Hydro Blasting Waste Water Treatment

8/2/2019 Hydro Blasting Waste Water Treatment

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/hydro-blasting-waste-water-treatment 1/121

FINAL REPORT

F I L T R AT I ON O F R U N O F F F R O M P R E S S U R E

WASHING VESSEL HULL IN DRYDOCK

Prepared by

National Steel and Shipbuilding Company

(NASSCO)

ForNATIONAL STEEL AND SHIPBUILDING COMPAN Y

Harbor Drive and 28th StreetPost Office Box 85278

San Diego, California 92186-5278

In BehaIf of

SNAME SPC PANEL SP-1

FACILITIES AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS

Under the

NATIONAL SHIPBUILDING RESEARCH PROGRAM(NSRP)

September 1995

Task No . N1-93-8



Report Documentation PageForm Approved

OMB No. 0704-0188

Public reporting burden for the collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and

maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information,

including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington

VA 22202-4302. Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to a penalty for failing t o comply with a collection of information if it

does not display a currently valid OMB control number.

1. REPORT DATE

SEP 1995

2. REPORT TYPE

N/A

3. DATES COVERED

-

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

Filtration of Runoff From Pressure Washing Vessel Hull in Drydock

5a. CONTRACT NUMBER

5b. GRANT NUMBER

5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER

6. AUTHOR(S) 5d. PROJECT NUMBER

5e. TASK NUMBER

5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)

Naval Surface Warfare Center CD Code 2230 - Design Integration Tools

Bldg 192 Room 128 9500 MacArthur Blvd Bethesda, MD 20817-5700

8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION

REPORT NUMBER

9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSOR/MONITOR’S ACRONYM(S)

11. SPONSOR/MONITOR’S REPORT

NUMBER(S)

12. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

Approved for public release, distribution unlimited

13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

14. ABSTRACT

15. SUBJECT TERMS

16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF: 17. LIMITATION OFABSTRACT

SAR

18. NUMBEROF PAGES

120

19a. NAME OFRESPONSIBLE PERSON

a. REPORT

unclassified

b. ABSTRACT

unclassified

c. THIS PAGE

unclassified

Standard Form 298 (Rev. 8-98)

Prescribed by ANSI Std Z39-18



FOREWORD

This guide on filtration of runoff from pressure washing vessel hulls in dry dock wasproduced for the National Shipbuilding Research Program as a cooperative cost sharingeffort between the U.S. Navy and National Steel and Shipbuilding Company

(NASSCO). The Facility an d Environ menta l Effects Pan el (SP-1) of the Society of Nava lArchitects and Marine Engineers (SNAME) Ship Prod uction Comm ittee spon sored th eproject und er the technical direction of Lynw ood Haumschilt of NASSCO, NSRPProgram Manager.

This guid e was prep ared by N ASSCO w ith Mr. John Martin acting as Project Managerand Ms. Brooke Davis as author of the guide.

NASSCO than ks the following individ ua ls and their organizations for providing infor-mation and comm ents for this guide.

Dana Austin of Southwest Marine, Inc.John Kirkland of Electric Boat



OBJECTIVES

The primary objective of this project is to characterize the contamination to help decidethe level of treatability that w ill be required in the rem oval of the contam inants. Fromthis information, a determination w as mad e about w hat types of wastewater p retreat-

ment technologies are available to meet the required discharge iimits (NPDES orPOTW) for hydroblasting op erations on a h ull surface at a sh ipyard dry d ock facility.The objective to th is project w as to id entify the m ost p ractical and cost-effective m eth-ods to filter or treat runoff w ater from hyd roblasting to meet Federal and State waterqua lity requiremen ts or local Public Ow ned Treatment Works (POTW) stand ards.



PROJECT OVERVIEW

The app roach of this project w as to first characterize the run off that contains the sourcesof contam ination such as p aint solids, sediment, spent grit blast, sea grow th, and toxicmetals. The chemical and physical parameters of the material were defined to decide

the sources that had the greatest impact on the water quality. From this data, a determi-nation was m ade abou t w hich selected p retreatment technologies wou ld best meet therequired treatment limits for the discharge of hydroblast wastewater.

Since shipyards vary as to facility layout and facility requirements, shipyards around thecountry were surveyed to determine requirements and whether any pretreatment tech-nology is successfully being applied to their hydroblast wastewater. Past and currentresearch projects were reviewed to provide information for this project. All pretreatmenttechnologies identified for this project have undergone a cost comparison in terms of equipment requirements, operating and maintenance, and facility requirements.

Vendor and water treatment specialists were contacted to assist in the proper identifica-tion of treatmen t technologies. NASSCO and Southwest Marine were used as proto-type shipyards to identify and characterize the runoff contaminants.

The developm ent ph ases of the guide are sum marized below:

Research and collect information on treatment technology

Contact and interview shipyard and vendors

Select a prototype shipyard to identify and characterize the runoff contaminants

From analysis of contaminants, identify possible filtering technologies

Identify method to contain pressure runoff for storage and treatment

Select pretreatment technologies for shipyards including cost and benefits

Develop a final guidance document.

Shipyar ds shou ld benefit from th is stud y by im prov ing their ma nagem ent of w aste-w ater generated du ring hyd roblastng op erations. Shipyard s can use this report to h elp

to simp lify design and estimate implementation costs of pretreatment. Add itionally,the cost analysis p ortion of this report is d esigned to result in actual cost savings toshipyards by providing information on test data, design evaluation, and available treat-ment technologies.



SECTION

TABLE OF CON TENTS

PAGE

1

2

3

4

5

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

SUMMARY OF LITERATURE REVIEW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

2.1 Introd uction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

2.2 Regulatory Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42.3 Containm ent Techn ologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

2.4 Hydroblast Wastewater Characterization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

2.4.1 “Characterization and Treatability of HydroblastWstewater," Alexander. K.,1988 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

2.4.2 Maritime Industrial Waste Project, Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle Water Pollution Control Department, 1992 . . . . . . 10

2.4.3 Development Document for Proposed Effluent LimitationGuidelines and Standards for the Shipbuilding and RepairIndustry: Drydock Point Source Category . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

2.5 Current Pretreatment Technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

2.5.1 Definition of Pretreatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152.5.2 “Characterization and Treatability of Hydroblast

Wastewater," Alexmder. K.,1988 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162.5.3 Maritim e Ind ustr ial Waste Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...182.5.4 Development Docurnent for Proposed Best Management

Practices for the Shipbuilding and Repair Industry: DrydockPoint Source Category . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

SHIPYARD SURVEY RESULTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

3.1 Methodology.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213.2 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213.3 Shipyard Applicability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

VENDOR SURVEY RESULTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

4.1 Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 274.2 Resu lts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

HYDROBLAST WASTEWATER CHARACTERIZATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35



5.15.25.3

5.4

5.5

5.6

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35Selection of the Prototype Shipyard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35Sources of Contaminants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

5.3.1 Process Constraints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 365.3.2 Discussion of Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

Sampling Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

5.4.1 Sample Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 395.4.2 Quality Assu rance (QA)/ Qu ality Control (QC)Procedures ....... 40

Analytical Strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

Analytical Results and Interpretation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

6 CONTAINMENT METHODS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

6.1 Conta inm ent Meth od s Cu rren tly Used by Shipyard s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

6.1.16.1.26.1.36.1.4

Floating DryDock Containment Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48Graving Dock Containment Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49Building Ways Containment Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49Marine Railway Containment Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

6.2 Contain m ent Meth od s Used at N ASSCO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

6.2.1 Float ig Dr y D ock . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

6.2.2 Graving Dock . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 516.2.3 Building Ways . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

7 TREATMENT SYSTEM REQUIREMEN TS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

7.1 Regulatory Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 547.2 Technical Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 557.3 Wastewater Treatment Technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

7.3.17.3.2

7.3.37.3.47.3.57.3.67.3.7

Gravity Separation-Clarification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55Filtration-Plate and Frame Pressure. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

Filtration with Mono- and Multi-Media . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57Precoat Filtration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59Membrane Filtration-Ultrafiltration. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..’ . . . . . . . . . . 59Requirements for Selection of Treatment Technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59Ad ditional Criter ia to Evaluate. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60



8

9

10

11

12

ANALYSIS OF SELECTED PRETREATMENT METHODS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

8.1 Metiodology of Selected Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 618.2 Collection of Hydroblast Wastewater. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 618.3 Cost Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

8.3.1 Treatment Technology Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 638.3.2 Clarification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 638.3.3 Plate and Frame Pressure Filtration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 648.3.4 Multi-Media Filtration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 658.3.5 Ultrafiltration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

8.4 Ben efit An alysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68

BIBLIOGRA PH Y . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72

DEFINITIONS OF TERMS AND ACRON YMS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73

APPENDIX A

APPENDIX B

APPENDIX C

APPENDIX D

APPENDIX E

SHIPYARD HYDROBLAST WASTEWASTER SURVEY

VENDOR SURVEY

REGULATORY OVERVIEW

ANALYTICAL RESULTS

MARITIME INDUSTRIAL WASTE PROJECT-DESCRIPTIONS OFPILOT-TESTED TREATMENT SYSTEMS



Table 2-1Figure 2-1Table 2-2Table 3-1

Table 3-2Table 4-1Table 4-2Figure 5-1Table 5-1Figure 5-2Table 5-2Figure 6-1Figure 6-2Figure 6-3Figure 7-1

Figure 7-2Figure 7-3Figure 7-4Table 8-1Table 8-2Table 8-3Table 8-4Table 8-5Table 8-6Table 8-7Table 8-8

LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES

Hyd roblast Wastew ater Ch aracterizations from Three Stud ies . . . . . . . . . 8Kenn eth Alexan der’s Sam pling M eth od . . . . . .- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...11Selected Analytical Data From the Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13Shipyard s Resp on d ing to Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...22

Survey Response Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...23Ven d or Survey Mailin g List . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...28Vendor Products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .............-.....31Sources and Fates of Waste Streams in Dry Docks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38Potential Chemical Contaminants in Run-off Wastewater . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41Analytical Strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ............ ... .. ..42Phase I Sarnp ling Pr ogram An alytical Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...-...44NASSCO's Float ing Dry Dock Collection System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50NASSCO's Grav ing Dock Collection System . . - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...52Ways Floor Collection System.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...53Clarification System Diagram.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...56.

Plate an d Fram e Pressu re Filtration System Diagram . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...56Top-to-Bottom Multi-Media Filtration System Diagram. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57Ultrafiltra tion System Diagram . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...59Cap ital Costs for Clafication System s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63Op eration and Main tenance Costs for Clar ification Systems . . . . . . . . ...64Cap ital Cost for Platean d Fram e Pressu re Filtration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...64Operation and Maintenance Costs for Plate and Frame Pressure Filtration 65Capital Costs for Multi-Media Filtration Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65Op eration an d Maintenan ce Costs for Mu lti-Media Filtration Systems ..66Capital Costs for Ultiafiltration Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66Operation and Maintenance Costs for Ultrafiltration Systems . . . . . . ...66

APPENDICES

A Shipyard SurveyB Vendor SurveyC R e g u l a t o r y O v e r v i e wD Analytical ResultsE Maritime Ind ustrial Waste Project Descriptiom of Pilot-tested Treatment Systems



SECTION 1

INTRODUCTION

The wastewater generated from pressure washing (hydroblasting) vessel hulls in a dryd ock facility u sually requ ires treatm ent before d ischarge to th e local Public Ow nedTreatment Works (POTW) or d irectly into the receiving w aters. Treatm ent oftenrequires that the w astewater contaminants, such as p aint solids, sea grow th, spent gritblast, and sediment be removed before discharge. This requirement is addressed underthe facility’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) or local POTWpermit, which allows certain discharges from drydocking facilities at a shipyard. Theperm it may or may not give specific details about w hat d ischarge limits or level of tech-nology is to be used in the treatment of the wastewater.

Therefore, many shipyards have developed their own methods and treatment systems,

such as settling tanks, filtration systems, and chemical treatment methods that theybelieve most economically meet the requirements for treatment of this waste effluent.Sometimes insufficient research was performed to characterize the waste stream andidentify the treatment technologies that best meet the needs of the shipyard facility.This ap proach may not resu lt in th e m ost cost-effective treatment op tion to m eet therequired N PDES/ POTW perm it discharge limits. Without p roper characterization of the w aste stream, man y shipyard s are encountering p roblems w ith p roper identifica-tion of treatment technologies to best meet the general needs of the shipyard and simul-taneously satisfy the regulatory requ irements. Ambiguities in the regu latory require-men ts fur ther comp licate d etermination of the app ropriate treatment techn ology. Thisstud y identifies hyd roblasting waste streams and contam inants and surveys potential

primary technologies that would facilitate shipyards’ abilities to comply with regula-tions in the most cost-effective manner.

This study is being conducted in two phases to survey technologies for each treatmentph ase. Phase I of the w ater filtration stud y pr ovides information on em erging newtechnologies and existing p retreatment technology, and prov ides cost versu s benefitcomparisons of filtration equipm ent. Phase II of the stud y w ill expan d th e scop e of Phase I by identifying all waste streams and finding the most cost-effective treatmentsystem for particular waste streams, especially heavy metals such as Tributyltin (TBT),Lead, Zinc, and Copper. Additionally, Phase II of the study will find the most effective

m eans of d isposal, concentrating on recycling the contained w ater. This recyclingwould enable shipyards to reduce their final disposable quantity of waste. Phase II willconclud e w ith the d esign of a closed loop treatmen t system w hich h as certain adv an-tages over a batch system. The Phase II study will provide shipyards with an opportu-nity to compare treatment technologies and select the most practical and cost-effectivetreatment systems to m eet curren t and future env ironmentally permissible dischargelimits.

The first step in selecting a pretreatment technology is to characterize the hydroblast

1



waste streams. This characterization was achieved throu gh a literature review, a ship-yard survey and samp ling even ts on-site at NASSCO. Optimal filter sizing was foun dthrough literature review, shipyard survey, and field tests performed on-site atNASSCO. The most effective means of containing pressure wash runoff was determinedusing a shipyard survey and literature review. Finally, cost/ benefit analyses were done

on the cost of filtration versus collection and d isposal of the ru noff for selected pretreat-

ment technologies.

2



SECTION 2

SUMMARY OF LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Introduction

The objective of the literature search is to compare physical and chemical charac-terization of hyd roblast w astewater d one in p ast stud ies, and to identify contain-ment and treatment technologies for hydroblast discharges in dry docks. Thescope of the literatu re search is to review characterization of hyd roblast waste-water, collection, containment, and pretreatment technologies.

The literature review was primarily conducted at Scripps Institute of Oceanograph y and the Science and Engineering Library at the Un iversity of California at San Diego (UCSD). Other sources include industry contacts, publi-cations, and on-line technical databases, such as the Defense TechnicalInform ation Center (DTIC), and the EPA Pollution Preven tion InformationClearinghouse Data Base. DTIC contains not only Navy documents, but all mili-tary documents.

The Aquatic Sciences & Fisheries Abstracts Data Base at Scripps Library consistsof two floppy discs containing abstracts from 1977-1993. Both discs weresearched with no resulting documents.

The UCSD on-line comp u ter system , Melvyl, at the Science and EngineeringLibrary., contains several wastewater treatment textbooks for engineers and tech-nical m arine journ al articles on th e treatm ent of h yd roblast wastew ater. (SeeReferences and Bibliography sections.) Little literature was found regardingcontainment, collection, and characterization of dry dock waste streams.

Industry sources include shipyard survey participants and NASSCO's in-house experi-ence. Industrial sources produced the most valuable documents

1. “Characterization and Treatability of Hydroblast Wastewater," Alexander, K.,Master of Science in Engineering Thesis, Department of Civil Engineering,University of Wash ington, Seattle, 1988.

2. “Mar itim e Ind ustrial Waste Project,” Municipality of Metropolitan SeattleWater Pollution Control Department, 1992.

3. “Focus Series on Wastew ater Treatment,” Chem ical Engineering Prog ress,September 1992.

4 “Un derstan d ing Water Pollution Laws Governing Chem ical Process Indu stryPlants," Davenport, G.

3



5

6.

7.

8.

“Developing An Effective Wastewater Treatment Strategy,” McLaughlin, L.

“Packaged Wastewater Treatment: An Overview,” Johnson, D., PlantEngineering, June 17,1993.

“To Build or N ot To Bu ild ,” Horton , C., Ind ustrial Wastew ater, Jun e/ Ju ly

1993.

“Environmen tal Pollution Control: Regulatory Considera tions and A Case InPoint," Ross, J., Journal of Ship Production, August 1993.

The reference lists from these docum ents w ere checked and ad ditional literatureobtained. (See References and Bibliography). Additionally, a University of Washington Reference Librarian w as contacted to find ou t w hether an y othertheses had been written on the subject of hydroblasting. The librarian was notable to find any oth er theses on th is subject.

The DTIC search did not result in any documents that would be useful for thisproject. One report was found on the EPA data base, “Development Documentfor Proposed Best Managem ent Practices for the Shipbu ild ing and Repa irIndustry: Drydocks Point Source Category” Effluent Guidelines Division, Officeof Water and Hazardous Materials, U.S.E.P.A., Washington, D. C., December1979.

In conclusion, few research d ocumen ts were d iscovered from the literaturereview. This may be due to a lack of research on this topic since, until recently,hydroblast wastewater was not highly regulated. However, with recent regula-tory focus on dry dock discharges, the topic is receiving more attention.

2.2 Regulatory Background

The general trend in the regu latory climate is toward increased regu lations withincreased focus on industry’s operational practices. The Clean Water Act and theClean Air Act, and increased local regulatory influences point toward increasedrequirements and costs for shipyards. Thus, it is important for shipyards to beproactive to ensure comp liance and optimize management and costs throu ghgood engineering strategies and designs.

Some useful documents for regulatory guidance information are:

1.

2.

Code of Federal Regulations 40, Sections 101,301,304,306,307, 402, 501.(8)

“Development Document for Proposed Best Management Practices for theShipbuilding and Repair Industry: Drydocks Point Source Category,”USEPA, 1979, (33) and



3. “Understand the Water-pollution Laws Governing CPI Plants, Focus serieson Wastewater Treatment,” Davenport, G., 1992. (10)

For a sum mary of these docum ents, the reader may turn to App endix C for aregulatory overview of the Clean Water Act.

Besides the literatu re above, the W ashington Maritime Ind ustrial Waste Project(23), the California Porter-Cologne Water Qu ality Control Act (4), and several

BMP documents prepared by individual states (Bibliography (6), (9), (29), and(37)) showed trends in the regulatory climate for shipyards. Pending environ-mental government regulation is being proposed that will affect shipyards in the”future under the new Federal Categorical Standard called Metal Products andMachinery (Phase II) proposed regulation due to be released in 1996-1997.

As regulators gain knowledge of industry operations and as environmental tech-nology evolves, regulatory bodies will increase the amount and scope of regula-tion and continu e to delegate responsibility to local agencies. Althou gh sh ip-

yards must comply with federal regulations, shipyards are increasingly affectedby compliance with state and local regulatory requirements and discharge limits.For example, in San Diego, California, the State Water Resources Board (SWRB),Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), and City of San DiegoMetropolitan Industrial Waste Program (MIWP) are the state and local waterquality agencies. The Porter-Cologne Water Qu ality Control A ct is California’sversion of the Clean Water Act, and sh ipyard s discharging to sewer mu st comp lywith local MIWP discharge limits, besides state National Pollutant DischargeElimination System (NPDES) permit limits. In conclusion, prudent shipyardswill review their own state and local regulations and evaluate the regulationsagainst their treatment needs.

The delegation of responsibility by th e EPA to the state level has resulted in somecases of different standards for various shipyards. In California, as in manyother states, the responsibility for N PDES perm its has also been delegated to thestate by the EPA. As a r esult, some states allow sh ipyard s to d ischarge certaindry dock waste streams into receiving waters, and in some states regulationsprohibit certain dry dock discharges into receiving water. The MaritimeIndu strial Waste Project is an examp le of the trend towar d local agencies beinginvolved in providing regulatory oversight in evaluating of effluent dischargeroutes and the treatment technology required to m eet the discharge limits.

“To date, wastewater discharges from most repair facilities havenot been regulated directly. This condition is about to change withthe development of new NPDES wastewater permits for thesefacilities by the Washington State Department of Ecology(Ecology). . .Though its individual NPDES permits and the generalpermit for boatyards are currently being developed, Ecology hasestablished a policy of eliminating the d ischarge of un treated

5



pressure-washing w astewater to receiving w aters and a policyrequiring establishment of best management practices at thesefacilities to prevent the contamination of storm water dischargedfrom these facilities.”

Best management practices (BMPs) were initially to be established by the USEPA

as part of the NPDES permit. (See Appendix C, Roman Numeral X) In the“Developm ent Docum ent for Proposed Efflu ent Lim itations Guidelines andStandards for the Shipbuilding and Repair Industry,” the conclusion is that,

“This industry is such that numerical effluent limitations areimpractical and difficult to apply in a way that could be monitored;therefore, guidance is provided for controlling wastewater pollu-tant discharges that require that best management requirements beapplied.”

Ultimately BMI's, along with the NPDES permits, were delegated to the states to

develop and most states in tu rn required shipyard s to develop BMPs and pro-vide BIP training for employees. Several BMP documents prepared by individ-ual states (Bibliography (5); (7), (25), (33)) are examples of this trend.

Finally, shipyards must remember that any discharge of any pollutant into navi-gable waters is unlawful, unless that discharge complies with the Clean WaterAct. It is critical that shipyards educate employees in this respect.

2.3 Containment Technologies

Three reports contained information on containment designs and dry dock oper-

ations1.

2.

3.

“Environmental Pollution Control: Regulatory Considerations and A Case InPoint,” Ross, J., 1993.

“Development Document for Proposed Best Management Practices for theShipbuilding and Repair Industry Drydock Point Source Category” USEPA,1979.

“Maritime Industrial Waste Project,” Mu nicipality of Metrop olitan SeattleWater Pollution Control Department, 1992.

