1 presents an evaluation of available data for OWS and OWS/UF 

systems. Section 3.2 presents key findings from several Navy reports regarding the performance 

of OWS and OWS/UF systems. 

3.1 Evaluation of OWS and OWS/UF System Performance

 The Navy shipboard sampling data were used to evaluate the performance of the 

OWS and OWS/UF systems. Influent and effluent data were used to estimate the percent 

removal of different wastewater constituents for each system. When data were reported as not 

detected, the detection limit was used for the calculation of the percent removal. Note that in 

these cases, the calculated percent removal reflects a minimum value. SGT-HEM and metals 

were analyzed to assess the performance of these systems. EPA Method 1664 was used to 

analyzed all of the SGT-HEM samples in this analysis.

 ERG analyzed SGT-HEM removals and effluent concentrations from five 

sampling episodes: 

· Carney, Episode 6290 (OWS/UF); 

· Oak Hill, Episode 6241B (OWS); 

· David Ray, Episode 6266 (OWS); 

· Rushmore, Episode 6283 (OWS/UF); and 

· Morganthau, Episode 6244 (OWS). 

 It is important to note that the SGT-HEM influent concentrations vary from 

approximately 20 ppm to 400 ppm. There could be many reasons for this range, such as size of 

vessel, mission during sampling, and maintenance and cleaning procedures. The influent 

concentration may effect the removal of the pollutant by the treatment system and the effluent 

concentration. Low percent removals may simply reflect low influent concentrations instead of 

treatment effectiveness. 

 Table 2 presents the average percent removals and average effluent SGT-HEM 

concentration for OWS and OWS/UF systems. Note the important caveats described in the 

footnotes for Table 2 regarding the inclusion of data from the USS Morganthau. 

 As shown in Table 2, the OWS/UF system had a much higher percent removal 

(80%) than the OWS system (9%). Also, the average SGT-HEM effluent concentration for the 

OWS/UF system was much lower (5.5 ppm) as compared to the OWS system (42 ppm). For 

SGT-HEM, the UF effluent concentrations were always less than or equal to the detection limit, 

except for one day of sampling for two separate episodes (i.e., a total of two days or 9 samples 
Memorandum 

September 10, 2004 

Page 13 

out of 35 samples collected). The average UF SGT-HEM effluent concentration was 5.5 ppm1

when the OCM setpoint was 15 ppm. The OWS SGT-HEM effluent concentrations for vessels 

with only OWS systems were consistently higher than the SGT-HEM detection limit. The 

average OWS SGT-HEM effluent concentration was 42 ppm1 when the OCM setpoint was 15 

ppm. 

Table 2. Evaluation of OWS/UF Systems vs OWS Systems for 

 SGT-HEM When Setpoint Equals 15 PPM

Component

OWS/UF Only OWS

Average SGTHEM % RemovalAverage SGT-HEM 

Eff. Conc (ppm)

Average SGT-HEM 

% Removal

Average SGT-HEM 

Eff. Conc (ppm)

OWS 56 % 20 (<5 to 52 ppm) 9 %a42 (<5 to 302 ppm)a

UF 60 %b5.5 NA NA

Total System 80% (48%-96%) 5.5 9% (-129% to 84%)a42 (<5 to 302 ppm)a

Note: The % removals were calculated using the average effluent concentrations for each day. The effluent 

concentrations were calculated by averaging the individual concentrations for each sample collected. Non-detected 

pollutant concentrations were set equal to the detection limit for this analysis. 

aThese average percent removals and effluent concentrations were calculated using the average of the percent 

removals for those vessels with only a OWS and at setpoint of 15 ppm. The vessels used in this analysis are USS 

Oak Hill, USCGC Morganthau, and USS David R. Ray. The data are largely driven by the data from the USS 

Morganthau. When the Morganthau data is excluded from the calculation, the average percent removal is 31% and 

the average effluent concentration is 8.8 ppm. 

b

 The UF percent removal represents the removals across the UF system only; therefore, this percent removal is 

incremental to the OWS. 

NA - Not applicable.

 Table 3 compares the OWS and OWS/UF average percent removals and average 

effluent concentrations for total and dissolved metals.

 

1Non-detect pollutant concentrations were set equal to the detection limit for this analysis. 
Table 3. Performance Analysis of OWS/UF Systems vs OWS Systems for 

 Total and Dissolved Metals.

Metals

Only OWS OWS/UF

Average % 

Removal

Average Effluent 

Conc (mg/L)

Average % 

Removal

Average Effluent 

Conc (mg/L)

Total Metals

Aluminum 2.5 0.134 49 0.054

Antimony -29.8 0.011 -20 0.008

Arsenic -6.1 0.002 -127 0.004

Barium -0.2 0.075 12 0.115

Beryllium -64.0 0.002 21 0.002

Boron -2.7 2.615 -5 2.430

Cadmium 3.8 0.005 44 0.001

Calcium -1.2 103.080 -10 98.533

Chromium 7.8 0.010 47 0.005

Cobalt -8.2 0.005 53 0.002

Copper 1.8 0.673 86 0.123

Iron 3.4 2.476 65 0.407

Lead 2.7 0.016 52 0.004

Magnesium -2.6 301.800 -6 221.333

Manganese 2.0 0.181 3 0.176

Mercury NA NA 4 0.000

Molybdenum -8.1 0.010 24 0.003

Nickel 5.3 0.318 50 0.153

Selenium 18.0 0.016 -38 0.010

Silver -110.0 0.013 51 0.007

Sodium -30.6 2504.000 -6 2006.333

Thallium -18.6 0.013 20 0.006

Tin -125.0 0.024 37 0.005

Titanium -5.2 0.004 27 0.004

Vanadium NA NA -1 0.012

Zinc 3.6 2.036 82 0.205
Metals

Only OWS OWS/UF

Average % 

Removal

Average Effluent 

Conc (mg/L)

Average % 

Removal

Average Effluent 

Conc (mg/L)

Dissolved Metals

Aluminum, Dissolved 10.9 0.078 11 0.056

Antimony, Dissolved -75.6 0.010 11 0.012

Arsenic, Dissolved -150.3 0.002 -170 0.004

Barium, Dissolved -2.6 0.068 0 0.113

Beryllium, Dissolved NA NA -8 0.002

Boron, Dissolved 6.6 2.015 -4 2.530

Calcium, Dissolved -2.7 104.420 -8 101.267

Chromium, Dissolved 16.3 0.005 14 0.002

Cobalt, Dissolved -26.8 0.004 -20 0.002

Copper, Dissolved 5.0 0.018 43 0.010

Iron, Dissolved -4.5 1.172 48 0.282

Lead, Dissolved -4.4 0.010 0 0.002

Magnesium, Dissolved -5.2 249.250 -4 229.000

Manganese, Dissolved 0.4 0.178 0 0.182

Molybdenum, Dissolved -19.8 0.013 0 0.003

Nickel, Dissolved 3.6 0.237 -1 0.124

Selenium, Dissolved -125.3 0.017 12 0.010

Silver, Dissolved -30.5 0.008 0 0.005

Sodium, Dissolved -3.8 2884.000 -5 2156.333

Thallium, Dissolved 25.1 0.015 -2 0.009

Tin, Dissolved 3.1 0.009 4 0.005

Zinc, Dissolved 19.7 0.634 67 0.017

Note: The % removals were calculated by averaging the percent removals for each vessel. The percent removals for 

each vessel were calculated using the average influent and effluent concentrations. The effluent concentrations were 

calculated be averaging the average effluent concentrations for each vessel. Non-detected pollutant concentrations 

were set equal to the detection limit for this analysis.

 For metals (26 total metals and 22 dissolved metals), the effluent concentration 

from the OWS/UF system was less than the effluent concentration from the OWS system for all 

metals, except two total metals and five dissolved metals. 
 Total copper and total zinc are consistently considered constituents of concern 

identified in the baseline discharge for all of the Naval vessel groups in the Environmental 

Effects Assessment Report (EEAR). For total copper, the average OWS/UF effluent 

concentration was 0.123 ppm with an average 86 percent removal across the entire system, and 

the average OWS effluent concentration was 0.673 ppm with an average 1.8 percent removal. 

For total zinc, the average OWS/UF effluent concentration was 0.205 ppm with an average 82 

percent removal across the entire system, and the average OWS effluent concentration was 2.04 

ppm with an average 3.6 percent removal. 

3.2 Key Findings from ChAR, EEAR, DAR, and FIAR

 The Characterization Assessment Report (ChAR), EEAR, Discharge Assessment 

Report (DAR), and Feasability Impact Analysis Report (FIAR) were prepared by the U.S. 

Department of the Navy’s Naval Sea Systems Command and the EPA’s Office of Water. These 

reports support the development of uniform national discharge standards (UNDS). Within these 

reports, technical analyses of surface vessel bilgewater discharge can be found. 

 The DAR concluded that membrane filtration “passes” as a Marine Pollution 

Control Device (MPCD) option for treating bilgewater. It states “membrane filtration is 

successfully used on-board Armed Forces surface vessels to treat surface vessel bilgewater.” 

The MPCD ranking by overall environmental effectiveness always ranked OWS/UF systems 

higher than OWS systems (except for one vessel group where OWS/UF was ranked equal to 

OWS). 

 In addition, the DAR provides important data to assess the performance of OWS 

and OWS/UF systems. Table 4 presents the toxic weighted pound equivalents (TWPE) for a 

representative vessel in each vessel group for OWS and OWS/UF systems. The TWPE were 

calculated by multiplying the mass loading calculations (lbs/yr) by toxic weighting factors 

(TWFs). EPA’s Engineering and Analysis Division (EAD) maintains a Toxics Data Base 

containing aquatic life and human health toxicity data, as well as physical/chemical property 

data, for more than 1,900 pollutants compiled from over 100 references. Pollutant-specific 

TWFs calculated from these data account for differences in toxicity among the pollutants of 

concern and provide the means to compare mass loadings of different pollutants on the basis of 

their toxic potential. For example, a mass loading of a pollutant in pounds per year (lb/yr) may 

be multiplied by a pollutant-specific weighting factor to derive a "toxic-equivalent" loading (lbequivalent/yr) or TWPE. Table 4 shows that the OWS/UF system achieves greater reductions in 

effluent toxicity than the OWS system. 
Table 4. TWPE for Effluent from OWS and OWS/UF Systems

Vessel Group OWS Effluent TWPE 

(TWPE lbs/yr) 

OWS/UF Effluent TWPE 

(TWPE lbs/yr) 

CVN 68 3,700 210

LHD 1 7,800 800

DDG 51 840 1,500

DD 963 3,100 410

LSD 41 3,300 2,500

MCM 1 - Saltwater 410 310

 Table 5 presents the number of constituents exceeding the strictest water quality 

criteria for each vessel group for OWS and OWS/UF systems. Table 5 shows that the OWS/UF 

system has less constituents exceeding the strictest water quality criteria for each vessel group 

than the OWS system. 

Table 5. Number of Constituents Exceeding the Strictest Water Quality Criteria 

 for OWS and OWS/UF Systems

Vessel Group OWS Number of Constituents 

Exceeding Strictest WQC 

OWS/UF Number of Constituents 

Exceeding Strictest WQC 

CVN 68 6 4

LHD 1 12 10

DDG 51 13 7

DD 963 9 7

LSD 41 11 8

MCM 1a14 8

a

 This represents exceedances in saltwater and freshwater.

 Table 6 presents the total number of exceeded numeric water quality criteria for 

each vessel group for OWS and OWS/UF systems. Table 6 shows that the OWS/UF system 

exceeds the numeric water quality criteria for each vessel group less than the OWS system. 
Table 6. Total Number of Exceeded Numeric Water Quality Criteria for 

 OWS and OWS/UF Systems

Vessel Group OWS Number of Exceeded 

Numeric WQC 

OWS/UF Number of Exceeded 

Numeric WQC 

CVN 68 77 74

LHD 1 67 65

DDG 51 93 28

DD 963 64 60

LSD 41 73 32

MCM 1a93 32

a

 This represents exceedances in saltwater and freshwater.

