United States
Environmental Protection
jjency
Office of Water
Washington, DC 20460
www.epa.gov/npdes
EPA XXX-X-XX-XXX
March 2010
Proposed Draft
PA Report to Congress:
Study of Discharges
^ncidentalto Normal
Operation of Commercial
'Misting Vessels and Other
Non-Recreational Vessels
Less than BBS
Proposed
-------
Disclaimer
The Draft Report to Congress: Study of
Discharges Incidental to Normal Operation of
Commercial Fishing Vessels and Other Non-
Recreational Vessels less than 79 feet has been
signed by EPA. EPA is announcing this report in
the Federal Register. While we've taken steps to
ensure the accuracy of this Internet version of the
report, it's not the official version. Upon publication
you will be able to obtain the official copy of this
notice at
www.epa.qov/npdes/vessels/reportconqress.cfm
or at the Federal Register Web site.
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The EPA Office of Wastewater Management (OWM) presents this draft Vessels
Study Report to Congress conducted to meet the obligations of EPA under Public Law
(P.L.) 110-299 (July 31, 2008). EPA would like to thank the numerous trade associations
and individual companies who contributed to this project. Those groups who provided
assistance to EPA are listed in Chapter 2 of this report. The project could not have been
successful without the support by EPA Region 2, 3, and 5 laboratories, EPA Gulf
Ecology Division and other EPA program offices. EPA would also like to thank the
United States Coast Guard for providing both logistical support and review of many of
the report's elements. Finally, EPA would also like to acknowledge the contractor
support for this project provided by individuals from Great Lakes Environmental Center,
Inc., Eastern Research Group, and Abt Associates.
i
-------
The primary technical contacts for this document are:
Ryan Albert
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Water (Mail Code: 4203M)
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 564-0763 (telephone)
(202) 564-6392 (fax)
Robin Danesi
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Water (Mail Code: 4203M)
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 564-1846 (telephone)
(202) 564-6392 (fax)
The primary EPA congressional relations contact for this document is:
Greg Spraul
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations (Mail Code: 1301 A)
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 564-0255 (telephone)
(202) 564-1519 (fax)
ii
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY vii
CHAPTER 1 Introduction to the Report 1-1
1.1. Congressional Study Charge 1-1
1.2. Organization of this report 1-2
1.3. Classes or Types of Vessels 1-2
1.3.1. Commercial Fishing Vessels 1-3
1.3.2. Tugs/Towing Vessels 1-7
1.3.3. Water Taxis/Small Ferries 1-8
1.3.4. Tour Boats 1-8
1.3.5. Recreational Vessels Used for Non-Recreational Purposes 1-9
1.4. Vessel Population 1-10
1.4.1. Vessel Characteristics Data 1-10
1.4.2. Overview of Vessel Universe 1-11
1.5. Discharges from Vessels 1-21
1.6. Pollutants Potentially Found in Vessel Discharges 1-29
1.6.1. Classical Pollutants 1-30
1.6.2. Nutrients 1-32
1.6.3. Pathogen Indicators 1-33
1.6.4. Metals 1-33
1.6.5. Volatile and Semivolatile Organic Compounds 1-33
1.6.6. Nonylphenols 1-34
1.6.7. Chapter Conclusions 1-34
CHAPTER 2 Study Design 2-1
2.1 Data Sources 2-1
2.1.1 Existing EPA Data Sources 2-1
2.1.2 Industry Participation 2-2
2.1.3 Vessel Sampling 2-3
2.1.4 Literature Review 2-4
2.1.5 Other Governmental Data Sources 2-4
2.2 EPA Vessel Discharge Sampling Program 2-5
2.2.1 Vessels Sampled and Locations 2-5
2.2.2 Sampled Discharges 2-10
2.2.3 Target Analytes 2-12
2.2.4 Sampling Methods 2-15
2.2.5 QA/QC 2-20
2.3 Data Considerations and study limitations 2-23
2.3.1 Voluntary Nature of the Sampling Program 2-23
2.3.2 Vessels/Discharges Not Sampled 2-24
2.3.3 Pollutants Not Sampled 2-25
2.3.4 Application to Other Vessels, Including Larger Vessels Not Sampled for this
Study 2-25
CHAPTER 3 Analysis of Discharges and Potential Impact to Human Health and the
Environment 3-1
3.1 Approach to Analyses 3-1
3.1.1 Data Reduction and Presentation 3-2
3.1.2 Summary Statistics and Box Plots 3-3
in
-------
3.1.3 Calculation of Potential Hazard Quotients 3-4
3.2 Characterization of Discharges 3-13
3.2.1 Bilgewater 3-13
3.2.2 Stern Tube Packing Gland Effluent 3-49
3.2.3 DeckWashdown 3-77
3.2.4 Fish Hold and Fish Hold Cleaning Effluent (Refrigerated Seawater and Ice
Slurry) 3-122
3.2.5 Graywater 3-165
3.2.6 Engine Effluent 3-192
3.2.7 Firemain Discharges 3-269
3.2.8 Antifouling Hull Coatings 3-285
CHAPTER 4 Potential Large-Scale Impacts of Study Vessels' Incidental Discharges to
Human Health and the Environment 4-1
4.1 Model Selection 4-3
4.2 Fraction of Freshwater Model 4-4
4.2.1 Step 1: Calculate Vessel Discharge Analyte Loading Rates 4-5
4.2.2 Step 2: Calculate the Fraction of Fresh Water in the Harbor 4-6
4.2.3 Step 3: Calculate the Harbor Flushing Time 4-6
4.2.4 Step 4: Calculate the Harbor Analyte Concentration 4-6
4.3 Vessel Discharge Loading Rates 4-7
4.3.1 Calculate the Average Analyte Concentrations 4-7
4.3.2 Discharge Flow Rate Assumptions 4-7
4.3.3 Number of Vessels Present in the Harbor 4-14
4.3.4 Percentage of Vessels Discharging in the Harbor 4-18
4.3.5 Vessel Discharge Loading Rates 4-20
4.3.6 Dissolved Copper Loading Rates from Antifouling Paints 4-20
4.4 Hypothetical Harbor 4-22
4.5 Model Scenarios 4-24
4.6 Model Results 4-25
4.6.1 Dilution Factor Analysis 4-25
4.6.2 Loading Rate Analysis 4-26
4.7 Conclusions 4-31
CHAPTER 5 Summary of Findings 5-1
5.1 Summary of Classes of Vessels Covered By this Study 5-1
5.2 Summary of Effluent Characterization of Select Discharges from the Study Vessels 5-1
5.2.1 Estimated Volumes of Select Discharges from the Study Vessels 5-2
5.2.2 Analytes of Potential Risk in Select Discharges from Study Vessels 5-4
5.3 Summary of Predicted Impacts from Select Pollutants in Study Vessel Discharges 5-16
5.3.1 Potential Watershed-Wide Impacts from Study Vessels 5-16
5.3.2 Potential Localized or Near-Field Impacts of Vessel Discharges to Receiving
Waters 5-17
5.4 Possible Benefits to Human Health, Welfare, and the Environment from Reducing,
Eliminating, Controlling, or Mitigating One or More of the Discharges from the Study Vessels
5-19
iv
-------
CHAPTER 6 Analysis of the Extent to Which Incidental Discharges are Currently Subject
to Regulation Under Federal Law or a Binding International Obligation of the United
States 6-1
6.1 International Agreements 6-1
6.1.1 The International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships
(MARPOL 73/78) 6-1
6.1.2 The International Convention on the Control of Harmful Anti-Fouling Systems
on Ships 6-11
6.1.3 International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS) 6-13
6.1.4 Boundary Waters Treaty 6-14
6.1.5 Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement 6-14
6.1.6 St. Lawrence Seaway Regulations 6-16
6.2 Federal Laws 6-17
6.2.1 Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships (APPS) 6-17
6.2.2 Clean Water Act (CWA) §§311,312/Oil Pollution Control Act 6-21
6.2.3 Organotin Antifouling Paint Control Act 6-23
6.2.4 National Invasive Species Act 6-24
6.2.5 Hazardous Materials Transportation Act 6-25
6.2.6 National Marine Sanctuaries Act 6-25
6.2.7 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 6-26
6.2.8 Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act 6-27
6.3 Additional International and Federal Laws 6-28
6.3.1 International Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of
Wastes and Other Matter 6-28
6.3.2 International Convention on Oil Pollution, Preparedness, Response and
Cooperation 6-28
6.3.3 International Convention Relating to Intervention on the High Seas in Cases of
Oil Pollution Casualties 6-28
6.3.4 Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act6-29
6.3.5 CWA § 402, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)... 6-29
6.3.6 Title XIV of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2001—Certain Alaskan
Cruise Ship Operations 6-29
6.3.7 Toxic Substances Control Act 6-30
6.4 Application of Legal Authorities to Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of
Study Vessels 6-31
CHAPTER 7 References 7-1
Appendix A List of Acronyms A-l
Appendix B Additional Characteristics of the P.L. 110 - 299 Vessel Population B-l
B.l Vessel Subcategories B-l
B.l.l Population of Vessels undergoing Discharge Analysis B-2
B.2 Vessel Geographical Area of Operation B-4
B.3 Other Vessel Characteristics: Construction and Propulsion B-l 1
B.3.1 Vessel Age B-ll
B.3.2 Hull Material Type B-13
B.3.3 Propulsion Method and Type B-15
B.3.4 Horsepower Ahead B-16
v
-------
B.4 Distribution of the Study Vessel Universe versus the Recreational Vessel Universe.. B-
18
B.5 Vessels Documented, Inspected, and/or State Registered B-25
B.6 Uncertainty B-26
Appendix C Public Law 110-299 (S. 3298) and Public Law 110-288 (S. 2766) C-l
Appendix D List of Target Analytes D-l
Appendix E Analyte Concentrations and Summary Statistics from Ambient Water Samples
E-l
Appendix F Analyte Concentrations and Summary Statistics from Source Water Samples
F-l
Appendix G Supporting Information for EPA's Screening-Level Water Quality Model .G-l
Appendix H List of Preparers and Contributors H-l
vi
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Proposed Draft
This report to Congress provides information collected by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) on the types of wastewater discharged from commercial fishing vessels and nonrecreational
vessels less than 79 feet in length. The report also provides information on the primary pollutant
concentrations in these discharges and the likelihood of any resulting environmental impacts based on
rate, frequency, volume, and location discharged. This study was conducted to meet the obligations of
EPA under Public Law (P.L.) 110-299 (July 31, 2008). The law provided for a temporary two-year
moratorium on National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permitting of discharges
from commercial fishing vessels, regardless of size, and other nonrecreational vessels less than 79 feet
long that were subject to the 40 CFR 122.3(a) exclusion. Except for ballast water discharges (evaluated
and assessed elsewhere in other Agency reports), discharges from these vessels are not currently
covered under the EPA's Vessel General Permit (VGP). During the two-year moratorium, which
began July 31, 2008, EPA was required to study the relevant discharges. EPA believes that the results
from this study will serve as an objective source of information that Congress can use for statutory
decision-making and will provide other readers valuable technical analyses of these vessels' incidental
discharges.
As directed by Congress, the goal of the study was to obtain sufficient information to address
the following six core objectives:
• A characterization of the nature, type, and composition of discharges for representative
single vessels and for each class of vessel.
• A determination of the volumes of those discharges, including the average volumes for
representative single vessels and for each class of vessel.
• A description of the locations, including the more common locations, of the discharges;
• An analysis of the nature and extent of the potential effects of the discharges, including
determinations of whether the discharges pose risks to human health, welfare, or the
environment, and the nature of those risks.
• A determination of the benefits to human health, welfare, and the environment from
reducing, eliminating, controlling, or mitigating the discharges.
• An analysis of the extent to which the discharges are currently subject to regulation under
federal law or a binding international obligation of the United States.
EPA designed and conducted a sampling program of discharges from commercial fishing
vessels and other nonrecreational vessels less than 79 feet in length to provide information to achieve
the first two objectives of the study. As required in P.L. 110-299, the study specifically evaluated the
impacts of any 1) discharge of effluent from properly functioning marine engines; 2) discharge of
laundry, shower, and galley sink wastes; and 3) other discharges incidental to these vessels' normal
vii
-------
Proposed Draft
operation. In addition, EPA supplemented sample collection and analysis with the collection of
contemporaneous information regarding the shipboard processes, equipment, materials, and operations
that contribute to the discharges, as well as the discharge rates, duration, frequency, and location.
EPA found that commercial fishing vessels and nonrecreational vessels discharge a wide
variety of effluents during their normal operation. The Agency decided to focus its evaluation on
discharges from engines, bilges, fish holds, decks, and graywater activities because such discharges
can release oils, heavy metals, toxic organics, oxygen-depleting substances, nutrients, and endocrine-
disrupting compounds to ambient waters in quantities that may exceed National Recommended Water
Quality Criteria (NRWQC). In some circumstances, some of these vessel discharges to water bodies
have the potential to impact the aquatic environment.
Vessel Types
EPA estimates there are nearly 140,000 vessels in the United States subject to the permitting
moratorium (i.e., study vessels).1 Figure ES. 1 presents the estimated number of study vessels by vessel
types (service). Approximately one-half of these vessels are commercial fishing vessels involved in
activities such as fish catching (e.g., longliner, shrimper, trawler), fish processing, fishing tending, and
charter fishing. The other half is distributed among a variety of vessel classes, including passenger
vessels (e.g., water taxis, tour boats, harbor cruise ships, dive boats), utility vessels (e.g., tug/tow boats,
research vessels, offshore supply boats), and freight barges.
1 Based on the U.S. Coast Guard Marine Information for Safety and Law Enforcement (MISLE) database. See discussion in
Chapter 1 and Appendix B of this report for detailed discussions about vessel estimates and limitations of these estimates.
viii
-------
Proposed Draft
80,000
70,000
60,000
tn
0)
in 50,000
w
0)
>
o 40,000
5
n
E 30,000
D
z
20,000
10,000
0
Figure ES.l. Estimated Number of Study Vessels by Vessel Service (Type)
To select specific vessel classes for sampling, EPA first developed a list of commercial vessel
classes based on published information and industry experience. Next, due to limited time and
resources, EPA eliminated those vessel classes believed to consist primarily of vessels greater than 79
feet in length, with the exception of commercial fishing vessels. Examples of vessel classes eliminated
because of their size included cable laying ships, cruise ships, large ferries, and oil and petroleum
tankers. Next, EPA eliminated vessel classes that have historically been subject to NPDES permitting,
including stationary seafood processing vessels and vessels that can be secured to the ocean floor for
mineral or oil exploration. After screening out these vessel classes, EPA selected a subset of priority
vessel classes to study, including commercial fishing boats, tug/tow boats, water taxis, tour boats,
recreational vessels used for nonrecreational purposes, and industrial support boats less than 79 feet in
length. EPA selected these vessel classes because they represent a cross section of discharges and have
the potential to release a broad range of pollutants.
EPA sampled wastewater discharges and gathered shipboard process information from 61
vessels in nine vessel classes. Vessels were sampled in 15 separate cities and towns in nine states
across multiple geographic regions, including New England, the Mid-Atlantic, the Gulf Coast, the
Mississippi River, and Alaska. Table ES.l presents the types of vessels from which EPA sampled and
gathered shipboard process information for this study. EPA sampled more commercial fishing vessels
ix
69,944
Other non-recreational
Vessel Service
-------
Proposed Draft
than any other vessel class due to the large number of fishing vessels subject to the P.L. 110-299
permitting moratorium. EPA also sampled a few recreational vessels used for commercial purposes
(e.g, towboats) to: 1) provide a semiquantitative comparison of the discharges from these vessels and
the other study vessels, and 2) collect additional information for EPA's related Clean Boating Act (P.L.
110-288) work.
Table ES.l. Vessels Sampled by EPA
Vessel ( hiss
Number of Vessels Sampled
Fishing:
Gillnetter
5
Lobster Tank
1
Long liner
3
Purse Seiner
5
Shrimp Trawler
6
Tender
3
Trawler
4
Trailer
6
Tugboat
9
Water Taxi
4
Tour Boat
3
Tow/Salvage 1
6
Research1
2
Fire Boat
1
Supply Boat
1
Recreational
2
Total
61
(1) Consists primarily of recreational vessels used for commercial or governmental purposes.
Sampled Discharges
EPA sampled a total of nine discharge types from the various vessel classes listed above. These
included:
• Bilgewater
• Stern tube packing gland effluent
• Deck runoff and/or washdown
• Fish hold effluent (both refrigerated seawater effluent and ice slurry)
• Effluent from the cleaning of fish holds
• Graywater
• Propulsion and generator engine effluent
• Engine dewinterizing effluent
• Firemain
EPA typically sampled one to four discharge types on each vessel, depending on applicability,
accessibility, and logistical considerations. Vessel discharge samples were analyzed for a variety of
pollutants, including classical pollutants such as biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5), total suspended
solids (TSS), residual chlorine, and oil and grease; nutrients; total and dissolved metals; volatile and
x
-------
Proposed Draft
semivolatile organic compounds (VOCs and SVOCs); nonylphenols (used as surfactants in detergents),
which are endocrine-disrupting compounds; and pathogen indicators (i.e., E. coli, enterococci, fecal
coliforms).
Summary of Findings
EPA found that the discharges with the greatest potential to impact surface water quality
include deck washdown, fish hold effluent, graywater, bilgewater, and marine engine effluent. Review
of available literature also indicates that leachate from antifouling hull coatings used on certain vessels
to prevent buildup of organisms, such as barnacles and algae, as well as underwater hull cleaning, also
likely impact surface water quality.
Deck washdown from utility vessels such as tug/tow boats, tour boats, water taxis, and supply
boats had elevated dissolved and total metal concentrations (e.g., aluminum) likely associated with
particulate metal washing off metal decks or decks with significant metal components. Certain deck
washdown samples also contained pollutants such as BOD5, TSS, nonylphenols, total phosphorous,
and total residual chlorine, all of which are associated with detergents and disinfectants.
Fish hold effluent, which is either refrigerated seawater or ice slurry water found on fishing
boats, had BOD5 and chemical oxygen demand (COD) concentrations that were several times higher
than concentrations typically measured in raw domestic sewage. Nutrient levels in many fish hold
effluent samples were also similar to the concentrations normally found in raw domestic sewage, and
ammonia nitrogen was occasionally detected at concentrations acutely toxic to aquatic life. While
small fishing boats periodically discharge only a few hundred gallons of fish hold wastewater, large
fishing vessels, such as offshore trawlers, can discharge thousands of gallons of fish hold wastewater
in a matter of minutes.
Most fishing vessel owners also clean the fish hold tanks with a detergent and/or disinfectant
after the fish have been off-loaded. Detergents are suspected of containing nonylphenols, which are
endocrine-disrupting compounds. Disinfectants such as chlorine bleach contain high concentrations of
total residual chlorine, which is toxic to aquatic organisms. The samples of fish hold cleaning effluent
contained nonylphenols and total residual chlorine, along with the same pollutants measured in the fish
hold effluent.
Galleys, sinks, showers, and laundry facilities onboard commercial vessels generate graywater,
which is typically discharged overboard. Graywater volumes vary considerably depending on the class
of vessel and its intended use, vessel size, the number of crew and passengers onboard, and the types
of graywater-generating activities. Pollutants associated with the various graywater sources depend on
a variety of factors, such as the amount of food waste flushed into the graywater system, the level of
soiling on clothing being washed in the onboard laundry, and the use of showers. EPA did not sample
graywater mixed with sewage, so the results for this study are for graywater only. EPA's sampling data
found pathogens to be the primary pollutant of concern in graywater. The sampling data show that at
least one of the pathogenic organisms (fecal coliforms, enterococci, and E. coli) was found in all
XI
-------
Proposed Draft
graywater samples, and that levels of these indicators in most of these samples exceeded the water
quality benchmarks, some by as much as four orders of magnitude.
Bilgewater effluent consists of the water that collects in the bottom of the vessel from sources
such as precipitation and spray, fuel spills, leaking sewage and graywater piping, condensates, and
deck washing. Bilgewater contained the greatest variety (although not necessarily the highest
concentrations) of priority pollutants, including both total and dissolved metals, VOCs, and SVOCs. It
also contained pathogenic bacteria, nonylphenols, sulfide, total phosphorous, BOD5, TSS, and residual
chlorine. Both total arsenic and dissolved copper concentrations in bilgewater were consistently above
the most conservative screening benchmarks (e.g., EPA's 2006 NRWQC), and total arsenic
concentrations were nearly 1,000 times the safe human health standard.
Propulsion and generation engine effluent varied dependent upon the type of engine. EPA
found that inboard propulsion engines discharge more pollutants in their cooling water than outboard
propulsion engines or generators. EPA also found that VOCs and SVOCs are the primary pollutants of
concern found in marine engine cooling water discharges. These pollutants (e.g., benzene and several
PAHs, including some that are carcinogenic, or cancer causing) are present in fuels and are products of
incomplete combustion. Dissolved copper was also measured in most inboard engine effluents at
concentrations that exceed the NRWQC. Some vessel owners in cold climates also add a solution of
propylene glycol (antifreeze) to the internal cooling system of inboard engines to protect them from
freezing during winter. In spring, the antifreeze solution may be discharged as the cooling system is
refilled with ambient water. EPA's sampling data showed that the spent antifreeze solution discharged
to surface water contained relatively high levels of metals, which are likely a result of corrosion within
the engine's cooling system.
Stern tube packing gland effluent (from tug boats) and firemain discharges (limited to just two
tug boats, three tour boats, and a fireboat) contained elevated levels of some metals (e.g., dissolved
copper, total aluminum, total arsenic). For both of these discharges (firemain in particular), the effluent
samples contained relatively small concentrations of pollutants, most of which could be attributed to
the ambient surrounding water predominating the discharge. For example, stern tube systems have a
continual drip of ambient water while the shaft is turning to provide both cooling and lubrication for
the system. The source of the additional metals in stern tube packing gland effluent is likely
mechanical system wear or lubricants used in the vessels' power trains.
Although not directly sampled, EPA gathered existing information from the literature to
characterize discharges from antifouling hull coatings. Antifouling hull coatings are specialized paints
and other coatings intended to retard the growth of algae; weeds; and encrusting organisms, such as
barnacles and zebra mussels, on the underwater portion of vessel hulls. The coatings retard growth by
continuously leaching biocides into surrounding waters. The most commonly used biocide is cuprous
oxide. The biocide enters the water column through both passive leaching and underwater hull
cleaning and can accumulate in the water of poorly flushed boat basins to levels that may harm marine
life. For example, the leaching of copper from antifouling hull coatings used on recreational boats is a
major source of copper pollution in several large boat basins in Southern California. Copper from
Xll
-------
Proposed Draft
antifouling coatings has created documented water quality concerns in areas such as the Chesapeake
Bay; Port Canaveral, Florida; and several harbors in the state of Washington.
Environmental Impacts
Using the results obtained from this study, EPA modeled a large hypothetical harbor to
evaluate the environmental impacts from the nine above mentioned vessel discharge types that EPA
sampled. The screening-level model indicated that the study vessels' discharges would not, in
themselves, exceed the aquatic life or human health NRWQC; however, the model did not account for
background loadings. Certain pollutants (e.g., total arsenic, dissolved copper) are more likely to
contribute to a water quality criterion being exceeded under real-world conditions in large-scale water
bodies. Additionally, many pollutants present in the vessel discharges were at concentrations that
exceed an NRWQC at end of pipe; therefore, they have the potential to contribute to an environmental
effect in the receiving water on a more localized scale. Based on the study results and literature
reviews, EPA believes that total arsenic and dissolved copper represent the greatest environmental
concern in vessel discharges, and that they are more likely than other pollutants to contribute to
exceedances of water quality standards. This is especially true if there are other sources of these
pollutants (e.g., stormwater runoff) or the receiving waters already have high background
concentrations.
Other notable pollutants of concern were found in fish hold effluent from fishing vessels. These
pollutants include total phosphorus, BOD, COD, reactive nitrogen compounds, and pathogens. These
pollutants can exacerbate eutrophication in bays and estuaries, leading to poor surface water quality.
Analysis of Applicable Regulations
This report to Congress includes EPA's analysis of existing laws and treaties that apply to
vessels and their discharges. This analysis describes numerous domestic laws, including the Act to
Prevent Pollution from Ships (APPS); the Clean Water Act (CWA); the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide,
and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA); and the Organotin Antifouling Paint Control Act (OAPC). It also
summarizes key elements of several international treaties, including the International Convention for
the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL 73/78), the International Convention on the Control
of Harmful Anti-Fouling Systems on Ships, the International Convention on the Prevention of Marine
Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter (London Convention), and the International
Convention on Oil Pollution, Preparedness, Response and Cooperation (OPRC). The purpose of this
analysis is to summarize these existing regulations and international obligations and examine the
extent to which these discharges are subject to these obligations.
Conclusion
Some vessel discharges from commercial fishing vessels and commercial vessels less than 79
feet in length may have the potential to impact the aquatic environment and/or human health. As noted
above, using the results obtained in this study, EPA modeled a large, hypothetical harbor to evaluate
how the nine vessel discharge types EPA sampled may impact water quality. Based on this evaluation,
Xlll
-------
Proposed Draft
EPA determined that the incidental discharges from study vessels to a relatively large water body are
not likely to solely cause an exceedance of any NRWQC. This finding suggests that these discharges
are unlikely to pose acute or chronic exceedances of the NRWQC across an entire large water body.
However, since many of the pollutants present in the vessel discharges were at end-of-pipe
concentrations that exceeded an NRWQC, there is the potential for these discharges to contribute a
water quality impact on a more localized scale. The study results indicate that total arsenic and
dissolved copper are the most significant water quality concerns for the study vessels as a whole, and
that they are more likely than other pollutants to contribute to exceedances of water quality criteria.
This is especially true if there are other sources of pollutants or the receiving water already has high
background concentrations.
Like an individual house in an urban watershed, most individual vessels have only a minimal
environmental impact. As in urban waters, however, the impacts caused by these vessels are
potentially significant where there is high vessel concentration, low water circulation, or there are
environmentally stressed water bodies. Targeted reduction of certain discharges or pollutants in
discharges from these vessels in waters sensitive to the introduction of pollutants from vessels may
result in important significant environmental benefits to those waters.
xiv
-------
Proposed Draft
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION TO THE REPORT
1.1. Congressional Study Charge
On July 31, 2008, Public Law (P.L.) 110-2991 was signed into law. It provides a two-year
moratorium for nonrecreational vessels less than 79 feet in length and all commercial fishing vessels
regardless of length, from the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES)2 program to obtain a permit for discharges incidental to the normal operation of those vessels.3
Additionally, P.L. 110-299 directs the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to study
the environmental impacts of discharges incidental to the normal operation of those vessels.
Specifically, the law directs the agency to study and evaluate the impacts of:
(1) Any discharge of effluent from properly functioning marine engines
(2) Any discharge of laundry, shower, and galley sink wastes
(3) Any other discharge incidental to the normal operation of a vessel
Congress mandated that EPA include the following elements in the study:
(1) Characterizations of the nature, type, and composition of the discharges for:
a. Representative single vessels
b. Each class of vessels
(2) Determinations of the volume (including average volumes) of those discharges for:
a. Representative single vessels
b. Each class of vessels
(3) A description of the locations (including the more common locations) of the discharges.
(4) Analyses and findings as to the nature and extent of the potential effects of the discharges,
including determinations of whether the discharges pose a risk to human health, welfare, or the
environment, and the nature of those risks.
(5) Determinations of the benefits to human health, welfare, and the environment from reducing,
eliminating, controlling, or mitigating the discharges.
(6) Analyses of the extent to which the discharges are currently subject to regulation under federal
law or a binding international obligation of the United States.
1 P.L. 110-299, along with its companion law for recreational vessels, P.L. 110-288 ("The Clean Boating Act") are presented
in Appendix C of this report.
2 The NPDES program requires a permit when a point source discharges a pollutant to waters of the US. A NPDES permit
contains conditions and limitations on the rates, concentrations, and mass of a pollutant that can be discharged to a water
body. The limitations are based on available pollution control technologies and water quality standards that are established to
protect the designated uses of a water body, such as fishing or swimming.
3 Although this report focuses on the discharges from vessels subject to the moratorium, the Agency became aware during
interaction with congressional staff, that some members may be interested in additional information on discharges incidental
to the normal operation of a larger universe of vessels—in particular, vessels currently subject to the NPDES General Permit
for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of a Vessel ("Vessel General Permit"). Therefore, EPA has included some
additional information and analysis regarding those vessels where possible.
1-1
-------
Proposed Draft
The law expressly excludes certain discharges from the scope of the study: discharges from
vessels owned and operated by the Armed Forces;4 discharges of sewage5 from vessels, other than the
discharge of graywater from vessels operating on the Great Lakes; and discharges of ballast water.
EPA conducted the study required by P L. 110-299 and is publishing this report to present its
findings. Due to the accelerated timeframe required to complete the study, EPA designed this analysis to
be accomplished quickly with existing resources. Limitations in the study design are discussed in
Chapter 2 of this report. Due to these factors, EPA focused its sampling efforts on the vessels that P.L.
110-299 specifically exempted. EPA henceforth refers to these vessels and vessel types as study vessels.
EPA sampled discharges from a few other vessel types, including commercial vessels that were
manufactured primarily for pleasure, where resources and logistics allowed.
1.2. Organization of this report
The report is organized into seven chapters. In Chapter 1, EPA describes the universe of vessels
with discharges subject to the study, the types of discharges generally thought to originate from those
vessels, and the types of pollutants or other constituents generally found in those vessel discharges. In
Chapter 2, EPA discusses the methods for sampling, the types of vessels sampled, the Quality Assurance
and Quality Control (QA/QC) measures taken in the course of sampling, and the limitations of this
study. Chapter 3 is the most technical portion of the report, presenting the results from EPA's sampling
and other information gathered from literature reviews about the vessel discharges. Chapter 4 presents
the results of EPA's screening-level model, which was designed to look at the large-scale, cumulative
impacts of these vessel discharges on large harbor or estuarine systems in order to provide an initial
evaluation of the threat the discharges pose to these ecosystems. Chapter 5 discusses the results and
identifies those key areas where EPA found discharges most likely to be a concern to human health,
welfare, or the environment. Chapter 6 provides a summary of federal law and binding international
obligations to which discharges within the scope of the study are potentially subject. To a certain extent,
Chapter 6 also discusses discharges described in the study that might be beyond the scope of the
permitting moratorium in some circumstances. Chapter 7 lists report references.
1.3. Classes or Types of Vessels
The study required by P.L. 110-299 could potentially include numerous classes or types of
vessels that vary greatly in size. The smallest vessels include recreational boats used for commercial
purposes, which can be less than 20 feet in length. The largest vessels, such as super oil tankers, can be
more than 1,200 feet in length. Characteristics of these vessels, including construction material,
designed purpose, onboard activities, crewing requirements, engine type and power, and days in
4 The Clean Water Act defines "vessel of the Armed Forces" as any vessel owned or operated by the Department of Defense,
other than a time or voyage chartered vessel; and any vessel owned or operated by the Department of Transportation that is
equivalent to one owned by the Department of Defense. 33 U.S.C. § 1322(a)(14).
5 "Sewage" is defined as "human body wastes and the wastes from toilets and other receptacles intended to receive or retain
body wastes except that, with respect to commercial vessels on the Great Lakes, such term shall include graywater." 33
U.S.C. § 1322(a) (6).
1-2
-------
Proposed Draft
operation vary widely. Consequently, the types and volumes of discharges generated by these different
classes or types of vessels also vary to a great extent.
EPA identified many classes or types of nonrecreational vessels in the development of the 2008
Vessel General Permit (VGP). Examples include tank ships that transport large volumes of bulk liquids,
container ships that transport containerized cargo, barges that transport bulk goods, and large cruise
vessels that transport hundreds or thousands of passengers. In the VGP, EPA defines a "Cruise Ship" as
a passenger ship that is used commercially for pleasure cruises and provides overnight accommodations
to passengers. In a separate study, EPA prepared an extensive cruise ship discharge assessment report
characterizing five different discharge types from these vessels.6
The moratorium of P L. 110-299 applies to discharges from nonrecreational vessels less than 79
feet in length and all commercial fishing vessels. For some vessel classes or types, such as barges or
cruise ships, the majority of that class or type are vessels longer than 79 feet. For other classes or types,
such as container ships or oil tankers, all the vessels would be expected to be longer than 79 feet. EPA
did not include such vessel classes in this study, as resources did not allow for representative sampling
of the larger vessels to provide an assessment of the discharges from those classes and still adequately
sample and assess the vessels specifically exempted by P.L. 110-299. In this study, EPA focused on
sampling discharges from the most prevalent classes or types of vessels defined by the moratorium
parameters, but sampled other vessels if the opportunity presented itself. The following subsections
briefly describe key characteristics of some of the vessels considered for sampling in the study, but this
list is not intended to be comprehensive.
1.3.1. Commercial Fishing Vessels
As defined in P.L. 110-299, commercial fishing vessels are vessels that commercially engage in
the catching, taking, or harvesting of fish or an activity that can reasonably be expected to result in the
catching, taking, or harvesting of fish. Commercial fishing vessels include any vessels harvesting fish,
crab, lobster, shrimp, or other aquatic organisms for commercial sale. Commercial fishing vessels may
employ various methods of collection including nets, trawls, traps, or hook-and-line to capture the target
species. Types of fishing vessels include:
Purse Seiner: Purse seiners catch fish that school close to the surface, such as salmon, herring,
and sardines, by encircling them with a long net and drawing (pursing) the bottom closed to capture the
fish.
6 This report is available at: www.epa.gov/owow/oceans/cruise_ships/pdf/0812cruiseshipdischargeassess.pdf.
1-3
-------
Proposed Draft
Purse Seiner Fishing Vessel.
Troller: Troll vessels catch fish such as salmon and tuna by "trolling" bait or lures on lines
through feeding concentrations of fish. Trolling vessels come in a variety of sizes and configurations,
ranging from small, hand-trolling skiffs to large, ocean-going power trolling vessels of 50 feet or more
in length.
Troller Fishing Vessel.
1-4
-------
Proposed Draft
Crabber/Lobster: Crabbers and lobster boats target crabs (Dungeness, King, Tanner, and Blue)
and lobsters using twine or wire-meshed steel pots (traps). Baited pots are left to "soak" for up to several
days before retrieval. Crab and lobster boats come in a variety of shapes and sizes, from aluminum skiffs
with outboard motors that fish the inside waters, to seagoing vessels 100 or more feet in length that fish
the Bering Sea and the Gulf of Alaska for King Crab.
Gillnetter: Gillnetters catch a variety of fish, such as salmon, herring, and chum, by setting
curtain-like nets perpendicular to the direction in which the fish are traveling as they migrate along the
coast toward their natal streams. Nets can be set in place, such as at or near the mouths of rivers, or
allowed to drift freely in deep water. Gillnet vessels are usually 30 to 40 feet long and are easily
recognized by the drum on either the bow or the stern on which the net is rolled.
Gillnetter Fishing Vessel.
Trawler: Trawlers, also occasionally called draggers, typically catch large quantities of mid-
water species, such as pollock or pink shrimp, and bottom-fish, such as flounder, by towing a large,
cone-shaped net. Trawlers range in size from small shrimp trawlers to large, 600-foot ocean pollock
trawlers that possess onboard processing facilities.
1-5
-------
Proposed Draft
Trawler Fishing Vessel.
Longliner: Longliners catch fish (primarily halibut, black cod, swordfish, and tuna) via a
longline that is either laid on the bottom or suspended in the water column. Each longline can be up to a
mile in length and have thousands of baited hooks. A longline vessel typically sets several lines for a 24-
hour "soak." Longliners are typically 50 to 100 feet in length.
Longliner Fishing Vessel.
1-6
-------
Proposed Draft
Fishing Dredge: A fishing dredge, also known as a scallop dredge or oyster dredge, is a device
that is towed along the bottom of the sea by a fishing vessel to collect scallops, oysters, clams, crabs,
and even in some cases, sea cucumbers. Dredge boats used to collect clams, oysters, and crabs in near-
shore estuarine waters range from 24 to 50 feet long. Large off-shore dredges used to collect sea scallops
can be as long as 190 feet
Fish Tender: A fish tender vessel supports fishing vessels by providing supplies and storing,
refrigerating, or transporting fish, fish products, or other materials.
Tender Vessel.
1,3.2. Tugs/Towing Vessels
Tugboats and towboats serve many functions and include vessels that operate solely in river
systems to ocean-going vessels. Tugboats can be utilized to push or tow barges and rafts. Tugboats often
assist larger vessels in docking maneuvers in harbors and are generally powerful relative to their size.
Although tugboats and towboats can be over 200 feet in length, many are in the 40- to 100-foot range.
1-7
-------
Proposed Draft
Tugboat/Push Boat.
1.3.3. Water Taxis/Small Ferries
Water taxis and small ferries (or water busses) are vessels employed to provide public transport
of people from one location to another. Small ferries are vessels for hire that are designed to carry
passengers and/or vehicles between two ports, usually in inland, coastal, or near-shore waters. Many of
these vessels can be found in the coastal harbors of New York, Baltimore, Boston, San Diego, Seattle,
and others. The sizes of the vessels in this class vary and can surpass 100 feet in length.
1.3.4. Tour Boats
This vessel class encompasses a variety of vessels used for activities such as dinner cruises,
ecotourism, whale watching excursions, and sightseeing trips. Vessels in this class can range from small
private vessels with just a few passengers to large vessels carrying 50 or more passengers. Large tour
boats designed for extended excursions can include galley facilities, overnight accommodations, and
laundry.
1-8
-------
Proposed Draft
A Tour Boat (left) and a Water Taxi (right).
1.3.5. Recreational Vessels Used for Non-Recreational Purposes
This class includes vessels manufactured as recreational vessels that are used for nonrecreational
purposes, such as law enforcement vessels, fire/rescue vessels, towing and salvage vessels (not to be
confused with towboats above), and research vessels. This vessel class encompasses a broad range of
vessel types and sizes. Under the Clean Boating Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-288), vessels that are
manufactured or used primarily for pleasure are "recreational vessels" subject to regulation under that
Act.
Recreational Vessel Modified for Towing/ Salvage.
1-9
-------
Proposed Draft
1.4. Vessel Population
As discussed in Section 1.1, P.L. 110-299 requires EPA to characterize discharges for
representative single vessels and for each class of vessel in terms of its nature; type and composition;
average volume; location; nature and extent of the potential effects; and benefits of reducing,
eliminating, controlling, or mitigating the discharges. EPA focused its attention on the commercial
fishing vessels and other nonrecreational vessels less than 79 feet in length covered by the moratorium.
Understanding the characteristics of discharges from all commercial fishing vessels and nonrecreational
vessels less than 79 feet in length requires considering these vessels in term of their number, vessel type,
onboard equipment, type of service, and area of operation. A brief overview of the analysis on vessel
type and size is presented in this section. A more complete analysis, including a discussion regarding
vessel location (which impacts the location of vessel discharges) and other vessel characteristics, is
presented in Appendix B of this report.
1.4.1. Vessel Characteristics Data
In evaluating and describing the vessel population, EPA primarily relied on data gathered by the
U.S. Coast Guard. The primary data source used in the vessel population analysis is the U.S. Coast
Guard's Marine Information for Safety and Law Enforcement (MISLE) database (USCG, 2009). MISLE
provides a wide range of information regarding vessel and facility characteristics, accidents, marine
pollution incidents, and other pertinent information tracked by the U.S. Coast Guard. Where possible,
EPA complemented the data available in MISLE with information obtained from published sources or
from consultations with U.S. Coast Guard personnel or port authorities.
MISLE includes data for nearly 1 million vessels that operate in U.S. waters. The database
covers a wide ensemble of vessels (e.g., recreational vessels, commercial fishing vessels, freight barges,
tank barges, tank ships, passenger vessels, utility vessels), and provides data on various characteristics
for each individual vessel. These data include:
• Identification number(s)
• Vessel category (e.g., class, type, subtype, service)
• Size (e.g., tonnage, length, breadth, depth)
• Area of operation (e.g., hailing port, route type)
• Passenger and crew capacity
• Propulsion (i.e., method, engine type, and horsepower)
• Construction material and design (e.g., hull material, design type, hull configuration/shape)
• Year built or age
In compiling MISLE data, the U.S. Coast Guard largely relies on documents submitted by vessel
owners or operators in accordance with vessel documentation requirements (e.g., certificate of
documentation) or on information gathered by U.S. Coast Guard staff directly (e.g., during inspections,
vessel boardings, or accident investigations). While the database scope is not limited to a certain size or
class of vessel, the scope of the data included in MISLE is driven in part by the regulatory requirements
to which different types of vessels are subject or by activities conducted by Coast Guard offices. MISLE
1-10
-------
Proposed Draft
therefore, is generally most comprehensive for those vessels that are documented, state registered,
and/or subject to inspection requirements.
While MISLE represents the most comprehensive national dataset currently available, it does not
capture the entire universe of vessels operated on U.S. waters. As discussed at greater length in
Appendix B, only limited information is available for certain classes of vessels, such as smaller
recreational vessels, due to the way in which vessel data are gathered. Most recreational vessels are not
subject to documentation or regular inspection requirements and thus are not captured in MISLE.7 The
MISLE data set currently contains approximately 700,000 recreational vessels, approximately 36
percent of which are documented vessels; the other recreational vessels are present in MISLE because of
other U.S. Coast Guard activities, such as boardings, nonmandatory inspections (e.g., voluntary
inspection program), or incident investigations.8 Shortcomings of the database mostly regard small
recreational vessels. Since recreational vessels are covered separately under the Clean Boating Act of
2008 (P.L. 110-288) and are therefore not the primary focus of this report, EPA believes that data
limitations do not preclude the use of the MISLE data for the current analysis to generally describe the
characteristics of study vessels.
1.4.2. Overview of Vessel Universe
Information is provided in MISLE for a total of 993,863 vessels. Based on information recorded
in the database, 976,649 of these vessels are presumed currently operational, of which 918,469 vessels
are identified as U.S.-flagged vessels (referred to as "domestic" vessels in the remainder of the
section).9'10 Nearly 80 percent of the 918,469 operational domestic vessels recorded in MISLE are
recreational vessels (722,522 vessels), while 7.6 percent are identified as commercial fishing vessels.
The remainder of the MISLE universe is composed of other types of nonrecreational vessels (10.5
percent) such as freight and tank barges and ships, passenger vessels, and utility vessels, and vessels of
unspecified service (3 percent). Figure 1.1 presents the MISLE population of operational, domestic
vessels for all vessel service categories, excluding recreational vessels. While the P.L. 110-299
moratorium will generally apply to discharges from the vessel service categories shown in the figure,
many of the vessels presented in Figure 1.1 are not subject to the P.L. 110-299 permitting moratorium
since the law is limited to commercial fishing vessels (regardless of size) and other nonrecreational
vessels 79 feet or less. Approximately one-third of the operational, domestic, nonrecreational vessels are
commercial fishing vessels. The next largest vessel service category is freight barges, with
7 While the number of recreational vessels recorded in MISLE is high (over 700,000), the database accounts for only a small
fraction of the 16.9 million recreational vessels estimated to operate in U.S. waters, according to EPA's Economic Impact
Analysis of the Recreational Vessel Permit (USEPA, 2008a) and to the National Marine Manufacturers Association's
(NMMA's) 2007 U.S. Recreational Boat Registration Statistics (NMMA, 2009).
8 Personal communication with U.S. Coast Guard Representative, LCDR Scott Muller, on May 15, 2009.
9 Approximately 355,000 vessels do not provide a vessel status and 5,000 have an "unknown" status. Following guidance
from a Coast Guard representative (Source: Personal email communication with Harold Krevait of the U.S. Coast Guard.
March 13, 2009), EPA assumed that these vessels are currently operational.
10 This count is based on the flag of the vessel. However, the MISLE database records a U.S. hailing port for some vessels
that are foreign flagged. Additionally, approximately 57,000 vessel records do not identify the vessel flag. EPA assumed that
these are domestic vessels.
1-11
-------
Proposed Draft
approximately 24 percent of vessels; however, many of these barges may exceed the 79-foot length
restriction.
~ Unspecified
29,366
Source: U. S. Coast Guard, MISLE database, 2009.
Note; The chart includes all commercial fishing vessels recorded in MISLE (69,944) and all 96,631 other non-recreational vessels, regardless of length.
Figure 1.1: MISLE Population of Operational, Domestic Non-Recreational Vessels by Vessel
Service11.12
Table 1.1 further characterizes the vessel population in terms of length greater than or equal to or
less than 79 feet within each vessel service category. As shown in both Table 1.1 and Figure 1.1, the
vast majority of vessels documented in MISLE are less than 79 feet in length. For example, nearly 77
percent of commercial fishing vessels (54,176 vessels out of 69,944) recorded in MISLE have a length
less than 79 feet.13 Vessels less than 79 feet also are a vast majority (94 percent) of the recreational
11 This figure does not include the 722,522 recreational vessels included in the MISLE population of operational, domestic
vessels.
12 Approximately 74,000 vessels have a vessel service indicated as "unclassified", "unknown", or "unspecified" in MISLE. In
approximately 44,000 of those instances, EPA was able to assign a vessel service for the purpose of this analysis based on
information provided in other data fields (i.e., using vessel class, vessel type, or vessel subtype information).
13 According to a U.S. Coast Guard representative, the overall fraction of commercial fishing vessels that are less than 79 feet
in length is estimated to be approximately 95 percent (Personal communication with Jack Kemerer, Fishing Vessel Safety
Program, May 26, 2009).
1-12
-------
Proposed Draft
vessels. Only the other nonrecreational vessel service category counts a majority of vessels 79 feet or
longer.
Table 1.1: Population of Operational, Domestic MISLE Vessels by Vessel Length
Recreational
Commercial Fishing
Other Non-Recreational
Unspecified
Greater than or Equal to 79 ft
2,256
2,231(21(3)
54,142
1,991
Less than 79 ft
676,915
54,176
32,799
15,011
Zero or Null1
43,351
13,537
9,696
12,364
Total
722,522
69,944
96,637
29,366
Source: U. S. Coast Guard, MISLE database, 2009
(1' MISLE indicates a length of zero or the vessel length field is blank.
121 A separate estimate provided by U.S. Coast Guard personnel suggests that commercial fishing vessels 79 feet
long or greater number approximately 1,800 to 1,900 vessels.14
(3) Columns with yellow background represent study vessels
Recreational vessels are generally excluded from many parts of our analysis because a separate
act (the Clean Boating Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-288)) exempts discharges incidental to the normal
operation of these vessels from NPDES permitting requirements. The Clean Boating Act defines
recreational vessels as those that are either 1) manufactured or used primarily for pleasure, or 2) leased,
rented, or chartered to a person for the pleasure of that person. Furthermore, vessels that are subject to
U.S. Coast Guard inspection and that are either engaged in commercial use or that carry paying
passengers are not considered recreational vessels under the Clean Boating Act. This definition does not
necessarily correspond to the service categories used in MISLE to identify recreational versus
nonrecreational vessels because MISLE categories are based on the type of service the vessel is used for
rather than original manufacture purpose.
1.4.2.1. Study Vessel Type
Once commercial, non-fishing vessels longer than 79 feet are removed from the analysis, the
relative makeup of the study vessels changes. EPA estimates there are nearly 140,000 vessels in the
United States subject to the permitting moratorium established by P.L. 110-299. Figure 1.2 presents the
estimated distribution of vessels within the study vessel population by vessel service (type).
Approximately one-half of these vessels are commercial fishing vessels involved in such activities as
fish catching (e.g., longliner, shrimper, and trawler), fish processing, fishing tenders, and charter fishing.
The other one-half are distributed among a variety of vessel classes, including passenger vessels (e.g.,
water taxis, tour boats, harbor cruise ships, dive boats), utility vessels (e.g., tug/tow boats, research
vessels, offshore supply boats), and freight barges.
14 Personal communication with Jack Kemerer, Fishing Vessel Safety Program, May 26, 2009.
1-13
-------
Proposed Draft
80,000 -
70,000 -
60,000 -
tn
0)
Ifl 50,000 -
o 40,000 -
5
n
E 30,000 -
D
z
20,000 -
10,000 -
0 -
Other non-recreational
Vessel Service
Note: The figure is based on operational, U.S.-flagged commercial fishing vessels (regardless of length) and other nonrecreational vessels
less than 79 feet in length.
Commercial fishing vessels also include fish processing vessels and fishing vessels. Passenger vessels include passenger (inspected),
passenger (uninspected), passenger barge (inspected), passenger barge (uninspected), and passenger ships. Public vessel, unclassified
includes military and other public service vessels. EPA notes that military vessels are specifically excluded in P.L. 110-299. Utility vessels
include towing vessels (i.e., tugs), school ships, research vessels/ships, mobile offshore drilling units, offshore vessels, offshore supply
vessels, oil recovery vessels, and industrial vessels. Some vessel service categories did not fall into one of the listed categories. Therefore,
based on the other classification fields (class, type, subtype), EPA determined an appropriate service category.
Source: U. S. Coast Guard, MISLE database, 2009
Figure 1.2. Number of Study Vessels Recorded in MISLE, by Vessel Service (Type)
Commercial Fishing Vessels
As shown in Figure 1.2, approximately 70,000 commercial fishing vessels represent the largest
category of study vessels. Based on this information, EPA sampled more commercial fishing vessels
than other nonrecreational vessels less than 79 feet in length (see discussion in Section 2.2.1). According
to the vessel service categories used by the U.S. Coast Guard in MISLE, "commercial fishing vessels"
are vessels involved in such activities as fish catching (e.g., longliner, shrimper, trawler), fish
processing, and charter fishing.15
15 Several charter fishing vessels are categorized as "commercial fishing vessels" in MISLE even though they are generally
not considered commercial fishing vessels by the U.S. Coast Guard Fishing Vessel Safety Program. That program considers
1-14
-------
Proposed Draft
The U.S. Coast Guard generally describes commercial fishing vessels as including fishing
vessels, fish tender vessels, and fish processing vessels as follows:
• Fish processing vessel16 means a vessel that commercially prepares fish or fish products
other than by gutting, decapitating, gilling, skinning, shucking, icing, freezing, or brine
chilling.
• Fish tender vessel means a vessel that commercially supplies, stores, refrigerates, or
transports fish, fish products, or materials directly related to fishing or the preparation of fish
to and from a fishing, fish processing, or fish tender vessel or a fish processing facility.
• Fishing vessel means a vessel that commercially engages in the catching, taking, or
harvesting of fish or an activity that can reasonably be expected to result in the catching,
taking, or harvesting of fish.
While there is some overlap in service use for commercial fishing vessels and other vessel
categories, such as passenger vessels (e.g., charter fishing), EPA assumed that the categorization used in
MISLE generally follows the U.S. Coast Guard definition of commercial fishing vessels.17
Other Nonrecreational Vessels
Excluding the approximately 27,000 "unspecified" vessels shown in Figure 1.2, "passenger
vessels" have the second highest number of study vessels with approximately 21,000 vessels. These
vessels are further divided into subtypes according to the types of activities in which they are involved
(e.g., diving vessels, charter fishing vessels, ferry, harbor cruise vessels, sailing vessels). The service
category labeled "public vessel, unclassified" accounts for nearly 700 study vessels (e.g., lighthouse
tender vessels, hospital ships, law enforcement vessels, ice breakers). The "utility vessels" category
covers remaining types of vessels, including tug/tow boats, school ships, research vessels/ships, mobile
offshore drilling units, offshore vessels, offshore supply vessels, oil recovery vessels, and industrial
vessels. More than 11,000 vessels are classified as utility vessels in MISLE.18 Freight barges (8,016
vessels), freight ships (768 vessels), tank barges (622 vessels), and tank ships (179 vessels) account for
the remaining nonrecreational study vessels.
these vessels to be passenger vessels (Source: Personal communication with Jack Kemerer, Fishing Vessel Safety Program,
May 26, 2009). According to the Coast Guard definition, the key difference between vessels formally classified as
commercial fishing vessels and recreational vessels or passenger vessels that may be used in fishing activities is whether the
catch is sold.
16 The moratorium provided by P.L. 110-299 applies only to discharges incidental to the normal operation of a vessel when
acting in the mode of transportation. EPA requires NPDES permits for seafood processing vessel discharges when they are
created by the processing of seafood as an industrial activity.
17 The MISLE classification also depends on the information provided directly by the vessel owner or operator on the
application for documentation or renewal (Source: Personal communication with Jack Kemerer, Fishing Vessel Safety
Program, May 26, 2009).
18 Some vessel service categories did not fall into one of the listed categories. EPA determined an appropriate service
category based on information provided in other vessel classification fields (class, type, subtype).
1-15
-------
Proposed Draft
1.4.2.2. Vessel Size
Vessels can be characterized by size according to two metrics: length and gross tons. The two
metrics are related to each other (gross tonnage is a function of the ship's enclosed spaces as measured
to the outside of the hull framing), and Figure 1.3 presents a scatter plot of gross tons and lengths for
commercial fishing vessels and other nonrecreational vessels obtained from MISLE. In general, most
nonrecreational vessels in MISLE have a length ranging between 26 and 50 feet, which translates into a
tonnage generally below 50 gross tons. The 79-foot length threshold for other nonrecreational vessels
(the criterion for applicability of P L. 110-299 moratorium) corresponds roughly to a tonnage of 150
gross tons. In Chapter 6 of this report, EPA uses this information in determining whether certain vessels
may be subject to regulation under federal law or a binding international obligation of the United States.
1,000
a Other Non-Recreational Vessels
~ Commercial Fishing Vessels
a 100
10
10
100
Gross Tons
1,000
10,000
Note: This chart is based on all operational, U.S.-flagged commercial fishing vessels and other nonrecreational vessels, regardless of
length.
Source: U. S. Coast Guard, MISLE database, 2009
Figure 1.3: Relationship Between Vessel Gross Tons and Length
1-16
-------
Proposed Draft
Approximately half of vessels documented in MISLE fall within the 26- to 50-foot-length
category, they have an average vessel length of 41 feet. Figure 1.4 and Figure 1.5 illustrate the
distribution of vessel length for commercial fishing vessels and other nonrecreational vessels in terms of
the vessel count (Figure 1.4) and cumulative distribution (Figure 1.5). In analyzing the cumulative
distribution of vessels by length (Figure 1.5), tank ships are the only vessel service category with a large
percentage of vessels longer than 300 feet.19 For almost all vessel service categories, vessels less than 79
feet represent the majority of vessels within the overall population.
-Q
£
20,000
18,000
16,000
14,000
12,000
10,000
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
—¦—Commercial Fishing Vessel
—~— Freight Barge
Utility Vessel
Freight Ship
-*- UNSPECIFIED
• Tank Ship
—I—Tank Barge
— Public Vessel, Unclassified
— Passenger Vessel
79 feet
o
CM
o
CM
V)
CD
CM
O
o
CM
Vessel Length (feet)
Note: This figure is based on operational, U.S.-flagged commercial fishing vessels and all other nonrecreational vessels (no size exclusion).
Source: U.S. Coast Guard, MISLE database, 2009
Figure 1.4. Distribution of MISLE Vessels by Length and Vessel Service (Type)
19 Although a large percentage of tank ships are listed as greater than 300 feet long, this accounts for a very small number of
vessels when compared to the overall universe of vessels in the selected service categories; approximately 300 of the 391
tank ships that list a vessel length are longer than 300 feet.
1-17
-------
Proposed Draft
Note: This figure is based on operational, U.S.-flagged commercial fishing vessels and all other nonrecreational vessels (no size exclusion).
Source: U. S. Coast Guard, MISLE database, 2009
Figure 1.5. Cumulative Distribution of MISLE Vessels by Length and Vessel Service (Type)
As shown in the two previous figures, there is significant variability in vessel length across
categories of nonrecreational vessels. Most freight barges reported in MISLE are about 200 feet in
length and relatively few (10 percent) are under 79 feet in length. Hence, most freight barges are not
subject to the moratorium in P.L. 110-299 and are currently eligible for coverage under the VGP. In
contrast, the majority of utility vessels (e.g., towing vessels), passenger vessels, and commercial fishing
vessels overall are less than 79 feet in length. Figure 1.6 shows the distribution of all commercial fishing
vessels and only nonrecreational vessels less than 79 feet in length by length and vessel service
(focusing on the study vessels). The majority of commercial fishing vessels are relatively small
compared to other nonrecreational vessels such as barges or utility vessels, with 56 percent of
commercial fishing vessels in the 26- to 50-foot range. The length of other nonrecreational vessels varies
among the subcategories, with as many as 64 percent of passenger vessels in the 26- to 50-foot range,
compared to less than 3 percent of freight barges within that same range.
1-18
-------
Proposed Draft
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Commercial
Fishing Vessel
Freight Barge Freight Ship
Passenger
Vessel
Public Vessel,
Unclassified
Tank Barge Tank Ship
Utility Vessel Unspecified
~ Less than 26
~ 26-50
~ 50-79
5,631
39,262
9,283
52
214
4,021
31
289
258
1,489
13,496
3,674
9
41
16
36
126
124
2
23
23
713
3,966
4,196
5,598
8,129
1,284
~ 79 or more
2,231
NOT INCLUDED IN SELECTED POPULATION
Note: This figure is based on operational, U.S.-flagged commercial fishing vessels and other nonrecreational vessels less than 79 feet in
length.
The length field is not reported or provides a value of zero for approximately 36,000 vessels.
Source: U. S. Coast Guard, MISLE database, 2009
Figure 1.6. Distribution of Study Vessels by Length (in Feet) and Vessel Service (Type)
Figure 1.7 presents the distribution of study vessels by gross tons and vessel service. Overall,
nearly 77 percent of study vessels are less than 50 gross tons, while the remaining vessels generally fall
within the 50- to 300-gross-tons range. Very few vessels (less than 1 percent) within the selected vessel
population are greater than 300 gross tons. Note that some vessel service categories appear
underrepresented because the gross tons field is blank or is listed as zero in MISLE for approximately
56,000 vessels.
1-19
-------
Proposed Draft
Figure insert: Distribution of Study Vessels
by Gross Tons and Vessel Service; for Size Categories
representing 10 Percent or Less of Vessels
100%
0%
Commercial
Fishing Vessel
Freight Barge
Freight Ship
Passenger
Vessel
Public Vessel,
Unclassified
Tank Barge
Tank Ship
Utility Vessel
Unspecified
~ Less than 50
36,650
337
409
15,190
35
161
36
4,398
7,474
~ 50-100
4,599
148
119
1,751
5
75
5
2,469
489
~ 100-300
4,048
3,734
26
59
3
24
4
1,356
159
~ 300-500
148
7
1
2
1
4
7
~ 500-1000
158
10
1
4
1
2
~ 1,000 or more
133
1
5
9
2
10
Note: This chart is based on operational, U.S.-flagged commercial fishing vessels and other nonrecreational vessels less than 79 feet in
length.
The gross tons field is not reported or provides a value of zero for approximately 56,000 vessels.
Source: U. S. Coast Guard, MISLE database, 2009
Figure 1.7. Distribution of Study Vessels by Gross Tons and Vessel Service (for which gross ton
data are given in MSLE)
To select specific vessel classes for sampling, EPA first developed a list of commercial vessel
classes based on published information and industry experience. Next, EPA eliminated those vessel
classes believed to consist of vessels greater than 79 feet in length, with the exception of commercial
fishing vessels. Examples of vessel classes eliminated because of their size include cable laying ships,
cruise ships, large ferries, and oil and petroleum tankers. Next, EPA eliminated vessel classes not
subject to VGP permitting, including stationary seafood processing vessels and vessels that can be
secured to the ocean floor for mineral or oil exploration (the CWA regulations separately require
NPDES permits for industrial operations onboard vessels). After screening out these vessel classes, EPA
selected a subset of priority vessel classes to study, including commercial fishing boats, tug and tow
boats, water taxis, tour boats, recreational vessels used for nonrecreational purposes, and industrial
1-20
-------
Proposed Draft
support boats less than 79 feet in length. EPA selected these vessel classes because they provide a cross
section of discharges and a broad range of potential pollutants.
1.4.2.3. Additional Vessel Characteristic Information
Other vessel characteristics such as vessel age and engine power (horsepower ahead) likely
influence the characteristics and the volume of many vessel discharges. Intuitively, where a vessel is
located and operated can determine the impacts. Additionally, where there are more vessels, there is a
greater likelihood of cumulative impacts (e.g., where there are more vessels, there will be a greater
impact from vessel discharges).
Appendix B presents additional vessel characteristic information, including summaries of vessel
subtypes, the hailing port of domestically flagged vessels, and information on construction and
propulsion of these vessels, including the vessel age and horsepower ahead. Appendix B also discusses
limitations in using the MISLE data. Appendix B lists the most common subtypes of vessel within each
vessel type. For example, towing vessels are the most common type of utility vessel. Appendix B also
shows where concentrations of vessel activities occur and what vessels are most predominant in those
assemblages. For example, the hailing port of New Orleans has the most registered vessels, including
significant numbers of commercial fishing vessels and other nonrecreational vessels. Finally, Appendix
B shows that most study vessels are relatively old, with the majority of them being more than 25 years
old. These analyses helped EPA qualitatively and quantitatively analyze the cumulative impact of many
vessels' discharges (see Chapter 4 of this report), and to put the numbers and locations of study vessels
into perspective relative to other vessels, such as recreational vessels and other non-study vessels (e.g.,
nonrecreational, noncommercial vessels greater than 79 feet in length).
1.5. Discharges from Vessels
EPA developed a substantial list of discharges from vessels, and pollutants of concern in each of
those discharges, during the development and issuance process of the VGP in 2008. Starting with this
list, EPA developed a subset of discharges prevalent on fishing vessels and nonrecreational vessels less
than 79 feet in length that are expected to have pollutants of concern. The subset of discharges that EPA
selected included: bilgewater, deck washdown and runoff, propulsion engine effluent, generator engine
effluent, firemain systems, fish hold effluent, fish hold cleaning effluent, graywater, and shaft packing
gland effluent. While EPA did not sample antifouling hull-coating leachate, this discharge is discussed
as well because this is a significant discharge from many vessels and has been documented to cause
water quality impacts (see Section 3.2.8).
EPA recognizes that there are additional discharges20 that also sometimes are present on study
vessels. Some of these were not conducive to sampling, such as cathodic protection, underwater ship
husbandry, and oil-to-sea interfaces. Some discharges are generally combined with other discharges and
20 EPA lists many discharges and descriptions of those discharges in the VGP and the accompanying fact sheet. Due to the
timeframe and resource limitations of this study, EPA chose to focus on the nine discharges that were a) conducive to
sampling and b) most likely to cause or contribute to impacts to human health, welfare, or the environment.
1-21
-------
Proposed Draft
are not typically available for independent sampling. An example of this is refrigeration system
condensate that is drained to the bilge. Other discharges are not expected to be commonly generated on
commercial fishing vessels or nonrecreational vessels less than 79 feet in length. These discharges are
typically associated with larger vessels, such as those covered by the VGP, and were not sampled for in
this study due to resource limitations. Some examples include aqueous film-forming foam, distillation
and reverse osmosis brine, exhaust gas scrubber effluent, elevator pit effluent, and boiler/economizer
blowdown. A detailed discussion on the discharges EPA decided not to sample is provided in Chapter 2.
1.5.1.1. Bilgewater
Bilgewater is defined as the water that collects in the bottom of a vessel's hull. This includes
water from rough seas, rain, minor leaks (designed or accidental) in the hull or stuffing box, condensate
from various types of equipment, spills onboard the vessel, and leaks from pumps and seals. Bilgewater
can be found on almost every vessel; if too much water accumulates, it could threaten the safety and
stability of the vessel. For example, the U.S. Coast Guard requires that certain commercial fishing
vessels and fish-processing vessels have automated bilge pumping systems as part of their basic safety
features (46 CFR Part 28.255).
A number of oily and non-oily wastewater sources sometimes drain intentionally or
unintentionally into the bilge. Oily wastewater sources include oil, fuel, and antifreeze leaks from engine
and machinery operation and maintenance. To prevent floating oils typically found in bilgewater from
being discharged overboard, vessels can either use oil-adsorbent pads in the bilge compartment or pump
the bilgewater through a properly operating oil-water separation system or oil absorbent filter prior to
overboard discharge.
Non-oily wastewater sources include non-oily leaks from engine and machinery operation and
maintenance and various condensates. Vessels can have numerous sources of non-oily machinery
wastewater, including chilled water condensate drains, fresh- and saltwater pump drains, potable water
tank overflows, and leaks from propulsion shaft seals. Large vessels typically have separate systems to
collect non-oily machinery wastewater in dedicated drip pans, funnels, and deck drains for subsequent
direct discharge. Small vessels can also generate non-oily machinery wastewater; however, these
wastewaters likely drain into the bilge.
1.5.1.2. Deck Washdown and Deck Runoff
Deck washdowns are typically performed to prevent slip and fall hazards; to prevent dirt, grit, or
other materials from harming the integrity of the deck surface; or to clean the deck after pulling in a
catch or unloading cargo. Deck washdown is typically performed using hoses and mops that move the
deck washdown water and cleaning agents (if any) to the scuppers through which the water is discharged
overboard. Deck cleaning often occurs while the vessel is underway but is also performed pierside,
generally after loading or unloading catch or cargo.
Deck runoff is typically related to either precipitation or surface water spray that lands on the
deck and flows to the scuppers where it is discharged overboard. Operators of the vessel do not have
1-22
-------
Proposed Draft
control over the volume of discharge related to precipitation events or sea sprays, but they can minimize
the pollutants carried by the runoff by utilizing appropriate maintenance practices.
Deck washdown and deck runoff have the potential to contain a variety of pollutants, including
oil and grease, nutrients, solids, metals, detergents, and solvents. Some or all of these pollutants could be
introduced to the deck from shipboard activities, storage of material on the deck, maintenance activities,
and the decking material itself.
Deck Washdown Activity of a Water Taxi (left) and a Towing and
Salvage Vessel (right).
1.5.1.3. Engine Effluent
Engines found on commercial vessels are typically used for two purposes: propulsion and
electricity generation. Engines used for vessel propulsion can be either outboard or inboard engines.
Outboard engines are self-contained units designed to be mounted outside the vessel hull at the stern
(rear) of the vessel. Inboard engines are enclosed within the hull of the vessel, usually connected to a
propulsion screw by a drive shaft. Outboard engines are typically fueled by gasoline, while inboard
motors can use either gasoline or diesel fuel. Gasoline or diesel engines can be either two stroke, which
require small amounts of oil to be mixed with the fuel to create a mixture that both lubricates and
provides combustion, or four stroke, which have separate lubrication systems.
All combustion engines require cooling systems to remove excess heat. Direct-cooled marine
engines draw raw water (either fresh water or seawater in which the vessel is floating) into the engine
and rely on the raw water to absorb the heat directly from the engine. Biocides sometimes are added to
the raw water to prevent biofouling of the heat exchange system (biofouling prevention). Indirect-cooled
marine engines use an enclosed cooling system that requires circulation of a freshwater-coolant solution
through the engine to absorb heat. The coolant solution passes through a closed heat exchanger where
the raw water absorbs the heat from the coolant solution and is then discharged.
Vessels also use keel-cooling systems for indirectly cooling marine engines. A keel cooler is
essentially a heat exchanger mounted outside the vessel's hull beneath the waterline. Hot water from the
1-23
-------
Proposed Draft
marine engines is pumped through the keel cooler, which is in constant contact with the seawater. This
closed-circuit cooling system eliminates the need for an inboard heat exchanger, raw water pumps, and
strainers and does not result in a discharge.
Some engines also use water to cool and quiet their exhaust, referred to as boat engine wet
exhaust. These engines inject spent cooling water from the engine into the exhaust stream, which results
in some of the gaseous and solid components of the exhaust being entrained into the cooling water
discharge.
Vessels that require significant lighting or have electrical equipment, such as appliances and/or
electric motors, are likely equipped with engines used for electricity generation. Electrical generators on
these vessels are typically powered by diesel engines. The size of the electrical generators depends on
the electrical load requirements for the vessel, but could range from small generators used to power
navigation equipment and galley appliances to large generators used to power electric motors on deck
winches and cranes. Similar to vessel engines, electrical generators will require direct or indirect
cooling.
Collecting a Sample of Engine Effluent at Full Speed.
1-24
-------
Proposed Draft
Inboard Engine (left) and Outboard Engine (right)
1.5.1.4. Firemain Systems
Some vessels are equipped with firemain systems to supply water for firefighting, and to supply
water to other vessel systems. Vessels use either "wet type" or "dry type" firemain systems. The wet
type firemain piping is normally filled with water. Wet type systems are particularly used on vessels
where the firemain water is used frequently, typically for maintenance activities such as deck
washdown. In a dry type system, the piping is normally empty. Water is only introduced to the pipes
when actual firefighting takes place, or for testing or training.
Aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF) can also be used on vessels as a fire suppression agent.
AFFFs are a combination of fluorochemical surfactants, hydrocarbon surfactants, and solvents (Koetter,
2008) that are injected into the water stream of a fire hose. These film-forming agents are capable of
forming water solution films on the surface of flammable liquids, separating the fuel from the air
(oxygen). Systems that use AFFFs do not appear to be common on smaller vessels.
Firemain System on a Fire Boat.
1-25
-------
Proposed Draft
Fire Boat.
1.5.1.5. Fish Hold and Fish Hold Cleaning Effluent (Refrigerated Seawater Discharge or
Fish Ice Slurry Discharge)
Commercial fishing vessels utilize different methods to keep seafood fresh after it is caught.
Most seafood is either dead when brought onboard or is killed shortly thereafter, before being stored in a
refrigerated seawater holding tank, with the exception of certain shellfish (e.g., crab, lobster), which
must be kept alive. The two most common methods of cooling seawater are by mechanical refrigeration
or by adding ice. Mechanical refrigeration is common on tenders, purse seiners, and trawlers, while
chipped and slurry ice tanks are more common on trailers, longliners, gillnetters, and some trawlers.
For vessels with refrigerated seawater tanks, fish are typically extracted using a vacuum system
that removes both the fish and refrigerated seawater simultaneously. Any excess refrigerated seawater
that is not required to assist in fish extraction is pumped overboard pierside. Vessels that use chipped or
slurry ice generally remove the seafood and then discharge the spent ice overboard pier side.
Occasionally, vessels that store their catch in ice slurry also use vacuum filtration systems (e.g., some
shrimping boats in the Gulf of Mexico). These discharges often contain pollutants generated by the
catch, such as biological wastes.
Tanks used to keep lobster and crab catch alive pump surrounding water into the tank constantly
to maintain the highest water quality possible. The flow rate through these systems results in a nearly
continuous discharge of fish hold effluent. Because the majority of the seafood product remains alive,
however, there is little biological decay or degradation in the tank. Furthermore, because these tanks
have reasonably rapid flushing times and a continuous discharge, there is a little accumulation of
pollutants.
Fish holds are also often cleaned or disinfected by vessel crews between catches. To rinse the
tank, vessel crews use either municipal water from the pier or dock or they pump water from the
surrounding ambient water. Cleaning may simply involve rinsing the tanks with this water, or crews
1-26
-------
Proposed Draft
sometimes add detergents or disinfectants. Crews also often use scrub brushes to clean the walls and
floor of the fish hold to maximize the removal of organic material. Fish hold cleaning effluent is a
combination of residual fish hold water and ambient or municipal water and often contains soaps or
detergents.
Shoveling Fish Hold Ice Overboard From Ice Tank.
View of a Full Refrigerated Seawater Tank.
1-27
-------
Proposed Draft
1.5.1.6. Graywater
Graywater is generated onboard vessels from domestic activities such as dish washing, food
preparation, laundry, and bathing. Graywater is discharged through either a single discharge port from a
collection system or through multiple, separate discharge ports for each graywater source (e.g., sink,
shower, washing machine). Graywater discharge is intermittent and occurs only when the specific
activity is performed. Most graywater processes use onboard potable water (service water).
Smaller vessels can sometimes not generate any graywater. Many of these vessels are for day use
and do not provide any overnight quarters or heads (toilets). Smaller vessels that do generate graywater
(e.g., those that have accommodations, sinks, or showers) generally discharge graywater directly
overboard via ports typically located above the waterline. Most larger vessels used for overnight or
multiday travel have numerous graywater sources, including showers, bathroom and kitchen sinks, and
laundry. On these vessels, graywater discharges overboard by draining through gravity to either a
discharge port above the water line or to a small collection tank located in the vessel hull, where it is
immediately pumped to a discharge port above the waterline. Other vessels can collect their graywater
and treat it along with sewage in Marine Sanitation Devices (MSDs).
Typical pollutants found in graywater often include metals, pathogens, total suspended solids,
biochemical oxygen demand, chemical oxygen demand, oil, grease, ammonia, nitrogen, and phosphates.
Graywater does not include sewage, or "blackwater", which is exclusively human waste from toilets and
urinals. Sewage is regulated under Section 312 of the Clean Water Act and 40 CFR Part 140 (see
Chapter 6 of this report for further discussion).
Collecting Graywater (Shower) Effluent.
1.5.1.7. Shaft Packing Gland Effluent
For vessels with propeller shafts, a packing gland, or stuffing box, is used to provide a seal
around a propeller shaft at the point where it exits a boat's hull underwater. This is a common method
for preventing water from entering the hull while still allowing the propeller shaft to turn. In a
conventional packing gland, the seal itself is provided by packing rings made of greased flax that is
1-28
-------
Proposed Draft
packed or wound tightly around the propeller shaft and compressed in place with a threaded nut and
spacer. The gland can also be fitted with an opening for periodic insertion of grease between the rings,
and sometimes includes a small grease reservoir.
A packing gland packed with flax rings is designed to leak a small amount of water—a few
drops per minute—to provide lubrication when the shaft is turning. Water that leaks through the seal
sometimes drips into a non segregated bilge or collects in a segregated area to avoid contact with oily
wastewaters. In the case of a segregated area, the water that collects (referred to as shaft packing gland
effluent) is automatically pumped overboard when levels reach a preset depth to prevent overflow.
1.5.1.8. Antifouling Hull Coatings21
Vessel hulls are often coated with antifouling compounds to prohibit the attachment and growth
of aquatic life. Coatings are formulated for different conditions and purposes, and many contain
biocides. Those that contain biocides prevent the attachment of aquatic organisms to the hull by
continuously leaching substances into the surrounding water that are toxic to aquatic life. While a
variety of different biocides are used, the most commonly used is copper. Hull cleaning activities often
can cause additional releases of biocides, particularly if hulls are cleaned within the first 90 days
following application of the antifouling coating.
A second metal-based biocide is organotin-based, typically tributyltin (TBT), which was
historically applied to vessel hulls. TBT and other organotins cause deformities in aquatic life, including
defects that disrupt or prevent reproduction. TBT and other organotins are also stable and persistent,
resisting natural degradation in water bodies. As discussed in Chapter 6 of this report, the use of TBTs
and other organotins as biocides has been phased out on all vessels by domestic law and international
treaty.
1.6. Pollutants Potentially Found in Vessel Discharges
EPA developed groupings of pollutants of concern in the issuance process of the VGP in 2008. EPA
recognizes that while some discharges from all sizes of vessels are essentially the same, many will vary
due to the specific machinery and activities conducted on these vessels. EPA used slightly different
groupings of the pollutants from the discharges sampled for this report to address differences from the
discharges covered by the VGP. The pollutants and constituents of concern are broken down into the
following groups: classical pollutants, nutrients, pathogen indicators, metals, volatile organic chemicals
(VOCs), semivolatile organic chemicals (SVOCs), and nonylphenols. Not all pollutants are expected to
be found in each discharge. For each discharge, EPA attempted to identify which pollutant groups are of
concern.
21 Though antifoulant hull coatings are present on some study vessels, particularly those operating in areas where there is a
significant potential for fouling, it was not feasible to sample discharges from these coatings for this study (see Chapter 2 for
further discussion).
1-29
-------
Proposed Draft
1.6.1. Classical Pollutants
For purposes of this report, EPA uses the term "classical pollutants" for the following 14
pollutants: temperature; conductivity; salinity; turbidity; dissolved oxygen; Total Suspended Solids
(TSS); Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD); chemical oxygen demand (COD); total organic carbon
(TOC); oil and grease; pH; sulfide; and total residual chlorine (TRC). These include the CWA
conventional pollutants, plus other common pollutants that are of general concern in a wide variety of
contexts.
Temperature changes can directly affect aquatic organisms by altering their metabolism, ability
to survive, and ability to reproduce effectively. Increases in temperature are frequently linked to
acceleration in the biodegradation of organic material in a water body, which increases the demand for
dissolved oxygen and can stress local aquatic communities. Thermal impacts from vessel discharges are
generally much smaller than those from traditional point sources, and the vessel discharge with the
greatest potential to alter receiving water temperature is engine cooling water.
Conductivity and salinity measurements are related to ionic strength and can indicate what
specific ions are present in water or wastewater. Conductivity is a measure of the ability of water to pass
an electrical current. Conductivity in water is affected by the presence of inorganic dissolved solids (or
ions). Organic compounds like oil, phenol, alcohol, and sugar do not conduct electrical current very well
and therefore, have a low conductivity when in water. Conductivity is also affected by temperature; the
warmer the water, the higher the conductivity. Salinity is a measure of the mass of dissolved salts (ions)
in solution. Ions commonly found in water include calcium, magnesium, potassium, and sodium cations
and bicarbonate, carbonate, chloride, nitrate, and sulfate anions. The average ocean salinity is
approximately 35 parts per thousand (ppt), while freshwater salinity is generally less than 0.5 ppt. The
salinity of brackish water, such as estuaries, is between 0.5 ppt and 17 ppt. Conductivity is a good
measure of salinity in water and vice versa.
Both turbidity and TSS are assessments of the amount of suspended solids present in the water
column. Turbidity is an indicator of water clarity, measuring how much the material suspended in water
decreases the passage of light through the water. Higher turbidity increases water temperatures because
suspended particles absorb more heat. Suspended materials, also measured as the mass of TSS, can clog
fish gills, reducing resistance to disease in fish, lowering growth rates, and affecting egg and larval
development. As the particles settle, they can smother fish eggs and benthic macroinvertebrates on the
bottom substrate. Vessel discharges with relatively high turbidity and TSS concentrations include fish
hold effluent, bilgewater, graywater, and deck washdown.
The oxygen content of water or wastewater is measured in its dissolved form as dissolved
oxygen (DO). Low DO levels (hypoxia) can impair animal growth or reproduction, and the complete
lack of oxygen (anoxia) will kill aquatic organisms. Organic material found in vessel discharges (e.g.,
fish waste, bilgewater, graywater) that are easily biodegraded will result in depressed DO concentrations
in ambient receiving waters. The ability of the organic material in vessel discharges to biodegrade and
depress oxygen levels is measured as either BOD5 or COD. BOD measures the amount of oxygen used
by naturally occurring microorganisms to metabolize the organic material in the vessel discharge, while
1-30
-------
Proposed Draft
COD measures the oxygen needed to chemically oxidize the organic material in the vessel discharge. If
there is a large quantity of organic waste in water, there will also be a lot of bacteria present working to
decompose this waste. In this case, the demand for oxygen will be high (due to all the bacteria), so the
BOD level will be high. COD levels can often be correlated with BOD levels, though they are generally
higher because the measurement examines chemicals that are both biologically and chemically oxidized.
As the waste is consumed or dispersed through the water, BOD levels will begin to decline.
Oil and grease are other known components of vessel discharge, with potentially harmful
impacts to humans and to aquatic life. Oil and grease are measured using hexane extractable material
(HEM) and silica gel treated (SGT)-HEM. Vessels sometimes discharge oil, including lubricating oils,
hydraulic oils, and vegetable or organic oils, in everyday operation. Oils produce a visible slick or
sheen22 on the water surface, which decreases natural oxygen transfer, resulting in depressed DO
concentrations. Also, oils might contain heavy metals and SVOCs, which can bioaccumulate in fish,
birds, marine mammals, and ultimately humans. Bilgewater, fish hold effluent (fish oils), and graywater
(galley wastewater) are the vessel discharges most likely to contain oil and grease.
The term pH is used to indicate the alkalinity or acidity of a substance as ranked on a scale from
1.0 to 14.0. Substances with lower pH (i.e., less than 7) are acidic, while substances with higher pH (i.e.,
greater than 7) are basic. pH affects many chemical and biological processes in the water. The largest
variety of aquatic animals prefers a range of 6.5 to 8.0. pH outside this range can reduce diversity
because it stresses the physiological systems of most organisms. Low pH can allow toxic elements and
compounds to become mobile and "available" for uptake by aquatic plants and animals. This can
produce conditions that are toxic to aquatic life, particularly sensitive species. Many vessel-cleaning
wastewaters can be either acidic (e.g., metal cleaners and tub, toilet, and sink cleaners) or basic (e.g.,
degreasers).
Sulfide is a strong reducing agent typically generated during anaerobic decomposition of organic
materials. Sulfides are naturally present in ground water as a result of leaching from sulfur-containing
mineral deposits. Surface water does not usually contain high sulfide concentrations. Sulfide is a
pollutant that is commonly elevated in water distribution systems as well as sewers. Sulfur-reducing
bacteria, which use sulfur as an energy source, are believed to be the primary producers of large
quantities of hydrogen sulfide. Ecologically, these bacteria are common in anaerobic environments (e.g.,
plumbing systems). For vessels, possible sources of sulfide include trace constituents in the fuel,
products of incomplete combustion, or formations in anaerobic systems onboard the vessel. Sulfide
generated from anaerobic decomposition is suspected in graywater, bilgewater, and fish holds. Sulfide
may also be formed during fuel combustion in a vessel's engine. Sulfide, typically found as hydrogen
sulfide, poses a potential long-term hazard to aquatic life (USEPA, 1986b) at low concentrations.
Chlorine is commonly used as a disinfectant in wastewater and drinking water. Chlorine,
measured as TRC, though toxic to humans at high concentrations, is of much greater concern to aquatic
species, which can experience respiratory problems, hemorrhaging, and acute mortality. TRC is present
22 Visible slick or sheen means a "silvery" or "metallic" sheen, gloss, or increased reflectivity; visual color; iridescence, or oil slick on the
surface (58 FR 12507;.
1-31
-------
Proposed Draft
in potable water supplies, and consequently, any vessel systems that use potable water could potentially
discharge TRC while conducting graywater activities and deck washing. Chlorine bleach can also used
as a disinfectant in cleaning activities, such as cleaning the fish hold, general vessel cleaning, and
laundry.
Measuring Total Residual Chlorine Immediately
After Sample is Taken.
1.6.2. Nutrients
Nutrients, including nitrogen, phosphorus, and numerous micronutrients, are constituents of
vessel discharges. Though traditionally associated with discharges from sewage treatment facilities and
runoff from agricultural and urban stormwater sources, small quantities of nutrients from vessels are
discharged from deck runoff, graywater, bilgewater, and fish hold tanks, among other sources. Although
outside the scope of this report, sewage discharge (blackwater) is likely one of the primary sources of
nutrients from vessels.
When excessive amounts of phosphorus and nitrogen are added to the water, algae and aquatic
plants can be produced in large quantities and cause eutrophication of lakes or ponds. Eutrophication is a
natural process whereby primary producers (algae and aquatic plants) exhibit extreme growth due to
increased nutrient loading. Eutrophication can be greatly accelerated by human activities that increase
the rate at which nutrients enter the water. Increased nutrient discharges from human sources are a major
source of water quality degradation throughout the United States.
Total nitrogen is a measure of all the various forms of nitrogen (nitrate, nitrite, and ammonia)
that are found in a water sample. Nitrification is the biological oxidation of nitrogen compounds in both
water and soil: ammonia is oxidized to nitrite (via Nitrosomas bacteria) and further oxidized to nitrate
via Nitrobacter bacteria. Nitrite and ammonia are relatively toxic forms of nitrogen, while nitrate is
relatively nontoxic. Nitrogen in natural waters is usually found in the form of nitrate.
Phosphorus can be measured in either the particulate phase or the dissolved phase. Particulate
matter includes living and dead plankton, precipitates of phosphorus, phosphorus adsorbed to
1-32
-------
Proposed Draft
particulates, and amorphous phosphorus. The dissolved phase includes inorganic phosphorus and
organic phosphorus. Phosphorus in natural waters is usually found in the form of phosphates.
Phosphates can be in inorganic form (including orthophosphates and polyphosphates) or organic form
(organically bound phosphates).
1.6.3. Pathogen Indicators
Pathogens are microbes that cause disease. They include a few types of bacteria, viruses,
protozoa, and other organisms. Bacteria associated with human and animal waste (e.g., total and fecal
coliforms, E. coli, enterococci) are often monitored in water and wastewater, and the detection of these
organisms can be a reliable indicator that other dangerous pathogens might be present. Pathogens are
often found in discharges from vessels, particularly in vessel sewage and graywater.
1.6.4. Metals
Metals are a diverse group of pollutants, many of which are toxic to aquatic life and humans. While
some metals, including copper, nickel, and zinc, are known to be essential to organism function, many
others, including thallium and arsenic, are nonessential and/or are known to have only adverse impacts. Even
essential metals can do serious damage to organism function in sufficiently elevated concentrations. Adverse
impacts can include impaired organ function, impaired reproduction, birth defects, and at extreme
concentrations, acute mortality. For example, copper can inhibit photosynthesis in plants and interfere
with enzyme function in both plants and animals in concentrations as low as 4 j_ig/l. Additionally, through
a process known as bioaccumulation, metals can accumulate in predator organisms further up the food chain,
including commercially harvested fish species.
The toxic potential of a metal depends on its bioavailability in a given aquatic environment. A
metal's bioavailability is determined by the characteristics of the surrounding environment (e.g.,
temperature, pH, salinity, TOC) and the species of the affected organism. The environmental conditions
determine a metal's tendency to either adsorb to suspended organic matter and clay minerals or to
precipitate out of solution and settle to the sediments. Benthic organisms can bioaccumulate metals by
consuming metal-enriched sediments and suspended particles or by uptaking ambient water containing
the dissolved form of the metal.
Vessel discharges can contain a variety of metal constituents, which can come from a variety of
onboard sources. Graywater, bilgewater, and firemain systems have been shown to contain numerous metals,
the exact constituents of which vary depending on onboard activities and the materials used in the
construction of the vessel. Other metals, such as copper, are known to leach from the antifoulant coatings on
vessel hulls and can cause exceedances of water quality standards.
1.6.5. Volatile and Semivolatile Organic Compounds
A variety of organic compounds have been found in vessel discharges, many of which are known
to have a broad array of adverse impacts on aquatic species and human health. For this study, EPA
measured VOCs and SVOCs, which can dissolve other substances and evaporate readily at room
temperature and atmospheric pressure. These carbon-containing compounds include a wide range of
1-33
-------
Proposed Draft
chemicals, such as aldehydes, ketones, and hydrocarbons, and are present in oily materials such as
gasoline, motor oil, engine coolants, and lubricants used on vessels. VOCs such as benzene, which is
found in fuel, has acute hematological toxicity (ATSDR, 2007), and many SVOCs such as
benzo(a)pyrene are persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic compounds.
EPA measured VOCs and SVOCs in vessel discharges from engines, bilges, and firemains for
this study. The most significant rates and levels of detection were phthalates (plasticizers added to
plastics to make them flexible) and components of or products of incomplete combustion of oil and fuel.
For example, VOCs and SVOCs detected in engine effluent included multiple polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons (PAHs), straight-chain hydrocarbons, phenol and methyl phenols, trimethylbenzene,
phthalates, and the volatile constituents of fuel, commonly referred to as "BTEX" (benzene, toluene,
ethylbenzene, xylene). Many of these compounds are known to cause adverse impacts on aquatic species
and human health.
1.6.6. Nonylphenols
Long- and short-chain nonylphenols are a component of many liquid detergents and soaps and
are often toxic to aquatic life. These compounds (all non-ionic surfactants) belong to the larger group of
compounds called alkylphenol ethoxylates. There are different types of alkylphenol ethoxylates, such as
nonylphenol polyethoxylates (NPEOs) and octylphenol polyethoxylates (OPEOs). Because NPEOs and
OPEOs are in the same family, they have similar chemical properties. Longer chain NPEOs degrade in
the environment to NPEOs with shorter chained ethoxylate groups, or to nonylphenoxy carboxylates
(NPECs) with a carboxylated ethoxylate under aerobic conditions. In general, the shorter the ethoxylate
chain becomes, the more hydrophobic, persistent, and toxic the substance becomes. Once nonylphenol is
buried in the sediment, it may persist for a long time. Many fish are bottom feeders and can be
significantly exposed to nonylphenols. Long- and short-chain nonylphenols are expected to be found in
several vessel discharges, including graywater, deck washing wastewater, and bilgewater.
1.6.7. Chapter Conclusions
The information summarized and referenced in this chapter provides an introduction to the study
vessel universe. It describes the universe of study vessels, the types of discharges generally thought to
originate from those vessels, and the types of pollutants or other constituents generally found in those
vessel discharges. It also references information contained in Appendix B of this report, which provides
more detailed information on the study vessel universe, such as vessel locations and characteristics. EPA
estimates that there are approximately 140,000 vessels in the United States subject to the NPDES
permitting moratorium established by P.L. 110-299. This chapter concludes that commercial fishing
vessels are the most common type of study vessels, although there are significant numbers of other
commercial study vessels.
The information contained in this chapter helped inform EPA's decisions of which discharges to
sample and the relative importance of each discharge (see Chapters 3, 4, and 5 for additional
discussion). Based on EPA's experience gained during the VGP process, the Agency believes
bilgewater, graywater, deck washdown, fish hold, engine effluent, and antifouling hull coating leachate
1-34
-------
Proposed Draft
are the primary vessel discharges that could impact surface water quality. Pollutants in these discharges
might include metals, organics, nonylphenols, nutrients, oxygen depleting compounds, and pathogens.
The following chapters of this report present the methodology EPA used to characterize discharges from
vessels subject to the NPDES permitting moratorium, the results of that characterization, and the
potential environmental impacts to ambient waters that could be caused by these discharges.
1-35
-------
Proposed Draft
CHAPTER 2
STUDY DESIGN
This chapter documents the methodology that EPA used to conduct this study of
discharges incidental to normal operation of study vessels. It describes the steps EPA took to
collect information on the nature and potential impacts of vessel discharges.
2.1 Data Sources
EPA collected data from a variety of sources, including existing data from other EPA
data collection efforts, meetings and telephone contacts with trade association representatives,
vessel visits and sampling, literature reviews, and other governmental data sources. Each of these
data sources is discussed below.
2.1.1 Existing EPA Data Sources
A significant source of existing data regarding vessel discharges is EPA's administrative
record supporting EPA's 2008 Vessel General Permit (VGP). The administrative record is a
collection of all materials EPA considered in developing the VGP, including supporting
documents, references, and comments received on the proposed VGP. As a first step in
conducting this study, EPA reviewed these existing data sources to determine whether and to
what extent the data and information from these sources could be used to satisfy the study
objectives. This review also identified data and information gaps for EPA to target for additional
data collection efforts. In general, these existing data sources provided useful information
regarding the types of vessel discharges generated by vessel class, as well as the shipboard
processes that contribute to their generation; however, the existing data sources contained little
or no information regarding the nature, composition, and volume of discharges.
Other existing data sources evaluated for this study included supporting documents and
other materials from EPA's Uniform National Discharge Standards (UNDS) (USEPA, 1999) and
cruise ship discharges (USEPA, 2008c) programs. These sources, which pertain to armed forces
vessels and large cruise ships, respectively, have limited applicability to commercial fishing
vessels and nonrecreational vessels less than 79 feet in length; however, these data sources did
provide supplemental information regarding shipboard processes that result in wastewater
generation, as well as information regarding the types and amounts of pollutants that may be
found in selected vessel discharges such as graywater and bilgewater. One source directly
applicable to this study, however, is the UNDS document, Final Sampling Episode Report for
Small Boat Engine Wet Exhaust Discharge from Compression Ignition Engines (USEPA,
2008b), which provides pollutant data and other relevant information (e.g., vessel power levels)
for wet exhaust discharges from two compression ignition engines. EPA used this report as a
primary source of information and data for this vessel discharge.
2-1
-------
Proposed Draft
2.1.2 Industry Participation
EPA was contacted by or contacted, met with, or otherwise collaborated with trade
associations and individual companies. In the course of these meetings, EPA gathered the
following types of information regarding vessel discharges:
• Vessel classes within and outside the scope of this study.
• Typical vessel lengths by vessel class.
• Vessel operating seasons and locations.
• Shipboard systems and operations that contribute to vessel discharges.
• Vessel discharges and locations by vessel class.
• Volume, frequency, and nature of discharges.
• Vessel tours to inspect and observe vessel systems and operations that contribute to
vessel discharges.
Note that none of the trade associations or individual companies contacted was able to
provide pollutant data for vessel discharges.
The trade associations that contacted EPA or that EPA contacted included:
• American Waterways Operators (represents over 250 members that operate carriers,
tug boats, towboats, and barges).
• Passenger Vessel Association (represents approximately 600 members that operate
vessels such as ferries, dinner cruises, whale watching expeditions, site seeing tours,
and water taxis).
• National Association of Charterboat Operators (represents over 3,300 charterboat
owner and operators who provide fishing, sailing, diving, eco-tours, and other
excursion vessels that carry passengers for hire, as well as recreational for-hire
vessels).
• Conference of Professional Operators for Response Towing (C-PORT) (represents
over 170 members of the commercial marine assistance industry, providing services
such as jump starts, fuel delivery, and towing to boaters).
• Pacific Seafood Processors Association (represents 10 seafood processing companies
in Alaska, Washington, and Oregon).
• At-Sea Processors Association (represents five companies that own and operate 19
U.S.-flag catcher/processor vessels in the Alaskan pollock and West Coast Pacific
whiting fisheries).
• Alaskan Longline Fishermen's Association (represents about 60 members of longline
fishing vessel companies and salmon fishing vessels that operate in southeast Alaska).
• United Fishermen of Alaska (represents about 37 commercial fishing companies
concentrated in Alaska).
• Southeast Alaska Fishermen's Alliance (represents commercial fishermen and the
commercial fishing industry in southeast Alaska).
• Northeast Seafood Coalition (represents commercial groundfish fishermen and shore-
side businesses from mid-coast Maine to Long Island, New York).
2-2
-------
Proposed Draft
• Southern Shrimp Alliance (alliance of shrimp fishermen and processors in Alabama,
Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Texas).
• Petersburg Vessel Owners Association (represents fishermen in Petersburg, Alaska).
• Alaskan Trailers Association (represents southeastern Alaska trailers).
• Cordova District Fisherman United (represents Cordova, Alaska, area fishermen).
Individual companies that provided additional information (generally after being
contacted by their respective trade groups) included:
• Potomac Marine, Woodbridge, Virginia.
• Vane Brothers Company, Mid-Atlantic.
• Potomac Riverboat Company, Alexandria, Virginia.
• Northeast Seafood Processors, Gloucester, Massachusetts.
• Vulcan Materials Company, Havre de Grace, Maryland.
• Sea Tow, Pensacola, Florida.
• EPA Gulf Ecology Division Laboratory, Gulf Breeze, Florida.
• Sea Tow, Slidell, Louisiana.
• AEP River Operations, Convent, Louisiana.
• Shrimp Charters, Pass Christian, Louisiana.
• Baltimore Water Taxi, Baltimore, Maryland.
• Sitka Sound Seafoods, Sitka, Alaska.
• Seafood Producers Co-op, Sitka, Alaska.
• Silver Bay Seafoods, Sitka, Alaska.
• Argosy Cruises, Seattle, Washington.
• Tidewater Marine, LLC, Gulf Coast.
• E.N. Bisso & Son, Lower Mississippi River.
• Foss Maritime Company, California, Washington, Oregon, the Columbia River, and
the Snake River.
• Taku Smokeries, Juneau, Alaska.
• Upper River Services, St. Paul, Minnesota.
• JB Marine Service, St. Louis, Missouri.
• Osage Marine Services, St. Louis, Missouri.
• AEP River Operations, New Orleans, Louisiana.
• Smith Shipyard, Baltimore, Maryland.
• Norfolk Tug Company, Norfolk, Virginia.
• Dann Marine, Baltimore, Maryland.
• Cape Fear Riverboats, Wilmington, North Carolina.
2.1.3 Vessel Sampling
EPA identified a critical need for pollutant data for vessel discharges following its review
of existing data sources. To satisfy this requirement, EPA designed and implemented a vessel
discharge sampling program, which is described in detail in Section 2.2 of this document.
2-3
-------
Proposed Draft
Through this sampling program, EPA collected wastewater pollutant characterization data for
nine vessel discharges sampled from a total of 61 vessels (one to four discharges sampled per
vessel). These samples were collected in 15 different towns/cities in nine separate states,
representing several of the major regions of the United States. Another critical component of
EPA's sampling program was the collection of information regarding the shipboard processes,
equipment, materials, and operations that contribute to the discharges, as well as the discharge
rates, duration, frequency, and location.
2.1.4 Literature Review
EPA was not able to sample and characterize all study vessel classes and discharges
(discussed further in Section 2.3). To fill this data gap, EPA searched the literature (i.e.,
scientific and engineering journals or other academic publications) for relevant information. In
general, these searches provided only general information regarding vessel classes and
discharges and little or no specific information, such as discharge composition and volumes.
EPA did, however, identify many relevant literature sources regarding vessel antifouling
leachate. EPA used these literature sources as the primary sources of information and data for
this vessel discharge.
2.1.5 Other Governmental Data Sources
EPA's primary data source for vessel information regarding population and other vessel
characteristics is the U.S. Coast Guard's Marine Information for Safety and Law Enforcement
(MISLE) database. The MISLE provides data for nearly 1 million vessels that operate in U.S.
waters and is used to support the investigation and inspection activities of the U.S. Coast Guard
throughout the United States and its territories. Of the 1 million vessels identified in the
database, approximately 139,814 vessels comprise the study vessel population (see Chapter 1 for
additional discussion). Relevant vessel characteristics tracked in this database are vessel type,
length, geographical area of operation, age, hull material type, propulsion method and type, and
horsepower ahead.
EPA used a screening-level analysis of a hypothetical estuarine harbor to evaluate the
potential environmental impacts from multiple vessels discharging to large U.S. water bodies,
specifically estuaries and brackish harbors (see Section 4.2). EPA used the characteristics of
harbor salinity, volume, and freshwater inflow from a variety of U.S. estuaries that receive vessel
discharges to develop the characteristics for the hypothetical estuary. EPA compiled these
characteristics from the following online sources:
• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration BookletChart™ List
• National Oceanographic Data Center World Ocean Database 2005 (WOD05)
• Southeast Environmental Research Center, Biscayne Bay Water Quality Monitoring
Network, Miami, Florida.
2-4
-------
Proposed Draft
• Cronick, T., and A. McGuire. Temperature and Salinity of the Yaquina Bay Estuary
and the Potential Range of Carcinus maenas, Corvallis, Oregon.
• Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, Total Maximum Daily
Loads of Bacteria for Little Harbor, Worchester, Massachusetts.
• U.S. Geological Survey National Hydrography Dataset Plus.
• U.S. Geological Survey National Water Information System Surface Water Annual
Statistics.
2.2 EPA Vessel Discharge Sampling Program
EPA conducted a sampling program of discharges from commercial fishing vessels and
other nonrecreational vessels less than 79 feet in length. EPA's sampling program was designed
to provide information to achieve the first two objectives of the study mandated by P.L. 110-299:
• A characterization of the nature, type, and composition of discharges for
representative single vessels, and for each class of vessel.
• A determination of the volumes of those discharges, including the average volumes
for representative single vessels, and for each class of vessel.
Accordingly, EPA's sampling program included the sampling of large numbers and
varieties of vessel classes, vessels, and discharges, and the analysis of target analytes as
discussed in the following subsections. In addition, EPA supplemented sample collection and
analysis with the collection of information regarding the shipboard processes, equipment,
materials, and operations that contribute to the discharges, as well as the discharge rates,
duration, frequency, and location.
Though the Agency was still in the final stages of drafting the 2008 VGP, EPA began
designing and planning the sampling program soon after enactment of P.L. 110-299. These
activities included developing the size and scope of the program considering overall program
schedule and resources; identifying priority locations, vessel classes, discharges, and analyte
classes for sampling; developing a detailed Generic Sampling Analysis Plan and Quality
Assurance Project Plan; procuring EPA regional laboratory and contract laboratory and sampling
support; and soliciting industry input and volunteers for participation in the program. Sample
collection was conducted from March through July 2009. The remainder of this section provides
a further description of the sampling program, including the vessels sampled and their locations,
sampled discharges, target analytes, sampling methods, and quality assurance/quality control.
2.2.1 Vessels Sampled and Locations
EPA sampled discharges from a total of 61 vessels in nine vessel classes. To select
vessel classes for evaluation, EPA first developed a list of commercial vessel classes based on
published information and the EPA team's existing understanding of vessels. Next, EPA
narrowed the sampling scope to focus largely on those vessel classes believed to consist
2-5
-------
Proposed Draft
primarily of vessels less than 79 feet in length. Some examples of vessel classes on which EPA
did not focus, due to their size, include cable laying ships, cruise ships, large ferries, oil and
petroleum tankers, and freight ships/barges (most vessels in these classes are typically greater
than 80 feet in length). Next, EPA eliminated vessel classes outside the scope of study vessels,
including stationary seafood processing vessels and vessels that can be secured to the ocean floor
for mineral or oil exploration, because the industrial discharges from these vessels were outside
the scope of the previous 40 CFR Part 122.3(a) exclusion (USEPA, 2008d). After eliminating
these vessels, the following common vessel classes were prioritized for evaluation:
• Commercial fishing vessels and tenders
• Tugs/towing vessels
• Water taxis/small ferries
• Tour boats
Purse Seiner in Alaska (left) and a Shrimp Trawler in Louisiana (right).
2-6
-------
Proposed Draft
A Tugboat in Maryland (left) and a Tow/Salvage Vessel in Virginia (right).
A Water Taxi in Virginia (left) and a Tour Boat in Virginia (right).
2-7
-------
Proposed Draft
Table 2-1. Number of Vessels Sampled by Vessel Class and Discharge
Vessel ( hiss
Nil in her of
Niiinhei
of Vessels Sampled l)\ Discli:
ii'Sic
Vessels
Bilge
Siern 'I'llhe
Deck
lisli Mold
Cleaning ol'
(ira\waler
Propulsion
(icncralor
l-'ircmain
Sampled
Waler
Packing
(•land
\\ aslidow n
l-isli Mold
I nline I'.ITIucnl
I nline I'.ITIiienl
Fishing:
Gillnetter
5
1
3
1
Lobster1
1
1
Longliner
Purse Seiner
3
5
1
3
5
1
1
1
1
Shrimp Trawler
6
1
6
2
1
Tender
3
3
2
Trawler
4
2
3
4
Trailer
6
2
6
1
Tugboat
9
9
9
5
2
Water Taxi
4
2
1
1
4
1
Tour Boat
3
1
2
3
2
3
Tow/Salvage
6
3
6
5
Research
2
2
Fire Boat
1
1
1
1
1
Supply Boat
1
1
Recreational
2
1
1
2
Total
61
8
9
32
26
9
8
19
5
6
(1) Sampled the lobster hold tank on a trawler.
2-8
-------
Proposed Draft
Additionally, EPA sampled recreational vessels used for nonrecreational purposes as part
of this study. This sampling was done for two purposes: 1) to provide a semiquantitative
comparison of the discharges from these vessels and the other study vessels, and 2) to collect
additional information for EPA's related work on the Clean Boating Act (P.L. 110-288). During
the execution of the sampling program, EPA also conducted opportunistic sampling of
additional, non-priority vessel classes (e.g., fire boats, recreational boats, a supply boat) when
EPA had access to these vessels and the resources to sample them. See Section 1.3 of this
document for a short description of different vessel classes or types.
As discussed in Section 2.1.2, EPA was contacted by or otherwise developed contacts
with trade associations and individual companies. Many of these entities relayed the purpose of
the study to their constituents or peers, some of whom contacted EPA. Consequently, EPA
obtained a pool of individual companies who were willing to volunteer their vessels for the
sampling program. EPA then selected specific companies and vessels within the volunteer pool
for sampling to obtain a variety of vessel classes, vessel platforms, companies, and geographic
distribution. In general, EPA selected the entire volunteer pool within the following geographic
areas to maximize the number and variety of sampled vessels based on available resources: New
England (Gloucester/New Bedford, Massachusetts); Mid-Atlantic (Woodbridge, Virginia;
Alexandria Virginia; Baltimore, Maryland; Havre de Grace, Maryland; and Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania); Gulf Coast (Gulf Breeze, Florida; Pensacola, Florida; Bayou laBatre, Alabama;
Pass Christian, Mississippi; Slidell, Louisiana; La Fitte, Louisiana; and Convent, Louisiana); and
Sitka, Alaska.
EPA's vessel selection approach for commercial fishing vessels differed from that of
other vessel classes due to the nature of this industry. During the fishing season, fishing trips
typically last for multiple days with no preset schedule. The captain of each vessel determines
the end of each fishing trip, returns to the seafood processor or tender to offload the catch, and
then typically immediately returns to the fishing grounds. Therefore, EPA identified seafood
processors, rather than specific fishing companies and vessels, as the means to obtain a pool of
active fishing vessels for sampling. Sampling was conducted at the docks of the seafood
processors during the offloading process, and EPA sampled all vessels that arrived while the
EPA sampling crew was at the docks (with the permission of the captains). In this way, sampling
of individual commercial fishing vessels was random. However, EPA did contact the seafood
processing facilities prior to sampling to provide sampling details (e.g., nature of the study,
discharges of interest, sampling dates). It was the facilities' discretion whether or not to share
this information with the vessel fleets that use their offloading facilities.
Due to the assistance of trade groups and others, vessel owner/operators were generally
very cooperative with EPA sampling teams. For example, the EPA vessel team found that most
of the fishermen with whom they spoke in Sitka, Alaska, were aware of the study and that EPA
would be sampling in the area during the summer. Other vessel owner/operators took EPA
2-9
-------
Proposed Draft
underway to sample engine effluent, waited to wash their dishes or take showers until EPA was
able to collect the graywater discharge, and assisted EPA scientists in answering questions about
their vessel operations.
2.2.2 Sampled Discharges
EPA sampled a total of nine discharge types during the sampling program (see Table
2-1). To identify priority discharges for sampling, EPA first developed a list of vessel discharges
based on information collected from discussions with industry representatives (see Section
2.1.2), as well as EPA's understanding of vessel discharges. Next, EPA prioritized the list to
focus on the following discharges that are commonly generated by the vessel classes of interest
and that are amenable to sampling (see Chapter 1 for descriptions and locations of these
discharges):
• Bilgewater
• Stern tube packing gland effluent
• Deck runoff and/or washdown
• Fish hold effluent (including both refrigerated seawater effluent and ice slurry)
• Effluent from the cleaning of fish holds
• Graywater
• Propulsion engine effluent
• Generator engine effluent
• Firemain discharges
Vessels routinely use ambient waters to conduct normal operational and cleaning
activities that lead to the generation of above discharges. EPA collected samples of ambient
water where the vessels were operating. EPA also collected potable water used onboard the
vessels (service water) to characterize any background concentrations of pollutants that might be
detected in discharges from vessel operations that use service water.
2-10
-------
Proposed Draft
Various Discharges Through Hull Discharge Ports.
EPA did not select non-oily machinery wastewater as a priority discharge for sampling
because it was not expected to be discharged separately from bilgewater. The vessels that EPA
sampled during this program use the bilge system to manage non-oily machinery wastewater (if
there is any), such as fresh- and saltwater pump drains, chilled water condensate drains, and
potable water tank overflows, rather than installing dedicated drip pans, funnels, and deck drains
to provide for segregated discharge. Note, however, that EPA has not performed a
comprehensive investigation of whether or not certain non-oily machinery wastewaters may have
segregated discharges on other study vessels.
EPA did not select the discharges listed below as priority discharges for sampling
because they were not reasonable or practical to sample within the overall program schedule and
available resources.
• Anti-fouling hull coatings.
• Cathodic protection.
• Controllable pitch propeller and thruster hydraulic fluid and other oil-to-sea
interfaces.
• Underwater ship husbandry.
EPA did not select the discharges listed below as priority discharges for sampling
because they were not expected to be commonly generated on commercial fishing vessels or
nonrecreational vessels less than 79 feet in length.
• Aqueous film-forming foam
• Boiler/economizer blowdown
• Distillation and reverse osmosis brine
• Elevator pit effluent
2-11
-------
Proposed Draft
• Exhaust gas scrubber wash water
• Fre sh water 1 ayup
• Gas turbine wash water
• Motor gasoline and compensating discharge
• Sonar dome discharge
• Welldeck discharges
• Graywater mixed with sewage
None of these discharges were sampled during the sampling program because none of the 61
vessels that EPA selected for sampling generated these discharges. Note, however, that EPA has
not performed a comprehensive investigation of whether or not these discharges are applicable to
other study vessels.
2.2.3 Target Analvtes
EPA's vessel discharge sampling and analysis program included 301 target analytes in
the following eight analyte groups:1
• Microbiologicals (pathogen indicators)
• Volatile and semivolatile organic compounds
• Total and dissolved metals
• Oil and grease
• Sulfide
• Short and long chain nonylphenols
• Nutrients
• Other physical/chemical parameters
Appendix D lists the target analytes included in each group, along with the analytical
methods. EPA selected this comprehensive list of analytes to perform a screening-level analysis
of the presence or absence of almost all priority pollutants (listed at 40 CFR Part 423, Appendix
A), conventional pollutants defined at Section 304(a)(4) of the Clean Water Act, and toxic
pollutants from EPA's 2006 National Recommended Water Quality Criteria for freshwater and
saltwater aquatic life and human health, as well as many other nonconventional pollutants.
Nearly half of these analytes (147) were never detected in any vessel discharge sample (see
Chapter 3).
EPA did not analyze all vessel discharges for all selected analyte groups (see Table 2-2).
Analyte groups were selected for analysis based on their possible presence in discharges, as
determined from existing data sources and EPA's understanding of what constituents are
possibly present in which vessel discharges. For example, long-chain nonylphenols were only
1 Due to overall program resource constraints and other factors, not all analyte groups of possible concern were
selected for this study (see Section 2.3.3).
2-12
-------
Proposed Draft
analyzed for in those discharges with the potential to contain detergents (i.e., bilgewater, packing
gland, deck washdown, fish hold cleaning effluent, and graywater). Furthermore, short-chain
nonylphenols were only analyzed for in those discharges for which long-chain nonylphenols
were analyzed, and that also had an onboard holding time that would allow for the possible
degradation of long-chain nonylphenols to short-chain nonylphenols (e.g., bilgewater held in the
bilge, graywater stored in a holding tank).
2-13
-------
Proposed Draft
Table 2-2. Analyte Groups by Discharge
5«
1
a w
s
u
O
u
U
&
—
® o
-4-*
44 22
S 5
s
s
s
iZ)
II
s s
>3 z
s
Z
«r,
Q
o ^
W o
Total
Solids
Other
Phvsii
Paran
Bilgewater
V (C)
a/
a/
a/
a/
a/
a/
a/
a/
a/
a/
Stern tube packing gland effluent
a/
V
V
V
V
a/
V
V
V
a/
Deck runoff and/or washdown
V (d)
V
V
a/
V
V
V
V
Fish hold effluent (including both refrigerated
a/
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
seawater effluent and ice slurry)
Effluent from the cleaning of fish holds
a/
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
Graywater
a/
V
V
V
V (e)
V
V
V
V
V
Propulsion engine effluent
a/
V
V
V
V
V
Generator engine effluent
a/
V
V
V
V
V
Firemain systems
V
V
V
(a) Biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5), chemical oxygen demand (COD), and total organic carbon (TOC).
(b) Other physical/chemical parameters include: conductivity; dissolved oxygen; pH; salinity; temperature; total residual chlorine; turbidity; and observations of
odor, color, and floating and settleable material.
(c) Microbiologicals analyzed for only those vessels with potential for a source of these pollutants to enter the bilge (e.g., graywater piping, fish hold effluent).
(d) Microbiologicals analyzed for only commercial fishing vessels.
(e) Short-chain nonylphenols analyzed for only graywater that has been stored in a holding tank prior to discharge.
2-14
-------
Proposed Draft
2.2.4 Sampling Methods
EPA used a variety of sample collection methods depending on the nature of the
discharge. This section describes the most commonly used sampling methods.
Discharge from a discharge port well above the water line.
Samples of these types of discharges were typically collected directly into a 5-gallon
utility bucket lined with a new pail liner. For some samples, the bucket could be lowered by
hand, while for other samples, the bucket was lowered by rope. The sample in the pail liner was
then poured into the individual sample bottles. Whenever possible, samples for analysis of oil
and grease were collected directly into the sample bottles (either held by hand or attached to a
pole) to avoid the possible loss of oils to the sides of the sample transfer jar and pail liner.
However, when oil and grease sample bottles were filled directly by attaching to a pole, it was
typically necessary to "top off the sample bottles with sample from the pail liner to ensure
adequate sample volume for analysis.
Sample Collection Well Above the Water Line.
Discharge from a discharge port at or below the water line.
Typically, samples of these types of discharges were impossible or too unsafe to collect.
In a few cases, however, EPA was able to collect samples upstream of the discharge port via a
sampling port. For example, on one vessel, engine effluent could be accessed from a petcock
valve on the muffler. Samples of these types of discharges were preferentially collected directly
into sample bottles. In some cases, the clearance between the sampling port and the vessel hull
2-15
-------
Proposed Draft
was insufficient to accommodate the sample bottles and instead, required sample collection
directly into a new pail liner; the sample in the pail liner was then poured into the individual
sample bottles.
Close-up of Petcock Valve.
Deck washdown and runoff.
Deck washdown and runoff wastewater is discharged through scuppers located along the
perimeter of the deck. To collect samples of this discharge, EPA generally directed the discharge
to one or more (up to four) select scuppers using a variety of methods. On some vessels, deck
washdown water naturally flowed by gravity to one or more scuppers at the lowest end of the
deck. On other vessels, EPA used either the spray from the hose used to wash the deck or the
broom used to wash the deck to direct the deck washwater to one or more selected scuppers.
Finally, on some vessels, EPA arranged the deck washing hose on the vessel deck such that it
directed and pooled deck washdown water to one or more selected scuppers. To collect the
discharge from a selected scupper, EPA held a new pail liner against the hull of the vessel to
capture the deck washdown water as it drained through the scupper. If deck washdown water was
discharged through multiple scuppers, EPA filled the pail liners proportionally from each
scupper (e.g., half from each of two scuppers, one-third from each of three scuppers). The
sample in the pail liner was then poured into the individual sample bottles.
2-16
-------
Proposed Draft
Deck Cleaning and Collecting Deck Collecting Deck Washdown
Washdown Sample. Sample with Close-up of Scupper
(Indicated with Red Arrow).
For select fishing vessels, EPA attempted to collect samples of runoff during actual
fishing operations. EPA arranged to travel with an overnight shrimping vessel on the Gulf Coast;
however, due to a temporary seasonal shrimp fishery closing, EPA obtained a research permit to
collect runoff from "demonstration" operations. Because these were demonstration operations
and the shrimp fishermen would be unable to keep the catch, the vessel operator used a smaller
net for shorter durations and did not handle the catch as he normally would. As a result, these
samples only partially resemble normal operations. While in Alaska, the U.S. Coast Guard
assisted EPA in attempting to sample deck washdown from fishing vessels immediately after
they pulled in their catch. EPA and the Coast Guard attempted to sample three to five vessels
during this operation. Due to weather conditions, however, they were only able to sample one
vessel successfully.
Fish hold tanks.
Three types of fish hold tanks were sampled during the program: tanks containing
refrigerated seawater, tanks containing ice slurry, and tanks containing chipped ice. Refrigerated
seawater tanks were common to tenders, purse seiners, and trawlers, while slurry and chipped ice
tanks were common to trailers, long-liners, gillnetters, and some trawlers. For vessels with
refrigerated seawater tanks, fish are typically extracted using a vacuum system that removes both
the fish and refrigerated seawater simultaneously. Both fish and refrigerated seawater are
transferred to the seafood processing plant. The refrigerated seawater is generally recycled back
to the fish hold tank to provide the liquid needed to operate the vacuum system. Any excess
refrigerated seawater that is not required to assist in fish extraction is pumped overboard pier
side. EPA collected samples of the refrigerated seawater directly into a 5-gallon utility bucket
lined with a new pail liner as the water was pumped overboard. The sample in the pail liner was
then poured into the individual sample bottles. Because removal of fish and refrigerated seawater
2-17
-------
Proposed Draft
can take several hours depending on the vessel size, EPA collected the sample approximately
mid-way through the fish removal process. For vessels such as trailers and long-liners, which use
chipped or slurry ice, EPA collected a sample of the ice or slurry once the fish had been removed
from the fish hold tank. Ice/slurry was collected into a new pail liner and allowed to melt. Once
melted, the sample was poured from the pail liner into the individual sample bottles.
Collecting Fish Hold Samnle with a Lined Bucket.
Fish hold cleaning.
After the fish hold has been evacuated, the vessel crew cleans the fish hold as described
in Section 1.3. For vessels with refrigerated seawater tanks or chipped ice tanks, the fish hold
cleaning wastewater is pumped overboard. EPA collected samples of the fish hold cleaning
wastewater directly into a 5-gallon utility bucket lined with a new pail liner as the cleaning water
was pumped overboard.
Fi remain.
EPA used valving on the firemain system to throttle the flow rate to allow firemain
samples to be collected from the fire hose directly into sample containers. None of the vessels
visited by EPA for this study tests its firemain system more frequently than once every two
weeks, and none operates its system for secondary purposes such as deck washing. Of the six
firemain systems sampled, five were wet systems (the firemain piping is normally filled with
water) and one was a dry system (the firemain piping is normally filled with air). The resulting
2-18
-------
Proposed Draft
sampling data are applicable to firemain systems that are operated infrequently with intake
provided by surrounding water and without additions to the discharge (e.g., no addition of foam-
forming agents).
Composite sampl es of multiple wastewaters.
To better characterize some discharges, EPA decided to combine multiple samples of
wastewaters into a single sample for analysis. The most common example is a vessel that
operates its engines at multiple power levels—idle at the pier, half-speed when motoring through
the no wake zone, and three-quarter speed when performing harbor tours. Another example is a
vessel that generates two types of gray water—wastewater from a galley sink and wastewater
from a shower. In these cases, EPA filled a new pail liner proportionally based on the number of
wastewater sources (e.g., one-third from each of three power levels, half from each of sink and
shower water) using one or more of the sample collection methods described above. The sample
in the pail liner was then poured into the individual sample bottles. Whenever possible, EPA
collected and analyzed separate samples for each discharge for oil and grease and for volatile
organics, rather than using the composite sample; this minimized the possible loss of these target
analytes from volatilization during sample transfer among multiple sampling equipment or due to
adherence of oils to the sides of multiple sampling equipment.
Collecting Engine Effluent with a Transfer Jar. Compositing the Sample in a
Lined Bucket
2-19
-------
Proposed Draft
2.2.5 OA/OC
Quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) procedures applicable to EPA's vessel
sampling program are outlined in the Quality Assurance Project Plan for Discharges from
Commercial Fishing Vessels and Other Non-Recreational Vessels Less Than 79 Feet (QAPP),
which is included in the docket of the Federal Register notice announcing this study. This section
describes the QC practices used to assess the precision and accuracy of the analytical data.
2.2.5.1 Analytical Quality Control
Analytical chemistry support for this program was provided by EPA's own laboratories
in Regions 2, 3, and 5, as well as several subcontract laboratories. The EPA Regions were
responsible for the quality of the work generated by their laboratories and for verifying that
laboratory performance was acceptable by conducting QC checks of the analytical data as
specified by the QAPP. Subcontract laboratories functioned within the quality system of EPA's
sampling contractor, who verified the acceptability of subcontract laboratory performance by
conducting QC checks of the analytical data as specified by the QAPP. Based on the data quality
review and evaluation of the analytical data under this sampling program, all analytical data were
deemed within or sufficiently close to the target analytical QC limits established for the study to
assure the data could be used for the specified intentions. QC failures were generally attributed to
matrix interference; these results are not uncommon for complex wastewater samples.
Furthermore, the sample collection, handling, preparation, and analysis process utilized in this
sampling program was deemed acceptable for the matrices and conditions sampled.
2.2.5.2 Field Quality Control
Field QA/QC measures and results for the bottle blanks, equipment blanks, trip blanks,
field blanks, and field duplicates are discussed in this subsection.
Bottle blank.
A representative bottle and cap from the first lot of bottles purchased for collection of
samples for analysis of pathogen indicators were analyzed for wide-spectrum contamination
prior to their use in the sampling program. Bottles were filled with sterile deionized water, and
100—milliliter (mL) aliquots were filtered by membrane filtration. The filters were placed on
water agar, nutrient agar, modified mTEC agar (for E. coli cultures), and mEL agar (for
enterococci cultures). No pathogen indicators or other organisms (water or nutrient agar) were
detected in the bottle blank, indicating that the bottles were sterile.
2-20
-------
Proposed Draft
Equipment blanks.
Two equipment blanks were prepared and analyzed for volatile and semivolatile organic
compounds (SVOC), total and dissolved metals, nutrients, soaps and detergents, and other
physical/chemical parameters to assess the potential introduction of contaminants by sample
collection equipment. The sample collection equipment used to collect the equipment blanks was
the same as that used at the sampling points: 1) a new, factory-cleaned, Teflon® PFA pail liner
from the first lot of bags purchased from the vendor, and 2) a 3-foot segment of silicone tubing
connected to a 25-foot segment of Teflon tubing used in the peristaltic pump (only used on three
samples throughout the entire project). The pail liner equipment blank was prepared by rinsing
the bag with high performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) water and then pouring it into
sample bottles. The pump tubing equipment blank was prepared by pumping HPLC water
through this equipment and collecting directly into sample bottles. Of the 459 equipment blank
sample results, 29 (6.3 percent) were above the method reporting limit (RL). Of the cases where
the equipment blank exceeded the RL, 15 were for SVOC analytes and seven were for VOC
analytes. In all 22 of these cases, however, the analytes were tentatively identified compounds
(TICs), which are appropriately labeled in the analytical database as such. The remaining cases
where the equipment blank exceeded the RL were as follows: biochemical oxygen demand
(BOD) (two instances), chemical oxygen demand (COD) (two instances), total Kjeldahl nitrogen
(TKN) (one instance), nitrate/nitrite nitrogen (one instance), and zinc (one instance). In each
instance, the vast majority (greater than 90 percent) of the associated discharge sample amounts
were significantly higher than the equipment blank levels.
Trip blanks.
Trip blanks were prepared and analyzed for volatile organics to evaluate possible
contamination during shipment and handling of samples. These samples consisted of HPLC
water poured into the sample bottles and transported unopened to the field and finally to the
laboratory. One trip blank was prepared for each location-specific sampling event (e.g., Gulf
Coast, New England). Evaluation of the trip blanks indicated that of the 612 VOC results for
these samples, only two analytes were detected (tetramethylsilanol and tetrahydrofuran), and
these were at levels below the RL. Neither of these analytes was detected in any vessel discharge
samples, indicating that there was no sample contamination during transport, field handling, and
storage.
Field blanks.
Field blanks were prepared and analyzed for all target analytes to monitor for the
contamination of samples during sample collection and handling. These samples were prepared
aboard selected vessels at the location of greatest potential for contamination (e.g., the vessel
bilge space). The samples were prepared by pouring HPLC water into the sample bottles. One
field blank was prepared for each location-specific sampling event (e.g., Gulf Coast, New
2-21
-------
Proposed Draft
England). Only six target analytes (conductivity, dissolved organic carbon, nitrate/nitrite, TKN,
turbidity, and total zinc) were detected in any of the 670 field blank results (0.3 percent) at levels
above the RL. In each instance, the associated discharge sample amounts were significantly
higher than the field blank levels.
Field duplicates.
Field duplicate samples were collected and analyzed for all target analytes to assess the
precision of the entire sample collection, handling, preparation, and analysis process. Field
duplicate samples were collected simultaneously from the same location as the original samples
(i.e., poured from the pail liner as a split sample or sampled sequentially when collecting samples
directly into sample bottles from discharge ports). The relative percent difference (RPD) between
the two duplicate sample results was calculated and compared to the data quality objective. The
occurrence of field duplicate samples (number of samples exceeding out of total number of
duplicate samples) where one or more analytes within an analyte type (VOCs, SVOCs, dissolved
metals) exceeded the target RPD was 89 of 356 pairs of field duplicate samples, or 25 percent.
The higher RPDs were calculated in samples where the concentrations of the analytes were
detected at levels at or near the detection level for the respective methods, mainly for VOCs,
Silica Gel Treated N-Hexane (SGT-HEM), and residual chlorine. For these methods, the
analytical variability increases as analyte concentrations approach their detection limits. These
results are not uncommon in complex wastewater samples.
2.2.5.3 Database Development
An Access database was created in which to collect and organize all analytical results.
This database contained data and associated qualifier information. Although a number of EPA
and contractor staff were involved in reviewing the results, only one person had the authority to
make any changes to the database during its development. This one-person control system
eliminated the possibility of someone accidentally creating more than one current version of the
database and minimized the risk of errors. Each time the database was updated, the current date
and time stamp were used to name the new version, which was uploaded to a secure ftp server.
After each sampling event, the chains of custody (COC) and field data sheets were used
to manually enter information into the "COC Information" table. This table contained identifiers
given to samples in the field (FieldlDs) associated with vessel name, location, and discharge
information, as well as the sample date and time. A second person performed a 100-percent
check of the data entered to ensure there were no transcription errors or mistakes made during
data entry.
Four analytical chemistry and subcontract laboratories —EPA Region 2 (Edison, New
Jersey), EPA Region 3 (EPA Environmental Science Center, Fort Meade, Maryland), TriMatrix
(Grand Rapids, Michigan), and Admiralty (Juneau, Alaska)—provided EPA's contractor with
2-22
-------
Proposed Draft
electronic data deliverables (EDDs) in either Excel or delimited text format. EDDs were first
imported into the database as new tables that remained unaltered while the fields of interest,
contained therein, were appended to a table called "Vessel Results." The remaining fields were
populated using queries. Ten percent of the data in the Vessel Results table from three of the four
laboratories were compared to the original hard copy reports, if provided. This ensured
consistency between the EDD and hard copy report, as well as validated the importing
procedure. As a further quality assurance measure, a 100-percent check was done comparing
these PDF reports to database entries derived from the fourth lab's EDD reports.
Data that were not received in EDD format (i.e., hard copies, PDFs, and field data sheets)
were manually entered directly into the Vessel Results table. These data were provided by six
additional analytical chemistry and subcontract laboratories: EPA Region 5 (Chicago, Illinois),
Biomarine (Gloucester, Massachusetts), EnviroChem (Mobile, Alabama), QC Laboratories
(Southampton, Pennsylvania), Northeast Environmental Laboratory (Danvers, Massachusetts),
and Sitka Water Treatment Plant (Sitka, Alaska). As with the COC information, a second person
did a 100-percent check of the accuracy of data entry.
In addition to checking for reporting accuracy, a check of laboratory QC procedures was
performed. EPA examined laboratory QC parameters, including method type, hold times,
laboratory blanks and duplicates, laboratory control samples, and surrogate recovery, where
applicable, for all subcontract laboratories.
2.3 Data Considerations and study limitations
2.3.1 Voluntary Nature of the Sampling Program
All vessel sampling performed for this study was conducted on a voluntary basis (i.e.,
vessel owners/operators voluntarily allowed EPA to sample their vessels). As such, the selection
process was not completely random from within the universe of study vessels, nor were the
vessels sampled unannounced, with the possible exception of fishing vessels (see Section 2.2.1).
These issues raise potential concerns regarding the representativeness of the sampling and the
statistical uncertainty of the resulting data analyses. To minimize these concerns, EPA provided
study volunteers with guidance for participation in the sampling program. This guidance stressed
EPA's desire to sample normal discharge cycles/events and requested that volunteers not alter
vessel operations from normal (typical) operation. The guidance specifically instructed that
volunteers should not perform any special cleaning in preparation for sampling, add or eliminate
or alter any typical discharges, or increase or decrease the volume or other characteristics of
discharges, etc. Also, as EPA preferred to collect samples pierside rather than underway, EPA
instructed volunteers to inform the Agency if conducting sampling pierside compromised, in any
way, the characteristics of discharges (sources, volumes, composition).
2-23
-------
Proposed Draft
As a further consideration, EPA assumed that most of the volunteers were generally
'good actors' who would have the best maintained vessels and be in compliance with all existing
applicable regulations, which could also effect the representativeness of the data collected for the
vessel class as a whole.
2.3.2 Vessels/Discharges Not Sampled
While this study included the sampling of a large number of discharges from a large
number of vessels, certain vessel classes and discharges were either not sampled at all or
received only limited sampling due to overall program schedule and resource constraints or other
factors (see Sections 2.2.1 and 2.2.2). EPA supplemented its sampling program with information
and data collected from other data sources to the extent possible; however, the Agency
acknowledges remaining gaps in achieving the study objectives for certain segments of the
industry. In particular, EPA has little or no information or data regarding freight barges, freight
ships, tank barges, and tank ships less than 79 feet in length (estimated to represent 7 percent of
study vessels). In addition, EPA has little information or data regarding the applicability of
several discharges listed in Section 2.2.2 to study vessels.
EPA's ability to fully characterize certain discharges was limited by some practical
considerations. For example, on many vessels, discharges were too close to the waterline, or
even under the waterline, precluding the ability to collect an uncontaminated sample. Installation
of sample taps upstream of these discharge ports was either impossible (i.e., would compromise
system integrity) or impractical within time constraints for the sampling events. On other vessels,
collection of vessel discharges under normal operations was either impossible or unsafe. These
conditions included:
• Vessel configurations blocking access to discharge ports
• Discharge volumes insufficient for sampling
• Discharges not generated during the sampling event
• Systems such as generators not operational during the sampling event
• Systems operated only during emergency
• Discharges requiring underway sampling
• Fishing vessel platforms inactive during the sampling schedule
• Fishing seasons closed or outside the sampling schedule
• Inability to sample all U.S. fisheries
As an example, EPA was able to sample bilgewater on only eight of the 61 sampled
vessels (13 percent). Bilgewater sampling was infeasible for approximately three quarters of the
remaining vessels for three reasons. First, automatic bilge pumps operating while the vessel was
underway resulted in an empty bilge when the vessel returned to pier. Manual activation of the
bilge pump on these vessels did not result in any discharge or only a small volume of discharge.
Second, as a matter of policy, many vessels restrict bilgewater discharges to only while
2-24
-------
Proposed Draft
underway or when outside U.S. waters due to possible concerns of exceeding existing Clean
Water Act § 311 requirements. Third, some bilgewater discharges were too close to the waterline
for sampling. For the remaining one quarter of vessels, sampling was not performed because the
vessels never discharge bilgewater. On these vessels, a contractor steam cleans the bilges once
per month, and the resulting cleaning waste is removed from the vessels for shoreside disposal.
2.3.3 Pollutants Not Sampled
A few candidate analyte groups (pesticides, polychlorinated biphenyls, dioxins/furans,
flame retardants, uranium, and asbestos) were not selected for analysis, as they are not
anticipated to be present in the vessel discharges due to the lack of a readily apparent source for
these pollutants.
While EPA's list of target analytes includes many persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic
chemicals (PBTs), many other PBTs were not analyzed for due to the lack of test methods or
resources. In general, these unanalyzed compounds either have no known use or source onboard
vessels or have no readily available means to enter the vessel discharges. Mercury was not
selected for analysis because it requires specialized sampling techniques inapplicable to vessel
sampling to minimize the potential for sample contamination (e.g., vessel sampling cannot be
conducted away from sources of metals or sources of airborne contamination such as engines or
generators).
Test methods for pharmaceuticals and personal care products (PPCPs) have recently been
developed; however, EPA did not select this analyte group for analysis due to a lack of
resources. These compounds are most likely to be found in sewage, which is outside the scope of
this study; however, they can also be expected to be found in graywater sources, such as sink and
shower wastewater, albeit at very low concentrations.
Although ballast water, and its assessment as a vector for aquatic invasive species, was
specifically excluded from this study by the statutory language in P.L. 110-299 (see Appendix
C), EPA recognizes that other vessel discharges, such as bilgewater; stern tube packing gland
effluent; fish hold effluent; and discharges from vessel hulls, propellers, and other exposed
surfaces are also potential vectors for the spread of aquatic invasive species. EPA excluded any
aquatic invasive species characterization as part of this study in consideration of overall program
schedule and resources.
2.3.4 Application to Other Vessels, Including Larger Vessels Not Sampled for this
Study
EPA's primary objective in conducting the vessel sampling program was to characterize
discharges specific to commercial fishing vessels and nonrecreational vessels less than 79 feet
(i.e., study vessels). Some data are applicable to other vessels, however, including larger vessels
not sampled for this study. This subsection discusses EPA's consideration of the applicability of
2-25
-------
Proposed Draft
these sample data to other vessels, as well as factors that data users should consider in
determining the broader applicability of the data.
Bilgewater.
The composition and volume of bilgewater is highly dependent on the specific sources of
wastewater that accumulate in bilge, as well as vessel size, hull design and construction, vessel
operation, and a variety of additional factors (see Section 1.3). Any researcher, regulator, or
other stakeholder who subsequently uses the data collected in this study should evaluate and
compare the characteristics of the vessels sampled for this study to those of other vessels to
determine the applicability of EPA's sampling data. In general, EPA believes that the design,
construction, and operation of vessels not sampled for this study (e.g., cruise ships, ferries,
barges, tankers) differ considerably from those of the sampled vessels, which would result in
significantly different bilgewater characteristics. Hence, EPA cautions against applying the
limited bilgewater results from this study to all vessels.
Stern tube packing gland effluent.
This discharge applies to vessels that collect the ambient water that leaks through the
stuffing box and packing gland that surround the propeller shaft in a segregated area from the
general bilge. During this study, EPA observed this segregated discharge onboard tugboats but
not on any other vessel classes. On tugboats, the stuffing box is packed with greased flax rings.
EPA's stern tube packing gland effluent data should be applicable to other vessel classes (if any)
that use this same type of stern tube packing gland and that collect the resulting wastewater for
segregated discharge.
Deck runoff and/or washdown.
Factors contributing to the volume and composition of deck runoff and/or washdown
include deck equipment and operations, deck surface material, and method of washing the deck
(see Section 1.3). Data users should evaluate and compare the characteristics of the vessels
sampled for this study to those of other vessels to determine the applicability of EPA's sampling
data. In general, EPA believes that deck operations performed on vessels outside the scope of
this study differ significantly from those of the sampled vessels. For example, deck washdown
generated by fishing vessels might be applicable only to this industry, particularly in cases where
these vessels are washing significant organic material from fishing operations overboard. As
another example, only one sampled vessel, a supply boat, is used to support the transfer and
handling of non-fish cargo. On the other hand, deck washdown from sampled passenger vessels
might apply to other vessels, such as larger tour boats, water taxis, and possibly cruise ships.
Fish hold effluent (including both refrigerated seawater effluent and ice slurry) and effluent from
the cleaning of fish holds.
2-26
-------
Proposed Draft
Since only commercial fishing vessels or tenders use fish holds for storing seafood
products or fish, EPA believes that fish hold effluent discharges are unique to commercial
fishing operations and are not applicable to other vessels.
Gravwater.
The graywater sources sampled by EPA for this study are "domestic" in nature, such as
sink water from washing hands and dishes, wastewater from shower stalls, and laundry water
from domestic washing machines. EPA cautions the data user against applying these sampling
data to non-domestic graywater operations, such as large-scale industrial dishwashing and
laundry equipment. In addition, the graywater sources sampled by EPA were discharged
immediately upon generation; therefore, these data do not represent graywater that has been
retained in collection or storage tanks or graywater mixed with sewage. Finally, EPA's
graywater data do not apply to wastewater discharges from food waste processing operations,
such as food grinders or food pulping systems.
Propulsion and generator engine effluent.
For this study, EPA sampled propulsion and generator effluent from a large number and
variety of engines. These include:
• Inboard and outboard.
• Two-stroke and four-stroke.
• Spark ignition and compression ignition.
• Diesel- and gasoline-fueled.
• New and existing.
• Direct cooling systems (raw water directly cools the engine) and indirect cooling
systems (raw water cools antifreeze, which cools the engine).
• With and without wet engine exhausts (some raw water is injected into the exhaust to
cool and quiet the exhaust).
• Variety of manufacturers, sizes, and engine horsepower.
• Operation at varying engine power levels (i.e., idle, slow troll, half throttle, three-
quarters throttle, and full throttle) depending on vessel use.
EPA also observed a number of vessels, such as tug boats and larger commercial fishing
vessels, that use keel-cooled propulsion engines and generators. The closed-loop cooling systems
used on these engines do not discharge any wastewater.
Based on an evaluation of the engine effluent sampling results, EPA observed significant
differences in the nature and composition of discharges from inboard and outboard propulsion
engines and from generators. EPA may also have observed differences between diesel- and
gasoline-fueled inboard propulsion engines; however, the data set was too small to be
conclusive. Based on these findings, EPA believes the engine effluent data are applicable only to
2-27
-------
Proposed Draft
engines of similar types, specifically inboard propulsion versus outboard propulsion versus
generators and diesel- versus gasoline-fueled engines.
Firemain systems.
EPA sampled relatively few firemain systems for this study. Firefighting equipment
requirements are specified by the U.S. Coast Guard and differ by vessel type, size, construction
(e.g., open decks versus enclosed spaces with potential to entrap explosives, flammable gases, or
vapors), whether or not the vessel carries passengers for hire, and many other factors. Not all
vessels within the scope of this study are required to carry firefighting equipment. For those
vessels that require firefighting equipment, these requirements are often satisfied by carrying
hand-portable fire extinguishers rather than firemain systems. For vessels outfitted with firemain
systems, the systems are used during emergency and testing. None of the vessels visited by EPA
for this study tests its firemain system more frequently than once every two weeks, and none
operates its system for secondary purposes such as deck washing. Operating personnel from
three tour boats and two tugboats that EPA visited agreed to engage their firemain systems for
EPA sampling. Most operated wet rather than dry systems. The resulting sampling data apply
primarily to wet-type firemain systems that are operated infrequently, with intake provided by
surrounding water and without additions to the discharge (e.g., no addition of foam-forming
agents).