The first article presents a d escription of app roaches to dry dock environm entalpr otection by fou r facilities: N ASSCO, South w est Marine, and tw o N avy d ocks,ARDM 5 and AFDB 10. The m ain point r egard ing containmen t on d ry d ocks isthat “th e N avy’s new est floating d ry d ock, AFDB 10, will incorpor ate environ-mental pollution control features begun at the inception of its design. . .(Significantly). . the two N avy floaters have eliminated abrasive blasting to

6



eliminate particulate containment curtains. Hydroblasting is used instead.” TheUSEPA document gives a good description of dry dock operations, but does notspecifically ad dress containment.

The Maritim e Ind ustrial Waste Project had the m ost useful informa tion regard -ing containment technologies. The report states,

“With the exception of a sloped concrete pad similar to those usedat truck washing facilities, there are no established collection sys-tem d esigns. The design of collection systems for p ressure w ash-ing operations is depend ent on the type of hau l-out u sed. Thedeck and sidewalls of most dry docks, for example, already pro-vide the basic containment structure required. The project identi-fied the following components as essential to an effective waste-water collection system:

Water imp ervious d eck, pad , or other h aul-out su rface. The su rface

should slope to a collection sump or trench.Ad equate w ash area to contain all d irect and d eflected w ater sprayfrom the wash operation.Containment walls, berms, or raised surfaces that allow wastewater tobe collected during washing within the containment area.A collection sum p, trench, or dep ressed sur face area located w ithin thecontainm ent area. The sum p is used to hold a sump pu mp and tostore wastewater tem porarily.”

The report included containm ent d esigns for cranes, travel lifts, hailer hauls, drydocks, and mar ine railw ays. As discussed in Section 3, shipyard survey results

universally accepted containment designs consisting of a trench and sedimenta-tion sum p . Containment designs are d iscussed in detail in Section 6. The trenchand sump are located on the side and end of the floating dry dock, respectively.The hydroblast wastewater falls directly from the hull to the deck and run s off tothe trench an d sum p. The exception to this design is a crad le liner that is gener-ally used for smaller vessels, which completely segregates the hydroblast waste-water from all other waste streams.

2.4 Hydroblast Wastewater Characterization

The three documents that discussed hydroblast wastewater characterization are:

1. “Characterization and Treatability of Hydroblast Wastewater,” Alexander, K.,1988.

2. “Maritime Ind ustrial Waste Project,” Municipality of Metropolitan SeattleWater Pollution Control Department, 1992.

7



3. “Developm ent Docum ent for Proposed Best Managem ent Practices for theShipbuilding and Repair Industry: Drydock Point Source Category,” USEPA,1979.

The, “Development Document for Proposed Effluent Limitations Guidelines andStand ards for the Shipbu ilding and Repair Ind ustry,” includ es characterization

of, “drainage pump discharges,” of which hydroblast wastewater is a majorcomponent. Selected analytical data from the three reports is shown in Table 2-1.The data represents composite highs and lows of several samples for each study.The characterization studies from each of the above documents will be discussedin turn below.

STUDY SAMPLE TYPE P H TURBIDIIY TSS VSS SOLIDS COD O&G Cd Cr Cu Ni Pb Zn Sn As

METRO TOTAL AVG 7.23 176 261 NA 11.00 3202 20 0.01 0.1 12.5 0.05 0.34 6.6 0.34 0.2

FILTERED AVG NA NA NA NA NA 60 NA 0.034 0.007 0.8 0.01 0.07 0.6 0.05 <DL

TOTAL LOW 6.1 3 22 NA 0.70 140 9.9 0.022 0006 0.12 0.01 0.03 0.22 0.06 0.07

TOTAL HIGH 8.7 840 693 NA 50.00 740 31 0.05 27 49 0.42 1.7 33 1.6 0.3

FILTERED LOW NA NA NA NA NA 20 NA 0.033 0.007 0.11 0.01 0.04 0.05 0.05 <DL

FILTERED HIGH NA NA NA NA NA 200 NA O.006 0.007 3.6 0.01 0.1 2.1 0.05 <DL

THESIS SPRAY LOW 6.3 195 195 80 1.00 160 NA 0.01 0.05 5.6 0.03 0.24 2.6 0 NA

SPRAY HIGH 6.4 1500 150) 850 30.00 1200 NA 0.55 0,19 62.2 0.37 1.27 84.8 o NA

FALL LOW 6.2 350 350 20 .070 148 NA 0.002 0.05 8.1 0.03 027 3.3 0 NA

FALL HIGH 6.4 1670 1670 630 14.00 2523 NA 0.08 0.31 139.8 0.44 1.26 26.8 1.0 NA

TOTAL LOW 6.8 2 2 NA <0.10 NA NA <0.01 <0.025 <0.01 <0.22 1.2 <0.02 0.01 <0.01

TOTAL HIGH 8.8 19312 19312 NA 200.00 NA 61 <0.1 10 60.0 60.0 13 39.0 5.0 0.19

FILTERED LOW NA NA NA NA NA NA NA <0.01 <0.03 <0.04 <O.2 <0.01 <0.02 <0.01 <0.01

EPA FILTERED HIGH NA NA NA NA NA NA NA <0.1 .79 4..5 <0.2 0.5 4.1 30 0.15

Table 2-1: Hydroblast Wastewater Characterizations from Three Studies

Characterizing hydroblast wastewater that has been completely isolated is muchsimpler than characterizing hydroblast wastewater mixed with other wastes.For most shipyards, hydroblast wastewater is not completely segregated; itmixes with other contaminants of concern as it runs off toward a sump.Sam pling p oints range from th e source (hu ll) to the sum p, and for treatability

stud ies of the composite waste stream, samp ling as close to the influent p oint tothe system as possible yields more relevant data. However, for characterizinghyd roblast wastewater it is more accur ate to samp le the water as it ricochets off the hull.

Additionally sample collection techniques, including sampling equipment anddecontamination techniques, significantly influence a sample’s integrity, and can

8



render characterization studies incomparable. Finally, analytical data must beinterpreted with respect to the analytical method s used ; therefore different ana -lytical techniques m ay p revent comp arisons of characterization da ta. TheStand ard Method s for Solid Waste (SW846) by the EPA set the general stand ardsfor sample preservation and analytical techniques. Characterization data withinthe literature m ust be examined first for the goal of the characterization stu dy ,

segregation of waste streams during dry dock operations, sample collection tech-niques, and analytical methods before comparing analytical results.

2.4.1 “Chara cterization and Treatability of H yd roblast Wastew ater,” Alexand er, K.,1988

Kenneth Alexander’s master’s thesis titled, “Characterization and Treatability of Hydroblast Wastewater," contains the most complete characterization of hydrob-last wastewater. His basic research is the d efining bod y of work on th is topic.The goal of the stud y is specifically to characterize hyd roblast wastew ater. Hisobservations, similar to the author’s experiences, are recounted below

“On-site inspections and investigations were cond ucted. . .tobecome familiar w ith the operations an d layouts of these facilitiesto d evelop a samp ling strategy and a sense of the p hysical con-straints that m ust be considered if on-site treatmen t p rocesses areto be carried out.”

The report goes onto d iscuss d ry d ock operations d uring h ydroblasting at vari-ous shipyards. Efforts were made to collect information on hydroblast equip-ment used, the duration of water application, and the volumetric flow rates fromthe hydroblast unit. Other information collected during sampling included the

exact type of paint being blasted off, especially whether the antifoulant was cop-per or tin based, and th e hull material.

no easy method of samp ling the h ydroblast w ater was evident.Water w as observed to ricochet off the hu ll surface in all d irections,even when attempts were made to deflect the spray to a specificlocation. The larger the ship, the m ore widespread the d ispersionof the spray. “However, it appeared that the largest volume of water ran down the hull to the lowest point, usually the keel,before falling off the boat. Another significant portion of water ranpartially down the hull surface before dripping off at various inter-

med iate locations between th e point of application and the lower-most point on the hull. Spray was generated in all directions.These observations suggested a simp le and consistent samp lingstrategy would involve capturing water from all three sources anddetecting their respective contributions to the effluent q uality andquantity.

“Small grab samples of the hydroblast water were taken and found9



to contain small paint chips and , primar ily, algae. From the largersteel hu lled vessels, occasiona l large p aint chips, rust flakes, andbarnacles were found . Generally, wh ether the water w as from alarge commercial vessel or a recreational craft, the visible solid par-ticles carried in th e water were quite small (<1 mm) and w ell dis-persed in the water. Normally no large chunks, long filaments, and

agglomerated masses were observed.”

Alexander’s sampling method was to place plastic trays (5-8 gallons) in each of the th ree zones id entified : fall, d rip, and spr ay. (See Figure 2-1) “Act each site(shipyard ) a small sam ple of the w ash w ater w as collected d irectly from thehyd roblast nozzle for separate laboratory analysis. When th e hyd roblasting w ascompleted, the water was transferred to 5-gallon plastic buckets, covered, andlabeled to describe the water’s origin. When practicable, the buckets were

return ed to the laboratory and if not analyzed immed iately, they were placed ina 4-degree Celsius cooler. The sampling trays were washed off immediately withwater, inside and out, and thoroughly w iped clean with p aper towels at the end

of each sam pling. Later, they w ere washed w ith soap and w ater, rinsed thor-ough ly, and dr ied off with cloth towels.”

“Variations in water characteristics within the sampling zones were significant insome cases, but not so in others.” There did not appear to be any correlationsbetween concentrations of analytical parameters and samp ling zones. Variationsin TSS, and COD w ere significant, bu t d id n ot correlate to zones. Total suspend edsolids were generally above 700 m g/ L. COD w as norm ally above 800 m g/ L.“soluble COD results were qu ite low (<50 mg/ L) for all samp les. . .(which) sup

-

ported the original hyp othesis that little dissolved m atter was p resent in the water.Furtherm ore, it su ggested th at TBT, if present, was u nlikely to be in the soluble

phase to a significant extent because of TBT’s high octanol-water partition coeffi-cient and the presence of high TSS. . .Six metals were regularly found in concentra-tions greater than 1 mg/ L in both types of wash waters (recreational and comm er-cial vessels). These six metals w ere alum inum , copper, iron, manganese, lead, an dzinc.” The h ighest concentrations of metals in th e w ash w ater w ere copp er, zinc,and iron. “The oth er six m etals-barium , chrom ium , cad m ium , nickel, tin, andvanadium -were found in concentrations w ell und er 1 mg/ L, although in a fewinstances tin reached or exceeded 1 mg/ L.” The thesis also conclud ed from theanalytical results that “tin leached from the paint much faster than the lead and. .that organotin had leached from the paint in significant quantities. . .like tin,chromium was leached from the paint at a higher rate than other metals.”

2.4.2 Maritime Ind ustrial Waste Project, Mu nicipality of Metropolitan Seattle WaterPollution Control Dep artm ent, 1992

The goal of the Maritime Industrial Waste Project was to, “characterize maritimewastewater and identify technologies that would help the industry meet thestandard.” A teleph one conversation w ith Cynth ia Wellner of Metrop olitan

10



Layout of Sampling Trays used to Collect Hydrob last Water and d esignation of “Spray",, “Drip ” and “Fall” Zones Usedin Hyd roblast Water Characterization

Figure 2-1: Kenneth Alexander's Sampling Method

11



revealed the samp les w ere collected from the su mp of the d ry d ock and thatsome vessels’ paint systems contained TBT antifoulants, although it w as notnoted which ones. The Maritime Industrial Waste Project characterization doesnot d iscuss operations concurrent to hyd roblasting on the dry d ock during sam-pling, nor does it state what kind of containment was in place during hydrob-lasting, the hydroblast equipment used, the paint system blasted off, or the sam-

ple collection technique used. No background (nozzle or harbor) samples werecollected. Since the sample was placed directly into the sampling bottle, the pos-sibility for cross-contamination was reduced.

The report discusses the visual characteristics of hydroblast wastewater as fol-lows; “if the paint on the hu ll being washed is blistered and peeling, the amou ntof solids removed during washing increases substantially.” It further states, “thesmall particles of paint removed by washing also become interspersed with largerparticles of marine growth such as fragmented seaweed and barnacles.

Selected analytical data from the project is shown in Table 2-2. Significant results.

were that “total and dissolved fractions of field samples confirmed that the high-est percentage of metal contam ination in w astewater w as contributed by sus-pended solids. Dissolved metal contamination was low. Based on the averagevalues for total and d issolved m etals in...shipyar d w astewater showed that sus-pended solids accounted for 94% of the copper, 80% of the lead, and 91% of thezinc...The su rvey d ata showed th e average values of COD in hull-washingwastewater to be of the same amount as COD in dilute sewage wastewater. Aswith metals, COD is contributed mostly by wastewater suspended solids, com-pr ising 80% of shipyard w astewater COD . . .Only a few organic com pou nd s,such as phthalates and polynuclear aromatics (PAHs), were found at low concen-tration levels-between 10 and 100 pp b-in the sam ples tested .” Phthalates are

more likely to originate from the gloves worn during sampling than from shiprepair operations. “Oil, grease, and regulated organic compounds were notdetermined to be problem contaminants in pressure-washing wastewater.” TheMetro Project concluded that “in general, the average concentrations for copper,lead, and zinc in pressure washing w astew ater are near or higher than sewerlimit concentrations and from 1 to 2,000 times higher than NPDES receivingwater limits, depending on the metal.”

The Maritime Ind ustrial Waste Project also did two par ticle-size/ settling experi-ments that related particle size as a function of settling time, to the concentrationof metals in wastewater. The results were, “particles less than 60 microns in

d iameter contribute about 80-90% of the copp er contamination in su spend edsolids. Particles less than 20 microns in diameter contribute about 50% of thecopper. . .The greatest percentage of wastewater suspended solids is less than 50microns in diameter. . .This finding is importan t since pa rticles of this size settleout of solution slowly, making simple settling an ineffective means of treat-ment.” Additionally these small particles, “tend to plug surface filters, such ascartridge and bag filters.”

12



ANALYTICAL UNITSI

TOTAL SAMPLEPARAMETER

NUMBER MINIMUM MAXIMUM AVERAGEOF SAMPLES (PPM) (PPM) (PPM)

(2) (3)

PH 39 39 6.1 8.7 7.23-

CONDUCTIVITY UMHOS/ CM 37 37 96 29,800 3,613

TURBIDITY (NTU) 37 37

SUSPENDED MG/ L 33 33SOLIDS

SETTLEABLE ML/ L 16 7SOLIDS

coo (4) MG/ L 18 18

CHROmE PP M 40 35 0.006 2.7 0.1

COPPER PP M 40 40 0.12 49 12.5

NICKEL PP M 40 32 0.01 0.42 0.05

LEAD PP M 40 28 0.03 1.7 0.34

ZINC PP M 40 40 0.22 33 6.6

TIN PP M 23 11 0.06 1.6 0.34

ARSENIC

FILTERED SAMPLE (1)1

NUMBER MINIMUM MAXIMUM AVERAGEOF SAMPLES (PPM) (PPM) (PPM)

(2) (3)

12 12 20 200 60

17 4 0.003 0.006 0.0041 7 1

10.007 0.007 0.007

I

17 17 I 0.05 21 0.6I

6 1 0.05 0.05 0.05

17 0

(1) Using a 0.45 micron filter

(2) Total number of samples anafyzed(3) Number of samples where values were atove detection fimits(4) Chemical oxygen demand

Table 2-2: Selected An alytical Data from the Project

2.4.3 Development Document for Proposed Effluent Limitation Guidelines andStandards for the Shipbuilding and Repair Industry Drydock Point SourceCategory

The goal of the EPA guidance docum ent was to characterize drainage d ischarges,although , “hull cleaning w aste was a m ajor comp onent (of ). . drainage w ater.”Recall that th e report w as w ritten in 1979 and it asserts that h yd roblasting is

rarely used , and that abrasive blasting is the universally accepted method . Today,as discussed in the next section, hydroblasting is much more commonly used,and the accepted method is to hydroblast for removal of marine growth and loosepaint, p rior to abrasive blasting to bare m etal. The report focused on d evelop-ment of BMPs for dry docks, and sought whether there was a difference in efflu-ent before versus after imp lemen ting BMPs. The rep ort conclud ed, “There is noap pa rent significant chan ge in Shipyar d B’s NPD ES m onitoring d ata d ur ing,

13



before, and after clean-up procedu res w ere initiated . It is, therefore, concludedthat th e natu re of the discharge is not condu cive to nu merical monitoring.” Thesame conclusion was reached for other shipyards’ effluent monitoring.

The report d iscusses sample collection techniques bu t d oes not d escribe visualcharacteristics of the sam ple. How ever, it d oes discuss in d epth the sources and

uses of water in d ry d ocks, including a d etailed d escription of which w astes fellto the dry d ock floor and cleanu p procedu res that occurred du ring sam pling.Selected analytical results shown in Table 2-1 are averages of samp ling at th reeshipyard s-A, B, and D. The sam ples were composites collected at th e d rainagepu mp discharge. Grab samp les of the harbor w ater were obtained at the time of flood ing for each o f the samp ling events. The report d id n ot d iscuss specificpaint systems contributing to drainage water during sampling.

The stud y show s that heavy metals w ere foun d m ostly in the insoluble form .The report concludes, “As in samples at other shipyards, discharge levels tendto be very low w ith rare ‘high’ valu es of certain p aram eters. It could not b e

established that dockside activities affect discharge levels. As with Shipyards Aand B, constituent levels remain constant through out. The results again lead tothe conclu sion th at the natu re of the d ischarge is not cond u cive to nu m ericalmonitoring.”

The report discussed the obstacles associated with conducting a sampling pro-gram of floating and graving docks. The obstacles listed are:

1.

2.

3.

4.

“The physical design and operation of a floating dry dock is not conducive toconducting an effective sampling program.”

“Because on ly total drainage discharges were mon itored on a d aily basis, itis difficult to attribute constitu ents and flows to an y ind ivid ual sou rce oroperation.”

“Insufficient documentation of sampling programs performed prior to thiscontract makes interpretation of previous monitoring questionable. By fail-ing to explain wh at shipyard op erations w ere in p rogress, w eather cond i-tions, floor cond itions, and especially analytical p rocedu res, interp retationand comparison of monitoring data is difficult.”

“The lack of a typical daily dock operation means that all data obtained isparticular to that specific day and is not necessarily representative of theusual dry dock dischrges.”

Leaching studies and sieve analysis were also performed. The leaching studieswere too inconsistent and unreliable to lead to conclusions. The sieve analysis isuseful because spent grit is often carried by hydroblast wastewater to a sump,and must be treated as an integral part of the waste stream. The sieve analyses

14



were condu cted on fresh grit (Black Beauty) and spent p aint and abrasive. "Thespent g rit and paint, w hich were collected follow ing a, ‘very light sand sweep ,’contained flakes and par ticles of antifouling an d p rimer p aints and bits of ironoxid es. The test results show that over 95% of the particles in each sample w eresand size and were retained in USA Standard Testing sieves numbered 10,40,60,and 140, mad e by Tyler Equipment Co., with the largest fraction retained in sieve

nu m ber 40. The u nsp ent grit par ticles were slightly larger an d the facets weresharper and more defined. The specific gravities of the two samples did not dif-fer sign ificantly. These sand-size p articles were read ily settleable.” Wh ile theparticle size results agree, the conclusion that these small particles are readilysettleable does not agree with the conclusion of the Maritime Industrial WasteProject, which asserts that they are not readily settleable.

2.5 Current Treatment Technologies

2.5.1 Definition of Pretreatment

Most of the literatu re does not define the distinction between p retreatm ent andtreatment, and the term pretreatm ent is generally not w ell defined since it isdefined d ifferently accord ing to the context in w hich it is used . In oth er word s,pretreatment is often d efined by th e user as any treatment that occurred beforehis receipt of the water. For example, CFR section 403.3 defines pretreatment as,

“The reduction of the amount of pollutants, the elimination of pol-lutants, or the alteration of the n atur e of pollutan t p roperties inwastewater before or instead of discharging or otherwise introduc-ing such p ollutants into a POTW. The redu ction or alteration maybe obtained by physical, chemical, or biological processes, process

changes or by oth er m eans, except as p rohibited b y Section 403.6(d).. Ap propr iate pretreatment techn ology includ es control equip -ment su ch as equ alization tan ks or facilities, for p rotection ag ainstsurges or slug loading that m ight interfere with or otherw ise beincompatible with the POTW. However, where wastewater from aregulated process is mixed in an equalization facility with unregu-lated w astewater or with wastewater from an other regulatedprocess, the effluen t from th e equalization facility m ust m eet anad justed pretreatment limit calculated in accordan ce with Section403.6(e).”

Most of the classic wastewater treatment textbooks are for mu nicipal w astewatertreatment and do not address industrial wastewater treatment. Perry’sHandbook for Chemical Engineers, Industrial Wastewater Management section,defines pretreatment as equalization, neutralization, grease and oil removal, andtoxic substance removal. Primary treatment is removal of suspended solids andinclud es screens, grit cham bers, gravity sedimen tation, and chemical precipita-tion. Perry’s defines second ary treatm ent as biological treatment that uses

15



flocculation and gravity sedimentation to remove colloidal soluble organics.Other texts define pretreatmen t as ph ysical separation, primary treatm ent aschemical separation, and secondary treatment as any advanced separation tech-nologies. All discussions of hydroblast wastewater treatment will be reviewedbelow because of the above ambiguities.

Documents containing information on current treatment technologies include:

1.

2.

3.

2.5.2.

“Characterization and Treatability of Hydroblast Wastewater,” Alexander, K.,1988.

“Maritime Industrial Waste Project,” Municipality of Metropolitan SeattleWater Pollution Control Department, 1992.

“Development Document for Proposed Best Management Practices for theShipbuilding and Repair Industry: Drydock Point Source Category,” USEPA,1979.1. EPA.

-

“Characterization and Treatability of Hydroblast Wastewater,” Alexander, K.,1988

The thesis related treatment studies and discussed potential treatment processeswhose selection is based on particle size. These are sedimentation, filtration,screening, and coagulation/ flocculation. The thesis addresses treatability of hyd roblast wastew ater following its characterization. Conclusions on th e treata-bility of hydroblast wastewater are:

1.

2.

3.

“Sedim entation d oes not ap pear to be an efficient treatm ent m ethod ... This is

du e to the large num ber of pa rticles that are p resent in the size rang e of lessthan 40 microns w here settling is unlikely to occu r. This is also affected bythe low density of the majority of the solids.”

