Approved for public release;

distribution is unlimited.

SSC San Diego

San Diego, CA 92152–5001

TECHNICAL DOCUMENT 3052

December 1998

H. D. Johnson

J. G. Grovhoug

SSC San Diego

A. O. Valkirs

Computer Sciences Corporation

Copper Loading to

U.S. Navy Harbors

Norfolk, VA; Pearl Harbor, HI;

and San Diego, CA
iii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This document identifies several sources of copper loading into four Navy harbors within the continental United States and Hawaii. The degree of copper loading as dissolved copper is quantified by

source within each harbor. Although sources and their respective copper loadings vary between harbors, some similarities are apparent (figure ES-1). In Norfolk, Pearl Harbor, and Little Creek, Navy

hull coating leachate is the principal dissolved copper source, ranging from 41 to 61% of the total

dissolved copper load. In San Diego Bay, Navy hull coating leachate is the second largest (22% of

total loading) dissolved copper loading source behind civilian hull coating leachate (33%).

The category described as “Navy Other Ship Discharges,” primarily seawater cooling and firemain

discharges, is also an important loading source, ranging from 10 to 24% of total dissolved copper

loading in the four harbors studied. Although not a significant loading source in Norfolk and Pearl

Harbors, civilian hull leachate loading was calculated as a very important dissolved copper loading

source in San Diego Bay and Little Creek, ranging from 25 to 33% of the total dissolved copper

loading. Similarly, civilian ship transit and civilian hull cleaning were determined to be important

copper loading sources, although not in all harbors and, generally, not at percentages of total loading

as high as the sources mentioned above. Other sources were calculated to be smaller loading factors,

sometimes contributing less than 1% of the total dissolved copper load. Navy hull cleaning is in this

category for all four naval harbors under evaluation.

Harbors also varied in their total dissolved copper loading in terms of kilograms per year. The

highest dissolved copper loading was calculated in San Diego Bay at 32,474 kg/yr, followed by

Norfolk Harbor at 26,284 kg/yr, Pearl Harbor at 7,781 kg/yr, and Little Creek at 4,962 kg/yr.

The degree of loading was largely dependent on the major loading sources identified above.

The dissolved copper loading calculated in this report was based on numerous assumptions,

which, in turn, were supported by data that also varied in quality and availability. Consequently,

some loading estimates are considered potentially more accurate than others. Navy hull leachate

and civilian hull leachate were determined to be the two most significant loading sources in all

four Navy harbors. Both were calculated from an average leach rate determined from several

years of data collected in San Diego Bay. A simulated leaching apparatus (rotating drum), as

well as actual in situ leach rate measurements on active naval vessel hulls, were used to make

this estimate. The naval leach rate data were used for civilian hull leach rate calculations because civilian data were not available. Consequently, this assumption should be supported by

actual in situ civilian leach rate data since civilian antifouling paints are not likely to be of the

same formulation type as naval paints in service. The naval in situ leach rate data should also be

improved with more in situ measurements on hulls with new coatings.

Clearly, any assumptions may be tested and improved with additional data. Because of the

magnitude of the hull leach rate contribution to total dissolved copper loading relative to other

sources, and the calculation of this contribution based on a shared leach rate factor, it is felt that

additional in situ data from both civilian and naval antifouling coatings is warranted. Additional

data supporting other assumptions associated with lesser dissolved copper sources would be

useful, but it is not anticipated that additional data would dramatically change copper loading

from the minor sources identified.
Figure ES-1. Estimated dissolved copper load for four U.S. Navy homeport harbors.

Pearl Harbor

San Diego Norfolk

Little Creek Atmospheric Deposition

trace < 1 %

Navy Hull Cleaning

trace < 1 %

Baseflow

trace < 1 %

Navy Hull Leachate

49%

Navy Other Ship Discharge

13%

Stormwater Runoff

2%

Civilian Hull Leachate

25%

Navy Ship Transit

1%

Civilian Hull Cleaning

10%

Baseflow

1%

Atmospheric Deposition

trace < 1 %

Civilian Ship Transit

trace < 1 %

Civilian Hull Cleaning

1%

Civilian Hull Leachate

3%

Navy Shore Discharge

6%

Navy Ship Transit

trace < 1 %

Navy Other Ship Discharges

19%

Navy Hull Clean

trace < 1 %

Stormwater Runoff

9%

Navy Hull Leachate

61%

Baseflow

trace < 1%

Atmospheric Deposition

trace < 1% Stormwater Runoff

4%

Civilian Hull Cleaning

14%

Civilian Ship Transit

11%

Civilian Hull Leachate

33%

Navy Ship Transit

trace < 1 %

Navy Other Ship Discharge

10%

Navy Hull Clean

trace < 1 %

Navy Hull Leachate

22%

Civilian Shore Discharges

6%

Baseflow

trace < 1 %

Civilian Hull Leachate

3%

Navy Shore Discharges

2%

Navy Ship Transit

1%

Civilian Ship Transit

18%

Civilian Hull Cleaning

2%

Navy Hull Leachate

41%

Navy Hull Cleaning

trace < 1 %

Navy Other Ship Discharge

24%

Stormwater Runoff

7%

Atmospheric Deposition

trace < 1 %

Civilian Shore Discharges

2%

Annual Load:

32,474 kg/yr

Annual Load:

26,284 kg/yr

Annual Load:

7,781 kg/yr

Annual Load:

4,962 kg/yr

iv
v

CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .........................................................................................................iii

INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................................1

NORFOLK AND LITTLE CREEK, VA ......................................................................................3

ENVIRONMENTAL DATA SOURCES ................................................................................ 3

NORFOLK AND LITTLE CREEK COPPER LOAD .............................................................4

NORFOLK SITE-SPECIFIC LOADING ASSUMPTIONS ....................................................9

Navy Hull Leachate and Vessel Discharges ................................................................9

Navy Hull Cleaning.....................................................................................................11

Direct Shore Discharges ............................................................................................12

Civilian Pleasure Craft and Small Boats ....................................................................13

Civilian Commercial Ship Traffic ................................................................................13

Stormwater .................................................................................................................14

Atmospheric Deposition .............................................................................................18

LITTLE CREEK SITE-SPECIFIC LOADING ASSUMPTIONS ..........................................19

Navy Hull Leachate and Vessel Discharges ..............................................................19

Navy Hull Cleaning.....................................................................................................19

Direct Shore Discharges ............................................................................................20

Civilian Pleasure Craft and Small Boats ....................................................................20

Civilian Commercial Ship Traffic ................................................................................20

Stormwater .................................................................................................................20

Atmospheric Deposition .............................................................................................21

PEARL HARBOR, HI..............................................................................................................23

ENVIRONMENTAL DATA SOURCES .............................................................................. 23

PEARL HARBOR COPPER LOAD ...................................................................................25

PEARL HARBOR SITE-SPECIFIC LOADING ASSUMPTIONS .......................................26

Navy Hull Leachate and Vessel Discharges ..............................................................28

Navy Hull Cleaning.....................................................................................................30

Civilian Pleasure Craft and Small Boats ....................................................................31

Direct Shore Discharges ............................................................................................31

Civilian Commercial Ship Traffic ................................................................................32

Stormwater .................................................................................................................33

Atmospheric Deposition .............................................................................................37

Other Sources ............................................................................................................37

SAN DIEGO, CA .....................................................................................................................39

ENVIRONMENTAL DATA SOURCES .............................................................................. 40

SAN DIEGO COPPER LOAD............................................................................................41

SAN DIEGO SITE-SPECIFIC LOADING ASSUMPTIONS ...............................................42

Navy Hull Leachate and Vessel Discharges ..............................................................42

Navy Hull Cleaning.....................................................................................................46

Direct Shore Discharges ............................................................................................46

Civilian Pleasure Craft and Small Boats ....................................................................47

Civilian Commercial Ship Traffic ................................................................................47

Stormwater .................................................................................................................48
vi

Atmospheric Deposition .............................................................................................51

REFERENCES........................................................................................................................55

APPENDIX A:

 GENERAL LOADING ASSUMPTIONS............................................................................... A-1

HULL ANTI-FOULING PAINT LEACH RATES ............................................................... A-2

Naval Vessel Wet Hull Area (HA).............................................................................. A-2

Pleasure Craft Wet Hull Area (HA)............................................................................ A-3

Paint Leach Rate...................................................................................................... A-3

Residence Time ....................................................................................................... A-4

IN-WATER HULL CLEANING ......................................................................................... A-4

Release Rate (CuR).................................................................................................. A-5

Cleaning Frequency (CE).......................................................................................... A-6

SEAWATER COOLING................................................................................................... A-7

Discharge Concentration (SCC)................................................................................ A-7

Flow Rate ................................................................................................................. A-8

FIREMAIN DISCHARGE................................................................................................. A-8

Discharge Concentration.......................................................................................... A-8

Flow Rate ................................................................................................................. A-8

OTHER NAVAL VESSEL DISCHARGES ....................................................................... A-9

Non-Oily Waste Discharge....................................................................................... A-9

Graywater Discharge................................................................................................ A-9

STORMWATER RUNOFF............................................................................................... A-9

Simple Method for Stormwater Modeling ............................................................... A-10

OTHER SOURCES ....................................................................................................... A-11

Atmospheric Deposition ......................................................................................... A-11

Groundwater Transport .......................................................................................... A-11

Sediment Flux ........................................................................................................ A-12

Visiting Naval Vessels............................................................................................ A-12

OTHER DATA ASSUMPTIONS .................................................................................... A-12

Figures

 ES-1. Estimated dissolved copper load for four U.S. Navy homeport harbors................... iv

 1. Hampton Roads, VA, showing Elizabeth River drainage, Little Creek

 drainage, and COMNAVBASE Norfolk facilities........................................................... 5

 2. Tidally averaged residual current for Hampton Roads

(source: Shen et al., 1997)........................................................................................... 6

 3. Relative source percentages of copper loading to Norfolk, VA. ................................... 7

 4. Relative source percentages of copper loading to Norfolk, VA. ................................... 8

 5. Aerial view of Naval Station Norfolk (north-to-south) showing five

carriers and other major surface ships in port.............................................................. 9

 6. Potential copper release sites for the Elizabeth River and Little Creek areas........... 10

 7. Norfolk Naval Shipyard along the southern branch of the Elizabeth River................ 12

 8. United States Geological Survey-designated watersheds within James

 River drainage basin and SSC San Diego-designated Little Creek

 sub-watershed........................................................................................................... 17
vii

 9. Land use as defined by the USEPA (BASINS v2.0) for the Elizabeth River

sub-watershed (one of two sub-watersheds comprising the Hampton Roads

watershed HUC: 0208208)......................................................................................... 17

10. The Chesapeake Bay watershed and air shed (source: United States

Evironmental Protection Agency, 1997)..................................................................... 18

11. Land use for the SSC San Diego-designated Little Creek sub-watershed................. 22

12. Pearl Harbor, HI, showing stream drainage, COMNAVBASE Pearl

Harbor facilities, and other DoD sites......................................................................... 24

13. Relative source percentage of copper loading to Pearl Harbor, HI. ........................... 25

14. Aerial photo of Naval Base Pearl Harbor (east-to-west) and showing

(from bottom to top) Southeastern Loch, Middle Loch, West Loch, and the

 Waianae Mountains................................................................................................... 26

15. Potential copper release sites for Pearl Harbor, HI. ................................................... 27

16. Pearl Harbor watershed and relative proportion to Oahu land area. .......................... 35

17. Pearl Harbor sub-watersheds..................................................................................... 35

18. Land use grid for Pearl Harbor ................................................................................... 36

19. San Diego, CA, showing COMNAVBASE San Diego facilities. ................................. 39

20. Dissolved Cu (μg/L) distribution in San Diego Bay for November 1997

(modified from Katz, 1998)......................................................................................... 40

21. Relative source percentage of copper loading to San Diego, CA. ............................. 41

22. San Diego Bay (north-to-south) showing pleasure craft mooring

(foreground), Naval Air Station North Island (middle), and Naval Station

San Diego (background). ........................................................................................... 42

23. Potential copper release sites for San Diego, CA ...................................................... 43

24. Aerial view of NASNI (south-to-north) showing carrier berthing. ................................ 44

25. San Diego County sub-watersheds draining to San Diego Bay. ................................ 51

26. San Diego sub-watershed 1995 land use (source: San Diego Association

of Governments,1998)................................................................................................ 52

27. 1995 land use patterns adjacent to San Diego Bay (source: San Diego

Association of Governments,1998) ............................................................................ 53

A-1. Copper leach rate over time for test panels painted with Ameron (formerly

Devoe) copper ablative anti-fouling paint (Devoe ABC #3) and International

Courtaulds Coatings ablative anti-fouling paint (BRA 640) ......................................A-4

A-2. Relationship between annual runoff and stormwater runoff as a function

of watershed imperviousness (Schueler, 1987). .....................................................A-11

Tables

 1. Average (n=2) ambient water concentrations of copper adjacent to

U.S. Navy facilities in Norfolk, VA ................................................................................ 4

 2. Marinas queried in Norfolk, VA area regarding pleasure boat counts........................ 13

 3. USEPA BASINS land use categories for the Elizabeth River sub-watershed

and the associated composite category used by SSC San Diego............................. 15

 4. EMCs from southeastern Virginia city monitoring programs

(URS Consultants, Inc., 1996).................................................................................... 16

 5. Percent imperviousness by land use categories for southeastern

Virginia cities (URS Consultants, Inc., 1996). ............................................................ 16

 6. Marinas queried in Little Creek, VA area regarding pleasure boat counts ................. 20
viii

 7. USEPA BASINS land use categories for Little Creek sub-watershed and

associated composite category used by SSC San Diego.......................................... 21

 8. Copper water concentrations in Pearl Harbor (Ogden, unpublished data)................. 23

 9. Marinas queried in Pearl Harbor, HI, regarding pleasure boat counts. ...................... 31

10. Land use for Pearl Harbor sub-watersheds as determined by site assessment ........ 34

11. Copper-loading estimates for San Diego direct discharges ....................................... 46

12. 1997 San Diego Harbor Police pleasure craft survey results..................................... 47

13. San Diego commercial vessel traffic based on San Diego Unified Port District

information as reported by PRC Environmental Management, Inc. (1997)................ 48

14. Land use categories for San Diego sub-watersheds and the associated

composite category used for modeling (source: San Diego Association of

Governments)............................................................................................................. 49

15. Event Mean Concentrations (EMCs) from San Diego stormwater monitoring

(1992–1994) as reported by Woodward-Clyde International-America (1997)............ 50

16. Percent impervious by land use categories for San Diego (Woodward-Clyde

International-America, 1997)...................................................................................... 50
1

INTRODUCTION

Anthropogenic heavy metals can be a significant threat to the health of marine organisms and, as a

result, have come under increased scrutiny by State and Federal regulators in deriving restrictive

water quality criteria (WQC). Copper in its dissolved form is one such metal that, although essential

to biological functions in trace amounts, can be toxic at higher concentrations.

Copper is a ubiquitous industrial and non-industrial chemical, often exhibiting complex sediment,

water, and biotic chemical interactions. This complicates assessment of in-situ copper toxicity and

represents a significant compliance issue for harbor facilities because stringent water quality criteria

have been promulgated during the past decade (Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center, 1998).

The Marine Environmental Quality Branch (Code D362), SSC San Diego, under the sponsorship

of Naval Sea Systems Command (00C5), is performing a series of copper mass loading estimates for

major harbor areas of the United States that contain significant Navy presence (Bremerton, WA;

Mayport, FL; Norfolk, VA; Pearl Harbor, HI; and San Diego, CA). The overall goal of the project is

to:

• provide a list of known or potential copper sources within each harbor

• calculate estimates of dissolved copper loading by source

• identify areas where data are non-existent or need improvement

Loading is an important component in determining overall copper mass balance; however, other

factors need to be considered to assess the impact a given load will have on receiving water concentration and compliance with water quality criteria. These factors can include system flushing from

tidal or wind-driven currents, within harbor transport, sediment deposition, sediment release or

binding, mechanical sediment re-suspension, and formation of chemical complexes. Many of these

processes are not understood at present and are subject to differing interpretations.

