### Page 1 of 26

MEMORANDUM

TO: Dan Buford and George N o guchi, Fish and Wildlife Service

Jennifer S c hultz

, Ron Dean, and Pat Shaw

- Allen , NOAA

FROM: Ryan Albert and Jamie Piziali

, Environmental Protection Agency

DATE: October 25 , 2012

SUBJECT: Addendum to the Biol ogical Evaluation for the 2013 Vessel General Permit

(VGP) and Small Vessel General Permit (sVGP)

- Correction for Anti

fouling Leachate and Selenium Discharge s

This memorandum is an addendum to the Biological Evaluation (BE) for the 2013 VGP and

sVGP to correct two issues in the Quantitative Effects Analysis (Section 5) : copper loadings

from anti

- foulant hull coatings and selenium loadings from exhaust gas scrubbers. We

appreciate the Services ’ input and feedback regarding our biological evaluation, and have

conducted supplementary analyses to further explore these issues. Regarding copper, i n

preparing the BE , EPA inadvertently excluded from its analys i s pollutant loadings contributed by

anti

- fouling leachate discharges. This memo first describes coppe r loadings, updates those

loadings, estimates concentrations of copper in harbors resulting from copper, and finally, briefly

discusses impacts to our risk quotient analyses. Regarding selenium , EPA both grossly

overestimated the numbers of vessels that wo uld be using “open loop” exhaust gas scrubbers and

there appears to be matrix interference in the selenium measurements used to calculate loadings.

Beginning on page 19 , we discuss the previous overestimates of selenium loadi ngs and provide

more accurate, updated estimates. Based on these supplemental analyses, we still conclude that

these pollutants are not likel y to adversely affect listed species or critical habitat

.

I. Copper

EPA describes copper leached from vessel anti

- fou ling coatings into receiving waters in Section

3.2 (Vessel Discharges Meriting Detailed Analysis) of the BE

. We then discuss the quantitative

analysis performed for pollutants such as copper in Section 5.2 .1 (Hypothetical Harbor and

Estimation of Exposure Concentrations) and in Appendix G (Methodology for Hypothetical

Harbor Modeling) of the B E.

EPA made the following errors in estimating copper loads discharged from vessel anti

- fouling

leachate and in the subsequent quantitative analysis:

Text on page 3

- 38 and Table 3

- 18 mistakenly exclude sVGP vessels;

Table 3

- 18 mistakenly omits an important clarification that few barges use anti

- fouling

coatings; and

### Pag e 2 of 26

The quantitative analyses described in Section 5.2.1 , Section 5.4.1, Section 5.4.2, and

Appendix G mist akenly exclude copper loadings from vessel anti

- fouling leachate.

a. Corrected Text on Page 3

- 38 and Corrected Table 3

- 18

Table 3

- 18 did not include the copper loadings which would originate from anti

- foulant coatings

on sVGP vessels and relevant text did n ot include discussion. The following paragraph replaces

the final paragraph on page 3

- 38 of the BE:

Another source of copper is from anti

- fouling coatings applied to the vessel hull to

prevent biofouling. Copper can leach from anti

- fouling coatings at ra tes ranging from 4 to

17 μg/cm 2 

### /day 1 

### . To estimate the amount of copper leached from ant i

- fouling coa tings on

the various types of VGP and sVGP vessels, the average vessel length and draft (i.e.,

depth below the water line) was estimated and an average copp er leaching rate applied.

Table 3

- 18 shows the estimated daily amount of copper leached from VGP and sVGP

vessel types. Copper leaching rates range from 0.0 057 lbs/day for small commercial

fishing vessels to up to 2.6 lbs/day for large oil and gas tankers.

The following table with sVGP vessels replaces Tabl e 3

- 18 on page 3

- 40 of the BE (note there

are no changes to VGP vessels in this table) :

Table 3

- 18 . Estimated Amount of Copper Leached from Anti

- fouling Coatings Applied to

Various Vessel Types

Vessel Type Average

Vessel

Length (ft) Estimated

Vessel Draft

(ft) Wetted

Hull Area

(ft 2 ) Average Copper

Leaching Rate

(μ g/cm 2 /day) j Estimated Copper

Leaching Rate

(lbs/day/vessel)

Barges 175 a 10 d 3,500 10.5 0.075 n

Oil and Gas Tankers 797 b 75 e 120,257 10.5 2.6

Large Commercial

Fishing Vessels 250 a 17 f 8,500 10.5 0.18

Large Cruise Ships 995 c 28 g 55,706 10.5 1.2

Large Ferries 200 a 15.5 h 6,200 10.5 0.13

Medium Cruise

Ships 325 a 15.5 h 10,075 10.5 0.22

Bulk Cargo and

Other Carriers 663 b 38 i 50,355 10.5 1.1

Sma ll Commercial

Fishing Vessels 33 k 4 l 264 10.5 0.0057

Passenger Vessels

(tour boats, water

taxis, etc.) 45 k 4 m 360 10.5 0.0077

1 

### USEPA. 2011. Technical Development Document (TD D): Underwater Hull Husbandry, EPA

800

- R

- 11

- 004, November 2011.

### Pag e 3 of 26

Table 3

- 18 . Estimated Amount of Copper Leached from Anti

- fouling Coatings Applied to

Various Vessel Types

Vessel Type Average

Vessel

Length (ft) Estimated

Vessel Draft

(ft) Wetted

Hull Area

(ft 2 ) Average Copper

Leaching Rate

(μ g/cm 2 /day) j Estimated Copper

Leaching Rate

(lbs/day/vessel)

Utility Vessels (tug

boats, off

- shore

vessels, etc.) 50 k 4 m 400 10.5 0.0086

a) Average length estimated from Figure 1.3 of USEPA’s Report to Congress (USEPA, 2010).

b) Average length for oil tankers and bulk cargo carriers from Chamber of Shipping of America, MSD Survey, 2010.

c) Average cruise ship length calculated from the following cruise ships: Carnival Freedom, Disney Magic, Golden P rincess

and Freedom of the Sea.

d) Estimated draft for barges based on Barge Number 4727, Ingram, Nashville, TN.

e) Estimated draft for oil and gas tankers based on a Suezmax tanker,

http://people.hofstra.edu/geotrans/eng/ch5en/appl5en/tankers.html

f) Estimated draft for large commercial fishing boats based on trawlers, http://maritimesales.com/fishing%20vessels.htm

g) Estimated d raft for large cruise ships based on Royal Caribbean Freedom of the Seas.

h) Estimated draft for large ferries and medium cruise ships based on Washington State Department of Transportation’s M/V

Sealth, passenger/auto ferry.

i) Estimated draft for bulk cargo ve ssels based on Golden Pegasus Navigation S.A High Glow vessel.

j) Average copper leaching rate from USEPA Underwater Ship Husbandry Discharges, (USEPA, 2011f).

k) Average length estimated from Figure 1.5 of USEPA’s Report to Congress (USEPA, 2010).

l) Estimated dra ft for small commercial fishing boats 30 to 40 feet in length, http://pacificboatbrokers.com/fishing/licvess.asp

. m) Estimated draft for various passenger and utility vessels, http://www.taxi

- boat.com/

, http://commercial.apolloduck.com/

, http://allmandboats.com/

. n) Per EPA’s Notice of Intent database, very few barges use ant i

- fouling coatings. EPA assumes these barges are engaged in

coastwise trade of bulk cargo.

