# This document includes the Draft Surface Vessel Bilgewater/Oil Water Separator Discharge Assessm ent Report for the Uniform National Discharge Standards Progra m. The reference number is: EPA-842-D-06-005



# DRAFT Discharge Assessment Report Surface Vessel Bilgewater/Oil Water Separator

June 2 003

# DRAFT



# DISCHARGE ASSESSMENT REPORT

SURFACE VESSEL BILGEWATER

Prepared by:

Naval Sea Systems Command U.S. Department of the Navy

Office of Water U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

### DRAFT - Surface Vessel Bilgewater – DAR



## T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S

1.0 INTRODUCTION

............................................................................................................... 1
1.1 S URFACE 

## V ESSEL 

## B ILGEWATER 

## /OWS E FFLUENT 

## D EFINITION



## ................................. 2
1.2 A PPLICABLE 

## U.S. L AWS AND 

## I NTERNATIONAL 

## S TANDARDS



## ...................................... 2
1.2.1 Introduction

................................................................................................................... . 2
1.2.2 Relevant Internati onal Standards

................................................................................... 2
1.2.3 Relevant U.S. Laws

........................................................................................................ 3 

## 2.0 VESSELS GENERATING SURFACE VESSEL BILGEWATER/OWS EFFLUENT

.......................................................................................................................... 3
2.1 I NTRODUCTION



## ............................................................................................................. 3
2.2 B ILGEWATER 

## V ESSEL 

## G ROUPING 

## D OCUMENT 

## S UMMARY



## ......................................... 4
3.0 OVERVIEW OF DISCHARGE ANALYSES

................................................................... 6
3.1 I NTRODUCTION



## ............................................................................................................. 6
3.1.1 Potential Marine Pollution Control Device Options

...................................................... 6
3.1.2 MPCD Screening Results

............................................................................................ 10
3.1.3 Characterization

........................................................................................................... 11
3.1.4 Feasibility...

................................................................................................................. 13
3.1.5 Environmental Effects Analysis

................................................................................... 15 

## 3.2 V ESSEL 

## G ROUPS 

## S UBJECT TO 

## S TREAMLINED 

## A NALYSIS



## .......................................... 16
3.3 N UCLEAR 

## S TEAM 

## P ROPULSTION 

## V ESSELS 

## (CVN 68)

............................................... 17
3.3.1 CVN 68 Class Characterization

................................................................................... 17
3.3.2 CVN 68 Class Feasibility Impact

................................................................................. 18
3.3.3 CVN 68 Class Environmental Effects

......................................................................... 23
3.3.4 CVN 68 Class Cost-Benefit Analysis

.......................................................................... 25 

## 3.4 C ONVENTIONAL 

## S TEAM 

## P OWERED 

## V ESSELS 

## (LHD 1)

............................................. 25
3.4.1 LHD 1 Class Charact erization

..................................................................................... 26
3.4.2 LHD 1 Class Feasib ility Impact

................................................................................... 26
3.4.3 LHD 1 Class Environmental Effects

............................................................................ 31
3.4.4 LHD 1 Class Cost-Ben efit Analysis

............................................................................ 34 

## 3.5 V ESSELS WITH 

## G AS 

## T URBINES AND 

## D RY 

## B ILGE 

## (DDG 51)

...................................... 34
3.5.1 DDG 51 Class Characterization

................................................................................... 34
3.5.2 DDG 51 Class Feasibility Impact

................................................................................ 35
3.5.3 DDG 51 Class Environmental Effects

......................................................................... 39
3.5.4 DDG 51 Class Cost-Benefit Analysis

.......................................................................... 42 

## 3.6 V ESSELS WITH 

## G AS 

## T URBINES AND 

## W ET 

## B ILGE 

## (DD 963)

...................................... 43
3.6.1 DD 963 Class Characterization

.................................................................................... 43
3.6.2 DD 963 Class Feasib ility Impact

................................................................................. 44
3.6.3 DD 963 Class Environmental Effects

.......................................................................... 49

i

### DRAFT - Surface Vessel Bilgewater – DAR



### 3.6.4 DD 963 Class Cost-Benef it Analysis

........................................................................... 51 

## 3.7 D IESEL SHIPS 

## OWS PROCESS BILGEWATER AND DIRTY BALLAST 

## (WHEC 378)

..... 52
3.7.1 WHEC 378 Class Char acterization

.............................................................................. 52
3.7.2 WHEC 378 Class Feasibility Impact

........................................................................... 52
3.7.3 WHEC 378 Class Environmental Effects

.................................................................... 55
3.7.4 WHEC 378 Class Cost-Benefit Analysis

..................................................................... 57 

## 3.8 L ARGE 

## C OMPRESSION 

## I GNITION 

## V ESSELS 

## (LSD 41)

................................................ 57
3.8.1 LSD 41 Class Characterization

.................................................................................... 58
3.8.2 LSD 41 Class Feasibility Impact

................................................................................. 58
3.8.3 LSD 41 Class Environmental Effects

.......................................................................... 63
3.8.4 LSD 41 Class Cost-Benefit Analysis

........................................................................... 65 

## 3.9 M EDIUM 

## C OMPRESSION 

## I GNITION 

## V ESSELS 

## (MCM 1)

............................................ 66
3.9.1 MCM 1 Class Characterization

.................................................................................... 66
3.9.2 MCM 1 Class Feasibility Impact

................................................................................. 66
3.9.3 MCM 1 Class Environmental Effects

.......................................................................... 69
3.9.4 MCM 1 Class Cost-Benefit Analysis

........................................................................... 72 

## 3.10 S MALL 

## C OMPRESSION 

## I GNITION 

## V ESSELS 

## (WPB 110)

............................................ 73
3.10.1 WPB 110 Class Characterization

................................................................................. 73
3.10.2 WPB 110 Class Feasibility Impact

.............................................................................. 73
3.10.3 WPB 110 Class Environmental Effects

....................................................................... 77
3.10.4 WPB 110 Class Cost-Benefit Analysis

........................................................................ 80 

## 4.0 SUMMARY

........................................................................................................................ 81
5.0 REFERENCES

.................................................................................................................. 82

L I S T O F T A B L E S

Table 3-1. Bilgewater MPCD Option Group Screening Summary

............................................................. 10 Table 3-2. CVN 68 Summary of Practicability and Operational Impact Analysis

..................................... 19 Table 3-3. CVN 68 MPCD Total Ownership Cost Comparison ($K/vessel)

............................................. 21 Table 3-4. Comparison of Discharge Constituent Concentrations (μg/L) that Exceed Numeric Water Quality Criteria in the Baseline Discharge and MPCD Discharges from Vessels with Nuclear Steam Propulsion (CVN 68)

...................................................................................... 23 Table 3-5. Comparison of Discharge Constituents of Concern Mass Loading (lbs/yr) and Toxic Pound Equivalent Loading (TPE lbs/yr) in Baselin e and MPCD Discharges from Vessels with Nuclear Steam Propulsion (CVN 68)

...................................................................................... 23 Table 3-6. Summary of EEA for Baseline and MPCD Bilgewater Discharges from Vessels with Nuclear Steam Propulsion (CVN 68)

...................................................................................... 24 Table 3-7. TPEs Removed for each MCPD option and Associated Costs (CVN 68)

................................. 25 Table 3-8. LHD 1 Summary of Practicability and Operational Impact Analysis

....................................... 27 Table 3-9. LHD 1 MPCD Total Ownership Cost Comparison ($K/vessel)

................................................ 29

ii

### DRAFT - Surface Vessel Bilgewater – DAR



### Table 3-10. Comparison of Discharge Constituent Con centrations (μg/L) that Exceed Numeric Water Quality Criteria in the Baseline Discharge and MPCD Discharges from Vessels with Conventional Steam Propulsion (LHD 1)

............................................................................... 31 Table 3-11. Comparison of Discharge Constituents of Concern Mass Loading (lbs/yr) and Toxic Pound Equivalent Loading (TPE lbs/yr) in Baseline and MPCD Discharges from Vessels with Nuclear Steam Propulsion (LHD 1)

............................................................................... 32 Table 3-12. Summary of EEA for Baseline and MP CD Bilgewater Discharges from Vessels with Conventional Steam Propulsion (LHD 1)

............................................................................... 33 Table 3-13. TPEs Removed for each MPCD Option and Associated Costs (LHD 1)

................................ 34 Table 3-14. DDG 51 Summary of Practicability and Operational Impact Analysis

................................... 36 Table 3-15. DDG 51 MPCD Total Ownership Cost Comparison ($K/Vessel)

.......................................... 38 Table 3-16. Comparison of Discharge Constituent Con centrations (μg/L) that Exceed Numeric Water Quality Criteria in the Baseline Discharge a nd MPCD Discharges from Vessels with Gas Turbines and Dry Bilge (DDG 51)

.......................................................................................... 39 Table 3-17. Comparison of Discharge Constituents of Concern Mass Loading (lbs/yr) and Toxic Pound Equivalent Loading (TPE lbs/yr) in Baseline and MPCD Discharges from Vessels with Nuclear Steam Propulsion (DDG 051)

........................................................................... 40 Table 3-18. Summary of EEA for Baseline and MPCD Bilgewater Discharges from Vessels with Gas Turbines and Dry Bilge (DDG 51)

.......................................................................................... 42 Table 3-19. TPEs Removed for each MCPD Option and Associated Costs (DDG 51)

............................. 43 Table 3-20. DD 963 Summary of Practicability and Operational Impact Analysis

.................................... 45 Table 3-21. DD 963 MPCD Total Ownership Cost Comparison ($K/Vessel)

........................................... 47 Table 3-22. Comparison of Discharge Constituent Con centrations (μg/L) that Exceed Numeric Water Quality Criteria in the Baseline Discharge a nd MPCD Discharges from Vessels with Gas Turbines and Wet Bilge (DD 963)

......................................................................................... 49 Table 3-23. Comparison of Discharge Constituents of Concern Mass Loading (lbs/yr) and Toxic Pound Equivalent Loading (TPE lbs/yr) in Baseline and MPCD Discharges from Vessels with Nuclear Steam Propulsion (DD 963)

.............................................................................. 49 Table 3-24. Summary of EEA for Baseline and MPCD Bilgewater Discharges from Vessels with Gas Turbines and Wet Bilge (DD 963)

.......................................................................................... 51 Table 3-25. TPEs Removed for each MCPD Option and Associated Costs (DD 963)

.............................. 52 Table 3-26. WHEC 378 Summary of Practicability and Operational Impact Analysis

.............................. 53 Table 3-27. WHEC 378 MPCD Total Ownership Cost Comparison ($K/Vessel)

..................................... 54 Table 3-28. Comparison of Discharge Constituent Con centrations (μg/L) that Exceed Numeric Water Quality Criteria in the Baseline and MPCD Discharges from Compression Ignition Ships that OWS Process Bilgewater and Dirty Ballast (WHEC 378)

............................................... 55 Table 3-29. Comparison of Discharge Constituents of Concern Mass Loading (lbs/yr) and Toxic Pound Equivalent Loading (TPE lbs/yr) in Baseline and MPCD Discharges from Vessels with Nuclear Steam Propulsion (WHEC 378)

........................................................................ 55 Table 3-30. Summary of EEA for Baseline and MPCD Discharges from Compression Ignition Ships that OWS Process Bilgewater and Dirty Ballast (WHEC 378)

............................................... 57 Table 3-31. TPEs Removed for each MCPD Option and Associated Costs (WHEC 378)

........................ 57 Table 3-32. LSD 41 Summary of Practicability and Operational Impact Analysis

.................................... 59 Table 3-33. LSD 41 MPCD Total Ownership Cost Comparison ($K/Vessel)

........................................... 61

iii

### DRAFT - Surface Vessel Bilgewater – DAR



### Table 3-34. Comparison of Discharge Constituent Con centrations (μg/L) that Exceed Numeric Water Quality Criteria in the Baseline and MPCD Discharges from Large Compression Ignition Ships (6000 tons of displacement or more) (LSD 41)

............................................................. 63 Table 3-35. Comparison of Discharge Constituents of Concern Mass Loading (lbs/yr) and Toxic Pound Equivalent Loading (TPE lbs/yr) in Baseline and MPCD Discharges from Vessels with Nuclear Steam Propulsion (LSD 41)

............................................................................... 63 Table 3-36. Summary of EEA for Baseline and MPCD Discharges from Large Compression Ignition Ships (6000 tons of displacement or more) (LSD 41)

............................................................. 65 Table 3-37. TPEs Removed for each MCPD Option and Associated Costs (LSD 41)

............................... 66 Table 3-38. MCM 1 Summary of Practicability and Operational Impact Analysis

.................................... 67 Table 3-39. MCM 1 MPCD Total Ownership Cost Comparison ($K/Vessel)

........................................... 68 Table 3-40. Comparison of Discharge Constituent Con centrations (μg/L) that Exceed Numeric Water Quality Criteria in the Baseline Discharge a nd MPCD Discharges from Medium CI Ships (at or above 400 tons and u nder 6000 tons) (MCM 1 Based on LSD 41 Surrogate Data)

..... 69 Table 3-41. Comparison of Discharge Constituents of Concern Mass Loading (lbs/yr) and Toxic Pound Equivalent Loading (TPE lbs/yr) in Baseline and MPCD Discharges from Vessels with Nuclear Steam Propulsion (MCM 1)

.............................................................................. 70 Table 3-42. Summary of EEA for Baseline and MPCD Bilgewater Discharges from Medium CI Ships (at or above 400 tons and u nder 6000 tons) (MCM 1 Based on LSD 41 Surrogate Data)

...... 72 Table 3-43. TPEs Removed for each MCPD Option and Associated Costs (MCM 1)

.............................. 73 Table 3-44. WPB 110 Summary of Practicability and Operational Impact Analysis

................................. 74 Table 3-45. WPB 110 MPCD Total Owners hip Cost Comparison ($K/Vessel)

........................................ 75 Table 3-46. Comparison of Discharge Constituent Con centrations (μg/L) that Exceed Numeric Water Quality Criteria in the Baseline Dischar ge and MPCD Discharges from Small Compression Ignition Ships (65 feet or mo re in length and u nder 400 tons of displacement) (WPB 110 Based on LSD 41 Surrogate Data)

................................................. 77 Table 3-47. Comparison of Discharge Constituents of Concern Mass Loading (lbs/yr) and Toxic Pound Equivalent Loading (TPE lbs/yr) in Baseline and MPCD Discharges from Vessels with Nuclear Steam Propulsion (WPB 110)

........................................................................... 78 Table 3-48. Summary of EEA for Baseline and MPCD Bilgewater Discharges from Small Compression Ignition Ships (65 feet or mo re in length and u nder 400 tons of displacement) (WPB 110 Based on LSD 41 Surrogate Data)

................................................ 80 Table 3-49. TPEs Removed for each MCPD Option and Associated Costs (WPB 110)

........................... 81

iv

### DRAFT - Surface Vessel Bilgewater – DAR 24 June 2003



# 0.0 INTRODUCTION

Section 312 of the Federal Water Pollution Cont rol Act [also known as the Clean Water Act (CWA)] requires that the Secretary of Defens e and the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) develop uniform national discharge standards (UNDS) for “...discharges, other than sewage , incidental to normal operati on of a vessel of the Armed Forces...” [Section 312(n)(1)]. UNDS is being de veloped in three phases. The first phase determined which vessel discharges require control by marine pollution control devices (MPCDs). MPCDs can be equipment, alternativ e materials, or management practices. The second phase (which this repor t supports) characterizes each discharge and evaluates the environmental effects and feasibility of impl ementing MPCDs for each discharge that requires control. The final phase will determine the de sign, construction, insta llation, and use of the MPCDs.

Discharge Assessment Reports (DARs) are prepar ed for each vessel discharge requiring control, as listed in Title 40 Part 1700 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). A DAR is a summary of discharge-specific analyses conducted during the second phase of UNDS. The purpose of the DAR is to present key features of a discharge to allow the balancing of the seven statutory considerations to produce a pe rformance standard. The se ven considerations are:

• The nature of the discharge.

• The environmental effects of the discharge.

• The practicability of using the MPCD.

• The effect that installing or using the MPCD would have on the operation or the operational capability of the vessel.

• Applicable U.S. law.

• Applicable international standards.

• The economic costs of inst alling and using the MPCD.

Complete technical analyses of the surface vessel bilgewater disc harge can be found among various documents cited throughout this summary, including:

• Vessel Grouping and Representative Vessel Sele ction for Surface Vess el Bilgewater/OilWater Separator Discharge (Navy and EPA, 2001a).

• Characterization Analysis Report: Surf ace Vessel Bilgewater/OWS Discharge , hereafter referred to as the Bilgewater Char acterization Analysis Report (ChAR) (Navy and EPA, 2003a).

• Feasibility Impact Analysis Report: Surf ace Vessel Bilgewater/OWS Discharge , hereafter referred to as the Bilgewater Feasibility Imp act Analysis Report (FIAR) (Navy and EPA, 2003b).

1

### DRAFT - Surface Vessel Bilgewater – DAR 24 June 2003



## • Environmental Effects Analysis Report : Surface Vessel Bilgewater/OWS Discharge

, hereafter referred to as the Bilgewater Environmental Effects Analysis Report (EEAR) (Navy and EPA, 2003c).

• Environmental Effects Analysis Guidan ce for Phase II of the Uniform National Discharge Standards for Vessels of the Armed Forces , hereafter referred to as the EEA guidance manual (Navy and EPA, 2000a).

A review of applicable U.S. laws and internati onal standards (Section 1.2) and cost effectiveness information that relates the results of environmenta l effects to feasibility analyses are also topics in this report.

1.1 S URFACE 

## V ESSEL 

## B ILGEWATER 

## /OWS E FFLUENT 

## D EFINITION


## The bilge of a surface ship is the lowest inner pa rt of the interior hull where liquid drains from the interior spaces and the upper areas of the vess el (EPA and DoD, 1999). All vessels generate bilgewater and most commissioned Armed Forces vessels are fitted with oil water separator (OWS) systems to reduce the discharge of oil, in accordance with OPNAVINST 5090.1B).

1.2 A PPLICABLE 

## U.S. L AWS AND 

## I NTERNATIONAL 

## S TANDARDS



## 1.2.1 Introduction

The UNDS regulatory development process was designed to consider the seven rulemaking factors discussed in the main in troduction. Two of the seven factors relate to applicable or relevant U.S. laws and international standa rds to provide a basis for comparison while developing UNDS performance standards. Acco rdingly, consideration was given to existing laws and standards relevant to the developm ent of surface vessel bi lgewater performance standards. Listed below ar e short descriptions of thos e laws and standards.

0.0.0 Relevant International Standards

The International Maritime Organization (IMO) held the Internationa l Conference on Marine Pollution in 1973, which adopted the Internationa l Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships. This Convention was subsequently modified by the Protoc ol of 1978, and is known in short form as MARPOL 73/78. Standards c overing the various sources of ship-generated pollution are contained in the five Annexes of the Convention.

Annex I applies to the prevention of pollution by oil and contains separate regulations for oil tankers, non-tankers 400 gross tons 1 

## and above, and non-tankers below that limit. MARPOL 73/78 exempts warships and naval auxiliaries from compliance but does require appropriate measures to be adopt ed (without affecting operational capability) to co mply with the

1 

### Vessel size is often expressed in terms of gross tonnage and net tonnage. Counter to the way it sounds, this term is an expression of the volume within the vessel – not the mass of water the vessel displaces. In this case, 1 ton = 100 ft 3



### . Gross tonnage is essentially the volume within the hull and superstructure.

2

### DRAFT - Surface Vessel Bilgewater – DAR 24 June 2003



## Convention in so far as reasona ble and practicable. The intern ational standard, following the 1992 amendments, is summarized below. (IMO, 1978 and 1992)

• For non-tanker vessels ≥ 400 gross tons: Regulation 9 (I)(b) allows for the discharge of oil if the following conditions are met: the effluent without dilution does not exceed 15 ppm, the ship has a discharge monitoring a nd control system, the ship is underway, and the ship is not in a special ar ea (as defined in Regulation 10).

• For non-tanker vessels <400 gross tons: Regulation 9(II) allows for the discharge of oil if all the conditions listed fo r non-tanker vessels > 400 tons are met, otherwise the vessel must be equipped (as far as practicable and re asonable) with installations to ensure the storage of oil residues on board and th eir discharge to reception facilities.

• For an oil tanker: Regulation 9(I)(a) allows for the discharge of o il if all the conditions listed for non-tanker vessels ≥ 400 tons are met except for oil from cargo pump rooms or oil from machinery room bilges that ar e contaminated with cargo fuel. MARPOL provides separate conditions that must be met in the case of these two exceptions.

0.0.0 Relevant U.S. Laws

The CWA § 311(b)(3) prohibits disc harges of oil or hazardous s ubstances in harmful quantities into the navigable waters of the United States and the cont iguous zone. The Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships (APPS) (Title 33, United St ates Code, Sections 1901-1911) implements MARPOL 73/78, and thus has the same exemption for military vessels (i.e., reasonable and practicable compliance).

In addition to Federal laws, State numeric and narrative water quality st andards are set under the authority of the CWA § 303(c). These standard s normally apply to specific water bodies and vary by designated use. States use their standa rds to regulate both poi nt source and non-point source discharges.

Under 33 U.S.C. 1322(n)(6), States and their poli tical subdivisions are prohibited from adopting or enforcing any State or local st atute or regulation with respect to the discharges identified in Phase I as not requiring contro l. In addition, once performance standards are promulgated (Phase II) and requirements for designing, c onstructing, installing, and using the MPCDs are established (Phase III), the UNDS statute expressly preempts States and political subdivisions of States from adopting or enforcing any State or local statutes or regulations regarding discharges identified as requiring control. The State’s onl y recourse is to apply to EPA to establish nodischarge zones for specific discharg es of concern in their waters.



# 0.0 VESSELS GENERATING SURFACE VESSEL BILGEWATER/OWS EFFLUENT

0.0 I NTRODUCTION


## To facilitate the feasibility and environmental effects analyses (EEA), and due to the large number of vessel classes and designs, Armed For ces vessels were sorted into vessel groups

3

### DRAFT - Surface Vessel Bilgewater – DAR 24 June 2003



## according to similarities in engineering and di scharge characteristics. Vessels that produce bilgewater/OWS discharge were sorted into vessel groups using a tiered process. The discriminating factors in this tiered process in cluded the following: surface vessels that produce bilgewater/OWS discharge, vessel operational st atus, type of propulsion system, bilgewater and dirty ballast processing, vessel si ze, type of bilge, engine pl acement, and new designs. A representative vessel class was selected for each vessel group based on how accurately it depicts the group’s characteristics.

0.0 B ILGEWATER 

## V ESSEL 

## G ROUPING 

## D OCUMENT 

## S UMMARY


## Figure 1 shows how the tiered process describe d above resulted in the 13 vessel groups and representative vessel groups chosen for this discharge.