“Screening is only effective as a p retreatm ent step because most of the p arti-cles are too sm all to be effectively screened out . How ever, screening d oesremove larger and more rigid p articles w here a higher p roportion of metalsare found. This shows that the paint chips are being screened out more effi-ciently than the other solids that seem to be p rimarily algae.”

“Sand filtration achieved 99% removal of total suspended solids, 9870remova l of chemical oxygen d eman d and 97+% removal of major m etals.H ow ever, effluent tu rbidites ranged from 23 to 45 and effluent su spend edsolids w ere about 15 mg/ L. Und esirable operating features such as frequentmed ia removal or backw ashing du e to rapid m edia clogging m ake it an ill-suited treatm ent m ethod for these high TSS waters. Tests with baffles to cap-tur e settleable solids inside the filter colum n show ed th at p re-settling of the

16



influent would still result in similar operational problems due to mediaclogging.

4. “Dual m edia (anthracite coal/ sand ) filters prod uce an effluent comp arable tothe slow sand filter, although slightly higher in turbidity and suspendedsolids. They are more favorable than slow sand filtration from an operationalstandpoint because their solids loading capacity is significantly higher andtheir med ia are easier to clean d uring backw ashing. Pretreatment steps su chas screening and chemical treatment w ith aluminu m sulfate (alum) ap peareffective at increasing the dual media filter’s ability to accumulate solids andthereby operate more efficiently.”

5. “Chemical treatment w ith alum p erforms better than an y treatment p rocessthat w as stu d ied. Redu ctions in total susp end ed solid s app roached 100%,chemical oxygen demand removal reached 99%, and soluble chemical oxygendem and w as as high as 71% within an op timum dose range of 60-197 mg/ L

alum and a p H of 7, regardless of the influent water characteristics.”

6 “The critical pa rticle size rang e tha t relates to treatm ents effective for these.w aters is 10-40 microns. This particle size ran ge h as a measu rable effect oneffluent turbidity. Thus the removal of 10-40 micron particles proved to be thecritical feature of successful treatment of hydroblasting waters.”

Conclusions on treatment alternatives are:

1.

2.

3.

“Of all the methods included in this study alum dosing in the range of 60-197mg/ L offers the h ighest level of treatment performance for on-site hyd roblast

w astewater treatm ent. A mixing an d settling tank w ou ld be a straightfor-ward design effort based on known water volumes and hull-washing sched-ules. However, this treatment has certain drawbacks including handling anddisposal of a large sludge v olume (comp ared to settling alone) and requiresgreater operator time, skill, and interest to be effective. Because iron saltsprod uce a smaller slud ge volume than alum, they should be considered in achemical treatment process.”

“More simplified treatment systems, such as a settling tank require less oper-ator time and skill and w ould be less costly to construct and m aintain, but a

lower qu ality treated effluent will result from such a scheme.”

“High rate direct filtration such as dual media granular filter may be a moredesirable treatment op tion w here lower TSS waters are generated in h ighervolumes and space limitations make large settling tanks impractical.However, backwash requirements for this process could generate water vol-umes w ell in excess of the original influent vo lum e. Backw ash w ater w ouldeventually requ ire separation of suspen ded solids thus introd ucing anothertreatment step into the overall process. Backwash requirements must be well

17



4.

understood before this process is implemented.”

“Disposing of the wastewater in the sanitary sewer system should be consid-ered as a treatment alternative, particularly when small wastewater volumessuch as those generated by a marina are involved.”

2.5.3 Maritime Industrial Waste Project

The project “investigated, pilot-tested, and recommended appropriate treatmenttechnologies.” App end ix F contains d escriptions of treatment systems that w erepilot-tested d uring the Maritime Ind ustrial Waste Project. Conclusions on w astewater treatment are:

1. “Treatment for the removal of suspen ded solids in pressure w ashing w aste-w ater lowers th e concentra tion of copp er, lead , and zinc to acceptab le levelsfor discharge to sanitary sewers.”

2. “Treatment for the removal of dissolved metals is required to lower the con-centration of copper, lead , and zinc to N PDES limits for d ischarges to receiv-ing waters. Treatment systems designed to remove dissolved metals werenot tested. Possible treatment m ethods for rem oval of dissolved metals arereverse osmosis, ion exchange, or distillation.”

3. “For two w astewater samp les analyzed, settling r etention requ ired m ore thaneight hours to settle enough wastewater suspended solids to come close tom eeting sewer d ischarge limits. Ord inary ph ysical settling by itself, there-fore, is not an effective method for producing treated effluent that will meet

sanitary sewer limits consistently. Enhanced physical settling systems usingsettling plates or tubes were not tested as stand-alone systems.”

The project’s conclusions from pilot testing systems are:

1.

2.

3.

4.

“of the 11 wastew ater treatmen t systems tested, all werecapable of treating wastewater to levels below Metro andsanitary sewer limits. Five systems used filtration and

determined to be.boatyard NPDESsix systems used

chemical flocculation as the main treatment process.”

“Except for ultrafiltration, filtration processes require settling or chemicalcoagulation of wastewater solids before filtration to avoid excessive filtermaintenance.”

“No tested treatment system was determined to be capable of treating waste-water to levels below the NPDES receiving water limits for boatyards or ship-yards.”

“Chemical batch treatment u sing a coagulant such as alum w as determined

18



to be the most adaptable and cost-effective treatment method for small boat-yards using 75 gallons of water or less per wash. Chemical and filtration sys-tems op erating either as batch or as continu ou s treatmen t are effective forlarger boatyards and shipyards. To avoid the n eed for high-volume treat-ment and holding tan ks, large shipyard s generating up to 15,000 gallons perday are adv ised to use a treatment system that operates in a continuou smode.”

5. “Bilge water poses a difficult problem for effective, consistent treatment. Thetreatability of bilge water to remove oil and grease is dep end ent on th e typeof materials released to the bilge or used to clean the bilge. Effective treat-m ent by oil/ w ater separation alone can only be successfu l if emu lsifyingchemicals are kep t from enter ing the bilge. Bilge w ater m ay requ ire severalstages of treatment and may not be practical on-site at all if bilge water is reg-ularly emulsified or contaminated with regulated organics.”

2.5.4 Development Document for Proposed Best Management Practices for theShipbu ilding and Repair Ind ustry: Drydock Point Source Category

A telephone survey of 38 shipyards and site visits to 7 facilities indicated thattreatm ent an d control techn ology curren tly in u se consists of, “(l) clean-up p ro-cedu res in the dock, and (2) control of w ater flow s with in the dock.” Clean-upwill not be d iscussed in this section, although clean u p significantly aids segrega-tion of waste streams in dry docks. The report found practices to be widely vari-able amon g shipyard s. The results showed , “wh ere control and segregation of water flows w ithin the docks are in u se or planned the objectives are:

10

2.

3.

To segregate sanitary waste, cooling water, industrial wastewaters, and leak-ages in order to comply with existing regulations governing sanitary wastes.

To comp ly with existing regulations governing oil spills and discharges.

To prevent transport of solids to the w aterway an d contact of w astew aterwith debris in the dry dock.”

The guidelines defined BMI's based on their findings, and specified that they beincorporated to the NPDES permit as “guidance in the development of a specificfacility plan. BMPs nu mbered 2,5,7, and 10 shou ld be considered on a case-by-case basis for yards in which wet blasting to remove paint or dry abrasive blast-ing does not occur, and BMP 10 does not apply to floating d ry d ocks.” Several of the BMPs focus on clean-up practices and some focus on waste segregation andmaintenance:

1. Control of large solid ma terials2. Control of blasting d ebris3. Oil, grease, and fuel spills

19



4.5.6.7.8.9.

Paint and solvent spillsAbrasive blasting debris (Graving Docks)Segregation of wastewater flows in dry docksContact between water and debrisMaintenance of gate seals and closureMaintenance of hoses, soil chu tes, and pip ing

10. Water blasting, hydroblasting, and water-cone abrasive blasting (GravingDocks)

The guidelines list the following treatment strategies for dry dock discharges:

1. Baffle arrang emen t for settling in th e d rainage system2. Contained absorbent in drainage discharge flow p ath3. Wire mesh in d rainage d ischarge flow p ath4. Ad ap tation of pontoon s for settling solids.

H ow ever, the gu idelines show that of the 30 shipyard s contacted, none u sed

these treatment methods. Further, Alexander’s thesis (1988) asserts that “inpractice, none of these methods had gained wide acceptance by the end of the1970s and the literature does not indicate arty research into the actual design andconstruction of such methods has taken place since the BMP guidance documentwas released.” It is p ossible that these techn iques have become m ore w idelyimplemented since 1988.

20



SECTION 3

SHIPYARD SURVEY RESULTS

3.1 Methodology

This section presents a summary of the information gathered from surveying 27shipyards. The objective of the shipyard survey is to determine what pretreat-ment, if any, is currently being used. Surveys were initially distributed at theN ational Shipbu ild ing Research Program SP-1 Panel m eeting d u ring October 19-21, 1993, in Maine. Additionally, during the last quarter of 1993, a mailing listwas compiled from Waste Minimization Survey participants and NavalShipyards. The first step in surveying those shipyards on the mailing list was toteleph one the contacts and find out th eir interest in par ticipating in the p roject.A survey w as mailed to everyone wh o said they wou ld like to participate.Twenty-seven surveys were mailed and twenty shipyards responded—a 74%

response. Table 3-1 lists the shipyard s that were surveyed and respond ed.Appendix A shows a sample of the survey form mailed or faxed to participants.A summary of the survey responses from shipyards is presented in Table 3-2.

3.2 Results

Twelve of the tw enty responding shipyards reported that they d o hyd roblastingon u nd erwa ter hu lls-even of the shipyard s doing the blasting in-hou se, four of the shipyards using subcontractors, and one shipyard using a combination of both employees and subcontractors. This is in contrast to the USEPA,“Developm ent Docum ent for Proposed Efflu ent Lim itations Guid elines and

Standards for the Shipbuilding and Repair Industry Drydocks Point SourceCategory,” w ritten in 1979, which states, “The almost un iversally p referredmethod of prepar ing steel sur face for app lication of a fresh pa int system for salt-

water immersion is abrasive blasting. . .Hydroblasting is rarely used in shipyardoperations.” The 1992 Maritime Industrial Waste Project shipyard survey of shipyards in the Puget Sound area reported that eight out of twenty shipyards,or 36%, do pressure washing. The long term trend appears to be toward hydrob-lasting, and in particular, in-house hyd roblasting as op posed to subcontractors.Cur rent shipyard pr actice is to scam p off m arine grow th, hyd roblast hu ll toremove remaining marine growth and loose paint, and abrasive blast to whitemetal. One might anticipate that in the future shipyards will tend toward higher

pressure (>15,000 psi) recycling hydroblast units as a substitution for abrasiveblasting. These units are currently used in the aerospace industry; however, theyare very expensive (range $50,000 to greater than $100,000). In the future the costof these un its shou ld d ecrease as more comp anies offer them and as salesincrease. The reason for this trend may be that the cost of containm ent and dis-posal is much higher for abrasive blasting than for hydroblasting. Additionally,hyd roblasting h as redu ced r isk of worker exposure since the water contains the

2 1



SHIP YARDS SURVEYEDHYDROBLAST TREATING HYDROBLAST

UNDERWATER HULLS WASTEWATER IN-HOUSE

ATLANTIC MARINE DRYDOCK

AVONDALE

BATH IRON WORKS

BAY ClTY MARINE, INC.CASCADE GENERAL, INC.

CONTiNENTAL MARITIME

GD/ELECTRIC BOAT DIVISION

HON OLULU SHIPYARD, INC.

INGALLS SHIPBUILDING

INTERMARINE, INC.

LAKE UNION DRYDOCK

MARITIME MARINE CORP.

METRO MACHINE

NASSCO

NEWPORT NEWS SHIPBUILDING

NORSHIPCO

SOUTHWEST MARINE

TACOMA BOATBUILDING CO.

TODD PACIFIC, SEATTLE

WEST STATE, INC.

TOTALS 12 8NO TE 20 PARTICIPAN TS/17 SHIPYARDS SUR VEYED 100%= 74%

TabLe 3-1: Ship yards Respon din g to Survey

toxins, and hydroblasting has superior operator safety.

For eight of these shipyards, hydroblasting operations generated more than100,000 gallons of wastewater per year. It is notable that these results do notagree with the Maritime Indu strial Waste Project repor t wh ich says that “w aste-water generation at shipyards averages about 120,000 gallons per year.” The sur-vey average w as ap proximately 846,000 gallons p er year, and app ears w idely

variable, depen ding on shipyard operational practices. The amou nt of waste-w ater generated dep ends on d egree of w aste segregation and the amou nt of hyd roblasting. Twenty -five percent of th e shipy ard s generate less than 100,000gallons/ year, 25% generate between 100,000 and 500,000 gallons/ year, 17% gen-erate between 500,000 and 1,000,000 gallons per year, and 25% generate greaterthan 1,000,000 gallons per year. (One shipyard’s volume was not available.)

22



Tab le 3-2: Survey Response Summary

The m ost com m on h yd roblast wastew ater characteristic is paint chips (11 ship-yard s), followed by m arine grow th (9 shipyard s), and grit blast (5-shipyar ds).When abrasive blasting and hyd roblasting occur concurren tly blast med ia canbecome entrained in the hyd roblast waste stream as the hyd roblast wastewaterruns off along the deck. Thus the wastewater must be treated for the aboveconstituents.

Only five of the twelve shipyards that do hydroblasting on underwater hullscontain the h ydroblast wastewater (one shipyard contains organotin containinghydroblast wastewater on the rare occasions that organotin is on a vessel). Threeshipyards are in the process of designing containment and treatment systems.All of the shipy ard s that contain the w ater (except on e) d o so by m eans of atrench located on the end of the floating d ry d ock that directs the w ater to asump. The only exception to this is the use of temporary darns by one shipyard,

23



whose situation is complicated by a sectionalized dock.

The same five shipyard s that contain the water are the only shipyard s curren tlytreating h u ll hyd roblast wastewater. Four of the five shipyard s that contain an dtreat the water, discharge to the sewer. (The fifth discharges to the ocean.) Onlyone shipyard trucks wastewater to a pr ivate ind ustrial waste treatment facility.

It is notable that some shipyard s that did not d o hyd roblasting on hu lls or con-tain the water do treat other process waters. In total, ten shipyards do some typeof treatment on some type of processed wastewater.

Not all the shipyards listed their sewer limits in the survey, so there was not acomplete data set for analysis. However, one important observation is that thelimits are w idely variable among shipyard s. For examp le, copp er limits rangedfrom 5.8 ppb to 8 ppm and zinc limits ranged from 190 ppb to 10 pp m. Copp erand zinc were the most regulated parameters (eight shipyards), followed bynickel, chromium , and lead (seven shipyards), then cadm ium an d oil and gr ease(six shipyard s), then p H and silver (five shipyard s), cyanid e (four shipyard s),

and arsenic and Total Toxic Organics (TTO) (three shipyards). Although no cor-relation could be foun d between sewer limits and containm ent and treatment, itapp ears that the long term trend is toward lower limits, du e to higher analyticaltechnology enabling lower detection limits, and containment and treatment.One explanation for this is that the EPA is mandating more stringent limits onPOTW S and receiving waters for discharges, and POTWS are passing along thesestricter requirements to shipyards.

The cost per gallon to treat the wastewater was not consistently reported, but forthe reported values, the cost/ gallon ranged from $.04-$1.75 (Since only comp os-ite costs were given in th e shipyard surv ey, the accuracy of this range is not

known). Three of the shipyards reported that the testing phase of their processwas very expensive, up to $100,000. Four shipyards have achieved costs lessthan $.15/ gallon, and these shipyards all have simple treatment schemes consist-ing of some combination of settling tanks, oily water separators, flocculants, andfiltration systems. It is important to remember that discharge limitations varywidely from shipyard to shipyard . The three shipyards that reported the highestcosts are experimenting w ith new treatmen t techn ologies, and it is the testingcosts that are the p rimary cost com pon ent. All three of these shipyard s haveexperienced discrepanaeis between the stated capabilities of the technologies andthe actual performance capabilities under testing conditions.

For all of the shipyar ds, oil/ w ater separation is accomp lished using settlingtanks, some with weir systems, or an oily water separator, and metals removal isaccomplished by filtration, flocculation, ion exchange, or absorption. One ship-yard emp loys sand filters and none use strainers or other p refiltering technolo-gies. Filtering was more often used as a finishing step in the treatment train. Sixof the shipyards are developing future containment and treatment strategies.

24



The next few paragraphs discuss treatment of hydroblast wastewater by variousshipyard s. Only one shipyard r outes the water to a barge for oil/ water separa-tion to occur, and then d ischarges to the river. All the other shipyard s use somecombination of settling tanks and filtration, flocculation, or ion exchange.

The shipyard w ith the lowest cost of hyd roblast man agement (<$.01/ gal) has a

unique system dedicated to hydroblast wastewater treatment that was designedin-hou se. The system is very simp le, consisting of only a d irty water su m p, aflocculation chemical tank, a pre-mix tank, a mixing tank, and a 2,000-gallon set-tling tank, from which the clean water is pumped to the sewer.

NASSCO, with the second lowest cost, purchased a turn-key system from Jalbert& Associates and it has worked quite well. The cost to treat water is $.04/ gallon.The system consists of settling tanks, an oily water separator, and a dissolved airflotation unit to remove remaining metals and other solids.

One shipyard currently does not treat hull hydroblast wastewater, but d oes treat

internal and open deck hydroblast wastewater. The shipyard typically providestw o levels of p retreatm ent. The first level consists of settling in sp ecial tankswith a three-stage weir dam. The second level consists of flocculent additives toremove the solid m etals. Und er design is a two-tank system w ith a mou nted 50gpm pump with a filtration package that will allow recycling the water with zerod ischarge. This shipyard has investigated m any treatment op tions with variousvend ors. Many of these tests proved the claims regard ing various p rocesses tobe false under working conditions. For example, the shipyard investigated anew technology that used a clay base flocculent that completely encapsulatedthe suspended wastes. This wou ld have allowed for the waste prod uct to betreated as clean dirt and disposed of in a standard dump box at the same rate

and risk as solid sanitary waste. This system was claimed capable of treating10,000 gallons in 30 minutes. Then the liquid could have been reused as clean.The only waste generated w ould have been the solids generated by the floccu-lent at a rate of two pou nd s of waste per 10,000-gallon tank. The new techn olo-gy failed during testing, and the shipyard is still assessing its treatment options.It is recomm ended that shipyard s screen prod ucts by requ iring d emonstrationsusing the shipyards’ wastewater at a pilot scale.

Another shipyard located in Florida is only requ ired to collect hydroblast watercontaining org anotin. It is collected in a tank w here the w ater is evaporated .How ever, they pay to transport their other processed wastes to an outside indus-trial treatmeni plint.

Still another shipyard, under part per trillion discharge limit requirements, isexperimenting w ith sand filters followed by resins to remov e copp er and trib-uty ltin. How ever, this has been very expensive for them at $30/ lb. for the resins.The shipyard does not segregate their hydroblast water from other wastestreams, resulting in m illions of gallons requiring treatment.

25



II3.3 Shipyard Applicability

The ship rep air ind ustry gen erates hun d reds of thousand s of gallons of over-board and other p rocess wastewater, and with the arrival of stricter regulations,shipyards have begun on-site wastewater treatment. As analytical detection lim-its get lower, m un icipalities are lowering th eir d ischarge limits. In ad d ition,

transportation and disposal companies are an expensive option. The surveyshows that the trend for shipyards is to treat wastewater in-house to reducecosts, and several shipyard s w ere observed treating wastewater. It is becomingm ore cost efficient for shipyard s to perform w astewater treatm ent. It m ust bestated that th e variable of cost of treatment d epend s on the treating technologyused and how the wastewater is handled within the shipyard. Ultimately eachshipyard must evaluate the individual needs in their area and evaluate the realtreatment cost per gallon.

26



SECTION 4

VENDOR SURVEY RESULTS

4.1 Methodology

This section presents a summary of the information gathered from surveying 126vend ors. The objective of the vend or su rvey is to identify wh at currently avail-able pretreatment technologies can be applied to hydroblast wastewater treat-ment. The survey mailing list was compiled from the 1993 ChemicalEngineering Buyer’s Guide, 1993 Pollution Equipment News Buyer’s Guide, andthe 1993 Pollution Engineering Buyer’s Guide. Oth er bu yer’s gu ides that werenot used, but are valuable references include the 1993-1994 EnvironmentalManagement Sourcebook and the 1993 Plant Engineering Product SupplierGuide. Subjects such as screens, filters, and wastewater treatment wereresearched and a survey was sent to all listed companies. It should be empha-

sized that there are far too many companies to include all of them in the survey.This shows the competitive nature of the wastewater treatment market. Surveyswere mailed w ithout p rior telephon e notification about the p roject, which maypar tially account for the low retu rn. One hu nd red tw enty-six surveys weremailed and 20 responses were received. Another eight surveys were returned inthe mail due to a changed add ress. Table 4-1 lists the comp anies surveyed, andTable 42 shows vendor products. Appendix B contains the vend or survey.

4.2 Results

The w astewater treatment ind ustry is very comp etitive and there are hu nd reds

of comp anies offering many p rod ucts for many ap plications. The method usedfor a particular application depends on the volumetric flow rate, physical charac-teristics, and concentrations of the influent and the cost-effectiveness of themethod and equipment. Wastewater treatment methods are d iscussed in d epthin Section 8.1.

Survey results are limited in interpretation by the nonuniformity of responsesand the mu ltitud e of produ ct types. For examp le, the respond er varied from aSales Representative to the Vice-President of Marketing, to the President of thecompan y. Each respond er’s p erspective is reflected in h is answers, and createsvariability in the emphasis and completeness of the answers. Further, the bias

inherent in responses du e to the respon d er’s desire to position his prod uct wellwith respect to other survey responses mu st be considered . As mentionedabove, there are many technologies and compan ies aroun d th e coun try and th esurvey represents only a sampling of the wastewater treatment equipment sup-pliers and equipment currently on the market. It is difficult to draw conclusionsfrom the results, and instead of a vendor survey result matrix, a vendor productmatrix was prepared as Table 4-2.