### Pag e 4 of 26 b. Corrected Loads and Harbor Concentrations Analyse s

The following table replaces Table G

- 8 on page G

- 75 of the BE:

Table G

- 8. Total VGP and sVGP Pollutant Loads for RAA Harbors Under Pre

- permit

Class Analyte Estuary Harbor Loads (lb/day) River Harbor Loads (lb/day)

Seattle Houston New

York San Fran Miami Duluth St. Louis

Classicals Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) 21,000 1,100 8,970 3,540 4,960 161 180

Class icals Hexane Extractable Material (HEM) 1,430 255 1,510 703 1,460 14.1 16.7

Classicals Silica Gel Treated HEM (SGT

- HEM) 389 76.9 372 182 371 3.72 4.19

Classicals Total Residual Chlorine 49.3 0.561 4.6 1.08 1.65 0.0537 0.0642

Classicals Total Suspended S olids (TSS) 4,650 589 1,720 831 1,070 40.1 45.6

Metals Aluminum, Total 29.5 9.97 19.5 9.51 13.8 0.513 0.653

Metals Arsenic, Dissolved 8.47 44.5 39.1 26.1 20.1 3.21 0

Metals Arsenic, Total 8.65 44.5 39.1 26.2 20.2 3.21 0.000734

Metals Cadmium, Dissolved 0.0199 0.00449 0.00589 0.00378 0.00425 0.000207 0.000252

Metals Chromium, Dissolved 0.044 0.0142 0.0157 0.0103 0.00991 0.00078 0.000449

Metals Copper, Dissolved 24.2 68.7 54.9 31.4 23.8 3.21 0.43

Metals Lead, Dissolved 0.066 0.0203 0.0678 0.0267 0.0437 0.00143 0.0018

Metals Nickel, Dissolved 1.26 6.69 5.9 3.93 3.06 0.481 0.00107

Metals Nickel, Total 0.115 0.256 0.288 0.169 0.203 0.0141 0.00227

Metals Selenium, Dissolved **   **  ** ** 0

Metals Selenium, Total   **  **   0

### Pag e 5 of 26

Table G

- 8. Total VGP and sVGP Pollutant Loads for RAA Harbors Under Pre

- permit

Class Analyte Estuary Harbor Loads (lb/day) River Harbor Loads (lb/day)

Seattle Houston New

York San Fran Miami Duluth St. Louis

Metals Zinc, Dis solved 11.3 1.43 8.58 3.12 5.05 0.157 0.189

Nutrients Ammonia As Nitrogen (NH3

- N) 219 4.06 36.8 21.5 21.7 0.626 0.53

Nutrients Total Phosphorus 273 19.7 96 56.3 98.8 0.886 0.859

SVOC 2,4,6

- Trichlorophenol 0.0236 0.00363 0.00393 0.00294 0.0021 0.000198 0 .000221

SVOC Benzo(a)anthracene 0.158 0.156 0.142 0.0972 0.069 0.0156 0.00521

SVOC Benzo(a)pyrene 0.141 0.0862 0.0808 0.0562 0.0375 0.0105 0.00505

SVOC Benzo(b)fluoranthene 0.112 0.0101 0.0133 0.0108 0.00325 0.00445 0.00442

SVOC Benzo(k)fluoranthene 0. 124 0.0111 0.0147 0.012 0.0036 0.00493 0.00489

SVOC Bis(2

- ethylhexyl) phthalate 0.131 0.0285 0.0349 0.023 0.0213 0.00376 0.00387

SVOC Chrysene 0.169 0.217 0.196 0.133 0.0965 0.02 0.00521

SVOC Ideno(1,2,3

- cd)pyrene 0.0997 0.00899 0.0118 0.00966 0.0029 0. 00398 0.00395

VOC Benzene 0.716 0.11 0.136 0.0964 0.069 0.0222 0.0228

VOC Bromodichloromethane 0.0319 0.035 0.0448 0.0243 0.0368 0.00143 0.00192

VOC Dibromochloromethane 0.0319 0.035 0.0448 0.0243 0.0368 0.00143 0.00192

VOC Tetrachloroethene 0.000263 0 .000588 0.000662 0.000388 0.000465 0.0000324 0.00000521

VOC Trichloroethene 0.992 26.2 4.81 0.215 0.222 0.0000737 4.63



### ** Note that Selenium values have been removed and are discussed later in this memo.

### Pag e 6 of 26

The following table replaces Table G

- 9 on page G

- 7 6 of the BE:

Table G

- 9. Total VGP and sVGP Pollutant Loads for RAA Harbors Under Post

- permit Conditions

Class Analyte Estuary Harbor Loads (lb/day) River Harbor Loads (lb/day)

Seattle Houston New

York San Fran Miami Duluth St. Louis

Classicals Bioc hemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) 15,500 930 8,580 3,130 4,770 146 178

Classicals Hexane Extractable Material (HEM) 718 123 745 345 721 5.5 6.08

Classicals Silica Gel Treated HEM (SGT

- HEM) 205 37.7 184 89.6 182 1.55 1.64

Classicals Total Residual Chlorine 15. 2 0.417 3.02 0.937 1.46 0.0456 0.0623

Classicals Total Suspended Solids (TSS) 2,980 263 1,250 519 703 24.2 31.8

Metals Aluminum, Total 23.5 6.43 14.5 6.26 9 0.323 0.603

Metals Arsenic, Dissolved 8.35 44.5 39.1 26.1 20.1 3.21 0

Metals Arsenic, Total 8.5 44.5 39.1 26.2 20.2 3.21 0.000734

Metals Cadmium, Dissolved 0.016 0.00281 0.00359 0.00225 0.00216 0.000116 0.000231

Metals Chromium, Dissolved 0.0426 0.012 0.0134 0.00886 0.00816 0.000661 0.000434

Metals Copper, Dissolved 19 .0 53.6 43.2 24.8 18.9 2.57 0.336

Metals Lead, Dissolved 0.0602 0.014 0.0591 0.0212 0.0353 0.00109 0.00172

Metals Nickel, Dissolved 1.23 6.68 5.89 3.93 3.05 0.481 0.00106

Metals Nickel, Total 0.115 0.256 0.288 0.169 0.203 0.0141 0.00227

Metals Selenium, Dissolved **   **  ** * * 0

Metals Selenium, Total **   **  ** ** 0

Metals Zinc, Dissolved 10.4 1.11 8.14 2.83 4.66 0.139 0.185

Nutrients Ammonia As Nitrogen (NH3

- N) 171 3.67 34.7 18.8 21.4 0.558 0.528

### Pag e 7 of 26

Table G

- 9. Total VGP and sVGP Pollutant Loads for RAA Harbors Under Post

- permit Conditions

Class Analyte Estuary Harbor Loads (lb/day) River Harbor Loads (lb/day)

Seattle Houston New

York San Fran Miami Duluth St. Louis

Nutrients Total Phosphorus 12.5 1.22 2.28 1.32 1.11 0.0767 0.116

SVOC 2,4,6

- Trichlorophenol 0.0118 0.00228 0.00219 0.00149 0.00106 0.0000992 0.000193

SVOC Benzo(a)anthracene 0.158 0.156 0.142 0.0972 0.069 0.0156 0.00521

SVOC Benzo(a)pyrene 0.141 0.0862 0.0808 0.0562 0.0375 0.0105 0.00505

SVOC Benzo(b)fluoranthene 0.112 0. 0101 0.0133 0.0108 0.00325 0.00445 0.00442

SVOC Benzo(k)fluoranthene 0.124 0.0111 0.0147 0.012 0.0036 0.00493 0.00489

SVOC Bis(2

- ethylhexyl) phthalate 0.0976 0.0159 0.0186 0.0127 0.00842 0.0031 0.00342

SVOC Chrysene 0.169 0.217 0.196 0.133 0.0965 0.02 0 .00521

SVOC Ideno(1,2,3

- cd)pyrene 0.0997 0.00899 0.0118 0.00966 0.0029 0.00398 0.00395

VOC Benzene 0.593 0.0739 0.0891 0.0657 0.0326 0.0203 0.0215

VOC Bromodichloromethane 0.011 0.0109 0.0132 0.00638 0.00935 0.000368 0.000865

VOC Dibromochloromethane 0 .011 0.0109 0.0132 0.00638 0.00935 0.000368 0.000865

VOC Tetrachloroethene 0.000132 0.000294 0.000331 0.000194 0.000233 0.0000162 0.00000261

VOC Trichloroethene 0.00439 0.000847 0.000814 0.000552 0.000395 0.0000368 0.0000716



### **Note that Selenium values have been removed and are discussed later in this memo.

### Pag e 8 of 26

In order to provide the best information regarding potential sources of copper loadings from vessels, we have added two table s below

describing what we believe to be the primary vessel types and dis charge streams which result in copper source loadings. Tables 1 and

2 below present the revised dissolved copper loadings by wastestream fo r each of the harbor scenarios. These revised loadings

increased the estimated dissolved copper receiving water conc entrations for the 14 hypothetical harbor scenarios evaluated in the BE.