Receiving water-monitoring data with its emphasis on measurements over time provides the best

means for gauging long-term effects of copper loading to a system and the relative efficiency of these

“removal” factors. Dissolved copper is an active chemical element and is thought to complex in

marine waters at a relatively rapid rate (Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center, 1998). The

in-water residence time for the biologically toxic portion of dissolved copper may well be on the

order of hours (Katz, 1998).

The following sections present the current SSC San Diego copper loading estimates for Norfolk,

Pearl Harbor, and San Diego Bay. A brief discussion of the overall copper load estimate is presented

for each harbor followed by site-specific loading assumptions pertinent to that location. Appendix A

contains the general assumptions, definitions, equations, and data sources for each discharge category. The environmental effects of copper loading are not presented in this study. Space and Naval

Warfare Systems Center Technical Document 3034 (1998) contains an excellent recent review of

copper chemistry in the marine environment and potential regulatory impacts on Navy and civilian

agencies.

3

NORFOLK AND LITTLE CREEK, VA

Copper contamination is a significant issue in a majority of Chesapeake Bay watersheds (Chesapeake Bay Program, 1991, 1994). The Chesapeake Bay Program has listed copper as the second most

important pollutant of concern out of a list of 14 contaminants (Chesapeake Bay Program, 1991).

Naval Station Norfolk, Naval Amphibious Base Little Creek, and assorted Navy shore facilities

that comprise Naval Base Norfolk are located on a series of tidally influenced rivers, creeks, and

streams along the southern portion of the Chesapeake Bay (figure 1). The majority of these naval

activities are adjacent to the Elizabeth River, a 560-km2

 watershed draining into Hampton Roads.

Only Naval Amphibious Base Little Creek is within a distinctly different sub-watershed of approximately 19 km2

 that empties directly into Chesapeake Bay. The differences in these two subwatersheds warrant their consideration as separate entities for this study.

While the U.S. Navy has had a strong presence in the area that dates back over 100 years, Norfolk

is also a major commercial seaport and supports a diverse mix of heavy industry along the Elizabeth

River. Large tracts of land remain forested or agricultural, reflecting the agricultural history of the

region. Increasing residential development, however, is slowly encroaching on these formerly undeveloped areas to support a growing population and economy. The various branches of the Elizabeth

River have been heavily industrialized, impacting water and sediment quality (URS Consultants,

Inc., 1996). Dredging, bulkheading, fill, and pier construction have modified the river’s natural flow.

Tidal activity and freshwater flushing is relatively low compared to other regional rivers because of

canal locks in the upper river reaches (URS Consultants, Inc., 1996). These canal locks restrict the

flow of freshwater to the river, and assist pleasure craft usage on the Elizabeth River, a major artery

of the Intercoastal Waterway.

The much larger James River also empties into Hampton Roads from the west. With headwaters in

the Virginia mountains over 483 kilometers (300 mi) away, the James River drains a large portion of

southern Virginia. River velocity at the outlet near Hampton Roads is estimated to be 226 m3 /s (ft 3

/s)

(Chesapeake Bay Program, 1994). However, the presence of the Craney Island disposal area and deep

navigation channels directs most of the currents past the Elizabeth River mouth. This may reduce the

impact of James River copper loading on the Elizabeth River (figure 2). Because of this prevalent tidal

regime and because of the complexities of copper speciation in an estuarine environment, copper

loading was only estimated for the two smaller Elizabeth River and Little Creek sub-watersheds.

Since these regions contain the majority of naval activity in the Hampton Roads, the sub-watershed

analysis provides a means to estimate localized impacts of Navy operations relative to civilian copper

contributions.

ENVIRONMENTAL DATA SOURCES

The Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report (Chesapeake Bay

Program, 1994) evaluated toxic loadings to Chesapeake Bay waters. Less detailed point source loading estimates were incorporated into the Chesapeake Bay Program loading estimates compared to

similar local studies of the Elizabeth River because of the basin level scale and the scope of the

Chesapeake Bay Program project (URS Consultants, Inc., 1996).

The Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (VADEQ) has a water quality monitoring

network with over 836 monitoring stations covering 78,858 stream kilometers (49,000 miles) and

6,475 km2

 (2,500 mi2 ) of estuaries (Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, 1997). However,

Mr. Roger Stewart (VADEQ) stated in telephone conversations with SSC San Diego personnel that
4

much of the past metals data for Virginia are unreliable because of laboratory contamination. A

revised clean procedure for metal analysis is currently being incrementally implemented in freshwater

systems studies to be followed by marine monitoring after 2000.

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACOE) has sediment copper data available for the Norfolk

area because of navigation channel dredging operations. However, in many cases, most of these

values are no longer applicable following subsequent dredging and removal of sediments. The only

current copper data with adequate quality control are from the Atlantic Division, Naval Facilities

Engineering Command (LANDIV)-sponsored water-effects and chemical translator study conducted

from 1995 to 1996∗†

. Ambient copper measurements were made adjacent to naval facilities in the

region and are summarized in table 1.

Table 1. Average (n=2) ambient water concentrations of copper adjacent to U.S. Navy facilities in

Norfolk, VA.

Copper Concentration by site (μg/L)

Cu

 Speciation

Willoughby

Bay

Naval

Base

Norfolk

Craney

Creek

Craney Isl

Oily WWD

Norfolk

Naval

Shipyard

Mason

Creek

Busch

Creek

Little

Creek

Total 1.30 1.30 2.65 2.20 4.12 1.37 3.89 1.94

Dissolved 1.12 1.16 1.68 1.96 3.81 1.10 3.61 1.44

NORFOLK AND LITTLE CREEK COPPER LOAD

Dissolved copper load to the Norfolk/Elizabeth River area was estimated to be 26,284 kilograms

per year (figure 3). Navy hull leachate was the largest copper source at 41% of the total load. The

second and third highest load sources were Navy Other Ship discharges at 24%, and Civilian Transit

Discharges (i.e., commercial vessel traffic) at 18%. Dissolved copper load to Little Creek is estimated

to be 4,962 kilograms per year (figure 4). Navy hull leachate comprised 48% of the total load. Of note

is the greater impact that civilian boat hull leachate has on copper loading to this basin (25%). Navy

Other Ship Discharges was the third-most-significant copper source category at 24%.

 

∗

 Atlantic Division, Naval Facilities Engineering Command. 1993. Ambient copper water concentrations for eight

stations. Norfolk, VA.

†

 CH2M Hill, Inc. An integrated approach to obtaining optimal discharge permits. Prepared for Atlantic Division,

Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Norfolk, VA. Detroit, MI.
5

Figure 1. Hampton Roads, VA, showing Elizabeth River drainage, Little Creek drainage, and

COMNAVBASE Norfolk facilities.

N

N AU TICA L M ILE S

0 1 2 3

0 6 2 4

KILOMETERS

Fort Monroe

Virginia

Hampton Roads

Norfolk

International

Airport

N aval A ir

Station

Fleet & Industrial

Supply Center (FISC)

Naval

Shipyard

Naval

Hospital

Naval

Station

Naval

Amphibious

Base

S t. Julian

Navy Depot

N aval Base

St. Helena Annex

Craney Island

Disposal Area

(U S Arm y)

James

River

N ansem on d

R iver

Chesapeake

Bay

C h uckatuck

Creek

Hampton

Roads

Newport

News

Hampton

Norfolk

Portsm outh Chesapeake

Suffolk River

Lafayette River

Little

Creek

Elizabeth

Eastern Branch

Southern

Branch

W estern

Branch

Hampton

River
6

N A U TIC A L M IL E S

0 12 3

0 6 2 4

K ILOM E TE R S

N A U TIC A L M IL E S

0 12 3

0 6 2 4

K ILOM E TE R S

EBB

FLOOD

Figure 2. Tidally averaged residual current for Hampton Roads

(source: Shen, Boon, & Sisson, 1997 ).
7

Source

Annual Dissolved

Copper Discharge

(kg/yr)

Navy Hull Leachate 10,672

Navy Hull Cleaning 23

Navy Other Ship Discharges 6,250

Navy Ship Discharges in transit 163

Navy Shore Discharges 559

Civilian Small Boat Hull Leachate 823

Civilian Small Boat Hull Cleaning 406

Civilian Ship Transit/Hull Leachate 4,767

Civilian Shore Discharges 533

Atmospheric Deposition 27

Stormwater Runoff 1,962

Baseflow (watershed baseflow) 117

TOTAL: 26,302

Figure 3. Relative source percentages of copper loading to Norfolk, VA.

Baseflow

trace < 1 %

Civilian Hull Leachate

3%

Navy Shore Discharges

2%

Navy Ship Transit

1%

Civilian Ship Transit 

18%

Civilian Hull Cleaning

2%

Navy Hull Leachate

41%

Navy Hull Cleaning

trace < 1 %

Navy Other Ship Discharge

24%

Stormwater Runoff

7%

Atmospheric Deposition

trace < 1 %

Civilian Shore Discharges

2%
8

Source

Annual Dissolved

Copper Discharge

 (kg/yr)

Navy Hull Leachate 2,438

Navy Hull Cleaning 4

Navy Other Ship Discharges 642

Navy Ship Transit Discharges 35

Navy Shore Discharges N/A

Civilian Small Boat Hull Leachate 1,251

Civilian Small Boat Hull Cleaning 492

Civilian Ship Transit/Hull

Leachate

N/A

Civilian Shore Discharges N/A

Atmospheric Deposition 1

Stormwater Runoff 76

Baseflow (watershed baseflow) 23

TOTAL: 4,962

Figure 4. Relative source percentage of copper loading to Little Creek, VA.

Atmospheric Deposition

trace < 1 %

Navy Hull Cleaning

trace < 1 %

Baseflow

trace < 1 %

Navy Hull Leachate

49%

Navy Other Ship Discharge

13%

Stormwater Runoff

2%

Civilian Hull Leachate

25%

Navy Ship Transit

1%

Civilian Hull Cleaning

10%
Figures 5 and 6 show potential copper loading sites for the Elizabeth River.

Navy Hull Leachate and Vessel Discharges

Naval Station Norfolk (NAVSTA) (figure 5),

located at the mouth of Elizabeth River adjacent to the

open waters of Hampton Roads, currently represents

one of the largest naval bases in the world and is homeport to the majority of aircraft carriers, surface ships,

and submarines in the Atlantic Fleet. Over 81 surface

ships, submarines, and service craft have been identified

as officially homeported at NAVSTA Norfolk

(Naval Sea Systems Command Shipbuilding

Support Office, 1998; U.S. Navy, 1998).

NAVSTA vessel dissolved copper loading:

Pierside and In-transit

Hull Leachate: 9,670 kg/yr

Seawater Cooling: 5,719 kg/yr

Firemain Discharge: 471 kg/yr

Non-oily Waste Discharge:

(data for aircraft carriers only)

105 kg/yr

In-transit only

Graywater Discharge: 11 kg/yr

Total: 15,976 kg/yr

There are also 11 Military Sealift Command (MSC) vessels homeported in Norfolk. In many Navy

ports, MSC vessels typically berth at multiple locations within a given harbor based on berth availability and operational necessity. For the purpose of these calculations, the Norfolk MSC ships were arbitrarily assigned to the Fleet Industrial Supply Center (FISC), Norfolk, located near the base of the

Craney Island disposal area at the western mouth of the Elizabeth River. MSC vessels were observed

berthing at FISC during a July 1998 site visit, but the distribution of homeported MSC vessels needs to

be determined.

U.S. Navy Photo
10

Figure 6. Potential copper release sites for Elizabeth River and Little Creek areas.

























 

































     

















 

























 























 

























 

Jamas River Watershed

Lynnhaven Sub-watershed

James River Roads

Roads

Navy Facilities

Vessel Discharge Locations

 Coast Guard Boat Berthing

Marina

Marine Terminal

 Navy Ship Berthing

VPDES Direct Discharge Source

 civilian

military
MSC vessel dissolved copper loading:

Pierside and In-transit

Hull Leachate: 755 kg/yr

Seawater Cooling: 107 kg/yr

Firemain Discharge: 0 kg/yr

Non-oily Waste Discharge:

(data for aircraft carriers only)

N/A kg/yr

In-transit only

Graywater Discharge: 0 kg/yr

Total: 862 kg/yr

The Naval Inactive Ship Maintenance Facility, Portsmouth (NISMF) has 24 vessels held in

Reserve status or awaiting final deposition following active duty decommissioning. As is the case

with all ships in lay-up or disposal status, cooling, firemain, and other shipboard systems are not

operational. As detailed in appendix A, underwater hull coatings are not maintained on these vessels

and this warrants a lower leach rate in the loading calculation.

NISMF vessel dissolved copper loading:

Pierside and In-transit

Hull Leachate: 246 kg/yr

Navy Hull Cleaning

Analysis of the Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA) hull cleaning database for 1994 to 1997

documented the following annual complete hull cleanings in the Norfolk and Little Creek area:

Year # full hull cleanings*

1994 20

1995 25

1996 36

1997 23

Four year average: 25

*includes cleanings at both NAVSTA and NAB Little Creek

Only the 1997 cleaning data were used to identify the actual Navy ship cleaned and to apply the

hull cleaning formula to the wetted hull area specific to that vessel. With the reduction in fleet size

because of ship obsolescence and budget constraints, it was felt that using a recent single year

cleaning count vice a multi-year average was more appropriate, and that this would be a better indicator of future hull cleaning loads. Twenty of the 23 full hull cleanings for 1997 occurred at

NAVSTA (18 surface ships and 2 submarines).
U.S. Navy hull cleaning dissolved

copper load:

Hull Cleaning: 23 kg/year

Direct Shore Discharges

URS Consultants, Inc. (1996) conducted a

detailed analysis of direct discharges and

potential metal loading to the Elizabeth

River. Since URS Consultants, Inc. reviewed site-specific Discharge Monitoring

Reports (DMRs) and determined detailed

flow-weighted averages for each facility,

URS Consultants, Inc. loading estimates were

incorporated into this study. There were 75

reported Virginia Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (VPDES)-permitted facilities that discharge directly to the Elizabeth River. These

include two

municipal sewage treatment plants, the Army Base Plant, and the Virginia Initiative Plant, all operated by the Hampton Roads Sanitation District (HRSD). Combined daily flow for these plants is 52

MGD. Other major dischargers include Norfolk Naval Base, Norfolk Naval Shipyard, Craney Island

Fuel Terminal, Atlantic Wood, Virginia Power, and Hoechst Celanese with a combined flow of 3

MGD. Minor dischargers include 63 facilities with a combined flow of 3 MGD‡. One significant

direct discharge not quantified by SSC San Diego is cooling water flow. The Elizabeth River Point

Source Team reported 400 MGD in cooling water discharge primarily from the Virginia power facility. Lack of information on outflow copper concentrations precludes estimating copper loading

from this source.

Following conversion of URS Consultants, Inc. loading estimates from total to dissolved using the

EPA conversion factor, dissolved copper load to the Elizabeth River was estimated to be 1,051 kg/yr.

Norfolk Naval Shipyard (figure 7) was the largest single contributor of copper at 518 kg/yr or 49% of

the total load. United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) BASINS v2 data provided

an estimated copper loading of 41 kg/yr for NAVSTA, which was not included in the original analysis conducted by URS Consultants, Inc.

Direct shore-based discharge dissolved copper load:

Navy Permitted Discharges: 559 kg/yr

Civilian Permitted Discharges: 533 kg/yr

Total: 1,092

 

‡

 Elizabeth River Point Source Team. 1994. The significance Point Source pollutant loads to the Elizabeth River

system, unpublished manuscript.