 The EEAR presents the results of the hazard quotient (HQ) and hazard index (HI) 

calculations for the baseline discharge constituents with an end of pipe HQ greater than 1 (see 

Figure 4). For more information on the use of the HI calculations, see Method for Assessing the 

Toxicity of Multiple Contaminants in Discharges from Vessels of the Armed Forces Uniform 

National Discharge Standards (UNDS) Phase II (Navy and EPA 2001f). Figure 4 presents a 

comparison of the HI for raw wastewater, OWS effluent, and OWS/UF effluent for the Naval 

vessel groups presented in the EEAR. Figure 4 shows that the HI for the OWS/UF effluent is 

less than the HI for raw wastewater and OWS effluent. 
 In the Characterization Assessment Report (ChAR), the Navy conducted an 

evaluation of a membrane filtration system to determine the ability of the membrane filtration 

system to consistently produce an effluent that would conform to local and worldwide 

environmental standards regardless of influent concentrations. Test results indicate that 

membrane filtration is capable of conforming to these standards while operating over a wide 

range of pHs and is resistant to chemical attack. High concentrations of inorganic and organic 

compounds led to reduced membrane performance. However, despite these minor reductions in 

membrane performance, most membranes recovered significantly when flushed with water for 

15 minutes. 

4.0 CONCLUSIONS

 Based on the available data presented in this memorandum, the conclusions 

determined from the analyses of the bilgewater data are as follows: 

(1) Based on the available data, OCM readings do not correlate well with 

SGT-HEM chemical analyses, and therefore, the OCM cannot be relied 

upon as the technology basis for the performance standard. 

Figure 4. Comparison of Hazard Index for Raw Wastewater, OWS Effluent, 

and OWS/UF Effluent

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

Raw OWS OWS/UF

Hazard Index
(2) The OCM did cause the effluent to be recirculated, but because the OCM 

readings do not correlate well with the SGT-HEM chemical analyses, the 

OCM did not always recirculate the effluent as designed. 

(3) There are two confirmed instances when the OCM would have discharged 

effluent at levels exceeding 15 ppm SGT-HEM and there are numerous 

other potential occurances that cannot be confirmed. 

(4) The OWS/UF system consistently performs better than the OWS system, 

when comparing SGT-HEM percent removals, metals percent removals, 

TWPE of the effluent, and water quality criteria exceedances. 

5.0 REFERENCES

EPA. 1999. Method 1664, Revision A: N-Hexane Extractable Material (HEM; Oil and Grease) and Silica Gel 

EPA. 2000. Analytical Method Guidance for EPA Method 1664A Implementation and Use (40 CFR Part 136)

ERG. 2003. Consideration of Oil and Grease Test Methods for CDNSWC. Eastern Research Group, Chantil

Navy. 1991. Navy First Article Testing of the Oil Content Monitor Model ET-35N. Final Report. U.S. N

Navy and EPA. 2002. Characterization Assessment Report. Surface Bilgewater/ Oil Water Separator (OW

Navy and EPA. 2003a. Discharge Assessment Report. Surface Vessel Bilgewater. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, D.C., and 

U.S. Navy, Naval Sea Systems Command, Washington, D.C. July 2003. 

Navy and EPA. 2003b. Environmental Effects Assessment Report. Surface Vessel Bilgewater/ Oil Water Sepa

Phase Separation Science, Inc. Technical Updates.

www.phaseonline.com/tech_updates/phasefact_06.html
Attachment 1 

 NAVY SHIPBOARD SAMPLING DATA

The tables in Attachment 1 present the data gathered during Navy shipboard sampling. These 

data were taken from the Sampling Episode Reports (SERs) for each vessel sampled. Table A1-

1 presents the influent and effluent HEM and SGT-HEM concentrations for the OWS and UF 

treatment units. Pages A1-2 through A1-4 present the influent and effluent HEM and SGT-HEM 

concentrations for the OWS treatment unit and the OCM reading and diverter valve position for 

the OWS. Pages A1-5 through A1-7 present the influent and effluent HEM and SGT-HEM 

concentrations for the UF treatment unit; the OCM reading and diverter valve position for the 

UF; and the calculated HEM and SGT-HEM percent removals for the OWS. Pages A1-8 

through A1-11 present the calculated HEM and SGT-HEM percent removals for the UF; the 

source (or reference) from where the HEM and SGT-HEM concentrations were taken; and any 

notes regarding the data. Tables A1-2 through A1-8 present the influent and effluent metal 

concentrations, the difference between the effluent and influent concentrations, and the percent 

