# MEMORANDUM

TO: Ron Jordan, EPA

FROM: Joy Abel, ERG

DATE: September 10, 2004

SUBJECT: Analysis of UNDS Bilgewater Data

1.0 B ACKGROUND



# The purpose of this memorandum is to describe the analyse s 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 determ ine 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 monito r (OCM) caused the

effluent to be recirculated and provide the SGT-HEM conce ntration of the effluent that was recirculated;

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

whether instances have occurred where bilgewater has bee n discharged with effluent levels exceeding 15 parts per million (ppm) SGT-H EM; and

(4) Review sampling data to compare the effluent character istics of Navy oilwater separators (OWS) and OWS/ultrafiltration (UF) m embrane systems.

This memorandum presents a description of the available s ampling data, discussion of the data used in the analyses, analysis o f the available bilgewater data to determine the performance of the OCM, and analysis of the avail able 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 shipboa rd sampling collected in

1999 and 2000, and (2) Navy supplied comparison of OCM readings and S GT-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 Ep isode 6244 8/31/99; 9/7/99; 11/13/99; 11/17/99 4

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

## ; 12/14/99 a 

## ; 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 1 2/10/99, and on the sampling date 12/14/99, one sample was collected on 12/13/99.



# According to the Sampling Episode Reports (SERs) for th ese 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 i nfluent 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. Multi ple grab samples (typically three grab samples) were collected over a 24-hour period at each sa mpling point.

In addition, the Navy supplied a comparison of OCM data a nd SGT-HEM effluent concentrations. This comparison is comprise d 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 com pliance 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 upgra ded Oil Pollution Abatement (OPA) system.

· USS Princeton (CG 59): These data were collected (date s unknown) to demonstrate an upgraded OPA system.

· USS Arleigh Burke (DDG 51): These data were collected f rom August 2003 - January 2004 to demonstrate an upgraded OPA system.

· USS Wasp (LHD 1): These data were collected from Marc h - September 2000 to demonstrate an upgraded OPA system.

According to the demonstration plans for upgraded OPA sys tems for the vessels listed above, all of these vessels were equipped with OW S systems.

Attachment 1 presents the available UNDS bilgewater data from the Navy shipboard sampling and Navy supplied comparison of OCM readin gs 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 perform ance 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 meth ods 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 Materia l (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 an d non-polar oil and grease, respectively. For the Navy supplied comparison of OCM readings and SGT-HE M concentrations, the samples collected for the Navy First Article Testing of the OC M Data, USS Gonzalez, and USS Ross were analyzed for total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) usin g 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 Se ctions 2.0 and 3.0 because these are the analytes that the Navy used to validate the OCM readin gs. However, it is important to note that there can be differences in the results produced using Me thods 418.1 and 1664, as discussed below:

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

418.1 results for heavier hydrocarbons, but not for the ligh ter/volatile constituents in the gasoline range because Method 1664 require s 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 typi cal oily constituents in bilgewater. JP-5 fuel is a very light f uel 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 differe nt ways these methods extract the compounds.

· EPA Method 1664 has an average recovery of 93 percent for H EM 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 usi ng Method 418.1, may or may not be equivalent to SGT-HEM. Method 41 8.1 does not use the same extraction method and it quantifies TPH using infrared analysis (1664 results are determined gravimetricly). The m aterials 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 equ ivalent 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 e xtracted using Freon 113. This 4% difference is not statistically signif icant 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 anal yzed with Method 418.1 and Method 1664 may not be comparable. However, both of these EPA meth ods provide an indication of whether oil and grease is present in the bilgewater effluent. EP A Method 418.1 was used only for some of the data sets provided in the Navy supplied comparison o f 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 gre ase to compare to the OCM readings.

2.0 E VALUATION OF 

# OCM P ERFORMANCE

# The purpose of the OCM is to ensure that the effluent w ater 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 tha n 15 ± 5 ppm in port or 70 ± 30 ppm at sea. According to the Navy, these design specifications allo w 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 i s prohibited within 12 nautical miles of the nearest land, unless the oil content of the effluen t without dilution does not exceed 15 ppm). The OCM measures the oil content in the effluent by inc reasing the turbidity of the sample by means of ultrasonic emulsification. The turbidity inc rease 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 concentr ations. The Navy shipboard sampling includes Navy collected samples of bilgewater on se ven vessels during eight sampling episodes (i.e., USS Carney was sampled twice). The da ta from the first sampling episode (6225) for the USS Carney was not used in any analyses because t he 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 Mor ganthau, Episode 6244. OCM information was not available for USS Rushmore, Epis ode 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 f or 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 descri ption of these data is provided later in this section.