U.S. Navy Photo
13

Civilian Pleasure Craft and Small Boats

Seven marinas with 788 in-water pleasure craft were identified through a telephone survey of the

Elizabeth River area in July 1998 (table 2).

Table 2. Marinas queried in Norfolk, VA area regarding pleasure boat counts.

Sub-Region Marina Name

# of

boats

Total #

of slips

Avg.

length

(m)

Willoughby Bay Willoughby Bay Marina 55 65 9.1

Willoughby Harbor 300 300 10.7

Lafayette River Norfolk Yacht and Country

Club

80 * 7.6

Elizabeth River—Western

Branch

Nautical Boats 90 * 7.6

Elizabeth River—Eastern

Branch

Waterside Marina 30 * 10.7

Tidewater Yacht Marina 200 300 7.6

Elizabeth River-Scotts Creek Scotts Creek Marina 0 * 10.7

Portsmouth Boating 33 33 10.7

* = unknown or not available

Copper loading from two additional civilian vessel copper sources cannot be estimated. One is nonmarina small boat berthing, and the other is transit traffic through the Intercoastal Waterway (ICW).

Multiple neighborhood moorings and docks adjacent to waterfront residences were not accounted for

in the marina survey. Single or multiple boats are often moored in non-marina locations along the

many small creeks, streams, and river branches common to the Chesapeake Bay. Although the State

of Virginia maintains records of boat registration, SSC San Diego has not found an agency that

maintains exact in-water boat counts by location.

The Elizabeth River serves as a major artery in the ICW, a series of waterways and canals extending the length of the East Coast from Maine to Florida. SSC San Diego does not currently have traffic

estimates for ICW transits. If traffic counts become available, then by using an assumed average boat

length and average transit time, copper input from this source can be estimated.

Civilian pleasure craft hull leachate and hull cleaning dissolved copper load:

Anti-fouling Paint Hull Leachate: 823 kg/yr

Hull cleaning operations: 406 kg/yr

Total: 1,229

Civilian Commercial Ship Traffic

The ports of Norfolk and Portsmouth are major regional centers of commercial shipping with the

second largest cargo volume on the East Coast, after New York City. With almost 62 million short
14

tons of cargo traded in 1996, the port of Norfolk was the second busiest seaport on the East Coast

after New York City (Virginia Port Authority, 1998).

The Virginia Port Authority operates two large-scale marine terminals on the Elizabeth River: the

Portsmouth Marine Terminal and the NIT-Norfolk International Marine Terminal. Additionally, two

other private company terminals on the Elizabeth River include the LPD-Lambert’s Point Docks and

the ERT-Elizabeth River Terminals (Virginia Port Authority, 1998).

The U.S. Coast Guard Marine Safety Office, Norfolk, estimated that approximately 3,200 vessels

per year berth at one of four marine terminals located in the Elizabeth River. The typical duration of

their stay is short, about 1 to 3 days.

Many civilian tanker and container vessels may have tributyltin (TBT) anti-fouling hull coatings

vice copper paint, since most service work on these ships is done overseas where TBT application

may be less strictly regulated. However, since TBT coatings often have copper as a co-biocide and

quantifiable information on paint type applied is not available, the NAVSEA copper paint leach rate

was used to calculate potential copper loading from hull leachate. An average container ship dimension was used to derive a typical wetted hull surface which was, in turn, multiplied by the number of

visiting vessels and duration of stay. A residence time of 2 days was used.

Civilian commercial ship traffic dissolved copper load:

Anti-fouling Paint Hull Leachate: 4,767 kg/yr

Stormwater

There are officially three United States Geological Survey (USGS)-designated watersheds that

drain to Hampton Roads and the lower Chesapeake Bay. These are the Lower James, Hampton

Roads, and Lynnhaven watersheds. SSC San Diego defined the Little Creek sub-watershed from the

Lynnhaven watershed using USEPA BASINS v 2 Geophysical Iinformatio System data (figure 8).

The Fall Line is the furthermost reach within a river influenced by tidal activity, and serves as the

boundary between the Upper and Lower James River watersheds. Although not factored into the copper loading presented in this study, the Chesapeake Bay Program has estimated an “Above Fall Line”

James River (i.e., the USGS Upper James River watershed) annual copper load of approximately

13,500 kg/yr, and a “Below Fall Line” (i.e., Lower James River watershed) annual copper load of

approximately 5,000 kg/yr (Chesapeake Bay Program, 1994). Because of the extensive drainage network of the Upper James River, the Above Fall Line area covers much of southern Virginia.

The Elizabeth River sub-watershed and Little Creek sub-watershed, as designated by SSC San Diego, were modeled to gage the relative impact of local land use on potential stormwater copper load.

As detailed in figure 1, the copper loading from the James River were thought to be minimum because of the prevailing tidal regime that may inhibit entrained copper from entering the Elizabeth

River (Shen et al., 1997).

Elizabeth River Sub-watershed Land Use. The total area within the Elizabeth River sub-watershed

is 559 km2 (137,967 acres). The largest land use category was residential (32%) followed by water

(16%) and forest (15%). Industrialized land use comprised only 2% of the total area, but was centrally

located along the Elizabeth River and the its southern branch (figure 9, table 3).
15

Table 3. USEPA BASINS land use categories for the Elizabeth River sub-watershed and the associated

composite category used by SSC San Diego.

Land Use

Category Used

Original USEPA BASINS v. 2

Land Use Classification

Area

(km2

)

Area

(acres)

Total

(%)

Residential Residential 178 44,020 32

Commercial Commercial and Services;

Other Urban Or Built-Up

65

7

16,038

1,785

13

Industrial Industrial;

Indust. & Commercial Complexes

10

3

2,348

882

2

Transportation Trans, Comm, Util 29 7,158 5

Agriculture Cropland and Pasture 74 18,195 13

Forest Deciduous Forest Land;

Evergreen Forest Land;

Mixed Forest Land;

Forested Wetlands

7

19

41

20

1,675

4,598

10,178

4,825

15

Water Streams and Canals;

Lakes;

Reservoirs;

Bays and Estuaries

30

0.5

2

56

7,501

101

565

13,844

16

Open / Parks Strip Mines;

Transitional Area;

Unclassified

1

16

0.02

283

3,967

4

3

Total 559 137,967

Even Mean Concentrations (EMC). URS Consultants, Inc. (1996) reported the results of regional

stormwater monitoring for several Virginia cities (table 4). SSC San Diego used the geometric mean

of these EMCs by land use category for our modeling efforts. Since multi-family land use data were

not available for all three of the harbors under review, single-family and multi-family values were

combined to generate a single residential EMC. No information was available for regional EMCs for

roads and streets. Therefore, the road EMC was taken from a Federal Highway Administration study

that reported a highway EMC derived from national data (Federal Highway Administration, 1990).

Until regional road EMCs are derived for the Hampton Roads area, it was felt that the Federal Highway Administration study provided a reasonable substitute. A separate land use category for “Forest”

was developed specifically for Norfolk because of large areas of undeveloped forest common to this

region. Schueler (1987) reported an EMC for a northern Virginia hardwood forest below analytical

detection limits. However, to provide what is possibly an overly conservative estimate for this study,

an EMC for forest land use was derived by taking the lowest regional EMC (agricultural/open land

use EMC of 0.0080 mg/L from Chesapeake, which has large rural areas) and dividing by one-half to

represent a “background contribution.”
16

Table 4. EMCs from southeastern Virginia city monitoring programs (URS Consultants, Inc., 1996).

Copper Concentration, Total (mg/L)

City

Single

Family

Residential

Multi-family

Residential Commercial Industrial Agricultural Open Roads Forest

VA Beach 0.00720 0.01113 0.01980 0.00720 0.01760 0.01760

Portsmouth 0.00623 0.00847 0.01550 0.01315 0.01760 0.01760

Norfolk 0.01900 0.01793 0.02600 0.01315 0.01760 0.01760

Chesapeake 0.00800 0.00800 0.00800 0.00800 0.00800 0.00800

Geometric

Mean

0.00990 * 0.01590 0.00999 0.01445 0.01445 0.03111 0.004

* composed of geometric mean of single-family and multi-family residential EMCs

Annual rainfall. Annual rainfall from the Norfolk Airport for the years 1962 to 1991 is 114 cm (45

inches) (URS Consultants, Inc., 1996).

Perviousness. Table 5 lists the percent imperviousness by land use category used in the modeling

formula.

Table 5. Percent imperviousness by land use categories for southeastern Virginia cities (URS Consultants, Inc., 1996).

% Impervious by Land Use

City

Single Family

Residential

Multi-family

Residential Commercial Industrial Agricultural Open Roads Forest

VA Beach 25.0 50.0 71.0 81.0 5.0 10.0

Portsmouth 25.0 50.0 45.0 80.0 5.0 13.0

Norfolk 25.0 63.0 43.0 80.0 5.0 10.0

Chesapeake 24.0 50.0 50.0 73.0 5.0 8.0

Geometric

Means

 36.2 * 51.2 78.4 5.0 10.1 90.0 5.0

* composed of geometric mean of single-family and multi-family residential imperviousness

The Simple Stormwater model was calculated with the above terms and the final value converted

from total-to-dissolved copper by the USEPA translator (United States Environmental Protection

Agency, 1995). The final loading results for stormwater and baseflow runoff for the Elizabeth River

are presented below.

Elizabeth River Sub-Watershed Stormwater Runoff dissolved copper load:

Elizabeth River Sub-watershed Stormwater: 1,962 kg/yr

Sub-watershed Baseflow: 117 kg/yr

Total: 2,079
17

Figure 8. United States Geological Survey-designated watersheds within James River

drainage basin and SSC San Diego-designated Little Creek sub-watershed.

Figure 9. Land use as defined by the USEPA (BASINS v2.0) for the Elizabeth River

sub-watershed (one of two sub-watersheds comprising the Hampton Roads

watershed HUC: 0208208).

Little Creek

Hampton Roads

Lower James River

Land Use

residential

com mercial

industrial

transportation

cropland/pasture

forest

water

forested and nonforested wetland

transitional/beach/strip mines

Elizabeth River Sub-watershed

Elizabeth River Drainage

0 7 14 Miles
18

Atmospheric Deposition

The United States Environmental Protection Agency (1997) presented results of monitoring studies

for air deposition of multiple contaminants, including copper, to the Chesapeake Bay. The air shed

influencing the Bay is significantly larger that the Chesapeake Bay watershed (figure 10). Copper

loading for the surface area of the entire Bay was reported as 9,200 kg/year. To estimate potential air

shed deposition to the Elizabeth River sub-watershed aquatic area, this bay-wide copper load was

divided by the Chesapeake Bay surface area (30,800 km2 or 11,892 mi2) to obtain a load of 0.299

kg/ km2-yr. USEPA BASINS v2 GIS software and data sets for the Elizabeth River sub-watershed

listed a total water area of 89 km2 (34.4 mi2). It is assumed that any deposition to land areas was accounted for in the stormwater runoff.

This approach to atmospheric deposition is a crude localization based on basin-wide information

that does not factor in the effects of local copper release and deposition specifically within the Elizabeth River sub-watershed. This is because of a lack of site-specific information regarding copper air

emissions release and deposition data specifically for the Elizabeth River. Metals do have a relatively

short atmospheric lifetime according to Commission for Environmental Cooperation (1997), and will

be deposited sooner than some other airborne contaminants.

Atmospheric deposition dissolved copper load:

Atmospheric Deposition: 27 kg/yr

Figure 10. The Chesapeake Bay watershed and air shed (source: United States

Environmental Protection Agency, 1997).

Airshed

Watershed
19

LITTLE CREEK SITE-SPECIFIC LOADING ASSUMPTIONS

Navy Hull Leachate and Vessel Discharges

There are 25 surface vessels and 3 service craft homeported in Little Creek, Virginia. This includes

three Coast Guard vessels (two 82-ft patrol vessels and one 41-ft utility boat)

located at Coast Guard Station Little Creek. There are also 65 assorted Landing Craft attached to

Assault Craft Unit Two assigned to Naval Amphibious Base, Little Creek (Naval Amphibious Base,

Little Creek, 1998).

The U.S. Navy uses an assortment of landing craft for amphibious operations, and SSC San Diego

does not have the current craft distribution for ACU TWO. To quantify the impact of in-water assault

craft hull leachate, the LCU 1610 class was used as a “standard” craft type. Naval Sea Systems

Command (1997a) provides a list of assault craft inventory for the U.S. Navy and their associated

wetted hull area.

Little Creek Vessel dissolved copper load:

Pierside and In-transit

Hull Leachate: 2,438 kg/yr

Seawater Cooling: 609 kg/yr

Firemain Discharge: 67 kg/yr

Non-oily Waste Discharge:

 (data for aircraft carriers only)

N/A

In-transit only

Graywater Discharge: 1 kg/yr

Total: 3,115

Dissolved copper load by discharge category for Navy berthing sites in Little Creek:

Hull Leachate: 2,438 kg/year

Other Discharges: 642 kg/year

In-transit Discharges: 35 kg/year

Total: 3,115

Navy Hull Cleaning

Based on analysis of the NAVSEA hull cleaning database for 1997, three ships were cleaned in

Little Creek during that year.

Little Creek hull cleaning dissolved copper load:

Hull Cleaning: 4 kg/yr
20

Direct Shore Discharges

SSC San Diego does not currently have NPDES information for any direct discharges to Little

Creek.

Civilian Pleasure Craft and Small Boats

Eight marinas with 956 pleasure craft were reported for Little Creek in the July 1998 telephone

survey (table 6, figure 11).

Table 6. Marinas queried in Little Creek, VA area regarding pleasure boat counts.

Marina name # of boats

Total

# of

slips

Ave.

length

(m)

Bay Marina 62 104 9.1

Bay Point Marina 280 318 10.7

Clyde’s Marina 44 unk 10.7

Cobbs Marina 20 80 10.7

Cove Marina 151 151 9.1

Cutty Sark Marina 95 100 10.7

Little Creek Marina 115 130 10.7

Tailor’s Landing 189 270 10.7

Civilian pleasure craft dissolved copper load:

Anti-fouling Paint Hull Leachate: 1,251 kg/yr

Hull cleaning operations: 492 kg/yr

Total: 1,743

Civilian Commercial Ship Traffic

No information was available on civilian commercial vessel traffic in Little Creek.

Stormwater

Land Use. Total land within the Little Creek sub-watershed is 17.8 km2

 (4,570 acres) (table 7). The

majority of land adjacent to Little Creek, as identified by USEPA BASINS data, is Navy-owned with

the largest percent of land use being residential (59%) followed by water (12%) (figure 11).
21

Table 7. USEPA BASINS land use categories for Little Creek sub-watershed and associated composite

category used by SSC San Diego.

Land Use

Category Used

Original USEPA BASINS v 2

Land Use Classification

Area

(km2

)

Area

(acres)

Total

(%)

Residential Residential 11 2,718 59

Commercial Commercial And Services;

Other Urban Or Built-Up

4

0.4

1,008

87

24

Industrial Industrial; Industrial &

Commercial Complexes

0

0

0

Transportation Trans, Comm, Util 0.4 105 2

Agriculture Cropland And Pasture 0 0

Forest Deciduous Forest Land;

Evergreen Forest Land;

Mixed Forest Land;

Forested Wetlands 0.4

0

0

0

109

2

Water Streams And Canals;

Lakes;

Reservoirs;

Bays And Estuaries

2

> 0.1

542

0

0

1

12

Open / Parks Strip Mines;

Transitional Area;

Unclassified

0

0

0

0

Total 17.8 4,570

Other Stormwater terms. EMCs, annual rainfall and degree of imperviousness values from the Norfolk model were used for Little Creek as well.