difference for each vessel sampled. 
A1-22 

Table A1-1
A1-23 

Navy Shipboard Data Collected from 1999 - 2000

Episode Grab # Ship Name Date

OWS 

Influent 

HEM

OWS 

Influent 

SGT-HEM

OWS 

Effluent 

HEM

OWS 

Effluent 

SGT-HEM

OWS 

OCM 

Reading*

Diverter 

Valve 

Position

6290 1 USS CARNEY (DDG 64) 9/18/2000 153 93 35 22 0 O

6290 2 USS CARNEY (DDG 64) 9/18/2000 309 73 40 26 7 O

6290 3 USS CARNEY (DDG 64) 9/18/2000 204 65 37 22 4 O

6290 1 USS CARNEY (DDG 64) 9/18/2000 31 19

6290 2 USS CARNEY (DDG 64) 9/18/2000 43 26

6290 3 USS CARNEY (DDG 64) 9/18/2000 37 26

Average 222.0 77.0 37.2 23.5 3.7

6290 1 USS CARNEY (DDG 64) 10/23/2000 146 68 48 29 0 R

6290 2 USS CARNEY (DDG 64) 10/23/2000 206 90 38 25 22 R

6290 3 USS CARNEY (DDG 64) 10/23/2000 140 63 41 24 15 O

Average 164.0 73.7 42.3 26.0

6290 1 USS CARNEY (DDG 64) 9/26/2000 306 143 96 46 0 O

6290 2 USS CARNEY (DDG 64) 9/26/2000 285 89 88 52 0 O

6290 3 USS CARNEY (DDG 64) 9/26/2000 291 143 75 45 0 O

6290 1 USS CARNEY (DDG 64) 9/26/2000 24 6

Average 294.0 125.0 70.8 37.3 0.0

6290 1 USS CARNEY (DDG 64) 9/22/2000 40 18 25 13 0 O

6290 2 USS CARNEY (DDG 64) 9/22/2000 135 63 33 18 0 O

6290 3 USS CARNEY (DDG 64) 9/22/2000 194 132 43 25 0 O

Average 123.0 71.0 33.7 18.7 0.0

Total Average 200.8 86.7 46.0 26.4

6232 1 USS MAHAN (DDG 72) 6/15/1999 107 86 47 33 35

6232 2 USS MAHAN (DDG 72) 6/15/1999 205 179 64 55 43

6232 3 USS MAHAN (DDG 72) 6/15/1999 175 143 65 46 40

Average 162.3 136.0 58.7 44.7

6232 1 USS MAHAN (DDG 72) 6/29/1999 66 49 30 20 26

6232 2 USS MAHAN (DDG 72) 6/29/1999 213 158 39 33 34

6232 3 USS MAHAN (DDG 72) 6/29/1999 1040 856 38 30 36

6232 1 USS MAHAN (DDG 72) 6/29/1999

6232 2 USS MAHAN (DDG 72) 6/29/1999

6232 3 USS MAHAN (DDG 72) 6/29/1999

Average 439.7 354.3 35.7 27.7

6232 1 USS MAHAN (DDG 72) 6/30/1999 404 311 90 59 111

6232 2 USS MAHAN (DDG 72) 6/30/1999 363 285 78 50 108

6232 3 USS MAHAN (DDG 72) 6/30/1999 384 293 66 36 NA

Average 383.7 296.3 78.0 48.3

6232 1 USS MAHAN (DDG 72) 6/17/1999 58 44 38 22 29

6232 2 USS MAHAN (DDG 72) 6/17/1999 63 50 53 29 29

6232 3 USS MAHAN (DDG 72) 6/17/1999 45 23 39 20 27

Average 55.3 39.0 43.3 23.7

Total Average 260.3 206.4 53.9 36.1

6283 1 USS RUSHMORE (LSD 47) 11/17/2000 34 15 35 17

6283 2 USS RUSHMORE (LSD 47) 11/17/2000 27 5 23 5

6283 3 USS RUSHMORE (LSD 47) 11/17/2000 27 26 24 5

Average 29.3 15.3 27.3 9.0

6283 1 USS RUSHMORE (LSD 47) 12/13/2000 51 40 21 11

6283 2 USS RUSHMORE (LSD 47) 12/13/2000 11 5 11 6

6283 3 USS RUSHMORE (LSD 47) 12/13/2000 11 5 8 5

Average 24.3 16.7 13.3 7.3

6283 1 USS RUSHMORE (LSD 47) 9/26/2000 43 26 28 11

6283 2 USS RUSHMORE (LSD 47) 9/26/2000 20 8 16 8

6283 3 USS RUSHMORE (LSD 47) 9/26/2000 17 6 19 6

6283 1 USS RUSHMORE (LSD 47) 9/26/2000 24 11

Average 26.7 13.3 21.8 9.0

6283 1 USS RUSHMORE (LSD 47) 10/17/2000 57 54 40 28

6283 2 USS RUSHMORE (LSD 47) 10/17/2000 47 35 34 23

6283 3 USS RUSHMORE (LSD 47) 10/17/2000 36 36 22 23

Average 46.7 41.7 32.0 24.7

6283 ? USS RUSHMORE (LSD 47) ? 41 32

6283 ? USS RUSHMORE (LSD 47) ? 33 22

6283 ? USS RUSHMORE (LSD 47) ? 28 19

Total Average 31.8 21.8 23.6 12.5
A1-24 

Navy Shipboard Data Collected from 1999 - 2000

Episode Grab # Ship Name Date

OWS 

Influent 

HEM

OWS 

Influent 

SGT-HEM

OWS 

Effluent 

HEM

OWS 

Effluent 

SGT-HEM

OWS 

OCM 

Reading*

Diverter 

Valve 

Position

AUX1

6241B 1 USS OAK HILL (LSD 51) 11/16/1999 25 15 26 12 8

6241B 2 USS OAK HILL (LSD 51) 11/16/1999 35 14 19 11 16

6241B 3 USS OAK HILL (LSD 51) 11/16/1999 23 13 25 10 10

Average 28 14 23 11 11

6241B 1 USS OAK HILL (LSD 51) 11/17/1999 28 10 31 12 18

6241B 2 USS OAK HILL (LSD 51) 11/17/1999 27 13 29 13 21

6241B 3 USS OAK HILL (LSD 51) 11/17/1999 30 16 23 8 22

6241B 1 USS OAK HILL (LSD 51) 11/17/1999 22 12

6241B 2 USS OAK HILL (LSD 51) 11/17/1999 20 9

6241B 3 USS OAK HILL (LSD 51) 11/17/1999 20 11

Average 28 13 24 11 20

Total Average 28 14 24 11 16

AUX2

6241B 1 USS OAK HILL (LSD 51) 11/16/1999 26 17 25 21 13

6241B 2 USS OAK HILL (LSD 51) 11/16/1999 28 16 16 8 12

6241B 3 USS OAK HILL (LSD 51) 11/16/1999 26 23 17 8 11

Average 27 19 19 12 12

6241B 1 USS OAK HILL (LSD 51) 11/17/1999 23 10 20 8 11

6241B 2 USS OAK HILL (LSD 51) 11/17/1999 23 10 21 15 11

6241B 3 USS OAK HILL (LSD 51) 11/17/1999 22 11 15 8 10

Average 22.7 10.3 18.7 10.3 10.7

Total Average 24.7 14.5 19.0 11.3 11.3

6244 1 USCGC MORGENTHAU (WHEC 722) 8/31/1999 138 99 522 302 0

6244 2 USCGC MORGENTHAU (WHEC 722) 8/31/1999 259 192 600 283 0

Average 198.5 145.5 561.0 292.5

6244 1 USCGC MORGENTHAU (WHEC 722) 9/7/1999 130 63 1380 240 0

6244 2 USCGC MORGENTHAU (WHEC 722) 9/7/1999 154 74 741 166 0

6244 3 USCGC MORGENTHAU (WHEC 722) 9/7/1999 189 126 701 197 0

Average 157.7 87.7 940.7 201.0

6244 1 USCGC MORGENTHAU (WHEC 722) 11/13/1999 245 94 5 NA 12

6244 2 USCGC MORGENTHAU (WHEC 722) 11/13/1999 139 56 63 38 0

6244 3 USCGC MORGENTHAU (WHEC 722) 11/13/1999 314 71 144 66 0

6244 1 USCGC MORGENTHAU (WHEC 722) 11/13/1999 22 17 12

6244 2 USCGC MORGENTHAU (WHEC 722) 11/13/1999 74 43 0

6244 3 USCGC MORGENTHAU (WHEC 722) 11/13/1999 134 57 0

Average 232.7 73.7 73.7 44.2

6244 1 USCGC MORGENTHAU (WHEC 722) 11/17/1999 93 68 73 49 0

6244 2 USCGC MORGENTHAU (WHEC 722) 11/17/1999 93 60 34 23 0

6244 3 USCGC MORGENTHAU (WHEC 722) 11/17/1999 150 82 80 49 0

Average 112.0 70.0 62.3 40.3

Total Average 175.2 94.2 409.4 144.5

Total Average without negatives

6260 1 USS BONHOMME RICHARD (LHD 6) 12/8/1999 108 26 49 26 <70 O

6260 2 USS BONHOMME RICHARD (LHD 6) 12/8/1999 55 36 30 16 <70 O

6260 3 USS BONHOMME RICHARD (LHD 6) 12/8/1999 41 22 43 20 <70 O

Average 68.0 28.0 40.7 20.7 O

6260 1 USS BONHOMME RICHARD (LHD 6) 12/10/1999 99 28 71 21 <70 O

6260 2 USS BONHOMME RICHARD (LHD 6) 12/11/1999 140 18 73 20 <70 O

6260 3 USS BONHOMME RICHARD (LHD 6) 12/11/1999 95 30 72 19 <70 O

Average 111.3 25.3 72.0 20.0

6260 1 USS BONHOMME RICHARD (LHD 6) 12/13/1999 28 13 21 5 <70 O

6260 2 USS BONHOMME RICHARD (LHD 6) 12/14/1999 43 19 46 14 <70 O

6260 3 USS BONHOMME RICHARD (LHD 6) 12/14/1999 78 18 35 10 <70 O

6260 1 USS BONHOMME RICHARD (LHD 6) 12/13/1999 18 14 <70 O

6260 2 USS BONHOMME RICHARD (LHD 6) 12/14/1999 38 9 <70 O

6260 3 USS BONHOMME RICHARD (LHD 6) 12/14/1999 30 19 <70 O

Average 49.7 16.7 31.3 11.8

6260 1 USS BONHOMME RICHARD (LHD 6) 12/16/1999 29 12 19 9 <70 O

6260 2 USS BONHOMME RICHARD (LHD 6) 12/16/1999 22 9 24 11 <70 O

6260 3 USS BONHOMME RICHARD (LHD 6) 12/16/1999 26 9 22 9 <70 O

Average 25.7 10.0 21.7 9.7

Total Average 63.7 20.0 41.4 15.5
Table A1-1 (Continued)

A1-25 

Navy Shipboard Data Collected from 1999 - 2000

Episode Grab # Ship Name Date

OWS 

Influent 

HEM

OWS 

Influent 

SGT-HEM

OWS 

Effluent 

HEM

OWS 

Effluent 

SGT-HEM

OWS 

OCM 

Reading*

Diverter 

Valve 

Position

6266 1 USS DAVID R. RAY (DD 971) 1/11/2000 11 5 7 5 R/O

6266 2 USS DAVID R. RAY (DD 971) 1/11/2000 12 5 14 5 R/O

6266 3 USS DAVID R. RAY (DD 971) 1/11/2000 12 5 15 5 R/O

Average 11.7 5.0 12.0 5.0

6266 1 USS DAVID R. RAY (DD 971) 1/12/2000 14 5 11 5 R/O

6266 2 USS DAVID R. RAY (DD 971) 1/12/2000 17 8 13 5 O

6266 3 USS DAVID R. RAY (DD 971) 1/12/2000 15 5 14 5 O

6266 1 USS DAVID R. RAY (DD 971) 1/12/2000 9 5 R/O

6266 2 USS DAVID R. RAY (DD 971) 1/12/2000 14 5 O

6266 3 USS DAVID R. RAY (DD 971) 1/12/2000 12 5 O

Average 15.3 6.0 12.2 5.0

6266 1 USS DAVID R. RAY (DD 971) 1/15/2000 415 142 18 9 R

6266 2 USS DAVID R. RAY (DD 971) 1/15/2000 52 30 21 12 R

6266 3 USS DAVID R. RAY (DD 971) 1/15/2000 66 35 23 13 R

Average 177.7 69.0 20.7 11.3

6266 1 USS DAVID R. RAY (DD 971) 2/8/2000 77 48 12 5 R

6266 2 USS DAVID R. RAY (DD 971) 2/8/2000 33 18 16 6 R

6266 3 USS DAVID R. RAY (DD 971) 2/9/2000 34 17 19 7 R

Average 48.0 27.7 15.7 6.0

Total Average 63.2 26.9 15.1 6.8

Total Average without first two days

Note: All units are in ppm.

Sources:

1. P:\UNDS\EPA data\ERG\PhaseII_Main_field_6_27_00_revised_07_02_01_THK 

2. P:\UNDS\EPA data\Phase_II_Cllunds_revised_05_22_01_thk

3. P:\UNDS\EPA data\ERG\PhaseII_Main_field_Carney_Rushmore_04_23_01 

4. The OCM readings were taken from Tables 4-7 and 4-8 of the SER for the Carney (file named NSWCCD-TR-63-00-261.pdf). 

*The OCM readings were selected based on the time the readings were recorded; these times were matched with the times that the 

grab samples were collected. 
Table A1-1 (Continued)

A1-26 

Navy Shipboard Data Collected from 1999 - 2000

Episode Grab # Ship Name Date

UF 

Effluent 

HEM

UF 

Effluent 

SGT-HEM

UF OCM 

Reading*

Diverter 

Valve 

Position

OWS 

HEM % 

Removal

OWS SGTHEM % 

Removal

6290 1 USS CARNEY (DDG 64) 9/18/2000 8 5 3 O

6290 2 USS CARNEY (DDG 64) 9/18/2000 8 5 0 O

6290 3 USS CARNEY (DDG 64) 9/18/2000 8 5 0 O

6290 1 USS CARNEY (DDG 64) 9/18/2000

6290 2 USS CARNEY (DDG 64) 9/18/2000

6290 3 USS CARNEY (DDG 64) 9/18/2000

Average 8.0 5.0 1.0 83% 69%

6290 1 USS CARNEY (DDG 64) 10/23/2000 5 0 R

6290 2 USS CARNEY (DDG 64) 10/23/2000 7 5 43 R

6290 3 USS CARNEY (DDG 64) 10/23/2000 6 5 24 R

Average 6.0 5.0 22.3 74% 65%

6290 1 USS CARNEY (DDG 64) 9/26/2000 13 5 0 O

6290 2 USS CARNEY (DDG 64) 9/26/2000 13 5 1 O

6290 3 USS CARNEY (DDG 64) 9/26/2000 13 5 0 O

6290 1 USS CARNEY (DDG 64) 9/26/2000

Average 13.0 5.0 76% 70%

6290 1 USS CARNEY (DDG 64) 9/22/2000 12 5 2 O

6290 2 USS CARNEY (DDG 64) 9/22/2000 12 5 0 O

6290 3 USS CARNEY (DDG 64) 9/22/2000 13 5 0 O

Average 12.3 5.0 0.7 73% 74%

Total Average 9.8 5.0 77% 70%

6232 1 USS MAHAN (DDG 72) 6/15/1999 11 5 3

6232 2 USS MAHAN (DDG 72) 6/15/1999 13 6 5

6232 3 USS MAHAN (DDG 72) 6/15/1999 9 5 5

Average 11.0 5.3 64% 67%

6232 1 USS MAHAN (DDG 72) 6/29/1999 32 16 16

6232 2 USS MAHAN (DDG 72) 6/29/1999 40 32 18

6232 3 USS MAHAN (DDG 72) 6/29/1999 37 22 22

6232 1 USS MAHAN (DDG 72) 6/29/1999 36 21 16

6232 2 USS MAHAN (DDG 72) 6/29/1999 30 16 18

6232 3 USS MAHAN (DDG 72) 6/29/1999 40 22 22

Average 35.8 21.5 92% 92%

6232 1 USS MAHAN (DDG 72) 6/30/1999 5 NA 5

6232 2 USS MAHAN (DDG 72) 6/30/1999 5 NA 5

6232 3 USS MAHAN (DDG 72) 6/30/1999 5 NA NA

Average 5.0 80% 84%

6232 1 USS MAHAN (DDG 72) 6/17/1999 8 5 4

6232 2 USS MAHAN (DDG 72) 6/17/1999 8 5 3

6232 3 USS MAHAN (DDG 72) 6/17/1999 9 6 4

Average 8.3 5.3 22% 39%

Total Average 15.0 10.7 64% 71%

6283 1 USS RUSHMORE (LSD 47) 11/17/2000 35 9

6283 2 USS RUSHMORE (LSD 47) 11/17/2000 25 5

6283 3 USS RUSHMORE (LSD 47) 11/17/2000 55 10

Average 38.3 8.0 7% 41%

6283 1 USS RUSHMORE (LSD 47) 12/13/2000 12 5

6283 2 USS RUSHMORE (LSD 47) 12/13/2000 11 5

6283 3 USS RUSHMORE (LSD 47) 12/13/2000 11 5

Average 11.3 5.0 45% 56%

6283 1 USS RUSHMORE (LSD 47) 9/26/2000 10 5

6283 2 USS RUSHMORE (LSD 47) 9/26/2000 11 5

6283 3 USS RUSHMORE (LSD 47) 9/26/2000 10 5

6283 1 USS RUSHMORE (LSD 47) 9/26/2000

Average 10.3 5.0 18% 33%

6283 1 USS RUSHMORE (LSD 47) 10/17/2000 6 6

6283 2 USS RUSHMORE (LSD 47) 10/17/2000 6 5

6283 3 USS RUSHMORE (LSD 47) 10/17/2000 6 6

Average 6.0 5.7 31% 41%

6283 ? USS RUSHMORE (LSD 47) ?

6283 ? USS RUSHMORE (LSD 47) ?

6283 ? USS RUSHMORE (LSD 47) ?

Total Average 16.5 5.9 25% 43%
Table A1-1 (Continued)

A1-27 

Navy Shipboard Data Collected from 1999 - 2000

Episode Grab # Ship Name Date

UF 

Effluent 

HEM

UF 

Effluent 

SGT-HEM

UF OCM 

Reading*

Diverter 

Valve 

Position

OWS 

HEM % 

Removal

OWS SGTHEM % 

Removal

AUX1

6241B 1 USS OAK HILL (LSD 51) 11/16/1999

6241B 2 USS OAK HILL (LSD 51) 11/16/1999

6241B 3 USS OAK HILL (LSD 51) 11/16/1999

Average 16% 21%

6241B 1 USS OAK HILL (LSD 51) 11/17/1999

6241B 2 USS OAK HILL (LSD 51) 11/17/1999

6241B 3 USS OAK HILL (LSD 51) 11/17/1999

6241B 1 USS OAK HILL (LSD 51) 11/17/1999

6241B 2 USS OAK HILL (LSD 51) 11/17/1999

6241B 3 USS OAK HILL (LSD 51) 11/17/1999

Average 15% 17%

Total Average 15% 19%

AUX2

6241B 1 USS OAK HILL (LSD 51) 11/16/1999

6241B 2 USS OAK HILL (LSD 51) 11/16/1999

6241B 3 USS OAK HILL (LSD 51) 11/16/1999

Average 28% 34%

6241B 1 USS OAK HILL (LSD 51) 11/17/1999

6241B 2 USS OAK HILL (LSD 51) 11/17/1999

6241B 3 USS OAK HILL (LSD 51) 11/17/1999

Average 18% 0%

Total Average 23% 22%

6244 1 USCGC MORGENTHAU (WHEC 722) 8/31/1999

6244 2 USCGC MORGENTHAU (WHEC 722) 8/31/1999

Average -183% -101%

6244 1 USCGC MORGENTHAU (WHEC 722) 9/7/1999

6244 2 USCGC MORGENTHAU (WHEC 722) 9/7/1999

6244 3 USCGC MORGENTHAU (WHEC 722) 9/7/1999

Average -497% -129%

6244 1 USCGC MORGENTHAU (WHEC 722) 11/13/1999

6244 2 USCGC MORGENTHAU (WHEC 722) 11/13/1999

6244 3 USCGC MORGENTHAU (WHEC 722) 11/13/1999

6244 1 USCGC MORGENTHAU (WHEC 722) 11/13/1999

6244 2 USCGC MORGENTHAU (WHEC 722) 11/13/1999

6244 3 USCGC MORGENTHAU (WHEC 722) 11/13/1999

Average 68% 40%

6244 1 USCGC MORGENTHAU (WHEC 722) 11/17/1999

6244 2 USCGC MORGENTHAU (WHEC 722) 11/17/1999

6244 3 USCGC MORGENTHAU (WHEC 722) 11/17/1999

Average 44% 42%

Total Average -142% -37%

Total Average without negatives 56% 41%

6260 1 USS BONHOMME RICHARD (LHD 6) 12/8/1999

6260 2 USS BONHOMME RICHARD (LHD 6) 12/8/1999

6260 3 USS BONHOMME RICHARD (LHD 6) 12/8/1999

Average 40% 26%

6260 1 USS BONHOMME RICHARD (LHD 6) 12/10/1999

6260 2 USS BONHOMME RICHARD (LHD 6) 12/11/1999

6260 3 USS BONHOMME RICHARD (LHD 6) 12/11/1999

Average 35% 21%

6260 1 USS BONHOMME RICHARD (LHD 6) 12/13/1999

6260 2 USS BONHOMME RICHARD (LHD 6) 12/14/1999

6260 3 USS BONHOMME RICHARD (LHD 6) 12/14/1999

6260 1 USS BONHOMME RICHARD (LHD 6) 12/13/1999

6260 2 USS BONHOMME RICHARD (LHD 6) 12/14/1999

6260 3 USS BONHOMME RICHARD (LHD 6) 12/14/1999

Average 37% 29%

6260 1 USS BONHOMME RICHARD (LHD 6) 12/16/1999

6260 2 USS BONHOMME RICHARD (LHD 6) 12/16/1999

6260 3 USS BONHOMME RICHARD (LHD 6) 12/16/1999

Average 16% 3%

Total Average 32% 20%
Table A1-1 (Continued)