Table 1. Pre

- Permit Dissolved Copper Loads by Wastestream for Harbor Scenarios

Permit Vessel Type Discharge Type Estuary Harbor Loads (lb/day) River Harbor Loads

(lb/day)

Seatt le Houston New York San Fran Miami Duluth St. Louis

VGP Oil/Gas Tankers Antifouling 0.243 47.5 14 7.59 0 0 0

VGP Cargo/Bulk Carrier Antifouling 3.14 11 18.9 13.6 10 2.29 0

VGP Oil/Gas Tankers Exhaust Gas Scrubber (Saltwater) 0.0267 5.22 1.54 0.834 0 0 0

VGP Cargo/Bulk Carrier Exhaust Gas Scrubber (Saltwater) 0.816 2.86 4.9 3.52 2.6 0.594 0

VGP Large Cruise Ship Antifouling 4.8 1.2 6 3.6 8.4 0 0

sVGP Utility Boats Antifouling 0.0516 0.367 0.249 0.14 0.066 0.141 0.14

VGP Large Cruise Ship Exhaust Gas S crubber (Saltwater) 0.643 0.161 0.804 0.482 1.13 0 0

VGP Large Cruise Ship Graywater 0.285 0.0714 0.357 0.214 0.499 0 0

sVGP Utility Boats Wet Exhaust (Propulsion) 0.00768 0.0547 0.037 0.0209 0.00982 0.021 0.0209

VGP Oil/Gas Tankers Deck Washdown 0.0002 69 0.0527 0.0155 0.0084 0 0 0

VGP Barge Deck Washdown 0.00104 0.0276 0.00507 0.000225 0.000234 0 0.00489

VGP Oil/Gas Tankers Bilgewater 0.00013 0.0253 0.00747 0.00404 0 0 0

VGP Cargo/Bulk Carrier Deck Washdown 0.00527 0.0184 0.0316 0.0227 0.0168 0.00384 0

VGP Large Cruise Ship Deck Washdown 0.0566 0.0142 0.0708 0.0425 0.0991 0 0

VGP Barge Bilgewater 0.000501 0.0133 0.00245 0.000109 0.000113 0 0.00236

VGP Cargo/Bulk Carrier Bilgewater 0.00253 0.00887 0.0152 0.0109 0.00808 0.00185 0

VGP Oil/Gas Tankers Graywater 0.0000425 0.00831 0.00245 0.00133 0 0 0

VGP Oil/Gas Tankers Stern Tube Packing Gland 0.0000321 0.00627 0.00185 0.001 0 0 0

sVGP Utility Boats Graywater 0.000743 0.00529 0.00358 0.00202 0.000951 0.00204 0.00202

VGP Cargo/Bulk Carrier Graywater 0.00148 0.00516 0.00885 0.00636 0.0047 0.00107 0

VGP Large Cruise Ship Bilgewater 0.0119 0.00298 0.0149 0.00894 0.0209 0 0

sVGP Utility Boats Wet Exhaust (Generator) 0.000381 0.00271 0.00183 0.00103 0.000486 0.00104 0.00103

VGP Cargo/Bulk Carrier Stern Tube Packing Gland 0.000627 0.00219 0.00376 0.0027 0.002 0.000456 0

sVGP Utility Boats Bilgewater 0.000185 0.00132 0.000892 0.000503 0.000237 0.000508 0.000503

### Pag e 9 of 26

Table 1. Pre

- Permit Dissolved Copper Loads by Wastestream for Harbor Scenarios

Permit Vessel Type Discharge Type Estuary Harbor Loads (lb/day) River Harbor Loads

(lb/day)

Seatt le Houston New York San Fran Miami Duluth St. Louis

sVGP Passenger Vessel Antifouling 0.115 0.000749 0.077 0.0341 0.038 0.0127 0.0154

VGP Large Cruise Ship Stern Tube Packing Gland 0.00295 0.000737 0.00368 0.00221 0.00516 0 0

sVGP Passenger Vessel Graywater 0.0872 0.000567 0.0582 0.0258 0.0288 0.00957 0.0116

sVGP Utility Boats Deck Washdown 0.0000294 0.000209 0.000142 0.00008 0.0000376 0.0000807 0.00008

sVGP Passenger Vessel Wet Exhaust (Propulsion) 0.0217 0.000141 0.0145 0.0064 0.00714 0.00238 0.00289

sVGP Utility Boats Stern Tube Packing Gland 6.61E

- 06 0.000047 0.0000318 0.000018 0.00000845 0.0000181 0.000018

sVGP Passenger Vessel Wet Exhaus t (Generator) 0.00341 0.0000221 0.00228 0.00101 0.00112 0.000374 0.000455

sVGP Passenger Vessel Bilgewater 0.000275 1.79E

- 06 0.000184 0.0000813 0.0000906 0.0000302 0.0000367

sVGP Passenger Vessel Deck Washdown 0.000142 9.21E

- 07 0.0000946 0.0000419 0.0000 467 0.0000156 0.0000189

sVGP Passenger Vessel Stern Tube Packing Gland 7.15E

- 06 4.64E

- 08 4.77E

- 06 2.11E

- 06 0.00000236 0.000000785 0.000000955

VGP Commercial Fishing Stern Tube Packing Gland 0.000009 0 3.67E

- 07 0 0 0 0

VGP Barge Antifouling 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

VGP Medium Cruise Ship Exhaust Gas Scrubber (Saltwater) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

VGP Barge Graywater 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

VGP Commercial Fishing Bilgewater 0.00767 0 0.000313 0 0 0 0

VGP Commercial Fishing Deck Washdown 0.000884 0 0.0000361 0 0 0 0

VGP Commercial Fish ing Graywater 0.0147 0 0.000599 0 0 0 0

VGP Commercial Fishing Fish Hold Cleaning 0.0012 0 0.0000489 0 0 0 0

VGP Large Ferry Stern Tube Packing Gland 0.0000793 0 0.000991 0.0000815 0.0000815 0 0

sVGP Commercial Fishing Wet Exhaust (Propulsion) 0.556 0 0 .0185 0.0299 0 0.000556 0

sVGP Commercial Fishing Antifouling 5.7 0 0.19 0.306 0 0.0057 0

sVGP Commercial Fishing Graywater 0.599 0 0.02 0.0322 0 0.000599 0

sVGP Commercial Fishing Stern Tube Packing Gland 0.000367 0 0.0000122 0.0000197 0 0.000000367 0

sVGP Commercial Fishing Bilgewater 0.313 0 0.0104 0.0168 0 0.000313 0

sVGP Commercial Fishing Deck Washdown 0.0361 0 0.0012 0.00194 0 0.0000361 0

VGP Large Ferry Deck Washdown 0.00152 0 0.019 0.00156 0.00156 0 0

VGP Large Ferry Graywater 0.0462 0 0.577 0.0474 0.0474 0 0

VGP Commercial Fishing Fish Hold 0.0309 0 0.00126 0 0 0 0

VGP Large Ferry Exhaust Gas Scrubber (Saltwater) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

VGP Commercial Fishing Antifouling 4.41 0 0.18 0 0 0 0

### Pag e 10 of 26

Table 1. Pre

- Permit Dissolved Copper Loads by Wastestream for Harbor Scenarios

Permit Vessel Type Discharge Type Estuary Harbor Loads (lb/day) River Harbor Loads

(lb/day)

Seatt le Houston New York San Fran Miami Duluth St. Louis

VGP Large Ferry Antifouling 0.52 0 6.5 0.534 0.534 0 0

s VGP Commercial Fishing Fish Hold 1.26 0 0.042 0.0677 0 0.00126 0

sVGP Commercial Fishing Fish Hold Cleaning 0.0489 0 0.00163 0.00263 0 0.0000489 0

VGP Medium Cruise Ship Deck Washdown 0.00121 0 0.00121 0.00121 0.00121 0.000657 0.00121

VGP Medium Cruise Ship Stern Tube Packing Gland 0.000063 0 0.000063 0.000063 0.000063 0.0000341 0.000063

VGP Medium Cruise Ship Graywater 0.00651 0 0.00651 0.00651 0.00651 0.00352 0.00651

sVGP Commercial Fishing Wet Exhaust (Generator) 0.0497 0 0.00166 0.00267 0 0.0000497 0

VGP Medium Cruise Ship Bilgewater 0.000255 0 0.000255 0.000255 0.000255 0.000138 0.000255

VGP Medium Cruise Ship Antifouling 0.22 0 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.119 0.22