Stormwater and baseflow runoff dissolved copper load:

Little Creek Sub-watershed Stormwater: 76 kg/yr

Sub-watershed Baseflow: 23 kg/yr

Total: 99

Atmospheric Deposition

The same deposition rate of 0.299 kg/km2-yr determined previously was used for the Little Creek

water area.

Atmospheric deposition dissolved copper load:

Atmospheric Deposition: 1 kg/yr
22

Figure 11. Land use for the SSC San Diego-designated Little Creek sub-watershed.

Little Creek Land Use

Residential

Commercial and Services

Industrial

Transportation

Agricultural/pasture

Forest

Water

Forested/Non-forested wetland

Transition/Open/Unclassified

Little Creek Sub-Watershed

Lynnhaven Drainage
23

PEARL HARBOR, HI

Pearl Harbor, a natural estuary on the southern edge of Oahu, is unique from many other industrialized harbors in that the surface waters are entirely under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Navy

(Grovhoug, 1992), and dominated by a significant homeport presence of surface ships, submarines,

and Inactive/Reserve vessels. A large shore-based infrastructure has developed around the harbor in

response to a historical build-up of the area as a major support base for fleet operations (figure 12).

ENVIRONMENTAL DATA SOURCES

Pearl Harbor has been the focus of several past environmental studies and recent projects involving

SSC San Diego scientists. Grovhoug (1992) provided the basis for evaluating the history and ecological assessment of the harbor. The Pacific Division, Naval Facilities Engineering Command

(PACDIV) recently completed the Phase I sampling of water, sediment, and animal tissue as part of

on going Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) at Pearl Harbor (Ogden Environmental

and Energy Services Company, Inc., 1996). This represents the most current data collection available.

Additionally, SSC San Diego conducted an on-site survey in February 1998 to update Pearl Harborspecific information and locate new sources of receiving water data.

Grovhoug (1992) reported an average water total copper concentration of 2.1 μg/L based on a onetime sampling of nine stations throughout the harbor in 1990. Using a total-to-dissolved ratio of 0.83

promulgated by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (1995), an average dissolved

copper concentration of 1.8 μg/L was determined. Ogden (unpublished data) sampled a total of five

stations for water quality in 1995 as part of the RI/FS effort (Ogden Environmental and Energy

Services Company, Inc., 1996). Results are presented in table 8.

Table 8. Copper water concentrations in Pearl Harbor (Ogden Environmental and Energy Services

Company, Inc., unpublished data).

Sampling Location

Concentration (μg/L) Qualifier

Main Channel: Hickam AF Base Runoff Ditch * Non-detect (1.8 μg/L detection

West Loch: Waterfront park on west shore * Non-detect (1.8 μg/L detection

Middle Loch: Public access area (north end of (Loch) * Non-detect (1.8 μg/L detection

East Loch: Blaisdell Park 3.5 Estimated

East Loch: FLETRAGRU Firefighting Training Area 23.0 Measured

East Loch: FLETRAGRU Firefighting Training Area 6.9 Estimated

Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard and the Public Works Center, NAVSTA Pearl Harbor, do not possess

any long-term water monitoring data for metals. Excess nutrients and traditional water quality

parameters (dissolved oxygen, turbidity, and pH) have long been a higher priority environmental and

regulatory issue for the region.
24

Figure 12. Pearl Harbor, HI, showing stream drainage, COMNAVBASE Pearl Harbor facilities, and other DoD

sites.

Alpha Docks

 (Bishop Point)

(US Navy)

Honolulu

International

Airport

Fort Kamehameha

Naval

 Station

Naval Submarine Base

Naval

Shipyard

Hickam

Air Force Base

Ford Island

(US Navy)

Waipio

Peninsula

(US Navy)

McGrew Point

Naval Housing

Pearl City

Peninsula

(US Navy)

West Loch

NAVMAG

(US Navy)

West

Loch

Middle

Loch

East

Loch

Aiea

Bay

Entrance

Channel

Keehi

Lagoon

0 0.5 1

0 1 2

Nautical Miles

Kilometers

O’ahu,

Hawaii

Pearl Harbor

Halawa Stream

Aiea Stream

Kalauao

Stream

Waimalu

Stream

Waimanu

Stream

Kapakahi

Stream

Honouliuli

Stream

Waikele

Stream Golf

Course

Stream

Waiawa

Stream

N

Victor

Piers

NISMF

SE Loch

South

Channel

North

Channel
25

PEARL HARBOR COPPER LOAD

The Pearl Harbor copper load is estimated at 7,781 kg/yr (figure 13). Navy hull leachate was the

most significant copper source, comprising 61% of the total load. This was the single largest percentage loading of any harbor, although the actual amount of copper load is lower when compared to

Norfolk and San Diego Bay. Navy Ship Other Discharges was the second most significant source at

19%. These results are not surprising given the almost exclusive use of Pearl Harbor by the Navy.

There are few significant civilian copper sources discharging to the harbor.

Source

Annual Dissolved Copper Discharge (kg/yr)

Navy Hull Leachate 4,656

Navy Hull Cleaning 33

Navy Other Ship Discharges 1,479

Navy Ship Transit Discharges 23

Navy Shore Discharges 437

Civilian Small Boat Hull Leachate 224

Civilian Small Boat Hull Cleaning 80

Civilian Ship Transit/Hull Leachate 9

Civilian Shore Discharge N/A

Atmospheric Deposition 2

Stormwater Runoff 730

Baseflow (watershed baseflow) 108

TOTAL: 7,781

Figure 13. Relative source percentage of copper loading to Pearl Harbor, HI.

Baseflow

1%

Atmospheric Deposition

trace < 1 %

Civilian Ship Transit 

trace < 1 %

Civilian Hull Cleaning

1%

Civilian Hull Leachate

3%

Navy Shore Discharge

6%

Navy Ship Transit

trace < 1 %

Navy Other Ship Discharges

19%

Navy Hull Clean

trace < 1 %

Stormwater Runoff

9%

Navy Hull Leachate

61%
Figures 14 and 15 present potential copper sources located in Pearl Harbor.

USS Missouri memorial

SUBASE

PHNSY

NISMF

NAVSTA

U.S. Navy Photo
27



















 







Features.shp

Reef Runway

Army Owned Property

Air Force Owned Prop

Navy Owned Property

Pearl Harbor Drainage Wes

1

2

4

6

7

Pearl Harbor Drainage East

1

3

4

5

6

7

Honolulu-West Roads

Ewa Roads

Hololulu West shorelin

Freeways.shp

East roads.shp

Base Boundary

Direct Discharge

civilian

military

Vessel Discharge

 Navy ship berthing

 marina

 memorial

Figure 15. Potential copper release sites for Pearl Harbor, HI.
28

Navy Hull Leachate and Vessel Discharges

There are three major and two minor naval berthing areas in the Pearl Harbor area. Major berthing

areas include Naval Station Pearl Harbor (NAVSTA), Submarine Base Pearl Harbor (SUBASE), and

the Naval Inactive Ship Maintenance Facility (NISMF), Waipio. Minor berthing areas include ALFA

Docks (Bishop Point) near the Pearl Harbor entrance channel, and VICTOR Pier 2/6 on the Pearl City

Peninsula along the northeast portion of East Loch. Additionally, the U.S. Army has a facility on the

northern shore of Ford Island for vehicle transport vessels.

Naval Station Pearl Harbor (NAVSTA), located along the western shore of Southeast Loch, is

homeport to 11 surface ships and approximately 68 service craft (NAVSHIPSO, 1998; U.S. Navy,

1998). The NAVSTA Port Operations Department provided SSC San Diego with an accurate inwater service craft count.

Although not factored into these loading calculations, Pearl Harbor is subject to numerous port

visits by non-homeported vessels. United States and foreign naval vessels frequently berth for short

time periods following major exercises, such as Rim of the Pacific (RIMPAC), before and after oversea deployments, and as part of official port visits. These in-port times vary depending on operational

and scheduling requirements. An added complexity in quantifying vessel discharge from temporary

visitors is the periodicity of local exercises that may occur annually or biannually. Most visiting naval

vessels temporarily berth at various NAVSTA piers for an undetermined period of time.

NAVSTA Vessel dissolved copper loading:

Pierside and In-transit

Hull Leachate: 1,874 kg/yr

Seawater Cooling: 267 kg/yr

Firemain Discharge: 46 kg/yr

Non-oily Waste Discharge:

 (data for aircraft carriers only)

N/A

In-transit only

Graywater Discharge: trace kg/yr

Total: 2,187

There are currently 22 submarines assigned to SUBASE Pearl.

SUBASE Pearl Vessel dissolved copper load:

Pierside and In-transit

Hull Leachate: 2,122 kg/yr

Seawater Cooling: 1,096 kg/yr

Firemain Discharge: 94 kg/yr

Non-oily Waste Discharge:

 (data for aircraft carriers only)

N/A

Total: 3,312
29

The Naval Inactive Ship Maintenance Facility (NISMF), in upper Middle Loch along the East Side

of Waipio Peninsula, is responsible for the long- and short-term storage of inactive and decommissioned naval vessels. There are 70 vessels (37 ship and 43 service craft) assigned to NISMF as

detailed by the NISMF Operations Manager. NISMF provided an updated list of vessels and service

craft current as of 01 February 1998. Conversations with the NISMF Project Manager confirmed the

locations of the vessels and also confirmed that no shipboard systems on inactive vessels are in operation.

Hull cleaning is not performed on inactive and decommissioned vessels so this source is not factored into the copper loading from NISMF.

NISMF Vessel dissolved copper load:

Pierside

Hull Leachate: 404 kg/yr

ALFA Docks (Bishop Point), located on the eastern side the entrance channel to Pearl Harbor, are

home to Navy salvage ships and associated support barges. Two salvage ships and a salvage barge

berth at Alfa Docks as of June 1998.

ALFA Docks (Bishop Point) Vessel dissolved copper loading:

Pierside and In-transit

Hull Leachate: 171 kg/yr/

Seawater Cooling: 51 kg/yr

Firemain Discharge: 4 kg/yr

Non-oily Waste Discharge:

 (data for aircraft carriers only)

N/A

In-transit only

Graywater Discharge: trace kg/yr

Total: 226

Victor Pier 5/6 is a newly dedicated berthing area for Towed Array Surface Ships (T-AGOS) in the

northern part of East Loch along the East Side of Pearl City Peninsula. One MSC vessel moors at

Victor Pier 5/6 with more likely to be assigned in the future.
30

VICTOR Pier Vessel dissolved copper loading:

Pierside and In-transit

Hull Leachate: 25 kg/yr

Seawater Cooling: 13 kg/yr

Firemain Discharge: 2 kg/yr

Non-oily Waste Discharge:

 (data for aircraft carriers only)

N/A

In-transit only

Graywater Discharge: Trace kg/yr

Total: 40

The U.S. Army keeps two medium landing ships in Pearl Harbor berthed along the northern shore

of Ford Island. Hull leachate is the only copper source from these vessels.

Pierside

Hull Leachate: 61 kg/yr

Navy Hull Cleaning

Analysis of the NAVSEA hull cleaning database documented the following annual complete hull

cleanings in Pearl Harbor from 1991 to 1997:

Year # full hull

cleanings*

1991 13

1992 16

1993 11

1994 10

1995 11

1996 26

1997 41

7-year average: 18

Only the 1997 cleaning data were used to identify the actual Navy ships cleaned for hull cleaning

load calculation. The hull cleaning formula was then applied to the wetted hull area specific to that

vessel class. There were 41 hull cleanings in the Pearl Harbor area during 1997.
31

U.S. Navy hull cleaning dissolved copper load:

Hull Cleaning: 33 kg/year

Civilian Pleasure Craft and Small Boats

During the February 1998 site visit to Pearl Harbor, SSC San Diego scientists visited the three

main pleasure craft facilities within the harbor. Table 9 shows boat counts and average length.

Located just south of Alfa Docks is a small pier containing six rental pleasure craft owned by the

MWR Department of Hickam Air Force Base. The quay wall area is less a marina than a mooring

area for the boats. Again, typical assumptions place residence time as 365 days within Pearl Harbor,

when actual boat usage may well result in less time in harbor vice at sea. During the recent site visit,

thus more accurate transit information was not available.

The former USS Missouri (BB-63) was permanently moored along the south side of Ford Island in

May 1998. Although berthed on Navy property, the vessel is owned and operated by a non-profit

civilian agency. Because of the age of the anti-fouling paint, a conservative leachate rate of 1.0

μg/cm2

/day was assumed.

Table 9. Marinas queried in Pearl Harbor, HI, regarding pleasure boat counts.

Sub-Region Marina name

# of

boats

Total # of

slips

Avg. length

(m)

Entrance Channel Iroquois Point Marina 53 unk 10.7

Entrance Channel MWR Rental Berthing 6 10 10.7

East Loch- Aiea Bay Rainbow Marina 75 unk 10.7

Total 134

Civilian Pleasure Craft dissolved copper load:

Anti-fouling Paint Hull Leachate: * 224 kg/yr

Hull cleaning operations: 80 kg/yr

Total: 304

* includes hull leachate from Ex-Missouri (BB-63) of 38 kg/yr

Direct Shore Discharges

The Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard (PHNSY) represents the major shore-based direct discharger to

the harbor. Most of PHNSY maintenance facilities and dry-docks are located along the southern edge

of the South Channel adjacent to NAVSTA and across from Ford Island (figure 12).

There are four dry-docks and six outfalls at PHNSY. Dry-dock #4 with two outfalls discharges only

to the Main Channel while the remaining outfalls discharge to the South Channel. For this study, the

decision was made to group the outfall data by the region affected. Discharge Monitoring Reports for

total copper from PHNSY were reviewed for 1-year periods for the South Channel region (Outfalls

001, 002A, 002B, May 1996 through May 1997) and Main Channel region (Outfalls 004A and 004B,

July 1995 through July 1996). There were no data available for Outfall 003. A geometric mean con-
32

centration was taken of each composite (18.7 and 20.3 μg/L total copper, respectively). The high reporting detection limit for PHNSY copper analysis that appeared to be 25 μg/L remains a point of

concern. One-half the detection limit was substituted as the concentration for geometric mean determination in those cases where values were below detection limits. Additionally, a single excessive

total copper concentration of 3,800 μg/L was not used in the geometric mean calculations (Outfall

001 on November 1996). This excessively high value appears to have been a one-time anomaly and

was not indicative of normal shipyard discharges. The resulting total copper value was adjusted to

dissolved copper based on the U.S. EPA total-to-dissolved copper ratio of 0.83 (United States Environmental Protection Agency, 1995).

Daily flow data were only available for all shipyard dry-docks combined at 6.1 MGD (2.2 x 107

L/day), so an assumption that two-thirds went to the South Channel and one-third to the Main Channel was applied. However, given the cyclic operational tempo for these dry-docks, another unsubstantiated assumption was applied where it was assumed that this daily flow occurs 365 days/year.

The Fort Kamehameha Sewage Treatment Plant (STP) located on the East Side of the Entrance

Channel services naval commands and naval housing areas within Pearl Harbor, as well as the adjacent Hickam Air Force Base. Fort Kamehameha represents the only other known DoD direct discharger, with the main outfall on the channel bottom west of the plant. Of note is the planned relocation of this outlet to deeper water outside of the Entrance. Based on the discharge depths and prevailing along shore currents, this would effectively remove the influence of the discharge plume upon

Pearl Harbor. PACDIV reports that construction is slated to begin in July 1999 and estimated to take

approximately 18 months. An average total copper discharge concentration of 20 μg/L was reported

in a letter from the USEPA based on a review of NPDES required Discharge Monitoring Reports

from 1991 to 1996 (United States Environmental Protection Agency, 1996a). Permitted flow is 13

MGD (4.9 x 107 L/day). The resultant total copper discharge was adjusted to dissolved copper with

the EPA 0.83 total-to-dissolved ratio.