It is important to note that in the Navy-supplied comparis on of OCM data, the Navy provided “OCM corrected values.” The tables in Attachm ent 2 provide the OCM corrected values. In instances when the OCM warning li ght was illuminated, the Navy “adjusted” the OCM reading in the data tables and only us ed the adjusted OCM readings in the graphs. These adjusted values were set to equal the chemic al analysis results or the alarm setpoint, whichever was larger. OCM warning lights illumi nate due to interferences which may affect the OCM ppm reading or due to OCM malfunction. T he 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 w hile this vessel was at sea, but the OCM setpoint was 15 ppm (typically, the OCM setpoint would be 70 pp m at sea).

The OCM readings from the OWS do not appear to correlate t o the OWS effluent SGT-HEM concentrations. In a many cases, the OCM re ading was zero, while the SGT-HEM effluent concentration was in the 15 to 50 ppm range. Sim ilarly, 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 we re 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 positi on 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 S GT-HEM effluent concentration. Three of the 12 samples had O CM readings less than the effluent SGTHEM concentration (8 vs 12, 13 vs 21, and 11 vs 15). The SER n otes that AUX1 was run in recirculation mode while AUX2 was allowed to discharge ove rboard on both sampling days. The recorded OCM results for AUX2 never exceeded 15 ppm, so presum ably the AUX 2 effluent was discharged overboard throughout the sampling episode ( presumed because diverter valve position was not recorded). However, since effluent SG T-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 recorde d. Samples were collected while this vessel was at sea, but the OCM setpoint was 15 ppm (typ ically, 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 v alve position was recirculating during 10 of the 12 sample collections. For four of these sampl es, 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 readin gs 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 se tpoint 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 ra nged 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 SG T-HEM effluent concentrations were greater than 15 ppm and the OCM caused the discharge to alt ernate between overboard and recirculating, it is possible that bilgewater was dischar ged 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 O CM 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 efflue nt piping. The OWS was bypassed and the representative droplet size distributions were genera ted by the disperser, which was in the pipeline that flows into the OCM. In addition, this te st does not demonstrate whether or not the OCM operates as designed when it nears the OCM setpoin t.

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 th ree 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 t he 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 (usi ng Method 418.1). OCM readings were within 0% to 39% of the effluent concentration (setpoin t 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 O CM 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 s ampling and the Navysupplied comparison of OCM data and oil and grease effluent concentrations were combined to determine how the OCM readings correlate with the effl uent oil and grease concentrations (measured as either TPH or SGT-HEM). The available OC M data and oil and grease effluent concentrations were obtained from the sampling episode r eports, the Navy First Article Testing of the OCM Data, and the five vessel demonstration pla ns. In total, there were 125 samples collected with associated OCM readings at a setpoint o f 15 ppm.

The following figures present the OCM readings compared t o 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, in cluding the actual OCM readings and oil and grease concentrations when an OCM correcte d value was provided. Figure 2 presents all the data, excluding data from 31 samples assoc iated 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 resul ts 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/int erference, 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) O C M R e a d i n g s ( p p m )

(Note: Data Associated with OCM Corrected Values W ere 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) O C M R e a d i n g s ( p p m )

# Memorandum

September 10, 2004 Page 10

As shown in these figures, the data show that there i s no correlation between the OCM readings and the effluent oil and grease concentrat ions. Data are generally considered to be highly correlated when R 2 

# approaches 1. A linear regression was performed for each graph and the R-squared values are as follows:

· Figure 1 - R 2 

# = 0.0012;

· Figure 2 - R 2 

# = 0.0084; and

· Figure 3 - R 2 

# = 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 Remove d)

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) O C M R e a d i n g s ( p p m )

# Memorandum

September 10, 2004 Page 11 The data presented in Figures 1, 2, and 3 show that there a re 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 exc eeded 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 fr om the SER data, 4 out of 76 samples of the OCM readings meet these criteria. For all 4 o f these samples, the effluent was either discharged overboard or the discharge status was unknown:

· USS Princeton (CG 59): OCM warning light - off; Divert er valve position - overboard; Date - unknown; SGT-HEM = 17 ppm; and OCM = 7.

· USS Princeton (CG 59): OCM warning light - off; Divert er 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; Dive rter valve position - unknown; Date - 11/13/99; SGT-HEM = 17 ppm; and OCM = 12.

Based on this information, there are two confirmed inst ances (CG59) when the OCM would have discharged effluent at levels exceeding 15 ppm SGT-HEM. There are numerous other potential occurrences that cannot be conf irmed because the OCM warning light status and diverter valve position were not recorded.