A1-28 

Navy Shipboard Data Collected from 1999 - 2000

Episode Grab # Ship Name Date

UF 

Effluent 

HEM

UF 

Effluent 

SGT-HEM

UF OCM 

Reading*

Diverter 

Valve 

Position

OWS 

HEM % 

Removal

OWS SGTHEM % 

Removal

6266 1 USS DAVID R. RAY (DD 971) 1/11/2000

6266 2 USS DAVID R. RAY (DD 971) 1/11/2000

6266 3 USS DAVID R. RAY (DD 971) 1/11/2000

Average -3% 0%

6266 1 USS DAVID R. RAY (DD 971) 1/12/2000

6266 2 USS DAVID R. RAY (DD 971) 1/12/2000

6266 3 USS DAVID R. RAY (DD 971) 1/12/2000

6266 1 USS DAVID R. RAY (DD 971) 1/12/2000

6266 2 USS DAVID R. RAY (DD 971) 1/12/2000

6266 3 USS DAVID R. RAY (DD 971) 1/12/2000

Average 21% 17%

6266 1 USS DAVID R. RAY (DD 971) 1/15/2000

6266 2 USS DAVID R. RAY (DD 971) 1/15/2000

6266 3 USS DAVID R. RAY (DD 971) 1/15/2000

Average 88% 84%

6266 1 USS DAVID R. RAY (DD 971) 2/8/2000

6266 2 USS DAVID R. RAY (DD 971) 2/8/2000

6266 3 USS DAVID R. RAY (DD 971) 2/9/2000

Average 67% 78%

Total Average 43% 45%

Total Average without first two days 78% 81%

Note: All units are in ppm.

AVERAGE 17% 33%

Sources:

1. P:\UNDS\EPA data\ERG\PhaseII_Main_field_6_27_00_revised_07_02_01_THK 

2. P:\UNDS\EPA data\Phase_II_Cllunds_revised_05_22_01_thk

3. P:\UNDS\EPA data\ERG\PhaseII_Main_field_Carney_Rushmore_04_23_01 

4. The OCM readings were taken from Tables 4-7 and 4-8 of the SER for the Carney (file named NSWCCD-TR-63-00-261.pdf). 

*The OCM readings were selected based on the time the readings were 

recorded; these times were matched with the times that the grab samples 
Table A1-1 (Continued)

A1-29 

Navy Shipboard Data Collected from 1999 - 2000

Episode Grab # Ship Name Date

UF HEM 

% 

Removal

UF SGTHEM % 

Removal Source Notes

6290 1 USS CARNEY (DDG 64) 9/18/2000 2, 3, & 4

6290 2 USS CARNEY (DDG 64) 9/18/2000 2, 3, & 4

6290 3 USS CARNEY (DDG 64) 9/18/2000 2, 3, & 4

6290 1 USS CARNEY (DDG 64) 9/18/2000 2, 3, & 4 Duplicate

6290 2 USS CARNEY (DDG 64) 9/18/2000 2, 3, & 4 Duplicate

6290 3 USS CARNEY (DDG 64) 9/18/2000 2, 3, & 4 Duplicate

Average 78% 79%

6290 1 USS CARNEY (DDG 64) 10/23/2000 2, 3, & 4 Strainer was clogged and UF operated in recirc mode

6290 2 USS CARNEY (DDG 64) 10/23/2000 2, 3, & 4 Strainer was clogged and UF operated in recirc mode

6290 3 USS CARNEY (DDG 64) 10/23/2000 2, 3, & 4 Strainer was clogged and UF operated in recirc mode

Average 86% 81%

6290 1 USS CARNEY (DDG 64) 9/26/2000 2, 3, & 4

6290 2 USS CARNEY (DDG 64) 9/26/2000 2, 3, & 4

6290 3 USS CARNEY (DDG 64) 9/26/2000 2, 3, & 4

6290 1 USS CARNEY (DDG 64) 9/26/2000 2, 3, & 4 Duplicate

Average 82% 87%

6290 1 USS CARNEY (DDG 64) 9/22/2000 2, 3, & 4

6290 2 USS CARNEY (DDG 64) 9/22/2000 2, 3, & 4

6290 3 USS CARNEY (DDG 64) 9/22/2000 2, 3, & 4

Average 63% 73%

Total Average 77% 80%

6232 1 USS MAHAN (DDG 72) 6/15/1999 1 & 2 Oil sorbent polisher operated in recirc mode

6232 2 USS MAHAN (DDG 72) 6/15/1999 1 & 2 Oil sorbent polisher operated in recirc mode

6232 3 USS MAHAN (DDG 72) 6/15/1999 1 & 2 Oil sorbent polisher operated in recirc mode

Average 81% 88%

6232 1 USS MAHAN (DDG 72) 6/29/1999 1 & 2

Polisher membrane changed; Oil sorbent polisher operated in 

recirc mode

6232 2 USS MAHAN (DDG 72) 6/29/1999 1 & 2

Polisher membrane changed; Oil sorbent polisher operated in 

recirc mode

6232 3 USS MAHAN (DDG 72) 6/29/1999 1 & 2

Polisher membrane changed; Oil sorbent polisher operated in 

recirc mode

6232 1 USS MAHAN (DDG 72) 6/29/1999 1 & 2 Duplicate

6232 2 USS MAHAN (DDG 72) 6/29/1999 1 & 2 Duplicate

6232 3 USS MAHAN (DDG 72) 6/29/1999 1 & 2 Duplicate

Average 0% 22%

6232 1 USS MAHAN (DDG 72) 6/30/1999 1 & 2 Oil sorbent polisher operated in recirc mode

6232 2 USS MAHAN (DDG 72) 6/30/1999 1 & 2 Oil sorbent polisher operated in recirc mode

6232 3 USS MAHAN (DDG 72) 6/30/1999 1 & 2 Oil sorbent polisher operated in recirc mode

Average 94%

6232 1 USS MAHAN (DDG 72) 6/17/1999 1 & 2 Oil sorbent polisher operated in recirc mode

6232 2 USS MAHAN (DDG 72) 6/17/1999 1 & 2 Oil sorbent polisher operated in recirc mode

6232 3 USS MAHAN (DDG 72) 6/17/1999 1 & 2 Oil sorbent polisher operated in recirc mode

Average 81% 77%

Total Average 64% 63%

6283 1 USS RUSHMORE (LSD 47) 11/17/2000 2 & 3

6283 2 USS RUSHMORE (LSD 47) 11/17/2000 2 & 3

6283 3 USS RUSHMORE (LSD 47) 11/17/2000 2 & 3

Average -40% 11%

6283 1 USS RUSHMORE (LSD 47) 12/13/2000 2 & 3

6283 2 USS RUSHMORE (LSD 47) 12/13/2000 2 & 3

6283 3 USS RUSHMORE (LSD 47) 12/13/2000 2 & 3

Average 15% 32%

6283 1 USS RUSHMORE (LSD 47) 9/26/2000 2 & 3

6283 2 USS RUSHMORE (LSD 47) 9/26/2000 2 & 3

6283 3 USS RUSHMORE (LSD 47) 9/26/2000 2 & 3

6283 1 USS RUSHMORE (LSD 47) 9/26/2000 2 & 3

Average 52% 44%

6283 1 USS RUSHMORE (LSD 47) 10/17/2000 2 & 3

6283 2 USS RUSHMORE (LSD 47) 10/17/2000 2 & 3

6283 3 USS RUSHMORE (LSD 47) 10/17/2000 2 & 3

Average 81% 77%
Table A1-1 (Continued)

A1-30 

Navy Shipboard Data Collected from 1999 - 2000

Episode Grab # Ship Name Date

UF HEM 

% 

Removal

UF SGTHEM % 

Removal Source Notes

6283 ? USS RUSHMORE (LSD 47) ? 2 & 3

No sample info available; therefore, did not include these data in 

the analysis.

6283 ? USS RUSHMORE (LSD 47) ? 2 & 3

No sample info available; therefore, did not include these data in 

the analysis.

6283 ? USS RUSHMORE (LSD 47) ? 2 & 3

No sample info available; therefore, did not include these data in 

the analysis.

Total Average 27% 41%

AUX1

6241B 1 USS OAK HILL (LSD 51) 11/16/1999 1 & 2 AUX 1 in recirc mode b/c OCM was not working

6241B 2 USS OAK HILL (LSD 51) 11/16/1999 1 & 2 AUX 1 in recirc mode b/c OCM was not working

6241B 3 USS OAK HILL (LSD 51) 11/16/1999 1 & 2 AUX 1 in recirc mode b/c OCM was not working

Average AUX 1 in recirc mode b/c OCM was not working

6241B 1 USS OAK HILL (LSD 51) 11/17/1999 1 & 2 AUX 1 in recirc mode b/c OCM was not working

6241B 2 USS OAK HILL (LSD 51) 11/17/1999 1 & 2 AUX 1 in recirc mode b/c OCM was not working

6241B 3 USS OAK HILL (LSD 51) 11/17/1999 1 & 2 AUX 1 in recirc mode b/c OCM was not working

6241B 1 USS OAK HILL (LSD 51) 11/17/1999 1 & 2 Duplicate; AUX 1 in recirc mode b/c OCM was not working

6241B 2 USS OAK HILL (LSD 51) 11/17/1999 1 & 2 Duplicate; AUX 1 in recirc mode b/c OCM was not working

6241B 3 USS OAK HILL (LSD 51) 11/17/1999 1 & 2 Duplicate; AUX 1 in recirc mode b/c OCM was not working

Average

Total Average

AUX2

6241B 1 USS OAK HILL (LSD 51) 11/16/1999 1 & 2 AUX2 was allowed to discharge overboard on both sampling days

6241B 2 USS OAK HILL (LSD 51) 11/16/1999 1 & 2 AUX2 was allowed to discharge overboard on both sampling days

6241B 3 USS OAK HILL (LSD 51) 11/16/1999 1 & 2 AUX2 was allowed to discharge overboard on both sampling days

Average

6241B 1 USS OAK HILL (LSD 51) 11/17/1999 1 & 2 AUX2 was allowed to discharge overboard on both sampling days

6241B 2 USS OAK HILL (LSD 51) 11/17/1999 1 & 2 AUX2 was allowed to discharge overboard on both sampling days

6241B 3 USS OAK HILL (LSD 51) 11/17/1999 1 & 2 AUX2 was allowed to discharge overboard on both sampling days

Average

Total Average

6244 1 USCGC MORGENTHAU (WHEC 722) 8/31/1999 1 & 2

Problems with OWS; OCM warning light was illuminated indicating 

the OCM is dirty or the sample is cloudy; the OCM could not obtatin 

accurate readings.

6244 2 USCGC MORGENTHAU (WHEC 722) 8/31/1999 1 & 2

Problems with OWS; OCM warning light was illuminated indicating 

the OCM is dirty or the sample is cloudy; the OCM could not obtatin 

accurate readings.

Average

6244 1 USCGC MORGENTHAU (WHEC 722) 9/7/1999 1 & 2

Problems with OWS; OCM warning light was illuminated indicating 

the OCM is dirty or the sample is cloudy; the OCM could not obtatin 

accurate readings.

6244 2 USCGC MORGENTHAU (WHEC 722) 9/7/1999 1 & 2

Problems with OWS; OCM warning light was illuminated indicating 

the OCM is dirty or the sample is cloudy; the OCM could not obtatin 

accurate readings.