Firemain System on a Passenger Vessel.
EPA also sampled the firefighting system onboard a fire boat; however, these sampling
data may only apply to fire boats or other vessels equipped with high-pressure/high-volume fire
pumps.
2-28
-------
Proposed Draft
CHAPTER 3
ANALYSIS OF DISCHARGES AND POTENTIAL IMPACT TO
HUMAN HEALTH AND THE ENVIRONMENT
This chapter summarizes the results of the wastewater characterization data for the nine
types of vessel discharges sampled from the 61 vessels identified in Chapter 2. It includes the
characterization of the nature, type, and composition of discharges for each class of vessel, as
well as other relevant information collected regarding shipboard processes, equipment, materials,
and operations that might contribute to the level or explain the presence of pollutants in these
discharges.
This chapter begins with a description of the approach used for the analyses of
contaminants in the various discharges of the vessel classes of interest in this sampling program,
and the specific procedures used to reduce, present, and interpret these data. Each section in the
chapter presents and discusses in detail the results found for each discharge type selected for
evaluation in the vessel classes of interest and summarizes the major findings for the discharges
associated with each major vessel type. The final section discusses anti-foulant hull coating,
which warrants discussion based on the results of other studies conducted on this discharge type
even though EPA did not sample this discharge in this study.
3.1 Approach to Analyses
EPA's approach was designed to ensure that the analyses conducted under this study
would be as comprehensive as possible and provide results that would represent the different
vessels and discharges to the greatest extent possible. EPA included the discharge data collected
from the vessels selected for this study (primary data) and any relevant data collected from other
studies (secondary data) (e.g., engine effluent from small Armed Forces vessels covered under
EPA's sampling program for the Uniform National Discharge Standards (UNDS) rulemaking).
Where appropriate, EPA also assessed ambient (harbor) and potable waters at each geographic
location where vessels were sampled.
EPA's analysis attempted to make full use of the primary and secondary data collected
for this study, including data collected from ambient (harbor) and source (vessel service1 or city
water supply) waters. However, EPA recognizes that the analyses are based on a limited number
of samples; in some cases, on a sample size of fewer than five. These results should be regarded
as preliminary in nature due to statistical considerations related to small sample sizes.
1 Service water here means the vessel potable water supply. For study vessels, vessel service water generally
originates from municipal water supply rather than produced on board.
3-1
-------
Proposed Draft
EPA also attempted to identify where the analyses and results from this study could be
reasonably extrapolated to vessels other than those vessels sampled in this study. Many of the
discharges are not unique to vessels subject to the P.L. 110-299 moratorium in terms of the
expected pollutants or volumes and may also be found on larger nonrecreational vessels or
recreational vessels.
3.1.1 Data Reduction and Presentation
EPA compiled the data collected for the nine vessel discharges sampled from the 61
vessels into a Microsoft (MS) Access database developed specifically for this study as described
in Chapter 2, Section 2.2.5.3 of this report. For each discharge type, EPA reduced the data for
summary according to the following procedure.
First, data were retrieved from MS Access by discharge group, using a query developed
specifically for this task. The queried data included the analytical result with the corresponding
screening benchmark (defined in Section 3.1.3) and ambient and source water concentrations.
For each discharge group, the queried data were exported to MS Excel, and then resaved as tab-
delimited ASCII text (*.txt) files. Record counts were compared between the discharge group-
filtered MS Access query and the MS Excel and ASCII files to ensure that data were not lost.
The ASCII data for each discharge group were read into an Interactive Data Language
(DDL) (Research Systems Inc., 2003) program that carried out a series of calculations for each
analyte, based on the following algorithm:
1. Identify and average concentrations measured for field replicate samples, including
replacing below-detection concentrations with 1/2 of the reporting limit2 when at least
one replicate was detected.
2. Identify and average concentrations measured for laboratory replicate samples, including
replacing below-detection concentrations with 1/2 of the reporting limit when at least one
replicate was detected.
3. Identify and average concentrations measured for vessel replicate samples (e.g., multiple
deck wash, graywater, engine effluent samples from a single vessel), including replacing
below-detection concentrations with 1/2 of the reporting limit when at least one replicate
was detected.
4. Calculate potential hazard quotients (PHQs) by dividing the vessel average concentration
by the corresponding screening benchmark, if one was available (see further details
provided in Section 3.1.3).
2 Laboratory analyses for low concentration pollutants report a detection limit (the presence or absence of a
pollutant) and a reporting limit (the level at which the concentration of a pollutant can be quantified with appropriate
certainty). Statistical methods often require replacement of values that are below the detection and reporting limits
of an analytical method (especially for zero values). EPA has established conventions on how to conduct this
replacement. In this study, certain labs were able to provide a reporting limit for only certain analytes, which is not
uncommon. For consistency, EPA chose to use a convention of replacing the nondetects with a value of Vi of the
reporting limit.
3-2
-------
Proposed Draft
5. Output vessel-average results to a comma-separated value (CSV) text file.
6. Calculate nonparametric percentiles of the distribution of vessel-average analyte
concentrations using the algorithm of Hyndman and Fan (2003). Note that below-
detection vessel average concentrations were not replaced at this step.
7. Replace below-detection vessel average concentrations for those analytes where at least
one concentration was detected with 1/2 of the reporting limit. Calculate detected
proportion of vessel concentrations for each analyte.
8. Output vessel-average results to a CSV text file.
9. Calculate average discharge group analyte concentrations from the vessel average
concentrations, including replacement values.
10. Output statistics for each analyte (number of samples, number and proportion detected,
average, and nonparametric percentiles) to a CSV text file.
11. Read vessel-average results (including replacement) into SYSTAT Version 6.1 (SPSS,
1996) to generate box and density plots for each analyte class (see Section 3.2.1 below).
12. Read these results into MS Excel and then reassemble into a workbook with the database
query exported from MS Access. Generate summary data tables from these workbooks.
13. For each discharge category, reproduce by hand the data reduction and statistical
calculations identified above for two or more randomly selected analytes as a QA
procedure.
All discharge-specific analytes summarized in subsequent sections of this chapter are
organized into the following major groups: classical pollutants3, metals, nonylphenols, nutrients,
pathogen indicators, semivolatile organic compounds, and volatile organic compounds. For each
discharge type, the analyte groups are generally presented according to the order of highest
expected significance or risk in that specific discharge (e.g., the graywater section begins with
pathogen indicators). The specific list of target analytes by group is provided in Appendix D.
EPA did not analyze all vessel discharges for all selected analyte groups; see Table 2.2 for target
analyte groups by discharge type.
3.1.2 Summary Statistics and Box Plots
This section includes, for each analyte group within a specific discharge type (e.g.,
bilgewater, deck washdown water), tables that summarize the number of samples analyzed, the
number of times a specific analyte within an analyte group was detected, the average
concentration (when only one sample was analyzed, the average is equal to the measurement),
and additional standard summary statistics related to the measured analyte concentrations
(median, min, max and selected (10th, 25th, 75th, and 90th) percentiles). These additional statistics
were only calculated when a sufficient number of samples had detected values for any given
3 The classical pollutants group of analytes combines several standard water quality parameters such as conductivity,
salinity, temperature, etc. with other parameters EPA defines as conventional pollutants (biochemical oxygen
demand (BOD), total suspended solids (TSS), pH, fecal coliform, and oil and grease). For convenience, this group
also includes other common analytes such as total residual chlorine, or TRC. For simplicity, these conventional and
other common analytes and water quality parameters have all been grouped under the term "classical pollutants."
3-3
-------
Proposed Draft
analyte (usually five detected values or greater). In cases where some of the concentrations of an
analyte were reported as nondetect (censored), the concentration of that sample was estimated as
'/2 of the reporting limit for purposes of calculating average concentrations4.
In addition to the summary tables, this section includes figures that graphically present
the analyte-specific concentrations that were detected (as well as any replacement values for
nondetects) for each analyte group within a discharge to better identify data trends related to
analytes of potential concern. These figures are shown as box and dot plots, with the names of
the analytes along the x (independent)-axis
and their associated measured
concentrations along with y(dependent)-
axis.
For box plots, the bottom and top
of the box displays the 25th and 75th
percentile concentrations defined as the
interquartile range or IQR (i.e., the "box"
contains 50 percent of the data values),
respectively. The median is displayed as
the horizontal line within the box. The
"whiskers" show the relative distribution
of data points outside of the IQR and
represent 1.5 times the IQR.
Superimposed over each box plot are the
actual data points, shown as small open
circles. Circles surrounded by large circles
are outliers greater or less than 1.5 times
the IQR. Circles covered by asterisks are
outliers greater or less than three times the
IQR.
3.1.3 Calculation of Potential Hazard Quotients
To provide a context for the level of contaminant concentrations presented, EPA used
National Recommended Water Quality Criteria (NRWQC)5 and several other benchmarks as a
4 See footnote 2.
5 National Recommended Water Quality Criteria (NRWQC) include acute (short-term) and chronic (long-term)
criteria (toxicity threshold values) for the protection of aquatic life, as well as Human Health criteria for protection
of humans from consumption of contaminated water or contaminated water and aquatic organisms. EPA's most
recent compilation of NRWQC (2006) is presented as a summary table containing recommended water quality
criteria for the protection of aquatic life and human health in surface water for approximately 150 pollutants. These
criteria are published pursuant to Section 304(a) of the Clean Water Act (CWA) and provide guidance for states and
What is a Box Plot?
_A box plot is a useful, simple statistical tool used
to show basic characteristics of a data set. A box
plot can show the approximate center of a data set
and how those data are spread over a range in
values - in this case, a range of concentrations.
Below is an example box plot indicative of the type
of graphical data display used throughout this
chapter.
1.5 times the IQR
Upper Quartile (75 %)
Median (50 %)
Data Point
Lower Quartile (25 %)
1.5 times the IQR
3-4
-------
Proposed Draft
preliminary screen for all discharge data with the potential to cause or contribute to the
nonattainment of a water quality standard in a given receiving water body. The "screening-level"
benchmarks chosen for this purpose are shown in Table 3.1 at the end of this subsection, and
generally represent EPA's most conservative (protective) concentration available for the specific
analyte of interest. Several "legacy" standards (for BOD, TSS and total phosphorus) are also
included with the screening benchmarks. For BOD and TSS, these benchmarks are EPA's
secondary treatment effluent limits for sewage treatment plants6. For total phosphorus, the
benchmark of 0.1 mg/L is from EPA's Gold Book (USEPA, 1986b) and represents a
concentration recommended to prevent nuisance algal blooms resulting from eutrophication in
flowing waters. EPA did not consider it appropriate to apply ecoregional nutrient criteria for this
project.
EPA's NRWQC are recommended concentrations of analytes in a water body that are
intended to protect human health, aquatic organisms and the water body uses from unacceptable
effects from exposures to these pollutants. The NRWQC are not directly related to analyte
concentrations in a discharge for a number of reasons. First, NRWQC not only have a
concentration component, but also a duration and frequency component. Second, it is not always
necessary to meet all water quality criteria within the discharge pipe to protect the integrity of a
water body (USEPA, 1991). Under EPA's regulations at 40 CFR 122.44(d)(l)(ii), when
determining whether a discharge causes, has the reasonable potential to cause, or contributes to
an in-stream excursion above a narrative or numeric criteria within a state water quality standard,
the permitting authority will use procedures that account for, where appropriate, the dilution of
the effluent in the receiving water. A mixing zone allows for ambient concentrations above the
criteria in small areas near outfalls while dilution occurs. To ensure mixing zones do not impair
the integrity of the water body, the permitting authority will determine the mixing zone such that
it does not cause lethality to passing organisms and, considering likely pathways of exposure,
significant human health risks.
tribes to use in adopting water quality standards. EPA's 2006 NRWQC are available at:
http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria/wactable/. hereafter referred to as EPA's 2006 NRWQC.
6 Secondary treatment standards for sewage treatment plants were technology-based limits developed in the late
1970s and early 1980s, and are not the same as the water-quality-based criteria in the 2006 NRWQC. Thus, the
PHQs for BOD and TSS calculated as described below are not directly comparable to the PHQs based on criteria
designed to protect aquatic life or human health but, by design, such standards are imposed to limit ecological
impacts.
3-5
-------
Proposed Draft
Nevertheless, comparing analyte concentrations in vessel discharges to NRWQC (or
other equivalent screening benchmark) provides a conservative screen of whether these
discharges cause, have the reasonable potential to cause, or contribute to nonattainment of the
water quality standards in a water body. EPA calculated hazard quotients (HQs) by dividing the
concentration of a particular analyte7 by its corresponding water quality criterion or other
benchmark as an initial screen for the discharge-specific water sample data. If the concentration
of a given analyte in vessel discharge is less than the applicable screening criterion or benchmark
values (HQ<1), the discharge would
likely not cause, have the reasonable
potential to cause, or contribute to
nonattainment of a water quality
standard based on that value,
particularly after considering
assimilation and/or dilution by the
receiving water. If the HQ value is
greater than one, then there is the
possibility of ecological or human
health risk as the concentration of a
given analyte in vessel discharge is greater than the applicable screening criterion or benchmark
values (USEPA, 1997). However, because discharges in this study are measured at the "end of
pipe" before being released into a harbor where they are subsequently diluted, HQ values of
greater than one do not necessarily indicate that a discharge poses a significant risk or would be
likely to cause or contribute to a water quality standard exceedance. Further, the presence of
additional environmental factors such as dissolved organic carbon can reduce the toxicity of
certain pollutants (e.g., metals and many organic pollutants) and reduce the likelihood of
ecological or health risk. Because of these additional considerations, EPA uses the term potential
hazard quotients (PHQs) instead to indicate this difference, as the PHQs are only intended to
indicate that a screening benchmark was exceeded and the discharge thus warrants further
consideration regarding the potential to cause or contribute to nonattainment of water quality
standards8.
Mobile sources such as vessels complicate the analysis because they discharge to many
different water bodies, but in general, greater mixing and dilution would be expected for
discharges from vessels than from stationary sources when they are in motion while discharging.
EPA acknowledges that vessel discharges to areas with high vessel traffic, areas with a low
degree of flushing, or impaired water bodies could reduce mixing and dilution. With these
7 HQs were also calculated using replacement values for nondetected concentrations, so that such results would be
represented in the box and scatter plots.
8 EPA does not consider a PHQ that exceeds 1 to signal that these discharges pose a potential risk to cause or
contribute to the non-attainment of a water quality standard when the PHQ is based on replacement values for
nondetected concentrations.
Mitigating Conditions/Circumstances in a Water Body
Compared to the volume of a typical harbor, the effluent
volume of any particular vessel discharge is small (see
Chapter 4). Therefore, even when pollutant concentrations
of a particular effluent are high, the total loading of that
pollutant on the receiving water of the harbor can be
relatively small. Furthermore, most harbors are continually
flushed by freshwater and tidal activity. These dilution
factors, in addition to the mitigating capacity of saltwater
cations and organic matter, may reduce the toxicity of
many of these pollutants.
3-6
-------
Proposed Draft
factors in mind and assuming the data from this study are representative of the class of vessels as
a whole, a PHQ marginally above a value of 1 is most likely not of significant concern. On the
other hand, a PHQ value substantially above 1 (e.g., 10 or 100) may be more likely to be of
concern, particularly if the discharge is of significant volume, is in an area of low flushing, is in
an area where there is a high degree of vessel traffic, or is in a waterbody that is already impaired
or under other stress.
EPA recognizes that one of the key factors in evaluating metal toxicity is the
bioavailability of the metal to an organism. Exposure to metals at toxic levels can cause a variety
of changes in biochemical, physiological, morphological, and behavioral patterns in aquatic
organisms. In the aquatic environment, elevated concentrations of dissolved metals can be toxic
to many species of algae, crustaceans, and fish. Some metals have a strong tendency to adsorb to
suspended organic matter and clay minerals or to precipitate out of solution, thus removing the
metal from the water column. The tendency of a given metal to adsorb to suspended particles is
typically controlled by the pH and salinity of the water body, as well as the organic carbon
content of the suspended particles. If the metal is highly sorbed to particulate matter, then it is
not likely to be in a dissolved form that aquatic organisms can process (i.e., bioavailable)9.
Accordingly, NRWQC for the protection of aquatic life for metals are typically expressed
in the dissolved form. Therefore, a high concentration of a metal measured in its total form
(dissolved and particulate) may not be an accurate representation of its toxic potential to aquatic
organisms. In contrast, human health criteria (for the consumption of organisms) for metals are
commonly expressed in the total metal form because human exposure to pollutants is assumed to
be through the consumption of organisms, where the digestive process is assumed to transform
all forms of metals to the dissolved phase, thus increasing the amount of biologically available
metals. EPA was mindful of this distinction between aquatic life and human health criteria for
metals when comparing the dissolved and total metals concentration data in the various
discharges to NRWQC and when calculating PHQs using the screening benchmarks. In
particular, in considering the potential for vessel discharges to pose a risk to human health, EPA
also noted the likelihood of human exposure to such discharges (e.g., potential for receiving
water to be used as drinking water source).
EPA chose to include the major cations calcium, magnesium, potassium and sodium in
the metals analysis to further characterize the vessel discharges. As common ions in surface
9 Note that the bioavailability of metals is a relative term and depends on many factors. For example, particulate
metals complexed to suspended organic matter or clay minerals may be recycled into the water column and become
bioavailable due to physical resuspension (dredging activities) of bed sediments or bioturbation (the stirring or
mixing of sediment particles by benthic animals). Depending on conditions in the water column and microbiological
activity within the surficial sediment and overlying water surface layers, these physical and biological actions might
remobilize the metals in the dissolved bioavailable form for potential uptake by aquatic organisms. Likewise, certain
benthic organisms called deposit feeders might consume particulate-bound metals and re-release metals via
digestion and excretion or introduce metals into the food chain when consumed by predators.
3-7
-------
Proposed Draft
waters, the concentrations of these ions are indicative of the sample matrix (i.e., freshwater,
saltwater, brackish water) rather than pollutant loadings. Accordingly, major cation
concentrations are typically elevated (up to three orders of magnitude higher) relative to other
metals included in the metals analysis (e.g., copper, lead, and zinc). For example, the typical
concentrations of major cations in full and partial (brackish) strength seawater and in freshwater
of various total water hardness levels are listed in Tables 3.2 and 3.3 below. Major cations are
not toxic except at extreme, uncommon levels.
For convenience, data tables for metals in this chapter segregate the presentation of major
cation concentration data from that of the other metals to clearly distinguish between the
naturally occurring cations and other metals of potential concern in vessel discharges.
3-8
-------
Proposed Draft
Table 3.1. Water Quality and Other Benchmark Values Used to Screen the Vessel
Discharge Data
Analyte
Screening
Benchmarks
Units
Source1
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
0.17
tjg/L
2006 NRWQC HHW+O
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
0.59
|jg/L
2006 NRWQC HHW+O
1,1-Dichloroethene
330
|jg/L
2006 NRWQC HHW+O
1,2,4,5-Tetrachlorobenzene
0.97
|jg/L
2006 NRWQC HH W+O
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
35
|jg/L
2006 NRWQC HHW+O
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
420
|jg/L
2006 NRWQC HH W+O
1,2-Dichloroethane
0.38
|jg/L
2006 NRWQC HH W+O
1,2-Dichloropropane
0.5
|jg/L
2006 NRWQC HHW+O
1,2-Diphenyl hydrazine
0.036
|jg/L
2006 NRWQC HHW+O
1,3-Dichlorobenzene
320
|jg/L
2006 NRWQC HHW+O
1,3-Dichloropropane
0.34
|jg/L
2006 NRWQC HHW+O
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
63
|jg/L
2006 NRWQC HHW+O
2,3,7,8-TCDD (Dioxin)
5.0E-09
|jg/L
2006 NRWQC HHW+O
2,4,5-Trichlorophenol
1800
|jg/L
2006 NRWQC HHW+O
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
1.4
|jg/L
2006 NRWQC HHW+O
2,4-Dichlorophenol
77
|jg/L
2006 NRWQC HHW+O
2,4-Dimethylphenol
380
|jg/L
2006 NRWQC HH W+O
2,4-Dinitrophenol
69
|jg/L
2006 NRWQC HH W+O
2,4-Dinitrotoluene
0.11
|jg/L
2006 NRWQC HH W+O
2-Chloronaphthalene
1000
|jg/L
2006 NRWQC HHW+O
2-Chlorophenol
81
|jg/L
2006 NRWQC HHW+O
2-Methyl-4,6-Dinitrophenol
13
|jg/L
2006 NRWQC HHW+O
3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine
0.021
|jg/L
2006 NRWQC HHW+O
4,4'-DDD
0.00031
|jg/L
2006 NRWQC HH Org Only
4,4'-DDE
0.00022
|jg/L
2006 NRWQC HH Org Only
4,4'-DDT
0.0010
|jg/L
2006 NRWQC CCC
4,6-Dinitro-2-methylphenol
13
|jg/L
2006 NRWQC HHW+O
Asbestos
7000000
fibers/L
2006 NRWQC HHW+O
Acenaphthene
670
|jg/L
2006 NRWQC HHW+O
Acrolein
6.0
|jg/L
2006 NRWQC HHW+O
Acrylonitrile
0.051
|jg/L
2006 NRWQC HHW+O
Aidrin
1.3
|jg/L
2006 NRWQC SWCMC
Alkalinity
20000
Mg/i
2006 NRWQC FWCCC
alpha-BHC
0.0026
|jg/L
2006 NRWQC HHW+O
alpha-Endosulfan
0.0087
Mg/i
2006 NRWQC SWCCC
Aluminum, Total
87
Mg/i
2006 NRWQC FWCCC
Ammonia As Nitrogen (NH3-N)
1.2
mg/L
2006 NRWQC SWCCC
Anthracene
8300
Mg/i
2006 NRWQC HHW+O
Antimony, Total
5.6
Mg/i
2006 NRWQC HHW+O
Arsenic, Total
0.018
Mg/i
2006 NRWQC HHW+O
Arsenic, Dissolved
36
Mg/i
2006 NRWQC SWCCC
Barium, Total
1000
Mg/i
2006 NRWQC HHW+O
Benzene
2.2
Mg/i
2006 NRWQC HHW+O
Benzidine
0.000086
Mg/i
2006 NRWQC HHW+O
Benzo(a)Anthracene
0.0038
Mg/i
2006 NRWQC HHW+O
3-9
-------
Proposed Draft
Analyte
Screening
Benchmarks
Units
Source1
Benzo(a)Fluoranthene
0.0038
|jg/L
2006 NRWQC HH W+O
Benzo(a)pyrene
0.0038
|jg/L
2006 NRWQC HH W+O
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
0.0038
|jg/L
2006 NRWQC HH W+O
Benzo(k)Fluoranthene
0.0038
|jg/L
2006 NRWQC HH W+O
beta-BHC
0.0091
|jg/L
2006 NRWQC HH W+O
beta-Endosulfan
0.0087
Mg/i
2006 NRWQC SWCCC
Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD)
30
mg/L
1984 Secondary Treatment Effluent Limits
Bis (2-Chioroethyl) ether
0.030
Mg/i
2006 NRWQC HH W+O
Bis (2-chloroisopropyl)ether
1400
Mg/i
2006 NRWQC HH W+O
Bis(2-Chioroethyi)ether
0.030
Mg/i
2006 NRWQC HH W+O
Bis(2-Ethylhexyl) phthaiate
1.2
Mg/i
2006 NRWQC HH W+O
Bromodichioromethane
0.55
Mg/i
2006 NRWQC HH W+O
Bromoform
4.3
Mg/i
2006 NRWQC HH W+O
Bromomethane
47
Mg/i
2006 NRWQC HH W+O
Butyl benzyl Phthaiate
1500
Mg/i
2006 NRWQC HH W+O
Cadmium, Dissolved
0.25
Mg/i
2006 NRWQC FWCCC
Carbon tetrachloride
0.23
Mg/i
2006 NRWQC HH W+O
Chlordane
0.0040
Mg/i
2006 NRWQC SWCCC
Chloride
230000
Mg/i
2006 NRWQC FWCCC
Chlorobenzene
130
Mg/i
2006 NRWQC HH W+O
Dibromochloromethane
0.40
Mg/L
2006 NRWQC HH W+O
Chloroform
5.7
Mg/L
2006 NRWQC HH W+O
Chlorophenoxy Herbicide (2,4,5,-TP)
10
Mg/L
2006 NRWQC HH W+O
Chlorophenoxy Herbicide (2,4-D)
100
Mg/L
2006 NRWQC HH W+O
Chloropyrifos
0.0056
Mg/L
2006 NRWQC SWCCC
Chromium, Dissolved
11
Mg/L
2006 NRWQC FWCCC
Chrysene
0.0038
Mg/L
2006 NRWQC HH W+O
Copper, Dissolved
3.1
Mg/L
2006 NRWQC SWCCC
Copper, Total
1300
Mg/L
2006 NRWQC HH W+O
Cyanide
1.0
Mg/L
2006 NRWQC SWCMC
Demeton
0.10
Mg/L
2006 NRWQC FWand SWCCC
Diazinon
0.17
Mg/L
2006 NRWQC FW CMC and CCC
Dibenz(a,h)Anthracene
0.0038
Mg/L
2006 NRWQC HH W+O
Chlorodibromomethane
0.40
Mg/L
2006 NRWQC HH W+O
Dichlorobromomethane
0.55
Mg/L
2006 NRWQC HH W+O
Dieldrin
0.0019
Mg/L
2006 NRWQC SWCCC
Diethyl Phthaiate
17000
Mg/L
2006 NRWQC HH W+O
Dimethyl phthaiate
270000
Mg/L
2006 NRWQC HH W+O
Di-n-butyl phthaiate
2000
Mg/L
2006 NRWQC HH W+O
Dinitrophenols
69
Mg/L
2006 NRWQC HH W+O
E. Coli by MPN
126
MPN/100 ml
1986 NRWQC B FW
Endosulfan Sulfate
62
Mg/L
2006 NRWQC HH W+O
Endrin
0.0023
Mg/L
2006 NRWQC SWCCC
Endrin Aldehyde
0.29
Mg/L
2006 NRWQC HH W+O
Enterococci by MPN
33
MPN/100 ml
1986 NRWQC B FW
Ether, Bis(Chloromethyl)
0.00010
Mg/L
2006 NRWQC HH W+O
Ethylbenzene
530
Mg/L
2006 NRWQC HH W+O
Fecal Coliform by MF
14
MPN/100 ml
1976 QCWSH
3-10
-------
Proposed Draft
Analyte
Screening
Benchmarks
Units
Source1
Fluoranthene
130
MQ/L
2006 NRWQC HH W+O
Fluorene
1100
Mg/L
2006 NRWQC HH W+O
Gamma-BHC (Lindane)
0.16
Mg/L
2006 NRWQC SWCMC
Guthion
0.010
Mg/L
2006 NRWQC FWand SWCCC
Heptachlor
0.0036
Mg/L
2006 NRWQC SWCCC
Heptachlor Epoxide
0.0036
Mg/L
2006 NRWQC SWCCC
Hexachlorobenzene
0.00028
Mg/L
2006 NRWQC HH W+O
Hexachlorobutadiene
0.44
|jg/L
2006 NRWQC HH W+O
Hexachlorocyclo-hexane-Technical
0.0123
|jg/L
2006 NRWQC HH W+O
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
40
|jg/L
2006 NRWQC HH W+O
Hexachloroethane
1.4
|jg/L
2006 NRWQC HH W+O
Hexane Extractable Material (HEM)
15
mg/L
MARPOL 73/78
ldeno(1,2,3-cd)Pyrene
0.0038
|jg/L
2006 NRWQC HH W+O
Iron, Total
300
|jg/L
2006 NRWQC HH W+O
Isophorone
35
|jg/L
2006 NRWQC HH W+O
Lead, Dissolved
2.5
Mg/L
2006 NRWQC FWCCC
Malathion
0.1
Mg/L
2006 NRWQC FW and SW CCC
Manganese
50
Mg/L
2006 NRWQC HH W+O
Mercury
0.77
Mg/L
2006 NRWQC FWCCC
Methoxychlor
0.03
Mg/L
2006 NRWQC SWCCC
Methylene chloride
4.6
Mg/L
2006 NRWQC HH W+O
Mirex
0.001
Mg/L
2006 NRWQC FWand SWCCC
Nickel, Dissolved
8.2
Mg/L
2006 NRWQC SWCCC
Nickel, Total
610
Mg/L
2006 NRWQC HH W+O
Nitrates
10000
Mg/L
2006 NRWQC HH W+O
Nitrobenzene
17
Mg/L
2006 NRWQC HH W+O
Nitrosamines
0.0008
Mg/L
2006 NRWQC HH W+O
Nitrosodibutylamine,N
0.0063
Mg/L
2006 NRWQC HH W+O
Nitrosodiethylamine,N
0.0008
Mg/L
2006 NRWQC HH W+O
Nitrosopyrrolidine,N
0.016
Mg/L
2006 NRWQC HH W+O
N-Nitroso Di-n-propylamine
0.005
Mg/L
2006 NRWQC HH W+O
N-Nitrosodimethylamine
0.00069
Mg/L
2006 NRWQC HH W+O
N-Nitrosodiphenylamine
3.3
Mg/L
2006 NRWQC HH W+O
Pa rath ion
0.013
Mg/L
2006 NRWQC FWCCC
Pentachlorobenzene
1.4
Mg/L
2006 NRWQC HH W+O
Pentachlorophenol
7.9
Mg/L
2006 NRWQC SWCCC
Phenol
21000
Mg/L
2006 NRWQC HH W+O
Phorphorus (as phosphate)
0.1
mg/L
EPA 1986 Goldbook
Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs)
0.000064
Mg/L
2006 NRWQC HH W+O
Pyrene
830
Mg/L
2006 NRWQC HH W+O
Selenium, Dissolved
5
Mg/L
2006 NRWQC FWCCC
Selenium, Total
170
Mg/L
2006 NRWQC HH W+O
Silica Gel Treated HEM (SGT-HEM)
15
mg/L
MARPOL 73/78
Silver, Dissolved
1.9
Mg/L
2006 NRWQC SWCMC
Solids Dissolved and Salinity
250000
Mg/L
2006 NRWQC HH W+O
Sulfide-Hydrogen Sulfide
0.002
mg/L
2006 NRWQC FWand SWCCC
Tetrachloroethene
0.69
Mg/L
2006 NRWQC HH W+O
Thallium, Total
0.24
Mg/L
2006 NRWQC HH W+O
3-11
-------
Proposed Draft
Analyte
Screening
Benchmarks
Units
Source1
Toluene
1300
|jg/L
2006 NRWQC HH W+O
Total Nonylphenols
1.7
|jg/L
2006 NRWQC SWCCC
Total Phosphorus
0.1
mg/L
1986 NRWQC
Total Polychlorinated Biphenyls
0.000064
Mg/L
2006 NRWQC HH Org Only
Total Suspended Solids (TSS)
30
mg/L
1984 Secondary Treatment Effluent Limits
Total Residual Chlorine (TRC)
0.0075
mg/L
2006 NRWQC SWCCC
Toxaphene
0.0002
|jg/L
2006 NRWQC FWand SWCCC
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene
140
|jg/L
2006 NRWQC HH W+O
Tributyltin (TBT)
0.0074
|jg/L
2006 NRWQC SWCCC
Trichloroethene
2.5
|jg/L
2006 NRWQC HH W+O
Vinyl chloride
0.025
|jg/L
2006 NRWQC HH W+O
Zinc, Dissolved
81
Mg/L
2006 NRWQC SWCCC
Zinc, Total
7400
|jg/L
2006 NRWQC HH W+O
(1) Sources:
MARPOL 73/78: International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution From Ships, 1973 as modified by the Protocol of
1978 (MARPOL 73/88, 1978).
1976 QCW SH (shellfish harvesting): Note MPN is most probable number and approximates the unit of measure for fecal
coliform in this study of CFU (colony forming units) (USEPA, 1976).
1984 Secondary Treatment Effluent Limits: 49 FR 37006, Sept. 20, 1984.
1986 NRWQC B FW (bathing (full body contact) recreational waters - fresh water): (USEPA, 1986).
Quality Criteria for Water 1986 (Goldbook) (USEPA, 1986b).
2006 NRWQC FWCCC (freshwater chronic): (USEPA, 2006).
2006 NRWQC SWCCC (saltwater chronic) (USEPA, 2006).
2006 NRWQC SWCMC (saltwater acute) (USEPA, 2006).
2006 NRWQC HH Org Only (human health for the consumption of organism only) (USEPA, 2006).
2006 NRWQC HH W+O (human health for the consumption of water + organism) (USEPA, 2006).
Table 3.2. Major Cation Concentrations in Seawater
Sesiwater S;ilini(\ l.e\el
( iileiiim. inii/l.
M;iUiiesiiiin. inii/l.
I'oliissiiiin. inii/l.
Sodium, inii/l.
Full Strength1 (35 ppt
salinity)
400
1,350
380
10,500
Brackish2 (10 ppt
salinity)
114
386
109
3,000
(1) Source: Mowka, 2009.
(2) Calculated from full strength seawater concentrations, assuming dilution by ion-free water.
Table 3.3. Major Cation Concentrations in Freshwater
Fresh w .iter 1 hirdness
l.e\el
( iileiiim. mii/l.
Miiunesiiiin. niii/l
I'oliissiiiin. niii/l
Sodium. m«/l.
Soft (40-48 mg CaC03/L)1
6.99
6.06
1.05
13.1
Moderately Hard (80-100
mg CaC03/L)1
14.0
12.1
2.10
26.3
Hard (160-180 mg
CaC03/L)1
27.9
24.2
4.20
52.5
(1) Source: USEPA, 2007.
3-12
-------
Proposed Draft
3.2 Characterization of Discharges
Each subsection of Section 3.2 presents in detail the observed results for the discharge
types selected for evaluation in the study vessels: bilgewater; stern tube packing gland effluent;
deck runoff and/or washdown; fish hold effluent (both refrigerated seawater effluent and ice
slurry) and effluent from the cleaning of fish holds; graywater; propulsion (inboard and
outboard) and generator engine effluent; and discharges from firemain systems. Tables and
figures are presented at the end of each subsection.
3.2.1 Bilgewater
Bilgewater can be found on board every vessel and describes the water that collects in the
bottom of a vessel. This water may be from rough seas, rain, minor leaks in the hull or stuffing
box, etc. Depending on the ship's design and function, bilgewater sometimes contains
contaminants such as oil, fuel, graywater, detergents, solvents, chemicals, pitch, and particulates.
For this study, EPA collected bilgewater samples from seven vessels: two tow/salvage vessels,
two water taxis, one longline fishing vessel, one shrimping vessel, and one tour boat.
EPA estimated bilgewater discharge volumes based on data and field observations from
EPA's vessel sampling program, as well as information from secondary data sources. Based on
this information, EPA estimates many commercial vessels generate, on average, between 10 and
15 gallons per day (gpd) of bilgewater depending on the vessels' configuration and intended use;
however, EPA noted that vessels might generate as little as 2 gallons of bilgewater or as much as
750 gallons of bilgewater per day. For vessels such as small tow/salvage vessels or water taxis
with open bows, bilgewater pump-out can occur frequently throughout the day, resulting in small
volumes during each pump-out cycle (1-2 gallons). Larger vessels such as commercial fishing
boats are likely to pump less frequently due to larger storage capacity in the bilge; however, the
bilgewater discharge volume can be hundreds of gallons. For example, EPA noted that a 26-foot,
center console Boston Whaler being used as a tow/salvage vessel had accumulated only 2 gallons
of bilgewater following a tow activity. However, a 62-foot shrimp boat sampled by EPA in the
Gulf of Mexico discharged approximately 750 gallons of bilgewater during the daily pump-out.
In general, the volume of bilgewater generated by commercial fishing boats and
commercial vessels depends on the following factors:
• Hull and deck construction
• Vessel size
• Precipitation
• Frequency of deck cleaning
• Amount of spray reaching the deck(s)
• Accidental spills
• Integrity of hull and below-deck piping systems
• Potential for condensate formation in below-deck areas.
3-13
-------
Proposed Draft
Commercial vessels with open bow and stern areas (e.g., commercial fishing and
tow/salvage vessels) have relatively large deck areas that are exposed to precipitation, spray, and
cleaning water, which results in greater bilgewater volumes compared to vessels such as tour
boats or water taxis that have less exposed deck. Other sources that contribute to bilgewater
onboard commercial vessels include small leaks in potable water, graywater and sewage piping
systems, and condensates from the interior of the hull or refrigeration systems. The volume of
these additional bilgewater sources is also highly vessel-specific.
In this vessel sampling program, EPA collected single grab samples of bilgewater
discharge from selected vessels for laboratory analysis. The results of the analysis were intended
to be representative of bilgewater pollutant concentrations over the range of normal vessel
operations. Collecting bilgewater samples proved difficult for EPA for a number of reasons
including: (1) automatic bilge pumps would discharge insufficient volumes of bilgewater in a
single operating cycle, (2) vessel operators were generally reluctant to discharge bilgewater for
fear of exceeding existing CWA § 311 requirements (oily discharges), and (3) sampling was
often impractical because bilgewater was typically discharged via thru-hull openings located at
or near the vessel's waterline.
Bilgewater samples were analyzed for a wide range of pollutants including metals,
classical pollutants, pathogen indicators, nutrients, semivolatile and volatile organic compounds,
and nonylphenols. Results for each class of pollutant are presented and discussed in the
following subsections.
3.2.1.1 Metals
Bilgewater samples were analyzed for dissolved10 and total (dissolved plus particulate)
concentrations of metals. The analytical results are summarized in Table 3.1.1 for dissolved
metals and in Table 3.1.2 for total metals that were detected in at least one bilgewater sample.
The following metals were measured in all bilgewater samples:
Total aluminum
Total arsenic
Dissolved and total barium
Dissolved and total calcium
Dissolved and total copper
Dissolved and total magnesium
Dissolved and total manganese
Dissolved and total potassium
Dissolved and total sodium
Dissolved and total zinc.
10 Dissolved metals were obtained by filtering the water sample.
3-14
-------
Proposed Draft
Concentrations of other metals were measured in 50 percent or more of the samples analyzed:
• Dissolved aluminum
• Dissolved arsenic
• Dissolved and total chromium
• Total iron
• Total lead
• Dissolved and total nickel
• Dissolved and total selenium.
Figure 3.1.1 presents the range of concentrations measured for dissolved metals in the
bilgewater samples. The plots show that dissolved metals concentrations range over six orders of
magnitude. Calcium, magnesium, potassium and sodium were the dissolved metals measured at
the highest concentrations. As discussed in Chapter 1 and Section 3.1.3, these cations naturally
occur in seawater and their levels in the discharges are similar to levels seen in ambient seawater.
As many discharges use ambient water for onboard activities, and spray would contribute to
other discharges, it was not unexpected
to find these levels of cations in the
bilgewater samples as most vessels
were sampled in coastal areas. At these
concentrations, these cations are
generally not toxic to aquatic
organisms, which is why there there are
no NRWQC for these metals, and
therefore, no PHQs were calculated (see
Section 3.1.3 for additional
explanation). Dissolved aluminum,
barium, copper, manganese, selenium
and zinc were also measured at
relatively high concentrations (tens to
hundreds of |ig/L) in most bilgewater
samples; dissolved arsenic and iron
were also measured at concentrations
greater than 100 |ig/L in individual
samples. Among the vessels from which
bilgewater was sampled, a tow/salvage
boat had the highest concentrations of
the most dissolved metals (seven
analytes), while the water taxi had only
one dissolved metal.
Dissolved versus Total Metals
EPA recommends using dissolved metal to set and
measure compliance with water quality standards
because dissolved metal more closely approximates the
bioavailable fraction of metal in the water column than
does total recoverable metal (USEPA, 1993). EPA
considers that the primary mechanism for toxicity to
organisms that live in the water column to be adsorption
to or uptake across the respiratory surfaces of aquatic
organisms (i.e., the gills) as well as the carapace of
certain invertebrates, and this physiological process
requires metal to be in a dissolved form. This is not to
suggest that particulate metals are nontoxic; rather,
because toxicity of particulate metals are primarily
restricted to direct ingestion via dietary exposure, they
are less toxic overall compared to dissolved metal
(USEPA, 1996). There are exceptions, however,
particularly for bottom feeding organisms, and for metals
that bioaccumulate (also see footnote in Section 3.1.3
regarding physical and biological recycling of particulate
metals). Dissolved metal is operationally defined as that
which passes through a 0.45-jjm or a 0.40-jjm filter and
particulate metal is operationally defined as total
recoverable metal minus dissolved metal. EPA typically
uses the dissolved fraction, or fd, to express the fraction
of the total chemical concentration in water that is
dissolved. To calculate fd, divide the dissolved
concentration by the total concentration. A chemical that
is entirely in the dissolved phase has a fd of 1, while a
chemical that is entirely in the particulate phase has a fd
of 0.
3-15
-------
Proposed Draft
Figure 3.1.2 shows the total metals concentrations in the bilgewater samples. The box
plots show that the relative ranges of total metals concentrations are comparable to the
concentrations of dissolved metals. Among the vessels from which bilgewater was sampled, the
shrimper had the highest concentrations of the most total metals (11), while the longliner and the
water taxi had the fewest (one each). In general, total concentrations for each metal are similar to
or slightly higher than the dissolved concentrations. To explore this relationship further, EPA
calculated the average dissolved fraction fj of each metal in the bilgewater samples to better
understand the potential for aquatic organism impacts. The metals with the highest average
dissolved fractions (fd> 90 percent) included barium, calcium, magnesium, potassium, selenium,
and zinc. Metals having intermediate average dissolved fractions (90 percent > fd > 50 percent)
included antimony, arsenic, cadmium, chromium, cobalt, copper, iron, manganese, and nickel.
Aluminum, lead, and vanadium had the lowest average dissolved fractions (fd< 50 percent).
Figure 3.1.3 shows the distributions of PHQs based on the most conservative screening
benchmark for each of the dissolved metals. Per Section 3.1.3 above, points on this plot above
the dashed line (demarcating a PHQ of one) indicate a dissolved metal concentration exceeding
the benchmark; three of the dissolved metals (cadmium, copper, and selenium) have PHQs that
include values greater than 10, indicating that the measured concentrations were one (or more)
order of magnitude greater than the screening benchmark. The highest PHQ (113) was for
dissolved copper, measured in the bilgewater sample from the tour boat. EPA also found PHQs
exceeding one for dissolved arsenic, chromium, lead, nickel, and zinc, bringing to eight the
number of dissolved metals that exceeded the most stringent 2006 NRWQC in one or more
bilgewater sample. Dissolved copper concentrations, ranging from 6.6 to 350 |ig/L, exceeded the
saltwater acute (4.8 |ig/L) and chronic (3.1 |ig/L) criteria in all seven bilgewater samples;
concentrations in all but one bilgewater sample also exceeded the freshwater acute (13 |ig/L) and
chronic (9 |ig/L) criteria. Each of the four detected dissolved selenium concentrations, ranging
from 30 to 57 |ig/L, exceeded the freshwater chronic criterion (5 |ig/L). The single elevated
dissolved cadmium concentration (10 |ig/L) exceeded the freshwater acute (2.0 |ig/L) and
chronic (0.25 |ig/L) criteria, and the saltwater chronic (8.8 |ig/L) criterion. In addition, the
highest dissolved arsenic concentration (230 |ig/L) exceeded the 36 |ig/L saltwater chronic
criterion. For the other dissolved metals (chromium, lead, nickel, and zinc), concentrations in one
or more bilgewater samples exceeded saltwater and/or freshwater criteria, although in each of
these cases the PHQs were less than five.
Three of the total metals (aluminum, arsenic, and iron) exceeded the most stringent 2006
NRWQC11 in one or more bilgewater samples as shown in Figure 3.1.4. PHQs for total arsenic
ranged from 72 to 1,790. All of the total arsenic concentrations exceeded the human health
criterion for consumption of water plus organism of 0.018 |ig/L, as well as the human health
11 PHQs for total metals are based on NRWQC for human health and not aquatic life, as stated in Section 3.1.3.
3-16
-------
Proposed Draft
criterion for organism consumption alone, 0.14 |ig/L. PHQs for aluminum and iron did not
exceed 11. Five of the seven total aluminum concentrations measured in bilgewater (at
concentrations ranging from 332 to 940 |ig/L) exceeded the freshwater chronic criterion (87
|ig/L, expressed as total recoverable metal). For total iron, concentrations in two of three
bilgewater samples exceeded the human health criterion for water plus organism consumption of
300 |ig/L; PHQs for total iron ranged from 0.17 to 6.3.
To further evaluate the significance of the dissolved and total metals concentrations in the
bilgewater samples, EPA compared them to ambient dissolved and total metal concentrations in
surface water samples collected near the vessels. This was done because surface water might
occasionally leak into certain vessel bilges, be used onboard the vessel, or splash onto the vessel
and drain into the bilge. In these cases, the concentrations of metals (as well as other analytes)
measured in the bilgewater samples might be similar to or significantly influenced by the
ambient concentrations. Indeed, EPA found that the concentrations of many of the metals
(including aluminum, barium, calcium, chromium, magnesium, manganese, nickel, potassium,
selenium, and sodium) measured in multiple bilgewater samples were no more than double the
ambient concentrations. The similarity in the concentrations of many of these metals in
bilgewater and ambient samples suggests that some proportion of the water sampled in the vessel
bilges may be from ambient water. It is less clear whether the significant background ambient
metals concentrations in the sampled harbors reflect the loading from the cumulative discharges
of the many vessels that operate there, or loadings from other point and/or nonpoint pollutant
sources to these water bodies.
On the other hand, the highest concentrations of some of the dissolved and total metals
measured in bilgewater were substantially elevated above the corresponding ambient
concentrations. For dissolved copper, the ambient concentration that accompanied the highest
bilgewater concentration (350 |ig/L from a tour boat) was below the detection limit. The next
two highest dissolved copper concentrations in bilgewater (119 and 120 |ig/L) were from water
taxis with a somewhat higher corresponding ambient concentration of 24 |ig/L.
For dissolved selenium, the ambient concentration that accompanied the highest
bilgewater concentration (57 |ig/L from the shrimper) was 76 |ig/L; in this case, and several
others, even the highest concentration for a metal in bilgewater was exceeded by the ambient
concentration.
The data for total metals also demonstrate considerable variability in the relationships
between bilgewater and ambient concentrations. The highest total arsenic concentration in
bilgewater (291 |ig/L from a tow/salvage boat) exceeded the corresponding ambient
concentration (12 |ig/L) by a considerable margin. The ambient concentration that accompanied
the next highest total arsenic concentration in bilgewater (32 |ig/L from the shrimper) was a
comparable 29 |ig/L.
3-17
-------
Proposed Draft
The results shown here illustrate that relationships between metals concentrations in
bilgewater and ambient samples are quite variable, even for the highest concentrations of metals
measured in bilgewater. EPA acknowledges that such variability could be due to type of
bilgewater production and dilution onboard. For example, a shrimper might have used a
substantial amount of ambient water for washdown as compared to a tow boat, and thus, dilute
what might be a similar actual bilge sample absent the washdown. Clearly the potential for
metals in bilgewater discharges to pollute receiving waters may be overestimated if the ambient
metals concentrations and other considerations (type and dilution of bilgewater) are not
appropriately considered.
In summary, metals were frequently detected in bilgewater samples. EPA found
relatively high concentrations of a number of dissolved and total metals in these samples. Total
arsenic and dissolved copper concentrations were consistently elevated above the most
conservative screening benchmarks, with PHQ values from greater than 10 to over 1,000.
Dissolved cadmium concentrations in a single bilgewater sample also generated PHQs in this
range. For these and other metals (including total aluminum and iron and dissolved chromium,
lead, nickel, selenium, and zinc), concentrations measured in one or several bilgewater samples
exceeded saltwater and/or freshwater criteria. EPA found that the concentrations of many of the
metals measured in bilgewater samples (except for dissolved copper and total arsenic) were
comparable to the ambient receiving water concentrations.
3-18
-------
Proposed Draft
Table 3.1.1. Results of Bilgewater Sample Analyses for Dissolved Metals1
Analyte
Unit
s
No.
samples
No.
detected
Detected
Proportion
(%)
Average
Cone.
Median
Cone.
Minimum
Cone.
10%
25%
75%
90%
Maximum
Cone.
Screening
BM'
Heavy and Other Metals
Aluminum
|jg/L
7
6
86
150
37
9.7
420
520
520
NA
Antimony
|jg/L
5
1
20
0.66
0.65
1.3
1.3
NA
Arsenic
|jg/L
7
6
86
41
10
1.1
21
230
230
36
Barium
|jg/L
5
5
100
49
43
38
38
39
62
64
64
NA
Cadmium
|jg/L
7
1
14
1.9
10
10
0.25
Chromium
|jg/L
7
5
71
12
1.6
17
56
56
11
Cobalt
|jg/L
5
2
40
1.0
1.8
2.5
2.5
NA
Copper
|jg/L
7
7
100
100
56
6.6
6.6
25
120
350
350
3.1
Iron
|jg/L
5
1
20
75
87
170
170
NA
Lead
|jg/L
7
3
43
2.3
4.2
7.2
7.2
2.5
Manganese
|jg/L
7
7
100
34
28
3.9
3.9
13
50
79
79
NA
Nickel
|jg/L
7
6
86
9.2
00
CO
4.7
14
15
15
8.2
Selenium
|jg/L
7
4
57
24
30
36
57
57
5
Vanadium
|jg/L
5
1
20
0.62
0.55
1.1
1.1
NA
Zinc
|jg/L
7
7
100
130
100
53
53
72
190
250
250
81
Cationic Metals
Calcium
|jg/L
7
7
100
76000
76000
33000
33000
47000
100000
140000
140000
NA
Magnesium
|jg/L
7
7
100
180000
180000
8300
8300
14000
310000
420000
420000
NA
Potassium
|jg/L
5
5
100
67000
65000
9800
9800
37000
98000
120000
120000
NA
Sodium
|jg/L
5
5
100
1400000
1400000
120000
120000
730000
2000000
2700000
2700000
NA
Notes:
(1) Nondetect (censored) concentrations were replaced with % of the reporting limit for calculating average concentrations. The remaining statistics in this table were only calculated
when analytes were detected at a sufficient frequency. For example, if an analyte was detected in fewer than 50% of samples, then a median concentration was not calculated. A blank
cell reflects a situation when a median or percentile could not be computed based on detected concentrations. The percentiles are the concentrations of each analyte below which at
least that percentage of the values fall. So the 10th percentile is the concentration below which at least 10% of the observations were found.
(2) Screening BM represents the screening benchmark referred to in Section 3.1.3, and is the most stringent 2006 NRWQC or other conservative benchmark used to calculate PHQs.
3-19
-------
Proposed Draft
Table 3.1.2. Results of Bilgewater Sample Analyses for Total Metals1
Analyte
Unit
s
No.
sample
s
No.
detected
Detected
proportion
<%>
Average
Cone.
Median
Cone.
Minimum
Cone.
10%
25%
75%
90%
Maximum
Cone.
Screening
BM'
Heavy and Other Metals
Aluminum
Mg/i
7
7
100
370
330
26
26
28
640
940
940
87
Antimony
Mg/i
5
1
20
1.3
0.65
1.3
1.3
5.6
Arsenic
Mg/i
7
7
100
53
12
1.3
1.3
5.5
32
290
290
0.018
Barium
Mg/i
5
5
100
50
44
38
38
38
66
67
67
1000
Cadmium
Mg/i
7
1
14
2.6
12
12
NA
Chromium
Mg/i
7
6
86
25
3.5
2
37
96
96
NA
Cobalt
Mg/i
5
1
20
1.3
0.7
1.4
1.4
NA
Copper
Mg/i
7
7
100
150
130
8.5
8.5
50
210
430
430
1300
Iron
Mg/i
5
3
60
520
250
1100
1900
1900
300
Lead
Mg/i
7
6
86
9.6
7.5
2.3
18
26
26
NA
Manganese
Mg/i
7
7
100
53
52
7.4
7.4
37
79
97
97
100
Nickel
Mg/i
7
6
86
12
9.4
6.2
17
24
24
610
Selenium
Mg/i
7
4
57
25
25
38
66
66
170
Vanadium
Mg/i
5
2
40
2.6
1.4
1.7
1.7
NA
Zinc
Mg/i
7
7
100
160
87
56
56
72
260
360
360
7400
Cationic Metals
Calcium
Mg/i
7
7
100
76000
77000
36000
36000
47000
110000
130000
130000
NA
Magnesium
Mg/i
7
7
100
180000
180000
9200
9200
14000
310000
390000
390000
NA
Potassium
Mg/i
5
5
100
68000
65000
9600
9600
37000
100000
130000
130000
NA
Sodium
Mg/i
5
5
100
1400000
1400000
120000
120000
740000
2000000
2600000
2600000
NA
Notes:
(1) Nondetect (censored) concentrations were replaced with % of the reporting limit for calculating average concentrations. The remaining statistics in this table were only calculated
when analytes were detected at a sufficient frequency. For example, if an analyte was detected in fewer than 50% of samples, then a median concentration was not calculated. A blank
cell reflects a situation when a median or percentile could not be computed based on detected concentrations. The percentiles are the concentrations of each analyte below which at
least that percentage of the values fall. So the 10th percentile is the concentration below which at least 10% of the observations were found.
(2) Screening BM represents the screening benchmark referred to in Section 3.1.3, and is the most stringent 2006 NRWQC or other conservative benchmark used to calculate PHQs.
3-20
-------
Proposed Draft
CD
C
o
CD
s_
C
Q)
O
C
o
O
Dissolved Metals
Figure 3.1.1. Box and Dot Density Plot of Dissolved Metals Concentrations Measured in
Samples of Bilgewater
3-21
-------
Proposed Draft
I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I
1000 -
CD
C
o
CD
s_
C
Q)
O
C
o
O
100 -
10-
1 -
_L
o
GO
0
1
o
"T
Q£
O
I
jJ
r
JL
Total Metals
Figure 3.1.2. Box and Dot Density Plot of Total Metals Concentrations Measured in
Samples of Bilgewater
3-22
-------
Proposed Draft
100.0-
c
a>
o
=3
o
"O
s_
CO
N
CO
X
c
Q)
O
~_
10.0 -
Dissolved Metals
Figure 3.1.3. Box and Dot Density Plot of Potential Hazard Quotients for Dissolved Metals
in Samples of Bilgewater
3-23
-------
Proposed Draft
c
0)
O
=3
o
"O
s_
CO
N
CO
X
c
Q)
O
~_
10000.00r
1000.00;
100.00
10.00
1.00
0.10
0.01
I I I I I I I I I I I I
o
(X
Q
—-¦©
I oh
— w
* I I I
o o
Total Metals
Figure 3.1.4. Box and Dot Density Plot of Potential Hazard Quotients for Total Metals in
Samples of Bilgewater
3-24
-------
Proposed Draft
3.2.1.2 Classical Pollutants
Bilgewater samples were analyzed for 14 classical pollutants (see Table 3.1.3). These
pollutants include measurements that are qualitatively quite different: physical properties (pH,
temperature, conductivity, salinity, turbidity, TOC, TSS), oxygen consumption (BOD and COD),
oil and grease (hexane extractable material (HEM) and silica-gel treated hexane extractable
material (SGT-HEM)), as well as concentrations of several chemicals (sulfide, DO, TOC and
TRC).12 Figure 3.1.5 illustrates the variability of the concentrations/values measured for the
classical pollutant in bilgewater. The highest concentrations of BOD, COD and TOC (770, 2970,
and 732 mg/L, respectively), as well as HEM, SGT-HEM, and TRC, were measured in a single
bilgewater sample from a tow/salvage boat. BOD and TOC concentrations were highly variable
among the bilgewater samples, ranging from 2 to 770 mg/L for BOD and from 9 to 730 mg/L for
TOC.
Oil and grease were measured as HEM and petroleum hydrocarbons were measured as
SGT-HEM. HEM and SGT-HEM were detected in all of the bilgewater samples, with
concentrations ranging from 1.1 to 43.6 mg/L (HEM) and 1.1 to 18.2 mg/L (SGT-HEM). These
concentrations were compared to the existing international and U.S. regulatory limit of 15 mg/L
of oil and grease that can be discharged from a moving ship when within 12 nautical miles from
land13. Some type of oil collector (sorbent pad, rags, etc.) was used on four of the seven vessels
sampled for bilgewater. A single value taken from the tow/salvage boat exceeded the 15-mg/L
benchmark by threefold. Oil and grease discharges at this concentration are significant enough to
cause a visible sheen. The tow/salvage boat had no equipment or management practices in place
to remove oil or other pollutants prior to overboard discharge of bilgewater.
Sulfide was detected in two bilgewater samples, at concentrations of 0.015 and 0.2 mg/L.
These concentrations exceeded the NRWQC of 2 |ig/L (0.002 mg/L) by factors of 7.5 to 100.
Sulfide (hydrogen sulfide) is a pollutant that is commonly elevated in water distribution systems
as well as sewers. Sulfur-reducing bacteria, which use sulfur as an energy source, are believed to
be the primary producers of large quantities of hydrogen sulfide in bilgewater. Ecologically,
these bacteria are common in anaerobic environments (e.g., plumbing systems). Sulfur-reducing
bacteria are apparently present in at least some of the vessels, because sulfide was not detected in
the ambient water sampled at the vessel locations.
Figure 3.1.6 presents box and dot density plots of the PHQs for classical pollutants.
PHQs were calculated for the six classical pollutants for which benchmarks were available. As
this figure shows, all of the detected TRC concentrations exceeded the saltwater chronic
12 See Section 3.1.1 this chapter for the rationale to use this term for this large group of conventional,
nonconventional, and other physico-chemical factors.
13 International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973, as modified by the Protocol of 1978
relating thereto (MARPOL).
3-25
-------
Proposed Draft
NRWQC benchmark of 0.0075 mg/L and yielded PHQs ranged from 6.7 to 21. The highest TRC
concentration (0.16 mg/L) was measured in a bilgewater sample collected from a tour boat.
EPA compared classical pollutant concentrations in the bilgewater samples to ambient
concentrations in surface water samples collected near the vessels. Concentrations of a number
of the classical parameters (including conductivity, pH, salinity, temperature, and (to a varying
degree) turbidity in bilgewater were comparable with ambient water. This was expected,
considering the likelihood of ambient water leaking into vessel bilges. The concentration of DO
measured in one bilgewater sample (1.8 mg/L in the longliner) was hypoxic (<2 mg/L), although
the ambient DO value at this location (Sitka, Alaska) was also very low (1.0 mg/L). TRC
concentrations were elevated at 0.1 mg/L in two of the seven bilge samples; for the remaining
samples, TRC concentrations were comparable between bilgewater and ambient samples. For the
remaining classical pollutants (BOD, COD, HEM, SGT-HEM, sulfide, TOC, and TSS) the
concentrations measured in bilgewater greatly exceeded those measured in ambient samples.
BOD concentrations in three of the bilgewater samples (189, 325, and 770 mg/L) were high
enough to be comparable to values typical of raw domestic sewage (110 to 400 mg/L; Metcalf
and Eddy, 1979). These three bilgewater samples also exceed EPA's secondary treatment
effluent limit of 30 mg/L for BOD. COD concentrations in four of the bilgewater samples (430,
546, 780, and 2,970 mg/L) were again high enough to compare with values for raw domestic
sewage (250 to 1,000 mg/L; Metcalf and Eddy, 1979). These high levels of BOD and COD in
bilgewater discharges could potentially cause stress on a water body (e.g., where there are many
sources of oxygen demand, where there may be limited circulation or flushing, or where the
water body is under existing hypoxic or anoxic stress). Although TSS concentrations in
bilgewater were not as high as values for raw sewage, four of the bilgewater samples exceeded
the 30 mg/L effluent limit for TSS by factors ranging from 1.2 to 3. EPA realizes that these
effluent limits are based upon the high removal efficiencies for BOD and TSS that are achievable
by land-based sewage treatment plants, and may be overly conservative as benchmarks for vessel
discharge. However, as discussed in Section 3.1.3, the benchmarks are still useful in a screening
level analysis as a starting point for evaluating the potential of these pollutants to cause or
contribute to ecological stress on a water body.
3-26
-------
Proposed Draft
Table 3.1.3. Results of Bilgewater Sample Analyses for Classical Pollutants1
Analyte
Units
No.
samples
No.
detected
Detected
Proportion
<%)
Average
Cone.
Median
Cone.
Minimum
Cone.
10%
25%
75%
90%
Maximum
Cone.
Screening
BMV
Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD)
mg/L
7
7
100
190
14
2.0
2.0
4.1
330
770
770
30
Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD)
mg/L
7
7
100
740
430
91
91
98
780
3000
3000
NA
Conductivity
mS/cm
6
6
100
5.0
6.9
0.017
0.017
0.56
9.3
14
14
NA
Dissolved Oxygen
mg/L
6
6
100
5.3
5.5
1.8
1.8
3.4
6.9
11
11
NA
Hexane Extractable Material (HEM)
mg/L
7
7
100
9.3
5.2
1.1
1.1
1.2
7.0
44
44
15
PH
SU
7
7
100
7.2
7.0
6.9
6.9
6.9
7.3
8.0
8.0
NA
Salinity
ppt
6
6
100
5.5
4.5
0.40
0.40
3.1
8.9
13
13
NA
Silica Gel Treated HEM (SGT-HEM)
mg/L
7
7
100
4.4
2.4
1.1
1.1
1.2
3.5
18
18
15
Sulfide
mg/L
7
2
29
0.034
0.015
0.20
0.20
0.0020
Temperature
C
7
7
100
20
21
9.0
9.0
14
27
28
28
NA
Total Organic Carbon (TOC)
mg/L
5
5
100
200
110
8.9
8.9
16
440
730
730
NA
Total Residual Chlorine
mg/L
7
3
43
0.077
0.13
0.16
0.16
0.0075
Total Suspended Solids (TSS)
mg/L
7
7
100
39
38
3.7
3.7
5.5
71
88
88
30
Turbidity
NTU
7
7
100
41
20
3.5
3.5
5.2
41
160
160
NA
Notes:
(1) Nondetect (censored) concentrations were replaced with % of the reporting limit for calculating average concentrations. The remaining statistics in this table were only calculated
when analytes were detected at a sufficient frequency. For example, if an analyte was detected in fewer than 50% of samples, then a median concentration was not calculated. A blank
cell reflects a situation when a median or percentile could not be computed based on detected concentrations. The percentiles are the concentrations of each analyte below which at
least that percentage of the values fall. So the 10th percentile is the concentration below which at least 10% of the observations were found.
(2) Screening BM represents the screening benchmark referred to in Section 3.1.3, and is the most stringent 2006 NRWQC or other conservative benchmark used to calculate PHQs.
3-27
-------
Proposed Draft
c
o
CD
s_
c
Q)
O
c
o
O
1000.00r
100.00r
10.00r
1.00;
0.10;
0
O
QD
0.01 =
"1—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—r
£J LQ.
OD ge
gp
O&QO
oiocsi
E_l I I I I I lnrUI.nl | | | | I
Classical Pollutants
Figure 3.1.5. Box and Dot Density Plot of Classical Pollutant Concentrations Measured in
Samples of Bilgewater
3-28
-------
Proposed Draft
c
a>
o
=3
o
CO
N
CO
CO
c
Q)
O
Q_
10.00-
o
- o
0.10 ^
o
o
1.00- =
A
0£
J I L
sp op
J I I I L
Classical Pollutants
Figure 3.1.6. Box and Dot Density Plot of Potential Hazard Quotients for Classical
Parameters in Samples of Bilgewater
3-29
-------
Proposed Draft
3.2.1.3 Pathogen Indicators (Microbiologicals)
Bilgewater samples14 from two commercial fishing vessels were analyzed for the
pathogen indicator bacteria E. coli, enterococci, and fecal coliform (commercial fishing vessels
only) (see Table 3.1.4). E. coli and enterococci were detected in a bilgewater sample collected
from a shrimping vessel, and fecal coliform were detected in bilgewater from two fishing vessels
(a longliner and the shrimper).
The NRWQC for pathogen indicators references the bacteria standards in EPA's 1986
Quality Criteria for Water, commonly known as the Gold Book. NRWQC standards for bacteria
are described in terms of three different water body use criteria: freshwater bathing, marine water
bathing, and shellfish harvesting waters.
For each of the pathogen indicators, the lowest NRWQC was exceeded in one of the
bilgewater samples. The E. coli value (393 MPN/100 mL) exceeds the freshwater bathing
NRWQC of 126 MPN/100 mL. The enterococci value (4,100 MPN/100 mL) exceeds the bathing
NRWQCs of 33 CFU/100 mL for fresh water and 35 CFU/100 mL for salt water. One of the two
fecal coliform values (118 CFU/100 mL) exceeds the NRWQC of 14 MPN/100 mL for shellfish
harvesting15.
Values of the pathogen indicators measured in these bilgewater samples exceed the
values measured in nearby ambient surface water samples by factors ranging from 4 (for
enterococci) to 15 (E. coli), suggesting that leakage or other entry of ambient water is not a
significant source of these pathogen indicators in bilgewater. EPA is unsure as to the source of
pathogen indicators in bilgewater.
14 Logistics prevented EPA from delivering all bilgewater samples to laboratories within allowable holding times.
15 MPN is most probable number and approximates the unit of measure for fecal coliform in this study of CFU
(colony forming units).
3-30
-------
Proposed Draft
Table 3.1. 4. Results of Bilgewater Sample Analyses for Pathogen Indicators1
Analyte
Units''
No.
Samples
No.
detected
Detected
Proportion (%)
Average
Cone.
Median
Cone.
Minimum
Cone.
10%
25%
75%
90%
Maximum
Cone.
Screening
BM'
E. Coli
MPN/100 ml
1
1
100
390
130
Enterococci
MPN/100 ml
1
1
100
4100
33
Fecal Coliform
CFU/100 ml
2
2
100
61
120
4.0
4.0
4.0
120
120
120
14
Notes:
(1) Nondetect (censored) concentrations were replaced with % of the reporting limit for calculating average concentrations. The remaining statistics in this table were only calculated
when analytes were detected at a sufficient frequency. For example, if an analyte was detected in fewer than 50% of samples, then a median concentration was not calculated. A blank
cell reflects a situation when a median or percentile could not be computed based on detected concentrations. The percentiles are the concentrations of each analyte below which at
least that percentage of the values fall. So the 10th percentile is the concentration below which at least 10% of the observations were found.
(2) MPN = Most Probable Number; CFU = Colony Forming Units.
(3) Screening BM represents the screening benchmark referred to in Section 3.1.3, and is the most stringent 2006 NRWQC or other conservative benchmark used to calculate PHQs.
3-31
-------
Proposed Draft
3.2.1.4 Nutrients
Bilgewater samples were analyzed for four nutrient-related parameters: ammonia
nitrogen, nitrate/nitrite, total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN), and total phosphorus (see Table 3.1.5).
The box and dot density plots in Figure 3.1.7 illustrate the variability of the nutrient
concentrations measured in bilgewater. Ammonia, TKN and total phosphorus concentrations
were elevated in a single bilgewater sample collected from a longliner fishing vessel. The
elevated nutrient concentrations may be attributable to seepage from the/ice slurry in the fish
hold of the longliner. Water containing biological material (e.g., fish waste tissues, excreta)
might seep down into the bilge compartment, resulting in an increase in nutrient discharge.
Ammonia is the only nutrient for which there are currently numeric NRWQC. EPA
established these numeric criteria based on chronic toxicity to aquatic life, not nutrient
enrichment. An ammonia-nitrogen concentration of 7.6 mg/L, measured in the bilgewater sample
from the longliner fishing vessel, exceeded the NRWQC chronic criteria in both salt water (1.2
mg/L) and fresh water (1.24 mg/L). Three of the five bilgewater samples for total phosphorous
exceeded EPA's 0.1 mg/L 1986 Gold Book criterion. The highest total phosphorus
concentration, 13 mg/L, exceeded the benchmark by a factor of 130. Figure 3.1.8 presents box
and dot density plots of the PHQs calculated for the nutrient data.
EPA compared nutrient concentrations in the bilgewater samples to ambient
concentrations in surface water samples collected near the vessels. Ammonia was detected in one
of the ambient samples at a concentration of 0.11 mg/L, comparable (within a factor of two) to
the concentration in the corresponding bilgewater sample, 0.13 mg/L. TKN was detected in three
ambient samples; in one, the ambient concentration of 0.60 mg/L marginally exceeded the
bilgewater concentration of 0.55 mg/L. However, ambient TKN concentrations were less than
the bilgewater concentrations in the other two cases. For total phosphorus, the comparison
showed the concentrations detected in two ambient samples were comparable to the
corresponding bilgewater concentrations; however, total phosphorus was not detected in the
ambient samples corresponding to the three bilgewater samples having the highest total
phosphorus concentrations. Thus, although ambient nutrient concentrations appear to be
comparable to the lower concentrations of nutrients in bilgewater and may be a partial source of
these nutrients in some samples, they cannot explain the sources of the higher nutrient
concentrations measured in other samples.
3-32
-------
Proposed Draft
Table 3.1.5. Results of Bilgewater Sample Analyses for Nutrients1
Analyte
Units
No.
samples
No.
detected
Detected
Proportion
<%)
Average
Cone.
Median
Cone.
Minimum
Cone.
10%
25%
75%
90%
Maximum
Cone.
Screening
BM'
Ammonia As Nitrogen (NH3-N)
mg/L
5
4
80
1.7
0.24
0.064
4.0
7.6
7.6
1.2
Nitrate/Nitrite (N03/N02-N)
mg/L
7
5
71
0.38
0.18
0.36
1.9
1.9
NA
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN)
mg/L
5
5
100
16
2.5
0.55
0.55
1.0
39
73
73
NA
Total Phosphorus
mg/L
5
5
100
3.0
0.47
0.084
0.084
0.093
7.1
13
13
0.10
Notes:
(1) Nondetect (censored) concentrations were replaced with % of the reporting limit for calculating average concentrations. The remaining statistics in this table were only calculated
when analytes were detected at a sufficient frequency. For example, if an analyte was detected in fewer than 50% of samples, then a median concentration was not calculated. A blank
cell reflects a situation when a median or percentile could not be computed based on detected concentrations. The percentiles are the concentrations of each analyte below which at
least that percentage of the values fall. So the 10th percentile is the concentration below which at least 10% of the observations were found.
(2) Screening BM represents the screening benchmark referred to in Section 3.1.3, and is the most stringent 2006 NRWQC or other conservative benchmark used to calculate PHQs.
3-33
-------
Proposed Draft
10.00
CD
E
¦S 1.00
03
CD
O
C
o
O
0.10
0.01
A
o
fl-'
o-
Nutrients
^ ^ •
-------
Proposed Draft
100.00 r
CD
o
ID
o
03
N
03
0
o
Q_
10.00 r
1 .00 E
0.10 r
0.01
o
Nutrients
Figure 3.1.8. Box and Dot Density Plot of Potential Hazard Quotients for Nutrients in
Samples of Bilgewater
3-35
-------
Proposed Draft
3.2.1.5 Semivolatile Organic Compounds (SVOCs)
Bilgewater samples were analyzed for 79 SVOCs. Out of the 79 analytes, 56 were not
detected in any of the bilgewater samples. Of the remaining 23 SVOCs, 18 were only detected in
a single bilgewater sample and five were found in multiple samples (see Table 3.1.6). Of these,
bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate was detected in more than 50 percent of the samples. This SVOC is a
manufactured chemical that is commonly added to plastics to make them flexible and can be
found in a variety of products used on vessels such as hoses, tubing, and gaskets. Di-n-butyl
phthalate, di-n-octyl phthalate, naphthalene, and phenanthrene were also detected in more than
one bilgewater sample. There was no obvious trend in the occurrence of SVOCs based on the
type of vessel sampled.
Figure 3.1.9 presents the range of concentrations measured for SVOCs in the bilgewater
samples. Concentrations of five SVOCs (2-butoxy ethanol, 2- methyl-naphthalene, dimethyl
phthalate, indole, and naphthalene) exceeded 100 |ig/L in single (but not the same) bilgewater
samples. It was difficult for EPA to compare the concentration distributions between SVOCs
because the majority were detected in a single sample. Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate and
phenanthrene concentrations ranged over nearly two orders of magnitude.
The distributions of PHQs, based on the most conservative screening benchmarks, are
displayed for each SVOC in Figure 3.1.10. PHQs for two SVOCs, 2,4,6-trichlorophenol and
bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate, exceeded the screening threshold of one. The 2,4,6-trichlorophenol
concentration (24 |ig/L) measured in a single bilgewater sample from a tour boat exceeded the
1.4 |ig/L human health (water and organism consumption) criterion by a factor of 1716. Bis(2-
ethylhexyl) phthalate was detected in four of the seven bilgewater samples, at concentrations that
exceeded the 1.2 |ig/L human health (water and organism consumption) criterion by factors that
ranged from 1.1 to 59. As shown in Figure 3.1.10, the PHQs for four other SVOCs were orders
of magnitude less than 1, and therefore, likely pose little risk as pollutants from bilgewater
discharges.
SVOCs were detected in two ambient samples, and for these chemicals (bis(2-ethylhexyl)
phthalate and Di-n-butyl phthalate) the ambient concentrations were only comparable to the
lowest concentrations measured in bilgewater.
16 Because of elevated reporting limits for this SVOC in several samples, replacement values for the nondetected
concentrations exceed the benchmark (e.g., PHQ >1). However, these values were not based on measured
concentrations and are therefore uncertain.
3-36
-------
Proposed Draft
Table 3.1.6. Results of Bilgewater Sample Analyses for SVOCs1
Analyte
Units
No.
samples
No.
detected
Detected
Proportion
(%)
Average
Cone.
Median
Cone.
Minimum
Cone.
10%
25%
75%
90%
Maximum
Cone.
Screening
BM''
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
|jg/L
7
1
14
7.0
24
24
1.4
2-Butoxy ethanol
|jg/L
1
1
100
260
NA
2-Methylnaphthalene
|jg/L
5
1
20
39
88
180
180
NA
3-Methyl-butanoic acid
|jg/L
1
1
100
57
NA
4-Methyl-pentanoic acid
|jg/L
1
1
100
38
NA
Benzeneacetic acid
|jg/L
1
1
100
29
NA
Benzenepropanoic acid
|jg/L
1
1
100
32
NA
Benzothiazole
|jg/L
1
1
100
45
NA
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
|jg/L
7
4
57
15
1.4
21
71
71
1.2
Cholesterol
|jg/L
1
1
100
88
NA
Dimethyl phthalate
|jg/L
7
1
14
24
140
140
270000
Di-n-butyl phthalate
|jg/L
7
29
4.0
1.4
4.9
4.9
2000
Di-n-octyl phthalate
|jg/L
7
29
4.1
3.1
3.5
3.5
NA
Heptadecane
|jg/L
1
1
100
56
NA
Indole
|jg/L
1
1
100
160
NA
Naphthalene
|jg/L
7
43
100
2.3
700
700
NA
n-Hexadecane
|jg/L
1
1
100
39
NA
Nonadecane
|jg/L
1
1
100
49
NA
p-Cresol
|jg/L
5
1
20
7.7
8.7
17
17
NA
Phenanthrene
|jg/L
7
29
12
1.3
69
69
NA
Phenol
|jg/L
7
1
14
18
100
100
21000
Pyrene
|jg/L
7
1
14
6.8
34
34
830
Triethyl Phosphate
|jg/L
1
1
100
20
NA
Notes:
(1) Nondetect (censored) concentrations were replaced with % of the reporting limit for calculating average concentrations. The remaining statistics in this table were only calculated
when analytes were detected at a sufficient frequency. For example, if an analyte was detected in fewer than 50% of samples, then a median concentration was not calculated. A blank
cell reflects a situation when a median or percentile could not be computed based on detected concentrations. The percentiles are the concentrations of each analyte below which at
least that percentage of the values fall. So the 10th percentile is the concentration below which at least 10% of the observations were found.
(2) Screening BM represents the screening benchmark referred to in Section 3.1.3, and is the most stringent 2006 NRWQC or other conservative benchmark used to calculate PHQs.
3-37
-------
Proposed Draft
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
SVOCs
Figure 3.1.9. Box and Dot Density Plot of SVOC Concentrations Measured in Samples of
Bilgewater. Nondetect (censored) concentrations were replaced with 'A of the reporting limit for use in these
plots. SVOCs are identified as follows:
(1) 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
(9) Bis(2-Ethylhexyl) Phthalate
(17) N-Hexadecane
(2) 2-Butoxy Ethanol
(10) Cholesterol
(18) Nonadecane
(3) 2-Methylnaphthalene
(11) Dimethyl Phthalate
(19) P-Cresol
(4) 3-Methyl-Butanoic Acid
(12) Di-N-Butyl Phthalate
(20) Phenanthrene
(5) 4-Methyl-Pentanoic Acid
(13) Di-N-Octyl Phthalate
(21) Phenol
(6) Benzeneacetic Acid
(14) Heptadecane
(22) Pyrene
(7) Benzenepropanoic Acid
(15) Indole
(23) Triethyl Phosphate
(8) Benzothiazole
(16) Naphthalene
3-38
-------
Proposed Draft
10.00000
a
~ 1.00000
o
Z5
2 0.10000
CD
CO 0.01000
X
¦B 0.00100
c
0)
£ 0.00010
0.00001
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
SVOCs
Figure 3.1.10. Box and Dot Density Plot of Potential Hazard Quotients for SVOCs in
Samples of Bilgewater Nondetect (censored) concentrations were replaced with 'A of the reporting limit for use
in these plots. SVOCs are identified as follows:
(1) 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
(9) Bis(2-Ethylhexyl) Phthalate
(17) N-Hexadecane
(2) 2-Butoxy Ethanol
(10) Cholesterol
(18) Nonadecane
(3) 2-Methylnaphthalene
(11) Dimethyl Phthalate
(19) P-Cresol
(4) 3-Methyl-Butanoic Acid
(12) Di-N-Butyl Phthalate
(20) Phenanthrene
(5) 4-Methyl-Pentanoic Acid
(13) Di-N-Octyl Phthalate
(21) Phenol
(6) Benzeneacetic Acid
(14) Heptadecane
(22) Pyrene
(7) Benzenepropanoic Acid
(15) Indole
(23) Triethyl Phosphate
(8) Benzothiazole
(16) Naphthalene
3-39
-------
Proposed Draft
3.2.1.6 Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs)
Bilgewater samples were analyzed for 72 VOCs. Out of the 72 analytes, 46 VOCs were
not detected in any of the bilgewater samples. Of the remaining 26 VOCs, 11 were detected in
more than one bilgewater samples and 15 were detected only in one bilgewater sample (see
Table 3.1.7). Of the 11 VOCs that were detected in more than one bilgewater sample, the
following were detected in more than 50 percent of the samples:
• 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
• 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene
• Acetone
• Benzene
• m-,p-Xylene (sum of isomers)
• Methylene chloride
• O-Xylene.
2-butanone, ethylbenzene, styrene, and toluene were also detected in more than one
bilgewater sample.
Figure 3.1.11 presents the range of concentrations measured for VOCs in the bilgewater
samples. The VOC concentrations measured in bilgewater samples varied widely, with
concentrations of a half-dozen VOCs ranging over three orders of magnitude. The maximum
concentrations of four VOCs (1,2,4-trimethylbenzene, m-,p-xylene, o-xylene and toluene)
exceeded 1,000 |ig/L (1 mg/L), while the maximum concentrations of four other VOCs (1,3,5-
trimethylbenzene, benzene, ethylbenzene and n-propylbenzene) exceeded 100 |ig/L. Each of
these maximum VOC concentrations was measured in the bilgewater sampled from one
tow/salvage boat. These VOCs are commonly constituents of petroleum products, refining by-
products, and gasoline additives, and are used as solvents.
Figure 3.1.12 presents the distributions of PHQs for each VOC, based on the most
conservative screening benchmarks. The maximum PHQ for benzene, based on the 2.2 |ig/L
human health (water plus organism consumption) criterion benchmark, was 187. The maximum
PHQ for toluene was marginally higher than one; the highest concentration of toluene (1,700
|ig/L) exceeded the human health (water and organism consumption) criterion of 1,300 |ig/L. For
two other VOCs (chloroform and tetrachloroethene), only one of seven sample concentrations
were detected, and these detected concentrations were below the screening benchmark. However,
because the method detection limits for these two compounds were more than double their
respective screening benchmarks, the resulting PHQs for these compounds, as reported in Figure
3.1.12, are greater than one when concentrations equal to V2 of the detection limit are included.
Because these PHQ values were not based on detected concentrations, EPA considers them
highly uncertain.
3-40
-------
Proposed Draft
Finally, two VOCs (acetone and methylene chloride) were measured in ambient samples
at concentrations comparable to the corresponding bilgewater concentration. However, these
ambient concentrations were only comparable to the lowest concentrations of these VOCs
measured in some bilgewater samples. Therefore, it is unlikely that leakage or other entry of
ambient water is a significant source of the elevated acetone and methylene chloride
concentrations measured in bilgewater.
3-41
-------
Proposed Draft
Table 3.1.7. Results of Bilgewater Sample Analyses for VOCs1
Analyte
Units
No.
samples
No.
detected
Detected
Proportion
(%)
Average
Cone.
Median
Cone.
Minimum
Cone.
10%
25%
75%
90%
Maximum
Cone.
Screening
BM '
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
|jg/L
5
3
60
220
0.50
540
1100
1100
NA
1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene
|jg/L
5
3
60
65
0.10
160
320
320
NA
2-Butanone
|jg/L
5
2
40
2.6
2.8
3.7
3.7
NA
4-lsopropyltoluene
|jg/L
5
1
20
3.3
3.3
6.5
6.5
NA
Acetone
|jg/L
5
5
100
13
10
2.3
2.3
4.3
23
31
31
NA
Benzene
|jg/L
7
4
57
61
0.10
1.3
410
410
2.2
Biphenyl
|jg/L
5
1
20
4.5
0.87
1.7
1.7
NA
Carbon disulfide
|jg/L
5
1
20
2.0
0.050
0.10
0.10
NA
Chloroform
|jg/L
7
1
14
3.3
4.1
4.1
5.7
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene
|jg/L
5
1
20
2.3
0.75
1.5
1.5
NA
Cyclohexane
|jg/L
5
1
20
5.8
9.5
19
19
NA
Ethylbenzene
|jg/L
7
3
43
68
1.3
460
460
530
Isopropylbenzene
|jg/L
5
1
20
9.9
20
40
40
NA
m-,p-Xylene (sum of isomers)
|jg/L
5
3
60
370
0.50
930
1900
1900
NA
Methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE)
|jg/L
5
1
20
2.0
0.050
0.10
0.10
NA
Methylcyclohexane
|jg/L
5
1
20
5.4
8.5
17
17
NA
Methylene chloride
|jg/L
7
4
57
1.6
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.30
4.6
Nonanal
|jg/L
1
1
100
3.1
NA
n-Pentadecane
|jg/L
1
1
100
58
NA
n-Propylbenzene
|jg/L
5
1
20
26
60
120
120
NA
O-Xylene
|jg/L
5
3
60
240
0.20
590
1200
1200
NA
Styrene
|jg/L
5
2
40
11
20
39
39
NA
Tetrachloroethene
|jg/L
7
1
14
2.6
0.40
0.40
0.69
Toluene
|jg/L
7
3
43
240
0.30
1700
1700
1300
Trichloroethene
|jg/L
7
1
14
2.6
0.30
0.30
2.5
Trichlorofluoromethane
|jg/L
7
1
14
3.5
5.5
5.5
NA
Notes:
(1) Nondetect (censored) concentrations were replaced with % of the reporting limit for calculating average concentrations. The remaining statistics in this table were only calculated
when analytes were detected at a sufficient frequency. For example, if an analyte was detected in fewer than 50% of samples, then a median concentration was not calculated. A blank
cell reflects a situation when a median or percentile could not be computed based on detected concentrations. The percentiles are the concentrations of each analyte below which at
least that percentage of the values fall. So the 10th percentile is the concentration below which at least 10% of the observations were found.
(2) Screening BM represents the screening benchmark referred to in Section 3.1.3, and is the most stringent 2006 NRWQC or other conservative benchmark used to calculate PHQs.
(3) In some cases, the detected concentration(s) for an analyte could be lower than the replacement value (% of the reporting limit) for a concentration that was nondetected. In an
extreme (but possible) case, this could result in an average concentration for an analyte that is greater than the maximum detected concentration.
3-42
-------
Proposed Draft
i i i i i i 7 i i i r
1000.0
"B> 100.Or
o
H—'
CD
CD
O
10.0 r
* i *:
O
° 1.0
-*
q 1 A I J) I I I o I T I I I L
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26
VOCs
Figure 3.1.11. Box and Dot
Bilgewater VOCs are identified
(1) 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
(2) 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene
(3) 2-Butanone
(4) 4-Isopropyltoluene
(5) Acetone
(6) Benzene
(7) Biphenyl
(8) Carbon Disulfide
(9) Chloroform
Density Plot of VOC Concentrations
as follows:
(10) Cis-l,2-Dichloroethene
(11) Cyclohexane
(12) Ethylbenzene
(13) Isopropylbenzene
(14) M-,P-Xylene (sum of
isomers)
(15) Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether
(Mtbe)
(16) Methylcyclohexane
(17) Methylene Chloride
Measured in Samples of
(18) Nonanal
(19) N-Pentadecane
(20) N-Propylbenzene
(21) O-Xylene
(22) Styrene
(23) Tetrachloroethene
(24) Toluene
(25) Trichloroethene
(26) Trichlorofluoromethane
3-43
-------
Proposed Draft
CD
H—'
O
Z3
a
"O
CD
N
CD
X
7d
d
CD
-i—<
O
CL
100.0000r
10.0000 r
1.0000 f"
0.1000r
0.0100r
0.0010r
0.0001
1—i—T—i—i—r
i—i—i—r
1 &
CK)
CM)
J I I I L
J I I I L
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26
VOCs
Figure 3.1.12. Box and
Samples of Bilgewater
(1) 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
(2) 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene
(3) 2-Butanone
(4) 4-Isopropyltoluene
(5) Acetone
(6) Benzene
(7) Biphenyl
(8) Carbon Disulfide
(9) Chloroform
Dot Density Plot of Potential Hazard Quotients for VOCs in
VOCs are identified as follows:
(10) Cis-l,2-Dichloroethene
(11) Cyclohexane
(12) Ethylbenzene
(13) Isopropylbenzene
(14) M-,P-Xylene
(sum of isomers)
(15) Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether
(Mtbe)
(16) Methylcyclohexane
(17) Methylene Chloride
(18) Nonanal
(19) N-Pentadecane
(20) N-Propylbenzene
(21) O-Xylene
(22) Styrene
(23) Tetrachloroethene
(24) Toluene
(25) Trichloroethene
(26) Trichlorofluoromethane
3-44
-------
Proposed Draft
3.2.1.7 Nonylphenols
Bilgewater samples were analyzed for 34 long- and short-chain nonylphenols. Of these
analytes, 14 nonylphenols were not detected and 20 were detected in a single bilgewater sample
(see Table 3.1.8). Of these 20 distinct nonylphenols, 16 were detected in the bilgewater from a
tour boat, three were detected in the bilgewater from a tow/salvage boat, and one was detected in
the bilgewater from a shrimper. Measured concentrations of nonylphenols in bilgewater ranged
from less than 1 |ig/L for three of the octylphenols (OPIOEO, OP12EO, and OP11EO) to 1,050
|ig/L for total nonylphenol polyethoxylates (sum of NPEOs - NP5EO through NP18EO). This
latter maximum concentration was measured in the bilgewater sample from the tour boat.
Although there is no NRWQC for nonylphenol polyethoxylates, they can degrade to
nonylphenol, which does have a NRWQC, in fresh and salt water.
The one detected concentration for nonylphenol (NP, representative of the same
concentration of nonylphenol isomers in the commercial mixture of isomers upon which EPA's
NRWQC is based - CAS #84852-15-3) of 4.9 |ig/L exceeded the saltwater chronic criterion of
1.7 |ig/L by less than a factor of three. The operators of this vessel added "Dawn" dish soap to
bilgewater prior to overboard discharge. However, this detergent is not necessarily the likely
source of the detected nonylphenol. Lubricants also contain nonylphenol. The likelihood that
"Dawn" detergent was not the source of the one detected concentration of nonylphenol is further
corroborated by the fact that the operators of three of the other vessels where bilgewater was
sampled also reported using commercial bilge cleaners, yet nonylphenol was not detect in these
samples. Furthermore, the operator of the tour boat from which 16 of the long- and short-chain
nonylphenols were detected made no comment about using bilge cleaners. Although the presence
of long- and short- chain nonylphenols in bilgewater may reflect, in general, the use of
detergents in various ship-board cleaning activities, using detergent as a bilge cleaning agent
does not appear to be responsible for the one exceedance of a conservative screening benchmark
for nonylphenols. Note, however, as previously discussed in Section 1.6.6, all long- and short-
chain nonylphenols eventually degrade to nonylphenol.
Nonylphenol was not analyzed for in the ambient surface water sample collected at the
location where the exceedance occurred (Pass Christian, Mississippi).
3-45
-------
Proposed Draft
Table 3.1.8. Results of Bilgewater Sample Analyses for Nonylphenols1
Analyte
Units
No.
samples
No.
Detected
Detected
Proportion
(%)
Average
Cone.'
Median
Cone.
Minimum
Cone.
10%
25%
75%
90%
Maximum
Cone.
Screening
BM'
Long-Chain Nonlylphenols
Total Nonylphenol Polyethoxylates
|jg/L
5
1
20
260
530
1100
1100
NA
Nonylphenol octodecaethoxylate (NP18EO)
|jg/L
5
1
20
0.78
1.8
3.6
3.6
NA
Nonylphenol heptadecaethoxylate (NP17EO)
|jg/L
5
1
20
1.8
4.2
8.4
8.4
NA
Nonylphenol hexadecaethoxylate (NP16EO)
|jg/L
5
1
20
3.6
8.2
16
16
NA
Nonylphenol pendecaethoxylate (NP15EO)
|jg/L
5
1
20
6.8
16
31
31
NA
Nonylphenol tetradecaethoxylate (NP14EO)
|jg/L
5
1
20
12
28
56
56
NA
Nonylphenol tridecaethoxylate (NP13EO)
|jg/L
5
1
20
20
44
88
88
NA
Nonylphenol dodecaethoxylate (NP12EO)
|jg/L
5
1
20
27
61
120
120
NA
Nonylphenol undecaethoxylate (NP11 EO)
|jg/L
5
1
20
35
77
150
150
NA
Nonylphenol decaethoxylate (NP10EO)
|jg/L
5
1
20
35
77
150
150
NA
Nonylphenol nonaethoxylate (NP9EO)
|jg/L
5
1
20
33
70
140
140
NA
Nonylphenol octaethoxylate (NP8EO)
|jg/L
5
1
20
28
57
110
110
NA
Nonylphenol heptaethoxylate (NP7EO)
|jg/L
5
1
20
22
42
83
83
NA
Nonylphenol hexaethoxylate (NP6EO)
|jg/L
5
1
20
16
27
53
53
NA
Nonylphenol pentaethoxylate (NP5EO)
|jg/L
5
1
20
9.7
14
27
27
NA
Octylphenol dodecaethoxylate (OP12EO)
|jg/L
5
1
20
0.97
0.25
0.49
0.49
NA
Octylphenol undecaethoxylate (OP11 EO)
|jg/L
5
1
20
1.4
0.38
0.77
0.77
NA
Octylphenol decaethoxylate (OP10EO)
|jg/L
5
1
20
3.2
0.39
0.78
0.78
NA
Short-Chain Nonylphenols
Bisphenol A
|jg/L
4
1
25
5.3
11
15
15
NA
Nonylphenols
NP
|jg/L
4
1
25
9.2
3.7
4.9
4.9
1.7
Notes:
(1) Nondetect (censored) concentrations were replaced with % of the reporting limit for calculating average concentrations. The remaining statistics in this table were only calculated
when analytes were detected at a sufficient frequency. For example, if an analyte was detected in fewer than 50% of samples, then a median concentration was not calculated. A blank
cell reflects a situation when a median or percentile could not be computed based on detected concentrations. The percentiles are the concentrations of each analyte below which at
least that percentage of the values fall. So the 10th percentile is the concentration below which at least 10% of the observations were found.
(2) Screening BM represents the screening benchmark referred to in Section 3.1.3, and is the most stringent 2006 NRWQC or other conservative benchmark used to calculate PHQs.
(3) In some cases, the detected concentration(s) for an analyte could be lower than the replacement value (% of the reporting limit) for a concentration that was nondetected. In an
extreme (but possible) case, this could result in an average concentration for an analyte that is greater than the maximum detected concentration.
3-46
-------
Proposed Draft
3.2.1.8 Summary of the Characterization of Bilgewater Discharge
Table 3.1.9 summarizes the specific analytes within bilgewater effluent that may have the
potential to pose risk to human health or the environment for these types of vessels based on
these samples. EPA's interpretation of a realized risk likely posed by these analytes, relative to
pollutant loadings, background ambient and source water contaminant levels and characteristics,
and other relevant information useful for this assessment, is presented in Chapter 5.
In summary, among the metals, dissolved copper, selenium, and zinc, as well as total
arsenic, were consistently measured at concentrations exceeding the most stringent NRWQC in
fishing vessels, tow/salvage vessels, water taxis, and tour vessels. The classical pollutants BOD,
sulfide, TSS, and TRC exceeded at least one of the screening benchmarks in fishing vessels,
tow/salvage vessels, water taxis, and tour vessels. Among the pathogen indicators, enterococcus
was the only taxa present at concentrations exceeding NRWQC, and these samples were
collected only from fishing boats. Total phosphorus was the only nutrient to exceed a screening
benchmark. Concentrations of the SVOC bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate exceeded NRWQC in the
bilgewater discharges of fishing vessels, tow/salvage vessels, water taxis, and tour vessels.
Benzene sampled from tow/salvage vessels was the only VOC found at concentrations exceeding
the most stringent NRWQC. The screening benchmark for nonylphenol was exceeded in a single
sample collected from a fishing vessel.
3-47
-------
Proposed Draft
Table 3.1.9. Characterization of Bilgewater Discharge and Summary of Analytes that May Have the Potential to Pose Risk
Analytes that May Have the Potential to Pose Risk in Bilgewater Discharge and Vessel Sources1'2
Vessel Type (no. vessels)
Microbiologicals
Volatile Organic Compounds
Semivolatile Organic Compounds
Metals (dissolved)
Metals (total)
Oil and Grease
Sulfide
Short-Chain Nonylphenols
Long-Chain Nonylphenols
Nutrients
BOD. COD. and TOC
Total Suspended Solids
Other Physical/Chemical
Parameters
Fishing (2)
Enterococcus
Cu, Se, Zn
As
X
X
Total P
BOD
X
TRC
Tow/Salvage (2)
Benzene
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)-
phthalate
Cu, Se, Zn
As
X
X
Total P
BOD
X
TRC
Water Taxis (2)
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)-
phthalate
Cu, Se, Zn
As
Total P
BOD
X
TRC
Tour (1)
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)-
phthalate
Cu, Cd, Se,
Zn
As
Total P
BOD
X
TRC
(1) Analytes are generally bolded when a large proportion of the samples have concentrations exceeding the NRWQC (e.g., 25 to 50 percent), when several of the samples have
PHQs > 10 (e.g., two or three of five), when a few samples result in PHQs greatly exceeding the screening benchmark (i.e., 100s to 1,000s), or, in the case of oil and grease and for
nonylphenol, when one or more samples exceed an existing regulatory limit by more than a factor of 2. See text in Section 3.1.3 for a definition of PHQs and Table 3.1 for screening
benchmarks used to calculate these values.
(2) EPA notes that the conclusion of potential risk is drawn from a small sample size, in some cases a single vessel, for certain discharges sampled from some vessel classes. EPA
included these results in the tables to provide a concise summary of the data collected in the study, but strongly cautions the reader that these conclusions, where there are only a few
samples from a given vessel class, should be considered preliminary and might not necessarily represent pollutant concentrations from these discharges from other vessels in this
class.
3-48
-------
Proposed Draft
3.2.2 Stern Tube Packing Gland Effluent
The packing gland or stuffing box surrounds the propeller shaft at the point it exits a
boat's hull underwater. Based on the vessels sampled for this analysis, using a packing gland is a
common method for preventing water from entering the hull while still allowing the propeller
shaft to turn. A stuffing box packed with greased flax rings is designed to leak a few drops per
minute of ambient water to cool the gland when a vessel is underway. Stuffing boxes are also
used to seal rudder stocks that penetrate the hull below the waterline. The packing gland effluent
water is often collected in a segregated section of the bilge that generally contains an automatic
bilge pump.
During this study, EPA observed this segregated discharge onboard tugboats but not on
any other vessel classes. In most of the other vessels sampled, the packing gland effluent dripped
directly into the bilge. Possible constituents of concern in the packing gland effluent include
metals (from contact of the discharge with the drive shaft), hydraulic fluid, grease or lubricants
found in the gland, and fuel constituents since the packing gland is located in the engine
compartment.
Based on field observations from EPA's vessel sampling program, EPA estimated the
drip rate into the stuffing box at approximately 10 drips per minute, which is consistent with the
literature data (Casey, 2007; Chin, 2005). This equates to a stern tube effluent generation rate of
between 2 and 4 gpd. Since most tugboats had dual propeller systems, these boats are expected to
generate between 4 and 8 gpd of stern tube effluent.
For this study, EPA collected samples from the packing gland effluent from nine
tugboats. Samples on these vessels were analyzed for metals (dissolved and total), classical
pollutants, nutrients, VOCs, SVOCs, and nonylphenols. Packing gland effluent samples were
collected by placing a glass transfer jar under the shaft to collect any water dripping and then
compositing the sample in a Teflon-lined pail. In some cases, EPA dipped the transfer jar into the
segregated bilge compartment. If the vessels had a dual propeller system, EPA collected samples
from each for the composite. However, samples for analysis of oil and grease and VOCs are not
appropriate to composite, so these samples were collected separately.
3.2.2.1 Metals
Packing gland effluent samples were analyzed for both total and dissolved concentrations
of 22 metals. Of the 22 metals, 18 total metals and 15 dissolved metals were detected in the EPA
sample set (see Table 3.2.1). Antimony, beryllium, silver, and cadmium were not detected in any
samples in the total or dissolved form, while cobalt, iron, thallium, and vanadium were not
detected in the dissolved form. Figures 3.2.1 and 3.2.2 present box and dot density plots of the
detected results for dissolved and total metals, respectively. The box and density plots in Figures
3-49
-------
Proposed Draft
3.2.3 and 3.2.4 present these same detected results for dissolved and total metals, respectively,
normalized by the lowest NRWQC where applicable. Points on these plots above the dashed line
(demarking a PHQ of 1) indicate metals concentrations exceeding the benchmark. With a few
exceptions, the results were below the PHQs at the point of sampling.
Dissolved and total aluminum were found in all nine samples analyzed. Dissolved
aluminum was detected at concentrations ranging from 7.8 to 150 [j,g/L in the packing gland
effluent; however, no screening benchmark is available for dissolved aluminum. Total aluminum
was detected at concentrations ranging from 50.7 to 6,400 [j,g/L and exceeded the screening
benchmark of 87 [j,g/L eight times. Arsenic, both total and dissolved, was detected in three of
nine samples in the packing gland effluent. All three total arsenic values exceeded the screening
benchmark of 0.018 [j,g/L (based on the human health criterion for drinking water plus fish
consumption) with values of 2.8, 4.4, and 15.3 (J,g/L. None of the three detected dissolved arsenic
values (1.2, 1.4 and 14.7 (J,g/L) exceeded the screening benchmark of 36 [j,g/L (based on the
saltwater chronic criterion for the protection of aquatic life). Dissolved copper was detected in
four of nine samples with values ranging froml6.2 to 92 (J,g/L. All four sample values exceeded
the screening benchmark of 3.1 (J,g/L. Total copper was detected in seven of the nine sample
from the packing gland effluent, with values ranging from 7 to 891 (J,g/L. None of the total
copper values exceeded the screening benchmark of 1,300 (J,g/L.
Dissolved and total nickel was detected in six of nine and eight of nine packing gland
effluent samples respectively. Two of the total nickel results (1,670 and 3230 (J,g/L) exceeded the
screening benchmark of 610 (J,g/L, while all of the dissolved nickel values exceeded the
screening benchmark of 8.2 (J,g/L. Zinc was found in seven of nine samples in the dissolved form
and eight of nine samples in the total form. One sample value of 120 [j,g/L for dissolved zinc
exceeded the screening benchmark of 81 (J,g/L. Selenium was found in three of nine samples in
the dissolved form and only one of nine samples in the total form. Dissolved chromium and lead
were also detected in several samples. Chromium values exceeded the benchmark criteria of 11
[j,g/L in four detected samples. Dissolved lead was detected at a concentration of 4.9 (J,g/L, which
slightly exceeded the benchmark of 2.5 (J,g/L.
Total iron, manganese, and thallium were all detected at levels below the screening
benchmarks, except for one sample for total thallium that was detected at the reporting level of 1
[j,g/L. This sample exceeded the benchmark of 0.24 [j,g/L for thallium and has a PHQ of 4.17 as
shown on Figure 3.2.4. Barium, sodium, and potassium, in both forms (total and dissolved) were
detected in three of three samples, but did not exceed benchmark criteria. The metals magnesium
and calcium, in both forms (total and dissolved); cobalt and vanadium (in total); and dissolved
manganese were detected in one or more samples but no screening criteria exists for these
compounds.
3-50
-------
Proposed Draft
EPA analyzed ambient metal concentrations to determine if dissolved and total aluminum
concentrations found in packing gland effluent were contributed primarily by the vessel or
reflected contributions primarily by background ambient concentrations. For both dissolved and
total aluminum, sample concentrations were moderately influenced by ambient background
concentrations, with ambient concentrations as high as 130 [j,g/L (dissolved aluminum) and 3,950
[j,g/L (total aluminum). For both dissolved and total arsenic, sample concentrations from stern
tube packing gland effluent were strongly influenced by ambient background concentrations.
Ambient dissolved and total arsenic concentrations as high as 16.1 and 15.4 (J,g/L, respectively,
were measured in water surrounding one of the three vessels sampled (a vessel sampled in
Baltimore, Maryland). The source of the arsenic detected in the surrounding background water is
unknown. Ambient background concentrations of both dissolved and total copper were
comparatively low relative to the packing gland effluent sample concentrations and therefore of
little influence (i.e., dissolved and total copper concentrations were largely from packing gland
effluent). As in the case of copper, nickel was not found at high levels in the surrounding
ambient water; thus, nickel is another metal that may have a significant source from the packing
gland effluent. All of the selenium values were consistent with concentrations in the surrounding
water. Neither chromium nor lead was strongly influenced by ambient concentrations in the
surrounding water. The concentrations barium, sodium, potassium, magnesium, calcium cobalt,
vanadium, and manganese generally reflect the concentrations in the surrounding water.
3-51
-------
Table 3.2.1. Results of Packing Gland Effluent Sample Analyses for Metals1
Proposed Draft
Analyte
Units
No.
samples
No.
detected
Detected
Proportion
(%)
Average
Cone.
Median
Cone.
Minimum
Cone.
10%
25%
75%
90%
Maximum
Cone.
Screening
BM?
Heavy and Other Metals
Aluminum, Dissolved4
mq/l
9
9
100
88
110
7.8
7.8
31
140
150
150
NA
Aluminum, Total4
mq/l
9
9
100
1200
300
51
51
170
1500
6400
6400
87
Arsenic, Dissolved3
Mg/L
9
3
33
3.3
1.3
15
15
36
Arsenic, Total3
Mg/L
9
3
33
3.8
3.6
15
15
0.018
Barium, Dissolved3
Mg/L
3
3
100
53
63
30
30
30
66
66
66
NA
Barium, Total3
Mg/L
3
3
100
88
98
32
32
32
140
140
140
1000
Chromium, Dissolved
mq/l
9
5
56
19
3.8
20
110
110
11
Chromium, Total
Mg/L
9
8
89
230
130
9.7
440
760
760
NA
Cobalt, Total4
Mg/L
3
2
67
3.0
2.9
5.6
5.6
5.6
NA
Copper, Dissolved
Mg/L
9
4
44
22
38
92
92
3.1
Copper, Total
Mg/L
9
7
78
140
20
3.5
150
890
890
1300
Iron, Total4
Mg/L
3
3
100
3900
2700
710
710
710
8300
8300
8300
300
Lead, Dissolved4
Mg/L
9
1
11
1.8
4.9
4.9
2.5
Lead, Total
Mg/L
9
3
33
7.9
8.9
43
43
NA
Manganese, Dissolved4
Mg/L
9
8
89
44
9.6
2.9
53
250
250
NA
Manganese, Total4
Mg/L
9
9
100
160
110
79
79
93
230
350
350
100
Nickel, Dissolved
Mg/L
9
6
67
210
13
370
1000
1000
8.2
Nickel, Total
Mg/L
9
8
89
610
45
12
970
3200
3200
610
Selenium, Dissolved3
Mg/L
9
3
33
8.1
1.2
41
41
5
Selenium, Total3
Mg/L
9
1
11
8.6
42
170
Thallium, Total4
Mg/L
3
1
33
0.67
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.24
Vanadium,Total3
Mg/L
3
1
33
4.6
13
13
NA
Zinc, Dissolved4
Mg/L
9
7
78
34
18
3.3
53
120
120
81
Zinc, Total
Mg/L
9
8
89
70
73
11o
120
180
180
7400
Cationic Metals
42
Calcium, Dissolved3
Mg/L
9
9
100
36000
24000
23000
23000
23000
35000
110000
110000
NA
Calcium, Total3
Mg/L
9
9
100
37000
24000
22000
22000
23000
39000
110000
110000
NA
3-52
-------
Table 3.2.1. Results of Packing Gland Effluent Sample Analyses for Metals1
Proposed Draft
Analyte
Units
No.
samples
No.
detected
Detected
Proportion
(%)
Average
Cone.
Median
Cone.
Minimum
Cone.
10%
25%
75%
90%
Maximum
Cone.
Screening
BM'
Magnesium, Dissolved3
Mg/L
9
9
100
40000
7800
6200
6200
6500
11000
290000
290000
NA
Magnesium, Total3
Mg/L
9
9
100
39000
7900
6000
6000
6300
12000
280000
280000
NA
Potassium, Dissolved3
mq/l
3
3
100
39000
4700
4000
4000
4000
110000
110000
110000
NA
Potassium, Total3
Mg/L
3
3
100
37000
4600
4600
4600
4600
100000
100000
100000
NA
Sodium, Dissolved3
^g/L
3
3
100
810000
20000
18000
18000
18000
2400000
2400000
2400000
NA
Sodium,Total3
Mg/L
3
3
100
810000
20000
17000
17000
17000
2400000
2400000
2400000
NA
Notes:
(1) Nondetect (censored) concentrations were replaced with % of the reporting limit for calculating average concentrations. The remaining statistics in this table were only calculated
when analytes were detected at a sufficient frequency. For example, if an analyte was detected in fewer than 50% of samples, then a median concentration was not calculated. A blank
cell reflects a situation when a median or percentile could not be computed based on detected concentrations. The percentiles are the concentrations of each analyte below which at
least that percentage of the values fall. So the 10th percentile is the concentration below which at least 10% of the observations were found.
(2) Screening BM represents the screening benchmark referred to in Section 3.1.3, and is the most stringent 2006 NRWQC or other conservative benchmark used to calculate PHQs.
(3) Sample concentrations are strongly influenced by background concentrations in ambient water, accounting for greater than 90% of sample concentrations in the majority of
samples.
(4) Sample concentrations are moderately influenced by background concentrations in ambient water, accounting for between 50 and 90% of sample concentrations in the majority of
samples.
3-53
-------
Proposed Draft
1000 -
CD
C
o
CD
s_
C
Q)
O
C
o
O
100 -
10-
1 -
i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—r
j i i L
_L
OOP 000000
T
Dissolved Metals
Figure 3.2.1. Box and Dot Density Plot of Dissolved Metals Concentrations Measured in
Samples of Packing Gland Effluent
3-54
-------
Proposed Draft
o 100|r
CO
i_
c
Q)
O
c
o
O
i—i—i—i—r
1000 r
CD
r®i
o
-e-
- "f*
o
10 r
1 r
J I I L
X
i—i—i—i—i—r
o
<5d
JpOQOOO
99
I I I
op
Total Metals
Figure 3.2.2. Box and Dot Density Plot of Total Metals Concentrations Measured in
Samples of Packing Gland Effluent
3-55
-------
Proposed Draft
100.0-
c
Q)
o
"O
s_
CO
N
CO
CO
c
Q)
O
~_
10.0 -
± 1.0-
0.1 -
i—i—r
i—i—r
9
oh
o
OMOQtoO
J I L
r©n
O
C
_ o OOQOQQ
cLaJ) pb,
o
-©-
o
(S)
Dissolved Metals
Figure 3.2.3. Box and Dot Density Plot of Potential Hazard Quotients for Dissolved Metals
in Samples of Packing Gland Effluent
3-56
-------
Proposed Draft
e i t i i i i i i i i i i i r
c
CD
O
=3
o
"O
s_
CO
N
CO
X
To
c
Q)
O
Q_
100.000
10.000
1.000
0.100
0.010
0.001
z. oc
-0-
oa
o
?
0
1
HJ I I I I L
crorfo-
0C
OQDOO
99
J
Total Metals
Figure 3.2.4. Box and Dot Density Plot of Potential Hazard Quotients for Total Metals in
Samples of Packing Gland Effluent
3-57
-------
Proposed Draft
3.2.2.2 Classical Pollutants
EPA sampled the packing gland effluent for numerous classical pollutants to further
characterize this discharge type for the tugboats sampled under this program. The classical
pollutants include measurements that are physical properties (temperature, conductivity, salinity,
turbidity, TSS), oxygen consumption (BOD, COD), oil and grease (HEM and SGT-HEM), as
well as chemical concentrations (pH, sulfide, DO, and TRC). Table 3.2.2 presents the data for
these parameters.
Figure 3.2.5 illustrates the varied concentrations of measured for these parameters in the
packing gland effluent. Most of the concentrations and values reported reflect the concentrations
and values in the ambient water surrounding the vessel, as this water is the source of the drive
shaft water. Two parameters (sulfide and TRC) were not detected in any samples.
The PHQs were calculated for the classical pollutants for which they were available.
Only two pollutants exceeded these PHQ screening benchmarks (see Figure 3.2.6): oil and
grease and TSS. One of the vessel samples had values which exceeded the screening benchmark
for oil and grease measured as both HEM and petroleum hydrocarbon (SGT-HEM). The
concentrations detected were 66.7 mg/L for HEM and 55.8 mg/L for SGT-HEM, both of which
exceeded the benchmark of 15 mg/L. EPA noted a visible oily sheen on the surface of this
effluent and evidence of settled hydrocarbons on the bottom of the tank as this sample was
collected. Based upon conversations with the vessel engineer, the likely source is an oil leak that
was somehow making its way into this effluent. This seems a plausible explanation given that
background concentrations of HEM and SGT-HEM in surrounding ambient water were very low
(<1.5 mg/L) relative to the measured sample concentrations.
Total suspended solids were detected in all nine samples collected from the packing
gland effluent. Two samples with concentrations of 269 and 134 mg/L exceeded the screening
benchmark of 98 mg/L.
3-58
-------
Proposed Draft
Table 3.2.2. Results of Packing Gland Effluent Sample Analyses for Classical Pollutants1
Analyte
Units
No.
samples
No.
detected
Detected
Proportion
(%)
Average
Cone.
Median
Cone.
Minimum
Cone.
10%
25%
75%
90%
Maximum
Cone.
Screening
BM'
Conductivity
mS/cm
9
9
100
1.6
0.30
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.55
12
12
NA
Dissolved Oxygen
mg/L
9
9
100
8.3
8.4
5.3
5.3
7.2
9.3
11
11
NA
Total Organic Carbon (TOC)
mg/L
7
7
100
3.5
3.5
2.2
2.2
2.6
4.8
4.9
4.9
NA
Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD)
mg/l
9
9
100
11
7.2
3.3
3.3
4.3
13
35
35
30
Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD)
mg/l
9
4
44
31
53
88
88
NA
Hexane Extractable Material (HEM)
mg/l
9
5
56
14
1.65
23
67
67
15
PH
SU
9
9
100
7.1
7.5
2.4
2.4
7.3
8.0
8.2
8.2
NA
Salinity
ppt
8
7
88
0.14
0.20
0.10
0.20
0.20
0.20
NA
Silica Gel Treated HEM (SGT-HEM)
mg/l
9
5
56
13
1.7
19
56
56
15
Temperature
C
9
9
100
20
20
9.3
9.3
18
23
26
26
NA
Total Suspended Solids (TSS)
mg/l
9
9
100
59
28
5.6
5.6
13
81
270
270
30
Turbidity
NTU
9
9
100
46
18
9.0
9.0
13
70
190
190
NA
Notes:
(1) Nondetect (censored) concentrations were replaced with % of the reporting limit for calculating average concentrations. The remaining statistics in this table were only calculated
when analytes were detected at a sufficient frequency. For example, if an analyte was detected in fewer than 50% of samples, then a median concentration was not calculated. A blank
cell reflects a situation when a median or percentile could not be computed based on detected concentrations. The percentiles are the concentrations of each analyte below which at
least that percentage of the values fall. So the 10th percentile is the concentration below which at least 10% of the observations were found.
(2) Screening BM represents the screening benchmark referred to in Section 3.1.3, and is the most stringent 2006 NRWQC or other conservative benchmark used to calculate PHQs.
3-59
-------
Proposed Draft
i—i—i—i—T
c
o
CD
s_
C
Q)
O
C
o
O
100.00 r
10.00 r.
1.00 r
0.10 r
0.01
"1—i—i
oooaaocg
QQQj)0
J I I I I I I rfr I I L
Classical Pollutants
Figure 3.2.5. Box and Dot Density Plot of Classical Pollutants Measured in Samples of
Packing Gland Effluent
3-60
-------
Proposed Draft
10
8
6
H—'
C
CD
4
O
=3
o
2
"O
«
CO
N
CO
X
To
c
Q)
O
~_
F~i—i—i—i—r
1 1 I I 1 1
op
J I I L
J I I I I L
Classical Pollutants
Figure 3.2.6. Box and Dot Density Plot of Potential Hazard Quotients for Classical
Pollutants in Samples of Packing Gland Effluent
3-61
-------
Proposed Draft
3.2.2.3 Nutrients
Packing gland effluent samples were analyzed for four nutrient-related parameters:
ammonia nitrogen, nitrate/nitrite, TKN, and total phosphorus (see Table 3.2.3). Figures 3.2.7 and
3.2.8 illustrate the variability of the nutrients in the packing gland effluent. Ammonia,
nitrate/ni trite, and TKN were detected in most of the samples analyzed, but in relatively low
concentrations. Phosphorus was detected in seven of the nine tugboat samples collected.
Only ammonia has a current numeric NRWQC value. The results for ammonia detected
in the packing gland effluent range from 0.07 to 0.23 mg/L, well below the benchmark of 1.2
mg/L. TKN and nitrate/ni trite were detected in all of the nine tugboat samples, with values
ranging from 0.40 to 1.8 mg/L for TKN to 0.62 to 1.5 mg/L for nitrate/ni trite. Total phosphorus
was detected in seven of the nine samples for packing gland effluent. The detected
concentrations ranged from 0.06 to 0.25 mg/L and only two values, 0.19 and 0.25 mg/L, exceed
the 0.1 mg/L benchmark.
Most of these values for ammonia, TKN, and nitrate/ni trite are consistent with ambient
background results in each location. The background ambient for these total phosphorus samples
reported values from 0.06 to 0.19 mg/L, indicating a moderate influence of surrounding ambient
water on sample concentrations.
In general, it appears that nutrient concentrations from packing gland effluent are
generally low and the wastestream does not appear to be adding significant nutrients to the
surrounding waters. Nutrient addition from packing gland effluent was not considered a likely
concern in this discharge relative to metals from contact of the discharge with the drive shaft,
hydraulic fluid, grease or lubricants from the gland, and fuel constituents.
3-62
-------
Proposed Draft
Table 3.2.3. Results of Packing Gland Effluent Sample Analyses for Nutrients1
Analyte
Units
No.
samples
No.
detected
Detected
Proportion
<%)
Average
Cone.
Median
Cone.
Minimum
Cone.
10%
25%
75%
90%
Maximum
Cone.
Screening
BM'
Ammonia As Nitrogen (NH3-N)
mg/L
9
7
78
0.10
0.10
0.034
0.14
0.23
0.23
1.2
Nitrate/Nitrite (N03/N02-N)
mg/L
9
9
100
0.69
0.62
0.085
0.085
0.58
0.80
1.5
1.5
NA
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN)
mg/L
9
9
100
1.1
1.4
0.41
0.41
0.69
1.4
1.8
1.8
NA
Total Phosphorus
mg/L
9
7
78
0.13
0.10
0.030
0.22
0.25
0.25
0.10
Notes:
(1) Nondetect (censored) concentrations were replaced with % of the reporting limit for calculating average concentrations. The remaining statistics in this table were only calculated
when analytes were detected at a sufficient frequency. For example, if an analyte was detected in fewer than 50% of samples, then a median concentration was not calculated. A blank
cell reflects a situation when a median or percentile could not be computed based on detected concentrations. The percentiles are the concentrations of each analyte below which at
least that percentage of the values fall. So the 10th percentile is the concentration below which at least 10% of the observations were found.
(2) Screening BM represents the screening benchmark referred to in Section 3.1.3, and is the most stringent 2006 NRWQC or other conservative benchmark used to calculate PHQs.
3-63
-------
Proposed Draft
CD
E
o
~C0
s_
C
Q)
O
C
o
O
,o-
Nutrients
Figure 3.2.7. Box and Dot Density Plot of Nutrient Concentrations Measured in Samples of
Packing Gland Effluent
3-64
-------
Proposed Draft
2.0
c
1.5
CD
O
1.0
=3
o
"O
s_
0.5
CO
N
CO
X
"ro
c
Q)
O
~_
k'N
* ^
0~
Nutrients
Figure 3.2.8. Box and Dot Density Plot of Potential Hazard Quotients for Nutrients in
Packing Gland Effluent
3-65
-------
Proposed Draft
3.2.2.4 Volatile and Semivolatile Organic Chemicals
Packing gland effluent samples were analyzed for 70 VOCs and 73 SVOCs in nine
tugboats (see Table 3.2.4). Of the analytes tested, six VOC compounds and 10 SVOC
compounds were detected in the samples. Figures 3.2.9 and 3.2.10 illustrate the range of
concentrations measured for SVOCs and VOCs, respectively.
Three VOCs, m-p-xylene, acetone, and methylene chloride, were detected in more than
one sample. Eight of the 10 SVOCs detected were found in one sample. Bis(2-ethylhexyl)
phthalate was found in the effluent of three vessels sampled and n-hexadecane was found in the
effluent of two of the vessels sampled. Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate was detected at notably high
(compared to ambient surrounding water) values of 2.8, 5.4, and 23.5 |ig/L. The only other
compound with a screening benchmark is di-n-butyl phthalate, which was detected in one sample
with a concentration of 2.45 |ig/L, which is well below the screening benchmark of 2,000 |ig/L.
These two phthalate compounds are used as plasticizers, and bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate is used
as a hydraulic fluid and as a dielectric fluid in capacitors.
Figure 3.2.12 presents the distributions of PHQs, based on the most conservative
screening benchmarks, for each VOC; none of the detected values exceed the screening
threshold17 . PQH was above one for all three samples of bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate, based on
the screening benchmark of 1.2 |ig/L (Figure 3.2.11).
Of the six VOC and 10 SVOC compounds detected in packing gland effluent samples,
bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate was the only compound whose measured concentrations in the
discharge was substantially higher than in ambient water; all other VOCs and SVOCs detected in
packing gland effluent appear to reflect the similar concentrations found in surrounding water.
17 PHQs for benzene, methylene chloride and tetrachloroethene in multiple packing gland effluent samples were
based on replacement values of Vi of the reporting limit for nondetected concentrations. In Figure 3.2.12 the PHQs
based on replacement values for nondetected concentrations have been circled for identification. EPA does not
consider PHQs that exceed 1 to signal that these discharges pose a potential risk to cause or contribute to the non-
attainment of a water quality standard when the PHQs are based on replacement values for nondetected
concentrations.
3-66
-------
Proposed Draft
Table 3.2.4. Results of Packing Gland Water Sample Analyses for SVOCs and VOCs1
Analyte
Units
No.
samples
No.
detected
Detected
Proportion
<%)
Average
Cone.
Median
Cone.
Minimum
Cone.
10%
25%
75%
90%
Maximum
Cone.
Screening
BM'
SVOCs
2,6,10,14-Tetramethyl Pentadecane
Mg/L
1
1
100
12
NA
3,6-Dimethylundecane
Mg/L
1
1
100
8.7
NA
5-Butyl-Hexadecane
mq/l
1
1
100
6.7
NA
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
ms/l
9
3
33
4.7
4.1
24
24
1.2
Di-n-butyl phthalate
mq/l
9
1
11
1.7
2.5
2.5
2000
Dodecane
^g/L
1
1
100
5.0
NA
Eicosane
Mg/L
1
1
100
5.4
NA
n-Hexadecane
Mg/L
2
2
100
5.5
6.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
NA
Nonanoic Acid
Mg/L
1
1
100
4.3
NA
VOCs
Acetone
Mg/L
3
3
100
2.9
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.7
3.2
3.2
3.2
NA
Benzene
Mg/L
9
1
11
1.4
0.20
0.20
2.2
m-,p-Xylene (sum of isomers)
Mg/L
3
2
67
1.7
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
NA
Methylene chloride
Mg/L
9
2
22
1.2
0.10
0.20
0.20
4.6
n-Pentadecane
Mg/L
1
1
100
11
NA
Sulfur dioxide
Mg/L
1
1
100
13
NA
Tetrachloroethene
Mg/L
9
1
11
1.4
0.20
0.20
0.69
Notes:
(1) Nondetect (censored) concentrations were replaced with % of the reporting limit for calculating average concentrations. The remaining statistics in this table were only calculated
when analytes were detected at a sufficient frequency. For example, if an analyte was detected in fewer than 50% of samples, then a median concentration was not calculated. A blank
cell reflects a situation when a median or percentile could not be computed based on detected concentrations. The percentiles are the concentrations of each analyte below which at
least that percentage of the values fall. So the 10th percentile is the concentration below which at least 10% of the observations were found.
(2) Screening BM represents the screening benchmark referred to in Section 3.1.3, and is the most stringent 2006 NRWQC or other conservative benchmark used to calculate PHQs.
(3) In some cases, the detected concentration(s) for an analyte could be lower than the replacement value (% of the reporting limit) for a concentration that was nondetected. In an
extreme (but possible) case, this could result in an average concentration for an analyte that is greater than the maximum detected concentration.
3-67
-------
Proposed Draft
25
20
15
i—r
i—r
10
c
o
CD
s_
C
Q)
O
C
o
O
5-
J I L
_L
J I L
0123456789 10
SVOCs
Figure 3.2.9. Box and Dot Density Plot of SVOC Concentrations Measured in Samples of
Packing Gland Effluent Samples SVOCs are identified as follows:
(1) 2,6,10,14-Tetramethyl Pentadecane
(2) 3,6-Dimethylundecane
(3) 5-Butyl-Hexadecane
(4) Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
(5) Di-n-butyl phthalate
(6) Dodecane
(7) Eicosane
(8) n-Hexadecane
(9) Nonanoic acid
3-68
-------
Proposed Draft
1 0.0 r
CD
c
o
CD
s_
C
Q)
O
C
o
O
Figure 3.2.10. Box and Dot Density Plot of VOC Concentrations Measured in Samples of
Packing Gland Effluent Samples VOCs are identified as follows:
(1) Acetone
(2) Benzene
(3) m-,p-Xylene (sum of isomers)
(4) Methylene chloride
(5) n-Pentadecane
(6) Sulfur dioxide
(7) Tetrachloroethene
3-69
-------
Proposed Draft
10.000 r
c
Q)
o 1.000 =
O
"O
i_
CO
N
CO
X
To
c
Q)
O
~_
0.1 00 r
0.010 =
0.001 r
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
SVOCs
7 8 9 10
Figure 3.2.11. Box and Dot Density Plot of Potential Hazard Quotients for SVOCs in
Samples of Packing Gland Effluent SVOCs are identified as follows:
(1) 2,6,10,14-Tetramethyl Pentadecane
(2) 3,6-Dimethylundecane
(3) 5-Butyl-Hexadecane
(4) Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
(5) Di-n-butyl phthalate
(6) Dodecane
(7) Eicosane
(8) n-Hexadecane
(9) Nonanoic Acid
3-70
-------
Proposed Draft
CO
N
CO
CO
c
Q)
O
~_
0.5
—
1 1
1 1
1 Q&) z
-
(^OQQQJOO]?"
-CD--
-
(oOQQQ<^
©
-
(^oooaoo^
O
0
1 1
OP
1 1
1 1
0 1
3 4 5
VOCs
6
8
Figure 3.2.12. Box and Dot Density Plot of Potential Hazard Quotients for VOCs in
Samples of Shaft Packing Gland Effluent. PHQs based on replacement values of Vi of the reporting limit
for nondetected concentrations are identified by ovals in this figure; refer to Section 3.3.2.4 for further discussion.
VOCs are identified as follows:
(1) Acetone
(2) Benzene
(3) m-,p-Xylene (sum of isomers)
(4) Methylene chloride
(5) n-Pentadecane
(6) Sulfur dioxide
(7) Tetrachloroethene
3-71
-------
Proposed Draft
3.2.2.5 Nonylphenols
EPA analyzed samples of shaft packing gland effluent for nonylphenols because of the
possibility of nonylphenol-containing water from the bilge or other areas of the vessel leaking
into the shaft packing gland effluent compartment. Table 3.2.5 presents the detected results.
Of the nine samples for which long- and short-chain nonylphenols were analyzed, only
six long-chain nonylphenols of the octylphenol polyethoxylate (OPEO) type were detected:
OP12EO, OP11EO, OPIOEO, OP9EO, OP8EO, and OP7EO. All of the detected OPEOs are
long-chain octylphenols and were found in one tugboat sampled. The OPEO with the longest
ethoxylate chain (OP12EO) was detected at the lowest concentration (Figure 3.2.13). The OPEO
isomers showed the trend of increasing concentrations as the size of the ethoxylate chain is
reduced (from OP12EO to OP7EO), indicating moderately advanced degradation of the long-
chain OPEOs in the packing gland.
Average concentrations of OPEOs with the longest ethoxylate chains (OP12EO through
OPIOEO) were similar to bilgewater effluent (see Table 3.1.8). In contrast to bilgewater effluent,
however, NP was not detected in packing gland effluent.
None of the OPEOs detected in the packing gland effluent sample were detected in
ambient water, indicating a probable source from onboard the vessel (tugboat) - possibly from
seepage from the bilge. Another possible source of OPEOs in packing gland effluent could be
from the use of lubricants for which octylphenol ethoxylates are common constituents.
3-72
-------
Proposed Draft
Table 3.2.5. Results of Packing Gland Water Sample Analyses for Nonylphenols1
Analyte
Units
No.
samples
No.
detected
Detected
Proportion (%)
Average
Cone.
Median
Cone.
Minimum
Cone.
10%
25%
75%
90%
Maximum
Cone.
Screening
BM'
Octylphenol dodecaethoxylate (OP12EO)
Mg/L
9
1
11
1.7
12
12
NA
Octylphenol undecaethoxylate (OP11 EO)
Mg/L
9
1
11
2.6
15
15
NA
Octylphenol decaethoxylate (OP10EO)
Mg/L
9
1
11
4.8
22
22
NA
Octylphenol nonaethoxylate (OP9EO)
Mg/L
9
1
11
5.3
26
26
NA
Octylphenol octaethoxylate (OP8EO)
Mg/L
9
1
11
10
30
30
NA
Octylphenol heptaethoxylate (OP7EO)
Mg/L
9
1
11
13
28
28
NA
Notes:
(1) Nondetect (censored) concentrations were replaced with % of the reporting limit for calculating average concentrations. The remaining statistics in this table were only calculated
when analytes were detected at a sufficient frequency. For example, if an analyte was detected in fewer than 50% of samples, then a median concentration was not calculated. A blank
cell reflects a situation when a median or percentile could not be computed based on detected concentrations. The percentiles are the concentrations of each analyte below which at
least that percentage of the values fall. So the 10th percentile is the concentration below which at least 10% of the observations were found.
(2) Screening BM represents the screening benchmark referred to in Section 3.1.3, and is the most stringent 2006 NRWQC or other conservative benchmark used to calculate PHQs.
3-73
-------
Proposed Draft
35
30
nr
25
=3
C
O
20
CD
s_
C
Q)
15
O
t—
O
O
QX Ox Ox Ox
Nonylphenols
Figure 3.2.13. Box and Dot Density Plot of Nonylphenol Concentrations Measured in
Samples of Packing Gland Effluent
3-74
-------
Proposed Draft
3.2.2.6 Summary of the Characterization of Packing Gland Discharge
Table 3.2.6 summarizes the specific analytes within packing gland effluent that may have
the potential to pose risk to human health or the environment for these types of vessels based
upon these samples. EPA's interpretation of a realized risk likely posed by these analytes,
relative to pollutant loadings, background ambient and source water contaminant levels and
characteristics, and other relevant information useful for this assessment, is presented in Chapter
5.
To summarize the results of packing gland discharge measured in the nine tugboats,
metals were the constituents found most frequently and with the highest magnitudes of
exceedance of their respective screening benchmarks. Among the dissolved forms of metals,
concentrations of copper and nickel exceeded the most stringent NRWQC benchmarks. Among
the total forms of metals, aluminum, arsenic, iron, and manganese exceeded the most stringent
NRWQC benchmarks. However, concentrations of total iron and total manganese in surrounding
(ambient) waters were similar to concentrations measured in packing gland discharge. Among
the classical pollutants, most of the concentrations and values reported reflect the concentrations
and values in the ambient water surrounding the vessel, as this water is the source of the drive
shaft water. Two (of nine) total phosphorus samples exceeded the screening benchmark;
however, these concentrations were similar to total phosphorus concentrations in the surrounding
waters. Among the remaining contaminants, the SVOC bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate had a PHQ of
>10 for one of the vessels sampled, and six of the relatively long-chained octylphenols were
measured in one of the nine vessels sampled.
3-75
-------
Proposed Draft
Table 3.2.6. Characterization of Packing Gland Effluent and Summary of Analytes that May Have the Potential to Pose Risk
Analytes that
May Have the Potential to Pose Risk in Packing Gland and Vessel Sources1
Vessel Type (no. vessels)
Microbiologicals
Volatile Organic Compounds
Semivolatile Organic Compounds
Metals (dissolved)
Metals (total)
Oil and Grease
Sulfide
Short-Chain Nonylphenols
Long-Chain Nonylphenols
Nutrients
BOD. COD. and TOC
Total Suspended Solids
Other Physical/Chemical
Parameters
Tugboats (9)
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)-
phthalate
Cu, Ni
As, Al
X
X
(1) Analytes are generally bolded when a large proportion of the samples have concentrations exceeding the NRWQC (e.g., 25 to 50 percent), when several of the samples have PHQs > 10 (e.g.,
two or three of five), when a few samples result in PHQs greatly exceeding the screening benchmark (i.e., 100s to 1,000s), in the case of oil and grease and for nonylphenol, when one or more
samples exceed an existing regulatory limit by more than a factor of 2, or when concentrations of analytes are sufficiently high that they may have the potential to pose risks to local water bodies.
See text in Section 3.1.3 for a definition of PHQs and Table 3.1 for screening benchmarks used to calculate these values.
3-76
-------
Proposed Draft
3.2.3 Deck Washdown
Deck washdowns involve removing dirt, grit, or other materials that can impact the
integrity of the deck surface (for aesthetic and safety reasons) and are a common vessel
maintenance task. The process uses hoses and/or swabs (mops) to move the deck washdown
water, debris, and cleaning agents (if any) to the scuppers, which then discharge the water
overboard. EPA collected samples of deck water as it is drained through the scupper against the
hull of the vessel (see Section 2.2.4 Sampling Methods). More than half the vessels sampled
reported using detergents (dish soaps, ZEP™, Simple Green™) or other cleaners (chlorine
bleach) during the washdown process. Depending on the vessel's design and function, deck
washdown water sometimes contains contaminants such as detergents, metals, oil, particulates,
and pathogens (the latter primarily from catch brought onboard fishing vessels).
Deck washdowns can occur at any time onboard these classes of vessels. Fishing vessels
most often discharge while underway either into the nearshore (< 3 Nm from shore) or farshore
(> 3 Nm from shore). Washdowns are usually performed on fishing vessels after nets are pulled,
fish are brought onboard and cleaned, while returning to port, and after offloading the catch.
EPA notes that the majority of deck washdown samples from fishing vessels were taken while
the vessel was shoreside, and do not reflect constituents of deck washdown while the vessel is
engaged in fishing operations. Decks are washed less frequently for other types of vessels such
as water taxis, tour boats, and tow boats. Wash locations are generally pierside after excursions
or within the harbor for these types of vessels.
The volume of deck washdown water generated by a vessel depends on the frequency of
deck washdown, the flow rate from the hose, and the washdown time. Since most vessels use a
common garden-hose for deck washdowns, EPA estimated the flow rate to be between 10 and 12
gallons per minute (gpm). The time required for deck washdown varies depending on the type of
vessel and size. EPA observed during the vessel sampling program that most deck washdowns
were generally 15 minutes or less.
To estimate the daily volume of deck washdown water generated from the different
vessel classes, EPA assumed tour boats, water taxis, and tow boats washed their decks once
every two weeks. For these types of vessels, the average deckwash water volume would range
between 10 and 15 gpd. Deckwash water volumes for fishing boats varies depending on the type
of boat. For example, trailers, trawlers, gill netters, and purse seiners sometimes wash their decks
three to four times per day while fishing, plus one additional time after unloading seafood at the
processing facility. For these vessels, deckwash volumes might range between 750 and 900 gpd.
3-77
-------
Proposed Draft
Collecting Deck Washdown Samples from a Tow and Salvage Vessel
Deck Washdown Sample Collected in a Lined Bucket
3-78
-------
Proposed Draft
For this study, EPA collected deck washdown samples from 32 vessels: 11 fishing
vessels (gillnetter, trawlers, and trailers), nine tugboats, six tow/salvage vessels, two tour boats, a
water taxi, a fire boat, a supply boat, and a recreational boat (see Table 2-1). EPA collected
single grab samples from one or more scuppers (composited sample if more than one accessible
scupper) on selected vessels for laboratory analysis in order to determine representative pollutant
concentrations for deck washdown across the range of normal vessel operations.
EPA also sampled a deck runoff discharge during a rain event. Deck runoff differs from
washdown in that the runoff discharge occurs because of precipitation or spray landing on the
deck in sufficient quantities to mobilize pollutants on the deck surface rather than an intentional
introduction of washdown water (often including detergents). However, deck runoff incorporates
pollutants that would have been included in an eventual washdown so the samples are
comparable. The deck runoff sample was collected from a fishing trawler that was being
unloaded at a fish processing facility in the Northeastern United States.
EPA focused its sampling effort on the following analyte groups in deck
washdown/runoff that were expected to be present in the discharge: metals, classical pollutants,
pathogen indicators (commercial fishing vessels only), nutrients, nonylphenols, and semivolatile
and volatile organic compounds (tow/salvage vessels only). Results for each class of pollutant
are presented and discussed in the subsections below.
3.2.3.1 Metals
Deck washdown water samples were analyzed for dissolved and total metals. The
analytical results are summarized in Table 3.3.1. The following metals were detected in 90
percent or more of the deck washdown water samples:
Dissolved and total aluminum
Dissolved and total barium
Total chromium
Total cobalt
Dissolved and total copper
Total iron
Total lead
Dissolved and total manganese
Dissolved and total zinc.
Concentrations of a number of other metals were detected in 50 percent or more of the
samples analyzed:
3-79
-------
Proposed Draft
• Total antimony
• Dissolved arsenic18
• Dissolved chromium
• Dissolved cobalt
• Dissolved iron
• Dissolved and total nickel
• Dissolved selenium
• Dissolved and total vanadium.
Figure 3.3.1 presents the concentration ranges for dissolved metals detected in the
samples. These plots show that dissolved metals concentrations span three orders of magnitude.
Aside from the alkali and alkali earth metals that are major ions in seawater (Na, K, Ca, Mg),
average dissolved concentrations of iron, aluminum, and zinc were highest, followed by
dissolved barium, manganese, and copper. Concentrations of total metals are displayed in Figure
3.3.2, and follow the same general pattern, but are much higher than their corresponding
dissolved metal concentrations (fjs substantially <1.0), except for Na, K, Ca, and Mg, which
exist almost entirely in their dissolved forms (see Table 3.3.1).
For all metals, the mean ratios of dissolved to total metal concentrations (fds) in a
particular sample range from a low of 0.11 for aluminum to 0.89 for selenium (Table 3.3.2). The
fds for the 13 (out of 14) metals for which corresponding data are available are approximately
equal to or less than 50 percent, indicating that at least half of the total metal concentration in
deck washdown water samples is in particulate form. Such results were expected from certain
vessels (e.g., tugboats and supply boats) where particulate material was readily visible on deck
surfaces. Particulate metal is less biologically available than dissolved metals, and therefore less
likely to cause an immediate toxic effect in aquatic organisms.
Dissolved cadmium concentrations were detected in two of the 31 vessels sampled - a
supply and tow/salvage boat. The concentrations were 1.2 (supply boat) and 22.4 |ig/L
(tow/salvage boat), which exceeded the saltwater chronic aquatic life criterion (8.8 |ig/L) in the
case of the tow/salvage boat and the freshwater chronic aquatic life criterion (0.25 |ig/L) in both
cases.
Deck washdown water samples collected from 29 of the 31 vessels sampled contained
dissolved copper concentrations that exceeded the saltwater chronic aquatic life criterion of 3.1
|ig/L. Dissolved copper concentrations ranged from 2.5 |ig/L for a tug and fishing (trawler) boat
18 Even though a dissolved metal is detected in 50% of the samples, it does not mean that the total metal value
(which includes dissolved and particulate metals) are considered to be detected in the laboratory analyses. All
dissolved metal detections are not considered total metal detections because the detection limits differ for a given
sample based on dissolved versus total recoverable metal analyses. For example, in the case of selenium, the
detection limit for total recoverable selenium was 5 ug/L for the analysis. In contrast, the detection limit for
dissolved selenium in these analyses was as low as 1 ug/L.