VGP Large Ferry Bilgewater 0.000324 0 0.00405 0.000333 0.000333 0 0

Total Dissolved Copper Load 24.2 68.7 54.9 31.4 23.8 3.21 0.43



### Table 2. Post

- Permit Dissolved Copper Loads by Wastestream for Harbor Scenarios

Permit Vessel Type Discharge Type Estuary Harbor Loads (lb/day) River Harbor Loads

(lb/day)

Seattle Houston New York San Fran M iami Duluth St. Louis

VGP Oil/Gas Tankers Antifouling 0.182 35.7 10.5 5.69 0 0 0

VGP Cargo/Bulk Carrier Antifouling 2.36 8.25 14.1 10.2 7.52 1.72 0

VGP Oil/Gas Tankers Exhaust Gas Scrubber (Saltwater) 0.0267 5.22 1.54 0.834 0 0 0

VGP Cargo/Bulk Carrier Exhaust Gas Scrubber (Saltwater) 0.816 2.86 4.9 3.52 2.6 0.594 0

VGP Large Cruise Ship Antifouling 3.6 0.9 4.5 2.7 6.3 0 0

sVGP Utility Boats Antifouling 0.0387 0.275 0.186 0.105 0.0495 0.106 0.105

VGP Large Cruise Ship Exhaust Gas Scrubber (Saltwater) 0.643 0.161 0.804 0.482 1.13 0 0

VGP Large Cruise Ship Graywater 0.285 0.0714 0.357 0.214 0.499 0 0

sVGP Utility Boats Wet Exhaust (Propulsion) 0.00768 0.0547 0.037 0.0209 0.00982 0.021 0.0209

VGP Barge Deck Washdown 0.00104 0.0276 0.00507 0.000225 0.0 00234 0 0.00489

### Pag e 11 of 26

Table 2. Post

- Permit Dissolved Copper Loads by Wastestream for Harbor Scenarios

Permit Vessel Type Discharge Type Estuary Harbor Loads (lb/day) River Harbor Loads

(lb/day)

Seattle Houston New York San Fran M iami Duluth St. Louis

VGP Oil/Gas Tankers Deck Washdown 0.000135 0.0263 0.00776 0.0042 0 0 0

VGP Barge Bilgewater 0.000501 0.0133 0.00245 0.000109 0.000113 0 0.00236

VGP Oil/Gas Tankers Bilgewater 0.0000648 0.0127 0.00373 0.00202 0 0 0

VGP Cargo/Bulk Carrier Deck Washdown 0.00263 0.00921 0.0158 0.0114 0.0084 0.00192 0

VGP Large Cruise Ship Deck Washdown 0.0283 0.00708 0.0354 0.0212 0.0496 0 0

VGP Oil/Gas Tankers Stern Tube Packing Gland 0.0000321 0.00627 0.00185 0.001 0 0 0

VGP Oil/Gas Tankers Graywater 0. 0000319 0.00623 0.00184 0.000994 0 0 0

sVGP Utility Boats Graywater 0.000743 0.00529 0.00358 0.00202 0.000951 0.00204 0.00202

VGP Cargo/Bulk Carrier Bilgewater 0.00127 0.00443 0.0076 0.00547 0.00404 0.000923 0

VGP Cargo/Bulk Carrier Graywater 0.00111 0. 00387 0.00664 0.00477 0.00353 0.000806 0

sVGP Utility Boats Wet Exhaust (Generator) 0.000381 0.00271 0.00183 0.00103 0.000486 0.00104 0.00103

VGP Cargo/Bulk Carrier Stern Tube Packing Gland 0.000627 0.00219 0.00376 0.0027 0.002 0.000456 0

VGP Large Crui se Ship Bilgewater 0.00596 0.00149 0.00745 0.00447 0.0104 0 0

sVGP Utility Boats Bilgewater 0.000185 0.00132 0.000892 0.000503 0.000237 0.000508 0.000503

VGP Large Cruise Ship Stern Tube Packing Gland 0.00295 0.000737 0.00368 0.00221 0.00516 0 0

sVGP Pa ssenger Vessel Graywater 0.0872 0.000567 0.0582 0.0258 0.0288 0.00957 0.0116

sVGP Passenger Vessel Antifouling 0.0865 0.000562 0.0578 0.0256 0.0285 0.00949 0.0116

sVGP Utility Boats Deck Washdown 0.0000294 0.000209 0.000142 0.00008 0.0000376 0.0000807 0. 00008

sVGP Passenger Vessel Wet Exhaust (Propulsion) 0.0217 0.000141 0.0145 0.0064 0.00714 0.00238 0.00289

sVGP Utility Boats Stern Tube Packing Gland 6.61E

- 06 0.000047 0.0000318 0.000018 0.0000084

5 0.0000181 0.000018

sVGP Passenger Vessel Wet Exhaust ( Generator) 0.00341 0.0000221 0.00228 0.00101 0.00112 0.000374 0.000455

sVGP Passenger Vessel Bilgewater 0.000275 1.79E

- 06 0.000184 0.0000813 0.0000906 0.0000302 0.0000367

sVGP Passenger Vessel Deck Washdown 0.000142 9.21E

- 07 0.0000946 0.0000419 0.0000467 0.0000156 0.0000189

sVGP Passenger Vessel Stern Tube Packing Gland 7.15E

- 06 4.64E

- 08 4.77E

- 06 2.11E

- 06 0.0000023

6 0.00000078

5 0.0000009

55

VGP Commercial Fishing Deck Washdown 0.000442 0 0.000018 0 0 0 0

### Pag e 12 of 26

Table 2. Post

- Permit Dissolved Copper Loads by Wastestream for Harbor Scenarios

Permit Vessel Type Discharge Type Estuary Harbor Loads (lb/day) River Harbor Loads

(lb/day)

Seattle Houston New York San Fran M iami Duluth St. Louis

VGP Barge Antifouling 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

VGP Commerci al Fishing Graywater 0.011 0 0.000449 0 0 0 0

VGP Commercial Fishing Fish Hold 0.00771 0 0.000315 0 0 0 0

VGP Commercial Fishing Bilgewater 0.00383 0 0.000156 0 0 0 0

VGP Commercial Fishing Antifouling 3.31 0 0.135 0 0 0 0

VGP Commercial Fishing Stern Tube Packing Gland 0.000009 0 3.67E

- 07 0 0 0 0

VGP Large Ferry Exhaust Gas Scrubber (Saltwater) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

sVGP Commercial Fishing Fish Hold Cleaning 0.0367 0 0.00122 0.00197 0 0.0000367 0

sVGP Commercial Fishing Deck Washdown 0.0361 0 0.0012 0.00194 0 0.0000361 0

sVGP Commercial Fishing Antifouling 4.28 0 0.143 0.23 0 0.00428 0

sVGP Commercial Fishing Fish Hold 0.944 0 0.0315 0.0508 0 0.000944 0

sVGP Commercial Fishing Wet Exhaust (Propulsion) 0.556 0 0.0185 0.0299 0 0.000556 0

sVGP Commercial Fi shing Stern Tube Packing Gland 0.000367 0 0.0000122 0.0000197 0 0.00000036

7 0

sVGP Commercial Fishing Bilgewater 0.313 0 0.0104 0.0168 0 0.000313 0

sVGP Commercial Fishing Graywater 0.599 0 0.02 0.0322 0 0.000599 0

sVGP Commercial Fishing Wet Exhaust (G enerator) 0.0497 0 0.00166 0.00267 0 0.0000497 0

VGP Medium Cruise Ship Exhaust Gas Scrubber (Saltwater) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

VGP Large Ferry Deck Washdown 0.00152 0 0.019 0.00156 0.00156 0 0

VGP Commercial Fishing Fish Hold Cleaning 0.000299 0 0.0000122 0 0 0 0

VGP Large Ferry Stern Tube Packing Gland 0.0000793 0 0.000991 0.0000815 0.0000815 0 0

VGP Large Ferry Antifouling 0.39 0 4.88 0.401 0.401 0 0

VGP Large Ferry Bilgewater 0.000324 0 0.00405 0.000333 0.000333 0 0

VGP Barge Graywater 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

VGP Medium Cruise Ship Graywater 0.00651 0 0.00651 0.00651 0.00651 0.00352 0.00651