4Non Operational LKA 113

Nuclear steam propulsion CVN 68

Steam Ships LHD 1

Dry Bilge DDG 51

W et Bilge DD 963

OW S Processes Bilgewater and Dirty Ballast

WHEC 378

Large CI Ship Displacement > 6000 Tons LSD 41

Medium CI Ships > 400 ft and < 6000 Tons MCM 1

Small CI Ships > 65 ft and < 400 Tons WPB 110

CI Boats L < 65 ft UTB 41

SI Inboard Boats QST- 35

SI Outboard Boats CB-M

Lighter YC 1607 New Design Nuclear Steam

Propulsion

New Design Steam Ships

New Design Large CI Ship

New Design Medium CI Ship

New Design Small CI Ship OWS Process

Dirty Ballast

Process only

Bilgewater Nuclear Powered

Conventional Steam

Gas Turbine

Compression Ignition

Spark Ignition

Non-Powered Non Operational

Operational

and New Vessels Surface Vessels with Bilgewater/

OWS 

### DRAFT - Surface Vessel Bilgewater – DAR 24 June 2003

Figure 1. Bilgewater Vessel Groupings

i l

l i

i

il

il

il i ll

Di l

i i

ll i i l i

i i

i ip

i i ip

i ll ip ll

ly Bil l

i

Igni

i i l

i l

ls ls wi Bil / Non Operat ona LKA 113

Nuc ear steam propuls on CVN 68

Steam Sh ps LHD 1

Dry B ge DDG 51

Wet B ge DD 963

OW S Processes B gewater and D rty Ba ast

WHEC 378

Large CI Ship sp acement > 6000 Tons LSD 41

Med um CI Sh ps > 400 ft and < 6000 Tons MCM 1

Sma CI Sh ps > 65 ft and < 400 Tons W PB 110

CI Boats L < 65 ft UTB 41

SI Inboard Boats QST- 35

SI Outboard Boats CB-M

Lighter YC 1607 New Des gn Nuc ear Steam

Propuls on

New Des gn Steam Sh ps

New Des gn Large CI Sh

New Des gn Med um CI Sh

New Des gn Sma CI Sh OW S Process

Dirty Ba ast

Process on gewater Nuc ear Powered

Conventional Steam

Gas Turb ne

Compression tion

Spark Ign tion

Non-Powered Non Operat ona

Operat ona

and New Vesse Surface Vesse th gewater OW S



## For complete details of bilgewater vessel gr ouping and representative ve ssel group selection, see the Vessel Grouping and Representative Vessel Sele ction for Surface Vess el Bilgewater/OilWater Separator Discharge (Navy and EPA, 2001a).

5

### DRAFT - Surface Vessel Bilgewater – DAR 24 June 2003



# 0.0 OVERVIEW OF DISCHARGE ANALYSES

0.0 I NTRODUCTION


## Technical analyses developed for the UNDS progr am are divided into three general areas: characterization, environmental effects, and feas ibility. The discharge analyses began after potential MPCDs were identified and the vessels that produce the discharge were grouped. Characterization of the discharge was performed to support the subsequent environmental effects and feasibility analyses. The discharge char acterization for each vessel group for each MPCD option and the baseline disc harge is referred to as th e “discharge profile.”

The three primary treatment MPCD options (gra vity coalescence, hydrocyclone, and centrifuge) that were subject to full analysis for this disc harge can each be combined with one of the two secondary treatments that passed MPCD screenin g (filter media and membrane filtration). As noted in the Bilgewater ChAR (Navy and EPA, 2003a), the grav ity coalescence, hydrocyclone, and centrifuge options are assumed to have su fficiently similar oil-water and particulate separating performance potential to allow all th ree OWS options to be represented by gravity coalescence (Navy and EPA, 2003c). Therefore, the characterization and environmental effects analyses address only:

• Primary treatment (as represented by existing gravity coalescence equipment).

• Primary treatment plus filter media.

• Primary treatment plus membrane filtration.

• Collection, holding, and transfer (CHT).

It is important to note that the baseline discha rge profile for each vessel group (i.e., untreated bilgewater) was intended for co mparison purposes only. Armed Fo rces vessels do not discharge untreated bilgewater directly overboard.

0.0.0 Potential Marine Pollution Control Device Options

The process to determine the ach ievable performance levels of discharge treatment for each vessel group (which later would be used to dr ive performance standards) resulted in the identification of 15 candidate technologies, referred to as MPCD option groups. Summary information is provided below for each of thes e options. This section also provides a table summarizing the screening results and pass/fail determination rationale. MPCD options that passed screening, as described in the MPCD Screening Guidance Document (Navy and EPA, 2000b), were subject to subs equent environmental and feasibility analyses.

The MPCDs listed below include primary (e.g., gr avity coalescence) and secondary treatment options. Secondary MPCDs are treatment options th at are used in additio n to primary MPCDs to further enhance discharge water quality. Th ese options (e.g., filter media and membrane filtration) are installed in seri es with primary options to form a treatment train configuration.

6

### DRAFT - Surface Vessel Bilgewater – DAR 24 June 2003



## 0.0.0.0 Centrifuge

A centrifuge is a mechanical sepa rating device that consists of a bowl or cylinder rotating at high speeds, generating a centrifugal force. In a disk -type separator, centrif ugal force is exerted on the waste stream to be processed (process fluid) . The force imposed on the process fluid by the centrifuge causes the immiscible liquids (and/o r solids) to separate. Typically, disk-type centrifuges are used in the marine environment. In a disk-type centrifuge, a stack of disks is encased in a bowl-like rotating container. The pr ocess fluid enters the top of the rotating bowl through a regulating tube. The waste stream then passes down the inside of the regulating tube shaft and out the bottom of the stack of disks. As the process fluid fills the bowl containing the disk stack, the fluid is pushed up through the distri bution holes in the disks. As the process fluid flows up through the distribution holes in the disk s, the revolving bowl cr eates a high centrifugal force that is imparted upon the process fluid. The centrifugal force causes the dirt, sludge, and heavier immiscible fluids (generally water) to mo ve outward to the periphery of the bowl where it can be drained to a sludge tank. The lighter flui d (e.g., oil) flows from the top of the disk stack to a holding tank.

0.0.0.0 Dissolved Air Flotation

Dissolved air flotation (DAF) is a physical/chemical clarification process used for the removal of suspended solids and/or insoluble liquids from wast ewaters. In a DAF clar ifier, the wastewater influent stream is saturated with air under pres sure. Just before ente ring the clarifier tank, the influent is released to atmosphe ric pressure, and the dissolved ai r in the influent comes out as extremely fine bubbles. The bubbles attach themse lves to the suspended solids/insoluble liquid droplets in the water and rise to the top of the clarifie r, carrying with them the solids and other contaminants in the these droplets. Precipita ting and coagulating chemicals are added to the waste stream in the DAF clarifier ta nks to enhance system effectiveness. When the bubbles/solids/droplets aggregate reaches the surface, a floating blanket of sludge develops. The floating sludge is removed from the surface by m echanical skimming. Sludge is also formed at the bottom of the tank as heavier so lids settle to the bottom. A sediment sump, a lower rake arm, or some similar device collects a nd transfers this sludge. Clarified effluent can be recycled, sent for further treatment, or directly discharged overboard.

0.0.0.0 Evaporation

Evaporation is the process of changing a solid or liquid into a vapor. In the context of processing bilgewater/OWS effluent, evaporation requires heating the bilgewater until the water, and various other volatiles it contai ns, undergo a phase change from liquid phase to vapor phase. The primary components of the only known commerci al bilgewater evaporation system include an insulated steel tank of approxi mately 50-gallon capacity with a lid, a thermostat, a flat floor with a drain, an under-floor or immersed heater, an exhaust fan, and vent stack.

0.0.0.0 Ex Situ Biological Treatment

An ex situ biological treatment system uses a process in which the waste stream is pumped into a reaction vessel containing microorganisms which provide waste treatment. These microorganisms digest the organic content of th e waste stream. The digestion process converts

7

### DRAFT - Surface Vessel Bilgewater – DAR 24 June 2003



## the organic material into new cell mass, cell by-products, gas, and water. The cell mass forms aggregates, or floc, the density of which is su fficient to separate the flocs from the treated effluent leaving the reaction vessel. Operational parameters such as waste flow rate, air/nutrient additions, and contact time of the biomass are c ontrolled to create the optimum environment for treating a specific waste stream.

0.0.0.0 Flocculation through Electrocoagulation

Electrocoagulation is a physiochemical operation commonly used for wastewater treatment. This process results in the destabilization and aggregation of smaller particles into larger particles. The resulting larger particles precipitate from solu tion or become large enough to be filtered out of solution. Electro coagulation is based on the principle of passing an electrical current through water to induce a chemical reaction, creating dense flocculation precipitates that can be settled or floated. Because the floc (w hich forms a sludge) is physically and chemically stable, it can be easily separated from the wate r by a number of secondary separation techniques, including skimming or accumulation in a sludg e buffer tank (55-gallon drum). This option group typically requires the addition of iron or alum inum pellets, or the us e of sacrificial anodes to facilitate the separation/flocculation process.

0.0.0.0 Flocculation by Separating Agents

Separating agents are added to a waste stream to f acilitate the coagulation/ flocculation process. Coagulation is achieved by a reduction of electro static surface forces, and flocculation is achieved by the use of bridging materials to combin e smaller particles into larger agglomerates. Although achieved through different means, bot h coagulation and flocculation are processes where suspended material present in water in a co lloidal form are brought together into larger agglomerates. These agglomerates are then re moved during wastewater processing by skimming and filtration. This technology can remove metals , phosphates, suspended solids, oil and grease from wastewater.

0.0.0.0 Gravity Coalescence

Gravity coalescing type OWSs operate on the principl e that due to the different specific gravities of oil and water and their immiscib ility with each other, the oil wi ll separate from the water and coalesce into a separate fluid layer. Oily wast ewater is pumped from the oily waste holding tank through the OWS, which contains coalescing ma terial. Coalescing ma terial is typically polypropylene, an oleophilic polymer that may be in the form of parallel plates or loose packed media. As the oil droplets, entrained in the in fluent, flow through the OW S, they will come into contact with the coalescing material and adhere to it. As more droplets attach to the polymer, they will come in contact with each other and form larger droplets (coa lesce). These droplets will break free from the plates or media and rise to the surface of the OWS tank where they typically collect in an oil tower. The OWS contains sensors that de tect the presence of oil in the oil tower and trigger the OWS to automatically pu mp the collected oil to a waste oil tank. The treated effluent is scanned for oil content by an oi l content monitor. If the effluent appears to contain higher than desired oil content, it is re turned to the oily waste holding tank for further processing. If the effluent concentration is accep table, the effluent is discharged overboard.

8

### DRAFT - Surface Vessel Bilgewater – DAR 24 June 2003



## 0.0.0.0 Hydrocyclone

A hydrocyclone (or cyclone sepa rator) is a simple device, co nsisting of a cylindrical upper section and a conical lower section that utilizes centrifugal forces to separate flui ds of differing density. The fluid and the contaminants, coupled with an applied force to pressurize the fluid, drive the entire process. Oily water is pumped under pressure into the top of the hydrocyclone, where it enters the cylinder tangentially, caus ing a vortex to form. This vortex creates centrifugal force that pushes dens er liquids, such as water, ou tward toward the walls of the conical section. At the same time, a pressure dr op occurs in the center of the vortex where the lower density fluid (oil) is drawn. As th e vortex moves down the tapered portion of the hydrocyclone, it accelerates, generating very larg e centrifugal forces (on the order of 1,000 times the force of gravity). The centrifugal force furthe r separates the two phases: forcing the water to the outside walls while the oil flows toward the center of the vortex. The separated oil flows back up through the center of the vortex and out the center of the cylindrical inle t head section, while the water continues to flow down and out th e open end of the conica l tail section. The oil stream is directed to a wast e oil collection tank. The processed water may be discharged overboard if below regulatory standards or di rected to a secondary treatment device for additional processing.

0.0.0.0 In Situ Biological Treatment

Biological treatment works by bringing bacteria into contact with organic compounds, an electron acceptor, and other necessary nutrients for microbial growth. Once in contact, the microbes break down and consume the organic waste, converting it into either gas, water, cell by-products, or microbial cell mass. In situ biological treatments are systems in which microbes are introduced directly into a wa ste stream, such as bilgewater, and allowed to react with its constituents. In situ biological treatment is a relativel y uncontrolled process since the only controllable parameter is the amount of micr obes added to the contaminated area.

0.0.0.0 Oil Absorbing Socks

Oil-absorbing socks (OAS) utilize both oil absorbent and water repellent properties of meltblown (not woven) polypropylene fibers to absorb liquid hydrocarbons from oily wastewater. Meltblown polypropylene fibers have inherent hydrophobic properties a nd are designed to absorb oil and repel water when placed on (or in ) oil water mixtures (i.e., vessel or small boat bilges) (Oil Dri Corp, 2000).

0.0.0.0 Supercritical Water Oxidation

This potential MPCD option involves using a supercritical water oxidation (SCWO) unit to control aqueous organic material s by converting them to carbon dioxide and water. The SCWO unit destroys the aqueous organic matter using th e properties of water at supercritical conditions.

0.0.0.0 Collection Holding and Transfer (CHT)

CHT involves the on-board collection, containment, and subsequent transfer of bilgewater to shore facilities or ship waste offload barges (S WOBs). CHT does not involve any treatment of

9

### DRAFT - Surface Vessel Bilgewater – DAR 24 June 2003



## raw bilgewater on-board the generating vessel. CHT may require the installation of some shipboard equipment, such as piping or tanks, to provide additional holding capacity.

0.0.0.0 Filter Media

Filter media are substances that selectively remove constituents (e.g., organics and metals) from a wastewater. The media have an affinity for a particular suite of constituents. When allowed to come into contact, the constituent is bound to the filter media, typically through adsorption and/or absorption. The types of media studied for this MPCD option group include activated carbon, polypropylene, resin bonded gl ass fiber, cellulose, humic acid, and synthetic polymers.

0.0.0.0 Membrane Filtration

Semi-permeable membranes are filtration systems th at allow the passage of water, ions, or small molecules, but prohibit the passage of larger mo lecules (e.g., oil). Membrane filtration devices separate high molecular weight constituents from fluids by forc ing the fluid through very small pores of a polymeric or inorganic membrane . The membrane filtration MPCD option group consists of various types of membranes incl uding reverse osmosis (RO), nanofiltration (NF), ultrafiltration (UF), and microfiltration (MF). Membrane filtration systems in use by Armed Forces vessels use UF units designed to remove oil to meet performance levels.

0.0.0 MPCD Screening Results

The following table summarizes the screen conclu sions and associated rationale for each MPCD option group.

Table 0-1. Bilgewater MPCD Option Group Screening Summary

Option Group Pass/Fail Rationale Centrifuge PASS: Centrifuges have been successfully used aboard Armed Forces surface vessels and commercial vessels for tr eating surface vessel bilgewater.
Dissolved Air Filtration FAIL: DAF technology has been used successfully for land-based wastewater treatment applications. However, there are no DAF clarifiers in use on-board waterborne vessels, nor is DAF available commercially for application in the marine environment. Evaporation PASS: Although not widely used, this MPCD has been used to treat bilgewater on some commercial inland watercraft. These craft range in size from 100 to 250 feet and generate bilgewater at a rate of less than 50 gallons per day.
Ex Situ Biological Treatment FAIL: Ex situ biological treatment devices are cu rrently the subjects of private and public sector research. At this time, t here are no existing data to demonstrate that this MPCD is sufficiently proven to treat surface vessel bilgewater on waterborne vessels.
Filter Media PASS: Filter media has been successfully used aboard Armed Forces surface vessels to treat surface vessel bilgewater. Flocculation through Electrocoagulation FAIL: Flocculation through electrocoagulation has been used for many shoreside wastewater treatment applications and is reportedly capable of treating complex waste streams, including bilgewater. Howe ver, to date, this technology has not been used to treat surface vessel bilgewater on waterborne vessels.



### 10

### DRAFT - Surface Vessel Bilgewater – DAR 24 June 2003

Option Group Pass/Fail Rationale Flocculation by Separating Agents FAIL: Flocculation by separating agents has been used for many shoreside wastewater treatment applications. However, to date, this technology has not been used to treat surface vessel bilgewater on waterborne vessels. Gravity Coalescence PASS: Gravity coalescers have been used successfully aboard Armed Forces surface vessels to treat surface vessel bilgewater. Hydrocyclone PASS: Hydrocyclones have been successfully used aboard Canadian Navy surface vessels to treat surface vessel bilgewater.
In Situ Biological Treatment PASS: In situ devices have demonstrated the ability to degrade oil in the bilgewater of recreational boats and USCG cutters. Howe ver, the rate at which the degradation occurs and the relative effectiveness has not been quantified fully. In situ biological treatment is a process that has not been proven to consistently produce an effluent with oil content suitable for overboard discharge.
Membrane Filtration PASS: Membrane filtration is successfully used on-board Armed Forces surface vessels to treat surface vessel bilgewater. Oil Absorbing Socks PASS: OASs are successfully used in bilge areas on small recreational boats to prevent oil from being released during unintentional bilgewater discharges. Supercritical Water Oxidation FAIL: SCWO technology is available for commercial use (Freeman, 1989), but has not been used on a waterborne vessel or in the marine environment to treat surface vessel bilgewater.
CHT PASS: Armed Forces vessels successfully practice CHT.



## 0.0.0 Characterization

Characterization information collected on surface vessel bilgewater is organized among the following topics: physical parameters, chemical da ta, field testing, descriptive information, and discharge generation rates.

0.0.0.0 Physical Parameters

Characterization of the physical parameters of the discharge refers to the information gathered on how the discharge is released to the environment. This informa tion is needed to support dilution modeling as part of the EEA (described in Section 3.1.5). This info rmation includes vessel dimensions, discharge port measurements, fl ow rate and duration, and discharge density (determined by salinity values). The primary s ources of these data ar e technical literature reviews and the engineering inform ation gathered on the representative vessel, particularly ship drawings and equipment specifications.

0.0.0.0 Chemical Data

To support the requirements of the EEA, potentia lly toxic constituents of the discharge were identified and quantified (by con centration). The primary source of this information was sample analysis. In Phase I, sampling was pe rformed on USS JOHN C. STENNIS (CVN 74). Additional sampling was performed for Phas e II on USS MAHAN (DDG 72), USS OAK HILL (LSD 51), USCGC MORGENTHAU (WHEC 7 22), USS DAVID R. RAY (DD 971), USS BONHOMME RICHARD (LHD 6), USS CARN EY (DDG 64), and USS RUSHMORE (LSD 47). The selection of anal ytes and analysis methods are de tailed in the Sp ecified Sampling and Analysis Plans (SSAPs), which are listed in the Refe rence section.

11

### DRAFT - Surface Vessel Bilgewater – DAR 24 June 2003



## Process knowledge was used to develop discharg e profiles for instances where sampling was not practical (e.g., the evaluation of MPCD opti ons on vessels which do not have the option installed). In these cases, constituent concentr ations were estimated using empirical formulas developed by Putnam and Singerman (2001). Sp ecifically, secondary treatment profiles (i.e., those used as part of a treatment train) were developed by applying thes e formulas to primary treatment results. In other cases, baseline and primary treatment results were derived from surrogate data and supplemented by process knowledge from equipment experts and vessel drawings. In particular, due to similarities in machinery, propulsion systems, and ancillary equipment, the LSD 41 vessel group discharge info rmation is used to represent the MCM and WPB vessel groups.

0.0.0.0 Field Testing

Field testing was performed to obtain values fo r parameters that can not be measured in preserved samples. Parameters measured in the field included pH, temperat ure, salinity, specific conductance, and total- and free-chlorine. Addi tional characterization in formation on colloidal matter, color, floating materials, nuisance specie s, odor, settleable materials, total dissolved gases, transparency, and turbidity were coll ected for narrative water quality criteria (WQC) evaluations as part of the EEA.

0.0.0.0 Descriptive Information

Descriptive information on the discharge was also required to compare discharge characteristics to narrative criteria endpoints. This inform ation was generally collect ed through observation of discharge samples. Categories of narrative criteria directly related to descriptive information include color, floating materials, odor, settleable materials, and turbidity/colloidal matter.

0.0.0.0 Discharge Generation Rates

A determination of annual discharge generation rates was necessary to support feasibility and environmental effects analyses. The determ ination of discharge generation volume was not made by using a selected vessel class to represent each vessel group. Instead, generation rates were determined for each vessel cl ass that produces the discharge. Information on the dischargeprocessing rate (i.e., the rate th at bilgewater is pu mped out when sent through the OWS) was assembled, along with the number of hulls within a class and vesse l movement data, to calculate the annual discharge volumes. Vessel movement data include details regarding the time each representative vessel spe nds in fresh and saltwater and the nu mber of days spent in port vice operating within and outside of 12 nm.

Data quality was considered for all analyses con ducted. To ensure adequa te data quality, after reviewing documented matrix spike failures and process information discrepancies, a confirmation analysis was conducted for pesticides . This confirmation an alysis revealed that there were no pesticides present in the reanaly zed samples. As a resu lt, pesticides are not included in bilgewater discharg e profiles (Navy and EPA, 2003d).

12

### DRAFT - Surface Vessel Bilgewater – DAR 24 June 2003



## Constituent concentrations and other characteriza tion data for each discharge profile are located in the Bilgewater ChAR appendices (Navy and EPA, 2003a).

0.0.0 Feasibility

The feasibility analysis is organized by vessel group and analyzes criteria for each MPCD option group relative to each representative vessel. Feasibility criteria were considered for both existing vessels and new design vessels, and for each MPCD option group that passed the MPCD screening process. MPCD option groups can be management plans, practices, alternative materials, or control devices. The specific criter ia considered in the feasibility analyses are detailed in the Feasibility Impact Analysis Guidance Document (Navy and EPA, 2000c).

Feasibility information used in this report belongs to either of two genera l categories: 1) general data developed for the UNDS program that are subj ect to uncertainty anal ysis and the rules of significant figures, and 2) information collected from other sources (e.g., vendor claims) that are treated as constants for calculation purposes. The Navy’s Alteration and Installation Team (AIT) and Total Ship System Directorate of the Na val Surface Warfare Center, Carderock Division, (NSWCCD Code 20) supported the development of these analyses. Their estimates and conclusions are referenced throughout this report.

Within each personnel impact section, the mainte nance activities for each MPCD are presented as either time-based or condition-based. Time -based maintenance includes those activities performed according to a preset calendar schedu le (e.g., annual, semi-annual, quarterly) and is independent of the number of hours the MPCD is operated. Condition-based maintenance includes all maintenance activit ies that are dependent upon the number of hours the MPCD is operated (e.g., every 500 hours). Hours of MPCD operation were estimated based on the amount of time it takes to process the volume of bilgewater generated annually.

0.0.0.0 Economic Cost Analysis

Cost analyses developed herein are for purposes of MPCD comp arison as part of performance standard development in Phase II of UNDS. Th e following cost analyses are not intended for preparation of actual implementation costs. To the extent possible, the analyses divide cost estimates between vessel operations within 12 nm of shore and vessel oper ations beyond 12 nm.

Economic costs were estimated using Automate d Cost Estimating Integrated Tool (ACEIT) software. ACEIT software is widely used w ithin the DoD cost analysis community (ACEIT, 1999). All costs are presented in 1999 dollars. Summary tables that present how costs were converted to 1999 dollars are s hown in the Bilgewater FIAR Appendix A. Cost data for individual initial and recurring co st items that were obtained subs equent to fiscal year 1999 were converted to 1999 dollars using the Consumer Price Index (CPI). The CPI is a general inflation rate published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics . More specialized inflation rates exist for specific costs (e.g., labor rates, machinery procur ement cost, oily wastewater disposal cost); however, because costs were adjusted over a very short time period, using specialized inflation rates would not significantly affect the outcome of the calculations.

13

### DRAFT - Surface Vessel Bilgewater – DAR 24 June 2003



## Initial Cost

The initial cost estimates developed for each MPCD option group include acquisition, installation, and technical data (e.g., manuals, drawings, training gui des) development costs. The estimated initial costs are the incr emental costs, or additional costs, to install the MPCD. If the MPCD is already installed, there are no incremental costs. Acquisition costs indicate the total cost to purchase the number of MPCDs required to achieve the designated processing rate per representative vessel. Acquisition costs were provided by vendors or equipment experts with acquisition cost knowledge. These costs may vary between manufacturers; however, that difference is not expected to be significant. The development of ac quisition, installation, and technical data development cost estimates required the use of assumptions based upon Navy experience.