27







ICOMPANIES SURVEYED

TETKO. INC.THAMES TECHNOLOGY, INC.

THROOP GEORGE L CO.

TIGG CORP..

TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES

UNITED STATES FILTER CORP.UNITEO STATES FILTER CORP.

LANCY SYSTEMS

UNOCAL UNIPURE

UNIVERSAL PROCESS EOUIP.

UNITED SENSORS

VULCAN IRONWORK, INC.

WASTATES CORBON, INC.

WESTECH ENGINEERING

WESTERN FILETER CO.

WILDEN PUMP AND ENGINEERING

COMPANY

WIESMANN ENGINEERING INC.

YOUNG INDUSTRIES, INC.

ZEMARC CORP.

ZENON WATER SYSTEMS. INC.

ZIMPRO PASSAVANT

ADDRESS

333 S. HIGHLAND AVENUE

849E. DALLAS STREET

P.O. BOX 92405

P.O.BOX 11661

P.O. BOX 730 POPULAR ROAD

12442 E. PUTTMAN STREET181 THOM HILL ROAD

1511 E. ORANGETHORPE

P.O. BOX 338

38 C. OTIS STREET

8-18 W. MARKET ST.,MELLON BAR

2133 LEO AVENUE

P.O.B0x65068

P.O. Box 16323

22069 VAN VUREN STSREET

P.O.BOX 10037

PAINTER STREET,P.O. BOX 30

224 G4SPAR AVENUE

845 BARRINGTON CT.

301 MILITARY ROAD

ClTY, STATE, ZIP

BRIARCLIFF MANOR. NY 10510

GRAPEVINE.TX 76051

PASADENA CA 91109-2405

PITTS BURGH. PA 15223

HONEYBROOK. PA 19344-0730

WHIITLER. CA 90602WARRENDALE. PA 15086-00443

FULLERTON.CA 92631

ROOSEVELT. NJ 08555

WEST BABYLON. NY 11704

WILKES BARRE. PA 18711

LOS ANGELES. CA 90040

SALET LAKE CITY. UT 84115

OENVER CO 80216-0323

COLTON. CA 92324

LARGO, FL 35643

MUNCY. PA 17756

LOS ANGELES. CA 90040

BURLINGTON. ONT. CANADA.L7N3P3

ROTHSCHILD. Wl 54474

PHONENO.

(914) 941-7767

[817)329-8360

[818) 769-0285(412) 563-4300

(215) 273-2799

(310) 698-9414(412)772-0044

(714)525-9225

(609)4434545

(516) 253-0500(717) 822-3568

(213) 722-7500

(801) 265-1000

(303) 288-2617(714)422-1700

(813)535-4495

(717)546-3165

(213)721-5598

(416) 639-6320

(715) 359-7211

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YESYES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

SURVEYRESPONSERECEIVED

NO

NO

NO

YES

YES

NONO

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

YES

NO

NO

NO

NO

YES

NO

YES

RECEIVEDBACK IN

THE MAIL

YES

Table 4-1(3): Vendor Survey Mailing List (Cont.)

Until the mid-1970s, many companies were oriented toward municipal waste-w ater treatment. It is imp ortant to learn from the vend or if the equip men t isdesigned for or can be applied to indu strial w astewater treatment. Due to thevast am oun t of prod ucts on th e mar ket, it is critical for the eng ineer to be com-pletely aware of the ap plications, characteristics, and constraints. Another obv i-ous bu t imp ortant conclusion is that th ere are no comp anies specializing in con-tainmen t system s for d ry d ocks; these mu st either be engineered in-house orsubcontracted to a construction com pan y. Som e comp anies offer containmen t

system comp onents such as subm ersible pum ps, level sensors, and storm w aterd iversion d evices. Finally comp anies are em erging w hich offer p rod ucts specifi-cally designed for shipyard hull wash water, such as Delta Pollution Control.

30











SECTION 5

HYDROBLAST WASTEWATER CH ARACTERIZATION

5.1 Introduction

The goal of characterization is to id entify hyd roblast ru n-off contam inan ts interms of source, size, and impact on discharge water quality to meet the require-ments of wastewater control au thorities. While the ultimate goal of any waste-water treatment system is to comply with regulations cost-effectively, achievingintermed iate goals is imp lied. An alyses shou ld be selected to assess treatabilityoptions. The best starting point for this is the process from which th e contam i-nants originate. The op tions for treatmen t are closely linked to the id iosyn-crasies of operational processes. It is imp ortant to d ecide w hether the d ischargeis continu ous or intermittent and whether there are any second ary constituen tspresent tha t may inh ibit a potential treatment technology.

Dry dock operations are by nature unsteady and the presence of secondary cont-aminan ts is highly prop ortional to waste segregation p ractices. It is not enou ghto analyze only for target com p oun d s that are regu lated, but also secondaryun regulated contam inants that may interfere with the treatmen t process andconstrain selection of the treatment method. Another benefit of analyzing theprocess is assessment of the potential for modifying the process to reduce, elimi-nate, or m odify the contam inants of concern. Finally, wastewater characteriza-tion in terms of flow rates and pattern s of flow to w astewater treatm ent opera-tions is critical.

5.2 Selection of the Prototype Shipyard

Requirements for the selection of the prototype shipyard are

1. The prototype shipyard must perform hydroblasting

2. The prototyp e shipy ard m ust be un d er discharge lim its that requ ire treat-ment of the wastewater before discharge

3. The prototyp e shipyard should have d ry d ock facilities that represent facili-ties at other shipyards, such as floating dry docks, ways, and graving docks.

NASSCO w as selected as th e prototyp e shipyard because, beyond m eeting th eabove requirements, shipyards in other states often must comply with the regu-lations California ship yard s are d ealing w ith already. For examp le, the SanDiego Bay is a “no discharge bay” and NASSCO has observed the new emphasison receiving w ater qu ality by th e EPA. Shipyard s in California are required tomanage storm water and process run-off water more proactively than shipyards

35



in other states. Regulations tend to migrate from California eastward, and wherethere is a concentration of shipyards, those shipyards are more highly regulated.In Virginia, for examp le, where th ere are several shipyards, the receiving w aterlimits for certain contaminants are in the part per billion range.

Anoth er reason for selecting N ASSCO is that N ASSCO hy d roblasts both rep air

and new construction ships. Further, both NASSCO and NASSCO's neighbor,Southwest Marine, which is a repair yard, hydroblast Navy and commercialships. Finally, the budget constraints of the project were such that extensivetravel was not feasible.

5.3 Sources of Contaminants

5.3.1 Process Constraints

Because hyd roblast w ater ricochets off the hu ll at high velocities, complete con-tainm ent is d ifficult. NASSCO h as not yet foun d a cost-effective w ay to contain

hyd roblast wastewater, so it falls to the d ock floor and becom es mixed w ithother ru n-off contam inants. The only existing techn ology that p reclud es thisproblem is a closed loop recycling system, which is very expensive. Shipyardoperations make it unavoidable for a variety of wastes to fall to the floor. Asconclud ed in th e 1979 EPA guidance docum ent, the app lication of BMPs m akesno quantitative difference in drainage water quality, although the report doesassert that segregation and r emov al of d ebris are the most practical method s forredu cing d ischarge of solids and w astewater. Furth er, the un steady natu re of dry dock operations, the d ifferent p aint systems of Navy and comm ercial ships,and the variability introduced by subcontractors makes one universal characteri-zation for all hydroblast wastewater unfeasible.

Each shipya rd sh ould cond uct its own characterization of w astewa ter generateddu ring the hyd roblast operations. A simp le approach to beginning a w astew atercharacterization is to collect tw o samples of each w astewa ter typ e. This methodenhances the representativeness of the study, although it is still not enough forthe sam ple to be statistically significant. For this stu d y sam ples w ere collectedfrom two N avy ships and tw o comm ercial ships. Com m ercial ships are morelikely to have a variety of paint systems, whereas concentrations of contaminantsin hydroblast wastewater from Navy ships will be fairly consistent from ship toship since the paint system is often the same. Clearly, there is much more thatcan be d one in characterizing hyd roblast wastew ater. In conclusion, the con-

straints of prod uction are such tha t the relevant an alysis for treatability is run off wastewater, and this project included preliminary characterization of bothhyd roblast wastewater and runoff water for the p rototype shipyard .

5.3.2 Discussion of Sources

The best w ay to develop a comp lete

36

characterization of a waste stream is by



performing a mass balance. Due to the broad ran ge and v ariable nature of drydock waste generation and multiple discharge pathways, this is extremely diffi-cult. Repa ir operations in the d ry d ock encomp ass man y activities and process-es. Since they are not the same for every vessel, a typical process in a floatingd ry d ock will be d escribed. A floating d ry d ock was selected for d escriptionsince it presents the most challenging contaiment and segregation problems.

A m aterial balance has been pr epared for the pr ototype shipyard ’s dry d ockoperations show ing sour ces and fates of waste streams. (See Figure 5-l). Thefive effluent waste streams are the best practical achievable segregation and fatesof the waste streams. The follow ing d escription is chronological beginning w itha clean deck and drydocking a vessel in a floating dry dock. Between every ves-sel, the dry dock floor is swep t and hosed as clean as possible.

The first steps after raising the dock are to attach scupper hoses to the vessel fordeballasting an d removing bilge water, and to fresh w ater wash the hu ll. Otherscup per hoses carry boiler blowd ow n, non contact cooling w ater, and collec-

tion/ holding/ transfer (CH T) w ater from the vessel. CHT water d ischarges tothe sewer, boiler blowd own to a w astewater treatment system, and noncontactcooling w ater to the receiving w ater. This is usually followed by scamp ing them arine growth , and the scam pers are follow ed by hyd roblasters. The marinegrowth falls to the dock floor and is swept up immediately and placed in desig-nated skip tu bs. H yd roblast w astewater containing rust inhibitor, abrad ed p aint,and residu al marine grow th falls to the floor. As the wastewa ter run s off, somesolid paint and marine growth settles on the dock floor. Sometimes, afterhyd roblasting is completed, the fuel, bilge, and ballast tanks are steam cleanedand then abrasive blasted. Any emu lsified w ash w ater containing fuel/ oil anddetergents is pumped through scupper hoses to holding tanks and then pumped

to either a tank truck or a barge or treatment facility. The blast media is trans-ported to storage facilities to await shipment to a recycle facility or a landfill.Often, hull abrasive blasting occurs simultaneously with interior tank abrasiveblasting. These operations are followed by painting the hull. Containment meth-ods include containment curtains on both forward and aft ends of the dock. Thed eck is cleaned d aily of solid debr is to simplify segregation. Small amou nts of fresh an d sp ent grit; fresh an d spent p aint, oil, grease, and fuel; and tank clean-ing water may be spilled or leaked onto the deck during the above processes.

Sources of contaminants in run off wastewater d epend on origin, flow rate p at-terns, chem istry, and mechanics as the water ru ns off the d ock. As discussed

above, besides the primary sources of contaminants to run-off, small amounts of miscellaneous wastes are part of runoff water. The two waste streams that pri-mar ily make u p ru noff w ater are hydroblast wastewater and storm w ater. Theprimary sources of contaminants to hydroblast wastewater are, as observed inthe shipyard survey, spent paint, spent grit, m arine growth, and rust inhibitor.Oil, grease, fuels, and detergents are suspected to be present in small quantitiesfrom spills and leaks. Visually, hydroblast wastewater appears from clear with

37



1. CHT Waler6. Boiler blowdOvm Waler

1 2 . F ir e C o n tr o l W a t er13.B C00olimg Water21. Bilge Waler22. Baukast Water

1. Potable Water2. H OSO Down Wate r3.

MUNICIPAL WATER SYSTEM ,Dust Scrubber WaterTank Cleaning Water

6 . Bo il e W a te r Ma ke upRaintallHydrostatic Relief

SALT OR FRESH 9 Gate leakageflooding Waler

DRY D0CK ACTIVITIES

12. F i lro Cont rol Wa te r13A COO IingWater

16. Marine Blola16. OH & Grease spillsf7.18. Structural Street19. Abras ive

20. Pa int

1. CHT Water CHT Waste Wayer Disposal4.

17.21. Bi!ge water

Ballest water22.s. Hydrotatic Relief

ompasating Bailst water

9. Infitttration10, Gale Leakage11. Oe .F looding Wale r1 2 . F ir e C o n tr o l

16.

16. Structural sleel19. Spent Abras ive20. Pa int

f/ gure 5-1: Sourcos and Fates of Waste Streams inDry Docks



large paint chips to d eep redd ish w ith paint sludge settled in the bottom. Sum pwater ap pears d ark brown w ith some wh ite flakes floating on the top. When aw ater samp le was collected from th e sum p, it contained a fair am oun t of solidsconsisting mostly of abrasive blast media, with some filament shaped marinegrowth, algae, human hair, and trash.

5.4 Samp ling Methodology

5.4.1 Sample Collection

A reproducible sampling method is required for two reasons. First, samplingevents vary w idely in layout and hyd roblasting op erational method s, and sec-ond , to redu ce variability in analytical results du e to the samp ling m ethod . Thebest samp ling strategy for hyd roblast wastew ater is the one in the master’s the-sis by Kenneth Alexander (See Section 2.5.2). His strategy was generally incor-porated into the sampling plan discussed below.

Sam pling occurred from Aug ust 1993 to Janu ary 1994. A total of three h yd rob-last w astewater samp les, six tank w astewater samp les, and tw o sum p ru noff water samples were collected from five vessels. One barnacle sample and onesum p solid sample were collected.

It is important to obtain a characterization that represents the entire hydroblast-ing operation, so the hull was divided into 12 zones and attempts were made tosamp le from several zones. Samp les were collected in 10-gallon Tupp erwarestorage totes with dimensions 24” x 16” x 8“. One or two totes were placed inone of the zones. If two totes were in the same sample zone, a composite samplewas m ade in the field by the following th ree-step p rocess: first, agitating the tote

to pr eserve the susp ension of particles in the sam ple so that a representativesample would be collected; second, quickly decanting the water from one tote tofill half the sample bottle; and third, agitating and filling the rest of the bottlefrom the second tote. There w as never m ore than on e operator p er zone, so riskof sample misidentification w as redu ced .

Efforts were made to ensure that hydroblasting methods were not altered by thepresence of samp ling, taking pr ecautions to avoid prolonged blasting in anygiven area to collect the samp le. This preserved the integrity of the sam ple. Thesampling trays were moved to follow the operator’s path and placed to collectthe maximu m am ount of water in a given zone.

Two liters of samp le were requ ired for analysis accord ing to the analytical strate-gy. After enough water was collected for one zone sample, the water was trans-ferred accord ing to the proced ure described above to one liter amber glass bot-tles, capped, and labeled to d escribe the samp le’s origin. Each sam ple waslabeled with the following information zone number, date, time, sampler’s ini-tials, and project name. Samp le labels were written in w aterproof ink and

39



affixed to th e samp le with clear tape to p revent contact w ith water. The tupper-w are containers w ere then w ashed w ith a two-step rinse: 1) tap w ater, and 2)deionized water, after each sample was collected.

One sam ple of the wash w ater was collected d irectly from the hydr oblast nozzlefor separate laboratory a nalysis for each ship. After labeling an d logging, the

sample bottles were placed in a 4-degree Celsius insulated cooler located on thefloating dr y d ock. Upon arr ival at the laboratory, the samp les were transferredto the laboratory’s refrigerated sample storage room.

Attemp ts were mad e to collect the following information at/ for each sam plingevent:

1.

2.3.4.

5.6.

Nam e and type of vesselHull materialApproximate time hydroblasting began and endedNumber of nozzles, nozzle volumetric flow rate, and pressure used

Approximate square footage blastedThe type of paint u sed in the last coat.

5.4.2 Qu ality Assurance (QA)/ Quality Control (QC) Procedu res

QA/ QC procedu res were set up in the field to redu ce the potential for cross-conta-mination. These procedures were designed to ensure sample collection and main-tenance would produce analytical results that were as accurate and representativeas possible. Chain of custody and record keeping procedures were carried outduring sampling activities. To prevent sample misidentification, each sample waslabeled according to the procedures discussed in section 5.4.1. The samples, which

were delivered to Analytical Chemists, Inc., in San Diego, California, on the sameday as collected, were received by Aalytical Chemists, Inc. personnel. The sam-ples w ere stored in a 4-degree refrigerator for p reservation.

Laboratory personnel receiving the samples verified that all samples on theaccompanying chain of custody were present. The person relinquishing andreceiving the samples signed the chain of custody form, noting the date and timeof the sample transfer on th e form. All chains of custod y w ere maintained in th eproject files.

5.5 Analytical Strategy

Samples were analyzed for the potential chemical constituents identified in Table5-1. The analytical strategy developed is shown in Figure 5-2 and is similar tothe an alytical strategy in Kenneth Alexand er’s thesis. The strategy is orientedtoward the pr imary d eterminants of the treatment techn ology that are chemicalcontaminants of concern and the size of particulate debris. Particle size is impor-tant because w ith large enough particles, gravitational settling m ay be th e only

40



required treatm ent. How ever, there is a tradeoff between equ ipment costs andholding costs since settling can take u p to tw o d ays. Nonsp ecific par am eterssuch as p H , chemical oxygen dem and (COD), and total susp ended solids (TSS)are important to select treatability requirements. For example, a commonmethod of metal removal is pH adjustment to optimize metal precipitation.COD is a relative measure of any m atter in w astewater that w ill consume oxy-

gen. COD is often u sed as an alternative to the 5-day BOD test used in mu nici-pal water treatment facilities. Organ ics in ru noff water includ e toxic organiccompounds, marine growth, and algae. Suspended solids are those particles thatare too light to settle and too heavy to float. They are important because they aregenerally more difficult to remove by physical treatment such as settling and”often require advanced treatment techniques.

WASTE STREAM CHEMICAL CONSTITUENTS ANALYTICALCATEGORY

SPENT PAINT COPPER, TIN, ZINC, NICKEL, LEAD, CHROMIUM, CADMIUM METAALS, ORGANICARSENIC, IRON, ALUMINUM, RESIN, EPOXY, POLYMERS

SPENT ABRASIVE C O P P E R METALS

MARINE BIOTA NONE METALS

HYDROBLAST WATER (PRIOR TO BLASTING) TRACE METALS N O N E

OIL AND GREASE SPILLS OIL AND GREASE OIL AND GREASE

STRUCTURAL STEEL IRON, MANGANESE M E T A L S

RUST INHIBITOR SODIUM NITRATE, DIAMMONIUM PHOSPHATE N O N E

Table 5-1: Potential Chemical Contaminants in Run-off Wastewater

The primary contaminants of concern are the metals, especially copper, tin, lead,and zinc because of toxicity or qu antity. Copp er and tin are the toxic comp o-nents in antifoulant paints, whereas zinc is the primary component of primer.Some paints (older ships and military vehicles) contain lead; lead is consideredvery toxic and is highly regulated. Copper and zinc are present in grit blastmedium. Iron was included because one might expect rust to become part of thehydroblast wastewater. The other metals analyzed could be expected in traceamoun ts for various reasons.

Since metals are the main contaminants of interest, composite samples were ana-lyzed for total metals (suspended, settleable, and dissolved), settleable metals,and d issolved metals. Samp les were analyzed u sing Method s for the Chem icalAn alysis of Water an d Waste, E.P.A. 600/ 4-79-020. Total meta ls analysis was per-formed on the raw sample by digestion (method 200.0) followed by atomicabsorption (AA). Analysis for oil and grease was performed on th e raw samp leby solvent extraction and then gravimetry. Settleable solids were measured vol-umetrically after settling for 30 minu tes in an Imhoff cone. The supernatant liq-uid was used to determine COD, TSS, and dissolved metals analyses. COD

41



SUPERNATANT LIQUID

SOLIDS:DISPOSAL

COD

TSS/VSS

L M E T A L S ( 3 )

J

NOTES:(1)’ Metals = Suspended, settleable plus dissolved(2) Metals. Suspendad plus dissolved(3) Metals = Dissolved (solub!e)

Figure 5-2: Analytical Strategy

42



analysis was accomplished by digestion followed by calorimetry. TotalSu spend ed Solid s (TSS) were an alyzed by filtration followed by gravimetry.Dissolved m etals analysis was don e by filtering th e sup ermatan t throu gh a .45micron filter, digestion, and analysis by atom ic absorption.

Quality control procedures in the laboratory involved spiking one of the samples

from each samp ling event in d up licate prior to digestion and analysis. The p er-cent recovery and relative percent difference (RPD) from the spike procedureprovide the statistics. Although 0-30% RPD and 75-125% recovery are the labo-ratory’s acceptance criteria, non-homogeneity in the samples mitigates thesevalues.

5.6 Analytical Results an d Interpretation

This section presents a summary of the analytical results of the Phase I samplingprogram . Results of analyses are presented in Table 5-2. Results are discussedwith respect to the antifoulant p aint system blasted off the hull, the path way of

run off water from th e hu ll to storage tanks, NASSCO's sewer d ischarge limits,shipyard survey participants’ sewer limits, and the contaminant’s effect on treat-ment requirements. Finally, the analytical results are compared to the characteri-zation results of three other stud ies.

The samples were expected to contain copper and tin from antifoulant as well asother paint contam inants such as zinc, lead, and organ ic compou nd s. Theantifoulant paint on the HERACLES SPIRIT, USNS SPICA, and USSCHANCELLORSVILLE was copp er based, an d the an tifoulann t p aint on FAIRPRINCESS and VIKING SERENADE was tributyltin based. Copper was presentin samples from all five vessels. Of the three ships with a copper based

antifoulant, SPICA and CHANCELLORSVILLE hull samples exhibited high(average of 42 pp m) and similar am oun ts of copp er. A hull samp le was not col-lected from HERACLES SPIRIT.

Tin was not present at the detection limit of three ppm in samples from the twoships that had tributyltin based antifoulant paint. However, there was signifi-cant copper in the wastewater from the ships with tributyltin based antifoulants.The source of the copper is most likely from a previous paint system or suspend-ed copper grit particles since on inspection, VIKING SERENADE sump sample’ssettleable solids contained several grit particles. Of the three ships with copperbased antifoulant paint, tin was not analyzed for HERACLES SPIRIT and SPICA;

CH AN CELLORSVILLE’s sum p samp le contained 2.2 pp m tin. The sou rce of the tin is unknown. Zinc is present in significant quantities in all the wastewatersamp les, wh ile lead w as not detected in an y of the sam ples except for SPICA’sBaker Tank N o. 2 samp le, which contained .54 pp m lead. The organ ic contam i-nants contributed to the COD results, which indicated some organic materialwas p resent in the w astewater.