VGP Medium Cruise Ship Stern Tube Packing Gland 0.000063 0 0.000063 0.000063 0.000063 0.0000341 0.000063

VGP Medium Cruise Ship Antifouling 0.165 0 0.165 0.165 0.165 0.0894 0. 165

### Pag e 13 of 26

Table 2. Post

- Permit Dissolved Copper Loads by Wastestream for Harbor Scenarios

Permit Vessel Type Discharge Type Estuary Harbor Loads (lb/day) River Harbor Loads

(lb/day)

Seattle Houston New York San Fran M iami Duluth St. Louis

VGP Medium Cruise Ship Bilgewater 0.000127 0 0.000127 0.000127 0.000127 0.0000689 0.000127

VGP Medium Cruise Ship Deck Washdown 0.000606 0 0.000606 0.000606 0.000606 0.000329 0.000606

VGP Large Ferry Graywater 0.0462 0 0.577 0.0474 0.0474 0 0

Total Dissolved Copper Load 19 53.6 43.2 24.8 18.9 2.57 0.336

### Pag e 14 of 26

Tables 3 and 4 below present the revised results of the dissolved copper concentrations for each

of the scenarios evaluated in the BE. Across the 10 estuarine scenarios, the increase in loading

d ue to hull fouling results in an average modeled copper concentration of 0.78 μ g/ L which is

attributable to total vessel loading . In the 4 freshwater scenarios, the average concentration is

0.037 μ g/L. The maximum concentration in any scenario is in S cen ario 2 with an in

- water body

concentration of 2.99 μg/L resulting from vessel discharges in the “pre

- permit” state and 2.33

μg/L in the post permit state. This scenario has the low flushing rate of a port such as Miami

, but the high vessel traffic from a port such as Houston. Hence, it is our belief that this scenario

exceeds a worst case scenario. In comparison, Scenario 5 is a more realistic scenario with a

simulating the Miami harbor with Miami vessel population, with an in

- water body concentration

of 0.82 μg/L in the post permit state.

Table 3. Dissolved Copper Concentrations (μg/L) in Hypothetical Estuarine Harbors

Evaluated in the BE

Permit Condition Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Scenario 4 Scenario 5 Scenario 6 Scenario 7 Scenario 8 Scenario 9 Scenario 10

Pre

- Permit 1.05 2.99 2.39 1.37 1.03 0.14 0.39 0.31 0.18 0.14

Post

- Permit 0.82 2.33 1.88 1.08 0.82 0.11 0.31 0.25 0.14 0.11



### Table 4. Dissolved Copper Concentrations (μg/L) in Hypothetical River Harbors Evaluated

in the BE

Permit Condition Scenario 11 Scenario 12 Scenario 13 Scenario 14

Pre

- permit 0.164 0.022 0.001013 0.000136

Post

- permit 0.131 0.017 0.000810 0.000106



### c. Corrected Quantitative Effects Analysis

The revised dissolved copper loading estimates that include antifouling loads wi ll change the

estimated risk quotients (RQs) presented in Sections 5.3.2.5, 5.4.1, and 5.4.2.; however, EPA

estimates that the risks under post

- permit conditions will remain within the range of “remote” to

“negligible” for all benchmarks evaluated in Secti on 5.3.2.5. EPA also estimates that mixtures of

metals (Section 5.4.1) will also remain within the range of “remote” to “negligible” risk to listed

species.

Although the RQ for copper exceeds 1 when applying a safety adjustment factor of 2.0 to the

Agenc y’s criterion continuous concentration (CCC) in two of the fourteen modeled scenarios

, EPA believes that the revised dissolved copper loadings do not change the Agency’s ultimate

determination presented in Section 7.3 that for traditional pollutants VGP an d sVGP vessel

### Pag e 15 of 26

discharges are “Not Likely to Adversely Affect” listed species. In the safety factor analysis, EPA

selected the maximum concentration for comparison with half of the CCC benchmark. As

previously mentioned, o nly two of the fourteen scenarios m odeled in the BE exceed the safety

factor benchmark and are classified as “potentially significant” under post

- permit conditions.

The remaining twelve scenarios all predict a “remote” or “negligible” risk to listed species. The

dissolved copper loadings ar e driven by the presence of o il and g as t ankers, b ulk c argo and o ther

c arriers, and l arge c ruise s hips within a harbor. All three of these vessel types have significantly

large surface areas that contribute to large loading rates. The number of ports withi n the United

States that have large populations of these vessels types present at one time are limited and many

of the ports with the largest populations of these vessel types were already included in the BE

(e.g., Houston, New York, and Miami). The likeli hood of a port with the receiving water

characteristics of the hypothetical harbor scenario 1 containing vessel populations equivalent to

Scenarios 2 and 3 (i.e., Houston and New York) is low.

The remainder of this section present s the revised RQ values for the maximum dissolved copper

concentration predicted in the hypothetical harbor modeling analysis.

The following table replaces Table 5

- 32 on page 5

- 95 of the BE:

Table 5

- 32. Risk Quotients Based on Division of Pre

- and Post

- permit Maximum

Exposure C oncentrations by Chronic Toxicity Thresholds of Representative Surrogate

Taxa to Dissolved Copper

Taxa EC W

(Pre

- Permit

Condition);

(μg/L) EC W

(Post

- Permit

Condition);

(μg/L) CTET A,W

(μg/L) RQ

(Pre

Permit) RQ

(Post

Permit)

Freshwater Vertebrate

0.164 0 .131 4.690 0.035 0.028

Freshwater Invertebrate 3.899 0.0422 0.0337

Freshwater plant (Vascular) 114.2 0.00144 0.00115

Estuarine/Marine Vertebrate

2.99 2.33 206.7 0.0144 0.0113

Estuarine/Marine Invertebrate 7.900 0.378 0.295

Saltwater plant (Vascu lar) 49.80 0.06 0.0468

Taxa EC T

(Pre

- Permit

Condition);

(mg/kg wet wt.) EC T

(Post

- Permit

Condition);

(mg/kg wet wt.) CTET A,T

(mg/kg wet

wt.) RQ

(Pre

Permit) RQ

(Post

Permit)

Freshwater Vertebrate

0.0477 0.0381 3.00 0.0159 0.0127

Freshwater Invertebr ate 3.80 0.0125 0.01

Freshwater plant (Vascular) NA 0.189 0.147

Estuarine/Marine Vertebrate

0.866 0.676 4.59 0.222 0.173

Estuarine/Marine Invertebrate 3.90 0.0159 0.0127

### Pag e 16 of 26

Table 5

- 32. Risk Quotients Based on Division of Pre

- and Post

- permit Maximum

Exposure C oncentrations by Chronic Toxicity Thresholds of Representative Surrogate

Taxa to Dissolved Copper

Saltwater plant (Vascular) NA 0.0125 0.01

Taxa EC O (Pre

- Permit

Condition) ;

(mg/kg bw/d) EC O

(Post

- Permit

Condition);

(mg/kg bw/d) CTET O

(mg/kg bw/d) RQ

(Pre

Permit) RQ

(Post

Permit)

Mammals (Freshwater) 0.00655 0.00523 11.7 0.00056 0.000447

Birds (Freshwater) 0.0361 0.0289 47.0 0.000769 0.000614

Mammals (Saltwater) 0.119 0 .0926 11.7 0.0101 0.00791

Birds (Saltwater) 0.656 0.512 47.0 0.014 0.0109



### The following table replaces Table 5

- 56 on page 5

- 141 of the BE:

Table 5

- 56 . Summary of Species

- Specific Risk Conclusions for Listed Aquatic and

Aquatic

- dependent Species in RAAs

Pollutant EC W (Pre

- Permit

Condition)

(μg/L) EC W

(Post

- Permit

Condition)

(μg/L) CCC/2.0 b

(μg/L) RQ

(Pre

Permit) RQ

(Post

Permit)