3-80
-------
Proposed Draft
to 204 |ig/L for the supply boat. The dissolved copper concentrations in deck washdown samples
from the tug and assorted fishing boats were evenly distributed across the entire range of
measured dissolved copper concentrations, while the tow/salvage, fire, taxi, tour, and supply
boats all had relatively high dissolved copper concentrations (above 30 |ig/L).
Dissolved lead concentrations exceeding the freshwater chronic aquatic life criterion (2.5
|ig/L) were limited to just three (of nine) tugboats, five (of six) tow/salvage boats, one of the two
tour boats, and the fire and supply boats. Dissolved lead concentrations exceeding chronic
aquatic life criterion concentrations ranged from 2.9 |ig/L for one of the tugboats to 53.5 |ig/L
for the supply boat.
Similar to dissolved copper, dissolved zinc in deck washdown samples collected from the
majority of vessels sampled (22 of 31) exceeded the most stringent 2006 NRWQC - the saltwater
chronic aquatic life criterion of 81 |ig/L. In contrast to dissolved copper, however, only the deck
washdown samples from the various types of fishing boats appeared to be evenly distributed
throughout the entire measured dissolved zinc concentration range, while dissolved zinc in deck
washdown water samples collected from all the tugboats exceeded the criterion. Dissolved zinc
concentrations in deck washdown water samples ranged from 16 |ig/L for a fishing vessel (the
gillnetter) to 1,200 |ig/L for one of the tugboats. All but one of the tow/salvage boats produced
dissolved zinc in deck washdown water samples exceeding the criterion, as did the tour, fire, and
supply boats (the last with a measured dissolved zinc concentration of 465 |ig/L).
For the other dissolved metals (chromium, nickel, and selenium) where measured
concentrations exceeded the saltwater and/or freshwater criteria in one or more of the deck
washdown water samples, the PHQs were generally less than two. For both chromium and
nickel, the tow/salvage vessel type had the greatest number of dissolved metal concentration
exceedances for their respective most stringent criteria. No information was available concerning
the frequency of deck washdowns for the supply vessel, although this particular vessel is known
to transport petroleum products, and its deck appeared visibly "soiled" to the samplers.
According to the surveys, the tow/salvage boats generally undergo deck washdowns once to
twice per week, about the same frequency as tugboats, but less frequent than the fishing and tour
boats.
Four of the total metals (aluminum, arsenic, iron, and manganese) exceeded the most
stringent 2006 NRWQC in approximately half (manganese) or all the deck washdown water
samples (aluminum, arsenic, and iron), although sample concentrations of these metals appear to
be greatly influenced by surrounding ambient water concentrations (see Table 3.3.3). This
pattern was identical to the one observed for bilgewater discharge. In contrast to the bilgewater
samples, about half the deck washdown water samples for a fifth metal (antimony) exceeded the
most stringent 2006 NRWQC in the deck washdown water samples, as shown in Figure 3.3.4.
PHQs for total arsenic ranged from 56 to 4,600. All of the total arsenic concentrations exceeded
3-81
-------
Proposed Draft
the most stringent human health (water plus organism consumption) criterion of 0.018 |ig/L, as
well as the human health criterion for organism consumption alone, 0.14 |ig/L. The protective
human health criteria values for total arsenic are driven by the carcinogenic potential of this
metalloid. However, when compared to the less stringent saltwater chronic aquatic life criterion
for arsenic of 36 |ig/L, only five of the 31 vessels produced total arsenic concentrations in deck
washdown water samples that exceeded this less stringent criterion, and the corresponding PHQs
ranged only from 1.0 to 2.3. These total arsenic exceedances were found on a fishing (shrimping)
vessel, three (of the six) tow/salvage vessels, and the fire boat. In fact, the total arsenic
concentrations in deck washdown water samples from all six of the tow/salvage boats were close
to or within the upper quartile of samples.
Figure 3.3.3 displays the distribution of PHQs based on the most conservative (most
protective) screening benchmark for each of the dissolved metals. PHQs for four of the dissolved
metals (cadmium, copper, lead, and zinc) include values from greater than 10 to over 100,
indicating that the measured concentrations were one or more orders of magnitude greater than
the most conservative screening benchmark. In addition, although the mean dissolved selenium
PHQ was less than one, there were two measured occurrences where PHQ exceeded 10. PHQs
exceeding one were also observed for dissolved chromium and nickel, bringing to seven the
number of dissolved metals that exceeded the most stringent 2006 NRWQC in one or more deck
washdown water samples.
PHQs for total aluminum were also high, ranging from 7.5 to 150, followed closely by
total iron, with PHQs ranging from 3.1 to 48. For both metals, the majority of tug and
tow/salvage boats were consistently above the median (middle concentration of the range) of
total metal concentrations (in addition to the fire and supply boats), while the fishing boats were
below the respective median total metal concentrations. Conversely, only three of the PHQs for
total manganese exceeded a value of 5 (a tugboat, the supply boat, and the water taxi).
The frequency of PHQ exceedances for antimony, like total arsenic, are driven by the low
human health (water plus organism consumption) criterion of 5.6 |ig/L (the human health
criterion for organism consumption alone (640 |ig/L) is much higher. Only five of the 19 vessels
from which deck washdown water samples were obtained had PHQ below 1, and were collected
from the supply, fire, recreational, and two of the salvage vessels. Among the PQHs for
antimony that were greater than 1, the low PHQ of 5.2 corresponded with the supply boat, and
the high PHQ of 47 corresponded with a tow/salvage vessel - a PHQ value three times higher
than in the recreational vessel (PHQ = 15).
From the perspective of potential risk, the discharges of metals where dissolved and total
concentrations exceed EPA's most stringent criteria correlate most strongly to utility, passenger,
or general service vessels such as the supply boat, tow/salvage boats, tugboats, water taxi, and
3-82
-------
Proposed Draft
fire boat. Commercial fishing vessels may not be a source of concern except for metals such as
dissolved copper.
EPA tested the hypothesis that the utility, service, and passenger vessels (referred to as
nonfishing vessels) discharged metals at higher concentrations than fishing vessels per discharge
event using two approaches. For both approaches, 20 nonfishing vessels (the tow/salvage boats,
tugboats, tour vessels, fire boat, water taxi, and supply vessels) were compared to the 10 fishing
vessels (six shrimping vessels, two trawlers, one trailer, and a gillnetter). For the analysis, when
multiple minimum detection limits were reported for a particular metal, the minimum
concentration was set to V2 of the highest reporting limit. This more conservative approach was
chosen to reduce the likelihood of detecting a difference that was not a "true" difference (Type I
error).
For the first approach, a subset of the metals with the highest frequencies of screening
benchmark (NRWQC) exceedance from the nonfishing vessels were compared to those from the
fishing vessels. Although there is no NRWQC for total lead, this metal was used in these
analyses because of the high proportion of nondetects in the dissolved form. This analysis was
performed using modified t-tests for unequal sample sizes and uneven variances (see Table
3.3.4). Concentrations of dissolved zinc and total lead were significantly higher in deck
washdown discharges of non-fishing vessels (e.g., tug boats) than fishing vessels. Although
concentrations of total arsenic were not significantly different between nonfishing and fishing
vessels, when the six tow/salvage vessels were compared to the remaining 24 vessels, total
arsenic concentrations in the tow/salvage vessels were significantly higher than in other vessels
(Table 3.3.4). When this analysis was performed for dissolved lead despite the occurrence of
nondetects, the results were the same (i.e., concentrations of dissolved lead in industrial vessels
were higher than in fishing vessels).
For the second approach, mean concentrations for both dissolved and total forms of the
heavy metals (cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, nickel, zinc) were compared using an exact
binomial test. This approach assumes that, even if the difference in mean concentrations between
nonfishing and fishing vessels for any given metal is not statistically significant, if the mean
metal concentrations from a particular vessel class are always or nearly always lower than those
of another class of vessels, then the overall trend may be statistically significant. Both dissolved
and total metals concentrations of all six heavy metals were higher in nonfishing vessel
discharges than in fishing vessel discharges (see Table 3.3.5). A binomial test was then
performed to determine whether the overall pattern of lower mean metal concentrations in
fishing vessel discharges could be attributed to chance, assuming an equal likelihood that
concentrations in fishing vessels or industrial vessels would be lower. The probability that mean
concentrations of all six metals (either dissolved or total) would be lower in fishing vessels
compared to nonfishing vessels, given an equal likelihood of either outcome occurring, was
statistically significant (P = 0.016). The probability of concentrations being lower in fishing
3-83
-------
Proposed Draft
vessels for all 12 comparisons (six dissolved metals + six total metals) was also statistically
significant (P = 0.0002). The mean concentrations of these heavy metals by vessel class are
shown in Table3.3.5. Results of this analysis support the assertion that metals from deck
washdown discharges from nonfishing (utility, service, and passenger) vessels tend to be higher
than metals from deck washdown discharges from fishing vessels for each discharge event.
One possible explanation for the higher metal concentrations in nonfishing vessels is that
the frequent washing of fishing vessels' decks may prevent metal build-up and keep metal
concentrations lower in each individual deck washdown discharge.
With regard to assessing potential risk, it is important to understand that, for most of the
metals identified above as of potential concern in deck washdown water, maximum metal
concentrations in the ambient or potable water used for deck washdown (see left half of Table
3.3.3) were higher than the median metal concentrations in deck washdown water samples
(Table 3.3.1). The ambient receiving waters to which these deck washdown waters are being
discharged have metal concentrations that often exceed the most stringent NRWQC (see right
half of Table 3.3.3). The relatively high metals concentrations for the five dissolved metals
(copper, manganese, nickel, selenium, zinc) in potable water and four total metals (aluminum,
arsenic, iron, lead) in ambient water can at least partially account for the high concentrations of
metals found in some of the deck wash discharges. Furthermore, based on corresponding
concentrations of alkali and alkali earth metals (calcium, magnesium, sodium, and potassium) in
the deck washdown water samples (see Table 3.3.1), few, if any, of the potentially toxic
dissolved metal concentrations are likely to be bioavailable to biological organisms because of
the high hardness values, which reduce metal bioavailability.
In summary, metals were frequently detected in deck washdown water samples, with
certain metals occurring much more frequently at levels that may have potential for risk than
others. EPA found high concentrations of a number of dissolved and total metals in these
samples. Dissolved cadmium, copper, lead, and zinc were consistently elevated above the most
conservative screening benchmarks, with all the PHQ values in the 1 to 100 range. However,
dissolved cadmium concentrations measured in deck washdown water samples were only
detected in two of 31 vessels. For these and other metals (total aluminum, arsenic, iron, and
manganese), concentrations measured in most if not all of the water samples exceeded saltwater
and/or freshwater criteria.
3-84
-------
Proposed Draft
Table 3.3.1. Results of Deck Washdown/Runoff Sample Analyses for Metals1
Analyte
Units
No.
samples
No.
detected
Detected
Proportion
<%)
Average
Cone.
Median
Cone.
Minimum
Cone.
10%
25%
75%
90%
Maximum
Cone.
Screening
BM'
Heavy and Other Metals
Aluminum, Dissolved
Mg/L
31
28
90
420
260
1.7
31
570
1100
1900
NA
Aluminum, Total
ug/L
31
30
97
3400
1900
820
990
4700
8300
13000
87
Antimony, Dissolved
Mg/L
19
9
47
7.3
4.2
13
91
NA
Antimony, Total
Mg/L
19
13
68
26
1.9
29
86
260
5.6
Arsenic, Dissolved
^g/L
31
19
61
6.4
2.3
9.8
13
28
36
Arsenic, Total
Mg/L
31
23
74
18
8.3
29
49
83
0.018
Barium, Dissolved
Mg/L
19
19
100
63
42
23
27
33
69
96
280
NA
Barium, Total
Mg/L
19
19
100
270
100
52
59
70
160
1300
1400
1000
Cadmium, Dissolved
Mg/L
31
2
6
1.3
22
0.25
Cadmium, Total
Mg/L
31
5
16
2.0
1.7
36
NA
Chromium, Dissolved
Mg/L
31
17
55
5.1
2.3
9.1
16
18
11
Chromium, Total
Mg/L
31
29
94
34
24
8.3
55
84
130
NA
Cobalt, Dissolved
Mg/L
19
12
63
2.7
1.3
3.9
8.2
14
NA
Cobalt, Total
Mg/L
19
18
95
6.0
4.1
3
1
2.0
6.7
20
26
NA
Copper, Dissolved
Mg/L
31
29
94
42
23
7.2
59
120
200
3.1
Copper, Total
Mg/L
31
31
100
130
110
6.41
1 12
47
160
340
530
1300
Iron, Dissolved
Mg/L
19
12
63
520
190
5
6
1100
1100
3000
NA
Iron, Total
Mg/L
19
18
95
4400
2300
950
1700
5300
13000
15000
300
Lead, Dissolved
Mg/L
31
15
48
6.0
4.7
19
54
2.5
Lead, Total
Mg/L
31
30
97
48
23
8.0
42
160
260
NA
Manganese, Dissolved
Mg/L
31
29
94
60
35
2.7
11
91
200
240
NA
Manganese, Total
Mg/L
31
28
90
210
98
3
6 4.3
55
300
540
1300
100
Nickel, Dissolved
Mg/L
31
19
61
6.9
4.8
8.2
13
17
8.2
Nickel, Total
Mg/L
31
25
81
16
12
6.2
18
27
100
610
Selenium, Dissolved
Mg/L
31
17
55
8.9
1.1
2.1
25
82
5.0
Selenium, Total
Mg/L
31
12
39
9.5
1.8
23
96
170
Thallium, Dissolved
Mg/L
19
1
5
0.64
3.2
NA
Vanadium, Dissolved
Mg/L
19
14
74
1.9
1.3
2.0
5.2
7.6
NA
Vanadium,Total
Mg/L
19
16
84
9.8
6.2
2.9
9.8
20
58
NA
3-85
-------
Proposed Draft
Table 3.3.1. Results of Deck Washdown/Runoff Sample Analyses for Metals1
Analyte
Units
No.
samples
No.
detected
Detected
Proportion
(%)
Average
Cone.
Median
Cone.
Minimum
Cone.
10%
25%
75%
90%
Maximum
Cone.
Screening
BM''
Zinc, Dissolved
Mg/L
31
31
100
260
120
16
35
51
430
620
1200
81
Zinc, Total
|jg/L
31
31
100
580
330
20
52
150
720
1400
4000
7400
Cationic Metals
Calcium, Dissolved
Mg/L
31
31
100
73000
34000
5900
25000
32000
83000
190000
320000
NA
Calcium, Total
ug/L
31
31
100
77000
39000
7300
27000
34000
88000
190000
310000
NA
Magnesium, Dissolved
Mg/L
31
31
100
130000
14000
6600
7000
7900
59000
510000
1000000
NA
Magnesium, Total
Mg/L
31
31
100
130000
19000
6800
7800
9200
59000
510000
1000000
NA
Potassium, Dissolved
Mg/L
19
19
100
30000
8000
3300
4000
5400
24000
140000
180000
NA
Potassium, Total
Mg/L
19
19
100
30000
8100
3600
3900
5600
25000
130000
180000
NA
Sodium, Dissolved
Mg/L
19
19
100
510000
79000
26000
38000
45000
410000
2800000
3600000
NA
Sodium,Total
Mg/L
19
19
100
510000
78000
24000
38100
45000
400000
2600000
3600000
NA
Notes:
(1) Nondetect (censored) concentrations were replaced with % of the reporting limit for calculating average concentrations. The remaining statistics in this table were only calculated
when analytes were detected at a sufficient frequency. For example, if an analyte was detected in fewer than 50% of samples, then a median concentration was not calculated. A blank
cell reflects a situation when a median or percentile could not be computed based on detected concentrations. The percentiles are the concentrations of each analyte below which at
least that percentage of the values fall. So the 10th percentile is the concentration below which at least 10% of the observations were found.
(2) Screening BM represents the screening benchmark referred to in Section 3.1.3, and is the most stringent 2006 NRWQC or other conservative benchmark used to calculate PHQs.
3-86
-------
Proposed Draft
Table 3.3.2. Dissolved-to-Total Metal Ratios (fds) in Paired Deck Washdown/Runoff
Samples
Metal
Summary Statistics of Dissolved:Total
Metal Ratios Calculated for Select Metals
Geomean
Median
Min
Max
Aluminum
0.10
0.12
0.010
1.00
Iron
0.12
0.090
0.050
0.33
Lead
0.14
0.18
0.030
0.62
Chromium
0.16
0.13
0.060
0.76
Vanadium
0.25
0.26
0.12
1.13
Manganese
0.25
0.28
0.010
0.93
Antimony
0.30
0.34
0.14
0.64
Copper
0.33
0.34
0.050
1.04
Arsenic
0.38
0.47
0.060
0.93
Cadmium
0.48
0.49
0.36
0.62
Nickel
0.50
0.53
0.17
0.93
Cobalt
0.53
0.52
0.26
1.25
Zinc
0.54
0.54
0.18
2.95
Selenium
0.89
0.89
0.61
1.30
Table 3.3.3. Minimum and Maximum Dissolved and Total Metal Concentrations in Vessel
Source1 and Ambient2 (Harbor) Water Relative to Median Sample Concentrations and
Most Stringent Screening Benchmarks
Metal
Source
Water
Cone,
(min)
Source
Water
Cone,
(max)
N
Median
Cone.
From
Table
3.3.1
Ambient
Cone,
(min)
Ambient
Cone,
(max)
N
Most
Stringent
Screening
BM
Aluminum, Dissolved
6.3
310
6
258
0
870
12
NA
Aluminum, Total
8.6
250
6
1900
44.5
3950
15
87
Arsenic, Dissolved
0
1.9
3
2.3
2
26
8
36
Arsenic, Total
0
1.8
3
8.3
2.9
28.9
8
0.018
Copper, Dissolved
2.4
36
5
23.1
0
24.2
10
3.1
Copper, Total
2.6
51
4
109
0
23.3
11
1300
Iron, Dissolved
0
0
1
189.5
226
259
2
NA
Iron, Total
0
801
4
2330
114
4180
8
300
Lead, Total
1.2
6
2
23
0
3.1
3
2.5**
Manganese,
Dissolved
0
33
6
34.8
0
106
11
NA
Manganese, Total
3.6
37
6
97.8
8.3
165
13
100
Nickel, Dissolved
0
3
4
4.8
2.3
7.2
10
8.2
Nickel, Total
0
2.7
4
12
2.4
16.7
11
610
Selenium, Dissolved
0
1.6
3
1.1
1.7
75.5
8
5
3-87
-------
Proposed Draft
Table 3.3.3. Minimum and Maximum Dissolved and Total Metal Concentrations in Vessel
Source1 and Ambient2 (Harbor) Water Relative to Median Sample Concentrations and
Most Stringent Screening Benchmarks
Metal
Source
Water
Cone,
(min)
Source
Water
Cone,
(max)
N
Median
Cone.
From
Table
3.3.1
Ambient
Cone,
(min)
Ambient
Cone,
(max)
N
Most
Stringent
Screening
BM
Selenium, Total
0
1.9
2
0
19.4
86.5
6
170
Zinc, Dissolved
4.1
1200
6
124
0
116
13
81
Zinc, Total
4.1
1100
6
331
0
23.9
15
7400
N = sample size.
(1) Ambient water was collected from background water surrounding the vessel sampled.
(2) Source water was collected from the city tap water supply while pierside, except for one tugboat in
Havre De Grace, Maryland, where source water was collected from a potable water storage tank on
the vessel (service water) that was filled with city water.
Table 3.3.4. Comparison of Metal Concentrations in Deck Washdown Discharge Between
Fishing Vessels and Non-Fishing Vessels1
Metal
Form
Average Metal Concentration (Mg/L) by
Vessel Type
Welch's Modified
2-Sample t-Test
Fishing
Non-Fishing
t
df
P<|t0/2l
Copper
Dissolved
27.7
50.7
-1.68
18.2
0.110
Nickel
Dissolved
6.19
7.23
-1.05
20.7
0.306
Zinc
Dissolved
161
314
-2.15
14.9
0.049
Arsenic^
Total
14.0
20.5
-0.49
19.8
0.629
Lead
Total
5.48
70.7
-3.76
19.1
0.001
Notes:
(1) Nonfishing vessels defined as tow/salvage vessels, tugboats, tour vessels, fire boat, water taxis, and
supply vessels. The recreational vessel is not a study vessel and was excluded from these analyses.
(2) Total arsenic concentrations discharged from the six tow/salvage boats were significantly higher than
for the other 24 vessels (Welch's Modified 2-Sample t-test, t=-5.26, P<0.001, on 16.7 df).
3-88
-------
Proposed Draft
Table 3.3.5. Mean Concentrations of Dissolved and Total Heavy Metals from Deck Wash
Discharges from Fishing Vessels and Nonfishing Vessels1'2
Metal
Form
Cone.
MQ/L
in
Cone. (|jc
/L) in
Fishing
Vessels
n
Not Det.
(%)
Non-Fishing
Vessels
n
Not Det.
(%)
Cadmium
Dissolved
0.750
10
100
1.86
20
90
Chromium
Dissolved
3.79
10
70
5.93
20
35
Copper
Dissolved
27.7
10
0
50.7
20
0
Lead
Dissolved
2.00
10
100
8.85
20
45
Nickel
Dissolved
6.19
10
40
7.23
20
40
Zinc
Dissolved
161
10
0
314
20
0
Cadmium
Total
2.00
10
100
3.77
20
90
Chromium
Total
15.7
10
20
42.3
20
0
Copper
Total
93.2
10
0
157
20
0
Lead
Total
5.48
10
10
70.7
20
0
Nickel
Total
8.65
10
40
19.4
20
10
Zinc
Total
207
10
0
791
20
0
Notes:
(1) Nonfishing vessels defined as tow/salvage vessels, tugboats, tour vessels, fire boat, water taxis, and
supply vessels. The recreational vessel is not a study vessel and was excluded from these analyses.
(2) For these comparisons, minimum concentrations were set at 1/2 of the reporting limit of the highest
minimum detection level, when multiple detection limits were present. Average concentrations of
dissolved and total forms of all six heavy metals were lower in fishing vessels than in nonfishing vessels.
3-89
-------
Proposed Draft
1000 -
CD
C
o
CD
s_
C
Q)
O
C
o
O
Dissolved Metals
Figure 3.3.1. Box and Dot Density Plot of Dissolved Metals Concentrations Measured in
Samples of Deck Washdown Water (Dissolved beryllium and silver were not detected in any of the deck
washdown samples)
3-90
-------
Proposed Draft
CD
C
o
~C0
s_
C
Q)
O
C
o
O
10000r
1 000 r
Total Metals
Figure 3.3.2. Box and Dot Density Plot of Total Metals Concentrations Measured in
Samples of Deck Washdown Water
3-91
-------
Proposed Draft
I I I I I I I I
c
Q)
O
"O
s_
CO
N
CO
X
c
Q)
O
Q_
10.0-
Dissolved Metals
Figure 3.3.3. Box and Dot Density Plot of Potential Hazard Quotients for Dissolved Metals
in Samples of Deck Washdown Water
3-92
-------
Proposed Draft
1000.00
c
¦| 100.00
=3
o
"E 10.00
CO
N
CO
^ 1.00
CO
| 0.10
o
~_
0.01
Total Metals
Figure 3.3.4. Box and Dot Density Plot of Potential Hazard Quotients for Total Metals in
Samples of Deck Washdown Water
3-93
-------
Proposed Draft
3.2.3.2 Classical Pollutants
Deck washdown water samples from 32 vessels were analyzed for 14 classical pollutants
(see Table 3.3.6). The classical pollutants include measurements that are physical properties
(temperature, conductivity, salinity, turbidity, TSS), oxygen consumption (BOD, COD), oil and
grease (HEM and SGT-HEM), as well as chemical concentrations (pH, sulfide, DO, and TRC).
Measured values of the physical properties of the discharge (conductivity, dissolved
oxygen, pH, temperature, salinity) are unremarkable and appear to reflect conditions at the time
(seasonality) and location (geographical) of sampling. For instance, conductivity and salinity in
deck washdown water appear to reflect the type of source water used (ambient or potable
service/city19 water), as shown by the measured values of these two parameters. Half the fishing
vessels appear to have used ambient saltwater during normal operations (six of 11 vessels), while
the remaining fishing boats and nearly all other vessel types (tugs, tow/salvage, tour, supply
boats) used a freshwater source (aboard the vessel or pierside). Levels of pH were generally
about neutral (between 7 and 8), with the only exceptions being two tugboats where the pH was
9.1 and 9.8 (relatively high). Temperature of the deck washdown water ranged from 7.5 to 32 °C
and varied according to month (season) sampled and geographic location (warmer water samples
in southern United States and colder in mid-Atlantic and northern states). Dissolved oxygen
(DO) in deck washdown samples was sufficiently saturated (50 percent plus; DO ranged from
5.5 to 10.5 mg/L) in all samples, except for low DO concentrations from three fishing vessels
participating in the north Pacific fishery, which ranged from 1.6 to 1.9 mg/L.
Figure 3.3.5 illustrates the variability of the values measured for the classical pollutants
in deck washdown water. Turbidity (measure of water clarity) and TSS are clearly related and
range from 4.1 to 460 NTU and 31 to 530 mg/L, respectively. Measured values above the
median concentrations were dominated by the tug, tow/salvage, supply, fire, and water taxi boats
for both parameters, while measured values below the median were largely from the fishing
boats (with only a few exceptions). EPA notes that the majority of deck washdown samples from
fishing vessels were taken while the vessel was shoreside, and do not reflect constituents of deck
washdown while the vessel is engaged in fishing operations. Potable water measured during the
study was low in turbidity (0 to 16 NTU) and TSS (0 mg/L), as was ambient (harbor) water,
except for waters sampled in the Gulf Coast (Louisiana). Ambient turbidity and TSS were as
high as 186 NTU and 98 mg/L, respectively, in a sample collected from one harbor in Louisiana.
Of the remaining parameters, BOD, COD, and TOC have quite high concentrations (see
Figure 3.3.5). While the measured values for these parameters in deck washdown water samples
were generally evenly distributed for the different vessel types across the entire concentration
19 Service water here means the vessel potable water supply. For study vessels, vessel service water generally
originates from municipal water supply rather than produced on board. When deck washdown is performed pierside
most vessels used city water as their source water. Many fishing vessels and at least one tugboat use ambient water
as their water source when performing deck washdown offshore or underway.
3-94
-------
Proposed Draft
range, a select few vessels were clear standouts: three tugboats, a fishing (shrimping) vessel, and
the supply boat. The concentrations of all three parameters were highly variable and span two
orders of magnitude. In contrast, measured sulfide concentrations from deck washdown water
samples collected from two fishing boats and a tow/salvage boat were all relatively low, but,
when compared to the most stringent NRWQC of 0.002 mg/L, had PHQs ranging from 2.5 to 8.5
(moderate exceedance - data not shown).
PHQs were calculated for three additional classical pollutants for which benchmarks
were available and are shown in Figure 3.3.6. As the figure shows, the TRC concentrations
where TRC was detected above the reporting limit of 0.10 mg/L greatly exceeded the benchmark
(most stringent NRWQC of 0.0075 mg/L, the saltwater chronic aquatic life criterion) by factors
that ranged from 23 (tow/salvage vessel) to 106 (exceedance by 2 orders of magnitude - a
fishing vessel). These concentrations (ranging from 0.17 to 0.80 mg/L) were measured in deck
washdown water samples collected from three (of the 11) fishing vessels, the two tour boats, a
tugboat, and the tow/salvage boat. It is worth pointing out that in one instance (i.e., for a tugboat
with a high TRC concentration of 0.39 mg/L), the measured TRC concentration in the source
(potable) water was 0.70 mg/L. It is also worth noting that only one of 11 respondents (a fishing
vessel) indicated using chlorine bleach while washing decks, and this particular vessel had a
measured TRC concentration in the deck washdown sample of 0.38 mg/L and a PHQ of 51.
TSS in most of the deck washdown water samples collected exceeded the secondary
treatment effluent limitation benchmark of 30 mg/L. However, 27 of 32 PHQs calculated for
these samples were below 10 (Figure 3.3.6), and all five TSS samples with PHQs>10 (max PHQ
= 17.7) were associated with tugboats. As discussed above, in the one potable water sample for
which TSS was measured, TSS was not detected.
BOD was measured in 22 deck washdown water samples that exceeded EPA's secondary
treatment effluent limit of 30 mg/L (Figure 3.3.6). As indicated above, the vessels with the
highest level of exceedance (PHQs > 5) were associated with three tugboats, a fishing
(shrimping) vessel, and the supply boat.
EPA compared HEM and SGT-HEM concentrations measured in deck washdown
samples to the existing international and U.S. regulatory limit of 15 ppm (15 mg/L) for oil and
grease discharge. HEM and SGT-HEM were detected in all of the deck washdown water
samples, with concentrations ranging from 1.2 to a very high 133 mg/L for HEM and 0.91 to a
comparably high 84 mg/L for SGT-HEM. Based on the regulatory limit of 15 mg/L, PHQs
exceeded one in only six of 29 vessels sampled for HEM and two in the 29 vessels sampled for
SGT-HEM. The highest PHQs for both parameters corresponded with the supply boat and a
tugboat, with PHQs of 4.7 and 8.9 for HEM and 1.2 and 5.6 for SGT-HEM, respectively. Note,
oil and grease were not detected in the two potable water samples collected in this sampling
program.
3-95
-------
Proposed Draft
To summarize, just under a third of the vessels sampled had concentrations of TRC in
deck washdown samples above the reporting limit of 0.10 mg/L. Of these seven samples, the
measured TRC concentrations (as high as 0.80 mg/L) that exceeded the screening benchmark
were not associated with any one particular class of vessel. For TSS, however, one vessel type
(tugboats) had the highest number of exceedances. The elevated TSS in deck washdown water
samples from tugboats may be caused by a less frequent washdown on these vessels compared
with vessels such as fishing vessels. Just over two-thirds of vessels (22 out of 32) exceeded the
most stringent screening benchmark for BOD; however, as in the case with TRC, no one
particular class of vessels had a higher number of exceedances than other classes.
Oil and grease are generally not of concern for this type of discharge, nor are any of the
other physical parameters that were measured (conductivity, dissolved oxygen, pH, temperature,
salinity). TOC was detected in all samples ranging from 3.6 to a very high 350 mg/L (one of the
tugboats with high HEM). Organic carbon strongly complexes metals in both freshwater and
saltwater matrices, and like the competing cations such as calcium and magnesium, renders
dissolved metals less bioavailable and less likely to be rapidly available for biological organisms.
3-96
-------
Proposed Draft
Table 3.3.6. Results of Deck Washdown Water Sample Analyses for Classical Pollutants1
Analyte
Units
No.
samples
No.
detected
Detected
Proportion (%)
Average
Cone.
Median
Cone.
Minimum
Cone.
10%
25%
75%
90%
Maximum
Cone.
Screening
BM'
Biochemical Oxygen Demand
(BOD)
mg/L
32
30
94
110
56
4.7
14
92
370
830
30
Chemical Oxygen Demand
(COD)
mg/L
32
32
100
390
160
24
52
90
570
1200
1800
NA
Conductivity
mS/cm
26
26
100
7.7
1.0
0.24
0.37
0.50
13
30
47
NA
Dissolved Oxygen
mg/L
26
26
100
7.2
7.7
1.6
1.8
6.3
8.9
9.7
11
NA
Hexane Extractable Material
(HEM)
mg/L
29
26
90
14
2.8
1.7
12
39
130
15
PH
SU
30
30
100
7.7
7.6
7.0
7.0
7.2
7.9
8.5
9.8
NA
Salinity
ppt
24
24
100
4.9
0.60
0.10
0.20
0.23
8.0
21
28
NA
Silica Gel Treated HEM
(SGT-HEM)
mg/L
29
22
76
7.0
1.7
0.45
3.8
13
84
15
Sulfide
mg/L
3
2
67
0.011
0.011
0.017
0.017
0.017
NA
Temperature
C
31
31
100
21
21
7.5
9.0
13
29
31
32
NA
Total Organic Carbon (TOC)
mg/L
25
25
100
44
24
3.6
5.0
7.1
52
96
350
NA
Total Residual Chlorine
mg/L
31
7
23
0.12
0.37
0.80
0.0075
Total Suspended Solids
(TSS)
mg/L
32
32
100
170
120
27
31
59
250
470
530
30
Turbidity
NTU
31
31
100
150
110
4.1
36
58
190
380
463
NA
Notes:
(1) Nondetect (censored) concentrations were replaced with % of the reporting limit for calculating average concentrations. The remaining statistics in this table were only calculated
when analytes were detected at a sufficient frequency. For example, if an analyte was detected in fewer than 50% of samples, then a median concentration was not calculated. A blank
cell reflects a situation when a median or percentile could not be computed based on detected concentrations. The percentiles are the concentrations of each analyte below which at
least that percentage of the values fall. So the 10th percentile is the concentration below which at least 10% of the observations were found.
(2) Screening BM represents the screening benchmark referred to in Section 3.1.3, and is the most stringent 2006 NRWQC or other conservative benchmark used to calculate PHQs.
3-97
-------
Proposed Draft
Q)
CO
>
c
o
CD
s_
C
Q)
O
C
o
O
1000.00r
100.oor
10.00 r
1.00 r
0.10 r
0.01 r
i i i—r
T I
T
J I I I I L
i—i—i—i—r
i ?
t
f
J I I I I L
qP
-------
Proposed Draft
i—i—i—T
i—i—i—i—i—r
100.0-
c
CD
O
=3
o
"O
s_
CO
N
CO
X
To
c
Q)
O
~_
10.0-
1.0-- ~-b 4- =
0.1 -
LJ I I L
J I I I I L
^°V
'*\©
Classical Pollutants
Figure 3.3.6. Box and Dot Density Plot of Potential Hazard Quotients for Classical
Pollutants in Samples of Deck Washdown Water Note PHQs for sulfide are not shown in the figure,
but are mentioned in the text.
3-99
-------
Proposed Draft
3.2.3.3 Pathogen Indicators (Microbiologicals)
Selected deck washdown water samples were analyzed for the pathogen indicator
bacteria E. coli, enterococci, and fecal coliform. Sampling for pathogens was limited to fishing
vessels since EPA could not identify likely potential sources of pathogens in deck washdown
discharges on other vessel types. EPA targeted select fishing vessels to attain the best cross-
representation possible based on available funding and proximity to qualified subcontractor
laboratories to meet sample hold times (< 6 hours). The types of fishing vessels sampled
included three shrimping (trawler) boats in Louisiana, two ground fishery trawlers in
Massachusetts, and a gillnetter boat in Alaska. All vessels indicated that their decks are washed
frequently throughout the day (after or between catches, after unloading, etc.), and while pierside
and underway (nearshore and farshore). Table 3.3.7 summarizes the analytical results.
Concentrations were determined for each pathogen using the same (E. coli, enterococci) or
comparable methods (fecal coliform).
Figure 3.3.7 shows the variability of the values measured for the pathogens in deck
washdown water samples from the various fishing vessels. Measured concentrations of E. coli
range from 20 MPN/100 ml for one of the shrimping trawlers to 8,336 MPN/100 ml for one of
the ground fishery trawlers in Massachusetts. It should be noted, however, that the water the
ground fishery trawler used for desk washing was ambient (harbor) water receiving stormwater
and combined sewer overflow from a storm event. The measured concentration of E. coli in the
ambient water at that location was 24,200 MPN/100 ml. Excluding this outlier, the concentration
of E. coli from only one vessel (shrimper; concentration = 650 MPN/100 ml) exceeded EPA's
most stringent freshwater bathing NRWQC of 126 MPN/100 ml by more than a factor of five
(PHQ = 5.1), as illustrated in Figure 3.3.8. EPA collected multiple samples from another
shrimping vessel in Louisiana to measure E. coli in prefishing deck washdown water, postfishing
water, without catch rinse water, and with catch rinse water. For this vessel, E. coli
concentrations ranged from a low of 10 (prefishing sample) to a high of only 50 MPN/100 ml
(without catch rinse). The concentrations of E. coli were largely unaffected by either the addition
of catch to the vessel (as E. coli concentrations in prefishing and postfishing deck washdown
samples were similar) or the process of rinsing the catch while on deck.
The enterococci values measured in a deck washdown water samples ranged from 1.5 to
1,300 MPN/100 ml, and follow the same general pattern as E. coli (Figure 3.3.7). Excluding the
previously described example of the trawler in Massachusetts, which was directly influenced by
high levels of enterococci in the ambient water resulting from storm-related combined sewage
overflow (5,100 MPN/100 ml), the deck washdown water samples from two vessels (both
shrimpers; concentrations = 637 and 914 MPN/100 ml, respectively) exceeded EPA's most
stringent bathing NRWQC for enterococci of 33 MPN/100 ml (freshwater) and 35 MPN/100 ml
(saltwater) by factors of nearly 20 and 30 respectively (Figure 3.3.8). In contrast to E. coli,
however, analysis of the multiple samples collected for enterococci in prefishing deck washdown
3-100
-------
Proposed Draft
water (540 MPN/100 ml), postfishing water (8 MPN/100 ml), without catch rinse (1,200
MPN/100 ml), and with catch rinse (801 MPN/100 ml) for the shrimping vessel in Louisiana
indicate that their deck washing process appeared to reduce the presence of the pathogen in deck
washdown discharge.
The concentrations of fecal coliform bacteria measured in a deck washdown water
samples are all substantial (ranging from 91 to 600 CFU/100 ml20), except for the very low
concentration of 0.75 CFU/100 ml for the gillnetting vessel in Alaska (Figure 3.3.7). The
associated PHQs for fecal coliform range from 0.05 (gillnetter) to 43 (one of the shrimping
boats), as illustrated in Figure 3.3.8. The PHQs for this pathogen are based on the NRWQC of 14
MPN/100 ml for shellfish harvesting. As with enterococci, the multiple samples measured for
fecal coliform bacteria in prefishing deck washdown water (0 CFU/100 ml), postfishing water (6
CFU/100 ml), without catch rinse (1,630 CFU/100 ml), and with catch rinse (620 CFU/100 ml)
for the shrimping vessel indicate that their deck washing process did not increase (and seemed to
reduce) the presence of this pathogen in deck washdown discharge. The single potable water
sample taken while onboard a shrimping vessel pierside in Louisiana was free of all pathogens.
The data collected for this study show that, while the three groups of pathogens are
present in deck washdown discharge samples from commercial fishing vessels, concentrations
are variable, and the source of the water used for deck washdown can greatly influence the
background bacteria levels. Of the three pathogen groups, fecal coliform are present at
concentrations exceeding EPA's most stringent criteria more often than enterococci and E. coli,
in that order.
20 Excluding the outlier value of 8,050 CFU/ml from the ground fishery trawler in Maine influenced by the storm
event.
3-101
-------
Proposed Draft
Table 3.3.7. Results of Deck Washdown Water Sample Analyses for Pathogen Indicators1
Analyte''
Units'
No.
samples
No.
detected
Detected
Proportion
(%)
Average
Cone.
Median
Cone.
Minimum
Cone.
10%
25%
75%
90%
Maximum
Cone.
Screening
BM'
E. Coli by MPN
MPN/100 ml
5
5
100
1900
160
20
20
62
4500
8300
8300
130
Enterococci by MPN
MPN/100 ml
5
5
100
580
640
1.5
1.5
27
1100
1300
1300
33
Fecal Coliform by MF
CFU/100 ml
6
6
100
1600
560
0.75
0.75
68
2500
8100
8100
14
Notes:
(1) Nondetect (censored) concentrations were replaced with % of the reporting limit for calculating average concentrations. The remaining statistics in this table were only calculated
when analytes were detected at a sufficient frequency. For example, if an analyte was detected in fewer than 50% of samples, then a median concentration was not calculated. A blank
cell reflects a situation when a median or percentile could not be computed based on detected concentrations. The percentiles are the concentrations of each analyte below which at
least that percentage of the values fall. So the 10th percentile is the concentration below which at least 10% of the observations were found.
(2) MPN = Most Probable Number; MF = Membrane Filtration.
(3) CFU = Colony Forming Units.
(4) Screening BM represents the screening benchmark referred to in Section 3.1.3, and is the most stringent 2006 NRWQC or other conservative benchmark used to calculate PHQs.
3-102
-------
Proposed Draft
0°
\\
A®
0°
\V
«p
-------
Proposed Draft
100.0 r
.0
o
id
cr
03
N
03
03
3
O
Q.
1 0.0 r
0°
\\
A®
0°
\V
SP
-------
Proposed Draft
3.2.3.4 Nutrients
Deck washdown discharge was also characterized for nutrient levels. Nutrient pollution,
including nitrogen, phosphorus, and numerous micronutrients, is a component of certain vessel
discharges and a major source of water quality degradation throughout the United States (USGS,
1999). Deck washdown discharges from all vessel types were expected to contain potentially
high levels of phosphorus because of the wide-spread use of detergents for deck cleansing. Deck
washdown discharges from commercial fishing vessels were also expected to contain potentially
elevated ammonia concentrations for the same reason, as well as from biological wastes from
fish and shellfish catch. In addition to total phosphorus and total ammonia (as nitrogen), deck
washdown water samples were also analyzed for nitrate/nitrite nitrogen (inorganic nitrogen) and
TKN, the sum of organic nitrogen (including toxic ammonia nitrogen) (see Table 3.3.8).
Concentrations of nitrate/ni trite nitrogen in deckwash discharge samples range from
0.025 to 6.5 mg/L (see Figure 3.3.9). An interesting note is that the deck washdown water
samples for commercial fishing vessels of all types did not exceed 0.50 mg/L while all other
vessels exceeded this value. The five highest nitrate/ni trite concentrations (ranging from 2.5 to
6.5 mg/L) were analyzed in samples from three tugs and two tow/salvage vessels. It is important
to note, however, that most samples of deck washdown on fishing vessels were collected
onboard fishing vessels pierside and not when fishing activity was occurring. In the two cases
where deck washdown samples were collected where fishing activities were taking place, the
samples were collected towards the end of the deck washdown activity and may not have
captured potentially higher levels of nitrate/ni trite from biological wastes.
The concentrations determined for TKN (sum of organic nitrogen) show the
concentration range spans two orders of magnitude, from 0.05 to 40 mg/L (see Figure 3.3.9). In
contrast to the nitrate/ni trite samples, the TKN concentrations from all vessels were evenly
distributed across the entire concentration range. The two highest TKN concentrations (by more
than a factor of two) correspond to a trolling vessel and a tugboat, with TKN concentrations of
28 and 40 mg/L, respectively.
Ammonia is the only nutrient form for which there are currently numeric NRWQC
established to protect against its toxic effects. Only five of 31 vessels contained ammonia in deck
washdown water samples slightly above (1.2 to 1.8 mg/L ammonia as nitrogen) the most
stringent 2006 NRWQC of 1.2 mg/L, the freshwater chronic aquatic life criterion for total
ammonia as nitrogen (see Figure 3.3.10). These values correspond with deck washdown water
samples collected from two tow/salvage boats, two fishing vessels, and the recreational vessel.
The benchmark for total phosphorus of 0.1 mg/L from the 1986 EPA Gold Book was
exceeded in samples collected from all but one of the 31 vessels. The highest total phosphorus
concentration of 22 mg/L from a tugboat exceeded the benchmark by a factor of 220 (see Figure
3-105
-------
Proposed Draft
3.3.10). This concentration was 6.5 times higher then the next highest measured concentration of
3.4 mg/L from a trolling vessel. The deck washdown water samples for phosphorus from all
vessels were generally evenly distributed across the entire concentration range.
Total ammonia in ambient and service water ranged from below detection to 0.93 mg/L
and from below detection to 0.73 mg/L, respectively (all below the most stringent 2006 NRWQC
of 1.24 mg/L). Total phosphorus in ambient and service water ranged from below detection to
2.0 mg/L and from below detection to 0.52 mg/L, respectively (compared to 0.1 mg/L from the
1976 EPA Red Book).
In summary, out of the four nutrient parameters, only total phosphorus is of potential
concern from deck washdown effluent. Twelve of the 19 respondents confirmed using standard
liquid detergents aboard their vessels for deck washing, the expected source of total phosphorus
in deck washdown discharges. However, ambient and domestic service water are also likely
sources of phosphorus in a meaningful percentage of instances.
3-106
-------
Proposed Draft
Table 3.3.8. Results of Deck Washdown Water Sample Analyses for Nutrients1
Analyte
Units
No.
samples
No.
detected
Detected
Proportion (%)
Average
Cone.
Median
Cone.
Minimum
Cone.
10%
25%
75%
90%
Maximum
Cone.
Screening
BMV
Ammonia As Nitrogen (NH3-N)
mg/L
31
31
100
0.53
0.32
0.058
0.074
0.10
0.81
1.5
1.8
1.2
Nitrate/Nitrite (N03/N02-N)
mg/L
32
27
84
1.4
1.5
0.16
1.9
2.7
6.5
NA
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN)
mg/L
31
30
97
6.0
3.6
1.4
1.8
6.6
11
40
NA
Total Phosphorus
mg/L
31
31
100
1.7
0.79
0.060
0.15
0.44
1.6
2.9
22
0.10
Notes:
(1) Nondetect (censored) concentrations were replaced with % of the reporting limit for calculating average concentrations. The remaining statistics in this table were only calculated
when analytes were detected at a sufficient frequency. For example, if an analyte was detected in fewer than 50% of samples, then a median concentration was not calculated. A blank
cell reflects a situation when a median or percentile could not be computed based on detected concentrations. The percentiles are the concentrations of each analyte below which at
least that percentage of the values fall. So the 10th percentile is the concentration below which at least 10% of the observations were found.
(2) Screening BM represents the screening benchmark referred to in Section 3.1.3, and is the most stringent 2006 NRWQC or other conservative benchmark used to calculated PHQs.
3-107
-------
Proposed Draft
10.0
CD
£
C
o
~00
0
O
c
o
O
1.0
0.1
1
a a
T
Nutrients
Figure 3.3.9. Box and Dot Density Plot of Nutrient Concentrations Measured in Samples of
Deck Washdown Water Note NH3-N=Ammonia as Nitrogen, N03/N02-N= Nitrate/Nitrite Nitrogen,
TKN=Total Kjeldalil Nitrogen, and Total Phosph (truncated)=Total Phosphorus
3-108
-------
Proposed Draft
100.0-
CD
o
ID
cr
03
N
03
03
3
O
Q.
10.0 -
0.1 -
oqro
oo
o
00
000
o
00
OQO
00
00
00
00000
1
A A
000
0000
00000
0000
OQO
0000
1.0~ °r ^ =
Nutrients
Figure 3.3.10. Box and Dot Density Plot of Potential Hazard Quotients for Nutrients in
Samples of Deck Washdown Water See note above
3-109
-------
Proposed Draft
3.2.3.5 Long-Chain Nonylphenols
Deck washdown water samples from 29 vessels were analyzed for 27 long-chain
nonylphenols: 16 NPEOs and 5 OPEOs (see Table 3.3.9). The NPEOs with the longest
ethoxylate chains (i.e., less degraded products (NP18EO through NPIOEO)) were detected in
slightly under a third of the vessels (nine of 29), with concentrations increasing as ethoxylate
chain is reduced (i.e., concentrations increasing from NP18EO to NPIOEO because the longer-
chain products found in commercial formulations are quickly degraded). The OPEO with the
longest ethoxylate chain (OP12EO) was also detected in about a third of the vessels (see Table
3.3.9). As with NPEOs, the OPEO concentrations generally increase as the ethoxylate chain is
reduced, except that no OPEOs with ethoxylate chains smaller than OP7EO were detected
(similar to the situation in packing gland effluent; see Section 3.3.2.5).
Of the several vessels where NPEOs were detected in the longer (NP18EO through
NPIOEO) ethoxylated compounds, only three of those vessels also had detectable concentrations
of NPEOs of the shortest chain (NP3EO), albeit at very low concentrations ranging from 0.80 to
29 |ig/L. These were tow/salvage vessels, one of which confirmed using liquid detergent
(Palmolive™) for deck washing (NP3EO concentration of 29 |ig/L in deck washdown sample).
A tugboat had the only measured concentration of OP8EO in its deck washdown water sample at
a concentration of 19 |ig/L.
Total NPEO concentrations could be calculated from summed concentrations of
individual chain lengths for five of the 29 vessels: three tow/salvage vessels and two tour boats
(see Figure 3.3.11). The concentrations of total NPEOs ranged from 30 to 8,330 |ig/L.
As discussed in previous subsections (see Sections 3.2.1.7 (bilgewater) and 3.2.2.5
(packing gland effluents)), while there are no NRWQC for individual ethoxylate chains of
NPEOs or OPEOs, these compounds will ultimately degrade to NP in fresh and salt water over
time under all conditions. The NRWQC for NP in salt water based on chronic toxicity to aquatic
organisms is 1.7 |ig/L. EPA is uncertain as to exactly how much NP might be generated from the
degradation of NPEO and OPEO isomers under a given harbor scenario and water quality
condition (see Section 1.6.6 of this report). However, neither total NPEO or OPEO, nor any of
the different isomers, were detected in ambient water at the locations where the vessels were
sampled. Service water (generally city tapwater pierside) was not analyzed for long- or short-
chain nonylphenols.
3-110
-------
Proposed Draft
Table 3.3.9. Results of Deck Washdown Water Sample Analyses for Long-Chain Nonylphenols1
Analyte
Units
No.
samples
No.
detected
Detected
Proportion
(%)
Average
Cone.
Median
Cone.
Minimum
Cone.
10%
25%
75%
90%
Maximum
Cone.
Screening
BM'
Total Nonylphenol Polyethoxylates
Mg/L
29
5
17
540
1400
8300
NA
Nonylphenol octodecaethoxylate (NP18EO)
Mg/L
29
12
41
1.5
0.15
5.0
21
NA
Nonylphenol heptadecaethoxylate (NP17EO)
Mg/L
29
9
31
3.4
0.21
13
41
NA
Nonylphenol hexadecaethoxylate (NP16EO)
Mg/L
29
10
34
7.4
0.89
27
87
NA
Nonylphenol pendecaethoxylate (NP15EO)
Ufl/L
29
9
31
14
0.91
55
160
NA
Nonylphenol tetradecaethoxylate (NP14EO)
Mg/L
29
9
31
25
1.8
75
290
NA
Nonylphenol tridecaethoxylate (NP13EO)
Mg/L
29
9
31
44
2.9
180
480
NA
Nonylphenol dodecaethoxylate (NP12EO)
Mg/L
29
8
28
64
4.5
260
760
NA
Nonylphenol undecaethoxylate (NP11EO)
Mg/L
29
9
31
86
6.1
350
1100
NA
Nonylphenol decaethoxylate (NP10EO)
Mg/L
29
9
31
91
6.9
350
1300
NA
Nonylphenol nonaethoxylate (NP9EO)
Mg/L
29
8
28
88
3.1
330
1300
NA
Nonylphenol octaethoxylate (NP8EO)
Mg/L
29
8
28
75
3.2
280
1100
NA
Nonylphenol heptaethoxylate (NP7EO)
Mg/L
29
7
24
61
0.99
220
950
NA
Nonylphenol hexaethoxylate (NP6EO)
Ufl/L
29
6
21
34
140
440
NA
Nonylphenol pentaethoxylate (NP5EO)
Mg/L
29
6
21
19
40
270
NA
Nonylphenol tetraethoxylate (NP4EO)
Mg/L
29
4
14
11
2.6
120
NA
Nonylphenol triethoxylate (NP3EO)
Mg/L
29
3
10
4.9
0.80
30
NA
Octylphenol dodecaethoxylate (OP12EO)
Mg/L
29
8
28
1.4
0.98
2.4
8.8
NA
Octylphenol undecaethoxylate (OP11 EO)
Ufl/L
29
2
6.9
1.8
7.8
NA
Octylphenol decaethoxylate (OP10EO)
Mg/L
29
4
14
3.6
1.8
2.1
NA
Octylphenol nonaethoxylate (OP9EO)
Mg/L
29
5
17
3.8
1.3
9.6
NA
Octylphenol octaethoxylate (OP8EO)
Mg/L
29
1
3.4
10
19
NA
Notes:
(1) Nondetect (censored) concentrations were replaced with % of the reporting limit for calculating average concentrations. The remaining statistics in this table were only calculated
when analytes were detected at a sufficient frequency. For example, if an analyte was detected in fewer than 50% of samples, then a median concentration was not calculated. A blank
cell reflects a situation when a median or percentile could not be computed based on detected concentrations. The percentiles are the concentrations of each analyte below which at
least that percentage of the values fall. So the 10th percentile is the concentration below which at least 10% of the observations were found.
(2) Screening BM represents the screening benchmark referred to in Section 3.1.3, and is the most stringent 2006 NRWQC or other conservative benchmark used to calculate PHQs.
3-111
-------
Proposed Draft
IIIIIIIr
©
CD
C
o
CD
s_
C
Q)
O
C
o
O
1000.00
100.00
10.00
1.00
0.10
0.01
§
©
§
©
g
©
©
©
©
© ©
© © ®
© ©
® 0 © © ©
© © ©
© ©
© ©
>|< ^ >|c
* * *
©
L ® §
0 * -
© »K -
_f i i i i i i i i i
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
Nonylphenols
Figure 3.3.11. Box and Dot Density Plot of Nonylphenol Concentrations Measured in
Samples of Deck Washdown Water Nonylphenol parameters are identified as follows:
(1) Total Nonylphenol
Polyethoxylates
(2) Nonylphenol
octodecaethoxylate (NP18EO)
(3) Nonylphenol
heptadecaethoxylate (NP17EO)
(4) Nonylphenol
hexadecaethoxylate (NP16EO)
(5) Nonylphenol
pendecaethoxylate (NP15EO)
(6) Nonylphenol
tetradecaethoxylate (NP14EO)
(7) Nonylphenol
tridecaethoxylate (NP13EO)
(8) Nonylphenol
dodecaethoxylate (NP12EO)
(9) Nonylphenol
undecaethoxylate (NP11EO)
(10) Nonylphenol
decaethoxylate (NPIOEO)
(11) Nonylphenol
nonaethoxylate (NP9EO)
(12) Nonylphenol
octaethoxylate (NP8EO)
(13) Nonylphenol
heptaethoxylate (NP7EO)
(14) Nonylphenol
hexaethoxylate (NP6EO)
(15) Nonylphenol
pentaethoxylate (NP5EO)
(16) Nonylphenol
tetraethoxylate (NP4EO)
(17) Nonylphenol triethoxylate
(NP3EO)
(18) Octylphenol
dodecaethoxylate (OP12EO)
(19) Octylphenol
undecaethoxylate (OP11EO)
(20) Octylphenol decaethoxylate
(OPIOEO)
(21) Octylphenol
nonaethoxylate (OP9EO)
(22) Octylphenol octaethoxylate
(OP8EO).
3-112
-------
Proposed Draft
3.2.3.6 Volatile and Semivolatile Organic Chemicals
VOCs and SVOCs were not targeted for deck washdown water sample collection in this
study because these compounds were not expected to be found in common deck washdown on
most vessels21. In two cases during scheduled cleanings of the decks of two tow/salvage vessels,
however, there was a noticeable oily sheen and where fuel was spilled at the fueling location
while samplers were onboard the vessels. Samples of deck washdown water were taken in these
instances and analyzed for VOCs and SVOCs (see Table 3.3.10).
Of the 70 VOCs that were analyzed for in the two deck washdown samples, only 12 were
detected in one or more of the two samples. Of these 12 VOCs, only acetone, chloroform, and
toluene were detected in both samples. In one sample from the vessel with the oily sheen;
acetone was detected at 20 |ig/L. Figure 3.3.12 contains all the samples that were detected, the
other five samples were detected with very low values. Benzene, ethylbenzene, and xylene
(compounds associated with fuel oil spills) were detected in one of the two samples at
surprisingly low levels. The PHQ of 13 for the benzene sample that was below detection levels
was an artifact of the relatively high reporting limit of 25|ig/L compared to the screening
benchmark of 2.2 |ig/L. PHQs for only two VOCs, dibromochloromethane and
bromodichloromethane exceeded the benchmark (see Figure 3.3.13), which were artifacts of the
reporting limits which were as high as 25|ig/L compared to the screening benchmarks of 0.4
|ig/L and 0.55 |ig/L, respectively. Both these were formerly used as flame retardants and as an
intermediate in chemical manufacturing.
Similarly, of the 62 SVOCs that were analyzed for in the two deck washdown samples,
only three were detected in one or more of the two samples: bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate,
caprolactam, and di-n-butyl phthalate (data not shown due to so few analytes detected). Levels
detected in the latter two SVOCs are unremarkable. The concentration of bis(2-ethylhexyl)
phthalate in the one sample where it was detected (i.e., the tow/salvage vessel with the oily
sheen), however, was sufficiently high (6.7 |ig/L) such that the associated PHQ, based on the
most conservative screening benchmark of 1.2 |ig/L (human health criteria), was 5.6 (data not
shown). As previously noted, bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate is a manufactured chemical that is
commonly added to plastics to make them flexible. Phthalates in general are known to interfere
with reproductive health and liver and kidney function in both animals and humans (Sekizawa et
al., 2003; DiGangi et al., 2002). Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate was not detected in the associated
21
It is worth noting that solvents in cleaning agents may be used for certain activities such as above-water-line hull
cleaning. Samples associated with above-water-line hull cleaning were not collected during this study because none
of the vessels engaged in such an activity while EPA's sampling crew was aboard the vessel. During a survey
collected while onboard the vessels, however, 11 of 16 respondents confirmed that they do perform above-water-line
hull cleaning occasionally on their vessels.
3-113
-------
Proposed Draft
ambient water sample collected at the site corresponding with the two tow/salvage vessels, but
di-n-butyl phthalate was (ambient concentration of 1.1 |ig/L).
Di-n-butyl phthalate was the only SVOC detected in ambient water samples collected in
association with the deck washdown samples collected in the study. No VOCs were detected in
ambient samples.
3-114
-------
Proposed Draft
Table 3.3.10. Results of Deck Washdown Water Sample Analyses for VOCs and SVOCs1
Analyte
Units
No.
samples
No.
detected
Detected
Proportion
(%)
Average
Cone.
Median
Cone.
Minimum
Cone.
10%
25%
75%
90%
Maximum
Cone.
Screening
BM'
VOCs
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
Mg/L
2
1
50
13
0.30
0.30
0.30
0.30
NA
1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene
Mg/L
2
1
50
13
0.090
0.090
0.090
0.090
NA
Acetone
Mg/L
2
2
100
13
20
5.5
5.5
5.5
20
20
20
NA
Benzene
Ufl/L
2
1
50
13
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
2.2
Bromodichloromethane
Mg/L
2
1
50
13
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
0.55
Chloroform
Mg/L
2
2
100
1.3
1.5
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.5
1.5
1.5
5.7
Dibromochloromethane
Mg/L
2
1
50
13
0.7
0.70
0.70
0.70
0.4
Ethylbenzene
Mg/L
2
1
50
13
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
530
m-,p-Xylene (sum of isomers)
Ufl/L
2
1
50
25
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
NA
O-Xylene
Mg/L
2
1
50
25
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
NA
Toluene
Mg/L
2
2
100
0.65
0.70
0.60
0.60
0.60
0.70
0.70
0.70
1300
SVOCs
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
Mg/L
2
1
50
4.7
6.7
6.7
6.7
6.7
1.2
Caprolactam
Mg/L
2
2
100
79
100
56
56
56
100
100
100
NA
Di-n-butyl phthalate
^g/L
2
1
50
2.5
2.4
2.4
2.4
2.4
2000
Naphthalene
Mg/L
2
1
50
13
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
NA
Notes:
(1) Nondetect (censored) concentrations were replaced with % of the reporting limit for calculating average concentrations. The remaining statistics in this table were only calculated
when analytes were detected at a sufficient frequency. For example, if an analyte was detected in fewer than 50% of samples, then a median concentration was not calculated. A blank
cell reflects a situation when a median or percentile could not be computed based on detected concentrations. The percentiles are the concentrations of each analyte below which at
least that percentage of the values fall. So the 10th percentile is the concentration below which at least 10% of the observations were found.
(2) Screening BM represents the screening benchmark referred to in Section 3.1.3, and is the most stringent 2006 NRWQC or other conservative benchmark used to calculate PHQs.
3-115
-------
Proposed Draft
rOn r©1
10.0 ^
CD
C
o
CD
s_
C
Q)
O
C
o
O
1.0r
- ^
0.1 r
r©n
~i 1 r
rOi rOi r©i r©i
T©T
M
0
_L
!£
_L
4 6 8
VOCs
10 12
Figure 3.3.12. Box and Dot Density Plot of Volatile Organic Chemical Concentrations
Measured in Samples of Deck Washdown Water VOCs are identified as follows:
(1) 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene (5) Bromodichloromethane (9) m-,p-Xylene (sum of
(2) 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene (6) Chloroform isomers)
(3) Acetone (7) Dibromochloromethane (lO)O-Xylene
(4) Benzene (8) Ethylbenzene (11) Toluene
3-116
-------
Proposed Draft
c
Q)
C
Q)
O
~_
10.0000
1.0000
o
=3
0
"O
a 0.1000
CO
x
1 0.0100
0.0010
0.0001
0
rQi
r©n
n\
±
r©i
4 6 8
VOCs
10 12
Figure 3.3.13. Box and Dot Density Plot of Potential Hazard Quotients for VOCs in
Samples of Deck Washdown Water VOCs are identified as follows:
(1) 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
(2) 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene
(3) Acetone
(4) Benzene
(5) Bromodichloromethane
(6) Chloroform
(7) Dibromochloromethane
(8) Ethylbenzene
(9) m-,p-Xylene (sum of
isomers)
(10) O-Xylene
(11) Toluene
3-117
-------
Proposed Draft
3.2.3 J Summary of the Characterization of Deck Washdown Water
Table 3.3.11 summarizes the specific analytes within deck washdown and runoff water
that may have the potential to pose risk to human health or the environment. EPA's interpretation
of a realized risk likely posed by these analytes, relative to pollutant loadings, background
ambient and source water contaminant levels and characteristics, and other relevant information
useful for this assessment, is presented in Chapter 5.
Metals were the class of pollutants found most frequently and at concentrations that
exceeded national water quality criteria in samples of deck washdown discharge. Several
dissolved metals were measured at PHQs>10, relative to the most stringent benchmarks. Among
the dissolved metals, copper was the most prevalent, and was measured at PHQ>10 in
tow/salvage, fire, taxi, tour, and supply vessels. Dissolved cadmium was rarely detected, but had
the highest exceedance, in a tow/salvage vessel. Dissolved lead exceeded NRWQC benchmarks
in five of six salvage vessels, three of nine tugboats, one of two tour vessels, the one fire vessel,
and the one supply vessel. Dissolved zinc exceeded NRWQC benchmarks in five of six
tow/salvage vessels, as well as in tug, tour, fire, and supply vessels. Among the total metals,
arsenic and aluminum were the most prevalent, particularly in deck washdown discharges of
tow/salvage boats (both metals), tugboats (aluminum), and fishing and fire vessels (arsenic).
Total iron exceedances were relatively less common, and the highest PHQs for total iron were in
tugboats and tow/salvage vessels. Finally, total antimony exceedances were rare, with PHQs in
those instances distributed across vessel classes. In general, metal discharges were higher in
industrial vessels compared to fishing vessels.
Among the conventional pollutants, TRC was the most prevalent, with regard to high
concentrations and frequency of exceedance of the discharge. The highest PQHs for TRC were
observed in three of the 11 fishing vessels, the two tour boats, a tow/salvage vessel, and a
tugboat. TSS and turbidity were the next most important classical pollutants, with high
occurrences distributed across all vessel classes, but particularly tugboats. The highest
exceedances of BOD were found in three tugboats, one shrimp vessel, and the supply boat. COD
and TOC concentrations were similar to BOD concentrations. Oil and grease and sulfide were
high in only a select few samples (in tugboat, tow/salvage boat, and the supply boat).
Samples for pathogens were taken from only fishing vessels, with fecal coliform
potentially having the highest concentrations. Levels were high in all vessels except for the
gillnetting vessel in Alaska. Differences in pathogen loads could be related to location or method
of fishing (gillnetting vs. trawling). Pathogen loads in deck wash declined after washing in all
cases.
Total phosphorus was the only nutrient of potential concern, with high levels found in
almost all samples, presumably due to the use of detergents in the deck wash practices Long-
chain nonylphenol polyethoxylates of the smallest chain (i.e., NP3EO, most degraded form) were
3-118
-------
Proposed Draft
found in only three of the tow/salvage vessels, and total nonylphenol polyethoxylates were found
at high concentrations in two tour vessels. Finally, a moderately high PHQ of 5.6 for bis(2-
ethylhexyl) phthalate was found in the discharge of a tow/salvage vessel with a noticeably oily
sheen.
3-119
-------
Proposed Draft
Table 3.3.11. Characterization of Deck Washdown and Runoff Water and Summary of Analytes that May Have the Potential
to Pose Risk
Vessel Type
(no. vessels)
Analytes that May Have the Potential Risk to Pose Risk in Deck Washdown and Runoff Water and Vessel Sources 1-2-3-4-5
Microbiologicals
Volatile Organic
Compounds
Semivolatile
Organic
Compounds
Metals (dissolved)
Metals (total)
Oil and Grease
¦o
3
W
Short-Chain
Nonylphenols
Long-Chain
Nonylphenols
C
0)
4—>
3
Z
BOD. COD. and TOC
Total Suspended
Solids
Other
Physical/Chemical
Parameters
Fishing (11)
Fecal
coliform
Enterococci
E. coli
Cu,Zn
AI,As
TP
BOD,
COD
X
TRC
Tugboats (9)
Cu,Zn, Pb
Al, As,Fe
(one vessel
PHQ=9)
TP
(including
one very
high
PHQ220)
BOD,
COD
X
TRC
Tow/Salvage
(6)
Bis(2-
ethylhexyl)
phthalate
Cu, Cd, Zn,
Pb
Al, As, Fe
(one vessel
PHQ=9)
TP
BOD,
COD
X
TRC
Tour (2)
Cu, Zn,
As
X
X
TP
BOD,
COD
X
TRC
Water Taxi (1)
Cu
Al, As
X
Fire (1)
Cu, Pb
As,AI,Fe
TP
BOD,
COD
X
Supply (1)
Cu, Pb,Zn
Al, As, Fe
(PHQ<5)
TP
BOD,
COD
X
TRC
Recreational
(1)
Al, As
TP
BOD,
COD
X
Notes: uu
(1) Analytes are generally bolded when a large proportion of the samples have concentrations exceeding the NRWQC (e.g., 25 to 50 percent), when several of the samples have PHQs > 10 (e.g.,
two or three of five), when a few samples result in PHQs greatly exceeding the screening benchmark (i.e., 100s to 1,000s), or, in the case of oil and grease and for nonylphenol, when one or more
samples exceed an existing regulatory limit by more than a factor of 2. See text in Section 3.1.3 for a definition of PHQs and Table 3.1 for screening benchmarks used to calculate these values.
(2) EPA notes that the conclusion of potential risk is drawn from a small sample size, in some cases a single vessel, for certain discharges sampled from some vessel classes. EPA
included these results in the tables to provide a concise summary of the data collected in the study, but strongly cautions the reader that these conclusions, where there are only a few
samples from a given vessel class, should be considered preliminary and might not necessarily represent pollutant concentrations from these discharges from other vessels in this
class.
3-120
-------
Proposed Draft
(3) All dissolved metals identified as possible risks are potentially influenced by the dissolved metal concentrations measured in source water (generally city tap water; used by all vessel types),
particularly dissolved Cu and Zn.
(4) All total metals identified as possible risks are influenced by total metal concentrations measured in surrounding ambient water (relevant only for vessels where ambient water is used for deck
washdown (i.e., many fishing vessels performing deck washdown while offshore, certain tug boats (as indicated in vessel survey)).
(5) Elevated total phosphorus concentrations in deck washdown samples likely influenced by ambient and source water concentrations.
3-121
-------
Proposed Draft
3.2.4 Fish Hold and Fish Hold Cleaning Effluent (Refrigerated Seawater and
Ice Slurry)
Refrigerated seawater and ice/ice slurry are the two commonly used methods for
preserving fish in the fish hold of many fishing vessels. EPA noted that some vessels
(e.g., large shrimping vessels in the Gulf of Mexico) use dry freezers to preserve their
catches; however, these vessels do not produce significant amounts of effluent from the
hold that comes into contact with seafood product and that is later discharged. Lobster
and crab boats have seawater flow-through tanks used to keep lobsters and crabs alive.
Both the freezers and flow-through tanks might contain residual seafood material that
sometimes are discharged when the vessels clean their holds.
The analytes and parameters detected in fish hold effluent come from the vessel,
ambient water and potable/service water. Additionally, many of the constituents can
come from the seafood product itself. If the seafood (e.g., fish, shrimp) are not frozen, but
preserved in refrigerated seawater or ice slurry, small quantities of organic material from
the fish (e.g., lipids, protein) will be released as the fish degrade, thereby increasing the
concentration of those constituents in the discharge. Furthermore, different volumes of
blood, mucus, and other matter can drain from the seafood into the hold, depending on
how the fish is butchered or cleaned on deck. For example, salmon, when caught via
gillnets on gillnetting vessels, are cut at the gills and bled and then placed into the
refrigerated sea water tanks/on ice before being cleaned (resulting in their internal organs
and some blood leaking into the water). In contrast, salmon caught on trailers are cleaned
while the fishing vessel is still at sea and the internal organs are discharged into the
surrounding waters. Hence, on the salmon trailers, the organs and most of the residual
blood are not in contact with refrigerated water/ice, and consequently, lower quantities of
these materials are discharged when the vessel empties its hold at the dock.
The volume of fish hold water generated by a fishing vessel depends on the size
of the vessel and the method used for keeping the product fresh. Vessels such as small
salmon trailers or long-liners that frequent Alaska waters have around 1,500 gallons of
fish hold storage. EPA estimated this volume is occupied by approximately 50 percent
fish and 35 to 40 percent ice when the vessel off-loads at the seafood processing facility.
The ice, which is thrown overboard daily after the fish are unloaded, would result in a
fish hold discharge of between 500 and 600 gpd for these types of fishing vessels.
3-122
-------
Proposed Draft
Collecting Fish Hold Ice from a Long Liner
Fish Hold Ice from a Trawler
EPA estimated that mid-size fishing vessels, such as gill netters, and purse seiners
found in Alaska, and shrimp boats in the Gulf of Mexico, have fish hold volumes of
3-123
-------
Proposed Draft
between 3,000 and 5,000 gallons. Assuming these vessels have between 35 and 40
percent of ice/water slurry in the fish hold tanks, they likely discharge between 1,000 and
2,000 gallons of fish hold water every two to three days (333 to 1,000 gpd).
Larger fishing vessels such as off-shore trawlers found off the coast of New
England and tenders found in Alaska can have refrigerated seawater holding tanks or ice
hold tanks with capacities as large as 15,000 gallons. These tanks, which contain 30 to 40
percent refrigerated seawater or ice after the seafood is unloaded, result in a fish hold
discharge of between 4,500 and 6,000 gallons. These vessels are expected to unload
seafood and discharge the fish hold water every three to five days (900 to 2,000 gpd).
Two Examples of Full Fish Hold Tanks on a Tender Vessel
3-124
-------
Proposed Draft
EPA collected effluent samples from 31 commercial fishing vessels for this study.
Samples were collected from the fish holds that were in use on 26 of these vessels. EPA
generally collected single grab samples from these vessels while the vessels were
dockside. These samples were usually collected while the effluent was being discharged,
but they were occasionally collected directly from the fish hold. EPA analyzed samples
for both total and dissolved metals, classical pollutants, pathogens, and nutrients. EPA
also analyzed three samples from fish holds for nonylphenols.
The fish hold tank is cleaned after the catch has been off-loaded at the seafood
processing facility, so the frequency of fish hold cleaning depends on the type and
amount of fish being caught. For example, off-shore trawlers in New England might only
clean the fish hold tank every three to five days when they return to the fish processing
facility. Small fishing vessels such as salmon trailers and long-liners in Alaska off-load
the catch daily and therefore clean the fish hold tanks daily. Fish tenders and purse
seiners with refrigerated seawater tanks might clean the tanks every couple of days when
they return to the fish processing facility.
On small fishing boats such as trailers and long-liners, and mid-size fishing boats
such as gill netters, fish holds are typically cleaned using a garden hose at a flow rate of
between 10 and 12 gpm. Fish hold cleaning is completed in 15 minutes or less, resulting
in a discharge of between 150 and 200 gallons per day. Larger vessels such as off-shore
trawlers found in New England and large tenders in Alaska also use a garden hose to
wash down the fish hold tanks; however, cleaning these tanks requires approximately 30
minutes. EPA estimated the volume of fish hold cleaning water discharge for these
vessels ranges between 300 and 400 gallons per cleaning (60 to 200 gpd depending on
frequency).
EPA was able to collect samples of the fish hold cleaning water discharge from
nine vessels. These samples were analyzed for the same constituents as fish hold effluent
plus nonylphenols. Nonylphenols are suspected pollutants associated with cleaning
products.
3.2.4.1 Metals
Fish Hold Effluent
Samples of refrigerated cooling water and ice slurry from 26 fish holds were
analyzed for dissolved and total concentrations of 22 metals. The analytical results are
summarized in Table 3.4.1 (total metals data) and Table 3.4.2 (dissolved metals data) for
the 19 metals that were detected in one or more fish hold effluent samples. Figures 3.4.1
3-125
-------
Proposed Draft
and 3.4.2 present these same results for total and dissolved metals, respectively,
normalized by the lowest NRWQC where applicable. The following metals were detected
in all fish hold water samples:
• Total aluminum
• Dissolved and total barium
• Dissolved and total calcium
• Dissolved and total cobalt
• Dissolved and total iron
• Dissolved and total potassium
• Dissolved and total sodium
• Dissolved and total vanadium
• Dissolved and total zinc
Concentrations of a number of other metals were measured for 50 percent or more
of the samples analyzed:
• Dissolved aluminum
• Total arsenic
• Dissolved and total copper
• Dissolved and total magnesium
• Dissolved and total manganese
• Dissolved and total potassium
• Total silver.
Several metals for which EPA tested had concentrations that were notable. These
metals include dissolved and total arsenic, and dissolved copper, selenium, and zinc (see
Figures 3.4.1 and 3.4.2). A small percentage of the samples contained all the metals
which EPA regularly analyzes; however, metals such as lead, nickel, and selenium were,
with a few notable exceptions, in concentrations below PHQs at the point of discharge
(see Figures 3.4.3 and 3.4.4). EPA analyzed for and detected dissolved and total barium,
cobalt, iron, potassium, silver, sodium, and vanadium in only two samples. All of the
detected concentrations in the two samples were low, except for iron. EPA also analyzed
for antimony, beryllium, and thallium in these two samples and did not detect any of
these metals.
The concentrations of many of the metals that were detected in fish hold
discharges are not unexpected as fish holds generally have numerous exposed metal
surfaces. In addition, the pumps used to add water to the hold might also add low
concentrations of metals. Finally, metallic fishing equipment, deck surfaces, and other
materials sometimes come in contact with the fish or water that runs into the hold.
3-126
-------
Proposed Draft
Some metal concentrations, particularly mineral salts, appear to be primarily a
result of background concentrations in the ambient water. For example, aluminum,
barium, calcium, iron, magnesium, sodium, and potassium appear to be primarily
influenced by background concentrations. Other metals that had measurable
concentrations (e.g., arsenic, copper, manganese, and zinc) appear to result largely from
mechanically refrigerated water used to cool the sea water to preserve seafood catch,
adding ice to do the same, or possibly, from the seafood catch itself, or from any
combination of the three.
Several metals were detected in at least one sample of fish hold effluent with PHQ
values of greater than 1 (see Figures 3.4.3 and 3.4.4). For total metals, this included
aluminum, arsenic, copper, iron, and manganese. However, as discussed above,
aluminum concentrations appear to be primarily influenced by ambient water background
concentrations. Total copper concentrations exceeded the total copper benchmark based
on human health (for consumption of water and aquatic organisms) of 1,300 |ig/L by a
small fraction in two samples (Table 3.4.1). These total concentrations, however, could
pose potential risk to the aquatic environment because the human health criteria of 1,300
|ig/L is significantly higher than the 3.1 |ig/L benchmark used for dissolved copper based
on the saltwater chronic ambient water quality criterion for the protection of aquatic life.
When high levels of particulate copper are discharged, some of the particulate copper will
likely convert to dissolved copper and be made bioavailable to aquatic life. EPA collected
only two samples for analysis of total iron, one of which had a PHQ value of five and the
other eight.
Another metal with high PHQ values is total arsenic. The PHQ values for total
arsenic ranged from between more than 100 to more than 20,000 (Figure 3.4.3). One
reason for these extreme PHQ values is the exceptionally low screening benchmark of
0.018 |ig/L for total arsenic. Nonetheless, concentrations of total arsenic in the upper end
ranges of these measurements are a possible environmental concern. These discharges
may have the potential to cause or contribute to exceedances of water quality standards,
particularly in areas where multiple fishing vessels discharge their holds into the same
waters within the same time period.
Several dissolved metals, including arsenic, cadmium, copper, iron, nickel, and
selenium, also had PHQs above 1 (see Figure 3.4.4). Dissolved arsenic samples resulted
in PHQs of approximately 9-10 for two discharges; one was from a shrimping vessel
from the Gulf Coast and the other from a ground fishery vessel in New England, while a
third boat ground fishery vessel in New England had a PHQ value of just over 2. There
was also only one sample which had a PHQ value for cadmium of approximately 5. Only
four of the 26 values exceeded a PHQ value of 1 for dissolved nickel, and none exceeded
a value of 2. Dissolved selenium had 6 samples exceed a PHQ value of 1 (the highest
3-127
-------
Proposed Draft
value of which was approximately 12). Dissolved zinc had numerous PHQ values of
greater than 1, but none greater than 10. Dissolved copper had numerous samples that
exceeded the PHQ value of 1, with more than 25 percent of these samples having a PHQ
value of greater than 10.
The high dissolved arsenic concentrations were observed exclusively from three
vessels; a shrimping boat (345 |ig/L) and two ground fishery trawlers (74 and 310 |ig/L).
Ambient water concentrations indicate that the arsenic likely did not come from the
surrounding water, although dissolved arsenic was measured at a substantial level of 26
|ig/L in the ambient water where the shrimping vessel was sampled. Another possible
explanation is entrainment of arsenic contaminated sediments on nets. Each of the vessels
with high arsenic values (trawlers and shrimp boats) use nets that drag the ocean floor.
When nets are retrieved and emptied on the deck of the vessel, entrained sediments from
the ocean floor could migrate into the fish holds along with the fish and shrimp. One
other possible source includes organic arsenic compounds that are primarily found in
organisms living in the sea. Based on the limited data collected, EPA cannot identify the
specific source(s) of the high dissolved arsenic values at this time.
In summary, some samples of dissolved copper in fish hold effluent discharges
were well above the PHQ screening benchmark of 3.1 |ig/L based on the 2006 NRWQC
saltwater chronic aquatic life criterion. Many of these concentrations resulted in PHQs of
greater than 10, with some upwards of 200. The three elevated concentrations of
dissolved arsenic could potentially pose an environmental concern, particularly if these
arsenic concentrations are common in these vessel discharges. Finally, concentrations of
total arsenic are also high relative to the benchmark, resulting in high PHQ values and
may have the potential to pose risks to human health if discharged into drinking water
sources, though almost all fishing vessels operate in marine or estuarine environments
that are not used for drinking water.
3-128
-------
Proposed Draft
Table 3.4.1. Results of Fish Hold Effluent Sample Analyses for Total Metals1
Total Metal
Units
No.
samples
No.
detected
Detected
Proportion
<%)
Average
Cone.
Median
Cone.
Minimum
Cone.
10%
25%
75%
90%
Maximum
Cone.
Screening
BM'
Heavy and Other Metals
Aluminum
ug/L
26
26
100
827
840
89
180
420
900
1800
2400
87
Arsenic
|jg/L
26
16
62
40
4.8
13
210
380
0.018
Barium
|jg/L
2
2
100
98
110
83
83
83
110
110
110
1000
Cadmium
|jg/L
26
3
12
0.99
3.3
NA
Chromium
|jg/L
26
7
27
4.3
2.6
19
35
NA
Cobalt
ug/L
2
2
100
3.7
4.4
2.9
2.9
2.9
4.4
4.4
4.4
NA
Copper
ug/L
26
24
92
190
40
5.8
12
14109
710
1700
1300
Iron
ug/L
2
2
100
2000
2500
1600
1600
1600
2500
2500
2500
300
Lead
ug/L
26
9
35
7.1
5.6
31
42
NA
Manganese
ug/L
26
15
58
24
6.6
17
130
140
100
Nickel
ug/L
26
5
19
7.7
30
610
Selenium
ug/L
26
7
27
12
13
29
90
170
Silver
ug/L
2
1
50
2.4
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.7
NA
Vanadium
ug/L
2
2
100
9.2
10
8.1
8.1
8.1
197
10
10
NA
Zinc
ug/L
26
26
100
340
230
27
46
100
450
940
1700
7400
Cationic Metals
Calcium
ug/L
26
26
100
150000
190000
1900
3000
15000
270000
300000
310000
NA
Magnesium
ug/L
26
25
96
450000
580000
1800
14000
840000
980000
1100000
NA
Potassium
ug/L
2
2
100
330000
480000
190000
190000
190000
480000
480000
480000
NA
Sodium
ug/L
2
2
100
1200000
1900000
370000
370000
370000
1900000
1900000
1900000
NA
Notes:
(1) Nondetect (censored) concentrations were replaced with % of the reporting limit for calculating average concentrations. The remaining statistics in this table were only calculated
when analytes were detected at a sufficient frequency. For example, if an analyte was detected in fewer than 50% of samples, then a median concentration was not calculated. A blank
cell reflects a situation when a median or percentile could not be computed based on detected concentrations. The percentiles are the concentrations of each analyte below which at
least that percentage of the values fall. So the 10th percentile is the concentration below which at least 10% of the observations were found.
(2) Screening BM represents the screening benchmark referred to in Section 3.1.3, and is the most stringent 2006 NRWQC or other conservative benchmark used to calculate PHQs.
3-129
-------
Proposed Draft
Table 3.4.2. Results of Fish Hold Effluent Sample Analyses for Dissolved Metals1
Dissolved Metal
Units
No.
samples
No.
detected
Detected
Proportion
(%)
Average
Cone.
Median
Cone.
Minimum
Cone.
10%
25%
75%
90%
Maximum
Cone.
Screening
BM'
Heavy and Other Metals
Aluminum
Mg/L
26
24
92
490
670
20
60
850
970
1000
NA
Arsenic
|jg/L
26
10
38
31
5.7
150
350
36
Barium
Mg/L
2
2
100
64
84
44
44
44
84
84
84
NA
Cadmium
Mg/L
26
1
4
0.77
0.25
Chromium
Mg/L
26
3
12
1.9
5.8
7.9
11
Cobalt
Mg/L
2
2
100
1.8
2.0
1.6
1.6
1.6
2.0
2.0
2.0
NA
Copper
Mg/L
26
23
88
96
15
6.0
38
920
3.1
Iron
Mg/L
2
2
100
350
360
340
340
340
360
360
360
NA
Lead
Mg/L
26
3
12
2.3
4.4
8.0
2.5
Manganese
ug/L
26
19
73
22
11
28
80
110
NA
Nickel
ug/L
26
4
15
6.1
13
17
8.2
Selenium
Mg/L
26
6
23
9.2
2.5
20
61
5.0
Silver
Mg/L
2
2
100
1.3
1.5
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.9
Vanadium
Mg/L
2
2
100
3.4
3.5
3.2
3.2
3.2
3.5
3.5
3.5
NA
Zinc
Mg/L
26
26
100
180
120
24
31
55
240
450
790
81
Cationic Metals
Calcium
Mg/L
26
26
100
160000
180000
1200
1900
9000
290000
300000
310000
NA
Magnesium
^g/L
26
25
96
480000
560000
770
11000
920000
990000
1100000
NA
Potassium
Mg/L
2
2
100
330000
470000
180000
180000
180000
470000
470000
470000
NA
Sodium
Mg/L
2
2
100
1200000
2000000
360000
360000
360000
2000000
2000000
2000000
NA
Notes:
(1) Nondetect (censored) concentrations were replaced with % of the reporting limit for calculating average concentrations. The remaining statistics in this table were only calculated
when analytes were detected at a sufficient frequency. For example, if an analyte was detected in fewer than 50% of samples, then a median concentration was not calculated. A blank
cell reflects a situation when a median or percentile could not be computed based on detected concentrations. The percentiles are the concentrations of each analyte below which at
least that percentage of the values fall. So the 10th percentile is the concentration below which at least 10% of the observations were found.
(2) Screening BM represents the screening benchmark referred to in Section 3.1.3, and is the most stringent 2006 NRWQC or other conservative benchmark used to calculate PHQs.
3-130
-------
Proposed Draft
1000-
CD
C
o
CD
s_
C
Q)
O
C
o
O
•<\^
G^
*s&
Total Metals
s^V
Figure 3.4.1. Box and Dot Density Plot of Total Metals Concentrations Measured in
Samples of Fish Hold Effluent
3-131
-------
Proposed Draft
1000
CD
C
o
CD
s_
C
Q)
O
C
o
O
Dissolved Metals
Figure 3.4.2. Box and Dot Density Plot of Dissolved Metals Concentrations
Measured in Samples of Fish Hold Effluent
3-132
-------
Proposed Draft
c
0)
O
=3
o
"O
s_
CO
N
CO
X
c
Q)
O
Q_
10000.000|r
1000.000
100.000
10.000
1.000
0.100
0.010
I I I I I I I I I I I -
@
0.001
Total Metals
Figure 3.4.3. Box and Dot Density Plot of Potential Hazard Quotients for Total
Metals in Samples of Fish Hold Effluent Note: as discussed in the text above, total arsenic is a
potential concern; however, the exceptionally high PHQ values are due in part to the low human health
value for total arsenic used as a benchmark.
3-133
-------
Proposed Draft
100.0 -
c
Q)
o
"O
s_
CO
N
CO
X
c
Q)
O
~_
10.0-
'G*ov ^2^ ^ ^
Dissolved Metals
Figure 3.4.4. Box and Dot Density Plot of Potential Hazard Quotients for Dissolved
Metals in Samples of Fish Hold Effluent
3-134
-------
Proposed Draft
Fish Hold Cleaning Effluent
EPA expected effluent from the cleaning of fish holds to be fundamentally similar
to fish hold effluent with two exceptions: 1) many vessels used a soap or disinfectant,
which would not be expected to be present in the hold, and 2) cleaning fish holds brings
in either potable water from the local municipality via a pierside hose (service water) or
ambient water pumped from the surrounding waters. Table 3.4.3 presents summary
statistics for fish hold cleaning effluent. Figures 3.4.6 and 3.4.7 show the detected results
for total and dissolved metal concentrations, respectively, and Figures 3.4.8 and 3.4.9
shows the PHQ values for total and dissolved concentrations, respectively, where
applicable.
Generally, average and maximum total and dissolved metals concentrations for
fish hold cleaning were slightly lower than for fish hold effluent. These lower values
could be due to any number of reasons: less contact time with the vessel for fish hold
cleaning effluent, differences in source water (mechanically refrigerated and ice versus
city tap water), less contact time (or none at all) with the seafood product or its residuals,
etc.
The lower concentrations of metals for fish hold cleaning effluent resulted in
lower overall PHQ values for both total and dissolved forms, as well as a lower
percentage of samples that exceed a PHQ of 1. Not surprisingly, the metals (dissolved
copper, dissolved and total arsenic) identified as having high PHQs for fish hold effluent
also exhibited higher PHQ values in fish hold cleaning effluent. Likewise, dissolved
copper occurs in fish hold cleaning effluent at concentrations mostly above a PHQ value
of one, and dissolved arsenic was found in two samples with PHQ values above one.
Dissolved zinc was also found in several samples with PHQ values above one, the
maximum being a PHQ value just below 10 (Figure 3.4.8).
3-135
-------
Proposed Draft
Table 3.4.3. Results of Fish Hold Cleaning Effluent Sample Analyses for Metals1
Metal
Units
No.
samples
No.
detected
Detected
Proportion
(%)
Average
Cone.
Median
Cone.
Minimum
Cone.
10%
25%
75%
90%
Maximum
Cone.
Screening
BM'
Heavy and Other Metals
Aluminum, Dissolved
Mg/L
9
9
100
780
880
74
74
760
950
1000
1000
NA
Aluminum, Total
Mg/L
9
9
100
1100
930
850
850
860
1500
1700
1700
87
Arsenic, Dissolved
mq/l
9
5
56
22
5.3
38
97
97
36
Arsenic, Total
Mg/L
9
5
56
35
8.7
64
150
150
0.018
Cadmium, Total
mq/l
9
1
11
1.0
3.0
3.0
NA
Chromium, Dissolved
Mg/L
9
1
11
1.5
3.4
3.4
11
Chromium, Total
Mg/L
9
3
33
4.6
5.4
23
23
NA
Copper, Dissolved
Mg/L
9
8
89
34
12
8.6
32
180
180
3.1
Copper, Total
Mg/L
9
9
100
57
25
6.4
6.4
11
61
290
290
1300
Lead, Dissolved
Mg/L
9
1
11
2.7
8.7
8.7
2.5
Lead, Total
Mg/L
9
4
44
19
37
79
79
NA
Manganese, Dissolved
Mg/L
9
4
44
21
39
64
64
NA
Manganese, Total
Mg/L
9
5
56
33
4.8
61
110
110
100
Selenium, Dissolved
Mg/L
9
1
11
6.0
14
14
5.0
Selenium, Total
Mg/L
9
2
22
7.4
7.0
18
18
170
Zinc, Dissolved
Mg/L
9
8
89
190
53
420
640
640
81
Zinc, Total
Mg/L
9
8
89
470
140
17
890
1800
1800
7400
Cationic Metals
Calcium, Dissolved
Mg/L
9
9
100
250000
270000
11000
11 oBb
240000
300000
320000
320000
NA
Calcium, Total
Mg/L
9
9
100
260000
280000
13000
13000
260000
310000
320000
320000
NA
Magnesium, Dissolved
Mg/L
9
9
100
790000
860000
12000
12000
750000
990000
1000000
1000000
NA
Magnesium, Total
Mg/L
9
9
100
780000
880000
13000
13000
710000
1000000
1000000
1000000
NA
Notes:
(1) Nondetect (censored) concentrations were replaced with % of the reporting limit for calculating average concentrations. The remaining statistics in this table were only calculated
when analytes were detected at a sufficient frequency. For example, if an analyte was detected in fewer than 50% of samples, then a median concentration was not calculated. A blank
cell reflects a situation when a median or percentile could not be computed based on detected concentrations. The percentiles are the concentrations of each analyte below which at
least that percentage of the values fall. So the 10th percentile is the concentration below which at least 10% of the observations were found.
(2) Screening BM represents the screening benchmark referred to in Section 3.1.3, and is the most stringent 2006 NRWQC or other conservative benchmark used to calculate PHQs.
3-136
-------
Proposed Draft
i—T
1000-c
CD
C
o
CD
s_
C
Q)
O
C
o
O
100 ^
10-
1 -
ob
ODD
i—i—i—r
OOOOO
ob
,OOQODOO i
J |000_0|Q000 I I I I I |_
Total Metals
Figure 3.4.5. Box and Dot Density Plot of Total Metals Concentrations Measured in
Samples of Fish Hold Cleaning Effluent
3-137
-------
Proposed Draft
1000
CD
C
o
CD
s_
C
Q)
O
C
o
O
100
10
J I
J L
/v ^
Dissolved Metals
Figure 3.4.6. Box and Dot Density Plot of Dissolved Metals Concentrations
Measured in Samples of Fish Hold Cleaning Effluent
3-138
-------
Proposed Draft
1000.000
c
CD
O
100.000
=3
o
"O
<
10.000
CO
N
CO
X
1.000
c
0.100
Q)
O
Q_
0.010
0.001
J I L
pjo
O
o
too
i r
&
fcnn
olo
OOQODOO
00
o
o
¦OP-
J I I L
Total Metals
Figure 3.4.7. Box and Dot Density Plot of Potential Hazard Quotients for Total
Metals in Samples of Fish Hold Cleaning Effluent
3-139
-------
Proposed Draft
c
Q)
5 10.0-
o
=3
o
CO
N
CO
CO
c
Q)
O
~_
0.1 -
op
1.0-
-©-
OOj
QOOOQQQO
^ OOQODDOO
00
ooonnooo
J E£E£ I I I L
/v ^
Dissolved Metals
Figure 3.4.8. Box and Dot Density Plot of Potential Hazard Quotients for Dissolved
Metals in Samples of Fish Hold Cleaning Effluent
3-140
-------
Proposed Draft
3.2.4.2 Classical Pollutants
Table 3.4.4 presents analytical results for 14 classical pollutants detected in
samples from fish hold effluent (all classical pollutants analyzed for in the study were
detected). These detected results are also shown in Figure 3.4.9.
Except for dissolved oxygen, other physical parameters measured (conductivity,
pH, salinity, and temperature) did not have results that were likely to result in any impact
on receiving water quality. Dissolved oxygen concentrations were low in several samples
of fish hold effluent: hypoxic (< 2 mg/L) in three cases and marginal (<5 mg/L) in 19
additional cases. These low oxygen conditions may be driven by the high BOD
concentrations found in many of the fish holds. Effluent with low dissolved oxygen
concentrations were also noted in the fish hold cleaning effluent, with six of nine samples
(67 percent) having concentrations of less than 5 mg/L (see Table 3.4.5 and Figure
3.4.10).
EPA found BOD and COD to be highly elevated in fish hold effluent (Table
3.4.4). BOD was measured in several samples in concentrations in the thousands of
mg/L. High levels of BOD are almost certainly caused by the decay of the organic
material associated with the seafood product. As shown in Figure 3.4.9, the majority of
these concentrations are generally higher than those of raw sewage (which can range up
to a few hundred mg/L), and almost all are higher than a wastewater treatment plant's
secondary treatment limit of 30 mg/L for BOD. The median value for BOD discharge
was approximately 471 mg/L, indicating that BOD discharge from fish holds are
abnormally elevated (see Figure 3.4.11). The highest BOD value of 5,130 mg/L
approximates the concentrations found in sewage sludge (Metcalf and Eddy, 1979).
These high levels of BOD in discharges could potentially pose environmental
problems in certain circumstances. For example, high BOD concentrations in fish hold
effluents are potentially ubiquitous, and discharges could result in impacts to receiving
waters where there are numerous fishing vessels, poor flushing, or high levels of existing
hypoxic (low oxygen) stress in the water body. In stratified waters with hypoxic or
anoxic (no oxygen) conditions, the risk associated with elevated BOD is most likely to
occur in deeper waters under a thermocline or picnocline. When using refrigerated
seawater systems, fish hold effluent may be as saline (or more saline) than the
surrounding water. Where it is also cooler than the surrounding water, the fish hold
effluent would be more likely to sink to the bottom of the stratified water under the
warmer water. This may deliver the BOD load to the deeper layers of the water body
where oxygen levels are likely to be lower in eutrophic waters. In contrast, where ice is
used to cool fish in the fish hold, the BOD load may be more likely to stay in the surface
layers since fresh water is less dense than salt water. Thus, a low salinity fish hold
3-141
-------
Proposed Draft
effluent discharge may prevent the BOD loading from having as significant an impact to
aquatic organisms in the receiving waters.
The considerable variability in BOD concentrations from the 26 fish hold effluent
samples may be due to how fish are kept. The average concentration of BOD is lowest
for the lobster tank compared with the other fish hold types, which is logical since lobster
tanks have continuously circulating ambient water with live seafood inside. Hence, the
water is constantly being refreshed, while the seafood product generally has not begun
the process of degrading or bleeding into the tank. There could be other differences in
BOD concentrations based upon whether fish are kept on top of ice, in ice water slurry, or
in refrigerated seawater. New England trawlers and Gulf Coast shrimp boats had several
vessels with exceptionally high BOD concentrations.
Whereas BOD measures oxygen demand from biodegradable material, COD
measures oxygen demand for both biodegradable material and nonbiodegradable
oxidizable material. Like BOD, COD discharge is elevated in fish hold effluent and fish
hold cleaning effluent (Tables 3.4.4 and 3.4.5). Occasionally, these values are
exceptionally high, which could potentially cause stress on a water body where there are
many discharges from fish holds and where there may be low circulation or flushing or
existing hypoxic or anoxic stress in the water body.
Oil and grease as measured by HEM and SGT-HEM are generally discharged in
low concentrations from fish hold effluent, with the vast majority of samples from both
fish hold effluent and fish hold cleaning effluent having HEM and SGT-HEM being
discharged in quantities below 5 mg/L. However, there are a few discharges where the
concentrations exceed 15 mg/L. The highest of these values for either fish hold or fish
hold cleaning effluent (the HEM concentration was approximately 28 mg/L - slightly less
than twice the regulatory limit of 15 mg/L) are from the samples taken during a fish hold
cleaning event while onboard a New England ground fishing vessel. These values
demonstrate that while oil and grease discharges from fish holds sometimes occasionally
occur at elevated concentrations, they were generally not observed at concentrations that
are of particular concern.
The concentrations of the classical pollutants EPA measured that are associated
with sediment or cloudiness (i.e., TSS and turbidity) were roughly equivalent to
concentrations observed in raw sewage effluent, but considerably lower than stormwater
runoff from construction sites or highly urbanized streams. TSS was elevated in both fish
hold effluent and fish hold cleaning effluent; however, concentrations were generally not
sufficiently elevated to alone exceed water quality standards. Just under 90 percent of
samples exceed the secondary treatment concentration of 30 mg/L for TSS (the value
used to establish the PHQ benchmark), with a maximum concentration of 1,100 mg/L in
3-142
-------
Proposed Draft
a fish hold effluent sample. As with BOD, TSS appears to be more diluted in fish hold
cleaning effluent than in fish hold effluent. While it did not test for volatile suspended
solids (VSS) in this sampling program, EPA assumed that a significant percentage of the
TSS concentration is directly caused by organic material related to the seafood product.
Similar to TSS, turbidity concentrations were elevated in both fish hold effluent and fish
hold cleaning effluent, and slightly more concentrated in fish hold effluent than in fish
hold cleaning effluent.
The concentrations of sulfide in fish hold and fish hold cleaning effluent were low
in most samples, with most values falling below a reporting limit value of 0.01 mg/L.
Sulfide was detected in only seven of 25 samples where the parameter was tested, and in
only four of seven fish hold cleaning samples. However, a few samples had significantly
elevated sulfide concentrations, including a maximum fish hold concentration of 0.16
mg/L (PHQ value of 80) from fish hold discharges, and a maximum fish hold cleaning
value of 0.48 mg/L (PHQ value of 240). These high sulfide values cannot be attributed to
high background concentrations. A relatively higher percentage of detectable sulfide
concentrations were noted in New England ground fishery trawlers compared with other
areas (seven out of the 11 detections). EPA is unable to determine why the New England
fishery vessels have higher concentrations of sulfide compared with vessels using other
fishing platforms or from other areas; however, one possible explanation is that the New
England fishery vessels are at sea for seven to 10 days, whereas Alaskan fishing vessels
are offloaded once every one to two days.
TOC was detected in all of the 25 of the fish hold effluent samples for which it
was tested and all nine fish hold cleaning samples. Concentrations ranged from a low of
1.8 mg/L to an extreme high of 2,200 mg/L (see Table 3.4.4). Background concentrations
of TOC (i.e., from mechanically refrigerated water or ice) are much lower (in the range of
2 to 19 mg/L) and do not appear to be a significant cause of the high TOC loads in the
effluent. TOC levels are likely elevated by decay and residuals from the seafood product.
3-143
-------
Proposed Draft
Table 3.4.4. Results of Fish Hold Effluent Sample Analyses for Classical Pollutants1
Parameter
Units
No.
samples
No.
detected
Detected
Proportion
(%)
Average
Cone.
Median
Cone.
Minimum
Cone.
10%
25%
75%
90%
Maximum
Cone.
Screening
BM'
Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD)
mg/L
26
24
92
840
440
25
140
830
3100
5100
30
Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD)
mg/L
26
26
100
1500
940
52
340
660
1900
2600
8700
NA
Conductivity
mS/cm
26
26
100
25
30
0.20
0.35
3.3
43
46
61
NA
Dissolved Oxygen
mg/L
26
26
100
4.3
3.9
1.7
2.0
2.8
5.7
8.2
9.2
NA
Hexane Extractable Material (HEM)
mg/L
26
18
69
3.2
1.5
2.9
6.4
16
15
PH
SU
26
26
100
7.0
6.8
6.0
6.3
6.5
7.5
7.8
8.3
NA
Salinity
ppt
26
26
100
13
17
0.10
0.47
1.4
25
28
28
NA
Silica Gel Treated HEM (SGT-HEM)
mg/L
26
15
58
3.4
0.98
2.2
3.7
4.4
15
Sulfide
mg/L
25
7
28
0.017
0.011
0.045
0.16
0.0020
Temperature
C
26
26
100
7.0
6.9
-0.16
0.098
3.0
9.5
16
26
NA
Total Organic Carbon (TOC)
mg/L
25
25
100
290
140
1.8
8.3
48
260
970
2200
NA
Total Residual Chlorine
mg/L
26
10
38
0.096
0.13
0.22
0.30
0.0075
Total Suspended Solids (TSS)
mg/L
26
26
100
210
130
10
29
71
190
690
1100
30
Turbidity
NTU
26
26
100
96
63
9.0
16
25
120
310
450
NA
Notes:
(1) Nondetect (censored) concentrations were replaced with % of the reporting limit for calculating average concentrations. The remaining statistics in this table were only calculated
when analytes were detected at a sufficient frequency. For example, if an analyte was detected in fewer than 50% of samples, then a median concentration was not calculated. A blank
cell reflects a situation when a median or percentile could not be computed based on detected concentrations. The percentiles are the concentrations of each analyte below which at
least that percentage of the values fall. So the 10th percentile is the concentration below which at least 10% of the observations were found.
(2) Screening BM represents the screening benchmark referred to in Section 3.1.3, and is the most stringent 2006 NRWQC or other conservative benchmark used to calculate PHQs.
3-144
-------
Proposed Draft
Table 3.4.5. Results of Fish Hold Cleaning Effluent Analyses for Classical Pollutants1
Parameter
Units
No.
samples
No.
detected
Detected
Proportion
(%)
Average
Cone.
Median
Cone.
Minimum
Cone.
10%
25%
75%
90%
Maximum
Cone.
Screening
BM'
Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD)
mg/L
9
6
67
470
300
770
1800
1800
30
Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD)
mg/L
9
9
100
1100
960
490
490
530
1600
2400
2400
NA
Conductivity
mS/cm
8
8
100
35
41
2.6
2.6
27
45
46
46
NA
Dissolved Oxygen
mg/L
9
9
100
5.6
2.9
1.4
1.4
1.6
9.6
15
15
NA
Hexane Extractable Material (HEM)
mg/L
9
6
67
5.4
1.4
4.2
28
28
15
PH
SU
9
9
100
7.6
7.6
6.9
6.9
7.2
8.1
8.6
8.6
NA
Salinity
ppt
9
9
100
48
24
1.3
1.3
19
27
260
260
NA
Silica Gel Treated HEM (SGT-HEM)
mg/L
9
4
44
4.9
2.8
12
12
15
Sulfide
mg/L
7
4
057
0.10
0.019
0.17
0.48
0.48
0.0020
Temperature
C
9
9
100
9.2
8.2
4.7
4.7
5.7
12
15
15
NA
Total Organic Carbon (TOC)
mg/L
9
9
100
210
74
1.9
1.9
5.1
430
730
730
NA
Total Residual Chlorine
mg/L
9
6
67
0.29
0.11
0.29
1.5
1.5
0.0075
Total Suspended Solids (TSS)
mg/L
9
9
100
190
84
16
16
26
400
460
460
30
Turbidity
NTU
9
9
100
100
59
0.20
0.20
1.0
210
330
330
NA
Notes:
(1) Nondetect (censored) concentrations were replaced with % of the reporting limit for calculating average concentrations. The remaining statistics in this table were only calculated
when analytes were detected at a sufficient frequency. For example, if an analyte was detected in fewer than 50% of samples, then a median concentration was not calculated. A blank
cell reflects a situation when a median or percentile could not be computed based on detected concentrations. The percentiles are the concentrations of each analyte below which at
least that percentage of the values fall. So the 10th percentile is the concentration below which at least 10% of the observations were found.
(2) Screening BM represents the screening benchmark referred to in Section 3.1.3, and is the most stringent 2006 NRWQC or other conservative benchmark used to calculate PHQs.
3-145
-------
Proposed Draft
i—i—i—T
i—i—i—i—n
c
=3
O
E
<
s_
o
c
o
CD
s_
C
Q)
O
C
o
O
1000.00
100.00
10.00
1.00
0.10
0.01
*
©
©
©
00
I
J I I I I L
I I I lJ
Classical Pollutants
Figure 3.4.9. Box and Dot Density Plot of Classical Pollutant Concentrations/Values
Measured in Samples of Fish Hold Effluent
3-146
-------
Proposed Draft
i—i—i—i—r
i—i—i—i—n
c
o
CD
s_
C
Q)
O
C
o
O
1000.00r
100.00r
10.00 r
1.00 r
0.10 r
0.01 r
*
I s
J I I I I L
J I I I I LJ
Classical Pollutants
Figure 3.4.10. Box and Dot Density Plot of Classical Pollutant
Concentrations/Values Measured in Samples of Fish Hold Cleaning Effluent
3-147
-------
Proposed Draft
BOD Concentrations in Wastewater Effluent
5000
4000
o>
E.
-------
3.2.4.3 Pathogen Indicators (Microbiologicals)
Proposed Draft
Sampling pathogen indicators from fish holds presented logistical challenges for
the EPA sampling team. Many fishing vessels were sampled in locations remote from
laboratories and the holding times of tests for these three pathogens (< 6 hours) prevented
EPA from analyzing these samples from many of the sampling events. Nonetheless, EPA
was able to test for E. coli and enterococci in seven fish hold effluent samples and for
fecal coliform in 11 fish hold effluent samples. The results are summarized in Table 3.4.6
(upper half of table) and shown graphically in Figure 3.4.12.
Of these fish hold effluent samples, EPA detected bacteria concentrations above
the most stringent screening benchmarks for one (of the seven) E. coli sample, four (of
the seven) enterococci samples, and three (of the 11) fecal coliform samples. However,
EPA strongly suspects that all of these exceedances were due primarily or exclusively
due to background concentrations. For example, the fish hold effluent from a fishing
vessel sampled in Gloucester, Massachusetts, exceeded all three stringent screening
benchmarks for E. coli, enterococci, and fecal coliform. However, ambient water
concentrations collected earlier in the day exceeded the concentrations in the later sample
taken from the fish hold. The likely source of the pathogenic bacteria in this case was a
combined sewer overflow (CSO) a few hundred feet above the location of the fishing
vessel. The fishing
vessel used
ambient water to
wash off its deck
while unloading
cargo (see section
3.2.3.3). Some of
this water likely
made its way into
the fish hold
before EPA
sampled the fish
hold effluent again
at the later time
period; hence, in
this case, EPA
strongly doubts
that the vessel was
the source of the
extremely high
What are Combined Sewer Overflows (CSOs) and Sanitary Sewer
Overflows (SSOs)?
Combined sewer systems are sewers that are designed to collect
rainwater runoff, domestic sewage, and industrial wastewater in the
same pipe. Most of the time, combined sewer systems transport all of
their wastewater to a sewage treatment plant, where it is treated and
then discharged to a water body. During periods of heavy rainfall or
snowmelt, however, the wastewater volume in a combined sewer
system can exceed the capacity of the sewer system or treatment
plant. For this reason, combined sewer systems are designed to
overflow occasionally and discharge excess wastewater directly to
nearby streams, rivers, or other water bodies. These overflows, called
combined sewer overflows (CSOs), contain not only stormwater but
also untreated human and industrial waste, toxic materials, and debris.
Properly designed, operated, and maintained sanitary sewer systems
are meant to collect and transport all of the sewage that flows into
them to a publicly owned treatment works (POTW). However,
occasional unintentional discharges of raw sewage from municipal
sanitary sewers occur in almost every system. These types of
discharges are called sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs). SSOs have a
variety of causes, including but not limited to severe weather, improper
system operation and maintenance, and vandalism. EPA estimates
that there are at least 40,000 SSOs each year. The untreated sewage
from these overflows can contaminate our waters, causing serious
water quality problems.
3-149
-------
Proposed Draft
pathogen levels.
EPA encountered a similar situation while sampling a commercial fishing vessel
in New Bedford, Massachusetts. The samples from the fish hold exceeded water quality
criteria for enterococci (127 MPN/ 100 ml) and fecal coliform (125,000 CFU/ 100 ml).
However, this vessel was sampled immediately adjacent to an SSO that contained raw
fish waste and human sewage: the ambient water had enterococci concentrations of 4,342
MPN/ 100 ml and fecal coliform concentrations of 6,500 CFU/ 100 ml. This vessel also
used ambient water to hose off its deck, introducing the pathogenic bacteria to the fish
hold. Note that for fecal coliform, this latter vessel's fish hold effluent did appear to add
to the high fecal coliform count in the sample.
None of the concentrations of the three pathogens exceeded the most stringent
NRWQC set for the pathogens in cases where the ambient concentrations were also
below the stringent NRWQC. Although the results were based on this limited number of
samples, EPA believes it is unlikely that there is an onboard source of these pathogenic
bacteria in the fish hold.
EPA was able to test the effluent from three separate fish holds from three vessels
while they were being cleaned (see Table 3.4.6, lower half of table). Two of the fish hold
cleaning effluent samples were from those vessels discussed above, where ambient water
pathogen concentrations were impacted by the discharge from a CSO and an SSO. The
third sample was from a vessel sampled in Sitka, Alaska. Similar to the fish hold effluent
results from Massachusetts, EPA found that the concentrations of the effluent from the
fish hold cleaning exceeded the NRWQC in one out of the three samples for E. coli, two
out of the three samples for enterococci, and two out of three samples for fecal coliform.
All the samples exceeding the most stringent screening benchmarks for the pathogens
were from the vessels located in Massachusetts. Pathogen concentrations were below the
detection limit for all three pathogens for the fish hold cleaning effluent from the vessel
in Sitka. In all cases, background concentrations in the ambient water exceeded the fish
hold cleaning effluent. Similar to what EPA observed with the fish hold effluent data,
pathogen contamination in fish hold cleaning effluent from fishing vessels is not a likely
source of pathogen contamination to receiving waters. Instead, EPA suspects that the
pathogen contamination in these effluents might come from the vessel pumping ambient
water with high levels of bacteria onboard.
3-150
-------
Proposed Draft
Table 3.4.6. Results of Fish Hold and Fish Hold Cleaning Effluent Sample Analyses for Pathogen Indicators1
Analyte''
Units'
No.
samples
No.
detected
Detected
Proportion
<%)
Average
Cone.
Median
Cone.
Minimum
Cone.
10%
25%
75%
90%
Maximum
Cone.
Screening
BM'
Fish Hold
E. coli by MPN
MPN/100 ml
7
6
86
83
41
10
110
310
310
130
Enterococci by MPN
MPN/100 ml
7
5
71
380
41
250
2200
2200
33
Fecal Coliform by MF
CFU/100 ml
11
6
55
11000
10
270
100000
130000
14
Fish Hold Cleaning
E. Coli by MPN
MPN/100 ml
3
2
67
200
52
550
550
550
130
Enterococci by MPN
MPN/100 ml
3
2
67
1000
150
2800
2800
2800
33
Fecal Coliform by MF
CFU/100 ml
3
2
67
1900
250
5300
5300
5300
14
Notes:
(1) Nondetect (censored) concentrations were replaced with % of the reporting limit for calculating average concentrations. The remaining statistics in this table were only calculated
when analytes were detected at a sufficient frequency. For example, if an analyte was detected in fewer than 50% of samples, then a median concentration was not calculated. A blank
cell reflects a situation when a median or percentile could not be computed based on detected concentrations. The percentiles are the concentrations of each analyte below which at
least that percentage of the values fall. So the 10th percentile is the concentration below which at least 10% of the observations were found.
(2) MPN = Most Probable Number; MF = Membrane Filtration.
(3) CFU = Colony Forming Units.
(4) Screening BM represents the screening benchmark referred to in Section 3.1.3, and is the most stringent 2006 NRWQC or other conservative benchmark used to calculate PHQs.
3-151
-------
Proposed Draft
100000r
o
o
CD
CL
O
o
10000r
1000r
1 2 3
Pathogen Indicators
Figure 3.4.12. Box and Dot Density Plot of Measured Pathogen Concentrations in
Samples of Fish Hold Effluent EPA notes that all values were subtantially influenced by
background concentrations in the ambient water, and that of the 25 sample results presented (seven results
for E. coh. seven for enterococci, and 11 for fecal coliform), only two of the samples exceeded their
background concentrations by more than 20 CFU/MPN 100 ml.
3-152
-------
Proposed Draft
3.2.4.4 Nutrients
Samples of fish hold effluent and fish hold cleaning were analyzed for four
nutrients or nutrient-related parameters: ammonia nitrogen, nitrate/nitrite, TKN, and total
phosphorus (see Table 3.4.7). The corresponding nutrient concentrations detected in fish
hold and fish hold cleaning effluent samples are shown in Figures 3.4.13 and 3.4.14,
respectively.
Concentrations of total ammonia nitrogen (NH3-N), nitrate/ni trite nitrogen
(N03/N02-N), TKN, and total phosphorus roughly compare to values of untreated raw
sewage (see values in Table 3.4.8). The fish hold effluent had average ammonia
concentrations of approximately 12 mg/L and the fish hold cleaning effluent had average
concentrations of 16 mg/L, which compares roughly to weak sewage as reported by
Metcalf and Eddy (1979) (see Table 3.4.8). However, there were several discharges in
which the ammonia concentration substantially exceeded these concentrations, and these
discharges could potentially result in acute toxic effects in the receiving water at and near
the point of discharge (see Figure 3.4.13). These high values increase the average
considerably (the median values for fish hold and fish hold cleaning effluent are 2.1 and
4.8 mg/L, respectively). Most of the ammonia concentrations in samples collected from
both fish hold and fish hold cleaning effluent exceed the PHQ screening benchmark of
1.2 mg/L based on the freshwater chronic aquatic life criterion of 1.2 mg N/L, with the
highest concentration resulting in a PHQ value of over 130.
In contrast, average nitrate concentrations were near zero for both fish hold
effluent (maximum concentration of 0.39 mg/L) and fish hold cleaning effluent
(maximum concentration of max 0.53 mg/L). These concentrations are similar to those
expected in raw sewage effluent no matter the strength of the sewage effluent (see Table
3.4.8). However, the average total phosphorus concentrations of 13 mg/L for the fish hold
effluent and 8.5 mg/L for fish hold cleaning effluent were similar to concentrations in
medium to strong raw sewage (see Tables 3.4.7 and 3.4.8).
TKN values averaged 110 mg/L for fish hold effluent and 59 mg/L for fish hold
cleaning effluent. These TKN results22 can be roughly compared with total nitrogen
results from Metcalf and Eddy (1979), showing that the nitrogen discharges are roughly
equivalent to strong sewage.
Protein, free amino acids, and nucleotides from fish and fish by-products are all
potential sources of nitrogen. Inorganic phosphorus in the form of phosphate is a key
22 TKN includes ammonia (NH3) and ammonium (NH4+), and organic nitrogen values. Total nitrogen
includes ammonia (NH3) and ammonium (NH4+), organic nitrogen, and nitrate and nitrite values. Raw
sewage tends to have very low nitrate and nitrite values.
3-153
-------
Proposed Draft
element in DNA, RNA, and adenosine triphosphate (ATP) - key components present in
the tissue and blood of any animal.
As shown in Figures 3.4.14 and 3.4.15, there is considerable variation exceeding
two orders of magnitude in the concentrations of three of the four nutrient and nutrient-
related parameters. EPA observed that nutrient concentrations showed some relationship
to the geographical location where the vessels operated. As shown in Figure 3.4.15,
concentrations of ammonia, TKN, and TP from the Gulf Coast shrimp boats and the New
England ground fishery trawlers appear to be higher than those from the fishing vessels
sampled in Alaska or the New England lobster tank. In addition, compared to the lobster
tank, whose water source is primarily flow-through water, all fishing vessel platforms
appear to add nutrients to the effluent.
3-154
-------
Proposed Draft
Table 3.4.7. Results of Fish Hold (upper half) and Fish Hold Cleaning Effluent (lower half) Sample Analyses for Nutrients1
Analyte
Units
No.
samples
No.
detected
Detected
Proportion
<%)
Average
Cone.
Median
Cone.
Minimum
Cone.
10%
25%
75%
90%
Maximum
Cone.
Screening
BMV
Fish Hold
Ammonia As Nitrogen (NH3-N)
mg/L
26
25
96
12
2.1
0.64
1.1
6.7
32
160
1.2
Nitrate/Nitrite (N03/N02-N)
mg/L
26
18
69
0.10
0.092
0.11
0.27
0.39
NA
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN)
mg/L
26
25
96
110
75
3.5
19
160
340
540
NA
Total Phosphorus
mg/L
26
25
96
13
9.7
0.43
3.2
17
28
76
0.10
Fish Hold Cleaning
Ammonia As Nitrogen (NH3-N)
mg/L
9
7
78
16
4.8
0.034
18
97
97
1.2
Nitrate/Nitrite (N03/N02-N)
mg/L
9
8
89
0.24
0.27
0.070
0.35
0.53
0.53
NA
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN)
mg/L
9
6
67
59
40
140
170
170
NA
Total Phosphorus
mg/L
9
7
78
8.5
11
0.025
17
20
20
0.10
Notes:
(1) Nondetect (censored) concentrations were replaced with % of the reporting limit for calculating average concentrations. The remaining statistics in this table were only calculated
when analytes were detected at a sufficient frequency. For example, if an analyte was detected in fewer than 50% of samples, then a median concentration was not calculated. A blank
cell reflects a situation when a median or percentile could not be computed based on detected concentrations. The percentiles are the concentrations of each analyte below which at
least that percentage of the values fall. So the 10th percentile is the concentration below which at least 10% of the observations were found.
(2) Screening BM represents the screening benchmark referred to in Section 3.1.3, and is the most stringent 2006 NRWQC or other conservative benchmark used to calculate PHQs.
Table 3.4.8. Raw Sewage Concentrations of Nutrients
Constituent
Concentration (expressed as mc
'L)
Strong Sewage
Medium Sewage
Weak Sewage
Ammonia as N
50
25
12
Nitrate as N
0
0
0
Total Nitrogen
85
40
20
Total Phosphorus
15
8
4
Source: Metcalf and Eddy, 1979.
3-155
-------
Proposed Draft
CD
c
o
CD
s_
C
Q)
O
C
o
O
100.Or
10.Or
1.0 r
0.1 r
O
OO
OOO
OOlOO
0Q.0
o
o
Q
00
OOQXXX30
OCDO
OOO
ob
o
o
onon
(Po
o
ob
o
Nutrients
oooo
000
o
000
Figure 3.4.13. Box and Dot Density Plot of Nutrient Concentrations Measured in
Samples of Fish Hold Effluent Note the high maximum concentrations for certain samples for
ammonia (160 mg N/L), total phosphorus (76 mg/L), and TKN (338 mg/L).
3-156
-------
Proposed Draft
100.0-
CD
c
o
CD
s_
C
Q)
O
C
o
O
10.0-
,o-
Nutrients
Figure 3.4.14. Box and Dot Density Plot of Nutrient Concentrations Measured in
Samples of Fish Hold Cleaning Effluent For all parameters except ammonia, nutrient
concentrations tend to be lower for fish hold cleaning effluent.
3-157
-------
Proposed Draft
Nutrient Concentrations by Fishing Platform/Type
O)
E
o
a>
o
c
o
O
X
X
Qillnetter
X
+
X
+
X
I
X
X
+
+
*
X
¥
+
X Ammonia As Nitrogen
— Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen
+ Total Phosphorus
X
£
+
X
Lobster
Tank
Longliner
Purse
Seiner
Shrimp
Trawler
Tender
+
+
t
+
*
+
x
x
+
+
X
N.E.
Trawler
Trailer
Figure 3.4.15. Comparison of Concentrations of Ammonia, TKN, and Total
Phosphorus in Different Fishing Vessel Platforms to those in the Lobster Tank
(which has a live catch and continuously circulating water)
3-158
-------
Proposed Draft
3.2.4.5 Nonylphenols
EPA analyzed three fish hold samples for nonylphenols. Short-chain
nonylphenols (e.g., NP2EO, NP1EO, bisphenol A, NP) were not detected in any of these
samples. EPA expected this result because detergents should not be present when seafood
catch is stored in the vessel's fish hold compartment except for residual amounts from
poor rinsing after cleaning.
As expected, several NPEO and OPEOs (long-chain nonylohenols) were detected
in the fish hold cleaning samples collected from eight vessels (see Table 3.4.9). As with
deck washdown water, the NPEOs with the longest ethoxylate chains were detected in
approximately a third of the vessels, with concentrations increasing as ethoxylate chain is
reduced (i.e., concentrations increasing from NP18EO to NPIOEO). Of the vessels where
long ethoxalate chain NPEOs were detected, only one of the three vessels had detectable
concentrations of NPEOs representing the shortest chains (NP3EO through NP5EO);
measured concentrations were low in the range of 12 to 32 |ig/L, respectively. The OPEO
with the longest ethoxylate chain (OP12EO) was detected in only one vessel, as were the
lower ethoxylate chain OPEOs. For OPEOs, the concentrations showed the same general
trend as the NPEOs with concentrations increasing as ethoxylate chain is reduced,
although the concentrations of the shorter chain OPEOs were much lower than the shorter
chain NPEOs.
Total NPEO concentrations (from samples containing all 16 NPEO isomers)
could be calculated for only two of the eight vessels whose fish hold cleaning effluent
was sampled. The concentrations of total NPEOs ranged from 56 (a ground fishery
trawler in Massachusetts) to 4,540 |ig/L (another ground fishery trawler in
Massachusetts). These results are shown graphically in Figure 3.4.16.
While there is no NRWQC for NPEOs or OPEOs, as indicated in previous
subsections, these compounds can degrade to NP in fresh and salt water (the saltwater
chronic aquatic life criterion for NP is only 1.7 |ig/L). EPA did not collect samples of
background levels for analysis of total NPEOs, OPEOs, and NP from ambient or source
water.
3-159
-------
Proposed Draft
Table 3.4.9. Results of Fish Hold Cleaning Effluent Sample Analyses for Long-chain Nonylphenols1
Analyte
Units
No.
samples
No.
detected
Detected
Proportion
<%)
Average
Cone.
Median
Cone.
Minimum
Cone.
10%
25%
75%
90%
Maximum
Cone.
Screening
BMV
Total Nonylphenol Polyethoxylates
Mg/L
8
2
25
620
42
4500
4500
NA
Nonylphenol octodecaethoxylate (NP18EO)
Ufl/L
8
4
50
1.6
0.15
0.27
12
12
NA
Nonylphenol heptadecaethoxylate (NP17EO)
ng/L
8
3
38
3.1
0.49
23
23
NA
Nonylphenol hexadecaethoxylate (NP16EO)
Ufl/L
8
3
38
6.9
1.1
51
51
NA
Nonylphenol pendecaethoxylate (NP15EO)
ms/l
8
3
38
14
2.1
100
100
NA
Nonylphenol tetradecaethoxylate (NP14EO)
ng/L
8
2
25
25
2.9
180
180
NA
Nonylphenol tridecaethoxylate (NP13EO)
ms/l
8
2
25
39
3.9
290
290
NA
Nonylphenol dodecaethoxylate (NP12EO)
ms/l
8
2
25
56
5.5
420
420
NA
Nonylphenol undecaethoxylate (NP11EO)
ms/l
8
2
25
75
6.4
560
560
NA
Nonylphenol decaethoxylate (NP10EO)
ms/l
8
2
25
75
5.9
550
550
NA
Nonylphenol nonaethoxylate (NP9EO)
ms/l
8
2
25
73
4.7
530
530
NA
Nonylphenol octaethoxylate (NP8EO)
ms/l
8
2
25
74
4.3
540
540
NA
Nonylphenol heptaethoxylate (NP7EO)
ms/l
8
2
25
66
3.1
470
470
NA
Nonylphenol hexaethoxylate (NP6EO)
ms/l
8
2
25
51
1.9
360
360
NA
Nonylphenol pentaethoxylate (NP5EO)
ms/l
8
1
13
32
220
220
NA
Nonylphenol tetraethoxylate (NP4EO)
ng/L
8
1
13
21
140
140
NA
Nonylphenol triethoxylate (NP3EO)
ms/l
8
1
13
12
79
79
NA
Octylphenol dodecaethoxylate (OP12EO)
Ufl/L
8
1
13
2.8
11
11
NA
Octylphenol undecaethoxylate (OP11 EO)
ng/L
8
1
13
2.7
15
15
NA
Octylphenol decaethoxylate (OP10EO)
ms/l
8
1
13
4.5
20
20
NA
Octylphenol nonaethoxylate (OP9EO)
MS/L
8
1
13
4.9
23
23
NA
Notes:
(1) Nondetect (censored) concentrations were replaced with % of the reporting limit for calculating average concentrations. The remaining statistics in this table were only calculated
when analytes were detected at a sufficient frequency. For example, if an analyte was detected in fewer than 50% of samples, then a median concentration was not calculated. A blank
cell reflects a situation when a median or percentile could not be computed based on detected concentrations. The percentiles are the concentrations of each analyte below which at
least that percentage of the values fall. So the 10th percentile is the concentration below which at least 10% of the observations were found.
(2) Screening BM represents the screening benchmark referred to in Section 3.1.3, and is the most stringent 2006 NRWQC or other conservative benchmark used to calculate PHQs.
3-160
-------
Proposed Draft
i r
i i i r
CD
Z5
o
1000.00
100.00
10.00
© @ @ ©
= ©
CD
O 1.00
o
o
0.10
0.01
o ® ® *
I- I I I I I I I I I
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
Nonylphenols
Figure 3.4.16. Box and Dot Density Plot of Nonylphenol Concentrations Measured in
Samples of Fish Hold Cleaning Effluent (Note: Nonylphenols in Fish Hold Effluent Were Not Detected.)
Nonylphenol Parameters are Identified as Follows:
(1) Total Nonylphenol
Polyethoxylates
(2) Nonylphenol
octodecaethoxylate (NP18EO)
(3) Nonylphenol
heptadecaethoxylate (NP17EO)
(4) Nonylphenol
hexadecaethoxylate (NP16EO)
(5) Nonylphenol
pendecaethoxylate (NP15EO)
(6) Nonylphenol
tetradecaethoxylate (NP14EO)
(7) Nonylphenol
tridecaethoxylate (NP13EO),
(8) Nonylphenol
dodecaethoxylate (NP12EO)
(9) Nonylphenol
undecaethoxylate (NP11EO)
(10) Nonylphenol
decaethoxylate (NP10EO)
(11) Nonylphenol
nonaethoxylate (NP9EO)
(12) Nonylphenol
octaethoxylate (NP8EO)
(13) Nonylphenol
heptaethoxylate (NP7EO)
(14) Nonylphenol
hexaethoxylate (NP6EO)
(15) Nonylphenol
pentaethoxylate (NP5EO)
(16) Nonylphenol
tetraethoxylate (NP4EO)
(17) Nonylphenol triethoxylate
(NP3EO)
(18) Octylphenol
dodecaethoxylate (OP12EO)
(19) Octylphenol
undecaethoxylate (OP11EO)
(20) Octylphenol decaethoxylate
(OPIOEO)
(21) Octylphenol
nonaethoxylate (OP9EO)
3-161
-------
Proposed Draft
3.2.4.6 Summary of the Characterization of Fish Hold Effluent and Fish Hold
Cleaning Effluent
Table 3.4.10 summarizes the specific analytes within fish hold and fish hold cleaning
effluent water that may have the potential to pose risk to human health or the environment.
EPA's interpretation of a realized risk likely posed by these analytes, relative to pollutant
loadings, background ambient and source water contaminant levels and characteristics, and other
relevant information useful for this assessment, is presented in Chapter 5.
Total iron was sampled for in only two vessels, but PHQs were between 5 and 10.
Concentrations of dissolved copper exceeded NRWQC standards in all effluents sampled, with
PHQs>10 in four of the vessels sampled.
The concentrations of certain total and dissolved metals, as well as many of the other
pollutants, measured in fish hold and fish hold cleaning effluent were elevated. Concentrations of
total arsenic were detected in 16 of 26 samples, and when detected were measured at levels
greatly exceeding its respective screening benchmark (i.e., NRWQC), resulting in PHQs of well
over 100. Likewise, total copper concentrations, while only exceeding the NRWQC for human
health of 1,300 |ig/L in a few samples, were high in these few instances and might pose potential
acute toxicity risk to aquatic life23. To a large degree, total aluminum, iron, and manganese
concentrations could be explained by the respective metal concentrations in the surrounding
waters. Arsenic and copper, however, most likely originated from the fish hold effluent.
Concentrations of dissolved copper exceeded NRWQC standards in all effluents sampled, with
PHQs well above 10 in four of the vessels sampled. Samples with concentrations of dissolved
arsenic resulting in PHQs above 10 were limited to just two fishing vessels (a shrimper and a
ground fishing trawlers) with a third vessel having a PHQ of approximately 2. Approximately
2/3 of the concentrations of dissolved zinc in fish hold effluent exceeded NRWQC benchmarks,
but no concentrations of dissolved zinc exceeded a PHQ of 10, and most concentrations were
below a PHQ of 3. Selenium was sampled for in only six discharges with PHQs>l in all samples,
and PHQs between 5 and 10 for two samples. Total and dissolved metals concentrations were
qualitatively similar in fish hold cleaning effluents, but, in general, concentrations in cleaning
effluent were lower than in corresponding fish hold effluents.
Several classical pollutants found in fish hold and fish hold cleaning effluent may have
the potential to pose risk. A classical pollutant found in fish hold and fish hold cleaning effluent
that poses one of the greatest potential risks to receiving waters is BOD, which was found at
elevated concentrations in all sampled vessels and, in many instances, was higher than
23 As discussed earlier in this chapter, total copper concentrations could pose potential risk to the aquatic
environment because the human health criteria of 1,300 |ig/L is significantly higher than the 3.1 |ig/L benchmark
used for dissolved copper based on the saltwater chronic ambient water quality criterion for the protection of aquatic
life. When high levels of particulate copper are discharged, some of the particulate copper will likely convert to
dissolved copper and be made bioavailable to aquatic life.
3-162
-------
Proposed Draft
concentrations found in raw sewage (see Fig. 3.4.12). Concentrations of COD and TOC
correlated with BOD concentrations and were similarly elevated in all fishing vessels. The high
BOD in these samples likely contributed to the pervasively low dissolved oxygen levels in these
samples. TSS and turbidity in fish hold and fish hold cleaning effluent are also equivalent to
levels found in raw sewage, and concentrations of sulfide, particularly in samples from the New
England ground fishery trawlers, exceeded the low PHQ screening benchmark (0.002 mg/L) for
this classical pollutant.
The other pollutants of potential concern in fish hold and fish hold cleaning effluent were
the nutrient and nutrient-related parameters, particularly NH3-N, TKN, and TP, all of which
were measured at concentrations similar to comparable concentrations typically measured in
strong (raw) sewage samples. Again, mean concentrations of BOD, COD, TOC, NH3-N, TKN,
and TP were highest in shrimping and trawling vessels.
The high pathogen concentrations found in a select few fish hold and fish hold cleaning
samples likely did not stem from the effluent itself, but rather, from the excessively high
concentrations measured in ambient background water contaminating the fish holds from the
deck washdown process.
3-163
-------
Proposed Draft
Table 3.4.10. Characterization of Fish Hold Effluent and Fish Hold Cleaning Effluent and Summary of Analytes that May
Have the Potential to Pose Risk
Analytes that May Have the Potential to Pose Risk in Fish Hold and Fish Hold Cleaning Effluent1
Vessel Type (no. vessels)
Microbiologicals
Volatile Organic Compounds
Semivolatile Organic Compounds
Metals (dissolved)
Metals (total)
Oil and Grease
Sulfide
Short-Chain Nonylphenols
Long-Chain Nonylphenols
Nutrients
BOD. COD. and TOC
Total Suspended Solids
Other Physical/Chemical
Parameters
Fishing Vessels (31)
Cu, Zn
As, (Cu)2
X
NH3-N
TKN
Total P
BOD
COD
TOC
X
DO
(1) Analytes are generally bolded when a large proportion of the samples have concentrations exceeding the NRWQC (e.g., 25 to 50 percent), when several of the samples have PHQs > 10 (e.g.,
two or three of five), when a few samples result in PHQs greatly exceeding the screening benchmark (i.e., 100s to 1,000s), in the case of oil and grease and for nonylphenol, when one or more
samples exceed an existing regulatory limit by more than a factor of 2, or when concentrations of analytes are sufficiently high that they may have the potential to pose risks to local water bodies.
See text in Section 3.1.3 for a definition of PHQs and Table 3.1 for screening benchmarks used to calculate these values.
(2) Only a few PHQs near or slightly exceeding 1, but concentrations (in excess of 1,000 |jg/L) potentially acutely toxic to aquatic life, particularly to organisms living in the benthos.
3-164
-------
Proposed Draft
3.2.5 Graywater
EPA sampled graywater from eight vessels: five tugboats, a shrimper, a water taxi and a
recreational powerboat. The samples included graywater from sinks, dishwashers, and showers,
as well as graywater samples from several mixed or unspecified sources. Graywater samples
were analyzed for a range of pollutants including pathogen indicators, classical pollutants,
nonylphenols, metals, and nutrients. The analytical results were intended to provide
representative graywater pollutant concentrations over the range of normal vessel operations.
Graywater volumes vary considerably depending on the class of vessel and its intended
use, vessel size, the number of crew and passengers onboard, and the types of graywater-
generating activities onboard (e.g., galleys, sinks, showers, wash machines). Based on
observations made during the sampling program and from discussions with crew members, EPA
estimated that tugboats, some of which provide living quarters for three to five crew members,
generate approximately 130 gpd of graywater. Water taxis, which carry a significantly larger
number of crew and passengers, but with fewer graywater-generating activities, generate
approximately 75 gpd of graywater. Graywater generation on commercial fishing boats might
range from a few gpd to hundreds of gpd, depending on the length of the trip and the size of the
crew. Due to the highly variable graywater generation volumes possible within vessel classes,
EPA was unable to further define graywater generation rates.
The Sink and Shower Facilities of a Tugboat
3-165
-------
Proposed Draft
3.2.5.1 Pathogen Indicators (Microbiologicals)
Graywater is generated from personal bathing, food preparation, and dish and clothes
washing, so EPA expected that this vessel discharge category could contain high levels of
pathogens. The analytical data for the pathogen indicator bacteria E. coli, enterococci and fecal
coliform confirm this expectation as the levels of pathogens measured in graywater were by far
the highest values measured in any of the vessel discharges. However, it should also be noted
that for each of the pathogen indicators, a wide range of values were measured in the graywater
samples. EPA also noted that source water (generally municipal water transferred onto the vessel
(service water)) does not appear to account for any of the pathogen concentrations.
The analytical results for pathogen indicators in the eight graywater samples are
summarized in Table 3.5.1 and displayed in Figure 3.5.1. For each of these parameters, the
highest levels (660,000 MPN/100 mL for is. coli, 240,000 MPN/100 mL for enterococci, and
570,000 CFU/100 mL for fecal coliform) were measured in the mixed graywater sample from a
tugboat. For comparison, EPA measured average levels of 292,000 MPN/100 mL for E. coli,
8,920 MPN/100 mL for enterococci, and 36,000,000 CFU/100 mL for fecal coliform in untreated
graywater, as reported in the 2008 Cruise Ship Discharge Assessment Report (USEPA, 2008).
Typical fecal coliform concentrations in untreated domestic wastewater are 10,000 to 100,000
MPN/100 mL24. The second highest concentration, of E. coli, was measured in a mixed
(dish/shower) graywater sample, while the second highest concentrations, for enterococci and
fecal coliform, were measured in a dishwashing sample. Samples of graywater from sinks and
showers tended to have lower levels of the pathogen indicators. Pathogen indicators were not
detected in graywater samples from the sink of one vessel, a water taxi.
Figure 3.5.2 presents in box/scatter plots the PHQs for the three pathogen indicators in
graywater. As this figure shows, the majority of the values measured for each of the pathogen
indicators exceeded the water quality screening benchmarks, by up to four orders of magnitude
(or more, in the case of fecal coliform).
24 Note, as indicated above in Table 3.1 and elsewhere, units of MPN/100 ml for fecal coliform approximate similar
units of CFU/100 ml; therefore, the two units of expression are appropriate for comparison here.
3-166
-------
Proposed Draft
Table 3.5.1. Results of Graywater Sample Analyses for Pathogen Indicators1
Analyte
Units'
No.
samples
No.
detected
Detected
Proportion (%)
Average
Cone.
Median
Cone.
Minimum
Cone.
10%
25%
75%
90%
Maximum
Cone.
Screening
BM'
E. Coli
MPN/100 ml
8
7
88
110000
16000
180
120000
660000
660000
130
Enterococci
MPN/100 ml
8
7
88
40000
500
70
57000
240000
240000
33
Fecal Coliform
CFU/100 ml
8
7
88
200000
270000
74
450000
570000
570000
14
Notes:
(1) Nondetect (censored) concentrations were replaced with % of the reporting limit for calculating average concentrations. The remaining statistics in this table were only calculated
when analytes were detected at a sufficient frequency. For example, if an analyte was detected in fewer than 50% of samples, then a median concentration was not calculated. A blank
cell reflects a situation when a median or percentile could not be computed based on detected concentrations. The percentiles are the concentrations of each analyte below which at
least that percentage of the values fall. So the 10th percentile is the concentration below which at least 10% of the observations were found.