Recurring Cost

The recurring costs considered in the feasibility analyses include labor costs for operating and maintenance, consumable costs, and waste materi al disposal costs. Th ese individual costs, associated assumptions, and calculations are reported in the resp ective Personnel Impact sections. The recurring costs ar e incurred on an annual basis. The individual recurring cost items are described under the recurring cost sections and totaled under the Total Ownership Costs (TOC) sections. The annual labor cost was estimated by adding the personnel labor requirement for operating equipment and tran sferring waste oil to shore to the routine maintenance labor requirement.

Total Ownership Costs

The TOC is a sum of the total initial and the total recurring costs. The ACEIT model estimated the TOC of each MPCD option group over a 15-y ear lifecycle. This model assumes that acquisition and installati on occur during year one of the 15-ye ar lifecycle, and MPCD operation begins the following year. Theref ore, the first year reflects initial costs only, and years two through 15 reflect recurring costs only. The ACEIT model presents the cost-estimate results as total initial, total r ecurring, and overall total cost expressed in 1999 dollars. ACEIT discounted future costs (i.e., recurring cost) using a di scounted cash flow methodology to account for the time value of money. The cost analysis used a di scount rate of 3.2% that was based on the real interest rates on 15-year Treasur y Notes and Bonds (OMB, 1992).

Annualized Cost

Annualized costs were calculated using standard annuali zation methods. This process facilitated the cost analysis by representing each year in the 15-year life cycl e by a single value. Annualized costs are presented for compar ing costs of MPCD option groups.

0.0.0.0 New Design Vessels

Vessels in the design stage (“new design vessels ”) are vessels authorized by Congress and for which the Department of Defense or the Coast Gu ard has established a program office to oversee their design. Assessments report ed in the FIAR were developed using the assumption that new

14

### DRAFT - Surface Vessel Bilgewater – DAR 24 June 2003



## design vessels will have similar discharge ch aracteristics (e.g., bilgewater constituent composition) as a representative existing vessel and will have additional flexibility as compared to existing vessels.

New design analyses parallel existing repres entative vessel classes and follow new design analysis guidelines (Navy and EPA, 2002a). A ne w design vessel's ability to collect bilgewater may also be improved by designing systems that re duce the amount of bilgewater generated. As discussed in Shipboard Compliance and Polluti on Prevention Program (Navy and EPA, 2002b), the Navy is implementing several pollution preventi on initiatives to reduce bilgewater generation volumes. These include incorporating non-oily machinery wastewater collection systems, or "dry bilge", into the ship design, installing mechanical seals on pumps, and developing improved shaft seals.

MPCD feasibility for new design vessels was analyzed using existing vessels as a baseline, as described below:

• At a minimum, new design vessels were assumed to be able to accommodate MPCDs that are in-place or were determined to be viable for installation on corresponding existing vessels. Therefore, these “in-pl ace” MPCDs were not analyzed for new design vessels because the discharges were expected to have similar charac teristics as those on existing vessels.

• Only MPCDs that could provide an additiona l environmental benefit over the in-place MPCDs were analyzed.

• Professional judgment was used to compare th e feasibility (i.e., pr acticability, economic costs, and operational impacts) of installi ng and using an MPCD on a new design vessel to that of an in-place MPCD. Installation co st for an MPCD aboard a new design vessel was assumed to be 67% of the cost for retr ofitting the device aboa rd an existing vessel (Navy and EPA, 2002a).

0.0.0 Environmental Effects Analysis

UNDS program managers designed the environmental effects analysis of di scharges to have two components. The first component is the analysis of immediate impacts from vessel discharges. That analysis included an evaluation of the acute toxicity to aquatic lif e, an identification of bioaccumulators, and an evaluation of other environmental impacts (e.g., nutrient loading, pathogen inputs, and thermal effects). The second component of the environmental effects analysis, the cumulative impact analysis (CIA), is intended to consider environmental impacts that arise due to multiple discharges from multiple vessels and to evaluate certain environmental impacts not addressed in the EEA, which are more complex than simple toxicological effects.

The EEA of bilgewater impacts pr esented in this report are in accordance with the methodology contained in the EEA guidance manual (Navy and EPA, 2000a), with a few exceptions wherein a streamlined analysis was determined to be suitable (presented in Section 3.2). In these cases, collection of the entire discharge within 12 nm of shore was determined to be a feasible option.

15

### DRAFT - Surface Vessel Bilgewater – DAR 24 June 2003



## As a result, there is no discharge to the receivi ng waters inside 12 nm and the need for further characterization or environmental effects anal ysis was considered to be superfluous.

In short, the analysis has severa l steps. After the discharge has been characterized (as described in the previous section), constituent concentratio ns are compared to a collection of State water quality standards and Federal guidance values. Bioaccumulative contaminants of concern (BCCs) are identified in the discharge based on li sts of elimination and reduction BCCs provided by EPA and other sources. Mass loading calcu lations, along with toxi c weighting factors (TWFs) provided by EPA, are used to derive toxic pounds equivalents (TPEs) that allow for cumulative toxic loading to be estimated.

Net acute aquatic-life toxicity is estimated using a hazard index (HI) approach. End-of-pipe (EOP) and edge of a mixing zone (EOMZ) cons tituent concentration values are divided by toxicological endpoint concentrations (TECs) . The constituent-specific result of these calculations is the hazard quotient (HQ); the summation is the HI. An HI of 1.0 or less is the level considered to be protective of aquatic life from acute toxic e ffects of the discharge. This level is equivalent to the EPA WQC for aqua tic life [i.e., Criterion Maximum Concentration (CMC)]. The CMC is intended to protect most sp ecies most of the time (EPA, 1991). This level of protection is set near the concentration resu lting in no observable effect on the most sensitive aquatic species, which EPA has determined w ill adequately protect aquatic communities.

As discussed in the EEA guidance manual (Navy and EPA, 2000a), the mixing zone used by the UNDS program is the volume of water within a distance 35m from the di scharge point. The dilution at EOMZ is an important variable in the determination of the environmental impact a discharge has on the receiving wa ters. The analysis of bilgewater followed the pierside modeling approach described in the Technica l Approach for Pierside Modeling to Support UNDS EEA Phase II (Navy and EPA, 2001b).

The EEA process also assesses the potential for non-indigenous species (NIS) transport and other environmental considerations unique to the discha rge (e.g., impacts to air qua lity). In the case of bilgewater, the potential for the baseline disc harge to introduce NIS is expected to be low because “there is only minor seawater access to bilge compartments, and b ilgewater is generally processed before it is transported over long distances” (EPA and DoD, 1999). The other potential environmental concern iden tified for this discharge is due to the indirect impacts to the environment that could occur as a result of shores ide treatment. Offloaded bilgewater is treated at properly-permitted facilities and is subject to applicable Federal, State, and local disposal regulations.

Discharge profiles were not crea ted for every combination of MP CD option and vessel group. In some cases, MPCDs were eliminated from evaluati on as a result of the feasibility analysis (see the Bilgewater FIAR).

0.0 V ESSEL 

## G ROUPS 

## S UBJECT TO 

## S TREAMLINED 

## A NALYSIS


## For five of the 13 vessel groups, collection of th e entire discharge within 12 nm of shore was determined to be a feasible option. The use of this option results in no direct discharge to the

16

### DRAFT - Surface Vessel Bilgewater – DAR 24 June 2003



## receiving waters; therefore, the need for formal characterization or environmental effects analysis was considered to be superf luous. The five vessel groups include:

• Non-operational vessels: LKA 113.

• Compression ignition (CI) boats under 65 ft: UTB 41.

• Spark ignition (SI) inbo ard vessels: QST 35.

• SI outboard vessels: CB-M.

• Non-powered vessels: YC 1607.

Further information on the feasib ility analysis of these vessel groups can be found in their respective chapters in the Bilgew ater FIAR (Navy and EPA, 2003b).

0.0 N UCLEAR 

## S TEAM 

## P ROPULSTION 

## V ESSELS 

## (CVN 68)

The only nuclear-powered surface ve ssels in service with the Arme d Forces are the Navy aircraft carriers ENTERPRISE (CVN 65) and NIMITZ (CVN 68) Classes. The CVN 65 is a class with only one vessel, while the CVN 68 Class has 10 ve ssels. These vessels measure over 1,000 ft in length, displace more than 70,000 tons (Polmar, 1997), and operate outside 12 nm from shore except when transiting to and from port. These ve ssels have nuclear reactor s that supply heat to steam generators. The steam from the generato rs drives the main propulsion turbines. The steam generators require blowdow ns, however the resulting wastew ater is not directed to the bilge.

0.0.0 CVN 68 Class Characterization

Characterization information was gathered on su rface vessel bilgewater to support subsequent environmental effects and feasibility analyses. This information primarily included engineering data on ship systems and details regarding discharge composition.

During UNDS Phase I, sampling was conducted a board one vessel of the CVN 68 Class, USS JOHN C. STENNIS (CVN 74), fr om 5 March 1997 to 7 March 1997 to supplement process knowledge on the composition of the discharge. This sampling episode serves as the primary source of chemical data, as well as field and desc riptive data, for this vessel group. The samples were analyzed by ETS Analytical Services and P acific Analytical, Inc. The subsequent results were reviewed by the EPA and DoD to determine the quality of the anal ytical data; however, some sample data were excluded in the final calculations, as documented in the Sampling Episode Report - Volume II -USS JOHN C. STENNIS (Navy, 1998) based upon Sample Control Center (SCC) review. As discussed in Secti on 3.1.3, pesticide results were not included in bilgewater discharge prof iles (Navy and EPA, 2003d).

The characterization of the bilgewater discharg e after secondary treatment by filter media could not be performed based on sample analysis becaus e this operation is not in everyday practice aboard this vessel class. Discharge compositi on properties were estimated using Putnam and Singerman (2001) calculations as well as compar isons to the performance achieved by filter media on DDG 51 Class vessels. Further informa tion on the characterizati on of this discharge can be found in the respective chapter of the Bilgewater ChAR (Navy and EPA, 2003a).

17

### DRAFT - Surface Vessel Bilgewater – DAR 24 June 2003



## 0.0.0 CVN 68 Class Feasibility Impact

The feasibility impact analysis of surface vesse l bilgewater for this vessel group is summarized below in Table 3-2.

18DRAFT - Surface Vessel Bilgewater – DAR24 June 2003Table 3-2. CVN 68 Summary of Practicability and Operational Impact AnalysisMPCD OptionPRACTICABILITY AND OPERATIONAL IMPACT STUDYSpace andWeightPersonnel/EquipmentSafetyMissionCapabilitiesPersonnel Impact(operator labor hrs/year)Consumables,Repair Parts,and ToolsInterfaceRequirementsControl SystemRequirementsOther/UniqueImpactsWithin 12 nm(inc. maintenance)Beyond12 nmCurrent MPCD*(GravityCoalescer)163 ft34,800 lbs. (dry)9,000 lbs(flooded)No impact –current MPCDNo impactNo impact245 hrs386 hrsNoneElectrical power—440VAC, 60HzPotable water—needed as aprimerSea water—25Automated controlpanel, remote tanklevel switches, andOCMNonepsiGravity drainCentrifuge766 ft36,300 lbs (dry)7,000 lbs(flooded)Existing OWSwould beremoved andNo impactNo impact113 hrs386 hrsMinimalconsumablesrequired. Specialtools availablefrom vendorElectrical power—440VAC, 80-130kWCompressed Air--0.0045-0.022cfm @ 50 psigPotable water—Automated controlpanel (vendorrecommendsoperator oversightduring startup),integratedthermostat to controlNonereplaced withunit50 gpd, 45 psiGravity drainheater, can beequipped with OCMCHT—operatingfrom port withshoresidefacilitiesNo impact—within currentholdingcapacity; canNo impactNo impact750 hrsNANoneNoneNoneNonesupport anapproximate 6hours of transittimeCHT—operatingSignificantSignificantSignificantSignificant impactNANoneNoneNoneNonefrom port withoutimpact afterimpact afterimpact afterafter two daysshoresidetwo daystwo daystwo daysfacilitiesEvaporationNF – excessivepowerrequirements19DRAFT - Surface Vessel Bilgewater – DAR24 June 2003MPCD OptionPRACTICABILITY AND OPERATIONAL IMPACT STUDYSpace andWeightPersonnel/EquipmentSafetyMissionCapabilitiesPersonnel Impact(operator labor hrs/year)Consumables,Repair Parts,and ToolsInterfaceRequirementsControl SystemRequirementsOther/UniqueImpactsWithin 12 nm(inc. maintenance)Beyond12 nmHydrocyclone168 ft3No impactNo impact79 hrs386 hrsConsumables andElectrical power—Automated controlNone900 lbs (dry)1,000 lbsrepair parts (e.g.,“O” rings, gaskets460VAC, 60 Hzpanel, tank levelswitches, can be(flooded)for cycloneequipped with OCMExisting OWSswould bevessel, cycloneliners, and pumpremovedcomponents)requiredIn SituBiologicalTreatmentNF – excessive bilgewater volumeOil-AbsorbingSocksNF – potential safety (e.g., fire and flooding) hazard; solid waste handling impactsFilter Media87 ft33,650 lbs (dry)8,375 lbs(flooded)Existingworkbench andstorage lockermay have to beremoved;No impactNo impact11 hrsNARequiresreplacement offilter mediacanistersNoneAutomatedoperation inresponse to primaryOWSSystemswereremovedfrom DDGbecausethey failed toconsistentlyproduceeffluent lessdeballastingtanks andthan 15 ppm.piping mayhave to berelocated.MembraneFiltration440 ft39,200 lbs (dry)12,000 lbs(flooded)Significantimpacts onolder vessels;extent ofimpacts onother vesselsNo impactNo impact42 hrsNARequiresreplacement ofmembranes(performedshoreside)Electrical power—440VAC, 60 HZCompressed Air –5 scfm at 80 to100 psiPotable water –10 gpm at 30 psiGravity drainAutomatedoperation inresponse to primaryOWSNonewill vary20DRAFT - Surface Vessel Bilgewater – DAR24 June 2003Table 3-3. CVN 68 MPCD Total Ownership Cost Comparison ($K/vessel)MPCD OptionTotal InitialInside 12 nm/Inside+Beyond 12 nmTotal 15-Yr RecurringInside 12 nm/Inside+Beyond 12 nmAnnualizedInside 12 nm/Inside+Beyond 12 nmTotal OwnershipInside 12 nm/Inside+Beyond 12 nmGravity Coalescence0/062/1805.3/15.362/180Centrifuge1170/117028.4/97102/1081200/1270CHT (within currentholding capacity)0/02440/2440207/2072440/2440Hydrocyclone224/22420/91.420.7/27.3244/321Filter Media208/208869/86991.5/91.51080/1080Membrane Filtration968/96811/1183.2/83.2979/979213 

### DRAFT - Surface Vessel Bilgewater – DAR 24 June 2003



## 0.0.0 CVN 68 Class Environmental Effects

The environmental effects analysis of surf ace vessel bilgewater fo r this vessel group is summarized below in Table 3-4 and Table 3-5.

Table 3-4. Comparison of Discharge Constituent C oncentrations (μg/L) that Exceed Numeric Water Quality Criteria in the Baseline Discharge and MPCD Discharges from Vessels with Nuclear Steam Propulsion (CVN 68)

Discharge Constituent Strictest WQC Baseline Primary Treatment Primary Treatment Plus

Filter Media 1 Primary Treatment Plus Membrane Filtration 1 CHT 2

Cadmium 5.0E+00 5.4E+00 5.1E+00 5.1E+00 1.0E+00 3 0 Copper 2.4E+00 2.6E+02 1. 6E+02 1.6E+02 1.6E+02 0
Iron 3.0E+02 5.2E+ 02 4.7E+02 1.9E+02 3 9.4E+01 3 0 Mercury 2.5E-02 9.2E-02 5. 2E-02 5.2E-02 5.2E-02 0
Nickel 8.3E+00 3.0E+02 1. 7E+02 1.3E+02 1.8E+02 0
Selenium 1.0E+00 1.2E+01 ND ND ND 0
Zinc 5.0E+01 1.6E+03 8. 8E+02 5.3E+02 8.6E+02 0
Number of Constituents exceeding strictest WQC - 7 6 5 4 0

Total Exceeded Numeric Criteria - 78 77 76 74 0

1 Constituent concentrations are ca lculated using methodology described in Putnam and Singerman (2001).

2 CHT does not release constituents to the receiving waters This concentration does not exceed water quality criteria.
ND = Not Detected



### Table 3-5. Comparison of Discharge Constituents of Concern Mass Loading (lbs/yr) and Toxic

Pound Equivalent Loading (TPE lbs/yr) in Baseline and MPCD Discharges from Vessels with Nuclear Steam Propulsion (CVN 68)

Discharge Constituent Baseline Primary Treatment Primary Treatment Plus Filter Media 1 Primary Treatment Plus Membrane Filtration 1 CHT 2
Bis (2-Ethylhexyl) Phthalate

TPE: 5.5E+00

3 ND ND ND 0

Cadmium 1.3E+00 1.3E+00 1.3E+00 2.5E-01 0 TPE: 8.8E-01 8.4E- 01 8.4E-01 1.7E-01 Copper 1.4E+02 8.4E +01 4.2E+01 4.8E+01 0 TPE: 2.5E+02 1.5E+ 02 7.6E+01 8.8E+01
Iron 1.3E+02 1.1E+02 ND ND 0 TPE: 2.2E+-01 1.9E-01



### 23

### DRAFT - Surface Vessel Bilgewater – DAR 24 June 2003

Discharge Constituent Baseline Primary Treatment Primary Treatment Plus Filter Media 1 Primary Treatment Plus Membrane Filtration 1 CHT 2
Mercury 2.2E-02 1.3E -02 1.3E-02 1.3E-02 0 TPE: 2.6E+00 1.5E+ 00 1.5E+00 1.5E+00
Nickel 7.4E+01 4.1E+ 01 3.1E+01 4.3E+01 0 TPE: 5.1E+01 2.8E+ 01 2.1E+01 2.9E+01
Nitrate/Nitrite 1.3E+02 6.6E+01 4.0E+01 6.6E+01 0 TPE: 1.2E+01 6.1E+ 00 3.7E+00 6.1E+00
Oil and Grease (HEM 4 )

TPE: 1.3E+04 5.7E+03 1.7E+03 2.1E+03 0

Selenium 2.8E+00 ND ND ND 0 TPE: 2.3E-01
Sulfate 1.2E+05 2.2E +05 2.2E+05 2.2E+05 0 TPE: 6.7E-01 1.2E+ 00 1.2E+00 1.2E+00
Total Sulfide 2.0E+03 1.2E+03 2.5E+02 ND 0 TPE: 5.7E+03 3.4E+03 6.9E+02
Zinc 4.0E+02 2.1E+ 02 1.3E+02 2.1E+02 0 TPE: 2.8E+01 1.5E+ 01 8.9E+00 1.5E+01
Total TPE Load 6.1E+03 3. 7E+03 8.8E+02 2.1E+02 0

1 Constituent concentrations are calculated using methodology described in Putnam and Singerman (2001).

2 CHT does not release constituents to the receiving waters.

3 No TPE value is calculated for this constituent. As discussed in the EEA Guidance Manual (Navy and EPA, 2000a), the use of a proxy value indicated that t he contribution of this constituent to t he total TPE value is relatively small.

4 HEM TEC value was based on the fuel/l ube TEC. For more information, see Development of TECs for Categories

of Oily Substances Derived from Petroleum and Foods (Navy and EPA, 2001c).
ND = Not Detected



### Table 3-6. Summary of EEA for Baseline and MPCD Bilgewater Discharges from Vessels with Nuclear Steam Propulsion (CVN 68)

Baseline Primary Treatment Primary Treatment Plus

Filter Media 1 Primary Treatment Plus Membrane Filtration 1 CHT 2

Number of Constituents exceeding strictest WQC 7 6 5 4 0

Total Number of Exceeded Numeric WQC 78 77 76 74 0

Number of Exceeded Narrative Categories 5 5 3 3 0
Discharge HI at EOMZ 7.8E+ 01 4.7E+01 1.6E+01 1.1E+01 0
Potential for NIS Release Low Low Low Low None
Number of BCCs Identified 6 4 4 4 0 Discharge TPE 6.1E+03 3.7E +03 8.8E+02 2.1E+02 0

1 Constituent concentrations were calculated using methodology described in Putnam and Singerman (2001).

2 CHT does not release constituents to the receiving waters.



### 24

### DRAFT - Surface Vessel Bilgewater – DAR 24 June 2003



## In summary, the application of CHT to bilgewater has the leas t environmental impact because there is no direct discharge to the receiving water within 12 nm. The secondary treatment options provide bilgewater treatment performan ce that is equal or superior, for each of the analysis methods (e.g., criteria exceedance, HI, a nd TPE), to primary treatment alone. Given the uncertainty associated with sample data, th e environmental effects analysis could only distinguish between the two sec ondary treatment options by TPE ranking. Primary treatment is expected to result in fewer deleterious environmental effect s than the baseline discharge.

MPCD ranking by overall environmental effect:

1. CHT 2. Primary treatment plus membrane filtration 3. Primary treatment plus filter media 4. Primary treatment only

Further information on the environmental effects analysis for this vessel group can be found in the respective chapter of the Bilgewater EEAR (Navy and EPA, 2003c).

0.0.0 CVN 68 Class Cost-Benefit Analysis

Cost benefit analysis for this vessel group is summarized below in Table 3-7.

Table 3-7. TPEs Removed for each MCPD option and Associated Costs (CVN 68)

Parameter (values per vessel group) Filter Media Membrane Filtration CHT TPE removed from primary discharge by listed treatment 2.80E+03 3.49E+03 3.90E+03

Cost per TPE removed over primary treatment for existing vessels ($/yr) $359 $262 $584

Cost per TPE removed after replacing existing group of vessels with new design vessels $329 $204 $519 ($/yr) Cost per pound of oil removed over primary treatment for existing vessels ($/yr) $526 $410 $620

Cost per pound of oil removed after replacing existing group of vessels with new design $480 $320 $509 vessels ($/yr)



## 0.0 C ONVENTIONAL 

## S TEAM 

## P OWERED 

## V ESSELS 

## (LHD 1)

This group consists of 62 vessels distributed among 19 vessel classes. Vessels in this group include three aircraft carriers, various large amph ibious ships, auxiliaries, and Military Sealift Command (MSC) ships. These la rge ships range from 520 ft to over 1000 ft in length and from 8,200 to over 60,000 displacement tons. These vessels use from two to eight boilers to generate steam for propulsion power, with approximately 72 % of the vessels using two boilers. These vessels operate outside 12 nm from shore except when on training exercises or transiting to and

25

### DRAFT - Surface Vessel Bilgewater – DAR 24 June 2003



## from port. Required daily boiler blowdowns resu lt in larger volumes of bilgewater than in comparably sized ships powered by nuclear, gas turbine, or compression ignition engines.

3.4.1 LHD 1 Class Characterization

Characterization information was gathered on su rface vessel bilgewater to support subsequent environmental effects and feasibility analyses. This information primarily included ship systems specifications and details regard ing discharge composition. Ship systems data was acquired through process knowledge acquired from equipment experts.