Freshwater

Total Residual Chlorine 0.00328 0.00319 5.5 0.000597 0.00058

Aluminum, Total 0.0334 0.0309 44 0.000759 0 .000701

Arsenic, Dissolved 0.164 0.164 75 0.00219 0.00219

Cadmium, Dissolved 0.0000129 0.0000118 1.1 <0.0001 <0.0001

Chromium, Dissolved 0.0000399 0.0000338 5.5 <0.0001 <0.0001

Copper, Dissolved 0.164 0.131 1.5 c 0.11 0.0876

Lead, Dissolved 0.0000922 0 .0000878 1.3 <0.0001 <0.0001

Nickel, Dissolved 0.0246 0.0246 26 0.000946 0.000945

Selenium, Total   2 d **  **

Zinc, Dissolved 0.00968 0.00948 60 0.000161 0.000158

Total Ammonia Nitrogen 0.000032 a 0.0000285 a 0.28 a 0.000114 0.000102

Saltwater

T otal Residual Chlorine 2.14 0.66 3.8 0.564 0.174

Aluminum, Total 1.28 1.02

- <0.0001 <0.0001

Arsenic, Dissolved 1.94 1.94 18 0.108 0.108

Cadmium, Dissolved 0.000867 0.000697 4.7 0.000184 0.000148

Chromium, Dissolved 0.00191 0.00185 25 <0.0001 <0.0001

Copper, Dissolved 2.99 2.33 1.6 1.87 1.46

Lead, Dissolved 0.00295 0.00262 4.1 0.000719 0.000639

Nickel, Dissolved 0.291 0.291 4.1 0.0709 0.0709

### Pag e 17 of 26

Table 5

- 56 . Summary of Species

- Specific Risk Conclusions for Listed Aquatic and

Aquatic

- dependent Species in RAAs

Pollutant EC W (Pre

- Permit

Condition)

(μg/L) EC W

(Post

- Permit

Condition)

(μg/L) CCC/2.0 b

(μg/L) RQ

(Pre

Permit) RQ

(Post

Permit)

Selenium, Total   36 **  **

Zinc, Dissolved 0.493 0.452 40 0.0123 0.0113

Total Ammonia Nitrogen 0.00954 a 0.00742 a

- - -



### **Note that Selenium values have been removed and are discussed later in this memo.

### Pag e 18 of 26 The following table replaces Table 5

- 57 on page 5

- 144 of the BE:

Table 5

- 57 . Sum of RQs for Metals Under Pre

- and Post

- Permit Conditions

Taxa Cd RQ CrVI RQ Cu RQ Pb RQ Ni RQ Zn RQ Sum

RQ

Pre - Permit Conditions Freshwater Fish 0.0000077 0.00000133 0.035 0.000000985 0.000156 0.000134 0.0353

Freshwater Invertebrate 0.0000682 0.0000259 0.0422 0.0000152 0.00349 0.000395 0.0462

Freshwater plant 0.000012 9 0.00000131 0.00144 0.0000000115 0.0000725 0.000000981 0.00153

Estuarine/Marine Fish 0.000106 0.00000208 0.0144 0.000258 0.0000688 0.00817 0.0231

Estuarine/

Marine Invertebrate 0.000122 0.000109 0.378 0.000124 0.0133 0.00313 0.395

Saltwater plant 0 .0000932 0.0000000193 0.06 0.000364 0.0355 0.0000522 0.0959

Post - Permit Conditions Freshwater Fish 0.00000705 0.00000112 0.028 0.000000937 0.000156 0.000132 0.0283

Freshwater Invertebrate 0.0000624 0.000022 0.0337 0.0000145 0.00349 0.000387 0.0377

Fre shwater plant 0.0000118 0.00000111 0.00115 0.000000011 0.0000725 0.000000961 0.00124

Estuarine/Marine Fish 0.0000851 0.00000201 0.0113 0.000229 0.0000688 0.00749 0.0191

Estuarine/

Marine Invertebrate 0.0000981 0.000106 0.295 0.00011 0.0133 0.00287 0.3 11

Saltwater plant 0.0000749 0.0000000187 0.0468 0.000323 0.0354 0.0000478 0.0827

### Pag e 19 of 26

II. Selenium

After further examination and analysis, we believe that our original estimates of selenium

loadings originating from exhaust gas scrubber effluent are elevated by at least one to three

orders of magnitude . First, as part of EPA’s original estimates, we grossly overestimated the

numbers of vessels expected to discharg e exhaust gas scrubber water into waters subject to the

permit. Secondly, we believe matrix inter ference elevated measured selenium concentrations in

both the influent and effluent results on which we based our estimates for modeled loadings.

Additionally, , when vessels are stationary, their discharge rates will be reduced because the

engines will o nly be on partial power (EPA estimated volume discharged based on maximum

power output and did not quantify the effect of engines running on partial power ). When these

numerous conservative assumptions are taken into account, the total loading and concentr ations

of this discharge decrease s tremendously.

a. Overestimating V essels U tilizing this T e chnology D uring the P ermit T erm

In the Biological Evaluation, we estimated that at any given time, 10% of certain vessels (oil and

gas tankers, cruise ships, or car go/bulk carriers) would be discharging exhaust gas scrubber

effluent. Those vessel numbers were combined with an estimated discharge volume and

concentration to generate loadings. As you know, we translated the numbers of vessels in a

water body into “ves sel equivalents.” For example, the port of Houston is estimated to have

18.29 oil and gas tanker equivalents 2 

### (i.e.

, on average 18.29 oil and gas tankers would be

o perating in Houston at any given time). Using the 10% scenario, we estimated that 1.829 oil

and gas tanker vessel equivalents would be discharging exhaust gas scrubber effluent (i.e., on

average 1.829 oil and gas tankers would be dischar ging that effluent at any given time).

We communicated with the Exhaust Gas Cleaning Systems Association to o btain a more

accurate number of vessels actually utilizing these systems. In a n October 22, 2012

correspondence with us, the director of that association, Don Gregory

, sent information on all

commercial installations and orders to date. Mr. Gregory noted that the information “ is the

definitive list from members ”

. Of systems currently installed, in design, or on order, there are

nine vessels that installed open loop systems or for which there are designs or plans to install

those systems on those vessels. Of those nine systems, two systems are no longer operational

(on vessels AA and BB). Of the remaining seven, three to four are currently installed, and three

are planned for next year. Hybrid systems are currently installed on four vessels, with plans to

install two mor e in the next year. See Table 5 below.

2 P opulations presented are expressed as vessel equivalents where a vessel equivalent represents a single vessel

discharging 24

- hours per day in the harbor. For example, 1 vessel equivalent c ould represent 24 vessels that each

operate (and discharge) for 1 hour in the harbor environment each day.

### Pag e 20 of 26

Table 5

. Commercial I nstallations and O rders of O pen L oop E xhaust G as S crubbers to

D ate

Owner Vessel

Name Vessel

Type System

type Total

Power Install

Date Notes

System A AA Ferry Open 0.8MW Fal l

2005 Test installation only

System B BB Cruise Open 8MW Oct

2007 One of 5 main engines scrubbed

System C CC Container Open 8MW Sep

2011 3 x 2.9MW aux engines scrubbed in one

multi

- inlet scrubber

System D DD RORO Open 9MW Dec

2011 One scrubber each for 4 auxy engines (2MW

each) and one scrubber for boiler (2.5t/hr

steam)

System D EE RORO Open 9MW April

2012 One scrubber each for 4 auxy engines (2MW

each) and one scrubber for boiler (2.5t/hr

steam)

System D FF RORO Open 9MW Fall

2012 One scrubber eac h for 4 auxy engines (2MW

each) and one scrubber for boiler (2.5t/hr

steam)

System D GG RORO Open 9MW Spring

2013 One scrubber each for 4 auxy engines (2MW

each) and one scrubber for boiler (2.5t/hr

steam)

System E HH VLGC Open 19MW 2013 Complete ship EGCS installation. Main

engine (15MW) one scrubber, 3 auxys one

multi

- inlet scrubber (4MW)

System E II VLGC Open 19MW 2013 Complete ship EGCS installation. Main

engine (15MW) one scrubber, 3 auxys one

multi

- inlet scrubber (4MW)

System F JJ RORO Hybrid 2 8MW Mar

2013 Triple inlet 25MW scrubber for main & auxy

engines and one single inlet 6MW for auxy

in port

System G KK Container Hybrid 3MW Presently undergoing design

System H LL Test Lab Hybrid 600kW 2011 Single stream laboratory test installation

Sys tem I MM Bulk Hybrid 10MW 2009 Multistream test installation ME, 4 x AE,

Boiler

System I NN Bulk Hybrid 10MW June

2012 Multistream installation, ME, 3 x AE, Boiler

System J OO ROPAX Hybrid 21MW Sep

2010 Main engine only



### As part of our economic analysis , we expected new air rules coming into effect to drive higher

levels of adoption of these systems ( see EPA’s proposed VGP Fact Sheet for further discussion).