43



NSRP WATER Fll TRATl0N STUDY PHASE I

SAMPLE SHIP LAB WET OR PARAMETERS AND METHODSID NO. DRY WT

Ph OIL&G As, T CU,T Cu,s Fo,T Fo,S Pb,T NI,T NI,S Zn,T Zn,S Cr,T Mn,T Ba,T Cd Sn,T COD SETT. 410,4 413,1 206,3 220.1 220,1 236,1 236.1 239,1 249,1 249.1 289,1 289,1 218.1 243.1 206.1 282.1 282.1 410.4 160.5 1

93-06.20 HERA CL ES B . TA NK #2 4 45 .9 3 WET 7.15 NA NA 0.66 NA NA NA NA NA NA 3.0 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

93-04-03 HERACLES BARNACLES 1001-93 WET NA NA NA <1 NA NA NA NA NA NA 42 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

93-B1-01 SPICA B. TANK #l 491.93 WET 7,72 NA NA 3.45 NA 1.54 NA <0.05 <0.05 NA 1.85 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

93-B2-01 SPICA B. TANK #2 491-93 WET 7.52 NA NA 2.50 NA 2.34 NA 0 .5 4 < 0.05 N A 1.5 8 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

93-DS-01 SPICA DRIP ZONE 491.93 WET 7.71 NA NA 40.3 NA 16.4 NA <0 .05 < 0.0 5 NA 17. 0 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 93-N-01 SPICA NOZZLE 491-93 WET 8.13 NA NA 0.39 NA 2.46 NA <0 ,05 <0. 05 NA 0.32 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

93-6-24 SPICA B. TANK #l 481-2.93 WET NA NA NA 4.48 NA NA NA NA NA NA 2.28 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

93-06-25 SPICA B. TANK #2 481-2-93 WET NA NA NA 3.47 NA NA NA NA NA NA 2.00 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

AC-FALL CHANCE HULL FALL 607.3 TO 17-93 WET 4.2 NA NA 44.1 2.5 14.2 0.13 <0.1 3.9 <0.05 2 3.6 2.6 0. 2 0. 08 <1. 0 <0. 05 <2 .0 371 5.0 3

AC-SUMP CHANCE SUMP 607-1-93 WET 7. 1 1010 <0. 03 19.4 3. 2 11.9 NA NA NA NA 6.6 0.6 NA NA NA NA 2.2 NA NA

AC-NOZZLE CHANCE NOZZLE 607-20,21.93 WET 8.1 NA NA <0.05 NA NA NA NA NA NA 0 2 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

AC-15 CHANCE BLANK-DL 607.18,19-93 WET 4.2 NA NA <0.05 NA NA NA NA NA NA <005 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

SETT. SOLIDS VIAL CHANCE SETT, SOLIDS NA DRY

SOOLIDE CHANCE SUMP NA DRY

94-T-01 TO 06 PRINCESS TANK 114.94 WET 7.04 9.7 NA 2.29 0.85 9.23 <0.05 <0.1 0.44 NA 1.21 NA <005 050 <10 <0.05 <30 863.0 < 0. 2 4

AC-FALL VIKING FULL FALL i 59 -( 2, 3 , 4 ). 94 W E T 8 .32 < 1. 0 STILL 11 0.61 38

AC-SUMP0.25 <0.1 0.29 NA 12 014 <005 029 <10 <005 <30 374 1 .5 4

VIKING SUMP 159-1-94 WET 7.4 <5,0 STILL 13 0.44 181 <0,05 <0.1 19 <005 1.4 NA 024 062 17 <005 <30 356 06 1

AC-NOZZLE VIKING NOZZLE 159-5-94 WET 823 NA NA <0,05 NA NA NA NA <0.05 NA <005 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

AC-4 VIKING BLANK.DL 159-6-94 W ET 6.99 NA NA <0.05 NA NA NA <0.05 NA <005 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

SETT. SOLIDS VIAL VIKING SETT. SOLIDS NA WET NA

NSRP WATER FILTRATION STUDY, PHASE I

CALCULATIONS

HULL AVERAGE 6.74 NA NA 31.8 22.87 0 2.1 17.53 0.1 0.185 0 0 0HULL RANGE

536 3.25 44.12 NA NA 33 23.8 0 3.9 11.6 0.2 0.21 0 0 0 489 3.5 1

HULL % DISSOLVED CHANCE 5.67% 0.92% o 11.02%VIKING 5.55% 0.66% NA 1.17%

SUMP AVERAGE 7.23 50 5 .005 16.2 96.45 NA NA 4 NA NA NA NA 1.1 NA NA

SUMP RANGE 0.3 1010 0 .0 09 6 .4 169.1 NA NA 5,2 NA NA NA NA 2.2 NA NA

SUMP % DISSOLVED CHANCE 16.49% 0.66% NA 9 . 0 9 %

VIKING 3.38% 0.00% o NA

Tab le 5- 2: Phase lSampling Program Analytic al Results



It’s plau sible that th ere is a dilution effect from the sou rce to the sum p, since asw ater ru ns off the d ock, some of the par ticulate contam inants settle before theyreach the sum p. Ad ditionally, w ater from various other sou rces ru ns off to thesump, thereby diluting the run-off water. Both of these phenomena wereobserved d ur ing samp ling events. A thick layer of pa int covered th e dock floorafter each hydroblasting operation, including a high sedimentation rate on thedock floor. A dilution effect could be countered for some analyses by thehydroblast water accumulating other contaminants as it runs off.

For exam ple, som e of the abrasive grit particles becom e susp end ed as notedabove and d o not settle quickly. Abrasive copp er slag is a m isnomer, since it iscomp osed of app roximately one percent copper and twenty tw o percent iron.Copp er slag an d steel shot, or Black Beauty (coal slag), are the r esidu al solidsfrom refining processes, which are recovered and used for abrasive blasting. Thelaboratories’ protocol is to aliqu ot a rep resentative sam ple of wh at they receive,and digest the sample with acid into solution so that the grit particles contributea significantly higher proportion to the metals analytical results than the paintparticles, despite the fact that copper grit is formulated not to leach andantifoulant paint is designed to leach.

There were not enough samples collected from HERACLES SPIRIT and FAIRPRINCESS to investigate the dilution effect within the scope of the project.SPICA and CHAN CELLORSVILLE samp les consistently show a d ilution effectfor copp er, iron, and zinc; the h ull samp les are consistently at higher concentra-tions than the baker tank samples. VIKING SERENADE shows the opposite of adilution effect; the sump sample has a higher concentration of copper, iron, andnickel than the hu ll samp le. Only the zinc w as low er in the su mp than in th ehull sample.

As discussed above, VIKING SERENADE sump settleables contained severalgrit particles. These suspend ed grit particles are p robably the cause of the sam -

ple exceeding the discharge limits for copper, iron, and nickel. VIKINGSERENADE hull and sump samples contained disproportionate concentrationsof iron, copper, and nickel, and VIKING SERENADE soluble fractions are alsoconsistently lower th an CH AN CELLORSVILLE, sup por ting the h ypoth esis thatslag particles are the origin of the copper and iron. The settleable solids were notretained for CH ANCELLORSVILLE so it is not known wh ether the su mp samp lecontained grit particles. In conclusion, more data is needed to substantiate thed ilution effect. The d issolved fraction of the hu ll and sum p samp les rangedfrom O - 16%. The low settleable solid s content in dicates the m ajority of metalsare suspended.

45

NASSCO is regulated under federal category metal finishing sewer dischargelimits which are much lower than POTW limits in the majority of cases.NASSCO’s pH limit is a range of 5 to 11, and all the samples except for



CH AN CELLORSVILLE hu ll and blank sam ples were w ithin this range. Thesame container of deionized w ater was u sed for both blank samp les for VIKINGSERENADE and CHANCELLORSVILLE, indicating CHANCELLORSVILLE'sblank p H result is possibly error introd u ced by th e laboratory. N ASSCO's oiland grease month ly limit is 500 pp m and only one sam ple exceeded this. Thehigh oil and grease result of 1,010 ppm in CHANCELLORSVILLE coincides witha small amount of oil discharged to the dock floor which occurred the day beforesamp ling. With good w aste segregation p ractices (i.e. drip pan s), oil and greaseshou ld not be a significant contam inant in r un off w ater, since the sour ce of anyorganic contaminants (including benzene, toluene, and xylene) in runoff water isprimarily diesel fuel and solvents.

Arsenic, lead, chromium, manganese, barium, and cadmium were not present in“significant qu antities; only one of the lead results w as greater than th e mon thlylimit of .43 ppm. Only two samples contained nickel in an amount greater thanthe m onth ly sewer d ischarge limit of 2.38 pp m. In general, nickel was p resent inqu antities below the sewer d ischarge lim its. Copp er and zinc were present inconcentrations w hich were generally greater than the m etal finishing sewer lim-its. All the wastewater samples for SPICA, CHANCELLORSVILLE, FAIRPRINCESS, and VIKING SERENADE were over the sewer discharge limits forcop per an d zinc (2.07 pp m and 1.48 pp m respectively). The n ozzle and blanksamp les from CH AN CELLORSVILLE and VIKIN G SERENA DE d id not containcopper and the nozzle sample for SPICA had a small quantity of .39 ppm. Zincwas present only in the nozzle sample from CHANCELLORSVILLE. Tin was notdetectable in any of the samples with the exception of 2.2 ppm in the sump sam-ple from CHANCELLORSVILLE. This result was unexpected since FAIRPRINCESS and VIKING SERENADE were painted with tin based antifoulant.

Several shipyards partiapating in the survey reported lower copper limits than

NASSCO’s monthly limit of 2.07 ppm, and would also have had to treat thehyd roblast w astewater. Most of the other shipyard s wou ld h ave to treat the hu lland sump wastewater for zinc as well. With the exception of one yard who haslimits in th e pa rts-per-billion ran ge for d ischarges to receiving w ater, none of theother metals would have been a problem for most the other shipyards. Total sus-pended solids (TSS) and chemical oxygen demand (COD) were not regulated forany of the shipyar ds in the su rvey except one. At NA SSCO, total toxic organ ics(TTO) are regu lated. TSS results varied from 49 pp m to 490 ppm, bu t CODresults were consistent with one another at approximately 370 ppm (except forone high result of 863 ppm for FAIR PRINCESS). The results correlate to medi-um strength sew age. Chemical analysis results agree with the conclusions from

Kenneth Alexander’s thesis, and generally agree with the Maritime IndustrialWaste Project and EPA guidelines document conclusions.

Particle size analysis of the sump solids from CHANCELLORSVILLE reveal that85% of the particles are between 20 and 100 microns. Particle size results correlateextremely w ell with the Maritime Indu strial Waste Project and the EPA guidelines

46



document conclusions.

In conclusion, incorporating best m anagem ent p ractices (BMPs) and waste segre-gation techniques can prevent wastewater from requiring any treatment besidesgravitational settling. Further, the sampling point strongly influences whetherthe w astewater w ill be over sewer d ischarge limits. Sam pling after simp le set-

tling, especially when grit is present, facilitates meeting discharge limits withouttreatment in many instances.

47



SECTION 6

CONTAINMENT METHODS

6.1 Containment Methods Cu rrently Used by Shipyard s

From the shipyard survey many shipyards did not have acontain the hyd roblast wastewater generated du ring ship

collection system torepair. Other ship-

yard s hav e imp lemented a collection system w ithin their dock facility to collecthydroblast wastewater. Such a system consists of a collection trough that drainsinto a sump area. The water is then pumped into a storage tank located near thesump area.

6.1.1 Floating Dry Dock Con tainm ent Systems

From the survey, various shipyards’ segmented floating dry docks had contain-

m ent systems for collection of hyd roblast wastewater on the d ock floor. Thewastewater was removed with su bmersible pum ps. The segmented section of the dock was protected by covering the open grated areas of the docks. The areasw ere covered w ith plastic sheeting, and sand bags w ere laid over the p lasticsheeting.

Another shipyard covered the openings with p lywood and used m arine caulk-ing at the joints to prevent an y leakage from the segmen ted areas. The hyd rob-last wastewater was collected in each section of the hydroblasting area of theship. A chann el was constructed to allow the w astewater to collect along thewall of the dock and flow across the sectional area where plastic sheeting

or squ are plastic piping collected th e w ater at the end of the d ock in a su m pcollection area.

The wastewater collected at the sump was either transferred to a storage tank onthe d ock, or p ier, or to the w ingw all storage section of the floating d ry d ock.Many wingw alls on floating d ry d ocks have large storage capacity. This capacityis not always usable due to the dry dock stability issues. Shipyards commonlyuse rented or leased storage tanks for the hyd roblast and bilge w astewater gen-erated du ring the repair operation. Some shipyard s are attemp ting to segregated ifferent types of w astewater by the types of contaminan ts generated d ur inghyd roblasting, abrasive blasting, tank cleaning, bilge w ater, or fuel compensated

ballast w ater. The contam inants from th ese operations ma y affect the qu ality of the recovered oil. Treatment may be needed to ensure the value of the oil on theresale market.

48



6.1.2

6.1.3

6.1.4

GravIng Dock Containment systems

The graving dock usually has an existing collection system or drainage troughw hich can be used for hyd roblast containm ent. The survey show ed that som eshipyards had designed collection systems that allowed the hydroblast waste-w ater to be collected in u nd erground vaults for storage. Other systems pu mp ed

wastewater to an aboveground storage tank located in the graving d ock orplaced at the working level of the dock. Some collection systems allowed thewastewa ter to be d iverted to a collection tank d ur ing hyd roblasting or switchedto sewer or receiving waters when hydroblasting was not being performed. Thegraving dock floor has a natural slope allowing easy drainage during the blast-ing operation. The p um ping system can be red esigned to allow for d iversion,however the conversion from one system to another could be expensive.

Building Ways Containment Systems

The collection of wastewater in bu ilding w ays is not comm on d ue to limited

usage of building ways for hydroblasting operations. A few shipyards wereplanning to convert iheir building ways to collect wastewater or rainwater thatm ay come in contact with shipyard w aste. Some shipyard s had constructed aberm to segregate gate leakage from wastewater generated d uring the buildingoperation. This was accomplished by the use of sand bags or angle iron, whichprevented the tw o w aste streams from coming in contact w ith one another. Oneshipyard uses a p ortable collection system at the site of generation. With a largevessel, the system w ould have to be constantly moved to collect the wastewa ter,which could be considered a disadvantage.

Some of the newer building ways have collection systems that can be segregated

from the pu m proom and allow sep arate collection systems to be constructed.Many of the old er building w ays have n o collection system and dr ain directlyinto the receiving water. With this type of system, the simplest method of collec-tion is to berm gate leakage and collect hydroblast wastewater with a portablesum p p um p on the w ays floor. All gate leakage would be pum ped to the receiv-ing water. Wastewater from the hydroblasting operation would be pumped toan aboveground storage tank.

Marine Railway Containment Systems

This type of haul-out or launch dock presents the most serious problem. The

receiving water may be very. close to the vessel, limiting the area to lay out a col-lection system under the vessel. The plus side is that marine railways are usuallyused on smaller vessels; The survey showed that some shipyards were collectinghyd roblast wastewater by bu ilding a berm system at th e base of the d ock w ith avee collection or d iagonal to direct the w astewa ter to a subm ersible pu mp. If thearea is affected by tidal action, two or more berm systems may have to be con-structed depending on the configuration of the marine railway. Again, the waste-

49



water is pu mp ed to a collection tank for treatment or to th e sewer for disposal.Some newer shipyard s have a trough system at the base of the marine railwayallowing collection of wastewater.

6.2 Containm ent Method s Used at N ASSCO

N ASSCO h as similar collection systems to those u sed at m any shipyard s thatwere surveyed. The only minor difference is the degree of segregation that isperformed at N ASSCO. The d esign and equipm ent u sed for each containmentand collection system at NASSCO w ill be explained . NASSCO d oes not h ave amarine railway.

6.2.1 Floating Dry Dock

NASSCO's floating d ry d ock is a self-conta ined and non -sectiona l dock with anoverall length of 585 feet and beam of 170 feet (140 clear between wingwalls).Figure 6-1 gives a general ou tline of the floating d ry d ock and the collection sys-tem that services the dock. A storm water diversion system is also an integratedpar t of the collection system.

COLLECTION COLLECTIONTANK#l TANK #2

GATE VALVERAMP

SHORE CHECK VALUE

EXPODE VIEWSHORE

OF DRY DOCKSYSTEM

FLOW METER HARD PIPE

+ S O F T P I P E +

HARD PIPESUBMERSIBLEPUMP

WATER TIGHT TRIGGER TRENCH WATER TIGHT TRIGGER TRENCH WEIRS

DRYDOCK FLOOR DRYDOCK FLOORWING WALL

OA TDRY K

Figure 6-1: NASSCO'S Floating Dry dock Collection System

50



6.2.2

The collection system consists of a water trough at the head of the dock, whichempties into a 100-gallon capacity sump on th e starboard side of the d ock. A 200-gallon per minu te submersible pum p is used to remove the water from the sumpthrough a 4-inch flex hose attached to a 4-inch steel pipe at pier level. The steelpipe feeds to two 22,000-gallon aboveground storage tanks located on the pier.

The pu mp ing system is controlled by an electronic controller w ith a sw itch forsetting th e mod e of operation. The pu mp has a float switch m onitors the level inthe sump. The two basic operations for the controller are continuous pumpingon d emand and storm w ater diversion. The continu ous pu mp ing is used w henthe dock is being u sed d ur ing a repair operation w ith possible contam ination onthe d ock floor. All wastewater collected d ur ing this operation is pump ed to th etwo 22,000-gallon storage tanks on the pier.

Und er the storm water d iversion m ode of operation, all storm w ater on the d ockis collected until one tenth of an inch in volume has been collected from the dock

floor. At this point, the pu mp will shu t dow n and the sum p is allowed to overfill

and flow into San Diego Bay. The d rawback w ith this type of storm w aterdiversion system is that the dock floor may not be contaminated from such oper-ations as hydroblasting, abrasive blasting, and painting or paint chips and collec-tions would not be required. If contaminants are present, the system would bein the continuous m ode of operation w ith no storm w ater diversion to the bay.

Graving Dock

NASSCO’s graving dock is constructed w ith a concrete floor and steel sheet p ilew alls. The overa ll length is 1,000 feet an d w idth is 178 feet. Figu re 6-2 gives ageneral outline of the graving dock and the collection system that services the

d ock. The dock also has a storm w ater diversion system, wh ich is part of thegeneral drainage system for dewatering the dock.

The operation of the collection system consists of two longitudinal floor drainculverts near the sidewalls that lead to the midsection collection sump. A 1,000-gallon p er minu te submersible pu mp is used to transfer the w astewater to a22,000-gallon abovegrou nd storage tank located in the graving dock. After thewastewater is analyzed, the water is either transferred by truck or pipeline to thewastewater treatment facility or discharged directly to the sewer.

The pumping system is controlled by the same controller used for the floating

d ry dock and is pa rt of the storm w ater diversion system for the graving d ock.To avoid any possible discharge to San Diego Bay d ur ing hyd roblasting opera-tions, the controller is switched to the collection m ode and all wastewater isd irected to the 22,000-gallon storage tank .

51



TO SEWER

Figure 6-2: NASSCO's Graving Dock Collection System

6.2.3 Building Ways

NA SSCO has two building w ays that are used for n ew construction. The con-stru ction of the way s is very similar to the graving d ock with the exception th atthe w ays floor is at an incline and has a d rainage system u nd er the floor. Figure6-3 outlines the collection system. The ways has a storm water diversion systemsimilar to that used in the graving d ock and floating dry d ock. The only differ-ences are the ways floor drainage to the sump and the berm segregation to sepa-rate gate leakage from ways floor d rainage.

The operation of the collection system is the same as the graving dock sump col-lection system and the electronic controller is the same type of controller.

52



TO SEWER

Figure 6-3: Ways floor Collection System

53



SECTION 7

TREATMENT SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS

7.1 Regulatory Requiremen ts

The Federal Water PoIlution Control Act (FWPCA) of 1972 established a programto restore the integrity of the nation’s waters. Congress directed the

Environmen tal Protection Agency (EPA) to issue effluen t limitation gu idelinesand pretreatment standards for industrial dischargers. These regulations werebased on degree of effluent reduction obtainable through the application of con-trol technologies. The ap proach includ es technologies based on Best PracticableControl Technology (BPT), Best Available Technology Economically Achievable(BAT), and Best Conventional Pollutant Control Technology (BCT). New indus-trial direct discharges were requ ired to comply w ith New Source PerformanceStandards (NSPS) and new and existing discharges to publicly owned treatment

w orks (POTW's) w ere su bject to pretreatment stand ard s und er PretreatmentStandards for Existing Sources (PSES) and Pretreatment Standards for NewSources (PSNS).

The limitations and standards are implemented in p ermits issued throu gh theNational Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) for point sources dis-charged directly to the waters of the United States. The limitations are based onperforman ce capabilities of a p articular control techn ology includ ing, in somecases, in-process controls. The dischargers may meet the requirements usingwhatever combination of control methods th ey choose, such as man ufacturingprocess or equipm ent chan ges, prod uct substitution, and w ater reuse and recy-

cling. Categorical pretreatment standards are applicable to indirect discharges toPOTWs.

Shipyards in the United States are regulated under both direct and indirect stan-da rd s in the majority of cases. The hydroblast w astewater at som e shipyard s isdischarged directly into the receiving waters, while other shipyards dischargethe wastewater indirectly to the POTW. With the increase in required treatmenttechnology, more shipyards are redirecting this specific waste stream to the localPOTW since the discharge standards maybe less stringent than the direct dis-charge standard s. Many shipyards are currently regulated un der th e MetalFinishing Federal Category Pretreatment standard, while other shipyards are not

under any pretreatment standards for discharges to a POTW. Future pretreat-ment standard s are being p roposed un der a n ew p retreatment standard calledMetal Products and Machinery (MP&M Phase II) category standard. Since eachshipyard m ay currently be un der d ifferent standards, each shipyard mu stresearch which technology will achieve the desired discharge standards for theirfacility and p lan for the futu re standa rd s that will be implemen ted for the ship-building industry.