During Phase II, sampling was conducted aboa rd one vessel of the LHD 1 Class, USS BONHOMME RICHARD (LHD 6), on 16-17 December 1999. This sampling episode serves as the primary source of chemical data for this vessel group. The samples were analyzed by Columbia Analytical, Ecology and Environm ent, Pacific Analytical, and Q Biochem laboratories. The results were reviewed by EPA and DoD to determine the quality of the analytical data. Some sample data were exclude d in the final calculations , as documented in the Draft Uniform National Discharge Standards Surf ace Vessel Bilgewater / Oil-Water Separator (OWS) Discharge Sampling Episode Report -U SS BONHOMME RICHARD (LHD 6) (Navy, 2000a), based upon Sample Control Center (SCC ) review. As discussed in Section 3.1.3, pesticide results were not included in bilgew ater discharge profiles (Navy and EPA, 2003d).

The characterization of the bilgewater discha rge after secondary treatment could not be performed based on sample analysis because this operation is not in everyday practice aboard this vessel class. Discharge composition propert ies were estimated using Putnam and Singerman (2001) calculations as well as comparisons to the performance achieved by secondary treatment technology on other vessels. Further information on the characterization of this discharge can be found in the respective chapter of the B ilgewater ChAR (Navy and EPA, 2003a).

3.4.2 LHD 1 Class Feasibility Impact

The feasibility impact analysis of surface vesse l bilgewater for this vessel group is summarized below in Table 3-8.

26DRAFT - Surface Vessel Bilgewater – DAR24 June 2003Table 3-8. LHD 1 Summary of Practicability and Operational Impact AnalysisMPCD OptionPRACTICABILITY AND OPERATIONAL IMPACT STUDYSpace andWeightPersonnel/EquipmentSafetyMissionCapabilitiesPersonnel Impact(operator labor hrs/year)Consumables,Repair Parts,and ToolsInterfaceRequirementsControl SystemRequirementsOther/UniqueImpactsWithin 12 nm(inc. maintenance)Beyond12 nmCurrent MPCD *(GravityCoalescer)162 ft34,800 lbs.(dry)9,000 lbsNo impactNo impact212 hrs132 hrsNoneElectricalpower—440VAC,60HzPotable water—Automatedcontrol panel,remote tank levelswitches, andNone(flooded)No impactprimer, 25 psimaxSea water— 25OCMpsiGravity drainCentrifuge787 ft36,300 lbs (dry)No impactNo impact81 hrs132 hrsMinimalconsumablesElectrical power—440VACAutomatedcontrol panelNone7,000 lbsrequired; specialCompressed Air(vendor(flooded)Existing OWStools required, butincluded in the– 0.0058-0.029scfm @ 50 psigrecommendsoperator oversightwould beinitial purchasePotable water—during startup),removed andreplaced with50 gpd, 45 psiGravity drainintegratedthermostat tounitSeawater- 25 psicontrol heater,can be equippedwith OCMCHT—operatingNo impact—No impactNo impact710 hrsNANoneNoneNoneNonefrom port withwithin currentshoresideholdingfacilitiescapacityCHT—operatingSignificantSignificantSignificantSignificant impactNANoneNoneNoneNonefrom port withoutimpact afterimpact afterimpact after oneafter one dayshoresideone dayone daydayfacilitiesEvaporationNF– excessive power requirements27DRAFT - Surface Vessel Bilgewater – DAR24 June 2003MPCD OptionPRACTICABILITY AND OPERATIONAL IMPACT STUDYSpace andWeightPersonnel/EquipmentSafetyMissionCapabilitiesPersonnel Impact(operator labor hrs/year)Consumables,Repair Parts,and ToolsInterfaceRequirementsControl SystemRequirementsOther/UniqueImpactsWithin 12 nm(inc. maintenance)Beyond12 nmHydrocyclone168 ft3900 lbs (dry)1,000 lbs(flooded)OWSs mayhave to beNo impactNo impact46 hrs132 hrsMinimalconsumables andrepair partsrequiredElectrical power—460VAC, 60 HzAutomatedcontrol panel,tank levelswitches; can beequipped withOCMNoneremoved andreplaced witha single unit.In SituBiologicalNF– excessive bilgewater volumeTreatmentOil AbsorbingNF– potential safety (e.g., fire and flooding) hazard; solid waste handling impactsSocksFilter Media85 ft33,650 lbs (dry)8,375 lbs(flooded)Existingworkbenchand storagelocker mayhave to beremoved;No impactNo impact5.3 hrsNARequiresreplacement offilter mediacanistersNoneAutomatedoperation inresponse toprimary OWSSystemswereremovedfrom DDGbecausethey failedtoconsistentlyproduceeffluent lessdeballastingtanks andpiping mayhave to bethan 15ppm.relocated.28DRAFT - Surface Vessel Bilgewater – DAR24 June 2003MPCD OptionPRACTICABILITY AND OPERATIONAL IMPACT STUDYSpace andWeightPersonnel/EquipmentSafetyMissionCapabilitiesPersonnel Impact(operator labor hrs/year)Consumables,Repair Parts,and ToolsInterfaceRequirementsControl SystemRequirementsOther/UniqueImpactsWithin 12 nm(inc. maintenance)Beyond12 nmMembraneFiltration441 ft39,200 lbs (dry)12,000 lbs(flooded)Significantimpacts onolder vessels;extent ofimpacts onother vesselsNo impactNo impact28 hrsNARequiresreplacement ofmembranes(performedshoreside)Electrical power—440VAC, 60 HZCompressed Air –5 scfm at 80 to100 psiPotable water –10 gpm at 30 psiGravity drainAutomatedoperation inresponse toprimary OWSNonewill varyTable 3-9. LHD 1 MPCD Total Ownership Cost Comparison ($K/vessel)MPCD OptionInitialInside 12 nm/Inside+Beyond12 nm15-Yr RecurringInside 12 nm/Inside+Beyond 12 nmAnnualizedInside 12 nm/Inside+Beyond 12 nmTotal OwnershipInside 12 nm/Inside+Beyond 12 nmGravityCoalescence0/053.5/86.74.5/7.453.5/86.7Centrifuge1161/116120/53100/1031181/1214CHT (withincurrent holdingcapacity)0/01249/1249106/1061249/1249Hydrocyclone203/20311/4418/21214/247Filter Media245/245412/41256/56660/660MembraneFiltration943/9437/781/81950/95029

### DRAFT - Surface Vessel Bilgewater – DAR 24 June 2003



## 0.0.0 LHD 1 Class Environmental Effects

The environmental effects analysis of surf ace vessel bilgewater fo r this vessel group is summarized below in Table 3-10 and Table 3-11.

Table 3-10. Comparison of Discharge Constituent Concentrations (μg/L) that Exceed Numeric

Water Quality Criteria in the Baseline Discharge and MPCD Discharges from Vessels with Conventional Steam Propulsion (LHD 1)

Strictest

WQC Baseline Primary Primary

Filter Media 1 Filtration 1 CHT 2

l 3 3 0
0 Bis (2-Ethylhexyl) 3 ND ND ND 0

3 3 ND 0

0
Iron 0

3 0
0

3 3 3 3 0
Nickel 0
0
Silver 1.0E-01 ND ND ND 0
ND 0

0

0

0

Number of Constituents

WQC - 13 12 11 10 0

- 87 67 66 65 0 Discharge Constituent Treatment Treatment Plus Primary Treatment Plus Membrane

2,4-Dimethylpheno 2.7E+02 2.5E+02 5.9E+02 2.4E+02 5.9E+02 Ammonia as Nitrogen 2.3E+02 5.6E+03 5.5E+ 03 5.5E+03 5.5E+03

Phthalate 4.5E+03 1.8E+01

Cadmium 5.0E+00 5.3E+00 5.0E+00 5.0E+00 Copper 2.4E+00 4.0E+01 1.3E+ 01 1.3E+01 1.3E+01
3.0E+02 2.2E+03 2.1E+ 03 8.6E+02 1.7E+03
Lead 5.6E+00 1.0E+01 1. 1E+01 1.1E+01 4.0E+00 Manganese 1.0E+02 1.3E+02 1.2E+ 02 1.2E+02 1.2E+02 Naphthalene 1.4E+02 5.2E+01 5.2E+01 2.1E+01 5.2E+01
8.3E+00 5.1E+02 4.7E+ 02 3.5E+02 3.9E+02
Selenium 1.0E+01 2.1E+01 2.1E+ 01 2.1E+01 2.1E+01
6.1E+00
Thallium 6.3E+00 1.2E+01 1. 1E+01 1.1E+01 Total Aqueous Hydrocarbons 1.5E+01 1.1E+02 9.5E+ 01 9.5E+01 9.5E+01

Total Aromatic Hydrocarbons 1.0E+01 5.2E+01 5.2E+ 01 2.1E+01 5.2E+01

Zinc 5.0E+01 2.0E+03 1.8E+ 03 1.1E+03 4.1E+02

exceeding strictest

Total Exceeded Numeric Criteria

1 Constituent concentrations are calculated using methodology described in Putnam and Singerman (2001).

2 CHT does not release constituents to the receiving waters within 12 nm.

3 Does not exceed criteria.
ND = Not detected



### 31

### DRAFT - Surface Vessel Bilgewater – DAR 24 June 2003

Table 3-11. Comparison of Discharge Constituents of Concern Mass Loading (lbs/yr) and Toxic

Pound Equivalent Loading (TPE lbs/yr) in Baseline and MPCD Discharges from Vessels with Nuclear Steam Propulsion (LHD 1)

Discharge Constituent Baseline Primary Treatment Primary Treatment Plus Filter Media 1 Primary Treatment Plus Membrane Filtration 1 CHT 2
2,4-Dimethylphenol ND 4.6E+02 ND 4.6E+02 0 TPE: 2.5E+00 2.5E+00
Ammonia as Nitrogen 4.3E+03 4.2E+03 4.2E+03 4.2E+03 0 TPE: 3.5E+01 3.5E+ 01 3.5E+01 3.5E+01 Bis (2-Ethylhexyl) Phthalate

TPE: 1.4E+01

3 9.2E+00

3 ND ND 0

Cadmium 4.0E+00 3.8E+00 3.8E+00 ND 0 TPE: 2.7E+00 3.8E+00 2.6E+00 Copper 9.7E+02 8.7E +02 4.3E+02 1.8E+02 0 TPE: 1.8E+03 1.5E+ 03 8.0E+02 3.3E+02
Iron 1.7E+03 1.6E+ 03 6.6E+02 1.3E+03 0 TPE: 2.9E+00 2.7E+ 00 1.1E+00 2.3E+00
Lead 8.1E+00 8.2E+ 00 8.2E+00 3.1E+00 0 TPE: 5.3E+00 5.9E+00 5.9E+00 2.1E+00 Manganese 1.0E+02 9.3E +01 9.3E+01 9.2E+01 0 TPE: 6.2E+01 5.6E+01 5.6E+01 5.6E+01 Naphthalene 4.0E+01 4. 0E+01 1.6E+01 4.0E+01 0 TPE: 1.9E+00 1.9E+00 7.6E-01 1.9E+00
Nickel 3.9E+02 3.6E+ 02 2.7E+02 3.0E+02 0 TPE: 2.7E+02 2.5E+02 1.9E+02 2.0E+02
Oil and Grease (HEM 4 )

TPE: 4.1E+04 2.7E+04 ND ND 0

Selenium 1.6E+01 1.6E +01 1.6E+01 1.6E+01 0 TPE: 1.3E+00 1.3E+ 00 1.3E+00 1.3E+00
Silver 4.7E+00 ND ND ND 0 TPE: 1.4E+02
Sulfate 2.9E+05 3.3E +05 3.3E+05 3.3E+05 0 TPE: 1.6E+00 1.8E+ 00 1.8E+00 1.8E+00
Thallium 9.1E+00 8.3E+00 8.3E+00 ND 0 TPE: 8.2E+00 7.5E+00 7.5E+00
Total Sulfide 2.5E+03 2.0E+03 ND ND 0 TPE: 6.9E+03 5.6E+03
Zinc 1.5E+03 1.4E+ 03 8.4E+02 3.2E+02 0 TPE: 1.0E+02 9.4E+01 5.9E+01 2.2E+01



### 321 

### DRAFT - Surface Vessel Bilgewater – DAR 24 June 2003

Discharge Constituent Baseline Primary Treatment Primary Treatment Plus Filter Media 1 Primary Treatment Plus Membrane Filtration 1 CHT 2

Total TPE Load 9.4E+03 7. 8E+03 1.3E+03 8.0E+02 0

1 Constituent concentrations are calculated using methodology described in Putnam and Singerman (2001).

2 CHT does not release constituents to the receiving waters.

3 No TPE value is calculated for this constituent. As discussed in the EEA Guidance Manual (Navy and EPA, 2000a),

the use of a proxy value indicated that t he contribution of this constituent to t he total TPE value is relatively small.

4 HEM TEC value was based on the fuel/lube TEC. For more information, see Development of TECs for Categories

of Oily Substances Derived from Petroleum and Foods (Navy and EPA, 2001c).
ND = Not Detected



### Table 3-12. Summary of EEA for Baseline and MPCD Bilgewater Discharges from Vessels with Conventional Steam Propulsion (LHD 1)

Baseline Primary Treatment Primary Treatment Plus Filter Media 1 Primary Treatment Plus Membrane Filtration 1 CHT
Number of Constituents exceeding strictest WQC 13 12 11 10 0

Total Number of Exceeded Numeric WQC 87 67 66 65 0

Number of Exceeded Narrative Categories 8 8 2 4 0
Discharge HI at EOMZ 6.5E+ 01 5.6E+01 1.9E+01 1.0E+01 0
Potential for NIS Release Low Low Low Low None
Number of BCCs Identified 7 7 6 5 0

Discharge TPE 9.4E+03 7.8E +03 1.3E+03 8.0E+02 0
Constituent concentrations are ca lculated using methodology described in Putnam and Singerman (2001).



## In summary, the application of CHT to bilgewater has the leas t environmental impact because there is no direct discharge to the receiving water within 12 nm. The secondary treatment options provide bilgewater treatment performan ce that is superior for each of the analysis methods (e.g., criteria exceedance, HI, and TPE), to primary treatment alone. Primary treatment is expected to result in fewer deleterious envi ronmental effects than the baseline discharge.

MPCD ranking by overall environmental effect:

1. CHT 2. Primary treatment plus membrane filtration 3. Primary treatment plus filter media 4. Primary treatment only

Further information on the environmental effects analysis for this vessel group can be found in the respective chapter of the Bilgewater EEAR (Navy and EPA, 2003c).

33

### DRAFT - Surface Vessel Bilgewater – DAR 24 June 2003



## 0.0.0 LHD 1 Class Cost-Benefit Analysis

Cost benefit analysis for this vessel group is summarized below in Table 3-13.

Table 3-13. TPEs Removed for each MPCD Option and Associated Costs (LHD 1 )

Filter Media Membrane Filtration CHT TPE removed from primary discharge by listed treatment 7.60E+03 8.00E+03 9.40E+03 Cost per TPE removed over primary treatment ($/yr) $413 $567 $631

Each new vessel $7 $9 $61



## 0.0 V ESSELS WITH 

## G AS 

## T URBINES AND 

## D RY 

## B ILGE 

## (DDG 51)

The only surface vessel class built with a dry bilg e design is the Navy's latest class of guided missile destroyers, the USS ARLEIGH BURKE Cl ass (DDG 51) which is the representative vessel class for the group. This vessel class ha s 33 active ships, and 18 ships in construction. The DDG 51 Class is powered by four GE LM 2500 gas turbines. In these vessels oily and nonoily machinery drain to segregated collection sy stems. Non-oily machinery drains are then pumped directly overboard and oily drains are pu mped via the oily waste transfer system to the oily waste holding tank for processing by the oil/water separator.

0.0.0 DDG 51 Class Characterization

Characterization information was gathered on su rface vessel bilgewater to support subsequent environmental effects and feasibility analyses. This information primarily included ship systems specifications and details rega rding discharge composition. Sh ip systems data was acquired through process knowledge acquired from equipment experts.

During Phase II of UNDS, sampling was conducte d on two vessels of the DDG 51 Class, USS CARNEY (DDG 64) and USS MAHAN (DDG 72), and serves as the primary source of chemical data for this vessel group. Sampli ng was conducted twice on DDG 64 because the first sampling collection process was determined to be flawed due to sample collection methods. Therefore, CARNEY was resampled and only th e second set of data was used. DDG-72 was sampled 18 September 2000 through 23 Octobe r 2000; The DDG-64 was sampled 15-17 June 1999 and 29-30 June 1999. The samples were anal yzed by Q Biochem (formally ETS Analytical Services), Pacific Analytical, In c., and Columbia Analytical thr ough Pacific Analytical, Inc. The results were reviewed by EPA and DoD to determ ine the quality of the analytical data; however some sample data were excluded in the final calculations, as documented in the Draft Sampling Episode Report-USS CARNEY (Navy, 2001a) and Draft Sampling Episode Report- USS MAHAN (Navy, 2000b), based upon Sample Control Center (S CC) review. As discussed in Section 3.1.3, pesticide results were not included in bilgew ater discharge profiles (Navy and EPA, 2003d).

The characterization of the bilgewater discha rge after secondary trea tment by ultrafiltration could not be performed based on sample analys is because this operation is not in everyday

34

### DRAFT - Surface Vessel Bilgewater – DAR 24 June 2003



## practice aboard this vessel class. Discharge composition properties were estimated using Putnam and Singerman (2001) calculations as well as comparisons to the performance achieved by ultrafiltration on CVN 68 Class vessels. Furt her information on the characterization of this discharge can be found in the respective chapter of the Bilgewater ChAR (Navy and EPA, 2003a).

3.5.2 DDG 51 Class Feasibility Impact

The feasibility impact analysis of surface vesse l bilgewater for this vessel group is summarized below in Table 3-14.

35DRAFT - Surface Vessel Bilgewater – DAR24 June 2003Table 3-14. DDG 51 Summary of Practicability and Operational Impact AnalysisMPCD OptionPRACTICABILITY AND OPERATIONAL IMPACT STUDYSpace andWeightPersonnel/EquipmentSafetyMissionCapabilitiesPersonnel Impact(operator labor hrs/year)Consumables,Repair Parts,and ToolsInterfaceRequirementsControlSystemRequirementsOther/UniqueImpactsWithin 12 nm(inc. maintenance)Beyond12 nmCurrent MPCD*(GravityCoalescer)62.5 ft31,250 lbs (dry)2,710 lbsNo impactNo impact18 hrs77 hrsNoneElectrical power—440 VAC, 60HzPotable water—Automatedcontrol panel,remote tankNone(flooded)potential primerlevel switches,No impactSea water—primerGravity drainand OCMCentrifuge134 ft32,650 lbs (dry)2,700 lbs(flooded)Existing OWSwould beremoved andreplaced withunitNo impactNo impact29 hrs45 hrsMinimalconsumablesrequired;special toolsrequired, butincluded in theinitial purchaseElectrical power—440 VACCompressed Air –0.0058-0.029 cfm at50 psigPotable water—20gpd at 45 psiSea water—25 psiGravity drainAutomatedcontrol panel(vendorrecommendsoperatoroversightduring startup),integratedthermostat tocontrol heater,Nonecan beequipped withOCMCHT—operatingNo impact—No impactNo impact56 hrsNANoneNoneNoneNonefrom port withwithin currentshoresideholdingfacilitiescapacityCHT—operatingSignificantSignificantSignificantSignificant impactNANoneNoneNoneNonefrom port withoutimpact afterimpact afterimpact after fiveafter five daysshoresidefive daysfive daysdaysfacilitiesEvaporationNF– excessive power requirements36DRAFT - Surface Vessel Bilgewater – DAR24 June 2003MPCD OptionPRACTICABILITY AND OPERATIONAL IMPACT STUDYSpace andWeightPersonnel/EquipmentSafetyMissionCapabilitiesPersonnel Impact(operator labor hrs/year)Consumables,Repair Parts,and ToolsInterfaceRequirementsControlSystemRequirementsOther/UniqueImpactsWithin 12 nm(inc. maintenance)Beyond12 nmHydrocyclone17 ft3No impactNo impact10.5 hrs51 hrsConsumablesCompressed Air –AutomatedNone132 lbs (dry)150 lbsand repairparts required18 scfm at 65 psicontrol panel;tank level(flooded)(e.g., “O” rings,switches; canExisting OWSwould begaskets forcyclone,be equippedwith OCMremoved andcyclone liners,replaced withunitand pumpcomponents)In SituBiologicalTreatmentNF– excessive bilgewater volumeOil-AbsorbingSocksNF– potential safety (e.g., fire and flooding) hazard; solid waste handling impactsFilter Media16.9 ft3730 lbs (dry)1675 lbs(flooded)Relocation ofpiping,furniture, andequipmentwould beNo impactNo impact0.23 hrsNARequiresreplacement offilter mediacanistersNoneAutomaticoperation inresponse toprimary OWSSystemswereremovedfrom DDGbecause theyfailed toconsistentlyproduceeffluent lessrequiredthan 15 ppm.MembraneFiltration227.5 ft32,700 lbs (dry)No impactNo impact9.85 hrsNARequiresreplacement ofElectrical power—440VAC, 60HzAutomaticoperation inNone3,000 lbs(flooded)membranes(performedCompressed Air—80-100 psi, 5 scfmresponse toprimary OWSSome spaceshoreside)Potable water—10and weightimpactsNoconsumablesgpm at 30 psiGravity drainor special toolsrequired37DRAFT - Surface Vessel Bilgewater – DAR24 June 2003Table 3-15. DDG 51 MPCD Total Ownership Cost Comparison ($K/Vessel)MPCD OptionInitialInside 12 nm/Inside+Beyond12 nm15-Yr RecurringInside 12 nm/Inside+Beyond 12 nmAnnualizedInside 12 nm/Inside+Beyond 12 nmTotal OwnershipInside 12 nm/Inside+Beyond 12 nmGravityCoalescence0/04.6/19.4/1.64.6/19Centrifuge210/2106.9/1118.4/18.8217/221CHT (withincurrent holdingcapacity)0/061/615.2/5.261/61Hydrocyclone62.6/62.62.8/13.45.6/6.565.4/76Filter Media84/8418/188.8/8.8104/104MembraneFiltration280/2802.4/2.424/24282/28238

### DRAFT - Surface Vessel Bilgewater – DAR 24 June 2003



## 0.0.0 DDG 51 Class Environmental Effects

The environmental effects analysis of surf ace vessel bilgewater fo r this vessel group is summarized below in Table 3-16 and Table 3-17.