(2) MPN = Most Probable Number; CFU = Colony Forming Units.
(3) Screening BM represents the screening benchmark referred to in Section 3.1.3, and is the most stringent 2006 NRWQC or other conservative benchmark used to calculate PHQs.
3-167
-------
Proposed Draft
O
O
Q)
Q.
O
O
100000r
10000r
1000 =~
Pathogen Indicators
Figure 3.5.1. Box and Dot Density Plot of Pathogen Indicator Values Measured in Samples
of Graywater
3-168
-------
Proposed Draft
c
0)
O
=3
o
"O
s_
CO
N
CO
X
c
Q)
O
~_
10000.00
1000.00
100.00
10.00
1.00
0.10
0.01
©
-eb-
o
o
o
0°
\\
©
o
o
o
00
o
©
_L
A®
"Op"
Txr
o
-OO-
©
Pathogen Indicators
Figure 3.5.2. Box and Dot Density Plot of Potential Hazard Quotients for Pathogen
Indicators Measured in Samples of Graywater
3-169
-------
Proposed Draft
3.2.5.2 Classical Pollutants
Graywater samples were analyzed for 14 classical pollutants (see Table 3.5.2). Figure
3.5.3 illustrates the variability of the concentrations/values measured for the classical pollutants
in graywater. There was no one vessel or graywater source that tended to have the highest level
of a majority of the classical pollutants, unlike the case for the pathogen indicators. The highest
concentrations of oil and grease (100 mg/L HEM and 35.3 mg/L SGT-HEM) were measured in
the sample of mixed dish/shower graywater on one tugboat; EPA speculates that the source of
the oil and grease are primarily oils from cooking and other food sources discharged with the
sink water. The highest levels of TSS ( 99 mg/L) and turbidity (128 NTU) were measured in the
dishwashing graywater from a second tugboat. The highest sulfide concentration (1.45 mg/L)
was measured in a shower graywater sample from a third tugboat. The highest measured
concentrations of BOD (1200 mg/L), COD (4,040 mg/L), and TOC (440 mg/L) were measured
in the sample of shower graywater from the recreational powerboat.
Many of the classical pollutants that were elevated in the graywater samples likely reflect
the washing and bathing activities that generate graywater discharges. For example, sulfide25 is a
parameter that is commonly elevated in water distribution systems, especially on the hot water
side. Sulfur-reducing bacteria, which use sulfur as an energy source, are the primary producers of
large quantities of hydrogen sulfide. Sulfur-reducing bacteria can live in plumbing systems and
hot water heaters. . A second example is the high concentration of BOD measured in graywater
samples (mentioned above), which reflects the BOD generated onboard the vessels sampled and
not from the service water used by that vessel.
Figure 3.5.4 presents the PHQs for classical pollutants in graywater in box/scatter plots.
As this figure shows, the PHQ threshold of 1 was exceeded for sulfide, TRC (detected in only
one sample (0.11 mg/L) above the reporting limit of 0.01 mg/L for a PHQ of 15), BOD, oil and
grease, and TSS. The highest PHQs were calculated for sulfide at 367 and BOD at 40. All of the
graywater samples exceeded the 30 mg/L benchmark for BOD, and all five of the detected
concentrations of sulfide exceeded the 0.002 mg/L benchmark.
The source of water used on the sampled vessels was, in all cases, potable freshwater
bunkered in port (service water). Therefore, EPA did not consider it appropriate to compare the
25 2
Although sulfide (S ) is the analyte, hydrogen sulfide (H2S) is the nonpriority pollutant for which a NRWQC has been
established. Sulfides are commonly found as either hydrogen sulfide or hydrosulfide (HS"). EPA conservatively assumes that all of
the sulfide is in the form of hydrogen sulfide (H2S) is the form that is toxic to fish). However, the proportion of each depends on the
pH of the water. At pH 9 about 99 percent of the sulfide is in the form of HS"; at pH 7 the sulfide is equally divided between HS" and
H2S; and at pH 5 about 99 percent of t he sulfide is present as H2S. Unless heavily polluted, freshwater rivers typically tend have a
pH which ranges from about 4.5 to about 7, marine environments have an average pH of around 8.1 (seawater is more basic
freshwater), while estuaries may have a pH between that of freshwater and seawater (approximately 5 to 8) dependent upon salinity
and other factors. Hence, the use of sulfide (S 2") as the analyte to detect for the presence of hydrogen sulfide (H2S) is more
conservative in marine and estuarine environments than in freshwater ones, but is a reasonable analyte to use due to variation
found in different aquatic ecosystems.
3-170
-------
Proposed Draft
concentrations of classical pollutants in graywater to ambient water body concentrations; rather,
EPA compared the concentrations of classical pollutants to those found in the service water.
None of the conventional parameters discussed here were consistently detected in service water.
3-171
-------
Proposed Draft
Table 3.5.2. Results of Graywater Sample Analyses for Classical Pollutants1
Analyte
Units
No.
samples
No.
detected
Detected
proportion
<%)
Average
Cone.
Median
Cone.
Minimum
Cone.
10%
25%
75%
90%
Maximum
Cone.
Screening
BM''
Biochemical Oxygen Demand
(BOD)
mg/L
8
8
100
430
260
99
99
110
850
1200
1200
30
Chemical Oxygen Demand
(COD)
mg/L
8
8
100
1000
440
180
180
270
1700
4000
4000
NA
Conductivity
mS/cm
7
7
100
0.43
0.41
0.22
0.22
0.30
0.50
0.79
0.79
NA
Dissolved Oxygen
mg/L
7
7
100
7.4
7.1
6.0
6.0
6.3
8.3
10
10
NA
Hexane Extractable Material
(HEM)
mg/L
8
8
100
39
29
9.4
9.4
14
68
100
100
15
PH
SU
8
8
100
7.4
7.2
6.1
6.1
6.7
8.5
8.7
8.7
NA
Salinity
ppt
6
6
100
0.25
0.20
0.10
0.10
0.18
0.40
0.40
0.40
NA
Silica Gel Treated HEM (SGT-
HEM)
mg/L
8
6
75
8.1
1.5
0.33
9.4
35
35
15
Sulfide
mg/L
8
5
63
0.11
0.017
0.0
0.035
0.73
0.73
0.0020
Temperature
C
8
8
100
27
27
21
21
24
29
36
36
NA
Total Organic Carbon (TOC)
mg/L
7
7
100
140
83
27
27
66
160
440
440
NA
Total Residual Chlorine
mg/L
8
6
75
0.12
0.020
0.11
0.11
0.0075
Total Suspended Solids (TSS)
mg/L
8
8
100
52
58
14
14
37
69
81
81
30
Turbidity
NTU
8
8
100
74
89
40
40
45
110
110
110
NA
Notes:
(1) Nondetect (censored) concentrations were replaced with % of the reporting limit for calculating average concentrations. The remaining statistics in this table were only calculated
when analytes were detected at a sufficient frequency. For example, if an analyte was detected in fewer than 50% of samples, then a median concentration was not calculated. A blank
cell reflects a situation when a median or percentile could not be computed based on detected concentrations. The percentiles are the concentrations of each analyte below which at
least that percentage of the values fall. So the 10th percentile is the concentration below which at least 10% of the observations were found.
(2) Screening BM represents the screening benchmark referred to in Section 3.1.3, and is the most stringent 2006 NRWQC or other conservative benchmark used to calculate PHQs.
3-172
-------
Proposed Draft
T
i—i—i—i—r
i—i—i—i—r
o
E
<
s_
o
c
o
CD
s_
C
Q)
O
C
o
O
1000.000r
100.000r
10.000r
1.000 r
0.100 r
0.010 i-
0.001 r
op
o
A *
ooesoo
J I I I L
omo Jpl
cfeb $
OOG^OOO
OoS§0<2
o
LQ£)
I I I I
so
Classical Pollutants
Figure 3.5.3. Box and Dot Density Plot of Classical Pollutant Concentrations/Values
Measured in Samples of Graywater
3-173
-------
Proposed Draft
i i i i r
i i i i r
c
Q)
O
"O
s_
CO
N
CO
X
c
Q)
O
~_
100.0-
10.0-
o
i~ tic
o
Old
o
o
_oi>
1.0- M =
0.1 —
J I I I I L
J I I L
Classical Pollutants
Figure 3.5.4. Box and Dot Density Plot of Potential Hazard Quotients for Classical
Pollutants in Samples of Graywater
3-174
-------
Proposed Draft
3.2.5.3 Nonylphenols
Long- and short-chain nonylphenols were expected in gray water discharges given their
use in soaps for hand and body washing and in liquid detergents for dish washing. EPA
anticipated that long-chain nonylphenols would be present in all graywater samples where
detergents were used for cleaning, while short-chain nonylphenols would be present if detergents
were used for cleaning and there was a graywater holding tank that provided the additional
residence time necessary for biological activity to degrade the NPEOs and OPEOs.
Graywater samples were analyzed for 34 long- and short-chain nonylphenols, including
28 NPEOs and OPEOs, bisphenol A, and nonylphenol (NP). Of these parameters, 25 were
detected in one or more samples (see Table 3.5.3). Average concentrations for NP18EO-NP3EO
and OP12EO-OP6EO ranged from approximately 0.1 to 10 |ig/L. The average concentrations of
total nonylphenol polyethoxylates (sum of NPEO isomers) and total octylphenol polyethoxylates
(sum of OPEO isomers) were 66 and 63 |ig/L, respectively. All of the NPEOs were detected in
the graywater sample from the sink of one of the tugboats and the graywater sampled from the
shower on the recreational powerboat. All of the OPEOs were detected in the graywater sampled
from the shower on the recreational powerboat. NPEOs and OPEOs were also occasionally
detected in graywater samples from three of the other vessels.
EPA did not calculate any PHQs for the nonylphenol parameters measured in graywater.
The only screening benchmark available was the saltwater chronic NRWQC for NP (a value =
1.7 |ig/L), There were no analytical results for NP to compare to this screening benchmark, and
no NRWQC exist for the other nonylphenol parameters (individual or total long- and short-chain
NPEOs and OPEOs). None of the long- or short-chain nonylphenols or NP were detected in the
ambient water surrounding these vessels.
3-175
-------
Proposed Draft
Table 3.5.3. Results of Graywater Sample Analyses for Nonylphenols (only long-chain NPEOs and OPEOs were detected)1
Analyte
Units
No.
samples
No.
detected
Detected
Proportion (%)
Average
Cone.
Median
Cone.
Minimum
Cone.
10%
25%
75%
90%
Maximum
Cone.
Screening
BMV
Total Nonylphenol Polyethoxylates
|jg/L
8
2
25
66
15
53
53
NA
Nonylphenol octodecaethoxylate (NP18EO)
|jg/L
8
2
25
0.084
0.023
0.041
0.041
NA
Nonylphenol heptadecaethoxylate (NP17EO)
|jg/L
8
3
38
0.31
0.12
1.0
1.0
NA
Nonylphenol hexadecaethoxylate (NP16EO)
|jg/L
8
3
38
0.59
0.23
1.6
1.6
NA
Nonylphenol pendecaethoxylate (NP15EO)
|jg/L
8
3
38
1.1
0.49
2.4
2.4
NA
Nonylphenol tetradecaethoxylate (NP14EO)
|jg/L
8
3
38
2.2
0.95
5.8
5.8
NA
Nonylphenol tridecaethoxylate (NP13EO)
|jg/L
8
3
38
3.5
1.9
9.3
9.3
NA
Nonylphenol dodecaethoxylate (NP12EO)
|jg/L
8
3
38
5.4
3.2
14
14
NA
Nonylphenol undecaethoxylate (NP11 EO)
|jg/L
8
3
38
7.0
4.7
16
16
NA
Nonylphenol decaethoxylate (NP10EO)
|jg/L
8
2
25
6.7
2.0
6.9
6.9
NA
Nonylphenol nonaethoxylate (NP9EO)
|jg/L
8
2
25
7.3
2.5
7.3
7.3
NA
Nonylphenol octaethoxylate (NP8EO)
|jg/L
8
2
25
7.9
1.5
7.6
7.6
NA
Nonylphenol heptaethoxylate (NP7EO)
|jg/L
8
1
13
7.8
6.5
6.5
NA
Nonylphenol hexaethoxylate (NP6EO)
|jg/L
8
1
13
7.3
5.5
5.5
NA
Nonylphenol pentaethoxylate (NP5EO)
|jg/L
8
2
25
5.8
1.6
3.7
3.7
NA
Nonylphenol tetraethoxylate (NP4EO)
|jg/L
8
2
25
4.7
1.1
2.7
2.7
NA
Nonylphenol triethoxylate (NP3EO)
|jg/L
8
1
13
2.8
0.99
0.99
NA
Total Octylphenol Polyethoxylates
|jg/L
8
1
13
63
37
37
NA
Octylphenol dodecaethoxylate (OP12EO)
|jg/L
8
4
50
1.5
0.22
3.3
3.5
3.5
NA
Octylphenol undecaethoxylate (OP11 EO)
|jg/L
8
2
25
2.0
3.1
5.2
5.2
NA
Octylphenol decaethoxylate (OP10EO)
|jg/L
8
2
25
3.5
4.1
7.2
7.2
NA
Octylphenol nonaethoxylate (OP9EO)
|jg/L
8
1
13
3.3
7.8
7.8
NA
Octylphenol octaethoxylate (OP8EO)
|jg/L
8
1
13
7.6
7.3
7.3
NA
Octylphenol heptaethoxylate (OP7EO)
|jg/L
8
1
13
10
6.3
6.3
NA
Octylphenol hexaethoxylate (OP6EO)
|jg/L
8
1
13
10
4.1
4.1
NA
Notes:
(1) Nondetect (censored) concentrations were replaced with % of the reporting limit for calculating average concentrations. The remaining statistics in this table were only calculated
when analytes were detected at a sufficient frequency. For example, if an analyte was detected in fewer than 50% of samples, then a median concentration was not calculated. A blank
cell reflects a situation when a median or percentile could not be computed based on detected concentrations. The percentiles are the concentrations of each analyte below which at
least that percentage of the values fall. So the 10th percentile is the concentration below which at least 10% of the observations were found.
(2) Screening BM represents the screening benchmark referred to in Section 3.1.3, and is the most stringent 2006 NRWQC or other conservative benchmark used to calculate PHQs.
3-176
-------
Proposed Draft
3.2.5.4 Metals
Graywater samples were analyzed for dissolved (filtered) and total concentrations of
metals. The analytical results are summarized in Table 3.5.4 for the dissolved metals and Table
3.5.5 for the total metals that were detected in at least one graywater sample. The following
metals were detected in all of the graywater samples:
Dissolved and
Total barium
Dissolved and
Dissolved and
Dissolved and
Dissolved and
Dissolved and
Dissolved and
total aluminum
total calcium
total copper
total manganese
total potassium
total sodium
total zinc.
Concentrations of other metals were measured in 50 percent or more of the graywater samples:
• Dissolved barium
• Total chromium
• Total iron
• Total lead
• Dissolved and total magnesium
• Dissolved and total nickel
• Dissolved and total selenium
• Total vanadium.
Figures 3.5.5 and 3.5.6 present the ranges of concentrations measured for dissolved and
total metals in the graywater samples. The plots show that dissolved and total metals
concentrations range over five orders of magnitude. Calcium, magnesium, potassium and
sodium, which are the major cations present in seawater, were the dissolved metals measured at
the highest concentrations. Dissolved aluminum, copper, and zinc were also measured at
relatively high concentrations (greater than 100 |ig/L) in most graywater samples. For these
dissolved metals, service water samples contained up to 80 percent of the graywater
concentration for aluminum, up to 100 percent for copper, and up to 170 percent for zinc.
Although the comparison of service water and graywater concentrations suggests that service
water might be the source of these metals in some of the graywater samples, this was not always
the case. In fact, service water concentrations tended to be low in the samples that corresponded
to the highest metals concentrations in graywater.
3-177
-------
Proposed Draft
Total concentrations for each metal were generally similar to or somewhat higher than
the dissolved concentrations. Aside from the major seawater cations, concentrations of total
metals in the graywater samples were highest for aluminum (912 |ig/L), copper (440 |ig/L), iron
(458 |ig/L), and zinc (3,470 |ig/L). For these total metals, EPA found that service water samples
contained up to 74 percent of the graywater concentration for aluminum, up to 115 percent for
copper, up to 175 percent for iron, and up to 32 percent for zinc. As was the case for dissolved
metals, comparing the service water and graywater concentrations suggests that service water
might be the source of these total metals in some, but not all, of the graywater samples.
To quantify the relationship between dissolved and total metals concentrations, EPA
calculated the average dissolved fraction (fd) of each metal in the graywater samples. The metals
in graywater discharges with the highest average dissolved fractions (fd> 90 percent) included
arsenic, calcium, magnesium, nickel, potassium, and sodium. For all of the other metals where
dissolved fractions could be calculated (aluminum, barium, chromium, copper, iron, lead,
manganese, selenium, vanadium, and zinc), the average values were in the intermediate (90
percent > fd > 50 percent) range.
The plots in Figures 3.5.7 and 3.5.8 display the distribution of PHQs based on the
screening benchmark for each of the dissolved and total metals. For dissolved metals, copper and
zinc concentrations consistently exceed the screening benchmarks; the maximum PHQs for
copper and zinc were 90 and 18.5, respectively. For total metals, the measured concentrations of
arsenic and aluminum consistently exceeded the screening benchmarks. The PHQs based on
measured concentrations of total arsenic were 160 and 110 (arsenic was detected in only two of
eight graywater samples); these high values reflect the very low NRWQC (0.018 |ig/L; human
health for the consumption of water + organism) for this carcinogen. PHQs for total aluminum
varied from 0.6 to 10.5.
3-178
-------
Proposed Draft
Table 3.5.4. Results of Graywater Sample Analyses for Dissolved Metals1
Analyte
Units
No.
samples
No.
detected
Detected
Proportion (%)
Average
Cone.
Median
Cone.
Minimum
Cone.
10%
25%
75%
90%
Maximum
Cone.
Screening
BM'
Heavy and Other Metals
Aluminum
Mg/i
7
7
100
190
160
24
24
86
300
460
460
NA
Arsenic
Mg/i
8
2
25
1.9
1.1
4.5
4.5
36
Barium
Mg/i
3
2
67
26
27
45
45
45
NA
Chromium
Mg/i
8
2
25
1.4
1.4
2.2
2.2
11
Copper
Mg/i
8
8
100
55
17
5.3
5.3
7.6
60
280
280
3.1
Iron
Mg/i
3
1
33
83
150
150
150
NA
Lead
Mg/i
8
4
50
2.5
1.1
4.2
6.0
6.0
2.5
Manganese
Mg/i
8
8
100
17
00
CO
4.7
4.7
6.4
35
42
42
NA
Nickel
Mg/i
8
4
50
5.5
2.1
70
9.8
9.8
8.2
Selenium
Mg/i
8
1
13
3.5
1.4
1.4
5.0
Thallium
Mg/i
3
1
33
0.80
1.4
1.4
1.4
NA
Vanadium
Mg/i
3
1
33
0.73
1.2
1.2
1.2
NA
Zinc
Mg/i
8
8
100
400
240
70
70
80
610
1500
1500
81
Cationic Metals
Calcium
Mg/i
8
8
100
34000
33000
1800
1800
25000
36000
81000
81000
NA
Magnesium
Mg/i
8
7
88
9400
11000
6600
13000
18000
18000
NA
Potassium
Mg/i
3
3
100
5500
5700
4100
4100
4100
6700
6700
6700
NA
Sodium
Mg/i
3
3
100
79000
48000
31000
31000
31000
160000
160000
160000
NA
Notes:
(1) Nondetect (censored) concentrations were replaced with % of the reporting limit for calculating average concentrations. The remaining statistics in this table were only calculated
when analytes were detected at a sufficient frequency. For example, if an analyte was detected in fewer than 50% of samples, then a median concentration was not calculated. A blank
cell reflects a situation when a median or percentile could not be computed based on detected concentrations. The percentiles are the concentrations of each analyte below which at
least that percentage of the values fall. So the 10th percentile is the concentration below which at least 10% of the observations were found.
(2) Screening BM represents the screening benchmark referred to in Section 3.1.3, and is the most stringent 2006 NRWQC or other conservative benchmark used to calculate PHQs.
3-179
-------
Proposed Draft
Table 3.5.5. Results of Graywater Sample Analyses for Total Metals1
Analyte
Units
No.
samples
No.
detected
Detected
Proportion (%)
Average
Cone.
Median
Cone.
Minimum
Cone.
10%
25%
75%
90%
Maximum
Cone.
Screening
BMV
Heavy and Other Metals
Aluminum
|jg/L
8
8
100
380
420
50
50
190
540
910
910
87
Arsenic
|jg/L
8
2
25
2.0
1.5
2.9
2.9
0.018
Barium
|jg/L
3
3
100
29
28
7.4
7.4
7.4
51
51
51
1000
Cadmium
|jg/L
8
1
13
0.82
2.0
2.0
NA
Chromium
|jg/L
8
4
50
2.5
2.2
4.2
4.9
4.9
NA
Copper
|jg/L
8
8
100
100
71
10
10
14
140
440
440
1300
Iron
|jg/L
3
2
67
220
150
460
460
460
300
Lead
|jg/L
8
5
63
7.6
1.7
5.8
43
43
NA
Manganese
|jg/L
8
8
100
22
13
7.3
7.3
8.9
41
51
51
100
Nickel
|jg/L
8
4
50
5.9
2.6
8.6
10
10
610
Selenium
|jg/L
8
1
13
3.8
1.7
1.7
170
Vanadium
|jg/L
3
2
67
1.7
1.9
2.6
2.6
2.6
NA
Zinc
|jg/L
8
8
100
890
270
54
54
130
2000
3500
3500
7400
Cationic Metals
Calcium
|jg/L
8
8
100
35000
36000
1900
1900
26000
37000
82000
82000
NA
Magnesium
|jg/L
8
7
88
9700
11000
6500
13000
18000
18000
NA
Potassium
|jg/L
3
3
100
5500
6400
3400
3400
340
6600
6600
6600
NA
Sodium
|jg/L
3
3
100
81000
47000
36000
36000
36000
160000
160000
160000
NA
Notes:
(1) Nondetect (censored) concentrations were replaced with % of the reporting limit for calculating average concentrations. The remaining statistics in this table were only calculated
when analytes were detected at a sufficient frequency. For example, if an analyte was detected in fewer than 50% of samples, then a median concentration was not calculated. A blank
cell reflects a situation when a median or percentile could not be computed based on detected concentrations. The percentiles are the concentrations of each analyte below which at
least that percentage of the values fall. So the 10th percentile is the concentration below which at least 10% of the observations were found.
(2) Screening BM represents the screening benchmark referred to in Section 3.1.3, and is the most stringent 2006 NRWQC or other conservative benchmark used to calculate PHQs.
3-180
-------
Proposed Draft
i—i—i—T
i—i—i—i—i—r
1000 -
CD
C
o
CD
s_
C
Q)
O
C
o
O
100-
QD
10-
okmpoonoo
1 -
J_J I L
J L
Dissolved Metals
Figure 3.5.5. Box and Dot Density Plot of Dissolved Metals Concentrations Measured in
Samples of Graywater
3-181
-------
Proposed Draft
1000 -
CD
C
o
CD
s_
C
Q)
O
C
o
O
100 -
10-
1 -
"1—i—i—r
i—i—i—i—i—r
J L
J I I I I I L
Total Metals
Figure 3.5.6. Box and Dot Density Plot of Total Metals Concentrations Measured in
Samples of Graywater
3-182
-------
Proposed Draft
c
Q)
100.00F
S 10.00b-
o
=3
o
CO
N
CO
CO
c
Q)
O
~_
0.10 -
0.01
i—i—i—r
i—i—i—i—i—r
1.00 r
i_ onon.0 l
J I L
J I I I I L
Dissolved Metals
Figure 3.5.7. Box and Dot Density Plot of Potential Hazard Quotients for Dissolved Metals
in Samples of Graywater
3-183
-------
Proposed Draft
c
0)
O
=3
o
"O
s_
CO
N
CO
X
c
Q)
O
~_
100.00 r
10.00 r
i i i—i—i—i—i—r
OQQQQO
i—i—i—r
1.00 e—
0.10 r
0.01 r
I-
0
oc
Op
o
J I I I I I I I L
Total Metals
Figure 3.5.8. Box and Dot Density Plot of Potential Hazard Quotients for Total Metals in
Samples of Graywater
3-184
-------
Proposed Draft
3.2.5.5 Nutrients
Gray water samples were analyzed for four nutrient and nutrient-related parameters:
ammonia nitrogen, nitrate/nitrite, TKN, and total phosphorus (see Table 3.5.6). The nutrient
concentrations measured in graywater samples are displayed in Figure 3.5.9. The highest nutrient
concentrations measured in graywater were: 4.5 mg/L (ammonia nitrogen), 2.4 mg/L
(nitrate/nitrite), 45 mg/L (TKN), and 3.4 mg/L (total phosphorus); all of these values were
measured in a single sample of shower graywater from a tugboat. A likely source of the
phosphorus in graywater could be phosphate detergents, although both phosphorus and nitrogen
parameters also reflect food and possibly other wastes. Of these maximum nutrient
concentrations, only TKN was high enough to fall within the range of concentrations typical of
untreated domestic wastewater (20 to 85 mg/L; Metcalf and Eddy, 1979). Although each of these
nutrients was occasionally detected in service water, only nitrate/ni trite was present in service
water at concentrations high enough to be comparable with those in graywater.
Figure 3.5.10 presents the PHQs calculated for the nutrients. As shown in this figure,
total phosphorus PHQs ranged from 4.2 to 34 because concentrations in graywater consistently
exceeded the screening benchmark. Graywater samples from three tugboats also had PHQs of
greater than 1 because the concentrations for ammonia nitrogen exceeded the screening
benchmark.
3-185
-------
Proposed Draft
Table 3.5.6. Results of Graywater Sample Analyses for Nutrients1
Analyte
Units
No.
samples
No.
detected
Detected
Proportion (%)
Average
Cone.
Median
Cone.
Minimum
Cone.
10%
25%
75%
90%
Maximum
Cone.
Screening
BMV
Ammonia As Nitrogen (NH3-N)
mg/L
8
8
100
1.3
0.75
0.19
0.19
0.22
1.8
4.5
4.5
1.2
Nitrate/Nitrite (N03/N02-N)
mg/L
8
7
88
1.6
1.9
0.90
2.3
2.4
2.4
NA
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN)
mg/L
8
8
100
10
6.7
2.2
2.2
3.8
7.7
45
45
NA
Total Phosphorus
mg/L
8
8
100
1.4
1.2
0.42
0.42
0.62
2.2
3.4
3.4
0.10
Notes:
(1) Nondetect (censored) concentrations were replaced with % of the reporting limit for calculating average concentrations. The remaining statistics in this table were only calculated
when analytes were detected at a sufficient frequency. For example, if an analyte was detected in fewer than 50% of samples, then a median concentration was not calculated. A blank
cell reflects a situation when a median or percentile could not be computed based on detected concentrations. The percentiles are the concentrations of each analyte below which at
least that percentage of the values fall. So the 10th percentile is the concentration below which at least 10% of the observations were found.
(2) Screening BM represents the screening benchmark referred to in Section 3.1.3, and is the most stringent 2006 NRWQC or other conservative benchmark used to calculate PHQs.
3-186
-------
Proposed Draft
10.00
CD
C
o
= 1.00
CO
s_
c
Q)
O
c
o
O
0.10
0.01
,o-
Nutrients
Figure 3.5.9. Box and Dot Density Plot of Nutrient Concentrations Measured in Samples of
Graywater
3-187
-------
Proposed Draft
c
0)
O
=3
o
"O
s_
CO
N
CO
X
"co
c
Q)
O
~_
100.00r
10.00 r
1.00 =
0.10 r
0.01
p
v
Nutrients
Figure 3.5.10. Box and Dot Density Plot of Potential Hazard Quotients for Nutrients in
Samples of Graywater
3-188
-------
Proposed Draft
3.2.5.6 Summary of the Characterization of Graywater Effluent Analyses
Table 3.5.7 summarizes the specific analytes in graywater effluent that may have the
potential to pose risk to human health or the environment. EPA's interpretation of the realized
risk that may be posed by these analytes, relative to pollutant loadings, background ambient and
source water contaminant levels and characteristics, and other relevant information useful for
this assessment, is presented in Chapter 5.
Pathogens were found at higher concentrations in graywater effluent than in any other
type of pollutant. The highest concentrations of all three pathogen groups (fecal coliforms,
enterococci, and E. coli) were found in the effluent of one of the five tugboats sampled, but were
found at high concentrations in all five sampled tugboats. For all eight vessels sampled, the
majority of PHQs for all three pathogen groups were greater than 1 (PHQs for all fecal coliform
samples were greater than 10), and, in many cases, were between 100 and 10,000. The fecal
coliform concentrations most often exceeded the water quality benchmarks, followed by E. coli
and enterococci concentrations, in that order. Pathogens were not detected in the one water taxi.
BOD was the pollutant with the next highest concentrations that exceeded water quality
benchmarks, with PHQs>l in all eight vessels and PHQ values exceeding 9 for five of the
vessels. The highest BOD concentrations were found from the recreational powerboat (PHQ =
40). Concentrations of COD and TOC were positively correlated to BOD concentrations and
were found at high levels in all eight vessels. Sulfide was detected in five of the eight vessels and
exceeded benchmark concentrations in all five instances (PHQs of up to 367). TSS and oil and
grease (HEM) concentrations were also marginally elevated. Sulfides were detected in the five
tugboat discharges, with PHQs ranging from 5-367.
Total nonylphenol polyethoxylates (sum of isomers from NP3EO to NP18EO) were
notable only in one tugboat and the recreational boat. Total NPEOs was highest in the graywater
sample collected from the recreational powerboat. No short-chain nonylphenols (bisphenol A or
NP1EO or NP2EO) were detected in any of the graywater samples. Likewise, no NP was
detected, so no comparisons could be made to the screening benchmark.
Among the nutrients sampled, total phosphorus concentrations exceeded the benchmark
of 0.10 mg/L in all vessels sampled, with PHQs ranging from 4.2 to 34.
Concentrations of dissolved copper and zinc regularly exceeded NRWQC benchmarks,
with a maximum PHQ of 90 for dissolved copper and 18 for dissolved zinc. Service water
concentrations of dissolved aluminum, copper, and zinc were moderately influential, but only in
the graywater samples with the lowest measured concentrations. The median concentration for
dissolved aluminum was 160 |ig/L, but no benchmark exists for dissolved aluminum. Total
arsenic was detected in the shrimping and recreational vessel, and concentrations exceeded
NRWQC benchmarks (PHQ values were 111 and 161 respectively). Total aluminum
3-189
-------
Proposed Draft
concentrations exceeded NRWQC benchmarks in seven of the eight vessels, with one vessel
exceeding a PHQ of 10.
HEM (oil and grease) were detected in all 8 samples, with PHQs in excess of 2 in four
samples. Concentrations ranged from 9.4-100 mg/L, with the highest HEM concentrations
observed in tugboat graywater discharges. SGT HEM were detected in six of eight vessels, but
only one sample had a PHQ greater than 2.
3-190
-------
Proposed Draft
Table 3.5.7. Characterization of Graywater Effluent and Summary of Analytes that May Have the Potential to Pose Risk
Analytes that May Have the Potential to Pose Risk in Graywater Effluent and Vessel Sources1'2
Vessel Type (no. vessels)
w
re
y
5)
O
O
Is
0
u
1
Volatile Organic Compounds
Semivolatile Organic Compounds
•a
0)
>
o
0)
4—>
o
4—>
(A
tz
4—>
0)
0)
Short-Chain Nonylphenols
Long-Chain Nonylphenols
£
0)
'C
4—>
3
Z
BOD. COD. and TOC
Total Suspended Solids
Other Physical/Chemical
Parameters
Tugboat (5)
fecal coliform
Enterococci
E. coli
Cu, Zn
As, Al
X
X
X
Total P
BOD
COD
TOC
Shrimping Vessel (1)
fecal coliform
Enterococci
E. coli
Cu, Zn
As, Al
X
Total P
BOD
COD
TOC
Water Taxi (1)
fecal coliform
Enterococci
E. coli
Cu, Zn
As, Al
X
Total P
BOD
COD
TOC
Recreational (1)
fecal coliform
Enterococi
E. coli
Cu, Zn
As, Al
X
X
X
Total P
BOD
COD
TOC
(1) Analytes are generally bolded when a large proportion of the samples have concentrations exceeding the NRWQC (e.g., 25 to 50 percent), when several of the samples have PHQs > 10 (e.g.,
two or three of five), when a few samples result in PHQs greatly exceeding the screening benchmark (i.e., 100s to 1,000s), in the case of oil and grease and for nonylphenol, when one or more
samples exceed an existing regulatory limit by more than a factor of 2, or when concentrations of analytes are sufficiently high that they may have the potential to pose risks to local water bodies.
See text in Section 3.1.3 for a definition of PHQs and Table 3.1 for screening benchmarks used to calculate these values.
(2) EPA notes that the conclusion of potential risk is drawn from a small sample size, in some cases a single vessel, for certain discharges sampled from some vessel classes. EPA included these
results in the tables to provide a concise summary of the data collected in the study, but strongly cautions the reader that these conclusions, where there are only a few samples from a given vessel
class, should be considered preliminary and might not necessarily represent pollutant concentrations from these discharges from other vessels in this class.
3-191
-------
Proposed Draft
3.2.6 Engine Effluent
Vessel engines are primarily used for two purposes: propulsion and electrical generation.
Engines used for vessel propulsion can be either outboard or inboard engines. Vessels that
require significant lighting or have electrical equipment such as appliances and/or electric motors
are likely equipped with engines used for electrical generation.
Engine cooling systems include direct cooling, indirect cooling, and keel cooling. Direct
and indirect cooling systems discharge wastewater, while keel cooling systems are zero
discharge. Some engines with direct and indirect cooling systems also use water to cool and quiet
their exhaust, referred to as engine wet exhaust. These engines inject spent cooling water from
the engine into the exhaust stream, so that the cooling water directly contacts the engine exhaust.
Possible constituents of concern in engine effluent include the following: thermal loading; metals
from the discharge contacting the exhaust system, from erosion of moving engine components
(e.g., pistons), or from trace constituents of the fuel; and oil and grease and organic compounds
as constituents of fuel or possible products of incomplete fuel combustion.
The volume of engine cooling water discharged depends on the type of engine and power
level of operation. Vessels with outboard propulsion engines discharge between 1 and 2 gpm of
raw cooling water per engine based on observations made during the sampling program. The
cooling water discharge rate from inboard marine diesel engines varies based on power levels,
but typically averages around 20 gpm when engines operate between 1,500 and 2,000 rpm
(Sherwood Pumps, 2009). Marine diesel generator sets require 5 to 6 gpm of cooling water for
smaller units (9.5 kW) (Cummins, 2008), and up to 20 and 25 gpm of cooling water for larger
marine generator sets (80 kW) (Cummins, 2004). Daily discharge rates for these engines are a
function of daily operating time.
3-192
-------
Proposed Draft
Collecting the Engine Effluent of a Water Taxi at Idle
Collecting the Engine Effluent of a Tow and Salvage Vessel at Full Speed
For this study, EPA collected engine cooling water discharge samples from a variety of
vessel classes with different engine types, as summarized in Table 3.6.1. Note that two of the
sampled vessels are recreational vessels and are not study vessels. In addition, both of the
sampled research vessels and four of the six sampled tow/salvage vessels (those with outboard
propulsion engines) were manufactured for pleasure and therefore are also recreational vessels
and not study vessels. EPA sampled engine effluent from these vessels because all of the
sampled engines can be installed on either recreational or nonrecreational vessels and are
representative of engines on study vessels.
3-193
-------
Proposed Draft
Samples were analyzed for classical pollutants, metals (dissolved and total), SVOCs, and
VOCs. Engine discharge samples were typically collected from the discharge port using a sample
transfer jar attached to a pole. The contents of the sample transfer jar were poured into a lined
utility bucket. If the engines were operated at multiple engine levels (e.g., idle, half power, full
power), then equal portions of sample were collected from each power level and composited for
a single laboratory analysis. Ten of the 13 sampled vessels with inboard propulsion engines and
all six sampled vessels with outboard propulsion engines were operated at multiple power levels.
Similarly, if a vessel operated more than one engine, then equal portions of sample were
collected from each engine and composited for a single laboratory analysis. However, samples
for analysis of oil and grease and VOCs are not appropriate to composite. For these analytes,
samples were collected and analyzed separately for each engine power level or were collected
from only one of the multiple engines.
Table 3.6.1. Sampled Engine Characteristics
Fuel Type
Cooling Type
Engine Wet
Exhaust?
Number of Vessels
Sampled
Vessel Types
Inboard Propulsion Engines
Diesel
Direct
Yes
3
Water Taxi (2), Fishing
Diesel
Indirect
Yes
5
Tour Boat (2), Water Taxi, Tow/Salvage, Fire
Boat
Diesel
Unknown
Yes
3
Tour Boat, Water Taxi, Recreational
Diesel
Unknown
Unknown
1
Fishing
Gasoline
Indirect
Yes
1
Recreational
Outboard Propulsion Engines
Gasoline
Direct
Yes
5
Tow/Salvage (4), Research
Gasoline
Unknown
Yes
1
Research
Generator Engines
Diesel
Direct
Yes
1
Tour Boat
Diesel
Indirect
Yes
1
Fire Boat
Diesel
Unknown
Unknown
2
Fishing, Tour Boat
Unknown
Indirect
Yes
1
Water Taxi
EPA also observed a number of vessels, particularly tug boats and larger commercial
fishing vessels, that use keel-cooled propulsion and generator engines. The vessels were not
sampled as these closed-loop cooling systems do not have a discharge. Approximately two-thirds
of the 61 vessels visited had keel cooled engine systems.
An additional source of relevant engine effluent data is EPA's sampling program for the
Uniform National Discharge Standards (UNDS) rulemaking. In 2006, EPA sampled propulsion
engine wet exhaust discharges from two small Armed Forces vessels with inboard diesel engines
with engine wet exhaust: a 36-foot landing craft personnel large (LCPL) and a 7-meter rigid
inflatable boat (RIB) (USEPA, 2008b). This sampling program was specifically designed to
3-194
-------
Proposed Draft
characterize engine wet exhaust discharges by power level. While these Armed Forces vessels
are not study vessels, the engines used on these vessels are comparable to those used on study
vessels. Samples from both vessels were analyzed for eight classical pollutants and 92 volatile
and semivolatile compounds. Samples from the LCPL were also analyzed for seven total metals.
Grab samples of the engine discharge were collected from sample taps installed into the exhaust
lines of the vessels. Three replicate engine discharge samples were collected at each of five
different engine power levels: 0 percent (idle), 25 percent, 50 percent, 75 percent, and 100
percent (full power). Three replicate background seawater samples were also collected. Sampling
was conducted in the open ocean.
3.2.6.1 Inboard Propulsion Engines
For this study, EPA collected cooling water discharge samples from inboard propulsion
engines on 13 vessels: four water taxis, three tour boats, two fishing vessels, one tow/salvage
vessel, one fire boat, and two recreational vessels (Table 3.6.1). These engines included both
direct and indirect cooling discharges from both gasoline- and diesel-fueled engines. For the
UNDS program, EPA sampled engine wet exhaust from inboard propulsion engines on two
personnel craft. Results for each class of pollutant are presented and discussed in the following
subsections.
The Inboard Propulsion Engine of a Fire Boat
3-195
-------
Proposed Draft
3.2.6.1.1 Classical Pollutants
Table 3.6.2 presents analytical results for 11 classical pollutants detected in samples of
discharges from inboard propulsion engines. All of the classical pollutants analyzed for were
detected and the detected results are shown in Figure 3.6.1. Engine cooling water discharge
differs from all other discharges in that the water used in the engines is drawn from surrounding
waters and immediately discharged to the same waters. For this reason, EPA analyzed the sample
results to determine which pollutant concentrations were contributed primarily by engine
operations and which were contributed primarily by background ambient concentrations (see
footnotes on Table 3.6.2 and Figure 3.6.1). The remainder of this subsection discusses those
pollutants found to be contributed primarily by engine operations.
Temperature increases in engine effluent above background were generally less than 5°C.
However, on three vessels operated at higher power levels (recreational vessel, tow/salvage
vessel, and fire boat), temperature increases were greater than 20°C. EPA's findings were similar
for the UNDS sampling program, with temperature increases ranging from less than 3°C at idle
to a maximum of 27°C at full power.
Oil and grease (measured as HEM) was detected in the majority of engine effluent
samples; however, detected concentrations were low (most were less than 5 mg/L). All sample
results were well below the 33 CFR § 151.10 and MARPOL prohibition of the discharge of oil
and oily mixtures with an oil content greater than 15 ppm into seawater from vessels. HEM
values exceeded 5 mg/L in only three grab samples, and all three were collected during engine
operation at relatively high power levels. For the UNDS sampling program, HEM was not
detected in any engine effluent samples, regardless of power level (< 4 mg/L).
Sulfide was detected in only two of 11 samples at concentrations of 0.013 and 0.016
mg/L. These measured concentrations are six to eight times greater than the most conservative
PHQ screening benchmark of 0.002 mg/L. Sulfide might be present as a trace constituent in the
fuel, as a product of incomplete combustion, or due to formation within the biofilm in the
cooling system piping. For the UNDS sampling program, sulfide was not detected in any engine
wet exhaust samples.
For this study, TSS concentrations in effluent discharge samples were contributed
primarily by background ambient concentrations (i.e., sample concentrations ranged from <5 to
17 mg/L while ambient water concentrations ranged from 7.8 to 20 mg/L). For the UNDS
sampling program, TSS was not detected in any of the samples from the LCPL; however, TSS
was present in the RIB discharge samples at concentrations ranging from 6 to 14 mg/L, which
were statistically greater than background for some power levels. UNDS TSS results correspond
with the field observations for samples from the RIB at the highest power levels (i.e., the
samples were observed to be cloudy and contained settleable materials (resembling soot)). In this
3-196
-------
Proposed Draft
study, EPA observed that some effluent engine samples were also cloudy and contained
settleable materials at higher power levels.
TRC was detected in only one engine effluent sample collected from a fishing vessel at a
concentration of 0.17 mg/L. Fish hold effluent from this vessel, containing TRC at a
concentration of 0.27 mg/L, was discharged into the water surrounding the vessel just prior to
collection of engine effluent samples; the propulsion engine on this vessel utilizes the ambient
water for cooling. EPA believes that the TRC value for the engine effluent sample was likely
influenced by the fish hold effluent discharge.
3-197
-------
Proposed Draft
Table 3.6.2. Results of Inboard Propulsion Engine Sample Analyses for Classical Pollutants1
Analyte
Units
No.
Samples
No.
Detected
Detected
Proportion (%)
Average
Cone.
Median
Cone.
Minimum
Cone.
10%
25%
75%
90%
Maximum
Cone.
Conductivity2
mS/cm
10
6
100
11
6.1
0.22
0.22
0.22
17
44
44
Dissolved Oxygen3
mg/L
10
6
100
6.8
7.4
1.7
2.0
4.0
9.3
13
14
Hexane Extractable
Material (HEM)
mg/L
12
8
66
3.0
2.2
3.8
5.4
5.7
pH2
SU
13
13
100
6.9
6.6
6.2
6.2
6.4
7.4
7.9
8.0
Salinity2
ppt
10
10
100
6.9
3.3
0.10
0.10
0.10
9.9
28
28
Silica Gel Treated HEM
(SGT-HEM)
mg/L
12
7
58
4.0
2.6
3.6
4.3
4.4
Sulfide
mg/L
11
2
18
0.0062
0.013
0.013
Temperature
C
13
13
100
22
21
6.5
9.9
17
26
36
39
Total Residual Chlorine2
mg/L
13
1
7.7
0.048
0.10
0.17
Total Suspended Solids
(TSS)3
mg/L
11
8
73
11
13
16
17
17
Turbidity3
NTU
13
13
100
32
29
1.2
2.7
18
45
69
80
Notes:
(1) Nondetect (censored) concentrations were replaced with % of the reporting limit for calculating average concentrations. The remaining statistics in this table were only calculated
when analytes were detected at a sufficient frequency. For example, if an analyte was detected in fewer than 50% of samples, then a median concentration was not calculated. A blank
cell reflects a situation when a median or percentile could not be computed based on detected concentrations. The percentiles are the concentrations of each analyte below which at
least that percentage of the values fall. So the 10th percentile is the concentration below which at least 10% of the observations were found.
(2) Sample concentrations were almost completely accounted for (> 90 percent) by background concentrations in ambient water.
(3) Sample concentrations were predominantly accounted for (> 50 percent and <90 percent) by background concentrations in ambient water.
3-198
-------
Proposed Draft
n i r
00
1 1 1 1 1 r
c
o
~C0
s_
C
Q)
O
C
o
O
10.00 r
1.00 r
0.10 r
0.01 r
J I L
0
0ib
OOOQOOOOO
rlinnnrlinnnrl L
OOOOCHWOOTiO
J L
O0
Classical Pollutant
Figure 3.6.1. Box and Dot Density Plot of Classical Pollutant Values Measured in Samples
of Inboard Propulsion Engine Effluent
* Sample concentrations were almost completely accounted for (> 90 percent) by background concentrations in
ambient water.
** Sample concentrations were predominantly accounted for (> 50 percent and <90 percent) by background
concentrations in ambient water.
3-199
-------
Proposed Draft
3.2.6.1.2 Metals
Inboard propulsion engine effluent samples were analyzed for 22 dissolved and total
metals. Table 3.6.3 presents analytical results for the 16 metals that were detected in one or more
engine effluent samples. The detected results are also shown in Figures 3.6.2 and 3.6.3 for
dissolved and total metals, respectively. Figures 3.6.4 and 3.6.5 display the distribution of PHQs
based on the screening benchmark for each of the dissolved and total metals. EPA analyzed the
sample results to determine which metals were contributed primarily by engine operations and
which were contributed primarily by background ambient concentrations. The remainder of this
subsection discusses those metals found to be contributed primarily by engine operations.
For most metals, concentrations for the dissolved and total forms were similar, indicating
that engine operations contribute metals in dissolved rather that particulate form. Two exceptions
were iron and lead. A comparison of dissolved and total iron concentrations indicates that almost
all iron was present in particulate form. One possible source of particulate iron in engine effluent
is rust. Lead was detected in engine effluent samples from only four of the 13 vessels sampled
(three water taxis and a tow/salvage vessel). Total lead concentrations (maximum measured
concentration = 9.6 (J,g/L) exceeded dissolved lead concentrations by three to four times.
Dissolved and total copper were detected in almost all engine effluent samples at
concentrations ranging from 3 to 53 [j,g/L and 5 to 66 (J,g/L, respectively. Dissolved copper
concentrations exceeded the PHQ screening benchmark of 3.1 [j,g/L (saltwater chronic criterion)
by one to 17 times (see Figure 3.6.4). In contrast, none of the total copper concentrations
exceeded the PHQ screening benchmark of 1,300 |ig/L (human heath for consumption of water
and aquatic organisms (see Figure 3.6.5)).
Dissolved and total zinc were also detected in a majority of engine effluent samples.
Detected concentrations ranged from 12 to 120 |ig/L and 11 to 95 |ig/L for dissolved and total
zinc, respectively (see Figures 3.6.2 and 3.6.3). However, only the two highest detected
dissolved zinc concentrations (83 and 120 |ig/L) exceeded the PHQ screening benchmark of 81
[j,g/L (saltwater chronic criterion). None of the detected total zinc concentrations exceeded the
PHQ screening benchmark of 7,400 [j,g/L (human heath for consumption of water and aquatic
organisms).
Dissolved and total nickel were detected in approximately half of the engine effluent
samples, and dissolved and total chromium and lead were each detected in fewer than half of the
engine effluent samples. Detected concentrations were generally within five times the reporting
limit and none exceeded the screening benchmarks for these analytes (see Figures 3.6.4 and
3.6.5). Note, however, that lead is a persistent bioaccumulative and toxic chemical (PBT) and the
long-term mass loading is more important than the discharge concentrations.
3-200
-------
Proposed Draft
Dissolved manganese was detected in 11 of 13 engine effluent samples. Manganese was
predominantly in particulate form in background ambient water; therefore, EPA assumed
dissolved manganese concentrations in engine effluent samples to be contributed by engine
operations. NRWQCs or other PHQ screening benchmarks have not been determined for
dissolved manganese.
Dissolved iron and dissolved and total vanadium were each detected in no more than
three engine effluent samples at measured concentrations close to the reporting limit. NRWQCs
or other PHQ screening benchmarks have not been determined for these analytes at this time.
Finally, the concentrations in engine effluent discharges that exceeded the PHQ screening
benchmark concentrations for dissolved selenium, total aluminum, and total arsenic were caused
by high background concentrations in ambient water (which exceeded benchmark
concentrations) and not by engine operations. After subtracting the contribution of ambient
water, none of the detected concentrations exceeded their PHQ screening benchmarks.
Comparing study sampling results with the metals data from the engine wet exhaust
sampling conducted for the UNDS program affirms EPA's sampling results. For the UNDS
program, EPA determined that five of the seven total metals analyzed for were present at
concentrations statistically greater than background: cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, and
nickel. Total mercury was not detected in any samples, and total arsenic concentrations did not
exceed background concentrations. Table 3.6.4 compares the metals results from this study and
the UNDS program.
EPA notes that there were some important differences between the UNDS sampling and
the sampling conducted in this study to consider when comparing the results. The UNDS
program used a different analytical method, as well as a different methodology to calculate mean
concentrations. Also, background metals concentrations in harbors for this study are greater than
those in the open ocean for the UNDS program.
3-201
-------
Proposed Draft
Table 3.6.3. Results of Inboard Propulsion Engine Sample Analyses for Metals1
Analyte
Units
No.
Samples
No.
Detected
Detected
Proportion
(%)
Average
Cone.
Median
Cone.
Minimum
Cone.
10%
25%
75%
90%
Maximum
Cone.
Heavy and Other Metals
Aluminum, Dissolved2
|jg/L
13
12
92
200
100
3.8
23
180
880
940
Aluminum, Total2
|jg/L
13
13
100
340
300
59
61
120
410
920
940
Arsenic, Dissolved3
|jg/L
13
4
31
4.2
8.7
12
14
Arsenic, Total3
|jg/L
13
6
46
4.5
8.7
13
15
Barium, Dissolved2
|jg/L
7
7
100
35
32
23
23
29
34
63
63
Barium, Total2
|jg/L
7
7
100
36
34
24
24
28
35
63
63
Chromium, Dissolved
Mg/L
13
3
23
1.2
0.75
1.9
2.1
Chromium, Total
|jg/L
13
3
23
1.3
0.95
2.4
2.6
Copper, Dissolved
Mg/L
13
12
92
16
6.6
1.6
5.5
23
51
53
Copper, Total
|jg/L
13
11
85
18
9.3
25
62
66
Iron, Dissolved
|jg/L
7
1
14
64
150
150
Iron, Total3
|jg/L
7
6
86
250
250
310
520
520
Lead, Dissolved
Mg/L
13
3
23
1.5
O.u
0.60
2.1
2.3
Lead, Total
Mg/L
13
4
31
3.0
150
4.1
8.5
9.6
Manganese, Dissolved
Mg/L
13
11
85
43
44
55
82
91
Manganese, Total2
Mg/L
13
11
85
55
53
74
95
100
Nickel, Dissolved
Mg/L
13
7
54
4.4
2.5
4.3
4.9
5.3
Nickel, Total2
Mg/L
13
7
54
4.6
3.1
30
4.3
5.5
5.6
Selenium, Dissolved2
Mg/L
13
4
31
11
40
21
32
34
Selenium, Total3
Mg/L
13
4
31
11
21
31
32
Vanadium, Dissolved
Mg/L
7
3
43
0.90
1.4
1.7
1.7
Vanadium,Total
Mg/L
7
2
29
1.4
1.1
1.6
1.6
Zinc, Dissolved
Mg/L
13
9
69
38
23
110
120
Zinc, Total
Mg/L
13
11
85
38
29
75
89
95
Cationic Metals
Calcium, Dissolved2
Mg/L
13
13
100
80000
37000
24000
24000
26000
62000
310000
310000
3-202
-------
Proposed Draft
Table 3.6.3. Results of Inboard Propulsion Engine Sample Analyses for Metals1
Analyte
Units
No.
Samples
No.
Detected
Detected
Proportion
(%)
Average
Cone.
Median
Cone.
Minimum
Cone.
10%
25%
75%
90%
Maximum
Cone.
Calcium, Total2
|jg/L
13
13
100
81000
37000
26000
26000
29000
62000
310000
310000
Magnesium, Dissolved2
|jg/L
13
13
100
200000
12000
5200
5200
5900
160000
1000000
1100000
Magnesium, Total2
|jg/L
13
13
100
200000
12000
5800
5900
6500
160000
1000000
1100000
Potassium, Dissolved2
|jg/L
7
7
100
32000
39000
4000
4000
4100
58000
63000
63400
Potassium, Total2
|jg/L
7
7
100
32000
39000
3700
3700
3800
58000
65000
65000
Sodium, Dissolved3
|jg/L
7
7
100
770000
860000
36000
36000
40000
1600000
1600000
1600000
Sodium,Total3
|jg/L
7
7
100
860000
860000
35000
35000
39000
1600000
2000000
2000000
Notes:
(1) Nondetect (censored) concentrations were replaced with % of the reporting limit for calculating average concentrations. The remaining statistics in this table were only calculated
when analytes were detected at a sufficient frequency. For example, if an analyte was detected in fewer than 50% of samples, then a median concentration was not calculated. A blank
cell reflects a situation when a median or percentile could not be computed based on detected concentrations. The percentiles are the concentrations of each analyte below which at
least that percentage of the values fall. So the 10th percentile is the concentration below which at least 10% of the observations were found.
(2) Sample concentrations were almost completely accounted for (> 90 percent) by background concentrations in ambient water.
(3) Sample concentrations were predominantly accounted for (> 50 percent and <90 percent) by background concentrations in ambient water.
3-203
-------
Proposed Draft
Table 3.6.4. Comparison of Metals Results for EPA P.L. 110-299 and UNDS Engine Wet
Exhaust Sampling
Mean Inboard Propulsion Engine Effluent Concentration (ug/L)
EPA P.L. 110-299 Sampling
UNDS Engine Wet Exhaust Sampling
Arsenic, Total
4.5
2.2
Cadmium, Total
Not Detected (Reporting Limit = 1)
0.024
Chromium, Total
1.3
0.33
Copper, Total
18
24
Lead, Total
3.0
0.2
Nickel, Total
4.6
6.8
3-204
-------
Proposed Draft
1 OOOf
CD
C
o
CD
s_
C
Q)
O
C
o
O
Dissolved Metals
Figure 3.6.2. Box and Dot Density Plot of Dissolved Metals Concentrations Measured in
Samples of Inboard Propulsion Engine Effluent
* Sample concentrations were almost completely accounted for (> 90 percent) by background concentrations in
ambient water.
** Sample concentrations were predominantly accounted for (> 50 percent and <90 percent) by background
concentrations in ambient water.
3-205
-------
Proposed Draft
1000F
CD
C
o
CD
s_
C
Q)
O
C
o
O
* X * \* ** j\ r
«V°
Total Metals
Figure 3.6.3. Box and Dot Density Plot of Total Metals Concentrations Measured in
Samples of Inboard Propulsion Engine Effluent
* Sample concentrations were almost completely accounted for (> 90 percent) by background concentrations in
ambient water.
** Sample concentrations were predominantly accounted for (> 50 percent and <90 percent) by background
concentrations in ambient water.
3-206
-------
Proposed Draft
i i i r
10.00-
c
0)
o
=3
o
"O
s_
CO
N
CO
X
c
Q)
O
~_
0.10-
ooqrcrcpoo
o
r(9-|
0.01
J I I L
i i i r
©
00
1.00- c
oo
00
0^0
J I I L
Dissolved Metals
Figure 3.6.4. Box and Dot Density Plot of Potential Hazard Quotients for Dissolved Metals
in Samples of Inboard Propulsion Engine Effluent
* Sample concentrations were almost completely accounted for (> 90 percent) by background concentrations in
ambient water.
** Sample concentrations were predominantly accounted for (> 50 percent and <90 percent) by background
concentrations in ambient water.
3-207
-------
Proposed Draft
i—i—T
i—i—i—r
c
CD
O
=3
o
"O
s_
CO
N
CO
X
To
c
Q)
O
~_
100.00
10.00
1.00
0.10
0.01
0.00
o
oclqo
op
o
OO
QQ
n
n
o
J I I I L
OQjQO
obelo
QD
opJoo.
O
QO
J I I ri
Total Metals
Figure 3.6.5. Box and Dot Density Plot of Potential Hazard Quotients for Total Metals in
Samples of Inboard Propulsion Engine Effluent
* Sample concentrations were almost completely accounted for (> 90 percent) by background concentrations in
ambient water.
** Sample concentrations were predominantly accounted for (> 50 percent and <90 percent) by background
concentrations in ambient water.
3-208
-------
Proposed Draft
3.2.6.1.3 Semivolatile Organic Compounds
Inboard propulsion engine effluent samples were analyzed for 76 SVOCs for the
sampling conducted as part of the P.L. 110-299 study. Table 3.6.5 presents analytical results for
the 31 SVOCs that were detected in one or more engine effluent samples. The detected results
are also shown in Figures 3.6.6 and 3.6.7 for analyte concentrations and for PHQs based on the
lowest NRWQC or other PHQ screening benchmark where applicable, respectively. EPA
analyzed the sample results to determine which SVOCs were contributed primarily by engine
operations and which were contributed primarily by background ambient concentrations. All
were found to be contributed primarily by engine operations.
Many of the detected SVOCs can be classified among the following pollutant classes:
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons or PAHs (14 analytes), straight-chain hydrocarbons (five
analytes), phenol and methyl phenols (five analytes), and phthalates (two analytes). These
include all of the SVOCs detected most frequently and at the highest concentrations.
PAHs are present in fuel in small amounts and may be formed as products of incomplete
combustion. EPA has identified seven PAHs as probable human carcinogens, six of which were
detected in engine effluent: benzo(a)anthracene, benzo(b)fluoranthene, benzo(k)fluoranthene,
benzo(a)pyrene, chrysene, and indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene. Most of these compounds exceed a PHQ
of 1,000 as shown in Figure 3.6.7.
Phthalates are plasticizers (chemicals added to plastics to make them flexible) and are
commonly detected in environmental samples (ATSDR, 2002). Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate was
detected at concentration just above the screening benchmark of 1.2 [j,g/L (human heath for
consumption of water and aquatic organisms).
Phenol and methyl phenols are present in petroleum products and may also be generated
as products of incomplete combustion. Discharges of phenol and methyl phenols are assumed to
not to cause any environmental impacts as detected concentrations did not exceed the PHQ
screening benchmarks for these analytes. Straight-chain (alkane) hydrocarbons are also
components of fuel; none of the straight-chain hydrocarbons detected in engine effluent have a
NRWQC or other PHQ screening benchmark, and they are not PBT chemicals
It is important to note that 11 of the detected SVOCs were found only in one sample
collected from a recreational vessel (recreational vessels are not study vessels). These included
all six of the detected PAHs that are probable human carcinogens, as well as four additional
PAHs. Engine effluent from this recreational vessel also contributed the maximum detected
concentrations for six additional analytes, including several additional PAHs as well as four of
the five detected phenol/methyl phenols. (Maximum sample concentrations for 2,4-
dimethylphenol, straight-chain hydrocarbons, and phthalates were contributed by other vessels.)
This recreational vessel was the only sampled vessel that used gasoline as fuel rather than diesel;
3-209
-------
Proposed Draft
however, the lack of replication precludes any determination as to whether fuel type is a critical
factor for engine effluent characteristics. In addition, the engines on this vessel were
dewinterized immediately prior to sampling. The lack of engine operation for several months
prior to sampling could have contributed to engine effluent characteristics.
Comparing study sampling results with the results from the engine wet exhaust sampling
conducted for the UNDS program reveals some similarities. For the LCPL, phenol and bis(2-
ethylhexyl)phthalate were the only detected SVOCs; however, the presence of bis(2-ethyhexyl)
phthalate in LCPL effluent may be due to laboratory contamination and so data for the purpose
of comparison are not shown in this report. For the RIB, phenol was the only detected SVOC.
EPA determined that phenol was present at concentrations statistically greater than background.
Table 3.6.6 compares the phenol results from this study to those from the UNDS program. Note
that the UNDS program used a different methodology to calculate mean concentrations.
3-210
-------
Proposed Draft
Table 3.6.5. Results of Inboard Propulsion Engine Sample Analyses for SVOCs1
Analyte
Units
No.
Samples
No.
Detected
Detected
Proportion
(%)
Average
Cone.
Median
Cone.
Minimum
Cone.
10%
25%
75%
90%
Maximum
Cone.
1,2-Diethyl-Cyclobutane
|jg/L
1
1
100
10
1,6-Dimethyl
naphthalene
|jg/L
1
1
100
35
1 -Methylnaphthalene
|jg/L
2
2
100
13
24
3.2
3.2
3.2
24
24
24
2,4-Dimethylphenol
|jg/L
12
4
33
3.7
2.4
16
22
2-Methylnaphthalene
|jg/L
8
6
75
17
13
0.90
36
46
46
Acenaphthene
|jg/L
12
1
8.3
2.0
1.5
2.2
Acenaphthylene
|jg/L
12
3
25
7.0
1.7
44
61
Anthracene
|jg/L
12
1
8.3
3.3
12
18
Benzo(a)anthracene
|jg/L
12
1
8.3
3.3
13
18
Benzo(a)pyrene
|jg/L
12
1
8.3
3.2
11
16
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
|jg/L
12
1
8.3
2.8
7.8
11
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
|jg/L
12
1
8.3
2.6
6.9
9.8
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
|jg/L
12
1
8.3
3.1
11
15
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)
phthalate
|jg/L
12
4
33
1.7
1.2
1.8
20
Chrysene
|jg/L
12
1
8.3
3.3
12
18
Di-n-butyl phthalate
|jg/L
12
6
50
1.7
1.1
3.5
3.8
Eicosane
|jg/L
2
2
100
19
28
10
10
10
28
28
28
Fluorene
|jg/L
12
4
33
3.5
2.8
14
18
Heptadecane
|jg/L
4
4
100
29
27
3.5
3.5
CD
t-00
CO
67
80
80
lndeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene
|jg/L
12
1
8.3
2.5
5.6
8.0
m-Cresol
|jg/L
4
1
25
13
34
45
45
Naphthalene
|jg/L
12
10
8.3
30
6.6
1.9
34
160
210
n-Hexadecane
|jg/L
3
3
100
26
17
3.1
3.1
3.1
57
57
57
Nonadecane
|jg/L
2
2
100
27
38
15
15
15
38
38
38
Nonanoic Acid
|jg/L
1
1
100
11
o-Cresol
|jg/L
3
3
100
6.6
5.8
5.7
5.7
5.7
8.4
8.4
8.4
3-211
-------
Proposed Draft
Table 3.6.5. Results of Inboard Propulsion Engine Sample Analyses for SVOCs1
Analyte
Units
No.
Samples
No.
Detected
Detected
Proportion
(%)
Average
Cone.
Median
Cone.
Minimum
Cone.
10%
25%
75%
90%
Maximum
Cone.
Octadecane
tjg/L
2
2
100
10
17
3.1
3.1
3.1
17
17
17
p-Cresol
|jg/L
7
5
71
26
17
24
110
110
Phenanthrene
|jg/L
12
3
25
6.1
1.3
35
48
Phenol
|jg/L
12
8
67
27
3.7
37
140
170
Pyrene
|jg/L
12
1
8.3
6.6
40
57
Notes:
(1) Nondetect (censored) concentrations were replaced with % of the reporting limit for calculating average concentrations. The remaining statistics in this table were only calculated
when analytes were detected at a sufficient frequency. For example, if an analyte was detected in fewer than 50% of samples, then a median concentration was not calculated. A blank
cell reflects a situation when a median or percentile could not be computed based on detected concentrations. The percentiles are the concentrations of each analyte below which at
least that percentage of the values fall. So the 10th percentile is the concentration below which at least 10% of the observations were found.
(2) Sample concentrations were almost completely accounted for (> 90 percent) by background concentrations in ambient water.
(3) Sample concentrations were predominantly accounted for (> 50 percent and <90 percent) by background concentrations in ambient water.
Table 3.6.6. Comparison of Phenol Results for EPA P.L. 110-299 and UNDS Engine Wet Exhaust Sampling
Analyte
Mean Inboard Propulsion Engine Effluent Concentration (|jg/l_)
EPA P.L. 110-299 Sampling
UNDS Small Boat Engine Wet Exhaust Sampling
LCPL
RIB
Phenol
27
13
14
3-212
-------
Proposed Draft
1 00 r
CD
3
c
o
"co
"c=
CD
o
c
o
o
0 2 4 6 8 101214161820222426283032
SVOCs
Figure 3.6.6. Box and Dot
Study Samples of Inboard
(1) 1,2-Diethyl-Cyclobutane
(2) 1,6-dimethylnaphthalene
(3) 1-methylnaphthalene
(4) 2,4-Dimethylphenol
(5) 2-Methylnaphthalene
(6) Acenaphthene
(7) Acenaphthylene
(8) Antliracene
(9) Benzo(a)anthracene
(10) Benzo(a)pyrene
(11) Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Density Plot of SVOC Concentrations Measured in P.L. 110-299
Propulsion Engine Effluent SVOCs are identified as follows:
(12) Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
(13) Benzo(k)fluoranthene
(14) Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
(15) Chrysene
(16) Di-n-butyl phthalate
(17) Eicosane
(18) Fluorene
(19) Heptadecane
(20) Indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene
(21) m-Cresol
(22) Naphthalene
(23) n-Hexadecane
(24) Nonadecane
(25) Nonanoic Acid
(26) o-Cresol
(27) Octadecane
(28) p-Cresol
(29) Phenanthrene
(30) Phenol
(31) Pyrene
3-213
-------
Proposed Draft
c
0)
O
=3
o
"O
s_
CO
N
CO
X
c
Q)
O
~_
1000.0000:
100.0000
10.0000
1.0000
0.1000
0.0100
0.0010
0.0001
Mil l*f*l*l+l I I
*
CDC D D D
i i i
L Jl J
i
0
r
® =
i * i
0 2 4 6 8 1012 1416 1820222426283032
SVOCs
Figure 3.6.7. Box and Dot Density Plot of Potential Hazard Quotients for SVOCs in P.L.
110-299 Study Samples of Inboard Propulsion Engine Effluent SVOCs are identified as follows:
1) 1,2-Diethyl-Cyclobutane
2) 1,6-dimethylnaphthalene
3) 1-methylnaphthalene
4) 2,4-Dimethylphenol
5) 2-Methylnaphthalene
6) Acenaphthene
7) Acenaphthylene
8) Anthracene
9) Benzo(a)anthracene
10) Benzo(a)pyrene
11) Benzo(b)fluoranthene
(12) Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
(13) Benzo(k)fluoranthene
(14) Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
(15) Chrysene
(16) Di-n-butyl phthalate
(17) Eicosane
(18) Fluorene
(19) Heptadecane
(20) Indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene
(21) m-Cresol
(22) Naphthalene
(23) n-Hexadecane
(24) Nonadecane
(25) Nonanoic Acid
(26) o-Cresol
(27) Octadecane
(28) p-Cresol
(29) Phenanthrene
(30) Phenol
(31) Pyrene
3-214
-------
Proposed Draft
3.2.6.1.4 Volatile Organic Compounds
Inboard propulsion engine effluent samples were analyzed for 84 VOCs. Table 3.6.7
presents analytical results for the 38 VOCs that were detected in one or more engine effluent
samples. The detected results are also shown in Figures 3.6.8 and 3.6.9 for analyte
concentrations and for PHQs based on the lowest NRWQC or other PHQ screening benchmark
where applicable, respectively. EPA analyzed the sample results to determine which VOCs were
contributed primarily by engine operations and which were contributed primarily by background
ambient concentrations. All were found to be contributed primarily by engine operations.
Approximately one-third of the detected VOCs were frequently detected in engine
effluent (i.e., greater than half of the sampled vessels). Some of these compounds are volatile
constituents of fuel, specifically benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylene. Others are
trimethylbenzenes, which are naturally present in fuel, and ketones, which may be formed as
products of incomplete combustion. Among these compounds, only benzene and toluene have an
NRWQC. Approximately half of the detected benzene concentrations exceeded the PHQ
screening benchmark of 2.2 [j,g/L (human heath for consumption of water and aquatic
organisms), including discharges from one vessel that exceeded the benchmark by a factor of
more than 50 (the next highest concentration that exceeded the benchmark was by less than a
factor of 4) (see Figure 3.6.9). None of the detected toluene concentrations exceeded the PHQ
screening benchmark of 1,300 [j,g/L (human health for consumption of water and aquatic
organisms).
Approximately one-third of the detected VOCs were detected relatively infrequently (i.e.,
detected in fewer than half the sampled vessels). Among these compounds, only chloroform and
methylene chloride have an NRWQC. However, none of the detected concentrations for these
two analytes exceeded the PHQ screening benchmarks of 5.7 |ig/L (human heath for
consumption of water and aquatic organisms) and 1,300 [j,g/L (human heath for consumption of
water and aquatic organisms), respectively.
The final third of detected VOCs were detected in engine effluent from only one or two
vessels. None of these analytes have an NRWQC or are PBT chemicals, and are therefore not
expected to have the potential to pose risk to human health or the environment.
It is important to note the maximum detected concentrations for 11 of the VOCs were
found in samples collected from a recreational vessel (recreational vessels are not study vessels).
These included benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, xylene, and trimethylbenzenes (maximum
sample concentrations for ketones were contributed by other vessels). As noted above, this
recreational vessel was the only sampled vessel that used gasoline as fuel rather than diesel;
however, this data set is too small to demonstrate whether fuel type is a critical factor for engine
effluent characteristics. In addition, the engines on this vessel were dewinterized immediately
3-215
-------
Proposed Draft
prior to sampling. The lack of engine operation for several months prior to sampling could have
contributed to engine effluent characteristics.
Comparing these sampling results with the results from the engine wet exhaust sampling
conducted for the UNDS program reveals some similarities. For the LCPL, no VOCs were
detected. For the RIB, 1,2,3-trimethylbenzene, and 1,3,5-trimethylbenzene were the detected
VOCs. However, EPA determined that the trimethylbenzenes were not present at concentrations
statistically greater than background.
3-216
-------
Proposed Draft
Table 3.6.7. Results of Inboard Propulsion Engine Sample Analyses for VOCs1
Analyte
Units
No.
Samples
No.
Detected
Detected
Proportion
(%)
Average
Cone.'
Median
Cone.
Minimum
Cone.
10%
25%
75%
90%
Maximum
Cone.'
(2-Methyl-1 -Propenyl)-
Benzene
|jg/L
1
1
1.00
3.2
1,2,3,4-Tetrahydro-5-
Methylnaphthalene
|jg/L
1
1
1.00
24
1,2,3,4-Tetrahydro-6-
Methylnaphthalene
|jg/L
2
2
1.00
19
33
4.6
4.6
4.6
33
33
33
1,2,3,4-Tetrahydro
naphthalene
|jg/L
2
2
1.00
12
22
3.2
3.2
3.2
22
22
22
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
|jg/L
7
7
1.00
6.1
1.8
0.12
0.12
0.30
3.8
32
32
1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene
|jg/L
7
5
0.71
2.1
0.70
0.92
7.2
7.2
1,3-Methylnaphthalene
|jg/L
1
1
1.00
4.2
1,7-Methylnaphthalene
|jg/L
1
1
1.00
19
2,3-Dihydro-4-Methyl-1 H-
Indene
|jg/L
1
1
1.00
53
2,6-Dimethylnaphthalene
|jg/L
1
1
1.00
41
2-Butanone
|jg/L
7
7
1.00
17
7.8
2.6
2.6
3.0
32
40
40
2-Ethyl-1,3,5-Trimethyl-
Benzene
|jg/L
1
1
1.00
4.4
2-Ethyl-1,4-Dimethyl-
Benzene
|jg/L
1
1
1.00
20
2-Hexanone
|jg/L
7
5
0.71
2.1
1.1
3.2
3.2
4-lsopropyltoluene
|jg/L
7
3
0.43
1.8
1.3
1.4
1.4
4-Methyl-2-Pentanone
|jg/L
7
3
0.43
1.9
0.80
1.6
1.6
Acetone
|jg/L
8
8
1.00
58
34
6.0
6.0
1§-9
110
150
150
Benzene
|jg/L
12
9
0.75
12
2.3
0.17
5.4
84
120
Benzocycloheptatriene
|jg/L
1
1
1.00
39
Biphenyl
|jg/L
8
6
0.75
4.1
3.0
0.27
4.5
12
12
Chloroform
|jg/L
12
4
0.33
1.7
1.0
2.1
2.1
Dimethocxymethane
|jg/L
1
1
1.00
89
Ethylbenzene
Mg/i
12
6
0.50
2.3
0.10
0.83
12
16
Isopropylbenzene
|jg/L
7
3
0.43
1.9
1.4
1.5
1.5
3-217
-------
Proposed Draft
Table 3.6.7. Results of Inboard Propulsion Engine Sample Analyses for VOCs1
Analyte
Units
No.
Samples
No.
Detected
Detected
Proportion
(%)
Average
Cone.'
Median
Cone.
Minimum
Cone.
10%
25%
75%
90%
Maximum
Cone.'
m-,p-Xylene (sum of
isomers)
|jg/L
7
7
1.00
11
1.8
0.30
0.30
0.90
2.0
70
70
Methyl acetate
|jg/L
7
1
0.14
2.4
1.5
1.5
Methyl tertiary butyl ether
(MTBE)
|jg/L
7
1
0.14
2.4
1.9
1.9
Methylene chloride
|jg/L
12
4
0.33
1.2
0.14
0.19
0.20
n-Butylbenzene
|jg/L
7
3
0.43
1.8
1.0
1.1
1.1
n-Pentadecane
|jg/L
2
2
100
24
31
16
16
16
31
31
31
n-Propylbenzene
|jg/L
7
4
57
1.5
0.15
0.40
2.2
2.2
n-Tetradecane
|jg/L
2
2
100
20
33
6.5
6.5
6.5
33
33
33
O-Xylene
|jg/L
7
7
100
5.5
1.5
0.20
0.20
0.65
1.8
32
32
sec-Butylbenzene
Mg/i
7
1
14
2.3
1.4
1.4
Styrene
|jg/L
7
7
100
6.1
1.3
0.13
0.13
0.50
3.4
35
35
Toluene
Mg/i
12
8
67
11
0.90
2.8
80
110
Trichlorofluoromethane
Mg/i
12
1
8.3
2.1
1.9
2.7
Vinyl acetate
Mg/i
7
1
14
2.4
1.9
1.9
Notes:
(1) Nondetect (censored) concentrations were replaced with % of the reporting limit for calculating average concentrations. The remaining statistics in this table were only calculated
when analytes were detected at a sufficient frequency. For example, if an analyte was detected in fewer than 50% of samples, then a median concentration was not calculated. A blank
cell reflects a situation when a median or percentile could not be computed based on detected concentrations. The percentiles are the concentrations of each analyte below which at
least that percentage of the values fall. So the 10th percentile is the concentration below which at least 10% of the observations were found.
(2) In some cases, the detected concentration(s) for an analyte could be lower than the replacement value (% of the reporting limit) for a concentration that was nondetected. In an
extreme (but possible) case, this could result in an average concentration for an analyte that is greater than the maximum detected concentration.
3-218
-------
Proposed Draft
100.0 -
CD
3
c
o
"co
"c=
CD
o
c
o
o
10.0 ^
0 2 4 6 8 10121416182022242628303234363840
VOCs
Figure 3.6.8. Box and Dot
Measured in P.L. 110-299
identified as follows:
(1) (2-Methyl-l-Propenyl)-
Benzene
(2) l,2,3,4-Tetrahydro-5-
Methylnaphthalene
(3) l,2,3,4-Tetrahydro-6-
Methylnaphthalene
(4) 1,2,3,4-
T etrahy dronaphthalene
(5) 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
(6) 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene
(7) 1,3-Methylnaphthalene
(8) 1,7-Methylnaphthalene
(9) 2 3 -Dihydro-4-Methyl- 1H-
Indene
(10) 2,6-dimethylnaphthalene
(11) 2-Butanone
Density Plot of Volatile Organic Compounds Concentrations
Study Samples of Inboard Propulsion Engine Effluent VOCs are
(12) 2-Ethyl-l,3,5-Trimethyl-
Benzene
(13) 2-Ethyl-l,4-Dimethyl-
Benzene
(14) 2-Hexanone,
(15) 4-Isopropyltoluene
(16) 4-Methyl-2-Pentanone
(17) Acetone
(18) Benzene
(19) Benzocycloheptatriene
(20) Biphenyl
(21) Clilorofonn
(22) Dimethoxymethane
(23) Ethylbenzene
(24) Isopropylbenzene
(25) m-,p-Xylene (sum of
isomers)
(26) Methyl acetate
(27) Methyl tertiary butyl ether
(MTBE) '
(28) Methylene chloride
(29) n-Butylbenzene,
(30) n-Pentadecane
(31) n-Propylbenzene
(32) n-Tetradecane
(33) O-Xylene
(34) sec-Butylbenzene
(35) Styrene
(36) Toluene
(37) Trichlorofluoromethane
(38) Vinyl acetate
3-219
-------
Proposed Draft
CD
H—'
O
Z3
a
"O
CD
N
CD
X
^4—'
d
CD
-i—<
O
ci-
IO.0000
1.0000
0.1000
0.0100
0.0010
0.0001
: 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 f 1 1 1 1
1 1 1
1 :
op
=
c
0
I 0
o OC
=
~
) OQPO
~
> u oo
OO
_
-
ooQoo
-
c
~=
1
o
o
>0
1
I
*
OOOOO
op -
OOO
—
*
ooc
(
00 —
2
c
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
*
1 1 1 1 1
0 2 4 6 8 10121416182022242628303234363840
VOCs
Figure 3.6.9. Box and Dot Density Plot of Potential Hazard Quotients for Volatile Organic
Compounds in P.L. 110-299 Study Samples of Inboard Propulsion Engine Effluent VOCs are
identified as follows:
(1) (2-Methyl-l-Propenyl)-
Benzene
(2) l,2,3,4-Tetrahydro-5-
Methylnaphthalene
(3) l,2,3,4-Tetrahydro-6-
Methylnaphthalene
(4) 1,2,3,4-
T etrahy dronaphthalene
(5) 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
(6) 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene
(7) 1,3-Methylnaphthalene
(8) 1,7-Methylnaphthalene
(9) 2,3 -Dihydro-4-Methyl- 1H-
Indene
(10) 2,6-dimethylnaphthalene
(11) 2-Butanone
(12) 2-Ethyl-l,3,5-Trimethyl-
Benzene
(13) 2-Ethyl-l,4-Dimethyl-
Benzene
(14) 2-Hexanone
(15) 4-Isopropyltoluene
(16) 4-Methyl-2-Pentanone
(17) Acetone
(18) Benzene
(19) Benzocycloheptatriene
(20) Biphenyl
(21) Clilorofonn
(22) Dimethoxymethane
(23) Ethylbenzene
(24) Isopropylbenzene
(25) m-,p-Xylene (sum of
isomers)
(26) Methyl acetate
(27) Methyl tertiary butyl ether
(MTBE) '
(28) Methylene chloride
(29) n-Butylbenzene
(30) n-Pentadecane
(31) n-Propylbenzene
(32) n-Tetradecane
(33) O-Xylene
(34) sec-Butylbenzene
(35) Styrene
(36) Toluene
(37) Trichlorofluoromethane
(38) Vinyl acetate
3-220
-------
Proposed Draft
3.2.6.2 Outboard Propulsion Engines
For this study, EPA collected samples of discharges from outboard propulsion engines on
six vessels: four tow/salvage vessels and two research vessels (see Table 3.6.1 above). It is
important to note that all six of these vessels were confirmed by the vessel owners/operators to
be manufactured for pleasure. Vessels manufactured for pleasure are defined as recreational
vessels under P.L. 110-288 and are not study vessels. Nonetheless, EPA has included the results
here assuming they are representative of vessels with outboard propulsion engines, some of
which may be study vessels. EPA also collected these results so that the Agency could later
compare results between study vessels and recreational vessels if appropriate.
The Outboard Engine of a Tow and Salvage Vessel
3.2.6.2.1 Classical Pollutants
Outboard propulsion engine effluent samples were analyzed for 11 classical pollutants.
Table 3.6.8 presents analytical results for the eight classical pollutants that were detected in one
3-221
-------
Proposed Draft
or more engine effluent samples. The detected results are also shown in Figure 3.6.10. EPA
analyzed the sample results to determine which pollutants concentrations were contributed
primarily by engine operations and which were contributed primarily by background ambient
concentrations (see footnotes on table and figure). The remainder of this subsection discusses
those pollutants found to be contributed primarily by engine operations.
Temperature increases in engine effluent above background were less than 5°C for all
vessels. Engine effluent temperatures were only slightly higher (approximately 1°C) when
vessels were operated at higher power levels as compared to idling.
Oil and grease (measured as HEM) was not detected in any of the engine effluent
samples. SGT-HEM was detected in only two of 16 grab samples at concentrations significantly
less than the reporting limit (sample concentrations of 0.86 mg/L and 0.94 mg/L, compared to
reporting limit of 10 mg/L).
3-222
-------
Proposed Draft
Table 3.6.8. Results of Outboard Propulsion Engine Sample Analyses for Classical Pollutants1
Analyte
Units
No.
Samples
No.
Detected
Detected
Proportion
(%)
Average
Cone.
Median
Cone.
Minimum
Cone.
10%
25%
75%
90%
Maximum
Cone.
Conductivity3
mS/cm
5
5
100
167
17
7.3
7.3
9.2
22
25
25
Dissolved Oxygen2
mg/L
5
5
100
6.2
6.3
5.7
5.7
5.9
6.4
6.4
6.4
PH2
SU
6
6
100
7.4
7.3
7.0
7.0
7.1
7.7
7.9
7.9
Salinity3
ppt
5
5
100
11
12
3.9
3.9
7.3
14
16
16
Silica Gel Treated HEM
(SGT-HEM)
mg/L
6
2
33
4.5
3.6
3.6
3.6
Temperature
C
6
6
100
28
31
14
14
25
31
32
32
Total Suspended Solids
(TSS)3
mg/L
6
2
33
8.1
13
17
17
Turbidity2
NTU
6
6
100
13
10
6.5
6.5
8.0
21
25
25
Notes:
(1) Nondetect (censored) concentrations were replaced with % of the reporting limit for calculating average concentrations. The remaining statistics in this table were only calculated
when analytes were detected at a sufficient frequency. For example, if an analyte was detected in fewer than 50% of samples, then a median concentration was not calculated. A blank
cell reflects a situation when a median or percentile could not be computed based on detected concentrations. The percentiles are the concentrations of each analyte below which at
least that percentage of the values fall. So the 10th percentile is the concentration below which at least 10% of the observations were found.
(2) Sample concentrations were almost completely accounted for (> 90 percent) by background concentrations in ambient water.
(3) Sample concentrations were predominantly accounted for (> 50 percent and <90 percent) by background concentrations in ambient water.
3-223
-------
Proposed Draft
35
30
25
I 20
E
< 15
*k_
0
1 10
CD
n—i—r
c
Q)
O
c
o
O
5-
"1 1 1 1 1—~
ea
ooao oba
oa
J L
9
©a
-9-
J I I I L
0°
Classical Pollutant
Figure 3.6.10. Box and Dot Density Plot of Classical Pollutant Values Measured in Samples
of Outboard Propulsion Engine Effluent
* Sample concentrations were almost completely accounted for (> 90 percent) by background concentrations in
ambient water.
** Sample concentrations were predominantly accounted for (> 50 percent and <90 percent) by background
concentrations in ambient water.
3-224
-------
Proposed Draft
3.2.6.2.2 Metals
Outboard propulsion engine effluent samples were analyzed for dissolved and total
concentrations of 22 metals. Table 3.6.9 presents analytical results for the 14 metals that were
detected in one or more engine effluent samples. The detected results are also shown in Figures
3.6.11 and 3.6.12 for dissolved and total metals, respectively. Figures 3.6.13 and 3.6.14 display
the distribution of PHQs based on the screening benchmark for each of the dissolved and total
metals. EPA analyzed the sample results to determine which metals were contributed primarily
by engine operations and which were contributed primarily by background ambient
concentrations (see footnotes on table and figures). The remainder of this subsection discusses
those metals found to be contributed primarily by engine operations.
Dissolved and total concentrations for both vanadium and zinc are similar, which
indicates that engine operations contribute these metals in dissolved rather that particulate form.
Dissolved zinc was detected in all engine effluent samples at concentrations two to five times the
reporting limit; none of the concentrations exceed the PHQ screening benchmark (a value of 81
[j,g/L based on the chronic saltwater criterion for aquatic life). Dissolved vanadium was detected
in engine effluent from four of the six sampled vessels at concentrations close to the reporting
limit (<2 times reporting limit of 1 (J,g/L). Dissolved vanadium does not have an NRWQC or
other PHQ screening benchmark.
Total arsenic was detected in engine effluent from five of the six sampled vessels at
concentrations two to five times the reporting limit (reporting limit = 8 (J,g/L). Although total
arsenic is contributed primarily by background ambient concentrations (an estimated one-third of
total arsenic is contributed by engine operations and two-thirds by background ambient
concentrations), detected concentrations exceed the very low PHQ screening benchmark (0.018
[j,g/L for protection of human health) even after subtracting the potential contribution from
ambient waters.
Dissolved selenium was detected in all engine effluent samples at concentrations ranging
from 2.4 to 100 |ig/L, Although dissolved selenium is contributed primarily by background
ambient concentrations (an estimated one-third of dissolved selenium is contributed by engine
operations and two-thirds by background ambient concentrations), detected concentrations
exceed the PHQ screening benchmark (5 [j,g/L for protection of chronic toxicity to freshwater
aquatic life) even after subtracting the potential contribution from ambient waters.
Finally, concentrations in engine effluent discharges for dissolved arsenic, dissolved
copper, total aluminum, total iron, and total manganese that exceed benchmark concentrations
appear to be caused by background concentrations in ambient water and not by engine
operations.
3-225
-------
Proposed Draft
Table 3.6.9. Results of Outboard Propulsion Engine Sample Analyses for Metals1
Analyte
Units
No.
Samples
No.
Detected
Detected
Proportion
(%)
Average
Cone.
Median
Cone.
Minimum
Cone.
10%
25%
75%
90%
Maximum
Cone.
Heavy and Other Metals
Aluminum, Dissolved2
Mg/i
6
5
83
7.4
8.2
5.1
9.7
10
10
Aluminum, Total2
Mg/i
6
6
100
160
58
34
34
38
320
570
570
Arsenic, Dissolved3
Mg/i
6
5
83
25
32
8.6
37
41
41
Arsenic, Total3
Mg/i
6
5
83
24
30
9.9
34
41
41
Barium, Dissolved2
Mg/i
6
6
100
25
15
13
13
14
41
57
57
Barium, Total2
Mg/i
6
6
100
27
16
14
14
14
43
65
65
Copper, Dissolved3
Mg/i
6
6
100
3.3
3.4
2.8
2.8
3.1
3.5
3.5
3.5
Copper, Total3
Mg/i
6
5
83
3.6
3.4
2.4
3.8
3.9
3.9
Iron, Total3
Mg/i
6
2
33
200
460
560
560
Manganese, Dissolved2
Mg/i
6
6
100
6.0
5.4
1.0
1.0
1.2
10
18
18
Manganese, Total3
Mg/i
6
6
100
57
35
29
29
29
91
140
140
Nickel, Dissolved3
Mg/i
6
6
100
5.6
6.6
3.2
3.2
3.6
7.1
7.4
7.4
Nickel, Total3
Mg/i
6
6
100
11
7.7
3.3
3.3
5.6
14
33
33
Selenium, Dissolved3
Mg/i
6
6
100
76
97
2.4
2.4
24
110
130
130
Selenium, Total3
Mg/i
6
6
100
72
94
1.5
1.5
22
100
120
120
Vanadium, Dissolved
Mg/i
6
2
33
0.87
1.5
1.8
1.8
Vanadium,Total
Mg/i
6
3
50
1.7
1.2
1.5
1.5
Zinc, Dissolved3
Mg/i
6
6
100
11
11
3.5
3.5
7.1
14
19
19
Zinc, Total
Mg/i
6
6
100
11
8.3
3.5
3.5
6.4
14
28
28
Cationic Metals
Calcium, Dissolved3
Mg/i
6
6
100
130000
160000
43000
43000
50000
170000
200000
200000
Calcium, Total3
Mg/i
6
6
100
130000
160000
43000
43000
51000
170000
190000
190000
Magnesium, Dissolved3
Mg/i
6
6
100
380000
480000
31000
31000
120000
520000
630000
630000
3-226
-------
Proposed Draft
Table 3.6.9. Results of Outboard Propulsion Engine Sample Analyses for Metals1
Analyte
Units
No.
Samples
No.
Detected
Detected
Proportion
(%)
Average
Cone.
Median
Cone.
Minimum
Cone.
10%
25%
75%
90%
Maximum
Cone.
Magnesium, Total3
Mg/i
6
6
100
370000
480000
31000
31000
120000
520000
600000
600000
Potassium, Dissolved3
Mg/i
6
6
100
130000
160000
11000
11000
48000
190000
220000
220000
Potassium, Total3
Mg/i
6
6
100
130000
160000
11000
11000
48000
180000
210000
210000
Sodium, Dissolved3
Mg/i
6
6
100
2900000
3800000
220000
220000
1000000
4100000
4700000
4700000
Sodium,Total3
Mg/i
6
6
100
2900000
3700000
220000
220000
1100000
4000000
4700000
4700000
Notes:
(1) Nondetect (censored) concentrations were replaced with % of the reporting limit for calculating average concentrations. The remaining statistics in this table were only calculated
when analytes were detected at a sufficient frequency. For example, if an analyte was detected in fewer than 50% of samples, then a median concentration was not calculated. A blank
cell reflects a situation when a median or percentile could not be computed based on detected concentrations. The percentiles are the concentrations of each analyte below which at
least that percentage of the values fall. So the 10th percentile is the concentration below which at least 10% of the observations were found.
(2) Sample concentrations were almost completely accounted for (> 90 percent) by background concentrations in ambient water.
(3) Sample concentrations were predominantly accounted for (> 50 percent and <90 percent) by background concentrations in ambient water.
3-227
-------
Proposed Draft
Dissolved Metals
Figure 3.6.11. Box and Dot Density Plot of Dissolved Metals Concentrations Measured in
Samples of Outboard Propulsion Engine Effluent
* Sample concentrations were almost completely accounted for (> 90 percent) by background concentrations in
ambient water.
** Sample concentrations were predominantly accounted for (> 50 percent and <90 percent) by background
concentrations in ambient water.
3-228
-------
Proposed Draft
100 ^
CD
C
o
CD
s_
C
Q)
O
C
o
O
10^
1 -
i—i—r
i—i—i—r
ae
QD
r©n
)PQlC
OBOO
J I I I I L
onip
ct8i 0
¥
* n* * ** ** ** ** **
^ *
Total Metals
Figure 3.6.12. Box and Dot Density Plot of Total Metals Concentrations Measured in
Samples of Outboard Propulsion Engine Effluent
* Sample concentrations were almost completely accounted for (> 90 percent) by background concentrations in
ambient water.
** Sample concentrations were predominantly accounted for (> 50 percent and <90 percent) by background
concentrations in ambient water.
3-229
-------
Proposed Draft
10.00^
c
Q)
o
"O
s_
CO
N
CO
X
c
Q)
O
~_
1.00 -
0.10 ^
,e .,«£ xC
Dissolved Metals
Figure 3.6.13. Box and Dot Density Plot of Potential Hazard Quotients for Dissolved Metals
in Samples of Outboard Propulsion Engine Effluent
* Sample concentrations were almost completely accounted for (> 90 percent) by background concentrations in
ambient water.
** Sample concentrations were predominantly accounted for (> 50 percent and <90 percent) by background
concentrations in ambient water.
3-230
-------
Proposed Draft
i i i i i i r
c
a>
o
=3
O
CO
N
CO
CO
c
Q)
O
Q_
1000.000r
100.000r
1 o.ooo §-
1.000 r-
0.1 oo r
0.010 r
0.001 i-
3©
QO
QD
OQOO
oo^oo
OQQO
O&BO
OQQJO LqJ
o
J I I L
* o* * W* it* w* A r
Total Metals
Figure 3.6.14. Box and Dot Density Plot of Potential Hazard Quotients for Total Metals in
Samples of Outboard Propulsion Engine Effluent
* Sample concentrations were almost completely accounted for (> 90 percent) by background concentrations in
ambient water.
** Sample concentrations were predominantly accounted for (> 50 percent and <90 percent) by background
concentrations in ambient water.
3-231
-------
Proposed Draft
3.2.6.2.3 Semivolatile Organic Compounds
Outboard propulsion engine effluent samples were analyzed for 62 SVOCs. Table 3.6.10
presents analytical results for the seven SVOCs that were detected in one or more engine effluent
samples. The detected results are also shown in Figure 3.6.15. EPA analyzed the sample results
to determine which SVOCs were contributed primarily by engine operations and which were
contributed primarily by background ambient concentrations. All were found to be contributed
primarily by engine operations.
The detected SVOCs can be classified among the following pollutant classes: polycyclic
aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) (one analyte), phenol and methyl phenols (four analytes),
phthalates (one analyte), and methylnaphthalenes (one analyte). All of these SVOCs were
frequently detected in engine effluent (i.e., more than half of the sampled vessels). However, all
of the detected SVOC concentrations are well below any applicable PHQ screening benchmarks.
For example, the maximum PHQ for any of the detected SVOCs was 2,4-dimethylphenol with a
PHQ of approximately 0.005. Therefore, SVOCs in engine effluent are highly unlikely to have
the potential to pose risk to human health or the environment.
3-232
-------
Proposed Draft
Table 3.6.10. Results of Outboard Propulsion Engine Sample Analyses for SVOCs1
Analyte
Units
No.
Samples
No.
Detected
Detected
Proportion
(%)
Average
Cone.
Median
Cone.
Minimum
Cone.
10%
25%
75%
90%
Maximum
Cone.
2,4-Dimethylphenol
|jg/L
6
1
17
2.5
0.49
2.0
2.0
2-Methylnaphthalene
|jg/L
6
2
33
2.4
1.5
2.8
2.8
Di-n-butyl phthalate
|jg/L
6
3
50
2.4
1.2
3.5
3.5
m-Cresol
|jg/L
6
2
33
2.6
1.9
4.2
4.2
Naphthalene
|jg/L
6
5
83
7.8
2.0
1.4
12
35
35
p-Cresol
|jg/L
6
2
33
3.7
2.3
3.9
9.8
9.8
Phenol
|jg/L
6
2
33
4.6
5.9
14
14
Notes:
(1) Nondetect (censored) concentrations were replaced with % of the reporting limit for calculating average concentrations. The remaining statistics in this table were only calculated
when analytes were detected at a sufficient frequency. For example, if an analyte was detected in fewer than 50% of samples, then a median concentration was not calculated. A blank
cell reflects a situation when a median or percentile could not be computed based on detected concentrations. The percentiles are the concentrations of each analyte below which at
least that percentage of the values fall. So the 10th percentile is the concentration below which at least 10% of the observations were found.
3-233
-------
Proposed Draft
CD
C
o
CD
s_
C
Q)
O
C
o
O
A
v^'
x\®
*
> c
SVOCs
Figure 3.6.15. Box and Dot Density Plot of SVOC Concentrations Measured in Samples of
Outboard Propulsion Engine Effluent Note: two analyte names were truncated: 2-Methylnaphalene and
Di-n-butyl phthalate.
3-234
-------
Proposed Draft
3.2.6.2.4 Volatile Organic Compounds
Outboard propulsion engine effluent samples were analyzed for 70 VOCs. Table 3.6.11
presents analytical results for the 18 VOCs that were detected in one or more engine effluent
samples. The detected results are also shown in Figures 3.6.16 and 3.6.17 for analyte
concentrations and for PHQs based on the lowest NRWQC or other PHQ screening benchmark
where applicable, respectively. EPA analyzed the sample results to determine which VOCs were
contributed primarily by engine operations and which were contributed primarily by background
ambient concentrations. All were found to be contributed primarily by engine operations. Some
of these compounds are volatile constituents of fuel, specifically benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene,
and xylene. Others are trimethylbenzenes, which are naturally present in fuel, and one is a
ketone, which may be formed as a product of incomplete combustion. Among these compounds,
benzene, ethylbenzene, and toluene have an NRWQC. Most of the detected benzene
concentrations exceeded the PHQ screening benchmark of 2.2 [j,g/L (human heath for
consumption of water and aquatic organisms), including discharges from the two research
vessels that exceed the benchmark by factors of five and 28. None of the detected ethylbenzene
and toluene concentrations exceeded the PHQ screening benchmarks.
The final one-third of the detected VOCs were detected relatively infrequently (i.e.,
detected in fewer than half the sampled vessels). Among these compounds, only methylene
chloride has an NRWQC. However, none of the detected methylene chlorine concentrations
exceeded the screening benchmark.
3-235
-------
Proposed Draft
Table 3.6.11. Results of Outboard Propulsion Engine Sample Analyses for VOCs1
Analyte
Units
No.
Samples
No.
Detected
Detected
Proportion
(%)
Average
Cone.2
Median
Cone.
Minimum
Cone.
10%
25%
75%
90%
Maximum
Cone.2
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
|jg/L
6
6
100
13
2.3
0.30
0.30
0.53
24
63
63
1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene
Mg/i
6
5
83
4.6
1.9
0.75
6.5
18
18
2-Butanone
Mg/L
6
2
33
3.8
3.8
12
12
2-Hexanone
Mg/i
6
1
17
2.5
0.56
2.3
2.3
4-Methyl-2-Pentanone
Mg/i
6
1
17
2.3
0.35
1.4
1.4
Acetone
Mg/i
6
5
83
7.8
2.5
1.4
11
34
34
Benzene
Mg/i
6
6
100
13
2.4
0.13
0.13
0.76
24
62
62
Cyclohexane
Mg/i
6
1
17
2.4
0.41
1.7
1.7
Ethylbenzene
Mg/i
6
6
100
8.2
2.1
0.90
0.90
0.92
14
38
38
Isopropylbenzene
Mg/i
6
2
33
2.4
1.3
3.8
3.8
m-,p-Xylene (sum of
isomers)
Mg/i
6
6
100
28
3.4
0.33
0.33
0.43
52
140
140
Methyl tertiary butyl ether
(MTBE)
Mg/i
6
1
17
2.3
0.34
1.4
1.4
Methylcyclohexane
Mg/i
6
1
17
2.3
0.36
1.5
1.5
Methylene chloride
Mg/i
6
5
83
0.58
0.20
0.15
0.20
0.20
0.20
n-Propylbenzene
Mg/i
6
4
67
3.2
1.7
9.4
9.4
O-Xylene
Mg/i
6
6
100
15
4.0
0.17
0.17
0.43
26
70
70
Styrene
Mg/i
6
5
83
4.9
3.4
0.22
6.6
16
16
Toluene
Mg/i
6
6
100
52
3.8
0.40
0.40
o.?£
98
260
260
Notes:
(1) Nondetect (censored) concentrations were replaced with % of the reporting limit for calculating average concentrations. The remaining statistics in this table were only calculated
when analytes were detected at a sufficient frequency. For example, if an analyte was detected in fewer than 50% of samples, then a median concentration was not calculated. A blank
cell reflects a situation when a median or percentile could not be computed based on detected concentrations. The percentiles are the concentrations of each analyte below which at
least that percentage of the values fall. So the 10th percentile is the concentration below which at least 10% of the observations were found.
(2) In some cases, the detected concentration(s) for an analyte could be lower than the replacement value (% of the reporting limit) for a concentration that was nondetected. In an
extreme (but possible) case, this could result in an average concentration for an analyte that is greater than the maximum detected concentration.
3-236
-------
Proposed Draft
i i r
i i i r
100.0-
CD
C
o
CD
s_
C
Q)
O
C
o
O
10.0-
1.0-
0.1
J I L
© w
J I I I L
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
VOCs
Figure 3.6.16. Box and Dot Density Plot of Volatile Organic Compounds Concentrations
Measured in Samples of Outboard Propulsion Engine Effluent VOCs are identified as follows:
(1) 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
(8) Cyclohexane
(13) Methylcyclohexane
(2) 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene
(9) Ethylbenzene
(14) Methylene chloride
(3) 2-Butanone
(10) Isopropylbenzene
(15) n-Propylbenzene
(4) 2-Hexanone
(11) m-,p-Xylene (sum of
(16) O-Xylene
(5) 4-Methyl-2-Pentanone
isomers)
(17) Styrene
(6) Acetone
(12) Methyl tertiary butyl ether
(18) Toluene
(7) Benzene
(MTBE) '
3-237
-------
Proposed Draft
i i m i i i i r
1 0.000 r
c
Q)
§ 1.000
o
N 0.100
CO
CO
c
Q)
O
~_
0.01 0 r
0.001 r
J I L
J I I L
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
VOCs
Figure 3.6.17. Box and Dot Density Plot of Potential Hazard Quotients for Volatile Organic
Compounds in Samples of Outboard Propulsion Engine Effluent VOCs are identified as follows:
(1) 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
(8) Cyclohexane
(13) Methylcyclohexane
(2) 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene
(9) Ethylbenzene
(14) Methylene chloride
(3) 2-Butanone
(10) Isopropylbenzene
(15) n-Propylbenzene
(4) 2-Hexanone
(11) m-,p-Xylene (sum of
(16) O-Xylene
(5) 4-Methyl-2-Pentanone
isomers)
(17) Styrene
(6) Acetone
(12) Methyl tertiary butyl ether
(18) Toluene
(7) Benzene
(MTBE) '
3-238
-------
Proposed Draft
3.2.6.3 Generator Engines
For this study, EPA collected cooling water discharge samples from engines on generator
sets onboard five vessels: a fishing vessel, a fire boat, two tour boats, and a water taxi (Table
3.6.1). These engines included both direct and indirect cooling discharges from both gasoline-
and diesel-fueled engines.
The Generator on a Fire Boat
3.2.6.3.1 Classical Pollutants
Table 3.6.12 presents analytical results for 11 classical pollutants detected in samples of
discharges from generator engines (all classical pollutants analyzed for were detected). The
detected results are also shown in Figure 3.6.18. EPA analyzed the sample results to determine
which pollutant concentrations were contributed primarily by generator engine operations and
which were contributed primarily by background ambient concentrations (see footnotes on table
and figure). The remainder of this subsection discusses those classical pollutants found to be
contributed primarily by generator engine operations.
Temperature increases in generator engine effluent above background were
approximately 5°C for the fishing vessel, fire boat, and water taxi. For the two tour boats,
temperature increases were 9 and 13°C.
3-239
-------
Proposed Draft
Oil and grease (measured as HEM) was detected in engine effluent from three of the five
sampled generators; however, detected concentrations were low, ranging from less than the
reporting limit to just above the reporting limit (reporting limit = 5 mg/L). All sample results
were well below the 33 CFRPart 151.10 prohibition of the discharge of oil and oily mixtures
with an oil content greater than 15 ppm into seawater from vessels.
Sulfide was detected in only one of five samples at a concentration of 0.012 mg/L, which
is slightly above the reporting limit of 0.01 mg/L. This concentration is six times greater than the
most conservative PHQ screening benchmark - a 2006 NRWQC value of 0.002 mg/L for the
protection of aquatic life. Sulfide could be present due to entrainment in fuel, as a product of
incomplete combustion, or due to formation within the biofilm in the cooling system piping.
TRC was detected in only one generator engine effluent sample collected from a water
taxi at a concentration of 0.15 mg/L. This detected concentration is 20 times greater than the
PHQ screening benchmark of 0.0075 mg/L. There is no known source of TRC for this vessel as
background concentration of the ambient water at this location was below detection and the
generator did not use service water that might contain TRC.
3-240
-------
Proposed Draft
Table 3.6.12. Results of Generator Engine Sample Analyses for Classical Pollutants1
Analyte
Units
No.
Samples
No.
Detected
Detected
Proportion
(%)
Average
Cone. '
Median
Cone.
Minimum
Cone.
10%
25%
75%
90%
Maximum
Cone. '
Conductivity2
mS/cm
4
4
100
11
0.31
0.23
0.23
0.23
32
43
43
Dissolved Oxygen2
mg/L
4
4
100
5.3
6.2
1.9
1.9
2.6
7.7
8.2
8.2
Hexane Extractable
Material (HEM)
mg/L
5
3
60
2.9
1.1
5.8
5.8
PH2
SU
5
5
100
6.5
6.6
5.7
5. 7
5.9
7.0
7.0
7.0
Salinity3
ppt
4
4
100
6.5
0.20
0.10
0.10
0.10
19
25
25
Silica Gel Treated HEM
(SGT-HEM)
mg/L
5
1
20
4.2
4.3
0.55
1.1
1.1
Sulfide
mg/L
4
1
25
0.0068
0.0090
0.012
0.012
Temperature
C
5
5
100
21
20
18
18
19
24
26
26
Total Residual Chlorine
mg/L
5
1
20
0.060
0.075
0.15
0.15
Total Suspended Solids
(TSS)3
mg/L
4
3
75
9.0
12
2.1
13
13
13
Turbidity2
NTU
5
5
100
27
33
1.3
1.3
14
38
39
39
Notes:
(1) Nondetect (censored) concentrations were replaced with % of the reporting limit for calculating average concentrations. The remaining statistics in this table were only calculated
when analytes were detected at a sufficient frequency. For example, if an analyte was detected in fewer than 50% of samples, then a median concentration was not calculated. A blank
cell reflects a situation when a median or percentile could not be computed based on detected concentrations. The percentiles are the concentrations of each analyte below which at
least that percentage of the values fall. So the 10th percentile is the concentration below which at least 10% of the observations were found.
(2) Sample concentrations were almost completely accounted for (> 90 percent) by background concentrations in ambient water.
(3) Sample concentrations were predominantly accounted for (> 50 percent and <90 percent) by background concentrations in ambient water.
(4) In some cases, the detected concentration(s) for an analyte could be lower than the replacement value (% of the reporting limit) for a concentration that was nondetected. In an
extreme (but possible) case, this could result in an average concentration for an analyte that is greater than the maximum detected concentration.
3-241
-------
Proposed Draft
i r
i i i i r
c
=3
O
10.00-
o 1.00-
c
o
~C0
s_
C
Q)
O
C
o
O
o
ad
0.10 -
9
O OQDO
OOf)
o o
oe^o
0.01 -
J I I I I rM I | | | L
0°
Classical Pollutants
Figure 3.6.18. Box and Dot Density Plot of Classical Pollutant Values Measured in Samples
of Generator Engine Effluent
* Sample concentrations were almost completely accounted for (> 90 percent) by background concentrations in
ambient water.
** Sample concentrations were predominantly accounted for (> 50 percent and <90 percent) by background
concentrations in ambient water.
3-242
-------
Proposed Draft
3.2.6.3.2 Metals
Generator engine effluent samples were analyzed for dissolved and total concentrations
of 22 metals. Table 3.6.13 presents analytical results for the 11 metals that were detected. The
detected results are also shown in Figures 3.6.19 and 3.6.20 for dissolved and total metals,
respectively. Figures 3.6.21 and 3.6.22 display the distribution of PHQs based on the screening
benchmark for each of the dissolved and total metals. EPA analyzed the sample results to
determine which metals were contributed primarily by generator engine operations and which
were contributed primarily by background ambient concentrations (see footnotes on table and
figures). The remainder of this subsection discusses those metals found to be contributed
primarily by generator engine operations.
Dissolved and total metals concentrations are similar, which indicates that engine
operations contribute metals in dissolved rather that particulate form. Dissolved copper was
detected in all five generator effluent samples at concentrations ranging from 2.4 to 13 |ig/L,
Total copper was detected in two of the five samples at concentrations of 2.4 and 11 [j,g/L
(reporting limit = 5 (J,g/L). Dissolved copper concentrations exceeded the PHQ screening
benchmark of 3.1 |ig/L (2006 NRWQC saltwater chronic aquatic life criterion) by as much as
five times. In contrast, none of the total copper concentrations exceeded the PHQ screening
benchmark of 1,300 [j,g/L (human health criterion based on consumption of water and aquatic
organisms).
Dissolved manganese was detected in four of the five generator engine effluent samples.
Manganese was predominantly in particulate form in background ambient water; therefore,
dissolved manganese concentrations in engine effluent samples are assumed to be contributed by
engine operations. NRWQCs or other PHQ screening benchmarks have not been determined for
dissolved manganese.
Dissolved zinc was detected in two of the five generator engine effluent samples.
Detected concentrations were 21 to 29 (J,g/L, which are substantially lower than the screening
benchmark of 81 [j,g/L (2006 NRWQC saltwater chronic aquatic life criterion).
Finally, concentrations in generator engine effluent discharges that exceed benchmark
concentrations for total aluminum are likely caused or heavily influenced by higher
concentrations in ambient water (which exceeded benchmark concentrations).
3-243
-------
Proposed Draft
Table 3.6.13. Results of Generator Engine Sample Analyses for Metals1
Analyte
Units
No.
Samples
No.
Detected
Detected
Proportion
(%)
Average
Cone. 4
Median
Cone.
Minimum
Cone.
10%
25%
75%
90%
Maximum
Cone. 4
Heavy and Other Metals
Aluminum, Dissolved2
|jg/L
5
5
100
280
160
11
11
86
540
870
870
Aluminum, Total2
|jg/L
5
5
100
420
390
120
120
220
640
890
890
Barium, Dissolved2
|jg/L
1
1
100
37
Barium, Total2
|jg/L
1
1
100
37
Copper, Dissolved
|jg/L
5
5
100
6.5
5.6
2.4
2.4
3.9
9.5
13
13
Copper, Total
|jg/L
5
2
40
4.2
6.7
11
11
Iron, Total2
|jg/L
1
1
100
200
Manganese, Dissolved
|jg/L
5
4
80
33
36
16
49
53
53
Manganese, Total3
|jg/L
5
4
80
40
43
17
59
63
63
Nickel, Dissolved3
|jg/L
5
1
20
4.5
1.4
2.7
2.7
Nickel, Total3
|jg/L
5
1
20
3.5
1.4
2.7
2.7
Zinc, Dissolved
|jg/L
5
2
40
13
25
29
29
Zinc, Total3
|jg/L
5
3
60
11
12
15
19
19
Cationic Metals
Calcium, Dissolved2
|jg/L
5
5
100
80000
26000
23000
23000
24000
160000
290000
290000
Calcium, Total2
|jg/L
5
5
100
82000
28000
27000
27000
27000
160000
290000
290000
Magnesium, Dissolved2
|jg/L
5
5
100
180000
5900
5200
5200
5200
440000
870000
870000
Magnesium, Total2
|jg/L
5
5
100
180000
6600
5900
5900
5950
450000
890000
890000
Potassium, Dissolved2
|jg/L
1
1
100
4000
Potassium, Total2
|jg/L
1
1
100
3600
Sodium, Dissolved2
|jg/L
1
1
100
37000
Sodium,Total2
|jg/L
1
1
100
36000
Notes:
(1) Nondetect (censored) concentrations were replaced with % of the reporting limit for calculating average concentrations. The remaining statistics in this table were only calculated
when analytes were detected at a sufficient frequency. For example, if an analyte was detected in fewer than 50% of samples, then a median concentration was not calculated. A blank
cell reflects a situation when a median or percentile could not be computed based on detected concentrations. The percentiles are the concentrations of each analyte below which at
least that percentage of the values fall. So the 10th percentile is the concentration below which at least 10% of the observations were found.
(2) Sample concentrations were almost completely accounted for (> 90 percent) by background concentrations in ambient water.
(3) Sample concentrations were predominantly accounted for (> 50 percent and <90 percent) by background concentrations in ambient water.
(4) In some cases, the detected concentration(s) for an analyte could be lower than the replacement value (% of the reporting limit) for a concentration that was nondetected. In an
extreme (but possible) case, this could result in an average concentration for an analyte that is greater than the maximum detected concentration.
3-244
-------
Proposed Draft
CD
C
o
CD
s_
C
Q)
O
C
o
O
^ C,®
0°^ ^ ^
Dissolved Metals
Figure 3.6.19. Box and Dot Density Plot of Dissolved Metals Concentrations Measured in
Samples of Generator Engine Effluent
* Sample concentrations were almost completely accounted for (> 90 percent) by background concentrations in
ambient water.
** Sample concentrations were predominantly accounted for (> 50 percent and <90 percent) by background
concentrations in ambient water.
3-245
-------
Proposed Draft
i 1 1 1 r
CD
C
o
CD
s_
C
Q)
O
C
o
O
100 ^
10r
-e-
o
OD
-©-
L©-1
0
on
0A
iQQl
^ I I I I
Total Metals
Figure 3.6.20. Box and Dot Density Plot of Total Metals Concentrations Measured in
Samples of Generator Engine Effluent
* Sample concentrations were almost completely accounted for (> 90 percent) by background concentrations in
ambient water.
** Sample concentrations were predominantly accounted for (> 50 percent and <90 percent) by background
concentrations in ambient water.
3-246
-------
Proposed Draft
c
Q)
5
4
3
2-
o
O 1
"O
s_
CO
N
CO
CO
c
Q)
O
~_
i r
_L
i 1 r
_l
onno
COD
J I
,©
e
V
Dissolved Metals
i>*
Figure 3.6.21. Box and Dot Density Plot of Potential Hazard Quotients for Dissolved Metals
in Samples of Generator Engine Effluent
* Sample concentrations were almost completely accounted for (> 90 percent) by background concentrations in
ambient water.
** Sample concentrations were predominantly accounted for (> 50 percent and <90 percent) by background
concentrations in ambient water.
3-247
-------
Proposed Draft
c
a>
o
=3
O
CO
N
CO
CO
c
Q)
O
Q_
10.000;
1.000 =
0.1 00 r
0.010 r
0.001 r
//c/ y/ ^
Total Metals
Figure 3.6.22. Box and Dot Density Plot of Potential Hazard Quotients for Total Metals in
Samples of Generator Engine Effluent
* Sample concentrations were almost completely accounted for (> 90 percent) by background concentrations in
ambient water.
** Sample concentrations were predominantly accounted for (> 50 percent and <90 percent) by background
concentrations in ambient water.
3-248
-------
Proposed Draft
3.2.6.3.3 Semivolatile Organic Compounds
Generator engine effluent samples were analyzed for 79 SVOCs. Table 3.6.14 presents
analytical results for the 26 SVOCs that were detected in one or more engine effluent samples
(14 of the detected SVOCs were analyzed for and detected in only one generator effluent
sample). The detected results are shown in Figures 3.6.23 and 3.6.24 for analyte concentrations
and PHQs based on the lowest applicable NRWQC or other PHQ screening benchmark. EPA
analyzed the sample results to determine which SVOCs were contributed primarily by generator
engine operations and which were contributed primarily by background ambient concentrations.
All were found to be contributed primarily by generator engine operations.
Many of the detected SVOCs can be classified among the following pollutant classes:
PAHs (five analytes), straight-chain hydrocarbons (six analytes), phenol and methyl phenols
(five analytes), and phthalates (two analytes). These include all of the SVOCs analyzed for and
detected most frequently and at the highest concentrations.
PAHs are present in fuels in small amounts and may be formed as products of incomplete
combustion. However, none of the detected PAH concentrations exceeded the screening
benchmarks for these analytes, indicating that they are unlikely to have the potential to pose risk
to human health or the environment.
Straight-chain (alkane) hydrocarbons are also components of fuel. None of these analytes
has an NRWQC or other PHQ screening benchmark, and they are not PBT chemicals. Therefore,
the straight-chain hydrocarbons detected in engine effluent are unlikely to have the potential to
pose risk to human health or the environment.
Phenol and methyl phenols are also present in petroleum products and may also be
generated as products of incomplete combustion. Discharges of phenol and methyl phenols are
assumed not to result in any environmental impacts as detected concentrations did not exceed the
screening benchmarks for these analytes.
Phthalates are plasticizers (chemicals added to plastics to make them flexible) and are
commonly detected in environmental samples (ATSDR, 2002). Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate was
detected at concentration just above the screening benchmark of 1.2 [j,g/L (human heath for
consumption of water and aquatic organisms).
The generator engine effluent sample from the fire boat contained the maximum
concentration of 12 of the detected SVOCs. These include all five of the detected PAHs, four of
the five detected phenols and methyl phenols, and both of the detected phthalates. The generator
effluent sample from a tour boat contained the maximum concentration of all six of the detected
straight-chain hydrocarbons.
3-249
-------
Proposed Draft
Table 3.6.14. Results of Generator Engine Sample Analyses for SVOCs1
Analyte
Units
No.
Samples
No.
Detected
Detected
Proportion
(%)
Average
Cone.'
Median
Cone.
Minimum
Cone.
10%
25%
75%
90%
Maximum
Cone.'
1 -methylnaphthalene
mq/l
3
3
100
6.7
5.4
3.8
3.8
3.8
11
11
11
2,4-Dimethylphenol
mq/l
5
1
20
2.6
4.0
7.9
7.9
2-Cyclopenten1-one
mq/l
2
2
100
8.5
13
3.9
3.9
3.9
13
13
13
2-Hydroxy-Benzaldehyde
mq/l
2
2
100
11
17
4.3
4.3
4.3
17
17
17
2-Methylnaphthalene
mq/l
4
4
100
16
10
4.6
4.6
5.5
32
40
40
2-Naphthalene
carboxaldehyde
mq/l
2
2
100
18
20
16
16
16
20
20
20
3-Methyl-Benzaldehyde
mq/l
1
1
100
18
3-Methylphenol
mq/l
1
1
100
12
3-Phenyl-2-Propenal
MQ/L
1
1
100
8.1
Acenaphthylene
MQ/L
5
1
20
1.8
1.9
3.8
3.8
Acetophenone
MQ/L
1
1
100
11
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
MQ/L
5
1
20
1.3
0.63
1.3
1.3
Di-n-butyl phthalate
MQ/L
5
1
20
1.3
0.59
1.2
1.2
Eicosane
MQ/L
1
1
100
32
Fluorene
MQ/L
5
1
20
2.0
2.4
4.9
4.9
Heneicosane
MQ/L
1
1
100
22
Heptadecane
MQ/L
3
100
30
8.9
4.1
4.1
4.1
76
76
76
m-Cresol
MQ/L
1
1
100
18
Naphthalene
MQ/L
5
4
80
17
7.3
2.3
36
61
61
n-Hexadecane
MQ/L
1
1
100
46
Nonadecane
MQ/L
1
1
100
40
Octadecane
MQ/L
1
1
100
44
p-Cresol
MQ/L
1
1
100
43
3-250
-------
Proposed Draft
Table 3.6.14. Results of Generator Engine Sample Analyses for SVOCs1
Analyte
Units
No.
Samples
No.
Detected
Detected
Proportion
(%)
Average
Cone.'
Median
Cone.
Minimum
Cone.
10%
25%
75%
90%
Maximum
Cone.'
Phenanthrene
Mg/i
5
3
60
3.9
3.2
9.7
9.7
Phenol
Mg/i
5
4
80
23
13
2.1
48
75
75
Pyrene
Mg/i
5
1
20
1.4
0.90
1.8
1.8
(1) Nondetect (censored) concentrations were replaced with % of the reporting limit for calculating average concentrations. The remaining statistics in this table were only calculated
when analytes were detected at a sufficient frequency. For example, if an analyte was detected in fewer than 50% of samples, then a median concentration was not calculated. A blank
cell reflects a situation when a median or percentile could not be computed based on detected concentrations. The percentiles are the concentrations of each analyte below which at
least that percentage of the values fall. So the 10th percentile is the concentration below which at least 10% of the observations were found.
(2) In some cases, the detected concentration(s) for an analyte could be lower than the replacement value (% of the reporting limit) for a concentration that was nondetected. In an
extreme (but possible) case, this could result in an average concentration for an analyte that is greater than the maximum detected concentration.
3-251
-------
Proposed Draft
c
o
CD
O
c
o
O
i—i—i—i—r
20-
® 10
"n—i—i—
Q Q"
® ©
J I I I L
0
J I I L
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26
SVOCs
Figure 3.6.23. Box and Dot Density Plot of SVOC Concentrations Measured in Samples of
Generator Engine Effluent SVOCs are identified as follows:
(1) 1-methylnaphthalene
(9) 3-Phenyl-2-Propenal
(18) m-Cresol
(2) 2,4-Dimethylphenol
(10) Acenaphthylene
(19) Naphthalene
(3) 2-Cyclopentenl-one
(11) Acetophenone
(20) n-Hexadecane
(4) 2-Hydroxy-Benzaldehyde
(12) Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phtlialate
(21) Nonadecane
(5) 2-Methylnaphthalene
(13) Di-n-butyl phtlialate
(22) Octadecane
(6) 2-
(14) Eicosane
(23) p-Cresol
Naphthalenecarboxaldehyde
(15) Fluorene
(24) Phenanthrene
(7) 3-Methyl-Benzaldehyde
(16) Heneicosane
(25) Phenol
(8) 3-Methylphenol
(17) Heptadecane
(26) Pyrene
3-252
-------
Proposed Draft
1 I I I T
i i i r
c
a>
O
=3
o
"O
s_
CO
N
CO
X
c
Q)
O
~_
1.0000 r -0-®-0 e
0.1 000 r
O
0.0100 r
0.001 0 r
0.0001 r
OQQO
OOgOO
J I I I L
J I I L
i>
OODO
0 2 4 6 8
10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26
SVOCs
Figure 3.6.24. Box and Dot Density Plot of Potential Hazard Quotients for SVOCs in
Samples of Generator Engine Effluent Nondetect (censored) concentrations were replaced with '/? of the
reporting limit for use in these plots. SVOCs are identified as follows:
(1) 1-methylnaphthalene
(9) 3-Phenyl-2-Propenal
(18) m-Cresol
(2) 2,4-Dimethylphenol
(10) Acenaphthylene
(19) Naphthalene
(3) 2-Cyclopentenl-one
(11) Acetophenone
(20) n-Hexadecane
(4) 2-Hydroxy-Benzaldehyde
(12) Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
(21) Nonadecane
(5) 2-Methylnaphthalene
(13) Di-n-butyl phthalate
(22) Octadecane
(6) 2-
(14) Eicosane
(23) p-Cresol
Naphthalenecarboxaldehyde
(15) Fluorene
(24) Phenanthrene
(7) 3-Methyl-Benzaldehyde
(16) Heneicosane
(25) Phenol
(8) 3-Methylphenol
(17) Heptadecane
(26) Pyrene
3-253
-------
Proposed Draft
3.2.6.3.4 Volatile Organic Compounds
Generator engine effluent samples were analyzed for 80 VOCs. Table 3.6.15 presents
analytical results for the 28 VOCs that were detected. The detected results are also shown in
Figures 3.6.25 and 3.6.26 for analyte concentrations and for PHQs based on the lowest NRWQC
or other PHQ screening benchmark, where applicable, respectively. EPA analyzed the sample
results to determine which VOCs were contributed primarily by generator engine operations and
which were contributed primarily by background ambient concentrations. All were found to be
contributed primarily by generator engine operations.
Twenty-two of the detected VOCs were analyzed for in only one sample. None of these
compounds has an NRWQC or are PBT chemicals. Of the seven detected VOCs that were
analyzed for in more than one sample, three have an NRWQC: benzene, ethylbenzene, and
toluene. All of the detected benzene concentrations exceeded the PHQ screening benchmark of
2.2 [j,g/L by factors ranging from one to nine. The single detected concentration for each of
ethylenebenzene and toluene did not exceed their respective PHQ screening benchmarks.
Note that the generator effluent sample from the fire boat contained the maximum
concentration of 19 of the detected VOCs. These include benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, xylene,
trimethylbenzenes, and ketones.
3-254
-------
Proposed Draft
Table 3.6.15. Results of Generator Engine Sample Analyses for VOCs1
Analyte
Units
No.
Samples
No.
Detected
Detected
Proportion
(%)
Average
Cone.
Median
Cone.
Minimum
Cone.
10%
25%
75%
90%
Maximum
Cone.
(E)-2-Butenal
tjg/L
1
1
100
12
1,2,3,4-Tetrahydro-5-
Methylnaphthalene
|jg/L
1
1
100
5.9
1,2,3,4-Tetrahydro-6-
Methylnaphthalene
|jg/L
1
1
100
7.2
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
|jg/L
1
1
100
8.0
1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene
|jg/L
1
1
100
1.6
2,6-Dimethylnaphthalene
|jg/L
1
1
100
5.5
2-Butanone
|jg/L
1
1
100
83
2-Butenal
|jg/L
1
1
100
19
2-Ethyl-1,4-Dimethyl-
Benzene
|jg/L
1
1
100
5.7
4-lsopropyltoluene
|jg/L
1
1
100
0.40
4-Methyl-2-Pentanone
|jg/L
1
1
100
1.7
Acetone
|jg/L
100
120
220
22
22
22
220
220
220
Benzaldehyde
Mg/i
1
1
100
4.2
Benzene
Mg/i
60
5.9
3.1
12
21
21
Benzofuran
Mg/i
1
1
100
6.9
Biphenyl
Mg/i
1
1
100
12
Ethylbenzene
Mg/i
1
20
1.4
1.0
2.0
2.0
Isopropylbenzene
Mg/i
1
1
100
0.50
m-,p-Xylene (sum of
isomers)
Mg/i
1
1
100
5.3
Methyl acetate
Mg/i
1
1
100
0.80
n-Pentadecane
Mg/i
1
1
100
40
n-Propylbenzene
Mg/i
1
1
100
0.90
n-Tetradecane
Mg/i
1
1
100
20
O-Xylene
Mg/i
1
1
100
3.4
sec-Butylbenzene
Mg/i
1
1
100
0.50
3-255
-------
Proposed Draft
Table 3.6.15. Results of Generator Engine Sample Analyses for VOCs1
Analyte
Units
No.
Samples
No.
Detected
Detected
Proportion
(%)
Average
Cone.
Median
Cone.
Minimum
Cone.
10%
25%
75%
90%
Maximum
Cone.
Styrene
|jg/L
1
1
100
8.9
Toluene
|jg/L
5
1
20
3.5
6.2
12
12
Vinyl acetate
|jg/L
1
1
100
1.5
Notes:
(1) Nondetect (censored) concentrations were replaced with % of the reporting limit for calculating average concentrations. The remaining statistics in this table were only calculated
when analytes were detected at a sufficient frequency. For example, if an analyte was detected in fewer than 50% of samples, then a median concentration was not calculated. A blank
cell reflects a situation when a median or percentile could not be computed based on detected concentrations. The percentiles are the concentrations of each analyte below which at
least that percentage of the values fall. So the 10th percentile is the concentration below which at least 10% of the observations were found.
3-256
-------
Proposed Draft
i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—T
100 ^
CD
C
o
CD
s_
C
Q)
O
C
o
O
10-
did oqoo
J I I L
J I I I I L
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 1820 2224 26 28
VOCs
Figure 3.6.25. Box and Dot
Generator Engine Effluent
(1) (E)-2-Butenal
(2) l,2,3,4-Tetrahydro-5-
Methylnaphthalene
(3) l,2,3,4-Tetrahydro-6-
Methylnaphthalene
(4) 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
(5) 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene
(6) 2,6-dimethylnaphthalene
(7) 2-Butanone
(8) 2-Butenal
Density Plot of VOC Concentrations
VOCs are identified as follows:
(9) 2-Ethyl-l,4-Dimethyl-
Benzene
(10) 4-Isopropyltoluene
(11) 4-Methyl-2-Pentanone
(12) Acetone
(13) Benzaldehyde
(14) Benzene
(15) Benzofuran
(16) Biphenyl
(17) Ethylbenzene
(18) Isopropylbenzene
Measured in Samples of
(19) m-,p-Xylene (sum of
isomers)
(20) Methyl acetate
(21) n-Pentadecane
(22) n-Propylbenzene
(23) n-Tetradecane
(24) o-Xylene
(25) sec-Butylbenzene
(26) Styrene
(27) Toluene
(28) Vinyl acetate
3-257
-------
Proposed Draft
10.00f
i i i i i r
i i i i i r
c
Q)
O
=3
o
QO
£ 1.00 r E
Cut)
CO
N
CO
0.10 r
CO
c
Q)
O
~_
0.01 -
0.00^-
o
OQDO
J I I L
J I I I I I OQQjp
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 1820 2224 26 28
VOCs
Figure 3.6.26. Box and Dot Density Plot of Potential Hazard Quotients for VOCs in
Samples of Generator Engine
(1) (E)-2-Butenal
(2) l,2,3,4-Tetrahydro-5-
Methylnaphthalene
(3) l,2,3,4-Tetrahydro-6-
Methylnaphthalene
(4) 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
(5) 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene
(6) 2,6-dimethylnaphthalene
(7) 2-Butanone
(8) 2-Butenal
Effluent VOCs are identified as follows:
(9) 2-Ethyl-l,4-Dimethyl-
Benzene
(10) 4-Isopropyltoluene
(11) 4-Methyl-2-Pentanone
(12) Acetone
(13) Benzaldehyde
(14) Benzene
(15) Benzofuran
(16) Biphenyl
(17) Ethylbenzene
(18) Isopropylbenzene
(19) m-,p-Xylene (sum of
isomers)
(20) Methyl acetate
(21) n-Pentadecane
(22) n-Propylbenzene
(23) n-Tetradecane
(25) sec-Butylbenzene
(26) Styrene
(27) Toluene
(28) Vinyl acetate
3-258
-------
Proposed Draft
3.2.6.4 Comparison of Effluent Generated at Different Propulsion Engine Power
Levels
Although inboard and outboard propulsion engines were often sampled during operation
at different power levels (e.g., idle, half power, full power), these samples were generally
composited for a single analysis. Exceptions include samples for analysis of HEM/SGT-HEM
and VOCs, which were collected and analyzed separately for each power level of engine
operation (composite samples for these analytes are not appropriate). EPA reviewed the
HEM/SGT-HEM and VOC data to determine whether there were any trends in the resulting data
based on engine power level of operation.
HEM was detected in the majority of inboard engine effluent samples; however, detected
concentrations were low (the majority were less than the reporting limit of 5 mg/L). Of the eight
vessels with inboard engines with detected HEM concentrations that were sampled at different
power levels, engine effluent samples from six had higher HEM concentrations at higher engine
levels than at idle. Data for the remaining two vessels were inconclusive. Note, however, that
differences in HEM concentrations among power levels were small, ranging from 0.1 to 5 mg/L.
For outboard engines, HEM was not detected in any of the engine effluent samples.
Regarding VOC results for inboard engines, EPA reviewed benzene, toluene,
ethylbenzene, and xylene concentrations as these compounds were the most frequently detected.
Of the eight vessels with inboard engines with detected benzene concentrations that were
sampled at different power levels, engine effluent samples from five contained higher benzene
concentrations at higher engine levels than at idle. Data for the remaining three vessels showed
the opposite pattern, with higher benzene concentrations at idle than at higher engine levels. For
seven of these sampled vessels, differences in benzene concentrations among the power levels
were small, ranging from 0.1 to 4.7 (J,g/L. In contrast, for the remaining vessel (a recreational
vessel), the difference in benzene concentrations from idle to three-quarter speed was 89 |ig/L,
with the higher concentration detected at idle. As discussed previously, this recreational vessel
was the only sampled vessel that used gasoline as fuel rather than diesel. In addition, the engines
on this vessel were dewinterized immediately prior to sampling.
The differential among detected concentrations of ethylbenzene, xylene, and toluene at
different power levels is too small to draw any conclusions, except for the engine effluent data
for the recreational vessel. Differences in detected concentrations between idle and three-quarter
power were 18 |ig/L for ethylbenzene, 73 [j,g/L for m-,p-xylene, 31 [j,g/L for o-xylene, and 84
[j,g/L for toluene. The higher concentrations were found at idle for all four analytes.
The UNDS sampling program provides a useful comparison for this study as it was
specifically designed to evaluate engine wet exhaust characteristics among power levels,
including the separate collection and analysis of three replicate samples at each of five different
3-259
-------
Proposed Draft
power levels. Tables 3.6.16 and 3.6.17 present sample results from the UNDS study by power
level for the LCPL and RIB, respectively.
EPA made several conclusions for the LCPL based on a review of the engine effluent
results. Chromium, copper, lead, and nickel were all detected at concentrations significantly
greater than background concentrations for all five power levels. For copper and nickel,
concentrations were highest at idle, second highest at 100 percent power, and then generally
decreased with decreasing power levels (decreasing engine RPM). Chromium concentrations
were highest at 100 percent power and then also decreased with decreasing power levels, with
the lowest chromium concentrations found at idle. Lead concentrations were not significantly
different at the various power levels. For TOC and phenol, only idle concentrations were
significantly greater than background concentrations.
For the RIB, only TOC concentrations were significantly greater than background
concentrations for all five power levels. TOC concentrations were highest at 100 power and then
generally decreased with decreasing power levels; TOC concentrations were lowest at idle.
3-260
-------
Proposed Draft
Table 3.6.16. Mean Concentration Results, UNDS Engine Wet Exhaust Discharge and Background Samples for the LCPL1
Analyte
Mode 1
RPM 2050
(100% Power)
Mode 2
RPM 1850
(75% Power)
Mode 3
RPM 1650
(50% Power)
Mode 4
RPM 1300
(25% Power)
Mode 5
RPM 750
(0% Power)
Background Water
Units
Mean
Mean
Mean
Mean
Mean
Mean
Classical Parameters
Nitrate/Nitrite (N02+ N03-N)
ND (0.010)
0.011
0.011
ND (0.010)
0.012
ND (0.010)
mg/L
Total Organic Carbon (TOC)
1.15
1.03
0.933
0.858
1.73
0.992
mg/L
Metals
Arsenic, Total
2.22
1.98
1.92
2.38
2.21
2.29
|jg/L
Cadmium, Total
0.032
0.028
0.024
0.022
0.022
0.020
|jg/L
Chromium, Total
0.574
0.431
0.313
0.310
0.260
ND (0.100)
|jg/L
Copper, Total
21.7
26.0
17.2
13.5
40.1
0.780
|jg/L
Lead, Total
0.369
0.188
0.145
0.118
0.127
0.030
|jg/L
Nickel, Total
4.12
4.79
3.04
2.81
14.8
0.477
|jg/L
SVOCs
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
ND (10.0)
ND (10.0)
ND (10.18)
ND (10.0)
20.4
ND (10.0)
|jg/L
Phenol
ND (10.0)
ND (10.0)
ND (10.18)
ND (10.0)
19.7
ND (10.0)
Mg/L
Source: USEPA, 2008b.
(1) Mean values were estimated based on the replicate concentrations for each mode or background sample using a lognormal or modified-delta lognormal distribution.
ND - Not detected (number in parentheses is reporting limit).
3-261
-------
Proposed Draft
Table 3.6.17. Mean Concentration Results, UNDS Engine Wet Exhaust Discharge and Background Samples for the RIB1
Analyte
Mode 1
RPM 2450
(100% Power)
Mode 2
RPM 2270
(75% Power)
Mode 3
RPM 1720
(50% Power)
Mode 4
RPM 1290
(25% Power)
Mode 5
RPM 400
(0% Power)
Background
Water
Units
Mean
Mean
Mean
Mean
Mean
Mean
Classical Parameters
Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD)
ND (2.00)
ND (2.00)
ND (2.00)
4.8
3.3
3.3
mg/L
Nitrate/Nitrite (N02 + N03-N)
0.017
ND (0.010)
0.015
0.012
0.013
ND (0.010)
mg/L
Total Organic Carbon (TOC)
1.67
1.55
1.27
1.15
1.29
0.832
mg/L
Total Suspended Solids (TSS)
11.9
12.4
ND (5.00)
5.3
ND (5.00)
ND (5.00)
mg/L
SVOCs
Phenol
32.4
24.6
ND (10.0)
ND (10.0)
ND (10.0)
ND (10.0)
|jg/L
VOCs
1,2,3-Trimethylbenzene
12.3
ND (10.0)
ND (10.0)
ND (10.0)
12.6
ND (10.0)
|jg/L
1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene
12.3
ND (10.0)
ND (10.0)
ND (10.0)
12.6
ND (10.0)
Mg/L
Source: USEPA, 2008b.
(1) Mean values were estimated based on the replicate concentrations for each mode or background sample using a lognormal or modified-delta lognormal distribution.
ND - Not detected (number in parentheses is reporting limit).
3-262
-------
Proposed Draft
3.2.6.5 Engine Dewinterizing Effluent
Marine engines used in cold climates typically require maintenance prior to winter
storage to prevent engine damage caused by freezing or corrosion. The indirect cooling systems
in inboard engines are typically winterized by draining the water from the ambient water cooling
system and refilling the system with approximately 5 gallons of antifreeze. Marine engine
antifreeze contains propylene glycol26, corrosion inhibitors, and other additives. In spring, the 5
gallons of antifreeze is emptied by starting the engine, which discharges the glycol solution and
replaces it with ambient water. EPA sampled dewinterizing effluent from an inboard engine on a
recreational vessel as it was converted from winter storage. This sample was collected in the
same manner as that used for sampling other engine effluents. The sample was analyzed for
select classical pollutants and metals.
Table 3.6.18 presents the collected dewinterizing effluent data, together with the mean
inboard propulsion engine effluent concentrations from Tables 3.6.2 and 3.6.3. The source of the
biochemical oxygen demand concentrations is the propylene glycol in the antifreeze. Elevated
metals concentrations in dewinterizing effluent compared to those in inboard engine effluent
could have been due to prolonged contact of the antifreeze with the engine cooling system and
associated piping.
Outboard engines are winterized by spraying an oily aerosol, commonly referred to as
"fog," into the combustion air intake while the motor is running. Therefore, the engine
dewinterizing effluent sample results in this subsection are not applicable to outboard engines.