A copper loading source not factored into the total harbor load is the cooling water flow from the

Waipio power-generating facility located along the northern shore of East Loch. Operated by the

Hawaiian Power Company, this facility outputs a high-volume cooling water discharge into East

Loch. Conversations with company officials revealed that the inlet and outlet pipes are composed of

titanium vice copper piping, which would reduce copper pipe leachate. Continuous boiler blowdowns

of the steam boilers are a regular maintenance procedure, however, and this may result in additional

copper leachate. Copper concentration in the discharge stream is, therefore, unknown at present and

not quantified for this study.

Direct shore-based discharge copper load:

Navy Permitted Discharges: 437 kg/yr

Civilian Permitted Discharges: unk

Total: 437

Civilian Commercial Ship Traffic

Although Pearl Harbor is Navy-controlled and not subject to commercial ship traffic, there are

regularly scheduled tour boat services to the harbor. Pacific Division, Naval Facilities Engineering

Command (1990) identified approximately nine tour boats that routinely visit Pearl Harbor and pro-
33

vided their estimated hull length. An average wetted hull area for these vessels was used along with

an estimated residence time of 2 hours and the NAVSEA-derived hull leachate value to determine a

dissolved copper load.

Civilian Transit: 9 kg/yr

Stormwater

The Pearl Harbor watershed drains an area of approximately 291 km2 (112 mi2), and is composed

of seven sub-watersheds (figures 16 and 17) (Pacific Division, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, 1990; Grovhoug, 1992). Runoff and sheet flow associated with the piers and surface areas of

the NAVSTA/SUBASE/PHNSY was termed an “eighth” watershed by SSC San Diego for this

report.

Land use. Land use data for Pearl Harbor are currently unavailable from the USEPA Basins data

sets. To estimate the stormwater copper load, SSC San Diego applied a land use classification to the

various sub-watersheds by overlying a grid and assigning the appropriate land use classification to

each grid. Topographic maps, nautical charts, and aerial photographs were reviewed to determine a

grid’s specific classification. In addition, SSC San Diego staff provided input as to recent urbanization trends in Hawaii. Since the approximate areas of each sub-watershed were known, the percentage

of a particular classification grid relative to the total number of grids in that watershed permitted an

approximate area for that classification to be determined (figure 18, table 10).
Table 10. Land use for Pearl Harbor sub-watersheds as determined by site assessment.

Pearl Harbor Sub-watershed

Waikele Waiawa Waimalu Honouliuli Halawa Aiea Ew

Land UseCategory

Area(km2 /

acres)

% oftotal

Area(km2 /

acres)

% oftotal

Area(km2 /

acres)

% oftotal

Area(km2 /

acres)

% oftotal

Area(km2 /

acres)

% oftotal

Area(km2 /

acres)

% oftotal

Area(km2 /

acres)

Residential

20.3 /5,071

21 % 13.1 /

3,230

21 % 13.5 /

3,336

30 % 6.0 /

1,477

15 % 2.9 /

712

21 % 7.8 /

1,920

60 % 6.6 /

1,629

Commercial

0 0 1.6 /

404

3 % 4.7 /

1,168

11 % 0 0 1.4 /

339

9 % 1.3 /

320

10 % 0.7 /

175

Industrial

1.4 /

346

1 % 4.9 /

1,211

8 % 1.4 /

334

3 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.5 /

116

Roads

1.9 /

461

2 % 1.6 /

404

3 % 1.4 /

334

3 % 13.9 /

3,446

3 % 0.9 /

226

6 % 1.3 /

320

10 % 0.2 /

58

Agriculture

33.1 /8,184

34 % 8.7 /

2,153

14% 0 0 17.9 /

4,431

46 % 0 0 0 0 1.4 /

349

Open /Parks

41.5 /

10,258

42 % 33.8 /

8,343

53 % 23.6 /

5,838

53 % 13.9 /

3,446

36 % 10.1 /

2,485

65 % 2.6 /

640

20 % 0.9 /

233

Total 98.0 /

24,230

63.7 /

15,744

44.5 /

11,008

38.8 /9,600

15.5 /3,840

12.9 /3,200

10.4 /2,560

34
35

Figure 16. Pearl Harbor watershed and relative proportion to Oahu land area.

Figure 17. Pearl Harbor sub-watersheds.

Halawa

Aiea

Waimalu

Waiawa

Waikele

Honouliuli

Ewa Beach DoD
36

The immediate areas surrounding the harbor have been subject to residential and commercial

development for the past 50 years. Many former agricultural areas are also being converted to residential housing along the perimeter of West Loch. The steep mountain ridges above Pearl Harbor

remain as relatively undeveloped rainforest, and can be a significant portion of some sub-watershed

land use. The three largest sub-watersheds, Waikele, Waiawa, and Waimalu, are all close to 50%

rainforest.

Annual Rainfall. Annual rainfall for Oahu can vary from 50.8 cm/yr (20 in/yr) to over 190.5 cm/yr

(75 in/yr) in the surrounding Koolau and Waianae Mountains, which drain toward the harbor

(Grovhoug, 1992). Estimated annual rainfall was determined for each sub-watershed based on relative

proximity to the harbor or mountains.

Figure 18. Land use grid for Pearl Harbor.

P

P P P

P P

P P

P P PP P P PP PPP

P

P P P

P P

P P P

P P

P

P P

PPPPPPPPPP

PPPPPPPPPP

P P P P P P P P PP

AAAPPPPPPPPPP

AAAAP

A

AAP

P

I I

P

P

APPPPPPPPPPPPP

RAAPPAPPPPPPPPPP

AAAAAAPPP PPPPP

AAAAAA PPPPPPPP

P

P

P

P

P

P P

P

PAAAAAA PPPPPPPPP

A

PPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP

PPPPPPPPPP

PPPPP

P P P P

P P P P

P P A P P P

P P P

P P A

P P A

P P

P P A A P

P A P P

P

P

P P A P P P

P AAAAA R R R R R

P A A A A A

I I I

I I

R

P

R

RRRRRRRRR

PPPPPPPPP

P

P

P

P

P

R R

R

P

C

C

C

C

C

R

C

C

C

R P P

R R

R

P

P P

P

C

R R

RRR

P

RRR

R R

RRRR

P

P

R R

R R

P

R CCCCCC

III

I C

I C

C C

I I C

III

IIII

I

I

C RRRR

C C

C C

RRRRR

RRRR

RRR

C

RRRR

RRRRRRRR

RRRRRR

C RRRRRRR P

C

C

C

C

CRRR

RRR

RRC

R R

R

R

AAA

AAAA

A A I

A I C

I

C

R

A RRRR

RRR I

P P

P P

I

C I

C

C

RRRR R R

RRRP R

P

R A

R A A

A

PPPP

R RRR P

R R

R

R

RRR

RRR

R

AAR

A R P

AAAAA

AAAAA

AAAAAA

AAAAAA

AAAAAA

AAAAAA

AAAAA

AAAAA

AAAAAA

AAA

AAAA

AAAA

R

P

R

P

I

A

R

A A

A

P

P

P

P P

P P P





	






	 

	

20 in

30 in

40 in

50 in 75 in

A = agriculture

C = commercial

I = industrial

annual rainfall
37

Sub-watershed Annual Rainfall (in/yr)

Halawa 40.0

Aiea 35.0

Waiawa 40.5

Waimalu 40.5

Waikele 30.0

Honouliuli 30.0

Ewa 20.0

DoD 25.0

Event Mean Concentrations (EMC). There is little stormwater or water quality monitoring data

available for Pearl Harbor. Therefore, region-specific EMCs were not available. As a substitute, SSC

San Diego used the verified EMCs derived for San Diego (Woodward-Clyde International America,

1997). This introduces a greater degree of uncertainty to the stormwater copper loading estimates.

However, it does provide, at a minimum, a conservative means to quantify stormwater loading (table

14). Unlike Norfolk, the San Diego EMCs do not provide a value for “forest” land use. The rainforest

land areas were, therefore, added to the parks/open classification.

Perviousness. The San Diego impervious values were used as mentioned above because of a lack of

region specific values (table 15).

Stormwater and baseflow runoff dissolved copper load:

Pearl Harbor Sub-watershed Stormwater: 730 kg/yr

Sub-watershed Baseflow: 108 kg/yr

Total: 838

Atmospheric Deposition

Kennish (1997) presents an atmosphere-to-surface deposition rate of 0.0089 μg/cm2/yr for the

North Pacific. Given the small water surface area of Pearl Harbor (21 km2), copper loading from

atmospheric deposition would be expected to be low:

Atmospheric deposition copper load:

Atmospheric Deposition: 2 kg/yr

Other Sources

Pearl Harbor has numerous natural springs and a shallow aquifer that generates a significant freshwater flow into Pearl Harbor. However, lack of copper concentration and quantifiable flow rates

 precludes including groundwater transport as a loading term.

39

SAN DIEGO, CA

San Diego Bay, located along the southernmost portion of California (figure 19), is the largest

Navy homeport on the West Coast. Unlike Norfolk or Pearl Harbor, this semi-arid region receives

relatively little precipitation. Annual rainfall is typically less than 25.4 cm/yr (< 10 inches/yr). Freshwater input to the enclosed bay is, therefore, fairly limited, and tidal currents are the dominant mixing

force in the harbor. San Diego’s increasingly heavy urbanization and industrialization has negatively

impacted ambient water and sediment quality over the years.

Figure 19. San Diego, CA, showing COMNAVBASE San Diego facilities.

California

San Diego Bay

0 12

NAUTICAL MILES

01234

KILOMETER S

N

San D iego International

Airport

Naval Air Station

North Island

Naval

Am phibious

Base

Naval

 Station

Fleet & Industrial

Supply Center (FISC )

Naval

Subm arine

Base

Naval Hospital

Fleet ASW

Training Center

SPAWAR

Systems

Center

FISC

MSF

San Diego

National

City

Chula

Vista

Coronado

Point

Loma

Pacific Ocean

San

D iego

B ay
40

ENVIRONMENTAL DATA SOURCES

SSC San Diego has been gathering San Diego-specific water and sediment data since the 1970s

and has developed a 200,000 record database comprising data from U.S. Navy, Federal, State, and

regional agency studies. Most available datasets pertinent to San Diego have been, or are, in the process of undergoing conversion for inclusion into this environmental database.

The most current San Diego Bay copper water concentration data were reported from a survey conducted in November 1997 (Katz, 1998). An increasing gradient of copper concentration progressing

from the Bay mouth to the middle portion of the Bay adjacent to a region of commercial shipbuilding

activity and traditional surface ship berthing areas for Naval Station San Diego was reported (figure

20).

Figure 20. Dissolved Cu (μg/L) distribution in San Diego Bay for November 1997

(modified from Katz, 1998).

November 1997 Dissolved Copper Water Concentrations ( ug/L)

4.5

3.5

2.5

1.5

0.5

Dissolved Cu

(μg/L )
41

SAN DIEGO COPPER LOAD

San Diego is the only harbor with a large U.S. Navy presence where copper loading was dominated

by a civilian source. A combination of both Navy ship sources and civilian boat sources resulted in

the highest total load (32,422 kg/year) of any harbor under review (figures ES-1 and 21).

Civilian pleasure boat hull leachate accounted for nearly 33% of the total load, followed by 22% for

Navy hull leachate, and 14% for pleasure craft hull cleaning. San Diego has a large number of

in-water pleasure craft within a relatively small geographic area. Over 7,400 boats have been documented in the most recent San Diego Harbor Police annual census.

Source

 Annual Dissolved Copper Discharge

(kg/yr)

Navy Hull Leachate 7,194

Navy Hull Cleaning 30

Navy Other Ship Discharges 3,328

Navy Ship Transit Discharges 106

Navy Shore Discharges N/A

Civilian Small Boat Hull Leachate 10,287

Civilian Small Boat Hull Cleaning 4,402

Civilian Ship Transit/Hull Leachate 3,685

Civilian Shore Discharges 1,984

Atmospheric Deposition 7

Stormwater Runoff 1,328

Watershed Baseflow 125

Total: 32,474

Figure 21. Relative source percentage of copper loading to San Diego, CA.

Baseflow

trace < 1%

Atmospheric Deposition

trace < 1%

Stormwater Runoff

4%

Civilian Hull Cleaning

14%

Civilian Ship Transit

11%

Civilian Hull Leachate

33%

Navy Ship Transit

trace < 1 %

Navy Other Ship Discharge

10%

Navy Hull Clean

trace < 1 %

Navy Hull Leachate

22%

Civilian Shore Discharges

6%
Figures 22 and 23 show San Diego copper loading sites.

Navy Hull Leachate and Vessel Discharges

There are three major Navy facilities in San Diego. These include Submarine Base San Diego

(SUBASE) located on Point Loma, Naval Air Station North Island (NASNI) located on the northern

portion of the Coronado peninsula, and Naval Station San Diego (NAVSTA) located along the eastern middle portion of San Diego Bay (figures 19 and 22).

 

Submarine Base San Diego (SUBASE), the closest Navy facility to the San Diego Bay entrance,

currently has seven submarines, a submarine tender, and a command-and-control surface ship

assigned to this command.

Shelter Island marinas

NASNI

carrier piers

NAVSTA

U.S. Navy Photo
43

SUBASE Vessel dissolved copper load:

Pierside and In-transit

Hull Leachate: 1,017 kg/yr

Seawater Cooling: 488 kg/yr

Firemain Discharge: 45 kg/yr

Non-oily Waste Discharge:

(data for aircraft carriers

only)

0 kg/yr

In-transit only

Graywater Discharge: trace kg/yr

Total: 1,550

Figure 23. Potential copper release sites for San Diego, CA.











 





























Coast

San Diego County

Rr

Lakes

Small piers

Roads

Major Roads

Streams

Freeways

Runway

Copper Sources

 Civilian direct discharge

 Navy direct discharge

 Navy ship berthing

marina

 marine terminal
Dissolved copper load by discharge category for Navy berthing sites at SUBASE:

Hull Leachate: 1,017 kg/year

Other Discharges: 525 kg/year

In-transit Discharges: 8 kg/year

Total: 1,550

Two aircraft carriers (one CVN and one CV) moor at the carrier piers adjacent to Naval Airstation

North Island (NASNI) (figure 24). Eventually, up to three CVNs are scheduled for assignment to San

Diego in the next decade.

NASNI Vessel dissolved copper load.

Pierside and In-transit

Hull Leachate: 720 kg/yr

Seawater Cooling: 477 kg/yr

Firemain Discharge: 53 kg/yr

Non-oily Waste Discharge:

(data for aircraft carriers

only)

35 kg/yr

In-transit only

Graywater Discharge: trace kg/yr

Total: 1,285

Dissolved copper load by discharge category for

Navy berthing sites at NASNI:

Hull Leachate: 720 kg/year

Other Discharges: 547 kg/year

In-transit Discharges: 18 kg/year

Total: 1,285

Naval Station San Diego (NAVSTA) is currently home to 50 major surface ships including combatants, amphibious assault ships, naval auxiliaries, coastal warfare vessels, and the hospital ship

USNS Mercy. In addition, larger hull U.S. Coast Guard vessels also use NAVSTA piers.

U.S. Navy photo
45

NAVSTA Vessel dissolved copper load:

Pierside and In-transit

Hull Leachate: 5,322 kg/yr

Seawater Cooling: 1,960 kg/yr

Firemain Discharge: 267 kg/yr

Non-oily Waste Discharge:

(data for aircraft carriers

only)

N/A

In-transit only

Graywater Discharge: trace kg/yr

Total: 7,549

Dissolved copper load by discharge category for Navy berthing sites at NAVSTA:

Hull Leachate: 5,322 kg/year

Other Discharges: 2,152 kg/year

In-transit Discharges: 75 kg/year

Total: 7,549

Military Sealift Command has four vessels homeported in San Diego. The two tankers and two

ocean tugs historically had been berthed at the Fleet Industrial Supply Center piers adjacent to

downtown San Diego. Current harbor observations, however, show these vessels mooring at various

other Navy locations within the harbor (SUBASE, NASNI, NAVSTA) depending on pier availability

and operational commitments.