6244 3 USCGC MORGENTHAU (WHEC 722) 9/7/1999 1 & 2

Problems with OWS; OCM warning light was illuminated indicating 

the OCM is dirty or the sample is cloudy; the OCM could not obtatin 

accurate readings.

Average
Table A1-1 (Continued)

A1-31 

Navy Shipboard Data Collected from 1999 - 2000

Episode Grab # Ship Name Date

UF HEM 

% 

Removal

UF SGTHEM % 

Removal Source Notes

6244 1 USCGC MORGENTHAU (WHEC 722) 11/13/1999 1 & 2

OWS cleaned before taking these samples; OCM warning light was 

illuminated indicating the OCM is dirty or the sample is cloudy; the 

OCM could not obtatin accurate readings.

6244 2 USCGC MORGENTHAU (WHEC 722) 11/13/1999 1 & 2

OWS cleaned before taking these samples; OCM warning light was 

illuminated indicating the OCM is dirty or the sample is cloudy; the 

OCM could not obtatin accurate readings.

6244 3 USCGC MORGENTHAU (WHEC 722) 11/13/1999 1 & 2

OWS cleaned before taking these samples; OCM warning light was 

illuminated indicating the OCM is dirty or the sample is cloudy; the 

OCM could not obtatin accurate readings.

6244 1 USCGC MORGENTHAU (WHEC 722) 11/13/1999 1 & 2 Duplicate

6244 2 USCGC MORGENTHAU (WHEC 722) 11/13/1999 1 & 2 Duplicate

6244 3 USCGC MORGENTHAU (WHEC 722) 11/13/1999 1 & 2 Duplicate

Average

6244 1 USCGC MORGENTHAU (WHEC 722) 11/17/1999 1 & 2

OWS cleaned before taking these samples; OCM warning light was 

illuminated indicating the OCM is dirty or the sample is cloudy; the 

OCM could not obtatin accurate readings.

6244 2 USCGC MORGENTHAU (WHEC 722) 11/17/1999 1 & 2

OWS cleaned before taking these samples; OCM warning light was 

illuminated indicating the OCM is dirty or the sample is cloudy; the 

OCM could not obtatin accurate readings.

6244 3 USCGC MORGENTHAU (WHEC 722) 11/17/1999 1 & 2

OWS cleaned before taking these samples; OCM warning light was 

illuminated indicating the OCM is dirty or the sample is cloudy; the 

OCM could not obtatin accurate readings.

Average

Total Average

Total Average without negatives

6260 1 USS BONHOMME RICHARD (LHD 6) 12/8/1999 1 & 2

6260 2 USS BONHOMME RICHARD (LHD 6) 12/8/1999 1 & 2

6260 3 USS BONHOMME RICHARD (LHD 6) 12/8/1999 1 & 2

Average

6260 1 USS BONHOMME RICHARD (LHD 6) 12/10/1999 1 & 2

6260 2 USS BONHOMME RICHARD (LHD 6) 12/11/1999 1 & 2

6260 3 USS BONHOMME RICHARD (LHD 6) 12/11/1999 1 & 2

Average

6260 1 USS BONHOMME RICHARD (LHD 6) 12/13/1999 1 & 2

6260 2 USS BONHOMME RICHARD (LHD 6) 12/14/1999 1 & 2

6260 3 USS BONHOMME RICHARD (LHD 6) 12/14/1999 1 & 2

6260 1 USS BONHOMME RICHARD (LHD 6) 12/13/1999 1 & 2 Duplicate

6260 2 USS BONHOMME RICHARD (LHD 6) 12/14/1999 1 & 2 Duplicate

6260 3 USS BONHOMME RICHARD (LHD 6) 12/14/1999 1 & 2 Duplicate

Average

6260 1 USS BONHOMME RICHARD (LHD 6) 12/16/1999 1 & 2

6260 2 USS BONHOMME RICHARD (LHD 6) 12/16/1999 1 & 2

6260 3 USS BONHOMME RICHARD (LHD 6) 12/16/1999 1 & 2

Average

Total Average

6266 1 USS DAVID R. RAY (DD 971) 1/11/2000 1 & 2 Fuel spill - fuel may be present

6266 2 USS DAVID R. RAY (DD 971) 1/11/2000 1 & 2 Fuel spill - fuel may be present

6266 3 USS DAVID R. RAY (DD 971) 1/11/2000 1 & 2 Fuel spill - fuel may be present

Average

6266 1 USS DAVID R. RAY (DD 971) 1/12/2000 1 & 2 Fuel spill - fuel may be present

6266 2 USS DAVID R. RAY (DD 971) 1/12/2000 1 & 2 Fuel spill - fuel may be present

6266 3 USS DAVID R. RAY (DD 971) 1/12/2000 1 & 2 Fuel spill - fuel may be present

6266 1 USS DAVID R. RAY (DD 971) 1/12/2000 1 & 2 Duplicate

6266 2 USS DAVID R. RAY (DD 971) 1/12/2000 1 & 2 Duplicate

6266 3 USS DAVID R. RAY (DD 971) 1/12/2000 1 & 2 Duplicate

Average
Table A1-1 (Continued)

A1-32 

Navy Shipboard Data Collected from 1999 - 2000

Episode Grab # Ship Name Date

UF HEM 

% 

Removal

UF SGTHEM % 

Removal Source Notes

6266 1 USS DAVID R. RAY (DD 971) 1/15/2000 1 & 2

Fuel spill - fuel may be present; AFFF discharge - can reduce 

effectiveness of OWS

6266 2 USS DAVID R. RAY (DD 971) 1/15/2000 1 & 2

Fuel spill - fuel may be present; AFFF discharge - can reduce 

effectiveness of OWS

6266 3 USS DAVID R. RAY (DD 971) 1/15/2000 1 & 2

Fuel spill - fuel may be present; AFFF discharge - can reduce 

effectiveness of OWS

Average

6266 1 USS DAVID R. RAY (DD 971) 2/8/2000 1 & 2

6266 2 USS DAVID R. RAY (DD 971) 2/8/2000 1 & 2

6266 3 USS DAVID R. RAY (DD 971) 2/9/2000 1 & 2

Average

Total Average

Total Average without first two days

Note: All units are in ppm.

56% 61%

Sources:

1. P:\UNDS\EPA data\ERG\PhaseII_Main_field_6_27_00_revised_07_02_01_THK 

2. P:\UNDS\EPA data\Phase_II_Cllunds_revised_05_22_01_thk

3. P:\UNDS\EPA data\ERG\PhaseII_Main_field_Carney_Rushmore_04_23_01 

4. The OCM readings were taken from Tables 4-7 and 4-8 of the SER for the Carney (file named NSWCCD-TR-63-00-261.pdf). 

*The OCM readings were selected based on the time the readings were 

recorded; these times were matched with the times that the grab samples 
Table A1-1 (Continued)

A1-33 

Table A1-2

Difference 

OWS OWS Between 

Influent Effluent Effluent Percent 

Average Value Average Value and Influent Difference 

Total Metals (mg/L) 

Aluminum 0.211 0.197 -0.0139 -6.6

Arsenic 0.00368 0.00325 -0.000425 -12

Barium 0.0392 0.0387 -0.000462 -1.2

Boron 2.15 2.14 -0.0175 -0.81

Cadmium 0.00218 0.00198 -0.0002 -9.2

Calcium 162 161 -1.38 -0.85

Chromium 0.0064 0.00655 0.00015 2.3

Cobalt 0.0041 0.00516 0.00106 26

Copper 0.62 0.608 -0.0115 -1.9

Iron 4.68 4.45 -0.23 -4.9

Lead 0.00463 0.0041 -0.000525 -11

Magnesium 525 522 -3.38 -0.64

Manganese 0.217 0.221 0.00387 1.8

Molybdenum 0.00648 0.00726 0.000788 12

Nickel 0.261 0.254 -0.00625 -2.4

Selenium 0.0233 0.02 -0.00325 -14

Sodium 1,370 3,300 1,930 140

Tin 0.0031 0.00494 0.00184 59

Titanium 0.00315 0.00323 0.000075 2.4

Zinc 1.96 2 0.036 1.8

Dissolved Metals (mg/L) 

Aluminum, Dissolved 0.175 0.167 -0.008 -4.6

Arsenic, Dissolved 0.001 0.0045 0.0035 350

Barium, Dissolved 0.0338 0.0337 -0.000113 -0.33

Boron, Dissolved 2.11 2.1 -0.015 -0.71

Calcium, Dissolved 161 159 -2.13 -1.3

Chromium, Dissolved 0.00465 0.0048 0.00015 3.2

Cobalt, Dissolved 0.00273 0.00476 0.00204 75

Copper, Dissolved 0.0181 0.0127 -0.0054 -30

Iron, Dissolved 2.93 2.8 -0.127 -4.3

Lead, Dissolved 0.0014 0.00148 0.000075 5.4

Manganese, Dissolved 0.212 0.215 0.00363 -2

Molybdenum, Dissolved 0.00525 0.00734 0.00209 40

Nickel, Dissolved 0.187 0.189 0.00175 0.93

Sodium, Dissolved 5,330 5,220 -108 -2

Tin, Dissolved 0.0033 0.003 -0.0003 -9.1

Zinc, Dissolved 0.0929 0.102 0.00925 10

ND - Not detected (number in parentheses is detection limit). 

< - Average reported includes at least one nondetect value, which was used at the detection limit. 

Calculations were performed prior to rounding of numbers. 

Note - all ND's & <'s have been removed

Comparison of Analytical Results for Surface Vessel Bilgewater/OWS Discharge 

Samples 

USS DAVID R. RAY (DD 971) 
Table A1-3

A3

SP-3 OWS and Polymeric OWS Polisher Polisher

SP-1 SP-2 Membrane Removal Removal RemovalOWS Influent OWS Effluent Effluent SP-2 - SP-1 Percent SP-3 - SP-1 Percent SP-3 - SP-2 Average Value Average Value Average Value Difference Difference Difference Difference Difference 

Total Metals (mg/L) Aluminum 0.158 0.0962 0.0711 -0.0613 -39 -0.0864 -55 -0.025Antimony 0.00385 0.0116 0.0095 0.00773 200 0.00565 150 -0.002Arsenic 0.0015 0.00388 0.00325 0.00238 160 0.00175 120 -0.0006Barium 0.22 0.209 0.195 -0.0113 -5.1 -0.0253 -11 -0.01Boron 1.78 1.72 1.85 -0.057 -3.2 0.0698 3.9 0.12Cadmium 0.00203 0.00155 0.00141 -0.000475 -23 -0.000613 -30 -0.0001Calcium 36 35.1 44.1 -0.975 -2.7 8.05 22 9.0Chromium 0.00828 0.00493 0.00358 -0.00335 -40 -0.0047 -57 -0.001Cobalt 0.0016 0.0012 0.00103 -0.0004 -25 -0.000575 -36 -0.0001Copper 1.07 0.677 0.351 -0.398 -37 -0.724 -67 -0.32Iron 1.19 0.801 0.322 -0.384 -32 -0.864 -73 -0.4Lead 0.0142 0.00838 0.00885 -0.00578 -41 -0.0053 -37 0.0004Magnesium 95.1 92.4 103 -2.75 -2.9 7.93 8.3 10Manganese 0.105 0.103 0.095 -0.00203 -1.9 -0.0101 -9.6 -0.008Mercury 0.00023 0.000203 0.000206 -0.0000275 -12 -0.0000238 -10 0.000003Molybdenum 0.00328 0.0031 0.003 -0.000175 -5.3 -0.000275 -8.4 -0.00Nickel 0.326 0.242 0.174 -0.0845 -26 -0.152 -47 -0.06Selenium 0.00785 0.017 0.0167 0.00915 120 0.00881 110 -0.0003Sodium 841 812 909 -29 -3.4 68.3 8.1 97Thallium 0.0069 0.00578 0.0055 -0.00113 -16 -0.0014 -20 -0.0002Tin 0.00993 0.0075 0.0075 -0.00243 -24 -0.00243 -24 Titanium 0.00473 0.0031 0.00451 -0.00163 -34 -0.000213 -4.5 0.001Zinc 1.31 0.988 0.578 -0.327 -25 -0.736 -56 -0.4Dissolved Metals (mg/L) Antimony, Dissolved 0.0222 0.011 0.0162 -0.0112 -51 -0.00605 -27 0.005Arsenic, Dissolved 0.0015 0.0105 0.00663 0.009 600 0.00513 340 -0.003Barium, Dissolved 0.205 0.205 0.18 0.00075 0.37 -0.0249 -12 -0.025Boron, Dissolved 1.86 1.73 1.95 -0.131 -7 0.085 4.6 0.2Calcium, Dissolved 36.1 34.6 44 -1.55 -4.3 7.88 22 9.4Chromium, Dissolved 0.0015 0.00133 0.0013 -0.000175 -12 -0.0002 -13 -0.0000Cobalt, Dissolved 0.001 0.00113 0.0016 0.000125 13 0.0006 60 0.0004Copper, Dissolved 0.0181 0.0184 0.0143 0.0003 1.7 -0.00378 -21 -0.004Iron, Dissolved 0.286 0.252 0.0321 -0.0341 -12 -0.254 -89 -0.2Magnesium, Dissolved 99.1 93.6 105 -5.5 -5.5 6.13 6.2 11Manganese, Dissolved 0.0988 0.0986 0.0948 -0.00025 0.25 -0.00396 -4 -0.003Nickel, Dissolved 0.0736 0.0606 0.0848 -0.013 -18 0.0112 15 0.02Selenium, Dissolved 0.0183 0.0116 0.0126 -0.00673 -37 -0.00565 -31 0.001Silver, Dissolved 0.005 0.0055 0.005 0.0005 10 0 0 -0.00Sodium, Dissolved 856 821 939 -34.3 -4 83.5 9.8 1Thallium, Dissolved 0.00995 0.0108 0.00325 0.00085 8.5 -0.0067 -67 -0.007Tin, Dissolved 0.0075 0.00793 0.0075 0.000425 5.7 0 0 -0.0004Zinc, Dissolved 0.0574 0.0504 0.0231 -0.007 -12 -0.0344 -60 -0.02ND - Not detected (number in parentheses is detection limit). < - Average repotred includes at least one nondetect value. Calculations are performed prior to roundinNSWCCD1\TR-63-99-235 