Table 3.6.18. Comparison of Dewinterizing Effluent with Propulsion Effluent
Analyte
Units
Dewinterizing Effluent
Inboard Propulsion Engine Mean Concentration
from Tables 3.6.2 and 3.6.3
Classical Parameters
Biochemical Oxygen Demand
(BOD)
mg/L
11
Not analyzed
Total Residual Chlorine
mg/L
2.8
0.0481
Turbidity
NTU
350
322
Metals
Aluminum, Dissolved
|jg/L
560
2001
Aluminum, Total
|jg/L
3,700
3401
Antimony, Dissolved
|jg/L
2.1
Not detected
Antimony, Total
ug/L
2.4
Not detected
Arsenic, Dissolved
|jg/L
24
4.22
Arsenic, Total
|jg/L
32
4.52
Barium, Dissolved
|jg/L
43
351
Barium, Total
|jg/L
59
361
Calcium, Dissolved
|jg/L
21,000
80.0001
26 Ethylene glycol is not used for marine applications due to its higher toxicity as compared to propylene glycol.
3-263
-------
Proposed Draft
Table 3.6.18. Comparison of Dewinterizing Effluent with Propulsion Effluent
Analyte
Units
Dewinterizing Effluent
Inboard Propulsion Engine Mean Concentration
from Tables 3.6.2 and 3.6.3
Calcium, Total
Mg/L
25,000
81,0001
Chromium, Dissolved
Mg/L
820
1.2
Chromium, Total
Mg/L
720
1.3
Cobalt, Dissolved
Mg/L
8.7
Not detected
Cobalt, Total
Mg/L
12
Not detected
Copper, Dissolved
ug/L
370
16
Copper, Total
Mg/L
820
18
Iron, Dissolved
Mg/L
3,300
64
Iron, Total
Mg/L
20,000
2502
Lead, Dissolved
Mg/L
19
1.5
Lead, Total
Mg/L
64
3.0
Magnesium, Dissolved
Mg/L
5,200
200,0001
Magnesium, Total
Mg/L
6,400
200,0001
Manganese, Dissolved
Mg/L
160
43
Manganese, Total
ug/L
400
551
Nickel, Dissolved
|jg/L
7.2
4.4
Nickel, Total
ug/L
18
4.61
Potassium, Dissolved
ug/L
23,000
32.0001
Potassium, Total
ug/L
23,000
32.0001
Selenium, Dissolved
ug/L
45
111
Selenium, Total
ug/L
54
112
Sodium, Dissolved
ug/L
690,000
770,0002
Sodium, Total
ug/L
630,000
860,0002
Vanadium, Dissolved
ug/L
230
Not detected
Vanadium, Total
ug/L
190
Not detected
Zinc, Dissolved
ug/L
570
38
Zinc, Total
ug/L
900
38
(1) Sample concentrations were almost completely accounted for (>90 percent) by background concentrations in ambient water.
(2) Sample concentrations were predominantly accounted for (>50 percent and <90 percent) by background concentrations in
ambient water.
3-264
-------
Proposed Draft
3.2.6.6 Summary of the Characterization of Engine Effluent Analyses
Tables 3.6.19 and 3.6.20, and Table 3.6.21 at the end of this subsection, compare effluent
characteristics for inboard and outboard propulsion engines and generator engines. Specifically,
Table 3.6.19 compares the number of analytes detected in effluent from these engines, while
Table 3.6.20 compares engine effluent analyte concentrations for those pollutants that may have
the potential to lead to environmental impacts. Finally, Table 3.6.21 summarizes the specific
analytes within each engine effluent type with the potential to pose risk to human health or the
environment. The Table 3.6.21 is presented here to help interpret a realized risk likely posed by
these analytes in engine effluent as summarized in Chapter 5.
Table 3.6.19. Comparison of Number of Detected Analytes in Engine Effluent
Analyte Class
Number of Analytes Detected in Engine Effluent
Inboard Propulsion
Outboard Propulsion
Generator
Classical Parameters
11
11
11
Metals
16
14
11
SVOCs
31
7
26
VOCs
38
18
28
Total
96
50
76
Table 3.6.20. Comparison of Results for Selected Analytes in Engine Effluent
Analyte
Units
Mean Concentration
Inboard Propulsion
Outboard Propulsion
Generator
Temperature Differential
°C
5 (low power levels)
20 (high power levels)
<5
<5 to 13
Oil and Grease (HEM)
mg/L
3.0
Not detected
2.9
Arsenic, Total
MQ/L
4.5
24
Not detected
Copper, Dissolved
Mg/L
16
3.3
6.5
Lead, Dissolved
Mg/L
1.5
Not detected
Not detected
Lead, Total
Mg/L
3.0
Not detected
Not detected
Selenium, Dissolved
Mg/L
11
76
Not detected
Zinc, Dissolved
Mg/L
38
11
13
PAHs
Mg/L
14 total detected
6 carcinogens
1 detected
0 carcinogens
5 detected
0 carcinogens
Benzene
Mg/L
12
13
5.9
Among all engine types, the SVOCs and VOCs were the most frequently detected
pollutants (Table 3.6.19). Concentrations of PAHs were particularly high in inboard engine
effluent. Fourteen PAHs were detected, including six of the seven PAHs classified as known
carcinogens (Table 3.6.20), which were detected in all inboard engine effluents at concentrations
several hundred to over 1,000 times greater than their associated benchmarks. PAHs were also
detected in outboard engine and generator effluents, but at concentrations lower than their
associated benchmarks. Furthermore, none of the probable human carcinogens were detected in
generator or outboard propulsion engine effluent samples.
3-265
-------
Proposed Draft
The plasticizer bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate was found in the effluents of all engine types,
but PHQs were just above 1. The VOC benzene was also found at concentrations above PHQ
screening benchmarks in all engine effluents. In addition, PHQs of toluene were greater than 1 in
inboard engine effluents, but not in outboard engine or generator effluents. Trimethylbenzenes
and ketones (VOCs) were frequently detected in the effluents of inboard engines, but no
screening benchmarks exist for these compounds. Despite the high frequency of concentrations
of benzene that exceeded screening benchmarks in engine effluent of all types, rarely were PHQs
in excess of 5.
Among the classical pollutants, inboard propulsion engines increase cooling water
temperatures by moderate amounts (<5°C) at low power levels, but by as much as 20°C at higher
power levels. In contrast, outboard propulsion engines increase cooling water temperatures by
<5°C, regardless of engine level. Most of the generator engine effluent samples increased
cooling water temperature by <5°C; however, two of the generator engine effluent samples had
greater temperature differentials.
Oil and grease was not detected in effluent from outboard propulsion engines, but was
detected at concentrations just above reporting limits in effluent from inboard propulsion and
generator engines. Such concentrations were well below PHQ screening benchmarks for
saltwater discharge. However, EPA did occasionally observe a sheen in receiving waters where
marine engines were operating.
Table 3.6.21 lists those metals that were found to be contributed primarily by engine
operations (elevated above ambient water concentrations) and were detected at concentrations
that exceed a NRWQC, indicating that they may have the potential to cause environmental
impacts. After accounting for background concentrations, dissolved concentrations of copper
exceeded NRWQC in most inboard engine effluents. The highest PHQ for dissolved copper was
17. Several effluents from inboard and outboard engines had dissolved selenium at
concentrations approximately two to seven times higher than NRWQC benchmarks; however,
half of the selenium in these effluents was attributable to the surrounding waters. Among the
total metals, PHQs for arsenic were much greater than 1 in both inboard and outboard engines.
However, in the case of the inboard engines, after subtracting the contribution of ambient water,
none of the detected total arsenic concentrations exceeded the very low PHQ screening
benchmark (0.018 [j,g/L for protection of human health). In the case of outboard engines,
detected total arsenic concentrations exceeded the PHQ screening benchmark even after
subtracting the potential contribution from ambient waters. Total arsenic was not analyzed for in
generator effluents.
3-266
-------
Proposed Draft
Table 3.6.21. Characterization of Engine Effluent and Summary of Analytes that May Have the Potential to Pose Risk
Vessel Type (rio. vessels)
Analytes that May Have the Potential to Pose Risk in Engine Effluent Discharge and Vesse
Sources12
Microbiologicals
Volatile Organic Compounds
Semivolatile Organic Compounds
Metals (dissolved)
Metals (total)
Oil and Grease
Sulfide
Short-Chain Nonylphenols
Long-Chain Nonylphenols
Nutrients
BOD, COD, and TOC
Total Suspended Solids
Other Physical/Chemical
Parameters
Inboard Engines
Water Taxis (4)
Benzene
PAHs,
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)
phthalate
Cu
Temp3
Tour Boats(3)
Benzene
PAHs,
Cu
Temp3
Fishing Vessels (2)
Benzene
PAHs,
Cu
Temp3
Tow/Salvage Vessel (1)
Benzene
PAHs,
Cu
Temp3
Fire Boatl (1)
Benzene
PAHs,
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)
phthalate
Cu
Temp3
Recreational Vessel (2)4
Benzene
PAHs,
Cu
Temp3
Outboard Engines
Tow/Salvage Vessel (4)
Benzene
Se
As
Research (2)
Benzene
Se
As
3-267
-------
Proposed Draft
Table 3.6.21. Characterization of Engine Effluent and Summary of Analytes that May Have the Potential to Pose Risk
Analytes that May Have the Potential to Pose Risk in Engine Effluent Discharge and Vesse
Sources12
Vessel Type (rio. vessels)
Microbiologicals
Volatile Organic Compounds
Semivolatile Organic Compounds
Metals (dissolved)
Metals (total)
Oil and Grease
Sulfide
Short-Chain Nonylphenols
Long-Chain Nonylphenols
Nutrients
BOD, COD, and TOC
Total Suspended Solids
Other Physical/Chemical
Parameters
Generator Engines (5)
Benzene
(PHQ 9 for
fire boat)
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)
phthalate
Notes:
(1) Analytes are generally bolded when a large proportion of the samples have concentrations exceeding the NRWQC (e.g., 25 to 50 percent), when several of the samples have
PHQs > 10 (e.g., two or three of five), when a few samples result in PHQs greatly exceeding the screening benchmark (i.e., 100s to 1,000s), or, in the case of oil and grease and for
nonylphenol, when one or more samples exceed an existing regulatory limit by more than a factor of 2. See text in Section 3.1.3 for a definition of PHQs and Table 3.1 for screening
benchmarks used to calculate these values.
(2) EPA notes that the conclusion of potential risk is drawn from a small sample size, in some cases a single vessel, for certain discharges sampled from some vessel classes. EPA
included these results in the tables to provide a concise summary of the data collected in the study, but strongly cautions the reader that these conclusions, where there are only a few
samples from a given vessel class, should be considered preliminary and might not necessarily represent pollutant concentrations from these discharges from other vessels in this
class.
(3) At full (100%) power.
(4) For inboard engine effluent, higher measured concentrations and concentrations that exceeded the screening benchmarks were consistently from the recreational vessel, which
was de-winterized immediately prior to sampling (see text). The recreational vessel was the only vessel sampled that used gasoline instead of diesel fuel. PHQs for the majority of
samples were less than 5.
3-268
-------
Proposed Draft
3.2.7 Firemain Discharges
The primary purpose of the firemain system is to supply water for fire fighting, although
this system can also be used for other secondary purposes (deck washing, various maintenance
and training activities, anchor chain washdown, or to create bypass flow from the firemain
pumps to cool auxiliary machinery equipment) onboard the vessels of interest in this study. The
firemain systems (see Section 1.5) sampled by EPA on three tour boats, two tug boats, and the
single fire boat for this study are generally only used during emergencies and during biweekly
testing. The firemain system intake water sampled on the vessels selected in this study was taken
from the surrounding (ambient) water without addition of foam-forming agents such as aqueous
film-forming foam (AFFF) or other chemical additions.
The Firemain Hose on a Tour Boat
It should be noted that AFFF agents could potentially be used on the vessels of interest
in this study, although none of the vessels were outfitted with systems that used AFFF. AFFF
agents are used for fire suppression and are a combination of fluoro-chemical surfactants,
hydrocarbon surfactants, and solvents that are injected into the water stream of a fire hose. These
film-forming agents can form water solution films on the surface of flammable liquids,
separating the fuel from the air (oxygen).
EPA focused on analyzing the samples of firemain discharge water for metals, VOCs,
and SVOCs. Metals were selected for analysis because water in the "wet type" firemain system
passes through a significant amount of metal pipe onboard most vessels. EPA initially selected
3-269
-------
Proposed Draft
VOCs and SVOCs to characterize the AFFF, which, as noted, none of the vessels sampled in the
study used while testing their firemain systems. Despite the lack of AFFF use while testing
firemain systems, EPA decided to analyze for VOCs and SVOCs in firemain system discharge
water anyway.
3.2.7.1 Metals
Only half the total number of metals analyzed for in water samples from firemain systems
were detected in the six vessels sampled.
Figure 3.7.1 presents the concentration ranges for dissolved metals detected in firemain
water samples. The figure shows that dissolved metals concentrations span two orders of
magnitude. Average dissolved concentrations of aluminum and zinc were highest, followed, in
order of decreasing concentration, by barium, copper, manganese, nickel, and lead.
Figure 3.7.2 presents the concentration ranges of total metals detected in firemain water
samples. Except for barium (dissolved:total metal ratio, or fd, of 0.96), total metal concentrations
were much higher than their corresponding dissolved metal concentrations, particularly for lead
and copper. For the other total metal concentrations detected at higher levels, a disproportionate
amount of the metals in ambient water is in the particulate form (i.e., aluminum, manganese and
probably iron).
Arsenic, cadmium, selenium, antimony, beryllium, cobalt, silver, thallium, and vanadium
were not detected in the firemain discharges.
Dissolved and total aluminum and total manganese were detected in the firemain effluent
of all six of the vessels sampled. These metal concentrations are moderately to strongly
influenced by ambient water concentrations. Dissolved zinc, also moderately influenced by
ambient water, was detected in five of the samples. Dissolved and total copper, as well as
dissolved manganese, were detected in four of the samples and were generally not affected by
ambient water concentrations. Total lead was detected in three of the samples, and only one of
the firemain systems had dissolved lead and chromium at detectable levels. Dissolved and total
barium and total iron were also detected in one sample from a firemain system.
Disparities between dissolved:total metal concentrations sampled in firemain water
versus ambient water suggest chromium, lead, and iron detected in firemain samples at least
partially originated from the network of pipes within the firemain system. The dissolved:total
metal ratio for copper was lower in the firemain water samples than in the ambient water samples
(fdS of 0.79), suggesting the possibility that some of the total copper detected in firemain samples
originated from the network of pipes within the vessels that support the firemain system - most
likely due to corrosion. Dissolved:total concentrations in firemain samples for the remaining
metals (aluminum, barium, zinc, manganese, nickel) were similar to corresponding ambient
3-270
-------
Proposed Draft
dissolved:total concentration ratios, suggesting most of these metals detected in firemain samples
originated from the ambient water. Ambient harbor water data are not shown.
Figures 3.7.3 and 3.7.4 display the distribution of PHQs based on the most conservative
(most protective) screening benchmark for each of the dissolved and total metals. PHQs for only
one of the dissolved metals (copper) include a value of greater than 10 (one dissolved copper
concentration from the firemain system analyzed from a tour boat resulted in a PHQ of 24).
PHQs with values of slightly higher than 1 were found for two other dissolved metals (lead and
zinc) when using the most conservative (most stringent 2006 NRWQC) screening benchmark. In
contrast, all of the concentrations for total aluminum and the concentrations for the single
detected total iron value exceeded the most stringent 2006 NRWQC; however, none of these
PHQs exceeded 11.
In summary, the concentration of metals in firemain water was generally lower than some
other discharges (e.g. bilgewater, deck washdown water). The water used in the vessel firemain
systems analyzed in this study was ambient water, and the concentrations of most of the
dissolved and total metals in firemain water reflect these surrounding ambient concentrations.
Aluminum, manganese, and iron had high concentrations in the ambient water from which the
firemain withdrew water and were generally higher or the same as other discharges. Dissolved
and total copper, dissolved and total lead, and to a lesser degree, nickel and zinc, were found in
concentrations higher than the ambient water. Of these metals, dissolved copper is the only metal
also found at concentrations consistently above the most conservative screening benchmarks,
albeit only with PHQ values in the 1 to 11 range, which is considerably lower than values found
in most other discharge types discussed in this report.
3-271
-------
Proposed Draft
Table 3.7.1. Results of Firemain System Sample Analyses for Metals1
Analyte
Units
No.
samples
No.
detected
Detected
Proportion
(%)
Average
Cone.''
Median
Cone.
Minimum
Cone.
10%
25%
75%
90%
Maximum
Cone.''
Screening
BM'
Heavy and Other Metals
Aluminum, Dissolved3
|jg/L
6
6
100
110
140
15
15
72
150
160
160
NA
Aluminum, Total4
|jg/L
6
6
100
330
360
180
180
200
440
650
650
87
Barium, Dissolved3
|jg/L
1
1
100
36
NA
Barium, Total3
|jg/L
1
1
100
37
1000
Chromium, Total4
|jg/L
6
1
17
1.7
1.2
4.9
4.9
NA
Copper, Dissolved
Mg/L
6
4
67
23
15
40
74
74
3.1
Copper, Total
|jg/L
6
4
67
150
70
290
580
580
1300
Iron, Total
Mg/L
1
1
100
3800
300
Lead, Dissolved
mq/l
6
1
17
2.1
1.1
4.3
4.3
2.5
Lead, Total
Mg/L
6
3
50
50
7.6
81
270
270
NA
Manganese, Dissolved4
Mg/L
6
4
67
17
16
31
47
47
NA
Manganese, Total4
Mg/L
6
6
100
86
98
49
49
59
120
120
120
100
Nickel, Dissolved4
Mg/L
6
1
17
4.9
1.1
4.4
4.4
8.2
Nickel, Total4
Mg/L
6
2
033
7.0
11
11
11
610
Zinc, Dissolved4
Mg/L
6
5
83
120
58
5.3
270
370
370
81
Zinc, Total
Mg/L
6
6
100
490
280
20
20
26
1200
1600
1600
7400
Cationic Metals
Calcium, Dissolved3
Mg/L
6
6
100
27000
25000
23000
23000
24000
29000
37000
37000
NA
Calcium, Total3
Mg/L
6
6
100
30000
29000
23000
23000
23000
38000
40000
40000
NA
Magnesium, Dissolved3
Mg/L
6
6
100
6500
6500
5200
5200
5700
7200
9000
9000
NA
Magnesium, Total3
Mg/L
6
6
100
7300
6600
5500
5500
6200
9200
9800
9800
NA
Sodium, Dissolved3
Mg/L
1
1
100
38000
NA
Sodium,Total3
Mg/L
1
1
100
37000
NA
Potassium, Dissolved3
Mg/L
1
1
100
3800
NA
Potassium, Total3
Mg/L
1
1
100
3600
NA
Notes:
(1) Nondetect (censored) concentrations were replaced with of the reporting limit for calculating average concentrations. The remaining statistics in this table were only calculated when analytes were
detected at a sufficient frequency. For example, if an analyte was detected in fewer than 50% of samples, then a median concentration was not calculated. A blank cell reflects a situation when a median or
percentile could not be computed based on detected concentrations. The percentiles are the concentrations of each analyte below which at least that percentage of the values fall. So the 10th percentile is the
concentration below which at least 10% of the observations were found.
(2) Screening BM represents the screening benchmark referred to in Section 3.1.3, and is the most stringent 2006 NRWQC or other conservative benchmark used to calculate PHQs.
(3) Sample concentrations were strongly influenced by background concentrations in ambient water, accounting for greater than 90% of sample concentrations in the majority of samples.
(4) Sample concentrations were moderately influenced by background concentrations in ambient water, accounting for between 50 and 90% of sample concentrations in the majority of samples.
(5) In some cases, the detected concentration^) for an analyte could be lower than the replacement value (1A of the reporting limit) for a concentration that was nondetected. In an extreme (but possible) case,
this could result in an average concentration for an analyte that is greater than the maximum detected concentration.
3-272
-------
Proposed Draft
CD
C
o
CD
s_
C
Q)
O
C
o
O
^ ^ G°V V ^ ^
o$&
Dissolved Metals
Figure 3.7.1. Box and Dot Density Plot of Dissolved Metals Concentrations Measured in
Samples of Firemain Water Dissolved antimony, arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, cobalt, iron,
selenium, silver, thallium, and vanadium were not detected in any of the firemain water samples.
3-273
-------
Proposed Draft
i i r
i i r
1000 -
CD
C
o
CD
s_
c
Q)
O
c
o
O
100 -
10-
1 -
-©-
J I i.
DO
OQQO
CO
QD
)QOC
Do
r©n
o
QOffl
J I I I L
^ V u" ^
Total Metals
Figure 3.7.2. Box and Dot Density Plot of Total Metals Concentrations Measured in
Samples of Firemain Water Total antimony, arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, cobalt, selenium, silver, thallium,
and vanadium were not detected in any of the firemain water samples.
3-274
-------
Proposed Draft
10.0
CD
O
=3
o
"O
s_
CO
N
* 1.0
c
Q)
O
~_
0.1
Dissolved Metals
Figure 3.7.3. Box and Dot Density Plot of Potential Hazard Quotients for Dissolved Metals
in Samples of Firemain Water Dissolved antimony, arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, cobalt, iron,
selenium, silver, thallium, and vanadium were not detected in any of the firemain water samples.
1 I I r
ee
ooJ nono
ocrqpoo
J I L
3-275
-------
Proposed Draft
10.000 r
c
CD
O
=3
o
"O
s_
CO
N
CO
X
To
c
Q)
O
~_
0.100 r
0.010 r
0.001
i I r
-G-
ni i i r
-e-
oO
J I L
1.000- W e
CO
OD
bo
bo
J I L
^ V u" ^
Total Metals
Figure 3.7.4. Box and Dot Density Plot of Potential Hazard Quotients for Total Metals in
Samples of Firemain Water Total antimony, arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, cobalt, selenium, silver, thallium,
and vanadium were not detected in any of the firemain water samples.
3-276
-------
Proposed Draft
3.2.7.2 Classical pollutants
The firemain system water samples were analyzed for 10 classical pollutants (BOD,
COD, TOC, and sulfide were not analyzed for as they were not expected in firemain system
discharge (see Table 2.2)). Of the 10 classical pollutants analyzed for, oil and grease (measured
as HEM and SGT-HEM) were not detected in any samples (Table 3.7.2). The concentrations of
all other pollutants, with the possible exception of turbidity, were not elevated.
The conductivity, pH, and low salinity (ranging from 0.01 to 0.2 parts per thousand) in
the firemain water samples are consistent with freshwater ambient water (all firemain samples
were taken from vessels operating in fresh water). The pH of these waters was between 7 and 8,
and turbidity and TSS was low, under 90 NTU and 20 mg/L, respectively. The firemain system
effluent was sampled in the spring, and the temperature was in a seasonal range of 14 to 22°C
and varied according to geographic location (warmer water samples in southern United States
and colder in mid-Atlantic and northern states). Dissolved oxygen in firemain system water
ranged from a low of 4.1 mg/L (slightly less then 50 percent saturation) to a high of 13 mg/L
(super-saturated). All of these values were, to a large degree, consistent with concentrations of
these parameters found in respective ambient water.
Figure 3.7.5 illustrates the variability of the values measured for the classical pollutants
in firemain system water, which is relatively low given the relative similarities in ambient water
quality (freshwater harbors sampled during springtime) for the three locations where vessels
were sampled. The only other parameters detected in this category were TRC and turbidity. TRC
was only detected in one of the six samples collected (measured at the reporting limit = 0.10
mg/L; PHQ = 13). All of the other TRC concentrations were below the reporting limit of 0.10
mg/L, which, when reported at half the reporting limit or 0.05 mg/L, still exceeds the most
stringent 2006 NRWQC for TRC of 0.0075 mg/L. In contrast, turbidity ranged from a low of 4.6
to a high of 89 NTU, concentrations similar to the range of turbities (3 to 180 NTU) observed in
estuaries. In contrast, turbidity in raw sewage can be several hundred NTUs or more. There is no
screening benchmark for turbidity from which to assess potential to cause or contribute to
adverse effects on water quality.
To summarize, the concentrations of classical pollutants in firemain system water
samples are within the normally expected ranges for the given season and geographical location
where vessels were sampled. It appears that the classical pollutant concentrations primarily
reflect concentrations found in the ambient water.
3-277
-------
Proposed Draft
Table 3.7.2. Results of Firemain System Water Sample Analyses for Classical Pollutants1
Analyte
Units
No.
samples
No.
detected
Detected
Proportion
(%)
Average
Cone.
Median
Cone.
Minimum
Cone.
10%
25%
75%
90%
Maximum
Cone.
Screening
BM'
Conductivity
mS/cm
5
5
100
0.32
0.24
0.23
0.23
0.24
0.43
0.47
0.47
NA
Dissolved Oxygen
mg/L
5
5
100
7.7
6.8
4.1
4.1
4.9
11
13
13
NA
PH
SU
6
6
100
7.4
7.4
6.9
6.9
7.0
7.8
7.9
7.9
NA
Salinity
ppt
5
5
100
0.12
0.10
0.010
0.010
0.055
0.20
0.20
0.20
NA
Temperature
C
5
5
100
18
19
14
14
15
21
22
22
NA
Total Residual Chlorine
mg/L
6
1
17
0.05
0.025
0.10
0.10
0.0075
Total Suspended Solids (TSS)
mg/L
1
1
100
16
30
Turbidity
NTU
6
6
100
33
27
4.6
4.6
16
48
89
89
NA
Notes:
(1) Nondetect (censored) concentrations were replaced with % of the reporting limit for calculating average concentrations. The remaining statistics in this table were only calculated
when analytes were detected at a sufficient frequency. For example, if an analyte was detected in fewer than 50% of samples, then a median concentration was not calculated. A blank
cell reflects a situation when a median or percentile could not be computed based on detected concentrations. The percentiles are the concentrations of each analyte below which at
least that percentage of the values fall. So the 10th percentile is the concentration below which at least 10% of the observations were found.
(2) Screening BM represents the screening benchmark referred to in Section 3.1.3, and is the most stringent 2006 NRWQC or other conservative benchmark used to calculate PHQs.
3-278
-------
Proposed Draft
10.00-
c
o
~C0
s_
C
Q)
O
C
o
O
1.00 -
0.10 -
0.01
o
.o^
Classical Pollutants
Figure 3.7.5. Box and Dot Density Plot of Classical Pollutants Measured in Samples of
Firemain Water Concentrations reflect ambient water concentrations and values because ambient water was
used as the source of water for all fireman systems in the vessels sampled in the study program.
3-279
-------
Proposed Draft
3.2.7.3 Volatile and Semivolatile Organic Chemicals
VOC and SVOCs were targeted in firemain systems for this program because of the
expectation that AFFF agents might be injected into the water stream of a fire hose to practice
potential fire suppression scenarios. AFFF was not used, however, by any of the vessels sampled
for this study.
Of the 57 SVOCs that were analyzed for in the six firemain system water samples, only
six were detected, none of which were detected in more than one sample (Table 3.7.3 and Figure
3.7.6). Similarly, of 37 VOCs analyzed for, only five were detected, and as with the SVOCs,
none were detected in more than one sample (Table 3.7.3). When SVOC and VOC
concentrations were above detection levels, concentrations were relatively low. Of these, only
bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate was measured at a sufficiently high concentration of 4.6 |ig/L that
exceeded the associated PHQ of 3.8, based on the most conservative screening benchmark of 1.2
|ig/L (human health criterion). Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate was also the only SVOC or VOC
detected in ambient water, but interestingly, at a slightly higher concentration of 13 |ig/L.
3-280
-------
Table 3.7.3. Results of Firemain Water Sample Analyses for SVOCs1
Proposed Draft
Analyte
Units
No.
samples
No.
detected
Detected
Proportion
<%)
Average
Cone.1
Median
Cone.
Minimum
Cone.
10%
25%
75%
90%
Maximum
Cone.
Screening
BM'
SVOCs
2,6,10,14-Tetramethyl Pentadecane
Mg/L
1
1
100
9.9
NA
2-Mercaptobenzothiazole
Mg/L
1
1
100
4.1
NA
Benzothiazole
Mg/L
1
1
100
7.2
NA
Bicyclo[2.2.1lheptane,1,7,7-Trimethyl-
Ufl/L
1
1
100
14
NA
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
Mg/L
4
1
25
2.1
3.4
4.6
4.6
1.2
lsopropylbenzene-4,methyl-1
Mg/L
1
1
100
9.9
NA
VOCs
1 -Methyl-2-(1 -Methylethyl)-Benzene
Mg/L
1
1
100
97
NA
1 -Methyl-4-(1 -Methylidene)-Cyclohexane
Mg/L
1
1
100
6.8
NA
Limonene
Mg/L
1
1
100
9.5
NA
n-Pentadecane
Mg/L
1
1
100
3.8
NA
n-Tetradecane
Mg/L
1
1
100
3.5
NA
Notes:
(1) Nondetect (censored) concentrations were replaced with % of the reporting limit for calculating average concentrations. The remaining statistics in this table were only calculated
when analytes were detected at a sufficient frequency. For example, if an analyte was detected in fewer than 50% of samples, then a median concentration was not calculated. A blank
cell reflects a situation when a median or percentile could not be computed based on detected concentrations. The percentiles are the concentrations of each analyte below which at
least that percentage of the values fall. So the 10th percentile is the concentration below which at least 10% of the observations were found.
(2) Screening BM represents the screening benchmark referred to in Section 3.1.3, and is the most stringent 2006 NRWQC or other conservative benchmark used to calculate PHQs.
3-281
-------
Proposed Draft
CD
C
o
CD
s_
C
Q)
O
C
o
O
Figure 3.7.6. Box and Dot Density Plot of SVOC Concentrations Measured in Samples of
Firemain Water SVOCs are identified as follows:
(1) 2,6,10,14-Tetramethyl
Pentadecane,
(2) 2-Mercaptobenzothiazole,
(3) Benzothiazole,
(4) Bicyclo[2.2.1]Heptane,l ,7,7-
Trimethyl-,
(5) Bis(2-Ethylhexyl) Phthalate,
(6) Isopropylbenzene-4, Methyl-
1
3-282
-------
Proposed Draft
3.2.7.4 Summary of the Characterization of Firemain System Water Analyses
Table 3.7.4 summarizes the specific analytes in firemain system effluent that may have
the potential to pose risk to human health or the environment. EPA's interpretation of a realized
risk likely posed by these analytes, relative to pollutant loadings, background ambient and source
water contaminant levels and characteristics, and other relevant information useful for this
assessment, is presented in Chapter 5.
The proportion of dissolved to total metals for firemain system discharge was low
overall, relative to other discharge types. Among the dissolved metals, copper was detected in
the highest concentrations and these both exceeded the most number of NRWQCs (four of six
samples) and had the highest PHQs (ranging from approximately 4 to over 20). Dissolved lead
and zinc had concentrations that exceeded one and three NRWQC, respectively, but none of the
PHQs were above 10. Total aluminum concentrations exceeded NRWQC benchmarks in all
samples, with PHQs ranging from 1-5. However, most of the aluminum in firemain discharge
can be attributed to aluminum in the ambient waters. Overall, the concentrations of metals in
firemain discharge were low compared to other discharge types.
Among the classical pollutants, TRC was the only pollutant of potential concern.
However, TRC was detected right at the reporting limit of 0.10 mg/L in only one of six samples
and the concentration likely reflects an elevated TRC concentration in the ambient water.
Finally, the concentration of bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (an SVOC) exceeded the
NRWQC (PHQ = 3.8) in one discharge sample; however, most SVOCs and VOCs sampled for
were below detection limits, and when they were detected, occurred at very low concentrations.
It is noteworthy to reiterate that bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate was also the only SVOC or VOC
detected in ambient water, and at a slightly higher concentration (13 |ig/L) than in the one
firemain water sample.
3-283
-------
Proposed Draft
Table 3.7.4. Characterization of Firemain Discharge and Summary of Analytes that May Have the Potential to Pose Risk
Vessel Type (no. vessels)
Microbiologicals
>
ilytes that May
TO
O
>
_L
Semivolatile Organic Compounds <
a>
"O
o
a>
a
d Pose Risk in Firer
0)
>
o
o
4—>
TO
4—>
0)
3
Oil and Grease ~
)ischc
0)
•a
3
CO
—1
Short-Chain Nonylphenols o
a
Long-Chain Nonylphenols ^
obable So
£
0)
4—>
3
Z
BOD. COD. and TOC
Total Suspended Solids
Other Physical/Chemical
Parameters
Tour (3)
Cu (dissolved)
Tug (2)
Cu (dissolved)
Fireboat (1)
Cu (dissolved)
Notes:
(1) EPA notes that the conclusion of potential risk is drawn from a small sample size, in some cases a single vessel, for certain discharges sampled from some vessel classes. EPA
included these results in the tables to provide a concise summary of the data collected in the study, but strongly cautions the reader that these conclusions, where there are only a few
samples from a given vessel class, should be considered preliminary and might not necessarily represent pollutant concentrations from these discharges from other vessels in this
class.
(2) Analytes are generally bolded when a large proportion of the samples have concentrations exceeding the NRWQC (e.g., 25 to 50 percent), when several of the samples have
PHQs > 10 (e.g., two or three of five), when a few samples result in PHQs greatly exceeding the screening benchmark (i.e., 100s to 1,000s), or, in the case of oil and grease and for
nonylphenol, when one or more samples exceed an existing regulatory limit by more than a factor of 2. See text in Section 3.1.3 for a definition of PHQs and Table 3.1 for screening
benchmarks used to calculate these values.
3-284
-------
Proposed Draft
3.2.8 Antifouling Hull Coatings
Antifouling hull systems (AFSs) are specialized paints and other coatings intended to
retard the growth of algae, weeds, and encrusting organisms such as barnacles and zebra mussels
on the underwater portion of vessel hulls. These organisms may foul hulls and other underwater
parts, increasing corrosion and drag, reducing safety and maneuverability, decreasing fuel
efficiency and economy, and lengthening transit times (WHOI, 1952). Vessel hull fouling is
often significant as vessels can move between a diverse range of aquatic environments and
remain in the photic zone that is the most productive region of the water body (Chambers et al.,
2006). Exposed to a variety of organisms, vessel hulls can transfer the organisms into other water
bodies, where they can become invasive species.
Figure 3.8.1. Encrusting organisms (left) and weeds (right) growing on vessel hulls
(figures from the Naval Surface Warfare Center's Carderock Division, West
Bethesda, Maryland, and the Boating Industry Association of Victoria, South
Melbourne, Australia27).
The development of AFSs has a long history, as
mariners have tried for centuries to keep vessel bottoms free
of barnacles and other fouling growth (Yebra et al., 2004;
Readman, 2006). Ancient civilizations of the Greeks and the
Romans coated their vessels with lead sheathing secured by
copper nails. These heavy metals were early examples of
using biocides to control fouling. Columbus' ships are
thought to have been coated with pitch and tallow. In the
United Kingdom, lead sheathing was abandoned by the Navy in the late 1600s, and antifouling
paints containing tar, grease, sulphur pitch and brimstone were developed (Carberry, 2006). One
hundred years later, copper sheathing was used that prevented fouling through dissolution of the
toxic metal ions (Readman, 2006). With the introduction of iron ships in the mid-1800s, different
What is a Biocide?
A biocide is a chemical
substance capable of
killing living organisms,
usually in a selective
way.
27 See http://www.dt.naw.mil/sur-str-mat/fun-mat/pai-pro-bra/fou-con-tec/images/fouling.ipg and
http://www.biavic.com.au/files/weedunderliu11.ipg. respectively, for access to figures.
3-285
-------
Proposed Draft
antifouling paints were needed because the copper sheathing reacted with the hull material to
hasten corrosion of the iron. New paints were developed by adding toxic biocides such as copper
oxide, arsenic, and mercury oxide to resin binders. Following the Second World War, the
introduction of petroleum-based resins and health and safety concerns relating to arsenic- and
mercury-containing paints meant that copper-based paints became most popular (Readman,
2006).
In the late 1950s and early 1960s, new antifouling paint formulations using tributyltin
(TBT) proved to be excellent in preventing hull fouling. TBT, especially in "self-polishing"
formulations, proved very efficient, and the application of TBT-based paints rapidly expanded.
TBT was frequently formulated together with cuprous oxide to control a broader range of
organisms. Not only was antifouling performance improved, but tin-based formulas (without
copper components) are noncorrosive to aluminum, which was being used more in the
construction of vessel hulls and propulsion systems. Unfortunately, the use of TBT also had
severe and unexpected environmental consequences (Carberry, 2006). As the popularity of TBT
grew, oyster producers in France reported shell malformations caused by paint leachate
containing TBT that rendered their harvest worthless. Wild populations of other mollusc species
were also affected at very low concentrations of TBT in the water and sediment (Evans et al.,
1994). For example, female dog whelks (Nucella sp.) developed male characteristics (termed
imposex) at these levels (Bryan et al., 1986). This masculinization of female gastropods was also
reported in the open North Sea (Ten Hallers-Tjabbes et al., 1994). TBT use on small vessels was
phased out in the late 1980s, when EPA and other regulatory agencies (including those in
Canada, Australia, and many in Europe) restricted use of TBT-based AFSs to ships longer than
25 meters (see Section 6.2.3 of this report for further discussion about regulatory elimination of
TBT).
Restrictions on the use of TBT-based AFSs opened the market for paint manufacturers
and chemical companies developing new biocides for new antifouling paints to be used on
vessels. Other metallic species, such as copper (copper hydroxide, copper thiocyanate) and zinc
(zinc pyrithione), are currently used as substitutes for TBT. Copper oxide (in formulations
without TBT) is by far the most common of the metallic biocides, used in more than 90 percent
of the approximately 180 AFS products registered in California (Singhasemanon, 2008). A single
AFS product might actually contain multiple biocides, with "booster biocides" incorporated to
increase the duration and functionality of copper-based AFSs (Chambers et al., 2006). Irgarol is
currently the organic biocide booster most frequently formulated into AFS products. As was the
case for TBT, the biocides used in AFSs today can be toxic to a range of aquatic organisms, not
just fouling organisms. In the subsections below, EPA discusses the literature on studies of
adverse effects of these AFS biocides to aquatic resources as well as alternatives to using
biocidal AFSs.
3-286
-------
Proposed Draft
EPA did not sample antifouling systems as part of this study because of lack of time and
resources available for this study. Assessing AFS discharge involves isolating a commercial
vessel within a confined body of water (a "boat bag" or slip liner), and measuring the release,
discharge, or leaching of the AFS biocide(s) over a period of time (weeks or months); the
amount of time needed for the study would impose economic hardship on the vessel's owners
and operators. Rather, EPA elected to rely on the significant secondary data on anitifouling
systems available in the literature.
3.2.8.1 Copper Biocides
Copper is typically the biocide added to antifouling paints to prevent biofouling
organisms from attaching to the hull. The most common form of copper used in AFSs is cuprous
oxide, which acts as a preventative biocide by leaching into the water body. Cuprous oxide
concentrations in marine antifouling paints range from 26 to 76 percent by weight, with most
paints in the 40- to 70-percent range. Since cuprous oxide is 89 percent copper by weight, typical
cuprous oxide marine antifouling paints are 36 to 62 percent copper by weight (TDC
Environmental, 2004). Two additional copper biocides are occasionally used in AFSs: copper
thiocyanate and copper hydroxide. These formulations are not as common, although copper
thiocyanate has the advantage of being compatible with aluminum. The contribution of copper
from these paints to receiving water is small relative to AFSs containing cuprous oxide (TDC
Environmental, 2004).
Conventional copper-based AFSs fall into several general categories: copolymer or
ablative paints and hard contact leaching paints (Conway and Locke, 1994). Copolymer paints
release biocide at a constant rate, ablating (wearing away) much like a bar of soap, which is
intended to reduce the need for cleaning. Hard contact leaching paints are usually modified
epoxy paints that leach biocide upon contact with water, and, over time, the biocide is released at
a decreasing rate. Each of these coating formulations can benefit from periodic hull cleaning to
remove fouling growth, maintain a smooth surface, and improve the copper release on vessel
hulls, but underwater hull cleaning can be a source of pollution or introduce non-native species if
not done carefully. Cleaning frequencies and methods vary by paint type, area of vessel
operation, frequency and conditions of operation, and vessel operator's needs. Techniques that
capture removed fouling growth and paint residue reduce negative impacts on the environment.
Passive leaching rates from antifouling paint, including those that are copper-based,
depend on a number of factors, including the paint matrix (e.g., vinyl, epoxy), copper content,
age of the paint, time since last hull cleaning, and frequency of painting. Leaching rates also vary
with environmental conditions such as pH, temperature, salinity, and the existing slime "biofilm"
layer (CRWQCB, 2005).
Rates of passive leaching of dissolved copper from AFSs on seven recreational vessels
painted with epoxy copper antifouling paints were investigated in studies conducted in Southern
3-287
-------
Proposed Draft
California by the U.S. Navy, under test conditions intended to represent realistic vessel
conditions. Copper release rates were found to range from 2 to 14 |ig/cm2/day, with an average
leaching rate of 8.2 |ig/cm2/day28. In another study of copper-based AFSs on recreational vessels,
researchers with the Southern California Coastal Water Research Project (SCCWRP) measured
the mass emissions of dissolved copper from both passive leaching and underwater hull cleaning
(Schiff et al., 2003). Fiberglass panels were painted with copper-based antifouling paints and
immersed in seawater in a harbor environment. SCCWRP researchers determined the average
flux rates for epoxy and hard vinyl copper antifouling paints to be approximately 4.3 and 3.7
|ig/cm2/day over the course of a month, respectively. In the SCCWRP study, the authors also
discussed the comparability of the results between the U.S. Navy and SCCWRP studies.
According to the authors, the range of passive leaching measurements from the U.S. Navy study
was within the range of measurements obtained in the SCCWRP study. By combining the results
from the two studies, an average passive leaching rate for vessels at the Shelter Island Yacht
Club (SIYB) was determined to be 6.5 |ig/cm2/day (CRWQCB, 2005). In the United Kingdom,
Thomas et al. (1999) found higher copper leaching rates for ablative copper antifouling paint
ranging from 18.6 to 21.6 |ig/cm2/day in 17 day experiments (Schiff et al., 2003). Table 3.8.1
summarizes the passive leaching rates for vessel AFSs found in the literature. The copper
leaching rates summarized in this table were measured in experiments designed to simulate
environmentally relevant conditions. However, more recently developed types of AFSs may
leach at different rates, and the actual rates of copper leaching from many vessels and real-world
environmental conditions may differ from those in Table 3.8.1.
Estimates of copper released from AFS leaching and underwater hull cleaning were
calculated based upon the 6.5 |ig/cm2/day average flux rate cited above, which was extrapolated
to vessels using the underwater surface area of the hull29, and then to marinas (or harbors) based
on the number of vessels in the marinas. Despite the caveats and limitations discussed above,
EPA uses these estimates in Chapter 4 to calculate loadings from vessel hull AFSs to attempt to
understand the impacts of this source of copper discharge from certain vessels on large water
bodies.
Even when an effective AFS is used, the biofouling could accumulate over time to
unacceptable levels. If the AFS is still viable, this accumulated growth can be removed from
vessel hulls by a number of methods, most frequently by underwater hull cleaning. Several
studies have investigated the release of copper from copper-based AFSs into water bodies during
underwater hull cleaning. The amount of copper released depends on cleaning frequency, method
of cleaning, type of paint, and frequency of painting (SWRCB, 1996). Valkirs et al. (1994) found
28 EPA notes that a calculated average for release rates will not reflect real-world conditions for many vessels and
environmental conditions.
29
Hull surface area can be estimated using the following equation: Hull Surface Area = VesselLength*Beam*0.85
(Interlux, 1999).
3-288
-------
Proposed Draft
that underwater hull cleaning resulted in elevated total copper concentrations near the vicinity of
the operation as dissolved copper was released during and shortly after hull cleaning. Smaller
amounts of dissolved copper also leached from debris and sediments after cleaning. The
particulate form of copper was rapidly incorporated into the bottom sediment, likely rendering it
unavailable to aquatic organisms. The biologically active species of copper complexed rapidly,
and dissolved copper levels returned to precleaning conditions within minutes to hours after the
hull cleaning. Valkirs et al. (1994) concluded that potential adverse effects of hull cleaning on
aquatic organisms from the increased dissolved copper concentrations were relatively short-term
and pulsed in nature, while the potential adverse effects of increased particulate copper were
probably long-term in nature, and dependent on resuspension or sediment uptake from benthic
organisms.
McPherson and Peters (1995) also studied the effects of underwater hull cleaning on
water body copper concentrations and toxicity to aquatic life. In the study, an underwater hull
cleaning operation was performed in Shelter Island Yacht Basin using Best Management
Practices (BMPs) that used less abrasive techniques to remove fouling growth (e.g., hand-wiping
with a soft cloth). Most of the copper released during the cleaning was in the dissolved form.
Researchers found that the plume of copper released by cleaning moved with the current, and
that the degree of plume contamination depended on fouling extent and exertion by the diver.
McPherson and Peters (1995) concluded that underwater hull cleaning elevates concentrations in
the vicinity of the operation, which return to background levels within minutes. The researchers
did not identify the type of antifouling paint (ablative or contact leaching paint), the age of the
antifouling paint on the vessel, or the time since last hull cleaning. While the study provided
important information regarding impacts of underwater hull cleaning on water quality, it did not
provide copper emission rates associated with hull cleaning.
Schiff et al. also estimated dissolved copper emissions rates associated with underwater
hull cleaning. Fiberglass panels were painted with copper antifoulants to simulate the hulls of
recreational vessels. The study objective was to estimate the flux rates of dissolved copper from
underwater hull cleaning of vessels painted with two commonly used types of copper-based
antifouling paints in San Diego Bay. Schiff found that hull cleaning released between 3.8 to 17.4
|ig/cm2 per event (see Table 3.8.2), with an average release of 8.6 |ig/cm2/event. The researchers
concluded that underwater hull cleaning results in a greater daily load of copper to the
environment than passive leaching. In terms of mass loading, the authors concluded that
approximately 95 percent of dissolved copper from antifouling paint enters the environment via
passive leaching (CRWQCB, 2005). EPA notes, however, that this does not include loading rates
from particulate copper, which may also impair the environment in the benthos due to
biogeochemical cycling.
AFSs that are applied to vessel hulls are one of the most commonly identified major
sources for copper in marinas. A number of studies have been carried out to estimate the loading
3-289
-------
Proposed Draft
of copper from vessel AFSs. EPA estimated that copper loading from AFS use in California's
Lower Newport Bay (LNB) area, which harbors approximately 10,000 boats, contributed more
than 62,000 pounds of copper (via passive leaching and underwater hull cleaning) into LNB
waters annually (USEPA, 2002). EPA believed that this load could account for as much as 80
percent of all copper input into LNB.
The U.S. Navy and private researchers conducted two copper source loading studies for
the San Diego Bay in the late 1990s (Johnson et al., 1998; PRC, 1997). Both studies concluded
that AFSs accounted for the majority of dissolved copper loading to the bay. The San Diego
Regional Water Quality Control Board (SDRWQCB) estimated that passive leaching and
underwater hull cleaning of the 2,400 boats berthed in the SIYB marina combine to contribute 98
percent of the copper load to the basin (Singhasemanon et al., 2009). Of the approximately 1.8
pounds of copper estimated released per boat per year (TDC Environmental, 2004), about 95
percent is believed to leach from AFS while boats are moored at the dock; the remaining 5
percent is believed to be released during monthly underwater hull cleaning activities.
The constant input of copper by leaching from the AFSs applied to pleasure, commercial,
and military vessels has been cited as a likely primary source of copper in San Diego Bay.
Sediment concentrations measured at the SIYB were relatively high (from 133 to 212 mg/kg)
compared to other areas in San Diego Bay (Valkirs et al., 1994). Elevated copper concentrations
(108 to 270 mg/kg) were found throughout San Diego Bay, with small boat harbors, commercial
shipping berths, and military berths most affected. This distribution pattern is expected,
considering the historical use of copper-based antifouling paints in the area.
Marinas in general tend to have elevated levels of pollutants in the water and sediments,
including copper, as explained later in this subsection. For example, monitoring in the Southern
California Bight demonstrated that sediment from marinas throughout southern California had
consistently elevated copper levels compared to surrounding waters (Bay et al., 2000). The
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA, 1991) found the highest sediment
concentrations, reaching over 104 mg copper/dry kg, in marinas, compared to other areas
throughout the Southern California Bight. Sediment quality surveys around the United States
routinely find high copper concentrations in marinas and harbors (USEPA, 1996; NOAA, 1994).
A recent study of AFS biocides in California marinas found dissolved copper
concentrations ranging from 0.1-18.4 |ig/L (Singhasemanon, 2008) in the water. Concentrations
were significantly higher in salt- and brackish water marinas than in freshwater marinas.
Dissolved copper concentrations in many of the salt- and brackish water marinas exceeded
established water quality standards. Thus, there are ecological risks due to copper in many salt
and brackish water marinas (Singhasemanon, 2008).
Copper contamination from vessel hulls is a water quality problem that is not unique to
California. Within the United States, other areas of current concern to regulators include
3-290
-------
Proposed Draft
Chesapeake Bay, Maryland; Port Canaveral and Indian River Lagoon, Florida; and various
harbors in the state of Washington (Carson et al, 2009). Sweden, the Netherlands, and Denmark
have recently banned copper-containing AFSs on recreational vessels in certain areas, and
several European countries are now closely monitoring levels of dissolved copper in boat basins.
Elevated copper levels in marinas may be attributable to a number of factors. Marinas are
home to high concentrations of recreational and commercial vessels. Since recreational vessels
spend much of their time moored in marinas, most of the biocide from the antifouling paints on
the vessel hulls is released in the marinas. Moreover, marinas are purposefully constructed to
shelter boats from currents and waves, so they are not flushed well. Elevated trace metal
concentrations in marinas are partly the result of the lack of mixing and dispersion. Thus, AFS
pollution at these locations would represent some of the worst-case scenarios with regard to
water quality (Singhasemanon et al., 2009; CRWQCB, 2005).
The biocides leached from AFSs can accumulate in the water of poorly flushed boat
basins to levels that might harm marine life, especially mollusks, crustaceans, and echinoderms
(Johnson and Gonzalez, 2006). At relatively low concentrations, copper is toxic to a wide range
of aquatic organisms, not just fouling organisms (CRWQCB, 2005). Concentrations as low as 5
to 25 [j,g/L can be lethal for marine invertebrates (Chambers et al., 2006). Elevated copper levels
affect growth, development, feeding, reproduction, and survival at various life stages of fish,
mussels, oysters, scallops, crustaceans, and sea urchins. High copper levels also change the types
of phytoplankton that thrive in boat basins (Calabrese et al., 1984). Low levels of dissolved
copper affect the olfactory capabilities in juvenile Coho salmon, which is critical for homing,
foraging, and predator avoidance (Baldwin et al., 2004). The effect of copper on olfaction of
juvenile salmonids suggests that copper might affect other fish species, too. Most effects on fish
are sublethal (e.g., they may hinder metabolic processes, reproduction, development, activity
levels and behavior). Thus, the damage is chronic and less noticeable than, for example, fish kills
caused by sudden oxygen depletion (Evans et al., 1994).
In the California marina study, significant toxicity was measured in eight of 47 water
samples; seven of the toxic samples came from Marina del Rey (MdR) in Los Angeles
(Singhasemanon et al., 2009). The authors concluded that copper was the most likely cause of
the toxicity in these samples. Two models of copper bioavailability and toxicity to aquatic
organisms, the Biotic Ligand Model (BLM) and dissolved organic carbon (DOC) model, were
used to confirm these findings. The BLM and DOC model predictions agreed favorably with the
actual toxicity data, although both models tended to slightly overpredict toxicity, especially when
close to the toxic effect concentration (i.e., EC50) (Singhasemanon, 2008).
Rivera-Duarte et al. (2003) also investigated the bioavailability and toxicity of copper in
San Diego Bay and found that toxicity was based on chemical speciation and followed the free
ion activity model. The EC50 for mussel larval development was observed near 10"11 molar (i.e.,
3-291
-------
Proposed Draft
0.64 ng/L) free copper ion. The toxic threshold concentration of free copper ion was independent
of spatial and temporal effects, indicating the need to study chemical speciation of copper
released from antifouling paints in order to determine its environmental effects (Rivera-Duarte et
al., 2003).
3-292
-------
Proposed Draft
Table 3.8.1. Rates of Passive Copper Leaching from Vessel AFSs
Study
Test Method
AFS
Leaching Rate
(Mq/cm /day)
UK (Thomas etal., 1999)
Not reported
Ablative copper
antifouling paint
18.6-21.6
U.S. Navy (Zirino and
Seligman, 2002)
Not reported
Ablative copper
antifouling paint
Average = 3.9
U.S. Navy (Valkirs et al.,
2003)
7 recreational
vessels in
recirculating dome
system
Epoxy copper
antifouling paint
2-14
(average = 8.2)
SCCWRP (Schiff et al.,
2003)
Fiberglass panels
in recirculating
dome system
Epoxy copper
antifouling paint
4.3
Hard vinyl/Teflon copper
antifouling paint
3.7
Biocide-free coating
0.24
3-293
-------
Proposed Draft
Table 3.8.2. Dissolved Copper Release from Vessel AFSs During an Underwater
Hull Cleaning "Event"
AFS
Cleaning Method
Copper Release
(Mq'cm'/event)
Epoxy copper antifouling paint
Less abrasive management
practices
8.6
No management practices
17.4
Hard vinyl/Teflon copper
antifouling paint
Less abrasive management
practices
3.8
No management practices
4.2
Biocide-free coating
Less abrasive management
practices
0.03
No management practices
0.05
Source: Schiff et al., 2003
3-294
-------
Proposed Draft
Table 3.8.3. Estimated Dissolved Copper Mass Emissions from a 9.1m (30ft)
Powerboat
Source
Dissolved Copper Emission (grams/month)
Epoxy Copper Antifouling Paint
Hard Vinyl/Teflon Copper
Antifouling Paint
Biocide-Free
Coating
Passive leaching
(min-max)
24.9
(23.3-27.8)
21.4
(15.7-24.5)
1.4
(0.9-1.8)
Underwater hull
cleaning with BMPs
(min-max)
1.8
(1.7-2.0)
0.8
(0.5-1.2)
<0.01
(0-0.01)
Total emissions
(min-max)
26.7
(20.5-33.6)
22.2
(15.0-31.5)
1.4
(0.9-1.8)
Source: Schiff et a I., 2003
3-295
-------
Proposed Draft
3.2.8.2 Irgarol and Other Organic Biocide Boosters
Irgarol (Irgarol 1051, jV-tert-butyl-jV-cyclopropyl-6-methylthio- l,3,5-triazine-2,4-
diamine) is a highly effective biocide used in AFSs to prevent the growth of autotrophic (e.g.,
plants and algae) organisms on vessel hulls. After the ban of tributyltin (TBT) on vessels shorter
than 25 meters, the use of TBT-free paints containing copper compounds and organic booster
biocides such as Irgarol increased considerably and became more widespread (Mohr et al.,
2009). Other organic biocides, including Diuron (3-(3,4-dichlorophenyl)-l,l-dimethylurea),
dichlorofluanid (1,1 -dichloro-N-(dimethylamino)sulfonyl)-1 -fluoro-N-
phenylmethanesulfenamide), and Sea-Nine (4,5-dichloro-2-n-octyl-4-isothiazolino-3-one) are
also added to AFS preparations to boost performance (Thomas et al., 2001). The use of biocide
boosters is in part a response to concerns about performance, environmental impacts, and,
according to Chambers et al., (2006), a reported increasing tolerance of some macrophytes and
algae to copper. Freshwater locations such as the Great Lakes are plagued primarily by algae
(West Marine, 2008), and booster biocides such as Irgarol are used to restrict the growth of algae
by blocking photosynthesis near the water surface. To date, however, most studies on Irgarol
have focused on marine areas and toxicity tests with marine organisms (Mohr et al., 2009).
Irgarol has been detected with increasing frequency at ecologically sensitive levels in
coastal waters worldwide, as reviewed by Konstantinou and Albanis (2004). In ports and marinas
in coastal waters, it has been detected in relevant effect concentrations of up to 4.2 [j,g/L (Basheer
et al., 2002). Levels of up to 1.4 and 2.4 [j,g/L have been reported from UK marinas and
freshwater sites (Thomas et al., 2002). In the United States, Irgarol and its major metabolite Ml
have been detected in the Chesapeake Bay and Florida (Hall and Gardinali, 2004). In the
California marina study, Irgarol and Ml were detected in all 45 marina samples (Singhasemanon
et al., 2009); Irgarol concentrations ranged from 12 to 712 ng/L, and Ml concentrations ranged
from 1.6 to 217.1 ng/L. Higher concentrations of irgarol and Ml were found in salt water
marinas.
Although Irgarol was predicted to easily dissipate under natural conditions (Hall et al.,
2005), it is the most frequently detected antifouling biocide worldwide (Konstantinou and
Albanis, 2004). Published values of the half-life of Irgarol in water are between 24 and 200 days
(Mohr et al., 2009).
3-296
-------
Proposed Draft
EPA has expressed concern over the potential toxic effects of Irgarol on aquatic plants
and algae (USEPA, 2003a). Compared to other triazines like atrazine and simazine, Irgarol is a
more potent inhibitor of algal photosynthesis, and is therefore highly toxic to macrophytes,
phytoplankton, and periphyton (Mohr et al., 2008). Irgarol is likely
to be much less toxic to animals than flora (Mohr et al., 2009). The
main metabolite Ml is also toxic to aquatic plants and algae, but in
many cases much more than 10 times less toxic than Irgarol.
Although Irgarol is formulated in AFSs to control
periphyton on vessel hulls, the range of environmental
concentrations measured in freshwater can be toxic to nontarget
macrophytes. The results of the Mohr et al. (2009) study indicate
that Irgarol is likely to have serious impacts on natural macrophyte
communities at environmentally relevant concentrations. The fact
that Irgarol accumulates in macrophytes, especially at lower
concentrations, suggests the expected toxicity of Irgarol may be
underestimated (Mohr et al., 2009).
Irgarol concentrations at many of the marinas in the
California study were high enough to be toxic to some
phytoplankton and aquatic plants (Singhasemanon et al., 2009).
For example, the range of observed Irgarol concentrations (12 to
712 ng/L) exceed aquatic benchmark values that are protective of 90 percent of aquatic plant
species. The Irgarol metabolite Ml never exceeded the aquatic benchmark value
(Singhasemanon, 2008).
3.2.8.3 Zinc Biocides
In recent years, there has been an increase in the registration of AFS products with zinc
pyrithione (bis(N-oxopyridine-2-thionato)zinc(II)), also commonly known as zinc omadine, as
the primary biocide (Singhasemanon et al., 2009).
In a California marina study, dissolved zinc concentrations from paints containing zinc
omadine ranged from 1.0-66.6 |ig/L with a concentration distribution that was similar to
dissolved copper (Singhasemanon, 2008). Dissolved zinc concentrations were much higher in
saltwater marinas than brackish and freshwater marinas. Zinc concentrations did not exceed
California Toxics Rule (CTR) fresh- and saltwater standards. If zinc pyrithione becomes more
popular as an AFS biocide in the future (e.g., as a replacement for copper AFSs), the
contributions of zinc AFSs to the marina zinc load will increase and potentially lead to zinc-
related toxicity (Singhasemanon et al., 2009).
What are Macrophytes,
Phytoplankton, and
Periphyton?
A macrophyte is an aquatic
plant that grows in or near
water and is either emergent,
submergent, or floating.
Phytoplankton are planktonic
algae that live in water bodies.
Periphyton is a complex
mixture of algae,
cyanobacteria, heterotrophic
microbes, and detritus that is
attached to submerged
surfaces in most aquatic
ecosystems.
3-297
-------
Proposed Draft
3.2.8.4 Emerging Biocides
As mentioned in the introduction to this subsection, AFSs using copper-containing
biocides are the most common substitutes for TBT. However, paint manufacturers continue to
search for new antifouling biocides. One promising development is ECONEA, a metal-free
biocide developed by a pharmaceutical company. According to the paint manufacturers,
ECONEA is rapidly biodegradable and does not accumulate in the marine environment, and is
reported by the manufacturer to very effectively control a wide range of invertebrate fouling
organisms in significantly less amounts compared to conventional biocides. However, AFSs
formulated with ECONEA have not entered the market, and independent testing data are not
currently available.
3.2.8.5 Biocide-Free (Nonbiocidal) AFSs
In recent years, biocide-free coatings designed to prevent fouling growth from adhering
to boat hulls have entered the market. Biocide-free coatings are designed to produce a slick
surface that prevents fouling organisms from firmly adhering to the hull. Currently available
nonbiocidal bottom coatings may be silicone-based, epoxy-based, water (urethane)-based, or
polymer-based. They do not include biocidal components. Epoxy coatings are durable, and are
expected to last for many years, but require frequent and aggressive cleaning (Johnson and
Miller, 2002). The most commonly used nonbiocidal coatings are silicone elastomeric coatings,
which are rubbery and are more easily nicked or abraded than epoxy, although recent advances
have improved their durability. They are sometimes called "fouling release" coatings, because
fouling growth is sheared off the hull once the vessel exceeds a certain speed (e.g., 20 knots).
Movement of a foul-release-coated vessel through the water dislodges organisms that do adhere.
The utility of these coatings depends on vessel speeds and the proportion of time the vessel is
underway (rather than at dock). Foul-release coatings are typically more expensive than biocidal
AFSs. Because of their expense and operational requirements, foul-release systems generally are
not used on recreational vessels at this time.
To date, nontoxic AFS alternatives have not been widely accepted in the boating
industry, due to concerns about practicality and cost. If adopted, these alternatives would
eliminate the leaching of biocides from marine antifouling paint, as well as biocide release
during underwater hull cleaning.
A number of projects are underway to develop new biocide-free AFSs. The European
Commission is collaborating with industry with the goal of developing a nonbiocidal antifouling
coating that relies on nanostructuring to impede the adhesion of fouling organisms (Ambio,
2008). The U.S. Navy is sponsoring research by University of Florida engineers to develop a
3-298
-------
Proposed Draft
biocide-free hull coating based on the geometry of shark skin scales. Chambers et al. (2006)
provide a review of these and other biomimetic approaches to environmentally effective AFSs.
Because nonbiocidal coatings do not affect fouling growth, they may need more frequent
cleaning than biocide-based AFSs, and can be more effective when used with other practices
designed to increase the amount of shearing and decrease exposure to fouling organisms during
times of inactivity: using the vessel more often and/or operating it at higher speeds; storing it on
land or on a hoist at the slip when not in use; and, surrounding the vessel with a slip liner and
adding 10 to 15 percent fresh water to reduce salinity (Johnson and Gonzalez, 2006).
3.2.8.6 BMPs
The most effective way to reduce biocide emissions from AFSs on recreational vessels is
by carefully selecting the AFS. The owner/operator should match antifouling performance with
how the vessel typically operates. Choosing a nonbiocidal AFS can eliminate emissions from
vessels that, for example, operate at high speeds when they are underway. Slow-release
formulations or formulations with lower biocide content may also reduce the release of biocides
into the aquatic environment. As noted previously, passive leaching accounts for most of the
biocide release from recreational vessels, but biocide also could leach into the water body during
underwater hull cleaning and AFS application and removal.
In addition to AFS selection, other BMPs may be used to limit emissions of toxic
components from AFSs. These BMPs include specifications for capturing and treating materials
removed during underwater hull cleaning, properly managing wastes from AFS application
processes, and capturing and appropriately disposing of old hull coating residue prior to
repainting. When nonbiocidal coatings are used, companion strategies can be used to reduce
fouling including slip liners, boat lifts, and frequent hull cleaning (Johnson and Gonzalez, 2006).
BMPs for underwater hull cleaning must also address the potential introduction of aquatic
nuisance species (ANS). EPA notes that small vessels are strongly suspected of contributing to
the spread of numerous invasive species including zebra and quagga mussels. Prohibitions on
biocide-containing AFSs could potentially exacerbate the spread of ANS as the toxicity of vessel
hull coatings declines and as water quality improves as a result. Conversely, improvements to
water quality, including those associated with AFS restrictions and BMPs, may allow native
ecosystems to recover from acute and chronic impacts and become more resistant to invasions of
non-native species (Johnson and Gonzalez, 2006).
Pollutants from passive leaching and hull cleaning can be reduced by implementing other
BMPs, such as using nontoxic (or less toxic) antifouling paints to replace copper-based paints.
Switching to nontoxic and less toxic antifouling paints will reduce the loading from both passive
leaching and underwater hull cleaning. For example, if all new boats entering the Shelter Island
Yacht Basin use nontoxic or less toxic coatings and existing boats replace copper coatings with
3-299
-------
Proposed Draft
nontoxic or less toxic coatings at the next routine hull-stripping (as assumed in their total
maximum daily load), the basin's water quality is expected to dramatically improve (CRWQCB,
2005). Additionally, nontoxic or less toxic coatings will require companion strategies such as
slip liners, boat lifts, and frequent hull cleaning to control fouling (Johnson and Gonzalez, 2006).
3.2.8.7 Conclusion
Antifouling systems currently used on the majority of recreational and commercial
vessels are paints that prevent and retard fouling growth by leaching biocides, most frequently
cuprous oxide, onto the hull. Biocides can enter a water body through passive leaching,
underwater hull cleaning, hull painting, and AFS removal processes. Biocides leached from
vessel AFSs can accumulate in the water of poorly flushed boat basins to levels that could harm
marine life. Copper from vessel hulls in particular is a water quality concern in many near-
coastal waters of the United States, including the waters of Southern California, the Chesapeake
Bay, Port Canaveral and Indian River Lagoon in Florida, and in various harbors in the state of
Washington. Copper leaching from vessel hulls has also been reported as a problem in several
European countries, including Sweden, the Netherlands, and Denmark.
Concerns about impacts to aquatic ecosystems from both TBT and copper have led to the
development of AFSs that use alternative biocides or are biocide-free. At this time, these
alternatives are relatively costly and have not been widely accepted by boaters. Releases of
biocidal components of AFS can be reduced by implementing BMPs, including the use of
nontoxic (or less toxic) antifouling paints to replace copper-based paints.
3-300
-------
Proposed Draft
CHAPTER 4
POTENTIAL LARGE-SCALE IMPACTS OF STUDY VESSELS'
INCIDENTAL DISCHARGES TO HUMAN HEALTH AND THE
ENVIRONMENT
In Chapter 3, EPA described the variety of vessel discharges and the scope and
magnitude of pollutants discharged by 'study vessels.' EPA discussed whether these discharges
of pollutants exceeded a National Recommended Water Quality Criteria (NRWQC) at end-of-
pipe or contained persistent bioaccumulative toxic (PBT) chemicals which could indicate a
potential for environmental effects. Public Law (P.L.) 110-299 tasks EPA with assessing the
potential for discharges incidental to the normal operation of vessels to pose a risk to human
health, welfare, or the environment from all sizes of commercial fishing vessels and other
nonrecreational vessels less than 79 feet in length. As part of this assessment, EPA used a
screening-level model as a tool to evaluate the cumulative effects of discharges from a
population of such vessels operating in a large receiving water body.
EPA developed the screening-level water quality model to assess the impacts of vessel
discharges on a hypothetical harbor environment. For purposes of the model, EPA developed
several vessel population scenarios that included multiple vessels from numerous vessel classes,
such as fishing vessels, tour boats, water taxis, and tugboats discharging various waste streams
(e.g., antifouling leachate, bilgewater, engine effluent, graywater). EPA then modeled numerous
scenarios combining the different vessel populations in different hypothetical harbors to
represent a range of environmental conditions potentially observed in harbors across the United
States.
Due to the limitations of this screening-level model, EPA assumed that the background
concentration for all analytes in the harbor water was zero. Although this assumption is likely
unrealistic, removing other loading considerations from model calculations allowed EPA to
evaluate whether incidental discharges from study vessels alone have the potential to exceed
National Recommended Water Quality Criteria (NRWQC) in receiving waters without any
additional sources of pollution. Vessel discharges may have a potential to contribute to water
body impairment when vessel discharge pollutant concentrations exceed the NRWQC at end-of-
pipe, depending on the quantity of pollutant in the discharge, what other potential sources of
pollution are present, and the characteristics of the waters in which the vessel is operating. For
example, if a group of vessels contributes a significant quantity of a given pollutant via a
discharge into a water body, the impact of the vessel discharge is more likely to contribute to a
water quality exceedance. If a group of vessels contributes only a very small quantity of a given
pollutant via a discharge, the impact of the vessel discharge is less likely to contribute
meaningfully to a water quality exceedance. EPA believes that assessing the potential for vessel
discharges to contribute to water-body impairment is best conducted on a site-specific basis and
is beyond the scope of this screening-level analysis.
4-1
-------
Proposed Draft
Based on this assessment, EPA determined that incidental discharges from study vessels
do not solely cause any NRWQC to be exceeded in the modeled hypothetical large estuaries and
harbors. This determination suggests that these discharges alone are unlikely to cause
impairments to relatively large water bodies. However, if a large water body already contains
select pollutants, then vessels that contribute significant quantities of these pollutants might
contribute to such an NRWQC exceedance. Furthermore, as discussed in Chapter 3, many
pollutants detected in the vessel discharges were present at concentrations that exceed an
NRWQC at the end of pipe, and therefore have the potential to negatively impact the receiving
water on a more localized scale. Because the screening model assumes instantaneous and
universal dilution in a large hypothetical harbor, the model is not designed to examine impacts
on a local scale, in small water bodies with many vessels, or in water bodies with little to no
flushing (i.e. dilution). These discharges may cause environmental concerns in areas such as
small side embayments or marinas where flushing rates are low (see discussion in Section 4.6).
As discussed above, EPA further notes that this model does not take into account any loadings
from vessels that are not study vessels or other point/nonpoint sources that discharge pollutants
that contribute to the loadings in the water body.
For the purpose of this study, EPA selected a simple screening-level model to provide a
coarse "big picture" assessment of the overall potential for discharges from study vessels to
cause or contribute to an impact on human health, welfare, or the environment. Although a
screening-level model has several limitations, it identifies any major water quality issues,
provides valuable information on pollutants of concern, identifies data gaps, and serves as a
starting point for any future site-specific studies that are beyond the scope and objectives of this
study.
The remainder of this chapter details EPA's cumulative effects assessment and is
organized as follows:
• Section 4.1: Model Selection - Presents EPA's rationale for selecting the Fraction of
Freshwater Screening-Level Model for the analysis.
• Section 4.2: Fraction of Freshwater Model - Describes the "fraction of freshwater
model" and presents the equations and input parameters required for the screening-
level analysis.
• Section 4.3: Vessel Discharge Loading Rates - Describes the methodology for
developing the input parameters required to calculate the total analyte-specific
loading rates for each vessel population scenario.
• Section 4.4: Hypothetical Harbor - Describes the methodology for developing
hypothetical harbor input parameters.
4-2
-------
Proposed Draft
• Section 4.5: Model Scenarios - Presents the 24 model scenarios represented in the
model.
• Section 4.6: Model Results - Presents the results from the "fraction of freshwater
model."
• Section 4.7: Conclusions - Presents EPA's conclusions on the potential for vessel
discharges from study vessels to solely impact large-scale harbors or estuaries (e.g.,
to solely pose a risk to human health, welfare, and the environment).
4.1 Model Selection
Study vessels discharge into coastal harbors throughout the United States. Estuarine
models, which are commonly used to assess harbor water quality, consist of two primary
components: hydrodynamics (i.e., water transport processes) and water quality. Estuarine models
are generally classified into the following four levels according to the temporal and spatial
complexity of the hydrodynamic component of the model:
• Level I - Desktop screening models that calculate seasonal or annual mean
concentrations based on steady-state conditions and simplified flushing time
estimates.
• Level II - Computerized steady-state or tidally averaged quasi-dynamic simulation
models, which generally use a box or compartment-type network.
• Level III - Computerized one-dimensional (i.e., estuary is well-mixed vertically and
laterally) and quasi-two-dimensional (i.e., a link-node system describes estuary
longitudinal and lateral mixing) dynamic simulation models.
• Level IV - Computerized two-dimensional (i.e., represents estuary longitudinal and
lateral mixing) and three-dimensional (i.e., represents estuary longitudinal, lateral,
and vertical mixing) dynamic simulation models (EPA 2001).
The sheer number of different coastal harbor environments potentially impacted by these
vessels precludes using the more complex and data-intensive Level II, III, and IV models for the
cumulative impacts analysis. For these reasons, EPA selected a Level I screening-level model,
the "fraction of freshwater model," for the environmental assessment of vessel discharges from
study vessels.
In addition to coastal harbors, study vessels also discharge to freshwater environments
such as the Great Lakes and major river systems (e.g., Mississippi River). The "fraction of
freshwater model" is applicable to only estuarine or saltwater-influenced environments;
therefore, the modeling approach presented in this chapter does not address the potential
environmental impact of vessel discharges in completely freshwater environments. Additional
4-3
-------
Proposed Draft
screening-level modeling approaches would be required to assess possible impacts of vessel
discharges in these environments. EPA assumes that discharges to freshwater systems represent a
smaller percentage of the total load from study vessels based on hailing port information
provided in the Marine Information for Safety and Law Enforcement (MISLE) database
maintained by the U.S. Coast Guard. Based on these data, commercial fishing vessels are almost
exclusively located along U.S. coastal waters, and only about a third of other nonrecreational
vessels less than 79 feet in length cite an inland waterway as their hailing port.
4.2 Fraction of Freshwater Model
The "fraction of freshwater model" is a series of equations that represent the harbor
environment in zero dimensions and at a steady state (USEPA, 2001). These calculations are
zero-dimensional in that they estimate concentrations at a given point in a water body within a
specified, spatially homogenous volume. For example, the calculations assume instantaneous and
homogeneous mixing of vessel discharges within the defined volume of a given harbor. It does
not account for gradients of concentrations that would occur with distance from discharge
source(s) such as plumes from vessels and other sources1. Specifying plumes and accounting for
locations of numerous discharge sources would require a two- or three-dimensional model,
which is beyond this Level I screening-level analysis.
Steady state means that the calculations provide an instantaneous estimate of the
concentration under the assumption of chemical and physical equilibrium. Chemical equilibrium
means that the water body salinity and the vessel discharge analyte concentrations do not change
over time, while physical equilibrium means that the volume of water in the water body, tides,
currents, and vessel discharge flow rates do not change over time. The assumption is that every
process occurs instantaneously; therefore, temporal variability is not a factor. Accounting for
changes in tides, currents, river flow, vessel discharge flow rates, and discharge concentrations
over time would require a dynamic model, which is beyond this Level I screening-level model.
This aspect of the model may cause it to underestimate localized environmental impacts,
especially in areas with inadequate flushing. However, in estimating quantities of pollutants
discharged from the various discharge types, EPA has tended to use conservative parameter
estimates (i.e., estimates that may overstate the average value) for variables such as flow and
pollutant concentration.
1 Discharge plumes can be highly structured, especially in low-flushing environments; therefore, the development of
a worst-case scenario using a screening-level model is not entirely conservative due to the assumptions of
instantaneous and homogenous mixing within the entire volume of the harbor. A true worst-case scenario would
likely include the concentration of pollutants within a small area of the harbor due to minimal dispersion of
discharge plumes across the harbor. It would also include background concentrations and take other pollutant
loadings into account (e.g., sewage treatment facilities, recreational vessels and other large vessels, stormwater,
agricultural runoff).
4-4
-------
Proposed Draft
The "fraction of freshwater model" calculates the analyte concentration in a harbor
resulting from vessel discharges using the following four steps:
• Step 1: Calculate vessel discharge analyte loading rates (Equations 4-1 and 4-2)
• Step 2: Calculate the fraction of fresh water in the harbor (Equation 4-3)
• Step 3: Calculate the harbor flushing time (Equation 4-4)
• Step 4: Calculate the harbor analyte concentration (Equation 4-5)
The following subsections describe the input requirements, assumptions, and calculations
for each step in the "fraction of freshwater model."
4.2.1 Step 1: Calculate Vessel Discharge Analyte Loading Rates
Analyte-specific total discharge loading rates (We) are required as input values in the
"fraction of freshwater model" to calculate the instantaneous analyte concentrations in the harbor
(Cx). In this analysis, analyte loading rates were based on the following four input parameters:
• Average analyte concentrations for each vessel class discharge type;
• Estimated flow rate for each discharge type within a vessel class;
• Number of vessels per vessel class present in the harbor; and
• Percentage of vessels per vessel class discharging each discharge type in the harbor
(Equation 4-1).
Wa- = Z( Ce, (Qy,z * A'r* Py,z) Equation 4-1
Where:
We,z = Discharge loading rate for analyte e from vessel class z (mass/time)
Ce,y,z = Average concentration of analyte e in discharge^ from vessel class z
(mass/volume)
Oy- = Flow rate for discharge y from vessel class z (volume/time)
NiZ = Number of vessels in vessel class z present in the harbor
PyZ = Percentage of vessels in vessel class z discharging discharge^
EPA calculated the analyte-specific total discharge loading rate by summing the
discharge loading rates for that analyte from each vessel class (Equation 4-2). Section 4.3
describes EPA's methodology for calculating this loading rate in more detail.
We = 2( We,z) Equation 4-2
Where:
We = Total discharge loading rate for analyte e from study vessel
discharges (mass/time)
We,z = Discharge loading rate for analyte e from vessel class z (mass/time)
4-5
-------
Proposed Draft
4.2.2 Step 2: Calculate the Fraction of Fresh Water in the Harbor
The "fraction of freshwater model" estimates analyte concentrations in one dimension
using information on freshwater inflow and by comparing salinity in the harbor with salinity in
the seawater at the mouth of the harbor (USEPA, 2001). The fraction of freshwater (f) at any
location in the estuary is calculated as:
fx = (Ss- Sx)/Ss Equation 4-3
Where:
fx = Fraction of freshwater at location x in the model harbor (unit-less)
Ss = Seaward boundary salinity at the mouth of model harbor (PSU)
Sx = Salinity at location x in model harbor (PSU)
EPA states that this ratio (f) . .can be viewed as the degree of dilution of the freshwater
inflow (as well as pollutants) by seawater" (USEPA, 2001).
4.2.3 Step 3: Calculate the Harbor Flushing Time
Harbor flushing time is defined as the amount of time required to replace the freshwater
volume of the harbor by the river freshwater input. The flushing time (t) of the model harbor is
calculated using Equation 4-4:
t = (V*fx)/Qfw Equation 4-4
Where:
t = Model harbor flushing time
V = Volume of model harbor
fx = Fraction of freshwater at location x in model harbor (unit-less)
Qfw = Inflow of freshwater to model harbor from the model river
(volume/time)
4.2.4 Step 4: Calculate the Harbor Analyte Concentration
The concentration of an analyte at location x (Cx) is the analyte-specific total loading rate
(We in mass/time) divided by the flow rate away from location x, described by the volume of the
harbor (V) divided by the flushing time (t) (USEPA 2001):
4-6
-------
Cx=We/(V/t)
Proposed Draft
Equation 4-5
Where:
Cx = Instantaneous analyte concentration at location x in model harbor
(mass/volume)
We = Analyte-specific loading rate (mass/time) as calculated under Step 1
V = Volume of the model harbor as defined in Step 3
t = Model harbor flushing time as calculated in Step 3
4.3 Vessel Discharge Loading Rates
Step 1 in the "fraction of freshwater model" calculates a range of analyte-specific total
loading rates (We in mass/time) from fishing and nonrecreational vessels less than 79 feet based
on the analyte concentration in a given discharge, the estimated flow rate for a given discharge,
and assumptions on the number of vessels present in a harbor and percentage of vessels
discharging each discharge type in the harbor. The following subsections present EPA's
methodology for developing the modeling input parameters to calculate the analyte-specific total
discharge loading rate.
4.3.1 Calculate the Average Analyte Concentrations
As described in Chapter 2, EPA collected wastewater characterization data for nine
vessel discharges sampled from a total of 61 vessels (See Table 2.1). The objective of EPA's
sampling program was to provide information on the nature, type, and composition of discharges
from representative single study vessels and study vessel classes. EPA calculated vessel-class-
specific analyte concentrations by averaging all of the discharge effluent sampling data by
discharge type and by analyte. Replicate samples from a single vessel were averaged together
prior to calculating a vessel-class-specific average. Certain analytes were not detected above the
sample reporting limit in some wastewater samples. To fully represent the variability of pollutant
concentrations in vessel discharges, EPA included both nondetected and detected results in
calculating average vessel-class-specific analyte concentrations. For nondetected results, EPA
assumed the analyte concentration was equal to one-half the sample reporting limit for that
analyte. EPA based this assumption on the expectation that the analyte was present in
wastewater, albeit at a concentration less than the sample reporting limit.
4.3.2 Discharge Flow Rate Assumptions
EPA calculated discharge-specific flow rates for each of the 592 study vessels sampled
based on the following information for each discharge type:
2 As previously discussed, EPA excluded the sampling data from the two recreational vessels in the model because
these vessels are not study vessels.
4-7
-------
Proposed Draft
• Known or estimated flow rates for the pump or mechanism controlling the discharge
• Assumptions on the frequency of discharge
• Assumptions on the duration of the discharge
EPA estimated vessel-specific discharge flow rates based on data and field observations
from EPA's vessel sampling program, as well as information from secondary data sources. EPA
developed frequency and duration assumptions based on interview responses from the vessel
crew or observations from EPA's vessel sampling team. For example, EPA reviewed interview
responses on the operational hours for fishing and tow/salvage vessels to develop an overall
assumption for the duration of discharge from these vessel classes. In this example, EPA
assumed that fishing vessels operate approximately 1,200 hr/year3 and tow/salvage vessels
operate approximately about 300 hr/year4. The frequency at which fishing vessels discharge in a
harbor is generally dictated by how often the vessel offloads its catch. EPA used vessel sampling
team field observations to develop the discharge frequency for each fishing vessel subclass
(Table 4.3.1).
In addition, many of the study vessel classes discharge different amounts in different
seasons. For example, fishing vessels operate during certain times of the year to coincide with
different peak fishing seasons. As a conservative estimate, to account for the seasonal nature of
these discharge loadings, EPA developed vessel flows to represent the loading rate that would
typically occur during peak vessel activity for each vessel class. Specifically, EPA calculated the
loading rates to represent the summer season, which typically coincides with the greatest fishing,
recreational, and tourist activity in the major harbors across the United States.
Table 4.3.1. Offload Frequency by Fishing Vessel Subtype
l-'ishin^ Vessel Suhcliiss
l' iv(|iii'iic\ of OITIoiids1
Purse Seiners
Daily
Trailers
Daily
Gillnetters
Daily
Tenders
Once every 2 days
Longliners
Once every 2 days
Shrimpers
Once every 3 days
Trawlers
Once every 3 days
(1) Based on sampling team observation in the field.
3 EPA estimated the hours of operation for all fishing vessels based on data obtained from a 15-year old fishing
vessel that operated for 17,000 hours over its lifetime (17,000 hours/15 years = 1,133 hours/year). As a conservative
estimate, EPA rounded the operational hours to 1,200 hours/year and assumed that the vessel operated inside harbor
waters for all of these hours.
4 EPA estimated the hours of operation for tow/salvage vessels based on data from a one-year old tow/salvage vessel
that operated for 243 hours over its lifetime (243 hours/1 year = 234 hours/year). As a conservative estimate, EPA
rounded the operational hours to 300 hours/year and assumed that the vessel operated inside harbor waters for all of
these hours..
4-8
-------
Proposed Draft
Table 4.3.2 provides examples of the known or estimated field data parameters and
assumptions used to calculate the vessel-specific discharge flow rates for each discharge type.
Where data parameter information were unknown, EPA used information from a similar vessel
discharge type or used best professional judgment to estimate the required information.
Appendix G provides a detailed description of the data and assumptions used to calculate the
discharge-specific flows for each of these 59 sampled vessels. EPA averaged the vessel-specific
discharge flows presented in Appendix G by vessel class and discharge type to calculate the
vessel class-specific flow rates (Qy,z) used in the model (Table 4.3.3).
4-9
-------
Proposed Draft
Table 4.3.2. Examples of Field Data and Assumptions for Flow Rate Calculations by Discharge
Dischiiriic
1 J Pi"
I'\;i111 pie Diilii Piii'iiiiHMcrs
I-Aiimplc Assii in pi ions
l-Aiimpk' l)isdi;iriiO How ( ulciihilion
Uilgcwatcr
- Flow rate of bilge pump
- Frequency of bilge pump
out
- Duration of a single pump
out
- 12 volt bilge pump at 20 gpm1
- Discharged all year
- 5 min to pump bilge
- 2 pumpouts per day
- 5 min to pump bilge
-1 pump per week
- Discharged 365 days a year
-12 volt bilge pump at 20 gpm
20 gal per min X 5 min X 1 pump/7 days = 14.3 gal/day (0.05 m3/day)
Deck Wash
- Volume of water used
during deck wash down
- Frequency of deck washes
- Duration of deck washes
- Flow rate of garden hose or
high-pressure sprayers used
to wash decks
- Garden hose flow rate is 11.67 gpm2
-1 wash every 2 weeks
-15 minutes per deck wash
- Cleaned with hose
-15 minute per deck wash
- Garden hose flow rate is 11.67 gpm
-1 wash every 2 weeks
11.67 gal per min X 15 min X 1 wash/14 days = 7.21 gal/day
(0.03 m3/day)
Fish Hold
- Volume of holding tanks
- Volume of fish
- Whether the tanks hold fish
in water or ice
- Amount of ice
- Frequency of offloads
- Length of fishing season
- Density of fish is 0.9 kg/liter
- Holding tank is 70% shrimp, 30%
water3
- Ice tank holds 50% fish, 35% ice,
15% air4
- 5,000-gallon tank
- 75% full at offload
- Holding tank is 70%shrimp, 30% water
-1 offload every 3 days
5000 gal X 30% X 3/4 Ml X loffload/3 days = 375 gal/day (1.42
m3/day)
Fish Hold
Clean
- Frequency of tank
cleanings
- Length of fishing season
- Washed with garden hose
- 30-minute wash for tenders and purse
seiners
- 15-minute wash for all other fishing
vessels
- Wash done after each off load
- Garden hose flow rate is 11.67 gpm
- 15-minute hose down after each offload
-1 offload every 3 days
- Garden hose flow rate is 11.67 gpm
11.67 gal per min X 15 min X 1 wash/ 3 day = 33.66 gal/day
(0.13 m3/day)
Graywater
- Number of crew onboard
- Types of graywater
generated
- Frequency of laundry
washed
- Frequency of showers
- Laundry - front-load washer uses 25
gal/load
- Laundry - standard washer uses 40
gal/load
- Shower -17.2 gal per shower5
- Shower - 0.8 showers per person per
day5
- Sink - 30 min of sink use per crew per
week
- Sink - 2.2 gal per min in standard sink
- 3 crew
-17.2 gal per shower
- 0.8 showers per person per day
3 crew X 17.2 gal per shower X 0.8 showers per person per day = 41.28
gal/day (0.16 m3/day)
4-10
-------
Proposed Draft
Table 4.3.2. Examples of Field Data and Assumptions for Flow Rate Calculations by Discharge
Dischiiriic
1 J Pi"
I-Aiimplo Diil.i Piii'iiiiH'Icrs
I-Aiimplc Assii in pi ions
l-Aiimpk' l)isdi;iriiO How ( ;ilcuhilicin
Generator
Engine
- Engine type
- Cooling system type
- Hours of use per year
- 2 gpm cooling flow for a standard
generator6
- 17,000 hours over 15 years
- 2 gpm cooling flow
2 gal/minX 60 min/hr X 17000hrs/15 years/365 days = 372.6 gal/day
(1.41 m3/day)
Propulsion
Engine
- Engine type
- Cooling system type
- Hours of use per year
- Number of engines
onboard
- 1 gpm cooling water flow rate for
outboard engine
- 20 gpm cooling water flow rate for
inboard engine6
- Cummins inboard 380hp diesel engine
- 463 hours in last 2 years
- 20 gpm cooling water flow ratef
20 gal per minX 231.5 hours/year = 761.1 gal/day (2.88 m3/day)
Shaft
Water
- Duration of boat operation
-10 mL/min constant drip (3.8 gal/day
drip)6
- operates 5 days/week
-10 mL/min constant drip (3.8 gal/day drip)
3.8 gal per day X 5 days/week = 2.71 gal/day (0.01 m3/day)
(1) Estimate based on commonly used 12-volt bilge pumps. Flow rates ranged from 5 gpm to 30 gpm via Google.
(2)EPA used http://www.uiweb.uidaho.edu/extension/lawn/Files/Garden Hose.htm to calculate the average flow rate of a garden hose (i.e., 11.67 gpm). EPA
calculated the flow rate as the average flow for all three sizes of standard garden hose (1/2, 5/8, and 3/4 inches in diameter), assuming a water pressure of 40 PSI
and a hose length of 100 feet.
(3) Based on data from one of the sampled vessels: 2,700 cubic feet per tank, 3 tanks (229,461.75 liters of tanks space), holds 325,000 lbs of salmon (163,798
liters of fish assuming density of fish is 0.9 kg/L). 163,798 liters of fish/229,461.75 liters of tanks space = 70% of fish. Assume remaining is hold water.
(4) Based on sampling team observation in the field.
(5) WaterSense Showerhead Factoids, Draft Date 7/27/09.
(6) Based sampling team observation in the field.
4-11
-------
Table 4.3.3. Vessel Flow Rates
Proposed Draft
How Disehiii'^ed lo
Vessel ('hiss
Vessel Suheliiss
Disehiir^e
lliirhor pei' Vessel
(in 7(l;i>)
Fire Boat
NA
Deck Wash
0.0100
Fire Boat
NA
Engine Effluent
36.3
Fire Boat
NA
Fire Main Effluent
O.OO1
Fire Boat
NA
Generator Effluent
1.80
Fishing
Gillnetter
Engine Effluent
14.9
Fishing
Gillnetter
Fish Hold Effluent
0.800
Fishing
Lobster Boat
Fish Hold Effluent
2.83
Fishing
Longliner
Bilgewater
0.450
Fishing
Longliner
Fish Hold Effluent
2.83
Fish Hold
Fishing
Longliner
Cleaning Effluent
0.001
Fishing
Purse Seiner
Engine Effluent
16.6
Fishing
Purse Seiner
Fish Hold Effluent
16.3
Fish Hold
Fishing
Purse Seiner
Cleaning Effluent
1.07
Fishing
Purse Seiner
Generator Effluent
1.41
Fishing
Shrimper
Bilgewater
2.84
Fishing
Shrimper
Deck Wash
0.344
Fishing
Shrimper
Fish Hold Effluent
1.25
Fishing
Shrimper
Graywater
0.001
Fishing
Tender Vessel
Fish Hold Effluent
19.3
Fish Hold
Fishing
Tender Vessel
Cleaning Effluent
0.660
Fishing
Trawler
Deck Wash
0.344
Fishing
Trawler
Fish Hold Effluent
1.25
Fishing
Trawler
Fish Hold Clean
0.220
Fishing
Trailer
Deck Wash
0.470
Fishing
Trailer
Fish Hold Effluent
3.04
Fish Hold
Fishing
Trailer
Cleaning Effluent
0.660
Research
NA
Engine Effluent
0.0900
Supply Boat
NA
Deck Wash
0.0300
Tour Boat
NA
Bilgewater
0.0400
Tour Boat
NA
Deck Wash
0.140
Tour Boat
NA
Engine Effluent
42.2
Tour Boat
NA
Fire Main Effluent
0.001
Tour Boat
NA
Generator Effluent
3.82
Tow/Salvage
NA
Bilgewater
1.39
Tow/Salvage
NA
Deck Wash
0.0240
Tow/Salvage
NA
Engine Effluent
0.952
Tugboat
NA
Deck Wash
0.0978
Tugboat
NA
Fire Main Effluent
0.001
Tugboat
NA
Graywater
0.478
Tugboat
NA
Shaft Water
0.0100
Water Taxi
NA
Bilgewater
0.130
4-12
-------
Table 4.3.3. Vessel Flow Rates
Proposed Draft
Vessel ('hiss
Vessel Suheliiss
Disehiir^e
Hon Disehiii'^ed lo
lliirhor pei' Vessel
(in 7(l;i>)
Water Taxi
NA
Deck Wash
0.0650
Water Taxi
NA
Engine Effluent
39.8
Water Taxi
NA
Generator Effluent
9.08
Water Taxi
NA
Graywater
0.280
NA - Not applicable.
(1) These waste streams are all discharged in the harbor; however, the relatively small
volume and infrequency of the discharge results in an insignificant daily discharge volume.
4-13
-------
Proposed Draft
4.3.3 Number of Vessels Present in the Harbor
The total number of vessels present in any given harbor and the distribution of vessels
among the different vessel classes operating in that harbor vary significantly across the United
States. The number and distribution of vessels among the different classes depend on factors
such as the regional economic base (e.g., fishing versus recreation), size of the city supporting
the harbor, and geographic location (e.g., Alaska versus Gulf of Mexico). To represent the
variety of vessel combinations potentially present in a harbor, EPA developed the following
three vessel population scenarios for the model:
• Scenario 1: Fishing Harbor - A harbor where fishing is the primary economic driver
in the region, and fishing vessels represent the majority of vessels present in the
harbor.
• Scenario 2: Large Metropolitan Harbor - A harbor where there are nonrecreational
study vessels associated with a large metropolitan city that would require a greater
number of support vessels such as supply boats, tow/salvage vessels, and tugboats. In
addition, EPA assumed that there would be a higher level of vessel activity within the
hypothetical harbor compared to the activity assumed for Scenarios 1 and 3. Note that
this screening analysis does not include large non study vessels such as container
ships, tankers, bulk carriers, or other larger vessels, which would be present in almost
any large port5.
• Scenario 3: Recreational Harbor - A harbor where the primary economic driver is the
tourist or recreation industry. Although recreational vessels are not study vessels,
EPA assumed that a recreational harbor would have a high concentration of
nonrecreational support vessels such as tow/salvage, tour boats, and water taxies
associated with the regional recreational and tourist industry. However, as noted
previously, this analysis does not consider discharges from non study vessels and
other sources.
EPA used data from the MISLE database maintained by the U.S. Coast Guard to develop
the number of vessels present in the hypothetical harbors for the three scenarios and the
distribution among the different vessel classes. The MISLE database includes a wide range of
information regarding vessel and facility characteristics, accidents, marine pollution incidents,
and other pertinent information tracked by the U.S. Coast Guard from investigation and
inspection activity. While MISLE represents the most comprehensive national dataset currently
available, it may not capture the entire universe of study vessels that operate in U.S. waters (see
Chapter 1 of this report for further discussion about the vessel universe in this study and the
MISLE database).
5 Due to time and resource constraints, EPA did not sample these large vessels for this study. Therefore, EPA did not
calculate loadings from these larger vessels for this screening analysis.
4-14
-------
Proposed Draft
EPA identified and compiled hailing port and vessel class distribution data on the top 20
hailing ports cited in the MISLE database. Based on the identified harbors, EPA selected
representative harbors for each vessel population scenario to develop the vessel distributions in
the model (see Table 4.3.4).
Table 4.3.4. Vessel Population Scenario Representative Harbors
Based on the Top 20 Hailing Ports Cited in the MISLE Database
l op 20 Ihiilinii Ports
( ileil in MISI.i:
Vessel
Popiihilion
Seeiiiirio 1
lishinii
lliii'hor
Vessel
Popiihilion
Seeiiiirio 2
l.iirjie
Mel ropoliliin
lliii'hor
Vessel
Popiihilion
Seeiiiirio 3
Keereiilioiiiil
lliirhor
Boston, MA
X
Cordova, AK
X
Gloucester, MA
X
Homer, AK
X
Houma, LA
X
Houston, TX
X
X
Juneau, AK
X
Ketchikan, AK
X
Key West, FL
X
Kodiak, AK
X
Miami, FL
X
X
New Orleans, LA
X
X
X
New York, NY
X
X
Norfolk, VA
X
Petersburg, AK
X
Portland, OR
X
X
San Diego, CA
X
X
San Francisco, CA
X
Seattle, WA
X
X
Sitka, AK
X
For each representative harbor, EPA calculated the percentages of fishing vessels and
non-fishing study vessels reported in the MISLE database (see Table 4.3.5, Table 4.3.6, and
Table 4.3.7). EPA averaged the percentages of fishing and non-fishing vessels to develop the
overall proportion of these vessel types for each vessel population scenario.
4-15
-------
Proposed Draft
Table 4.3.5. Percentage of Study Vessels Present in
Representative Fishing Harbor
Mailing Pol l
Percentage of fishing
Vessels
Percentage of
Non-fishing Siuclj
\ essels
New Orleans, LA
26%
74%
Seattle, WA
69%
31%
Houston, TX
56%
44%
Juneau, AK
82%
18%
Houma, LA
39%
61%
Cordova, AK
94%
6%
Homer, AK
82%
18%
Sitka, AK
76%
24%
Kodiak, AK
91%
9%
Portland, OR
51%
49%
Ketchikan, AK
62%
38%
Gloucester, MA
84%
16%
Petersburg, AK
93%
7%
Average
70%
30%
Source: MISLE database.
Table 4.3.6. Percentage of Study Vessels Present in
Representative Large Metropolitan Harbor
Mailing Port
Percentage of l-'ishing
Vessels
Pereenlage of
Non-fishing Siiiclj
\ essels
New Orleans, LA
26%
74%
New York, NY
21%
79%
Miami, FL
43%
57%
Boston, MA
55%
45%
San Diego, CA
37%
63%
Average
36%
64%
Source: MISLE database.
4-16
-------
Proposed Draft
Table 4.3.7. Percent of Study Vessels Present in
Representative Recreational Harbor
lliiiling Porl
Percent of lishinii
Vessels
Percent of
Non-fishing Slu(l>
\ essels
New Orleans, LA
26%
74%
Seattle, WA
69%
31%
New York, NY
21%
79%
Houston, TX
56%
44%
San Francisco, CA
64%
36%
Miami, FL
43%
57%
Norfolk, VA
28%
72%
Houma, LA
39%
61%
San Diego, CA
37%
63%
Portland, OR
51%
49%
Key West, FL
47%
53%
Average
44%
56%
Source: MISLE database.
EPA established the total number of vessels present in each vessel population scenario
based on:
• Field observations from EPA's vessel sampling program.
• Total vessel population data for the top 20 hailing ports as reported in the MISLE
database.
• An assumption that the hypothetical harbor is representative of up to 10 miles of
shoreline.
• An assumption that the vessel distributions reflect vessel populations during peak
activity for each scenario (i.e., summer season during peak fishing, recreational, and
tourist activity).
Based on these assumptions, EPA selected a total vessel population of 175 vessels for
Scenarios 1 and 3 and 300 vessels for Scenario 2 (see Table 4.3.8). Table 4.3.8 presents the
distribution of vessels among the different vessel classes for each vessel population scenario
developed using the vessel ratios discussed above, assumptions on the total vessel population,
field observations, and best professional judgment.
4-17
-------
Proposed Draft
Table 4.3.8. Vessel Population Scenarios
Vessel Population
Vessel Population
Vessel Population
Vessel ( hiss
Vessel Subelnss
Seen ario 1
Seenario 2
Scenario 3
l ishinii Harbor
Metropolitan Harbor
Recreational Harbor
Fire Boat
NA
1
5
1
Fishing
Gillnetter
12
10
9
Fishing
Lobster Boat
12
10
9
Fishing
Longliner
24
16
15
Fishing
Purse Seiner
12
10
9
Fishing
Shrimper
10
8
5
Fishing
Tender Vessel
20
10
9
Fishing
Trawler
20
16
13
Fishing
Trailer
12
10
9
Research
NA
2
10
8
Supply Boat
NA
12
55
10
Tour Boat
NA
10
20
24
Tow/Salvage
NA
6
40
20
Tugboat
NA
12
60
10
Water Taxi
NA
10
20
24
Total Number of Vessels
175 1
300 2
175 3
NA - Not applicable.
(1) Fishing harbor - percentage of fishing vessels is 70%, percentage of non-fishing vessels is 30%.
(2) Large metropolitan harbor - percentage of fishing vessels is 30%, percentage of non-fishing vessels is 70%.
(3) Recreational harbor - percentage of fishing vessels is 45%, percentage of non-fishing vessels is 55%.
4.3.4 Percentage of Vessels Discharging in the Harbor
In addition to the number of vessels present in the harbor, EPA also established the
percentage of vessels within each vessel class and discharge type that discharge into the harbor.
The purpose of this is to account for the fact that not all vessels within a vessel class discharge
all waste streams. EPA developed and selected the percentage of vessels discharging to the
harbor (see Table 4.3.9) based on interview responses and data collected during EPA's vessel
sampling program. EPA assumed all sampled vessels generate all discharges unless otherwise
noted by the vessel operators as follows:
• Vessel does not have the system or process responsible for the discharge (e.g., the
vessel does not generate graywater as it does not have sinks, showers, or washing
machines).
• System has no discharge (e.g., vessel propulsion and generator engines are keel-
cooled).
• Vessel typically discharges outside U.S. waters (e.g., fishing vessel washes decks
after each catch at fishing grounds greater than 12 nautical miles from shore).
Based on these criteria, EPA calculated the percentage of vessels (Py,z) in each vessel
class that discharge each discharge type into the harbor using the following equation:
4-18
-------
Py,z= Sample Ny- Sample Nz
Where:
p
1 y,z
Sample Ny,z
Sample Nz
Proposed Draft
Equation 4-6
= Percentage of vessels in vessel class z discharging discharge^
= Number of vessels in vessel class z discharging discharge^
from EPA's vessel sampling program
= Number of vessels from vessel class z from EPA's vessel
sampling program
Appendix G includes the field data and assumptions used to develop the percentage of
vessels input parameter (Py,z) for each vessel class and discharge stream.
Table 4.3.9. Percentage of Vessels Discharging in the Harbor
Percentage of
Vessel ( hiss
Vessel Suhehiss
Disehiii'^e
Vessels
Disehiii'^iii^ How
in lliirhur
Fire Boat
NA
Deck Wash
100%
Fire Boat
NA
Engine Effluent
100%
Fire Boat
NA
Fire Main Effluent
100%
Fire Boat
NA
Generator Effluent
100%
Fishing
Gillnetter
Engine Effluent
80%
Fishing
Gillnetter
Fish Hold Effluent
80%
Fishing
Lobster Boat
Fish Hold Effluent
100%
Fishing
Longliner
Bilgewater
33%
Fishing
Longliner
Fish Hold Effluent
100%
Fish Hold
Fishing
Longliner
Cleaning Effluent
100%
Fishing
Purse Seiner
Engine Effluent
40%
Fishing
Purse Seiner
Fish Hold Effluent
100%
Fish Hold
Fishing
Purse Seiner
Cleaning Effluent
100%
Fishing
Purse Seiner
Generator Effluent
40%
Fishing
Shrimper
Bilgewater
50%
Fishing
Shrimper
Deck Wash
80%
Fishing
Shrimper
Fish Hold Effluent
80%
Fishing
Shrimper
Graywater
100%
Fishing
Tender Vessel
Fish Hold Effluent
100%
Fish Hold
Fishing
Tender Vessel
Cleaning Effluent
67%
Fishing
Trawler
Deck Wash
80%
Fishing
Trawler
Fish Hold Effluent
80%
Fish Hold Clean
Fishing
Trawler
Effluent
40%
Fishing
Trailer
Deck Wash
17%
Fishing
Trailer
Fish Hold Effluent
100%
Fish Hold
Fishing
Trailer
Cleaning Effluent
33%
4-19
-------
Proposed Draft
Table 4.3.9. Percentage of Vessels Discharging in the Harbor
Vessel ( hiss
Vessel Suhehiss
Disehiii'^e
Percentage of
Vessels
Disehiii'^iii^ How
in lliirhur
Research
NA
Engine Effluent
100%
Supply Boat
NA
Deck Wash
100%
Tour Boat
NA
Bilgewater
67%
Tour Boat
NA
Deck Wash
67%
Tour Boat
NA
Engine Effluent
100%
Tour Boat
NA
Fire Main Effluent
100%
Tour Boat
NA
Generator Effluent
67%
Tow/Salvage
NA
Bilgewater
33%
Tow/Salvage
NA
Deck Wash
100%
Tow/Salvage
NA
Engine Effluent
83%
Tugboat
NA
Deck Wash
100%
Tugboat
NA
Fire Main Effluent
100%
Tugboat
NA
Graywater
67%
Tugboat
NA
Shaft Water
89%
Water Taxi
NA
Bilgewater
75%
Water Taxi
NA
Deck Wash
100%
Water Taxi
NA
Engine Effluent
100%
Water Taxi
NA
Generator Effluent
25%
Water Taxi
NA
Graywater
25%
NA - Not applicable.
4.3.5 Vessel Discharge Loading Rates
EPA calculated the vessel class-specific loading rates for each analyte (We,z) using
Equation 4-1 for each of the three vessel population scenarios described in Section 4.3.3. EPA
then calculated the total analyte-specific load rates (We) for each vessel population scenario using
Equation 4-2. Appendix G presents the total analyte-specific loading rates for each of the three
vessel population scenarios represented in the model (i.e., fishing harbor, large metropolitan
harbor, and recreational harbor).
4.3.6 Dissolved Copper Loading Rates from Antifouling Paints
In addition to the loading rates calculated based on EPA's vessel sampling program data,
EPA also considered the additional dissolved copper load to receiving waters associated with
antifouling paints used on vessel hulls. As described in Chapter 3, antifouling systems (AFSs)
are designed to release biocide over time to retard growth and maintain a smooth underwater
surface (Schiff et al., 2003). Copper oxide is the most common biocide added to AFSs to prevent
biofouling organisms from attaching to the hull. Numerous studies have investigated the leaching
rate of copper from both passive leaching and underwater hull cleaning (Thomas et al., 1999;
Zirino and Seligman, 2002; Valkirs et al., 2003; Schiff et al., 2003). Based on estimates
4-20
-------
Proposed Draft
produced in these studies, EPA selected a dissolved copper leaching rate of 8.2 |ig/cm2/day to
estimate the additional dissolved copper load to the harbor from vessel AFSs. EPA estimated the
average vessel length for each vessel class based on information available in the MISLE database
and field observations from EPA's vessel sampling program (Table 4.3.10). EPA assumed that
the beam of the vessel beam (i.e., width) was equal to approximately one-third its length and
used Equation 4-7 (Interlux, 1999) to estimate the hull surface area for each vessel class:
AZ = LZ* (Lz/3) * 0.85 Equation 4-7
Where:
Az = Hull surface area for individual vessels in vessel class z (area)
Lz = Average length of vessels in vessel class z (distance)
Table 4.3.10. Estimated Average Vessel
Length by Vessel Class
Vessel ( hiss
Vessel Suhehiss
Vessel
l.cniilh (feel)
Fire Boat
NA
50
Fishing
Gillnetter
35
Fishing
Lobster Boat
35
Fishing
Longliner
35
Fishing
Purse Seiner
50
Fishing
Shrimper
50
Fishing
Tender Vessel
100
Fishing
Trawler
50
Fishing
Trailer
35
Research
NA
40
Supply Boat
NA
50
Tour Boat
NA
50
Tow/Salvage
NA
40
Tugboat
NA
79
Water Taxi
NA
79
NA - Not applicable.
EPA calculated the dissolved copper loading rate from AFSs for each vessel population
scenario using Equation 4-8, and then added these loadings to the dissolved copper loading rates
calculated in Section 4.3.5 for the other vessel discharges to determine the total dissolved copper
load introduced into the harbor for each loading scenario6. EPA calculated that AFSs contribute
approximately 2.79 lbs/day of dissolved copper under Vessel Population Scenario 1 (fishing
6 Note that some hull cleaning methods can release a plume of antifouling paint, which contains copper in particulate
form, in the water. The particulate copper can settle into the sediments and over time reenter the water body in the
dissolved form. EPA did not include the potential dissolved copper load from particulate copper resulting from hull
cleaning.
4-21
-------
Proposed Draft
harbor), 4.86 lbs/day under Vessel Population Scenario 2 (large metropolitan harbor), and 2.63
lbs/day under Vessel Population Scenario 3 (recreational harbor7). Appendix G presents the total
dissolved copper loading rates represented in the model.
AFC Wcopper = E Nz * Az * 8.2 (.ig/cnr/dav Equation 4-8
Where:
AFS Wcopper = AFS discharge loading rate for dissolved copper (mass/time)
Nz = Number of vessels in vessel class z present in the harbor
Az = Hull surface area for individual vessels in vessel class z (area)
4.4 Hypothetical Harbor
Given the wide variety of coastal harbor environments potentially impacted by study
vessel discharges, EPA developed several hypothetical harbors for the vessel discharge
environmental assessment to represent a range of environmental conditions that could potentially
be impacted. To develop input values that represented realistic environmental conditions, EPA
identified and collected environmental data on eight harbors (Table 4.4.1) that represented a
geographically and environmentally diverse group of water bodies, had the potential for a high
density of study vessels, and received freshwater inflow from a major river system.
Table 4.4.1. Harbors Selected for Model Input Parameter Development
lliirhor Niimo
Ci(\ Name
Sliilo
Ki\oi* Niimo
Cohasset Harbor
Boston
Massachusetts
Gulf River
Dorchester Bay
Boston
Massachusetts
Neponset River
Auke Bay
Juneau
Alaska
Mendenhall River
Biscayne Bay
Miami
Florida
Miami River
Mobile Bay
Mobile
Alabama
Tensaw, Blakeley, and Mobile River
Yaquina Bay
Newport
Oregon
Yaquina River
Craford Bay
Norfolk
Virginia
Eastern and Southern Branch Elizabeth River
Eastern Channel
Sitka
Alaska
Indian River
The "fraction of freshwater model" requires the following four input parameters to define
the water body characteristics:
• Seaward boundary salinity at the mouth of the harbor (Ss)
• Salinity at location x in the harbor (Sx)
• Volume of the harbor (V)
• Inflow of freshwater to the harbor (Qfw)
7 As noted above, these loading rates do not include the loading from nonstudy vessels.
4-22
-------
Proposed Draft
EPA collected data on the four input parameters for the harbors listed in Table 4.4.1 and
calculated a flushing time using Equation 4-4 in Section 4.2.3. Appendix G presents the
environmental data identified by EPA for each harbor listed in Table 4.4.1. EPA selected the
input parameters for the hypothetical harbors' salinity, volume, and river flow based on the
environmental data collected for the harbors with the minimum and maximum flushing times
(Table 4.4.2). EPA assumed an average ocean salinity of 35 PSU for the salinity at the seaward
boundary of the hypothetical harbor.
Table 4.4.2. Hypothetical Harbor Input Parameters
Model Piii'iiiiHMcr
Model Input
Value
I nils
Harbor Salinity (Sx) Minimum
26.1
PSU
Harbor Salinity (Sx) Maximum
31
PSU
Ocean Salinity (Ss)
35
PSU
Harbor Volume (V) Minimum
3,090,000
m3
Harbor Volume (V) Maximum
38,500,000
m3
River Flow (Q^) Minimum
352,000
m3/day
River Flow (Q^) Maximum
2,900,000
m3/day
Using the input parameters in Table 4.4.2, EPA developed eight hypothetical harbors for
the vessel discharge environmental assessment (see Table 4.4.3). For each harbor scenario, EPA
calculated the fraction of freshwater (fx) and flushing time (/) using Equations 4-3 and 4-4 in
Sections 4.2.2 and 4.2.3, respectively. Flushing times for the hypothetical harbors ranged from
less than a day (0.122 days or 2.9 hours) to 27.8 days.
Table 4.4.3. Hypothetical Harbor Scenarios
Ihpoihelieiil
lliirhor Seeiiiirios
lliirhor
Siilinih <\)
Oci'iin
S;ilinil\ i.Vj
lliirhor
Volume (1 )
Ui\er How ((/„,)
.A
Hushing
Time'
(l);i\s)
Harbor Scenario 1
26.1 PSU
Sx Min
35 PSU
3,090,000 m3
VMin
352,000 m3/day
QfwMin
0.254
2.23
Harbor Scenario 2
26.1 PSU
Sx Min
35 PSU
3,090,000 m3
VMin
2,900,000 m3/day
QfwMax
0.254
0.271
Harbor Scenario 3
26.1 PSU
Sx Min
35 PSU
38,500,000 m3
VMax
352,000 m3/day
QfwMin
0.254
27.8
Harbor Scenario 4
26.1 PSU
Sx Min
35 PSU
38,500,000 m3
VMax
2,900,000 m3/day
QfwMax
0.254
3.38
Harbor Scenario 5
31 PSU
Sx Max
35 PSU
3,090,000 m3
VMin
352,000 m3/day
QfwMin
0.114
1
Harbor Scenario 6
31 PSU
Sx Max
35 PSU
3,090,000 m3
VMin
2,900,000 m3/day
QfwMax
0.114
0.122
Harbor Scenario 7
31 PSU
Sx Max
35 PSU
38,500,000 m3
VMax
352,000 m3/day
QfwMin
0.114
12.5
Harbor Scenario 8
31 PSU
Sx Max
35 PSU
38,500,000 m3
VMax
2,900,000 m3/day
QfwMax
0.114
1.52
4-23
-------
Proposed Draft
4.5 Model Scenarios
EPA developed a total of 24 model scenarios (see Table 4.5.1) for the screening-level
analysis based on the three vessel population scenarios and the eight hypothetical harbors
discussed in Sections 4.3.3 and 4.4, respectively. EPA calculated the estimated harbor dilution
for each model scenario using the following equation:
Ac = (Vll)HL(Qy:/ * /V'r,r* Py,z) Equation 4-9
Where:
Dx = Harbor dilution at location x
V = Volume of model harbor
t = Model harbor flushing time
Qy,z = Flow rate for discharge y from vessel class z (volume/time)
Ny,z = Number of vessels in vessel class z discharging discharge^
PyjZ = Percent of vessels in vessel class z discharging discharge^
Table 4.5.1. Fraction of Freshwater Model Scenarios
Model
Smiiirin
l oliil l.oiidinii K;iii> (jr.)
Scenario
IhpullHMiciil
lliirhnr
Scoiiiirio
Dilution (/>,)
Model Scenario 1
Vessels Population Scenario 1 Fishing Harbor
Harbor Scenario 1
705
Model Scenario 2
Vessels Population Scenario 1 Fishing Harbor
Harbor Scenario 2
5,810
Model Scenario 3
Vessels Population Scenario 1 Fishing Harbor
Harbor Scenario 3
705
Model Scenario 4
Vessels Population Scenario 1 Fishing Harbor
Harbor Scenario 4
5,810
Model Scenario 5
Vessels Population Scenario 1 Fishing Harbor
Harbor Scenario 5
1,570
Model Scenario 6
Vessels Population Scenario 1 Fishing Harbor
Harbor Scenario 6
12,900
Model Scenario 7
Vessels Population Scenario 1 Fishing Harbor
Harbor Scenario 7
1,570
Model Scenario 8
Vessels Population Scenario 1 Fishing Harbor
Harbor Scenario 8
12,900
Model Scenario 9
Vessels Population Scenario 2 Metropolitan Harbor
Harbor Scenario 1
506
Model Scenario 10
Vessels Population Scenario 2 Metropolitan Harbor
Harbor Scenario 2
4,170
Model Scenario 11
Vessels Population Scenario 2 Metropolitan Harbor
Harbor Scenario 3
506
Model Scenario 12
Vessels Population Scenario 2 Metropolitan Harbor
Harbor Scenario 4
4,170
Model Scenario 13
Vessels Population Scenario 2 Metropolitan Harbor
Harbor Scenario 5
1,130
Model Scenario 14
Vessels Population Scenario 2 Metropolitan Harbor
Harbor Scenario 6
9,280
Model Scenario 15
Vessels Population Scenario 2 Metropolitan Harbor
Harbor Scenario 7
1,130
Model Scenario 16
Vessels Population Scenario 2 Metropolitan Harbor
Harbor Scenario 8
9,280
Model Scenario 17
Vessels Population Scenario 3 Recreational Harbor
Harbor Scenario 1
494
Model Scenario 18
Vessels Population Scenario 3 Recreational Harbor
Harbor Scenario 2
4,070
Model Scenario 19
Vessels Population Scenario 3 Recreational Harbor
Harbor Scenario 3
494
Model Scenario 20
Vessels Population Scenario 3 Recreational Harbor
Harbor Scenario 4
4,070
Model Scenario 21
Vessels Population Scenario 3 Recreational Harbor
Harbor Scenario 5
1,100
Model Scenario 22
Vessels Population Scenario 3 Recreational Harbor
Harbor Scenario 6
9,050
Model Scenario 23
Vessels Population Scenario 3 Recreational Harbor
Harbor Scenario 7
1,100
Model Scenario 24
Vessels Population Scenario 3 Recreational Harbor
Harbor Scenario 8
9,050
4-24
-------
Proposed Draft
As shown in Table 4.5.1, there are duplicate dilution factor values for different model
scenarios (e.g., Model Scenarios 1 and 3 both have a dilution factor of 705). Hence, there are
effectively 12 unique model scenarios and not 24 presented in this screening-level analysis. The
duplicate dilution factors are an artifact of EPA's decision to calculate dilution factors and
instantaneous harbor concentrations using all combinations of the input parameters in Table
4.4.2. In calculating the dilution factor, the volume of the harbor (V) cancels out of the dilution
equation (Equation 4-9) and is not a consideration (see below).
EPA used three total discharge flows (Z(Qy,z * Ny,z* I\ -) (i.e., vessel flows in a fishing
harbor, large metropolitan harbor, and recreational harbor) and four different volume-to-
flushing-time (V/t) ratios (i.e., assumed two fx values in the model and two Qfw values) in the
model. Section 4.6 discusses the results from the 12 unique model scenarios and presents the
results of the duplicate scenarios as one result (i.e., harbor concentrations from Model Scenarios
1 and 3).
4.6 Model Results
EPA calculated the instantaneous concentration (Cx) in the hypothetical harbor using
Equation 4-5 presented in Section 4.2.4 for each of the 12 model scenarios defined in Table
4.5.1. Appendix G presents the concentrations for all model scenarios for each vessel population
scenario. EPA compared the instantaneous concentrations in the hypothetical harbor with the
NRWQC to evaluate the potential for the cumulative effect of study vessel incidental discharges
to impact aquatic life or human health. EPA determined that none of the modeled concentrations
in the hypothetical harbor for the 12 scenarios exceeded an aquatic life or human health
NRWQC.
4.6.1 Dilution Factor Analysis
The model scenario dilutions factors calculated for the 12 unique scenarios ranged from
494 to 12,900. EPA performed a sensitivity analysis to determine the dilution factor at which
point NRWQC would be exceeded. EPA calculated the "tipping point" dilution in the
hypothetical harbor where the instantaneous concentration in the harbor would equal the most
stringent NRWQC for aquatic life or human health using the three vessel population scenario
loading rates discussed in Section 4.3.5. Table 4.6.1 presents the tipping point dilution factors for
the top 10 analytes with the highest dilution factor requirements to avoid exceeding an NRWQC.
Based on the results of the dilution analysis, a harbor dilution factor of greater than 358 is
required to avoid exceeding any NRWQC for aquatic life or human health, which is below the
Dx= (V/ty?.(Qy,z* Ny,z* Py,z)
Where:
(V/t)
UQy,z* Ny,z* Py,z)
(V/(V*fx/Qfw)
Total discharge flow from all vessels
4-25
-------
Proposed Draft
range of calculated model scenario dilution factors (i.e., 494 to 12,900). This sensitivity analysis
also demonstrates that dissolved copper and total arsenic represent the most significant
environmental risk from study vessels incidental discharges. These two analytes have relatively
stringent range of dilution requirements depending on the vessel population scenario selected to
avoid exceeding a NRWQC (i.e., dilution factors of greater than 144 to 266 for dissolved copper
and 284 to 358 for total arsenic) and represent the highest dilution requirements for all the
analytes detected in vessel discharges. Following dissolved copper, the required dilution factors
drop off significantly with a dilution of greater than 33.7 required to avoid exceeding all other
NRWQC with most of the remaining dilution factors below one.
Table 4.6.1. "Tipping Point" Dilution Factors for Harbor Instantaneous
Concentration to Equal the NRQWC Based on Vessel Population Scenario
Loading Rates 1
( hiss
Aiiiil.Mi-
Vessel
Seensirio 1
lishinii Ihirhor
Dilulion (I)J
Vessel
Seeiiiii'io 2
Melmpoliiiin
lliirhur
Dilution (I)J
Vessel
Seeiiiii'io 3
Keei'eiilioiiiil
Ihirhor
Dilution (I)J
Metals
Arsenic, Total
358
331
284
Metals
Copper, Dissolved
214
266
144
Metals
Arsenic, Dissolved
31.4
33.7
29.6
Classicals
Total Residual Chlorine
12.4
16.2
12.2
Metals
Aluminum, Total
6.77
5.15
4.83
Classicals
Sulfide
1.75
2.36
1.65
Metals
Selenium, Total
1.13
1.46
1.52
Metals
Zinc, Dissolved
0.883
0.605
0.518
voc
Benzene
0.756
1.57
1.34
Metals
Manganese, Total
0.684
0.983
1.04
(1) Table includes only those analytes that required a dilution factor of greater than one to avoid
exceeding a NRWQC.
4.6.2 Loading Rate Analysis
EPA compared the three analyte-specific loading rates used in the model with other
known loading rates to provide perspective on their magnitude and on their relative contribution
to the possible impairment of receiving waters (see Table 4.6.2 and Table 4.6.3). EPA selected
the following loading sources for comparison:
• Loads From Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW)
• Dissolved copper loads discharged to the Shelter Island Yacht Basin
• Estimated metal loading rates from urban stormwater
EPA generated estimates for hypothetical medium-sized sewage treatment facilities with
a discharge rate of 10 million gallons per day (MGD). These estimates were derived from the
National Research Council's 1993 report "Managing Wastewater in Urban Areas". EPA
4-26
-------
Proposed Draft
calculated loadings by multiplying an effluent volume of 10 MGD times the low and high
effluent concentrations for selected parameters using four types of wastewater treatment
(chemically-enhanced primary plus biological treatment, primary or chemically enhanced
primary plus nutrient removal, primary or chemically enhanced primary plus nutrient removal
plus gravity filtration, or primary or chemically enhanced primary plus nutrient removal plus
high lime plus filtration)8. Values presented in Table 4.6.2 present the lowest and highest
derived loadings for these medium systems. EPA determined that the nutrient loads from the
175 to 300 study vessels were comparable to the low end estimates for Ammonia as Nitrogen
and total phosphorus, but notably lower than those from the high end treated effluent estimates
from sewage treatment facilities. As noted above, the model nutrient loadings from study vessels
do not include sewage discharges (which is likely a source of nutrients from these vessels)9,
whereas these data are from POTW effluent, which has a significant sewage component. Table
4.6.2 shows that a medium sewage treatment facility discharges a higher volume of metals than
these 175 to 300 study vessels. Finally, these study vessels discharge comparable levels of
BOD; though sewage treatment facilities are discharging a larger volume of effluent, they
remove significant quantities of BOD from the effluent. On the other hand, study vessels'
incidental discharges are untreated waste, some of which has notably high BOD concentrations
(e.g., fish hold effluent).
EPA also obtained nutrient loading estimates from a sewage treatment facility with
advanced nutrient removal capabilities to provide real world example nutrient loadings that may
be associated with POTW discharges (Albert, 2007). This facility discharges approximately 40 to
50 MGD. EPA determined that the nutrient loads (i.e., ammonia as nitrogen, nitrate/nitrite as
nitrogen, total Kjeldahl nitrogen, and total phosphorus) from the 175 to 300 study vessels used to
establish the vessel loads in the screening-level analysis were notably lower than the nutrient
loads from this sewage treatment facility. It is important to note that these model nutrient loads
do not include nutrient contributions from vessel sewage discharges (possibly a significant
source of nutrients), as sewage discharges are excluded from the scope of P L. 110-299.
8 A number of systems exist which are both smaller and larger than 10 MGD, for example, the Blue Plains POTW in
Washington DC is the largest advanced wastewater treatment system in the word and discharges an average of
approximately 330 MGD. The wastewater treatment facilities in nearby Arlington County discharge less than 40
MGD. In comparison, the sewage treatment facility in Sitka, Alaska is designed to discharge only 1.8 MGD.
9 Sewage from vessels within the meaning of CWA section 312, which includes graywater in the case of commercial
vessels operating on the Great Lakes, is exempt from the CWA definition of "pollutant". 33 U.S.C. 1362(6); 33
U.S.C. 1322(a)(6). As a result, vessel sewage discharges are not subject to NPDES permitting. Instead, Congress
enacted a separate non-permitting scheme - CWA section 312 - to regulate the discharge of sewage from vessels.
Under section 312 of the CWA, all vessels equipped with installed toilet facilities must also be equipped with an
operable U.S. Coast Guard-certified marine sanitation device (MSD). 33 U.S.C. 1322(h). The provisions of section
312 are implemented jointly by EPA and the Coast Guard: EPA sets performance standards for MSDs, and the Coast
Guard is responsible for developing regulations governing the design, construction, certification, installation and
operation of MSDs, consistent with EPA's standards. 33 U. S.C. 1322(b). Current performance standards which
apply to MSDs have standards for solids and fecal coliform. Generally speaking, most MSDs currently installed on
study vessels are not designed to remove nutrients from sewage.
4-27
-------
Proposed Draft
Therefore, these estimates are not a complete representation of vessel nutrient loadings; rather,
they are merely an estimate of nutrient loadings from incidental discharges.
As described in Chapter, 3 dissolved copper concentrations resulting from study vessels'
incidental discharges potentially pose a risk to aquatic life. A significant contribution of the
dissolved copper load is from copper leaching from antifouling coatings on vessel hulls. In 2005,
the California Regional Water Quality Control Board examined the dissolved copper loads to
Shelter Island Yacht Basin from recreational vessel antifouling hull coatings and other source
loads in support of a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) analysis for the impaired water. EPA
compared the dissolved copper loads from Shelter Island Yacht Basin TMDL to the vessel
population scenario loading rates (Table 4.6.2). EPA determined that the estimated dissolved
copper loads from 175 to 300 study vessels used in the model (i.e., 2.75 to 4.97 lb/day) were
consistent with the combined dissolved copper loads from passive leaching and hull cleaning
from 2,363 recreational vessels present in Shelter Island Yacht Basin (i.e., 12.7 lb/day). EPA also
compared the model dissolved copper loads to the combined estimated contributions from urban
runoff, background, and atmospheric deposition in Shelter Island Yacht Basin (i.e., 0.381
lb/day). The model dissolved copper loads from hull leaching and other discharge streams were
significantly larger than the other source contributions present in Shelter Island Yacht Basin,
suggesting that dissolved copper from study vessels incidental discharges can represent a
significant portion of the dissolved copper load in a water body.
EPA also estimated metal loading rates for urban stormwater runoff based on reported
loading rates from a 2001 literature study by Davis et al. and an assumed watershed area of
approximately 17 square miles (water shed area determined from readily available information
on watersheds' drainage areas for the water bodies discussed in Table 4.4.1). As shown in Table
4.6.2, EPA determined that urban stormwater likely represents a greater load of total copper,
total lead, zinc, and cadmium to receiving waters than discharges from 175 to 300 study vessels.
However, the model results indicate that dissolved copper loads from study vessels are
significant.
4-28
-------
Proposed Draft
Table 4.6.2. Comparison of Model Loading Rates with Other Potential Point Source Loading Rates
Morii-I kiiU's In mi
Yi'sm-I Piipiihiliiiii Si'i'iiiirios 1
POIW
l.n;i(liiiU
POIW
l.o;i(linu
Slu-lkT Isliiiul \;iilll li;isii
Lo;klin/il;i\ )
Mi'lriipiilihin
1 Isirlxn-
(ll)/d;i\)
Ki'uv;ilii>n;il
1 l:i i-lxir
(ll)/dii\)
K;il is
10
lll^/(l;i>"
(ll)/d;i\ )
R.ik's
—to
m«/tlsi\"*
(ll>/il;i\ )
PilssiM-
lA-;kliiii/il;i\ )
Mull
(k'iiiiiu^
(ll>/(l;i\ )
I rl>:in
KumilT
(ll>/il;i\ )
liikk^niund
(ll>/il;i\ )
AlmiispluTk-
IK'piisiiiiin
(ll)/d;i\)
k u no IT
l.n;i(lin
-------
Proposed Draft
(7) Estimated urban stormwater loads were based on loading rates presented in Davis et al., 2001 and an assumed watershed area of 17 mi2 (MA DEP, 2006).
The loading rates presented are average annual daily loads.
4-30
-------
Proposed Draft
4.7 Conclusions
This screening-level analysis evaluated the potential for discharges incidental to the
normal operation of vessels to pose a risk to human health, welfare, or the environment in large
water bodies. The analysis includes all sizes of commercial fishing vessels and other
nonrecreational vessels less than 79 feet in length. EPA selected a Level I screening-level model
(see Section 4.1) to help assess the potential impacts from study vessels' incidental discharges
and modeled several scenarios combining different vessel assemblages and different hypothetical
harbors to represent a range of environmental conditions potentially observed in harbors across
the United States. The modeled constituent concentrations from the discharges into the
hypothetical harbor for the 12 scenarios did not exceed an aquatic life or human health NRWQC
solely from study vessel discharges; however, the model did not account for background
loadings. Certain pollutants (e.g., arsenic and dissolved copper) are more likely to contribute to a
water quality criterion being exceeded under real-world conditions. Furthermore, the model's
capabilities do not allow for the evaluation of whether these discharges cause localized impacts
(see Section 4.2), nor do they allow an analysis of issues such as bioaccumulation or persistent
toxicity in water bodies or accumulation of pollutants in sediments.
As discussed in the introduction, EPA's fraction of freshwater analysis is only intended to
evaluate environmental effects from vessel discharges at the water body or harbor scale and does
not address the environmental effects that could potentially occur in localized areas such as small
side embayments or marinas. As discussed in Section 4.1, the "fraction of freshwater model"
does not describe concentration gradients within plumes from vessels. Accounting for spatial and
temporal variability in a harbor would require a more data intensive dynamic model and is
beyond a Level I screening-level model. EPA acknowledges that incidental discharges from
study vessels may pose an environmental threat in confined areas with low receiving water
flushing rates and a large population of vessels. In the dilution analysis discussed in Section 4.6,
EPA determined that a "tipping point" dilution factor of greater than 358 would be required to
avoid exceeding any NRWQC based on the estimated loading rates used in the model (see Table
4.6.1). These results suggest that the loading rates represented in the model may have the
potential to cause a water quality criterion to be exceeded on a localized scale either before
complete mixing is achieved in the receiving water (i.e., as the plume dissipates) or if the
discharges are released in a receiving water with a dilution potential of lower than 358. The
model further suggests that these vessels may be more likely to contribute to an NRWQC being
exceeded (particularly where the diluting factor is high for a pollutant) where the ambient
concentrations or other sources of pollutants are significant. On the other hand, EPA has tended
to use conservative estimates of some parameters (e.g., flow and pollutant concentrations) in its
modeling.
In the "fraction of freshwater model," EPA calculated the instantaneous concentration in
the hypothetical harbor based solely on pollutant contributions from discharges from study
4-31
-------
Proposed Draft
vessels. Although the assumption that harbor background pollutant concentrations are zero for all
analytes is likely unrealistic, removing other loading considerations from model calculations
allows for the assessment of the potential for study vessel incidental discharges alone to cause an
NRWQC to be exceeded. Although the "fraction of freshwater model" results suggest that study
vessels' incidental discharges will not cause an environmental impact on their own, the fact that
pollutants are present in the vessel discharges at concentrations that exceed the NRWQC at end-
of-pipe may support a determination that some of these discharges have the potential to
contribute to a water quality standard exceedence.
Based on the dilution results, the two pollutants that represent the greatest risk for
contributing to an environmental effect or water body impairment are total arsenic and dissolved
copper. EPA determined that the loading rates from the metropolitan harbor (i.e., Model
Scenarios 9 and 11) were at the greatest risk of exceeding the NRWQC for these pollutants.
However, the minimum dilution factors required to avoid exceeding the NRWQC for these
pollutants (i.e., 284 for total arsenic and 144 for dissolved copper in the recreational harbor) are
similar to the lowest dilution factor represented in the hypothetical harbor scenarios (i.e., 494).
This suggests that study vessel's incidental discharges may be contributing a significant load of
these two pollutants to the water body. Given the right environmental conditions (i.e., low
flushing) or pollutant loadings from other point/nonpoint sources (e.g., recreational vessels, large
commercial vessels, stormwater runoff, and industrial and municipal point sources), the
concentrations of these pollutants may have a potential to cause or contribute to an exceedence
of the NRWQC, regardless of vessel class distributions. These results are consistent with real-
world observations that metals are frequently associated with vessel discharges in concentrations
of potential environmental concern (see Chapter 3). In particular, environmental impacts from
dissolved copper leaching from hull coatings has been well documented in low flushing
environments such as Shelter Island Yacht Basin near San Diego, California, and Marina Del
Rey Harbor in Los Angeles, California.
Nutrients from study vessels' incidental discharges represent another pollutant class with
the potential to contribute to deleterious environmental effects. Nutrients differ from other
pollutants present in vessel discharges in that the environmental effects are driven by site-
specific environmental conditions (e.g., water temperature, types of algae present, limiting
nutrient). For example, the estimated nutrient loads used in the modeling analysis may contribute
to an environmental effect in one water body, but not another depending on a variety of factors
that control eutrophication. EPA has not developed an NRWQC for nutrients; however, some
states have established water-body-specific or state-wide standards for nutrients based on site-
specific evaluations.
4-32
-------
CHAPTER 5
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
Proposed Draft
This chapter summarizes the major findings of EPA's detailed analyses described in
Chapters 1, 3, and 4. It describes findings on vessel classes that are covered by this study. It
summarizes major findings from the characterization of select discharges from the study vessels,
including EPA's interpretation of these findings in the context of the level of potential risk from
these pollutant loadings. Additionally, it discusses major findings of EPA's assessment of the
predicted impacts of these discharges to a hypothetical harbor. This chapter also briefly
summarizes possible benefits to human health, welfare, and the environment from reducing,
eliminating, controlling, or mitigating discharges from study vessels.
5.1 Summary of Classes of Vessels Covered By this Study
EPA estimates there is a population of approximately 140,000 study vessels. According
to the U.S. Coast Guard's Marine Information for Safety and Law Enforcement (MISLE)
database, there are approximately 70,000 commercial fishing vessels operating in the United
States. These vessels represent the largest category of study vessels. Passenger vessels comprise
the second highest number of vessels within the study population, with approximately 21,000
vessels. These vessels are further classified by subtypes according to the types of activities in
which they are involved, such as diving vessels, charter fishing vessels, ferries, harbor cruise
vessels, and sailing vessels. The study population also includes over 11,000 utility vessels,
including tugs/towing vessels, school ships, research vessels/ships, mobile offshore drilling units,
offshore vessels, offshore supply vessels, oil recovery vessels, and industrial vessels. Other
vessel categories such as freight barges (approximately 8,000 vessels), tank barges
(approximately 900 vessels), freight ships (approximately 800 vessels), unclassified public
vessels (approximately 600 vessels), and tank ships (approximately 200 vessels) account for the
remainder of other non-recreational study vessels. An additional 27,375 vessels in the MISLE
database are also believed to be study vessels; however, the database does not indicate their type
of service. See Chapter 1 for additional discussions of the study vessel and recreational vessel
populations.
5.2 Summary of Effluent Characterization of Select Discharges
from the Study Vessels
The major findings of EPA's analysis of the vessel discharge characterization data for
study vessels are summarized below. For this study, EPA sampled 61 vessels in nine states
generating over 22,000 data points. EPA tested for 301 analytes and detected 154 of these
analytes in at least one sample; therefore, 158 of the tested analytes were never found in the
5-1
-------
Proposed Draft
discharges. Section 5.2.1 discusses the estimated volumes of the discharges and Section 5.2.2
discusses the detected pollutants that may have the potential to pose a risk to human health or the
environment. See chapters 3 and 4 for more technical, in-depth discussions of these results.
5.2.1 Estimated Volumes of Select Discharges from the Study Vessels
EPA estimated volumes for each discharge from the study vessels based on data and field
observations from EPA's vessel sampling efforts, as well as information from secondary data
sources. Discharge volumes are important to both characterize the discharge and to analyze the
potential risk of the pollutant concentrations discharged from vessels. EPA also used these
discharge volumes to calculate flow rates for the modeling of pollutant loadings to a hypothetical
harbor in Chapter 4.
Bilgewater generation rates are highly variable. EPA observed as little as 2 gallons of
bilgewater discharged from a tow/salvage vessel following a tow activity to as much as 750
gallons of bilgewater discharged during the daily bilge pump-out from a 62-foot shrimp boat
from the Gulf of Mexico. In general, based on observations from dozens of vessel operations,
EPA estimates that small (less than 79 feet), nonrecreational vessels typically generate between
10 and 15 gallons per day (gpd) of bilgewater.
Stern tube packing gland effluent is by nature limited to the small amount of water
needed to provide cooling and lubrication to the gland around the drive shaft. The range in
estimated discharge for stern tube packing gland effluent is approximately 4 to 8 gpd.
For deckwash water from tour boats, water taxis, and tow boats, EPA estimates a
discharge volume of between 10 and 15 gpd. Fishing boats are estimated to generate more
deckwash water and the volumes generated vary with the type of boat. Trailers, trawlers,
gillnetters, and purse seiners may wash their decks three to four times per day while fishing,
producing as much as an estimated 750 to 900 gpd of deckwash water.
The volume of fish hold effluent generated by a fishing vessel depends on the size of the
vessel and the method used to keep the product fresh. Smaller fishing vessels such as small
salmon trailers or long-liners may discharge an estimated fish hold volume ranging from 500 to
600 gpd. Mid-size fishing vessels, such as gill netters and purse seiners found in Alaska and
shrimp boats in the Gulf of Mexico may discharge approximately 333 to 1,000 gpd. Larger
fishing vessels such as off-shore trawlers found in New England and tenders found in Alaska,
however, can have refrigerated seawater holding tanks or ice hold tanks as large as 15,000
gallons. These vessels are expected to offload seafood and discharge the fish hold effluent every
three to five days, resulting in an estimated flow rate ranging from 900 to 2,000 gpd. EPA
estimates the volume of fish hold cleaning effluent discharged by certain fishing vessels to be
anywhere from 300 to 400 gallons per cleaning, which occur typically every three to five days
5-2
-------
Proposed Draft
when the fish holds are emptied (discharge volumes range from an estimated 60 to 200 gpd
depending on frequency of offloading).