MSC Vessel dissolved copper load

Pierside and In-transit

Hull Leachate: 135 kg/yr

Seawater Cooling: 103 kg/yr

Firemain Discharge: 6 kg/yr

Non-oily Waste Discharge:

(data for aircraft carriers

only)

N/A

In-transit only

Graywater Discharge: trace kg/yr

Total: 379
Navy Hull Cleaning

Analysis of the NAVSEA hull cleaning database documented the following annual complete hull

cleanings in San Diego:

Year # full hull cleanings

1990 29

1991 47

1992 28

1993 32

1994 36

1995 46

1996 39

1997 30

8-year average: 36

There were 30 hull cleanings in San Diego based on analysis of the NAVSEA 1997 hull cleaning

database.

U.S. Navy hull cleaning dissolved copper load:

Hull Cleaning: 30 kg/year

Direct Shore 

There are relatively few direct industrial shore discharges to San Diego Bay. The predominate

shore activities that could provide copper input to the Bay are shipyard operations and power plant

cooling water flow. Based on a combination of 1996 and 1994 sediment monitoring and deposition

data, PRC Environmental Management, Inc. (1997) calculated the copper loading estimates for San

Diego direct dischargers as summarized in table 11.
47

Civilian Pleasure Craft and Small Boats

San Diego is home to a large population of pleasure craft that dominate the total copper-loading

budget based on hull leachate and hull cleaning estimates. Although wetted hull areas for this type of

boat are relatively small as compared to the large hull commercial and naval vessels, with close to

7,400 boats in San Diego Bay, the impact of pleasure craft hull loading on the total copper budget is

significant. The San Diego pleasure boat count was also more accurate as compared to Norfolk, for

instance. The San Diego Unified Port District’s Harbor Police, which have Bay-wide enforcement

jurisdiction, conduct an annual pleasure craft survey within San Diego Bay. These counts do not

represent only slip counts, but are confirmed occupancy counts at the various marinas and docks lining the Bay. The 1997 survey results are presented in table 12.

Table 12. 1997 San Diego Harbor Police pleasure craft survey results.

Pleasure Craft Location # of boats

Avg.

Length

(m)

Shelter Island 2,242 10.7

America’s Cup Harbor 723 10.7

Harbor Island – WEST 1,412 10.7

Harbor Island – EAST 559 10.7

Laural Street 157 10.7

Embarcadero 463 10.7

Coronado – Roadstead 69 10.7

Coronado – Glorietta Bay 341 10.7

Coronado – Cays 231 10.7

Coronado – Silver Strand 364 10.7

National City 170 10.7

Chula Vista 668 10.7

Total 7,399

Civilian pleasure craft copper load:

Anti-fouling Paint Hull Leachate: 10,287 kg/yr

Hull cleaning operations: 4,402 kg/yr

Total: 14,689

Civilian Commercial Ship Traffic

The Port of San Diego does not host a high volume of commercial ship traffic common to the Port

of Norfolk on the East Coast, and the Port of Los Angeles north of San Diego on the West Coast.

PRC Environmental Management, Inc. (1997) obtained detailed approximations of civilian vessel

movements for San Diego from the San Diego Unified Port District. The relatively high contribution

that civilian commercial ship traffic load provides to the total copper budget for San Diego, as com-
pared to the civilian ship traffic load for the higher volume port of Norfolk, can be attributed to the

longer residence time assigned to the “miscellaneous and visiting” category presented in table 13. A

residence time of 10 days per year was used by PRC whereas in the Norfolk copper load section, a

residence time of 2 days was used for all civilian traffic.

Vessel Type

#

per

year

Avg. wet hull

area per

vessel (m2)

SD Bay Residence Time

(days/yr)

AF paint release

rate (ug/cm2/

day)

Annual Cu

Load

(kg/yr)

Passenger/ Cruise 14 3,459 2 17 16

Cargo 148 9,121 3 17 688

Barges 25 334 3 17 4

Marine Construction 10 334 244 17 139

Miscellaneous and Visiting 290 4,967 10 17 2,449

Tug Boats 19 334 360 17 388

Civilian commercial ship traffic dissolved copper load:

Anti-fouling Paint Hull Leachate: 3,685 kg/yr

Stormwater

Total land area within the San Diego County watershed that specifically drains to San Diego Bay

is 1,144 km2 (282,632 acres), and is composed of three sub-watersheds (figure 25).

The San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG), a multi-agency advisory panel

composed of local municipalities and Bay stakeholders, distributes 1995 land use data through the

Internet (San Diego Association of Governments, 1998a) as Geographical Information System (GIS)

data layers. Watershed delineation, county land use, and San Diego Bay land use maps were generated by SSC San Diego from these data (figures 25, 26, 27). The most recent SANDAG statistics

(San Diego Association of Governments, 1998b) do not adequately distinguish between industrial

and commercial land use categories (table 13). For the stormwater runoff model, industrial and

commercial land uses were combined into a single land use classification. The higher industrial

EMC and higher commercial percent impervious values were applied to this combined classification

in the model to generate a more conservative result.
Table 14. Land use categories for San Diego sub-watersheds and the associated composite category used for 

(source: San Diego Association of Governments, 1998b).

San Diego Bay Sub-watershed

Sweetwater Otay Pu

Land Use

Category

Used

Original SANDAG

Land Use Classification

Area

(km2

)

Area

(acres)

Total

(%)

Area

(km2

)

Area

(acres)

Percent

of total

Area

(km2

)

Residential Residential 190.8 27,135 18 33.8 8,355 8% 60.0 Industrial Commercial / Industrial

SchoolsCommercial Recreation

13.7

5.57.0

3,3971,3571,742

4

26.3

2.02.9

6,494

503717 8%

25.7

4.41.5

Agriculture Agriculture 24.6 6,073 4 29.5 9,762 10% 0.1 Open / Parks Vacant /Undeveloped

Parks /Open

297.4105.2

73,49826,006 67

265.3

14.8

65,553

3,660 70%

8.68.4

Roads Freeways/Road Row 35.7 8,830 6 14.2 3,509 4% 37.4 

Total: 599.1 148,038 398.8 98,553 145.9 

49
50

Annual rainfall. The long-term (1850-1992) annual rainfall as reported by PRC Environmental Management, Inc. (1997) at San Diego’s Lindbergh Field Airport is 25.4 cm/year (10 in/year).

Event Mean Concentrations (EMC). Woodward-Clyde International-America (1997) have been

monitoring stormwater parameters as part of an ongoing 4-year stormwater program for the City of

San Diego, the San Diego Unified Port District, San Diego County, and 17 other San Diego area

cities. Event Mean Concentrations presented in table 15 were the flow-weighted copper concentrations by land use classification from this 4-year period.

Table 15. Event Mean Concentrations (EMCs) from San Diego stormwater monitoring (1992-1994) as

reported by Woodward-Clyde International-America (1997).

Copper Concentration, Total (mg/L)

City Residential Commercial Industrial Agricultural Open Roads *

San Diego 0.01000 0.01280 0.02400 0.01000 0.01000 0.0428

 *Road EMC taken from Federal Highway Administration (1990)

Perviousness. The percent imperviousness values as reported by Woodward-Clyde InternationalAmerica (table 16) were also used in the stormwater runoff model.

Table 16. Percent impervious by land use categories for San Diego (Woodward-Clyde InternationalAmerica, 1997).

% Impervious by Land use

City

Residential Commercial Industrial Agricultural Open Roads

San Diego 13.9 90.0 73.7 0.5 0.5 90.0

The final loading results of the Simple Method stormwater and baseflow runoff are presented

 below.

San Diego Stormwater Runoff dissolved copper load:

San Diego Sub-watershed Stormwater:1,328 kg/yr

Sub-watershed Baseflow: 125 kg/yr

Total: 1,453
51

Atmospheric Deposition

San Diego Bay-wide copper deposition was calculated as part of a sediment characterization study

for NAVSTA, San Diego‡‡. Lacking significant sources of metal air emissions, estimated atmospheric deposition of copper to the Bay was small.

Atmospheric deposition dissolved copper load:

Atmospheric Deposition: 7 kg/yr

 

‡‡ Naval Command, Control and Ocean Surveillance Center, RDT&E Division (now SSC San Diego). 1996.

Draft

 Sediment Quality Characterization—Naval Station San Diego. San Diego, CA. Unpublished monitoring data.

Figure 25. San Diego County sub-watersheds draining to San Diego Bay.

0 10 20 30 40 Miles

Otay

Sweetwater

Pueblo San Diego

MEXICO

UNITED STATES
52

Figure 26. San Diego sub-watershed 1995 land use (source: San Diego Association of

Governments, 1998).

Pueblo San Diego

Sweetwater

Otay

LAND USE

Residential

Commercial and Services

Industrial

Transportation

Agriculture/Pasture/Cropland/Orchard

Parks/Reserves/Landscape/Vacant

Water

Under Construction

Open/Mining/Landfill/ Beaches

San Diego Bay Sub-Watersheds

Pueblo San Diego

Sweetwater

Otay

Runway

Streams

Coastline
53

Figure 27. 1995 land use patterns adjacent to San Diego Bay (source: San Diego

Association of Governments, 1998).

LAND USE

Residential

Commercial and Services

Industrial

Transportation

Agriculture/Pasture/Cropland/Orchard

Parks/Reserves/Landscape/Vacant

Water

Under Construction

Open/Mining/Landfill/ Beaches

Runway

Streams

Coastline

55

REFERENCES

Commission for Environmental Cooperation. 1997. Continental Pollutant Pathways. Montreal,

Canada.

CH2M Hill, Inc. Unpublished. An Integrated Approach to Obtaining Optimal Discharge Permits.

Prepared for: Atlantic Division, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Norfolk, VA. Detroit,

MI.

Chadwick, D. B., S.H. Lieberman, C. E. Reimers and D. Young. 1993. “An Evaluation of Contaminant Flux Rates From Sediments of Sinclair Inlet, WA, Using a Benthic Flux Sampling Device.”

NRaD TD 2434, Naval Command, Control and Ocean Surveillance Center, RDT&E Division,

San Diego, CA.

Chesapeake Bay Program. 1991. “Chesapeake Bay Toxics of Concern List: Basinwide Toxics

Reduction Strategy Commitment Report.” Chesapeake Bay Program Toxics Subcommittee Joint

Criteria and Standards Workgroup, Annapolis, Maryland.

Chesapeake Bay Program. 1994. “Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report.” Toxic Subcommittee, Annapolis, Maryland.

Federal Highway Administration. 1990. “Pollutant Loading and Impacts from Highway Stormwater

Runoff, Vol. 3; Analytical Investigation and Research Report.” FHWA-RD-88-008, McClean,

VA.

Grovhoug, J. G., P. F. Seligman, R. L. Fransham, S. Y. Cola, M. O. Stallard, P. M. Stang, and A. O.

Valkirs. 1989. “Butyltin Concentration Measurements in Pearl Harbor, Hawaii.” TR 1293. Naval

Ocean Systems Center, San Diego, CA.

Grovhoug, J. G. 1992. “Evaluation of Sediment Contamination in Pearl Harbor.” TR1502. Naval

Command, Control and Ocean Surveillance Center, RDT&E Division, San Diego, CA.

Katz, C. N. 1998. “Seawater Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons and Copper in San Diego Bay.” TR

1768. Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center, San Diego, CA.

Kennish, M. 1997. Practical Handbook of Estuarine and Marine Pollution. CRC Press, New York,

NY.

Atlantic Division, Naval Facilities Engineering Command. 1993. Unpublished. Ambient Copper

Water Concentrations for Eight Stations. Norfolk, VA.

McPherson, T. N. and G. B. Peters. 1995. “The Effects of Copper-based Antifouling Paints on Water

Quality in Recreational Bat Marina in San Diego and Mission Bay.” Prepared for: California

Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Diego Region. Unpublished manuscript.

Naval Amphibious Base Little Creek. 1998. Internet site:

 http://www.cmar.navy.mil/NABLC/index.htm.
56

Naval Sea Systems Command. 1996. Chapter 633 – Cathodic Protection Table 633-5. Estimates of

Wetted Surface Areas for U.S. Navy Vessels. Naval Ships’ Technical Manual, October 1996.

S9086-VF-STM-010. Naval Sea Systems Command, Arlington, VA.

Naval Sea Systems Command. 1997a. Nature of Discharge Report: Hull Coating Leachate.

05 Nov 1997. Naval Sea Systems Command (00T), Arlington, VA.

Naval Sea Systems Command. 1997b. Nature of Discharge Report: Underwater Ship Husbandry.

24 Nov 1997. Naval Sea Systems Command (00T), Arlington, VA.

Naval Sea Systems Command. 1997c. Nature of Discharge Report: Seawater Cooling Overboard

Discharge. 22 Dec 1997. Naval Sea Systems Command (00T), Arlington, VA.

Naval Sea Systems Command. 1997d. Nature of Discharge Report: Firemain Systems.

19 Nov 1997. Naval Sea Systems Command (00T), Arlington, VA.

Naval Sea Systems Command. 1997e. Nature of Discharge Report: Non-Oily Machinery Wastewater. 19 Nov 1997. Naval Sea Systems Command (00T), Arlington, VA.

Naval Sea Systems Command Shipbuilding Support Office. 1998. Naval Vessel Register. Internet site

only. http:\\www.nvr.navy.mil, Philadelphia, PA.

Naval Command Control and Ocean Surveillance Center, RDT&E Division. 1996. Draft Sediment

Quality Characterization - Naval Station San Diego. (Unpublished monitoring data). San Diego,

CA.

Ogden Environmental and Energy Services Company, Inc. 1996. “Final Report: Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) Work Plan for Pearl Harbor Sediment Study, Pearl Harbor,

Hawaii.” Prepared for: Pacific Division, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Pearl Harbor,

HI. Honolulu, HI.

Pacific Division, Naval Facilities Engineering Command. 1990. “Final Environmental Impact Statement for Proposed Developments at Naval Base Pearl Harbor, Oahu, Hawaii.” Pearl Harbor, HI.

PRC Environmental Management, Inc. 1997. Report of Copper Loading to San Diego Bay, California. Prepared for: California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Diego Region.

San Diego, CA.

San Diego Association of Governments. 1998a. Internet site: http://www.sandag.cog.ca.us

San Diego Association of Governments. 1998b. “Watersheds of the San Diego Region,” SANDAG

INFO (Mar-Apr), San Diego, CA.

Sansalone, J. J. and S. G. Buchberger. 1997. Partitioning and First Flush of Metals in Urban Roadway Storm Water. Journal of Environmental Engineering (Feb), pp. 134–143.

Schueler, T. R. 1987. “Controlling Urban Runoff: A Practical Manual for Planning and Designing

Urban BMPs.” Pp. 275, Department of Environmental Programs, Metropolitan Washington

Council of Governments, Washington, D.C.
57

Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center. 1998. “Chemistry, Toxicity and Bioavailability of Copper

and Its Relationship to Regulation in the Marine Environment—Office of Naval Research Workshop Report.” TD 3034. P. F. Seligman and A. Zirino, eds., San Diego, CA.

Shen, J., J. D. Boon, and G. M. Sisson. 1997. “Hydrodynamic Model HEM-3D: Clam Larval Dispersions, James River. Prepared for: Virginia Marine Resources Commissions,” Newport News,

Virginia Institute of Marine Science, Gloucester Point, VA.