Table 3-16. Comparison of Discharge Constituent Concentrations (μg/L) that Exceed Numeric Water Quality Criteria in the Baseline Discharge and MPCD Discharges from Vessels with Gas Turbines and Dry Bilge (DDG 51)

Strictest

WQC Baseline Primary Primary

Media 1 Primary

plus Membrane Filtration 1 CHT 2

0

3 3 3 ND 0
ND 0
Iron 3 3 0
ND 0

3 0
2.5E-02 2.1E-01 2.0E-01 2.1E-01 ND 0

3 3 3 0
Nickel 0
ND 0

3 3 3 0
Silver 1.0E-01 ND ND 0

3 3 ND 0

0

0

2.0E-03 ND ND 2.1E-02 0

3 0

Number of Constituents

- 13 13 10 7 0

Criteria - 84 93 56 28 0

Discharge Constituent Treatment Treatment plus Filter Treatment

Ammonia as Nitrogen 2.3E+02 9.7E+03 9.7E+ 03 8.5E+03 4.8E+03
Cadmium 5.0E+00 4.3E+00 2.7E+00 1.3E+00 Copper 2.4E+00 2.8E+01 2. 2E+01 1.3E+01
3.0E+02 2.0E+03 1.1E+03 1.6E+02 7.8E+01
Lead 5.6E+00 3.4E+01 1. 7E+01 6.1E+00 Manganese 1.0E+02 1.7E+02 1.7E+02 9.4E+01 2.8E+02 Mercury Naphthalene 1.4E+02 1.4E+02 7.2E+01 2.0E+01 4.4E+01
8.3E+00 8.0E+02 4.7E+ 02 1.4E+02 1.2E+02
Phenanthrene 5.0E+00 4.6E+01 1. 9E+01 1.2E+01
Selenium 1.0E+01 4.4E+00 9.2E+00 1.4E+01 4.3E+00
7.6E+00 6.2E+00
Thallium 6.3E+00 4.5E+00 5.7+00 1.2E+01 Total Aqueous Hydrocarbons 1.5E+01 1.6E+02 1.1E+ 02 6.1E+01 3.0E+01

Total Aromatic Hydrocarbons 1.0E+01 2.4E+02 1.2E+ 02 4.2E+01 5.5E+01

Tributyltin 4.8E- 02
Zinc 5.0E+01 2.0E+03 1.2E +03 4.7E+02 1.5E+01

exceeding strictest WQC
Total Exceeded Numeric

1 Constituent concentrations are calculated using me thodology described in Putnam and Singerman (2001). 2 CHT does not release constituents to the receiving waters within 12 nm. 3 This concentration does not exceed water quality criteria.
ND = Not Detected



### 39

### DRAFT - Surface Vessel Bilgewater – DAR 24 June 2003

Table 3-17. Comparison of Discharge Constituents of Concern Mass Loading (lbs/yr) and Toxic

Pound Equivalent Loading (TPE lbs/yr) in Baseline and MPCD Discharges from Vessels with Nuclear Steam Propulsion (DDG 051)

Discharge Constituent Baseline Primary Treatment Primary Treatment Plus Filter Media 1 Primary Treatment Plus Membrane Filtration 1 CHT 2
2-Methylnapthalene
TPE: 9.7E+00
1.6E+00 ND ND ND 0

4-Chloro-3- Methylphenol

TPE: ND ND ND 5.5E-01

2.4E-03 0

Acenaphthene

TPE: 1.1E+00
1.1E-02 7.2E-01
7.2E-03 ND ND 0

Ammonia as Nitrogen 5.0E+02 5.0E+02 4.4E+02 2.5E+02 0 TPE: 4.1E+00 4.1E+ 00 3.6E+00 2.0E+00 Beryllium

TPE: 8.0E-02
8.5E-02 6.7E-02
7.1E-02 ND 8.1E-02
8.6E-02 0

Bis (2-Ethylhexyl) Phthalate

TPE: 1.2E+00

3 7.6E-01

3 ND ND 0

Cadmium 2.2E-01 1.4E-01 6.6E-02 ND 0 TPE: 1.5E-01 9. 4E-02 4.4E-02
Chlorobenzene 5.5E-01 ND ND ND 0 TPE: 3.1E-03 Copper

TPE: 1.3E+02
2.4E+02 6.6E+01
1.2E+02 1.6E+01
2.8E+01 ND 0

Dibenzofuran 1.2E+00 1.0E+00 ND ND 0 TPE: 2.5E-01 2.2E-01
Fluorene 1.8E+00 8.1E -01 5.5E-01 5.3E-01 0 TPE: 9.9E-02 4.5E- 02 3.1E-02 3.0E-02
Iron 1.0E+02 5.6E+01 ND ND 0 TPE: 1.8E-01 9.5E-02
Lead 1.7E+00 8. 6E-01 3.2E-01 ND 0 TPE: 1.2E+00 6.1E-01 2.2E-01 Manganese
TPE: 9.0E+00
5.6E+00 8.8E+00
5.3E+00 ND 1.4E+01
8.8E+00 0

Mercury

TPE: 1.1E-02
1.3E+00 1.0E-02
1.2E+00 1.1E-02
1.3E+00 ND 0

Naphthalene 7.0E+00 3. 7E+00 1.0E+00 2.3E+00 0 TPE: 3.3E-01 1.7E-01 4.8E-02 1.1E-01
Nickel 4.1E+01 2.5E+ 01 7.5E+00 6.1E+00 0 TPE: 2.8E+01 1.7E+01 5.1E+00 4.2E+00
Nitrate/Nitrite

TPE: 1.0E+01
9.5E-01 8.1E+00
7.5E-01 ND ND 0



### 40

### DRAFT - Surface Vessel Bilgewater – DAR 24 June 2003

Discharge Constituent Baseline Primary Treatment Primary Treatment Plus Filter Media 1 Primary Treatment Plus Membrane Filtration 1 CHT 2

Oil and Grease (HEM 4 )

TPE: 8.8E+03 2.4E+03 7.2E+02 4.9E+02 0

Phenanthrene 2.4E+ 00 1.0E+00 6.2E-01 ND 0 TPE: 1.2E+00 5. 1E-01 3.1E-01
Selenium 2.3E-01 4.8E -01 7.2E-01 2.2E-01 0 TPE: 1.8E-02 3.8E- 02 5.7E-02 1.8E-02
Silver 3.9E-01 3.2E-01 ND ND 0 TPE: 1.2E+01 9.5E+00
Sulfate 5.1E+03 5.2E +03 4.2E+03 7.9E+03 0 TPE: 2.8E-02 2.9E- 02 2.3E-02 4.4E-02
Thallium 6.0E-01 ND ND ND 0 TPE: 5.3E-01
Total Sulfide 1.8E+02 2. 3E+02 1.8E+02 5.1E+02 0 TPE: 5.0E+02 6.5E+ 02 4.9E+02 1.4E+03 Tributyltin

TPE: ND 2.5E-03
1.4E+00 ND 1.1E-03
6.2E-01 0

Zinc 1.0E+02 6.0E+ 01 2.4E+01 7.5E-01 0 TPE: 7.1E+00 4.1E+00 1.7E+00 5.2E-02
Total TPE Load 8.3E+02 8. 4E+02 5.5E+02 1.5E+03 0

1 Constituent concentrations are calculated using methodology described in Putnam and Singerman (2001).

2 CHT does not release constituents to the receiving waters.

3 No TPE value is calculated for this constituent. As discussed in the EEA Guidance Manual (Navy and EPA, 2000a),

the use of a proxy value indicated that t he contribution of this constituent to t he total TPE value is relatively small.

4 HEM TEC value was based on the fuel/lube TEC. For more information, see Development of TECs for Categories

of Oily Substances Derived from Petroleum and Foods (Navy and EPA, 2001c).
ND = Not Detected



### 41

### DRAFT - Surface Vessel Bilgewater – DAR 24 June 2003

Table 3-18. Summary of EEA for Baseline and MPCD Bilgewater Discharges from Vessels with Gas Turbines and Dry Bilge (DDG 51)

Number of Constituents exceeding strictest WQC
Total Number of Exceeded Numeric WQC
Number of Exceeded Narrative Categories Discharge HI at EOMZ
Potential for NIS Release
Number of BCCs Identified Discharge TPE Baseline Bilgewater

13

83

10

1.6E+ 01

Low

13
8.3E+02 Primary Treatment

13

93

10

9.8E+00

Low

12
8.4E +02 Primary Treatment Plus Primary Treatment Plus Membrane Filter Media 1 Filtration 1 CHT

10 7 0

56 28 0

3 5 0

4.4E+00 9.0E+00 0

Low Low None

9 4 0
5.5E+02 1.5E+03 0

1 Constituent concentrations are calculated using methodology described in Putnam and Singerman (2001).



## In summary, the application of CHT to bilgewater has the leas t environmental impact because there is no direct discharge to the receiving water within 12 nm. The secondary treatment options provide bilgewater treatme nt performance that is superi or for most of the analysis methods (e.g., criteria exceedance and HI), to primar y treatment alone with the exception of total discharge TPE.

Due to high measured values of sulfides in membrane filtration samples, the discharge TPE value for membrane filter analysis is unexpectedly higher than for primary treatment alone. This may be due to sulfate reduction by anaerobic bacteria (anaerobic conditions are known to occur in bilges and oily water holding tanks of vessels .) A determination of the cause of these high sulfide levels is beyond the scope of the UNDS sampling and analysis effort. Because the weighting of analysis methods would be subjectiv e, and each of the three treatment options is better in some ways than others , the three options rank equally.

MPCD ranking by overall environmental effect:

1. CHT 2. Primary treatment plus membrane filtration, primary treatment plus filter media, primary treatment only

Further information on the environmental effects analysis for this vessel group can be found in the respective chapter of the Bilgewater EEAR (Navy and EPA, 2003c).

0.0.0 DDG 51 Class Cost-Benefit Analysis

Cost benefit analysis for this vessel group is summarized below in Table 3-19. Values would not be applicable for membrane filtration analysis because, as discussed in the previous section (Section 3.5.3), the total discharge TPE value actually increa sed between primary and secondary treatment in this case.

42

### DRAFT - Surface Vessel Bilgewater – DAR 24 June 2003

Table 3-19. TPEs Removed for each MCPD Option and Associated Costs (DDG 51)

Filter Media CHT

li TPE removed from primary discharge by sted treatment 2.00E+02 8.80E+02 Cost per TPE removed over primary treatment ($/yr) $2,156 $290



## 0.0 V ESSELS WITH 

## G AS 

## T URBINES AND 

## W ET 

## B ILGE 

## (DD 963)

The Navy is the only branch of the Armed Forces that owns vessels powered exclusively by gas turbines. These vessels include guided missile cr uisers, destroyers, frig ates, and fast combat support ships. Amphibious landing craft air cushion (LCACs) are al so powered by gas turbines. However, amphibious vehicles are not regulated by UNDS and are therefore not included in the vessel grouping (40 CFR 1700.1). Two Coast Guard vessel classes (WHEC 378 and WAGB 399) and one Navy research vessel class (UB 165) are powered by combined CI and gas turbine (CODOG) systems. These CODOG vessels rely on their CI engines for routine operations at cruise speed, and occasionally use gas turbine for high speeds for certain situations (e.g., rescues) (Volpe, 2000). Therefore, these vessels were gr ouped with other vessel groups rather than the gas turbine vessel group

. 2 

## All of the vessels included in th e group range from 445 ft to 950 ft in length and from 2769 tons to 2900 tons in displa cement. Vessels in this group operate beyond 12 nm from shore except when transiting to and fr om port and training. These vessels use GE LM 2500 gas turbines for propulsion. Three vess el classes, DD 963, CG 47, and AOE 6, which collectively account for 56 % of the hulls in the group, use four gas turbines. The other vessel classes (i.e., the FFG 7 and T-AKR 310) use two gas turbines.

0.0.0 DD 963 Class Characterization

Characterization information was gathered on su rface vessel bilgewater to support subsequent environmental effects and feasibility analyses. This information primarily included ship systems specifications and details regard ing discharge composition. Ship systems data was acquired through process knowledge acquired from equipment experts.

During Phase II, sampling was conducted aboard one vessel of the DD 963 Class, the USS DAVID R. RAY (DD 971), on January 10-18 and February 7-11, 2000. These sampling episodes serve as the primary source of chemical data for this vessel gr oup. Three bilgewater/ OWS discharge samples were collected during the first underway period and a fourth sample was collected during the second unde rway period. The samples were analyzed by Ecology and Environment, Inc., Pacific Analytical, Inc., a nd Q Biochem (formally ETS Analytical Services, Inc.). The results were reviewed by EPA and DoD to determine the quality of the analytical data; however some sample data were excluded in the final calculations, as documented in the Draft Sampling Episode Report -USS DAVID R. RAY (Navy, 2000c), based upon SCC review.

2 

### The Coast Guard WHEC 378 and WAGB 399 were grouped with vessels that process both bilgewater and dirty ballast water through their OWS. The Navy vessel class UB 165 (ex PG 84) was placed in the small CI ship vessel
group.

43

### DRAFT - Surface Vessel Bilgewater – DAR 24 June 2003



## As discussed in Section 3.1.3, pesticide results were not included in bilgewater discharge profiles (Navy and EPA, 2003d).

The characterization of the bilgewater discha rge after secondary treatment could not be performed based on sample analysis because this operation is not in everyday practice aboard this vessel class. Discharge composition propert ies were estimated using Putnam and Singerman (2001) calculations as well as comparisons to the performance achieved by secondary treatment technology on other vessels. Further information on the characterization of this discharge can be found in the respective chapter of the B ilgewater ChAR (Navy and EPA, 2003a).

3.6.2 DD 963 Class Feasibility Impact

The feasibility impact analysis of surface vesse l bilgewater for this vessel group is summarized below in Table 3-20.

44DRAFT - Surface Vessel Bilgewater – DAR24 June 2003Table 3-20. DD 963 Summary of Practicability and Operational Impact AnalysisMPCD OptionPRACTICABILITY AND OPERATIONAL IMPACT STUDYSpace andWeightPersonnel/EquipmentSafetyMissionCapabilitiesPersonnel Impact(operator labor hrs/year)Consumables,Repair Parts,and ToolsInterfaceRequirementsControlSystemRequirementsOther/UniqueImpactsWithin 12 nm(inc. maintenance)Beyond12 nmCurrent MPCD *(GravityCoalescer)63 ft31,250 lbs (dry)2,710 lbsNo impactNo impact122 hrs456 hrsNoneElectrical power—440VAC, 60HzPotable water—Automatedcontrol panel,remote tankNone(flooded)potential primerlevel switches,No impactSea water—primerGravity drainand OCMCentrifuge136.5 ft32,650 lbs (dry)2,700 lbs(flooded)Existing OWSwould beremoved andreplaced withunitNo impactNo impact91 hrs260 hrsMinimalconsumablesrequired. Specialtools required, butincluded in theinitial purchase.Electrical power—440VAC, 60-100kWCompressed Air--0.0058-0.029 scfm@ 50 psigPotable water—20gpd, 45 psiSea water—25 psiGravity drainAutomatedcontrol panel(vendorrecommendsoperatoroversightduring startup),integratedthermostat tocontrol heater,Nonecan beequipped withOCMCHT—operatingNo impact—No impactNo impact270 hrsNANoneNoneNoneNonefrom port withwithin currentshoresideholdingfacilitiescapacityCHT—operatingSignificantSignificantSignificantSignificant impactNANoneNoneNoneNonefrom port withoutimpact afterimpact afterimpact afterafter one dayshoresideone dayone dayone dayfacilitiesEvaporationNF– excessive power requirements45DRAFT - Surface Vessel Bilgewater – DAR24 June 2003MPCD OptionPRACTICABILITY AND OPERATIONAL IMPACT STUDYSpace andWeightPersonnel/EquipmentSafetyMissionCapabilitiesPersonnel Impact(operator labor hrs/year)Consumables,Repair Parts,and ToolsInterfaceRequirementsControlSystemRequirementsOther/UniqueImpactsWithin 12 nm(inc. maintenance)Beyond12 nmHydrocyclone17 ft3132 lbs (dry)150 lbs(flooded)Existing OWSwould beNo impactNo impact81.5 hrs300 hrsMinimalconsumablesrequired.Compressed Air: 18scfm at 65 psiAutomatedcontrol panel;tank levelswitches; canbe equippedwith OCMNoneremoved andreplaced withunitIn-SituBiologicalTreatmentNF– excessive bilgewater volumeOil-AbsorbingSocksNF– potential safety (e.g., fire and flooding) hazard; solid waste handling impactsFilter Media16.9 ft3730 lbs (dry)1675 lbs(flooded)Relocation ofexistingfurniturerequiredNo impactNo impact2 hrsNARequiresreplacement offilter mediacanistersNoneAutomaticoperation inresponse toprimary OWSSystemswereremovedfrom DDGbecause theyfailed toconsistentlyproduceeffluent lessthan 15 ppm.MembraneFiltration227.5 ft32,700 lbs (dry)No impactNo impact35 hrsNARequiresreplacement ofElectrical power—440VAC, 60HzAutomaticoperation inNone3,000 lbs(flooded)membranes(performedCompressedAir—80-100 psi, 5 scfmresponse toprimary OWSNo impactshoreside)Potable water—10gpm, 30 psiGravity drain46DRAFT - Surface Vessel Bilgewater – DAR24 June 2003Table 3-21. DD 963 MPCD Total Ownership Cost Comparison ($K/Vessel)MPCD OptionInitialInside 12 nm/Inside+Beyond12 nm15-Yr RecurringInside 12 nm/Inside+Beyond 12 nmAnnualizedInside 12 nm/Inside+Beyond 12 nmTotal OwnershipInside 12 nm/Inside+Beyond 12 nmGravityCoalescence0/031/1502.7/1331/150Centrifuge247/24723/9022.9/28.6270/337CHT (withincurrent holdingcapacity)0/0473/47340.2/40.2473/473Hydrocyclone102.5/102.521/9711/17123/200Filter Media85/85160/16021/21250/250MembraneFiltration300/3008.8/8.826/26310/31047

### DRAFT - Surface Vessel Bilgewater – DAR 24 June 2003



## 0.0.0 DD 963 Class Environmental Effects

The environmental effects analysis of surf ace vessel bilgewater fo r this vessel group is summarized below in Table 3-22 and Table 3-23.

Table 3-22. Comparison of Discharge Constituent Concentrations (μg/L) that Exceed Numeric Water Quality Criteria in the Baseline Discharge and MPCD Discharges from Vessels with Gas Turbines and Wet Bilge (DD 963)

Discharge Constituent Strictest WQC Baseline Primary Treatment Primary Treatment Plus

Filter Media 1 Primary Treatment Plus Membrane Filtration 1 CHT 2
Ammonia as Nitrogen 2.3E+02 4.1E +03 4.2E+03 4.2E+03 4.2E+03 0 Copper 2.4E+00 1.6E+01 1.3E+ 01 1.3E+01 1.3E+01 0
Iron 3.0E+02 3.5E+03 3.3E+ 02 1.3E+03 1.6E+03 0 Manganese 1.0E+02 2.1E+02 2.2E+ 02 2.2E+02 2.1E+02 0 Naphthalene 1.4E+02 2.5E+01 3 1.4E+01 3 ND ND 0
Nickel 8.3E+00 2.5E+02 2.4E+ 02 1.8E+02 1.8E+02 0
Phenanthrene 5.0E+00 1. 3E+01 1.0E+01 ND ND 0
Selenium 1.0E+01 2.3E+01 ND ND ND 0 Total Aqueous Hydrocarbons 1.5E+01 1.1E+02 9.8E+ 01 9.8E+01 9.5E+01 0

Total Aromatic Hydrocarbons 1.0E+01 5.0E+01 2.4E+01 ND ND 0

Zinc 5.0E+01 1.8E+03 1.8E+ 03 1.1E+03 4.1E+02 0

Number of Constituents Exceeding Strictest WQC - 10 9 7 7 0

Total Exceeded Numeric Criteria - 65 64 60 60 0

1 Constituent concentrations are calculated using methodology described in Putnam and Singerman (2001).

2 CHT does not release constituents to the receiving waters within 12 nm.

3 This concentration does not exceed water quality criteria.
ND = Not detected



### Table 3-23. Comparison of Discharge Constituents of Concern Mass Loading (lbs/yr) and Toxic

Pound Equivalent Loading (TPE lbs/yr) in Baseline and MPCD Discharges from Vessels with Nuclear Steam Propulsion (DD 963)

Discharge Constituent Baseline Primary Treatment Primary Treatment Plus Filter Media 1 Primary Treatment Plus Membrane Filtration 1 CHT 2

Ammonia as Nitrogen 1.8E+03 1.8E+03 1.8E+03 1.8E+03 0 TPE: 1.4E+01 1.5E+ 01 1.5E+01 1.5E+01 Bis (2-Ethylhexyl) Phthalate

TPE: ND 4.8E+00

3 ND ND 0



### 49

### DRAFT - Surface Vessel Bilgewater – DAR 24 June 2003

Discharge Constituent Baseline Primary Treatment Primary Treatment Plus Filter Media 1 Primary Treatment Plus Membrane Filtration 1 CHT 2

Cadmium 6.9E-01 6.5E-01 6.5E-01 ND 0 TPE: 4.6E-01 4. 3E-01 4.3E-01 Copper 2.4E+02 2.3E +02 1.1E+02 5.0E+01 0 TPE: 4.3E+02 4.1E+ 02 2.1E+02 9.1E+01
Fluorene 5.2E+00 ND ND ND 0 TPE: 2.9E-01
Iron 1.5E+03 1.5E+ 03 5.8E+02 7.2E+02 0 TPE: 2.6E+00 2.5E+ 00 9.9E-01 1.2E+00
Lead 8.7E-01 8.3E- 01 8.3E-01 6.2E-01 0 TPE: 6.0E-01 5.8E-01 5.8E-01 4.3E-01 Manganese 9.3E+01 9.5E +01 9.5E+01 9.3E+01 0 TPE: 5.7E+01 5.8E+01 5.8E+01 5.7E+01 Naphthalene
TPE: 1.1E+01
5.1E-01 6.2E+00
2.9E-01 ND ND 0

Nickel 1.1E+02 1.1E+ 02 7.9E+01 8.0E+01 0 TPE: 7.5E+01 7.2E+01 5.4E+01 5.4E+01
Oil and Grease (HEM 4 )

TPE: 1.4E+04 6.1E+03 ND ND 0

Phenanthrene 5.8E+00 4.4E+00 ND ND 0 TPE: 3.0E+00 2.2E+00
Selenium 9.9E+00 ND ND ND 0 TPE: 7.9E-01
Sulfate 5.0E+05 4.7E +05 4.7E+05 4.7E+05 0 TPE: 2.8E+00 2.7E+ 00 2.7E+00 2.7E+00
Total Sulfide 1.2E+03 8.2E+02 ND ND 0 TPE: 3.5E+03 2.3E+03
Zinc 7.7E+02 7.9E+ 02 4.7E+02 1.8E+02 0 TPE: 5.3E+01 5.5E+01 3.3E+01 1.2E+01
Total TPE Load 4.3E+03 3. 1E+03 5.5E+02 4.1E+02 0

1 Constituent concentrations are calculated using methodology described in Putnam and Singerman (2001).

2 CHT does not release constituents to the receiving waters.

3 No TPE value is calculated for this constituent. As discussed in the EEA Guidance Manual (Navy and EPA, 2000a),

the use of a proxy value indicated that t he contribution of this constituent to t he total TPE value is relatively small.

4 HEM TEC value was based on the fuel/lube TEC. For more information, see Development of TECs for Categories

of Oily Substances Derived from Petroleum and Foods (Navy and EPA, 2001c).

ND = Not Detected



### 50

### DRAFT - Surface Vessel Bilgewater – DAR 24 June 2003

Table 3-24. Summary of EEA for Baseline and MPCD Bilgewater Discharges from Vessels with Gas Turbines and Wet Bilge (DD 963)

Baseline Bilgewater Primary Treatment Primary Treatment Plus

Filter Media 1 Primary Treatment Plus Membrane Filtration 1 CHT
Number of Constituents exceeding strictest WQC 10 9 7 7 0

Total Number of Exceeded Numeric WQC 65 64 60 60 0

Number of Exceeded Narrative Categories 7 7 2 3 0
Discharge HI at EOMZ 7.6E+ 00 6.0E+00 2.3E+00 1.5E+00 0
Potential for NIS Release Low Low Low Low None
Number of BCCs Identified 8 7 4 3 0

Discharge TPE 4.3E+03 3.1E +03 5.5E+02 4.1E+02 0

1 Constituent concentrations are calculated using methodology described in Putnam and Singerman (2001).



## In summary, the application of CHT to bilgewater has the leas t environmental impact because there is no direct discharge to the receiving water within 12 nm. The secondary treatment options provide bilgewater treatment performan ce that is superior for each of the analysis methods (e.g., criteria exceedance, HI, and TPE), to primary treatment alone. For most analysis methods, membrane filtration technology provide d superior performance in terms of the environmental effects analysis methods used in this report. Howeve r, uncertainty due to potential inaccuracies of filter media performance because of cha nneling suggests that the filter media may not provide the envi ronmental performance evidenced by these results. Primary treatment is expected to result in fewer dele terious environmental effects than the baseline discharge.