3.0 C OMPARISON OF 

# OWS AND 

# OWS/UF S YSTEMS 

# (T ECHNICAL 

# A NALYSIS 

# (4))

The OWS systems used onboard most Navy vessels are paral lel-plate coalescing gravity separators. These systems separate oil from wat er 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, a nd oleophilic polymer that may be in the form of parallel plates or loose packed media. Oil dropl ets 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 a nd rise to the surface of the OWS tank. The OWS contains sensors that detect the presence of oil a nd trigger the OWS to automatically pump the collected oil to a waste oil tank. The treated eff luent 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 ve ssels to provide

# Memorandum

September 10, 2004 Page 12 better removal of oil from bilgewater. UF is compri sed 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 c onstituents from fluids by forcing the fluid through very small pores of a polymeric or inorganic membrane.

The following sections provide a assessment of the perfo rmance 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 N avy 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 pe rformance of the OWS and OWS/UF systems. Influent and effluent data were used to estimate the percent removal of different wastewater constituents for eac h system. When data were reported as not detected, the detection limit was used for the calculati on 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 syste ms. EPA Method 1664 was used to analyzed all of the SGT-HEM samples in this analysis.

ERG analyzed SGT-HEM removals and effluent concentrat ions 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 conce ntrations vary from approximately 20 ppm to 400 ppm. There could be many reasons for t his 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 refl ect 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 i mportant 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 highe r 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 O WS system (42 ppm). For SGT-HEM, the UF effluent concentrations were always l ess 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 e ffluent concentration was 5.5 ppm 1 

# when the OCM setpoint was 15 ppm. The OWS SGT-HEM efflue nt concentrations for vessels with only OWS systems were consistently higher than t he SGT-HEM detection limit. The average OWS SGT-HEM effluent concentration was 42 ppm 1 

# 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 SGT

HEM % Removal Average SGT

- HEM

Eff. Conc (ppm) Average SGT

- HEM % Removal Average SGT

- HEM

Eff. Conc (ppm)

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

## 42 (<5 to 302 ppm) a



## UF 60 % b 

## 5.5 NA NA

Total System 80% (48%

- 96%) 5.5 9% (

- 129% to 84%) a 

## 42 (<5 to 302 ppm) a



## Note: The % removals were calculated using the average ef fluent concentrations for each day. The effluent concentrations were calculated by averaging the individual c oncentrations for each sample collected. Non-detected pollutant concentrations were set equal to the detection limit for this analysis.

a 

## These average percent removals and effluent concentrati ons were calculated using the average of the percent removals for those vessels with only a OWS and at se tpoint 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 calc ulation, 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 i s incremental to the OWS. NA - Not applicable.



# Table 3 compares the OWS and OWS/UF average percent remo vals and average effluent concentrations for total and dissolved metals.

1 

## Non-detect pollutant concentrations were set equal to th e detection limit for this analysis.

# Table 3. Performance Analysis of OWS/UF Systems vs OWS Syste ms 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

Sil ver

- 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, D issolved 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 perc ent removals for each vessel. The percent removals f or each vessel were calculated using the average influent a nd effluent concentrations. The effluent concentration s were calculated be averaging the average effluent concentration s for each vessel. Non-detected pollutant concentratio ns 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 co ncentration from the OWS system for all metals, except two total metals and five dissolved metal s.

# Total copper and total zinc are consistently considered co nstituents of concern

identified in the baseline discharge for all of the Nav al vessel groups in the Environmental Effects Assessment Report (EEAR). For total copper, th e 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 concentratio n was 0.205 ppm with an average 82 percent removal across the entire system, and the ave rage 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 (FI AR) were prepared by the U.S. Department of the Navy’s Naval Sea Systems Command and t he 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 t o treat surface vessel bilgewater.” The MPCD ranking by overall environmental effectiveness a lways ranked OWS/UF systems higher than OWS systems (except for one vessel group w here OWS/UF was ranked equal to OWS).

In addition, the DAR provides important data to assess th e 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 O WS/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 re ferences. 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 syste ms. Table 5 shows that the OWS/UF system has less constituents exceeding the strictest wat er 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 1 a 

## 14 8

a 

## This represents exceedances in saltwater and freshwat er.



# Table 6 presents the total number of exceeded numeric wat er quality criteria for each vessel group for OWS and OWS/UF systems. Table 6 sh ows that the OWS/UF system exceeds the numeric water quality criteria for each ves sel group less than the OWS system.