URS Consultants, Inc. 1996. “Technical Assessments in Support of the Elizabeth River Regional

Action Plan. Prepared for: Department of Environmental Quality,” Contract No. 970500142,

Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, Virginia Beach, VA.

United States Environmental Protection Agency. 1983. “Results of the Nationwide Urban Runoff

Program Volume I—Final Report. Water Planning Division.” Washington, DC.

United States Environmental Protection Agency. 1995. “Water Quality Standards; Establishment of

Numeric Criteria for Priority Toxic Pollutants; States’ Compliance-Revision of Metals Criteria,”

Federal Register, vol. 60, no. 86 (4 May), pp. 22229–22237.

United States Environmental Protection Agency. 1996a. “Clean Water Act Inspection of Pearl Harbor

Naval Base and Hickam Air Force Base NPDES permit for Fort Kamehameha Feb 28, 1990.”

Letter to PWC, Pearl Harbor and Pearl Harbor Naval Base 31 May 1996.

United States Environmental Protection Agency. 1996b. Draft TMDL Program Implementation Strategy. Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds, United States Environmental Protection

Agency, Washington, DC. 20 December.

United States Environmental Protection Agency. 1997. Deposition of Air Pollutants to the Great

Waters: Second Report to Congress. Office of Air Quality, United States Environmental Protections Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC. EPA-453/R-97-011.

United States Environmental Protection Agency. 1998a. National Water Quality Inventory: 1996

Report to Congress. Office of Water, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. EPA-841-R-97-008.

United States Environmental Protection Agency. 1998b. Better Assessment Science Integrating Point

and Nonpoint Sources (BASINS v 2.0). Office of Water, United States Environmental Protection

Agency, Washington, DC. EPA-823-R-98-006.

United States Environmental Protection Agency. 1998c. Proposed Phase I Uniform National Discharge Standards for Vessels of the Armed Forces. Technical Development Document. Office of

Water, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. EPA-821-R-98-009.

United States Navy. 1998. “Naval Vessels by Homeport.” United States Navy Official Internet site:

http://www.navy.mil.
58

Virginia Department of Environmental Quality. 1997. “Virginia Ambient Water Quality Monitoring

Report, Monitoring Year 1997. Water Quality Assessments,” Richmond, VA. DEQ Tech Bull.

WQA/1997-003.

Valkirs, A. O., B. M. Davidson, L. L. Kear, R. L. Fransham, A. R. Zirino, and J.G. Grovhoug.

“Environmental Effects from In-water Hull Cleaning of Ablative Copper Antifouling Coatings.”

TD 2662. Naval Command, Control and Ocean Surveillance Center, RDT&E Division,

San Diego, CA.

Virginia Port Authority. 1998. Internet Site: http://www.vaports.com

Woodward-Clyde International America. 1997. “1996-1997 City of San Diego and Co-Permittees

NPDES Stormwater Monitoring Program Report.” San Diego, CA.
A-1

APPENDIX A 

GENERAL LOADING ASSUMPTIONS

To determine potential copper loading to any harbor, a watershed-based analysis is warranted to

quantify all possible sources of a given pollutant to the marine receiving waters (United States Enviromental Protection Agency, 1996b). The most common sources of copper loading to a watershed

identified include:

Navy Sources

Vessel Hull Anti-Fouling Paint Leachate

Vessel Seawater Cooling Discharge

Shore-Based NPDES Direct Discharge

Vessel Firemain Discharge

Vessel In-Water Hull Cleaning Operations

Non-Navy Sources

Vessel And Small Boat Hull Anti-Fouling Paint Leachate

Vessel And Small Boat In-Water Hull Cleaning Operations

Shore-Based NPDES Direct Discharge

Sources common to both Navy and Non-navy origin

Stormwater Runoff

Groundwater Transport

Atmospheric Deposition

Many general assumptions were used to derive the estimates of copper mass loads presented in this

study and are applicable for all harbors under review. For Department of Defense vessels, many of the

discharge-specific copper concentrations, ship system flow rates, in-port residence times, and data

assumptions were based on NAVSEA 00T Nature of Discharge Reports (NOD) supporting the Uniform National Discharge Standards (UNDS) program. These NODs have recently been collectively

published by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (1998c). Estimates of naval vessel

copper contributions were derived from Navy-wide NAVSEA discharge information and applied to

harbor-specific homeport information for Navy surface ships, service craft, and submarines.

For each major NAVSEA-identified copper containing discharge, a vessel-by-vessel copper load

was quantified and summed across a region to determine the total contribution within each harbor.

This sometimes necessitated re-interpretation or re-calculation of NAVSEA discharge information

that was often presented as total fleet-wide impact instead of harbor specific influence. The Naval Sea

Systems Command Shipbuilding Support Office (1998) provides on-line homeporting lists for active
A-2

and retired U.S. Navy vessels. Homeport information used for copper loading calculations by SSC

San Diego was current as of September 1998.

There was less direct information available concerning civilian commercial vessel and pleasure

craft copper contributions. To allow quantification of loading estimates from non-DoD vessels,

information from NAVSEA NODs was applied to civilian craft in some situations. Studies of civilian

pleasure boat hull cleaning operations in San Diego Bay were reviewed by SSC San Diego scientists†† (PRC Environmental Management Inc., 1997) and similar loading calculations were performed

for other harbors.

HULL ANTI-FOULING PAINT LEACH RATES

A major source of dissolved copper to most industrialized harbors is leachate originating from antifouling paint applied to hull bottoms. Designed to leach copper as a preventive biocide, these paints

can result in significant copper inputs in small bays, marinas, or other confined water bodies where

vessels are typically berthed.

The formula for hull leachate from any given ship can be expressed as:

CuLDI

 = [ ( HA x CuL / 1,000,000,000 μg/kg) ] x IP (1)

where

CuLDI = Individual Vessel Copper Load (kg/yr)

HA = Vessel wetted hull area in square centimeters (cm2

)

CuL = Copper Leach Rate per unit area (μg/cm2

/day)

IP = Number of in-port days (days/year)

NOTE: 1,000,000,000 represents unit conversion from μg to kg

Naval Vessel Wet Hull Area (HA)

The NAVSEA NOD Hull Coat Leachate (Naval Sea Systems Command, 1997a) and table 633-5 of

Naval Ship Technical Manual (Naval Sea Systems Command, 1996) contain pre-calculated tables of

common naval ship wetted hull areas. For those few cases where there was no particular wetted hull

listing in the above sources, the following Naval Sea Systems Command (1996) formula for calculating wetted hull area was used:

S = 1.7 (L) (d) + (V/d) (2)

 

†† McPherson, T. N. and G. B. Peters. 1995. The effects of Copper-based antifouling paints on water quality in

 recreational bat marina in San Diego and Mission Bay. Prepared for California Regional Water Quality Control

 Board, San Diego Region. Unpublished manuscript.
A-3

where

S = Wetted hull area in ft2

L = Length of vessel between perpendiculars (ft)

d = Molded mean draft at full displacement (ft)

V = Molded volume of displacement (for seawater, 35 ft3

 per ton of displacement)

Vessel length and draft information was obtained from the on-line Internet Naval Vessel Register

maintained by the NAVSEA Shipbuilding Support Office (NAVSHIPSO, 1998).

Pleasure Craft Wet Hull Area (HA)

To estimate wetted hull area for pleasure craft, the following formula was used:

y = 0.2021x2

 – 0.2197x +3.5571 (3)

where

y = Wetted hull area (ft2

)

x = Boat length (ft)

This formula was derived by Grovhoug et al. (1989) based on unpublished data of sailing vessel

length and wet hull area obtained from small boat manufacturers. Since approximately two-thirds of

the pleasure craft surveyed in each harbor are sailing vessels, it was decided to apply the formula to

all small boats. While hull area formulas would be different for power boats because of differences in

hull dimensions, it was decided to use the above expression as a known means of determining hull

area instead of attempting to estimate power boat hull areas without supporting data.

Paint Leach Rate

An average leach rate for Navy-formula anti-fouling paint of 17 μg/cm2/day was based on previous

U.S. Navy studies of hull paint leachate (Naval Sea Systems Command, 1997a). There is no current

published data on copper leach rates from commercial anti-fouling hull paints. The 17-μg/cm2

/day

leach rate was used in this report for both active Navy and pleasure craft hull-leaching calculations.

Because decommissioned vessels at the NISMF sites (Norfolk, Pearl Harbor) do not receive periodic repainting of anti-fouling paint, the typical hull leach rate in our calculations was changed from

17 μg/cm2

/day to 1.0 μg/cm2/day to account for aging effects. Given the relatively long out-of-service

period for many of these vessels, the 1.0 leach rate is conservative and actual leaching may be lower

still. Past laboratory experiments with standard Navy ablative anti-fouling paints showed a lower

release rate of 4.1 μg/cm2

/day after 5.5 years with a further exponential reduction to around 2.5

μg/cm2

/day after 7 years and 2.0 μg/cm2/day after 10 years. Additionally, as the hull paints age and

the biocide efficiency becomes reduced, marine fouling organisms will begin to attach over time and

could cover much of the hull surface area. This would result in further reductions of copper leachate

from these vessels.
A-4

Leach rates have declined significantly with paint age (figure A-1). Valkirs et al. (1994) determined

in-situ leach rates of between 1.1 and 6.0 μg/cm2

/day for five navy vessels with older hull paint applications in 1991. Hull paint conditions on these vessel classes, however, may not be indicative of paint

leach rates currently encountered on newer naval vessels with newly applied paints. Conversations

with civilian owners and marina dockmasters revealed that pleasure craft owners typically repaint

more frequently than Navy vessels, somewhat justifying the use of the 17 μg/cm2

/day leaching value

for civilian boats as well.

Residence Time

Table 1 in Naval Sea Systems Command (1997a) contains in-port estimates for naval vessels. An

overly conservative assumption for pleasure craft was adopted where all small boats were assumed to

reside within a given harbor 365 days per year, since there was no reliable means to quantify days

out-of-port.

IN-WATER HULL CLEANING

In-water hull cleaning is a fundamental maintenance operation common to naval vessels and pleasure craft designed to reduce the amount of bottom growth from marine fouling organisms. Large

civilian commercial vessels such as tankers and container ships typically do not have their hulls

cleaned in U.S. ports, but rather take advantage of lower foreign labor costs to have hulls cleaned at

non-U.S. sites.

Figure A-1. Copper leach rate over time for test panels painted with Ameron (formerly

Devoe) copper ablative anti-fouling paint (Devoe ABC #3) and International Courtaulds

Coatings ablative anti-fouling paint (BRA 640).

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0135

Exposure Time (years)

Leach Rate (ug/cm2/day)

Dynamic ABC Cu Leach Rate

Dynamic 640 Cu Leach Rate

Static ABC Cu Leach Rate

Static 640 Cu Leach Rate
A-5

In-water hull cleaning releases copper as part of the hull scrubbing process. However, a fundamental difference exists in determining hull cleaning copper load when comparing civilian hull cleaning

estimates and NAVSEA estimates for naval vessels. Critical terms for determining the hull-cleaning

load include (a) release rate per unit area cleaned or, alternatively, the concentration of a cleaning

plume, and (b) frequency of cleaning. The Navy formula bases the hull cleaning load estimate on a

unit area of cleaned hull that releases a set amount of dissolved copper when cleaned by a mechanical

apparatus. The civilian hull-cleaning estimate was based on a volumetric plume approach, and depends on the plume dissolved copper concentration generated by hand-held scrubbing operations, as

well as the plume volume.

The formula used for calculating the hull cleaning copper load for an individual cleaning event for

naval vessels is expressed as

CuLDI

 = [ ( HA x CuR ) / 1,000 g/kg ] x CE (4)

where

CuLDI = Individual Vessel Copper Load (kg/yr)

HA = Vessel wetted hull area in square meters (m2

)

CuR = Copper Release Rate per unit area cleaned (g/m2

)

CE = Number of cleaning events per year (clean/yr)

NOTE: 1,000 represents unit conversion from g to kg

Release Rate (CuR)

Navy. The NAVSEA hull cleaning copper release rate estimate is based on the quantity of copper

released per square meter of surface area cleaned (Naval Sea Systems Command, 1997b). For the

purposes of these calculations, the NAVSEA generated SCAMP cleaning formula was used with a

dissolved copper concentration from experimental Navy studies in San Diego Bay of 0.000107 g/L

verses the total copper value of 0.00195 g/L reported by Naval Sea Systems Command (1997b). This

dissolved-to-total copper ratio was approximately 5.5%. Based on the dissolved copper concentration

and SCAMP formula below, a copper release value of 0.3 g/m2

 dissolved Cu per cleaning was determined and used in the above loading equation (Formula 4).

NAVSEA SCAMP Formula:

Cu/A = C (g/L) *(F/R) (5)
A-6

where

Cu/A = Copper mass per unit area in g/m2

C = Dissolved copper concentration in g/L (given by NAVSEA as 0.000107 g/L)

F = SCAMP Flow Rate in L/hr (given by NAVSEA as 51,100 L/min)

R = Rate of travel per unit time in m2

/min (given by NAVSEA as 20.8 m2/min)

Pleasure Craft. Data from two studies on pleasure craft cleaning in San Diego Bay were applied to

pleasure craft from all harbors, and use average plume concentrations along with an associated

cleaning plume volume. McPherson and Peters†† measured an average plume concentration of 30.2

μg/L (dissolved Cu) for a small boat cleaning event in San Diego. PRC Environmental Management,

Inc. (1997) then applied a volumetric approach to estimate the plume size and allow conversion to

mass loading. The hull cleaning loading formula for civilian hull cleaning is expressed as:

CuLDI

 = [( ( CuC x PL ) / 1,000,000,000 μg/kg ) x 1,000 L/m3 ] x CE (6)

where

CuLDI = Individual Pleasure Craft Copper Load (kg/yr)

CuC = Average hull cleaning plume concentration (μg/L)

PL =Plume generated by cleaning event (m3/clean) as defined by PRC (1997) to

 be:

 (6m +boat length + 6 m) x (6m +boast width + 6m) x (6m boat basin depth)

 with average boat length assumed to be 25 ft (7.6 m) and boat width 8.2 ft

 (2.5 m) and mooring basin depth of 19.7 ft (6 m)

CE = Number of cleaning events per year (clean/yr)

NOTE: 1,000,000,000 represents unit conversion from μg to kg (1 kg = 1,000,000,000 μg)

 1,000 represents unit conversion from m3

 to Liters ( 1 m3 =1,000 L)

Cleaning Frequency (CE)

Naval ship hull cleaning is initiated if underwater inspection reveals a pre-set level of marine fouling. Actual hull cleaning evolutions were identified for 1997 for each homeport and ship-specific

loading based on NAVSEA (00C)-reported cleaning during that year (i.e., wetted hull area times Cu

release rate, and converted from grams to kilogram).

In-water hull cleaning for pleasure craft is estimated to occur about once a month for those owners

who regularly maintain their boats. Based on conversations with marina operators in San Diego and

 

†† McPherson, T. N. and G. B. Peters. 1995. The effects of copper-based antifouling paints on water quality in

recreation bat marina in San Diego and Mission Bay. Prepared for California Regional Water Quality Control

Board, San Diego Region. Unpublished manuscript.
A-7

Pearl Harbor, there is a small proportion of owners who do not follow this cleaning frequency. To

quantify this difference in the formula, a cleaning frequency of 10 cleanings per year per vessel verses

12 per year was used to adjust for those boats not cleaned each month.