Our initial estimates of vessels adopting these technologies were made nearly two years ago.

How ever, we note that vessels could also utilize low sulfur fuel , liquid natural gas, or other

strategies to meet the new rules. Based on how many of these systems have been ordered,

designed, and installed, we believe these values to be gross overest imates. For instance, with

only 7 or so functional open loop systems expected to be installed by permit operation date, it is

unlikely that 1.829 oil tanker vessel equivalents will be using the technologies in Houston in any

given day. The following table shows how many vessel equivalents discharging exhaust gas

scrubber washwater would be expected if 1% of vessels utilized this technology in a given year,

or if 0.1% of systems utilized this technology in a given year.

### Pag e 21 of 26

Table 6 . Adjusted Vessel Equivalents for 1 0%, 1%, and 0.1% with EGS Discharges

Assumed to be Present in Each Harbor

Vessel Seattle Houston Miami New York San

Francisco St

Louis Duluth

10%

Oil/Gas Tankers 0.01 1.83 0.00 0.54 0.29 0.00 0.00

Large Cruise Ship 0.40 0.10 0.70 0.50 0.30 0.00 0.00

C argo/Bulk Carrier 0.29 1.00 0.91 1.71 1.23 0.00 0.21

Total Vessel

Equivalents 0.70 2.93 1.61 2.75 1.82 0.00 0.21

1%

Oil/Gas Tankers 0.00 0.18 0.00 0.05 0.03 0.00 0.00

Large Cruise Ship 0.04 0.01 0.07 0.05 0.03 0.00 0.00

Cargo/Bulk Carrier 0.03 0.10 0. 09 0.17 0.12 0.00 0.02

Total Vessel

Equivalents 0.07 0.29 0.16 0.28 0.18 0.00 0.02

0.1%

Oil/Gas Tankers 0.00 0.018 0.00 0.005 0.00 3 2 0.00 0.00

Large Cruise Ship 0.004 0.001 0.007 0.005 0.003 0.00 0.00

Cargo/Bulk Carrier 0.00 3 0.01 0.009 0.017 0.012 0. 00 0.002

Total Vessel

Equivalents 0. 0 0 7 0. 0 29 0. 0 16 0. 0 28 0. 0 1 8 0.00 0.0 0 2



### b. Matrix Interference R esulting in U nreasonably H igh M easured V alues

In our Exhaust Gas Scrubber Technical Analysis 3 

### , we noted that matrix interference could result

in elevated se lenium values. In that document, we stated: “ In EPA’s 2009 Study of Discharges

Incidental to Normal Operation of Commercial Fishing Vessels and Other Non

- Recreational

Vessels Less Than 79 Feet (USEPA, 2010), the high concentrations of chloride and other ca tions

in seawater were found to interfere with the analytical determination of arsenic, as well as

selenium. It is possible that a similar problem occurred in this study, and would explain the

unexpectedly high concentrations of these metals in these sampl es of seawater and washwater. ”

However, in developing our concentrations used in our model, we did not further account for this

possibility of matrix interference. After further analysis, we believe this to be inappropriate.

In our Exhaust Gas Scrubber Technical Analysis, we reviewed monitoring data from the effluent

of three exhaust gas scrubber systems. Selenium was monitored in only one of the three reports

we reviewed. We have the results from those studies, but do not have the raw laboratory data

, including QA/QC information. The sampling method used was EPA 200.8, the same method for

which we had the problems with identified matrix interference for arsenic and selenium in our

3 

### USEPA. 2011b. Exhaust Gas Scrubber Washwater Effluent. EPA 800

- R

- 11

- 006, November

2011.

### Pag e 22 of 26

2010 study

. 4 

### High Salinity waters have been documented to interfere wi th selenium analyses 5



### . As an example, bromine s are compound s found in high quantities in seawa ter which can cause

notable selenium interference. Based on discussion with our EPA laboratory experts “ Bromine

may interfere with the determination of arsenic, selenium, and other analytes by ICP

- MS [EPA

method 200.8]

. ... Environmental samples from coastal areas may contain bromine because sea

water contains 65 mg/l bromine and a Canadian reference sediment, PACS

- 1, “ has been found

...t o contain bromine at 663 mg/ kg.” ” 6 

### Furthermore “ Selenium concentrations provided to the

US EPA from ICP

- MS measurements for bromine

- industry wastes were found to have a high

bias. Additional examination of this ICP

- MS data has revealed that this selenium interference

can be attri buted to 81 

### BrH+ ions and that the arsenic concentrations reported for these wastes are

elevated by an indirect additive interference... i.e., the interference corrected arsenic signal.” 6



### As mentioned above, b ro mines are found in high concentrations in seawater, with an average

bromide concentration in typical seawater (35 ppt) around 65 ppm. N otable interference can be

observed as low as 100 or 200 ppb (personal communication, Terri White and Robin Costas,

U.S. EPA Laboratory Scientists with substantial expertise in ICP

- MS (EPA Method 200.8)). For

instance, Terri White analyzed samples from an industrial operator which were taken from the

thermal bromination process in the plant and had concentrations of 320 pp m Br. In that project,

the measured 82 

### Se concentration without correction was 855 μ g/l ; with correction it was 10.3

μ g/l . Terri also spiked a blank sample with 10 μ g/l in a controlled solution containing 100 ppm

Br. In this test run, 82 

### Se concentration without correction was 265 μ g/l; with correction it was 12

μ g/l. In short, bromides have a notable impact of selenium results when they are not corrected.

A d d i t i o n a l l y

, i t is notable that bromine s a r e not the only co m p o u n d s t h a t m i g h t c r e a t e s i g n i f i c a n t

m a t r i x i n t e r f

e r e n c e i n s e a w a t e r

.

All four areas where tests were conducted were from w aters that have salinity, ranging from

lightly brackish (S kagway at around 5 ppm 7 

### ) to waters with higher salinities ( Vancouver at 12

- 29

ppt 8



### , Juneau at 20

- 32 ppt 9



### , and San Diego at 32

- 24 ppt 10



### . Furthermore , 8 of 14 samples taken

had raw intake water (exhau st gas scrubber influent) concentrations higher than the discharged

effluent concentration , which indicates that the exhaust gas scrubbing process is generally not a

significant source of loading

. See F igure 1 below.

4 We also note that the arsenic loadings for our BE are al so likely high due to matrix interference, but are not

conducting further analysis because, despite likely interference, the estimated arsenic loadings are not likely to

adversely affect listed species.

5 Moellmer, William O., Teron G. Miller, Steve Wilbur , and Emmett Soffey. 2007. ICP

- MS Analysis of Trace

Selenium in the Great Salt Lake. Spectroscopy.

6 Hinners, Thomas A.,and Heithmar, Edward M., Interferences in ICP

- MS by Bromine Species USEPA, Las Vegas,

NV.

7 

### Source: http://water.epa.gov/polwaste/vwd/plume_dilution.cfm

- Appendix B

http://water.epa.gov/polwaste/vwd/upload/2 009_03_18_oceans_cruise_ships_compiled_ser_appendices.p

df

8 

### Source: http://www.pices.int/publications/scientific_reports/Report16/Section2.pdf

9 

### Source: http://www.afsc.noaa.gov/Publications/ProcRpt/PR1993

- 10.pdf

10 

### Source: http://www.portofsandiego.org/convention

- center

- expansion

- project/san

- diego

- convention

center

- expansion

- documents/doc_view/1224

- characterizing

- the

- spatial

- and

- temporal

- va riation

- in

turbidity.html

### Pag e 23 of 26

In summary, we strongly suspect tha t the high selenium concentrations used in the original BE

loading estimates are a direct result of matrix interference, and therefore were used

inappropriately , resulting in an overestimate of potential loadings from this discharge into US

waters.

Figure 1. Selenium Concentrations in treated exhaust gas scrubber effluent from one

treatment system

From Figure 11 in HA & H

- K. 2010. Holland America Line Sea Water Scrubber Technology

Demonstration Project. Final Report by Holland America and Hamworthy

- Kry stallon to U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency. March 31, 2010. (http://www.hollandamerica.com/assets//about

- best

cruise

- lines/Final_report.pdf).