Note - all ND's & <'s have been removed

Comparison of Analytical Results for OWS Influent, 

OWS Effluent, and Oil Sorbent Polisher Effluent 

USS MAHAN (DDG 72) 

A1-36 

Table A1-4

OWS Influent OWS Effluent Difference Between Percent 

Average Value Average Value Effluent and Influent Difference 

Total Metals (mg/L) 

Aluminum 0.111 0.0789 -0.0317 -29

Antimony 0.0113 0.0137 0.00235 21

Arsenic 0.00103 0.00133 0.0003 29

Barium 0.0518 0.0514 -0.000438 -0.84

Beryllium 0.001 0.00164 0.000638 64

Boron 6.91 6.7 -0.204 -3

Cadmium 0.00658 0.00704 0.000463 7

Calcium 75.3 74.4 -0.925 -1.2

Chromium 0.00893 0.00984 0.000912 10

Cobalt 0.0065 0.00595 -0.00055 -8.5

Copper 0.494 0.569 0.0749 15

Iron 4.14 4.24 0.0975 2.4

Lead 0.0318 0.0333 0.0015 4.7

Magnesium 162 159 -2.94 -1.8

Manganese 0.365 0.365 -0.00075 -0.21

Molybdenum 0.0177 0.0181 0.0004 2.3

Nickel 0.325 0.318 -0.00733 -2.3

Sodium 1,480 1,440 -43.4 -2.9

Thallium 0.0103 0.0148 0.00448 43

Tin 0.0246 0.0385 0.0139 56

Titanium 0.003 0.00315 0.00015 5

Zinc 3.87 3.73 -0.147 -3.8

Dissolved Metals (mg/L) 

Aluminum, Dissolved 0.0373 0.0377 0.0004 1

Antimony, Dissolved 0.0038 0.009 0.0052 140

Arsenic, Dissolved 0.001 0.00101 0.0000125 1.2

Barium, Dissolved 0.0455 0.0472 0.00176 3.9

Boron, Dissolved 6.84 3.78 -3.06 -45

Calcium, Dissolved 71.9 74.2 2.25 3.1

Chromium, Dissolved 0.00638 0.0071 0.000725 11

Cobalt, Dissolved 0.0059 0.00643 0.000525 8.9

Copper, Dissolved 0.0142 0.0202 0.006 42

Iron, Dissolved 0.896 1.29 0.397 44

Lead, Dissolved 0.025 0.0253 0.000325 1.3

Magnesium, Dissolved 155 161 6.61 4.3

Manganese, Dissolved 0.353 0.365 0.0121 3.4

Molybdenum, Dissolved 0.0182 0.0181 -0.000075 -0.41

Nickel, Dissolved 0.278 0.279 0.00137 0.5

Silver, Dissolved 0.0055 0.00675 0.00125 23

Sodium, Dissolved 1,390 1,440 50.5 3.6

Thallium, Dissolved 0.01 0.00678 -0.00323 -32

Tin, Dissolved 0.021 0.0206 -0.000425 -2

Zinc, Dissolved 2.7 2.56 -0.143 -5.3

ND – Not detected (number in parentheses is detection limit). < - Average reported includes at least one nondetect 

value, which was used at the detection limit. Calculations performed prior to rounding of numbers. 

Note - all ND's & <'s have been removed

Comparison of Analytical Results for OWS Influent and OWS Effluent 

USCGC MORGENTHAU (WHEC 722)
A1-37 

Table A1-5

OWS Influent OWS Effluent Difference between Percent 

Average Value Average Value Effluent and Influent Difference 

Total Metals (mg/L) 

Aluminum 0.256 0.256 0.000125 0.05

Antimony 0.0038 0.00273 -0.00108 -28

Barium 0.152 0.155 0.00375 2.5

Boron 0.66 0.746 0.086 13

Cadmium 0.00578 0.00524 -0.000537 -9.3

Calcium 63.3 69.9 6.58 10

Chromium 0.0172 0.0165 -0.000725 -4.2

Cobalt 0.00285 0.00305 0.0002 7

Copper 1.36 1.2 -0.165 -12

Iron 2.25 2.19 -0.06 -2.7

Lead 0.0113 0.0111 -0.000188 -1.7

Magnesium 188 213 25 13

Manganese 0.137 0.125 -0.0114 -8.3

Molybdenum 0.00375 0.00414 0.000388 10

Nickel 0.513 0.471 -0.0424 -8.3

Silver 0.00613 0.0126 0.00651 110

Sodium 1,700 1,880 188 11

Thallium 0.012 0.0113 -0.000713 -5.9

Tin 0.00748 0.0272 0.0197 260

Titanium 0.00495 0.00536 0.000413 8.3

Zinc 2.1 1.9 -0.201 -9.6

Dissolved Metals (mg/L) 

Aluminum, Dissolved 0.111 0.0904 -0.0209 -19

Antimony, Dissolved 0.0031 0.00818 0.00508 160

Barium, Dissolved 0.123 0.125 0.00175 1.4

Boron, Dissolved 0.682 0.763 0.0802 12

Calcium, Dissolved 64.1 69.6 5.51 8.6

Chromium, Dissolved 0.00543 0.002 -0.00343 -63

Cobalt, Dissolved 0.00215 0.00208 -0.000075 -3.5

Copper, Dissolved 0.0718 0.0134 -0.0584 -81

Iron, Dissolved 1.89 1.56 -0.325 -17

Lead, Dissolved 0.0021 0.00224 0.000138 6.6

Magnesium, Dissolved 192 215 22.8 12

Manganese, Dissolved 0.133 0.123 -0.00965 -7.3

Nickel, Dissolved 0.425 0.379 -0.0455 -11

Selenium, Dissolved 0.0164 0.0207 0.0043 26

Silver, Dissolved 0.006 0.0083 0.0023 38

Sodium, Dissolved 1,700 1,860 169 9.9

Tin, Dissolved 0.004 0.00408 0.000075 1.9

Zinc, Dissolved 0.177 0.0651 -0.112 -63

ND - Not detected (number in parentheses is detection limit). 

< - Average reported includes at least one nondetect value, which was used at the detection limit. 

Calculations were performed prior to rounding of numbers. 

Note - all ND's & <'s have been removed

Comparison of Analytical Results for OWS Influent and Effluent 

USS BONHOMME RICHARD (LHD 6)
Table A1-6

A3

Sample Point 1 Sample Point 2 Sample Point 3 OWS Influent OWS Effluent Membrane Permeate % % Average Value Average Value Average Value Difference Diff. Difference Diff. Difference 

Total Metals (mg/L) Aluminum 0.264 0.107 0.0549 -0.157 -60 -0.0517 -48 -0.2Antimony 0.012 0.00831 0.0065 -0.00366 -31 -0.00181 -22 -0.005Arsenic 0.00113 0.00438 0.00325 0.00325 289 -0.00113 -26 0.002Barium 0.168 0.137 0.128 -0.0306 -18 -0.00945 -7 -0.04Beryllium 0.00283 0.0023 0.00223 -0.000525 -19 -0.000075 -3 -0.00Boron 3.53 3.54 3.77 0.0075 0 0.228 6 0.2Cadmium 0.0142 0.00635 0.001 -0.00788 -55 -0.00535 -84 -0.0Calcium 89.3 89.8 93.5 0.525 1 3.75 4 4Chromium 0.0341 0.00978 0.00845 -0.0243 -71 -0.00133 -14 -0.02Cobalt 0.00645 0.00298 0.002 -0.00348 -54 -0.000975 -33 -0.004Copper 7.64 2.85 0.007 -4.79 -63 -2.84 -100 -7Iron 4.41 2.13 0.765 -2.27 -52 -1.37 -64 -3Lead 0.0979 0.042 0.002 -0.0558 -57 -0.04 -95 -0.09Magnesium 249 249 260 0 0 11.5 5 1Manganese 0.303 0.288 0.29 -0.0154 -5 0.00212 1 -0.0Molybdenum 0.0107 0.0045 0.002 -0.00623 -58 -0.0025 -56 -0.00Nickel 2.2 1.04 0.242 -1.16 -53 -0.797 -77 -1Selenium 0.00655 0.01 0.00705 0.00349 53 -0.00299 -30 0.00Silver 0.0144 0.00795 0.007 -0.00645 -45 -0.00095 -12 -0.00Sodium 2,220 2,220 2,350 5 0 128 6 1Tin 0.0178 0.00468 0.004 -0.0131 -74 -0.000675 -14 -0.0Titanium 0.00585 0.0031 0.003 -0.00275 -47 -0.0001 -3 -0.002Vanadium 0 0.012 0.0122 0 0 0.00015 1 0.00Zinc 3.47 1.53 0.0151 -1.94 -56 -1.51 -99 -3Dissolved Metals (mg/L) Aluminum, Dissolved 0.0625 0.0501 0.0555 -0.0124 -20 0.0054 11 -0.0Arsenic, Dissolved 0 0.00333 0.001 0.00233 232 -0.00233 -70 Barium, Dissolved 0.128 0.131 0.139 0.0028 2 0.00805 6 0.0Beryllium, Dissolved 0.0022 0.0022 0.00238 0 0 0.000175 8 0.000Boron, Dissolved 3.82 3.73 3.96 -0.0962 -3 0.231 6 0.Calcium, Dissolved 98.8 95.8 99.8 -3.03 -3 4.03 4 Chromium, Dissolved 0.00335 0.00285 0.00313 -0.0005 -15 0.000275 10 -0.0002Cobalt, Dissolved 0 0.002 0.00203 0 0 0.000025 1 0.000Copper, Dissolved 0.0735 0.0507 0.007 -0.0228 -31 -0.0437 -86 -0.06Iron, Dissolved 0.833 0.767 0.79 -0.0663 -8 0.023 3 -0.04Lead, Dissolved 0 0.00233 0.002 0.000325 16 -0.000325 -14 Magnesium, Dissolved 271 264 277 -6.38 -2 13.1 5 6Manganese, Dissolved 0.301 0.29 0.306 -0.0111 -4 0.0156 5 0.00Molybdenum, Dissolved 0 0.00318 0.002 0.00118 59 -0.00118 -37 Nickel, Dissolved 0.351 0.256 0.238 -0.0957 -27 -0.0174 -7 -0.1Sodium, Dissolved 2,700 2,620 2,760 -80 -3 135 5 Thallium, Dissolved 0.00805 0.0086 0.0119 0.00055 7 0.0033 38 0.003Tin, Dissolved 0 0.004 0.0041 0 0 0.0001 3 0.00Zinc, Dissolved 0.0372 0.0304 0.0137 -0.00688 -18 -0.0167 -55 -0.02ND - Not detected (number in parentheses is detection limit). < - Average reported includes at least one nondetect value, which was used at the detection limit. Calculations were performed prior to rounding of numbers. 