SEAWATER COOLING

High-speed pumps aboard most Navy vessels are designed to pump in ambient water to provide

cooling to various mechanical and electrical shipboard systems prior to discharge back to the surrounding waters. Seawater cooling has potential as a significant source of copper loading based primarily on high system flow rates and elevated discharge concentrations (Naval Sea Systems Command, 1997c). Loading estimates are dependent on an average discharge concentration and individual

ship flow rate and are calculated by

CuLDI

 = [ (SCC x SCF ) x 3.7854 ] / 1,000,000,000 μg/kg (7)

where

CuLDI = Individual Vessel Copper Load (kg/yr)

SCC = Seawater Cooling Average Discharge Concentration (μg/L)

SCF = Seawater Cooling Annual Ship-specific Flow (gal/yr)

NOTE: 3.7854 represent unit conversion where 1 gal = 3.7854 liters

 1,000,000,000 represents unit conversion from μg to kg

Discharge Concentration (SCC)

The average seawater discharge concentration used in this report was calculated directly from a

NAVSEA (00T) UNDS discharge sampling database, and is somewhat different than the NAVSEA

Seawater Cooling NOD. One Sampling Episode Report for the USNS Laremie was not provided;

however, the remaining seawater cooling data are summarized below.

The dissolved copper contributed by each ship’s measured discharge was computed (effluent minus

influent). One Nimitz-class aircraft carrier, one Wasp-class Amphibious Assault ship, one Harpers

Ferry-class Amphibious Transport, and one Arleigh Burke-class destroyer were sampled by

NAVSEA. The geometric mean concentration was calculated as 14.4 μg/L, which was used as SCC in

the loading calculations. The receiving water concentration adjacent to the vessel undergoing sampling was not addressed by the NAVSEA Seawater Cooling NOD. Review of the NAVSEA Sampling Event reports revealed that influent data were collected after water had been drawn into the ship

and sampled from within the hull, typically, at a pump casing or vent drain. Copper contributed by the

hull-to-pump piping is not known. Almost all of the NAVSEA influent dissolved copper numbers (5

to 17.9 μg/L) are already higher than the Federal Water Quality Criteria (WQC) of 2.9 μg/L, or the

proposed California Toxic Rule limit of 3.1 μg/L dissolved copper♦.

 

♦ Federal Register, volume 62, page 42159, August 5, 1997.
A-8

Flow Rate

Naval Sea Systems Command (1997c) reported annual flow rate by vessel class and typical residence time in port for that class. To determine annual flow rate by individual vessel, the annual rate

was divided by the number of vessels in that class (as listed by NAVSEA). Additionally, different

pump speeds are employed depending on vessel status. Since most in-port vessels have less system

equipment on-line, pump rates are lower. Pump rates are higher during start-ups and transit because

of increased system cooling demands. Because of these different pump speeds, three seawater cooling

loading estimates were generated for each ship based on in-port time, system start-up while in-port,

and transit from harbor out to 12 nmi. For estimates of seawater cooling loading during transit, SSC

San Diego changed the time of transit from 4 hours to reach the 12 nmi limit (originally used by

NAVSEA) to 1 hour to represent clearing the general harbor area.

FIREMAIN DISCHARGE

Shipboard firemain systems are designed to provide continuous pressurized water for emergency

firefighting. Firemain discharge is another high-volume continuous vessel discharge, and requires the

same information on average dissolved copper concentrations and flow rate. As such, the formula

used is similar to the seawater cooling discharge formula, with the exception that a daily flow is

determined and applied to the annual in-port days for that vessel class:

CuLDI

 = [ (FMC x FMF x 3.7854 ) / 1,000,000,000 μg/kg ] x I (8)

where

CuLDI = Individual Vessel Copper Load (kg/yr)

FMC = Firemain Discharge Geometric Mean Discharge Concentration (μg/L)

FMF = Firemain Ship-specific Daily Flow (gal/day) converted from original gallons

 per minute (GPM) by flow/min x 60 min/hr x 24 hr/day

I = Number of in-port days (days/year)

NOTE: 3.7854 represent unit conversion where 1 gal = 3.7854 Liters

 1,000,000,000 represents unit conversion from μg to kg

Discharge Concentration

To simplify the average concentration determination, the geometric mean of the NAVSEA measured firemain effluents minus the geometric mean of the firemain influents was used to derive a value

of 16.5 μg/L dissolved copper.

Flow Rate

Based on the NAVSEA NOD for Firemain Discharge (Naval Sea Systems Command, 1997d), the

individual vessel daily flow was calculated using the NAVSEA GPM firemain pump speed by vessel

class.
A-9

OTHER NAVAL VESSEL DISCHARGES

Non-Oily Waste Discharge

The geometric mean dissolved copper concentration for non-oily waste discharge was as high as

149 μg/L (Naval Sea Systems Command, 1997e) during sampling conducted aboard an aircraft carrier. Unfortunately, there is no quantifiable flow information from the NAVSEA NOD presented for

other surface ship classes to perform the required loading calculations. As this information becomes

available, the contributions from this discharge category can be re-evaluated.

Graywater Discharge

Graywater discharge was initially calculated for Norfolk homeported vessels. Graywater discharge

was determined to be a relatively minor copper load source, so further load calculations for Pearl

Harbor and San Diego were not included.

STORMWATER RUNOFF

Non-point source runoff is recognized as a significant contributor of pollutants to any watershed

(United States Environmental Protection Agency, 1998a). Stormwater runoff is also the most subjective copper source in these loading determinations because of variations in using site-specific Event

Mean Concentrations (EMC). Stormwater contaminant input can be estimated across a watershed or

sub-watershed area based on the association of contaminant loading as a function of land use within

the watershed (Schueler, 1987). A key concept is that the amount of surface runoff, potentially carrying contaminants, increases as a function of the storm event and, more importantly, the amount of

overall urbanization at the site. Urbanization directly influences the degree of runoff through greater

site imperviousness caused by the addition of structures, streets, and parking lots common to this land

use category. Schlueler (1987) demonstrated that as the percentage of imperviousness rises, less

stormwater is able to naturally percolate into the surrounding soil and is directed as runoff from a

given site.

Flow-weighted average pollutant concentrations in stormwater runoff have been measured and reported by the United States Environmental Protection Agency from nationwide monitoring in the late

1970s and 1980s as part of the Nationwide Urban Runoff Program (NURP) (United States Environmental Protection Agency, 1983). Calculation of an Event Mean Concentration (EMC) from flowweighted data is critical in determining stormwater contaminant loading. Land use EMCs for total

copper were reported by the USEPA as 33.0 μg/L (Residential), 27.0 μg/L (Mixed Commercial), and

29.0 μg/L (Open/Nonurban). Local monitoring studies and generation of region specific EMCs are

discussed in the relevant harbor sections.

The EMC for roadways may be more variable. Copper, contained in some brake linings, engine

parts, and tires, is thought to be a significant contribution to runoff from roadways. For instance,

Sansalone and Buchberger (1997) reported a geometric mean dissolved copper concentration of 103

μg/L over four storm events from a Midwestern freeway system. The Federal Highway Administration determined a copper road runoff EMC of 42.8 μg/L, which was used for the Road EMC in this

study (Federal Highway Administration, 1990).
A-10

Simple Method for Stormwater Modeling

Schueler (1987) presents a modeling method to predict stormwater pollutant loading called the

“Simple Method,” which relates the amount of precipitation and associated runoff by land use category. This formula was used to generate copper loading estimates by sub-watershed within each

harbor’s drainage basin.

Stormwater load for each land use category in each sub-watershed is calculated by:

L = [ P x PJ

 x RV / 12 ] C x A x 2.72 (9)

where

L = Storm Pollutant Load (pounds/yr)

P = Rainfall in inches over desired time interval (assume annual rainfall) (in/yr)

PJ = Factor that corrects “P” for storms that produce no runoff

 (assumed to be a constant at 0.9 by Schueler)

 RV = Runoff coeffiencient which expresses the fraction of rainfall which is

 converted into runoff and expressed as RV = 0.05 + 0.009 (I) with “I” being

 the percent of imperviousness at a site by land use

C = Flow-weighted mean concentration of the pollutant of concern (mg/L)

 (i.e., EMC by land use)

A = Area of the site of concern (acres)

NOTE: 12 and 2.72 are unit conversion factors

 The Simple Method was originally designed for calculating loading from sites that were less than

one acre in size. As such, it does not attempt to quantify any baseflow components that could supplement annual runoff volume, especially in low-density residential watersheds. Schlueler adds a

“Baseflow” term to equation 9 to give:

L = [ ( P x RVA ) - ( P x PJ

 x RV / 12 ) ] CB x A x 2.72 (10)

where

RVA = Annual Runoff Coefficient

CB = Average dry-weather pollutant concentration (mg/L)

All others terms the same.

RVA is manually derived from a graph showing the difference between Storm RV and Annual Runoff

RV, presented as table A.2 in Schueler (1987) and in figure A-2, which lists runoff coefficients as a

function of site imperviousness. In addition, since many dry weather pollutant concentrations are

often at ambient background levels, Baseflow EMCs (CB) are typically adjusted downward from
A-11

monitoring EMCs to account for this effect. Harbor specific RVA and CB values based on regional

determination of imperviousness, and modifications to EMC by land use category were determined

for each site. A watershed-level stormwater contribution, therefore, consists of a stormwater runoff

component and a baseflow component for purposes of this report.

OTHER SOURCES

Atmospheric Deposition

Atmospheric deposition is another watershed level contributor for various contaminants including

copper (United States Environmental Protection Agency, 1997). Site specific assumptions are

presented in the individual harbor discussion sections. For all cases, the calculation of atmospheric

copper loading assumed deposition to the marine waters of a harbor. Contributions to the surrounding

land areas are assumed to be incorporated into the stormwater runoff for that region.

Groundwater Transport

There is no current loading term for subterranean groundwater transport of pollutants because of a

lack of understanding of the volume of groundwater generated by a given watershed, potential transport of contaminants of concern within groundwater flow, or fate and effects of metals in this

medium. Given that groundwater transport may represent a strong component of freshwater input to

an estuarine environment, its role could be significant if copper contamination is present while in

contact with groundwater. Pearl Harbor, with its many natural springs and shallow aquifer, is an

example of a region that could be impacted through groundwater transport (Grovhoug, 1992). However, lacking information on volume and potential copper concentration from each of the harbors

under review, copper loading from groundwater transport cannot presently be determined.

Figure A-2. Relationship between annual runoff and stormwater runoff as a

function of watershed imperviousness (Schueler, 1987).

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.70

0.80

0.90

1.00

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

WATERSHED IMPERVIOUSNESS (%)

RUNOFF COEFFICIENT

Annual Runoff (Rv)

Stormwater Runoff (Rv)

Baseflow
A-12

Sediment Flux

There is no current loading term for copper flux into or out of marine sediments. Sediments may

act as a sink for copper in many urbanized harbors, and have been shown to release previously bound

copper back into the water column depending on sediment conditions (Chadwick et al., 1993). However, there is little data regarding overall harbor-wide copper budgets. Chadwick et al. (1993) found

that while some sediment sites serve as copper sinks, others act as copper sources. This observed

effect was a site-specific feature and would require detailed harbor sediment sampling to accurately

estimate harbor-wide contributions.

Visiting Naval Vessels

United States and foreign naval vessels frequently berth for short periods of time in U.S. ports

(notably Pearl Harbor) following major exercises, before and after oversea deployments, and as part

of official port visits. These in-port times vary depending on operational and scheduling requirements. An added complexity in quantifying vessel discharge from temporary visitors is the periodicity

of local exercises that may occur annually or biannually.

OTHER DATA ASSUMPTIONS

The USEPA promulgates a total-to-dissolved copper conversion factor of 0.83 (total conc. x 0.83 =

dissolved conc.) (United States Environmental Protection Agency, 1995) that is more conservative

than the site-specific conversion factor determined for Norfolk by Atlantic Division, Naval Facilities

Engineering Command *

 and CH2M Hill, Inc.†. A conversion factor is simply a means of calculating

a dissolved metal value given a measured total metal concentration.

The geometric mean value of the Norfolk copper conversion factor was calculated (from the original LANTDIV reported values) to be 1.45 (total conc./1.45 = dissolved concentration). Although such

calculations may be more accurate based on locally determined chemical conversion factors, SSC San

Diego used the USEPA value as an overly conservative estimate for converting any total-to-dissolved

copper loads.

 

*

 Atlantic Division, Naval Facilities Engineering Command. 1993. Ambient copper water concentrations for eight

 stations. Norfolk, VA.

†

 CH2M Hill, Inc. An integrated approach to obtaining optimal discharge permits. Prepared for Atlantic Division,

 Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Norfolk, VA. Detroit, MI.
H. D. Johnson, J. G. Grovhoug, SSC San Diego; 

A. O. Valkirs, Computer Sciences Corporation

Naval Sea Systems Command (005C)

2531 Jefferson Davis Hwy

Arlington, VA 22242–5160

;(2/) 8+658:/4- (;8*+4 ,58 :./9 )522+):/54 5,/4,583':/54/9+9:/3':+*:5'<+8'-+.5;86+88+96549+/4)2;*/4-:.+:/3+,58 8+</+=/4-/49:8;):/5499+'8)./4-+>/9:/4-*':'95;8)+9-':.+8/4-'4*

3'/4:'/4/4- :.+ *':' 4++*+* '4* )5362+:/4- '4* 8+</+=/4- :.+ )522+):/54 5, /4,583':/54 +4* )533+4:9 8+-'8*/4- :./9 (;8*+4 +9:/3':+ 58 '4? 5:.+8 '96+): 5, :./9 )522+):/54 5, /4,583':/54 /4)2;*/4-

9;--+9:/549 ,58 8+*;)/4- :./9 (;8*+4 :5 $'9./4-:54 +'*7;'8:+89 +8</)+9 /8+):58':+ ,58 4,583':/54 6+8':/549 '4* +658:9  +,,+8954 '</9 /-.='? ;/:+ 
 82/4-:54 #

@
	 '4* :5 :.+ ,,/)+ 5, '4'-+3+4: '4* ;*-+: '6+8=581 +*;):/54 850+): 

@ $'9./4-:54 	


	 	
	 


%" % !!


!! "!!

"! 

	!!%! #

"" 

  !%   

&!

  !


&!   

 "!%! 


 "!% !


 "!! " 

!! !!

 

@@@

 


  "		




!"

%!"

' !"!#!% !!! ( !"!

	 !! ! 

!

 "!% !

! 

 "!% !

 !!



 :'4*'8*,583!

UNCLASSIFIED UNCLASSIFIED UNCLASSIFIED SAME AS REPORT

December 1998 Final

COPPER LOADING TO U.S. NAVY HARBORS

Norfolk, VA; Pearl Harbor, HI; and San Diego, CA

PE: OMN

AN: DN307504

WU: ME83

TD 3052

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

Mission Area: Environmental Assessment

copper

ecology

marine chemistry

SSC San Diego

53560 Hull Street

San Diego, CA 92152–5001

86

This document identifies several sources of copper loading into four Navy harbors within the continental

United States and Hawaii. The degree of copper loading as dissolved copper is quantified by source within

each harbor. Although copper sources and their respective percent of the total load vary between harbors, some

similarities are apparent. Hull anti-fouling bottom paint leachate is the principal dissolved copper source in all

harbors followed by certain vessel flow-through discharges. Other sources were calculated to be smaller

loading factors, sometimes contributing less than 1% of the total dissolved copper load. The dissolved copper

calculations in this report are based on numerous assumptions, which in turn were supported by data that also

varied in terms of quality and availability. Consequently, some loading estimates are considered potentially

more accurate than others.
INITIAL DISTRIBUTION

External Distribution

Defense Technical Information Center

Fort Belvoir, VA 22060–6218 (4)

SPAWARSYSCEN Liaison Office

Arlington, VA 22202–4804

Center for Naval Analyses

Alexandria, VA 22302–0268

Navy Acquisition, Research and Development

Information Center (NARDIC)

Arlington, VA 22244–5114

GIDEP Operations Center

Corona, CA 91718–8000