# Table 6. Total Number of Exceeded Numeric Water Quality Cri teria 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 96 3 64 60

LSD 41 73 32

MCM 1 a 

## 93 32

a 

## This represents exceedances in saltwater and freshwat er.



# The EEAR presents the results of the hazard quotient (H Q) and hazard index (HI) calculations for the baseline discharge constituents wit h an end of pipe HQ greater than 1 (see Figure 4). For more information on the use of the HI ca lculations, 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 th e 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 conf orm to local and worldwide environmental standards regardless of influent concentratio ns . Test results indicate that membrane filtration is capable of conforming to these stan dards while operating over a wide range of pHs and is resistant to chemical attack. Hig h concentrations of inorganic and organic compounds led to reduced membrane performance. However, despi te these minor reductions in membrane performance, most membranes recovered signific antly when flushed with water for 15 minutes.

4.0 C ONCLUSIONS



# Based on the available data presented in this memorandum, the conclusions determined from the analyses of the bilgewater data are a s follows:

(1) Based on the available data, OCM readings do not corre late well with SGT-HEM chemical analyses, and therefore, the OCM ca nnot be relied upon as the technology basis for the performance standa rd. 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 H a z a r d I n d e x

# (2) The OCM did cause the effluent to be recirculated, but because the OCM readings do not correlate well with the SGT-HEM chemic al analyses, the OCM did not always recirculate the effluent as designe d.

(3) There are two confirmed instances when the OCM would h ave 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 tha n the OWS system, when comparing SGT-HEM percent removals, metals percent removals, TWPE of the effluent, and water quality criteria exceedan ces.

5.0 R EFERENCES



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

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, Chantilly, VA. April 2003.

Navy. 1991. Navy First Article Testing of the Oil Content Monitor Model ET- 35N. Final Report. U.S. Navy, Naval Ship Systems Engineering Station, Philade lphia, PA. January 1991.

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

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 Bilgew ater/ Oil Water Separator (OWS).

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 N avy 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 conc entrations 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 r eading and diverter valve position for the OWS. Pages A1-5 through A1-7 present the influent and eff luent HEM and SGT-HEM concentrations for the UF treatment unit; the OCM readi ng 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 c oncentrations 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 a nd 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-T R-63-00-261.pdf). *The OCM readings were selected based on the time t he 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-T R-63-00-261.pdf). *The OCM readings were selected based on the time t he readings were recorded; these times were matched with the times t hat 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 ope rated in recirc mode

6232 2 USS MAHAN (DDG 72) 6/29/1999 1 & 2 Polisher membrane changed; Oil sorbent polisher ope rated in recirc mode

6232 3 USS MAHAN (DDG 72) 6/29/1999 1 & 2 Polisher membrane changed; Oil sorbent polisher ope rated 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 includ e these data in the analysis.

6283 ? USS RUSHMORE (LSD 47) ? 2 & 3 No sample info available; therefore, did not includ e these data in the analysis.

6283 ? USS RUSHMORE (LSD 47) ? 2 & 3 No sample info available; therefore, did not includ e 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 wor king

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

6241B 3 USS OAK HILL (LSD 51) 11/17/1999 1 & 2 Duplicate; AUX 1 in recirc mode b/c OCM was not wor king Average Total Average AUX2

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

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

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

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

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

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

6244 1 USCGC MORGENTHAU (WHEC 722) 8/31/1999 1 & 2 Problems with OWS; OCM warning light was illuminate d indicating the OCM is dirty or the sample is cloudy; the OCM c ould not obtatin accurate readings.

6244 2 USCGC MORGENTHAU (WHEC 722) 8/31/1999 1 & 2 Problems with OWS; OCM warning light was illuminate d indicating the OCM is dirty or the sample is cloudy; the OCM c ould not obtatin accurate readings. Average

6244 1 USCGC MORGENTHAU (WHEC 722) 9/7/1999 1 & 2 Problems with OWS; OCM warning light was illuminate d indicating the OCM is dirty or the sample is cloudy; the OCM c ould not obtatin accurate readings.

6244 2 USCGC MORGENTHAU (WHEC 722) 9/7/1999 1 & 2 Problems with OWS; OCM warning light was illuminate d indicating the OCM is dirty or the sample is cloudy; the OCM c ould not obtatin accurate readings.

6244 3 USCGC MORGENTHAU (WHEC 722) 9/7/1999 1 & 2 Problems with OWS; OCM warning light was illuminate d indicating the OCM is dirty or the sample is cloudy; the OCM c ould 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 warnin g light was illuminated indicating the OCM is dirty or the samp le 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 warnin g light was illuminated indicating the OCM is dirty or the samp le 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 warnin g light was illuminated indicating the OCM is dirty or the samp le 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 warnin g light was illuminated indicating the OCM is dirty or the samp le 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 warnin g light was illuminated indicating the OCM is dirty or the samp le 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 warnin g light was illuminated indicating the OCM is dirty or the samp le 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-T R-63-00-261.pdf). *The OCM readings were selected based on the time t he readings were recorded; these times were matched with the times t hat 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 detecti on limit). < - Average reported includes at least one nondetec t value, which was used at the detection limit. Calculations were performed prior to rounding of nu mbers.