54



7.2 Technical Requirements

The objective of th is wastew ater filtration p roject is to id entify m ethod s for thetreatment of wastewater from pressure washing that reduce or remove the conta-minants to concentration levels that allow the wastewater to be discharged to thelocal POTW or receiving w aters. From the wastewater characterization studydiscussed in Ch apter 5 and other studies cited, a d etermination w as mad e thatw astewater contam inants wou ld need to be red u ced or removed to allow forpr oper d ischarge to POTW or receiving w aters. The m ost feasible and cost effec-tive ap proach for the treatment of this type of w astewater is discharge to thelocal POTW if possible.

Du e to the stringent d ischarge stand ard s that are im posed on receiving w aterd ischarge w ithin a shipyard NPDES perm it, the POTW discharge ap pr oach maybe the most cost-effective. With th e d ecreasing treatmen t d ischarge limits p ro-posed for the future, this approach may be the only one a shipyard can reason-ably afford. From this study and other studies, the following technologies havebeen identified as possible wastewater treatment technologies which could beused to d ischar ge to th e local POTW. Each o f these techn ologies have certaindefined levels of contam inant red uction and tr eatment costs associated w ith theunit operation.

7.3 W as tew a ter T re at m en t T ech n o lo gi es

7.3.1 Gravity Separation-Clarification

Using grav ity, clarification systems p rovide continu ous low-cost separation a ndremoval of suspended solids from water. Clarification is used to remove parti-cles, flocculated imp urities, and p recip itates. These system s typ ically follow

wastewater treatment processes that generate suspended solids, such as chemi-cal precipitation and biological treatment.

Clarification un its are often p receded by flocculation step s to p rom ote settling.The flocculation process involves the addition of treatment chemical, or floccu-lants, to the wastewater. The flocculent is rapidly mixed with the wastewater foruniform dispersion. In the clarifier, wastew ater is allowed to flow slowly an duniformly permitting the solids denser than water to settle to the bottom. Theclarified wastewater is discharged by flowing over a weir at the top of the clarifi-er. Conven tional clarifiers typically consist of a circular or r ectangu lar tank . Themore specialized clarifiers incorporate tubes, plates, and lamellar networks to

increase the settling area. The slud ge that accumu lates at the bottom is periodi-cally removed and mu st be dewatered and disposed. A clarification system d ia-gram is shown in Figure 7-1.

55



OVERFLOWWEIR BA FFLE

SKIMMINGS

REMOVAL

SLUDGE

SCRAPER

Figure 7-1: Clarification System Diagram

7.3.2 Filtration-Plate and Frame Pressure

Plate and frame filtration systems are used to remove solids from waste streams.The plate and frame filter press consists of a nu mber of filter p lates or trays con-nected to a frame and pressed together between a fixed end an d a m oving end.Filter cloth is moun ted on the face of each plate. The water is pu mped into theunit under pressure while the plates are pressed together. The solids are retainedin the cavities of the filter press and begin to attach to the filter cloth until a cakeis formed . The w ater, or filtrate, passes throu gh the filter cloth an d is dischargedfrom the dr ainage port in the bottom of the press. The wastewater is pum pedinto the system until the cavities are filled. Pressure is applied to the plates untilthe flow of filtrate stops.

At the end of the cycle, the pressure is released and the p lates are separated. Thefilter cake d rops into a hop per below th e press. The filter cake can th en be d is-posed in the proper regulated manner (Subtitle C or D landfill site). The filtercloth is then washed before the next cycle begins.

The key advantage of the plate and frame pressure filtration is that it can pro-d uce a d ry filter cake, which is not possible with oth er filtration method s. The

56



batch op eration of the p late and frame press makes it a practical method for thefiltration of batch wastewater. A typical plate and frame pressure filtration sys-tem diagram is shown in Figure 7-2.

FIXED END FILTER CLOTH

TRATE

figure 7-2: Plate and Frame Pressure Filtration System Diagram

7.3.3 Filtration with Mono- and Multi-Media

Mu lti-media or granu lar bed filtration is used for removing residual susp end edsolids from w astewater. In granu lar bed filtration, the wastewater stream is sentthrou gh a bed containing on e or more layers of different granular m aterials. Thesolids are retained in the voids betw een the m edia p articles w hile the w aste-water passes through the bed. Typical media used in granular bed filters includeanthracite coal, sand, and garnet. These media can be used alone, such as in sandfiltration, or in a mu lti-media combination. Multi-med ia filters are d esigned so

that the individual layers of media remain fairly discrete. This is accomplishedby selecting appropriate filter loading rates, media grain size, and bed density.

A multi-media filter operates w ith the finer, den ser med ia at the bottom and thecoarser, less dense media at the top. A common arrangement is garnet at the bot-tom of the bed, sand in the midd le, and an thracite coal at the top. Some mixingof these layers w ill occur. Dur ing filtration, removal of suspen ded solids is

57



accomplished by a complex process involving one or more processes, such asstraining, sedimentation, interception, impaction, and absorption. The mediasize is the principle characteristic affecting the filtration operation. If the mediais too small, mu ch of the dr iving force will be wasted in overcoming the friction-al resistance of the filter bed . If the media iS too large, small particles will travelthrough the bed, preventing optimum filtration.

The flow pattern of multi-media filters is usually top-to-bottom. Upflow filters,horizontal filters, and biflow filters are also used. The top-to-bottom multi-media filter is represented in Figure 7-3. The classic multi-media filters operateby grav ity; how ever, pressure filters are occasionally u sed.

COARSE

FINER

FINEST

SU

MEDIA

MEDIA

MEDIA

PPORT

WASTEWATER INFLUENT

UNDERDRAIN CHAMBERTREATED EFFLUENT

Figure 7-3: Top-to-Bottom Multi-Media Filtration System Diagram

58



The complete filtration process involves two phases—filtration and backwash-ing. As th e filter becomes filled w ith trap ped solids, th e efficiency of the filtra-tion process falls off. Head loss is a measu re of the solids trap ped in the m edia.As the h ead loss across the filter bed increases to a limiting v alue, the end of thefilter run is reached and the filter mu st be backwash es to remove the suspen d edsolid s in the bed. Du ring backwashing, the flow throu gh th e filter is reversed so

that the solid s trapp ed in th e med ia are dislodg ed an d can exit the filter. Thebed may also be agitated with air to aid in solids removal. The backwash wateris then recycled back into the wastewater feed stream.

7.3.4 Precoat Filtration

The precoat filtration system, which operates by filtering wastewater through athin layer of d iatomaceous earth su pp orted on fabric, is a variation on the multi-media filtration system. When th e filter begins to plu g w ith solid s, it is back-washed to remove the plugged m edia. New med ia is applied by running a slur-ry of fresh m edia throu gh th e filter. To avoid rap id p lugging, a small amount of

the filter m edia is introdu ced into the w aste stream before filtering. The bod yfeed, as it is called, makes the particulate more porous as it is collected on the fil-ter media and m aximzes filter capacity.

7.3.5 Membrane Ultrafiltration

Ultrafiltration (UF) is used to remove substances with molecular weights greaterthan 500, including suspended solids, oil and grease, large organic molecules,and comp lex heavy m etals. UF system is typically used as an in-plant treatm enttechnology, treating oil/ water emu lsion pr ior to mixing with other wastewater.

In UF, a semi-permeable microporous membrane performs the separation. Thewastewater is sent through the membrane under pressure. The suspendedsolids and oil are rejected by the membrane and are removed as a concentrate.The concentrate recirculates throu gh th e m embra ne u nit un til the flow of thepermeate drops. The primary design consideration in UFis the membrane selec-tion. A membrane pore size is chosen based on the size of the contaminated par-ticle targeted for removal. Other design parameters to be considered are solidconcentration, viscosity, temperature of the feed stream, and the membrane per-meability and thickness. A typical UF system diagram is shown in Figure 7-4.

7.3.6 Requirem ents for Selection of Treatm ent Techn ology

The following requirements for selecting a treatment technology were identifiedin this project. Suspended solids such as paint chips, marine growth, and spentabrasive used d uring the hyd roblast operation would need to be removed .Removal of other suspended particles, which cannot be removed with simple fil-tration technology or sedimentation, and dissolved contaminants, which must beremoved by secondary treatment technology requiring the use of chemicals or

59



PERMEATE (TREATED EFFLUENT)

MEMBRANE CROSS-SECTION

Figure 7-4: Ultrafiltration System Diagram

more ad vanced technology, will be covered in Ph ase 2 of this project.

In general, the treatm ent technology sh ould be simp le, low cost, effective, andmeet the expectations for desired removal or reduction requirements. If largevolumes are going to be treated, the technology should be completely automaticto allow simple operation of the treatment unit versus batch treatment.Currently there are many w astew ater treatment compan ies that can provideturnkey systems that meet customer requirements.

To effectively select the correct treatmen t system, a vend or shou ld evalu ate the

shipyard’s needs, evaluate the source of wastewater, the contamination levels,and evaluate this information against discharge limits. The discharge limitsshould be evaluated for future changes and other possible sources of wastewaterthat may be treated at the shipyard (bilge and ballast wastewater).

7.3.7 Add itional Criteria to Evaluate

Depending on the collection or contaminant site, multiple sumps may be neededto separate gate leakage or ground w ater seepage from the hyd roblast waste-water process operation. The pum ping system from the sum p to the storagetank or treatm ent system shou ld be the correct diameter to allow the p roper

flow rate and pr event any dam age to the pu mp du e to back pressure resultingfrom incorrect size or restriction w ithin the line. All collection and treatm entsystems must have easy access for repair and maintenance to provide fast andreliable service of the treatment unit.

60



SECTION 8

ANALYSIS OF SELECTED PRETREATMENT METHODS

8.1 Selection Methodology of Selected Methods

Th e selection of any treatm ent system is only good if it meets the expectation of the w astewater treatment stand ard. When selecting a p articular treatment sys-tem, the d ischarge treatment or PO TW limits mu st be evalua ted against thedesigned treatment range. The treatment system must be flexible so that anyfutu re d ischarg e lim it chan ges can be met. Items to review for th e selection of atreatment system include the following

Request information on technology that has been used at similar shipyardfacilities or similar applications.

Select the best d ischarge route versus treatm ent stand ard to m eet POTW orreceiving water limits.

Evaluate the wastewater characteristics or possible contamination. Performextensive tests on hydroblast waste streams to assure the treatment technolo-gy can be selected w ith sufficient d ata to supp ort the selection.

Review the cost, equipment spcification, and site requirements.

Examine the facility to locate possible sites for the storage and treatm ent facility.

Perform prototype or small scale testing of a treatment unit if the treatmentsystem requires different treatment standards.

Perform an engineering evaluation of the treatment system using basic engi-neering principles to help evaluate the best system.

8.2 Collection of Hyd roblast Wastewa ter

The shipyard survey shows a typical shipyard may generate an average of 1,000-40,000 gallons of hydroblast wastewater per hydroblasting event. The volumedepends on the size of the vessel, the hull configuration, level of cleaning

required, equipment used and blast pressure, the nu mber of hydroblasting u nits,the type of paint system on the vessel, and wh ether or not slurry blasting w asused. From this information, an estimated volume can be determined and a typ-ical flow rate can be estimated from the containment and collection system.

The collection system should have sufficient capacity to hold the volume thatmay be generated d uring on e full day of hydroblasting op erations. The volum e

61



Compare the wastewater discharge permit limit with the treatment system

design limit and possible future limit.

Make sure th e system tr eats the correct contam inants to the d esign d ischargelimits.

Evaluate the storage capacity with the required treatment system flow rate tomaximize the cost and efficiency of the total system.

Determine if secondary containment will be required for the treatment site.

From the wastewater analysis, determine if sedimentation will assist in

reduction of contamination and reduce the load rate on the treatment system.

Evaluate the tr eatrm int technology for ease and cost effectiveness of main te-nance and repair.

Determine if separate treatmen t system s can be d esigned to meet the variousdischarge limits that m ay be imposed on the ship yard . For examp le, bilge wa ter

62



treatment to local POTW limits versus hydroblasting to a federal category dis-charge lim it (m etal finishing). Som e ship yard s m ay red uce treatmen t costsbecause oil-water separation may only need to be performed on the bilge water,w hereas the hyd roblast wastew ater w ill need to meet federal categorical limits,which require additional treatment, but the volume is much less.

8.3.1 Treatment Technology Costs

Cost information for the selected technologies w as available from several sources.The sources for the cost data were engineering literature, vendors’ quotations,and EPA wastewater treatment cost studies. All the costs are either scaled up ordown to 1989 dollars using the Engineering News Record (ENR) ConstructionCost Index. The total cost developed includ es the capital cost of the investmen tand annual op eration and maintenan ce (O&M) costs. The capital cost for the tech-nologies are based on vend ors’ quotations. The equipm ent cost typically includ esthe cost of the treatment unit and some ancillary equipment associated with thetechnology. The annual O&M costs for the various systems were derived from

vend ors’ information or from engineering literature. The ann ua l O&M costs arecomprised of energy, maintenance, taxes and insurance, and labor.

8.3.2 Clarification

The cost for clarification was obtained from vendors. The influent total suspend-ed solid s (’ITS) design w as 40,000 mg/ l or fou r percent solids. The clarificationsystem includes a clarification unit, flocculation unit pumps, motor, foundation,and necessary accessories. The total constru ction cost includ es the system cost,installation, installed pip ing and instrum entation, and controls. The O&M costsare d etermined by energy u sage, maintenan ce, labor, flocculent cost, and t axes

and insurance. Tables 8-1 and 8-2 reflect these capital and O&M costs.

VOI/ DAY INSTALL. PIPING INSTRUM. EN GlN EER. TO TAL TO TAL(MGD) AN D CAPITAL CAPITAL

CONTROLS CONTING. COST(1993 $) (1989 s)

0.000001 6,579 2,303 1,974 1,974 3,849 16.679 15,178

0.00001 6,579 2,303 1,974 1,974 3,849 16,679 15,178

0.0001 6,579 2,303 1,974 1,974 3,849 16,679 15,178

0.001 6,971 2,440 2,091 2,091 4,078 17,671 16,081

0.01 9,547 3,341 2,864 2.864 5,585 24,201 22,0230.05 14,550 5,093 4,365 4,365 8,512 36,885 33,565

0.1 18,358 6,425 5,507 5,507 10,739 46,536 42,348

0.5 35,466 12,413 10,640 10,640 20,748 89,907 81,815

1.0 49,563 17,347 14,869 14,869 28,994 125,642 114,334

Table 8-1: Capital Costs for Clarification Systems

63



VOL/ DAY ENERGY LABOR MAINT. TAXES POLYMER TO TAL TO TAL(MGD) AN D COST O&M

INSURANCE COST COST(1993 $) (1993 s)

0.000001 1 ,000 15,741 667 334 10 17,752 16,154

0.00001 1,000 15,741 667 334 10 17,752 16,154

0.0001 1,000 15,741 667 334 10 17,752 16,1540.001 1,010 15,857 706 353 15 17,941 16.326

0.01 1,104 16,842 968 484 150 19,548 17,789

0.05 1,520 18,210 1,475 738 750 22,693 20,651

0.1 2,040 19,005 1,861 931 1,5000 25,337 23,057

0.5 6,155 21,439 3,596 1,798 7,500 40,488 36,844

1.00 11,464 22,788 5,025 2,513 15,000 56,790 51,679

TabLe 8-2: Operation and Maintenance Costs for Clarification Systems

8.3.3 Plate and Frame Pressu re Filtration

The plate and fram e pressure filtration costs w ere estimated for a liqu id stream ;this is the full effluent stream from a h yd roblasting operation . The liquid streamconsists of 96 percent liquid and 4 percent solids. The components of the plateand frame p ressure filtration system includ e: filter plates, filter cloth, hydrau licpu mp s, pn eum atic booster pu mp s, control panel, connector p ipes, and sup portplatform. The O&M costs were based on estimated electricity usage, mainte-nance, labor, taxes and insurance, and filter cake d isposal cost ($0.74/ gal hau lingand disposal in subtitle C or D landfill). The capital and O&M costs for plateand frame pressure filtration systems are show n in Tables 8-3 and 8-4.

FLOW A VERAGE INSTALLATION TOTAL EN GIN EERIN G TOTAL(MGD) VENDOR COST CAPITAL AND AN D CAPITAL

EQUIPMENT COST lNSTALLADTION CONTINGENCY COST($) FEE (1989 $)

0.0000O1 6,325 2,214 8,539 2,562 10,102

0.0000l 6,325 2,214 8,539 2,562 10,102

0.0001 6,424 2,248 8,672 2,602 10,259

0.0010 9,826 3,439 13,265 3,980 15,693

0.0100 29,316 10,261 39,577 11,873 46,820

0.100 170,575 59,701 230,276 69,083 272,417

1.000 1,935,740 677,509 2,613,249 783,975 3,091,474

Table 8-3: Capital Cost for Plate and Frame Pressure Filtration

64



FLOW ENERGY MAINTENANCE(M GD )

1

0.000001 1,000 404 202 17,730 19,336

0.00001 1,000 404 202 17,730 19,336

0.0001 1,000 410 205 17,730 19.3450.001 1,010 627 3 1 4 53,549 55,500

0.01 1,104 1,872 936 53,549 57,461

0.05 1,520 5,977 2,989 62,504 72,990

0.1 2,040 10,895 5,446 71,550 89,933

0.5 6,155 55,480 27,740 88,650 176,025

1.0 11,464I

123,660

TabLe 8-4: Op eration and M ainten ance Costs for Plate and Frame Pressure filtration

8.3.4 Multi-Media Filtration

The total capital cost for the mu lti-med ia filtration system represents eq uip men tand installation costs. The total construction cost includes th e cost of the filter,instrumentation and control, pu mp s, piping, and installation. The O &M costsinclud e energy u sage, main tenan ce, labor, and taxes and insu rance. Tables 8-5and 8-6 reflect

-capital and O&M costs for multi-media filtration systems.

(M GD )

SYSTEM INSTALL PIPING INSTRUM. ENGINEER. TOTAL TOTALCOST AN D AN D CAPITAL CAPITAL

CONTROLS CONTING. COST COST

(1993 $) (1993$)1,522 761 913 457 1,096 4,749 4,322

1,942 971 1,165 583 1,398 6,059 5,514

3,237 1,619 1,942 971 2,331 10,100 9,191

5,904 2,952 3,542 1,771 4,251 18,420 16,762

13,098 6,549 7,859 3,929 9,431 40,866 37,188

27,866 13,933 16,720 8,360 20,064 86,943 79,118

Table 8-5: Capital Costs for Mu lti-Med ia Filtration Systems

8.3.5 Ul trafilt ration

Capital equip men t and operational costs were obtained from manu facturers’ qu o-tations. The O&M costs were b ased on estimated electricity usage, maintenan ce,labor, and taxes and in surance. The electricity usage and costs were provided bythe vendors. Th e cost of con centrate disp osal was q uo ted at $0.50 p er gallon.Tab les 8-7 and 8-8 show capital costs and O&M costs for ultrafiltration systems.

65



FLOW ENERGY LABOR M A I N T . TAXES TOTAL TOTALRATE A N D O & M COST O & M COST(M GD ) INSURANCE (1993 s ) (1993 s)

0.001 1,100 21,900 173 87 23,260 21,167

0.01 1,600 21,900 221 111 23.832 21,687

0.05 1,730 21,800 368 184 24,182 22,006

0.10 7,000 21 ,900 670 335 29,905 27,214

0.50 31,200 21,900 1,488 744 55,332 50,352

1.0 70,000 21,900 3,165 1 ,583 96,648 87,950

Table 8-6: Operation and Maintenance Cost for Mu lti-Media Foltaration Systems

FLOW AVERAGE INSTALLATION TOTAL ENGINEERING TOTAL(M GD ) VENDOR COST CAPITAL AND AND CAPITAL

CAPITAL COST INSTALLATION CONTINGENCY COSTCOST F E E (1989 s)

0.00005 17,557 6,145 23,702 7,111 30,8130.0001 17,730 6,206 23,936 7,181 31,117

0.0005 21,377 7,482 28,859 8,658 37,517

0.0010 25,280 8,848 34,128 10,238 44,366

0.0020 31,325 10,964 42,289 12,687 54,976

0.0100 60,667 21,233 81,900 24,570 106,470

0.0480 142,036 49,713 191,749 57,525 249,274

0.1000 226,365 79,228 305,593 91,878 397,271

1.0000 1,319,323 461 ,763 1,781,086 534,326 2,315,412

Table 8-7: Capital Cost for Ultrafiltration System s

FLOW ENERGY MAINTENANCE TAXES LABOR CONCENTRATE(M GD )

TOTALA N D DISPOSAL O & M

INSURANCE COSTS COST(1989 s)

0.000001 1,000 1,232 616 7,607 2 10,457

000001 1,000 1,232 616 7,607 25 10,480

0.0001 1,200 1,232 616 7,607 253 10,908

0.001 2,938 1 ,587 794 7.607 2,536 15,4620.01 15,068 3,575 1,788 7,607 25,357 53,395

0.05 47,243 7,623 3,812 7,607 126,786 193,071

0.1 77,278 13,398 6,699 7,607 253,571 358,553

1.0 396,329 83,526 41,763 7,607 2,535,71 3,064,939

Table 8-8: Operation and Maintenance Costs for Ultrafiltration Systems

66



8.4 Benefit An alysis

The major benefit of the installation of a wastewater treatment facility is theredu ction in cost of the d isposal of any hyd roblast and related w astewater thatmay be generated at the shipyard facility. Many shipyards are being forced toadopt this type of treatment technology by regulators since the wastewater must

be treated by a TSDF at the same discharge limit. As a result, the cost of disposalof this type of wastewater on the shipyard has increased. The most cost-effectiveapproach is to treat the wastewater in-house to reduce costs to the shipyard.Many shipyards have implemented different wastewater treatment technologiesthat best meet their needs, reduce cost to customers, and gain a competitive edgein the cur rent repa ir work m arket. Overall, this investm ent red uces shipy ardcosts, but futu re regulatory requ irements regarding low er discharge limits maycause th is treatmen t cost to rise. How ever, shipyar ds may be forced to invest ina treatment technology in the future due to more stringent limits.