MPCD ranking by overall environmental effect:

1. CHT 2. Primary treatment plus membrane filtration 3. Primary treatment plus filter media 3. Primary treatment only

Further information on the environmental effects analysis for this vessel group can be found in the respective chapter of the Bilgewater EEAR (Navy and EPA, 2003c).

0.0.0 DD 963 Class Cost-Benefit Analysis

Cost benefit analysis for this vessel group is summarized below in Table 3-25.

51

### DRAFT - Surface Vessel Bilgewater – DAR 24 June 2003

Table 3-25. TPEs Removed for each MCPD Option and Associated Costs (DD 963)

Filter Media Membrane Filtration CHT TPE removed from primary discharge by listed treatment 2.50E+03 2.63E+03 3.30E+03

Cost per TPE removed over primary treatment ($/yr) $731 $860 $1,060



## 3.7 D IESEL SHIPS 

## OWS PROCESS BILGEWATER AND DIRTY BALLAST 

## (WHEC 378)

This group consists of 28 Coast Guard cutters di stributed among three ve ssel classes: medium endurance cutters WMEC 210 (14 hulls), high endurance cutters WHEC 378 (12 hulls), and ice breakers WAGB 399 (2 hulls). The first class has CI propulsion while the latter tw o classes have both CI and gas turbine (CODOG) propulsion. However, CODOG vessels use their CI engines for routine operations at cruise speed, and occas ionally use gas turbine for high-speed situations (e.g., rescues). Vessels in this group process th eir dirty ballast water through the same OWS used to process bilgewater. Therefore, they ar e equipped with an OWS four to ten times larger than comparably sized vessels that only proces s bilgewater. These vesse ls operate both inside and outside 12 nm from shore.

3.7.1 WHEC 378 Class Characterization

Characterization information was gathered on su rface vessel bilgewater to support subsequent environmental effects and feasibility analyses. This information primarily included ship systems specifications and details regard ing discharge composition. Ship systems data was acquired through process knowledge acquired from equipment experts.

During UNDS Phase II, sampling was conducted a board one vessel of the WHEC 378 Class, USCGC MORGENTHAU (WHEC 722) from 30 August 1999 to 7 September 1999 and 13-19 November 1999. These sampling episodes serve as th e primary source of chemical data for this vessel group. Two bilgewater/ OWS discharge samples were collected during each of the underway periods. The samples were analyzed by Ecology and Environment, Inc., Pacific Analytical, Inc., and Q Biochem (formally ETS An alytical Services, Inc.). The results were reviewed by EPA and DoD to determine the quality of the analytical data. However, some sample data were excluded in the fi nal calculations as documented in the Draft Sampling Episode Report–USCGC MORGENTHAU (Navy, 2000d), based on Sample Control Center (SCC) review. As discussed in Section 3.1.3, pesticide results were not included in bilgewater discharge profiles (Navy and EPA, 2003d).

Further information on the characterization of this discharge can be found in the respective chapter of the Bilgewater ChAR (Navy and EPA, 2003a).

3.7.2 WHEC 378 Class Feasibility Impact

The feasibility impact analysis of surface vesse l bilgewater for this vessel group is summarized below in Table 3-26.

52DRAFT -Surface Vessel Bilgewater – DAR24 June 2003Table 3-26. WHEC 378 Summary of Practicability and Operational Impact AnalysisMPCD OptionPRACTICABILITY AND OPERATIONAL IMPACT STUDYSpace andWeightPersonnel/EquipmentSafetyMissionCapabilitiesPersonnel Impact(operator labor hrs/year)Consumables,Repair Parts,and ToolsInterfaceRequirementsControl SystemRequirementsOther/UniqueImpactsWithin 12 nm(inc. maintenance)Beyond12 nmCurrent MPCD*(Gravity Coalescer)130 ft31,400 lbs (dry)4,300No impactNo impact19.3 hrs1.8 hrsNoneElectrical power—440VAC, 60Hz,motor – 1.5 HPAutomatedcontrol panel,remote tankNone(flooded)No impactSea water—primerGravity drainlevel switches,and OCMCentrifuge393 ft36,610 lbs (dry)7,385 lbs(flooded)Existing OWSwould beremoved andreplaced withunitNo impactNo impact21.1 hrs1.6 hrsMinimalconsumablesrequired. Specialtools required,but included inthe initialpurchase.Electrical power.—440VAC, 80-130kWCompressed Air--.0058-.029 scfm @50 psigPotable water—50gpd, 45 psiGravity drainAutomatedcontrol panel(vendorrecommendsoperatoroversight duringstartup),integratedthermostat toNonecontrol heater,can be equippedwith OCMCHT—operatingNo impact—No impactNo impact2.9 hrsNANoneNoneNoneNonefrom port withwithin currentshoreside facilitiesholdingcapacityCHT—operatingSignificantSignificantSignificantSignificant impactNANoneNoneNoneNonefrom port withoutimpact afterimpact afterimpact after fiveafter five daysshoreside facilitiesfive daysfive daysdaysEvaporationNF– excessive power requirementsHydrocyclone168 ft3900 lbs (dry)1,000 lbs(flooded)Existing OWSwould beNo impactNo impact6.3 hrs1.6 hrsMinimalconsumablesand repair partsrequiredElectrical power—440VAC, 60HzAutomatedcontrol panelNoneremoved andreplaced withunit53DRAFT -Surface Vessel Bilgewater – DAR24 June 2003MPCD OptionPRACTICABILITY AND OPERATIONAL IMPACT STUDYSpace andWeightPersonnel/EquipmentSafetyMissionCapabilitiesPersonnel Impact(operator labor hrs/year)Consumables,Repair Parts,and ToolsInterfaceRequirementsControl SystemRequirementsOther/UniqueImpactsWithin 12 nm(inc. maintenance)Beyond12 nmIn-Situ BiologicalTreatmentNF– excessive bilgewater volumeOil-AbsorbingSocksNF –potential safety (e.g., fire and flooding)hazard; solid waste handling impactsFilter MediaNF– adequate space is not availableMembraneFiltrationNF– adequate space is not availableTable 3-27. WHEC 378 MPCD Total Ownership Cost Comparison ($K/Vessel)MPCD OptionInitialInside 12 nm/Inside+Beyond12 nm15-Yr RecurringInside 12 nm/Inside+Beyond12 nmAnnualizedInside 12 nm/Inside+Beyond12 nmTotal OwnershipInside 12 nm/Inside+Beyond12 nmGravityCoalescence0/05.46/3.250.464/0.2775.46/3.25Centrifuge632/6325.65/3.0254/53.9637/635CHT (withincurrent holdingcapacity)0/059.89/59.895.09/5.0959.89/59.89Hydrocyclone220/2202.18/3.2018.9/19.0222/22354

### DRAFT - Surface Vessel Bilgewater – DAR 24 June 2003



## 0.0.0 WHEC 378 Class Environmental Effects

The environmental effects analysis of surf ace vessel bilgewater fo r this vessel group is summarized below in Table 3-28.

Table 3-28. Comparison of Discharge Constituent Concentrations (μg/L) that Exceed Numeric Water Quality Criteria in the Baseline and MPCD Discharges from Compression Ignition Ships that OWS Process Bilgewater and Dirty Ballast (WHEC 378)

Discharge Constituent Strictest WQC Baseline Primary Treatment CHT 1
Ammonia as Nitrogen 2.3E+02 5.8E+02 5.4E+02 0
Boron 8.1E+03 5.6E+03 2 5.4E+03 2 0
Cadmium 5.0E+00 6.3E+00 6.7E+00 0 Chlorinated Naphthalenes 7.5E+00 2.8E+01 ND 0 Copper 2.4E+00 1.4E+01 1.7E+01 0
Iron 3.0E+02 3.5E+03 4.0E+03 0
Lead 5.6E+00 2.7E+01 3.0E+01 0 Manganese 1.0E+02 3.6E+02 3.6E+02 0 Naphthalene 1.4E+02 3.3E+01 2 1.4E+02 0
Nickel 8.3E+00 2.2E+02 2.3E+02 0
Phenanthrene 5.0E+00 3.0E+01 2.8E+01 0
Thallium 6.3E+00 9.9E+00 8.2E+00 0 Total Aqueous Hydrocarbons 1.5E+01 2.3E+02 2.7E+02 0 Total Aromatic Hydrocarbons 1.0E+01 9.5E+01 2.0E+02 0
Zinc 5.0E+01 2.5E+03 2.9E+03 0 Number Of Constituents Exceeding Strictest WQC

- 13 13 0
Total Exceeded Numeric Criteria

- 85 86 0

1 CHT does not release constituents to the receiving waters.

2 Does not exceed criteria
ND = Not detected



### Table 3-29. Comparison of Discharge Constituents of Concern Mass Loading (lbs/yr) and Toxic

Pound Equivalent Loading (TPE lbs/yr) in Baseline and MPCD Discharges from Vessels with Nuclear Steam Propulsion (WHEC 378)

Discharge Constituent Baseline Primary Treatment CHT 1
2-Chloronaphthalene

TPE: 1.1E-01
1.7E-02 ND 0

2-Methylnaphthalene
TPE: ND 1.0E+00
1.6E-01 0

Ammonia as Nitrogen
TPE: 2.3E+00
1.8E-02 2.1E+00
1.7E-02 0

Boron 2.2E+01 2.1E+01 0 TPE: 3.9E+00 3.8E+00



### 55

### DRAFT - Surface Vessel Bilgewater – DAR 24 June 2003

Discharge Constituent Baseline Primary Treatment CHT 1

Cadmium 2.5E-02 2.6E-02 0 TPE: 1.7E-02 1.8E-02
Chlorobenzene 4.8E-02 5.1E-02 0 TPE: 2.7E-04 2.9E-04 Copper

TPE: 1.8E+00
3.2E+00 2.2E+00
4.0E+00 0

Fluorene 1.2E-01 1.1E-01 0 TPE: 7.0E-03 6.0E-03
Iron 1.4E+01 1.6E+01 0 TPE: 2.3E-02 2.7E-02
Lead 1.1E-01 1.2E-01 0 TPE: 7.3E-02 8.1E-02 Manganese

TPE: 1.4E+00
8.6E-01 1.4E+00
8.6E-01 0

Naphthalene

TPE: 1.3E-01
6.0E-03 5.6E-01
2.6E-02 0

Nickel 8.5E-01 9.1E-01 0 TPE: 5.8E-01 6.2E-01 Oil and Grease (HEM 3 )

TPE: 6.3E+02 5.1E+02 0

Phenanthrene 1. 2E-01 1.1E-01 0 TPE: 6.0E-02 5.6E-02
Sulfate 8.9E+02 8.6E+02 0 TPE: 5.0E-03 4.8E-03
Thallium 3.9E-02 3.2E-02 0 TPE: 3.4E-02 2.9E-02
Total Sulfide 1.5E+01 7.5E+00 0 TPE: 4.3E+01 2.1E+01
Zinc 9.8E+00 1.1E+01 0 TPE: 6.8E-01 7.8E-01
Total TPE Load 5.3E+01 3.2E+01 0

1 CHT does not release constituents to the receiving waters.

2 No TPE value is calculated for this constituent. As discussed in the

EEA Guidance Manual (Navy and EPA, 2000a), the use of a proxy value indicated that the contribution of this constituent to the total TPE value is relatively small.

3 HEM TEC value was based on the fuel/lube TEC. For more

information, see Development of TECs for Categories of Oily Substances Derived from Petroleum and Foods (Navy and EPA, 2001c).
ND = Not Detected



### 56

### DRAFT - Surface Vessel Bilgewater – DAR 24 June 2003

Table 3-30. Summary of EEA for Baseline and MP CD Discharges from Compression Ignition Ships that OWS Process Bilgewater and Dirty Ballast (WHEC 378)

Baseline Bilgewater Primary Treatment CHT Number of Constituents exceeding strictest WQC 13 13 0
Total Number of Exceeded Numeric WQC 85 86 0 Number of Exceeded Narrative Categories 7 7 0 Discharge HI at EOMZ 1.6E+00 1.1E+00 0
Potential for NIS Release Low Low None
Number of BCCs Identified 9 8 0 Discharge TPE 5.3E+01 3.2E+01 0



## In summary, the application of CHT to bilgewater has the leas t environmental impact because there is no discharge to the receiving water. Pr imary treatment is expected to result in fewer deleterious environmental effect s than the baseline discharge.

MPCD ranking by overall environmental effect:

1. CHT 2. Primary treatment

Further information on the environmental effects analysis for this vessel group can be found in the respective chapter of the Bilgewater EEAR (Navy and EPA, 2003c).

0.0.0 WHEC 378 Class Cost-Benefit Analysis

Cost benefit analysis for this vessel group is summarized below in Table 3-31.

Table 3-31. TPEs Removed for each MCPD Option and Associated Costs (WHEC 378)

CHT TPE removed from primary discharge by listed treatment 3.90E+03

Cost per TPE removed over primary treatment ($/yr) $39



## 0.0 L ARGE 

## C OMPRESSION 

## I GNITION 

## V ESSELS 

## (LSD 41)

This group consists of large CI ships of the Na vy, MSC, and Coast Guard with displacements at or above 6000 tons. Vessels in this group include amphibious tr ansport dock ships, combat stores ships, oilers, cable repairing ships, research and survei llance ships, surveying ships, ocean tugs, and logistic support ships. These large si ze vessels range from 420 ft to 950 ft in length and from 8,300 to 36,000 tons of displacement. Because of the large size of these ships, they

57

### DRAFT - Surface Vessel Bilgewater – DAR 24 June 2003



## primarily operate in ocean waters outside 12 nm from shore, except when on training exercises or transiting to and from port. Ships in this ve ssel group have between 1 to 5 propulsion engines, with approximately 50 % using four engines. A ll vessels in the group have substantial auxiliary machinery and equipment, and the vast majority have multiple propeller shafts.

3.8.1 LSD 41 Class Characterization

Characterization information was gathered on su rface vessel bilgewater to support subsequent environmental effects and feasibility analyses. This information primarily included ship systems specifications and details regard ing discharge composition. Ship systems data was acquired through process knowledge acquired from equipment experts.

During UNDS Phase II, sampling was conducted aboa rd two vessels of the LSD 41 Class, USS OAK HILL (16-17 November), and USS RUSH MORE (26 September 2000, 17 October 2000, 17 November 2000, and 13 December 2000). These tw o sampling episodes serve as the primary sources of chemical data for this vessel gr oup. The samples were analyzed by Ecology and Environment, Inc., Pacific Analytical, Inc., Columbia Analytical Se rvices (through Pacific Analytical, Inc.) and Q Biochem laboratories (for mally ETS Analytical Services, Inc.). The results were reviewed by EPA and DoD to determ ine the quality of the analytical data; however some sample data were excluded from the final calculations, as documented in the Draft Sampling Episode Report – USS RUSHMORE (Navy, 2001b) and Draft Sampling Episode Report – USS OAK HILL (Navy, 2000e), based upon Sample Cont rol Center (SCC) review. As discussed in Section 3.1.3, pestic ide results were not included in bilgewater discharge profiles (Navy and EPA, 2003d).

The characterization of the bilgewater discharg e after secondary treatment by filter media could not be performed based on sample analysis becaus e this operation is not in everyday practice aboard this vessel class. Discharge compositi on properties were estimated using Putnam and Singerman (2001) calculations as well as compar isons to the performance achieved by filter media on DDG 51 Class vessels. Further informa tion on the characterizati on of this discharge can be found in the respective chapter of the Bilgewater ChAR (Navy and EPA, 2003a).

3.8.2 LSD 41 Class Feasibility Impact

The feasibility impact analysis of surface vesse l bilgewater for this vessel group is summarized below in Table 3-32.

58DRAFT - Surface Vessel Bilgewater – DAR24 June 2003Table 3-32. LSD 41 Summary of Practicability and Operational Impact AnalysisMPCD OptionPRACTICABILITY AND OPERATIONAL IMPACT STUDYSpace andWeightPersonnel/EquipmentSafetyMissionCapabilitiesPersonnel Impact(operator labor hrs/year)Consumables,Repair Parts,and ToolsInterfaceRequirementsControlSystemRequirementsOther/UniqueImpactsWithin 12 nm(inc. maintenance)Beyond12 nmCurrent MPCD*(GravityCoalescer)126 ft32,500 lbs (dry)5,420 lbsNo impactNo impact79 hrs286 hrsNoneElectrical power –440 VAC, 60 HzPotable water –Automatedcontrol panel,remote tankNone(flooded)potential primerlevel switches,No impactSea water – primerGravity drainand OCMCentrifuge137 ft32,650 lbs(flooded)2,700 lbs(flooded)Existing OWSwould beremoved andreplaced withunitNo impactNo impact91.75 hrs280 hrsMinimalconsumablesrequired. Specialtools required, butincluded in theinitial purchase.Electrical power—440VAC, 60-100kWCompressed Air--0.0058-0.029 cfm @50 psigPotable water—20gpd, 45 psiSea water – 25 psiGravity drainAutomatedcontrol panel(vendorrecommendsoperatoroversightduring startup),integratedthermostat tocontrol heater,Nonecan beequipped withOCMCHT—operatingNo impact –No impactNo impact480 hrsNANoneNoneNoneNonefrom port withwithin currentshoresideholdingfacilitiescapacityCHT—operatingSignificantSignificantSignificantSignificant impactNANoneNoneNoneNonefrom port withoutimpact afterimpact afterimpact afterafter two days.shoresidetwo days.two days.two days.facilitiesEvaporationNF– excessive power requirements59DRAFT - Surface Vessel Bilgewater – DAR24 June 2003MPCD OptionPRACTICABILITY AND OPERATIONAL IMPACT STUDYSpace andWeightPersonnel/EquipmentSafetyMissionCapabilitiesPersonnel Impact(operator labor hrs/year)Consumables,Repair Parts,and ToolsInterfaceRequirementsControlSystemRequirementsOther/UniqueImpactsWithin 12 nm(inc. maintenance)Beyond12 nmHydrocyclone17 ft3132 lbs (dry)150 lbs(flooded)OWS wouldbe removedNo impactNo impact55.5 hrs217 hrsMinimalconsumables andrepair partsrequiredCompressed Air27scfm @ 65 psiAutomatedcontrol panel;tank levelswitches; canbe equippedwith OCMNoneand replacedwith unitIn -SituBiologicalNF– excessive bilgewater volumeTreatmentOil-AbsorbingNF– potential safety (e.g., fire and flooding) hazard; solid waste handling impactsSocksFilter Media16.9 ft3730 lbs (dry)1,675 lbs(flooded)Relocation ofworkbenchNo impactNo impact2.0 hrsNARequiresreplacement offilter mediacanistersNoneAutomaticoperations inresponse toprimary OWSSystemswereremovedfrom DDGbecause theyfailed toand phonerequiredconsistentlyproduceeffluent lessthan 15 ppm.MembraneFiltration227.5 ft32,700 lbs (dry)No impactNo impact18.4 hrsNARequiresreplacement ofElectrical power—440VAC, 60HzAutomaticoperation inNone3,000 lbsmembranesCompressed Air -response to(flooded)Some space(performedshoreside)80-100 psi, 5 scfmPotable water—10primary OWSand weightgpm, 30 psiimpactsGravity drain60DRAFT - Surface Vessel Bilgewater – DAR24 June 2003Table 3-33. LSD 41 MPCD Total Ownership Cost Comparison ($K/Vessel)MPCD OptionTotal InitialInside 12 nm/Inside+Beyond12 nmUSCG Total15-Yr RecurringInside 12 nm/Inside+Beyond12 nmUSCGAnnualizedInside 12 nm/Inside+Beyond12 nmUSCGTotal OwnershipInside 12 nm/Inside+Beyond12 nmOther Military ServicesTotal 15-Yr RecurringInside 12 nm/Inside+Beyond12 nmOther MilitaryServicesAnnualizedInside 12 nm/Inside+Beyond 12 nmOther MilitaryServicesTotal OwnershipInside 12 nm/Inside+Beyond 12 nmGravityCoalescence0/068/3335.8/28.368/33320/921.7/7.820/92Centrifuge301/30171.3/33531.6/54.0372/63623.4/94.727.5/33.6324/396CHT (withincurrent holdingcapacity)0/04940/4940420/4204940/4940520/52044/44520/520Hydrocyclone123/12362.4/31015.8/36.8185/43314.5/6911.7/16.3138/192Filter Media145/145160/16025.6/25.6301/301160/16025.6/25.6301/301MembraneFiltration330/33052.34/52.3432.2/32.2380/3804.65/4.6528.1/28.1331/33161

### DRAFT - Surface Vessel Bilgewater – DAR 24 June 2003



## 0.0.0 LSD 41 Class Environmental Effects

The environmental effects analysis of surf ace vessel bilgewater fo r this vessel group is summarized below in Table 3-34 and Table 3-35.