Note - all ND's & <'s have been removed

Comparison of Analytical Results for Surface Vessel Bilgewater/OWS Discharge 

USS CARNEY (DDG 64) 

Point 2-1 Point 3-2 Poin
Table A1-7

A3

Sample Point 1 Sample Point 2 Sample Point 3 OWS Influent OWS Effluent Membrane Effluent % % Average Value Average Value Average Value Difference Diff Difference Diff Difference 

Total Metals (mg/L) Aluminum 0.0421 0.0375 0.0363 -0.00463 -11 -0.00125 -3 -0.00Antimony 0.0119 0.00875 0.0068 -0.00315 -26 -0.00195 -22 -0.0Arsenic 0.00325 0.00326 0.00555 0.0000125 0 0.00229 70 0.0Barium 0.0208 0.0213 0.0208 0.000488 2 -0.000487 -2 3.4700EBoron 1.61 1.7 1.67 0.0875 5 -0.025 -1 0.0Cadmium 0.0011 0.00115 0.001 0.00005 5 -0.00015 -13 -0.0Calcium 153 161 158 7.63 5 -3.13 -2 Chromium 0.0023 0.00199 0.00213 -0.000313 -14 0.000138 7 -0.000Copper 0.105 0.0971 0.00963 -0.00836 -8 -0.0874 -90 -0.0Iron 0.224 0.197 0.134 -0.0274 -12 -0.0627 -32 -0.0Lead 0.00193 0.003 0.0015 0.00108 56 -0.0015 -50 -0.000Magnesium 289 308 301 19 7 -7.5 -2 Manganese 0.135 0.141 0.142 0.0066 5 0.0009 1 0.0Mercury 0.0002 0.0002 0.000205 0 0 0.000005 3 0.000Molybdenum 0.00285 0.00269 0.00338 -0.000163 -6 0.000688 26 0.000Nickel 0.0478 0.0549 0.0415 0.00711 15 -0.0135 -25 -0.00Selenium 0.0068 0.0117 0.0065 0.00493 72 -0.00523 -45 -0.0Sodium 2,630 2,800 2,760 176 7 -43.8 -2 Tin 0.00368 0.00325 0.00333 -0.000425 -12 0.000075 2 -0.00Zinc 0.197 0.215 0.0213 0.0181 9 -0.194 -90 -0Dissolved Metals (mg/L) Antimony, Dissolved 0.0065 0.0156 0.0069 0.0091 140 -0.0087 -56 0.0Barium, Dissolved 0.0199 0.0205 0.0206 0.00065 3 0.00005 0 0.0Boron, Dissolved 1.62 1.7 1.68 0.0765 5 -0.023 -1 0.0Calcium, Dissolved 156 159 160 2.88 2 0.625 0 Chromium, Dissolved 0.00188 0.00404 0.00145 0.00216 115 -0.00259 -64 -0.000Cobalt, Dissolved 0.00153 0.0015 0.0015 -0.000025 -2 0 0 -0.000Copper, Dissolved 0.01 0.0107 0.00815 0.000663 7 -0.00254 -24 -0.00Iron, Dissolved 0.0448 0.0397 0.0225 -0.00517 -12 -0.0171 -43 -0.0Magnesium, Dissolved 294 306 305 11.3 4 -1 0 Manganese, Dissolved 0.139 0.142 0.145 0.00317 2 0.00273 2 0.0Molybdenum, Dissolved 0.0031 0.00318 0.0031 0.000075 2 -0.000075 -2 Nickel, Dissolved 0.0415 0.0405 0.0492 -0.000925 -2 0.00863 21 0.0Selenium, Dissolved 0.0065 0.011 0.007 0.0045 69 -0.004 -36 0.0Sodium, Dissolved 2,680 2,830 2,770 158 6 -67.5 -2 Thallium, Dissolved 0.01 0.0126 0.0124 0.00255 26 -0.000175 -1 0.00Tin, Dissolved 0.00348 0.00321 0.003 -0.000263 -8 -0.000213 -7 -0.000Zinc, Dissolved 0.0628 0.0756 0.0147 0.0128 20 -0.0609 -81 -0.0ND – Not detected (number in parenthesis is detection limit). < - Average reported includes at least one nondetect value, which was used at the detection limit. Calculations were performed prior to rounding numbers. NSWCCD1/TR-63-2000-264 

Note - all ND's & <'s have been removed

Comparison of Analytical Results for Surface Vessel Bilgewater/OWS Discharge 

USS RUSHMORE (LSD 47) 

Point 2 - 1 Point 3 - 2 Point 
Table A1-8

A3

SP-1 SP-2 SP-3 SP-4AUX1 Influent AUX1 Effluent AUX2 Influent AUX2 Effluent SP-2 - SP-1 Percent SP-4 - Average Value Average Value Average Value Average Value Difference Diff Differe

Total Metals (mg/L) Aluminum 0.06 0.0888 0.0649 0.0485 0.0288 48 Antimony 0.00255 0.00343 0.0131 0.025 0.000875 34 Arsenic 0.001 0.00108 0.001 0.001 0.000075 7.5 Barium 0.0624 0.063 0.0651 0.0648 0.000575 0.92 -0Boron 1.66 1.73 1.76 1.76 0.0725 4.4 Calcium 70.7 72.1 144 138 1.42 2 Chromium 0.02 0.009 0.009 0.0097 -0.011 -55 Copper 0.54 0.517 0.501 0.472 -0.023 -4.3 Iron 0.749 0.716 0.846 0.782 -0.0325 -4.3 Magnesium 179 190 440 425 10.8 6 Manganese 0.0993 0.1 0.101 0.0964 0.00095 0.96 Nickel 0.354 0.334 0.231 0.213 -0.02 -5.7 Selenium 0.0127 0.00765 0.02 0.02 -0.005 -40 Sodium 1,670 1,800 4,230 4,100 138 8.3 Zinc 1.08 1.05 1.56 1.5 -0.0295 -2.7 Dissolved Metals (mg/L) Aluminum, Dissolved 0.0743 0.0592 0.0387 0.034 -0.0151 -20 -0Antimony, Dissolved 0.00315 0.00323 0.02 0.02 0.000075 2.4 Arsenic, Dissolved 0.001 0.00325 0.001 0.001 0.00225 250 Barium, Dissolved 0.0612 0.0659 0.0673 0.0675 0.0047 7.7 Boron, Dissolved 1.68 1.71 1.75 1.72 0.0325 1.9 Calcium, Dissolved 72 74.3 145 145 2.38 3.3 Copper, Dissolved 0.0314 0.0268 0.0117 0.0186 -0.00458 -15 0

Iron, Dissolved 0.202 0.201 0.008 0.008 -0.00075 -0.37 

Magnesium, Dissolved 182 185 425 436 3.25 1.8 Manganese, Dissolved 0.0937 0.0946 0.0903 0.0928 0.000925 0.99 Nickel, Dissolved 0.172 0.159 0.179 0.177 -0.0125 -7.3 Selenium, Dissolved 0.00245 0.011 0.02 0.02 0.00855 350 Sodium, Dissolved 1,680 1,740 4,010 4,160 60 3.6 Thallium, Dissolved 0.0249 0.0155 0.023 0.0218 -0.00935 -38 -0Zinc, Dissolved 0.157 0.139 0.425 0.305 -0.018 -12 ND- Not detected (number in parentheses is detection limit). < - Average reported includes at least one nondetect value, which was used at the detection limit). Calculations are performed prior to rounding of numbers to 3 significant figures. 

Note - all ND's & <'s have been removed

Comparison of Analytical Results for OWS Influent and OWS Effluent 

USS OAK HILL (LSD 51)
Attachment 2 

 NAVY SUPPLIED COMPARISON OF OCM READINGS 

 AND SGT-HEM CONCENTRATIONS
Table A2-1

040290-1015 15 10.4 8-9 8.5 n/a Off O UN A

040290-1030 15 12.3 8-7 7.5 n/a Off O UN A

040290-1100 15 10.3 6-8 7 n/a Off O UN A

040290-1120 15 10.7 6-8 7 n/a Off O UN A

040290-1140 15 10.3 6-8 7 n/a Off O UN A

040290-1220 15 5.6 4-5 4.5 n/a Off O CO A

040290-1230 15 4.5 4-5 4.5 n/a Off O CO A

040290-1300 15 4.5 5-6 5.5 n/a Off O CO A

040290-1320 15 6 4-6 5 n/a Off O CO A

040290-1340 15 4.3 3-5 4 n/a Off O CO A

040290-1400 15 4.1 4-6 5 n/a Off O CO A

040290-1420 15 5.4 4-7 5.5 n/a Off O CO A

040290-1440 15 3.9 3-6 4.5 n/a Off O CO A

040290-1450 15 4.3 4-5 4.5 n/a Off O CO A

041690-0745 15 26.6 20-19 19.5 n/a On R CR A

041690-0815 15 25.3 25-21 23 n/a On R CR A

041690-0845 15 25.8 20-24 22 n/a On R CR A

041690-0915 15 27.8 23-23 23 n/a On R CR A

041690-0945 15 25.2 21-22 21.5 n/a On R CR A

041690-1015 15 25.3 24-24 24 n/a On R CR A

041690-1045 15 25.4 22-23 22.5 n/a On R CR A

041690-1115 15 25.3 22-21 21.5 n/a On R CR A

041690-1145 15 28.1 24-26 25 n/a On R CR A

041690-1215 15 26.0 27-23 25 n/a On R CR A

041690-1245 15 25.3 19-23 21 n/a On R CR A

041690-1315 15 27.6 24-25 24.5 n/a On R CR A

041690-1345 15 29.9 25-25 25 n/a On R CR A

First Article Test OCM Decision Data (Ref. NAVSSES Publication 6923-18 January 1991)

*Chemical Analysis Method - Navy's Method, Freon extraction followed by IR spectroscopy, derivate of 

EPA Method 418.1

Sample 

(Date-Time)

OCM 

Setpoint 

(PPM)

Effluent 

Analysis* 

(PPM)

OCM 

Reading 

(PPM)

Average 

OCM 

Reading

OCM 

Corrected 

Value

Warning 

Light 

Status 

(Off/On)

OVBD/ 

RECIRC

In-Port/Low

Sample 

(Date-Time)

OCM 

Setpoint 

(PPM)

Effluent 

Analysis* 

(PPM)

OCM 

Reading 

(PPM)

Average 

OCM 

Reading

OCM 

Corrected 

Value

Warning 

Light 

Status 

(Off/On)

OVBD/ 

RECIRC

OCM 

Decision** A/U ***

In-Port/High

OCM 

Decision** A/U ***
A1-2 

Table A2-2
A1-3 

033100-1230 15 106 0 0 106 On R CR A

033100-1245 15 56 0 0 56 On R CR A

033100-1300 15 63 0 0 63 On R CR A

033100-1445 15 62 0 0 62 On R CR A

033100-1500 15 57 0 0 57 On R CR A

033100-1515 15 49 0 0 49 On R CR A

040600-1034 15 33 0 0 33 On R CR A

040600-1053 15 32 0 0 32 On R CR A

040600-1108 15 30 0 0 30 On R CR A

042600-1115 15 146 3 3 146 On R CR A

042600-1135 15 83 1 1 83 On R CR A

042600-1154 15 79 1 1 79 On R CR A

050200-1815 15 26 35 35 n/a Off R CR A

050200-1835 15 31 37 37 n/a Off R CR A

050200-1854 15 32 38 38 n/a Off R CR A

061500-0945 15 1 15 15 n/a Off R UR U

061500-1030 15 1 11 11 n/a Off O CO A

061500-1047 15 0 8 8 n/a Off O CO A

072400-1055 15 8 6 6 n/a Off O CO A

072400-1115 15 10 6 6 n/a Off O UN A

072400-1130 15 10 4 4 n/a Off O UN A

050100-1340 15 105 7 7 105 On R CR A

062400-1700 15 254 64 64 n/a Off R CR A

062400-1720 15 209 64 64 n/a Off R CR A

071800-1349 15 11 109 109 n/a Off R UN A

071800-1415 15 12 32 32 n/a Off R UN A

071800-1430 15 16 121 121 n/a Off R UN A

090500-1125 15 134 1 1 134 On R CR A

090500-1145 15 134 1 1 134 On R CR A

090500-1205 15 104 2 2 104 On R CR A

092000-1430 15 71 3 3 71 On R CR A

092000-1450 15 70 3 3 70 On R CR A

092000-1500 15 66 2 2 66 On R CR A

USS GONZALEZ (DDG-66) and USS ROSS (DDG-71) OCM Decision Data (Ref. NSWCCD-63-TM201/140 October 2001) 

DDG-71

DDG-66

Average 

OCM 

Reading

A/U *** OCM 

Decision**

OVBD/ 

RECIRC

Warning 

Light 

Status 

(Off/On)

OCM 

Corrected 

Value

Sample 

(Date-Time)