A cost/ benefit analysis mu st be performed by every shipyard to evaluate thecost of investment versus the disposal cost off-site. It may be more cost-effectiveto ship the w astewater to the local POTW or TSDF if the volum e is limited or thecost is being offset by the custom er.

67



SECTION 9

CONCLUSIONS

Due to the changes in environmental regulations and increased public awareness

to p rotect w aterways, shipyards are being forced to add ress hand ling of hyd rob-last and related wastewater generated during repair operations. Shipyards mustexamine cur rent hand ling an d treatm ent scenarios and d etermine the most costeffective and environmentally sound methods to meet current and future regula-tory requirements (MP&M regu lations). To identify the most cost effectivemethod, each shipyard must understand the sources of contamination such aspaint solids, sediment, spent blast media, sea growth and toxic metals.Wastewater will need to be characterized by the chemical and physical parame-ters as outline in this survey. The physical and chemical parameters will assistthe selected vendors in providing cost estimates of the different pretreatmenttechn ologies recomm end ed. The m ethod of collection and segregation of differ-

ent types of process wastew ater mu st be planned for to redu ce any p ossibleincreased treatment cost from contamination from other sources of wastewater.

In the majority of instances, the treatment route for disposal will be to a localPOTW, which has less stringent standards than the receiving water dischargelimits. Because this method of disposal may be selected, vendors will need toknow the discharge limits required by the local POTW. The information provid-ed in this stud y on literature review , shipyard survey, vend or information andhydroblast characterization will assist each shipyard in understanding the infor-mation required to m ake the prop er decision.

From this study and working with vendors, shipyards need to choose the besttreatment technologies that m eet the econom ic requiremen ts to treat the w asteeffluent. Each shipyard should evaluate the application needed and determine if a local TSDF can treat th e wastewater at a more cost-effective p rice. The in tent of this project is that shipyards will gain a basic understanding of the treatmentoptions that are available and which treatment technologies will result in themost cost-effective approach.

68



1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

100

11.

12.

13.

Ad ema, C. M. and Schatzberg, P., (1984), Organ otin An tifouling Pa ints an d TheEnvironment-Drydock Phase, Naval Engineers Journal,P. 209-217, May 1984

Alexander, Kenneth C., Characterization and Treatability of HydroblastWastewater, Master of Science in-Engineering Thesis, Department of CivilEngineering, University of Washington, Seattle, 1988.

Argam an , Y., H ucks, C.E., and She lby S. E., (1984), The Effects of Organ otin onthe Activated Sludge Process, Water Research, 18:5, p. 535-542,1984.

California Water Resources Control Board, The Porter-Cologne Water QualityControl Act, June 1992.

Cambridge Scientific Abstracts, Aquatic Sciences & Fisheries Abstracts Database,Bethesda, Maryland, 1978-1993.

CH2M Hill, Inc., Bellevue, Washington, on behalf of the Puget Sound ShipbuildersAssociation & Puget Sound Water Qua lity Au thority, Best Managem ent Practicesfor Ship and Boat Building and Repair Yard s, ?da te?

Clark, E. A., Sterr itt, R. M., and Lester, J. N., (1988) The Fate of Tribu tyltin in th eAquatic Environment , ES&T, 22:6, p. 600-604,1988.

Code of Federal Regulations 40, Sections 101, 301, 304, 306, 307, 402, 501,Government Printing Office, 1992.

Commonwealth of Virginia, Water Control Board. “Best Management PracticesManual for the Shipbuilding and Repair Industry.,” Prepared by Bengtson, Debell,Elkin & Titus, Ltd. Centreville, Virginia, 1990.

Davenport, G., Understand the Water-Pollution Laws Governing CPI Plants,Wastewater Treatment, Sept. 1992 Chemical Engineering Progress, p. 30-33.

Defense Technical Information Center

Eckenfelder, W.W., (1966) Industrial Water Pollution Control, McGraw HillPublishing Co., 1989.

Fassel, Velmer A., (1978) Quantitative ElementalSpectroscopy Science, 202:13, p. 183-191, October

69



14. Goldblatt, M. E., Eble K. S., Feathers, J.E., Process Water And Reuse, ChemicalEngineering Progress, April 1993.

15. Habibian, M. T., and Am alia, C. R., (1975) Particles, Polymers, and Performance inFiltration, Jou rnal of the Env ironm enta l Engineerin g D ivision, A SCE, 101:EE4,pp. 567-583, August 1975.

16. Horton, C., “To Build or Not to Build,” Industrial Wastewater, pp. 39-43,June/ July 1993.

17. International Paint, Hyd roblasting Video.

18. Jalbert, L., Skid Mou nted Dissolved A ir Flotation System , for N ational Steel andShipbuilding Company 1993.

19. Johnson, D., Packaged Wastewater Treatment, An Overview, Plant Engineering, pp.5 4 - 5 8 , Ju n e 1 7 , 1 9 9 3 .

20. Kemmer, Frank N., (Nalco Chem ical Comp any), The Nalco Water Hand book,Mcgraw-Hill Book Company, 1979.

21. Laughlin, R. B., Guard, H.E., and Coleman, W. M., Tributyltin in Seawater:Speciation an d Octano l-Water Partition Coefficient, Env ironm enta l Science andTechnology (EST) (1986) 20:2, p. 201-204,1986.

22. Magu ire, R. J., (1984) Butyltin Compound s and Inorgan ic Tin in Sediments inOntario, ES&T, 18:4, p.291-294, 1984.

23. McLaughlin, L., McLaughlin, H., and Groff, K., Develop an Effective WastewaterTreatment Strategy, Wastew ater Treatment, pp . 30-33 .Chemical EngineeringProgress, 1992.

24. Metcalf & Eddy Wastewater Treatment, Disposal, and Reuse, McGraw Hill, 199?.

25. Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle Water Pollution Control Department,Maritime Industrial Waste Project, March 1992.

26. Navy Public Works Center, Engineering Department, Planning Division, PearlHarbor, Haw aii, “Bilge Water Management Interim Report,” Pearl Harbor

Hawaii, February 1993.

27. Perry, R.H., Green, D.W., “Perry’s Chemical Engineer’s Handbook: McGraw-HillBook Company , 6th Ed., 1984.

28. Putman, D. R., “The Characterization of Bilge Water Aboard U.S. Navy Ships,”October 1992.

70



29. Rosain, Robert M., Reusing Water in CPI Plants, Chemical Engineering Progress,April 1993.

30. Ross, J., “Environm ental Pollution Control: Regu latory Considerations and aCase in Point,” Journal of Ship Prod uction, Vol. 9, No. 3, p. 159-156, August 1993.

31. SCS Engineers for Naval Energy and Environmental Support Activity. Puget SoundNaval Shipyard, Bremerton, Washington, Best Management Practices Plan for DryDocks 1-6, Puget Sound Naval Shipyard, September 1987.

32. Slavin, W., Flames, Furnaces, Plasmas, How Do We Choose, AnalyticalChemistry, (1986) 58:4, April 1986, p. 590A.

33. Steel Structures Painting Council, Good Painting Practice-Steel StructuresPainting Manual, Volume I, 1989.

34. Tchobanoglous, G., and Burton, F. L., Wastewater Engineering-Treatment, Disposal,

and Reuse, McGraw-Hill, Inc. 3rd Ed., 1991.

35. U.S.E.P.A., (1979b) “Development Document for Proposed Best ManagementPractices for the Shipbuilding and Repair Industry Drydocks Point SourceCategory: Effluent Guidelines Division, Office of Water and Hazardous Materials,U.S.E.P.A., Washington, D.C., December 1979.

36. U.S.E.P.A., Guides to Pollution Prevention, The M arine M aintenan ce and RepairIndustry: October 1991.

37. U.S.E.P.A., Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, Office of Solid Waste and

Emergency Response, Washington, DC, 20460, November 1986, 3rd Edition,SW846.

38. U.S.E.P.A. Pollution Prevention Information Clearinghouse database.

39. Verschu eren, Karel, H and book of Environm ental Data on Or ganic Comp oun d s,2nd Edition, Van Nostrand Reinhold Company 1983.

40. Woodward & Clyde Consultants, Best Management Practices Plan, prepared forational Steel and Shipbuilding Company,, 1989.

41. Plant Engineering 1993 Product Supplier Guide

42. Chemical Engineering Buyers Guide for ’93

43. Pollution Equip ment N ews 1993 Buyers Guid e

44. Pollution Engineering Buyers Guide/ Locator Directory

71



SECTION 11

REFERENCES

1. Arn irthara jah, A.; and Mills, K.M. (1982) Jou rna l of the Am erican Water Works

Association (JAWWA), p.210-216, April 1982.

2. Aven dt, R. J. and Avend t, J.B., (1982) “perform ance and Stability of MunicipalActivated Sludge Facilities Treating Organotin-contaminated Wastewater”, DavidTaylor Naval Ship Research and Development Center Report SME-CR-29-82,December 1982.

3. Battacharyya, D., Adema, C. and Jackson, D., (1981) Separation Science and.Technology, 16:5, p. 495-503,1984.

4. Bau m ann , E.R. and H ua ng, J.Y.C., (1974) Jou rna l of the Water Pollu tion Con trol

Federation (JWPCF), 46:8, p.1958-1973, August 1974.

5. Bellamy, W. D., Hend ricks, D.W., and Logdson, G.S. (1985) JAWWA, p . 62-66,December 1985.

6. Cheremisinoff & Young , Pollution Engineering Practice Han dbook, 2nd pr inting1976, Copyright 1975.

7. Davis, D., and Piantadosi, L. Marine Maintenance and Repair Wrote Reductionand Safety Manual, Pollution Prevention Pays Program, North CarolinaDepartment of Natural Resources and Community Development.

8. Fau st, S., and Aly O., “Chem istry of Water Treatment.”

9. James, D. M., (1975) “Marine Paints,” Treatise on Coatings/ Volume 4.

10. Rich, Linvil G., Environ menta l System s Engineer ing, Mcgraw -Hill Series in WaterResources and Environmental Engineering, 1973.

72



AA

BATBCTBMPBPTCFRCH TCODCW ADTICEN REPA

FWPCA

NASSCONPDESNSPSNSRPO&MPA H S

POTWPPBPPM

PSESPSNSQA/ QCRPDRWQCBSWRBTBTTSDFTSSTTOUCSD

UF

SECTION 12

DEFINITIONS OF TERMS AND ACRONYMS

Atomic Absorption

Best Available Technology Economically AchievableBest Conventional Pollution Control TechnologyBest Management PracticesBest Practicable Control Technology

Code of Federal RegulationsCollection Holding and TransferChemical Oxygen DemandClean Water ActDefense Technical Information CenterEngineering N ews RecordEnvironmental Protection Agency

Federal Water Pollution Control ActMetropolitan Industrial Wastewater ProgramNational Steel and Shipbuilding CompanyNational Pollutant Discharge Elimination SystemNew Source Performance StandardsNational Shipbuilding Research ProgramOperation and MaintenancePolynuclear AromaticsPublic Own ed Treatment WorksParts Per BillionParts Per Million

Pretreatment Standards for Existing SourcesPretreatment Standards for New SourcesQuality Assurance/ Quality ControlRelative Percent DifferenceRegional Water Quality Control BoardState Water Resource BoardTributyltinTreatment Storage and disposal FacilityTotal Susp ended SolidsTotal Toxic OrganicsUniversity of California San Diego

Ultrafiltration

73



APPENDIX A

SHIPYARD HYDROBLAST WASTEWATER SURVEY

74



HYDROBLAST WASTEWATER SURVEY

NATIONAL STEEL AND SHIPBUILDING COMPANY

HARBOR D RIVE AND 28th STREET

PO ST OFFICE BOX 85278

SAN DIEGO , CA 92186-5278

ATTENTIO N BROOKE DAVIS, MS 20-J

Name of Shipyard:

Your Name and PositionYour Phone Number:

1. Please describe your hydroblasting operations; Is hydroblasting performed by Acontractor or shipyard personnel?

2. What is the amount of hyd roblast wastewater generated annu ally? (Average #Gallons/ Vessel ? Estimate # Vessels hydroblasted ?)

3. Please characterize the hydroblast wastewater in terms of sources, and chemical andphysical nature of the contaminates. Please give an example list of elements andcontaminates.

4. Do you contain the hydroblast wastewater runoff and, if so, how? How do you han-d le your storm water du ring hyd roblasting or abrasive blasting op erations? (Baker

Tanks, large storage tanks, etc. and # gallons capacity of the containment vessels.Also please include information on your sump system and waste segregation)

75



5. Do you pretreat and/ or treat hyd roblast wastewater, and if so how w ere the meth-ods selected and are other streams treated with these methods as well? Please givean example of pretreatment and treatment methods used.

6. What is the final fate of the hyd roblast wastewa ter? Recycled or discharged to seweror ocean.

7. What is the know n or estimated cost to hand le and m anage hyd roblast w astew ater?(transportation, disposal, and treatment costs)

8. What are your futu re plans for hand ling and man aging hydroblast wastewater?

9. What limits must your discharge wastewater meet? (City Limits, Metal FinishingLimits, etc.) What are your numerical limits for discharge?

76



APPENDIX B

VENDO R H YDRO BLAST SURVEY



HYDROBLAST WASTEWATER SURVEY

NATION AL STEEL AN D SHIPBUILDING CO MPANY

HARBOR DRIVE AND 28th STREETPOST OFFICE BOX 85278

SAN DIEGO, CA 92186-5278

ATTENTION BROOKE DAVIS, MS 20-J

Name of Your Comp anyYour Name and PositionYour Phone Number:

Please send catalogs and brochures, if available.

1. What are the primary business areas and the primary products of your company?

2. What percentage of the market does your technology type dominate and who aresome of your customers?

3. Who are your m ajor comp etitors?

4. What are the m ain p arameters the customer needs to p rovide to you in order foryou to assist him in selecting the optimal size and product to purchase? What arethe main parameters, power rating, size of lines, hydraulic capacity, efficiency, etc.,

and capacity range of your equipment? (Attach general specifications if possible.)

78



5. How do your biggest selling prod ucts comp ete in p rice and what are the p riceranges? Please give as specific quotes as possible.

6. What types of contaminates or p article size d istribution d oes your treatment systemremove and what percentage (can be a range) does the system remove?

7. What additional chemicals or equipment will your customer require? i.e. sludge

dryer? pre-strainer, air stripper, mon itoring an d other instrum entation, etc. and doyou sell this equipment also? If not, can you recomm end some vend ors of thisequipment?

8. Describe the maintenance of your equipment that you recommend to yourcustomer?

9. What are the pr imary benefits of your prod uct to your customers?

79



APPENDIX CREGULATORY OVERVIEW

80



REGULATORY O VERVIEW

The following is an excerpt from the EPA’s Effluent Guidelines document, organized inoutline form.

I. “The Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 established a com-prehensive program to, ‘restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biologicalintegrity of the Nation’s waters.’ Section 101 (a).”

II. Requ irements for Existing Indu strial Dischargers

A.

B.

“By July 1,1977, existing industrial dischargers were required to achieve, ‘efflu-ent limitations requiring the ap plication of the best practicable control technolo-gy currently available.’ (BPT), Section 301 (b)(l)(A); and

By July 1,1983, these dischargers were required to achieve, ‘effluent limitations

requiring the application of the best achievable technology economicallyachievable. ... which w ill result in reasonable furth er progress toward thenational goal of eliminating the discharge of all pollutants’ (BAT), Section 301

(b)(2) (A).”

III. Requirements for New Direct and New Indirect Industrial Dischargers

A.

B.

“New industrial direct dischargers were required to comply with Section 306new source performance standards (NSPS) based on Best AvailableDemonstrated technology; and

New and existing dischargers to POTWs, or ind irect dischargers, were su bjectto pretreatment standards under Sections 307 (b) and (c) of the Act.”

IV Enforcement

A.

B.

For direct dischargers, requiremen ts were to be incorp orated into N PDES per-mit issued under Section 402 of the Act, while

For dischargers to POTWs, pretreatm ent stand ard s were m ad e enforceabledirec t ly aga inst them.

V. For D irect d ischar gers, “Congress intended that, for the most part, control require-ments wou ld be based on requirements prom ulgated by the Ad ministrator of EPA.

A. Section 304(b) of the Act required the Administrator to promulgate regulationsproviding guidelines for effluent limitations setting forth the degree of effluentredu ction attainable throu gh the ap plication of BPT and BAT.

81



B.

C.

D.

E.

Sections 304(c) and 306 of the Act requ ired th e Ad m inistratorregulations for NSPS, and

Sections 304(f), 307(b), and 307(c) required the Administratorregulations for pretreatment standards.

to promulgate

to promulgate

Section 307(a) of the Act required the Administrator to promulgate effluentstandards applicable to all dischargers of toxic pollutants.

Finally Section 501(a) of the Act authorized the Administrator to prescribe anyadditional regulations, ‘necessary to carry out his functions.’

VIII.EPA did not promulgate many of these regulations by the dates contained in theact, and was sued by several environm ental groups. The Court jud ged against theEPA in a settlement that required the EPA to, “adhere to a schedule for promulgat-ing for 21 major industries for 65, ‘priority,’ pollutants and classes of pollutants,

1. BAT effluen t limitations guidelines, and2. pretreatment standards, and3. new source performance standards”

IX. On December 27,1977, the Clean Water Act became law.

X. The CWA's most sign ificant featu re is emp hasis on toxic pollution cont rol.

A.

B.

C.

“Sections 301(b)(2)(A) and 301(b)(2)(C) of the Act required achievement by July1, 1984, of effluent limitations requiring application of BAT for, ‘toxic,' po llu -tants, including the 65, ‘priority,’ pollutants and classes of pollutants, including

the 65 priority p ollutan ts and classes of pollutants w hich Congress d eclaredtoxic under Section 307(a).”

“The EPA’S progr ams for new sou rce performance standard s and pretreatmentstandards are now aimed principally at toxic pollutant controls.”

“Section 304(e). . authorized the Ad ministrator to p rescribe,' Best ManagementPractices,’ (BMPs) to prevent the release of toxic and hazardous pollutants fromplant site run off, spillage or leaks, slud ge or w aste disposal, and d rainage fromraw material storage associated with, or ancillary to, the manufacturing ortreatment process.”

XI. The”CWA also revised the control program for non-toxic pollutants.

A. “Instead of BAT for, ‘conventional,' pollutants identified under Section 304(a)(4)(including BOD, suspended solids, fecal301(b)(2)(E) requires achievement of thetechnology (BCT).”

82

coliform , and pH ), the newbest conven tional pollutan t

Sectioncontrol



B. “For nontoxic nonconventional pollutants, Sections 301(b)(2)(A) and (b)(2)(F)require achievement of BAT effluent limitations w ithin thr ee years after theirestablishment or July 1984, whichever is later, but not later than July 1,1984.

(This is wh ere the 1977 EPA d ocum ent end s and the Chem ical Engineering Progressfocus series article begins. While the EPA CWA overview focuses on industrial dis-

chargers, the Chemical Engineering Progress article is broader in its overview. Onlythose issues not covered in th e EPA d ocumen t w ill be reviewed from the ChE articlebelow.)

I.

II.

III.

Iv.

v.

VI.

VII.

C. Nonconventional refers to, “pollutants th at hav e been iden tified for control inspecific industry effluent guidelines, but that are neither conventional pollu-tants n or listed as toxic pollutants.”

The CWA, “establishes standards for POTWs, that include technologies required tocontrol the quality of the effluent and pretreatment requirements for industrial dis-charges of toxic pollutants into the POTWs.”

“It establishes technology based effluent stand ard s for discharges into the w atersof the Un ited States (direct d ischarges) of conventional, pollutants, toxic pollutan ts,and nonconventional pollutants.”

“For receiving waters that require special p rotection, it establishes wa ter-qualitybased controls on discharges, which are m ore stringent than the technology basedstand ards applicable to all discharges.”

“It sets forth requirements for preventing and responding to accidental dischargesof oil or hazard ou s substan ces into nav igable w aters, w ith notification requ ire-

ments for releases, removal requ irements, liability stand ards, and civil penalties.”

“Finally, the Act establishes perm itting programs to control discharges and severcivil and criminal enforcement p rovisions for failure to comply with the law .”

“The CWA p rovides th at, ‘except as in comp liance with. . this Act, the d ischarge of any pollutant by any person shall be unlawful.’ The phrase, ‘discharge of any pol-lutant,” is d efined in p art as, ‘ any addition of any pollutant to navigable watersfrom any p o int source.’ The definition of navigable wa ters and point sou rce arevery broad .” Congress primarily controls these discharges throug h th e NPDES, apermit system designed to limit the discharge of pollutants into the nation’s water-

ways.

NPDES related d ischarges are th ose associated w ith indu strial processes and thetreatment of wastew ater from a facility.

A. If the discharge is to a POTW, then the facility will be required to meet pretreat-ment stand ards to limit pollutants that cannot be readily removed by the

83



B.

C.

D.

POTW. Discharges from the POTW will be in accordance with the effluent limi-tations contained in the NPDES permit for the POTW.

For d ischar ges d irectly from th e facility to receiving w aters, the facility musthave its own NPDES permit.

The NPDES permit is

1. facility wide, and2. contains the effluent limitations ap plicable to each point source d ischarg ing

from the facility and3. incorporates the technology requ ired to control the d ischarg es.

The NPDES permit requires

1.

2.

3.

periodic sample collection; either monthly or quarterlyMonitoring reports are filed with the EPA.

mod ification wh enever new discharge p oints are add ed, new control tech-nology is ap p lied , or facilities become subject to new sou rce perform ancestandards.

VIII. State Programs

A.

B.

All states have enacted laws to control water pollution in their state.

The EPA m ay, and has oftentimes, delegated N PDES perm itting au thority tostates who meet the requirements for delegation. As a result, facilities locatedin states that have received authority to administer the program are required to

obtain only the state discharge permit.

84



APPENDIX D

ANALYTICAL RESULTS



A N A L Y T I C A L C H E M I S T S , IN C.