Table 3-34. Comparison of Discharge Constituent Concentrations (μg/L) that Exceed Numeric Water Quality Criteria in the Baseline and MPCD Discharges from Large Compression Ignition Ships (6000 tons of displacement or more) (LSD 41)

Discharge Constituent Strictest WQC Baseline Primary Treatment Primary Treatment Plus

Filter Media 1 Primary Treatment Plus Membrane Filtration 1 CHT 2
Ammonia as Nitrogen 2.3E+02 1.2E+03 1.3E+ 00 1.3E+03 5.4E+02 0 Copper 2.4E+00 1.3E+01 1.5E+ 01 1.5E+01 8.1E+00 0
Iron 3.0E+02 3.4E+02 3.3E+02 1.3E+02 3 5.8E+01 3 0
Lead 5.6E+00 8.9E+00 9. 8E+00 9.8E+00 ND 0 Manganese 1.0E+02 1.1E+02 1.1E+ 02 1.1E+02 1.2E+02 0 Mercury 2.5E-02 ND ND ND 2.0E-01 0
Nickel 8.3E+00 1.1E+02 1.1E+ 02 8.4E+01 3.4E+01 0
Zinc 5.0E+01 4.1E+02 4.5E +02 2.7E+02 1.9E+01 3 0
Phenanthrene 5.0E+00 1.1E+01 1.1E+01 ND ND 0
Thallium 6.3E+00 1.5E+01 1.2E+ 01 1.2E+01 1.2E+01 0 Total Aqueous Hydrocarbons 1.5E+01 7.4E+01 7.7E+ 01 7.7E+01 6.9E+01 0

Total Aromatic Hydrocarbons 1.0E+01 2.4E+01 2. 5E+01 ND 2.0E+01 0

Number Of Constituents Exceeding Strictest WQC - 11 11 8 8 0

Total Exceeded Numeric Criteria - 76 73 68 32 0

1 Constituent concentrations are calculated using methodology described in Putnam and Singerman (2001).

2 CHT does not release constituents to the receiving waters.

3 Does not exceed criteria.
ND = Not detected



### Table 3-35. Comparison of Discharge Constituents of Concern Mass Loading (lbs/yr) and Toxic

Pound Equivalent Loading (TPE lbs/yr) in Baseline and MPCD Discharges from Vessels with Nuclear Steam Propulsion (LSD 41)

Discharge Constituent Baseline Primary Treatment Primary Treatment Plus Filter Media 1 Primary Treatment Plus Membrane Filtration 1 CHT 2

Ammonia as Nitrogen 4.8E+02 5.0E+02 5.0E+02 2.1E+02 0 TPE: 3.9E+00 4.0E+ 00 4.0E+00 1.7E+00



### 63

### DRAFT - Surface Vessel Bilgewater – DAR 24 June 2003

Discharge Constituent Baseline Primary Treatment Primary Treatment Plus Filter Media 1 Primary Treatment Plus Membrane Filtration 1 CHT 2

Cadmium 9.0E-01 9.2E-01 9.2E-01 ND 0 TPE: 6.0E-01 6. 1E-01 6.1E-01 Copper 7.7E+01 7.1E +01 3.6E+01 3.6E+00 0 TPE: 1.4E+02 1.3E+ 02 6.5E+01 6.6E+00
Iron 1.3E+02 1.3E+02 ND ND 0 TPE: 2.2E-01 2.2E-01
Lead 3.4E+00 3.8E+00 3.8E+00 ND 0 TPE: 2.4E+00 2.6E+00 2.6E+00 Manganese 4.1E+01 4.2E +01 4.2E+01 4.6E+01 0 TPE: 2.5E+01 2.6E+ 01 2.6E+01 2.8E+01 Mercury
TPE: ND ND ND 7.9E-02
9.2E+00 0

Naphthalene
TPE: 5.1E+ 00
2.4E-01 5.6E+00
2.6E-01 ND 7.7E+00
3.6E-01 0

Nickel 4.3E+01 4.3E+ 01 3.3E+01 1.3E+01 0 TPE: 3.0E+01 3.0E+ 01 2.2E+01 9.0E+00
Nitrate/Nitrite

TPE: 1.1E +03
1.1E+02 1.3E+03
1.2E+02 7.8E+02
7.3E+01 ND 0

Oil and Grease (HEM 4 )

TPE: 1.1E+04 8.6E+03 2.5E+03 5.1E+03 0

Phenanthrene 4.4E+00 4.2E+00 ND ND 0 TPE: 2.2E+00 2.1E+00
Selenium 2.8E+00 2.7E +00 2.7E+00 1.4E+00 0 TPE: 2.2E-01 2.2E- 01 2.2E-01 1.1E-01
Sulfate 1.9E+05 1.9E +05 1.9E+05 1.7E+05 0 TPE: 1.1E+00 1.1E+ 00 1.1E+00 9.6E-01
Thallium 6.0E+00 4.6E +00 4.6E+ 00 4.6E+00 0 TPE: 5.3E+00 4.1E+ 00 4.1E+00 4.1E+00
Total Sulfide 1.2E+03 1.0E+03 8.4E+02 ND 0 TPE: 3.3E+03 2.9E+03 2.3E+03
Zinc 1.6E+02 1.7E+ 02 1.0E+02 7.2E+00 0 TPE: 1.1E+01 1.2E+ 01 7.2E+00 5.0E-01
Total TPE Load 3.7E+03 3. 3E+03 3.4E+02 2.5E+03 0

1 Constituent concentrations are calculated using methodology described in Putnam and Singerman (2001).

2 CHT does not release constituents to the receiving waters.
3 No TPE value is calculated for this constituent. As discussed in the EEA Guidance Manual (Navy and EPA,

2000a), the use of a proxy value indicated that the contribution of this constituent to the total TPE value is relatively small.

4 HEM TEC value was based on the fuel/l ube TEC. For more information, see Development of TECs for Categories

of Oily Substances Derived from Petroleum and Foods (Navy and EPA, 2001c).
ND=Not Detected



### 64

### DRAFT - Surface Vessel Bilgewater – DAR 24 June 2003

Table 3-36. Summary of EEA for Baseline and MPCD Discharges from Large Compression Ignition Ships (6000 tons of displacement or more) (LSD 41)

Number of Constituents exceeding strictest WQC
Total Number of Exceeded Numeric WQC
Number of Exceeded Narrative Categories Discharge HI at EOMZ
Potential for NIS Release
Number of BCCs Identified Discharge TPE Baseline Bilgewater

11

76

6

1.6E+ 01

Low

7

3.7E+03 Primary Treatment

11

73

6

1.5E+01

Low

7

3.3E +03 Primary Treatment Plus Primary Treatment Plus Membrane Filter Media 1 Filtration 1 CHT

8 8 0

68 32 0

3 5 0

4.2E+00 8.0E+00 0

Low Low None

5 5 0

3.4E+02 2.5E+03 0

1 Constituent concentrations are calculated using methodology described in Putnam and Singerman (2001).



## In summary, the application of CHT to bilgewater has the leas t environmental impact because there is no direct discharge to the receiving water within 12 nm. The secondary treatment options provide bilgewater treatment performan ce that is superior for each of the analysis methods (e.g., criteria exceedance, HI, and TPE), to primary treatment alone. Primary treatment plus membrane filtration ranked ahead of filter media in regard to criteria exceedances, but resulted in higher HI and TPE values. However, uncertainty due to pot ential inaccuracies of filter media performance because of channeling s uggests that the filter media may not provide the environmental performance evidenced by these results. Primary treatment is expected to result in fewer deleterious environmenta l effects than the baseline discharge.

MPCD ranking by overall environmental effect:

1. CHT 2. Primary treatment plus membrane filtra tion, primary treatment plus filter media 3. Primary treatment only

Further information on the environmental effects analysis for this vessel group can be found in the respective chapter of the Bilgewater EEAR (Navy and EPA, 2003c).

0.0.0 LSD 41 Class Cost-Benefit Analysis

Cost benefit analysis for this vessel group is summarized below in Table 3-37.

65

### DRAFT - Surface Vessel Bilgewater – DAR 24 June 2003

Table 3-37. TPEs Removed for each MCPD Option and Associated Costs (LSD 41)

TPE removed from primary discharge by listed treatment Cost for non-USCG vessels per TPE removed over primary treatment ($/yr)

Each new vessel Cost for USCG vessels per TPE removed over primary treatment ($/yr)

Each new vessel Filter Media Membrane Filtration CHT

3.32E+03 1.60E+03 4.30E+03

$393 $896 $522

$7 $16 $25

$8 $20 $98

$7 $18 $112



## 3.9 M EDIUM 

## C OMPRESSION 

## I GNITION 

## V ESSELS 

## (MCM 1)

Medium ships are defined as vessels with di splacements at or above 400 tons but below 6000 tons. This group consists of medium sized CI ships of the Navy, MSC, Coast Guard, and Army, including tank landing ships, salvage ships, mine countermeasur es, buoy tenders, research and surveillance ships, surveying ships, ocean tugs, a nd logistic support ships. Vessels in this group range from 128 ft to 522 ft in length, and from 534 tons to 4975 tons of displacement. Vessels in this group operate in both coastal and ocean wate rs outside 12 nm from shore. They have multiple propulsion engines and shafts, and substantial auxiliary machinery and equipment. The exception to this group was the inclusion of Navy floating dry docks (i.e., AFDL 1, AFDM 3, ARDM 1, ARDM 4, and IX 525 classes) and two USCG 120 ft barges (Barge 120), which do not have self propulsion, but that are equipped with multiple CI engines used for operation of pumps and as generators for auxiliary power. It is expected that these non-se lf propel vessels will generate bilgewater at rates and with oily constitu ents more similar to a medium diesel ship than to a barge that lacks engines or has minimal auxi liary machinery. An important consideration for the creation of this vessel group is that the smaller si ze of these vessels when compared with larger vessels (above 6000 tons) could place sp ace limitations on the MPCDs considered.

3.9.1 MCM 1 Class Characterization

Characterization information was gathered on su rface vessel bilgewater to support subsequent environmental effects and feasibility analyses. This information primarily included ship systems specifications and details rega rding discharge composition. Sh ip systems data was acquired through process knowledge acquired from equipment experts.

Due to similarities in machinery, propulsion sy stems, and ancillary equipment, the LSD 41 vessel group discharge information is used to represent the MCM 1 vessel group.

Further information on the characterization of this discharge can be found in the respective chapter of the Bilgewater ChAR (Navy and EPA, 2003a).

3.9.2 MCM 1 Class Feasibility Impact

The feasibility impact analysis of surface vesse l bilgewater for this vessel group is summarized below in Table 3-38.

66DRAFT - Surface Vessel Bilgewater – DAR24 June 2003Table 3-38. MCM 1 Summary of Practicability and Operational Impact AnalysisMPCD OptionPRACTICABILITY AND OPERATIONAL IMPACT STUDYSpace andWeightPersonnel/EquipmentSafetyMissionCapabilitiesPersonnel Impact(operator labor hrs/year)Consumables,Repair Parts,and ToolsInterfaceRequirementsControlSystemRequirementsOther/UniqueImpactsWithin 12 nm(inc. maintenance)Beyond12 nmCurrent MPCD*(GravityCoalescer)15 ft3300 lbs (dry)455 lbsNo impactNo impact40.5 hrs36 hrsNoneElectrical power.—115/230VAC 60HzFresh, salt, orAutomatedcontrol panel,remote tankNone(flooded)brackish water –level switches,No impactpressure regulatedto 15 psiand OCMCentrifuge6.9 ft3132 lbs (dry)No impactNo impact35.75 hrs53 hrsMinimalconsumables440 VACPotable water- 1Manual startup,OCMNoneOWS wouldand repair partsgpdbe removedand replacedrequiredwith unitCHT—operatingNo impact—No impactNo impact75.6 hrNANoneNoneNoneNonefrom port withwithin currentshoresideholdingfacilitiescapacityCHT—operatingSignificantSignificantSignificantSignificant impactNANoneNoneNoneNonefrom port withoutimpact after 3impact after 3impact after 3after 3 daysshoresidedaysdaysdaysfacilitiesEvaporationNF– adequate space not available; excessive power requirementsHydrocyclone8 ft388 lbs (dry)100 lbs(flooded)OWS wouldNo impactNo impact16.5 hrs27 hrsMinimalconsumablesand repair partsrequiredCompressed Air –65 psi, 12 scfmAutomatedcontrol panel,tank levelswitchesNonebe removedand replacedwith unitIn-Situ BiologicalTreatmentNF– excessive bilgewater volumeOil-AbsorbingSocksNF– potential safety (e.g., fire and flooding) hazard; solid waste handling impacts67DRAFT - Surface Vessel Bilgewater – DAR24 June 2003MPCD OptionPRACTICABILITY AND OPERATIONAL IMPACT STUDYSpace andWeightPersonnel/EquipmentSafetyMissionCapabilitiesPersonnel Impact(operator labor hrs/year)Consumables,Repair Parts,and ToolsInterfaceRequirementsControlSystemRequirementsOther/UniqueImpactsWithin 12 nm(inc. maintenance)Beyond12 nmFilter Media36 ft31320 lbs (dry)1900 lbsNo impactNo impact0.11 hrs0 hrsRequires filtermedia canisters,which need to beNoneNoneSystemswereremoved(flooded)1Relocation ofreplaced every400 hours offrom DDGbecausepiping,furniture andequipmentrequiredoperationthey failed toconsistentlyproduceeffluent lessthan 15 ppm.Membrane227.5 ft3No impactNo impact10.56 hrs.51 hrsMinimal440 VAC, 60 hzNoneNoneFiltration2500 lbs(dry)1consumablesand repair partsrequiredCompressed Air –80-100 psi, 5 scfmPotable Water –10 gpm at 30 psiTable 3-39. MCM 1 MPCD Total Ownership Cost Comparison ($K/Vessel)MPCD OptionTotal InitialInside 12 nm/Inside+Beyond12 nmUSCG Total15-Yr RecurringInside 12 nm/Inside+Beyond12 nmUSCGAnnualizedInside 12 nm/Inside+Beyond12 nmUSCGTotal OwnershipInside 12 nm/Inside+Beyond12 nmOther Military ServicesTotal 15-Yr RecurringInside 12 nm/Inside+Beyond12 nmOther MilitaryServicesAnnualizedInside 12 nm/Inside+Beyond 12 nmOther MilitaryServicesTotal OwnershipInside 12 nm/Inside+Beyond 12 nmGravityCoalescence0/012.9/26.81.10/2.27912.9/26.810.1/19.861/1.6210.1/19Centrifuge96/9611.5/29.49.12/10.7107/1258.78/22.18.88/10104/118CHT (withincurrent holdingcapacity)0/0294.9/294.925/06/25.06294.9/294.941.8/41.83.55/3.5541.8/41.8Hydrocyclone93/936.9/18.78.49/9.4999.9/1124.15/118.3/8.8397/104Filter Media94/949.25/9.258.77/8.77103/1039.25/9.258.77/8.77103/103MembraneFiltration410/4102.65/2.6535.1/35.1413/4132.65/2.6535.1/35.1413/41368

### DRAFT - Surface Vessel Bilgewater – DAR 24 June 2003



## 0.0.0 MCM 1 Class Environmental Effects

The environmental effects analysis of surf ace vessel bilgewater fo r this vessel group is summarized below in Table 3-40 and Table 3-41.

Table 3-40. Comparison of Discharge Constituent Concentrations (μg/L) that Exceed Numeric Water Quality Criteria in the Baseline Discharge and MPCD Discharges from Medium CI Ships (at or above 400 tons and under 6000 tons) (MCM 1 Based on LSD 41 Surrogate Data)

Discharge Constituent Strictest WQC Baseline Primary Treatment Primary Treatment Plus

Filter Media 1 Primary Treatment Plus Membrane Filtration 1 CHT 2

Saltwater: Ammonia as Nitrogen 2.3E+02 1.2E+03 1.3E+ 03 1.3E+03 5.4E+02 0
Cadmium 5.0E+00 2.3E+00 3 2.4E+00 3 2.4E+00 3 ND 0 Copper 2.4E+00 1.3E+01 1.5E+ 01 1.5E+01 8.1E+00 0
Iron 3.0E+02 3.4E+02 3.3E+02 1.3E+02 3 5.8E+01 3 0
Lead 5.6E+00 8.9E+00 9. 8E+00 9.8E+00 ND 0 Manganese 1.0E+02 1.1E+02 1.1E+ 02 1.1E+02 1.2E+02 0 Mercury 2.5E-02 ND ND ND 2.0E-01 0
Nickel 8.3E+00 1.1E+02 1.1E+ 02 8.4E+01 3.4E+01 0
Phenanthrene 5.0E+00 1.1E+01 1.1E+01 ND ND 0
Thallium 6.3E+00 1.5E+01 1.2E+ 01 1.2E+01 1.2E+01 0 Total Aqueous Hydrocarbons 1.5E+01 7.4E+01 7.7E+ 01 7.7E+01 6.9E+01 0

Total Aromatic Hydrocarbons 1.0E+01 2.4E+01 2. 5E+01 ND 2.0E+01 0

Zinc 5.0E+01 4.1E+02 4.5E +02 2.7E+02 1.9E+01 3 0
Freshwater:
Cadmium 1.1E+00 2.3E+ 00 2.4E+00 2.4E+00 ND 0 Copper 8.8E+00 1.3E+01 1.5E+01 1.5E+01 9.4E+00 3 0
Zinc 6.4E+01 9.8E+01 9. 1E+01 9.1E+01 1.9E+01 3 0

Number Of Constituents Exceeding Strictest WQC - 14 14 11 8 0

Total Exceeded Numeric Criteria - 96 93 88 32 0

1 Constituent concentrations are calculated using methodology described in Putnam and Singerman (2001).

2 CHT does not release constituents to the receiving waters.

3 Value does not exceed criteria.
ND = Not detected



### 69

### DRAFT - Surface Vessel Bilgewater – DAR 24 June 2003

Table 3-41. Comparison of Discharge Constituents of Concern Mass Loading (lbs/yr) and Toxic

Pound Equivalent Loading (TPE lbs/yr) in Baseline and MPCD Discharges from Vessels with Nuclear Steam Propulsion (MCM 1)

Discharge Constituent Baseline Primary Treatment Primary Treatment Plus Filter Media 1 Primary Treatment Plus Membrane Filtration 1 CHT 2

Saltwater:
Ammonia as Nitrogen 5.9E+01 6.1E+01 6.1E+01 2.5E+01 0 TPE: 4.8E-01 5.0E- 01 5.0E-01 2.1E-01
Cadmium 1.1E-01 1.1E-01 1.1E-01 ND 0 TPE: 7.4E-02 7. 5E-02 7.5E-02 Copper 9.5E+00 8.8E +00 4.4E+00 4.5E-01 0 TPE: 1.7E+01 1.6E+ 01 8.0E+00 8.1E-01
Iron 1.6E+01 1.6E+01 ND ND 0 TPE: 2.7E-02 2.7E-02
Lead 4.2E-01 4. 7E-01 4.7E-01 ND 0 TPE: 2.9E-01 3.2E -01 3.2E-01 Manganese 5.1E+00 5.1E +00 5.1E+00 5.7E+00 0 TPE: 3.1E+00 3.2E+00 3.2E+00 3.5E+00 Mercury
TPE: ND ND ND 9.7E-03
1.1E+00 0

Naphthalene
TPE: 6.3E- 01
2.9E-02 6.9E-01
3.3E-02 ND 9.5E-01
4.5E-02 0

Nickel 5.3E+00 5.3E+ 00 4.0E+00 1.6E+00 0 TPE: 3.7E+00 3.7E+00 2.7E+00 1.1E+00
Nitrate/Nitrite

TPE: 1.4E +02
1.3E+01 1.6E+02
1.5E+01 9.6E+01
8.9E+00 ND 0

Oil and Grease (HEM 4 )

TPE: 1.3E+03 1.0E+03 3.1E+02 6.1E+02 0

Phenanthrene 5. 4E-01 5.1E-01 ND ND 0 TPE: 2.7E-01 2.6E-01
Selenium 3.4E-01 3.4E -01 3.4E-01 1.7E-01 0 TPE: 2.7E-02 2.7E- 02 2.7E-02 1.4E-02
Sulfate 2.4E+04 2.3E +04 2.3E+04 2.1E+04 0 TPE: 1.3E-01 1.3E- 01 1.3E-01 1.2E-01
Thallium 7.3E-01 5.7E -01 5.7E-01 5.6E-01 0 TPE: 6.5E-01 5.1E-01 5.1E-01 5.0E-01
Total Sulfide 1.4E+02 1.3E+02 1.0E+02 ND 0 TPE: 4.0E+02 3.5E+02 2.9E+02
Zinc 2.0E+01 2.1E+ 01 1.3E+01 8.8E-01 0 TPE: 1.4E+00 1.5E+00 8.8E-01 6.1E-02
Total TPE Load 4.6E+02 4. 1E+02 4.1E+01 3.1E+02 0



### 70

### DRAFT - Surface Vessel Bilgewater – DAR 24 June 2003

Discharge Constituent Baseline Primary Treatment Primary Treatment Plus Filter Media 1 Primary Treatment Plus Membrane Filtration 1 CHT 2

Freshwater:
Cadmium 1.5E-02 1.5E-02 1.5E-02 ND 0 TPE: 3.9E-02 3. 9E-02 3.9E-02 Copper 1.3E+00 1.2E +00 5.9E-01 6.0E-02 0 TPE: 7.9E-01 7.3E- 01 3.7E-01 3.7E-02
Iron 2.2E+00 2.1E+00 ND ND 0 TPE: 1.2E-02 1.2E-02
Lead 5.6E-02 6. 2E-02 6.2E-02 ND 0 TPE: 1.3E-01 1.4E -01 1.4E-01 Manganese 6.8E-01 6.8E -01 6.8E-01 7.5E-01 0 TPE: 4.8E-02 4.8E-02 4.8E-02 5.3E-02 Mercury ND ND ND 1.3E-03
1.5E-01 0 TPE: Naphthalene

TPE: 8.3E- 02
1.3E-03 9.2E-02
1.4E-03 ND 1.3E-01
1.9E-03 0

Nickel 7.1E-01 7. 1E-01 5.3E-01 ND 0 TPE: 7.8E-02 7. 7E-02 5.8E-02
Nitrate/Nitrite

TPE: 1.9E +01
1.7E+00 2.1E+01
2.0E+00 1.3E+01
1.2E+00 ND 0

Oil and Grease (HEM 4 )

TPE: 1.7E+02 1.4E+02 4.1E+01 8.2E+01 0

Phenanthrene 7. 2E-02 6.8E-02 ND ND 0 TPE: 2.1E-02 2.0E-02
Selenium 4.6E-02 4.5E -02 4.5E-02 2.3E-02 0 TPE: 5.1E-02 5.0E-02 5.0E-02 2.6E-02
Sulfate 3.2E+03 3.1E +03 3.1E+03 2.8E+03 0 TPE: 1.8E-02 1.7E-02 1.7E-02 1.6E-02
Thallium 9.8E-02 7.6E -02 7.6E-02 7.5E-02 0 TPE: 9.8E-02 7.6E-02 7.6E-02 7.5E-02
Total Sulfide 1.9E+01 1.7E+01 1.4E+01 ND 0 TPE: 5.4E+01 4.7E+01 3.8E+01
Zinc 2.6E+00 2.8E+ 00 1.7E+00 1.2E-01 0 TPE: 1.2E-01 1.3E-01 7.9E-02 5.5E-03
Total TPE Load 5.9E+01 5. 3E+01 4.2E+00 4.1E+01 0

1 Constituent concentrations are calculated using methodology described in Putnam and Singerman (2001).

2 CHT does not release constituents to the receiving waters.

3 No TPE value is calculated for this constituent. As discussed in the EEA Guidance Manual (Navy and EPA, 2000a),

the use of a proxy value indicated that t he contribution of this constituent to t he total TPE value is relatively small.

4 HEM TEC value was based on the fuel/lube TEC. For more information, see Development of TECs for Categories

of Oily Substances Derived from Petroleum and Foods (Navy and EPA, 2001c).
ND = Not Detected



### 71

### DRAFT - Surface Vessel Bilgewater – DAR 24 June 2003

Table 3-42. Summary of EEA for Baseline and MPCD Bilgewater Discharges from Medium CI Ships (at or above 400 tons and under 6000 tons) (MCM 1 Based on LSD 41 Surrogate Data)

Baseline Bilgewater Primary Treatment Primary Treatment Plus

Filter Media 1 Primary Treatment Plus Membrane Filtration 1 CHT
Number of Constituents exceeding strictest WQC 14 14 11 8 0

Total Number of Exceeded Numeric WQC 96 93 88 32 0

Number of Exceeded Narrative Categories 8 8 4 7 0
Discharge HI at EOMZ 3.9E- 01 3.6E-01 1.0E -01 1.9E-01 0
Potential for NIS Release Low Low Low Low None

Number of BCCs Identified 7 7 5 5 0

Discharge TPE (Saltwater) 4.6E+02 4.1E+02 4. 1E+01 3.1E+02 0

Discharge TPE (Freshwater) 5.9E+01 5.3E+01 4. 2E+00 4.1E+01 0

1 Constituent concentrations are ca lculated using methodology described in Putnam and Singerman (2001).



## In summary, the application of CHT to bilgewater has the leas t environmental impact because there is no direct discharge to the receiving water. The seco ndary treatment options provide bilgewater treatment performance that is superior for each of the analysis methods (e.g., criteria exceedance, HI, and TPE), to primary treatment al one. In addition, uncertainty due to potential variation in filter media perfor mance because of channeling sugge sts that the filter media may not provide the environmental performance eviden ced by these results. Primary treatment is expected to result in fewer deleterious environmental effect s than the baseline discharge.

MPCD ranking by overall environmental effect:

1. CHT 2. Primary treatment plus membrane filtrati on, or primary treatment plus filter media 3. Primary treatment only

Further information on the environmental effects analysis for this vessel group can be found in the respective chapter of the Bilgewater EEAR (Navy and EPA, 2003c).