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 A1-3A3SP-3OWS andPolymericOWSPolisherPolisherSP-1SP-2Membrane Removal RemovalRemovalOWS Influent OWS Effluent EffluentSP-2 - SP-1PercentSP-3 - SP-1PercentSP-3 - SP-2PercentAverage ValueAverage ValueAverage ValueDifferenceDifferenceDifferenceDifferenceDifferenceDifferenceTotal Metals (mg/L)Aluminum0.158 0.0962 0.0711 -0.0613-39-0.0864-55-0.0251-26Antimony0.00385 0.0116 0.0095 0.00773200 0.00565 150 -0.00208-18Arsenic0.0015 0.00388 0.00325 0.00238 160 0.00175 120 -0.000625-16Barium0.220.209 0.195 -0.0113-5.1-0.0253-11-0.014-6.7Boron1.78 1.72 1.85 -0.057-3.20.06983.90.1277.4Cadmium0.00203 0.00155 0.00141 -0.000475-23-0.000613-30-0.000138-8.9Calcium3635.1 44.1 -0.975-2.78.05229.0326Chromium0.00828 0.00493 0.00358 -0.00335-40-0.0047-57-0.00135-27Cobalt0.0016 0.0012 0.00103 -0.0004-25-0.000575-36-0.000175-15Copper1.070.677 0.351-0.398-37-0.724-67-0.326-48Iron1.190.801 0.322-0.384-32-0.864-73-0.48-60Lead0.0142 0.00838 0.00885 -0.00578-41-0.0053-370.0004755.7Magnesium95.1 92.4103-2.75-2.97.938.310.712Manganese0.105 0.103 0.095 -0.00203-1.9-0.0101-9.6-0.00803-7.8Mercury0.00023 0.000203 0.000206 -0.0000275-12-0.0000238-100.000003751.9Molybdenum0.00328 0.0031 0.003 -0.000175-5.3-0.000275-8.4-0.0001-3.2Nickel0.326 0.242 0.174 -0.0845-26-0.152-47-0.0677-28Selenium0.00785 0.017 0.0167 0.00915 120 0.00881 110 -0.000338-2Sodium841 812 909-29 -3.468.38.197.312Thallium0.0069 0.00578 0.0055 -0.00113-16-0.0014-20-0.000275-4.5Tin0.00993 0.0075 0.0075 -0.00243-24-0.00243-240 0Titanium0.00473 0.0031 0.00451 -0.00163-34-0.000213-4.50.00141 46Zinc1.310.988 0.578-0.327-25-0.736-56-0.41-41Dissolved Metals (mg/L)Antimony, Dissolved0.0222 0.011 0.0162 -0.0112-51-0.00605-270.00518 47Arsenic, Dissolved0.0015 0.0105 0.00663 0.009 600 0.00513 340 -0.00388-37Barium, Dissolved0.205 0.2050.180.000750.37-0.0249-12-0.0256-12Boron, Dissolved1.86 1.73 1.95 -0.131-70.0854.60.216 12Calcium, Dissolved36.1 34.644-1.55-4.37.88229.4327Chromium, Dissolved0.0015 0.00133 0.0013 -0.000175-12-0.0002-13-0.000025-1.9Cobalt, Dissolved0.001 0.00113 0.0016 0.000125 13 0.0006 60 0.000475 42Copper, Dissolved0.0181 0.0184 0.0143 0.00031.7-0.00378-21-0.00408-22Iron, Dissolved0.286 0.252 0.0321 -0.0341-12-0.254-89-0.22-87Magnesium, Dissolved99.1 93.6105-5.5 -5.56.136.211.612Manganese, Dissolved0.0988 0.0986 0.0948 -0.000250.25-0.00396-4-0.00371-3.8Nickel, Dissolved0.0736 0.0606 0.0848-0.013-180.0112 15 0.0242 40Selenium, Dissolved0.0183 0.0116 0.0126 -0.00673-37-0.00565-310.001089.3Silver, Dissolved0.005 0.0055 0.005 0.0005 100 0-0.0005-9.1Sodium, Dissolved856 821 939-34.3-483.59.8118 14Thallium, Dissolved0.00995 0.0108 0.00325 0.000858.5-0.0067-67-0.00755-70Tin, Dissolved0.0075 0.00793 0.0075 0.0004255.70 0-0.000425-5.4Zinc, Dissolved0.0574 0.0504 0.0231-0.007-12-0.0344-60-0.0274-54ND - Not detected (number in parentheses is detection limit). < - Average repotred includes at least one nondetect value. Calculations are performed prior to rounding of numbers.NSWCCD1\TR-63-99-235Note - all ND's & <'s have been removedComparison of Analytical Results for OWS Influent,OWS Effluent, and Oil Sorbent Polisher EffluentUSS 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 detecti on limit). < - Average reported includes at least on e nondetect value, which was used at the detection limit. Calcu lations performed prior to rounding of numbers.