Fisherman unloading their catch to the dock from a trawler (dragger) in Massachusetts.
Graywater volumes also vary considerably depending on the class of vessel and its use,
size, number of crew and passengers onboard, and types of graywater-generating activities
onboard (e.g., galleys, sinks, showers, and wash machines). For example, EPA estimated that
tugboats, some of which provide living quarters for three to five crew members, generate
approximately 130 gpd of graywater. Water taxis typically have considerably more people
onboard, but less graywater is generated per person because the discharge is typically limited to
bathroom sinks with an estimated 75-gpd discharge. Graywater generation on commercial
fishing boats might range from a few to hundreds of gpd, depending on the length of the trip and
the size of the crew.
Finally, the volume of engine effluent discharged depends on the type of engine and
power level of operation. Vessels with outboard propulsion engines are estimated to discharge
between 1 to 2 gallons per minute (gpm) of raw cooling water per engine. The cooling water
discharge rate from inboard marine diesel engines varies based on power levels, but typically
averages around 20 gpm for the study vessels. Marine diesel generator sets require
approximately 5 to 6 gpm of cooling water for smaller units, and up to 20 to 25 gpm of cooling
5-3
-------
Proposed Draft
water for larger marine generator sets. Daily discharge rates for these engines are a function of
the daily operating time.
5.2.2 Analytes of Potential Risk in Select Discharges from Study Vessels
EPA compared the measured concentration of any given analyte to its most stringent
benchmark1 (Table 3-1) as one means to identify pollutants in vessel discharges that may pose a
risk to human health or aquatic life. EPA divided the concentration of an analyte by its
corresponding benchmark to calculate a potential hazard quotient (PHQ). If a PHQ is less than 1,
there is less of a concern that the pollutant in the discharge will have impacts to human health or
aquatic life. An exception to this determination is when the pollutant is persistent and/or
bioaccumulative and may increase in concentration within the ecosystem food chain to harmful
levels. If a PHQ is equal to or greater than 1, then there is more of a concern. However, PHQs of
greater than 1 do not provide conclusive evidence of risk to human health or the environment for
the following reasons:
1. Samples were collected at the "end of pipe" as the vessels discharged into larger waters
(e.g., harbors, rivers). However, the discharge is typically diluted in the water body.
Therefore, accounting for possible dilution in the receiving water could result in ambient
PHQ of less than 1 (except possibly small harbors or marinas with limited or no flushing
or where the receiving water PHQ is already above 1 due to other factors).
2. The benchmarks used to evaluate the potential for risk were always the most protective,
even if it was not the most commonly applicable screening benchmark for that particular
analyte. Given this, the potential for risk might be over-stated.
3. The surrounding ambient water or source water (vessel service2 or city water supply)
used in the vessel systems that generated these discharges (e.g., engine cooling water
drawn from ambient water or potable water used for deck cleaning) may already contain
high concentrations of some of these analytes. In these instances, a high analyte
concentration measured at the "end of pipe" may not originate from vessel activities, but
rather from the water used in these operations.
EPA made the following general observations based on its review of the vessel discharge
data (see Chapter 3 for EPA's detailed analysis of the data):
1 To provide a context for the level of contaminant concentrations presented, EPA used National Recommended
Water Quality Criteria (NRWQC) and several other benchmarks as a preliminary screen for all discharge data with
the potential to cause or contribute to the nonattainment of a water quality standard in a given receiving water body.
2 Service water here means the vessel potable water supply. For study vessels, vessel service water generally
originates from municipal water supply rather than produced on board.
5-4
-------
Proposed Draft
• Dissolved copper was the analyte detected in vessel discharges at concentrations that
consistently posed the greatest potential risk for local impacts and for contributing to
exceedances of water quality standards in larger water bodies. Copper is a heavy metal
that can restrict the growth and reproduction of plants and algae and can produce both
acute (short-term) and chronic (long-term) toxic effects on reproduction, growth, and
survival in fish and shellfish. Prolonged exposure to elevated copper concentrations can
lead to long-term liver and kidney damage in humans. Concentrations of dissolved
copper exceeding the most protective screening benchmark were found in every sampled
discharge type, except for outboard engine and generator engine effluents.
Dissolved copper was detected at the highest concentrations in the deck washdown,
graywater, fish hold, and bilgewater discharges from most vessel classes, particularly
utility vessels. PHQs for mean dissolved copper concentrations ranged from a low of 1.1
in graywater discharges to a high of approximately 200 in fish hold effluent. Based on
concentration and average discharge volume, deck washdown and fish hold discharges
contribute the most dissolved copper.
Copper is released (leached) from antifouling hull coatings used on certain vessels to
prevent buildup of organisms such as barnacles and algae. Copper can also be released
via underwater hull cleaning, hull coating removal operations, and paint application.
Although copper antifouling discharges were not measured, previous studies have shown
it can be a major contributor to copper concentrations in harbors, especially marinas with
large vessel populations (see Section 3.2.8.1).
Average ambient dissolved copper concentrations in the harbors sampled in this study
were also slightly higher than the most protective benchmark (mean PHQ of 1.6).
However, discharge concentrations still exceeded the benchmark even after subtracting
the potential contribution of copper from ambient waters.
• Total arsenic concentrations in vessel discharges were also notably higher than the most
protective screening benchmark. PHQs for mean total arsenic concentrations ranged from
a low of 110 in graywater discharge to a high of 2,900 in bilgewater discharge. Arsenic is
a metalloid (a nonmetallic element with some metal properties) that is easily absorbed by
aquatic plants, algae, fish, and shellfish. Arsenic can cause a variety of acute and chronic
toxic effects in aquatic organisms, as well as in humans who ingest arsenic via drinking
water and contaminated seafood. Arsenic is a known carcinogen, and prolonged high
exposures via ingestion can cause cancer, skin irritation, kidney and liver damage, and
neurological damage.
Despite the high potential toxicity of total arsenic, the risk posed to aquatic life is lower
than what is suggested by this analysis for two reasons. First, the screening benchmark
5-5
-------
Proposed Draft
for total arsenic is a human health criterion to prevent cancer-causing agents in drinking
water and is over 100 times lower than that of any other metal in this study. The high
total arsenic PHQs in vessel discharges are the result of this low benchmark for human
health, which is 2,000 times lower than the dissolved arsenic benchmark that is based on
chronic, long-term toxicity to saltwater aquatic life. Many of the waters where many
study vessels operate, particularly for certain vessel types such as commercial fishing
vessels, are not typically used as drinking water sources (i.e., ocean and coastal waters).
However, some waters where study vessels operate (e.g., the Mississippi River) do serve
as drinking water sources and high arsenic loadings in these waters could contribute to
human health concerns.
Second, between 20 to 100 percent of the total arsenic measured in the various vessel
discharges can be attributed to ambient water that is used as source water for vessel
systems. Vessel discharges most influenced by ambient total arsenic concentrations
include those from stern tube packing glands, outboard engines, and firemain systems.
However, less than half of the total arsenic measured in bilgewater, deckwash, and fish
hold discharges appears to be contributed by concentrations in ambient water, indicating
that these discharges potentially contribute to arsenic toxicity in receiving waters. Based
on concentration and average discharge volume, deck washdown and fish hold discharges
appear to contribute the most total arsenic.
• Total aluminum concentrations exceeded benchmark concentrations for all discharge
types; however, some of the aluminum concentrations in the discharge may be due to
background concentrations (e.g., not added to the discharge by the vessel). Average
PHQs for total aluminum ranged from a high of 39 in deck washdown discharge to a low
of 1.8 in outboard engine effluent. The metalloid aluminum is most toxic to aquatic
organisms in acidic conditions (i.e., waters with a pH < 7). When pH is neutral (7) or
higher, aluminum can still inhibit growth of aquatic organisms but to a lesser extent. The
pH measured in the vessel discharges and ambient water sampled in this study was
generally 7 or higher. Chronic exposure to high concentrations can cause aluminum to
accumulate in bones of fish (and humans) and loss of kidney function.
Indications are that the potential risk from total aluminum is greatest in deck washdown
discharges, followed by fish hold discharges, and then stern tube packing gland
discharges. For deck washdown, there is an elevated risk because of the high aluminum
concentrations (possibly from the leaching of the abundant amount of aluminum found on
the surfaces of many vessels), as well as the potentially large discharge volume (up to
900 gpd). Fish hold discharge also contains high total aluminum concentrations with
discharges up to 1,000 gpd. Although concentrations in the stern tube packing gland
5-6
-------
Proposed Draft
discharge are nearly as high as those in fish hold effluent, potential for risk from stern
tube packing gland effluent is lower due to the lower volume of the discharge.
Ambient concentrations of total aluminum were high (ranging from 29 to 3,950 |ig/L -
see Appendix E) in all of the sampled harbors for this study. The average PHQ for
ambient total aluminum is 7.5, which is higher than the calculated PHQs for all discharge
types except for deck washdown, fish hold effluent, and stern tube/packing gland
effluent. For fish hold3 and stern tube packing gland discharges, it appears half of the
measured total aluminum likely originates from the ambient water. Deck washdown
discharge from vessels that use ambient water to clean decks have an estimated 20
percent of the measured total aluminum concentrations contributed by ambient water. In
contrast, only 2 percent of the measured total aluminum concentrations were attributable
to background concentrations for vessels that used service water to clean their decks
(primarily tugboats/utility vessels).
• Concentrations of other metals such as total iron, dissolved zinc, dissolved lead, and
dissolved cadmium above their respective screening benchmarks were measured in deck
washdown effluents (PHQs ranging from 1 to 11). These heavy metals are all known to
produce acute and chronic toxic effects in aquatic organisms and humans, in the
following order: cadmium is more toxic than lead, which is more toxic than zinc, which
is more toxic than iron. These elevated concentrations were particularly prevalent in the
deck washdown discharges from utility vessels. However, decks of utility vessels
(tugboats) are washed less frequently than fishing vessel decks, so overall metal loads
from the two types of vessels are more comparable than concentrations alone might
suggest. Although background concentrations of these metals in the ambient and service
waters used to wash decks were generally low (except for dissolved zinc in some
background samples), average PHQs of all these metals in vessel discharges were not
significantly greater than 1, indicating that these metals likely pose minimal potential risk
to the environment.
• Total phosphorus concentrations were elevated in bilgewater, deck washdown, fish hold,
and graywater discharges. Average PHQs for total phosphorus in these discharge
categories ranged from a high of 130 in fish hold effluent to a low of 14 in graywater.
Total phosphorus in some vessel discharges comes from detergents and soaps. Other total
phosphorus loadings come from decaying seafood (in fish hold) or leftover food
3 The assertion that background concentrations contribute approximately half of aluminum concentrations for fish
hold effluent assumes that vessels either took in the original fish hold water from the surrounding harbor waters, or
that the fishing grounds where the vessel took in the fish hold water share similar characteristics with surrounding
harbor waters.
5-7
-------
Proposed Draft
(graywater). Based on concentration and average discharge volume, fish hold effluent
contributes the most total phosphorus.
Phosphorus is an important macronutrient limiting reproduction and growth of plant
material and algae (so called "primary production"). Elevated levels of phosphorus can
contribute to nuisance algal blooms, eutrophication (nutrient enrichment), and low
dissolved oxygen levels in the water column (hypoxia). Ambient concentrations of total
phosphorus, averaged across all sampled harbors, were twice the concentration of the
PHQ screening benchmark.
• The concentrations of reactive nitrogen compounds (e.g., nitrate, nitrite, ammonia) and
the parameter TKN were generally not significantly elevated; except for in fish hold and
fish hold cleaning effluents. Concentrations of ammonia exceed the most stringent
recommended acute aquatic life criterion. Concentrations of TKN also exceeded the most
stringent screening value. TKN in fish hold and fish hold cleaning effluent were also
typical of concentrated raw sewage.
• Biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) and chemical oxygen demand (COD) were elevated
in bilgewater, deck washdown, fish hold, and graywater discharges. BOD and COD are
measures of oxygen-demanding substances present in the discharges (e.g., organic
matter) that can contribute to hypoxia (low dissolved oxygen) in receiving waters.
Average BOD concentrations were highest in fish hold effluents (as high as 25 times the
concentrations in raw sewage), followed by graywater and then bilgewater and deck
washdown water. The BOD levels in fish hold effluent and graywater are comparable to
BOD concentrations in raw sewage. Fish hold effluent also has a relatively high
discharge volume, so this discharge can contribute a significant BOD/COD loading to
receiving waters, particularly when multiple vessels discharge at the sample location
(e.g., pierside at a fish processing facility). Hence, depending upon receiving water
characteristics, BOD and COD from fish hold effluent may significantly impact the local
environment and contribute to water quality exceedances in receiving waters.
• Pathogen indicators, E. coli, enterococci, and fecal coliforms, were also found in elevated
concentrations in bilgewater, deck washdown, fish hold, and graywater discharges. These
three types of bacteria are all found in animal digestive tracts. Epidemiological studies
suggest a link between high concentrations of E. coli and enterococci in ambient waters
and incidents of gastrointestinal illnesses associated with swimming. Accordingly, they
are used as indicators of the possible presence of intestinal pathogens. The highest
concentrations by far of all three pathogen indicators were found in graywater, with
PHQs of around 1,000 for all three bacteria. The estimated discharge volume of
graywater from study vessels, however, is relatively small (130 gpd maximum). Larger
5-8
-------
Proposed Draft
vessels with additional crew or passengers are expected to generate considerably more
graywater (see EPA's Cruise Ship Discharge Assessment Report, USEPA, 2008c). Fish
hold effluent contained the second highest concentrations of these pathogen indicators
and may pose a potential level of risk considering the relatively high volume of this
discharge and possible discharge by multiple vessels in the same location. However, EPA
notes that most of the pathogen concentrations in fish hold effluent were similar to
ambient water concentrations, and this study is inconclusive as to whether fish hold
effluent results in additional discharge of pathogen indicators4.
• The semivolatile organic compound bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate was found in elevated
concentrations in bilgewater, stern tube packing gland, deck washdown, and inboard
engine discharges. The highest PHQ of 59 for bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate was found in a
bilgewater discharge sample. Even though bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate was found at
elevated concentrations in multiple discharges, the overall frequency of detection was
low and generally detected at concentrations just slightly above the benchmark. This
compound is a plasticizer that is added to an ever-increasing variety of plastics to provide
flexibility and is the most common phthalate in the environment. Although no conclusive
evidence exists demonstrating bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate affects humans, high
concentrations have been shown to feminize males of other species. Bis(2-ethylhexyl)
phthalate was not analyzed for in fish hold or graywater discharge samples.
• Benzene was the only volatile organic compound found with any frequency at
concentrations above, but generally close to, the PHQ benchmark. Benzene is a known
carcinogen that is a common constituent of fuel. Benzene can also be formed as a product
of incomplete combustion of fuel. Elevated concentrations of benzene were detected in a
bilgewater sample and in samples from both outboard engine and generator engine
discharges.
• Long- and short-chain nonylphenols were detected in bilgewater, stern tube/packing
gland, deck washdown, and graywater discharges. Nonylphenols were not analyzed for in
samples of the remaining discharge types.
Nonylphenols are manmade organic compounds that are used in a wide variety of
applications, such as the detergent manufacturing, because of their surfactant properties.
4 Fish hold water may also serve as a potential pathway for the spread of aquatic nuisance species (ANS). This might
occur where fish and water are taken onboard in one place and then transported significant distances for sale or
unloading and the water is discharged. Organisms discharged with the water may include parasites and commensals
taken in with fish, as well as organisms taken in with water used for refrigerated seawater. EPA did not study the
potential for these discharges to transport ANS; however, the Agency is identifying this as a potential area of
concern that may warrant further research.
5-9
-------
Proposed Draft
Nonylphenols are synthetic estrogens, which means they can mimic the natural vertebrate
hormone estrogen and evoke an estrogen-like response. An example of such a response is
the disruption of male sexual development, causing female characteristics to emerge.
Commercial nonylphenol is most accurately described by CAS number 84852-15-3
(phenol, 4-nonyl-branched), but CAS numbers 104-40-5 (phenol, 4-nonyl-) and 25154-
52-3 (phenol, nonyl) have also been used to describe these compounds. The commercial
nonylphenol mixtures tested that correspond with EPA's criteria are those with CAS
numbers 84852-15-3 and 25154-52-3. The analyte category named "total nonylphenol" in
the database generated for this study is directly equivalent to the commercial mixture of
nonylphenol isomers specified under CAS Number 84852-15-3, and thus is directly
comparable to the NRWQC.
Total nonlyphenol (or NP) was not detected, except in one bilgewater sample with a PHQ
of 4. Long-chain nonylphenols were detected with far greater frequency, but these longer
chain compounds are more water soluble and less toxic than NP. The long-chain
nonylphenols will all degrade into NP over time; however, research is ongoing with
regard to proportion and duration of the conversion.
Table 5.1 summarizes the major findings discussed above.
5-10
-------
Table 5.1. Analytes of Potential Risk by Discharge1
Analyte Group''
Discharge Type
IS
y
5)
o
o
— 0) (A
>
o
1/1
«
V
u>
IS
o
(Volume/vessel)
_ ¦_ u
™ +* r-
ro ro =
IS
o
+*
V
0
i/i
IS c
«
0)
Comments
o
CJ
«o.20
— > C Q.
¦2 E o) £
o 0) i- o
is
V
&
IS
V
ro
.y is
o o
S
s
o
O 0.
z
z
Bilgewater
enterococci
Benzene
Copper
Arsenic
HEM
Sulfide
Total
Long-and
Tour and tow/salvage
(2 to hundreds
(detected in
(Detected in
(detected in all of
(detected in
(detected in
(detected in only 2
phosphorus
short-
boats (utility boats) tended
of gpd; average
only sample
4 of 7
7 samples; PHQ
all of 7
all of 7
samples; PHQ as high as
(elevated in 3 of
chain
to have highest
between 10 and
collected -
samples-
up to 113 - tour
samples;
samples; only
210)
5 samples;
(NP in
concentrations of metals
15 gpd)
shrimping
highest PHQ
boat)
PHQs 72 to
one sample
highest
single
and VOCs/SVOCs
boat;
= 187;
1,790)
where PHQ
TRC
PHQ=130 -
sample-
PHQ=124)
towboat)
Bis(2-
ethylhexyl)
phthalate
(detected in 4
of 7 samples
- non-fishing
vessels only;
PHQs up to
59)
Cadmium
(detected in only
1 sample; PHQ
value of 40 -
tour boat.
exceeds
factor of 2 -
conc. = 44
mg/L)
(highest conc. 0.16 mg/L,
tour boat; PHQ = 21)
BOD/COD
(elevated in 3 of 5
samples; conc. roughly
equivalent to raw
sewage)
longliner fishing
boat)
shrimping
boat; PHQ
= 4)
Stern tube
NA
Bis(2-
Nickel
Aluminum
TSS
HEM detected at a max
packing gland
ethylhexyl)
(detected in 6 of
(detected in
(detected in all of 9
conc. = 67 mg/L; max SGT
effluent
phthalate
9 samples;
all of 9
samples - max conc. =
HEM = 56 mg/L-PHQs
(from 4 to 8 gpd)
(detected in 3
of 9 samples
- max. conc.
= 24 |jg/L;
PHQ = 20)
PHQs in 4
samples from 13
to 126)
Copper
(detected in 4 of
9 samples;
PHQs from 5 to
30)
samples;
PHQs in 2
samples from
27 to 74)
270 mg/L; PHQ = 9)
BOD
(detected in all of 9
samples - max conc. =
18 mg/L; PHQ only 1.2)
approx. 4, respectively.
No nonylphenol detected,
only longer chain
octylphenol
polyethoxylates (OPEOs)
indicative of contamination
from lubricants.
Deck
Fecal
Copper
Arsenic
HEM
BOD and COD
Total
Concentrations of many
washdown
coliform,
(detected in 29
(detected in
(detected in
(detected in 29 of 31
phosphorus
dissolved metals in so-
and/or runoff
enterococci
of 31 samples -
23 of 31
26 of 29
BOD samples- all COD
(detected in all of
called "utility" or non-fishing
(from 10 to 15
E. coli
PHQs from 2 to
samples;
samples -
samples; concentrations
31 samples;
vessels statistically higher
gpd utility; 750
(detected in
65; highest for
conc. from 4
only 3
roughly equivalent to raw
PHQ as high as
compared with fishing
to 900 gpd
all of 5
utility vessels)
to 83 |jg/L -
samples with
sewage- all vessel types)
220 in a tugboat)
vessels.
-------
Table 5.1 Analytes of Potential Risk by Discharge1
Analyte Group''
Discharge Type
re
u
0) (A
0)
>
o
u>
«
V
u>
re
o
(Volume/vessel)
o
o
7
TO
~ e
TO ™
fZ
o
V
k.
O
u>
re "c
«
0)
Comments
o
O
0>
TO
A
Semivo
Organic
Compoi
t/t
IZ
V
s
re
TO
re
w -S
v> ^
n
0)
4—>
>
Pi
1
u
>
o
— u
O 0.
Z
z
fishing)
samples
PHQs from
PHQ >2.
collected -
Zinc
200 to 4,000
Range of
TSS
Elevated concentrations of
fishing
(detected in all of
because very
concentration
(detected in all of 32
total arsenic, aluminum
vessels
31 samples -
low NRWQC)
s 1.1 to a max
samples- PHQs
and iron strongly
only.
67% of PHQs
of 133 mg/L in
between 1 and 17; max.
influenced by surrounding
Concent rati
between 1 and
Aluminum
a tugboat)
concentrations in non-
ambient water
ons of fecal
10. Max. conc. of
(detected in
fishing vessels)
concentrations.
coliform
1,200 |jg/L in
30 of 31
SGTHEM
highest in
tugboat; PHQ =
samples-
(detected in
TRC
TOC detected in all of 25
samples;
14)
PHQs
22 of 29
(detected in 7 of 31
samples at concentrations
PHQs as
between 7.5
samples -
samples - PHQs between
from a low of 3.5 to a very
high as 40)
Lead
(detected in 15
of 31 samples -
PHQs in 2
samples from 10
to 21)
Cadmium
(detected in 2 of
31 samples -
max. conc. = 22
|jg/L in tow boat;
PHQ = 90)
and 150. Max.
conc. of
13,000 |jg/L in
tugboat)
Iron
(detected in
18 of 19
samples-
PHQs
between 3.1
and 48. Max.
conc. of
14,500 |jg/L in
tugboat)
only 1 sample
with PHQ > 2.
Range of
concentration
0.91 to a max
of 84 mg/L in
a tugboat)
23 and 100. Max. conc.
of 0.8 mg/L in fish trolling
boat
high 350 mg/L (tugboat).
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)-phthalate
detected in only 1 sample
(PHQ = 5.6).
Only 3 of 29 vessels
sampled had detectable
concentrations of NPEOs
of the shortest chain
(NP3EO) indicative of
detergents; concentrations
ranging from 0.80 to 29
|jg/L.
Fish hold/
NA
Copper
Arsenic
BOD and COD
Ammonia
NA
Level of detection of all
Fish hold
(detected in 23
(detected in
(detected in 24 of 26
(detected in 25
analytes similar in fish hold
cleaning
of 26 samples -
16 of 26
BOD samples- all COD
of 26 samples;
cleaning effluent, although
effluent -
PHQs from 1 to
samples;
samples; median
conc. from 0.087
concentrations somewhat
Fishing vessels
300. Max. conc.
conc. from 3.1
concentrations of BOD
to 160 |jg/L -
reduced.
only
of 921 |jg/L in
to 380 |jg/L -
and COD were 440 and
PHQ at max
(few hundred to
shrimper)
PHQs from
940 mg/L with max of
conc. = 133)
HEM detected at a max
several
170 to 21,000
5,100 and 8,700 mg/L
conc. = 16 mg/L; PHQ = 1.
thousand gpd
because very
equivalent to sewage
TKN
5-12
-------
Table 5.1 Analytes of Potential Risk by Discharge1
Analyte Group''
Discharge Type
(A
TO
U
0) (A
0)
>
o
u>
«
0)
0)
o
u>
(B c
u>
4—>
Comments
o
u
TO
o
o .g o
> c ^
e " C
E o) =
0) »- o
tft
IS
V
(A
TO
4—>
0)
TO
^
5 O
0)
4—>
>
o
>
CO O o
o
O Q.
Z
z
based on fishing
low NRWQC)
sludge)
(detected in 25
vessel type and
of 26 samples;
platform)
Sulfide
(detected in 7 of 25
samples- PHQs
between 5 and 80; max.
concentrations = 0.16
mg/L in fish trawler)
TSS
(detected in all of 26
samples- PHQs of 4
samples between 17 and
37)
DO
(hypoxic, i.e., < 2.0 mg/L
in 3 of 26 samples - all
purse seiners)
values indicative
of strong
sewage)
Total
phosphorus
(detected in 25
of 26 samples -
all but 3 samples
resulting in
PHQs above 10;
highest
PHQ=760)
Graywater
E. coli,
NA
Copper
Arsenic
HEM
Sulfide
Total
Only 1 of 8 vessels
(tugs - 130 gpd;
Fecal
(detected in all of
(detected in
(detected in
(detected in 5 of 8
phosphorus
sampled had detectable
taxis - 75 gpd;
coliform,
8 samples -
only 2 of 8
all of 8
samples- PHQs
(detected in 8 of
concentrations of NPEOs
fishing - a few to
enterococci
PHQs from 1.7
samples -
samples - 4
between 4.8 and 370;
8 samples - all
of the shortest chain
few hundred
(detected in
to 90. Max. conc.
max. conc. =
samples with
max. concentration =
but 3 PHQs
(NP3EO) indicative of
gpd)
7 of 8
of 280 |jg/L in
2.9 |jg/L in
PHQ 2 or
0.73 mg/L in tugboat)
above 10;
detergents; concentration
samples
tugboat)
sample from
more. Range
highest PHQ=34)
of 0.99 |jg/L.
collected -
shrimping
of
BOD and
concent ratio
Zinc
boat; PHQ =
concentration
COD
ns of fecal
(detected in all of
161)
9.4 to a max
(detected in all of 8
coliform
8 samples - max.
of 100 mg/L
samples; median
generally
conc. = 1,500
all from
concentration of BOD
highest in
|jg/L in sink
tugboats)
and COD were 260 and
mixed
water from a
440 mg/L, respectively
shower/sink
water taxi; PHQ
SGTHEM
with max of 1,200 and
samples;
= 19)
(detected in 6
4,000 mg/L indicative of
PHQs as
of 8 samples
strong sewage)
5-13
-------
Table 5.1 Analytes of Potential Risk by Discharge1
Analyte Group''
Discharge Type
(Volume/vessel)
Microbiologicals
Volatile and
Semivolatile
Organic
Compounds
Metals (dissolved)
Metals (total)
Oil and Grease
Classical
Pollutants
Nutrients
Nonylphenols'
Comments
high as
1,000)
- only 1
sample with
PHQ >2.
Range of
concentration
1.3 to a max
of 35 mg/L
from a
tugboat)
Propulsion
Engine Effluent
- inboard
(20 gpm - high
power)
NA
PAHs
(6 probable
carcinogenic
PAHs
detected in
sample from
a recreational
vessel with a
gasoline
engine. Most
concentration
result in
PHQs >
1,000)
Copper
(detected in 12
of 13 samples-
PHQs from 3
samples from 11
to 17. Max. conc.
of 53 |jg/L in
sample from
water taxi at idle)
Temperature
(high idle only;
temperature increases of
up to 20°C)
NA
NA
Note: Though the
recreational vessel with the
gasoline engine is not a
"study vessel", it
represents EPA's only
samples from a gasoline
engine. EPA assumes
gasoline engines from
similarly designed study
vessels would have similar
characteristics.
Propulsion
Engine Effluent
- outboard
(1 to 2 gpm)
NA
Benzene
(detected in 6
of 6 samples
- only one
sample with a
PHQ above
10; value of
28 based on
a max. conc.
of 62 |jg/L in
sample from
research
vessel
Selenium
(detected in all of
6 samples -
PHQs in 4
samples from 6.2
to 26. Max. conc.
of 130 |jg/L from
tow/salvage
vessel)
Arsenic
(detected in
all of 6
samples;
conc. from 1
to 41 |jg/L -
PHQs from 56
to 2,300)
NA
NA
5-14
-------
Table 5.1 Analytes of Potential Risk by Discharge1
Analyte Group''
Discharge Type
(Volume/vessel)
Microbiologicals
Volatile and
Semivolatile
Organic
Compounds
Metals (dissolved)
Metals (total)
Oil and Grease
Classical
Pollutants
Nutrients
Nonylphenols'
Comments
averaged
from variable
speeds)
Engine Effluent
Generator
(5 to 25 gpm)
NA
Benzene
(detected in 3
of 5 samples
- only one
sample with a
PHQ
approaching
10; value of 9
based on a
max. conc. of
21 |jg/L in
sample from
a fire boat)
NA
NA
Firemain
Systems
(no volume
estimated- used
infrequently)
NA
Copper
(detected in 4 of
6 samples -
PHQs from 3.8
to 23; highest for
a tour boat)
NA
NA
Notes:
(1) Generally includes analytes when a large proportion of the samples have concentrations exceeding the NRWQC, when several of the samples have PHQs > 10, when a few
samples result in PHQs greatly exceeding the screening benchmark (i.e., 100s to 1,000s), or, in the case of oil and grease and for nonylphenol, when one or more samples exceed an
existing regulatory limit by more than a factor of 2. See text above and in Section 3.1.3 for a definition of PHQs and Table 3.1 for screening benchmarks used to calculate these values.
(2) Longer chain nonylphenols degrade to shorter chained nonylphenols under aerobic conditions. In general, the shorter the chain, the more hydrophobic, persistent, and toxic the
substance becomes. 4-Nonylphenol (NP) is a shorter-chain nonylphenol that has been found in surface water and is toxic to aquatic life. NP is formed from the longer chain
nonylphenols as they break down. The time span from time of use on the vessel to time of sampling of the discharge was probably not long enough for this to occur, except for
discharges of bilgewater.
gpm = gallons per minute
gpd = gallons per day
NA - Not applicable; discharge not analyzed for this analyte group.
5-15
-------
5.3 Summary of Predicted Impacts from Select Pollutants in Study
Vessel Discharges
5.3.1 Potential Watershed-Wide Impacts from Study Vessels
Using estimated discharge volumes and average pollutant concentrations, EPA evaluated
the potential for cumulative effects of the discharges from an assemblage of study vessels on a
large hypothetical harbor. The evaluation used a screening-level water quality model to estimate
the pollutant concentration into several hypothetical harbors based on different scenarios of
vessel groups. Model assumptions included instantaneous and universal dilution of vessel
discharges in the harbor and a background concentration of zero for all analytes in the harbor
environment (i.e., the model is not able to evaluate whether vessel discharges are likely to cause
environmental or human health impacts in the immediate vicinity of the vessel discharges or in
small water bodies). Instead, the model can only analyze potential vessel loadings to and impacts
on hypothetical large water bodies. Furthermore, the model is not able to analyze parameters that
do not have numeric aquatic life or human health based criteria such as BOD or nutrients.
The model did not predict that discharges from the study vessels solely exceeded aquatic
life or human health NRWQC for any of the hypothetical harbor scenarios evaluated. This is
primarily due to the large dilution predicted in these large harbors (even with low flushing).
However, some of these pollutants from these vessels could reasonably have more significant
local impacts (although determining this is outside the scope of the model used in this study). In
smaller water bodies with many vessels or in more confined areas of a harbor with little to no
flushing, EPA believes study vessel discharges have the potential to cause or contribute to
exceedances of NRWQC in receiving waters.
Under the low-dilution scenarios, dissolved copper and total arsenic discharges represent
the greatest environmental concern and are more likely than other pollutants to contribute to
exceedances of water quality standards, particularly if there are other sources of these pollutants
(e.g., stormwater runoff) present. These results are summarized below.
Dissolved Copper
EPA determined that the loading rates of dissolved copper from a metropolitan harbor
likely posed the greatest potential risk to human health and aquatic life from study vessels on a
large scale. Compared to other types of harbors, a metropolitan harbor has a higher level of
activity from its vessel population and has more support utility vessels such as supply boats,
tow/salvage vessels, and tugboats. The model predicted that discharges from study vessels have
the reasonable potential to contribute a significant load of dissolved copper to a water body.
Furthermore, when considering the loadings of dissolved copper from other sources (e.g.,
recreational vessels, large commercial vessels, stormwater runoff, and industrial and municipal
5-16
-------
point sources), the model results suggest a reasonable potential for the concentrations of
dissolved copper to exceed the NRWQC in this type of harbor.
The results of this study are consistent with real-world observations that metals are
frequently associated with vessel discharges in concentrations of potential environmental
concern. Environmental impacts from dissolved copper leaching from antifouling hull coatings
have been well documented in low-flushing environments in harbors with large numbers of
recreational vessels, such as the Shelter Island Yacht Basin near San Diego, California, and
Marina Del Rey Harbor in Los Angeles, California (see Section 3.3.8.1 of this report). The
impacts from the high levels of dissolved copper include reduced primary production and
productivity; accumulation of copper in sediments, reducing sediment quality; and chronic low-
level toxicity to aquatic organisms, especially sensitive mollusks, crustaceans, and echinoderms.
Total Arsenic
EPA determined that the loading rates of total arsenic (and to a certain extent, dissolved
arsenic) may pose a potential risk to human health and the environment in low-dilution or low-
flushing environments. Arsenic was found to be ubiquitous in this study, both in vessel
discharges and in ambient water. Although arsenic concentrations in ambient water can be quite
high in select harbors, certain discharges from study vessels contribute to the overall arsenic
load. While the source of total arsenic in vessel discharges is unknown, EPA suspects that
atmospheric deposition contributes to total arsenic concentrations in deck washdown and
possibly in bilgewater. Total arsenic in fish hold discharges may be biological in origin (from
seafood catch) or from sediment entrained in the catch. The biological contribution of arsenic
may be significant in that total arsenic concentrations are substantially greater in seawater
organisms than in freshwater organisms (Francesconi and Kuehnelt, 2002; USEPA 2003b).
The greatest impact of high total arsenic in harbors is primarily via the food chain and
subsequent bioaccumulation to high levels in seafood consumed by humans. Arsenic exposure
through drinking water is also of concern where receiving water is used as a source for drinking
water. Arsenic is strongly linked to cancer in humans and a potent inhibitor of certain enzymes in
vertebrates.
5.3.2 Potential Localized or Near-Field Impacts of Vessel Discharges to Receiving
Waters
EPA found that some study vessel incidental discharges may pose an environmental
threat in confined water bodies with low flushing rates and a large population of vessels, in water
bodies that are hypoxic or hypereutrophic, and/or where the background concentrations or other
sources of these pollutants are significant. In addition to the parameters (copper and arsenic)
discussed in Section 5.3.1, the following classical pollutants may likely exhibit near-field effects.
5-17
-------
BOD and COD
In general, oxygen-demanding compounds in vessels discharges (measured as BOD and
COD) are expected to pose little risk to the environment due to the relatively low volume of
vessel discharges that contain these pollutants. However, the frequency and magnitude of BOD
and COD in certain discharges (as much as 25 times the concentrations found in raw sewage)
warrant additional discussion.
Specifically, the relatively high BOD and COD concentrations in fish hold and fish hold
cleaning effluent could pose a localized water quality impact in areas such as small side
embayments where flushing rates are low or where portions of the water body are already low in
dissolved oxygen. The high levels of BOD result from the degradation of organic material and its
by-products in the fish hold. Higher volume discharges with high BOD concentrations (e.g.,
certain fish hold effluent) may contribute to localized hypoxic conditions in receiving waters,
depending on the volume of effluent discharged, the number of vessels discharging in confined
areas, and other factors such as season and water temperature.
Pathogen Indicators
Bacteria such as E. coli, enterococci, and fecal coliforms are generally of limited concern
for most discharges where the pathogens were present (i.e., bilgewater, deck washdown, and fish
hold discharges). However, high levels of pathogens in graywater (and potentially other
discharge types) may pose some risk to human health and larger vessels with additional crew or
passengers are expected to generate considerably more graywater than smaller vessels. However,
looked at on a relative basis, the risk from pathogens in graywater is substantially lower than
risks from other sources that cause very high concentrations of pathogen indicators in
surrounding ambient water. For example, during sampling for this study in Massachusetts that
took place in wet weather, a sanitary sewer overflow and a combined sewer overflow caused
extremely high pathogen indicator counts in two different harbors, relative to what would be
expected from graywater discharges from study vessels.
Total Phosphorus
Nutrients in vessel discharges are generally expected to pose little risk to the
environment. However, the frequency and magnitude of total phosphorus in certain discharges
warrants some additional discussion.
The environmental effects of nutrients are driven by site-specific environmental
conditions (e.g., receiving water temperature, types of algae present, and limiting nutrient
conditions). For example, nutrients in vessel discharges may contribute to an environmental
effect in one water body, but not another depending on a variety of environmental conditions that
control eutrophication (excess productivity in a water body). While EPA has not developed
5-18
-------
NRWQC for total phosphorus and other nutrients in coastal waters, some states have established
water-body-specific or state-wide standards for nutrients based on site-specific evaluations.
As mentioned above, the water quality impact of concern for total phosphorus is
eutrophication. The first indications of potential problems are the increased ambient levels of
total phosphorus, often followed by an immediate increase in the density (biomass) of the
planktonic algal community. This increased algal biomass usually blocks light and reduces water
clarity and may contribute to nuisance algal blooms and declining dissolved oxygen. Of note in
this study was that the mean total phosphorus concentration in the 15 ambient water samples
collected was two times the screening benchmark, suggesting that the incremental effect of
discharges from study vessels may be small.
5.4 Possible Benefits to Human Health, Welfare, and the
Environment from Reducing, Eliminating, Controlling, or
Mitigating One or More of the Discharges from the Study
Vessels
Some vessel discharges from commercial fishing vessels and commercial vessels less
than 79 feet in length may have the potential to impact the aquatic environment and/or human
health. As noted above, using the results obtained in this study, EPA modeled a hypothetical
large harbor to evaluate the potential water quality impacts caused by the nine vessel discharge
types EPA sampled. Based on this evaluation, EPA determined that the incidental discharges
from study vessels to a relatively large water body are not likely to solely cause an exceedance of
any NRWQC (i.e., these discharges are unlikely to pose acute or chronic excursions of the
NRWQC across an entire large water body). However, many of the pollutants in the vessel
discharges were at end-of-pipe concentrations that exceeded an NRWQC, and therefore have the
potential to contribute to an exceedance of water quality standards at a more localized scale. The
study results indicate that total arsenic and dissolved copper are the most significant water
quality concern for the study vessels as a whole. These pollutants are more likely than other
pollutants to contribute to exceedances of water quality standards, particularly if there are other
sources of pollutants or the receiving water already has high background concentrations.
5-19
-------
Gloucester Harbor faces many environmental stressors including Combined Sewer
Overflows and Urban Stormwater Runoff. For most pollutants, the impact of these sources
may be more significant than from study vessels. However, some pollutants, such as copper
or BOD are discharged in notable quantities from certain study vessel discharges.
Like an individual house in an urban watershed, most individual vessels have only a
minimal environmental impact. However, the impacts caused by these vessels is potentially
significant where there are high vessel concentrations, low circulation in waters, additional
environmental stressors, or pollutant loadings from other sources (e.g., recreational vessels, large
commercial vessels, stormwater runoff, and industrial and municipal point sources). Reducing
certain discharges or certain pollutants in discharges from these vessels in sensitive waters may
result in significant environmental benefits to those waters; however, EPA did not analyze the
feasibility or cost of managing these discharges as part of this study.
5-20
-------
Proposed Draft
CHAPTER 6
ANALYSIS OF THE EXTENT TO WHICH INCIDENTAL
DISCHARGES ARE CURRENTLY SUBJECT TO REGULATION
UNDER FEDERAL LAW OR A BINDING INTERNATIONAL
OBLIGATION OF THE UNITED STATES
As discussed in Chapter 1, Congress directed EPA, in consultation with the U.S. Coast
Guard and other interested federal agencies, to conduct a study of discharges incidental to the
normal operation of all fishing vessels and nonrecreational vessels less than 79 feet in length
(study vessels). Among other things, the study's charge directed EPA to include an "analysis of
the extent to which the discharges are currently subject to regulation under federal law or a
binding international obligation of the United States" (Public Law (P.L.) 110-299 § 3(b)(6)).
This chapter and accompanying tables present that analysis. Note, however, that as discussed in
Chapter 1, this chapter includes some discussion of treaties and statutes that pertain to nonstudy
vessels for information purposes. In accordance with P.L. 110-299, this study does not include
significant discussion about discharges of sewage or ballast water.1
This chapter is organized into four sections. Section 6.1 offers brief overviews of the
international obligations addressing vessel discharges, while Section 6.2 summarizes applicable
federal statutes and regulations. Section 6.3 includes a brief overview of other international and
federal laws that do not directly regulate discharges incidental to the normal operation of a
vessel, but which the Agency felt merited some discussion. Finally, Section 6.4 provides tables
identifying which applicable laws apply to specific incidental discharges.
6.1 International Agreements
6.1.1 The International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL
73/78)
The International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973, as
modified by the Protocol of 1978 (MARPOL 73/78), is the primary international instrument for
regulating and preventing pollution from vessels. A total of 150 countries are Parties to
1 As of the writing of this report, ballast water discharges are regulated by the U.S. Coast Guard under the National
Invasive Species Act of 1996 (NISA), by EPA under Section 402 of the Clean Water Act, and by several states
under state law. NISA is discussed briefly in this analysis to the extent that it addresses invasive species from
sources other than ballast water. Furthermore, the International Convention for the Control and Management of
Ships' Ballast Water and Sediments (BWM Convention), adopted by the International Maritime Organization (IMO)
in 2004, establishes ballast water discharge standards. The Convention has not yet attracted the requisite number of
Parties necessary for its entry into force. For further discussion, see Standards for Living Organisms in Ships'
Ballast Water Discharged in U.S. Waters (74 FR 44,631 (Aug. 28, 2009)).
6-1
-------
Proposed Draft
MARPOL. MARPOL includes six annexes, covering six categories of vessel discharges: oil
(Annex I), noxious liquid substances (Annex II), harmful packaged substances (Annex III),
sewage (Annex IV), garbage (Annex V), and air emissions (Annex VI).
Before entering into force, the Convention required ratification by 15 member states, with
a combined merchant fleet of not less than 50 percent of the total world shipping fleet, measured
by gross tonnage. To ratify the convention, member states are required to ratify only Annexes I
and II; the remaining annexes are optional. The United States has ratified Annexes I, II, III, V,
and VI (the United States has not ratified Annex IV, which regulates sewage discharges from
ships; the United States regulates sewage under Section 312 of the Clean Water Act, which is
discussed in Section 6.2, Federal Laws).
In the United States, MARPOL is primarily implemented through the Act to Prevent
Pollution from Ships (APPS), 33 U.S.C. §§ 1901-1915. APPS implements Annexes I, II, V, and
VI. Annex III of MARPOL is implemented through the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act,
49 U.S.C. § 5101 etseq. These implementing statutes are discussed in depth in Section 6.2,
Federal Laws.
6.1.1.1 MARPOL Annex I: Prevention of Pollution by Oil
MARPOL Annex I establishes requirements for the control of oil pollution from vessels.
As previously discussed in this report, small to large amounts of oil can be found in numerous
vessel discharges, including bilgewater, deck runoff, and engine effluent. The requirements of
this Annex apply to all ships operating in the marine environment, unless expressly provided
otherwise.
Every oil tanker of 150 gt and above and every other ship of 400 gt and above is required
to undergo a series of surveys to ensure that the ship's structure, equipment, systems, fittings,
arrangements, and material are in full compliance with all applicable Annex I requirements and
do not pose "an unreasonable threat of harm to the marine environment" (Annex I, Regulations
6.1 and 6.4.1). The surveys are required before the ship is put in service (or before an
International Oil Pollution Prevention Certificate [IOPP Certificate], explained below, is issued
for the first time); for IOPP Certificate renewal purposes; at certain intervals surrounding the
anniversary date of the ship's IOPP Certificate; and after certain repairs or renewals are
completed (Annex I, Regulation 6).
Oil tankers of 150 gt and above and ships of 400 gt and above that travel to ports or
offshore terminals under the jurisdiction of other Parties to Annex I are required to have an IOPP
Certificate, which indicates completion of and compliance with Annex I's inspection
requirements. These certificates are issued or endorsed by the government of the state, or any
persons or organizations authorized by it, under whose authority the ship is operating (Annex I,
6-2
-------
Proposed Draft
Regulation 7). The IOPP Certificate shall not be issued for a time period exceeding five years,
subject to various survey provisions contained in the Annex (Annex I, Regulation 10).
Annex I prohibits the discharge of oil or oily mixtures into the sea, except under the
following circumstances:
• Ships of 400 gt and above, whether inside or outside a special area where:
o The ship is proceeding en route.
o The oily mixture is processed through area-appropriate oil filtering equipment
(under Regulation 14).
o The oil content of the effluent without dilution does not exceed 15 parts per
million (ppm).
o The oily mixture does not originate from cargo pump-room bilges on oil tankers,
o The oily mixture, in case of oil tankers, is not mixed with oil cargo residues.
• Ships of less than 400 gt, whether inside or outside a special area where:
o The ship is proceeding en route.
o The ship has in operation equipment of a design approved by the government
under whose authority the ship is operating, that ensures that the oil content of the
effluent without dilution does not exceed 15 ppm.
o The oily mixture does not originate from cargo pump-room bilges on oil tankers,
o The oily mixture, in the case of oil tankers, is not mixed with oil cargo residues
(Annex 1, Regulation 15).
• Discharges of oil or oily mixtures from cargo areas of oil tankers outside special areas
where:
o The tanker is more than 50 nautical miles from the nearest land.
o The tanker is proceeding en route.
o The instantaneous rate of discharge of oil content does not exceed 30 liters per
nautical mile.
o For tankers delivered on or before December 31, 1979, the total quantity of oil
discharged into the sea does not exceed 1/15,000 of the total quantity of the
particular cargo of which the residue formed a part, or for tankers delivered after
December 31, 1979, 1/30,000 of the total quantity of the particular cargo of which
the residue formed a part.
o The tanker has in operation an oil discharge monitoring and control system and a
slop tank arrangement (under Regulations 29 and 31). (Annex 1, Regulation 34).
Discharges of oil or oily mixtures from the cargo area of an oil tanker while in a special
area are prohibited (Annex 1, Regulation 34).
Discharging oil or oily mixtures from any ship in the Antarctic area is expressly
prohibited. No discharge into the sea may contain substances in quantities or concentrations that
are hazardous to the marine environment or substances introduced for the purpose of
circumventing the conditions of discharge specified in Annex 1 (Annex 1, Regulation 15).
6-3
-------
Proposed Draft
The prohibition against the discharge of oil and oily mixtures does not apply where the
discharge is necessary for the purpose of securing the safety of a ship or saving life at sea. The
prohibition also does not apply where the discharge resulted from damage to the ship or its
equipment, provided that all reasonable precautions were taken after the occurrence of the
damage or discovery of the discharge and the damage was not caused intentionally or recklessly
with knowledge that damage would probably result. Ships may discharge substances containing
oil when those substances are being used to combat specific pollution incidents in an effort to
minimize damage from the pollution, subject to relevant governments' approvals (Annex I,
Regulation 4).
Every oil tanker of 150 gt and above and every other ship of 400 gt and above must
maintain an Oil Record Book Part I.2 The Oil Record Book Part I must be completed whenever
any of the following machinery-space events occur: ballasting or cleaning of oil fuel tanks;
discharge of dirty ballast water or cleaning water from oil fuel tanks; collection and disposal of
oil residues; discharge overboard or disposal otherwise of bilgewater that has accumulated in
machinery spaces; bunkering of fuel or bulk lubricating oil; accidental or other exceptional
discharge of oil; and failure of oil filtering equipment. The Oil Record Book Part I must be
readily available for inspection. A Party to Annex I may request inspection of the Oil Record
Book Part I while any ship to which this Annex applies is in its port or offshore terminal and
require the master of the ship to certify that any copies made of the Oil Record Book Part I are
true. (Annex I, Regulation 17).
Oil tankers of 150 gt and above and all other ships of 400 gt and above must carry
onboard a shipboard oil pollution emergency plan approved by the government under whose
authority the tanker is operating. The plan must include the procedures for ship operators to
follow to report an oil pollution incident, the list of authorities or people to be contacted in the
event of an oil pollution incident, a detailed description of the actions to be taken immediately to
reduce the discharges of oil following an incident, and a contact onboard responsible for
coordinating with authorities to combat the pollution. This plan may be combined with the
emergency response plan required by MARPOL Annex II (discussed below). Oil tankers of
5,000 tons deadweight or more must have prompt access to computerized damage stability and
residual structural strength calculation programs (Annex I, Regulation 37).
Governments of Parties to Annex I must ensure that there are adequate reception facilities
for discharging oil and oily residues and comply with various requirements related thereto,
including capacity and location requirements (Annex I, Regulation 38).
2 Oil tankers must also maintain an Oil Record Book Part II (Annex I, Regulation 36).
6-4
-------
Proposed Draft
Although ballast water falls outside the scope of P L. 110-299, the Agency notes that
Annex I includes regulations governing ballast water. These regulations establish when ships
must have segregated ballast tanks and under what circumstances ballast water may be carried in
oil fuel tanks or cargo tanks (Annex I, Regulations 16 and 18).
In addition to the requirements discussed above, Annex I includes a number of
requirements applicable to oil tankers alone. Since oil tankers would not generally be expected to
be study vessels, EPA has omitted an in-depth discussion of these requirements, which include:
1. New-build protective cargo tank arrangements (including double-hull/double-bottom
requirements) for certain tankers (Annex I, Regulations 19-20).
2. Double-bottom pump-room requirements for oil tankers of 5,000 tons deadweight and
above constructed on or after January 1, 2007 (Annex I, Regulation 22).
3. Requirement that oil tankers delivered on or after January 1, 2010, be built in such a way
that if they are damaged, oil will not spill from them at a rate greater than MARPOL
allows (Annex I, Regulations 23-25).
4. Limitations on the size and arrangement of cargo tanks for oil tankers of 150 gt and
above, depending on delivery date (Annex I, Regulation 26).
5. Subdivision, damage stability, and intact stability criteria (Annex I, Regulations 27-28).
6. Cargo tank cleaning requirements, including requirements relating to slop tanks (Annex I,
Regulation 29).
7. Pumping, piping, and discharge arrangement regulations governing the discharge of dirty
ballast water or oil-contaminated water (Annex I, Regulation 30).
8. Oil discharge monitoring and control system requirements, including requirements for
effective government-approved oil/water interface detectors (Annex I, Regulations 31-
32).
Also outside the scope of this study, but worth noting, is that Annex I includes
requirements applicable to fixed or floating platforms. Specifically, fixed or floating platforms
must comply with the requirements of the Annex applicable to ships of 400 gt and above, other
than oil tankers, except that they shall be equipped only to the extent practicable relating to tanks
for oily residue and oil filtering equipment. Records involving oil or oily mixture discharges
must be kept in a form approved by the government under whose authority the vessel is
operating, and the discharge of oil or oily mixtures to the sea is prohibited except when the oil
content of the discharge without dilution does not exceed 15 ppm (Annex I, Regulation 39).
6-5
-------
Proposed Draft
6.1.1.2 MARPOL Annex II: Control of Pollution by Noxious Liquid Substances
in Bulk
MARPOL Annex II addresses pollution caused by "noxious liquid substances" (NLS)
carried in bulk. Substances regulated as NLS under MARPOL are categorized into four
categories3 based on their potential to cause harm:
• Category X: Substances that, if discharged into the sea, present a major
hazard to either marine resources or human health.
• Category Y: Substances that, if discharged into the sea, present a hazard to
either marine resources or human health or cause harm to
amenities or other legitimate uses of the sea.
• Category Z: Substances that, if discharged into the sea, will present a minor
hazard to either marine resources or human health.
• Other Substances: Substances that fall outside of categories X, Y, or Z because
they are considered to present no harm to marine resources,
human health, amenities, or other legitimate uses of the sea.
(Annex II, Regulation 6).
All ships certified to carry one or more of these substances in bulk must follow the
requirements established in Annex II unless the discharge is necessary for the purpose of
securing the safety of a ship or saving life at sea (Annex II, Regulations 2-3). The Annex's
requirements also do not apply where the discharge resulted from damage to the ship or its
equipment, provided that reasonable precautions were taken after the occurrence of the damage
or discovery of the discharge, and the damage was not caused intentionally or recklessly with
knowledge that damage would probably result. Discharges of other substances may also be
exempted from Annex II's requirements if they are government-approved (by both the
government under whose authority the ship is operating and any government in whose
jurisdiction the discharge will occur) and being used to combat specific pollution incidents in an
effort to minimize damage from the pollution (Annex II, Regulation 3). Regulation 4 of Annex II
provides for a number of other specific exemptions to the Annex's requirements.
Ships intending to carry NLS in bulk to other Parties to MARPOL must obtain an
International Pollution Prevention Certificate for the Carriage of Noxious Liquid Substances in
Bulk ("Certificate"). The Certificate records the results of the various inspections to which NLS-
carrying ships are subject. The government under which the ship is registered is typically
responsible for issuing the Certificate, using a form provided in Appendix 3 to Annex II (Annex
II, Regulation 9). Certificates are issued for a period of time not to exceed five years (Annex II,
Regulation 10).
3 This categorization scheme was developed when Annex II was revised; it entered into force in January 2007. The
United States Coast Guard's implementing regulations, discussed below, have not yet been revised to reflect this
new scheme.
6-6
-------
Proposed Draft
Prior to and at periodic intervals after a ship is issued a Certificate, it is subject to a
complete inspection of its structure, equipment, systems, fittings, arrangements, and materials to
ensure compliance with Annex II. The government of the country under whose authority a ship is
operating is responsible for having these inspections conducted. If a ship or its equipment is
found to not correspond substantially with the particulars of the Certificate, corrective action
must be taken. If corrective action is not taken, the ship's Certificate should be withdrawn.
Conformity with these MARPOL requirements is necessary to ensure that the ship does not pose
an unreasonable threat of harm to the marine environment (Annex II, Regulation 8).
Ships that are certified to carry NLS in bulk that are identified in chapter 17 of the
International Bulk Chemical Code must generally ensure that their design, construction,
equipment, and operation are in conformance with the requirements of that Code (Annex II,
Regulation 11).
Ships constructed prior to July 1, 1986, must have a pumping and piping arrangement
ensuring that each tank certified to carry substances in Category X or Y does not retain more
than 300 liters of residue in the tank and its associated piping. Each tank certified to carry
substances in Category Z must not retain more than 900 liters in the tank and its associated
piping (Annex II, Regulation 12(1)). Ships constructed on or after July 1, 1986, but before
January 1, 2007, must not retain residue greater than 100 liters for Category X or Y substances or
300 liters for Category Z substances in the tank and its associated piping (Annex II, Regulation
12(2)). Ships constructed after January 1, 2007, must not retain residue in a quantity greater than
75 liters in the tank or its associated piping for Category X, Y, or Z (Annex II, Regulation 12(3)).
Ships certified to carry Category X, Y, or Z substances, except ships constructed before
January 1, 2007, and certified to carry Category Z substances, must have at least one underwater
discharge outlet, which must be located within the cargo area in the vicinity of the turn of the
bilge and arranged to avoid the re-intake of residue/water mixtures by the ship's seawater
intakes. The residue/water mixture discharged into the sea must not pass through the ship's
boundary layer (Annex II, Regulation 12 (6)-(9)).
Ships are prohibited from discharging into the sea residues of Category X, Y, or Z
substances or ballast water, tank washings, or other mixtures containing these substances unless
the discharges fully comply with the applicable operational requirements of Annex II.
Specifically, 1) the ship must be proceeding en route at a speed of at least 7 knots in the case of
self-propelled ships or at least 4 knots for other ships, 2) the discharge must be made below the
waterline through the underwater discharge outlets at a rate not to exceed what the outlet was
designed for, and 3) the discharge must be made no less than 12 nautical miles from the nearest
land and in water not less that 25 meters deep (Annex II, Regulation 13(l)-(2)). For Category Z
substances on ships not required to have an underwater discharge outlet, the requirement that
discharges occur below the waterline does not apply. Annex II also sets out requirements for the
6-7
-------
Proposed Draft
discharge of NLS residues (Annex II, Regulation 13(6)—(7)). Any discharge of NLS or mixtures
into the Antarctic area is prohibited (Annex II, Regulation 13(8)).
Every ship certified to carry Category X, Y, or Z substances must have a government
approved Manual onboard. The Manual is meant to inform the ship's officers of the physical
arrangements and operational procedures necessary to comply with Annex II (Annex II,
Regulation 14). Ships must also carry with them a Cargo Record Book to record where NLS
substances were loaded and unloaded and the circumstances of the loading and unloading. If any
accidental or emergency discharges occur, those must also be recorded in the Cargo Record
Book (Annex II, Regulation 15).
Ships certified to carry NLS in bulk that weigh 150 gt or above must carry onboard a
marine pollution emergency plan for NLS. The plan must be government approved and must
include the procedures for ship operators to follow to report an NLS pollution incident, the list of
authorities and people to be contacted in the event of an NLS pollution incident, a detailed
description of the actions to be taken immediately to reduce the discharges of NLS following an
incident, and a contact onboard responsible for coordinating with authorities to combat the
pollution (Annex II, Regulation 17).
The Government of each Party to MARPOL must ensure that its ports and terminals have
adequate NLS reception facilities for the ships utilizing those ports and terminals to meet the
requirements of Annex II (Annex II, Regulation 18).
6.1.1.3 MARPOL Annex III: Prevention of Pollution by Harmful Substances
Carried by Sea in Packaged Form
MARPOL Annex III establishes requirements for preventing pollution caused by harmful
substances that are carried in packaged form. "Harmful substances" are defined as those
substances that are identified as marine pollutants in the International Maritime Dangerous
Goods Code (IMDG Code). "Packaged form" is defined as the forms of containment specified
for harmful substances in the IMDG Code (Annex III, Regulation 1(1)). Although the
requirements of this Annex do not directly regulate discharges incidental to the normal operation
of a vessel, they play a critical role in preventing harmful substances from entering into such
discharge streams.
Annex III prohibits the carriage of harmful substances from all ships unless the
requirements of the Annex are followed (Annex III, Regulation 1(2)). Empty packages that were
previously used to carry harmful substances and contain harmful residue are themselves
considered harmful substances and must be treated as such (Annex III, Regulation 1(4)).
Additionally, the Government of each Party to MARPOL is required to issue detailed
requirements on packing, marking, labeling, documentation, stowage, quantity limitations, and
6-8
-------
Proposed Draft
exceptions for preventing or minimizing pollution of the marine environment by harmful
substances (Annex III, Regulation 1(3)).
The Annex requires that packages containing harmful substances be adequate to
minimize the hazard to the marine environment, having regard to their specific contents (Annex
III, Regulation 2). They must be durably marked with the correct technical name (trade names
alone are prohibited), must indicate that the substance is a marine pollutant, and should be
supplemented where possible by other means (e.g., use of the relevant United Nations number).
The durability of both the package and the markings must be considered because the Annex
requires that the markings be able to withstand at least three months immersed in the sea (Annex
III, Regulation 3).
In all documents relating to the carriage of harmful substances at sea, the correct
technical name of each substance must be used, and the substance must be identified with the
words "MARINE POLLUTANT." The shipping documents provided by the shipper must be
accompanied by a signed certificate declaring that the shipment is properly packaged and marked
and in proper condition for carriage to minimize the hazard to the marine environment. Every
ship must keep, both onboard and onshore, a list or manifest detailing the harmful substances
onboard and where they are stowed (Annex III, Regulation 4).
Packages containing harmful substances must be stowed and secured so as to minimize
the hazards to the marine environment, without impairing the safety of the ship and the people
onboard (Annex III, Regulation 5). Some harmful substances may face restrictions, for sound
scientific and technical reasons, as to the quantity that can be carried onboard, and in some cases,
carrying them might be prohibited altogether. These determinations will take into account the
size, construction, and equipment of the ship, as well as the packaging and nature of the
substance (Annex III, Regulation 6).
Except where necessary to protect the ship or saving life at sea, the jettisoning of harmful
substances carried in packaged form is prohibited (Annex III, Regulation 7).
6.1.1.4 MARPOL Annex IV: Prevention of Pollution by Sewage from Ships
Annex IV of MARPOL establishes requirements for the prevention of pollution caused
by sewage from ships. The discussion of discharges of sewage from vessels was specifically
excluded from the scope of this study; therefore, the summary of this section is omitted. See P.L.
110-299, § 3(c)(2). It should also be noted that, as mentioned above, the United States is not a
party to Annex IV and is therefore not obligated to follow its requirements.
6.1.1.5 MARPOL Annex V: Prevention of Pollution by Garbage from Ships
Annex V of MARPOL regulates garbage pollution from ships. Under the Annex,
"Garbage" is defined as all kinds of victual, domestic, and operational waste (excluding fresh
6-9
-------
Proposed Draft
fish and fish parts) generated during the normal operation of the ship and liable to be disposed of
continuously or periodically (Annex V, Regulation 1(1)). Although the requirements of this
Annex do not directly regulate discharges subject to this report ("garbage" is not subject to the
former NPDES permit exclusion at 40 CFR 122.3(a)), they play a critical role in preventing
garbage from entering into and contaminating discharge streams subject to this report.
The Annex establishes different disposal requirements depending on the type of garbage
being disposed of. Disposal into the sea of dunnage—lining and packing materials that will
float—is prohibited if the ship is closer than 25 nautical miles from the nearest land. The
disposal of food wastes and all other garbage, including paper products, rags, glass, metal,
bottles, crockery, and similar refuse is prohibited less than 12 nautical miles from the nearest
land; however, it may be permitted if it has passed through a comminuter or grinder, is small
enough that it can pass through a screen with openings no greater than 25 mm, and is disposed of
as far as practicable from the nearest land (but no closer than 3 nautical miles). The disposal of
plastics, including but not limited to synthetic ropes, synthetic fishing nets, and plastic garbage
bags, is prohibited. Where garbage is mixed, the more stringent requirements will apply (Annex
V, Regulation 3). Additional special requirements are in place for discharges into certain defined
areas.4
None of the disposal regulations described above apply where: 1) the disposal was
necessary for the purpose of securing the safety of the ship or those onboard or saving life at sea;
2) the garbage escaped as the result of damage to the ship (provided all reasonable precautions
were taken before and after the incident to prevent or minimize the escape); or 3) disposal was
the result of an accidental loss of synthetic fishing nets (provided that all reasonable precautions
were taken to prevent the loss) (Annex V, Regulation 6).
The Parties to the Annex must ensure that ports and terminals have adequate facilities for
the reception of garbage (Annex V, Regulation 7).
Each ship 12 meters or more in length must display placards that notify those onboard of
the various disposal requirements. The placards must be written in the working language of the
ship's personnel and, for ships engaged in voyages to ports or offshore terminals under the
jurisdiction of other Parties to the Convention, shall also be in English, French, or Spanish
(Annex V, Regulation 9(1)).
Every ship 400 gt and above and every ship certified to carry 15 or more people must
carry a garbage management plan for the crew to follow. The plan must describe procedures for
4 For the purposes of Annex V, the special areas are the Mediterranean Sea area; the Baltic Sea area; the Black Sea
area; the Red Sea area; the "Gulfs" area; the North Sea area: the Antarctic area; and the wider Caribbean region,
including the Gulf of Mexico and the Caribbean Sea (although the rules have not entered into force with respect to
all of these areas yet). For the specific requirements, see Annex V, Regulation 5.
6-10
-------
Proposed Draft
collecting, storing, processing, and disposing of garbage, including the use of equipment
onboard. It must be written in the working language of the crew and identify the person in charge
of carrying out the plan (Annex V, Regulation 9(2)). Ships of this size or certification that travel
to ports or offshore terminals under the jurisdiction of other countries party to MARPOL, and
every fixed and floating platform engaged in exploration and exploitation of the seabed, must
also carry a Garbage Record Book onboard. The Garbage Record Book must include a record of
every discharge operation or incineration, including the date and time of the discharge, the
position of the ship, a description of the garbage, and the estimated amount discharged or
incinerated. Any escapes or accidental losses must also be noted in the Garbage Record Book,
along with a description of the circumstances of the loss (Annex V, Regulation 9(3)).
6.1.1.6 MARPOL Annex VI: Prevention of Air Pollution from Ships
Annex VI of MARPOL regulates air emissions from ships. Air emissions are outside the
scope of this study, therefore, the summary of this Annex has been omitted.
6.1.2 The International Convention on the Control of Harmful Anti-Fouling Systems on
Ships
The International Convention on the Control of Harmful Anti-Fouling Systems on Ships
was adopted by the IMO on October 5, 2001, and entered into force on September 17, 2008. The
U.S. Senate gave its consent to ratify the Convention on September 26, 2008; however, the
United States will not deposit its instrument of ratification with the IMO until Congress adopts
the necessary implementing legislation. Implementing legislation was introduced on September,
24, 2009. See Clean Hull Act of 2009, H.R. 3618, 111th Congress (1st Session 2009). If passed,
this new legislation would replace the Organotin Anti-Fouling Paint Control Act of 1988
(OAPC), discussed below.
Parties to the Convention are required to take steps to reduce or eliminate adverse effects
on the marine environment and human health caused by antifouling systems. Under the
Convention, an "antifouling system" is any coating, paint, surface treatment, surface, or device
used on a ship to control or prevent the attachment of unwanted organisms (Article 2(2)).
The Convention applies to any ship entitled to fly the flag of a Party; ships not entitled to
fly the flag of a Party but that operate under the authority of that Party; and ships that enter a
port, shipyard, or offshore terminal of a Party but do not fall under one of the earlier categories.
Warships, naval auxiliary, or other ships owned or operated by a Party are exempted when used
only for noncommercial government service. However, each Party must ensure that these
exempted ships operate in a manner consistent with the Convention, where reasonable and
practicable. Parties must also ensure that favorable treatment is not given to ships registered to
countries that are not Parties to the Convention (Article 3).
6-11
-------
Proposed Draft
Under the Convention, Parties must prohibit and/or restrict the application, re-
application, installation, or use of environmentally harmful antifouling systems on ships
registered under them, as well as on ships that enter its ports, shipyards, or offshore terminals
(Article 4). As of January 1, 2008, ships are prohibited from having any organotin compounds on
their hulls that act as biocides, unless the compounds have been sealed so that no leaching occurs
(Annex I).
Parties to the Convention must take measures to require that wastes generated by the
application or removal of an antifouling system are collected, handled, treated, and disposed of
in a safe and environmentally sound manner (Article 5). In the United States., this provision
would be implemented through the Solid Waste Disposal Act, 33 U.S.C. §§ 6901-6992, and the
Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. §§ 1251-1387.
Any Party can propose an amendment to the Convention, including proposals to prohibit
antifouling systems other than organotins. The process for proposing an amendment, and
subsequently considering and adopting it, is described in Articles 6, 7, and 16.
Parties must take appropriate measures to promote and facilitate scientific and technical
research on the effects of antifouling systems, as well as monitoring these effects. The research
should include observation, measurement, sampling, evaluation, and analysis of the effects of
antifouling systems. Parties should share the information learned in these studies with other
Parties to the Convention when requested (Article 8).
The Convention requires Parties to report to the IMO a list of all surveyors and
organizations that are authorized to act on behalf of that Party in administration of matters
relating to the control of anti-fouling systems. Parties must also annually report information
regarding any antifouling systems that were approved, restricted, or prohibited under domestic
law. For antifouling systems that were approved, registered, or licensed by a Party, that Party
must provide to other Parties upon request relevant information on which that decision was made
(alternatively, a Party could require the manufacturers of approved, registered, or licensed
antifouling systems to provide this information) (Article 9).
A Party must ensure that ships entitled to fly under its flag or operate under its authority
are surveyed and certified in accordance with the requirements of Annex 4 (Article 10). Annex 4
requires that ships of 400 gt and above that are engaged in international voyages be surveyed
before the ship is put into service and whenever the antifouling systems are changed or replaced.
The survey is intended to ensure the ship's antifouling system fully complies with the
Convention (Annex 4, Regulation 1). At the conclusion of the survey, the ship will be issued an
International Anti-Fouling System Certificate (Annex 4, Regulation 2). Ships less than 400 gt
and 24 meters or more in length and that are engaged in international voyages must carry a
Declaration, signed by the owner or his agent, declaring that the antifouling system used on the
ship complies with the requirements of the Convention (Annex 4, Regulation 5).
6-12
-------
Proposed Draft
Ships to which the Convention applies may be inspected in any port, shipyard, or
offshore terminal of a Party. Unless there are clear grounds for believing that a ship is in
violation of the Convention, the inspection is limited to: 1) verifying that, where required, there
is a valid International Anti-Fouling System Certificate or Declaration onboard; and/or 2) a brief
sampling of the ship's antifouling system, taking into account IMO guidelines. If there are clear
grounds to believe that a ship is in violation of the Convention, a more thorough inspection is
permitted, taking into account IMO guidelines. Additionally, a Party may take steps to warn,
detain, dismiss, or exclude from its ports any ship that is found to be in violation but must
immediately notify the country under whose flag the ship is registered (Article 11).
Parties must, through domestic laws, prohibit violations of the Convention and establish
sanctions severe enough to discourage violations.5 If a violation occurs within the jurisdiction of
a Party, that Party must either cause proceedings to be taken in accordance with its domestic
laws or furnish any information or evidence it has showing a violation has occurred to the
government under whose authority the ship concerned is operating. If that government finds the
evidence sufficient to enable proceedings to be brought, it must do so as soon as possible, in
accordance with its laws, and notify both the IMO and the reporting Party that it has done so. If
the government does not take action within one year after receiving the information, it must so
inform the Party that reported the alleged violation (Article 12).
Parties must make every effort to avoid unduly detaining or delaying ships while
conducting inspections or investigating potential violations. If a ship is unduly detained or
delayed, it is entitled to compensation for any loss or damage suffered (Article 13).
The Convention does not prejudice the rights or obligations of any country under
customary international law as reflected in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea
(Article 15).
6.1.3 International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS)
The International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS) is considered the
most important international treaty concerning the safety of merchant ships. The first version was
adopted in 1914 in response to the Titantic disaster and has been amended many times since
then, most recently in 1974. The primary objective of SOLAS is to establish minimum standards
for the construction, equipment, and operation of ships, in consideration of their safety. The
responsibility for ensuring compliance rests with the individual flag states, although contracting
governments do have limited authority to inspect ships of other contracting governments if there
are clear grounds for believing the SOLAS requirements are not being met. For additional
information on SOLAS, please see the IMO's discussion of the Convention at www.imo.org
5 For vessels larger than 79 feet, EPA has prohibited the discharge of tributyltin and other organotins under the
Agency's Vessel General Permit (see Section 6.2.3).
6-13
-------
Proposed Draft
While SOLAS does not directly regulate vessel discharges, it does provide environmental
benefits through its regulations and through adoption of the International Safety Management
(ISM) Code, all of which assist in preventing spills and other accidental discharges. The ISM
Code provides an international standard for safely managing and operating ships and for
preventing pollution. In addition to other requirements, under the Code, companies or individuals
responsible for operating vessels must establish a safety and environmental-protection policy and
ensure that the policy is implemented and maintained at all levels of the organization, both ship-
based and shore-based. These operators must also create a safety management system, which is a
structured and documented system that enables company personnel to effectively implement the
company's safety and environmental protection policy (ISM Code, Part A).
6.1.4 Boundary Waters Treaty
The Boundary Waters Treaty is an agreement the United States and Canada entered into
in 1919 to govern the management of boundary waters. Among other things, the treaty provides
that "boundary waters" - defined as "waters from main shore to main shore of the lakes and
rivers and connecting waterways, or the portion thereof, along with the international boundary"
between the U.S. and Canada - "and waters flowing across the boundary shall not be polluted on
either side to the injury of health or property on the other" (Preliminary Article and Article IV.2).
The Treaty established the International Joint Commission (IJC), composed of three
commissioners from each country, to assist in the resolution of boundary water issues (Article
III). Since 1919, the IJC has addressed a variety of water-use and water-quality issues. The
Treaty is a foundational backdrop for other bilateral agreements between the United States and
Canada, such as the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement.
6.1.5 Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement
The Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, first signed in 1972, and revised in 1978 and
1987, expresses the commitment of both the United States and Canada to restore and maintain
the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the waters of Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem. It
also reaffirms the rights and obligations of both countries under the Boundary Waters Treaty.
The Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement is primarily implemented through Section 118 of the
Clean Water Act.
One of the stated policies in the Agreement is the prohibition of discharges of toxic
substances in toxic amounts and the virtual elimination of discharges containing any or all
persistent toxic substances (Article II). The general objectives of the agreement are to ensure that
the waters in the Great Lakes System are free from pollutants resulting from human activity,
such as substances that will settle to form sludge deposits or harm aquatic life or waterfowl;
floating materials (e.g., debris, oil, scum, other immiscible substances); materials or heat that
produce color, odor, taste, or other conditions that will interfere with beneficial uses or are toxic
6-14
-------
Proposed Draft
or harmful to human health or the environment; and nutrients that create growths of aquatic life
that interfere with beneficial uses (Article III).
Vessel discharges are directly addressed through Annexes 4 (discharges of oil and
hazardous polluting substances from vessels), 5 (discharges of vessel wastes), and 6 (review of
pollution from shipping sources) of the Agreement. In all of these annexes, "vessel" is defined as
"any ship, barge or other floating craft, whether or not self-propelled" (Annex 4(l)(e), Annex
5(1 )(e)).
Annex 4 addresses discharges of oil and hazardous polluting substances from vessels.
Within this annex, the term "discharge" includes, but is not limited to, any spilling, leaking,
pumping, pouring, emitting, or dumping; it does not include unavoidable direct discharges of oil
from a properly functioning vessel engine (Annex 4(l)(a)). The annex requires that each country
adopt regulations to prevent discharges of harmful quantities of oil and hazardous substances
from vessels into the Great Lakes System. Specifically:
• Discharges of harmful quantities of oil or hazardous substances, including those
contained in ballast water, must be prohibited and made subject to appropriate
penalties.
• As soon as any person in charge, including a vessel owner/operator, becomes aware
of a discharge, or probable discharge, of harmful quantities of oil or hazardous
substances, he/she must immediately notify the appropriate agency in the
jurisdiction where the discharge occurred. Failure to give this notice must be subject
to appropriate penalties (Annex 4(2)).
A "harmful quantity of oil" is defined as "any quantity of oil that, if discharged from a
ship that is stationary into clear calm water on a clear day, would produce a film or a sheen upon,
or discoloration of, the surface of the water or adjoining shoreline, or would cause a sludge or
emission to be deposited beneath the surface of the water or upon the adjoining shoreline"
(Annex 4(1)).
Annex 4 also requires both countries to adopt regulations for the design, construction,
and operation of vessels, as well as programs to ensure that merchant vessel personnel are trained
in the use, handling, and stowage of oil and abatement of oil pollution, thereby preventing the
discharge of harmful quantities of oil or hazardous polluting substances. For oil, the regulations
must ensure that each vessel has a suitable means for containing spills of oil and oily wastes and
retaining those wastes onboard for off-load at a reception facility. Oil loading, unloading, and
bunkering systems must be suitably designed to minimize the possibility of failure (Annex 4(3)).
For hazardous polluting substances, each country must adopt programs and measures to
prevent discharges of harmful quantities of hazardous polluting substances carried as cargo. Such
regulations include ensuring that all vessels have a suitable means of containing onboard spills
caused by loading or unloading operations and have the capability of retaining onboard wastes
6-15
-------
Proposed Draft
accumulated during vessel operation for off-loading to a reception facility. The regulations must
also provide for the identification of vessels carrying cargos of hazardous substances and for the
identification in vessel manifests of all the hazardous substances those vessels are carrying
(Annex 4(4)). A list of hazardous polluting substances and potential hazardous polluting
substances can be found in Appendices 1 and 2 to Annex 10.
Additionally, under Annex 4, both countries must ensure that there are adequate facilities
for the reception, treatment, and subsequent disposal of oil and hazardous polluting substances
from all vessels (Annex 4(5)).
Annex 5 addresses discharges of vessel wastes, including garbage, sewage, and waste
water. "Garbage" is defined as "all kinds of victual, domestic, and operational wastes, excluding
fresh fish and parts thereof generated during the normal operation of the ship and liable to be
disposed of continually or periodically." "Wastewater" encompasses any water combined with
other substances, "including ballast water and water used for washing cargo hold, but excluding
water in combination with oil, hazardous polluting substances, or sewage" (Annex 5(1)).
The agreement requires both countries to adopt regulations that will:
• Prohibit the discharge of garbage from vessels and make such discharges subject to
appropriate penalties.
• Prohibit the discharge of wastewater in harmful amounts or concentrations and make
such discharges subject to appropriate penalties.
• Ensure that each vessel operating in boundary waters, and that has toilet facilities, is
equipped with a device to contain, incinerate, or treat sewage to an adequate degree.
Appropriate penalties must be provided for failure to comply (Annex 5(2)).
Within the Great Lakes System, certain critical use areas may be designated where the
discharge of wastewater or sewage will be limited or prohibited (Annex 5(3)). Both countries
must take measures to ensure there are adequate facilities for the reception, treatment, and
subsequent disposal of garbage, wastewater, and sewage from vessels (Annex 5(5)).
Annex 6 calls on both the Canadian and U.S. Coast Guards to review "services, systems,
programs, recommendations, standards, and regulations relating to shipping activities for the
purpose of maintaining or improving Great Lakes water quality" (Annex 6(1)). The two Coast
Guards must meet at least annually to consult on implementing the Agreement (Annex 6(2)).
6.1.6 St. Lawrence Seaway Regulations
In 1954, the United States statutorily created the Saint Lawrence Seaway Development
Corporation to construct, operate, and maintain the section of the St. Lawrence Seaway between
the Port of Montreal and Lake Erie that falls within the territorial limits of the United States (33
U.S.C. § 981). The mission of the wholly government-owned corporation, which is under the
6-16
-------
Proposed Draft
direction and supervision of the Department of Transportation, is to improve the operation and
maintenance of a deep-draft waterway in cooperation with a Canadian counterpart.6
The Department of Transportation's regulations governing the Seaway can be found at 33
CFR Part 401. The regulations define the St. Lawrence Seaway as the "the deep waterway
between the Port of Montreal and Lake Erie and including] all locks, canals and connecting and
contiguous waters that are part of the deep waterway, and all other canals and works, wherever
located, the management, administration and control of which have been entrusted to the
Corporation or the Manager" (33 CFR § 401.2(j)).
While the regulations are primarily geared toward maintaining and using the Seaway,
they do include provisions designed to lessen the impacts of vessel pollution to the Great Lakes,
including a provision that prohibits the discharge of garbage, ashes, ordure, litter, or other
materials into the Seaway (33 CFR § 401.59(d)). The regulations also prohibit any vessel from
emitting sparks or excessive smoke, or from blowing boiler tubes (33 CFR § 401.59(a)). In
addition, the regulations contain a blanket requirement that no discharge is allowed that is not in
conformity with all applicable U.S. and Canadian regulations, except within certain areas of the
Welland Canal, where no discharges are allowed at all (33 CFR § 401.59(b)).
Although ballast water is not a focus of this study, it should be noted that the St.
Lawrence Seawater Regulations also include provisions relating to ballast water, including a
recently passed regulation requiring all oceangoing vessels entering the Seaway to conduct
saltwater flushing (Seaway Regulations and Rules: Periodic Update, Various Categories, 73 FR
9950 (February 25, 2008)).
6.2Federal Laws
6.2.1 Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships (APPS)
The Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships (APPS) is the United States law implementing
Annexes I, II, V, and VI of MARPOL (Annex III is implemented through the Hazardous
Materials Transportation Act). The U.S. Coast Guard has the primary authority to implement and
enforce the majority of provisions within APPS. EPA was also given specific authorities in
certain sections of APPS, the most extensive of which relate to MARPOL Annex VI. The Coast
Guard's implementing regulations, found at 33 CFR Part 151, are addressed below.
6 In addition to the authorities under its enabling statute, 33 U.S.C. § 981 et seq., the St. Lawrence Seaway
Development Corporation has authority to "operate, maintain, improve or expand vessel traffic services consisting
of measures for controlling or supervising vessel traffic or for protecting navigation and the marine environment"
pursuant to the Ports and Waterways Safety Act of 1978, at 33 U.S.C. 1223-1225, 1229. The U.S. Coast Guard has
this authority in all other navigable waters of the United States, except for the area under the jurisdiction of the
Corporation.
6-17
-------
Proposed Draft
APPS applies to U.S.-registered ships regardless of where in the world they are operating.
With respect to the implementation of Annexes I and II, APPS additionally applies to all foreign-
flagged ships operating in navigable U.S. waters. The implementation of Annex V applies to all
U.S.-registered ships, as well as all foreign-flagged ships in navigable U.S. waters or the
exclusive economic zone of the United States (33 U.S.C. § 1902(a)). Warship, naval auxiliary,
and ships owned by the United States that are engaged in noncommercial service are exempted
from the requirements of APPS, except for certain provisions implementing Annex V.7 Ships
that are specifically exempted from MARPOL, or the Antarctic Protocol, are also exempted from
the requirements of APPS.
In addition to implementing the requirements of MARPOL, described above, APPS
establishes a number of administrative requirements regarding inspections, penalties for
violations, procedures for legal actions, and public education requirements (33 U.S.C. §§ 1907,
1908, 1910, and 1915).
6.2.1.1 U.S. Coast Guard Implementing Regulations
The U.S. Coast Guard implements APPS through its regulations at 33 CFR Part 151.
These regulations apply to every ship required to comply with Annex I, II, or V of MARPOL (33
CFR § 151.03).8
6.2.1.1.1 Annex I Implementation—Prevention of Oil Pollution
The requirements of Annex I of MARPOL, pertaining to the prevention of oil pollution
from ships, are implemented by the U.S. Coast Guard though its regulations at 33 CFR §§
151.09-151.29. This section of the regulations, with the exception of the oil pollution emergency
plan requirements,9 is applicable to ships that are operated under the authority of the United
States and that engage in international voyages, are certificated for ocean service, are certificated
for coastwise service beyond three nautical miles from land, or are operated at any time seaward
of the outmost boundary of the territorial seas of the United States. The regulations also apply to
7 However, all surface ships and submersibles owned or operated by the Department of the Navy are required to
comply with the special area requirements of Annex V. Unique vessels that cannot fully comply with the
requirements of Annex V are permitted to discharge some types of garbage without regard to the requirements of
Annex V. See 33 U.S.C. § 1902(d)(2).
8 On December 18, 2009, EPA finalized regulations to implement the air emission requirements of APPS (which
themselves implement MARPOL Annex VI). The final rule is not scheduled to appear in the Federal Register until
the end of February 2010. To see a pre-publication copy of the rule, please visit EPA's website at
http://www.epa.gOv/OMS/oceanvessels.htm#regs.
9 The shipboard oil pollution emergency plan requirements at 33 CFR §§ 151.26-151.29 apply to all U.S.- and
foreign-operated oil tankers of 150 gt and above and all other ships of 400 gt and above. The same exceptions
described in the text apply, with the additional exception that barges or other ships constructed or operated in such a
manner that no oil in any form can be carried aboard are also exempted from the requirements (33 CFR § 151.09(c)-
(d)).
6-18
-------
Proposed Draft
ships operated under the authority of another country while in the navigable waters of the United
States or while at a port or terminal under U.S. jurisdiction (33 CFR § 151.09(a)). The
regulations do not apply to warships, naval auxiliary, or other ships owned or operated by a
country when engaged in noncommercial service; Canadian or U.S. ships operating exclusively
on the Great Lakes or their connecting tributary waters or on any internal waters of the United
States or Canada; or any ships specifically excluded by MARPOL.
The Coast Guard's requirements for oil discharges from ships other than oil tankers10 are
very similar to Annex I's requirements. The Coast Guard's regulations apply to the same size
ships regulated under MARPOL; however, the Coast Guard also distinguishes vessels depending
on how far off shore they are operating:
• When more than 12 nautical miles from the nearest land, any discharge of oil or oily
mixtures must meet the following conditions:
o The discharge must not originate from cargo pump room bilges,
o The discharge must not be mixed with oil cargo residues,
o The ship must not be within a special area,
o The ship must be proceeding en route11
o The oil content of the effluent without dilution must be less than 15 ppm.
o The ship must be operating oily-water separating equipment, a bilge monitor, a
bilge alarm, or a combination of the three (33 CFR § 151.10(a)).
• When within 12 nautical miles from the nearest land, any discharge of oil or oily
mixtures must meet all of the above requirements, with the additional requirement that
the oily-water separating equipment be equipped with a U.S. government- or IMO-
approved 15 ppm bilge alarm (33 CFR § 151.10(b)).
Ships of 400 gt or above and oil tankers are prohibited from discharging oil or oily
mixtures while operating in a special area, as defined in 33 CFR § 151.13(a). However, if the
discharge is of processed bilgewater from machinery space bilges, ships of this size may
discharge in special areas if all of the above requirements are met and the ship is equipped with
an automatic shut-off device that will engage when the oil content of the effluent exceeds 15
ppm (33 CFR § 151.13). Ships of 400 gt or less, other than oil tankers, may discharge in special
areas only if the undiluted oil content of their effluent is 15 ppm or less. If a ship cannot meet the
discharge requirements, the oily mixtures must be retained onboard or discharged to a reception
facility (33 CFR § 151.10(f)).
10 The requirements for oil tankers are found in a separate section of the regulations (33 CFR Part 157).
11 A ship not traveling en route may discharge oil and oily mixtures, provided it is equipped with a U.S.
government-or IMO-approved 15 ppm bilge alarm and complies with other requirements of 33 CFR § 151.10. 33
CFR § 151.10(d).
6-19
-------
Proposed Draft
As with MARPOL, these discharge requirements do not apply where the discharge is
necessary to secure the safety of the ship or save life at sea, or if the discharge results from
damage to the ship (provided reasonable precautions were taken after the occurrence of the
damage or discovery of the discharge to prevent or minimize the discharge, and the owner or
master of the ship did not act with intent to cause damage, or recklessly and with knowledge that
damage would probably result) (33 CFR § 151.11).
The regulations also implement the reporting, survey, certification, inspection and
enforcement, recordkeeping, and planning requirements of Annex I, described above (33 U.S.C.
§§ 151.15, 151.17, 151.19, 151.23, 151.25-151.28).
6.2.1.1.2 Annex II Implementation—Prevention of Pollution from Noxious Liquid
Substances
The requirements of Annex II of MARPOL, pertaining to the discharges of noxious
liquid substances from ships, are implemented by the U.S. Coast Guard primarily through its
regulations at 33 CFR §§ 151.30-151.49, although some requirements are also at 46 CFR Parts
151 and 153.12 Which regulations are applicable to a particular vessel depends on the specific
substance(s) the ship is carrying (33 CFR § 151.31).
The primary regulations at 33 CFR §§ 151.30-151.49 are applicable to the same ships
subject to the implementing regulations for Annex I (i.e., all ships operated under the authority of
the United States that are engaged in international voyages, certificated for ocean service,
certificated for coastwise service beyond 3 nautical miles from land, or operated seaward of the
outermost boundary of the territorial sea of the United States). These requirements also apply to
ships operated under the authority of another country while in U.S. waters or while at a port or
terminal under U.S. jurisdiction (33 CFR § 151.30(a)). The same exemptions that apply to Annex
I's implementing regulations also apply here, with an added exemption for tank barges whose
certificates are endorsed by the Coast Guard for a limited short protected coastwise route if the
barge is constructed and certificated primarily for service on inland routes (33 CFR § 151.30(b)).
U.S. oceangoing ships are prohibited from carrying certain Category C and D NLS,
identified at 33 CFR §§ 151.47-151.49, in cargo tanks unless those tanks have been endorsed
through a Certificate of Inspection to carry those substances. Foreign ships and ships traveling to
foreign destinations must meet additional certification requirements (33 CFR §§ 151.33-151.35).
Ships carrying Category C or D oil-like substances must also meet additional operating
requirements, such as having monitoring and control equipment installed and meeting damage
stability requirements (33 CFR § 151.37).
12 Coast Guard regulations currently implement a prior version of Annex II. Parts 151 and 153 are currently under
revision to implement revised Annex II, dated November 1, 2004. Navigation and Vessel Inspection Circular No.
03-06 contains guidance on the Coast Guard's implementation of revised Annex II.
6-20
-------
Proposed Draft
To discharge NLS residue to the sea, the ship must be at least 12 nautical miles from the
nearest land. Additional depth restrictions and maximum rates of discharge also apply for
particular types of residue (46 CFR § 153.1128). Discharges of NLS residue from slop tanks are
also subject to additional restrictions (46 CFR § 153.1126). If a ship cannot meet these discharge
requirements, the NLS residue must be retained onboard or discharged to a reception facility. If
the NLS cargo or residue is being transferred at a port or terminal of the United States, the
operator of the ship must notify the port or terminal at least 24 hours in advance of the name of
the ship and the name, category, and volume of the NLS cargo that will be unloaded (33 CFR §
151.43).
6.2.1.1.3 Annex V Implementation - Prevention of Garbage Pollution from Ships
The requirements of Annex V of MARPOL, pertaining to garbage pollution from ships,
are implemented by the Coast Guard through regulations found at 33 CFR §§ 151.51-151.77.
These regulations apply to all ships of U.S. registry or nationality, all ships operated under the
authority of the United States (including recreational and uninspected vessels), and all ships
operating in the navigable waters or the Exclusive Economic Zone of the United States. They do
not apply to warships, naval auxiliary, other ships owned or operated by the United States when
engaged in noncommercial service, or any ship specifically excluded by MARPOL (33 CFR §
151.51).
The regulations prohibit the discharge of garbage into the navigable waters of the United
States by any person onboard any ship unless the requirements of MARPOL are followed.
Commercial ships are permitted to discharge bulk dry cargo residues into the Great Lakes
provided certain requirements are met (33 CFR § 151.66). As with Annex V, the discharge of
plastic or garbage mixed with plastic into the sea or navigable waters of the United States is
flatly prohibited (33 CFR § 151.67).
The Coast Guard's regulations also implement the recordkeeping, waste management
plan, placard, inspection for compliance and enforcement, and reporting requirements of
MARPOL (33 CFR §§ 151.55, 151.57, 151.59, 151.61, and 151.65).
6.2.2 Clean Water Act (CWA) §§ 311, 312/Oil Pollution Control Act
6.2.2.1 CWA § 311, Oil and Hazardous Substances
Clean Water Act (CWA) § 311 (Oil and Hazardous Substances Liability) states that it is
U.S. policy that there should be no discharges of oil or hazardous substances into waters of the
U.S., adjoining shorelines, into or upon the waters of the contiguous zone, and in certain other
specified instances, except where permitted under MARPOL/APPS or where in quantities the
president has, by regulation, determined not to be harmful (33 U.S.C. §§ 1321 (b)( 1)—(b)(3)). The
term "discharge" excludes discharges in compliance with a National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit under CWA § 402; discharges anticipated in the NPDES
6-21
-------
Proposed Draft
permitting process; and discharges incidental to mechanical removal authorized by the president
to remove or mitigate a discharge (33 U.S.C. § 1321(a)(2)). A list of hazardous substances EPA
has designated under the CWA can be found at 40 CFR § 116.1.13
Any person in charge of a vessel or onshore facility must immediately notify the
appropriate federal agency upon discovering any harmful discharge of oil or hazardous substance
from the vessel or facility under their control. The federal agency will then notify appropriate
state agencies. Any person in charge of a vessel or onshore facility who discharges in violation
of the CWA and fails to provide immediate notification to the appropriate federal agency shall,
upon conviction, be fined or imprisoned, or both (33 U.S.C. § 1321 (b)(5)). Owners or operators
must respond immediately to any discharge or threat of discharge of oil (33 U.S.C. § 1321
(c)(5)).
This section of the CWA also requires the president to prepare and publish a National
Contingency Plan (NCP) for the removal of oil and hazardous substances (33 U.S.C. §
1321(d)(1)). The NCP must include:
• an assignment of duties and responsibilities among federal departments and agencies;
• identification, procurement, maintenance, and storage of equipment and supplies;
• establishment of Coast Guard strike teams; a system of surveillance and notice;
• establishment of a national center to provide coordination and direction for operations
in carrying out the plan;
• procedures and techniques to be employed in identifying, containing, dispersing, and
removing oil and hazardous substances;
• a schedule of which chemicals and dispersants may be used in which waters to
mitigate any spills;
• a system for states affected by a discharge to act to remove the discharge;
establishment of criteria and procedures to ensure immediate and effective federal
identification of and response to discharges or threats of discharges that will endanger
public health;
• establishment of procedures and standards for removing a worst case discharge of oil;
• designation of federal officials to act as on-scene coordinators; establishment of
procedures for the coordination of activities; and a fish and wildlife response plan (33
U.S.C. § 1321(d)(2)). The full text of the NCP can be found at 40 CFR Part 300.
13 EPA's regulations implementing § 311 are located at 40 CFR § 110-117.
6-22
-------
Proposed Draft
6.2.2.2 Oil Pollution Control Act
The Oil Pollution Control Act of 1990 (OPA), 33 U.S.C. §§ 2701-2762, was passed as an
almost immediate response to the Exxon Valdez tanker accident, which caused more than 11
million gallons of crude oil to spill into Alaska's Price William Sound. The OPA expanded the
federal government's authority to respond to oil spills, provided the money and resources
necessary for the government to exercise its authority, and required revisions to the National Oil
and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan to broaden coordination and preparedness
planning requirements. The OPA also increased penalties for regulatory noncompliance,
broadened the response and enforcement authorities of the federal government, and preserved
state authority to establish laws governing oil spill prevention and response. Additionally, the
OPA created the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund to help fund some of the cleanup costs and repair
damage resulting from oil discharges (discussion on the exact requirements of the Fund has been
omitted). The requirements of the OPA apply to all vessels, onshore facilities, offshore facilities,
deepwater ports, and pipelines.
The OPA is implemented by both EPA and the U.S. Coast Guard. EPA regulations on oil
spill prevention and response are found in 40 CFR Parts 112 and 300. U.S. Coast Guard
regulations regarding oil spill prevention and response plans are located at 33 CFR §§ 155.1010—
155.2230 and 49 CFR §§ 130.1-130.33.
6.2.2.3 CWA § 312, Marine Sanitation Devices
The CWA also requires EPA, in consultation with the Coast Guard, to promulgate federal
performance standards for marine sanitation devices. These standards must be designed to
prevent the discharge of untreated or inadequately treated sewage into or upon the navigable
waters from vessels (33 U.S.C. § 1322(b)). Both the EPA and Coast Guard have promulgated
regulations implementing this provision. The Coast Guard's regulations can be found at 33 CFR
Part 159, while EPA's can be found at 40 CFR Part 140.
Because discharges of sewage were exempted by Congress from this study, as such
discharges are not incidental to the normal operation of a vessel, an in-depth discussion of this
provision and its implementing regulations has been omitted.
6.2.3 Organotin Antifouling Paint Control Act
The Organotin Antifouling Paint Control Act of 1988, 33 U.S.C. §§ 2401-2410, prohibits
the use of antifouling paints containing organotin such as tributyltin (TBT) on vessels that are 25
meters or less in length, unless the vessel hull is aluminum or the paint is applied to an outboard
motor (33 U.S.C. § 2403(b)). The term vessel is defined to include "every description of
watercraft or other artificial contrivance used, or capable of being used, as a means of
transportation on water" (33 U.S.C. § 2402(11)).
6-23
-------
Proposed Draft
The Act also prohibits the sale, purchase, and application of antifouling paint containing
organotin unless the paint has been approved by EPA as being a qualified antifouling paint.
Under the Act, "antifouling paint" includes any "coating, paint, or treatment that is applied to a
vessel to control fresh water or marine fouling organisms" (33 U.S.C. § 2402(2)). A qualified
antifouling paint is one that has a release rate of not more than 4.0 micrograms per square
centimeter per day (33 U.S.C. § 2402(6)).
As noted in Section 6.1.2, in September 2008 the United States Senate gave its advice
and consented to ratification of the International Convention on the Control of Harmful Anti-
Fouling Systems on Ships. However, the United States will not deposit its instrument of
ratification with the IMO until Congress adopts the necessary implementing legislation.
Implementing legislation is pending. See Clean Hull Act of 2009, H.R. 3618, 111th Congress
(1st Session 2009). EPA has already canceled all U.S. FIFRA registrations for TBT antifouling
paints. The last cancellation became effective December 31, 2005. Any current use of these
products is dwindling because there are very limited or no stocks of the products remaining on
the market. Also, the International Convention has made it difficult and undesirable for vessel
owners/operators to use TBT antifouling paints.
Additionally, as discussed above, EPA has prohibited the use of TBT or other organotins
as biocides on any vessel covered by the Vessel General Permit.
6.2.4 National Invasive Species Act
The primary purpose of the National Invasive Species Act of 1996 (NISA), which
reauthorized and amended the Non-Indigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of
1990, is to prevent, monitor, and control the unintentional introduction and dispersal of
nonindigenous species into waters of the United States through ballast water and other pathways
(16 U.S.C. § 4701(b)). The voluntary guidelines and mandatory regulations required by NISA
apply, with only few exceptions, to all vessels equipped with ballast water tanks that operate in
waters of the United States.14
Because ballast water was specifically exempted from this study by P.L. 110-299, an in-
depth discussion of the ballast water requirements of NISA has been omitted.15 In addition to
ballast water guidelines, however, NISA requires the development of guidelines to prevent the
spread of nonindigenous species from other vessel operations, such as hull fouling.
14 The Act requires that the Coast Guard and the Department of Defense implement ballast water management
programs for seagoing vessels under their control (16 U.S.C. § 4713).
15 For the ballast water requirements, see the text of the Act at 16U.S.C. §§ 4701-4751 as well as the Coast Guard's
regulations at 33 CFR Part 151, subparts C and D.
6-24
-------
Proposed Draft
For example, the Coast Guard's regulations require that all vessels equipped with ballast
water tanks that operate in the waters of the U.S. have fouling organisms removed from their
hulls, piping, and tanks on a regular basis, and that any removed substances be disposed of in
accordance with local, state, and other federal regulations (33 CFR § 151.2035(a)(6)).
6.2.5 Hazardous Materials Transportation Act
The Hazardous Materials Transportation Act, 49 U.S.C. §§ 5101 etseq., regulates the
transportation of hazardous material in interstate, intrastate, and foreign commerce. The Act,
which implements MARPOL Annex III, includes registration, reporting, and recordkeeping
requirements and applies to any vessel involved in transporting hazardous material in commerce.
The Act, and its implementing Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR), 49 C.F.R. parts
171-180, apply to anyone who transports hazardous material in commerce, causes hazardous
material to be transported in commerce, is involved in any way in the design and manufacture of
containers used to transport hazardous material, prepares or accepts hazardous material for
transport in commerce, is responsible for the safety of transporting hazardous material in
commerce, or certifies compliance with any requirement under the Act (49 U.S.C. § 5103(b)).
Anyone transporting a hazardous material (including a hazardous waste) by vessel must
file a registration statement with the Department of Transportation (49 U.S.C. § 5108), and must
also follow requirements addressing personnel and personnel training, inspections, equipment,
and safety procedures (49 U.S.C. § 5106).
6.2.6 National Marine Sanctuaries Act
The National Marine Sanctuaries Act, 16 U.S.C. § 1431 et seq., authorizes the Secretary
of Commerce to designate and protect areas of the marine environment that are of special
national significance because of their conservation, recreational, ecological, historical, scientific,
educational, cultural, archeological, or esthetic qualities (16 U.S.C. § 1431(a)). The Act is
implemented by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) through its
regulations at 15 CFR Part 922.
The National Marine Sanctuary Program currently consists of 13 national marine
sanctuaries and one marine national monument: Thunder Bay (Great Lakes), Stellwagen Bank
(Massachusetts), Monitor (an archeological site off the coast of Virginia), Gray's Reef (Georgia),
the Florida Keys, Flower Garden Banks (Gulf of Mexico), Fagatele Bay (American Samoa),
Hawaiian Islands/Humpback Whale, Papahanaumokuakea National Monument, Channel Islands,
Monterey Bay (California), Gulf of the Farallones (California), Cordell Bank (California), and
the Olympic Coast (Washington).
Additional restrictions and requirements may be imposed on vessel owners/operators who
operate in or around these areas. For example, NOAA's regulations pertaining to the Hawaiian
6-25
-------
Proposed Draft
Islands/Humpback Whale National Marine Sanctuary prohibit the discharge or deposition of any
material or other matter in the sanctuary, or outside the sanctuary if the discharge or deposit will
subsequently enter and injure a humpback whale or humpback whale habitat, unless that
discharge or deposition is carried out according to the terms or conditions of a federal or state
permit (15 CFR § 922.184(a)(5)). Vessels operating in this area must also avoid coming within
100 yards of any humpback whale (except when authorized under the Marine Mammal
Protection Act and Endangered Species Act) (15 CFR § 922.184(a)(1)).
6.2.7 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), 42 U.S.C. § 6901-6992k, was
enacted in 1976 to amend the Solid Waste Disposal Act of 1965. RCRA was designed to
minimize the hazards of waste disposal; conserve resources through waste recycling, recovery,
and reduction; and ensure that waste management practices are protective of human health and
the environment. The RCRA requirements apply to vessels to the extent that they create, carry,
or dispose of solid or hazardous wastes.
By regulation, a "hazardous waste" under RCRA is one that falls on any number of lists
EPA has created, or one that exhibits at least one of the following characteristics: ignitibility,
corrosivity, reactivity, or toxicity (40 CFR § 261.3). A "solid waste" is any material that has been
discarded; including any material that has been abandoned or recycled or is inherently waste-like
(40 CFR §261.2).
Subtitle C of RCRA establishes a "cradle-to-grave" system that addresses hazardous
waste management from the moment of generation through ultimate disposal. The provisions of
Subtitle C apply to all generators and transporters of hazardous waste (42 U.S.C. §§ 6921-6939).
A "generator" is someone "whose act or process produces hazardous waste.. .or whose act first
causes a hazardous waste to become subject to regulation" (40 CFR § 260.10). A "transporter" is
anyone "engaged in the offsite transportation of hazardous waste by air, rail, highway, or water"
(40 CFR § 260.10). A generator of a hazardous waste is subject to the requirements of subtitle C
on packaging, labeling, marking, placarding, storage, recordkeeping, and inspection (40 C.F.R.
part 262, subpart C). Additionally, both generators and transporters are required to use a manifest
system to ensure that all hazardous waste subject to transport arrives at the designated treatment,
storage, or disposal facility (42 U.S.C. §§ 6922(a)(5), 6923(a)(3)).
Hazardous waste generated on public vessels (i.e., those vessels owned or chartered by
the United States and engaged in noncommercial service) is not subject to the storage, manifest,
inspection, or recordkeeping requirements of RCRA until the waste is transferred to a shore
facility, unless the waste is stored on the vessel for more than 90 days after the vessel is no
longer in service or the waste is transferred to another public vessel within the territorial waters
of the United States and is stored on that vessel for more than 90 days after the date of transfer
(42 U.S.C. § 6939d). In addition, any "industrial discharges which are point sources subject to
6-26
-------
Proposed Draft
[NPDES[ permits" are excluded from the definition of solid waste under RCRA (42 U.S.C. §
6903(27)).
RCRA's primary effect on study vessel discharges is indirect; RCRA's extensive
requirements concerning the handling of any hazardous waste generated, stored or transported
onboard the vessel ensure that such wastes do not make their way into the study discharges.
However, because study vessel discharges are not subject to NPDES permitting, they would not
qualify for the "industrial point source discharge exclusion" and, thus, could be subject to
applicable RCRA requirements.
6.2.8 Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), 7 U.S.C. § 136-136y,
provides the basis for the regulation, sale, distribution, and use of pesticides in the United States.
FIFRA authorizes EPA to review and register pesticides for specified uses, as well as suspend or
cancel the registration of a pesticide if subsequent information shows that continued use would
pose unreasonable risks.
One of FIFRA's primary requirements is that pesticides be registered by EPA before they
may be sold or distributed in the United States. To obtain a registration, a pesticide manufacturer
must submit a registration application to EPA that includes a proposed label containing specific
directions for use of the pesticide. The application must also include or cite scientific data
sufficient to support an EPA finding that the pesticide, when used according to label directions,
will not cause unreasonable adverse effects on the environment (a risk benefit standard that takes
into account the social, economic, and environmental costs and benefits associated with use of
the pesticide). It is a violation of FIFRA to use a pesticide in a manner inconsistent with its label.
Pesticides may be registered as either general use or restricted use. A general use
pesticide may be applied by anyone, while a restricted use pesticide may only be applied by
certified applicators (applicators specifically certified by EPA or a state to apply restricted use
pesticides) or persons working under the direct supervision of a certified applicator.
Vessels that use FIFRA-registered products onboard or as antifouling compounds must
follow all FIFRA labeling requirements.
6-27
-------
Proposed Draft
6.3Additional International and Federal Laws
EPA has identified a number of international and federal laws that fall outside the scope
of this study, but which merit mentioning for information purposes.
6.3.1 International Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of
Wastes and Other Matter
The International Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of
Wastes and Other Matter, commonly referred to as the London Convention, entered into force in
1975. The London Convention prohibits the dumping of certain hazardous material and requires
a permit for other identified materials and wastes. In 1996, the IMO adopted a more stringent
protocol, which took effect in 2006. The United States is a party to the original London
Convention but has not ratified the 1996 protocol. The United States implements the original
London Convention through the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act, 33 U.S.C. §§
1401-1445. The London Convention and Protocol do no apply, however, to the disposal into the
sea of matter incidental to or derived from the normal operation of vessels.
6.3.2 International Convention on Oil Pollution, Preparedness, Response and
Cooperation
To emphasize the importance of effective preparation for combating oil spills, in 1990 the
IMO adopted the International Convention on Oil Pollution, Preparedness, Response and
Cooperation (OPRC). The OPRC, which entered into force in 1995 and has been ratified by the
United States, establishes a global framework for international cooperation in responding to oil
pollution. OPRC includes requirements such as onboard oil pollution emergency plans, the
reporting and prompt investigation of spills, and coordinated response actions.
6.3.3 International Convention Relating to Intervention on the High Seas in Cases of
Oil Pollution Casualties
The International Convention Relating to Intervention on the High Seas in Cases of Oil
Pollution Causalities was adopted by the IMO in 1969. The Convention entered into force in
1975 and has been ratified by the United States. The purpose of the Convention is to affirm the
right of coastal states to take such measures on the high seas as may be necessary to prevent,
mitigate, or eliminate danger to their coastlines or related interests from spills of oil and other
substances following marine accidents.
6.3.3.1 Intervention on the High Seas Act
The Intervention on the High Seas Act, 33 U.S.C. §§ 1471-1487, authorizes the Coast
Guard to intervene whenever there is a ship collision, stranding, or other incident or occurrence
6-28
-------
Proposed Draft
that creates a grave and imminent danger to the coastline or related interests of the United States.
This Act implements the International Convention Relating to Intervention on the High Seas in
Cases of Oil Pollution Casualties.
6.3.4 Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
(CERCLA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 9601-9675, regulates the release or substantial threat of release of
hazardous substances (or those dangerous to public health or welfare) into the environment. The
liability provisions of CERCLA are expressly applicable to releases from vessels. Additionally,
CERCLA requires any person in charge of a vessel to immediately notify the National Response
Center as soon as he has knowledge of any release of a hazardous substance from that vessel in a
quantity equal to or greater than a reportable quantity (42 U.S.C. §§ 9602, 9603(a)).
6.3.5 CWA § 402, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
In December 2008, EPA issued an NPDES general permit, pursuant to CWA § 402, that
is applicable to all vessels operating in a capacity as a means of transportation (except
recreational vessels as defined in CWA § 502[25] and study vessels (except for their ballast
water discharges) that have discharges incidental to their normal operations into waters of the
United States. The permit establishes technology-based effluent limits for 26 different types of
vessel discharges in the form of best management practices (BMPs), as well as water quality-
based effluent limitations. The permit also includes inspection, monitoring, reporting, and
recordkeeping requirements.
For study vessels, coverage under the general permit is limited to ballast water
discharges. For that reason, a lengthy discussion of the permit falls outside the scope of PL.
110-229. For more information about this permit, please visit: www.epa.gov/npdes/vessels.
6.3.6 Title XIV of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2001—Certain Alaskan
Cruise Ship Operations
Title XIV sets standards for sewage and graywater discharges from large cruise ships
(those authorized to carry 500 passengers or more for hire) while operating within certain waters
in Alaska. The law prohibits these large cruise ships from discharging untreated sewage while
operating in particular waters, but allows the discharge of treated sewage and graywater if certain
conditions are met.
6-29
-------
Proposed Draft
6.3.7 Toxic Substances Control Act
The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), 15 U.S.C. §§ 2601-2695, was enacted in
1976 to provide EPA authority to collect information regarding chemical substances and to
regulate unreasonable risks from the manufacture, import, processing, distribution in commerce,
or use or disposal of chemical substances in the United States. EPA implements TSCA through
its regulations at 40 CFR Parts 700-766.
TSCA addresses the production, importation, distribution in commerce, use, and disposal
of chemical substances and mixtures of chemical substances generally, and also specifically
regulates the following chemical substances: polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), asbestos, radon,
lead, and mercury. TSCA requires EPA to maintain an inventory of each chemical substance
manufactured or processed in the United States. Chemical substances as defined under TSCA do
not include substances regulated under other specified laws, such as food additives, pesticides,
drugs, cosmetics, tobacco, nuclear material, and munitions. Chemical substances listed on the
inventory are considered "existing," and those not listed are considered "new." Existing
substances are subject to any regulations or orders the Agency has issued for those substances.
New substances are subject to premanufacture notice requirements, described in Section 5 of
TSCA.
EPA can collect information on chemical substances and chemical mixtures under TSCA,
and EPA has the authority to regulate the use or disposal of chemicals or chemical mixtures if
EPA finds that activity presents an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment.
TSCA would allow EPA to regulate chemicals contained in incidental discharges were the
Agency to find it meets this standard.
6-30
-------
Proposed Draft
6.4Application of Legal Authorities to Discharges Incidental to the
Normal Operation of Study Vessels
The preceding subsections discussed a number of international treaties and domestic laws
have been adopted to address the environmental impacts of vessel discharges. The following
tables illustrate which discharges and which size vessels are regulated by each of the above
described treaties, statutes, and regulations
Table 6-1 shows which international treaties and federal laws apply to the types of
incidental discharges that might occur on study vessels. The purpose of this table is to summarize
the preceding discussion and make clear which incidental discharges are regulated or potentially
regulated by existing international and domestic laws.16
Table 6-2 shows which treaties, statutes, and regulations apply to certain size vessels.
This table is not meant to imply that each class of vessel shown is covered by a particular
statute/treaty in all instances. Whether a particular law/treaty applies to a particular vessel
depends on vessel-specific circumstances, such as the vessel's size and class, as well as where
that vessel is operating and what it is discharging. In many instances the treaties/laws shown
classify vessels by weight rather than length. For the purposes of this table, EPA estimated the
length that would correspond with a given vessel weight.
16 Note that for many of the authorities listed, application may depend on vessel- or discharge-specific circumstances
(e.g., at what concentration certain substances are present in the discharge).
6-31
-------
Proposed Draft
Table 6.1. International Treaties and Federal Laws Applicable to Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels
Deck Washdown and Runoff & Above Water Line Hull
Cleaning
Bilgewater
Shaft Packing Gland Effluent
Ballast Water1
Antifouling Leachate from Antifouling Hull Coatings
Aqueous Film-Forming Foam (AFFF)
Boiler /Economizer Blowdown
Cathodic Protection
Chain Locker Effluent
Controllable Pitch Propeller and Thruster Hydraulic
Fluid and Other Oil to Sea Interfaces
Distillation and Reverse Osmosis Brine
Elevator Pit Effluent
Firemain Systems
Fresh-Water Layup
Gas Turbine Water Wash
Graywater
Motor Gasoline and Compensating Discharge
Non-Oily Washwater
Refrigeration and Air Condensate Discharge
Seawater Cooling Overboard Discharge
Seawater Piping Biofouling Prevention
Boat Engine Wet Exhaust
Sonar Dome Discharge
Underwater Ship Husbandry Discharges
Welldeck Discharges
Graywater Mixed with Sewage
Exhaust Gas Scrubber Washwater Discharge
Fish Hold Refrigerated Seawater Cooling Systems
and/or Ice Slurrv Discharges
International
Convention for the
Prevention of Pollution
from Ships (MARPOL)
b,
c, d
b, c
b, c
b
b
b
b, c
b
b
C
b
b
b, c
b,
h
b
b
International
Convention on the
Control of Harmful
Anti-Fouling Systems
on Ships
e
e
b
b
b
e
International
Convention for the
6-32
-------
Proposed Draft
Table 6.1. International Treaties and Federal Laws Applicable to Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels
Safety of Life at Sea
(SOLAS)*
Boundary Waters Treaty
/ Great Lakes Water
Quality Agreementt
St. Lawrence Seaway
Regulations
d
Act to Prevent Pollution
from Ships (APPS)
b,
c, d
b, c
b, c
b
b
b
b, c
b
b
b
b
b, c
b
b
b
CWA§ 311: Oil &
Hazardous Substances /
Oil Pollution Control
Act
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
Organotin Antifouling
Paint Control Act
e
a,
e
b
b
b
a,
e
Hazardous Materials
Transportation Act
f
f
f
b
f
f
National Marine
Sanctuaries Act
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
f
g
g
g
f
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act
(RCRA)
f
f
f
f
f
f
f
f
f
f
f
f
f
f
f
f
f
f
f
f
Toxic Substances
Control Act (TSCA)
f
f
f
f
f
f
f
f
f
f
f
f
f
f
f
f
f
f
f
f
Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act
(FIFRA)
a
a
Kev for Table 6.1:
a = regulates pesticide constituents that may be found in discharge
b = discharge regulated by law/treaty to the extent that it contains oil
c = discharge regulated by law/treaty to the extent that it prevents contamination by noxious liquid substances
( ) SOLAS includes the ISM Code, which calls for a management system to minimize pollutants in vessel discharges. The specifics of each management system
vary by vessel.
t
The Boundary Waters Treaty protects the boundary waters of the United States and Canada from pollution generally.
6-33
-------
Proposed Draft
Table 6.1. International Treaties and Federal Laws Applicable to Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels
d = discharge regulated by law/treaty to the extent that it prevents contamination from garbage
e = regulates antifouling constituents that may be found in discharge
f = regulates toxic substances that may be found in discharge
g = application of law/treaty dependent on requirements specific to the vessel's location
h = the discharge is regulated by this treaty, but the United States has not ratified the relevant annex
6-34
-------
Proposed Draft
Table 6.1. International Treaties and Federal Laws Applicable to Discharges Incidental to the
Normal Operation of Vessels
Table 6.2. International Treaties and Federal Laws Applicable to Vessels (by Length)
Study Vessels Less
Than 79 Feet in
Length
Study Vessels Greater
Than 79 Feet in
Length
Nonstudy Vessels Greater
Than 79 Feet in Length
International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution
from Ships (MARPOL 73/78)*
Annex I
XX
X*
X
Annex II
XX
X
X
Annex III
X
X
X
Annex V
XX
X
X
International Convention on the Control of Harmful Anti-
Fouling Systems on Ships
X
X
X
International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea
(SOLAS)
Boundary Waters Treaty / Great Lakes Water Quality
Agreement
X
X
X
St. Lawrence Seaway Regulations
X
X
X
Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships (APPS)
XX
X
X
CWA § 311: Oil & Hazardous Substances
X
X
X
CWA § 312: Marine Sanitation Devices
X
X
X
Oil Pollution Control Act (OPA)
XX
X
X
Organotin Antifouling Paint Control Act
X
Hazardous Materials Transportation Act
X
X
X
National Marine Sanctuaries Act
X
X
X
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
X
X
X
Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)
X
X
X
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
(FIFRA)
X
X
X
Kev for Table 6.2:
x = law/treaty applicable to this vessel size
xx = law/treaty applicable, but generally fewer requirements than for larger vessels
* MARPOL treats oil tankers separately—those of 150 gt and above are subject to all of the requirements of the treaty, while
those smaller than 150 gt have less stringent requirements. About half of the tankers weighing 150 gt are larger than 79 feet.
6-35
-------
Proposed Draft
CHAPTER 7
REFERENCES
Albert, R. 2007. The Influence of Past and Future Urbanization on Watershed Nitrogen Export and
hydrology Dynamics in Two Mid-Atlantic Watersheds in Fairfax, VA. Ph.D. Diss., George
Mason Univ.
Ambio. 2008. Advanced Nanostructured Surfaces for the Control of Biofouling. Avaialble online
at: http://www.ambio.bham.ac.uk/.
ATSDR, 2002. ToxFAQs™for Di(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate (DEHP). Agency for Toxic Substances
and Disease Registry, Atlanta, GA. Available at http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/tfacts9.pdf.
ATSDR. 2007. Toxicological Profile for Benzene. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease
Registry. Atlanta, GA.Washington, DC. (August). Available online at:
http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp3.pdf.
Baldwin, D., J. Labenia, B. French and N. Scholz. 2004. The Impacts of Dissolved Copper on
Olfactory Function in Juvenile Coho Salmon. NOAA Northwest Fisheries Science
Center. Available at
http://www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/research/divisions/ec/ecotox/fishneurobiology/copperimpacts
.cfrn.
Basheer, C., K.S. Tan, and H.K. Lee. 2002. Organotin and Irgarol-1051 Contamination in
Singapore Coastal Waters. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 44(7): 697-703.
Bay, S. M., D. Lapota, J. Anderson, J. Armstrong, T. Mikel, A. W. Jirik and A. Asato. 2000.
Southern California Bight 1998 Regional Monitoring Program: IV. Sediment Toxicity.
Southern California Coastal Water Research Project. Westminster, CA.
Bryan, G.W., P.E. Gibbs, G.R. Burt and L.G. Hummerstone. 1986. The Decline of the Gastropod
Nucella lapillus Around South-west England: Evidence for the Effect of Tributyltin from
Antifouling Paints. J. Mar. Biol. Assoc. UK. 66: 611-640.
Casey, D. 2007. ServicingYour Stuffing Box. BoatU.S. Available at
http://www.boatus.com/boattech/Casev/StuffingBox.htm.
Calabrese, A., J.R. Maclnnes, D.A. Nelson, R.A. Greigand, and P.P. Yevich. 1984. Effects of
Long-term Exposure to Silver or Copper on Growth, Bioaccumulation and
Histopathology in the Blue Mussel Mytilus edulis. Mar. Environ. Res. 11: 253-274.
Carberry, K.K. 2006. A Case Study of Irgarol Contamination in Coastal Environments: the Case
of Caribbean Waters. Master Thesis. Univ. Puerto Rico, Mayaguez Campus.
7-1
-------
Proposed Draft
Carson, R.T., M. Damon, L.T. Johnson, and J. A. Gonzalez. 2009. Conceptual Issues in
Designing a Policy to Phase Out Metal-based Antifouling Paints on Recreational Boats in
San Diego Bay. J. Environ. Manag. 90(8): 2460-2468.
CRWQCB. 2005. Total Maximum Daily Load for Dissolved Copper in Shelter Island Yacht
Basin, San Diego Bay. Basin Plan Amendment and Technical Report. California
Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Diego Region. Resolution No. R9-2005-
0019.
Chambers, L.D., K.R. Stokes, F.C. Walsh, and R.J.K. Wood. 2006. Modern Approaches to
Marine Antifouling Coatings. Surf. Coat. Technol. 201(6): 3642-3652.
Chin, M. 2005. Packing Glands. BCC Maintenance Tips: Sam L. Morse Company. Available at
http://www.samlmorse.com/forum/read/php73.808.
Conway, J.B. and L.P. Locke. 1994. A Final Report on Marine Fouling andIn-water Hull
Cleaning in San Diego Bay. Prepared for the California Regional Water Quality Control
Board, San Diego Region.
Cummins, Inc. 2004. Marine Generator Set, Operator Manual for Models MDDCA-MDDCJ.
Available at http://www.cumminsonan.com/www/pdf/manuals/981-0172.pdf.
Cummins, Inc. 2008. Marine Generator Set, Operator Manual for Models MDKBK-MDKBU.
Available at http://www.cumminsonan.com/www/pdf/manuals/981-0181.pdf.
Davis A., M. Shokouhian, and S. Ni. 2001. Loading Estimates of Lead, Copper, Cadmium and
Zinc in Urban Runoff from Specific Sources. Chemosphere. 44: 997-1009.
DiGangi, J., T. Schettler, M. Cobbing and M. Rossi. 2002. Aggregate Exposures to Phthalate in
Humans. Health Care Without Harm. Available at
http://www.ecocenter.org/dust/Phthalate hcwh.pdf.
Evans, S.M., S.T. Hawkins, J. Porter and A.M. Samosir. 1994. Recovery of Dogwhelk
Populations on the Isle of Cumbrae, Scotland following Legislation Limiting the Use of
TBT as an Antifoulant. Mar. Poll. Bull. 28: 15-17.
Francesconi, K.A. and D. Kuehnelt. 2002. Arsenic Compounds in the Environment. In: W.T.
Frankenberger, Jr. (Ed.), Environmental Chemistry of Arsenic, Marcel Dekker, Inc. NY.
pp. 51-94.
Hall, L. and P. Gardinali. 2004. Ecological Risk Assessment for Irgarol 1051 and its Major
Metabolite in United States Surface Waters. Hum. Ecol. Risk Assess. 10(3): 525-542.
Hall, L.W., W.D. Killen, R.D. Anderson, Gardinali, P.R. and R. Balcomb. 2005. Monitoring of
Irgarol 1051 Concentrations with Concurrent Phytoplankton Evaluations in East Coast
Areas of the United States. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 50: 668-681.
7-2
-------
Proposed Draft
Hyndman, R.J. and Y. Fan. 1996. Sample Quantiles in Statistical Packages. Amer. Stat. 50(4)
361-365.
Interlux. 1999. Boat Painting Guide for Protecting and Maintaining Your Boat.
Johnson, H.D., J.G. Grovhoug, and A.O. Valkirs. 1998. Copper Loading to U.S. Navy Harbors:
Norfolk, VA; Pearl Harbor, HI; and San Diego, CA. Technical Document 3052. Space
and Naval Systems Center. Systems Center (SPAWAR), U.S. Navy, San Diego, CA.
Johnson, L.T. and J. A. Miller. 2002. What You Need to Know about Nontoxic Antifouling
Strategies for Boats. California Sea Grant College Program, Report No. T-049.
University of California San Diego, San Diego, CA.
Johnson, L.T. and J. A. Gonzalez. 2006. Environmental Policy Conflicts on the Horizon: Vessel
Antifouling Paints, Coastal Water Quality, and Invasive Species. California Policy
Research Center, University of California.
Koetter Fire Protection Systems. 2008. Available online at: www.koetterfire.com/engineered-
fi re-system s.php. 2008.
Konstantinou, I. K. and T.A. Albanis. 2004. Worldwide Occurrence and Effects of Antifouling
Paint Booster Biocides in the Aquatic Environment: A Review. Environ. Int. 30: 235-
248.
MA DEP. 2006. South Shore Coastal Watersheds 2001 Water Quality Assessment Report.
Report Number 94-AC-2. Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection.
MARPOL 73/78. 1978. International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships,
1973 as modified by the Protocol of 1978. Available at
http://www.imo.org/Conventions/mainframe.asp7topic id=258&doc id=678.
McPherson, T.N. and G.B. Peters. 1995. The Effects of Copper-Based Antifouling Paints on
Water Quality in Recreational Boat Marinas in San Diego and Mission Bays. Inwater
Hull Cleaning Study, Ambient Concentrations Study, and Tidal Influence Study.
California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Diego Region. San Diego, CA.
Metcalf and Eddy, Inc. 1979. Wastewater Engineering. Boston, MA.
Mohr, S., R. Berghahn, W. Mailahn, R. Schmiediche, M. Feibicke, and R. Schmidt. 2009. Toxic
and Accumulative Potential of the Antifouling Biocide and TBT Successor Irgarol on
Freshwater Macrophytes: A Pond Mesocosm Study. Environ. Scr. Technol. (In Press).
Mohr, S., H. Schroder, M. Feibicke, R. Berghahn, W. Arp and A. Nicklisch. 2008. Long-term
Effects of the Antifouling Booster Biocide Irgarol 1051 on Periphyton, Plankton and
Ecosystem Function in Freshwater Pond Mesocosms. Aquat. Toxicol. 90: 109-120.
7-3
-------
Proposed Draft
Mowka, E.J., Jr. 2009. The SeaWater Manual: Fundamentals of Water Chemistry for Marine
Aquarists. Instant Ocean. Available online at:
(http://www.instantocean.com/downloads/basicsofsaltwater/basicsofsaltwater.pdf.
NOAA. 1991. Contaminant Trends in the Southern California Bight: Inventory and Assessment.
NOAA Technical Memorandom, NOS ORCA 62, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, National Ocean Service, Rockville, MD.
NOAA. 1994. Inventory of Chemical Concentrations in Coastal and Estuarine Sediments.
NOAA Technical Memorandum, NOS ORCA 76, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, National Ocean Service, Silver Springs, MD.
NMMA. 2009. 2005 U.S. Recreational Boat Registration Statistics. National Marine Manufacturers
Association.
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 and the San Diego Bay Interagency Water Quality Panel.
Readman JW. 2006. Development, Occurrence and Regulation ofAntifouling Paint Biocides:
Historical Review and Future Trends. In: I.K. Konstantinou (Ed.) The Handbook of
Environmental Chemistry: Antifouling Paint Biocides. Vol. 5: Water Pollution.
Research Systems Inc. 2003. Interactive Data Language (IDL), Version 6.0. Boulder, CO.
Rivera-Duarte, I., G. Rosen, D.B. Chadwick, L. Kear-Padilla, and A. Zirino. 2003. Speciation
and Bioavailability of Copper in San Diego Bay; Free Copper Ion Concentration as
Main Vector to Study the Effect of Copper Leaching from Antifouling Paints. Presented
at: International Symposium on Prevention of Pollution from Ships and Shipyards, New
Orleans, LA, November 5-7, 2003.
Schiff, K., D. Diehl, and A. Valkirs. 2003. Copper Emissions from Antifouling Paint on
Recreational Vessels. Mar. Poll. Bull. 48(2004): 371-377.
Sekizawa, J.,S. Dobson, and R.J. Touch III. 2003. DiethylPhthalate. Concise International
Chemical Assessment Document 52. World Health Organization.
Sherwood Pumps, Marine Engine Cooling Water Pumps. 2009. Flow Performance.
(http ://www. sherwoodpumps. com/en-
us/Products/Engine+OEM+Solutions/Flow+Performance/)
Singhasemanon, N. 2008. Assessment of Antifouling Paint Use Indicators in California Marinas.
CA Department of Pesticide Regulation. Presented at: CAHMPC Annual Conference,
Ventura, CA.
Singhasemanon, N., E. Pyatt, and J. Bacey. 2009. Monitoring for Indicators of Antifouling Paint
Pollution in California Marinas. EH08-05. California Environmental Protection Agency,
7-4
-------
Proposed Draft
Environmental Monitoring Branch, California Department of Pesticide Regulation,
Sacramento, CA.
SPSS. 1996. SYSTAT, Version 6.1. Chicago, IL.
SWRCB. 1996. Chemistry, Toxicity and Benthic Community Conditions in Sediments of the San
Diego Bay Region. Final Report. September 1996. State Water Resources Control Board,
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, California Department of Fish and
Game Marine Pollution Studies Laboratory, University of Santa Cruz, and Moss Landing
Marine Laboratories.
Ten Hallers-Tjabbes, C.C., J.F. Kemp, and J.P. Boon. 1994. Imposex in Whelks (Buccinum
undatum) from the Open North Sea: Relation to Shipping Traffic Intensities. Mar. Pollut.
Bull. 28: 311-313.
TDC Environmental. 2004. Copper Sources in Urban Runoff and Shoreline Activities;
Information Update. Prepared for the Clean Estuary Partnership.
Thomas, K., K. Raymond, J. Chadwick, and M. Waldock. 1999. The Effects of Short-term
Changes in Environmental Parameters on the Release of Biocides from Antifouling
Coatings: Cuprous Oxide and Tributyltin. Appl. Organomet. Chem. 13: 453-460.
Thomas, K.V., T.W. Fileman, J.W. Readman, and M.J. Waldock. 2001. Antifouling Paint
Booster Biocides in the UK Coastal Environment and Potential Risks of Biological
Effects. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 42(8): 677-688.
Thomas, K.V., M. McHugh, and M. Waldock. 2002. Antifouling Paint Booster Biocides in UK
Coastal Waters: Inputs, Occurrence and Environmental Fate. Sci. Total Environ. 293:
117-127.
USCG. 2009. Marine Information for Safety and Law Enforcement (MISLE) Database. U.S.
Coast Guard. Washington, D.C.
USEPA. 1976. Quality Criteria for Water. "Red Book. " EPA PB-263-943. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. Washington, D.C. Available at
http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria/librarv/redbook.pdf.
USEPA. 1986a. Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Bacteria -1986. EPA-440/5-84-002. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, D.C. (January). Available at
http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/beaches/files/1986crit.pdf.
USEPA. 1986b. Quality Criteria for Water-1986. "Cold Book. " EPA 440/5-86-001. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, D.C. (May). Available at
http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria/librarv/goldbook.pdf.
7-5
-------
Proposed Draft
USEPA. 1991. Technical Support Document for Water Quality-Based Toxics Control.
EPA/505/2-90-001. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, D.C.
USEPA. 1993. Guidance Specifying Management Measures for Sources of Nonpoint Pollution in
Coastal Waters. Chapter 5: Management Measure for Marinas and Recreational
Boating. EPA-840-B-93-001c. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, D.C.
USEPA. 1996. The Metals Translator: Guidance for Calculating a Total Recoverable Permit
Limit from a Dissolved Criterion. EPA 823-B-96-007. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. Washington, D.C.
USEPA. 1997. Ecological Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund: Process for Designing and
Conducting Ecological Risk Assessments - Interim Final. EPA 540-R-97-006. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, D.C. Available at
http://www.epa.gov/oswer/riskassessment/ecorisk/ecorisk.htm.
USEPA. 1999. Uniform National Discharge Standards for Vessels of the Armed Forces - Phase
I Technical Development Document. EPA 821-R-99-001. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. Washington, D.C. Available online at: http://unds.bah.com/TDD.pdf.
USEPA. 2001. Nutrient Criteria Technical Manual, Coastal and Marine Waters, October, 2001.
Chapter 9. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, D.C.
USEPA. 2002. Total Maximum Daily Loads for Toxic Pollutants, San Diego Creek and Newport
Bay, California. U.S. EPA Region IX. San Francisco, CA.
USEPA. 2003 a. Irgarol: Updated Environmental Risk Assessment for Antifoulant Use.
Memorandum from K. Montague and R. Petrie to D. Edwards through N. Cook, July 15,
2003. Office of Pesticide Programs, Antimicrobial Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. Washington, D.C.
USEPA. 2003b. Technical Summary of Information Available on the Bioaccumulation of Arsenic
in Aquatic Organisms. EPA-822-R-03-032. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Washington, D.C. (December).
USEPA. 2006. National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. Washington, D.C. Available online at:
http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria/wqctable/index.html.
USEPA. 2007. Aquatic Life Ambient Freshwater Quality Criteria - Copper; 2007 Revision.
EPA-882-R-07-001. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, D.C.
(February).
USEPA. 2008a. Economic Impact Analysis of the Recreational Vessel Permit. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, D.C. (June).
7-6
-------
Proposed Draft
USEPA. 2008b. Final Sampling Episode Report for Small Boat Engine Wet Exhaust Discharge
from Compression Ignition Engines. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Washington, D.C. (August).
USEPA. 2008c. Cruise Ship Discharge Assessment Report. EPA842-R-07-005. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. Washington D.C. (December). Available online at:
http://www.epa.gov/owow/oceans/cruise ships/cruise ship disch assess report.html
USEPA. 2008d. Final Issuance ofNPDES Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to
the Normal Operation of Vessels Fact Sheet (December). Available at
www.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/vessel vgp factsheet.pdf.
USEPA. 2009. WaterSense Water-Saving Showerheads Fact Sheet. United States Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, DC. Available at
http://www.epa.gov/watersense/docs/showerhead factsheet508.pdf.
Valkirs, A.O., B.M. Davidson, L.L. Kear, R.L. Fransham, A.R. Zirino, and J.G. Grovhoug. 1994.
Environmental Effects from In-Water Hull Cleaning of Ablative Copper Antifouling
Coatings. Technical Document 2662. Naval Command, Control and Ocean Surveillance
Center, RDT&E Division, San Diego, CA.
Valkirs, A.O., P.F. Seligman, E. Haslbeck, and J.S. Caso. 2003. Measurement of Copper Release
Rates from Antifouling Paint under Laboratory and In-situ Conditions: Implications for
Loading Estimation to Marine Water Bodies. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 46: 763-779.
West Marine. 2008. Selecting Antifouling Paint. Available at
http://www.westmarine.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/westadvisor/10001/-
1/10001/Anti-fouling-Paint.htm.
WHOI. 1952. Marine Fouling and its Prevention. Contribution No. 580. Woods Hole
Oceanographic Institution. United States Naval Institute, Annapolis, MD.
Yebra, D.M., S. Kiil, and K. Dam-Johansen. 2004. Antifouling Technology - Past, Present and
Future Steps towards Efficient and Environmentally Friendly Antifouling Coatings. Prog.
Org. Coat. 50: 75-104.
Zirino, A. and P.F. Seligman. 2002. Copper Chemistry, Toxicity and Bioavailability and its
Relationship to Regulation in the Marine Environment. Technical Document 3140. Space
and Naval Warfare Systems Center, San Diego, CA.
7-7
-------
Proposed Draft
Appendix A
List of Acronyms
AC Air conditioning
AFC Antifouling coating
AFFF Aqueous film forming foam
AFS Antifouling hull systems
AIS Aquatic Invasive Species
ANOVA Analysis of Variance
ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials
ATSDR Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
AWT Advanced Wastewater Treatment
BOD Biochemical oxygen demand
BLM Biotic Ligand Model
BM Benchmark
BMP Best management practice
BTEX Benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, xylene
C Celsius
CCC Criteria Continuous Concentration
CFR Code of Federal Register
CFU Colony Forming Units
CMC Criteria Maximum Concentration
C-PORT Conference of Professional Operators for Response Towing
CRWQCB California Regional Water Quality Control Board
CSO Combined sewer overflow
CSV Comma-separated value
COC Chain of custody
COD Chemical oxygen demand
CTR California Toxics Rule
CWA Clean Water Act
DBP Di-n-butyl phthalate
A-l
-------
Proposed Draft
DC Direct current
DEHP Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
DO Dissolved oxygen
DOC Dissolved organic carbon
DOD Department of Defense
EDD Electronic data deliverable
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
F Fahrenheit
fa Average dissolved fraction
FW Fresh water
gpd Gallons per day
gpm Gallons per minute
GRT Gross register ton
HEM N-hexane extractable materials
HIT Human health
HPLC High performance liquid chromatography
HQ Hazard quotient
ICCP Impressed current cathodic protection
IDL Interactive Data Language
IQR Interquartile range
kw Kilowatt
LCDR Lieutenant Commander
LCPL Landing craft personnel large
LNB Lower Newport Bay
MA DEP Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection
MARPOL International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution
from Ships
MDL Maximum daily load
MdR Marina del Rey
MF Membrane filtration
MISLE Marine Information for Safety and Law Enforcement
A-2
-------
Proposed Draft
MPN Most Probable Number
MS Microsoft
MSD Marine Sanitation Device
MSIS Marine Safety Information System
MTBE Methyl tertiary butyl ether
ND Not detected
NH3-N Ammonia (total, as nitrogen)
NMMA National Marine Manufacturers Association
N03/N02-N Nitrate/Nitrite (as nitrogen)
NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NP Nonylphenol
NPEC Nonylphenol polyethoxy carboxylate
NPEO Nonylphenol polyethoxylate
NRWQC National Recommended Water Quality Criteria
NTU Nephelometric Turbidity Units
O&G Oil and grease
OCPD Oceans and Coastal Protection Division
OPEO Octylphenol polyethoxylate
OWOW Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds
PAH Poly cyclic aromatic hydrocarbon
PBT Persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic chemical
PHQ Potential hazard quotient
P.L Public Law
POTW Publicly owned treatment works
PPCP Pharmaceuticals and personal care product
ppt Part(s) per thousand
PSU Practical salinity unit
P:T Power to tonnage ratio
QA/QC Quality assurance/quality control
QAPP Quality Assurance Project Plan
QCW Quality Criteria for Water
A-3
-------
Proposed Draft
RIB Rigid inflatable boat
RL Reporting limit
RPD Relative percent difference
RPM Rotations per minute
RSW Refrigerated seawater
SCCWRP Southern California Coastal Water Research Project
SDRWQCB San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board
SGT-HEM Silica Gel Treated n-hexane extractable materials
SH Shellfish harvesting
SIYB Shelter Island Yacht Basin
SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board
SSO Sanitary sewer overflow
SVOC Semivolatile organic compound
SW Salt water
TBT Tributyltin
TIC Tentatively identified compound
TIE Toxicity identification and evaluation
TKN Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen
TMDL Total maximum daily load
TOC Total organic carbon
TP Total phosphorus
TRC Total residual chlorine
TSS Total suspended solids
UK United Kingdom
UNDS Uniform National Discharge Standards
U.S United States
U.S.C United States Code
USCG United States Coast Guard
USGS United States Geological Survey
VGP Vessel General Permit
VESDOC Merchant Vessels of the United States
A-4
-------
Proposed Draft
VOC Volatile organic compound
W+O Water Quality Criteria for Human Health based on Water
and Organism Consumption
WHO World Health Organization
WHOI Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute
WOD05 World Ocean Database 2005
WTLUS Waterborne Transportation Lines of the United States
A-5
-------
Proposed Draft
Appendix B
Additional Characteristics of the P.L. 110 - 299 Vessel Population
This appendix provides additional details regarding study vessels. These details include
additional information on vessel subcatagories, general information about vessels' areas of operation
(based upon their hailing port), and additional details regarding vessels' age and areas of operation. The
discussion is based on data from the 139,814 vessels in the MISLE database identified as being within
the study vessel population. These data have limitations as discussed in section B.6.