0.0.0 MCM 1 Class Cost-Benefit Analysis

Cost benefit analysis for this vessel group is summarized below in Table 3-43.

72

### DRAFT - Surface Vessel Bilgewater – DAR 24 June 2003

Table 3-43. TPEs Removed for each MCPD Option and Associated Costs (MCM 1)

Filter Media Membrane Filtration CHT TPE removed from primary discharge by listed treatment 3.90E+02 1.60E+02 5.30E+02 Cost to non-USCG per TPE removed over primary treatment ($/yr) $2,811 $27,422 $837

Each new vessel $17 $181 $12 Cost to USCG per TPE removed over primary treatment ($/yr) $1,484 $14,561 $3,121

Each new vessel $17 $188 $52



## 3.10 S MALL 

## C OMPRESSION 

## I GNITION 

## V ESSELS 

## (WPB 110)

Small ships are defined as vessels under 400 tons of displacement, and 65 ft or more in length. This group consists of more than 60 vessel classe s including landing craft, patrol ships, torpedo trial craft, harbor tugs, and small buoy tenders. These ships have no more than four main propulsion CI engines. While sm aller ships have auxiliary mach inery, the size and amount of the equipment are substantially less than in ships over 400 tons. These vesse ls routinely operate within 12 nm from shore and in inland waters. Ho wever, some of the larger vessels in this group are designed as oceangoing vessels.

Ships in this vessel group receiv e fluids in the bilge mainly from condensation that forms on the interior hull and on piping, and fr om leaking pump packing glands, piping, valves, and flanges. The bilgewater of these ships may have oily co nstituents from DFM used for main engines and generators and lubricants such as 9250 lube oi l (main engines and generators), 2190TEP lube oil (auxiliary equipment), hydraulic oi l (elevators, cranes, and winc hes), and various grades of grease lubricants, used on pulleys, ca bles, valves, and other components.

3.10.1 WPB 110 Class Characterization

Characterization information was gathered on su rface vessel bilgewater to support subsequent environmental effects and feasibility analyses. This information primarily included ship systems specifications and details regard ing discharge composition. Ship systems data was acquired through process knowledge acquired from equipment experts.

Due to similarities in machinery, propulsion sy stems, and ancillary equipment, the LSD 41 vessel group discharge information is us ed to represent the WPB 110 vessel group.

Further information on the characterization of this discharge can be found in the respective chapter of the Bilgewater ChAR (Navy and EPA, 2003a).

3.10.2 WPB 110 Class Feasibility Impact

The feasibility impact analysis of surface vesse l bilgewater for this vessel group is summarized below in Table 3-44.

73DRAFT - Surface Vessel Bilgewater – DAR24 June 2003Table 3-44. WPB 110 Summary of Practicability and Operational Impact AnalysisMPCD OptionPRACTICABILITY AND OPERATIONAL IMPACT STUDYSpace andWeightPersonnel/EquipmentSafetyMissionCapabilitiesPersonnel Impact(operator labor hrs/year)Consumables,Repair Parts,and ToolsInterfaceRequirementsControl SystemRequirementsOther/UniqueImpactsWithin 12 nm(inc. maintenance)Beyond12 nmCurrent MPCD*12.5 ft3No impactNo impact4.1 hrs0.39 hrsNoneElectrical power.—AutomatedNone(Gravity132 lbs (dry)110/220VAC,control panel,Coalescer)190 lbs50/60Hz, 1 Phaseremote tank(flooded)level switches,No impactand OCMCentrifuge7 ft3No impactNo impact9.85 hrs0.39 hrsMinimal440 VACManual startup,None132 lbs (dry)OWS wouldconsumablesand repair partsPotable water- 1gpdOCMbe removedrequiredand replacedwith unitCHT—operatingNo impact—No impactNo impact1.2 hrNANoneNoneNoneNonefrom port withwithin currentshoresideholdingfacilitiescapacityCHT—operatingNo impact—No impactNo impactNo impactNANoneNoneNoneNonefrom port withoutwithin currentshoresideholdingfacilitiescapacityEvaporationNF– adequate space not available; excessive power requirementsHydrocycloneNF– compressed air not availableIn SituBiologicalTreatmentNF– cannot support batch treatment processOil AbsorbingSocksNF– potential safety (e.g., fire and flooding) hazard; solid waste handling impactsFilter MediaNF– adequate space not availableMembraneFiltrationNF– adequate space not available74DRAFT - Surface Vessel Bilgewater – DAR24 June 2003Table 3-45. WPB 110 MPCD Total Ownership Cost Comparison ($K/Vessel)MPCD OptionTotal InitialInside 12 nm/Inside+Beyond12 nmUSCG Total15-Yr RecurringInside 12 nm/Inside+Beyond12 nmUSCGAnnualizedInside 12 nm/Inside+Beyond12 nmUSCGTotal OwnershipInside 12 nm/Inside+Beyond12 nmOther Military ServicesTotal 15-Yr RecurringInside 12 nm/Inside+Beyond12 nmOther MilitaryServicesAnnualizedInside 12 nm/Inside+Beyond 12 nmOther MilitaryServicesTotal OwnershipInside 12 nm/Inside+Beyond 12 nmGravityCoalescence0/01.3/1.5.11/.131.3/1.51.0/1.10.09/0.091.0/1.1Centrifuge63.6/63.62.8/2.95.6/5.766.4/66.52.5/2.65.6/5.666/66.1CHT (withincurrent holdingcapacity)0/028.66/28.662.436/2.43628.66/28.662.63/2.63.223/.2232.63/2.6375

### DRAFT - Surface Vessel Bilgewater – DAR 24 June 2003



## 0.0.0 WPB 110 Class Environmental Effects

The environmental effects analysis of surf ace vessel bilgewater fo r this vessel group is summarized below in Table 3-46 and Table 3-47.

Table 3-46. Comparison of Discharge Constituent Concentrations (μg/L) that Exceed Numeric Water Quality Criteria in the Baseline Discharge and MPCD Discharges from Small Compression Ignition Ships (65 feet or more in length and under 400 tons of displacement) (WPB 110 Based on LSD 41 Surrogate Data)

Discharge Constituent Strictest WQC Baseline Primary Treatment Primary Treatment Plus Filter Media 1 CHT 2

Saltwater: Ammonia as Nitrogen 2.3E+02 1.2E+03 1. 3E+03 1.3E+03 0 Copper 2.4E+00 1.3E+01 1. 5E+01 1.5E+01 0
Iron 3.0E+02 3.4E+02 3.3E+02 1.3E+02 3 0
Lead 5.6E+00 8.9E+00 9. 8E+00 9.8E+00 0 Manganese 1.0E+02 1.1E+02 1. 1E+02 1.1E+02 0
Nickel 8.3E+00 1.1E+02 1. 1E+02 8.4E+01 0
Phenanthrene 5.0E+00 1.1E+01 1.1E+01 ND 0
Thallium 6.3E+00 1.5E+01 1. 2E+01 1.2E+01 0 Total Aqueous Hydrocarbons 1.5E+01 7.4E+01 7. 7E+01 7.7E+01 0 Total Aromatic Hydrocarbons 1.0E+01 2.4E+01 2.5E+01 ND 0
Zinc 5.0E+01 4.1E+02 4. 5E+02 2.7E+02 0
Freshwater:
Cadmium 1.1E+00 2.3E+00 2. 4E+00 2.4E+00 0 Copper 8.8E+00 1.3E+01 1. 5E+01 1.5E+01 0
Zinc 6.4E+01 9.8E+01 9. 1E+01 9.1E+01 0

Number of Constituents exceeding strictest WQC - 14 14 11 0

Total Exceeded Numeric Criteria - 96 93 88 0

1 For new design consideration only. Constituent conc entrations are calculated using methodology described

in Putnam and Singerman (2001). 2 CHT does not release constituents to the receiving waters. 3 Value does not exceed criteria.

ND = Not detected



### 77

### DRAFT - Surface Vessel Bilgewater – DAR 24 June 2003

Table 3-47. Comparison of Discharge Constituents of Concern Mass Loading (lbs/yr) and Toxic

Pound Equivalent Loading (TPE lbs/yr) in Baseline and MPCD Discharges from Vessels with Nuclear Steam Propulsion (WPB 110)

Discharge Constituent Baseline Primary Treatment Primary Treatment Plus

Filter Media 1 CHT 2

Saltwater: Ammonia as Nitrogen 1.9E +01 2.0E+01 2.0E+01 0 TPE: 1.6E-01 1.6E-01 1.6E-01
Cadmium 3.6E-02 3.7E-02 3.7E-02 0 TPE: 2.4E-02 2.5E-02 2.5E-02 Copper 3.1E+00 2.9E+00 1.4E+00 0 TPE: 5.6E+00 5.2E+00 2.6E+00
Iron 5.3E+00 5.1E+00 ND 0 TPE: 9.0E-03 8.7E-03
Lead 1.4E-01 1. 5E-01 1.5E-01 0 TPE: 9.6E-02 1.1E -01 1.1E-01 Manganese 1.7E+00 1.7E+00 1.7E+00 0 TPE: 1.0E+00 1.0E+00 1.0E+00 Naphthalene
TPE: 2.1E-01
9.6E-03 2.3E-01
1.1E-02 ND 0

Nickel 1.8E+00 1.8E+00 1.3E+00 0 TPE: 1.2E+00 1.2E+00 9.0E-01
Nitrate/Nitrite 4.6E +01 5.3E+01 3.2E+01 0 TPE: 4.3E+00 4.9E+00 2.9E+00 Oil and Grease (HEM 4 )

TPE: 4.2E+02 3.4E+02 1.0E+02 0

Phenanthrene 1. 8E-01 1.7E-01 ND 0 TPE: 9.0E-02 8.6E-02
Selenium 1.1E-01 1.1E-01 1.1E-01 0 TPE: 8.9E-03 8.8E-03 8.8E-03
Sulfate 7.8E+03 7.7E+03 7.7E+03 0 TPE: 4.4E-02 4.3E-02 4.3E-02
Thallium 2.4E-01 1.9E-01 1.9E-01 0 TPE: 2.1E-01 1.7E -01 1.7E-01
Total Sulfide 4.7E+01 4.1E+01 ND 0 TPE: 1.3E+02 1.2E+02
Zinc 6.4E+00 7.0E+00 4.2E+00 0 TPE: 4.4E-01 4.9E -01 2.9E-01
Total TPE Load 1.5E+ 02 1.3E+02 1.4E+01 0
Freshwater:
Cadmium 3.6E-03 3.6E-03 3.6E-03 0 TPE: 9.4E-03 9.5E-03 9.5E-03



### 78

### DRAFT - Surface Vessel Bilgewater – DAR 24 June 2003

Discharge Constituent Baseline Primary Treatment Primary Treatment Plus

Filter Media 1 CHT 2
Copper 3.1E-01 2.8E-01 1.4E-01 0 TPE: 1.9E-01 1.8E-01 8.9E-02
Iron 5.2E-01 5.0E-01 ND 0 TPE: 2.9E-03 2.8E-03
Lead 1.4E-02 1. 5E-02 1.5E-02 0 TPE: 3.1E-02 3.4E -02 3.4E-02 Manganese 1.7E-01 1.7E-01 1.7E-01 0 TPE: 1.2E-02 1.2E -02 1.2E-02 Naphthalene

TPE: 2.0E-02
3.1E-04 2.2E-02
3.4E-04 ND 0

Nickel 1.7E-01 1. 7E-01 1.3E-01 0 TPE: 1.9E-02 1.9E-02 1.4E-02
Nitrate/Nitrite 4.5E +00 5.2E+00 3.1E+00 0 TPE: 4.2E-01 4.8E -01 2.9E-01 Oil and Grease (HEM 4 )

TPE: 4.1E+01 3.3E+01 9.8E+00 0

Phenanthrene 1. 7E-02 1.7E-02 ND 0 TPE: 5.1E-03 4.9E-03
Selenium 1.1E-02 1.1E-02 1.1E-02 0 TPE: 1.2E-02 1.2E -02 1.2E-02
Sulfate 7.7E+02 7.6E+02 7.6E+02 0 TPE: 4.3E-03 4.2E -03 4.2E-03
Thallium 2.4E-02 1.8E-02 1.8E-02 0 TPE: 2.4E-02 1.8E -02 1.8E-02
Total Sulfide 4.6E+00 4.1E+00 ND 0 TPE: 1.3E+01 1.1E+01
Zinc 6.3E-01 6. 9E-01 4.1E-01 0 TPE: 3.0E-02 3.2E -02 1.9E-02
Total TPE Load 1.4E+ 01 1.3E+01 1.0E+01 0

1 Constituent concentrations are calculated using methodology described in Putnam and Singerman (2001).

2 CHT does not release constituents to the receiving waters.

3 No TPE value is calculated for this constituent. As discussed in the EEA Guidance Manual (Navy and EPA, 2000a),

the use of a proxy value indicated that t he contribution of this constituent to t he total TPE value is relatively small.

4 HEM TEC value was based on the fuel/lube TEC. For more information, see Development of TECs for Categories

of Oily Substances Derived from Petroleum and Foods (Navy and EPA, 2001c).
ND = Not Detected



### 79

### DRAFT - Surface Vessel Bilgewater – DAR 24 June 2003

Table 3-48. Summary of EEA for Baseline a nd MPCD Bilgewater Discharges from Small Compression Ignition Ships (65 feet or more in length and under 400 tons of displacement) (WPB 110 Based on LSD 41 Surrogate Data)

Baseline Bilgewater Primary Treatment Primary Treatment Plus Filter Media 1 CHT Number of Constituents exceeding strictest WQC 14 14 11 0

Total Number of Exceeded Numeric WQC 96 93 88 0

Number of Exceeded Narrative Categories 8 7 4 0
Discharge HI at EOMZ 6. 3E-02 5.8E-02 1.7E-02 0
Potential for NIS Release Low Low Low None
Number of BCCs Identified 7 7 5 0 Discharge TPE (Saltwater) 1.5E+02 1.3E+02 1.4E+01 0 Discharge TPE (Freshwater) 1.4E+01 1.3E+01 1.0E+01 0

1 For new design consideration only. Constituent concen trations are calculated using methodology described in

Putnam and Singerman (2001).



## In summary, the application of CHT to bilgewater has the leas t environmental impact because there is no direct discharge to th e receiving water. Primary treatment is expected to result in fewer deleterious environmental eff ects than the baseline discharge.

MPCD ranking by overall environmental effect:

1. CHT 2. Primary treatment plus filter media (for new design consideration only) 3. Primary treatment only

Further information on the environmental effects analysis for this vessel group can be found in the respective chapter of the Bilgewater EEAR (Navy and EPA, 2003c).

0.0.0 WPB 110 Class Cost-Benefit Analysis

Cost benefit analysis for this vessel group is summarized below in Table 3-49.

80

### DRAFT - Surface Vessel Bilgewater – DAR 24 June 2003

Table 3-49. TPEs Removed for each MCPD Option and Associated Costs (WPB 110)

Filter Media CHT TPE removed from primary discharge by listed treatment 1.47E+02 1.90E+02 Cost to non-USCG per TPE removed over primary treatment ($/yr) $0 $408

Each new vessel $73 $24 Cost to USCG per TPE removed over primary treatment ($/yr) $0 $1,923

Each new vessel $73 $36



# 0.0 SUMMARY

Surface vessel bilgewater was identified in Phase I of the UNDS program as a discharge requiring control with an MPCD. The vessels th at produce this discharge were sorted into 13 vessel groups. For five of these vessel groups, a streamlined analysis was performed because these vessels can collect, hold, and transfer (to shore for treatment at a properly permitted facility) all bilgewater that otherwise would be discharged within 12 nm of shore.. The remaining eight vessel groups were subjected to a full analysis, incl uding feasibility and environmental effects components. Four MPCD option groups were identified and screened for the treatment of bilgewater, including CHT, primary treatment (represented by gravity coalescence), filter media, and ultrafiltration.

The feasibility analysis of the four MPCD opti on groups (baseline was provided for comparison) culminated in a cost analysis of feasible opt ions. These various co sts can be found throughout this report. The only options deemed too impr actical for consideration were the secondary treatment options (fi lter media and ultrafilt ration) for the WHEC and WPB vessel groups.

The environmental effects analyses culminated in a ranking of MPCD options. The application of CHT to bilgewater has the l east environmental impact because there is no direct discharge to the receiving water within 12 nm. The secondary treatment options generally provide bilgewater treatment performance that is equal or superior , for each of the analysis methods (e.g., criteria exceedance, HI, and TPE), to primary treatment alone. Primary treatment is expected to result in fewer deleterious environmental eff ects than the baseline discharge.

81

### DRAFT - Surface Vessel Bilgewater – DAR 24 June 2003



# 0.0 REFERENCES

ACEIT. 1999. ACEIT Custom ers. ACEIT, Automating the Estimating Environment. http://www.aceit.com/main/aceitcustomers.asp. Accessed 11 June 2001.

EPA. 1991. Technical Suppor ting Document for Water Qual ity-based Toxics Control. U.S. Environmental Protection Agenc y, Office of Water, Washington, DC. EPA/505/2-90-001. March 1991.

EPA and DoD. 1999. Phase I Uniform National Di scharge Standards for Vessels of the Armed Forces: Technical Development Document. US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC. EPA 821-R-99-001.

Freeman, H.M. 1989. Standard Handbook for H azardous Waste Treatment and Disposal.

International Maritime Organization (IMO). Guid elines for the Implementation of Annex I of MARPOL 73/78. IMO, London. 1978. Revised 1992.

Navy and EPA. 2000a. Environmental Effects An alysis Guidance for Phase II of the Uniform National Discharge Standards for Vessels of the Armed Forces. US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washi ngton, DC, and US Navy, Naval Sea Systems Command, Washington, DC. September 2000.

Navy and EPA. 2000b. Marine Pollution Contro l Device Screen Criteria Guidance. US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC, and US Navy, Naval Sea Systems Command, Wa shington, DC. October 2000.

Navy and EPA. 2000c. Feasibility Impact Analysis Guidance Document for Phase II of the Uniform National Discharge Standards for Vessels of the Armed Forces. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC, and U.S. Navy, Naval Sea Systems Command, Washington, DC. August 2000.

Navy and EPA. 2001a. Vessel Grouping and Repres entative Vessel Class Selection for Surface Vessel Bilgewater/OWS Discharge. US E nvironmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC, and US Navy, Naval Sea Systems Command, Washington, DC. July 2001.

Navy and EPA. 2001b. Technical Approach for Pierside Modeling to Support UNDS EEA Phase II. US Environmental Protection Ag ency, Office of Water, Washington, DC, and US Navy, Naval Sea Systems Comm and, Washington, DC. July 2001.

Navy and EPA. 2001c. Development of TECs for Categories of Oily Substances Derived from Petroleum and Foods. U.S. Environmenta l Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC, and U.S. Navy, Naval S ea Systems Command, Washington, DC. May 2001.

82

### DRAFT - Surface Vessel Bilgewater – DAR 24 June 2003



## Navy and EPA. 2002a. Uniform National Disc harge Standards (UNDS) New Design Analysis Approach. December 2002.

Navy and EPA. 2002b. Shipboard Compliance a nd Pollution Prevention Programs for Armed Forces Vessels.

Navy and EPA. 2003a. Characterization Analys is Report: Surface Vessel Bilgewater/OWS Discharge. U.S. Environmental Protecti on Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC, and U.S. Navy, Naval Sea Systems Command, Washington, DC. March 2003.

Navy and EPA. 2003b. Feasibility Impact Anal ysis Report, Surface Vessel Bilgewater/OWS Discharge. US Environmental Protection Ag ency, Office of Water, Washington, DC, and US Navy, Naval Sea Systems Comm and, Washington, DC. March 2003.

Navy and EPA. 2003c. Environmental E ffects Analysis Report: Surface Vessel Bilgewater/OWS Discharge. U.S. Environm ental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC, and U.S. Navy, Naval Sea Systems Command, Washington, DC. January 2003.

Navy and EPA. 2003d. High Resolution Gas Chroma tography-Mass Spectrometry Analysis of Bilgewater Extract Samples for Pesticides . Report to: US Navy, Naval Sea Systems command (Code 05M4), Washington, DC, and US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC. Prepared by: Dr. Thomas G. Hartman, Center for Advanced Food Technology, Cook College, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ.

Navy. 1998. Sampling Episode Report - Volume II. US Navy, Naval Sea Systems Command, Washington, DC. March 1998.

Navy. 2000a. Uniform National Discharge Stan dards Surface Vessel Bilgewater/ Oil-Water Separator (OWS) Discharge Sampling Ep isode Report -USS BONHOMME RICHARD (LHD 6). Naval Surface Warfare Center, Ca rderock Division, Ph iladelphia, PA. 4 October 2000. NSWCCD-TM-63-99/241.

Navy. 2000b. Uniform National Discharge St andards Surface Vessel Bilgewater/OWS Discharge Gas Turbine Water Wash, Revers e Osmosis Brine, and Seawater Cooling Overboard Discharge Sampling Episode Repor t USS MAHAN (DDG 72). Naval Surface Warfare Center, Carderock Division, Phila delphia, PA. 13 October 2000. NSWCCDTM-63-99/235.

Navy. 2000c. Uniform National Discharge Stan dards Surface Vessel Bilgewater/ Oil-Water Separator (OWS) Discharge Sampling Epis ode Report –USS DAVID R. RAY (DD 971). Naval Surface Warfare Center, Carderock Divi sion, Philadelphia, PA. 10 October 2000. NSWCCD-TM-63-99/233.

83

### DRAFT - Surface Vessel Bilgewater – DAR 24 June 2003



## Navy. 2000d. Uniform National Discharge Stan dards Surface Vessel Bilgewater/Oil Water Separator (OWS) Discharge Sampli ng Episode Report USCGC MORGENTHAU (WHEC 722). Naval Surface Warfare Center, Carderock Division, Philadelphia, PA. 25 August 2000. NSWCCD-TM-63-99/237.

Navy. 2000e. Uniform National Discharge St andards Surface Vessel Bilgewater/OWS Discharge Sampling Episode Report USS O AK HILL (LSD 51). Naval Surface Warfare Center, Carderock Division, Philadelphia, PA. 12 October 2000. NSWCCD-TM-63- 99/236.

Navy. 2001a. Uniform National Discharge Stan dards Surface Vessel Bilgewater/ Oil-Water Separator (OWS) Discharge Sampling Epis ode Report –USS CARNEY(DDG 64). Naval Surface Warfare Center, Carderock Divi sion, Philadelphia, PA. 20 April 2001. NSWCCD-TR-63-00/261.

Navy. 2001b. Uniform National Discharge St andards Surface Vessel Bilgewater/OWS Discharge Gas Turbine Water Wash, Revers e Osmosis Brine, and Seawater Cooling Overboard Discharge Sampling Episode Re port USS RUSHMORE (LSD 47). Naval Surface Warfare Center, Carderock Divi sion, Philadelphia, PA. 8 June 2001. NSWCCD-TR-63-00/264.

Oil Dri Corporation of America. 2000. Compan y Marketing Materials [advertisement]. June 2000.

OMB. 1992. Circular No. A-94 Revised (Tra nsmittal Memo No. 64). Memorandum for Heads of Executive Departments and Establishmen ts. Office of Management and Budget. Washington, DC. 29 October 1992.

Putnam, D.R., and H. Singerman. 2001. Treatment Capability and Shipboard Feasibility of Oily Waste Treatment Alternatives. Native Amer ican Consultants, Inc. Annapolis, MD. 5 April 2001.

84