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



### Comparison of Analytical Results for OWS Influent a nd 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 detecti on limit). < - Average reported includes at least one nondetec t value, which was used at the detection limit. Calculations were performed prior to rounding of nu mbers.

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



### Comparison of Analytical Results for OWS Influent a nd Effluent

USS BONHOMME RICHARD (LHD 6)Table A1-6A3Sample Point 1Sample Point 2Sample Point 3OWS InfluentOWS EffluentMembrane Permeate%%%Average ValueAverage ValueAverage ValueDifferenceDiff.DifferenceDiff.DifferenceDiff.Total Metals (mg/L)Aluminum0.264 0.107 0.0549-0.157-60-0.0517-48-0.209-79Antimony0.012 0.00831 0.0065 -0.00366-31-0.00181-22-0.00548-46Arsenic0.00113 0.00438 0.00325 0.00325289 -0.00113-260.00213 189Barium0.168 0.137 0.128 -0.0306-18-0.00945-7-0.0401-24Beryllium0.00283 0.0023 0.00223 -0.000525-19-0.000075-3-0.0006-21Boron3.53 3.54 3.770.007500.22860.2357Cadmium0.0142 0.00635 0.001 -0.00788-55-0.00535-84-0.0132-93Calcium89.3 89.8 93.50.52513.7544.285Chromium0.0341 0.00978 0.00845 -0.0243-71-0.00133-14-0.0257-75Cobalt0.00645 0.00298 0.002 -0.00348-54-0.000975-33-0.00445-69Copper7.64 2.850.007-4.79-63-2.84 -100 -7.63 -100Iron4.41 2.130.765-2.27-52-1.37-64-3.64-83Lead0.0979 0.042 0.002 -0.0558-57-0.04-95-0.0959-98Magnesium249 249 2600 011.5511.55Manganese0.303 0.2880.29-0.0154-50.002121-0.0133-4Molybdenum0.0107 0.0045 0.002 -0.00623-58-0.0025-56-0.00873-81Nickel2.21.040.242-1.16-53-0.797-77-1.96-89Selenium0.006550.010.00705 0.00349 53 -0.00299-300.00058Silver0.0144 0.00795 0.007 -0.00645-45-0.00095-12-0.0074-51Sodium2,220 2,220 2,3505 012861336Tin0.0178 0.00468 0.004 -0.0131-74-0.000675-14-0.0138-78Titanium0.00585 0.0031 0.003 -0.00275-47-0.0001-3-0.00285-49Vanadium00.012 0.01220 00.0001510.000151Zinc3.47 1.530.0151-1.94-56-1.51-99-3.45 -100Dissolved Metals (mg/L)Aluminum, Dissolved0.0625 0.0501 0.0555 -0.0124-200.0054 11-0.007-11Arsenic, Dissolved00.00333 0.001 0.00233 232 -0.00233-700 0Barium, Dissolved0.128 0.131 0.139 0.002820.0080560.01098Beryllium, Dissolved0.0022 0.0022 0.002380 00.00017580.0001758Boron, Dissolved3.82 3.73 3.96-0.0962-30.23160.1354Calcium, Dissolved98.8 95.8 99.8 -3.03-34.034 1 1Chromium, Dissolved0.00335 0.00285 0.00313 -0.0005-150.000275 10 -0.000225-7Cobalt, Dissolved00.002 0.002030 00.00002510.0000251Copper, Dissolved0.0735 0.0507 0.007 -0.0228-31-0.0437-86-0.0665-90Iron, Dissolved0.833 0.7670.79-0.0663-80.0233-0.0433-5Lead, Dissolved00.00233 0.002 0.000325 16 -0.000325-140 0Magnesium, Dissolved271 264 277-6.38-213.156.752Manganese, Dissolved0.3010.290.306 -0.0111-40.015650.00451Molybdenum, Dissolved00.00318 0.002 0.00118 59 -0.00118-370 0Nickel, Dissolved0.351 0.256 0.238 -0.0957-27-0.0174-7-0.113-32Sodium, Dissolved2,700 2,620 2,760-80-31355552Thallium, Dissolved0.00805 0.0086 0.0119 0.0005570.0033 38 0.00385 48Tin, Dissolved00.004 0.00410 00.000130.00013Zinc, Dissolved0.0372 0.0304 0.0137 -0.00688-18-0.0167-55-0.0236-63ND - 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 removedComparison of Analytical Results for Surface VesselBilgewater/OWS DischargeUSS CARNEY (DDG 64)Point 2-1 Point 3-2 Point 3-1Table A1-7A3Sample Point 1 Sample Point 2 Sample Point 3OWS InfluentOWS EffluentMembrane Effluent%%%Average ValueAverage ValueAverage ValueDifferenceDiffDifferenceDiffDifferenceDiffTotal Metals (mg/L)Aluminum0.0421 0.0375 0.0363 -0.00463-11-0.00125-3-0.00588-14Antimony0.0119 0.00875 0.0068 -0.00315-26-0.00195-22-0.0051-43Arsenic0.00325 0.00326 0.00555 0.000012500.0022970 0.0023 71Barium0.0208 0.0213 0.0208 0.0004882-0.000487-23.4700E-180Boron1.611.71.670.08755-0.025-10.06254Cadmium0.0011 0.001150.0010.000055-0.00015-13-0.0001-9Calcium153 161 1587.635-3.13-24.53Chromium0.0023 0.00199 0.00213 -0.000313-140.0001387-0.000175-8Copper0.1050.0971 0.00963 -0.00836-8-0.0874-90-0.0958-91Iron0.224 0.197 0.134-0.0274-12-0.0627-32-0.0901-40Lead0.001930.0030.0015 0.00108 56 -0.0015-50-0.000425-22Magnesium289 308 301 197-7.5-211.54Manganese0.135 0.141 