8898-H Clairemont Mesa Blvd, San Diego, CA 92123 Voice & FAX (619) 560-4916

NasscoP.O. BOX 85278San Diego, CA 92186-5278

Attn: John Martin (Environmental)

LABORATORY #DATE OF REPORTDATE RECEIVEDDATE SAMPLEDIDENTIFICATION

:445-93: August 16, 1993: August 16, 1993: August 16, 1993 (0900):93-06-20 Sewer Connection 340

METHOD

Methods for the Chem ical Analysis of Water and Wastes: EPA 600/ 4-79-020, and EPASW-846.

RESULTS

TEST UNITS

p H

Copper m g / L

Zinc m g / L

ALLOWED RESULTS

5-11 7.15

2.07 0.66

1.48 3.0

NOTE: Anaiytes not detected are shown by < followed by our detection limit.

DATA :404-47

INVOICE :2185-W



CHA!N . OF . CISTPDY RECORD

COMMENTS.Tape Seals Intact: Yes N

Received on Ics: Yes N

RELINQUISHED BY DATE & TIME RECEIVED BY

1.

2.

4.



4340 Viewrid ge Aven ue, Suite A l San Diego. CA 92123 (619) 560-7717 FAX: (619) 560-7763

NASSCOHarbor Drive a 28th StreetP.O. Box 85278San Diego, CA 92168-5278Attn: John Mart in

LABORATORY NO: 1001-93DATE OF REPORT: August 19, 1993DATE RECEIVED: August 16, 1993 @ 1145IDENTIFICATION : PO NO: MU221768

Projec t : Barnica ls From Hercules Spi r i t sOne solid sample

Enc losed wi th th i s l e t t e r i s t he repor t on the fo l lowing ana lyseson the sample f rom the projec t ident i f ied above:

CAC Title 22 Metals digested by EPA 3010 and analyzed by EPA6010, 7000 Series

The sample was received by Pacif ic Treatment Analyt ical Servicesi n t a c t , with chain-of-custody documenta t ion and a p p r o p r i a t eprese rva t ion . T h e t e s t r e s u l t s a n d p e r t i n e n t q u a l i t y a s s u r a n c e / q u a l i t y c o n t r o l d a t a a r e l i s t e d o n t h e a t t a c h e d t a b l e s .

Comments: Sample sub jec ted to Was te Ex t rac t ion Techn ique(WET) prior to digest ion.

Janis ColumboLaboratory Director

BK 2421-150



NASSCOClient Sample ID: 93-04-03Lab Sample ID: 1001-93Pr o j e c t : B a r n i c a l s - He r c u l e s Sp i r i t sSample Matrix: Solid-STLC ExtractAttn: John Mart in

Date Sampled : 08/ 16/ 93Date Received: 08/ 16/ 93Date Analyzed: 08/ 19/ 93Date of Report : 08/ 19/ 93Units: mg/ L

RESULTS

Element STLC Limits R e s u l t s

Copper 25 2 1

Zinc 250 42

Qu ality Assuran ce/ Qu ality Control data for STLC

Parameter MS%R MSD % R RP D

Copper 86 89 3

Zinc 87 90 3

MS % R = Matrix Spike Percent RecoveryMSD % R= Matr ix Spike Du plicate Per cent RecoveryRP D = Rela t ive Percent Dif ference

FAX (619) 560-



I i

Results-in 3 days,

Tape seals Intact Yes

3



ANALYTICAL CHEMISTS, INC.7535 Convoy court, San Diego, CA 92111 Voice & FAX (619) 560-4916

NASSCO) LAB SAMPLE # :481-1-93

PO Box 85278 DATE OF REPORT: September 8, 1993 (1311)

San Diego, CA 92186-5278 DATE RECEIVED

DATE SAMPLEDAtnn: John Martin, Environmental IDENTIFICATION

: September 8, 1993 (0925)

: September 8, 1993 (0800): Baker Tank #1 93-06-24

METHODMethods for the Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes: EPA 600/4-79-020, and EPA SW-846.

RESULTS

TESTI

CopperZinc

mg/L 4.5 4.48mg/L 4.2 2.28

NOTE: Analytes not detected are shown by < followed by our detection limit.

DATA :404-57 David H. EigasINVOICE :2221-W Laboratory Director



A N A L Y T I C A L C H E M I S T S, IN C.

7535 Convoy Cour t, San Diego, CA 92111 Voice & FAX (619) 560-4916

NASSCO LAB SAMPLE # :PO Box 85278 DATE OF REPORT:

San Diego, CA 92186-5278 DATE RECEIVED :DATE SAMPLED :Attn: John Martin, Environmental IDENTIFICATION :

481-2-93Septem ber 8, 1993 (1311)

Septem ber 8, 1993 (0925)September 8, 1993 (081O)Baker Tank #2 93-06-25

METHODMethod s for the Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes: EPA 600/ 4-79-020, and EPA SW-846,

RESULTS

TESTCopperZinc

NOTE: Analytes not detected

DATA :404-57INVOICE : 2221-W

UN ITS ALLOWED RESULTSm g / L 4.5 3.47mg/ L- 4.2 2.00

are shown by < followed by ou r detection limit.

David H . ElGasLaboratory Director




7535 Convoy Court, San Diego, CA 92111 Voice & FAX (619) 560-4916

NASSCO LAB SAMPLE # :607-1-93 UpdatePO Box 85278 DATE OF REPORT Dec 8 & 29, 1993San D iego, CA 92186-5278 DATE RECEIVED

DATE SAMPLED

Attn: Brooke Davis, Environmental IDENTIFICATION

: November 22, 1993: November 22, 1993

: Hydroblast water studyComp osite AC-Sum p

METHODA series of 2 bottles (1 liter) were received. The 2 samples were AO-Sump 01 and AO-Sump 02. Thesamp les were composited (equal volum es) to p rodu ce a single “raw” composite which w e called AC-SUMP.That comp osite was shaken w ell, and a Portion was quickly removed for analysis; the data are “Totals”.After allowing the raw sup samp le to settle for 60 minu test a Portion of the supern atant layer was filteredthrough a 0.45 micron membrane filter to remove all suspended solids. That clear filtrate was then analyzedto characterize the solubles.

RESULTTotal means all soluble substances PIUS all particles (suspended as well as those larger panicles which mightordinarily settle out). Supenatant means only the soluble substances Plus those that stay suspended.Soluble means only those that pass through a 0.45 micron membrane filter.

TEST

PH

ArsenicBariumCadmiumChromiumCopperIronLeadManganeseNickelTinZincOil & GreaseCODTSSVss


UNITS

m g / Lm g / Lm g / Lm g / Lm g / lm g / Lm g / Lm g / Lm g / Lm g / Lm g / Lm g / Lm g / Lm g / Lm g / L

TOTAL

7.1<0.03

---

-o-

19.411.9

---2.26.6

1010.

------------

------------------

---

David H. ElgasLaboratory Director

SOLUBLE

-------o-

3.2------

------0.6

---

---




7535 conv oy Cou rt San Diego CA 92111 Voice & FAX (619) 560-4916

NASSCO LAB SAMPLE # : 607-3to17-93 UpdatePO Box 85278 DATE OF REPORT: Dec 8 & 29, 1993

San Diego, CA 92186-5278 January 26, 1994DATE RECEIVED : November 22, 1993DATE SAMPLED : Novem ber 22, 1993

Attn: Brooke Davis, Environmental IDENTIFICATION : Hydroblast water studyComposite = AC-FalI

METHODA series of 15 bottles (1 liter) were received. The 14 of the bottles were pairs of A#-Fall-01 and Fall-02.The A#s were: Al, A2, A5, A6, A7, A8, and A11. A single sample called AlO-Fali-01 was also included.These samples were composite (equal volumes) to Produce a single composite which we called AC-FALL.That composite w as analyzed directly. Another aliquot of the AC-FALL composite was allowed to settle

for 60 minu tes to d etermine the settleable solids content) and to isolate the sedim ent for p articlecharacterization. The sup ernatant layer from th is test was isolated for selected analyses.

RESULTSTotal m eans all soluble substa nces plus all particles (Suspend ed as Well as those larger particles w hich migh tord inarily settle out). Sup ernatant m ean only the soluble substances Plis those that stay Susp ended.Soluble means only those that pass through a 0.45 micron membrane filter.

TEST

p HBarium

ChromiumCopperIronLeadManganeseNickelTinZinc

COD

SettleablesTSSVSSFSS


UNITS TOTAL

mg/ L-m g / Lm g / Lm g / Lm g / Lm g / Lm g / Lm g / Lm g / Lm g / L

4.2< 1.0<0.05

0.244.114.2

<0.10.083.9

< 2.023.6

m g / L ---

CC/ L 5.0m g / Lm g / L

SUPERNATANT

-------

---

---

371.0

335.0180.0155.0

SOLUBLE

- - -

-o-2.50.13----o-

<0.05-o-2.6

---

------

l-aboratoy Director-





ANALYTICAL CHEMISTS, INC.7535 Convoy COUrt, San Diegot CA 92111 Voice & FAX (619) 560-4916

N A S S C O LA8 SAMPLE # : 607 - 20 ,21 - 93 U pada t e

PO B 0X 85278 DATE OF REPORT: Dec 8 & 29, 1993

San Diego, CA 92186-5278DATE RECEIVED : November 22, 1’993DATE SAMPLED : November 22, 1993

Attn: Brooke Davis, Environmental IDENTIFICATiON : Hydroblast water studyComposite = AC-Nozzle

METHODA series of 2 bottles (1 liter) Were received. The bottles w ere called N O ZZZLE 01 and NO ZZLE 02. Th esamples were mixed (equal voiumes) to Produce a single composite which we calied AC-NOZZLE. Thecomposite was analyzed directly.

RESULTSTotal means all soluble substances PIUS all particles (suspended as well as those larger particles which mightordinarily settle out). Supernatant means only the soluble substances plus those that stay suspended.Soluble means only those that pass through a 0.45 micron membrane filter.

TEST

pHBariumCadmium

ChromiumCopperIronLeadManganeseNickelTinZinc

CODTSSV s s

UNITS

mg/Lmg/L

mg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/Lmg/L.

mg/Lmg/Lmg/L

TOTAL8.1------

---< 0 .05

-------------

0.2

---

---

---

SUPERNATANT SOLUABLE

DATA : 404 - 121INVOICE : 2347-W

D av id H . E l g a sLaboratory Director



607-SUM.XLS

Ba Cd Cr Cu Fe Mn NI Pb Sn Zn607-AC- Fall <1.0 <0.05 <0.05 42.8 11.5 0.07 1.6 <0.1 <2.0 22.6607-AC- Fall Du p 4.0 <0.05 0.2 45.5 16.9 0.097 6.1 <0.1 <2.0 24.5

Average <1.0 <0.05 0.2 44.1 14.2 0.06 3.9 4.1 <20 23.6%RPD

607-A1 SC- Fall607-AC-Sum p raw607-AC-Sump Filtered607-AC-Nozzle

Q A

Check Std .607-A1SC-Fall Sp k807-A1SC-Fail SD

%RPD

607-ACFall - Sup ernatan t

Ba cd Cr101% 100 103%74% 112% 129%69% 110% 177%7% 2% 10 %

6%

<0.0519.43.2

<0.05

Cu104%108%107%

1%

37% 32% 115% n /a n /a 8%

<0.056.60.60.2



NASSCO LAB SAMPLE # :114-94“PO BOX 85278 DATE OF REPORt: anuary 24, 1994San Diego, CA 92186-5278 DATE RECEIVED : January 101994 (1147).

DATE SAMPLED : January 10, 1994Attn:Brooke Davis, Environmental IDENTIFICATION :.N SRP W ater Filtration Study I

Comp osite of Tank/ Princess94-T-01 ,02,03,04,0506

METHODA series of 6 bottles (1 liter) were received. These 6 bottles were used to prepare a composite which

yielded the data below.




7535 Convoy Cou rt, San Diego, CA 92111

NASSCO

PO BOX 85278San D iego, CA 92186-5278

Attn: Brooke Davis, Environmental

METHODA series of 3 bottles (1 liter) were received.yielded the data below. Analytical methodsAnalysis of Water and Wastes.

Voice & FAX (619) 560-916

LAB SAMPLE # : 159-(2,3,4)-94

DATE OF REPORT March 1 & 7, 1994DATE RECEIVED : January 25, 1994DATE SAMPLED : January 25, 1994IDENTIFICATION : NSRP Water Filtration Stud y

Viking Seranade Composite01, 02, 03

These 3 bottles were used to pr epare a comp osite whichare from EPA 600/ 4-79-020, Methods for the Chemical

TOTAL



Sample limited to 100 ml for Oil + Grease.




7535 Convoy Cou rt, San Diego, CA 92111 Voice & FAX (619) 560-4916

NASSCO LAB SAMPLE # :159-5-94

PO BOX 85278 DATE OF REPORT March 1 & 7, 1994San D iego, CA 92186-5278 DATE RECEIVED : January 25, 1994

DATE SAMPLED : January 25, 1994Attn: Brooke Davis, Environmental IDENTIFICATION : NSRP Water Filtration Stud y I

Viking Seranade; Nozzle

METHODOne bottle (1 liter) was received. Analytical method s are from EPA 600/ 4-79-020, Methods for theChemical Analysis of Water and Wastes.

RESULTSTotal means all soluble substances Plus all particles suspended as well as those larger particles which mightordinar ily settle out). Sup ernatant means O nly the soluble substances PIUS those that stay suspended .Soluble means only those that pass through a 0.45 micron membrane filter.


SUPERNATANT SOLUBLE




7535 Convoy Cou rt, San Diego, CA 92111 Voice & FAX (619) 560-4916

NASSCOLAB SAMPLE # :159-6-94

PO BOX 85278 DATE OF REPORT March 1 &7, 1994San Diego, CA 92186-5278 DATE RECEIVED : January 25, 1994

DATE SAMPLED : January 25, 1994Attn: Brooke Davis, Environmental IDENTIFICATION : NSRP Water Filtration Stud y I

Viking Seranade; composite

METHODTwo bottles (1 liter) were received. These 2 bottles were used to p repar e a comp osite wh ich yielded theda ta below. Analytical m ethod s are from EPA 600/ 4-79-020, Method s for the Chem ical Ana lysis of Waterand Wastes.

RESULTSTotal means all soluble substances PIUS all particles (suspended as well as those larger particles which mightordinar ily settle out). Sup erbatant m eans only the soluble substances PIUS those that stay suspended .Soluble means on ly those that p ass throu gh a 0.45 micron m embran e filter.

DATA :40540INVOICE : 2459-W



APPENDIX E

MARITIM E IND USTRIAL WASTE PROJECTDESCRIPTION S O F PILOT-TESTED TREATMENT SYSTEMS



12. Appendix: Descriptions of Treatment Systems That Were Pilot-testedDuring the Maritime Industrial Waste Project

on - Mixed Media

Process Description

This system is a commercially availablecontinuou s-flow mixed-med ia filter. The systemis comp osed of a pressur e vessel that hold s thefilter media and the piping an d valves necessaryfor operation. The filter med ia is comp osed of layers of coal, coarse sand an d fine sand .Untreated w astewater is pu mp ed through thefilter media, and the clarified water is dischargedto sanitary sew ers. When th e filter becomesplu gged, a backwash cycle scrub s the collectedcontaminan ts from the filter media and into abackwash tank or sum p.

The system remov ed particulates effectively,but the u ntreated wastewater was very low inparticulate contarminants. In other tests involvinghigher contaminan t loads, the system was foundto plug rapidly, requiring a volume of backwash .

water gr eater than th e wastew ater filtered. Thissystem is best u sed a s a final-polish filtration steptha t follows settling or chem ical flocculation.

Operation and Maintenance

The system operates continuously w ithoutattention u ntil a backwash cycle is needed .

The system requires routine maintenance forthe backw ash cycle. Several valves mu st be

turned manu ally to activate and deactivate thebackwash cycle.



Process Description

The system’s main comp onents are arecirculation tank membrane tubes and aprocess pum p. Untreated w astewater is pum ped

to a 50-gallon recirculation tan k. The w astewateris pu mp ed through m embrane tubes at apressu re of 40 to 60 pou nd s per squa re inch andback to the recirculation tank A p ortion of thewastewater, called the permeate, passes throughthe membran e and is discharged . A level-controlmaintains wastew ater flow to th e recirculationtank as needed . The volume of wastewater isredu ced and concentrated in the recirculationtank A concentration ratio of 20 to 40 times isordinarily achievable.


The operation of the system is continu ous andautomatically regulated. Only start-upadjustments are necessary. A holding tank isneeded because process flow rates are generallyless than the wastewater flows generated.

The system does require routine maintenanceto clean the m embran es. This maintenance isusually done by circulatig a cleaning solutionthrough the membranes after each processingevent. Membranes need to be replaced w henpr ocess flow rates d ecline as a result of irreversible membrane fouling,

This process prod uced treated w astewater thateasily met sewer discharge limits in all tests.

[2] Determined by comparing highest value from treated samples to limit values.[3] No iimit set for this p aram eter.[4] Not determ ined, because no visible susp end ed solids detected.

40



Process Description

This commercially available system operates ina continuou s mode. The tested model has atreatment capacity of eight gallons per minute.

The basic compon ents of the system ar ea precoatfilter un it, a body -feed injection system, pipingvalves and a pu mp . The system op erates byfiltering wastewater th rough a thin layer of diatom aceous earth supp orted on fabric. Whenthe filter begins to p lug w ith contaminan ts, it isbackwashes to remove the plugged med ia. Newmedia is app lied by run ning a slurry of freshmed ia through the filter. To avoid rap id

plug ing a small amou nt of the filter m edia isintroduced into th e waste stream before filtering.

This body-feed , as it is called, m akes theparticulate more porous as they are collected onthe filter media and maximiz es filter capacity.

Results from tw o tests show ed a substan tialreduction of suspended solids. However, copp erwas n ot redu ced to below the sewer dischargelimit. This lack of redu ction is u nu sual since theobserved reduction in solids w ould ordinarilymean lower copper concentrations. Further testsare necessary to confirm the p redicted

effectiveness of this system .


The tested system was manually operated. Itsoperation requires start-up and monitoring.Occasional backwashing which involvesoperating several values, is necessary. To makethe slurry, filter media n eed to be m easured ou t.Operational requirements could be redu ced on aproduction model with semi-automatic controls

and automatic values.

Maintenance requirements include

replenishing and storing the filter med ia andconducting routine cleaning and maintenance of the system hard ware.

41



1Manufactured

Process Descrlptlon

The main components in th is comm erciallyavailable system are an oil-water separator an d

settling chamber, activated carbon filter andmixed-media filter. As wastewater is circulatedthrough the system, p articulate are removed by

gravity in the settling chamber and by filtrationin the mixed-media filter. The system comes with

pu mp s, piping and controls. A wastewater sum por holding tank is required.

Only one test was performed on th is system.The volume of wastewater was not enough to fillthe system comp letely, and the effluent m ay havebeen highly diluted with city-supptied water.The system is designed to remove w astewaterparticulate. Further tests of the system areneeded.

Operatlon and Maintenance

The system operates in an au tomatic mod ewhen fully operation. The system’s levelcontrols maintain proper flows.

The system requires routine backwashing andfilter-cleaninig. Slud ge accumu lations also needto be removed routinely from the settlingchamber. Some occasional w ash-dow n of the

wh ole system may be required to p reventexcessive biological grow th.

42



Process Description

The main components in this commerciallyavailable system are an oil-water separa tor and

settling chamber, mixed-media filter, cartridgefilter and activated carbon filter. As thewastewater is circulated th rough the system, .particulate are removed by gravity in thesettling chamber and by filtration in themixed-media and cartridge filters. The systemcomes with pum ps, piping and controls. Awastewater sump or holding tank is required.

Only one test was p erformed on relativelyclean w astewater in this system. The systemredu ced particulate contamination significantlyand is expected to do so at higher par ticulateloadings.


The system operates in an au tomatic mode -when fully operational. The system’s level

controls maintain prop er flows.

The system requ ires routine backwashing andfilter- cleaning. Slud ge accum ulations also needto be removed routinely from the settlingchamber. Some occasional w ash-down of thewhole system m ay be required to p reventexcessive biological growth.

4s





particles, and the floe settles out in th e settlingchamber. Clarified w astewater is d ecanted fromthe settling tank and discharged to the sanitarysewers. The system is capab le of treatin g 30gallons per minu te.

This system produ ced treated effluentconsistently below the sewer discharge limits.

Operation q and Maintenance

The system operates in an automatic mode.Operator attention is required for start-up andsystem monitoring.

4 7



Process Description

This commercially available system operatescontinuou sly with a treatm ent capacity of 24gallons p er minu te. The basic comp onents arechemical metering p um ps, a chemical mixing

. unit, a dissolved-air generator, a clarifier tankand a rotating sludge skimmer. AIum and apolym er are used to flocculate wastew aterparticles, and d issolved air is introdu ced to acIarifier to fIoat the floc. The floating sludge iscontinuously removed by a rotating skimmer.Clarified wastew ater is remov ed from theclarifier and d ischarged to the sanitary sewers.

Sewer discharge limits were met for the twotests performed. In both tests, the untreatedwastewater was relatively low in metalcontamination. The percentage reduction incontaminants is expected to be similar inwastewater with higher metal contaminationIevels.

Operatlon q and Maintenance

The operation requires start-up, adjustmentsand monitoring. ChemicaI addition requiresmixing chemical solutions and adjustingmetering pumps.

Maintenance requirements includereplenishing and storing chemicals andconducting routine cleaning and maintenance of the system hardware.



Several tests were p erformed on this system,but on ly one was chemically analyzed. In theanalyzed test, the system achieved effluentquality sufficient for discharge to sanitarysewers. In other tests, problems in achievingconsistent flotation of the chem ically formed flocwere encoun tered. Flotation prob lems, which

may have been caused by an und ersized pu mpon the p ilot un it, are reported not to occur onfull-scale units. Further testing of the system isneeded to establish wh ether consistent flotationis possible.


The system operates in a batch m ode. Chemicaladd ition and solution transfer w ere performedman ually on the pilot unit but could be

performed autom atically on a produ ction systemat increased cost. The filter p osition an d methodfor removing the filter on the p ilot un it mad ehand ling th e sludge difficult.

Maintenance requirements include purchasingand storing treatment chemicals.