B.l Vessel Subcategories
Table B.l presents the top five subcategories by each general vessel service to provide insight
into the various types of vessels included the categories. Except for utility vessels (for which the top five
vessel classes are listed), vessel types are displayed for all other vessel service categories. Vessel class
generally relates to the vessel construction or design whereas the type is a more detailed explanation of
the vessels purpose and capabilities.1 As shown in Table B.l, fish catching vessels - which are the focus
of the definition of commercial fishing vessels included by reference in P.L. 110-299 - account for the
vast majority of commercial fishing vessels recorded in MISLE.
Table B.l: Top Five Vessel Subcategories by Vessel Serviceab
Vessel Son ice
Vessel T>pe/('liiss''
Number of Vessels
Fish Catching Vessel
68,343
Fishing Catching/Processing Vessel
178
Commercial Fishing Vessel
General
174
Motor Propelled Vessels
155
Fishing Support Vessel
116
Other non-recreational vessels
'less than 79 feet in length)
General
6,954
Dry Cargo Barge
411
Freight Barge
Deck Barge
295
Lash / Seabee Barge
36
Container Barge
8
General
533
Fishing Support Vessel
23
Freight Ship
Fish Catching Vessel
21
Container Ship
14
Ro-Ro/Container
4
General
12,559
Charter Fishing Vessel
2,053
Passenger Vessel
Excursion/Tour Vessel
1,233
Diving Vessel (Recreational)
305
Water Taxi
298
1 In addition, although not shown in Table B.l, a more detailed category exists in the database, vessel subtype. This field
further breaks out the vessel types. For example, subtype fields that exist for fish catching vessels include trawlers,
shrimpers, and whalers.
B-l
-------
Proposed Draft
Vessel Son ice
Vessel l > pe/( hiss'
Number ol'Vessels
General
145
Law Enforcement (Non-military) Vessel
47
Public Vessel, Unclassified
Buoy /Lighthouse Tender
16
Search and Rescue Vessel
14
Patrol Ship
10
Bulk Liquid Cargo (Tank) Barge
838
Bulk Liquefied Gas Barge
10
Tank Barge
Dry Cargo Barge
7
General
7
Integrated Tug and Barge (Barge)
4
General
102
Petroleum Oil Tank Ship
22
Tank Ship
Gas Carrier
20
Chemical Tank Ship
14
Bulk Liquid Cargo (Tank) Barge
1
Towing Vessel
7,372
Offshore
650
Utility Vessel
Research Ship
488
Barge
396
School Ship
60
a This table is based on operational, U.S. flagged commercial fishing vessels (all lengths) and other non-recreational vessel less
than 79 feet.
b "Unspecified" or "Miscellaneous Vessel" subcategories were not included among the top five vessel subcategories,
c Vessel types are displayed for all vessel service categories except for utility vessels; the top five vessel classes are listed for
utility vessels.
Source: U.S. Coast Guard MISLE database, 2009
B.l.l Population of Vessels undergoing Discharge Analysis
Table B.2 summarizes the population of specific vessel sub-types that were investigated and
sampled by EPA: commercial fishing vessels, water taxis/ferries, tour vessels, towing vessels,
emergency boats, and vessels classified as recreational vessels that operate as non-recreational vessels2.
The vessel counts presented in the table provide rough estimates of the number of vessels that may be
represented by each category of sampled vessels.3
EPA generally used the vessel service or current usage to categorize study vessels, however, the
MISLE vessel classification generally refers to the category of vessel based on its original construction.
The MISLE vessel type field provides the more detailed explanation of the vessels' purpose and current
use. A more detailed vessel subtype category also exists in the MISLE database to further break out the
vessel types. For example, MISLE has subtype entries for trawlers, shrimpers, and whalers within the
fish catching vessel type, allowing for the population of vessels within these specific subtypes to be
estimated.
2 EPA discusses the vessels sampled for this report in greater detail in Chapter 2 of this report.
3 EPA considers these estimates to be only approximate counts due to the potential misclassification of vessels in MISLE as
well as some of the dataset's ambiguous vessel classifications (e.g. categorizing a vessel as "general").
B-2
-------
Proposed Draft
Table B.2: Total Number of Vessels in a Given Subtype which EPA Subsampled
Pereenl (if Vessel
Vessel
Number of
Tj pe \\ illiin Vessel
Sen iee
Vessel Tjpe
Vessels
Sen iee
Commercial Fishing Vessel
69,944
100.0%
All Commercial Fishing
Vessel
69,944
100.0%
Passenger Vessels3
20,953
100.0%
Water Taxi
298
1.4%
Ferry
272
1.3%
Excursion/Tour Vessel
1,233
5.9%
Utility Vessel
11,034
100.0%
Towing Vessel (includes
Tugboats)
7,751
70.2%
Non-Recreational Vessel
69,870
100.0%
Classified as Recreational
(on the basis of vessel type)
1,624
2.3%
a Most passenger vessels are listed as "general" passenger vessels: out of the approximately 21,000 passenger
vessels, nearly 13,000 are listed as "general" passenger vessels.
Source: U. S. Coast Guard, MISLE database, 2009
In addition to the specific vessel types listed above, EPA sampled recreational vessels used in
non-recreational service, in part to determine whether characteristics of their discharges differ from
those of other types of vessels used in similar applications. The Clean Boating Act of 2008 covers
vessels manufactured for recreational uses, unless they are inspected vessels used commercially.
Table B.3 provides examples of the most common vessels classified as recreational vessels in
MISLE but that are identified as operating in a non-recreational capacity. Because the analysis presented
throughout this section generally defines the population of moratorium vessels on the basis of the vessel
service rather than original manufacture purpose, the vessel population estimate of generated for this
report may overestimates the number of vessels to which the moratorium in P.L. 110-299 applies. Most
vessels manufactured primarily for pleasure are permanently excluded from NPDES requirements by the
Clean Boating Act4 rather than the shorter-term moratorium in P.L. 110-299 as long those vessels meet
the definition of a recreational vessel under the Clean Boating Act.
Table B.3: Examples of Study Vessels in a Non-Recreational Vessel Service, Classified as
Recreational Vessels
Vessel Class
Vessel Sen iee
Vessel T\pe
Number of Vessels
Recreational
Passenger Vessel
Passenger (Uninspected)
767
Commercial Fishing
Commercial Fishing
Recreational
Vessel
Vessel
232
Recreational
Utility Vessel
Research Vessel
22
Source: U. S. Coast Guard, MISLE database, 2009
4 The Clean Boating Act, P.L. 110-288 defines the term 'recreational vessel' to mean any vessel that is— "(i) manufactured
or used primarily for pleasure; or (ii) leased, rented, or chartered to a person for the pleasure of that person." However, the
term recreational vessel excludes any vessel "that is subject to Coast Guard inspection and that is (i) engaged in commercial
use or (ii) carries paying passengers.".
B-3
-------
Proposed Draft
B.2 Vessel Geographical Area of Operation
EPA used MISLE data on hailing port of individual vessel records to characterize the
geographical area of operation of vessels in the selected population. Although the hailing port does not
account for the detailed traffic patterns of a vessel or for the amount of time a given vessel spends in the
listed port, it nevertheless can provide information on a vessel's general area of operation. This may be
particularly true of vessels that may have a fairly limited range of operation by virtue of their smaller
size or the nature of activities they engage in (e.g., tug boat that operates within a given port area). Out
of the 139,814 vessels in the study vessel population, 76,956 MISLE vessel records had sufficiently
detailed information to determine their hailing state and general region of operation.5
Of the approximately 77,000 vessels records having sufficiently detailed information to
determine their state and general region of operation, 20,000 vessels provided one of the hailing ports
listed in Figure B.l. As evidenced by the figure, certain port cities, such as Seattle, WA and Juneau, AK
are predominantly commercial fishing centers, while New Orleans, LA and New York, NY are
predominantly listed by other non-recreational vessels. New Orleans, LA, is the most frequently cited
hailing port with approximately 1,300 commercial fishing vessels and 3,800 other non-recreational
vessels less than 79 feet. These hailing port distributions were used to inform estimates of vessels in a
given water body for EPA's screening level modeling in Chapter 4 of this report.
For the remaining vessels, the hailing port information was either missing or too incomplete to be used in the
analysis (e.g., only city name is provided).
B-4
-------
Proposed Draft
Figure B.1: Approximate Number of Study Vessels for Hailing Ports Frequently Cited in MISLE
t
o
Q.
o>
ra
X
New Orleans, LA
Seattle, WA
New York, NY
Houston, TX
San Francisco, CA
Juneau, AK
Miami, FL
Norfolk, VA
Boston, MA
Houma, LA
Cordova, AK
Homer, AK
Sitka, AK
Kodlak, AK
San Diego, CA
Portland, OR
Key West, FL
Ketchikan, AK
Gloucester, MA
Petersburg, AK
¦ Commercial Fishing Vessel
~ Other Non-Recreational Vessel
500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500
Approximate Number of Vessels
3,000
3,500
4,000
Note: This table is based on 76,956 operational, U.S. flagged commercial fishing vessels and other non-recreational vessel less than 79 feet for which
hailing port information is provided in MISLE. EPA notes that the hailing port information is only available for about half of the "study vessels" listed in
the MISLE database.
Source: U. S. Coast Guard, MISLE database, 2009
Table B.4 presents the number of vessels by vessel service and the nine census divisions, as
displayed in Figure B.2 below.6 The divisions are defined by the U.S. Census Bureau as standard
geographical units for reporting data for aggregated states. Although not specifically designed for this
purpose, the divisions tend to follow the major maritime trade axes and waterways (e.g., coastwise,
inland, Great Lakes, Pacific and Atlantic Oceans, Mississippi River, Gulf of Mexico) and therefore
provide useful groupings for reporting vessel population estimates. The majority of approximately
70,000 vessels within the scope of P L. 110-299 for which MISLE provides a U.S. hailing port operate
within the Pacific and South Atlantic divisions (28 and 25 percent of vessels, respectively). This
regional distribution is driven in part by the large concentration of commercial fishing vessels in the two
regions primarily in Alaska with 6,560 vessels and Florida with 3,804 vessels.
6 In addition, separate vessel counts are provided for U.S. territories (Puerto Rico, US Virgin Islands, American Samoa, and
Guam), Canadian provinces (Newfoundland and Labrador, New Brunswick, Quebec, Nova Scotia, Ontario, Alberta, and
British Columbia), and for vessels that listed either another foreign hailing port or did not list a hailing port.
B-5
-------
Proposed Draft
Table B.4: Number of Study Vessels by Vessel Service and Census Division, based on Hailing Port
Information Provided in MISLE.
(oiniiioiviiil Public
Census l ishinii l-'mghi l-'mglu Piissoiiiior Vessel. Tank Tank I (ili(\
l)i\ ision Vessel liariic Ship Vessel I nclassil'icd liarjic Ship Vessel I nspccillcd
New
England
7,173
41
39
1,158
14
12
6
302
939
Middle
Atlantic
1,585
466
27
1,414
4
8
7
645
1,016
East North
Central
414
53
20
1,274
2
28
487
1,467
West North
Central
45
181
7
175
4
1
538
172
South
Atlantic
9,400
440
83
4,821
15
39
18
1,347
3,062
East South
Central
1,606
21
2
378
3
1
479
261
West South
Central
6,386
2,23
8
22
1,107
5
65
4
2,732
924
Mountain
59
11
1
142
24
81
Pacific
14,482
129
133
3,187
19
64
5
1,155
2,281
National
Total
41,150
3,580
334
13,656
62
221
41
7,709
10,203
U.S.
Territories
230
8
1
353
3
8
46
129
Canadian
Province
3
2
Unknown /
Other
28,561
4,42
8
433
6,942
557
694
138
3,279
17,043
This table is based on operational, U.S. flagged commercial fishing vessels and other non-recreational vessel less than 79 feet for which MISLE
provides sufficiently detailed hailing port information.
Source: U. S. Coast Guard, MISLE database, 2009
B-6
-------
Proposed Draft
Figure B.2: Geographical Definitions of U.S. Census Divisions
The geographical distribution of commercial fishing vessels and other non-recreational vessels
less than 79 feet is illustrated in the maps of Figure B.3 and Figure B.4, respectively. Commercial
fishing vessels tend to cluster exclusively along the coastlines. Non-recreational vessels less than 79 feet
tend to be found on the major U.S. shipping waterways such as the Mississippi river and the Great
Lakes.
B-7
-------
Proposed Draft
Figure B.3: Geographical Distribution of Commercial Fishing Vessels by Hailing Port State
Source: U. S. Coast Guard, MISLE database, 2009; based on subset of operational, U.S. flagged commercial fishing vessels for which MISLE provides a
hailing port.
B-8
-------
Proposed Draft
Figure B.4: Geographical Distribution of Study Vessels (excluding Commercial Fishing Vessels) by Hailing Port State
Source: U. S. Coast Guard, MISLE database, 2009; based on subset of operational, U.S. flagged other non-recreational vessels less than 79 feet in length
for which MISLE provides a hailing port.
Alaska and Florida both report a high number of commercial fishing vessels. These states have
long coastal shorelines and the vessel density by miles of tidal shorelines is lower than in other states
such as Mississippi, New Hampshire, and Massachusetts that have comparatively fewer miles of
shoreline but access to large fishing grounds. According to National Marine Fisheries Service data, for
example, Massachusetts alone accounted for over half of fish landings recorded in New England states
in 2007, by pound.7 Figure B.5 illustrates these differences by showing the density of commercial
fishing vessels by miles of tidal shorelines. The states represented in Figure B.5 account for 99 percent
of commercial fishing vessels recorded in MISLE that report a hailing port.
Annual Commercial Landing Statistics database
(http://www.st.nmfs.noaa. gov/st 1 /co mm c rc i a 1/1 a nd i n a s/; imui a I landings.html). Accessed May 26, 2009.
B-9
-------
Proposed Draft
Figure B.5: Density of Commercial Fishing Vessels in Coastal States, by Mile of Tidal Shoreline
o
c
a>
o
.c
CO
"to
¦O
> i—
0) --
tfl
o
Si
£
3
Mid Atlantic
North Atlantic
South Atlantic
Coastal states included above account for 99 percent of commercial fishing vessels recorded inMISLE,
Sources: U. S. Coast Guard, MISLE database, 2009; based on subset of operational, U.S. flagged commercial fishing vessels for which MISLE provides a
U.S. hailing port. Miles of tidal shoreline from U.S. Geological Survey and National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration, National Atlas of the United
States, Coastline and Shoreline. Miles include shoreline of the outer coast, offshore islands, sounds, and bays, as well as the tidal portion of rivers and
creeks.
In contrast to commercial fishing vessels, which are found almost exclusively along U.S. coasts,
about a third of other non-recreational vessels less than 79 feet in length for which MISLE provides
hailing port information have a hailing port located along inland waterways. Figure B.6 shows the
density of these vessels by state, based on inland water area. Several inland and Great Lakes states (e.g.,
Missouri, Indiana, and Kentucky) exhibit a high vessel density in relation to their inland water areas,
reflecting these states' adjacency to key navigable waterways such as the Mississippi or Missouri
Rivers. However, though a vessel lists a city or state as its hailing port, it is unlikely that all vessel
operations are confined exclusively to those states waters for many vessels. Additionally, as most vessel
traffic may take place on only a small set of navigable waterways, vessel density in these navigable
waters is likely to be even greater than implied by the state-wide numbers shown in Figure B.6. Hence,
these are relative densities which likely depict which state waters have higher vessel activity.
B-10
-------
Proposed Draft
Figure B.6: Density Study Vessels (excluding Commercial Fishing Vessels) by State, by Water Area
16
14
| 12
¦c
c
TO
O
>¦¥
¦5 £
C
>
.£2
E
10
~
~ Other non-Recreational Vessel
Density (per water area)
nllrin.
n „
EL_ flnDDDnaP
i
o
-j ^ q :
z o co i
O UJ Q < < h <
~ Q 2 Q. > O 2
* <
< O
IY. < :
O 5 1
< o o
O Z CO
Pi
| Inland |
i |
Great Lakes 1
| Gulf Coast |
| Mid Atlantic |
| N Atlantic |
Pacific
| S Atlantic |
Sources: U. S. Coast Guard, MISLE database, 2009; based on subset of operational, U.S. flagged other non-recreational vessels less than 79 feet in length
for which MISLE provides a U.S. hailing port. State statistics on square miles of water obtained from U.S. Census, Statistical Abstract of the United States,
2008. The area includes inland, coastal, Great Lakes, and territorial waters.
B.3
Other Vessel Characteristics: Construction and Propulsion
This section presents information on other various characteristics of study vessels that not only
influence how vessels are used (e.g., for towing or icebreaking purposes vs. lighter service), but may
also affect the characteristics of discharges incidental to vessel operations. In particular, the section
provides statistics on the age of the vessels (Section B.3.1), hull material (Section B.3.2), propulsion
method and fuel type (Section B.3.3), and, for self-propelled vessels, engine power rating (Section
B.3.4). As for other vessel statistics presented in this report, the data are obtained from the USCG's
MISLE database.
B.3.1
Vessel Age
B-ll
-------
Proposed Draft
Figure B.7 and Figure B.8 present the distribution of study vessels by vessel construction date or
age. Figure B.7 summarizes the information across the entire selected population whereas details for
each vessel service category are provided in Figure B.8. As seen from both figures, nearly half of the
vessels fall within the age range of 25 to 50 years. The average age of vessels across all service
categories is 33 years.
Vessel age is one of the factors that generally determines the type and performance of equipment
used onboard vessels and the characteristics of discharges from the equipment. However, EPA
recognizes that older vessels often have equipment which is rebuilt or replaced. For example, if an older
vessel replaces its engine, the engine effluent will be influenced by the type and performance of the
engine, not by the vessel's age. Freight ships and tank ships tend to have been in service longer than
passenger vessels and generally have a greater level of rebuilding and replacement of original
equipment.
Figure B.7: Distribution of Study Vessels by Age, in Years
~ 50-100 years
17.7%
~ 100 or more years
q go/ ~ Less than 5 years
9.9%
~ 10-25 years
23.6%
¦ 25-50 years
48.6%
Note: This table is based on operational, U.S. flagged commercial fishing vessels and other non-recreational vessel less than 79 feet.
Vessel age was either not reported or an invalid age (i.e. less than zero) was reported for approximately 43,000 vessels.
Source: U. S. Coast Guard, MISLE database, 2009
B-12
-------
Proposed Draft
Figure B.8: Distribution of Study Vessels by Age and Vessel Service
100% n ^
90% -- -
80% -- -
70% -- -
60% -- -
50% -- -
40% -- -
30% -- -
20% -- -
10% -- -
0%
All Vessels
Commercial
Fishing
Vessel
Freight Barge
Freight Ship
Passenger
Vessel
Public
Vessel,
Unclassified
Tank Barge
Tank Ship
Utility Vessel
Unspecified
¦ 100 or more years
256
146
2
7
36
50
15
~ 50-100 years
17,231
10,921
173
305
2,669
81
19
2,246
817
~ 25-50 years
47,208
26,715
3,514
144
7,954
31
102
25
4,111
4,612
~ 10-25 years
22,892
11,049
290
35
4,525
10
84
1,148
5,751
~ Less than 5 years
9,603
3,125
321
19
2,502
13
50
5
920
2,648
Note: This table is based on operational, U.S. flagged commercial fishing vessels and other non-recreational vessel less than 79 feet.
Vessel age was either not reported or an invalid age (i.e. less than zero) was reported for approximately 43,000 vessels.
Source: U. S. Coast Guard, MISLE database, 2009
B.3.2 Hull Material Type
Figure B.9 and Figure B.10 present the distribution of vessels by type of hull material type.
Figure B.9 provides a summary across all vessel service categories whereas Figure B.10 presents the
information disaggregated by each category of vessel service.
The three most common hull material types are fiberglass, wood, and steel in order of most
common usage. Commercial fishing vessels with wood hulls account for over three quarters of the total
number of wood hulled vessels, although wood is also used in the hulls of a significant share of freight
ships and passenger vessels less than 79 feet in length. The type of hull material affects the type of anti-
foulant coatings that are applied and has implications on vessel discharges and receiving water quality.
For example, steel hulls often have an anti-corrosive as well as anti-foulant hull coatings. The type of
hull material may also affect the frequency with which certain maintenance procedures such as hull
inspections are conducted.
B-13
-------
Proposed Draft
Figure B.9: Number of Study Vessels by Hull Material Type
~ Aluminum
Note: This table is based on operational, U.S. flagged commercial fishing vessels and other non-recreational vessel less than 79 feet.
Hull material type was not reported for approximately 43,000 vessels.
Source: U. S. Coast Guard, MISLE database, 2009
B-14
-------
Proposed Draft
Figure B.10: Distribution of Study Vessels by Hull Material and Vessel Service
100% t— 1—— 1—— l—l —
80% -- -
60% -- -
40% -- -
20% -- -
0%
All Vessels
Commercial
Fishing
Vessel
Freight
Barge
Freight Ship
Passenger
Vessel
Public
Vessel,
Unclassified
Tank Barge
Tank Ship
Utility Vessel
Unspecified
~Wood
28,226
21,474
87
285
5,002
1
2
6
510
859
~ Steel
23,524
7,805
4,391
224
1,633
25
323
43
7,082
1,998
~ Rubber
34
1
10
2
21
¦ Plastic: Non-Reinforced
98
58
2
2
36
~ Plastic: MSIS Legacy
3,318
1,875
22
9
684
1
10
717
~ Glass
463
310
1
33
16
103
~ Fiberglass
34,536
19,433
20
38
8,022
16
4
408
6,595
~ Concrete
213
137
2
2
36
1
35
~ Aluminum
6,704
2,211
15
36
2,698
15
4
8
778
939
Note: This table is based on operational, U.S. flagged commercial fishing vessels and other non-recreational vessel less than 79 feet.
Approximately 43,000 vessels reported in MISLE do not have a hull material or have a material other than the primary materials listed above.
Source: U. S. Coast Guard, MISLE database, 2009
B.3.3 Propulsion Method and Type
Figure B.l 1 presents the number and percentage of vessels by vessel service and propulsion
method. A vessel is characterized as self-propelled if the vessel uses self-contained engines and other
machinery to propel the vessel (wind-driven vessels are also included in this category). Non-self
propelled vessels are generally propelled by a separate towing vessel e.g. a barge or mobile offshore
drilling unit is propelled by a tugboat.
Overall, within the selected subset of the study vessel population for which data are available in
MISLE, 70 percent of vessels are self-propelled. The fraction of self-propelled vessels by service type
varies from a low of 4 to 5 percent for freight barges and tank barges, to approximately 80 percent for
commercial fishing vessels, freight ships, passenger vessels, and utility vessels. Most self-propelled
vessels recorded in MISLE are propelled by either diesel motors (66.5 percent) or gasoline motors (26.9
percent).
B-15
-------
Proposed Draft
Self-propelled vessels that use mechanical propulsion methods have certain types of equipment
such as an engine, propeller shaft, and propulsion fuel tanks, which would affect the characteristics of
discharges under normal operations. Discharges from these vessels may be more likely to have higher
concentrations of oil, grease, organic compounds, and metals due to their use of lubricants, fuels and
machinery.
Figure B.11: Distribution of Study Vessels by Propulsion Method
100%
90%
80%
70%
(/>
V
60%
if)
t/)
o
50%
+-»
c
-------
Proposed Draft
rating may determine the amount and characteristics of discharges from operating vessels by affecting
the size, type, and complexity of onboard propulsion equipment.
As evidenced by the two figures, nearly 62 percent of all vessels have a horsepower ahead
ranging between 100 and 500. The average value across all vessels is 411 horsepower. The utility vessel
and public vessel service categories have the highest proportion of vessels with a horsepower rating of
1,000 or greater. This is expected given the type of activities conducted by vessels in these service
categories, e.g., towing and ice breaking. While not reflected in the figure, the MISLE data suggests a
general relationship between vessel size and horsepower rating, within a given category of vessels.
Figure B.12: Distribution of Study Vessels by Horsepower Ahead
~ 1,000-5,000
horsepower
7.1%
15,000 or more
horsepower
0.1%
~ 500-1,000 horsepower
18.8%
~ Less than 100
horsepower
12.2%
¦ 100-500 horsepower
61.8%
Note: This table is based on operational, U.S. flagged commercial fishing vessels and other non-recreational vessel less than 79 feet.
MISLE does not report horsepower ahead for approximately 114,000 non-recreational study vessels.
Source: U. S. Coast Guard, MISLE database, 2009
B-17
-------
Proposed Draft
Figure B.13: Distribution of Study vessels by Horsepower Ahead and Vessel Service
All Vessels
Commercial
Fishing
Vessel
Freight Barge
Freight Ship
Passenger
Vessel
Public
Vessel,
Unclassified
Tank Barge
Tank Ship
Utility Vessel
Unspecified
¦ 5,000 or more horsepower
28
21
2
1
2
2
~ 1,000-5,000 horsepower
1,831
443
1
5
642
1
1
711
27
~ 500-1,000 horsepower
4,886
1,732
4
16
1,808
2
6
2
1,174
142
~ 100-500 horsepower
16,041
8,748
13
54
4,473
4
1
19
1,159
1,570
~ Less than 100 horsepower
3,167
1,364
4
9
1,059
2
2
10
111
606
Note: This table is based on operational, U.S. flagged commercial fishing vessels and other non-recreational vessel less than 79 feet.
Approximately 114,000 vessels reported in MISLE have no horsepower ahead value or a value of zero.
Source: U. S. Coast Guard, MISLE database, 2009
B.4 Distribution of the Study Vessel Universe versus the Recreational Vessel Universe
While the analysis presented in this section generally focuses on the subset of study vessels, a
comparison of those vessels to the overall population is pertinent to understanding how discharges may
differ between these vessels. At the same time, comparison of estimates provided in different sources
also helps verify the population estimate derived from MISLE data. As discussed later in this section,
the MISLE database appears to provide reasonably accurate data for larger recreational vessels;
however, the database does not appear to provide accurate information for recreational vessels less than
25 feet.
A comparison of the geographical distribution of the selected vessel population to that of the
overall MISLE vessel universe (including all operational, U.S. flagged vessels) highlights some key
differences. As discussed below in this section, recreational vessels less than 25 feet are not well
B-18
-------
Proposed Draft
represented in MLSE; hence, the values presented in these tables do not accurately reflect vessel
numbers of these smaller vessels. As reflected in Figure B. 14 below, several states that have hailing
ports with a high percentage of the study vessel population account for a comparatively low percentage
of the total universe of vessels. Conversely, States, such as California, with the largest number of vessels
overall have comparatively fewer vessels in the population of commercial fishing vessels and non-
recreational vessels less than 79 feet. The difference is generally attributable to the geographical
distribution of recreational vessels (Figure B.15) as larger recreational vessels tend to be concentrated in
certain states due to the states' longer coastlines, higher population or income, and/or a longer boating
season. For these states, one can expect considerably greater numbers of recreational versus non-
recreational vessels. The relative shares of non-recreational and recreation vessel categories are
illustrated in Figure B. 16 which summarizes the overall vessel universe by state and vessel service
category, based on information provided in MISLE.
Figure B.14: Geographical Distribution of MISLE Vessel Universe by Hailing Port State
Source: U. S. Coast Guard, MISLE database, 2009; based on operational, U.S. flagged vessels for which MISLE provides a hailing port. Note that MLSE
does not provide accurate estimates for smaller recreational vessels.
Geographical Distribution
All Vessels
5.000 or less
\rm 5.000 01 -10.000 00
10.000.01 • 20.000 00
20.000.01 • 40.000.00
Greater than 40,000
Operational, U.S. flagged vessels
B-19
-------
Proposed Draft
Figure B.15: Geographical Distribution of Recreational Vessels by Hailing Port State
Source: 41. S. (.oasi Guard: A0SLE database, 2,009, Npte that MLSE does not provide accurate estimates for smaller recreational vessels,
B-20
-------
Proposed Draft
Figure B.16 Comparison of the Number of MLSE recorderd (Larger) Recreational vessels to Study Vessels by State
90,000
80,000
70,000
60,000
w
8!
J 50,000
"S
L.
¦jj 40,000
3
Z
30,000
20,000
10,000
0
Note: The hailing port state was either not listed or a foreign port was listed for approximately 285,000 and 6,000 vessels, respectively. All vessels are included within each of the three vessel service categories,
regardless of length.
The data likely only includes larger recreational vessels captured in MISLE and is therefore a gross underestimate of the total population of recreational vessels.
Source: U. S. Coast Guard, MISLE database, 2009
_
¦ Recreational Vessel
~ Commercial Fishing Vessel
~ Other Non-Recreational Vessel
--
pi
-
i-i
i-i
i-i
i-i
i-i
-
= n n
-
¦
rn
¦
i-i
In.
i-i
¦
i-i
pi
-
p.
_i
_¦
=
¦
i-i
i-i
-
i-i
1 1
1 1
¦
-
---
¦
-
i-i
*
State
B-21
-------
Proposed Draft
Study vessels represent a very small share of the total number of vessels operating on U.S.
waters is evidenced by comparisons of the estimated number of study vessels (139,814 vessels) to the
national statistics on recreational vessels. While the number of recreational vessels reported in MISLE is
large (700,000 vessels), the actual number of recreational vessels found on U.S. waters is known to be
significantly greater, or about 17 million. This is because industry estimates indicate a much larger
number of recreational vessels than are captured in MISLE, particularly for smaller vessels less than 26
feet.
In its 2008 Recreational Boating Statistical Abstract, the National Marine Manufacturers
Association (NMMA) estimates that there are approximately 16.9 million recreational vessels in the
U.S., including 13 million registered and/or documented boats and more than 4 million non-registered
boats. This is a significantly greater estimate than the number of vessels documented in MISLE, which
records the characteristics of 722,522 recreational vessels. The difference is accounted for by state-
registered vessels that are not subject to documentation requirements8, hence, they are captured by
NMMA but not by MLSE. Figure B. 17 illustrates the distribution of vessels by service and length, this
time including additional recreational vessels captured in industry estimates (NMMA, 2009). Figure
B. 18 compares recreational vessels reported by MLSE and NMMA across the various census regions are
covered in MISLE. As shown in these figures, there are a significantly greater number of small
recreational vessels (less than 26 feet in length) than suggested by MISLE data alone. While MISLE
grossly underestimates the number of recreational vessels below 26 feet, it appears to provide more
reliable estimates for larger recreational vessel (MISLE over-represents the number of recreational
vessels in the 40 to 65 feet length category, while it accounts for 55 percent and 73 percent of
recreational vessels recorded by NMMA in the 26 to 40 feet and greater than 65 feet categories,
respectively). Across all size categories with the exception of vessels greater than 65 feet, non-
recreational vessels account for a relatively small fraction of the total universe of domestic vessels
operating in U.S. waters.
8 Additional state boating regulations require that non-documented vessels, including smaller recreational vessels less than
five tons, register with state authorities. While vessel registration requirements under State boating regulations vary, many
states require that vessels of any size equipped with primary or secondary propulsion be registered; in some cases, non-
motored vessels above 15 feet in length must also be registered. See additional discussion under Section B.5.
B-22
-------
Proposed Draft
Figure B.17: Distribution of Vessels by Service Category and Length (in feet), Accounting for MISLE AND NMMA
Estimates of Recreational Vessels
100% -i
80%
«
at
u>
u>
at
>
at
n
E
60%
40%
20%
0%
-20%
47,045
8,206
¦ NMMA Additional Recreational Vessels
~ MISLE Recreational Vessels
~ MISLE Non-recreational Vessels
95,754
34,598
65,146
12,509
16-26
26-40
40-65
>65
Vessel Length (in feet)
Source: U. S. Coast Guard, MISLE database, 2009 and NMMA 2007 Recreational Boating Statistical Abstract.
An additional 43,351 vessels are included in MISLE but do not have length information. These vessels are therefore excluded from the figure.
B-23
-------
Proposed Draft
Figure B.18: Recreational Vessels as Reported in MISLE and as Estimated by NMMA
2,500,000
2,000,000
I 1,500,000
w
to
Q)
>
Q)
-Q
| 1,000,000
500,000
LU
5
(D
New Middle East West South East West Mountain Pacific
England Atlantic North North Atlantic South South
Central Central Central Central
03
<
_CD
"O
-*—>
ay
(/)
03
CD
LU
§
o
03
Q_
LU
-------
Proposed Draft
B.5 Vessels Documented, Inspected, and/or State Registered
The MISLE database classifies vessels as documented, inspected, and/or state registered. These
classifications are used to identify the types of requirements to which a given vessel is subject.
According to a Coast Guard representative, generally only vessels that are not documented at the
national level are state registered.9 On the other hand, based on the MISLE dataset, nearly all (4,982) of
the 5,259 inspected vessels are also either documented or state registered.
In order to be classified as a documented vessel, the vessel "must measure at least five tons and,
with the exception of certain oil spill response vessels, must be wholly owned by a citizen of the U.S."10
According to a Coast Guard representative, "documentation provides conclusive evidence of nationality
for international purposes, provides for unhindered commerce between the states, and admits vessels to
certain restricted trades, such as coastwise trade and the fisheries."
A vessel is listed as inspected in MISLE when the vessel is subject to inspection requirements
under one of several U.S. Coast Guard regulations. According to a Coast Guard representative, certain
U.S. vessels (e.g. passenger vessels that meet threshold size and passenger requirements) are required to
undergo safety and security inspections, which includes inspections on a vessel's machinery, hull, safety
equipment, and proper documents, before they can operate commercially in U.S. waters.11
A vessel is listed as state registered when the vessel is registered by a state authority. Only
vessels that are not documented at the national level are state registered. Although each state sets its own
registration requirements and therefore these requirements can vary from state to state, generally, any
undocumented vessel that is self-propelled (meaning that machinery is used to propel the vessel) must
be registered with the state.
Table B.5, below, presents the number of study vessels - by vessel service - classified as
documented, inspected or state registered in MISLE. As seen within Table B.5, overall, approximately
36 percent of vessels reporting in MISLE are documented, 4 percent of vessels are inspected, and 26
percent of vessels are state registered, although the fractions of vessels in each class varies across the
vessel service categories.
9 Approximately 1,200 vessels are listed as both documented and state-registered.
10 Source: Personal email communication with Harold Krevait of the U.S. Coast Guard. April 22, 2009. Note, however that
fishing vessels with only a "registry" endorsement on their certification of documentation do not have to be wholly owned by
U.S. citizens but may be under majority control by U.S. interest (Personal communication with Jack Kemerer, Fishing Vessel
Safety Program, May 26, 2009).
11 Source: Personal email communication with Harold Krevait of the U.S. Coast Guard. April 22, 2009.
B-25
-------
Proposed Draft
Table B.5: Number of Study Vessels Documented, Inspected, and State Registered, by Vessel
Service
Tolsil
Documented
Inspec led
Sliiie Kcjiislcrcd
Percenl of
Percenl of
Percenl of
Vessel Scr\ ice
Number
Number
Tolill
Number
Number
l(i(;il
Commercial Fishing
Vessel
69,944(1)
27,770(1)
39.7%
3
0.0%
22,438(1)
32.1%
Freight Barge
8,016
811
10.1%
1
0.0%
48
0.6%
Freight Ship
768
211
27.5%
14
1.8%
40
5.2%
Passenger Vessel
20,953
10,613
50.7%
4,968
23.7%
4,044
19.3%
Public Vessel,
Unclassified
622
22
3.5%
3
0.5%
21
3.4%
Tank Barge
923
116
12.6%
49
5.3%
10
1.1%
Tank Ship
179
24
13.4%
15
8.4%
8
4.5%
Utility Vessel
11,034
6,008
54.4%
199
1.8%
1,020
9.2%
Unspecified
27,375
4,183
15.3%
7
0.0%
9,030
33.0%
All Vessels
139,814
49,758
35.6%
5,259
3.8%
36,659
26.2%
Note: This table is based on operational, U.S. flagged commercial fishing vessels and other non-recreational vessel less than 79 feet.
Source: U. S. Coast Guard, MISLE database, 2009
l-1-1 The U.S. Coast Guard's Fishing Vessel Safety Program generally uses a figure of 80,000 as the approximate number of
commercial fishing vessels, including about 20,000 documented vessels and 60,000 state-registered vessels. In 2007, the states
reported a total of over 58,000 vessels that fish commercially and are registered in their jurisdictions.12
As described in Chapter 1, MISLE also includes additional vessels not subject to the
documentation, inspection, or state registration requirements; information for these vessels was obtained
through other Coast Guard activities such as non-mandatory inspections or incident investigations.
B.6 Uncertainty
The analysis presented in this section draws largely on national-level data collected by the U.S.
Coast Guard. Several factors contribute to uncertainty in the estimates and findings presented:
• Scope. Some vessels may not be captured in the database due to the procedures by which
vessels are identified and entered into the database. Data coverage is believed to be relatively
good for vessels subject to documentation or inspection requirements (e.g., vessels engaged
in coastwise trade or passenger vessels), but more incomplete for smaller vessels. The
absence of information on the smaller, undocumented, uninspected vessels which were not
manufactured or used for pleasure may lead EPA to under-estimate the size of the study
vessels population.
• Completeness. Analyses of vessel characteristics were limited by the information provided
for a vessel or the manner in which the information is entered. For example, the hailing port
or horsepower ahead is provided for a only subset of vessels in the database. To the extent
that the absence of the information is unevenly distributed among the vessel population,
distributions drawn from the data may provide a biased understanding of the characteristics
of the vessel population.
12 Source: Personal communication with Jack Kemerer, Fishing Vessel Safety Program, May 26, 2009.
B-26
-------
Proposed Draft
• Accuracy. Even when vessel data are populated, there may be issues with the accuracy of the
information. For example, the status of vessels no longer operational (i.e., out of service)
may not have been properly updated or vessel types may be misclassified. These errors are
difficult to detect and may lead to inaccurate estimates of the actual population.
Uncertainty related to the scope of the data used in the analysis is discussed in greater detail
below. Where possible, EPA compared findings drawn from the MISLE data to information from other
sources, such as NMMA and NOAA, to ascertain and quantify the magnitude of the error on the
population estimate. This review suggests that MISLE under-represents the population of recreational
vessels smaller than about 25 feet in length and may similarly under-represent small non-recreational
vessels. For larger recreational vessels, however, the number of vessels reported in MISLE is close, or
for some size classes even greater than, the number estimated by NMMA. Based on this comparison, it
is apparent that MISLE is significantly limited in terms of its characterization of the universe of small
recreational vessels13. Since the analysis focuses more specifically on non-recreational vessels, however,
EPA does not consider these limitations to be critical. In general, EPA believes that national vessel
databases such as MISLE provide adequate coverage for the subset of study vessels, since a significant
fraction of these vessels can be expected to be larger than about 25 feet in length, and useful data on the
physical and operational characteristics of the study vessel population.
While MISLE constitutes the most comprehensive and readily available national-level data sets
on vessels, it is important to note that the MISLE database covers a subset of vessels that are either
required to be documented under federal regulations (e.g., at least five net tons) or vessels known to the
U.S. Coast Guard through vessel inspections or incident investigations. Generally, the five ton tonnage
threshold means that only those vessels more than about 25 feet in length are covered.
Unlike recreational vessels, there is no alternate national-level data source that would provide
recent and comprehensive figures for the number of commercial fishing vessel by size category to allow
EPA to assess MISLE coverage for these vessels. The MISLE database reports a total of 69,944
commercial fishing vessels nationally. This number does not include all state-registered vessels that
commercially fish, but is generally comparable with industry totals reported in other sources. For
example, Hoovers reports that 25,000 commercial fishing vessels have combined annual revenue of $4
billion. An additional 55,000 small, undecked vessels are also used to catch wild fish for economic gain,
though the report notes that industry impact of these undecked vessels is "negligible." The total number
of commercial fishing vessels reported in Hoovers would therefore be around 80,000. 14 Additionally,
the U.S. Coast Guard's Fishing Vessel Safety Program generally uses a figure of 80,000 as the
approximate number of commercial fishing vessels, including about 20,000 documented vessels and
60,000 state-registered vessels.15
No separate inventory of other non-recreational vessels less than 79 feet could be found to
evaluate the coverage of these vessels in MISLE. It is therefore not possible to ascertain the extent to
which MISLE under represent smaller utility vessels and other non-recreational vessels.
13 EPA notes that MISLE is not designed or managed to provide accurate estimates of the small recreational vessel universe.
14 (Source: http://www.hoovers.com/commercial-fishing. accessed 05/01/2009).
15Personal communication with Jack Kemerer, Fishing Vessel Safety Program, May 26, 2009.
B-27
-------
Proposed Draft
EPA also compared the number of commercial fishing vessels identified in MISLE with the
number of vessels holding fishing permit licenses in New England, as obtained from NOAA's regional
office, and with separate state-registered vessel estimates provided by the U.S. Coast Guard. Table B.6
presents the count of permitted fishing vessels within NOAA's New England division permitted vessel
list and the count of commercial fishing vessels within MISLE that listed a New England hailing state.
The table also provides estimates of the number of state-registered vessels used in commercial fisheries.
As seen in the table, the MISLE dataset contains nearly double the number of commercial fishing
vessels as permitted in NOAA's New England division. This difference may be due to the slightly
different scopes of the NOAA and MISLE dataset. NOAA's dataset only includes permit holders of
NOAA Fisheries Northeast Region16 2008 Vessel permits, whereas the MISLE dataset includes vessels
that may not have fishery permits for that year (such as fishing support vessels) in addition to those that
would hold permits. Additionally, as mentioned in the introduction to this section, it is possible that
some of the commercial fishing vessels that Coast Guard considers to be operational were not actively
engaged in fishing activities during 2008. With regards to numbers provided in MISLE as compared to
state-registered vessel estimates, the MISLE data seem to slightly under-represent the vessels registered
in New England states. Overall, however, comparison of commercial fishing vessel estimates across
sources suggests that MISLE may adequately represent the population of these vessels despite the
vessels' relatively small size and potentially higher probability of being excluded from the database
scope.
Table B.6: Comparison Among NOAA, State-registered and MISLE New
England Region Commercial Fishing Vessel Populations
si siu-
Niimhi-r of \ I'ssi'ls
NOW
Sisili'-iviiisli'ivd1'
misi.i:
cr
77
256
284
MA
1,514
2,006
2,492
ME
1,535
6,508
3,725
NH
196
0
231
RI
335
630
438
VT
0
0
3
New England
Total
3,657
9,400
7,173
a Although NOAA's Northeast Region Vessel and Permit Listing documents 5,227 vessels, only
3,657 of these vessels list a principal hailing state in the New England region,
b. Some of the state registered fishing vessels reported by states for 2007 are also included in the
reported MISLE numbers.17
Source: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) New England Commercial
Fishing Permit Listing, 2009, U. S. Coast Guard, MISLE database, 2009, and Personal
Communication with U.S. Coast Guard personnel, May 2009.
16 Our table specifically compares the New England division data.
17 Personal communication with Jack Kemerer, Fishing Vessel Safety Program, May 26, 2009.
B-28
-------
Proposed Draft
Appendix C
Public Law 110-299 (S. 3298) and Public Law 110-288 (S. 2766)
Public Law 110-299 (S. 3298)
0m Jiun&refcr Congress;
of tl)t
®ntteiJ States; of America
AT THE SECOND SESSION
Begun and held at the City of Washington on Thursday,
the third day of January, two thousand and eight
!Hxt
To clarify the circumstances during which the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency and applicable States
may require permits for discharges from certain vessels, and to require the Administrator to conduct a study of discharges
incidental to the normal operation of vessels.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress
assembled,
SECTION 1. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) Administrator.—The term "Administrator" means the Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency.
(2) Covered vessel.—The term "covered vessel" means a vessel that is—
(A) less than 79 feet in length; or
(B) a fishing vessel (as defined in section 2101 of title 46, United States Code), regardless of
the length of the vessel.
(3) Other terms.—The terms "contiguous zone", "discharge", "ocean", and "State" have the meanings
given the terms in section 502 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1362).
SEC. 2. DISCHARGES INCIDENTAL TO NORMAL OPERATION OF VESSELS.
(a) No Permit Requirement.—Except as provided in subsection (b), during the 2-year period
beginning on the date of enactment of this Act, the Administrator, or a State in the case of a permit
program approved under section 402 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1342),
shall not require a permit under that section for a covered vessel for—
(1) any discharge of effluent from properly functioning marine engines;
(2) any discharge of laundry, shower, and galley sink wastes; or
(3) any other discharge incidental to the normal operation of a covered vessel.
(b) Exceptions.—Subsection (a) shall not apply with respect to—
(1) rubbish, trash, garbage, or other such materials discharged overboard;
(2) other discharges when the vessel is operating in a capacity other than as a means of
transportation, such as when—
(A) used as an energy or mining facility;
C-l
-------
Proposed Draft
(B) used as a storage facility or a seafood processing facility;
(C) secured to a storage facility or a seafood processing facility; or
(D) secured to the bed of the ocean, the contiguous zone, or waters of the United States for
the purpose of mineral or oil exploration or development;
(3) any discharge of ballast water; or
(4) any discharge in a case in which the Administrator or State, as appropriate, determines that
the discharge—
(A) contributes to a violation of a water quality standard; or
(B) poses an unacceptable risk to human health or the environment.
SEC. 3. STUDY OF DISCHARGES INCIDENTAL TO NORMAL OPERATION OF VESSELS.
(a) In General.—The Administrator, in consultation with the Secretary of the department in which
the Coast Guard is operating and the heads of other interested Federal agencies, shall conduct a
study to evaluate the impacts of—
(1) any discharge of effluent from properly functioning marine engines;
(2) any discharge of laundry, shower, and galley sink wastes; and
(3) any other discharge incidental to the normal operation of a vessel.
(b) Scope of Study.—The study under subsection (a) shall include—
(1) characterizations of the nature, type, and composition of discharges for—
(A) representative single vessels; and
(B) each class of vessels;
(2) determinations of the volumes of those discharges, including average volumes, for—
(A) representative single vessels; and
(B) each class of vessels;
(3) a description of the locations, including the more common locations, of the discharges;
(4) analyses and findings as to the nature and extent of the potential effects of the discharges,
including determinations of whether the discharges pose a risk to human health, welfare, or the
environment, and the nature of those risks;
(5) determinations of the benefits to human health, welfare, and the environment from reducing,
eliminating, controlling, or mitigating the discharges; and
(6) analyses of the extent to which the discharges are currently subject to regulation under
Federal law or a binding international obligation of the United States.
(c) Exclusion.—In carrying out the study under subsection (a), the Administrator shall exclude—
(1) discharges from a vessel of the Armed Forces (as defined in section 312(a) of the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1322(a));
(2) discharges of sewage (as defined in section 312(a) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
(33 U.S.C. 1322(a)) from a vessel, other than the discharge of graywater from a vessel operating
on the Great Lakes; and
(3) discharges of ballast water.
(d) Public Comment; Report.—The Administrator shall—
(1) publish in the Federal Register for public comment a draft of the study required under
subsection (a);
(2) after taking into account any comments received during the public comment period, develop a
final report with respect to the study; and
(3) not later than 15 months after the date of enactment of this Act, submit the final report to—
(A) the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives;
and
(B) the Committees on Environment and Public Works and Commerce, Science, and
Transportation of the Senate.
Speaker of the House of Representatives.
Vice President of the United States and President of the Senate.
C-2
-------
Proposed Draft
Public Law 110-288 (S. 2766)
#ne ^unbreb IDeiitlj Congress of 11)e Unite!)
tateg of America
To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to address certain discharges incidental to the normal operation of a
recreational vessel.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress
assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the "Clean Boating Act of 2008".
SEC. 2. DISCHARGES INCIDENTAL TO THE NORMAL OPERATION OF RECREATIONAL VESSELS.
Section 402 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33
U.S.C. 1342) is amended by adding at the end the following:
"(r) Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Recreational Vessels.—No permit shall be
required under this Act by the Administrator (or a State, in the case of a permit program approved
under subsection (b)) for the discharge of any graywater, bilge water, cooling water, weather deck
runoff, oil water separator effluent, or effluent from properly functioning marine engines, or any
other discharge that is incidental to the normal operation of a vessel, if the discharge is from a
recreational vessel.".
SEC. 3. DEFINITION.
Section 502 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33
U.S.C. 1362) is amended by adding at the end the following: "(25) Recreational vessel.— "(A) In
general.—The term 'recreational vessel' means any vessel that is—
"(i) manufactured or used primarily for pleasure; or
"(ii) leased, rented, or chartered to a person for the pleasure of that person. "(B) Exclusion.—The
term 'recreational vessel' does not include a vessel that is subject to Coast Guard inspection and
that— "(i) is engaged in commercial use; or "(ii) carries paying passengers.".
SEC. 4. MANAGEMENT PRACTICES FOR RECREATIONAL VESSELS.
Section 312 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33
U.S.C. 1322) is amended by adding at the end the following: "(o) Management Practices for
Recreational Vessels.—
"(1) Applicability.—This subsection applies to any discharge, other than a discharge of sewage, from
a recreational vessel that is—
"(A) incidental to the normal operation of the vessel; and
"(B) exempt from permitting requirements under section 402(r). "(2) Determination of discharges
subject to management practices.— "(A) Determination.— "(i) In general.—The Administrator, in
AT THE SECOND SESSION
Begun and held at the City of Washington on Thursday,
the third day of January, two thousand and eight
!Hxt
3
-------
Proposed Draft
consultation with the Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard is operating, the
Secretary of Commerce, and interested States, shall determine the discharges incidental to the
normal operation of a recreational vessel for which it is reasonable and practicable to develop
management practices to mitigate adverse impacts on the waters of the United States, "(ii)
Promulgation.—The Administrator shall promulgate the determinations under clause (i) in
accordance with section 553 of title 5, United States Code, "(iii) Management practices.—The
Administrator shall develop management practices for recreational vessels in any case in which the
Administrator determines that the use of those practices is reasonable and practicable. "(B)
Considerations.—In making a determination under subparagraph (A), the Administrator shall
consider— "(i) the nature of the discharge; "(ii) the environmental effects of the discharge; "(iii) the
practicability of using a management practice; "(iv) the effect that the use of a management practice
would have on the operation, operational capability, or safety of the vessel; "(v) applicable Federal
and State law; "(vi) applicable international standards; and "(vii) the economic costs of the use of the
management practice. "(C) Timing.—The Administrator shall— "(i) make the initial determinations
under subparagraph (A) not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this subsection; and "(ii)
every 5 years thereafter— "(I) review the determinations; and "(II) if necessary, revise the
determinations based on any new information available to the Administrator. "(3) Performance
STANDARDS FOR MANAGEMENT PRACTICES.—
"(A) In general.—For each discharge for which a management practice is developed under
paragraph (2), the Administrator, in consultation with the Secretary of the department in which the
Coast Guard is operating, the Secretary of Commerce, other interested Federal agencies, and
interested States, shall promulgate, in accordance with section 553 of title 5, United States Code,
Federal standards of performance for each management practice required with respect to the
discharge.
"(B) Considerations.—In promulgating standards under this paragraph, the Administrator shall
take into account the considerations described in paragraph (2)(B).
"(C) Classes, types, and sizes of vessels.—The standards promulgated under this
paragraph may— "(i) distinguish among classes, types, and sizes of vessels; "(ii)
distinguish between new and existing vessels; and
"(iii) provide for a waiver of the applicability of the standards as necessary or appropriate to a
particular class, type, age, or size of vessel. "(D) Timing.—The Administrator shall—
"(i) promulgate standards of performance for a management practice under subparagraph (A) not
later than 1 year after the date of a determination under paragraph (2) that the management
practice is reasonable and practicable; and
"(ii) every 5 years thereafter— "(I) review the standards; and "(II) if necessary, revise the standards,
in accordance with subparagraph (B) and based on any new information available to the
Administrator.
"(4) Regulations for the use of management practices.—
"(A) In general.—The Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard is operating shall
promulgate such regulations governing the design, construction, installation, and use of
management practices for recreational vessels as are necessary to meet the standards of
performance promulgated under paragraph (3).
"(B) Regulations.—
"(i) In general.—The Secretary shall promulgate the regulations under this paragraph as
soon as practicable after the Administrator promulgates standards with respect to the
practice under paragraph (3), but not later than 1 year after the date on which the
Administrator promulgates the standards.
"(ii) Effective date.—The regulations promulgated by the Secretary under this paragraph
shall be effective upon promulgation unless another effective date is specified in the
regulations.
"(iii) Consideration of time.—In determining the effective date of a regulation promulgated
under this paragraph, the Secretary shall consider the period of time necessary to
communicate the existence of the regulation to persons affected by the regulation.
4
-------
Proposed Draft
"(5) Effect of other laws.—This subsection shall not affect the application of section 311 to
discharges incidental to the normal operation of a recreational vessel.
"(6) Prohibition relating to recreational vessels.— After the effective date of the regulations
promulgated by the Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard is operating under
paragraph (4), the owner or operator of a recreational vessel shall neither operate in nor discharge
any discharge incidental to the normal operation of the vessel into, the waters of the United States
or the waters of the contiguous zone, if the owner or operator of the vessel is not using any applicable
management practice meeting standards established under this subsection.".
Speaker of the House of Representatives.
Vice President of the United States and President of the Senate.
5
-------
Appendix D
List of Target Analytes
Analytical
Class
Analyte Name
Analytical Method
CAS Number
Pathogens
E. Coli by MF
EPA 1603
NA
Pathogens
E. Coli by MPN
IDEXX Colilert 18 Quanti-Tray or
Multiple Tube Fermentation
NA
Pathogens
Enterococci by MF
EPA 1600
NA
Pathogens
Enterococci by MPN
IDEXX Enterolert Quanti-Tray or
ASTM D6503-99
NA
Pathogens
Fecal Coliform by MF
MF-SM9222D
NA
Pathogens
Fecal Coliform by MPN
Multiple Tube Fermentation
NA
Classicals
Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD)
SM 5210 B 20th
NA
Classicals
Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD)
Chemical Oxygen Demand by
HACH
NA
Classicals
Conductivity
A2510B
NA
Classicals
Dissolved Organic Carbon (DOC)
SM5310 B
NA
Classicals
Dissolved Oxygen
SM 4500-0 G
NA
Classicals
Hexane Extractable Material (HEM)
USEPA-1664A
NA
Classicals
PH
SM 4500-H B
NA
Classicals
Salinity
SM 2520 A
NA
Classicals
Silica Gel Treated HEM (SGT-HEM)
USEPA-1664A
68334-30-5
Classicals
Sulfide
SM4500S2D
18496-25-8
Classicals
Temperature
SM 2550
NA
Classicals
Total Organic Carbon (TOC)
SM5310 B
NA
Classicals
Total Residual Chlorine
SM 4500-CI G
NA
Classicals
Total Suspended Solids (TSS)
SM 2540 D 20th
NA
Classicals
Turbidity
EPA 180.1
NA
Metals
Aluminum, Dissolved
EPA200.7
7429-90-5
Metals
Aluminum, Dissolved
EPA200.8
7429-90-5
Metals
Aluminum, Total
EPA200.7
7429-90-5
Metals
Aluminum, Total
EPA200.8
7429-90-5
Metals
Antimony, Dissolved
EPA200.8
7440-36-0
Metals
Antimony, Total
EPA200.8
7440-36-0
Metals
Arsenic, Dissolved
EPA200.7
7440-38-2
Metals
Arsenic, Dissolved
EPA200.8
7440-38-2
Metals
Arsenic, Total
EPA200.7
7440-38-2
Metals
Arsenic, Total
EPA200.8
7440-38-2
Metals
Barium, Dissolved
EPA200.8
7440-39-3
Metals
Barium, Total
EPA200.7
7440-39-3
Metals
Barium, Total
EPA200.8
7440-39-3
Metals
Beryllium, Dissolved
EPA200.8
7440-41 -7
Metals
Beryllium, Total
EPA200.8
7440-41 -7
Metals
Cadmium, Dissolved
EPA200.7
7440-43-9
Metals
Cadmium, Dissolved
EPA200.8
7440-43-9
Metals
Cadmium, Total
EPA200.7
7440-43-9
Metals
Cadmium, Total
EPA200.8
7440-43-9
Metals
Calcium, Dissolved
EPA200.7
7440-70-2
Metals
Calcium, Total
EPA200.7
7440-70-2
Metals
Chromium, Dissolved
EPA200.7
7440-47-3
Metals
Chromium, Dissolved
EPA200.8
7440-47-3
Metals
Chromium, Total
EPA200.7
7440-47-3
Metals
Chromium, Total
EPA200.8
7440-47-3
D-l
-------
Analytical
Class
Analyte Name
Analytical Method
CAS Number
Metals
Cobalt, Dissolved
EPA200.8
7440-48-4
Metals
Cobalt, Total
EPA200.8
7440-48-4
Metals
Copper, Dissolved
EPA200.7
7440-50-8
Metals
Copper, Dissolved
EPA200.8
7440-50-8
Metals
Copper, Total
EPA200.7
7440-50-8
Metals
Copper, Total
EPA200.8
7440-50-8
Metals
Iron, Dissolved
EPA200.7
7439-89-6
Metals
Iron, Total
EPA200.7
7439-89-6
Metals
Lead, Dissolved
EPA200.7
7439-92-1
Metals
Lead, Dissolved
EPA200.8
7439-92-1
Metals
Lead, Total
EPA200.7
7439-92-1
Metals
Lead, Total
EPA200.8
7439-92-1
Metals
Magnesium, Dissolved
EPA200.7
7439-95-4
Metals
Magnesium, Total
EPA200.7
7439-95-4
Metals
Manganese, Dissolved
EPA200.7
7439-96-5
Metals
Manganese, Dissolved
EPA200.8
7439-96-5
Metals
Manganese, Total
EPA200.7
7439-96-5
Metals
Manganese, Total
EPA200.8
7439-96-5
Metals
Nickel, Dissolved
EPA200.7
7440-02-0
Metals
Nickel, Dissolved
EPA200.8
7440-02-0
Metals
Nickel, Total
EPA200.7
7440-02-0
Metals
Nickel, Total
EPA200.8
7440-02-0
Metals
Potassium, Dissolved
EPA200.7
2023695
Metals
Potassium, Total
EPA200.7
2023695
Metals
Selenium, Dissolved
EPA200.7
7782-49-2
Metals
Selenium, Dissolved
EPA200.8
7782-49-2
Metals
Selenium, Total
EPA200.7
7782-49-2
Metals
Selenium, Total
EPA200.8
7782-49-2
Metals
Silver, Dissolved
EPA200.8
7440-22-4
Metals
Silver, Total
EPA200.8
7440-22-4
Metals
Sodium, Dissolved
EPA200.7
7440-23-5
Metals
Sodium,Total
EPA200.7
7440-23-5
Metals
Thallium, Dissolved
EPA200.8
7440-28-0
Metals
Thallium, Total
EPA200.8
7440-28-0
Metals
Vanadium, Dissolved
EPA200.8
7440-62-2
Metals
Vanadium,Total
EPA200.8
7440-62-2
Metals
Zinc, Dissolved
EPA200.7
7440-66-6
Metals
Zinc, Dissolved
EPA200.8
7440-66-6
Metals
Zinc, Total
EPA200.7
7440-66-6
Metals
Zinc, Total
EPA200.8
7440-66-6
Nonylphenols
Bisphenol A
MS004
NA
Nonylphenols
Nonylphenol decaethoxylate (NP10EO)
MS006
NA
Nonylphenols
Nonylphenol diethoxylate (NP2EO)
MS004
NA
Nonylphenols
Nonylphenol dodecaethoxylate (NP12EO)
MS006
NA
Nonylphenols
Nonylphenol heptadecaethoxylate
(NP17EO)
MS006
NA
Nonylphenols
Nonylphenol heptaethoxylate (NP7EO)
MS006
NA
Nonylphenols
Nonylphenol hexadecaethoxylate (NP16EO)
MS006
NA
Nonylphenols
Nonylphenol hexaethoxylate (NP6EO)
MS006
NA
Nonylphenols
Nonylphenol monoethoxylate
MS004
NA
Nonylphenols
Nonylphenol nonaethoxylate (NP9EO)
MS006
NA
Nonylphenols
Nonylphenol octaethoxylate (NP8EO)
MS006
NA
Nonylphenols
Nonylphenol octodecaethoxylate (NP18EO)
MS006
NA
D-2
-------
Analytical
Class
Analyte Name
Analytical Method
CAS Number
Nonylphenols
Nonylphenol pendecaethoxylate (NP15EO)
MS006
NA
Nonylphenols
Nonylphenol pentaethoxylate (NP5EO)
MS006
NA
Nonylphenols
Nonylphenol tetradecaethoxylate (NP14EO)
MS006
NA
Nonylphenols
Nonylphenol tetraethoxylate (NP4EO)
MS006
NA
Nonylphenols
Nonylphenol tridecaethoxylate (NP13EO)
MS006
NA
Nonylphenols
Nonylphenol triethoxylate (NP3EO)
MS006
NA
Nonylphenols
Nonylphenol undecaethoxylate (NP11EO)
MS006
NA
Nonylphenols
Octylphenol
MS004
NA
Nonylphenols
Octylphenol decaethoxylate (OP10EO)
MS006
NA
Nonylphenols
Octylphenol diethoxylate (OP2EO)
MS006
NA
Nonylphenols
Octylphenol dodecaethoxylate (OP12EO)
MS006
NA
Nonylphenols
Octylphenol heptaethoxylate (OP7EO)
MS006
NA
Nonylphenols
Octylphenol hexaethoxylate (OP6EO)
MS006
NA
Nonylphenols
Octylphenol nonaethoxylate (OP9EO)
MS006
NA
Nonylphenols
Octylphenol octaethoxylate (OP8EO)
MS006
NA
Nonylphenols
Octylphenol pentaethoxylate (OP5EO)
MS006
NA
Nonylphenols
Octylphenol tetraethoxylate (OP4EO)
MS006
NA
Nonylphenols
Octylphenol triethoxylate (OP3EO)
MS006
NA
Nonylphenols
Octylphenol undecaethoxylate (OP11 EO)
MS006
NA
Nonylphenols
Total Nonylphenol Polyethoxylates
MS006
NA
Nonylphenols
Total Nonylphenols
MS004
NA
Nonylphenols
Total Octylphenol Polyethoxylates
MS006
NA
Nutrients
Ammonia As Nitrogen (NH3-N)
Ammonia by 4500-NH3
7664-41 -7
Nutrients
Nitrate/Nitrite (N03/N02-N)
EPA353.2
NA
Nutrients
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN)
EPA351.2
NA
Nutrients
Total Phosphorus
Total Phosphorus by 365.4
7723-14-0
SVOC
1,2-Diethyl-Cyclobutane
SVOCs by EPA 625
NA
SVOC
1,2-Diphenyl hydrazine
SVOCs by EPA 625
122-66-7
SVOC
1,6-dimethylnaphthalene
SVOCs by EPA 625
575-43-9
SVOC
1 -methylnaphthalene
SVOCs by EPA 625
90-12-0
SVOC
2,4,5-Trichlorophenol
SVOCs by EPA 625
95-95-4
SVOC
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
SVOCs by EPA 625
88-06-2
SVOC
2,4-Dichlorophenol
SVOCs by EPA 625
120-83-2
SVOC
2,4-Dimethylphenol
SVOCs by EPA 625
105-67-9
SVOC
2,4-Dinitrophenol
SVOCs by EPA 625
51 -28-5
SVOC
2,4-Dinitrotoluene
SVOCs by EPA 625
121-14-2
SVOC
2,6,10,14-Tetramethyl Pentadecane
SVOCs by EPA 625
1921-70-6
SVOC
2,6-Dinitrotoluene
SVOCs by EPA 625
606-20-2
SVOC
2-Butoxy ethanol
SVOCs by EPA 625
NA
SVOC
2-Chloronaphthalene
SVOCs by EPA 625
91 -58-7
SVOC
2-Chlorophenol
SVOCs by EPA 625
95-57-8
SVOC
2-Cyclopenten1-one
SVOCs by EPA 625
NA
SVOC
2-Hydroxy-Benzaldehyde
SVOCs by EPA 625
90-02-8
SVOC
2-Mercaptobenzothiazole
SVOCs by EPA 625
149-30-4
SVOC
2-Methylnaphthalene
SVOCs by EPA 625
91 -57-6
SVOC
2-Naphthalenecarboxaldehyde
SVOCs by EPA 625
NA
SVOC
2-Nitroaniline
SVOCs by EPA 625
88-74-4
SVOC
2-Nitrophenol
SVOCs by EPA 625
88-75-5
SVOC
3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine
SVOCs by EPA 625
91 -94-1
SVOC
3,6-Dimethylundecane
SVOCs by EPA 625
NA
SVOC
3-Methyl-2-Heptanone
SVOCs by EPA 625
NA
SVOC
3-Methyl-Benzaldehyde
SVOCs by EPA 625
620-23-5
SVOC
3-Methyl-Butanoic Acid
SVOCs by EPA 625
NA
D-3
-------
Analytical
Class
Analyte Name
Analytical Method
CAS Number
svoc
3-Methylphenol
SVOCs by EPA 625
NA
svoc
3-Nitroaniline
SVOCs by EPA 625
99-09-2
svoc
3-Phenyl-2-Propenal
SVOCs by EPA 625
104-55-2
svoc
4,6-Dinitro-2-Methylphenol
SVOCs by EPA 625
534-52-1
svoc
4-Bromophenyl Phenyl Ether
SVOCs by EPA 625
101-55-3
svoc
4-Chloro-3-Methylphenol
SVOCs by EPA 625
59-50-7
svoc
4-Chloroaniline
SVOCs by EPA 625
106-47-8
svoc
4-Chlorophenyl Phenyl Ether
SVOCs by EPA 625
7005-72-3
svoc
4-Methyl-Pentanoic Acid
SVOCs by EPA 625
NA
svoc
4-Nitrobenzenamine
SVOCs by EPA 625
100-01-6
svoc
4-Nitrophenol
SVOCs by EPA 625
100-02-7
svoc
5-Butyl-Hexadecane
SVOCs by EPA 625
NA
svoc
Acenaphthene
SVOCs by EPA 625
83-32-9
svoc
Acenaphthylene
SVOCs by EPA 625
208-96-8
svoc
Acetophenone
SVOCs by EPA 625
98-86-2
svoc
Anthracene
SVOCs by EPA 625
120-12-7
svoc
Atrazine
SVOCs by EPA 625
1912-24-9
svoc
Benzeneacetic Acid
SVOCs by EPA 625
NA
svoc
Benzenepropanoic Acid
SVOCs by EPA 625
NA
svoc
Benzidine
SVOCs by EPA 625
92-87-5
svoc
Benzo(A)Anthracene
SVOCs by EPA 625
56-55-3
svoc
Benzo(A)Pyrene
SVOCs by EPA 625
50-32-8
svoc
Benzo(B)Fluoranthene
SVOCs by EPA 625
205-99-2
svoc
Benzo(G,H,l)Perylene
SVOCs by EPA 625
191-24-2
svoc
Benzo(K)Fluoranthene
SVOCs by EPA 625
207-08-9
svoc
Benzothiazole
SVOCsby EPA 625
95-16-9
svoc
Bicyclo[2.2.1lHeptane,1,7,7-Trimethyl-
SVOCs by EPA 625
NA
svoc
Biphenyl3
SVOCs by EPA 625
92-52-4
svoc
Bis (2-Chloroisopropyl)Ether
SVOCs by EPA 625
108-60-1
svoc
Bis(2-Chloroethoxy)Methane
SVOCs by EPA 625
111-91-1
svoc
Bis(2-Chloroethyl)Ether
SVOCs by EPA 625
111-44-4
svoc
Bis(2-Chloroisopropyl) Ether
SVOCs by EPA 625
39638-32-9
svoc
Bis(2-Ethylhexyl) Phthalate
SVOCs by EPA 625
117-81-7
svoc
Butyl Benzyl Phthalate
SVOCs by EPA 625
85-68-7
svoc
Caprolactam
SVOCs by EPA 625
105-60-2
svoc
Carbazole
SVOCs by EPA 625
86-74-8
svoc
Cholesterol
SVOCs by EPA 625
NA
svoc
Chrysene
SVOCs by EPA 625
218-01-9
svoc
Cyclohexadecane
SVOCs by EPA 625
NA
svoc
Dibenz(A,H)Anthracene
SVOCs by EPA 625
53-70-3
svoc
Dibenzofuran
SVOCs by EPA 625
132-64-9
svoc
Diethyl Phthalate
SVOCs by EPA 625
84-66-2
svoc
Dimethyl Phthalate
SVOCs by EPA 625
131-11-3
svoc
Di-N-Butyl Phthalate
SVOCs by EPA 625
84-74-2
svoc
Di-N-Octyl Phthalate
SVOCs by EPA 625
117-84-0
svoc
Dodecane
SVOCs by EPA 625
svoc
Eicosane
SVOCs by EPA 625
112-95-8
svoc
Fluoranthene
SVOCs by EPA 625
206-44-0
svoc
Fluorene
SVOCs by EPA 625
86-73-7
svoc
Heneicosane
SVOCs by EPA 625
629-94-7
svoc
Heptadecane
SVOCs by EPA 625
629-78-7
svoc
Hexachlorobenzene
SVOCs by EPA 625
118-74-1
svoc
Hexachlorobutadiene3
SVOCs by EPA 625
87-68-3
D-4
-------
Analytical
Class
Analyte Name
Analytical Method
CAS Number
svoc
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
SVOCs by EPA 625
77-47-4
svoc
Hexachloroethane
SVOCs by EPA 625
67-72-1
svoc
Hexadecanoic Acid
SVOCs by EPA 625
NA
svoc
lndeno(1,2,3-Cd)Pyrene
SVOCs by EPA 625
193-39-5
svoc
Indole
SVOCs by EPA 625
NA
svoc
Isophorone
SVOCs by EPA 625
78-59-1
svoc
lsopropylbenzene-4,Methyl-1
SVOCs by EPA 625
99-87-6
svoc
M-Cresol
SVOCs by EPA 625
108-39-4
svoc
Naphthalene
SVOCs by EPA 625
91 -20-3
svoc
N-Hexadecane
SVOCs by EPA 625
544-76-3
svoc
Nitrobenzene
SVOCs by EPA 625
98-95-3
svoc
N-Nitroso Di-N-Propylamine
SVOCs by EPA 625
621-64-7
svoc
N-Nitrosodimethylamine
SVOCs by EPA 625
62-75-9
svoc
N-Nitrosodiphenylamine
SVOCs by EPA 625
86-30-6
svoc
Nonadecane
SVOCs by EPA 625
629-92-5
svoc
Nonanoic Acid
SVOCs by EPA 625
NA
svoc
N-Pentadecanea
SVOCs by EPA 625
629-62-9
svoc
N-Tetradecanea
SVOCs by EPA 625
629-59-4
svoc
O-Cresol
SVOCs by EPA 625
95-48-7
svoc
Octadecane
SVOCs by EPA 625
NA
svoc
P-Cresol
SVOCs by EPA 625
106-44-5
svoc
Pentachlorophenol
SVOCs by EPA 625
87-86-5
svoc
Phenanthrene
SVOCs by EPA 625
85-01-8
svoc
Phenol
SVOCs by EPA 625
108-95-2
svoc
Pyrene
SVOCs by EPA 625
129-00-0
svoc
Triethyl Phosphate
SVOCs by EPA 625
NA
voc
(2-Methyl-1 -Propenyl)-Benzene
VOCs by EPA 624
NA
voc
(E)-2-Butenal
VOCsby EPA 624
NA
voc
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane
VOCs by EPA 624
630-20-6
voc
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
VOCsby EPA 624
71-55-6
voc
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
VOCs by EPA 624
79-34-5
voc
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
VOCsby EPA 624
79-00-5
voc
1,1-Dichloroethane
VOCsby EPA 624
75-34-3
voc
1,1-Dichloroethene
VOCsby EPA 624
75-35-4
voc
1,1-Dichloropropene
VOCs by EPA 624
563-58-6
voc
1,2,3,4-Tetrahydro-5-Methylnaphthalene
VOCs by EPA 624
2809-64-5
voc
1,2,3,4-Tetrahydro-6-Methylnaphthalene
VOCs by EPA 624
1680-51-9
voc
1,2,3,4-Tetrahydronaphthalene
VOCs by EPA 624
119-64-2
voc
1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene
VOCs by EPA 624
87-61-6
voc
1,2,3-Trichloropropane
VOCsby EPA 624
96-18-4
voc
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
VOCs by EPA 624
120-82-1
voc
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
VOCsby EPA 624
95-63-6
voc
1,2-Dibromo-3-Chloropropane
VOCs by EPA 624
96-12-8
voc
1,2-Dibromoethane
VOCs by EPA 624
106-93-4
voc
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
VOCsby EPA 624
95-50-1
voc
1,2-Dichloroethane
VOCs by EPA 624
107-06-2
voc
1,2-Dichloropropane
VOCsby EPA 624
78-87-5
voc
1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene
VOCs by EPA 624
108-67-8
voc
1,3-Dichlorobenzene
VOCs by EPA 624
541-73-1
voc
1,3-Dichloropropane
VOCs by EPA 624
142-28-9
voc
1,3-Methylnaphthalene
VOCsby EPA 624
NA
voc
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
VOCs by EPA 624
106-46-7
voc
1,7-Methylnaphthalene
VOCsby EPA 624
NA
D-5
-------
Analytical
Class
Analyte Name
Analytical Method
CAS Number
voc
1 -Ethyl-3-Methyl-Benzene
VOCs by EPA 624
NA
voc
1 -Methyl-2-(1 -Methylethyl)-Benzene
VOCs by EPA 624
NA
voc
1 -Methyl-4-(1 -Methylidene)-Cyclohexane
VOCsby EPA 624
NA
voc
1 -Methylnaphthaleneb
VOCs by EPA 624
90-12-0
voc
2- Heptanone
VOCsby EPA 624
NA
voc
2,2-Dichloropropane
VOCs by EPA 624
594-20-7
voc
2,3-Dihydro-4-Methyl-1 h-lndene
VOCs by EPA 624
824-22-6
voc
2,6-Dimethylnaphthalene
VOCs by EPA 624
581-42-0
voc
2-Butanone
VOCsby EPA 624
78-93-3
voc
2-Butenal
VOCsby EPA 624
NA
voc
2-Ethyl-1,3,5-Trimethyl-Benzene
VOCsby EPA 624
NA
voc
2-Ethyl-1,4-Dimethyl-Benzene
VOCs by EPA 624
2039-89-6
voc
2-Ethyl-1-Hexanol
VOCs by EPA 624
104-76-7
voc
2-Hexanone
VOCsby EPA 624
591-78-6
voc
2-Methylnaphthaleneb
VOCs by EPA 624
91 -57-6
voc
4-Chlorotoluene
VOCs by EPA 624
106-43-4
voc
4-lsopropyltoluene
VOCsby EPA 624
99-87-6
voc
4-Methyl-2-Pentanone
VOCs by EPA 624
108-10-1
voc
Acetone
VOCsby EPA 624
67-64-1
voc
Benzaldehyde
VOCs by EPA 624
100-52-7
voc
Benzene
VOCsby EPA 624
71 -43-2
voc
Benzocycloheptatriene
VOCs by EPA 624
NA
voc
Benzofuran
VOCs by EPA 624
271-89-6
voc
Biphenyl
VOCsby EPA 624
92-52-4
voc
Bromobenzene
VOCs by EPA 624
108-86-1
voc
Bromochloromethane
VOCsby EPA 624
74-97-5
voc
Bromodichloromethane
VOCsby EPA 624
75-27-4
voc
Bromoform
VOCsby EPA 624
75-25-2
voc
Bromomethane
VOCsby EPA 624
74-83-9
voc
Carbon Disulfide
VOCsby EPA 624
75-15-0
voc
Carbon Tetrachloride
VOCsby EPA 624
56-23-5
voc
Chlorobenzene
VOCs by EPA 624
108-90-7
voc
Chloroethane
VOCsby EPA 624
75-00-3
voc
Chloroform
VOCsby EPA 624
67-66-3
voc
Chloromethane
VOCsby EPA 624
74-87-3
voc
Chlorotoluene
VOCs by EPA 624
25168-05-2
voc
Cis-1,2-Dichloroethene
VOCs by EPA 624
156-59-2
voc
Cis-1,3-Dichloropropene
VOCs by EPA 624
10061-01-5
voc
Cyclohexane
VOCs by EPA 624
110-82-7
voc
Dibromochloromethane
VOCs by EPA 624
124-48-1
voc
Dibromomethane
VOCsby EPA 624
74-95-3
voc
Dichlorodifluoromethane
VOCsby EPA 624
75-71-8
voc
Dimethoxymethane
VOCsby EPA 624
NA
voc
Ethylbenzene
VOCs by EPA 624
100-41-4
voc
Fluorotrimethylsilane
VOCs by EPA 624
420-56-4
voc
Hexachlorobutadiene
VOCs by EPA 624
87-68-3
voc
Isopropylbenzene
VOCsby EPA 624
98-82-8
voc
Limonene
VOCs by EPA 624
000138-86-3
voc
M-,P-Xylene (Sum Of Isomers)
VOCs by EPA 624
NA
voc
Methyl Acetate
VOCs by EPA 624
79-20-9
voc
Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (MTBE)
VOCs by EPA 624
1634-04-4
voc
Methylcyclohexane
VOCs by EPA 624
108-87-2
voc
Methylene Chloride
VOCs by EPA 624
75-09-2
D-6
-------
Analytical
Class
Analyte Name
Analytical Method
CAS Number
VOC
Naphthalene11
VOCs by EPA 624
91 -20-3
VOC
N-Butylbenzene
VOCs by EPA 624
104-51-8
VOC
Nonanal
VOCs by EPA 624
124-19-6
VOC
N-Pentadecane
VOCs by EPA 624
629-62-9
VOC
N-Propylbenzene
VOCs by EPA 624
103-65-1
VOC
N-Tetradecane
VOCsby EPA 624
629-59-4
VOC
O-Xylene
VOCs by EPA 624
95-47-6
VOC
Sec-Butylbenzene
VOCs by EPA 624
135-98-8
VOC
Styrene
VOCs by EPA 624
100-42-5
VOC
Sulfur Dioxide
VOCs by EPA 624
2025884
VOC
Tert-Butylbenzene
VOCsby EPA 624
98-06-6
VOC
Tetrachloroethene
VOCs by EPA 624
127-18-4
VOC
Tetrahydrofuran
VOCsby EPA 624
109-99-9
VOC
Toluene
VOCs by EPA 624
108-88-3
VOC
Trans-1,2-Dichloroethene
VOCs by EPA 624
156-60-5
VOC
Trans-1,3-Dichloropropene
VOCs by EPA 624
10061-02-6
VOC
Trichloroethene
VOCsby EPA 624
79-01-6
VOC
Trichlorofluoromethane
VOCsby EPA 624
75-69-4
VOC
Trichlorotrifluoroethane
VOCsby EPA 624
76-13-1
VOC
Trimethylsilanol
VOCs by EPA 624
1066-40-6
VOC
Vinyl Acetate
VOCs by EPA 624
108-05-4
VOC
Vinyl Chloride
VOCs by EPA 624
75-01-4
a Also measured analytically as a VOC using EPA Method 624. For the purposes of this report, this compound has been classified
as a VOC to keep with other similar compounds.
b Also measured analytically as a SVOC using EPA Method 625. For the purposes of this report, this compound has been classified
as an SVOC to keep with other PAHs.
NA = Not Applicable.
D-7
-------
Proposed Draft
Appendix E
Analyte Concentrations and Summary Statistics from Ambient
Water Samples
Analyte - Ambient Waterb'c
#Waters
Min.
Mean
Median
Max.
Screening BM Non Detects
Det. Limit(s)
Acetone
10
0.9
2.81
2.25
9.2
n/a
2
5
Aluminum, Dissolved
16
3.1
218.9
38.6
870
n/a
2
6.2
Aluminum, Total
16
29.2
653.9
357.5
3950
87
0
Ammonia As Nitrogen (NH3-N)
15
0.02
0.15
0.066
0.93
1.2
6
0.04, 0.05
Arsenic, Dissolved
17
1
8.09
2
30
36
8
1,4
Arsenic, Total
17
1
8.19
2.9
28.9
0.018
8
1,4
Barium, Dissolved
10
14.2
39.04
34.55
65.2
n/a
0
Barium, Total
10
13.3
45.96
33.9
96.3
1000
0
Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD)
14
0.479
2.68
1.35
9.3
30
4
1,4
Calcium, Dissolved
17
23000
104382
72100
310000
n/a
0
Calcium, Total
17
23000
107876
71100
320000
n/a
0
Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD)
15
10
298.3
72
1700
n/a
3
20
Conductivity
15
0.2215
10.49
7.18
38.2
n/a
0
Copper, Dissolved
17
1.5
4.88
2.5
24.2
3.1a
7
5
Copper, Total
17
1.8
5.74
4
23.3
1300
7
5
Dissolved Organic Carbon (DOC)
17
1
4.66
4.4
8.5
n/a
1
3
Dissolved Oxygen
15
1
6.69
6.5
12.33
n/a
0
E.Coli
9
5
3236
130
24196
130
1
10
Enterococci
9
5
1387
333
5099
33
1
10
Fecal Coliform
8
5
6452
220
44000
14
1
10
Iron, Total
10
50
812.2
382
4180
300
2
100
Magnesium, Dissolved
17
6000
304644
172000
1100000
n/a
0
Magnesium, Total
17
6000
306001
168000
1100000
n/a
0
Manganese, Dissolved
17
0.5
11.71
3.7
106
n/a
7
1, 2.5, 6.7, 17
Manganese, Total
17
1.25
60.54
43
165
100
2
2.5, 13
Nickel, Dissolved
17
2.3
4.60
5
7.2
8.2"
7
10
Nickel, Total
17
2.4
5.81
5
16.7
610
7
10
Nitrate/Nitrite (N03/N02-N)
15
0.025
0.36
0.097
1.5
n/a
6
0.05
pH
16
6.90
7.41
7.26
8.18
n/a
0
Potassium, Dissolved
10
3600
72198
60700
175000
n/a
0
Potassium, Total
10
3470
71119
59750
174000
n/a
0
Salinity
14
0.1
6.06
3.85
22.4
n/a
0
Selenium, Dissolved
17
1
22.51
5
100
5a
7
2, 10
Selenium, Total
17
1
22.71
5
93.9
170
10
2, 10
Sodium, Dissolved
10
17600
1446690
1009500
3630000
n/a
0
Sodium,Total
10
17400
1459630
1160000
3680000
n/a
0
Temperature
16
00
CO
20.07
21.575
29.37
n/a
0
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN)
15
0.05
1.00
0.587
4.7
n/a
3
0.1
Total Organic Carbon (TOC)
13
2
6.12
5.1
19
n/a
0
Total Phosphorus
15
0.0125
0.20
0.059
2
0.1
6
0.025, 0.05
Total Suspended Solids (TSS)
17
5
22.13
15
98
n/a
1
10
Turbidity
16
0.03
32.01
17.5
186
n/a
0
Vanadium, Dissolved
10
0.5
0.94
0.5
2.3
n/a
6
Vanadium,Total
10
0.5
2.90
1.6
9.3
n/a
5
1, 2.5, 10
Zinc, Dissolved
17
3.4
19.32
11.4
116
81
4
10
Zinc, Total
17
2.9
10.98
10.6
23.9
7400
4
10
E-l
-------
Proposed Draft
Note:
(a) Screening benchmark (BM) is below detection limit(s)
(b) Anaiytes not listed in this table were not detected.
(c) Surrounding Ambient water (also used as service water on select vessels for deck washdown, firemain systems, or other
services as specified in Chapter 3) was tested for the following classes of pollutants: pathogens, dissolved and total metals, the so-
called 'classical pollutants', nutrient and nutrient related parameters, VOCsand SVOCs (see Appendix D).
E-2
-------
Appendix F
Analyte Concentrations and Summary Statistics from Source Water
Samples
Analyte - Source Waterb'c
#Waters
Min.
Mean
Median
Max.
Screening BM
Non Detects
Det. Limit(s)
Aluminum, Dissolved
11
6.3
64.94
17.1
310
n/a
1
50
Aluminum, Total
11
8.6
64.06
27.5
250
87
1
50
Ammonia As Nitrogen (NH3-N)
10
0.02
0.18
0.041
0.731
1.2
5
0.04,0.05
Barium, Dissolved
7
11.4
29.14
29
58.5
n/a
0
Barium, Total
7
11.9
29.07
30.1
56.9
1000
0
Bromodichloro methane
8
1.25
7.84
5.65
18
0.55a
2
2.5, 5
Calcium, Dissolved
11
1450
28496
29600
88000
n/a
0
Calcium, Total
11
1280
28409
29700
88000
n/a
0
Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD)
11
5
11.55
10
28.6
n/a
6
10, 20
Chloroform
8
0.05
18.56
16
57.2
5.7
0
Conductivity
10
0.159
33.39
0.4075
330.4
n/a
0
Copper, Dissolved
11
2.4
16.11
6.2
65
3.1a
2
5
Copper, Total
11
2.5
20.55
8.7
82
1300
2
5
Dibromochloromethane
8
0.9
3.38
2.45
10
0.4a
3
2.5, 5
Dissolved Oxygen
10
2.07
6.87
6.96
11.72
n/a
0
Magnesium, Dissolved
11
250
6815
7100
19000
n/a
2
500, 1000
Magnesium, Total
11
350
6855
7300
19000
n/a
2
1000
Manganese, Dissolved
11
0.5
6.00
1.25
33
n/a
6
1, 2.5
Manganese, Total
11
1
9.30
5.4
37
100
1
2.5
Nitrate/Nitrite (N03/N02-N)
11
0.025
1.26
1.6
2.4
n/a
1
0.05
PH
11
6.61
7.37
7.08
8.45
n/a
0
Potassium, Dissolved
7
1000
3077
3340
5220
n/a
2
2000, 3000
Potassium, Total
7
1000
3003
2840
5270
n/a
1
2000
Sodium, Dissolved
7
16100
56057
24300
140000
n/a
0
Sodium,Total
7
11500
55143
24100
144000
n/a
0
Temperature
10
5.47
20.42
21.16
31.16
n/a
0
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN)
10
0.05
0.66
0.401
1.8
n/a
1
0.1
Total Organic Carbon (TOC)
8
1.5
3.21
2.35
10.4
n/a
3
3
Total Phosphorus
10
0.025
0.30
0.363
0.52
0.1
2
0.05
Total Residual Chlorine
10
0.05
0.46
0.415
1.3
0.0075a
3
0.1
Turbidity
11
0.5
5.89
2
19.3
n/a
2
1
Zinc, Dissolved
11
4.1
154.8
25.3
1200
81
0
Zinc, Total
11
4.1
145.3
25.1
1100
7400
0
Note:
(a) Screening benchmark (BM) is below detection limit(s)
(b) Anaiytes not listed in this table were not detected.
(c) Source and service water was tested for the following classes of pollutants: pathogens, dissolved and total metals, the so-called
'classical pollutants', nutrient and nutrient related parameters, VOCs and SVOCs (see Appendix D).
F-l
-------
Proposed Draft
Appendix G
SUPPORTING INFORMATION FOR EPA'S SCREENING-LEVEL WATER QUALITY
MODEL
Appendix G.l: Vessel-Specific Flow Calculations by Discharge Type
Vessel Class
(Vessel Snbelass)
Disehar^e
Tj pe
How
Hale
(m7da>)
Known In lo nil a I ion
Assumptions
( alenlalions
Fire Boat
Deck
Wash
0.01
1 deck wash per month
50 gallons per wash
All deck washes done pier
side
50 gal per month/30 days = 1.67 gal/day
Fire Boat
Generator
Engine
1.82
1 generator
Inboard diesel engine
2 gpm cooling water flow
rate
4 hours operation when fire
call
1 fire call per day
2 gal per minute X 240 min per day = 480 gal/day
Fire Boat
Propulsion
Engine
36.34
2 propulsion engines
420 hp inboard engine
20 gpm cooling water flow
4 hours operation when fire
call
20 gal per minute X
240 min per day X
2 engines = 9600
gal/day
Fishing
(Gillnetter)
Fish Hold
1.52
1.5 tons of ice per offload
1 offload per day
1.5 tons of ice (or 1.508 kg) X lkg/L X 1
offload/day = 1524 liters/day
Fishing
(Gillnetter)
Fish Hold
0.08
50 lbs (25.2 liters) if ice
per off load
offloads daily
75.6 liters/day
Fishing
(Gillnetter)
Fish Hold
0.70
1.75 tons of ice per
offload
Offload daily
Ice tank holds 50% fish,
35% ice, 15% air
(0.61tons of ice or 691.48
liters of ice)
691.47 liters/day
Fishing
(Gillnetter)
Propulsion
Engine
14.93
20 gpm cooling water flow
rate
1200 hours per year in
operation
20 gal/minX 60 min/hourX 1200 hours/365 days
= 3945 gal/day
G-l
-------
Proposed Draft
Appendix G.l: Vessel-Specific Flow Calculations by Discharge Type
Vessel Class
(Vessel Snbelass)
Disehar^e
Tj pe
l-'low
Kale
(m7da>)
Known InToi'malion
Assn in |>l ituis
( aleulalions
Fishing
(Gillnetter)
Propulsion
Engine
14.93
1 Caterpillar 3 50hp
20 gpm cooling water flow
rate
1200 hours per year in
operation
20 gal/min X 60 min/hour X 1200 hours/365 days
= 3945 gal/day
Fishing
(Gillnetter)
Propulsion
Engine
14.93
20 gpm cooling water flow
rate
1200 hours per year in
operation
20 gal/min X 60 min/hour X 1200 hours/365 days
= 3945 gal/day
Fishing
(Gillnetter)
Propulsion
Engine
14.93
20 gpm cooling water flow
rate
1200 hours per year in
operation
20 gal/min X 60 min/hour X 1200 hours/365 days
= 3945 gal/day
Fishing
(Lobster Boat)
Fish Hold
2.83
Used average of known
Longliner fish hold flow
rates
Fishing
(Longliner)
Bilge
Water
0.45
1 manual pump
12v bilge pump at 20 gpm
10 minutes per pump out
2 pump outs per day
20 gal per min X 10 min X 2 pump/day =120
gal/day
Fishing
(Longliner)
Fish Hold
4.06
8 tons of ice per offload
Offload every 2 days
Tanks are full at offload
8 tons of ice (or 8128 kg) X lkg/L X 1 offload/ 2
days = 4064 liters/day
Fishing
(Longliner)
Fish Hold
1.59
Fish hold tank is 8X10X4
ft (9.06 m3)
Emptied at each offload
Ice tank holds 50% fish,
35% ice, 15% air
(3.17 m3of ice)
Off loads 1 every 2 days
9.06 m3 X 35% X 1 offload/2 days = 1.59 m3/day
Fishing
(Purse Seiner)
Fish Hold
31.71
Fish hold tank is
8X20X20 ft (90.6 m3)
Emptied at each offload
ice tank holds 50% fish,
35% ice, 15% air
(3.17 m3 of ice)
off loads daily
90.6 m3 X 35% = 31.71 m3/day
G-2
-------
Proposed Draft
Appendix G.l: Vessel-Specific Flow Calculations by Discharge Type
Vessel Class
(Vessel Snbelass)
Disehar^e
Tj pe
l-'low
Kale
(m7da>)
Known InToi'malion
Assn in |>l ituis
( aleulalions
Fishing
(Purse Seiner)
Fish Hold
15.66
fish hold tank A is
15X10X6 ft (25.5 m3)
fish hold tank A is
15X8X6 ft (20.4 m3)
holds 60,000 lbs of fish
(27215 kg)
emptied at each offload
density of fish is 0.9 kg/L
off loads daily
27215 kg / 0.9kg/L = 30,239 L offish (30.24 m3
of fish)
45.9 mA3 tank - 30.24 mA3 of fish = 15.66 m3 of
hold water
15.66 mA3 of hold water X = 15.66 m3/day
Fishing
(Purse Seiner)
Fish Hold
18.36
tank holds about
85,0001bs of fish
(42,840 liters of fish)
holding tank is 70% fish,
30% water offloads daily
42,840 liters of fish X 30 / 70 = 18,360 Liters/day
Fishing
(Purse Seiner)
Fish Hold
10.20
fish hold tank is 1200 ft3
(33.99 m3)
emptied at each offload
holding tank is 70% fish,
30% water offloads daily
33.99 m3 X 30% = 10.2 m3/day
Fishing
(Purse Seiner)
Fish Hold
5.34
fish hold tank is 630 ft3
(17.84 m3)
emptied at each offload
holding tank is 70% fish,
30% water offloads daily
17.84 m3 X 30% = 5.34 m3/day
Fishing
(Purse Seiner)
Fish Hold
Clean
1.33
30 minute wash
garden hose flow rate is
11.67 gpm
11.67 gal per minX 30 minX 1 wash/day = 350.1
gal/day
Fishing
(Purse Seiner)
Fish Hold
Clean
2.33
31 minute wash
garden hose flow rate is
11.67 gpm
11.67 gal per minX 30 minX 1 wash/day = 350.1
gal/day
Fishing
(Purse Seiner)
Fish Hold
Clean
3.33
32 minute wash
garden hose flow rate is
11.67 gpm
11.67 gal per minX 30 minX 1 wash/day = 350.1
gal/day
Fishing
(Purse Seiner)
Fish Hold
Clean
0.04
tanks are cleaned 1 per
month
30 minute wash
garden hose flow rate is
11.67 gpm
11.67 gal per min X 30 min X 1 wash/30 days =
11.67gal/day
Fishing
(Purse Seiner)
Fish Hold
Clean
3.33
4 month season
30 minute wash
garden hose flow rate is
11.67 gpm
11.67 gal per min X 30 minX 1 wash/day = 350.1
gal/day
Fishing
(Purse Seiner)
Generator
Engine
1.41
17,000 hours over 15
years
2 gpm cooling flow
2 gal/min X 60 min/hr X 17000hrs/15 years/365
days = 372.6 gal/day
G-3
-------
Proposed Draft
Appendix G.l: Vessel-Specific Flow Calculations by Discharge Type
Vessel Class
(Vessel Snbelass)
Disehar^e
Tj pe
l-'low
Kale
(m7da>)
Known InToi'malion
Assn in |>l ituis
( aleulalions
Fishing
(Purse Seiner)
Propulsion
Engine
16.59
1 Cummin 350hp inboard
diesel engine
4000 hours in 3 years
20 gpm cooling flow
20 gal/min X 60 min/hr X 4000hrs/3 years/365
days = 4383.6 gal/day
Research
Propulsion
Engine
0.03
1 200hp gas outboard
engine
5 years old
250 hours of use
1 gpm cooling water flow
rate
1 gal per minute X 250 hours/ 5 years of use X 1
engines X 365 days/year = 8.22 gal/day
Research
Propulsion
Engine
0.15
2 225 hp gas outboard
engine
5 years old
600 hours of use
1 gpm cooling water flow
rate
1 gal per minute X 600 hours/ 5 years of use X 2
engines X 365 days/year = 39.45 gal/day
Fishing
(Shrimp Trawler)
Bilge
Water
2.84
5 min per pump out
1 pump out every day
150 gal/min bilge pump
rate
150gpm, 5 min per pump
out, once a day: 750 gal/day
150 gal per min X 5 min per day = 750 gal/min
Fishing
(Shrimp Trawler)
Deck
Wash
0.66
1 deck wash per day
15 minute deck wash with
garden hose
garden hose flow rate is
11.67 gpm
11.67 gal per min X 15 min X 1 wash/day =
175.05 gal/day
Fishing
(Shrimp Trawler)
Deck
Wash
0.76
200 gallons per day
200 gal/ day
Fishing
(Shrimp Trawler)
Deck
Wash
0.15
1 deck wash per off load
10 minute deck wash with
garden hose
1 off load every 3 days
Garden hose flow rate is
11.67 gpm
11.67 gal per min X 10 min X 1 wash/ 3 days =
38.9 gal/day
Fishing
(Shrimp Trawler)
Fish Hold
0..22
Holding tank hold 30001bs
of shrimp
Density of fish is 0.9 kg/liter
Holding tank is 70%shrimp,
30% water
Off loads 1 every 3 days
1360 kg of fish / 0.9kg/L = 1512 liters of fish
1512 X 30%/70% = 648L of ice slurry
648L / 3 days = 216 L/day
Fishing
(Shrimp Trawler)
Fish Hold
2.12
Holding tank is 1500 ft3
Generally half full at
offload
Holding tank is 70%shrimp,
30% water
Off loads 1 every 3 days
1500 ft3 X 30% X 1/2 full X 1 offload/3 days = 75
ft3/day
G-4
-------
Proposed Draft
Appendix G.l: Vessel-Specific Flow Calculations by Discharge Type
Vessel Class
(Vessel Snbelass)
Disehar^e
Tj pe
l-'low
Kale
(m7da>)
Known InToi'malion
Assumptions
( alenlalions
Fishing
(Shrimp Trawler)
Fish Hold
Clean
0.13
15 iiuiiule hose down al'ler
each offload
Offloads 1 every 3 days
Garden hose flow rate is
11.67 gpm
11.67 gal per min X 15 min X 1 wash/ 3 day X =
33.66 gal/day
Fishing
(Shrimp Trawler)
Fish Hold
Clean
0.13
15 minute hose down after
each offload
Offloads 1 every 3 days
Garden hose flow rate is
11.67 gpm
11.67 gal per min X 15 min X 1 wash/ 3 day X =
33.66 gal/day
Fishing
(Shrimp Trawler)
Deck
Wash
0.08
1 deck wash per off load
60 gallons per wash
1 off load every 3 days
60 gal every 3 days X year = 20 gal/day
Fishing
(Shrimp Trawler)
Deck
Wash
0.04
1 deck wash per off load
30 gallons per wash
2 off load every 3 days
30 gal every 3 days X year = 20 gal/day
Fishing
(Shrimp Trawler)
Fish Hold
1.77
Used average of known
trawler fish hold flow rates
Fishing
(Shrimp Trawler)
Fish Hold
1.42
5000 gallon tank
75% full at offload
Holding tank is 70%shrimp,
30% water
Off loads 1 every 3 days
5000 gal X 30% X 3/4 full X loffload/3 days =
375 gal /day
Fishing
(Shrimp Trawler)
Fish Hold
Clean
0.13
15 minute hose down after
each offload
Offloads 1 every 3 days
Garden hose flow rate is
11.67 gpm
11.67 gal per min X 15 min X 1 wash/ 3 day X =
33.66 gal/day
Supply Boat
Deck
Wash
0.05
Cleaned with hose
15 minute per deckeash
Garden hose flow rate is
11.67 gpm
1 wash every 2 weeks
11.67 gal per min X 15 min X 1 wash/14 days
=12.5 gal/day
G-5
-------
Proposed Draft
Appendix G.l: Vessel-Specific Flow Calculations by Discharge Type
Vessel Class
(Vessel Snbelass)
Disehar^e
Tj pe
l-'low
Kale
(m7da>)
Known InToi'malion
Assn in |>l ituis
Caleulalions
Fishing
(Tender Vessel)
Fish Hold
32.82
3 tanks of 2700 ftA3 each
(229.4 m3 total)
holds 325,000 lbs of fish
(147417 kg offish)
emptied at off load
density of fish is 0.9 kg/L
off loads 1 every 2 days
I4~41 ~ kg u'Jkgl. It.?,"•>" 1. of lisli (J(. vX
mA3 of fish)
229.4 mA3 tank -163.8 mA3 of fish = 65.6 mA3 of
hold water
65.6 mA3 of hold water X 1 off load/ 2 days
=32.82 mA3/day
Fishing
(Tender Vessel)
Fish Hold
18.43
holds 170,000 lbs of fish
(77,110 kg offish)
emptied at off load
density of fish is 0.9 kg/L
holding tank is 70% fish,
30% water
off loads 1 every 2 days
77,110 kg / 0.9kg/L = 85678 L offish (86 mA3 of
fish)
86 mA3 offish X 30% / 70% X 1 off load / 2 days
= 18.43 m3/day
Fishing
(Tender Vessel)
Fish Hold
6.81
fish hold tank is 1600 ftA3
(45.3 m3)
holding tank is 70% fish,
30% water
off loads 1 every 2 days
(480ftA3),
45.3 m3 X 30% X 1 every 2 days = 6.81m3/day
Fishing
(Tender Vessel)
Fish Hold
Clean
0.38
30 minute wash after each
off load
1 off load every 2 days
garden hose flow rate is
11.67 gpm after each
offload, I offload/2days
11.67 gal per min X 30 min X 1 wash/2 days =
100.95gal/day
Fishing
(Tender Vessel)
Fish Hold
Clean
0.38
30 minute wash after each
off load
1 off load every 2 days
garden hose flow rate is
11.67 gpm after each
offload, I offload/2days
11.67 gal per min X 30 min X 1 wash/2 days =
100.95gal/day
Tour Boat
Bilge
Water
0.05
5 min to pump bilge
1 pump per week
12v bilge pump at 20 gpm
discharged 365 days a year
20 gal per min X 5 min X 1 pump/7 days = 14.3
gal/day
Tour Boat
Bilge
Water
0.03
pumped very rarely
12v bilge pump at 20 gpm
rarely defined as 1 pump
every 2 weeks
5 min to pump bilge
discharged 365 days a year
20 gal per min X 5 min X 1 pump/14 days = 7.2
gal/day
G-6
-------
Proposed Draft
Appendix G.l: Vessel-Specific Flow Calculations by Discharge Type
Vessel Class
(Vessel Subelass)
Disehar^e
Tj pe
l-'low
Kale
(m7da>)
Known InToi'malion
Assumptions
( aleulalions
Tour Boat
Deck
Wash
0.06
1 deck was>h per week
10 minute deck wash with
a garden hose
gai'dcn hose flow rale ib
11.67 gpm
discharged 365 days a year
11.67 gal per min X 10 min X 1 wash/7 days =
16.67 gal/day
Tour Boat
Deck
Wash
0.22
1 deck wash per day
5 minute deck wash with
garden hose
garden hose flow rate is
11.67 gpm
discharged 365 days a year
11.67 gal per min X 5 min X 1 wash/1 days =
58.35 gal/day
Tour Boat
Generator
Engine
5.40
2 45kw 76hp inboard
diesel engine
heat exchange system
6 hours per day of
operation
2 gpm cooling flow
2 gal per minute X 360 min per day X 2 engines
=1440 gal/day
Tour Boat
Generator
Engine
2.20
2 27kw 46hp inboard
diesel engines
raw water cooled
4500 hours used in last 5
years
2 gpm cooling flow
2 gal per minute X 900 hours/year X 2 engines =
591.78 gal/day
Tour Boat
Propulsion
Engine
27.25
1 catapillar 86hp diesel
inboard engine
20 years old
heat exchanger
6 hours per day of
operation
20 gpm cooling flow
20 gal per min X 360 min per day X = 7200
gal/day
Tour Boat
Propulsion
Engine
54.51
2 catapilar 275 diesel
inboard engines
heat exchange system
6 hours per day of
operation
20 gpm cooling flow
20 gal per min X 360 min per day X 2 engines =
14400 gal/day
Tour Boat
Propulsion
Engine
44.80
2 catapilar 275 diesel
inboard engines
raw water cooled
9000 hours operated in
last 5 years
20 gpm cooling flow
20 gal per min X 1800 hours per year X 2 engines
= 11836 gal/day
Tow/Salvage
Bilge
Water
0.05
2 min per pump out
1 pump out every 3 days
12v bilge pump at 20 gpm
discharged 365 days a year
20 gal per min X 2 min X 1 pump/3 days =13
gal/day
G-7
-------
Proposed Draft
Appendix G.l: Vessel-Specific Flow Calculations by Discharge Type
Vessel Class
(Vessel Snbelass)
Disehar^e
Tj pe
l-'low
Kale
(m7da>)
Known InToi'malion
Assn in |>l ituis
( aleulalions
Tow/Salvage
Bilge
Water
2.73
60 gal per minute flow
rate
5 second per pump out
1 pump out every 10
minutes
discharged 365 days a year
60 gal per minute X 12 min/day = 720 gal/day
Tow/Salvage
Deck
Wash
0.03
1 deck wash per week
50 gallons per wash
50 gal per wash/7 days per week = 7.14 gal/day
Tow/Salvage
Deck
Wash
0.03
1 deck wash per week
50 gallons per wash
50 gal per wash/7 days per week = 7.14 gal/day
Tow/Salvage
Deck
Wash
0.01
25 gallons per wash
1 deck wash every 2 weeks
25 gal per wash/14 days = 1.79 gal/day
Tow/Salvage
Deck
Wash
0.02
2 deck washes per week
20 gallons per wash
20 gal per wash/3.5 days = 5.7 gal/day
Tow/Salvage
Deck
Wash
0.03
1 deck wash per week
50 gallons per wash
50 gal per wash/7 days per week = 7.14 gal/day
Tow/Salvage
Propulsion
Engine
0.15
1 225 hp evinrude etech
outboard
1 year old engine with 243
hours
raw water cooled
1 gpm cooling water flow
rate
1 gal per min X 243 hours/year = 39.95 gal/day
Tow/Salvage
Propulsion
Engine
0.91
1 suzuki 225 hp outboard
engine
operates 4 hours per day
1 gpm cooling water flow
rate
1 gal per min X 4 hours/day = 240 gal/day
Tow/Salvage
Propulsion
Engine
0.56
2 suzuki 175hp gas
outboard engines
1800 hours operated in
last 4 years
1 gpm cooling water flow
rate
1 gal per min X 450 hours/year X 2 engines =
147.95 gal/day
Tow/Salvage
Propulsion
Engine
2.88
1 cummin inboard 380hp
diesel engine
463 hours in last 2 years
20 gpm cooling water flow
rate
20 gal per min X 231.5 hours/year = 761.1 gal/day
Tow/Salvage
Propulsion
Engine
0.26
2 yamaha 150hp outboard
gas engines
420 hours operated in last
2 years
1 gpm cooling water flow
rate
1 gal per min X 210 hours/year X 2 engines =
69.04 gal/day
G-8
-------
Proposed Draft
Appendix G.l: Vessel-Specific Flow Calculations by Discharge Type
Vessel Class
(Vessel Snbelass)
Disehar^e
Tj pe
l-'low
Kale
(m7da>)
Known InToi'malion
Assn in |>l ituis
( aleulalions
Fishing
(Trawler)
Bilge
Water
2.84
used average of known
shrimp trawler bilge flow
rates
150 gal per min X 5 min per day = 750 gal/min
Fishing
(Trawler)
Deck
Wash
0.34
used average of known
shrimp trawler deck wash
flow rates
Fishing
(Trawler)
Fish Hold
1.77
used average of known
shrimp trawler fish hold
flow rates
Fishing
(Trawler)
Fish Hold
Clean
0.13
15 minute hose down after
each offload
offloads 1 every 3 days
garden hose flow rate is
11.67 gpm
11.67 gal per min X 15 min X 1 wash/ 3 day X =
33.66 gal/day
Fishing
(Trailer)
Deck
Wash
0.47
125 gal per power wash
1 wash per day
125 gal/day
Fishing
(Trailer)
Fish Hold
8.32
fish hold tank is 12x10x7
ft3 (23.8 m3)
emptied at each offload
tank is off loaded at half
full
ice tank holds 50% fish,
35% ice, 15% air
off loads daily
23.8m3 X 35% X 50% = 8.32 m3/day
Fishing
(Trailer)
Fish Hold
0.79
600 gallon ice box
emptied at each off load
ice tank holds 50% fish,
35% ice, 15% air
off loads daily
600 gal X 35% = 210 gal/day
Fishing
(Trailer)
Fish Hold
1.58
160 ftA3 tank (4.53 m3
tank)
ice tank holds 50% fish,
35% ice, 15% air
off loads daily
4.53 m3 X 35% X 11/12 year = 1.58m3/day
G-9
-------
Proposed Draft
Appendix G.l: Vessel-Specific Flow Calculations by Discharge Type
Vessel Class
(Vessel Snbelass)
Disehar^e
Tj pe
l-'low
Kale
(m7da>)
Known InToi'malion
Assn in |>l ituis
( aleulalions
Fishing
(Trailer)
Fish Hold
5.59
5.5 tons of ice per off load
1 off load per day
lank holds 5.5 Lulls of luc
(5588.3kg of ice or 6141
liters of ice) and 11,000 of
fish, discharged at each
offload, offloads daily,
llmo/yr: 5629.23L/day
5.5 tons of ice (5588.3 kg) X lkg/L = 5588.29
L/day
Fishing
(Trailer)
Fish Hold
Clean
0.38
1 deck wash per off load
15 minute deck wash with
garden hose
1 off load daily
garden hose flow rate is
11.67 gpm
11.67 gal per min X 15 min = 100.95 gal/day
Fishing
(Trailer)
Fish Hold
Clean
1.38
2 deck wash per off load
15 minute deck wash with
garden hose
1 off load daily
garden hose flow rate is
11.67 gpm
11.67 gal per min X 15 min = 100.95 gal/day
Tugboat
Deck
Wash
0..38
1 deck wash per 2 weeks
with garden hose
2 hours per deck wash
garden hose flow rate is
11.67 gpm
discharged 365 days a year
11.67 gal per min X 120 min X 1 wash/14 days =
100 gal/day
Tugboat
Deck
Wash
0.14
1.5 deck washes per week
15 minutes per deck wash
garden hose flow rate is
11.67 gpm
discharged 365 days a year
11.67 gal per min X 22.5 min X 1 wash/7 days =
37.8 gal/day
Tugboat
Deck
Wash
0.17
1.5 deck washes per week
with garden hose
15-20 minutes per deck
wash
garden hose flow rate is
11.67 gpm
discharged 365 days a year
11.67 gal per min X 17.5 minX 1.5 wash/7 days =
43.76 gal/day
Tugboat
Deck
Wash
0.14
1 deck wash per 2 week
with garden hose
45 minutes per deck wash
garden hose flow rate is
11.67 gpm
discharged 365 days a year
11.67 gal per min X 45 min X 1 wash/14 days =
37.51 gal/day
G-10
-------
Proposed Draft
Appendix G.l: Vessel-Specific Flow Calculations by Discharge Type
Vessel Class
(Vessel Snbelass)
Disehar^e
Tj pe
l-'low
Kale
(m7da>)
Known InToi'malion
Assn in |>l ituis
( aleiilalions
Tugboat
Deck
Wash
0.14
1 deck wash per week
with garden hose
15-30 minutes per deck
wash
garden hose flow rate is
11.67 gpm
discharged 365 days a year
11.67 gal per min X 22.5 min X 1 wash/7 days =
37.51 gal/day
Tugboat
Deck
Wash
0.19
2 deck washes per week
with garden hose
15 minutes per deck wash
garden hose flow rate is
11.67 gpm
discharged 365 days a year
11.67 gal per min X 15 min X 2 washes/7 days =
50.01 gal/day
Tugboat
Deck
Wash
0.00
Uses pressure washer at 2
gallons per wash
1 wash every month
2 gal per wash X 1 wash every month = 0.067
gal/day
Tugboat
Deck
Wash
0.05
garden hose flow rate is
11.67 gpm
1 deck washes per 2 weeks
with garden hose
15 minutes per deck wash
(use data of sister vessel)
11.67 gal per min X 15 min X 1 wash/14 days
=12.5 gal/day
Tugboat
Deck
Wash
0.05
1 deck washes per 2
weeks with garden hose
15 minutes per deck wash
garden hose flow rate is
11.67 gpm
11.67 gal per min X 15 min X 1 wash/14 days
=12.5 gal/day
Tugboat
Graywater
- Laundry
0.22
front load washer
16 loads per week
front load washer uses 25
gal/load
25 gal/load X 16 loads/week = 57.14 gal/day
Tugboat
Graywater
- Laundry
0.22
front load washer
16 loads per week
front load washer uses 25
gal/load
25 gal/load X 16 loads/week = 57.14 gal/day
Tugboat
Graywater
- Laundry
0.11
standard washer
5 loads per week
standard washer uses 40
gal/load
40 gal/load X 5 loads/week = 28.57 gal/day
Tugboat
Graywater
- Laundry
0.22
front load washer
4 crew
front load washer uses 25
gal/load
4 loads of laundry per crew
per week
25 gal/load X 16 loads/week = 57.14 gal/day
Tugboat
Graywater
- Laundry
0.13
standard washer
6 loads per week
standard washer uses 40
gal/load
40 gal/load X 5 loads/week = 34.29 gal/day
G-ll
-------
Proposed Draft
Appendix G.l: Vessel-Specific Flow Calculations by Discharge Type
Vessel Class
(Vessel Subelass)
Disehar^e
Tj pe
l-'low
Hale
(m7da>)
Known InToi'malion
Assumptions
( aleulalions
Tugboat
Graywater
- Laundry
0.02
1 load per week
has slalldai'd Wasllci'
standard washer uses 40
gal/load
40 gal/load X 1 loads/week = 6.86 gal/day
Tugboat
Graywater
- Shower
0.16
3 crew
17.2 gal per shower
0.8 showers per person per
day
3 crew X 17.2 gal per shower X 0.8 showers per
person per day = 41.28 gal/day
Tugboat
Graywater
- Shower
0.16
3 crew
17.2 gal per shower
0.8 showers per person per
day
3 crew X 17.2 gal per shower X 0.8 showers per
person per day = 41.28 gal/day
Tugboat
Graywater
- Shower
0.26
5 crew
17.2 gal per shower
0.8 showers per person per
day
5 crew X 17.2 gal per shower X 0.8 showers per
person per day = 68.8 gal/day
Tugboat
Graywater
- Shower
0.21
4 crew
17.2 gal per shower
0.8 showers per person per
day
4 crew X 17.2 gal per shower X 0.8 showers per
person per day = 55.04 gal/day
Tugboat
Graywater
- Shower
0.21
4 crew
17.2 gal per shower
0.8 showers per person per
day
4 crew X 17.2 gal per shower X 0.8 showers per
person per day = 55.04 gal/day
Tugboat
Graywater
- Shower
0.16
3 crew
17.2 gal per shower
0.8 showers per person per
day
3 crew X 17.2 gal per shower X 0.8 showers per
person per day = 41.28 gal/day
Tugboat
Graywater
- Sink
0.11
3 crew
30 min of sink use per crew
per week
2.2 gal per min in standard
sink
2.2 gal per min X 3 crew X 30 min/7days = 28.29
gal/day
Tugboat
Graywater
- Sink
0.11
3 crew
30 min of sink use per crew
per week
2.2 gal per min in standard
sink
2.2 gal per min X 3 crew X 30 min/7days = 28.29
gal/day
Tugboat
Graywater
- Sink
0.18
5 crew
30 min of sink use per crew
per week
2.2 gal per min in standard
sink
2.2 gal per min X 5 crew X 30 min/7days = 47.14
gal/day
G-12
-------
Proposed Draft
Appendix G.l: Vessel-Specific Flow Calculations by Discharge Type
Vessel Class
(Vessel Snbelass)
Disehar^e
Tj pe
l-'low
Kale
(m7da>)
Known InToi'malion
Assumptions
( alenlalions
Tugboat
Graywater
- Sink
0.14
4 crew
30 111111 of sink use per crew
per week
2.2 gal per min in standard
sink
2.2 gal per min X 4 crew X 30 min/7days = 37.71
gal/day
Tugboat
Graywater
- Sink
0.14
4 crew
30 min of sink use per crew
per week
2.2 gal per min in standard
sink
2.2 gal per min X 4 crew X 30 min/7days = 37.71
gal/day
Tugboat
Graywater
- Sink
0.11
3 crew
30 min of sink use per crew
per week
2.2 gal per min in standard
sink
2.2 gal per min X 3 crew X 30 min/7days = 28.29
gal/day
Tugboat
Shaft
Water
0.01
operates 5 days/week
10 mL/min constant drip
(3.8 gal/day drip)
3.8 gal per day X 5 days/week = 2.71 gal/day
Tugboat
Shaft
Water
0.01
operates 5 days/week
10 mL/min constant drip
(3.8 gal/day drip)
3.8 gal per day X 5 days/week = 2.71 gal/day
Tugboat
Shaft
Water
0.01
operates 5 days/week
10 mL/min constant drip
(3.8 gal/day drip)
3.8 gal per day X 5 days/week = 2.71 gal/day
Tugboat
Shaft
Water
0.01
operates 5 days/week
10 mL/min constant drip
(3.8 gal/day drip)
3.8 gal per day X 5 days/week = 2.71 gal/day
Tugboat
Shaft
Water
0.01
operates 5 days/week
10 mL/min constant drip
(3.8 gal/day drip)
3.8 gal per day X 5 days/week = 2.71 gal/day
Tugboat
Shaft
Water
0.01
operates 5 days/week
10 mL/min constant drip
(3.8 gal/day drip)
3.8 gal per day X 5 days/week = 2.71 gal/day
Tugboat
Shaft
Water
0.01
operates 5 days/week
10 mL/min constant drip
(3.8 gal/day drip)
3.8 gal per day X 5 days/week = 2.71 gal/day
G-13
-------
Proposed Draft
Appendix G.l: Vessel-Specific Flow Calculations by Discharge Type
Vessel Class
(Vessel Snbelass)
Disehar^e
Tj pe
l-'low
Kale
(m7da>)
Known InToi'malion
Assumptions
( alenlalions
Tugboat
Shaft
Water
0.01
operates 5 days/week
10 mL/min constant drip
(3.8 gal/day drip)
3.8 gal per day X 5 days/week = 2.71 gal/day
Water Taxi
Bilge
Water
0.13
2000 gal per hour pump
1 minute per pump out
bilge pump operates when
engine is turned on
33.33 gal per min X 1 min per pump out X 1 pump
out/day =33.2 gal/day
Water Taxi
Bilge
Water
0.13
2000 gal per hour pump
1 minute per pump out
bilge pump operates when
engine is turned on
33.33 gal per min X 1 min per pump out X 1 pump
out/day =33.2 gal/day
Water Taxi
Bilge
Water
0.13
2000 gal per hour pump
1 minute per pump out
bilge pump operates when
engine is turned on
33.33 gal per min X 1 min per pump out X 1 pump
out/day =33.2 gal/day
Water Taxi
Deck
Wash
0.01
1 deck washes per month
with garden hose
10 minutes per deck wash
garden hose flow rate is
11.67 gpm
11.67 gal per min X 10 min X 1 wash/30 days =
3.89 gal/day
Water Taxi
Deck
Wash
0.01
1 deck washes per month
with garden hose
10 minutes per deck wash
garden hose flow rate is
11.67 gpm
discharged 6 months a year
11.67 gal per min X 10 min X 1 wash/30 days =
3.89 gal/day
Water Taxi
Deck
Wash
0.09
1 deck washes every week
with garden hose
15 minutes per deck wash
garden hose flow rate is
11.67 gpm
11.67 gal per min X 15 min X 1 wash/7 = 25
gal/day
Water Taxi
Deck
Wash
0.02
1 deck washes per month
with garden hose
12.5 minutes per deck
wash
garden hose flow rate is
11.67 gpm
11.67 gal per min X 12.5 minX 1 wash/30 days=
4.86 gal/day
Water Taxi
Generator
Engine
9.08
2 21.5kw diesel generators
heat exchange system
operates 10 hours/day
2 gal per min cooling flow
2 gal per minute X 600 min per day X 2 engines =
2400 gal/day
G-14
-------
Proposed Draft
Appendix G.l: Vessel-Specific Flow Calculations by Discharge Type
Vessel Class
(Vessel Snbelass)
Disehar^e
Tj pe
l-'low
Kale
(m7da>)
Known InToi'malion
Assn in |>l ituis
( aleulalions
Water Taxi
Graywater
- Sink
0.28
100 passenger;, w a^li ilieir
hands/day
faucet flow rate is 2.2
gal/min
20 seconds per wash
100 passengers/day X 20 second/wash X 2.2
gal/min =73.34 gal/day
Water Taxi
Propulsion
Engine
33.18
2 95hp diesel inboard
engines
20,000 hours of operation
in 15 years
20 gal per min cooling flow
1200 gal per hour X 2 engines X 1,333 hours/year
= 8765 gal/day
Water Taxi
Propulsion
Engine
18.57
1 caterpillar 220hp diesel
inboard
4475 hours of operation in
3 years
20 gal per min cooling flow
1200 gal per hour X 1,492 hours/year = 4905
gal/day
Water Taxi
Propulsion
Engine
90.85
2 John Deer 25hp inboard
diesel engines
operates 10 hours/day
20 gal per min cooling flow
1200 gal per hour X 2 engines X 10 hrs/day =
24,000 gal/day
Water Taxi
Propulsion
Engine
16.59
1 90hp diesel inboard
engine
20,000 hours of operation
in 15 years
20 gal per min cooling flow
1200 gal per hourX 1,333 hours/year = 4382
gal/day
G-15
-------
Proposed Draft
Appendix G.2: Percent of Vessels by Vessel Class and Discharge Type Discharging in the Harbor
Vessel ( hiss
Vessel
Suheliiss
Disehiii'^e
Number of
Siimpled
Vessels
w illioul
Disehiii'^e
Stslem or
I'meess
(A)
Number of
Siimpled
Vessels \\ illi
:i No
Dischiiriic
Stsleni
(15)
Numher of
Siimpled Vessels
111 ill
Disehiir^edOulside
I .S. Wiiiers
«¦)
Number ol°
Siimpled
Vessels lliiil
Disehiir^e
in (lie
lliirhor
(1))
loiiil Number
ol' Siimpled
Vessels
(i:=\+ii+( +»)
I'ereenl of
Vessels
with
Disehiir^e
-------
Proposed Draft
Appendix G.2: Percent of Vessels by Vessel Class and Discharge Type Discharging in the Harbor
Number of
Siimpled
Vessels
Nil in her of
Siimpled
Vessels w illi
:i No
Disehiir^e
S\slem
Number of
Siimpled Vessels
N umbel- of
Siimpled
Vessels lliiil
Disehiir^e
in (lie
lliirbur
luiiil Number
Pereenl of
Vessels
with
Disehiir^e
(D/E)
Vessel ( hiss
Vessel
Suheliiss
Disehiii'^e
w illioul
Disehiir^e
111 ill
Disehiir^edOulside
ul° Siimpled
Vessels
Stslem or
Process
(A)
I .S. Winers
(C)
ii:=\+ii+( +D)
(IS)
(D)
Fishing
Trailer
Fish Hold
0
0
0
6
6
100%
Fishing
Trailer
Fish Hold Clean
4
0
0
2
6
33%
Research
NA
Engine Effluent
0
0
0
2
2
100%
Supply Boat
NA
Deck Wash
0
0
0
1
1
100%
Tour Boat
NA
Bilge
1
0
0
2
3
67%
Tour Boat
NA
Deck Wash
1
0
0
2
3
67%
Tour Boat
NA
Engine Effluent
0
0
0
3
3
100%
Tour Boat
NA
Fire Main
0
0
0
3
3
100%
Tour Boat
NA
Generator Effluent
1
0
0
2
3
67%
Tow/Salvage
NA
Bilge
1
3
0
2
6
33%
Tow/Salvage
NA
Deck Wash
0
0
0
6
6
100%
Tow/Salvage
NA
Engine Effluent
0
1
0
5
6
83%
Tugboat
NA
Deck Wash
0
0
0
9
9
100%
Tugboat
NA
Fire Main
0
0
0
9
9
100%
Tugboat
NA
Graywater
0
3
0
6
9
67%
Tugboat
NA
Shaft Water
0
1
0
8
9
89%
Water Taxi
NA
Bilge
0
1
0
3
4
75%
Water Taxi
NA
Deck Wash
0
0
0
4
4
100%
Water Taxi
NA
Engine Effluent
0
0
0
4
4
100%
Water Taxi
NA
Generator Effluent
3
0
0
1
4
25%
Water Taxi
NA
Graywater
3
0
0
1
4
25%
G-17
-------
Proposed Draft
Appendix G.3: Vessel Scenario Total Analyte-Specific Loading Rates
Ann Me
( liISS
Aiiiihle
Vessel
Seeiiiirio 1
loliil l.oiidiii^
Kiile l ishinii
lliirhor
Vessel Seeiiiirio 2
l oliil l.n;idiii;i
Kiile l.sirge
Melropoliiiin
lliirhor
Vessel
Seeiiiirio 3
loliil l.oiidinu
Kiile
Keereiilioiiiil
lliirhor
I nils
Bacteria
E. Coli by MF
8,860,000,000
44,300,000,000
7,380,000,000
CFU/day
Bacteria
E. Coli by MPN
3,570,000,000
16,000,000,000
2,880,000,000
MPN/day
Bacteria
Enterococci by MF
5,000,000,000
25,000,000,000
4,170,000,000
CFU/day
Bacteria
Enterococci by MPN
1,010,000,000
891,000,000
547,000,000
MPN/day
Bacteria
Fecal Coliform by MF
27,500,000,000
81,500,000,000
20,300,000,000
CFU/day
Bacteria
Fecal Coliform by MPN
10,000,000,000
50,000,000,000
8,330,000,000
MPN/day
Bacteria
Total Coliforms by MPN
42,900,000,000
214,000,000,000
35,800,000,000
MPN/day
Classicals
Biochemical Oxygen
Demand (BOD)
635
481
392
lb/day
Classicals
Chemical Oxygen Demand
(COD)
1,840
1,310
1,100
lb/day
Classicals
Dissolved Oxygen
25.6
37.4
41.3
lb/day
Classicals
Hexane Extractable Material
(HEM)
11.4
19.1
17.5
lb/day
Classicals
Silica Gel Treated HEM
(SGT-HEM)
13.2
20.7
20.8
lb/day
Classicals
Sulfide
0.0152
0.0285
0.0203
lb/day
Classicals
Total Organic Carbon
(TOC)
239
185
147
lb/day
Classicals
Total Residual Chlorine
0.403
0.730
0.565
lb/day
Classicals
Total Suspended Solids
(TSS)
231
207
186
lb/day
Nutrients
Ammonia As Nitrogen
(NH3-N)
8.52
6.07
5.07
lb/day
Nutrients
Nitrate/Nitrite (N03/N02-
N)
0.127
0.203
0.102
lb/day
Nutrients
Total Kieldahl Nitrogen
(TKN)
97.8
68.5
59.0
lb/day
Nutrients
Total Phosphorus
13.8
8.91
7.74
lb/day
Metals
Aluminum, Dissolved
2.01
1.70
1.64
lb/day
Metals
Aluminum, Total
2.55
2.70
2.60
lb/day
Metals
Antimony, Dissolved
0.0000217
0.000111
0.0000470
lb/day
Metals
Antimony, Total
0.0000711
0.000348
0.000137
lb/day
Metals
Arsenic, Dissolved
0.0190
0.0285
0.0256
lb/day
Metals
Arsenic, Total
0.0279
0.0359
0.0315
lb/day
Metals
Barium, Dissolved
0.0326
0.0747
0.0666
lb/day
Metals
Barium, Total
0.0368
0.0895
0.0709
lb/day
Metals
Cadmium, Dissolved
0.0000294
0.0000433
0.0000306
lb/day
Metals
Cadmium, Total
0.000749
0.000657
0.000551
lb/day
Metals
Calcium, Dissolved
653
561
528
lb/day
Metals
Calcium, Total
647
566
534
lb/day
Metals
Chromium, Dissolved
0.00195
0.00447
0.00424
lb/day
Metals
Chromium, Total
0.00514
0.00890
0.00713
lb/day
G-18
-------
Proposed Draft
Appendix G.3: Vessel Scenario Total Analyte-Specific Loading Rates
Ann Me
( liISS
Aiiiihle
Vessel
Seeiiiirio 1
loliil l.oiidiii^
Kiile l ishinii
lliirhor
Vessel Seeiiiirio 2
l oliil l.n;idiii;i
Kiile l.sirge
Melropoliiiin
lliirhor
Vessel
Seeiiiirio 3
loliil l.oiidinu
Kiile
Keereiilioiiiil
lliirhor
I nils
Metals
Cobalt, Dissolved
0.0000745
0.000184
0.0000776
lb/day
Metals
Cobalt, Total
0.000148
0.000262
0.000108
lb/day
Metals
Copper, Dissolved
2.88
4.97
2.75
lb/day
Metals
Copper, Total
0.158
0.179
0.165
lb/day
Metals
Iron, Dissolved
0.0161
0.0465
0.0145
lb/day
Metals
Iron, Total
0.376
0.819
0.600
lb/day
Metals
Lead, Dissolved
0.00176
0.00338
0.00340
lb/day
Metals
Lead, Total
0.0108
0.0154
0.0142
lb/day
Metals
Magnesium, Dissolved
1,980
1,500
1,390
lb/day
Metals
Magnesium, Total
1,910
1,470
1,360
lb/day
Metals
Manganese, Dissolved
0.120
0.230
0.255
lb/day
Metals
Manganese, Total
0.148
0.296
0.321
lb/day
Metals
Nickel, Dissolved
0.00854
0.0140
0.0133
lb/day
Metals
Nickel, Total
0.00987
0.0165
0.0145
lb/day
Metals
Potassium, Dissolved
56.0
105
113
lb/day
Metals
Potassium, Total
56.1
105
112
lb/day
Metals
Selenium, Dissolved
0.0215
0.0412
0.0443
lb/day
Metals
Selenium, Total
0.0244
0.0440
0.0471
lb/day
Metals
Silver, Dissolved
0.0000276
0.0000221
0.0000138
lb/day
Metals
Silver, Total
0.0000519
0.0000415
0.0000259
lb/day
Metals
Sodium, Dissolved
1,240
2,460
2,750
lb/day
Metals
Sodium,Total
1,440
2,880
3,260
lb/day
Metals
Thallium, Dissolved
0.0000144
0.0000710
0.0000120
lb/day
Metals
Thallium,Total
0.000000157
0.000000785
0.000000131
lb/day
Metals
Vanadium, Dissolved
0.00101
0.00201
0.00227
lb/day
Metals
Vanadium,Total
0.00130
0.00269
0.00254
lb/day
Metals
Zinc, Dissolved
0.310
0.295
0.259
lb/day
Metals
Zinc, Total
0.758
0.613
0.516
lb/day
Nonylphenols
Bisphenol A
0.00000886
0.0000177
0.0000213
lb/day
Nonylphenols
Nonylphenol decaethoxylate
(NPIOEO)
0.00191
0.00338
0.00314
lb/day
Nonylphenols
Nonylphenol
dodecaethoxylate (NP12EO)
0.00152
0.00270
0.00255
lb/day
Nonylphenols
Nonylphenol
heptadecaethoxylate
(NP17EO)
0.0000955
0.000170
0.000167
lb/day
Nonylphenols
Nonylphenol
heptaethoxylate (NP7EO)
0.00122
0.00210
0.00177
lb/day
Nonylphenols
Nonylphenol
hexadecaethoxylate
(NP16EO)
0.000209
0.000362
0.000357
lb/day
Nonylphenols
Nonylphenol hexaethoxylate
(NP6EO)
0.000866
0.00147
0.00117
lb/day
G-19
-------
Proposed Draft
Appendix G.3: Vessel Scenario Total Analyte-Specific Loading Rates
AniilUe
( liISS
Aiiiil.Me
Vessel
Seeiiiirio 1
loliil l.oiidiii^
Riile lishinii
lliirhor
Vessel Seeiiiirio 2
l oliil l.n;idiii;i
Kiile l.sirgc
Melropoliiiin
lliirhor
Vessel
Seeiiiirio 3
loliil l.oiidinu
Rule
Keereiilioiiiil
lliirhor
I nils
Nonylphenols
Nonylphenol nonaethoxylate
(NP9EO)
0.00173
0.00300
0.00276
lb/day
Nonylphenols
Nonylphenol octaethoxylate
(NP8EO)
0.00159
0.00269
0.00239
lb/day
Nonylphenols
Nonylphenol
octodecaethoxylate
(NP18EO)
0.0000505
0.0000818
0.0000832
lb/day
Nonylphenols
Nonylphenol
pendecaethoxylate
(NP15EO)
0.000398
0.000684
0.000675
lb/day
Nonylphenols
Nonylphenol
pentaethoxylate (NP5EO)
0.000525
0.000860
0.000596
lb/day
Nonylphenols
Nonylphenol
tetradecaethoxylate
(NP14EO)
0.000708
0.00124
0.00121
lb/day
Nonylphenols
Nonylphenol tetraethoxylate
(NP4EO)
0.000233
0.000390
0.000173
lb/day
Nonylphenols
Nonylphenol
tridecaethoxylate (NP13EO)
0.00109
0.00191
0.00184
lb/day
Nonylphenols
Nonylphenol triethoxylate
(NP3EO)
0.000131
0.000226
0.0000944
lb/day
Nonylphenols
Nonylphenol
undecaethoxylate (NP11EO)
0.00194
0.00343
0.00321
lb/day
Nonylphenols
Octylphenol decaethoxylate
(OPIOEO)
0.0000690
0.000254
0.0000836
lb/day
Nonylphenols
Octylphenol
dodecaethoxylate (OP12EO)
0.0000413
0.000122
0.0000383
lb/day
Nonylphenols
Octylphenol heptaethoxylate
(OP7EO)
0.00000302
0.0000151
0.00000251
lb/day
Nonylphenols
Octylphenol nonaethoxylate
(OP9EO)
0.0000418
0.0000808
0.0000311
lb/day
Nonylphenols
Octylphenol octaethoxylate
(OP8EO)
0.0000257
0.000129
0.0000214
lb/day
Nonylphenols
Octylphenol
undecaethoxylate (OP11EO)
0.0000445
0.000151
0.0000503
lb/day
Nonylphenols
Total Nonylphenol
Polyethoxylates
0.0136
0.0232
0.0215
lb/day
Nonylphenols
Total Nonylphenols
0.000153
0.000122
0.0000763
lb/day
VOC
(2-Methyl-1 -Propenyl)-
Benzene
0.00298
0.00595
0.00714
lb/day
VOC
(E)-1 -Propenyl-Benzene
0.00000135
0.00000675
0.00000540
lb/day
VOC
(E)-2-Butenal
0.00544
0.0109
0.0131
lb/day
VOC
1,2,3,4-Tetrahydro-l-
Methylnaphthalene
0.00342
0.00684
0.00821
lb/day
VOC
l,2,3,4-Tetrahydro-2-
Methylnaphthalene
0.00316
0.00632
0.00758
lb/day
G-20
-------
Proposed Draft
Appendix G.3: Vessel Scenario Total Analyte-Specific Loading Rates
AniilUe
( liISS
Aiiiil.Me
Vessel
Seeiiiirio 1
loliil l.oiidiii^
Riile lishinii
lliirhor
Vessel Seeiiiirio 2
l oliil l.n;idiii;i
Kiile l.iirue
Melropoliiiiii
lliirhor
Vessel
Seeiiiirio 3
loliil l.oiidinu
Rule
Keereiilioiiiil
lliirhor
I nils
voc
l,2,3,4-Tetrahydro-5-
Methylnaphthalene
0.0277
0.0556
0.0664
lb/day
voc
l,2,3,4-Tetrahydro-6-
Ethylnaphthalene,
0.00298
0.00597
0.00716
lb/day
voc
l,2,3,4-Tetrahydro-6-
Methylnaphthalene
0.0253
0.0512
0.0603
lb/day
voc
l,2,3,4-Tetrahydro-6-
Methylnaphthalene (01)
0.00633
0.0127
0.0152
lb/day
voc
l,2,3,4-Tetrahydro-6-
Methylnaphthalene (02)
0.00530
0.0106
0.0127
lb/day
voc
1,2,3,4-
T etrahy dronaphthalene
0.0190
0.0382
0.0456
lb/day
voc
1,2,3,4-Tetramethyl-
Benzene
0.000643
0.00429
0.00214
lb/day
voc
1,2,3,5-Tetramethyl-
Benzene
0.000947
0.00631
0.00316
lb/day
voc
1,2,3 -Trimethylbenzene
0.00309
0.0206
0.0103
lb/day
voc
1,2,4,5-Tetramethylbenzene
0.00144
0.00963
0.00481
lb/day
voc
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
0.00616
0.0281
0.0176
lb/day
voc
1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene
0.00166
0.00819
0.00474
lb/day
voc
1,3 -Methylnaphthalene
0.00391
0.00781
0.00938
lb/day
voc
1,7 -Methylnaphthalene
0.0177
0.0353
0.0424
lb/day
voc
l-Ethyl-2,3-Dimethyl-
Benzene (01)
0.00272
0.00955
0.00735
lb/day
voc
l-Ethyl-2,3-Dimethyl-
Benzene (02)
0.000393
0.00262
0.00131
lb/day
voc
1 -Ethy 1-2,4-Dimethyl-
Benzene
0.00153
0.0102
0.00510
lb/day
voc
1 -Ethy 1-2-Methyl-Benzene
0.00000417
0.0000208
0.0000167
lb/day
voc
1 -Ethy 1-3 -Methyl-Benzene
0.00327
0.00663
0.00790
lb/day
voc
1 -Ethyl-4-Methyl-Benzene
0.00644
0.0429
0.0215
lb/day
voc
1 -Methy 1-2 -(1 -Methy lethyl)-
Benzene
0.00
0.00
0.00
lb/day
voc
1 -Methy l-2-( 1 -Methy lethyl)-
Benzene (01)
0.00000337
0.0000169
0.0000135
lb/day
voc
1 -Methy l-2-( 1 -Methy lethyl)-
Benzene (02)
0.0000118
0.0000589
0.0000471
lb/day
voc
1 -Methy 1-3 -Propyl-Benzene
0.00126
0.00836
0.00419
lb/day
voc
1-Methy l-4-(l-
Methylidene)-Cyclohexane
0.00
0.00
0.00
lb/day
voc
1-methy 1-Indan
0.00792
0.0201
0.0199
lb/day
voc
1 -Propenyl-Benzene
0.00000155
0.00000774
0.00000619
lb/day
voc
2- Heptanone
0.0000601
0.000400
0.000200
lb/day
voc
2,3 -Dihydro-1,2-Dimethyl-
lH-Indene
0.000323
0.00216
0.00108
lb/day
G-21
-------
Proposed Draft
Appendix G.3: Vessel Scenario Total Analyte-Specific Loading Rates
AniilUe
( liISS
Aiiiil.Me
Vessel
Seeiiiirio 1
loliil l.oiidiii^
Riile l ishinii
lliirhor
Vessel Seeiiiirio 2
l oliil l.n;idiii;i
Kiile l.sirgc
Melropoliiiin
lliirhor
Vessel
Seeiiiirio 3
loliil l.oiidinu
Rule
Keereiilioiiiil
lliirhor
I nils
voc
2,3 -Dihydro-1,6-Dimethyl-
lH-Indene
0.00356
0.0103
0.00906
lb/day
voc
2,3-Dihydro-1-
Methylindene
0.00518
0.0104
0.0124
lb/day
voc
2,3 -Dihydro-1 -methylindene
(01)
0.00290
0.00579
0.00695
lb/day
voc
2,3 -Dihydro-1 -methylindene
(02)
0.00614
0.0123
0.0147
lb/day
voc
2,3-Dihydro-4,7-Dimethyl-
lH-Indene
0.0000409
0.000204
0.0000409
lb/day
voc
2,3 -Dihydro-4-Methyl- 1H-
Indene
0.0546
0.119
0.133
lb/day
voc
2,3 -Dihydro-4-Methyl- 1H-
Indene (01)
0.00000480
0.0000240
0.0000192
lb/day
voc
2,3 -Dihydro-4-Methyl- 1H-
Indene (02)
0.00000810
0.0000405
0.0000324
lb/day
voc
2,3-Dihydro-5,6-dimethyl-
lH-Indene
0.00281
0.00562
0.00674
lb/day
voc
2,3-Dihydro-5-methyl-lH-
Indene
0.00159
0.0106
0.00530
lb/day
voc
2,6 -D imethy lnaphthalene
0.0384
0.0769
0.0923
lb/day
voc
2-Butanone
0.0297
0.0613
0.0706
lb/day
voc
2-Butenal
0.00340
0.00679
0.00815
lb/day
voc
2-Ethy 1-1,3,5 -T rimethyl-
Benzene
0.00409
0.00819
0.00982
lb/day
voc
2-Ethy 1-1,4-Dimethyl-
Benzene
0.0189
0.0378
0.0454
lb/day
voc
2-Ethy 1-1 -Hexanol
0.00000111
0.00000741
0.00000370
lb/day
voc
2-Ethy ltoluene
0.00541
0.0209
0.0150
lb/day
voc
2-Hexanone
0.00262
0.00562
0.00618
lb/day
voc
2-Methyl-2-Propenal
0.00632
0.0130
0.0150
lb/day
voc
2-Propenyl-Benzene
0.00471
0.0314
0.0157
lb/day
voc
3-Buten-2-one
0.00578
0.0117
0.0138
lb/day
voc
4-Ethyl-1,2-Dimethyl-
Benzene
0.00000429
0.0000214
0.0000171
lb/day
voc
4-Heptanone
0.0000795
0.000530
0.000265
lb/day
voc
4-Isopropyltoluene
0.000864
0.00187
0.00210
lb/day
voc
4-Methyl-2-Pentanone
0.000900
0.00182
0.00215
lb/day
voc
Acetaldehyde
0.0183
0.0371
0.0436
lb/day
voc
Acetone
0.133
0.271
0.316
lb/day
voc
Acrolein
0.00764
0.0155
0.0183
lb/day
voc
Benzaldehyde
0.000237
0.000474
0.000569
lb/day
voc
Benzene
0.00719
0.0208
0.0182
lb/day
voc
Benzocycloheptatriene
0.0363
0.0726
0.0871
lb/day
G-22
-------
Proposed Draft
Appendix G.3: Vessel Scenario Total Analyte-Specific Loading Rates
Ann Me
( liISS
Aiiiihle
Vessel
Seeiiiirio 1
loliil l.oiidiii^
Kiile lishinii
lliirhor
Vessel Seeiiiirio 2
l oliil l.n;idiii;i
Kiile l.sirge
Melropoliiiin
lliirhor
Vessel
Seeiiiirio 3
loliil l.oiidinu
Kiile
Keereiilioiiiil
lliirhor
I nils
voc
Benzofuran
0.00368
0.00736
0.00883
lb/day
voc
Bromodichloromethane
0.00000416
0.0000277
0.0000139
lb/day
voc
Butane
0.000521
0.00347
0.00174
lb/day
voc
Butyraldehyde
0.00448
0.00917
0.0107
lb/day
voc
Carbon disulfide
0.00000279
0.00000559
0.00000671
lb/day
voc
Chloroform
0.00244
0.00488
0.00585
lb/day
voc
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene
0.00000430
0.00000860
0.0000103
lb/day
voc
Cyclohexane
0.0000660
0.000439
0.000221
lb/day
voc
Dibromochloromethane
0.00000408
0.0000272
0.0000136
lb/day
voc
Dimethocxymethane
0.0156
0.0130
0.0117
lb/day
voc
Ethanol
0.0000212
0.000142
0.0000708
lb/day
voc
Ethylbenzene
0.00230
0.0114
0.00667
lb/day
voc
Indene
0.0000735
0.000368
0.0000941
lb/day
voc
Isopropylbenzene
0.00132
0.00323
0.00327
lb/day
voc
Limonene
0.00
0.00
0.00
lb/day
voc
m,p-Xylene (Sum of
Isomers)
0.00728
0.0414
0.0224
lb/day
voc
Methyl acetate
0.00190
0.00382
0.00457
lb/day
voc
Methyl tertiary butyl ether
(MTBE)
0.00000865
0.0000564
0.0000293
lb/day
voc
Methylcyclohexane
0.0000599
0.000398
0.000200
lb/day
voc
Methylene chloride
0.000477
0.00104
0.00115
lb/day
voc
n-Butylbenzene
0.000819
0.00164
0.00197
lb/day
voc
nitro-Methane
0.00272
0.00544
0.00653
lb/day
voc
Nonanal
0.00000183
0.00000366
0.00000440
lb/day
voc
n-Propylbenzene
0.000644
0.00313
0.00191
lb/day
voc
n-Valeraldehyde
0.00397
0.00819
0.00943
lb/day
voc
O-Xylene
0.00481
0.0267
0.0145
lb/day
voc
sec-Butylbenzene
0.00186
0.00372
0.00446
lb/day
voc
Styrene
0.00138
0.00368
0.00340
lb/day
voc
Sulfur dioxide
0.00739
0.0385
0.00964
lb/day
voc
T etrachloroethene
0.00000345
0.00000789
0.00000776
lb/day
voc
Toluene
0.00857
0.0417
0.0254
lb/day
voc
Trichloroethene
0.00000301
0.00000602
0.00000722
lb/day
voc
T richlorofluoro methane
0.00158
0.00316
0.00379
lb/day
voc
Tridecane
0.00325
0.00649
0.00779
lb/day
voc
Unknown VOC
0.00379
0.00907
0.00939
lb/day
voc
Unknown VOC (01)
0.00288
0.00597
0.00681
lb/day
voc
Unknown VOC (02)
0.00382
0.00777
0.00910
lb/day
voc
Unknown VOC (03)
0.00347
0.00707
0.00826
lb/day
voc
Unknown VOC (04)
0.00228
0.00483
0.00535
lb/day
voc
Unknown VOC (05)
0.00208
0.00434
0.00490
lb/day
G-23
-------
Proposed Draft
Appendix G.3: Vessel Scenario Total Analyte-Specific Loading Rates
AniilUe
( liISS
Aiiiil.Me
Vessel
Seeiiiirio 1
loliil l.oiidiii^
Riile lishinii
lliirhor
Vessel Seeiiiirio 2
l oliil l.n;idiii;i
Kiile l.sirgc
Melropoliiiin
lliirhor
Vessel
Seeiiiirio 3
loliil l.oiidinu
Rule
Keereiilioiiiil
lliirhor
I nils
voc
Vinyl acetate
0.00202
0.00407
0.00485
lb/day
svoc
(E)-2-Tetradecene
0.000237
0.00118
0.000237
lb/day
svoc
l,2,3,4-Tetrahydro-2,7-
Dimethylnaphthalene
0.000169
0.00112
0.000562
lb/day
svoc
l,2,3-Trichloro-(Z)-l-
Propene
0.0000494
0.000330
0.000165
lb/day
svoc
1,2,3-Trimethylbenzene (1)
0.000719
0.00479
0.00240
lb/day
svoc
1,2,3-Trimethylbenzene (2)
0.000917
0.00611
0.00306
lb/day
svoc
1,2,4,5 -T etramethylbenzene
(1)
0.000101
0.000671
0.000336
lb/day
svoc
1,2,4,5-Tetramethylbenzene
(2)
0.0000934
0.000623
0.000311
lb/day
svoc
1,2-Diethyl-Cyclobutane
0.00930
0.0186
0.0223
lb/day
svoc
1,3 -Dimethylnaphthalene
0.0000821
0.000411
0.0000821
lb/day
svoc
1,3 -Dimethylnaphthalene
(01)
0.00527
0.0105
0.0127
lb/day
svoc
1,4-Dimethy 1-1,2,3,4-
tetrahydronaphthalene
0.00780
0.0156
0.0187
lb/day
svoc
1,4-Dimethy lnaphthalene
0.00840
0.0185
0.0204
lb/day
svoc
1,4-Dimethy lnaphthalene
(01)
0.00559
0.0112
0.0134
lb/day
svoc
1,5 -Dimethylnaphthalene
0.000737
0.00461
0.00203
lb/day
svoc
1,6-Dimethy lnaphthalene
0.0395
0.0792
0.0948
lb/day
svoc
l,7,7-tri-(methyl)-
bicy clo [2.2.11 heptane
0.00
0.00
0.00
lb/day
svoc
1-Dodecanol
0.0000265
0.000177
0.0000884
lb/day
svoc
1-Hexadecene
0.00000246
0.0000164
0.00000819
lb/day
svoc
1 -Methyl-2-Propyl-Benzene
(01)
0.000758
0.00506
0.00253
lb/day
svoc
1 -Methyl-2-Propyl-Benzene
(02)
0.000219
0.00146
0.000730
lb/day
svoc
1 -Methy lnaphthalene
0.0358
0.0737
0.0857
lb/day
svoc
1 -Phenyl-1 -Butene
0.00000119
0.00000595
0.00000476
lb/day
svoc
2-(dodecyloxy)-Ethanol
0.0000331
0.000221
0.000110
lb/day
svoc
2-(hexadecyloxy)-Ethanol
0.00000851
0.0000567
0.0000284
lb/day
svoc
2-(tetradecyloxy)-Ethanol
0.0000246
0.000164
0.0000819
lb/day
svoc
2,3 -Dimethylnaphthalene
0.00688
0.0138
0.0165
lb/day
svoc
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
0.0000142
0.0000284
0.0000340
lb/day
svoc
2,4-Dimethyl-Benzaldehyde
0.00000221
0.0000111
0.00000886
lb/day
svoc
2,4-Dimethylphenol
0.00198
0.00405
0.00470
lb/day
svoc
2,6,10,14-Tetramethyl
Pentadecane
0.0124
0.0252
0.0294
lb/day
svoc
2,6,10,14-
T etramethy lhexadecae
0.00826
0.0165
0.0198
lb/day
G-24
-------
Proposed Draft
Appendix G.3: Vessel Scenario Total Analyte-Specific Loading Rates
AniilUe
( liISS
Aiiiil.Me
Vessel
Seeiiiirio 1
loliil l.oiidiii^
Riile lishinii
lliirhor
Vessel Seeiiiirio 2
l oliil l.n;idiii;i
Kiile l.sirgc
Melropoliiiin
lliirhor
Vessel
Seeiiiirio 3
loliil l.oiidinu
Rule
Keereiilioiiiil
lliirhor
I nils
svoc
2,6,10,14-
Tetramethylhexadecae (01)
0.000267
0.00178
0.000890
lb/day
svoc
2,6-dimethyl-Heptadecane
0.0135
0.0270
0.0324
lb/day
svoc
2,7-Dimethylnaphthalene
0.00967
0.0206
0.0229
lb/day
svoc
2-Cyclopentenl -one
0.000929
0.00186
0.00223
lb/day
svoc
2-Ethyl-Hexanoic acid
0.0947
0.631
0.316
lb/day
svoc
2-Hydroxy-Benzaldehyde
0.0144
0.0292
0.0343
lb/day
svoc
2-Mercaptobenzothiazole
0.00
0.00
0.00
lb/day
svoc
2-Methyl Tridecane
0.000141
0.000942
0.000471
lb/day
svoc
2-Methyl-Benzaldehyde
0.00607
0.0122
0.0146
lb/day
svoc
2-Methyl-Dodecane
0.000117
0.000585
0.000117
lb/day
svoc
2-Methylnaphthalene
0.0458
0.0957
0.110
lb/day
svoc
2-
Naphthalenecarboxaldehyde
0.00102
0.00203
0.00244
lb/day
svoc
3,4-Dimethylphenol
0.00000104
0.00000520
0.00000416
lb/day
svoc
3,5-Dimethyl-Benzaldehyde
0.00000135
0.00000673
0.00000538
lb/day
svoc
3,6-Dimethylundecane
0.00000205
0.0000102
0.00000171
lb/day
svoc
3 -Methyl-Benzaldehyde
0.0129
0.0258
0.0310
lb/day
svoc
3 -Methyl-Benzaldehyde
(01)
0.0145
0.0290
0.0347
lb/day
svoc
3-Methyl-butanoic acid
0.000448
0.000299
0.000280
lb/day
svoc
3 -Methy 1-Phenanthrene
0.00605
0.0121
0.0145
lb/day
svoc
3-Methylphenol
0.000677
0.00135
0.00163
lb/day
svoc
3 -Phenyl-2-Propenal
0.000457
0.000914
0.00110
lb/day
svoc
4,4-Dimethylbiphenyl
0.00629
0.0126
0.0151
lb/day
svoc
4-Hydroxy-2-Butanone
0.00705
0.0141
0.0169
lb/day
svoc
4-Methyl- lH-Benzotriazole
0.00000709
0.0000142
0.0000170
lb/day
svoc
4-METHYL-PENTANOIC
ACID
0.000299
0.000199
0.000187
lb/day
svoc
5 -Buty 1-Hexadecane
0.00000158
0.00000789
0.00000131
lb/day
svoc
5-Methyl-2-( 1 -methyl)-
Cyclohexanol
0.00000694
0.0000462
0.0000231
lb/day
svoc
9-Methyl-9H-Fluorene
0.00648
0.0130
0.0155
lb/day
svoc
Acenaphthylene
0.00351
0.00707
0.00841
lb/day
svoc
Acetophenone
0.0000444
0.000222
0.0000444
lb/day
svoc
Benzeneacetic Acid
0.000228
0.000152
0.000142
lb/day
svoc
Benzenepropanoic Acid
0.000251
0.000168
0.000157
lb/day
svoc
Benzothiazole
0.0000293
0.0000712
0.0000728
lb/day
svoc
Benzyl alcohol
0.0000464
0.000232
0.0000464
lb/day
svoc
Biphenyl
0.00353
0.00767
0.00832
lb/day
svoc
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
0.00148
0.00362
0.00347
lb/day
svoc
Caprolactam
0.0000250
0.000167
0.0000834
lb/day
G-25
-------
Proposed Draft
Appendix G.3: Vessel Scenario Total Analyte-Specific Loading Rates
AniilUe
( liISS
Aiiiil.Me
Vessel
Seeiiiirio 1
loliil l.oiidiii^
Riile l ishinii
lliirhor
Vessel Seeiiiirio 2
l oliil l.n;idiii;i
Kiile l.sirgc
Melropoliiiin
lliirhor
Vessel
Seeiiiirio 3
loliil l.oiidinu
Rule
Keereiilioiiiil
lliirhor
I nils
svoc
Cholesterol
0.000691
0.000461
0.000432
lb/day
svoc
Cyclic octaatomic sulfur
0.0223
0.122
0.0366
lb/day
svoc
Cyclodecane
0.000242
0.00121
0.000242
lb/day
svoc
Cyclododecane
0.0000275
0.000182
0.0000903
lb/day
svoc
Cyclotetradecane
0.0000145
0.0000967
0.0000484
lb/day
svoc
Diethene Glycol
Monododecyl Ether
0.0000273
0.000182
0.0000911
lb/day
svoc
Dimethyl phthalate
0.0000827
0.000165
0.000199
lb/day
svoc
Di-n-butyl phthalate
0.00182
0.00409
0.00424
lb/day
svoc
Di-n-octyl phthalate
0.0000528
0.000344
0.000174
lb/day
svoc
Disopropylene glycol
0.00000806
0.0000538
0.0000269
lb/day
svoc
Dodecane
0.00000118
0.00000589
0.000000981
lb/day
svoc
Dodecanoic acid
0.0000198
0.000132
0.0000661
lb/day
svoc
Eicosane
0.0307
0.0638
0.0742
lb/day
svoc
Ethanol, 2,2-oxybis-
0.000892
0.00595
0.00297
lb/day
svoc
Ethanol, 2-Butoxy
0.00787
0.0157
0.0189
lb/day
svoc
Fluorene
0.00374
0.00755
0.00896
lb/day
svoc
Heneicosane
0.00918
0.0217
0.0227
lb/day
svoc
Heptadecane
0.0548
0.111
0.131
lb/day
svoc
Hexaethylene Glycol
Monododecyl
0.0000166
0.000111
0.0000555
lb/day
svoc
Hexaethylene Glycol
Monododecyl (01)
0.00000667
0.0000444
0.0000222
lb/day
svoc
Hexaethylene Glycol
Monododecyl (02)
0.00000210
0.0000140
0.00000702
lb/day
svoc
Hexagol
0.00000960
0.0000640
0.0000320
lb/day
svoc
Indane
0.000785
0.00523
0.00262
lb/day
svoc
Indole
0.00126
0.000838
0.000786
lb/day
svoc
Isopropylbenzene-4,methyl-
1
0.00
0.00
0.00
lb/day
svoc
m-Cresol
0.0000717
0.000358
0.0000748
lb/day
svoc
Naphthalene
0.0167
0.0395
0.0405
lb/day
svoc
N-Butyl-
Benzenesulfonamide
0.00000275
0.0000183
0.00000915
lb/day
svoc
n-Hexadecane
0.0521
0.105
0.125
lb/day
svoc
n-Hexadecanoic acid
0.0000140
0.0000935
0.0000468
lb/day
svoc
Nonadecane
0.0421
0.0849
0.101
lb/day
svoc
Nonadecane (01)
0.0130
0.0260
0.0312
lb/day
svoc
Nonanoic Acid
0.0102
0.0205
0.0246
lb/day
svoc
n-Pentadecane
0.0389
0.0952
0.0963
lb/day
svoc
n-Tetradecane
0.0490
0.109
0.119
lb/day
svoc
o-Cresol
0.00581
0.0116
0.0139
lb/day
svoc
Octadecane
0.0118
0.0237
0.0284
lb/day
G-26
-------
Proposed Draft
Appendix G.3: Vessel Scenario Total Analyte-Specific Loading Rates
Ann Me
( liISS
Aiiiihle
Vessel
Seeiiiirio 1
loliil l.oiidiii^
Kiile l ishinii
lliirhor
Vessel Seeiiiirio 2
l oliil l.n;idiii;i
Kiile l.sirge
Melropoliiiin
lliirhor
Vessel
Seeiiiirio 3
loliil l.oiidinu
Kiile
Keereiilioiiiil
lliirhor
I nils
svoc
p-Cresol
0.0175
0.0365
0.0416
lb/day
svoc
Pentacosane
0.000243
0.00162
0.000811
lb/day
svoc
Pentaethene Glycol
Monododecyl Ether
0.00000225
0.0000150
0.00000750
lb/day
svoc
Pentaethene Glycol
Monododecyl Ether (01)
0.0000164
0.000110
0.0000548
lb/day
svoc
Pentaethene Glycol
Monododecyl Ether (02)
0.0000324
0.000216
0.000108
lb/day
svoc
Phenanthrene
0.00319
0.00790
0.00762
lb/day
svoc
Phenol
0.0365
0.0737
0.0853
lb/day
svoc
Phthalic acid, isobutyl octyl
ester
0.0000130
0.0000260
0.0000312
lb/day
svoc
Pyrene
0.000119
0.000783
0.000381
lb/day
svoc
Sulfur
0.0101
0.0510
0.0106
lb/day
svoc
Tetraethylene glycol
monododecyl ether
0.0000168
0.000112
0.0000559
lb/day
svoc
Triethyl phosphate
0.000170
0.000130
0.000129
lb/day
svoc
Triethylene glycol
monododecyl ether
0.0000249
0.000166
0.0000830
lb/day
svoc
Unknown SVOC
0.00970
0.0212
0.0226
lb/day
svoc
Unknown SVOC (01)
0.00893
0.0205
0.0208
lb/day
svoc
Unknown SVOC (02)
0.00957
0.0222
0.0220
lb/day
svoc
Unknown SVOC (03)
0.000681
0.00327
0.000879
lb/day
svoc
Unknown SVOC (04)
0.000637
0.00337
0.000902
lb/day
svoc
Unknown SVOC (05)
0.000188
0.00117
0.000508
lb/day
svoc
Unknown SVOC (06)
0.000124
0.000758
0.000315
lb/day
svoc
Unknown SVOC (07)
0.00141
0.00940
0.00470
lb/day
G-27
-------
Proposed Draft
Appendix G.4: Real World Water Body Characterization Data for Model Input Parameter Development
lliirhor
Niinu'
Ri\er Niinio
Cil>
N;i mo
Ihirhor
S;ilini(\
(I'Sl
Ocoiin
S;ilini(\
(I'Sl
lliirhur
Volume nil Y
Ri\er I'low
(in'Vclsij
l\
Hushing
lime
(d.ijs)
Seen :i rio
1
Dilution
Seensirio
2
Dilution
Seen ;i rio
3
Dilution
Auke Bay
Mendenhall River
Juneau,
AK
26.1
35
3,090,000
2,900,000
0.254
0.271
5,800
4,170
4,060
Biscayne
Bay
Miami River
Miami,
FL
31
35
38,500,000
352,000
0.114
12.5
1,570
1,130
1,100
Cohasset
Harbor
Gulf River
Boston,
MA
30.8
35
1,170,000
89,800
0.121
1.59
377
270
264
Craford Bay
Eastern and Southern
Branch Elizabeth
River
Norfolk,
VA
19.8
35
1,660,000
384,000
0.434
1.87
451
323
315
Dorchester
Bay
Neponset River
Boston,
MA
31.1
35
43,300,000
467,000
0.111
10.3
2,140
1,530
1,500
Eastern
Channel
Indian River
Sitka,
AK
30.8
35
8,500,000
210,000
0.12
4.84
893
641
625
Mobile Bay
Tensaw, Blakeley, and
Mobile River
Mobile,
AL
16.7
35
1,970,000,000
167,000,000
0.523
6.16
163,000
117,000
114,000
Yaquina Bay
Yaquina River
Newport,
OR
29.3
35
6,880,000
2,060,000
0.163
0.544
6,440
4,630
4,510
a Sources: NOAA World Oceans Database (Auke Bay, Dorchester Bay, Eastern Channel, and Mobile Bay), USGS Changing Salinity Patterns inBiscayne Bay,
Florida Study (Biscayne Bay), Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Total Maximum Daily Loads of Bacteria for Little Harbor (Cohasset
Harbor), EPA EMAP Salinity Data (Craford Bay), Oregon State Temperature and Salinity of the Yaquina Bay Estuary and the Potential Range of Carcinus
maenas Study (Yaquina Bay).