0.1420.006650.000910.00756Mercury0.0002 0.0002 0.0002050 00.00000530.0000053Molybdenum0.00285 0.00269 0.00338 -0.000163-60.000688 26 0.000525 18Nickel0.0478 0.0549 0.0415 0.00711 15 -0.0135-25-0.00635-13Selenium0.0068 0.0117 0.0065 0.00493 72 -0.00523-45-0.0003-4Sodium2,630 2,800 2,7601767-43.8-21335Tin0.00368 0.00325 0.00333 -0.000425-120.0000752-0.00035-10Zinc0.197 0.2150.0213 0.01819-0.194-90-0.176-89Dissolved Metals (mg/L)Antimony, Dissolved0.0065 0.0156 0.0069 0.0091 140 -0.0087-560.00046Barium, Dissolved0.0199 0.0205 0.0206 0.0006530.0000500.00074Boron, Dissolved1.621.71.680.07655-0.023-10.05353Calcium, Dissolved156 159 1602.8820.62503.52Chromium, Dissolved0.00188 0.00404 0.00145 0.00216 115 -0.00259-64-0.000425-23Cobalt, Dissolved0.00153 0.0015 0.0015 -0.000025-20 0-0.000025-2Copper, Dissolved0.010.0107 0.00815 0.0006637-0.00254-24-0.00188-19Iron, Dissolved0.0448 0.0397 0.0225 -0.00517-12-0.0171-43-0.0223-50Magnesium, Dissolved294 306 30511.34-1010.33Manganese, Dissolved0.139 0.142 0.1450.0031720.0027320.00594Molybdenum, Dissolved0.0031 0.00318 0.0031 0.0000752-0.000075-20 0Nickel, Dissolved0.0415 0.0405 0.0492 -0.000925-20.00863 21 0.0077 19Selenium, Dissolved0.00650.011 0.0070.0045 69-0.004-360.00058Sodium, Dissolved2,680 2,830 2,7701586-67.5-2903Thallium, Dissolved0.010.0126 0.0124 0.00255 26 -0.000175-10.00238 24Tin, Dissolved0.00348 0.003210.003-0.000263-8-0.000213-7-0.000475-14Zinc, Dissolved0.0628 0.0756 0.0147 0.0128 20 -0.0609-81-0.0481-77ND – 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-63-2000-264Note - all ND's & <'s have been removedComparison of Analytical Results for Surface VesselBilgewater/OWS DischargeUSS RUSHMORE (LSD 47)Point 2 - 1 Point 3 - 2 Point 3 - 1Table A1-8A3SP-1SP-2SP-3SP-4AUX1 InfluentAUX1 EffluentAUX2 InfluentAUX2 EffluentSP-2 - SP-1PercentSP-4 - SP-3PercentAverage Value Average Value Average Value Average Value DifferenceDiffDifferenceDiffTotal Metals (mg/L)Aluminum0.060.0888 0.0649 0.0485 0.028848-0.0164-25Antimony0.00255 0.00343 0.0131 0.025 0.000875340.01292Arsenic0.001 0.00108 0.001 0.001 0.0000757.50 0Barium0.0624 0.063 0.0651 0.0648 0.0005750.92-0.00025-0.38Boron1.66 1.73 1.76 1.760.07254.40 0Calcium70.7 72.1144 1381.422-6-4.2Chromium0.020.009 0.009 0.0097-0.011-550.00077.8Copper0.540.517 0.501 0.472-0.023-4.3-0.029-5.8Iron0.749 0.716 0.846 0.782 -0.0325-4.3-0.0635-7.5Magnesium179 190 440 42510.86-15-3.4Manganese0.09930.10.101 0.0964 0.000950.96-0.0041-4.1Nickel0.354 0.334 0.231 0.213-0.02-5.7-0.018-7.8Selenium0.0127 0.007650.02 0.02 -0.005-400 0Sodium1,670 1,800 4,230 4,1001388.3-135-3.2Zinc1.08 1.05 1.561.5-0.0295-2.7-0.06-3.9Dissolved Metals (mg/L)Aluminum, Dissolved0.0743 0.0592 0.0387 0.034 -0.0151-20-0.00465-12Antimony, Dissolved0.00315 0.003230.02 0.020.0000752.40 0Arsenic, Dissolved0.001 0.00325 0.001 0.001 0.002252500 0Barium, Dissolved0.0612 0.0659 0.0673 0.0675 0.00477.70.00020.3Boron, Dissolved1.68 1.71 1.75 1.720.03251.9-0.025-1.4Calcium, Dissolved 7274.3145 1452.383.30 0Copper, Dissolved0.0314 0.0268 0.0117 0.0186 -0.00458-150.0068559Iron, Dissolved0.202 0.201 0.008 0.008 -0.00075-0.370 0Magnesium, Dissolved 182 185 425 4363.251.811.52.7Manganese, Dissolved0.0937 0.0946 0.0903 0.0928 0.0009250.990.00252.8Nickel, Dissolved0.172 0.159 0.179 0.177 -0.0125-7.3-0.002-1.1Selenium, Dissolved0.00245 0.0110.02 0.020.008553500 0Sodium, Dissolved1,680 1,740 4,010 4,160603.61553.9Thallium, Dissolved0.0249 0.0155 0.023 0.0218 -0.00935-38-0.00125-5.4Zinc, Dissolved0.157 0.139 0.425 0.305-0.018-12-0.12-28ND- 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 removedComparison of Analytical Results for OWS Influent and OWS EffluentUSS 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 ex traction 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 Dec ision 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 ex traction 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 Dem o 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 "Gravim etric 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 Dem o 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 D e c i s i o n