### c. Updated Selenium Loadings

With the information at hand, there is not a good way to correct for matrix inte rference based on

results values alone. However, to provide a revised q uantified loading estimate, we recalculated

loadings using the following two approaches. In the first model run, we use d the average

difference between the effluent and the intake se lenium concentrations with an assumption that

1% of certain vessels would discharge exhaust gas scrubber effluent. This resulted in an

### Pag e 24 of 26

estimated additional s elenium discharge concentration of 14.5 μ g/L input into our model

(Scenario A) . In the second sce nario, we also estimated the average difference between the

effluent and intake selenium concentrations; however, we replac ed any differences that were

negative with zeros ( a conservative assum ption that the treatment would not remove selenium)

with an ass umption that 1% of certain vessels would discharge exhaust gas scrubber effluent.

This resulted in a total selenium concentration of 31.2 μ g/L input into our model (Scenario B)

. See Table 7 below which lists loading estimates for our seven areas (our refe rence action areas in

the BE).

Table 7. Estimated Selenium Loading with a Post H o c C orrection to C ompensate for likely

Matrix Interference

Load

Scenario Permit

Condition Analyte Estuary Harbor Loads (lb/day) River Harbor

Loads (lb/day)

Seattle Houst on New

York San

Fran Miami Duluth St.

Louis

Scenario A Pre

Permit Se, Dissolved 0.202 0.385 0.342 0.233 0.174 0.0279 0

Scenario A Post

Permit Se, Dissolved 0.167 0.385 0.341 0.231 0.174 0.0278 0

Scenario A Pre

Permit Se, Total 0.144 0.797 0.7 0.468 0.36 0.0575 0

Scenario A Post

Permit Se, Total 0.144 0.797 0.7 0.468 0.36 0.0575 0

Scenario B Pre

Permit Se, Dissolved 0.411 1.54 1.36 0.913 0.698 0.111 0

Scenario B Post

Permit Se, Dissolved 0.376 1.54 1.36 0.911 0.698 0.111 0

Scenario B Pre

Permit Se, To tal 0.309 1.71 1.51 1.01 0.775 0.124 0

Scenario B Post

Permit Se, Total 0.309 1.71 1.51 1.01 0.775 0.124 0



### As previously discussed in this memo, there are currently only a handful of vessels using exhaust

gas scrubber systems which result in a discharge . Hence, in the early part of this permit term,

and perhaps toward the end of the permit term, even 1% of certain vessels using these systems is

an overestimate. If we assume that only 0.1% of certain vessels would be using these systems at

a given time would result in even lower loadings to these estuaries 11



### . Since the majority of

estimated selenium loading estimated in our BE originates from exhaust gas scrubber systems, an

o r der of magnitude reduction in the numbers of vessels discharging ( fr om 1% t o 0 .1 %) would

result in nearly an order of magnitude reduction in the loading of selenium . In the interest of

brevity, those results are not listed here, but by way of example, post permit total selenium

loading into San Francisco would be reduced to 0.04

- 0.06 pounds per day in Scenario A, and

0.10

- 0.12 pounds per day in Scenario B

.

11 0.1% estimate of certain vessels d i s c h a rg in g exhaust gas system effluent is reasonable since there are currently

only a handful of vessels f o r w hic h these systems h ave b e en installed or o r d e r e d

.

### Pag e 25 of 26

Use of the loadings assuming that 1% of the certain vessels using exhaust gas scrubber systems

discharging effluent would result in an average concentration of disolved selenium in our

e stuarine modeled harbors of 0.0064 μ ug/L for scenario A, and 0.024 μg/L for scenario B in post

permit settings. Of the 14 modeled estuaries, hypothetica l harbor scenario 2 would have the

maximum concentration of 0. 0 167 μ g/L dissolved selenium for sc enario A i n p re

- perm it s et ti ng

, and 0.0671 μ g/L dissolved selenium in scenario B in a post permit setting. The average post

permit concentrations of total selenium would be 0.012 μ g/L in Scenario A and 0.026 μ g/L in

scenario B, with the maximum concentrations found in hypothetical harbor scenario 2 being

0.0346 μ g/L in Scenario A and 0.0745 μg/L in Scenario B. In short, these concentrations are

trace amounts.

d. Updated Selenium Risk Quotients

The previous BE estimates for risk quotients for selenium , using the high selenium loadings,

resulted in risk quotients that were all very low (the maximum value s being 0.136 for estuarine

vertebrates and 0.108 for saltwater mammals). However, when one considers the reduction in

vessels discharging this effluent, combi ned with a reduction in loading per vessel , the maximum

risk quotient values become exceptionally small. Hence, we believe the loadings from selenium

resulting from exhaust gas scrubber discharges would be insignificant and discountable. See

Tables 8, 9, and 10 below.

Table 8. ECw RQ Comparison for Selenium

Taxa Analyte Previous BE Estimate Scenario A Scenario B

RQ

(Pre

Permit) RQ

(Post

Permit) RQ

(Pre

Permit) RQ

(Post

Permit) RQ

(Pre

Permit) RQ

(Post

Permit)

Freshwater Fish Se, Total 0.002 3 0.0023 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001

Freshwater Invertebrate Se, Total 0.00221 0.00221 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001

Freshwater plant (Vascular) Se, Total <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001

Estuarine/Marine Fish Se, Total 0.00354 0.00 354 <0.0001 <0.0001 0.00011 0.00011

Estuarine/Marine

Invertebrate Se, Total 0.0113 0.0113 0.000164 0.000164 0.000352 0.000352

Saltwater plant (Vascular) Se, Total 0.0337 0.0337 0.000488 0.000488 0.00105 0.00105



### Table 9. ECt RQ Comparison for Selenium

Taxa Analyte Previous BE Estimate Scenario A Scenario B

RQ

(Pre

Permit) RQ

(Post

Permit) RQ

(Pre

Permit) RQ

(Post

Permit) RQ

(Pre

Permit) RQ

(Post

Permit)

River Vert Se, Total 0.0105 0.0105 0.000152 0.000152 0.000327 0.000327

River Invert Se, Total 0.028 0.028 0.000406 0.000406 0.000875 0.000875

Estuary Vert Se, Total 0.136 0.136 0.00198 0.00198 0.00426 0.00426

Estuary Invert Se, Total <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001

### Pag e 26 of 26

Table 10. Eco RQ Comparison for Selenium

Taxa Analyte EGS Baseline Scenario A Scenario B

RQ

(Pre

Permit) RQ

(Post

Permit) RQ

(Pre

Permit) RQ

(Post

Permit) RQ

(Pre

Permit) RQ

(Post

Permit)

Mammals (Freshwater) Se, Total 0.0203 0.0203 0.000294 0.000294 0.000633 0.000633

Birds (Freshwater) Se, Total 0.0101 0.0101 0.000147 0.000147 0.000316 0.000316

Mammals (Saltwater) Se, Total 0.108 0.108 0.00157 0.00157 0.00337 0.00337

Birds (Saltwater) Se, Total 0.054 0.054 0.000783 0.000783 0.00168 0.00168



### III. Conclusions

Based on the supplementary anal yses above, we identified additional copper loadings from anti

foulant paints, and how they would affect copper c oncentrations in our 14 modeled harbors . We

also briefly discuss ed how it would impact our risk quotients for copper, and our interpretations

. In this memo, we did not discuss the trade off that comes with using anti

- foulant paints with the

benefits of reducing attached living organisms to vessels hulls (thereby significantly reducing

risk of introducing or dispersing invasive species). Howev er, we note that we have discussed

this topic at length during our consultation

, and we appreciate your consideratio n of that issue.

Please see the VGP fact sheet, the BE, and our technical development document on hull

husbandry for additional written dis cussion. Additionally, based on the appropriate revisions to

our analyses of exhaust gas scrubbers , we believe selenium loadings from exhaust gas scrubber

effluent are negligible.

We believe the information discussed above supports the conclusion that eit her copper or

selenium loadings from VGP and sVGP discharges are not likely to adversely affect listed

species or critical habitat . We would be pleased to discuss these analyses and our results with

you in greater detail to support your analyses as you de em appropriate before delivery of your

draft Biological Opinion . Once again, t hank you for your continued help and advice in this

consultation process and we look forward to its successful conclusion.