b Ocean salinity based on average ocean salinity of 35 PSU
0 Harbor volume was estimated based on surface areas and harbor depths estimated from NOAA Booklet Charts (http://ocsdata.ncd.noaa.gov/BookletChart/)
accessed 7/28/2009
d River flows were based on average annual flows estimated in the USGS NHD Plus GIS dataset. Alaska average annual rivers flows were calculated based on
based USGS surface-water monthly statistics for site USGS 15052500 and USGS 15087700 available in the USGS National Water Information System.
G-28
-------
Proposed Draft
Appendix G.5: Fishing Harbor Vessel Scenarios Instantaneous Concentration in the
Hypothetical Harbor
V Hill \ 11*
Moilrl
sci-iiii rins
1 mill .>
Moilrl
^ruiiirios
2 mill 4
Moilrl
^ruiiirios
5 mill ~
Moilrl
*>irii;irio-
(• mill S
1 nil-
Bacteria
E. Coli by MF
0.64
0.0777
0.288
0.0349
CFU/100
ml
Bacteria
E. Coli by MPN
0.258
0.0313
0.116
0.0141
MPN/100
ml
Bacteria
Enterococci by MF
0.361
0.0438
0.162
0.0197
CFU/100
ml
Bacteria
Enterococci by MPN
0.0733
0.0089
0.0329
0.004
MPN/100
ml
Bacteria
Fecal Coliform by MF
1.96
0.238
0.883
0.107
CFU/100
ml
Bacteria
Fecal Coliform by MPN
0.722
0.0877
0.325
0.0394
MPN/100
ml
Bacteria
Total Coliforms by MPN
3.1
0.376
1.39
0.169
MPN/100
ml
Classicals
Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD)
0.208
0.0252
0.0935
0.0113
mg/1
Classicals
Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD)
0.604
0.0733
0.271
0.0329
mg/1
Classicals
Dissolved Oxygen
0.00838
0.00102
0.00377
0.000457
mg/1
Classicals
Hexane Extractable Material (HEM)
0.00373
0.000452
0.00167
0.000203
mg/1
Classicals
Silica Gel Treated HEM (SGT-HEM)
0.00432
0.000525
0.00194
0.000236
mg/1
Classicals
Sulfide
0.00000497
6.03E-07
0.00000223
2.71E-07
mg/1
Classicals
Total Organic Carbon (TOC)
0.0783
0.0095
0.0352
0.00427
mg/1
Classicals
Total Residual Chlorine
0.000132
0.000016
0.0000593
0.0000072
mg/1
Classicals
Total Suspended Solids (TSS)
0.0758
0.0092
0.0341
0.00413
mg/1
Nutrients
Ammonia As Nitrogen (NH3-N)
0.00279
0.000339
0.00125
0.000152
mg/1
Nutrients
Nitrate/Nitrite (N03/N02-N)
0.0000415
0.00000504
0.0000187
0.00000226
mg/1
Nutrients
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN)
0.0321
0.00389
0.0144
0.00175
mg/1
Nutrients
Total Phosphorus
0.00451
0.000547
0.00203
0.000246
mg/1
Metals
Aluminum, Dissolved
0.658
0.0798
0.296
0.0359
ng/i
Metals
Aluminum, Total
0.835
0.101
0.375
0.0455
ng/i
Metals
Antimony, Dissolved
0.00000712
8.65E-07
0.0000032
3.89E-07
ng/i
Metals
Antimony, Total
0.0000233
0.00000283
0.0000105
0.00000127
ng/i
Metals
Arsenic, Dissolved
0.00624
0.000758
0.00281
0.00034
ng/i
Metals
Arsenic, Total
0.00913
0.00111
0.0041
0.000498
ng/i
Metals
Barium, Dissolved
0.0107
0.0013
0.0048
0.000582
ng/i
Metals
Barium, Total
0.0121
0.00146
0.00542
0.000658
ng/i
Metals
Cadmium, Dissolved
0.00000963
0.00000117
0.00000433
5.25E-07
ng/i
Metals
Cadmium, Total
0.000246
0.0000298
0.00011
0.0000134
ng/i
Metals
Calcium, Dissolved
214
26
96.2
11.7
ng/i
Metals
Calcium, Total
212
25.7
95.3
11.6
ng/i
Metals
Chromium, Dissolved
0.000639
0.0000775
0.000287
0.0000348
ng/i
Metals
Chromium, Total
0.00168
0.000204
0.000757
0.0000919
ng/i
Metals
Cobalt, Dissolved
0.0000244
0.00000296
0.000011
0.00000133
ng/i
Metals
Cobalt, Total
0.0000484
0.00000588
0.0000218
0.00000264
ng/i
Metals
Copper, Dissolved
0.942
0.114
0.423
0.0514
ng/i
Metals
Copper, Total
0.0518
0.00629
0.0233
0.00283
ng/i
Metals
Iron, Dissolved
0.00528
0.000641
0.00237
0.000288
ng/i
Metals
Iron, Total
0.123
0.015
0.0554
0.00672
ng/i
29
-------
Proposed Draft
Appendix G.5: Fishing Harbor Vessel Scenarios Instantaneous Concentration in the
Hypothetical Harbor
(
V Hill \ 11*
Moilrl
sci-iiii rins
1 mill .>
Moilrl
^ruiiirios
2 mill 4
Moilrl
^ruiiirios
5 mill ~
Moilrl
*>irii;irio-
(• mill S
1 nil-
Metals
Lead, Dissolved
0.000578
0.0000701
0.00026
0.0000315
ng/i
Metals
Lead, Total
0.00353
0.000429
0.00159
0.000193
ng/i
Metals
Magnesium, Dissolved
649
78.8
292
35.4
ng/1
Metals
Magnesium, Total
625
75.9
281
34.1
ng/1
Metals
Manganese, Dissolved
0.0392
0.00476
0.0176
0.00214
Hg/1
Metals
Manganese, Total
0.0485
0.00588
0.0218
0.00264
Hg/1
Metals
Nickel, Dissolved
0.0028
0.00034
0.00126
0.000153
Hg/1
Metals
Nickel, Total
0.00323
0.000392
0.00145
0.000176
ng/1
Metals
Potassium, Dissolved
18.3
2.23
8.24
1
ng/1
Metals
Potassium, Total
18.4
2.23
8.26
1
Hg/1
Metals
Selenium, Dissolved
0.00704
0.000854
0.00316
0.000384
Hg/1
Metals
Selenium, Total
0.00801
0.000972
0.0036
0.000437
ng/1
Metals
Silver, Dissolved
0.00000904
0.0000011
0.00000406
4.93E-07
ng/1
Metals
Silver, Total
0.000017
0.00000206
0.00000764
9.27E-07
ng/1
Metals
Sodium, Dissolved
405
49.1
182
22.1
Hg/1
Metals
Sodium,Total
473
57.4
213
25.8
ng/1
Metals
Thallium, Dissolved
0.00000472
5.73E-07
0.00000212
2.58E-07
ng/1
Metals
Thallium,Total
5.14E-08
6.24E-09
2.31E-08
2.81E-09
ng/1
Metals
Vanadium, Dissolved
0.000331
0.0000402
0.000149
0.0000181
ng/1
Metals
V anadium, T otal
0.000425
0.0000516
0.000191
0.0000232
Hg/1
Metals
Zinc, Dissolved
0.101
0.0123
0.0456
0.00553
ng/1
Metals
Zinc, Total
0.248
0.0301
0.112
0.0135
ng/1
Nonylphenols
Bisphenol A
0.0000029
3.52E-07
0.00000131
1.58E-07
ng/1
Nonylphenols
Nonylphenol decaethoxylate (NPIOEO)
0.000627
0.0000761
0.000282
0.0000342
Hg/1
Nonylphenols
Nonylphenol dodecaethoxylate
(NP12EO)
0.000499
0.0000605
0.000224
0.0000272
ng/1
Nonylphenols
Nonylphenol heptadecaethoxylate
(NP17EO)
0.0000313
0.0000038
0.0000141
0.00000171
ng/1
Nonylphenols
Nonylphenol heptaethoxylate (NP7EO)
0.000401
0.0000486
0.00018
0.0000218
ng/1
Nonylphenols
Nonylphenol hexadecaethoxylate
(NP16EO)
0.0000684
0.0000083
0.0000307
0.00000373
ng/1
Nonylphenols
Nonylphenol hexaethoxylate (NP6EO)
0.000284
0.0000344
0.000127
0.0000155
ng/1
Nonylphenols
Nonylphenol nonaethoxylate (NP9EO)
0.000566
0.0000687
0.000254
0.0000309
ng/1
Nonylphenols
Nonylphenol octaethoxylate (NP8EO)
0.000521
0.0000632
0.000234
0.0000284
Hg/1
Nonylphenols
Nonylphenol octodecaethoxylate
(NP18EO)
0.0000165
0.00000201
0.00000743
9.02E-07
ng/1
Nonylphenols
Nonylphenol pendecaethoxylate
(NP15EO)
0.00013
0.0000158
0.0000586
0.00000711
ng/1
Nonylphenols
Nonylphenol pentaethoxylate (NP5EO)
0.000172
0.0000209
0.0000773
0.00000938
ng/1
Nonylphenols
Nonylphenol tetradecaethoxylate
(NP14EO)
0.000232
0.0000282
0.000104
0.0000127
ng/1
Nonylphenols
Nonylphenol tetraethoxylate (NP4EO)
0.0000763
0.00000926
0.0000343
0.00000416
ng/1
Nonylphenols
Nonylphenol tridecaethoxylate
(NP13EO)
0.000356
0.0000432
0.00016
0.0000194
ng/1
Nonylphenols
Nonylphenol triethoxylate (NP3EO)
0.000043
0.00000522
0.0000193
0.00000235
ng/1
Nonylphenols
Nonylphenol undecaethoxylate
(NP11EO)
0.000637
0.0000774
0.000286
0.0000348
Hg/1
Nonylphenols
Octylphenol decaethoxylate (OPIOEO)
0.0000226
0.00000275
0.0000102
0.00000123
ng/1
30
-------
Proposed Draft
Appendix G.5: Fishing Harbor Vessel Scenarios Instantaneous Concentration in the
Hypothetical Harbor
(
V Hill \ 11*
Moilrl
sci-iiii rins
1 iiml .>
Model
siriiii riiis
2 mill 4
Moilrl
^iviiiirios
5 mill ~
Moilrl
*>irii;irio-
(• mill S
1 nil-
Nonylphenols
Octylphenol dodecaethoxylate (OP12EO)
0.0000135
0.00000164
0.00000608
7.38E-07
ng/i
Nonylphenols
Octylphenol heptaethoxylate (OP7EO)
0.000000989
0.00000012
4.44E-07
5.39E-08
ng/i
Nonylphenols
Octylphenol nonaethoxylate (OP9EO)
0.0000137
0.00000166
0.00000615
7.47E-07
ng/1
Nonylphenols
Octylphenol octaethoxylate (OP8EO)
0.00000843
0.00000102
0.00000379
0.00000046
ng/1
Nonylphenols
Octylphenol undecaethoxylate (OP11EO)
0.0000146
0.00000177
0.00000655
7.95E-07
Hg/1
Nonylphenols
Total Nonylphenol Polyethoxylates
0.00445
0.000541
0.002
0.000243
Hg/1
Nonylphenols
Total Nonylphenols
0.00005
0.00000607
0.0000225
0.00000273
Hg/1
VOC
(2-Methyl- l-Propenyl)-Benzene
0.000975
0.000118
0.000438
0.0000532
ng/1
VOC
(E)- 1-Propenyl-Benzene
0.000000442
5.37E-08
1.99E-07
2.41E-08
ng/1
VOC
(E)-2-Butenal
0.00178
0.000217
0.000802
0.0000973
Hg/1
VOC
1,2,3,4-Tetrahydro-l-Methylnaphthalene
0.00112
0.000136
0.000504
0.0000612
Hg/1
VOC
l,2,3,4-Tetrahydro-2-Methylnaphthalene
0.00103
0.000126
0.000465
0.0000565
ng/1
VOC
l,2,3,4-Tetrahydro-5-Methylnaphthalene
0.00908
0.0011
0.00408
0.000495
ng/1
VOC
l,2,3,4-Tetrahydro-6-Ethylnaphthalene,
0.000977
0.000119
0.000439
0.0000533
ng/1
VOC
l,2,3,4-Tetrahydro-6-Methylnaphthalene
0.00828
0.001
0.00372
0.000451
Hg/1
VOC
l,2,3,4-Tetrahydro-6-Methylnaphthalene
(01)
0.00208
0.000252
0.000933
0.000113
ng/1
VOC
l,2,3,4-Tetrahydro-6-Methylnaphthalene
(02)
0.00174
0.000211
0.00078
0.0000947
ng/1
VOC
1,2,3,4-Tetrahydronaphthalene
0.00623
0.000756
0.0028
0.00034
ng/1
VOC
1,2,3,4-Tetramethyl-Benzene
0.000211
0.0000256
0.0000947
0.0000115
Hg/1
VOC
1,2,3,5-Tetramethyl-Benzene
0.00031
0.0000376
0.000139
0.0000169
Hg/1
VOC
1,2,3-Trimethylbenzene
0.00101
0.000123
0.000455
0.0000552
ng/1
VOC
1,2,4,5-Tetramethylbenzene
0.000473
0.0000574
0.000213
0.0000258
ng/1
VOC
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
0.00202
0.000245
0.000907
0.00011
ng/1
VOC
1.3.5-Tri methyl benzene
0.000545
0.0000662
0.000245
0.0000297
Hg/1
VOC
1,3-Methylnaphthalene
0.00128
0.000155
0.000575
0.0000698
Hg/1
VOC
1,7-Methylnaphthalene
0.00579
0.000703
0.0026
0.000316
ng/1
VOC
l-Ethyl-2,3-Dimethyl-Benzene (01)
0.000892
0.000108
0.000401
0.0000487
ng/1
VOC
l-Ethyl-2,3-Dimethyl-Benzene (02)
0.000129
0.0000156
0.0000579
0.00000703
ng/1
VOC
1 -Ethyl-2,4-Dimethyl-Benzene
0.000501
0.0000608
0.000225
0.0000273
Hg/1
VOC
l-Ethyl-2-Methyl-Benzene
0.00000137
1.66E-07
6.14E-07
7.45E-08
Hg/1
VOC
l-Ethyl-3-Methyl-Benzene
0.00107
0.00013
0.000482
0.0000585
ng/1
VOC
1 -Ethyl-4-Methyl-Benzene
0.00211
0.000256
0.000949
0.000115
ng/1
VOC
1 -Methyl-2-( 1 -Methylethyl)-Benzene
0
0
0
0
ng/1
VOC
l-Methyl-2-(l-Methylethyl)-Benzene
(01)
0.00000111
1.34E-07
4.97E-07
6.03E-08
ng/1
VOC
l-Methyl-2-(l-Methylethyl)-Benzene
(02)
0.00000386
4.69E-07
0.00000174
2.11E-07
ng/1
VOC
l-Methyl-3-Propyl-Benzene
0.000411
0.0000499
0.000185
0.0000224
ng/1
VOC
l-Methyl-4-(l-Methylidene)-
Cyclohexane
0
0
0
0
ng/1
VOC
1-methyl-Indan
0.0026
0.000315
0.00117
0.000142
ng/1
VOC
1 -Propenyl-Benzene
0.000000507
6.16E-08
2.28E-07
2.77E-08
ng/1
VOC
2- Heptanone
0.0000197
0.00000239
0.00000885
0.00000107
Hg/1
VOC
2,3-Dihydro- 1,2-Dimethyl- lH-Indene
0.000106
0.0000129
0.0000476
0.00000578
Hg/1
31
-------
Proposed Draft
Appendix G.5: Fishing Harbor Vessel Scenarios Instantaneous Concentration in the
Hypothetical Harbor
V Hill \ 11*
Moilrl
sci-iiii rins
1 iiml .>
Model
siriiii riiis
2 mill 4
Moilrl
^iviiiirios
5 mill ~
Moilrl
*>irii;irio-
(• mill S
1 nil-
voc
2,3-Dihydro- 1,6-Dimethyl- lH-Indene
0.00117
0.000141
0.000524
0.0000636
ng/i
voc
2,3-Dihydro-1 -Methylindene
0.0017
0.000206
0.000763
0.0000926
ng/i
voc
2,3-Dihydro-l-methylindene (01)
0.000949
0.000115
0.000426
0.0000518
ng/1
voc
2,3-Dihydro-l-methylindene (02)
0.00201
0.000244
0.000904
0.00011
ng/1
voc
2,3-Dihydro-4,7-Dimethyl-lH-Indene
0.0000134
0.00000163
0.00000602
7.31E-07
Hg/1
voc
2,3-Dihydro-4-Methyl-1 H-Indene
0.0179
0.00217
0.00804
0.000975
Hg/1
voc
2,3-Dihydro-4-Methyl-1 H-Indene (01)
0.00000157
1.91E-07
7.07E-07
8.58E-08
Hg/1
voc
2,3-Dihydro-4-Methyl-lH-Indene (02)
0.00000265
3.22E-07
0.00000119
1.45E-07
ng/1
voc
2,3-Dihydro-5,6-dimethyl-lH-Indene
0.00092
0.000112
0.000413
0.0000502
ng/1
voc
2,3-Dihydro-5-methyl-lH-Indene
0.000521
0.0000632
0.000234
0.0000284
Hg/1
voc
2,6-Dimethylnaphthalene
0.0126
0.00153
0.00566
0.000687
Hg/1
voc
2-Butanone
0.00974
0.00118
0.00438
0.000531
ng/1
voc
2-Butenal
0.00111
0.000135
0.0005
0.0000607
ng/1
voc
2-Ethyl-l,3,5-Trimethyl-Benzene
0.00134
0.000163
0.000603
0.0000732
ng/1
voc
2-Ethyl-1,4-Dimethyl-Benzene
0.0062
0.000753
0.00279
0.000338
Hg/1
voc
2-Ethyl-l-Hexanol
0.000000364
4.42E-08
1.64E-07
1.99E-08
ng/1
voc
2-Ethyltoluene
0.00177
0.000215
0.000797
0.0000968
ng/1
voc
2-Hexanone
0.000857
0.000104
0.000385
0.0000468
ng/1
voc
2-Methyl-2-Propenal
0.00207
0.000251
0.000931
0.000113
ng/1
voc
2-Propenyl-Benzene
0.00154
0.000187
0.000693
0.0000842
Hg/1
voc
3-Buten-2-one
0.00189
0.00023
0.000851
0.000103
ng/1
voc
4-Ethyl-1,2-Dimethyl-Benzene
0.0000014
0.00000017
6.31E-07
7.66E-08
ng/1
voc
4-Heptanone
0.000026
0.00000316
0.0000117
0.00000142
ng/1
voc
4-Isopropyltoluene
0.000283
0.0000344
0.000127
0.0000155
Hg/1
voc
4-Methyl-2-Pentanone
0.000295
0.0000358
0.000132
0.0000161
Hg/1
voc
Acetaldehyde
0.00599
0.000727
0.00269
0.000327
ng/1
voc
Acetone
0.0435
0.00528
0.0195
0.00237
ng/1
voc
Acrolein
0.0025
0.000304
0.00113
0.000137
ng/1
voc
Benzaldehyde
0.0000777
0.00000943
0.0000349
0.00000424
Hg/1
voc
Benzene
0.00236
0.000286
0.00106
0.000129
Hg/1
voc
Benzocycloheptatriene
0.0119
0.00144
0.00534
0.000648
ng/1
voc
Benzofuran
0.00121
0.000146
0.000542
0.0000658
ng/1
voc
Bromodichloromethane
0.00000136
1.65E-07
6.12E-07
7.43E-08
ng/1
voc
Butane
0.000171
0.0000207
0.0000768
0.00000932
Hg/1
voc
Butyraldehyde
0.00147
0.000178
0.00066
0.0000801
Hg/1
voc
Carbon disulfide
0.000000916
1.11E-07
4.12E-07
0.00000005
ng/1
voc
Chloroform
0.000799
0.000097
0.000359
0.0000436
ng/1
voc
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene
0.00000141
1.71E-07
6.33E-07
7.68E-08
ng/1
voc
Cyclohexane
0.0000216
0.00000263
0.00000973
0.00000118
Hg/1
voc
Dibromochloromethane
0.00000134
1.62E-07
6.01E-07
7.29E-08
ng/1
voc
Dimethocxymethane
0.00512
0.000621
0.0023
0.000279
ng/1
voc
Ethanol
0.00000696
8.45E-07
0.00000313
0.00000038
ng/1
voc
Ethylbenzene
0.000754
0.0000916
0.000339
0.0000411
Hg/1
32
-------
Proposed Draft
Appendix G.5: Fishing Harbor Vessel Scenarios Instantaneous Concentration in the
Hypothetical Harbor
V Hill \ 11*
Moilrl
sci-iiii rins
1 mill .>
Moilrl
^ruiiirios
2 mill 4
Moilrl
^ruiiirios
5 mill ~
Moilrl
*>irii;irio-
(• mill S
1 nil-
voc
Indene
0.0000241
0.00000292
0.0000108
0.00000131
ng/i
voc
Isopropylbenzene
0.000431
0.0000523
0.000194
0.0000235
ng/i
voc
Limonene
0
0
0
0
ng/1
voc
m,p-Xylene (Sum of Isomers)
0.00239
0.00029
0.00107
0.00013
ng/1
voc
Methyl acetate
0.000624
0.0000757
0.00028
0.000034
Hg/1
voc
Methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE)
0.00000283
3.44E-07
0.00000127
1.55E-07
Hg/1
voc
Methylcyclohexane
0.0000196
0.00000238
0.00000883
0.00000107
Hg/1
voc
Methylene chloride
0.000156
0.000019
0.0000703
0.00000853
ng/1
voc
n-Butylbenzene
0.000268
0.0000326
0.000121
0.0000146
ng/1
voc
nitro-Methane
0.000891
0.000108
0.000401
0.0000486
Hg/1
voc
Nonanal
0.0000006
7.28E-08
0.00000027
3.27E-08
Hg/1
voc
n-Propylbenzene
0.000211
0.0000256
0.0000949
0.0000115
ng/1
voc
n-V aleraldehyde
0.0013
0.000158
0.000585
0.000071
ng/1
voc
O-Xylene
0.00158
0.000191
0.000708
0.000086
ng/1
voc
sec-Butylbenzene
0.000609
0.0000739
0.000274
0.0000332
Hg/1
voc
Styrene
0.000451
0.0000548
0.000203
0.0000246
ng/1
voc
Sulfur dioxide
0.00242
0.000294
0.00109
0.000132
ng/1
voc
Tetrachloroethene
0.00000113
1.37E-07
5.08E-07
6.17E-08
ng/1
voc
Toluene
0.00281
0.000341
0.00126
0.000153
ng/1
voc
Trichloroethene
0.000000986
0.00000012
4.43E-07
5.38E-08
Hg/1
voc
Trichlorofluoromethane
0.000518
0.0000628
0.000233
0.0000282
ng/1
voc
Tridecane
0.00106
0.000129
0.000478
0.000058
ng/1
voc
Unknown VOC
0.00124
0.000151
0.000558
0.0000677
ng/1
voc
Unknown VOC (01)
0.000943
0.000114
0.000424
0.0000515
Hg/1
voc
Unknown VOC (02)
0.00125
0.000152
0.000562
0.0000682
Hg/1
voc
Unknown VOC (03)
0.00114
0.000138
0.000511
0.000062
ng/1
voc
Unknown VOC (04)
0.000748
0.0000908
0.000336
0.0000408
ng/1
voc
Unknown VOC (05)
0.000681
0.0000827
0.000306
0.0000372
ng/1
voc
Vinyl acetate
0.000663
0.0000805
0.000298
0.0000362
Hg/1
svoc
(E)-2-Tetradecene
0.0000776
0.00000942
0.0000349
0.00000423
Hg/1
svoc
l,2,3,4-Tetrahydro-2,7-
Dimethylnaphthalene
0.0000553
0.00000671
0.0000248
0.00000302
ng/1
svoc
1,2,3-Trichloro-(Z)-1 -Propene
0.0000162
0.00000197
0.00000728
8.84E-07
Hg/1
svoc
1,2,3-Trimethylbenzene (1)
0.000236
0.0000286
0.000106
0.0000129
ng/1
svoc
1,2,3-Trimethylbenzene (2)
0.0003
0.0000365
0.000135
0.0000164
ng/1
svoc
1,2,4,5-Tetramethylbenzene (1)
0.000033
0.00000401
0.0000148
0.0000018
ng/1
svoc
1,2,4,5-Tetramethylbenzene (2)
0.0000306
0.00000372
0.0000138
0.00000167
Hg/1
svoc
1,2-Diethyl-Cyclobutane
0.00305
0.00037
0.00137
0.000166
Hg/1
svoc
1,3-Dimethylnaphthalene
0.0000269
0.00000327
0.0000121
0.00000147
Hg/1
svoc
1,3-Dimethylnaphthalene (01)
0.00173
0.00021
0.000777
0.0000943
ng/1
svoc
1,4-Dimethyl-l,2,3,4-
tetrahydronaphthalene
0.00256
0.00031
0.00115
0.000139
Hg/1
svoc
1,4-Dimethylnaphthalene
0.00275
0.000334
0.00124
0.00015
ng/1
svoc
1,4-Dimethylnaphthalene (01)
0.00183
0.000222
0.000823
0.0000999
ng/1
33
-------
Proposed Draft
Appendix G.5: Fishing Harbor Vessel Scenarios Instantaneous Concentration in the
Hypothetical Harbor
V Hill \ 11*
Moilrl
sci-iiii rins
1 iiml .>
Model
siriiii riiis
2 mill 4
Moilrl
^iviiiirios
5 mill ~
Moilrl
*>irii;irio-
(• mill S
1 nil-
svoc
1,5 -Dimethylnaphthalene
0.000241
0.0000293
0.000109
0.0000132
ng/i
svoc
1,6-Dimethylnaphthalene
0.013
0.00157
0.00582
0.000707
ng/i
svoc
l,7,7-tri-(methyl)-bicyclo[2.2.11heptane
0
0
0
0
ng/1
svoc
1-Dodecanol
0.00000869
0.00000105
0.0000039
4.74E-07
ng/1
svoc
1-Hexadecene
0.000000805
9.77E-08
3.62E-07
4.39E-08
Hg/1
svoc
l-Methyl-2-Propyl-Benzene (01)
0.000249
0.0000302
0.000112
0.0000136
Hg/1
svoc
l-Methyl-2-Propyl-Benzene (02)
0.0000718
0.00000871
0.0000323
0.00000392
Hg/1
svoc
1 -Methylnaphthalene
0.0117
0.00142
0.00527
0.00064
ng/1
svoc
1 -Phenyl- 1-Butene
0.00000039
4.73E-08
1.75E-07
2.13E-08
ng/1
svoc
2-(dodecyloxy)-Ethanol
0.0000109
0.00000132
0.00000488
5.92E-07
Hg/1
svoc
2-(hexadecyloxy)-Ethanol
0.00000279
3.38E-07
0.00000125
1.52E-07
Hg/1
svoc
2-(tetradecyloxy)-Ethanol
0.00000805
9.77E-07
0.00000362
4.39E-07
ng/1
svoc
2.3-Dim ethyl naphthalene
0.00225
0.000274
0.00101
0.000123
ng/1
svoc
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
0.00000465
5.64E-07
0.00000209
2.53E-07
ng/1
svoc
2,4-Dimethyl-Benzaldehyde
0.000000726
8.81E-08
3.26E-07
3.96E-08
Hg/1
svoc
2,4-Dimethylphenol
0.000648
0.0000787
0.000291
0.0000354
ng/1
svoc
2,6,10,14-Tetramethyl Pentadecane
0.00405
0.000492
0.00182
0.000221
ng/1
svoc
2,6,10,14-T etramethylhexadecae
0.00271
0.000329
0.00122
0.000148
ng/1
svoc
2,6,10,14-Tetramethylhexadecae (01)
0.0000875
0.0000106
0.0000393
0.00000477
ng/1
svoc
2,6-dimethyl-Heptadecane
0.00442
0.000536
0.00199
0.000241
Hg/1
svoc
2,7-Dimethylnaphthalene
0.00317
0.000385
0.00142
0.000173
ng/1
svoc
2-Cyclopenten 1 -one
0.000304
0.0000369
0.000137
0.0000166
ng/1
svoc
2-Ethyl-Hexanoic acid
0.031
0.00376
0.0139
0.00169
ng/1
svoc
2-Hydroxy-Benzaldehyde
0.00471
0.000572
0.00212
0.000257
Hg/1
svoc
2-Mercaptobenzothiazole
0
0
0
0
Hg/1
svoc
2-Methyl Trideeane
0.0000463
0.00000562
0.0000208
0.00000253
ng/1
svoc
2-Methyl-Benzaldehyde
0.00199
0.000241
0.000894
0.000109
ng/1
svoc
2-Methyl-Dodeeane
0.0000384
0.00000466
0.0000172
0.00000209
ng/1
svoc
2-Methylnaphthalene
0.015
0.00182
0.00675
0.000819
Hg/1
svoc
2-Naphthaleneearboxaldehyde
0.000333
0.0000404
0.00015
0.0000182
Hg/1
svoc
3,4-Dimethylphenol
0.000000341
4.14E-08
1.53E-07
1.86E-08
ng/1
svoc
3,5-Dimethyl-Benzaldehyde
0.000000441
5.35E-08
1.98E-07
2.4E-08
ng/1
svoc
3,6-Dimethylundeeane
0.000000671
8.15E-08
3.02E-07
3.66E-08
ng/1
svoc
3-Methyl-Benzaldehyde
0.00423
0.000513
0.0019
0.000231
Hg/1
svoc
3-Methyl-Benzaldehyde (01)
0.00474
0.000576
0.00213
0.000259
Hg/1
svoc
3-Methyl-butanoie acid
0.000147
0.0000178
0.000066
0.00000801
ng/1
svoc
3-Methyl-Phenanthrene
0.00198
0.000241
0.000892
0.000108
ng/1
svoc
3-Methylphenol
0.000222
0.0000269
0.0000997
0.0000121
ng/1
svoc
3-Phenyl-2-Propenal
0.00015
0.0000182
0.0000673
0.00000817
Hg/1
svoc
4,4-Dimethylbiphenyl
0.00206
0.00025
0.000927
0.000113
ng/1
svoc
4-Hydroxy-2-Butanone
0.00231
0.00028
0.00104
0.000126
ng/1
svoc
4-Methyl-1 H-Benzotriazole
0.00000232
2.82E-07
0.00000104
1.27E-07
ng/1
svoc
4-METHYL-PENTANOIC ACID
0.0000978
0.0000119
0.000044
0.00000534
Hg/1
34
-------
Proposed Draft
Appendix G.5: Fishing Harbor Vessel Scenarios Instantaneous Concentration in the
Hypothetical Harbor
V Hill \ 11*
Moilrl
sci-iiii rins
1 mill .>
Moilrl
^ruiiirios
2 mill 4
Moilrl
^ruiiirios
5 mill ~
Moilrl
*>irii;irio-
(• mill S
1 nil-
svoc
5-Butyl-Hexadecane
0.000000517
6.27E-08
2.32E-07
2.82E-08
ng/i
svoc
5-Methyl-2-( 1 -methyl)-Cyclohexanol
0.00000227
2.76E-07
0.00000102
1.24E-07
ng/i
svoc
9-Methyl-9H-Fluorene
0.00212
0.000258
0.000954
0.000116
ng/1
svoc
Acenaphthylene
0.00115
0.00014
0.000517
0.0000628
ng/1
svoc
Acetophenone
0.0000146
0.00000177
0.00000655
7.94E-07
Hg/1
svoc
Benzeneacetic Acid
0.0000747
0.00000906
0.0000336
0.00000407
Hg/1
svoc
Benzenepropanoic Acid
0.0000824
0.00001
0.000037
0.00000449
Hg/1
svoc
Benzothiazole
0.0000096
0.00000116
0.00000431
5.24E-07
ng/1
svoc
Benzyl alcohol
0.0000152
0.00000185
0.00000684
0.00000083
ng/1
svoc
Biphenyl
0.00116
0.00014
0.000519
0.000063
Hg/1
svoc
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
0.000485
0.0000588
0.000218
0.0000264
Hg/1
svoc
Caprolactam
0.0000082
9.95E-07
0.00000368
4.47E-07
ng/1
svoc
Cholesterol
0.000227
0.0000275
0.000102
0.0000124
ng/1
svoc
Cyclic octaatomic sulfur
0.0073
0.000886
0.00328
0.000398
ng/1
svoc
Cyclodecane
0.0000795
0.00000964
0.0000357
0.00000433
Hg/1
svoc
Cyclododecane
0.00000901
0.00000109
0.00000405
4.91E-07
ng/1
svoc
Cyclotetradecane
0.00000475
5.77E-07
0.00000214
2.59E-07
ng/1
svoc
Diethene Glycol Monododecyl Ether
0.00000896
0.00000109
0.00000403
4.89E-07
ng/1
svoc
Dimethyl phthalate
0.0000271
0.00000329
0.0000122
0.00000148
ng/1
svoc
Di-n-butyl phthalate
0.000596
0.0000723
0.000268
0.0000325
Hg/1
svoc
Di-n-octyl phthalate
0.0000173
0.0000021
0.00000778
9.44E-07
ng/1
svoc
Disopropylene glycol
0.00000264
3.21E-07
0.00000119
1.44E-07
ng/1
svoc
Dodecane
0.000000386
4.68E-08
1.73E-07
2.1E-08
ng/1
svoc
Dodecanoic acid
0.0000065
7.89E-07
0.00000292
3.55E-07
Hg/1
svoc
Eicosane
0.0101
0.00122
0.00453
0.000549
Hg/1
svoc
Ethanol, 2,2-oxybis-
0.000292
0.0000355
0.000131
0.0000159
ng/1
svoc
Ethanol, 2-Butoxy
0.00258
0.000313
0.00116
0.000141
ng/1
svoc
Fluorene
0.00123
0.000149
0.000552
0.0000669
ng/1
svoc
Heneicosane
0.00301
0.000365
0.00135
0.000164
Hg/1
svoc
Heptadecane
0.0179
0.00218
0.00806
0.000979
Hg/1
svoc
Hexaethylene Glycol Monododecyl
0.00000545
6.62E-07
0.00000245
2.97E-07
ng/1
svoc
Hexaethylene Glycol Monododecyl (01)
0.00000218
2.65E-07
9.82E-07
1.19E-07
ng/1
svoc
Hexaethylene Glycol Monododecyl (02)
0.00000069
8.37E-08
0.00000031
3.76E-08
ng/1
svoc
Hexagol
0.00000315
3.82E-07
0.00000141
1.72E-07
Hg/1
svoc
Indane
0.000257
0.0000312
0.000116
0.000014
Hg/1
svoc
Indole
0.000412
0.00005
0.000185
0.0000225
ng/1
svoc
Isopropylbenzene-4,methyl-1
0
0
0
0
ng/1
svoc
m-Cresol
0.0000235
0.00000285
0.0000106
0.00000128
ng/1
svoc
Naphthalene
0.00547
0.000663
0.00246
0.000298
Hg/1
svoc
N-Butyl-Benzenesulfonamide
0.0000009
1.09E-07
4.04E-07
4.91E-08
ng/1
svoc
n-Hexadecane
0.0171
0.00207
0.00768
0.000932
ng/1
svoc
n-Hexadecanoic acid
0.0000046
5.58E-07
0.00000207
2.51E-07
ng/1
svoc
Nonadecane
0.0138
0.00168
0.0062
0.000753
Hg/1
35
-------
Proposed Draft
Appendix G.5: Fishing Harbor Vessel Scenarios Instantaneous Concentration in the
Hypothetical Harbor
V Hill \ 11*
Moilrl
sci-iiii rins
1 mill .>
Moilrl
^ruiiirios
2 mill 4
Moilrl
^ruiiirios
5 mill ~
Moilrl
*>irii;irio-
(• mill S
1 nil-
svoc
Nonadecane (01)
0.00425
0.000516
0.00191
0.000232
ng/i
svoc
Nonanoic Acid
0.00335
0.000407
0.00151
0.000183
ng/i
svoc
n-Pentadecane
0.0127
0.00155
0.00573
0.000695
ng/1
svoc
n-Tetradecane
0.0161
0.00195
0.00722
0.000876
ng/1
svoc
o-Cresol
0.0019
0.000231
0.000856
0.000104
Hg/1
svoc
Octadecane
0.00388
0.000471
0.00174
0.000211
Hg/1
svoc
p-Cresol
0.00573
0.000696
0.00258
0.000313
Hg/1
svoc
Pentacosane
0.0000797
0.00000968
0.0000358
0.00000435
ng/1
svoc
Pentaethene Glycol Monododecyl Ether
0.000000738
8.95E-08
3.31E-07
4.02E-08
ng/1
svoc
Pentaethene Glycol Monododecyl Ether
(01)
0.00000539
6.54E-07
0.00000242
2.94E-07
ng/1
svoc
Pentaethene Glycol Monododecyl Ether
(02)
0.0000106
0.00000129
0.00000477
5.79E-07
Hg/1
svoc
Phenanthrene
0.00105
0.000127
0.00047
0.0000571
Hg/1
svoc
Phenol
0.0119
0.00145
0.00537
0.000652
ng/1
svoc
Phthalic acid, isobutyl octyl ester
0.00000426
5.17E-07
0.00000192
2.32E-07
ng/1
svoc
Pyrene
0.0000391
0.00000474
0.0000176
0.00000213
Hg/1
svoc
Sulfur
0.00332
0.000403
0.00149
0.000181
Hg/1
svoc
Tetraethylene glycol monododecyl ether
0.00000549
6.67E-07
0.00000247
0.0000003
ng/1
svoc
Triethyl phosphate
0.0000557
0.00000676
0.000025
0.00000304
ng/1
svoc
Triethylene glycol monododecyl ether
0.00000816
0.00000099
0.00000367
4.45E-07
Hg/1
svoc
Unknown SVOC
0.00318
0.000386
0.00143
0.000173
Hg/1
svoc
Unknown SVOC (01)
0.00293
0.000355
0.00132
0.00016
ng/1
svoc
Unknown SVOC (02)
0.00313
0.00038
0.00141
0.000171
ng/1
svoc
Unknown SVOC (03)
0.000223
0.0000271
0.0001
0.0000122
ng/1
svoc
Unknown SVOC (04)
0.000209
0.0000253
0.0000938
0.0000114
Hg/1
svoc
Unknown SVOC (05)
0.0000616
0.00000747
0.0000277
0.00000336
Hg/1
svoc
Unknown SVOC (06)
0.0000407
0.00000494
0.0000183
0.00000222
ng/1
svoc
Unknown SVOC (07)
0.000462
0.0000561
0.000208
0.0000252
Hg/1
36
-------
Proposed Draft
Appendix G.6: Metropolitan Harbor Vessel Scenarios Instantaneous Concentration
in the Hypothetical Harbor
Vn:il\If
Model
*> mill II
Model
*>irii:nios
lOnn 12
Modi'l
*>irii:nios
1.5 mid 15
Modi'l
^iTiiiirioN
14 mill l(>
i nii-
Bacteria
E. Coli by MF
3.2
0.388
1.44
0.175
civ 100
ml
Bacteria
E. Coli by MPN
1.15
0.14
0.518
0.0629
MPN/100
ml
Bacteria
Enterococci by MF
1.81
0.219
0.812
0.0985
CFU/100
ml
Bacteria
Enterococci by MPN
0.0643
0.00781
0.0289
0.00351
MPN/100
ml
Bacteria
Fecal Coliform by MF
5.89
0.715
2.65
0.321
CFU/100
ml
Bacteria
Fecal Coliform by MPN
3.61
0.438
1.62
0.197
MPN/100
ml
Bacteria
Total Coliforms by MPN
15.5
1.88
6.96
0.845
MPN/100
ml
Classicals
Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD)
0.158
0.0191
0.0709
0.0086
mg/1
Classicals
Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD)
0.43
0.0522
0.193
0.0235
mg/1
Classicals
Dissolved Oxygen
0.0122
0.00149
0.0055
0.000668
mg/1
Classicals
Hexane Extractable Material (HEM)
0.00626
0.00076
0.00281
0.000341
mg/1
Classicals
Silica Gel Treated HEM (SGT-HEM)
0.0068
0.000825
0.00305
0.000371
mg/1
Classicals
Sulfide
0.00000934
0.00000113
0.0000042
0.00000051
mg/1
Classicals
Total Organic Carbon (TOC)
0.0606
0.00735
0.0272
0.0033
mg/1
Classicals
Total Residual Chlorine
0.000239
0.000029
0.000108
0.0000131
mg/1
Classicals
Total Suspended Solids (TSS)
0.0678
0.00823
0.0305
0.0037
mg/1
Nutrients
Ammonia As Nitrogen (NH3-N)
0.00199
0.000241
0.000894
0.000109
mg/1
Nutrients
Nitrate/Nitrite (N03/N02-N)
0.0000664
0.00000806
0.0000298
0.00000362
mg/1
Nutrients
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN)
0.0224
0.00272
0.0101
0.00122
mg/1
Nutrients
Total Phosphorus
0.00292
0.000354
0.00131
0.000159
mg/1
Metals
Aluminum, Dissolved
0.556
0.0675
0.25
0.0304
ng/i
Metals
Aluminum, Total
0.885
0.107
0.398
0.0483
ng/i
Metals
Antimony, Dissolved
0.0000364
0.00000442
0.0000163
0.00000198
ng/i
Metals
Antimony, Total
0.000114
0.0000138
0.0000512
0.00000622
ng/i
Metals
Arsenic, Dissolved
0.00933
0.00113
0.00419
0.000509
ng/i
Metals
Arsenic, Total
0.0118
0.00143
0.00528
0.000641
ng/i
Metals
Barium, Dissolved
0.0245
0.00297
0.011
0.00133
ng/i
Metals
Barium, Total
0.0293
0.00356
0.0132
0.0016
ng/i
Metals
Cadmium, Dissolved
0.0000142
0.00000172
0.00000637
7.74E-07
ng/i
Metals
Cadmium, Total
0.000215
0.0000261
0.0000968
0.0000118
ng/i
Metals
Calcium, Dissolved
184
22.3
82.7
10
ng/i
Metals
Calcium, Total
185
22.5
83.3
10.1
ng/i
Metals
Chromium, Dissolved
0.00147
0.000178
0.000659
0.00008
ng/i
Metals
Chromium, Total
0.00292
0.000354
0.00131
0.000159
ng/i
Metals
Cobalt, Dissolved
0.0000603
0.00000732
0.0000271
0.00000329
ng/i
Metals
Cobalt, Total
0.0000859
0.0000104
0.0000386
0.00000468
ng/i
Metals
Copper, Dissolved
1.63
0.198
0.733
0.0889
ng/i
Metals
Copper, Total
0.0586
0.00712
0.0264
0.0032
ng/i
Metals
Iron, Dissolved
0.0152
0.00185
0.00685
0.000831
ng/i
Metals
Iron, Total
0.268
0.0326
0.121
0.0146
ng/i
37
-------
Proposed Draft
Appendix G.6: Metropolitan Harbor Vessel Scenarios Instantaneous Concentration
in the Hypothetical Harbor
(
Vn:il\If
Model
*> mill II
Model
scrimriox
IOhii 12
Modi'l
*>irii:nios
1.5 mid 15
Modi'l
^iTiiiirioN
14 mill l(>
1 nil-
Metals
Lead, Dissolved
0.00111
0.000134
0.000497
0.0000604
ng/i
Metals
Lead, Total
0.00506
0.000614
0.00227
0.000276
ng/i
Metals
Magnesium, Dissolved
493
59.8
221
26.9
Hg/1
Metals
Magnesium, Total
483
58.6
217
26.3
ng/1
Metals
Manganese, Dissolved
0.0755
0.00916
0.0339
0.00412
ng/1
Metals
Manganese, Total
0.097
0.0118
0.0436
0.00529
Hg/1
Metals
Nickel, Dissolved
0.00459
0.000557
0.00206
0.00025
Hg/1
Metals
Nickel, Total
0.00541
0.000657
0.00243
0.000295
Hg/1
Metals
Potassium, Dissolved
34.5
4.19
15.5
1.88
ng/1
Metals
Potassium, Total
34.3
4.17
15.4
1.87
ng/1
Metals
Selenium, Dissolved
0.0135
0.00164
0.00606
0.000736
Hg/1
Metals
Selenium, Total
0.0144
0.00175
0.00648
0.000787
ng/1
Metals
Silver, Dissolved
0.00000723
8.78E-07
0.00000325
3.94E-07
ng/1
Metals
Silver, Total
0.0000136
0.00000165
0.00000611
7.42E-07
ng/1
Metals
Sodium, Dissolved
806
97.8
362
44
Hg/1
Metals
Sodium,Total
944
115
424
51.5
Hg/1
Metals
Thallium, Dissolved
0.0000233
0.00000282
0.0000105
0.00000127
ng/1
Metals
Thallium,Total
2.57E-07
3.12E-08
1.16E-07
1.4E-08
ng/1
Metals
Vanadium, Dissolved
0.000658
0.0000799
0.000296
0.0000359
ng/1
Metals
V anadium, T otal
0.000882
0.000107
0.000397
0.0000481
Hg/1
Metals
Zinc, Dissolved
0.0968
0.0117
0.0435
0.00528
Hg/1
Metals
Zinc, Total
0.201
0.0244
0.0903
0.011
ng/1
Nonylphenols
Bisphenol A
0.00000581
7.05E-07
0.00000261
3.17E-07
ng/1
Nonylphenols
Nonylphenol decaethoxylate (NPIOEO)
0.00111
0.000134
0.000497
0.0000604
ng/1
Nonylphenols
Nonylphenol dodecaethoxylate (NP12EO)
0.000885
0.000107
0.000398
0.0000483
Hg/1
Nonylphenols
Nonylphenol heptadecaethoxylate
(NP17EO)
0.0000557
0.00000675
0.000025
0.00000304
ng/1
Nonylphenols
Nonylphenol heptaethoxylate (NP7EO)
0.000689
0.0000837
0.00031
0.0000376
Hg/1
Nonylphenols
Nonylphenol hexadecaethoxylate
(NP16EO)
0.000119
0.0000144
0.0000534
0.00000648
ng/1
Nonylphenols
Nonylphenol hexaethoxylate (NP6EO)
0.00048
0.0000583
0.000216
0.0000262
ng/1
Nonylphenols
Nonylphenol nonaethoxylate (NP9EO)
0.000983
0.000119
0.000442
0.0000536
Hg/1
Nonylphenols
Nonylphenol octaethoxylate (NP8EO)
0.000882
0.000107
0.000397
0.0000481
ng/1
Nonylphenols
Nonylphenol octodecaethoxylate
(NP18EO)
0.0000268
0.00000325
0.000012
0.00000146
Hg/1
Nonylphenols
Nonylphenol pendecaethoxylate
(NP15EO)
0.000224
0.0000272
0.000101
0.0000122
ng/1
Nonylphenols
Nonylphenol pentaethoxylate (NP5EO)
0.000282
0.0000342
0.000127
0.0000154
Hg/1
Nonylphenols
Nonylphenol tetradecaethoxylate
(NP14EO)
0.000406
0.0000493
0.000182
0.0000221
ng/1
Nonylphenols
Nonylphenol tetraethoxylate (NP4EO)
0.000128
0.0000155
0.0000575
0.00000698
Hg/1
Nonylphenols
Nonylphenol tridecaethoxylate (NP13EO)
0.000627
0.0000762
0.000282
0.0000342
Hg/1
Nonylphenols
Nonylphenol triethoxylate (NP3EO)
0.000074
0.00000898
0.0000332
0.00000403
Hg/1
Nonylphenols
Nonylphenol undecaethoxylate (NP11EO)
0.00112
0.000136
0.000505
0.0000613
ng/1
Nonylphenols
Octylphenol decaethoxylate (OPIOEO)
0.0000832
0.0000101
0.0000374
0.00000454
ng/1
Nonylphenols
Octylphenol dodecaethoxylate (OP12EO)
0.00004
0.00000485
0.000018
0.00000218
Hg/1
38
-------
Proposed Draft
Appendix G.6: Metropolitan Harbor Vessel Scenarios Instantaneous Concentration
in the Hypothetical Harbor
(
Vn:il\If
Model
*> mill II
Model
*>irii:nios
lOnn 12
Modi'l
*>irii:nios
1.5 mid 15
Modi'l
^iTiiiirioN
14 mill l(>
1 nil-
Nonylphenols
Octylphenol heptaethoxylate (OP7EO)
0.00000494
0.0000006
0.00000222
0.00000027
ng/i
Nonylphenols
Octylphenol nonaethoxylate (OP9EO)
0.0000265
0.00000321
0.0000119
0.00000144
ng/i
Nonylphenols
Octylphenol octaethoxylate (OP8EO)
0.0000422
0.00000512
0.000019
0.0000023
Hg/1
Nonylphenols
Octylphenol undecaethoxylate (OP11EO)
0.0000494
0.000006
0.0000222
0.0000027
ng/1
Nonylphenols
Total Nonylphenol Polyethoxylates
0.0076
0.000923
0.00342
0.000415
ng/1
Nonylphenols
Total Nonylphenols
0.00004
0.00000486
0.000018
0.00000218
Hg/1
VOC
(2-Methyl- l-Propenyl)-Benzene
0.00195
0.000237
0.000877
0.000106
Hg/1
VOC
(E)- 1-Propenyl-Benzene
0.00000221
2.68E-07
9.94E-07
1.21E-07
Hg/1
VOC
(E)-2-Butenal
0.00357
0.000433
0.0016
0.000195
ng/1
VOC
1,2,3,4-Tetrahydro-l-Methylnaphthalene
0.00224
0.000272
0.00101
0.000122
ng/1
VOC
l,2,3,4-Tetrahydro-2-Methylnaphthalene
0.00207
0.000251
0.00093
0.000113
Hg/1
VOC
l,2,3,4-Tetrahydro-5-Methylnaphthalene
0.0182
0.00221
0.00819
0.000994
ng/1
VOC
l,2,3,4-Tetrahydro-6-Ethylnaphthalene,
0.00195
0.000237
0.000879
0.000107
ng/1
VOC
l,2,3,4-Tetrahydro-6-Methylnaphthalene
0.0168
0.00204
0.00754
0.000915
ng/1
VOC
l,2,3,4-Tetrahydro-6-Methylnaphthalene
(01)
0.00415
0.000504
0.00187
0.000226
Hg/1
VOC
l,2,3,4-Tetrahydro-6-Methylnaphthalene
(02)
0.00347
0.000422
0.00156
0.000189
Hg/1
VOC
1,2,3,4-Tetrahydronaphthalene
0.0125
0.00152
0.00562
0.000682
Hg/1
VOC
1,2,3,4-Tetramethyl-Benzene
0.0014
0.000171
0.000631
0.0000766
ng/1
VOC
1,2,3,5-Tetramethyl-Benzene
0.00207
0.000251
0.000929
0.000113
ng/1
VOC
1,2,3-Trimethylbenzene
0.00675
0.000819
0.00303
0.000368
Hg/1
VOC
1,2,4,5-Tetramethylbenzene
0.00315
0.000383
0.00142
0.000172
Hg/1
VOC
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
0.0092
0.00112
0.00413
0.000502
ng/1
VOC
1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene
0.00268
0.000326
0.00121
0.000146
ng/1
VOC
1,3-Methylnaphthalene
0.00256
0.000311
0.00115
0.00014
ng/1
VOC
1,7-Methylnaphthalene
0.0116
0.00141
0.00521
0.000632
Hg/1
VOC
l-Ethyl-2,3-Dimethyl-Benzene (Ql)
0.00313
0.00038
0.00141
0.000171
ng/1
VOC
l-Ethyl-2,3-Dimethyl-Benzene (02)
0.000859
0.000104
0.000386
0.0000469
ng/1
VOC
1 -Ethyl-2,4-Dimethyl-Benzene
0.00334
0.000405
0.0015
0.000182
ng/1
VOC
l-Ethyl-2-Methyl-Benzene
0.00000683
8.29E-07
0.00000307
3.72E-07
ng/1
VOC
l-Ethyl-3-Methyl-Benzene
0.00217
0.000264
0.000977
0.000119
Hg/1
VOC
l-Ethyl-4-Methyl-Benzene
0.0141
0.00171
0.00632
0.000768
ng/1
VOC
l-Methyl-2-(l-Methylethyl)-Benzene
0
0
0
0
ng/1
VOC
1 -Methyl-2-( 1 -Methylethyl)-Benzene (01)
0.00000553
6.71E-07
0.00000248
3.01E-07
ng/1
VOC
1 -Methyl-2-( 1 -Methylethyl)-Benzene (02)
0.0000193
0.00000234
0.00000868
0.00000105
Hg/1
VOC
l-Methyl-3-Propyl-Benzene
0.00274
0.000333
0.00123
0.000149
Hg/1
VOC
1 -Methyl-4-( 1 -Methylidene)-Cyclohexane
0
0
0
0
ng/1
VOC
1-methyl-Indan
0.00657
0.000798
0.00296
0.000359
ng/1
VOC
1 -Propenyl-Benzene
0.00000254
3.08E-07
0.00000114
1.38E-07
ng/1
VOC
2- Heptanone
0.000131
0.0000159
0.000059
0.00000716
Hg/1
VOC
2,3-Dihydro- 1,2-Dimethyl- lH-Indene
0.000706
0.0000858
0.000318
0.0000385
Hg/1
VOC
2,3-Dihydro- 1,6-Dimethyl- lH-Indene
0.00338
0.00041
0.00152
0.000184
ng/1
VOC
2,3-Dihydro-1 -Methylindene
0.0034
0.000413
0.00153
0.000186
ng/1
39
-------
Proposed Draft
Appendix G.6: Metropolitan Harbor Vessel Scenarios Instantaneous Concentration
in the Hypothetical Harbor
Vn:il\If
Model
*> mill II
Model
*>irii:nios
lOnn 12
Modi'l
*>irii:nios
1.5 mid 15
Modi'l
^iTiiiirioN
14 mill l(>
1 nil-
voc
2,3-Dihydro-l-methylindene (01)
0.0019
0.00023
0.000853
0.000104
ng/i
voc
2,3-Dihydro-l-methylindene (02)
0.00402
0.000489
0.00181
0.00022
ng/i
voc
2,3-Dihydro-4,7-Dimethyl-lH-Indene
0.000067
0.00000813
0.0000301
0.00000365
Hg/1
voc
2,3-Dihydro-4-Methyl-1 H-Indene
0.0391
0.00475
0.0176
0.00213
ng/1
voc
2,3-Dihydro-4-Methyl-1 H-Indene (01)
0.00000787
9.55E-07
0.00000354
4.29E-07
ng/1
voc
2,3-Dihydro-4-Methyl-1 H-Indene (02)
0.0000133
0.00000161
0.00000596
7.24E-07
Hg/1
voc
2,3-Dihydro-5,6-dimethyl-lH-Indene
0.00184
0.000223
0.000827
0.0001
Hg/1
voc
2,3-Dihydro-5-methyl-lH-Indene
0.00347
0.000422
0.00156
0.000189
Hg/1
voc
2,6-Dimethylnaphthalene
0.0252
0.00306
0.0113
0.00137
ng/1
voc
2-Butanone
0.0201
0.00244
0.00903
0.0011
ng/1
voc
2-Butenal
0.00223
0.00027
0.001
0.000121
Hg/1
voc
2-Ethyl-l,3,5-Trimethyl-Benzene
0.00268
0.000326
0.00121
0.000146
ng/1
voc
2-Ethyl-1,4-Dimethyl-Benzene
0.0124
0.00151
0.00557
0.000677
ng/1
voc
2-Ethyl-l-Hexanol
0.00000243
2.95E-07
0.00000109
1.32E-07
ng/1
voc
2-Ethyltoluene
0.00686
0.000832
0.00308
0.000374
Hg/1
voc
2-Hexanone
0.00184
0.000223
0.000827
0.0001
Hg/1
voc
2-Methyl-2-Propenal
0.00427
0.000519
0.00192
0.000233
ng/1
voc
2-Propenyl-Benzene
0.0103
0.00125
0.00462
0.000561
ng/1
voc
3-Buten-2-one
0.00384
0.000466
0.00173
0.00021
ng/1
voc
4-Ethyl-1,2-Dimethyl-Benzene
0.00000702
8.52E-07
0.00000316
3.83E-07
Hg/1
voc
4-Heptanone
0.000174
0.0000211
0.000078
0.00000947
Hg/1
voc
4-Isopropyltoluene
0.000612
0.0000743
0.000275
0.0000334
ng/1
voc
4-Methyl-2-Pentanone
0.000597
0.0000725
0.000268
0.0000326
ng/1
voc
Acetaldehyde
0.0122
0.00148
0.00546
0.000663
ng/1
voc
Acetone
0.0889
0.0108
0.04
0.00485
Hg/1
voc
Acrolein
0.00508
0.000617
0.00228
0.000277
Hg/1
voc
Benzaldehyde
0.000155
0.0000189
0.0000698
0.00000847
ng/1
voc
Benzene
0.00681
0.000826
0.00306
0.000371
ng/1
voc
Benzocycloheptatriene
0.0238
0.00289
0.0107
0.0013
ng/1
voc
Benzofuran
0.00241
0.000293
0.00108
0.000132
Hg/1
voc
Bromodichloromethane
0.00000908
0.0000011
0.00000408
4.96E-07
ng/1
voc
Butane
0.00114
0.000138
0.000512
0.0000621
ng/1
voc
Butyraldehyde
0.003
0.000365
0.00135
0.000164
ng/1
voc
Carbon disulfide
0.00000183
2.22E-07
8.23 E-07
9.99E-08
ng/1
voc
Chloroform
0.0016
0.000194
0.000718
0.0000872
Hg/1
voc
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene
0.00000282
3.42E-07
0.00000127
1.54E-07
ng/1
voc
Cyclohexane
0.000144
0.0000175
0.0000646
0.00000785
ng/1
voc
Dibromochloromethane
0.00000891
0.00000108
0.00000401
4.86E-07
ng/1
voc
Dimethocxymethane
0.00427
0.000518
0.00192
0.000233
Hg/1
voc
Ethanol
0.0000464
0.00000563
0.0000209
0.00000253
Hg/1
voc
Ethylbenzene
0.00375
0.000455
0.00168
0.000204
ng/1
voc
Indene
0.00012
0.0000146
0.0000541
0.00000657
ng/1
voc
Isopropylbenzene
0.00106
0.000129
0.000476
0.0000578
ng/1
40
-------
Proposed Draft
Appendix G.6: Metropolitan Harbor Vessel Scenarios Instantaneous Concentration
in the Hypothetical Harbor
Vn:il\If
Model
*> mill II
Model
*>irii:nios
lOnn 12
Modi'l
*>irii:nios
1.5 mid 15
Modi'l
^iTiiiirioN
14 mill l(>
1 nil-
voc
Limonene
0
0
0
0
ng/i
voc
m,p-Xylene (Sum of Isomers)
0.0136
0.00165
0.0061
0.00074
ng/i
voc
Methyl acetate
0.00125
0.000152
0.000562
0.0000682
Hg/1
voc
Methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE)
0.0000185
0.00000224
0.00000831
0.00000101
ng/1
voc
Methylcyclohexane
0.000131
0.0000158
0.0000587
0.00000712
ng/1
voc
Methylene chloride
0.00034
0.0000413
0.000153
0.0000185
Hg/1
voc
n-Butylbenzene
0.000537
0.0000651
0.000241
0.0000293
Hg/1
voc
nitro-Methane
0.00178
0.000216
0.000801
0.0000972
Hg/1
voc
Nonanal
0.0000012
1.46E-07
5.39E-07
6.55E-08
ng/1
voc
n-Propylbenzene
0.00103
0.000125
0.000461
0.000056
ng/1
voc
n-V aleraldehyde
0.00268
0.000326
0.00121
0.000146
Hg/1
voc
O-Xylene
0.00876
0.00106
0.00394
0.000478
ng/1
voc
sec-Butylbenzene
0.00122
0.000148
0.000548
0.0000666
ng/1
voc
Styrene
0.00121
0.000146
0.000542
0.0000658
ng/1
voc
Sulfur dioxide
0.0126
0.00153
0.00568
0.000689
Hg/1
voc
Tetrachloroethene
0.00000259
3.14E-07
0.00000116
1.41E-07
Hg/1
voc
Toluene
0.0137
0.00166
0.00614
0.000746
ng/1
voc
Trichloroethene
0.00000197
2.39E-07
8.86E-07
1.08E-07
ng/1
voc
Trichlorofluoromethane
0.00104
0.000126
0.000465
0.0000565
ng/1
voc
Tridecane
0.00213
0.000258
0.000956
0.000116
Hg/1
voc
Unknown VOC
0.00297
0.000361
0.00134
0.000162
Hg/1
voc
Unknown VOC (01)
0.00196
0.000237
0.000879
0.000107
ng/1
voc
Unknown VOC (02)
0.00255
0.000309
0.00114
0.000139
ng/1
voc
Unknown VOC (03)
0.00232
0.000281
0.00104
0.000126
ng/1
voc
Unknown VOC (04)
0.00158
0.000192
0.000711
0.0000863
Hg/1
voc
Unknown VOC (05)
0.00142
0.000173
0.000639
0.0000775
Hg/1
voc
Vinyl acetate
0.00133
0.000162
0.000599
0.0000727
ng/1
svoc
(E)-2-Tetradecene
0.000388
0.0000471
0.000174
0.0000212
ng/1
svoc
l,2,3,4-Tetrahydro-2,7-
Dimethylnaphthalene
0.000368
0.0000447
0.000166
0.0000201
ng/1
svoc
1,2,3-Trichloro-(Z)-1 -Propene
0.000108
0.0000131
0.0000485
0.00000589
ng/1
svoc
1,2,3-Trimethylbenzene (1)
0.00157
0.00019
0.000705
0.0000856
ng/1
svoc
1,2,3-Trimethylbenzene (2)
0.002
0.000243
0.0009
0.000109
Hg/1
svoc
1,2,4,5-Tetramethylbenzene (1)
0.00022
0.0000267
0.0000989
0.000012
Hg/1
svoc
1,2,4,5-Tetramethylbenzene (2)
0.000204
0.0000248
0.0000917
0.0000111
ng/1
svoc
1,2-Diethyl-Cyclobutane
0.0061
0.00074
0.00274
0.000333
ng/1
svoc
1,3-Dimethylnaphthalene
0.000135
0.0000163
0.0000605
0.00000734
ng/1
svoc
1,3-Dimethylnaphthalene (01)
0.00346
0.000419
0.00155
0.000189
Hg/1
svoc
1,4-Dimethyl-l,2,3,4-
tetrahydronaphthalene
0.00511
0.00062
0.0023
0.000279
ng/1
svoc
1,4-Dimethylnaphthalene
0.00606
0.000735
0.00272
0.00033
Hg/1
svoc
1,4-Dimethylnaphthalene (01)
0.00366
0.000445
0.00165
0.0002
Hg/1
svoc
1,5 -Dimethylnaphthalene
0.00151
0.000183
0.000678
0.0000823
ng/1
svoc
1,6-Dimethylnaphthalene
0.026
0.00315
0.0117
0.00142
ng/1
41
-------
Proposed Draft
Appendix G.6: Metropolitan Harbor Vessel Scenarios Instantaneous Concentration
in the Hypothetical Harbor
Vn:il\If
Model
*> mill II
Model
*>irii:nios
lOnn 12
Modi'l
*>irii:nios
1.5 mid 15
Modi'l
^iTiiiirioN
14 mill l(>
1 nil-
svoc
l,7,7-tri-(methyl)-bicyclo[2.2.1]heptane
0
0
0
0
ng/i
svoc
1-Dodecanol
0.0000579
0.00000703
0.000026
0.00000316
ng/i
svoc
1-Hexadecene
0.00000537
6.52E-07
0.00000241
2.93E-07
Hg/1
svoc
l-Methyl-2-Propyl-Benzene (01)
0.00166
0.000201
0.000745
0.0000904
ng/1
svoc
l-Methyl-2-Propyl-Benzene (02)
0.000478
0.0000581
0.000215
0.0000261
ng/1
svoc
1 -Methylnaphthalene
0.0242
0.00293
0.0109
0.00132
Hg/1
svoc
1 -Phenyl- 1-Butene
0.00000195
2.37E-07
8.77E-07
1.06E-07
Hg/1
svoc
2-(dodecyloxy)-Ethanol
0.0000724
0.00000879
0.0000325
0.00000395
Hg/1
svoc
2-(hexadecyloxy)-Ethanol
0.0000186
0.00000226
0.00000835
0.00000101
ng/1
svoc
2-(tetradecyloxy)-Ethanol
0.0000536
0.00000651
0.0000241
0.00000293
ng/1
svoc
2.3-Dimethyl naphthalene
0.00451
0.000547
0.00203
0.000246
Hg/1
svoc
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
0.00000929
0.00000113
0.00000418
5.07E-07
ng/1
svoc
2,4-Dimethyl-Benz aldehyde
0.00000363
0.00000044
0.00000163
1.98E-07
ng/1
svoc
2,4-Dimethylphenol
0.00133
0.000161
0.000597
0.0000724
ng/1
svoc
2,6,10,14-Tetramethyl Pentadecane
0.00827
0.001
0.00372
0.000451
Hg/1
svoc
2,6,10,14-Tetramethylhexadecae
0.00542
0.000657
0.00243
0.000295
Hg/1
svoc
2,6,10,14-Tetramethylhexadecae (01)
0.000583
0.0000708
0.000262
0.0000318
ng/1
svoc
2,6-dimethyl-Heptadeeane
0.00884
0.00107
0.00397
0.000482
ng/1
svoc
2,7-Dimethylnaphthalene
0.00675
0.000819
0.00303
0.000368
ng/1
svoc
2-Cyclopenten 1 -one
0.000609
0.0000739
0.000274
0.0000332
Hg/1
svoc
2-Ethyl-Hexanoic acid
0.207
0.0251
0.0929
0.0113
Hg/1
svoc
2-Hydroxy-Benzaldehyde
0.00957
0.00116
0.0043
0.000522
ng/1
svoc
2-Mercaptobenzothiazole
0
0
0
0
ng/1
svoc
2-Methyl Tridecane
0.000309
0.0000375
0.000139
0.0000168
ng/1
svoc
2-Methyl-Benzaldehyde
0.00399
0.000484
0.00179
0.000218
Hg/1
svoc
2-Methyl-Dodecane
0.000192
0.0000233
0.0000862
0.0000105
Hg/1
svoc
2-Methylnaphthalene
0.0313
0.0038
0.0141
0.00171
ng/1
svoc
2-Naphthalenecarboxaldehyde
0.000666
0.0000808
0.000299
0.0000363
ng/1
svoc
3,4-Dimethylphenol
0.0000017
2.07E-07
7.66E-07
9.29E-08
ng/1
svoc
3,5-Dimethyl-Benzaldehyde
0.0000022
2.68E-07
9.91E-07
0.00000012
Hg/1
svoc
3,6-Dimethylundecane
0.00000336
4.07E-07
0.00000151
1.83E-07
ng/1
svoc
3-Methyl-Benzaldehyde
0.00846
0.00103
0.0038
0.000462
ng/1
svoc
3-Methyl-Benzaldehyde (01)
0.00949
0.00115
0.00426
0.000518
ng/1
svoc
3-Methyl-butanoic acid
0.0000978
0.0000119
0.000044
0.00000534
ng/1
svoc
3-Methyl-Phenanthrene
0.00397
0.000482
0.00178
0.000216
Hg/1
svoc
3-Methylphenol
0.000444
0.0000539
0.000199
0.0000242
ng/1
svoc
3-Phenyl-2-Propenal
0.0003
0.0000364
0.000135
0.0000163
ng/1
svoc
4,4-Dimethylbiphenyl
0.00412
0.000501
0.00185
0.000225
ng/1
svoc
4-Hydroxy-2-Butanone
0.00462
0.00056
0.00208
0.000252
Hg/1
svoc
4-Methyl-1 H-Benzotriazole
0.00000465
5.64E-07
0.00000209
2.54E-07
Hg/1
svoc
4-METHYL-PENTANOIC ACID
0.0000652
0.00000792
0.0000293
0.00000356
ng/1
svoc
5-Butyl-Hexadecane
0.00000258
3.14E-07
0.00000116
1.41E-07
ng/1
svoc
5-Methyl-2-( 1 -methyl)-Cyclohexanol
0.0000152
0.00000184
0.00000681
8.27E-07
ng/1
42
-------
Proposed Draft
Appendix G.6: Metropolitan Harbor Vessel Scenarios Instantaneous Concentration
in the Hypothetical Harbor
( l;l-x
Vn:il\If
Model
*> mill II
Model
*>irii:nios
lOnn 12
Modi'l
*>irii:nios
1.5 mid 15
Modi'l
Berlin ri ox
14 mill l(>
1 nil-
svoc
9-Methyl-9H-Fluorene
0.00424
0.000515
0.00191
0.000231
ng/i
svoc
Acenaphthylene
0.00232
0.000281
0.00104
0.000126
ng/i
svoc
Acetophenone
0.0000728
0.00000884
0.0000327
0.00000397
Hg/1
svoc
Benzeneacetic Acid
0.0000498
0.00000604
0.0000224
0.00000272
ng/1
svoc
Benzenepropanoic Acid
0.0000549
0.00000667
0.0000247
0.000003
ng/1
svoc
Benzothiazole
0.0000233
0.00000283
0.0000105
0.00000127
Hg/1
svoc
Benzyl alcohol
0.0000761
0.00000923
0.0000342
0.00000415
Hg/1
svoc
Biphenyl
0.00251
0.000305
0.00113
0.000137
Hg/1
svoc
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
0.00119
0.000144
0.000534
0.0000648
ng/1
svoc
Caprolactam
0.0000546
0.00000663
0.0000246
0.00000298
ng/1
svoc
Cholesterol
0.000151
0.0000183
0.0000679
0.00000824
Hg/1
svoc
Cyclic octaatomic sulfur
0.0399
0.00484
0.0179
0.00217
ng/1
svoc
Cyclodecane
0.000397
0.0000482
0.000179
0.0000217
ng/1
svoc
Cyclododecane
0.0000598
0.00000725
0.0000269
0.00000326
ng/1
svoc
Cyclotetradecane
0.0000317
0.00000385
0.0000142
0.00000173
Hg/1
svoc
Diethene Glycol Monododecyl Ether
0.0000597
0.00000725
0.0000268
0.00000326
Hg/1
svoc
Dimethyl phthalate
0.0000542
0.00000658
0.0000244
0.00000296
ng/1
svoc
Di-n-butyl phthalate
0.00134
0.000163
0.000603
0.0000732
ng/1
svoc
Di-n-octyl phthalate
0.000113
0.0000137
0.0000506
0.00000614
ng/1
svoc
Disopropylene glycol
0.0000176
0.00000214
0.00000792
9.61E-07
Hg/1
svoc
Dodecane
0.00000193
2.34E-07
8.67E-07
1.05E-07
Hg/1
svoc
Dodecanoic acid
0.0000433
0.00000526
0.0000195
0.00000236
ng/1
svoc
Eicosane
0.0209
0.00254
0.0094
0.00114
ng/1
svoc
Ethanol, 2,2-oxybis-
0.00195
0.000236
0.000876
0.000106
ng/1
svoc
Ethanol, 2-Butoxy
0.00516
0.000626
0.00232
0.000282
Hg/1
svoc
Fluorene
0.00247
0.0003
0.00111
0.000135
Hg/1
svoc
Heneicosane
0.00712
0.000864
0.0032
0.000388
ng/1
svoc
Heptadecane
0.0362
0.0044
0.0163
0.00198
ng/1
svoc
Hexaethylene Glycol Monododecyl
0.0000363
0.00000441
0.0000163
0.00000198
ng/1
svoc
Hexaethylene Glycol Monododecyl (01)
0.0000146
0.00000177
0.00000655
7.94E-07
Hg/1
svoc
Hexaethylene Glycol Monododecyl (02)
0.0000046
5.58E-07
0.00000207
2.51E-07
ng/1
svoc
Hexagol
0.000021
0.00000255
0.00000943
0.00000114
ng/1
svoc
Indane
0.00171
0.000208
0.00077
0.0000935
ng/1
svoc
Indole
0.000275
0.0000333
0.000123
0.000015
ng/1
svoc
Isopropylbenzene-4,methyl-1
0
0
0
0
Hg/1
svoc
m-Cresol
0.000117
0.0000143
0.0000528
0.00000641
ng/1
svoc
Naphthalene
0.0129
0.00157
0.00581
0.000706
ng/1
svoc
N-Butyl-Benzenesulfonamide
0.000006
7.28E-07
0.0000027
3.27E-07
ng/1
svoc
n-Hexadecane
0.0346
0.0042
0.0155
0.00189
Hg/1
svoc
n-Hexadecanoic acid
0.0000307
0.00000372
0.0000138
0.00000167
Hg/1
svoc
Nonadecane
0.0278
0.00338
0.0125
0.00152
ng/1
svoc
Nonadecane (01)
0.00851
0.00103
0.00382
0.000464
ng/1
svoc
Nonanoic Acid
0.00671
0.000814
0.00301
0.000366
ng/1
43
-------
Proposed Draft
Appendix G.6: Metropolitan Harbor Vessel Scenarios Instantaneous Concentration
in the Hypothetical Harbor
Vn:il\If
Model
*> mill II
Model
*>irii:nios
lOnn 12
Modi'l
scrimriox
1.5 mid 15
Modi'l
^iTiiiirioN
14 mill l(>
1 nil-
svoc
n-Pentadecane
0.0312
0.00379
0.014
0.0017
ng/i
svoc
n-Tetradecane
0.0357
0.00433
0.016
0.00195
ng/i
svoc
o-Cresol
0.00381
0.000462
0.00171
0.000208
Hg/1
svoc
Octadecane
0.00775
0.000941
0.00348
0.000423
ng/1
svoc
p-Cresol
0.012
0.00145
0.00537
0.000652
ng/1
svoc
Pentacosane
0.000532
0.0000645
0.000239
0.000029
Hg/1
svoc
Pentaethene Glycol Monododecyl Ether
0.00000492
5.97E-07
0.00000221
2.68E-07
Hg/1
svoc
Pentaethene Glycol Monododecyl Ether
(01)
0.0000359
0.00000436
0.0000161
0.00000196
Hg/1
svoc
Pentaethene Glycol Monododecyl Ether
(02)
0.0000707
0.00000859
0.0000318
0.00000386
ng/1
svoc
Phenanthrene
0.00259
0.000314
0.00116
0.000141
Hg/1
svoc
Phenol
0.0241
0.00293
0.0109
0.00132
Hg/1
svoc
Phthalic acid, isobutyl octyl ester
0.00000852
0.00000103
0.00000383
4.65E-07
Hg/1
svoc
Pyrene
0.000257
0.0000311
0.000115
0.000014
ng/1
svoc
Sulfur
0.0167
0.00203
0.00751
0.000911
ng/1
svoc
Tetraethylene glycol monododecyl ether
0.0000366
0.00000444
0.0000165
0.000002
Hg/1
svoc
Triethyl phosphate
0.0000427
0.00000518
0.0000192
0.00000233
Hg/1
svoc
Triethylene glycol monododecyl ether
0.0000544
0.0000066
0.0000244
0.00000297
ng/1
svoc
Unknown SVOC
0.00695
0.000844
0.00312
0.000379
ng/1
svoc
Unknown SVOC (01)
0.00672
0.000816
0.00302
0.000367
ng/1
svoc
Unknown SVOC (02)
0.00727
0.000883
0.00327
0.000397
Hg/1
svoc
Unknown SVOC (03)
0.00107
0.00013
0.000481
0.0000584
Hg/1
svoc
Unknown SVOC (04)
0.00111
0.000134
0.000497
0.0000603
ng/1
svoc
Unknown SVOC (05)
0.000383
0.0000465
0.000172
0.0000209
ng/1
svoc
Unknown SVOC (06)
0.000248
0.0000301
0.000112
0.0000135
ng/1
svoc
Unknown SVOC (07)
0.00308
0.000374
0.00138
0.000168
Hg/1
44
-------
Proposed Draft
Appendix G.7: Recreational Harbor Vessel Scenarios Instantaneous Concentration in the
Hypothetical Harbor
Vn:il\lc
Model
*«i riiiirin-
l~ Mild l()
Mmlrl
IS Mild 211
MimK'I
21 mid 2.«
Mmlrl
22 iinil 24
1 nil-
Bacteria
E. Coli by MF
0.533
0.0647
0.24
0.0291
CFU/100 ml
Bacteria
E. Coli by MPN
0.208
0.0252
0.0935
0.0113
MPN/100
ml
Bacteria
Enterococci by MF
0.301
0.0365
0.135
0.0164
CFU/100 ml
Bacteria
Enterococci by MPN
0.0395
0.0048
0.0178
0.00216
MPN/100
ml
Bacteria
Fecal Coliform by MF
1.47
0.178
0.659
0.0799
CFU/100 ml
Bacteria
Fecal Coliform by MPN
0.602
0.0731
0.271
0.0328
MPN/100
ml
Bacteria
Total Coliforms by MPN
2.59
0.314
1.16
0.141
MPN/100
ml
Classicals
Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD)
0.129
0.0156
0.0578
0.00701
mg/1
Classicals
Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD)
0.361
0.0438
0.162
0.0197
mg/1
Classicals
Dissolved Oxygen
0.0135
0.00164
0.00609
0.000739
mg/1
Classicals
Hexane Extractable Material (HEM)
0.00573
0.000695
0.00257
0.000312
mg/1
Classicals
Silica Gel Treated HEM (SGT-HEM)
0.00682
0.000828
0.00307
0.000372
mg/1
Classicals
Sulfide
6.67E-06
8.09E-07
0.000003
3.64E-07
mg/1
Classicals
Total Organic Carbon (TOC)
0.0483
0.00586
0.0217
0.00263
mg/1
Classicals
Total Residual Chlorine
0.000185
0.0000225
0.0000832
0.0000101
mg/1
Classicals
Total Suspended Solids (TSS)
0.061
0.00741
0.0274
0.00333
mg/1
Nutrients
Ammonia As Nitrogen (NH3-N)
0.00166
0.000202
0.000747
0.0000907
mg/1
Nutrients
Nitrate/Nitrite (N03/N02-N)
0.0000333
4.04E-06
0.000015
1.82E-06
mg/1
Nutrients
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN)
0.0193
0.00235
0.00868
0.00105
mg/1
Nutrients
Total Phosphorus
0.00254
0.000308
0.00114
0.000138
mg/1
Metals
Aluminum, Dissolved
0.539
0.0654
0.242
0.0294
ng/i
Metals
Aluminum, Total
0.852
0.103
0.383
0.0465
ng/i
Metals
Antimony, Dissolved
0.0000154
1.87E-06
6.92E-06
8.41E-07
ng/i
Metals
Antimony, Total
0.0000448
5.44E-06
0.0000201
2.44E-06
ng/i
Metals
Arsenic, Dissolved
0.0084
0.00102
0.00378
0.000458
ng/i
Metals
Arsenic, Total
0.0103
0.00125
0.00465
0.000564
ng/i
Metals
Barium, Dissolved
0.0218
0.00265
0.00981
0.00119
ng/i
Metals
Barium, Total
0.0232
0.00282
0.0104
0.00127
ng/i
Metals
Cadmium, Dissolved
0.00001
1.22E-06
4.51E-06
5.47E-07
ng/i
Metals
Cadmium, Total
0.000181
0.0000219
0.0000812
9.85E-06
ng/i
Metals
Calcium, Dissolved
173
21
77.7
9.43
ng/i
Metals
Calcium, Total
175
21.3
78.7
9.55
ng/i
Metals
Chromium, Dissolved
0.00139
0.000169
0.000625
0.0000758
ng/i
Metals
Chromium, Total
0.00234
0.000284
0.00105
0.000128
ng/i
Metals
Cobalt, Dissolved
0.0000254
3.09E-06
0.0000114
1.39E-06
ng/i
Metals
Cobalt, Total
0.0000352
4.28E-06
0.0000158
1.92E-06
ng/i
Metals
Copper, Dissolved
0.902
0.109
0.405
0.0492
ng/i
Metals
Copper, Total
0.0542
0.00658
0.0244
0.00296
ng/i
Metals
Iron, Dissolved
0.00474
0.000576
0.00213
0.000259
ng/i
Metals
Iron, Total
0.197
0.0239
0.0884
0.0107
ng/i
Metals
Lead, Dissolved
0.00112
0.000135
0.000501
0.0000608
ng/i
Metals
Lead, Total
0.00465
0.000564
0.00209
0.000253
ng/i
Metals
Magnesium, Dissolved
456
55.3
205
24.8
ng/i
Metals
Magnesium, Total
447
54.3
201
24.4
ng/i
Metals
Manganese, Dissolved
0.0835
0.0101
0.0375
0.00456
ng/i
Metals
Manganese, Total
0.105
0.0128
0.0473
0.00574
ng/i
Metals
Nickel, Dissolved
0.00437
0.000531
0.00197
0.000239
ng/1
G-45
-------
Proposed Draft
Appendix G.7: Recreational Harbor Vessel Scenarios Instantaneous Concentration in the
Hypothetical Harbor
Model
Mmlrl
MimK'I
Mmlrl
(
Vn:il\lc
*«i riiiirin-
1 nil-
l~ Mild l()
IS Mild 211
21 mid 2.«
22 iinil 24
Metals
Nickel, Total
0.00475
0.000577
0.00214
0.000259
ng/i
Metals
Potassium, Dissolved
37
4.49
16.6
2.02
ng/i
Metals
Potassium, Total
36.9
4.47
16.6
2.01
Hg/1
Metals
Selenium, Dissolved
0.0145
0.00176
0.00652
0.000792
Hg/1
Metals
Selenium, Total
0.0154
0.00187
0.00694
0.000842
Hg/1
Metals
Silver, Dissolved
4.52E-06
5.49E-07
2.03E-06
2.47E-07
Hg/1
Metals
Silver, Total
0.0000085
1.03E-06
3.82E-06
4.64E-07
Hg/1
Metals
Sodium, Dissolved
902
110
406
49.2
Hg/1
Metals
Sodium,Total
1070
130
480
58.3
Hg/1
Metals
Thallium, Dissolved
3.93 E-06
4.78E-07
1.77E-06
2.15E-07
ng/1
Metals
Thallium,Total
4.29E-08
5.2E-09
1.93E-08
2.34E-09
ng/1
Metals
Vanadium, Dissolved
0.000742
0.0000901
0.000334
0.0000405
ng/1
Metals
Vanadium,Total
0.000833
0.000101
0.000375
0.0000455
ng/1
Metals
Zinc, Dissolved
0.085
0.0103
0.0382
0.00464
ng/1
Metals
Zinc, Total
0.169
0.0205
0.0759
0.00922
ng/1
Nonylphenols
Bisphenol A
6.97E-06
8.46E-07
3.13E-06
3.8E-07
ng/1
Nonylphenols
Nonylphenol decaethoxylate (NPIOEO)
0.00103
0.000125
0.000462
0.0000561
ng/1
Nonylphenols
Nonylphenol dodecaethoxylate (NP12EO)
0.000837
0.000102
0.000376
0.0000456
ng/1
Nonylphenols
Nonylphenol heptadecaethoxylate (NP17EO)
0.0000548
6.65E-06
0.0000246
2.99E-06
ng/1
Nonylphenols
Nonylphenol heptaethoxylate (NP7EO)
0.00058
0.0000704
0.000261
0.0000316
ng/1
Nonylphenols
Nonylphenol hexadecaethoxylate (NP16EO)
0.000117
0.0000142
0.0000525
6.38E-06
ng/1
Nonylphenols
Nonylphenol hexaethoxylate (NP6EO)
0.000383
0.0000464
0.000172
0.0000209
ng/1
Nonylphenols
Nonylphenol nonaethoxylate (NP9EO)
0.000906
0.00011
0.000407
0.0000494
ng/1
Nonylphenols
Nonylphenol octaethoxylate (NP8EO)
0.000784
0.0000951
0.000352
0.0000428
ng/1
Nonylphenols
Nonylphenol octodecaethoxylate (NP18EO)
0.0000273
3.31E-06
0.0000123
1.49E-06
ng/1
Nonylphenols
Nonylphenol pendecaethoxylate (NP15EO)
0.000221
0.0000269
0.0000994
0.0000121
Hg/1
Nonylphenols
Nonylphenol pentaethoxylate (NP5EO)
0.000195
0.0000237
0.0000878
0.0000107
Hg/1
Nonylphenols
Nonylphenol tetradecaethoxylate (NP14EO)
0.000398
0.0000482
0.000179
0.0000217
Hg/1
Nonylphenols
Nonylphenol tetraethoxylate (NP4EO)
0.0000567
6.88E-06
0.0000255
3.09E-06
Hg/1
Nonylphenols
Nonylphenol tridecaethoxylate (NP13EO)
0.000604
0.0000733
0.000271
0.0000329
Hg/1
Nonylphenols
Nonylphenol triethoxylate (NP3EO)
0.0000309
3.75E-06
0.0000139
1.69E-06
Hg/1
Nonylphenols
Nonylphenol undecaethoxylate (NP11EO)
0.00105
0.000128
0.000473
0.0000574
Hg/1
Nonylphenols
Octylphenol decaethoxylate (OPIOEO)
0.0000274
3.32E-06
0.0000123
1.49E-06
Hg/1
Nonylphenols
Octylphenol dodecaethoxylate (OP12EO)
0.0000125
1.52E-06
5.64E-06
6.84E-07
ng/1
Nonylphenols
Octylphenol heptaethoxylate (OP7EO)
8.24E-07
0.0000001
3.7E-07
4.49E-08
ng/1
Nonylphenols
Octylphenol nonaethoxylate (OP9EO)
0.0000102
1.24E-06
4.58E-06
5.56E-07
ng/1
Nonylphenols
Octylphenol octaethoxylate (OP8EO)
7.03E-06
8.53E-07
3.16E-06
3.83E-07
ng/1
Nonylphenols
Octylphenol undecaethoxylate (OP11EO)
0.0000165
0.000002
7.41E-06
8.99E-07
ng/1
Nonylphenols
Total Nonylphenol Polyethoxylates
0.00705
0.000856
0.00317
0.000385
ng/1
Nonylphenols
Total Nonylphenols
0.000025
3.03E-06
0.0000112
1.36E-06
ng/1
VOC
(2-Methyl-1 -Propenyl)-Benzene
0.00234
0.000284
0.00105
0.000128
ng/1
VOC
(E)-1 -Propenyl-Benzene
1.77E-06
2.15E-07
7.95E-07
9.65E-08
ng/1
VOC
(E)-2-Butenal
0.00428
0.00052
0.00192
0.000234
ng/1
VOC
1,2,3,4-Tetrahydro-l-Methylnaphthalene
0.00269
0.000327
0.00121
0.000147
ng/1
VOC
l,2,3,4-Tetrahydro-2-Methylnaphthalene
0.00248
0.000302
0.00112
0.000136
ng/1
VOC
l,2,3,4-Tetrahydro-5-Methylnaphthalene
0.0218
0.00264
0.00978
0.00119
ng/1
VOC
l,2,3,4-Tetrahydro-6-Ethylnaphthalene,
0.00235
0.000285
0.00105
0.000128
ng/1
VOC
l,2,3,4-Tetrahydro-6-Methylnaphthalene
0.0198
0.0024
0.00888
0.00108
ng/1
VOC
l,2,3,4-Tetrahydro-6-Methylnaphthalene (01)
0.00498
0.000605
0.00224
0.000272
,g/l
G-46
-------
Proposed Draft
Appendix G.7: Recreational Harbor Vessel Scenarios Instantaneous Concentration in the
Hypothetical Harbor
Model
Mmlrl
MimK'I
Mmlrl
Vn:il\lc
*«i riiiirin-
1 nil-
l~ Mild l()
IS Mild 211
21 mid 2.«
22 iinil 24
voc
l,2,3,4-Tetrahydro-6-Methylnaphthalene (02)
0.00417
0.000506
0.00187
0.000227
ng/i
voc
1,2,3,4-T etrahy dronaphthalene
0.0149
0.00181
0.00671
0.000814
ng/i
voc
1,2,3,4-Tetramethyl-Benzene
0.000702
0.0000853
0.000316
0.0000383
Hg/1
voc
1,2,3,5-T etramethyl-Benzene
0.00103
0.000125
0.000465
0.0000564
Hg/1
voc
1,2,3-Trimethylbenzene
0.00338
0.00041
0.00152
0.000184
Hg/1
voc
1,2,4,5-T etramethylbenzene
0.00158
0.000191
0.000709
0.000086
Hg/1
voc
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
0.00577
0.0007
0.00259
0.000315
Hg/1
voc
1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene
0.00155
0.000189
0.000698
0.0000848
Hg/1
voc
1,3-Methylnaphthalene
0.00307
0.000373
0.00138
0.000168
Hg/1
voc
1,7-Methylnaphthalene
0.0139
0.00169
0.00625
0.000758
ng/1
voc
l-Ethyl-2,3-Dimethyl-Benzene (01)
0.00241
0.000293
0.00108
0.000131
ng/1
voc
l-Ethyl-2,3-Dimethyl-Benzene (02)
0.000429
0.0000521
0.000193
0.0000234
ng/1
voc
l-Ethyl-2,4-Dimethyl-Benzene
0.00167
0.000203
0.000751
0.0000912
ng/1
voc
l-Ethyl-2-Methyl-Benzene
5.46E-06
6.63E-07
2.45E-06
2.98E-07
ng/1
voc
l-Ethyl-3-Methyl-Benzene
0.00259
0.000314
0.00116
0.000141
ng/1
voc
l-Ethyl-4-Methyl-Benzene
0.00704
0.000855
0.00317
0.000384
ng/1
voc
1 -Methyl-2-( 1 -Methylethyl)-Benzene
0
0
0
0
ng/1
voc
1 -Methyl-2-( 1 -Methylethyl)-Benzene (01)
4.42E-06
5.37E-07
1.99E-06
2.41E-07
ng/1
voc
l-Methyl-2-(l-Methylethyl)-Benzene (02)
0.0000154
1.88E-06
6.94E-06
8.43E-07
ng/1
voc
l-Methyl-3-Propyl-Benzene
0.00137
0.000167
0.000617
0.0000749
ng/1
voc
l-Methyl-4-(l-Methylidene)-Cyclohexane
0
0
0
0
ng/1
voc
1-methyl-Indan
0.00651
0.00079
0.00292
0.000355
ng/1
voc
1-Propenyl-Benzene
2.03E-06
2.46E-07
9.12E-07
1.11E-07
ng/1
voc
2- Heptanone
0.0000656
7.96E-06
0.0000295
3.58E-06
ng/1
voc
2,3-Dihydro- 1,2-Dimethyl- lH-Indene
0.000353
0.0000429
0.000159
0.0000193
ng/1
voc
2,3-Dihydro- 1,6-Dimethyl- lH-Indene
0.00297
0.00036
0.00133
0.000162
Hg/1
voc
2,3-Dihydro- 1-Methylindene
0.00408
0.000495
0.00183
0.000223
Hg/1
voc
2,3-Dihydro-1-methylindene (01)
0.00228
0.000276
0.00102
0.000124
Hg/1
voc
2,3-Dihydro-1-methylindene (02)
0.00483
0.000586
0.00217
0.000263
Hg/1
voc
2,3-Dihydro-4,7-Dimethyl-lH-Indene
0.0000134
1.63E-06
6.02E-06
7.31E-07
Hg/1
voc
2,3-Dihydro-4-Methyl-lH-Indene
0.0436
0.00529
0.0196
0.00238
Hg/1
voc
2,3-Dihydro-4-Methyl-lH-Indene (01)
6.29E-06
7.64E-07
2.83E-06
3.43E-07
Hg/1
voc
2,3-Dihydro-4-Methyl-lH-Indene (02)
0.0000106
1.29E-06
4.77E-06
5.79E-07
Hg/1
voc
2,3-Dihydro-5,6-dimethyl-lH-Indene
0.00221
0.000268
0.000992
0.00012
ng/1
voc
2,3-Dihydro-5-methyl-lH-Indene
0.00174
0.000211
0.00078
0.0000947
ng/1
voc
2,6-Dimethylnaphthalene
0.0302
0.00367
0.0136
0.00165
ng/1
voc
2-Butanone
0.0231
0.00281
0.0104
0.00126
ng/1
voc
2-Butenal
0.00267
0.000324
0.0012
0.000146
ng/1
voc
2-Ethyl-l,3,5-Trimethyl-Benzene
0.00322
0.000391
0.00145
0.000176
ng/1
voc
2-Ethyl-1,4-Dimethyl-Benzene
0.0149
0.00181
0.00669
0.000812
ng/1
voc
2-Ethyl-1 -Hexanol
1.21E-06
1.47E-07
5.45E-07
6.62E-08
ng/1
voc
2-Ethyltoluene
0.00492
0.000597
0.00221
0.000268
ng/1
voc
2-Hexanone
0.00202
0.000246
0.00091
0.00011
ng/1
voc
2-Methyl-2-Propenal
0.00492
0.000597
0.00221
0.000268
ng/1
voc
2-Propenyl-Benzene
0.00514
0.000624
0.00231
0.000281
ng/1
voc
3-Buten-2-one
0.00452
0.000548
0.00203
0.000246
ng/1
voc
4-Ethyl-1,2-Dimethyl-Benzene
5.62E-06
6.82E-07
2.52E-06
3.06E-07
ng/1
voc
4-Heptanone
0.0000868
0.0000105
0.000039
4.74E-06
ng/1
voc
4-Isopropyltoluene
0.000689
0.0000836
0.000309
0.0000376
ng/1
G-47
-------
Proposed Draft
Appendix G.7: Recreational Harbor Vessel Scenarios Instantaneous Concentration in the
Hypothetical Harbor
Vn:il\lc
Model
*«i riiiirin-
l~ Mild l()
Mmlrl
IS Mild 211
MimK'I
21 mid 2.«
Mmlrl
22 iinil 24
1 nil-
voc
4-Methyl-2-Pentanone
0.000705
0.0000855
0.000317
0.0000384
ng/i
voc
Acetaldehyde
0.0143
0.00173
0.00642
0.00078
ng/i
voc
Acetone
0.103
0.0126
0.0465
0.00564
Hg/1
voc
Acrolein
0.00598
0.000726
0.00269
0.000326
Hg/1
voc
Benz aldehyde
0.000186
0.0000226
0.0000838
0.0000102
Hg/1
voc
Benzene
0.00596
0.000723
0.00268
0.000325
Hg/1
voc
Benzocycloheptatriene
0.0285
0.00346
0.0128
0.00156
Hg/1
voc
Benzofuran
0.00289
0.000351
0.0013
0.000158
Hg/1
voc
Bromodichloromethane
4.54E-06
5.51E-07
2.04E-06
2.48E-07
Hg/1
voc
Butane
0.000569
0.0000691
0.000256
0.0000311
ng/1
voc
Butyraldehyde
0.00349
0.000424
0.00157
0.00019
ng/1
voc
Carbon disulfide
0.0000022
2.67E-07
9.88E-07
1.2E-07
ng/1
voc
Chloroform
0.00192
0.000233
0.000862
0.000105
ng/1
voc
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene
3.38E-06
4.1E-07
1.52E-06
1.84E-07
ng/1
voc
Cyclohexane
0.0000723
8.78E-06
0.0000325
3.95E-06
ng/1
voc
Dibromochloromethane
4.46E-06
5.41E-07
0.000002
2.43E-07
ng/1
voc
Dimethocxymethane
0.00384
0.000466
0.00173
0.000209
ng/1
voc
Ethanol
0.0000232
2.82E-06
0.0000104
1.27E-06
ng/1
voc
Ethylbenzene
0.00219
0.000265
0.000982
0.000119
ng/1
voc
Indene
0.0000308
3.74E-06
0.0000139
1.68E-06
ng/1
voc
Isopropylbenzene
0.00107
0.00013
0.000482
0.0000585
ng/1
voc
Limonene
0
0
0
0
ng/1
voc
m,p-Xylene (Sum of Isomers)
0.00733
0.00089
0.0033
0.0004
ng/1
voc
Methyl acetate
0.0015
0.000182
0.000672
0.0000816
ng/1
voc
Methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE)
9.62E-06
1.17E-06
4.32E-06
5.25E-07
ng/1
voc
Methylcyclohexane
0.0000656
7.97E-06
0.0000295
3.58E-06
Hg/1
voc
Methylene chloride
0.000376
0.0000456
0.000169
0.0000205
Hg/1
voc
n-Butylbenzene
0.000644
0.0000782
0.000289
0.0000351
Hg/1
voc
nitro-Methane
0.00214
0.00026
0.000961
0.000117
Hg/1
voc
Nonanal
1.44E-06
1.75E-07
6.47E-07
7.86E-08
Hg/1
voc
n-Propylbenzene
0.000626
0.000076
0.000281
0.0000341
Hg/1
voc
n-V aleraldehyde
0.00309
0.000375
0.00139
0.000169
Hg/1
voc
O-Xylene
0.00476
0.000578
0.00214
0.00026
Hg/1
voc
sec-Butylbenzene
0.00146
0.000177
0.000657
0.0000797
ng/1
voc
Styrene
0.00112
0.000135
0.000501
0.0000608
ng/1
voc
Sulfur dioxide
0.00316
0.000383
0.00142
0.000172
ng/1
voc
Tetrachloroethene
2.54E-06
3.09E-07
1.14E-06
1.39E-07
ng/1
voc
Toluene
0.00832
0.00101
0.00374
0.000454
ng/1
voc
Trichloroethene
2.37E-06
2.87E-07
1.06E-06
1.29E-07
ng/1
voc
Trichlorofluoromethane
0.00124
0.000151
0.000558
0.0000678
ng/1
voc
Tridecane
0.00255
0.00031
0.00115
0.000139
ng/1
voc
Unknown VOC
0.00308
0.000373
0.00138
0.000168
ng/1
voc
Unknown VOC (01)
0.00223
0.000271
0.001
0.000122
ng/1
voc
Unknown VOC (02)
0.00298
0.000362
0.00134
0.000163
ng/1
voc
Unknown VOC (03)
0.00271
0.000328
0.00122
0.000148
ng/1
voc
Unknown VOC (04)
0.00175
0.000213
0.000788
0.0000957
ng/1
voc
Unknown VOC (05)
0.00161
0.000195
0.000722
0.0000877
ng/1
voc
Vinyl acetate
0.00159
0.000193
0.000714
0.0000867
ng/1
svoc
(E)-2-Tetradecene
0.0000776
9.42E-06
0.0000349
4.23E-06
,g/l
G-48
-------
Proposed Draft
Appendix G.7: Recreational Harbor Vessel Scenarios Instantaneous Concentration in the
Hypothetical Harbor
Model
Mmlrl
MimK'I
Mmlrl
Vn:il\lc
*«l rlliirin-
1 nil-
I~ Mini l()
IS Mild 211
21 mid 2.«
22 iinil 24
svoc
l,2,3,4-Tetrahydro-2,7-Dimethylnaphthalene
0.000184
0.0000224
0.0000828
0.0000101
ng/i
svoc
1,2,3-Trichloro-(Z)-1 -Propene
0.000054
6.55E-06
0.0000243
2.95E-06
ng/i
svoc
1,2,3-Trimethylbenzene (1)
0.000786
0.0000954
0.000353
0.0000429
Hg/1
svoc
1,2,3-Trimethylbenzene (2)
0.001
0.000122
0.00045
0.0000546
Hg/1
svoc
1,2,4,5-Tetramethylbenzene (1)
0.00011
0.0000134
0.0000494
0.000006
Hg/1
svoc
1,2,4,5-Tetramethylbenzene (2)
0.000102
0.0000124
0.0000459
5.57E-06
Hg/1
svoc
1,2-Diethyl-Cyclobutane
0.00731
0.000888
0.00329
0.000399
Hg/1
svoc
1,3-Dimethylnaphthalene
0.0000269
3.27E-06
0.0000121
1.47E-06
Hg/1
svoc
1,3-Dimethylnaphthalene (01)
0.00415
0.000503
0.00186
0.000226
Hg/1
svoc
l,4-Dimethyl-l,2,3,4-tetrahydronaphthalene
0.00613
0.000745
0.00276
0.000335
ng/1
svoc
1,4-Dimethylnaphthalene
0.00668
0.000811
0.003
0.000364
ng/1
svoc
1,4-Dimethylnaphthalene (01)
0.0044
0.000533
0.00198
0.00024
ng/1
svoc
1,5-Dimethylnaphthalene
0.000664
0.0000806
0.000298
0.0000362
ng/1
svoc
1,6-Dimethylnaphthalene
0.0311
0.00377
0.014
0.00169
ng/1
svoc
l,7,7-tri-(methyl)-bicyclo[2.2.11heptane
0
0
0
0
ng/1
svoc
1-Dodecanol
0.000029
3.51E-06
0.000013
1.58E-06
ng/1
svoc
1-Hexadecene
2.68E-06
3.26E-07
1.21E-06
1.46E-07
ng/1
svoc
l-Methyl-2-Propyl-Benzene (01)
0.000828
0.000101
0.000372
0.0000452
ng/1
svoc
l-Methyl-2-Propyl-Benzene (02)
0.000239
0.000029
0.000108
0.0000131
ng/1
svoc
1-Methylnaphthalene
0.0281
0.00341
0.0126
0.00153
ng/1
svoc
1-Phenyl-1 -Butene
1.56E-06
1.89E-07
7.01E-07
8.51E-08
ng/1
svoc
2-(dodecyloxy)-Ethanol
0.0000362
4.39E-06
0.0000163
1.97E-06
ng/1
svoc
2-(hexadecyloxy)-Ethanol
9.29E-06
1.13E-06
4.18E-06
5.07E-07
ng/1
svoc
2-(tetradecyloxy)-Ethanol
0.0000268
3.26E-06
0.0000121
1.46E-06
ng/1
svoc
2,3-Dimethylnaphthalene
0.00541
0.000657
0.00243
0.000295
ng/1
svoc
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
0.0000112
1.35E-06
5.01E-06
6.08E-07
Hg/1
svoc
2,4-Dimethyl-Benzaldehyde
0.0000029
3.52E-07
0.0000013
1.58E-07
Hg/1
svoc
2,4-Dimethylphenol
0.00154
0.000187
0.000693
0.0000841
Hg/1
svoc
2,6,10,14-Tetramethyl Pentadecane
0.00965
0.00117
0.00434
0.000526
Hg/1
svoc
2,6,10,14-Tetramethylhexadecae
0.0065
0.000789
0.00292
0.000355
Hg/1
svoc
2,6,10,14-Tetramethylhexadecae (01)
0.000292
0.0000354
0.000131
0.0000159
Hg/1
svoc
2,6-dimethyl-Heptadecane
0.0106
0.00129
0.00477
0.000578
Hg/1
svoc
2,7-Dimethylnaphthalene
0.0075
0.000911
0.00337
0.000409
Hg/1
svoc
2-Cyclopentenl-one
0.00073
0.0000886
0.000328
0.0000398
ng/1
svoc
2-Ethyl-Hexanoic acid
0.103
0.0125
0.0465
0.00564
ng/1
svoc
2-Hydroxy-Benzaldehyde
0.0112
0.00136
0.00505
0.000613
ng/1
svoc
2-Mercaptobenzothiazole
0
0
0
0
ng/1
svoc
2-Methyl Tridecane
0.000154
0.0000187
0.0000694
8.42E-06
ng/1
svoc
2-Methyl-Benzaldehyde
0.00478
0.00058
0.00215
0.000261
ng/1
svoc
2-Methyl-Dodecane
0.0000384
4.66E-06
0.0000172
2.09E-06
ng/1
svoc
2-Methylnaphthalene
0.036
0.00437
0.0162
0.00196
ng/1
svoc
2-Naphthalenecarboxaldehyde
0.000799
0.0000969
0.000359
0.0000436
ng/1
svoc
3,4-Dimethylphenol
1.36E-06
1.65E-07
6.12E-07
7.43E-08
ng/1
svoc
3,5-Dimethyl-Benzaldehyde
1.76E-06
2.14E-07
7.92E-07
9.62E-08
ng/1
svoc
3,6-Dimethylundecane
5.59E-07
6.79E-08
2.51E-07
3.05E-08
ng/1
svoc
3-Methyl-Benzaldehyde
0.0102
0.00123
0.00456
0.000554
ng/1
svoc
3-Methyl-Benzaldehyde (01)
0.0114
0.00138
0.00512
0.000621
ng/1
svoc
3-Methyl-butanoic acid
0.0000917
0.0000111
0.0000412
0.000005
ng/1
svoc
3-Methyl-Phenanthrene
0.00476
0.000578
0.00214
0.00026
ng/1
G-49
-------
Proposed Draft
Appendix G.7: Recreational Harbor Vessel Scenarios Instantaneous Concentration in the
Hypothetical Harbor
Vn:il\lc
Model
*«i riiiirin-
l~ Mild l()
Mmlrl
IS Mild 211
MimK'I
21 mid 2.«
Mmlrl
22 iinil 24
1 nil-
svoc
3-Methylphenol
0.000532
0.0000646
0.000239
0.000029
ng/i
svoc
3-Phenyl-2-Propenal
0.000359
0.0000436
0.000162
0.0000196
ng/i
svoc
4,4-Dimethylbiphenyl
0.00495
0.000601
0.00222
0.00027
Hg/1
svoc
4-Hydroxy-2-Butanone
0.00554
0.000673
0.00249
0.000302
Hg/1
svoc
4-Methyl-1 H-Benzotriazole
5.58E-06
6.77E-07
2.51E-06
3.04E-07
Hg/1
svoc
4-METHYL-PENTANOIC ACID
0.0000611
7.42E-06
0.0000275
3.34E-06
Hg/1
svoc
5-Butyl-Hexadecane
4.31E-07
5.23 E-08
1.94E-07
2.35E-08
Hg/1
svoc
5-Methyl-2-(l-methyl)-Cyclohexanol
7.58E-06
9.2E-07
3.41E-06
4.13E-07
Hg/1
svoc
9-Methyl-9H-Fluorene
0.00509
0.000618
0.00229
0.000278
Hg/1
svoc
Acenaphthylene
0.00275
0.000334
0.00124
0.00015
ng/1
svoc
Acetophenone
0.0000146
1.77E-06
6.55E-06
7.94E-07
ng/1
svoc
Benzeneacetic Acid
0.0000467
5.66E-06
0.000021
2.55E-06
ng/1
svoc
Benzenepropanoic Acid
0.0000515
6.25E-06
0.0000231
2.81E-06
ng/1
svoc
Benzothiazole
0.0000239
0.0000029
0.0000107
0.0000013
ng/1
svoc
Benzyl alcohol
0.0000152
1.85E-06
6.84E-06
8.3E-07
ng/1
svoc
Biphenyl
0.00273
0.000331
0.00122
0.000149
ng/1
svoc
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
0.00114
0.000138
0.000511
0.000062
ng/1
svoc
Caprolactam
0.0000273
3.32E-06
0.0000123
1.49E-06
ng/1
svoc
Cholesterol
0.000142
0.0000172
0.0000636
7.72E-06
ng/1
svoc
Cyclic octaatomic sulfur
0.012
0.00146
0.00539
0.000654
ng/1
svoc
Cyclodecane
0.0000795
9.64E-06
0.0000357
4.33E-06
ng/1
svoc
Cyclododecane
0.0000296
3.59E-06
0.0000133
1.61E-06
ng/1
svoc
Cyclotetradecane
0.0000158
1.92E-06
7.12E-06
8.64E-07
ng/1
svoc
Diethene Glycol Monododecyl Ether
0.0000299
3.62E-06
0.0000134
1.63E-06
ng/1
svoc
Dimethyl phthalate
0.0000651
0.0000079
0.0000292
3.55E-06
ng/1
svoc
Di-n-butyl phthalate
0.00139
0.000168
0.000624
0.0000757
Hg/1
svoc
Di-n-octyl phthalate
0.0000571
6.94E-06
0.0000257
3.12E-06
Hg/1
svoc
Disopropylene glycol
8.81E-06
1.07E-06
3.96E-06
4.8E-07
Hg/1
svoc
Dodecane
3.21E-07
3.9E-08
1.44E-07
1.75E-08
Hg/1
svoc
Dodecanoic acid
0.0000217
2.63E-06
9.74E-06
1.18E-06
Hg/1
svoc
Eicosane
0.0243
0.00295
0.0109
0.00133
Hg/1
svoc
Ethanol, 2,2-oxybis-
0.000974
0.000118
0.000438
0.0000531
Hg/1
svoc
Ethanol, 2-Butoxy
0.00619
0.000752
0.00278
0.000338
Hg/1
svoc
Fluorene
0.00294
0.000356
0.00132
0.00016
ng/1
svoc
Heneicosane
0.00744
0.000903
0.00334
0.000406
ng/1
svoc
Heptadecane
0.0429
0.00521
0.0193
0.00234
ng/1
svoc
Hexaethylene Glycol Monododecyl
0.0000182
2.21E-06
8.17E-06
9.91E-07
ng/1
svoc
Hexaethylene Glycol Monododecyl (01)
7.28E-06
8.84E-07
3.27E-06
3.97E-07
ng/1
svoc
Hexaethylene Glycol Monododecyl (02)
0.0000023
2.79E-07
1.03E-06
1.25E-07
ng/1
svoc
Hexagol
0.0000105
1.27E-06
4.71E-06
5.72E-07
ng/1
svoc
Indane
0.000858
0.000104
0.000386
0.0000468
ng/1
svoc
Indole
0.000257
0.0000313
0.000116
0.000014
ng/1
svoc
Isopropylbenzene-4,methyl-1
0
0
0
0
ng/1
svoc
m-Cresol
0.0000245
2.98E-06
0.000011
1.34E-06
ng/1
svoc
Naphthalene
0.0133
0.00161
0.00596
0.000723
ng/1
svoc
N-Butyl-Benzenesulfonamide
0.000003
3.64E-07
1.35E-06
1.64E-07
ng/1
svoc
n-Hexadecane
0.0408
0.00495
0.0183
0.00223
ng/1
svoc
n-Hexadecanoic acid
0.0000153
1.86E-06
6.89E-06
8.36E-07
ng/1
svoc
Nonadecane
0.033
0.00401
0.0148
0.0018
ng/1
G-50
-------
Proposed Draft
Appendix G.7: Recreational Harbor Vessel Scenarios Instantaneous Concentration in the
Hypothetical Harbor
Vn:il\lc
Model
*«i riiiirin-
l~ Mild l()
Mmlrl
IS Mild 211
MimK'I
21 mid 2.«
Mmlrl
22 iinil 24
1 nil-
svoc
Nonadecane (01)
0.0102
0.00124
0.00459
0.000557
ng/i
svoc
Nonanoic Acid
0.00805
0.000977
0.00362
0.000439
ng/i
svoc
n-Pentadecane
0.0316
0.00383
0.0142
0.00172
Hg/1
svoc
n-Tetradecane
0.039
0.00474
0.0175
0.00213
Hg/1
svoc
o-Cresol
0.00457
0.000555
0.00205
0.000249
Hg/1
svoc
Octadecane
0.0093
0.00113
0.00418
0.000508
Hg/1
svoc
p-Cresol
0.0136
0.00165
0.00612
0.000743
Hg/1
svoc
Pentacosane
0.000266
0.0000323
0.000119
0.0000145
Hg/1
svoc
Pentaethene Glycol Monododecyl Ether
2.46E-06
2.98E-07
0.0000011
1.34E-07
Hg/1
svoc
Pentaethene Glycol Monododecyl Ether (01)
0.000018
2.18E-06
8.07E-06
9.8E-07
ng/1
svoc
Pentaethene Glycol Monododecyl Ether (02)
0.0000354
4.29E-06
0.0000159
1.93E-06
ng/1
svoc
Phenanthrene
0.0025
0.000303
0.00112
0.000136
ng/1
svoc
Phenol
0.0279
0.00339
0.0126
0.00152
ng/1
svoc
Phthalic acid, isobutyl octyl ester
0.0000102
1.24E-06
0.0000046
5.58E-07
ng/1
svoc
Pyrene
0.000125
0.0000151
0.0000561
6.81E-06
ng/1
svoc
Sulfur
0.00346
0.00042
0.00156
0.000189
ng/1
svoc
Tetraethylene glycol monododecyl ether
0.0000183
2.22E-06
8.23E-06
9.99E-07
ng/1
svoc
Triethyl phosphate
0.0000422
5.13E-06
0.000019
0.0000023
ng/1
svoc
Triethylene glycol monododecyl ether
0.0000272
0.0000033
0.0000122
1.48E-06
ng/1
svoc
Unknown SVOC
0.00742
0.0009
0.00333
0.000405
ng/1
svoc
Unknown SVOC (01)
0.00681
0.000826
0.00306
0.000371
ng/1
svoc
Unknown SVOC (02)
0.0072
0.000874
0.00324
0.000393
ng/1
svoc
Unknown SVOC (03)
0.000288
0.0000349
0.000129
0.0000157
ng/1
svoc
Unknown SVOC (04)
0.000295
0.0000359
0.000133
0.0000161
ng/1
svoc
Unknown SVOC (05)
0.000166
0.0000202
0.0000748
9.08E-06
ng/1
svoc
Unknown SVOC (06)
0.000103
0.0000125
0.0000464
5.63E-06
Hg/1
svoc
Unknown SVOC (07)
0.00154
0.000187
0.000692
0.000084
Hg/1
G-51
-------
Proposed Draft
Appendix H
List of Preparers and Contributors
Ryan Albert, Office of Water, EPA
Robin Danesi, Office of Water, EPA
Erin Saylor, Office of Water, EPA
Sean Ramach, EPA Region 5
Marcus Zobrist, Office of Water, EPA
Jill Bloom, Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances
Brian Rappoli, Office of Water, EPA
Renee Searafoss, EPA Region 3
Tyler Linton, Great Lakes Environmental Center
Doug Endicott, Great Lakes Environmental Center
Keith Taulbee, Great Lakes Environmental Center
Michelle Moore, Great Lakes Environmental Center
Debra Falatko, Eastern Research Group
Mark Briggs, Eastern Research Group
Kathleen Wu, Eastern Research Group
Kristi Bibb, Eastern Research Group
Isabelle Morin, Abt Associates
Lauren Tikusis, Abt Associates
Laboratory Support and Analyses:
John Bourbon, EPA Region 2
John Lee, EPA Region 2
Maria Javier, EPA Region 2
William Rickert, EPA Region 2
Renee Lettieri, EPA Region 2
Jamie Hale, EPA Region 2
Deborah Kay, EPA Region 2
Cindy Caporale, EPA Region 3
Sue Warner, EPA Region 3
Dave Russell, EPA Region 3
Robin Costas, EPA Region 3
Joe Dorsey, EPA Region 3
John Curry, EPA Region 3
Ron Altman, EPA Region 3
Norman Fritsche, EPA Region 3
Kevin Poff, EPA Region 3
Kevin Martin, EPA Region 3
Larry Zintec, EPA Region 5
H-l
------- |