( R e a d i n g s / W a r n i n g l i g h t ) ( P P M )



### OCM Readings OCM Corrected Values

## Note: Upper graph is an excerpt from NAVSEA's June 1, 2004 p resentation 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 R e a d i n g s ( P P M )



### OCM Readings

## Note: Upper graph is an excerpt from NAVSEA's June 1, 2004 p resentation 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 e c i s i o n

( R e a d i n g s / W a r n i n g l i g h t ) ( P P M )



## OCM Corrected Values OCM Readings

## Note: Upper graph is an excerpt from NAVSEA's June 1, 2004 p resentation 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 R e a d i n g s ( P P M )



### OCM Readings

## Note: Upper graph is an excerpt from NAVSEA's June 1, 2004 p resentation 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 D e c i s i o n

( R e a d i n g s / W a r n i n g l i g h t ) ( P P M )



### OCM Readings OCM Corrected Values

## Note: Upper graph is an excerpt from NAVSEA's June 1, 2004 p resentation 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 R e a d i n g s ( P P M )



### OCM Readings

## Note: Upper graph is an excerpt from NAVSEA's June 1, 2004 p resentation 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 e c i s i o n

( R e a d i n g s / W a r n i n g l i g h t ) ( P P M )



## OCM Readings OCM Corrected Values

## Note: Upper graph is an excerpt from NAVSEA's June 1, 2004 p resentation 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 d i n g s ( P P M )



## OCM Readings

## Note: Upper graph is an excerpt from NAVSEA's June 1, 2004 p resentation 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 c i s i o n

( R e a d i n g s / W a r n i n g l i g h t ) ( P P M )



## OCM Readings

## Note: Upper graph is an excerpt from NAVSEA's June 1, 2004 p resentation 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 d i n g s ( P P M )



## OCM Readings

## Note: Upper graph is an excerpt from NAVSEA's June 1, 2004 p resentation 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 Tes t

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 c i s i o n

( R e a d i n g s / W a r n i n g l i g h t ) ( 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 d i n g s ( P P M )