OCM 

Reading 

(PPM)

*Chemical Analysis Method - Navy's Method, Freon extraction followed by IR spectroscopy, derivate of 

EPA Method 418.1

OCM 

Setpoint 

(PPM)

Effluent 

Analysis* 

(PPM)

OCM 

Reading 

(PPM)

OCM 

Decision** A/U ***

** OCM Decision

CO: Correct Overboard Discharge

*** Acceptable or Unacceptable OCM Decision

Average 

OCM 

Reading

OCM 

Corrected 

Value

Warning 

Light 

Status 

(Off/On)

OVBD/ 

RECIRC

Sample 

(Date-Time)

OCM 

Setpoint 

(PPM)

Effluent 

Analysis* 

(PPM)

CR: Correct Recirculation

UR: Unnecessary Recirculation

UO: Unacceptable High Overboard 

UN: Undetermined OCM Decision. Region 

within the chemical analysis error.
A1-4 

Table A2-3

15 17.2 7 7 n/a Off O UN A

15 17.2 0 0 n/a Off O UN A

15 20.7 0 0 20.7 On R CR A

70 50.6 26 26 n/a Off O UN A

70 63.2 37 37 n/a Off O UN A

15 5.7 0 0 n/a Off O CO A

15 5.7 0 0 n/a Off O CO A

15 5.7 0 0 n/a Off O CO A

15 6.9 2 2 n/a Off O CO A

15 10.0 9 9 15 On R CR A

15 10.7 10 10 15 On R CR A

15 8.3 9 9 15 On R UR U

70 9.5 13 13 n/a Off O CO A

70 46.0 44 44 n/a Off O UN A

70 43.7 41 41 n/a Off O UN A

70 52.9 40 40 n/a Off O UN A

70 46.0 89 89 n/a Off R UN A

70 37.9 65 65 n/a Off O CO A

70 48.3 64 64 n/a Off O UN A

70 106.9 71 71 106.9 On R CR A

70 78.2 81 81 78.2 On R UN A

15 85.1 31 31 n/a Off R CR A

15 78.2 32 32 n/a Off R CR A

15 72.4 32 32 n/a Off R CR A

70 12.6 12 12 n/a Off O CO A

70 19.5 7 7 n/a Off O CO A

70 17.2 13 13 n/a Off O CO A

70 18.4 7 7 n/a Off O CO A

70 19.5 14 14 n/a Off O CO A

70 18.4 7 7 n/a Off O CO A

70 21.8 7 7 n/a Off O CO A

70 20.7 11 11 n/a Off O CO A

70 25.3 10 10 n/a Off O CO A

70 24.1 6 6 n/a Off O CO A

70 25.3 11 11 n/a Off O CO A

70 34.5 6 6 n/a Off O CO A

70 24.1 10 10 n/a Off O CO A

70 24.1 12 12 n/a Off O CO A

70 33.3 5 5 n/a Off O CO A

70 21.8 0 0 70 On R UR U

70 13.8 0 0 70 On R UR U

70 20.7 0 0 70 On R UR U

70 31.0 17 17 70 On R UR U

70 27.6 17 17 70 On R UR U

70 25.3 22 22 70 On R UR U

70 35.6 24 24 70 On R UR U

70 20.7 21 21 n/a Off O CO A

70 23.0 17 17 n/a Off O CO A

70 44.8 18 18 n/a Off O UN A

70 26.4 16 16 n/a Off O CO A

15 16.1 11 11 16.1 On R UN A

15 19.5 16 16 19.5 On R UN A

15 51.7 79 79 51.7 On R CR A

70 24.1 58 58 70 On R UR U

70 48.3 57 57 70 On R UN A

70 77.0 53 53 77 On R UN A

70 41.4 49 49 70 On R UN A

70 46.0 46 46 70 On R UN A

70 20.7 14 14 n/a Off O CO A

70 44.8 15 15 n/a Off O UN A

70 13.8 18 18 n/a Off O CO A

70 17.2 24 24 n/a Off O CO A

70 46.0 28 28 n/a Off O UN A

70 33.3 33 33 n/a Off O CO A

70 19.5 7 7 n/a Off O CO A

*Measured in mg/L then converted to PPM by division of the oil's specific gravity; Chemical Analysis 

Method - EPA Method 1664 "Gravimetric Method"

USS PRINCETON (CG-59) OCM Decision Data (Ref. CG-59 Demo Project, Ongoing) 

Average 

OCM 

Reading

OCM 

Corrected 

Value

Warning 

Light 

Status 

(Off/On)

OVBD/ 

RECIRC

Sample 

(Date-Time)

OCM 

Setpoint 

(PPM)

Effluent 

Analysis* 

(PPM)

OCM 

Reading 

(PPM)

OCM 

Decision** A/U ***
A1-5 

Table A2-4

080603-1345 15 11 12.6 11 n/a Off R UN A

080603-1410 15 11 12.6 20 n/a Off R UN A

080603-1445 70 10 11.5 20 n/a Off O CO A

090903-1445 70 24 27.6 34 n/a Off O CO A

090903-1520 70 22 25.3 30 n/a Off O CO A

090903-1545 70 29 33.3 50 n/a Off O CO A

100303-1042 70 251 288.5 104 n/a Off R CR A

100303-1112 70 218 250.6 99 250.6 On R CR A

100303-1142 70 195 224.1 95 224.1 On R CR A

112503-1057 15 53 60.9 5 60.9 On R CR A

112503-1115 15 44 50.6 23 50.6 On R CR A

112503-1133 15 50 57.5 21 57.5 On R CR A

121703-1437 70 85 97.7 56 n/a Off O UN A

121703-1501 70 110 126.4 62 126.4 Off R CR A

121703-1525 70 137 157.5 40 157.5 On R CR A

010504-1024 15 77 88.5 73 88.5 On R CR A

010504-1050 15 44 50.6 52 50.6 On R CR A

010504-1123 15 33 37.9 41 37.9 On R CR A

A/U ***

USS ARLEIGH BURKE (DDG-51) OCM Decision Data (Ref. DDG-51 Demo Project) 

*Chemical Analysis Method - EPA Method 1664 "Gravimetric Method"

Average 

OCM 

Reading

OCM 

Corrected 

Value

Warning 

Light 

Status 

(Off/On)

OVBD/ 

RECIRC

Sample 

(Date-Time)

OCM 

Setpoint 

(PPM)

Effluent 

Analysis* 

(PPM)

OCM 

Reading 

(PPM)

UN: Undetermined OCM Decision. Region 

within the chemical analysis error.

*** Acceptable or Unacceptable OCM Decision

CR: Correct Recirculation

UR: Unnecessary Recirculation

UO: Unacceptable High Overboard 

** OCM Decision

CO: Correct Overboard Discharge

OCM 

Decision**
A1-6 

Table A2-5

021604-1720 15 3.4 8-9 8.5 n/a Off O CO A

021604-1750 15 2.3 10-8 9 n/a Off O CO A

021604-1820 15 3.4 9-7 8 n/a Off O CO A

021604-1821 15 3.4 10-7 8.5 n/a Off O CO A

021604-1822 15 3.4 10-7 8.5 n/a Off O CO A

021604-1823 15 5.7 10-7 8.5 n/a Off O CO A

USS WASP (LHD-1) OCM Decision Data (Ref. LHD-1 Demo Project, Ongoing) 

*Measured in mg/L then converted to PPM by division of the oil's specific gravity; Chemical Analysis 

Method - EPA Method 1664 "Gravimetric Method"

Sample 

(Date-Time)

OCM 

Setpoint 

(PPM)

Effluent 

Analysis* 

(PPM)

OCM 

Reading 

(PPM)

Average 

OCM 

Reading

OCM 

Corrected 

Value

Warning 

Light 

Status 

(Off/On)

OVBD/ 

RECIRC

OCM 

Decision** A/U ***

** OCM Decision

CO: Correct Overboard Discharge

*** Acceptable or Unacceptable OCM Decision

CR: Correct Recirculation

UR: Unnecessary Recirculation

UO: Unacceptable High Overboard 

UN: Undetermined OCM Decision. Region 

within the chemical analysis error.

Attachment 3 

 ADDITIONAL OCM DATA GRAPHS
 Figure A3-1. All Data

Total In Port Results

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

120.0

140.0

160.0

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

Chemical Analysis Results (PPM)

O

C

M

Decision

(Readings/Warning light) (P

P

M)

OCM Readings OCM Corrected Values
Note: Upper graph is an excerpt from NAVSEA's June 1, 2004 presentation titled "OCM Performance." Lower 

graph presents the same information with OCM corrected values removed. 

A1-2

Total In Port Results

Note: OCM Corrected Values Removed

R

2

 = 0.2134

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

Chemical Analysis Results (PPM)

O

C

M

Readings (P

P

M)

OCM Readings
Note: Upper graph is an excerpt from NAVSEA's June 1, 2004 presentation titled "OCM Performance." Lower 

graph presents the same information with OCM corrected values removed. 

A1-3

Figure A3-2. OCM and Effluent Data for DDG 66 & 71

In Port Results

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

Chemical Analysis Results (PPM)

O

C

M

D

ecision

(R

e

a

ding

s/W

arning light) (P

P

M)

OCM Corrected Values OCM Readings
Note: Upper graph is an excerpt from NAVSEA's June 1, 2004 presentation titled "OCM Performance." Lower 

graph presents the same information with OCM corrected values removed. 

A1-4

In Port Results

Note: OCM Corrected Values Removed

R

2

 = 0.0948

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

Chemical Analysis Results (PPM)

O

C

M

Readings (P

P

M)

OCM Readings
Note: Upper graph is an excerpt from NAVSEA's June 1, 2004 presentation titled "OCM Performance." Lower 

graph presents the same information with OCM corrected values removed. 

A1-5

 Figure A3-3. OCM and Effluent Data for DDG 51

In Port Results

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 20 40 60 80 100

Chemical Analysis Results (PPM)

O

C

M

Decision

(Readings/Warning light) (P

P

M)

OCM Readings OCM Corrected Values
Note: Upper graph is an excerpt from NAVSEA's June 1, 2004 presentation titled "OCM Performance." Lower 

graph presents the same information with OCM corrected values removed. 

A1-6

In Port Results

Note: OCM Corrected Values Removed

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 20 40 60 80 100

Chemical Analysis Results (PPM)

O

C

M

Readings (P

P

M)

OCM Readings
Note: Upper graph is an excerpt from NAVSEA's June 1, 2004 presentation titled "OCM Performance." Lower 

graph presents the same information with OCM corrected values removed. 

A1-7

 Figure A3-4. OCM and Effluent Data for CG 59

In Port Results

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0 20 40 60 80 100

Chemical Analysis Results (PPM)

O

C

M

D

ecision

(R

e

a

ding

s/W

arning light) (P

P

M)

OCM Readings OCM Corrected Values
Note: Upper graph is an excerpt from NAVSEA's June 1, 2004 presentation titled "OCM Performance." Lower 

graph presents the same information with OCM corrected values removed. 

A1-8

In Port Results

Note: OCM Corrected Values Removed

R

2

 = 0.9718

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0 20 40 60 80 100

Chemical Analysis Results (PPM)

O

C

M

R

e

a

din

g

s (P

P

M)

OCM Readings
Note: Upper graph is an excerpt from NAVSEA's June 1, 2004 presentation titled "OCM Performance." Lower 

graph presents the same information with OCM corrected values removed. 

A1-9

 Figure A3-5. OCM and Effluent Data for LHD 1

In Port Results

0

5

10

15

20

25

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0

Chemical Analysis Results (PPM)

O

C

M

D

e

cisio

n

(R

e

a

din

g

s/W

arnin

g lig

ht) (P

P

M)

OCM Readings
Note: Upper graph is an excerpt from NAVSEA's June 1, 2004 presentation titled "OCM Performance." Lower 

graph presents the same information with OCM corrected values removed. 

A1-10

In Port Results

Note: OCM Corrected Values Removed

R

2

 = 0.1034

0

5

10

15

20

25

0 5 10 15 20 25

Chemical Analysis Results (PPM)

O

C

M

R

e

a

din

g

s (P

P

M)

OCM Readings
Note: Upper graph is an excerpt from NAVSEA's June 1, 2004 presentation titled "OCM Performance." Lower 

graph presents the same information with OCM corrected values removed. 

A1-11

 Figure A3-6. OCM and Effluent Data for First Article Test

In Port Results

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Chemical Analysis Results (PPM)

O

C

M

D

e

cision

(R

e

a

ding

s/W

arning light) (P

P

M)

In Port Results

R

2

 = 0.9716

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Chemical Analysis Results (PPM)

O

C

M

R

e

a

dings (P

P

M)